1 2013-01-31 00:01:37 ken` has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2 2013-01-31 00:03:42 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
3 2013-01-31 00:07:21 owowo has joined
4 2013-01-31 00:08:31 rbecker is now known as RBecker
5 2013-01-31 00:08:34 ken` has joined
6 2013-01-31 00:08:39 ken` has quit (Client Quit)
7 2013-01-31 00:08:42 graham1 has joined
8 2013-01-31 00:09:03 agricocb has joined
9 2013-01-31 00:10:23 KIDC has joined
10 2013-01-31 00:10:34 rdymac has joined
11 2013-01-31 00:13:02 nibcoin has joined
12 2013-01-31 00:14:58 toffoo has joined
13 2013-01-31 00:16:56 PhantomSpark has joined
14 2013-01-31 00:18:01 bitcoinbulletin has quit (Quit: bitcoinbulletin)
15 2013-01-31 00:18:17 sebicas has joined
16 2013-01-31 00:18:39 appletree has joined
17 2013-01-31 00:18:55 <MC1984> the parallel stuff is in 0.8 release too right
18 2013-01-31 00:19:03 <sipa> yes
19 2013-01-31 00:19:38 slothbag has joined
20 2013-01-31 00:20:10 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
21 2013-01-31 00:21:31 <MC1984> this is gonna be awesome
22 2013-01-31 00:21:44 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: hey, so which did Avalon include? source code or offer therefore?
23 2013-01-31 00:22:27 <Luke-Jr> sipa: so you prefer CValidationState over CValidationResult?
24 2013-01-31 00:22:48 <sipa> Luke-Jr: it's somewhat more general, i think
25 2013-01-31 00:22:57 <sipa> for example dos can just be added to it
26 2013-01-31 00:23:26 <Luke-Jr> hmm
27 2013-01-31 00:23:31 <Luke-Jr> k, I'll just leave it alone
28 2013-01-31 00:24:06 appletree has left ()
29 2013-01-31 00:26:06 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
30 2013-01-31 00:27:04 porquilho has quit ()
31 2013-01-31 00:27:43 bitcoinbulletin has joined
32 2013-01-31 00:31:03 ovidiusoft has quit (Quit: leaving)
33 2013-01-31 00:31:29 eckey has joined
34 2013-01-31 00:33:04 gibybo_ has joined
35 2013-01-31 00:33:27 Liboan has joined
36 2013-01-31 00:34:41 Liboan has left ("Ex-Chat")
37 2013-01-31 00:37:18 bsdunx has joined
38 2013-01-31 00:37:43 <bsdunx> hi zeiris
39 2013-01-31 00:38:04 <eckey> CodeShark: ping
40 2013-01-31 00:39:47 <bsdunx> grats
41 2013-01-31 00:39:53 Hashdog has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
42 2013-01-31 00:43:28 [\\\] has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
43 2013-01-31 00:44:02 one_zero has joined
44 2013-01-31 00:44:07 gibybo_ has quit (Quit: Page closed)
45 2013-01-31 00:47:36 <owowo> jgarzig: Is there a display on that Chinese box of fans? Is it stand alone with mining software included or do you need a computer with cgminer running?
46 2013-01-31 00:48:29 <owowo> *jgarzik ...
47 2013-01-31 00:50:16 [\\\] has joined
48 2013-01-31 00:54:30 Silverion has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
49 2013-01-31 00:54:35 rng29a has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
50 2013-01-31 00:55:24 <Luke-Jr> owowo: it's been known for a while it has an embedded Openwrt system ..
51 2013-01-31 00:56:24 emryss has joined
52 2013-01-31 00:56:30 pecket has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
53 2013-01-31 00:57:32 <owowo> thx. I did not know that since I do not follow bitcointroll.org, and I hate forums since one has to read through all that bullshit to get useful information, hence I rather ask :P
54 2013-01-31 00:57:46 <zeiris> bsdunx: sup
55 2013-01-31 00:57:52 Guest6731 is now known as topace
56 2013-01-31 00:57:58 topace has quit (Changing host)
57 2013-01-31 00:57:58 topace has joined
58 2013-01-31 00:58:43 torsthaldo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
59 2013-01-31 01:00:50 torsthaldo has joined
60 2013-01-31 01:00:51 <bsdunx> not too much, wishing I would have tracked this channel a few weeks ago or mesmer
61 2013-01-31 01:02:42 pecket has joined
62 2013-01-31 01:04:46 slothbag has quit (Quit: I quit!)
63 2013-01-31 01:06:43 jav__ has quit (Quit: Verlassend)
64 2013-01-31 01:08:24 <jgarzik> owowo: standalone box, with OpenWRT inside
65 2013-01-31 01:11:03 rdymac has joined
66 2013-01-31 01:14:52 rdymac has quit (Client Quit)
67 2013-01-31 01:15:28 <MC1984> jgarzik your asic looks like my computer from 1996
68 2013-01-31 01:16:49 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
69 2013-01-31 01:18:00 zooko has quit (Quit: family time)
70 2013-01-31 01:19:08 t7 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
71 2013-01-31 01:24:10 <doublec> does it mine as many bitcoins as your compute rfrom 1996?
72 2013-01-31 01:24:44 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: why no p2pool?
73 2013-01-31 01:26:48 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: he'd need to setup a node for that? plus, why p2pool? :p
74 2013-01-31 01:26:56 gg has joined
75 2013-01-31 01:27:05 <MC1984> haha its a pc power suply
76 2013-01-31 01:27:18 <MC1984> at least it looks decent quality
77 2013-01-31 01:27:22 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: ok, fine, why a centralized pool?
78 2013-01-31 01:27:30 <MC1984> black pc components = decent right?
79 2013-01-31 01:27:59 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: Eligius isn't centralized
80 2013-01-31 01:28:08 <BlueMatt> Luke-Jr: yes, I realize that
81 2013-01-31 01:28:22 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: did I miss something then? O.o
82 2013-01-31 01:28:31 <BlueMatt> umm...when?
83 2013-01-31 01:29:44 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: what makes you think jgarzik is mining on a centralized pool?
84 2013-01-31 01:30:01 <BlueMatt> didnt he say slush's pool?
85 2013-01-31 01:30:13 <BlueMatt> yes, he did
86 2013-01-31 01:30:21 <BlueMatt> http://garzikrants.blogspot.ca/
87 2013-01-31 01:30:31 <BlueMatt> "Got things going on slush's pool, for a little third party confirmation:"
88 2013-01-31 01:30:35 <Luke-Jr> hum
89 2013-01-31 01:30:41 <sipa> i guess he's trying several pools/tools
90 2013-01-31 01:30:43 <Luke-Jr> well, he was asking about Eligius setup a few mins ago
91 2013-01-31 01:31:05 <BlueMatt> well, ok...we'll see what he settles for
92 2013-01-31 01:32:57 <sipa> as long as he's the only asic miner, i guess he can solo mine
93 2013-01-31 01:33:23 <Luke-Jr> sipa: not really, they used cgminer
94 2013-01-31 01:33:32 <Luke-Jr> which doesn't support solo mining
95 2013-01-31 01:34:00 <sipa> i'm sure there's a way
96 2013-01-31 01:34:09 <slush> yes, setup local pool :)
97 2013-01-31 01:34:19 <owowo> why not go solo?! ;o)
98 2013-01-31 01:34:20 <BlueMatt> Im pretty sure (not 100% sure, but I think so) that jgarzik knows how to program
99 2013-01-31 01:34:32 <sipa> BlueMatt: any evidence to support that?
100 2013-01-31 01:34:36 <Luke-Jr> slush: yeah, that'd work as well as p2pool
101 2013-01-31 01:34:39 <BlueMatt> sipa: none, just a wild guess
102 2013-01-31 01:34:46 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: no evidence he has source code yet
103 2013-01-31 01:34:55 <Luke-Jr> or that Avalon is complying with the GPL
104 2013-01-31 01:35:23 <BlueMatt> meh...Im pretty sure he can figure out a fun way to get in :)
105 2013-01-31 01:35:29 <Luke-Jr> â¦
106 2013-01-31 01:35:34 <MC1984> p2pool or bust bro
107 2013-01-31 01:35:45 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: pool fanboy :P
108 2013-01-31 01:35:51 <BlueMatt> p2pool ftw
109 2013-01-31 01:37:31 <MC1984> wouldnt he be like 1/5th of p2pool if he sets the asic on it?
110 2013-01-31 01:38:29 <BlueMatt> yes
111 2013-01-31 01:38:58 <BlueMatt> but he could decrease his difficulty to not effect variance of other miner's shares while still increasing block count
112 2013-01-31 01:39:22 <HM2> what order of magnitude are we talking about with these ASICs?
113 2013-01-31 01:39:25 <BlueMatt> s/ decrease his difficulty/increase his own personal difficulty/
114 2013-01-31 01:39:26 valparaiso has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
115 2013-01-31 01:39:26 <HM2> cpu:gpu:asic
116 2013-01-31 01:39:46 <Luke-Jr> HM2: you forgot FPGAs
117 2013-01-31 01:39:48 valparaiso has joined
118 2013-01-31 01:39:59 <MC1984> i wnder if that would piss p2pool ppl off enough that they leave :/
119 2013-01-31 01:40:16 <BlueMatt> MC1984: read my last statement
120 2013-01-31 01:40:33 <Luke-Jr> someone should 51% p2pool
121 2013-01-31 01:40:39 <Luke-Jr> that'd be fun to watch
122 2013-01-31 01:40:58 <sipa> HM2: the device jeff got does 68 GH/s, and is claimed to use 400W
123 2013-01-31 01:40:58 <HM2> FPGA and ASIC can't be that far apart, surely
124 2013-01-31 01:41:07 <sipa> they are miles apart
125 2013-01-31 01:41:09 <HM2> the ASIC process isn't top of the range nanometer stuff is it
126 2013-01-31 01:41:13 <BlueMatt> HM2: nooooo
127 2013-01-31 01:41:13 <MC1984> its a magnitude i think
128 2013-01-31 01:42:12 <HM2> well a decent GPU can spit out a few GH/s now can't it
129 2013-01-31 01:42:23 <sipa> HM2: i have 0.8 GH/s ASIC device that consumes 40W
130 2013-01-31 01:42:31 <Luke-Jr> HM2: BFL's ASICs do 1500 Gh/s at 1500 W
131 2013-01-31 01:42:45 <MC1984> ALLEGEDLY
132 2013-01-31 01:42:57 <sipa> HM2: eh, FPGA device
133 2013-01-31 01:42:57 <HM2> nice
134 2013-01-31 01:43:03 * sipa haz no asic
135 2013-01-31 01:43:15 * HM2 looks shiftily at sipa
136 2013-01-31 01:43:33 <MC1984> i wonder how far artfors got
137 2013-01-31 01:43:43 <MC1984> he had asics 2 years ago
138 2013-01-31 01:43:47 <sipa> HM2: GPU's do up to a few hundred MH/s using a few hundred W
139 2013-01-31 01:43:51 <sipa> MC1984: S-ASICs
140 2013-01-31 01:43:57 <BlueMatt> MC1984: Id think if he had kept going he would have stuck around here
141 2013-01-31 01:44:10 <MC1984> i dont know what that is
142 2013-01-31 01:44:20 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: I heard he left IRC to comply with a NDA
143 2013-01-31 01:44:28 <HM2> what hash are we talking about here?
144 2013-01-31 01:44:30 <MC1984> maybe he just retired to the backgorund and printed moeny this whole time
145 2013-01-31 01:44:30 <BlueMatt> Luke-Jr: really...?
146 2013-01-31 01:44:31 <sipa> MC1984: the metal part is custom, but the silicon is shared
147 2013-01-31 01:44:33 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: S-ASIC is basically mass-produced FPGA
148 2013-01-31 01:44:35 <sipa> HM2: what hash what?
149 2013-01-31 01:44:39 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: that's what I heard
150 2013-01-31 01:44:51 <MC1984> ok
151 2013-01-31 01:44:56 <BlueMatt> Luke-Jr: ahhh
152 2013-01-31 01:44:59 <HM2> as a measure
153 2013-01-31 01:45:09 <sipa> HM2: i have no idea what you're asking
154 2013-01-31 01:45:15 <HM2> SHA-256 x 1?
155 2013-01-31 01:45:22 <sipa> ah, double SHA256
156 2013-01-31 01:45:49 <sipa> like everything in Bitcoin
157 2013-01-31 01:46:01 <sipa> except addresses
158 2013-01-31 01:47:49 <HM2> few hundred MH/s sounds low for a GPU to me
159 2013-01-31 01:48:08 <sipa> HM2: trust me, people have spent ages on optimizing that :)
160 2013-01-31 01:48:16 <HM2> I'm sure i read about a GPU doing 4 billion SHA-1/s a while back, and SHA-1 is only about twice as fast as SHA-256?
161 2013-01-31 01:48:30 <Luke-Jr> sipa: http://codepad.org/LbNjWNJG - slightly ugly; thoughts?
162 2013-01-31 01:48:39 <HM2> although I guess that puts double SHA-256 in the 500 MH/s range
163 2013-01-31 01:50:05 <sipa> HM2: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison
164 2013-01-31 01:50:24 galambo has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
165 2013-01-31 01:51:23 JZavala has joined
166 2013-01-31 01:51:24 <sipa> Luke-Jr: hmm, why needed?
167 2013-01-31 01:51:38 <sipa> Luke-Jr: also, NULL is a valid uint256>
168 2013-01-31 01:51:41 <sipa> ?
169 2013-01-31 01:51:43 <Luke-Jr> sipa: that's the one where the results are lost
170 2013-01-31 01:51:52 <Luke-Jr> I don't know if NULL is valid there.. didn't want to take any chances
171 2013-01-31 01:52:17 <HM2> there we go, some of those GPUs are up at 700 MH/s
172 2013-01-31 01:52:29 <sipa> HM2: dual GPU cards
173 2013-01-31 01:52:46 <Ymgve> http://golubev.com/gpuest.htm
174 2013-01-31 01:52:53 <Ymgve> sure you're not thinking about MD5 speed?
175 2013-01-31 01:53:13 <sipa> Luke-Jr: why not just use the passed state for everything?
176 2013-01-31 01:53:37 <Luke-Jr> sipa: does the caller want to know about the blocks it isn't processing?
177 2013-01-31 01:53:48 <Luke-Jr> sipa: seems like a way someone could trick another node into being DoS'd
178 2013-01-31 01:53:51 EPiSKiNG- has joined
179 2013-01-31 01:53:51 EPiSKiNG- has quit (Changing host)
180 2013-01-31 01:53:51 EPiSKiNG- has joined
181 2013-01-31 01:54:14 <sipa> Luke-Jr: that would require someone to build upon an invalid block, which itself violates DoS rules
182 2013-01-31 01:54:24 <sipa> Luke-Jr: though i agree it's somewhat ughy
183 2013-01-31 01:54:44 <Luke-Jr> sipa: wouldn't this be processing orphans that are waiting for the block?
184 2013-01-31 01:54:48 <HM2> Ymgve: it was probably a pair of top end radeons
185 2013-01-31 01:55:09 <Luke-Jr> so eg, someone makes an invalid orphan on top of your block, then when your block is received it DoSs the user sending your valid block..
186 2013-01-31 01:55:18 <HM2> it wasn't a bitcoin related thread, it was a discussion on cracking leaked password hashes
187 2013-01-31 01:56:06 <sipa> Luke-Jr: orphans are processed by ProcessBlock or AcceptBlock, in (not in the current code, but I assume you were going to change to) a separate state
188 2013-01-31 01:56:34 <sipa> so those would be calling SetBestChain themself, using a validationstate that is lost
189 2013-01-31 01:56:43 benkay has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
190 2013-01-31 01:56:45 <Luke-Jr> sipa: so you're *certain* it's safe to just use the passed state here then? <.<
191 2013-01-31 01:56:56 <Luke-Jr> I don't follow this code, so I'll just take your word for it if you're sure
192 2013-01-31 01:57:15 freewil has joined
193 2013-01-31 01:57:30 <sipa> i'm quite sure - i'll have another look tomorrow
194 2013-01-31 01:57:32 <Luke-Jr> k
195 2013-01-31 02:00:49 <sipa> however, in ProcessBlock, the processing of orphans must certainly be done using a separate state
196 2013-01-31 02:04:40 rdponticelli has joined
197 2013-01-31 02:05:42 <Luke-Jr> yep, will get to that next..
198 2013-01-31 02:06:01 <sipa> for ConnectBestBlock, it depends on whether you want to punish a node that happens to send you a block that depends on an invalid block, and causes a reorganisation
199 2013-01-31 02:06:07 PhantomSpark has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
200 2013-01-31 02:06:29 <sipa> i must admit i didn't consider this, but i think the answer is yes
201 2013-01-31 02:06:56 <HM2> uint256s can be NULL?
202 2013-01-31 02:07:14 <sipa> HM2: yes, that i wondered about too
203 2013-01-31 02:07:25 <HM2> why does line 10 use 0 but line 23 use NULL
204 2013-01-31 02:08:07 <CodeShark> NULL = 0 in C++, no?
205 2013-01-31 02:08:37 <HM2> it's defined in a standard C header
206 2013-01-31 02:08:40 <HM2> C++ has "nullptr"
207 2013-01-31 02:08:43 <jrmithdobbs> error: undefined usage of macro as lvalue
208 2013-01-31 02:08:44 <jrmithdobbs> ;p
209 2013-01-31 02:09:03 <CodeShark> I mean NULL == 0 :p
210 2013-01-31 02:09:39 <jrmithdobbs> I don't remember in c++ but i know in c89/99 NULL is defined as 0 and says the platform should provide a header that does this
211 2013-01-31 02:09:59 <jrmithdobbs> s/does/defines/
212 2013-01-31 02:10:27 <HM2> well 0 is a valid address
213 2013-01-31 02:10:34 <HM2> it's a worthless construct
214 2013-01-31 02:10:40 <jrmithdobbs> not on any real platform it's not
215 2013-01-31 02:10:44 <jrmithdobbs> at least, not an accesible one
216 2013-01-31 02:10:56 <HM2> unless you live in kernel land :P
217 2013-01-31 02:11:21 <HM2> this is a digression
218 2013-01-31 02:11:52 <HM2> also, in GCC/ GNU libc NULL is actually __null
219 2013-01-31 02:12:01 <HM2> which is a compiler intrinsic, apparently
220 2013-01-31 02:12:02 <HM2> hurray
221 2013-01-31 02:12:26 <HM2> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/bk01pt02ch04s03.html
222 2013-01-31 02:13:05 <CodeShark> so it matches pointers first - but failing that, it will match integers
223 2013-01-31 02:13:56 <HM2> something like that
224 2013-01-31 02:14:10 <CodeShark> so it's automatically typecast to an integer
225 2013-01-31 02:14:40 <HM2> Are you saying that makes the code OK? :)
226 2013-01-31 02:16:17 <CodeShark> hmm - perhaps I'm wrong
227 2013-01-31 02:16:32 <CodeShark> well, it will typecast to int - but g++ gives a warning
228 2013-01-31 02:16:43 <CodeShark> warning: converting to non-pointer type âintâ from NULL [-Wconversion-null]
229 2013-01-31 02:17:32 <CodeShark> and no, it doesn't make the code OK
230 2013-01-31 02:17:48 <CodeShark> in what source file did you see this, HM2?
231 2013-01-31 02:18:10 <HM2> the codepad link earlier
232 2013-01-31 02:18:20 <HM2> that Luke-Jr is working on
233 2013-01-31 02:18:36 <Luke-Jr> HM2: I trashed that on sipa's advice :P
234 2013-01-31 02:18:57 <HM2> lol ok
235 2013-01-31 02:20:30 <HM2> CodeShark: tbh i probably wouldn't have an implicit constructor on an uint256 data type, but everyone has a different style and there's nothing wrong with doing so
236 2013-01-31 02:20:59 dvide has quit ()
237 2013-01-31 02:21:10 <Luke-Jr> HM2: I'd want it to behave exactly like a uint64
238 2013-01-31 02:21:44 <CodeShark> I would also like it to behave like a uint64
239 2013-01-31 02:21:47 <CodeShark> just wider
240 2013-01-31 02:21:52 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
241 2013-01-31 02:22:36 b4epoche has joined
242 2013-01-31 02:22:37 <CodeShark> once we have 256-bit processors, it will be a primitive datatype :)
243 2013-01-31 02:23:13 <HM2> AVX2 introduces 256b int ops
244 2013-01-31 02:23:13 <CodeShark> it actually should be a primitive datatype even on 64-bit processors
245 2013-01-31 02:23:16 <CodeShark> yeah
246 2013-01-31 02:23:23 <CodeShark> haswell
247 2013-01-31 02:23:42 <HM2> i think GCC has compiler primitives for it
248 2013-01-31 02:24:33 <HM2> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Vector-Extensions.html
249 2013-01-31 02:24:35 <jrmithdobbs> how exactly can you have a primitive that wont fit in a register?
250 2013-01-31 02:24:42 <jrmithdobbs> (serious question)
251 2013-01-31 02:24:47 <jgarzik> well I'll say this
252 2013-01-31 02:24:52 <Luke-Jr> jrmithdobbs: the ops use multiple registers
253 2013-01-31 02:24:53 <HM2> it's emulated in software but the compiler chooses the best instructions as it sees fit
254 2013-01-31 02:24:54 <jgarzik> punishing the miner via power, and it's surviving
255 2013-01-31 02:24:56 <jgarzik> go team
256 2013-01-31 02:25:14 <Luke-Jr> jrmithdobbs: at least, that's how the 128-bit ops work
257 2013-01-31 02:25:16 <jgarzik> er, oops, wrong channel
258 2013-01-31 02:25:16 <HM2> I'm fairly sure MSVC++ has vecexts as well
259 2013-01-31 02:25:34 <HM2> you might benefit but it'd make your code a bit #ifdefy
260 2013-01-31 02:26:01 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: but uint128_t isn't a primitive there's just ops that work on 128 bits of data at a time out of two distinct registers
261 2013-01-31 02:26:23 <jrmithdobbs> but maybe I'm being too pedantic on the meaning of "primitive"
262 2013-01-31 02:26:36 rdponticelli has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
263 2013-01-31 02:26:46 <HM2> compiler intrinsic then
264 2013-01-31 02:26:56 <CodeShark> yeah, two levels of "primitive" here
265 2013-01-31 02:26:57 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
266 2013-01-31 02:26:58 <Luke-Jr> jrmithdobbs: GCC does have __int128
267 2013-01-31 02:27:14 <jrmithdobbs> HM2: gotcha.
268 2013-01-31 02:27:29 <jrmithdobbs> you mean primitive to the compiler not the cpu the code gets compiled for ;p
269 2013-01-31 02:27:38 <HM2> pointers aren't exactly primitives either
270 2013-01-31 02:27:58 <HM2> although i guess you have instructions that dereference
271 2013-01-31 02:27:58 <jrmithdobbs> sure they are, they're just ints
272 2013-01-31 02:28:21 <bsdunx> ya, register spanning IMO
273 2013-01-31 02:28:53 <jrmithdobbs> anyways, I'm going to go back to playing with blake2
274 2013-01-31 02:29:44 <HM2> i miss the days when hashes had cute names like whirlpool and tiger
275 2013-01-31 02:30:17 <jrmithdobbs> HM2: well, the name started off cute
276 2013-01-31 02:30:26 <jrmithdobbs> HM2: LAKE->BLAKE->BLAKE2
277 2013-01-31 02:31:47 <HM2> LAKE -> FLAKE -> FLAKEY
278 2013-01-31 02:31:53 sgstair has joined
279 2013-01-31 02:32:02 Ymgve has quit ()
280 2013-01-31 02:32:07 <jrmithdobbs> the b meant something, heh, i forget what
281 2013-01-31 02:32:15 <HM2> Botched?
282 2013-01-31 02:32:40 <jrmithdobbs> eh? there's nothing wrong with any of the iterations of blake afaict
283 2013-01-31 02:32:56 <jrmithdobbs> sha-3 just liked the novel construction of keccak better
284 2013-01-31 02:34:17 <HM2> I'm just poking fun, i know nothing about designer hash functions :P except a few novice things like length extension attack and meet in the middle
285 2013-01-31 02:34:25 <HM2> *designing
286 2013-01-31 02:35:11 rdponticelli has joined
287 2013-01-31 02:36:19 <jgarzik> Updated with machine info (cpuinfo, meminfo, dmesg): http://garzikrants.blogspot.com/2013/01/avalon-tonight.html
288 2013-01-31 02:36:28 MobGod has joined
289 2013-01-31 02:36:33 MobGod has quit (Changing host)
290 2013-01-31 02:36:33 MobGod has joined
291 2013-01-31 02:36:33 MobGod has quit (Changing host)
292 2013-01-31 02:36:33 MobGod has joined
293 2013-01-31 02:38:28 <HM2> using an xbox controller for size comparison is a touch of class there
294 2013-01-31 02:41:07 <eckey> My Bitcoin-Qt process hung around for 15 minutes after Quit. OSX 10.8.2 with encrypted disk. Does Bitcoin write the block chain to disk during termination?
295 2013-01-31 02:42:15 <eckey> Can someone else with OSX open Activity Monitor and quit Bitcoin? Thanks.
296 2013-01-31 02:42:54 <eckey> The Apple Store guy said my HDD is ok.
297 2013-01-31 02:43:34 <eckey> Bitcoin-Qt 0.7.2
298 2013-01-31 02:45:15 owowo has quit (Quit: sayonara)
299 2013-01-31 02:46:10 <MC1984> jgarzik threatens to mine on testnet
300 2013-01-31 02:46:12 <MC1984> luls
301 2013-01-31 02:50:10 eoss has joined
302 2013-01-31 02:51:23 Hasimir has joined
303 2013-01-31 02:51:28 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
304 2013-01-31 02:51:55 grau has joined
305 2013-01-31 02:53:25 <Diablo-D3> hey jgarzik
306 2013-01-31 02:53:34 Lyspooner has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
307 2013-01-31 02:53:35 <Diablo-D3> I want proof your thing works
308 2013-01-31 02:53:44 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
309 2013-01-31 02:54:17 <Diablo-D3> have it connect to p2pool =P
310 2013-01-31 02:56:14 <sipa> eckey: do you have -detachdb enabled?
311 2013-01-31 02:56:17 <BlueMatt> he said he was gonna rotate some pools and see how it works on a number of them
312 2013-01-31 02:56:23 <Diablo-D3> ahh
313 2013-01-31 02:56:29 <Diablo-D3> I want him to perm mine on p2pool though
314 2013-01-31 02:56:35 <eckey> sipa: no
315 2013-01-31 02:56:39 <BlueMatt> Diablo-D3: as do i :)
316 2013-01-31 02:56:45 <sipa> eckey: large -dbcache ?
317 2013-01-31 02:56:46 <eckey> but is this normal?
318 2013-01-31 02:56:49 <sipa> no
319 2013-01-31 02:56:53 <eckey> 15 min?
320 2013-01-31 02:57:13 techlife has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
321 2013-01-31 02:57:31 <sipa> eckey: can you run with -logtimestamps, and then paste the part of debug.log corresponding to your 15 min shutdown?
322 2013-01-31 02:57:33 <mappum> if he mines on p2pool we should see a jump from 340gh/s to 400
323 2013-01-31 02:57:53 <Diablo-D3> we're at 311 atm
324 2013-01-31 02:58:41 <mappum> i'm just looking at http://p2pool.info/
325 2013-01-31 03:00:59 techlife has joined
326 2013-01-31 03:01:08 <eckey> this is what i find in db.log--this is after starting Bitcoin-Qt-0.7.2
327 2013-01-31 03:01:12 <eckey> http://pastebin.com/5mHzZFP8
328 2013-01-31 03:02:10 <sipa> hmm, database troubles perhaps
329 2013-01-31 03:02:34 <eckey> should I erase and re-fetch?
330 2013-01-31 03:02:56 RainbowDashh has joined
331 2013-01-31 03:03:24 <HM2> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/uint256.h#L193
332 2013-01-31 03:03:28 <HM2> there's something fishy here
333 2013-01-31 03:03:43 <HM2> pn[] is an array of unsigned ints
334 2013-01-31 03:03:59 <sipa> HM2: hardcoded fallback peers
335 2013-01-31 03:04:17 <HM2> say what?
336 2013-01-31 03:04:22 <sipa> oh
337 2013-01-31 03:04:27 <sipa> never mind
338 2013-01-31 03:04:33 <sipa> i didn't check the link
339 2013-01-31 03:05:28 <sipa> HM2: the conversion is well-defined, but it's strange that we don't see compiler warnings about comparison between signed and unsigned
340 2013-01-31 03:05:37 <HM2> i do
341 2013-01-31 03:05:39 <HM2> :|
342 2013-01-31 03:06:04 <sipa> ?
343 2013-01-31 03:06:14 <HM2> that's how i spotted it, a compiler warning
344 2013-01-31 03:06:23 <sipa> which compiler?
345 2013-01-31 03:06:28 <HM2> gcc 4.7.2
346 2013-01-31 03:06:51 <sipa> ah, i'm on 4.6.3
347 2013-01-31 03:07:35 <HM2> it might be -Wextra
348 2013-01-31 03:07:35 <mappum> i thought if you assign -1 to an unsigned variable it is just 0xffffffff
349 2013-01-31 03:07:37 <sipa> but i know why there's no warning
350 2013-01-31 03:07:47 <mappum> or however many bits
351 2013-01-31 03:07:50 <sipa> that function is never used :)
352 2013-01-31 03:09:31 <HM2> mappum: depends
353 2013-01-31 03:09:49 <HM2> C++ doesn't mandate that the machine you're using be twos compliment
354 2013-01-31 03:10:18 <mappum> i see
355 2013-01-31 03:10:36 <sipa> all supported machines do, however :)
356 2013-01-31 03:10:47 <sipa> and the code is certainly not platform-neutral
357 2013-01-31 03:10:54 <eckey> sipa: can I remove blk????.dat and blkindex.dat, restart, and let it recover the block chain?
358 2013-01-31 03:11:02 <sipa> eckey: yes
359 2013-01-31 03:11:05 <BlueMatt> if you're gonna write your code with the assumption that not everything is twos-complement.............
360 2013-01-31 03:11:20 <mappum> yeah, that could be fixed to just be the max value instead of -1
361 2013-01-31 03:13:20 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: then you'd better be prepared to also handle platforms where the endian changes at runtime too
362 2013-01-31 03:13:30 <HM2> actualyl
363 2013-01-31 03:13:33 <BlueMatt> Luke-Jr: lol...yep
364 2013-01-31 03:13:35 <HM2> blergh
365 2013-01-31 03:13:43 <BlueMatt> also...what platform does that?
366 2013-01-31 03:14:03 <sipa> Luke-Jr: does the number base also change? like from 2's complement to 10's complement?
367 2013-01-31 03:14:07 <sipa> and then to base phi
368 2013-01-31 03:14:26 <BlueMatt> and then we go with a decimal binary representation
369 2013-01-31 03:14:34 <sipa> check
370 2013-01-31 03:14:41 <Luke-Jr> sipa: my point is that runtime-endian machines actually exist
371 2013-01-31 03:14:55 <HM2> well C++ will cast that -1 to unsigned int -> UINT_MAX
372 2013-01-31 03:15:08 <sipa> Luke-Jr: well, runtime-chosen endian
373 2013-01-31 03:15:17 <sipa> Luke-Jr: it's not out of your control, right?
374 2013-01-31 03:15:55 <Luke-Jr> sipa: afaik the OS chooses
375 2013-01-31 03:16:40 <HM2> i prefer the term byte sex to endianness
376 2013-01-31 03:17:16 <sipa> Luke-Jr: then let's hope nobody creates an OS that changes your process' endianness unexpectedly :)
377 2013-01-31 03:18:19 <mappum> if your ram shakes too much all the bytes switch
378 2013-01-31 03:18:21 * BlueMatt gets to kernel hacking so that he can write the most obnoxious bug reports known to man and file them against every project in existence...
379 2013-01-31 03:18:23 <mappum> true story
380 2013-01-31 03:19:17 <sipa> mappum: well if the bytes & the byteorder change at the same time, there's no problem :P
381 2013-01-31 03:19:38 <sipa> ... in theory
382 2013-01-31 03:19:49 <HM2> shoulda used a language without ints, problem solved
383 2013-01-31 03:20:08 <BlueMatt> must only use bytes
384 2013-01-31 03:20:11 <phantomcircuit> sipa, lol
385 2013-01-31 03:20:17 <mappum> sometimes some bits fall out though and it all gets out of sync
386 2013-01-31 03:20:24 <eckey> it's all Intel's fault
387 2013-01-31 03:20:30 <Luke-Jr> sipa: well, I mean where endian is unknown at compile time, not that it changes while it's running :p
388 2013-01-31 03:20:32 <eckey> IBM had it right
389 2013-01-31 03:21:21 <phantomcircuit> the headache of runtime endian code
390 2013-01-31 03:21:28 <phantomcircuit> that would be ridiculousness
391 2013-01-31 03:21:59 nus- has joined
392 2013-01-31 03:22:31 <BlueMatt> and here I was thinking google engineers fixed their mistakes quickly....reader has been fucked up all day
393 2013-01-31 03:23:50 nus has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
394 2013-01-31 03:23:50 justmoon has quit (Quit: Leaving)
395 2013-01-31 03:24:13 paraipan has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
396 2013-01-31 03:24:13 <sipa> BlueMatt: the endianness of the pages swapped?
397 2013-01-31 03:24:49 <HM2> Intel also made a mistake ditching segmentation
398 2013-01-31 03:25:13 novusordo has joined
399 2013-01-31 03:25:15 <sipa> flat address spaces are so horrible to program for!
400 2013-01-31 03:25:15 <BlueMatt> sipa: ohhhh...lemme dig out my big endian system and try
401 2013-01-31 03:25:27 <nibcoin> And not adopting a hardware BCD instruction. Oh wait, they just added that ^_^
402 2013-01-31 03:25:31 <HM2> sipa: sarcasm? :P
403 2013-01-31 03:25:38 <sipa> HM2: no, not at all!
404 2013-01-31 03:25:43 <nibcoin> Way to arrive 40 years late to party
405 2013-01-31 03:25:47 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
406 2013-01-31 03:26:25 <HM2> lol
407 2013-01-31 03:26:57 <HM2> segmentation had features Intel has yet to reintroduce but have proven useful
408 2013-01-31 03:27:31 <nibcoin> We are still not to the vision of a single globally unified memory space though ;)
409 2013-01-31 03:27:56 <nibcoin> VMoIP
410 2013-01-31 03:28:09 <HM2> Googles NaCl uses it to sandbox their native code. PaX team use it to introduce loads of security features, and Intel are only just adding protection for userland code from kernel space with SMAPS
411 2013-01-31 03:30:14 <HM2> x86 is a bit of mad hatters tea party
412 2013-01-31 03:33:53 Trader805 has joined
413 2013-01-31 03:35:01 <bsdunx> alpha was the greatest cpu arch ever
414 2013-01-31 03:35:02 Trader805 has left ()
415 2013-01-31 03:36:01 <jgarzik> bsdunx: damn straight
416 2013-01-31 03:36:16 <HM2> I'm fond of MIPS
417 2013-01-31 03:36:26 <BlueMatt> shit, I think pull-tester has been having some false negatives
418 2013-01-31 03:36:46 <nibcoin> why did you have to die, DEC =(
419 2013-01-31 03:37:02 <BlueMatt> in any case, Im adding some stuff over the next few days, anyone with a pull which got rejected over the past...I dont even know how long, please ping me
420 2013-01-31 03:37:05 <BlueMatt> sorry for the disturbance
421 2013-01-31 03:37:13 <BlueMatt> Luke-Jr: Im pretty sure that includes you
422 2013-01-31 03:37:57 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: it does. *ping*
423 2013-01-31 03:38:02 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
424 2013-01-31 03:38:03 <BlueMatt> which #?
425 2013-01-31 03:38:17 <BlueMatt> (s)
426 2013-01-31 03:38:36 <Luke-Jr> 2243 2241 1816
427 2013-01-31 03:38:42 <BlueMatt> shit....
428 2013-01-31 03:38:48 <Luke-Jr> ?
429 2013-01-31 03:38:58 <BlueMatt> thats a lot of pulls...
430 2013-01-31 03:39:07 <BlueMatt> just means i probably got lots of them
431 2013-01-31 03:39:40 twobitcoins has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
432 2013-01-31 03:40:04 twobitcoins has joined
433 2013-01-31 03:41:37 D34TH has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
434 2013-01-31 03:42:23 LargoG has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
435 2013-01-31 03:42:56 <MobGod> Luke-Jr do you have a min
436 2013-01-31 03:43:04 gg has quit (Quit: Page closed)
437 2013-01-31 03:43:15 eckey has left ()
438 2013-01-31 03:43:17 <Luke-Jr> MobGod: maybe.
439 2013-01-31 03:47:07 sebicas has left ()
440 2013-01-31 03:47:27 RBecker is now known as rbecker
441 2013-01-31 03:50:32 Ascisco has joined
442 2013-01-31 03:51:24 fiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
443 2013-01-31 03:52:18 phma has joined
444 2013-01-31 03:53:54 Ascisco has left ()
445 2013-01-31 03:54:21 fiesh has joined
446 2013-01-31 03:54:47 valparaiso_ has joined
447 2013-01-31 03:56:44 Goonie has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
448 2013-01-31 03:58:03 valparaiso has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
449 2013-01-31 03:58:03 valparaiso_ is now known as valparaiso
450 2013-01-31 04:00:33 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
451 2013-01-31 04:06:54 coingenuity has joined
452 2013-01-31 04:07:33 dust-otc has joined
453 2013-01-31 04:12:11 <Luke-Jr> sipa: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2253
454 2013-01-31 04:19:03 etotheipi_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
455 2013-01-31 04:20:59 testnode9 has quit (Read error: No route to host)
456 2013-01-31 04:24:39 testnode9 has joined
457 2013-01-31 04:27:56 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
458 2013-01-31 04:28:02 [7] has joined
459 2013-01-31 04:28:57 torsthaldo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
460 2013-01-31 04:31:57 impulse- has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
461 2013-01-31 04:33:49 impulse- has joined
462 2013-01-31 04:37:04 jurov has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
463 2013-01-31 04:38:01 techlife has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
464 2013-01-31 04:38:49 jurov has joined
465 2013-01-31 04:43:34 vessenes has joined
466 2013-01-31 04:45:16 techlife has joined
467 2013-01-31 04:45:17 techlife has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
468 2013-01-31 04:45:37 sgornick has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
469 2013-01-31 04:46:33 techlife has joined
470 2013-01-31 04:46:34 techlife has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
471 2013-01-31 04:47:00 techlife has joined
472 2013-01-31 04:51:08 [\\\] has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
473 2013-01-31 04:51:33 [\\\] has joined
474 2013-01-31 04:53:01 <vessenes> Hi all, we're working on setting up an in-memory blockchain API. I keep beating my head against the wall implementing it, though. I've done two rounds with redis, and two with mongo, plus one with sqlite, and one with mysql. Anyone out there worked on this?
475 2013-01-31 04:53:56 <BlueMatt> use bitcoinj
476 2013-01-31 04:54:00 nibcoin has quit (Quit: Page closed)
477 2013-01-31 04:54:01 <BlueMatt> its already half-implemented....
478 2013-01-31 04:54:16 <BlueMatt> as long as you dont mind a custom java db thats not really designed to be incredibly performant
479 2013-01-31 04:54:31 <CodeShark> I've done sql dbs
480 2013-01-31 04:54:40 <vessenes> Yeah, exactly.
481 2013-01-31 04:54:52 <BlueMatt> or cheat and use the h2 sql db and put it on a tmpfs
482 2013-01-31 04:54:54 <BlueMatt> lol
483 2013-01-31 04:54:59 <vessenes> This is a possibility
484 2013-01-31 04:55:10 <BlueMatt> no really, dont do that
485 2013-01-31 04:55:14 <vessenes> An example query from redis is appealing right now
486 2013-01-31 04:55:53 <Luke-Jr> the most ideal solution would be to extend the new optional "extra info" indexing in bitcoind IMO - but that's a bit of work :P
487 2013-01-31 04:56:18 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
488 2013-01-31 04:56:24 <CodeShark> sipa's already gone some ways on that front
489 2013-01-31 04:56:35 <CodeShark> and I'm not sure that's the most ideal solution
490 2013-01-31 04:56:53 copumpkin has joined
491 2013-01-31 04:56:53 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: ideal because it's a step toward a builtin blockchain.info replacement
492 2013-01-31 04:57:03 <vessenes> lrange a.1dice6YgEVBf88erBFra9BHf6ZMoyvG88.tx 0 -1 returns all txouts in 1.5 seconds from redis.
493 2013-01-31 04:57:09 <vessenes> That's 146307 or so
494 2013-01-31 04:57:45 <CodeShark> Luke-Jr: I would prefer to see bitcoind be a streamlined verification/relay agent and have separate apps for historical data
495 2013-01-31 04:57:57 nibcoin has joined
496 2013-01-31 04:58:02 <vessenes> I'm with Codeshark; I'd like to use bitcoind for just that
497 2013-01-31 04:58:16 <BlueMatt> lol, thats not what bitcoind is designed for at all
498 2013-01-31 04:58:22 <CodeShark> no?
499 2013-01-31 04:58:31 <Luke-Jr> âº
500 2013-01-31 04:58:35 <CodeShark> I thought that was its main function
501 2013-01-31 04:58:42 <vessenes> de-facto for sure
502 2013-01-31 04:58:45 <CodeShark> except for the "Streamlined" part :P
503 2013-01-31 04:59:14 <BlueMatt> yes, its main function is to verify and relay blocks, but its really not streamlined for that, it kinda has a wallet and rpc server hanging off the side.....
504 2013-01-31 04:59:38 <CodeShark> right - but the wallet and RPC stuff could be implemented by other projects without risk to the core network integrity
505 2013-01-31 04:59:45 <vessenes> The issue we face, say at the Foundation is: giant set of public addresses need to get turned into a weekly balance sheet. This is not easy to do automatically with the wallet.
506 2013-01-31 04:59:54 <CodeShark> however, there should be a reference implementation of transaction/block validation and relay
507 2013-01-31 05:00:55 <CodeShark> bitcoind was originally designed to be a full-featured node - to perform all functions necessary to interface the bitcoin network and make transactions
508 2013-01-31 05:01:06 <CodeShark> but I don't really like the monolithic approach
509 2013-01-31 05:01:11 <BlueMatt> CodeShark: bitcoind is the reference implementation of all of that
510 2013-01-31 05:01:34 <CodeShark> right, but certain functions have already been moved out of it - for instance, mining
511 2013-01-31 05:01:35 <BlueMatt> but Im completely with you, re-factoring bitcoind into its clear parts would be nice
512 2013-01-31 05:01:39 <BlueMatt> but Im not gonna get into that...
513 2013-01-31 05:01:50 <CodeShark> the mining code in bitcoind is only good for testnet
514 2013-01-31 05:01:55 <BlueMatt> no, Im pretty sure the mining code is still there
515 2013-01-31 05:02:04 <BlueMatt> that means it hasnt been moved out, its only rarely used....
516 2013-01-31 05:02:08 <CodeShark> yes, it's still there but nobody uses it on the main network
517 2013-01-31 05:02:39 <BlueMatt> hence, not "moved out"
518 2013-01-31 05:03:04 <BlueMatt> vessenes: can you be more specific on your problem here?
519 2013-01-31 05:03:23 <CodeShark> the code hasn't been moved out of it - but the function has
520 2013-01-31 05:03:37 <BlueMatt> ok, then we have different definitions of "moved out"
521 2013-01-31 05:03:40 <CodeShark> and the same thing has been happening with wallets
522 2013-01-31 05:04:00 <vessenes> Here's a simple use-case: Given 1,000 public addresses, generate a second-by-second history of balances across all of them. Desired time, less than 250ms
523 2013-01-31 05:04:00 <BlueMatt> as a developer, I dont care if its used or not, the code is there...in fact unused code is worse than used code that maybe should be removed....
524 2013-01-31 05:04:15 <jgarzik> CodeShark: as it happens, picocoin.git includes "brd" (Block Relay Daemon) which is intended to do nothing but relay TXs and blocks [when finished].
525 2013-01-31 05:04:21 <BlueMatt> CodeShark: huh? bitcoin-qt is kinda used a lot as a wallet....
526 2013-01-31 05:04:42 <CodeShark> I'm not saying it isn't used - but there are alternative wallets that have gained some market share
527 2013-01-31 05:04:56 <BlueMatt> like?
528 2013-01-31 05:05:01 <CodeShark> multibit, armory
529 2013-01-31 05:05:09 <BlueMatt> ahh, ok you mean alt desktop clients
530 2013-01-31 05:05:30 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: bitcoind was originally designed to be a SPV node just as well as a full one, FWIW
531 2013-01-31 05:06:20 <BlueMatt> vessenes: not sure such an index is already built in any software. Not to push one project over others, Id find a decent bitcoin library (bitcoinj!) and use that to make a db that gets dumped into which can later be queried
532 2013-01-31 05:06:27 <Luke-Jr> Satoshi just didn't finish that, nor has anyone else - yet
533 2013-01-31 05:06:45 <BlueMatt> vessenes: bitcoinj (should) make this easy by just hooking a listener to the block chain and dumping block/tx data into a db
534 2013-01-31 05:07:15 <CodeShark> I did that just using the p2p protocol
535 2013-01-31 05:07:22 <CodeShark> hooked up a listener to a node
536 2013-01-31 05:07:26 <CodeShark> and dump the data into a db
537 2013-01-31 05:07:28 <Luke-Jr> vessenes: is that the only use case? you could index (time, scriptPubkey, balance)
538 2013-01-31 05:07:29 <BlueMatt> that works too, ofc
539 2013-01-31 05:08:05 freakazoid has joined
540 2013-01-31 05:08:50 <jgarzik> hum
541 2013-01-31 05:08:52 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: woo, your pull tester thing passed :P
542 2013-01-31 05:09:06 <jgarzik> is it immediately known, when p2pool finds a mainnet block?
543 2013-01-31 05:09:21 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: it's announced on #p2pool pretty quick
544 2013-01-31 05:09:22 <jgarzik> I guess you see it in your wallet...
545 2013-01-31 05:09:31 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: but if it was immediate, we wouldn't need a blockchain ;)
546 2013-01-31 05:09:37 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: wallet gens are only shown after 1 confirm, I believe
547 2013-01-31 05:09:41 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: Bitcoin-Qt only shows after a 2nd confirm
548 2013-01-31 05:09:58 <Luke-Jr> (my count includes the one builtin to the block itself)
549 2013-01-31 05:10:04 <BlueMatt> Luke-Jr: yes, Ill turn it loose on the list again
550 2013-01-31 05:10:20 <BlueMatt> finally update pull-tester to fix bugs and use some tests I wrote like a month ago.....
551 2013-01-31 05:10:26 <jgarzik> is there a history of p2pool blocks shown anywhere? say the last 10 p2pool blocks?
552 2013-01-31 05:10:34 <BlueMatt> p2pool.info
553 2013-01-31 05:11:15 <jgarzik> so 1-2 blocks per day seems normal for p2pool
554 2013-01-31 05:13:42 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: pull tester can automatically fix our bugs now? :D
555 2013-01-31 05:14:20 <CodeShark> pull tester automatically implements new features now :)
556 2013-01-31 05:15:00 <Luke-Jr> yay, we're all obsolete as humans
557 2013-01-31 05:15:27 <CodeShark> jgarzik: autotools is now checking libraries - but it's still not adding the compiler options to link to them
558 2013-01-31 05:15:47 <CodeShark> I could just manually add them - but I figure there must be a better way
559 2013-01-31 05:16:20 <jgarzik> CodeShark: take a look at config.* to see what gets set, and what not
560 2013-01-31 05:16:39 <jgarzik> CodeShark: linking properly is pretty basic
561 2013-01-31 05:16:52 <jgarzik> CodeShark: Did you import the boost/bdb macros?
562 2013-01-31 05:17:00 <CodeShark> yes
563 2013-01-31 05:17:40 <CodeShark> do I need to add AC_SUBST() in configure.ac?
564 2013-01-31 05:18:35 <jgarzik> CodeShark: typically AC_SUBST is only for AC_CHECK_LIB env vars, e.g.
565 2013-01-31 05:18:36 <jgarzik> AC_CHECK_LIB(jansson, json_loads, JANSSON_LIBS=-ljansson,
566 2013-01-31 05:18:37 <jgarzik> [AC_MSG_ERROR([Missing required libjansson])])
567 2013-01-31 05:18:43 <jgarzik> AC_SUBST(JANSSON_LIBS)
568 2013-01-31 05:18:45 <CodeShark> yeah, that's what I was thinking
569 2013-01-31 05:19:36 <CodeShark> should the AX macros automatically take care of this for me?
570 2013-01-31 05:19:44 <CodeShark> I still have no idea how it all really works
571 2013-01-31 05:20:21 <vessenes> Thanks for the messages guys. I'm comfortable I'm not reinventing the wheel at least. :)
572 2013-01-31 05:20:25 <jgarzik> CodeShark: presuming you call the macros, they should...
573 2013-01-31 05:20:28 <jgarzik> http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf-archive/ax_boost_filesystem.html#ax_boost_filesystem
574 2013-01-31 05:20:29 <jgarzik> says
575 2013-01-31 05:20:29 MobGod is now known as Guest97815
576 2013-01-31 05:20:35 <jgarzik> This macro calls:
577 2013-01-31 05:20:35 <jgarzik> AC_SUBST(BOOST_FILESYSTEM_LIB)
578 2013-01-31 05:20:43 vessenes has quit ()
579 2013-01-31 05:20:55 <jgarzik> so AX_BOOST_FILESYSTEM goes into configure.ac
580 2013-01-31 05:21:07 <jgarzik> then @BOOST_FILESYSTEM_LIB@ goes into bitcoind_LDADD
581 2013-01-31 05:21:35 <BlueMatt> Luke-Jr: no, it doesnt bother with that, it just reads descriptions of pulls and writes them all from scratch
582 2013-01-31 05:22:14 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: wouldn't he want it in just LDADD, since it's needed for bitcoin-qt and test_bitcoin as well?
583 2013-01-31 05:22:36 <CodeShark> jgarzik: so I need to explicitly add the line bitcoind_LDADD=@BOOST_FILESYSTEM_LIB@ to Makefile.am?
584 2013-01-31 05:23:05 <jgarzik> CodeShark: yes
585 2013-01-31 05:23:28 <CodeShark> and that will include the -L and the -l?
586 2013-01-31 05:23:33 <jgarzik> CodeShark: yes
587 2013-01-31 05:24:13 <jgarzik> CodeShark: if your libraries are in weird places, like /usr/local/lib on freebsd, the user is expected to tell this to the configure script, like
588 2013-01-31 05:24:20 <jgarzik> LDFLAGS="/usr/local/include" ./configure
589 2013-01-31 05:24:22 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
590 2013-01-31 05:24:28 <CodeShark> right - I'm just doing run-of-the-mill ubuntu for now
591 2013-01-31 05:24:37 <CodeShark> it's all in /usr/include
592 2013-01-31 05:24:55 B0g4r7 has joined
593 2013-01-31 05:24:56 <CodeShark> and /usr/lib
594 2013-01-31 05:25:25 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: what is "b64"?
595 2013-01-31 05:25:48 <BlueMatt> did it fail?
596 2013-01-31 05:26:21 <BlueMatt> ahh, they're all failing
597 2013-01-31 05:26:21 <BlueMatt> shit
598 2013-01-31 05:26:56 <CodeShark> jgarzik: making progress
599 2013-01-31 05:27:54 <BlueMatt> oh shit, that one needs investigation
600 2013-01-31 05:28:16 <Luke-Jr> is it not my fault? :/
601 2013-01-31 05:28:18 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: please give me day before you spin rc1, i think its probably a test bug, but Im gonna go sleep and it may not be
602 2013-01-31 05:28:26 <BlueMatt> Luke-Jr: dont think so, two pulls failed back-to-back
603 2013-01-31 05:35:51 <CodeShark> jgarzik: I'm getting a syntax error in the configure file itself:
604 2013-01-31 05:35:53 <CodeShark> checking for exit in -lboost_program_options-mt... yes
605 2013-01-31 05:35:59 <CodeShark> ./configure: line 5427: syntax error near unexpected token `;;'
606 2013-01-31 05:36:18 <CodeShark> I don't think it should have that -mt
607 2013-01-31 05:36:38 edwincheese has joined
608 2013-01-31 05:36:49 <jgarzik> CodeShark: the -mt suffix is definitely used on some platforms. maybe not yours.
609 2013-01-31 05:37:09 <CodeShark> yeah, it's used on my OS X
610 2013-01-31 05:37:25 <CodeShark> but not on ubuntu precise, boost v 1.48
611 2013-01-31 05:38:24 <CodeShark> the more interesting question is why autoreconf is botching up that case statement
612 2013-01-31 05:39:11 panzerfaust has joined
613 2013-01-31 05:40:25 panzer has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
614 2013-01-31 05:44:56 quijibo has quit (Read error: No route to host)
615 2013-01-31 05:47:16 testnode9 has quit (Read error: Connection timed out)
616 2013-01-31 05:48:04 testnode9 has joined
617 2013-01-31 05:48:05 <CodeShark> jgarzik: you can see my Makefile.am and configure.ac here https://github.com/CodeShark/bitcoin/tree/autotools/src
618 2013-01-31 05:49:59 <jgarzik> CodeShark: yes
619 2013-01-31 05:53:18 edwincheese has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
620 2013-01-31 05:53:36 edwincheese has joined
621 2013-01-31 05:58:38 v1rtex has joined
622 2013-01-31 06:07:58 Jamesonwa has joined
623 2013-01-31 06:11:33 vessenes has joined
624 2013-01-31 06:14:33 Nesetalis has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
625 2013-01-31 06:20:23 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
626 2013-01-31 06:24:05 vessenes has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
627 2013-01-31 06:26:31 <jgarzik> ASIC is now p2pool'ing
628 2013-01-31 06:27:11 <petertodd> nice!
629 2013-01-31 06:27:44 <SomeoneWeird> can i have it
630 2013-01-31 06:27:44 <SomeoneWeird> >.>
631 2013-01-31 06:29:04 edwincheese_ has joined
632 2013-01-31 06:29:26 <petertodd> I still think you should mine solo until you get a block, and set the coinbase to "jgarzik pw0nz"
633 2013-01-31 06:29:42 <petertodd> should take what, 5 days average?
634 2013-01-31 06:29:50 WolfAlex has joined
635 2013-01-31 06:30:24 WolfAlex_ has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
636 2013-01-31 06:30:49 <SomeoneWeird> roughly
637 2013-01-31 06:31:24 <jgarzik> p2pool epic fail
638 2013-01-31 06:31:24 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: or he can just use a GBT pool :P
639 2013-01-31 06:31:32 <Luke-Jr> well, except that it's cgminer :/
640 2013-01-31 06:31:48 <petertodd> jgarzik: ?
641 2013-01-31 06:31:52 edwincheese has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
642 2013-01-31 06:31:52 edwincheese_ is now known as edwincheese
643 2013-01-31 06:32:03 <Luke-Jr> bfgminer you can just do --coinbase 'my message' ;)
644 2013-01-31 06:32:20 Diablo-D3 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
645 2013-01-31 06:32:34 <BCB> ;;ident blitz-
646 2013-01-31 06:32:35 <gribble> Nick 'blitz-', with hostmask 'blitz-!blitz@is.super.duper.very.extremely.c00l.info', is not identified.
647 2013-01-31 06:32:50 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: ha, nice, so bfgminer has built-in solo mode?
648 2013-01-31 06:33:12 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: yes, but --coinbase works with any GBT pool too :p
649 2013-01-31 06:33:34 <Luke-Jr> for solo, you need --coinbase-addr <address> too
650 2013-01-31 06:33:57 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: ah, cool, I take it the GBT pool can then reject your shares if you would make the coinbase too large?
651 2013-01-31 06:34:21 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: well, you have to stay within the coinbase size limits of course
652 2013-01-31 06:34:32 <Luke-Jr> BFGMiner will truncate if necessary
653 2013-01-31 06:35:01 * Luke-Jr ponders if BitMinter would accept a coinbase-too-large share <.<
654 2013-01-31 06:35:19 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: Easy thing to screw up...
655 2013-01-31 06:35:43 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
656 2013-01-31 06:37:57 b4epoche has joined
657 2013-01-31 06:39:32 andytoshi has joined
658 2013-01-31 06:41:32 paybitcoin has joined
659 2013-01-31 06:46:58 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
660 2013-01-31 06:50:01 grau has joined
661 2013-01-31 06:54:26 nus- has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
662 2013-01-31 06:56:01 nus has joined
663 2013-01-31 06:57:58 one_zero has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
664 2013-01-31 07:01:27 Diablo-D3 has joined
665 2013-01-31 07:01:47 FredEE has quit (Quit: FredEE)
666 2013-01-31 07:06:30 WolfAlex_ has joined
667 2013-01-31 07:06:36 WolfAlex has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
668 2013-01-31 07:08:39 edwincheese has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
669 2013-01-31 07:08:51 edwincheese has joined
670 2013-01-31 07:10:53 edwincheese_ has joined
671 2013-01-31 07:13:33 edwincheese has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
672 2013-01-31 07:13:33 edwincheese_ is now known as edwincheese
673 2013-01-31 07:17:51 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
674 2013-01-31 07:20:26 one_zero has joined
675 2013-01-31 07:21:30 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
676 2013-01-31 07:22:05 copumpkin has joined
677 2013-01-31 07:23:00 Jamesonwa has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
678 2013-01-31 07:24:09 graham1 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
679 2013-01-31 07:35:51 nibcoin has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
680 2013-01-31 07:39:29 reizuki__ has joined
681 2013-01-31 07:39:29 reizuki__ has quit (Changing host)
682 2013-01-31 07:39:29 reizuki__ has joined
683 2013-01-31 07:39:49 FredEE has joined
684 2013-01-31 07:44:43 Jamesonwa has joined
685 2013-01-31 07:45:25 [\\\] has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
686 2013-01-31 07:46:22 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
687 2013-01-31 07:47:18 ovidiusoft has joined
688 2013-01-31 07:47:45 [\\\] has joined
689 2013-01-31 07:47:59 Belkaar has joined
690 2013-01-31 07:49:59 WolfAlex_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
691 2013-01-31 07:50:51 Belkaar has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
692 2013-01-31 07:53:19 paybitcoin has left ()
693 2013-01-31 07:53:36 AtashiCon has quit (Quit: AtashiCon)
694 2013-01-31 07:54:29 Belkaar has joined
695 2013-01-31 07:55:17 KIDC has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
696 2013-01-31 07:55:19 sgornick has joined
697 2013-01-31 07:55:44 AtashiCon has joined
698 2013-01-31 07:58:12 KIDC has joined
699 2013-01-31 08:00:58 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
700 2013-01-31 08:01:16 yareyare has joined
701 2013-01-31 08:02:23 Jamesonwa has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
702 2013-01-31 08:03:59 Belkaar has joined
703 2013-01-31 08:05:37 FredEE has quit (Quit: FredEE)
704 2013-01-31 08:08:49 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
705 2013-01-31 08:10:30 Belkaar has joined
706 2013-01-31 08:16:46 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
707 2013-01-31 08:16:53 GMP has joined
708 2013-01-31 08:20:21 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
709 2013-01-31 08:20:40 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
710 2013-01-31 08:20:57 copumpkin has joined
711 2013-01-31 08:22:40 sgornick has joined
712 2013-01-31 08:29:42 tigger0 has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com)
713 2013-01-31 08:34:39 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
714 2013-01-31 08:35:56 altamic has joined
715 2013-01-31 08:37:54 Hasimir has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
716 2013-01-31 08:38:03 Hasimir- has joined
717 2013-01-31 08:38:49 Hasimir- is now known as Hasimir
718 2013-01-31 08:38:53 Hasimir has quit (Changing host)
719 2013-01-31 08:38:53 Hasimir has joined
720 2013-01-31 08:47:58 sgornick has joined
721 2013-01-31 08:49:08 tonikt has joined
722 2013-01-31 08:50:41 edwincheese has quit (Quit: edwincheese)
723 2013-01-31 08:52:22 pooler has joined
724 2013-01-31 08:52:22 pooler has quit (Changing host)
725 2013-01-31 08:52:22 pooler has joined
726 2013-01-31 08:55:20 porquilho has joined
727 2013-01-31 08:56:10 <porquilho> SomeoneWeird
728 2013-01-31 08:56:14 <porquilho> can you remove ban ?
729 2013-01-31 08:56:21 <porquilho> from bitcoin and bitcoin-otc
730 2013-01-31 08:56:32 <porquilho> becase i am not 'share'
731 2013-01-31 08:57:06 <porquilho> its going to break now the 20$ barrier
732 2013-01-31 08:57:27 <BTCOxygen> <@jgarzik> p2pool epic fail
733 2013-01-31 08:57:30 <BTCOxygen> why?
734 2013-01-31 09:01:54 * BTCOxygen think jgarzik is busy playing with his ASIC
735 2013-01-31 09:02:04 <Luke-Jr> he went to bed
736 2013-01-31 09:02:07 <porquilho> the guy was here on irc ?
737 2013-01-31 09:02:17 <porquilho> the guy who get the isac ?
738 2013-01-31 09:02:30 <mappum> whats the update on that, does it actually perform?
739 2013-01-31 09:02:34 <porquilho> yes
740 2013-01-31 09:02:41 <porquilho> he is going to make $220 per day
741 2013-01-31 09:02:50 <porquilho> he is already making $220 per day
742 2013-01-31 09:02:54 <mappum> whoa
743 2013-01-31 09:03:00 <mappum> not on p2pool?
744 2013-01-31 09:04:21 <porquilho> http://bitcoinmagazine.com/working-avalon-asic-confirmed/
745 2013-01-31 09:04:56 <porquilho> its $240 per day
746 2013-01-31 09:06:16 Joric has joined
747 2013-01-31 09:06:17 Joric has quit (Changing host)
748 2013-01-31 09:06:17 Joric has joined
749 2013-01-31 09:07:03 panzerfaust has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
750 2013-01-31 09:07:35 <mappum> Is there really going to be an "asic revolution"? It seems like there is no supply
751 2013-01-31 09:07:39 Goonie has joined
752 2013-01-31 09:07:54 [\\\]_g has joined
753 2013-01-31 09:07:58 [\\\] has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
754 2013-01-31 09:08:08 <porquilho> ;;asks 20
755 2013-01-31 09:08:10 <gribble> There are currently 3842.9437 bitcoins offered at or under 20.0 USD, worth 76858.8651021 USD in total.
756 2013-01-31 09:08:42 <porquilho> only 3,8k BTC
757 2013-01-31 09:09:07 <porquilho> ;;ticker
758 2013-01-31 09:09:08 <gribble> BTCUSD ticker | Best bid: 19.99990, Best ask: 19.99999, Bid-ask spread: 0.00009, Last trade: 19.99990, 24 hour volume: 48530.01689193, 24 hour low: 19.15000, 24 hour high: 19.99999, 24 hour vwap: 19.65852
759 2013-01-31 09:09:12 <mappum> ;;bids 20
760 2013-01-31 09:09:13 <porquilho> ;;asks 20
761 2013-01-31 09:09:14 <gribble> There are currently 0 bitcoins demanded at or over 20.0 USD, worth 0.0 USD in total.
762 2013-01-31 09:09:16 <gribble> There are currently 3842.9437 bitcoins offered at or under 20.0 USD, worth 76858.8651021 USD in total.
763 2013-01-31 09:09:23 <mappum> ;;bids 19.9
764 2013-01-31 09:09:26 <gribble> There are currently 338.1959 bitcoins demanded at or over 19.9 USD, worth 6744.91064095 USD in total.
765 2013-01-31 09:09:33 <mappum> so close
766 2013-01-31 09:10:08 <mappum> ;;bids 19.95
767 2013-01-31 09:10:10 <gribble> There are currently 162.37553 bitcoins demanded at or over 19.95 USD, worth 3244.49479111 USD in total.
768 2013-01-31 09:10:14 <porquilho> ;;ticker
769 2013-01-31 09:10:15 <gribble> BTCUSD ticker | Best bid: 19.99990, Best ask: 20.00000, Bid-ask spread: 0.00010, Last trade: 20.00000, 24 hour volume: 49712.92651993, 24 hour low: 19.15000, 24 hour high: 20.00000, 24 hour vwap: 19.66688
770 2013-01-31 09:10:24 <porquilho> we are on 20$
771 2013-01-31 09:10:31 <mappum> i want to be the first bid at 20 :P
772 2013-01-31 09:10:32 <porquilho> its gone
773 2013-01-31 09:10:34 <porquilho> LOL
774 2013-01-31 09:10:36 <porquilho> mappum ahha
775 2013-01-31 09:10:38 <da2ce7> trade MtGox: 0.50 BTC @ 20.00 MTGUSD
776 2013-01-31 09:10:58 <porquilho> NOW LETS SELL!
777 2013-01-31 09:10:59 <porquilho> :p
778 2013-01-31 09:11:01 <porquilho> im kidding
779 2013-01-31 09:12:01 <mappum> fuckin campbx decided to wait a few days to add my dwolla transfer to my account
780 2013-01-31 09:12:28 ThomasV has joined
781 2013-01-31 09:12:36 <mappum> i could have bought at 17
782 2013-01-31 09:15:19 <jeremias> seems like you have to develop better working exchange yourself
783 2013-01-31 09:16:34 <porquilho> mappum well maybe you still can
784 2013-01-31 09:16:41 <porquilho> if it goes lower
785 2013-01-31 09:16:59 <porquilho> it went to 20.4$
786 2013-01-31 09:17:04 reeep has joined
787 2013-01-31 09:17:04 Guest97815 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
788 2013-01-31 09:18:31 mappum has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
789 2013-01-31 09:19:17 <porquilho> SomeoneWeird
790 2013-01-31 09:19:17 <porquilho> SomeoneWeird
791 2013-01-31 09:19:22 <porquilho> SomeoneWeird SomeoneWeird SomeoneWeird SomeoneWeird SomeoneWeird SomeoneWeird SomeoneWeird SomeoneWeird SomeoneWeird SomeoneWeird
792 2013-01-31 09:19:24 <porquilho> SomeoneWeird SomeoneWeird SomeoneWeird SomeoneWeird SomeoneWeird SomeoneWeird SomeoneWeird SomeoneWeird
793 2013-01-31 09:19:34 * porquilho slaps SomeoneWeird around a bit with a large trout
794 2013-01-31 09:19:36 * porquilho slaps SomeoneWeird around a bit with a large trout
795 2013-01-31 09:19:37 * porquilho slaps SomeoneWeird around a bit with a large trout
796 2013-01-31 09:20:13 <porquilho> remove ban
797 2013-01-31 09:20:20 <porquilho> why is he not listening to me
798 2013-01-31 09:20:27 <porquilho> he put on ignore
799 2013-01-31 09:20:38 <porquilho> i have to go join with a proxy
800 2013-01-31 09:20:41 <porquilho> to talk to him :\
801 2013-01-31 09:20:58 <porquilho> remove ban Someguy123
802 2013-01-31 09:21:00 <porquilho> SomeoneWeird
803 2013-01-31 09:21:42 <Scrat> shut the fuck up
804 2013-01-31 09:21:43 <Scrat> mongoloid
805 2013-01-31 09:22:08 <SomeoneWeird> thankyou.
806 2013-01-31 09:22:48 <Ferroh> lol
807 2013-01-31 09:33:27 RainbowD_ has joined
808 2013-01-31 09:34:41 random_cat has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
809 2013-01-31 09:37:32 RainbowDashh has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
810 2013-01-31 09:37:33 RainbowD_ is now known as RainbowDashh
811 2013-01-31 09:46:57 ken` has joined
812 2013-01-31 09:53:16 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
813 2013-01-31 09:54:00 Belkaar has joined
814 2013-01-31 09:58:43 Marina has joined
815 2013-01-31 09:59:57 random_cat has joined
816 2013-01-31 10:01:31 <Marina> gmaxwell
817 2013-01-31 10:01:34 <Marina> are you there ?
818 2013-01-31 10:03:22 <kinlo> how many blocks do the undo files go back on 0.8?
819 2013-01-31 10:03:56 <Marina> this fucking idiot SomeoneWeird is banning me becase he thinks i am some other people
820 2013-01-31 10:04:14 <Marina> you must be fucking retarded in head SomeoneWeird
821 2013-01-31 10:04:20 <Marina> you must be
822 2013-01-31 10:08:23 RazielZ has joined
823 2013-01-31 10:09:15 valparaiso is now known as tomneales
824 2013-01-31 10:10:07 Hasimir- has joined
825 2013-01-31 10:12:29 Hasimir has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
826 2013-01-31 10:14:57 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
827 2013-01-31 10:16:30 Belkaar has joined
828 2013-01-31 10:19:19 <gmaxwell> kinlo: all of them.
829 2013-01-31 10:20:06 Hasimir- is now known as Hasimir
830 2013-01-31 10:20:07 Hasimir has quit (Changing host)
831 2013-01-31 10:20:07 Hasimir has joined
832 2013-01-31 10:20:26 <Marina> gmaxwell
833 2013-01-31 10:20:40 <Marina> someoneweird thinks i am someone else and is banning me
834 2013-01-31 10:20:46 <Marina> on bitcoin-otc
835 2013-01-31 10:20:47 <Marina> and bitcoin
836 2013-01-31 10:20:49 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
837 2013-01-31 10:20:52 <gmaxwell> Marina: who are you and where did you get the idea that _I_ am a person to appeal bans to, or that #bitcoin-dev is a place to do it?
838 2013-01-31 10:21:25 <Marina> you have op
839 2013-01-31 10:21:36 <Marina> i tried to talk to him, but he puts me on ignore
840 2013-01-31 10:21:48 <Marina> i am not 'share' or 'sure' or whatever he thinks i am
841 2013-01-31 10:21:55 <Marina> gmaxwell i am porquilho
842 2013-01-31 10:22:05 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
843 2013-01-31 10:22:08 <Marina> can you say to him to remove ban
844 2013-01-31 10:22:12 <Marina> maybe he listen to you
845 2013-01-31 10:22:32 <gmaxwell> whatever your issues are, #bitcoin-dev is not the place for them. I'll tell him you are complaining.
846 2013-01-31 10:22:42 <Marina> yes thank you
847 2013-01-31 10:22:58 <Marina> i know its no
848 2013-01-31 10:22:58 <Marina> not
849 2013-01-31 10:23:26 <Marina> he thinks i am someone else, and keeps banning me, like an idiot
850 2013-01-31 10:23:29 <Marina> makes me angry
851 2013-01-31 10:24:10 <Marina> and then puts me on ignore, like he is right and absolute sure that i am someone else. fuckign ignorant
852 2013-01-31 10:24:23 <CodeShark> can you please take the psychotherapy elsewhere?
853 2013-01-31 10:24:44 <Marina> its all SomeoneWeird fault
854 2013-01-31 10:24:59 <Marina> he creates this situation
855 2013-01-31 10:25:30 Belkaar has joined
856 2013-01-31 10:26:35 B0g4r7 has joined
857 2013-01-31 10:27:08 <kinlo> gmaxwell: hmmz, am I correct to state that in the level db there is a copy of each active transaction? so no second seek must happen when the transaction must be validated?
858 2013-01-31 10:28:21 <gmaxwell> kinlo: correct.
859 2013-01-31 10:28:36 <gmaxwell> well lets be more specific.
860 2013-01-31 10:28:59 <gmaxwell> The coins database (there are several leveldb databases) has all that is needed to validate a new block.
861 2013-01-31 10:29:07 Belkaar has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
862 2013-01-31 10:29:26 <gmaxwell> It does not have the data required to reorgnize (by itself at least), or serve older blocks or the transactions inside them.
863 2013-01-31 10:29:55 <kinlo> just trying to understand here: if the undo files must go back to block 1, shouldn't the undo tables be containing all data from the transaction/blocks, hence should the undo database not be bigger then the blockchain itself?
864 2013-01-31 10:30:25 <gmaxwell> the undo data is much smaller.
865 2013-01-31 10:31:03 <gmaxwell> kinlo: the undo data just contains the information required to undo the application of a new block to the coins database.
866 2013-01-31 10:31:45 <gmaxwell> (basically it contains the utxos which were spent by that block, the utxos of a block are fairly smallâ most of the bulk of txdata is in scriptsigs, not scriptpubkeys)
867 2013-01-31 10:33:00 Belkaar has joined
868 2013-01-31 10:33:01 <gmaxwell> kinlo: are you enlightened now?
869 2013-01-31 10:33:27 <kinlo> for now, I'll take the information to the next round of testing, I guess more questions will pop up then :)
870 2013-01-31 10:34:01 copumpkin has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
871 2013-01-31 10:34:21 copumpkin has joined
872 2013-01-31 10:37:16 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
873 2013-01-31 10:38:01 gladoscc has joined
874 2013-01-31 10:38:07 <gladoscc> How can I get the balance of any address?
875 2013-01-31 10:39:04 <da2ce7> gladoscc: blockchain.info
876 2013-01-31 10:39:20 <gladoscc> without blockchain.info :P
877 2013-01-31 10:39:31 Belkaar has joined
878 2013-01-31 10:39:34 paraipan has joined
879 2013-01-31 10:40:18 BTCOxygen has joined
880 2013-01-31 10:41:20 tomneales has quit (Quit: tomneales)
881 2013-01-31 10:41:38 <erska> gladoscc: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88584.0
882 2013-01-31 10:42:19 <erska> or Abe
883 2013-01-31 10:42:35 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
884 2013-01-31 10:42:51 BTCOxygen has quit (1!~BTCOxygen@50.23.113.215-static.reverse.softlayer.com|Client Quit)
885 2013-01-31 10:42:56 MrTiggr has joined
886 2013-01-31 10:43:01 BTCOxygen has joined
887 2013-01-31 10:43:27 CodesInChaos has joined
888 2013-01-31 10:47:46 inverse has quit (Quit: Try HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <-)
889 2013-01-31 10:48:36 inverse has joined
890 2013-01-31 10:50:01 inverse has left ()
891 2013-01-31 10:50:04 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
892 2013-01-31 10:50:18 HM2 has quit ()
893 2013-01-31 10:51:54 Silverion has joined
894 2013-01-31 10:53:18 b4epoche has joined
895 2013-01-31 10:53:49 one_zero has quit ()
896 2013-01-31 10:55:41 emryss has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
897 2013-01-31 10:59:23 valparaiso has joined
898 2013-01-31 11:00:38 drizztbsd has joined
899 2013-01-31 11:02:32 nibcoin has joined
900 2013-01-31 11:05:01 toffoo has quit ()
901 2013-01-31 11:10:27 _flow_ has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.3.9.2)
902 2013-01-31 11:23:09 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
903 2013-01-31 11:23:48 MobiusL has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
904 2013-01-31 11:23:48 rdponticelli has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
905 2013-01-31 11:23:49 andytoshi has quit (Write error: Broken pipe)
906 2013-01-31 11:23:49 paraipan has quit (Write error: Broken pipe)
907 2013-01-31 11:25:00 Belkaar has joined
908 2013-01-31 11:25:57 paraipan has joined
909 2013-01-31 11:26:48 MobiusL has joined
910 2013-01-31 11:27:52 rdponticelli has joined
911 2013-01-31 11:32:38 PK has joined
912 2013-01-31 11:32:59 valparaiso has quit (Quit: valparaiso)
913 2013-01-31 11:35:06 Zarutian has joined
914 2013-01-31 11:35:10 rbecker is now known as RBecker
915 2013-01-31 11:41:22 t7 has joined
916 2013-01-31 11:45:39 rdymac has joined
917 2013-01-31 11:45:40 valparaiso has joined
918 2013-01-31 11:55:54 RBecker is now known as rbecker
919 2013-01-31 11:57:48 knotwork_ is now known as knotwork
920 2013-01-31 11:59:35 rdymac has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
921 2013-01-31 12:05:02 pusle has joined
922 2013-01-31 12:05:12 rdymac has joined
923 2013-01-31 12:09:20 Marina has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
924 2013-01-31 12:10:01 zooko has joined
925 2013-01-31 12:11:30 dvide has joined
926 2013-01-31 12:12:06 rdymac has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
927 2013-01-31 12:21:03 valparaiso has quit (Quit: valparaiso)
928 2013-01-31 12:21:50 voodster has joined
929 2013-01-31 12:28:39 dvide has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
930 2013-01-31 12:29:48 dvide has joined
931 2013-01-31 12:35:08 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
932 2013-01-31 12:36:16 gladoscc has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
933 2013-01-31 12:40:53 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
934 2013-01-31 12:41:03 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
935 2013-01-31 12:41:39 copumpkin has joined
936 2013-01-31 12:45:21 andytoshi has joined
937 2013-01-31 12:45:35 tonikt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
938 2013-01-31 12:48:25 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
939 2013-01-31 12:49:02 sgornick has joined
940 2013-01-31 12:49:30 Belkaar has joined
941 2013-01-31 12:55:37 rdymac has joined
942 2013-01-31 13:01:10 yareyare has quit (Quit: night.)
943 2013-01-31 13:03:19 Insu has joined
944 2013-01-31 13:03:37 zooko has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
945 2013-01-31 13:04:21 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
946 2013-01-31 13:05:00 reizuki__ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
947 2013-01-31 13:07:53 graham1 has joined
948 2013-01-31 13:09:30 Belkaar has joined
949 2013-01-31 13:17:33 rdymac has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
950 2013-01-31 13:19:32 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
951 2013-01-31 13:19:49 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
952 2013-01-31 13:21:01 Belkaar has joined
953 2013-01-31 13:25:16 zooko has joined
954 2013-01-31 13:30:25 BTCOxygen has joined
955 2013-01-31 13:30:55 daybyter has joined
956 2013-01-31 13:31:16 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
957 2013-01-31 13:31:50 swappermall_ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
958 2013-01-31 13:33:36 CodeShark has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
959 2013-01-31 13:36:01 davout has joined
960 2013-01-31 13:36:01 davout has quit (Changing host)
961 2013-01-31 13:36:01 davout has joined
962 2013-01-31 13:36:03 BTCOxygen has quit (1!~BTCOxygen@50.23.113.215-static.reverse.softlayer.com|Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
963 2013-01-31 13:36:20 <davout> ohai
964 2013-01-31 13:36:38 <davout> does anyone know of a quick way to launch bitcoind without actually connecting to the network ?
965 2013-01-31 13:37:00 <davout> i want to import a massive load of private keys, having zero blocks in the DB would speed that up A LOT
966 2013-01-31 13:37:05 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
967 2013-01-31 13:37:43 rdponticelli has joined
968 2013-01-31 13:37:49 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
969 2013-01-31 13:38:00 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
970 2013-01-31 13:38:15 <sipa> davout: -connect=0.0.0.0 ?
971 2013-01-31 13:38:38 petertodd has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
972 2013-01-31 13:39:02 zooko` has joined
973 2013-01-31 13:39:25 Guest96900 has joined
974 2013-01-31 13:40:11 petertodd has joined
975 2013-01-31 13:40:31 Belkaar has joined
976 2013-01-31 13:41:00 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
977 2013-01-31 13:42:27 _flow_ has joined
978 2013-01-31 13:42:52 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
979 2013-01-31 13:43:26 valparaiso has joined
980 2013-01-31 13:43:39 HM has joined
981 2013-01-31 13:44:11 Guest96900 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
982 2013-01-31 13:45:32 <HM> so Jeffs ASIC box is based around a TP-LINK TL-WR703N
983 2013-01-31 13:46:03 <HM> a 3G travel router ^_^
984 2013-01-31 13:46:49 valparaiso_ has joined
985 2013-01-31 13:47:32 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
986 2013-01-31 13:48:24 paraipan has joined
987 2013-01-31 13:48:54 JDuke128 has joined
988 2013-01-31 13:49:34 JDuke128 has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
989 2013-01-31 13:50:00 Belkaar has joined
990 2013-01-31 13:50:13 JDuke128 has joined
991 2013-01-31 13:54:00 t7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
992 2013-01-31 13:54:27 t7 has joined
993 2013-01-31 13:55:02 datagutt has joined
994 2013-01-31 13:55:12 sgornick has joined
995 2013-01-31 13:56:14 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
996 2013-01-31 13:57:31 Belkaar has joined
997 2013-01-31 13:58:21 sgornick has quit (Excess Flood)
998 2013-01-31 13:58:30 <davout> is it just me or is the forum extremely slow?
999 2013-01-31 13:59:11 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1000 2013-01-31 13:59:12 valparaiso has quit (Quit: valparaiso)
1001 2013-01-31 13:59:20 valparaiso_ has quit (Quit: valparaiso_)
1002 2013-01-31 14:03:08 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1003 2013-01-31 14:03:11 <Luke-Jr> davout: not just you. maybe it's for the better.
1004 2013-01-31 14:03:56 <davout> word
1005 2013-01-31 14:04:23 paraipan has joined
1006 2013-01-31 14:05:31 <HM> economics is weird
1007 2013-01-31 14:05:41 jav__ has joined
1008 2013-01-31 14:06:31 <HM> lots of people saying ASICs will push bitcoin prices up....but shouldn't ASICs increase supply as people recoup their investment?
1009 2013-01-31 14:06:38 <HM> whoop wrong channel for this sorry
1010 2013-01-31 14:06:50 <HM> back to lazy coding
1011 2013-01-31 14:07:20 agricocb has joined
1012 2013-01-31 14:07:46 <Luke-Jr> HM: no reason to think ASICs will push bitcoin prices up, correct
1013 2013-01-31 14:08:03 <Luke-Jr> good news: I have master running on Eligius's server successfully; now I just need to patch Eloipool to use it
1014 2013-01-31 14:08:14 <sipa> it's enough that some people think it will push the prices, in order for it to actually push prices up
1015 2013-01-31 14:10:35 <kinlo> Luke-Jr: you need to patch eloi? did 0.8 change it's api's again?
1016 2013-01-31 14:11:31 <Luke-Jr> kinlo: no, I need to patch Eloi to use both versions at the same time
1017 2013-01-31 14:11:39 <kinlo> ah right
1018 2013-01-31 14:11:39 <Luke-Jr> sipa: true
1019 2013-01-31 14:11:40 valparaiso has joined
1020 2013-01-31 14:11:56 <davout> is there any way to import a key but prevent the client to do a rescan ?
1021 2013-01-31 14:12:14 fpgaminer has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1022 2013-01-31 14:12:23 fpgaminer has joined
1023 2013-01-31 14:12:24 <Scrat> davout: I've said a million times that they should run xcache+nginx+varnish (these are all drop in replacements)
1024 2013-01-31 14:12:25 <davout> could be very useful for me if I want to import a large amount of keys and trigger a rescan only after
1025 2013-01-31 14:12:25 <HM> from a dev perspective i wouldn't mind owning one of those ASICs if it could be repurposed for generic hashing after it had served its useful mining life
1026 2013-01-31 14:12:27 <Luke-Jr> davout: latest code has it optional
1027 2013-01-31 14:12:42 <davout> i wish i was using latest code
1028 2013-01-31 14:12:55 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1029 2013-01-31 14:12:56 <davout> it's missing the monitortx/monitorblocks AFAIK
1030 2013-01-31 14:13:02 <davout> is it ?
1031 2013-01-31 14:13:04 <Luke-Jr> davout: it can't be a very complicated patch to backport
1032 2013-01-31 14:13:13 <Luke-Jr> davout: 0.6+ has -blocknotify
1033 2013-01-31 14:13:19 <davout> what do you mean by backport ?
1034 2013-01-31 14:13:38 <davout> i use gavin's patch that i ported to 0.6
1035 2013-01-31 14:13:39 <Luke-Jr> davout: look at what the commit to master changed to make it optional, then make the same changes to your code
1036 2013-01-31 14:13:53 <Luke-Jr> davout: monitor* are ugly :P
1037 2013-01-31 14:13:58 <davout> why ?
1038 2013-01-31 14:14:10 <davout> having http callbacks rocks in quite a few use cases
1039 2013-01-31 14:14:13 <Luke-Jr> davout: they require you to run a webserver in your other process
1040 2013-01-31 14:14:26 <Luke-Jr> davout: -blocknotify can run any command, like curl ;)
1041 2013-01-31 14:14:26 <davout> what would the other options be ?
1042 2013-01-31 14:14:32 <davout> oh i see
1043 2013-01-31 14:14:36 <davout> that works too
1044 2013-01-31 14:14:40 <davout> even better i guess
1045 2013-01-31 14:14:50 <davout> so latest code has blocknotify
1046 2013-01-31 14:14:52 <davout> right ?
1047 2013-01-31 14:14:55 <Luke-Jr> yes
1048 2013-01-31 14:14:58 <davout> what about txnotify ?
1049 2013-01-31 14:15:05 <Luke-Jr> there's a -walletnotify pullreq, but it isn't merged yet
1050 2013-01-31 14:15:13 <Luke-Jr> probably won't be until after 0.8 I guess
1051 2013-01-31 14:15:15 <davout> what would it do exactly ?
1052 2013-01-31 14:15:24 <Luke-Jr> runs a command when something happens involving your wallet
1053 2013-01-31 14:15:25 <davout> notify *all* txes ? or only your own ?
1054 2013-01-31 14:15:32 <davout> ok, only your own then
1055 2013-01-31 14:15:40 <Luke-Jr> if you want to watch all txs, just connect to the p2p port..
1056 2013-01-31 14:15:45 <davout> guess it would work like blocknotify
1057 2013-01-31 14:15:52 <davout> ya, i'm not interested in all txes
1058 2013-01-31 14:15:54 <kjj> transactions that hit your wallet
1059 2013-01-31 14:16:00 <davout> that's awesome
1060 2013-01-31 14:16:01 <kinlo> davout: there are so many tx's, you could just poll every few seconds, new ones arrive at any time
1061 2013-01-31 14:16:13 <davout> polling is ugly
1062 2013-01-31 14:16:26 <kinlo> true, but it depends on what you are interested
1063 2013-01-31 14:16:44 <davout> i'm interested in making instawallet and bitcoin-central awesome
1064 2013-01-31 14:16:52 <davout> or more awesome than what they already are :)
1065 2013-01-31 14:17:03 <davout> part of this requires real-time tx notification
1066 2013-01-31 14:17:12 sgornick has joined
1067 2013-01-31 14:17:15 <davout> that gets handled by the web backend
1068 2013-01-31 14:17:27 <davout> and subsequently notified through websocket to the client
1069 2013-01-31 14:17:29 <Scrat> you can do selective polling
1070 2013-01-31 14:17:35 <davout> forget about polling
1071 2013-01-31 14:17:45 <Scrat> ie. poll logged in user's addresses every minute, otherwise every hour
1072 2013-01-31 14:17:58 <Scrat> yeah it is ugly
1073 2013-01-31 14:18:04 <HM> you can hide polling server side
1074 2013-01-31 14:18:16 <davout> every minute doesn't cut it, real notification also puts less strain on bitcoind
1075 2013-01-31 14:18:21 <sipa> meh, shouldn't be necessary
1076 2013-01-31 14:18:23 <Luke-Jr> davout: I'd suggest taking master and merging -walletnotify; then you can easily merge 0.8.0 final, and the 0.8.x branch to get bugfixes
1077 2013-01-31 14:18:39 <Scrat> if you use blocknotify then you need a way to get older blocks in case your app server is down
1078 2013-01-31 14:18:41 valparaiso has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1079 2013-01-31 14:18:41 <davout> yea well, the problem with that is maintaining my own fork
1080 2013-01-31 14:18:53 <davout> Scrat: yea, so what ?
1081 2013-01-31 14:19:02 <Luke-Jr> davout: that's what the stable branches are for
1082 2013-01-31 14:19:11 <davout> polling can be a fallback to repair the DB when stuff goes wrong
1083 2013-01-31 14:19:21 <davout> not the default way of doing things
1084 2013-01-31 14:19:36 <davout> brb
1085 2013-01-31 14:19:41 <Luke-Jr> davout: and -walletnotify is almost certain to be merged for 0.9 imo
1086 2013-01-31 14:20:39 <kjj> as-is? or do I still need to rewrite it?
1087 2013-01-31 14:21:15 <sipa> something needs to be done about dos potential, i think
1088 2013-01-31 14:21:51 <kjj> I think that potential is much more potential than actual, but that has been the longstanding objection
1089 2013-01-31 14:21:54 WolfAlex has joined
1090 2013-01-31 14:22:06 nibcoin has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1091 2013-01-31 14:22:09 Belkaar has joined
1092 2013-01-31 14:23:00 <Scrat> Luke-Jr: walletnotify should be modified or at least there should be a version that is always atomic and only triggers on incoming transactions
1093 2013-01-31 14:23:16 <sipa> always atomic?
1094 2013-01-31 14:24:53 <Scrat> sipa: developers shouldn't have to store txid's just to verify that bitcoind isn't sending them twice
1095 2013-01-31 14:25:14 <Scrat> (for a given amount of confirmations)
1096 2013-01-31 14:25:39 Belkaar_ has joined
1097 2013-01-31 14:26:13 <kjj> walletnotify triggers when the wallet changes. it tells you which one you need to look at
1098 2013-01-31 14:26:45 <Scrat> all I'm saying is: incomingnotify
1099 2013-01-31 14:26:48 <Scrat> something like that :p
1100 2013-01-31 14:26:58 <HM> related to DoS, has anyone heard of anyone blocking the bitcoin protocol?
1101 2013-01-31 14:27:09 <kjj> it isn't a payment notification, for two reasons. the first is that it was super easy to do it the way it is, and the second is that things like payment notification are murky in bitcoin
1102 2013-01-31 14:27:24 valparaiso has joined
1103 2013-01-31 14:27:35 WolfAlex_ has joined
1104 2013-01-31 14:27:37 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1105 2013-01-31 14:27:38 Belkaar_ is now known as Belkaar
1106 2013-01-31 14:27:51 <Scrat> but does it have to be murky? is it the consensus of the devs that stuff like that should be 3rd party?
1107 2013-01-31 14:28:11 WolfAlex has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1108 2013-01-31 14:28:12 <kjj> no, it isn't up to the devs. it is murky because bitcoin doesn't act like anything you are used to
1109 2013-01-31 14:28:42 <kjj> if you want an incomingnotify, you also need a incomingUNnotify for when that payment is pulled back by a reorg
1110 2013-01-31 14:28:49 <Scrat> sure
1111 2013-01-31 14:29:20 FredEE has joined
1112 2013-01-31 14:29:47 <kjj> getting a notification that just tells you to look at the transaction seems like the right thing to do. you are going to have to make sense of it anyway, and this way we aren't stuffing a whole detailed callback system into bitcoin
1113 2013-01-31 14:30:34 [\\\]_g is now known as [\\\]
1114 2013-01-31 14:31:16 <davout> kjj: +1
1115 2013-01-31 14:32:16 <sipa> kjj: regarding DoS potential, something that doesn't sound too hard imho, is having a set of txids to notify for, run the notifier in a separate thread, and never do more than one notify at one time
1116 2013-01-31 14:32:39 <sipa> and loop over the set to notify for, and go to sleep when it is empty
1117 2013-01-31 14:33:22 FredEE has quit (Client Quit)
1118 2013-01-31 14:33:53 <kjj> hmm. I'll have to learn threads for that, and boost queues
1119 2013-01-31 14:34:18 <kjj> sounds like I have some time though. I'll look into it
1120 2013-01-31 14:34:58 <Scrat> kjj: I didn't say that a notify should just return an address/value pair
1121 2013-01-31 14:35:08 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1122 2013-01-31 14:35:51 <Scrat> but it definitely needs to be smarter than the current walletnotify
1123 2013-01-31 14:36:11 Belkaar has joined
1124 2013-01-31 14:37:07 <kjj> I agree that smartness is needed, but I disagree on which part should be smart. I think it should be up to the consumer of the information to make sense of it
1125 2013-01-31 14:37:28 <sipa> i think there are various ways of abstraction to look at a wallet
1126 2013-01-31 14:37:35 <sipa> and we do mix them in confusing ways
1127 2013-01-31 14:40:16 zooko`` has joined
1128 2013-01-31 14:40:50 impulse- has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1129 2013-01-31 14:41:33 <kjj> some of that is unavoidable. some system has to deal with all of the messy stuff at the bottom of the stack.
1130 2013-01-31 14:41:40 zooko` has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1131 2013-01-31 14:41:42 sgornick has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1132 2013-01-31 14:41:54 <sipa> yes, i'm not saying we should only expose one
1133 2013-01-31 14:42:03 <sipa> but more that they should be clearly separated
1134 2013-01-31 14:42:11 <kjj> people want nice accounting layers, and they are right to want them. those just need to be added on top, not wedged into the "physical" layer
1135 2013-01-31 14:43:38 petertod1 has joined
1136 2013-01-31 14:43:44 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1137 2013-01-31 14:45:22 pecket has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1138 2013-01-31 14:45:40 Belkaar has joined
1139 2013-01-31 14:46:03 daybyter has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1140 2013-01-31 14:47:17 petertodd has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1141 2013-01-31 14:48:02 <Scrat> kjj: someone here said that a modular design is inevitable
1142 2013-01-31 14:48:11 <Scrat> ie. core, UI, notifier, whathaveyou
1143 2013-01-31 14:48:18 <kjj> I've said that myself a bunch of times
1144 2013-01-31 14:48:57 <kjj> at the very least, I think the stock client should be broken into two parts.
1145 2013-01-31 14:50:15 pecket has joined
1146 2013-01-31 14:51:18 Joric has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1147 2013-01-31 14:51:55 jav__ has quit (Quit: Verlassend)
1148 2013-01-31 14:51:57 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1149 2013-01-31 14:52:19 Dyaheon- has joined
1150 2013-01-31 14:52:33 Dyaheon has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1151 2013-01-31 14:53:10 Belkaar has joined
1152 2013-01-31 14:58:20 EasyAt has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1153 2013-01-31 14:58:20 mikeyve has joined
1154 2013-01-31 14:58:28 EasyAt has joined
1155 2013-01-31 14:58:51 EasyAt is now known as Guest5945
1156 2013-01-31 14:58:52 TD has joined
1157 2013-01-31 14:59:56 Mikej0h has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1158 2013-01-31 15:00:12 bitnumus has joined
1159 2013-01-31 15:02:37 zooko`` has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1160 2013-01-31 15:03:52 zooko```` has joined
1161 2013-01-31 15:04:58 zooko```` is now known as zooko
1162 2013-01-31 15:05:35 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1163 2013-01-31 15:08:07 impulse- has joined
1164 2013-01-31 15:08:41 b4epoche has joined
1165 2013-01-31 15:27:22 owowo has joined
1166 2013-01-31 15:32:24 grick has joined
1167 2013-01-31 15:33:42 DBordello has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.in)
1168 2013-01-31 15:35:56 DBordello has joined
1169 2013-01-31 15:39:02 pooler has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1170 2013-01-31 15:41:01 EPiSKiNG- has quit ()
1171 2013-01-31 15:43:33 zooko has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1172 2013-01-31 15:43:56 impulse- has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1173 2013-01-31 15:45:42 rdponticelli has joined
1174 2013-01-31 15:47:01 zooko has joined
1175 2013-01-31 15:48:57 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1176 2013-01-31 15:49:58 JDuke128 has quit (Quit: ["Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com"])
1177 2013-01-31 15:55:31 <rdponticelli> Is there a reason for relaying (or spamming) repeatedly all wallet transactions during reindex?
1178 2013-01-31 15:56:46 PhantomSpark has joined
1179 2013-01-31 15:58:31 tomboy64 has joined
1180 2013-01-31 15:58:36 grick has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1181 2013-01-31 15:58:47 random_cat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1182 2013-01-31 15:59:13 <tomboy64> how secure is bitcoin against forgery if someone was capable of intercepting all traffic happening between one bitcoind/-qt client and the rest of the bitcoin-network?
1183 2013-01-31 15:59:41 <HM> tomboy64: completely
1184 2013-01-31 15:59:50 <HM> unless they're paying to IP, i think.
1185 2013-01-31 16:00:01 <sipa> that's been disabled for a while
1186 2013-01-31 16:00:06 <tomboy64> the 6-confirmations-thingy?
1187 2013-01-31 16:00:13 <HM> sipa: cool
1188 2013-01-31 16:00:27 <tomboy64> HM: ip?
1189 2013-01-31 16:00:38 <sipa> tomboy64: a passive attacker can only hurt your privacy
1190 2013-01-31 16:00:57 <HM> unless they can spy on your rpc session and you're not using TLS/SSL :P
1191 2013-01-31 16:01:04 <sipa> tomboy64: an active attacker could try to get you on a forked chain, but he still needs the hash rate to produce blocks
1192 2013-01-31 16:01:15 <sipa> they can't make you accept invalid transactions, for example
1193 2013-01-31 16:02:18 <tomboy64> what will the blocks contain when new bitcoin blocks get scarcer?
1194 2013-01-31 16:02:22 <gavinandresen> sipa: I'm mostly in meetings today⦠but what's the status of the Validation stuff?
1195 2013-01-31 16:02:42 zooko` has joined
1196 2013-01-31 16:02:42 <sipa> gavinandresen: luke-jr's pullreq looks good, but haven't tested yet
1197 2013-01-31 16:02:43 <HM> they could also steal any SIGHASH_NONE funds?
1198 2013-01-31 16:02:56 <gavinandresen> sipa: Ok, I'll try to review between meetings
1199 2013-01-31 16:02:58 <tomboy64> i can understand new chunks are easily verifiable, but how will verification occur when those chunks don't get produced anymore?
1200 2013-01-31 16:03:10 Herodes has joined
1201 2013-01-31 16:03:11 <sipa> tomboy64: no blocks == no confirmations
1202 2013-01-31 16:03:20 <sipa> tomboy64: and producing blocks (valid or invalid) is hard
1203 2013-01-31 16:03:51 <tomboy64> sipa: do you understand what i mean by "new chunks"?
1204 2013-01-31 16:03:56 <sipa> tomboy64: no
1205 2013-01-31 16:04:02 <sipa> tomboy64: i assume you mean blocks
1206 2013-01-31 16:04:05 <tomboy64> the stuff with the 25BTC reward
1207 2013-01-31 16:04:11 <sipa> those are called blocks
1208 2013-01-31 16:04:27 <Luke-Jr> gavinandresen: I'm working on setting up latest master code on Eligius for side-by-side comparison with 0.6.0 with a variety of real-world possible-blocks, FWIW
1209 2013-01-31 16:04:34 <tomboy64> as i understood it it's limitied at 21million - and production rate will decline logarithmically
1210 2013-01-31 16:04:38 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1211 2013-01-31 16:04:43 <sipa> tomboy64: no, exponentially
1212 2013-01-31 16:05:15 <tomboy64> so what happens when that production declines to - let's say, 1 block a day, worldwide?
1213 2013-01-31 16:05:21 <sipa> tomboy64: it can't
1214 2013-01-31 16:05:28 <tomboy64> then new transactions can't get worked in anymore.
1215 2013-01-31 16:05:30 <Luke-Jr> tomboy64: it declines by block value, not block count
1216 2013-01-31 16:05:40 <sipa> tomboy64: difficulty will drop correspondingly to keep the average block rate at one per 10 minutes
1217 2013-01-31 16:05:41 <Luke-Jr> tomboy64: so in 4 years, blocks will be worth 12.50 BTC each
1218 2013-01-31 16:05:48 * tomboy64 scratches his head
1219 2013-01-31 16:05:52 <Luke-Jr> tomboy64: but the same number of blocks per day
1220 2013-01-31 16:05:55 <tomboy64> ah!
1221 2013-01-31 16:06:00 <sipa> gavinandresen: one unintended (but perhaps wanted) effect of CValidationResult is that if an invalid DoS-triggering block in a side chain is produced, and someone builds upon it to make you reorg to it, he will get punished for the block he built upon
1222 2013-01-31 16:06:26 <tomboy64> i see. i got something wrong then.
1223 2013-01-31 16:06:30 swappermall_ has joined
1224 2013-01-31 16:06:49 <tomboy64> thanks for that clarification :)
1225 2013-01-31 16:10:27 zooko` is now known as zooko
1226 2013-01-31 16:10:50 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1227 2013-01-31 16:13:01 Scrat_x has joined
1228 2013-01-31 16:13:16 Scrat has quit (Disconnected by services)
1229 2013-01-31 16:13:18 Scrat_x is now known as Scrat
1230 2013-01-31 16:14:16 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1231 2013-01-31 16:14:25 zooko` has joined
1232 2013-01-31 16:14:33 v1rtex has quit ()
1233 2013-01-31 16:15:31 v1rtex has joined
1234 2013-01-31 16:15:46 Skav has joined
1235 2013-01-31 16:16:41 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1236 2013-01-31 16:17:00 <rdponticelli> sipa: ResendWalletTransactions is needed during a reindex?
1237 2013-01-31 16:17:26 <sipa> rdponticelli: hmm, not really i guess
1238 2013-01-31 16:17:51 <BlueMatt> sipa: hmmm...Im getting different block acceptance on windows vs linux
1239 2013-01-31 16:18:04 <rdponticelli> Yeah, I thought so
1240 2013-01-31 16:18:12 <sipa> BlueMatt: woah?
1241 2013-01-31 16:18:18 <rdponticelli> It's spamming my old transactions
1242 2013-01-31 16:18:27 agricocb has joined
1243 2013-01-31 16:18:31 tonikt has joined
1244 2013-01-31 16:18:41 <BlueMatt> sipa: its a pretty strange block, but I dont really have time to debug it right now
1245 2013-01-31 16:18:48 <BlueMatt> sipa: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/pull-tester/files/FullBlockTestGenerator.java find b64
1246 2013-01-31 16:24:17 Hashdog has joined
1247 2013-01-31 16:26:28 impulse- has joined
1248 2013-01-31 16:27:09 <BlueMatt> that test is only failing when running in wine, needs testing to see if it also happens when compiled with w64
1249 2013-01-31 16:27:09 <BlueMatt> maybe I can test later
1250 2013-01-31 16:30:27 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1251 2013-01-31 16:31:29 agricocb has joined
1252 2013-01-31 16:32:19 <Luke-Jr> sipa: I seem to have corrupted a node :o
1253 2013-01-31 16:32:34 <Luke-Jr> bitcoind: main.cpp:1605: bool CBlock::ConnectBlock(CValidationState&, CBlockIndex*, CCoinsViewCache&, bool): Assertion `pindex->pprev == view.GetBestBlock()' failed.
1254 2013-01-31 16:33:17 bitnumus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1255 2013-01-31 16:33:31 <sipa> Luke-Jr: what code, what did you do?
1256 2013-01-31 16:33:36 bitnumus has joined
1257 2013-01-31 16:34:45 <Luke-Jr> sipa: some kind of race - I was flooding it with getblocktemplates and immediately returning a (valid*) submitblock for each one
1258 2013-01-31 16:35:34 <sipa> Luke-Jr: git head, or some modifications?
1259 2013-01-31 16:35:41 <Luke-Jr> sipa: in one case, the submitblock was an orphan, and it crashed corrupt
1260 2013-01-31 16:36:14 <Luke-Jr> sipa: modifications; I doubt it can be reproduced easily without proposals
1261 2013-01-31 16:36:38 <Luke-Jr> since then you'd need to find a proof-of-work constantly
1262 2013-01-31 16:37:08 <sipa> Luke-Jr: do you know where ConnectBlock was called?
1263 2013-01-31 16:37:48 <sipa> that message means the view passed in does not correspond to the parent block of the one being connected
1264 2013-01-31 16:38:32 <Luke-Jr> sipa: afraid not in the first case - I get the same error whenever I try to start that node now, though
1265 2013-01-31 16:38:36 <kjj> hey luke, I have logs now of a box not failing back to pool 0
1266 2013-01-31 16:39:16 <sipa> Luke-Jr: ewww :S
1267 2013-01-31 16:39:31 <Luke-Jr> sipa: likely -reindex will fix?
1268 2013-01-31 16:39:35 <sipa> yes
1269 2013-01-31 16:39:45 <Luke-Jr> ok, I'll see if I can reproduce it easily
1270 2013-01-31 16:39:45 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
1271 2013-01-31 16:39:50 <sipa> even a delete of chaindata/ will fix
1272 2013-01-31 16:40:06 <sipa> chainstate
1273 2013-01-31 16:40:07 <Luke-Jr> anything I should backup?
1274 2013-01-31 16:40:11 <TD> sipa: iirc some google base libraries are open sourced, things like the crash handlers and stuff
1275 2013-01-31 16:40:28 <TD> sipa: it might be worth trying to merge them in at some point so we get nice google3 style crash logs
1276 2013-01-31 16:40:48 zooko` is now known as zooko
1277 2013-01-31 16:40:54 <sipa> Luke-Jr: yes, chaindata/
1278 2013-01-31 16:41:00 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1279 2013-01-31 16:41:11 <reeep> i have an idea i want to bounce off some developers
1280 2013-01-31 16:41:12 <sipa> getting that error at startup should be outright impossible, even with a corrupted database
1281 2013-01-31 16:41:32 <reeep> image explanation: http://i.imgur.com/wOiMn6M.png
1282 2013-01-31 16:41:38 <rdponticelli> kjj: Your problem was with p2pool and bfgminer, right?
1283 2013-01-31 16:41:42 <reeep> crappy image nonetheless
1284 2013-01-31 16:42:01 <sipa> reeep: talk to amiller_
1285 2013-01-31 16:42:02 <HM> reeep: that's elftor level art right there ;)
1286 2013-01-31 16:42:08 <kjj> rdponticelli: yes
1287 2013-01-31 16:42:08 <reeep> right now bitcoin miners build on top of the first block they see, which means if blocks occurred every 10 seconds, we'd have a ton of orphaned blocks
1288 2013-01-31 16:42:10 <rdponticelli> kjj: I've seen the same behavior with p2pool and cgminer
1289 2013-01-31 16:42:27 <kjj> ooh. I think I've found a candidate for the problem
1290 2013-01-31 16:42:32 <reeep> but if we made honest miners choose the block with the most difficulty, everybody would be competing to orphan the top of the chain
1291 2013-01-31 16:42:39 <reeep> so i'm thinking of a 'coheader' field
1292 2013-01-31 16:42:39 <kjj> Luke, does bfgminer store a timestamp of the last attempt to recover a pool?
1293 2013-01-31 16:42:51 <Luke-Jr> kjj: I think so
1294 2013-01-31 16:43:03 Diapolo has joined
1295 2013-01-31 16:43:03 <Luke-Jr> whether it's accessible easily or not, I'm less sure of
1296 2013-01-31 16:43:17 <reeep> which would allow you to redeem the best work of a header which didn't enter the chain, to encourage miners to build on top of the best work rather than competing with the top height
1297 2013-01-31 16:43:20 <kjj> ok, the problem is that NTP fixed my clock AFTER bfgminer started
1298 2013-01-31 16:43:45 <Luke-Jr> kjj: facepalm
1299 2013-01-31 16:43:48 <reeep> if this is a good idea you could make blocks appear every 10 seconds without worrying about tons of orphaned blocks, and probably without a substantial change to attacker probabilities
1300 2013-01-31 16:44:00 <Luke-Jr> kjj: report a bug; that should be fixable
1301 2013-01-31 16:44:05 <kjj> I'll let it run for 5 more hours until the correct time passes the bad timestamp that is probably saved
1302 2013-01-31 16:44:10 <Luke-Jr> k
1303 2013-01-31 16:45:14 <kjj> I can fix that easily enough by putting ntp-wait back in my init scripts
1304 2013-01-31 16:45:25 <Luke-Jr> sipa: removing chainstate did not help
1305 2013-01-31 16:46:21 <kjj> reeep: so, you'd make the next block depend on ALL block candidates at the current height?
1306 2013-01-31 16:46:45 <reeep> at the parent's block height
1307 2013-01-31 16:46:46 <sipa> Luke-Jr: when did you get the error again?
1308 2013-01-31 16:46:47 <reeep> but not all candidates
1309 2013-01-31 16:46:57 <reeep> the best candidate
1310 2013-01-31 16:47:09 <reeep> (but obviously not the best work block because that's the parent block)
1311 2013-01-31 16:47:18 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1312 2013-01-31 16:47:23 <Luke-Jr> sipa: it felt to a human like it was the same instant I submitted an orphan block via submitblock logic, while the node would have been downloading the orphan's parent over p2p from localhost
1313 2013-01-31 16:47:58 <reeep> miners would mine and mine and if they're outcompeted, they would take the header they were working on and use the best work they got out of it toward the next block, to encourage miners to build on top of the chain
1314 2013-01-31 16:48:36 <reeep> that way you could accept only the best work block at the top of the chain, not the first block you see (which is prone to latency issues and inconsistency that results in orphaned blocks if the blocks occur every 10 seconds for example)
1315 2013-01-31 16:49:58 <kjj> you mean blocks that are below the target, or above?
1316 2013-01-31 16:50:00 <sipa> Luke-Jr: i mean at startup
1317 2013-01-31 16:50:04 <sipa> Luke-Jr: with chainstate deleted
1318 2013-01-31 16:50:21 <reeep> kjj: below the target typically, but it could also be ones that are above the target but below the best work block at that height
1319 2013-01-31 16:50:30 <reeep> if another block beat you to it
1320 2013-01-31 16:51:44 osmosis has joined
1321 2013-01-31 16:53:08 InsuDra has joined
1322 2013-01-31 16:53:19 <kjj> there are, um, issues with that approach
1323 2013-01-31 16:54:31 <reeep> specifically?
1324 2013-01-31 16:55:36 <kjj> well, the actual hash is random, so we normally consider the work to be the target, rather than the result
1325 2013-01-31 16:56:35 Insu has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1326 2013-01-31 16:56:58 <kjj> looking at what difficulty a block could have hit, rather than the difficulty it was shooting for changes a lot of assumptions about the system, and in general breaks the difficulty adjustment system
1327 2013-01-31 16:57:29 <reeep> well yes, i'm only suggesting decreasing the work necessary at height n, by creating a block which references a failed chain at height n-1 and redeeming the work done at that point
1328 2013-01-31 16:57:48 <reeep> it would tend to split the work between failed chains and successful chains
1329 2013-01-31 16:58:01 <reeep> it would have implications for the difficulty adjustment
1330 2013-01-31 16:58:53 <kjj> but what if (n-1)' and (n-1)'' include different transactions?
1331 2013-01-31 16:59:22 Zarutian has joined
1332 2013-01-31 16:59:27 <kjj> the whole point of picking one over the other is so that we can have a notion of transaction ordering
1333 2013-01-31 16:59:42 <reeep> they will probably have different transactions
1334 2013-01-31 16:59:48 <reeep> we pick (n-1)' because it has the most work
1335 2013-01-31 17:00:23 <reeep> just so we can establish a consensus in the network early on
1336 2013-01-31 17:00:50 <kjj> but ' and '' had the same target, they embody exactly equal amounts of work
1337 2013-01-31 17:00:51 <reeep> (n-1)'' just demonstrates you tried to make a block, but (n-1)' beat you to it, so you want to redeem the work you did on (n-1)'' for n
1338 2013-01-31 17:00:55 da2ce7_d has joined
1339 2013-01-31 17:01:27 <BlueMatt> sipa: is there any way you can get me a gitian/other w64 build with this patch http://jenkins.bluematt.me/pull-tester/files/bitcoind-comparison.patch ?
1340 2013-01-31 17:01:29 <Luke-Jr> sipa: gdb told me my binary didn't match my source, and building with master fixed it :/
1341 2013-01-31 17:01:31 <reeep> yeah that's true, what i mean is the block with the smallest hash
1342 2013-01-31 17:01:39 * Luke-Jr wonders wtf that binary was for
1343 2013-01-31 17:01:42 <reeep> not necessarily 'work' which has more connotations
1344 2013-01-31 17:01:44 <kjj> effectively, you are just giving the race losers 10 more minutes, which would be bad for the network, not good
1345 2013-01-31 17:01:53 * Luke-Jr tries to reproduce..
1346 2013-01-31 17:02:06 <reeep> kjj: well that's the point of the 'coheader'
1347 2013-01-31 17:02:23 <reeep> it makes it so that any effort to compete with (n-1) is wasted when it could be used to build on n
1348 2013-01-31 17:02:32 <reeep> using the work you can demonstrate you did on (n-1)''
1349 2013-01-31 17:03:04 <reeep> without that, then it would indeed give losers 10 extra minutes basically, and that would be a huge problem
1350 2013-01-31 17:03:10 BTCOxygen has joined
1351 2013-01-31 17:03:11 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1352 2013-01-31 17:03:29 Diapolo has left ()
1353 2013-01-31 17:03:31 t7 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1354 2013-01-31 17:03:49 <reeep> the reward for building on a block must be more than trying to compete with it, statistically speaking
1355 2013-01-31 17:04:06 <kjj> it already is
1356 2013-01-31 17:04:09 <Luke-Jr> sipa: reproduced, trying to gdb again
1357 2013-01-31 17:04:41 <reeep> it is right now because miners will assume the first block they see is the one everyone is building on top of
1358 2013-01-31 17:04:43 <reeep> which isn't always the case
1359 2013-01-31 17:04:56 <reeep> and because of latency, if the blocks were spaced closer together, there would be more orphaned blocks
1360 2013-01-31 17:05:19 <reeep> kjj are there any other reasons why decreasing the time between blocks increases the amount of orphaned blocks?
1361 2013-01-31 17:05:22 <reeep> perhaps i'm missing something
1362 2013-01-31 17:06:42 <kjj> that assumption is good enough most of the time, and resolved quickly when it turns out to be not true.
1363 2013-01-31 17:06:53 casasciu_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1364 2013-01-31 17:06:56 <kjj> and yes, latency means that shorter block times means more orphans
1365 2013-01-31 17:07:36 <reeep> right
1366 2013-01-31 17:07:37 <kjj> 10 minutes means that about one block in 300 causes a split. that seems to be good enough, and no one so far has given any justification for any other block time
1367 2013-01-31 17:07:54 <reeep> i'm just trying to imagine an alternative that doesn't have this latency issue
1368 2013-01-31 17:08:09 <reeep> and imagining what a blockchain would be like if a block occurred every 10 seconds
1369 2013-01-31 17:08:11 <kjj> Luke, I manually rolled the clock forward, and BFG prompty switched back to pool 0
1370 2013-01-31 17:08:30 <Luke-Jr> sipa: ok, the crash doesn't recur during startup, but as soon as my Eloi hammers another submit :P
1371 2013-01-31 17:08:43 <Luke-Jr> sipa: GetBestBlock() is one AHEAD of pindex->pprev
1372 2013-01-31 17:08:55 <kjj> there is always a latency issue
1373 2013-01-31 17:08:58 <reeep> how could we fix the issue? well we'd have to prevent people from trying to undermine the chain, and that's where i imagine 'redeeming' failed chains to encourage miners to build on the best work block
1374 2013-01-31 17:09:36 <reeep> people could still compete to undermine the latest block but the reward should encourage miners not to in some way
1375 2013-01-31 17:10:30 <kjj> Einstein says you are wasting your time, because there will always be latency. you just have to accept it and move on
1376 2013-01-31 17:10:32 Jamesonwa has joined
1377 2013-01-31 17:10:37 <Luke-Jr> sipa: at this point, I'm suspecting it's a bug in how the Proposals code calls ConnectBlock :/
1378 2013-01-31 17:11:21 <kjj> at best, you can obfuscate the problem until latency in failed blocks becomes the issues, rather than latency in actual blocks. but it's the same fundamental problem. information does not move instantly
1379 2013-01-31 17:12:10 <reeep> well i just don't see why miners must accept a block that potentially very few others will build off of, just because they received it first
1380 2013-01-31 17:12:10 random_cat has joined
1381 2013-01-31 17:12:38 DaQatz has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1382 2013-01-31 17:12:47 <reeep> the idea is to prevent orphans and competition after a block is solved and to encourage people to move on but the network should come to a consensus of the best block to work off of
1383 2013-01-31 17:12:47 <amiller_> the basic problem is that decreasing latency increases the number of orphan blocks, which makes it a bit cheaper for a forking-attacker to revise history, it also makes the network more sensitive to intermittent problems
1384 2013-01-31 17:12:55 <kjj> because they have limited information
1385 2013-01-31 17:13:24 <reeep> the hash is a good way of easily choosing one with the best work
1386 2013-01-31 17:13:28 <reeep> smallest hash, bam
1387 2013-01-31 17:13:29 <amiller_> i still think the latency could be reduced (or rather, it will inevitably be reduced eventually) but i'm still trying to work out what it would take to stay 'safe enough' whatever that means
1388 2013-01-31 17:13:43 <reeep> 'best work' sounds dumb i'm sure
1389 2013-01-31 17:13:50 <TD> reeep: 10 minutes isn't a bad choice
1390 2013-01-31 17:13:58 <kjj> but if you look at hash instead of target, you open yourself up to massive reorg attacks
1391 2013-01-31 17:14:14 <reeep> TD: i'm not really assuming it is, just trying to play with ideas
1392 2013-01-31 17:14:17 <TD> i know it's annoying to think "i can't accept this money for 5 minutes" but there are ways to increase confidence in zero-confirm TXNs to the point where for many users, it's a non issue
1393 2013-01-31 17:14:29 <kjj> there was a block like over a year ago with an insanely lucky hash. the whold damn planet would still be trying to build on THAT block today if we looked at hashes
1394 2013-01-31 17:14:33 <TD> reeep: if it was much less than if one day bitcoin scaled up to a really massive system, you'd have a lot of wasted work
1395 2013-01-31 17:14:43 <TD> ie, you'd get less security for the same hash rate
1396 2013-01-31 17:15:00 <TD> and then people would still say "1 minute is too slow" etc.
1397 2013-01-31 17:15:15 <TD> anyway, you don't have to rely on the chain to get trust in your counterparties transactions. there are other ways to do it too. eg, secure hardware.
1398 2013-01-31 17:15:47 <Luke-Jr> sipa: if I let it start without Eloi flooding it, then start Eloi, it works until I trigger it again
1399 2013-01-31 17:15:53 Diapolo1 has joined
1400 2013-01-31 17:16:18 <HM> there's a floor on the useful limit in a truly global system anyway because light can't travel around the globe in less than about 60ms
1401 2013-01-31 17:16:35 pusle has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1402 2013-01-31 17:16:40 <reeep> kjj: i'm not suggesting throwing away the target system in deference to the hash, but just using the hash to pick the best block at the top height instead of "the block you see first" since it's way more objective
1403 2013-01-31 17:17:00 <reeep> an insanely lucky hash wouldn't affect any of it
1404 2013-01-31 17:17:48 <reeep> miners will more quickly come to an agreement on the block to build off of rather than the chain splitting because everyone has their own subjective interpretation of what to build off of
1405 2013-01-31 17:18:27 <HM> what about building off the block with the most transactions in it?
1406 2013-01-31 17:18:46 <reeep> that is something i have not considered
1407 2013-01-31 17:18:48 <kjj> we already have a system for resolving that condition, and it doesn't confer special status on any particular block
1408 2013-01-31 17:18:50 <reeep> but it is analogous
1409 2013-01-31 17:19:12 <HM> or most inputs
1410 2013-01-31 17:19:20 Guest5945 is now known as EasyAt
1411 2013-01-31 17:19:39 <kjj> going by transaction count would just make miners pad all blocks to MAX_BLOCK_SIZE with their own dummy transactions. it would bloat the chain for no benefit
1412 2013-01-31 17:19:49 EasyAt is now known as Guest95313
1413 2013-01-31 17:20:08 <HM> how would that benefit them?
1414 2013-01-31 17:20:15 Guest95313 is now known as EasyAt_
1415 2013-01-31 17:20:35 <kjj> their blocks wouldn't automatically lose based on tx count
1416 2013-01-31 17:20:57 <HM> hmm
1417 2013-01-31 17:21:06 <jgarzik> Wow. Block 218918 had a generation TX worth 29.7951 BTC.
1418 2013-01-31 17:21:09 <jgarzik> not bad
1419 2013-01-31 17:21:15 <kjj> and that would actually cause more forks, not less, because the extra transactions would take more time to verify
1420 2013-01-31 17:21:20 Herodes has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1421 2013-01-31 17:21:55 altamic has quit (Quit: altamic)
1422 2013-01-31 17:22:00 <HM> what's wrong with letting miners choose their own strategy?
1423 2013-01-31 17:22:18 <kjj> that is what we have now, and it works just fine
1424 2013-01-31 17:22:58 <HM> so reeep is just juggling ideas to see if there's a way to improve fork resolution/reduce latency?
1425 2013-01-31 17:23:19 <kjj> yup.
1426 2013-01-31 17:23:48 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1427 2013-01-31 17:23:55 <reeep> kjj: thank you for your input, i think the idea at least would inspire some thought so i might post about it on the forums
1428 2013-01-31 17:24:02 <reeep> at least i know i'm not crazy, just maybe wrong.
1429 2013-01-31 17:24:03 <reeep> ;P
1430 2013-01-31 17:24:04 <sipa> Luke-Jr: so the problem is when a proposal based on an old block comes in?
1431 2013-01-31 17:24:07 <sipa> Luke-Jr: or always?
1432 2013-01-31 17:25:06 <Luke-Jr> sipa: from what I can tell so far, proposal based on an old block
1433 2013-01-31 17:25:08 <kjj> the problem is that bitcoin seems to be a safe spot in the middle of a minefield. trying to fix things tends to cause bigger problems
1434 2013-01-31 17:25:09 <amiller_> "i'm not crazy, just maybe wrong" you're in good company :)
1435 2013-01-31 17:25:13 <Luke-Jr> somehow gets to the connect step
1436 2013-01-31 17:26:20 <sipa> Luke-Jr: so that's a bug in the proposal code?
1437 2013-01-31 17:26:34 altamic has joined
1438 2013-01-31 17:26:34 altamic has quit (Changing host)
1439 2013-01-31 17:26:34 altamic has joined
1440 2013-01-31 17:26:45 <sipa> Luke-Jr: an alternative is turning that assert in connectblock to a return fale
1441 2013-01-31 17:27:50 Skav has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1442 2013-01-31 17:27:52 <HM> kjj: how long do typical miners work on a block before they premutate and try and something else?
1443 2013-01-31 17:28:04 <HM> permutate*
1444 2013-01-31 17:28:13 <HM> man that question was messed up
1445 2013-01-31 17:29:08 <kjj> depends on a lot of things. back in the day, it was however long it took to run through 2^32 nonces
1446 2013-01-31 17:29:45 <kjj> longpolling gave pools the ability to interrupt that so that a miner could restart when needed
1447 2013-01-31 17:30:02 <kjj> and now stratum allows miners to build work locally
1448 2013-01-31 17:31:49 <jgarzik> straw poll: what pools should I test next? tested slush, p2pool. Eligius and BTC Guild are high on the next-test list.
1449 2013-01-31 17:31:54 ThomasV has joined
1450 2013-01-31 17:32:11 altamic has quit (Quit: altamic)
1451 2013-01-31 17:32:29 <HM> kjj: interesting ty
1452 2013-01-31 17:32:48 * jgarzik also noticed a seeming increase in block speed (est. hash rate)
1453 2013-01-31 17:33:03 <jgarzik> I wonder if anybody internal was waiting for the first public ASIC, before turning on their personal units
1454 2013-01-31 17:33:41 <HM> jgarzik: is it right that the next batch will have to be bought and paid for in bitcoin?
1455 2013-01-31 17:33:46 <kjj> could also be that other people got them on the same day, but they aren't public figures, so no one knows who they are
1456 2013-01-31 17:34:42 Insu_Dra has joined
1457 2013-01-31 17:35:49 Nachtwind has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1458 2013-01-31 17:36:42 JDuke128 has joined
1459 2013-01-31 17:37:11 <kjj> my favorite answer though, is that hash-rate estimations are swamped with noise unless averaged over at least 7 days, and 30 is better
1460 2013-01-31 17:37:33 InsuDra has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1461 2013-01-31 17:37:34 Diapolo1 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1462 2013-01-31 17:41:40 <Luke-Jr> HM: the first batch was as well IIRC
1463 2013-01-31 17:44:22 <moore> I wrote up a bit about week keys in the bitcoin block chain with Eric Wustro.
1464 2013-01-31 17:44:34 <moore> Thought some of you might like to see it: https://plus.google.com/u/0/106313804833283549032/posts/X1TvcxNhMWz
1465 2013-01-31 17:45:48 <moore> the graph of how transactions flowed in and out of the bad keys in particular might be interesting: http://bitcoin-r.nfshost.com/
1466 2013-01-31 17:47:32 <BTCOxygen> <diatonic> jgarzik, http://btcoxygen.com/ - pure pps, small, and I'd love to see you on the stats board quickly.
1467 2013-01-31 17:47:39 <BTCOxygen> <diatonic> jgarzik, top hasher on btcoxygen currently is 14 gh/sec
1468 2013-01-31 17:47:50 <BTCOxygen> <BTCOxygen> diatonic: Did you mention http://www.btcoxygen.com/stats.php
1469 2013-01-31 17:48:04 <BTCOxygen> <diatonic> BTCOxygen, indeed I did!
1470 2013-01-31 17:48:14 <BTCOxygen> jgarzik: ^^^ quote from #bitcoin
1471 2013-01-31 17:49:39 <HM> moore: <3 nfshost
1472 2013-01-31 17:50:38 <jgarzik> BTCOxygen: sadly I need a pool big enough to find a block within ~24 hours
1473 2013-01-31 17:51:17 <BTCOxygen> jgarzik: Also my pool is Pure PPS so you get paid even if you not find a block
1474 2013-01-31 17:51:34 <BTCOxygen> jgarzik: Also, I would be very happy to see you on my pool
1475 2013-01-31 17:51:38 <HM> moore: beautiful work
1476 2013-01-31 17:51:46 <jgarzik> BTCOxygen: I might, then
1477 2013-01-31 17:51:51 <moore> thanks Eric did a lot of it too
1478 2013-01-31 17:51:55 <BTCOxygen> jgarzik: Thanks
1479 2013-01-31 17:52:38 <moore> we both made our implementations of the code to find r collisions then wrote the post together
1480 2013-01-31 17:53:09 <moore> our own
1481 2013-01-31 17:53:16 <HM> i love this bit ", there's no reason to panic about having your Bitcoins stolen --- all of the compromised keys have a balance of 0 BTC "
1482 2013-01-31 17:53:28 <HM> another way of looking at that is they've already been stolen ;)
1483 2013-01-31 17:53:45 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1484 2013-01-31 17:53:45 <moore> ask tcatm about that :)
1485 2013-01-31 17:55:53 <BTCOxygen> jgarzik: I am really happy to hear that someone is going to point an ASIC to my pool
1486 2013-01-31 17:55:55 rdymac has joined
1487 2013-01-31 17:56:04 <HM> moore: how long is r?
1488 2013-01-31 17:56:19 <moore> many bytes
1489 2013-01-31 17:56:24 <moore> I did not count
1490 2013-01-31 17:56:42 <moore> the thing that actually went wrong is that they resued k
1491 2013-01-31 17:56:50 <moore> but that is detected by matching r
1492 2013-01-31 17:57:01 <jgarzik> BTCOxygen: I said "I might" not "I will", for the record
1493 2013-01-31 17:57:14 <moore> k is a number < 1 < private_key
1494 2013-01-31 17:57:21 <kjj> wasn't artforz the first ASIC miner, like 2 years ago?
1495 2013-01-31 17:57:26 <BTCOxygen> jgarzik: I am really happy to hear that someone might to point an ASIC to my pool
1496 2013-01-31 17:57:39 <moore> between 1 and the private key
1497 2013-01-31 17:57:41 <BTCOxygen> jgarzik: ^^^ corrected
1498 2013-01-31 17:57:50 <jgarzik> ;p
1499 2013-01-31 17:58:02 <HM> moore: right, so 256 bits then.
1500 2013-01-31 17:58:03 <BTCOxygen> ;)wink
1501 2013-01-31 18:00:08 Jamesonwa has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1502 2013-01-31 18:00:38 panzer has joined
1503 2013-01-31 18:03:22 Insu_Dra has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1504 2013-01-31 18:03:42 <HM> moore: that random k failure scares me now
1505 2013-01-31 18:04:10 rdymac has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1506 2013-01-31 18:04:43 <HM> moore: do you know if a non-repeating prng is safe/possible with DSA?
1507 2013-01-31 18:04:43 <moore> I don't think there is much to worry about, also the deterministic construction of k looks interesting
1508 2013-01-31 18:04:58 <moore> that is somthing eric added to the post and I have not looked in to it much
1509 2013-01-31 18:06:11 Nesetalis has joined
1510 2013-01-31 18:06:37 <moore> HM: I don't understand your question
1511 2013-01-31 18:07:12 spenvo has joined
1512 2013-01-31 18:07:59 BlueMattBot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1513 2013-01-31 18:08:21 <HM> well k is selected randomly using a PRNG. it's very long, but unless you keep track of values of k you've already used you can potentially birthday yourself right? Now i know you can get PRNGs that never repeat (they output 0 to N in some order), but i don't know whether they're cryptographically strong
1514 2013-01-31 18:08:47 <HM> seems to me if you used a non-repeating PRNG you'd solve that problem
1515 2013-01-31 18:09:30 <HM> I guess the OpenSSL guys already do such things if they make sense though, it's more a theoretically question than a practical one
1516 2013-01-31 18:09:49 <sipa> HM: non-repeating is nice, but very hard to do without losing unpredictability
1517 2013-01-31 18:09:53 <moore> with a good cryptographically strong rng it is not something to worry about, the birthday paradox meeds you will hit it sooner then you expect but with at 256bit number that is a very long time
1518 2013-01-31 18:10:02 <sipa> HM: plus, birthday attacking on 256 bits is unfeasible
1519 2013-01-31 18:10:36 FredEE has joined
1520 2013-01-31 18:12:54 <HM> yeah i gathered.
1521 2013-01-31 18:13:23 rdymac has joined
1522 2013-01-31 18:15:20 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1523 2013-01-31 18:18:30 PhantomSpark has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1524 2013-01-31 18:21:10 <bsdunx> birthday attack on 256 bit is 2^128
1525 2013-01-31 18:21:21 <bsdunx> gl
1526 2013-01-31 18:21:36 <sipa> exactly
1527 2013-01-31 18:21:42 <bsdunx> well >2^128
1528 2013-01-31 18:23:49 tomboy64 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1529 2013-01-31 18:24:12 <sipa> depends on your requested probability of success
1530 2013-01-31 18:24:14 <kjj> depends on the probability needed. 128 bits gives you a greater than 75% chance of a birthday
1531 2013-01-31 18:24:26 <sipa> !hi5 kjj
1532 2013-01-31 18:24:32 <bsdunx> =]
1533 2013-01-31 18:24:35 <kjj> heh
1534 2013-01-31 18:24:45 <andytoshi> bsdunx: probably it ranges from 0.1% to 99.9% as you go from 2^125 to 2^130 or so
1535 2013-01-31 18:24:46 <gribble> Error: "hi5" is not a valid command.
1536 2013-01-31 18:24:58 <bsdunx> i meant to say 50%
1537 2013-01-31 18:24:59 <HM> http://preshing.com/20110504/hash-collision-probabilities <-- this article by preshing (where i read about non-repeating PRNGs recently) details birthday formulas
1538 2013-01-31 18:25:07 <andytoshi> i did some calcs for 2^160 and it seemed like you have a bit of a range around sqrt(space)
1539 2013-01-31 18:25:11 <moore> with 256 bits you have a 50% collision at 4.0 Ã 10^38
1540 2013-01-31 18:25:20 <kjj> heh. someone should teach the birthday formula to gribble
1541 2013-01-31 18:25:54 <sipa> andytoshi: 1-exp(-2*X/Y^2)
1542 2013-01-31 18:26:56 <andytoshi> sipa, what are X and Y there?
1543 2013-01-31 18:27:27 <sipa> X is size of space, Y is number of elements
1544 2013-01-31 18:27:34 <kjj> a person doing 1000 transactions per second around the clock for 150 years comes up with a bit more than 2^42
1545 2013-01-31 18:28:34 <kjj> the wikipedia chart says you need 2^98 to get a 10^-18 probability. just use random numbers, you won't live long enough to be unlucky
1546 2013-01-31 18:28:36 <HM> the blockchain might be a bit unmanageable by then
1547 2013-01-31 18:28:43 <andytoshi> hmm, that's much cleaner than the expression i got
1548 2013-01-31 18:29:16 <andytoshi> 1 - exp( (X - Y) * log (X/(X-Y)) - X) :P
1549 2013-01-31 18:29:20 <sipa> andytoshi: it's a simplification, but it's asymptotically correct (IIRC)
1550 2013-01-31 18:29:29 <andytoshi> 1 - exp( (X - Y) * log (X/(X-Y)) - Y) i mean
1551 2013-01-31 18:29:52 <andytoshi> mine's a simplification too :P
1552 2013-01-31 18:29:55 PhantomSpark has joined
1553 2013-01-31 18:31:02 PhantomSpark has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1554 2013-01-31 18:31:26 PhantomSpark has joined
1555 2013-01-31 18:31:27 PhantomSpark has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1556 2013-01-31 18:32:03 PhantomSpark has joined
1557 2013-01-31 18:32:52 Jamesonwa has joined
1558 2013-01-31 18:33:08 t7 has joined
1559 2013-01-31 18:33:40 pooler has joined
1560 2013-01-31 18:34:45 <HM> preshing says you need 1.42 x 10^24 values for a 50% chance in a 160bit field
1561 2013-01-31 18:35:56 Jamesonwa has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1562 2013-01-31 18:36:16 <sipa> which is 2^80.23
1563 2013-01-31 18:37:18 Jamesonwa has joined
1564 2013-01-31 18:40:03 <Mad7Scientist> WHat's the difficulty on the testnet?
1565 2013-01-31 18:45:13 TD has joined
1566 2013-01-31 18:45:51 <TD> jgarzik: do you need a pool at all?
1567 2013-01-31 18:46:09 <TD> jgarzik: surely you can solo mine with your rig
1568 2013-01-31 18:46:16 <jgarzik> TD: variance is a bitch
1569 2013-01-31 18:46:26 <jgarzik> TD: I would solo mine is probability said < 24 hours
1570 2013-01-31 18:46:37 <jgarzik> *if
1571 2013-01-31 18:46:37 <TD> yeah, but are you in it for the long run or not? will 24 hours with no income really blow your budget?
1572 2013-01-31 18:46:52 <jgarzik> again, variance is a bitch :)
1573 2013-01-31 18:47:04 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1574 2013-01-31 18:47:04 <TD> i'd always imagined that most ASIC owners would run solo because if they buy the equipment, they're serious. if it takes them two weeks to find a block, no worries, they plan to mine for years
1575 2013-01-31 18:47:31 <TD> variance is a big deal for hobbyists and people who aren't sure they want to continue, definitely
1576 2013-01-31 18:47:46 <jgarzik> it killed profitability in the mining concern I was in
1577 2013-01-31 18:47:51 <jgarzik> we were terminally unlucky
1578 2013-01-31 18:47:59 drizztbsd has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1579 2013-01-31 18:47:59 <TD> ah
1580 2013-01-31 18:48:18 <BlueMatt> can someone tag https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/2254 0.8?
1581 2013-01-31 18:48:19 <kjj> by my math, your expected earnings per day are around 12-14 BTC, so you should get a block every other day solo
1582 2013-01-31 18:48:27 pooler has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1583 2013-01-31 18:48:45 Cory has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1584 2013-01-31 18:48:50 <bsdunx> Are there ever bounties given out for bugs?
1585 2013-01-31 18:48:57 <jgarzik> ;;bc,calc 6000
1586 2013-01-31 18:48:58 <gribble> use the 'gentime' command instead
1587 2013-01-31 18:48:59 Pasha has joined
1588 2013-01-31 18:49:03 <jgarzik> ;;bc,gentime 6000
1589 2013-01-31 18:49:04 <gribble> Error: "bc,gentime" is not a valid command.
1590 2013-01-31 18:49:04 <bsdunx> Fixing of bugs I mean
1591 2013-01-31 18:49:10 <jgarzik> grrrr
1592 2013-01-31 18:49:33 <jgarzik> what's the gribble command to calc the time req'd to find a block? I thought it was 2.4 days or so.
1593 2013-01-31 18:49:52 <andytoshi> ;;gentime 6000
1594 2013-01-31 18:49:53 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 6000.0 Mhps, given difficulty of 2968775.33208, is 3 weeks, 3 days, 14 hours, 19 minutes, and 24 seconds
1595 2013-01-31 18:49:55 <andytoshi> (just guessing)
1596 2013-01-31 18:50:09 <TD> that's for 6GHash
1597 2013-01-31 18:50:12 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
1598 2013-01-31 18:50:13 rng29a has joined
1599 2013-01-31 18:50:13 <TD> i thought jgarziks rig did 60
1600 2013-01-31 18:50:25 <jgarzik> ;;gentime 68000
1601 2013-01-31 18:50:26 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 68000.0 Mhps, given difficulty of 2968775.33208, is 2 days, 4 hours, 5 minutes, and 14 seconds
1602 2013-01-31 18:50:33 <jgarzik> that's what I thought
1603 2013-01-31 18:50:41 <andytoshi> bsdunx: i once got a btc for running a test case
1604 2013-01-31 18:50:57 <andytoshi> generally, any serious bug is reported along with a patch, since the discoverer is some sort of crypto wonk
1605 2013-01-31 18:51:06 <andytoshi> but there is often small prizes offered for gruntwork
1606 2013-01-31 18:51:12 <kjj> I just did a napkin estimate by extrapolating what my 1.25 GHash/sec earned me over the last week
1607 2013-01-31 18:52:02 <TD> bsdunx: if you build a reputation you could just list bugs along with your prices to fix them
1608 2013-01-31 18:52:13 <TD> if you were reliable and trusted some people would just ay
1609 2013-01-31 18:52:23 <TD> the bounty model has a lot of issues. i wouldn't encourage it myself
1610 2013-01-31 18:52:43 tomboy64 has joined
1611 2013-01-31 18:53:31 Jamesonwa has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1612 2013-01-31 18:53:43 <bsdunx> Well I'm more interested in coding/debugging etc. for BTC than just bounties.
1613 2013-01-31 18:54:03 Pasha is now known as Cory
1614 2013-01-31 18:54:59 <bsdunx> Though I do suppose it wouldn't be so easy to find small C/C++ jobs.
1615 2013-01-31 18:55:06 amiller_ is now known as amiller
1616 2013-01-31 18:55:14 <TD> pft. where's your entrepreneurial spirit?
1617 2013-01-31 18:55:22 <TD> there are tons of things that can be done on/with bitcoin
1618 2013-01-31 18:55:23 benkay has joined
1619 2013-01-31 18:55:36 <TD> i could come up with about 20 projects and estimated prices in a few hours of brainstorming
1620 2013-01-31 18:55:50 <TD> the problem you will have is not "what can I do" but rather "why should people trust me to do a good job"
1621 2013-01-31 18:56:33 <gavinandresen> bounties for people who help test seem to work, but you need somebody to put in the work up front to be very explicit about how to test
1622 2013-01-31 18:56:52 <TD> the problems start when two people submit successful completions both close together
1623 2013-01-31 18:56:57 <TD> both feel they earned the bounty but only one can get it
1624 2013-01-31 18:59:14 <bsdunx> For instance I've noticed rugatu has some bug bounties but the payouts are laughable compared to the value of the exploit
1625 2013-01-31 18:59:56 MobiusL has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1626 2013-01-31 19:00:25 PhantomSpark has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1627 2013-01-31 19:00:51 <TD> well, i doubt anyone will pay you for security bugs right now. if you're the kind of person who would sell an exploit to bad guys, all it says is nobody should trust you. but development work is quite fundable.
1628 2013-01-31 19:00:58 <TD> like i said, it's all about reputation
1629 2013-01-31 19:01:53 <benkay> it's not what...it's who..., and which of them trust you.
1630 2013-01-31 19:02:01 <bsdunx> TD, I'm not saying that, I have sold minor exploits to netsec shops here and there.
1631 2013-01-31 19:02:09 occulta has joined
1632 2013-01-31 19:04:17 dust-otc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1633 2013-01-31 19:04:24 <midnightmagic> .. selling exploits is evil.
1634 2013-01-31 19:05:08 <bsdunx> Selling exploits to reputable security companies is not really evil. =[
1635 2013-01-31 19:05:17 <benkay> evil is a paradigmatic construct ;)
1636 2013-01-31 19:06:28 <andytoshi> midnightmagic: if you can devote more time to researching exploits because you're selling them (and you're selling to the people who can fix them), that's fine
1637 2013-01-31 19:06:35 <bsdunx> TD, anyways any thoughts on finding small dev projects?
1638 2013-01-31 19:07:22 <bsdunx> Sadly I've never earned a google bounty .. someday
1639 2013-01-31 19:11:24 <benkay> bsdunx what kind of projects are you into?
1640 2013-01-31 19:11:48 <bsdunx> mostly C/C++
1641 2013-01-31 19:12:18 <midnightmagic> andytoshi: You're participating in a market which creates value for exploits, the primary use of which is to build tools which destroy peoples' freedom, and it is therefore evil.
1642 2013-01-31 19:12:27 <benkay> have you considered working on the BTC core? or are you looking to pull the entirety of your income from BTC dev work?
1643 2013-01-31 19:13:12 <TD> bsdunx: well there are several ways to tackle this. one is obviously, improvements to the core of bitcoin. the problem being that this work is difficult and whoever is paying would have to trust you to actually do a good job.
1644 2013-01-31 19:13:27 <TD> bsdunx: another way is to develop "side projects", apps that use bitcoin for instance. there are many possibilitis
1645 2013-01-31 19:13:48 <TD> bsdunx: one possible approach to solve the bootstrap problem is to make some useful and non-trivial patches, but release the code under a proprietary license
1646 2013-01-31 19:14:24 <TD> then you would say "I will re-license my patch as MIT if I raise X bitcoins". many people can chip in towards that goal, if necessary. of course, if your patch sucks and gavin won't accept it, everyone finds out before the money is sent, so they don't need as much trust
1647 2013-01-31 19:14:26 <bsdunx> I'd be willing to take small projects of various natures, not neccessarily limited to btc core or btc based work
1648 2013-01-31 19:14:55 <TD> alright. what interests do you have? are you interested in cryptography? design? user interfaces? hardware?
1649 2013-01-31 19:16:10 <TD> obviously, we're only going to suggest bitcoin related things in here
1650 2013-01-31 19:17:00 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1651 2013-01-31 19:17:35 copumpkin has joined
1652 2013-01-31 19:17:37 Insu has joined
1653 2013-01-31 19:18:01 <andytoshi> midnightmagic: you and the security company will value the exploit, regardless of whether there's a market -- the market just lets you two communicate
1654 2013-01-31 19:18:06 knotwork has joined
1655 2013-01-31 19:18:28 <andytoshi> probably you value the exploit less than you value your labor, but the security company doesn't, so if not for the market, you wouldn't find it
1656 2013-01-31 19:18:40 <andytoshi> however, bad guys -will- value the exploit more than their labor, because that's what they do
1657 2013-01-31 19:19:20 Insu has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1658 2013-01-31 19:20:06 <benkay> bsdunx i know it ain't the most stimulating of work, but i fund my BTC hours with CRUD-app web dev
1659 2013-01-31 19:20:23 <bsdunx> TD, general programming really, I tend to mostly work on libraries and console apps.
1660 2013-01-31 19:20:37 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1661 2013-01-31 19:21:07 <benkay> but i'm making moves to make commits for cash in the bitcoin space by contributing where i can and building trust that way
1662 2013-01-31 19:22:16 <TD> *shrug* ok, well, how about this. if you write unit tests that cover nLockTime and the sequence numbering/tx replacement features of bitcoin, and it gets merged in by gavin, then i'll pay. i think a fair price would be 10 coins.
1663 2013-01-31 19:22:37 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1664 2013-01-31 19:22:45 PhantomSpark has joined
1665 2013-01-31 19:23:00 <TD> i would expect you to actually write thorough tests that ensured complete coverage on these features. half measures or crap tests and i wouldn't pay. it'd be acceptable to release the patch under a proprietary/all rights reserved license, and then if it's acceptable i'd pay for relicensing
1666 2013-01-31 19:23:03 <bsdunx> I'd be more comfortable with something small to start with.
1667 2013-01-31 19:23:07 <TD> that IS small
1668 2013-01-31 19:23:18 <TD> i'd guess about 5 hours of work for a competent C++ programmer, including research into what these features are
1669 2013-01-31 19:24:01 b4epoche has joined
1670 2013-01-31 19:26:17 rdymac has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1671 2013-01-31 19:26:48 <BlueMatt> bsdunx: oh, throw in explicit tests for each call to MoneyRange()
1672 2013-01-31 19:27:05 Insu has joined
1673 2013-01-31 19:27:14 PK is now known as PK|Dinner
1674 2013-01-31 19:28:20 <andytoshi> bsdunx: nLockTime is actually really cool, i'd take this up if i had the time
1675 2013-01-31 19:28:29 <andytoshi> but i'd expect it to take longer than 5 hours of research..
1676 2013-01-31 19:29:00 <bsdunx> I'm going to familiarize myself with the codebase for 5 hours before I do anything
1677 2013-01-31 19:30:01 <andytoshi> notice commit 6f8730752, which is probably why TD is offering a rewrd for this
1678 2013-01-31 19:30:16 <andytoshi> (Gavin's non-final transaction fix)
1679 2013-01-31 19:31:58 <andytoshi> also thx sipa for renaming .bitcoin/coins :}
1680 2013-01-31 19:32:29 * andytoshi hasn't sync'd his git tree in a few days..
1681 2013-01-31 19:33:02 <bsdunx> andytoshi, full commit id?
1682 2013-01-31 19:33:36 <bsdunx> oh, nvm thought you had to provide the long form
1683 2013-01-31 19:33:48 <andytoshi> 6f8730752cf92ff8269812c01a6d9d35fff82e75 ... but you shouldn't need that for anything
1684 2013-01-31 19:33:53 <andytoshi> np
1685 2013-01-31 19:34:12 grau has joined
1686 2013-01-31 19:34:13 <andytoshi> probably 4 chars is sufficient; git only needs enough characters to get a unique match
1687 2013-01-31 19:34:26 <bsdunx> yes
1688 2013-01-31 19:34:46 <andytoshi> nope :P needs 5
1689 2013-01-31 19:36:26 JDuke128 has quit (Quit: ["Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com"])
1690 2013-01-31 19:36:29 benkay has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1691 2013-01-31 19:38:44 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1692 2013-01-31 19:39:14 benkay has joined
1693 2013-01-31 19:42:09 knotwork_ has joined
1694 2013-01-31 19:42:09 knotwork_ has quit (Changing host)
1695 2013-01-31 19:42:10 knotwork_ has joined
1696 2013-01-31 19:43:44 agricocb has joined
1697 2013-01-31 19:44:36 PK is now known as Dinner!~PK@pdpc/supporter/active/pk|PK
1698 2013-01-31 19:45:53 knotwork has joined
1699 2013-01-31 19:48:54 nus- has joined
1700 2013-01-31 19:50:09 owowo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1701 2013-01-31 19:52:40 knotwork has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1702 2013-01-31 19:53:09 nus has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1703 2013-01-31 19:54:47 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1704 2013-01-31 19:57:49 mappum has joined
1705 2013-01-31 20:00:34 drizztbsd has joined
1706 2013-01-31 20:06:41 spenvo has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1707 2013-01-31 20:08:58 spenvo has joined
1708 2013-01-31 20:10:46 voodster has quit (Quit: leaving)
1709 2013-01-31 20:11:07 <gavinandresen> the issue with locktime/sequence numbers is potential DoS attacks, keeping the entire network busy re-validating a gazillion variations of a transaction.
1710 2013-01-31 20:12:02 <ThomasV> gavinandresen: allow only fffffe and ffffff ?
1711 2013-01-31 20:12:14 rdymac has joined
1712 2013-01-31 20:12:15 WolfAlex has joined
1713 2013-01-31 20:12:45 WolfAlex_ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1714 2013-01-31 20:13:12 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1715 2013-01-31 20:14:06 <gavinandresen> ThomasV: so the attacker creates a locktime-in-a-day transaction with 64 inputs, then starts counting in binary with variations on ffffffe/fffffff ?
1716 2013-01-31 20:15:14 knotwork_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1717 2013-01-31 20:15:45 <ThomasV> huh? doesn't the sequence number need to be strictly higher than the previously sent one?
1718 2013-01-31 20:16:07 <ThomasV> oh, ok, right
1719 2013-01-31 20:16:23 <ThomasV> it it per input
1720 2013-01-31 20:16:45 root2 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1721 2013-01-31 20:16:50 TD has joined
1722 2013-01-31 20:16:57 WolfAlex_ has joined
1723 2013-01-31 20:17:34 WolfAlex has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1724 2013-01-31 20:17:38 <kjj> we need a couple of flags in the mempool.
1725 2013-01-31 20:18:23 tonikt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1726 2013-01-31 20:18:37 tomboy64 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1727 2013-01-31 20:19:41 Insu has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1728 2013-01-31 20:20:57 paybitcoin1 has joined
1729 2013-01-31 20:21:07 <andytoshi> gavinandresen: is there a use-case for broadcasting transactions with locktimes far in the future?
1730 2013-01-31 20:21:34 <andytoshi> that couldn't be covered by parties using some side channel to share transactions that they care about
1731 2013-01-31 20:21:38 <andytoshi> or in the future at all, really
1732 2013-01-31 20:21:54 freakazoid has joined
1733 2013-01-31 20:21:59 <gavinandresen> andytoshi: I agree. TD disagrees, I believe....
1734 2013-01-31 20:22:22 <ThomasV> gavinandresen: but what prevents the network from being DoS'ed now, with transactions that fail at ConnectInputs() ?
1735 2013-01-31 20:23:15 <kjj> if you send (or relay) an orphan, your peers like you a little bit less because of it
1736 2013-01-31 20:23:20 <gavinandresen> transactions that fail ConnectInputs aren't relayed to other nodes, so the attacker has no amplification potential
1737 2013-01-31 20:23:33 <andytoshi> IMO the point of having a locktime is that the network won't accept the transaction too early
1738 2013-01-31 20:23:39 <ThomasV> ic
1739 2013-01-31 20:23:40 <andytoshi> so why bother even sharing them?
1740 2013-01-31 20:24:16 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
1741 2013-01-31 20:24:18 <gavinandresen> back in a bit, gotta fetch kidsâ¦.
1742 2013-01-31 20:24:49 <kjj> there is a difference between allowed by the protocol, and allowed by the currently dominant client
1743 2013-01-31 20:26:19 <kjj> the current client won't relay orphans, like Gavin said, and it will dislike you if you send it one. eventually, you'll get disconnected if you do it anyway
1744 2013-01-31 20:26:30 Ukto has left ()
1745 2013-01-31 20:27:43 Nachtwind has joined
1746 2013-01-31 20:28:34 <kjj> but putting the lock time in the transaction means that it can be signed. so you and a peer can sign a transaction that CAN become valid, but isn't yet. it creates a default condition
1747 2013-01-31 20:28:48 paybitcoin has joined
1748 2013-01-31 20:29:13 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1749 2013-01-31 20:29:22 <kjj> how that all fits into the bitcoin network isn't at all obvious.
1750 2013-01-31 20:29:49 paybitcoin1 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1751 2013-01-31 20:32:19 <MC1984> you can cut cheques for the future in bitcoin?
1752 2013-01-31 20:32:47 TD has joined
1753 2013-01-31 20:33:11 <kjj> yeah, but it only works if the other party trusts you not to double spend the inputs away
1754 2013-01-31 20:33:28 <TD> sorry, back now
1755 2013-01-31 20:33:30 <MC1984> yep sounds like cheques
1756 2013-01-31 20:34:01 <TD> just one quick comment - lock times and sequence numbers are quite well thought out by satoshi
1757 2013-01-31 20:34:15 <TD> if you think "this doesn't look right" then you probably aren't fully certain about how they're intended to be used
1758 2013-01-31 20:34:29 <kjj> about the only really useful thing I can think of is if the network allows exactly one replacement, changing the sequence number to MAX
1759 2013-01-31 20:35:33 <kjj> but the incentive model is messed up there. a balanced incentive model allows unlimited replacements, but that's DOS city
1760 2013-01-31 20:35:40 <TD> no it's not
1761 2013-01-31 20:35:47 <TD> it's quite feasible to have the design satoshi envisioned without DoS potential
1762 2013-01-31 20:36:10 Belkaar has quit (Changing host)
1763 2013-01-31 20:36:10 Belkaar has joined
1764 2013-01-31 20:36:26 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1765 2013-01-31 20:36:36 <andytoshi> TD: hmm, i didn't think about the double-spend potential
1766 2013-01-31 20:36:53 <TD> what double spend potential?
1767 2013-01-31 20:36:53 <kjj> I don't really see any obvious way to allow unlimited replacements, without allowing unlimited spam
1768 2013-01-31 20:37:08 <TD> kjj: you're thinking about it the wrong way
1769 2013-01-31 20:37:18 <andytoshi> TD: if you and i do some transaction with a future lock time, and we don't tell the network
1770 2013-01-31 20:37:33 <TD> andytoshi: so?
1771 2013-01-31 20:37:44 vigilyn has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1772 2013-01-31 20:37:53 <kjj> TD: heh. I believe you that I'm not looking at it right, but that isn't as helpful as a clue to the right way to look would be. :)
1773 2013-01-31 20:38:14 <andytoshi> well, if you ask for 5btc, and i sign a transaction giving you those with a lock time far in the future..
1774 2013-01-31 20:38:19 <Belkaar> Hello, I'm a little confused: What exactly defines a change that leads to a hard fork?
1775 2013-01-31 20:38:28 <andytoshi> ...and we don't broadcast this, because we expect the network won't relay it or something
1776 2013-01-31 20:38:37 <TD> spam is not an issue unless it leads to denial of service. correct prioritization of inbound work means that flooding the network with replacements would not have any impact on regular users. if it has no impact, it's a useless attack
1777 2013-01-31 20:38:40 <andytoshi> then i could in principle give the 5btc to someone else
1778 2013-01-31 20:38:52 <TD> andytoshi: that's not what nLockTime is meant to be used for. see the contracts page on the wiki for example uses
1779 2013-01-31 20:39:09 <andytoshi> i have seen it -- one example has a lock time of 24 hours
1780 2013-01-31 20:39:22 <andytoshi> (the wireless AP example)
1781 2013-01-31 20:39:44 <TD> yes. and the output it connects to was a CHECKMULTISIG 2-of-2 script, so you cannot create spends without the other side agreeing
1782 2013-01-31 20:40:31 * andytoshi needs to go reread that
1783 2013-01-31 20:40:55 <andytoshi> oh, i see
1784 2013-01-31 20:40:57 <TD> that is a general pattern for safely agreeing to contracts. you place a multisig output into the chain and both sides negotiate over how it is spent
1785 2013-01-31 20:41:00 vessenes has joined
1786 2013-01-31 20:41:13 <kjj> but if nodes relay replacements on a "meh" basis, how do you rely on them?
1787 2013-01-31 20:41:19 <TD> the purpose of sequencing and lock times is to allow those negotiations to take place off chain, and then you can always present the latest agreed transaction
1788 2013-01-31 20:41:35 <gavinandresen> I agree that correct prioritization could fix it. But that's more than the original proposal of "write unit tests for sequence/lockTime" ⦠and more than a 5-hour project, I think
1789 2013-01-31 20:41:39 <TD> kjj: obviously these features aren't currently usable. the code needs to be enhanced, the features re-enabled, and then we have to wait for people to upgrade their nodes
1790 2013-01-31 20:41:43 <gavinandresen> (maybe I'm wrong and it is easy)
1791 2013-01-31 20:41:43 <TD> it will sadly take a while :(
1792 2013-01-31 20:41:59 <TD> gavinandresen: my proposal didn't end with "and then re-enable lock time/replacement" for that very reason
1793 2013-01-31 20:42:24 <TD> solid test coverage is clearly an important step forward towards building confidence, however
1794 2013-01-31 20:42:38 <ThomasV> re-enable? was it ever enabled?
1795 2013-01-31 20:42:46 <TD> yes, a long time ago
1796 2013-01-31 20:44:41 DamascusVG has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1797 2013-01-31 20:45:21 DamascusVG has joined
1798 2013-01-31 20:45:21 DamascusVG has quit (Changing host)
1799 2013-01-31 20:45:21 DamascusVG has joined
1800 2013-01-31 20:45:53 <andytoshi> TD: i see, i didn't understand the multisig dance the first time i read that contracts page
1801 2013-01-31 20:47:20 <gavinandresen> TD: sorry, I misunderstood your proposal. More unit tests are always welcome, and unit tests plus enabling replacement (with DoS fixes) on -testnet would, indeed, be the right path forward I think.
1802 2013-01-31 20:47:48 <ThomasV> gavinandresen: "correct prioritization" : are you referring to luke's child-pays-for-parent PR?
1803 2013-01-31 20:48:11 rbecker is now known as RBecker
1804 2013-01-31 20:49:14 <TD> ThomasV: no it's unrelated
1805 2013-01-31 20:50:11 <TD> ThomasV: we mean having inbound work (signature checking) assigned to CPU-specific queues that are re-ordered depending on the priority of the signatures that need to be checked
1806 2013-01-31 20:50:37 <TD> ThomasV: eg, new blocks take priority over broadcast transactions, and new transactions take precedence over replacements, and replacements of transactions that were just replaced are at the bottom of the priority list
1807 2013-01-31 20:50:38 occulta has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1808 2013-01-31 20:50:54 <TD> ThomasV: so you can saturate the networks CPU time, but all you're doing is using up whatever is left after doing the work people care about/need
1809 2013-01-31 20:51:00 <TD> there's no denial of service
1810 2013-01-31 20:51:14 <ThomasV> I see
1811 2013-01-31 20:51:45 <TD> it's merely "a small matter of programming"
1812 2013-01-31 20:52:04 <ThomasV> heh
1813 2013-01-31 20:52:22 <TD> alles klar jetzt? :)
1814 2013-01-31 20:52:29 <ThomasV> jawohl
1815 2013-01-31 20:53:23 <ThomasV> TD: was it disabled because there was DoS, or as a prevention measure
1816 2013-01-31 20:53:55 <TD> security
1817 2013-01-31 20:54:07 owowo has joined
1818 2013-01-31 20:54:09 <TD> satoshi disabled tx replacement just to reduce surface area, back when there had been some serious security breaches
1819 2013-01-31 20:54:29 <TD> he didn't think about DoS much, his view was that P2P software has about a million ways to DoS it (and he's right â¦. unfortunately we still need to build up anti-dos defences)
1820 2013-01-31 20:54:32 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1821 2013-01-31 20:54:42 setkeh has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1822 2013-01-31 20:56:04 <ThomasV> oh, why did I fall in the Bitcoin rabbit hole?
1823 2013-01-31 20:56:17 <TD> :)
1824 2013-01-31 20:56:39 <TD> it's not so bad. electrum doesn't have to think about this stuff beyond making sure to do dependency resolution of mempool transactions and risk analyze them
1825 2013-01-31 20:57:57 Diapolo has joined
1826 2013-01-31 20:58:01 <ThomasV> I have evidence that SD players love electrum
1827 2013-01-31 20:58:18 WolfAlex has joined
1828 2013-01-31 21:00:06 WolfAlex has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1829 2013-01-31 21:00:22 WolfAlex has joined
1830 2013-01-31 21:00:45 <TD> gavinandresen: i thought SIGOP limits applied to a transaction, not outputs
1831 2013-01-31 21:01:38 <gavinandresen> TD: unfortunately that isn't the way they were/are counted (P2SH transactions excepted).
1832 2013-01-31 21:02:41 WolfAlex_ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1833 2013-01-31 21:03:13 <Diapolo> What is that problem BlueMatt mentioned as an issue?
1834 2013-01-31 21:03:53 <BlueMatt> Diapolo: I dont know yet...Im bisecting now, but...its gonna be a strange one
1835 2013-01-31 21:04:11 <BlueMatt> Im also hoping someone sends me a w64-compiled bitcoind with the patch and it magically works
1836 2013-01-31 21:04:49 <Diapolo> BlueMatt: sounds pretty weird, when you have some details to share add it to the issue :)?
1837 2013-01-31 21:04:57 <BlueMatt> ofc
1838 2013-01-31 21:05:26 <BlueMatt> well, essentially ive bisected the bug introducer and its down to like 4 commits that have absolutely 0 chance of causing the issue.....
1839 2013-01-31 21:06:12 occulta has joined
1840 2013-01-31 21:09:51 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: w64-compiled? You think it might be a mingw32 compileer issue? I think I might have a VM that can w64-cross-compile ...
1841 2013-01-31 21:10:46 <jgarzik> http://garzikrants.blogspot.com/2013/01/avalon-asic-miner-review.html
1842 2013-01-31 21:10:46 <jgarzik> Please let me know of any unanswered questions
1843 2013-01-31 21:11:03 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: at this point Id bet on it, git bisect is showing me that its down to 4dfae2f (qt code), cb2e1bdaa (changes to documentation) or a07812137 (changes to wallet, note that at no point should any wallet code be called during the test, especially not CreateTransaction)
1844 2013-01-31 21:11:15 <BlueMatt> but its fairly reproduceable, so.....
1845 2013-01-31 21:11:49 t7 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1846 2013-01-31 21:12:13 <TD> BlueMatt: possibly a compiler issue
1847 2013-01-31 21:12:19 <BlueMatt> TD: yep, thats my bet
1848 2013-01-31 21:12:40 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: I have yet to set one up, if possible can you get me a build with this patch applied http://jenkins.bluematt.me/pull-tester/files/bitcoind-comparison.patch
1849 2013-01-31 21:12:56 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: I think I blew away my everything -w64-compiled environment, but I'll see....
1850 2013-01-31 21:13:10 <BlueMatt> ok, I can get one setup, but it may not be today
1851 2013-01-31 21:14:20 <BlueMatt> bbl
1852 2013-01-31 21:16:46 <TD> jgarzik: amazing
1853 2013-01-31 21:16:52 <TD> jgarzik: the start of a new era
1854 2013-01-31 21:17:13 benkay has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1855 2013-01-31 21:17:45 <TD> jgarzik: i thought avalon were the guys who were going to mine privately though?
1856 2013-01-31 21:18:37 CodesInChaos has joined
1857 2013-01-31 21:18:49 <kjj> no, that is ASICMINER
1858 2013-01-31 21:19:07 <midnightmagic> TD: No, that's the dastardly asicminer and friedcat et al.
1859 2013-01-31 21:19:14 <TD> ah
1860 2013-01-31 21:19:22 <TD> did they start yet?
1861 2013-01-31 21:19:26 <kjj> they posted pictures
1862 2013-01-31 21:19:33 <midnightmagic> They're publishing pictures of boards with small chips on them.
1863 2013-01-31 21:20:12 <midnightmagic> They have no started yet. Unknown ETA before asicminer actually does come online. If they come online.
1864 2013-01-31 21:20:17 <kjj> at this point though, the only "proof" that anyone will accept will be when they pay out more in dividends than they took in
1865 2013-01-31 21:20:35 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
1866 2013-01-31 21:21:04 <kjj> hell, half the forum is still convinced that Avalon is working a long scam
1867 2013-01-31 21:21:05 <midnightmagic> kjj: Except part of why they sold their shares was that people with enough shares could, eventually turn the shares in for one of the asicminer devices. Now it's not really clear they're going to do that.
1868 2013-01-31 21:21:08 Diapolo has left ()
1869 2013-01-31 21:25:08 MobiusL has joined
1870 2013-01-31 21:26:13 JDuke128 has joined
1871 2013-01-31 21:29:19 <Ferroh> Should I expect a transaction to take 5 minutes on average, or 10 minutes?
1872 2013-01-31 21:29:38 rdponticelli has joined
1873 2013-01-31 21:29:41 <TD> 5 minutes assuming random times when the tx is made/broadcast
1874 2013-01-31 21:29:52 <TD> assuming you mean, to confirm
1875 2013-01-31 21:30:46 <Ferroh> I dont think you're right :/
1876 2013-01-31 21:31:14 <Ferroh> If that were true, then we'd expect the next block to take less time than usual if it's been a long time since we found a block
1877 2013-01-31 21:31:50 <TD> why?
1878 2013-01-31 21:32:15 <HM> he's trying to say it's like roulette
1879 2013-01-31 21:32:18 <TD> assume a block every 10 minutes (this is the average case we're talking about). if you pick a random point in that 10 minute interval to send a tx, on average you will have to wait 5 minutes.
1880 2013-01-31 21:32:31 <TD> obviously it can be wildly different for any given specific case
1881 2013-01-31 21:32:34 <HM> just because you haven't hit 13 in a while doesn't mean you will in the next few spins
1882 2013-01-31 21:33:04 <HM> but it's not really a fair comparison since you're only waiting for 1 hit across 10s of thousands of roulette wheels
1883 2013-01-31 21:40:22 rng29a has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1884 2013-01-31 21:40:29 spenvo has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1885 2013-01-31 21:42:30 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1886 2013-01-31 21:43:05 copumpkin has joined
1887 2013-01-31 21:45:39 <sipa> TD: that's not correct; the next blocks is always on average 10 minutes in the future
1888 2013-01-31 21:46:21 <TD> blocks are created every ten minutes on average. if one was solved 9 minutes ago, on average, you'd expect there to be one in about a minute. not in ten minutes from the time of observation
1889 2013-01-31 21:46:30 <gmaxwell> ...
1890 2013-01-31 21:46:52 <gmaxwell> The time expected until the next is always 10 minutes without regard to when the last block was.
1891 2013-01-31 21:46:53 <sipa> TD: that's what the intuition says, but it's incorrect
1892 2013-01-31 21:47:03 <Prattler> TD is incorrect
1893 2013-01-31 21:47:04 PhantomSpark has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1894 2013-01-31 21:47:15 <gmaxwell> The last block could be four hours ago the expected time is still 10 minutes from now. (weird, enh?)
1895 2013-01-31 21:47:28 PhantomSpark has joined
1896 2013-01-31 21:47:40 <Ferroh> This fact is what made me even ask about 10 vs 5 minutes average time.
1897 2013-01-31 21:47:41 <sipa> the median time you expect a next block is actually less than 10 minutes
1898 2013-01-31 21:47:47 <Ferroh> (though it is not actually directly related)
1899 2013-01-31 21:48:01 <sipa> 6.93 minutes to be precise
1900 2013-01-31 21:48:31 <Ferroh> The mean is 5, and the median is 6.93?
1901 2013-01-31 21:48:38 <sipa> no, the mean is 10
1902 2013-01-31 21:48:44 <Ferroh> omfg, is it?
1903 2013-01-31 21:48:46 <sipa> the median is 6.93
1904 2013-01-31 21:48:49 <sipa> and the modus is 0 :p
1905 2013-01-31 21:48:50 <gmaxwell> Yes. The mean is 10.
1906 2013-01-31 21:48:54 <sipa> to make it even more confusing
1907 2013-01-31 21:49:02 <Ferroh> oh i see,
1908 2013-01-31 21:49:06 <kjj> the left tail is bound at zero, but the right tail is long. makes the mean higher than the median
1909 2013-01-31 21:49:08 <Ferroh> Sorry let me just confirm this one more time:
1910 2013-01-31 21:49:22 <Ferroh> What is the average amount of time I expect to wait to confirm a transaction?
1911 2013-01-31 21:49:25 <Ferroh> 5 minutes, right?
1912 2013-01-31 21:49:26 <sipa> 10
1913 2013-01-31 21:49:32 <kjj> 10
1914 2013-01-31 21:49:35 <Prattler> 10
1915 2013-01-31 21:49:46 * gmaxwell joins in
1916 2013-01-31 21:49:47 <gmaxwell> 10
1917 2013-01-31 21:49:49 <sipa> there's 50% chance at _any_ point in time that the next block will be there in less than 6.93 minutes
1918 2013-01-31 21:49:54 <kjj> well, some multiple of ten if you don't include a fee
1919 2013-01-31 21:49:55 <sipa> and 50% that it's longer
1920 2013-01-31 21:50:02 <sipa> however, it's very assymetrical
1921 2013-01-31 21:50:04 <Ferroh> gavinandresen, TD ^^ take note
1922 2013-01-31 21:50:56 <gmaxwell> It can't get faster than instantâ but can always get slower, so the mean skews away from the median.
1923 2013-01-31 21:51:05 <Ferroh> So, I also thought it was 10, and then everyone here told me it was 5
1924 2013-01-31 21:51:19 <Ferroh> I am trying to convince someone that it is 10, help me prove it.
1925 2013-01-31 21:51:42 <Ferroh> If blocks are found on average every 10 minutes, and we make a transaction at a random time, then why is the average time to confirm not 5?
1926 2013-01-31 21:51:50 <gmaxwell> who told you it was 5?
1927 2013-01-31 21:51:55 <kjj> because there is no progress
1928 2013-01-31 21:52:02 <Ferroh> Half of the internet, gmaxwell. Including gavinandresen.
1929 2013-01-31 21:52:09 <gmaxwell> oh, well, they're wrong. :P
1930 2013-01-31 21:52:10 Zarutian has joined
1931 2013-01-31 21:52:12 <gavinandresen> ok, fine. 6.93 plus the average time it takes to get to miners, and for miners to start includeing the txn in their block....
1932 2013-01-31 21:52:16 <MC1984> something to do with flipping 100 coins in a row
1933 2013-01-31 21:52:24 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: no, the median isn't the average.
1934 2013-01-31 21:52:26 <kjj> meh. they are wrong in a very subtle way
1935 2013-01-31 21:52:26 <sipa> gavinandresen: no, 10 on average
1936 2013-01-31 21:52:33 <gmaxwell> The distribution is skewed.
1937 2013-01-31 21:53:40 <kjj> basically, each hash has a 1 in X chance of making a valid block, and hashes come out at Y hashes per second. there is no history, no memory.
1938 2013-01-31 21:53:46 <gavinandresen> ok, I sit corrected.
1939 2013-01-31 21:53:56 ahbritto has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1940 2013-01-31 21:53:57 <gmaxwell> Another way of asking the same question isâ someone offers you a bet at this instantâ guess how long until the next block (assuming no hashrate change, so difficulty is right) right you win big (or whatever). What is the correct guess? The correct guess is always 10. It's easy to see when you look at mining being memoryless.
1941 2013-01-31 21:53:59 <kjj> so, each billionth of a second a block may be found, but if it isn't, then it has no effect on the next hash
1942 2013-01-31 21:54:07 PhantomSpark has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1943 2013-01-31 21:54:13 ahbritto has joined
1944 2013-01-31 21:54:21 <gmaxwell> E.g. it's not like the miners odds are getting better or worse based on when the last block was. each hash is a hash is a hash.
1945 2013-01-31 21:54:43 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1946 2013-01-31 21:55:07 <gavinandresen> anybody actually run an empirical experiment? It'd be a good way to measure transaction propagation time, and see how long it takes the big mining pools to include new transactions in their work
1947 2013-01-31 21:55:12 <TD> yes, we all understand that mining does not have "progress". but that's not what was asked about. on average, there should be around 10 minutes space between blocks. so if you pick a random point in time, how can you always be 10 minutes away?
1948 2013-01-31 21:55:26 <TD> that flatly contradicts intuition, so there needs to be a good explanation somewhere
1949 2013-01-31 21:55:45 <kjj> because your model is changing
1950 2013-01-31 21:55:49 <TD> i can see, if you always pick a point just after a solved block, then on average confirm time for your tx will be the same as average block confirm time
1951 2013-01-31 21:55:50 <HM> averages don't mean shit in the short term
1952 2013-01-31 21:55:51 <andytoshi> TD: it depends on when you do the expectation
1953 2013-01-31 21:55:53 <TD> but you don't
1954 2013-01-31 21:56:01 <gmaxwell> TD: What, pointing ot that memoryless mandates that doesn't satisify you? :P
1955 2013-01-31 21:56:01 <andytoshi> rather, when you commit the act of expecting
1956 2013-01-31 21:56:12 <kjj> "how long until the next block?" is a very different question than "what was the average time between the last X blocks?"
1957 2013-01-31 21:56:43 PhantomSpark has joined
1958 2013-01-31 21:56:48 <andytoshi> if it's been 5 minutes since the last block, then five minutes ago the expected time was five minutes from now
1959 2013-01-31 21:56:53 <gmaxwell> We should stop trying to explain and go find a good written one, this bit of boggle comes p often.
1960 2013-01-31 21:56:55 <andytoshi> but -now- the expected time is ten minutes from now
1961 2013-01-31 21:57:08 <TD> the question was not "how long until the next block" it was, on average, how much time elapses between broadcast and block solution
1962 2013-01-31 21:57:12 <sipa> TD: because if you take the distribution of the chance for the time for the next block, you get a negative exponential like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Exponential_pdf.svg/325px-Exponential_pdf.svg.png
1963 2013-01-31 21:57:16 <kjj> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution
1964 2013-01-31 21:57:18 <sipa> TD: now, go 5 minutes in the future
1965 2013-01-31 21:57:31 <sipa> TD: and add the knowledge that there was no block in the past 5 minutes
1966 2013-01-31 21:57:45 <gavinandresen> I still like the idea of somebody doing 1,000 send-to-self transactions, one every minute, with appropriate txn fees, and seeing what the average time-to-first-confirm is.
1967 2013-01-31 21:57:52 <sipa> TD: what you do is you cut off the part t<5 minutes of that graph
1968 2013-01-31 21:58:04 <sipa> TD: what does the remaining part look like, if you scale it to be 100% again?
1969 2013-01-31 21:58:11 <andytoshi> TD: the question was "Should I expect a transaction to take 5 minutes [to confirm] on average, or 10 minutes?"
1970 2013-01-31 21:58:19 <andytoshi> and the answer to that depends on when the act of expecting occurs
1971 2013-01-31 21:58:26 <TD> a random time
1972 2013-01-31 21:58:29 pooler has joined
1973 2013-01-31 21:58:29 pooler has quit (Changing host)
1974 2013-01-31 21:58:29 pooler has joined
1975 2013-01-31 21:59:02 <TD> anyway, back later.
1976 2013-01-31 21:59:58 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: in the real network there is a pretty good amont of distortion from never quite running at the correct difficulty (which seems to mostly make blocks too fast)
1977 2013-01-31 22:00:21 <gmaxwell> so, it may even be fair to say that in practice its less than 10.
1978 2013-01-31 22:00:43 <gmaxwell> (as the math that says its 10 only holds up for a stationary system)
1979 2013-01-31 22:01:48 sebicas has joined
1980 2013-01-31 22:01:54 sebicas has left ()
1981 2013-01-31 22:02:03 <kjj> on the other hand, the question isn't particularly useful. mostly people want to know "when will THIS transaction confirm?", and there is no answer to that
1982 2013-01-31 22:02:09 * TD wonders why skype is so damn unreliable
1983 2013-01-31 22:02:47 PhantomSpark has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1984 2013-01-31 22:03:02 <HM> Microsoft started dicking with the supernode arrangement
1985 2013-01-31 22:03:48 <HM> but maybe that's just bias
1986 2013-01-31 22:04:41 spenvo has joined
1987 2013-01-31 22:05:35 <grau> gmaxwell: could it be that miner regulary stamp the block just before the difficulty adjustment into the future to drive down difficulty calculation? This might cause costently lower than 10 min block times.
1988 2013-01-31 22:06:02 <kjj> that won't work in the long run
1989 2013-01-31 22:06:16 <kjj> any minutes they lose in one period must be made up in the next
1990 2013-01-31 22:07:20 <kjj> some altchains had asymetric difficulty adjustment rules, and they learned that lesson the hard way
1991 2013-01-31 22:08:43 MobiusL has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1992 2013-01-31 22:09:00 <gmaxwell> grau: no, that can't be repeated (ignoring the timewarp attack)â so you'd get a one time 0.5% shift that would either be maintained (constant difficulty) or matched with a -0.5% when someone gives an honest time.
1993 2013-01-31 22:09:26 <gmaxwell> grau: it's just the expected result when the hashrate increases more than it decreases historically.
1994 2013-01-31 22:11:25 <grau> gmaxwell: you are right. Ongoing acceleration can sustain <10 only
1995 2013-01-31 22:13:04 <gmaxwell> (very weakly relatedâ while looking for a nice discussion of the surprising consequences of memorless for expectations, I bumpted into an interesting study that found that the gambler's fallacy is correlated with higher intelligence and giving people more time to think about the problem: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0047019)
1996 2013-01-31 22:16:22 <grau> thanks I know feel better for being bad player
1997 2013-01-31 22:17:27 <gmaxwell> :)
1998 2013-01-31 22:17:40 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1999 2013-01-31 22:18:39 <andytoshi> gmaxwell: what is the "GF strategy"? engaging in gambling?
2000 2013-01-31 22:18:41 rdymac has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2001 2013-01-31 22:18:52 toffoo has joined
2002 2013-01-31 22:19:30 <HM> it is actually possible to establish an edge in many forms of gambling
2003 2013-01-31 22:19:31 <gmaxwell> andytoshi: GF strategy is assuming that in a memorless process that there will be a tendency to mean depending on the immediatly prior state, or related mis beliefs...
2004 2013-01-31 22:19:42 <andytoshi> okay, gotcha
2005 2013-01-31 22:20:08 <HM> nothing in a casino though
2006 2013-01-31 22:20:18 <gmaxwell> E.g. I flip a coin ... head tail heads heads heads heads heads heads ... do you say _tails_ is more likely than heads next in that sequence?
2007 2013-01-31 22:20:31 denisx has joined
2008 2013-01-31 22:20:32 <Ferroh> sipa, do you mind if I ask how you computed 6.93 to be the mean?
2009 2013-01-31 22:21:36 <midnightmagic> ah, gambler's fallacy.
2010 2013-01-31 22:21:38 <gmaxwell> Ferroh: you can derrive it from solving for what end in integrate(pdf(x),0,end)=.5
2011 2013-01-31 22:21:47 <Ferroh> thanks
2012 2013-01-31 22:22:14 rdymac has joined
2013 2013-01-31 22:22:59 <andytoshi> gmaxwell: cool, i've seen "gambler's fallacy" used to mean pretty-much everything related to balanced random walks
2014 2013-01-31 22:23:11 <andytoshi> but i guess in psych they're more careful with the phrase
2015 2013-01-31 22:23:25 <gmaxwell> (the closed form formula is the mean times log_e(2) because math.)
2016 2013-01-31 22:24:23 <gmaxwell> andytoshi: well, if their argument is correct it should hold for most cognative defects that can come from holding a false view of the world.
2017 2013-01-31 22:24:39 <HM> i used to use wolframalpha for this kind of thing but then it went shitty
2018 2013-01-31 22:24:52 <gmaxwell> (They're saying that basically people with greater measures of general intelligence are able to override and enforce an incorrect view of the world more effectively)
2019 2013-01-31 22:25:44 Hashdog has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2020 2013-01-31 22:25:50 <HM> we've evolved to spot patterns and use them to our advantage
2021 2013-01-31 22:26:11 <gmaxwell> HM: maxima happily solves that for you.
2022 2013-01-31 22:28:13 <gmaxwell> (obviously it's not a drop in replacement for wolfram alpha, but it does the desktop-symbolic-math usecase usually OKAY)
2023 2013-01-31 22:29:24 WolfAlex has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2024 2013-01-31 22:30:18 <HM> yeah
2025 2013-01-31 22:31:50 zooko has joined
2026 2013-01-31 22:35:05 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2027 2013-01-31 22:35:35 <HM> argh, i'm in database and webdev hell atm. I'd kill to be working on something less crufty
2028 2013-01-31 22:37:19 PhantomSpark has joined
2029 2013-01-31 22:38:12 <andytoshi> HM: i'm doing DB/web with lisp right now :)
2030 2013-01-31 22:38:26 <sipa> These are your father's parenthesis...
2031 2013-01-31 22:38:30 <sipa> *es
2032 2013-01-31 22:38:34 <Diablo-D3> lollisp
2033 2013-01-31 22:38:37 <Scrat> HM: who is forcing PHP down your throat
2034 2013-01-31 22:38:50 <andytoshi> ya, i've got great lines like
2035 2013-01-31 22:38:51 <andytoshi> (htm (:li (:a :href (car ,link) (fmt "~a" (cdr ,link))))))))))
2036 2013-01-31 22:38:51 <Diablo-D3> I really should just make my own version of lisp
2037 2013-01-31 22:39:50 spenvo has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
2038 2013-01-31 22:40:10 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2039 2013-01-31 22:41:35 <HM> Scrat: nah, using Django and jQuery and all that guff, it's still arduous
2040 2013-01-31 22:42:05 zooko` has joined
2041 2013-01-31 22:43:29 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2042 2013-01-31 22:48:25 zooko` is now known as zooko
2043 2013-01-31 22:49:37 PK has quit ()
2044 2013-01-31 22:50:14 andytoshi has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2045 2013-01-31 22:54:15 agricocb has joined
2046 2013-01-31 22:55:24 rdymac has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2047 2013-01-31 22:56:27 rdymac has joined
2048 2013-01-31 22:58:38 benkay has joined
2049 2013-01-31 23:01:00 holorga has joined
2050 2013-01-31 23:02:35 PhantomSpark has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2051 2013-01-31 23:05:11 <holorga> hey people, I'm trying to create a hex transaction automatically from nodejs.. (I'll dig through brainwallet.orgs code to see how to do this)
2052 2013-01-31 23:05:15 <holorga> but I want to use pywallets --dumpwallet output to get the addresses/secret keys.. so I'm trying it by hand on brainwallet.org first and I'm having problems.
2053 2013-01-31 23:05:18 <holorga> if I type in a Secret Exponent I brainwallet calculates the correct Secret out, and the other way around, but the address is different from the one I'm seeing in the dump each time, how come?
2054 2013-01-31 23:05:18 <holorga> I haven't read through the low level technical details yet, so I'm hoping for someone here to know..
2055 2013-01-31 23:06:25 <vessenes> you probably need to byte twiddle the key you get back. Just a guess.
2056 2013-01-31 23:08:28 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2057 2013-01-31 23:09:03 <holorga> which key? and what do you mena by twiddle?
2058 2013-01-31 23:09:30 mapppum has joined
2059 2013-01-31 23:09:45 zooko has joined
2060 2013-01-31 23:10:26 mapppum has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2061 2013-01-31 23:11:24 vessenes has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2062 2013-01-31 23:12:53 mappum has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2063 2013-01-31 23:12:56 <holorga> aha, it works if I use dumpprivkey from a standard client
2064 2013-01-31 23:13:09 <holorga> tnx, I'll look into what the difference is between this output and pywallets one
2065 2013-01-31 23:13:50 gargar has joined
2066 2013-01-31 23:14:10 <sipa> does pywallet support compressed pubkeys?
2067 2013-01-31 23:14:18 <sipa> if not, that's the reason for the difference i suppose
2068 2013-01-31 23:15:54 drizztbsd has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2069 2013-01-31 23:15:58 drizzt_ has joined
2070 2013-01-31 23:18:49 sgornick has joined
2071 2013-01-31 23:19:05 andytoshi has joined
2072 2013-01-31 23:19:09 <holorga> sipa: you mean private keys? it doesn't, but bitcoind's dumpprivkey exports the key uncompressed too.. I'm making progress.. it seems that everything is fine if I use my current .wallet file, yet the old one I have has different output.. maybe something changed in bitcoin protocol in the last 6-12 months
2073 2013-01-31 23:19:35 <sipa> holorga: no, that's not how it works
2074 2013-01-31 23:19:39 occulta has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.3 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
2075 2013-01-31 23:20:28 <sipa> holorga: for every EC public key, there exist two ways to serialize it: a compressed (33 bytes) and an uncompressed (65 bytes)
2076 2013-01-31 23:20:45 <sipa> since bitcoin 0.6.0, we use the compressed one by default
2077 2013-01-31 23:20:55 <BlueMatt> sipa: do you happen to have a w64 environment around and a minute to kick off a build?
2078 2013-01-31 23:21:01 <sipa> BlueMatt: no, sorry
2079 2013-01-31 23:21:04 pecket has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2080 2013-01-31 23:21:10 <BlueMatt> alright, np, Ill do it tomorrow
2081 2013-01-31 23:21:15 <sipa> holorga: and the address is different for both, as the address is based on the hash of the public key
2082 2013-01-31 23:21:24 <sipa> holorga: even though they're based on the same EC secret
2083 2013-01-31 23:21:27 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2084 2013-01-31 23:22:09 <BlueMatt> well, maybe I have time to start now...
2085 2013-01-31 23:23:12 toffoo has quit ()
2086 2013-01-31 23:25:20 agath has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2087 2013-01-31 23:25:33 BCBot` has joined
2088 2013-01-31 23:25:38 agath has joined
2089 2013-01-31 23:25:41 pecket has joined
2090 2013-01-31 23:25:58 JDuke128 has quit (Quit: ["Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com"])
2091 2013-01-31 23:26:33 BCBot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2092 2013-01-31 23:27:33 benkay has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
2093 2013-01-31 23:27:33 <holorga> sipa: hm.. but I'm using dumpprivkey I'm exporting my secret key only, and this seems to be enough for brainwallet to calculate the public one and from this, my address?
2094 2013-01-31 23:27:47 BCB has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2095 2013-01-31 23:28:10 <sipa> holorga: can you tell me the first character of the dumped private key?
2096 2013-01-31 23:28:15 BCB has joined
2097 2013-01-31 23:28:19 <sipa> (the rest is secret)
2098 2013-01-31 23:30:10 <holorga> yeah, sec
2099 2013-01-31 23:30:16 <sipa> or i'll tell you: if it starts with a 5, it refers to a private key whose corresponding public key is uncompressed
2100 2013-01-31 23:30:57 MrTiggr has joined
2101 2013-01-31 23:31:03 da2ce7_d is now known as da2ce7
2102 2013-01-31 23:31:14 ken` has quit (Quit: leaving)
2103 2013-01-31 23:31:37 <holorga> oh! ok, yeah, its 5, ok, so secret key's 'type' implies the compression or non compression of a public key
2104 2013-01-31 23:31:45 <sipa> exactly
2105 2013-01-31 23:32:18 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2106 2013-01-31 23:38:32 MobiusL has joined
2107 2013-01-31 23:38:32 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2108 2013-01-31 23:38:33 <Luke-Jr> holorga: IIRC technically the version number is the same for both, but base58 has this stupid property that it completely changes if you have different lengths
2109 2013-01-31 23:39:25 b4epoche has joined
2110 2013-01-31 23:45:35 dlb76 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2111 2013-01-31 23:45:35 D34TH has joined
2112 2013-01-31 23:45:36 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2113 2013-01-31 23:46:01 zooko` has joined
2114 2013-01-31 23:47:22 zooko has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2115 2013-01-31 23:48:46 nus- has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2116 2013-01-31 23:50:19 one_zero has joined
2117 2013-01-31 23:53:42 <Luke-Jr> did someone piss Sergio off to prompt his full disclosures prior to any opportunity to patch them?
2118 2013-01-31 23:54:50 <Luke-Jr> sigh
2119 2013-01-31 23:56:21 rdymac has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2120 2013-01-31 23:56:22 owowo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2121 2013-01-31 23:56:23 nus has joined
2122 2013-01-31 23:56:43 owowo has joined
2123 2013-01-31 23:57:31 <Luke-Jr> sipa: thoughts on a way to set a simple hard time limit on transaction validation?
2124 2013-01-31 23:57:33 novusordo has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2125 2013-01-31 23:57:48 <Luke-Jr> sipa: for miners, mainly