1 2013-01-29 00:00:33 panzerfaust has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
   2 2013-01-29 00:00:58 MC1984 has joined
   3 2013-01-29 00:04:06 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
   4 2013-01-29 00:05:17 <tcatm> A short tutorial on recovering private keys just from the blockchain :) http://www.nilsschneider.net/2013/01/28/recovering-bitcoin-private-keys.html
   5 2013-01-29 00:05:39 Acciaio has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
   6 2013-01-29 00:06:01 debiantoruser has joined
   7 2013-01-29 00:06:04 panzer has joined
   8 2013-01-29 00:06:56 ovidiusoft has quit (Quit: leaving)
   9 2013-01-29 00:06:56 johnsmith has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
  10 2013-01-29 00:07:43 <lianj> tcatm: is the author the guy from the 29c3 talk?
  11 2013-01-29 00:08:00 <tcatm> lianj: That's me, yes.
  12 2013-01-29 00:08:10 * Luke-Jr pokes sipa
  13 2013-01-29 00:08:58 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
  14 2013-01-29 00:08:59 andytoshi has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.3.9.2)
  15 2013-01-29 00:09:21 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  16 2013-01-29 00:09:32 rdymac has joined
  17 2013-01-29 00:09:54 <lianj> tcatm: oh, so the discovery was unrelated to the facthacks talk?
  18 2013-01-29 00:10:01 * sipa unpokes himself from Luke-Jr 
  19 2013-01-29 00:10:09 ovidiusoft has joined
  20 2013-01-29 00:10:14 <doublec> tcatm: how'd you find the owner of the address?
  21 2013-01-29 00:10:39 <tcatm> lianj: oh, there was a talk about that? I showed it to a few interested people at 29c3.
  22 2013-01-29 00:10:40 <Luke-Jr> sipa: that function you signed off on for slush is broken :p
  23 2013-01-29 00:10:45 <tcatm> doublec: google ;)
  24 2013-01-29 00:10:55 <doublec> heh
  25 2013-01-29 00:11:12 <lianj> tcatm: watch the facthacks talk, you will enjoy it
  26 2013-01-29 00:11:14 <slush> Luke-Jr: lol, it's long time ago, I bet sipa even don't remember :)
  27 2013-01-29 00:11:18 <sipa> Luke-Jr: eh, which?
  28 2013-01-29 00:11:35 <Luke-Jr> sipa: encoding a number for Script
  29 2013-01-29 00:11:45 <sipa> slush: that merkletree builder?
  30 2013-01-29 00:11:55 <lianj> tcatm: was just curious because the talk talked about excatly that (unrelated to bitcoin) and thought you might were inspired by it
  31 2013-01-29 00:12:20 Shinra__ has joined
  32 2013-01-29 00:12:21 <slush> sipa: no, half a year ago I discussed small function for encoding block height into v2 blocks for stratum..
  33 2013-01-29 00:12:29 <sipa> oh, right
  34 2013-01-29 00:12:33 <jrmithdobbs> god keccak is slow
  35 2013-01-29 00:12:58 <jrmithdobbs> err, not where i meant to bitch about that, but that works
  36 2013-01-29 00:13:07 <sipa> jrmithdobbs: slow compared to?
  37 2013-01-29 00:13:14 <tcatm> lianj: nope, that wasn't the case. I got the idea when writing my own ECDSA lib and wondered whether someone might have failed at creating bitcoin signatures.
  38 2013-01-29 00:13:29 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: easier question is what isn't it slow compared to
  39 2013-01-29 00:13:44 Shinra__ has quit (Client Quit)
  40 2013-01-29 00:14:05 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: my testing is showing it out to be abou 2x as slow as blake/skein/sha2 on the hardware i'm using with the implementations i'm using (5 or 6 different ones)
  41 2013-01-29 00:14:23 <lianj> tcatm: nice. make sure to watch the talk you will enjoy it
  42 2013-01-29 00:14:23 <jrmithdobbs> at least for the 512bit variety
  43 2013-01-29 00:15:02 <lianj> tcatm: http://mirror.fem-net.de/CCC/29C3/mp4-h264-HQ/29c3-5275-en-facthacks_h264.mp4
  44 2013-01-29 00:15:13 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
  45 2013-01-29 00:15:32 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: it's actually about the same speed/slightly faster than blake256 using keccakc512 (sha3-256) but that's because blake still does the full 512bit calc on the 256bit version
  46 2013-01-29 00:16:05 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: it should be between sha256 and sha512 in performance.
  47 2013-01-29 00:16:16 <gmaxwell> (sha512 is faster on x86_64 at least)
  48 2013-01-29 00:16:36 <gmaxwell> and very close in any case.
  49 2013-01-29 00:16:45 agricocb has joined
  50 2013-01-29 00:17:10 <gmaxwell> None of the finalists were really a ton faster... so they went for a distinct construction with fairly high security confidence.
  51 2013-01-29 00:17:11 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: on 9.1-RELEASE using clang 4.1 and gcc 4.6 the sha2 512 impl I'm using clocks in ~.050ms on my test data and ~.045 on blake512 and ~0.99 on keccakc1024 and ~0.7 or skein512512
  52 2013-01-29 00:17:14 <tcatm> lianj: thanks. I'll watch it tomorrow :)
  53 2013-01-29 00:17:43 <jrmithdobbs> (that's over lots and lots of runs using the implementation/cflags that produce the fastest binary on the host)
  54 2013-01-29 00:18:11 CodeInChaos has joined
  55 2013-01-29 00:18:20 <lianj> tcatm: so all vulnerable addresses were from the same user? what did the use to generate them, when you contacted and asked him?
  56 2013-01-29 00:18:22 rdymac has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
  57 2013-01-29 00:18:40 rdymac has joined
  58 2013-01-29 00:19:55 johnsmith has joined
  59 2013-01-29 00:20:01 <gmaxwell> they didn't all appear to be from the same user, I found some other txn which were connected to someone on the forum who was expirementing with his own client software.
  60 2013-01-29 00:20:02 <tcatm> lianj: These are from a hardware wallet called bitcoincard(.org) with little entropy.
  61 2013-01-29 00:20:27 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
  62 2013-01-29 00:20:34 <sipa> i think k=0 classifies as 'no entropy'
  63 2013-01-29 00:20:39 <lianj> tcatm: yikes :/
  64 2013-01-29 00:20:46 <lianj> sipa: haha
  65 2013-01-29 00:20:57 <Luke-Jr> lol
  66 2013-01-29 00:22:20 <lianj> tcatm: btw, once again we missed to meet at a conference :P
  67 2013-01-29 00:22:54 <tcatm> lianj: yep. I was very busy with freifunk and other projects :)
  68 2013-01-29 00:23:08 pizzaman1337 has joined
  69 2013-01-29 00:24:01 <lianj> yep,think i also only saw jamalaka for one cigarette
  70 2013-01-29 00:24:31 <Optimo> bitcoincard sounds familiar?
  71 2013-01-29 00:24:37 kakobrekla has joined
  72 2013-01-29 00:25:35 <Luke-Jr> you'd think if you were making a device like that, you'd intentionally put a good entropy source onboard..
  73 2013-01-29 00:26:22 Garr255_ is now known as Garr255
  74 2013-01-29 00:26:35 <sipa> ;;later tell wumpus can you make threadsafemessagebox work before the UI is started?
  75 2013-01-29 00:26:36 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
  76 2013-01-29 00:26:44 <Optimo> hiw about a low grade antenna
  77 2013-01-29 00:27:37 bitafterbit has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  78 2013-01-29 00:28:59 TD_ has quit (Quit: TD_)
  79 2013-01-29 00:35:57 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: that's on sandy bridge i5s btw
  80 2013-01-29 00:37:28 rbecker is now known as RBecker
  81 2013-01-29 00:42:13 owowo has joined
  82 2013-01-29 00:44:39 DutchBrat_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  83 2013-01-29 00:46:40 kakobrekla has left ()
  84 2013-01-29 00:47:00 <jgarzik> "I should probably say Jeff's unit, I paid about ~$400 USD to "get it out of the country", so it is definitely on it's way and I'm sure it'll arrive before this week ends assuming there's no problems with US customs.
  85 2013-01-29 00:47:11 <jgarzik> all this talk about my unit
  86 2013-01-29 00:47:22 <moore> jrmithdobbs, is that a number for blake or blake2? ( https://blake2.net/ )
  87 2013-01-29 00:48:05 B0g4r7 has joined
  88 2013-01-29 00:48:21 <sipa> jgarzik: we'll see... :)
  89 2013-01-29 00:48:25 <sipa> well, you will...
  90 2013-01-29 00:49:03 bitnumus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  91 2013-01-29 00:49:09 bitnumus_ has joined
  92 2013-01-29 00:49:39 <Luke-Jr> sipa: the Foundation's is shipped too
  93 2013-01-29 00:49:42 <Luke-Jr> where, I don't know
  94 2013-01-29 00:50:35 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  95 2013-01-29 00:51:00 <sipa> do they?
  96 2013-01-29 00:52:15 <Luke-Jr> sipa: do they? O.o
  97 2013-01-29 00:53:03 Zarutian has joined
  98 2013-01-29 00:53:12 rdymac has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  99 2013-01-29 00:53:50 <sipa> it seems very strange that they'd claim to have a unit for the foundation, without one being ordered (afaik?)
 100 2013-01-29 00:54:06 <Luke-Jr> sipa: I presume that's a donation
 101 2013-01-29 00:55:45 <jgarzik> sipa: <shrug>  Seems like a natural place to donate one, if anywhere
 102 2013-01-29 00:56:17 <sipa> ok, sure
 103 2013-01-29 00:56:23 <sipa> but at least someone should be aware
 104 2013-01-29 00:56:40 <jgarzik> I'm guessing PeterV knows about it, if anybody
 105 2013-01-29 00:56:48 <sipa> it's not like you can send a unit to some address listed somewhere without consulting with whoever is going to get it
 106 2013-01-29 00:56:54 <sipa> perhaps
 107 2013-01-29 00:57:01 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 108 2013-01-29 00:57:07 <jgarzik> though that might be a conflict of interest, since (I think?) PeterV also runs something related to mining
 109 2013-01-29 00:59:52 <sipa> hmm, error handling at several levels
 110 2013-01-29 01:00:06 <sipa> Error: Error: system error: Database corrupted
 111 2013-01-29 01:00:30 <sipa> well, better than no handling i guess, meh
 112 2013-01-29 01:04:49 B0g4r7 has joined
 113 2013-01-29 01:06:15 <jrmithdobbs> moore: blake
 114 2013-01-29 01:06:54 <moore> blake2 is much faster on modern CPUs
 115 2013-01-29 01:07:13 <moore> thou I could not find the context for this conversation in the scroll back
 116 2013-01-29 01:07:40 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 117 2013-01-29 01:07:43 <jrmithdobbs> moore: yes i know it's faster, i was just saying that keccak is already considerably slower than blake
 118 2013-01-29 01:07:50 <moore> ah yes
 119 2013-01-29 01:07:53 nimdAHK has joined
 120 2013-01-29 01:07:55 DutchBrat has joined
 121 2013-01-29 01:07:57 <moore> just more interesting
 122 2013-01-29 01:08:18 <moore> or more different-er
 123 2013-01-29 01:08:26 zooko has joined
 124 2013-01-29 01:08:48 b4epoche has joined
 125 2013-01-29 01:10:02 <jrmithdobbs> moore: isn't blake2 just blake using chacha instead of salsa?
 126 2013-01-29 01:10:03 <jrmithdobbs> heh
 127 2013-01-29 01:10:56 <moore> no they both use chacha-ish functions
 128 2013-01-29 01:12:02 <moore> as far as I understand any way
 129 2013-01-29 01:14:06 DutchBrat has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 130 2013-01-29 01:21:16 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 131 2013-01-29 01:22:23 RBecker is now known as rbecker
 132 2013-01-29 01:29:10 ForceMajeure has joined
 133 2013-01-29 01:37:51 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
 134 2013-01-29 01:41:48 DutchBrat has joined
 135 2013-01-29 01:51:12 nimdAHK has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 136 2013-01-29 01:55:03 <Diablo-D3> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cache:lmgtfy.com
 137 2013-01-29 01:56:26 <upb> haha
 138 2013-01-29 01:56:34 BCB has joined
 139 2013-01-29 01:57:07 Garr255_ has joined
 140 2013-01-29 01:57:07 Garr255_ has quit (Changing host)
 141 2013-01-29 01:57:07 Garr255_ has joined
 142 2013-01-29 02:00:09 Garr255 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 143 2013-01-29 02:03:19 owowo has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 144 2013-01-29 02:03:19 MobiusL has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 145 2013-01-29 02:03:19 paraipan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 146 2013-01-29 02:03:19 darkee has quit (!~darkee@gateway/tor-sasl/darkee|Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 147 2013-01-29 02:03:19 MobGod has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 148 2013-01-29 02:04:41 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 149 2013-01-29 02:04:42 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 150 2013-01-29 02:06:33 debiantoruser has joined
 151 2013-01-29 02:08:31 phma has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
 152 2013-01-29 02:12:51 EPiSKiNG- has joined
 153 2013-01-29 02:14:53 MrTiggr has quit (Read error: No route to host)
 154 2013-01-29 02:16:59 MobiusL has joined
 155 2013-01-29 02:17:02 rbecker is now known as RBecker
 156 2013-01-29 02:17:46 D34TH has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 157 2013-01-29 02:18:16 <gmaxwell> Okay, who's pubkeys are here: addmultisigaddress 2 ...
 158 2013-01-29 02:18:16 <gmaxwell> ... '["022EC475351E2E9217477BED361FA4BDE7EE1FEF6936519969022C9709ED529F06","0340AC7033DC16436900002EEB90535A927845952B9F4E8693C49AD91474E77BF1","041ce5a954c9935de53a56c6724bf59b521ba370e54715dda45712c0bed083f3b692f2ea21dab22ac565153c729c552a887be4374d86fd6abcb8845a2e95d6a7b9","045f4bba15dbfe94a45f362aa13bbaef8bbf21ff84fec1be5b27fa628f4b3acca1a2e5711503c8b8fe2e228229b8b8814f9e33e0f7a314a089d7140269ffd51fe4","04b85172458f3d63e27c066dc8a58 ...
 159 2013-01-29 02:18:22 <gmaxwell> ... 3fbf6629b6d8336ecb8c16357da691d49fb2781bd90febf3e46074fd70f756a71584e7223de18510ea781aebe452c4b78ae16","04f005d39733ec09a1efa0cf8dcf3df50691e22c2374ff9a96d1d9ecb98a1e866c9f558a9fa1ba8ef0bbbad01f396768c0cb2dda9924dc0aaee1481604a8bd9ce4"]'
 160 2013-01-29 02:18:25 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 161 2013-01-29 02:18:26 <gmaxwell> mine is the last one.
 162 2013-01-29 02:19:01 paraipan has joined
 163 2013-01-29 02:19:08 <gmaxwell> 2409f355c8910721fbbb5c54a01b8f9c692cfb292c3b4f7baf5b8151e44fef21:0 is a generous donation of 10 BTC to that P2SH by one of the partipants in my 'I taint rich' thread.
 164 2013-01-29 02:22:04 <Diablo-D3> wait, what?
 165 2013-01-29 02:22:39 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=139581.0
 166 2013-01-29 02:23:17 <petertodd> damn, and a 1BTC donation to miners too
 167 2013-01-29 02:23:50 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: so whats the short version of that?
 168 2013-01-29 02:24:09 <gmaxwell> Oh come on— I know I'm long winded, but I tried to make it fun! :P
 169 2013-01-29 02:26:38 <Diablo-D3> are we just trying to build the biggest multisig transaction or what?
 170 2013-01-29 02:27:09 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: No. I'm trying to get my 1GMaxweLLbo8mdXvnnC19Wt2wigiYUKgEB address as a signer on many diverse and high value transactions.
 171 2013-01-29 02:27:36 <Diablo-D3> just for lulz?
 172 2013-01-29 02:27:38 <gmaxwell> so the fool tools that assume that all addresses that signed a single txn are one person and declare that I am all of bitcoin.
 173 2013-01-29 02:28:23 <SomeoneWeird> hahahahah
 174 2013-01-29 02:28:27 <SomeoneWeird> ++
 175 2013-01-29 02:28:39 <gmaxwell> The lastest post in the thread involves 40,000 BTC.
 176 2013-01-29 02:29:08 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: oh dear lord
 177 2013-01-29 02:30:59 bitnumus_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 178 2013-01-29 02:31:08 bitnumus has joined
 179 2013-01-29 02:32:57 <petertodd> !
 180 2013-01-29 02:33:32 <petertodd> you know, you might want to let people base their tx on your now linked to 40,000btc tx if it goes through...
 181 2013-01-29 02:33:45 <petertodd> many do taint analysis many levels deep
 182 2013-01-29 02:33:56 <gmaxwell> the taint stuff usually does full set linkage.
 183 2013-01-29 02:34:12 <gmaxwell> But yea, I'll cycle that one back just to be sure.
 184 2013-01-29 02:34:14 <phantomcircuit> DAG turns into a DG
 185 2013-01-29 02:34:24 zooko has joined
 186 2013-01-29 02:35:03 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 187 2013-01-29 02:35:54 paraipan has joined
 188 2013-01-29 02:36:31 EPiSKiNG- has quit ()
 189 2013-01-29 02:38:20 <gmaxwell> 69d9d66aae4812b6cf156f32267b773fb2118db696bb847ebd3454a198b59fbd  I must admit a little finger tremble in handling 3/4 of a million paper dollars worth of bitcoin.
 190 2013-01-29 02:39:28 <MC1984> wat
 191 2013-01-29 02:39:28 <SomeoneWeird> 0___o
 192 2013-01-29 02:40:07 <jgarzik> hah
 193 2013-01-29 02:40:31 <SomeoneWeird> i can has?
 194 2013-01-29 02:40:43 sgornick has joined
 195 2013-01-29 02:40:46 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: whose was that?
 196 2013-01-29 02:40:54 <gmaxwell> "Loaded"
 197 2013-01-29 02:41:01 <gmaxwell> (obviously!)
 198 2013-01-29 02:41:06 <Diablo-D3> man, 3/4 of a million
 199 2013-01-29 02:41:15 <Diablo-D3> almost enough to start on exelion
 200 2013-01-29 02:41:28 <petertodd> did you double check he didn't use sighash_none?
 201 2013-01-29 02:42:59 <gmaxwell> petertodd: yes, and this is also why I'm only using 1 BTC outputs.
 202 2013-01-29 02:43:15 <gmaxwell> were it not for the screwup risk I'd move 1000 BTC or something.
 203 2013-01-29 02:43:46 <gmaxwell> If someone tricks me with a transaction type thats okay. Good learning expirence.
 204 2013-01-29 02:43:47 <petertodd> for sure, that first guy I really suspect he forgot to add in your 1btc when he did the calcs...
 205 2013-01-29 02:44:00 <petertodd> 1.001 exact? hmm...
 206 2013-01-29 02:44:07 EPiSKiNG- has joined
 207 2013-01-29 02:44:35 <petertodd> that thread reminds me how far we need to go in making for solid tools to analize and review tx's
 208 2013-01-29 02:44:39 <gmaxwell> petertodd: sadly, you're probably right— like _10 seconds_ after I announced it I had another email from him with less fee.
 209 2013-01-29 02:45:34 <Diablo-D3> heh, this is kinda cool
 210 2013-01-29 02:45:41 <Diablo-D3> some kid's mother went on #bitcoin
 211 2013-01-29 02:45:52 <Diablo-D3> to ask about bitcoins because her son wanted a bitcoin for his 18th birthday
 212 2013-01-29 02:46:04 <gmaxwell> petertodd: I looked at his inputs to make sure he wasn't about to send a zillion btc into fee but I didn't actually add them up.
 213 2013-01-29 02:47:02 <petertodd> gmaxwell: damn, good thing it was just 1BTC
 214 2013-01-29 02:47:12 <gmaxwell> well it wouldn't have been much more because I did look.
 215 2013-01-29 02:47:46 <MC1984> what the hell is taint analysis anyway
 216 2013-01-29 02:47:50 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 217 2013-01-29 02:48:35 <MC1984> just tracing where a coin has been?
 218 2013-01-29 02:48:47 <upb> it has nothing to do with coins specifically
 219 2013-01-29 02:49:21 RBecker is now known as rbecker
 220 2013-01-29 02:54:16 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 221 2013-01-29 03:03:58 MrTiggr has joined
 222 2013-01-29 03:06:53 <MC1984> im not sure whats going on in that thread
 223 2013-01-29 03:07:02 <MC1984> but it seems suitably harebrained
 224 2013-01-29 03:07:53 <doublec> mr 40k btc was brave. I'd be too worried about making a typo and sending all the coins into the void
 225 2013-01-29 03:08:58 owowo has joined
 226 2013-01-29 03:10:28 <MC1984> did he really do a raw txn with 40,000 btc
 227 2013-01-29 03:11:49 ThomasV has joined
 228 2013-01-29 03:19:51 sgornick has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 229 2013-01-29 03:20:09 <gmaxwell> doublec: I did at least double check it for him.
 230 2013-01-29 03:20:21 <gmaxwell> (thus the aformentioned trembling fingers)
 231 2013-01-29 03:20:30 <gmaxwell> having a single txout of that value is a little crazy.
 232 2013-01-29 03:20:52 JZavala has joined
 233 2013-01-29 03:24:16 bitnumus has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 234 2013-01-29 03:25:02 <gmaxwell> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=139581.msg1486774#msg1486774 < I posted 10 more txouts, which are now confirmed... feel free to join in the fun.
 235 2013-01-29 03:25:34 debiantoruser has joined
 236 2013-01-29 03:28:44 owowo has quit (Quit: sayonara)
 237 2013-01-29 03:30:30 <MC1984> could you briefly explain what youre doing as if to a child
 238 2013-01-29 03:30:42 <MC1984> it seems interesting but im too tired to parse your post
 239 2013-01-29 03:31:19 <nanotube> MC1984: "go to sleep, you're too young for this".
 240 2013-01-29 03:31:21 <nanotube> how's that? :)
 241 2013-01-29 03:31:37 <MC1984> thats probably appropriate
 242 2013-01-29 03:31:48 <nanotube> ◔ᴗ◔
 243 2013-01-29 03:34:35 pooler_ has joined
 244 2013-01-29 03:34:48 <gmaxwell> MC1984: People assume that if a transaction spends coins that were sent to address A and B  that A and B are the same person.
 245 2013-01-29 03:34:58 pooler has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 246 2013-01-29 03:35:01 pooler_ is now known as pooler
 247 2013-01-29 03:35:28 <gmaxwell> MC1984: this is commonly true, but not always.  You and I can provide coins to a transation, and we each sign it... and yet you and I are not the same person.
 248 2013-01-29 03:35:29 <nanotube> gmaxwell: s/to/from/ ? :)
 249 2013-01-29 03:36:08 <gmaxwell> nanotube: well "previously sent to" there is no from in bitcoin— (and this is an example of why prior to is not from: who is the from on the transactions we're creating in that thread?)
 250 2013-01-29 03:36:56 <nanotube> well, in that case, "to address a and b, and then subsequently used in the same transaction" ?
 251 2013-01-29 03:37:21 <gmaxwell> MC1984: There are real and significant uses for this. Say nanotube promises to post a picture of a shoe on his head for 1 BTC. You and I both want the picture, so we can cooperate to write a single txn that pays nanotube 0.5 from each of us... and no risk that the other guy backs out.
 252 2013-01-29 03:37:23 <MC1984> this is using the multisig stuff right, which only works via rawtx currently
 253 2013-01-29 03:37:39 <nanotube> that said... if a signature is required from address X to validate the transaction, i'd say that part of the transaction is "from" that address.
 254 2013-01-29 03:37:41 <gmaxwell> MC1984: No multisig,  it's using 'half signed' transactions.
 255 2013-01-29 03:37:48 sgornick has joined
 256 2013-01-29 03:37:58 one_zero has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 257 2013-01-29 03:38:01 <gmaxwell> nanotube: and when the outputs don't neatly factor? which bit is from what? :P
 258 2013-01-29 03:38:19 <nanotube> oh, i'm not about to say /how much/ of the tx is from which address. :)
 259 2013-01-29 03:38:22 <nanotube> but at least /some/ of it is.
 260 2013-01-29 03:38:44 <CodeShark> ?!?
 261 2013-01-29 03:38:50 <gmaxwell> MC1984: A transation has one signature per coin it is spending (input).  If you and I cooperate to write a transaction, we can each only sign for our own inputs.
 262 2013-01-29 03:39:51 <gmaxwell> MC1984: so I tell you a coin of mine we're going to spend, and you write a transaction that spends it, spends one or more of yours, and sends funds to nanotube and optional change back to either or both of us.
 263 2013-01-29 03:40:05 <MC1984> and youre doing this purely to show the armchair bitcoin detectives how dumb they are
 264 2013-01-29 03:40:10 <gmaxwell> Then you sign for your coins, and give me the half signed txn, and I sign for my coins... then its complete and I can annouce it.
 265 2013-01-29 03:40:27 <gmaxwell> MC1984: also to teach people about bitcoin, the raw transactions API, and because it's fun.
 266 2013-01-29 03:40:45 <MC1984> fun comes last lol
 267 2013-01-29 03:40:48 <gmaxwell> It also get people thinking about neat possiblities. Like creating the kind of joint payment I just described.
 268 2013-01-29 03:41:43 <gmaxwell> Plus I wanted to make the "I taint rich!" pun.
 269 2013-01-29 03:42:20 <nanotube> iow, so many reasons to do it, and none not to. :)
 270 2013-01-29 03:42:51 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 271 2013-01-29 03:43:23 <MC1984> id try it but the liklihood of me fucking it up approaches 1
 272 2013-01-29 03:43:46 <petertodd> I'll go in a joint for about 5BTC with someone else with unknown outputs
 273 2013-01-29 03:43:59 <petertodd> ie, we both put in 5BTC, and out comes 10BTC to various addrs
 274 2013-01-29 03:44:07 <petertodd> msg me in private
 275 2013-01-29 03:44:27 <MC1984> isnt this coin mixing?
 276 2013-01-29 03:44:33 <petertodd> bingo
 277 2013-01-29 03:44:42 <petertodd> figure I'll add gmaxwell into it as well
 278 2013-01-29 03:44:51 <gmaxwell> MC1984: yes, well, kinda. If its private it is— but its trustless mixing— no risk of theft when done right.
 279 2013-01-29 03:45:00 <MC1984> but only druggies do coin mixing
 280 2013-01-29 03:45:13 <petertodd> yeah, right out in public
 281 2013-01-29 03:46:28 johnsmith has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 282 2013-01-29 03:46:43 <MC1984> you cant take my coins because once ive signed my end, any changes invalidate the whole thing right
 283 2013-01-29 03:47:17 <petertodd> exactly
 284 2013-01-29 03:47:38 <MC1984> why the hooha over multisig if you can do this al along
 285 2013-01-29 03:47:51 <petertodd> we privately agree on a list of txouts and txins
 286 2013-01-29 03:48:08 <petertodd> for any given txout you sitll only need one private key to spend it
 287 2013-01-29 03:48:30 <petertodd> it's just that once I sign a whole transaction, I'm basically signing "this set of txins go to this set of txouts"
 288 2013-01-29 03:50:52 fiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 289 2013-01-29 03:52:29 <gmaxwell> MC1984: multisig creates a single output that take multiple people to spend.  This has multiple people make a single transaction that spends multiple outputs
 290 2013-01-29 03:53:32 <MC1984> oh yeah
 291 2013-01-29 03:53:42 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 292 2013-01-29 03:53:46 sgstair has joined
 293 2013-01-29 03:54:04 <MC1984> mite b cool if these funky tx types had some official GUI rep instead of pasting hex around
 294 2013-01-29 03:54:52 fiesh has joined
 295 2013-01-29 03:55:28 CodeInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 296 2013-01-29 03:55:33 debiantoruser has joined
 297 2013-01-29 03:55:45 <petertodd> also people can email me to set this up if you don't trust freenode...
 298 2013-01-29 03:56:10 <gmaxwell> MC1984: getting them GUIs involves knowing how people would use them.
 299 2013-01-29 03:56:24 <gmaxwell> Someone go swap with petertodd. :)
 300 2013-01-29 03:56:38 <petertodd> actually I already got two responses
 301 2013-01-29 03:56:45 <petertodd> but more is good!
 302 2013-01-29 03:57:47 <lianj> the manual mixmaster?
 303 2013-01-29 03:57:59 <petertodd> no, that's what I call myself in da club
 304 2013-01-29 03:58:18 sgornick has joined
 305 2013-01-29 03:59:05 <gmaxwell> hm. calling oneself the "taint master" might garnish entirely the wrong sorts of email responses.
 306 2013-01-29 03:59:14 Goonie has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 307 2013-01-29 04:00:03 <petertodd> yes, quite possibly...
 308 2013-01-29 04:00:29 <CodeShark> lol @ taint master
 309 2013-01-29 04:03:35 <Diablo-D3> the.... oh boy.
 310 2013-01-29 04:03:46 <petertodd> alright, last call, no more takers? we're at 4 including myself and gmaxwell
 311 2013-01-29 04:04:16 <CodeShark> so what's the proposition?
 312 2013-01-29 04:04:58 <CodeShark> we're all going to sign a single transaction, but different inputs?
 313 2013-01-29 04:05:06 paraipan has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
 314 2013-01-29 04:05:35 <petertodd> yes, 4 inputs, 4 outputs
 315 2013-01-29 04:05:46 <petertodd> only I know what was what
 316 2013-01-29 04:06:23 zooko has joined
 317 2013-01-29 04:06:23 <CodeShark> to whom do the outputs belong?
 318 2013-01-29 04:06:32 <lianj> arent there good automatic mixing services?
 319 2013-01-29 04:06:39 <petertodd> everyone picks an output
 320 2013-01-29 04:06:41 <jgarzik> lianj: not really
 321 2013-01-29 04:06:46 <lianj> aw
 322 2013-01-29 04:06:59 <petertodd> and they only sign if they are happy with the outputs list
 323 2013-01-29 04:07:01 <jgarzik> lianj: good mixing requires good volume from multiple parties
 324 2013-01-29 04:07:19 <jgarzik> lianj: and who trusts an anonymous mixing service that much, to send 1,000 BTC (for example) into the ether?
 325 2013-01-29 04:07:27 <lianj> right, but lots of coins get stolen, there should be enough who need it
 326 2013-01-29 04:07:38 <lianj> good point :D
 327 2013-01-29 04:07:46 <lianj> wait, i got an idea
 328 2013-01-29 04:07:48 <lianj> :P
 329 2013-01-29 04:08:14 <CodeShark> money laundering done right? :)
 330 2013-01-29 04:08:21 <petertodd> privacy
 331 2013-01-29 04:08:28 <gmaxwell> petertodd: which of mine are you using? I'd suggest not using 0 as thats the first on other people will use.
 332 2013-01-29 04:08:28 <CodeShark> oh, right... :P
 333 2013-01-29 04:08:36 <CodeShark> privacy is better PR
 334 2013-01-29 04:08:42 <petertodd> bitcoin has no privacy unless you work at it, it's natual to expect people to want to keep their competitors from knowing how much they have
 335 2013-01-29 04:08:51 <petertodd> I was gonna pick #6
 336 2013-01-29 04:09:17 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: see my comments on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=139581.msg1486925#msg1486925
 337 2013-01-29 04:10:17 <gmaxwell> petertodd: The example I use is "no one wants their inlaws asking how they're going to get grandkids when you're buying contraception"  (funny, luke doesn't like that one).  Casual privacy matters.
 338 2013-01-29 04:10:58 <lianj> jgarzik: maybe the best right now is to travel multiple oneline wallets
 339 2013-01-29 04:11:21 <lianj> depending on what they do in their backend
 340 2013-01-29 04:11:34 <petertodd> gmaxwell: that's a good one
 341 2013-01-29 04:11:37 <jgarzik> Baby Got Backend
 342 2013-01-29 04:16:13 <CodeShark> there could be a side network that propagates partially signed transactions
 343 2013-01-29 04:16:33 <CodeShark> or allows parties to add new inputs and outputs to the same transaction
 344 2013-01-29 04:16:43 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 345 2013-01-29 04:16:52 <CodeShark> how would you make that collaborative and not subject to DoS?
 346 2013-01-29 04:17:23 <CodeShark> and how could you permute the outputs so that only the participants know which is which?
 347 2013-01-29 04:17:32 <CodeShark> or better yet, so the participants only know which output is theirs
 348 2013-01-29 04:18:07 <CodeShark> it would be cool to be able to do mixing in a completely decentralized fashion
 349 2013-01-29 04:18:22 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 350 2013-01-29 04:18:38 debiantoruser has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 351 2013-01-29 04:18:40 <gmaxwell> petertodd: got something for me to sign yet?
 352 2013-01-29 04:19:00 <gmaxwell> (I don't need to be last)
 353 2013-01-29 04:19:22 <MC1984> CodeShark people have discussed it before
 354 2013-01-29 04:19:41 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 355 2013-01-29 04:19:47 <MC1984> maybe a sidechain somehow
 356 2013-01-29 04:19:59 <MC1984> disappointed nothing really useful came out of merged mining
 357 2013-01-29 04:20:08 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: you can make it not subject to DOS by making initial participation somewhat costly, and DOS gets you blacklisted.
 358 2013-01-29 04:20:11 Mad7Scientist has joined
 359 2013-01-29 04:20:30 Mad7Scientist is now known as Guest89722
 360 2013-01-29 04:20:40 <gmaxwell> and you can make it blinded by a complicated token procedure. :P
 361 2013-01-29 04:20:52 <gmaxwell> but I don't know how to make it blinded and completely decenteralized.
 362 2013-01-29 04:21:52 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: basically—  a 'server' starts a round and accepts 1 btc txid from permitted users. As users submit IDs they also give the server a blinded token which the server signs.
 363 2013-01-29 04:21:58 Guest89722 is now known as Mad7Scientist-_
 364 2013-01-29 04:22:23 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: then they reconnect anonymously (so the server doesn't know who is who) and exchange their unblineded tokens for slots in the txouts.
 365 2013-01-29 04:22:27 Mad7Scientist_ has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 366 2013-01-29 04:22:29 debiantoruser has joined
 367 2013-01-29 04:22:47 <CodeShark> that could work
 368 2013-01-29 04:22:51 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: well all are gathered the server posts it and people connect again to sign their inputs. (back under their accounts)
 369 2013-01-29 04:23:04 <gmaxwell> And if someone fails to sign they get blacklisted.
 370 2013-01-29 04:23:33 <gmaxwell> but that kind of complexity isn't needed for something to improve privacy a bit.
 371 2013-01-29 04:23:49 <CodeShark> blacklisted? sounds difficult to blacklist someone
 372 2013-01-29 04:23:55 AtashiCon has quit (Quit: AtashiCon)
 373 2013-01-29 04:23:57 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: I consulted on and beta tested a site that did all of this, dunno what happened to it.
 374 2013-01-29 04:24:04 <gmaxwell> (it was never made public)
 375 2013-01-29 04:24:31 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: it's trivial.. to join in the fun you have to pay some fee.  If you're blacklisted you abandon the fee.
 376 2013-01-29 04:25:06 <gmaxwell> You can get initial users by having a free for all initially, and grandfather established users.
 377 2013-01-29 04:25:43 AtashiCon has joined
 378 2013-01-29 04:25:58 <CodeShark> but if the whole point is privacy, you can only punish defectors within the actual round in which they participate
 379 2013-01-29 04:26:14 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: the point is privacy of outputs, not inputs.
 380 2013-01-29 04:26:25 <gmaxwell> if the inputs were already private, no need for the mixer.
 381 2013-01-29 04:26:43 <gmaxwell> The outputs are private by virtue of blinding with the chaum tokens.
 382 2013-01-29 04:27:03 <gmaxwell> and the identity is nothing more than 'sent bitcoins to some address' and connected over tor.
 383 2013-01-29 04:27:49 <CodeShark> could it be done without the use of a "server"?
 384 2013-01-29 04:28:13 <CodeShark> i.e. anyone can send out a proposal and others can join in until the slots are full
 385 2013-01-29 04:28:28 <gmaxwell> kinda. How about using a group blinded signature.
 386 2013-01-29 04:28:51 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: the hard part is making it so only participants can get outputs, but no one knows input->output mapping.
 387 2013-01-29 04:29:44 <gmaxwell> Here is how a group blinded signature would work. Everyone comes up with an key. Everyone puts up some coins. Each user blinds a message specifying their output address and publically puts the blinded message up for group blindsigning by everyone.
 388 2013-01-29 04:30:13 <gmaxwell> Then the messages are unblinded and resubmited anonymously.. and everyone can see that they're signed by everyone.
 389 2013-01-29 04:30:17 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
 390 2013-01-29 04:30:19 TheSeven has joined
 391 2013-01-29 04:30:28 <gmaxwell> ... I think I've seen papers on group blind signing, I've never seen an implementation.
 392 2013-01-29 04:30:32 <gmaxwell> But that would get you serverless.
 393 2013-01-29 04:30:45 zooko has joined
 394 2013-01-29 04:31:42 <gmaxwell> Doing the anti-DOS is a bit tricker. How do you convince a new participant that Alice is naughty and doesn't complete the signatures?  Not unsolvable but a lot of code to construct and check the proofs.
 395 2013-01-29 04:35:47 <CodeShark> could it be done so that if any of the participants fail to sign after a certain number of blocks, their contribution gets distributed amongst the participants that did sign?
 396 2013-01-29 04:36:03 one_zero has joined
 397 2013-01-29 04:37:29 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: not usefully,  there is the crazy I only care about the matching output sigtype.... but thats not what you want for anonymity.
 398 2013-01-29 04:37:37 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: but you'd make it all automated, so it would just retry on failure.
 399 2013-01-29 04:38:15 <gmaxwell> the only reason it couldn't try a dozen times in a minute is that you'd want to delay the reconnection to submit unblinded tokens to thwart traffic analysis.
 400 2013-01-29 04:39:11 <gmaxwell> though god knows there is probably some awesome cryptographic shuffle you could do if you could make the unblinding homorphic.
 401 2013-01-29 04:40:46 sgornick has joined
 402 2013-01-29 04:43:10 <CodeShark> it's a fascinating problem and it's hurting my brain :p
 403 2013-01-29 04:44:11 <CodeShark> what's that idea called where you encrypt something in a way where it can only be decrypted at some point in the future?
 404 2013-01-29 04:44:11 <jgarzik> bah, a new warning?
 405 2013-01-29 04:44:14 <jgarzik> main.cpp:97:13: warning: ‘bool IsFromMe(CTransaction&)’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
 406 2013-01-29 04:44:26 <CodeShark> yeah, I've been noticing that one, too, jgarzik :)
 407 2013-01-29 04:44:33 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: timelock
 408 2013-01-29 04:44:35 <CodeShark> if it bothers you just comment out that line
 409 2013-01-29 04:45:13 <jgarzik> CodeShark: oh, much more violence is needed than just that.
 410 2013-01-29 04:47:27 <Luke-Jr> #if 0
 411 2013-01-29 04:47:31 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 412 2013-01-29 04:47:48 <CodeShark> all that code will be undergoing hardcore surgery after 0.8.0 :)
 413 2013-01-29 04:48:34 <jgarzik> at least it only appears once
 414 2013-01-29 04:48:41 sgornick has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 415 2013-01-29 04:48:55 <jgarzik> if it appeared once per main.h, say, that would be different
 416 2013-01-29 04:49:10 <CodeShark> gmaxwell: so if you use some sort of timelock where everyone signs to an output that can be claimed only after a certain amount of time?
 417 2013-01-29 04:49:30 debiantoruser has joined
 418 2013-01-29 04:51:12 <CodeShark> and the actual transaction doublespends it - but only one or the other is propagated on the real p2p network
 419 2013-01-29 04:51:18 <CodeShark> or something like that :p
 420 2013-01-29 04:51:42 <CodeShark> basically, either everyone signs and the original timelocked transaction is voided - or someone fails to sign and then someone else can claim it
 421 2013-01-29 04:52:25 <CodeShark> hmmm....it's way subtler than that
 422 2013-01-29 04:53:00 <CodeShark> it would have to be impossible to claim the output by any other means than either the timelocked transaction or the joint transaction
 423 2013-01-29 04:56:45 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 424 2013-01-29 04:59:52 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: I think it's easier to just use a non-interactive zkp in the protocol and so you can prove if anyone cheats and then show that proof to any new commers and just blacklist cheaters. ... and restart when it fails.
 425 2013-01-29 05:00:47 <CodeShark> what's to stop cheaters from just reconnecting under a different identity?
 426 2013-01-29 05:01:14 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: a fidelity bond, of course.
 427 2013-01-29 05:01:26 <CodeShark> where can I read up more on this fidelity bond idea?
 428 2013-01-29 05:01:32 <CodeShark> I missed those convos :)
 429 2013-01-29 05:02:12 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: the idea is simple: You provably give away some coin to mining fees. Now the key which did this is a fidelity bond (you can add some rules for transfering ownership of said bond— if you like)
 430 2013-01-29 05:02:54 <gmaxwell> Now that you have a bond you can either behave... or if you misbehave the people who wittness will construct a proof, and anyone who sees that proof will consider your fidelity bond worthless.
 431 2013-01-29 05:03:42 <gmaxwell> For something like this the bond could just be donating to a charity and not mining fees... the only risk would be the charity donating to themselves forever to blockaid you.
 432 2013-01-29 05:04:26 <CodeShark> not sure I follow
 433 2013-01-29 05:04:40 <CodeShark> why do you need to give anything away?
 434 2013-01-29 05:05:17 <CodeShark> and how is this fidelity bond associated with other transactions of yours?
 435 2013-01-29 05:07:13 <gmaxwell> The idea is to use the scarcity of funds to make a scarce identity.  You give away funds, and prove that you did it for the purpose of making a fidelity bond. (a key annointed with the special scarcity of being a fidelity bond)  This key is now valuable because you can use it to gain access to whatever requires you to have a fidelity bond.
 436 2013-01-29 05:07:49 <gmaxwell> If you act unfaithful (break the rules) people will publish proofs and you'll lose your bond (everyone will ignore it). If you want a new bond you'll have to give away more coin.
 437 2013-01-29 05:08:23 <gmaxwell> If you get tired of your fidelity bond, you could sell it if the defintion of one allows it to be transfered.
 438 2013-01-29 05:08:44 <CodeShark> so you basically attach an identity to a particular key and then include that key in your transactions to mark them as yours?
 439 2013-01-29 05:08:48 <gmaxwell> If it's any consolation when petertodd posted on this I didn't really get it either.  I guess I'm not good at explaining it.
 440 2013-01-29 05:09:07 <CodeShark> yea, I totally don't get it - lol
 441 2013-01-29 05:09:50 <CodeShark> I'm not even sure what problem fidelity bonds are trying to solve in the first place
 442 2013-01-29 05:09:52 <Luke-Jr> if it helps, neither do I ;)
 443 2013-01-29 05:10:23 <gmaxwell> Lets step back for a minute.   Say we have a forum where spam is a problem. We want to be anonymous but want to ban spammers.
 444 2013-01-29 05:10:35 <gmaxwell> Say it's a decenteralized forum too, for fun.
 445 2013-01-29 05:10:54 <CodeShark> like, say, bitcoin-otc :)
 446 2013-01-29 05:11:02 <CodeShark> but with no moderators
 447 2013-01-29 05:11:08 <gmaxwell> We require every post be signed with a key that has given away at least 1 BTC and isn't on the blacklist.
 448 2013-01-29 05:11:28 <gmaxwell> This is a simple machine rule... software enforces it no problem.
 449 2013-01-29 05:11:28 <CodeShark> ok
 450 2013-01-29 05:11:37 <CodeShark> still with you
 451 2013-01-29 05:11:50 <gmaxwell> Now say you spam. It's obvious to everyone that its spam... and so someone publishes a notice with your signed copy of your spam.
 452 2013-01-29 05:12:07 <gmaxwell> And when users show up at the forum they get the notice and say.. oh indeed.. they key spammed. I'll ignore it forever now.
 453 2013-01-29 05:12:34 <gmaxwell> (of course, for spam consensus might be hard— but for digital fiance we can make indisputable criteria)
 454 2013-01-29 05:12:44 <gmaxwell> So the spammer must constantly spend 1 BTC per spam sent.
 455 2013-01-29 05:12:50 <gmaxwell> But honest users just have to spend 1 BTC once.
 456 2013-01-29 05:12:58 <CodeShark> ok, I sorta get it
 457 2013-01-29 05:13:51 <gmaxwell> and, say we also allow people to transfer their bondedness to another key— e.g. they want to leave the forum and want their 1 BTC back.. so they sell their bond to someone who wants in maybe for .9 btc so that person doesn't have to give away coin.
 458 2013-01-29 05:14:09 <gmaxwell> so even if you're ready to quit— it's in your interest to preserve your bond's reputation.
 459 2013-01-29 05:14:44 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 460 2013-01-29 05:15:07 <CodeShark> miners could still cheat the system, no?
 461 2013-01-29 05:15:10 <gmaxwell> What petertodd proposes doing is having bitcoin banks which have big fidelity bonds — ones of potentially thousands of btc. And the client software for the bank will never let deposts go higher than the value of the bond.  And if the bank ever cheats— won't process a transaction.. someone publishes proof and the bank's bond is destroyed.
 462 2013-01-29 05:15:20 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: petertodd solved that using locktime.
 463 2013-01-29 05:15:37 <gmaxwell> You mine a transaction which contains nested inside it a high fee child transaction with a locktime in the future.
 464 2013-01-29 05:15:53 <gmaxwell> Then all miners know about this locked transaction... and you can't control who mines it.
 465 2013-01-29 05:16:00 <CodeShark> right
 466 2013-01-29 05:16:07 <gmaxwell> for a big bond you might require it be composed of multiple smaller ones in any case.
 467 2013-01-29 05:16:24 debiantoruser has joined
 468 2013-01-29 05:16:54 <CodeShark> interesting
 469 2013-01-29 05:17:06 <gmaxwell> if you don't need that much security (e.g. for chat or a mixer) then perhaps you'd just use a payments to a charity reconized by the whole community instead of mining fees. (mining fees are kind of like a distributed charity for network security)  Would be less secure.. but people might find that more rewarding than just mining fees.
 470 2013-01-29 05:17:35 <CodeShark> ripe for corruption, though :)
 471 2013-01-29 05:17:42 <CodeShark> charities could be bought and manipulated
 472 2013-01-29 05:17:50 <gmaxwell> well, depends on what you're doing— for banks I agree.
 473 2013-01-29 05:18:10 <gmaxwell> For chatroom access? who is going to take over a major charity to spam a chatroom more cheaply? :P
 474 2013-01-29 05:18:54 <CodeShark> erection pill manufacturers and nigerian princes :p
 475 2013-01-29 05:20:50 <CodeShark> never underestimate the motivation and resolve of scammers
 476 2013-01-29 05:21:03 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 477 2013-01-29 05:21:52 ForceMajeure has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 478 2013-01-29 05:21:53 <CodeShark> at least if you sacrifice to mining, it's up for grabs
 479 2013-01-29 05:22:39 <CodeShark> in principle those funds get distributed equitably amongst all miners
 480 2013-01-29 05:22:48 <CodeShark> so it's impossible to manipulate them
 481 2013-01-29 05:23:39 b4epoche has joined
 482 2013-01-29 05:28:07 paybitcoin has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 483 2013-01-29 05:31:32 paybitcoin has joined
 484 2013-01-29 05:36:11 dparrish has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 485 2013-01-29 05:38:36 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 486 2013-01-29 05:43:16 ThomasV has joined
 487 2013-01-29 05:43:56 <CodeShark> you can also just throw away bitcoins by sending them to the all zero pubkey :)
 488 2013-01-29 05:44:25 <CodeShark> or some specific pubkey
 489 2013-01-29 05:44:35 <petertodd> or a null txout with sighash none
 490 2013-01-29 05:44:43 <petertodd> so the txout is replacable
 491 2013-01-29 05:45:03 <petertodd> it's the smallest possible nested tx, and it happens to be valid
 492 2013-01-29 05:45:55 <gmaxwell> A little moral hazard there at least for big bonds: creates an incentive to fork the chain.
 493 2013-01-29 05:46:41 <petertodd> That worries me...
 494 2013-01-29 05:47:02 <CodeShark> require bonds to have a certain number of confirmations before they are accepted
 495 2013-01-29 05:47:04 <petertodd> It'd be nice if bitcoin had a mechanism where the next n miners could get a share of the tx fee.
 496 2013-01-29 05:47:16 <petertodd> CodeShark: mandatory
 497 2013-01-29 05:47:42 <petertodd> CodeShark: double-spends are just as much of a problem as anywhere else
 498 2013-01-29 05:47:49 <CodeShark> sure
 499 2013-01-29 05:48:36 <gmaxwell> petertodd: you can make that explicitly, just with a chain of transactions locked one after another.
 500 2013-01-29 05:48:44 <gmaxwell> This can be used to pay people to make forks. :(
 501 2013-01-29 05:48:54 <CodeShark> hah
 502 2013-01-29 05:48:57 <CodeShark> indeed
 503 2013-01-29 05:49:25 <CodeShark> perhaps miners can be corrupted after all
 504 2013-01-29 05:49:42 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Ugh, that one is nasty...
 505 2013-01-29 05:50:24 <petertodd> I suspect going forward we're really going to find that 6 confs isn't enough.
 506 2013-01-29 05:50:35 dparrish has joined
 507 2013-01-29 05:51:00 <CodeShark> or we'll have to use trust mechanisms outside the block chain
 508 2013-01-29 05:52:43 <gmaxwell> petertodd: It's not enough now— I mean if you want to be clear eyed about it... a pool with 30% hash power or whatever could do whatever for _hours_ if they were hacked.
 509 2013-01-29 05:53:19 <gmaxwell> And these pools are hosted on random inexpensive hosting. Their operation is typical one or two persons part-time jobs.
 510 2013-01-29 05:54:01 <gmaxwell> And when you hack one you even get 1000 btc to try your doublespending lottery with.
 511 2013-01-29 05:54:04 <gmaxwell> but ::shrugs::
 512 2013-01-29 05:54:23 <gmaxwell> small parties are not likely to be a target, and large ones eat it as a cost of doing business.
 513 2013-01-29 05:55:42 <gmaxwell> I thought it would be neat to set the required confirms based on the txn value and a user set "how much hashpower I think an attacker could get" knob... but then I realized you don't need to use the txn value, you need to use the full value of all txn in the block, as they could all be doublespend attacks. :(
 514 2013-01-29 05:56:46 <gmaxwell> and this ends up resulting in telling you that you need 12-15 confirms to make an attack negative EV on the current network.. this also got worse because of the subsidy drop: the cost of failure is lower.
 515 2013-01-29 05:56:48 <petertodd> Given that blocks are easily transfering a quarter million USD each...
 516 2013-01-29 05:57:30 <petertodd> I'm increasingly thinking keeping the subsidy fixed would have been better; it at least gives you a number to reason about.
 517 2013-01-29 05:58:01 <petertodd> Reminds me: do we know if all the new ASIC hardware is P2Pool compatible?
 518 2013-01-29 05:58:13 <gmaxwell> constant inflation is distorting: if you do that then the value of btc can't frefloat to its optimal value without dragging the rewards of mining along with it.
 519 2013-01-29 05:58:23 <gmaxwell> petertodd: it would be hard for it not to be.
 520 2013-01-29 05:58:42 <petertodd> Well, the ugly part about constant inflation, is constant reward is *not* constant inflation of the money supply.
 521 2013-01-29 05:58:51 <gmaxwell> that stuff will complete a nonce range per second or more... so even if it's like the BFL things and can't abort a nonce search, it wouldn't matter.
 522 2013-01-29 05:59:02 <petertodd> Oh, yeah, good point...
 523 2013-01-29 05:59:31 <petertodd> I point my BFL single at eligius right now, but I'd consider running p2pool otherwise.
 524 2013-01-29 06:00:46 <gmaxwell> maybe they'll OSS those bitstreams once the ASIC are out. ... one could hope.
 525 2013-01-29 06:01:14 <petertodd> Just telling us how to hook up Xilinx would be better than nothing.
 526 2013-01-29 06:07:28 ovidiusoft has joined
 527 2013-01-29 06:09:57 MobGod has joined
 528 2013-01-29 06:10:02 MobGod has quit (Changing host)
 529 2013-01-29 06:10:02 MobGod has joined
 530 2013-01-29 06:10:02 MobGod has quit (Changing host)
 531 2013-01-29 06:10:02 MobGod has joined
 532 2013-01-29 06:10:33 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 533 2013-01-29 06:14:22 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: any news concerning bip32?
 534 2013-01-29 06:17:01 darkskiez has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 535 2013-01-29 06:19:26 darkskiez has joined
 536 2013-01-29 06:21:48 andytoshi has joined
 537 2013-01-29 06:22:38 vigilyn2 has joined
 538 2013-01-29 06:23:05 vigilyn has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 539 2013-01-29 06:27:47 OneFixt_ has joined
 540 2013-01-29 06:31:29 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 541 2013-01-29 06:32:01 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 542 2013-01-29 06:32:08 <CodeShark> lol - are we going to break 20?
 543 2013-01-29 06:33:23 <SomeoneWeird> we're going to break 200
 544 2013-01-29 06:33:33 <CodeShark> what's the ETA on that
 545 2013-01-29 06:33:34 <CodeShark> ?
 546 2013-01-29 06:33:49 <SomeoneWeird> no idea
 547 2013-01-29 06:41:28 OneFixt_ is now known as OneFixt
 548 2013-01-29 06:42:36 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 549 2013-01-29 06:43:11 copumpkin has joined
 550 2013-01-29 06:43:40 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
 551 2013-01-29 06:45:30 <wumpus> sipa: I suppose it should work as long as you provde MODAL flag?
 552 2013-01-29 06:48:33 <wumpus> sipa: after all that's how InitError/InitWarning etc work, if they're broken that's a big thing
 553 2013-01-29 06:51:38 ThomasV has joined
 554 2013-01-29 06:52:35 RazielZ has joined
 555 2013-01-29 06:56:26 <CodeShark> sipa.sleep(250000);
 556 2013-01-29 07:00:27 <SomeoneWeird> lols
 557 2013-01-29 07:07:35 yareyare has joined
 558 2013-01-29 07:09:35 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 559 2013-01-29 07:09:55 techlife has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 560 2013-01-29 07:10:45 leotreasure_ has joined
 561 2013-01-29 07:10:46 leotreasure has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 562 2013-01-29 07:10:47 leotreasure_ is now known as leotreasure
 563 2013-01-29 07:11:18 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
 564 2013-01-29 07:12:06 techlife has joined
 565 2013-01-29 07:20:53 grau has joined
 566 2013-01-29 07:21:34 <wumpus> hehe
 567 2013-01-29 07:21:45 <gmaxwell> 14947302eab0608fb2650a05f13f6f30b27a0a314c41250000f77ed904475dbb
 568 2013-01-29 07:22:09 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: having fun? :p
 569 2013-01-29 07:23:31 <gmaxwell> Yes!
 570 2013-01-29 07:24:35 <Luke-Jr> me too
 571 2013-01-29 07:30:29 FredEE has quit (Quit: FredEE)
 572 2013-01-29 07:31:53 WolfAlex has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 573 2013-01-29 07:32:43 debiantoruser has joined
 574 2013-01-29 07:41:47 dparrish_ has joined
 575 2013-01-29 07:50:25 mykhal has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 576 2013-01-29 07:52:42 Lolcust has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 577 2013-01-29 07:52:42 <gmaxwell> You'd think that with the subsidy at 25 now I'd stop freaking out when I accidentally switch terminals and listtransactions a testnet node and see a wall of 50 coin generate txn.. but no.
 578 2013-01-29 07:52:58 Lolcust has joined
 579 2013-01-29 07:53:15 <Luke-Jr> heh
 580 2013-01-29 07:53:24 mykhal has joined
 581 2013-01-29 08:00:30 FredEE has joined
 582 2013-01-29 08:05:10 <muhoo> i'm intrigued by this multi-signing mixing thing. isn't it basically kickstarter?
 583 2013-01-29 08:06:27 <muhoo> or fundable, back in the day.
 584 2013-01-29 08:06:29 <muhoo> taintstarter
 585 2013-01-29 08:06:32 <gmaxwell> muhoo: you could use it that way, if you like.
 586 2013-01-29 08:08:00 jdnavarro has joined
 587 2013-01-29 08:09:54 <muhoo> what's that number, 14947302eab0608fb2650a05f13f6f30b27a0a314c41250000f77ed904475dbb ? is that a tx?
 588 2013-01-29 08:10:24 <grau> gmaxwell: that I taint rich thread of you is genuine. I am bit afraid that such mixer will be the next SD.
 589 2013-01-29 08:11:37 kicek has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 590 2013-01-29 08:11:47 <gmaxwell> grau: It isn't a new idea— and done well it reduces transactions. The bigger concern I have with SD is the UTXO bloat, and this kind of use is no big hazard for it.
 591 2013-01-29 08:11:55 <gmaxwell> muhoo: it's a txid yes.
 592 2013-01-29 08:12:23 <muhoo> it looks like it hasn't been seen on the network (at least blockexplorer has no clue of it)
 593 2013-01-29 08:12:49 <gmaxwell> It has 12 confirmations now.
 594 2013-01-29 08:12:53 CodesInChaos has joined
 595 2013-01-29 08:15:47 <grau> Genuine is that you just created a public address for yourself that can be associated with huge amounts while you can claim it is not yours.
 596 2013-01-29 08:18:03 <gmaxwell> I wondered when someone would suggest that!
 597 2013-01-29 08:18:36 <gmaxwell> But I have nothing to gain from that, as I'd just not mix huge amounts with my known addressess— if I had huge amounts, which I don't. :P
 598 2013-01-29 08:18:41 voodster has joined
 599 2013-01-29 08:18:53 <grau> sure :)
 600 2013-01-29 08:21:24 altamic has joined
 601 2013-01-29 08:21:25 altamic has quit (Changing host)
 602 2013-01-29 08:21:25 altamic has joined
 603 2013-01-29 08:24:10 kicek has joined
 604 2013-01-29 08:24:45 <muhoo> 40kbtc? holy crap
 605 2013-01-29 08:25:06 <muhoo> in ukraine, says blockchain.info. why am i not surprised by that
 606 2013-01-29 08:25:41 Zarutian has joined
 607 2013-01-29 08:25:43 <gmaxwell> You should not be surprised by that because like a sane person, I block blockchain.info's snoppy nodes.
 608 2013-01-29 08:25:55 <gmaxwell> (I announced that transaction)
 609 2013-01-29 08:29:14 <SomeoneWeird> heh
 610 2013-01-29 08:30:42 FredEE has quit (Quit: FredEE)
 611 2013-01-29 08:34:21 ThomasV has joined
 612 2013-01-29 08:36:26 <muhoo> ah, i guess that's a tor exit node then
 613 2013-01-29 08:36:43 <gmaxwell> or just some random bitcoin node.
 614 2013-01-29 08:37:04 <gmaxwell> because I block them they'll report it as coming from some random peer of mine.
 615 2013-01-29 08:37:27 <muhoo> how do you block them?
 616 2013-01-29 08:37:51 <SomeoneWeird> magik
 617 2013-01-29 08:38:17 <gmaxwell> They're on 91.203.74.0/24 so I just firewall off that network from reaching my bitcoin nodes.
 618 2013-01-29 08:38:47 Goonie has joined
 619 2013-01-29 08:39:07 <gmaxwell> if you care at all about privacy you should run bitcoin over tor though.
 620 2013-01-29 08:39:14 <gmaxwell> I do that too.
 621 2013-01-29 08:39:52 <muhoo> i'm confused as to how they can tell what ip address a transaction was originally broadcast from
 622 2013-01-29 08:40:06 <muhoo> is the address encoded in the tx?
 623 2013-01-29 08:40:11 <SomeoneWeird> he's just blocking peering with them
 624 2013-01-29 08:40:25 <muhoo> oh. but, they can't peer with EVERYONE can they?
 625 2013-01-29 08:40:44 <SomeoneWeird> they can try
 626 2013-01-29 08:40:47 <SomeoneWeird> lol
 627 2013-01-29 08:40:52 <muhoo> do they really do that? wow.
 628 2013-01-29 08:41:10 <Luke-Jr> I do too.
 629 2013-01-29 08:41:14 <Luke-Jr> <.<
 630 2013-01-29 08:41:20 rdymac has joined
 631 2013-01-29 08:41:21 <SomeoneWeird> well you can see how many nodes theyre connected to at the bottom of the page
 632 2013-01-29 08:41:21 <SomeoneWeird> iirc
 633 2013-01-29 08:41:30 <Luke-Jr>     "connections" : 534,
 634 2013-01-29 08:42:06 PhantomSpark has joined
 635 2013-01-29 08:42:23 <muhoo> oh. crap http://blockchain.info/connected-nodes
 636 2013-01-29 08:42:33 jaromil has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 637 2013-01-29 08:44:24 <SomeoneWeird> seewotimean
 638 2013-01-29 08:44:37 <muhoo> jeebus http://blockchain.info/ip-address/74.101.135.64  ... not much anonmymity there.
 639 2013-01-29 08:44:51 darkee has joined
 640 2013-01-29 08:45:05 <SomeoneWeird> is there a limit to login requests over RPC ?
 641 2013-01-29 08:47:01 darkskiez has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 642 2013-01-29 08:47:23 <muhoo> hahahaa, and it's total bullshit too!
 643 2013-01-29 08:47:32 <gmaxwell> muhoo: thats why I blocked them, initially they had a bunch of connections to my network.. waste of resources just for the purpose of degrading privacy.
 644 2013-01-29 08:47:54 <muhoo> i looked up the ip address of my node, and it shows a shit-ton of transactions that i never transmitted, because i have no wallet on that box!
 645 2013-01-29 08:48:23 pooler has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 646 2013-01-29 08:48:41 * muhoo fires up iptables now
 647 2013-01-29 08:49:27 darkskiez has joined
 648 2013-01-29 08:49:45 <muhoo> gmaxwell: thanks for that tip
 649 2013-01-29 08:51:02 <muhoo> and... done: sudo iptables -A INPUT -s 91.203.74.0/24 -j DROP
 650 2013-01-29 08:51:13 <muhoo> :-P
 651 2013-01-29 08:51:23 <Luke-Jr> REJECT is nicer than DROP
 652 2013-01-29 08:51:57 <SomeoneWeird> fuck being ncie
 653 2013-01-29 08:51:59 <SomeoneWeird> nice
 654 2013-01-29 08:52:00 <SomeoneWeird> lol
 655 2013-01-29 08:52:08 <gmaxwell> -j tarpit
 656 2013-01-29 08:52:15 <muhoo> no, let them have their connections hang in SYN_WAIT
 657 2013-01-29 08:52:40 <gmaxwell> http://www.netfilter.org/projects/patch-o-matic/pom-external.html#pom-external-TARPIT
 658 2013-01-29 08:53:14 <gmaxwell> but really, reject is fine.
 659 2013-01-29 08:58:48 CodeInChaos has joined
 660 2013-01-29 09:01:39 <muhoo> oh i see. the ip address was used by someone else. the transactions it shows are from a year ago. i just spun up this vps a month ago.
 661 2013-01-29 09:02:51 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 662 2013-01-29 09:06:17 jdnavarro has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 663 2013-01-29 09:06:45 jdnavarro has joined
 664 2013-01-29 09:08:26 <gmaxwell> lol:
 665 2013-01-29 09:08:26 <gmaxwell>         "address" : "1GMaxweLLbo8mdXvnnC19Wt2wigiYUKgEB",
 666 2013-01-29 09:08:27 <gmaxwell>         "category" : "send",
 667 2013-01-29 09:08:27 <gmaxwell>         "amount" : -1.00000000,
 668 2013-01-29 09:08:27 <gmaxwell>         "fee" : 50000.31337000,
 669 2013-01-29 09:08:32 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 670 2013-01-29 09:09:24 <gmaxwell> I think I enjoy laughing at that behavior too much to fix it.
 671 2013-01-29 09:10:43 nus- has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 672 2013-01-29 09:12:42 winterblack has joined
 673 2013-01-29 09:12:48 nethershaw has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 674 2013-01-29 09:16:20 nus has joined
 675 2013-01-29 09:18:19 AtashiCon has quit (Quit: AtashiCon)
 676 2013-01-29 09:19:57 rdymac has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 677 2013-01-29 09:21:37 <SomeoneWeird> oh that seems legit gmaxwell
 678 2013-01-29 09:23:45 dvide has joined
 679 2013-01-29 09:23:56 t7 has joined
 680 2013-01-29 09:25:07 jaromil has joined
 681 2013-01-29 09:25:22 drizztbsd has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
 682 2013-01-29 09:25:44 pooler has joined
 683 2013-01-29 09:25:45 pooler has quit (Changing host)
 684 2013-01-29 09:25:45 pooler has joined
 685 2013-01-29 09:28:19 AtashiCon has joined
 686 2013-01-29 09:28:48 rdponticelli has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 687 2013-01-29 09:28:49 darkee has quit (!~darkee@gateway/tor-sasl/darkee|Remote host closed the connection)
 688 2013-01-29 09:29:46 darkee has joined
 689 2013-01-29 09:35:32 b4epoche has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 690 2013-01-29 09:38:16 rdponticelli has joined
 691 2013-01-29 09:38:53 b4epoche has joined
 692 2013-01-29 09:40:29 AtashiCon has quit (Quit: AtashiCon)
 693 2013-01-29 09:41:35 AtashiCon has joined
 694 2013-01-29 09:53:05 jdnavarro has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 695 2013-01-29 09:53:51 debiantoruser is now known as ][e][e
 696 2013-01-29 09:54:50 jdnavarro has joined
 697 2013-01-29 10:09:41 rdymac has joined
 698 2013-01-29 10:10:25 mappum has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 699 2013-01-29 10:11:07 DaQatz has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 700 2013-01-29 10:12:49 reizuki__ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 701 2013-01-29 10:17:59 DaQatz has joined
 702 2013-01-29 10:19:07 one_zero has quit ()
 703 2013-01-29 10:21:52 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 704 2013-01-29 10:29:00 MobiusL has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 705 2013-01-29 10:30:20 B0g4r7 has joined
 706 2013-01-29 10:30:39 MrTiggr has joined
 707 2013-01-29 10:31:01 Grishnakh has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 708 2013-01-29 10:31:49 Grishnakh has joined
 709 2013-01-29 10:32:58 MobiusL has joined
 710 2013-01-29 10:33:06 drizztbsd has joined
 711 2013-01-29 10:35:17 rdymac has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 712 2013-01-29 10:35:36 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 713 2013-01-29 10:37:49 veerboot has joined
 714 2013-01-29 10:39:01 BTCOxygen has joined
 715 2013-01-29 10:55:07 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 716 2013-01-29 10:55:34 grau has joined
 717 2013-01-29 11:06:31 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 718 2013-01-29 11:24:31 zooko has joined
 719 2013-01-29 11:36:07 DaQatz has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 720 2013-01-29 11:37:29 bitanarchy has joined
 721 2013-01-29 11:38:02 DaQatz has joined
 722 2013-01-29 11:38:40 rbecker is now known as RBecker
 723 2013-01-29 11:49:22 paraipan has joined
 724 2013-01-29 11:52:38 RBecker is now known as rbecker
 725 2013-01-29 11:55:31 Prattler has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.in)
 726 2013-01-29 11:57:02 voodster has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 727 2013-01-29 12:03:20 voodster has joined
 728 2013-01-29 12:03:43 DutchBrat has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 729 2013-01-29 12:07:06 DutchBrat has joined
 730 2013-01-29 12:07:07 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 731 2013-01-29 12:08:12 MrTiggr has joined
 732 2013-01-29 12:08:17 ThomasV has joined
 733 2013-01-29 12:10:25 DutchBrat_ has joined
 734 2013-01-29 12:11:49 DutchBrat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 735 2013-01-29 12:12:09 voaas has joined
 736 2013-01-29 12:22:46 DutchBrat_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 737 2013-01-29 12:28:03 DutchBrat has joined
 738 2013-01-29 12:33:38 pisto has joined
 739 2013-01-29 12:34:47 <pisto> hello. in FileCommit (utils.cpp), is the fsync() call really needed? In my opinion it just slows down everything. I'm synchronizing with the blocks chain, and my system is almost unresponsive
 740 2013-01-29 12:35:14 <sipa> pisto: which code version?
 741 2013-01-29 12:35:40 <pisto> v0.7.2.0-g32a928e-beta
 742 2013-01-29 12:35:57 <sipa> you can change it into fdatasync, if necessary
 743 2013-01-29 12:36:10 <sipa> which is around 2-3x faster
 744 2013-01-29 12:36:18 <sipa> in 0.8 it will be fdatasync, and also called less frequently
 745 2013-01-29 12:36:40 <sipa> disabling it may cause corruption in case of a system crash
 746 2013-01-29 12:37:29 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 747 2013-01-29 12:37:32 grau has joined
 748 2013-01-29 12:37:37 <pisto> well.. if the system crashes while fsyncing, you would still have troubles I guess
 749 2013-01-29 12:38:08 paraipan has joined
 750 2013-01-29 12:38:38 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 751 2013-01-29 12:38:41 <sipa> pisto: no, the fsync is to make sure the block data is present on disk before any index entry is written that links to it
 752 2013-01-29 12:38:52 grau has joined
 753 2013-01-29 12:39:00 <sipa> pisto: so if the system crashes during the fsync you may end up with a partial block on disk, but it would just be redownloaded
 754 2013-01-29 12:40:40 <sipa> of course, that's just theory, because in practice we hear a lot about the BDB database itself becoming corrupted when crashed
 755 2013-01-29 12:40:53 <sipa> hopefully LevelDB is more resilient
 756 2013-01-29 12:41:23 <SomeoneWeird> hopefully lol
 757 2013-01-29 12:42:50 <sipa> well i personally never got my own BDB corrupted (except intentionally)
 758 2013-01-29 12:43:02 <sipa> and the same is true for LevelDB, so i can't really compare
 759 2013-01-29 12:43:13 <sipa> though from my understanding of LevelDB, it should be much less likely
 760 2013-01-29 12:49:11 pooler has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 761 2013-01-29 12:50:46 Insti has joined
 762 2013-01-29 12:56:25 voaas has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 763 2013-01-29 12:57:59 Prattler has joined
 764 2013-01-29 13:00:03 porquilho has joined
 765 2013-01-29 13:09:49 sneak has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 766 2013-01-29 13:10:14 sneak has joined
 767 2013-01-29 13:10:14 sneak has quit (Changing host)
 768 2013-01-29 13:10:14 sneak has joined
 769 2013-01-29 13:15:56 zooko has joined
 770 2013-01-29 13:22:51 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 771 2013-01-29 13:27:34 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 772 2013-01-29 13:29:07 yareyare has quit (Quit: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz)
 773 2013-01-29 13:29:43 MobGod has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 774 2013-01-29 13:45:14 WolfAlex has joined
 775 2013-01-29 13:46:15 zooko has joined
 776 2013-01-29 13:48:13 Insti has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 777 2013-01-29 13:50:21 tonikt has joined
 778 2013-01-29 13:51:12 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 779 2013-01-29 13:53:47 b4epoche has joined
 780 2013-01-29 13:54:33 t7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 781 2013-01-29 13:54:58 t7 has joined
 782 2013-01-29 13:56:46 t7` has joined
 783 2013-01-29 13:56:59 t7 has quit (Disconnected by services)
 784 2013-01-29 13:57:05 t7` is now known as t7
 785 2013-01-29 13:58:28 t7` has joined
 786 2013-01-29 14:01:43 t7 has quit (Disconnected by services)
 787 2013-01-29 14:02:50 t7` has quit (Client Quit)
 788 2013-01-29 14:10:32 t7 has joined
 789 2013-01-29 14:16:55 dust-otc has joined
 790 2013-01-29 14:20:53 agricocb has joined
 791 2013-01-29 14:24:06 TD_ has joined
 792 2013-01-29 14:24:51 Scrat is now known as FonziBuddy
 793 2013-01-29 14:25:56 FonziBuddy is now known as Scrat
 794 2013-01-29 14:42:59 daybyter has joined
 795 2013-01-29 14:52:27 gavinandresen has joined
 796 2013-01-29 14:53:38 Hashdog has joined
 797 2013-01-29 14:57:04 Ken` has joined
 798 2013-01-29 14:59:54 bitnumus has joined
 799 2013-01-29 15:14:13 Guest29351 has joined
 800 2013-01-29 15:25:21 <BTCOxygen> jgarzik: hi
 801 2013-01-29 15:25:44 <BTCOxygen> jgarzik: any news about your ASIC ?
 802 2013-01-29 15:27:52 <jgarzik> BTCOxygen: read the thread "Avalon ASIC ships" thread on the forum, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=137534.0
 803 2013-01-29 15:28:06 <jgarzik> My latest post is https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=137534.msg1487020#msg1487020
 804 2013-01-29 15:29:39 <sipa> jgarzik: lol, you seem to get that question kinda frequently :p
 805 2013-01-29 15:32:55 denisx has joined
 806 2013-01-29 15:37:05 reizuki__ has joined
 807 2013-01-29 15:37:05 reizuki__ has quit (Changing host)
 808 2013-01-29 15:37:05 reizuki__ has joined
 809 2013-01-29 15:37:38 <jgarzik> That's what happens when a large segment of the bitcoin forum community is teenagers with nothing but time on their hands
 810 2013-01-29 15:37:49 <jgarzik> to troll and post on Internet forums ;p
 811 2013-01-29 15:38:41 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 812 2013-01-29 15:39:44 Ken` has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 813 2013-01-29 15:39:55 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik should send Avalon a bill <.<
 814 2013-01-29 15:40:17 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: I've pondered
 815 2013-01-29 15:40:33 <jgarzik> I'm aggressively honest, and thus easily trolled into writing an honest review
 816 2013-01-29 15:40:50 <Luke-Jr> heh
 817 2013-01-29 15:40:58 DutchBrat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 818 2013-01-29 15:41:18 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: it would be epic if you politely declined to write a review ;)
 819 2013-01-29 15:41:37 DutchBrat has joined
 820 2013-01-29 15:42:48 <pjorrit> why not make one up right now and review an imaginary brick in a box you just received
 821 2013-01-29 15:43:54 <Luke-Jr> that wouldn't be honest
 822 2013-01-29 15:43:56 <helo> osmotic (no plugs) zero-power (no hashrate) mining brick (literally a brick)
 823 2013-01-29 15:43:58 Ken has joined
 824 2013-01-29 15:44:22 Ken is now known as Guest23726
 825 2013-01-29 15:45:15 bitnumus_ has joined
 826 2013-01-29 15:46:29 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
 827 2013-01-29 15:46:31 EPiSKiNG- has quit ()
 828 2013-01-29 15:47:22 <pjorrit> it just would make a ton of sense if you were a teenager with too much time on your hands
 829 2013-01-29 15:47:38 bitnumus has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 830 2013-01-29 15:49:19 zooko has joined
 831 2013-01-29 15:54:03 Guest23726 is now known as Ken`
 832 2013-01-29 15:54:07 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 833 2013-01-29 15:55:33 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
 834 2013-01-29 15:58:55 Guest29351 has quit (Read error: No route to host)
 835 2013-01-29 15:58:56 CodeInChaos is now known as CodesInChaos
 836 2013-01-29 15:59:12 rdymac has joined
 837 2013-01-29 16:01:50 Ken` has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 838 2013-01-29 16:04:55 rdymac has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 839 2013-01-29 16:06:07 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 840 2013-01-29 16:06:42 copumpkin has joined
 841 2013-01-29 16:07:39 <Luke-Jr> _floodWarning(now, "MerkleUpdate", [&]() { return (boost::format("Haven't updated the merkle tree in at least %d seconds! Is your server fast enough to keep up with your configured work queue minimums?") % (now - lastMerkleUpdate)).str(); });
 842 2013-01-29 16:07:48 <Luke-Jr> I have to say, C++ syntax is getting as obfuscated as Perl..
 843 2013-01-29 16:08:41 <v1rtex>  Listener for "MTRED": Server sent: {"id":1,"error":null,"result":false}
 844 2013-01-29 16:08:56 <v1rtex> is there anything I can do about that error?
 845 2013-01-29 16:09:13 <v1rtex> or do I have to stop and start guiminer every time?
 846 2013-01-29 16:10:12 <Luke-Jr> v1rtex: sounds like a guiminer bug
 847 2013-01-29 16:10:13 zooko` has joined
 848 2013-01-29 16:10:16 <Luke-Jr> that's a pretty normal response
 849 2013-01-29 16:10:31 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: is that what a C++ lambda looks like?
 850 2013-01-29 16:10:36 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: yep
 851 2013-01-29 16:10:45 <kjj> [&] ftw!
 852 2013-01-29 16:11:10 <v1rtex> Luke-Jr: so I should probably use another miner, eh?
 853 2013-01-29 16:11:13 <Luke-Jr> the & means to access external variables (now and lastMerkleUpdate) by reference
 854 2013-01-29 16:11:17 <gavinandresen> is [&] C++11 syntax for an anonymous function?
 855 2013-01-29 16:11:30 <Luke-Jr> v1rtex: depends on what the cause is; can't hurt to try
 856 2013-01-29 16:11:39 <Luke-Jr> gavinandresen: right..
 857 2013-01-29 16:11:40 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 858 2013-01-29 16:12:09 zooko` is now known as zooko
 859 2013-01-29 16:12:22 <kjj> kinda funny to see C++ approaching Greenspun's Tenth Rule
 860 2013-01-29 16:12:25 <gmaxwell> How do you specify the return type?
 861 2013-01-29 16:13:12 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: it's implied by the return statement, or you can do: []->returntype(){…}
 862 2013-01-29 16:13:28 <Luke-Jr> which totally doesn't fit with the rest of C++ IMO
 863 2013-01-29 16:13:52 <gmaxwell> yea. Crazy. Type inference?
 864 2013-01-29 16:13:59 <sipa> well, C++ does infer types already for subexpressions
 865 2013-01-29 16:14:02 <sipa> that doesn'
 866 2013-01-29 16:14:04 <gavinandresen> sipa: RE: deal with leveldb errors:  how about a CResult utility class that wraps a bool result and an error string ?
 867 2013-01-29 16:14:07 <sipa> t surprise anyone
 868 2013-01-29 16:14:14 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: I *really* like 'auto' for iterators…
 869 2013-01-29 16:14:21 DutchBrat has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 870 2013-01-29 16:14:26 Ken` has joined
 871 2013-01-29 16:15:14 <gmaxwell> sipa: yea, I suppose— I find it odder to see it on a function.
 872 2013-01-29 16:15:39 <sipa> Luke-Jr: how do you mean? there's such a nice charm to std::map<std::pair<bool, int64>, std::vector<std::string> >::const_iterator = mapBlah.begin();
 873 2013-01-29 16:15:54 <Luke-Jr> I just wish there was a way to say: variableinstanceofsomeclass = reconstruct(); without specifying the whole class name again..
 874 2013-01-29 16:16:18 <Luke-Jr> sipa: I mean I prefer: for (auto = mapBlah.begin(); auto != mapBlah.end(); ++auto)
 875 2013-01-29 16:16:20 <Luke-Jr> err
 876 2013-01-29 16:16:27 <sipa> Luke-Jr: i was being sarcasting :)
 877 2013-01-29 16:16:29 <Luke-Jr> sipa: I mean I prefer: for (auto it = mapBlah.begin(); it != mapBlah.end(); ++it)
 878 2013-01-29 16:16:37 <Luke-Jr> ☺
 879 2013-01-29 16:16:51 <sipa> sarcasting is a sarcastic way of doing a cast
 880 2013-01-29 16:17:45 <sipa> gavinandresen: there's several problems with making it clean; first, leveldb.* doesn't depend on main and main not on leveldb and i want to keep it that way if possible
 881 2013-01-29 16:18:24 <sipa> so that means that both leveldb and main would need to define an interface for passing errors, and txdb would convert between them
 882 2013-01-29 16:19:43 <sipa> gavinandresen: i think the easiest thing to do right now, is actually not botherin with catching errors, and just let the unhandled leveldb exception cause an abort at the top level of the application
 883 2013-01-29 16:19:52 <sipa> gavinandresen: it's a very unexpected thing to happen anyway
 884 2013-01-29 16:20:15 <sipa> gavinandresen: i had to modify by hand (very quickly!) leveldb files during reindex to cause it
 885 2013-01-29 16:21:45 <gavinandresen> sipa:  mmm.  third possibility would be a little  result.h file that defined the "return a boolean plus some extra information" type
 886 2013-01-29 16:22:21 <CodeShark> having to deal with errors at all levels of the call stack is annoying :)
 887 2013-01-29 16:22:36 <gavinandresen> annoying, but usually the correct thing to do
 888 2013-01-29 16:23:06 <gavinandresen> sipa: in any case, I'm ok with throwing an exception and letting it catch at the highest level, as long as errors at startup are reasonable.
 889 2013-01-29 16:23:36 <sipa> gavinandresen: the problem to do things cleanly is mostly that main aka "the block/tx validation service" has no clearly defined interface - it's being called at various levels from several places
 890 2013-01-29 16:24:08 <sipa> gavinandresen: with some refactoing (including the one CodeShark has started), we could have such an interface, and have the public methods of that interface do the catching of any errors that happen underneath
 891 2013-01-29 16:24:31 <gavinandresen> …. and returning an error plus some extra information about exactly what the error is?
 892 2013-01-29 16:24:42 <sipa> for example
 893 2013-01-29 16:25:01 <gavinandresen> okey dokey.  I'll bang on your latest commit a little this morning
 894 2013-01-29 16:25:42 <sipa> one thing i did notice during testing, is that with the decreased blocks-to-check, it is now possible to actually corrupt the database when you're early in the chain (say up to 160-170k)
 895 2013-01-29 16:25:48 <sipa> because 288k blocks is so little data
 896 2013-01-29 16:26:47 <sipa> eh, 288
 897 2013-01-29 16:26:52 <sipa> when early in the chain
 898 2013-01-29 16:29:19 altamic has quit (Quit: altamic)
 899 2013-01-29 16:31:11 <gavinandresen> I'm falling in love with clang/lldb ….
 900 2013-01-29 16:31:45 <denisx> gavinandresen: already installed xcode 4.6?
 901 2013-01-29 16:32:25 <gavinandresen> denisx: yes, but I don't code in Xcode; I'm old-school emacs / command-line
 902 2013-01-29 16:32:44 <denisx> gavinandresen: sure, but then you get the newest clang version on osx
 903 2013-01-29 16:32:57 <gavinandresen> I get the newest clang and lldv from macports
 904 2013-01-29 16:33:37 swappermall_ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 905 2013-01-29 16:33:38 <denisx> ok
 906 2013-01-29 16:35:38 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 907 2013-01-29 16:37:25 <HM> Clangs error reporting is gorgeous
 908 2013-01-29 16:37:40 <HM> I still prefer GCC for real compilation though
 909 2013-01-29 16:38:11 <HM> whenever i hit a compile error in gcc i'll often just hit clang to decipher it for me
 910 2013-01-29 16:40:06 spenvo has joined
 911 2013-01-29 16:41:14 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: hehehe
 912 2013-01-29 16:41:39 <ThomasV> gavinandresen: I have a question about your p2sh example, https://gist.github.com/3966071
 913 2013-01-29 16:42:07 <ThomasV> I am trying to verify the signatures of that tx, manually
 914 2013-01-29 16:42:43 <ThomasV> I assume that the string that is being signed is this one:
 915 2013-01-29 16:42:45 <ThomasV> 0100000001aca7f3b45654c230e0886a57fb988c3044ef5e8f7f39726d305c61d5e818903c0000000017a914f815b036d9bbbce5e9f2a00abd1bf3dc91e9551087ffffffff0140420f00000000001976a914ae56b4db13554d321c402db3961187aed1bbed5b88ac0000000001000000
 916 2013-01-29 16:42:50 <ThomasV> is that correct?
 917 2013-01-29 16:42:59 <ThomasV> or did I forget something?
 918 2013-01-29 16:43:43 meLon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 919 2013-01-29 16:44:11 <gavinandresen> the scriptSig in your vin is wrong
 920 2013-01-29 16:44:26 <ThomasV> ok, what's wrong?
 921 2013-01-29 16:45:16 <gmaxwell> sipa: I wonder how expensive it would be to verify block and undo data whenever doing a getblock on an older block.
 922 2013-01-29 16:45:19 <gavinandresen> For a P2SH, instead of taking the HASH <> EQUAL from the previous output, you take the script FOR that hash (DUP HASH160 or CHECK_MULTISIG or whatever)
 923 2013-01-29 16:45:56 <gmaxwell> sipa: validation doesn't care if old blocks are corrupted... and if most of the cost is IO doing it at a getblock time would make sense.
 924 2013-01-29 16:45:56 <ThomasV> ooooh
 925 2013-01-29 16:47:42 <ThomasV> gavinandresen: I take the script that is being pushed in the final transaction?
 926 2013-01-29 16:47:48 <gavinandresen> ThomasV: yes
 927 2013-01-29 16:48:00 <ThomasV> so, starting with op_2 in that example?
 928 2013-01-29 16:48:07 <sipa> gmaxwell: block hash is verified anytime it's read from disk
 929 2013-01-29 16:48:14 * jgarzik looks forward to Feb 15th, when the coding may resume, and little kid time consumption is lessened
 930 2013-01-29 16:48:28 spenvo has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
 931 2013-01-29 16:49:44 <gavinandresen> ThomasV: yes, OP_2 <pk1> <pk2> <pk3> OP_3 OP_CHECKMULTISIG is what you'd put in the scriptSig to compute the tx hash to sign.
 932 2013-01-29 16:50:16 <ThomasV> gavinandresen: ok, great. I spent 2 days thinking it was what I put above :(
 933 2013-01-29 16:50:34 <gavinandresen> ThomasV: sorry!
 934 2013-01-29 16:53:31 <gavinandresen> ThomasV: I should have given a walkthrough example of exactly what was signed in BIP 16
 935 2013-01-29 16:54:27 <ThomasV> well, I always try to reverse engineer existing transactinos, instead of readin the code. I guess that's not the case of most people
 936 2013-01-29 16:54:39 <sipa> ThomasV: i think it is :)
 937 2013-01-29 16:54:49 <ThomasV> heh
 938 2013-01-29 16:55:02 <gavinandresen> ThomasV: the BIP wording is kind of subtle, but correct:  "{serialized script} is popped off the initial stack, and the transaction is validated again using the popped stack and the deserialized script as the scriptPubKey."
 939 2013-01-29 16:55:40 meLon has joined
 940 2013-01-29 16:55:40 meLon has quit (Changing host)
 941 2013-01-29 16:55:40 meLon has joined
 942 2013-01-29 16:56:03 rdymac has joined
 943 2013-01-29 16:58:46 da2ce7_d has joined
 944 2013-01-29 16:59:25 spenvo has joined
 945 2013-01-29 16:59:35 <ThomasV> gavinandresen: thanks a lot, it works now :)
 946 2013-01-29 16:59:43 bitafterbit has joined
 947 2013-01-29 16:59:46 <ThomasV> I should have asked you earlier :)
 948 2013-01-29 16:59:51 <ThomasV> bye
 949 2013-01-29 17:00:00 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 950 2013-01-29 17:01:16 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 951 2013-01-29 17:03:28 <BCB> ;;ticker
 952 2013-01-29 17:03:29 voodster has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 953 2013-01-29 17:03:29 <gribble> BTCUSD ticker | Best bid: 19.40037, Best ask: 19.49997, Bid-ask spread: 0.09960, Last trade: 19.39936, 24 hour volume: 99759.90989864, 24 hour low: 18.11001, 24 hour high: 19.80000, 24 hour vwap: 18.95994
 954 2013-01-29 17:03:33 <BCB> oh yea
 955 2013-01-29 17:03:40 <BCB> ;;seen DBordello
 956 2013-01-29 17:03:40 <gribble> DBordello was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 8 weeks, 4 days, 16 hours, 21 minutes, and 37 seconds ago: <DBordello> It looks like blk0002.dat is almost full
 957 2013-01-29 17:03:43 voodster has joined
 958 2013-01-29 17:04:19 <BCB> who do you do later tell
 959 2013-01-29 17:04:26 <BCB>  /later tell
 960 2013-01-29 17:04:28 <BCB> ??
 961 2013-01-29 17:04:47 <BCB> ;;seeen ATC777
 962 2013-01-29 17:04:47 <gribble> Error: "seeen" is not a valid command.
 963 2013-01-29 17:05:20 <jgarzik> <BitSynCom> let's hope Jeff receives his unit before batch #2 starts selling on EST 9:00 AM, January 31st, 2013.
 964 2013-01-29 17:09:14 t7 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 965 2013-01-29 17:09:14 TD_ has quit (Quit: TD_)
 966 2013-01-29 17:09:41 <pjorrit> maybe they should delay selling it until it actually arrives?
 967 2013-01-29 17:10:05 daybyter has joined
 968 2013-01-29 17:11:22 meLon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 969 2013-01-29 17:11:29 hasss has joined
 970 2013-01-29 17:12:23 Mad7Scientist-_ is now known as Mad7Scientist
 971 2013-01-29 17:12:48 meLon has joined
 972 2013-01-29 17:13:02 rdymac has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 973 2013-01-29 17:19:42 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 974 2013-01-29 17:20:48 hasss has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 975 2013-01-29 17:28:11 occulta has joined
 976 2013-01-29 17:33:49 * jgarzik cannot resist responding: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=139733.0
 977 2013-01-29 17:39:14 <HM> oO
 978 2013-01-29 17:39:59 spenvo has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
 979 2013-01-29 17:43:52 random_cat has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 980 2013-01-29 17:44:40 porquilho has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 981 2013-01-29 17:45:38 topace has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 982 2013-01-29 17:46:05 topace has joined
 983 2013-01-29 17:46:15 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: hey, whats wrong with teenagers with time on their hands?
 984 2013-01-29 17:46:27 <BlueMatt> we wouldnt have UPnP support or wallet encryption without them ;)
 985 2013-01-29 17:46:29 topace is now known as Guest60949
 986 2013-01-29 17:46:54 Zarutian has joined
 987 2013-01-29 17:47:01 <sipa> and have a 0.8rc1 that violated the network rules :p
 988 2013-01-29 17:47:17 <BlueMatt> what happened to 0.8rc1?
 989 2013-01-29 17:47:22 abracadab has joined
 990 2013-01-29 17:47:25 abracadab has quit (Changing host)
 991 2013-01-29 17:47:25 abracadab has joined
 992 2013-01-29 17:47:49 <epscy> sipa: uh, what happened with rc1?
 993 2013-01-29 17:49:51 <sipa> BlueMatt: we don't have one yet, but if you weren't there, we wouldn't have pulltester that detected 2 rule violations in ultraprune
 994 2013-01-29 17:49:58 abracadab has quit (Client Quit)
 995 2013-01-29 17:50:11 <sipa> and perhaps we would have moved for an rc1 already :)
 996 2013-01-29 17:50:31 <BlueMatt> ohh, that
 997 2013-01-29 17:50:34 <BlueMatt> yes
 998 2013-01-29 17:50:36 abracadab has joined
 999 2013-01-29 17:51:09 <gavinandresen> three cheers for pull tester!   which reminds me, some valgrind tests for pull tester need to be on my TODO list...
1000 2013-01-29 17:52:22 abracadab has quit (Client Quit)
1001 2013-01-29 17:55:09 TD has joined
1002 2013-01-29 18:03:23 PhantomSpark has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1003 2013-01-29 18:08:17 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1004 2013-01-29 18:08:41 b4epoche has joined
1005 2013-01-29 18:20:49 pisto has left ("Leaving")
1006 2013-01-29 18:21:19 <kuzetsa> jgarzik: I responded to that one too... because yes --> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=139733.msg1488383#msg1488383
1007 2013-01-29 18:22:14 vigilyn3 has joined
1008 2013-01-29 18:22:26 vigilyn2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1009 2013-01-29 18:28:26 <HM> UPnP is kinda sucky from a security perspective
1010 2013-01-29 18:32:03 TD_ has joined
1011 2013-01-29 18:35:16 TD has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1012 2013-01-29 18:35:16 TD_ is now known as TD
1013 2013-01-29 18:35:42 drizztbsd has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1014 2013-01-29 18:38:14 <sipa> HM: it's a necessary evil hack to fix an otherwise unnecessary evil hack called NAT
1015 2013-01-29 18:39:34 t7 has joined
1016 2013-01-29 18:42:16 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
1017 2013-01-29 18:43:13 porquilho has joined
1018 2013-01-29 18:43:36 freakazoid has joined
1019 2013-01-29 18:43:59 <Luke-Jr> HM: only if you erroneously perceive NAT as a security measure
1020 2013-01-29 18:44:13 <kjj> hey Luke, if bfgminer marks a pool as dead, will it ever recover?
1021 2013-01-29 18:45:41 denisx has joined
1022 2013-01-29 18:45:50 <Luke-Jr> kjj: it could; in practice, I've not tested it lately
1023 2013-01-29 18:45:52 <Luke-Jr> kjj: in theory, it should give it another chance every so often
1024 2013-01-29 18:46:30 <kjj> happen to know off the top of your head how often that chance is?
1025 2013-01-29 18:47:17 <Luke-Jr> no, but I can check :p
1026 2013-01-29 18:47:57 <kjj> ok.  I'll let it run then.  let me know how long
1027 2013-01-29 18:48:20 Guest60949 is now known as topace
1028 2013-01-29 18:48:20 <Luke-Jr> looks like every 30 seconds to a minute
1029 2013-01-29 18:48:20 topace has quit (Changing host)
1030 2013-01-29 18:48:20 topace has joined
1031 2013-01-29 18:48:20 denisx_ has joined
1032 2013-01-29 18:48:28 <kjj> it has been back up for at least 15 minutes, probably closer to an hour, and it is still marked Status=Dead in pools|
1033 2013-01-29 18:50:04 <kjj> hmm.  I'm going to go plug a monitor in, see if there are any messages showing
1034 2013-01-29 18:50:04 denisx_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1035 2013-01-29 18:50:33 denisx_ has joined
1036 2013-01-29 18:51:00 denisx has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1037 2013-01-29 18:51:00 denisx_ is now known as denisx
1038 2013-01-29 18:52:23 <kjj> nothing useful visible.  it is in failover mode, with failover only enabled.  does that change things?
1039 2013-01-29 18:52:25 <Luke-Jr> kjj: maybe it really is dead? :p
1040 2013-01-29 18:52:54 <kjj> no, it isn't dead.  I fired up a second instance and that connected just fine.  it is only the one that started while it was dead that won't retry
1041 2013-01-29 18:54:10 <kjj> I have three boxes running p2pool.  each one has a list of 5 pools, starting with localhost, and then the IPs of the three boxes, and then a backup pool (btcguild).
1042 2013-01-29 18:54:45 <kjj> when the box starts, bfgminer starts early and fails down the list until it finds a running node, or hits the backup pool.  but I want it to switch back to localhost when the local bitcoind catches up and p2pool starts
1043 2013-01-29 18:55:12 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1044 2013-01-29 18:55:48 copumpkin has joined
1045 2013-01-29 18:56:50 <Luke-Jr> kjj: might be useful to make a debug log
1046 2013-01-29 18:57:51 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1047 2013-01-29 18:58:04 <kjj> well, that might be tricky...  the system boots from PXE, so I'd have to build a new image to get logging from a cold start
1048 2013-01-29 18:58:32 <kjj> might be able to fake by deleting the block chain and restarting everything.  sec
1049 2013-01-29 18:59:07 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
1050 2013-01-29 18:59:26 grau has joined
1051 2013-01-29 18:59:34 <Luke-Jr> hm
1052 2013-01-29 18:59:41 <kjj> ooh.  typo in your API-README.  grep for "defails"
1053 2013-01-29 19:03:44 <kjj> Unknown stratum msg  "method not found" ?
1054 2013-01-29 19:04:14 denisx has joined
1055 2013-01-29 19:06:33 <Luke-Jr> kjj: probably unrelated
1056 2013-01-29 19:06:46 <kjj> yeah, that's what I figured.  it was connecting anyway
1057 2013-01-29 19:07:18 <kjj> anyhow, I've started bfgminer and it failed down to #3 on the list, and I'm restarting bitcoind and p2pool.  it'll take a long while for them to sync back up
1058 2013-01-29 19:07:48 porquilho_ has joined
1059 2013-01-29 19:09:44 <kjj> I see messages going by now and then that it is testing 127.0.0.1, as it should
1060 2013-01-29 19:10:31 porquilho has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1061 2013-01-29 19:10:41 porquilho_ is now known as porquilho
1062 2013-01-29 19:14:14 <kjj> so far, looks like it is trying every 60 seconds on the dot
1063 2013-01-29 19:16:18 random_cat has joined
1064 2013-01-29 19:22:00 <sipa> ;;genrate 685
1065 2013-01-29 19:22:01 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 685.0 Mhps, given difficulty of 2968775.33208, is 0.116038071333 BTC per day and 0.00483491963888 BTC per hour.
1066 2013-01-29 19:24:41 D34TH has joined
1067 2013-01-29 19:26:30 <HM> eeeesh
1068 2013-01-29 19:26:52 <kjj> bitcoind still >100 blocks behind, but p2pool kicked in.  bfgminer switched to it
1069 2013-01-29 19:28:05 PhantomSpark has joined
1070 2013-01-29 19:32:16 spenvo has joined
1071 2013-01-29 19:32:54 <kjj> looks like this time the recovery worked exactly as planned.
1072 2013-01-29 19:33:25 <kjj> I'll update my PXE image to always log, and we'll see if it happens again after the next reboot
1073 2013-01-29 19:34:32 Guest91877 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1074 2013-01-29 19:34:35 <D34TH> coolio
1075 2013-01-29 19:35:45 <kjj> hey Luke, can you put in a pidfile option?
1076 2013-01-29 19:36:21 <Luke-Jr> kjj: patches welcome? :P
1077 2013-01-29 19:36:29 <kjj> heh
1078 2013-01-29 19:36:45 <Luke-Jr> kjj: but I'd like to get a working init setup at least for Openwrt, which might need that
1079 2013-01-29 19:37:24 <kjj> I'd offer you half of the donations I've received for p2pcoin as a bounty, but I think you can guess what your cut would be
1080 2013-01-29 19:38:03 <D34TH> half of nothing is nothing?
1081 2013-01-29 19:39:41 <Luke-Jr> kjj: open a github issue and I'll hopefully get to it ;)
1082 2013-01-29 19:41:36 <kjj> done
1083 2013-01-29 19:43:00 mappum has joined
1084 2013-01-29 19:44:51 drizztbsd has joined
1085 2013-01-29 19:45:59 osmosis has joined
1086 2013-01-29 19:48:33 Guest91877 has joined
1087 2013-01-29 19:51:59 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
1088 2013-01-29 19:52:10 DutchBrat has joined
1089 2013-01-29 19:54:44 denisx has joined
1090 2013-01-29 19:54:52 TD_ has joined
1091 2013-01-29 19:55:08 owowo has joined
1092 2013-01-29 19:57:22 TD has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1093 2013-01-29 19:57:23 TD_ is now known as TD
1094 2013-01-29 19:58:54 dust-otc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1095 2013-01-29 20:02:29 pooler has joined
1096 2013-01-29 20:04:26 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1097 2013-01-29 20:04:52 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1098 2013-01-29 20:11:25 WolfAlex_ has joined
1099 2013-01-29 20:11:28 <comboy> anybody knows order of magnitude of number of transactions up to now?
1100 2013-01-29 20:11:48 rng29a has joined
1101 2013-01-29 20:12:04 WolfAlex has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1102 2013-01-29 20:12:26 agricocb has joined
1103 2013-01-29 20:14:02 <kjj> yes
1104 2013-01-29 20:14:31 <comboy> thanks!
1105 2013-01-29 20:14:56 <kjj> http://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-total
1106 2013-01-29 20:15:30 <comboy> oh, I thought you were just playing with me, thanks a lot :)
1107 2013-01-29 20:16:37 <comboy> wow, that's qust 11M? and 5M of that (judging from number of bets) is satoshidice? heh
1108 2013-01-29 20:16:39 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
1109 2013-01-29 20:23:15 Diapolo has joined
1110 2013-01-29 20:23:32 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
1111 2013-01-29 20:23:40 ThomasV has joined
1112 2013-01-29 20:24:16 stalled has joined
1113 2013-01-29 20:24:33 voodster has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
1114 2013-01-29 20:25:52 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
1115 2013-01-29 20:31:48 denisx has joined
1116 2013-01-29 20:34:05 <sipa> comboy: 11897094 (from my debug.log file)
1117 2013-01-29 20:34:10 <sipa> but you already know that i guess
1118 2013-01-29 20:37:32 Hashdog has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1119 2013-01-29 20:38:15 Hashdog has joined
1120 2013-01-29 20:38:22 Hashdog has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1121 2013-01-29 20:38:42 Hashdog has joined
1122 2013-01-29 20:39:51 <comboy> yeah, about what blockchain.info says, thanks
1123 2013-01-29 20:42:20 rng29a has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1124 2013-01-29 20:45:14 owowo has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1125 2013-01-29 20:45:44 dparrish_ has left ()
1126 2013-01-29 20:50:22 toffoo has joined
1127 2013-01-29 20:55:39 <Diapolo> sipa: are there known problems, when shuting down, while reindexing?
1128 2013-01-29 20:55:57 <gmaxwell> There shouldn't be.
1129 2013-01-29 20:56:31 rbecker is now known as RBecker
1130 2013-01-29 20:58:06 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
1131 2013-01-29 20:59:09 owowo has joined
1132 2013-01-29 20:59:14 <Diapolo> gmaxwell: I sometimes get an APPCRASH while aborting, dunno what causes this, perhaps some of my faulty code then :-D
1133 2013-01-29 21:02:42 <sipa> Diapolo: no known problems with that
1134 2013-01-29 21:02:47 <sipa> (at least to me)
1135 2013-01-29 21:04:15 <Diapolo> sipa: did you try Bitcoin-Qt and shutdown while reindexing? just want to be sure
1136 2013-01-29 21:04:41 jdnavarro has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1137 2013-01-29 21:05:53 <gmaxwell> Diapolo: I personally never tested reindex abort with -QT. I wouldn't be shocked if there was an issue.
1138 2013-01-29 21:06:32 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1139 2013-01-29 21:07:12 <Diapolo> I know Gavin want's to take a look at shutdown after 0.8, I guess there is plenty of room for optimisation there.
1140 2013-01-29 21:07:59 <gmaxwell> optimization yea, but crashing is bad.
1141 2013-01-29 21:08:52 <Diapolo> I don't want to say there IS a bug, as it could be caused by own stuff in the code, but I would love if one of you could give it a short try with current master code.
1142 2013-01-29 21:09:17 owowo has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1143 2013-01-29 21:09:39 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
1144 2013-01-29 21:10:55 <porquilho> gmaxwell
1145 2013-01-29 21:11:00 <porquilho> don't play cards with satan
1146 2013-01-29 21:11:04 <porquilho> he will deal you a awful hand
1147 2013-01-29 21:12:13 <Diapolo> LOL ^^
1148 2013-01-29 21:12:32 <porquilho> at least the satan is not here
1149 2013-01-29 21:12:54 owowo has joined
1150 2013-01-29 21:13:18 <porquilho> satan for everyone who doest know is TallTim
1151 2013-01-29 21:13:25 <porquilho> i must get away from him
1152 2013-01-29 21:13:40 <porquilho> for his blackness and blood will stain
1153 2013-01-29 21:13:47 <porquilho> the pureness that i see
1154 2013-01-29 21:18:30 occulta has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.3 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
1155 2013-01-29 21:19:02 PhantomSpark has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1156 2013-01-29 21:21:24 Diapolo has left ()
1157 2013-01-29 21:35:04 <jrmithdobbs> do any cpus offer >64bit rotl/rotr ops yet?
1158 2013-01-29 21:35:15 pooler has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1159 2013-01-29 21:36:54 denisx has joined
1160 2013-01-29 21:40:37 Herodes has joined
1161 2013-01-29 21:42:40 zooko has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1162 2013-01-29 21:43:23 <Herodes> I've been looking at the bitcoin API, but I have a little trouble finding out what is the best way to list all transactions belonging to a certain address. Let's say I have bitcoin address X, then 4 different transactions are sent to this address within the last 5 minutes. What I want to extract is all incoming transactions to address X. Looking at the API, I couldn't find some direct command to do this.
1163 2013-01-29 21:43:45 <Herodes> It seems like there's some solutions using the existing API, but it would require some fiddling and is not straightforward.
1164 2013-01-29 21:43:47 <Herodes> Any ideas?
1165 2013-01-29 21:45:04 <kjj> listunspent 1 999999 '["address1"]'
1166 2013-01-29 21:45:11 zooko has joined
1167 2013-01-29 21:45:46 <kjj> er, 0 and 1 might be a better fit for your timeline
1168 2013-01-29 21:47:52 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1169 2013-01-29 21:47:59 <Herodes> thanks, I'm looking into it.
1170 2013-01-29 21:48:35 copumpkin has joined
1171 2013-01-29 21:49:20 rng29a has joined
1172 2013-01-29 21:49:21 rng29a has quit (Changing host)
1173 2013-01-29 21:49:21 rng29a has joined
1174 2013-01-29 21:49:35 <Herodes> Hah, yes that worked beautifully for my purposes. Thanks a lot kjj. Very helpful.
1175 2013-01-29 21:51:05 bitnumus has joined
1176 2013-01-29 21:51:29 <porquilho> gmaxwell you probably will never see honesty
1177 2013-01-29 21:51:31 bitnumus has quit (Client Quit)
1178 2013-01-29 21:51:36 <porquilho> if you keep banning people
1179 2013-01-29 21:51:40 <porquilho> who are honest
1180 2013-01-29 21:52:13 <porquilho> sometimes honesty and autheticity are not compactible with satan
1181 2013-01-29 21:52:53 <porquilho> http://www.worriedshoes.com/g4/images/heremembered345.jpg
1182 2013-01-29 21:53:16 <kjj> maybe we need a bot that can just autoban people on command, rather than making him go through all the hassle of opping up, banning, and dropping ops every time that tool gets a new proxy.
1183 2013-01-29 21:53:18 <porquilho> and it never is
1184 2013-01-29 21:53:42 <porquilho> yeah
1185 2013-01-29 21:55:43 <Herodes> Ok, another question. when using gettransaction, there are two fields, time and timereceived. The time fields, can they be trusted to be up to date if the system clock is correct ? I assume these fields, at least time received is set when the node gets notified about the transaction ? Could the sender somehow manipulate these values ?
1186 2013-01-29 21:56:37 <kjj> for a confirmed transaction, that will be the block timestamp, which should be sorta close-ish to when the block actually happened
1187 2013-01-29 21:57:13 <kjj> oh, wait.  you are talking about mempool stuff
1188 2013-01-29 21:57:40 <Herodes> No, I'm just fiddling with php and bitcoind and trying to learn a bit about it.
1189 2013-01-29 21:58:04 <kjj> If I were you, I'd ignore anything and everything concerning time
1190 2013-01-29 21:58:20 <Herodes> Right.
1191 2013-01-29 21:58:33 <Herodes> I was just curious as to when and how that value was set.
1192 2013-01-29 21:58:40 <Herodes> esp. for 0 confirmation transactions.
1193 2013-01-29 21:58:49 <gmaxwell> porquilho: who the heck are you??— I know you're not stamit.
1194 2013-01-29 21:58:49 <Luke-Jr> Herodes: "time" follows some fuzzy "smart" logic
1195 2013-01-29 21:59:08 <porquilho> im porquilho
1196 2013-01-29 21:59:17 <porquilho> dont you remember me ?
1197 2013-01-29 21:59:23 <Luke-Jr> Herodes: if you first see a transaction broadcast, it is usually the receive time
1198 2013-01-29 21:59:25 <porquilho> i was excited about bitcoin until satan show up
1199 2013-01-29 21:59:31 <Luke-Jr> Herodes: if you first see it in a block, then it's usually the block time
1200 2013-01-29 21:59:32 <jgarzik> Avalon batch email: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=137534.msg1488869#msg1488869
1201 2013-01-29 21:59:50 <Luke-Jr> Herodes: but it should almost never be a time before the transaction received prior to it
1202 2013-01-29 22:00:02 <porquilho> i think you do remember me :<
1203 2013-01-29 22:00:07 <porquilho> but you just dont want to
1204 2013-01-29 22:00:19 <Herodes> How is a 0 confirmation transaction pushed to a node ? Is it pushed to all nodes at once, or is the network able to only send the notification to the node containing the receiving address ? What I mean is that once you send some coins, they show up instantly at the receiving end as 0/unconfirmed. How is that done ?
1205 2013-01-29 22:00:28 <kjj> for unconfirmed transactions, those will be from your node.  there are no timestamps for non-block transactions in the network protocol
1206 2013-01-29 22:00:44 <Herodes> Luke-Jr: Ok, thanks.
1207 2013-01-29 22:01:23 <Luke-Jr> Herodes: "instantly" can be minutes fwiw
1208 2013-01-29 22:01:29 <Herodes> kjj: Like I thought. Thanks for confirming.
1209 2013-01-29 22:01:36 <Luke-Jr> or never until confirmed, depending on the circumstances
1210 2013-01-29 22:02:02 <kjj> but bitcoin timekeeping is funny.  don't count on it being particularly accurate or meaningful
1211 2013-01-29 22:02:44 <Herodes> Luke-Jr: I understand. But many times the receiver can see it quite quickly. How does that happen ? I understand there's a network message. But is this message sent to all nodes, or is it sent to the node that controls the receiving address only ?
1212 2013-01-29 22:02:59 <Herodes> kjj: Point taken, I will not rely on timestamps.
1213 2013-01-29 22:03:08 <Luke-Jr> Herodes: it's flooded to all nodes
1214 2013-01-29 22:03:23 <Herodes> Ah ok.
1215 2013-01-29 22:03:31 <Herodes> Thanks guys. Most helpful. Appreciated.
1216 2013-01-29 22:04:16 <kjj> no one knows which node, if any, "owns" an address
1217 2013-01-29 22:04:31 Ken` has quit (Quit: leaving)
1218 2013-01-29 22:04:49 <Herodes> I read that you could trace the ip if a user runs the standard client. It was a thread about it on the bitcointalk forum.
1219 2013-01-29 22:05:02 <Herodes> ie. trace the ip, given the bitcoin address.
1220 2013-01-29 22:05:05 <kjj> you can calculate an address by hand and send coins to it, even though no node has ever known the keys to it
1221 2013-01-29 22:05:26 <Herodes> yes. I am aware that you can use air gapped wallets.
1222 2013-01-29 22:05:58 zooko` has joined
1223 2013-01-29 22:05:58 <kjj> yeah, there is a sneaky way for people to figure out if one particular peer thinks it owns an address, but it isn't a general solution
1224 2013-01-29 22:07:02 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1225 2013-01-29 22:07:03 <Herodes> i understand
1226 2013-01-29 22:07:52 <kjj> and it would not, for example, find any of my wallets because I run multiple nodes.  the ones that communicate with the rest of the network do not have wallets, and the ones with wallets only connect to my own hubs
1227 2013-01-29 22:08:26 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1228 2013-01-29 22:08:33 <jrmithdobbs> kjj: they could narrow it down to your pool of public nodes though
1229 2013-01-29 22:09:05 <jrmithdobbs> but only with so much accuracy any how
1230 2013-01-29 22:09:19 <kjj> no they can't.  the trick only works when you can connect directly to the same node that has the key
1231 2013-01-29 22:10:11 <jrmithdobbs> kjj: yes you can with enough p2p nodes in disperse locations you can guess with pretty high accuracy
1232 2013-01-29 22:10:17 <kjj> no
1233 2013-01-29 22:10:21 <jrmithdobbs> kjj: but it requires a new txn using said keys being broadcast
1234 2013-01-29 22:10:22 <jrmithdobbs> yes
1235 2013-01-29 22:10:24 <kjj> unless there is a second attack that I'm not aware of
1236 2013-01-29 22:10:31 zooko` is now known as zooko
1237 2013-01-29 22:10:41 <jrmithdobbs> it's not an attack
1238 2013-01-29 22:10:50 <jrmithdobbs> it's a description of a p2p flood network
1239 2013-01-29 22:10:55 <kjj> the reason you must connect directly is that the disconnect decision is purely local, based on the wallet lookup
1240 2013-01-29 22:10:56 <Herodes> kjj: I understand. nifty setup.
1241 2013-01-29 22:11:01 <jrmithdobbs> of course you can tell the origin of messages with enough members of the mesh
1242 2013-01-29 22:11:10 <jrmithdobbs> *with fairly high accuracy
1243 2013-01-29 22:11:18 <kjj> oh, you mean that attack.
1244 2013-01-29 22:11:31 <jrmithdobbs> it's not an attack
1245 2013-01-29 22:11:33 <kjj> yes, if someone owns the network, they can find you.  big surprise
1246 2013-01-29 22:11:40 <jrmithdobbs> you don't have to own it
1247 2013-01-29 22:12:06 <jrmithdobbs> eg, blockchain.info or w/e did something similar and would get decent-ish results something like 60-70% of the time
1248 2013-01-29 22:12:24 <jrmithdobbs> with a very low number of nodes (way < 100)
1249 2013-01-29 22:12:50 <kjj> heh.  are you kidding?  they have like a 30% success rate identifying the origin of blocks that pool operators WANT to be associated with their pool
1250 2013-01-29 22:13:31 <Herodes> ok, using listunspent gave me the transactions I wanted to see, then the next point is to get the transaction id and use gettransaction to get transaction details. Why is it that the address that the bitcoins came from is not listed here ? Any way I could get that ?
1251 2013-01-29 22:13:41 <Herodes> To make it easier to understand what I do, I made a pastebin:
1252 2013-01-29 22:13:42 <Herodes> http://pastebin.com/cmeVK0aY
1253 2013-01-29 22:13:44 <jrmithdobbs> they're only using like 8 nodes iirc, if they haven't increased that in the year since I looked at it I'm sure the accuracy is shit now ;p
1254 2013-01-29 22:14:14 <kjj> transactions don't come from addresses
1255 2013-01-29 22:14:19 <Herodes> Basically I run testnet in a box, and I have two nodes. I sent some testcoins from node 2 to node 1, and I'm quering info from node 1, and I want to find the address from node 2 that sent the coins, how is it done ?
1256 2013-01-29 22:14:39 <kjj> most of the time, you can figure out something similar to the list of addresses that were previous owners, but that isn't at all the same thing
1257 2013-01-29 22:15:30 njw has joined
1258 2013-01-29 22:15:37 <jrmithdobbs> s/most of the time, // seeing as without that property the whole thing kind of doesn't work
1259 2013-01-29 22:15:44 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1260 2013-01-29 22:15:50 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: thats not so.
1261 2013-01-29 22:16:02 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: which?
1262 2013-01-29 22:16:04 <Herodes> say user A sends coins to user B. Then the coins is stored in some address at user A's wallet ? Then he sends these coind to user B. Will not user B then see the sending address ?
1263 2013-01-29 22:16:07 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: There is a difference between the _owners_ of funds you recieve and the author of the transactions.
1264 2013-01-29 22:16:27 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: see also https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=139581.0 for some fun
1265 2013-01-29 22:16:39 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: oh yes, if you're going to distinguish between the arbitor (or w/e) and the purchaser i guess
1266 2013-01-29 22:16:40 <kjj> gotta run.  happy hour beckons
1267 2013-01-29 22:16:52 <Herodes> have a good one
1268 2013-01-29 22:17:00 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
1269 2013-01-29 22:17:04 <njw> bitcoind maxes out my cpu consistently, despite generate being off. is that normal? it takes about 3 hours a day to get through the new blocks...
1270 2013-01-29 22:17:25 tonikt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1271 2013-01-29 22:17:25 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: not just that.. I mean, did I send someone 50kBTC: https://blockchain.info/tx-index/47421492/14947302eab0608fb2650a05f13f6f30b27a0a314c41250000f77ed904475dbb ?
1272 2013-01-29 22:17:41 <Herodes> would it be possible to set the priorty on the process lower ?
1273 2013-01-29 22:17:46 <Herodes> at njw
1274 2013-01-29 22:18:32 <njw> Herodes: 'nice' doesn't seem to have a great deal of impact on it...
1275 2013-01-29 22:18:58 <gmaxwell> njw: at least for 0.7 most of the load is IO ... use ionice.
1276 2013-01-29 22:19:18 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: that's pretty hilarious
1277 2013-01-29 22:19:42 <Herodes> njw: I heard some put the datafiles on faster memory, perhaps that would help ?
1278 2013-01-29 22:21:00 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1279 2013-01-29 22:21:39 <sipa> Herodes: it helps like a rocket helps you jump higher
1280 2013-01-29 22:21:40 <njw> Herodes: ah, i could look into loading them into a tmpfs...
1281 2013-01-29 22:22:06 <sipa> njw: if you have enough RAM, that helps a lot
1282 2013-01-29 22:22:40 <njw> presumably it's blk0001.dat etc which need to be there though. and no, i don't have enough ram :(
1283 2013-01-29 22:22:56 <njw> i could spare 500MB. not 5GB.
1284 2013-01-29 22:22:58 <sipa> njw: you may want to try a 0.8 pre-release binary
1285 2013-01-29 22:23:11 <sipa> if you don't mind running experimental code
1286 2013-01-29 22:23:11 Jamesonwa has joined
1287 2013-01-29 22:23:31 <njw> hmm. i am on very old code at the moment (using the debian stable package)
1288 2013-01-29 22:23:31 <sipa> (it uses a new database system and layout, which is far less I/O intensive)
1289 2013-01-29 22:23:32 b4epoche has joined
1290 2013-01-29 22:23:41 <sipa> which version?
1291 2013-01-29 22:24:42 <Herodes> say user A sends coins to user B. Then the coins is stored in some address at user A's wallet ? Then he sends these coins to user B. Will not user B then see the sending address ? Ie. user B can use gettransaction and see where the coins came from ?
1292 2013-01-29 22:24:58 <Herodes> I am using testnet-in-a-box, but can't seem to receive the sending address ?
1293 2013-01-29 22:25:03 word has joined
1294 2013-01-29 22:25:05 <sipa> Herodes: no, because you don't send transactions from an address
1295 2013-01-29 22:25:12 <sipa> Herodes: you send them from another transaction
1296 2013-01-29 22:25:18 <njw> 0.3.24-beta (plus some debian patches, no doubt)
1297 2013-01-29 22:25:20 darkee has quit (!~darkee@gateway/tor-sasl/darkee|Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1298 2013-01-29 22:25:33 <Jamesonwa> Is anyone freelance bitcoin programmer for hire?
1299 2013-01-29 22:25:34 <sipa> njw: oh dear... that's quite outdated and probably full of security holes
1300 2013-01-29 22:25:49 <Jamesonwa> looking for escrow wallet system
1301 2013-01-29 22:25:59 <sipa> Herodes: yes, you can look up that previous transaction, and see to which address it assigned its outputs
1302 2013-01-29 22:26:07 <njw> ideally debian maintainers will have patched them... :/
1303 2013-01-29 22:26:10 <sipa> Herodes: but that information is not stored in the transaction consuming it
1304 2013-01-29 22:26:14 <sipa> njw: they don't
1305 2013-01-29 22:26:16 <Herodes> sipa: Yes, that's what I want to do.
1306 2013-01-29 22:26:48 <sipa> Herodes: so check the inputs, check its prevouts, lookup the corresponding txids, and then look at the n'th output
1307 2013-01-29 22:26:58 <sipa> Herodes: but you shouldn't need to do that
1308 2013-01-29 22:27:18 <Herodes> if you look here, http://pastebin.com/cmeVK0aY
1309 2013-01-29 22:27:20 <njw> sipa: thanks for the info. i'll look into installing the beta client.
1310 2013-01-29 22:27:27 <Herodes> I'm getting info about that transaction at the bottom there.
1311 2013-01-29 22:27:42 <Herodes> How would I go about finding which address the coins came from ?
1312 2013-01-29 22:27:51 <njw> just in case, does anybody know of an apt repository with newer bitcoin builds?
1313 2013-01-29 22:27:57 <sipa> Herodes: you need getrawtransaction
1314 2013-01-29 22:28:08 <Herodes> ok. will look into that.
1315 2013-01-29 22:28:08 <Herodes> ty
1316 2013-01-29 22:28:13 <sipa> Herodes: gettransaction gives information about a wallet transaction
1317 2013-01-29 22:28:30 <sipa> like effect on balance, rather than its low-level details
1318 2013-01-29 22:28:50 <Herodes> I understand.
1319 2013-01-29 22:28:51 <gmaxwell> Herodes: what is the sending address of https://blockchain.info/tx-index/47421492/14947302eab0608fb2650a05f13f6f30b27a0a314c41250000f77ed904475dbb ?
1320 2013-01-29 22:28:57 <njw> by the way, running bitcoind with 'ionice -c 0 nice -n 19 bitcoind' hasn't made a noticable difference in cpu usage
1321 2013-01-29 22:29:22 <sipa> njw: ionice doesn't change cpu usage
1322 2013-01-29 22:29:32 <sipa> it changes priority of its I/O operations
1323 2013-01-29 22:29:34 <Herodes> gmaxwell: I'm no expert, but it seems like the coins are coming from the 3 adresses to the left ?
1324 2013-01-29 22:29:38 <gmaxwell> njw: chrt -i 0 is usually more useful than nice.. but the goal of any of that isn't to reduce usage, its to reduce priority.
1325 2013-01-29 22:29:42 darkee has joined
1326 2013-01-29 22:29:56 <njw> thanks for clarification.
1327 2013-01-29 22:30:08 <sipa> Herodes: exactly, and they all three belong to different people (i guess)
1328 2013-01-29 22:30:40 <Herodes> yeah, that would be possible. But most transactions I've dealt with have been 1-1 transactions.
1329 2013-01-29 22:30:57 <sipa> so, what do you need that "from address" information for?
1330 2013-01-29 22:30:59 <gmaxwell> sipa: yea, I actually don't know— someone sent me a transaction to sign, I dunno if how many people own the other coins.
1331 2013-01-29 22:31:20 <Herodes> it's a lot of coins though. haha
1332 2013-01-29 22:31:48 <Herodes> it's enough to retire on at some remote location in thailand. ;)
1333 2013-01-29 22:31:50 * HM puts gmaxwell higher up his 'new best friend' list
1334 2013-01-29 22:31:57 <Herodes> lol
1335 2013-01-29 22:32:20 <gmaxwell> Herodes: yea, but the point I'm making is that thing you can see in a transaction actually tells you who it's "from".  Usually you know that from who you give the payment to.
1336 2013-01-29 22:32:45 <gmaxwell> You can tell which keys signed a transaction, but that doesn't mean they werer the ones paying you.
1337 2013-01-29 22:34:34 <Herodes> yes, I understand what you are saying. But I am looking at this technically. And at the moment the problem I am trying to solve now is to find out where the testcoins I received came from, and then possibly try to send them back to that address. :)
1338 2013-01-29 22:36:03 FredEE has joined
1339 2013-01-29 22:36:23 <Herodes> Seems like I can use decoderawtransaction once I've got the rawtransaction.
1340 2013-01-29 22:37:14 bitnumus_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1341 2013-01-29 22:37:25 njw has quit (Quit: leaving)
1342 2013-01-29 22:38:05 WolfAlex has joined
1343 2013-01-29 22:38:22 rdymac has joined
1344 2013-01-29 22:39:14 WolfAlex_ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1345 2013-01-29 22:41:09 bitanarchy has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.89 [Firefox 18.0.1/20130116073211])
1346 2013-01-29 22:41:35 <gmaxwell> Herodes: if you do that you may be sending them into a black hole—  unless the sender told you that you could return them (in which case they might as well have given you an address) you have no clue that the sender even has that private key anymore.
1347 2013-01-29 22:42:06 <gmaxwell> For testcoins, well no biggie, but just as a point of understanding— thats an inadvisable practice.
1348 2013-01-29 22:42:25 midnightmagic has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1349 2013-01-29 22:42:31 <Herodes> Ok, figured it out. What I wanted to do was to receive some testcoins to wallet A from address N in wallet B on node 2. Then I wanted to find the sending address and send the coins back. I first listed the unspent transactions received to the receiving address, then extracted the txid, then got the raw transaction data, then decoded this and extracted the sending address, then the coins could be sent backl.
1350 2013-01-29 22:42:32 midnightmagic_ has joined
1351 2013-01-29 22:42:42 <Herodes> Not sure if it could be done any easier ?
1352 2013-01-29 22:42:49 <gmaxwell> thats aout right.
1353 2013-01-29 22:43:56 <Herodes> yes, thanks. you guys helped greatly in figuring it out. I will probably have more questions at a later point, so I will be back. Quite interesting to dabble around with this and figuring out how it all works!
1354 2013-01-29 22:44:03 <Herodes> Thanks for your time. I am off to sleep!
1355 2013-01-29 22:44:24 Herodes has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1356 2013-01-29 22:47:03 agricocb has joined
1357 2013-01-29 22:49:10 <Jamesonwa> I am looking to hire someone to code some automated bitcoin processes
1358 2013-01-29 22:49:33 <Jamesonwa> If interested please send me a PM for more details.
1359 2013-01-29 22:54:06 panzerfaust has joined
1360 2013-01-29 22:55:02 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1361 2013-01-29 22:55:36 panzer has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1362 2013-01-29 22:59:31 spenvo has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1363 2013-01-29 23:00:40 graham1 has quit (Read error: No route to host)
1364 2013-01-29 23:02:32 graham1 has joined
1365 2013-01-29 23:03:18 rng29a has quit (Quit: too much trolls...)
1366 2013-01-29 23:04:22 denisx has joined
1367 2013-01-29 23:07:59 DutchBrat has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1368 2013-01-29 23:08:53 spenvo has joined
1369 2013-01-29 23:13:27 dvide has quit ()
1370 2013-01-29 23:14:25 spenvo has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1371 2013-01-29 23:16:26 spenvo has joined
1372 2013-01-29 23:18:35 bitanarchy has joined
1373 2013-01-29 23:19:04 porquilho has quit ()
1374 2013-01-29 23:22:14 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1375 2013-01-29 23:26:20 bitanarchy has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.89 [Firefox 18.0.1/20130116073211])
1376 2013-01-29 23:29:41 agricocb has joined
1377 2013-01-29 23:36:17 spenvo has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1378 2013-01-29 23:36:27 bitafterbit has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1379 2013-01-29 23:36:53 agricocb has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1380 2013-01-29 23:38:47 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1381 2013-01-29 23:39:10 spenvo has joined
1382 2013-01-29 23:45:29 Prattler has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1383 2013-01-29 23:45:53 Prattler has joined
1384 2013-01-29 23:46:47 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: you around?
1385 2013-01-29 23:55:52 twobitcoins has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1386 2013-01-29 23:56:18 twobitcoins has joined
1387 2013-01-29 23:56:36 da2ce7_d is now known as da2ce7
1388 2013-01-29 23:58:40 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)