1 2013-01-14 00:00:37 bitafterbit has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
   2 2013-01-14 00:00:42 da2ce7_d has joined
   3 2013-01-14 00:01:36 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
   4 2013-01-14 00:03:48 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
   5 2013-01-14 00:04:12 b4epoche has joined
   6 2013-01-14 00:05:05 da2ce7 has joined
   7 2013-01-14 00:05:27 TD[gone] has joined
   8 2013-01-14 00:05:40 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
   9 2013-01-14 00:05:47 da2ce7_d has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  10 2013-01-14 00:22:12 da2ce7_d has joined
  11 2013-01-14 00:23:45 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
  12 2013-01-14 00:26:20 da2ce7 has joined
  13 2013-01-14 00:28:08 da2ce7_d has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
  14 2013-01-14 00:31:30 da2ce7_d has joined
  15 2013-01-14 00:32:28 stealth222 has joined
  16 2013-01-14 00:32:47 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
  17 2013-01-14 00:33:19 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  18 2013-01-14 00:37:44 da2ce7 has joined
  19 2013-01-14 00:39:23 da2ce7_d has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  20 2013-01-14 00:39:32 freakazoid has joined
  21 2013-01-14 00:41:14 Ferroh has joined
  22 2013-01-14 00:44:07 KimK_laptop has joined
  23 2013-01-14 00:53:20 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
  24 2013-01-14 00:53:51 grau has joined
  25 2013-01-14 00:54:47 grau has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  26 2013-01-14 00:55:17 grau has joined
  27 2013-01-14 00:57:28 twixed has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  28 2013-01-14 01:01:54 freakazoid has joined
  29 2013-01-14 01:02:01 grau has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  30 2013-01-14 01:09:44 ThomasV has joined
  31 2013-01-14 01:16:48 da2ce711 has joined
  32 2013-01-14 01:38:42 Tycale has quit (Quit: Cya)
  33 2013-01-14 01:39:03 Tycale has joined
  34 2013-01-14 01:41:19 D34TH has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  35 2013-01-14 01:41:27 D34TH has joined
  36 2013-01-14 01:41:27 D34TH has quit (Changing host)
  37 2013-01-14 01:41:27 D34TH has joined
  38 2013-01-14 01:46:53 devrandom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  39 2013-01-14 01:47:16 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
  40 2013-01-14 01:56:27 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
  41 2013-01-14 01:57:42 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  42 2013-01-14 01:58:13 TwilightSparklee has joined
  43 2013-01-14 02:02:06 stealth222 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  44 2013-01-14 02:04:45 <MC-Eeepc> Basically we used to think double-spending a zero-confirmation transaction took some effort, and doing so could be detected by the receiver. It turns out that's not true.
  45 2013-01-14 02:04:58 <MC-Eeepc> wow is that the nail in the coffin for zero conf
  46 2013-01-14 02:05:27 <porquilho> what are you talking about
  47 2013-01-14 02:05:46 <porquilho> idont know nothng about zero-conf
  48 2013-01-14 02:06:05 <andytoshi> MC-Eeepc: elaborate? you still need to isolate part of the network
  49 2013-01-14 02:06:13 <andytoshi> it's not hard, but certainly not trivial
  50 2013-01-14 02:06:19 <MC-Eeepc> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=135985.20
  51 2013-01-14 02:06:28 <MC-Eeepc> this guy with a new attack apparently
  52 2013-01-14 02:07:07 * andytoshi is reading
  53 2013-01-14 02:07:31 <MC-Eeepc> only the devs know the details
  54 2013-01-14 02:08:27 <andytoshi> yeah, that's what it looks like
  55 2013-01-14 02:10:46 <andytoshi> interesting, i suppose us mortals will just have to wait and see
  56 2013-01-14 02:11:23 <MC-Eeepc> serious enough that theyre doing the whole cve proces thing
  57 2013-01-14 02:11:47 <porquilho> seems to me that is a problem that doesnt affect bitcoin fundamentaly
  58 2013-01-14 02:13:32 TradeFortress has joined
  59 2013-01-14 02:13:46 <TradeFortress> Is there any logging of JSON-RPC calls?
  60 2013-01-14 02:13:50 <TradeFortress> Coins stolen L/
  61 2013-01-14 02:13:52 <TradeFortress> :/*
  62 2013-01-14 02:14:58 owowo has quit (Quit: sayonara)
  63 2013-01-14 02:15:02 <Cusipzzz> TradeFortress: debug.log - you allowed remote RPC?
  64 2013-01-14 02:15:28 <TradeFortress> thanks, will look into debug.log
  65 2013-01-14 02:15:45 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  66 2013-01-14 02:16:11 <TradeFortress> Think attacker used curl or something, remote RPC isn't allowed
  67 2013-01-14 02:16:18 hahuang65 has joined
  68 2013-01-14 02:17:05 <TradeFortress> no timestamps??
  69 2013-01-14 02:18:15 <TradeFortress> and it doesn't show the parameters used?
  70 2013-01-14 02:21:41 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: I dunno who this "we" was that thought they could be detected, but it was never me.
  71 2013-01-14 02:23:05 hahuang65 has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: http://www.textualapp.com/)
  72 2013-01-14 02:23:38 <MC-Eeepc> maybe
  73 2013-01-14 02:23:52 <MC-Eeepc> but this guy claims its now utterly trivial to do and works every time
  74 2013-01-14 02:24:25 <andytoshi> gmaxwell: there has been a lot of talk on IRC along the lines of "the 'first' transaction will go through"
  75 2013-01-14 02:24:45 <andytoshi> and if you define 'first' using the blockchain temporal order, as "the one that goes through", that's correct
  76 2013-01-14 02:24:48 <andytoshi> :P
  77 2013-01-14 02:24:54 <andytoshi> but i think it's misleading
  78 2013-01-14 02:25:12 <andytoshi> (not from any devs, mind you, just something i've seen on #bitcoin)
  79 2013-01-14 02:25:36 agath has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  80 2013-01-14 02:25:55 agath has joined
  81 2013-01-14 02:27:08 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  82 2013-01-14 02:29:19 debiantoruser has joined
  83 2013-01-14 02:32:12 da2ce711 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
  84 2013-01-14 02:33:55 <TradeFortress> what happens if you call move with one of the addresses being an empty string ('')
  85 2013-01-14 02:37:40 Guest54088 is now known as asciilifeform
  86 2013-01-14 02:40:31 <kjj> if you do, then you are in luck, because every wallet contains an account named ''
  87 2013-01-14 02:41:07 <kjj> and if you do raw transactions, but want to keep your books straight, you and '' will become good friends in no time
  88 2013-01-14 02:41:11 topace has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
  89 2013-01-14 02:41:51 meLon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  90 2013-01-14 02:42:18 topace has joined
  91 2013-01-14 02:42:32 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: mostly it's TD that is telling people that it's okay to accept unconfirmed transactions. I don't agree. And I think that when people talk about they need to start prefacing it with "Mike says".
  92 2013-01-14 02:42:41 topace is now known as Guest51202
  93 2013-01-14 02:43:15 <gmaxwell> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=135985.msg1452599#msg1452599
  94 2013-01-14 02:43:34 grau has joined
  95 2013-01-14 02:45:10 <MC-Eeepc> from a technical standpoint its either ok or its not
  96 2013-01-14 02:45:21 <MC-Eeepc> why isnt there a consensus
  97 2013-01-14 02:45:38 <MC-Eeepc> if its not ok, then its up to whoever to decide if the risk level is acceptable for the business they do
  98 2013-01-14 02:45:55 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: because the only people who think tecnical matters are simply "ok or its not" are people on the sidelines who've never done actual engineering. Everyhting is compromises.
  99 2013-01-14 02:46:36 <MC-Eeepc> like i said, if its not ok then what is the risk level
 100 2013-01-14 02:46:51 <MC-Eeepc> sounds like a difference of opinion over the risk level tbh
 101 2013-01-14 02:47:30 <gmaxwell> I disagree with what TD says— I think he both understates the risk, and also doesn't adequate overstate it, but he's not crazy. I would prefer to overstate the risk, becuase those who can handle the risk can reason it out for theselves and they don't need to listen to me saying do or don't.
 102 2013-01-14 02:48:09 <gmaxwell> There are plenty of cases where its perfectly safe to accept unconfirmeds regardless of how risky you think they are.
 103 2013-01-14 02:48:24 grau has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 104 2013-01-14 02:49:15 <MC-Eeepc> well the thing about the attack is lowering the threshold for a double spend yet again
 105 2013-01-14 02:49:19 <MC-Eeepc> or increasing the risk
 106 2013-01-14 02:49:33 TwilightSparklee has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi)
 107 2013-01-14 02:49:50 <MC-Eeepc> id like it if zero conf was at an acceptable risk level for atleast maybe 10 dollars worth of value/goods :/
 108 2013-01-14 02:50:19 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: Basically whever this comes up I feel like TD responds to all examples of unconfirmed risk with a neverending series of evasions, often involving behavior no one takes and software which no one has written, which still wouldn't eliminate the risk.
 109 2013-01-14 02:50:26 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: thats not enough information.
 110 2013-01-14 02:51:07 <gmaxwell> A $10 risk is fine if you can't iterate it. :P  If I can steal a penny from a bank and automate it a zillion times an hour I can be rich before the operator returns to their desk from the weekend.
 111 2013-01-14 02:51:42 <MC-Eeepc> yeah, well it depends on your business
 112 2013-01-14 02:52:07 <MC-Eeepc> you could auto double spend an MP3 purchase a million times
 113 2013-01-14 02:52:16 <MC-Eeepc> have you stolen a million dollars of value?
 114 2013-01-14 02:52:29 <gmaxwell> Right. And even if you have? did you want to? :P
 115 2013-01-14 02:52:57 <MC-Eeepc> the answer is no, but put that mp3 on bittorrent and the answer becomes yes. amirite
 116 2013-01-14 02:53:14 <gmaxwell> So I just prefer to say they are flat out unsafe. ... and if you're okay with that, then you're a candidate for accepting them anyways.
 117 2013-01-14 02:53:44 <MC-Eeepc> sounds like difference of perspective on the issue
 118 2013-01-14 02:53:50 <MC-Eeepc> the engineer says this is unsafe
 119 2013-01-14 02:54:03 <Luke-Jr> I accidentally double-spent the first 999,999 times. Every time after the first, I was trying to pay again because I messed up!
 120 2013-01-14 02:54:09 <MC-Eeepc> the merchant says eh, theres money ti be made lets do it anyway
 121 2013-01-14 02:54:11 <gmaxwell> E.g. First accept that they are unsafe. Then, if you accept that and don't care— because of $other_reasons... then go ahead and accept them.
 122 2013-01-14 02:54:38 <Luke-Jr> finally after the millionth time double-spent, I gave up :<
 123 2013-01-14 02:55:18 <MC-Eeepc> to be fair no one has at any point said zero conf was anything close to safe
 124 2013-01-14 02:55:40 <TradeFortress> is there a tutorial or something on multisig transactions with PHP?
 125 2013-01-14 02:55:41 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: yea, I have no beef with making a total risk analysis that lets you take them. I have a complaint about saying they are unsafe _before_ considering external security and business issues.
 126 2013-01-14 02:55:57 <TradeFortress> I want to do something blockchain.info style where the server can't steal coins
 127 2013-01-14 02:56:06 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: sure, Mike has, and we even got an academic paper rebutting that position.
 128 2013-01-14 02:56:10 <TradeFortress> with multisig transactions, so the client JS and server has to both sign.
 129 2013-01-14 02:56:47 <gmaxwell> (sadly, I didn't think it was a great paper at the time— since it was not news to me— but I think in restrospect it's been far better than the average bitcoin paper)
 130 2013-01-14 02:57:10 <Luke-Jr> TradeFortress: gavin is working on that
 131 2013-01-14 02:57:25 <TradeFortress> so it's not usable now?
 132 2013-01-14 02:57:28 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: http://eprint.iacr.org/2012/248.pdf
 133 2013-01-14 02:57:35 <Luke-Jr> TradeFortress: not with bitcoind or Bitcoin-Qt at least
 134 2013-01-14 02:57:44 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: huh!?#@!
 135 2013-01-14 02:57:53 <TradeFortress> not with RPC calls?
 136 2013-01-14 02:57:54 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: raw transactions != usable
 137 2013-01-14 02:57:56 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: he says "with PHP" meaning with the api. It's perfectly usable with the api.
 138 2013-01-14 02:58:03 <Luke-Jr> TradeFortress: only if you do all the heavy lifting yourself
 139 2013-01-14 02:58:13 <MC-Eeepc> this client is now totally stuck syncing on block 193000 exactly
 140 2013-01-14 02:58:17 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: "perfectly usable"? :/
 141 2013-01-14 02:58:20 <MC-Eeepc> what are the chances
 142 2013-01-14 02:58:29 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: whats in the log?
 143 2013-01-14 02:58:35 KimK_laptop has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 144 2013-01-14 02:58:41 <MC-Eeepc> i tell you when it opens
 145 2013-01-14 02:59:03 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: okay, well, depends on what you're using it for.
 146 2013-01-14 02:59:21 <gmaxwell> TradeFortress: what are you trying to do exactly?
 147 2013-01-14 02:59:30 <porquilho> good pdf gmaxwell
 148 2013-01-14 02:59:43 <Luke-Jr> to me it sounded like he wanted to run a site acting as the 2nd signature of a multisig wallet
 149 2013-01-14 03:00:13 <MC-Eeepc> bool LoadExternalBlockFile(FILE*, CDiskBlockPos*)() : Deserialize or I/O error caught during load
 150 2013-01-14 03:00:39 TwilightSparklee has joined
 151 2013-01-14 03:00:39 <MC-Eeepc> lots of shit i havent seen before
 152 2013-01-14 03:01:02 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: I guess you were using bootstrap?
 153 2013-01-14 03:01:39 <MC-Eeepc> why do you say that
 154 2013-01-14 03:02:05 <gmaxwell> LoadExternalBlockFile
 155 2013-01-14 03:02:48 <MC-Eeepc> oh wait i did have bootstrap.dat in that directory
 156 2013-01-14 03:02:59 <MC-Eeepc> i thought -cnnect override it
 157 2013-01-14 03:03:33 <MC-Eeepc> also its now bootstrap.dat.old......
 158 2013-01-14 03:03:33 <TradeFortress> gmaxwell: I want to make a online wallet service where the user supplies their own private key.
 159 2013-01-14 03:03:45 <MC-Eeepc> does the bootstrap not work with the new db or what
 160 2013-01-14 03:03:50 <TradeFortress> Coins sent will be to a multisig address 2 of 2
 161 2013-01-14 03:05:17 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: I just think there was some existing issue with bootstraps > 2gb where it breaks right at the end, should be harmless except for not reading the last of the blocks.
 162 2013-01-14 03:05:32 <TradeFortress> Or is there an easy way to do what Blockchain.info is doing?
 163 2013-01-14 03:05:42 <gmaxwell> That isn't what blockchain.info is doing.
 164 2013-01-14 03:06:26 <TradeFortress> Yes, I know, blockchain.info makes the client sign TXes, etc locally with js
 165 2013-01-14 03:07:11 <MC-Eeepc> thats not secure
 166 2013-01-14 03:07:36 <MC-Eeepc> "use this code we just gave you to sign your super secret key lol"
 167 2013-01-14 03:07:46 <MC-Eeepc> the new megaupload is doing the same thing
 168 2013-01-14 03:07:59 TwilightSparklee has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 169 2013-01-14 03:08:00 <TradeFortress> MC-Eeepc: but the private key isn't sent to the server
 170 2013-01-14 03:08:10 <MC-Eeepc> specifically for plausible deniability of the contents of files too
 171 2013-01-14 03:08:48 <gmaxwell> TradeFortress: sure, but what happens when the server then sends updated JS that _does_ send it to the server?
 172 2013-01-14 03:09:11 <TradeFortress> gmaxwell: I'm working on a chrome extension that stores all JSes locally :)
 173 2013-01-14 03:09:11 <gmaxwell> What happens when the servr lies about the value of the user's coins and causes them to spend them out to fees?
 174 2013-01-14 03:09:58 <TradeFortress> Yeah, there's still security risks, but if you don't use the service your coins can't get stolen at least.
 175 2013-01-14 03:11:16 TwilightSparklee has joined
 176 2013-01-14 03:14:12 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 177 2013-01-14 03:14:39 <gmaxwell> damnit grau
 178 2013-01-14 03:15:13 <gmaxwell> WHY WILL NOT JUST RUN THE TEST OVER THE P2P PROTOCOL?  There is no reason to convert it to JSON first.
 179 2013-01-14 03:17:33 <kjj> yawn.  that whole paper to describe an attack that requires the attacker to know your IP address in advance, and to tell us to relay doubles instead of dumping them
 180 2013-01-14 03:20:45 da2ce7 has joined
 181 2013-01-14 03:22:17 <gmaxwell> kjj: we can't simply relay them.
 182 2013-01-14 03:22:30 <gmaxwell> otherwise the dos attack is trivial. :(
 183 2013-01-14 03:22:41 <gmaxwell> kjj: and the attacker knowing your IP is pretty reasonable.
 184 2013-01-14 03:23:16 <kjj> only in the trivial case of a guy with a website and a wallet on the same box
 185 2013-01-14 03:23:33 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 186 2013-01-14 03:24:21 da2ce7_d has joined
 187 2013-01-14 03:24:40 <kjj> and alerts have the same DOS problem
 188 2013-01-14 03:25:41 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 189 2013-01-14 03:26:37 <MC-Eeepc> whats the nick of the guy who runs blockchain.info
 190 2013-01-14 03:26:44 <MC-Eeepc> is he in here
 191 2013-01-14 03:27:08 <copumpkin> piuk I think, when he's around
 192 2013-01-14 03:27:11 <copumpkin> or something like that
 193 2013-01-14 03:28:15 <MC-Eeepc> his probes are not very identifiable
 194 2013-01-14 03:28:54 <TradeFortress> he is piuk
 195 2013-01-14 03:30:23 porquilho has quit ()
 196 2013-01-14 03:40:51 da2ce7 has joined
 197 2013-01-14 03:41:42 da2ce7_d has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 198 2013-01-14 03:44:42 paraipan has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
 199 2013-01-14 03:48:02 D34TH has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 200 2013-01-14 03:51:24 fiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 201 2013-01-14 03:51:35 fiesh has joined
 202 2013-01-14 03:54:01 TwilightSparklee has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi)
 203 2013-01-14 03:59:31 Gladamas has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 204 2013-01-14 03:59:43 lunchtime has joined
 205 2013-01-14 03:59:53 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 206 2013-01-14 04:00:27 copumpkin has joined
 207 2013-01-14 04:01:24 Gladamas has joined
 208 2013-01-14 04:16:22 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 209 2013-01-14 04:18:06 b4epoche has joined
 210 2013-01-14 04:19:50 RainbowDashh has joined
 211 2013-01-14 04:46:51 freakazoid has joined
 212 2013-01-14 05:02:49 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 213 2013-01-14 05:03:41 B0g4r7 has joined
 214 2013-01-14 05:04:16 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
 215 2013-01-14 05:04:23 [7] has joined
 216 2013-01-14 05:05:38 sgornick has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 217 2013-01-14 05:12:34 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 218 2013-01-14 05:14:26 debiantoruser has joined
 219 2013-01-14 05:15:21 stealth222 has joined
 220 2013-01-14 05:22:22 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
 221 2013-01-14 05:23:36 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 222 2013-01-14 05:28:17 B0g4r7 has joined
 223 2013-01-14 05:32:02 <MC-Eeepc> how can verification be multi threaded when verifying the chain is a linear operation?
 224 2013-01-14 05:32:51 <kjj> heh.  you want to think about it for a minute?
 225 2013-01-14 05:36:00 <MC-Eeepc> txn verify can be multi thread
 226 2013-01-14 05:36:16 <MC-Eeepc> but what about when its just headers before the checkpoint
 227 2013-01-14 05:38:04 <jgarzik> it's not just headers before a checkpoint
 228 2013-01-14 05:38:21 <jgarzik> bitcoin has to build the unspent transaction output (UTXO) dataset
 229 2013-01-14 05:38:30 <jgarzik> that requires pre-checkpoint data
 230 2013-01-14 05:38:45 <kjj> but even if it was just checking header hashes, that is totally parallelizable too
 231 2013-01-14 05:39:40 <kjj> as in, you could dispatch a gang of hash jobs, and wait until they all get back before you compare them
 232 2013-01-14 05:41:47 <MC-Eeepc> but if one fails, the works for the others is lost too if they were later
 233 2013-01-14 05:41:57 <kjj> so?
 234 2013-01-14 05:42:02 <MC-Eeepc> wait im stating the fkin obvious here
 235 2013-01-14 05:47:36 drivelights has joined
 236 2013-01-14 05:52:52 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 237 2013-01-14 05:53:26 lunchtime has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 238 2013-01-14 05:57:25 Gladamas_ has joined
 239 2013-01-14 05:57:56 B0g4r7 has joined
 240 2013-01-14 05:58:27 Gladamas has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 241 2013-01-14 06:01:38 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 242 2013-01-14 06:07:57 toffoo has quit ()
 243 2013-01-14 06:08:35 <etotheipi_> whoa, super interesting!
 244 2013-01-14 06:08:51 <etotheipi_> a 25.6 BTC bet to SD was reversed at zero-confirmations
 245 2013-01-14 06:09:07 <etotheipi_> it was based on a tx that had 43 inputs, 7 kB
 246 2013-01-14 06:09:11 <kjj> hey, did you get any more insights into the way listtransactions works?
 247 2013-01-14 06:09:36 <etotheipi_> that tx was replaced by ... a *zero-fee* tx that was 83 inputs and 14 kB
 248 2013-01-14 06:09:55 <etotheipi_> kjj: not yet
 249 2013-01-14 06:10:10 torsthaldo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 250 2013-01-14 06:10:31 <etotheipi_> doesn't that sound like a miner helped?
 251 2013-01-14 06:12:54 <Cusipzzz> etotheipi_: they're changing it to not show wins/losses until confirmed. but yeah, an obvious target.
 252 2013-01-14 06:14:11 <kjj> are you trying to make an RPC interface for armory, or are you trying to make sense of RPC calls to a satoshi client?
 253 2013-01-14 06:15:46 <etotheipi_> kjj, trying to make an RPC interface for Armory
 254 2013-01-14 06:15:56 <etotheipi_> and I thought I would try to match Satoshi client as close as possible
 255 2013-01-14 06:16:19 <kjj> heh.  I'm not sure that is wise
 256 2013-01-14 06:16:39 <etotheipi_> well, I wanted to basically make something that was a superset of bitcoind functionality
 257 2013-01-14 06:16:43 <kjj> I get the feeling that a lot of the RPC quirks just sort of fell out of the way the C++ code handles things
 258 2013-01-14 06:16:45 <etotheipi_> but I'm not sure that's really feasible
 259 2013-01-14 06:17:00 <etotheipi_> I might just go ahead and implement it my own way
 260 2013-01-14 06:17:15 <kjj> like I think I have a decent understanding of how listtransactions works, but I haven't put it to much of a test
 261 2013-01-14 06:17:26 <etotheipi_> there's a lot of things that will have to be different anyway (like all calls that are made to watching-only wallets)
 262 2013-01-14 06:19:07 <kjj> basically, listtransactions works on the copies of transactions stored in the wallet
 263 2013-01-14 06:19:41 <kjj> it iterates them, and for each secret that is also in the wallet, it spits out an entry, either send or recieve
 264 2013-01-14 06:21:01 <kjj> oh, and somewhere along the way, it bunches them up.  so like when I'm going consolidation transactions that redeem 10 inputs from one key and send it back to the same key, that shows up twice (once coming and once going)
 265 2013-01-14 06:21:18 <etotheipi_> kjj: that's the part that's really confusing me
 266 2013-01-14 06:21:28 <etotheipi_> if it has one entry for each output...
 267 2013-01-14 06:21:52 <etotheipi_> is it one entry for the whole debit (if it's sending), and then one more for each non-change output?
 268 2013-01-14 06:22:19 <kjj> I use different addresses for my p2pool mining nodes, so each block p2pool solves, I get several entries in my listtransactions, once for each key
 269 2013-01-14 06:23:10 <etotheipi_> is there a reason I shouldn't use my LedgerEntry stuff, that's pretty much already done?
 270 2013-01-14 06:23:12 <kjj> on the input side, I'm not so sure.  it looks like it *should* list two "send" transactions
 271 2013-01-14 06:24:01 <etotheipi_> it's txDir={send, receive, toself}, amount=BTC exchanged, and net=total-wallet-balance-movement
 272 2013-01-14 06:24:17 igetgames has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 273 2013-01-14 06:24:19 <etotheipi_> and then I can nest some lists to show recipients
 274 2013-01-14 06:24:37 <kjj> depends what your users want
 275 2013-01-14 06:24:38 <etotheipi_> at least it will represent a solid partition of the space
 276 2013-01-14 06:24:52 igetgames has joined
 277 2013-01-14 06:25:19 <kjj> what you get from listtransactions is kinda useful at a low level, but can be confusing
 278 2013-01-14 06:25:33 <etotheipi_> thats' why I'm so confused by the listtransactions... because it seems it would be a mess to figure out your balance (if you didn't have getbalance)
 279 2013-01-14 06:25:37 Impaler_ has joined
 280 2013-01-14 06:25:53 <kjj> the problem with a simple ledger is that bitcoin transactions aren't simple at all.
 281 2013-01-14 06:26:02 <etotheipi_> I can include all the details
 282 2013-01-14 06:26:05 <etotheipi_> via nesting
 283 2013-01-14 06:26:14 <kjj> oh shit, I just realized change...
 284 2013-01-14 06:26:36 <etotheipi_> change is complicated... but yeah I already got all that covered (like figuring out how much you sent yourself when you had to also send change)
 285 2013-01-14 06:26:40 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 286 2013-01-14 06:26:46 <kjj> I think that change is magicked away when you ask for the list, but I'm not sure how.  probably just not shown
 287 2013-01-14 06:27:03 <etotheipi_> basically... my ledger gives you a clean partition of all "events"
 288 2013-01-14 06:27:17 <etotheipi_> and you can dig down into it if you want to...
 289 2013-01-14 06:27:18 <kjj> this is why I always groan a bit when 2112 gets on his GASB soap box
 290 2013-01-14 06:27:27 <etotheipi_> what is GASB?
 291 2013-01-14 06:27:43 <kjj> Governmental Accounting Standards Board
 292 2013-01-14 06:28:09 <kjj> he's always pissed that the stock client doesn't support standard accounting practices
 293 2013-01-14 06:28:41 Impaler has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 294 2013-01-14 06:29:11 <etotheipi_> ahh
 295 2013-01-14 06:29:32 <phantomcircuit> kjj, the gold medal of accounting is an append only journal
 296 2013-01-14 06:29:45 <phantomcircuit> bitcoin is probably the closest people have ever gotten to that
 297 2013-01-14 06:30:05 <kjj> yeah, if you need that, you can get it from the blockchain after 6 confirmations.
 298 2013-01-14 06:30:17 Impaler_ is now known as Impaler
 299 2013-01-14 06:30:18 <etotheipi_> fuck it... I'm doing this the way that makes the most sense to me (which would probably make 2112 happy)
 300 2013-01-14 06:30:34 <etotheipi_> people can complain and/or help implement the other way if they really miss it
 301 2013-01-14 06:31:28 <kjj> the satoshi client marks keys to denote change
 302 2013-01-14 06:31:35 B0g4r7 has joined
 303 2013-01-14 06:31:58 <etotheipi_> I can figure it out based on order of generation (in the instance of sent-to-self)
 304 2013-01-14 06:32:01 <kjj> you don't even store keys, but you apparently retain similar state information
 305 2013-01-14 06:32:48 <kjj> if you are deducing things, you'll have to revisit it if you ever allow unusual interaction
 306 2013-01-14 06:32:55 <etotheipi_> unless you do something really creative,...
 307 2013-01-14 06:33:09 <etotheipi_> but there's a point at which there is no correct answer anymore, once you go down that road
 308 2013-01-14 06:33:26 <kjj> exactly
 309 2013-01-14 06:34:27 <kjj> the way I see the relationship of bitcoin to accounting, is that bitcoin can prove that a transaction took place, provided that the accounting system already knows about it
 310 2013-01-14 06:35:02 JZavala has joined
 311 2013-01-14 06:35:13 <kjj> as in, if you record a payment to someone, you can show evidence that it happened.  but going in the other direction is very very hard
 312 2013-01-14 06:37:04 <etotheipi_> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=80312.msg1452879#msg1452879
 313 2013-01-14 06:38:05 <kjj> oh, if it wasn't the bet directly that was doubled, then it is far less interesting (but more clever)
 314 2013-01-14 06:40:25 <etotheipi_> bedtime for me
 315 2013-01-14 06:41:50 lumberjak has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 316 2013-01-14 06:42:18 lumberjak has joined
 317 2013-01-14 06:43:32 lumberjak has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 318 2013-01-14 06:44:27 <andytoshi> devs, could you take a look at my letter to the libertarian party of canada?:
 319 2013-01-14 06:44:29 <andytoshi> http://download.wpsoftware.net/libertarian-letter-bitcoin.txt
 320 2013-01-14 06:44:58 RazielZ has joined
 321 2013-01-14 06:47:00 lumberjak has joined
 322 2013-01-14 07:01:45 devrandom has joined
 323 2013-01-14 07:08:33 DaQatz has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 324 2013-01-14 07:10:02 da2ce7_d has joined
 325 2013-01-14 07:10:30 DaQatz has joined
 326 2013-01-14 07:11:52 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 327 2013-01-14 07:15:07 da2ce7_d has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 328 2013-01-14 07:17:21 sgornick has joined
 329 2013-01-14 07:23:59 Impaler_ has joined
 330 2013-01-14 07:24:01 Guest91877 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 331 2013-01-14 07:27:41 da2ce7 has joined
 332 2013-01-14 07:27:46 Impaler has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 333 2013-01-14 07:30:00 <stealth222> I want to make some changes to some of the fields in the RPC but don't want to break any apps that rely on them. Is there a way we can get a census on how much they are actually being used>
 334 2013-01-14 07:31:02 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 335 2013-01-14 07:31:03 <stealth222> furthermore, even if they are still being used it would be possible to expose a backwards-compatibility mode to eventually be deprecated
 336 2013-01-14 07:32:55 RainbowDashh has joined
 337 2013-01-14 07:35:10 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 338 2013-01-14 07:36:12 Guest91877 has joined
 339 2013-01-14 07:38:37 <jgarzik> stealth222: it's a judgement call.  you can just create a new RPC and mark an old one as deprecated, if you want to radically change something
 340 2013-01-14 07:39:12 <stealth222> but what about changing things like output format or field names?
 341 2013-01-14 07:39:50 <stealth222> it seems excessive to create an entirely separate RPC call to change the format of a single field
 342 2013-01-14 07:43:22 <stealth222> one specific example is the unlocked_until field
 343 2013-01-14 07:43:46 <stealth222> unix timestamps are helpful for programmatic access - but they aren't particularly helpful to interactive users
 344 2013-01-14 07:44:26 <stealth222> perhaps there should be both a unix timestamp and a formatted local time
 345 2013-01-14 07:46:40 Gladamas_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 346 2013-01-14 07:57:02 CodesInChaos has joined
 347 2013-01-14 07:57:42 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 348 2013-01-14 07:57:44 <jgarzik> stealth222: RPC isn't really for interactive users
 349 2013-01-14 07:57:59 <stealth222> CLI uses the same format
 350 2013-01-14 07:58:39 bitafterbit has joined
 351 2013-01-14 07:59:30 debiantoruser has joined
 352 2013-01-14 08:01:18 <jgarzik> that doesn't mean the CLI is meant to be a full blown client :)
 353 2013-01-14 08:01:49 <jgarzik> to answer the question, you would probably either add a new pretty_date field or create a new RPC, rather than changing an existing field
 354 2013-01-14 08:02:16 <jgarzik> but more generally, that gets into the realm of display preferences.  seems more appropriate for a wrapper python script.
 355 2013-01-14 08:07:18 ovidiusoft has joined
 356 2013-01-14 08:07:22 bitafterbit has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 357 2013-01-14 08:08:06 ovidiusoft has quit (Client Quit)
 358 2013-01-14 08:09:18 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 359 2013-01-14 08:10:08 ovidiusoft has joined
 360 2013-01-14 08:18:03 gribble has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 361 2013-01-14 08:18:03 nanotube has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 362 2013-01-14 08:19:20 grau has joined
 363 2013-01-14 08:23:11 sgornick has joined
 364 2013-01-14 08:24:08 nanotube has joined
 365 2013-01-14 08:24:09 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 366 2013-01-14 08:26:30 gribble has joined
 367 2013-01-14 08:29:12 b4epoche has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 368 2013-01-14 08:33:30 TD_ has joined
 369 2013-01-14 08:33:31 b4epoche has joined
 370 2013-01-14 08:38:57 sgornick has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 371 2013-01-14 08:39:05 <MC-Eeepc> when satoshi added tor support
 372 2013-01-14 08:39:10 <MC-Eeepc> what does that actually mean
 373 2013-01-14 08:39:27 <MC-Eeepc> audit for leaking identifying data and such?
 374 2013-01-14 08:42:36 Graet_ has joined
 375 2013-01-14 08:47:28 MiningBuddy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 376 2013-01-14 08:49:03 Guest26070 has joined
 377 2013-01-14 08:49:23 coblee has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 378 2013-01-14 08:49:29 jdnavarro has joined
 379 2013-01-14 08:53:44 MiningBuddy- has joined
 380 2013-01-14 08:57:20 Guest26070 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 381 2013-01-14 08:58:36 Impaler has joined
 382 2013-01-14 08:58:48 Guest26070 has joined
 383 2013-01-14 09:00:18 MiningBuddy- has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 384 2013-01-14 09:02:13 Impaler_ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 385 2013-01-14 09:06:13 Guest26070 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 386 2013-01-14 09:10:22 coblee has joined
 387 2013-01-14 09:11:20 Guest26070 has joined
 388 2013-01-14 09:12:33 TD_ has quit (Quit: TD_)
 389 2013-01-14 09:17:11 JayChristopher has joined
 390 2013-01-14 09:17:49 Guest26070 has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 391 2013-01-14 09:21:18 da2ce7_d has joined
 392 2013-01-14 09:22:29 <stealth222> is the fact that the genesis block's coinbase is nonspendable part of the official bitcoin protocol? or is this just a fluke of the way the satoshi client is implemented?
 393 2013-01-14 09:23:28 drivelights has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 394 2013-01-14 09:23:31 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 395 2013-01-14 09:27:46 Diablo-D3 has joined
 396 2013-01-14 09:31:59 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 397 2013-01-14 09:32:35 copumpkin has joined
 398 2013-01-14 09:37:02 Impaler has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 399 2013-01-14 09:41:47 Guest26070 has joined
 400 2013-01-14 09:46:28 <petertodd> stealth222: the way the satoshi client is implemented isthe official bitcoin protocol
 401 2013-01-14 09:47:51 CodesInChaos has joined
 402 2013-01-14 09:48:13 DaQatz has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 403 2013-01-14 09:48:20 <stealth222> petertodd: I am aware of that - which is why I was asking. It seems like a strange limitation
 404 2013-01-14 09:48:44 <stealth222> I get that it would require to code for an entire separate case
 405 2013-01-14 09:49:55 CodesInChaos has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 406 2013-01-14 09:49:56 DaQatz has joined
 407 2013-01-14 09:50:52 CodesInChaos has joined
 408 2013-01-14 09:51:06 rdymac has joined
 409 2013-01-14 09:52:14 <petertodd> yeah, well, it's how it works and can't be changed
 410 2013-01-14 09:52:16 t7 has joined
 411 2013-01-14 09:52:42 <petertodd> possibly just an oversight by satoshi, the genesis block is handled specially after all, or he meant to do that for some reason
 412 2013-01-14 09:54:20 <stealth222> it could be solved by keeping a pregenesis dummy block
 413 2013-01-14 09:54:35 <stealth222> and not letting any other block connect to it
 414 2013-01-14 09:54:47 <stealth222> except the genesis block
 415 2013-01-14 09:54:53 MiningBuddy- has joined
 416 2013-01-14 09:55:03 CodeInChaos has joined
 417 2013-01-14 09:55:10 <stealth222> but I guess it's satoshi's coins
 418 2013-01-14 09:55:11 Guest26070 has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 419 2013-01-14 09:55:26 <stealth222> so nobody else really cares about that :)
 420 2013-01-14 09:55:40 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 421 2013-01-14 09:56:57 DaQatz has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 422 2013-01-14 09:56:57 <stealth222> actually, come to think of it, the requirement that no other blocks be allowed to connect to it isn't even really an issue
 423 2013-01-14 09:57:47 DaQatz has joined
 424 2013-01-14 09:58:08 <stealth222> I guess at the time satoshi was writing it, 50 bitcoins didn't seem worth the price of coding up an exception
 425 2013-01-14 09:59:25 <stealth222> the genesis block could have been defined as a blank header - with the exception that rather than using double sha, it just hashes to all zero
 426 2013-01-14 09:59:45 larsig has joined
 427 2013-01-14 10:00:39 da2ce7_d has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.2.0 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
 428 2013-01-14 10:00:43 <stealth222> you could still connect a block to it today - but then you'd be back at height 1
 429 2013-01-14 10:02:01 <stealth222> actually, that exeption isn't even necessary
 430 2013-01-14 10:02:22 <stealth222> whatever the hash of a blank header is - that could have been used as the prevBlock of the first block to contain a transaction
 431 2013-01-14 10:02:37 <petertodd> ha, yeah, lots of ways to handle it, satoshi's approach is kinda nice because it gave an obvious place to put the times headline
 432 2013-01-14 10:03:00 <petertodd> ultimately what's done is done
 433 2013-01-14 10:03:49 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 434 2013-01-14 10:04:00 <petertodd> rmember that the prevblock of the genesis block is set to zero's
 435 2013-01-14 10:04:06 <stealth222> yes, I know
 436 2013-01-14 10:04:13 <stealth222> so it already needs an exception
 437 2013-01-14 10:04:26 <stealth222> the way I'm proposing (I know it's too late) there's no exception needed, really
 438 2013-01-14 10:04:29 <petertodd> yup
 439 2013-01-14 10:04:32 DaQatz has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 440 2013-01-14 10:05:11 <petertodd> well, I just woke up myself, but yeah, I think you're right, so go start a scamcoin called "satoshi screwed up but I got this right"-coin
 441 2013-01-14 10:05:16 <petertodd> :P
 442 2013-01-14 10:05:22 <stealth222> haha
 443 2013-01-14 10:05:49 <petertodd> the block reward should be a geometrically increasing function
 444 2013-01-14 10:06:12 <stealth222> inflationary currency?
 445 2013-01-14 10:06:30 <petertodd> yeah, Zimbabwe-coin
 446 2013-01-14 10:06:33 <stealth222> lol
 447 2013-01-14 10:06:53 <petertodd> but then, handle it in the UI by constantly re-denominating balances
 448 2013-01-14 10:07:16 <petertodd> your logo could be $1,000,000,000,000 with the last 9 digits crossed out
 449 2013-01-14 10:08:17 <petertodd> (shit, I gotta do this next April...)
 450 2013-01-14 10:08:18 gjs278 has joined
 451 2013-01-14 10:08:35 <stealth222> if satoshi would have just used the hash of a blank header for his prevBlockHash instead of all zeros :p
 452 2013-01-14 10:09:08 <petertodd> heck, he could have just used the hash of his message...
 453 2013-01-14 10:09:43 <stealth222> indeed :)
 454 2013-01-14 10:09:53 <petertodd> btw, have you ever noticed that the genesis block has a significantly higher proof of work than difficulty 1?
 455 2013-01-14 10:10:33 <petertodd> I'm suspicious that he waited for good headline, then spent the next week mining as hard a PoW as he could
 456 2013-01-14 10:10:43 DaQatz has joined
 457 2013-01-14 10:11:00 <stealth222> lol - doesn't look too much higher than the following blocks
 458 2013-01-14 10:11:30 <stealth222> or wait...
 459 2013-01-14 10:11:31 <stealth222> lol
 460 2013-01-14 10:11:51 <stealth222> you're absolutely right
 461 2013-01-14 10:12:00 <stealth222> by a couple orders of magnitude, in fact
 462 2013-01-14 10:12:16 <petertodd> 2103 times the next block
 463 2013-01-14 10:12:55 MiningBuddy- has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 464 2013-01-14 10:13:20 <petertodd> now, the timestamp of the next block is 771 blocks at 10min/block
 465 2013-01-14 10:13:46 <petertodd> so possibly he had enough computer power to maintain the 10min/block interval, and got lucky
 466 2013-01-14 10:14:04 <petertodd> by a factor of a bit under three
 467 2013-01-14 10:14:18 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 468 2013-01-14 10:16:04 <stealth222> he could have just been hashing away while he finished up coding up the thing :)
 469 2013-01-14 10:16:28 <petertodd> hmm... yeah, actually that too, or finished testing it
 470 2013-01-14 10:16:46 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 471 2013-01-14 10:17:10 <petertodd> iirc back then an average computer would solve a block or two a day though, so he probably still had access to a lab, or for that matter, a bunch of ec2 computers
 472 2013-01-14 10:17:34 <stealth222> I don't think he had a problem finding access to computing power
 473 2013-01-14 10:17:39 DaQatz has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 474 2013-01-14 10:17:52 <stealth222> I doubt he was using a laptop to hash it
 475 2013-01-14 10:18:14 <petertodd> frankly we just don't know, honestly I doubt he was actually very computer savvy, in the "open source linux guru sense"
 476 2013-01-14 10:18:27 DaQatz has joined
 477 2013-01-14 10:18:41 <petertodd> it was released on windows first...
 478 2013-01-14 10:19:00 <stealth222> hmmm
 479 2013-01-14 10:19:34 <petertodd> probably an academic-ish cryptographer, or potentially a smart guy with an interest in crypto
 480 2013-01-14 10:20:09 <stealth222> does anyone here actually know him? or are they not even allowed to talk about if if they do?
 481 2013-01-14 10:20:10 <stealth222> lol
 482 2013-01-14 10:20:56 <petertodd> I first heard about hashcash maybe 2002 or 2003, and I remember having a big discussion with my dad, an economist, about the interesting inflationary properties of it... I'm still kinda kicking myself for not coming up with Bitcoin :P
 483 2013-01-14 10:21:02 <petertodd> I dunno, maybe gavin?
 484 2013-01-14 10:21:14 B0g4r7 has joined
 485 2013-01-14 10:21:29 <petertodd> maybe hal? maybe hal is satoshi?
 486 2013-01-14 10:21:55 <stealth222> in any case, if I were to make an alt chain, this genesis block issue is not at the top of my priorities of things to fix :p
 487 2013-01-14 10:22:08 t7 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 488 2013-01-14 10:22:11 gjs278 has joined
 489 2013-01-14 10:22:14 <petertodd> deflation on the other hand... :P
 490 2013-01-14 10:22:14 <stealth222> the "flip the chain" thing seems much more fundamental
 491 2013-01-14 10:22:20 <petertodd> yes, that's a very good one
 492 2013-01-14 10:22:23 t7 has joined
 493 2013-01-14 10:23:18 one_zero has quit ()
 494 2013-01-14 10:23:39 <petertodd> that said, I actually do think it'd be good if the block reward bottomed out, if only because it would let you reason about miner rewards and how that influences their behavior
 495 2013-01-14 10:24:52 <petertodd> flip the chain doesn't have to fully be a hardfork though
 496 2013-01-14 10:25:26 <stealth222> etotheipi has a merged-mining proposal to construct a tree of unspent outputs
 497 2013-01-14 10:25:49 <petertodd> exactly, it can be brought in gradually
 498 2013-01-14 10:26:41 <petertodd> related: I have my own concept to make the blockchain better connected for timestamping, that would insert essentially hashes of merkle trees of every block into tx's used for merkle-style timestamping
 499 2013-01-14 10:27:43 <stealth222> not sure I follow
 500 2013-01-14 10:28:54 <petertodd> lets suppose you make a timestamp on block 100,000, and want to show the timestamp applies to the genesis tx in block 0, right now you need a "merkle path" with digests of every single block inbetween right?
 501 2013-01-14 10:29:17 <stealth222> yes
 502 2013-01-14 10:29:49 <petertodd> so take every block in the chain, make a merkle tree of the block hashes, and insert that top hash into a tx, a coinbase for instance, now you can use that tree to make a mcuh shorter proof, and the tree can be generated deterministically so you don't actually have to store the tree to use it later
 503 2013-01-14 10:30:18 <stealth222> but the block tree has very short branches
 504 2013-01-14 10:30:31 <petertodd> yes, but the block-to-block path doesn't
 505 2013-01-14 10:31:04 <petertodd> and if you timestamp block header n, say with a non-bitcoin timestamping thing, you can't show block n-100 without 100 digests
 506 2013-01-14 10:31:35 <stealth222> I see what you mean
 507 2013-01-14 10:31:39 <stealth222> yeah, that's kinda neat
 508 2013-01-14 10:31:43 <petertodd> also, it would let you show proofs of certain types of things to clients without those clients having full block header databases, just a few of the most recent block headers
 509 2013-01-14 10:32:08 <petertodd> it's not a big deal, but I'm working on timestamping, so I might as well add in this feature in a standard way for everyone to use
 510 2013-01-14 10:32:20 <stealth222> yeah, if you're not using it to generate coins and all you care about is relative time, you don't even need a genesis block
 511 2013-01-14 10:32:48 <petertodd> yup, SPV clients could use it basically
 512 2013-01-14 10:33:24 <petertodd> what's nice is a shitty implementation can be retrofitted now without even miner support
 513 2013-01-14 10:34:07 <petertodd> the only cost is a few more steps in the path
 514 2013-01-14 10:34:12 <sipa> stealth222: your question is really whether the nonspendability of the genesis is intentional or not... not whether it is part of the protocol (it obviously is)
 515 2013-01-14 10:35:03 <sipa> stealth222: i don't know the answer, but in the way the client was coded at the time, it was certainly less code to make non spendable
 516 2013-01-14 10:35:19 <stealth222> sipa: what about the idea of using a blank block as the genesis block?
 517 2013-01-14 10:35:24 <stealth222> all zero header
 518 2013-01-14 10:35:44 <stealth222> the first transaction appears on the next block
 519 2013-01-14 10:36:15 <stealth222> doesn't seem like a lot more code - but at the same time it doesn't really matter :p
 520 2013-01-14 10:36:25 <sipa> it could have been
 521 2013-01-14 10:36:45 <sipa> the genesis block is introduced by the software and never actually checked
 522 2013-01-14 10:36:56 <stealth222> right - so it still requires an exception
 523 2013-01-14 10:37:09 <stealth222> if (IsGenesisBlock) accept
 524 2013-01-14 10:37:22 <sipa> it's just esthetics to make it look like a real block!
 525 2013-01-14 10:37:24 <sipa> no!
 526 2013-01-14 10:37:42 <sipa> that's thr point, the genesis block is never "accepted"
 527 2013-01-14 10:38:00 <sipa> it's just "if empty, add genesis block"
 528 2013-01-14 10:38:32 <stealth222> the genesis block is just hardcoded
 529 2013-01-14 10:38:41 <sipa> yes
 530 2013-01-14 10:38:41 <stealth222> and given height 0
 531 2013-01-14 10:39:11 <sipa> and it is at that point added to the block db (otherwise next blicks wouldn't find it)
 532 2013-01-14 10:39:40 <sipa> but its coinbase is not added to the tx database (oversight, or just unneeded)
 533 2013-01-14 10:39:48 <stealth222> but the protocol could have been that the all zero block is a valid block but has height 0
 534 2013-01-14 10:40:04 <sipa> yes
 535 2013-01-14 10:41:04 <sipa> but now it also functions to initialize difficulty and time
 536 2013-01-14 10:41:12 darkee has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 537 2013-01-14 10:41:12 <petertodd> hmm... you know, since the genesis block is a special case, not adding the coinbase means that you never have to test the special case of spending a transaction in the genesis block
 538 2013-01-14 10:41:26 <petertodd> sipa: good point!
 539 2013-01-14 10:42:05 <stealth222> yes....hmmm
 540 2013-01-14 10:42:12 darkee has joined
 541 2013-01-14 10:42:13 <sipa>  petertodd and it allows the coins system i wrote to use height=0 as invalid :p
 542 2013-01-14 10:42:24 <stealth222> lol
 543 2013-01-14 10:42:49 <petertodd> ha, nice
 544 2013-01-14 10:42:55 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 545 2013-01-14 10:44:35 debiantoruser has joined
 546 2013-01-14 10:44:48 tonikt has joined
 547 2013-01-14 10:49:34 daybyter has joined
 548 2013-01-14 10:50:56 andytoshi has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 549 2013-01-14 10:51:46 <petertodd> sipa: wait, so what exactly does your coins system do there? it just occured to me that potentially people are going to introduce a bug in their software related to "what block did we see address x in", because every tx sent to the genesis block after the coinbase can be spent
 550 2013-01-14 10:51:57 andytoshi has joined
 551 2013-01-14 10:52:42 <petertodd> I wonder if gavin saved the private key for the testnet genesis block... maybe testnet4 should use a well known private key for the genesis block tx, so everyone can test their code for spending it
 552 2013-01-14 10:53:08 <stealth222> it wouldn't be too hard to just create a private testnet to test this
 553 2013-01-14 10:54:14 <petertodd> for sure, I just want to make sure people will wind up testing this case against their will :P
 554 2013-01-14 10:55:11 zooko has quit (Quit: zzz...)
 555 2013-01-14 10:59:20 TD has joined
 556 2013-01-14 11:00:01 GMP has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 557 2013-01-14 11:01:03 paraipan has joined
 558 2013-01-14 11:10:04 <sipa> petertodd: it's the utxo database used for verifying blocks/transactions in 0.8
 559 2013-01-14 11:11:12 <petertodd> ah, so what, a tx isn't allowed to have been spent in block 0?
 560 2013-01-14 11:11:19 yareyare has joined
 561 2013-01-14 11:11:41 <sipa> petertodd: a coin is an unspent transaction output
 562 2013-01-14 11:12:02 <sipa> and its height is the height at which it was introduced in the currently active block chain
 563 2013-01-14 11:12:07 <sipa> and this cannot be 0
 564 2013-01-14 11:13:56 <petertodd> ah I see, yeah that's fine
 565 2013-01-14 11:15:14 <sipa> this is used in the undo file format, which only encodes height/coinbaseness/version for the last output of a tx being spent
 566 2013-01-14 11:15:32 <sipa> if the height field is zero, the other two aren't stored
 567 2013-01-14 11:18:41 <petertodd> yup
 568 2013-01-14 11:19:00 <petertodd> speaking of which, thank you for your new "spend tx" database, it's really useful
 569 2013-01-14 11:19:14 <sipa> spend tx database?
 570 2013-01-14 11:19:28 <petertodd> er, spent tx database, so getrawtx works on spent tx's
 571 2013-01-14 11:19:39 <sipa> i hate it
 572 2013-01-14 11:19:47 <petertodd> why?
 573 2013-01-14 11:20:07 <sipa> because i hate services needing to depend on a history of all transactions ever
 574 2013-01-14 11:20:28 <sipa> it's very useful for debugging, so i implemented it, though
 575 2013-01-14 11:20:37 <sipa> but i fear it will be abused
 576 2013-01-14 11:21:14 <petertodd> yeah, it's a good point, but it definitely does help debugging
 577 2013-01-14 11:21:34 <petertodd> I've also got one minor use-case, which needs access to at least recently spent tx's for my timestamping project
 578 2013-01-14 11:23:58 <stealth222> such a database is absolutely necessary somewhere - it probably shouldn't be part of a minimal verification/relay node...but adding it to the satoshi client will at least ensure the application has widespread distribution
 579 2013-01-14 11:24:36 <stealth222> I had to build my own such database so as not to rely on sites like blockexplorer and blockchain.info
 580 2013-01-14 11:25:07 <sipa> i've worked on a by-address database as well, which is probably even more useful, and also more prone to abuse
 581 2013-01-14 11:25:16 <stealth222> abuse in what sense, sipa?
 582 2013-01-14 11:25:30 <sipa> like people that would implement a wallet on top of it
 583 2013-01-14 11:26:06 <stealth222> why is that a problem for us?
 584 2013-01-14 11:26:19 <stealth222> you mean people will come to depend on it?
 585 2013-01-14 11:26:26 <sipa> yes
 586 2013-01-14 11:26:57 <stealth222> well, then perhaps there should be a disclaimer that these features are only for testing and not intended for production applications
 587 2013-01-14 11:27:11 <stealth222> and could be discontinued at a later time
 588 2013-01-14 11:27:54 <sipa> even a prerelaese build with a clear error being outputted "don't use for mining"... and p2pool has code to specifically ignore that warning
 589 2013-01-14 11:28:38 <stealth222> the better solution is to release a serious opensource database application that is separate from bitcoind :)
 590 2013-01-14 11:28:43 <petertodd> I've noticed that... p2pool really should only ignore with a non-default flag...
 591 2013-01-14 11:29:43 <stealth222> tjere
 592 2013-01-14 11:29:51 <sipa> stealth222: perhaps, but hiw will that prevent anyone from growing to depend on that
 593 2013-01-14 11:29:51 <stealth222> there's certainly a need for such a database application, sipa
 594 2013-01-14 11:29:58 <sipa> for some stuff it is unavoidable
 595 2013-01-14 11:30:12 <stealth222> but I agree that it is a different application from the verification/relay engine
 596 2013-01-14 11:30:21 DJHenjin__ has joined
 597 2013-01-14 11:30:27 <DJHenjin__> Hello Peoples
 598 2013-01-14 11:30:37 <sipa> i don't care about whether it is part of that engine or not!
 599 2013-01-14 11:30:43 <stealth222> the verification/relay engine should use structures optimized for doing just what is necessary to keep the network in operation
 600 2013-01-14 11:30:46 <DJHenjin__> So I have a question regarding developing a web application for Bitcoin
 601 2013-01-14 11:31:02 <sipa> if it has to exist, maybe it is better to be part of it, to at least guarantee consistency
 602 2013-01-14 11:31:26 <sipa> but imho we should encourage people to build srrvices that do not depend on all history being easily available
 603 2013-01-14 11:31:34 <stealth222> but the problem is that each application has very different needs and should probably be allowed to develop on a completely separate branch
 604 2013-01-14 11:31:38 <DJHenjin__> When a user sends BTC to the site, into their 'recieve account' on the site, is there an easy way to verify the transaction has enough confirmations on the BTC network
 605 2013-01-14 11:31:39 <sipa> and certainly not in an indexed form
 606 2013-01-14 11:31:54 <stealth222> I'm not just talking about indices - I'm talking about a full SQL interface
 607 2013-01-14 11:32:03 <stealth222> or perhaps a good subset
 608 2013-01-14 11:32:38 <stealth222> but that clearly does NOT belong in the verification/relay node
 609 2013-01-14 11:33:22 <stealth222> and releases of either product shouldn't depend on the state of the other
 610 2013-01-14 11:33:27 <DJHenjin__> also another question, when using the RPC call move() to move from one account to another account on the same wallet, does a person still need to wait for confirmations? or will that transaction even  be confirmed at all
 611 2013-01-14 11:33:57 <sipa> DJHenjin__: move is purely a local operation, it subtrackts from one account, and adds to the other
 612 2013-01-14 11:34:07 <sipa> DJHenjin__: there is no interaction with the network
 613 2013-01-14 11:34:12 <stealth222> the move is 100% internal to the wallet, DJHenjin__ has nothign to do with the block chain
 614 2013-01-14 11:34:12 <DJHenjin__> thank you sipa , and my other question?
 615 2013-01-14 11:35:08 <sipa> doesn't getbalancr have a parameter to select the minimum confirmations?
 616 2013-01-14 11:36:21 <DJHenjin__> ah, thanks sipa , did not see that before
 617 2013-01-14 11:36:58 root2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 618 2013-01-14 11:37:09 <DJHenjin__> so basically just getbalance('account',6) would check for a balance that has the requisite 6 confirmations
 619 2013-01-14 11:37:16 root2 has joined
 620 2013-01-14 11:37:21 tsche has joined
 621 2013-01-14 11:37:49 <stealth222> yes
 622 2013-01-14 11:38:08 grau_ has joined
 623 2013-01-14 11:38:11 <stealth222> and anything that has been confirmed more recently is not included
 624 2013-01-14 11:38:16 Pasha has joined
 625 2013-01-14 11:38:18 grau has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 626 2013-01-14 11:38:31 <DJHenjin__> each confirmations taking ~ 10 minutes each, it takes about 1 hour to get 6 conf
 627 2013-01-14 11:39:06 t2che has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 628 2013-01-14 11:39:13 gmaxwell has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 629 2013-01-14 11:39:22 gmaxwell has joined
 630 2013-01-14 11:39:46 gmaxwell is now known as Guest98088
 631 2013-01-14 11:39:49 BlueMattBot has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 632 2013-01-14 11:40:48 Cory has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 633 2013-01-14 11:41:14 <DJHenjin__> Thank you sipa and stealth222
 634 2013-01-14 11:42:14 BlueMattBot has joined
 635 2013-01-14 11:42:14 BlueMattBot has quit (Changing host)
 636 2013-01-14 11:42:14 BlueMattBot has joined
 637 2013-01-14 11:43:20 Pasha is now known as Cory
 638 2013-01-14 11:43:39 <DJHenjin__> you two have helped me understand my issue much much better
 639 2013-01-14 11:44:05 <stealth222> if you have any other questions, ask away :)
 640 2013-01-14 11:44:22 <DJHenjin__> I intend to
 641 2013-01-14 11:45:42 <DJHenjin__> ok, getaccountaddress() returns the same address every time, until there has been a transaction into that address, then returns a new address right?
 642 2013-01-14 11:47:38 <DJHenjin__> my question is, is as follows, Is the old address returned by getaccountaddress() still usable to deposit into the same account
 643 2013-01-14 11:47:46 <stealth222> yes
 644 2013-01-14 11:47:55 <stealth222> the old addresses are never erased from the wallet
 645 2013-01-14 11:48:22 <DJHenjin__> would it be bad practice to re-use an old recieve address?
 646 2013-01-14 11:48:35 <stealth222> depends on what you're trying to accomplish :)
 647 2013-01-14 11:49:07 <stealth222> reusing the same address again and again makes it easier to track transactions - but it also means wallet management is simpler
 648 2013-01-14 11:49:08 <DJHenjin__> to confirm new transactions from the same user, such that they do not have to get a new recieve address from the site each time they send BTC
 649 2013-01-14 11:49:51 <stealth222> depends on how concerned you are about privacy
 650 2013-01-14 11:50:22 <DJHenjin__> if a person is even the slightest bit concerned about privacy it would be best to set a new recieve address per transaction
 651 2013-01-14 11:51:55 <stealth222> to be quite honest, I wish the whole address thing were abstracted to a level where endusers only see contacts and balances
 652 2013-01-14 11:52:10 <stealth222> it's moving in that direction but it's not quite there yet
 653 2013-01-14 11:52:39 GMP has joined
 654 2013-01-14 11:53:50 ircuser-6 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 655 2013-01-14 11:54:45 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 656 2013-01-14 12:07:23 rdponticelli has joined
 657 2013-01-14 12:09:43 WolfAlex_ has joined
 658 2013-01-14 12:12:29 WolfAlex has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 659 2013-01-14 12:18:50 JZavala has joined
 660 2013-01-14 12:18:59 Guest26070 has joined
 661 2013-01-14 12:19:51 <DJHenjin__> So here is my dilemna stealth222 I want to make this as simplistic as possible, but still with a good amount of anonyminity
 662 2013-01-14 12:19:54 bitnumus has joined
 663 2013-01-14 12:20:50 <bitnumus> Hey, any UK developers here, skilled in PHP, SQL, JS and other web related languages , also familiar with working with bitcoin
 664 2013-01-14 12:21:31 <DJHenjin__> bitnumus: skilled in PHP, SQL, and familiar enough with bitcoin, but not UK, canadian
 665 2013-01-14 12:22:11 <DJHenjin__> what do you need?
 666 2013-01-14 12:22:25 <stealth222> how much are you paying ?:)
 667 2013-01-14 12:22:41 <stealth222> not a UK developer but for a really good price I might become one :p
 668 2013-01-14 12:22:58 <DJHenjin__> same ;)
 669 2013-01-14 12:23:24 <bitnumus> Well its quite a big project so would like someone local without the time difference issues
 670 2013-01-14 12:23:38 <t7> im uk :3
 671 2013-01-14 12:23:48 <DJHenjin__> Time difference is nothing to me, I adjust my schedule to accomodate my clients
 672 2013-01-14 12:24:00 <bitnumus> t7 I have traded with you before I think :-)
 673 2013-01-14 12:24:09 <t7> yeah hello shaun
 674 2013-01-14 12:24:24 <bitnumus> Do I have you on gmail?
 675 2013-01-14 12:24:33 <t7> yeah, what you building ?
 676 2013-01-14 12:24:52 <bitnumus> Roy?
 677 2013-01-14 12:24:56 <t7> Tom
 678 2013-01-14 12:25:29 <bitnumus> Gotcha
 679 2013-01-14 12:25:36 <stealth222> DJHenjin__: first understand that being truly "anonymous" on bitcoin requires a considerable amount of effort - and any determined foe will most likely be able to defeat even fairly sophisticated methods. Having said that, by using a new receiving address each time at least you make it a tiny bit harder for people to pull up your accounting records on blockchain.info
 680 2013-01-14 12:26:13 Cory has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 681 2013-01-14 12:28:24 Cory has joined
 682 2013-01-14 12:33:26 da2ce711 has joined
 683 2013-01-14 12:41:07 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 684 2013-01-14 12:44:58 <JayChristopher> Can you create unlimited accounts in a wallet? For instance, if I wanted to have a million accounts, would there be any problem with that?
 685 2013-01-14 12:46:01 <kjj> if you think you need a million accounts, you are doing something horribly wrong.  but there is no fixed limit on accounts, it just depends what your computer is capable of handling
 686 2013-01-14 12:46:32 <JayChristopher> I don't now, but just trying to figure out the best way to set up a web wallet
 687 2013-01-14 12:46:41 <JayChristopher> for scalability
 688 2013-01-14 12:46:45 <kjj> ignore accounts, keep track internally
 689 2013-01-14 12:47:07 <JayChristopher> Yeah okay i thought that might be so, i was just reading https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Accounts_explained and it seemed like it was built to be used that way
 690 2013-01-14 12:47:55 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 691 2013-01-14 12:48:23 <JayChristopher> I was thinking moreso than anything that it would be a good way to double check balance against the database for added security measure
 692 2013-01-14 12:48:23 b4epoche has joined
 693 2013-01-14 12:52:54 TradeFortress has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 694 2013-01-14 12:52:54 <DJHenjin__> JayChristopher: bit of an elementary idea, but, what about totaling all users balances in the DB, and testing the balance in the server, if there is a problem, it will be evident
 695 2013-01-14 12:53:25 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 696 2013-01-14 12:53:29 <JayChristopher> yeah i was planning to do that as well, nothing crazy just exploring options
 697 2013-01-14 12:55:08 ircuser-6 has joined
 698 2013-01-14 13:00:10 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 699 2013-01-14 13:15:31 rdponticelli has joined
 700 2013-01-14 13:15:51 da2ce711 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 701 2013-01-14 13:20:02 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
 702 2013-01-14 13:36:12 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 703 2013-01-14 13:37:31 ThomasV has joined
 704 2013-01-14 13:37:50 debiantoruser has joined
 705 2013-01-14 13:40:54 imsaguy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 706 2013-01-14 13:43:56 datagutt has joined
 707 2013-01-14 13:48:39 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 708 2013-01-14 13:52:51 Acciaio has joined
 709 2013-01-14 13:53:00 <Acciaio> hi all how can I calculate the exact fee of a transaction that I will send with bitcoind->sendmany before sending a transaction?
 710 2013-01-14 14:05:45 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
 711 2013-01-14 14:07:10 Hasimir- has joined
 712 2013-01-14 14:09:45 Hasimir has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 713 2013-01-14 14:09:46 yareyare has quit (Quit: zzzzzz)
 714 2013-01-14 14:11:08 agricocb has joined
 715 2013-01-14 14:12:38 TD has joined
 716 2013-01-14 14:17:24 jdnavarro has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 717 2013-01-14 14:23:13 <Luke-Jr> Acciaio: you can't.
 718 2013-01-14 14:24:03 <Luke-Jr> Acciaio: that's at least partially intentional, since there is almost no legitimate need for it (if any at all)
 719 2013-01-14 14:24:34 Hashdog has joined
 720 2013-01-14 14:25:57 <Acciaio> Luke-Jr, yes there is in micropayments world fee can be greater than transaction
 721 2013-01-14 14:27:16 <Luke-Jr> Acciaio: Bitcoin transactions aren't for micropayments.
 722 2013-01-14 14:30:07 <Acciaio> should be!
 723 2013-01-14 14:31:35 gavinandresen has joined
 724 2013-01-14 14:31:42 meLon has joined
 725 2013-01-14 14:31:47 <epscy> Acciaio: if you are clever enough you can work it out
 726 2013-01-14 14:31:57 <Luke-Jr> Acciaio: it's possible to extend it to do micropayments outside of the existing bitcoin network, but nobody has this as a focus right now AFAIK
 727 2013-01-14 14:36:07 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 728 2013-01-14 14:38:14 Hasimir- is now known as Hasimir
 729 2013-01-14 14:38:14 Hasimir has quit (Changing host)
 730 2013-01-14 14:38:14 Hasimir has joined
 731 2013-01-14 14:38:49 rdponticelli has joined
 732 2013-01-14 14:39:36 rdymac has joined
 733 2013-01-14 14:42:34 <stealth222> there could well be legitimate uses for it
 734 2013-01-14 14:42:51 <Luke-Jr> stealth222: ?
 735 2013-01-14 14:42:59 <stealth222> there have been a number of times where my balance showed x yet I couldn't send x because a fee was required
 736 2013-01-14 14:43:25 <stealth222> sure, I'd get the error message AFTER calling send
 737 2013-01-14 14:43:40 <stealth222> but what if I'm sending several transactions that must all go through - and I only have x
 738 2013-01-14 14:43:45 <Luke-Jr> …
 739 2013-01-14 14:43:51 <Luke-Jr> then you're bankrupt? :P
 740 2013-01-14 14:43:54 <stealth222> I won't know until the last transaction that I have insuffiient funds
 741 2013-01-14 14:43:55 nus- has joined
 742 2013-01-14 14:44:03 <Luke-Jr> you should sendmany ;)
 743 2013-01-14 14:44:52 <stealth222> yeah, ok - I guess this was more an issue back when sendmany didn't exist
 744 2013-01-14 14:45:24 Hashdog has left ("PONG :zelazny.freenode.net")
 745 2013-01-14 14:46:53 nus has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 746 2013-01-14 14:48:42 <stealth222> I still could name some perhaps contrived sounding reasons why I would still want to send each one individually...but you're right...most users don't need it
 747 2013-01-14 14:49:00 Guest98088 has quit (Changing host)
 748 2013-01-14 14:49:00 Guest98088 has joined
 749 2013-01-14 14:49:04 <epscy> stealth222: it would be pretty trivial to write as a third party program
 750 2013-01-14 14:49:13 Guest98088 is now known as gmaxwell
 751 2013-01-14 14:49:17 <stealth222> that's what I did to get around it
 752 2013-01-14 14:49:21 <stealth222> lol
 753 2013-01-14 14:49:25 <epscy> i wouldn't be surprised if there is something on github that already does it
 754 2013-01-14 14:49:52 <epscy> and of course you can use the raw transaction stuff to bypass the fee rules
 755 2013-01-14 14:50:12 <epscy> though you run the risk of never having your tx confirmed
 756 2013-01-14 14:50:17 <stealth222> yes, when I did this there was no rawtransaction stuff - not even sendmany
 757 2013-01-14 14:50:25 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 758 2013-01-14 14:50:41 rdponticelli has joined
 759 2013-01-14 14:51:54 <stealth222> most of my reasons involved tinkering and experimenting with the bitcoin protocol
 760 2013-01-14 14:52:00 rdymac has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 761 2013-01-14 14:52:25 <stealth222> and most of the amounts involved were small
 762 2013-01-14 14:52:27 <stealth222> so I didn't particularly care
 763 2013-01-14 14:52:42 <stealth222> about unconfirmed tx
 764 2013-01-14 14:54:20 jdnavarro has joined
 765 2013-01-14 14:55:49 <stealth222> hell, I even gave away a few bitcoins to miners just to play around with the fee stuff :p
 766 2013-01-14 14:56:55 <SomeoneWeird> lmao
 767 2013-01-14 14:56:58 rdymac has joined
 768 2013-01-14 14:56:59 <SomeoneWeird> can i have some >.>
 769 2013-01-14 14:57:11 <epscy> heh
 770 2013-01-14 14:57:16 <epscy> i wouldn't say no either
 771 2013-01-14 14:59:41 Guest51202 is now known as topace
 772 2013-01-14 14:59:47 topace has quit (Changing host)
 773 2013-01-14 14:59:47 topace has joined
 774 2013-01-14 15:13:52 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
 775 2013-01-14 15:15:12 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
 776 2013-01-14 15:19:42 paul0 has joined
 777 2013-01-14 15:21:21 vampireb has joined
 778 2013-01-14 15:24:19 Eslbaer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 779 2013-01-14 15:26:02 Acciaio has quit (Quit: BYE ALL)
 780 2013-01-14 15:27:29 rdymac has joined
 781 2013-01-14 15:29:33 Acciaio has joined
 782 2013-01-14 15:33:34 TD has joined
 783 2013-01-14 15:34:45 <TD> petertodd: does my explanation make sense?
 784 2013-01-14 15:35:20 <petertodd> which explanation?
 785 2013-01-14 15:35:28 <TD> the one i just sent you via email. about micropayments.
 786 2013-01-14 15:35:33 Diapolo has joined
 787 2013-01-14 15:35:55 <petertodd> oh, sorry, I haven't read it yet
 788 2013-01-14 15:36:39 <TD> ok. if i found an explanation that works, i'll post it to the security ml thread too. and maybe write up a wiki page on the mechanism. because the same questions and concerns come up pretty frequently. like, incentives, etc.
 789 2013-01-14 15:37:11 andytoshi has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.3.9.2)
 790 2013-01-14 15:40:13 Eslbaer has joined
 791 2013-01-14 15:44:33 twixed has joined
 792 2013-01-14 15:45:55 t7 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 793 2013-01-14 15:46:34 _dr has joined
 794 2013-01-14 15:49:53 Descry has joined
 795 2013-01-14 15:50:32 <petertodd> cool, btw I'm not on the security list TD
 796 2013-01-14 15:51:22 <TD> right. i didn't realize that. we'll keep you CCd on that thread from now on
 797 2013-01-14 15:52:27 <petertodd> TD: thanks
 798 2013-01-14 15:52:50 <petertodd> TD: anyway, I gotta go to work, I'll be around on email, but I'm off irc until the evening
 799 2013-01-14 15:52:57 <TD> have a good day
 800 2013-01-14 15:52:58 t7 has joined
 801 2013-01-14 15:53:20 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
 802 2013-01-14 15:55:59 EPiSKiNG- has quit ()
 803 2013-01-14 16:01:41 Descry has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 804 2013-01-14 16:03:00 freakazoid has joined
 805 2013-01-14 16:04:31 Hashdog has joined
 806 2013-01-14 16:05:58 Hashdog has left ()
 807 2013-01-14 16:06:34 eckey has joined
 808 2013-01-14 16:07:04 <eckey> hello
 809 2013-01-14 16:13:54 zooko has joined
 810 2013-01-14 16:21:19 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 811 2013-01-14 16:21:31 imsaguy has joined
 812 2013-01-14 16:23:00 debiantoruser has joined
 813 2013-01-14 16:25:48 vampireb has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
 814 2013-01-14 16:28:44 eckey has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 815 2013-01-14 16:28:54 imsaguy has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 816 2013-01-14 16:30:13 Benjojo has joined
 817 2013-01-14 16:30:15 Lolcust has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 818 2013-01-14 16:30:19 imsaguy has joined
 819 2013-01-14 16:30:33 Lolcust has joined
 820 2013-01-14 16:35:50 Hashdog has joined
 821 2013-01-14 16:35:59 <stealth222> Any of the bitcoin-qt people around?
 822 2013-01-14 16:36:12 <Diapolo> a little ^^
 823 2013-01-14 16:36:18 <stealth222> hello, Diapolo :)
 824 2013-01-14 16:36:32 <Diapolo> and WE are only 2 anyway :D stealth222: hi :)
 825 2013-01-14 16:36:52 <stealth222> <insert timezone-appropriate salutation here>
 826 2013-01-14 16:37:03 <stealth222> anyhow...
 827 2013-01-14 16:37:17 <stealth222> so I'm looking to integrate the multiwallet stuff with qt - and there are a few possibilities
 828 2013-01-14 16:37:22 <stealth222> one possibility is something like a tabbed view
 829 2013-01-14 16:38:03 <stealth222> I'm wondering, though, how separate the different wallets should be in the GUI - like, should it be possible to merge transactions from multiple wallets into one view
 830 2013-01-14 16:38:07 <Diapolo> this will get rather confusing when you have many wallets I guess
 831 2013-01-14 16:38:21 Hashdog has left ()
 832 2013-01-14 16:38:26 <stealth222> the simplest approach of all is to just allow the user to load one wallet at a time
 833 2013-01-14 16:38:28 <stealth222> but that's sort of lame :p
 834 2013-01-14 16:38:31 <sipa> i think the most important question is how you think they will be used
 835 2013-01-14 16:38:32 <Diapolo> perhaps a dropdown list on overviewpage and somewhere a global statistic
 836 2013-01-14 16:38:33 <etotheipi_> stealth, you could look at how Armory does it
 837 2013-01-14 16:38:40 <etotheipi_> there's a filter
 838 2013-01-14 16:38:51 <sipa> if you consider them to be a sort of accounts, you probably want them in the same window, and easy interactions between them
 839 2013-01-14 16:39:18 <sipa> if you consider them very separate (like professional and private), you probably want them in separate windows at at least
 840 2013-01-14 16:39:34 <stealth222> or separate tabs?
 841 2013-01-14 16:39:37 Acciaio has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 842 2013-01-14 16:39:59 <Diapolo> my first thought was list only 1 (like currently) but make all selectable on the fly
 843 2013-01-14 16:40:24 <sipa> ;;later tell wumpus you probablty should talk to stealth222 about multi-wallet stuff in the GUI
 844 2013-01-14 16:40:24 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
 845 2013-01-14 16:40:26 <stealth222> one at a time is by far the easiest integration - but...I sorta hate having to load and unload
 846 2013-01-14 16:40:34 Acciaio has joined
 847 2013-01-14 16:40:49 <etotheipi_> stealth222: have you used Armory with multiple wallets before/
 848 2013-01-14 16:40:50 <etotheipi_> ?
 849 2013-01-14 16:40:53 <stealth222> I'd like it to preserve each wallet's view state when you switch back and forth
 850 2013-01-14 16:40:54 <Diapolo> this could also be a question of resource usage or?
 851 2013-01-14 16:41:07 <stealth222> no, I haven't etotheipi
 852 2013-01-14 16:41:18 <etotheipi_> it's got multiple wallets, full and watch-only
 853 2013-01-14 16:41:30 <etotheipi_> no loading unloading
 854 2013-01-14 16:41:35 <etotheipi_> you could look there for inspiration
 855 2013-01-14 16:41:46 <stealth222> ok, I will :)
 856 2013-01-14 16:41:49 <etotheipi_> I always wondered if there was a better way to do it...
 857 2013-01-14 16:41:53 <etotheipi_> but so far no one has complained
 858 2013-01-14 16:42:01 <stealth222> I've been meaning to check it out but have only gotten into GUI stuff now, etotheipi :p
 859 2013-01-14 16:42:12 <etotheipi_> screenshot here: http://bitcoinarmory.com/
 860 2013-01-14 16:42:26 <etotheipi_> you can see the "filter" on the bottom-left
 861 2013-01-14 16:42:38 <stealth222> I see
 862 2013-01-14 16:42:39 <etotheipi_> you can choose to have the Transactions tab only show your own wallets, watch-only, offline,
 863 2013-01-14 16:42:46 <Diapolo> a scrollable list on overviewpage would look nice yeah
 864 2013-01-14 16:42:48 <etotheipi_> but the top table always shows all wallets
 865 2013-01-14 16:43:39 <etotheipi_> the thing that is most annoying is that I never knew what to do with the filter
 866 2013-01-14 16:43:55 <etotheipi_> if I save the state of it between loads, then people will select 1 wallet and forget it's selected
 867 2013-01-14 16:44:03 <etotheipi_> and then email me asking where all their transactions are
 868 2013-01-14 16:44:09 <stealth222> heh
 869 2013-01-14 16:44:09 <etotheipi_> (it's happened before)
 870 2013-01-14 16:44:52 <etotheipi_> also
 871 2013-01-14 16:45:01 <etotheipi_> I make sure to select "my wallets" for the default filter state
 872 2013-01-14 16:45:03 twixed has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 873 2013-01-14 16:45:22 <etotheipi_> that way "watching-only wallets" (that aren't marked as belonging to you) do now show up in the balance on the bottom right
 874 2013-01-14 16:45:23 twixed has joined
 875 2013-01-14 16:45:56 <stealth222> how have you been using the watch-only wallets typically? what's the use model?
 876 2013-01-14 16:46:08 <etotheipi_> and watching-only wallets are always imported as not belong to you (there's an option in the wallet properties)
 877 2013-01-14 16:46:27 <etotheipi_> stealth222: I assume you know what I mean by offline wallets
 878 2013-01-14 16:46:33 <stealth222> yes
 879 2013-01-14 16:46:39 <etotheipi_> (that is watching-only, just marked as "belongs to me")
 880 2013-01-14 16:46:54 <stealth222> right, that's the use case I had in mind
 881 2013-01-14 16:47:04 <stealth222> but you're also talking about watching-only that do not belong to you
 882 2013-01-14 16:47:05 <etotheipi_> the reason for this was so that if someone convinces you (as a dumb user) to import a watch-only wallet
 883 2013-01-14 16:47:08 <stealth222> so when would you use those?
 884 2013-01-14 16:47:18 <etotheipi_> then you have to explicitly click a box that says "this wallet is mine!"
 885 2013-01-14 16:47:22 <etotheipi_> which the user may find suspicious
 886 2013-01-14 16:47:34 <etotheipi_> and if they don't do that, none of the tx to that wallet are displayed on the ledger or balance
 887 2013-01-14 16:47:37 <etotheipi_> (unless you change the filter)
 888 2013-01-14 16:47:56 <etotheipi_> stealth222: you would use them if you are collecting money for an organization
 889 2013-01-14 16:48:16 <etotheipi_> or out in the field and collecting for yourself
 890 2013-01-14 16:48:19 <etotheipi_> and don't want the full wallet
 891 2013-01-14 16:48:36 <etotheipi_> think about if you work for a charity and someone contacts you and wants to make a donation
 892 2013-01-14 16:48:53 <etotheipi_> you don't even have to tlak to the charity... open up your own instance of Armory with their watch-only wallet, and generate a new address for the donor
 893 2013-01-14 16:49:18 <stealth222> are you using deterministic wallets or stored random keys?
 894 2013-01-14 16:49:24 <etotheipi_> deterministic, type-2
 895 2013-01-14 16:49:49 <etotheipi_> so you create the wallet offline, and transfer the watching-only wallet once
 896 2013-01-14 16:49:57 <stealth222> I see - makes sense
 897 2013-01-14 16:50:22 <etotheipi_> stealth222: you really should try the cold storage interface
 898 2013-01-14 16:50:27 <etotheipi_> you don't even have to use two different computers
 899 2013-01-14 16:50:51 <etotheipi_> just use one full wallet, and instead of sending, click "Create unsigned transaction"
 900 2013-01-14 16:50:57 imsaguy has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 901 2013-01-14 16:51:00 <etotheipi_> and then follow the process for offline signing
 902 2013-01-14 16:51:55 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 903 2013-01-14 16:51:57 imsaguy has joined
 904 2013-01-14 16:51:59 <stealth222> what OS is the one you use most with it?
 905 2013-01-14 16:52:10 <etotheipi_> Ubuntu
 906 2013-01-14 16:52:17 <etotheipi_> but it's pretty easy on any linux
 907 2013-01-14 16:52:22 <etotheipi_> the dependencies are versionless
 908 2013-01-14 16:52:37 <stealth222> ok, so I'll set up a ubuntu box for it
 909 2013-01-14 16:52:44 <etotheipi_> Windows works too
 910 2013-01-14 16:53:08 <sipa> stealth222: what OS are you on?
 911 2013-01-14 16:53:15 <stealth222> several :)
 912 2013-01-14 16:53:30 <etotheipi_> stealth, if you use two computers, they can be any mix
 913 2013-01-14 16:53:35 <stealth222> my main desktop runs OS X with several virtual machines inside
 914 2013-01-14 16:53:38 <etotheipi_> the data moving between online and offline is OS-independent
 915 2013-01-14 16:54:14 <stealth222> I develop mostly on ubuntu
 916 2013-01-14 16:54:32 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
 917 2013-01-14 16:54:41 <stealth222> or at least test mostly on ubuntu
 918 2013-01-14 16:55:14 <etotheipi_> stealth222: if you use Ubuntu or debian, you can just download the .deb package http://bitcoinarmory.com/index.php/get-armory
 919 2013-01-14 16:55:24 bitafterbit has joined
 920 2013-01-14 16:56:15 <stealth222> I also have a windows VM that I use for testing - but I only use it once I've already built all the core in linux
 921 2013-01-14 16:56:49 <etotheipi_> stealth222: there's a reason I just upgraded to 32 GB of RAM... it was so that I can run 5 VMs at once (linux 64, 32, windows 64,32 and OSX)
 922 2013-01-14 16:56:52 <etotheipi_> :)
 923 2013-01-14 16:57:01 <stealth222> yeah, it's nice having a lot of RAM :)
 924 2013-01-14 16:57:33 <stealth222> now you just need to run an android simulator and an iOS simulator :)
 925 2013-01-14 16:57:53 <sipa> stealth222: if you're able to easily test on several platforms, i have something for you to test
 926 2013-01-14 16:58:11 ThomasV has joined
 927 2013-01-14 16:58:27 <stealth222> uh oh... :p
 928 2013-01-14 16:58:29 <sipa> stealth222: i've been looking at ECDSA verification speed closely when working on parallel sigcheck and hal's optimization
 929 2013-01-14 16:58:51 <sipa> and with a gitian linux build of 32-bit and 64-bit of the same code, on the same machine
 930 2013-01-14 16:58:54 Diapolo has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 931 2013-01-14 16:58:56 <sipa> there's a factor 5 difference
 932 2013-01-14 16:59:18 <etotheipi_> sipa: how many sig checks does Bitcoin-Qt do per sec?
 933 2013-01-14 16:59:39 <stealth222> you mean just looping through openssl commands in a script?
 934 2013-01-14 16:59:43 b4epoche has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 935 2013-01-14 17:00:15 <sipa> stealth222: 2.5ms/txin single-threaded on 32-bit, 0.44ms/txin single-threaded on 64-bit
 936 2013-01-14 17:00:15 <stealth222> to test verification speed?
 937 2013-01-14 17:00:24 <sipa> stealth222: there's -benchmark for that :)
 938 2013-01-14 17:00:36 <sipa> etotheipi_: ^
 939 2013-01-14 17:00:55 darkee has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 940 2013-01-14 17:01:15 <sipa> etotheipi_: that's on a i7 laptop at 2.2GHz, with hal's patch applied
 941 2013-01-14 17:01:40 darkee has joined
 942 2013-01-14 17:02:25 <stealth222> 5x is pretty significant
 943 2013-01-14 17:03:07 <sipa> now, openssl has cpu-specific assembly for certain operations
 944 2013-01-14 17:03:46 b4epoche has joined
 945 2013-01-14 17:04:02 <sipa> in particular, EC field multiplication for prime-numbered fields uses that
 946 2013-01-14 17:04:17 <sipa> which is probably our largest source of CPU usage
 947 2013-01-14 17:05:56 t7 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 948 2013-01-14 17:06:17 <sipa> so a difference in those could explain a lot
 949 2013-01-14 17:06:25 <sipa> but i did not expect a 5x difference
 950 2013-01-14 17:07:04 <sipa> so if this is actually the case (and not because of a build problem that causes non-assembly versions to be used, for example), it explains why windows users typically report such slow sync speeds
 951 2013-01-14 17:07:39 <stealth222> wouldn't it be possible to check that in a hex editor?
 952 2013-01-14 17:08:01 <sipa> maybe
 953 2013-01-14 17:08:33 <sipa> but the test i did was with a dynamically linked openssl in any case, so it would mean there's a problem in the provided openssl on ubuntu 12.04
 954 2013-01-14 17:08:43 <stealth222> sure
 955 2013-01-14 17:08:46 <sipa> (building was on 10.4, but executing was on 12.4)
 956 2013-01-14 17:09:56 <sipa> anyway, some testing of a similar 32 vs 64 test in other contexts would be very useful
 957 2013-01-14 17:11:44 zooko` has joined
 958 2013-01-14 17:13:00 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 959 2013-01-14 17:13:17 <gavinandresen> sipa: I can test 32- versus 64- on my Mac fairly easily.  What is the right -benchmark?
 960 2013-01-14 17:14:07 agricocb has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 961 2013-01-14 17:14:17 jdnavarro has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 962 2013-01-14 17:14:21 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
 963 2013-01-14 17:14:41 <sipa> gavinandresen: -par=1 -benchmark -reindex, wait until after block 210000
 964 2013-01-14 17:15:07 <gavinandresen> results reported in debug.log ?
 965 2013-01-14 17:15:09 <sipa> gavinandresen: well, or don't use hal/parallel at all
 966 2013-01-14 17:15:14 <sipa> yes, in debug.log
 967 2013-01-14 17:15:29 <gavinandresen> ok.
 968 2013-01-14 17:16:12 <sipa> it needs to be -reindex to avoid seeing the effect sigcaching
 969 2013-01-14 17:16:16 <sipa> *of
 970 2013-01-14 17:16:29 <stealth222> I don't have any 32-bit machines currently set up for testing, sipa
 971 2013-01-14 17:16:53 <stealth222> but I could set them up - however, I can't do that right now :p
 972 2013-01-14 17:17:31 <sipa> stealth222: not 32-bit machines - just 32-bit binaries
 973 2013-01-14 17:17:38 <stealth222> oh...
 974 2013-01-14 17:17:40 <gavinandresen> sipa: I could test on -testnet, right?  ECDSA speed should be same test net or not....
 975 2013-01-14 17:17:42 <sipa> you want it to be the same machine to test on
 976 2013-01-14 17:18:07 <sipa> gavinandresen: i suppose, but testnet has weird stuff in some blocks that might disturb the measurements
 977 2013-01-14 17:18:14 <sipa> gavinandresen: if you compare the same block on both, no problem
 978 2013-01-14 17:20:16 <sipa> gavinandresen: but the numbers reported by -benchmark are fuzzy, so i just looked at which kind of number appeared frequently
 979 2013-01-14 17:21:56 <gavinandresen> sipa: ok.  I'll be sure to compare the same blocks, and will just get an order-of-magnitude estimate.
 980 2013-01-14 17:22:43 <gavinandresen> How painful would it be to stop distributing 32-bit binaries?
 981 2013-01-14 17:23:39 dust-otc has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 982 2013-01-14 17:23:59 <sipa> gavinandresen: for windows? horrible
 983 2013-01-14 17:24:14 dust-otc has joined
 984 2013-01-14 17:24:28 TD has joined
 985 2013-01-14 17:24:34 <gavinandresen> sipa: for windows, mac, and linux….  if it is horribly slow, maybe we should tell people "don't do that"
 986 2013-01-14 17:25:58 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell/sipa/TD: ack trolling for #1795 (Bloom) except for the MatchesTemplate commits
 987 2013-01-14 17:26:33 rdymac has joined
 988 2013-01-14 17:26:47 <TD> BlueMatt: you can get an ACK from me once andreas finishes testing (and nflags is implemented on the java branch)
 989 2013-01-14 17:28:14 <sipa> gavinandresen: so far, i don't think anyone ever built a 64-bit windows bitcoin
 990 2013-01-14 17:28:32 <sipa> so if this is really a problem, we should look into w64 builds i guess
 991 2013-01-14 17:28:33 <stealth222> lol - are you serious, sipa?
 992 2013-01-14 17:29:23 <sipa> well we don't have a gitian setup for those, as that wasn't possible using the 10.04 envs we used until now
 993 2013-01-14 17:29:25 <gavinandresen> sipa: on the Mac side of things, dropping support for OSX 10.5 and 32-bit Macs would make my life better.
 994 2013-01-14 17:29:40 <stealth222> ack that, gavin  :)
 995 2013-01-14 17:30:26 <sipa> how old is 10.5?
 996 2013-01-14 17:31:15 <gavinandresen> released October 2007
 997 2013-01-14 17:32:03 <sipa> i suppose the ultimate test would be doing a w64 build (which may be painful, as it means getting all dependencies right and stuff, though at first we can forgot binary repeatability), and see how it performs compared to an otherwise identical 32 build, on the same 64-bit OS
 998 2013-01-14 17:32:19 <sipa> but it may of course be that i screwed and we're worrying about nothing :)
 999 2013-01-14 17:33:07 <jgarzik> IMO Windows definitely needs a 32-bit build for a while yet
1000 2013-01-14 17:33:34 <stealth222> but there should be a 64-bit build
1001 2013-01-14 17:33:41 <sipa> oh let's just ship with an x86_64 emulator, shall we?
1002 2013-01-14 17:33:44 <sipa> :p
1003 2013-01-14 17:33:51 <stealth222> lol
1004 2013-01-14 17:34:09 bitnumus has quit (Quit: Bye)
1005 2013-01-14 17:34:09 <TD> nanotube: hey, was it you who pinged me about the android wifi bug?
1006 2013-01-14 17:34:15 <jgarzik> w64 build would be nice, yet
1007 2013-01-14 17:34:19 <jgarzik> *yes
1008 2013-01-14 17:34:35 * jgarzik tries to recall what Firefox did recently
1009 2013-01-14 17:35:02 <sipa> jgarzik: only non-official w64 builds, afaik
1010 2013-01-14 17:35:17 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: announced it was giving up on 64-bit, then retracted that and continued shipping alphas that many devs dont care about
1011 2013-01-14 17:35:33 <jgarzik> that's it
1012 2013-01-14 17:35:58 agricocb has joined
1013 2013-01-14 17:36:49 CodeInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1014 2013-01-14 17:39:46 juchmis has joined
1015 2013-01-14 17:41:34 JZavala has joined
1016 2013-01-14 17:42:54 <nanotube> TD: nope, not me.
1017 2013-01-14 17:43:07 <TD> darn
1018 2013-01-14 17:43:09 <TD> i wonder who did it then
1019 2013-01-14 17:43:11 <TD> ok never mind
1020 2013-01-14 17:49:03 reizuki__ has joined
1021 2013-01-14 17:49:10 zooko` is now known as zooko
1022 2013-01-14 17:56:16 btcven has joined
1023 2013-01-14 17:56:53 rdymac has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1024 2013-01-14 17:58:01 btcven has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1025 2013-01-14 18:02:14 knotwork_ has joined
1026 2013-01-14 18:03:14 t7 has joined
1027 2013-01-14 18:05:08 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1028 2013-01-14 18:06:50 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1029 2013-01-14 18:11:32 rdymac has joined
1030 2013-01-14 18:13:24 agricocb has joined
1031 2013-01-14 18:19:28 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1032 2013-01-14 18:24:37 dust-otc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1033 2013-01-14 18:25:30 RainbowDashh has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1034 2013-01-14 18:25:50 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: RE code-signing...  I hope that B.F. has internally discussed how code-signing apps might induce some amount of legal targeted / potential liability in the eyes of some lawyers?
1035 2013-01-14 18:26:01 <jgarzik> *targetting
1036 2013-01-14 18:26:06 <jgarzik> *targeting
1037 2013-01-14 18:26:17 RainbowDashh has joined
1038 2013-01-14 18:26:44 <jgarzik> If I were doing code-signing, at a minimum, I would add a click-through license disclaimer in the installer.
1039 2013-01-14 18:26:59 freakazoid has joined
1040 2013-01-14 18:27:16 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: nope, hasn't been discussed at all.
1041 2013-01-14 18:28:00 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: and there is no installer on the mac, it is open up .dmg file, drag to Applications.  Done.
1042 2013-01-14 18:29:14 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: well, throw a by opening you agree to ToS in the background image of the dmg
1043 2013-01-14 18:29:45 <jgarzik> Call me paranoid, but I would add a click-through in the app :)
1044 2013-01-14 18:30:06 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1045 2013-01-14 18:30:17 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: you're paranoid
1046 2013-01-14 18:30:25 <Cusipzzz> you're paranoid :)
1047 2013-01-14 18:30:48 <BlueMatt> he may very well not be, sadly
1048 2013-01-14 18:31:02 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: anyway, IMO it is definitely worth thinking about.  Red Hat and other open source companies obsessively make sure you click through the warranty disclaimers (as well as GPL)
1049 2013-01-14 18:31:28 <gavinandresen> let me guess… and they get sued anyway?
1050 2013-01-14 18:31:48 <jgarzik> everybody gets sued.  but not for the reasons clicked-through, at least :)
1051 2013-01-14 18:32:12 <jgarzik> BF code-signing is far better than one of us devs doing it, at any rate
1052 2013-01-14 18:32:47 <jgarzik> code-signing definitely brings about an element of contractual obligations, though they tend to be quite minimal at the base level
1053 2013-01-14 18:32:59 <BlueMatt> has anyone written that stuff that supposedly strips out the constant space reserved in .exes for code signing?
1054 2013-01-14 18:35:37 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1055 2013-01-14 18:36:19 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: why do you ask?  You thinking of gitian process?
1056 2013-01-14 18:37:52 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: Next on my TODO is figuring out the windows code-signing stuff.  I believe just the setup.exe will be signed, and I assumed we'd live with the setup.exe that is distributed not being titian-comparable (but it would be nice to teach gitian to zero the signature to compare....)
1057 2013-01-14 18:38:11 <BlueMatt> i just prefer to not throw up yet more hurdles in getting auto-update merged, though I know no one has any real motivation to do that anyway
1058 2013-01-14 18:40:48 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: yes, setup.exe isnt gonna be gitian verified to begin with...
1059 2013-01-14 18:41:49 <gavinandresen> great, then we're done.  (auto-update updates the bitcoin-qt.exe ? )
1060 2013-01-14 18:41:55 <BlueMatt> yes
1061 2013-01-14 18:44:54 andytoshi has joined
1062 2013-01-14 18:47:39 RainbowDashh has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1063 2013-01-14 18:50:14 <phantomcircuit> gavinandresen, liability waiver in bold text plus indemnification
1064 2013-01-14 18:50:34 <phantomcircuit> of course someone will sue anyways but they wont have a leg to stand on
1065 2013-01-14 18:53:34 <gavinandresen> About Bitcoin already CLEARLY states "Distributed under the MIT/X11 software license."  If y'all are concerned, then please start a conversation with Patrick Murck, but leave me out of it, I have too many other things on my TODO list
1066 2013-01-14 18:54:11 <phantomcircuit> gavinandresen, the issue isn't so much the license it's distributed under
1067 2013-01-14 18:54:29 * gavinandresen puts his fingers in his ears and goes lalalalalalalalala
1068 2013-01-14 18:54:31 <phantomcircuit> it's more like there is some fatal bug nobody has found yet and someone flips out when it gets triggered and sues all the devs
1069 2013-01-14 18:54:34 <jgarzik> legally they try to get the user to agree to the license, an affirmative step on the part of the user
1070 2013-01-14 18:54:36 <jgarzik> hehe
1071 2013-01-14 18:54:48 <phantomcircuit> there is certainly a non-zero chance of that happening
1072 2013-01-14 18:56:01 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: thanks for the reminder, Ill throw in a spend genesis block test in pull-tester later
1073 2013-01-14 18:56:33 <BlueMatt> that is, after all, one of the few things I missed on bitcoinj full verification that sipa caught immediately
1074 2013-01-14 18:57:36 WolfAlex has joined
1075 2013-01-14 18:57:36 WolfAlex_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1076 2013-01-14 19:02:44 <grau_> BlueMatt: how does bitcoind get the chain of the pull tester ?
1077 2013-01-14 19:03:56 <BlueMatt> it gets sent over p2p
1078 2013-01-14 19:04:06 <BlueMatt> testnet in a box-style
1079 2013-01-14 19:04:14 <grau_> I do not see that from the script
1080 2013-01-14 19:04:28 <grau_> i thought it reads in a file
1081 2013-01-14 19:04:48 <BlueMatt> it does not
1082 2013-01-14 19:04:49 Acciaio has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1083 2013-01-14 19:05:00 <grau_> Where is the main that would drive that process?
1084 2013-01-14 19:05:47 <BlueMatt> it should in the future
1085 2013-01-14 19:05:47 <BlueMatt> for now its a program
1086 2013-01-14 19:05:54 <BlueMatt> https://code.google.com/r/bluemattme-bitcoinj/source/detail?r=8d318e905036be89d34cb543b347edde53f2cf40&name=newscripts
1087 2013-01-14 19:06:42 nus- is now known as nus
1088 2013-01-14 19:07:16 <grau_> That program verifies, but I am looking for the one that feeds into bitcoind
1089 2013-01-14 19:14:08 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1090 2013-01-14 19:15:09 <grau_> BlueMatt: I see there is a class in bitcoinj generating the chain, then there is your class (as re-sent before) doing the comparison after downloading from bitcoind. Still missing the piece how the chain gets into bitcoind.
1091 2013-01-14 19:15:53 <BlueMatt> bitcoind.sendMessage(block.block);
1092 2013-01-14 19:16:13 debiantoruser has joined
1093 2013-01-14 19:17:33 <grau_> That must be in some other code.
1094 2013-01-14 19:18:05 <BlueMatt> lin 169
1095 2013-01-14 19:18:06 <BlueMatt> e
1096 2013-01-14 19:18:37 <grau_> Thanks I was blind.
1097 2013-01-14 19:18:46 <BlueMatt> cntrl-f is your friend ;)
1098 2013-01-14 19:24:35 grau_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1099 2013-01-14 19:24:58 grau has joined
1100 2013-01-14 19:28:49 <grau> BlueMatt: Your tests assume that blocks that e.g. double spend still connect. This is IMHO not part of the protocol just how it works with bitcoinj or bitcoind the tests should not assume that behaviour
1101 2013-01-14 19:28:50 btcven has joined
1102 2013-01-14 19:29:37 <grau> BlueMatt: it also assumes that if blocks arrive out of order they resemble, I think this is also not a protocol requirement
1103 2013-01-14 19:30:49 <gavinandresen> out-of-order blocks is certainly a protocol requiremnt
1104 2013-01-14 19:30:49 <gavinandresen> t
1105 2013-01-14 19:31:06 <grau> Why ?
1106 2013-01-14 19:31:33 <gavinandresen> because the mesh network does not guarantee that you'll get all messages
1107 2013-01-14 19:32:33 <grau> I mean the scenario that I get a block before its previous, am I in your opinion obliged to cache it and wait for the predecessor. I think not
1108 2013-01-14 19:32:49 <grau> This imposes cache on lightweight clients and opens DoS
1109 2013-01-14 19:33:10 <gmaxwell> Yes. you are — or rather, obligated to go get it.
1110 2013-01-14 19:33:22 <gmaxwell> otherwise you may reject the true longest chain.
1111 2013-01-14 19:33:49 <grau> There is no guarentee I will get i. It might not even exist just because a block says it has a previous that does not mean it exists
1112 2013-01-14 19:33:49 <sipa> gmaxwell: i don't think there is a problem with grau's approach
1113 2013-01-14 19:34:07 <sipa> it's just less lazy, and therefor maybe more prone to a dos attack
1114 2013-01-14 19:34:23 <sipa> but i don't think there is a problem with validating a chain before it becomes the best chain
1115 2013-01-14 19:35:11 <grau> The result is the same, but the test behaviour differs.
1116 2013-01-14 19:35:11 <gmaxwell> sipa: not talking about validating it—
1117 2013-01-14 19:35:24 <gmaxwell> talking about not even attempting because of what order you got handed blocks in.
1118 2013-01-14 19:35:59 <grau> gmaxwell: I am talking about several issues that expose different behaviour under test but in my opinion not protocol requirements
1119 2013-01-14 19:36:02 <gavinandresen> yes, if longest chain is A->B->C, and you didn't happen to see the broadcast of "A", then when you see B you need to ask for A.
1120 2013-01-14 19:36:04 <gmaxwell> E.g. you connct to the network. You get told of block X  and you don't have block X-1. You must go try to connect X (by attempting to fetch X-1) or you may never converge.
1121 2013-01-14 19:36:45 <gmaxwell> grau: I'm somewhat skeptcial that bluematt's tester can actually be exposing non-mandatory behavior here, but I'm not actually sure what the behavior is that you're talking about.
1122 2013-01-14 19:36:57 <gavinandresen> grau is correct, you might not get A.  But when you see C, you need to ask for A AGAIN…  etc...
1123 2013-01-14 19:38:10 <gmaxwell> grau: what is actually the behavior you're seeing it test that isn't required?
1124 2013-01-14 19:38:19 JayChristopher has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1125 2013-01-14 19:39:03 <grau> A minute I reconstruct precisely...
1126 2013-01-14 19:39:12 <gmaxwell> Take your time.
1127 2013-01-14 19:40:12 <gmaxwell> If there is some non-normative behavior with blocks visible on the p2p port from bitcoind then we might want to remove it to avoid something from depending on it.
1128 2013-01-14 19:40:59 <sipa> gmaxwell: from what i understand about what grau told me yesterday, he validates (as in: Connect Block like checks, signatures, prevouts available, ...) blocks that are in a side chain at the moment they are received
1129 2013-01-14 19:41:11 <sipa> grau: is this what you're talking about now, or something else?
1130 2013-01-14 19:41:30 <grau> The simpler difference is: if a block contains double spend but connects such that it does not immediatelly get to longest chain, then bitcoind/j store it and return if queried, while bitsofproof rejects it immediatelly.
1131 2013-01-14 19:41:57 <sipa> right, so what i said
1132 2013-01-14 19:42:04 <sipa> i consider that dangerous and unnecessary, but not _wrong_
1133 2013-01-14 19:42:30 <grau> I consider it simpler to implement and happy if it is not wrong
1134 2013-01-14 19:42:32 <gmaxwell> sipa: how is this visible to the block ester htough?
1135 2013-01-14 19:42:45 <meLon> https://github.com/m0mchil/poclbm/issues/55
1136 2013-01-14 19:42:46 <sipa> it shouldn't be observable, imho
1137 2013-01-14 19:42:48 <gmaxwell> We shouldn't be returning blocks not on the longest chain.
1138 2013-01-14 19:43:06 <sipa> actually, it is
1139 2013-01-14 19:43:16 <sipa> say you have chain A->B->C
1140 2013-01-14 19:43:32 <sipa> then you publish a B' which does a spend of something already in A
1141 2013-01-14 19:43:45 <sipa> no, i'm wrong - sorry
1142 2013-01-14 19:44:09 <gmaxwell> Yea...  don't see how this is visible, I'm not _sure_ it isn't but if it is we should consider fixing that.
1143 2013-01-14 19:44:11 <sipa> i thought it wouldn't query a C' that builds on B' while bitcoind/j would, but it still will
1144 2013-01-14 19:44:29 <sipa> unless it uses getheaders first
1145 2013-01-14 19:44:35 <sipa> in that case it is observable
1146 2013-01-14 19:44:48 <sipa> as it will know C' is invalid before seeing the TX data
1147 2013-01-14 19:45:02 <sipa> grau: do you use getheaders?
1148 2013-01-14 19:45:36 ThomasV has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1149 2013-01-14 19:45:56 <gmaxwell> sipa: I could see that as a case where non-normative validation would be visible from he p2p port... though I doubt thats the case here.
1150 2013-01-14 19:45:58 ThomasV has joined
1151 2013-01-14 19:46:49 andytoshi has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1152 2013-01-14 19:46:54 <grau> Not what I use. I see that the tester checks at least if running against bitcoinj that blocks connect to side chain even if double spend. BlueMatt would be able to confirm if it does the same against bitcoind
1153 2013-01-14 19:46:56 Hashdog has joined
1154 2013-01-14 19:47:44 <grau> https://code.google.com/r/bluemattme-bitcoinj/source/browse/core/src/test/java/com/google/bitcoin/core/BitcoindComparisonTool.java?spec=svn8d318e905036be89d34cb543b347edde53f2cf40&name=newscripts&r=8d318e905036be89d34cb543b347edde53f2cf40
1155 2013-01-14 19:48:24 btcven has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1156 2013-01-14 19:48:43 <sipa> grau: they are placed in the block tree yes, but that's not something you should be able to observe from the P2P communication
1157 2013-01-14 19:49:01 <grau> sends a block to bitcoind then queries if its there and it uses P2P to connect to bitcoind
1158 2013-01-14 19:49:26 Hashdog has left ()
1159 2013-01-14 19:49:53 <grau> The tester sends blocks which it think they should connect or not and tests if it receives them back.
1160 2013-01-14 19:50:22 <gmaxwell> Hm? We shouldn't be returning non-connected blocks.
1161 2013-01-14 19:50:44 <grau> I have not confirmed this, but this is it looks to me
1162 2013-01-14 19:50:58 <grau> the blck is connected
1163 2013-01-14 19:51:02 <grau> it just double spends
1164 2013-01-14 19:51:07 <gmaxwell> Have you actually run this tool against your system?  Not some rewrite extraction, but the tool itself?
1165 2013-01-14 19:52:01 <grau> No, because I already run into these problems running it direct calls from java
1166 2013-01-14 19:54:30 <grau> As far as I understand the code, it creates a block chain and has two flags for each block "connect" and "exception" it feeds to bitcoinj with java calls or into bitcoind with P2P, then does a download and checks for connected blocks that they are there
1167 2013-01-14 19:54:53 <grau> Thereby it considers blocks connected if they are on side chain with double spends
1168 2013-01-14 19:55:29 <gmaxwell> grau: it is my belief and understanding that bitcoind will not return blocks on a sidechain.
1169 2013-01-14 19:55:59 twixed has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1170 2013-01-14 19:56:00 <grau> I hope you are right.
1171 2013-01-14 19:58:00 <grau> The tester uses getheaders explicitelly specifying the hash it looks for. sipa: please validate if it does or not return from side chain
1172 2013-01-14 19:59:10 <sipa> grau: it only announces blocks that become part of the new best chain
1173 2013-01-14 20:00:25 <sipa> i *think*
1174 2013-01-14 20:00:28 <sipa> let me check
1175 2013-01-14 20:00:55 <grau> please check as it really looks from the test it would also confirm the existence of side chain blocks
1176 2013-01-14 20:01:07 <sipa> yes, end of AcceptBlock()
1177 2013-01-14 20:01:20 <BlueMatt> grau: the connects/throws is truly bitcoinj only, it is not a network construct, read the code carefully, the only thing it checks is what bitcoind's best-chain is after each block is sent
1178 2013-01-14 20:01:39 <sipa> it only announces blocks that become the tip of the chain
1179 2013-01-14 20:02:25 <grau> line 147 ?
1180 2013-01-14 20:02:33 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: thanks.
1181 2013-01-14 20:02:51 <BlueMatt> grau: read it more carefully that is just checking bitcoinj's behavior
1182 2013-01-14 20:03:03 <gmaxwell> grau: Easy and understandable misunderstandings like this is why its important to also just run the tool.
1183 2013-01-14 20:03:54 <BlueMatt> grau: the only interface with bitcoind is when it calls either bitcoind.something() or in the event listener added to the peergroup
1184 2013-01-14 20:04:22 TD has joined
1185 2013-01-14 20:04:35 CodesInChaos has joined
1186 2013-01-14 20:09:43 D34TH has joined
1187 2013-01-14 20:09:43 D34TH has quit (Changing host)
1188 2013-01-14 20:09:43 D34TH has joined
1189 2013-01-14 20:11:01 <grau> I see now, the tool tests bitcoinj and bitcoind the same time and this check only applies to bitcoinj.
1190 2013-01-14 20:11:32 <BlueMatt> yes
1191 2013-01-14 20:13:28 <grau> I have an other question to the test case of b12
1192 2013-01-14 20:13:34 <BlueMatt> shoot
1193 2013-01-14 20:14:24 toffoo has joined
1194 2013-01-14 20:14:45 <grau> here you assume that in a sequence b13->b14-> where b13 is not connecting anywhere but b12 sent later that connects the client will remember b13 and b14
1195 2013-01-14 20:14:55 <grau> and build a new longest chain
1196 2013-01-14 20:15:28 <grau> this is correct, but I am not sure a protocol requirement
1197 2013-01-14 20:15:32 <grau> to cache
1198 2013-01-14 20:15:45 <BlueMatt> it is
1199 2013-01-14 20:15:58 <BlueMatt> if you receive an orphan, you must attempt to connect it
1200 2013-01-14 20:16:10 <sipa> to cache: not really - but if it receives a block whose ancestry is unknown, it must request the parent
1201 2013-01-14 20:16:12 <grau> how long and how many ?
1202 2013-01-14 20:16:46 <grau> I think it is questionable as generic rule
1203 2013-01-14 20:17:17 <BlueMatt> and because the protocol is stateless, any reasonably well-coded network implementation should probably ask for the previous block, and then get it in the next+1 message, so it should easily reconnect that
1204 2013-01-14 20:18:08 <sipa> the protocol is far from stateless :)
1205 2013-01-14 20:18:23 <BlueMatt> well, semi-stateless
1206 2013-01-14 20:18:24 <grau> yes, it is resonable to do so but is it required. You can be DoS-d by receiving blocks that have no previous
1207 2013-01-14 20:18:36 <BlueMatt> its not clearly defined ask request-reply, etc
1208 2013-01-14 20:18:54 <grau> That is why I question if it should be part of the test assumption
1209 2013-01-14 20:19:02 <sipa> grau: there are checks you can do on difficulty/timestamp compared to the chain tip to see whether it is a viable candidate
1210 2013-01-14 20:19:06 <grau> It is reasonable but is it a requirement ?
1211 2013-01-14 20:19:10 <BlueMatt> grau: no you cant, as long as you take simple DoS precautions
1212 2013-01-14 20:19:20 <sipa> grau: but yes, you can't be expected to keep an infinite cache of received orphan blocks
1213 2013-01-14 20:19:33 <grau> thats the point.
1214 2013-01-14 20:19:43 <sipa> grau: still, if you receive a block whose parent is unknown to you, you should try to connect it by requesting the parents
1215 2013-01-14 20:19:55 <grau> yes
1216 2013-01-14 20:20:02 <sipa> if you do that, there is no problem
1217 2013-01-14 20:20:08 <sipa> caching only prevents some re-requesting
1218 2013-01-14 20:20:09 <grau> It is reasonable, but is it part of the test to check reaorg ? I think not
1219 2013-01-14 20:20:23 <BlueMatt> grau: protocol rule: "orphan blocks may only be discarded in cases where it is clear that the node providing those blocks is performing a DoS attack and those blocks will not be a part of the best chain"
1220 2013-01-14 20:21:04 <grau> So this should be part of a DoS test, not reorg test
1221 2013-01-14 20:21:15 <BlueMatt> no, it is clearly a test or reorging
1222 2013-01-14 20:21:27 <BlueMatt> because you should effectively never be throwing away valid candidates for best chain
1223 2013-01-14 20:21:55 porquilho has joined
1224 2013-01-14 20:22:03 <grau> Yes on the product level. I challenged the test scope
1225 2013-01-14 20:22:20 <porquilho> hello
1226 2013-01-14 20:22:35 <BlueMatt> grau: ok, rename the test block+dos test...doesnt really matter, does it?
1227 2013-01-14 20:23:41 <grau> It is not renaming only for me. It means testing a different layer one above the block test including the cache.
1228 2013-01-14 20:23:51 <grau> I can get it certainly work if only using P2P
1229 2013-01-14 20:24:24 <grau> Thanks.
1230 2013-01-14 20:24:40 <BlueMatt> grau: the test as written is designed to test a node from the network layer down with an emphasis on its block connection engine
1231 2013-01-14 20:25:00 <BlueMatt> TD: is andreas on irc?
1232 2013-01-14 20:25:14 <grau> It also has explicit DoS tests in it like a lots of CHECKSIG
1233 2013-01-14 20:25:23 <grau> and huge tx
1234 2013-01-14 20:25:33 <BlueMatt> thats not DoS, thats network rules
1235 2013-01-14 20:25:41 <TD> no
1236 2013-01-14 20:25:43 <TD> just jabber
1237 2013-01-14 20:25:44 <TD> not sure why
1238 2013-01-14 20:25:50 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
1239 2013-01-14 20:25:51 <BlueMatt> those blocks are invalid by network rules, not by DoS rules
1240 2013-01-14 20:25:56 <grau> ok, it was DoS then became network rule.
1241 2013-01-14 20:26:02 <BlueMatt> TD: would he mind if you pmd me his jabber?
1242 2013-01-14 20:26:10 <TD> not at all
1243 2013-01-14 20:26:21 m00p has joined
1244 2013-01-14 20:26:24 <TD> andreas@schildbach.de but i think it may be a gtalk address
1245 2013-01-14 20:26:36 <BlueMatt> alright, thanks
1246 2013-01-14 20:27:01 <sipa> grau: too many sigops in a block is a network rule
1247 2013-01-14 20:27:23 <sipa> grau: not just a DoS policy
1248 2013-01-14 20:27:25 <grau> Yes, I also corrected the cointing you receintly pointed me to
1249 2013-01-14 20:27:48 <sipa> ok, good
1250 2013-01-14 20:29:10 <grau> I will continue working on the tests.
1251 2013-01-14 20:35:59 <sipa> grau: if you don't mind me bringing this up again. If for example you went ahead and imported blocktester's test without running it directly as P2P, you might have thought "oh, this here just tests a DoS rule - i can do this differently", while it is in fact a network rule.
1252 2013-01-14 20:36:29 <sipa> of course, i'm sure that if that happened you would have at least asked why such a test was necessary, but still
1253 2013-01-14 20:37:14 <grau> sipa: The reason I did not start with P2P since a failure there gives me no insight of the reason. I wanted to work my way up the stack
1254 2013-01-14 20:37:25 <sipa> right, i agree there
1255 2013-01-14 20:38:02 <gmaxwell> The tester does say which test failed— if you falsely reject you can see your own rejection and if you falsely accept it does usually tell you what it was trying to test.
1256 2013-01-14 20:38:03 <grau> gmaxwell: I will arrive at P2P but starting there would only have confirmed that I am not yet done.
1257 2013-01-14 20:38:03 <sipa> nothing prevents you from using the same tests as internal unit tests too
1258 2013-01-14 20:38:27 andytoshi has joined
1259 2013-01-14 20:38:33 <grau> sipa: thats I attempted
1260 2013-01-14 20:38:59 Guest12124 has joined
1261 2013-01-14 20:39:24 <gmaxwell> grau: its generally best if you interact with the test lightly at first so that you hopefully also fix issues the test didn't think to test.
1262 2013-01-14 20:40:18 <grau> I got that, but also that I have to pass it. So if I do not I have to look into probably deep why.
1263 2013-01-14 20:41:05 <grau> I will create an other test tool, reusable for all and will attempt to invent new cases
1264 2013-01-14 20:49:40 owowo has joined
1265 2013-01-14 20:49:45 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1266 2013-01-14 20:56:54 D34TH_ has joined
1267 2013-01-14 20:57:34 D34TH has quit (Disconnected by services)
1268 2013-01-14 20:57:38 D34TH_ is now known as D34TH
1269 2013-01-14 21:03:35 D34TH_ has joined
1270 2013-01-14 21:03:47 D34TH_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1271 2013-01-14 21:03:54 D34TH_ has joined
1272 2013-01-14 21:04:01 D34TH has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1273 2013-01-14 21:04:17 D34TH_ is now known as D34TH
1274 2013-01-14 21:04:25 D34TH has quit (Changing host)
1275 2013-01-14 21:04:25 D34TH has joined
1276 2013-01-14 21:18:29 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1277 2013-01-14 21:19:05 b4epoche has joined
1278 2013-01-14 21:19:43 <sipa> gavinandresen: did you have any chance to compare 32-bit vs 64-bit performance yet?
1279 2013-01-14 21:20:03 <sipa> (i'm sure you have tons of other stuff to do, but it sounded like you were trying it already before)
1280 2013-01-14 21:20:25 <stealth222> sorry, sipa - I'd help you out but I'm making some good progress on some other stuff and don't want to interrupt
1281 2013-01-14 21:20:25 <gavinandresen> sipa: no, haven't had a chance.
1282 2013-01-14 21:20:41 <sipa> stealth222: then by all means, continue :)
1283 2013-01-14 21:23:28 panzerfaust has joined
1284 2013-01-14 21:25:31 panzer has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1285 2013-01-14 21:38:38 [\\\] has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1286 2013-01-14 21:43:58 Diapolo has joined
1287 2013-01-14 21:57:25 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1288 2013-01-14 21:59:21 debiantoruser has joined
1289 2013-01-14 22:00:06 sgornick has joined
1290 2013-01-14 22:02:51 da2ce7 has joined
1291 2013-01-14 22:03:17 tonikt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1292 2013-01-14 22:06:06 <swappermall> has anyone here experienced a problem with using bitcoin in virtualbox? (specifically Windows 7 as host and Ubuntu Precise as guest)
1293 2013-01-14 22:06:24 <swappermall> excuse me, bitcoin-qt
1294 2013-01-14 22:07:08 <Luke-Jr> Ubuntu is infamous for problems in general, including with Bitcoin-Qt
1295 2013-01-14 22:07:25 <stealth222> I just ran bitcoin-qt in virtualbox with OS X as host and ubuntu as guest and had no problems
1296 2013-01-14 22:07:50 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1297 2013-01-14 22:07:54 <stealth222> and ubuntu has usually been smooth-sailing for me as far as bitcoind
1298 2013-01-14 22:07:58 BCBot` has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1299 2013-01-14 22:08:09 <swappermall> stealth -  no problems with internet disconnection upon restart of the VM?
1300 2013-01-14 22:08:23 BCBot has joined
1301 2013-01-14 22:08:33 <Luke-Jr> O.o
1302 2013-01-14 22:08:34 <stealth222> I've experienced time issues when I sleep the machine
1303 2013-01-14 22:08:38 <Luke-Jr> I was thinking more GUI stuff
1304 2013-01-14 22:08:41 <Luke-Jr> like menu or icon
1305 2013-01-14 22:09:19 <stealth222> I don't use GUIs on linux too often
1306 2013-01-14 22:09:56 BCBot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1307 2013-01-14 22:10:22 <swappermall> stealth:  what do you make of that? think it might be a memory leakage problem?
1308 2013-01-14 22:10:43 <swappermall> with the QT stuff?
1309 2013-01-14 22:11:04 <stealth222> not sure I understand your problem - if you restart the VM, aren't all network connections inside the VM necessarily terminated? :)
1310 2013-01-14 22:11:53 eckey has joined
1311 2013-01-14 22:13:34 da2ce7 has joined
1312 2013-01-14 22:14:09 <swappermall> actually, no, just suspended ... if I am not using bitcoin related clients internet connections usually resume as if nothing was suspended from VM stop to VM restart
1313 2013-01-14 22:14:32 <Luke-Jr> swappermall: how long is it suspended?
1314 2013-01-14 22:14:36 <eckey> gavin: using bitcoinj, can I instantiate an ECKey with just the public part?
1315 2013-01-14 22:14:36 <stealth222> if I suspend my ubuntu guest, I usually have to reset the clock when I resume it
1316 2013-01-14 22:14:51 <swappermall> sometimes a few hours
1317 2013-01-14 22:14:56 <TD> eckey: gavin didn't write bitcoinj, I did, and the answer is yes. check the javadocs
1318 2013-01-14 22:14:57 <Luke-Jr> swappermall: …
1319 2013-01-14 22:15:04 <eckey> I want to create a wallet that cannot spend, just report balances
1320 2013-01-14 22:15:20 <TD> eckey: new ECKey(null, pubKeyBytes);
1321 2013-01-14 22:15:24 <eckey> TD: thx
1322 2013-01-14 22:15:30 <stealth222> eckey, check out pull request 2121
1323 2013-01-14 22:15:35 <stealth222> or armory
1324 2013-01-14 22:15:36 <swappermall> eckey: look into armory and/or multibit
1325 2013-01-14 22:15:48 <TD> eckey: then add it to the wallet and sync as normal. you can also look at WalletTool for how to do this
1326 2013-01-14 22:17:01 <swappermall> stealth: I'll look more into timing issues, thanx
1327 2013-01-14 22:18:05 <Diapolo> nice that some pulls got merged :)
1328 2013-01-14 22:20:21 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1329 2013-01-14 22:20:45 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1330 2013-01-14 22:22:07 reizuki__ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1331 2013-01-14 22:22:46 da2ce747 has joined
1332 2013-01-14 22:23:16 eckey has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.89 [Firefox 10.0.11/20121202141440])
1333 2013-01-14 22:23:55 sgornick has joined
1334 2013-01-14 22:24:23 <swappermall> has anyone here overcome NAT's limitation of 8 internet connections when using VirtualBox and Ubuntu as a guest?
1335 2013-01-14 22:25:33 ovidiusoft has quit (Quit: leaving)
1336 2013-01-14 22:26:45 <helo> swappermall: if i'm understanding correctly, the 8 limit is just the number of connections deemed "enough". it's just set in the client.
1337 2013-01-14 22:27:10 <sipa> 8 is the max number of outgoing connections made
1338 2013-01-14 22:27:27 <helo> swappermall: more connections aren't likely to help anything in particular
1339 2013-01-14 22:27:41 <helo> swappermall: is there a specific problem you are having?
1340 2013-01-14 22:27:44 <sipa> if you want more connections (but that is not needed or won't help you), you need to enable incoming connections in some way
1341 2013-01-14 22:28:53 larsig has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1342 2013-01-14 22:30:50 Diapolo has left ()
1343 2013-01-14 22:31:56 da2ce747 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1344 2013-01-14 22:32:01 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1345 2013-01-14 22:32:50 TD has joined
1346 2013-01-14 22:32:50 TD has quit (Client Quit)
1347 2013-01-14 22:46:51 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
1348 2013-01-14 22:51:47 eckey has joined
1349 2013-01-14 22:53:41 <swappermall> I've heard of instances where bitcoin-qt had more than 8 connections ... whatever
1350 2013-01-14 22:53:50 <stealth222> woohoo! it is now possible to select different wallets at runtime in bitcoin-qt! https://github.com/CodeShark/bitcoin/tree/multiwallet-qt
1351 2013-01-14 22:54:11 <sipa> swappermall: if you are reachable from the internet, yes
1352 2013-01-14 22:54:34 <sipa> swappermall: so you need port forwarding, or a public IP, or UPnP
1353 2013-01-14 22:54:43 <swappermall> helo: the problem I'm having has to do with internet disconnects when using bitcoin-qt in a virtualbox with ubuntu as the host
1354 2013-01-14 22:56:09 <swappermall> sipa: I'm not sure that's the right angle to look at, because there's an internet disconnect only upon restarting the VM
1355 2013-01-14 22:56:10 <helo> sounds very unlikely to be bitcoin related
1356 2013-01-14 22:56:55 <swappermall> helo: I'm beginning to wonder if it's a QT problem
1357 2013-01-14 22:57:20 <sipa> swappermall: qt doesn't have anything to do with the network code
1358 2013-01-14 22:57:48 <sipa> swappermall: i assume your ubuntu simply fails to bring up its internet connection after a suspend & resume?
1359 2013-01-14 22:57:49 <swappermall> it does if there's too much memory leakage, no?
1360 2013-01-14 22:58:05 <swappermall> sipa: yes
1361 2013-01-14 22:58:20 <sipa> so, that's a problem with ubuntu
1362 2013-01-14 22:58:30 <helo> swappermall: do you see any indication of memory leakage?
1363 2013-01-14 22:59:54 <Luke-Jr> sipa: he's complaining it gets disconnected after being suspended for hours..
1364 2013-01-14 23:00:03 <sipa> yes, i know
1365 2013-01-14 23:00:09 <swappermall> when bitcoin-qt is running, upon VM restart and then VM shutdown again, the OS freezes
1366 2013-01-14 23:00:14 <sipa> oh
1367 2013-01-14 23:00:17 <Luke-Jr> that's to be expected
1368 2013-01-14 23:00:25 <swappermall> how so, Luke?
1369 2013-01-14 23:00:26 <Luke-Jr> oh, OS freeze. not quite the same.
1370 2013-01-14 23:00:39 <Luke-Jr> swappermall: I was under the impression you just got d/cs
1371 2013-01-14 23:00:48 <swappermall> d/cs?
1372 2013-01-14 23:01:25 <swappermall> I am not having this problem, btw, with VMs not running bitcoin-qt
1373 2013-01-14 23:02:54 <helo> have you reproduced it multiple times at will?
1374 2013-01-14 23:03:58 bitafterbit has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1375 2013-01-14 23:04:33 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1376 2013-01-14 23:05:22 <swappermall> multiple times, yes     at will? no
1377 2013-01-14 23:05:42 <swappermall> I'm trying to get it to work right!
1378 2013-01-14 23:06:19 D34TH has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1379 2013-01-14 23:06:37 D34TH has joined
1380 2013-01-14 23:07:15 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1381 2013-01-14 23:08:33 <swappermall> now I'm thinking the settings for bitcoin-qt and its database connections on system start should be changed, but I'm locked out of bitcoin-qt right now
1382 2013-01-14 23:08:58 <swappermall> reboot, of course, doesn't help here
1383 2013-01-14 23:10:57 <swappermall> stealth: I've pretty much ruled out timing issues
1384 2013-01-14 23:11:37 <sipa> why does reboot not help?
1385 2013-01-14 23:11:57 one_zero has joined
1386 2013-01-14 23:12:26 <swappermall> anyone know the ubuntu command for terminating a process once the process ID is known?
1387 2013-01-14 23:13:58 <sipa> kill <PID>
1388 2013-01-14 23:14:04 <sipa> without the <>
1389 2013-01-14 23:14:14 <sipa> if that doesn't work
1390 2013-01-14 23:14:18 <sipa> kill -KILL <PID>
1391 2013-01-14 23:16:50 <swappermall> sipa: because bitcoin-qt only allows one instance to be run at a time, btw, the command kill -KILL <PID> worked, thanks
1392 2013-01-14 23:17:20 <sipa> well rebooting surely would have closed bitcoin-qt!
1393 2013-01-14 23:18:06 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1394 2013-01-14 23:18:23 m00p has joined
1395 2013-01-14 23:18:30 <swappermall> depends on the configuration (I seem to recall "options") of bitcoin-qt ... if it's set to automatic start on reboot it can be quite a headache
1396 2013-01-14 23:18:39 <sipa> ah
1397 2013-01-14 23:19:19 <swappermall> I'm back in synch, yeah
1398 2013-01-14 23:20:47 sgornick has joined
1399 2013-01-14 23:21:07 <swappermall> sipa: if bitcoin-qt is set to automatic restart on system reboot and there's an internet disconnect, you'll never get to the gui interface, or that's the way it seems to me ...
1400 2013-01-14 23:21:24 <sipa> could be
1401 2013-01-14 23:21:28 <sipa> i hardly use the gui
1402 2013-01-14 23:21:56 <Luke-Jr> I hardly have no internet
1403 2013-01-14 23:21:57 <sipa> but report a bug, if you can describe it accurately, please
1404 2013-01-14 23:21:57 <Luke-Jr> <.<
1405 2013-01-14 23:22:24 <sipa> swappermall: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues
1406 2013-01-14 23:22:27 <swappermall> I'm not sure it's a bug ... unless user stupidity counts as a bug
1407 2013-01-14 23:23:11 <sipa> if it is true that starting with an internet disconnect (whatever that means), and never getting the GUI, there is a bug
1408 2013-01-14 23:23:21 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1409 2013-01-14 23:23:33 <swappermall> sipa: you have a point there, I think
1410 2013-01-14 23:24:24 <swappermall> there's only one irrelevant reference to virtualbox in all of bitcointalk ... I'm kind of in the dark here
1411 2013-01-14 23:25:35 <swappermall> I've tried both NAT and bridged connections in the virtualbox settings, but there was no significant change in behavior
1412 2013-01-14 23:34:40 <swappermall> I have deselected the two boxes at bitcoin-qt>Settings>Options>Main and I now have internet connection on VM restart
1413 2013-01-14 23:37:08 <swappermall> however, I am unable to use a browser ... CPU usage is only at 5% ... RAM is only 19% not sure what's going on ... is bitcoin-qt actually capable of monopolizing network access?
1414 2013-01-14 23:37:33 TheEslbear has joined
1415 2013-01-14 23:40:18 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1416 2013-01-14 23:41:07 Eslbaer has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1417 2013-01-14 23:43:20 paul0 has quit (Disconnected by services)
1418 2013-01-14 23:52:49 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
1419 2013-01-14 23:54:18 EMZAH has joined
1420 2013-01-14 23:54:21 <EMZAH> BUY YOUR BIT COINS NOW UK & EU RESIDENTS CAN USE THE FASTER PAYMENTS OPTION VIA THERE ONLINE BANKING & WILL RECEIVE BIT COINS INSTANT AND INTERNATIONAL TRANSFERS TAKE 1 - 2 DAYS TO CLEAR HTTPS://WWW.BITCOINBERUDECHANGE.COM ONCE YOU HAVE PURCHASED WE ARE FASTER THAN MTGOX AS THEY TAKE 2 - 5 WORKING DAYS PLEASE LEAVE YOUR REVIEWS.
1421 2013-01-14 23:54:27 EMZAH has quit (Client Quit)
1422 2013-01-14 23:56:13 Lolcust has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1423 2013-01-14 23:56:23 <swappermall> EMZAH: OFF TOPIC!
1424 2013-01-14 23:56:33 <stealth222> people who advertise scams in all caps in the dev channel should be shot
1425 2013-01-14 23:57:02 <swappermall> yes, politely shot
1426 2013-01-14 23:57:12 <gmaxwell> (bang)
1427 2013-01-14 23:57:23 <gmaxwell> well, we've banned him a bunch of times already.... freeking zombies.
1428 2013-01-14 23:57:31 <swappermall> Maxwell's hammer does it again
1429 2013-01-14 23:57:35 <Diablo-D3> bitcoin be r ude change
1430 2013-01-14 23:57:42 <Diablo-D3> why would you be rude about change?