1 2013-02-22 00:00:01 <gmaxwell> fiesh_: people are constantly coming into IRC asking about the power profitablity of mining.. being able to tell them '(17179869184*2*diff*kwh)/(719989013671875*exc*mhj)=1 and solve for whatever parameters you want' is very helpful.
2 2013-02-22 00:00:30 <petertodd> gmaxwell: oh, yeah, that one... having written a merkle tree algorithm from scratch, I really don't get why everyone has so much drama about odd-sized inputs
3 2013-02-22 00:00:49 <petertodd> gmaxwell: just swap "directions" at each level and call it a day
4 2013-02-22 00:01:33 <HM> directions?
5 2013-02-22 00:01:37 <petertodd> (from scratch as opposed to duplicating a standard that is)
6 2013-02-22 00:02:24 <HM> you mean h1|h2 and h2|h1?
7 2013-02-22 00:02:32 <midnightmagic> fiesh_: It is in miners' best interests to scare everybody else away from mining.
8 2013-02-22 00:02:47 <petertodd> HM: lets say I have a,b,c,d,e -> H(a|b),H(c|d),e -> H(H(c|d)|e),H(a|b) -> H(H(H(c|d)|e)|H(a|b))
9 2013-02-22 00:03:05 <petertodd> HM: for bous points, use a hmac at the first level to distinguish data vs. leaf nodes
10 2013-02-22 00:03:10 <petertodd> (very important for proofs)
11 2013-02-22 00:03:27 <HM> eh
12 2013-02-22 00:04:01 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: well, for a sufficiently short term and greedy definition of mining.
13 2013-02-22 00:04:06 <HM> how does that swap directions? looks like a regular approach
14 2013-02-22 00:04:50 <midnightmagic> fiesh_: There is a strong short-term economic incentive for miners to scare everybody else away from mining.
15 2013-02-22 00:05:04 grondilu has left ()
16 2013-02-22 00:05:05 <gmaxwell> lol
17 2013-02-22 00:05:30 <petertodd> HM: bitcoin just hashes the odd hash multiple times by itself
18 2013-02-22 00:05:57 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: I guess the interpretation of best-interests depends too heavily on my interpretation of what kind of people I think mine, and thus yeah, the previous comment does a disservice to people like Art.
19 2013-02-22 00:06:11 <petertodd> midnightmagic: That insight is what allows one to understand the mining section on the forums...
20 2013-02-22 00:06:14 clr_ has joined
21 2013-02-22 00:07:16 <gmaxwell> you have to be a really short term thinker to believe that scaring people away from mining is really going to help you.
22 2013-02-22 00:07:35 <gmaxwell> but a lot of people absolutly do.
23 2013-02-22 00:09:01 <midnightmagic> petertodd: It was a strange contradiction to see lesser humans universally try to scare people off the GPU farming, and then the FPGA farming, when ArtForz was sitting there showing everyone how to do it and describing in excruciating detail the economics of it.
24 2013-02-22 00:10:06 rlifchitz has quit (Quit: "I never worry about action, but only about inaction" (W. Churchill))
25 2013-02-22 00:10:13 <gmaxwell> To be clear, ArtForz always held back enough to make sure he was first to the trough.
26 2013-02-22 00:10:20 ralphtheninja has quit (Quit: leaving)
27 2013-02-22 00:10:40 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, sure but he could have fairly easily shared nothing
28 2013-02-22 00:10:52 <petertodd> midnightmagic: Interesting; I haven't read enough of that old forum history. My understanding is he did a 200nm ASIC himself via one of the cheap university access programs?
29 2013-02-22 00:10:53 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: Only by a very small margin for the GPU stuff. And he always stated clearly his plans in advance of doing it, along with the rationale for why.
30 2013-02-22 00:10:59 ralphtheninja has joined
31 2013-02-22 00:11:04 <midnightmagic> petertodd: ArtForz was primarily an IRC'er.
32 2013-02-22 00:11:23 <petertodd> midnightmagic: Ah, too bad.
33 2013-02-22 00:11:27 ralphtheninja has left ()
34 2013-02-22 00:12:22 freewil has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
35 2013-02-22 00:12:33 <midnightmagic> petertodd: He was a pretty epic human. lol
36 2013-02-22 00:12:37 agricocb has joined
37 2013-02-22 00:12:49 <midnightmagic> An irritating human.
38 2013-02-22 00:12:49 RBecker is now known as rbecker
39 2013-02-22 00:12:51 <midnightmagic> But epic.
40 2013-02-22 00:13:33 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, he had an fpga built that wasn't reprogrammable
41 2013-02-22 00:13:40 <CodeShark> past tense - are we talking about someone recently deceased?
42 2013-02-22 00:13:45 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: I didn't say that to insult himâ to the contrary, I said it to point out that he was sane too. :)
43 2013-02-22 00:13:58 <phantomcircuit> it used less electricity than a normal fpga but only by like 50%
44 2013-02-22 00:14:11 <phantomcircuit> there the fpga boards were already using 100x less than gpus
45 2013-02-22 00:14:13 none is now known as BTCTRader
46 2013-02-22 00:14:25 freewil has joined
47 2013-02-22 00:14:34 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, ah ok then
48 2013-02-22 00:14:36 <phantomcircuit> carry on
49 2013-02-22 00:14:42 BTCTRader is now known as Guest27829
50 2013-02-22 00:14:46 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: Ah, yeah, hardcopy FPGA.
51 2013-02-22 00:14:47 <phantomcircuit> should have given you the benefit of the doubt
52 2013-02-22 00:14:57 Guest27829 is now known as Bitcoiner
53 2013-02-22 00:15:02 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, that's not the right word for it and i forget what is
54 2013-02-22 00:15:07 Bitcoiner is now known as BitcoinD
55 2013-02-22 00:15:08 <phantomcircuit> im sure someone here knows
56 2013-02-22 00:15:15 <phantomcircuit> BitcoinD, stop doing that
57 2013-02-22 00:15:19 klmist has joined
58 2013-02-22 00:15:25 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: They've been called a number of things, unless you mean a structured ASIC.
59 2013-02-22 00:15:32 <phantomcircuit> yes structured asic
60 2013-02-22 00:15:45 <klmist> hi, is there something like the dumpdb.py tool from 'bitcointools' that works with the new peers.dat file (old one uses addr.dat)
61 2013-02-22 00:16:14 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: Yeah, those are different, and faster. Basically a pre-made set of masks for the transistors, and a custom mask for the metal, that mask being much cheaper than all the other ones.
62 2013-02-22 00:16:26 <HM> cool someone on github has created a self balancing rb-merkle-tree
63 2013-02-22 00:16:48 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: More density than a hardcopy FPGA, but somewhat higher risk because you can't try the design out in hardware first.
64 2013-02-22 00:17:22 <midnightmagic> petertodd: As I understood it, it was a structured asic.
65 2013-02-22 00:17:38 <midnightmagic> petertodd: Which he apparently designed from scratch by himself.
66 2013-02-22 00:17:57 <phantomcircuit> and then he disappeared
67 2013-02-22 00:17:58 <GMP> are current ASICs really end-game and will evolve slowly according to technological and economic factors? or there is something more significantly powerful in the future? like going full-custom, "personal" chips using e-beam lithography
68 2013-02-22 00:18:16 <phantomcircuit> so maybe he was the first to market with an ASIC and is currently sipping tropical drinks on a beach somewhere
69 2013-02-22 00:18:26 <midnightmagic> GMP: home-fab with metalicarap. :)
70 2013-02-22 00:18:59 <gmaxwell> GMP: current? of course not. stuff improves.
71 2013-02-22 00:18:59 <HM> punchcard hashing will be big in 2014
72 2013-02-22 00:19:00 <midnightmagic> phantomcircuit: He didn't sell the chips, he sold his fpga design to someone, got sealed under an NDA, and used the opportunity to disengage from IRC.
73 2013-02-22 00:19:16 <petertodd> midnightmagic: Wasn't there some drama about him and litecoin or something? Where an scrypt pow used stupidly low settings?
74 2013-02-22 00:19:18 <midnightmagic> and just.. never came back..
75 2013-02-22 00:20:17 <phantomcircuit> cant say i blame him...
76 2013-02-22 00:20:32 <midnightmagic> petertodd: He fueled btcexpress with attack ideas. It seemed to me he was a big proponent of attacking early and often to help harden the software.
77 2013-02-22 00:20:36 axhlf has joined
78 2013-02-22 00:21:22 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, well i suspect that there aren't going to be any more 100x efficient gains without the underlying technology going forward
79 2013-02-22 00:21:48 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: sure, though we haven't caught up to the state of the art.
80 2013-02-22 00:21:56 <midnightmagic> phantomcircuit: metalicarap will be designed specifically to decrease the costs of solar panel printing with about that magnitude of cost savings over commercially-available materials.
81 2013-02-22 00:22:11 <phantomcircuit> well the state of the art isn't cheap in the relatively low volume bitcoin miners are
82 2013-02-22 00:23:03 Ramokk has joined
83 2013-02-22 00:23:05 <midnightmagic> and then power is "free"
84 2013-02-22 00:24:01 sacrelicious has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
85 2013-02-22 00:24:27 <HM> heh, i wonder if anyone has rigged up their mining equipment sneakily at their place of employment to leech off the free power
86 2013-02-22 00:24:50 <midnightmagic> HM: Lots of people do that.
87 2013-02-22 00:25:06 * petertodd wonders how many people in IRC are at work right now...
88 2013-02-22 00:25:17 <midnightmagic> petertodd: Lots of people do that.
89 2013-02-22 00:25:29 <midnightmagic> lol
90 2013-02-22 00:25:42 <HM> Tell the boss you need more build servers
91 2013-02-22 00:26:40 <HM> hope he doesn't realise php isn't compiled
92 2013-02-22 00:27:57 frosks has joined
93 2013-02-22 00:29:30 jiggaa has joined
94 2013-02-22 00:29:31 <Luke-Jr> http://bitcointroll.org/index.php?topic=142222.0 <-- namecoin officially dead :p
95 2013-02-22 00:30:32 <CodeShark> oh well...
96 2013-02-22 00:30:36 axhlf has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
97 2013-02-22 00:31:03 <jiggaa> Looking to buy a PreJuly Order of any of the Asic Miners from BFL (once it arrives at your place you simply reship) will pay premium Email me changeneeded1@tormail.org Also if anyone have an avalon unit or any other asic miner I will buy it up
98 2013-02-22 00:31:13 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: you gonna stop merge-mining it?
99 2013-02-22 00:31:41 <midnightmagic> Luke-Jr: Why does that mean namecoin is dead?
100 2013-02-22 00:31:42 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: probably, another thread has some guy publishing scripts to upload files up to 50 kB into the nmc blockchain
101 2013-02-22 00:31:50 <Luke-Jr> midnightmagic: Vince selling namecoin.com means nothing? :p
102 2013-02-22 00:32:04 <midnightmagic> Luke-Jr: Vince Torres is Vince Durham?
103 2013-02-22 00:32:25 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: yeah, bloat will kill it
104 2013-02-22 00:32:33 <Luke-Jr> coincidence? I've never heard of anyone else named Vince.
105 2013-02-22 00:32:53 <midnightmagic> Luke-Jr: I'm pretty sure Vince is gonzo'd.
106 2013-02-22 00:33:21 <Luke-Jr> O.oâ
107 2013-02-22 00:34:17 <midnightmagic> Luke-Jr: He disappeared. He never really talked. He committed code and vanished for months at a time. I'm pretty sure that guy is someone else. vinced wasn't nearly so much of a dick.
108 2013-02-22 00:34:39 <midnightmagic> maybe I'm wrong though..
109 2013-02-22 00:39:35 rbecker is now known as RBecker
110 2013-02-22 00:40:52 Scrat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
111 2013-02-22 00:41:00 rlifchitz has joined
112 2013-02-22 00:42:01 Scrat has joined
113 2013-02-22 00:42:18 <HM> i liked the idea of namecoin
114 2013-02-22 00:46:59 frosks has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
115 2013-02-22 00:51:46 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
116 2013-02-22 00:58:58 klmist has left ()
117 2013-02-22 01:04:49 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
118 2013-02-22 01:12:59 Lexa has joined
119 2013-02-22 01:16:17 da2ce7_d is now known as da2ce78
120 2013-02-22 01:16:19 da2ce78 is now known as da2ce7
121 2013-02-22 01:17:05 BTCTrader has joined
122 2013-02-22 01:17:05 BTCTrader has quit (Changing host)
123 2013-02-22 01:17:05 BTCTrader has joined
124 2013-02-22 01:20:05 theorb has joined
125 2013-02-22 01:20:38 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
126 2013-02-22 01:20:49 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
127 2013-02-22 01:25:07 ProfMac has quit (Quit: Page closed)
128 2013-02-22 01:27:50 rdponticelli has joined
129 2013-02-22 01:28:59 b4tt3r135 has joined
130 2013-02-22 01:29:30 sacrelicious has joined
131 2013-02-22 01:30:22 gruvfunk has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
132 2013-02-22 01:31:36 b4tt3r135 has left ()
133 2013-02-22 01:34:14 Internet13 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
134 2013-02-22 01:35:53 JZavala has joined
135 2013-02-22 01:36:26 clr_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
136 2013-02-22 01:36:37 ProfMac has joined
137 2013-02-22 01:37:31 Internet13 has joined
138 2013-02-22 01:49:22 ProfMac has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
139 2013-02-22 01:50:46 root2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
140 2013-02-22 01:51:05 root2 has joined
141 2013-02-22 01:51:42 BTCTrader has quit (Quit: BTCTrader)
142 2013-02-22 01:51:44 da2ce7_d has joined
143 2013-02-22 01:53:33 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
144 2013-02-22 01:59:47 etotheipi_ has joined
145 2013-02-22 02:00:22 <etotheipi_> bitcoin devs: nice f***ing job with 0.8! I can't believe how fast I just sync'd the blockchain from scratch!
146 2013-02-22 02:02:40 <doublec> Luke-Jr: different vince: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6017.0
147 2013-02-22 02:04:20 da2ce7_d is now known as da2ce7
148 2013-02-22 02:07:24 monkeynipples has joined
149 2013-02-22 02:09:01 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
150 2013-02-22 02:11:28 robocoin has joined
151 2013-02-22 02:11:45 monkeynipples has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
152 2013-02-22 02:15:20 Qwas has joined
153 2013-02-22 02:19:38 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
154 2013-02-22 02:24:12 rdponticelli has joined
155 2013-02-22 02:24:45 dario1 has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.3.8)
156 2013-02-22 02:28:22 dario1 has joined
157 2013-02-22 02:29:18 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: hurrah.
158 2013-02-22 02:29:43 D34TH has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
159 2013-02-22 02:29:50 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: It was mostly sipa's workâ but I'm still personally happy to hear responses like that (esp since mostly you just hear the flaws)
160 2013-02-22 02:30:04 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: yeah... I know the feeling
161 2013-02-22 02:30:20 <etotheipi_> 90% of people are happy, but 90% of what you hear is bug reports and complaints
162 2013-02-22 02:31:19 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: is it understood what is bottlenecking the sync-from-scratch speed? I wasn't paying attention the other day when you mentioned it
163 2013-02-22 02:31:32 <etotheipi_> I ask, because I sync'd competely in about 3-4 hours
164 2013-02-22 02:31:39 <etotheipi_> but it's on a pretty fast SSD
165 2013-02-22 02:34:31 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: 'network' now on most systems unless you sync from a file. I mean network in a very broad sense.
166 2013-02-22 02:36:03 <gmaxwell> Network means: you're limited by your bandwidth, pulling from a single peer, who may not be very fast, sequentially with round trip serialization delays every megabyte or so, and (for more recent blocks) with validation delays interleaved.
167 2013-02-22 02:36:51 <gmaxwell> when network isn't a factor (loadblock, bootstrap, or -connect from a peer on a gigabit lan) ECDSA is the primary bottleneck.
168 2013-02-22 02:37:37 <gmaxwell> Our ecdsa is threaded now, but only within block, and doesn't scale super well beyond 4-8 cores.
169 2013-02-22 02:42:47 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
170 2013-02-22 02:47:55 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: what do you know about tty logins, say via serial ports?
171 2013-02-22 02:48:34 <etotheipi_> I'm not all that familiar with them, but I am told I should be able to detect the system configurations that allow tty logins, and then disable them
172 2013-02-22 02:49:19 alexwaters has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
173 2013-02-22 02:51:30 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: look in inittab. see if there are gettys.
174 2013-02-22 02:51:39 <gmaxwell> At least on some systemsâ depends on the OS.
175 2013-02-22 02:52:48 swappermall has joined
176 2013-02-22 02:52:50 swappermall is now known as Guest24097
177 2013-02-22 02:52:58 <etotheipi_> gah, newer Ubuntus don't have inittab
178 2013-02-22 02:53:10 Guest24097 has quit (Client Quit)
179 2013-02-22 02:53:38 alexwaters has joined
180 2013-02-22 02:56:44 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: look in /etc/init for scripts invoking /sbin/getty
181 2013-02-22 02:57:31 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: the correct line is "in a row?!"
182 2013-02-22 02:58:38 <gmaxwell> Yes, I've seen clerks but you got the number wrong.
183 2013-02-22 02:59:20 swappermall_ has joined
184 2013-02-22 02:59:46 PhantomSpark has joined
185 2013-02-22 03:01:35 <gmaxwell> ;;ticker
186 2013-02-22 03:01:36 <gribble> BTCUSD ticker | Best bid: 30.25000, Best ask: 30.47000, Bid-ask spread: 0.22000, Last trade: 30.47000, 24 hour volume: 46215.21407307, 24 hour low: 29.31100, 24 hour high: 30.65000, 24 hour vwap: 29.78242
187 2013-02-22 03:03:31 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
188 2013-02-22 03:06:22 skeledrew has joined
189 2013-02-22 03:11:49 <sipa> etotheipi_: thanks :P
190 2013-02-22 03:12:41 <sipa> 00:58:22 < HM> cool someone on github has created a self balancing rb-merkle-tree <- amiller?
191 2013-02-22 03:17:14 discrete has quit ()
192 2013-02-22 03:19:02 <sipa> any interesting discussion i missed?
193 2013-02-22 03:19:09 <Diablo-D3> wait
194 2013-02-22 03:19:14 <Diablo-D3> HM: I want the url of that
195 2013-02-22 03:20:15 <sipa> etotheipi_: actually, i think the pre-checkpoint part of the chain should be doable in 10 minutes or so
196 2013-02-22 03:20:25 <sipa> so there's still a lot of room for improvement :p
197 2013-02-22 03:20:51 <gmaxwell> Jeff's all in memory no script validation stuff was that fast.
198 2013-02-22 03:21:17 Scrat_t has joined
199 2013-02-22 03:21:39 jandd has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
200 2013-02-22 03:21:45 Scrat has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
201 2013-02-22 03:22:07 jandd has joined
202 2013-02-22 03:22:28 paraipan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
203 2013-02-22 03:23:06 <HM> sipa: yeah amiller
204 2013-02-22 03:23:31 <HM> Diablo-D3: google amiller + merkle + github + bitcoin
205 2013-02-22 03:23:47 <Diablo-D3> oh, its for bitcoin?
206 2013-02-22 03:23:59 <HM> not really
207 2013-02-22 03:24:04 <HM> he just mentions bitcoin in the readme
208 2013-02-22 03:24:13 <HM> i lost interest pretty quickly
209 2013-02-22 03:25:08 <HM> i hate red black trees
210 2013-02-22 03:25:38 <HM> also you would think with a pseudo random hash value that a regular binary tree would suffice
211 2013-02-22 03:25:54 <sipa> the problem is an attacker can skew the tree in that case
212 2013-02-22 03:25:59 <sipa> *everyone's* tree
213 2013-02-22 03:26:27 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
214 2013-02-22 03:26:35 <HM> *shrug*, i'm not really aware of how the merkle tree is used in bitcoin
215 2013-02-22 03:27:25 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
216 2013-02-22 03:28:38 <HM> i may have to read satoshis paper again soon
217 2013-02-22 03:28:51 <HM> i read it last over a year ago
218 2013-02-22 03:30:40 Haifisch is now known as SmallTim
219 2013-02-22 03:31:00 <sipa> HM: before BIP37 it was actually not used at all
220 2013-02-22 03:31:42 <sipa> the merkle root hash in the block header was calculated as the *tudum* root of the merkle hash tree of transaction hashes
221 2013-02-22 03:31:46 Ferroh_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
222 2013-02-22 03:32:10 Ferroh_ has joined
223 2013-02-22 03:34:42 freakazoid has joined
224 2013-02-22 03:36:36 paraipan has joined
225 2013-02-22 03:36:38 <HM> so the merkle tree lets you verify a tx is part of a block without having the entire block
226 2013-02-22 03:37:46 <sipa> yeah
227 2013-02-22 03:37:52 <sipa> assume 8 transactions
228 2013-02-22 03:38:18 <sipa> so the merkle root is h(h(h(a,b),h(c,d)),h(h(e,f),h(g,h)))
229 2013-02-22 03:38:44 <sipa> if i want to prove to you that e belongs to the block, and you already have the block header
230 2013-02-22 03:39:07 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
231 2013-02-22 03:39:24 <HM> but for t transactions you still have t/2 hashes?
232 2013-02-22 03:39:40 <sipa> where?
233 2013-02-22 03:39:51 <HM> what good is the root + e
234 2013-02-22 03:39:54 <HM> you don't have f
235 2013-02-22 03:39:59 <HM> or h(c,d)
236 2013-02-22 03:40:02 <HM> etc
237 2013-02-22 03:40:23 <sipa> in addition to e itself, i can give you f (so you can calculate h(e,f)), give you h(g,h), so you can calculate h(h(e,f),h(g,h)), and i give you h(h(a,b),h(c,d)), you can calculate the root again
238 2013-02-22 03:40:50 <sipa> so i need to give you 3 hashes (in addition to the tx itself) to prove it belongs to the block (for which you already have the header)
239 2013-02-22 03:41:00 <HM> right, so it's logarithmic
240 2013-02-22 03:41:04 <sipa> indeed
241 2013-02-22 03:41:16 <HM> makes sense, but how is this used at the protocol level?
242 2013-02-22 03:41:24 <sipa> BIP37 uses it
243 2013-02-22 03:41:29 <sipa> for sending filtered blocks
244 2013-02-22 03:41:30 <HM> and that only works within a single block?
245 2013-02-22 03:41:34 <sipa> yes
246 2013-02-22 03:42:19 <HM> so i can store all the block headers and then ask a remote server for the block contain a txid + the hashes to prove it
247 2013-02-22 03:42:31 <sipa> yup
248 2013-02-22 03:43:09 Goonie has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
249 2013-02-22 03:43:17 <sipa> unfortunately, you can't ask it to prove that it didn't leave out a tx you wanted
250 2013-02-22 03:43:31 <HM> leave it out?
251 2013-02-22 03:43:45 <sipa> yeah, you ask for transactions matching some criterion
252 2013-02-22 03:43:46 <HM> you mean it may have brute forced the hashes for that block independently?
253 2013-02-22 03:43:56 <sipa> the server can say "nope, no matches!"
254 2013-02-22 03:44:04 <HM> right
255 2013-02-22 03:44:38 RBecker is now known as rbecker
256 2013-02-22 03:45:40 <HM> there was a debate earlier about block sizes sipa
257 2013-02-22 03:46:16 <HM> i suppose block sizes can scale quite well now you have a functioning block filter
258 2013-02-22 03:49:02 <sipa> client side it's much less of an issue
259 2013-02-22 03:49:06 <gmaxwell> HM: that doesn't actually helpâ you can't verify a block you recieved a filtered copy of.
260 2013-02-22 03:49:17 <sipa> but the block size debate is about nodes mining & validating
261 2013-02-22 03:50:01 freakazoid has joined
262 2013-02-22 03:50:01 <HM> gmaxwell: no but doubling the blocksize just means adding a hash to the merkle path
263 2013-02-22 03:50:08 <HM> so for clients it scales
264 2013-02-22 03:50:25 <HM> header only clients
265 2013-02-22 03:50:26 <sipa> sure, they're cheap and don't care about the big world
266 2013-02-22 03:50:44 <sipa> but that's the problem: the big world could be toying with them :)
267 2013-02-22 03:51:17 <gmaxwell> HM: yea sure, but if thats how it worksâ where everyone just trusts something and doesn't validate, the incentives to be honest go away. If you're going to trustâ paypal is a lot simpler and doesn't involve all this hashing stuff. :)
268 2013-02-22 03:51:42 <gmaxwell> HM: thats where we go back to this tangent you didn't understand earlier about if the limit is gone, what incentive is there to validate.
269 2013-02-22 03:52:04 <gmaxwell> HM: all the users would be forced by praticality to not actually validateâ and just get filtered blocks and trust that the validation was done.
270 2013-02-22 03:52:07 fiesh_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
271 2013-02-22 03:52:09 <sipa> the incentive is the same, whether the limit is there or not
272 2013-02-22 03:52:21 <sipa> it's just a lot more expensive
273 2013-02-22 03:52:24 fiesh has joined
274 2013-02-22 03:52:29 <HM> i don't see how block size makes one iota of difference, the other variables will counter it
275 2013-02-22 03:52:37 <gmaxwell> HM: what other variables?
276 2013-02-22 03:52:52 <HM> the economy wants X transactions in a day right
277 2013-02-22 03:53:04 <HM> thats a constant, out of your control
278 2013-02-22 03:53:08 <sipa> that will depend on the price of such transactions
279 2013-02-22 03:53:14 <HM> that's true
280 2013-02-22 03:53:19 <sipa> and the price of such transactions will depend on the security wanted for them
281 2013-02-22 03:53:35 <HM> the current rule is 1 block every 10 minutes, as massaged by the difficultly
282 2013-02-22 03:53:44 <HM> that's your goal
283 2013-02-22 03:53:44 <sipa> so if there's a lot of space, that may be many low-security low-cost transactions
284 2013-02-22 03:53:56 <sipa> or few high-security high-cost transactions
285 2013-02-22 03:54:35 <sipa> for some value of high and low
286 2013-02-22 03:55:10 <sipa> except the latter allows the world (which doesn't get paid for it) to validate, and the former doesn't
287 2013-02-22 03:55:22 <sipa> or to a different extent at least
288 2013-02-22 03:55:44 <gmaxwell> HM: you seem to keep thinking the time between blocks is a free parameter? it's not. It's fixed by the system.
289 2013-02-22 03:55:55 <HM> yes exactly
290 2013-02-22 03:56:07 <HM> number of transactions per day = constant (or atleast outside your control)
291 2013-02-22 03:56:16 <sipa> ehhh i'm talking nonsense
292 2013-02-22 03:56:18 <HM> block rate = constant (set by adaptive difficulty)
293 2013-02-22 03:56:47 <HM> so the only variable left is block size
294 2013-02-22 03:56:56 <HM> and difficulty
295 2013-02-22 03:56:58 <sipa> and exchange rate
296 2013-02-22 03:57:02 <gmaxwell> Blocksize is fixed too.
297 2013-02-22 03:57:04 <sipa> and security needed
298 2013-02-22 03:57:09 <HM> at the moment it is yeah
299 2013-02-22 03:57:17 <HM> so changing the blocksize will change the difficultly
300 2013-02-22 03:57:24 <sipa> maybe
301 2013-02-22 03:57:30 <gmaxwell> HM: whats the formula for that?
302 2013-02-22 03:57:42 <HM> fewer blocks
303 2013-02-22 03:57:44 <HM> same block rate
304 2013-02-22 03:57:49 <sipa> ??
305 2013-02-22 03:57:57 <gmaxwell> changing the difficulty doesn't change the number of blocks!
306 2013-02-22 03:58:00 <gmaxwell> ugh.
307 2013-02-22 03:58:10 <HM> no, changing the block size changes the number of blocks
308 2013-02-22 03:58:12 freewil has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
309 2013-02-22 03:58:15 <gmaxwell> There is some deep misunderstanding of bitcoin in your head. Lets find it.
310 2013-02-22 03:58:15 <sipa> ??
311 2013-02-22 03:58:30 <gmaxwell> HM: Do you know that a block can have no transactions? (well, none beyond the coinbase)
312 2013-02-22 03:58:32 <HM> 10000 transactions a day
313 2013-02-22 03:58:35 <sipa> if the block rate is fixed, how can the number of blocks change?
314 2013-02-22 03:58:36 <HM> 100 transactions a block
315 2013-02-22 03:58:48 <HM> 100 blocks a day
316 2013-02-22 03:58:53 <sipa> 144
317 2013-02-22 03:59:07 <HM> yes, i was using round numbers
318 2013-02-22 03:59:31 <sipa> so, 144 blocks per day
319 2013-02-22 03:59:35 <sipa> this won't change
320 2013-02-22 03:59:38 <HM> yep
321 2013-02-22 03:59:47 <HM> but the blocks will be bigger if you allow them to be bigger
322 2013-02-22 03:59:56 <sipa> so what do you mean by "changes the number of blocks"
323 2013-02-22 04:00:08 <HM> hmm
324 2013-02-22 04:01:52 <gmaxwell> 307 txn per block on average in the last 1000 blocks, FWIW.
325 2013-02-22 04:01:52 <HM> i see what you mean
326 2013-02-22 04:01:59 <HM> block size also doesn't really change pow difficulty does it? because adding transactions is relatively cheap
327 2013-02-22 04:02:08 <sipa> indeed
328 2013-02-22 04:02:13 <gmaxwell> Not the way you were thinking at least.
329 2013-02-22 04:02:26 <HM> errm, but difficulty i mean for the cpu, not the actual difficulty
330 2013-02-22 04:02:32 <HM> by*
331 2013-02-22 04:02:37 <sipa> still, indeed
332 2013-02-22 04:02:42 <sipa> (i understood you)
333 2013-02-22 04:02:59 <sipa> it doesn't make blocks harder to mine
334 2013-02-22 04:03:23 <gmaxwell> also, if you expect difficulty to come from the raw txn handling instead of POW then miners could get an advantage by not performing it.
335 2013-02-22 04:03:25 <sipa> except the transactions need a) to be validated (but that happens asynchronously to the mining process) and b) transmitted
336 2013-02-22 04:03:27 <HM> because they work on the root hash, right
337 2013-02-22 04:04:09 <HM> this is what i don't get though. the incentive for miners is to mine the most lucrative transactions with the highest fees
338 2013-02-22 04:04:09 <gmaxwell> HM: right. POW and txn processing are totally seperate.
339 2013-02-22 04:04:37 <gmaxwell> HM: that incentive only exists if they can't just mine all with any fee at all.
340 2013-02-22 04:04:57 <HM> you mean the block reward?
341 2013-02-22 04:05:05 <gmaxwell> (well, ignoring that there is some per txn marginal cost, but it's very low)
342 2013-02-22 04:05:26 <HM> in the future it'll all be about fees
343 2013-02-22 04:05:32 <sipa> maybe
344 2013-02-22 04:05:41 <gmaxwell> HM: noâ I mean you say that miners "is to mine the most lucrative transactions with the highest fees" but if they can fit all transactions, they'll make more income by taking all transactions.
345 2013-02-22 04:06:04 <gmaxwell> if they have room and leave out some transactions, then some later miner will snatch them up.
346 2013-02-22 04:06:22 <HM> yep, and that relates to block size
347 2013-02-22 04:06:32 <HM> (maximum block size)
348 2013-02-22 04:06:36 <sipa> yup
349 2013-02-22 04:07:02 <gmaxwell> Assuming miners don't form a chain external conspiracy to exclude some transactions. ... but even doing that is hard because its hard to enforce except by orphaning blocks... and then you have to have some way of getting a consensus over what the rules are.
350 2013-02-22 04:07:09 <gmaxwell> HM: right.
351 2013-02-22 04:07:47 <HM> right, so the way i see it. when block rewards go extinct, miners will start preferring transactions from people they know are 'good for it'
352 2013-02-22 04:08:03 <HM> otherwise they risk wasting work on potentially dud transactions
353 2013-02-22 04:08:22 <HM> does that not make sense?
354 2013-02-22 04:08:46 <gmaxwell> good for it? dud?
355 2013-02-22 04:09:03 freewil has joined
356 2013-02-22 04:09:09 <HM> what's to stop me creating a transaction that leaves a 100 BTC fee and sending it to a miner right now
357 2013-02-22 04:09:17 eoss has joined
358 2013-02-22 04:09:17 <gmaxwell> Nothing, it happens.
359 2013-02-22 04:09:46 <HM> so if there's only room for 1000 transactions in a block and i flood said miner with such transactions?
360 2013-02-22 04:09:51 <HM> and there are no block rewards
361 2013-02-22 04:10:29 <gmaxwell> HM: he'd take 1000 of themâ unless he other txn that were even higher fees per space consumed.
362 2013-02-22 04:10:38 <sipa> then he'll be rich when he mines them, and you'll be poor
363 2013-02-22 04:10:48 <gmaxwell> yea, whats the question? :)
364 2013-02-22 04:10:49 <HM> how so?
365 2013-02-22 04:10:51 <HM> they might not be valid
366 2013-02-22 04:11:00 <sipa> he won't accept invalid ones
367 2013-02-22 04:11:11 <HM> so miners verify all transactions
368 2013-02-22 04:11:15 <sipa> of course
369 2013-02-22 04:11:19 <HM> gmaxwell said otherwise earlier today
370 2013-02-22 04:11:19 <sipa> that's their purpose
371 2013-02-22 04:11:19 <gmaxwell> all bitcoin nodes verify all transactions.
372 2013-02-22 04:11:37 <sipa> light clients don't verify
373 2013-02-22 04:11:41 <gmaxwell> HM: ::sigh:: as I said earlier you were confused about what we were talking about, and I was confused about what you understood.
374 2013-02-22 04:11:41 <sipa> full clients do
375 2013-02-22 04:12:06 <sipa> and miners are certainly full ones, or they'll risk spending work on blocks that other nodes don't accept
376 2013-02-22 04:12:09 <gmaxwell> HM: what we were talking about was anticipated end results if there is no limit.
377 2013-02-22 04:12:47 <gmaxwell> HM: the argument there is that the nash equlibrium (the state at which no one can get an advantage over competition) is when all fees are 1e-8, and the blocks are absolutely enormous, and the difficulty is 1 and all the effort is spent processing blocks and none on POW.
378 2013-02-22 04:12:53 <sipa> yes, in a situation where there are just a few miners left, and they are the only ones able to verify transactions, they don't have to anymore
379 2013-02-22 04:13:00 <sipa> as noone will notice if they cheat
380 2013-02-22 04:13:13 <gmaxwell> but thats not a concern if the block size is limited by rule.
381 2013-02-22 04:13:21 <sipa> and that is when bitcoin becomes paypal
382 2013-02-22 04:13:42 <HM> oh i see
383 2013-02-22 04:13:58 <HM> so block size grows huge which cripples most miners except the big iron
384 2013-02-22 04:14:01 <sipa> so the purpose of keeping blocks small, is keeping the ability for the community to verify miners
385 2013-02-22 04:14:04 <HM> the difficulty falls
386 2013-02-22 04:14:09 <HM> and they essentially dominate
387 2013-02-22 04:14:16 <sipa> even worse
388 2013-02-22 04:14:29 <HM> worse?
389 2013-02-22 04:14:34 <gmaxwell> HM: and it cripples all the _non-miners_ first, whos validation currently helps keep the miners honest. They get crippled first because unlike miners they don't get paid for their work.
390 2013-02-22 04:14:42 <sipa> the fact that this end result is possible, gives big miners (in theory) an incentive to make blocks as large as possible
391 2013-02-22 04:14:54 <sipa> to push competitors and other non-mining validation nodes out
392 2013-02-22 04:15:09 * jgarzik deletes another "you are a bitcoin developer; you must have so much money you can give it away for free!" email
393 2013-02-22 04:15:17 <HM> how do big blocks screw up non-mining validators?
394 2013-02-22 04:15:28 <sipa> HM: because they're expensive to validate
395 2013-02-22 04:15:33 * Diablo-D3 deletes another "you are the author of diablominer; you must have so much money you can give it away for free!" email
396 2013-02-22 04:15:43 <sipa> jgarzik: weird, never got one of those
397 2013-02-22 04:15:44 <HM> by validate you mean validate all the tx's right?
398 2013-02-22 04:15:46 <sipa> yes
399 2013-02-22 04:15:51 <sipa> though i've seen very weird ones :)
400 2013-02-22 04:15:56 <jgarzik> hehe
401 2013-02-22 04:16:01 <HM> but if you're a full node, you do that on all tx's regardless of block size
402 2013-02-22 04:16:02 <gmaxwell> HM: if the next block is 1GB, how could you participate in its validationâ it'll be burried in the chain before you could decide if it was good or not?
403 2013-02-22 04:16:03 <jgarzik> I'm sure Gavin gets hit with a bunch
404 2013-02-22 04:16:19 <HM> hmm
405 2013-02-22 04:16:29 <gmaxwell> HM: you do! if you can. Not hard when blocks are 1MB or less. Not possible if blocks are 1GB unless you have a big cluster. :)
406 2013-02-22 04:16:37 <sipa> HM: yes, so at some size, it becomes impossible for a casual full node to validate
407 2013-02-22 04:16:44 owowo has quit (Quit: sayonara)
408 2013-02-22 04:16:48 <sipa> that size may be large
409 2013-02-22 04:16:55 <HM> but 1000 blocks of 1000 tx's still requires 1 million validations
410 2013-02-22 04:17:02 <HM> as 1 block with 1 million
411 2013-02-22 04:17:10 <sipa> the block rate is fixed
412 2013-02-22 04:17:14 <gmaxwell> HM: yes, but none of this changes the blockrate.
413 2013-02-22 04:17:17 <sipa> so just look at it per unit of time
414 2013-02-22 04:17:37 <HM> oh dear
415 2013-02-22 04:17:41 <sipa> but there is some limit, where those you get paid for doing so (miners) have reason to invest in validation, while all others (economically) don't
416 2013-02-22 04:17:51 <HM> so change the damn block rate as well? :S
417 2013-02-22 04:17:52 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: did you get one about an old man in a wheelchair?
418 2013-02-22 04:18:05 <sipa> HM: the reason for the block rate is the speed of light
419 2013-02-22 04:18:05 <gmaxwell> HM: that wouldn't make anyone happy who wants to change the blocksize.
420 2013-02-22 04:18:16 <sipa> HM: it doesn't change a thing otherwise
421 2013-02-22 04:18:17 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: Yeah; I'm meeting the group in France
422 2013-02-22 04:18:23 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: we disband at the RV point
423 2013-02-22 04:18:41 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: The eagle hashes on tuesday.
424 2013-02-22 04:18:41 <sipa> HM: it doesn't matter at all
425 2013-02-22 04:18:58 <HM> well 1 GB every hour is better than 1 GB every 10 mintues
426 2013-02-22 04:18:59 <sipa> what matters in the rate of transactions that end up in the chain
427 2013-02-22 04:19:13 <sipa> whether that's few large blocks or many small ones
428 2013-02-22 04:19:29 <sipa> there is just some rate of transactions that casual validators can't keep up with
429 2013-02-22 04:19:38 <gmaxwell> HM: the argument for uncapping blocks is to process more transactions. ... rather than letting the rate of transactions get naturally ratelimited by high fees that come from competing for scarce block space.
430 2013-02-22 04:20:04 <gmaxwell> if you slow blocks to keep the total txn count the same then that goal isn't accomplished.
431 2013-02-22 04:20:04 <HM> so what you're saying is, the free market for transaction fees isn't going to work
432 2013-02-22 04:20:08 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: (I was referencing http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0122690/ FWIW :_)
433 2013-02-22 04:20:10 <sipa> maybe
434 2013-02-22 04:20:27 * sipa likes that word
435 2013-02-22 04:20:28 <gmaxwell> HM: it should work totally fine, so long as block space is scarce. If blockspace is not scarce, I don't know how it could work.
436 2013-02-22 04:20:47 <HM> but block space = transaction space
437 2013-02-22 04:20:52 <sipa> yes
438 2013-02-22 04:20:57 <HM> and we all want to send granny petty cash
439 2013-02-22 04:21:07 <HM> so we're boned
440 2013-02-22 04:21:11 <sipa> but do we need to do it in-chain?
441 2013-02-22 04:21:17 <gmaxwell> HM: Noâ because you're not forced to do it in-chain.
442 2013-02-22 04:21:42 <gmaxwell> Granny probably would be happier to not wait an hour for a confirmation before she can respend it, for example.
443 2013-02-22 04:21:46 <HM> right, so you end up with bitcoin as an inter-bank transfer service
444 2013-02-22 04:21:54 <gmaxwell> So there are reasons totally seperate from scale.
445 2013-02-22 04:22:03 <sipa> HM: yes, but *verifiable* banks
446 2013-02-22 04:22:12 <sipa> and everyone can become their own bank
447 2013-02-22 04:22:14 <HM> verifiable, as long as you can keep up
448 2013-02-22 04:22:35 <gmaxwell> HM: well, or serving the purpose of checks and wiretransfers instead of credit cards. And as sipa says, cryptographically verifyable banks that can not cheat without it being obvious to all.
449 2013-02-22 04:22:46 <HM> wait what. how does everyone become their own bank if it's out of a chain.
450 2013-02-22 04:22:52 <sipa> simplified: if the block space if very large, everyone will be their own bank, but nobody will be able to validate it (except a central big miner/clearinghouse)
451 2013-02-22 04:22:57 <gmaxwell> HM: you don't have to keep up with all the banks in the worldâ only the ones you use.
452 2013-02-22 04:23:08 <sipa> if the block space is very large, there will be few banks, but everyone can validate them
453 2013-02-22 04:23:31 <sipa> for very extreme values of small and large
454 2013-02-22 04:23:45 <HM> validate them using merkle you mean
455 2013-02-22 04:23:49 <HM> and block headers
456 2013-02-22 04:23:53 <sipa> no, fully validate
457 2013-02-22 04:24:03 <sipa> verifying headers will always be cheap
458 2013-02-22 04:24:05 <gmaxwell> No, â completely. And know that there is no inflation, that all trades are asset backed, etc.
459 2013-02-22 04:24:11 <sipa> headers are 80 bytes per 10 minutes
460 2013-02-22 04:24:48 <HM> I'm lost
461 2013-02-22 04:24:50 <sipa> my abacus can keep up with that
462 2013-02-22 04:24:54 gruvfunk has joined
463 2013-02-22 04:25:06 <sipa> HM: if blocks are small, it's obvious that they're easy to validate
464 2013-02-22 04:25:11 <jgarzik> "The reference to the "man in the wheelchair" is referencing the book "The Bourne Identity" (1980) by Robert Ludlum; not the 2002 movie. The Man In The Wheelchair was M. Chernak, a mercenary broker that Jason Bourne killed.
465 2013-02-22 04:25:11 <sipa> since they contain few transactions
466 2013-02-22 04:25:13 <jgarzik> huh
467 2013-02-22 04:25:23 <sipa> HM: agree?
468 2013-02-22 04:25:36 <HM> sure, take the transactions and validate them. O(n), n = number of trannies
469 2013-02-22 04:25:41 <sipa> bingo
470 2013-02-22 04:25:42 <HM> something like that
471 2013-02-22 04:26:03 <sipa> so small transactions = everyone can easily be a miner/validator
472 2013-02-22 04:26:15 <HM> small blocks
473 2013-02-22 04:26:32 <sipa> but there will be space for only few transactions, so it will be transactions with very high value, among a small number of players only
474 2013-02-22 04:26:34 <gmaxwell> (well, O(n*log(number of coins)) but if we deny 0 value coins the maximum number of coins has an upper bound of 21e14)
475 2013-02-22 04:26:41 <HM> so they have 10 minutes to validate n transactions in
476 2013-02-22 04:26:42 <sipa> = few banks
477 2013-02-22 04:26:48 <HM> otherwise they'll never keep up
478 2013-02-22 04:27:03 <sipa> all transactions happen off-chain, and only the big inter-bank transfers happen on the chain
479 2013-02-22 04:27:19 <sipa> and those can be validated by everyone
480 2013-02-22 04:27:27 <sipa> agree?
481 2013-02-22 04:27:48 <HM> yeah
482 2013-02-22 04:27:57 <sipa> so, now the opposite, if blocks are very large
483 2013-02-22 04:28:11 <sipa> then it means there are only a few players able to verify them fully
484 2013-02-22 04:28:13 <HM> clients can't process n transactions in 10 mintues
485 2013-02-22 04:28:16 <HM> cant; keep up
486 2013-02-22 04:28:25 <sipa> but everyone can create on-chain transactions
487 2013-02-22 04:28:32 <HM> it's problematic at both extremes then
488 2013-02-22 04:28:39 <sipa> but need to send them to one of the very few miners/clearinghouses
489 2013-02-22 04:28:41 <gmaxwell> sipa: to be fair, even with our current block sizes a 'big interbank transfer' might only beâ say $1000 in current value, and paying a $20 compariable fee. Indiviguals may still be their own banks for savings and for large transaction purposes even in that model.
490 2013-02-22 04:28:55 <gmaxwell> (that was an aside, hm: don't let that derail you)
491 2013-02-22 04:28:55 <sipa> gmaxwell: i'm talking extremes
492 2013-02-22 04:29:18 <sipa> not saying what sizes those correspond to (they may indeed correspond to a block size even smaller than we have today)
493 2013-02-22 04:29:27 <gmaxwell> right. Fair enough.
494 2013-02-22 04:29:31 <HM> small blocks = few transactions = huge transactions = inter-bank
495 2013-02-22 04:29:45 <HM> huge blocks = many transactions = few miners/players = big banks
496 2013-02-22 04:29:49 <sipa> HM: so my opinion is that we should at least think about which compromise in between is acceptable
497 2013-02-22 04:29:56 <gmaxwell> for some sufficiently small value of huge and small.
498 2013-02-22 04:30:01 <sipa> centralized mining, or centralized banking
499 2013-02-22 04:30:18 <HM> what you need is a way to maximise the number of verifiers
500 2013-02-22 04:30:21 <HM> i propose socialism
501 2013-02-22 04:30:45 X-Scale has joined
502 2013-02-22 04:30:58 <sipa> well, if i think about it, trying to get the number of validators equal to the number of on-chain entities would seem nice in the middle between the two extremes
503 2013-02-22 04:31:06 <gmaxwell> sipa: though it should be pointed out that intra-bank doesn't imply fully-centeralized banks. For example, the banks could all be 5 party multsignature distributed entities.
504 2013-02-22 04:31:08 <HM> but you can't
505 2013-02-22 04:31:18 <HM> you can't prove the number of off-chain verifiers
506 2013-02-22 04:31:26 <sipa> of course you can't
507 2013-02-22 04:31:26 <HM> off-chain as in, unpaid
508 2013-02-22 04:31:50 <gmaxwell> sipa: well we can outright maximize validator by just minimizing validation cost. There is some cost level where people will validate if we make it a software default because they're too lazy to turn it off.
509 2013-02-22 04:31:55 <gmaxwell> er s/sipa/hm/
510 2013-02-22 04:32:11 dvide has joined
511 2013-02-22 04:32:15 <HM> hmm
512 2013-02-22 04:32:19 <sipa> gmaxwell: what did you think i tried to do the past months :p
513 2013-02-22 04:32:31 <gmaxwell> sipa: absolutely.
514 2013-02-22 04:32:39 e0s_ has joined
515 2013-02-22 04:32:41 * sipa sleeps
516 2013-02-22 04:32:47 e0s_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
517 2013-02-22 04:32:53 <HM> sipa: thank you for your help and patience
518 2013-02-22 04:32:55 <HM> sleep well
519 2013-02-22 04:33:10 <HM> gmaxwell: you too :)
520 2013-02-22 04:33:20 <gmaxwell> Mostly I think we're near the victory point for that for the current block size limits. IBD needs to get fixed... but I have no fear for there being an ample supply of validators under the current system rules.
521 2013-02-22 04:33:26 <gmaxwell> sipa: Goodnight.
522 2013-02-22 04:33:40 <HM> IBD?
523 2013-02-22 04:34:16 <gmaxwell> initial block download.
524 2013-02-22 04:34:31 <gmaxwell> Right now the system is _plenty_ fast, but the initial wait gets in your way.
525 2013-02-22 04:35:06 <gmaxwell> so we need to make it so validing the chain doesn't demand that you wait until it finishes before you can even use bitcoin.
526 2013-02-22 04:35:30 e0s_ has joined
527 2013-02-22 04:35:37 <gmaxwell> (because then some people will be irritated and opt out of validating by running software that doesn't make them wait)
528 2013-02-22 04:35:53 <HM> well any tx you want to verify could depend on blocks you don't have,
529 2013-02-22 04:36:03 <HM> whatever order you download them in you're boned
530 2013-02-22 04:36:16 <gmaxwell> HM: nah, you operate in client mode (SPV) until you've caught up.
531 2013-02-22 04:36:38 <HM> so why does it matter
532 2013-02-22 04:36:45 <gmaxwell> Why does what matter?
533 2013-02-22 04:36:49 <HM> the IBD
534 2013-02-22 04:37:07 <gmaxwell> Because it doesn't operate in client mode today. It needs to gain that functionality, then IBD won't matter.
535 2013-02-22 04:37:15 <HM> oh i see
536 2013-02-22 04:37:36 <gmaxwell> right now it does, and some people get a couple hour delay (to sync _years_ of data) and then give up and use a webwallet.
537 2013-02-22 04:38:19 <HM> your average joe doesn't like installing software
538 2013-02-22 04:38:34 <HM> just look at email client -> webmail over the last decade
539 2013-02-22 04:38:45 <HM> webwallets will probably be the #1 choice for most people
540 2013-02-22 04:39:13 Detritus has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
541 2013-02-22 04:39:26 ThomasV_ has joined
542 2013-02-22 04:39:36 <HM> phone wallets will be crippled as well until 4G takes off in the next decade
543 2013-02-22 04:40:18 <novusordo> phone wallets... as in full bitcoin nodes on phones?
544 2013-02-22 04:40:25 <HM> sure why not
545 2013-02-22 04:40:33 <gmaxwell> HM: web walletsâ well perhaps, but we can't do anything about that. I assume that after some hostil force takes over blockchain.info and gives 80,000 bitcoin users a bad day, that people will be a bit more thoughtful about webwallets.
546 2013-02-22 04:40:56 <novusordo> "a bad day"
547 2013-02-22 04:40:59 <novusordo> lol
548 2013-02-22 04:41:11 <HM> as long as the company backing the wallet is accountable and takes the heat users won't care
549 2013-02-22 04:41:22 <gmaxwell> novusordo: at least SPV clients on phones is totally reasonable now. Even a full node could work, but considering connectivity is probably somewhat pointless.
550 2013-02-22 04:41:52 <gmaxwell> HM: how can they be if they've been busy in court because the site also operates a gambling front end and a coin laundery?
551 2013-02-22 04:42:05 <HM> do they?
552 2013-02-22 04:42:11 <gmaxwell> B.i? yes.
553 2013-02-22 04:42:28 <novusordo> satoshidice is linked to directly from their wallet page
554 2013-02-22 04:42:32 <gmaxwell> Note that I said 'bad day' the way b.i wallets work a large number of people could likely recover their coins, but they'd be extremely inconvienced.
555 2013-02-22 04:42:40 <HM> oh well, maybe if they're screwing gamblers they won't feel the need to rade my webwallet
556 2013-02-22 04:42:48 <HM> raid*
557 2013-02-22 04:43:42 <gmaxwell> generally webwalletsâ at least popular onesâ for great big systemic risks like central banks. We'll learnâ but probably the hardway.
558 2013-02-22 04:44:11 <gmaxwell> took people a couple months to forget mtgox getting hacked... the next big bank like thing getting hacked or shut down will be remembered for at least twice as long. :)
559 2013-02-22 04:44:21 <HM> I'm pretty cynical about all things security
560 2013-02-22 04:44:45 <HM> people generally want accountability and a refund if shit goes wrong
561 2013-02-22 04:44:59 <gmaxwell> sure, thats an argument for off-chain payments too...
562 2013-02-22 04:45:08 <HM> and they'll moan about stupid banking passwords, and annoying security questions
563 2013-02-22 04:45:20 <HM> people don't care
564 2013-02-22 04:45:49 <gmaxwell> There is a little paradox here: j-random-user is best off outsourcing his security to some mega entity, but the whole community of users is better off if he doesn't because the mega entity is a systemic risk.
565 2013-02-22 04:45:58 <novusordo> maybe have a little opt-out button next to passwords and security requirements, and have that opt-out button link to a news story about mybitcoin.com.
566 2013-02-22 04:46:35 <gmaxwell> novusordo: hah. people will read it and still opt out. sadly. hyperbolic discounting and all that.. people's reasoning about security is terrible.
567 2013-02-22 04:46:53 <HM> it's complex morally
568 2013-02-22 04:47:23 <gmaxwell> I like to use the example of the guy running silk road happily emailing people without bothering to use pgp... even while he got the email addresses he was sending to from a page that listed the pgp keys. :P
569 2013-02-22 04:48:06 <novusordo> nice, hadn't heard about that one...
570 2013-02-22 04:48:28 <HM> was the email important
571 2013-02-22 04:48:33 <gmaxwell> personal expirence... but yea, the point is that even people with the most need in the world to use that stuff, don't.
572 2013-02-22 04:48:40 <X-Scale> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5262120
573 2013-02-22 04:49:11 <HM> incidentally there's a nice kde desktop widget for price ticketing
574 2013-02-22 04:53:05 andytoshi has joined
575 2013-02-22 04:54:10 <andytoshi> anyone here with a PhD looking to work for dwave?
576 2013-02-22 04:55:32 <HM> you'd think a bunch of guys with PhDs would come up with a better name than dwave
577 2013-02-22 04:55:46 <HM> (and girls)
578 2013-02-22 04:55:58 none has joined
579 2013-02-22 04:56:02 BitcoinD has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
580 2013-02-22 04:56:22 swappermall has joined
581 2013-02-22 04:56:44 swappermall is now known as Guest74588
582 2013-02-22 04:58:23 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
583 2013-02-22 04:58:48 <ThomasV_> does the d in dwave mean disentangled?
584 2013-02-22 05:00:18 <ThomasV_> http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/loser-dwave-does-not-quantum-compute
585 2013-02-22 05:00:37 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
586 2013-02-22 05:01:17 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
587 2013-02-22 05:01:26 TheSeven has joined
588 2013-02-22 05:02:16 <andytoshi> ThomasV_: that's a silly article, dwave has been pretty public about what kind of "quantum computer" they hve
589 2013-02-22 05:02:20 Belkaar has joined
590 2013-02-22 05:02:30 robocoin has quit (Quit: ãã¿âââ(ãâã)âââ!!!!!)
591 2013-02-22 05:02:41 <andytoshi> and it's not what the article seems to believe
592 2013-02-22 05:03:52 <ThomasV_> heh, qbitcoins anyone?
593 2013-02-22 05:03:54 <HM> one for doing double sha? :P
594 2013-02-22 05:04:41 <gmaxwell> andytoshi: well, kinda. Their marketing / PR / investor relations have been QUANTUM COMPUTING and letting people google up what quantum computers do and draw the wrong conclusions.
595 2013-02-22 05:05:12 TradeFortress has joined
596 2013-02-22 05:05:17 <gmaxwell> andytoshi: judging by what I see in bitcoin channels and other technical forum they are lying by omission to an extreme degree, even if you can dig into the fine print and find a pretty honest description.
597 2013-02-22 05:05:28 <HM> you don't have to be an einstein looking at their website to see they're 90% fluff
598 2013-02-22 05:05:29 <andytoshi> gmaxwell: that's true, and even in the job advert i've got here the first paragraph is marketing drivel
599 2013-02-22 05:05:36 <HM> lots of ceo videos showing nothing but faces
600 2013-02-22 05:05:43 <gmaxwell> andytoshi: but maybe thats what you have to do to get funding.
601 2013-02-22 05:05:44 <HM> cruddy stock design
602 2013-02-22 05:05:45 <andytoshi> and it says "requires Ph. D." two lines later, so i dunno who they think they're fooling
603 2013-02-22 05:05:56 <andytoshi> PhDs, i guess
604 2013-02-22 05:06:14 <gmaxwell> nah, investors who check out the job postings to make sure they don't have slots open for conmen. :P
605 2013-02-22 05:06:43 <ThomasV_> PhD in bitcoinology...
606 2013-02-22 05:07:20 <novusordo> so... upgrading to 0.8.0
607 2013-02-22 05:07:22 <novusordo> wat do
608 2013-02-22 05:08:03 <andytoshi> novusordo: install it, start it
609 2013-02-22 05:08:09 <novusordo> that's it?
610 2013-02-22 05:08:25 <novusordo> no lube or anything?
611 2013-02-22 05:08:30 <HM> lmao
612 2013-02-22 05:09:48 <novusordo> Error initializing database environment /home/novusordo/.bitcoin! To recover, BACKUP THAT DIRECTORY, then remove everything from it except for wallet.dat.
613 2013-02-22 05:10:05 <gmaxwell> novusordo: did you cleanly shut down the old one first?
614 2013-02-22 05:10:20 <novusordo> hmm, perhaps it wasn't a clean shutdown last time
615 2013-02-22 05:10:27 <novusordo> does "clean" also mean "synced"?
616 2013-02-22 05:10:47 <gmaxwell> no. just not crashed or power offed.
617 2013-02-22 05:11:30 <novusordo> ok, i'll try a clean shutdown
618 2013-02-22 05:23:34 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
619 2013-02-22 05:31:59 e0s_ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
620 2013-02-22 05:32:15 Zarutian has joined
621 2013-02-22 05:32:28 Zarutian has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
622 2013-02-22 05:33:16 e0s_ has joined
623 2013-02-22 05:33:52 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, i got the same error but since im benchmarking initial sync time i just deleted it
624 2013-02-22 05:34:22 <phantomcircuit> 2013-02-22 02:41:47 SetBestChain: new best=00000000839a8e6886ab5951d76f411475428afc90947ee320161bbf18eb6048 height=1 work=8590065666 tx=2 date=2009-01-09 02:54:25
625 2013-02-22 05:34:22 <phantomcircuit> 2013-02-22 05:15:48 SetBestChain: new best=00000000000006df51ae4722a2ec9fccdf7e7a4e3ae24c7dde2c8511e6314b3a height=184730 work=355972803560495932401 tx=4154391 date=2012-06-16 00:57:57
626 2013-02-22 05:35:02 <phantomcircuit> that's on a mirrored lvm setup with a mirrored log so ~2x write amplification
627 2013-02-22 05:35:45 cheebydi has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
628 2013-02-22 05:37:43 cheebydi has joined
629 2013-02-22 05:38:16 alexwaters has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
630 2013-02-22 05:40:52 paraipan has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
631 2013-02-22 05:44:24 grau has joined
632 2013-02-22 05:47:16 toffoo has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
633 2013-02-22 05:49:05 grau has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
634 2013-02-22 05:50:49 <novusordo> damnit bitcoin-qt, y u no quit?
635 2013-02-22 05:52:15 <novusordo> closed it, but it keeps spiking to ~50% cpu usage before going back down to ~3% for a bit, then repeating seemingly for infinity
636 2013-02-22 05:57:55 <jgarzik> Interesting that blockchain.info trolls the forum for well known addresses
637 2013-02-22 05:58:13 <jgarzik> and attaches that knowledge to its real time transactions
638 2013-02-22 05:58:33 <jgarzik> so you see "jgarzik!" whenever I spent something, that happens to include donation money etc.
639 2013-02-22 05:59:31 <ThomasV_> troll the forum? or crawl the forum?
640 2013-02-22 05:59:33 toffoo has joined
641 2013-02-22 05:59:48 none has quit (Quit: none)
642 2013-02-22 06:02:43 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: if you're syncing from the networkâ not a very useful benchmark, you're just telling me how lucky your peer selection was.
643 2013-02-22 06:04:00 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, shh
644 2013-02-22 06:04:20 <andytoshi> ;;bc,blocks
645 2013-02-22 06:04:20 <gribble> 222472
646 2013-02-22 06:04:49 <andytoshi> cool, my hidden service bitcoind is synced
647 2013-02-22 06:06:56 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
648 2013-02-22 06:11:52 B0g4r7 has joined
649 2013-02-22 06:12:54 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: so syncing from a local node: (with txindex=1 so its doing a lot more work, and on my laptop on battery)
650 2013-02-22 06:12:57 <gmaxwell> 2013-02-22 05:49:24 SetBestChain: new best=00000000839a8e6886ab5951d76f411475428afc90947ee320161bbf18eb6048 height=1 work=8590065666 tx=2 date=2009-01-09 02:54:25
651 2013-02-22 06:13:00 <gmaxwell> 2013-02-22 05:53:07 SetBestChain: new best=0000000000000519cebad29361ca4fc7ed09da654cc35027acaa2b2cfdeb9269 height=180480 work=326387307918473057046 tx=3221856 date=2012-05-17 12:13:20
652 2013-02-22 06:13:07 Guest79174 has joined
653 2013-02-22 06:14:02 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: four minutes looks pretty funny next to your 2.5 hours...
654 2013-02-22 06:17:55 <novusordo> gmaxwell: "local node" as in, a machine on the same network as you?
655 2013-02-22 06:18:00 <gmaxwell> yes.
656 2013-02-22 06:18:05 <novusordo> wow
657 2013-02-22 06:18:26 <novusordo> and completely from scratch?
658 2013-02-22 06:18:41 <novusordo> nvm, yes obviously
659 2013-02-22 06:19:04 <gmaxwell> oh not exactly the same height as phantom, I dyslexia fail. one sec.
660 2013-02-22 06:19:27 <novusordo> last 4000 or so blocks
661 2013-02-22 06:19:34 <gmaxwell> 2013-02-22 05:54:17 SetBestChain: new best=00000000000006df51ae4722a2ec9fccdf7e7a4e3ae24c7dde2c8511e6314b3a height=184730 work=355972803560495932401 tx=4154391 date=2012-06-16 00:57:57
662 2013-02-22 06:19:47 <novusordo> still
663 2013-02-22 06:19:49 <gmaxwell> okay, so like .. one more minute.
664 2013-02-22 06:19:51 da2ce7 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.2.0 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
665 2013-02-22 06:20:22 <novusordo> what type of storage does your laptop have? SSD?
666 2013-02-22 06:20:35 <novusordo> any encryption?
667 2013-02-22 06:20:55 <gmaxwell> ssd, w/ dmcrypt. I don't know that it should matter that much though.
668 2013-02-22 06:21:25 <gmaxwell> Its not mostly IO limited. I expect its largely memory bandwidth limited.
669 2013-02-22 06:22:12 <gmaxwell> also a lot of time spent on sha256 no doubt.
670 2013-02-22 06:23:20 <andytoshi> what are your ram specs then
671 2013-02-22 06:23:31 <andytoshi> i've got 4gb DDR2, 800mhz i think :P
672 2013-02-22 06:24:59 <gmaxwell> no idea, cpu in this thing is a i7-3520M, 8gb ram.
673 2013-02-22 06:25:59 none has joined
674 2013-02-22 06:26:03 moore_ has joined
675 2013-02-22 06:26:20 da2ce7 has joined
676 2013-02-22 06:26:45 <andytoshi> cool, it's always neat to see what specs are out there
677 2013-02-22 06:26:59 <andytoshi> especially with the murmurs about moore's law running out getting so loud
678 2013-02-22 06:28:01 * novusordo murmurs something about moore's law running out
679 2013-02-22 06:35:05 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, disk speed still matters
680 2013-02-22 06:35:11 <phantomcircuit> but mostly because im doing other things
681 2013-02-22 06:35:25 <phantomcircuit> i wasn't looking for a consistent benchmark just a sort of reasonable average
682 2013-02-22 06:36:16 <gmaxwell> it really depends a lot as you can see, the range for sync can be from something like an hour to all day depending on luck... even wider if you allow for slow and busted client configs.
683 2013-02-22 06:38:05 <jgarzik> factoid: June 9, 2011: 6,475,000 bitcoins in circulation at $29.57 apiece. Today: 10,811,850 bitcoins @ $29.90.
684 2013-02-22 06:38:20 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: we didnt break the peak though
685 2013-02-22 06:38:22 <Diablo-D3> $31.xx
686 2013-02-22 06:42:47 moore_ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
687 2013-02-22 06:42:47 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: well, time for you to go and buy about 5kBTC.
688 2013-02-22 06:43:00 <Diablo-D3> why do you say that?
689 2013-02-22 06:43:31 <gmaxwell> because thats about what it would take to get it up to $31.10
690 2013-02-22 06:43:39 ThomasV_ has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
691 2013-02-22 06:44:12 <novusordo> gmaxwell: mind elaborating on "slow and busted client configs"?
692 2013-02-22 06:44:32 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: heh, I just sold 107 btc
693 2013-02-22 06:45:54 <gmaxwell> novusordo: e.g. everyone once in a while someone shows up with a failing disk and bitcoin is insanely slow... and their disk is going kachinkkachinkkachink.
694 2013-02-22 06:45:57 <jgarzik> ;;asks 32.0
695 2013-02-22 06:45:59 <gribble> There are currently 15533.05 bitcoins offered at or under 32.0 USD, worth 488066.228577 USD in total.
696 2013-02-22 06:46:13 <gmaxwell> ;;asks 31.99999
697 2013-02-22 06:46:14 <gribble> There are currently 12438.801 bitcoins offered at or under 31.99999 USD, worth 388936.597617 USD in total.
698 2013-02-22 06:46:24 <jgarzik> ;;asks 31.2
699 2013-02-22 06:46:26 <gribble> There are currently 6182.6562 bitcoins offered at or under 31.2 USD, worth 190473.21361 USD in total.
700 2013-02-22 06:46:34 <Diablo-D3> hrm, bitinstant accepts paypal for out
701 2013-02-22 06:47:04 <jgarzik> Diablo-D3: I always thought BTC->paypal would be lucrative for the brave soul who took up the challenge
702 2013-02-22 06:47:15 <Diablo-D3> well
703 2013-02-22 06:47:21 <Diablo-D3> worse case is, I become paypal's worse nightmare
704 2013-02-22 06:47:35 <Diablo-D3> all other cases is, paypal doesnt give a shit
705 2013-02-22 06:47:52 <Diablo-D3> I cant do a wire transfer from mtgox, nor use dwolla
706 2013-02-22 06:47:54 <jgarzik> paypal api has a great masspay feature, which makes it trivial to implement, programmatically
707 2013-02-22 06:47:57 <andytoshi> lol, more likely paypal freezes all your USD and doesn't reply for months on end
708 2013-02-22 06:48:10 <Diablo-D3> andytoshi: yes, and then they wonder what that burning smell is
709 2013-02-22 06:48:16 <andytoshi> that'd be wonderful
710 2013-02-22 06:48:17 <jgarzik> andytoshi: hence "brave soul" -- you need to get inside the AML/KYC loop, simply put
711 2013-02-22 06:48:21 <jgarzik> not rocket science
712 2013-02-22 06:48:34 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: bitinstant still offers paypal out though
713 2013-02-22 06:48:54 <jgarzik> Diablo-D3: nod -- and paypal-out must be inside the AML/KYC loop
714 2013-02-22 06:48:58 <jgarzik> bitinstant handles that
715 2013-02-22 06:49:06 <Diablo-D3> wtf is this loop you speak of?
716 2013-02-22 06:49:51 <jgarzik> Diablo-D3: the sender and receiver of money need to make sure you're not a North Korean money launderer etc.
717 2013-02-22 06:50:03 <Diablo-D3> yeah, but mtgox is fucking nuts
718 2013-02-22 06:50:07 <gmaxwell> Fwiw, the full sync to current was 05:49:24 -> 06:23:59
719 2013-02-22 06:50:07 <Diablo-D3> he wants a photograph of my id
720 2013-02-22 06:50:19 <jgarzik> Diablo-D3: they are required to file reports with the government
721 2013-02-22 06:50:22 <Diablo-D3> banks dont ask that because _they know better_
722 2013-02-22 06:50:30 <Diablo-D3> the only thing he needs is the id off that card
723 2013-02-22 06:50:54 <jgarzik> Diablo-D3: most banks don't ask because you opened the bank account in person (there are very specific banking regulations relating to this)
724 2013-02-22 06:51:08 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: nope, I didnt open them in person.
725 2013-02-22 06:51:11 <jgarzik> some internet banks skate along
726 2013-02-22 06:51:22 <jgarzik> Diablo-D3: hence "most"
727 2013-02-22 06:52:13 <Diablo-D3> wtf and mtgox caps me to withdrawing 1000 a day
728 2013-02-22 06:52:26 <jgarzik> Diablo-D3: just AML/KYC harder, for a bigger limit :)
729 2013-02-22 06:52:29 <novusordo> even more ridiculous is that mtgox requires AML/KYC verification to withdraw any amount of funds after logging in from a different geographic location
730 2013-02-22 06:52:59 <novusordo> I've got 2 damn BTC that have been stuck in gox for about a year...
731 2013-02-22 06:52:59 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: yes, but mtgox is a foreigner
732 2013-02-22 06:53:07 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: he doesnt even have a right to even look at my id.
733 2013-02-22 06:53:11 <jgarzik> if you need fiat connectivity, you gotta dance to the tune of fiat regulators :)
734 2013-02-22 06:53:19 <jgarzik> mtgox doesn't just make up the rules
735 2013-02-22 06:53:21 <Diablo-D3> infact, he should bow before me and pray that I dont bomb his country. again.
736 2013-02-22 06:53:42 <egecko> its the same hoops for everyone.. there are rules, this isn't 'nam.
737 2013-02-22 06:53:51 <Diablo-D3> egecko: yes, and mtgox better start following them
738 2013-02-22 06:54:04 <Diablo-D3> mtgox is a foreign entity probably involved in identity theft
739 2013-02-22 06:54:11 RazielZ has joined
740 2013-02-22 06:54:17 <egecko> and requiring proof of identity is part of that process
741 2013-02-22 06:54:27 <Diablo-D3> yes, which is the id on that card.
742 2013-02-22 06:54:34 <Diablo-D3> not a photo of that card
743 2013-02-22 06:54:42 <jgarzik> oh, good grief. Don't make me break out /ignore
744 2013-02-22 06:54:54 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: hey man, Im just following the law here
745 2013-02-22 06:55:02 <X-Scale> Diablo-D3: unfortunately, it's the same with most online betting...if you win over a certain $ amount (like $1000 or $2000), they will ask you for detailed ID and proof of residence. Very annoying indeed.
746 2013-02-22 06:55:03 <Luke-Jr> Diablo-D3: you trolling again?
747 2013-02-22 06:55:04 <Diablo-D3> reproductions of this card cannot be used as identification under US Federal law.
748 2013-02-22 06:55:16 <Diablo-D3> ergo, mtgox is not following US Federal law
749 2013-02-22 06:55:37 <Diablo-D3> X-Scale: $500 iirc
750 2013-02-22 06:55:59 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
751 2013-02-22 06:56:01 <Diablo-D3> X-Scale: and they will also haul you off to jail for illegal gambling
752 2013-02-22 06:56:07 <CodeShark> at least as annoying is the minimum $15-30 transfer fees to US banks via ACH
753 2013-02-22 06:56:15 <phantomcircuit> <Diablo-D3> infact, he should bow before me and pray that I dont bomb his country. again.
754 2013-02-22 06:56:16 <phantomcircuit> rofl
755 2013-02-22 06:56:23 <phantomcircuit> that is wrong in soooo many ways
756 2013-02-22 06:57:14 <Diablo-D3> well, I'd send it by wire, but what the fuck are all those strange numbers it wants
757 2013-02-22 06:57:19 <Diablo-D3> none of them look like ACH numbers
758 2013-02-22 06:57:29 <jgarzik> dwolla works great
759 2013-02-22 06:57:36 grau has joined
760 2013-02-22 06:57:48 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: yes, and dwolla has already identified me
761 2013-02-22 06:57:54 <Diablo-D3> except mtgox claims thats not enough
762 2013-02-22 06:57:56 <Diablo-D3> when it clearly is
763 2013-02-22 06:58:04 <gmaxwell> I logged in once and they told me that I'd have to bind my account to a facebook account to continue.
764 2013-02-22 06:58:08 <gmaxwell> I've never logged into it since.
765 2013-02-22 06:58:19 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: they never asked me that
766 2013-02-22 06:58:26 <Diablo-D3> because I would have actually sued them for that
767 2013-02-22 06:58:32 <jgarzik> I was asked that, and clicked 'no thanks'
768 2013-02-22 06:58:45 <Diablo-D3> even just asking must violate some law somewhere
769 2013-02-22 06:59:00 <jgarzik> ahhhhhhhhh. like a cool, refreshing breeze.
770 2013-02-22 06:59:16 <CodeShark> lol - did jgarzik pull an /ignore?
771 2013-02-22 06:59:18 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik is trolling me again =/
772 2013-02-22 06:59:54 <CodeShark> don't abuse important terms like "trolling"
773 2013-02-22 07:00:00 paybitcoin1 has joined
774 2013-02-22 07:00:06 <CodeShark> it debases them and then we lack appropriate terms when we need them
775 2013-02-22 07:00:08 <Diablo-D3> CodeShark: he keeps claiming he has me on ignore
776 2013-02-22 07:00:12 <Diablo-D3> then forgets that he does
777 2013-02-22 07:00:43 Guest79174 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
778 2013-02-22 07:00:53 paybitcoin has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
779 2013-02-22 07:02:35 <CodeShark> taken to its true potential, trolling is an artform
780 2013-02-22 07:02:37 <jgarzik> ;;asks 31.2
781 2013-02-22 07:02:39 <gribble> There are currently 5966.4059 bitcoins offered at or under 31.2 USD, worth 183851.218401 USD in total.
782 2013-02-22 07:03:08 <jgarzik> ;;calc 31.2 * 5966.4
783 2013-02-22 07:03:08 <gribble> 186151.68
784 2013-02-22 07:03:19 <CodeShark> have we just reached peak?
785 2013-02-22 07:03:26 <Diablo-D3> yes
786 2013-02-22 07:03:28 <Diablo-D3> I already sold
787 2013-02-22 07:03:34 <CodeShark> I sold at 30
788 2013-02-22 07:03:48 <andytoshi> i sold at 16.5..
789 2013-02-22 07:03:51 <CodeShark> lol
790 2013-02-22 07:03:56 <CodeShark> I bought at 16.5
791 2013-02-22 07:03:57 <Diablo-D3> I sold at 30 too
792 2013-02-22 07:03:59 <andytoshi> haha
793 2013-02-22 07:04:00 <jgarzik> under $200k to all time high... not a lot, considering daily volume
794 2013-02-22 07:04:18 <Diablo-D3> so how the hell do I use wire transfer?
795 2013-02-22 07:04:28 toffoo has quit ()
796 2013-02-22 07:04:34 <CodeShark> "wire transfer" is such an archaic term
797 2013-02-22 07:04:40 <CodeShark> it should be put out of its misery :)
798 2013-02-22 07:04:46 <CodeShark> outlived its utility
799 2013-02-22 07:04:46 <Diablo-D3> its an actual wire transfer, not an ach
800 2013-02-22 07:04:53 <andytoshi> yeah, if one of the manipulative maurauders makes a massive movement, we may manage a new maximum..
801 2013-02-22 07:05:18 <CodeShark> "wire transfer" evokes an image of a telegraph operator
802 2013-02-22 07:05:21 <Diablo-D3> _heh_
803 2013-02-22 07:05:34 <CodeShark> we have network cards to do that for us now :)
804 2013-02-22 07:05:47 <CodeShark> billions of times faster
805 2013-02-22 07:13:11 <Diablo-D3> okay so wait
806 2013-02-22 07:13:18 <Diablo-D3> how do I get my money out of mtgox then?
807 2013-02-22 07:13:50 <CodeShark> without being strip searched and charged an arm and a leg?
808 2013-02-22 07:14:08 <Diablo-D3> yeah, because apparently I cant send myself wire transfers because mtgox doesnt support ach
809 2013-02-22 07:14:22 <CodeShark> ripple?
810 2013-02-22 07:14:25 <andytoshi> Diablo, move BTC to canada and withdraw through cavirt
811 2013-02-22 07:14:33 <SomeoneWeird> ripple is lol
812 2013-02-22 07:14:44 <Diablo-D3> ripple doesnt even exist anymore
813 2013-02-22 07:14:49 <Diablo-D3> that collapsed before bitcoin was created
814 2013-02-22 07:15:04 <CodeShark> ripple is now a new project
815 2013-02-22 07:15:24 <weex> when -dev starts to look like -otc, it might be time to sell :P
816 2013-02-22 07:15:32 <CodeShark> lol
817 2013-02-22 07:15:46 <SomeoneWeird> yeah lol
818 2013-02-22 07:15:48 <X-Scale> I see money flowing on #ripple-watch
819 2013-02-22 07:16:08 <weex> ;;bc,price
820 2013-02-22 07:16:08 <gribble> Next Price Estimate: 33.108889 | Next Price In About 2 days, 22 hours, 57 minutes, and 4 seconds
821 2013-02-22 07:16:13 <weex> lol
822 2013-02-22 07:17:42 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: jed got bored of suing bitcoinica and bought the ripple name, told the ripple guy to buzz off, and now it's time to pump pump pump a new cryptocurrency. Sources isn't even out, just some JS webwallet, and they're already promoting their world domination.
823 2013-02-22 07:18:06 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: thats lame
824 2013-02-22 07:18:39 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: if they want to devolve into an optional trust layer on top of bitcoin, that's fine :)
825 2013-02-22 07:18:43 <CodeShark> actually, strictly speaking, ripple is not a cryptocurrency (in the way bitcoin is)
826 2013-02-22 07:18:56 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: sure it is.
827 2013-02-22 07:19:05 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: ripple nerds will have their currency like GPG nerds have keysigning parties
828 2013-02-22 07:19:06 <CodeShark> it's a trust network
829 2013-02-22 07:19:11 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: the IOU stuff is purely optional and not even implemented yet.
830 2013-02-22 07:19:18 <CodeShark> actually, it is implemented
831 2013-02-22 07:19:25 <andytoshi> ..then what is it? i thought it was pure IOUs
832 2013-02-22 07:19:25 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: show me?
833 2013-02-22 07:19:36 <gmaxwell> Joel told me today that it wasn't implemented yet.
834 2013-02-22 07:19:37 weex has quit (Quit: leaving)
835 2013-02-22 07:19:47 <Diablo-D3> I wonder why none of these like support popmoney
836 2013-02-22 07:19:51 dust-otc has joined
837 2013-02-22 07:21:37 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: I think it would be fair to say that it's not actually a consensus system, since there seems to be no way to guarantee global convergence with high probablity. ... but at the moment the XRP stuff is certantly a currency, and people are paying bunches of bitcoin for it.
838 2013-02-22 07:22:48 weex has joined
839 2013-02-22 07:22:48 weex has quit (Changing host)
840 2013-02-22 07:22:48 weex has joined
841 2013-02-22 07:23:11 techlife has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
842 2013-02-22 07:23:32 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, unfortunately he hasn't gotten bored enough to drop the suit
843 2013-02-22 07:23:47 techlife has joined
844 2013-02-22 07:25:19 bedouin has joined
845 2013-02-22 07:25:36 dedis has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
846 2013-02-22 07:25:37 <phantomcircuit> Diablo-D3, popmoney is just ACH and they dont have an api or anything
847 2013-02-22 07:25:43 <phantomcircuit> why would anybody support that
848 2013-02-22 07:25:53 <gmaxwell> I note that the ripple pre-mine is worth $1,500,000,000 at the current XRP/BTC/USD exchange rates.
849 2013-02-22 07:25:54 <Diablo-D3> phantomcircuit: the only reason I have a popmoney account is because if bitcoin
850 2013-02-22 07:27:00 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
851 2013-02-22 07:27:19 [\\\] has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
852 2013-02-22 07:27:41 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, most successful scam in the history of the world
853 2013-02-22 07:27:56 <phantomcircuit> hey maybe if jed is rich he can reimburse bitcoinica
854 2013-02-22 07:28:27 bedouin has quit (Client Quit)
855 2013-02-22 07:28:43 <SomeoneWeird> lmao
856 2013-02-22 07:28:49 <andytoshi> hahaha
857 2013-02-22 07:29:04 <phantomcircuit> otoh if he's in jail for operating an illegal securities issuance/exchange and money transmitting platform all in one
858 2013-02-22 07:29:07 <phantomcircuit> well then who knows
859 2013-02-22 07:29:33 <andytoshi> the dark knight had a similar subplot, as i recall
860 2013-02-22 07:29:44 <SomeoneWeird> lols
861 2013-02-22 07:30:02 bedouin has joined
862 2013-02-22 07:30:13 bedouin has quit (Client Quit)
863 2013-02-22 07:31:05 bedouin has joined
864 2013-02-22 07:32:21 bedouin has quit (Client Quit)
865 2013-02-22 07:32:35 delqn has joined
866 2013-02-22 07:32:39 delqn has quit (Client Quit)
867 2013-02-22 07:33:27 delqn has joined
868 2013-02-22 07:33:29 delqn has quit (Client Quit)
869 2013-02-22 07:34:09 delqn has joined
870 2013-02-22 07:34:13 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: is he actually involved with it? seems to mostly be people on trolltalk saying that.
871 2013-02-22 07:34:37 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, is jed mccaleb actually involved in ripple? yes
872 2013-02-22 07:36:01 delqn has quit (Client Quit)
873 2013-02-22 07:39:20 delqn has joined
874 2013-02-22 07:39:20 delqn has quit (Client Quit)
875 2013-02-22 07:39:35 delqn has joined
876 2013-02-22 07:39:35 delqn has quit (Client Quit)
877 2013-02-22 07:39:49 delqn has joined
878 2013-02-22 07:40:25 delqn has quit (Client Quit)
879 2013-02-22 07:42:04 delqn has joined
880 2013-02-22 07:42:20 delqn has quit (Client Quit)
881 2013-02-22 07:44:03 delqn has joined
882 2013-02-22 07:48:10 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
883 2013-02-22 07:48:44 copumpkin has joined
884 2013-02-22 07:49:07 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: Jed? He's definitely inside that Ripple project's adminisphere
885 2013-02-22 07:49:46 <jgarzik> not just talk
886 2013-02-22 07:50:33 moarrr has joined
887 2013-02-22 07:52:38 <doublec> is that the same jed who originally started mtgox?
888 2013-02-22 07:55:16 <SomeoneWeird> yes
889 2013-02-22 07:59:53 <jouke> Why is the .8 client that much faster in syncing with the blockchain?
890 2013-02-22 08:07:39 mappum has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
891 2013-02-22 08:10:47 <jgarzik> if the block size must change, here is my proposal: double the maximum block size every (144 * 365) blocks.
892 2013-02-22 08:11:03 <jgarzik> nothing complex or history driven
893 2013-02-22 08:12:06 grau has joined
894 2013-02-22 08:12:55 grau has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
895 2013-02-22 08:13:15 grau has joined
896 2013-02-22 08:14:08 <jouke> I was thinking that nodes might implement a max block relay delay to discourage miners to make big blocks
897 2013-02-22 08:15:24 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: I'd think huge leaps should be avoided
898 2013-02-22 08:16:38 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: works for block subsidy
899 2013-02-22 08:16:46 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: it is a highly predictable event
900 2013-02-22 08:17:05 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: does it?
901 2013-02-22 08:17:14 <Luke-Jr> we've had one drop, and it wasn't exactly uneventful
902 2013-02-22 08:17:33 <jouke> it wasn't? :o
903 2013-02-22 08:18:22 <jgarzik> For the vast majority of people who were not Luke-Jr, it was uneventful
904 2013-02-22 08:18:30 <jouke> :)
905 2013-02-22 08:18:48 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: sipa's graphs show otherwise ;)
906 2013-02-22 08:18:52 <jgarzik> Bitcoin value did not move much, and bitcoins were just as spendable and secure at 25 BTC as at 50 BTC
907 2013-02-22 08:19:26 <Luke-Jr> difficulty dropped, so not just as secure
908 2013-02-22 08:19:46 <Luke-Jr> only reason we bounced back is ASICs
909 2013-02-22 08:20:38 <jgarzik> hair splitting. to the average bitcoin user, just as secure.
910 2013-02-22 08:22:02 <Luke-Jr> so in 4 years when it halves again, and we don't have ASICs to bail us out, you really think it will go unnoticed by end users?
911 2013-02-22 08:23:22 <jouke> Shit, there will be no more technical innovation in the coming four years?
912 2013-02-22 08:26:56 root2_ has joined
913 2013-02-22 08:28:01 root2 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
914 2013-02-22 08:28:03 e0s__ has joined
915 2013-02-22 08:30:58 eoss has quit (Disconnected by services)
916 2013-02-22 08:33:26 da2ce7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
917 2013-02-22 08:34:44 da2ce7 has joined
918 2013-02-22 08:34:59 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
919 2013-02-22 08:35:20 eoss has joined
920 2013-02-22 08:35:20 eoss has quit (Changing host)
921 2013-02-22 08:35:20 eoss has joined
922 2013-02-22 08:36:54 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: <shrug> either the fees slowly rise to support the system, or they don't, as the block reward slowly decreases
923 2013-02-22 08:37:03 <jgarzik> won't know 'til we get there
924 2013-02-22 08:37:08 skeledrew has joined
925 2013-02-22 08:37:23 smiddi has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
926 2013-02-22 08:37:23 malaimo has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
927 2013-02-22 08:37:55 malaimo has joined
928 2013-02-22 08:38:01 smiddi has joined
929 2013-02-22 08:39:02 PhantomSpark has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
930 2013-02-22 08:45:28 _W_ has quit (Excess Flood)
931 2013-02-22 08:46:50 ovidiusoft has joined
932 2013-02-22 08:46:55 _W_ has joined
933 2013-02-22 08:56:17 da2ce7_d has joined
934 2013-02-22 08:58:32 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
935 2013-02-22 09:06:19 da2ce7 has joined
936 2013-02-22 09:07:04 da2ce7_d has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
937 2013-02-22 09:10:54 <jgarzik> another interesting idea from the forums: one unlimited size block per difficulty adjustment period
938 2013-02-22 09:11:11 <jgarzik> not endorsing the idea, but it's fun to think about
939 2013-02-22 09:11:12 Scrat_t is now known as Scrat
940 2013-02-22 09:16:09 ProfMac has joined
941 2013-02-22 09:16:12 ovidiusoft has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
942 2013-02-22 09:17:53 <Scrat> in a hypothetical world where there are millions of active users and there is a need for more than 3 tps and a bigger block size, why is there a need to store the blockchain millions of times? can't each full node only store a percentage of the chain in a deterministic way that can be easily be verified?
943 2013-02-22 09:25:33 Detritus has joined
944 2013-02-22 09:26:55 MobiusL has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
945 2013-02-22 09:27:05 ashams has joined
946 2013-02-22 09:27:05 ashams has quit (Changing host)
947 2013-02-22 09:27:05 ashams has joined
948 2013-02-22 09:27:54 Lexa has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
949 2013-02-22 09:29:20 t7 has joined
950 2013-02-22 09:32:16 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
951 2013-02-22 09:32:18 ashams has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
952 2013-02-22 09:34:37 mmoya has joined
953 2013-02-22 09:34:59 MobiusL has joined
954 2013-02-22 09:35:26 e0s__ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
955 2013-02-22 09:35:26 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
956 2013-02-22 09:35:26 e0s_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
957 2013-02-22 09:35:37 sacrelicious has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
958 2013-02-22 09:36:01 Goonie has joined
959 2013-02-22 09:40:45 ashams has joined
960 2013-02-22 09:40:45 ashams has quit (Changing host)
961 2013-02-22 09:40:45 ashams has joined
962 2013-02-22 09:41:14 20WAB0TOL has joined
963 2013-02-22 09:41:14 18WACZEC0 has joined
964 2013-02-22 09:41:15 eoss has joined
965 2013-02-22 09:50:03 <jouke> My 0.8 crashed with a new install: http://pastebin.com/NStnjXL9
966 2013-02-22 09:53:07 ashams has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
967 2013-02-22 10:00:18 18WACZEC0 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
968 2013-02-22 10:00:18 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
969 2013-02-22 10:00:18 20WAB0TOL has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
970 2013-02-22 10:09:54 Goonie has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
971 2013-02-22 10:22:43 tonikt has joined
972 2013-02-22 10:23:02 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
973 2013-02-22 10:26:24 <CodeShark> you have any memory shortages?
974 2013-02-22 10:27:05 <CodeShark> looks like you ran out of memory
975 2013-02-22 10:27:31 B0g4r7 has joined
976 2013-02-22 10:31:35 one_zero has quit ()
977 2013-02-22 10:44:19 TD has joined
978 2013-02-22 10:45:38 TD_ has joined
979 2013-02-22 10:46:17 <grau> CodeShark: you forked bitsofproof on github. Please beware that I merged supernode and supernode-api repositories. You better resync
980 2013-02-22 10:46:34 <CodeShark> grau: ok, thanks
981 2013-02-22 10:46:49 <grau> supernode-api is gone
982 2013-02-22 10:48:52 veerboot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
983 2013-02-22 10:49:22 TD has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
984 2013-02-22 10:49:22 TD_ is now known as TD
985 2013-02-22 10:49:46 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
986 2013-02-22 10:52:55 Qwas has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
987 2013-02-22 11:07:09 asuk_ has joined
988 2013-02-22 11:08:48 MrMeowork has joined
989 2013-02-22 11:13:40 BTCOxygen has joined
990 2013-02-22 11:16:44 asuk_ has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPad - http://colloquy.mobi)
991 2013-02-22 11:20:26 jdnavarro has joined
992 2013-02-22 11:34:22 Scrat_r has joined
993 2013-02-22 11:35:21 Scrat_r is now known as Scrat_r_q
994 2013-02-22 11:35:40 Scrat has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
995 2013-02-22 11:35:45 Scrat_r_q is now known as Scrat
996 2013-02-22 11:38:11 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
997 2013-02-22 11:39:04 rdymac has joined
998 2013-02-22 11:39:04 alexwaters has joined
999 2013-02-22 11:40:57 alexwaters has quit (Client Quit)
1000 2013-02-22 11:46:36 tonikt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1001 2013-02-22 11:47:15 jiggaa has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1002 2013-02-22 11:53:20 rdymac has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1003 2013-02-22 11:53:35 geb has quit (Excess Flood)
1004 2013-02-22 11:54:18 geb has joined
1005 2013-02-22 11:54:18 geb has quit (Excess Flood)
1006 2013-02-22 11:55:18 geb has joined
1007 2013-02-22 11:58:12 root2_ is now known as root2
1008 2013-02-22 12:04:58 twobitcoins has joined
1009 2013-02-22 12:07:59 twobitcoins__ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1010 2013-02-22 12:09:30 t7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1011 2013-02-22 12:09:56 t7 has joined
1012 2013-02-22 12:10:28 Aexoden has quit (Quit: http://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere.)
1013 2013-02-22 12:10:42 Aexoden has joined
1014 2013-02-22 12:11:57 agricocb has joined
1015 2013-02-22 12:13:22 reizuki__ has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1016 2013-02-22 12:17:21 ralphtheninja has joined
1017 2013-02-22 12:18:32 reizuki__ has joined
1018 2013-02-22 12:18:32 reizuki__ has quit (Changing host)
1019 2013-02-22 12:18:32 reizuki__ has joined
1020 2013-02-22 12:19:55 dust-otc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1021 2013-02-22 12:24:17 reizuki__ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1022 2013-02-22 12:25:04 Muis has joined
1023 2013-02-22 12:28:23 Muis_ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1024 2013-02-22 12:36:19 Muis_ has joined
1025 2013-02-22 12:39:20 Muis has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1026 2013-02-22 12:48:47 TradeFortress has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1027 2013-02-22 12:49:05 JZavala has joined
1028 2013-02-22 12:50:35 Muis has joined
1029 2013-02-22 12:51:10 Muis_ has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1030 2013-02-22 12:56:43 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1031 2013-02-22 12:57:23 [\\\] has joined
1032 2013-02-22 13:10:39 Goonie has joined
1033 2013-02-22 13:16:37 rdymac has joined
1034 2013-02-22 13:17:09 rdymac has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1035 2013-02-22 13:18:24 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1036 2013-02-22 13:21:08 andytosh1 has joined
1037 2013-02-22 13:21:09 bitafterbit has joined
1038 2013-02-22 13:26:00 <ThomasV> why does signrawtransaction still require "redeemScript"once a multisig transaction is partially signed?
1039 2013-02-22 13:31:08 Jackneill has joined
1040 2013-02-22 13:31:08 Jackneill has quit (Changing host)
1041 2013-02-22 13:31:08 Jackneill has joined
1042 2013-02-22 13:34:33 CodeShark has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1043 2013-02-22 13:41:49 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1044 2013-02-22 13:43:07 i2pRelay has joined
1045 2013-02-22 13:43:40 ralphtheninja has left ()
1046 2013-02-22 13:51:23 reizuki__ has joined
1047 2013-02-22 13:51:23 reizuki__ has quit (Changing host)
1048 2013-02-22 13:51:23 reizuki__ has joined
1049 2013-02-22 13:55:31 t7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1050 2013-02-22 13:55:53 t7 has joined
1051 2013-02-22 14:01:00 JDuke128 has joined
1052 2013-02-22 14:02:22 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1053 2013-02-22 14:09:41 ralphtheninja has joined
1054 2013-02-22 14:14:12 [\\\] has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1055 2013-02-22 14:15:31 Hashdog has joined
1056 2013-02-22 14:16:40 <HM> Maybe there's a half way house between full validation and header only clients
1057 2013-02-22 14:17:02 [\\\] has joined
1058 2013-02-22 14:17:04 <HM> If you split large blocks up in to smaller blocks and each node randomly validated a subset of transactions, reporting bad things to the network
1059 2013-02-22 14:17:11 <HM> too easy to manipulate i guess though
1060 2013-02-22 14:18:36 J6So4W7Yb has joined
1061 2013-02-22 14:19:51 J6So4W7Yb has quit (Client Quit)
1062 2013-02-22 14:21:13 daybyter has joined
1063 2013-02-22 14:23:45 Hashdog has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1064 2013-02-22 14:24:33 gruvfunk has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1065 2013-02-22 14:25:30 diki has joined
1066 2013-02-22 14:25:38 <diki> What is this blocksize issue I keep reading about?
1067 2013-02-22 14:25:45 <diki> I've been away from the bitcoin scene for a while.
1068 2013-02-22 14:26:35 Hashdog has joined
1069 2013-02-22 14:27:18 <lianj> diki: the max block size is fixed at 1MB
1070 2013-02-22 14:27:33 <diki> and?
1071 2013-02-22 14:28:36 <lianj> even if you only have small (500 byte) txs, bitcoin can only process 2000 txs at max every 10 minutes
1072 2013-02-22 14:28:53 <diki> so..slow txes?
1073 2013-02-22 14:30:04 <lianj> slow or maybe never fully flushed tx queue if much more than 2000 txs are greated each 10 minutes
1074 2013-02-22 14:30:21 <lianj> i can be wrong, but thats how i understand it
1075 2013-02-22 14:30:22 <diki> I suppose that with SatoshiDice,price boom and future users, it can take more than 2-3
1076 2013-02-22 14:30:47 <lianj> or much more
1077 2013-02-22 14:31:10 agricocb has joined
1078 2013-02-22 14:31:38 <lianj> but no surprise, its known that its not scale to for example paypal tx volume currently
1079 2013-02-22 14:39:38 user___ has joined
1080 2013-02-22 14:39:39 user___ is now known as treb
1081 2013-02-22 14:40:02 <treb> jrmithdobbs: hi, around? =)
1082 2013-02-22 14:40:32 <treb> how does BitcoinD run on OpenBSD now? not for mining but just in general
1083 2013-02-22 14:41:15 <HM> lianj, diki: yeah, sipa and gmaxwell were explaining this to me last night. the problem is for high tx rates only people with lots of resources will be able to validate all the transactions in a block, so there's nobody to keep them honest
1084 2013-02-22 14:42:57 BTCOxygen has joined
1085 2013-02-22 14:46:56 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1086 2013-02-22 14:47:39 d4de has joined
1087 2013-02-22 14:48:58 rdymac has joined
1088 2013-02-22 14:51:08 pooler has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.90 [Firefox 19.0/20130218103006])
1089 2013-02-22 14:53:11 JDuke128 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1090 2013-02-22 14:53:26 CeidaFighter has joined
1091 2013-02-22 14:59:06 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1092 2013-02-22 14:59:17 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1093 2013-02-22 14:59:19 andytoshi has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1094 2013-02-22 15:00:19 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1095 2013-02-22 15:02:53 cheako911 has joined
1096 2013-02-22 15:02:58 andytosh1 is now known as andytoshi
1097 2013-02-22 15:04:33 rdymac has joined
1098 2013-02-22 15:05:22 cheako has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1099 2013-02-22 15:07:19 B0g4r7 has joined
1100 2013-02-22 15:08:02 <helo> i'm happy to see that perspective so popular
1101 2013-02-22 15:08:40 reizuki__ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1102 2013-02-22 15:09:22 nus has quit (Disconnected by services)
1103 2013-02-22 15:09:35 <helo> there are a great many people who think bitcoin should scale up to compete with credit cards
1104 2013-02-22 15:09:50 nus has joined
1105 2013-02-22 15:09:56 grau has joined
1106 2013-02-22 15:10:26 <lianj> some do, other think it will be like gold, which other currencies are then based on
1107 2013-02-22 15:10:38 <HM> even credit cards had scaleability issues once upon a time
1108 2013-02-22 15:10:43 <HM> you had offline transactions
1109 2013-02-22 15:11:11 <treb> here is BitcoinD's API / RPC API documented?
1110 2013-02-22 15:11:24 <treb> as for a local OS process to make use of it, like, make it do transactions or listen for new events
1111 2013-02-22 15:14:17 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1112 2013-02-22 15:14:39 grau has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1113 2013-02-22 15:15:04 gavinandresen has joined
1114 2013-02-22 15:15:32 <helo> i really like the idea of bitcoin having as-low-as-possible overhead so everyone (including mobile in time) can fully validate
1115 2013-02-22 15:16:10 <lianj> youre to late :P
1116 2013-02-22 15:16:11 <helo> with bitcoin-backed currencies existing in a way that allows everyone to validate the legitimacy of the backing
1117 2013-02-22 15:17:02 <helo> taking advantage of the ease of validating and keeping up with the bitcoin blockchain
1118 2013-02-22 15:18:14 grau has joined
1119 2013-02-22 15:18:14 <lianj> the full validation is not that easy or lightweight
1120 2013-02-22 15:18:27 <gmaxwell> lianj: sure it is.
1121 2013-02-22 15:18:35 <helo> with 1MB blocks, it should be easy enough in time
1122 2013-02-22 15:18:48 dvide has quit ()
1123 2013-02-22 15:18:52 <helo> my phone could probably run a full node if i didn't worry about battery life
1124 2013-02-22 15:19:03 <gmaxwell> helo: correct.
1125 2013-02-22 15:19:07 etotheipi_ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1126 2013-02-22 15:19:18 <lianj> gmaxwell: then why do many people suggest to only use the reference implementation?
1127 2013-02-22 15:19:51 <gmaxwell> lianj: I'm not sure what you are asking, or at least how it relates to the discussion.
1128 2013-02-22 15:20:17 <HM> helo: backing your own currency with bitcoin and proving you have bitcoins in reserve as backup doesn't gain you anything
1129 2013-02-22 15:20:32 <HM> helo: you can still double spend your own currency if it sucks
1130 2013-02-22 15:20:45 <helo> with a "lean" blockchain, colored coin starts to be viable for managing ownership of all kinds of things
1131 2013-02-22 15:21:07 cheako911 is now known as cheako
1132 2013-02-22 15:21:09 <gmaxwell> helo: yeaâ wrt bitcoin backed. No provably bitcoin backed processing system can be lighter weight to prove than bitcoin itself, but they can be faster and most scalable. So if bitcoin is made fat, nothing backed by it can be validated without a lot of work.
1133 2013-02-22 15:21:39 alexwaters has joined
1134 2013-02-22 15:22:13 <gmaxwell> HM: who said anything about "your own currency"? Go look at petertodd's fidelity banks for an example of the sort of thing that can be done.
1135 2013-02-22 15:22:26 grau has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1136 2013-02-22 15:22:43 <HM> helo mentioned "bitcoin-backed currencies"
1137 2013-02-22 15:22:50 <HM> i'm not familiar with fidelity banks
1138 2013-02-22 15:23:04 <sipa> bitcoin-backed does not mean it has to be based on the same technology
1139 2013-02-22 15:23:39 <sipa> hell, mtgox vouchers can be considered to be a bitcoin-backed currency
1140 2013-02-22 15:23:54 <HM> and they could be double spent if mtgox get it wrong
1141 2013-02-22 15:24:01 <helo> a rich ecosystem of currencies with various properties backed with bitcoin seems pretty ideal
1142 2013-02-22 15:24:01 <HM> they're not verifiable at all to outsiders
1143 2013-02-22 15:24:06 <sipa> HM: yes, from a technology, it sucks
1144 2013-02-22 15:24:09 <sipa> point
1145 2013-02-22 15:24:10 <gmaxwell> indeed, though a centeralized oneâ but highly performant and already existing.
1146 2013-02-22 15:24:14 <lianj> gmaxwell: i was talking about "so everyone (including mobile in time) can fully validate"
1147 2013-02-22 15:24:25 <helo> currency competition on that level would be pretty revolutionary, i think
1148 2013-02-22 15:24:54 <HM> diverse currencies treating bitcoin as a reserve currency doesn't get you anywhere
1149 2013-02-22 15:25:10 <gmaxwell> lianj: a current gen smartphone running the reference client can _currently_ keep up with the blockchain. ... not that you'd necessarily want to do this, but it already works.
1150 2013-02-22 15:25:46 <sipa> HM: if it's a full reserve system that can be verifiable, why not?
1151 2013-02-22 15:26:14 <helo> HM: with a market of competing currencies, it gets you (i.e. the market) whatever there is demand for
1152 2013-02-22 15:26:33 <sipa> i think it's wrong to call it competing currencies, the currency is always bitcoin
1153 2013-02-22 15:26:35 <helo> an obvious benefit is to get rid of inflation
1154 2013-02-22 15:26:36 <HM> the fed could claim full reserve and even make the amount of gold reserves they have public and audited, it doesn't stop them printing unlimited $ers secretly
1155 2013-02-22 15:26:41 <helo> sipa: yeah, you're right
1156 2013-02-22 15:26:42 <sipa> the payment processing differs
1157 2013-02-22 15:27:06 <gmaxwell> hm: gold is not subjectable to instantly machine verifyable cryptographic proof.
1158 2013-02-22 15:27:11 <helo> HM: the validation of bitcoin backing would keep them from printing unlimited dollars
1159 2013-02-22 15:27:18 <HM> the Fed could move to Bitcoin, that wouldn't make $ers any better because nobody can verify how many there are
1160 2013-02-22 15:27:58 <gmaxwell> HM: e.g. in petertodd's fidelity banks every transaction would be proven to be backed by bitcoin, and any misbehavior by the bank would cause it to lose its bond.
1161 2013-02-22 15:28:02 <HM> just like you have no idea if MtGox holds the Bitcoins for every voucher they issue
1162 2013-02-22 15:28:03 taha has joined
1163 2013-02-22 15:28:19 <HM> gmaxwell: i'll have to read up on that
1164 2013-02-22 15:28:23 <gmaxwell> HM: thats a flaw in mtgox, not anything fundimentalâ they could certantly prove it if they wanted to.
1165 2013-02-22 15:28:46 cheako has quit (Quit: Client exiting)
1166 2013-02-22 15:28:51 <HM> you can create a provable voucher system without making something like the blockchain public?
1167 2013-02-22 15:28:52 <helo> HM: mtgox isn't provably bitcoin backed, it's just a 100%-mtgox-trust-based voucher
1168 2013-02-22 15:29:54 <gmaxwell> HM: Yes. likewise you can do them by making something like the blockchain public, but seperate so that it scales better.
1169 2013-02-22 15:29:55 <helo> HM: if any entity could start their own bitcoin backed currency, there would be competition and incentive to provide proof
1170 2013-02-22 15:29:56 rdymac has joined
1171 2013-02-22 15:30:23 <HM> we were talking about ways around scaling the blockchain, making it more course grained
1172 2013-02-22 15:30:30 <HM> your solution is basically have alternative more localised chains
1173 2013-02-22 15:30:32 <HM> yes?
1174 2013-02-22 15:30:51 <gmaxwell> who says there is a chain?
1175 2013-02-22 15:31:03 <gmaxwell> When you have a hammer must all things be nails? :P
1176 2013-02-22 15:31:04 <HM> well something that is public, disseminated and verifiable
1177 2013-02-22 15:31:44 davout has joined
1178 2013-02-22 15:31:44 davout has quit (Changing host)
1179 2013-02-22 15:31:44 davout has joined
1180 2013-02-22 15:32:24 <gmaxwell> E.g. the simple way to do that is for mtgox to publish the hash of every voucher and its value, and signmessages for all the backing coins, and signatures on all vouchers, and you check if your newly issued voucher is in the public list and that the sum of vouchers is less than their proven balance. If anyone gets a voucher which isn't on the list, then you publish proof of it.
1181 2013-02-22 15:32:34 <Scrat> in a hypothetical world where there are millions of active users and there is a need for more than 3 tps and a bigger block size, why is there a need to store the blockchain millions of times? can't each full node only store a percentage of the chain in a deterministic way that can be easily be verified?
1182 2013-02-22 15:33:44 <gmaxwell> Petertodd's idea is more complicated but more powerfulâ in petertodd's case the bank (which could be a distributed system) uses blinded tokens so they can't tell who is trading with who... and if proof of misbehavior is published then the bank loses its fidelity bondâ an expensive asset which must be equal in value to their deposits which is created by provably paying coin to bitcoin miners.
1183 2013-02-22 15:34:21 <gmaxwell> Scrat: storing the history isn't too exciting. But to validate the chain you must store the utxo set, and perform lots of ecdsa.
1184 2013-02-22 15:34:40 <HM> gmaxwell: so lock up some bitcoins in the blockchain, then publish a list of associated vouchers (hashed) so voucher holders can prove it's backed by something? how does that stop the existance of more than 1 such list?
1185 2013-02-22 15:34:49 <gmaxwell> Scrat: and fwiw, you can fit over 4000 transactions in a block.
1186 2013-02-22 15:35:37 meLon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1187 2013-02-22 15:35:47 <HM> gmaxwell: i'm reading his forum post now but it's not entirely clear how it works
1188 2013-02-22 15:35:48 <gmaxwell> HM: you sign the lists, and people rumor the hash of the lists externally. If there is a discrepency they compare notes.
1189 2013-02-22 15:36:09 <lianj> gmaxwell: how to fit over 4000 in a block?
1190 2013-02-22 15:36:13 <helo> rumor as a verb ftw
1191 2013-02-22 15:36:29 <HM> how does a one define a 'misbehaviour' and how is it determined?
1192 2013-02-22 15:36:40 <sipa> lianj: one transaction is 250 bytes or so
1193 2013-02-22 15:36:50 <sipa> even less
1194 2013-02-22 15:37:37 <lianj> whats the avg tx size, i doubt its below 400
1195 2013-02-22 15:37:49 Jackneill has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1196 2013-02-22 15:38:16 <gavinandresen> median transaction size is under 300 bytes, if I recall correctly
1197 2013-02-22 15:38:24 <gmaxwell> who knows, I'm just pointing out that there can be more transactions then were claimed above.
1198 2013-02-22 15:38:55 <gmaxwell> And the average transaction size is distorted by the non-use of compressed keys as well as inefficient transaction practices.
1199 2013-02-22 15:39:16 <gmaxwell> it's not an important pointâ just pedantry... but it was the second time I'd seen the low claim made.
1200 2013-02-22 15:39:18 <gavinandresen> lianj: it's pretty easy to use getblock/getrawtransaction to calculate transaction size over the last N blocks, so you don't have to doubt you can know...
1201 2013-02-22 15:39:37 <lianj> in good cases, yes. but tx using many inputs or creating lots of outputs are common too and they dont fit in 250bytes
1202 2013-02-22 15:40:01 andytoshi has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.4.0)
1203 2013-02-22 15:40:20 <gavinandresen> is there anyplace on the internet where people go out and get facts before speculating?
1204 2013-02-22 15:40:31 <lianj> haha
1205 2013-02-22 15:40:32 <SomeoneWeird> WIKIPEDIA
1206 2013-02-22 15:40:48 vigilyn2 has joined
1207 2013-02-22 15:40:49 vigilyn has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1208 2013-02-22 15:40:52 <sipa> gavinandresen: there's this weird place called the real world, but most internet people find it disconforting in many ways
1209 2013-02-22 15:41:04 <jgarzik> hah
1210 2013-02-22 15:41:10 <gavinandresen> sipa: I've heard of this "real world" placeâ¦. I think there was a TV show about it
1211 2013-02-22 15:41:44 <helo> they say that's what created our universe... even that it's all around us
1212 2013-02-22 15:42:05 <gmaxwell> (for i in {222552..222542} ; do ./bitcoind getblock `./bitcoind getblockhash $i` | grep ' "' | cut -d'"' -f2 ; done) | xargs -n1 -iblah ./bitcoind getrawtransaction blah | awk '{aa+=length($0)/2} END {print aa/NR}'
1213 2013-02-22 15:42:38 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: yeah, that. Although I think I wrote a little throwaway python script that did it
1214 2013-02-22 15:43:51 <gmaxwell> (limitations of that commandâ counts coinbases too)
1215 2013-02-22 15:44:03 <HM> just says no information about transaction for me
1216 2013-02-22 15:44:16 <gmaxwell> HM: you're not running txindex=1
1217 2013-02-22 15:44:33 <gmaxwell> you cant getrawtransaction on spent transactions without the optional txindex.
1218 2013-02-22 15:44:53 meLon has joined
1219 2013-02-22 15:45:07 <HM> why is that the default? is indexing transactions really that expensive?
1220 2013-02-22 15:45:08 <Scrat> I've seen 7 tps being thrown around.. just low balled it to 3
1221 2013-02-22 15:45:27 <sipa> HM: it's mostly unnecessary
1222 2013-02-22 15:45:50 <gavinandresen> a good principle of non-bloaty software design is "a feature shouldn't cost you anything if you don't use it."
1223 2013-02-22 15:46:00 <sipa> and it costs some storage and processing
1224 2013-02-22 15:46:27 <sipa> plus, it may make people depend on that feature being always available, which would for example prevent pruning strategies later on
1225 2013-02-22 15:47:09 <sipa> as a principle, you should attempt to create systems that do not require forever history to be present, much less it being fully indexed
1226 2013-02-22 15:47:11 <HM> prune satoshidice
1227 2013-02-22 15:47:26 <HM> by default :P consider that a feature request :P
1228 2013-02-22 15:47:36 <sipa> you can prune everything that is old enough
1229 2013-02-22 15:47:42 <SomeoneWeird> yeah what would happen if you added a "bug" that ignored SD
1230 2013-02-22 15:47:43 <SomeoneWeird> >.>
1231 2013-02-22 15:47:52 <sipa> SomeoneWeird: you'd find yourself on a hard fork
1232 2013-02-22 15:47:56 <sipa> immediately
1233 2013-02-22 15:48:08 <SomeoneWeird> i mean transparently in the next major update :P
1234 2013-02-22 15:48:09 <gmaxwell> HM: because it's only needed for geeks to investigate things- otherwise useless.. and it adds a bunch of required storage (700mb or so now?) and slows down block processing a bit.
1235 2013-02-22 15:48:49 <HM> another way of looking at it is i'm already storing the data, why not index it?
1236 2013-02-22 15:49:02 <HM> may as well not have it if i can't query it
1237 2013-02-22 15:49:03 <gavinandresen> HM: that's what -txindex is for
1238 2013-02-22 15:49:05 <gmaxwell> because doing so slows things down and adds 700mb of storage.
1239 2013-02-22 15:49:07 t7 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1240 2013-02-22 15:49:16 <sipa> HM: the point is that in the future, you'll probably NOT be storing the data anymore
1241 2013-02-22 15:49:29 <sipa> because of historical reasons, making that change now is hard
1242 2013-02-22 15:49:35 <HM> ok
1243 2013-02-22 15:49:37 <gmaxwell> HM: having it without an index still allows you to serve the blockchain to other nodes, or add the index later, or to find the data with a rescan.
1244 2013-02-22 15:49:39 <Scrat> gmaxwell: would storing the utxo of the entire chain also imply storing it?
1245 2013-02-22 15:49:40 <gavinandresen> HM: ⦠might as well ask "why not index it by transaction amount? I might want to look up all 11 BTC transactions, because 11 is my favorite number"
1246 2013-02-22 15:50:12 <sipa> Scrat: 0.8 always maintains the full UTXO set, explicitly
1247 2013-02-22 15:50:13 <gavinandresen> we've got the data...
1248 2013-02-22 15:50:13 <gmaxwell> Scrat: imply storing what? would storing the utxo imply storing the utxo? yes.
1249 2013-02-22 15:50:31 <sipa> Scrat: a transaction index is completely independent of that
1250 2013-02-22 15:50:33 <Scrat> sipa: just talking future
1251 2013-02-22 15:50:38 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: don't give people ideas! :P
1252 2013-02-22 15:50:53 Jackneill has joined
1253 2013-02-22 15:50:56 <sipa> the *only* thing the txindex is used and useful for, is for implementing getrawtransaction
1254 2013-02-22 15:51:09 <HM> gavinandresen: i think looking up 11 BTC transactions is a bit niche :P
1255 2013-02-22 15:51:12 <sipa> it's unrelated to block validation
1256 2013-02-22 15:51:17 <gmaxwell> HM: as for why not make it default, not only is it somewhat costly and not needed, but features that depend on it are incompatible with pruning... so the cost ratio of having it on and off will increase in the future.
1257 2013-02-22 15:51:44 <gmaxwell> also the txindex grows faster than the utxo set by definition.
1258 2013-02-22 15:51:53 <Scrat> all I'm saying that if in the far future you want to keep decentralization you have to split the blockchain. here
1259 2013-02-22 15:52:01 <Scrat> oops pressed enter ;p
1260 2013-02-22 15:52:06 <gmaxwell> Scrat: 'split' ?
1261 2013-02-22 15:53:21 <sipa> Scrat: the _current_ 0.8 code does actually not require the block chain data to be present at all (well, there's certainly some checks and operational stuff that would need to change to not throw errors when data is missing, but no algorithm depends on the block chain being there)
1262 2013-02-22 15:53:32 <gmaxwell> Scrat: the storage is (now) already structured so that nodes don't need the history except for serving to other nodes. Once we figure out a safe way for new nodes to find the blocks they need then we could pretty easily implement fractional storage.
1263 2013-02-22 15:53:33 <helo> HM: just like a tx index is niche :)
1264 2013-02-22 15:53:33 <Scrat> here's a stupid way but just so that you get the idea: each node has a unique number 0 to 15 (generated on install) and it only stores blocks who's hash ends in that number
1265 2013-02-22 15:53:33 <sipa> all that is required is the UTXO set really
1266 2013-02-22 15:53:51 <sipa> you can throw away anything you like, in whatever scheme you want
1267 2013-02-22 15:54:16 <Scrat> since everyone is bringing up the blockchain size and bandwidth requirement on the forums
1268 2013-02-22 15:54:18 <gmaxwell> Scrat: very stupid, because locality matters. :P .... in any case, the only barrier is that we need a robust way to go _find_ the data again.
1269 2013-02-22 15:54:27 <gmaxwell> Scrat: thats really pretty orthorgonal.
1270 2013-02-22 15:54:38 <HM> Anyway, back to block size
1271 2013-02-22 15:56:06 <HM> If you had 1 GB blocks, and 1 million nodes. could they not each randomly select a bunch of 1 MB chunks of the block to verify?
1272 2013-02-22 15:56:19 <gmaxwell> or at least even with the systems defined rules you need to do that ... the forum noise is over increasing the max blocksize, which no amount of what you're describing can make work for arbitrarily small validators. ... and for the most part storage requirements aren't that interesting at least not today. (the scaling law on storage appears to be faster than bandwidth and cpu)
1273 2013-02-22 15:56:21 <HM> statistically a bad block would be caught but each node does less work
1274 2013-02-22 15:56:43 <sipa> HM: you could do that with signature checks
1275 2013-02-22 15:56:54 <sipa> HM: but each needs to maintain its own UTXO set
1276 2013-02-22 15:56:56 <helo> HM: doesn't verification require sequential access on initial sync?
1277 2013-02-22 15:57:17 <HM> sipa: right, but that's just a storage problem, not a processing one
1278 2013-02-22 15:57:33 <HM> i thought the bottleneck was verifying 1 billion transactions every 10 minutes :P
1279 2013-02-22 15:58:00 <sipa> if the UTXO set grows, so will the cost per transaction to lookup things in it and update them
1280 2013-02-22 15:58:02 <helo> there is a much more severe bottleneck than that
1281 2013-02-22 15:58:41 <sipa> basic problem is that signature checking can be parallellized, but block connection can't (or much harder)
1282 2013-02-22 15:59:00 <sipa> and we can expect parallellism in hardware to go up in the future faster than sequential speed
1283 2013-02-22 15:59:12 <HM> block connection?
1284 2013-02-22 15:59:41 <Scrat> this microtransaction convenience vs. decentralization problem is such a brainfuck
1285 2013-02-22 15:59:42 <helo> HM: the biggest problem with big blocks imho is the amount of data new nodes have to go through to get up to date
1286 2013-02-22 15:59:47 <sipa> block connections == patching the UTXO set with the changes a particular block implies (remove inputs and add outputs)
1287 2013-02-22 15:59:55 <HM> ah
1288 2013-02-22 16:00:36 <HM> and if you don't have the full UTXO then whenever you deal with someone new you need to download their records
1289 2013-02-22 16:02:31 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1290 2013-02-22 16:03:26 <Scrat> gmaxwell: a simplified version of DHT should be enough for finding the data, no?
1291 2013-02-22 16:03:26 root2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1292 2013-02-22 16:03:44 <HM> lol
1293 2013-02-22 16:04:14 root2 has joined
1294 2013-02-22 16:05:13 TD has joined
1295 2013-02-22 16:05:41 <Scrat> HM: i'm a web developer, not my fault
1296 2013-02-22 16:06:01 <Scrat> javascript has done away with most of my functional neurons
1297 2013-02-22 16:06:26 MrMeowork has quit (Quit: MrMeowork)
1298 2013-02-22 16:07:06 vigilyn2 is now known as vigilyn
1299 2013-02-22 16:07:13 vigilyn has quit (Changing host)
1300 2013-02-22 16:07:13 vigilyn has joined
1301 2013-02-22 16:07:13 <HM> no it's not the idea, it's the fact that the last time i mentioned a DHT there was another tally mark carved in the bed post
1302 2013-02-22 16:07:20 <HM> *here
1303 2013-02-22 16:07:46 <gavinandresen> too bad we can't set a landmine sound effect to go off when "DHT" is mentioned in this channel
1304 2013-02-22 16:07:52 J6So4W7Yb has joined
1305 2013-02-22 16:08:21 <TD> haha
1306 2013-02-22 16:08:23 <MC1984> guys
1307 2013-02-22 16:08:35 LargoG has joined
1308 2013-02-22 16:08:38 <MC1984> what if we took a dht and put some merkle trees in it
1309 2013-02-22 16:08:42 <TD> it does sound like some kind of explosive material
1310 2013-02-22 16:08:42 Belkaar has quit (Changing host)
1311 2013-02-22 16:08:42 Belkaar has joined
1312 2013-02-22 16:08:52 <MC1984> i dont know how either of those works, but they do magic things
1313 2013-02-22 16:08:54 <HM> Scrat: i think the point is you want as many people validating transactions and blocks as possible, whereas DHT only helps you disseminate blocks sparely, without even knowing the entire thing is still online, and find them in logarithmic time.
1314 2013-02-22 16:08:55 <TD> well it's true that one makes tables out of trees
1315 2013-02-22 16:09:01 <HM> sparsely*
1316 2013-02-22 16:09:15 <Scrat> dht + turbo codes + web scale + lobster.ttf
1317 2013-02-22 16:09:17 <helo> why would a bitcoin backend (monitors address balances, sends transactions) need to be full node vs SPV?
1318 2013-02-22 16:09:18 <Scrat> = sick
1319 2013-02-22 16:09:25 <gavinandresen> "watch out for that DHT, it's highly unstable"
1320 2013-02-22 16:09:43 <TD> helo: backend for what?
1321 2013-02-22 16:09:58 * HM puts DHT to AC/DC's "TNT"
1322 2013-02-22 16:10:12 <Scrat> HM: but how much is too much? say you have a million online nodes, is 1/10th of that a reasonable compromise?
1323 2013-02-22 16:10:41 <helo> TD: dunno, perhaps a website
1324 2013-02-22 16:10:51 <HM> you end up with 10% of the network serving queries for the other 90%
1325 2013-02-22 16:10:59 <helo> say, buying and selling things with bitcoin
1326 2013-02-22 16:11:03 <HM> you should make it 99% and 1% just so people can say, "i am the 1%"
1327 2013-02-22 16:11:11 <Scrat> 10% serving 10% of queries
1328 2013-02-22 16:11:15 <Scrat> on average
1329 2013-02-22 16:11:20 <HM> yeah, i dunno
1330 2013-02-22 16:11:23 <HM> ask the boffins
1331 2013-02-22 16:11:49 <Scrat> they are probably foaming at the mouth
1332 2013-02-22 16:13:00 grau has joined
1333 2013-02-22 16:13:05 <ProfMac> can bitcoin key pairs be used for ssh key pairs?
1334 2013-02-22 16:14:05 <TD> helo: you could use SPV. it's just safer and better to use a full node.
1335 2013-02-22 16:14:06 <gavinandresen> does ssh support ECC? I don't rememberâ¦.
1336 2013-02-22 16:14:26 <gavinandresen> ProfMac: even if you can, it is a bad idea.
1337 2013-02-22 16:14:52 <HM> Given how old SSH is i doubt it
1338 2013-02-22 16:15:22 grau has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1339 2013-02-22 16:16:00 ahbritto__ has joined
1340 2013-02-22 16:16:06 <HM> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP6np_oKVCk <-- good talk on how bad the state of SSL/TLS is that may interest some here
1341 2013-02-22 16:16:08 <helo> TD: i thought the same, but couldn't think of a particular reason why
1342 2013-02-22 16:16:42 <Scrat> if more miners stop including SD transactions, wont they have to eventually drop the spam due to the increasing amount of finney attacks?
1343 2013-02-22 16:16:43 <TD> helo: http://code.google.com/p/bitcoinj/wiki/SecurityModel
1344 2013-02-22 16:17:08 ahbritto_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1345 2013-02-22 16:17:24 <helo> ahh nice
1346 2013-02-22 16:17:31 <Scrat> drop the spam = stop using transactions for messaging
1347 2013-02-22 16:17:35 t7 has joined
1348 2013-02-22 16:17:46 ahbritto has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1349 2013-02-22 16:18:05 ahbritto has joined
1350 2013-02-22 16:19:36 etotheipi_ has joined
1351 2013-02-22 16:21:12 grau has joined
1352 2013-02-22 16:22:15 <MC1984> transactions for messaging?
1353 2013-02-22 16:22:18 Eleuthria has joined
1354 2013-02-22 16:22:44 freakazoid has joined
1355 2013-02-22 16:22:55 <ProfMac> rather than dropping the SD transactions, the community could steadily raise a "miner's fee" threshold-for-inclusion for SD over an extended time period.
1356 2013-02-22 16:24:01 <Scrat> but I guess then SD can move to generated addresses and the cat'n'mouse begins
1357 2013-02-22 16:24:27 <Scrat> MC1984: I randomly press keys and words come out
1358 2013-02-22 16:24:36 <Scrat> MC1984: you know what I'm talking about
1359 2013-02-22 16:24:53 <MC1984> nope
1360 2013-02-22 16:25:18 <helo> i think dropping SD transactions to the extent that it affects SD's bottom line is not a worthwhile endeavour, as SD could just start using per-user per-day addresses
1361 2013-02-22 16:25:54 <helo> so requiring special fees for SD transactions would probably be the same
1362 2013-02-22 16:27:12 davout has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1363 2013-02-22 16:27:26 <helo> we just have to encourage legit use of bitcoin until blocks fill and fees rise
1364 2013-02-22 16:31:37 ashams has joined
1365 2013-02-22 16:31:37 ashams has quit (Changing host)
1366 2013-02-22 16:31:37 ashams has joined
1367 2013-02-22 16:31:37 inlikeflynn has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1368 2013-02-22 16:31:51 <HM> that bitcoinj page is excellent
1369 2013-02-22 16:32:00 inlikeflynn has joined
1370 2013-02-22 16:32:54 <helo> yes it is
1371 2013-02-22 16:33:06 <HM> "Because bitcoinj apps do not accept incoming connections, the peers you talk to are always randomly selected at startup (based on DNS seeds today). "
1372 2013-02-22 16:34:05 <HM> random for sufficiently poor values of random :P
1373 2013-02-22 16:34:07 toffoo has joined
1374 2013-02-22 16:34:12 Eleuthria has left ()
1375 2013-02-22 16:34:50 <sipa> ProfMac: yes, recent SSH supports ECDSA/ECDH, but they use a different curve than bitcoin
1376 2013-02-22 16:34:59 <HM> r1?
1377 2013-02-22 16:35:25 meLon has quit (Quit: leaving)
1378 2013-02-22 16:35:32 <sipa> they use the nist curves, i think
1379 2013-02-22 16:35:44 meLon has joined
1380 2013-02-22 16:35:56 <sipa> and nist-p256 is secp256r1 indeed
1381 2013-02-22 16:37:07 <gmaxwell> ~.
1382 2013-02-22 16:37:56 <sipa> afaik
1383 2013-02-22 16:38:26 <gmaxwell> (that was just me disconnecting ssh, not disagreeing)
1384 2013-02-22 16:39:38 <sipa> still weird... curves of 192, 224, 256, 384 and 521 bits
1385 2013-02-22 16:39:45 <sipa> and it's really 521, and not 512
1386 2013-02-22 16:39:56 <sipa> well, fields
1387 2013-02-22 16:40:19 <HM> 521 is prime
1388 2013-02-22 16:40:46 <sipa> eh, so?
1389 2013-02-22 16:41:18 <HM> no idea
1390 2013-02-22 16:42:22 <HM> it's also a mersenne prime
1391 2013-02-22 16:43:00 <HM> either that's relevant or they thought it was cool
1392 2013-02-22 16:44:50 <sipa> i really wonder whether this wasn't caused by someone in some standard committee once making a typo
1393 2013-02-22 16:44:59 <sipa> and everyone copying it to be compliant
1394 2013-02-22 16:45:40 <HM> judging by how a lot of crypto standards have evolved, i would buy that story
1395 2013-02-22 16:46:39 <gmaxwell> petertodd: Did you someplace propose something like the MSFT I just added to the top of https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/User:Gmaxwell/alt_ideas ? (If so, point me to it and I'll add a link)
1396 2013-02-22 16:47:24 <gmaxwell> HM: more importantly, it's a safe prime, isn't it?
1397 2013-02-22 16:47:33 taha has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1398 2013-02-22 16:47:51 <HM> I dunno. Only optimus makes me feel safe.
1399 2013-02-22 16:47:59 <HM> (I don't know what a safe prime is)
1400 2013-02-22 16:48:34 <gmaxwell> HM: if only there were a free online encyclopedia.
1401 2013-02-22 16:48:54 <HM> how can be 521 be a safe prime
1402 2013-02-22 16:49:09 <devrandom> hi TD
1403 2013-02-22 16:49:12 <HM> wikipedia disagrees
1404 2013-02-22 16:49:52 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1405 2013-02-22 16:49:56 <gmaxwell> HM: I thought you were saying the field was a mersenne prime, and if it were, it would be because it was a safe prime.
1406 2013-02-22 16:50:27 <gmaxwell> or not. early here. :)
1407 2013-02-22 16:50:56 <HM> nah just 521 itself. if 2^521 is bigger than the largest known mersenne prime
1408 2013-02-22 16:51:39 <HM> don't test me, you'll reveal my ignorance :P
1409 2013-02-22 16:51:48 t7 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1410 2013-02-22 16:53:03 <gmaxwell> uh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_prime#List_of_known_Mersenne_primes see row 13.
1411 2013-02-22 16:53:11 CeidaFighter has quit (Quit: ["Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com"])
1412 2013-02-22 16:53:44 <HM> i was calling 'p' the mersenne prime
1413 2013-02-22 16:54:06 <sipa> http://xkcd.com/903/
1414 2013-02-22 16:55:05 <HM> :P
1415 2013-02-22 16:55:25 jdnavarro has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1416 2013-02-22 16:55:27 <gmaxwell> HM: in any case, P-521 _is_ the 13th mersenne prime. So thats why its 521 and not 512. Start your black helecoptor spotting now.
1417 2013-02-22 16:56:07 <HM> lol, sipa is the one who was curious about why it's 521
1418 2013-02-22 16:56:10 <ProfMac> it's not limited to *crypto* standard's committees.
1419 2013-02-22 16:56:42 <HM> i knew 521 was prime and related to mersennes, that's all
1420 2013-02-22 16:57:45 <grau> I am a free man now! Resigned to be able to build what I think my destiny is in full time.
1421 2013-02-22 16:58:14 <ProfMac> A friend was testing some network uptime software. He needed a network. Despite his usually extraordinary caution, he decided to look at gary7.nsa.gov. (Do not do this at home.) The black helicopters visited his house, then the next day my house.
1422 2013-02-22 17:04:29 <HM> I'm more of a zeppelin spotter
1423 2013-02-22 17:04:51 <HM> nothing says evil genius like a dirigible
1424 2013-02-22 17:05:50 WolfAlex has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1425 2013-02-22 17:06:42 WolfAlex has joined
1426 2013-02-22 17:09:09 da2ce7_d has joined
1427 2013-02-22 17:11:00 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1428 2013-02-22 17:15:07 dust-otc has joined
1429 2013-02-22 17:19:58 andytoshi has joined
1430 2013-02-22 17:22:27 tcatm has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
1431 2013-02-22 17:22:44 tcatm has joined
1432 2013-02-22 17:24:55 <etotheipi_> grau: congrats!
1433 2013-02-22 17:25:12 <etotheipi_> grau: how'd you make the decision? are you supporting yourself?
1434 2013-02-22 17:26:02 <jgarzik> grau: cool :)
1435 2013-02-22 17:26:08 <grau> Thanks, this is probably the crasiest decision I made. Yes, I use my savings. Hopefully temporarly
1436 2013-02-22 17:26:32 * gmaxwell greps log to figure out whats going on
1437 2013-02-22 17:26:50 <etotheipi_> grau: I know the feeling... I've been pondering something similar, myself
1438 2013-02-22 17:27:02 <etotheipi_> but I haven't reached that level of craziness, yet :)
1439 2013-02-22 17:27:10 <gmaxwell> grau: congrats! I wish you tremendous success in your endeavors!
1440 2013-02-22 17:27:15 <grau> It is simply to describe. It is freedom
1441 2013-02-22 17:27:19 rdymac has joined
1442 2013-02-22 17:27:42 <grau> Thanks a lot. I hope it will be beneficial to all of you too.
1443 2013-02-22 17:29:26 <jgarzik> 1. spend savings on bitcoins and beer 2. ??? 3. Profit!~
1444 2013-02-22 17:29:28 <etotheipi_> grau, you got a wife?
1445 2013-02-22 17:30:12 <grau> Yes, and four kids.
1446 2013-02-22 17:30:34 <etotheipi_> oh wow... how'd she feel about this decision? (please tell me you've told her already...)
1447 2013-02-22 17:31:40 <novusordo> System error: CDB() : can't open database file wallet.dat, error -30974
1448 2013-02-22 17:31:43 <etotheipi_> if I'm going to do something like that, I gotta get through my fiancee
1449 2013-02-22 17:31:45 <grau> She is nervous. You know this programmed with their genes. They want a man supporting
1450 2013-02-22 17:32:58 <gavinandresen> tell her programmers can always get a job, and give her a specific milestone that, if you don't reach, you promise to go get a paying job.
1451 2013-02-22 17:33:15 <grau> But Icalmed her by saying that now I will visit all school programs, pick the kids up from the school etc.
1452 2013-02-22 17:33:17 <etotheipi_> gavinandresen++
1453 2013-02-22 17:33:29 <etotheipi_> it's a tough sell
1454 2013-02-22 17:33:32 <etotheipi_> but it's true
1455 2013-02-22 17:33:35 <gavinandresen> at least, that worked to keep my marital harmony in the several times I've quit a well-paying job to take a risk
1456 2013-02-22 17:34:05 <etotheipi_> gavinandresen: perhaps we're a little spoiled though -- all of us here emit pure competence and would have no problem finding another job if needed
1457 2013-02-22 17:34:30 <grau> :))
1458 2013-02-22 17:34:33 gruvfunk has joined
1459 2013-02-22 17:34:56 <gavinandresen> even pretty mediocre programmers have a pretty easy time finding jobs around where I live
1460 2013-02-22 17:35:10 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: 2. ??? < is sell beercans for scrap metal
1461 2013-02-22 17:35:34 <etotheipi_> gavinandresen: where do you live?
1462 2013-02-22 17:35:40 <gavinandresen> (not that mediocre programmers should quit their jobs and do a startup.. they definitely shouldn't)
1463 2013-02-22 17:36:00 <gavinandresen> etotheipi_: western massachusetts -- Amherst
1464 2013-02-22 17:36:06 <grau> Thats a global phenomenon. I resigned as a manager and my toughest job was to find talent in ever increasing quantities.
1465 2013-02-22 17:36:18 root2 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1466 2013-02-22 17:36:36 <etotheipi_> my only fear is that quitting my job to work on Armory means that I would spend 80 hours a week in pajamas with three 24" monitors
1467 2013-02-22 17:36:51 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: then don't do that.
1468 2013-02-22 17:36:52 <etotheipi_> I don't know if I could bring myself to *actually go somewhere to get a paycheck*
1469 2013-02-22 17:37:18 <MC1984> spend 80 hours a week in pajamas with three 24" monitors
1470 2013-02-22 17:37:24 <MC1984> wait, you can get paid for that?
1471 2013-02-22 17:37:47 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: some people who don't work out of a regular office do things like working from a library or coffee shop, if nothing else to make it clear to people around the house (and themselves) that they're actually working.
1472 2013-02-22 17:37:48 <grau> Some girls getting paid for that :)
1473 2013-02-22 17:37:49 <etotheipi_> MC1984: not yet... I'm still figuring out how
1474 2013-02-22 17:38:06 <gmaxwell> MC1984: the paid part is step 2 in jeff's above plan.
1475 2013-02-22 17:38:31 <MC1984> reminds me of day trading
1476 2013-02-22 17:38:47 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: I would agree with you, except that I already spend like 40 hours a week doing that and I'm exceptionally productive (when IRC is closed :))
1477 2013-02-22 17:38:53 <helo> it kind of is
1478 2013-02-22 17:38:53 robocoin has joined
1479 2013-02-22 17:40:00 <etotheipi_> but it's true I would have to send my fiancee on cruises with her occasionally to create some distraction-free time spans
1480 2013-02-22 17:40:06 <etotheipi_> *with her sister
1481 2013-02-22 17:40:28 <etotheipi_> I'll consider it a business expense
1482 2013-02-22 17:40:34 <MC1984> lol
1483 2013-02-22 17:41:39 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: you might need one of these: http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/famous-small-offthegrid-worksp-140587
1484 2013-02-22 17:41:54 <etotheipi_> ooh, dexter shed
1485 2013-02-22 17:42:00 <etotheipi_> good idea
1486 2013-02-22 17:43:30 <etotheipi_> ooh, except I live in a condo...
1487 2013-02-22 17:44:33 <MC1984> what is a condo anyway
1488 2013-02-22 17:44:43 <etotheipi_> MC1984: it's an apartment you own
1489 2013-02-22 17:45:17 <MC1984> oh
1490 2013-02-22 17:45:22 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: could be on someone elses property. :)
1491 2013-02-22 17:45:26 <MC1984> we just call that flats
1492 2013-02-22 17:48:47 ashams has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1493 2013-02-22 17:51:03 ovidiusoft has joined
1494 2013-02-22 17:57:15 <etotheipi_> wow, BitcoinStore just got a whole ton more stuff... they might actually cover a lot of uses for Bitcoins, now
1495 2013-02-22 17:57:38 J6So4W7Yb has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1496 2013-02-22 17:58:05 <jgarzik> etotheipi_: I bought a bunch of stuff from their 'home & appliance' section
1497 2013-02-22 17:58:08 J6So4W7Yb has joined
1498 2013-02-22 17:58:26 <etotheipi_> I mean, it's not just niche market stuff... they have a lot of in-demand stuff, now
1499 2013-02-22 17:58:35 <etotheipi_> impressive
1500 2013-02-22 17:58:56 <etotheipi_> (and yeah, I just bought a 24" monitor from them)
1501 2013-02-22 18:00:27 root2 has joined
1502 2013-02-22 18:00:39 <jgarzik> Sometimes, your satellite gets knocked over during construction, costing an additional $135 million in repairs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOAA-19
1503 2013-02-22 18:00:58 <jgarzik> etotheipi_: yeah, BitcoinStore has a bunch of brand names
1504 2013-02-22 18:00:58 <helo> bitcoinstore.com?
1505 2013-02-22 18:01:01 <jgarzik> yes
1506 2013-02-22 18:01:18 <jgarzik> <OneMiner> Windows 7 64 bit here. Qt was fine before, but as soon as I brought up the window it crashed on me several times.
1507 2013-02-22 18:01:27 <jgarzik> quijibo: 0.8.0?
1508 2013-02-22 18:01:31 <jgarzik> grrrr
1509 2013-02-22 18:01:35 <jgarzik> Question: 0.8.0?
1510 2013-02-22 18:01:41 <jgarzik> <OneMiner> jgarzik Yes, updated about two days ago, no problems up until this point.
1511 2013-02-22 18:08:48 ashams has joined
1512 2013-02-22 18:09:16 reizuki__ has joined
1513 2013-02-22 18:09:16 reizuki__ has quit (Changing host)
1514 2013-02-22 18:09:16 reizuki__ has joined
1515 2013-02-22 18:13:08 Apexseals has joined
1516 2013-02-22 18:14:00 Grishnakh has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1517 2013-02-22 18:15:20 Grishnakh has joined
1518 2013-02-22 18:15:35 btcven has joined
1519 2013-02-22 18:15:40 OneMiner has joined
1520 2013-02-22 18:16:23 btcven has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1521 2013-02-22 18:16:29 rdymac has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1522 2013-02-22 18:17:45 Guest74588 is now known as swappermall
1523 2013-02-22 18:18:06 <jgarzik> Pastebin from OneMiner's Windows 7 64-bit crash: http://pastebin.com/cT3tzKja
1524 2013-02-22 18:18:19 <jgarzik> no obvious "exception" logged before crash
1525 2013-02-22 18:18:25 <jgarzik> sipa: ^
1526 2013-02-22 18:20:37 <jgarzik> OneMiner: At the mid-point it looks like you ran two copies,
1527 2013-02-22 18:20:39 <jgarzik> Error: Cannot obtain a lock on data directory C:\Users\dktdkdt\AppData\Roaming\Bitcoin. Bitcoin is probably already running.
1528 2013-02-22 18:20:54 <jgarzik> OneMiner: was that after the crashing started?
1529 2013-02-22 18:21:45 daybyter has joined
1530 2013-02-22 18:21:47 <OneMiner> Yes, I had two of the icons in my taskbar at one point. It was after the crashing started.
1531 2013-02-22 18:22:13 btcven has joined
1532 2013-02-22 18:22:39 <TD> devrandom: hey
1533 2013-02-22 18:22:44 <OneMiner> Running latest p2pool, updated to 0.8.0 about two days ago. No problems between update to now.
1534 2013-02-22 18:24:03 <gmaxwell> OneMiner: but do you know when you started the second copy? I'm wondering if an attempt to start a second copy is what triggered the crashes?
1535 2013-02-22 18:24:35 <TD> grau: congrats! i wish you the best
1536 2013-02-22 18:24:45 <TD> grau: you'll be doing general bitcoin consulting or specifically writing bitsofproof?
1537 2013-02-22 18:25:00 <TD> devrandom: so, want some work to do? :
1538 2013-02-22 18:25:01 <TD> :)
1539 2013-02-22 18:25:39 <TD> devrandom: cuz partial chains is the next highest feature priority for bitcoinj
1540 2013-02-22 18:25:44 none is now known as BitcoinG
1541 2013-02-22 18:25:54 <gmaxwell> TD: partial chains?
1542 2013-02-22 18:26:04 <TD> only store the last N block headers
1543 2013-02-22 18:26:12 <grau> TD: I hope to build bitsofproof to a platform for merchants. I will do whatever it takes to live provided it is connected with bitcoin.
1544 2013-02-22 18:26:19 <TD> grau: cool!
1545 2013-02-22 18:26:29 * TD is pondering a similar move
1546 2013-02-22 18:26:56 <helo> if only...
1547 2013-02-22 18:27:52 <OneMiner> QT seemed to crash as soon as I highlighted the window. First crash was when I repoened the window from the notification area.
1548 2013-02-22 18:27:56 i2pRelay has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1549 2013-02-22 18:27:59 <grau> TD: Its a great feeling, but though decision. You have great reputation to build on within the community.
1550 2013-02-22 18:28:24 <grau> TD: Throwing away a good job however is not simple. I can tell.
1551 2013-02-22 18:28:36 <TD> *nod*. yes and google is an especially hard company to leave
1552 2013-02-22 18:28:56 <OneMiner> P2pool had been running fine right up until I selected the QT window. Then it lost it's connection.
1553 2013-02-22 18:28:57 <grau> TD: its probably only harder to get in :)
1554 2013-02-22 18:29:00 <devrandom> TD: will look into it after the current work stuff slows down a bit
1555 2013-02-22 18:29:09 <petertodd> TD: were you doing bitcoinj on 20% time?
1556 2013-02-22 18:29:10 <TD> devrandom: cool, thanks. i'm focusing on bugfixing for a while anyway
1557 2013-02-22 18:29:16 <TD> petertodd: yeah. and spare time too.
1558 2013-02-22 18:29:48 <petertodd> TD: godo that they let you; I know 20% isn't "do anything" time
1559 2013-02-22 18:29:52 <petertodd> *good
1560 2013-02-22 18:30:00 <TD> yes. it's a very open minded company in many ways
1561 2013-02-22 18:30:53 <petertodd> I interviewed with them a few years back, I was very impressed
1562 2013-02-22 18:32:03 btcven has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1563 2013-02-22 18:32:24 <OneMiner> I'm going to stop bitcoind, wait for a minute and then try to run QT again.
1564 2013-02-22 18:32:30 i2pRelay has joined
1565 2013-02-22 18:32:37 * TD has done >200 interviews there over the years
1566 2013-02-22 18:32:39 <gmaxwell> OneMiner: you're running bitcoind and bitcoin-qt at the same time?
1567 2013-02-22 18:33:21 <OneMiner> gmaxwell No, I started D after the crashing. QT is not running now.
1568 2013-02-22 18:33:22 <petertodd> TD: yeah, they do peer ones right? I had one guy who was in his first month or two
1569 2013-02-22 18:33:36 <TD> yeah
1570 2013-02-22 18:34:53 rdymac has joined
1571 2013-02-22 18:36:42 <OneMiner> QT crashed again. I saw that it had made 6 connections and then it failed suddenly. I'll make a new paste.
1572 2013-02-22 18:39:40 <OneMiner> http://pastebin.com/QPw31wx3 So at the start of the paste we have bitcoind running with no problems, then I run QT and it crashes, lastly I start D again. Bitcoind running now with no issues.
1573 2013-02-22 18:40:20 <jgarzik> OneMiner: so you run bitcoind, then run QT, without first stopping bitcoind?
1574 2013-02-22 18:40:37 <jgarzik> OneMiner: if yes, that is the problem
1575 2013-02-22 18:41:06 <jgarzik> OneMiner: bitcoind and Bitcoin-QT cannot share the same data directory at the same time
1576 2013-02-22 18:41:19 <jgarzik> OneMiner: no matter which is run first
1577 2013-02-22 18:41:21 toffoo has quit ()
1578 2013-02-22 18:41:25 <gmaxwell> nor is there any reason to run bitcoind and bitcoinqt at the same time.. bitcoin-qt is a superset of bitcoind.
1579 2013-02-22 18:41:32 <OneMiner> jgarzik No I stoped bitcoind for 1.5 minutes before running QT. At the time of the first crash I had never run bitcond.
1580 2013-02-22 18:42:04 <gmaxwell> OneMiner: how do you know its crashing?
1581 2013-02-22 18:42:14 <gmaxwell> OneMiner: does it still crash if you stop p2pool?
1582 2013-02-22 18:42:34 <jgarzik> the log does show a couple abrupt stops
1583 2013-02-22 18:42:42 <OneMiner> To be super clear. I once had two QTs in the notification area but never have I run D and QT at once.
1584 2013-02-22 18:42:48 <jgarzik> before the "is another copy running" message
1585 2013-02-22 18:43:01 <OneMiner> gmaxwell Windows notifies me of a crash.
1586 2013-02-22 18:43:07 <OneMiner> I'll test without p2pool now.
1587 2013-02-22 18:43:10 <gmaxwell> great, what does windows say?
1588 2013-02-22 18:43:37 <gmaxwell> Does it throw out some mistical runes?
1589 2013-02-22 18:43:54 <OneMiner> haha runes
1590 2013-02-22 18:45:31 <OneMiner> Ok, I've got runes like timestamp, exception code, exception code offset, ect. I guess I'll pastebin this junk too.
1591 2013-02-22 18:46:05 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1592 2013-02-22 18:47:15 <OneMiner> http://pastebin.com/19QiwSY3
1593 2013-02-22 18:49:37 <OneMiner> QT just crashed again without p2pool running. Want a pastebin of that? If not I'm going to restart and try again.
1594 2013-02-22 18:49:51 BTCTrader has joined
1595 2013-02-22 18:50:46 BTCTrader has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1596 2013-02-22 18:51:05 BTCTrader has joined
1597 2013-02-22 18:51:05 BTCTrader has quit (Changing host)
1598 2013-02-22 18:51:05 BTCTrader has joined
1599 2013-02-22 18:52:36 <OneMiner> Runes from latest crash are identical.
1600 2013-02-22 18:52:42 <OneMiner> brb restart.
1601 2013-02-22 18:52:43 <muhoo> grau: what is bitsofproof?
1602 2013-02-22 18:53:51 <grau> muhoo: It is a modular bitcoin implementation in java, built to serve unique use cases. https://github.com/bitsofproof/supernode/wiki
1603 2013-02-22 18:54:17 <muhoo> hmm, so like bitcoinj, but not?
1604 2013-02-22 18:54:20 OneMiner has quit (Quit: Not that there is anything wrong with that)
1605 2013-02-22 18:55:10 <muhoo> i was just rolling up my sleeves to make bitcoinj do that stuff (merchant back end)
1606 2013-02-22 18:55:22 <muhoo> maybe i shouldn't.
1607 2013-02-22 18:58:49 Pasha has joined
1608 2013-02-22 18:58:51 Cory has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1609 2013-02-22 18:59:14 <grau> bitcoinj is primarely SPV, full node recently added. bitsofproof is full node but not yet in production. It will however be easier to taylor to your needs since radically modular not only in code but it separates modules through a communication bus.
1610 2013-02-22 19:00:26 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1611 2013-02-22 19:01:34 * muhoo indulges in a bout of analysis paralysis
1612 2013-02-22 19:01:49 dust-otc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1613 2013-02-22 19:03:53 Pasha is now known as Cory
1614 2013-02-22 19:05:11 OneMiner has joined
1615 2013-02-22 19:05:49 <OneMiner> QT is up and running with no crashes from a fresh restart. So maybe it was just Windows getting wierd on us.
1616 2013-02-22 19:06:22 <OneMiner> I'm going to fire up my miner and see if things still look good.
1617 2013-02-22 19:06:52 celr has joined
1618 2013-02-22 19:07:44 freakazoid has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1619 2013-02-22 19:08:55 rdymac has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1620 2013-02-22 19:12:07 rdymac has joined
1621 2013-02-22 19:12:40 <OneMiner> Ok, p2pool up and running, everything looking good. I'll come running back if the same problem comes up though.
1622 2013-02-22 19:13:23 WolfAlex_ has joined
1623 2013-02-22 19:14:35 WolfAlex has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1624 2013-02-22 19:16:42 <jgarzik> OneMiner: great, I was going to suggest a fresh restart, just to make certain there are no extra QT processes running at the same time
1625 2013-02-22 19:18:02 <gmaxwell> ;;ticker
1626 2013-02-22 19:18:02 <gribble> BTCUSD ticker | Best bid: 31.11002, Best ask: 31.17999, Bid-ask spread: 0.06997, Last trade: 31.10001, 24 hour volume: 55214.90448082, 24 hour low: 29.67001, 24 hour high: 31.30000, 24 hour vwap: 30.33148
1627 2013-02-22 19:20:22 viro has joined
1628 2013-02-22 19:22:05 ralphtheninja has quit (Quit: leaving)
1629 2013-02-22 19:22:55 [\\\] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1630 2013-02-22 19:24:00 FredEE has joined
1631 2013-02-22 19:24:42 [\\\] has joined
1632 2013-02-22 19:29:16 * jgarzik wonders if some network diagnostic bot is sampling my node's knowledge, by sending getblocks messages as I announce blocks
1633 2013-02-22 19:29:34 <jgarzik> it seems so odd that my outgoing-only connections are behind
1634 2013-02-22 19:29:47 <jgarzik> (the remote end of my outgoing cxn, that is)
1635 2013-02-22 19:30:08 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: behind by what definition?
1636 2013-02-22 19:30:12 <phantomcircuit> is there a python leveldb wrapper?
1637 2013-02-22 19:30:24 <gmaxwell> by starting height? I'd just assume it was because they were the oldest and longest lived connections.
1638 2013-02-22 19:30:40 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: needing to query me for blocks as I announce them
1639 2013-02-22 19:31:09 <jgarzik> sending getblocks(-1, 0) limit 500
1640 2013-02-22 19:33:48 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
1641 2013-02-22 19:33:58 celr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1642 2013-02-22 19:40:09 diki has quit ()
1643 2013-02-22 19:42:00 FredEE has quit (Quit: FredEE)
1644 2013-02-22 19:45:37 rdymac has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1645 2013-02-22 19:50:16 <muhoo> jeebus, USD$31. wow. as much as i find satoshidice annoying, i have to suspect that's the "killer app" that is driving BTC price up
1646 2013-02-22 19:50:57 rdymac has joined
1647 2013-02-22 19:51:08 <jrmithdobbs> treb: i haven't tested since before .8 and with 5.1
1648 2013-02-22 19:51:54 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1649 2013-02-22 19:52:29 copumpkin has joined
1650 2013-02-22 19:53:46 <andytoshi> muhoo: i'm sure it's reddit more
1651 2013-02-22 19:53:54 <andytoshi> guys, i'm having truoble with my tor node
1652 2013-02-22 19:54:08 <andytoshi> when i try to directly connect to it, i keep getting
1653 2013-02-22 19:54:08 <andytoshi> SOCKS5 connecting 7vdnytnga3b3lt4h.onion
1654 2013-02-22 19:54:09 <andytoshi> ERROR: Proxy error: connection refused
1655 2013-02-22 19:54:57 <andytoshi> and on the .onion node i see no indictation that a connection was tried
1656 2013-02-22 19:56:04 <jgarzik> muhoo: not sure SatoshiDICE would cause the price to jump $1 every day or two
1657 2013-02-22 19:56:10 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1658 2013-02-22 19:56:47 <dario1> andytoshi: looks like your client node is rejecting the connection
1659 2013-02-22 19:57:01 <dario1> andytoshi: Is tor running there?
1660 2013-02-22 19:57:17 FredEE has joined
1661 2013-02-22 19:58:14 <andytoshi> dario1: yes, it would need to be for me to get the .onion address :P
1662 2013-02-22 19:58:26 <muhoo> jgarzik: would be interesting to see their new user and activity stats, and compare their rate of growth to btc's in general
1663 2013-02-22 19:58:27 * andytoshi checks that it's still running..
1664 2013-02-22 19:58:37 <andytoshi> yup
1665 2013-02-22 19:59:07 <dario1> andytoshi: I mean in your client node, not your server
1666 2013-02-22 19:59:23 <muhoo> andytoshi: true, and also the hype around the asics, and general snowball/network effects (internet archive paying in btc, etc)
1667 2013-02-22 19:59:26 <andytoshi> oh, yes, i'm using it right now for IRC
1668 2013-02-22 20:00:16 <dario1> andytoshi: And your bitcoin client is configured to use it?
1669 2013-02-22 20:00:45 <andytoshi> yes
1670 2013-02-22 20:00:59 <andytoshi> on the node, telnet localhost 8333 gives 'connection refused'
1671 2013-02-22 20:01:05 <andytoshi> i'm sure that's the problem..
1672 2013-02-22 20:01:23 <dario1> andytoshi: It may not be listening
1673 2013-02-22 20:01:51 <andytoshi> hmm, i've got 'listen=true' in my bitcoin.conf
1674 2013-02-22 20:02:06 <andytoshi> but i've also got 'daemon=true' and that seems to be ignored
1675 2013-02-22 20:02:20 <dario1> andytoshi: Yeah, I got connection refused too
1676 2013-02-22 20:02:42 davout has joined
1677 2013-02-22 20:02:42 davout has quit (Changing host)
1678 2013-02-22 20:02:42 davout has joined
1679 2013-02-22 20:02:44 <andytoshi> derp, those 'true's should be 1's
1680 2013-02-22 20:02:51 * andytoshi facepalms
1681 2013-02-22 20:02:52 <andytoshi> i betcha it works now..
1682 2013-02-22 20:03:54 freakazoid has joined
1683 2013-02-22 20:03:54 <andytoshi> yep, thanks for your help dario1, sorry to be a goof
1684 2013-02-22 20:04:07 <dario1> andytoshi: ;)
1685 2013-02-22 20:05:11 <dario1> andytoshi: btw, it did work now :)
1686 2013-02-22 20:05:21 owowo has joined
1687 2013-02-22 20:06:13 <MC1984> Replace hard-coded maximum block size (1,000,000 bytes) and maximum number of signature operations per block (20,000) with ???.
1688 2013-02-22 20:06:20 <MC1984> i think that about sums up the debate
1689 2013-02-22 20:07:07 PhantomSpark has joined
1690 2013-02-22 20:08:26 <andytoshi> dario1: awesome, thx, that's one more step toward there being enough hidden service nodes
1691 2013-02-22 20:10:24 etotheipi_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1692 2013-02-22 20:10:38 rbecker is now known as RBecker
1693 2013-02-22 20:12:18 etotheipi_ has joined
1694 2013-02-22 20:12:18 Goonie has left ()
1695 2013-02-22 20:14:59 phma_ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1696 2013-02-22 20:18:40 <jaakkos> are transaction malleability fixes coming at some point?
1697 2013-02-22 20:18:57 <jaakkos> i was just thinking, because a random attacker is cancelling other people's sdice bets atm
1698 2013-02-22 20:19:06 <jaakkos> the refwallet allows one to spend unconfirmed change
1699 2013-02-22 20:19:16 <jaakkos> such transactions can also be cancelled by a random attacker
1700 2013-02-22 20:20:02 freakazoid_ has joined
1701 2013-02-22 20:20:09 <jaakkos> which might be quite unfortunate, let's say you buy twice in a cafe, second purchase with unconfirmed change - then a random guy cancels your transaction - then the clerk holds you responsible for the attack...
1702 2013-02-22 20:20:22 freakazoid has quit (Disconnected by services)
1703 2013-02-22 20:20:29 <HM> and makes you wash the dishes
1704 2013-02-22 20:20:44 freakazoid_ is now known as freakazoid
1705 2013-02-22 20:21:13 <jaakkos> yes
1706 2013-02-22 20:23:28 RBecker is now known as rbecker
1707 2013-02-22 20:23:29 rbecker is now known as RBecker
1708 2013-02-22 20:25:33 <andytoshi> jaakkos: what would these "transaction malleability fixes" look like?
1709 2013-02-22 20:26:03 <andytoshi> if you don't set a sequence number, transactions are valid on a "first one seen is the legit one" basis
1710 2013-02-22 20:26:19 <andytoshi> at least for the standard client node
1711 2013-02-22 20:27:10 <jaakkos> the fixes... well, perhaps the signature format should be made unambiguous
1712 2013-02-22 20:27:23 <jaakkos> the sdice attacker eg. is appending a zero in front of the sig to change the txhash
1713 2013-02-22 20:27:30 Cory has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1714 2013-02-22 20:27:34 <Luke-Jr> jaakkos: good. SDice needs to be killed off.
1715 2013-02-22 20:27:52 <jaakkos> Luke-Jr: but other services could also be affected
1716 2013-02-22 20:28:42 <Luke-Jr> jaakkos: the only real problem I've seen from it, is the inability of Bitcoin-Qt to cope; that's a bug IMO
1717 2013-02-22 20:28:59 <etotheipi_> it could certainly affect the security of this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=25786.0
1718 2013-02-22 20:29:16 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1719 2013-02-22 20:29:24 Cory has joined
1720 2013-02-22 20:29:28 <etotheipi_> you get the other party to sign B sending money back to yourself before you broadcast A so you can broadcast them together
1721 2013-02-22 20:30:12 <etotheipi_> but then the other party sees A and changes its hash before rebroadcasting
1722 2013-02-22 20:30:22 <etotheipi_> then B, sending coins back to yourself, is invalid
1723 2013-02-22 20:30:41 <andytoshi> etotheipi_: yeah, yikes
1724 2013-02-22 20:30:43 <etotheipi_> it's not *easy*, but it's certainly a concern
1725 2013-02-22 20:30:50 <andytoshi> i didn't realize the signature format was ambiguous
1726 2013-02-22 20:30:52 <andytoshi> ..it sounds easy
1727 2013-02-22 20:31:08 <etotheipi_> it's easy to change the hash, it's not easy to get the network to see/accept your modified version
1728 2013-02-22 20:31:15 <etotheipi_> unless you have isolated the original broadcaster
1729 2013-02-22 20:31:25 <jaakkos> ...or have very good connectivity to the network in general?
1730 2013-02-22 20:31:34 <Luke-Jr> etotheipi_: how is that any different than trusting 0 confirms?
1731 2013-02-22 20:31:40 <Luke-Jr> which is NOT supposed to be safe
1732 2013-02-22 20:31:48 <andytoshi> etotheipi_: well, presumably neither party would broadcast their half until necessary, and they trust each other
1733 2013-02-22 20:31:54 <andytoshi> since if somebody does a broadcast, the other can counter
1734 2013-02-22 20:32:01 <jaakkos> it's not safe but the protocol doesn't need to be unnecessarily unsafe
1735 2013-02-22 20:32:06 <etotheipi_> Luke-Jr: it's because the security of that scheme is in the fact that A is not broadcast until you have a signed tx from the other party that sends it back to yourself
1736 2013-02-22 20:32:07 <andytoshi> so there's no point in broadcasting early, you're just wasting blockchain space
1737 2013-02-22 20:32:25 <etotheipi_> it assumes that your signed return transaction guarantees you get your money back
1738 2013-02-22 20:32:40 <Luke-Jr> etotheipi_: so you're accepting 0 confirms
1739 2013-02-22 20:32:44 PhantomSpark has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1740 2013-02-22 20:32:45 <Luke-Jr> etotheipi_: = not safe
1741 2013-02-22 20:32:49 <etotheipi_> Luke-Jr: it's not like that
1742 2013-02-22 20:32:52 <Luke-Jr> it is
1743 2013-02-22 20:32:57 <etotheipi_> in the absence of malleability, this works
1744 2013-02-22 20:33:03 <Luke-Jr> no
1745 2013-02-22 20:33:19 <Luke-Jr> I can just broadcast A and my own different spend of A at the same time
1746 2013-02-22 20:33:28 <Luke-Jr> before you get a chance to broadcast B
1747 2013-02-22 20:33:36 <andytoshi> maybe etotheipi_ and luke should both say what they think they're talking about :}
1748 2013-02-22 20:33:54 <etotheipi_> Luke-Jr: I don't let you see the signed version of A until you sign B
1749 2013-02-22 20:34:00 <Luke-Jr> so?
1750 2013-02-22 20:34:11 <Luke-Jr> signed B is worthless after I broadcast my spend of A
1751 2013-02-22 20:34:20 <etotheipi_> because in the absence of malleability, that guarantees that the 20 BTC i'm sending to this agreement will be returned
1752 2013-02-22 20:34:25 <Luke-Jr> no, it doesn't.
1753 2013-02-22 20:34:32 <Luke-Jr> I'll just double-spend A
1754 2013-02-22 20:34:54 <andytoshi> Luke-Jr: i think there is an escrow uxto involved here that can't be spent except by both parties
1755 2013-02-22 20:34:54 FredEE has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1756 2013-02-22 20:34:55 <Luke-Jr> sure, you can have a signed B
1757 2013-02-22 20:34:58 <etotheipi_> it's a multi-sig tx
1758 2013-02-22 20:35:04 <andytoshi> or maybe i'm the one who's out of the loop..
1759 2013-02-22 20:35:05 <Luke-Jr> but B will be invalid because I confirm alternate-B
1760 2013-02-22 20:35:09 <Luke-Jr> oh
1761 2013-02-22 20:35:14 FredEE has joined
1762 2013-02-22 20:35:22 <Luke-Jr> ok, I missed that point
1763 2013-02-22 20:35:53 <andytoshi> i think the bitcointalk thread fails to mention that, just says "standard escrow setup" and assumes you'll read that as a multisig
1764 2013-02-22 20:36:39 <etotheipi_> oh wait, maybe I misunderstood
1765 2013-02-22 20:37:07 <etotheipi_> post 5 on that thread is where the clarification is
1766 2013-02-22 20:37:12 <etotheipi_> yes, it's is multisig
1767 2013-02-22 20:37:28 <Luke-Jr> >_<
1768 2013-02-22 20:38:16 <etotheipi_> anyways, the point of this was that I really liked this idea, but it's an example where malleability is screwing things up
1769 2013-02-22 20:39:07 <andytoshi> so, to clarify the problem:
1770 2013-02-22 20:39:13 <etotheipi_> on the upside it's for "established business relationships", which generally happens between two parties that have some degree of trust already
1771 2013-02-22 20:41:15 <andytoshi> ...no, i don't quite understand it
1772 2013-02-22 20:41:25 <etotheipi_> haha
1773 2013-02-22 20:42:03 <andytoshi> suppose i want to send etotheipi_ 1BTC --- i spend to some multisig output C (that we both must sign to spend), but don't sign it
1774 2013-02-22 20:42:16 ralphtheninja has joined
1775 2013-02-22 20:42:23 <andytoshi> etotheipi_ sees this, signs a transaction spending from C to himself
1776 2013-02-22 20:42:58 <etotheipi_> I send 20 BTC to 2-of-2 between you and me (A and B)... then we both sign a locked transaction sending that right back to me
1777 2013-02-22 20:42:59 <andytoshi> no, that's not right
1778 2013-02-22 20:43:18 <etotheipi_> if we do nothing else, I can broadcast the locked tx and in 30 days I get my money back
1779 2013-02-22 20:43:54 <andytoshi> so a sequence number is set to allow us to do other stuff?
1780 2013-02-22 20:43:54 <etotheipi_> but if I want to pay you money, I sign a *replacement* tx, that sends me back only 19 BTC
1781 2013-02-22 20:44:14 <etotheipi_> nothing is broadcast yet
1782 2013-02-22 20:44:32 <etotheipi_> but you can just hold onto it
1783 2013-02-22 20:44:47 <etotheipi_> and every time I want to send you 1 BTC, I just give you another replacement sending 1 BTC less to myself
1784 2013-02-22 20:44:58 <etotheipi_> (and the remaining being sent to you)
1785 2013-02-22 20:45:12 <andytoshi> OK, i understand now, didn't realize we were doing the sequence/nLockTime dance
1786 2013-02-22 20:45:15 <andytoshi> i thought this was something different
1787 2013-02-22 20:45:32 <etotheipi_> yeah, it does rely on replacement before a locktime
1788 2013-02-22 20:45:51 toffoo has joined
1789 2013-02-22 20:45:53 <etotheipi_> it's a pretty elegant solution ... except the initial "seeding" of this arrangement is vulnerable to malleability
1790 2013-02-22 20:46:01 <andytoshi> SO, now that we've agreed on the procedure, how does malleability screw it up?
1791 2013-02-22 20:46:13 owowo has quit (Quit: sayonara)
1792 2013-02-22 20:46:19 <etotheipi_> because I get you to sign B sending money back to me... B spends A
1793 2013-02-22 20:46:43 <etotheipi_> I don't broadcast A until you sign B so I know the money comes back to me
1794 2013-02-22 20:46:53 <andytoshi> ohh, i see
1795 2013-02-22 20:47:01 <etotheipi_> but if A's hash changes, then B is invalid
1796 2013-02-22 20:47:25 WolfAlex has joined
1797 2013-02-22 20:47:30 <etotheipi_> oh wait, I botched it... it's not that bad
1798 2013-02-22 20:47:43 <etotheipi_> the money goes to a multi-sig tx
1799 2013-02-22 20:47:50 Jackneill has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1800 2013-02-22 20:48:05 <etotheipi_> so it would make B invalid, but you can't run off with the money
1801 2013-02-22 20:48:24 <andytoshi> ..but you can
1802 2013-02-22 20:48:31 <andytoshi> once you've got the initial "all the money returns to me" transaction, you can later change its hash
1803 2013-02-22 20:48:37 <Luke-Jr> etotheipi_: "sign C giving 90% to me, if you want even 10% back"
1804 2013-02-22 20:49:34 <etotheipi_> andytoshi: that return transaction is actually never broadcast ... only the final one is broadcast
1805 2013-02-22 20:49:51 <etotheipi_> and they're not dependent on one another (besides each subsequent one requiring higher seq numbers)
1806 2013-02-22 20:50:09 WolfAlex_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1807 2013-02-22 20:50:35 <andytoshi> etotheipi_: but suppose we do this, and eventually get to sequence number 20 or something
1808 2013-02-22 20:50:39 <andytoshi> if you were to try to broadcast seq 0, i'd broadcast seq 20 to stop you
1809 2013-02-22 20:50:42 viro has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1810 2013-02-22 20:50:51 <andytoshi> BUT if you were to broadcast seq 0 with a modified hash, i'd have no way to stop you
1811 2013-02-22 20:50:52 <etotheipi_> andytoshi: that's the point
1812 2013-02-22 20:50:59 <etotheipi_> wait, what?
1813 2013-02-22 20:51:19 <etotheipi_> I can change it's hash, not its sequence number
1814 2013-02-22 20:51:23 <andytoshi> you pay me all this money, then renege later
1815 2013-02-22 20:51:35 <etotheipi_> your seq 20 tx is still "more valid" than my seq 0 tx
1816 2013-02-22 20:52:10 PhantomSpark has joined
1817 2013-02-22 20:52:35 <etotheipi_> the hash of the seq 0 tx doesn't matter... the tx spending the same inputs with the higher sequence numbers wins
1818 2013-02-22 20:53:05 <etotheipi_> Luke-Jr: so yes, there's still some risk of hostage taking
1819 2013-02-22 20:54:12 <etotheipi_> but on the upside -- this agreement is made to assist with "established business relationships"... you probably aren't two random strangers on the street ... you probably know each others' identities
1820 2013-02-22 20:54:26 <etotheipi_> %s/street/internet/g
1821 2013-02-22 20:55:07 mappum has joined
1822 2013-02-22 20:55:31 ralphtheninja has quit (Quit: leaving)
1823 2013-02-22 20:56:01 <etotheipi_> andytoshi: do you see it? it doesn't matter who broadcasts when, as long as the latest sequence number tx is broadcast before the lock time
1824 2013-02-22 20:56:12 <etotheipi_> it will replace all previous versions
1825 2013-02-22 20:57:02 <etotheipi_> I can "broadcast" seq 0, and nodes will hold it in their memory pool without putting it in blocks, until locktime.... if you send out your higher seq tx, they will drop mine and replace it with yours
1826 2013-02-22 20:57:23 <etotheipi_> but if you delay, and locktime passes, then those nodes will start putting mine into a block and you miss your chance to replace it
1827 2013-02-22 21:05:26 <andytoshi> sorry, afk, one sec..
1828 2013-02-22 21:05:55 <andytoshi> etotheipi_: ohh, i see -- i thought the sequence was associated to the transaction, not the txout
1829 2013-02-22 21:05:55 blinkier has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1830 2013-02-22 21:06:12 ashams has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1831 2013-02-22 21:07:27 <etotheipi_> Luke's point was that you could still intercept and rebroadcast A with a different hash, then B is invalid, and thus the coins are stuck
1832 2013-02-22 21:07:40 <etotheipi_> since it was all my money, you didn't lose/risk anything
1833 2013-02-22 21:07:47 <etotheipi_> then you can hold them hostage
1834 2013-02-22 21:08:04 <etotheipi_> "You can get nothing, or you can get 10% and give me the 90%"
1835 2013-02-22 21:09:48 owowo has joined
1836 2013-02-22 21:14:45 <andytoshi> maybe if A includes money from both parties
1837 2013-02-22 21:14:49 <andytoshi> and the initial transaction returns it all
1838 2013-02-22 21:14:54 <andytoshi> you could do a 50/50 split
1839 2013-02-22 21:15:31 <andytoshi> this actually wolud allow "instant spends" in either direction
1840 2013-02-22 21:17:05 <andytoshi> hmm, how to do that..
1841 2013-02-22 21:17:32 <etotheipi_> good point
1842 2013-02-22 21:17:46 <etotheipi_> though the idea was you'd just do this twice, once in each direction
1843 2013-02-22 21:18:19 <etotheipi_> actually, it doesn't work
1844 2013-02-22 21:18:33 <etotheipi_> andytoshi: sorry, mid thought process: you can't do it both ways
1845 2013-02-22 21:19:00 <etotheipi_> here's how it goes
1846 2013-02-22 21:19:18 <etotheipi_> we each put 100 BTC into the 2-of-2, so there's 200 BTC in there, and we both sign a tx sending 100 BTC back to each of us
1847 2013-02-22 21:19:41 <etotheipi_> I want to send you 1 BTC, so I create a new tx and sign it sending you back 101 and me 99
1848 2013-02-22 21:20:16 <andytoshi> i'm concerned about step 1, because the original thing involved hiding the hash of A
1849 2013-02-22 21:20:23 <andytoshi> until the initial "return all" trnsaction was published
1850 2013-02-22 21:20:39 <etotheipi_> nevermind, it might work after all
1851 2013-02-22 21:21:04 <andytoshi> s/published/signed
1852 2013-02-22 21:21:20 <etotheipi_> andytoshi: yeah I get it... it's just that my brain takes 12 steps between each IM, and I don't realize people have no idea what context I'm in :)
1853 2013-02-22 21:21:28 <etotheipi_> mumble mumble
1854 2013-02-22 21:21:39 <andytoshi> haha, i have a whiteboard on my end
1855 2013-02-22 21:21:52 <etotheipi_> actually, I do too, but it's behind me
1856 2013-02-22 21:23:45 <etotheipi_> I was just trying to argue that the both-ways relationship doesn't work
1857 2013-02-22 21:23:53 <etotheipi_> but I think it does
1858 2013-02-22 21:24:10 <andytoshi> i think so too, but i can't figure out exactly how
1859 2013-02-22 21:24:47 <andytoshi> i guess, if you sign the initial transaction and refuse to sign the return transaction, we both lose
1860 2013-02-22 21:25:16 <andytoshi> whereas with the one-way thing, you couldn't do that because i'm hiding the initial transaction until you've signed the return
1861 2013-02-22 21:26:37 <andytoshi> also, now both parties start on equal footing, so i can't talk about "you" and "me" as though we've got different motivations
1862 2013-02-22 21:27:56 <etotheipi_> andytoshi: understood... I think it does work, but my whiteboard is filled with other things...
1863 2013-02-22 21:29:00 <etotheipi_> check to see if that's covered in that thread
1864 2013-02-22 21:29:04 <andytoshi> maybe we can both create private uxto's which -can't- be spent unless they know that a valid initial/return pair exists
1865 2013-02-22 21:29:09 <andytoshi> then the initial transaction would come out of those
1866 2013-02-22 21:29:38 <andytoshi> kk
1867 2013-02-22 21:30:16 <gmaxwell> muhoo: actual usage of SD seems to be fairly low, a majority of its transactions appear to come from just a few participants. At one point something like 90% of the daily income was one party. Though I think that person has since gone broke or learned math.
1868 2013-02-22 21:34:05 <gmaxwell> in any case, fixing malleability completely is quite obnoxious, as you need to postprocess ecdsa signatures or switch all transaction authors to non-standard ecdsa code.
1869 2013-02-22 21:35:17 <gmaxwell> (see also, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2131 )
1870 2013-02-22 21:35:38 <andytoshi> interesting, then the reciever in this escrow setup can always burn money
1871 2013-02-22 21:35:40 <andytoshi> so the 50/50 split is always the best thing to do
1872 2013-02-22 21:36:14 <gmaxwell> andytoshi: why? money may not be of equal value to the participants.
1873 2013-02-22 21:36:35 <gmaxwell> (or trust, for that matter)
1874 2013-02-22 21:36:52 <andytoshi> right, but it's always of postive value
1875 2013-02-22 21:36:56 <andytoshi> so 50/50 is better than 100/0, i should say
1876 2013-02-22 21:38:18 <Luke-Jr> etotheipi_: I like that idea: hold funds from the other party hostage to resolving the situation as well
1877 2013-02-22 21:38:31 <Luke-Jr> so if you lose, so do they
1878 2013-02-22 21:38:53 <gmaxwell> those kinds of escrow are still subject to games of chicken.
1879 2013-02-22 21:39:14 <Luke-Jr> XD
1880 2013-02-22 21:39:29 <andytoshi> oh, interesting..
1881 2013-02-22 21:39:37 <gmaxwell> "F*k you. I'd rather burn the money than not get a 90% refund. Sign this and get 10% or GTFO. Goodbye."
1882 2013-02-22 21:40:04 <andytoshi> "i won't sign this 50/50 transaction, but i will sign a 30/70 one"
1883 2013-02-22 21:40:05 <andytoshi> yep
1884 2013-02-22 21:40:32 <andytoshi> and in gmaxwell's language, i can see that happening exactly if the service was shitty, product broken, etc
1885 2013-02-22 21:42:15 <andytoshi> damn, this really seems like micropayments/escrow can't be done safely
1886 2013-02-22 21:42:33 <lianj> winterblack: 18
1887 2013-02-22 21:42:41 <gmaxwell> andytoshi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0qjK3TWZE8 :P
1888 2013-02-22 21:42:46 <lianj> ups, winterblack sorry
1889 2013-02-22 21:42:58 FredEE_ has joined
1890 2013-02-22 21:43:01 <gmaxwell> andytoshi: it's pretty easy, insert a mediator. They only get invoked a tiny fraction of the time.
1891 2013-02-22 21:43:03 <andytoshi> i'll think about it, see if i can make the initial transaction demand its signature have a certain shape
1892 2013-02-22 21:43:12 <gmaxwell> So the trust you need for them is pretty modest.
1893 2013-02-22 21:43:17 <andytoshi> will dl the video, but have to go to a meeting now..
1894 2013-02-22 21:43:56 <andytoshi> yeah, but talking to them is expensive, and if you're paying for routing or something, that could add up
1895 2013-02-22 21:44:40 <gmaxwell> The video is only mildly ontopic but its fun. It's a british gameshow which presents the players with a non-iterated prisoners dilemma which they then play verbal poker to try to win.
1896 2013-02-22 21:44:50 FredEE has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1897 2013-02-22 21:44:50 FredEE_ is now known as FredEE
1898 2013-02-22 21:44:54 <gmaxwell> andytoshi: you only talk to the mediator if the agreement fails.
1899 2013-02-22 21:45:20 <gmaxwell> e.g. you add them in as a third key that can resolve a hung agreement. And they only ever know you exist if you ask them to do so.
1900 2013-02-22 21:46:06 <gmaxwell> and you require the excess funds put up to be enough by each party to be enough to pay the mediator should they be required.
1901 2013-02-22 21:46:14 BTCTrader has quit (Quit: BTCTrader)
1902 2013-02-22 21:46:49 denisx has joined
1903 2013-02-22 21:47:13 <HM> gmaxwell: nice bit of game theory
1904 2013-02-22 21:48:48 <HM> i like how they both look at both balls
1905 2013-02-22 21:49:00 <HM> you only need to look at one if you trust the gameshow hosts :P
1906 2013-02-22 21:50:13 <gmaxwell> I wonder if they disqualify you if you show your tokens to the other player? :P
1907 2013-02-22 21:50:34 <HM> they probably reset them
1908 2013-02-22 21:50:38 <HM> film again
1909 2013-02-22 21:50:57 <HM> i love that guys strategy, trying to force his opponents hand by threatening him
1910 2013-02-22 21:51:13 <gmaxwell> apparently that was a unique strategy.
1911 2013-02-22 21:51:25 <gmaxwell> The norm is that they insist they'll split.
1912 2013-02-22 21:51:31 <HM> then one betrays them
1913 2013-02-22 21:51:42 <gmaxwell> right.
1914 2013-02-22 21:51:50 grau_ has joined
1915 2013-02-22 21:52:47 <HM> i haven't finished watching it yet
1916 2013-02-22 21:52:54 <HM> but i'd call his bluff and go steal as well
1917 2013-02-22 21:53:20 <HM> i'd rather the person trying to force my hand got nothing alongside me than have him screw me over after the show
1918 2013-02-22 21:54:47 grau has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1919 2013-02-22 21:56:24 <HM> hah
1920 2013-02-22 21:56:28 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1921 2013-02-22 21:56:30 <HM> if he'd done what i said he'd have stolen the lot
1922 2013-02-22 21:58:27 JZavala has joined
1923 2013-02-22 21:58:45 ashams has joined
1924 2013-02-22 21:58:45 ashams has quit (Changing host)
1925 2013-02-22 21:58:45 ashams has joined
1926 2013-02-22 21:58:50 J6So4W7Yb has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1927 2013-02-22 21:59:56 J6So4W7Yb has joined
1928 2013-02-22 22:02:06 root2 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1929 2013-02-22 22:06:04 tk993 has quit (Quit: HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <- The alternative IRC client)
1930 2013-02-22 22:06:48 ashams has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1931 2013-02-22 22:09:43 ashams has joined
1932 2013-02-22 22:10:53 blinkier has joined
1933 2013-02-22 22:12:21 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: did you *attempt* to reboot only cgminer or openwrt?
1934 2013-02-22 22:12:36 <jgarzik> no
1935 2013-02-22 22:13:10 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: would be nice to know whether that works, if it occurs again
1936 2013-02-22 22:17:25 gfinn has joined
1937 2013-02-22 22:32:21 J6So4W7Yb has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1938 2013-02-22 22:32:41 AgoristRadio has joined
1939 2013-02-22 22:36:08 FredEE has quit (Quit: FredEE)
1940 2013-02-22 22:36:37 FredEE has joined
1941 2013-02-22 22:39:03 FredEE has quit (Client Quit)
1942 2013-02-22 22:40:50 dparrish has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1943 2013-02-22 22:43:05 dparrish has joined
1944 2013-02-22 22:47:44 ashams has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1945 2013-02-22 22:53:20 AgoristRadio has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1946 2013-02-22 22:54:30 HiroWhite has joined
1947 2013-02-22 22:54:46 grau_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1948 2013-02-22 23:01:49 Hashdog has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1949 2013-02-22 23:08:41 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1950 2013-02-22 23:15:10 toffoo has quit ()
1951 2013-02-22 23:19:20 alexwaters1 has joined
1952 2013-02-22 23:19:28 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1953 2013-02-22 23:19:52 andytoshi has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.4.0)
1954 2013-02-22 23:20:17 <MobGod> question anyone know if you have the blockchain payment gateway does it also have a list of all transactions i can look at
1955 2013-02-22 23:20:45 <gmaxwell> 'blockchain payment gateway'?
1956 2013-02-22 23:20:56 <MobGod> yes the json
1957 2013-02-22 23:21:18 <gmaxwell> I do not have a clue what you're talking about.
1958 2013-02-22 23:21:26 * gmaxwell adjusts the vertical hold
1959 2013-02-22 23:22:07 <MobGod> the json roc api
1960 2013-02-22 23:22:13 <MobGod> rpc*
1961 2013-02-22 23:22:22 <sipa> gmaxwell: blochain.info
1962 2013-02-22 23:22:33 <sipa> i assume
1963 2013-02-22 23:22:47 <MobGod> sipa would you know
1964 2013-02-22 23:23:04 <sipa> no
1965 2013-02-22 23:23:08 <gmaxwell> MobGod: Are you asking about the blockchain.info website?
1966 2013-02-22 23:24:03 <MobGod> yes i'm using there gateway on my store i have so when i sell things i want to know if the backend of the site keeps the transactions numbers so i can verfiy
1967 2013-02-22 23:24:20 <Luke-Jr> PiUK is here only very rarely
1968 2013-02-22 23:24:30 <Luke-Jr> and AFAIK he is the only one who touches that code
1969 2013-02-22 23:24:50 <MobGod> Luke-Jr i assume your talking to me
1970 2013-02-22 23:24:57 <Luke-Jr> yes
1971 2013-02-22 23:25:05 pierre` has joined
1972 2013-02-22 23:25:06 <Luke-Jr> well, no. actually, I am talking to your shadow.
1973 2013-02-22 23:25:19 <Luke-Jr> <.<
1974 2013-02-22 23:25:38 <MobGod> Luke-Jr not needed was only asking didn't know if it was a answer to something else
1975 2013-02-22 23:25:55 <MobGod> i didn't read my logs today
1976 2013-02-22 23:26:13 <gmaxwell> MobGod: Yea, if you need help for the blockchain.info website this isn't a great place for that. You could try emailing their support, I guess? In the future its helpful if you call it "blockchain.info" so I know you're not talking about part of the bitcoin system!
1977 2013-02-22 23:26:37 <MobGod> gmaxwell understood
1978 2013-02-22 23:26:42 * Luke-Jr grumbles at people throwing a .tld on generic terms -.-
1979 2013-02-22 23:27:48 <gmaxwell> .info is especially bad.
1980 2013-02-22 23:27:56 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1981 2013-02-22 23:29:28 <MobGod> Luke-Jr have a idea maybe where i can look on the backend for this
1982 2013-02-22 23:29:38 <MobGod> or where i might be able to get a little support
1983 2013-02-22 23:29:52 <Luke-Jr> MobGod: I don't know if it is or isn't open source. Like I said, PiUK is the only one who does anything with it AFAIK
1984 2013-02-22 23:30:39 <gmaxwell> amiller: is the ripple stuff you did anything with at all related to the new thing called ripple? and if so, do you have any idea who can give clear and complete answers for only moderately hard questions about how its consensus system works?
1985 2013-02-22 23:31:49 <HM> is there a crypto solution where any *one* of N private keys can be used to derive another common private key but none of those N can derive keys for one another?
1986 2013-02-22 23:31:54 <gmaxwell> I'm having a really hard time getting Joel Katz to tell me what it actually requires to achieve consensus securely.
1987 2013-02-22 23:32:21 <gmaxwell> HM: encrypt the common private key N times.
1988 2013-02-22 23:32:30 <HM> yes without doing that ;)
1989 2013-02-22 23:33:17 <gmaxwell> HM: just give everyone the common key, and leave their own keys totally seperate. :)
1990 2013-02-22 23:33:34 <MobGod> Luke-Jr would you look at this and tell me if out has what i'm looking for please
1991 2013-02-22 23:33:34 <MobGod> http://blockchain.info/api/json_rpc_api
1992 2013-02-22 23:33:43 <gmaxwell> HM: what do you mean by common?
1993 2013-02-22 23:33:57 <amiller> gmaxwell, i don't have anything to do with the new-thing-called-ripple, and i think it's a horrible system :/
1994 2013-02-22 23:34:30 <amiller> i've been quiet about it i guess because they asked me to look at it a while ago and i talked with them on the phone for a while but i haven't taken the time to write anything really clear about it
1995 2013-02-22 23:34:46 <gmaxwell> amiller: whew. okay.
1996 2013-02-22 23:35:08 <gmaxwell> The 'whew' was mostly I was glad you didn't.
1997 2013-02-22 23:35:33 <Luke-Jr> MobGod: (+44) 7525 431876
1998 2013-02-22 23:35:45 <Luke-Jr> MobGod: or https://blockchain.zendesk.com/home
1999 2013-02-22 23:36:05 <gmaxwell> amiller: as I said on the forum. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144471.msg1547843#msg1547843
2000 2013-02-22 23:37:12 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: s/strengthens/strengths/
2001 2013-02-22 23:39:04 one_zero has joined
2002 2013-02-22 23:39:44 <amiller> i'm really disappointed that they got the "ripple" name from ryan fugger, as well as his support
2003 2013-02-22 23:40:19 <amiller> because ripple-the-social-concept is excellent, but ryan fugger isn't a distributed systems or crypto expert at all - his php/mysql implementation of ripplepay worked just fun and served a pretty small community that played with this for like 8 years
2004 2013-02-22 23:41:01 <amiller> if he realized how few of the good things that ripple.com inherited from bitcoin, i feel like he wouldn't have done so
2005 2013-02-22 23:41:02 <Luke-Jr> I thought ripple was supposed to be a system where you could exchange debt of any currency and it figured out ways to interact with people you didn't directly trust
2006 2013-02-22 23:41:28 <HM> amiller: was it your code on github for a rb merkle tree?
2007 2013-02-22 23:41:31 <amiller> well yeah that's the idea, and it's easy to do with a central host like ripplepay.com did
2008 2013-02-22 23:41:39 <Luke-Jr> eg, if I trusted gmaxwell but not amiller (and gmaxwell did trust amiller), and amiller wanted to buy from me, I would receive debt of gmaxwell and gmaxwell would receive debt of amiller
2009 2013-02-22 23:41:41 <amiller> HM, ya! i'm excited you looked at it
2010 2013-02-22 23:42:07 pierre` has quit (Quit: leaving)
2011 2013-02-22 23:42:16 <amiller> Luke-Jr, that's the Ripple credit network concept yes, but a good question is how to implement it
2012 2013-02-22 23:42:18 <alexwaters1> Luke-Jr: yes i believe that is how it works
2013 2013-02-22 23:42:24 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
2014 2013-02-22 23:42:29 <amiller> if you and i don't trust each other, but we have a path between us - then whose server do we trust to do the transactions?
2015 2013-02-22 23:42:47 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: there are two questionsâ the credit concept... and the distributed system.
2016 2013-02-22 23:42:52 <alexwaters1> (neither, put it in a blockchain)
2017 2013-02-22 23:42:56 <Luke-Jr> alexwaters1: doesn't feel like it with the current Ripple
2018 2013-02-22 23:43:05 <Luke-Jr> I mean, wtf is XRP?
2019 2013-02-22 23:43:06 <alexwaters1> Luke-Jr: no comment
2020 2013-02-22 23:43:14 pierre` has joined
2021 2013-02-22 23:43:19 <gmaxwell> I think the credit concept is certantly worth exploring. But the distributed system proposed by the people who bought ripple appears to be a borderline non-starter to me.
2022 2013-02-22 23:43:20 <HM> amiller: i'm glad you wrote it and made it public. ty
2023 2013-02-22 23:43:22 <amiller> XRP is part of their poorly-conceived incorrectly-distributed system
2024 2013-02-22 23:43:48 <alexwaters1> i am curious to see it work, i'm holding onto my XRP for the time-being
2025 2013-02-22 23:43:52 <gmaxwell> And, I'm not convinced that any of the people involved with it actually understand what they're proposingâ but I might be projecting my own difficulty in understanding it.
2026 2013-02-22 23:43:56 <alexwaters1> (once i have some)
2027 2013-02-22 23:44:00 <Luke-Jr> lol
2028 2013-02-22 23:45:12 <amiller> it's not wholly worse than a grid-of-K/M-trusted servers kind of approach
2029 2013-02-22 23:45:32 <amiller> but that would be a lot more clear - you have to trust at least some of those servers, and everyone involved has to pick the same group on the outset
2030 2013-02-22 23:45:43 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: they took the credit concept of orignal ripple. Added an internal currency with 100 billion premined coins (which are currently trading at a price high enough to give it a >$1billion market cap), and then embodied it in a distributed consensus system that sounds unsound to me, or rather unsound unless a central party coordinates selecting all the servers.
2031 2013-02-22 23:46:07 <alexwaters1> "unless a central party coordinates selecting all the servers."
2032 2013-02-22 23:46:11 <alexwaters1> i think that is the plan
2033 2013-02-22 23:46:35 FredEE has joined
2034 2013-02-22 23:46:41 <HM> the credit concept of ripple seemed unnatural to me
2035 2013-02-22 23:46:44 <alexwaters1> er not all of them, just the important ones
2036 2013-02-22 23:46:48 <gmaxwell> alexwaters1: Joel says otherwise, but when I question him about the security model the answers are not good.
2037 2013-02-22 23:47:30 <alexwaters1> i'm curious of the whole thing. but considering the people who are working on it - i'm hopeful that it will be something useful
2038 2013-02-22 23:47:33 <gmaxwell> alexwaters1: I am unsure about 'not all of them' being able to produce a system which is secure.
2039 2013-02-22 23:48:01 <gmaxwell> Or worse, I don't think the people working on it actually know under what conditions their model would be secure or wouldn't.
2040 2013-02-22 23:48:16 <Luke-Jr> lol
2041 2013-02-22 23:48:25 <gmaxwell> Or at least they keep telling me things, and I keep proposing topologies which are unsecure under those assumptions.
2042 2013-02-22 23:49:31 <gmaxwell> "a majority of your peers must be honest" "Okay, my peers are honest, but _their_ peers are not" Thats insecure, poor peer choice is the same as dishonesty'
2043 2013-02-22 23:49:34 <gmaxwell> etc.
2044 2013-02-22 23:49:36 <alexwaters1> i'm curious on anything joel would be working on. that guy's super smart
2045 2013-02-22 23:50:20 <gmaxwell> The next round of questions I have requires animations though, so it may need to wait until I have more free time. But regardless, this seems very very brittle.
2046 2013-02-22 23:50:32 dvide has joined
2047 2013-02-22 23:50:47 <HM> ripple has gone 2.0 ?
2048 2013-02-22 23:51:49 <gmaxwell> HM: ripple was never a complete system, but another group bought the name and have affixed it to something that shares basically just one idea from the original ripple, and does a bunch of ????? (I don't know if the novel stuff is good or bad, I'm suspicious because it's not obviously good).
2049 2013-02-22 23:52:03 <jgarzik> jaakkos: sadly I think that bounty is past its time
2050 2013-02-22 23:52:22 <HM> i remember reading about the socialised debt model
2051 2013-02-22 23:52:30 <jgarzik> jaakkos: bounty changed to 15 BTC
2052 2013-02-22 23:52:38 <jgarzik> jaakkos: but at that level, yes, would pay 15 BTC
2053 2013-02-22 23:52:49 <HM> the webpage makes it look like a splice between paypal and facebook now?
2054 2013-02-22 23:52:57 <amiller> there is a really good paper from modern economics and social thoery about ripple like networks
2055 2013-02-22 23:53:06 RBecker is now known as rbecker
2056 2013-02-22 23:53:23 <jaakkos> jgarzik: ok, i was just curious ;) trying to figure out if there was a way to utilize Ivy Bridge/Sandy Bridge
2057 2013-02-22 23:53:25 <amiller> http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/124/3/1307.full.pdf Trust and Social Collateral by Karlan Mobius Rosenblat Szeidl
2058 2013-02-22 23:54:10 <amiller> there's a famous story in academic papers since like 1970 about indirect transactions about a swedish shipowner in Amsterdam who gets credit via a banker friend in london
2059 2013-02-22 23:54:19 <jaakkos> jgarzik: did you see the WebGL miner posted by someone? it crashed my browser but the code seemed like it could work, it's pretty much the same GLSL stuff that was presented in your thread
2060 2013-02-22 23:54:20 <gmaxwell> amiller: ripple like credit, or ripple like consensus?
2061 2013-02-22 23:54:28 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2062 2013-02-22 23:54:30 <amiller> ripple-like-credit, sorry
2063 2013-02-22 23:54:38 <jaakkos> jgarzik: this one https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=27056.0
2064 2013-02-22 23:55:09 <amiller> since the name is now bought outright, i'm going to switch to just talking about Credit-networks or social-collateral
2065 2013-02-22 23:55:09 <gmaxwell> yea, I mostly want to talk about the consensus. The public mostly wants to talk about credit. ... but credit doesn't matter if the consensus doesn't work. :P
2066 2013-02-22 23:55:22 <amiller> i'm really worried that this is going to set the whole dialogue back several years by being so confusing
2067 2013-02-22 23:55:30 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2068 2013-02-22 23:55:47 <gmaxwell> esp since varrious academics had picked up the ripple name.
2069 2013-02-22 23:57:17 J6So4W7Yb has joined
2070 2013-02-22 23:57:20 <HM> well, as a layman, i don't find their website compelling or informative
2071 2013-02-22 23:58:44 <Luke-Jr> <rumour> RealSolid bought the Ripple name. Ripple is now just SolidCoin/MicroCash </rumour>
2072 2013-02-22 23:59:32 CodeShark has joined