1 2013-01-11 00:12:00 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
2 2013-01-11 00:12:59 Pasha has joined
3 2013-01-11 00:13:24 Cory has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
4 2013-01-11 00:13:36 <sipa> 530 MB
5 2013-01-11 00:13:43 <sipa> very reasonable
6 2013-01-11 00:14:26 <sipa> probably caused 15 GB extra disk I/O, though...
7 2013-01-11 00:15:22 <Luke-Jr> I'd think it'd reduce disk I/O? O.o
8 2013-01-11 00:15:56 <sipa> ???
9 2013-01-11 00:16:21 <sipa> how can writing more to disk cause less I/O?
10 2013-01-11 00:18:04 Pasha is now known as Cory
11 2013-01-11 00:18:17 <Luke-Jr> wouldn't it just be omitting the deletion from the same utxo db?
12 2013-01-11 00:18:57 Guest31305 has joined
13 2013-01-11 00:18:59 <sipa> the utxo db is not a transaction index at all
14 2013-01-11 00:19:05 <sipa> it doesn't contain disk positions
15 2013-01-11 00:19:08 MC-Eeepc has joined
16 2013-01-11 00:19:25 <Luke-Jr> oh, hmm
17 2013-01-11 00:19:27 Doji has joined
18 2013-01-11 00:19:43 <sipa> it contains unspent transaction outputs :)
19 2013-01-11 00:24:51 <MC-Eeepc> Connect 454 transactions: 109.20ms (0.241ms/tx, 0.150ms/txin)
20 2013-01-11 00:24:54 Guest31305 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
21 2013-01-11 00:24:59 <MC-Eeepc> blk 196k ish
22 2013-01-11 00:25:06 <MC-Eeepc> is that good for the atom
23 2013-01-11 00:34:40 twixed has quit (Quit: Leaving)
24 2013-01-11 00:34:58 rdponticelli has joined
25 2013-01-11 00:36:41 dvide has joined
26 2013-01-11 00:41:55 bitafterbit has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
27 2013-01-11 00:44:50 <andytosh1> guys, if i want a random number between 1 and 4200, what is the appropriate way to use BN_rand?
28 2013-01-11 00:45:26 <andytosh1> just grab 13 bits of randomness and take it modulo 4200?
29 2013-01-11 00:48:26 <sipa> that will not give you uniform random data
30 2013-01-11 00:49:10 <andytosh1> yeah, i didn't think so
31 2013-01-11 00:49:41 <sipa> if you want it uniform, use 13 bits, and if it's >=4200, try with a new call to BN_rand
32 2013-01-11 00:50:14 <andytosh1> alright, thanks
33 2013-01-11 00:52:02 <sipa> also, if you only need 12.x bits, you probably don't need it to be of cryptographic strength
34 2013-01-11 00:52:07 <sipa> so use random() :)
35 2013-01-11 00:52:48 <andytosh1> well, i'm doing it 4 times in a row
36 2013-01-11 00:55:06 <andytosh1> oh :P there is a BN_rand_range function for this
37 2013-01-11 00:55:49 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
38 2013-01-11 00:55:52 Dzia has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
39 2013-01-11 00:58:25 MC-Eeepc has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
40 2013-01-11 01:01:33 MC-Eeepc has joined
41 2013-01-11 01:02:00 Internet13 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
42 2013-01-11 01:05:40 Internet13 has joined
43 2013-01-11 01:05:56 error3477 has joined
44 2013-01-11 01:06:02 error3477 has left ()
45 2013-01-11 01:09:15 pooler has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
46 2013-01-11 01:10:12 pooler has joined
47 2013-01-11 01:11:06 maaku has joined
48 2013-01-11 01:13:19 <Luke-Jr> sipa: wouldn't it work to divide his result by 2^13 as a double, then *4200?
49 2013-01-11 01:13:59 <Luke-Jr> hmm, maybe not
50 2013-01-11 01:14:08 <Luke-Jr> would need more bits for more precision
51 2013-01-11 01:15:22 EPiSKiNG- has joined
52 2013-01-11 01:16:57 andytosh1 is now known as andytoshi
53 2013-01-11 01:31:46 root2 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
54 2013-01-11 01:32:31 porquilho has quit ()
55 2013-01-11 01:36:19 root2 has joined
56 2013-01-11 01:41:05 <gmaxwell> andytoshi: the simple wayâ generalizingâ to get unform rand on some non power of two range is to take ceil(log2(n)) bits, then iterate until you're under the target. There are other ways which are more randomness efficient, but it's so easy to get wrong that I wouldn't do anything other than the loop unless it was a real performance problem.
57 2013-01-11 01:42:46 MC-Eeepc has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
58 2013-01-11 01:43:16 MC-Eeepc has joined
59 2013-01-11 01:43:30 <andytoshi> okay, thanks gmaxwell
60 2013-01-11 01:43:46 <andytoshi> i remember crazy formulae and long arguments on comp.lang.c back in the day
61 2013-01-11 01:43:49 <andytoshi> so i knew to be careful..
62 2013-01-11 01:49:15 MC-Eeepc has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
63 2013-01-11 01:49:51 MC-Eeepc has joined
64 2013-01-11 01:53:18 MobiusL has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
65 2013-01-11 01:57:59 MobiusL has joined
66 2013-01-11 02:00:13 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
67 2013-01-11 02:03:08 testnode9 has joined
68 2013-01-11 02:22:01 JZavala has joined
69 2013-01-11 02:26:34 MarkyRamone has joined
70 2013-01-11 02:31:27 MC-Eeepc has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
71 2013-01-11 02:35:20 ForceMajeure has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
72 2013-01-11 02:35:45 larsig has quit ()
73 2013-01-11 02:35:56 <slush> ./bitcoind getbalance "" 0
74 2013-01-11 02:35:56 <slush> -17632.33428105
75 2013-01-11 02:35:58 <slush> lol
76 2013-01-11 02:37:16 MC-Eeepc has joined
77 2013-01-11 02:37:30 <andytoshi> haha, how'd you do that?
78 2013-01-11 02:37:53 <slush> unfortunately it's stock bitcoind ;)
79 2013-01-11 02:38:38 <gmaxwell> half input txn can probably do that.
80 2013-01-11 02:39:00 <slush> "half input"?
81 2013-01-11 02:39:35 <gmaxwell> e.g. if you have transactions in your wallet spending coins that aren't yours.
82 2013-01-11 02:39:47 <slush> I'm not aware about it
83 2013-01-11 02:39:48 Internet13 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
84 2013-01-11 02:40:15 <gmaxwell> I _know_ that this results in negative fees, I wouldn't be surprised if it could result in a negative balance. but actually on second thought I would be.
85 2013-01-11 02:40:17 <slush> ./bitcoind getbalance returns correct result
86 2013-01-11 02:40:21 <gmaxwell> Is this a mining wallet?
87 2013-01-11 02:40:28 <slush> no, my personal wallet
88 2013-01-11 02:41:51 Internet13 has joined
89 2013-01-11 02:43:14 <Luke-Jr> slush: so what's the account with +17632?
90 2013-01-11 02:44:40 <slush> I have no idea
91 2013-01-11 02:46:53 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
92 2013-01-11 02:51:41 <doublec> does listaccounts show it?
93 2013-01-11 02:53:17 <slush> doublec: theres account "" with negative amount
94 2013-01-11 02:53:31 <slush> and lot of other accounts with positive amounts, which are zero in reality
95 2013-01-11 02:56:34 <kjj> well crap. I may have to shut down my router with 1560 days of uptime, because my UPS is still screeching after a battery replacement
96 2013-01-11 02:58:24 MC-Eeepc has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
97 2013-01-11 02:59:53 <sipa> slush: how do you define "in reality" ?
98 2013-01-11 03:00:12 <sipa> accounts are just virtual balances in the wallet
99 2013-01-11 03:00:13 <slush> sipa: I'm pretty sure I don't have thousands of bitcoins as listaccounts is trying to tell me
100 2013-01-11 03:00:44 <sipa> slush: accounts balances don't have anything to do with how many bitcoins you have
101 2013-01-11 03:00:53 <sipa> they're just counters
102 2013-01-11 03:00:56 <jgarzik> indeed
103 2013-01-11 03:01:04 <slush> oh, so they accumulate?
104 2013-01-11 03:01:27 <sipa> when you receive a transaction with credits an address linked to account X, the balance for X is increased
105 2013-01-11 03:01:27 <jgarzik> my total account balance is many thousands of bitcoins. my real balance is under 100 BTC
106 2013-01-11 03:01:47 <jgarzik> bitcoind account system easily subverted by 'sendfrom'
107 2013-01-11 03:02:06 <jgarzik> and mining generation transactions are accounted to a blank account
108 2013-01-11 03:02:10 <sipa> if you do a sendtoaddress, the "" is deducted
109 2013-01-11 03:02:18 <sipa> if you do a sendfrom, the references account is deducted
110 2013-01-11 03:02:27 <slush> oh, not very intuitive
111 2013-01-11 03:02:41 <slush> then it looks correct
112 2013-01-11 03:02:47 <sipa> well, it's exactly what you need to implement shared wallets
113 2013-01-11 03:02:58 <sipa> apart from that, it's often not what you expect
114 2013-01-11 03:03:24 <kjj> sendfrom requires a fromaccount as the first parameter
115 2013-01-11 03:03:59 <slush> so is there any RPC which gives me current balance including unconfirmed transactions? :-)
116 2013-01-11 03:04:17 <slush> I expected ./bitcoind getbalance "" 0 do this
117 2013-01-11 03:04:20 <slush> obviously not :)
118 2013-01-11 03:04:23 <kjj> I don't believe so. but you can fake it with two calls
119 2013-01-11 03:04:44 <slush> ok
120 2013-01-11 03:05:44 <kjj> wait, I take it back. bitcoind getbalance "*" 0
121 2013-01-11 03:06:09 <slush> looks good
122 2013-01-11 03:06:10 <kjj> that will actually include immature transactions, not merely unconfirmed ones
123 2013-01-11 03:06:13 <slush> thanks!
124 2013-01-11 03:06:20 maaku has joined
125 2013-01-11 03:07:51 maaku has quit (Client Quit)
126 2013-01-11 03:12:08 maaku has joined
127 2013-01-11 03:12:41 maaku has quit (Client Quit)
128 2013-01-11 03:15:01 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
129 2013-01-11 03:19:37 Eslbaer has joined
130 2013-01-11 03:22:00 TheEslbear has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
131 2013-01-11 03:22:54 maaku has joined
132 2013-01-11 03:25:44 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
133 2013-01-11 03:26:19 copumpkin has joined
134 2013-01-11 03:30:45 D34TH has quit (Quit: Leaving)
135 2013-01-11 03:42:14 MobiusL has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
136 2013-01-11 03:49:29 fiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
137 2013-01-11 03:49:36 MobiusL has joined
138 2013-01-11 03:53:22 fiesh has joined
139 2013-01-11 04:01:33 <BlueMatt> sipa: implemented both the simple flags and more complicated arbitrary script template matching in bloom filter pull, comments (mostly on whether or not the script template matching is worth it)
140 2013-01-11 04:01:54 <BlueMatt> ;;later tell TD implemented both the simple flags and more complicated arbitrary script template matching in bloom filter pull, comments (mostly on whether or not the script template matching is worth it)
141 2013-01-11 04:01:55 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
142 2013-01-11 04:02:48 Scrat_f has joined
143 2013-01-11 04:04:24 Scrat has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
144 2013-01-11 04:16:50 TheEslbear has joined
145 2013-01-11 04:17:35 MC-Eeepc has joined
146 2013-01-11 04:20:37 Eslbaer has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
147 2013-01-11 04:23:46 owowo has quit (Quit: sayonara)
148 2013-01-11 04:32:13 ForceMajeure has joined
149 2013-01-11 04:34:00 hahuang65 has joined
150 2013-01-11 04:34:57 freakazoid has joined
151 2013-01-11 04:55:52 Doji has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
152 2013-01-11 05:07:18 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
153 2013-01-11 05:07:39 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
154 2013-01-11 05:07:48 [7] has joined
155 2013-01-11 05:12:29 da2ce7 has joined
156 2013-01-11 05:24:35 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: ahh...so the same as 3 months ago
157 2013-01-11 05:24:53 <BlueMatt> somehow i thought there was some new big development that meant rc was happening soon
158 2013-01-11 05:30:58 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: we're pulling towards it for sure, most of the todos for the main release stuff have been done, and unless bloom keeps a good pace it will slip 0.8, so that was part of the cause of the recent prodding.
159 2013-01-11 05:31:26 <BlueMatt> ahh ok
160 2013-01-11 05:31:52 <BlueMatt> well, sorry for being so gone for a while
161 2013-01-11 05:32:28 <gmaxwell> how dare you deprive us of your volunteer labor!
162 2013-01-11 05:32:35 <BlueMatt> :)
163 2013-01-11 05:33:49 <gmaxwell> sipa: I want to pull the coin database checks pull. Is there any reason this should be held off? It increases our bug sensitivty, so the more time it spends in the codebase the better.
164 2013-01-11 05:42:23 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
165 2013-01-11 05:49:22 ForceMajeure has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
166 2013-01-11 06:01:26 dvide_ has joined
167 2013-01-11 06:01:50 dvide_ is now known as Guest17769
168 2013-01-11 06:03:33 dvide has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
169 2013-01-11 06:05:04 <BlueMatt> sipa: awww, remove fClient...but CBlockStore had brought the implementation further...
170 2013-01-11 06:05:33 * BlueMatt will stop beating his dead horse and leave now
171 2013-01-11 06:05:47 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: ACK
172 2013-01-11 06:08:51 Guest17769 has quit ()
173 2013-01-11 06:10:40 Dzia has joined
174 2013-01-11 06:21:49 Cory has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
175 2013-01-11 06:24:39 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
176 2013-01-11 06:25:15 copumpkin has joined
177 2013-01-11 06:25:48 jgarzik has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
178 2013-01-11 06:28:26 jgarzik has joined
179 2013-01-11 06:28:50 jgarzik is now known as Guest55138
180 2013-01-11 06:32:02 igetgames has joined
181 2013-01-11 06:33:17 ovidiusoft has joined
182 2013-01-11 06:37:44 RedEmerald has quit (Changing host)
183 2013-01-11 06:37:44 RedEmerald has joined
184 2013-01-11 06:38:37 <RedEmerald> hey so i just setup a bitcoind hidden service on an ec2 and realized that i could use connect with a .onion instead of having to do mapaddress in the torrc. anyone know what version this changed?
185 2013-01-11 06:40:59 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
186 2013-01-11 06:41:34 copumpkin has joined
187 2013-01-11 06:43:57 Cory has joined
188 2013-01-11 06:45:14 toffoo has quit ()
189 2013-01-11 06:47:03 <gmaxwell> RedEmerald: 0.7. See tor.txt that came with bitcoin.
190 2013-01-11 06:47:16 <RedEmerald> yeah. i was going to update the wiki to point to that
191 2013-01-11 06:47:28 <RedEmerald> since it still talks about setting up mapaddress
192 2013-01-11 06:47:40 <gmaxwell> yea, please nuke misleading / outdated / redundant info with extreme prejudice.
193 2013-01-11 06:47:53 <gmaxwell> Also please make sure it highlights setting yourself up for inbound.
194 2013-01-11 06:48:16 <gmaxwell> (we need more properly configured onion nodes)
195 2013-01-11 06:48:50 <RedEmerald> connect=yyl3ipdmyjkfypmx.onion
196 2013-01-11 06:48:51 <RedEmerald> connect=x3danbeag2kyx644.onion
197 2013-01-11 06:49:02 <RedEmerald> both on ec2
198 2013-01-11 06:49:38 <RedEmerald> they are open to ip4, too
199 2013-01-11 06:49:57 <RedEmerald> although i could change that
200 2013-01-11 06:50:56 <gmaxwell> RedEmerald: you'll actually announce them if you're configured right, so I don't even need to connect= you.
201 2013-01-11 06:51:17 <RedEmerald> oh right
202 2013-01-11 06:51:38 <RedEmerald> does the client prioritize hidden services?
203 2013-01-11 06:53:14 <gmaxwell> No. The opposite.
204 2013-01-11 06:53:51 <gmaxwell> HS's are treated as a single network group, so a node which can connct to v4 and HS will only get one HS peer.
205 2013-01-11 06:54:15 <gmaxwell> (if they were prioritized an attacker could just start 1000 onions and capture all of a lot of people's connections)
206 2013-01-11 06:54:48 root2 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
207 2013-01-11 06:56:32 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
208 2013-01-11 07:03:23 <RedEmerald> very cool
209 2013-01-11 07:03:29 <RedEmerald> last i was messing with this was .6
210 2013-01-11 07:11:14 petertodd has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
211 2013-01-11 07:12:51 Luke-Jr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
212 2013-01-11 07:12:53 luke-jr_ has joined
213 2013-01-11 07:17:34 petertodd has joined
214 2013-01-11 07:21:37 paraipan has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
215 2013-01-11 07:23:04 <petertodd> noob question: on github, what's the easy way to get the right git clone command to clone the branch referred to by a pull request? looks like I have to manually figure it out rather than just a nice copy-n-paste
216 2013-01-11 07:41:07 MarkyRamone has quit (Quit: MarkyRamone)
217 2013-01-11 07:48:52 sgornick has joined
218 2013-01-11 07:52:36 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
219 2013-01-11 07:53:45 Impaler has joined
220 2013-01-11 08:01:11 Doji has joined
221 2013-01-11 08:02:01 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
222 2013-01-11 08:10:37 Someguy123 has quit (Excess Flood)
223 2013-01-11 08:10:42 CodesInChaos has joined
224 2013-01-11 08:11:12 Someguy123 has joined
225 2013-01-11 08:15:49 sgornick has joined
226 2013-01-11 08:25:22 reizuki__ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
227 2013-01-11 08:27:17 <doublec> petertodd: you don't clone branches. You clone the actual repository and then switch to the branch in your clone.
228 2013-01-11 08:28:01 <doublec> petertodd: so if the branch you want is 'foo', in your clone: git checkout foo
229 2013-01-11 08:33:21 BCBot has joined
230 2013-01-11 08:33:28 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
231 2013-01-11 08:34:46 BCBot has quit (Client Quit)
232 2013-01-11 08:35:17 BCBot has joined
233 2013-01-11 08:37:54 mughat has joined
234 2013-01-11 08:39:16 mughat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
235 2013-01-11 08:39:25 mughat has joined
236 2013-01-11 08:39:34 BlackPrapor has joined
237 2013-01-11 08:40:25 Doji has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
238 2013-01-11 08:42:19 mughat has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
239 2013-01-11 08:42:29 mughat has joined
240 2013-01-11 08:44:42 dvide has joined
241 2013-01-11 08:44:49 mughat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
242 2013-01-11 08:44:59 mughat has joined
243 2013-01-11 08:45:03 Arnavion has joined
244 2013-01-11 08:47:19 mughat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
245 2013-01-11 08:47:29 mughat has joined
246 2013-01-11 08:49:56 d4de has quit (Quit: I can't tell the difference between Halloween and Christmas, because OCT31 = DEC25)
247 2013-01-11 08:50:22 mughat has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
248 2013-01-11 08:50:32 mughat has joined
249 2013-01-11 08:50:38 <petertodd> doublec: git clone has a branch option to set the branch during the clone, I'm just wondering if they made a nice easy copy-n-paste thing like they already do in other places
250 2013-01-11 08:52:53 mughat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
251 2013-01-11 08:53:03 mughat has joined
252 2013-01-11 08:54:40 Internet13 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
253 2013-01-11 08:55:23 mughat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
254 2013-01-11 08:55:33 mughat has joined
255 2013-01-11 08:57:54 mughat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
256 2013-01-11 08:58:07 mughat has joined
257 2013-01-11 09:00:34 mughat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
258 2013-01-11 09:00:43 mughat has joined
259 2013-01-11 09:00:55 RBecker has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
260 2013-01-11 09:03:04 mughat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
261 2013-01-11 09:03:14 mughat has joined
262 2013-01-11 09:03:41 mughat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
263 2013-01-11 09:13:02 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
264 2013-01-11 09:13:17 ThomasV has joined
265 2013-01-11 09:13:24 gjs278 has joined
266 2013-01-11 09:17:06 Internet13 has joined
267 2013-01-11 09:26:10 RBecker has joined
268 2013-01-11 09:26:20 RazielZ has joined
269 2013-01-11 09:31:55 zooko has joined
270 2013-01-11 09:32:45 mughat has joined
271 2013-01-11 09:32:52 mughat has left ()
272 2013-01-11 09:45:59 root2 has joined
273 2013-01-11 10:02:39 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
274 2013-01-11 10:03:14 lumberjak has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
275 2013-01-11 10:03:24 lumberjak has joined
276 2013-01-11 10:11:27 one_zero has quit ()
277 2013-01-11 10:23:44 sgornick has joined
278 2013-01-11 10:25:09 porquilho has joined
279 2013-01-11 10:26:38 <sipa> gmaxwell: pulling checkcoins should be fine, the only part i'm not fully satisfied with is reporting (and perhaps selecting rollback length, in case of a very large dbcache)
280 2013-01-11 10:27:31 <sipa> BlueMatt: exactly, the proper solution is something like an (alternate) block store
281 2013-01-11 10:37:05 <sipa> BlueMatt: not a global which changes the semantics of pretty much everything
282 2013-01-11 10:40:41 drizztbsd has joined
283 2013-01-11 10:45:19 Scrat_f is now known as Scrat
284 2013-01-11 10:52:42 Impaler has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
285 2013-01-11 10:57:37 reizuki__ has joined
286 2013-01-11 10:59:16 Insu has joined
287 2013-01-11 11:03:04 zooko has quit (Quit: zzz)
288 2013-01-11 11:03:35 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
289 2013-01-11 11:04:05 jdnavarro has joined
290 2013-01-11 11:05:43 MC1984 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
291 2013-01-11 11:07:11 MC1984 has joined
292 2013-01-11 11:08:31 rdymac has joined
293 2013-01-11 11:16:36 sgornick has joined
294 2013-01-11 11:23:32 MrTiggr has joined
295 2013-01-11 11:41:02 tonikt has joined
296 2013-01-11 11:44:55 johzi has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
297 2013-01-11 11:48:43 Doji has joined
298 2013-01-11 11:54:20 ircuser-6 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
299 2013-01-11 12:04:38 rdymac has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
300 2013-01-11 12:26:03 bitafterbit has joined
301 2013-01-11 12:30:58 luke-jr_ is now known as Luke-Jr
302 2013-01-11 12:35:59 sgornick has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
303 2013-01-11 12:44:07 rdponticelli has joined
304 2013-01-11 12:48:17 tonikt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
305 2013-01-11 12:49:40 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
306 2013-01-11 12:50:18 yareyare has joined
307 2013-01-11 12:57:39 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
308 2013-01-11 13:02:54 Keefe has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
309 2013-01-11 13:06:49 emryss has quit (Quit: Leaving)
310 2013-01-11 13:09:43 larsig has joined
311 2013-01-11 13:12:31 <sipa> Luke-Jr: what was the repo/branchname to get to github's pull request view?
312 2013-01-11 13:13:37 <Luke-Jr> sipa: huh?
313 2013-01-11 13:15:10 <sipa> Luke-Jr: there was some repository url, or a branch name, or ..., to access the pull requests's head and merged view on github
314 2013-01-11 13:15:18 <Luke-Jr> oh that
315 2013-01-11 13:15:37 <Luke-Jr> [remote "origin-pull"]
316 2013-01-11 13:15:39 <Luke-Jr> fetch = +refs/pull/*:refs/remotes/origin-pull/*
317 2013-01-11 13:15:40 <Luke-Jr> url = git://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.git
318 2013-01-11 13:16:23 <sipa> thanks!
319 2013-01-11 13:17:05 <Luke-Jr> np
320 2013-01-11 13:24:27 TD has joined
321 2013-01-11 13:25:54 daybyter has joined
322 2013-01-11 13:26:38 emryss has joined
323 2013-01-11 13:28:56 <Luke-Jr> sipa: hey, if the utxo lacks disk positions⦠how were we EVER getting raw transactions for ANY txns? :o
324 2013-01-11 13:29:07 <sipa> Luke-Jr: it has heights
325 2013-01-11 13:29:33 <sipa> Luke-Jr: which is enough to find the matching block index entry, read the entire block from disk, and search for our transaction in there :)
326 2013-01-11 13:29:39 <Luke-Jr> ah, and that wouldn't work for non-main-chain txns
327 2013-01-11 13:29:44 <sipa> and is slow
328 2013-01-11 13:29:55 <sipa> and won't work for spent transactions
329 2013-01-11 13:30:13 <Luke-Jr> well, it would if we didn't delete them
330 2013-01-11 13:30:26 <sipa> well, a lot would have to change for that
331 2013-01-11 13:30:38 <Luke-Jr> yeah, your solution is probably better anyway
332 2013-01-11 13:31:05 <sipa> as the CCoins serialization doesn't even support transactions with no outputs remaining, and metadata is stored in undo data for the last input being spent
333 2013-01-11 13:32:04 <sipa> plus, i prefer to keep the coins database as lightweight as possible, as its performance is critical for the core operation... indexes are just optimizations for extra functionality
334 2013-01-11 13:33:53 optimator_ has joined
335 2013-01-11 13:40:14 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
336 2013-01-11 13:41:29 Gabit has joined
337 2013-01-11 13:42:29 datagutt has joined
338 2013-01-11 13:43:43 optimator_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
339 2013-01-11 13:51:01 ByteUnit has quit (Quit: Tik Tak, a clockwork orange?, what the fuck)
340 2013-01-11 13:57:59 BTCOxygen has quit (Changing host)
341 2013-01-11 13:57:59 BTCOxygen has joined
342 2013-01-11 14:14:49 jdnavarro has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
343 2013-01-11 14:18:13 agricocb has joined
344 2013-01-11 14:29:58 someone42 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
345 2013-01-11 14:31:53 jdnavarro has joined
346 2013-01-11 14:42:59 Dzia has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
347 2013-01-11 14:45:42 <sipa> gmaxwell: i'm in favor of reducing the default -checkblocks
348 2013-01-11 14:46:44 <sipa> 2500 takes quite a while if they need to be loaded from a slow disk, and corrupted blocks are no longer a threat to the network (as long as it's not in the range that is potentially reorganized)
349 2013-01-11 14:48:47 <gmaxwell> I'm of the opinion that it should still be "a lot" but that could be a lot less than 2500.
350 2013-01-11 14:49:24 <gmaxwell> How slow is slow? What can your laptop with the spinning disk do in two seconds?
351 2013-01-11 14:50:51 <sipa> i've seen load times of close to a minute when no block data is in cache
352 2013-01-11 14:51:04 <sipa> vs 10s when it is in cache
353 2013-01-11 14:52:32 <sipa> i'd say it needs to be at least 200 blocks
354 2013-01-11 14:56:13 ircuser-6 has joined
355 2013-01-11 14:56:16 <gmaxwell> I was thinking 'two days worth' (e.g. 288) was "a lot", so somewhat similar. A minute is pretty terrible.
356 2013-01-11 15:01:48 d4de has joined
357 2013-01-11 15:01:49 d4de has quit (Changing host)
358 2013-01-11 15:01:49 d4de has joined
359 2013-01-11 15:05:43 <sipa> gmaxwell: it could be something like "at least 288 blocks and at least 2016 transactions" for example, making it go somewhat further back in older parts of the chain
360 2013-01-11 15:06:34 WolfAlex has joined
361 2013-01-11 15:06:49 StarenseN has joined
362 2013-01-11 15:07:38 <sipa> then again, introducing an extra config flag for that is serious overkill
363 2013-01-11 15:13:31 Hashdog has joined
364 2013-01-11 15:17:40 Hashdog has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
365 2013-01-11 15:20:56 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
366 2013-01-11 15:22:04 bitafterbit has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
367 2013-01-11 15:22:31 rdponticelli has joined
368 2013-01-11 15:23:35 tonikt has joined
369 2013-01-11 15:30:32 dvide has quit ()
370 2013-01-11 15:31:42 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
371 2013-01-11 15:34:47 Hashdog has joined
372 2013-01-11 15:37:00 andytoshi has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.3.9.2)
373 2013-01-11 15:38:26 freakazoid has joined
374 2013-01-11 15:39:44 Hashdog has left ("PING 1357917767")
375 2013-01-11 15:41:34 Keefe has joined
376 2013-01-11 15:41:35 Keefe has quit (Changing host)
377 2013-01-11 15:41:35 Keefe has joined
378 2013-01-11 15:43:39 <gmaxwell> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=135856.msg1448014#msg1448014 ...
379 2013-01-11 15:45:14 <sipa> ?
380 2013-01-11 15:47:44 <gmaxwell> I am wondering if I'm just not getting a joke, piuk is proposing to send penny flood attacks at nodes to deanonymize them better because his realyed by metric isn't terribly accurate?
381 2013-01-11 15:49:18 paraipan has joined
382 2013-01-11 15:49:42 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
383 2013-01-11 15:54:49 <sipa> ehhh :s
384 2013-01-11 15:58:22 gavinandresen has joined
385 2013-01-11 16:06:41 owowo has joined
386 2013-01-11 16:12:38 rdymac has joined
387 2013-01-11 16:17:48 error3477 has joined
388 2013-01-11 16:18:47 TheEslbear has quit (Quit: Verlassend)
389 2013-01-11 16:23:48 johzi has joined
390 2013-01-11 16:26:43 <helo> what's the best way to count the number of coins that have never moved?
391 2013-01-11 16:27:02 <gavinandresen> helo: use a 64-bit integer.
392 2013-01-11 16:27:10 <gavinandresen> helo: :-)
393 2013-01-11 16:27:17 <sipa> i'd suggest using arithmetic
394 2013-01-11 16:27:18 <helo> haha
395 2013-01-11 16:27:59 <sipa> helo: more seriously, in 0.8 code, iterate over the utxo set (txdb.cpp has code that does this, for gettxoutsetinfo), and add the amounts of all coins that have fCoinbase==true
396 2013-01-11 16:28:36 <helo> can do, thanks :)
397 2013-01-11 16:31:46 <sipa> implemented, compiled, running
398 2013-01-11 16:33:27 da2ce7_d has joined
399 2013-01-11 16:33:45 <sipa> Never moved: 204719048427238 satoshi
400 2013-01-11 16:34:07 <sipa> 2M BTC
401 2013-01-11 16:34:35 <sipa> gmaxwell: on my VPS:
402 2013-01-11 16:34:36 <sipa> 2013-01-11 16:14:52 Verifying last 2500 blocks at level 3
403 2013-01-11 16:34:37 <sipa> 2013-01-11 16:16:16 No coin database inconsistencies in last 120 blocks (54152 transactions)
404 2013-01-11 16:36:24 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
405 2013-01-11 16:38:49 Doji has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
406 2013-01-11 16:41:01 Diapolo has joined
407 2013-01-11 16:41:17 <Diapolo> hi there
408 2013-01-11 16:41:25 <Luke-Jr> hey Diapolo
409 2013-01-11 16:46:33 <BlueMatt> sipa: huh?
410 2013-01-11 16:46:36 <BlueMatt> sipa: re: what?
411 2013-01-11 16:46:44 <BlueMatt> sipa: ohhhh
412 2013-01-11 16:46:45 <Diapolo> There are 4 references to CTransaction::FetchInputs() in a comment in main.h, but this function isn't in anymore, a core dev should update these.
413 2013-01-11 16:46:46 <BlueMatt> sipa: nevermind
414 2013-01-11 16:48:32 <helo> ahh neat
415 2013-01-11 16:49:49 <sipa> Diapolo: nice catch
416 2013-01-11 16:50:20 <sipa> Diapolo: that functionality is now hidden begind the CCoinsView interface, so i guess those @see's can just be removed
417 2013-01-11 16:50:45 <Diapolo> sipa: I found that after reading that vuln description by Sergio
418 2013-01-11 16:52:12 maaku has joined
419 2013-01-11 16:56:07 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
420 2013-01-11 16:57:19 <Diapolo> sipa, when creating another test-binary of your turbo branch, can you include the new stack-protector pull?
421 2013-01-11 16:59:54 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
422 2013-01-11 17:03:08 <sipa> Diapolo: will do
423 2013-01-11 17:03:30 <Diapolo> if (!FindUndoPos(pindex->nFile, pos, ::GetSerializeSize(blockundo, SER_DISK, CLIENT_VERSION) + 40)) it was
424 2013-01-11 17:03:50 <Diapolo> +8 before the recent verify pull, a comment would be nice or a constant :)?
425 2013-01-11 17:10:40 Guest55138 has quit (Changing host)
426 2013-01-11 17:10:40 Guest55138 has joined
427 2013-01-11 17:10:42 Guest55138 is now known as jgarzik
428 2013-01-11 17:12:22 <sipa> jgarzik: didn't you have a pullreq with a generic timer implementation, to replace the wallet unlock thing?
429 2013-01-11 17:13:17 <jgarzik> sipa: generic timer implementation, yes
430 2013-01-11 17:13:34 <jgarzik> sipa: I do not remember what I used it for; I think something network related, not wallet
431 2013-01-11 17:13:45 <jgarzik> sipa: either way, boost's deadline timer should suffice, so I did not push
432 2013-01-11 17:14:49 <jgarzik> sipa: There we go... replaced ThreadDumpAddresses with a timer: https://github.com/jgarzik/bitcoin/commits/timer
433 2013-01-11 17:15:31 crazy4btc has joined
434 2013-01-11 17:16:34 error3477 has left ()
435 2013-01-11 17:17:08 <gmaxwell> Getting rid of all our timer threads will nicely reduce memory usage at least on Linux, we actually get a fair amount of bloat from thread stacks.
436 2013-01-11 17:17:57 <sipa> jgarzik: i couldn't find anything in boost, and was very surprised about that :)
437 2013-01-11 17:18:02 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
438 2013-01-11 17:18:02 <sipa> jgarzik: i didn't look inside asio though
439 2013-01-11 17:18:15 BlackPrapor has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
440 2013-01-11 17:18:20 <jgarzik> sipa: yep, asio is the location
441 2013-01-11 17:18:28 <sipa> jgarzik: so i wrote this: https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commit/0d1fd2c7e88c1b3b09019730c4151008dda243b3
442 2013-01-11 17:18:38 maaku has joined
443 2013-01-11 17:18:39 <jgarzik> sipa: because usually timers are implemented through select(2) or poll(2)
444 2013-01-11 17:18:58 maaku has quit (Client Quit)
445 2013-01-11 17:19:15 <gmaxwell> Should probably have a work-queue implemented as a heap, with a bunch of items that have a first-runnable-time and just work through them.
446 2013-01-11 17:20:29 <sipa> gmaxwell: a multimap should be almost as good in practice, and a lot less code
447 2013-01-11 17:21:16 <BlueMatt> Diapolo: I have a feeling 1674 is too old for pull-tester to get to it anymore...
448 2013-01-11 17:21:26 <gmaxwell> I was thinking things like peer rotation, resends, and such could go into it.. but even that actally isn't that much stuff.
449 2013-01-11 17:21:28 <jgarzik> sipa: I like the model of keeping a time-ordered list, and iterating through that
450 2013-01-11 17:21:38 <gmaxwell> sipa: what, there isn't some crazy template heap in boost? :P
451 2013-01-11 17:21:40 <jgarzik> sipa: you always know when the next timer will fire
452 2013-01-11 17:21:46 <BlueMatt> Diapolo: (github's api only returns a subset of pull requests...not them all, im gonna eventually try to bitch at them and see if i can get it changed)
453 2013-01-11 17:22:06 <sipa> jgarzik: exactly
454 2013-01-11 17:23:06 <Diapolo> BlueMatt: this explains, why pulltester doesn't catch it, thanks... I asked sipa about integrating it into his next test build then
455 2013-01-11 17:23:23 <sipa> BlueMatt: i've been wanting to rewrite #1674 using union-find
456 2013-01-11 17:23:44 <BlueMatt> Diapolo: I can fire off a manual test if you want
457 2013-01-11 17:24:02 <BlueMatt> sipa: or should i just wait?
458 2013-01-11 17:24:13 <sipa> BlueMatt: nah, no idea when i'll have time for that
459 2013-01-11 17:24:30 <BlueMatt> alright, ill fire off a manual test
460 2013-01-11 17:25:13 <gmaxwell> sipa: what do you actually mean other than #1674?
461 2013-01-11 17:25:19 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
462 2013-01-11 17:25:38 <sipa> ?
463 2013-01-11 17:25:39 <Diapolo> BlueMatt: thanks :)
464 2013-01-11 17:26:10 <sipa> gmaxwell: i must admit i never really got to understanding the code changes in #1674 - perhaps i should try that first
465 2013-01-11 17:26:21 <gmaxwell> Pull 1674 is "Bitcoin-Qt (Windows): expand GCC Stack-Smashing Protector usage", and if you can apply union-find to that, then I'm impressed. :P
466 2013-01-11 17:26:27 <sipa> uhhh
467 2013-01-11 17:26:45 <sipa> i mean 1647!
468 2013-01-11 17:27:05 <gmaxwell> Ah!
469 2013-01-11 17:27:25 <sipa> we should require a minimal levenshtein distance between the decimal encodings of pullreq numbers
470 2013-01-11 17:27:26 <Diapolo> gmaxwell: ^^
471 2013-01-11 17:27:29 <gmaxwell> We also need gain union-find for taint tracking.
472 2013-01-11 17:27:38 <gmaxwell> But thats on my todo.
473 2013-01-11 17:27:45 <BlueMatt> I like how TD[gone] always spell checks my comments and finds dumb misspellings....
474 2013-01-11 17:27:58 <BlueMatt> sipa: yes!
475 2013-01-11 17:28:01 <sipa> BlueMatt: at least that means he reads everything!
476 2013-01-11 17:28:08 <BlueMatt> sipa: true
477 2013-01-11 17:30:08 <sipa> gmaxwell: i love it when a neat algorithm becomes actually useful :)
478 2013-01-11 17:31:36 <gmaxwell> it's such a fantastic algorithim. It's my go to tool now for explaining the value of algoritims to people. It's simply enough to get exactly right including all the optimizations from memory, and rich enough that it doesn't sound obvious. (e.g. explaining a binary search to people gets a 'well duh')
479 2013-01-11 17:36:18 Diapolo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
480 2013-01-11 17:37:50 <sipa> hmm, for a byaddr index... you could index on the output of extractdestinations, or just on hash(outputscript)
481 2013-01-11 17:38:21 <sipa> the first is slightly more functional, but there could be compatibility problems if new templates are added later
482 2013-01-11 17:39:14 <gmaxwell> For a block explorer functionality you do generally want to search on a normalized form. Someone inserting a NOP into your script should still return the txn.
483 2013-01-11 17:40:59 <gmaxwell> Does suggest that the database should have a 'extractdestination version' field, and force reindexing if that gets bumped.
484 2013-01-11 17:41:12 <gavinandresen> sipa: hash(output script). or even truncate(hash(output script)) to save keyspace
485 2013-01-11 17:41:30 <sipa> gavinandresen: i was thinking about hash160(output script)
486 2013-01-11 17:41:34 <gmaxwell> ah, thats a point. False positives are not too harmful.
487 2013-01-11 17:41:56 <gmaxwell> e.g. even 4 bytes of key is probably ample.
488 2013-01-11 17:42:07 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: exactlyâ¦.
489 2013-01-11 17:42:09 <sipa> gavinandresen: an average serialized tx reference is 10 bytes now
490 2013-01-11 17:42:09 <gmaxwell> Though if that were the case the hash should probably be per node and secret.
491 2013-01-11 17:42:29 <sipa> so using something of the same order of magnitude is probably a good compromise
492 2013-01-11 17:42:36 daybyter has joined
493 2013-01-11 17:42:48 <sipa> so perhaps 64 bits
494 2013-01-11 17:42:59 <gmaxwell> (otherwise some genius could collide the key and make updates to an element go linear, 64 bits would be less risky)
495 2013-01-11 17:43:55 <gavinandresen> well, we've already got some keys that will have gazillions of entries (satoshidice! (say that like "Newman!"))
496 2013-01-11 17:44:23 <sipa> yeah, i don't like the idea of one entry in the db growing to tens of megabytes
497 2013-01-11 17:44:29 <sipa> but it's probably inevitable
498 2013-01-11 17:45:19 <gmaxwell> what could be done is having a parameter (ugh) that blacklists entries when they get too big. But: parameter.
499 2013-01-11 17:45:21 <gavinandresen> disk space is cheap. Transaction fees are supposed to stop those attacks⦠when the price dropped from $30 down to $2 we probably should have increased default fees
500 2013-01-11 17:45:56 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
501 2013-01-11 17:46:06 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: I mean, right now if you index deepbits address a getbyaddress on it will probably block the process for three minutes and consume 400 mb of ram. :P
502 2013-01-11 17:46:11 <sipa> gmaxwell: haha, just add a flag saying "too many others", and output a "..." in the RPC output :p
503 2013-01-11 17:47:00 <sipa> gavinandresen: there is no policy that punishes reuse of addresses, is there?
504 2013-01-11 17:47:18 <gmaxwell> sipa: well I was thinking more like, a seperate table of blacklisted keys, when you get too many, the key is deleted. Nothing on the blacklist is added, and the RPC returns an error. Then a default setting so that nothing but 1van and dice trigger it. And if you want those, you can set the limit to 0 (infinite). But ::shrugs::
505 2013-01-11 17:47:23 <gavinandresen> import private key and some wallet operations on mega-large wallets are the only places where we'd use the new index right now, right?
506 2013-01-11 17:47:42 <gavinandresen> sipa: no, no policy that punishes address re-use right now.
507 2013-01-11 17:47:56 <sipa> gavinandresen: yes, and perhaps an RPC to expose lookups
508 2013-01-11 17:47:59 <gmaxwell> sipa: I advocated such a policy but it was too easily misunderstood as something specifically targeting dice. (which it wasn'tâ but until dice goes away I think it'll keep being misunderstood as that)
509 2013-01-11 17:48:20 Hashdog has joined
510 2013-01-11 17:48:39 <gavinandresen> If we add a RPC to expose lookups, then a param to limit the number returned is a good idea. I'd vote for just an error that says how many there are, and a largish default, for RPC behavior
511 2013-01-11 17:49:07 <gmaxwell> (restating my argument for the logs: the reuse is bad for privacy for everyone, and also it encourages people to get bright ideas about blocking. The reuse of addresses is also a weak implicit signal about a public-usage or existing relationshup which doesn't need fast confirmation... so we ought to greatly deprioritize reuse)
512 2013-01-11 17:49:43 <sipa> gavinandresen: right now, i'm mostly interested in implementing it to see how costly it is, and not so much as in applications of it (though electrum servers would love it)
513 2013-01-11 17:50:09 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: The Bitcoin Faucet was probably the biggest re-use criminal before SD. I re-used the same address to keep its wallet from growing, and to give complete funding transparency.
514 2013-01-11 17:50:21 debiantoruser has joined
515 2013-01-11 17:50:21 <gmaxwell> applications I'd think would be electrum servers, armory, and personal block exploring.
516 2013-01-11 17:50:25 <debiantoruser> Greetings
517 2013-01-11 17:50:37 <debiantoruser> Is there anybody who can explain me, why fee is not a ââ ââ
518 2013-01-11 17:50:45 <debiantoruser> â ââ
519 2013-01-11 17:50:50 <debiantoruser> ââ ââ
520 2013-01-11 17:50:54 <gavinandresen> darn keyboards
521 2013-01-11 17:51:03 <gmaxwell> Fee is not a pipe?
522 2013-01-11 17:51:04 <gavinandresen> ⦠or is he talking in morse code?
523 2013-01-11 17:51:46 <gavinandresen> let's guess: "fee is not a percentage of the transaction amount" ?
524 2013-01-11 17:52:04 <gavinandresen> "fee is not an integer number of satoshis?"
525 2013-01-11 17:52:07 Hashdog has left ()
526 2013-01-11 17:52:16 d4de has joined
527 2013-01-11 17:52:17 <sipa> "fee is not a zero"
528 2013-01-11 17:52:23 <gmaxwell> "fee is not a free market?"
529 2013-01-11 17:52:40 <jgarzik> "fee is not an alpaca"
530 2013-01-11 17:52:42 <gmaxwell> "fee is not a parameter set bit the recipent?"
531 2013-01-11 17:52:47 <gmaxwell> s/bit/by/
532 2013-01-11 17:52:53 <gavinandresen> "fee is not a DHT" ?
533 2013-01-11 17:52:57 <gmaxwell> ahhhhhhhh!
534 2013-01-11 17:52:58 <helo> hah
535 2013-01-11 17:53:00 <Luke-Jr> that's not pipes, it's tonal!
536 2013-01-11 17:53:02 <Luke-Jr> :P
537 2013-01-11 17:53:05 TD has joined
538 2013-01-11 17:53:09 <Luke-Jr> (j/k ofc)
539 2013-01-11 17:53:12 <gavinandresen> ooh, good one: "fee is not tonal"
540 2013-01-11 17:53:14 <gmaxwell> Ah, "Why the fee is not a tonal number?"
541 2013-01-11 17:53:40 <gmaxwell> (there is still time until april!)
542 2013-01-11 17:53:47 <Luke-Jr> debiantoruser: but seriously, are you going to clarify?
543 2013-01-11 17:55:16 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
544 2013-01-11 17:55:40 <Luke-Jr> guess not
545 2013-01-11 17:55:50 <jgarzik> Man, this birth is a whole lot of work. Apparently sex triggers labor, so...
546 2013-01-11 17:56:04 <gmaxwell> Reasoning from the markov random field that is my logs the most likely completions are: "fee is not a function!" "fee is not applied" "fee is not a problem" "fee is not a fixed amount" "fee is not a tip!"
547 2013-01-11 17:56:13 <jgarzik> "fee is not a baby"
548 2013-01-11 17:56:14 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: so does walking
549 2013-01-11 17:56:19 <gavinandresen> all rightyâ¦. just FYI for everybody: I've been working on code signing certs for our osx/windows builds, which has turned out to involve an OSX and Xcode upgrade, which I'm halfway throughâ¦.
550 2013-01-11 17:56:23 <igetgames> tabasco sauce
551 2013-01-11 17:56:26 sanchez94 has joined
552 2013-01-11 17:57:16 debiantoruser has joined
553 2013-01-11 17:57:19 <sipa> TD: i agree with not destroying potentially nice applications in the future by blocking something that doesn't seem useful now
554 2013-01-11 17:57:38 <sipa> TD: but clearly, something with a locktime that will take 1 year cannot be expected to remain in memory pools until then anyway
555 2013-01-11 17:57:52 <debiantoruser> @gmaxwell: are my messages clean come?
556 2013-01-11 17:58:06 <Luke-Jr> sipa: was that meant to be in here?
557 2013-01-11 17:58:10 <gmaxwell> debiantoruser: we are waiting with abated breath! "Be sure to drink your â¦"
558 2013-01-11 17:58:18 <gmaxwell> debiantoruser: we did not recieve your question.
559 2013-01-11 17:58:24 <gmaxwell> 09:33 < debiantoruser> Is there anybody who can explain me, why fee is not a
560 2013-01-11 17:58:32 <gmaxwell> Thats all we got, and then garbage.
561 2013-01-11 17:58:36 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: tor is censoring him
562 2013-01-11 17:59:44 <sipa> debiantoruser: http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2013/01/11
563 2013-01-11 17:59:57 <TD> sipa: nodes could possibly be told how much disk space they can use for storing the mempool and then throw out the futuremost transactions when it fills up
564 2013-01-11 18:00:17 <debiantoruser> Is there anybody who can explain me, why fee is not a one hundred-millionth of a Bitcoin(satoshi)?
565 2013-01-11 18:00:36 <Luke-Jr> debiantoruser: what good would that fee do?
566 2013-01-11 18:01:02 <gavinandresen> TD: I like the idea of limiting the memory pool to (say) 10x the max block size is a great idea, then prioritizing by the same rules you'd use to build a block.
567 2013-01-11 18:01:23 tonikt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
568 2013-01-11 18:01:24 <debiantoruser> Luke-Jr: It is more userfriend for users
569 2013-01-11 18:01:33 <debiantoruser> spam or freedom
570 2013-01-11 18:01:42 <sipa> debiantoruser: by your reasoning, 0 satoshi would even be better?
571 2013-01-11 18:01:45 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: this has funny interactions with child-pays-for-parent unless we have a reject pool.
572 2013-01-11 18:01:45 <TD> debiantoruser: theoretically the fee should float according to available machine resources
573 2013-01-11 18:01:50 <debiantoruser> Why it is 0.005 - It is really big for saing that we don't get a fee like any another bank transfers system?
574 2013-01-11 18:01:57 <TD> debiantoruser: in practice, that's hard and nobody wrote the code for it yet, so it's a fixed magic number
575 2013-01-11 18:02:01 mykhal has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
576 2013-01-11 18:02:27 <lianj> debiantoruser: for now its just a anti spam measure
577 2013-01-11 18:02:27 <TD> debiantoruser: i don't think anyone really knows what the "right" value is, we just know the current value is a decent incentive to not DoS the network, though it doesn't discourage all ultra-high-load users (eg satoshidice)
578 2013-01-11 18:02:34 * BlueMatt still wants to have a long and involved fee discussion at some bitcoin dev meetup
579 2013-01-11 18:02:35 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: good point
580 2013-01-11 18:02:39 <Luke-Jr> debiantoruser: it's apparently too small, in practice
581 2013-01-11 18:02:42 <TD> debiantoruser: if you want to research and prototype better fee schedules then please do so
582 2013-01-11 18:02:59 <jgarzik> sadly fees are related to bitcoin's real world value... something intrinsically not found in the chain
583 2013-01-11 18:03:31 freakazoid has joined
584 2013-01-11 18:03:35 <gmaxwell> Priority queue based dynamic behavior would mean that the system would constantly use the maximum amount of resources regardless of real demand. Certantly reasonable when non-attack load would keep it near that level... unfortunate before then.
585 2013-01-11 18:03:48 <debiantoruser> @jgarzik: You right here, and 1Btc = 10$, then 0.005 - is 5 cent for each tx, it is really big for micropayments systems
586 2013-01-11 18:03:50 <Pucilowski> Does a raw tx refer to a signed or unsigned tx?
587 2013-01-11 18:04:01 <sipa> Pucilowski: both, i guess
588 2013-01-11 18:04:05 <gavinandresen> debiantoruser: see https://gist.github.com/2961409 for lots of thoughts on better-handling fees
589 2013-01-11 18:04:26 <Pucilowski> sipa: are you familiar with armory?
590 2013-01-11 18:04:30 <gavinandresen> debiantoruser: the only thing implemented was a change to miner's transactions selection policy so they sort by fee-per-kb by default
591 2013-01-11 18:04:32 <gmaxwell> debiantoruser: the base fee is 0.0005 in the reference client, not 0.005, 0.005 means the transaction is 10x larger than the base transaction size.
592 2013-01-11 18:04:40 <TD> gmaxwell: well, i'm actually ok with the network being saturated 100% of the time as long as "good" traffic takes priority over "less good" traffic. the alternative is lots of magic numbers that don't really adapt to market forces
593 2013-01-11 18:05:01 <TD> debiantoruser: some clients set the fee larger than it actually needs to be.
594 2013-01-11 18:05:08 <sipa> Pucilowski: not really
595 2013-01-11 18:05:16 <TD> debiantoruser: in particular, anything based on bitcoinj has crap fee handling and often charges fees when none are actually needed
596 2013-01-11 18:05:29 <TD> debiantoruser: also, bitcoin has an alternative way to handle micropayments in which you don't need a separate TX for every micropayment
597 2013-01-11 18:05:37 <TD> debiantoruser: so micropayment apps are still possible, assuming gavinandresen doesn't break it :)
598 2013-01-11 18:05:54 <debiantoruser> Am i right, that my modified client with fee setted to 0 would not send transaction?
599 2013-01-11 18:06:00 <gmaxwell> TD: I know you are, and we disagree. Right now we need all the adoption we can get, and that can be maximized by reducing resource usage. Magic numbers are kinda lame, but at the same time, they're actually more determinstic than adaptive behavior, so thats a plus for them. (one of few)
600 2013-01-11 18:06:04 <gavinandresen> TD: can I break it if I promise to fix it later?
601 2013-01-11 18:06:10 <Luke-Jr> debiantoruser: it would send, but maybe no miner would confirm it
602 2013-01-11 18:06:33 <TD> debiantoruser: it depends on the transaction
603 2013-01-11 18:06:34 <BlueMatt> TD: the reason BLOOM_UPDATE_P2PUBKEY_ONLY wasnt removed after templates were added is there was discussion of whether it was worth it
604 2013-01-11 18:06:37 <TD> debiantoruser: many transactions don't need a fee
605 2013-01-11 18:06:38 sanchez94 has left ()
606 2013-01-11 18:06:47 <gmaxwell> debiantoruser: depending on the transaction it may not even realy, in which case you may get that input stuck in your wallet.
607 2013-01-11 18:06:54 <BlueMatt> TD: anyway...needs discussion
608 2013-01-11 18:07:03 <BlueMatt> bbl
609 2013-01-11 18:07:33 Dzia has joined
610 2013-01-11 18:08:00 <Pucilowski> How does an unsigned and signed raw tx vary? Is the signature simply appended onto the end?
611 2013-01-11 18:08:02 rdymac has joined
612 2013-01-11 18:08:39 mykhal has joined
613 2013-01-11 18:08:40 Diapolo has joined
614 2013-01-11 18:08:56 <debiantoruser> That is why i'm suggest to set fee to satoshi(0.00000001BTC)
615 2013-01-11 18:08:58 <sipa> Pucilowski: no, unsigned ones have an empty string as their txin script
616 2013-01-11 18:09:10 <debiantoruser> It is ideal for all time
617 2013-01-11 18:09:24 <Luke-Jr> debiantoruser: 0.00000001 BTC fee is no better than no-fee-at-all
618 2013-01-11 18:09:59 <debiantoruser> no-fee-at-all - is a hole for spammers/scammers/fbi, etc
619 2013-01-11 18:10:27 <Luke-Jr> debiantoruser: 0.00000001 BTC is fine for spammers and scammers too
620 2013-01-11 18:10:29 <Luke-Jr> debiantoruser: we like the FBI
621 2013-01-11 18:11:06 <jgarzik> debiantoruser: 0.00000001 BTC is too low to discourage spammers
622 2013-01-11 18:11:17 <debiantoruser> Luke-Jr: if spammers like to lost 1 mill * 0.00000001 BTC, they are welcome! (:
623 2013-01-11 18:11:26 <gavinandresen> debiantoruser: see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3332.0 for a discussion of how much it costs the network to process a transaction
624 2013-01-11 18:12:02 <Luke-Jr> debiantoruser: spammers already pay 0.0005 BTC * 1 million :/
625 2013-01-11 18:12:04 <debiantoruser> normal user should get the freedom to send thousands of micropayments!
626 2013-01-11 18:12:14 <lianj> debiantoruser: fyi, coinbase pays the fee for your first x txs of a month
627 2013-01-11 18:12:18 <sipa> debiantoruser: and have the entire network pay for them?
628 2013-01-11 18:12:27 <sipa> debiantoruser: microtransactions are very costly to the system
629 2013-01-11 18:12:44 DBordello has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
630 2013-01-11 18:13:13 <jgarzik> debiantoruser: Indeed. Bitcoin is not for micropayments
631 2013-01-11 18:13:32 <sipa> at least, individual bitcoin transactions are not for micropayments
632 2013-01-11 18:14:25 <Luke-Jr> gavinandresen: that thread was before, and didn't cover, the risk of orphan block for miners
633 2013-01-11 18:14:25 <gmaxwell> did everyone see Peter Todd's plans to make fidelity bonded (and perhaps remote-attestitation secured) chaum token issuing banks for doing fast micropayments off chain? I'm very excited about that and hope it gets done.
634 2013-01-11 18:15:10 <gavinandresen> Luke-Jr: more analysis welcome. Has anybody done a good analysis of the orphan block issue?
635 2013-01-11 18:15:33 <debiantoruser> @jgarzik: There are should appear such system, like bitcoin but for micropayments (:
636 2013-01-11 18:15:48 <sipa> debiantoruser: simply not economically feasible
637 2013-01-11 18:16:12 <Luke-Jr> gavinandresen: I'm afraid I don't know of any proper analysis so far.
638 2013-01-11 18:16:25 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: link to Peter's plans?
639 2013-01-11 18:16:31 <jgarzik> sipa: micropayments are feasible as a layer above bitcoin
640 2013-01-11 18:16:37 <sipa> jgarzik: sure, that'
641 2013-01-11 18:16:52 <Luke-Jr> debiantoruser: it's possible, but not a priority for any developer yet AFAIK
642 2013-01-11 18:16:53 <sipa> jgarzik: sure, that's why i said: 18:56:35 < sipa> at least, individual bitcoin transactions are not for micropayments
643 2013-01-11 18:17:03 <Luke-Jr> debiantoruser: there is a lot of work for the main Bitcoin layer first
644 2013-01-11 18:18:01 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
645 2013-01-11 18:18:05 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: he talked about them on IRC. I don't think he has a writeup yet. He's written up one little part. The idea is that you have a bank. It's honesty is machine provable (via the blockchain). The bank is opened by its founders giving away some amount of bitcoin (as fees to random miners) in a provable way. The client software will only do business with a bank if its deposits are less than the given away funds, and if it has never be
646 2013-01-11 18:18:27 mykhal has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
647 2013-01-11 18:18:36 copumpkin has joined
648 2013-01-11 18:18:43 <sipa> has never be [...]
649 2013-01-11 18:18:48 <gmaxwell> has never been caught cheating.
650 2013-01-11 18:18:51 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: any cheating destroys the fidelity bond. Additionally the bank's core can run on an ibm cryptocard, so its behavior is proven a second way as well.
651 2013-01-11 18:19:27 <gmaxwell> The bank would really only have three functions: Recieve bitcoins and give chaum tokens. Convert chaum tokens to chaum tokens (trades). And recieve chaum tokens and return bitcoins.
652 2013-01-11 18:19:29 DBordello has joined
653 2013-01-11 18:20:01 mykhal has joined
654 2013-01-11 18:20:30 <gmaxwell> E.g. it would be like mtgox codes. but blinded so the bank can't tell who's transacting with who. ... and secured in a way that scales to more parties than "trust mtgox" doesâ unprofitable to cheat through a fidelity bond, and difficult to cheat due to secure hardware.
655 2013-01-11 18:20:41 <gavinandresen> Neat idea.
656 2013-01-11 18:21:40 <sipa> isn't that basically OpenTransactions?
657 2013-01-11 18:21:47 <gavinandresen> Is he thinking the operators would be anonymous, so invulnerable to seizure/shutdown ?
658 2013-01-11 18:21:50 <sipa> or what it aims to do?
659 2013-01-11 18:22:41 <TD> this is just a variant on Hals bitcoin competitor, RPOW
660 2013-01-11 18:22:52 <TD> it's not inherently a bad idea, i'm all for trusted computing
661 2013-01-11 18:23:08 <sipa> i think it's exactly what you want on top of bitcoin
662 2013-01-11 18:23:15 <TD> for many micropayment applications you don't need micropayments to arbitrary constantly changing endpoints though, you really just want to adjust the size of a payment to one party very often
663 2013-01-11 18:23:23 <TD> and bitcoin already has facilities for that
664 2013-01-11 18:23:28 <sipa> chaumian cash is anonymous, fast, and centralized
665 2013-01-11 18:23:52 <TD> if you want to spray micropayments around to totally different parties, sure, it can be useful
666 2013-01-11 18:23:58 <TD> assuming they all agree on which "bank" to use
667 2013-01-11 18:24:34 <gmaxwell> TD: the fidelity bond makes it more than RPOW.
668 2013-01-11 18:25:28 <gmaxwell> The problem the secure hardware has is (1) IBM can profitably cheat, (2) with a big enough bank someone with an electron microscope gamma emitter frobaz can profitably cheat.
669 2013-01-11 18:25:48 DBordello has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
670 2013-01-11 18:26:25 <gmaxwell> Fidelity bonds mean that cheating loses you the bond. If you want to shut down you should be able to sell your fidelity bond... so you'd make more money by shutting down honestly and selling the bond.
671 2013-01-11 18:27:26 hasfijyvydyyyy has joined
672 2013-01-11 18:27:52 <hasfijyvydyyyy> I, i'm triyng to code a open source php bitcoin mixing script
673 2013-01-11 18:27:57 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: I dunno what he thinks, but I think he thinks there would be many of these things and they'd be used for only moderate value.. so the risk from shutdown is not terribly great.
674 2013-01-11 18:29:00 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: wait, so this idea is dependent on some proprietary chip being closed-source?
675 2013-01-11 18:29:33 <hasfijyvydyyyy> So the idea is the user make a deposit, the deposit is frammented in multiple wallet, and then send to a main wallet were all transactios pass. Then the amount is sent in different blocks in random amount to different address user provided.
676 2013-01-11 18:29:37 <hasfijyvydyyyy> Should this work?
677 2013-01-11 18:30:03 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: No. There are really two ideas with I think are highly complementary. Petertodd's original is pure fidelity bonds. I recommended the cyptocards becuase its an orthorgonal kind of protection and would make people who don't feel comfortable with the fidelity bond happy.
678 2013-01-11 18:30:37 <gmaxwell> hasfijyvydyyyy: not a great idea. Instead people should just write a single joint transaction. Then they don't have to trust that your wallet won't get compromised.
679 2013-01-11 18:30:58 DBordello has joined
680 2013-01-11 18:31:10 <Luke-Jr> hasfijyvydyyyy: that sounds like laundry, which is illegal most countriesâ¦
681 2013-01-11 18:31:47 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: the idea behind the cryptocard is that there is hardwareâ which can be arbritarily openâ but which contains a private key, signed by a trusted authority that the hardware doesn't let out. The hardware also can perform remote attestation: e.g. it can use that key to sign a message to prove to anyone what software it is currently running.
682 2013-01-11 18:31:49 <hasfijyvydyyyy> Luke-Jr: that will be a script, not a service. Everyone can us it the way they want, as bitcoin
683 2013-01-11 18:32:30 <Luke-Jr> hasfijyvydyyyy: there's a scary court case going on now, which aims to set a precedent that software developers can be prosecuted for how their software is used :/
684 2013-01-11 18:32:51 <hasfijyvydyyyy> in which country?
685 2013-01-11 18:33:13 <Luke-Jr> hasfijyvydyyyy: USA
686 2013-01-11 18:33:23 <hasfijyvydyyyy> gmaxwell: sorry, i'm not a english native language speaker, what is a 'joint transaction'
687 2013-01-11 18:33:41 <Luke-Jr> hasfijyvydyyyy: a single Bitcoin transaction, combining the inputs and outputs of many people
688 2013-01-11 18:33:45 <hasfijyvydyyyy> Luke-Jr: as i thounght :) I will alway stay away from that abuse land
689 2013-01-11 18:34:08 <Luke-Jr> (as if anywhere else is much better)
690 2013-01-11 18:34:47 <hasfijyvydyyyy> some things are better, other are worse
691 2013-01-11 18:34:56 <hasfijyvydyyyy> but it depends on things that we prefer
692 2013-01-11 18:35:29 <hasfijyvydyyyy> sorry, dinner :) i will be back soon
693 2013-01-11 18:37:13 <TD> gmaxwell: you wouldn't use a cryptocard for that these days, trusted computing/TXT is a better framework
694 2013-01-11 18:37:15 swappermall has joined
695 2013-01-11 18:37:16 <TD> or at least easier to use :)
696 2013-01-11 18:38:20 Jezzz has joined
697 2013-01-11 18:38:44 <gmaxwell> TD: doesn't provide actually secure remote attestation on any of the commidity hardware available today.
698 2013-01-11 18:39:38 <Diapolo> What is better to understand? wallet database or just wallet?
699 2013-01-11 18:40:17 <gmaxwell> TD: or â has this happened while I wasn't looking? having to hunt down cryptocards on ebay kinda sucks! :P
700 2013-01-11 18:40:28 <gmaxwell> (plus they're fairly slow)
701 2013-01-11 18:41:22 * Luke-Jr ponders if Bitcoin-Qt should support TPM wallet encryption
702 2013-01-11 18:41:40 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: doesn't really help much of anything alas.
703 2013-01-11 18:42:35 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: it helps the wallet-on-USB-key case
704 2013-01-11 18:43:05 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
705 2013-01-11 18:43:12 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: it does, but a password largely gives you the same help.
706 2013-01-11 18:43:36 <TD> gmaxwell: yes it does
707 2013-01-11 18:43:39 copumpkin has joined
708 2013-01-11 18:43:57 <TD> gmaxwell: you know the page i wrote about storj, right?http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Agents
709 2013-01-11 18:45:13 ThomasV has joined
710 2013-01-11 18:45:47 <Diapolo> Is there any sense in having if (!bitdb.Open(GetDataDir())) in init.cpp twice (in step 5 and later in step 7)?
711 2013-01-11 18:45:52 <TD> gmaxwell: you can buy systems from dell and other PC shops where the TPM is integrated into the northbridge, or the CPU. very, very hard to penetrate that. then you can enter a sealed world and remotely attest to the code running within it
712 2013-01-11 18:46:10 <TD> you can flip in and out of the secure realm, but the secure realm still runs regular x86 code you can compile with your normal tools
713 2013-01-11 18:46:15 <TD> it's a pretty nice setup. complicated but nice
714 2013-01-11 18:46:17 <TD> see trustvisor
715 2013-01-11 18:46:21 <gmaxwell> TD: can you pin the cache so you run entirely out of internal memory?
716 2013-01-11 18:46:35 <gmaxwell> (otherwise dram is very easy to shim)
717 2013-01-11 18:46:49 <gmaxwell> (esp if you only need to create a few bitflips to extract a private key)
718 2013-01-11 18:46:53 maaku has joined
719 2013-01-11 18:47:06 toffoo has joined
720 2013-01-11 18:48:07 <Diapolo> sipa: Is there any sense in having if (!bitdb.Open(GetDataDir())) in init.cpp twice (in step 5 and later in step 7)?
721 2013-01-11 18:48:18 <gmaxwell> TD: I'll look, that would certantly make petertodd happy... needing special hardware for this kinda stinks. But I think the fidelity bond alone is not quite persuasive enough, especially if the bond resale market is not very liquid.
722 2013-01-11 18:48:21 drizztbsd has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
723 2013-01-11 18:48:51 <TD> gmaxwell: i don't think there are explicit instructions for that, no, but you can certainly access some memory in order to fill the cache and then use that. do it implicitly. by default after entering the secure realm interrupts are disabled, you run in supervisor mode. so nothing is going to clear the cache underneath you
724 2013-01-11 18:49:10 <Pucilowski> Whats the difference between -server and -daemon?
725 2013-01-11 18:49:17 <TD> gmaxwell: well, you need "special hardware" in that not every cpu/mobo combo supports it. the intel website says which do. but it's certainly not exotic hardware.
726 2013-01-11 18:49:32 <Luke-Jr> pretty sure mine has TPM
727 2013-01-11 18:49:42 <Luke-Jr> no clue how to do anything remotely useful with it tho
728 2013-01-11 18:49:55 <TD> TPM is necessary but not sufficient
729 2013-01-11 18:50:00 <TD> what cpu do you have?
730 2013-01-11 18:50:01 <gmaxwell> yea yea, but right. totally different order of magnitude. You'd like also implement this on a device who's only interface to the outside world was some simple serial bus, rather than a network interface.. but all stuff any geek could setup without much work.
731 2013-01-11 18:51:09 <TD> right. it's a lot easier to order up a nice workstation or server from a PC maker than acquire an ibm cryptocard
732 2013-01-11 18:51:09 <Luke-Jr> TD: i5-2400
733 2013-01-11 18:51:15 <Luke-Jr> TD: Intel DW64SW motherboard
734 2013-01-11 18:51:24 <Luke-Jr> DQ67SW*
735 2013-01-11 18:51:30 <TD> http://ark.intel.com/products/52207/Intel-Core-i5-2400-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_40-GHz
736 2013-01-11 18:51:39 <TD> the CPU supports it for sure. see "trusted execution technology"
737 2013-01-11 18:52:04 <TD> TXT is a bit of a pain in that you typically need to make sure your BIOS is up to date, etc. it's not really deployable by your grandma
738 2013-01-11 18:52:20 <TD> but it's totally doable for somebody to set up a hosting service where the machines you rent are all TXT capable and can remotely attest
739 2013-01-11 18:52:26 <Luke-Jr> TD: if I make a wrong move, am I screwed? :P
740 2013-01-11 18:52:29 <Diapolo> AFAIK TPMs are not yet on-chip?
741 2013-01-11 18:52:54 <gmaxwell> mostly the trusted computing only needs to be hard enough so that people who don't grok the fidelity bond are happy, and so that cracking the txt and stealing the funds takes more work than an ordely shutdown and sell off of your bond.
742 2013-01-11 18:53:30 <TD> Luke-Jr: haha
743 2013-01-11 18:53:32 <TD> you have no idea
744 2013-01-11 18:53:38 jurov has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
745 2013-01-11 18:53:39 <TD> TXT is one of the only ways i know of to actually brick a motherboard
746 2013-01-11 18:53:44 <Luke-Jr> :/
747 2013-01-11 18:53:48 <TD> and i don't mean "brick" as in hipster iphone-jailbreak "brick:
748 2013-01-11 18:53:51 <Luke-Jr> I think I can live without it
749 2013-01-11 18:53:59 <TD> i mean actually turn it into a worthless hunk of metal you have to throw in the trash
750 2013-01-11 18:54:06 <TD> it's only an issue with old BIOS versions, iirc.
751 2013-01-11 18:54:16 <Luke-Jr> ?
752 2013-01-11 18:54:54 <TD> if you invoke TXT with a buggy BIOS version, some motherboards persist some state to some on-board nvram that then cannot be changed, and prevents bootup
753 2013-01-11 18:55:00 <TD> there's no way to recover from it. you need a new motherboard.
754 2013-01-11 18:55:03 jurov has joined
755 2013-01-11 18:55:16 <TD> which is why TXT docs come with health warnings at the top :)
756 2013-01-11 18:55:47 <TD> anyway, home time
757 2013-01-11 18:57:40 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
758 2013-01-11 18:58:10 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
759 2013-01-11 18:58:13 crazy4btc has quit (Quit: Leaving)
760 2013-01-11 18:58:46 copumpkin has joined
761 2013-01-11 19:01:40 <Diapolo> I would be happy if some core dev could take a look at my question ^^: Is there any sense in having if (!bitdb.Open(GetDataDir())) in init.cpp twice (in step 5 and later in step 7)?
762 2013-01-11 19:02:40 DBordello has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
763 2013-01-11 19:05:26 mughat3 has joined
764 2013-01-11 19:14:20 paraipan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
765 2013-01-11 19:15:50 <Pucilowski> http://puu.sh/1MtEo any ideas?
766 2013-01-11 19:18:49 paraipan has joined
767 2013-01-11 19:19:44 Jezzz is now known as Guest91877
768 2013-01-11 19:20:21 Jezzz_ has joined
769 2013-01-11 19:20:57 Jezzz_ is now known as Jezzz
770 2013-01-11 19:22:21 <gavinandresen> Pucilowski: JSON does not do single-quotes, if I recall correctly
771 2013-01-11 19:24:36 <Pucilowski> i tried wrapping the key in [" "], [], no brackets, etc
772 2013-01-11 19:24:59 <Pucilowski> wrapped in just " " results in error: value is type int, expected array
773 2013-01-11 19:25:23 paraipan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
774 2013-01-11 19:28:07 rdymac has quit (Read error: No route to host)
775 2013-01-11 19:28:26 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
776 2013-01-11 19:29:40 TD has joined
777 2013-01-11 19:30:18 DBordello has joined
778 2013-01-11 19:31:54 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
779 2013-01-11 19:33:09 D34TH has joined
780 2013-01-11 19:33:57 Diapolo has left ()
781 2013-01-11 19:41:04 rdponticelli has joined
782 2013-01-11 19:42:58 paraipan has joined
783 2013-01-11 19:45:24 <gavinandresen> Pucilowski: the windows command shell has funky quoting rules; I don't use windows myself, so have no idea what they are. But some combination of backslashes will make it work....
784 2013-01-11 19:45:46 BlackPrapor has joined
785 2013-01-11 19:46:12 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
786 2013-01-11 19:47:30 mykhal has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
787 2013-01-11 19:48:09 owowo has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
788 2013-01-11 19:52:39 <jgarzik> heh "some combination of backslashes will make it work" has often been uttered in the presence of Windows
789 2013-01-11 19:56:25 BlackPrapor has joined
790 2013-01-11 19:56:49 jdnavarro has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
791 2013-01-11 19:57:59 BlackPrapor has quit (2!~BlackPrap@h31-8-50-80.dyn.bashtel.ru|Read error: Connection reset by peer)
792 2013-01-11 19:58:25 BlackPrapor has joined
793 2013-01-11 19:59:04 BlackPrapor has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
794 2013-01-11 20:01:43 someone42 has joined
795 2013-01-11 20:03:36 mykhal has joined
796 2013-01-11 20:04:12 Guest67321 has joined
797 2013-01-11 20:06:05 WolfAlex has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
798 2013-01-11 20:06:07 <sipa> is bitcointalk down?
799 2013-01-11 20:06:15 WolfAlex has joined
800 2013-01-11 20:06:42 <Guest67321> down for me
801 2013-01-11 20:06:49 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
802 2013-01-11 20:06:55 <Guest67321> for 1 or 2 hours
803 2013-01-11 20:07:25 <Guest67321> hmmm now up
804 2013-01-11 20:07:43 <Guest67321> strange
805 2013-01-11 20:07:43 <sipa> it seems to be a problem here, i can't access any site
806 2013-01-11 20:08:48 debiantoruser has joined
807 2013-01-11 20:09:15 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
808 2013-01-11 20:11:33 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
809 2013-01-11 20:17:55 <jgarzik> Schneier blog post "Breaking Hard-Disk Encryption" http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/12/breaking_hard-d.html
810 2013-01-11 20:18:09 WolfAlex has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
811 2013-01-11 20:18:24 WolfAlex has joined
812 2013-01-11 20:18:26 <jgarzik> nothing new
813 2013-01-11 20:20:08 Insu has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
814 2013-01-11 20:20:08 BlackPrapor has quit (2!~BlackPrap@h31-8-50-80.dyn.bashtel.ru|Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
815 2013-01-11 20:22:31 rdponticelli has joined
816 2013-01-11 20:22:43 Guest67321 has quit (Quit: Page closed)
817 2013-01-11 20:25:02 grau has joined
818 2013-01-11 20:25:10 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
819 2013-01-11 20:29:29 Dzia has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
820 2013-01-11 20:31:06 <sturles> There was a session on 29c3 about breaking hard disk encryption. Some interesting teckniques used there. Conclusion: If you have physical access and it is on or the user will turn it on after getting it back, you have won.
821 2013-01-11 20:31:17 reizuki__ has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
822 2013-01-11 20:46:45 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
823 2013-01-11 20:50:38 WolfAlex has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
824 2013-01-11 20:52:36 WolfAlex has joined
825 2013-01-11 20:54:13 swappermall has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
826 2013-01-11 21:10:29 TD has joined
827 2013-01-11 21:15:23 <BlueMatt> hmmmm...motherboard smokes, still works....should probably get that replaced
828 2013-01-11 21:16:21 swappermall has joined
829 2013-01-11 21:16:34 hasfijyvydyyyy has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
830 2013-01-11 21:16:58 <BlueMatt> TD: anything else you want to see done to bloom filters for bitcoind?
831 2013-01-11 21:17:10 <TD> mempool?
832 2013-01-11 21:17:13 <BlueMatt> done
833 2013-01-11 21:17:19 <TD> in that case, i guess not
834 2013-01-11 21:17:27 <TD> though i should implement mempool in bcj and test it
835 2013-01-11 21:17:28 <BlueMatt> sipa: do you like/dislike the script matching stuff
836 2013-01-11 21:17:39 <BlueMatt> yes, that and the script matching stuff, which is largely untested
837 2013-01-11 21:18:05 bonks_ has joined
838 2013-01-11 21:18:29 WolfAlex_ has joined
839 2013-01-11 21:18:57 <sipa> BlueMatt: i find it hard to say, given that the current applications will only use a subset of the functionality
840 2013-01-11 21:19:15 bonks is now known as Guest61662
841 2013-01-11 21:19:15 bonks_ is now known as bonks
842 2013-01-11 21:19:48 WolfAlex has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
843 2013-01-11 21:19:54 <sipa> is bip37 up-to-date with the implementation?
844 2013-01-11 21:20:09 <BlueMatt> no
845 2013-01-11 21:20:11 <BlueMatt> t yet
846 2013-01-11 21:21:19 <sipa> so what is the current implementation?
847 2013-01-11 21:21:40 Guest61662 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
848 2013-01-11 21:22:46 <BlueMatt> its bip 37 + flags to control when/if things get added to the filter automagically
849 2013-01-11 21:23:12 <sipa> and which flags are there?
850 2013-01-11 21:24:15 <BlueMatt> BLOOM_UPDATE_ALL, BLOOM_UPDATE_NONE, BLOOM_UPDATE_P2PUBKEY_ONLY (which does pay2pubkey and multisig pay to pubkey) and BLOOM_UPDATE_SCRIPT_TEMPLATES_ONLY
851 2013-01-11 21:24:33 <BlueMatt> the last being up for debate if people object
852 2013-01-11 21:25:06 <sipa> i don't like the protocol depending on which script templates exist
853 2013-01-11 21:25:55 <sipa> what is script templates only?
854 2013-01-11 21:26:21 <BlueMatt> matches the provided script templates
855 2013-01-11 21:26:51 <sipa> which are sent as part of the filter spec?
856 2013-01-11 21:26:58 <BlueMatt> yes
857 2013-01-11 21:27:29 <BlueMatt> well at least one of BLOOM_UPDATE_SCRIPT_TEMPLATES_ONLY or BLOOM_UPDATE_P2PUBKEY_ONLY really need to be there, and you were talking about sending script templates being overcomplicated
858 2013-01-11 21:27:29 <sipa> so you can simulate P2PUBKEY_ONLY using script templates only?
859 2013-01-11 21:27:35 <BlueMatt> yes
860 2013-01-11 21:27:45 <BlueMatt> i see where this is going....
861 2013-01-11 21:28:30 <sipa> it still feels weird to me that you'd control what stuff causes auto updates, and not what to match
862 2013-01-11 21:28:50 <sipa> if you're going to send a template, you'd certainly want that to be used for matching too
863 2013-01-11 21:29:40 <BlueMatt> well it will match anything, and it just feels weird to provide option to restrict matches, seems like someone may do something weird implementation-wise and hurt privacy
864 2013-01-11 21:29:52 <BlueMatt> that and doing that implementation complicates the matching process further
865 2013-01-11 21:30:08 <BlueMatt> (and as it is, the matching commit is really just a refactor, and id kinda like to keep it that way
866 2013-01-11 21:30:35 <sipa> if i tell you to only do auto-updating on a particular template, i can very reasonably guess that you're only interested in those templates too
867 2013-01-11 21:30:49 <gavinandresen> could you generalize to "match bytes 11-30" ?
868 2013-01-11 21:30:54 <BlueMatt> sipa: not true at all
869 2013-01-11 21:31:09 <sipa> *you can
870 2013-01-11 21:31:16 <BlueMatt> sipa: for pay to pubkeyhash, you care but you dont want it updated
871 2013-01-11 21:31:39 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: you could, but it just seems like a waste and an over-complication, unless someone has a use-case?
872 2013-01-11 21:31:47 <sipa> right
873 2013-01-11 21:32:05 <sipa> this feels all too complicated
874 2013-01-11 21:32:16 <gavinandresen> I'd just like it to Just Work if we add new script templates in the future.
875 2013-01-11 21:32:44 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: matching still will, thats the reason why matching doesnt require templates
876 2013-01-11 21:32:50 <sipa> the only problem is address reuse causing a massive amount of false matches, with positive feedback loopbehaviour if you have auto-updating
877 2013-01-11 21:32:56 <sipa> right?
878 2013-01-11 21:33:13 <BlueMatt> sipa: no loop involved, just feedback....yes
879 2013-01-11 21:33:21 <BlueMatt> and im not sure it has to do with address reuse
880 2013-01-11 21:33:33 <BlueMatt> because it matches outpoints, so there is no loop here, just feedback
881 2013-01-11 21:33:44 <sipa> well, the feedback loop is a problem in general, but not one you can solve
882 2013-01-11 21:34:04 <sipa> hmm, right
883 2013-01-11 21:34:15 <BlueMatt> yes, the idea is to limit the feedback, and if you limit to p2pubkey alone, then you limit the feedback very significantly
884 2013-01-11 21:34:22 <BlueMatt> (to around 1tx/block)
885 2013-01-11 21:34:26 <BlueMatt> instead of all of them
886 2013-01-11 21:34:33 one_zero has joined
887 2013-01-11 21:34:36 <TD> the point of stating in the protocol which output scripts trigger auto-expansion/feedback/etc is so you can avoid hitting popular reused keys
888 2013-01-11 21:34:40 <TD> yeah
889 2013-01-11 21:34:44 <TD> it's a pragmatic change
890 2013-01-11 21:36:01 <gmaxwell> TD: on your client enhancement checklist, you should probably keep a list of false positives you've recieved, and then use them to search for tweaks when you update filters.
891 2013-01-11 21:36:16 <TD> good idea
892 2013-01-11 21:36:20 <TD> there are more important things for now though
893 2013-01-11 21:36:24 <gmaxwell> Absolutely.
894 2013-01-11 21:36:58 <gmaxwell> That just will rescue it in the pessimistic case where something like deepbit or sdice happens to collide with one of your addresses in the default tweak.
895 2013-01-11 21:37:00 <sipa> how about a flag to enable/disable auto_update in general, and have an optional list of templates to filter? (if none provided: match all; if one or more provided: only if it matches any of them)
896 2013-01-11 21:37:28 <MC1984> who is andreas schildbach
897 2013-01-11 21:37:37 <sipa> author of bitcoin wallet for android
898 2013-01-11 21:37:46 larsig has quit ()
899 2013-01-11 21:37:57 <BlueMatt> sipa: do you mean match or update?
900 2013-01-11 21:37:59 <MC1984> yeah does he have a handle in here or whaever
901 2013-01-11 21:38:07 <BlueMatt> sipa: because the issue is, you want to match way more than you want to be auto-added
902 2013-01-11 21:38:10 <sipa> BlueMatt: for updating
903 2013-01-11 21:38:19 <TD> sipa: ?
904 2013-01-11 21:38:25 <BlueMatt> sipa: that is what the pull does, it just happens to add a default P2PUBKEY flag as well
905 2013-01-11 21:38:38 <BlueMatt> (which can be removed if you just want to always send the list of P2PUBKEY templates)
906 2013-01-11 21:38:39 <TD> sipa: right, you want to match against all outputs but only auto-add for some
907 2013-01-11 21:38:51 <TD> MC1984: no, why
908 2013-01-11 21:39:00 <sipa> yes
909 2013-01-11 21:39:10 <TD> BlueMatt: btw there are some findbugs warnings added by the bloom filter code
910 2013-01-11 21:39:20 <gavinandresen> replace the hard-coded enum values with CScript templates, I think sipa means, with the pseudo-opcodes for matching punk eys/etc ???
911 2013-01-11 21:39:24 <BlueMatt> TD: alright, Ill look into them
912 2013-01-11 21:39:28 <MC1984> bitcoin wallet disappeared itself off my android tablet :/
913 2013-01-11 21:39:39 <TD> gavinandresen: that's what matt has already done
914 2013-01-11 21:39:42 <sipa> BlueMatt: i dislike the complexity of the templates, but hardcoding particular address types seems just ugly
915 2013-01-11 21:39:43 <TD> MC1984: "disappeared itself" ?
916 2013-01-11 21:39:49 <BlueMatt> sipa: agreed
917 2013-01-11 21:39:57 <BlueMatt> sipa: its kinda ugly either way...
918 2013-01-11 21:40:20 <MC1984> the icon was gone
919 2013-01-11 21:40:28 <MC1984> play store said its not installed
920 2013-01-11 21:40:32 <MC1984> odd
921 2013-01-11 21:40:44 <sipa> BlueMatt: and since the templates subsume the p2pubkey behaviour using only a few tens of bytes in a 36k filter datastructure, i don't think we need it
922 2013-01-11 21:40:47 <TD> that is â¦â¦ not good
923 2013-01-11 21:40:51 <TD> does it appear in your applications list?
924 2013-01-11 21:40:55 <TD> what version of android is this?
925 2013-01-11 21:41:16 <BlueMatt> sipa: I suppose thats fair, it can be removed
926 2013-01-11 21:41:22 <MC1984> i just reinstalled it to see if it really was uninstalled
927 2013-01-11 21:41:37 <TD> i've never heard of that happening before
928 2013-01-11 21:41:46 <MC1984> i think this is the second time its gone a bit strange
929 2013-01-11 21:41:47 <TD> it's bad if it can happen though. uninstallation deletes the wallet
930 2013-01-11 21:41:57 <MC1984> damn
931 2013-01-11 21:42:22 <TD> is this tablet special or unusual in any way? rooted? got unusual apps installed? what version is it?
932 2013-01-11 21:42:42 <MC1984> not rooted
933 2013-01-11 21:42:54 <MC1984> ICS 4 0 4
934 2013-01-11 21:43:23 <MC1984> archos 80 cobalt is the name
935 2013-01-11 21:44:29 <TD> i have no idea how that can have happened, sorry
936 2013-01-11 21:45:08 <MC1984> hmm actually, after reinstall it was only 3 days behind with the chain and my preferences were still set
937 2013-01-11 21:45:24 <MC1984> so its like the system forgot it was installed?
938 2013-01-11 21:46:21 <BlueMatt> on another note, should any additional pseudo-opcodes be added to allow for more generous matching in the future?
939 2013-01-11 21:47:04 <TD> that's totally random. maybe archos have a weird bug in their fork of ics?
940 2013-01-11 21:47:55 <MC1984> yeah its probably that
941 2013-01-11 21:48:07 <MC1984> i paid £44 for this tablet
942 2013-01-11 21:48:43 <MC1984> spec wise its top end hough apparently
943 2013-01-11 21:48:52 <sipa> BlueMatt: i suppose you can define a range of opcodes that for now match anything
944 2013-01-11 21:49:10 <TD> MC1984: well, it's definitely very strange but glad to hear nothing got lost
945 2013-01-11 21:49:13 <sipa> BlueMatt: so if there is an update in the future, a new client talking to an old server will just get too much
946 2013-01-11 21:49:22 <sipa> instead of missing things
947 2013-01-11 21:49:36 <MC1984> dont have coins on it anyway
948 2013-01-11 21:49:37 <BlueMatt> sipa: ack
949 2013-01-11 21:49:56 <MC1984> have the testnet version though with some testcoins in it and thats never done anything strange
950 2013-01-11 21:50:08 <gavinandresen> ⦠these updating opcode-filled scripts are received over the network, right? That makes me nervouse.
951 2013-01-11 21:50:20 <sipa> gavinandresen: why>
952 2013-01-11 21:50:37 <gavinandresen> the pseudo-opcodes haven't been exposed to the network before, they were purely for internal use only
953 2013-01-11 21:51:11 <sipa> well, you could define matcher opcodes separately
954 2013-01-11 21:51:13 <gavinandresen> so if there is a crashing bug of some kind by combining them in some weird way....
955 2013-01-11 21:51:31 <sipa> oooh, you mean in the matching code
956 2013-01-11 21:51:35 <gavinandresen> yes
957 2013-01-11 21:51:50 <sipa> right, i guess i didn't realize network-received patterns would be passed to the matcher engine
958 2013-01-11 21:52:29 <gavinandresen> I thought that is what was being proposed, to eliminate the hard-coded enum.
959 2013-01-11 21:52:55 <sipa> yes
960 2013-01-11 21:54:01 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: ack, it needs more review before that part could be merged
961 2013-01-11 21:54:08 <gavinandresen> ok. if we do that, we need to carefully re-review the opcode matching code, and maybe write a special-purpose fuzzer
962 2013-01-11 21:54:32 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
963 2013-01-11 21:54:54 <BlueMatt> it looked reasonably safe when i read it, but it definately needs very close reading
964 2013-01-11 21:55:22 <TD> guh
965 2013-01-11 21:55:28 <TD> can we maybe do that in v2 of the protocol?
966 2013-01-11 21:55:33 <TD> i'd like to get bloom v1 over with and merged
967 2013-01-11 21:55:54 <BlueMatt> we can just leave it with just p2pubkey/all/none for now
968 2013-01-11 21:56:09 <sipa> ok
969 2013-01-11 21:56:37 <gavinandresen> simple to start is good. real-word usage might never need anything more....
970 2013-01-11 21:57:06 <sipa> if everyone only uses p2sh and pay-to-pubkeyhash from now on, there's no need for more :)
971 2013-01-11 21:57:09 <johzi> man, i see this gmaxwell troll here again. i can't believe how he hasn't been banned from the internet yet
972 2013-01-11 21:58:46 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: why is it that so many people hate you?
973 2013-01-11 21:59:32 <BlueMatt> what did you do to all these kids?
974 2013-01-11 21:59:39 <sipa> BlueMatt: it's always the same kid
975 2013-01-11 21:59:46 <BlueMatt> ahh ok
976 2013-01-11 21:59:48 <BlueMatt> makes more sense
977 2013-01-11 21:59:57 <BlueMatt> someone really has nothing good to do with their time
978 2013-01-11 22:00:22 <johzi> why are you letting the gmaxwell freak be here?
979 2013-01-11 22:00:30 <gmaxwell> it's one person.
980 2013-01-11 22:00:33 <gavinandresen> somebody please kick johzi for off-topic trolling
981 2013-01-11 22:00:35 <BlueMatt> better question: why are we lett
982 2013-01-11 22:00:38 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
983 2013-01-11 22:00:43 <sipa> BlueMatt: don't feed the troll
984 2013-01-11 22:00:59 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: aww, beat me to it
985 2013-01-11 22:01:15 <BlueMatt> sipa: somehow i missed ^H and hit enter... on that last one
986 2013-01-11 22:01:36 <Luke-Jr> hmm, someone seems to be trying to exploit Eloipool on Eligius :o
987 2013-01-11 22:01:47 <Luke-Jr> is fd0001 a valid "transaction count"?
988 2013-01-11 22:02:04 Belkaar has joined
989 2013-01-11 22:02:46 <Luke-Jr> nm, forgot this is LE
990 2013-01-11 22:03:53 WolfAlex_ has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
991 2013-01-11 22:04:09 WolfAlex has joined
992 2013-01-11 22:05:59 Ferroh has quit (Quit: *poof*)
993 2013-01-11 22:07:05 Diapolo has joined
994 2013-01-11 22:08:30 <MC1984> whats the rationale behind having the chain in 128mb chunks with the new database instead of 2gb
995 2013-01-11 22:08:56 <MC1984> easier to move around via outside methods?
996 2013-01-11 22:09:03 WolfAlex has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
997 2013-01-11 22:09:20 WolfAlex has joined
998 2013-01-11 22:10:38 <sipa> MC1984: mostly easier to delete part of it
999 2013-01-11 22:10:54 <MC1984> :o
1000 2013-01-11 22:11:03 <midnightmagic> i eased back on trying to talk reason with him because i realised i was talking to him more than I was even talking to my wife in terms of volume and time. i guess perhaps I was doing some good after all. :-/
1001 2013-01-11 22:11:18 <sipa> midnightmagic: who?
1002 2013-01-11 22:12:52 <sipa> MC1984: needing to delete blocks in blobs of 2GB isn't very nice :)
1003 2013-01-11 22:13:11 porquilho has quit ()
1004 2013-01-11 22:13:11 <sipa> (not that the code does that right now, but maybe somewhere in the future it will)
1005 2013-01-11 22:13:35 <MC1984> hopefully never imo
1006 2013-01-11 22:13:39 <MC1984> at least not for the desktop version
1007 2013-01-11 22:13:49 <MC1984> >implying there will be a desktop in the future
1008 2013-01-11 22:16:05 <TD> has anyone got some testcoins they can send me?
1009 2013-01-11 22:16:29 <sipa> MC1984: i see providing validation service and providing archival data to the network as separate things, and requiring everyone who wants to do one to also do the other to be a bad thing (which isn't the same as not having the ability to do both, of course)
1010 2013-01-11 22:16:54 swulf-- has joined
1011 2013-01-11 22:17:04 <TD> testnet faucet is broken
1012 2013-01-11 22:17:25 <MC1984> not requiring
1013 2013-01-11 22:17:50 <MC1984> but if you can, why not
1014 2013-01-11 22:17:54 <sipa> sure
1015 2013-01-11 22:18:03 <TD> mg7WkQngYLPxUzpsqGCFGfpLGzAPGLYu5E
1016 2013-01-11 22:18:10 <sipa> MC1984: oh, i definitely didn't mean deleting archive data *by default*
1017 2013-01-11 22:18:22 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1018 2013-01-11 22:18:34 swulf--1 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1019 2013-01-11 22:19:07 <MC1984> i dont think computers would break a sweat doing both for the foreseeable future unless bitcoin EXPLODES
1020 2013-01-11 22:19:55 <MC1984> and apart from battery concerns and shitty data caps i could even see mobile devices maybe being able to keep up the way things are going
1021 2013-01-11 22:20:17 <sipa> they may, but i really doubt you want to serve history from a mobile
1022 2013-01-11 22:20:33 <sipa> even stronger: i wouldn't want accidentally downloading from a mobile
1023 2013-01-11 22:20:45 <MC1984> as i said, apart from data caps and battery etc
1024 2013-01-11 22:20:59 <sipa> well, those are things to take into account when dealing with reality :)
1025 2013-01-11 22:21:34 <MC1984> yeah im not saying make mobile clients full, just making a point about how fast things are advancing
1026 2013-01-11 22:21:58 <MC1984> i think this android SPV client is just right
1027 2013-01-11 22:22:26 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1028 2013-01-11 22:22:32 <sipa> especially with bloom filtering added :)
1029 2013-01-11 22:22:54 <MC1984> i thought that turned out to not work properly?
1030 2013-01-11 22:23:02 <sipa> ?
1031 2013-01-11 22:23:08 <Diapolo> TD: some coins are on the way
1032 2013-01-11 22:23:15 <TD> thanks !
1033 2013-01-11 22:23:39 D34TH has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1034 2013-01-11 22:23:48 <sipa> MC1984: it's only been in a state where it can be tested for the past days/weeks or so
1035 2013-01-11 22:24:02 D34TH has joined
1036 2013-01-11 22:24:02 D34TH has quit (Changing host)
1037 2013-01-11 22:24:02 D34TH has joined
1038 2013-01-11 22:24:15 BTCOxygen has joined
1039 2013-01-11 22:24:38 <TD> MC1984: it's working quite well
1040 2013-01-11 22:24:56 <MC1984> oh well thats good
1041 2013-01-11 22:25:02 <MC1984> everything is going to plan
1042 2013-01-11 22:25:05 <TD> MC1984: it seems to give me a big speedup, it moves the bottleneck from slow crappy java mobile apps to solid C++ nodes
1043 2013-01-11 22:25:14 ovidiusoft has quit (Quit: leaving)
1044 2013-01-11 22:25:15 <TD> and we can probably make it another 3-4x faster on top of that
1045 2013-01-11 22:25:32 <TD> right now it seems to speed up sync from a local node by 10x which is pretty nice
1046 2013-01-11 22:25:41 <MC1984> you mean its viable to run an SPV ish node on java phones?
1047 2013-01-11 22:25:46 <TD> so with a bit more work maybe we can get to something like 40-50x faster than current android app is
1048 2013-01-11 22:25:56 <TD> it's viable today, i do it all the time. it syncs at night
1049 2013-01-11 22:26:05 <TD> so it only ever has <1 days worth of blocks to catch up with
1050 2013-01-11 22:26:36 <TD> bloom filtering makes sync a lot faster for the days worth of traffic and of course, if you leave your phone/tablet switched off for a while, it makes it come back faster.
1051 2013-01-11 22:26:41 <TD> also saves a ton of bandwidth on metered connections
1052 2013-01-11 22:26:50 <MC1984> how can you do business day to day with only a nightly sync?
1053 2013-01-11 22:26:59 <TD> the app still syncs when you open it
1054 2013-01-11 22:27:03 <sipa> MC1984: not SPVish; SPV
1055 2013-01-11 22:27:05 <TD> but it's never more than about 140 blocks behind
1056 2013-01-11 22:27:17 <MC1984> oh
1057 2013-01-11 22:27:40 <TD> so that catchup sync is pretty fast
1058 2013-01-11 22:27:50 <TD> and yeah it's proper spv
1059 2013-01-11 22:28:15 <MC1984> wow bitcoin might just be viable for places like africa and iran
1060 2013-01-11 22:28:15 <Diapolo> what is the long form of SPV I've always asked me that ^^
1061 2013-01-11 22:28:33 <sipa> Diapolo: simplified payment verification
1062 2013-01-11 22:28:43 <sipa> d read satoshiÅ paper :)
1063 2013-01-11 22:28:51 <MC1984> other plaes where the national currency is hyperinflating and stuff
1064 2013-01-11 22:29:02 <TD> i wish there was still a testnet block explorer site that worked
1065 2013-01-11 22:29:24 <TD> MC1984: anywhere smart phones and cheap tablets can be found, we will be able to run proper p2p wallets
1066 2013-01-11 22:29:28 <TD> no centralization
1067 2013-01-11 22:29:31 <Diapolo> sipa: I could read weeks on Bitcoin core stuff I guess :D
1068 2013-01-11 22:29:59 <MC1984> im talking about circa 2006 java "featurephones"
1069 2013-01-11 22:30:26 <MC1984> though it won be too long before even africa and china is awash with cheap androids....
1070 2013-01-11 22:30:39 <TD> those phones aren't powerful enough, no, but indeed, android is already taking over in even third world countries
1071 2013-01-11 22:30:44 <sipa> MC1984: i really doubt those are finpowerful enough
1072 2013-01-11 22:30:46 <TD> the actual limiting factor there is going to be data quota
1073 2013-01-11 22:31:19 <MC1984> like i said, bitcoin happened exactly as soon as it could have :)
1074 2013-01-11 22:31:25 <MC1984> really cool
1075 2013-01-11 22:35:31 swappermall_ has joined
1076 2013-01-11 22:35:49 <sipa> ;;bc,blocks
1077 2013-01-11 22:35:49 <gribble> 216163
1078 2013-01-11 22:36:16 <TD> MC1984: for things to take off outside eu/na/russia will take a lot of work. bitcoin is very nerdy.
1079 2013-01-11 22:38:32 <MC1984> i have every confidence
1080 2013-01-11 22:38:44 <MC1984> look at the bittorrent adoption curve
1081 2013-01-11 22:39:09 <TD> bittorrent is a totally different thing
1082 2013-01-11 22:39:37 <MC1984> its nerdy
1083 2013-01-11 22:39:50 <MC1984> but it solves a problem people might have not even known they had
1084 2013-01-11 22:39:59 <TD> bittorrents value proposition is "get stuff for free that you want and you'd have to otherwise pay for"
1085 2013-01-11 22:40:10 <TD> yes, surprise, that motivates people to use it
1086 2013-01-11 22:40:15 <TD> bitcoin has no such proposition
1087 2013-01-11 22:40:31 <MC1984> cough silk road
1088 2013-01-11 22:40:34 <Diapolo> dear core devs, I would love to see some non-controversial and already ACKed pulls get merged, the list is getting long and im pushing quite some small pull-reqs these days ;)
1089 2013-01-11 22:40:48 <sipa> Diapolo: ACK
1090 2013-01-11 22:40:58 <Diapolo> (not talking about mine here as most are GUI stuff)
1091 2013-01-11 22:41:04 <MC1984> also simply "transact on the internet WITHOUT paypal"
1092 2013-01-11 22:41:28 <sipa> MC1984: what does transact on the internet without paypal give you, when paypal is working fine?
1093 2013-01-11 22:41:48 <MC1984> paypl is not working fine
1094 2013-01-11 22:41:53 <sipa> papal has its problems, but for consumers they are very limited
1095 2013-01-11 22:42:03 <Diapolo> whoever trusts paypal should have zero problem to trust Bitcoin ^^
1096 2013-01-11 22:42:21 Graet_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1097 2013-01-11 22:42:42 <TD> we all know the reasons to use bitcoin, but basically, every single attempt to reform/improve online payments EXCEPT paypal has failed
1098 2013-01-11 22:42:44 <sipa> gmaxwell, gavinandresen: around 800 MB for a by-txoutscript index
1099 2013-01-11 22:42:53 <sipa> i expected worse
1100 2013-01-11 22:42:57 <MC1984> lots of people at least know of someone who got fucked over by paypal. Plus bitcoin can undercut them so thats something
1101 2013-01-11 22:43:08 <gmaxwell> sipa: whats your key?
1102 2013-01-11 22:43:24 <sipa> gmaxwell: 64 bits of Hash160(scriptPubKey)
1103 2013-01-11 22:43:31 <MC1984> paypal got big beause of the early partnership with ebay imo
1104 2013-01-11 22:43:43 <MC1984> was like a synergysti success, thats why ebay bought them in the end
1105 2013-01-11 22:43:53 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
1106 2013-01-11 22:44:05 * TD waits for testnet blocks
1107 2013-01-11 22:44:08 <MC1984> i was looking at ebid today and wondering, what if they set up thier own bitcoin escrow service?
1108 2013-01-11 22:44:21 <MC1984> right now ebid funds a competitor by using paypal :/
1109 2013-01-11 22:44:31 <sipa> gmaxwell: both inputs and outputs
1110 2013-01-11 22:44:39 <Diapolo> TD: I have the internal miner running ^^ will take a few minutes :D
1111 2013-01-11 22:44:55 <gmaxwell> okay, that explains why it's bigger than the full txn database.
1112 2013-01-11 22:45:30 <gmaxwell> Still, I do wonder how big it is without the couple worst offenders.
1113 2013-01-11 22:45:48 <TD> i think fireduck doesn't want to adopt compressed pubkeys
1114 2013-01-11 22:45:59 <sipa> fireduck?
1115 2013-01-11 22:46:06 <TD> the guy who runs sd
1116 2013-01-11 22:46:16 <sipa> ... why not?
1117 2013-01-11 22:46:19 <gmaxwell> TD: is the issue only that no one has written a vanity generator for them?
1118 2013-01-11 22:46:46 <TD> he doesn't want to change his addresses. compared it to changing phone numbers for a business that takes all orders via phone. i'm trying to persuade him otherwise
1119 2013-01-11 22:46:59 <gmaxwell> ...
1120 2013-01-11 22:47:07 <sipa> he can keep using the old addresses
1121 2013-01-11 22:47:11 <sipa> just publish new ones
1122 2013-01-11 22:47:12 <gmaxwell> Yea, on the subject of peanalizing address reuse⦠oy.
1123 2013-01-11 22:47:29 <TD> i mentioned that
1124 2013-01-11 22:47:52 <sipa> TD: does bitcoinj do compressed pubkeys now, actually?
1125 2013-01-11 22:48:05 swappermall has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1126 2013-01-11 22:51:05 <Diapolo> How deep in the chain is considered save for that bloom pull-req? Just reading some text in the Wiki ^^.
1127 2013-01-11 22:51:23 <sipa> Diapolo: it just filters blocks/transactions
1128 2013-01-11 22:51:57 <sipa> in a way that the receiver can still validate the claimed resulting transactions are part of the block
1129 2013-01-11 22:52:14 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1130 2013-01-11 22:53:53 debiantoruser has joined
1131 2013-01-11 22:54:18 <Diapolo> from what I understand SPV mode is not as "safe" as a thick node, but much faster and more efficient... what decides if that is an acceptable approach in bitcoind / bitcoin-qt.exe or will the just server SPV nodes and not be ones?
1132 2013-01-11 22:55:08 <MC1984> SPV nodes need full nodes to work
1133 2013-01-11 22:55:25 <sipa> Diapolo: SPV doesn't allow full validation
1134 2013-01-11 22:56:02 <amiller_> but it's possible to do full validation with something much lighter than a full node
1135 2013-01-11 22:56:09 <TD> sipa: yeah
1136 2013-01-11 22:56:13 <TD> sipa: i added it last week.
1137 2013-01-11 22:56:15 <Diapolo> sipa: right I want to understand how our client behaves when the bloom pull is in
1138 2013-01-11 22:56:33 <sipa> Diapolo: it means it is able to serve filtered blocks to SPV nodes that connect to it
1139 2013-01-11 22:56:40 <BlueMatt> amiller_: its not possible without much less than ultraprune
1140 2013-01-11 22:57:36 <sipa> amiller_: full validation? not with less cpu or less bandwith... less (trusted) storage is possible
1141 2013-01-11 22:57:39 <Diapolo> sipa: but it's not able to be a SPV node?
1142 2013-01-11 22:57:48 <sipa> Diapolo: oh no
1143 2013-01-11 22:58:14 <sipa> Diapolo: that bloom filter pullreq just implements the server side of block/tx filtering
1144 2013-01-11 22:58:16 <Diapolo> sipa: that was a fact unknown to me, as I didn't really dig into that
1145 2013-01-11 22:58:28 <sipa> it doesn't allow it to become a lightweight client
1146 2013-01-11 22:58:47 <Diapolo> understood
1147 2013-01-11 22:59:36 Guest67326 has joined
1148 2013-01-11 23:10:55 owowo has joined
1149 2013-01-11 23:11:47 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1150 2013-01-11 23:13:08 <TD> has anyone got a testnet block explorer?
1151 2013-01-11 23:14:48 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
1152 2013-01-11 23:15:27 <Scrat> hm http://blockexplorer.com/testnet
1153 2013-01-11 23:16:08 <petertodd> scrat: note the date of the most recent block...
1154 2013-01-11 23:18:16 * Scrat hides back into his cave
1155 2013-01-11 23:19:20 <Scrat> I swear I used it recently and it was working
1156 2013-01-11 23:19:21 <Scrat> :/
1157 2013-01-11 23:19:40 <petertodd> scrat: if you want to get a copy of the Abe block explorer running on testnet in that cave of yours we'd all appreciate it though :P
1158 2013-01-11 23:20:41 <gmaxwell> TD: it would be nice if someone could make a list of blockexplorer features missing in the reference client. With the address index I think there should be no major gaps except a clickable ui.
1159 2013-01-11 23:20:55 <TD> the clickable ui is useful though :)
1160 2013-01-11 23:20:55 Guest67326 has quit (Quit: Yo!)
1161 2013-01-11 23:22:50 <sipa> idea!!
1162 2013-01-11 23:23:07 <sipa> jgarzik had a pullreq some time ago to serve HTTP through the RPC port
1163 2013-01-11 23:24:08 <petertodd> nice!
1164 2013-01-11 23:24:23 <sipa> i think serving a blockexplorer like site though it would be neat
1165 2013-01-11 23:25:12 <petertodd> done right it'd be significantly faster than blockchain and the like too
1166 2013-01-11 23:25:31 <petertodd> and finally the satoshi client itself can include twitter bootstrap
1167 2013-01-11 23:26:07 <D34TH> sipa: getting the data straight from the tap would be awesome
1168 2013-01-11 23:26:13 <D34TH> or pipe as it may be
1169 2013-01-11 23:27:35 <gmaxwell> The web stats UI on p2pool is nice, I like it a lot.
1170 2013-01-11 23:27:46 <gmaxwell> And I've used the p2pool share explorer many times while troubleshooting things.
1171 2013-01-11 23:28:07 ByteUnit has joined
1172 2013-01-11 23:28:25 <gmaxwell> (well, mostly I use it for the graphs)
1173 2013-01-11 23:29:25 <gmaxwell> because of CSRF I'm not keen on exposing the RPC to a browser, but if it were someone could write a whole webui based on talking to the rpc.
1174 2013-01-11 23:30:05 <sipa> gmaxwell: or run it on a separate port
1175 2013-01-11 23:30:16 <TD> is there a way to get a human-readable tx dump given a hash?
1176 2013-01-11 23:30:24 <TD> i don't think so, right
1177 2013-01-11 23:30:25 <sipa> TD: getrawtransaction <hash> 1
1178 2013-01-11 23:30:32 <TD> ah thanks
1179 2013-01-11 23:30:36 <TD> it was the 1 i was missing
1180 2013-01-11 23:30:47 <gmaxwell> The 1 seems to have low discoverability.
1181 2013-01-11 23:30:48 * TD puzzles
1182 2013-01-11 23:30:49 <sipa> or decoderawtransaction(getrawtransaction <hash>)
1183 2013-01-11 23:31:46 <TD> nLockTime has an off by one error?
1184 2013-01-11 23:32:05 <petertodd> how so?
1185 2013-01-11 23:33:01 <TD> http://pastebin.com/cMkacR7J
1186 2013-01-11 23:33:11 <TD> compare the height of the block vs the lock time
1187 2013-01-11 23:34:41 <sipa> :o
1188 2013-01-11 23:35:06 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
1189 2013-01-11 23:37:01 <sipa> TD: if all inputs are final, a transaction is final
1190 2013-01-11 23:37:07 <sipa> TD: despite having a locktime
1191 2013-01-11 23:37:30 <sipa> and with nSequency==0xFFFFFFFF, that is always the case
1192 2013-01-11 23:37:36 <TD> oh, of course
1193 2013-01-11 23:37:39 <TD> how could i forget that
1194 2013-01-11 23:37:43 <gmaxwell> yea, I had fun with this a while back and derpily opend an issue on it. :P
1195 2013-01-11 23:44:13 swappermall has joined
1196 2013-01-11 23:46:37 <petertodd> it also needs a "max depth" argument, I figure 10 is probably pretty safe, and hitting max depth is an automatic not-finalizable
1197 2013-01-11 23:46:46 <sipa> ?
1198 2013-01-11 23:47:02 <petertodd> message to gmaxwell...
1199 2013-01-11 23:48:23 <jgarzik> ground control to major tom
1200 2013-01-11 23:51:25 Diapolo has left ()
1201 2013-01-11 23:59:39 <TD> sipa: https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commit/3e4655404a8839a03c241fdcf67e063940eb462b
1202 2013-01-11 23:59:45 <TD> sipa: you use BN_sub not BN_mod_sub ?