1 2013-02-06 00:00:00 <benkay> only a little joking
   2 2013-02-06 00:02:15 <phantomcircuit> HM2, different layers is my design
   3 2013-02-06 00:02:21 <phantomcircuit> it makes things more flexible
   4 2013-02-06 00:02:28 <Scrat> btrfs is taking its sweet time
   5 2013-02-06 00:03:23 <HM2> phantomcircuit: laying is only good when a higher layer completely hides a lower one
   6 2013-02-06 00:03:36 asuk has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
   7 2013-02-06 00:03:47 <HM2> atm you have to shrink a filesystem in a filesystem specific way before you can shrink an LVM volume
   8 2013-02-06 00:04:45 <HM2> a decent system would have callbacks that allowed the OS to do that for you
   9 2013-02-06 00:05:35 yin has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  10 2013-02-06 00:06:48 <Scrat> if you can run ZFS (like on a NAS) it's the best thing you can do for your data. the way it handles bit rot is great
  11 2013-02-06 00:09:32 <HM2> I'm not sure what the legal situation is regarding keeping ZFS out of the kernel
  12 2013-02-06 00:10:05 mologie has joined
  13 2013-02-06 00:12:17 <phantomcircuit> HM2, as a module yes as a built-in not distributable
  14 2013-02-06 00:14:37 <HM2> Sun could have fixed this
  15 2013-02-06 00:16:33 t7 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
  16 2013-02-06 00:16:38 <muhoo> it amazes me how things like filesystems and databases tht were once no-brainer solved problems now have all this complexity
  17 2013-02-06 00:16:58 <HM2> "solved problems"?
  18 2013-02-06 00:17:23 <muhoo> need a database? no need to think, just use sql. filesystem? whatever os you used came with one (sometimes only one). etc
  19 2013-02-06 00:17:37 <Scrat> sure it was a solved problem if you need to store 100 rows
  20 2013-02-06 00:17:53 <Scrat> how about 100 billion rows across 100 machines across 3 datacenters
  21 2013-02-06 00:18:00 <benkay> successful partition!
  22 2013-02-06 00:18:01 <muhoo> i blame google :-)
  23 2013-02-06 00:18:03 dvide has joined
  24 2013-02-06 00:18:07 <benkay> er
  25 2013-02-06 00:18:09 <benkay> partition resize
  26 2013-02-06 00:18:12 <HM2> It's simple: everything sucked, now it sucks slightly less but in a variety of flavours
  27 2013-02-06 00:18:36 <muhoo> Scrat: yep, the big-data problems weren't suited for those cookiecutter solutions of yesteryear, inded.
  28 2013-02-06 00:18:47 Guest80979 is now known as d4de
  29 2013-02-06 00:19:08 d4de has quit (Changing host)
  30 2013-02-06 00:19:08 d4de has joined
  31 2013-02-06 00:19:18 <Scrat> not only big data
  32 2013-02-06 00:19:43 <Scrat> things like multimaster replication or shared nothing architectures
  33 2013-02-06 00:19:57 <muhoo> yes that was miserable to try to do in mysql for sure
  34 2013-02-06 00:20:12 owowo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  35 2013-02-06 00:20:34 <HM2> I dunno
  36 2013-02-06 00:21:14 <muhoo> speaking of databases, i hear bdb is going away in bitcoind?
  37 2013-02-06 00:22:23 owowo has joined
  38 2013-02-06 00:23:09 RBecker is now known as rbecker
  39 2013-02-06 00:23:49 <HM2> muhoo: leveldb is now being used, not sure if berks is going away
  40 2013-02-06 00:24:58 <gmaxwell> The wallet still uses BDB for now... it'll be there for compatiblity for some time to come.
  41 2013-02-06 00:25:49 <HM2> the wallet isn't that big is it?
  42 2013-02-06 00:26:36 <HM2> why not just dump it as a json file
  43 2013-02-06 00:27:40 <midnightmagic> HM2: The wallet is used for a few other things too; temporary storage.
  44 2013-02-06 00:27:57 <HM2> hmm ok
  45 2013-02-06 00:28:21 <midnightmagic> and my wallet is like 200MB because I was lame and didn't catch a looping "getnewaddress" script in time.
  46 2013-02-06 00:29:05 gjs278 is now known as alt!~user@c-67-167-103-226.hsd1.il.comcast.net|gjs278
  47 2013-02-06 00:32:41 benkay has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  48 2013-02-06 00:35:11 <andytoshi> midnightmagic: haha
  49 2013-02-06 00:37:02 PhantomSpark has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  50 2013-02-06 00:40:30 Insu has joined
  51 2013-02-06 00:41:42 Maged has joined
  52 2013-02-06 00:44:38 veralibertas has joined
  53 2013-02-06 00:46:48 Zarutian has joined
  54 2013-02-06 00:51:39 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
  55 2013-02-06 01:00:26 mologie has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
  56 2013-02-06 01:01:00 rbecker is now known as RBecker
  57 2013-02-06 01:02:06 MC1984 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  58 2013-02-06 01:02:42 capian has joined
  59 2013-02-06 01:08:51 capian has quit (Quit: Page closed)
  60 2013-02-06 01:12:32 mologie has joined
  61 2013-02-06 01:18:27 MC1984 has joined
  62 2013-02-06 01:21:59 wood_quinn has joined
  63 2013-02-06 01:27:00 <wood_quinn> jgarzik: Should there be a new torrent for 210,000 or 216,116 (for 0.8.0)?
  64 2013-02-06 01:27:16 asuk has joined
  65 2013-02-06 01:30:55 zooko has joined
  66 2013-02-06 01:31:41 asuk has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  67 2013-02-06 01:31:56 Tykling has quit (Excess Flood)
  68 2013-02-06 01:34:00 Tykling has joined
  69 2013-02-06 01:34:48 Tykling has quit (Excess Flood)
  70 2013-02-06 01:39:00 Tykling has joined
  71 2013-02-06 01:39:30 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
  72 2013-02-06 01:42:13 mapppum has joined
  73 2013-02-06 01:46:00 mappum has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  74 2013-02-06 01:46:35 LargoG has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  75 2013-02-06 01:46:50 LargoG has joined
  76 2013-02-06 01:49:32 PhantomSpark has joined
  77 2013-02-06 01:54:44 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  78 2013-02-06 01:56:13 zooko has joined
  79 2013-02-06 01:58:54 Lolcust has quit (Quit: Nap time)
  80 2013-02-06 02:01:00 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
  81 2013-02-06 02:02:10 Lolcust has joined
  82 2013-02-06 02:03:57 wood_quinn has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  83 2013-02-06 02:04:24 wood_quinn has joined
  84 2013-02-06 02:06:50 <MC1984> strange checkpoint
  85 2013-02-06 02:11:32 <wood_quinn> There's about a thousand or so orphaned blocks around 40K hehe.
  86 2013-02-06 02:12:44 <MC1984> ??
  87 2013-02-06 02:14:24 <gmaxwell> wood_quinn: yes— though where'd you find them?
  88 2013-02-06 02:14:32 <gmaxwell> wood_quinn: you won't get copies of them on a newly started node.
  89 2013-02-06 02:15:36 <MC1984> how on eath do you orphan a thousand blocks
  90 2013-02-06 02:15:43 <MC1984> sounds like some shenanigans
  91 2013-02-06 02:15:50 D34TH has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  92 2013-02-06 02:16:11 <wood_quinn> I could be wrong.
  93 2013-02-06 02:16:34 <wood_quinn> I just know my client was importing about 5K blocks every two minutes, and at 40K it stopped for about four.
  94 2013-02-06 02:16:55 <wood_quinn> I looked at the debug log and saw a steady stream of nothing but orphan blocks and assumed that was why.
  95 2013-02-06 02:20:58 <wood_quinn> Looks like there are about 926 in a row somewhere in there.
  96 2013-02-06 02:22:59 <gmaxwell> wood_quinn: ah what you're seeing there is just out of order fetching, it's not actually orphaned blocks.
  97 2013-02-06 02:23:46 <jgarzik> wood_quinn: yes, there should be a new torrent with new checkpoints
  98 2013-02-06 02:23:47 <wood_quinn> Oh ok.
  99 2013-02-06 02:24:02 <gmaxwell> but there was a big fork created back around height 77k or so.
 100 2013-02-06 02:24:03 <jgarzik> wood_quinn: however, no release bitcoin version would be able to import it, due to file length bugs in 0.7.x
 101 2013-02-06 02:24:16 <wood_quinn> jgarzik: Ah.
 102 2013-02-06 02:24:44 <jgarzik> wood_quinn: 0.7.x currently fails to import 5% or so of current bootstrap.dat, iirc.  upcoming version 0.8 fixes this issue.
 103 2013-02-06 02:26:15 <wood_quinn> Perhpas that's the reason for the odd checkpoint.
 104 2013-02-06 02:26:57 <jgarzik> wood_quinn: what odd checkpoint?
 105 2013-02-06 02:27:16 <wood_quinn> 216,116
 106 2013-02-06 02:27:32 techlife has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 107 2013-02-06 02:28:23 benkay has joined
 108 2013-02-06 02:28:54 veralibertas has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 109 2013-02-06 02:30:39 mapppum is now known as mappum
 110 2013-02-06 02:31:51 <Luke-Jr> wood_quinn: checkpoints are pretty arbitrary
 111 2013-02-06 02:32:00 <Luke-Jr> and numbers ending in 6 are even
 112 2013-02-06 02:32:09 <wood_quinn> Heh.
 113 2013-02-06 02:32:20 <MC1984> im gonna assume thats a tonal troll
 114 2013-02-06 02:32:30 <Luke-Jr> it holds true for decimal as well
 115 2013-02-06 02:32:33 <MC1984> you could have atleast made it a palindrome instead
 116 2013-02-06 02:32:40 <MC1984> 216612
 117 2013-02-06 02:32:57 <wood_quinn> I'm still waiting for the 666 blockchain dump.
 118 2013-02-06 02:32:58 techlife has joined
 119 2013-02-06 02:34:39 * wood_quinn waves
 120 2013-02-06 02:34:41 wood_quinn has left ()
 121 2013-02-06 02:40:42 mapppum has joined
 122 2013-02-06 02:41:48 zooko has joined
 123 2013-02-06 02:43:18 <CodeShark> jgarzik: been a little busy, haven't had a chance to finish that autotools thing...but if you have a few moments I'd like to see if we can make some progress
 124 2013-02-06 02:43:28 graham1 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 125 2013-02-06 02:44:08 mappum has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 126 2013-02-06 02:44:14 <CodeShark> Luke-Jr: I could also use your help :)
 127 2013-02-06 02:45:05 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: ?
 128 2013-02-06 02:45:29 <CodeShark> ok, so the latest autotools stuff I've done is here: https://github.com/CodeShark/bitcoin/tree/autotools/src
 129 2013-02-06 02:45:36 <CodeShark> what happens if you try to run the configure file?
 130 2013-02-06 02:46:25 moarrr has quit ()
 131 2013-02-06 02:46:43 FredEE has quit (Quit: FredEE)
 132 2013-02-06 02:47:22 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: the configure script itself isn't supposed to be in the git, but that can be cleaned up later I guess
 133 2013-02-06 02:47:33 FredEE has joined
 134 2013-02-06 02:47:47 <CodeShark> why not?
 135 2013-02-06 02:48:02 <Luke-Jr> it's generated
 136 2013-02-06 02:48:14 <gmaxwell> 0_o
 137 2013-02-06 02:48:16 <CodeShark> assuming someone clones the repo in order to install bitcoind, shouldn't they be able to just run the configure file?
 138 2013-02-06 02:48:21 <gmaxwell> Same reason you don't put the binaries in git.
 139 2013-02-06 02:48:26 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 140 2013-02-06 02:48:27 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: no.
 141 2013-02-06 02:48:27 <Luke-Jr> and right now, I'd have 11,628 lines of code to review before I can safely run it :P
 142 2013-02-06 02:48:41 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: nope
 143 2013-02-06 02:49:05 <CodeShark> so if someone wants to install it from the repo, they have to run autoconf themselves?
 144 2013-02-06 02:49:19 <Luke-Jr> (also, we aren't using GPLv3)
 145 2013-02-06 02:49:31 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: yes, git repos are for developers who know what they're doign
 146 2013-02-06 02:49:40 mappppum has joined
 147 2013-02-06 02:50:05 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: do I ignore the configure shell script outside src/?
 148 2013-02-06 02:50:09 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 149 2013-02-06 02:50:19 <CodeShark> O
 150 2013-02-06 02:50:31 <CodeShark> I'm only focused on the /src stuff for now
 151 2013-02-06 02:51:30 <Luke-Jr> k, down to 1400 LOC, will look over and try it
 152 2013-02-06 02:52:28 RBecker is now known as rbecker
 153 2013-02-06 02:52:53 <CodeShark> so if the configure file is not included in the repo, what's the format for users who want to compile it themselves? just a tarball?
 154 2013-02-06 02:53:07 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: usually
 155 2013-02-06 02:53:12 b4epoche has joined
 156 2013-02-06 02:53:18 moore_ has joined
 157 2013-02-06 02:53:43 mapppum has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 158 2013-02-06 02:53:49 mappppum is now known as mappum
 159 2013-02-06 02:54:30 zooko has joined
 160 2013-02-06 02:55:19 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: your src/leveldb/Makefile has some important bugfixes reverted
 161 2013-02-06 02:55:56 <CodeShark> I'll have to rebase later - but right now I'm just interested in getting the configure script to work
 162 2013-02-06 02:57:13 <Luke-Jr> ./configure: line 5447: syntax error near unexpected token `;;'
 163 2013-02-06 02:57:21 <CodeShark> ok, same thing is happening to me
 164 2013-02-06 02:57:35 <CodeShark> different line number
 165 2013-02-06 02:57:40 <CodeShark> 5427
 166 2013-02-06 02:57:55 <CodeShark> but you used your own autotools to generate the configure file, yes?
 167 2013-02-06 02:58:23 <Luke-Jr> yes
 168 2013-02-06 02:58:30 <Luke-Jr> also, autoconf 2.69 doesn't like it at all
 169 2013-02-06 02:58:41 <Luke-Jr> it wants leveldb to have a Makefile.in :P
 170 2013-02-06 02:59:08 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 171 2013-02-06 03:00:13 Guest66349 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 172 2013-02-06 03:00:24 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 173 2013-02-06 03:02:08 <CodeShark> but that can't be what's causing the script error
 174 2013-02-06 03:02:24 <Luke-Jr> right, two separate issues
 175 2013-02-06 03:03:43 <CodeShark> I just did a rebase
 176 2013-02-06 03:05:12 <MC1984> bdq3 came though
 177 2013-02-06 03:06:33 JZavala has joined
 178 2013-02-06 03:07:28 <CodeShark> I don't even see where that case statement begins
 179 2013-02-06 03:07:38 <CodeShark> I see on line 5428 an esac
 180 2013-02-06 03:07:44 <CodeShark> but where does the case statement begin?
 181 2013-02-06 03:08:07 <CodeShark> the nearest case before that line is on line 4717
 182 2013-02-06 03:08:37 agricocb has joined
 183 2013-02-06 03:08:43 <CodeShark> is that a bug in autoconf? or is that a bug in one of the macros?
 184 2013-02-06 03:08:55 <andytoshi> it's a feature
 185 2013-02-06 03:08:57 <CodeShark> haha
 186 2013-02-06 03:09:30 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: bug in the boost stuff afaik
 187 2013-02-06 03:11:05 LargoG has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 188 2013-02-06 03:13:05 <CodeShark> I commented out AX_BOOST_THREAD([1.42.1]) in configure.ac and that error went away
 189 2013-02-06 03:14:14 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 190 2013-02-06 03:15:28 john____ has joined
 191 2013-02-06 03:17:08 <jgarzik> CodeShark: pretty busy with baby bedtime, I'll review scrollback after a while :)
 192 2013-02-06 03:17:53 <CodeShark> jgarzik: baby bedtime is more important :)
 193 2013-02-06 03:19:03 benkay has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 194 2013-02-06 03:19:46 pierre`_ has joined
 195 2013-02-06 03:20:08 john____ has quit (Client Quit)
 196 2013-02-06 03:21:08 mmoya_ has joined
 197 2013-02-06 03:21:27 comboy_ has joined
 198 2013-02-06 03:22:34 balrog has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 199 2013-02-06 03:22:35 Bwild has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 200 2013-02-06 03:22:35 Benjojo has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 201 2013-02-06 03:22:35 comboy has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 202 2013-02-06 03:22:35 ahbritto_ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 203 2013-02-06 03:22:35 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 204 2013-02-06 03:22:35 pierre` has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 205 2013-02-06 03:22:45 balrog_ has joined
 206 2013-02-06 03:23:26 Bwild has joined
 207 2013-02-06 03:24:42 ahbritto_ has joined
 208 2013-02-06 03:24:46 balrog_ is now known as balrog
 209 2013-02-06 03:26:23 <CodeShark> should I just get rid of those AX macros and use AC_CHECK_LIB and AC_CHECK_HEADERS instead?
 210 2013-02-06 03:26:33 <Luke-Jr> dunno
 211 2013-02-06 03:28:01 <CodeShark> seems like I might have better luck
 212 2013-02-06 03:28:07 <CodeShark> at least it reduces the number of places things can break
 213 2013-02-06 03:29:58 <Luke-Jr> if you do something even slightly wrong with autoconf, it explodes.
 214 2013-02-06 03:30:09 <CodeShark> yeah, so I've been noticinf
 215 2013-02-06 03:30:11 <CodeShark> yeah, so I've been noticing
 216 2013-02-06 03:30:49 <CodeShark> it's such a hideous hack. it's unfortunate it works at all since it would be nice to have it replaced once and for all :)
 217 2013-02-06 03:32:14 <CodeShark> I commented out lines like AX_BOOST_SYSTEM([1.46.1]) and replaced them with lines like AC_CHECK_LIB(boost_system,main,,AC_MSG_ERROR([boost_system library not found. Please install it.]))
 218 2013-02-06 03:32:15 <gribble> Error: "AC_MSG_ERROR" is not a valid command.
 219 2013-02-06 03:32:30 <CodeShark> lol - did I just confuse gribble?
 220 2013-02-06 03:33:49 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=141502
 221 2013-02-06 03:35:06 <CodeShark> :)
 222 2013-02-06 03:44:22 owowo has quit (Quit: sayonara)
 223 2013-02-06 03:50:08 Goonie has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 224 2013-02-06 03:51:02 fiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 225 2013-02-06 03:51:21 zooko has joined
 226 2013-02-06 03:54:56 fiesh has joined
 227 2013-02-06 03:59:33 techlife has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 228 2013-02-06 04:05:05 techlife has joined
 229 2013-02-06 04:05:06 techlife has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
 230 2013-02-06 04:06:00 techlife has joined
 231 2013-02-06 04:08:21 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
 232 2013-02-06 04:18:53 paraipan has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
 233 2013-02-06 04:21:38 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
 234 2013-02-06 04:21:45 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 235 2013-02-06 04:21:47 [7] has joined
 236 2013-02-06 04:23:17 isitreal has joined
 237 2013-02-06 04:26:01 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 238 2013-02-06 04:27:37 <isitreal> Hi there, may I ask what you use for blockchain data analyzing? I've used blockexplorer query a little. Any other tools like abe?
 239 2013-02-06 04:29:01 <CodeShark> I've built some of my own tools but haven't published all the source yet
 240 2013-02-06 04:29:11 <CodeShark> http://blockhawk.net/bitcoin/blocks
 241 2013-02-06 04:29:45 <moore_> I have done some useful stuff with blockparser https://github.com/znort987/blockparser
 242 2013-02-06 04:31:26 <gmaxwell> isitreal: using bitcoin itself is pretty reasonable for many things.
 243 2013-02-06 04:33:55 dbe has joined
 244 2013-02-06 04:33:56 isitreal has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 245 2013-02-06 04:34:18 dbe is now known as Guest66965
 246 2013-02-06 04:34:32 veralibertas has joined
 247 2013-02-06 04:35:13 <CodeShark> as nice as it would be to have one single app that does everything, the requirements for a streamlined validation/relay engine and for a historical analysis tool are quite different
 248 2013-02-06 04:36:01 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: sorry, I can't hear your abstract philosophizing over the furious roar of doing things pratically. :P
 249 2013-02-06 04:36:41 zooko has joined
 250 2013-02-06 04:36:46 <gmaxwell> Trying to manually parse the blockchain data has it's own weaknesses. It can make sense for some things, but not for others. In particular, it requires you to not get thrown by orphan blocks.
 251 2013-02-06 04:37:05 <gmaxwell> If the data can be extracted from the rpc without trouble thats probably a safer and simpler way to go about it.
 252 2013-02-06 04:37:28 <CodeShark> thrown by orphan blocks? how is that relevant?
 253 2013-02-06 04:37:33 <gmaxwell> I'm not aware of anything available from blockexplorer that you can't get via the rpc much faster and more reliably, except for index by address.
 254 2013-02-06 04:38:33 <CodeShark> are you referring to moore_'s parser, gmaxwell?
 255 2013-02-06 04:38:44 <moore_> with blockparcer I can run computations over the hole block chain in a few minutes
 256 2013-02-06 04:38:53 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: they're in the blockchain files, any tool hoping to analize the chain has to be smart enough to find them and handle them (e.g. ignore them) or you'll get crazy results like concluding more coins exist than permitted or that txn have been double spent in the chain.
 257 2013-02-06 04:38:53 <moore_> I did not write it
 258 2013-02-06 04:39:09 <moore_> just modified it for my use
 259 2013-02-06 04:39:22 <CodeShark> gmaxwell, for historical analysis it is preferable to build separate tables with appropriate indices
 260 2013-02-06 04:39:23 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: I'm not referring to any particular tool.
 261 2013-02-06 04:40:18 <CodeShark> in the process of constructing said tables, the block tree becomes a prominent structure
 262 2013-02-06 04:40:28 <CodeShark> in which it is easy to prune branches
 263 2013-02-06 04:40:39 <CodeShark> and to ignore nonconnected blocks
 264 2013-02-06 04:40:41 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: sure— depends on what you are doing. If you just want to know the content of blocks— for example— you can quite easily  pull them  out of transactions.  And you can get this right without having a sophicated understanding of bitcoin.
 265 2013-02-06 04:42:42 isitreal_ has joined
 266 2013-02-06 04:42:43 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 267 2013-02-06 04:42:48 <gmaxwell> "first you need to create a database that can model the blockchain, and the you need reimplement enough of the concensus algorithim to immitate its decisions" ... isn't a very pratical answer if someone wants to— say— find out how many fees are in the last 10000 blocks.  It may be a very pratical answer for something else.
 268 2013-02-06 04:42:50 <isitreal_> sry my browser crashed and then os hang...anyways pity I didn't catch the name of developer for http://blockhawk.net/bitcoin/blocks.php
 269 2013-02-06 04:43:01 da2ce7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 270 2013-02-06 04:43:35 <CodeShark> are you interested in using it for something, isitreal_?
 271 2013-02-06 04:45:03 <isitreal_> yeah. first thing in mind is to track one transaction (follow the coins)
 272 2013-02-06 04:45:17 <CodeShark> I'm looking to package it more nicely and publish the source code in the not-too-distant-future
 273 2013-02-06 04:45:32 Guest66965 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 274 2013-02-06 04:45:44 <isitreal_> may I ask if you built the database with abe?
 275 2013-02-06 04:45:56 <CodeShark> no, I'm using my own stuff
 276 2013-02-06 04:46:20 <isitreal_> cool. all php?
 277 2013-02-06 04:46:20 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
 278 2013-02-06 04:46:32 JDuke128 has joined
 279 2013-02-06 04:46:32 <CodeShark> no, the php is just for rendering the web views
 280 2013-02-06 04:46:46 <CodeShark> the daemon itself is C++
 281 2013-02-06 04:47:08 <CodeShark> the daemon connects to the p2p network, grabs blocks and transactions, and sticks them into an SQL database
 282 2013-02-06 04:47:33 <isitreal_> guess faster than python (abe), and also incremental
 283 2013-02-06 04:48:01 <CodeShark> and doesn't rely on a locally running instance of bitcoind nor the internal data file formats at all
 284 2013-02-06 04:48:09 <moore_> isitreal_ blockparser has a taint tool built in allready
 285 2013-02-06 04:48:50 <CodeShark> can connect to any validation node
 286 2013-02-06 04:50:16 <isitreal_> btw do you keep all the blockchain data locally?
 287 2013-02-06 04:50:50 Maged has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 288 2013-02-06 04:51:25 Maged has joined
 289 2013-02-06 04:51:33 <isitreal_> moore_ thanks for the blockparser
 290 2013-02-06 04:52:05 <moore_> if you don't have tons of memory you need to switch it to use sparse maps
 291 2013-02-06 04:52:23 <CodeShark> it builds an SQL database containing the entire block chain, isitreal_...separate and independent from the data files produced by bitcoind
 292 2013-02-06 04:52:31 <moore_> which is dose it a #define
 293 2013-02-06 04:52:47 <moore_> done with that is
 294 2013-02-06 04:53:28 da2ce7 has joined
 295 2013-02-06 04:53:29 <isitreal_> CodeShark thanks for the clarification
 296 2013-02-06 04:53:42 <CodeShark> it's not optimized for space
 297 2013-02-06 04:54:04 <isitreal_> moore_ I see. Thanks for the note.
 298 2013-02-06 04:54:39 <isitreal_> Well as far as it doesn't explode to TB then fine with me :)
 299 2013-02-06 04:55:08 <isitreal_> CodeShark you are talking about your method or blockparser?
 300 2013-02-06 04:55:13 <CodeShark> mine
 301 2013-02-06 04:55:21 <isitreal_> OK
 302 2013-02-06 04:57:10 <CodeShark> isitreal_: right now the entire SQL database is in the tens of GB
 303 2013-02-06 04:58:02 <isitreal_> I think abe outputs similar.
 304 2013-02-06 04:58:33 <CodeShark> the schema isn't too unlike abe - but the major difference is that abe parses the block chain files generated by bitcoind
 305 2013-02-06 04:59:11 <CodeShark> and abe doesn't handle mempool stuff
 306 2013-02-06 05:00:12 <isitreal_> excuse me but what's the difference between files generated by bitcoind and those pulled from p2p network?
 307 2013-02-06 05:00:22 <isitreal_> latter is more real-time?
 308 2013-02-06 05:00:30 <CodeShark> the p2p network only deals with bitcoin messages
 309 2013-02-06 05:00:39 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 310 2013-02-06 05:00:53 <CodeShark> these things: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification
 311 2013-02-06 05:01:20 <moore_> Hmm I should build you a better DB CodeShark
 312 2013-02-06 05:01:38 <CodeShark> if you'd like I'm fully open to that, moore_ :)
 313 2013-02-06 05:01:40 <moore_> ( I my copious free time )
 314 2013-02-06 05:01:59 <moore_> I will get around to it at some point
 315 2013-02-06 05:02:02 <CodeShark> I've also entertained the possibility of ditching SQL, perhaps looking into graph databases or other interesting structures
 316 2013-02-06 05:02:42 <weex> if one wanted to have an sql database of transactions which way would you all go?
 317 2013-02-06 05:02:45 <moore_> It is my hobby and profession to write DBs some times
 318 2013-02-06 05:02:54 <moore_> I have a almost really easy to use tool chain
 319 2013-02-06 05:03:38 <moore_> I just need to implement a few things... I will probably have it all in place this year
 320 2013-02-06 05:05:25 <weex> i basically don't want to mess with the setup much but would like to run some queries
 321 2013-02-06 05:06:06 <isitreal_> weex we were talking about this and https://github.com/znort987/blockparser was mentioned
 322 2013-02-06 05:06:19 <isitreal_> not sure if you want to setup the database at all
 323 2013-02-06 05:06:54 <weex> i guess i'd prefer to operate from the files bitcoind already has and i have no prob with mysql
 324 2013-02-06 05:06:58 <moore_> on my laptop with a SSD that code is amazingly fast
 325 2013-02-06 05:07:15 <weex> so you connect it to a running bitcoind to get the blocks?
 326 2013-02-06 05:07:25 <isitreal_> moore_ you mean blockparser? or your own tool chain?
 327 2013-02-06 05:07:35 <moore_> blockparser
 328 2013-02-06 05:07:46 <isitreal_> good to know
 329 2013-02-06 05:07:53 <moore_> it is easy to modify too
 330 2013-02-06 05:08:04 <moore_> I used it to look for week keys in the block chain
 331 2013-02-06 05:09:06 <isitreal_> "week keys"?
 332 2013-02-06 05:09:11 <weex> weak keys
 333 2013-02-06 05:09:16 <weex> like a dictionary attack would find
 334 2013-02-06 05:09:20 <moore_> no
 335 2013-02-06 05:09:32 <isitreal_> lol
 336 2013-02-06 05:10:00 <moore_> keys where k had been repeated in a signature and you could solve for the private key
 337 2013-02-06 05:10:14 Guest87471 has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 338 2013-02-06 05:12:32 <isitreal_> moore_ would you enlighten me what's that for?
 339 2013-02-06 05:13:28 <weex> i most certainly wouldn't understand
 340 2013-02-06 05:13:32 <weex> but it sounds cool
 341 2013-02-06 05:13:33 <moore_> https://plus.google.com/106313804833283549032/posts/X1TvcxNhMWz
 342 2013-02-06 05:14:02 <moore_> it tuned out that tcatm beat me to it
 343 2013-02-06 05:14:15 dbe has joined
 344 2013-02-06 05:14:38 dbe is now known as Guest93237
 345 2013-02-06 05:15:13 <isitreal_> weex besides parsing from the block files generated by bitcoind you can also pull data from p2p network (only deals with bitcoin messages) -- just learnt from CodeShark
 346 2013-02-06 05:15:32 MC1984 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 347 2013-02-06 05:15:46 <weex> i've used pynode but i'm interested in some light statistics
 348 2013-02-06 05:15:51 <CodeShark> that's how bitcoind gets its data, isitreal_ :p
 349 2013-02-06 05:16:01 <weex> like what is the most common transaction amount
 350 2013-02-06 05:16:05 <weex> or what is their distributino
 351 2013-02-06 05:16:37 <weex> not hard to do for a few blocks with a little scraping but that's no fun really
 352 2013-02-06 05:16:55 skeledrew has joined
 353 2013-02-06 05:18:20 Benjojo has joined
 354 2013-02-06 05:19:41 <CodeShark> I'm looking to opensource the entire project in the not-too-distant-future
 355 2013-02-06 05:19:58 <isitreal_> Looking forward!
 356 2013-02-06 05:22:34 <amiller> gmaxwell, sipa, i have finally worked out a general form for merkle-things!!
 357 2013-02-06 05:22:41 <amiller> https://gist.github.com/amiller/4715508
 358 2013-02-06 05:23:12 <amiller> i have basically been at this since last may
 359 2013-02-06 05:23:15 gjs278 has joined
 360 2013-02-06 05:23:44 * amiller flips out
 361 2013-02-06 05:24:02 <moore_> congratulations
 362 2013-02-06 05:24:03 <weex> wb amiller
 363 2013-02-06 05:24:34 <amiller> it's a generalization of a merkle tree
 364 2013-02-06 05:24:36 <moore_> wish I knew haskel better
 365 2013-02-06 05:24:43 <amiller> take any operation, like a lookup in a balanced search tree
 366 2013-02-06 05:25:12 <amiller> i can automatically transform it into two versions - one is the Prover, it produces a sequence of just the local data (including hashes for the children) of any node it visits
 367 2013-02-06 05:25:38 <amiller> the second is a Verifier - it consumes a stream of node data, simulating the original operation, and rejecting it if the data doesn't match the hashes it already has
 368 2013-02-06 05:26:37 <amiller> for the sake of a proper proof, i also have a third version Extract where basically if you give it any proof object, and the original data structure, then it either gives the right result or a hash collision
 369 2013-02-06 05:27:07 <amiller> so fooling the verifier is just as hard as finding a hash collision
 370 2013-02-06 05:28:30 <amiller> this works for any regular datatype defined as a fixpoint of a functor, which applies to the existing block chain and tx merkle trees, as well as all the flip-the-chain proposals
 371 2013-02-06 05:31:24 <andytoshi> amiller: do you have an article or something which describes this?
 372 2013-02-06 05:31:34 <andytoshi> i doubt you can explain your project in IRC
 373 2013-02-06 05:31:44 * andytoshi follows the link..
 374 2013-02-06 05:31:45 <amiller> that doesn't usually stop me from trying
 375 2013-02-06 05:31:49 <andytoshi> :)
 376 2013-02-06 05:32:35 <amiller> this was my first writeup about it https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101734.0
 377 2013-02-06 05:33:50 <andytoshi> thanks, i bookmarked that
 378 2013-02-06 05:33:51 <amiller> i made an implementation in python but it was impossible to convince anyone it works, so i had to learn about category theory and haskell and coq and stuff
 379 2013-02-06 05:33:56 <andytoshi> i'm too tired and haskell-rusty to follow it now
 380 2013-02-06 05:34:12 <andytoshi> sadly, i'm okay with the category theory
 381 2013-02-06 05:34:25 <amiller> :)
 382 2013-02-06 05:38:56 isitreal_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 383 2013-02-06 05:41:09 nus- has joined
 384 2013-02-06 05:41:36 nus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 385 2013-02-06 05:42:21 * jgarzik wonders if 5.199.170.24 is a pool or relay
 386 2013-02-06 05:42:31 <jgarzik> it shows up on those beloved blockchain.info stats
 387 2013-02-06 05:43:40 <gmaxwell> amiller: Very cool!
 388 2013-02-06 05:44:35 <gmaxwell> amiller: are many pre-existing data structures defined in a way suitable for your code?
 389 2013-02-06 05:45:15 <amiller> yes, pretty much any data structure that can be described
 390 2013-02-06 05:46:00 <gmaxwell> amiller: how the heck does a merkleized lookup (e.g. hash) table do an update?  do you end up with a proof for the update that is O(N)?
 391 2013-02-06 05:46:07 <amiller> well, excluding ones like an array or a hash table or an array :/
 392 2013-02-06 05:46:20 <amiller> s/an array//
 393 2013-02-06 05:47:10 <amiller> skip lists are okay, tries are too
 394 2013-02-06 05:47:27 <gmaxwell> okay. right. How about a skiplist which is randomized?
 395 2013-02-06 05:47:39 <amiller> randomization is fine
 396 2013-02-06 05:47:57 <amiller> you'd have to keep track of the seed and all
 397 2013-02-06 05:48:56 freakazoid has joined
 398 2013-02-06 05:49:55 <gmaxwell> What is the clear expression of the criteria that makes something like an array not work while a balanced tree works?  (I know intutively what will owkrk or not, I suppose, but I don't have a clear statement of it)
 399 2013-02-06 05:50:19 <amiller> now that i have studied the intricate theory of datatypes, i can safely say that
 400 2013-02-06 05:50:38 <amiller> the criteria that makes it work is if the datatype is expressible as the fixpoint of a functor
 401 2013-02-06 05:51:04 <amiller> "inductively defined" is maybe clear enough
 402 2013-02-06 05:52:08 <amiller> i think that things like arrays are considered "indexed datatypes"
 403 2013-02-06 05:52:40 * andytoshi is quite overwhelmed
 404 2013-02-06 05:52:58 <andytoshi> how long does it take to learn the theory of datatypes? does "fixpoint of a functor" mean something concrete to you?
 405 2013-02-06 05:53:11 <andytoshi> there are a lot of functors in the world..
 406 2013-02-06 05:53:37 <gmaxwell> amiller: ! there you go "inductively defined"  is surpurbly clear to me!
 407 2013-02-06 05:53:46 <amiller> (it's an ongoing process for me to match up my intuition with this weird set of academic theory, but the payoff is being able to put this in a proof-checker language, roconnor is my target audience)
 408 2013-02-06 05:55:25 <andytoshi> do you happen to be anywhere near austin tx or vancouver bc?
 409 2013-02-06 05:55:33 <amiller> heh, no
 410 2013-02-06 05:55:56 <gmaxwell> well your work is fully paid off in my mind—  I don't know how long it would have taken me to realize that the key criteria for being able to do this is that it needs to have a (possibly branching and irreglar) recursive expression. There are LOTS of neat things you can express that way.
 411 2013-02-06 05:56:02 Guest93237 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 412 2013-02-06 05:59:45 moore_ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 413 2013-02-06 06:00:57 <amiller> thanks! i'll take that
 414 2013-02-06 06:02:52 unknown45682 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 415 2013-02-06 06:03:39 unknown45682 has joined
 416 2013-02-06 06:05:59 MC1984 has joined
 417 2013-02-06 06:10:51 <andytoshi> while i've got a dead channel, has anyone here done an interview with cambridge university?
 418 2013-02-06 06:11:22 <andytoshi> i have one tomorrow morning to discuss my entry into an analysis PhD program
 419 2013-02-06 06:12:41 WolfAlex has joined
 420 2013-02-06 06:14:23 <CodeShark> good luck :)
 421 2013-02-06 06:14:53 <andytoshi> thx CodeShark, i'm pretty nervous
 422 2013-02-06 06:15:42 <CodeShark> do you know the interviewer?
 423 2013-02-06 06:16:06 <andytoshi> i know of her
 424 2013-02-06 06:16:09 dbe has joined
 425 2013-02-06 06:16:31 <andytoshi> she is friends with one of my professors
 426 2013-02-06 06:16:34 dbe is now known as Guest27105
 427 2013-02-06 06:17:16 <CodeShark> good, well then make sure to maintain a good relationship with said professor and just go in relaxed :)
 428 2013-02-06 06:22:38 MobPhone has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 429 2013-02-06 06:29:16 JDuke128 has quit (Quit: ["Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com"])
 430 2013-02-06 06:42:31 <gmaxwell> amiller: If you're interested in an application for Merkle Monads outside of bitcoin— one thing that comes to mind for me is tor directory authorities.  Tor nodes need to download big directories before they can securely choose their own paths. Esp as the tor network grows I expect the the data needed for this may impede users who need tor the most (e.g. freedom constraints come with bandwidth constraints)
 431 2013-02-06 06:42:55 <amiller> hmmm
 432 2013-02-06 06:43:35 <gmaxwell> amiller: so making the required query operations, on a list of nodes— which probably involves a prefix trie query for eligible IP blocks.. and perhaps even something to return securely random subsets might be interesting.
 433 2013-02-06 06:43:39 <amiller> that's highly interesting to me - tahoe-lafs is the other project that i think will like using it to enable their new mutable file type
 434 2013-02-06 06:43:55 <amiller> mm securely random subsets would work great
 435 2013-02-06 06:44:53 <amiller> that would use the same basic technique as my plinko proof-of-work puzzle
 436 2013-02-06 06:45:26 <amiller> which just relies on being able to annotate the tree with a 'total number of elements to the left and right'
 437 2013-02-06 06:46:48 <gmaxwell> so yea, I think with a couple of basic operations you could make it so that a tor node could securely pick paths without first downloading the full directory.  It would just get signatures of the directory hash roots from the network, then have helpful peers perform queries for it.
 438 2013-02-06 06:47:34 <amiller> that's outstanding, that would work just fine
 439 2013-02-06 06:47:38 <amiller> they already use merkle trees, just the static kind
 440 2013-02-06 06:47:47 <gmaxwell> amiller: here is another idea I had for merkleized data structures:
 441 2013-02-06 06:47:59 <amiller> before you say anything else i just want to point out the git already basically supports this and no one uses it
 442 2013-02-06 06:48:15 <amiller> you can retrieve a single source file from a big directory just by using the 'commit' without having to download the whole re;po
 443 2013-02-06 06:49:18 <amiller> so i could probably make modified git commands that would interpret existing git datastructures this way, and you could then use ordinary scripts or whatever to keep the file system organized
 444 2013-02-06 06:49:18 ovidiusoft has joined
 445 2013-02-06 06:49:31 <amiller> ok rsume
 446 2013-02-06 06:49:39 freakazoid has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 447 2013-02-06 06:51:24 <gmaxwell> amiller: you know how you do a secure coinflip e.g. each party transmits Xn where Xn = H(Sn) to commit and then you hash the Sn? You can use merkleized
 448 2013-02-06 06:51:27 <gmaxwell> datastructures to commit to performing computation correctly before you know what you're going to perform. For example, the node location swaps in freenet.
 449 2013-02-06 06:51:30 <gmaxwell> E.g. you might do something trecherous but to know how to be trecherous you need to know the query first. So in those cases it's not important that
 450 2013-02-06 06:51:34 <gmaxwell> the peer know the root from a trusted source, instead you're just precommitting to do whatever computation you will do.
 451 2013-02-06 06:52:07 asuk has joined
 452 2013-02-06 06:52:45 <amiller> whoa
 453 2013-02-06 06:52:54 <amiller> i don't think i've quite thought of that...
 454 2013-02-06 06:53:09 <amiller> i have been thinking about how to express computations/closures inside an authenticated data structure
 455 2013-02-06 06:53:25 <amiller> it doesn't even matter if you try to express non-terminating loops
 456 2013-02-06 06:53:57 <amiller> as long as they can make constant-resource incremental progress... people can take turns spinning the wheel
 457 2013-02-06 06:54:07 <gmaxwell> (A more contrived example would be in playing a game with a small decision tree, you could precommit to your strategy before you start playing,
 458 2013-02-06 06:54:10 <gmaxwell> and prove you followed it— without actually transmitting the whole strategy)
 459 2013-02-06 06:54:19 <amiller> right!
 460 2013-02-06 06:54:24 <amiller> especially if your whole strategy is like an unfolded lookup table
 461 2013-02-06 06:54:29 <amiller> that's awesome
 462 2013-02-06 06:54:52 sgornick has joined
 463 2013-02-06 06:55:23 <amiller> you can do like partial evaluation
 464 2013-02-06 06:56:46 <gmaxwell> I don't know how the root can be computed with partial evaluation, — but I feel like there could be some interesting zero knoweldge proofs that coluld be easier to express under this model.
 465 2013-02-06 06:57:23 asuk has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 466 2013-02-06 06:58:37 <amiller> yeah so
 467 2013-02-06 06:58:46 <amiller> in other news, i have currently infiltrated a theoretical cryptography lab
 468 2013-02-06 06:58:56 <amiller> it's great, everyone is bonkers for bitcoin already
 469 2013-02-06 06:59:11 <bonks> Especially me
 470 2013-02-06 06:59:58 <gmaxwell> bonks: do you highlight on 'bonk'? :)
 471 2013-02-06 07:00:00 <amiller> it's interesting because the theory people have complately moved way in front as far as these things go
 472 2013-02-06 07:00:26 <amiller> the red black merkle tree is 20 years old as far as they're concerned!
 473 2013-02-06 07:00:46 <amiller> it's theoretically possible to do _super efficient_ authenticated data structures for all sorts of things
 474 2013-02-06 07:01:06 <amiller> you need to use fancy hash functions based on lattices and scary math structures like multilinear maps
 475 2013-02-06 07:01:07 <bonks> gmaxwell: Yes :P
 476 2013-02-06 07:01:26 <amiller> and yet even all of THESE feature weird ad hoc merkle tree structures everywhere
 477 2013-02-06 07:01:30 <gmaxwell> amiller: Does it not bothere these people that the set of practical implementations of these pretty little crystals of cryptography are members of the empty set?  Or are they content to prove things possible and move on? :P
 478 2013-02-06 07:01:49 Cory has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 479 2013-02-06 07:02:22 <amiller> i think they just haven't embraced the curry-howard isomorphism yet
 480 2013-02-06 07:02:40 <amiller> i'm trying to simplify the implementation of these things and at the same time simplify the proofs
 481 2013-02-06 07:02:51 <amiller> i think as far as they're concerned, the reason there aren't more implementations is that it's not super hyper optimal yet
 482 2013-02-06 07:03:21 <amiller> rather than the simpler explanation which is that their proofs are too complicated to evaluate or formalize further
 483 2013-02-06 07:03:22 <gmaxwell> 0_o  the funny thing is that being a huge order of magnitude from optimal is totally not the issue for most applications.
 484 2013-02-06 07:03:34 <amiller> nonetheless, they're open minded about things like theorem prover languages
 485 2013-02-06 07:03:48 <amiller> the Crypto 2011 best paper award went to a project update about some proof framework in coq
 486 2013-02-06 07:04:14 <amiller> meanwhile the Programmning Language theory people are trying to look to the well-funded crypto world for interesting applications
 487 2013-02-06 07:04:15 <gmaxwell> Pratical engineering considerations like "isn't trivially dos attackable" and "has an easy UI" dominate. ... but heck, we don't even have _toy grade_ implementations of lots of this stuff.
 488 2013-02-06 07:04:28 <amiller> and they start themselves off by trying to model the wacky hash functions
 489 2013-02-06 07:04:34 <amiller> and more complicated protocols
 490 2013-02-06 07:04:55 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 491 2013-02-06 07:04:57 Cory has joined
 492 2013-02-06 07:05:08 <amiller> so all this hash graph stuff is just ridiculous low hanging fruit.... that will taste delicious to both species
 493 2013-02-06 07:05:26 <gmaxwell> e.g. if I want to do a secure sealed bid action in #otc  ... nope. no software for it. Don't even care if it has to transmit 10 mb data per bid.. no tools exist. Not even crashy easily jammed up memory hungry python ones.
 494 2013-02-06 07:05:43 pre2 has joined
 495 2013-02-06 07:06:00 <pre2> hello, i just had a quick question out of curiosity
 496 2013-02-06 07:06:49 <gmaxwell> pre2: we're awaiting your question.
 497 2013-02-06 07:07:25 <pre2> why does the bitcoin-qt store the blockchain in 3 separate .dat files, where it seems to create a new file every 2048 MB?
 498 2013-02-06 07:07:37 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 499 2013-02-06 07:07:41 <pre2> I notice in my roaming folder a blk0001.dat, blk0002.dat, and blk0003.dat
 500 2013-02-06 07:07:47 <pre2> why not consolidate to one file?
 501 2013-02-06 07:07:48 JDuke128 has joined
 502 2013-02-06 07:07:55 <gmaxwell> pre2: to avoid problems on operating systems that have issues seeking in files >2GiB.
 503 2013-02-06 07:08:25 <gmaxwell> having fewer files doesn't improve anything in any case (at least not once you're past each file being many megabytes in size)
 504 2013-02-06 07:08:35 b4epoche has joined
 505 2013-02-06 07:09:38 <pre2> So is there an estimate for ultimately how many blk files will be created, after the last bitcoins are generated? or the chain would continue to grow forever as new transactions are incurred?
 506 2013-02-06 07:09:50 <Luke-Jr> pre2: forever and ever
 507 2013-02-06 07:09:52 <gmaxwell> pre2: The latter.
 508 2013-02-06 07:10:04 <CodeShark> the block chain will continue to grow perpetually at the rate of about one block every 10 minutes (assuming bitcoin doesn't break)
 509 2013-02-06 07:11:13 <pre2> If BTC continues to grow in popularity, I've noticed block sizes growing generally larger and larger with more transactions per block... If it continues to grow in perpetuity, could this theoretically cause a storage space problem in the future?
 510 2013-02-06 07:11:32 <pre2> Although it's almost certain HDD space will outpace BTC block growth
 511 2013-02-06 07:12:06 <MC1984> they dont seem minded to lift the cap so max is 144mb/day
 512 2013-02-06 07:12:26 <pre2> Oh, I was unaware there was a cap.
 513 2013-02-06 07:12:48 <pre2> Alright well thank you for answering my questions :]
 514 2013-02-06 07:19:16 <MC1984> its 1mb per block and theres currently some sort of soft limit to like half that
 515 2013-02-06 07:20:34 <MC1984> if they lift the cap, bitcoin loses a bit of magic for various reasons and will probably never have a working fees market
 516 2013-02-06 07:21:00 <gmaxwell> Who is they?
 517 2013-02-06 07:21:14 <MC1984> if they dont, bitcoin might not grow
 518 2013-02-06 07:21:18 <gmaxwell> It's the same people who can change the supply of bitcoin from 21 million to 42 million.
 519 2013-02-06 07:22:03 <MC1984> realistically it would be the dev team/foundation that would orchestrate such a thing
 520 2013-02-06 07:22:17 <MC1984> of course its up to the users as always
 521 2013-02-06 07:22:36 <MC1984> as if most of them wouldnt just go along with it though
 522 2013-02-06 07:22:53 petertodd has joined
 523 2013-02-06 07:24:36 <gmaxwell> Do you think they'd go along with changing the supply of coins?  I don't.  And I do not think it's obvious that they'd go along with changing the block size limit unless it was very clear why Bitcoin would still be a viable decenteralized system after doing so. (required clearness depending on how urgent increasing the size seemed— if there was always 4MB of fee paying txn pending, then I suppose an increase to 2MB wouldn't be ...
 524 2013-02-06 07:24:42 <gmaxwell> ... terribly controversial)
 525 2013-02-06 07:25:33 <petertodd> People forget that increasing the blocksize limit isn't just a problem in terms of total chain size, it's a problem in terms of bandwidth. A few KiB/s average is easy to manage on all sorts of connections, a few MiB/s not so much.
 526 2013-02-06 07:25:51 <petertodd> Right now we can effectively run full nodes behind tor, 1GiB blocks won't allow that anymore.
 527 2013-02-06 07:26:12 AtashiCon has quit (Quit: AtashiCon)
 528 2013-02-06 07:26:15 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 529 2013-02-06 07:27:17 <MC1984> i like to think i take more of an interest in where bitcoin is going than the average user
 530 2013-02-06 07:27:43 <MC1984> ive heard good arguments from both sides and i still dont know where i stand on the issue of the block cap
 531 2013-02-06 07:27:44 <gmaxwell> Yes, there are two main and totally distinct issues with blocksize: We _must_ have transaction fees to pay for security, and a scarcity produced market for fees is a clear and philosophically compatible way to get them.  ... and the other issue is if handling and validating blocks is very expensive then Bitcoin will not be pratically decenteralized.
 532 2013-02-06 07:28:00 <MC1984> i think most really would just install an update that removed the limit
 533 2013-02-06 07:28:11 <MC1984> the miners/pools would prob be more engaged
 534 2013-02-06 07:28:26 <petertodd> Or worse, an update that allowed for a floating limit, thinking it'd float to a reasonable amount magically...
 535 2013-02-06 07:28:40 <MC1984> ^
 536 2013-02-06 07:28:57 <petertodd> And miners/pools have incentives for as big blocks as possible, because it damages their competition. (the ones with fast net connections anyway)
 537 2013-02-06 07:28:58 <MC1984> i have no idea i some sort of floating limit would be workable or not get gamed
 538 2013-02-06 07:28:59 <gmaxwell> petertodd: or off a satellite, or over HF radio.
 539 2013-02-06 07:29:11 <petertodd> gmaxwell: cloud bounce, carrier pigeon
 540 2013-02-06 07:29:37 <petertodd> ...and carrier pigeon would actually be a *viable* way of transmitting the blockchain!
 541 2013-02-06 07:29:46 <SomeoneWeird> on an ssd!
 542 2013-02-06 07:29:47 <SomeoneWeird> lol
 543 2013-02-06 07:30:00 <gmaxwell> Gavin is basically avocating the "it'd float to a reasonable amount magically" and I cannot fathom why he believes that would work... but I think I need more data before I can say more than I have an absence of evidence to suggest to me that it would work.
 544 2013-02-06 07:30:17 <petertodd> SomeoneWeird: well, admittedly ssd's make GiB blocks viable with carrier pigeon. :P
 545 2013-02-06 07:30:21 <MC1984> what would a floating limit even be tied to
 546 2013-02-06 07:30:29 <petertodd> Gavin seems to think block verification time.
 547 2013-02-06 07:30:33 <SomeoneWeird> lol
 548 2013-02-06 07:30:48 <MC1984> and could that be done in a way that wouldnt amount to a poliy desicion by you guys
 549 2013-02-06 07:30:59 <petertodd> But I figure fast miners with solid net connections would use that as an outright weapon - each round up the block size and watch as your tor-connected competition drops out.
 550 2013-02-06 07:31:00 <SomeoneWeird> someone needs to upload a very compressed version of the blockchain
 551 2013-02-06 07:31:17 <petertodd> Remember that large blocks make the orphan rate go up very fast if you are on a slow connection.
 552 2013-02-06 07:31:54 <MC1984> still maybe 1mb blocks will become very silly in a few years
 553 2013-02-06 07:32:05 <gmaxwell> I do see how a number of different obviously bad outcomes could regulate the size— e.g. blockchain external miner collusion. But that seems very risky, as its a twisty road that basically means that access to the chain will be governed by a cartel with potentially opaque rules.  And maybe thats a natural endpoint for the system, but it's not one I embrace because I believe it would remove a lot of the value from the system.
 554 2013-02-06 07:32:13 <MC1984> even more so in light of 10 minutes of propagtion time
 555 2013-02-06 07:33:01 <MC1984> umm thats pretty nightmarish
 556 2013-02-06 07:33:03 <gmaxwell> MC1984: shorter interblock times calls for smaller blocks, in fact. (well perhaps not smaller than 1MB but the general trend is that the more time you have the bigger the blocks can be before the system stops converging)
 557 2013-02-06 07:33:24 <MC1984> thats what i meant
 558 2013-02-06 07:33:47 <MC1984> blocks so small the system converges in seconds worldwide
 559 2013-02-06 07:34:07 Gladamas has joined
 560 2013-02-06 07:34:14 <petertodd> Ultimately, Bitcoin currently scales by O(n) for the individual node, O(n^2) resources for all nodes. Scaling like that is deadly, so why not do everything you can to keep the n small?
 561 2013-02-06 07:34:15 <MC1984> ie to not make the 10 min blockrate a total waste, perhaps the size will have to increase somehow
 562 2013-02-06 07:34:37 reizuki__ has joined
 563 2013-02-06 07:34:37 reizuki__ has quit (Changing host)
 564 2013-02-06 07:34:37 reizuki__ has joined
 565 2013-02-06 07:34:40 <petertodd> MC1984: Well, seconds is problematic, speed of light and all...
 566 2013-02-06 07:35:06 <MC1984> well far less than 10minutes at any rte
 567 2013-02-06 07:35:37 <gmaxwell> petertodd: Right now a lot of people haven't yet really accepted how great off chain transactions could be. They see them as a bandaid if they even realize they could exist at all. And so those people take it as axiomatic that the blocksize must go up.
 568 2013-02-06 07:35:55 <MC1984> im one of those ppl tbh
 569 2013-02-06 07:36:08 <MC1984> it seems a shame
 570 2013-02-06 07:36:22 <gmaxwell> There is a lot of conflating of bitcoin as a currency vs bitcoin as a payment network, esp as bitcoin is compared to paypal to a lot of newbies.
 571 2013-02-06 07:36:53 <MC1984> the promise was tht it was both, transparently
 572 2013-02-06 07:37:09 <pre2> how would an offchain transaction work?
 573 2013-02-06 07:37:18 <pre2> sorry if this is not the place for that.
 574 2013-02-06 07:37:28 <pre2> i was just reading this discussion... it's fascinating
 575 2013-02-06 07:37:31 <petertodd> MC1984: So, the earth is 40,000km in circumference, 20,000km optimal route. That's 66mS minimum lag, and real-world networks can probably triple that. For P2Pool that represents a 2% unavoidable orphan rate, for anyone on the wrong side of the planet.
 576 2013-02-06 07:37:54 <gmaxwell> pre2: there are many different ways to accomplish them— and they are _widely_ used today, though in a centernalized form.
 577 2013-02-06 07:37:54 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Yeah, my promotions of the concept have both been terrible, and done terribly.
 578 2013-02-06 07:38:09 <gmaxwell> pre2: e.g. mtgox internal transfers are a kind of off-chain bitcoin transaction.
 579 2013-02-06 07:38:39 <pre2> Would mixing be a form of offchain?
 580 2013-02-06 07:38:42 sgornick has joined
 581 2013-02-06 07:38:43 <MC1984> except gox can freeze your stuff i they want
 582 2013-02-06 07:38:46 <gmaxwell> petertodd: people aren't going to get it until its built. I've manged to fail several times now at explaining what you've proposed.
 583 2013-02-06 07:38:46 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Speaking of, I don't know if you saw it, but I wrote up fidelity bonds in detail: https://github.com/petertodd/trustbits/blob/master/fidelitybond.md
 584 2013-02-06 07:38:59 <gmaxwell> MC1984: Sure, petertodd has a proposal that solves all that.
 585 2013-02-06 07:39:18 <petertodd> gmaxwell: People aren't going to get it *when* it's built, but they'll see it magically works and not care, just like Bitcoin itself...
 586 2013-02-06 07:39:23 <MC1984> if there was a way to do off chain tx, but without authorites, and using the chain to bookkeep
 587 2013-02-06 07:39:26 <gmaxwell> (there are, in fact, several ways— but I'm fond of the stuff petertodd has een talking about)
 588 2013-02-06 07:39:41 <MC1984> that would be interesting
 589 2013-02-06 07:40:24 <petertodd> MC1984: Well, there's sort of a triangle problem with payment networks, you can't have no authorities without publically announcing every tx, but you can bootstrap trust by making anonymous identities expensive to get.
 590 2013-02-06 07:40:48 <gmaxwell> MC1984: what petertodd proposed gets you this:  A bank (which might be a group of mutually untrusting systems) comes into existance by creating an expensive bond.
 591 2013-02-06 07:41:12 <gmaxwell> MC1984: everyone can see how much deposits the bank has and the value of the bond— and so no deposit in excess of the bond are permitted.
 592 2013-02-06 07:41:28 * petertodd watches to see if gmaxwell fails to explain it for the n+1 time...
 593 2013-02-06 07:41:58 HM2 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 594 2013-02-06 07:42:15 <gmaxwell> Then the bank converts the bitcoins deposited to anonymous tokens. Anyone can go to the bank and anonymously exchange these tokens ... the bank can't deny service because it can't tell the users apart. The bank's only function is to keep the number of tokens matched to the amount of deposited coin.
 595 2013-02-06 07:42:53 <gmaxwell> All of the exchanges of tokens between people are totally anonymous and privacy— far more private than bitcoin transactions.. and result in no blockchain traffic.
 596 2013-02-06 07:43:19 <gmaxwell> If the bank cheats — e.g. by issuing too many tokens, it can be proven to everyone and that proof destroys the value of their expensive bond.
 597 2013-02-06 07:43:45 <gmaxwell> When you get tired of holding tokens you can exchange then back for bitcoins from the bank. (and again, if the bank won't let you withdraw, that can kill the bond too)
 598 2013-02-06 07:44:08 <MC1984> but we already know the feds prints money an nobody cares
 599 2013-02-06 07:44:29 <gmaxwell> MC1984: all the security for this would be baked into the software— just like the rules for bitcoin are baked into the software.
 600 2013-02-06 07:45:09 HM2 has joined
 601 2013-02-06 07:45:13 <gmaxwell> When I say proof I don't mean that one person tells another.. I mean the software does it: just like a block with the wrong subsidy is orphaned, a bank that cheats is shut down by the network.
 602 2013-02-06 07:46:22 <MC1984> what if the govt shuts down the bank because its mainly used by terrorists or some shit
 603 2013-02-06 07:46:43 <MC1984> i mean what if this bank entity becomes indisposed somehow
 604 2013-02-06 07:46:46 <gmaxwell> It is fundimentally less secure than bitcoin itself. But it is incomprehensibly more scalable, and it is substantially more private. It's scalable in a way that bitcoin could never be no matter how big you make the blocks.
 605 2013-02-06 07:47:53 <gmaxwell> MC1984: a couple points: an indealized implementation would have the bank really be a majority of N seperate computers.. it would be hard to shut down. You also wouldn't just have one of these but a great many— they're easy to create, so low value in shutting down.
 606 2013-02-06 07:48:23 <petertodd> gmaxwell: MC1984's point made me think of something... If the bank creates a fake signed token, there is no way for the recipient to know if it is or isn't backed by any funds other than getting lucky and seeing two tokens. The idea needs an audit log of issued tokens so you could check your token ID against the ones issued.
 607 2013-02-06 07:48:44 <gmaxwell> I have a vague proposal that with some minor (softforking) improvements to bitcoin we might be able to make it possible for bitcoin to help facilitate recovery of funds from a bank that vanished.
 608 2013-02-06 07:48:57 <petertodd> gmaxwell: I never published it, but I had an earlier idea that would put the hash of such an audit log linked to every tx the bank made.
 609 2013-02-06 07:49:02 <petertodd> (that is, on blockchain tx)
 610 2013-02-06 07:49:12 <gmaxwell> petertodd: good, because that audit log (needs to be a hash tree) is what you need to do chain based recovery of a shutdown bank. :P
 611 2013-02-06 07:49:21 <petertodd> gmaxwell: I seem to have forgotten about that point... was a few months ago...
 612 2013-02-06 07:49:45 <MC1984> i suppose right now to get a similar level of privay you have to send your coins off to god knows where iver tor anyway
 613 2013-02-06 07:49:57 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Yeah... I was also thinking, for shutdown, all you really need to do is publish signatures for all the outstanding tokens, provided that the tokens are partial unsigned scripts. (likely without txins)
 614 2013-02-06 07:50:19 <gmaxwell> MC1984: not even then: with bitcoin you can't hide that a transaction _happened_ unless it's e.g. entirely internal to mtgox or the like.
 615 2013-02-06 07:50:25 <petertodd> gmaxwell: There is the ugly issue that many tokens could be effectively unredeemable though if blockchain tx's get expensive enough.
 616 2013-02-06 07:51:09 <gmaxwell> petertodd: I have a proposal that mostly solves that too.. but it's kinda complicated and I don't know how well it fits with the bitcoin security model.
 617 2013-02-06 07:51:17 <MC1984> just feels like bitcoin loses a bit more of its innocence all the time
 618 2013-02-06 07:51:24 <petertodd> MC1984: Ultimately all real forms of privavy in Bitcoin involve turning the value of your Bitcoins into something off-chain, like an entry in EasyWallet's trusted books, and then turning them back into on-chain value. (real bitcoins)
 619 2013-02-06 07:51:27 <MC1984> remember when most people thought it was completely anonymous
 620 2013-02-06 07:51:40 <Luke-Jr> never?
 621 2013-02-06 07:51:59 <MC1984> bitcoin.org stated it was anonymous in the beginnign
 622 2013-02-06 07:52:01 <petertodd> gmaxwell: The redemption via merkle tree something proof idea?
 623 2013-02-06 07:52:06 <gmaxwell> MC1984: Everything has compromises.  I'm much more confident about the compromises involved in having off chain transaction— we _must_ have them in order to have instant transactions and other features— than we'd get from trying to scale by bloating blocks forever.
 624 2013-02-06 07:52:29 <petertodd> gmaxwell: (reminds me, I was also thinking a "signature of a signed chaum token" opcode would be nice, or really, opcodes for ECC math in general as has been proposed)
 625 2013-02-06 07:52:29 <gmaxwell> MC1984: I dunno when people thought that, I certantly didn't! :P
 626 2013-02-06 07:53:14 <petertodd> MC1984: Keep in mind that Moores law is just an observation...
 627 2013-02-06 07:56:50 wump has quit (No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
 628 2013-02-06 07:57:07 wumpus has joined
 629 2013-02-06 07:57:28 <MC1984> you know it seems like OSS, which isnt very old as a movement, has been mainly building moduals of code for otehr future projects to plug together to make really useful stuff
 630 2013-02-06 07:57:47 wump has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 631 2013-02-06 07:57:48 <MC1984> indeed bitcoin is a result of this process too, along with a lot of original thought
 632 2013-02-06 07:57:53 Aranjedeath has quit (Quit: If you're having code problems I feel bad for you son, I've got 99 problems but a glitch ain't one.)
 633 2013-02-06 07:57:56 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Pruning history like that seems reasonable enough... although I'd rather see it in an alt-chain, and keep Bitcoin as the gold standard of security. Some of the quantum crypto-resistant algo's would need such pruning too of course.
 634 2013-02-06 07:58:05 <MC1984> i thought bitcoin was an end product, bu maybe its a module instead?
 635 2013-02-06 07:58:33 <petertodd> Absolutely, even the blockchain itself and the PoW it represents is a very useful module on its own with merge-mining.
 636 2013-02-06 07:58:35 <MC1984> and some future project will take it as a component and make something crazy cool that will take over the planet
 637 2013-02-06 07:58:51 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: open source is as old as computers are
 638 2013-02-06 07:59:00 <gmaxwell> petertodd: yea I mention that. I don't know what the tradeoff is those.. if we can only have chaum redeem or lamport if we have that? whats better? dunno.
 639 2013-02-06 07:59:12 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: closed source is more recently popular
 640 2013-02-06 07:59:44 <MC1984> well, the OSS infrastucture, associated licences etc
 641 2013-02-06 08:00:01 <Luke-Jr> oh, I'd say mature then :P
 642 2013-02-06 08:00:05 <MC1984> that enable rapid and fluid iterations and derivation
 643 2013-02-06 08:00:34 PiZZaMaN2K has joined
 644 2013-02-06 08:00:35 <MC1984> i thought the OSS movement only really got rolling sometime in the 80s
 645 2013-02-06 08:01:09 <sipa> ;;later tell gavinandresen #2277 is wrong - this is exactly what CVR was about, to avoid marking a chain invalid if connection fails because of disk/database errors
 646 2013-02-06 08:01:09 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
 647 2013-02-06 08:01:11 <andytoshi> MC1984: oss was the default before the 80's
 648 2013-02-06 08:01:11 <petertodd> OSS as a *legal* movement, sure, but in spirit, right from when computers were in academia
 649 2013-02-06 08:01:24 <andytoshi> proprietary software wasn't really a thing, so nobody thought about it
 650 2013-02-06 08:01:54 <MC1984> oh wait lots of bsd and unix stuff is from the 70s innit
 651 2013-02-06 08:02:07 <petertodd> yes, but in the 70's it wasn't open source licenses
 652 2013-02-06 08:02:11 <sipa> ;;later trll gavinandreses if there is nondeterministic behaviour, it means a .Invalid or .DoS is missing
 653 2013-02-06 08:02:13 <gribble> Error: The "Later" plugin is loaded, but there is no command named "trll" in it.  Try "list Later" to see the commands in the "Later" plugin.
 654 2013-02-06 08:02:32 <MC1984> thats what i mean, the licence infrastructure
 655 2013-02-06 08:03:08 <petertodd> ah, yeah, well GPLv1 was 1989
 656 2013-02-06 08:04:01 <MC1984> i cant beleive linux didnt get rolling untill like 1996
 657 2013-02-06 08:04:19 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 658 2013-02-06 08:04:20 <MC1984> like, i fucking remember 1996 for christ sake
 659 2013-02-06 08:04:31 HM2 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 660 2013-02-06 08:04:57 <petertodd> Heh, and it still took me three more years to get my first copy of it.
 661 2013-02-06 08:05:00 <MC1984> ilove how if you have a truly good idea, it can take over the world in short order
 662 2013-02-06 08:05:16 <Luke-Jr> not always. just look at Tonal.
 663 2013-02-06 08:05:19 <petertodd> well... "short" takes a few years at least.
 664 2013-02-06 08:05:20 HM2 has joined
 665 2013-02-06 08:05:50 <petertodd> Tonal might not be a good *enough* idea...
 666 2013-02-06 08:05:57 <MC1984> tonal is not taking over the world ergo its not a good idea :P
 667 2013-02-06 08:06:38 <CodeShark> A => B does not imply B => A
 668 2013-02-06 08:06:49 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: well, it doesn't help that governments force people to use decimal/SI :p
 669 2013-02-06 08:07:06 <CodeShark> but it does imply !B => !A :)
 670 2013-02-06 08:07:40 <MC1984> >implying implications
 671 2013-02-06 08:08:47 * Luke-Jr implies MC1984.
 672 2013-02-06 08:11:53 <petertodd> So, I'm curious, is someone running a bunch of EC2 testnet nodes out there? Because the logs for my seeder show requests from what seem to be Amazon's EC2 DNS servers basically every few minutes, implying at least that often there are requests. This has been going on even before the pull req was accepted.
 673 2013-02-06 08:13:46 <petertodd> (that or someone is checking to see if I can run it competently...)
 674 2013-02-06 08:19:11 veralibertas has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 675 2013-02-06 08:20:21 Goonie has joined
 676 2013-02-06 08:21:35 <gmaxwell> ;;later tell gavinandresen <sipa> if there is nondeterministic behaviour, it means a .Invalid or .DoS is missing
 677 2013-02-06 08:21:36 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
 678 2013-02-06 08:21:49 <gmaxwell> sipa: I did point that out to him earlier.
 679 2013-02-06 08:24:21 Guest27105 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 680 2013-02-06 08:24:53 HM2 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 681 2013-02-06 08:25:09 HM2 has joined
 682 2013-02-06 08:25:18 <gmaxwell> MC1984: another point about your comment on someone shutting down a token bank: in many ways the token banks are more shutdown resistant than bitcoin itself: there can be many (wack a mole), they can be hidden (only the users must know about them, bitcoin is globally visible), they do not require conspicious energy usage (like mining) or constant global communication,  ... and unlike miners the banks, or unlike bitcoin users, can't deny ...
 683 2013-02-06 08:25:24 <gmaxwell> ... transactions selectively (e.g. 'tainted coins', breaking fungability)
 684 2013-02-06 08:26:14 <MC1984> tor token bank?
 685 2013-02-06 08:27:07 <gmaxwell> Sure absolutely— that would sanely be the default way of connecting to them... otherwise they're not fully private.
 686 2013-02-06 08:27:15 <petertodd> tor is a must for token bank stuff so you can redeem your chaum coins without linking.
 687 2013-02-06 08:27:21 <MC1984> what about
 688 2013-02-06 08:27:38 <petertodd> (the other option being give the tokens to someone else as payment for something)
 689 2013-02-06 08:27:54 <MC1984> when these token banks are widespread and everyone uses them and chain tx fees are ball breaking
 690 2013-02-06 08:27:54 root2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 691 2013-02-06 08:28:12 root2 has joined
 692 2013-02-06 08:28:26 <petertodd> That's exactly what I'm hoping to see happen.
 693 2013-02-06 08:28:27 <MC1984> and i decide i inally want to cash in my modest bitcoins and buy a small island in the tropic of cancer
 694 2013-02-06 08:28:57 <petertodd> ...then spend give the bitcoins/tokens to someone in exchange for an island?
 695 2013-02-06 08:29:11 <MC1984> i find the block fees just to get my coins to the bank wipe out my BTC holdings
 696 2013-02-06 08:29:43 Apexseals has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 697 2013-02-06 08:29:55 <petertodd> Yes, but that's the interesting thing about off-chain txs: they reduce tx fees for everyone by reducing pressure on blockchain space.
 698 2013-02-06 08:29:59 sgornick has joined
 699 2013-02-06 08:30:05 Apexseals has joined
 700 2013-02-06 08:30:22 <petertodd> It's also a flaw of the token bank and fidelity bonds stuff, because we might find that miners try to fight the systems...
 701 2013-02-06 08:30:46 <gmaxwell> petertodd: well, technically you can avoid linking without tor. Consider, you only connect to the bank once... and he doesn't know which of the past tokens was yours.
 702 2013-02-06 08:30:46 <gmaxwell> petertodd: I guess on the deposit/withdraw transactions it matters more.
 703 2013-02-06 08:30:46 <gmaxwell> But for token<->token, you take an old unblinded token (he's never seen it before, so it's not linked) and he signs a new blinded token (and never sees that again).
 704 2013-02-06 08:31:38 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 705 2013-02-06 08:32:05 Insu has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 706 2013-02-06 08:32:08 <gmaxwell> petertodd: I don't see miners having an incentive to fight it .... so long as (1) the bank bonds result in miner mayments (profits!) and (2) blocksizes are small enough that there is pressure for space regardless of it.
 707 2013-02-06 08:33:05 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Good point there. It'd be worth it to have some history tracking features in the software to help users evaluate when they should or shouldn't be using tor. (assuming using tor isn't cheap enough to just do all the time)
 708 2013-02-06 08:33:11 <gmaxwell> sort of a third point about small blocks being important: if you want to build other zero trust systems that use bitcoin blockchain data as proof— ... it's pretty important that the blockchain data be small enough that those systems can afford to keep it around.
 709 2013-02-06 08:33:41 Insu has joined
 710 2013-02-06 08:33:56 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Yeah, with UXTO proposals, and especially UXTO fraud proofs you have some hope of keeping the derived systems secure, but it's much better to avoid relying on such mechanisms.
 711 2013-02-06 08:33:57 <gmaxwell> petertodd: really I'd think something like this should just mandate tor. Tor doesn't really impose any terrible costs on it, and it avoids having to reason about the tradeoffs. But yea, I don't think it's strictly needed.
 712 2013-02-06 08:34:20 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Tor for small bits of data seems pretty fast ultimately.
 713 2013-02-06 08:34:54 <gmaxwell> petertodd: well, only so long as the derrived system is happy with just that much. It's still an issue if the derrived system needs queries which aren't UTXO-fast.
 714 2013-02-06 08:35:08 <petertodd> gmaxwell: I think part of avoiding having miners have an incentive will be to get it working before there is too much pressure to increase block sizes... basically sneak it in while it's just something that occasionally gives a nice fidelity bond reward.
 715 2013-02-06 08:35:48 <gmaxwell> thats important for user motivations too.. if we don't show viable alternatives like this too many people will continue that no matter how horrible they agree increasing sizes may be— ... that it must be done.
 716 2013-02-06 08:35:54 <petertodd> gmaxwell: I think everything I've written is SPV/fast-UTXO compatible provided that the UTXO is indexed by scriptPubKey or similar.
 717 2013-02-06 08:36:17 <gmaxwell> I usually bludgeon people who suggest things that aren't...
 718 2013-02-06 08:36:18 <petertodd> gmaxwell: (fidelity bonds themselves are pure SPV/pure-UTXO)
 719 2013-02-06 08:36:31 <petertodd> Heh
 720 2013-02-06 08:36:40 skeledrew has joined
 721 2013-02-06 08:36:55 <petertodd> That fidelity bonds aren't pure SPV, no UTXO, annoys me, but I can't see any other way to do it.
 722 2013-02-06 08:37:13 <petertodd> Sacrifices themselves are of course pure SPV.
 723 2013-02-06 08:38:33 <petertodd> MC1984: Here is a fun one BTW: (25BTC * $21/BTC)/1MiB = $0.51/KiB, so about $0.25 per simple transaction. IE, that's what the mining inflation subsidy costs right now.
 724 2013-02-06 08:38:40 <gmaxwell> I know how to make them a lot closer to pure SPV, I think. You make them expire and require they be renewed.
 725 2013-02-06 08:38:48 <MC1984> have you considered that the mere addition of these layers of complexity helps de-democratise bitcoin?
 726 2013-02-06 08:39:12 <MC1984> you could argue the financial systems are in such poor shape becuase they are so horiffically complex no one really knows how they work
 727 2013-02-06 08:39:18 <petertodd> Actually, I'm already planning on expiry anyway, as part of the fraud proof aspect. Better to avoid systems that require proofs to be kept around forever...
 728 2013-02-06 08:39:19 <MC1984> not even the people who run them
 729 2013-02-06 08:40:17 <gmaxwell> MC1984: you can't ask that question without saying "compared to"... compared to a bitcoin where you no one can validate blocks without $30,000 in computing hardware which earns you nothing because you're honest and hope that someone else honest takes the cost for you?
 730 2013-02-06 08:40:19 <petertodd> Meh, Bitcoin isn't scalable, so we have to do something. You either de-democratise by requiring access to hardware, (big-blocks) or requiring access to education. (token banks and similar ideas)
 731 2013-02-06 08:40:30 asuk has joined
 732 2013-02-06 08:40:47 <petertodd> I'd much rather take the later tradeoff. I learned to program on pencil and paper and a $20 book on Basic...
 733 2013-02-06 08:40:49 HM2 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 734 2013-02-06 08:40:59 <gmaxwell> MC1984: fortunately much of the software complexity can be packaged up so that it's hidden from users (and mostly even developers too)
 735 2013-02-06 08:41:10 <gmaxwell> Software scales.. one line of code can feed a million minds.
 736 2013-02-06 08:41:17 <MC1984> compromises sigh
 737 2013-02-06 08:41:24 <gmaxwell> Hardware— network bandwidth? not so much.
 738 2013-02-06 08:42:48 <gmaxwell> It's not one extreme or another though... but having healthy off chain alternatives means that if we increase block sizes in the future we do it because we've decided its a good tradeoff and not because we know it will centeralize the system but feel we have no choice.
 739 2013-02-06 08:43:01 <petertodd> I'll freely admit these protocols are bloody complex - implementing fraud proofs is going to suck - but at least we have a bunch of smart people all talking to each other. It'll result in a system significantly more complex than Bitcoin, but it won't be done by just one guy.
 740 2013-02-06 08:43:29 <gmaxwell> This is especially important because in the future there will be people arguing for it not because they think it'll be okay— but because they actually want to centeralize it because they're confident that they can come out ahead that way.
 741 2013-02-06 08:43:31 <petertodd> The other thing about these meta-protocols on top of Bitcoin, is they don't suffer from the "must get everything right on day 1" consensus problem that Bitcoin has.
 742 2013-02-06 08:44:10 <gmaxwell> yea, bitcoin solves the eggs-in-one-basket and how-do-you-bootstrap problems that keep these ideas from being useful on their own.
 743 2013-02-06 08:44:15 <petertodd> gmaxwell: The abundance of pro-unlimited blockchain people on the forums really scare me.
 744 2013-02-06 08:44:37 <petertodd> gmaxwell: I want to wade in there with some big carefully reasoned post, but I can't imagine it'll really do that much good...
 745 2013-02-06 08:44:56 <MC1984> the main argument that stops me being a proponent of huge blocks is gregs observation about the fees market
 746 2013-02-06 08:45:09 HM2 has joined
 747 2013-02-06 08:45:11 <gmaxwell> petertodd: it's not so bad— there are a whole bunch of pro-unlimited-currency-supply people too.  If you think of it relative to that, it's not so bad.
 748 2013-02-06 08:45:14 asuk has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 749 2013-02-06 08:45:31 <gmaxwell> petertodd: well it looking like it's _me_ vs the world does not help the argument.
 750 2013-02-06 08:45:43 <MC1984> the access to hardware/bandwidth stuff not so much, i think moores law mght take care of that faster than anyone realises
 751 2013-02-06 08:46:03 <MC1984> hopefully asuming the developing world continues developing too
 752 2013-02-06 08:46:36 <gmaxwell> MC1984: you're not also concerned that no one except government sponsored orgs would bother running validating nodes with huge blocks? (and thus those orgs get to control inflation, since no one else is checking)
 753 2013-02-06 08:46:39 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Heh, reminds me, I realized there is a great analogy between large block sizes and the fight between DC and AC back in the early 1900's, but then I realized that I'd be saying Satoshi was on the side of Edison, and as for Tesla... someone else better argue that one...
 754 2013-02-06 08:47:31 <gmaxwell> MC1984: maybe... but no matter how fast the hardware is there is some blocksize that makes it costly... Part of my worry here is that there is a tremendous tragidy of the commons risk: "I could afford to validate, but hey— other people will do it"
 755 2013-02-06 08:47:32 TD has joined
 756 2013-02-06 08:47:42 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
 757 2013-02-06 08:47:46 <petertodd> Moores law is an observation! It's also already showing signs of cracking... and transistors are getting scary close to having just one atom in them.
 758 2013-02-06 08:47:52 <MC1984> as i said, computing power is increasing at shocking rates
 759 2013-02-06 08:48:01 <MC1984> not saying im right
 760 2013-02-06 08:48:01 <petertodd> No it isn't.
 761 2013-02-06 08:48:18 <petertodd> Clock speed has stagnated for a decade now.
 762 2013-02-06 08:48:25 <gmaxwell> petertodd: I'm still skeptical that satoshi actually believed that.. even in the example that I'd missed which gavin helpfully pointed me to— it was a modest bump not an unlimit.
 763 2013-02-06 08:48:55 <petertodd> You can't count any faster now than you could 10 years ago. Sure you can count in parallel, but not all problems are parallizable.
 764 2013-02-06 08:48:57 <MC1984> well it helps that verification is highly parallelisible
 765 2013-02-06 08:49:13 <MC1984> in fact id lik to see someone take a crack at a GPU verify engine
 766 2013-02-06 08:49:26 <MC1984> on the pure assumption that it would be awesome
 767 2013-02-06 08:49:27 <gmaxwell> petertodd: we can bump clockspeed whenever we want to switch to more costly chemistry. ... but the speed of light makes higher clockspeed not a big win (needs long pipelines) in any case.
 768 2013-02-06 08:49:44 <petertodd> Yes, but as I say, we're not that far from single atom transistors, and scaling past that is going to require 3D chips, which is a nightmare due to manufacturing and cooling issues.
 769 2013-02-06 08:50:09 <MC1984> intel does 3d chips now?
 770 2013-02-06 08:50:30 <petertodd> The only reason Moores law has worked is because transistor density increases by the inverse square of feature size, and feature size has been getting smaller linearly.
 771 2013-02-06 08:51:18 <petertodd> Well, everyone does multi-layer chips, but increases in density in the Z dimension aren't happening in a nice linear fashion.
 772 2013-02-06 08:51:20 <MC1984> well when that gravy train stops bitcoin is a small consideration overall
 773 2013-02-06 08:51:48 <petertodd> Sure, but all the more reason not to assume it won't stop when we plan out Bitcoin.
 774 2013-02-06 08:51:48 Maged has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 775 2013-02-06 08:52:17 <MC1984> bitcoin already exists by the grace of moore law
 776 2013-02-06 08:52:18 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Yeah, I mean, you *can* get multi-THz transistors, but a nanosecond is about a foot so...
 777 2013-02-06 08:52:19 Maged has joined
 778 2013-02-06 08:52:19 mtve has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 779 2013-02-06 08:52:28 <MC1984> i dont think it could have existed much before it did
 780 2013-02-06 08:52:51 CodesInChaos has joined
 781 2013-02-06 08:53:09 <petertodd> Yeah, if ECC crypto wasn't around, basically Bitcoin would have needed another few years of scaling so RSA signatures and keys wouldn't seem so bad.
 782 2013-02-06 08:53:39 mtve has joined
 783 2013-02-06 08:53:41 <gmaxwell> MC1984: our current protocol parameters would have worked a decade before... but we didn't have many always on PCs then... and no one would have believed that 52GiB/yr would be even remotely viable for anything (back when a big hdd was maybe 160gb)
 784 2013-02-06 08:54:46 <petertodd> MC1984: Another fun one: (1MiB/10minutes * 1year)/8billion = 7bytes/person-year
 785 2013-02-06 08:55:55 mappum has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 786 2013-02-06 08:56:05 <petertodd> gmaxwell: ...and even then, lots of people were still on dialup, so the 1.7KiB/second average would have been a big deal.
 787 2013-02-06 08:56:39 <petertodd> (assuming 1MiB blocks of course, right now bitcoin is doing half a KiB/s)
 788 2013-02-06 08:57:36 AtashiCon has joined
 789 2013-02-06 08:58:15 HM2 has quit ()
 790 2013-02-06 08:58:15 HM2 has joined
 791 2013-02-06 08:58:16 <MC1984> thats what i mean
 792 2013-02-06 08:58:17 <MC1984> bitcoin happened pretty fast after the supporting tech substrate for it became widespread
 793 2013-02-06 08:58:17 <MC1984> broadband, HDDs, crypto tech etc
 794 2013-02-06 08:58:17 <gmaxwell> the crypto part isn't novel at all.. thats been around.
 795 2013-02-06 08:58:41 <MC1984> i thought the proof of work concept isnt that old?
 796 2013-02-06 08:59:02 <petertodd> Well, cryptographically secure hashes that people trust aren't that old.
 797 2013-02-06 08:59:07 <gmaxwell> It's a little less about what was possible wrt broadband and hdd's I think, and more about having a large enough multiple of the requirement that people didn't bother worrying about the scale.
 798 2013-02-06 08:59:33 <gmaxwell> MC1984: I mean, hal created rpow several years before bitcoin existed.
 799 2013-02-06 08:59:48 <MC1984> never heard of it
 800 2013-02-06 08:59:49 <petertodd> It's good that Bitcoin nodes are cheap enough to run that I've got three going just in my apartment, and another 3 on virtual servers.
 801 2013-02-06 08:59:55 <gmaxwell> And that was a POW-scarcity based digital currency.
 802 2013-02-06 09:00:05 HM2 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 803 2013-02-06 09:00:17 <petertodd> MC1984: It relied on trusted hardware, and didn't go beyond a cool proof-of-concept.
 804 2013-02-06 09:00:48 <MC1984> is hal still doing bitcoin stuff
 805 2013-02-06 09:01:11 <gmaxwell> we haven't heard from hal in a little bit. I expect he is, but at his own pace.
 806 2013-02-06 09:01:14 <gmaxwell> http://www.finney.org/~hal/rpow/
 807 2013-02-06 09:01:46 <petertodd> Which incidentally, is the great thing about Bitcoin: you can do incompatible upgrades to your fancy trusted hardware off-chain tx stuff, by moving the value to Bitcoin, changing the hardware, and moving it back to the new hardware. Without Bitcoin you need compatibility from the start, and that's very difficult to pull off in a trustworthy way with secure hardware.
 808 2013-02-06 09:02:53 <gmaxwell> petertodd: yea, that was an issur for rpow— the software could never be changed.
 809 2013-02-06 09:03:00 <petertodd> As gmaxwell said before, with Bitcoin the "must get it right at the start" part is already done and works.
 810 2013-02-06 09:03:02 <MC1984> i wouldnt mind seeing bitcoin become a substrate for a new world, rather than the world itself
 811 2013-02-06 09:03:06 BTCOxygen has quit (1!~BTCOxygen@68.233.247.240|Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 812 2013-02-06 09:03:07 BTCOxygen has joined
 813 2013-02-06 09:03:08 <MC1984> substrates are good
 814 2013-02-06 09:03:25 <petertodd> It'd be a lot more interesting than making minor modifications to the substrate too. :P
 815 2013-02-06 09:04:24 <gmaxwell> Bitcoin's strength is the global fully decenteralized by-everyones-consent nature... but thats also it's weakness. The rules that give us ultimate confidence in it are also a bit of a suicide pact.
 816 2013-02-06 09:04:25 <MC1984> i suppose even if things stayed exactly the same as now, except bitcoinwas the reserve currency instead of uSD, that would be a substantial improvement
 817 2013-02-06 09:05:20 <petertodd> Well, "substantial improvement" is a non-technical judgement, personally I don't have many issues with the financial system as a whole right now, but I have some, and I think Bitcoin is a nice solution to some of those issues.
 818 2013-02-06 09:05:22 HM2 has joined
 819 2013-02-06 09:05:31 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
 820 2013-02-06 09:06:02 <gmaxwell> petertodd: I think alternatives are good even without drawing any judgements.
 821 2013-02-06 09:06:03 <MC1984> bitcoins creation was political i think
 822 2013-02-06 09:06:16 <MC1984> not wholly
 823 2013-02-06 09:06:23 <gmaxwell> Bitcoin is one of few things which you can actually call a radically distinct alternative.
 824 2013-02-06 09:06:25 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Absolutely, Bitcoin is totally unlike what came before, therefor it's worth exploring.
 825 2013-02-06 09:07:03 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Same reason I think alt-coins exploring different economic rules, like freicoin, are a good thing in principle... just too bad so many have been scams.
 826 2013-02-06 09:07:05 techlife has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 827 2013-02-06 09:07:27 BTCOxygen has joined
 828 2013-02-06 09:07:33 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 829 2013-02-06 09:07:34 JDuke128 has quit (Quit: ["Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com"])
 830 2013-02-06 09:07:48 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Now, I happen to think I have more interesting things to do with my life than hack of freicoin, but I'm glad someone is giving it a go.
 831 2013-02-06 09:08:18 <gmaxwell> One thing people often don't appreciate is how much a minority alternative can move the middle.  There mere existance of Vorbis cut MP3 licensing costs by a factor of 4 overnight, and kept them from rising to god-know-what. ... and this happened without vorbis every gaining maybe more than a few percent of MP3's support.
 832 2013-02-06 09:08:42 <MC1984> hmm a thought
 833 2013-02-06 09:09:00 <petertodd> PayPal has their PR thing about how they're reforming their practices.
 834 2013-02-06 09:09:01 <gmaxwell> I'm usually disappointed with the altcoin's lack of completeness of vision and yea, the fact that many do seem to be used by their creators or at least initial adopters as nothing more than a quick buck.
 835 2013-02-06 09:09:11 <MC1984> disregarding moores law, is technology projected to scale faster than economic activity for the foreseeable future
 836 2013-02-06 09:09:42 <petertodd> I think the biggest problem for altcoins right now is that there *is* a lot of interesting work to be done on Bitcoin, which attracts all the competent people instead.
 837 2013-02-06 09:09:51 <gmaxwell> petertodd: yea... Did we contribute to that? hard to know for sure. It's certantly possible.
 838 2013-02-06 09:10:04 <MC1984> if so hasnt bitcoin just got a rough few decade or whatever to get through before it could really handle everything at once
 839 2013-02-06 09:10:36 <petertodd> (and for that matter s/altcoins/bitcoin-based timestamping/, the perenial bad idea)
 840 2013-02-06 09:10:45 <gmaxwell> MC1984: no. fully decenteralized bitcoin has O(N^2)ish storage scaling. No amount of constant factor wait fixes that.
 841 2013-02-06 09:11:23 <gmaxwell> If you centeralize bitcoin it becomes O(N) and then thats potentially viable given enough tech improvement over economic growth.
 842 2013-02-06 09:12:04 <gmaxwell> centralize*
 843 2013-02-06 09:12:36 <MC1984> i dont understand that algebra
 844 2013-02-06 09:13:10 dbe has joined
 845 2013-02-06 09:13:11 techlife has joined
 846 2013-02-06 09:13:13 <MC1984> or the terms atleast
 847 2013-02-06 09:13:33 dbe is now known as Guest67711
 848 2013-02-06 09:13:39 <gmaxwell> MC1984: a node has to process all the transactions thats your O(N) e.g. one process per one transaction.  But we don't have just one node, we have as many nodes as users if its completely decenteralized
 849 2013-02-06 09:13:43 <petertodd> MC1984: You have n people, they each make one transaction, so you have n transactions, they need to store everyone elses transaction, so every person has to store n transaction, and there are n people, thus you have n^2
 850 2013-02-06 09:14:08 <gmaxwell> so if we're armwavy and pretend the number of transactions and users are the same you get N^2 operations for N activity.
 851 2013-02-06 09:14:39 <gmaxwell> and if you graph that you see its a run away function that grows faster the more it grows. (constantly increasing growth)
 852 2013-02-06 09:14:48 <petertodd> Comp-sci calles O(n) and similar "big-O notation", and it's just a short-hand way of saying how something scales as the size of your data increases.
 853 2013-02-06 09:14:53 <MC1984> oh yeah thats exponential
 854 2013-02-06 09:15:03 <gmaxwell> well it's quadratic, exponential is even worse.
 855 2013-02-06 09:15:06 <petertodd> Thus bitcoin is O(n^2) in space and in bandwidth.
 856 2013-02-06 09:15:30 <petertodd> MC1984: exponential would be say, 2^n
 857 2013-02-06 09:15:43 <petertodd> MC1984: The only people who like exponential algorithms are cryptographers...
 858 2013-02-06 09:16:08 <gmaxwell> But if you reduce bitcoin to just one or a small number of full nodes you get O(N) (or O(N*small_constant)) and thats much better but why not just have paypal?.
 859 2013-02-06 09:17:04 <MC1984> fuck it im still running a full node as long as possible
 860 2013-02-06 09:17:05 <petertodd> MC1984: FWIW, I had an interview at Google two years ago, and easily half the interview was about hand-waving analysis of programming ideas with big-O notation.
 861 2013-02-06 09:17:28 <gmaxwell> N*M things aren't so bad— so long as you keep one of N or M small and not growing (much or at all). People who say uncap the blocksize are implictly suggesting to solve the problem by limiting the number of validating nodes.
 862 2013-02-06 09:17:50 <gmaxwell> People who say the size should remain tightly limited are instead proposing to solve the issue by leaving the number of transactions capped.
 863 2013-02-06 09:18:38 <gmaxwell> in either case N*M doesn't run away because one or the other is small-ish and not growing.
 864 2013-02-06 09:19:10 <MC1984> well im leaning towards the cap all things considered but seriously 1mb........
 865 2013-02-06 09:19:12 <gmaxwell> I prefer to limit transactions because we can replace scale with off-chain, but nothing can replace decenteralization and zero trust.
 866 2013-02-06 09:19:19 <SomeoneWeird> petertodd, i have no idea what half of those words mean, so I won't be working for google
 867 2013-02-06 09:20:02 <gmaxwell> MC1984: does saying 144MB/day make you feel better? :P Or 52 gigabytes/yr?
 868 2013-02-06 09:20:17 <gmaxwell> it adds up...
 869 2013-02-06 09:20:47 <MC1984> nope, i pulled like 70gb of star trek in one night a while ago
 870 2013-02-06 09:20:50 <petertodd> It's what clouds the discussion really; the number of people on the planet is unlikely to go above the 10billion mark, so your n is limited, but at the same time expecting 1GiB blocks requires what will be very expensive hardware for the forseeable future.
 871 2013-02-06 09:20:52 <gmaxwell> but yea, I think my argument for this stuff is weakened because I'm not willing to say "1MB is the one true value and it must never be larger" ... the rules shouldn't be a total suicide pact.
 872 2013-02-06 09:21:51 <petertodd> SomeoneWeird: heh, well, I didn't get an offer if it makes you any happier. :) Although when you are at a interview for a programming job, and tell them how much you like analog electronics...
 873 2013-02-06 09:22:24 <SomeoneWeird> lol yeah
 874 2013-02-06 09:22:51 <petertodd> If Satoshi had set the hard limit to, say, 25MiB, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. On the other hand, people would be hating on satoshidice even more...
 875 2013-02-06 09:23:05 <gmaxwell> My position is more subtle: this is a really serious tradeoff, with major indirect and long term costs to increasing it, some of which are hard to reason about. Extreme caution should be required, etc.
 876 2013-02-06 09:23:16 <MC1984> if you could magically restart bitcoin without any drama, what would you change?
 877 2013-02-06 09:23:37 <petertodd> SomeoneWeird: Google did a huge hiring campaign; they called me in for an interview on the basis of literally a single 25line patch I made to Cython... I think they were getting desperate.
 878 2013-02-06 09:23:58 <gmaxwell> petertodd: I think we'd instead have had people howling that bitcoin was a scam because 1.2TB/tr is insane and impossible and it's all doomed to fail.
 879 2013-02-06 09:24:10 <SomeoneWeird> wow
 880 2013-02-06 09:24:11 <petertodd> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hardfork_Wishlist
 881 2013-02-06 09:24:33 <gmaxwell> well hardfork wishlist doesn't list stuff that would change the 'contract' ...
 882 2013-02-06 09:24:39 <SomeoneWeird> imo even 52gig/yr is insane
 883 2013-02-06 09:24:45 <gmaxwell> I'd make utxo's expire. Everything else can be retrofitted.
 884 2013-02-06 09:24:48 <MC1984> no drama, anything goes
 885 2013-02-06 09:25:06 <petertodd> SomeoneWeird: 5,000 engineers are hard to find...
 886 2013-02-06 09:25:28 <gmaxwell> SomeoneWeird: a $100 HDD stores like half a lifetime of that.. it's not really that big a deal.
 887 2013-02-06 09:25:31 <petertodd> SomeoneWeird: You know, Amazon glacier charges a penny per GiB*month
 888 2013-02-06 09:25:45 <gmaxwell> SomeoneWeird: it's currently annoying just because we have immature software that does the download in the 'foreground'.
 889 2013-02-06 09:26:17 <SomeoneWeird> nah not storae
 890 2013-02-06 09:26:19 <SomeoneWeird> storage
 891 2013-02-06 09:26:21 PiZZaMaN2K is now known as PiZZaMaN2K|away
 892 2013-02-06 09:26:24 <SomeoneWeird> bandwidth
 893 2013-02-06 09:26:42 <SomeoneWeird> its still not that much I suppose, but when you have a 50 gig/month cap
 894 2013-02-06 09:26:48 <petertodd> I registered blockchainbymail.com a few weeks ago...
 895 2013-02-06 09:26:51 <gmaxwell> SomeoneWeird: it's like 14kbit/sec...
 896 2013-02-06 09:26:56 <MC1984> yeah isp data caps put a dampner on it
 897 2013-02-06 09:27:18 <MC1984> then again they put a dampner on the whole digital delivery setor anyway
 898 2013-02-06 09:27:24 <SomeoneWeird> yeappp
 899 2013-02-06 09:27:30 <gmaxwell> SomeoneWeird: even against a 50gig cap, it's like 8%.. meh.
 900 2013-02-06 09:27:36 <petertodd> I figure just using a turn-key DVD-fufillment service would be low-maintenance enough to be worth it, although the blockchain isn't quite big enough yet to matter.
 901 2013-02-06 09:28:11 <gmaxwell> besides lots of capped ISPs excempt local services from the caps— presumably bitcoin would eventually be excempted... considering that it caches/multicasts infinitely well. :P
 902 2013-02-06 09:28:33 <gmaxwell> petertodd: USB satellite reciever...
 903 2013-02-06 09:28:40 <petertodd> gmaxwell: I wonder how many of those ISPs excempt their DNS servers...
 904 2013-02-06 09:29:03 <MC1984> isnt tor an example of something that doesnt really scale but is doing its job just fine what what people need of it?
 905 2013-02-06 09:29:17 <petertodd> Why do you say tor doesn't scale?
 906 2013-02-06 09:29:22 Grishnakh has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 907 2013-02-06 09:29:31 <gmaxwell> MC1984: tor is basically all reasonable linear scaling.
 908 2013-02-06 09:29:32 <thermoman> is there a reason the current 0.7.2 release only uses one cpu core?
 909 2013-02-06 09:29:41 <MC1984> exit nodes, the directory stuff etc
 910 2013-02-06 09:29:47 Grishnakh has joined
 911 2013-02-06 09:30:07 <petertodd> thermoman: the soon-to-be-released 0.8 uses more than one
 912 2013-02-06 09:30:18 <MC1984> bitcoin completely assumes people would find no meta-utility in what it does for them to keep it running
 913 2013-02-06 09:30:33 t7 has joined
 914 2013-02-06 09:30:49 <MC1984> i remember the time deepbit got over 50% hashrate and people manned up and diversified
 915 2013-02-06 09:31:03 <petertodd> MC1984: exit nodes and directories are all O(1) per tor user in principle, provided each tor user is willing to contribute back to the network in some way (on average)
 916 2013-02-06 09:31:15 <gmaxwell> MC1984: if it did it would fail.... everyone except miners would stop running full nodes, and miners would give themselves an extra 100 btc per block..
 917 2013-02-06 09:31:19 <gmaxwell> MC1984: your memory is funny.
 918 2013-02-06 09:31:34 <thermoman> petertodd: will 0.8 use leveldb instead of berkeleydb?
 919 2013-02-06 09:31:38 <SomeoneWeird> <gmaxwell> MC1984: if it did it would fail.... everyone except miners would stop running full nodes, and miners would give themselves an extra 100 btc per block.. < ha, never thought of that
 920 2013-02-06 09:31:50 <petertodd> thermoman: for the block database yes, your wallet is still berkelydb
 921 2013-02-06 09:32:16 Unknown43131 has joined
 922 2013-02-06 09:32:24 <petertodd> SomeoneWeird: you might find this interesting: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=137933.0
 923 2013-02-06 09:32:26 <gmaxwell> MC1984: I rememer people yelling and that not happening. And then I remember a series of DDOS attacks that basically left deepbit offline for days at a time... and many people moved to other pools.
 924 2013-02-06 09:32:37 <petertodd> SomeoneWeird: (inflation-proofing via fraud notices)
 925 2013-02-06 09:32:57 <MC1984> gmaxwell i dont mean have no rules and incentives, just how nice would it be if the problems of the block cap wernt that big after all beause people are better than bitcoin assumes
 926 2013-02-06 09:33:04 <petertodd> gmaxwell: (inflation-proofing via DDoS attacks)
 927 2013-02-06 09:33:07 <SomeoneWeird> hrmmm
 928 2013-02-06 09:33:26 <thermoman> petertodd: are there any thoughts about using a RDBMS as backend? like postgres, mysql, etc? for blockchain *and* wallet?
 929 2013-02-06 09:33:46 <MC1984> oh i thought people voluntarily moved pools
 930 2013-02-06 09:33:54 <petertodd> SomeoneWeird: that said, I think avoiding the hard requirement for stuff like inflation-proofing fraud notices is best
 931 2013-02-06 09:34:15 <gmaxwell> MC1984: I think it's best to have both kinds of protection: People really are smarter and more honest than we may pessimally assume... but cryptographic-proof is stronger still.
 932 2013-02-06 09:34:29 <petertodd> thermoman: People have done it, but I don't think the dev team particularly thinks it needs to go in the satoshi reference client itself... and I'm not part of the dev team.
 933 2013-02-06 09:34:48 <gmaxwell> petertodd: esp since making the software for fraud notices is another order of magnitude harder than what we seem to be having problems with now.
 934 2013-02-06 09:35:13 <MC1984> of course in a idel world bitcoin could run on pure rationality of its participants.....
 935 2013-02-06 09:35:24 <petertodd> gmaxwell: yeah... and it's dependent on changing the tx hashing algorithm too.
 936 2013-02-06 09:35:30 <gmaxwell> thermoman: we don't even store the blockchain itself in a database, doing so wouldn't have any value to the software itself... only cost.
 937 2013-02-06 09:36:03 <petertodd> MC1984: The way I described Bitcoin at the talk I gave a few weeks ago, started with "Imagine we had this village, and in this village everyone was honest and never made mistakes and carried around this little ledger book..."
 938 2013-02-06 09:36:04 <gmaxwell> (it would make life easier for people trying to do varrious analysis things, but thats very specialized and would want a different schema than we would in any case)
 939 2013-02-06 09:36:38 <petertodd> thermoman: In short, nothing is stopping you from writing a simple RPC-using program that makes your own database.
 940 2013-02-06 09:37:29 dvide has quit ()
 941 2013-02-06 09:37:36 pre2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 942 2013-02-06 09:38:24 graham1 has joined
 943 2013-02-06 09:38:35 <gmaxwell> MC1984: rationality is hard. Validation is subject to failure by people letting someone else handle the cost... it's even arguably more efficient for few people to do it instead of many. But people are silly with security: they only want to care _After_ the failure has happened.
 944 2013-02-06 09:39:41 <MC1984> yah theres suprising almost no incentive for validation
 945 2013-02-06 09:39:47 <petertodd> gmaxwel: That's why many of the "assume the UTXO hash buried n deep will never be orphaned" type proposals scare me... Being able to recover from a large attacker who gives up is a good thing.
 946 2013-02-06 09:39:59 <MC1984> except fuzzy notions of colletive self interest
 947 2013-02-06 09:40:14 <gmaxwell> petertodd: a lot of them create really awesome forever-fails.
 948 2013-02-06 09:40:51 <gmaxwell> petertodd: e.g. manage a 101 block reorg _once_ and the currency is forever split in two and can never heal short of half the nodes whiping themselves manually.
 949 2013-02-06 09:41:21 <MC1984> how would you even fix that? some sort of demurrage for validators?
 950 2013-02-06 09:41:26 <petertodd> gmaxwell: yeah... I mean, hell, Bitcoin had a 50-odd block re-org with the tx overflow bug, there is precident.
 951 2013-02-06 09:41:30 <gmaxwell> petertodd: and then people defend that failure mode saying that a 101 block reorg will never happen.... but if so, why the hell are they defending against it with their silly scheme? :P
 952 2013-02-06 09:42:08 <petertodd> gmaxwell: It's bad enough how much software is out there that will fail badly on even a 6 block reorg, hell, I've written such software myself.
 953 2013-02-06 09:42:19 <gmaxwell> MC1984: keeping validation so insanely cheap that you can just make validation a default in software and otherwise indifferent users become alturistic out of lazyness!
 954 2013-02-06 09:42:35 <gmaxwell> petertodd: like blockexplorer. lol
 955 2013-02-06 09:42:43 <MC1984> yes i like that
 956 2013-02-06 09:42:45 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Actually, there's yet another argument against 1GiB blocks...
 957 2013-02-06 09:42:50 TD has joined
 958 2013-02-06 09:42:56 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Ha, is that why it was broken on testnet for so long?
 959 2013-02-06 09:42:59 <gmaxwell> yep
 960 2013-02-06 09:43:42 <MC1984> GIGABYTE BLOCKS
 961 2013-02-06 09:44:08 <petertodd> gmaxwell: what's the difficulty -> total mhash/second conversion again? because testnet is 30...
 962 2013-02-06 09:44:10 <MC1984> it scares the othe side of the argument into submission
 963 2013-02-06 09:44:29 <petertodd> TERABYTE BLOCKS <- beat you
 964 2013-02-06 09:44:45 <MC1984> fffffffff
 965 2013-02-06 09:44:46 <gmaxwell> MC1984: consensus system lit. talks about a BAR model— where you classify participants into byzantine (evil— just want to break everything), rational (self-interested, knowldgable), and alturistic (honest even if it costs them). Many systems are secure against byzantine users so long as there are enough alturistic ones. If have only the B and R the systems fail.
 966 2013-02-06 09:44:51 <petertodd> PICOBYTE BLOCKS
 967 2013-02-06 09:44:53 <petertodd> wait, no...
 968 2013-02-06 09:45:13 <MC1984> DO YOU EVEN SI?
 969 2013-02-06 09:45:23 <gmaxwell> So I like to think of how we can maximize the alturistic users in bitcoin (and how we can make the maximally effective)
 970 2013-02-06 09:45:40 <gmaxwell> PEDOBYTE oh wait. no.
 971 2013-02-06 09:46:02 <MC1984> wat
 972 2013-02-06 09:46:26 <petertodd> Relay rules are a good example where alturistic users help things.
 973 2013-02-06 09:46:37 <MC1984> so bitcoins alreay goes well against the literature of consensus systems
 974 2013-02-06 09:46:41 <MC1984> ?
 975 2013-02-06 09:47:44 <petertodd> Although, it reminds me: it'd be really nice to see P2Pool nodes vouch for their hash power as a way to better determine if your node is connecting to a statistical majority of actual bitcoin nodes out there; p2pool already has the tx forwarding backbone.
 976 2013-02-06 09:47:54 <gmaxwell> MC1984: well, to some extent— though you can analyize bitcoin under the BAR model, as petertodd points out.. if we only had B/R users then it would be relaly hard to get txn mined because no one would relay. Altrustic users make it rational for rational users to relay too.
 977 2013-02-06 09:48:26 ThomasV has joined
 978 2013-02-06 09:48:53 <MC1984> i wonder i building a strong bitcoin brand would help with this BAR thing
 979 2013-02-06 09:48:54 <petertodd> gmaxwell: I dunno about that example... I suspect because BTC transactions are of value to miners, simple tit-for-tat accounting should mostly solve the "why relay" problem. The chance of getting a block is so low after all.
 980 2013-02-06 09:49:03 <gmaxwell> petertodd: yea, in #p2pool we talked some about mining node identities for anti DOS attack on p2pool. That could be generalized to bitcoin as a whole.
 981 2013-02-06 09:49:25 <petertodd> MC1984: the forum isn't exactly helping with branding...
 982 2013-02-06 09:49:47 <MC1984> like ive been thinking how annoyed i am that many bitcoin business have BIT in the name playing of hte novelty, when the system should be transparent and just work
 983 2013-02-06 09:49:58 <gmaxwell> petertodd: I dunno, I think you have two equlibrium the totally selfish and the tit for tat. The existance of alturistic relayers breaks the symmetry between the two.
 984 2013-02-06 09:50:16 <petertodd> gmaxwell: ...and I re-invent yet another idea. :P Seriously though, the trick would be to keep the lowest hash discovered by a given p2pool identitiy, so the proofs could be short.
 985 2013-02-06 09:50:24 <gmaxwell> ('an alturistic node may likely forward it anyways, I might as well tit for tat asap')
 986 2013-02-06 09:50:36 <gmaxwell> petertodd: yea, I proposed that too.
 987 2013-02-06 09:50:37 <MC1984> gmaxwell do you find a parallel with the way torrents need seeders?
 988 2013-02-06 09:51:08 <petertodd> gmaxwell: lol, yeah, I thought of it only two days ago. :P
 989 2013-02-06 09:51:11 <MC1984> youd think no one would seed, but so many people do they need to make laws stopping them
 990 2013-02-06 09:51:11 <gmaxwell> MC1984: there are all kinds of weird motivations with torrents I don't pretend to understand.
 991 2013-02-06 09:51:42 <petertodd> gmaxwell: That's a tough one, because it's basically a percolation problem, and it doesn't take very many alturistic nodes to achieve complete coverage in random graphs.
 992 2013-02-06 09:52:03 <gmaxwell> MC1984: some of that is altrustic by default: torrent software that seeds by defalt until you shut it off.. some is trackers making seeding rational by requiring raios.
 993 2013-02-06 09:52:05 <MC1984> or is that a function of seeding becoming so untaxing on modern tech that no one can be bothered to be an asshole
 994 2013-02-06 09:52:20 <gmaxwell> MC1984: I think thats a big part of it.
 995 2013-02-06 09:52:43 <petertodd> MC1984: Feeling like you're a rebel sticking it to the man can be a big motivation...
 996 2013-02-06 09:52:47 <midnightmagic> That's how a lot of the early bitcoin functionality was designed. Knobs that were glued in-place by default.
 997 2013-02-06 09:52:49 <MC1984> th last private tracker i was on had a ratio system, but they turned it off and never turned it on again
 998 2013-02-06 09:53:09 <MC1984> petertodd LOL bitcoins got that in spades
 999 2013-02-06 09:53:38 <gmaxwell> friendly by default, cheap enough to be friendly that most people won't bother ungluing the switch from the nice position.
1000 2013-02-06 09:53:49 <MC1984> gmaxwell interesting too, its sort of why i feel post scarcity is the way forward for everyone long term, make it pointless to be an asshole
1001 2013-02-06 09:53:54 <MC1984> theres a parallel there i think
1002 2013-02-06 09:54:06 <midnightmagic> I'm not sure I'd call everything satoshi made it do, friendly. More like whorish..
1003 2013-02-06 09:54:39 <petertodd> MC1984: post scarcity 'eh? so what have you done for the space program lately?
1004 2013-02-06 09:54:43 <gmaxwell> "It takes advantage of the nature of information being easy to spread but hard to stifle"
1005 2013-02-06 09:55:04 <petertodd> gmaxwell: ...yet another reason to keep the block sizes low.
1006 2013-02-06 09:55:17 <midnightmagic> But there was weird stuff too; at one point, if you ever set a proxy, you could never go back to being proxy-less without creating a new wallet.
1007 2013-02-06 09:55:32 <petertodd> midnightmagic: huh?
1008 2013-02-06 09:55:49 <MC1984> petertodd i root for it at every opportunity lol
1009 2013-02-06 09:55:50 <gmaxwell> Settings are stored in the wallet in a very automagic way.
1010 2013-02-06 09:56:01 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: pretty sure that wasn't intentional. :P
1011 2013-02-06 09:56:16 <midnightmagic> It was set as a configurable knob inside the wallet. Once set, you could never delete it. You could, from then on, only ever change it. I'm not convinced it wasn't on purpose.
1012 2013-02-06 09:56:34 <MC1984> wut
1013 2013-02-06 09:56:39 <petertodd> midnightmagic: Wait, but what do you mean by "a proxy"?
1014 2013-02-06 09:56:48 * petertodd is totally lost
1015 2013-02-06 09:56:52 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: I am— because thats what you'd get if you didn't think to make sure you could unset it.
1016 2013-02-06 09:57:02 <gmaxwell> petertodd: e.g. configured it to use tor.
1017 2013-02-06 09:57:33 <petertodd> Ah, so, set tor=on, and it'd always connect over tor in the future?
1018 2013-02-06 09:57:34 <midnightmagic> petertodd: -proxy=
1019 2013-02-06 09:57:40 <gmaxwell> -proxy=1.2.3.4:1234  if you set it via the gui it got saved into the wallet... and setting it to the empty string did nothing.
1020 2013-02-06 09:57:50 <petertodd> Madness...
1021 2013-02-06 09:57:56 Guest67711 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1022 2013-02-06 09:58:20 <MC1984> its a feature
1023 2013-02-06 09:58:23 <MC1984> not a bug
1024 2013-02-06 09:58:28 <gmaxwell> more than proxy did that. I think the fees did that too.
1025 2013-02-06 09:58:45 <midnightmagic> I think it would only *get* set in the wallet once it built a successful connection through it. If my memory of this condition is accurate, then this is the reason why I'm not convinced it wasn't deliberate.
1026 2013-02-06 09:59:36 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1027 2013-02-06 09:59:45 <gmaxwell> I don't see what motivation for that there would have been.
1028 2013-02-06 10:00:12 <petertodd> being tor, that would be post-satoshi code right?
1029 2013-02-06 10:00:25 <gmaxwell> it's not like bitcoin was full of safty-edges— we've been adding them over time.
1030 2013-02-06 10:00:38 <midnightmagic> Giving it a memory of positive connectivity in spite of a user shutting it back off. (Also why I think it was a whorish kind of behaviour..  very solicitous.)
1031 2013-02-06 10:00:49 <gmaxwell> petertodd: no we had tor support before the tor support you're thinking of.
1032 2013-02-06 10:00:53 <midnightmagic> That's true. I'm really happy with the new functionality coming online.
1033 2013-02-06 10:01:09 <gmaxwell> petertodd: the thing we added more recently is hidden service support... plain outbound proxy has worked for ~forever.
1034 2013-02-06 10:01:10 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Ah, like, pure connect, no hidden service?
1035 2013-02-06 10:01:36 <gmaxwell> right.
1036 2013-02-06 10:01:54 <midnightmagic> petertodd: Run "bitcoind --help|grep proxy"   It's just socks proxy'ing.
1037 2013-02-06 10:01:58 sebicas has joined
1038 2013-02-06 10:02:13 <gmaxwell> yea, we still support general proxying in addition to the tor specific stuff.
1039 2013-02-06 10:03:00 <midnightmagic> Meaningless in the grand scheme of things, but the attitude was there.. only people who could compile stuff were, basically, allowed to change it.
1040 2013-02-06 10:03:14 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Incidentally, it's interesting how popular the hidden service support is - my EC2 node that offers it consistently has dozens of incoming connections.
1041 2013-02-06 10:03:35 <midnightmagic> that's pretty cool
1042 2013-02-06 10:04:11 <petertodd> There are probably a lot of services out there running nodes that use tor to connect with for security.
1043 2013-02-06 10:04:14 <midnightmagic> petertodd: How much bandwidth does that instance normally eat up?
1044 2013-02-06 10:04:45 <gmaxwell> we need more nodes running, we also need to solve DOS attack problems with them.. all our anti-dos stuff now is predicated on being able to ban nodes that waste our time...
1045 2013-02-06 10:04:54 <gmaxwell> but we can't ban a hidden service inbound. :(
1046 2013-02-06 10:05:15 <gmaxwell> so the hidden service bitcoin network is more vulnerable.
1047 2013-02-06 10:05:35 <midnightmagic> do we not have access to the remote identifier? we could force them to rekey for every new connection.
1048 2013-02-06 10:05:48 <gmaxwell> petertodd: more impressive when you realize a dual stack node will only make at most one hidden service connection out.
1049 2013-02-06 10:06:01 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: nope, hidden services give you no inbound identifier.
1050 2013-02-06 10:06:25 <midnightmagic> huh. I guess I'm spoiled by i2p
1051 2013-02-06 10:06:59 <petertodd> gmaxwell: It's relatively bad, looking to be a GiB or two a day, and EC2 is $0.12/GiB
1052 2013-02-06 10:07:00 <gmaxwell> besides, what would it be? 'it's anonymous!' :P
1053 2013-02-06 10:07:17 <gmaxwell> EC2 bandwidth is super overpriced.
1054 2013-02-06 10:07:56 <petertodd> gmaxwell: It's also a non-micro node, although I have the 3 year pre-paid option.
1055 2013-02-06 10:08:15 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Yes it is, but it's also super reliable and easy to use.
1056 2013-02-06 10:08:35 gjs278 has joined
1057 2013-02-06 10:08:53 <petertodd> gmaxwell: I just got 25Mb down, 10Mb up internet at home, so I just unrestricted all my nodes in my apartment...
1058 2013-02-06 10:08:58 asuk has joined
1059 2013-02-06 10:09:18 FredEE has quit (Quit: FredEE)
1060 2013-02-06 10:09:44 <gmaxwell> yep... ctrl-r un-in<enter>  I HAZ A COMPUTER
1061 2013-02-06 10:10:01 <petertodd> (I was running a tor node on joyent, about 50Mb sustained, but I figure I should focus my donations to the most technically sophisticated thing I know how to run)
1062 2013-02-06 10:10:07 <gmaxwell> petertodd: I'm going to miss my 25/25 fios.
1063 2013-02-06 10:10:08 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Isn't moving FUN!
1064 2013-02-06 10:10:26 asuk has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1065 2013-02-06 10:10:52 <petertodd> I didn't even have internet for almost the whole time I was a student.
1066 2013-02-06 10:11:01 <gmaxwell> I guess I should find some cheap colo to run some stable tor and bitcoin nodes.
1067 2013-02-06 10:11:08 <petertodd> I'd sit in the stairwell of my apartment stealing wifi...
1068 2013-02-06 10:11:47 <petertodd> ...and another testnet seed would keep the conspiracy theorists away.
1069 2013-02-06 10:11:48 DamascusVG has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1070 2013-02-06 10:11:50 <gmaxwell> petertodd: I'm on google wifi now. :P actually contemplating going internet access free at home for opsec and cost-hypermiling reasons, esp since the only option here appears to be quite costly and crapcastic comcast service.
1071 2013-02-06 10:12:07 DamascusVG has joined
1072 2013-02-06 10:12:09 <gmaxwell> (It's not as if I was in the middle of silicon valley .. oh wait. WTF universe)
1073 2013-02-06 10:12:37 <petertodd> lol, that's where you are now? with crappy internet?
1074 2013-02-06 10:12:40 <MC1984> google wifi?
1075 2013-02-06 10:12:53 <gmaxwell> MC1984: google runs free wifi in some places.
1076 2013-02-06 10:13:03 <MC1984> damn
1077 2013-02-06 10:13:19 <gmaxwell> petertodd: yea.
1078 2013-02-06 10:13:53 asuk has joined
1079 2013-02-06 10:15:06 <petertodd> Be funny if google was mainly doing that because the local internet sucked and their employees were complaining...
1080 2013-02-06 10:15:21 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1081 2013-02-06 10:17:11 Tykling has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1082 2013-02-06 10:17:11 loltu has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1083 2013-02-06 10:17:29 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1084 2013-02-06 10:22:02 B0g4r7 has joined
1085 2013-02-06 10:22:12 loltu has joined
1086 2013-02-06 10:23:28 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1087 2013-02-06 10:26:45 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1088 2013-02-06 10:28:22 gjs278 has joined
1089 2013-02-06 10:32:09 loltu has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1090 2013-02-06 10:32:43 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1091 2013-02-06 10:32:53 parus has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1092 2013-02-06 10:33:38 parus has joined
1093 2013-02-06 10:33:50 Tykling has joined
1094 2013-02-06 10:36:42 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1095 2013-02-06 10:37:10 loltu has joined
1096 2013-02-06 10:37:47 <MC1984> What this code allows you to do is take a 8MB chunk of data and cut it into any number of 1MB chunks such that any eight of them can reconstruct the original data.
1097 2013-02-06 10:38:01 <MC1984> Vandermonde matrixes
1098 2013-02-06 10:38:01 <MC1984> what
1099 2013-02-06 10:38:23 parus has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1100 2013-02-06 10:38:40 ken` has joined
1101 2013-02-06 10:39:03 sgornick has joined
1102 2013-02-06 10:40:59 MrTiggr has joined
1103 2013-02-06 10:41:56 gjs278 has joined
1104 2013-02-06 10:44:01 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1105 2013-02-06 10:47:52 drizztbsd has joined
1106 2013-02-06 10:49:59 darkskiez has left ("Ex-Chat")
1107 2013-02-06 10:51:00 parus has joined
1108 2013-02-06 10:51:07 <Diablo-D3> MC1984: ....
1109 2013-02-06 10:51:12 <Diablo-D3> so wait
1110 2013-02-06 10:51:13 one_zero has quit ()
1111 2013-02-06 10:51:21 <Diablo-D3> 8mb of data in 8 1mb chunks requires the original 8
1112 2013-02-06 10:51:35 <Diablo-D3> thats called naming the fucking files in the right order
1113 2013-02-06 10:54:18 <CodeShark> add an index byte to each chunk and you don't even need to know the right order to reconstruct it :)
1114 2013-02-06 10:55:02 <Diablo-D3> that wasnt the original terms
1115 2013-02-06 10:55:08 <Diablo-D3> if Im allowed a header, then yes, that
1116 2013-02-06 10:55:17 <Eliel> gmaxwell: regarding the conversation abit earlier. Have you thought about what would be the optimal block size for maximizing decentralization? Too high and decentralization suffers due to the high costs. Too low and decentralization suffers due to lack of interest, since people can't use the system personally.
1117 2013-02-06 10:55:40 ralphtheninja has joined
1118 2013-02-06 10:55:43 <CodeShark> I think the more interesting problem is breaking up m bytes of data into n chunks of size s such that any k chunks suffice to reconstruct m :)
1119 2013-02-06 10:56:15 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1120 2013-02-06 10:57:21 <CodeShark> RAID 3 is an example where n = 3, m = 2s, and k = 2
1121 2013-02-06 10:57:54 <Diablo-D3> no, the solution to THAT problem is par2
1122 2013-02-06 11:05:37 RazielZ has joined
1123 2013-02-06 11:08:33 dbe has joined
1124 2013-02-06 11:08:57 dbe is now known as Guest22351
1125 2013-02-06 11:08:59 gjs278 has joined
1126 2013-02-06 11:12:44 Guest22351 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1127 2013-02-06 11:16:34 BurtyB2 is now known as BurtyB
1128 2013-02-06 11:17:43 ralphtheninja has left ()
1129 2013-02-06 11:20:38 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1130 2013-02-06 11:23:27 b4epoche has joined
1131 2013-02-06 11:27:49 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1132 2013-02-06 11:28:37 rbecker is now known as RBecker
1133 2013-02-06 11:35:57 sacredchao has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1134 2013-02-06 11:36:02 random_cat has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1135 2013-02-06 11:36:25 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1136 2013-02-06 11:38:29 sacredchao has joined
1137 2013-02-06 11:38:57 gjs278 has joined
1138 2013-02-06 11:40:19 sgornick has joined
1139 2013-02-06 11:42:00 icebattl1 has joined
1140 2013-02-06 11:44:03 unknown45682 has quit ()
1141 2013-02-06 11:44:25 <X-Scale> <CodeShark> I think the more interesting problem is breaking up m bytes of data into n chunks of size s such that any k chunks suffice to reconstruct m :) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed%E2%80%93Solomon_error_correction
1142 2013-02-06 11:44:26 unknown45682 has joined
1143 2013-02-06 11:44:51 icebattle has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1144 2013-02-06 11:44:56 <CodeShark> yeah, that kind of stuff :)
1145 2013-02-06 11:45:02 Mad7Scientist has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1146 2013-02-06 11:45:10 midnightmagic has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1147 2013-02-06 11:45:15 ielo has joined
1148 2013-02-06 11:46:11 random_cat has joined
1149 2013-02-06 11:49:30 midnightmagic has joined
1150 2013-02-06 11:52:29 RBecker is now known as rbecker
1151 2013-02-06 11:53:43 Zarutian has joined
1152 2013-02-06 11:56:19 voodster has joined
1153 2013-02-06 12:00:32 Mad7Scientist has joined
1154 2013-02-06 12:04:12 random_cat has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1155 2013-02-06 12:08:34 random_cat has joined
1156 2013-02-06 12:08:38 bitcoiner_ has joined
1157 2013-02-06 12:13:27 TD has joined
1158 2013-02-06 12:21:18 bitcoiner_ has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1159 2013-02-06 12:22:27 moarrr has joined
1160 2013-02-06 12:23:41 Tiggr has joined
1161 2013-02-06 12:24:39 Tiggr has quit (Client Quit)
1162 2013-02-06 12:24:45 paraipan has joined
1163 2013-02-06 12:26:37 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1164 2013-02-06 12:28:51 LargoG has joined
1165 2013-02-06 12:29:52 Tykling has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1166 2013-02-06 12:29:59 Tyklol has joined
1167 2013-02-06 12:30:11 paybitcoin1 has joined
1168 2013-02-06 12:30:14 twobitcoins_ has joined
1169 2013-02-06 12:30:29 [\\\]_e has joined
1170 2013-02-06 12:30:35 [\\\] has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1171 2013-02-06 12:30:45 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1172 2013-02-06 12:31:09 paybitcoin has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1173 2013-02-06 12:32:47 Unknown43131 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1174 2013-02-06 12:32:51 twobitcoins has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1175 2013-02-06 12:34:46 rdponticelli has joined
1176 2013-02-06 12:34:48 reizuki__ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1177 2013-02-06 12:37:47 zooko has joined
1178 2013-02-06 12:40:11 asuk has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1179 2013-02-06 12:41:25 CodeShark has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1180 2013-02-06 12:42:44 jurov has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1181 2013-02-06 12:43:20 jurov_ has joined
1182 2013-02-06 12:45:08 asuk has joined
1183 2013-02-06 12:53:44 jurov_ is now known as jurov
1184 2013-02-06 12:53:57 t7 is now known as bitplane
1185 2013-02-06 12:54:11 bitplane is now known as t7
1186 2013-02-06 13:12:12 BurtyB has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1187 2013-02-06 13:12:36 BurtyB has joined
1188 2013-02-06 13:13:41 LargoG has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1189 2013-02-06 13:14:04 LargoG has joined
1190 2013-02-06 13:15:25 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1191 2013-02-06 13:17:42 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1192 2013-02-06 13:19:33 ielo has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1193 2013-02-06 13:22:28 rbecker is now known as RBecker
1194 2013-02-06 13:22:49 RBecker has quit (Quit: You care. You're there for me.  You love me so much, and I never want to let it go.  You are the one truly amazing person. MDR 3/6/11 <3)
1195 2013-02-06 13:23:05 RBecker has joined
1196 2013-02-06 13:28:09 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1197 2013-02-06 13:29:47 nus- has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1198 2013-02-06 13:30:05 MobGod has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1199 2013-02-06 13:30:19 nus- has joined
1200 2013-02-06 13:40:37 sgornick has joined
1201 2013-02-06 13:41:09 daybyter has joined
1202 2013-02-06 13:42:28 Nicksasa has joined
1203 2013-02-06 13:43:13 datagutt has joined
1204 2013-02-06 13:43:27 <moarrr> Anyone here?
1205 2013-02-06 13:43:40 <daybyter> Nope...
1206 2013-02-06 13:43:59 <moarrr> daybyter: wanna play my higher or lower game?
1207 2013-02-06 13:44:06 <daybyter> Nope...
1208 2013-02-06 13:44:31 <daybyter> cannot play...have to develop...
1209 2013-02-06 13:45:02 <moarrr> :) It will releive stress and reduce fatigue ...
1210 2013-02-06 13:45:09 <moarrr> What are you working on ?
1211 2013-02-06 13:45:25 <daybyter> A game and a trading app....
1212 2013-02-06 13:45:56 MrTiggr has joined
1213 2013-02-06 13:47:54 voodster has quit (Quit: leaving)
1214 2013-02-06 13:48:00 <ne0futur> "all work and no play makes jack a dull boy"
1215 2013-02-06 13:48:25 <daybyter> ok....if I play...would you code for me?
1216 2013-02-06 13:48:27 <ne0futur> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_work_and_no_play_makes_Jack_a_dull_boy
1217 2013-02-06 13:48:41 <ne0futur> daybyter: well perhaps for btcs ;)
1218 2013-02-06 13:48:52 <moarrr> daybyter: what language you coding it in?
1219 2013-02-06 13:49:26 <ne0futur> ( but i m not good at crypto and understanding the bitcoind code ;( )
1220 2013-02-06 13:49:47 <daybyter> trading stuff in Java
1221 2013-02-06 13:50:01 <daybyter> game in HTML5/Javascript and PHP
1222 2013-02-06 13:50:21 <daybyter> then I have some Phonegap project for btc-e.
1223 2013-02-06 13:50:43 <moarrr> lol I suck at java
1224 2013-02-06 13:50:54 <moarrr> i dropped out of my CS class cause I hated coding in that
1225 2013-02-06 13:51:28 <daybyter> sad...I'm sure I could have helped you...
1226 2013-02-06 13:54:25 t7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1227 2013-02-06 13:54:48 t7 has joined
1228 2013-02-06 14:10:54 ielo has joined
1229 2013-02-06 14:15:21 Pasha has joined
1230 2013-02-06 14:15:39 Cory has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1231 2013-02-06 14:20:25 Pasha is now known as Cory
1232 2013-02-06 14:28:57 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1233 2013-02-06 14:30:55 <HM2> moarrr: that's why i did elec eng and then selected all the computing modules
1234 2013-02-06 14:31:15 <HM2> moarrr: you bypass all the crap like java and databases
1235 2013-02-06 14:31:57 <HM2> straight in to assembly, C, C++, with a nice side helping of digital electronics, computer science etc.
1236 2013-02-06 14:32:29 <moarrr> ohh nice, i should have done that
1237 2013-02-06 14:32:35 <moarrr> but i suck at understanding circuits
1238 2013-02-06 14:32:39 <daybyter> data modeling rules....
1239 2013-02-06 14:32:39 <moarrr> or at least, i did at the time
1240 2013-02-06 14:34:35 <moarrr> model dating rules
1241 2013-02-06 14:34:41 <moarrr> data modelling is... ;) meh
1242 2013-02-06 14:36:53 <HM2> my only regret with my academic choices at uni are that i ended up doing engineering math instead of useful comp sci math
1243 2013-02-06 14:37:50 <HM2> i reaally don't give a smeg about laplace transforms and Q factors
1244 2013-02-06 14:37:56 <moarrr> meh... my only regret with going to uni, was going to uni lol
1245 2013-02-06 14:38:18 <HM2> heh
1246 2013-02-06 14:38:27 <moarrr> im cool with learning math, when it has something to do with what your coding
1247 2013-02-06 14:38:29 <moarrr> but blehhh
1248 2013-02-06 14:38:45 <daybyter> can you do trading math?
1249 2013-02-06 14:38:54 <moarrr> multiplication and division?
1250 2013-02-06 14:38:56 <moarrr> yeh, no problem
1251 2013-02-06 14:38:57 <HM2> lol
1252 2013-02-06 14:39:00 <moarrr> i learned that in primary school
1253 2013-02-06 14:39:04 <daybyter> Calculate the price of tomorrow?
1254 2013-02-06 14:39:04 agricocb has joined
1255 2013-02-06 14:39:23 <HM2> you mean concepts like present value?
1256 2013-02-06 14:39:39 <daybyter> sma, ema and stuff like that...
1257 2013-02-06 14:39:52 <moarrr> oh statistical modelling
1258 2013-02-06 14:39:54 <moarrr> yeh i can do that
1259 2013-02-06 14:40:45 <HM2> i don't know what sma or ema are
1260 2013-02-06 14:41:38 sgornick has joined
1261 2013-02-06 14:41:46 <HM2> oh moving averages
1262 2013-02-06 14:41:50 <HM2> pfft
1263 2013-02-06 14:42:14 TD has joined
1264 2013-02-06 14:42:30 <daybyter> pfft...?
1265 2013-02-06 14:44:18 rdymac has joined
1266 2013-02-06 14:53:20 gavinandresen has joined
1267 2013-02-06 14:58:34 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell petertodd : RE: max block size limit:  I think if we're serious about decentralization then the decision of how large or small blocks should be ought to be decentralized (and now I need to run out the door, back in a bit)
1268 2013-02-06 14:59:07 <SomeoneWeird> decentralize ALL the things
1269 2013-02-06 15:03:50 <moarrr> why isnt the block reward decentralised?
1270 2013-02-06 15:04:18 pre2 has joined
1271 2013-02-06 15:05:47 eckey has joined
1272 2013-02-06 15:07:25 <daybyter> a p2p exchange is needed...
1273 2013-02-06 15:12:36 LargoG has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1274 2013-02-06 15:12:58 LargoG has joined
1275 2013-02-06 15:19:46 pre2 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1276 2013-02-06 15:22:50 pre2 has joined
1277 2013-02-06 15:22:58 meLon has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1278 2013-02-06 15:23:42 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1279 2013-02-06 15:29:14 <sipa> gavinandresen: bitcoin is not a democracy - only the one single thing that couldn't be enforced deterministically is left to voting (=ordering of otherwise tvalid transactions)
1280 2013-02-06 15:29:59 <sipa> gavinandresen: did your debugging hint towards a particular rule where CVR may have intorudced a bug?
1281 2013-02-06 15:30:10 <gavinandresen> yes, the BIP30 enforcement rule
1282 2013-02-06 15:30:32 <gavinandresen> … returns error(), should return state.DoS, I believe
1283 2013-02-06 15:30:33 <sipa> aah!
1284 2013-02-06 15:31:22 <sipa> gavinandresen: in 0.7.2 BIP30 did not trigger DoS
1285 2013-02-06 15:31:43 <sipa> this long after starting to enforce is, i think it can
1286 2013-02-06 15:33:03 <gavinandresen> yes, should definitely.  I'm going to look carefully at all the methods that return CValidationState; there might be some places where state.DoS(0, …)  is the right thing to do
1287 2013-02-06 15:33:21 <gavinandresen> ("you send me something invalid, but I'm not going to DoS you for it"...)
1288 2013-02-06 15:33:58 <sipa> yes, i must admit that CVR was probably too rushed
1289 2013-02-06 15:34:18 <sipa> gavinandresen: .Invalid() is the same as .DoS(0)
1290 2013-02-06 15:34:22 <gavinandresen> in any case, I'm relieved it isn't some weird compiler bug or subtle memory error
1291 2013-02-06 15:34:40 <sipa> indeed, me too
1292 2013-02-06 15:34:44 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: yea, sorry for freaking out and seeing ghosts everywhere :)
1293 2013-02-06 15:34:55 <sipa> BlueMatt: you were right to yell
1294 2013-02-06 15:35:08 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: easy to do, and yes, thanks for raising the alarm
1295 2013-02-06 15:35:20 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1296 2013-02-06 15:37:08 <gavinandresen> re: bitcoin is not a democracy:  I'd really like to defer the do-we-or-don't-we-schedule-a-hard-fork discussion until after 0.8 is out the door, and maybe until after the payment protocol is implemented
1297 2013-02-06 15:37:30 <sipa> gavinandresen: there may be some places where you see .error(), those are typically after returning from a method that calls .DoS() or .Invalid() by itself
1298 2013-02-06 15:37:59 <sipa> gavinandresen: agree, discussion won't hurt, but i don't think that achieving a concensus will be easy
1299 2013-02-06 15:38:29 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: I would look to do it after payment protocol...but its an interesting discussion to have
1300 2013-02-06 15:38:58 b4epoche has joined
1301 2013-02-06 15:39:00 <sipa> i agree the lack of a payment protocol is a more limiting issue right now
1302 2013-02-06 15:40:22 __niven has joined
1303 2013-02-06 15:40:55 niven has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1304 2013-02-06 15:42:22 GMP has joined
1305 2013-02-06 15:44:20 <sipa> gavinandresen: eh, see return false
1306 2013-02-06 15:44:35 <sipa> .error should only be for errors not related to block validity
1307 2013-02-06 15:45:05 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1308 2013-02-06 15:45:26 <gavinandresen> sipa: I'll have a new pull request in a hour or two after I eat breakfast and shower (unless you beat me to it-- but you're on vacation, right?)
1309 2013-02-06 15:46:21 <sipa> yes, crappy internet here, but I can make a pullreq quickly now
1310 2013-02-06 15:46:39 <sipa> (i've had enough skiing for today)
1311 2013-02-06 15:46:57 <Scrat> sipa: that's dedication right there
1312 2013-02-06 15:47:03 CodeInChaos has joined
1313 2013-02-06 15:48:38 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1314 2013-02-06 15:52:57 TD has joined
1315 2013-02-06 15:53:29 TD has quit (Client Quit)
1316 2013-02-06 15:53:47 ken` has quit (Quit: leaving)
1317 2013-02-06 15:55:00 KIDC has joined
1318 2013-02-06 15:55:30 Aranjedeath has joined
1319 2013-02-06 15:55:52 <sipa> gavinandresen: i checked the other instances of 'return false' in main.cpp as well, ad those look sane
1320 2013-02-06 15:55:58 <sipa> *and
1321 2013-02-06 15:58:06 moore_ has joined
1322 2013-02-06 16:03:46 Acciaio has joined
1323 2013-02-06 16:05:22 <Acciaio> when I have to send some bitcoin which is the best way to select it between unsent? there are some paper about it?
1324 2013-02-06 16:06:22 <andytoshi> no papers that i know of -- i believe bitcoind tries to minimize the number of txouts to use
1325 2013-02-06 16:06:38 <andytoshi> without further knowlede of your spending habits, that's probbly the best way to go
1326 2013-02-06 16:08:30 eckey has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1327 2013-02-06 16:10:13 zooko has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1328 2013-02-06 16:10:22 <Acciaio> but if I have 2 input the first with an amount of 2 the second with an amount of 3 I have to send 1 bitcoin ... which is the right one to choose?
1329 2013-02-06 16:11:51 <Acciaio> and if I have a third input with an amount of 1 it is better to choose this one to spend exactly the same amount in input?
1330 2013-02-06 16:14:31 <andytoshi> if you create a new change address, IMO all of those are equals
1331 2013-02-06 16:15:08 <andytoshi> the concerns are: mixing addresses (change effectively renames, not mixes), and reusing addresses (don't do that)
1332 2013-02-06 16:15:25 <andytoshi> but maybe i'm overlooking something
1333 2013-02-06 16:17:51 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1334 2013-02-06 16:19:29 cdecker_ has joined
1335 2013-02-06 16:20:30 <cdecker_> Having a problem with the testnet blockchain
1336 2013-02-06 16:22:55 <cdecker_> Somhow BitcoinJ does not like block 49570 (00000000c12b2a617a199cdccfa2b82e3b539287cb3f5f30346eeadd10044e86)
1337 2013-02-06 16:23:05 <cdecker_> It complains about the difficulty
1338 2013-02-06 16:23:18 <cdecker_> Any ideas what might have happened?
1339 2013-02-06 16:23:21 voodster has joined
1340 2013-02-06 16:24:15 <cdecker_> Is Mike online?
1341 2013-02-06 16:24:38 zooko has joined
1342 2013-02-06 16:28:06 pre2 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1343 2013-02-06 16:28:38 <cdecker_> Nevermind
1344 2013-02-06 16:28:45 <cdecker_> Mike already fixed it http://code.google.com/p/bitcoinj/source/detail?r=b18256841a06da2df472f09eeb33bc23cc2de848&name=release-0.6
1345 2013-02-06 16:29:21 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1346 2013-02-06 16:33:04 pre2 has joined
1347 2013-02-06 16:33:51 LargoG has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1348 2013-02-06 16:34:32 <bitmarco> are there updated docs on the protocol specification?  i have been reading code and the docs and they seem kinda out of sync.  Especially on the discover side.
1349 2013-02-06 16:38:08 <gavinandresen> What docs?  The wiki? If the wiki is wrong, there is no Mr. Documentation Person to fix it-- fix it yourself or maybe ask the last person who edited it if it is wrong and maybe they'll be motivated to fix it
1350 2013-02-06 16:38:37 <bitmarco> so the code is the doco really
1351 2013-02-06 16:38:39 <bitmarco> got it
1352 2013-02-06 16:40:06 <gavinandresen> (We probably should make people promise to update the wiki when they submit pull requests that change or add to the protocol…)
1353 2013-02-06 16:41:17 <BlueMatt> oh, I keep forgetting, will someone yell at me on a regular basis to get the bloom filter bip up-to-date, its still doesnt represent the code in master
1354 2013-02-06 16:41:51 asuk has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1355 2013-02-06 16:41:57 sgornick has joined
1356 2013-02-06 16:43:36 Acciaio has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1357 2013-02-06 16:44:30 MobPhone has joined
1358 2013-02-06 16:44:45 <andytoshi> ;;later tell BlueMatt do that thing he just said
1359 2013-02-06 16:44:45 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
1360 2013-02-06 16:44:46 <andytoshi> done
1361 2013-02-06 16:44:56 <andytoshi> ;)
1362 2013-02-06 16:49:41 Hashdog has joined
1363 2013-02-06 16:49:54 asuk has joined
1364 2013-02-06 16:50:27 <gavinandresen> sipa:  This case: // Check it again in case a previous version let a bad block in  … return false
1365 2013-02-06 16:50:47 <gavinandresen> sipa:  is a should-never-happen case, but seems to me it should set state.Invalid
1366 2013-02-06 16:51:05 <gavinandresen> sipa:  (in ConnectBlock)
1367 2013-02-06 16:52:57 <gavinandresen> sipa: never mind, I see:  CheckBlock will set state.Invalid....
1368 2013-02-06 16:53:27 nus- is now known as nus
1369 2013-02-06 16:53:45 orangepostit has joined
1370 2013-02-06 16:56:26 <orangepostit> Anyone able to fire me over 0.001 (or lower) BTC for me to test?  1Gn3rfWmVHeVoQ57HwQP6m7FXfBMW37bZj  - I have test net coins, but looking to test some real transactions.
1371 2013-02-06 17:00:59 X-Scale` has joined
1372 2013-02-06 17:01:18 X-Scale has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1373 2013-02-06 17:02:28 JZavala has joined
1374 2013-02-06 17:04:23 Guest87283 has joined
1375 2013-02-06 17:05:02 <bitmarco> does testnet use the same seed addresses but uses port 18333?
1376 2013-02-06 17:05:05 <helo> testnet transactions are real, they just don't have any value
1377 2013-02-06 17:05:33 <orangepostit> yep
1378 2013-02-06 17:05:42 random_cat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1379 2013-02-06 17:05:55 <gmaxwell> bitmarco: no.
1380 2013-02-06 17:06:52 * gavinandresen wonders what a 'seed address' might mean....
1381 2013-02-06 17:07:14 <SomeoneWeird> from address, maybe?
1382 2013-02-06 17:07:48 <bitmarco> i am trying to figure out how discovery works from the code and dont quite see it
1383 2013-02-06 17:08:05 <gmaxwell> I assumed he meant the pnSeed table.
1384 2013-02-06 17:08:10 <bitmarco> yeah i did
1385 2013-02-06 17:08:19 <gmaxwell> bitmarco: it's just not used in testnet.
1386 2013-02-06 17:08:37 <bitmarco> so how does testnet work?  irc only?
1387 2013-02-06 17:09:09 <gmaxwell> You need to distinguish the initial bootstrap from general discovery.
1388 2013-02-06 17:09:30 <gmaxwell> The primary method for general discovery is rumoring over the p2p network.
1389 2013-02-06 17:10:38 <bitmarco> the thing i am confused about is where and how i do the first connection in order to get to the p2p network and start asking more general questions
1390 2013-02-06 17:10:41 <gmaxwell> For the initial boostrap, peers are taken from  addnode commandlines, an addr.txt file provided by the user, DNS seeds, IRC (if enabled which it only is by default on testnet), and if all else fails— from the pnSeed table (but not on testnet).
1391 2013-02-06 17:10:51 orangepostit has quit (Quit: slapped the post-it on the fridge, back in an hour honey.)
1392 2013-02-06 17:11:19 LargoG has joined
1393 2013-02-06 17:11:28 Diapolo has joined
1394 2013-02-06 17:11:39 sgornick has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1395 2013-02-06 17:12:56 vampireb has joined
1396 2013-02-06 17:13:30 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1397 2013-02-06 17:13:45 da2ce7_d has joined
1398 2013-02-06 17:14:37 t7 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1399 2013-02-06 17:15:38 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1400 2013-02-06 17:17:45 <bitmarco> so use the addresses listed here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Fallback_Nodes for -addnode?
1401 2013-02-06 17:19:19 TD has joined
1402 2013-02-06 17:20:27 pre2 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1403 2013-02-06 17:25:02 <gmaxwell> bitmarco: I'm not following your question.
1404 2013-02-06 17:26:04 <bitmarco> where do i obtain the initial connection list to feed to -addnode for testnet?
1405 2013-02-06 17:26:40 <helo> testnet uses irc
1406 2013-02-06 17:27:39 <bitmarco> thnx
1407 2013-02-06 17:28:11 <Diapolo> btw. is anyone checking our hard-coded IP detection services are still online ^^ and have the correct IPs?
1408 2013-02-06 17:28:14 <BlueMatt> andytoshi: thanks...I think
1409 2013-02-06 17:29:09 asuk has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1410 2013-02-06 17:31:31 MobGod has joined
1411 2013-02-06 17:31:46 MobGod has quit (Changing host)
1412 2013-02-06 17:31:46 MobGod has joined
1413 2013-02-06 17:31:46 MobGod has quit (Changing host)
1414 2013-02-06 17:31:46 MobGod has joined
1415 2013-02-06 17:32:38 <sipa> Diapolo: a bot used to do that; no idea if that's true
1416 2013-02-06 17:34:47 random_cat has joined
1417 2013-02-06 17:34:49 <Diapolo> sipa: was just wondering, as they are hardcoded by IP afaik
1418 2013-02-06 17:35:09 moore_ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1419 2013-02-06 17:36:15 jay___ has joined
1420 2013-02-06 17:37:02 andytoshi has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.4.0)
1421 2013-02-06 17:37:47 <Diapolo> checkip.dyndns.org is resolving for me into 216.146.39.70, where we have 91.198.22.70 in the code, which resolves to checkip-ams.dyndns.com
1422 2013-02-06 17:38:12 <Diapolo> both are working though
1423 2013-02-06 17:39:01 pre2 has joined
1424 2013-02-06 17:39:54 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1425 2013-02-06 17:40:26 MobGod has quit (Excess Flood)
1426 2013-02-06 17:40:48 Prattler has quit (Read error: Connection timed out)
1427 2013-02-06 17:41:01 Happzz has joined
1428 2013-02-06 17:41:02 jay___ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1429 2013-02-06 17:41:28 Prattler has joined
1430 2013-02-06 17:42:06 LargoG has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1431 2013-02-06 17:42:32 MobGod has joined
1432 2013-02-06 17:42:50 MobGod has quit (Changing host)
1433 2013-02-06 17:42:50 MobGod has joined
1434 2013-02-06 17:42:50 MobGod has quit (Changing host)
1435 2013-02-06 17:42:50 MobGod has joined
1436 2013-02-06 17:42:51 qusername has joined
1437 2013-02-06 17:43:28 panzer has quit ()
1438 2013-02-06 17:43:57 <qusername> Hello, I'm new to bitcoin and I'm trying very hard to understand it. I looked at http://blockchain.info/, and the a block with less height was added to the chain after a block with more height. Can anyone help me understand the anachronism? Specifically, block 219928 seems to have a higher age in minutes than block 21992
1439 2013-02-06 17:44:26 <qusername> *than block 21992**
1440 2013-02-06 17:44:50 <gmaxwell> qusername: the timestamps on blocks are not very accurate. They're set by node's local clocks which— of course, — are not all the same.
1441 2013-02-06 17:45:09 <qusername> 219929** sorry, my keyboard has sticky keys, it's probably my roommates fault
1442 2013-02-06 17:45:19 <qusername> Thanks gmax
1443 2013-02-06 17:45:25 <gmaxwell> bitmarco: addnode is just an option. The user isn't forced to do anything. They just need to start bitcoin.
1444 2013-02-06 17:47:32 <gmaxwell> Diapolo: we need to start contemplating getting rid of those things.
1445 2013-02-06 17:49:48 <Diapolo> gmaxwell: perhaps it's time to remove that fallback or update it?
1446 2013-02-06 17:51:56 <Happzz> it's time to make fetching blocks faster.. and not with some 4 peers.
1447 2013-02-06 17:52:57 <gmaxwell> Hi Happzz. Are you interested in working on block fetching?  You should be aware that it only fetches from a _single_ peer... though often the speed appears to be bounded more by the reliablity of peers than their speeds.
1448 2013-02-06 17:53:31 <Happzz> unfortunately my coding skills are much more in the web-apps part. php/sql/js/jquery/etc'
1449 2013-02-06 17:53:38 <Happzz> otherwise, i'd love to.
1450 2013-02-06 17:53:54 <gmaxwell> Well— best to learn by doing!
1451 2013-02-06 17:54:09 <Happzz> i study by working on a c project with an amazing leader
1452 2013-02-06 17:54:20 <Happzz> qt is not my cup of coffee :p
1453 2013-02-06 17:54:42 <Happzz> that said, 3rd year in law school doesn't leave you much time for anything :<
1454 2013-02-06 17:54:43 <qusername> I'm looking at the orphaned blocks at blockchain.info, and all blocks therein seem to have 0 transactions. Any comments?
1455 2013-02-06 17:55:28 <HM2> Happzz: law and hot lady lawyers
1456 2013-02-06 17:55:32 <gmaxwell> qusername: a block can't have zero transactions— so something is confused.
1457 2013-02-06 17:55:32 <gavinandresen> a block with 0 transactions is impossible.  blockchain.info is showing you some alternate reality.
1458 2013-02-06 17:56:05 <Happzz> HM2 hot chicks soon-to-be lawyers ^-^
1459 2013-02-06 17:57:05 <qusername> gmaxwell, I see. That must mean 'transactions from this orphaned block yet to be added to the new block'.
1460 2013-02-06 17:57:14 asuk has joined
1461 2013-02-06 17:57:18 t7 has joined
1462 2013-02-06 17:59:35 maaku has joined
1463 2013-02-06 17:59:40 Diapolo has left ()
1464 2013-02-06 17:59:48 maaku has left ()
1465 2013-02-06 18:03:04 ThomasV has joined
1466 2013-02-06 18:03:47 <muhoo> did any of the bitcoin devs have involvement in the bittorrent project back in the day?
1467 2013-02-06 18:06:29 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1468 2013-02-06 18:07:56 wereHamster has quit (Changing host)
1469 2013-02-06 18:07:56 wereHamster has joined
1470 2013-02-06 18:11:46 LargoG has joined
1471 2013-02-06 18:15:18 <gavinandresen> muhoo: I don't think so.  Although before getting involved in bitcoin I wrote http://code.google.com/p/torrent-server/
1472 2013-02-06 18:21:45 LargoG has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1473 2013-02-06 18:23:52 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1474 2013-02-06 18:26:29 bitafterbit has joined
1475 2013-02-06 18:26:46 meLon has joined
1476 2013-02-06 18:35:26 ben___ has joined
1477 2013-02-06 18:36:35 LargoG has joined
1478 2013-02-06 18:38:18 denisx has joined
1479 2013-02-06 18:39:10 tonikt has joined
1480 2013-02-06 18:39:52 TD has joined
1481 2013-02-06 18:40:29 MasterChief has joined
1482 2013-02-06 18:40:29 sacredchao has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1483 2013-02-06 18:41:02 sacredchao has joined
1484 2013-02-06 18:41:24 tonikt has quit (Client Quit)
1485 2013-02-06 18:41:52 MasterChief is now known as Guest11224
1486 2013-02-06 18:41:53 Guest11224 has quit (Killed (morgan.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services)))
1487 2013-02-06 18:42:18 Guest11224 has joined
1488 2013-02-06 18:43:36 MC1984 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1489 2013-02-06 18:46:28 dbe has joined
1490 2013-02-06 18:46:52 dbe is now known as Guest58164
1491 2013-02-06 18:46:58 rng29a has joined
1492 2013-02-06 18:48:02 zooko has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1493 2013-02-06 18:48:37 <qusername> gmaxwell, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Mining ... Subsection "How can we stop miners from creating zero transaction blocks?" ...
1494 2013-02-06 18:49:00 <moarrr> Is it possible to create a blacklist of miners we dont like?
1495 2013-02-06 18:50:00 <Happzz> how is that going to serve your purpose?
1496 2013-02-06 18:51:03 <gmaxwell> qusername: thats nice, its still impossible to create a zero transaction block.
1497 2013-02-06 18:51:31 <gmaxwell> Today you get to learn two lessons: don't believe anything you read on blockchain.info, and dn't believe anything you read on en.bitcoin.it
1498 2013-02-06 18:51:39 PhantomSpark has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1499 2013-02-06 18:51:44 <gmaxwell> :P
1500 2013-02-06 18:52:12 <pre2> and don't believe anything you read in IRC
1501 2013-02-06 18:52:21 <pre2> unless it's gmaxwell telling you not to believe him
1502 2013-02-06 18:52:26 <pre2> then you should believe that.
1503 2013-02-06 18:52:38 * pre2 's head explodes
1504 2013-02-06 18:53:27 <gmaxwell> qusername: perhaps you should point out what you're actually looking at rather than trying harder and harder to explain something that you're either misunderstanding or is just wrong?
1505 2013-02-06 18:54:33 <gmaxwell> ah, you're looking at this page? https://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks  It's just clearly broken. It shows zeros for all numbers but if you actually click on them you can see qite clearly that they have many transactions.
1506 2013-02-06 18:54:54 <gmaxwell> you should absolutely not depend on that website to give you accurate data about bitcoin.
1507 2013-02-06 18:56:38 zooko has joined
1508 2013-02-06 18:56:52 ben___ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1509 2013-02-06 18:57:08 pre2 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1510 2013-02-06 18:58:04 FredEE has joined
1511 2013-02-06 19:01:09 sebicas has left ()
1512 2013-02-06 19:02:05 drizztbsd has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1513 2013-02-06 19:05:15 teenidle has joined
1514 2013-02-06 19:05:25 <qusername> gmaxwell, thanks. I appreciate it, and when  I end up explaining this crazy complex subject to someone, I'll appreciate it again
1515 2013-02-06 19:11:51 rdponticelli has joined
1516 2013-02-06 19:12:46 Guest58164 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1517 2013-02-06 19:17:00 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1518 2013-02-06 19:20:12 freakazoid has joined
1519 2013-02-06 19:21:44 PhantomSpark has joined
1520 2013-02-06 19:21:55 keplier has joined
1521 2013-02-06 19:25:01 CodeShark has joined
1522 2013-02-06 19:25:11 BTCOxygen has quit (1!~BTCOxygen@199.193.119.20|Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1523 2013-02-06 19:27:49 toffoo has joined
1524 2013-02-06 19:28:40 <zveda> is blockchain.info in korean by default?
1525 2013-02-06 19:28:45 <zveda> oops wrong channel
1526 2013-02-06 19:31:36 dbe has joined
1527 2013-02-06 19:32:00 dbe is now known as Guest96270
1528 2013-02-06 19:33:43 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: did you turn off the pull-tester ?
1529 2013-02-06 19:34:39 <Luke-Jr> gavinandresen: might note that ZIP report was concenred about IO time, not disk space
1530 2013-02-06 19:34:47 keplier has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1531 2013-02-06 19:35:00 <gavinandresen> Luke-Jr: ok, still "meh"
1532 2013-02-06 19:35:35 <gavinandresen> Luke-Jr: in fact, more "meh" -- at the limit, full nodes will likely be CPU bound, not IO bound
1533 2013-02-06 19:37:24 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1534 2013-02-06 19:37:36 <Luke-Jr> true, but CPU is easier throttled/nice'd
1535 2013-02-06 19:40:06 mappum has joined
1536 2013-02-06 19:43:15 <CodeShark> meh...I just felt like saying that for no particular reason.
1537 2013-02-06 19:43:38 rdponticelli has joined
1538 2013-02-06 19:44:21 Diamantinis has joined
1539 2013-02-06 19:46:43 <Luke-Jr> otoh, I'd probably not like the actual code since it'd add another dependency :P
1540 2013-02-06 19:51:04 andytoshi has joined
1541 2013-02-06 19:51:12 rng29a has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1542 2013-02-06 19:51:26 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1543 2013-02-06 19:52:30 Guest96270 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1544 2013-02-06 19:53:15 b4epoche has joined
1545 2013-02-06 20:02:34 PhantomSpark has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1546 2013-02-06 20:03:15 PhantomSpark has joined
1547 2013-02-06 20:03:17 PhantomSpark has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1548 2013-02-06 20:04:49 Diamantinis has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1549 2013-02-06 20:06:44 Gladamas has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1550 2013-02-06 20:08:03 Diamantinis has joined
1551 2013-02-06 20:08:15 pre2 has joined
1552 2013-02-06 20:10:33 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1553 2013-02-06 20:12:34 D34TH has joined
1554 2013-02-06 20:13:38 Diamantinis has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1555 2013-02-06 20:15:22 Diamantinis has joined
1556 2013-02-06 20:20:05 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1557 2013-02-06 20:21:45 paraipan has joined
1558 2013-02-06 20:23:19 zooko has joined
1559 2013-02-06 20:25:15 pre2 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1560 2013-02-06 20:31:35 <CodeShark> how's 0.8.0 release coming along?
1561 2013-02-06 20:32:07 dbe has joined
1562 2013-02-06 20:32:32 dbe is now known as Guest23638
1563 2013-02-06 20:37:15 <gavinandresen> CodeShark: I'll tag 0.8rc1 as soon as pull-tester is happy with sipa's latest tweak  (I'm investigating why pull-tester seems to be out-to-lunch now)
1564 2013-02-06 20:39:35 owowo has joined
1565 2013-02-06 20:40:57 iotas has joined
1566 2013-02-06 20:42:19 Skav has joined
1567 2013-02-06 20:43:56 drizztbsd has joined
1568 2013-02-06 20:44:41 BTCOxygen has joined
1569 2013-02-06 20:44:52 MobPhone has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1570 2013-02-06 20:45:18 cass has joined
1571 2013-02-06 20:46:03 MobPhone has joined
1572 2013-02-06 20:47:41 JDuke128 has joined
1573 2013-02-06 20:48:43 Skav has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1574 2013-02-06 20:48:50 MobGod is now known as Skav
1575 2013-02-06 20:49:28 RBecker is now known as rbecker
1576 2013-02-06 20:49:30 rbecker is now known as RBecker
1577 2013-02-06 20:50:30 toffoo has quit ()
1578 2013-02-06 20:53:41 iotas has left ()
1579 2013-02-06 20:56:32 FredEE has quit (Quit: FredEE)
1580 2013-02-06 20:56:38 twixed has joined
1581 2013-02-06 20:57:12 FredEE has joined
1582 2013-02-06 20:58:45 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: w00t
1583 2013-02-06 20:59:42 Diamantinis has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1584 2013-02-06 21:06:33 <D34TH> what ever happened to BlueMatt's jenkins auto builder
1585 2013-02-06 21:12:27 rlifchitz has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1586 2013-02-06 21:15:57 Guest23638 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1587 2013-02-06 21:21:40 pre2 has joined
1588 2013-02-06 21:27:24 rlifchitz has joined
1589 2013-02-06 21:27:24 rlifchitz has quit (Changing host)
1590 2013-02-06 21:27:24 rlifchitz has joined
1591 2013-02-06 21:27:41 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1592 2013-02-06 21:28:48 paraipan has joined
1593 2013-02-06 21:28:55 <gavinandresen> RC1 tagged: * [new tag]         v0.8.0rc1 -> v0.8.0rc1
1594 2013-02-06 21:29:29 <Scrat> wutwut!
1595 2013-02-06 21:29:52 <Goonie> v0.8.0rc1 yeah!
1596 2013-02-06 21:31:20 Guest87283 has quit (Quit: I can't tell the difference between Halloween and Christmas, because OCT31 = DEC25)
1597 2013-02-06 21:31:29 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
1598 2013-02-06 21:32:05 d4de has joined
1599 2013-02-06 21:33:29 dbe has joined
1600 2013-02-06 21:33:53 dbe is now known as Guest29579
1601 2013-02-06 21:34:19 d4de has quit (Read error: error:1408F10B:SSL routines:SSL3_GET_RECORD:wrong version number)
1602 2013-02-06 21:35:17 d4de has joined
1603 2013-02-06 21:45:38 <Guest11224> well done guys
1604 2013-02-06 21:46:03 <Guest11224> if i could still buy bitcoins id donate a few
1605 2013-02-06 21:46:16 <Guest11224> infact ill look into it
1606 2013-02-06 21:46:40 Guest11224 is now known as MasterChief
1607 2013-02-06 21:47:10 MasterChief is now known as Guest43380
1608 2013-02-06 21:47:33 Skav is now known as MobGod
1609 2013-02-06 21:47:46 <Guest43380> damit
1610 2013-02-06 21:47:48 Guest29579 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1611 2013-02-06 21:47:54 Guest43380 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1612 2013-02-06 21:48:11 Guest43380 has joined
1613 2013-02-06 21:49:13 <Guest43380> j
1614 2013-02-06 21:49:47 Guest43380 has quit (Client Quit)
1615 2013-02-06 21:50:21 MC1984 has joined
1616 2013-02-06 21:58:21 cass has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1617 2013-02-06 22:10:43 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: eloipool needs an event log, as well as a share log
1618 2013-02-06 22:11:09 <HM2> nice one on -rc1
1619 2013-02-06 22:11:19 <HM2> i will attempt to build this on debian stable shortly
1620 2013-02-06 22:12:00 <MC1984> ITS HAPPENING
1621 2013-02-06 22:12:32 zooko has left ("#tahoe-lafs")
1622 2013-02-06 22:13:33 Insu has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1623 2013-02-06 22:13:33 ielo has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1624 2013-02-06 22:15:03 <MC1984> when th rc is built, how do i get it
1625 2013-02-06 22:15:09 Lolcust has quit (Quit: Nap time)
1626 2013-02-06 22:16:41 Lolcust has joined
1627 2013-02-06 22:20:57 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1628 2013-02-06 22:21:57 Lolcust has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1629 2013-02-06 22:22:12 Lolcust- has joined
1630 2013-02-06 22:22:36 Lolcust- is now known as Lolcust
1631 2013-02-06 22:23:04 twixed has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1632 2013-02-06 22:23:45 <midnightmagic> jgarzik: I have been seeding the block chain torrent file for a while now; what was the thread you started with a link to the torrent/magnet?
1633 2013-02-06 22:24:16 WolfAlex_ has joined
1634 2013-02-06 22:24:40 B0g4r7 has joined
1635 2013-02-06 22:26:56 WolfAlex has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1636 2013-02-06 22:27:17 Lolcust has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1637 2013-02-06 22:30:03 qusername has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1638 2013-02-06 22:31:28 <jgarzik> midnightmagic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=117982.0
1639 2013-02-06 22:32:06 <midnightmagic> jgarzik: Ah!  Thank you!
1640 2013-02-06 22:32:21 Lolcust has joined
1641 2013-02-06 22:34:15 dbe has joined
1642 2013-02-06 22:34:39 dbe is now known as Guest87454
1643 2013-02-06 22:37:29 BlueMattBot has joined
1644 2013-02-06 22:37:29 BlueMattBot has quit (Changing host)
1645 2013-02-06 22:37:29 BlueMattBot has joined
1646 2013-02-06 22:39:04 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen D34TH I was waiting for resolution on the test issue, restarted now
1647 2013-02-06 22:39:13 <D34TH> <3
1648 2013-02-06 22:39:37 <gavinandresen> 0.8.0rc1 gitian build done, sigs pushed….
1649 2013-02-06 22:40:19 <gavinandresen> MC1984: release candidate binaries are uploaded to sourceforge
1650 2013-02-06 22:41:05 CodeInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1651 2013-02-06 22:41:55 qusername has joined
1652 2013-02-06 22:45:38 veralibertas has joined
1653 2013-02-06 22:46:50 ielo has joined
1654 2013-02-06 22:47:26 JDuke128 has quit (Quit: ["Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com"])
1655 2013-02-06 22:50:12 toffoo has joined
1656 2013-02-06 22:53:46 pre2 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1657 2013-02-06 22:56:29 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1658 2013-02-06 23:03:31 swappermall_ has joined
1659 2013-02-06 23:04:12 swappermall has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1660 2013-02-06 23:04:26 swappermall_ is now known as swappermall
1661 2013-02-06 23:04:30 mologie has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1662 2013-02-06 23:05:04 mologie has joined
1663 2013-02-06 23:06:28 swappermall_ has joined
1664 2013-02-06 23:06:46 PhantomSpark has joined
1665 2013-02-06 23:08:32 bitafterbit has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1666 2013-02-06 23:08:37 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1667 2013-02-06 23:08:44 swappermall has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1668 2013-02-06 23:08:52 swappermall_ is now known as swappermall
1669 2013-02-06 23:10:11 <HM2> hmm
1670 2013-02-06 23:12:46 <HM2> What's the min requirement for boost?
1671 2013-02-06 23:13:05 <HM2> Debian stable (Boost 1.40) breaks with threading for 0.8-rc1
1672 2013-02-06 23:13:14 <HM2> upgrading to 1.49 seems to do the trick
1673 2013-02-06 23:15:23 <HM2> ah
1674 2013-02-06 23:15:24 <HM2> -mt
1675 2013-02-06 23:16:51 Hashdog has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1676 2013-02-06 23:17:24 <bitmarco> i must be missing somehting, running "bitcoin-qt -testnet" and the app shows the offline icon; do i need to add more options on the command line to make it work?
1677 2013-02-06 23:17:44 MrTiggr has joined
1678 2013-02-06 23:18:13 sacredchao has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1679 2013-02-06 23:18:42 sacredchao has joined
1680 2013-02-06 23:24:37 eatymrorequired has joined
1681 2013-02-06 23:24:48 <amiller> holy cow, oblivious-ram rocks my world...
1682 2013-02-06 23:24:51 Connected has joined
1683 2013-02-06 23:25:04 Connected is now known as WeLoveCP
1684 2013-02-06 23:25:06 <amiller> gmaxwell, wanna see a completely new cool thing you can do with hash trees...
1685 2013-02-06 23:25:28 cosurgi has joined
1686 2013-02-06 23:25:54 <amiller> http://eprint.iacr.org/2011/407.pdf
1687 2013-02-06 23:26:10 <amiller> lets say you are outsourcing some storage in a merkle tree
1688 2013-02-06 23:26:15 <amiller> the data is encrypted
1689 2013-02-06 23:26:20 <amiller> but you also want to hide the access pattern
1690 2013-02-06 23:26:48 rdponticelli_ has joined
1691 2013-02-06 23:27:24 <amiller> the basic idea is that if you read a piece of data, you also want to remove it and then readd it in such a way that no one else can tell where it ends up
1692 2013-02-06 23:27:45 <amiller> basically what you do is treat the upper levels of the tree as a cache
1693 2013-02-06 23:27:55 <amiller> you give a deterministic policy for cache eviction at each node
1694 2013-02-06 23:28:21 <amiller> so it's another plinko game
1695 2013-02-06 23:28:33 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1696 2013-02-06 23:28:37 <amiller> ah my explanation isn't too clear anyway i've never thought of anything like this at all
1697 2013-02-06 23:31:50 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1698 2013-02-06 23:34:46 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1699 2013-02-06 23:39:05 <andytoshi> as i said to _moore, hash tricks should be their own field
1700 2013-02-06 23:39:35 <andytoshi> i read the abstract of that pdf, it looks really cool
1701 2013-02-06 23:40:18 RBecker is now known as rbecker
1702 2013-02-06 23:40:25 <andytoshi> maybe an altchain could have an oblivious blockchain and actually be anonymous?
1703 2013-02-06 23:41:08 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
1704 2013-02-06 23:42:19 <midnightmagic> I don't understand one of their examples; if data access patterns can be detected by an attacker, doesn't the attacker already have access to ram anyway?
1705 2013-02-06 23:42:20 veralibertas has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1706 2013-02-06 23:42:26 <midnightmagic> (the stock-market trading example)
1707 2013-02-06 23:42:37 <andytoshi> midnightmagic: yes, but the data is not available to them
1708 2013-02-06 23:42:44 eatymrorequired has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1709 2013-02-06 23:42:46 <andytoshi> because it's encrypted
1710 2013-02-06 23:42:46 <midnightmagic> why not?
1711 2013-02-06 23:43:05 Insu has joined
1712 2013-02-06 23:43:13 <andytoshi> if you GPG-encrypt something, you'll be the only person who can decrypt it for example
1713 2013-02-06 23:43:18 <midnightmagic> Ah. "While standard encryption techniques allow the client to hide the contents of the data from the server, they do not guard the access patterns."
1714 2013-02-06 23:43:21 <midnightmagic> gotchya
1715 2013-02-06 23:43:28 davout has joined
1716 2013-02-06 23:43:29 davout has quit (Changing host)
1717 2013-02-06 23:43:29 davout has joined
1718 2013-02-06 23:43:51 <davout> will bitcoind recover gracefully from an accidental double-spend ?
1719 2013-02-06 23:44:02 <midnightmagic> davout: What do you mean?
1720 2013-02-06 23:44:08 <andytoshi> davout: it shouldn't even allow a double-spend
1721 2013-02-06 23:44:16 <davout> no shit sherlock :)
1722 2013-02-06 23:44:24 ielo has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1723 2013-02-06 23:44:29 * midnightmagic is suddenly less interested in helping.
1724 2013-02-06 23:44:32 andytoshi is now known as andytoshi-away
1725 2013-02-06 23:44:34 <davout> i created a tx from a bitcoind that was catching up with the chain
1726 2013-02-06 23:44:43 <CodeShark> the wallet currently does not recover gracefully from a double-spend
1727 2013-02-06 23:44:53 <HM2> http://pastie.org/pastes/6083352/text <-- any hints?
1728 2013-02-06 23:44:53 <davout> whose coins were actually spent in a further block
1729 2013-02-06 23:45:12 <CodeShark> those coins are now stuck on that wallet
1730 2013-02-06 23:45:16 <midnightmagic> davout: Bitcoin external to you ignored the transaction.
1731 2013-02-06 23:45:32 WeLoveCP has quit (Disconnected by services)
1732 2013-02-06 23:45:33 <midnightmagic> davout: Dump your keys, re-import them, restart bitcoind with -rescan.
1733 2013-02-06 23:45:44 <midnightmagic> davout: Please take full backups before monkeying around with your wallet.
1734 2013-02-06 23:45:56 WeLoveCP has joined
1735 2013-02-06 23:45:59 agricocb has joined
1736 2013-02-06 23:46:18 <davout> midnightmagic: i'm not "monkeying around with my wallet" i'm trying to properly empty a massive instawallet wallet
1737 2013-02-06 23:46:40 <davout> and i have proper backups
1738 2013-02-06 23:46:45 <midnightmagic> davout: Let me modify that, I can hear mental screaming from the other side of the planet: Dump your keys. Move your wallet to a safe place. Restart bitcoind. Import your dumped keys. Restart bitcoind with the -rescan option.
1739 2013-02-06 23:46:54 <davout> i guess -rescan'ing a backup would do the trick
1740 2013-02-06 23:47:11 <gavinandresen> davout: if you know the transaction id then just deleting the 'wtx' key from the bdb wallet.dat should do the trick.
1741 2013-02-06 23:47:13 <midnightmagic> the point is to clear your wallet of any lingering wallet txn that might confuse it.
1742 2013-02-06 23:47:14 <davout> midnightmagic: this is not very practical when the wallet is bigger in size than the blockchain
1743 2013-02-06 23:47:31 <gavinandresen> davout: … plus maybe a -rescan
1744 2013-02-06 23:47:42 <davout> midnightmagic: it's instawallet's wallet.dat i'm talking about :D
1745 2013-02-06 23:47:50 <davout> (well a legacy one)
1746 2013-02-06 23:48:32 <davout> gavinandresen: so if i take a backup that has all the relevant keys and rescan that'll fix it if i follow you
1747 2013-02-06 23:48:50 <CodeShark> as long as the wallet doesn't have a copy of the invalid transaction
1748 2013-02-06 23:48:53 one_zero has joined
1749 2013-02-06 23:48:58 <CodeShark> if it does, you need to delete that transaction from the wallet
1750 2013-02-06 23:49:02 <midnightmagic> davout: You can also manually edit the bdb by dumping it using bdb dump tools and filtering out the txn.
1751 2013-02-06 23:49:10 <gavinandresen> davout: yes.  If you restore a backup, bitcoind will rescan automatically (as of bitcoind version 0.3.21 or something)
1752 2013-02-06 23:49:19 <Scrat> davout: I'm wondering what you use to check for incoming transactions
1753 2013-02-06 23:49:27 <davout> nah it doesn't, i have daily backups of instawallet's bitcoind, with a massive keypool, so normally i shouldn't have any holes in there
1754 2013-02-06 23:50:00 <davout> gavinandresen: ok, thank you very much for the advice!
1755 2013-02-06 23:50:07 <davout> Scrat: on instawallet ?
1756 2013-02-06 23:50:10 <Scrat> yes
1757 2013-02-06 23:50:47 <davout> Scrat: stock bitcoind + gavin's monitortx/monitorblock patch ported to a 0.6 version of the code
1758 2013-02-06 23:50:48 <midnightmagic> gavinandresen: Does a rescan delete all wallet txn before rescanning?
1759 2013-02-06 23:51:34 <gavinandresen> midnightmagic: no, it just adds new transactions.  I think.
1760 2013-02-06 23:51:50 <gavinandresen> (I'd have to look at the code to be sure)
1761 2013-02-06 23:51:56 <CodeShark> is there an option for deleting all transactions? if not there should be a startup option for that
1762 2013-02-06 23:52:04 <davout> Scrat: bitcoind does an HTTP callback on a private API endpoint, the enpoindt pushes the TX to a Redis DB, which in turn notifies a nodejs app through pub/sub, which in turn pushes the transaction to the browser in realtime through a websocket connection
1763 2013-02-06 23:52:27 <gavinandresen> there is -salvagewallet, which starts with just keys
1764 2013-02-06 23:52:33 <HM2> gah split boost dev packages, nightmare :)
1765 2013-02-06 23:53:18 <midnightmagic> gavinandresen: Thanks
1766 2013-02-06 23:53:23 <HM2> libboost-dev <-- most pointless debian package ever
1767 2013-02-06 23:53:27 <CodeShark> gavinandresen: after 0.8.0 I'd really like to work on integrating multiwallet and BIP0032
1768 2013-02-06 23:53:42 benkay has joined
1769 2013-02-06 23:53:44 <Scrat> davout: great setup. I bet it can scale
1770 2013-02-06 23:54:12 <CodeShark> gavinandresen: I'm going to work on restructuring the commits to make it as easy as possible to test
1771 2013-02-06 23:54:13 <midnightmagic> whoah!! awesome! you can tell it not to rescan after an importprivkey!!
1772 2013-02-06 23:54:14 <gavinandresen> CodeShark: ok. Insanely careful testing will be necessary
1773 2013-02-06 23:54:16 <davout> gavinandresen: i can't wait to have blocknotify and txnotify officially supported!
1774 2013-02-06 23:54:22 <davout> gavinandresen: :3
1775 2013-02-06 23:54:33 <gavinandresen> blocknotify is already Officially Supported
1776 2013-02-06 23:54:42 <Scrat> davout: lets hope for less bugs in the 1.0 socket.io release
1777 2013-02-06 23:54:51 <davout> gavinandresen: you forgot the (TM)
1778 2013-02-06 23:55:15 <CodeShark> with BIP0032 it will be much easier to set up a custom filter to notify of incoming transactions
1779 2013-02-06 23:55:26 <davout> gavinandresen: well, i need txnotify too, i can't wait for blocks to push transactions to instawallets :)
1780 2013-02-06 23:56:12 <gavinandresen> mmm… txnotify has a pull request. I'd be curious to know if it would work for instawallet.  How many wallet transactions per (pick your time unit) does InstaWallet handle?
1781 2013-02-06 23:56:23 <CodeShark> you don
1782 2013-02-06 23:56:30 <davout> Scrat: the main choking point is bitcoind when it has to handle too many keys, it needs to be cleaned from time to time by exporting only the useful keys and reimporting them into a pristine wallet
1783 2013-02-06 23:56:32 <CodeShark> you don't want to txnotify unless you do some preliminary filtering
1784 2013-02-06 23:57:03 <davout> gavinandresen: not sure, hang on, i'll have a look
1785 2013-02-06 23:57:04 <gavinandresen> davout: or, to ask the question a different way:  would instawallet be able to handle a fork() whenever new transactions hit its wallet?
1786 2013-02-06 23:57:46 <davout> gavinandresen: i see your point, i think txnotify should not try to be smart, it should just notify a transaction and let the application handle the confirmation logic
1787 2013-02-06 23:58:15 <gavinandresen> right, but the pull request does a fork/exec to notify the application(s)
1788 2013-02-06 23:58:16 <davout> right now the backend calls bitcoind back after receiving a tx notification to fetch all the details
1789 2013-02-06 23:58:35 <davout> gavinandresen: i think i misunderstood your question
1790 2013-02-06 23:58:45 <davout> fork, like a blockchain fork ?
1791 2013-02-06 23:58:53 <gavinandresen> sorry, unix fork()
1792 2013-02-06 23:58:56 <davout> or fork like a process fork ?
1793 2013-02-06 23:59:06 PhantomSpark has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1794 2013-02-06 23:59:09 <davout> ok, so what about them ?
1795 2013-02-06 23:59:18 <CodeShark> you can always attach a custom filter to https://github.com/CodeShark/CoinClasses/blob/master/examples/listener2/listener2.cpp :)
1796 2013-02-06 23:59:31 <gavinandresen> -txnotify does "Run this command when a transaction hits the wallet".  "Run this command" does a fork()/exec()....
1797 2013-02-06 23:59:42 <gavinandresen> … which is a problem if you have to handle hundreds of transactions per second
1798 2013-02-06 23:59:53 <gavinandresen> … not a problem if you handle hundreds of transactions per minute