1 2013-02-27 00:00:01 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
   2 2013-02-27 00:08:22 <TD> muhoo: it's not a race
   3 2013-02-27 00:08:26 <TD> just dumb peer management logic
   4 2013-02-27 00:08:34 <Goonie> muhoo: yes, I filed that a while ago
   5 2013-02-27 00:08:46 <TD> when a peer disconnects or fails to connect it says "i need a new peer", and because there's only one it gets the same one back
   6 2013-02-27 00:08:50 <TD> tries to connect, fails, infinite loop
   7 2013-02-27 00:09:00 <TD> there's no delay between trying to reconnect
   8 2013-02-27 00:09:16 <TD> the code assumes it has a peer discovery object, really
   9 2013-02-27 00:09:33 <sipa> just a 0.1s sleep before trying to connect would do miracles, perhaps
  10 2013-02-27 00:09:57 * TD shrugs
  11 2013-02-27 00:10:05 <TD> there are rules about when you can and cannot sleep
  12 2013-02-27 00:10:11 <TD> it's not a high priority to fix
  13 2013-02-27 00:10:16 <TD> there are more important bugs, unfortunately
  14 2013-02-27 00:10:54 <TD> i won't come back to another round of network improvements for another version or two
  15 2013-02-27 00:12:03 coolsa has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  16 2013-02-27 00:13:22 <muhoo> https://www.refheap.com/paste/11856
  17 2013-02-27 00:13:25 BNCatDIGISHELL has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
  18 2013-02-27 00:13:48 <muhoo> yep, no big deal, might add that myself
  19 2013-02-27 00:15:33 <TD> sleep is the wrong solution
  20 2013-02-27 00:15:34 BNCatDIGISHELL has joined
  21 2013-02-27 00:15:39 <muhoo> fyi it also does that if the peer disconnects for any reason
  22 2013-02-27 00:15:43 <TD> the real issue is that it's retrying peers after they fail
  23 2013-02-27 00:15:44 CaptainBlaze has quit (Quit: CaptainBlaze)
  24 2013-02-27 00:15:46 <TD> yes
  25 2013-02-27 00:16:04 <TD> it should try peers and if they disconnect, move on to the next. the issue then being what if the network dies
  26 2013-02-27 00:16:16 <TD> so possibly there should be a single retry per peer, or something
  27 2013-02-27 00:16:19 <TD> it needs thought
  28 2013-02-27 00:16:20 <muhoo> thundering herd problem
  29 2013-02-27 00:16:31 <TD> that's a lot of peers
  30 2013-02-27 00:16:36 <TD> how many did you go up to?
  31 2013-02-27 00:17:06 <muhoo> i'm not sure it was peers and not botched connection attempts from rpc. not sure what that connections count actualy means
  32 2013-02-27 00:17:46 <Goonie> the problem is also it connects to the same peer multiple times, if no more addresses can be discovered
  33 2013-02-27 00:17:58 <muhoo> this particular bitcoind is ONLY connecting (with connect=ipaddress) to one node!
  34 2013-02-27 00:18:43 <muhoo> and, linux was running out of inodes after bitcoinj started going ape-shit and reconnecting
  35 2013-02-27 00:18:47 <TD> haha
  36 2013-02-27 00:19:01 * TD -> sleep
  37 2013-02-27 00:19:03 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
  38 2013-02-27 00:19:06 <muhoo> indeed.
  39 2013-02-27 00:19:46 <muhoo> not going to yak shave too many weirdnessess with what is just a dummy test network anyway
  40 2013-02-27 00:22:38 frosks has joined
  41 2013-02-27 00:26:19 axhlf has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
  42 2013-02-27 00:29:02 meLon has joined
  43 2013-02-27 00:29:23 ovidiusoft has quit (Quit: leaving)
  44 2013-02-27 00:29:49 owowo has joined
  45 2013-02-27 00:35:58 darkskiez has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  46 2013-02-27 00:36:55 <ProfMac> anyone know about FIX?
  47 2013-02-27 00:38:26 slush has joined
  48 2013-02-27 00:40:16 coolsa has joined
  49 2013-02-27 00:41:40 darkskiez has joined
  50 2013-02-27 00:49:26 toffoo has joined
  51 2013-02-27 00:49:32 rbecker is now known as RBecker
  52 2013-02-27 00:54:51 FredEE has joined
  53 2013-02-27 00:57:57 Goonie has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  54 2013-02-27 00:59:05 yellowhat has joined
  55 2013-02-27 00:59:07 yellowhat has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  56 2013-02-27 01:04:59 Insti has joined
  57 2013-02-27 01:06:53 Insti has quit (Client Quit)
  58 2013-02-27 01:22:54 Zarutian has joined
  59 2013-02-27 01:25:00 owowo has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  60 2013-02-27 01:25:00 random_cat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  61 2013-02-27 01:27:39 random_cat has joined
  62 2013-02-27 01:31:02 owowo has joined
  63 2013-02-27 01:32:57 coolsa has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  64 2013-02-27 01:33:23 coolsa has joined
  65 2013-02-27 01:41:59 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
  66 2013-02-27 01:44:06 Hashdog has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  67 2013-02-27 01:52:31 fishfish has joined
  68 2013-02-27 01:53:19 fishfish has quit (Client Quit)
  69 2013-02-27 01:55:37 copumpkin has joined
  70 2013-02-27 02:04:54 da2ce7 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.2.0 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
  71 2013-02-27 02:06:33 da2ce7 has joined
  72 2013-02-27 02:12:05 da2ce7 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.2.0 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
  73 2013-02-27 02:14:58 da2ce7 has joined
  74 2013-02-27 02:15:16 one_zero has joined
  75 2013-02-27 02:29:08 frosks has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  76 2013-02-27 02:29:11 axhlf has joined
  77 2013-02-27 02:30:47 coolsa_ has joined
  78 2013-02-27 02:34:01 JZavala has joined
  79 2013-02-27 02:34:01 coolsa has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
  80 2013-02-27 02:35:58 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: hm. Do you think that merging performance improvements like the stuff in 0.8 was ultimately counterproductive since it only forstalls the loop closing on inefficient usage?
  81 2013-02-27 02:36:52 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  82 2013-02-27 02:37:38 Guest46938 has quit (Quit: Vidi, Vici, Veni.)
  83 2013-02-27 02:41:51 <muhoo> possibly OT, but i wonder if there's any way for BTC to survive an attack like this, if one comes: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/02/25/six_strikes_copyright_enforcement_system_launches_will_throttle_your_bandwidth.html
  84 2013-02-27 02:48:27 <andytoshi> muhoo: if there is some way to get 1Mb/10mins bandwidth, bitcoin can survive
  85 2013-02-27 02:49:50 <muhoo> aye, good point. with bloom filters, runs just fine on EDGE  now :-)
  86 2013-02-27 02:51:07 grau has joined
  87 2013-02-27 02:51:10 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: heh
  88 2013-02-27 02:51:15 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: who knows
  89 2013-02-27 02:52:23 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: your comment just made me wonder a bit. I guess its at least something to ponder.
  90 2013-02-27 02:54:43 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: oh hell which comment was that ;p
  91 2013-02-27 02:55:53 <gmaxwell> the evoorhees subthread.
  92 2013-02-27 02:56:04 <gmaxwell> "Miners (and the network) will not see the impact as long as the block reward far exceeds other network costs, like unspent transaction output set (UTXO) storage."
  93 2013-02-27 03:01:51 owowo has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  94 2013-02-27 03:02:31 owowo has joined
  95 2013-02-27 03:06:54 <andytoshi> i have a dumb network question: how do other nodes connect to me?
  96 2013-02-27 03:07:02 <andytoshi> if i telnet to my public IP on 8333, i get blocked
  97 2013-02-27 03:07:28 <gmaxwell> andytoshi: you mean for your tor node?
  98 2013-02-27 03:07:44 <andytoshi> yes, and my bitcoin node -- i'm actually confused about both
  99 2013-02-27 03:08:05 <andytoshi> (though i understand how hidden services work, using only my own outbound connections)
 100 2013-02-27 03:08:05 meLon has quit (Quit: leaving)
 101 2013-02-27 03:08:24 <gmaxwell> well if things can't connect to 8333 on your public IP then you can't have v4 inbound.
 102 2013-02-27 03:08:35 <gmaxwell> if you're running a hidden service— thats going to be connecting to 127.0.0.1
 103 2013-02-27 03:08:59 <gmaxwell> so it's perfectly possible for that to work while the public ipv4 is firewalled off.
 104 2013-02-27 03:09:18 <andytoshi> right, but most people don't punch holes in their router -or- run a tor node
 105 2013-02-27 03:09:28 <andytoshi> so how does bitcoin have a working p2p network?
 106 2013-02-27 03:09:44 <gmaxwell> andytoshi: right, so two reasons: one is that many people do forward ports.
 107 2013-02-27 03:09:51 <gmaxwell> (or run nodes that are not behind nat)
 108 2013-02-27 03:10:08 <gmaxwell> the other is that bitcoin support UPNP to tell nat-routers to foward the port.
 109 2013-02-27 03:10:18 <gmaxwell> and UPNP is on by default in the gui version.
 110 2013-02-27 03:10:38 <andytoshi> ah, that's what i'm missing
 111 2013-02-27 03:10:43 <HM> it's a shame the protocol isn't UDP (1 reason against many), or it could use hole punching
 112 2013-02-27 03:10:57 <gmaxwell> HM: hole punching is pretty unreliable.
 113 2013-02-27 03:11:04 <andytoshi> does tor also do upnp?
 114 2013-02-27 03:11:08 <HM> not in my experience
 115 2013-02-27 03:11:18 <phantomcircuit> andytoshi, tor/upnp is nonsensical
 116 2013-02-27 03:11:20 <gmaxwell> andytoshi: tor requires you to forward the ports if you are to have inbound.
 117 2013-02-27 03:11:42 <andytoshi> oh, i've been running a useless tor node for several months now then :{
 118 2013-02-27 03:12:12 <andytoshi> phantomcircuit: why?
 119 2013-02-27 03:12:38 <phantomcircuit> andytoshi, upnp is about NAT transversal
 120 2013-02-27 03:12:43 <phantomcircuit> there isn't any NAT with tor
 121 2013-02-27 03:12:46 <andytoshi> oh, i do have tor set up properly :P i just forgot
 122 2013-02-27 03:13:03 <HM> that's not entirely true
 123 2013-02-27 03:13:10 <andytoshi> phantomcircuit: there is a NAT between my tor node and the public internet
 124 2013-02-27 03:13:13 <gmaxwell> HM: having written VoIP software ... I'm pretty confident in saying its unreliable. I mean— sure, better than nothing when you have no other choice. But as you note, thats basically the one advantage among many disadvantages.
 125 2013-02-27 03:13:31 <gmaxwell> If someone wanted to build an alternative udp based transport for bitcoin, that would be peachy though.
 126 2013-02-27 03:13:35 <HM> gmaxwell: what makes it unreliable in your experience? NAT timeouts?
 127 2013-02-27 03:13:40 bluemuffinz has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 128 2013-02-27 03:14:28 <HM> oh my no, i wouldn't recommend UDP
 129 2013-02-27 03:14:58 <gmaxwell> HM: nested nats, crazy port restrictions in nats, symmetric nats that break stun etc.
 130 2013-02-27 03:15:16 <gmaxwell> (not having access to working stun/turn services)
 131 2013-02-27 03:15:23 <gmaxwell> etc.. lots of things to go kablooy.
 132 2013-02-27 03:16:37 <HM> Networking: it's always worse than youe xpect
 133 2013-02-27 03:16:39 <HM> expect*
 134 2013-02-27 03:17:07 ForceMajeure has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 135 2013-02-27 03:18:53 RBecker is now known as rbecker
 136 2013-02-27 03:19:54 <andytoshi> gmaxwell: thanks, i was worried that i was misunderstanding something fundamental
 137 2013-02-27 03:19:59 <andytoshi> but i just need to research upnp..
 138 2013-02-27 03:20:34 ForceMajeure has joined
 139 2013-02-27 03:20:51 <HM> I hate NAT
 140 2013-02-27 03:20:56 <HM> My ISP forces it upon me
 141 2013-02-27 03:21:53 <andytoshi> HM: by giving you too few IP addresses, or something more?
 142 2013-02-27 03:22:32 <HM> 1 IP
 143 2013-02-27 03:22:43 <HM> they just have NAT built right in to the cable modem, and you can't disable it
 144 2013-02-27 03:22:51 <HM> the best you can do is DMZ
 145 2013-02-27 03:22:58 <gmaxwell> andytoshi: ISPs are starting to put customers behind nat. Worse, they're particular uninspired port restricted nats. It's pretty ubiquitious in the mobile space already.
 146 2013-02-27 03:23:15 <gmaxwell> Go go IPv4 scarcity.
 147 2013-02-27 03:23:18 random_cat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 148 2013-02-27 03:23:29 <HM> this isn't scarcity, it's just incompetence and shitty hardware
 149 2013-02-27 03:25:31 <HM> sometimes i want to break their equipment with a flaming sledgehammer
 150 2013-02-27 03:25:33 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
 151 2013-02-27 03:31:15 <andytoshi> wth, there is a while loop implemented with goto in the tor source
 152 2013-02-27 03:32:06 <andytoshi> http://pastebin.com/hBTkW7uV
 153 2013-02-27 03:33:45 Mandrius has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 154 2013-02-27 03:35:32 <HM> a "do {} while" loop would be more appropriate
 155 2013-02-27 03:36:54 <andytoshi> yeah, very strange for a codebase that (presumably) gets read pretty carefully
 156 2013-02-27 03:37:16 random_cat has joined
 157 2013-02-27 03:38:01 <HM> they probably just had something else there and cleaned it out
 158 2013-02-27 03:38:09 <HM> the tor codebase is surprisingly readable i find
 159 2013-02-27 03:38:21 <HM> some long ass C files though
 160 2013-02-27 03:38:59 <andytoshi> i agree, it's easy to get answers to high-level questions like "how are the specific nodes in a circuit chosen?"
 161 2013-02-27 03:39:17 <andytoshi> the answer is in choose_good_entry_server() and choose_good_middle_server() :)
 162 2013-02-27 03:40:07 <andytoshi> and is basically: choose at random, don't repeat nodes, don't use the exit node, don't use your own node
 163 2013-02-27 03:41:15 <HM> i believe there's some IP checking in there as well
 164 2013-02-27 03:41:21 <HM> to try and spread nodes across subnets
 165 2013-02-27 03:41:45 <andytoshi> i read that somewhere too, but it's not jumping out at me
 166 2013-02-27 03:41:55 <andytoshi> the real choosing happens in router_choose_random_node()
 167 2013-02-27 03:42:22 <HM> one thing i found surprising is that addresses are only 80 bits
 168 2013-02-27 03:42:49 <HM> i'd say that's borderline for being able to brute force a colliding name
 169 2013-02-27 03:42:53 <andytoshi> hidden service addresses you mean?
 170 2013-02-27 03:42:58 <HM> yes
 171 2013-02-27 03:43:29 <andytoshi> i'd say 66 is borderline, 80 will be maybe borderline by my end-of-life
 172 2013-02-27 03:43:42 <HM> lol why 66
 173 2013-02-27 03:44:04 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 174 2013-02-27 03:44:34 <andytoshi> i dunno, just "64 plus a bit"
 175 2013-02-27 03:45:09 <HM> you only have to generate a valid rsa keypair and then hash it once to check for a collision
 176 2013-02-27 03:45:34 <HM> i think you can do the former quite efficiently
 177 2013-02-27 03:46:02 <andytoshi> well, i only have experience with CPUs, which are pretty bad at stupidly-parallelizable problems
 178 2013-02-27 03:46:11 <andytoshi> so probably i am way overestimating how difficult things are
 179 2013-02-27 03:47:35 <andytoshi> but i do a fair bit of work in ramsey theory, where problems are usually along the lines of "try to brute-force this, see how feasible it is"
 180 2013-02-27 03:47:42 <gmaxwell> HM: the keypair doesn't need to be secure either.
 181 2013-02-27 03:47:47 <andytoshi> then we make conjectures about whether our recursion trees have infinite depth :P
 182 2013-02-27 03:48:02 <gmaxwell> though even if yu want secure— the gpu onion searcher now does like 500m attempts per second on a low end gpu.
 183 2013-02-27 03:48:08 <gmaxwell> (much faster than bitcoin mining)
 184 2013-02-27 03:48:13 <gmaxwell> also, sha1 is saddness.
 185 2013-02-27 03:48:46 <andytoshi> i think, the tor people had an idea that .onions should be memorizable
 186 2013-02-27 03:49:09 <andytoshi> e.g., one of the libraries has their address printed in 4-character blocks and says "memorize one each day" :P
 187 2013-02-27 03:49:11 <gmaxwell> andytoshi: they're still a bit too long for that.
 188 2013-02-27 03:49:16 <andytoshi> agreed
 189 2013-02-27 03:50:01 <gmaxwell> andytoshi: I think it was more like "okay, can't use the public key— too gigantic. lets hash it.. how much security do we need? okay!" but who knows.
 190 2013-02-27 03:50:03 vigilyn2 has joined
 191 2013-02-27 03:50:08 vigilyn has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 192 2013-02-27 03:50:49 fiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 193 2013-02-27 03:50:55 <HM> they could have used the public key if they'd used EC instead of RSA
 194 2013-02-27 03:50:56 <HM> maybe
 195 2013-02-27 03:51:00 Ferroh has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 196 2013-02-27 03:51:24 Ferroh has joined
 197 2013-02-27 03:52:26 <HM> seems to me tor could benefit from something like namecoin
 198 2013-02-27 03:52:29 <HM> but perhaps simpler
 199 2013-02-27 03:53:20 <andytoshi> hopefully i will have time this summer to write a refrence client for my high-latency darknet
 200 2013-02-27 03:53:36 owowo has quit (Quit: sayonara)
 201 2013-02-27 03:53:53 <HM> andytoshi: do you have any unique ideas?
 202 2013-02-27 03:54:22 <andytoshi> HM: i don't think so, just think it's a better time to go for it than it was 5 years ago
 203 2013-02-27 03:54:30 fiesh has joined
 204 2013-02-27 03:54:31 <andytoshi> when mixmaster, mixminion, etc, were used
 205 2013-02-27 03:54:43 <andytoshi> or rather, when they were maintained
 206 2013-02-27 03:57:15 <andytoshi> the high-level premise is: your node creates a bunch of connections, every 10-60 minutes (at random) it drops one, creates one
 207 2013-02-27 03:57:45 <HM> what's the advantage?
 208 2013-02-27 03:57:57 <andytoshi> these connections maintain a constant traffic, usually just zeros, though the first frame contains random bits
 209 2013-02-27 03:58:10 <HM> :|
 210 2013-02-27 03:58:17 <andytoshi> but if you want to actually connect somewhere, then you do an onion route
 211 2013-02-27 03:58:44 <andytoshi> tell some guy A, "help me handshake to B", then tell B "help me handshake to C", etc
 212 2013-02-27 03:59:16 <andytoshi> (and there are also massive delays between the handshakes)
 213 2013-02-27 04:00:27 <andytoshi> therefore, somebody monitoring the network can't see any correlation between the logical circuits and the actual bits-on-the-wire circuits
 214 2013-02-27 04:01:11 <andytoshi> i'm not sure what you mean by, "what's the advantage?" --- what are you comparing to?
 215 2013-02-27 04:08:06 mologie_ has joined
 216 2013-02-27 04:09:28 mologie has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 217 2013-02-27 04:09:29 mologie_ is now known as mologie
 218 2013-02-27 04:14:29 Azelphur has joined
 219 2013-02-27 04:15:08 pecket has joined
 220 2013-02-27 04:18:54 da2ce792 has joined
 221 2013-02-27 04:22:45 grau has joined
 222 2013-02-27 04:24:23 da2ce792 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 223 2013-02-27 04:35:06 QM has joined
 224 2013-02-27 04:42:49 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 225 2013-02-27 04:46:15 M3GATR0N has joined
 226 2013-02-27 04:54:50 theorbtwo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 227 2013-02-27 04:55:49 theorbtwo has joined
 228 2013-02-27 04:57:35 TheSeven has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 229 2013-02-27 04:59:29 TheSeven has joined
 230 2013-02-27 05:00:19 swappermall has joined
 231 2013-02-27 05:15:09 CodeShark has joined
 232 2013-02-27 05:18:18 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
 233 2013-02-27 05:43:30 axhlf has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 234 2013-02-27 05:49:29 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 235 2013-02-27 05:50:11 andytoshi has quit (K-Lined)
 236 2013-02-27 05:52:32 edwincheese has joined
 237 2013-02-27 05:53:16 [\\\] has quit ()
 238 2013-02-27 05:54:13 skeledrew has joined
 239 2013-02-27 06:01:33 WolfAlex_ has joined
 240 2013-02-27 06:05:13 WolfAlex has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 241 2013-02-27 06:05:21 swulf--1 has joined
 242 2013-02-27 06:05:58 <swulf--1> hopefully easy q: what incentive is there for a miner (or standard client for that matter) to rebroadcast a transaction once its been received?
 243 2013-02-27 06:09:55 <swulf--1> in fact, isn't there an incentive to not broadcast the knowledge about a tx, especially if the fees in the tx are high?  "If nobody else (or fewer nodes) know about it, then there's a higher chance that I'll get the fees in this tx?"
 244 2013-02-27 06:10:10 <swulf--1> nodes could even corroborate and only send txns within a specific subnet
 245 2013-02-27 06:10:15 <swulf--1> or am I missing something?
 246 2013-02-27 06:25:40 swulf-- has joined
 247 2013-02-27 06:27:25 <reeep> there's no incentive to rebroadcast transactions
 248 2013-02-27 06:27:34 <reeep> but most of the people broadcasting transactions are not also mining them
 249 2013-02-27 06:27:50 swulf--1 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 250 2013-02-27 06:29:17 <jgarzik> well no incentive beyond making bitcoin useful
 251 2013-02-27 06:29:30 <reeep> assuming selfishness ;)
 252 2013-02-27 06:29:48 <reeep> hey jgarzik have you had time to look at that ledger idea peter todd posted on the mailing list
 253 2013-02-27 06:34:44 idstam has joined
 254 2013-02-27 06:34:53 <reeep> i don't understand how clients can verify the ledger is redeeming withdrawals.. if they look at the UTXO set for unspent requests, how would anyone but ledger auditors be able to know if the request itself is valid
 255 2013-02-27 06:34:53 [\\\] has joined
 256 2013-02-27 06:35:09 <reeep> maybe you're trying to withdraw spent coins in the chain. you need the whole chain to verify that
 257 2013-02-27 06:35:18 <reeep> whereas double-spends are easy to prove
 258 2013-02-27 06:35:38 <Luke-Jr> they are? O.o
 259 2013-02-27 06:35:42 <reeep> and what about invalid transactions the ledger puts in the chain, those also need to be checked in the fidelity bond
 260 2013-02-27 06:36:04 <reeep> Luke-Jr: well if you have two transactions that conflict, i have just proven to you that a double-spend took place
 261 2013-02-27 06:36:12 <Luke-Jr> reeep: but how do you get both?
 262 2013-02-27 06:36:53 <Luke-Jr> and what if I, an unrelated third party, am behind the double spend?
 263 2013-02-27 06:37:06 <reeep> well let's say the transaction that i'm given from the ledger is signed by the ledger
 264 2013-02-27 06:37:20 <reeep> and then another transaction which is broadcasted is also signed at the ledger, both at the same height in the chain
 265 2013-02-27 06:37:34 <reeep> i'm talking of course of a private ledger chain, not a proof-of-work blockchain
 266 2013-02-27 06:38:16 <reeep> all you need is both conflicting "blocks" to prove the ledger double-spent
 267 2013-02-27 06:40:18 <reeep> it's just not trivial to prove the ledger isn't honoring withdrawal requests
 268 2013-02-27 06:40:25 swulf-- has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 269 2013-02-27 06:51:50 RazielZ has joined
 270 2013-02-27 06:54:21 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: The ledger has a responsibility to not allow double-spends to happen at all.
 271 2013-02-27 06:54:53 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: Two transactions with the same inputs signed by the *ledger* is the proof of a double-spend, and it's the ledger that is punished for it.
 272 2013-02-27 06:55:06 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: (in fidelity-bonded ledgers that is, obvious Bitcoin proper is another matter)
 273 2013-02-27 06:56:16 <petertodd> Yes, withdrawal requests are the hardest part. For fidelity-bonded banks I was assuming that there would be a "public place" where anyone could post a fraud notice consisting of essentially "why won't you give my money back?" and whose rebuttle is "well, here is the transaction on the blockchain showing I did so"
 274 2013-02-27 06:57:17 <petertodd> Fidelity-bonded ledgers could work the same way, although blockchain rules could equally allow specially marked transactions to pull that off in conjuction with transactions locked for a certain time. (IE, confirmed in chain, but with a scriptPubKey containing a "how many confirmations deep is this tx?" opcode.
 275 2013-02-27 07:06:14 swappermall_ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 276 2013-02-27 07:08:56 mologie has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 277 2013-02-27 07:10:12 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 278 2013-02-27 07:11:02 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 279 2013-02-27 07:17:37 mologie has joined
 280 2013-02-27 07:22:10 <reeep> petertodd: wouldn't it be simpler to have a both a height and 'id' (??) field in each block, instead of forming a concrete chain
 281 2013-02-27 07:25:27 <reeep> two blocks of the same height signed by ledger? double spend
 282 2013-02-27 07:26:12 <reeep> and what about invalid transactions that the ledger signs
 283 2013-02-27 07:27:07 reizuki__ has joined
 284 2013-02-27 07:28:37 <muhoo> ;;ticker
 285 2013-02-27 07:28:37 <gribble> BTCUSD ticker | Best bid: 31.27899, Best ask: 31.29999, Bid-ask spread: 0.02100, Last trade: 31.30000, 24 hour volume: 40021.59861634, 24 hour low: 30.22822, 24 hour high: 31.69900, 24 hour vwap: 31.17321
 286 2013-02-27 07:28:50 Diablo-D3 has joined
 287 2013-02-27 07:30:15 moore_ has joined
 288 2013-02-27 07:30:45 <petertodd> reeep: Well actually you don't need a chain at all.
 289 2013-02-27 07:31:27 <petertodd> Transactions imply a directed acyclic graph however, so you need some kind of structure, but the validation machinery in Bitcoin doesn't have to care about any of that.
 290 2013-02-27 07:32:17 <petertodd> Now for the sake of detecting double-spends, different ledger implementations can take different approaches, and a publicly visible chain might be the right approach for some. But I'm not going to say it's the only possible approach.
 291 2013-02-27 07:39:44 M3GATR0N has quit ()
 292 2013-02-27 07:43:17 el_muteh has joined
 293 2013-02-27 07:43:46 <el_muteh> anyone have any experience compiling vanitygen on a mac?
 294 2013-02-27 07:44:26 <el_muteh> I did it, then it told me to upgrade my openssl and rebuild, so I did that, but maybe I didn't do it right, because now it won't build at all
 295 2013-02-27 07:45:26 <el_muteh> Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: "_PKCS5_PBKDF2_HMAC", referenced from: _vg_protect_crypt in util.o
 296 2013-02-27 07:45:44 <el_muteh> Bwild: symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64
 297 2013-02-27 07:45:46 <el_muteh> say whut?
 298 2013-02-27 07:45:52 <el_muteh> sorry if this isn't the channel for that
 299 2013-02-27 07:49:19 ddub7 has quit ()
 300 2013-02-27 07:52:41 <Luke-Jr> el_muteh: it's probably never been done before
 301 2013-02-27 07:58:00 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 302 2013-02-27 07:59:20 <el_muteh> funny cuz it compiled with the version they DIDN'T want me to use
 303 2013-02-27 07:59:43 Muis has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 304 2013-02-27 08:01:10 CaptainBlaze has joined
 305 2013-02-27 08:06:44 techlife has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 306 2013-02-27 08:06:53 Hasimir has joined
 307 2013-02-27 08:08:01 kjj has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 308 2013-02-27 08:08:21 reizuki__ has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 309 2013-02-27 08:10:35 FredEE has quit (Quit: FredEE)
 310 2013-02-27 08:12:49 techlife has joined
 311 2013-02-27 08:17:43 da2ce792 has joined
 312 2013-02-27 08:20:21 TD_ has joined
 313 2013-02-27 08:20:56 kjj has joined
 314 2013-02-27 08:21:08 <reeep> brilliant
 315 2013-02-27 08:27:30 da2ce792 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.2.0 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
 316 2013-02-27 08:32:33 mappum has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 317 2013-02-27 08:33:59 grau has joined
 318 2013-02-27 08:40:22 TD_ has quit (Quit: TD_)
 319 2013-02-27 08:40:38 Mandrius has joined
 320 2013-02-27 08:41:01 Mandrius is now known as Guest61917
 321 2013-02-27 08:42:40 toffoo has quit ()
 322 2013-02-27 08:45:19 moore_ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 323 2013-02-27 08:52:40 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 324 2013-02-27 08:52:49 Guest61917 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.4 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
 325 2013-02-27 08:53:05 SkyHigh has joined
 326 2013-02-27 08:53:14 grau has joined
 327 2013-02-27 08:55:16 SkyHigh is now known as 3!~kvirc@78.60.187.68|SkyHighs
 328 2013-02-27 08:56:12 yellowhat has joined
 329 2013-02-27 08:56:12 yellowhat has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 330 2013-02-27 08:56:31 SkyHighs is now known as Mandrius
 331 2013-02-27 08:59:31 Diablo-D3 has joined
 332 2013-02-27 09:08:08 nus- has joined
 333 2013-02-27 09:08:14 nus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 334 2013-02-27 09:11:35 edwincheese has quit (Quit: edwincheese)
 335 2013-02-27 09:15:06 FredEE has joined
 336 2013-02-27 09:16:22 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 337 2013-02-27 09:18:58 a5m0 has quit (Disconnected by services)
 338 2013-02-27 09:19:23 a5m0_ has joined
 339 2013-02-27 09:19:31 a5m0_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 340 2013-02-27 09:27:28 FredEE has quit (Quit: FredEE)
 341 2013-02-27 09:30:15 reizuki__ has joined
 342 2013-02-27 09:32:36 t7 has joined
 343 2013-02-27 09:32:52 nus- has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 344 2013-02-27 09:33:53 Diablo-D3 has quit (Quit: do coders dream of sheep()?)
 345 2013-02-27 09:34:08 Diablo-D3 has joined
 346 2013-02-27 09:34:50 [\\\] has quit ()
 347 2013-02-27 09:36:28 nus has joined
 348 2013-02-27 09:41:54 el_muteh has quit (Quit: Read error: 420 (Excessive blunts to the dome))
 349 2013-02-27 09:42:07 reizuki__ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 350 2013-02-27 09:45:05 reizuki__ has joined
 351 2013-02-27 09:45:05 reizuki__ has quit (Changing host)
 352 2013-02-27 09:45:05 reizuki__ has joined
 353 2013-02-27 09:53:52 reizuki__ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 354 2013-02-27 10:01:18 CaptainBlaze has quit (Quit: CaptainBlaze)
 355 2013-02-27 10:06:17 CaptainBlaze has joined
 356 2013-02-27 10:06:17 CaptainBlaze has quit (Client Quit)
 357 2013-02-27 10:09:02 monkeynipples has joined
 358 2013-02-27 10:17:21 davout has joined
 359 2013-02-27 10:17:21 davout has quit (Changing host)
 360 2013-02-27 10:17:21 davout has joined
 361 2013-02-27 10:18:01 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 362 2013-02-27 10:19:44 Diablo-D3 has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
 363 2013-02-27 10:19:57 <davout> hi all, what's the best way to remove a bogus tx from my wallet.dat and claim the spent funds that never got confirmed ? (the wallet is very large so exporting all private keys and reimporting them into a pristine one would take ages)
 364 2013-02-27 10:25:05 B0g4r7 has joined
 365 2013-02-27 10:25:58 <Luke-Jr> davout: AFAIK there's no good way
 366 2013-02-27 10:26:24 <Luke-Jr> davout: there's a new -salvagewallet option, but I think it basically just imports all the privkeys into a new wallet
 367 2013-02-27 10:26:32 <jouke> make a double spend with rawtransaction.
 368 2013-02-27 10:27:05 <davout> jouke: sweet, i'll try that
 369 2013-02-27 10:27:18 <davout> Luke-Jr: see, there is one :)
 370 2013-02-27 10:27:32 <Luke-Jr> uh, I don't see how
 371 2013-02-27 10:27:39 reizuki__ has joined
 372 2013-02-27 10:27:43 <Luke-Jr> doublespending won't delete anything
 373 2013-02-27 10:27:44 <jouke> nah, it won't be easy I am afraid as the wallet won't tell you the unspent transactions.
 374 2013-02-27 10:28:18 <jouke> Luke-Jr: it will make it void once the other transaction is accepted in a block right?
 375 2013-02-27 10:28:24 <Luke-Jr> jouke: nope
 376 2013-02-27 10:28:27 <davout> Luke-Jr: i guess i should have emphasized the part about claiming the funds
 377 2013-02-27 10:28:34 <Luke-Jr> davout: well, it might do that..
 378 2013-02-27 10:28:46 <davout> Luke-Jr: in my specific case it does not matter if the transaction is actually deleted
 379 2013-02-27 10:28:56 <Luke-Jr> davout: it does if it has change
 380 2013-02-27 10:29:11 <Luke-Jr> the client will eventually attempt to spend it, even at 0 confirms
 381 2013-02-27 10:29:31 Trader074 has joined
 382 2013-02-27 10:29:58 <davout> I have the txid but i'm not sure how to read the outs that it spent in order to manually make my double spend
 383 2013-02-27 10:32:08 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 384 2013-02-27 10:33:09 grau has joined
 385 2013-02-27 10:34:02 grau_ has joined
 386 2013-02-27 10:34:02 grau has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 387 2013-02-27 10:34:34 dvide has joined
 388 2013-02-27 10:44:03 Diablo-D3 has joined
 389 2013-02-27 10:47:16 lianj has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 390 2013-02-27 10:51:25 <davout> Luke-Jr: looks like the salvagewallet option might be the most practical option after all, does it just run in autopilot when passing it at startup and end up with a clean wallet ?
 391 2013-02-27 10:54:08 <Luke-Jr> davout: sorry, I'm not familiar with the details at all
 392 2013-02-27 10:54:23 <davout> Luke-Jr: no worries, found the pull request that added it
 393 2013-02-27 10:54:30 <davout> looks pretty straightforward
 394 2013-02-27 10:54:31 iddo has quit (Changing host)
 395 2013-02-27 10:54:31 iddo has joined
 396 2013-02-27 10:54:54 toffoo has joined
 397 2013-02-27 10:55:18 axhlf has joined
 398 2013-02-27 10:56:03 Trader074 has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 399 2013-02-27 10:56:05 <Diablo-D3> are wallets still bdb in the land of leveldb?
 400 2013-02-27 10:56:27 <sipa> yeah
 401 2013-02-27 10:56:29 <sipa> unfortunately
 402 2013-02-27 10:56:35 <Diablo-D3> also
 403 2013-02-27 10:56:45 <Diablo-D3> that rhymes with "land of make believe"
 404 2013-02-27 10:57:13 <Diablo-D3> well, maybe not rhyme, but has the same number of beats
 405 2013-02-27 10:57:18 <Diablo-D3> that scares me.
 406 2013-02-27 10:57:32 lian_ has joined
 407 2013-02-27 10:57:44 <sipa> le-vel-d-b vs make be-lieve
 408 2013-02-27 10:57:53 <sipa> 4 vs 3
 409 2013-02-27 10:57:59 <Diablo-D3> sipa: be leave
 410 2013-02-27 10:58:16 * sipa won't leave
 411 2013-02-27 10:58:48 lian_ has quit (Client Quit)
 412 2013-02-27 10:59:07 lian_ has joined
 413 2013-02-27 10:59:21 <Diablo-D3> lol
 414 2013-02-27 10:59:22 <Diablo-D3> anyhow
 415 2013-02-27 10:59:34 lian_ has quit (Client Quit)
 416 2013-02-27 10:59:38 <Diablo-D3> I have discovered a horrid horrid feature of osx
 417 2013-02-27 10:59:45 <Diablo-D3> home does not go to the beginning of the line
 418 2013-02-27 10:59:49 <Diablo-D3> it goes to the beginning of the document
 419 2013-02-27 11:00:13 lianj has joined
 420 2013-02-27 11:00:13 lianj has quit (Changing host)
 421 2013-02-27 11:00:13 lianj has joined
 422 2013-02-27 11:03:25 one_zero has quit ()
 423 2013-02-27 11:09:37 <_dr> try CTRL-A,
 424 2013-02-27 11:10:09 <_dr> anyway, to edit documents you use vi! ;)
 425 2013-02-27 11:11:24 <davout> Diablo-D3: ⌘+← ?
 426 2013-02-27 11:12:23 MrMeowork has joined
 427 2013-02-27 11:12:23 <Diablo-D3> _dr: this is in xchat
 428 2013-02-27 11:12:31 <Diablo-D3> I have no clue why they ever thought this was acceptable
 429 2013-02-27 11:13:00 <Diablo-D3> davout: meh, thats kinda lame
 430 2013-02-27 11:13:04 robocoin has joined
 431 2013-02-27 11:13:44 <davout> Diablo-D3: i don't even have a home key :D
 432 2013-02-27 11:14:23 <Diablo-D3> davout: non-apple keyboard
 433 2013-02-27 11:14:44 <davout> Diablo-D3: blasphemy
 434 2013-02-27 11:15:40 <Diablo-D3> Im not a macfag, so those mind tricks dont work on me
 435 2013-02-27 11:15:47 <Diablo-D3> hell, Im not even typing this from the mbp
 436 2013-02-27 11:15:51 <Diablo-D3> Im typing it TO the mbp from linux
 437 2013-02-27 11:16:03 <Diablo-D3> fuck yeah synergy remote control
 438 2013-02-27 11:16:08 <davout> Diablo-D3: you are a convoluted person
 439 2013-02-27 11:16:17 t7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 440 2013-02-27 11:16:44 t7 has joined
 441 2013-02-27 11:17:25 <Diablo-D3> davout: I needed three things
 442 2013-02-27 11:17:37 <Diablo-D3> a new laptop, a retina screen, and an osx box for software dev reasons
 443 2013-02-27 11:17:41 drizztbsd has joined
 444 2013-02-27 11:17:56 <Diablo-D3> no one makes a retina desktop monitor yet, although there are laptops that come wtih retina screens that arent apple
 445 2013-02-27 11:18:09 reizuki__ has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 446 2013-02-27 11:18:15 <Diablo-D3> (like the new pixel)
 447 2013-02-27 11:18:27 <Diablo-D3> but I didnt want to spend money on one of those mac minis
 448 2013-02-27 11:18:48 <Diablo-D3> ended up spending $1269 on this
 449 2013-02-27 11:19:01 <Diablo-D3> its factory refurbished, but lets face it, it never touched human hands
 450 2013-02-27 11:19:17 grau_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 451 2013-02-27 11:23:53 <_dr> Diablo-D3: oh, i see. but yeah, the home stuff is really annoying
 452 2013-02-27 11:24:22 <_dr> i wonder if it might be time to find out whether irssi finally got a 'set -o vi' option :)
 453 2013-02-27 11:24:30 <Diablo-D3> heh
 454 2013-02-27 11:24:43 <Diablo-D3> also, why the hell are there no good fixed width terminal fonts for osx
 455 2013-02-27 11:24:59 <_dr> oh, there are. monaco menlo are very nice
 456 2013-02-27 11:25:16 <_dr> but only crisp when using black text on white background
 457 2013-02-27 11:25:42 <_dr> using aliasing with white on black makes fonts unbearable to read, because they are too fat
 458 2013-02-27 11:25:55 <Diablo-D3> I hate monaco and menlo
 459 2013-02-27 11:26:01 <Diablo-D3> they're very fat and hard to read
 460 2013-02-27 11:26:08 <Diablo-D3> I dont even know why apple even shipped them to begin wtih
 461 2013-02-27 11:26:12 <_dr> i can recommend 'envy code pro' as a monospaced, non aliased terminal font
 462 2013-02-27 11:26:14 <Diablo-D3> Im on courier new atm
 463 2013-02-27 11:26:31 <Diablo-D3> Ive tried envy on linux, I wonder if its better on osx + retina
 464 2013-02-27 11:26:36 <_dr> Diablo-D3: yeah, the 'fat' issue might be due to white on black, but i agree, it's inacceptable
 465 2013-02-27 11:26:42 <Diablo-D3> a LOT of fixed width fonts just fall apart
 466 2013-02-27 11:27:00 <Diablo-D3> I use an actual honest to god bitmap font in linux
 467 2013-02-27 11:27:40 <_dr> hah
 468 2013-02-27 11:28:00 <_dr> good look with that on mac, they're so fast at discarding stuff, mountain lion can no longer deal with bitmap fonts
 469 2013-02-27 11:28:34 <Ferroh> Are difficulty changes limited to 25% downwards only, or also 25% upwards?
 470 2013-02-27 11:28:52 <sipa> Ferroh: limited in both directions
 471 2013-02-27 11:28:55 <Ferroh> thanks
 472 2013-02-27 11:29:06 <sipa> Ferroh: so to [0.25*olddiff,4*olddiff]
 473 2013-02-27 11:29:22 <_dr> Diablo-D3: i went to a great lot of trouble to get a nice font. i even tried creating a bitmap font using a nicely aliased font by linux, but ney, no bitmap fonts for mac
 474 2013-02-27 11:29:29 <Ferroh> you mean 0.75*old diff sipa?
 475 2013-02-27 11:29:44 <Diablo-D3> _dr: I dont expect bitmaps to even work on retina
 476 2013-02-27 11:30:11 <sipa> Ferroh: no
 477 2013-02-27 11:30:19 <Ferroh> ok thanks :)
 478 2013-02-27 11:30:20 <Diablo-D3> I'd have to switch to the native res of my retina, which is, I think 2880x1600
 479 2013-02-27 11:30:37 <Diablo-D3> or was it 2560x1600?
 480 2013-02-27 11:30:40 <Diablo-D3> its something
 481 2013-02-27 11:30:59 <Diablo-D3> the whole point of bitmap fonts is 1:1 pixel to pixel drawing
 482 2013-02-27 11:35:59 abrkn has joined
 483 2013-02-27 11:36:40 hahuang65 has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: http://www.textualapp.com/)
 484 2013-02-27 11:37:22 denisx has joined
 485 2013-02-27 11:42:51 Muis has joined
 486 2013-02-27 11:52:54 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
 487 2013-02-27 11:55:55 Zarutian has joined
 488 2013-02-27 11:59:20 rbecker is now known as RBecker
 489 2013-02-27 12:04:55 AtashiCon has quit (Quit: AtashiCon)
 490 2013-02-27 12:09:26 AtashiCon has joined
 491 2013-02-27 12:14:26 RBecker is now known as rbecker
 492 2013-02-27 12:26:20 grau has joined
 493 2013-02-27 12:30:45 grau has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 494 2013-02-27 12:32:54 CodeShark has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 495 2013-02-27 12:38:57 benaminmartin has joined
 496 2013-02-27 12:45:27 toffoo has quit ()
 497 2013-02-27 12:46:55 TD_ has joined
 498 2013-02-27 13:02:12 grau has joined
 499 2013-02-27 13:03:51 [\\\] has joined
 500 2013-02-27 13:05:07 cdecker_ has joined
 501 2013-02-27 13:11:59 denisx has joined
 502 2013-02-27 13:12:02 ultratopo has joined
 503 2013-02-27 13:13:04 benaminmartin has left ()
 504 2013-02-27 13:15:43 JDuke128 has joined
 505 2013-02-27 13:30:00 ultratopo has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 506 2013-02-27 13:31:17 TD_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 507 2013-02-27 13:31:38 TD_ has joined
 508 2013-02-27 13:31:44 rdymac has joined
 509 2013-02-27 13:35:30 datagutt has joined
 510 2013-02-27 13:36:54 Diablo-D3 has quit (Quit: do coders dream of sheep()?)
 511 2013-02-27 13:38:04 Diablo-D3 has joined
 512 2013-02-27 13:38:46 Diablo-D3 has quit (Client Quit)
 513 2013-02-27 13:39:04 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 514 2013-02-27 13:39:58 Diablo-D3 has joined
 515 2013-02-27 13:40:06 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: how big (filesize) is the Avalon firmware you were sent?
 516 2013-02-27 13:40:43 grau_ has joined
 517 2013-02-27 13:42:43 monkeynipple_ has joined
 518 2013-02-27 13:43:47 grau has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 519 2013-02-27 13:44:43 monkeynipples has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 520 2013-02-27 13:45:40 [\\\] has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 521 2013-02-27 13:49:13 eckey has joined
 522 2013-02-27 13:49:49 <eckey> sipa: ping
 523 2013-02-27 13:52:22 grau_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 524 2013-02-27 13:52:39 nus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 525 2013-02-27 13:53:02 <sipa> eckey: yes?
 526 2013-02-27 13:53:04 denisx_ has joined
 527 2013-02-27 13:53:06 nus has joined
 528 2013-02-27 13:54:40 nus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 529 2013-02-27 13:54:46 denisx has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 530 2013-02-27 13:54:46 denisx_ is now known as denisx
 531 2013-02-27 13:55:00 <eckey> sipa: wanted to tell you that the problem with the bitcoin-qt process hanging aroung for 10 minutes after termination was resolved with v0.8.  thank you for your help.
 532 2013-02-27 13:55:12 grau has joined
 533 2013-02-27 13:55:24 <sipa> eckey: good to hear!
 534 2013-02-27 13:55:29 nus has joined
 535 2013-02-27 13:55:54 nus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 536 2013-02-27 13:56:12 nus has joined
 537 2013-02-27 13:56:14 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 538 2013-02-27 13:56:54 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 539 2013-02-27 13:59:01 reizuki__ has joined
 540 2013-02-27 13:59:01 reizuki__ has quit (Changing host)
 541 2013-02-27 13:59:01 reizuki__ has joined
 542 2013-02-27 13:59:05 t7 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 543 2013-02-27 14:00:52 t7 has joined
 544 2013-02-27 14:01:01 [\\\] has joined
 545 2013-02-27 14:01:21 nus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 546 2013-02-27 14:01:39 nus has joined
 547 2013-02-27 14:05:54 darkmethod has joined
 548 2013-02-27 14:10:04 [\\\] has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 549 2013-02-27 14:11:07 nus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 550 2013-02-27 14:11:08 [\\\] has joined
 551 2013-02-27 14:11:25 nus has joined
 552 2013-02-27 14:12:21 nus- has joined
 553 2013-02-27 14:14:47 darkskiez has left ("Ex-Chat")
 554 2013-02-27 14:16:17 nus has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 555 2013-02-27 14:18:52 idstam has quit ()
 556 2013-02-27 14:18:53 monkeynipple_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 557 2013-02-27 14:19:01 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
 558 2013-02-27 14:30:47 agricocb has joined
 559 2013-02-27 14:30:47 etotheipi_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 560 2013-02-27 14:43:06 [\\\] has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 561 2013-02-27 14:50:45 grau has joined
 562 2013-02-27 14:52:41 skeledrew1 has joined
 563 2013-02-27 14:55:02 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 564 2013-02-27 15:02:30 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
 565 2013-02-27 15:05:31 sturles_ has joined
 566 2013-02-27 15:06:18 sturles_ is now known as sturles
 567 2013-02-27 15:10:27 [\\\] has joined
 568 2013-02-27 15:12:56 [\\\]_z has joined
 569 2013-02-27 15:14:27 robocoin has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 570 2013-02-27 15:14:56 [\\\] has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 571 2013-02-27 15:15:29 JDuke128 has quit (Quit: [BB])
 572 2013-02-27 15:15:49 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 573 2013-02-27 15:16:22 grau has joined
 574 2013-02-27 15:18:19 reizuki__ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 575 2013-02-27 15:18:32 rdymac has joined
 576 2013-02-27 15:32:25 X-Scale has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 577 2013-02-27 15:42:31 <jaakkos> perhaps the wiki could describe how the authoritative proof-of-work chain is really chosen, because it's not just about length
 578 2013-02-27 15:42:40 <jaakkos> satoshi's paper doesn't describe it either
 579 2013-02-27 15:43:24 <gavinandresen> jaakkos: good idea.  It is sum of target difficulty.  You know the great thing about a wiki is anybody can edit it....
 580 2013-02-27 15:43:25 <jaakkos> eg., to answer the question why an arbitrary low-difficulty chain is not chosen
 581 2013-02-27 15:43:44 <jaakkos> yeah i wanted to fix something once but couldn't, i even created account :)
 582 2013-02-27 15:44:16 <gavinandresen> jaakkos: logout and log back in, you'll get an anti-spam-send-bitcoins-here-address
 583 2013-02-27 15:44:27 <jaakkos> ah ok
 584 2013-02-27 15:44:47 <gavinandresen> jaakkos: I'd be happy to pay for you if you promise to make the wiki better.
 585 2013-02-27 15:46:01 <jeremias> how long I get the edit rights for one payment
 586 2013-02-27 15:46:07 <gavinandresen> forever
 587 2013-02-27 15:46:09 <jaakkos> atm i mostly learn from the wiki, no the other way around yet ;)
 588 2013-02-27 15:46:17 <gavinandresen> it is purely a deter-spammers measure.
 589 2013-02-27 15:46:19 <sipa> technically, it is sum of expected work, where work is defined as 2^256/target for each block
 590 2013-02-27 15:46:26 <jaakkos> but there are things here and there i could fix
 591 2013-02-27 15:46:29 <sipa> as 'difficulty' doesn't exist at the protocol level
 592 2013-02-27 15:47:27 <jaakkos> i see
 593 2013-02-27 15:47:32 <gavinandresen> listen to sipa, he's much better at being precise than me
 594 2013-02-27 15:48:27 <sipa> there may be some -1 somewhere, i'd need to check
 595 2013-02-27 15:49:02 <jaakkos> what stops an attacker from dossing the network by sending an infinite crap chain because hey, how do you know the sum of works is not largest in that chain if you don't know the whole chain yet
 596 2013-02-27 15:49:50 <sipa> there are several stages in accepting a block
 597 2013-02-27 15:50:31 <sipa> 1) context-less checks (just see if the block is viable, without knowing/checking its ancestry)
 598 2013-02-27 15:50:56 <sipa> 2) chain chekcs (its parents until genesis are known, PoW/difficulty are correct, ...)
 599 2013-02-27 15:51:02 vigilyn2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 600 2013-02-27 15:51:13 <sipa> 3) connection checks: only done when the block seems to be part of the new best chain
 601 2013-02-27 15:51:18 vigilyn has joined
 602 2013-02-27 15:52:01 <sipa> and only after passing 3, a block is relayed
 603 2013-02-27 15:53:32 <gavinandresen> And there's a specific "is this blocks PoW plausible" check that is done early, and if you try to spam with low-PoW blocks you'll get disconnected and banned.
 604 2013-02-27 15:54:26 <jaakkos> is retargetting done by looking at UTC timestamps?
 605 2013-02-27 15:54:35 <sipa> yes
 606 2013-02-27 15:54:49 <sipa> so all data to calculate the new target is part of the past chain
 607 2013-02-27 15:55:19 <jaakkos> 2) sounds like it could be defeated if the attacker can generate enough blocks to retarget, then low difficulty is "correct"
 608 2013-02-27 15:56:39 <jaakkos> and the attacker can even choose the new target by choosing the timestamps... anyway this acceptance process must be quite sophisticated, i think i'll study the source
 609 2013-02-27 15:57:54 <sipa> 1) is ProcessBlock / CheckBlock, 2) is AcceptBlock, 3) is ConnectBlock
 610 2013-02-27 15:57:57 <sipa> afaik
 611 2013-02-27 15:59:54 <jaakkos> thanks
 612 2013-02-27 16:03:08 <TD_> good morning gavin
 613 2013-02-27 16:03:10 TD_ is now known as TD
 614 2013-02-27 16:03:28 <gavinandresen> hey mike
 615 2013-02-27 16:06:35 <petertodd> gavinandresen: Does the foundation yet have an official position on it's goals in relation to the decentralization and censorship reistance of Bitcoin?
 616 2013-02-27 16:07:02 <petertodd> gavinandresen: We can't really be arguing about block sizes without a position on that issue.
 617 2013-02-27 16:07:08 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 618 2013-02-27 16:07:51 <TD> the foundations position is that highly centralized systems prone to censorship are highly desirable
 619 2013-02-27 16:08:05 <gavinandresen> lol
 620 2013-02-27 16:08:08 <petertodd> TD: Good to know Mike. :P
 621 2013-02-27 16:08:28 <petertodd> TD: Can I quote you on that? (preferably inaccurately)
 622 2013-02-27 16:08:29 <gmaxwell> jaakkos: though we do have some vulnerability to crap chain flooding right now. We can basically eliminate it with hearder first fetching, but the hurestic checks are enough to make it not a trivial attack
 623 2013-02-27 16:08:48 <TD> hah
 624 2013-02-27 16:08:49 <gavinandresen> Official Position(™) ?
 625 2013-02-27 16:09:05 <TD> i'm not a part of the foundation beyond being a member
 626 2013-02-27 16:09:11 <petertodd> TD: Same
 627 2013-02-27 16:09:22 <gavinandresen> I think everybody on the board thinks that more decentralized and more censorship resistant is better.
 628 2013-02-27 16:09:56 <gmaxwell> petertodd: Will you next ask them on their position on the goodness of babies and apple pie? :P
 629 2013-02-27 16:10:02 <petertodd> gavinandresen: Ok, but "better" is vague; there should be defined engineering goals, so we can weigh solutions against that.
 630 2013-02-27 16:10:10 <gavinandresen> … but you seem to be pushing for an "absolutely decentralized and absolutely censorship resistant is the #1 overriding priority"
 631 2013-02-27 16:10:15 <petertodd> gmaxwell: AMARICA FUCK YAH!
 632 2013-02-27 16:10:22 <petertodd> gmaxwel: s/amarica/canada/
 633 2013-02-27 16:10:32 <gmaxwell> petertodd: The bitcoin foundation isn't in charge of anything, so I think framing a discussion around BF's goals is misguided in any case.
 634 2013-02-27 16:10:38 abrkn has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 635 2013-02-27 16:10:39 monkeynipples has joined
 636 2013-02-27 16:10:44 <gmaxwell> (and not a path we want to start down)
 637 2013-02-27 16:10:59 <gavinandresen> yes, what "the foundation" thinks isn't really relevant
 638 2013-02-27 16:11:04 <petertodd> gavinandresen: Hey, I've always been open to increasing the block size, but after we know how to keep sufficient decentralization.
 639 2013-02-27 16:11:53 <helo> personal note: the foundation unofficially thinks babies go down well with ice cream
 640 2013-02-27 16:12:00 <helo> *apple pie
 641 2013-02-27 16:12:03 <petertodd> gavinandresen: Probably what I most disagree with is the idea that computers will keep getting faster at the same rate that the scaling problem grows. (and I haven't seen much interest in inflation proofing to get around the issue)
 642 2013-02-27 16:12:18 <gavinandresen> petertodd: so, I always say "scaling issues are a good problem to have."  It means we're being successful.  I think engineers tend to worry about things that they THINK might happen in 20 years, when they should really be worrying about what will happen in the next six months.
 643 2013-02-27 16:13:45 <petertodd> gavinandresen: ..but, Bitcoin is a consensus thing, so as it gets bigger issues may be harder to solve, not easier. We can't bake into assumptions that blow up in our faces years down the line, which includes mechanisms for block sizes to grow without bound.
 644 2013-02-27 16:14:01 <gavinandresen> It is really easy to get into big, theoretical, angels-dancing-on-pinheads debates about what will happen after we're all dead.
 645 2013-02-27 16:14:13 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 646 2013-02-27 16:14:21 <petertodd> I'm young, I won't be dead for 50 odd years.
 647 2013-02-27 16:14:23 <gavinandresen> Who is proposing that block sizes grow without bounds?
 648 2013-02-27 16:15:04 Belkaar has joined
 649 2013-02-27 16:15:49 <petertodd> Lots of people. People have proposed fixed rules that increase block size on a fixed schedule, say doubling every 18 months. You proposed a voting mechanism that I think would due to perverse incentives.
 650 2013-02-27 16:16:09 <gavinandresen> I haven't proposed anything yet, I've thrown out some half-baked ideas.
 651 2013-02-27 16:16:47 <petertodd> I don't mean "officially proposed"; I mean, what I've proposed with fidelity-foo's is at this point a half-baked idea too.
 652 2013-02-27 16:16:49 eckey has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 653 2013-02-27 16:17:55 <TD> i've proposed a floating block size limit before, i think
 654 2013-02-27 16:18:01 <TD> i don't remember the first time
 655 2013-02-27 16:18:06 <TD> probably ages ago
 656 2013-02-27 16:18:22 <petertodd> Regardless of exactly who, it is an idea that comes up over and over again.
 657 2013-02-27 16:18:56 <TD> petertodd: so, to put it bluntly, the people who are arguing bitcoin will scale just fine have actually sat down and done maths to show it. the assumptions those calculations are based on are amazingly reasonable, so reasonable they assume virtually no hardware improvements at all, even though those improvements are practically guaranteed
 658 2013-02-27 16:18:57 <petertodd> gavinandresen: In any case, you have said you want the mechanism to be automatic however it happens.
 659 2013-02-27 16:19:01 <gavinandresen> I still think miners will self-regulate the block size.  But we'll see in the next few months, average block size is getting close to 250K.  I already see people complaining that low-fee transactions are taking a long time to confirm
 660 2013-02-27 16:19:15 <TD> petertodd: your argument that it's not possible isn't based on any actual back-of-the-envelope calculations
 661 2013-02-27 16:19:45 <petertodd> TD: But they do assume increased centralization. They also assume, in particularly on the wiki, that you'll no longer be able to run a full validating node behind censorship-resistant web conncections.
 662 2013-02-27 16:20:39 <petertodd> gavinandresen: Well, I noticed the conversation on IRC logs with that pool op, and I get the feeling he is right and being a pool up is a hobby thing. That said, fees in USD are up to $2K/day, so...
 663 2013-02-27 16:20:56 <TD> no, they make no such assumptions. *you* are the one putting such assumptions into the mouths of people who are arguing bitcoin can scale. i actually assume the number of nodes will continue to grow at the same time that traffic grows
 664 2013-02-27 16:21:24 <TD> also, "censorship resistant web connections" can work just fine, assuming the technologies you're using to avoid censorship also scale up and perform well
 665 2013-02-27 16:21:25 <gavinandresen> petertodd: what's the typical bandwidth for a censorship-resistant connection?
 666 2013-02-27 16:21:25 <petertodd> TD: Well, here is a good one: I'm running an instrumented tor-using node to work out what the existing orphan rate for mining will be.
 667 2013-02-27 16:22:02 <TD> so what? i don't care about bitcoin behind tor. seriously! if a government wants to censor bitcoin, the way they are going to do it is by visiting any merchant who is reported to be accepting bitcoins, have some agent offer to buy their wares for bitcoin, and then jail them when they say yes
 668 2013-02-27 16:22:17 <TD> trying to screw about with traffic analysis just isn't the right way to ban bitcoin
 669 2013-02-27 16:22:38 da2ce7_d has joined
 670 2013-02-27 16:22:40 <gavinandresen> (I agree with TD here, but I'm still curious to know bandwidth of a typical tor circuit)
 671 2013-02-27 16:22:40 <petertodd> TD: Right... but, as I've said, with calculations and physical arguments, Moores law isn't likely to keep scaling, and neither will network bandwidth. A really simple argument re: the latter is it doesn't make sense to make more bandwidth to the home than you need for a few multiples of HD video streams, until something else happens. (holodecks?)
 672 2013-02-27 16:23:04 <kinlo> isn't the main reason to do bitcoin behind tor to get anonymity about who sends who coins?
 673 2013-02-27 16:23:17 <petertodd> TD: Government already has tried doing something very similar with drugs, and it's been a huge failure. Why would Bitcoin be any more vulnerable?
 674 2013-02-27 16:23:31 <gmaxwell> ...
 675 2013-02-27 16:23:33 <gavinandresen> petertodd: ummm…. you know that lots of people have been wrong for a long time betting against continued technological progress.....
 676 2013-02-27 16:23:46 <gmaxwell> petertodd: I agree basically with TD on that particular point.  Money is not like drugs.
 677 2013-02-27 16:23:52 <petertodd> gavinandresen: I've done some direct experiments there, and get ~50KiB/s to 200KiB/second, if you are lucky.
 678 2013-02-27 16:24:06 <TD> petertodd: number of cores is still increasingly pretty happily year over year
 679 2013-02-27 16:24:29 <petertodd> gavinandresen: Sort of. An interesting one is clock speeds: the ability to per form a single-threaded task fast hasn't actually increased for about a decade now.
 680 2013-02-27 16:24:36 <TD> petertodd: as has ops per core, actually, though not as dramatically as it once did. i mean the latest chips coming out of intel are still faster than previous chips, even though it got hard to scale clock speeds up years ago
 681 2013-02-27 16:24:41 <TD> it has, actually
 682 2013-02-27 16:24:42 <gmaxwell> Unlawful drugs still get you high (or whatever they're supposted to do) even if no one elses uses them. Money gets its value from being easily tradable and widely accepted. Making a money like thing unlawful is much more disruptive than drugs. (Likewise: an illicitly copied movie still is fun to watch)
 683 2013-02-27 16:24:44 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 684 2013-02-27 16:25:20 Zarutian has joined
 685 2013-02-27 16:25:39 <petertodd> gmaxwell: It's a good argument, money doesn't have it as easily as drugs, but equally then look at another example, countries where using anything but the official currency is verboten. Again, black market currencies get used widely anyway.
 686 2013-02-27 16:25:39 <TD> clock speeds stayed similar but better features on the chip (smarter branch predictors etc) have managed to keep actual performance growing quite nicely. regardless, for bitcoin, it parallelizes perfectly so it's really cores that we care about
 687 2013-02-27 16:26:05 <gavinandresen> 50KiB/s would be something like 20 transactions per second, or 3x current block size, today.  Current estimates are bandwidth increasing at 50% per year....
 688 2013-02-27 16:26:23 <petertodd> TD: Only to the extent that it turned out that many tasks were semi-parallizable. That's why those mechanisms don't scale anywhere near as well as over all transistors.
 689 2013-02-27 16:26:58 <petertodd> gavinandresen: But that's it, what's the physical basis for bandwitth cost increasing? Like it or not, you hit physcial limits.
 690 2013-02-27 16:26:59 <TD> but we're not talking about computation in general. we're talking about bitcoin specifically, which can saturate as many cores as you give it when it has enough traffic.
 691 2013-02-27 16:27:00 Hashdog has joined
 692 2013-02-27 16:27:17 <TD> we're nowhere near hitting physical limits on bandwidth
 693 2013-02-27 16:27:25 <TD> the bottleneck on bandwidth today is routing speed
 694 2013-02-27 16:27:32 <TD> and sometimes crappy last-mile wires
 695 2013-02-27 16:27:33 <gavinandresen> 50KiB/s is awfully small… you could bloom filter N tor connections to parallelize bandwidth, right?
 696 2013-02-27 16:27:45 <petertodd> TD: Yes, and as I argued quite clearly, the cost of those cores isn't going to keep going down without a different way of scaling transistors.
 697 2013-02-27 16:28:03 <gmaxwell> petertodd: In any case, good technical robustness discourages silly extralegal fun and games. An unfriendly regualtor might ask their partners in industry to voluntarily block it, creating huge disruption. Without actually going through the legal process which actually respects people's rights. So being technically robust is still good even if I don't buy the idea that you can actually be blocking immune.
 698 2013-02-27 16:28:08 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 699 2013-02-27 16:28:13 <gavinandresen> … and that's not even considering some type of censorship-resistant read-only broadcast mesh network thingie.....
 700 2013-02-27 16:28:21 <petertodd> gavinandresen: Yes, fraud proofs is the really big thing that makes it possible - then mining headers only is pretty safe while still providing real security.
 701 2013-02-27 16:28:43 <gavinandresen> … maybe jgarzik will broadcast the chain from one of his spaceships....
 702 2013-02-27 16:28:50 MrMeowork has quit (Quit: MrMeowork)
 703 2013-02-27 16:28:51 <SomeoneWeird> lol
 704 2013-02-27 16:28:52 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Yes. 51% attacks are a really good example. Sure in theory anyone with money can launch one, but the fact that you have is proven.
 705 2013-02-27 16:29:23 <TD> if the world runs out of CPUs and can't run bitcoin anymore, i will one day owe you a big frothing beer
 706 2013-02-27 16:29:25 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Centralizaiton on the other hand... you just find big pools, with their large datacenters, and pressure them into only accepting certain transactions bit by bit.
 707 2013-02-27 16:29:33 <petertodd> TD: Good, because it will.
 708 2013-02-27 16:30:14 <TD> ok :)
 709 2013-02-27 16:30:56 m00p has joined
 710 2013-02-27 16:30:57 <petertodd> TD: I think I've said it before it: I work as an analog elecronics designer, and that field *has* hit physical limits for a broad swath of techniques. It's why my designs have 10 year old parts in them.
 711 2013-02-27 16:31:10 <petertodd> (or even 40 year old parts...)
 712 2013-02-27 16:31:42 <gmaxwell> petertodd: lies. You just want an excuse to play with liquid helium.
 713 2013-02-27 16:31:44 <petertodd> Recently I was consulting a textbook written in tesla's time, and the information in it was still up to date for the *hardware*
 714 2013-02-27 16:32:01 <petertodd> gmaxwell: I'm sitting next to ~100 litres of it right now. :P
 715 2013-02-27 16:32:38 <petertodd> gmaxwell: ...and speaking of, my morning coffee is done, so back to the soldering iron...
 716 2013-02-27 16:33:13 topace has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 717 2013-02-27 16:34:06 tonikt has joined
 718 2013-02-27 16:34:12 FredEE has joined
 719 2013-02-27 16:35:12 topace has joined
 720 2013-02-27 16:35:36 topace is now known as Guest77836
 721 2013-02-27 16:35:40 Guest77836 has quit (Changing host)
 722 2013-02-27 16:35:40 Guest77836 has joined
 723 2013-02-27 16:35:55 Guest77836 is now known as topace__
 724 2013-02-27 16:36:10 * TD afk meeting
 725 2013-02-27 16:36:29 <gavinandresen> Never sure how to respond to emails like this:  "Does bitcoin, need someone to represent in Central Florida" ....
 726 2013-02-27 16:37:04 grau has joined
 727 2013-02-27 16:38:22 <monkeynipples> gavinandresen: "Sure, why not"
 728 2013-02-27 16:38:54 <gavinandresen> monkeynipples: lol, my actual response was "Probably.  Sure!  Go for it!"
 729 2013-02-27 16:39:10 <monkeynipples> nicely done :D
 730 2013-02-27 16:40:21 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: 3000 BTC and I'll broadcast the blockchain from space
 731 2013-02-27 16:40:25 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: at least we're not getting unsolicited resumes yet.
 732 2013-02-27 16:40:36 <gavinandresen> I should have told him or her that they were now the Official Central Florida Bitcoin Representative.  And sent a video of the secret handshake and Official Silly Walk.
 733 2013-02-27 16:40:37 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: who is this "we" to which you refer?  :)
 734 2013-02-27 16:41:04 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: people who's email addresses are on bitcoin.org and end up in those CC lists — or are you getting them?
 735 2013-02-27 16:41:07 grau has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 736 2013-02-27 16:41:32 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: definitely have received a few resumes during my tenure on the bitcoin.org posterboard
 737 2013-02-27 16:41:42 grau has joined
 738 2013-02-27 16:41:46 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: "I want to work for your Bitcoin corporation" etc.
 739 2013-02-27 16:42:06 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: and a few emails assuming I am bitcoin-rich, and need a new investment target
 740 2013-02-27 16:42:22 <sipa> i liked this mail:
 741 2013-02-27 16:42:23 <sipa> I read some information about bitcoin, said to close the Currency, is that true?
 742 2013-02-27 16:43:16 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: yea, I got my first of those recently (actually due to people looking at large txn on blockchain.info though).
 743 2013-02-27 16:43:17 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: Demand an initiation rite of some sort, like a video of new recruits drinking alpaca pee
 744 2013-02-27 16:43:29 <sipa> petertodd: do you have anything against a rule: increase max once to X, after that, increase slowly exponentially
 745 2013-02-27 16:43:35 <jgarzik> (c.f. people making Nigerian scammers post pictures of themselves doing silly things)
 746 2013-02-27 16:43:58 <abracadabra> hmm
 747 2013-02-27 16:44:07 <abracadabra> would the video also have to show the collection of said pee?
 748 2013-02-27 16:44:22 <abracadabra> someone could fake it with just yellow water
 749 2013-02-27 16:44:29 <abracadabra> unless alpaca pee is not yellow
 750 2013-02-27 16:44:32 <gmaxwell> sipa: he will. I do too I think.  But petertodd will because his opinion of continued growth in computing resources is very pessimistic.
 751 2013-02-27 16:44:41 <abracadabra> would have to do some reasearch on the subject i guess
 752 2013-02-27 16:45:06 <sipa> gmaxwell: and you because?
 753 2013-02-27 16:45:45 <jgarzik> <petertodd> gavinandresen: Well, I noticed the conversation on IRC logs with that pool op, and I get the feeling he is right and being a pool up is a hobby thing. That said, fees in USD are up to $2K/day, so...
 754 2013-02-27 16:45:49 [\\\]_z has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 755 2013-02-27 16:45:50 <gmaxwell> sipa: only because I don't think we can pick the right exponent in advance (not as pessimistic as petertodd, but setting the parameter is hard)
 756 2013-02-27 16:45:55 <jgarzik> fees for any one pool surely are not $2K/day
 757 2013-02-27 16:46:02 <gmaxwell> sipa: I suppose I could be convinced along the lines of increase once, slowly continue to increase if and only if the difficulty increases faster.. for some definition of faster.
 758 2013-02-27 16:46:05 <jgarzik> petertodd: ^
 759 2013-02-27 16:47:02 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, as long as the verification process is largely concurrent there is likely to be continued growth in the average nodes available computing resources
 760 2013-02-27 16:47:08 <phantomcircuit> if it's not then it's unlikely
 761 2013-02-27 16:47:16 <phantomcircuit> but it largely is now
 762 2013-02-27 16:47:45 grau has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 763 2013-02-27 16:48:12 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: what you are saying is not inconsistent with the position I just took.
 764 2013-02-27 16:48:41 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, i was mostly commenting on
 765 2013-02-27 16:48:42 <phantomcircuit> <gmaxwell> sipa: he will. I do too I think.  But petertodd will because his opinion of continued growth in computing resources is very pessimistic.
 766 2013-02-27 16:49:11 <gmaxwell> Continued growth doesn't say how much, and a small error in the exponent makes it get out of wack quickly. I offered my unfortunately complicated alternative, becuase if moores law holds difficulty will increase too. And so we could use that to constrain an exponent error from getting out of hand.
 767 2013-02-27 16:49:28 <sipa> gmaxwell: where is your proposal?
 768 2013-02-27 16:49:45 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: petertodd's argument there is very physical and has to do with heat dissapation being perportional to surface area, while potential computation is proportional to volume.
 769 2013-02-27 16:51:21 <gmaxwell> sipa: I was referring to what I just said on IRC— slow growth of the maximum, bounded to be less than (by some factor?) the difficulty growth.  I did also mention this on bitcoin talk, but it was completely ignored in the flood of half crazy stuff. (block fee variance capping?!)
 770 2013-02-27 16:51:42 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: wait, bitcoin is taking resumes now??? one sec lemme dig mine up
 771 2013-02-27 16:52:37 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: what you do is hash it, and make that a hash locked transaction. If someone spends it— then they needed exactly your skills, and you're hired.
 772 2013-02-27 16:52:38 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: I went looking for estimates of bandwidth growth rate yesterday, and looks like it's about 50%/yr right now:  http://www.nngroup.com/articles/nielsens-law-of-internet-bandwidth/
 773 2013-02-27 16:52:58 FredEE has quit (Quit: FredEE)
 774 2013-02-27 16:52:58 <jgarzik> as predicted, the blocksize discussion becomes "how can we fundamentally change bitcoin (the way I think it should have always worked)?"
 775 2013-02-27 16:53:05 <jgarzik> due to hard fork necessity
 776 2013-02-27 16:53:14 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: … since moore's law for CPU is 50%/yr, bandwidth will bottleneck assuming trends continue
 777 2013-02-27 16:53:19 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: lol, ok
 778 2013-02-27 16:53:22 <gavinandresen> ^50^60
 779 2013-02-27 16:53:30 Diablo-D3 has quit (Quit: do coders dream of sheep()?)
 780 2013-02-27 16:53:47 <jgarzik> bandwidth and the speed of light will bottleneck before cpu/disk
 781 2013-02-27 16:53:49 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, hmm linking transaction count to mining power is an interesting idea
 782 2013-02-27 16:53:50 Diablo-D3 has joined
 783 2013-02-27 16:53:54 <jgarzik> and general network latency
 784 2013-02-27 16:54:04 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: http://download.broadband.gov/plan/fcc-omnibus-broadband-initiative-%28obi%29-technical-paper-broadband-performance.pdf Page 4.
 785 2013-02-27 16:54:07 <gmaxwell> "Since 1997, consumer-purchased broadband connection speeds have doubled roughly every four years, with advertised fixed broadband download speeds growing at a 20% annual rate"
 786 2013-02-27 16:54:08 grau has joined
 787 2013-02-27 16:54:43 <gavinandresen> ? how does doubling every 4 years and 20% annual rate make sense?
 788 2013-02-27 16:55:02 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: though all these figures are fuzzy... switch speed is mostly bounded by memory density and power usage. But because networks are fixed infrastructures they have a fair amount of inertia that slows them down.
 789 2013-02-27 16:55:14 davout has joined
 790 2013-02-27 16:55:30 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: 1.2^4 ~= 2.
 791 2013-02-27 16:56:44 <gmaxwell> All bandwidth usage figures are also somewhat distorted by changing usage. E.g. the introduction of video streaming justifies a higher growth than what the technology gave you for free, 'cause adding the new service has a better return than just adding more of the old service.
 792 2013-02-27 16:56:58 t7 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 793 2013-02-27 16:58:23 <gavinandresen> okey dokey.  I calculate my wimpy DSL connection could, today, easily keep up with 10MB blocks.  I'm still really curious to see what happens to average block size when we hit 250K/block (we're not there yet:  http://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size )
 794 2013-02-27 16:58:46 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 795 2013-02-27 16:59:39 <gmaxwell> Well, all exponential scaling laws are good news if they're true. 20% is slower than 50%.. but they'll both become enormous changes in time.
 796 2013-02-27 16:59:55 <gavinandresen> sure… and this isn't a suicide pact, right?
 797 2013-02-27 17:00:52 <gavinandresen> … if the future versions of us decide that X% was too high or too low, and it is really obvious they are right, then it can be changed.  (I assume we'll all be retired and living on jeff's spaceships or something)
 798 2013-02-27 17:01:16 <gmaxwell> As you see, there is a pretty substantial resistance to change. :)
 799 2013-02-27 17:01:34 nouitfvf has joined
 800 2013-02-27 17:01:52 <gmaxwell> Sure— my only concern is that it not get ahead of whats 'comfortable'. Keep up with isn't quite the right criteria, I think— the criteria is keep up with without it being a decision you have to weigh heavily. Maybe being able to handle it at all on a smaller link is a good proxy for that? Not sure.
 801 2013-02-27 17:02:33 <gavinandresen> how small?  running a fully validating node behind one slow tor link seems like the wrong criteria.
 802 2013-02-27 17:03:10 bitafterbit has joined
 803 2013-02-27 17:03:55 <gmaxwell> I am unsure.  I mean, if it's "you have to give up privacy to validate bitcoin" then that isn't good... though that isn't implied by that as you could always get the blocks non-tor. Tor actually has pretty great throughput in any case, just cruddy latency.
 804 2013-02-27 17:05:00 <gavinandresen> mmm.  block size doesn't matter if it is a latency issue.
 805 2013-02-27 17:05:32 <gmaxwell> Well, of course it matters at some point as you run out of bandwidth— but adding tor to the question is irrelevant I think.
 806 2013-02-27 17:05:55 <sipa> it's all about how easy it is to get into each of these successive groups: 1) be an SPV node and make transactions 2) be a fully validating node 3) be a miner
 807 2013-02-27 17:06:19 <sipa> in the absolute worst case scenario with infinity block sizes, everyone is in 1), and almost nobody is in 2 or 3
 808 2013-02-27 17:06:51 <gmaxwell> with infinte block sizes you can't be spv either, well, you can but you can't validate transactions. :P
 809 2013-02-27 17:06:53 <sipa> in the absolute worst case scenario with very limit block sizes, everyone is in 2 and 3, and nobody is in 1
 810 2013-02-27 17:06:57 <gmaxwell> (I mean not even your own)
 811 2013-02-27 17:07:26 <sipa> bandwidth concerns probably make the disctinction between who can get into 2 or 3
 812 2013-02-27 17:07:39 <jgarzik> pretty much
 813 2013-02-27 17:08:12 <gavinandresen> bandwidth and latency, if you had 10-minute latency you wouldn't be a very successful miner.
 814 2013-02-27 17:08:33 <sipa> gavinandresen: indeed
 815 2013-02-27 17:09:08 <gmaxwell> sipa: how much do you think that fraud proofs play into this thinking? Today I can construct a compact proof that a block is invalid because it doublespends an input (it's just two spv fragements).  With a minor protocol modification we could construct compact proofs that a miner has taken excess subsidy.  This makes the trust model much stronger in a world where most nodes are (1).
 816 2013-02-27 17:09:11 <gavinandresen> I'm going to regret this….  but I did some relevant back-of-the-envelope calculations that are almost certainly very wrong:  https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/5044482
 817 2013-02-27 17:10:05 <sipa> gmaxwell: right, "herd immunity" - not doing any validation or trusting the one you get the information from, but trust that you'd from those who do validation
 818 2013-02-27 17:10:23 <sipa> which is pretty much the security model for the software itself
 819 2013-02-27 17:10:34 <gmaxwell> Indeed. Most people aren't reviewing the code.
 820 2013-02-27 17:11:25 m00p has joined
 821 2013-02-27 17:12:43 Belkaar has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 822 2013-02-27 17:12:59 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: I really like the idea of extending the protocol to broadcast negative proofs.
 823 2013-02-27 17:13:07 <gmaxwell> sipa: Its interesting to contemplate what the security of bitcoin would be if there was only one miner but he could never fork and would not DOS (but might attack in other ways). I think it is no less secure in that model if everyone is spv, so long as there are fraud proofs for every rule.
 824 2013-02-27 17:14:43 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: I have a partial implementation of a hardforking subsidy proof now (I changed the hash tree to accomidate it, but I don't act on the proofs yet). I need to add support for it to bitcoinj/multibit so I can actually demo it.
 825 2013-02-27 17:14:55 <jgarzik> heh, herd immunity
 826 2013-02-27 17:16:33 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: RE costs...  there is a cost to a miner, maintaining their own bitcoind / alt client with special rules, versus staying with the herd
 827 2013-02-27 17:16:54 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: thus at present, the two paths of least resistance are stick-with-inhouse-version or use-upstream-latest
 828 2013-02-27 17:17:00 <gmaxwell> even more powerful, in that it's a communicable immune system. You become immune to a bad block once only one peer anywhere in the world catches it, so long as there is an honest path between you and them.
 829 2013-02-27 17:17:20 <jgarzik> Therefore, miners have increased costs for anything the stock client does not make easy to do
 830 2013-02-27 17:17:25 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
 831 2013-02-27 17:17:35 <jgarzik> There are many variables to bother reasoning about
 832 2013-02-27 17:17:39 <jgarzik> er
 833 2013-02-27 17:17:43 <jgarzik> There are too many variables to bother reasoning about
 834 2013-02-27 17:17:50 <jgarzik> (to a rational miner today)
 835 2013-02-27 17:18:19 <jgarzik> Very few, worryingly few miners seem to take an active interest in network policy
 836 2013-02-27 17:18:26 <jgarzik> or making a market
 837 2013-02-27 17:18:43 <gmaxwell> including it being rational to take zero fee txn from earnest new users in order to encourage bitcoin adoption...
 838 2013-02-27 17:19:05 Belkaar has joined
 839 2013-02-27 17:19:06 <jgarzik> [tycho] has said as much (and I agree)
 840 2013-02-27 17:19:11 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: I like to point out that after p2sh took effect 50BTC (now the ~largest pool) produced invalid blocks for about a month.
 841 2013-02-27 17:19:46 <jgarzik> most core network functions -- including pool operation -- is not really sustainable beyond hobby level yet
 842 2013-02-27 17:19:50 <gavinandresen> So what do we think we'll see when the 250K/block soft limit is hit?
 843 2013-02-27 17:20:22 <QM> just wanted to mention while lurking that people behind Tor could do partial validation and help with broadcasting fraud proofs, if bandwidth becomes restrictive for them.  That way they're not being left out completely.
 844 2013-02-27 17:20:23 <TD> BlueMatt: re your comment, why would it make a difference? it's just not deleting data.
 845 2013-02-27 17:20:27 <gavinandresen> … I predict most miners will be too lazy to build bigger blocks, but if transaction fees rise high enough (I have no idea how high "high enough" is) then they will get less lazy.
 846 2013-02-27 17:20:48 <jgarzik> ATM, most miners will follow upstream, as long as upstream is reasonable
 847 2013-02-27 17:21:03 <jgarzik> (or stick with current, broken, older version)
 848 2013-02-27 17:21:09 <jgarzik> FSVO $current
 849 2013-02-27 17:21:13 <TD> hmm
 850 2013-02-27 17:21:19 <gmaxwell> QM: yea, if we implement the fraud proof stuff— it's not entirely clear. Some of it will need disruptive protocol changes and all of it is somewhat risky because it's tricky code that will never get executed except by tests.
 851 2013-02-27 17:21:39 <gavinandresen> Default behavior of 'upstream' is something else we could debate; I'd be tempted to leave it at "soft default 250K blocks" forever.
 852 2013-02-27 17:21:41 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: we have a switch, swtting that isn't hard.
 853 2013-02-27 17:22:24 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: debateable FAVO "lazy"
 854 2013-02-27 17:22:28 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: I think upstreams value should be the smallest value that people might leave alone. Setting it to something tiny and having them always adjust it is, meh. might as well make it 0. :)
 855 2013-02-27 17:23:23 <gavinandresen> zero is too small… leaving it at 250K because that's the way it has been "forever" should give a certain set of people the warm fuzzies.
 856 2013-02-27 17:23:29 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: well, if your calculations are correct (I haven't read past the beginning) then people shouldn't increase it unless the 250th KB transaction has a fee of 25 cents.
 857 2013-02-27 17:23:35 <jgarzik> Upstream should be reasonable for a miner to immediately deploy -- that creates the most positive, self-reinforcing behavior
 858 2013-02-27 17:23:47 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: 0.25 cents (0.0025 dollars)
 859 2013-02-27 17:23:54 <BlueMatt> TD: I think in some cases it does (some of the coding was lazy and just assumed it would be headers-only) in any case it breaks the api if it does so (why not just a block.isHeader() ? block : block.cloneAsHeader())
 860 2013-02-27 17:24:01 <gmaxwell> I must be vzn today.
 861 2013-02-27 17:24:04 <jgarzik> tangent
 862 2013-02-27 17:24:13 <jgarzik> nobody complained when I posted about raising fees on dust
 863 2013-02-27 17:24:16 <BlueMatt> TD: means less thought required and the same optimization result :)
 864 2013-02-27 17:24:17 andytoshi has joined
 865 2013-02-27 17:24:43 dlb76 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 866 2013-02-27 17:24:54 <sipa> gmaxwell: i actually like the fraud proof idea a lot... it means i'd also feel more confortable with a 'only validate 10% of transactions' setting or so
 867 2013-02-27 17:25:05 rdymac has joined
 868 2013-02-27 17:25:41 <gmaxwell> speaking of dust... is there any philosophical opposition to autosweeping up dust inputs? The txout set is bloating fast and I think we could stem the bleeding some if the default wallet behavior agressively tried to pull in tiny outputs.
 869 2013-02-27 17:25:58 <TD> BlueMatt: there is no isHeader :)
 870 2013-02-27 17:26:06 <TD> but yes, ok, i'll see about fixing it
 871 2013-02-27 17:26:07 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: no philosophical opposition from me.
 872 2013-02-27 17:26:11 edwincheese has joined
 873 2013-02-27 17:26:11 <BlueMatt> TD: well, isnt it block.transaction == null
 874 2013-02-27 17:26:56 <TD> ok
 875 2013-02-27 17:26:57 <gavinandresen> I'd like to get the payment protocol done and implemented, convince SatoshiDice to switch to it, and make dust outputs non-standard.
 876 2013-02-27 17:27:28 <TD> BlueMatt: that fixes a unit test i broke without realizing, too :)
 877 2013-02-27 17:27:31 <gmaxwell> I suspect the order of those operations is permuted a bit. (they won't even deploy compressed pubkeys)
 878 2013-02-27 17:27:37 <gavinandresen> Or maybe make dust ouputs non-standard and then convince SD to switch....
 879 2013-02-27 17:27:39 <TD> gavinandresen: satoshidice may be hard to convince, but you might have more heft than me
 880 2013-02-27 17:27:45 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: I think the forum could use someone posting graphs and numbers about dust
 881 2013-02-27 17:27:51 <BlueMatt> TD: heh, ok well atleast there was a unit-test for it
 882 2013-02-27 17:28:03 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: right now it's just a couple devs yapping, maybe they are just odd ducks
 883 2013-02-27 17:28:15 <BlueMatt> TD: well, if they're non-standard and the dust outputs never get confirmed....
 884 2013-02-27 17:28:22 <BlueMatt> (btw, why are dust outputs not yet non-standard?
 885 2013-02-27 17:28:34 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: because the definition of dust is hard.
 886 2013-02-27 17:28:44 <TD> gavinandresen: then they'll just use "whatever the smallest output allowed" is. i think we put way too much random stuff into IsStandard. I'd rather we just allow zero-valued outputs that are marked for immediate pruning
 887 2013-02-27 17:28:51 <BlueMatt> dust == whatever sd currently pays for its dust outputs ;)
 888 2013-02-27 17:29:08 <TD> gavinandresen: in fact, if you use petertodds patch for making insta-pruned outputs, SD can change their code to use zero-valued outputs for messaging
 889 2013-02-27 17:29:13 <gmaxwell> The best definition I have is "so small they'd never be economically rational to include in your txn" ... but that presumes knowing what future fees would look like.
 890 2013-02-27 17:29:15 <gavinandresen> TD: even better idea
 891 2013-02-27 17:29:43 <gmaxwell> it's not a better idea... a pruned txn still has perpetual cost!
 892 2013-02-27 17:29:44 <TD> gavinandresen: which of course is still lame, but it's just one tweak to their code. the only issue would be, thanks to IsStandard, those transactions wouldn't propagate :(
 893 2013-02-27 17:29:46 <jgarzik> I was surprised SatoshiDICE did not object to
 894 2013-02-27 17:29:50 <jgarzik> (dated Dec 12, 2012)
 895 2013-02-27 17:29:51 <gavinandresen> RE: peter's idea for immediately pruned outputs:  allow OP_INVALID followed by some-reasonable-amount-of-arbitrary-data ?
 896 2013-02-27 17:29:56 <jgarzik>  RFC: Updating dust output definition, and default fees
 897 2013-02-27 17:29:56 <jgarzik> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=130450.0
 898 2013-02-27 17:30:02 <jgarzik> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2100
 899 2013-02-27 17:30:15 <TD> gavinandresen: why not OP_RETURN? just because it gives you heebie-jeebies? i can't say i'm wild about abusing invalid opcodes
 900 2013-02-27 17:30:51 <gmaxwell> Certantly a pruned output is signficantly better than an unpruned one... if you want to enable messaging, enable relaying some kind of txn that will never get mined.
 901 2013-02-27 17:30:55 <gavinandresen> TD: because it would be really easy for somebody to think that scriptSig == OP_1, scriptPubKey = OP_RETURN …   should be valid?
 902 2013-02-27 17:31:00 <gmaxwell> At least then its not a perpetual cost.
 903 2013-02-27 17:31:12 <jgarzik> On dust:  making it non-standard would be nice
 904 2013-02-27 17:31:15 <jgarzik> or at least cost more
 905 2013-02-27 17:31:28 <jgarzik> I don't object to SD in general... just the losing bets being dust-spam
 906 2013-02-27 17:31:37 <gavinandresen> agreed
 907 2013-02-27 17:31:43 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: the litecoin people are using a rule where the fee is multiplied by the jaggedness of coins as they've had big problems with dust.
 908 2013-02-27 17:32:26 <jgarzik> <EVorhees> Roughly 3/4 of SD transactions are financial transactions, and 1/4 is "information".
 909 2013-02-27 17:32:27 <sipa> gavinandresen: OP_RETURN is implemented a direct 'return false;' in EvalScript... hard to feel more safe about it
 910 2013-02-27 17:32:30 <TD> gavinandresen: people who don't understand script but are still making custom non-standard transactions probably aren't going to be stopped by something like that
 911 2013-02-27 17:32:34 * jgarzik cheers that he finally admitted it
 912 2013-02-27 17:32:37 dlb76 has joined
 913 2013-02-27 17:32:42 <gavinandresen> TD: … and why do you say using OP_INVALID for a "can never be valid scriptPubKey" is abuse?
 914 2013-02-27 17:33:00 * gavinandresen wonders what else OP_INVALID might be for....
 915 2013-02-27 17:33:00 <TD> there is no OP_INVALID.
 916 2013-02-27 17:33:06 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: I'm not fine with the txn inefficient behavior funded by clueless users more generally. (the dust isn't the only part of it, though its clearly the worst).. though I consider it all mostly self correcting.
 917 2013-02-27 17:33:09 <gavinandresen> 0xff is OP_INVALID
 918 2013-02-27 17:33:15 <gavinandresen> (if I recall correctly)
 919 2013-02-27 17:33:19 <TD> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script
 920 2013-02-27 17:33:37 <TD> oh you mean OP_INVALIDOPCODE
 921 2013-02-27 17:33:52 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: Well, losing bets cost SD (though certainly users fund SD)
 922 2013-02-27 17:34:00 <jgarzik> Consider if dust fee was 1.0 BTC
 923 2013-02-27 17:34:03 <gavinandresen> sorry, yes, OP_INVALIDOPCODE
 924 2013-02-27 17:34:05 <gavinandresen> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/script.cpp#L250
 925 2013-02-27 17:34:08 <jgarzik> at some point it's fine, cost-wise
 926 2013-02-27 17:34:12 <TD> it'd be weird for accepted behavior to rely on "invalid opcodes" when OP_RETURN is exactly the semantics required
 927 2013-02-27 17:34:48 <jgarzik> at a high fee cost, the behavior is accepted while also incentivizing alt-solutions
 928 2013-02-27 17:35:51 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: then you keep crazy messaging behaviors that result in perpetual storage, but just ones where they pay a 1 BTC fee and produce 255 1e-8 outputs which is then backed up by rightious "I paid for my messaging, you don't get to complain"
 929 2013-02-27 17:36:06 <gmaxwell> so, meh. Better than doing nothing.
 930 2013-02-27 17:36:40 <gmaxwell> I'd favor something more like: estimate the rational fees/byte and don't relay or mine txn which create outputs which would not be rational to redeem.
 931 2013-02-27 17:36:52 <TD> gmaxwell: it's a pragmatic approach. the payment protocol gives them exactly what they need. however, deployment won't be overnight by any means
 932 2013-02-27 17:37:00 <TD> gmaxwell: heck deployment of a new addition to IsStandard will take ages too
 933 2013-02-27 17:37:23 <TD> doing both seems rational
 934 2013-02-27 17:37:31 <gmaxwell> TD: AFAIK they're totally uninterested in a payment protocol, so the deployment time of that is moot.
 935 2013-02-27 17:37:42 <sipa> the real solution to dust is incorporating UTXO set size changes into priority calculations, and then adapting coin selection to optimize for that
 936 2013-02-27 17:37:44 <gavinandresen> TD: I suppose I'd feel less heebie-jeebie-ish about using OP_RETURN if we renamed OP_RETURN  OP_RETURN_0
 937 2013-02-27 17:38:09 <petertodd> For the record, my proposal isn't to make OP_INVALID <data> IsStandard() or anything, I just want to define the right way for things like P2Pool and what not to create data outputs and make them non-prunable; basically I expect only a few miners to allow such monsters at all.
 938 2013-02-27 17:38:17 <jgarzik> sipa: that solution is still cleaning up users, on behalf of a spammy upstream transaction output provider
 939 2013-02-27 17:38:21 <gmaxwell> sipa: I'd suggested just making the priority purely utxo based, as a simplest possible change.
 940 2013-02-27 17:38:28 <jgarzik> sipa: it's an after-the-fact cleanup solution for bad behavior
 941 2013-02-27 17:38:38 <TD> there are a bunch of uses for zero-valued outputs
 942 2013-02-27 17:38:58 <petertodd> Basically, P2Pool doesn't have a choice, they have to use invalid outputs for technical reasons, so what's the best way to do that?
 943 2013-02-27 17:38:59 <TD> gavinandresen: ok
 944 2013-02-27 17:39:11 <gmaxwell> well, a bunch of parasitic uses that potentially devaule bitcoin as a currency...
 945 2013-02-27 17:39:12 <TD> gavinandresen: i guess so. i mean, existing software will still render something appropriate and can be updated later.
 946 2013-02-27 17:39:16 <gavinandresen> I like the idea of an IsStandard, immediately-prunable, zero-value scriptPubKey
 947 2013-02-27 17:39:19 <petertodd> (back to work...)
 948 2013-02-27 17:39:31 <jgarzik> petertodd: p2pool creates coinbase, no way to stuff it in there?
 949 2013-02-27 17:39:52 <gavinandresen> I also like gmaxwell's idea of a will-never-be-mined broadcast message, if we can figure out how to make it immune from spam
 950 2013-02-27 17:40:12 <gavinandresen> (err, how to make it impossible to USE to spam)
 951 2013-02-27 17:40:24 <TD> you mean like the old pubsub system?
 952 2013-02-27 17:40:28 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: I'm fine with the idea of the instant prunable outputs, but it is _not_ good to use that for messaging. Because the data still has perpetual lifetime, it's just not perpetual lifetime in the most expensive possible storage.
 953 2013-02-27 17:40:44 <TD> gmaxwell: nobody disagrees there. hence the payment protocol
 954 2013-02-27 17:41:02 <sipa> anyway, i have no problem with adding a check in CScript::IsGuaranteedInvalid(), and use that to instant-prune newly added outputs
 955 2013-02-27 17:41:02 <gmaxwell> TD: ::nods:: I'm just harping because it got brought up for messaging purposes here.
 956 2013-02-27 17:41:05 <gavinandresen> payment protocol doesn't have the privacy that a satoshidice user might want, though
 957 2013-02-27 17:41:12 <forrestv> jgarzik, having the data at the end of the transaction is useful because you can use midstate compression instead of knowing the entire transaction
 958 2013-02-27 17:41:23 <TD> in the context of "until they're using the real solution this is slightly better than the current abuse"
 959 2013-02-27 17:41:25 <TD> gavinandresen: how so?
 960 2013-02-27 17:41:43 <gmaxwell> sipa: in theory we could just go ahead and implement ... they're already unspendable.
 961 2013-02-27 17:41:50 <gmaxwell> (we'd reject any chain that spent them)
 962 2013-02-27 17:42:03 <gavinandresen> TD: to get the "you lost" message, you need to connect directly to SD's web server, giving up your IP address (assuming you're not a geek and use tor)
 963 2013-02-27 17:42:32 <gavinandresen> (speaking of which… writing that code is next on my TODO list)
 964 2013-02-27 17:42:58 <TD> gavinandresen: *shrug* their IPs probably appear on blockchain too. i'm all for easy to use tor integration in clients ....
 965 2013-02-27 17:43:01 <gmaxwell> ^ and if they were willing to do that, they could just operatre like ragecoin... and only make two txn per payment session.  They don't need a payment protocol, they need a webpage. But they have one but choose not to use it for this.
 966 2013-02-27 17:43:43 ForceMajeure_ has joined
 967 2013-02-27 17:44:01 <gmaxwell> TD: blockchain has a direct interface to SD transactions ... when I looked before about 1/3rd of sd transactions were created from there, and that hides the ip. :P
 968 2013-02-27 17:44:05 <sipa> gmaxwell: exactly
 969 2013-02-27 17:44:28 <TD> gavinandresen: which code?
 970 2013-02-27 17:44:33 <TD> gavinandresen: uploading payments
 971 2013-02-27 17:44:36 <TD> ?
 972 2013-02-27 17:44:51 <sipa> gmaxwell: the discussion is more about which such rule would be standard
 973 2013-02-27 17:45:07 <gavinandresen> TD: actually, fetching a payment request from a bitcoin:…?request=http…  URI, and then submitting a Payment message to a webserver
 974 2013-02-27 17:45:13 <TD> cool
 975 2013-02-27 17:45:29 <sipa> is there a way to recognize p2pool's unspendable outputs?
 976 2013-02-27 17:45:51 <sipa> (the current ones, not to add that as a special rule)
 977 2013-02-27 17:46:07 <gmaxwell> p2pools outputs are spendable right now.
 978 2013-02-27 17:46:34 ForceMajeure has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 979 2013-02-27 17:46:34 <TD> by who?
 980 2013-02-27 17:46:34 <gmaxwell> and a couple times people have groomed some of them.
 981 2013-02-27 17:46:34 <gmaxwell> anyone.
 982 2013-02-27 17:46:34 <sipa> gmaxwell: in theory or in practice?
 983 2013-02-27 17:46:34 <sipa> oh
 984 2013-02-27 17:46:36 <TD> they're 1satoshi outputs?
 985 2013-02-27 17:46:40 <gmaxwell> they're anyone can spend zero value outputs.
 986 2013-02-27 17:46:43 <TD> oh
 987 2013-02-27 17:46:54 <TD> forrestv: wanna fix that?
 988 2013-02-27 17:46:58 <TD> gmaxwell: well, that's easy to fix then
 989 2013-02-27 17:47:15 <forrestv> they're just a constant. if a rule is added to bitcoin to discard outputs, i'll make p2pool take advantage of it
 990 2013-02-27 17:47:17 <TD> gmaxwell: p2pool starts using the new standard insta-prune format, then somebody just makes a tx that deletes all the old ones
 991 2013-02-27 17:47:20 <TD> cool
 992 2013-02-27 17:47:26 <sipa> forrestv: ok, great
 993 2013-02-27 17:47:31 <gmaxwell> it doesn't need to be standard.
 994 2013-02-27 17:47:43 <gmaxwell> (er, do you mean IsStandard?)
 995 2013-02-27 17:48:05 <sipa> i'm in favor of limiting the number of "guaranteed unspendable" rules
 996 2013-02-27 17:48:16 <sipa> or people might expect logic to work in the generic case
 997 2013-02-27 17:48:28 <gmaxwell> well, both the return and the invalid are already '"guaranteed unspendable" rules' but I see your argument.
 998 2013-02-27 17:48:57 <gmaxwell> limiting "guaranteed unspendable" that will be autopruned to prevent the assumption that all "guaranteed unspendable" rules are autopruned.
 999 2013-02-27 17:49:16 <sipa> gmaxwell: indeed
1000 2013-02-27 17:49:20 <TD> gmaxwell: i meant in that sentence "standard as in universally agreed"
1001 2013-02-27 17:50:10 <gmaxwell> I don't know how to decide it. I have a mild preference for OP_RETURN but I don't believe that there is any real hard argument to be made.
1002 2013-02-27 17:50:15 FredEE has joined
1003 2013-02-27 17:50:25 <sipa> indeed
1004 2013-02-27 17:50:40 <sipa> both have exactly the same implemented semantics
1005 2013-02-27 17:50:48 <sipa> i don't care either way
1006 2013-02-27 17:51:20 <petertodd> alright, I'm voting for op_return, because we might want to use the invalid opcodes for other things via my "check_script_version" mechanism I proposed (or similar)
1007 2013-02-27 17:51:30 <petertodd> sipa is right
1008 2013-02-27 17:51:30 <gmaxwell> maybe we should stage a big dramatic argument over it so that it will take the place of the dramatic argument over things that matter? :P
1009 2013-02-27 17:51:32 <gavinandresen> TD seems to care, so we should make it OP_RETURN.
1010 2013-02-27 17:51:33 * BlueMatt votes OP_RETURN is cleaner
1011 2013-02-27 17:52:01 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: you're prone to caring about minutia, do you have an opinion here?
1012 2013-02-27 17:52:01 <gavinandresen> I'll suppress my OCD and won't insist on renaming it OP_RETURN_0, gotta save those keystrokes....
1013 2013-02-27 17:52:23 <gavinandresen> How big are the p2pool 0-value outputs?
1014 2013-02-27 17:52:34 <gmaxwell> to be clear, I understand this as "the script begins with OP_RETURN with nothing before it"
1015 2013-02-27 17:52:40 <sipa> gmaxwell: indeed
1016 2013-02-27 17:52:45 <petertodd> gmaxwell: yup
1017 2013-02-27 17:52:56 <gavinandresen> … if we do an IsStandard OP_RETURN <push some number of bytes of data>  how big should some number be?
1018 2013-02-27 17:52:57 <gmaxwell> does this actually work for the p2pool case?
1019 2013-02-27 17:53:21 <gavinandresen> (I know p2pool doesn't need them to be IsStandard....)
1020 2013-02-27 17:53:26 <petertodd> gavinandresen: big enough to fit a fidelity bonded tx? :P
1021 2013-02-27 17:53:28 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: there is already a limit
1022 2013-02-27 17:53:38 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: dont remember it though...2XX bytes?
1023 2013-02-27 17:53:41 <petertodd> gavinandresen: I think jgarzik's arguments were fine before
1024 2013-02-27 17:53:52 <sipa> gavinandresen: in the case of a provably-and-by-standard-autoprunable output, the template doesn't matter at all - just limit the size of the script
1025 2013-02-27 17:53:56 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: 20 bytes. But! I reeeeellly don't think we should do that, instead we should IsStandard something that won't get mined.
1026 2013-02-27 17:54:25 <BlueMatt> 520 bytes is current maximum
1027 2013-02-27 17:55:08 mologie has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1028 2013-02-27 17:55:16 <gmaxwell> yea, as sipa says, ignore the template the criteria should be the size, and it shouldn't be longer than a hash, because thats all you could get throw the dumb way. And pratically all use cases that are sane just need to commit a hash.
1029 2013-02-27 17:55:38 mologie has joined
1030 2013-02-27 17:55:39 <gmaxwell> Also, a txn shouldn't by IsStandard if it has a bunch of those outputs. Only one(?) per tx.
1031 2013-02-27 17:55:59 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: I agree with the non-mining of txn like this, though
1032 2013-02-27 17:56:08 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: and, yes, no more than a hash seems sane
1033 2013-02-27 17:56:14 <gmaxwell> keeping in mind: prunable still means perpetual storage... just not perpetual fast storage.
1034 2013-02-27 17:57:04 <petertodd> BlueMatt: there is no limit on scriptPubKey size other than the blocksize limit, there is a limit on the size of a script that gets executed, and that's 10,000 bytes
1035 2013-02-27 17:57:05 <gavinandresen> ok, no consensus on IsStandard.  y'all go figure out how to broadcast a not-minable transaction without making it possible to spam the network, then....
1036 2013-02-27 17:57:31 <BlueMatt> petertodd: there is a limit of 520 bytes of any individual push in a script
1037 2013-02-27 17:57:32 <petertodd> BlueMatt: I inserted a bunch of just under 1MB tx's on testnet...
1038 2013-02-27 17:57:47 <BlueMatt> you can push as many of those 520-byte blocks as you want
1039 2013-02-27 17:57:52 <petertodd> BlueMatt: Only if the script is executed
1040 2013-02-27 17:58:03 <BlueMatt> ahh, yes, thats right
1041 2013-02-27 17:58:14 <BlueMatt> anyway....even 520 seems overkill if you're encoding random data
1042 2013-02-27 17:58:39 <sipa> more than 32 bytes makes no sense
1043 2013-02-27 17:58:40 <petertodd> gavinandresen: You can always require a PoW with the same algorithm as the bitcoin PoW whose difficulty is related to the block reward...
1044 2013-02-27 17:58:58 <sipa> as that gives you a hash with the highest security level we have anywhere
1045 2013-02-27 17:59:15 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: lol, well I can give you one. Just allow a non-final txn with its nlock time set maximally far in the future. Then your ability to send is limited by the number of spendable coins you have. :P
1046 2013-02-27 17:59:23 <jgarzik> I wish there was a viable merge-mined alt-chain
1047 2013-02-27 17:59:26 axhlf has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1048 2013-02-27 17:59:26 <petertodd> sipa: I agree, fidelity bonded tx sacrifices can be done with a separate rule that actually checks the data is a valid tx, or just rely on sending the publish tx to eligus...
1049 2013-02-27 17:59:36 <jgarzik> maybe I need to start "tempcoin", with coins that expire after 12 months if unspent
1050 2013-02-27 17:59:46 <jgarzik> an alt-chain testnet
1051 2013-02-27 18:00:00 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: I think the discussion here indicated that it should be named SCAMCOIN.
1052 2013-02-27 18:00:19 <gmaxwell> (this being the hypothetical testnet altchain that has all the science project expirements in it)
1053 2013-02-27 18:01:06 <helo> macscoin?
1054 2013-02-27 18:01:26 <sipa> lotsocoin
1055 2013-02-27 18:01:27 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: <shrug> well without an alternate outlet, people will keep dumping info into the main chain
1056 2013-02-27 18:01:42 * jgarzik always wanted a data chain
1057 2013-02-27 18:01:43 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: limited by number of spendable coins:  good idea, except there might be a chicken-and-egg problem of incentivizing dust spam before the network switches to rejecting it
1058 2013-02-27 18:01:55 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: alternatives exist now, people don't use them. Go use namecoin— it has key value pair things that expire.
1059 2013-02-27 18:02:23 <helo> it's hard to get data worth as much as a bitcoin uxto
1060 2013-02-27 18:02:34 <helo> utxo
1061 2013-02-27 18:03:02 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: namecoin is already worthless
1062 2013-02-27 18:03:13 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: yea, didn't say it was a great idea. Another possiblity is to just ratelimit. And then if it gets spammed 'oh well'.
1063 2013-02-27 18:03:22 tonikt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1064 2013-02-27 18:03:24 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: mostly due to a lack of non-spamming incentives.
1065 2013-02-27 18:03:27 <jgarzik> and they actively discourage use as a general timestamping service
1066 2013-02-27 18:03:50 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: they do? huh? You sure about that?
1067 2013-02-27 18:04:05 <gmaxwell> though, if you just want timestamping that should be done O(1) style.
1068 2013-02-27 18:04:42 <gmaxwell> But, really, no one cares about timestamping. Otherwise someone would be running chronobit.
1069 2013-02-27 18:07:10 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: I guess the thing to do would be to have a rate limit per unspent txin with the limit proportional to value.
1070 2013-02-27 18:07:21 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: thus there is no dust creation incentive.
1071 2013-02-27 18:07:31 <gmaxwell> And no checking for double spends on those special txn, I guess.
1072 2013-02-27 18:08:04 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: sounds reasonable, can you write it up?
1073 2013-02-27 18:08:17 <gmaxwell> yes.
1074 2013-02-27 18:09:36 <gavinandresen> I think transaction-connected messaging across the p2p network would add a tremendous amount of potential value
1075 2013-02-27 18:11:08 <TD> you can already stuff arbitrary data after a tx and it'll be relayed
1076 2013-02-27 18:11:13 <TD> nobody uses that feature today, though
1077 2013-02-27 18:12:21 <gavinandresen> That's because we haven't done anything spiffy like have the client display pop up a message box if the transaction is to them and the data is provably from the person sending them the transaction
1078 2013-02-27 18:12:40 <gmaxwell> it doesn't have that property.
1079 2013-02-27 18:12:49 <gmaxwell> (data tacked on the end isn't signed)
1080 2013-02-27 18:13:16 <TD> doesn't have what property?
1081 2013-02-27 18:13:33 <gmaxwell> "the data is provably from the person sending them the transaction"
1082 2013-02-27 18:13:53 <gavinandresen> just arbitrary data tacked on somewhere along the way would be a bad idea, spammers would have a field day
1083 2013-02-27 18:13:53 <TD> did anyone claim it did?
1084 2013-02-27 18:14:30 <gmaxwell> < TD> nobody uses that feature today, though < gavinandresen> That's because[...] and the data is provably from the person sending them the transaction.
1085 2013-02-27 18:14:40 <TD> right, time to head out.
1086 2013-02-27 18:14:56 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1087 2013-02-27 18:18:13 sgornick has joined
1088 2013-02-27 18:21:21 rdymac has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1089 2013-02-27 18:22:22 <midnightmagic> jgarzik: It's not worthless yet..
1090 2013-02-27 18:22:27 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1091 2013-02-27 18:26:20 edwincheese has quit (Quit: edwincheese)
1092 2013-02-27 18:30:05 <gmaxwell> I wonder about making the definition of instant prunable be 'zero value'.
1093 2013-02-27 18:31:37 Mandrius has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.4 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
1094 2013-02-27 18:39:16 rbecker has quit (Quit: You care. You're there for me.  You love me so much, and I never want to let it go.  You are the one truly amazing person. MDR 3/6/11 <3)
1095 2013-02-27 18:39:32 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1096 2013-02-27 18:40:45 copumpkin has joined
1097 2013-02-27 18:41:42 RBecker has joined
1098 2013-02-27 18:45:37 RBecker has quit (Excess Flood)
1099 2013-02-27 18:48:39 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/User:Gmaxwell/mtx  a very rough sketch
1100 2013-02-27 18:50:23 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: cool.  I'll start thinking about whether or not that can replace the Payment Protocol Payment/PaymentACK mechanism
1101 2013-02-27 18:51:26 RBecker has joined
1102 2013-02-27 18:58:02 mappum has joined
1103 2013-02-27 19:08:20 topace__ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1104 2013-02-27 19:09:16 topace has joined
1105 2013-02-27 19:09:24 topace has quit (Changing host)
1106 2013-02-27 19:09:25 topace has joined
1107 2013-02-27 19:12:48 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1108 2013-02-27 19:15:29 CaptainBlaze has joined
1109 2013-02-27 19:16:09 davout has joined
1110 2013-02-27 19:19:25 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1111 2013-02-27 19:21:58 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: hey, you guys finally did a xiph episode 2, nice!
1112 2013-02-27 19:22:45 brocktice has joined
1113 2013-02-27 19:22:59 freakazoid has joined
1114 2013-02-27 19:23:58 CaptainBlaze has quit (Quit: CaptainBlaze)
1115 2013-02-27 19:25:25 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: Yea. (http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml for those who haven't seen it)
1116 2013-02-27 19:31:59 [\\\] has joined
1117 2013-02-27 19:33:02 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: I think scriptPubKey[0] == OP_RETURN sounds great
1118 2013-02-27 19:35:07 toffoo has joined
1119 2013-02-27 19:43:53 ThomasV has joined
1120 2013-02-27 19:47:00 monkeynipples has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1121 2013-02-27 19:47:15 meLon has joined
1122 2013-02-27 19:47:33 monkeynipples has joined
1123 2013-02-27 19:47:44 meLon has quit (Client Quit)
1124 2013-02-27 19:48:04 meLon has joined
1125 2013-02-27 19:52:57 [\\\] has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1126 2013-02-27 19:54:55 <grau> I was asking the bitcoin foundation for non-monetary support of my work and it was turned down. I am curious why.
1127 2013-02-27 19:55:33 <gmaxwell> grau: what did you ask for?
1128 2013-02-27 19:58:42 <grau> "I ask primarily for non-monetary support for this project. Please provide your opinion and guidance for testing and once this is deemed production quality provide the sufficient publicity for it. "
1129 2013-02-27 19:59:17 <grau> alternatives are not wanted
1130 2013-02-27 19:59:20 <grau> seemingly
1131 2013-02-27 19:59:23 jav__ has joined
1132 2013-02-27 19:59:24 <grau> fuck
1133 2013-02-27 19:59:30 <petertodd> grau: It's a grant process - it's for money, not other stuff.
1134 2013-02-27 19:59:48 <grau> publicity is worth money
1135 2013-02-27 19:59:56 <grau> but costs nothing to them
1136 2013-02-27 20:00:15 <gmaxwell> petertodd: even a grant process that gives out non-monetary things needs a concrete proposal. Can't great unspecified benefits. :)
1137 2013-02-27 20:00:26 <HM> Don't sweat it dude, if you make something awesome people will hear about it
1138 2013-02-27 20:00:28 <gmaxwell> s/great/grant/
1139 2013-02-27 20:00:30 <petertodd> I dunno, publicity is cheap with the forums, we're a small community.
1140 2013-02-27 20:02:40 <grau> If the problem was that it was not specific, then they might have asked what exactly I would want. I just got a note from Lindsay not more than : "I'm sorry to let you know that your grant request for a bitcoin protocol targeted to merchants was not awarded.  Thank you for the effort you put into your proposal and for your interest in improving and promoting bitcoin."
1141 2013-02-27 20:03:06 <gmaxwell> hm.
1142 2013-02-27 20:03:17 <gmaxwell> grau: it certantly does cost something to them though— e.g. if your project goes poorly it would hurt their credibility. (Not that I think yours is likely to)
1143 2013-02-27 20:04:31 <grau> read again what I asked : " Please provide your opinion and guidance for testing and once this is deemed production quality provide the sufficient publicity for it. "
1144 2013-02-27 20:04:48 ashams has joined
1145 2013-02-27 20:04:48 ashams has quit (Changing host)
1146 2013-02-27 20:04:48 ashams has joined
1147 2013-02-27 20:05:32 <gmaxwell> ::nods::
1148 2013-02-27 20:06:07 <grau> I am done with them. Happy for not being a "lifetime member"
1149 2013-02-27 20:07:48 <gavinandresen> grau: who is "them" ?
1150 2013-02-27 20:08:17 <grau> I guess one is you
1151 2013-02-27 20:08:29 <HM> what you working on grau?
1152 2013-02-27 20:08:41 <gavinandresen> mmm.  Yeah, I'm pretty busy changing the tires of the reference implementation car as we careen down the road at 100 miles an hour
1153 2013-02-27 20:09:25 <grau> Since I started working I get nothing but heat and mock. Although I belive contributing value
1154 2013-02-27 20:09:28 <gavinandresen> I voted "discuss" on your grant proposal, and after discussion the Board didn't see a credible way we could commit to "providing guidance" because we're all crazy busy with what we're doing already
1155 2013-02-27 20:11:01 <grau> HM: https://github.com/bitsofproof/supernode/wiki
1156 2013-02-27 20:12:08 ashams has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1157 2013-02-27 20:13:18 <grau> gavinandresen: I believe you are busy, me too. If the proposal was not specific or actionable, you could have said that. Not to be rejected.
1158 2013-02-27 20:13:58 <gavinandresen> give Lindsay a bit of a break, she's crazy busy too and has to send out 20 grant proposal "sorry" letters
1159 2013-02-27 20:14:32 drizztbsd has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1160 2013-02-27 20:14:56 <grau> ok, I cool down.
1161 2013-02-27 20:15:33 <gavinandresen> thanks.  If you have constructive ideas for how we can do things better next time around….
1162 2013-02-27 20:16:24 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
1163 2013-02-27 20:17:18 <HM> std::system_error is quite a thing
1164 2013-02-27 20:17:57 <HM> convert errno to an exception... std::system_error(errno, std::system_category()); ...verbosity -_-
1165 2013-02-27 20:19:42 Mandrius has joined
1166 2013-02-27 20:23:09 owowo has joined
1167 2013-02-27 20:23:56 [\\\] has joined
1168 2013-02-27 20:25:42 PRab has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1169 2013-02-27 20:25:42 PRab has joined
1170 2013-02-27 20:29:41 Descry has joined
1171 2013-02-27 20:33:32 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: how big (filesize) is the Avalon firmware you were sent? can you get a lsmod of it?
1172 2013-02-27 20:36:39 ByteUnit has joined
1173 2013-02-27 20:37:06 Descry has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1174 2013-02-27 20:38:38 ralphtheninja has joined
1175 2013-02-27 20:45:26 [\\\]_s has joined
1176 2013-02-27 20:46:01 [\\\] has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1177 2013-02-27 20:48:25 swappermall_ has joined
1178 2013-02-27 20:49:33 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1179 2013-02-27 20:49:51 [\\\]_s has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1180 2013-02-27 20:57:08 gritcoin has joined
1181 2013-02-27 21:04:29 pecket has quit (Read error: No route to host)
1182 2013-02-27 21:07:01 [\\\] has joined
1183 2013-02-27 21:07:38 pecket has joined
1184 2013-02-27 21:08:25 ne0futur has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1185 2013-02-27 21:10:05 ne0futur has joined
1186 2013-02-27 21:10:07 BTCTrader2 has quit (Quit: BTCTrader2)
1187 2013-02-27 21:12:13 BTCTrader2 has joined
1188 2013-02-27 21:15:37 spaola has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1189 2013-02-27 21:17:33 [\\\] has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1190 2013-02-27 21:21:46 FredEE has quit (Quit: FredEE)
1191 2013-02-27 21:25:29 FredEE has joined
1192 2013-02-27 21:27:09 PhantomSpark has joined
1193 2013-02-27 21:28:43 PhantomSpark has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1194 2013-02-27 21:29:00 FredEE has quit (Client Quit)
1195 2013-02-27 21:32:36 cjd has joined
1196 2013-02-27 21:34:54 <cjd> Hi guys, I see the bitcoin foundation is accepting btc donations, last I recall there was some concern about 501c3's accepting btc, does anyone know if things were clarified or what doctrine the foundation is operating under?
1197 2013-02-27 21:37:38 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1198 2013-02-27 21:38:56 BTCOxygen has joined
1199 2013-02-27 21:41:05 TD has joined
1200 2013-02-27 21:41:14 paraipan has joined
1201 2013-02-27 21:44:28 darkmethod has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
1202 2013-02-27 21:50:43 helo is now known as nkr
1203 2013-02-27 21:50:49 nkr is now known as helo
1204 2013-02-27 21:59:46 <gmaxwell> foundation isn't a 501c3, fwiw.
1205 2013-02-27 22:00:21 <BTCTrader2> nonprofit wikipedia chapters accept bitcoins
1206 2013-02-27 22:01:53 etotheipi_ has joined
1207 2013-02-27 22:02:20 monkeynipples has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1208 2013-02-27 22:02:29 jav__ has quit (Quit: Verlassend)
1209 2013-02-27 22:02:31 <etotheipi_> if you install bitcoin-qt from the Ubuntu PPA, does it put bitcoind on your system?
1210 2013-02-27 22:02:45 <etotheipi_> I couldn't find it, and not sure how to check
1211 2013-02-27 22:09:27 <etotheipi_> if not, can I lobby to have it included by default?
1212 2013-02-27 22:09:43 <grau> sipa: have a question on BIP38
1213 2013-02-27 22:09:57 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: if it doesn't it's broken, but I'm pretty sure it does.
1214 2013-02-27 22:10:55 <gmaxwell> Did BIP_0038 ever get discussed anywhere or is another one of the only-Casascius bips?
1215 2013-02-27 22:11:06 <grau> sipa: I think the case deriving public from public has a typo since it says Kn is equal to IL*Kpar. but Kn is a point not a number
1216 2013-02-27 22:11:14 <grau> gmaxwell: sorry BIP32
1217 2013-02-27 22:11:22 <grau> I work on that now.
1218 2013-02-27 22:12:04 <grau> I implemented BIP38 BTW I think it is handy to store private key in database since WIF is unsecure
1219 2013-02-27 22:12:46 JDuke128 has joined
1220 2013-02-27 22:14:13 FredEE has joined
1221 2013-02-27 22:14:38 <jouke> etotheipi_: "whereis bitcoind" Does that tell you where it is?
1222 2013-02-27 22:15:35 <grau> etotheipi: I installed the package longer ago it put it into /usr/bin/bitcoind
1223 2013-02-27 22:16:43 <etotheipi_> jouke: why did I not know about the "whereis" command?  thanks
1224 2013-02-27 22:17:10 <etotheipi_> I wonder why I have copies in /usr/bin/X11
1225 2013-02-27 22:17:47 <etotheipi_> it's shown up in different places for me
1226 2013-02-27 22:18:03 <etotheipi_> /usr/lib/bitcoin, /usr/bin, now /usr/lib/X11
1227 2013-02-27 22:18:12 <etotheipi_> but last time I installed I didn't see it at all
1228 2013-02-27 22:24:58 <jouke> etotheipi_: while working with your offline wallet construction, you have to transfer the transaction by USB to the cold wallet for signing right? Is that transaction in the same format as how one would build a transaction with the raw transaction api of bitcoind?
1229 2013-02-27 22:25:14 <etotheipi_> jouke: no
1230 2013-02-27 22:25:30 <etotheipi_> it is https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0010
1231 2013-02-27 22:25:56 <etotheipi_> it includes not only the transaction to be signed, but also every supporting transaction supplying inputs to it, so the offline computer can reliably compute the tx fee
1232 2013-02-27 22:26:26 <jouke> Ah. Hmmm, interesting.
1233 2013-02-27 22:26:33 <jouke> Thanks, I know enough for now :)
1234 2013-02-27 22:27:13 <etotheipi_> thank/blame gmaxwell for that :) he's the one that convinced me it was worth "bloating" that format to avoid the "attacker can send all your funds to tx fee" attack
1235 2013-02-27 22:27:50 <jouke> Well, "attacker", or some noob transaction-maker like me that just screws it up ;)
1236 2013-02-27 22:28:29 <etotheipi_> in reality, it was a good idea, but it pains me to see potentially 100 kB of supporting tx getting tacked on just so the offlien computer can verify 8 bytes
1237 2013-02-27 22:31:38 Diablo-D3 has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1238 2013-02-27 22:31:49 <jouke> Yeah, you can hardly fit it on a floppy that way.
1239 2013-02-27 22:32:22 [\\\] has joined
1240 2013-02-27 22:35:03 <BlueMatt> etotheipi_: it doesnt
1241 2013-02-27 22:35:07 <BlueMatt> its a separate package
1242 2013-02-27 22:35:32 <BlueMatt> (the bitcoind package vs bitcoin-qt)
1243 2013-02-27 22:36:09 <BlueMatt> (and the bitcoind package also installs a wrapper which creates a bitcoin.conf with a random rpcpassword, though tbh that should probably have been removed...it was in debian and i just copied it
1244 2013-02-27 22:36:57 <BlueMatt> so which should give you a wrapper
1245 2013-02-27 22:37:42 bitafterbit has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1246 2013-02-27 22:38:41 <grau> sipa: regarding BIP32, no problem there, just took time for me to digest the notation.
1247 2013-02-27 22:39:26 JStoker is now known as JStoker2
1248 2013-02-27 22:40:57 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1249 2013-02-27 22:41:21 PhantomSpark is now known as 2!~kvirc@pool-71-251-16-105.nycmny.fios.verizon.net|PhantomSpark
1250 2013-02-27 22:43:11 Hashdog has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1251 2013-02-27 22:45:01 axhlf has joined
1252 2013-02-27 22:47:50 [\\\] has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1253 2013-02-27 22:49:38 zooko has joined
1254 2013-02-27 22:51:24 epscy has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1255 2013-02-27 22:51:35 <etotheipi_> BlueMatt: thanks!  that's exactly what I was lookingfor
1256 2013-02-27 22:54:28 ThomasV has joined
1257 2013-02-27 22:54:51 monkeynipples has joined
1258 2013-02-27 22:57:10 [\\\] has joined
1259 2013-02-27 23:09:35 a5m0 has joined
1260 2013-02-27 23:11:31 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1261 2013-02-27 23:17:35 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1262 2013-02-27 23:23:46 axhlf has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1263 2013-02-27 23:28:08 monkeynipples has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1264 2013-02-27 23:28:22 agricocb has joined
1265 2013-02-27 23:30:13 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
1266 2013-02-27 23:34:52 discrete has quit ()
1267 2013-02-27 23:38:48 dvide has quit ()
1268 2013-02-27 23:41:42 zooko has quit (Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs))
1269 2013-02-27 23:41:52 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
1270 2013-02-27 23:44:31 skeledrew has joined
1271 2013-02-27 23:44:36 a5m0 has quit (Quit: buy guise)
1272 2013-02-27 23:44:55 a5m0 has joined
1273 2013-02-27 23:45:02 skeledrew1 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1274 2013-02-27 23:46:12 <HM> hmm
1275 2013-02-27 23:46:22 <HM> get_public_key.... calculate_public_key :|
1276 2013-02-27 23:48:41 gritcoin has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1277 2013-02-27 23:50:36 discrete has joined
1278 2013-02-27 23:54:12 Quazgaa has joined
1279 2013-02-27 23:54:49 <Quazgaa> any reason why bitcoin-qt would just show a blank window
1280 2013-02-27 23:56:35 grau has joined
1281 2013-02-27 23:58:19 [\\\] has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1282 2013-02-27 23:58:22 rdponticelli has quit (Remote host closed the connection)