1 2012-12-12 00:02:09 nus- has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
2 2012-12-12 00:06:37 mmoya has joined
3 2012-12-12 00:09:24 <lianj> right. changed my code now so when i create a openssl ec point from the data/pubkey, i know if it was compressed or not, so when outputting the pubkey from the ec point objects it does the right thing (output compressed or uncompressed form, depending on how it was given)
4 2012-12-12 00:09:57 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
5 2012-12-12 00:10:46 davout has joined
6 2012-12-12 00:10:46 davout has quit (Changing host)
7 2012-12-12 00:10:46 davout has joined
8 2012-12-12 00:15:29 davout has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
9 2012-12-12 00:16:25 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
10 2012-12-12 00:17:14 slush has joined
11 2012-12-12 00:18:11 tucenaber has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
12 2012-12-12 00:19:02 tamalix has quit (Quit: Yo!)
13 2012-12-12 00:19:35 slush has quit (Client Quit)
14 2012-12-12 00:20:07 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
15 2012-12-12 00:21:03 fiesh_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
16 2012-12-12 00:21:51 fiesh has joined
17 2012-12-12 00:23:39 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
18 2012-12-12 00:24:18 sh4kad4rk has quit ()
19 2012-12-12 00:27:36 <sipa> BlueMatt: how to change which compiler Qt uses?
20 2012-12-12 00:27:58 <D34TH> sipa: in the gui or via command line
21 2012-12-12 00:28:09 <D34TH> **creator
22 2012-12-12 00:28:11 <sipa> in gitian
23 2012-12-12 00:28:19 <D34TH> oh never mind
24 2012-12-12 00:28:20 <D34TH> D:
25 2012-12-12 00:28:50 <sipa> oh crap, i'll need to rebuild Qt
26 2012-12-12 00:31:22 tucenaber has joined
27 2012-12-12 00:31:22 tucenaber has quit (Changing host)
28 2012-12-12 00:31:22 tucenaber has joined
29 2012-12-12 00:34:38 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
30 2012-12-12 00:35:13 copumpkin has joined
31 2012-12-12 00:36:39 tucenaber has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
32 2012-12-12 00:41:40 BurtyB has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
33 2012-12-12 00:42:12 BurtyB has joined
34 2012-12-12 00:43:33 lumberjak has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
35 2012-12-12 00:44:25 lumberjak has joined
36 2012-12-12 00:49:29 elkingrey has joined
37 2012-12-12 00:53:40 rdymac has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
38 2012-12-12 01:06:19 <gmaxwell> oh, someone finally go through to grau.
39 2012-12-12 01:06:47 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
40 2012-12-12 01:08:14 MagicalTux has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
41 2012-12-12 01:09:18 <sipa> ?
42 2012-12-12 01:10:48 <gmaxwell> I'm respondng to grau now seemingly seeing forking risk as something serious. It didn't seem to me that he did before.
43 2012-12-12 01:11:25 JDuke128 has quit (Quit: ["Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com"])
44 2012-12-12 01:15:33 zeks2 has quit ()
45 2012-12-12 01:18:51 slush has joined
46 2012-12-12 01:20:19 slush has quit (Client Quit)
47 2012-12-12 01:21:43 dvide has joined
48 2012-12-12 01:29:00 agricocb has joined
49 2012-12-12 01:30:26 tucenaber has joined
50 2012-12-12 01:30:26 tucenaber has quit (Changing host)
51 2012-12-12 01:30:26 tucenaber has joined
52 2012-12-12 01:39:44 roconnor has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
53 2012-12-12 01:42:56 MT`AwAy has joined
54 2012-12-12 01:43:06 MT`AwAy is now known as Guest66838
55 2012-12-12 01:45:17 <etotheipi_> sipa: gmaxwell: do you know if there's a way the payment protocol could accommodate chained keys? (such as BIP32) By this, I mean that my webserver distributes addresses for customers to pay me, but if it's compromised, the attacker could replace the watching-only wallet with their own and steal payments until I find out
56 2012-12-12 01:46:02 <etotheipi_> I would like to, *essentially* sign the public chain and have other clients be able to verify that the addresses they received are on that chain, but I don't acutally want to give them the whole public chain (for privacy reasons)
57 2012-12-12 01:48:44 <sipa> you'd accomplish that by deriving from a known chain, but with more than 32 bits of entropy after that
58 2012-12-12 01:49:04 <etotheipi_> ideally, there was some mathematical trick such that I can transfer the signature from the root to any child addresses
59 2012-12-12 01:51:09 <etotheipi_> sipa: you mean that you can transfer partial root chain information, and send the extra information needed to verify that *just this one key* is part of that known chain
60 2012-12-12 01:51:11 <etotheipi_> ?
61 2012-12-12 01:52:12 <sipa> imagine the subkey id was not a 32-bit number, but a 256-bit number
62 2012-12-12 01:52:57 <sipa> if my public extended key M/i was known, then if I give out M/i/x with x a random 256-bit number
63 2012-12-12 01:53:10 <sipa> you know it's derived from M/i (since you derived it yourself)
64 2012-12-12 01:53:23 pingdrive has joined
65 2012-12-12 01:53:24 <sipa> and you won't be able to iterate anything else derived from it
66 2012-12-12 01:53:32 <sipa> but that's overly complex i think
67 2012-12-12 01:53:33 <etotheipi_> so M/i is a chain that isn't used for collecting coins?
68 2012-12-12 01:53:51 <sipa> doesn't really matter
69 2012-12-12 01:54:58 <etotheipi_> sipa: I don't entirely follow (yet), but I get the gist of it
70 2012-12-12 01:55:19 <etotheipi_> the question I have is: isn't this something that should be handled by the payment protocol?
71 2012-12-12 01:55:36 <sipa> imho, no
72 2012-12-12 01:55:40 <etotheipi_> servers with BIP 32 watching-only wallets will all be vulnerable without this
73 2012-12-12 01:55:52 <etotheipi_> or what's the other solution?
74 2012-12-12 01:56:07 <sipa> well if they can get to your server, they can get to your private key too
75 2012-12-12 01:56:25 <sipa> the PKI key, i mean
76 2012-12-12 01:57:10 <etotheipi_> hmm... this isn't exactly how I envisioned it
77 2012-12-12 01:57:23 <etotheipi_> I was envisioning that you have a PKI key kept offline
78 2012-12-12 01:57:29 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: huh? vulnerable to what? Someone getting on them and taking the enumeration keys? well yes. But you can't stop that. Either anyone with the server's data can enumerate or not.
79 2012-12-12 01:57:32 <etotheipi_> and you use it to sign watching-only chains
80 2012-12-12 01:58:07 <etotheipi_> and clients would have a way to verify that the address they received is part of the signed chain
81 2012-12-12 01:58:15 <gmaxwell> Oh I see what you're thinking.
82 2012-12-12 01:58:48 <sipa> you want to sign child keys with the root key, or have a proof that they are derived from a known root
83 2012-12-12 01:58:53 <etotheipi_> but, of course, we don't want to give every customer the entire chain
84 2012-12-12 01:58:57 <gmaxwell> Meh. So you want to sign the addresses only, not the invoice, so the signing key can be offline.
85 2012-12-12 01:59:26 <etotheipi_> sipa: yes
86 2012-12-12 01:59:40 <gmaxwell> Of course, that means I can make up forged invoices "1 Gold bar â 1 BTC -> signed(etotheipi_)" bleh.
87 2012-12-12 01:59:53 <sipa> no, the invoice has to be signed
88 2012-12-12 01:59:54 <etotheipi_> as I was pondering server security, I realized that this is a seriously-damaging vulnerability
89 2012-12-12 02:00:06 <gmaxwell> unless you do _both_ with seperate signing keys.
90 2012-12-12 02:00:35 <etotheipi_> I mean... control of the server means collecting all gross income for a business for 1-24 hours until they figure it out
91 2012-12-12 02:00:41 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: 'seriously-damaging vulnerability' when absolutely no payment system ever created is secure against that? :)
92 2012-12-12 02:01:12 <etotheipi_> well that's why I'm bringing it up here... it sounds like a problem that *might* be solvable with Bitcoin
93 2012-12-12 02:01:14 <sipa> i think that if you get write access to the invoice-creating server, you have larger problems
94 2012-12-12 02:01:16 <gmaxwell> but I agree its an interesting point.
95 2012-12-12 02:01:43 <gmaxwell> sipa: you do, of courseâ but it is interestng that it may be possible to keep the keys that sign authenticating the payment addresses offline.
96 2012-12-12 02:02:39 <etotheipi_> that shifts the scope of the payment protocol quite a bit though ... as you said: it would be signed address chains, instead of individually-signed invoices
97 2012-12-12 02:03:27 <gmaxwell> e.g. invoices signed with a key who's cert has a flag that says "good for signing invoices only, payment addresses must be signed by this other key" and that other key is offline.
98 2012-12-12 02:03:40 <etotheipi_> if we did nothing else except come up with a way to do this, what are the remaining vulnerabilies? Everything on the invoice could be altered *except* the address
99 2012-12-12 02:03:44 <gmaxwell> Of course this is all impossibly complex any I'm doubtful we'd get anyone to actually use it... :(
100 2012-12-12 02:04:04 <sipa> and implement it correctly, if its security was relied upon
101 2012-12-12 02:04:11 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: I'd say the same thing about Bitcoin itself :)
102 2012-12-12 02:04:27 <sipa> haha
103 2012-12-12 02:04:31 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: and I think we're on the verge of failing there!
104 2012-12-12 02:05:15 dvide has quit ()
105 2012-12-12 02:05:26 <gmaxwell> Having to have signing keys online is a major weakness of basically all ecommerce schemes.
106 2012-12-12 02:06:06 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: right... so now imagine we solved that... which I'm envisioning my be "simply" a chaining trick much like BIP 32 itself
107 2012-12-12 02:06:16 <etotheipi_> that's a pretty significant advancement in security *potential*
108 2012-12-12 02:07:00 <etotheipi_> *may be
109 2012-12-12 02:07:49 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: another alternative is to provide an _unrolled_ key, were there is one signed part, and an unsigned chaining part.. and the client does the composition and send. This means the worst an attacker could do is take funds hostage.
110 2012-12-12 02:08:08 <sipa> well it can be done a lot easier: in addition to the txout script (with an address in it), you provide your known public key, and a random 256-bit number, with the property that HASH(pubkey*number) == address
111 2012-12-12 02:08:20 <sipa> no need for full BIP32 derivation
112 2012-12-12 02:08:28 <gmaxwell> ^ thats exactly what I was saying!
113 2012-12-12 02:09:14 <sipa> and the certificate should contain the pubkey then, indeed
114 2012-12-12 02:10:13 * gmaxwell watches etotheipi_ slowly invent 'script' for invoicesâ¦
115 2012-12-12 02:11:29 <etotheipi_> heh, I was hoping I could just seed the idea with you smart people, and you'll figure it out while I go back to my regularly-scheduled Armory development :)
116 2012-12-12 02:14:32 ByteUnit has quit (Quit: Tik Tak, a clockwork orange?, what the fuck)
117 2012-12-12 02:14:50 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: well I've wanted something like this before, for the PoS stuffâ because one of the (multiple) killer problems with PoS is keeping your signing keys online.
118 2012-12-12 02:16:34 <etotheipi_> so, if we figured out nothing else except a way to prove that the address is part of a signed chain, what are the remaining vulnerabilies of a compromised server? Everything on the invoice could be altered *except* the address
119 2012-12-12 02:20:14 roconnor has joined
120 2012-12-12 02:20:31 <etotheipi_> I bet this is a problem that roconnor would like to contribute to :)
121 2012-12-12 02:20:40 <roconnor> what's that?
122 2012-12-12 02:20:43 <gmaxwell> Right. And the server could just issue non-signed invoices and most users would pay them. tada.
123 2012-12-12 02:21:19 <roconnor> etotheipi_: how goes the armoury?
124 2012-12-12 02:21:31 <etotheipi_> I want to be able to use an offline SSL cert to sign a watching-only address chain (such as BIP 32), and have a way for a user to verify that the address they received (requesting payment) is a child of that chain
125 2012-12-12 02:22:07 <roconnor> I don't know anything about X.314159 whatever ... yet
126 2012-12-12 02:22:17 <etotheipi_> but I don't want to give them the root explicitly, because I don't want them to see my entire business's transaction history
127 2012-12-12 02:22:29 <etotheipi_> well, it doesn't need to be X.509 for this thought experiment
128 2012-12-12 02:22:36 <sipa> i'm sure roconnor would love to come up with a formally-verifiable script language for certificate checking, though :p
129 2012-12-12 02:22:37 <roconnor> oh okay
130 2012-12-12 02:22:39 <etotheipi_> any cryptographically secure method will do, and may be adaptible
131 2012-12-12 02:22:47 <gmaxwell> State goals not mechenisms. You want a user to get an invoice authored and signed by compromised server, identified by some PKI chain.. and have the user not send payments to the bad guys that compromised it.
132 2012-12-12 02:23:33 pacpac has joined
133 2012-12-12 02:23:36 <etotheipi_> roconnor: btw the Armory is going well. Just released Beta, FINALLY
134 2012-12-12 02:24:04 <sipa> [03:10] [sipa(+Zi)] [16:freenode/#bitcoin-dev(+Ccnt)] [Act: 3,14,15]
135 2012-12-12 02:24:16 <sipa> look at the list of active channels!
136 2012-12-12 02:24:26 <gavinandresen> Speaking of invoices... I made a good bit of progress today on the PaymentRequest implementation. https://github.com/gavinandresen/paymentrequest
137 2012-12-12 02:24:29 <sipa> 03:09:06 < roconnor> I don't know anything about X.31415
138 2012-12-12 02:24:40 <sipa> the fact that I see this, means i need sleep
139 2012-12-12 02:24:44 <roconnor> etotheipi_: I don't suppose you've asked fellowtraveller?
140 2012-12-12 02:25:00 <roconnor> sipa: you have work in the morning!
141 2012-12-12 02:25:05 <sipa> yeah :(
142 2012-12-12 02:25:08 <etotheipi_> no, I just thought of this like 20 min ago, and was running it by whoever happened to be in this channel
143 2012-12-12 02:25:15 <roconnor> :)
144 2012-12-12 02:25:18 <sipa> well... most of my colleagues arrive around noon though :P
145 2012-12-12 02:25:45 <etotheipi_> it wouldn't surprise me if there was a crytographically secure solution, much like type-2 deterministic wallets
146 2012-12-12 02:26:12 <etotheipi_> to "transfer" signatures from a root key to the children without having to reveal the root key
147 2012-12-12 02:26:15 <sipa> roconnor: long time since I saw you active in here, btw!
148 2012-12-12 02:26:33 <roconnor> I've been busy with my new job
149 2012-12-12 02:27:08 <sipa> :)
150 2012-12-12 02:30:58 <roconnor> etotheipi_: is the verfication online (ie interactive) or offline?
151 2012-12-12 02:32:30 <roconnor> gmaxwell: can you state the goal one more time?
152 2012-12-12 02:34:27 <gmaxwell> Compromised server. It gives a secure client an invoice. Client checks signatures on invoice against PKI. Client pays and the attacker can't get the payment. The idea being that the invoice has an online signature, but the payment addresses in it has an offline signature so the attacker can't replace it. Problem: You want to use a new address for every txn for privacy and accounting reasons. (and don't want to just precomput a zillion signe
153 2012-12-12 02:35:02 <etotheipi_> roconnor: here's the issue: you have a webserver that distributes addresses to customers for your business dealings... that server is compromised and the attacker has it distirbute the attacker's addresses
154 2012-12-12 02:35:28 <etotheipi_> for some number of hours, the attacker will be collecting gross income meant for the company
155 2012-12-12 02:36:46 <etotheipi_> I'd like to have it so that a compromised server will not lead to stolen funds (because the addresses on the invoices can't be altered)
156 2012-12-12 02:37:27 <gavinandresen> buy a hardware token that will store the private signing key. Done, attacker can't impersonate you.
157 2012-12-12 02:38:19 <etotheipi_> gavinandresen: but they have control of the server, and can send any address they want to to the hardware token for signing
158 2012-12-12 02:38:24 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: the attacker has compromised the webserver. It can write any invoice the webserver can write. I suppose if the hardware token is taking unsigned invoices, parsing them, and adding the payment addresses.. you're right. And certantly that avoid protocol complications!
159 2012-12-12 02:39:17 <gavinandresen> I dunno how programmable the hardware security tokens are these days, but seems like they aught to be able to generate the address chain.
160 2012-12-12 02:39:26 <etotheipi_> gavinandresen: good point
161 2012-12-12 02:39:53 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: certantly hardware exists that can do this.
162 2012-12-12 02:40:44 <roconnor> okay I think I understand now.
163 2012-12-12 02:40:44 <gmaxwell> (e.g. the IBM cryptocards are tamper resistant embedded PC's on PCI cardsâ you could have a SPV bitcoin node on one if you wanted)
164 2012-12-12 02:42:19 wizkid057 has joined
165 2012-12-12 02:42:34 dvide has joined
166 2012-12-12 02:43:32 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
167 2012-12-12 02:43:38 <roconnor> etotheipi_: are you worried about your clients sharing data with each other?
168 2012-12-12 02:43:39 <etotheipi_> this would applicable to a lot of security models
169 2012-12-12 02:43:48 <etotheipi_> not just bitcoin
170 2012-12-12 02:44:04 Guest66838 is now known as MagicalTux
171 2012-12-12 02:44:05 <etotheipi_> or rather, I bet something like this is already done (HW devices that only sign, but can't give out the key)
172 2012-12-12 02:44:07 MagicalTux has quit (Changing host)
173 2012-12-12 02:44:07 MagicalTux has joined
174 2012-12-12 02:44:51 <roconnor> how does a hardware thing solve this problem?
175 2012-12-12 02:45:00 <etotheipi_> roconnor: I'm concerned that my webserver is compromised, and I don't notice for 24 hours that no payments are received (because they're all going to the attacker)
176 2012-12-12 02:45:35 <gavinandresen> top-of-my-head random thought: the payment_url in the PaymentRequest might be a good belt&suspenders shut-down-attacker... if it was part of the CA-signed certificate and pointed to a different server then it could eliminate the single-point of failure (attacker would have to compromise two servers to succeed, assuming payment_url server was double-checking payment addresses)
177 2012-12-12 02:46:19 <roconnor> etotheipi_: and why not just give out keys signed by an offline key?
178 2012-12-12 02:46:44 <roconnor> just to clairify the problem?
179 2012-12-12 02:46:52 <etotheipi_> roconnor: I don't want to have to generate and sign a bajillion individual keys... it kind of defeats the purpose of having deterministic wallets
180 2012-12-12 02:47:34 <gavinandresen> You could pre-sign a bajillion chained-key PaymentRequests. disk space is cheap. Wallet is still deterministic....
181 2012-12-12 02:47:35 <etotheipi_> agreed though.... I'm sure any business could sign enough keys that they'd never run out...
182 2012-12-12 02:49:28 <etotheipi_> you could fill half a hard-drive on the server with pre-signed keys
183 2012-12-12 02:50:22 <roconnor> my idea would be to have the signing key for invoices on an "optio-isolated" computer :d
184 2012-12-12 02:50:55 <roconnor> wait that doesn't work at all
185 2012-12-12 02:50:57 <roconnor> nevermind
186 2012-12-12 02:51:03 <gmaxwell> yea, the motivation for determinism is reduced there. So if you did that you'd just have a cert-chain flag for 'must have seperately signed payment key'
187 2012-12-12 02:51:14 <gmaxwell> roconnor: bi directional optoisolated. :P
188 2012-12-12 02:51:36 EPiSKiNG- has joined
189 2012-12-12 02:51:53 <gmaxwell> roconnor: well, it's not entirely crazy to have a signing server which is only exposed to the webserver and has a very small attack surface area. 'sends and recieves invoices via rs232, nothing more'
190 2012-12-12 02:52:35 <etotheipi_> but I like the HW idea -- it generates the signatures AND fills in payment addresses without the ability to download it from the device
191 2012-12-12 02:52:40 <gavinandresen> yes, that would be an easier-to-program version of the smart hardware token
192 2012-12-12 02:53:28 <roconnor> what would fellow traveller say?
193 2012-12-12 02:53:39 <gavinandresen> "use open transactions" ?
194 2012-12-12 02:54:15 <roconnor> what happens when an open transactoin server is compromised?
195 2012-12-12 02:54:49 <doublec> people rejoice that someone worked out how to use it?
196 2012-12-12 02:56:36 Guest53981 has quit (Changing host)
197 2012-12-12 02:56:36 Guest53981 has joined
198 2012-12-12 02:56:39 Guest53981 is now known as jgarzik
199 2012-12-12 02:56:54 <jgarzik> sipa: nick reg doesn't happen automatically
200 2012-12-12 02:57:06 <jgarzik> sipa: so I lose it every time my local net bounces
201 2012-12-12 03:04:26 <gmaxwell> hahaha
202 2012-12-12 03:04:29 <gmaxwell> (at doublec)
203 2012-12-12 03:05:12 <etotheipi_> if only it was as easy to create and prototype hardware devices as it is to do with SW algorithms...
204 2012-12-12 03:05:36 <etotheipi_> unfortunately, I'm HW-retarded
205 2012-12-12 03:08:32 <etotheipi_> my fiance complains about how much time I spend developing... I tell her "at least, I'm not *also* spending thousands of dollars buying hardware to try out my crazy ideas"
206 2012-12-12 03:17:30 D34TH has quit (Quit: Leaving)
207 2012-12-12 03:19:54 pingdrive has quit (Quit: Leaving)
208 2012-12-12 03:20:19 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
209 2012-12-12 03:20:25 <roconnor> I don't understand how harware is helping here.
210 2012-12-12 03:22:25 <etotheipi_> roconnor: if the HW device has both the signing keys AND the address chain... and the HW device is responsible for adding addresses to invoices before signing them
211 2012-12-12 03:28:19 pacpac has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
212 2012-12-12 03:29:11 <roconnor> oh I see, the attacker can just get the system to sign arbitrary invoices ... to you
213 2012-12-12 03:29:35 <roconnor> my optio-isolated computer would be a reasonable cheap alternative to tamperproof hardware.
214 2012-12-12 03:31:12 <roconnor> deterministic wallets would still be useful for backup purposes
215 2012-12-12 03:32:04 pacpac has joined
216 2012-12-12 03:34:03 wizkid057 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
217 2012-12-12 03:34:23 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
218 2012-12-12 03:36:11 MC-Eeepc has quit (Quit: Leaving)
219 2012-12-12 03:39:30 <etotheipi_> roconnor: of course, I'd still prefer a crypto solution that allows for offline keys to sign the chain, so users aren't restricted to proprietary HW solutions, even if it can only prevent address altering
220 2012-12-12 03:40:26 <etotheipi_> (i.e. the invoice might be alterable, but the address is guaranteed to belong to the intended recipient, so the attacker might be able to cause an inconvenience, but not steal the funds)
221 2012-12-12 03:40:56 <roconnor> etotheipi_: the deterministic keys let you produce a stream of public-keys without access to the private key, right?
222 2012-12-12 03:42:42 <roconnor> etotheipi_: maybe you can remind me or link to how these address chains work
223 2012-12-12 03:43:26 <roconnor> maybe we can make a stream of addresses and signatures.
224 2012-12-12 03:43:27 owowo has quit (Quit: sayonara)
225 2012-12-12 03:45:31 fiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
226 2012-12-12 03:46:08 xorgate has quit (Quit: Take it easy)
227 2012-12-12 03:47:56 fiesh has joined
228 2012-12-12 03:52:05 xorgate has joined
229 2012-12-12 03:55:36 xorgate has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
230 2012-12-12 03:55:52 Jamesz has joined
231 2012-12-12 03:56:52 xorgate has joined
232 2012-12-12 03:57:31 Jamesz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
233 2012-12-12 03:57:39 <jgarzik> doublec: chuckle ;p
234 2012-12-12 03:57:58 Jamesz has joined
235 2012-12-12 04:12:36 Azelphur has quit (Excess Flood)
236 2012-12-12 04:13:35 <etotheipi_> roconnor: sorry, got distracted
237 2012-12-12 04:14:56 <etotheipi_> roconnor: the deterministic wallet is using the equality that private key is a (large integer), public key is a*G (G is generator point), thus if you can generate a deterministic sequence (preferably "non-linear") of chaincodes, you just make PrivKey[i+1] = ChainCode[i]*PrivKey[i]
238 2012-12-12 04:15:23 <etotheipi_> and thus also PubKey[i+1] = ChainCode[i]*PubKey[i]
239 2012-12-12 04:15:42 <roconnor> right
240 2012-12-12 04:15:44 <roconnor> good
241 2012-12-12 04:16:07 <etotheipi_> but that's only how the addresses are created... signatures are quite a bit more complicated in ECDSA
242 2012-12-12 04:16:12 <etotheipi_> (as I'm sure you know)
243 2012-12-12 04:16:17 <roconnor> so it might be able to use ECC to "sign" these PubKeys in a similar chainCode way?
244 2012-12-12 04:16:26 <etotheipi_> roconnor: that's what I'm hoping
245 2012-12-12 04:16:37 Azelphur has joined
246 2012-12-12 04:17:04 <etotheipi_> that there's a way to "sign" the root public key in such a way that the signature is preserved or verifiable in the child keys
247 2012-12-12 04:17:46 <etotheipi_> unfortunatley, ECDSA signing is not as simple as RSA/GPG signing
248 2012-12-12 04:18:03 <roconnor> etotheipi_: though, perhaps all you need to do is sing PubKey[0] and then a user can verify that (i,PubKey[i]) is derived from that pubkey.
249 2012-12-12 04:18:07 <roconnor> *sign
250 2012-12-12 04:18:27 <etotheipi_> roconnor: yes, except you don't want to give each of your customers your entire business transaction history
251 2012-12-12 04:18:57 <roconnor> don't they have it already if they have PubKey[i]?
252 2012-12-12 04:19:08 <etotheipi_> no, they need the non-public chaincode, too
253 2012-12-12 04:19:17 <roconnor> or is ChainCode[i] a secret?
254 2012-12-12 04:19:27 <roconnor> ah
255 2012-12-12 04:19:32 <etotheipi_> the chaincode doesn't have to be protected like the private keys.... it's only a breach of privacy, not security
256 2012-12-12 04:19:42 <roconnor> right
257 2012-12-12 04:19:50 <roconnor> well I need to go to sleep;
258 2012-12-12 04:19:53 <roconnor> interesting puzzel
259 2012-12-12 04:19:54 <etotheipi_> but you still prefer to keep it hidden
260 2012-12-12 04:19:59 <etotheipi_> I knew you'd like it :)
261 2012-12-12 04:20:00 <roconnor> understood
262 2012-12-12 04:20:22 <etotheipi_> I'll probably break out some ECDSA on my whiteboard at work tomorrow :)
263 2012-12-12 04:20:29 <roconnor> :)
264 2012-12-12 04:20:35 roconnor has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
265 2012-12-12 04:28:49 sebicas has joined
266 2012-12-12 04:33:11 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
267 2012-12-12 04:33:22 [7] has joined
268 2012-12-12 04:35:50 phma has joined
269 2012-12-12 04:40:07 sebicas has left ()
270 2012-12-12 04:44:21 TwilightSparklee has joined
271 2012-12-12 04:55:19 TwilightSparklee has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi)
272 2012-12-12 04:57:32 vampireb has joined
273 2012-12-12 04:58:16 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
274 2012-12-12 05:00:37 skeledrew has joined
275 2012-12-12 05:01:13 paybitcoin1 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
276 2012-12-12 05:09:58 nus- has joined
277 2012-12-12 05:10:17 nus-- has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
278 2012-12-12 05:11:25 d4de_ has joined
279 2012-12-12 05:12:15 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
280 2012-12-12 05:19:27 vampireb has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
281 2012-12-12 05:19:55 sebicas has joined
282 2012-12-12 05:27:55 pacpac has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
283 2012-12-12 05:28:46 antix has joined
284 2012-12-12 05:44:43 dparrish has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
285 2012-12-12 05:45:20 paraipan has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
286 2012-12-12 05:49:11 paybitcoin has joined
287 2012-12-12 05:54:46 freakazoid has joined
288 2012-12-12 05:58:36 EasyAt has quit (Changing host)
289 2012-12-12 05:58:36 EasyAt has joined
290 2012-12-12 06:01:49 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
291 2012-12-12 06:14:36 sgornick has joined
292 2012-12-12 06:17:16 random_cat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
293 2012-12-12 06:19:00 random_cat has joined
294 2012-12-12 06:29:35 Arnavion has joined
295 2012-12-12 06:32:39 one_zero has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
296 2012-12-12 06:33:01 one_zero has joined
297 2012-12-12 06:33:09 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
298 2012-12-12 06:34:21 dparrish has joined
299 2012-12-12 06:34:24 MrTiggr has joined
300 2012-12-12 06:34:25 MrTiggr has quit (Excess Flood)
301 2012-12-12 06:34:54 MrTiggr has joined
302 2012-12-12 06:34:54 MrTiggr has quit (Excess Flood)
303 2012-12-12 06:35:25 MrTiggr has joined
304 2012-12-12 06:35:26 MrTiggr has quit (Excess Flood)
305 2012-12-12 06:35:56 MrTiggr has joined
306 2012-12-12 06:35:57 MrTiggr has quit (Excess Flood)
307 2012-12-12 06:36:25 MrTiggr has joined
308 2012-12-12 06:36:26 MrTiggr has quit (Excess Flood)
309 2012-12-12 06:36:54 <helo> what if satoshi had started four blockchains, and ran them in parallel?
310 2012-12-12 06:36:55 MrTiggr has joined
311 2012-12-12 06:36:56 MrTiggr has quit (Excess Flood)
312 2012-12-12 06:38:01 <helo> quadruplets?
313 2012-12-12 06:38:46 <Diablo-D3> helo: wouldnt work
314 2012-12-12 06:38:55 <Diablo-D3> you'd just end up with four different currencies
315 2012-12-12 06:38:55 Jamesz has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
316 2012-12-12 06:40:05 <helo> right
317 2012-12-12 06:40:15 RazielZ has joined
318 2012-12-12 06:42:05 <helo> they would all be able to have some kind of value, and be traded amongst themselves
319 2012-12-12 06:43:31 <helo> but how would the overall market cap compare? would the prices find equilibrium?
320 2012-12-12 06:47:56 <jgarzik> network effect
321 2012-12-12 06:48:09 <jgarzik> there is greater value in one to rule them all
322 2012-12-12 06:50:34 tonikt has joined
323 2012-12-12 06:53:11 <vazakl> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20629671
324 2012-12-12 06:53:39 DMCommit has joined
325 2012-12-12 06:53:39 <DMCommit> [DiabloMiner] Diablo-D3 pushed 1 new commit to master: http://git.io/0ug0dA
326 2012-12-12 06:53:39 <DMCommit> DiabloMiner/master 4ba4b4a Patrick McFarland: Change CL_INVALID_GLOBAL_OFFSET test to output error not debug
327 2012-12-12 06:53:39 DMCommit has left ()
328 2012-12-12 06:53:53 <Luke-Jr> why is DMCommit here?
329 2012-12-12 06:55:40 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
330 2012-12-12 06:59:25 MrTiggr has joined
331 2012-12-12 06:59:26 MrTiggr has quit (Excess Flood)
332 2012-12-12 06:59:55 MrTiggr has joined
333 2012-12-12 06:59:56 MrTiggr has quit (Excess Flood)
334 2012-12-12 07:01:25 tonikt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
335 2012-12-12 07:01:55 MrTiggr has joined
336 2012-12-12 07:01:57 MrTiggr has quit (Excess Flood)
337 2012-12-12 07:02:25 MrTiggr has joined
338 2012-12-12 07:02:26 MrTiggr has quit (Excess Flood)
339 2012-12-12 07:02:55 MrTiggr has joined
340 2012-12-12 07:02:56 MrTiggr has quit (Excess Flood)
341 2012-12-12 07:03:25 MrTiggr has joined
342 2012-12-12 07:03:27 MrTiggr has quit (Excess Flood)
343 2012-12-12 07:03:55 MrTiggr has joined
344 2012-12-12 07:04:01 MrTiggr has quit (Excess Flood)
345 2012-12-12 07:04:25 MrTiggr has joined
346 2012-12-12 07:04:33 MrTiggr has quit (Excess Flood)
347 2012-12-12 07:20:38 sebicas has left ()
348 2012-12-12 07:27:02 DBordello has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
349 2012-12-12 07:32:34 DBordello has joined
350 2012-12-12 07:33:52 davout has joined
351 2012-12-12 07:33:52 davout has quit (Changing host)
352 2012-12-12 07:33:52 davout has joined
353 2012-12-12 07:34:11 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
354 2012-12-12 07:38:16 paybitcoin has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
355 2012-12-12 07:41:07 BlackPrapor has joined
356 2012-12-12 07:41:50 paybitcoin has joined
357 2012-12-12 07:42:23 ovidiusoft has joined
358 2012-12-12 07:46:19 egecko has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
359 2012-12-12 07:46:38 _W_ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
360 2012-12-12 07:48:29 ciphermonk has joined
361 2012-12-12 07:50:04 nus-- has joined
362 2012-12-12 07:50:16 nus- has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
363 2012-12-12 07:58:18 EPiSKiNG- has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
364 2012-12-12 07:59:57 MrTiggr has joined
365 2012-12-12 07:59:58 MrTiggr has quit (Excess Flood)
366 2012-12-12 08:01:45 EPiSKiNG- has joined
367 2012-12-12 08:06:13 libcoin has joined
368 2012-12-12 08:07:07 Arnavion has quit (Quit: Arnavion)
369 2012-12-12 08:15:22 BlackPrapor has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
370 2012-12-12 08:19:33 <abrkn> hmm, can someone explain this http://blockchain.info/tx-index/36201774/274f8be3b7b9b1a220285f5f71f61e2691dd04df9d69bb02a8b3b85f91fb1857
371 2012-12-12 08:23:20 BlackPrapor has joined
372 2012-12-12 08:24:45 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
373 2012-12-12 08:29:36 eian1 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
374 2012-12-12 08:31:18 mredmond has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
375 2012-12-12 08:32:22 CodesInChaos has joined
376 2012-12-12 08:32:25 <sturles> https://blockchain.info/wallet/escrow
377 2012-12-12 08:45:55 mmoya has joined
378 2012-12-12 08:59:46 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
379 2012-12-12 09:01:26 MrTiggr has joined
380 2012-12-12 09:01:27 MrTiggr has quit (Excess Flood)
381 2012-12-12 09:02:56 MrTiggr has joined
382 2012-12-12 09:02:57 MrTiggr has quit (Excess Flood)
383 2012-12-12 09:03:26 MrTiggr has joined
384 2012-12-12 09:03:27 MrTiggr has quit (Excess Flood)
385 2012-12-12 09:05:21 <hasha> lol, thats still going on
386 2012-12-12 09:05:48 <hasha> must be a slow night
387 2012-12-12 09:06:13 <phantomcircuit> hmm, can someone explain this http://blockchain.info/tx-index/36201774/274f8be3b7b9b1a220285f5f71f61e2691dd04df9d69bb02a8b3b85f91fb1857
388 2012-12-12 09:14:58 Arnavion has joined
389 2012-12-12 09:24:49 davout has joined
390 2012-12-12 09:24:49 davout has quit (Changing host)
391 2012-12-12 09:24:49 davout has joined
392 2012-12-12 09:25:21 <Jouke> 09:18 < sturles> https://blockchain.info/wallet/escrow
393 2012-12-12 09:25:21 <Jouke> 09:18 < sturles> https://blockchain.info/wallet/escrow
394 2012-12-12 09:25:26 <Jouke> oops
395 2012-12-12 09:36:25 one_zero has quit ()
396 2012-12-12 09:38:31 t7 has joined
397 2012-12-12 09:41:15 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
398 2012-12-12 09:42:30 <kinlo> phantomcircuit: that's basicly p2sh no?
399 2012-12-12 09:43:07 <kinlo> hmmz, no, p2sh is related but something else
400 2012-12-12 09:46:26 <sipa> phantomcircuit: 1-of-2 multisig
401 2012-12-12 09:46:52 <sipa> the second pubkey is invalid but was never tested
402 2012-12-12 09:47:55 gjs278 has joined
403 2012-12-12 09:48:39 MC1984 has joined
404 2012-12-12 09:51:39 synapse has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
405 2012-12-12 09:51:58 synapse has joined
406 2012-12-12 09:52:22 synapse is now known as Guest34595
407 2012-12-12 09:52:44 j58wej6hdssd has joined
408 2012-12-12 09:53:29 <j58wej6hdssd> what is the bitcoin-0.7.1-linux.tar.gz md5 and why are there no hashes advertised on bitcoin.org?
409 2012-12-12 09:55:50 mologie_ has joined
410 2012-12-12 09:55:54 <sipa> here they are: http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.7.1/
411 2012-12-12 09:56:01 <sipa> if you click through to the sf download page
412 2012-12-12 09:56:16 <j58wej6hdssd> hm, so both the binaries and the sums are hosted on the same site
413 2012-12-12 09:56:45 <sipa> they're signed by gavin's GPG key, though
414 2012-12-12 09:56:51 <j58wej6hdssd> alright, thanks
415 2012-12-12 09:57:12 <sipa> (not thet you have any reason to trust his key, but ...)
416 2012-12-12 09:57:54 <j58wej6hdssd> well you're right it's more credible
417 2012-12-12 09:58:59 mologie has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
418 2012-12-12 09:59:03 mologie_ is now known as mologie
419 2012-12-12 10:04:21 drizztbsd has joined
420 2012-12-12 10:05:25 ciphermonk has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
421 2012-12-12 10:08:22 j58wej6hdssd has quit (Quit: leaving)
422 2012-12-12 10:11:59 kiceek has joined
423 2012-12-12 10:14:49 <sipa> if you click through to the sf download page/usr/bin/i686-w64-mingw32-ld: cannot find -lc
424 2012-12-12 10:14:59 <sipa> any idea how to disable trying to link to libc explicitly?
425 2012-12-12 10:15:07 <sipa> eh
426 2012-12-12 10:15:24 <sipa> i *wanted* to say
427 2012-12-12 10:15:58 <sipa> BlueMatt: building of qrencode on i686-w64-mingw32 fails
428 2012-12-12 10:16:03 <sipa> /usr/bin/i686-w64-mingw32-ld: cannot find -lc
429 2012-12-12 10:16:15 <sipa> BlueMatt: any ideas?
430 2012-12-12 10:25:31 ciphermonk has joined
431 2012-12-12 10:29:27 Norph has joined
432 2012-12-12 10:35:33 Arnavion has quit (Quit: Arnavion)
433 2012-12-12 10:37:09 <Diablo-D3> sipa: lolwat?
434 2012-12-12 10:37:37 <sipa> i suppose mingw doesn't have an explicit libc
435 2012-12-12 10:37:53 <sipa> as it links against some funky windows/msvc libraries instead
436 2012-12-12 10:38:37 <sipa> the configure script seems to have some logic to disable -lc on mingw builds, but perhaps is confused by our cross-compiling setup
437 2012-12-12 10:40:46 BTCOxygen has joined
438 2012-12-12 10:46:47 Arnavion has joined
439 2012-12-12 10:47:39 da2ce794 has joined
440 2012-12-12 10:48:41 JDuke128 has joined
441 2012-12-12 10:55:30 da2ce794 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
442 2012-12-12 10:58:02 <Diablo-D3> TODAY IS 12/12/12, THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH
443 2012-12-12 10:59:31 Norph_ has joined
444 2012-12-12 11:01:54 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
445 2012-12-12 11:01:58 Norph has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
446 2012-12-12 11:03:45 B0g4r7 has joined
447 2012-12-12 11:07:40 Nesetalis has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
448 2012-12-12 11:07:49 Nesetalis has joined
449 2012-12-12 11:07:55 Nesetalis has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
450 2012-12-12 11:08:12 Nesetalis has joined
451 2012-12-12 11:10:39 denisx has joined
452 2012-12-12 11:12:39 Norph_ is now known as Norph
453 2012-12-12 11:15:07 nus- has joined
454 2012-12-12 11:15:49 sta has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
455 2012-12-12 11:15:54 sta1 has joined
456 2012-12-12 11:18:10 nus-- has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
457 2012-12-12 11:19:54 nus- has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
458 2012-12-12 11:19:55 nus has joined
459 2012-12-12 11:24:38 Jamesz has joined
460 2012-12-12 11:27:42 m0mchil has quit (Quit: Leaving)
461 2012-12-12 11:34:08 _Garr255_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
462 2012-12-12 11:49:35 Norph_ has joined
463 2012-12-12 11:52:40 Norph has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
464 2012-12-12 11:58:34 Norph_ is now known as Norph
465 2012-12-12 11:58:56 sta1 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
466 2012-12-12 11:59:06 Zarutian has joined
467 2012-12-12 11:59:09 sta has joined
468 2012-12-12 12:00:05 t7_ has joined
469 2012-12-12 12:01:18 Norph_ has joined
470 2012-12-12 12:02:18 t7 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
471 2012-12-12 12:02:23 t7_ is now known as t7
472 2012-12-12 12:04:22 Norph has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
473 2012-12-12 12:07:19 Norph_ is now known as Norph
474 2012-12-12 12:10:25 graingert_ecs has joined
475 2012-12-12 12:12:00 loltu has quit (Excess Flood)
476 2012-12-12 12:13:48 loltu has joined
477 2012-12-12 12:16:40 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
478 2012-12-12 12:27:16 Azelphur has quit (Excess Flood)
479 2012-12-12 12:30:38 Azelphur has joined
480 2012-12-12 12:39:50 Jamesz has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
481 2012-12-12 12:41:13 Internet13 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
482 2012-12-12 12:42:20 Arnavion has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
483 2012-12-12 12:42:40 Arnavion has joined
484 2012-12-12 12:44:43 Internet13 has joined
485 2012-12-12 12:48:22 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
486 2012-12-12 12:48:26 JDuke128 has quit (Quit: ["Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com"])
487 2012-12-12 12:50:56 Internet13 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
488 2012-12-12 12:53:07 harkon has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
489 2012-12-12 12:54:50 mologie_ has joined
490 2012-12-12 12:56:31 Internet13 has joined
491 2012-12-12 12:57:38 mologie has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
492 2012-12-12 12:57:38 mologie_ is now known as mologie
493 2012-12-12 13:02:23 Internet13 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
494 2012-12-12 13:02:52 t7 has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.89-rdmsoft [XULRunner 1.9.0.17/2009122204])
495 2012-12-12 13:05:40 <jine> Does anyone know (except theymos) if blockexplorer.com/testnet is running on testnet3 or the original one? MagicalTux?
496 2012-12-12 13:06:36 <sipa> testnet3
497 2012-12-12 13:06:37 <sipa> afaik
498 2012-12-12 13:14:35 <jine> Nope, seems like it is testnet (1)... testnet3 has a blockheight of 39717, blkexplorer only has 33665 + the date is 2 mo ago.. :(
499 2012-12-12 13:15:13 <sipa> oh, really :o
500 2012-12-12 13:18:46 <gmaxwell> jine: no, it's just wedged or something.
501 2012-12-12 13:18:47 <jine> Oh wait, i think you're correct. It's the same genesis block in my chain as it is on blkexplorer
502 2012-12-12 13:19:03 <jine> gmaxwell: Yeah
503 2012-12-12 13:19:31 d4de_ has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
504 2012-12-12 13:20:11 d4de_ has joined
505 2012-12-12 13:21:28 DMCommit has joined
506 2012-12-12 13:21:28 <DMCommit> [DiabloMiner] Diablo-D3 pushed 1 new commit to master: http://git.io/NDKQCw
507 2012-12-12 13:21:28 <DMCommit> DiabloMiner/master e24b626 Patrick McFarland: Improve INVALID_GLOBAL_OFFSET test, add atomic to GPU workSize
508 2012-12-12 13:21:28 DMCommit has left ()
509 2012-12-12 13:26:22 <sipa> gmaxwell: which blocks have the unit-tests-in-testnet?
510 2012-12-12 13:26:32 <sipa> should be able to check those easily
511 2012-12-12 13:29:15 daybyter has joined
512 2012-12-12 13:29:25 Lolcust has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
513 2012-12-12 13:31:54 BTCOxygen has joined
514 2012-12-12 13:33:27 edcba has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
515 2012-12-12 13:36:46 slush has joined
516 2012-12-12 13:52:43 sta1 has joined
517 2012-12-12 13:52:43 sta has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
518 2012-12-12 13:56:33 <ThomasV> http://blockchain.info/charts/total-bitcoins <-- looks broken
519 2012-12-12 14:00:22 paraipan has joined
520 2012-12-12 14:01:07 pacpac has joined
521 2012-12-12 14:02:01 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
522 2012-12-12 14:04:41 m0mchil has joined
523 2012-12-12 14:04:41 m0mchil has quit (Changing host)
524 2012-12-12 14:04:41 m0mchil has joined
525 2012-12-12 14:09:57 ciphermonk has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
526 2012-12-12 14:10:44 pacpac has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
527 2012-12-12 14:16:31 Hasimir has quit (Quit: Vidi, Vici, Veni.)
528 2012-12-12 14:17:40 egecko has joined
529 2012-12-12 14:19:13 Lolcust has joined
530 2012-12-12 14:30:01 da2ce7_d has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
531 2012-12-12 14:30:32 Lolcust has quit (Quit: Nap time)
532 2012-12-12 14:35:34 Silverion has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
533 2012-12-12 14:38:36 epscy has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
534 2012-12-12 14:41:15 dvide has quit ()
535 2012-12-12 14:41:22 erska has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
536 2012-12-12 14:41:44 Lolcust has joined
537 2012-12-12 14:42:36 erska has joined
538 2012-12-12 14:44:32 da2ce7 has joined
539 2012-12-12 14:45:18 rdponticelli has joined
540 2012-12-12 14:45:58 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
541 2012-12-12 14:47:58 sta1 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
542 2012-12-12 14:48:10 sta has joined
543 2012-12-12 14:52:57 PiZZaMaN2K has joined
544 2012-12-12 14:53:16 mmoya has joined
545 2012-12-12 14:54:11 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
546 2012-12-12 14:56:22 devrandom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
547 2012-12-12 14:57:11 devrandom has joined
548 2012-12-12 14:57:19 TD has joined
549 2012-12-12 15:01:16 libcoin has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
550 2012-12-12 15:01:24 PiZZaMaN2K has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
551 2012-12-12 15:02:38 Rebroad has joined
552 2012-12-12 15:03:08 <TD> hello
553 2012-12-12 15:04:49 <Rebroad> any idea why I'm getting "keypool reserve 21" and "keypool return 21" every 5 seconds in my debug.log ?
554 2012-12-12 15:04:52 <m0mchil> hi Mike
555 2012-12-12 15:04:52 BillDev_ has joined
556 2012-12-12 15:05:25 <sipa> Rebroad: you're mining, or doing some other RPC frequently?
557 2012-12-12 15:05:48 <sipa> m0mchil: reminds me that i haven't answered your mail - sorry
558 2012-12-12 15:06:18 <m0mchil> sipa: no problem, it's rubbish I guess :)
559 2012-12-12 15:06:25 <Rebroad> sipa, not that I'm aware of
560 2012-12-12 15:06:28 <BillDev_> noob dev here, trying to get bitcoin source to build in eclipse juno on ubuntu 11.10. is there a cook book somewhere that will help?
561 2012-12-12 15:06:57 <sipa> m0mchil: it's certainly not conventional :)
562 2012-12-12 15:07:18 <Rebroad> sipa, the line "ThreadRPCServer method=getinfo" does preceed each instance though..
563 2012-12-12 15:07:19 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
564 2012-12-12 15:07:42 ciphermonk has joined
565 2012-12-12 15:08:01 <sipa> Rebroad: so you're calling getinfo frequently, and as that tries producing a block (afaik), it temporarily needs access to a key from the keypool
566 2012-12-12 15:08:36 <sipa> Rebroad: btw, have you seen https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/2034 ?
567 2012-12-12 15:08:41 <Rebroad> sipa, what's causing the getinfo to be called? is it something connecting to the rpc server?
568 2012-12-12 15:09:03 <sipa> i don't know your computer!
569 2012-12-12 15:09:40 <sipa> something is sending the getinfo RPC to your bitcoind
570 2012-12-12 15:11:04 TD has joined
571 2012-12-12 15:16:24 Diapolo has joined
572 2012-12-12 15:19:53 Diapolo has left ()
573 2012-12-12 15:26:21 zakkkman has joined
574 2012-12-12 15:30:34 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
575 2012-12-12 15:40:10 ciphermonk has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
576 2012-12-12 15:40:51 vigilyn has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
577 2012-12-12 15:41:34 Silverion has joined
578 2012-12-12 15:43:44 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
579 2012-12-12 15:45:32 zakkkman has quit (Quit: zakkkman)
580 2012-12-12 15:46:14 EPiSKiNG- has quit ()
581 2012-12-12 15:49:26 roconnor has joined
582 2012-12-12 15:49:37 <roconnor> etotheipi_: hey, I had an idea.
583 2012-12-12 15:51:18 da2ce7 has joined
584 2012-12-12 15:52:06 ciphermonk has joined
585 2012-12-12 15:52:42 emryss has joined
586 2012-12-12 15:53:27 andrew12 has quit (Quit: It works!)
587 2012-12-12 15:55:53 Silverion has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
588 2012-12-12 15:59:53 slush1 has joined
589 2012-12-12 16:13:39 DMCommit has joined
590 2012-12-12 16:13:39 <DMCommit> [DiabloMiner] Diablo-D3 pushed 1 new commit to master: http://git.io/hDgb6A
591 2012-12-12 16:13:40 <DMCommit> DiabloMiner/master 3d39a10 Patrick McFarland: Forgot to initalize atomic workSize
592 2012-12-12 16:13:40 DMCommit has left ()
593 2012-12-12 16:14:19 gavinandresen has joined
594 2012-12-12 16:18:06 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: please don't encourage grau in thinking that template proposals are a _replacement_ for writing a correct and complete implementation of the network rules. :-/
595 2012-12-12 16:19:20 andrew12 has joined
596 2012-12-12 16:20:55 toffoo has joined
597 2012-12-12 16:22:16 m0mchil has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
598 2012-12-12 16:26:53 m0mchil has joined
599 2012-12-12 16:26:53 m0mchil has quit (Changing host)
600 2012-12-12 16:26:53 m0mchil has joined
601 2012-12-12 16:27:47 agricocb has joined
602 2012-12-12 16:28:12 <helo> sipa: is there anywhere to read about atomic bitcoin exchange?
603 2012-12-12 16:30:52 emryss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
604 2012-12-12 16:31:59 da2ce7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
605 2012-12-12 16:32:11 ciphermonk has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
606 2012-12-12 16:36:57 <helo> bufferbox using colored coin for pickup authentication would be pretty neat
607 2012-12-12 16:39:03 <gavinandresen> helo: "atomic bitcoin exchange" : do you mean across blockchains? https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts#Example_5:_Trading_across_chains
608 2012-12-12 16:39:15 epscy has joined
609 2012-12-12 16:39:57 <helo> maybe i misunderstood when i heard of it originally, but i was thinking "exchanging monetary bitcoin for a colored bitcoin in one transaction"
610 2012-12-12 16:40:18 <sipa> helo: why do you expect me to know about that? :)
611 2012-12-12 16:40:50 <helo> so the seller receiving payment would ensure that the buyer owned the colored bitcoin
612 2012-12-12 16:41:26 <helo> sipa: i thought it was you that said something like "blah i think i figured out how to get atomic transactions to work"
613 2012-12-12 16:42:02 Norph has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
614 2012-12-12 16:42:16 <sipa> for colored coins sure... they're always atomic
615 2012-12-12 16:42:24 <sipa> as it's within the same chain
616 2012-12-12 16:43:57 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
617 2012-12-12 16:44:43 <jgarzik> helo: within the same chain, "Atomic coin swapping" https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112007.0
618 2012-12-12 16:44:50 <helo> yes, that
619 2012-12-12 16:52:55 owowo has joined
620 2012-12-12 16:53:51 <TD> gavinandresen: good morning
621 2012-12-12 16:53:56 <TD> how are things going ?
622 2012-12-12 16:54:47 <gavinandresen> good
623 2012-12-12 16:55:11 sebicas has joined
624 2012-12-12 16:55:12 <TD> is the payment protocol progressing?
625 2012-12-12 16:55:28 <gavinandresen> TD: yes, server-side code is on github: https://github.com/gavinandresen/paymentrequest
626 2012-12-12 16:55:47 <gavinandresen> it's generalized/reworked version of your prototype code
627 2012-12-12 16:55:54 <TD> nice
628 2012-12-12 16:56:01 <gavinandresen> And there is a pretty long TODO list to get it all done
629 2012-12-12 16:56:16 <gavinandresen> ... but at least every step is pretty straightforward
630 2012-12-12 16:56:51 <gavinandresen> I'm planning on switching gears and helping get the 0.8 changes reviewed/tested/etc, though
631 2012-12-12 16:57:12 <TD> oh yes that reminds me, my prototype code doesn't do anything special for EV certs
632 2012-12-12 16:57:21 <TD> i don't know what structure they have. I'd have that CN=Human Friendly Name
633 2012-12-12 16:57:25 <TD> but don't actually know for sure
634 2012-12-12 16:57:30 <TD> s/have/hope/
635 2012-12-12 16:57:40 <TD> yeah getting 0.8 out would be good
636 2012-12-12 16:57:53 <TD> BlueMatt: think bloom filters can make it or are things a bit swamped
637 2012-12-12 16:58:05 <gavinandresen> and getting 0.7.2 out... what's the gribble command for number-of-blocks?
638 2012-12-12 16:58:18 andrew12 has quit (Quit: It works!)
639 2012-12-12 16:59:14 <helo> ;;blocks
640 2012-12-12 16:59:14 <gribble> 211948
641 2012-12-12 17:02:22 <gavinandresen> Somebody's giving away a free bitcoin to whoever claims it first: http://blockchain.info/tx-index/36310989/cdb553214a51ef8d4393b96a185ebbbc2c84b7014e9497fea8aec1ff990dae35
642 2012-12-12 17:03:34 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: /me looks at build system... bleh. Maybe I can convert paymentrequest to autotools :)
643 2012-12-12 17:03:40 <jgarzik> it's small enough
644 2012-12-12 17:03:49 <gavinandresen> ok. patches welcome.
645 2012-12-12 17:04:26 <gavinandresen> (existing build system I adopted from protocol buffers)
646 2012-12-12 17:04:44 <TD> autotools have a way of making small things big
647 2012-12-12 17:05:02 <TD> given that the relevant programs are single files :)
648 2012-12-12 17:05:13 <TD> oh ok, util.cpp too
649 2012-12-12 17:05:29 <TD> i'm surprised boost doesn't have command line parsing
650 2012-12-12 17:05:37 <gavinandresen> I'm not using boost
651 2012-12-12 17:05:48 <gavinandresen> (on purpose, that's the dependency that seems to trip lots of people up)
652 2012-12-12 17:05:51 <TD> ok
653 2012-12-12 17:06:38 <sipa> i have a branch with a 1.7 leveldb and native windows env port, by the way
654 2012-12-12 17:06:52 <TD> oh, cool. from where?
655 2012-12-12 17:07:23 <sipa> followed a link from someone mentioning it on the leveldb mailinglist
656 2012-12-12 17:07:52 <sipa> i'm not sure how trustable it is, though
657 2012-12-12 17:07:55 ThomasV has joined
658 2012-12-12 17:08:34 <sipa> branch is here: https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commits/leveldb17 and the code comes from https://github.com/chirino/leveldb
659 2012-12-12 17:08:47 unknown45682 has joined
660 2012-12-12 17:08:57 <sipa> the hard part is migrating gitian to a more recent ubuntu
661 2012-12-12 17:08:59 unknown45682 has quit (Client Quit)
662 2012-12-12 17:09:14 graingert_ecs has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
663 2012-12-12 17:09:17 unknown45682 has joined
664 2012-12-12 17:10:19 <sipa> gavinandresen: you're ok with (potentially) migrating to a precise VM for doing the windows builds?
665 2012-12-12 17:10:48 andrew12 has joined
666 2012-12-12 17:10:50 <gavinandresen> sipa: sure. The only reason to use an old VM for builds is compatibilty with old versions of Linux, and that obviously doesn't matter for WIndows
667 2012-12-12 17:11:12 <sipa> indeed; precise has a 4.6.3 GCC for mingw with more recent headers
668 2012-12-12 17:11:16 libcoin has joined
669 2012-12-12 17:11:23 <sipa> so we can even use things like -flto in builds
670 2012-12-12 17:11:35 <gavinandresen> is precise the latest and greatest?
671 2012-12-12 17:12:02 <sipa> no, but upgrading further shouldn't be a problem, and more recent ubuntu's don't have a more recent mingw gcc
672 2012-12-12 17:12:17 <gavinandresen> if we're going to upgrade, why not upgrade to latest&greatest?
673 2012-12-12 17:12:20 <sipa> anyway, first making it produce a build in the first place - yesterday i was stuck on building qrencode
674 2012-12-12 17:12:42 <sipa> i expect problems creating a quantal image when you're one precise yourself
675 2012-12-12 17:12:56 <gavinandresen> ok. precise is the long-term-support release?
676 2012-12-12 17:13:10 <sipa> yes
677 2012-12-12 17:13:21 <gavinandresen> cool, then that's a good reason to use it.
678 2012-12-12 17:13:32 <TD> gavinandresen: the server side code could also provide an extern "C" api so it's easily exposed via PHP plugins and the like
679 2012-12-12 17:13:58 <sipa> the problem is just because it means switching to mingw-w64 (confusingly enough, that suite also has a 32-bit cross compiler), not switching ubuntu releases
680 2012-12-12 17:14:00 <gavinandresen> TD: good idea.
681 2012-12-12 17:14:21 <sipa> at least i got the native windows leveldb to compile using that
682 2012-12-12 17:14:48 <TD> but did you actually test it on a windows machine :)
683 2012-12-12 17:14:55 <gavinandresen> TD: I imagine the server-side code will get re-implemented a dozen or so times, in python and php and as a loadable apache module and.....
684 2012-12-12 17:15:39 <sipa> TD: no, because i can't build bitcoind using that set yet
685 2012-12-12 17:15:58 <TD> gavinandresen: yeah, maybe. the code isn't quite so straightforward but sure could be
686 2012-12-12 17:16:01 * TD -> meeting
687 2012-12-12 17:16:06 <sipa> so first make it build, then i'll try running it
688 2012-12-12 17:18:36 BurtyB has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
689 2012-12-12 17:21:36 kiceek has quit (Quit: Leaving)
690 2012-12-12 17:22:21 libcoin has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
691 2012-12-12 17:25:19 JDuke128 has joined
692 2012-12-12 17:31:04 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
693 2012-12-12 17:34:20 rdymac has joined
694 2012-12-12 17:34:24 <sipa> wow, gavin merging spree :p
695 2012-12-12 17:34:34 <gavinandresen> wheeeee
696 2012-12-12 17:34:44 Joric has joined
697 2012-12-12 17:35:26 zeks2 has joined
698 2012-12-12 17:38:50 tonikt has joined
699 2012-12-12 17:42:25 <sipa> gavinandresen: hmmm regarding the locking clang stuff, i think the author agreed to take jgarzik's suggestion into account first
700 2012-12-12 17:42:44 <sipa> can be done afterwards, of course
701 2012-12-12 17:42:53 <gavinandresen> yep
702 2012-12-12 17:47:10 Diapolo has joined
703 2012-12-12 17:47:49 <Diapolo> Gavin, what happened :D. You seem in a rush ^^.
704 2012-12-12 17:48:10 <sipa> no, this is his normal work speed; he was just paused :p
705 2012-12-12 17:48:18 <gavinandresen> I'm done for now.
706 2012-12-12 17:49:54 <gavinandresen> I'm going to pull sipa's parallel transaction-checking code and then re-sync the entire chain on my Mac, so I pulled anything safe/trivial first.
707 2012-12-12 17:50:01 <Diapolo> It's a good thing to merge that little pulls!
708 2012-12-12 17:50:48 <sipa> gavinandresen: benchmark results on OSX would be interesting
709 2012-12-12 17:51:24 <sipa> gavinandresen: the fastest way to re-run block validation is now starting with a fully-up-to-date datadir, deleting the coins/ dir, and restarting the client
710 2012-12-12 17:51:25 <gavinandresen> sipa: what benchmarks would be most interesting?
711 2012-12-12 17:51:41 <sipa> that just rebuilds the coindb and undo data
712 2012-12-12 17:52:00 <sipa> difference between -par=1 and -par=N is interesting
713 2012-12-12 17:52:15 <sipa> CPU/memory usage during validation
714 2012-12-12 17:53:13 <gavinandresen> sipa: ok, I'll build a -O3 binary for benchmarking
715 2012-12-12 17:58:07 <sipa> -flto may also help, if you're on a recent GCC
716 2012-12-12 17:59:55 <sipa> (4.6+)
717 2012-12-12 18:00:03 <Diapolo> What does that switch?
718 2012-12-12 18:00:10 <gavinandresen> sipa: I've got an up-to-date-with-0.7.2 datadir (so blk*.dat, not blocks/ ) ... I need to -loadblock first?
719 2012-12-12 18:00:45 <sipa> gavinandresen: yes, or move the blk files to their new location, and -reindex
720 2012-12-12 18:01:38 <sipa> Diapolo: it means the .o files (produced per C++ source file) contain the intermediate representation internal to the compiler, and not fully-compiled assembly code (well, actually both)
721 2012-12-12 18:01:57 <sipa> Diapolo: and when linking the .o files together, the final optimization and compilation step happens
722 2012-12-12 18:02:07 <sipa> so for example it can do inlining across modules
723 2012-12-12 18:02:25 <sipa> as if the entire program was one .cpp file
724 2012-12-12 18:02:28 <gavinandresen> sipa: I'll benchmark with the ancient compiler I've been using first.
725 2012-12-12 18:02:29 <Diapolo> sipa: so in the it the binary will run faster or compiles faster?
726 2012-12-12 18:02:40 <Diapolo> it = end ^^
727 2012-12-12 18:02:45 <sipa> Diapolo: compiles slower, runs faster (and is typically smaller)
728 2012-12-12 18:02:54 <Diapolo> thanks, will try that one too
729 2012-12-12 18:02:56 <sipa> but the linking step becomes many time slower
730 2012-12-12 18:03:16 <Diapolo> so -O3 does not enable this?
731 2012-12-12 18:03:20 <sipa> no, it can't
732 2012-12-12 18:03:32 <sipa> as it needs changes both at compile time and at link time
733 2012-12-12 18:04:09 <sipa> it can work multi-threaded by the way, -flto=N with N the number of threads
734 2012-12-12 18:04:24 <Diapolo> so is't a CXXFLAG and LFLAG right?
735 2012-12-12 18:04:38 <sipa> CXXFLAGS and LDFLAGS, indeed
736 2012-12-12 18:04:48 <sipa> though i think CXXFLAGS are passed to the linker anyway as well
737 2012-12-12 18:05:52 <Diapolo> thanks sipa
738 2012-12-12 18:07:16 <Rebroad> I notice that armory provides offline wallets.. but it seems to make it more complicated than I'd have thought it needs to be.... surely it should be possible to define an offline wallet by just a list of public addresses, no?
739 2012-12-12 18:09:02 <jgarzik> somehow, my single core CPU mining on mainnet has not produced any blocks yet!
740 2012-12-12 18:09:39 <jgarzik> CreateNewBlock(): total size 249482
741 2012-12-12 18:09:39 <jgarzik> CTxMemPool::accept() : accepted 36d784b01d (poolsz 2052)
742 2012-12-12 18:09:39 <jgarzik> Running BitcoinMiner with 728 transactions in block (248705 bytes)
743 2012-12-12 18:09:56 * jgarzik thinks that he should not be relaying junk unlikely to make it into my own blocks
744 2012-12-12 18:10:50 vigilyn has joined
745 2012-12-12 18:10:51 vigilyn has quit (Changing host)
746 2012-12-12 18:10:51 vigilyn has joined
747 2012-12-12 18:10:52 JDuke128 has quit (Quit: ["Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com"])
748 2012-12-12 18:10:56 <gavinandresen> sipa: I tried the move blk*.dat to blocks/ method... after two false starts I figured it out (extra zero in the filenames, and first file is 00000.dat )
749 2012-12-12 18:13:16 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: a size limit (maybe 2x the maximum block size) on the memory pool and evicting transactions based on the priority they'd be accepted into blocks sounds like a good idea to me
750 2012-12-12 18:14:11 <TD> the other thing that can be potentially useful is profile guided optimization
751 2012-12-12 18:14:27 <jgarzik> poolsz is just a measure of junk we kept and relayed. Would be nicer to simply -not- reply junk ;p
752 2012-12-12 18:14:32 <TD> ie, you compile in a special mode, sync the chain/stay on the network for a while, quit, use the generated data files to recompile
753 2012-12-12 18:14:35 <TD> output should be faster
754 2012-12-12 18:15:00 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: sure, but until you see a bunch of transactions fly by your node won't have an idea of what is junk and what isn't.
755 2012-12-12 18:15:48 <gavinandresen> TD: I'd rather we spent time on headers-first download than getting another 2% faster optimization in
756 2012-12-12 18:16:21 <TD> yeah, sure, it was just a note
757 2012-12-12 18:17:15 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: in other words, I think the right model is: accept/relay almost anything until your memory pool fills up, then start dropping the lowest-quality transactions (where quality is "what would I put in my blocks if I was a miner")
758 2012-12-12 18:17:34 Guest34595 is now known as synapse
759 2012-12-12 18:18:01 <TD> i'd actually like to see the memory pool become another leveldb rather than strictly have to be in memory all the time
760 2012-12-12 18:18:09 <TD> but that heuristic is a decent start, i guess
761 2012-12-12 18:18:32 freakazoid has joined
762 2012-12-12 18:18:55 <gavinandresen> TD: we still need to resolve non-final transactions in the memory pool, too. I still think they don't belong there.
763 2012-12-12 18:19:39 <TD> it's pretty fundamental to how they work
764 2012-12-12 18:20:05 <TD> maybe we should start calling it the pending pool? calling it the memory pool just needlessly confines our thinking
765 2012-12-12 18:20:27 <gavinandresen> I don't agree. If you're using non-final transactions for contracts/etc, then the parties involved in the transaction can hold them until they're final. No reason for the entire network to keep them.
766 2012-12-12 18:20:28 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
767 2012-12-12 18:20:56 <TD> some of the contracts, in particular for micropayments, don't work that way
768 2012-12-12 18:21:09 <TD> the reason for the lock time feature is HFT (which i tend to call micropayment channels, but HFT is a more general idea)
769 2012-12-12 18:21:21 <TD> consider that i want to buy bandwidth off you, or any metered service
770 2012-12-12 18:21:38 <TD> we start swapping new versions of transactions that spend a multisig output. we can do that at high speed, it's a sig generate/verify
771 2012-12-12 18:21:49 <gavinandresen> sure...
772 2012-12-12 18:21:59 <TD> but if i can broadcast the first version of the tx (the one that assigned all value back to me) even after many new versions were signed, it doesn't work
773 2012-12-12 18:22:08 zeks2 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
774 2012-12-12 18:22:22 <gavinandresen> if the network rejects non-final transactions then you can't broadcast it.
775 2012-12-12 18:22:24 <TD> the lock time is there to ensure that if i try and rip you off like that, you can observe what i've done and present the network with the latest version
776 2012-12-12 18:23:49 <TD> then i'm still screwed
777 2012-12-12 18:23:59 PiZZaMaN2K has joined
778 2012-12-12 18:23:59 <TD> you just wait until the first version of the transaction finalizes and broadcast it
779 2012-12-12 18:24:05 <TD> it's a race and whoever is first wins
780 2012-12-12 18:24:20 <TD> the only way this is safe, is if there's an agreed window of time in which the latest version can be presented to the network
781 2012-12-12 18:24:26 <TD> which is why satoshi designed it that way
782 2012-12-12 18:24:33 <gavinandresen> So march the locktime backwards from some point in the future....
783 2012-12-12 18:24:34 <TD> there's no reason locktimed transactions have to be problematic
784 2012-12-12 18:25:35 <gavinandresen> If there are two versions of a transaction, both final, then there's no way to guarantee which one is accepted anyway, no matter what the sequence number rules are (a rogue miner can do whatever they like)
785 2012-12-12 18:26:58 <TD> nothing in bitcoin is guaranteed, it's only about probabilities.
786 2012-12-12 18:27:17 <TD> in theory, it can't work because botnets will double spend on you all the time. in practice it does work.
787 2012-12-12 18:27:44 <TD> locktime being marched backwards means doing it a block at a time. that means that the faster you want to negotiate (the finer the micropayments) the longer the time window has to be
788 2012-12-12 18:27:46 <gavinandresen> Agreed, but I think if one transaction becomes final 10 seconds before another, then that 10-second head start will win 99.9% of the races
789 2012-12-12 18:28:11 <TD> what is the exact concern with the original formulation? just disk consumption?
790 2012-12-12 18:28:13 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
791 2012-12-12 18:28:25 denisx has joined
792 2012-12-12 18:28:42 <gavinandresen> I don't like that the rules are complicated. And yes, I'm worried about DoS attacks
793 2012-12-12 18:28:46 <TD> bear in mind, i don't even think the memory pool is capped today.
794 2012-12-12 18:29:17 <TD> the rules aren't really that complicated. they let you establish a user-defined window of time in which the best version of a tx can be presented. in the standard case, you don't ever have to actually do a mempool replacement
795 2012-12-12 18:29:19 <gavinandresen> yes, and we have some ugly constants to workaround that
796 2012-12-12 18:29:22 <TD> it's the option of doing so that keeps people honest
797 2012-12-12 18:29:57 <TD> if anyone was to re-activate tx replacement, they'd do some extra anti-dos work anyway
798 2012-12-12 18:30:33 <jgarzik> indeed, the memory pool is not capped at all, presently
799 2012-12-12 18:30:54 <jgarzik> I've proposed ejecting transactions that do not make it into a block, with lifetime X - 144
800 2012-12-12 18:30:57 <TD> i think we could probably use some heuristics like this:
801 2012-12-12 18:30:59 <gavinandresen> I don't like the economics of nSequence replacement-- you're asking the network to perform a service for you, but you have no incentive to be efficient
802 2012-12-12 18:31:01 <jgarzik> (where X is the current block received)
803 2012-12-12 18:31:08 <jgarzik> thus, you have the network _prove_ the transaction is useless
804 2012-12-12 18:31:11 <jgarzik> and evict based on that
805 2012-12-12 18:31:12 kreal has joined
806 2012-12-12 18:31:16 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
807 2012-12-12 18:31:18 <jgarzik> er, X + 144
808 2012-12-12 18:31:21 <TD> - for the first 120 seconds after you receive a timelocked transaction, keep it in the mempool at the same priority as other transactions
809 2012-12-12 18:31:29 <jgarzik> or X + (144 * N_days)
810 2012-12-12 18:31:34 <TD> - after 120 seconds, drop the priority. if the node runs out of resources, it can be discarded at this point
811 2012-12-12 18:32:05 <TD> that gives participants in HFT protocols plenty of time to spot a cheating attempt and cancel it out, but it means you can't fill up the mempool arbitrarily by just sending coins timelocked far in the future
812 2012-12-12 18:32:27 <TD> gavinandresen: where's the inefficiency?
813 2012-12-12 18:32:48 * TD thinks it's quite an elegant design actually, remarkable how satoshi thought it through so far in advance
814 2012-12-12 18:33:39 <TD> together lock times and sequence numbers are a very simple mechanism (hardly a screenful of code) that make a lot of things possible
815 2012-12-12 18:34:02 <gavinandresen> TD: I don't like arbitrary heuristics like "drop after X seconds" or our current "smells like spam if it has less than 0.0001BTC/kb fee"
816 2012-12-12 18:34:17 <TD> sure
817 2012-12-12 18:34:28 <TD> for 120 seconds we can replace it with a function of the nodes resources
818 2012-12-12 18:34:41 <TD> these issues can be resolved if and when somebody sits down to do the work of implementing micropayment channels/HFT
819 2012-12-12 18:34:43 <gavinandresen> So I'd rather the replacement rule was "drop transactions that aren't going to make a profit for me if I put them ina block"
820 2012-12-12 18:35:02 <gavinandresen> ... which means a transaction with a lockTime ten days from now and no fee is definitely a loser.
821 2012-12-12 18:35:17 <gavinandresen> ... nine days from now, or a higher fee, and that's more of a winner...
822 2012-12-12 18:35:20 <TD> it'd only be a loser if the nodes run out of resources and need to throw something out.
823 2012-12-12 18:35:42 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
824 2012-12-12 18:35:54 <TD> as hardware gets cheaper over time the cost of keeping little bits of data around will fall and the time it takes for transactions to be discarded goes up
825 2012-12-12 18:36:01 <TD> anyway, it's not relevant now
826 2012-12-12 18:36:04 <TD> we have bigger issues to solve
827 2012-12-12 18:36:17 copumpkin has joined
828 2012-12-12 18:40:04 user4815 has joined
829 2012-12-12 18:40:25 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: of course they aren't. I don't see how that's even possible.
830 2012-12-12 18:41:37 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
831 2012-12-12 18:42:04 gjs278 has joined
832 2012-12-12 18:43:23 drizztbsd has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
833 2012-12-12 18:47:30 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
834 2012-12-12 18:47:37 Joric has quit ()
835 2012-12-12 18:47:54 user4815 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
836 2012-12-12 18:54:19 Diapolo has left ()
837 2012-12-12 18:59:42 <phantomcircuit> i had a dream last night about an ssd
838 2012-12-12 18:59:46 <phantomcircuit> i need to get out more
839 2012-12-12 19:00:21 <phantomcircuit> in other news 0.7.1 saturates mirrored volumes
840 2012-12-12 19:00:28 <phantomcircuit> so is io bound
841 2012-12-12 19:06:37 nus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
842 2012-12-12 19:09:10 nus has joined
843 2012-12-12 19:09:12 tonikt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
844 2012-12-12 19:09:36 <sipa> gmaxwell: btw, seems around 10-20% (very rough yes, didn't measure accurately) of script verification is not spent in ECDSA verification
845 2012-12-12 19:09:39 <sipa> which seems a lot
846 2012-12-12 19:09:48 <sipa> s/yes/guess/
847 2012-12-12 19:18:44 PiZZaMaN2K is now known as PiZZaMaN2K|away
848 2012-12-12 19:21:46 Azelphur has quit (Excess Flood)
849 2012-12-12 19:23:04 D34TH has joined
850 2012-12-12 19:23:04 D34TH has quit (Changing host)
851 2012-12-12 19:23:04 D34TH has joined
852 2012-12-12 19:23:08 Azelphur has joined
853 2012-12-12 19:23:49 _W_ has joined
854 2012-12-12 19:31:58 <amiller> phantomcircuit, was the ssd hot
855 2012-12-12 19:32:28 <phantomcircuit> amiller, yes i was working it out reaaaly well
856 2012-12-12 19:33:03 libcoin has joined
857 2012-12-12 19:36:18 nus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
858 2012-12-12 19:36:23 nus- has joined
859 2012-12-12 19:45:53 <Diablo-D3> GOG.com is giving out DRM free Duke Nukem 3D for free: http://j.mp/DukeNukem3Dfree
860 2012-12-12 19:47:13 ThomasV has joined
861 2012-12-12 19:47:58 davout has joined
862 2012-12-12 19:48:51 <sipa> gavinandresen: moving block files won't work in cooperation with the delete-/coins-trick, as that just rebuilds coins/ to match the state of the block index
863 2012-12-12 19:49:02 <sipa> gavinandresen: but moving files + -reindex should work
864 2012-12-12 19:49:36 <gavinandresen> took 1.5 hours to -reindex after moving/renaming the blk files
865 2012-12-12 19:49:44 nus- is now known as nus
866 2012-12-12 19:49:59 <gavinandresen> I'm benchmarking a run after deleting coins/ now
867 2012-12-12 19:50:39 <sipa> with the parallellism active?
868 2012-12-12 19:50:50 <gavinandresen> yes, default parallelism (4 threads on this machine)
869 2012-12-12 19:51:12 <gavinandresen> I assume that doesn't kick in until after the last checkpoint?
870 2012-12-12 19:51:16 <sipa> indeed
871 2012-12-12 19:51:29 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
872 2012-12-12 19:54:02 abrkn has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
873 2012-12-12 20:00:06 TD has joined
874 2012-12-12 20:07:00 <TD> BlueMatt: did i somehow unmerge your comparison tool?
875 2012-12-12 20:10:10 <TD> hmm
876 2012-12-12 20:19:08 PiZZaMaN2K is now known as away!~PiZZaMaN2@unaffiliated/pizzaman2k|PiZZaMaN2K
877 2012-12-12 20:19:08 PiZZaMaN2K has quit (Quit: Linkinus - http://linkinus.com)
878 2012-12-12 20:24:47 skeledrew has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
879 2012-12-12 20:24:54 skeledrew has joined
880 2012-12-12 20:25:54 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
881 2012-12-12 20:26:51 <BlueMatt> sipa: yea, the w64 stuff is kinda a misnomer, its just new version (which happens to have 64-bit support)
882 2012-12-12 20:27:58 <BlueMatt> sipa: yea, to change the compiler (by default, I think you can override it?) you have to edit the file which was placed at compile-time
883 2012-12-12 20:29:10 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: what is the canonical link for your happy block tester, that TD loves to trumpet?
884 2012-12-12 20:29:15 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: whats the merge window like for 0.8? I can probably get bloom filters cleaned up by the end of the day friday if it means they can get pulled for 0.8?
885 2012-12-12 20:29:24 <TD> jgarzik: http://code.google.com/r/bluemattme-bitcoinj/source/detail?r=9a38bc965a2559f4f873a3337b815cc34a19f05b&name=fullverif
886 2012-12-12 20:29:35 <TD> i say on that page i merged it, but now i can't find it in the master branch
887 2012-12-12 20:29:39 <TD> so i guess i need to merge it again
888 2012-12-12 20:29:40 <BlueMatt> no, newverif, not fullverif
889 2012-12-12 20:29:50 <jgarzik> It requires Java? hrm.
890 2012-12-12 20:30:01 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: yes, its bitcoinj based
891 2012-12-12 20:30:20 <TD> oh sorry
892 2012-12-12 20:30:24 <BlueMatt> TD: yea, I was wondering where that went
893 2012-12-12 20:30:47 * jgarzik was hoping it could be integrated into the bitcoin/bitcoin.git tree
894 2012-12-12 20:30:53 <TD> BlueMatt: do you have more stuff you want me to merge?
895 2012-12-12 20:30:56 <jgarzik> maybe I can translate into C++ or JSON
896 2012-12-12 20:30:58 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: that should work
897 2012-12-12 20:31:12 <TD> jgarzik: it could be. i don't think there's any requirement that stuff in the bitcoin.git tree be only in C++
898 2012-12-12 20:31:21 <TD> otherwise just use the version from our repo
899 2012-12-12 20:31:32 <jgarzik> TD: realistically, it should be integrated with test_bitcoin for maximal impact
900 2012-12-12 20:31:40 <jgarzik> TD: doing that with Java is simply a high hurdle
901 2012-12-12 20:31:41 <TD> well, it works by comparing two different impls
902 2012-12-12 20:32:23 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: not really, though I wouldnt mind a link to https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/test-scripts (which are the scripts run by jenkins/pull-tester)
903 2012-12-12 20:32:33 <jgarzik> TD: so, C++ in bitcoin.git is not a _theoretical_ requirement, but yes it is a realistic and practical requirement
904 2012-12-12 20:32:44 <BlueMatt> TD: not until bloom filters and I get a chance to finalize my db structure changes for upgrade
905 2012-12-12 20:32:49 <TD> ok
906 2012-12-12 20:32:50 <jgarzik> we have Python in contrib/
907 2012-12-12 20:32:54 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: alright, Ill have it by then as much as possible then
908 2012-12-12 20:33:02 <jgarzik> no worries. I can probably translate into C++
909 2012-12-12 20:33:26 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: I seriously doubt 0.8-rc1 will appear in < 7 days
910 2012-12-12 20:33:37 <TD> i don't think grabbing a jvm is a particularly high bar, but alright, if you want to do that go ahead
911 2012-12-12 20:33:42 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: eventually the goal is to just get the chain it creates mined and put it in test_bitcoin
912 2012-12-12 20:33:51 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: for now using it as a java app is just a stop-gap until that happens
913 2012-12-12 20:33:51 <TD> you could rely on gcj, i think
914 2012-12-12 20:33:55 <TD> not tested with that for a while
915 2012-12-12 20:34:17 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: yea, though Ive been out of the loop for a while...
916 2012-12-12 20:34:38 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: I would prefer a series of test data in serialized binary form
917 2012-12-12 20:34:47 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: easier to copy those, than procedural code
918 2012-12-12 20:35:25 <sipa> it's much harder to do the big stuff using just a data-driven unit test
919 2012-12-12 20:35:32 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: agreed
920 2012-12-12 20:35:43 <sipa> things like sending some blocks and checking whether you switched to the right block
921 2012-12-12 20:35:57 <sipa> ok, should still be doable actually now i think about it
922 2012-12-12 20:36:27 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: the goal is to have the chain that thing generates to be just one more file in test/data/
923 2012-12-12 20:36:27 <BlueMatt> otoh, doing a full-featured test which tests that a client is sane on the p2p network would also be nice
924 2012-12-12 20:36:28 <jgarzik> sipa: most of the low level block chain tests should be doable
925 2012-12-12 20:36:46 <jgarzik> I agree there is higher level everything-ties-together state that makes testing some conditions difficult
926 2012-12-12 20:37:00 <sipa> BlueMatt: please do!
927 2012-12-12 20:37:10 <jgarzik> +1
928 2012-12-12 20:37:40 <jgarzik> an external testing client, a la ApacheBench (/usr/bin/ab) would be useful
929 2012-12-12 20:38:02 <jgarzik> You both standardize on a starting block, such as testnet3 block height 600,
930 2012-12-12 20:38:09 <jgarzik> then execute the test client
931 2012-12-12 20:38:19 <BlueMatt> sipa: we'll see how much time I have, but I may start to throw some of those tests in the bitcoinj test tool thing
932 2012-12-12 20:38:47 <jgarzik> or start at whatever testnet3-in-a-box starts at
933 2012-12-12 20:39:05 <BlueMatt> yep, would be nice
934 2012-12-12 20:39:22 <BlueMatt> esp testing that the testee properly relays blocks to other connections when it receives them, etc
935 2012-12-12 20:39:49 <sipa> well, that's far less of a requirement than block/tx validity
936 2012-12-12 20:39:58 <sipa> but sure, should be tested too
937 2012-12-12 20:41:21 <jgarzik> sipa: given the current protocol does not provide acknowledgements, that might be one useful way of detect tx/block rejection
938 2012-12-12 20:41:24 <BlueMatt> well, yes, test that blocks/txn are verified properly, etc is obv included, but the fact that those are relayed further properly and all that is nice
939 2012-12-12 20:41:45 <jgarzik> P2P never says "rejected" or "accepted"
940 2012-12-12 20:41:52 <jgarzik> just silence, or more silence ;p
941 2012-12-12 20:42:05 <BlueMatt> it currently just asks for blocks each time to see if it was accepted
942 2012-12-12 20:42:33 <jgarzik> does that detect side chain additions?
943 2012-12-12 20:42:43 <jgarzik> I don't think we can detect that by any method
944 2012-12-12 20:42:44 <BlueMatt> no?
945 2012-12-12 20:42:47 <BlueMatt> yea
946 2012-12-12 20:43:10 <TD> reconnect and check the height in the ver message
947 2012-12-12 20:43:28 D34TH has quit (Quit: Leaving)
948 2012-12-12 20:44:04 <jgarzik> To be specific: many valid tests include adding blocks to a weaker chain. it would be nice to confirm that addition each step of the way, rather than only at the point (if ever) when said weak chain becomes the best chain.
949 2012-12-12 20:44:54 <jgarzik> so to confirm the storage of each individual weak chain block
950 2012-12-12 20:48:13 BlackPrapor has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
951 2012-12-12 20:48:16 <sipa> BlueMatt: lol, deps build on precise failed with this error:
952 2012-12-12 20:48:18 <sipa> bash: line 59: killall: command not found
953 2012-12-12 20:48:19 <sipa> bash: line 59: killall: command not found
954 2012-12-12 20:48:33 <BlueMatt> no killall?
955 2012-12-12 20:48:40 <sipa> so it would seem!
956 2012-12-12 20:48:54 * sipa adds psmisc
957 2012-12-12 20:49:08 <BlueMatt> (its trying to killall wine something which are left around after running wine so it finishes)
958 2012-12-12 20:49:14 BlackPrapor has joined
959 2012-12-12 20:49:20 <sipa> indeed
960 2012-12-12 20:59:15 terraforma has joined
961 2012-12-12 20:59:28 <terraforma> has anyone here tested bitcoin-qt on Xubuntu 12.10 ??
962 2012-12-12 21:00:29 <terraforma> I'm having a strange issue with the icon. Just wondering if anyone else is experiencing the same.
963 2012-12-12 21:00:47 <slush1> terraforma: I'm running it on 12.04 and I have such issues as well
964 2012-12-12 21:01:44 <terraforma> interesting, any idea if its a bug with bitcoin, or XFCE, or GNOME or something?
965 2012-12-12 21:01:50 <terraforma> lol
966 2012-12-12 21:02:36 <slush1> um, I'm running Xubuntu, but with gnome3 now, a bit unusual configuration :-)
967 2012-12-12 21:02:46 <slush1> I think they changed some API recently, Skype had similar issues.
968 2012-12-12 21:03:24 <terraforma> hmm, that's weird. I hope they work it out soon. Its pretty annoying.
969 2012-12-12 21:03:31 <terraforma> Thanks for validating
970 2012-12-12 21:03:54 terraforma has left ("Leaving")
971 2012-12-12 21:04:35 <slush1> I think that "they" means somebody from bitcoin dev team :)
972 2012-12-12 21:06:50 <BlueMatt> TD: btw, how is my dnsseed doing in getting results back quicker
973 2012-12-12 21:06:50 <BlueMatt> (there is one thing Id like to try if its not)
974 2012-12-12 21:07:00 <TD> it's been fine lately
975 2012-12-12 21:07:12 <TD> i recently checked in some code to parallelise seed lookups
976 2012-12-12 21:07:37 <BlueMatt> TD: thats why I asked, I changed its setup so that it should be returning results really quick
977 2012-12-12 21:07:54 <TD> cool
978 2012-12-12 21:07:55 <BlueMatt> (its using a global set of dns servers now...)
979 2012-12-12 21:07:55 <TD> thanks for that
980 2012-12-12 21:08:38 <TD> btw i checked in a few fixes for chain splitting bugs
981 2012-12-12 21:08:43 <TD> found by FindBugs
982 2012-12-12 21:08:46 * TD loves that tool
983 2012-12-12 21:09:39 <BlueMatt> (I just wondered how mine was doing in comparison to jgarzik's because it doesnt have "glue" for the distributed ones so those may not really ever be getting used)
984 2012-12-12 21:09:52 <BlueMatt> (I can update that if its not working)
985 2012-12-12 21:10:51 * sipa crosses fingers for new precise build
986 2012-12-12 21:10:52 <gavinandresen> sipa: I just wrote some code (that I'm testing) to use old blkNNNN.dat files when people upgrade to 0.8
987 2012-12-12 21:11:25 <sipa> gavinandresen: to auto-migrate, or just to keep using the old file names?
988 2012-12-12 21:11:51 <sipa> luke also wrote some hacky migrate code alreadt for next-test
989 2012-12-12 21:11:55 <gavinandresen> I wrote it to hard-link blk0001.dat to blocks/blk00000.dat, and auto-reindex
990 2012-12-12 21:12:08 <sipa> ha
991 2012-12-12 21:12:20 <TD> hard links? on windows?
992 2012-12-12 21:12:30 <gavinandresen> yeah, yay boost!
993 2012-12-12 21:12:34 <TD> huh
994 2012-12-12 21:12:35 <TD> ok
995 2012-12-12 21:12:47 <sipa> TD: i don't think his code is supposed to work on windows :)
996 2012-12-12 21:12:48 <TD> i know NTFS has a feature like that. i guess it's safe to rely on NTFS for a long time
997 2012-12-12 21:12:55 topace has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
998 2012-12-12 21:13:10 <gavinandresen> I try to write cross-platform code, and usually succeed....
999 2012-12-12 21:13:25 <TD> heh
1000 2012-12-12 21:19:27 <TD> gavinandresen: could you add these lines to the top of paymentrequest.proto please?
1001 2012-12-12 21:19:41 <TD> package payments;
1002 2012-12-12 21:19:57 <TD> option java_package = "org.bitcoin.protocols.payments";
1003 2012-12-12 21:20:04 maaku has joined
1004 2012-12-12 21:20:09 <gavinandresen> TD: sure
1005 2012-12-12 21:20:37 <TD> just to namespace the generated classes nicely
1006 2012-12-12 21:20:51 <TD> the .proto file should maybe have comments in it too, from the spec
1007 2012-12-12 21:22:23 <TD> oh also
1008 2012-12-12 21:22:33 <TD> option java_outer_classname = "Protos";
1009 2012-12-12 21:22:40 <TD> otherwise it generates a file with an ugly name like Paymentrequest.java
1010 2012-12-12 21:22:45 <TD> (from the proto filename)
1011 2012-12-12 21:29:17 topace has joined
1012 2012-12-12 21:29:41 topace is now known as Guest52068
1013 2012-12-12 21:34:12 <BlueMatt> TD: minor typo in comment for PeerGroup constructor - the name of the option is connectionTimeoutMillis not oonnectionTimeoutMillis
1014 2012-12-12 21:34:52 <sipa> ha, deps build succeeded, but my script tried to copy the wrong file :D
1015 2012-12-12 21:34:54 <gavinandresen> TD: pushed payments changes
1016 2012-12-12 21:34:54 * sipa restarts
1017 2012-12-12 21:35:00 <TD> BlueMatt: i deleted the connectionTimeoutMillis param
1018 2012-12-12 21:35:04 <TD> BlueMatt: are you fully synced to head?
1019 2012-12-12 21:35:17 <BlueMatt> TD: I believe so
1020 2012-12-12 21:35:19 <TD> gavinandresen: thanks
1021 2012-12-12 21:35:45 <BlueMatt> (unless you just pushed something in the last hour)
1022 2012-12-12 21:36:08 <TD> oh i see it now
1023 2012-12-12 21:36:13 <TD> sorry, i thought you meant in the code
1024 2012-12-12 21:36:14 <TD> thanks
1025 2012-12-12 21:36:20 <BlueMatt> no, comment, no big deal
1026 2012-12-12 21:37:15 <TD> pushed fixed
1027 2012-12-12 21:37:22 <TD> fix pushed :)
1028 2012-12-12 21:40:26 BlackPrapor has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1029 2012-12-12 21:40:56 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1030 2012-12-12 21:41:51 devrandom has joined
1031 2012-12-12 21:48:33 BlackPrapor has joined
1032 2012-12-12 21:48:44 gasteve has joined
1033 2012-12-12 21:50:37 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1034 2012-12-12 21:52:51 slevin has joined
1035 2012-12-12 21:57:48 <slevin> do I ask questions here?
1036 2012-12-12 21:57:59 emryss has joined
1037 2012-12-12 21:58:25 <BlueMatt> TD: NullPointerException in PeerGroup:607 when using connectTo, dont really have time to debug atm, sorry...Ill debug later if you dont get around to it
1038 2012-12-12 21:58:56 <TD> hmm
1039 2012-12-12 21:59:00 <TD> i have a feeling it may be a race condition
1040 2012-12-12 21:59:11 <TD> that code is "not excellent" and is on my hitlist of things to rewrite
1041 2012-12-12 21:59:37 <TD> will look some other day though
1042 2012-12-12 21:59:44 <sipa> slevin: that depends entirely on yourself :p
1043 2012-12-12 22:00:16 <slevin> is it safe to ask questions here, lol
1044 2012-12-12 22:01:48 egecko has quit (Quit: ~ Trillian Astra - www.trillian.im ~)
1045 2012-12-12 22:02:35 <sipa> BlueMatt:
1046 2012-12-12 22:02:36 <sipa> /home/ubuntu/build/boost_1_50_0/stage/lib/libboost_thread_win32-mt-s.a(tss_pe.o):tss_pe.cpp:(.rdata$T+0x0): multiple definition of `__tls_used'
1047 2012-12-12 22:02:39 <sipa> /usr/lib/gcc/i686-w64-mingw32/4.6/../../../../i686-w64-mingw32/lib/../lib/libmingw32.a(lib32_libmingw32_a-tlssup.o):tlssup.c:(.tls+0x0): first defined here
1048 2012-12-12 22:02:46 <sipa> any ideas?
1049 2012-12-12 22:02:57 <BlueMatt> crap, Ive seen that...dont remember how to fix though...
1050 2012-12-12 22:03:41 malaimo has joined
1051 2012-12-12 22:04:07 skeledrew has joined
1052 2012-12-12 22:04:08 slevin has left ()
1053 2012-12-12 22:04:37 gasteve has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1054 2012-12-12 22:04:54 <BlueMatt> sipa: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4258 ?
1055 2012-12-12 22:05:19 <BlueMatt> I believe thats where Ive seen it before
1056 2012-12-12 22:09:02 <sipa> eww
1057 2012-12-12 22:09:57 <TD> gavinandresen: so - i have a series of bytes. it's a payment protocol request. do i parse it as SignedPaymentRequest or just PaymentRequest?
1058 2012-12-12 22:10:24 <TD> gavinandresen: we want signing to be optional, so, we need a simple and generic way to distinguish them
1059 2012-12-12 22:10:41 <sipa> i suppose you'd need a dummy signed payment request
1060 2012-12-12 22:10:48 <TD> gavinandresen: when the signature was embedded into the request, it was easy, just req.has_signature()
1061 2012-12-12 22:10:59 <TD> sipa: so a SignedPaymentRequest might not actually be signed?
1062 2012-12-12 22:11:09 <sipa> right - defeats the purpose i guess
1063 2012-12-12 22:11:44 <TD> it might still be the simplest way to go
1064 2012-12-12 22:11:59 <TD> pki_type = "none" and make the pki_data and signature members optional
1065 2012-12-12 22:12:04 <sipa> it'd rather be paymentrequest and unsignedpaymentrequest
1066 2012-12-12 22:12:06 <TD> or extract the PKI data into a separate message
1067 2012-12-12 22:12:18 <sipa> where the second is the payload of the first, and the first is optionally signed
1068 2012-12-12 22:12:29 <TD> it also doesn't make a ton of sense to have the payment request version in SignedPaymentRequest rather than PaymentRequest
1069 2012-12-12 22:12:42 <TD> perhaps what we want is this:
1070 2012-12-12 22:12:44 <TD> message PaymentRequestWrapper {
1071 2012-12-12 22:12:54 <TD> optional PKIData pki_data = 1;
1072 2012-12-12 22:13:02 <TD> required bytes payment_request_bytes = 2;
1073 2012-12-12 22:13:17 <TD> option int32 version = 3 [default=1];
1074 2012-12-12 22:13:19 <TD> }
1075 2012-12-12 22:13:26 <sipa> something like that, indeed
1076 2012-12-12 22:13:57 <sipa> BlueMatt: so... how to fix that? manually patching the boost source in the boost-win32 descriptor?
1077 2012-12-12 22:14:15 <BlueMatt> nfc...dont remember
1078 2012-12-12 22:14:24 <BlueMatt> try that and see if it fixes it?
1079 2012-12-12 22:14:35 <sipa> ha! or passing -D__MINGW64__ to the compiler
1080 2012-12-12 22:14:42 <BlueMatt> he
1081 2012-12-12 22:15:18 <sipa> because boost assumes mingw64 sets that define, but it doesn't
1082 2012-12-12 22:25:34 BlackPrapor has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.4 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
1083 2012-12-12 22:27:31 t7 has joined
1084 2012-12-12 22:30:21 Acciaio has joined
1085 2012-12-12 22:32:13 comboy has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1086 2012-12-12 22:32:21 comboy has joined
1087 2012-12-12 22:32:56 wereHamster has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1088 2012-12-12 22:33:40 wereHamster has joined
1089 2012-12-12 22:36:26 testnode9 has joined
1090 2012-12-12 22:37:14 rdymac has joined
1091 2012-12-12 22:37:16 slush1 has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1092 2012-12-12 22:37:45 flatfly has joined
1093 2012-12-12 22:39:08 <TD> srsly. java, you were doing so well
1094 2012-12-12 22:39:50 <sipa> BlueMatt: any reason not to upgrade to boost 1.52 for the windows build?
1095 2012-12-12 22:39:51 rdymac has quit (Client Quit)
1096 2012-12-12 22:40:02 D34TH has joined
1097 2012-12-12 22:40:02 D34TH has quit (Changing host)
1098 2012-12-12 22:40:02 D34TH has joined
1099 2012-12-12 22:40:38 <BlueMatt> sipa: I dont recall, there may have been an issue, maybe Diapolo or wumpus would remember?
1100 2012-12-12 22:41:18 <gavinandresen> TD: you should know whether the series of bytes you're getting is a PaymentRequest or a SignedPaymentRequest by whatever protocol is sending it to you. E.g. they'll have different MIME types...
1101 2012-12-12 22:41:50 * Zarutian notices that he is two dot versions late with his qt bitcoin client
1102 2012-12-12 22:41:56 <TD> gavinandresen: why force people to use out of band mechanisms (double the number of file registrations, etc). it seems like unnecessary work when a different message structure makes it all automatic
1103 2012-12-12 22:42:11 <gavinandresen> out-of-band? What band is sending you the requests?
1104 2012-12-12 22:42:21 <gavinandresen> If HTTP, then you've got the mime type in the header
1105 2012-12-12 22:42:30 <gavinandresen> If email, mime type in the attachment metadata
1106 2012-12-12 22:42:48 <gavinandresen> if some custom protocol... then yeah, you'll have some way of wrapping messages
1107 2012-12-12 22:49:01 <sipa> BlueMatt: i'll just try if that works first
1108 2012-12-12 22:49:35 <BlueMatt> sipa: it would be an issue somewhere weird...anyway, just make sure to ping them before pushing
1109 2012-12-12 22:51:04 D34TH has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1110 2012-12-12 22:52:29 <TD> gavinandresen: ok, sure, but why not just have a single protobuf that can parse any payment request and then just let people check a field to find out what it is?
1111 2012-12-12 22:52:49 <TD> i guess i don't see, why using some out of band system, is better than just having a super-type
1112 2012-12-12 22:52:56 * TD kicks java
1113 2012-12-12 22:53:08 <TD> how can sun have made this all so easy until the last line and then screwed things up so badly
1114 2012-12-12 22:53:10 <TD> unbelievable
1115 2012-12-12 22:53:33 <sipa> TD: what's the problem?
1116 2012-12-12 22:54:11 <TD> building cert chains, checking signatures, etc â¦. all pretty easy so far. until I want to break apart the X.509 "name" data to get the domain name for which the cert was issued
1117 2012-12-12 22:54:20 <gavinandresen> TD: mmm. feels like a religious argument between strong and weak typing. I don't really care, I'm just tired of tweaking the spec. All of the SignedPaymentRequest fields could be made optional, and pki_type could have a "none" setting....
1118 2012-12-12 22:54:22 <TD> it ONLY exposes the name data in the form of a string formatted according to some insanely complicated spec
1119 2012-12-12 22:54:44 <TD> gavinandresen: that also works for me, if the spec says that a payment request is always a SignedPaymentRequest object.
1120 2012-12-12 22:55:32 <gavinandresen> I'll sleep on it, too close to dinner to decide right now
1121 2012-12-12 22:56:20 D34TH has joined
1122 2012-12-12 22:56:20 D34TH has quit (Changing host)
1123 2012-12-12 22:56:20 D34TH has joined
1124 2012-12-12 22:56:37 flatfly has quit (Quit: Yo!)
1125 2012-12-12 22:56:41 <jgarzik> network news: somebody has been DDoS'ing SatoshiDICE
1126 2012-12-12 22:57:02 <jgarzik> this is not the first post, but it does provide some updates: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=80312.msg1396064#msg1396064 search around for earlier mentions.
1127 2012-12-12 22:57:51 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
1128 2012-12-12 22:58:21 <TD> not sure that's a DoS
1129 2012-12-12 22:58:25 <TD> seeing as they seem to be handling it fine
1130 2012-12-12 22:58:44 <jgarzik> there's the original post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=80312.msg1391013#msg1391013
1131 2012-12-12 22:58:56 <jgarzik> sure, handling it. it's still spamming the block chain, even if they are returning bets.
1132 2012-12-12 22:59:15 <TD> so ⦠not a dos
1133 2012-12-12 22:59:27 <TD> oh, ok
1134 2012-12-12 23:05:57 one_zero has joined
1135 2012-12-12 23:13:14 BCBot2 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1136 2012-12-12 23:13:28 BCBot2 has joined
1137 2012-12-12 23:13:32 BCBot2` has joined
1138 2012-12-12 23:13:50 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1139 2012-12-12 23:14:59 ovidiusoft has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1140 2012-12-12 23:17:15 <TD> PKIX is such a pain in the arse
1141 2012-12-12 23:18:36 <TD> lol, from the bouncy castle docs
1142 2012-12-12 23:18:38 <TD> "It turns out that the number of standard ways the fields in a DN should be encoded into their ASN.1 counterparts is rapidly approaching the number of machines on the internet. "
1143 2012-12-12 23:18:43 <TD> brilliant
1144 2012-12-12 23:20:17 Connected has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1145 2012-12-12 23:20:18 eipeace has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1146 2012-12-12 23:20:46 sebicas has left ()
1147 2012-12-12 23:22:27 t7 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1148 2012-12-12 23:22:32 meLon_ is now known as meLon
1149 2012-12-12 23:23:02 meLon has quit (Changing host)
1150 2012-12-12 23:23:02 meLon has joined
1151 2012-12-12 23:25:15 <sipa> BlueMatt: grr, now there's one new library (context) in boost which we don't need that doesn't build on mingw
1152 2012-12-12 23:25:34 <sipa> and ./bootstrap.sh --without-libraries=context still builds it
1153 2012-12-12 23:27:53 <sipa> ah, maybe i need to pass that to bjam too
1154 2012-12-12 23:28:57 MrTiggr has joined
1155 2012-12-12 23:33:13 denisx has joined
1156 2012-12-12 23:39:19 agricocb has joined
1157 2012-12-12 23:39:19 meLon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1158 2012-12-12 23:39:49 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1159 2012-12-12 23:40:59 vampireb has joined
1160 2012-12-12 23:52:45 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1161 2012-12-12 23:53:56 <sipa> \o/ build succeeded
1162 2012-12-12 23:57:12 <jgarzik> 12/12/12 23:41:33 ERROR: CTxMemPool::accept() : not enough fees 777c4027fac0fb71b9f67b6b724547c25d7f7271fc01eca4b87bf2bb4cca8482, 10000 < 50000
1163 2012-12-12 23:57:14 <jgarzik> 12/12/12 23:43:31 ERROR: CTxMemPool::accept() : not enough fees 777c4027fac0fb71b9f67b6b724547c25d7f7271fc01eca4b87bf2bb4cca8482, 10000 < 50000
1164 2012-12-12 23:57:36 <jgarzik> for TXs not relayed, I notice the same TX over and over
1165 2012-12-12 23:57:41 <jgarzik> seems like we need a negative cache
1166 2012-12-12 23:57:49 <jgarzik> if this problem ever scaled
1167 2012-12-12 23:58:05 <sipa> sounds good; we need a positive cache too :)
1168 2012-12-12 23:58:16 <jgarzik> a "TX seen" set
1169 2012-12-12 23:58:31 <jgarzik> surely the mempool is the positive cache
1170 2012-12-12 23:58:31 meLon has joined
1171 2012-12-12 23:58:36 <sipa> it's not
1172 2012-12-12 23:58:54 <sipa> the mempool doesn't contain things that were already accepted into to blockchain and entirely spent
1173 2012-12-12 23:59:09 <jgarzik> ah true
1174 2012-12-12 23:59:34 <gmaxwell> Odd.. I thought we had the negative cache problem (e.g. rerequestng non-standard txn), but when I checked my own nodes I didn't see any repeated fetches.
1175 2012-12-12 23:59:38 <sipa> and having a positive/negative cache allows you to skip tx validation (except for spentness of inputs) entirely