1 2012-12-06 00:01:27 Gladamas_ has joined
2 2012-12-06 00:02:58 Gladamas has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
3 2012-12-06 00:05:05 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
4 2012-12-06 00:09:22 Diablo-D3 has joined
5 2012-12-06 00:14:50 eoss has joined
6 2012-12-06 00:14:50 eoss has quit (Changing host)
7 2012-12-06 00:14:50 eoss has joined
8 2012-12-06 00:16:25 BlackPrapor has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
9 2012-12-06 00:21:03 TwilightSparklee has joined
10 2012-12-06 00:22:19 toffoo has quit ()
11 2012-12-06 00:28:59 e0s_ has joined
12 2012-12-06 00:41:35 TwilightSparklee has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi)
13 2012-12-06 00:48:38 pacpac has quit (Quit: Leaving)
14 2012-12-06 00:51:00 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
15 2012-12-06 00:51:19 pacpac has joined
16 2012-12-06 00:51:24 maaku has joined
17 2012-12-06 00:51:43 pacpac is now known as Guest31213
18 2012-12-06 00:51:58 Guest31213 has quit (Client Quit)
19 2012-12-06 00:53:15 asdasda has joined
20 2012-12-06 00:54:33 asdasda has quit (Client Quit)
21 2012-12-06 00:55:07 freakazoid has joined
22 2012-12-06 00:55:50 agricocb has joined
23 2012-12-06 00:57:10 <gavinandresen> nanotube: Foundation Board will decide how much of the budget to give to grants, then review the proposals. At least, that's the way it will work to start, maybe at some point there will be a Grant Review Subcommittee or something.
24 2012-12-06 00:58:29 <nanotube> ah ok, sounds good.
25 2012-12-06 00:58:52 harkon_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
26 2012-12-06 00:59:10 harkon_ has joined
27 2012-12-06 00:59:21 <nanotube> keep in mind that if you don't get any good proposals, you don't have to fund anything this first period. don't feel like you have to fund /something/ ;)
28 2012-12-06 01:00:14 <gavinandresen> absolutely
29 2012-12-06 01:00:21 devrandom has joined
30 2012-12-06 01:01:00 pacpac has joined
31 2012-12-06 01:01:14 <nanotube> also, make sure sumbissions to GSOC for next year are on your todolist
32 2012-12-06 01:01:20 <gavinandresen> The core dev team already got a grant, by the way. I'll be mentioning that in a week or so (it'll be my turn to post something on the Foundation's blog)
33 2012-12-06 01:01:27 <nanotube> iirc they post the rfps around february, so it's just around the corner.
34 2012-12-06 01:01:40 <nanotube> cool cool!
35 2012-12-06 01:02:21 <nanotube> we kinda missed gsoc last year, hopefully this year we can get in on google summer of code.
36 2012-12-06 01:03:17 <gavinandresen> I dunno... more code isn't really our bottleneck right now. Testing still is (sigh)
37 2012-12-06 01:03:38 <nanotube> well, here's a gsoc project: test suite for bitcoin to test x,y,z :)
38 2012-12-06 01:03:43 <nanotube> perfect fit! :)
39 2012-12-06 01:06:01 <nanotube> i think a well-put-together proposal for test code would be just as competitive as anything else.
40 2012-12-06 01:07:04 <nanotube> anyway just a suggestion - i don't actually know if they have more specific guidelines...
41 2012-12-06 01:08:36 <gavinandresen> good idea... remind me again in January...
42 2012-12-06 01:10:59 <nanotube> ;:scheduler add [seconds 30d] later tell nanotube remind gavinandresen about gsoc. :)
43 2012-12-06 01:11:12 <nanotube> heh
44 2012-12-06 01:11:34 <gavinandresen> wow, will that actually work?
45 2012-12-06 01:11:37 <nanotube> yes
46 2012-12-06 01:11:52 <nanotube> though if gribble's vps gets rebooted in the meantime, he'll lose the scheduled event
47 2012-12-06 01:11:57 <gavinandresen> ;:scheduler add [seconds 30d] later tell gavinandresen figure out how GSOC works
48 2012-12-06 01:12:16 <nanotube> well, it'd have to be ;; not ;: :) i deliberately didn't actually trigger the bot
49 2012-12-06 01:12:33 <gavinandresen> ;;scheduler add [seconds 30d] later tell member:gavinandresen figure out how GSOC works
50 2012-12-06 01:12:33 <gribble> Error: You don't have the scheduler.add capability. If you think that you should have this capability, be sure that you are identified before trying again. The 'whoami' command can tell you if you're identified.
51 2012-12-06 01:12:39 <nanotube> and... that too.
52 2012-12-06 01:12:43 <gavinandresen> awwww
53 2012-12-06 01:12:45 <nanotube> ;;scheduler add [seconds 30d] later tell member:gavinandresen figure out how GSOC works
54 2012-12-06 01:12:45 <gribble> The operation succeeded. Event #10 added.
55 2012-12-06 01:12:51 <nanotube> there :)
56 2012-12-06 01:13:54 <nanotube> i'll put it on my desktop calendar as a backup just in case :)
57 2012-12-06 01:14:23 <nanotube> ;;scheduler add 30 echo moo
58 2012-12-06 01:14:23 <gribble> The operation succeeded. Event #11 added.
59 2012-12-06 01:14:53 <gribble> moo
60 2012-12-06 01:14:58 <nanotube> \o/
61 2012-12-06 01:16:02 <gavinandresen> oooh, eleven is my favorite number
62 2012-12-06 01:16:09 <nanotube> gavinandresen: btw fyi this was the timeline for last year: http://www.google-melange.com/document/show/gsoc_program/google/gsoc2012/faqs?ModPagespeed=noscript#timeline
63 2012-12-06 01:17:05 <nanotube> there are 11 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary, those who don't, and those who don't know what i'm talking about. :)
64 2012-12-06 01:17:20 <phantomcircuit> gavinandresen, can there be a subcommittee to review the findings of the subcommittee?
65 2012-12-06 01:17:25 <phantomcircuit> pleasssse
66 2012-12-06 01:17:35 <nanotube> committee on committees
67 2012-12-06 01:17:44 <nanotube> there actually is one in my university.
68 2012-12-06 01:17:45 <nanotube> >_>
69 2012-12-06 01:17:52 <gavinandresen> phantomcircuit: good idea. I'll bring it up for a vote at the next committee-organizing-committee meeting
70 2012-12-06 01:18:03 <gmaxwell> and a subcommittee subcomittee ombudsman to hear appeals about the committee-committee?
71 2012-12-06 01:18:07 <phantomcircuit> all of a sudden
72 2012-12-06 01:18:11 <phantomcircuit> COMMITTEES
73 2012-12-06 01:18:54 mmoya has joined
74 2012-12-06 01:20:29 <nanotube> but then we have to have a subcommittee subcomittee ombudsman oversight committee, or else the ombudsman can just do whatever he wants and we can't have that!
75 2012-12-06 01:22:14 <sipa> it's just committees all the way down!
76 2012-12-06 01:23:12 <nanotube> heh
77 2012-12-06 01:23:23 <nanotube> the only way to escape is to set up a loop.
78 2012-12-06 01:23:30 <sipa> no no no
79 2012-12-06 01:23:35 <sipa> to iterate is human
80 2012-12-06 01:24:04 <nanotube> to loop, divine? :)
81 2012-12-06 01:24:10 <sipa> to recurse, divine
82 2012-12-06 01:24:13 <nanotube> heh
83 2012-12-06 01:24:15 <sipa> so you have to recurse: let the committee oversee itself
84 2012-12-06 01:24:17 <sipa> :p
85 2012-12-06 01:24:23 <nanotube> ok that works :)
86 2012-12-06 01:24:48 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
87 2012-12-06 01:25:15 rdponticelli has joined
88 2012-12-06 01:25:44 word has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
89 2012-12-06 01:33:27 <gmaxwell> TIL:
90 2012-12-06 01:33:28 <gmaxwell> $ python -c 'print (-3)/2'
91 2012-12-06 01:33:28 <gmaxwell> -2
92 2012-12-06 01:33:58 <gmaxwell> I wonder how much of my code thats subtly broken over the years.
93 2012-12-06 01:35:56 <nanotube> heh yea python integer math has caused much wailing over the years.
94 2012-12-06 01:36:26 <nanotube> and yea, -3/2 = -2 is... weird.
95 2012-12-06 01:36:47 <Diablo-D3> okay so
96 2012-12-06 01:36:51 <Diablo-D3> nefario is a fucking faggot
97 2012-12-06 01:37:15 <Diablo-D3> nanotube: erm, -3/2 is -1.5
98 2012-12-06 01:37:16 <Diablo-D3> oh
99 2012-12-06 01:37:16 <Diablo-D3> integer
100 2012-12-06 01:37:17 <Diablo-D3> nm, carry on
101 2012-12-06 01:37:28 <nanotube> heh
102 2012-12-06 01:38:15 mykhal has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
103 2012-12-06 01:38:23 mykhal_ has joined
104 2012-12-06 01:40:50 <gmaxwell> nanotube: yea, it's not truncating. it's towards negative infinity.
105 2012-12-06 01:41:39 <sipa> it always rounds down?
106 2012-12-06 01:42:20 <gmaxwell> Yes.
107 2012-12-06 01:42:33 <gmaxwell> like shifting would.
108 2012-12-06 01:43:48 <nanotube> yep i gathered once i saw. still weird :)
109 2012-12-06 01:46:02 <Diablo-D3> its not weird
110 2012-12-06 01:46:10 <Diablo-D3> I think you can set integer rounding modes in C
111 2012-12-06 01:46:33 <Diablo-D3> dunno why python wouldnt either bankers round or round to zero by default though
112 2012-12-06 01:47:18 paraipan has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
113 2012-12-06 01:52:28 <D34TH> jgarzik i have it down to one error
114 2012-12-06 01:52:29 <D34TH> :D
115 2012-12-06 01:53:14 <D34TH> or it seems that way
116 2012-12-06 01:59:40 <D34TH> jgarzik, doesnt O_LARGEFILE make it 64bit only?
117 2012-12-06 02:01:24 <Diablo-D3> no
118 2012-12-06 02:01:42 Gladamas_ is now known as Gladamas
119 2012-12-06 02:01:52 <D34TH> it seems it will on winblows
120 2012-12-06 02:02:09 <Diablo-D3> windows does not implement the posix file api
121 2012-12-06 02:02:20 <D34TH> yea
122 2012-12-06 02:02:33 <D34TH> im working my ass off to find a win32 compat implementation
123 2012-12-06 02:02:41 <Diablo-D3> D34TH: mingw
124 2012-12-06 02:02:48 <D34TH> i'm using mingw
125 2012-12-06 02:02:54 <D34TH> doesnt support O_LARGEFILE
126 2012-12-06 02:03:01 <Diablo-D3> then just dont use it
127 2012-12-06 02:03:11 <Diablo-D3> windows transparently supports files >4gb in size on file systems that do
128 2012-12-06 02:03:15 <Diablo-D3> (ie, no fat32)
129 2012-12-06 02:07:19 <D34TH> im going to cry at net.c
130 2012-12-06 02:10:38 <midnightmagic> will DoS protections kick in if a bad block is passed, or just an illegal tx?
131 2012-12-06 02:14:31 <gmaxwell> It should generally be things that _no_ node should have passed, especially if they were costly for you to verify.
132 2012-12-06 02:15:34 <midnightmagic> just wondering whether it would be worthwhile to detect a non-conformant node by passing it bad data which is normally rejected in some detectable way..
133 2012-12-06 02:15:48 <midnightmagic> "hey you're not a real bitcoin!" (report to trusted nodes)
134 2012-12-06 02:17:02 JZavala has joined
135 2012-12-06 02:17:21 <midnightmagic> so was that you polluting p2pool tx with a negative txout.nValue?
136 2012-12-06 02:18:52 bcb has joined
137 2012-12-06 02:24:45 <jgarzik> D34TH: just "#define O_LARGEFILE /* nothing */" and move on
138 2012-12-06 02:24:57 <D34TH> i just removed it from the code
139 2012-12-06 02:25:17 <D34TH> im working on F_{g,s}ETF:
140 2012-12-06 02:25:19 <D34TH> **FL
141 2012-12-06 02:26:19 <D34TH> i think im going to rename fakepoll to mingw-compat
142 2012-12-06 02:26:30 <D34TH> and start stuffing all compat stuff in there
143 2012-12-06 02:27:22 MC1984 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
144 2012-12-06 02:27:42 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: won't that cause an error since there needs to be a value? :P
145 2012-12-06 02:27:51 MC1984 has joined
146 2012-12-06 02:28:16 <jgarzik> D34TH: don't
147 2012-12-06 02:28:22 <jgarzik> D34TH: I want to delete fakepoll ASAP
148 2012-12-06 02:28:32 <jgarzik> D34TH: compat stuff belongs in..... wait for it... compat.h
149 2012-12-06 02:28:48 <jgarzik> D34TH: fakepoll will be deleted as soon as somebody ports poll() call over to libevent
150 2012-12-06 02:29:08 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: it was illustrative not byte for byte
151 2012-12-06 02:29:12 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
152 2012-12-06 02:29:19 <D34TH> dumping compats in compat.h
153 2012-12-06 02:29:24 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: you realize libevent is the #1 reason pushpoold fails?
154 2012-12-06 02:29:54 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: it leaks fds like crazy
155 2012-12-06 02:30:08 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: oh brother. libevent does not leak fds.
156 2012-12-06 02:30:12 <D34TH> jgarzik, i have a mingw_poll function
157 2012-12-06 02:31:19 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: it does with pushpoold, and I probably looked into it when I used itâ¦
158 2012-12-06 02:31:38 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: then that's a pushpool bug, not libevent
159 2012-12-06 02:32:05 <jgarzik> D34TH: probably easier just to use select(), which is present in both windows and linux
160 2012-12-06 02:32:20 <doublec> I use libevent and it doesn't leak fd's that I've noticed
161 2012-12-06 02:32:26 <D34TH> i grabbed code from polipo that seems to work
162 2012-12-06 02:32:35 <jgarzik> doublec: yah, you have to apply the standard Luke-Jr filter
163 2012-12-06 02:33:21 <Luke-Jr> I seem to recall it assuming HTTP requests never disconnect mid-request
164 2012-12-06 02:33:26 <D34TH> weird compat.h isn't included in net.c
165 2012-12-06 02:33:55 owowo has quit (Quit: sayonara)
166 2012-12-06 02:35:15 <doublec> Luke-Jr: there's an issue of not noticing a disconnect if you don't read from the connection
167 2012-12-06 02:35:31 <doublec> Luke-Jr: workaround was to occasionally ping all connections
168 2012-12-06 02:37:07 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: there, see. libevent issue :P
169 2012-12-06 02:37:55 <doublec> this was in in the longpolling
170 2012-12-06 02:38:12 <doublec> if the client disconnected from the longpoll you didn't know and couldn't close it immediately.
171 2012-12-06 02:38:37 <doublec> So I would periodically write newlines to the longpolled connections and then get an error if it was a disconnected one
172 2012-12-06 02:43:43 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
173 2012-12-06 02:50:21 <D34TH> screw it
174 2012-12-06 02:50:23 <D34TH> cygwin time
175 2012-12-06 02:50:24 <jgarzik> doublec: was this a pushpool clone? it's easy enough to turn on the signalling necessary
176 2012-12-06 02:52:08 <doublec> jgarzik: it wasn't pushpool - another project that used libevent
177 2012-12-06 02:53:43 <doublec> jgarzik: it's entirely possible that it was user error from not using the api right
178 2012-12-06 02:54:58 <doublec> similar to this http://archives.seul.org/libevent/users/Oct-2009/msg00028.html
179 2012-12-06 02:55:38 darkskiez has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
180 2012-12-06 03:03:28 eoss has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
181 2012-12-06 03:03:52 brwyatt is now known as JakeFelis
182 2012-12-06 03:04:05 JakeFelis is now known as brwyatt
183 2012-12-06 03:04:31 eoss has joined
184 2012-12-06 03:04:53 e0s__ has joined
185 2012-12-06 03:06:28 eoss has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
186 2012-12-06 03:07:20 eoss has joined
187 2012-12-06 03:08:03 <da2ce7_d> hello
188 2012-12-06 03:08:26 <da2ce7_d> today I've been trying to compile bitcoin in Visual Studio 2012
189 2012-12-06 03:08:30 <da2ce7_d> *express
190 2012-12-06 03:09:01 <da2ce7_d> I've successfully got bitcoind to compile (no bitcoin-qt yet).
191 2012-12-06 03:10:14 eoss has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
192 2012-12-06 03:10:28 <da2ce7_d> CBlockIndex *CCoinsViewDB::GetBestBlock() is getting a Access violation when trying to dereference it->second
193 2012-12-06 03:10:41 <da2ce7_d> *that is a bad pointer.
194 2012-12-06 03:11:01 eoss has joined
195 2012-12-06 03:12:55 <da2ce7_d> I'll delve into it more when I have time.
196 2012-12-06 03:15:01 <sipa> da2ce7_d: there's a bugfix for that in a pullreq
197 2012-12-06 03:15:21 <da2ce7_d> :)
198 2012-12-06 03:15:26 <sipa> though it should only occur when the coindb is missing while the blockdb exists
199 2012-12-06 03:21:31 dvide has quit ()
200 2012-12-06 03:28:18 e0s__ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
201 2012-12-06 03:28:35 e0s_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
202 2012-12-06 03:29:00 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
203 2012-12-06 03:37:11 D34TH has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
204 2012-12-06 03:44:59 ciphermonk has joined
205 2012-12-06 03:53:33 <jgarzik> doublec: oh, libevent's http server is known broken in many ways
206 2012-12-06 03:53:51 <jgarzik> doublec: so I try to distinguish between libevent core and That Other Shite :)
207 2012-12-06 03:53:54 <doublec> jgarzik: ah ok, thanks
208 2012-12-06 03:54:47 ciphermonk has quit (Quit: Leaving)
209 2012-12-06 03:58:33 <jgarzik> sigh
210 2012-12-06 03:58:40 <jgarzik> I suppose it's time for select()
211 2012-12-06 03:58:51 <jgarzik> (for the few cases where libevent is not used)
212 2012-12-06 04:09:42 legitnick has joined
213 2012-12-06 04:10:48 bcb has left ()
214 2012-12-06 04:19:57 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: so I call libevent "libevent", and you "no true scotsman" it⦠and *I'm* the one with a distorted reality? :P
215 2012-12-06 04:21:14 <jgarzik> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 171952 Apr 6 2012 libevent_core-2.0.so.5.1.6
216 2012-12-06 04:21:14 <jgarzik> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 130832 Apr 6 2012 libevent_extra-2.0.so.5.1.6
217 2012-12-06 04:21:14 <jgarzik> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 23120 Apr 6 2012 libevent_openssl-2.0.so.5.1.6
218 2012-12-06 04:21:14 <jgarzik> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 10240 Apr 6 2012 libevent_pthreads-2.0.so.5.1.6
219 2012-12-06 04:21:46 <jgarzik> it is quite clear libevent_core is a separate entity, from the coding to the behavior to the library split
220 2012-12-06 04:22:04 <jgarzik> libevent_core is more widely used and tested and bugfixed
221 2012-12-06 04:22:40 <jgarzik> anybody serious implementing their own HTTP server quickly runs into one of many limits. it is basically a toy server.
222 2012-12-06 04:24:40 <jgarzik> anybody serious implementing their own HTTP server quickly runs into one of many limits with libevent_extra [in case that was not clear]
223 2012-12-06 04:24:48 <jgarzik> and evhttp
224 2012-12-06 04:27:54 <weex> when bitcoind advertises other nodes does it only advertise ones with an open firewall port?
225 2012-12-06 04:28:31 <jgarzik> weex: it advertises nodes it has seen, or heard of from other nodes
226 2012-12-06 04:28:42 <jgarzik> weex: individually, a node chooses to advertise itself (or not)
227 2012-12-06 04:29:05 <weex> -nolisten?
228 2012-12-06 04:30:17 <weex> sorry that wasn't much of a question, ... i'll look at some code now
229 2012-12-06 04:30:20 <jgarzik> weex: Not just that. For example, if an SPV client on jgarzik.broadband.isp.com (a) connects to mynode.example.com, but (b) does not send out 'addr' messages containing its address, mynode.example.com should not tell any other nodes about jgarzik.broadband.isp.com
230 2012-12-06 04:30:48 <weex> nice
231 2012-12-06 04:31:21 <jgarzik> weex: mynode.example.com will only remember jgarzik.broadband.isp.com if jgarzik.broadband.isp.com sends an "addr" network message to mynode.example.com, containing the IP address for jgarzik.broadband.isp.com
232 2012-12-06 04:34:00 <weex> so basically each node either advertises itself or doesn't, and that's how their address gets on the list to be passed around?
233 2012-12-06 04:36:35 <jgarzik> weex: that's how it should work, and how it generally works :)
234 2012-12-06 04:36:38 <muhoo> will bitcoind run effectively on a cheap VPS with 512MB RAM?
235 2012-12-06 04:36:52 <doublec> not if you want to run anything else on it
236 2012-12-06 04:37:12 <jgarzik> weex: you can be purposefully malicious etc.
237 2012-12-06 04:38:04 <jgarzik> muhoo: some do, but 512MB is pushing it really hard.
238 2012-12-06 04:38:15 <weex> right, guess it's hard to protect against...reminds me of ZeroAccess
239 2012-12-06 04:38:32 <weex> advertising and losing its list of nodes so aggresively that its owners can't control the botnet
240 2012-12-06 04:39:49 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
241 2012-12-06 04:40:00 [7] has joined
242 2012-12-06 04:48:56 synapse has joined
243 2012-12-06 05:01:36 TwilightSparklee has joined
244 2012-12-06 05:12:39 sta has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
245 2012-12-06 05:12:51 sta has joined
246 2012-12-06 05:18:33 freakazoid has joined
247 2012-12-06 05:24:15 TwilightSparklee has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi)
248 2012-12-06 05:30:12 TwilightSparklee has joined
249 2012-12-06 05:36:31 <jgarzik> hmmm
250 2012-12-06 05:36:46 <jgarzik> I wonder if I'm the first client developer, ever, to code a client-side "getheaders" download?
251 2012-12-06 05:37:13 <muhoo> getheaders?
252 2012-12-06 05:37:23 <jgarzik> muhoo: header only download
253 2012-12-06 05:37:43 <muhoo> curl -I ?
254 2012-12-06 05:38:15 <jgarzik> muhoo: this is #bitcoin-dev, I am talking about a bitcoin P2P message :)
255 2012-12-06 05:38:27 <muhoo> ah
256 2012-12-06 05:39:50 TwilightSparklee has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi)
257 2012-12-06 05:40:36 <muhoo> libccoin?
258 2012-12-06 05:41:52 <muhoo> hah, that's you :-)
259 2012-12-06 05:45:08 Azelphur has quit (Excess Flood)
260 2012-12-06 05:48:15 Azelphur has joined
261 2012-12-06 06:05:48 <muhoo> it looks like you are the first
262 2012-12-06 06:06:31 <muhoo> great work
263 2012-12-06 06:20:57 toffoo has joined
264 2012-12-06 06:22:13 noagendamarket has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
265 2012-12-06 06:24:39 libcoin has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
266 2012-12-06 06:29:26 Habbie has quit (Quit: updates&upgrades)
267 2012-12-06 06:49:58 nus has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
268 2012-12-06 06:50:28 RazielZ has joined
269 2012-12-06 06:53:40 Habbie has joined
270 2012-12-06 07:02:03 <jgarzik> hah!
271 2012-12-06 07:02:13 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
272 2012-12-06 07:02:15 <jgarzik> no D34TH to taunt
273 2012-12-06 07:02:46 <jgarzik> it seems this tiny recipe will give me the essence of fork(), on Windows: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/edze9h7e%28v=vs.80%29.aspx
274 2012-12-06 07:02:56 <jgarzik> multi-process security for the win
275 2012-12-06 07:09:00 Azelphur has quit (Excess Flood)
276 2012-12-06 07:10:05 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
277 2012-12-06 07:11:45 Azelphur has joined
278 2012-12-06 07:13:31 <legitnick> So I have a backup of an encrypted wallet.dat, is it possible to dump the private key or import the wallet so I can attempt to bruteforce the password?
279 2012-12-06 07:13:38 denisx has joined
280 2012-12-06 07:15:00 <legitnick> or would it be easier to just sign a message with the wallet?
281 2012-12-06 07:15:30 <jgarzik> legitnick: "encrypted wallet.dat" means the standard bitcoin encryption? The only thing encrypted are the private keys, not the whole wallet. If you have the wallet passphrase, you have the private keys, otherwise you don't.
282 2012-12-06 07:15:59 <jgarzik> bruteforce just means trying all possible wallet passphrases
283 2012-12-06 07:16:15 <legitnick> Yes, I know the dictionary words in the password
284 2012-12-06 07:18:23 <legitnick> I'm trying to run bitcoin with the wallet.dat so I can guess the password but it crashes everytime I try to run it
285 2012-12-06 07:20:19 <jgarzik> legitnick: Sounds like something we should debug. I'd file an issue with crash details at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues
286 2012-12-06 07:22:46 <legitnick> before I do that could it be an issue with the version used to backup the wallet?
287 2012-12-06 07:26:39 <jgarzik> legitnick: Does the version used to back up the wallet still load the wallet ok? Do you have a specific version number that works, and a version number that does not work?
288 2012-12-06 07:27:41 <jgarzik> legitnick: And just to double-check... you are not trying to transport a wallet from another program, are you? Bitcoin-Qt wallets do not work with Armory or Electrum, for example.
289 2012-12-06 07:27:55 <legitnick> no I'm not jgarzik
290 2012-12-06 07:28:39 <legitnick> I can get the version number tomorrow but would it be easier to just sign a message with that wallet instead of importing the entire wallet?
291 2012-12-06 07:31:14 <legitnick> "version": 70100
292 2012-12-06 07:43:33 EskimoBob has joined
293 2012-12-06 08:00:10 DMCommit has joined
294 2012-12-06 08:00:10 <DMCommit> [DiabloMiner] Diablo-D3 pushed 1 new commit to master: http://git.io/7GGH8A
295 2012-12-06 08:00:10 <DMCommit> DiabloMiner/master 5c26d58 Patrick McFarland: Catch possible memory leak
296 2012-12-06 08:00:10 DMCommit has left ()
297 2012-12-06 08:10:37 libcoin has joined
298 2012-12-06 08:20:41 ovidiusoft has joined
299 2012-12-06 08:24:33 Arnavion has joined
300 2012-12-06 08:24:33 Arnavion has quit (Changing host)
301 2012-12-06 08:24:33 Arnavion has joined
302 2012-12-06 08:24:59 <muhoo> jgarzik: are you developing picocoin on linux and using mingw32 to xcompile?
303 2012-12-06 08:29:18 Arnavion has quit (Client Quit)
304 2012-12-06 08:30:00 Arnavion has joined
305 2012-12-06 08:30:00 Arnavion has quit (Changing host)
306 2012-12-06 08:30:00 Arnavion has joined
307 2012-12-06 08:31:30 ciphermonk has joined
308 2012-12-06 08:32:08 tucenaber has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
309 2012-12-06 08:33:13 Guest73873 has joined
310 2012-12-06 08:34:38 <jgarzik> muhoo: yes
311 2012-12-06 08:36:33 darkskiez has joined
312 2012-12-06 08:38:48 ciphermonk has quit (Quit: Leaving)
313 2012-12-06 08:42:00 <jgarzik> Instawallet is under attack???!!! - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=129398.0
314 2012-12-06 08:42:12 <jgarzik> and man
315 2012-12-06 08:42:24 <jgarzik> someone needs to teach Roger Ver how to use a decentralized client, stat.
316 2012-12-06 08:46:51 nus has joined
317 2012-12-06 08:49:15 tucenaber has joined
318 2012-12-06 09:03:59 pacpac has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
319 2012-12-06 09:13:05 jdnavarro has joined
320 2012-12-06 09:14:47 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
321 2012-12-06 09:20:29 wereHamster has quit (Changing host)
322 2012-12-06 09:20:29 wereHamster has joined
323 2012-12-06 09:39:25 PiZZaMaN2K has quit (away!~PiZZaMaN2@unaffiliated/pizzaman2k|Quit: Linkinus - http://linkinus.com)
324 2012-12-06 09:40:52 RazielZ has joined
325 2012-12-06 09:48:13 maaku has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
326 2012-12-06 09:48:35 maaku has joined
327 2012-12-06 09:49:21 ThomasV has joined
328 2012-12-06 09:49:56 toffoo has quit ()
329 2012-12-06 09:57:05 sacredchao has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
330 2012-12-06 10:02:59 sacredchao has joined
331 2012-12-06 10:06:45 killerstorm has joined
332 2012-12-06 10:07:57 caedes has joined
333 2012-12-06 10:15:06 BlackPrapor has joined
334 2012-12-06 10:15:38 killerstorm has left ()
335 2012-12-06 10:18:37 CodesInChaos has joined
336 2012-12-06 10:21:48 one_zero has quit ()
337 2012-12-06 10:25:27 coblee_ has joined
338 2012-12-06 10:27:41 nus- has joined
339 2012-12-06 10:28:21 coblee has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
340 2012-12-06 10:28:21 coblee_ is now known as coblee
341 2012-12-06 10:29:40 nus has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
342 2012-12-06 10:36:08 larsig has joined
343 2012-12-06 10:39:21 mmoya has joined
344 2012-12-06 11:08:41 datagutt has joined
345 2012-12-06 11:14:56 Arnavion has quit (Quit: Arnavion)
346 2012-12-06 11:14:59 panzer has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
347 2012-12-06 11:15:04 Arnavion has joined
348 2012-12-06 11:15:33 panzer has joined
349 2012-12-06 11:19:30 BlackPrapor has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
350 2012-12-06 11:19:33 BlackPrapor has joined
351 2012-12-06 11:20:15 panzer has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
352 2012-12-06 11:21:04 panzer has joined
353 2012-12-06 11:30:24 paraipan has joined
354 2012-12-06 11:47:40 BlackPrapor has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.4 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
355 2012-12-06 12:11:25 datagutt is now known as spynorsk
356 2012-12-06 12:11:31 spynorsk is now known as nynorsk
357 2012-12-06 12:11:35 nynorsk is now known as datagutt
358 2012-12-06 12:14:57 killerstorm has joined
359 2012-12-06 12:14:59 drizztbsd has joined
360 2012-12-06 12:15:30 emryss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
361 2012-12-06 12:15:45 <killerstorm> Anybody wants to try Colored Bitcoin Armory? Windows build is available.
362 2012-12-06 12:16:36 <drizztbsd> eh?
363 2012-12-06 12:18:05 <killerstorm> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=106373.0
364 2012-12-06 12:19:14 <drizztbsd> it's better to implement it in bitcoin-qt imho :)
365 2012-12-06 12:19:25 <drizztbsd> and bitcoind (of course)
366 2012-12-06 12:20:37 <killerstorm> I don't mind.
367 2012-12-06 12:25:06 legitnick has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
368 2012-12-06 12:33:25 Detritus has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
369 2012-12-06 12:33:39 sacredchao has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
370 2012-12-06 12:36:23 sacredchao has joined
371 2012-12-06 12:46:47 darkee has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
372 2012-12-06 12:46:48 sacredchao has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
373 2012-12-06 12:46:48 mykhal_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
374 2012-12-06 12:49:41 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
375 2012-12-06 12:50:00 darkee has joined
376 2012-12-06 12:52:33 drizztbsd has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
377 2012-12-06 13:00:35 jdnavarro has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
378 2012-12-06 13:01:31 ThomasV_ has joined
379 2012-12-06 13:03:34 drizztbsd has joined
380 2012-12-06 13:05:00 emryss has joined
381 2012-12-06 13:06:22 TD_ has joined
382 2012-12-06 13:07:00 jdnavarro has joined
383 2012-12-06 13:11:21 edcba_ has joined
384 2012-12-06 13:12:21 edcba has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
385 2012-12-06 13:12:36 nus- has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
386 2012-12-06 13:13:31 slush has joined
387 2012-12-06 13:16:33 <TD_> Luke-Jr: i seem to having trouble reaching your DNS seed :(
388 2012-12-06 13:16:33 nus has joined
389 2012-12-06 13:17:10 <Luke-Jr> looks like it died
390 2012-12-06 13:17:39 <TD_> good morning!
391 2012-12-06 13:19:08 JZavala has joined
392 2012-12-06 13:19:53 <sipa> TD_: you're drifting west?
393 2012-12-06 13:20:03 <TD_> hm?
394 2012-12-06 13:20:08 <sipa> xkcd #448 :0
395 2012-12-06 13:21:32 <Diablo-D3> sipa: goddamnit dont remind me of that one
396 2012-12-06 13:21:40 <TD_> heh
397 2012-12-06 13:22:07 mykhal has joined
398 2012-12-06 13:22:33 <Diablo-D3> wait
399 2012-12-06 13:22:43 <Diablo-D3> thats not the one I was thinking of
400 2012-12-06 13:22:51 <Diablo-D3> still, dont remind me of ANY xkcd
401 2012-12-06 13:23:55 sacredchao has joined
402 2012-12-06 13:34:09 t7 has joined
403 2012-12-06 13:35:25 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
404 2012-12-06 13:38:09 Siskiyou has joined
405 2012-12-06 13:43:55 edcba_ is now known as edcba
406 2012-12-06 13:47:02 Siskiyou has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
407 2012-12-06 13:48:26 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
408 2012-12-06 14:00:48 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
409 2012-12-06 14:02:26 ThomasV_ has quit (Quit: Quitte)
410 2012-12-06 14:08:15 emryss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
411 2012-12-06 14:08:33 jine has quit (Quit: Reconnecting)
412 2012-12-06 14:08:41 jine has joined
413 2012-12-06 14:10:19 agricocb has joined
414 2012-12-06 14:15:51 vampireb has joined
415 2012-12-06 14:20:47 nym has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
416 2012-12-06 14:21:34 paraipan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
417 2012-12-06 14:21:34 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
418 2012-12-06 14:21:34 random_cat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
419 2012-12-06 14:26:09 nym has joined
420 2012-12-06 14:27:11 daybyter has joined
421 2012-12-06 14:27:32 vampireb has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
422 2012-12-06 14:28:09 paraipan has joined
423 2012-12-06 14:29:32 rdponticelli has joined
424 2012-12-06 14:33:27 killerstorm has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
425 2012-12-06 14:33:55 random_cat has joined
426 2012-12-06 14:37:54 emryss has joined
427 2012-12-06 14:38:56 jdnavarro has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
428 2012-12-06 14:44:04 rdponticelli_ has joined
429 2012-12-06 14:44:19 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
430 2012-12-06 14:44:19 paraipan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
431 2012-12-06 14:45:46 paraipan has joined
432 2012-12-06 14:46:49 rdponticelli_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
433 2012-12-06 14:48:01 CodesInChaos has joined
434 2012-12-06 14:48:28 rdponticelli has joined
435 2012-12-06 14:59:42 BlackPrapor has joined
436 2012-12-06 15:07:10 jdnavarro has joined
437 2012-12-06 15:14:04 <jeremias> can I create a output with zero amount for transaction?
438 2012-12-06 15:14:17 <jeremias> if the transaction has other non-zero outputs
439 2012-12-06 15:16:02 larsig has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
440 2012-12-06 15:17:32 <gavinandresen> jeremias: yes, but if I recall correctly transactions with zero-valued outputs are non-standard, so they won't get relayed or mined by default
441 2012-12-06 15:18:14 <gavinandresen> (and I think an "all fees" transaction with only zero-value outputs is legal, but, again, non-standard)
442 2012-12-06 15:18:17 <epscy> jeremias: why would you want to do that?
443 2012-12-06 15:20:49 StygianX9 has joined
444 2012-12-06 15:31:29 dvide has joined
445 2012-12-06 15:32:01 <jeremias> epscy: I had a 10 BTC bet with a friend that someone would reply with that question and won
446 2012-12-06 15:32:06 freakazoid has joined
447 2012-12-06 15:32:09 <jeremias> gavinandresen: thanks for the info
448 2012-12-06 15:32:28 ThomasV_ has joined
449 2012-12-06 15:34:19 <kinlo> a non-standard transaction can be mined if wanted right? It's not that the client will reject such block, it's just that miners will not include such transactions by default?
450 2012-12-06 15:34:40 <sipa> it's just a policy, not a rule
451 2012-12-06 15:34:54 <sipa> but it's enforced by most miners and almost all relaying nodes
452 2012-12-06 15:36:36 <gmaxwell> The reference client would also never make a zero value output.
453 2012-12-06 15:37:14 <kinlo> I do remember something about non-standard stuff from the source
454 2012-12-06 15:37:35 <kinlo> now you're making me read the source again
455 2012-12-06 15:39:54 <gmaxwell> kinlo: sipa did answer you. :P it can still be mined, and relayed, but the reference software (or anything with the same policy) won't do so.
456 2012-12-06 15:40:40 darsk1ez has joined
457 2012-12-06 15:40:57 StygianX9 has quit ()
458 2012-12-06 15:41:13 <sipa> so: a block with such a transaction in it is undeniably valid (changing that would be a forking change)
459 2012-12-06 15:42:10 libcoin has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
460 2012-12-06 15:42:11 <sipa> but most software on the network will not relay such transactions, or mine it
461 2012-12-06 15:42:49 <gmaxwell> (soft)forking change, like deploying BIP16.
462 2012-12-06 15:42:58 <sipa> right; indeed
463 2012-12-06 15:45:21 <kinlo> actually I remember something about at most x non-standard transactions per block
464 2012-12-06 15:45:22 <gavinandresen> TD_ : RE: protobuf extensions: any downside (besides bloating the spec) of slapping extensions 1000 to max; ... on all the messages, including tiny ones like Output ?
465 2012-12-06 15:45:29 <kinlo> trying to find it back in the source
466 2012-12-06 15:45:31 TD_ is now known as TD
467 2012-12-06 15:46:08 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
468 2012-12-06 15:46:10 <TD> gavinandresen: i don't think so. the generated code for accessing extended fields is a bit different, for reasons unclear to me. you can as well just use a comment that says // Please add your own extensions starting at tag 1000 and update the wiki page at <url>
469 2012-12-06 15:46:25 <TD> it means people have to modify their local .proto file to have whatever extensions they want to use. no big hassle, really
470 2012-12-06 15:46:30 <TD> up to you
471 2012-12-06 15:46:37 <TD> a comment with a wiki page URL is a good idea anyway
472 2012-12-06 15:47:13 <gavinandresen> TD: ok. I think I'll just add an "Extensions" section to the spec, then (and put the comment in the .proto file)
473 2012-12-06 15:47:31 <TD> ok
474 2012-12-06 15:47:37 <sipa> adding extensions aftwerwards is also backward-compatible, afaik
475 2012-12-06 15:47:51 <gavinandresen> as long as they're not required, yep
476 2012-12-06 15:48:00 <sipa> you can't add required fields anyway
477 2012-12-06 15:48:19 <TD> sure you can. you just have to make sure all readers and writers are updated to the new protocol
478 2012-12-06 15:48:35 <sipa> well, yes... but at that point there's no need for compatibility whatsoever
479 2012-12-06 15:48:38 <gavinandresen> sipa: ACK, I misunderstood what you were saying
480 2012-12-06 15:49:00 <gavinandresen> (you mean we can add the extensions command to the .proto file later and remain compatible)
481 2012-12-06 15:49:05 <sipa> gavinandresen: indeed
482 2012-12-06 15:49:22 <sipa> extensions just allows delegation of the definition at the source level
483 2012-12-06 15:49:27 <sipa> it doesn't change anything protocol wise
484 2012-12-06 15:49:42 <gavinandresen> Any objections to making Output take EITHER a bitcoin address OR a script ?
485 2012-12-06 15:49:51 <sipa> why?
486 2012-12-06 15:49:52 <TD> why?
487 2012-12-06 15:50:14 <sipa> imho, an address is a shorthand for a script anyway
488 2012-12-06 15:50:29 <gavinandresen> Suggestion from Ben Reeves-- software creating PaymentRequests might have addresses but not scripts.
489 2012-12-06 15:51:03 <sipa> they have to deal with script templates anyway if they want to spend the incoming coins
490 2012-12-06 15:51:08 <gavinandresen> (e.g. load up a merchant with a bazillion deterministic-wallet-multisig addresses, it might not know the public keys involved)
491 2012-12-06 15:51:22 <sipa> so create a pubkeyhash script?
492 2012-12-06 15:51:23 <gavinandresen> front end might be separate from the payment-processing back-end
493 2012-12-06 15:51:56 <gavinandresen> sipa: yeah... small matter of writing some code, I suppose....
494 2012-12-06 15:52:55 <gavinandresen> Ok, I think I agree with KISS, and script is more general.
495 2012-12-06 15:53:46 <gavinandresen> although... one last concern: it is a lot easier to shoot yourself in the foot if it is script instead of bitcoin address.
496 2012-12-06 15:53:53 <TD> an address IS a script, in somewhat human typable form
497 2012-12-06 15:54:02 <TD> how so?
498 2012-12-06 15:54:09 <TD> by sending money to bogus scripts?
499 2012-12-06 15:54:15 <gavinandresen> e.g. bug in your address --> script code means customers sending to an unspendable scriptpbukey
500 2012-12-06 15:54:39 <TD> i think most decent software doesn't actually work in terms of addresses internally, but rather keys
501 2012-12-06 15:54:39 <sipa> it's prepending 4 bytes and adding 1 byte FFS
502 2012-12-06 15:55:15 <gavinandresen> yeah, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here... there are lots of ways to shoot yourself in the foot.
503 2012-12-06 15:55:51 <TD> oh
504 2012-12-06 15:55:53 <sipa> if you're unable to write software to create a correct script, you're most likely also unlikely to generate the correct address in the first place
505 2012-12-06 15:55:57 <TD> the only thing addresses give us, is a network id
506 2012-12-06 15:56:00 <TD> (in some cases)
507 2012-12-06 15:56:06 <TD> it may be worth having a network == TEST, PROD enum in there
508 2012-12-06 15:56:10 <sipa> agree
509 2012-12-06 15:56:11 <TD> so testnet invoices can't get mixed up with prodnet invoices
510 2012-12-06 15:56:14 <sipa> good idea
511 2012-12-06 15:56:31 <gavinandresen> yes, good idea.
512 2012-12-06 15:56:33 <TD> or MAIN (depending on your terminology preference)
513 2012-12-06 15:56:42 * gavinandresen goes to look at how enums are done in protobuf format
514 2012-12-06 15:56:48 <TD> i'm so used to seeing "prod" as shorthand for "production" that i forget it looked weird to me at first
515 2012-12-06 15:56:52 <TD> gavinandresen: like this
516 2012-12-06 15:56:57 <TD> enum Network {
517 2012-12-06 15:57:00 <TD> MAIN = 1;
518 2012-12-06 15:57:02 <TD> TEST = 2;
519 2012-12-06 15:57:03 <TD> }
520 2012-12-06 15:57:09 <TD> required Network network = 11;
521 2012-12-06 15:57:12 <TD> or
522 2012-12-06 15:57:16 <sipa> well, maybe you want this to be more extensible
523 2012-12-06 15:57:23 <TD> optional Network network = 11 [default = MAIN];
524 2012-12-06 15:57:24 <sipa> like have a uint32 for the network magic
525 2012-12-06 15:57:38 <TD> yeah either works
526 2012-12-06 15:57:50 <TD> i suppose some id or string that doesn't require extending the enum is better
527 2012-12-06 15:58:17 nus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
528 2012-12-06 15:58:31 <TD> by the way, enums have a downside - if it's set to a value your app wasn't compiled with, the field won't deserialize at all. if it's optional that's ok. if it's required, it makes the whole message unreadable if the enum is extended. this sort of makes sense, if you think about it, but it does mean for forward compatibility you tend to want optional with a default
529 2012-12-06 15:58:44 nus has joined
530 2012-12-06 15:58:53 <TD> by the way
531 2012-12-06 15:59:13 <TD> i'm nearly done with making bcj start pinging peers by default. currently my ping interval is 2 seconds.
532 2012-12-06 15:59:18 <TD> any preferences?
533 2012-12-06 15:59:42 <sipa> the default (connect) timeout if 5s in bitcoind iirc
534 2012-12-06 15:59:50 <sipa> *is
535 2012-12-06 16:00:07 <sipa> which is by no means an assessment of the quality of that number as a default
536 2012-12-06 16:00:27 <gavinandresen> So... required string network = 1 [default="main"];
537 2012-12-06 16:00:58 <TD> gavinandresen: required with default doesn't work. the default is compiled into the reader, not writer. so optional string network = 1 [default="main"]; works
538 2012-12-06 16:01:10 <TD> gavinandresen: required means it has to be present on the wire. so providing a default doesn't really make sense, it'd just be wasteful
539 2012-12-06 16:01:36 <gavinandresen> TD: got it.
540 2012-12-06 16:06:52 sacredchao has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
541 2012-12-06 16:07:38 nus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
542 2012-12-06 16:10:11 nus has joined
543 2012-12-06 16:18:51 GMP has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
544 2012-12-06 16:20:25 sacredchao has joined
545 2012-12-06 16:23:55 darkee has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
546 2012-12-06 16:25:21 da2ce7 has joined
547 2012-12-06 16:25:44 veerboot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
548 2012-12-06 16:27:37 da2ce7_d has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
549 2012-12-06 16:32:34 owowo has joined
550 2012-12-06 16:40:28 DutchBrat has joined
551 2012-12-06 16:41:52 DutchBrat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
552 2012-12-06 16:42:29 tonikt has joined
553 2012-12-06 16:44:54 GMP has joined
554 2012-12-06 16:53:08 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
555 2012-12-06 16:55:08 darkee has joined
556 2012-12-06 17:00:34 Gladamas has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
557 2012-12-06 17:00:45 Gladamas has joined
558 2012-12-06 17:03:15 brocktice has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
559 2012-12-06 17:04:42 random_cat has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
560 2012-12-06 17:04:43 darkee has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
561 2012-12-06 17:04:43 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
562 2012-12-06 17:05:03 brocktice has joined
563 2012-12-06 17:06:11 Neskia has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
564 2012-12-06 17:07:52 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
565 2012-12-06 17:08:56 gjs278 has joined
566 2012-12-06 17:10:22 Nesetalis has joined
567 2012-12-06 17:10:37 rdponticelli has joined
568 2012-12-06 17:11:39 djoot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
569 2012-12-06 17:11:54 djoot has joined
570 2012-12-06 17:12:19 djoot is now known as Guest17127
571 2012-12-06 17:15:44 sta has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
572 2012-12-06 17:15:49 <jgarzik> quote davout "It's just Instawallet's bitcoind taking almost 45 minutes to restart with its 2GB wallet"
573 2012-12-06 17:16:00 sta has joined
574 2012-12-06 17:16:27 asciilifeform has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
575 2012-12-06 17:16:47 Keefe has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
576 2012-12-06 17:17:48 asciilifeform has joined
577 2012-12-06 17:17:51 BlackPrapor has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
578 2012-12-06 17:17:53 darkee has joined
579 2012-12-06 17:18:13 asciilifeform is now known as Guest90125
580 2012-12-06 17:18:26 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
581 2012-12-06 17:21:34 BlackPrapor has joined
582 2012-12-06 17:21:43 BlackPrapor has quit (Client Quit)
583 2012-12-06 17:23:41 Keefe has joined
584 2012-12-06 17:23:41 Keefe has quit (Changing host)
585 2012-12-06 17:23:41 Keefe has joined
586 2012-12-06 17:23:59 ciscoftw has joined
587 2012-12-06 17:24:12 <ciscoftw> Obviously donÂt have the same insight as many here (pool operators Âspecially) Â
I understand not all transactions are created equally, and its left to miners to include or exclude specific transactions that will be included into their block, but why wouldnÂt they just include everything? Transactions donÂt affect the difficulty of solving the block, so why not just include everything that is broadcast?
588 2012-12-06 17:25:00 <Luke-Jr> ciscoftw: they do affect the speed at which blocks propagate the network
589 2012-12-06 17:25:14 <Luke-Jr> ciscoftw: so for example, a pool including every SatoshiDice transaction would get a huge amount of orphans
590 2012-12-06 17:25:17 <Luke-Jr> losing even the 25 BTC
591 2012-12-06 17:25:42 <ciscoftw> why would including alot of transaction cause your solved block to orphan?
592 2012-12-06 17:25:58 <Luke-Jr> ciscoftw: because peers check them all before relaying the block
593 2012-12-06 17:26:03 <Luke-Jr> so it can take minutes longer to relay
594 2012-12-06 17:26:10 gfinn has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
595 2012-12-06 17:26:16 <Luke-Jr> in the meantime, other pools might have solved the same block and relay faster
596 2012-12-06 17:26:32 <ciscoftw> after a peer has received a new block height, it check it?
597 2012-12-06 17:26:37 <Luke-Jr> yep
598 2012-12-06 17:27:00 <Luke-Jr> including verifying the signatures of every transaction in it
599 2012-12-06 17:27:10 <ciscoftw> i can understand the results of a slow relay, but blow my mind that it take a client longer to check a block with regard to how many trans have been included in it
600 2012-12-06 17:27:25 <ciscoftw> many thanx for info luke-jr
601 2012-12-06 17:27:26 <Luke-Jr> admittedly, this is really mostly bad design
602 2012-12-06 17:27:42 <Luke-Jr> it's theoretically possible to rewrite the p2p code so that it has minimal overhead
603 2012-12-06 17:27:50 <Luke-Jr> begin relaying as soon as only the header is checked, etc
604 2012-12-06 17:29:05 <helo> seems pretty bad to give incentive to disinclude transactions when there's room :(
605 2012-12-06 17:29:47 PiZZaMaN2K has joined
606 2012-12-06 17:30:04 <gavinandresen> It would take a tiny bit longer to relay in any case (bigger block == longer to transmit). And signature caching makes it less of an issue.
607 2012-12-06 17:30:11 <ciscoftw> this is really outside my understanding... when a miner is solving for a block, all the trans he knows aobut are included... when he's exhausted that merkel key/root and needs to try anohter, does he get an updated trans list? or just keep trying with the info it started with?
608 2012-12-06 17:30:14 <Graet> not all pools have an issue, the race condition is rare
609 2012-12-06 17:30:17 <gavinandresen> Has anybody actually measured block-checking times?
610 2012-12-06 17:31:03 <helo> ciscoftw: they tend to not ever exhaust
611 2012-12-06 17:31:21 <Luke-Jr> gavinandresen: the verification isn't the worst part of it
612 2012-12-06 17:31:26 <Graet> i havent, we dont have a high orphan rate so use default currently , shrug
613 2012-12-06 17:31:31 <gavinandresen> Luke-Jr: what is the worst part?
614 2012-12-06 17:31:57 <Luke-Jr> gavinandresen: as far as I can tell,l while PeerA is uploading to PeerB, it isn't doing anything else (including uploading to PeerC, D, etc)
615 2012-12-06 17:32:34 <gavinandresen> Luke-Jr: ah, so parallel broadcast would be the first bottleneck to fix.
616 2012-12-06 17:32:38 <Luke-Jr> yep
617 2012-12-06 17:33:07 <Luke-Jr> I'd like to see it send as it comes in, too. Since the header check eliminates DoS risk, it should be safe
618 2012-12-06 17:33:24 <ciscoftw> is there any 'visual' way i can see orphaned blocks propagate through the network? like two competeing blocks racing to get majority...
619 2012-12-06 17:33:44 <ciscoftw> like blockexplore.com style
620 2012-12-06 17:33:50 <Luke-Jr> ciscoftw: not without abusing the network I think :/
621 2012-12-06 17:34:16 <ciscoftw> abusing the network? i full of digital hate luke-jr
622 2012-12-06 17:34:43 <Luke-Jr> might be nice if someone could organize a single "central point for abusing the network, that anyone can use to conduct research" to avoid multiple nodes doing it <.<
623 2012-12-06 17:35:06 <gavinandresen> You might be able to convince people to install a little code that hooked into -blocknotify and told a central service when they saw a new block.....
624 2012-12-06 17:35:09 <Luke-Jr> the only thing worse than someone connecting to every node, is more than one person connecting to every nodeâ¦
625 2012-12-06 17:35:11 <jgarzik> Bitcoin-Central, first exchange licensed to operate as a bank. This is HUGE - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=129461.0
626 2012-12-06 17:35:14 JZavala has joined
627 2012-12-06 17:35:30 <jgarzik> (poster's emphasis, not mine)
628 2012-12-06 17:35:31 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: wow!
629 2012-12-06 17:35:34 <helo> i'd be more interested to see what happens when the network is abused
630 2012-12-06 17:36:00 <ciscoftw> thats really the only way to collect that info huh... is to span the entire p2p network (or just all relay nodes)???
631 2012-12-06 17:36:04 <helo> bitcoin is legit in france, if nowhere else... now lets see if the bank can survive a big crash :)
632 2012-12-06 17:36:20 <helo> ciscoftw: all relay nodes are essentially the entire p2p network
633 2012-12-06 17:36:38 <helo> ciscoftw: non-relaying nodes don't accept connections
634 2012-12-06 17:36:48 <ciscoftw> helo: good point
635 2012-12-06 17:37:13 <jgarzik> libccoin should have a block relay daemon going in another few days
636 2012-12-06 17:37:19 <jgarzik> P2P in picocoin seems to be working now
637 2012-12-06 17:37:40 <Luke-Jr> davout looks like in a good position to issue real Bitcoin debit cards <.<
638 2012-12-06 17:37:43 <jgarzik> then we can look as fast block relaying
639 2012-12-06 17:38:02 <jgarzik> sendfile(2) tricks and other fun
640 2012-12-06 17:38:26 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: a fast block relay daemon running on the dev team's server seems like a good use of bandwidth.
641 2012-12-06 17:38:45 <Luke-Jr> last I heard jgarzik wanted to charge for access to his block relay service <.<
642 2012-12-06 17:38:59 * jgarzik is trying to choose between a small index (headers + file positions) with quick start-up time, and no index (just block file) with 2 minute startup time
643 2012-12-06 17:39:31 <gavinandresen> more than one fast block relay server is a good idea.
644 2012-12-06 17:39:35 ThomasV_ has quit (Quit: Quitte)
645 2012-12-06 17:39:51 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: I'd choose quick startup and small index. Disk space is cheap.
646 2012-12-06 17:39:59 ThomasV has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
647 2012-12-06 17:40:03 gfinn has joined
648 2012-12-06 17:40:26 ThomasV has joined
649 2012-12-06 17:40:52 <ciscoftw> uhhh, regarding shitty transactions (...again) I'd have to leave my client running to keep announcing that tranasaction to the network? will the p2p network drop it, if it hasnt been included in x number of blocks? ....tldr, after a transaction is broadcast to network, how long untill its either included in a block or dropped?
650 2012-12-06 17:41:21 <sipa> it's never deliberately dropped
651 2012-12-06 17:41:40 <sipa> but mempools are in memory, so nodes forget them when restarted
652 2012-12-06 17:41:55 <ciscoftw> so then it shulud just keep getting broadcast by OTHER p2p peers until its included?
653 2012-12-06 17:42:00 <sipa> no
654 2012-12-06 17:42:07 <sipa> they just remember, they don't reannounce
655 2012-12-06 17:42:25 <TD> jgarzik: that seems a bit FUD filled. i'm not totally sure about davout
656 2012-12-06 17:42:38 <sipa> your own node (and that of the receiver, it the transaction managed to reach his node) are the only ones reannouncing
657 2012-12-06 17:42:42 <TD> jgarzik: mtgox wasn't "kicked out" of France for not complying with the law, it was actually the bank that wasn't complying
658 2012-12-06 17:43:42 <ciscoftw> dude sipa, that what i basically siad, and you indicated i was incorrect? da fuk?
659 2012-12-06 17:43:48 <TD> jgarzik: still it's good news
660 2012-12-06 17:43:49 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: sadly, that and many other business ideas fell by the wayside
661 2012-12-06 17:43:57 <jgarzik> Red Hat pays me too much ;p
662 2012-12-06 17:44:17 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: free biz idea for _somebody_
663 2012-12-06 17:44:27 <jgarzik> the network, both miners and merchants, would benefit from a trusted backbone of relays
664 2012-12-06 17:44:30 <sipa> ciscoftw: the only time i said you were wrong was when you said that other nodes reannounce
665 2012-12-06 17:44:33 <jgarzik> fast, professional relays
666 2012-12-06 17:45:04 <sipa> ciscoftw: you asked whether it gets dropped by the network, and it doesn't get dropped - but it isn't reannounced either
667 2012-12-06 17:45:50 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
668 2012-12-06 17:46:44 agricocb has joined
669 2012-12-06 17:46:44 <ciscoftw> if both sender and reciever turn off there clients and the transaction has not been included into a block. it will NEVER be included after mempools from miners has been purged of it?
670 2012-12-06 17:47:05 <sipa> indeed
671 2012-12-06 17:47:08 <ciscoftw> ...then what happens to the bitcoins?
672 2012-12-06 17:47:09 <gavinandresen> somebody needs to start a "Red Hat for Bitcoin" business....
673 2012-12-06 17:47:49 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: minor payment proto nit: I would s/"test"/"testnet3" because we will reset the test chain periodically
674 2012-12-06 17:47:51 <sipa> ciscoftw: they're considered transferred by those that have the transactions, and not transferred by those that haven't
675 2012-12-06 17:47:54 <Luke-Jr> Isn't that what the Foundation is? more or less :P
676 2012-12-06 17:48:13 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: ACK
677 2012-12-06 17:48:25 * jgarzik -> Tex-Mex
678 2012-12-06 17:48:26 <gavinandresen> Luke-Jr: no, Foundation is like the Linux Foundation.
679 2012-12-06 17:49:01 <midnightmagic> Did David Borrett find his way in here?
680 2012-12-06 17:49:09 <gavinandresen> Linux Foundation doesn't provide customer support, or a profesionally packaged distribution.....
681 2012-12-06 17:49:09 <midnightmagic> Barrett even
682 2012-12-06 17:50:08 <midnightmagic> http://lists.zooko.com/pipermail/p2p-hackers/2012-December/003195.html
683 2012-12-06 17:50:22 <ciscoftw> only the tranactions listed in my getmemorypool will be included into a block (assuming i solve it)?
684 2012-12-06 17:50:46 <gavinandresen> ciscoftw: yes, plus a coinbase transaction to reward you for solving the block
685 2012-12-06 17:51:13 <sipa> and even only those that make it through the block creation policy (which sets additional rules about fees/priority/size)
686 2012-12-06 17:51:36 random_cat has joined
687 2012-12-06 17:52:04 Guest73873 is now known as ageis
688 2012-12-06 17:53:50 <ciscoftw> the fact that a miner get to selectivly choose what trans are included pisses me off.
689 2012-12-06 17:53:57 <ciscoftw> fix that shit yo
690 2012-12-06 17:54:45 daybyter has joined
691 2012-12-06 17:55:06 <sipa> no, pay them if you don't like them
692 2012-12-06 17:55:08 <sipa> or mine yourself
693 2012-12-06 17:55:10 <ciscoftw> is it possible to search or parse the getrawmempool data?
694 2012-12-06 17:55:15 <ciscoftw> i do mine myself
695 2012-12-06 17:55:19 <ciscoftw> and i solve blockS
696 2012-12-06 17:56:30 <ciscoftw> just pissed :( sd is f'ing me badly. thanx for your input sipa ./
697 2012-12-06 17:56:36 <sipa> the thing is that miners already are responsible for the only thing that cannot be dealt with otherwise: the ordering of otherwise valid transactions
698 2012-12-06 17:56:40 <Graet> pay for transactions to be included in blocks or pay for hardware to make your own blocks, most would pay the tn fee :)
699 2012-12-06 17:56:50 <sipa> so from a theoretical viewpoint, it is very hard to "fix" that
700 2012-12-06 17:58:33 <ciscoftw> what makes excellent sense (right or wrong) is the relay time leading to stale/orphanded blocks that is directly regarding the number of trans in that block... seems like that could be a potential big problem.
701 2012-12-06 18:00:35 jdnavarro has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
702 2012-12-06 18:02:05 <gmaxwell> ciscoftw: the caching in 0.7.x substantially reduces that issue.
703 2012-12-06 18:02:50 <gmaxwell> (because a big part of the relay time for blocks with many inputs was nodes doing the script validations)
704 2012-12-06 18:03:13 <sipa> and even if not... on git head + parallel script checking i can verify recents block (in somewhat laboratory conditions) in +- 40 ms
705 2012-12-06 18:03:19 <sipa> on average
706 2012-12-06 18:03:54 <gmaxwell> According to p2pool's stats, GBT latency for me is something on the order of 1/8th - 1/10th that of 0.7.1 for me.
707 2012-12-06 18:04:21 <gmaxwell> (and I assume GBT is at least somewhat predictive of network block validation speed)
708 2012-12-06 18:04:36 <sipa> but Luke-Jr's point remains valid: if you manage to have a slow peer sending you a block, there is nothing the network thread can do in between
709 2012-12-06 18:04:53 <gmaxwell> ciscoftw: so at least in the context of 0.8 I think the remaining issue for relay speed is just the network forwarding being sequential.
710 2012-12-06 18:05:01 <gmaxwell> exactly.
711 2012-12-06 18:05:20 <Luke-Jr> ciscoftw: miners' freedom to choose transactions is an important part of the design
712 2012-12-06 18:05:23 <sipa> i wonder if we can just add more network threads...
713 2012-12-06 18:06:14 <sipa> those only lock the node's send or receive buffers anyway
714 2012-12-06 18:06:34 <sipa> so it should be almost trivial to have two or three of them, imho
715 2012-12-06 18:06:39 <gmaxwell> sipa: I don't think fixing that should be a top priority. It could also be addressed by people running fast block forwarding nodes. E.g. a couple well know addresses that just check POW and prev. and blast out blocks would solve miners' concerns.
716 2012-12-06 18:06:57 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
717 2012-12-06 18:07:05 <sipa> it does solve the 'a slow peer is blocking me' problem
718 2012-12-06 18:07:15 <sipa> (or at least improves upon it)
719 2012-12-06 18:07:16 <gmaxwell> until two slow peers block you! :P
720 2012-12-06 18:07:20 molecular has joined
721 2012-12-06 18:07:44 <gmaxwell> sipa: alternatively, putting inbound and outbound into seperate network threads may make a lot of DOS sense.
722 2012-12-06 18:08:23 <gmaxwell> (then at least it's harder for someone maliciously being slow to self select and greatly delay you from getting a block)
723 2012-12-06 18:08:55 <sipa> actually... i'm not sure whether that's true at all?
724 2012-12-06 18:09:04 <sipa> we only read/write nonblocking
725 2012-12-06 18:09:26 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
726 2012-12-06 18:09:43 TD has joined
727 2012-12-06 18:10:04 <sipa> blocks not being forwarder before being validated adds delay of course, but one that doesn't depend on the network system to be improved
728 2012-12-06 18:11:31 <gmaxwell> Luke had patches that changed itâ with a different getblock that indicated you didn't care if it was validated. (It would still DoS if the POW didn't match though). But IIRC they weren't useful because it was getting stuck feeding a slow peer.
729 2012-12-06 18:12:28 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: well, it didn't do anything because the p2p code is all synchronous
730 2012-12-06 18:12:44 <sipa> how do you mean synchronous?
731 2012-12-06 18:13:10 <sipa> it never does a blocking write or read
732 2012-12-06 18:13:13 <Luke-Jr> I wrote it assuming the p2p code kept running alongside block checking
733 2012-12-06 18:13:20 <Luke-Jr> it effectively doesâ¦
734 2012-12-06 18:13:23 <sipa> it does
735 2012-12-06 18:13:50 TD has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
736 2012-12-06 18:14:24 <Luke-Jr> sipa: did that change in ultraprune?
737 2012-12-06 18:14:27 <sipa> no
738 2012-12-06 18:14:48 <sipa> you have the network thread which sends/receives from/to the node buffers
739 2012-12-06 18:14:58 <Luke-Jr> IIRC when I looked at it, all the p2p activity was in a single thread that dealt with 1 command from 1 peer at a time
740 2012-12-06 18:15:12 <sipa> and the message handler that processing messages in the node buffers
741 2012-12-06 18:15:33 <sipa> but the network threads works perfectly fine while doing slow message handling, for example
742 2012-12-06 18:15:48 <sipa> both are only ever dealing with one node at a time, but the network part is not synchronous at all
743 2012-12-06 18:16:18 <sipa> if a block arrives in two parts, it should receive that in two parts, with data received from other nodes in the mean time potentially
744 2012-12-06 18:17:31 drizztbsd has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
745 2012-12-06 18:17:50 <sipa> it will only get processed when received entirely though, but processing can continue on other data received from other peers in the mean time
746 2012-12-06 18:18:41 fiesh has joined
747 2012-12-06 18:22:53 gimlet90210 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
748 2012-12-06 18:25:03 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
749 2012-12-06 18:29:49 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
750 2012-12-06 18:31:28 <ciscoftw> possible to clear your rawmempool with killing bitcoind service?
751 2012-12-06 18:31:46 ovidiusoft has joined
752 2012-12-06 18:35:37 d4de has joined
753 2012-12-06 18:36:59 <gmaxwell> ciscoftw: no. Why would you want to do that?
754 2012-12-06 18:37:21 <gmaxwell> (in fact, there is a patch to basically do the oppositeâ request a mempool dump from a peer at startup)
755 2012-12-06 18:38:21 epscy has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
756 2012-12-06 18:40:32 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
757 2012-12-06 18:41:06 <helo> ciscoftw: if you have a bad transaction in your wallet, i think you need to remove it and then -rescan (the rescan may be automatic...)
758 2012-12-06 18:41:36 <sipa> helo: 1) -rescan finds missing transactions, it doesn't remove them
759 2012-12-06 18:41:48 <sipa> 2) the wallet and the mempool have (almost) nothing to do with eachother
760 2012-12-06 18:43:14 <helo> if one manually removes a (bad) transaction from their wallet, will a -rescan recalculate the balance and allow the client to create a replacement transaction?
761 2012-12-06 18:43:21 <sipa> yes
762 2012-12-06 18:43:51 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)
763 2012-12-06 18:44:26 <helo> i thought ciscoftw was having problems with a bad transaction, and was asking the wrong question re: mempool purge
764 2012-12-06 18:44:54 <gmaxwell> considering that he mentioned killing, I think he really meant mempool. :)
765 2012-12-06 18:44:55 <ciscoftw> i do have a bad transaction, and i'd like to purge my mempool without stopping the service
766 2012-12-06 18:45:11 <gmaxwell> Clarity has not been added.
767 2012-12-06 18:45:13 <sipa> do you have a bad transaction in your wallet?
768 2012-12-06 18:45:17 <ciscoftw> :)
769 2012-12-06 18:45:17 <gmaxwell> ^?
770 2012-12-06 18:45:20 <helo> purging mempool won't help if the transaction is in your wallet
771 2012-12-06 18:45:27 <gmaxwell> ^.
772 2012-12-06 18:45:57 <ciscoftw> on a different system (wallet location), yes i have a SD transaction that is NOT being included into blocks
773 2012-12-06 18:46:59 <ciscoftw> but i wanna clear my mempool to increase the chances my solved block will NOT be orphaned/stale
774 2012-12-06 18:47:18 <gmaxwell> huh. That doesn't make much sense.
775 2012-12-06 18:47:56 <gmaxwell> If you want to produce a smaller block, you can request that with a commandline parameter. Whats the reason you don't want to restart?
776 2012-12-06 18:47:59 <helo> if you want your mempool to be cleared, just restart bitcoind... i don't think there's another practical way
777 2012-12-06 18:48:22 RBecker has joined
778 2012-12-06 18:48:25 <ciscoftw> my uptime, dont wanna disconnect 90+ peers
779 2012-12-06 18:48:28 vampireb has joined
780 2012-12-06 18:48:45 RBecker is now known as Guest85437
781 2012-12-06 18:48:47 <helo> the way to ensure you have suitably small blocks is to filter the transactions as they come in
782 2012-12-06 18:48:59 <gmaxwell> you're mining directly on a node with 90 peers and you're worried about orphaned/stale rates? :P
783 2012-12-06 18:49:13 <ciscoftw> :) it cant hurt
784 2012-12-06 18:49:29 <gmaxwell> it absolutely can and does!
785 2012-12-06 18:49:32 <helo> rather than try to purge the mempool... when the client starts back up it will start slurping up SD transactions just the same
786 2012-12-06 18:50:40 <gmaxwell> There are patches floating around to just block them. It does reduce the mempool size by a large amount.
787 2012-12-06 18:50:57 <ciscoftw> thanx gmax
788 2012-12-06 18:51:16 <gmaxwell> But yea, I wouldn't recommend so many connections on a mining node.
789 2012-12-06 18:51:29 <ciscoftw> i should limit it to how many?
790 2012-12-06 18:51:46 <ciscoftw> wish i could check to see how many stales i've had in my lifetime
791 2012-12-06 18:51:56 <gmaxwell> I run like ... 4-6. which are all hand selected known good nodes (including links to my public nodes that do have a good number of peers)
792 2012-12-06 18:52:10 <ciscoftw> figured i was just helping out the network by having large peers connected....
793 2012-12-06 18:52:11 sgornick has joined
794 2012-12-06 18:52:27 flatfly has joined
795 2012-12-06 18:52:59 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
796 2012-12-06 18:53:40 agricocb has joined
797 2012-12-06 18:55:24 caedes has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
798 2012-12-06 18:55:45 Guest85437 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)
799 2012-12-06 18:58:26 RBecker_ has joined
800 2012-12-06 19:05:24 X-Scale has joined
801 2012-12-06 19:06:47 leotreasure_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
802 2012-12-06 19:06:48 ovidiusoft has quit (Quit: leaving)
803 2012-12-06 19:15:13 RBecker_ is now known as RBecker
804 2012-12-06 19:15:22 RBecker has quit (Changing host)
805 2012-12-06 19:15:22 RBecker has joined
806 2012-12-06 19:17:29 sta has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
807 2012-12-06 19:18:18 rdponticelli has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
808 2012-12-06 19:20:33 rdponticelli has joined
809 2012-12-06 19:29:46 pusle has joined
810 2012-12-06 19:30:44 <jgarzik> "Coin Publishing LLC is the new entity based in Florida that will be taking over the full operations of Bitcoin Magazine effective immediately, purchasing the assets and contracts from Bittalk Media Ltd for an undisclosed sum of cash plus bitcoins.
811 2012-12-06 19:30:44 <jgarzik> Coin Publishing LLC is collectively owned by individuals owning or working at BitPay, Butterfly Labs, Google, Casascius, 20 Mission, and Virtual Processing Solutions."
812 2012-12-06 19:30:56 vampireb has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
813 2012-12-06 19:31:29 <gavinandresen> Big day for announcements today
814 2012-12-06 19:32:45 <ThomasV> it's thursday, the day where central banks make announcement
815 2012-12-06 19:32:53 <helo> we're becoming them :(
816 2012-12-06 19:32:57 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: yeah, Vladimir apparently ran it into the group
817 2012-12-06 19:32:59 <Luke-Jr> ground*
818 2012-12-06 19:33:03 <gavinandresen> I feel peer pressure to announce something....
819 2012-12-06 19:33:05 <ThomasV> .. so we have to answer :)
820 2012-12-06 19:33:17 <helo> new hairdo?
821 2012-12-06 19:33:23 * gavinandresen goes to see how many downloads 0.7.2rc2 has had already
822 2012-12-06 19:33:50 <Luke-Jr> 33 ._.
823 2012-12-06 19:34:10 <sipa> there seem to be some misconceptions about 0.8 out there: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/148abf/my_first_experience_with_bitcoin_was_not_positive/c7aqut3
824 2012-12-06 19:34:30 <gavinandresen> bah, should wait another day to make sure it doesn't make some weird version of Windoze catch fire.
825 2012-12-06 19:35:04 <sipa> gavinandresen: as long as that's on Windows ME, that'd be doing the world a serivce
826 2012-12-06 19:36:27 Cory has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
827 2012-12-06 19:36:40 Pasha has joined
828 2012-12-06 19:36:41 <Luke-Jr> hah
829 2012-12-06 19:37:25 D34TH has joined
830 2012-12-06 19:37:25 D34TH has quit (Changing host)
831 2012-12-06 19:37:25 D34TH has joined
832 2012-12-06 19:38:51 tonikt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
833 2012-12-06 19:52:13 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
834 2012-12-06 19:54:29 Pasha has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
835 2012-12-06 19:57:56 Cory has joined
836 2012-12-06 20:01:52 sta has joined
837 2012-12-06 20:09:43 JZavala has joined
838 2012-12-06 20:15:41 CodesInChaos has joined
839 2012-12-06 20:17:09 t7_ has joined
840 2012-12-06 20:19:39 pusle has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
841 2012-12-06 20:22:17 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
842 2012-12-06 20:22:28 t7 has quit (Quit: entity smells)
843 2012-12-06 20:24:00 t7_ is now known as t7
844 2012-12-06 20:29:29 freakazoid has joined
845 2012-12-06 20:29:45 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
846 2012-12-06 20:30:15 ThomasV has joined
847 2012-12-06 20:35:39 ovidiusoft has joined
848 2012-12-06 20:39:09 epscy has joined
849 2012-12-06 20:45:41 flatfly has quit (Quit: Yo!)
850 2012-12-06 20:52:07 sta has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
851 2012-12-06 20:54:04 Diapolo has joined
852 2012-12-06 20:57:40 denisx has joined
853 2012-12-06 20:58:12 daybyter has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
854 2012-12-06 21:02:10 zooko has joined
855 2012-12-06 21:04:28 <jgarzik> sipa: what is a good reference URL, for people who want to test 0.8? is there a forum thread?
856 2012-12-06 21:05:15 <D34TH> jgarzik, i got it to compile, it requires a few dll deps though
857 2012-12-06 21:05:45 <jgarzik> D34TH: I tried a naive conversion to select(), but that broke a few things :(
858 2012-12-06 21:05:57 <jgarzik> D34TH: however, I found http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/edze9h7e%28v=vs.80%29.aspx
859 2012-12-06 21:06:03 <D34TH> all i had to do was use cygwin and remove o_largefile
860 2012-12-06 21:06:08 <D34TH> and it compiled
861 2012-12-06 21:06:14 <jgarzik> D34TH: that page contains a recipe for doing fork on windows, with pipes
862 2012-12-06 21:06:32 <jgarzik> yeah, cygwin makes it all easier :)
863 2012-12-06 21:06:45 <sipa> jgarzik: next-test has the most up-to-date builds, i guess, but it also has some potentially buggy stuff
864 2012-12-06 21:06:58 * jgarzik will get a build going for libevent and jansson on mingw, and then I can work on Windows stuff
865 2012-12-06 21:07:19 <jgarzik> cygwin is useful to get you going, but I dislike the requirement as a general rule
866 2012-12-06 21:07:21 <sipa> jgarzik: i posted a link to my pre builds in the ultraprune thread, but those are somewhat outdated now
867 2012-12-06 21:08:40 <D34TH> jgarzik, i only wanted to test as a proof of concept
868 2012-12-06 21:09:17 gfinn has quit (Quit: gfinn)
869 2012-12-06 21:09:38 <jgarzik> D34TH: all good. any testing appreciated. long term, Windows will definitely be supported.
870 2012-12-06 21:14:33 <D34TH> jgarzik: http://pastebin.com/ViUNsk1N woot woot
871 2012-12-06 21:14:42 Lefont has joined
872 2012-12-06 21:15:11 <D34TH> jgarzik, is O_LARGEFILE needed for linux?
873 2012-12-06 21:15:21 <jgarzik> D34TH: yes
874 2012-12-06 21:15:41 <jgarzik> D34TH: cool :)
875 2012-12-06 21:18:23 <D34TH> sipa: i totally think that 4 threads is good, but is it possible to optionally allow more/less?
876 2012-12-06 21:18:46 <D34TH> like 4 for default but with -verthread=6 or something
877 2012-12-06 21:19:19 ovidiusoft has quit (Quit: leaving)
878 2012-12-06 21:20:08 <sipa> D34TH: -par sets how many threads you want
879 2012-12-06 21:20:20 <D34TH> sipa: thanks, didn't know
880 2012-12-06 21:20:28 <sipa> default equal to your number of cpu's
881 2012-12-06 21:21:55 zooko` has joined
882 2012-12-06 21:23:27 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
883 2012-12-06 21:23:55 Guest17127 has quit (Changing host)
884 2012-12-06 21:23:55 Guest17127 has joined
885 2012-12-06 21:24:11 Guest17127 is now known as djoot
886 2012-12-06 21:24:39 <jgarzik> heh
887 2012-12-06 21:24:50 <jgarzik> ipv6 bitcoin nodes seem much more reliable, less transient, than ipv4 nodes
888 2012-12-06 21:26:26 <Diapolo> I'm also able to use IPv6 again, my provider messed up 6to4 ^^.
889 2012-12-06 21:26:53 gfinn has joined
890 2012-12-06 21:27:12 <D34TH> Diapolo, i use HE's ipv6
891 2012-12-06 21:27:17 <sipa> Diapolo: the -benchmark pullreq was mainly as a precursor to the parallel script checker, so i could check how much was gained :)
892 2012-12-06 21:27:19 <D34TH> never failed for me
893 2012-12-06 21:27:36 <sipa> Diapolo: and as it seemed generally useful, i made it into a separate pullreq
894 2012-12-06 21:27:38 zooko`` has joined
895 2012-12-06 21:27:43 <D34TH> sipa: will both be in 0.7.2?
896 2012-12-06 21:27:51 <sipa> D34TH: hell no
897 2012-12-06 21:27:57 <sipa> 0.7.2 is bugfix only
898 2012-12-06 21:28:00 <D34TH> 0.8.0?
899 2012-12-06 21:28:02 <D34TH> :D
900 2012-12-06 21:28:05 <sipa> yes, hopefully
901 2012-12-06 21:28:19 <D34TH> bbl
902 2012-12-06 21:29:55 zooko` has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
903 2012-12-06 21:30:13 <denisx> argh, threadnaming for freebsd is still not turned on?
904 2012-12-06 21:30:55 <Diapolo> sipa: can you comment on the Windows results, they seem to be much slower only Flush os 0ms ... dunno
905 2012-12-06 21:32:17 <sipa> Diapolo: those flushes being zero is probably indeed just because of the lower resolution of the clock
906 2012-12-06 21:33:24 <Diapolo> sipa: What is benched in the pull? Block processing, LevelDB performance I'm not sure.
907 2012-12-06 21:34:37 <sipa> Diapolo: block processing, transaction verification, coin database lookups (which may cause leveldb lookups) and updates, ...
908 2012-12-06 21:34:46 <sipa> what CPU is that?
909 2012-12-06 21:35:06 <sipa> 3ms/txin is rather slow
910 2012-12-06 21:35:09 <Diapolo> AMD A8-3850K 4 core
911 2012-12-06 21:35:54 <Diapolo> != high-end but sufficient Llano platform
912 2012-12-06 21:35:54 <gribble> Error: "=" is not a valid command.
913 2012-12-06 21:35:54 <BCBot2`> Diapolo: Error: "=" is not a valid command.
914 2012-12-06 21:36:27 <sipa> Llano?
915 2012-12-06 21:36:32 <helo> a8-3850 is a pretty good value
916 2012-12-06 21:36:53 <helo> allows me to play most new games without buying a gpu
917 2012-12-06 21:36:55 <denisx> 120k blocks in 10min
918 2012-12-06 21:37:33 <Diapolo> sipa: AMD Family 10h Processor without L3 cache
919 2012-12-06 21:37:46 <Diapolo> 2.9 GHz
920 2012-12-06 21:37:51 <sipa> denisx: loading from where?
921 2012-12-06 21:38:00 <denisx> sipa: network
922 2012-12-06 21:38:02 ovidiusoft has joined
923 2012-12-06 21:38:04 <sipa> ok
924 2012-12-06 21:38:58 <Diapolo> sipa: question in between -onlynet="IPv6" but I have 3 incoming IPv4 connections listed with getpeerinfo? is that correct behaviour?
925 2012-12-06 21:39:41 <sipa> Diapolo: i forgot
926 2012-12-06 21:39:55 <sipa> i think -onlynet only controls which outgoing connections are attempted
927 2012-12-06 21:40:19 <sipa> Diapolo: those benchmark numbers, are they during IBD or not?
928 2012-12-06 21:40:44 <Diapolo> sipa: no during a normal sync after a few hours (catching up only a few blocks)
929 2012-12-06 21:40:57 casascius has joined
930 2012-12-06 21:41:01 <sipa> ok, that may have somewhat lower performance
931 2012-12-06 21:41:12 <sipa> as the coin cache is flushed after every block
932 2012-12-06 21:43:28 <Diapolo> I can post some numbers during IBD tomorrow for comparison
933 2012-12-06 21:45:45 <sipa> ok
934 2012-12-06 21:50:51 <casascius> Hey everyone, I'm wondering if I could get some feedback on https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0038 - Passphrase-protected private key format.
935 2012-12-06 21:54:31 <gavinandresen> casascius: wiki isn't loading for me right now
936 2012-12-06 21:55:05 <casascius> gavinandresen: possible net issues? loads for me at a normal speed
937 2012-12-06 21:55:16 zooko`` is now known as zooko
938 2012-12-06 21:57:51 <gavinandresen> casascius: yes, something wonky with my net connection....
939 2012-12-06 22:03:23 <casascius> It's basically a revisit of a proposal I made in the past, but hopefully I have "done it right" this time.
940 2012-12-06 22:04:32 sta has joined
941 2012-12-06 22:04:57 [\\\] has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
942 2012-12-06 22:07:29 <sipa> casascius: i
943 2012-12-06 22:07:32 <sipa> casascius: i
944 2012-12-06 22:07:54 Diapolo has left ()
945 2012-12-06 22:07:57 <sipa> casascius: i've skimmed over it, but i think i'm way too tired to give useful criticism now
946 2012-12-06 22:08:18 edcba_ has joined
947 2012-12-06 22:08:29 [\\\] has joined
948 2012-12-06 22:09:43 edcba has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
949 2012-12-06 22:11:31 <sipa> casascius: btw, i've updated BIP32 with your suggestion for 4-char prefix
950 2012-12-06 22:12:14 toffoo has joined
951 2012-12-06 22:16:05 <casascius> sipa: sweet
952 2012-12-06 22:18:25 ovidiusoft has quit (Quit: leaving)
953 2012-12-06 22:21:04 <Jouke> casascius: does your proposal include puclic key cryptografy?
954 2012-12-06 22:21:25 <casascius> sipa: On BIP 32, the only thing that wasn't totally clear to me is whether depth=3 is a hard limit or just a recommendation (I'm sure it says somewhere, I just haven't found it)
955 2012-12-06 22:21:52 <sipa> casascius: i should clear that up; the spec is really two parts
956 2012-12-06 22:22:12 <sipa> casascius: the first is the key derivation mechanism and the tree formed by it
957 2012-12-06 22:22:13 <casascius> jouke: indeed: it allows an elliptic curve multiply to be an optional part of the scheme so that the person picking the passphrase can be different than the person generating addresses
958 2012-12-06 22:22:36 <sipa> casascius: the second is how to build a wallet on top of that tree
959 2012-12-06 22:22:50 <casascius> jouke: actually i suppose i should qualify, because that's not public key cryptograhy as it's defined
960 2012-12-06 22:22:51 <Jouke> casascius: ok, clear, thanks :)
961 2012-12-06 22:23:07 <Jouke> well, that was what I was asking for :)
962 2012-12-06 22:23:52 <casascius> jouke: true that public and private keys are involved, but the scheme is much more like a DH key derivation than a PGP message
963 2012-12-06 22:24:58 <sipa> casascius: i'll need to think a bit about compatibility issues, but in general i suppose clients could support any key chain (so an extended pubkey/privkey, and automatically use all addresses derived from it)
964 2012-12-06 22:25:14 <casascius> sipa: is there an expectation that depth=3 be adopted as a best practice even if the algorithm defines deeper than that? (i.e. to maximize the portability of chains among clients, assuming this is a desired feature)
965 2012-12-06 22:25:30 <sipa> casascius: something like that; call it a recommended wallet structure
966 2012-12-06 22:33:29 luke-jr has quit (otg!~luke-jr@2001:470:5:265:222:4dff:fe50:4c49|Quit: leaving)
967 2012-12-06 22:35:35 coblee_ has joined
968 2012-12-06 22:35:44 one_zero has joined
969 2012-12-06 22:38:49 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
970 2012-12-06 22:39:01 coblee has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
971 2012-12-06 22:39:01 coblee_ is now known as coblee
972 2012-12-06 22:39:48 <Luke-Jr> casascius: j/w, but who assigned BIP num 38?
973 2012-12-06 22:40:42 <casascius> I contacted genjix
974 2012-12-06 22:42:49 <Luke-Jr> cool, good to know he's still there when people contact him :p
975 2012-12-06 22:43:15 Lefont has left ()
976 2012-12-06 22:49:02 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
977 2012-12-06 22:53:14 <casascius> sipa: in bip32 serialization, what goes in parent key and child number fields when serializing a master key?
978 2012-12-06 22:53:30 <sipa> casascius: good point! zeroes
979 2012-12-06 22:54:15 zooko` has joined
980 2012-12-06 22:56:10 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
981 2012-12-06 22:59:03 rdponticelli has joined
982 2012-12-06 22:59:04 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
983 2012-12-06 23:01:25 <casascius> sipa: as I'm crunching through bip 32 i wanted to throw some ideas at you.
984 2012-12-06 23:02:06 <casascius> sipa: my thoughts are centered on one byte in your serialization format you have called "depth: 0x00 for master nodes, 0x01 for level-1 descendants, ...."
985 2012-12-06 23:02:23 <casascius> sipa: I'm trying to reconcile that with the "If I were to see this byte, what would I know to do with it" problem.
986 2012-12-06 23:03:00 <casascius> sipa: example: you've proposed "auditing" as an application, but if I'm trying to fly under the radar of an "audit" I merely need to choose an arbitrarily high chain code that I hope the auditor may not look.
987 2012-12-06 23:03:39 <casascius> sipa: What if your depth byte indicated, in addition to / opposed to literal "depth", what was the intended application of the chain code?
988 2012-12-06 23:03:39 <sipa> well, you could as well use a separate key entirely for your hidden dirty business
989 2012-12-06 23:03:58 <sipa> an audit typically happens because one wants to be audited
990 2012-12-06 23:04:02 <sipa> (or needs to)
991 2012-12-06 23:04:22 <casascius> sipa: re key: indeed, but by using arbitrarily high key I can maintain I have "disclosed my wallet"
992 2012-12-06 23:04:38 <sipa> that you can hide from it is inevitable, what the scheme allows is being voluntarily audited without giving up your private keys
993 2012-12-06 23:04:49 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
994 2012-12-06 23:05:32 <casascius> idea that I had was that a couple of bits out of depth could be assigned to indicate the following: one bit to indicate an intent that new payment addresses should be derived from this code, and one bit to indicate that new chains should be derived from this code.
995 2012-12-06 23:05:44 JZavala has joined
996 2012-12-06 23:05:52 zooko`` has joined
997 2012-12-06 23:06:05 <sipa> that sounds reasonable
998 2012-12-06 23:06:15 <casascius> (or perhaps a single combined bit, where 0 means "derive only new chains from this" and 1 means "derive only new addresses from this"
999 2012-12-06 23:06:19 <casascius> )
1000 2012-12-06 23:06:29 zooko` has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1001 2012-12-06 23:06:45 <sipa> but i don't want to restrict the format for chains (which are general) to how one can use them
1002 2012-12-06 23:07:02 <sipa> people may use arbitrarily complex derivations (though i suppose 99.9999% won't)
1003 2012-12-06 23:07:18 <sipa> a/complex/deep/
1004 2012-12-06 23:07:30 <casascius> sipa: agreed, these wouldn't be so much restrictions, but rather, hints such that an application parsing an "extended key" knows what to do with it, with reasonable bounds
1005 2012-12-06 23:07:53 <casascius> I can think of one application for these that could occupy one more level depth
1006 2012-12-06 23:07:59 <sipa> how about changing the depth byte to a height byte
1007 2012-12-06 23:08:13 <casascius> this application would enhance anonymity
1008 2012-12-06 23:08:15 rdponticelli has joined
1009 2012-12-06 23:08:17 <sipa> 0 = actual address; 1 = chain of addresses; 2 = chain of chains; ...
1010 2012-12-06 23:08:44 <casascius> sipa: what you're suggesting is along the lines of what I am thinking
1011 2012-12-06 23:09:10 <casascius> the extra object i would throw out would be like: 3 = single-use fork in the chain of addresses
1012 2012-12-06 23:09:20 <casascius> here is why it might be useful:
1013 2012-12-06 23:09:45 <casascius> it would allow me to send coins to somebody without having to combine inputs
1014 2012-12-06 23:09:59 <casascius> assuming i needed anonymity and combining inputs compromised that
1015 2012-12-06 23:10:20 <sipa> well that's perfectly possible without an extra level
1016 2012-12-06 23:10:37 <sipa> but sure, could be
1017 2012-12-06 23:10:46 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1018 2012-12-06 23:10:56 <sipa> the problem is what if the distance from the root is variable
1019 2012-12-06 23:11:15 <casascius> sipa: I am guessing that by it being already possible, you mean (for example) someone could create a new wallet chain to accept a payment of this nature?
1020 2012-12-06 23:11:24 <sipa> yes
1021 2012-12-06 23:11:29 <sipa> account chain
1022 2012-12-06 23:12:59 BCBot2` has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1023 2012-12-06 23:13:18 <casascius> sipa: That makes total sense as being possible -
1024 2012-12-06 23:14:30 <casascius> sipa: Suppose by convention, a serialized xpub record with a height value of 3 had the following understood meaning: "This is a chain of addresses meant for a single transaction. Payments sent to this chain will be understood to all belong to a single transaction. Please pay a contiguous series of addresses in the chain starting from the first."
1025 2012-12-06 23:15:16 <casascius> So the problem I am proposing to solve isn't how to get it to fit in the chain, but rather, how to communicate between a payer and a payee that a group of txid's is really a single payment.
1026 2012-12-06 23:15:46 ciscoftw has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1027 2012-12-06 23:16:11 <sipa> casascius: i have no problem with such usage or even intended meaning of that when used as a "recurring business-to-business transaction"
1028 2012-12-06 23:16:24 <sipa> casascius: but an extended public key is not a payment request
1029 2012-12-06 23:16:47 <sipa> and the payment protocol being developed is much more suited for that
1030 2012-12-06 23:17:35 <sipa> iirc there was some way of specifying multiple outputs, and specifying the sum you expect to pay to them
1031 2012-12-06 23:18:14 BCBot2` has joined
1032 2012-12-06 23:18:21 <sipa> (you could of course derive all addresses in there from a level-3 bip32 chain, but the payer doesn't need to know or care)
1033 2012-12-06 23:20:49 agricocb has joined
1034 2012-12-06 23:22:21 <sipa> BlueMatt: is bitcoinpulltester alive?
1035 2012-12-06 23:29:32 int0x27h has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1036 2012-12-06 23:30:44 int0x27h has joined
1037 2012-12-06 23:30:57 smiddi has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1038 2012-12-06 23:31:05 smiddi has joined
1039 2012-12-06 23:43:49 owowo has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1040 2012-12-06 23:48:19 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1041 2012-12-06 23:50:03 smiddi has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1042 2012-12-06 23:53:34 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1043 2012-12-06 23:54:57 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1044 2012-12-06 23:55:31 smiddi has joined
1045 2012-12-06 23:56:53 meLon has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1046 2012-12-06 23:58:32 meLon has joined