1 2013-03-08 00:00:19 <mogri> Diablo-D3 and i are trying to figure out feasibility
   2 2013-03-08 00:00:34 <mogri> for using xeon phi for mining
   3 2013-03-08 00:00:40 bitcoinbulletin has quit (Quit: bitcoinbulletin)
   4 2013-03-08 00:00:43 <jgarzik> petertodd: created https://github.com/jgarzik/python-bitcoinlib
   5 2013-03-08 00:00:45 <Diablo-D3> and Im saying its not feasible
   6 2013-03-08 00:00:48 <jgarzik> right now, exact same as pynode
   7 2013-03-08 00:00:48 <mogri> it looks like it could do ok performance wise ?
   8 2013-03-08 00:00:54 <Diablo-D3> lets say each core can do one sha256 round per cycle
   9 2013-03-08 00:01:01 <Diablo-D3> you have 60 cores at 1ghz
  10 2013-03-08 00:01:16 <Diablo-D3> thats 60 billion rounds per second
  11 2013-03-08 00:01:28 <Diablo-D3> you need to travel 128 of those presuming I can skip the first block
  12 2013-03-08 00:01:57 <mogri> jgarzik, so setuptools stuff should be done in python-bitcoinlib repo ?
  13 2013-03-08 00:02:01 <Diablo-D3> thats 468 million bitcoin hashes per second
  14 2013-03-08 00:02:05 <Diablo-D3> or 468 mhash
  15 2013-03-08 00:02:13 <Diablo-D3> or slower than a 7970
  16 2013-03-08 00:02:36 <mogri> except xeon phi has multiple threads with independent avx state
  17 2013-03-08 00:02:47 <Diablo-D3> yeah so? that just means its deep pipelined
  18 2013-03-08 00:02:48 <mogri> so you might be able to beat 7970
  19 2013-03-08 00:02:58 <mogri> no it's something like the amd way
  20 2013-03-08 00:02:59 <Diablo-D3> 7970s are already deep pipelined just to get that level of performance
  21 2013-03-08 00:03:14 defunctzombie_zz is now known as defunctzombie
  22 2013-03-08 00:03:16 eckey has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  23 2013-03-08 00:03:23 <Diablo-D3> the alu rotates through 4 instructions before you get the results of the first instruction back
  24 2013-03-08 00:03:44 <Diablo-D3> its to hide register latency
  25 2013-03-08 00:03:54 <mogri> yep, xeon phi is the same way
  26 2013-03-08 00:04:02 <mogri> 60 cores, 240 threads
  27 2013-03-08 00:04:05 <Diablo-D3> you don't get more speed out of it
  28 2013-03-08 00:04:17 <Diablo-D3> it just means a single cycle instruction takes a single cycle but you don't get it back for 4
  29 2013-03-08 00:04:19 eckey has joined
  30 2013-03-08 00:04:24 <mogri> hmm, maybe.  not sure.
  31 2013-03-08 00:04:36 <Diablo-D3> you need 240 threads to load the hardware, but its only doing 60 worth of data
  32 2013-03-08 00:04:39 <petertodd> jgarzik: cool!
  33 2013-03-08 00:04:42 rdymac has joined
  34 2013-03-08 00:04:43 <Diablo-D3> 60 first cycle, 60 second, 60 third, 60 fourth
  35 2013-03-08 00:04:48 <mogri> it depends on if the avx unit is working in parallel, which seems to be the point of the avx unit?
  36 2013-03-08 00:04:56 <Diablo-D3> phi doesn't use avx
  37 2013-03-08 00:05:04 <mogri> hmm ?
  38 2013-03-08 00:05:07 <mogri> i thought it did
  39 2013-03-08 00:05:09 <Diablo-D3> it uses a specialized 512 bit sse/avx-like op
  40 2013-03-08 00:05:48 <Diablo-D3> tis meant for very high instruction parallelism
  41 2013-03-08 00:06:45 <Diablo-D3> the phi cores use a very anorexic decoder/scheduler block
  42 2013-03-08 00:07:04 <Diablo-D3> its closer to an atom than an i7 in construction
  43 2013-03-08 00:07:19 <Diablo-D3> so lowering the number of macro ops it has to process increases performance quite a lot
  44 2013-03-08 00:07:37 <Diablo-D3> NOW since its 60 unconnected cores
  45 2013-03-08 00:07:46 <Diablo-D3> you could actually do a traditional miner design on it
  46 2013-03-08 00:08:00 tyn has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
  47 2013-03-08 00:08:13 <Diablo-D3> which may increase performance
  48 2013-03-08 00:08:29 <Diablo-D3> but not some amazing huge amount that you get TH out of it
  49 2013-03-08 00:11:22 <mogri> i wonder how big the wafer is for xeon phi
  50 2013-03-08 00:11:34 <gmaxwell> Can a Xeon-phi be purchased by a mortal or is it still just vaporware?
  51 2013-03-08 00:11:47 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: they're about $5k each
  52 2013-03-08 00:12:06 <Diablo-D3> mogri: supposedly 700mm sq
  53 2013-03-08 00:12:09 <Diablo-D3> its a huge fucking chip
  54 2013-03-08 00:12:22 <gmaxwell> I seriously think intel has been trumpeting this for eons just to scare people out of porting their code to cuda.  "oh if we wait, x86 based phi will come out and our development effort will be reduced"
  55 2013-03-08 00:12:51 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: they're already selling knights corner devices
  56 2013-03-08 00:13:01 <Diablo-D3> afaik anyways
  57 2013-03-08 00:13:05 <gmaxwell> where can I buy?
  58 2013-03-08 00:13:22 <Diablo-D3> you have to be a major corporation to buy them atm
  59 2013-03-08 00:13:29 <Diablo-D3> they're not being sold to lowly consumers yet
  60 2013-03-08 00:14:27 BenderCoin has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
  61 2013-03-08 00:15:21 BenderCoin has joined
  62 2013-03-08 00:15:22 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: hell, for all I know, the NSA already bought them all
  63 2013-03-08 00:15:33 ahbritto has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  64 2013-03-08 00:16:11 defunctzombie is now known as defunctzombie_zz
  65 2013-03-08 00:16:35 ahbritto has joined
  66 2013-03-08 00:17:37 gritcoin has joined
  67 2013-03-08 00:19:15 <Diablo-D3> oh and I was wrong about the price
  68 2013-03-08 00:19:21 <Diablo-D3> the full sized one is $2649
  69 2013-03-08 00:20:56 bitit has joined
  70 2013-03-08 00:21:28 knotwork_ is now known as knotwork
  71 2013-03-08 00:21:35 <Diablo-D3> thats still not worth the money given how low the performance is
  72 2013-03-08 00:23:45 xjrn has joined
  73 2013-03-08 00:24:38 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  74 2013-03-08 00:26:04 axhlf has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  75 2013-03-08 00:26:44 <OneMiner> Anybody care to comment on this? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149668.msg1598189#msg1598189   Talking about blocking transactions from propagating at the client level.
  76 2013-03-08 00:27:36 t7` has joined
  77 2013-03-08 00:27:51 Maneesh has joined
  78 2013-03-08 00:27:54 gritcoin has quit (Quit: gritcoin)
  79 2013-03-08 00:29:22 discretefx has joined
  80 2013-03-08 00:29:55 discrete has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
  81 2013-03-08 00:29:56 BNCatDIGISHELL has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  82 2013-03-08 00:30:09 t7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  83 2013-03-08 00:30:10 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
  84 2013-03-08 00:30:11 Ahimoth has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
  85 2013-03-08 00:30:11 Habbie_ has joined
  86 2013-03-08 00:30:12 Habbie has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  87 2013-03-08 00:30:12 BNCatDIGISHELL has joined
  88 2013-03-08 00:30:32 Internet13 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
  89 2013-03-08 00:30:33 thermoman has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
  90 2013-03-08 00:30:49 Tatsuya has joined
  91 2013-03-08 00:30:51 eckey has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  92 2013-03-08 00:31:04 Goonie has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
  93 2013-03-08 00:31:07 thermoman has joined
  94 2013-03-08 00:31:12 bitcoinbulletin has joined
  95 2013-03-08 00:31:13 Ahimoth has joined
  96 2013-03-08 00:31:13 Ahimoth has quit (Changing host)
  97 2013-03-08 00:31:13 Ahimoth has joined
  98 2013-03-08 00:31:21 Goonie has joined
  99 2013-03-08 00:32:08 <OneMiner> Anybody care to comment on this? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149668.msg1598189#msg1598189   Talking about blocking transactions from propagating. In case anybody mised that.
 100 2013-03-08 00:34:16 Internet13 has joined
 101 2013-03-08 00:35:01 techlife has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 102 2013-03-08 00:36:32 <gmaxwell> OneMiner: thanks, I had that guy on ignore so I wouldn't have seen it if you didn't comment.
 103 2013-03-08 00:36:59 <OneMiner> lol Is that good or bad? ahahaha not sure if sarcastic or srs.....
 104 2013-03-08 00:37:53 ielo has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 105 2013-03-08 00:37:54 <jgarzik> mogri: correct.  python-bitcoinlib needs setuptools/distutils treatment
 106 2013-03-08 00:38:23 <gmaxwell> OneMiner: I responded to him, presumably he's going to send me 1BTC now. :P
 107 2013-03-08 00:38:29 techlife has joined
 108 2013-03-08 00:38:36 <OneMiner> Snap, so srs. Very good then. :P
 109 2013-03-08 00:39:11 <lianj> gmaxwell: play one of the hard SD bets with it
 110 2013-03-08 00:39:35 cheesepi has quit (Excess Flood)
 111 2013-03-08 00:39:42 gdoteoff has joined
 112 2013-03-08 00:40:23 Tatsuya has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 113 2013-03-08 00:40:35 FredEE has quit (Quit: FredEE)
 114 2013-03-08 00:41:45 mcx has joined
 115 2013-03-08 00:41:49 mcx is now known as cheesepi
 116 2013-03-08 00:42:01 <jgarzik> petertodd: should I hold all other changes, waiting for your unit test stuff you were talking about?
 117 2013-03-08 00:42:10 <jgarzik> petertodd: I would prefer to go ahead with the split
 118 2013-03-08 00:43:07 <jgarzik> sigh
 119 2013-03-08 00:43:17 gdoteofff has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 120 2013-03-08 00:43:18 <jgarzik> too many block size threads, and TD creates another ;p   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149668.0
 121 2013-03-08 00:45:35 skeledrew has joined
 122 2013-03-08 00:49:27 c00w has joined
 123 2013-03-08 00:54:35 <OneMiner> gmaxwell What would it take to add that code? Can it be included through the console window in -QT?
 124 2013-03-08 00:55:05 <doublec> OneMiner: you need to patch and rebuild bitcoin
 125 2013-03-08 00:55:15 <OneMiner> poop
 126 2013-03-08 00:55:37 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 127 2013-03-08 00:56:11 copumpkin has joined
 128 2013-03-08 00:56:18 <gmaxwell> I ... really don't want to be in the business of giving people blocking enabled binaries... My thinking is that you probably shouldn't be applying stuff like that unless you're at least willing to build bitcoin yourself. (what if you disagree with the details and want to customize?)
 129 2013-03-08 00:56:27 <gmaxwell> But perhaps luke would do a build for you.
 130 2013-03-08 00:56:56 Aaron_Away is now known as Aaron_TangCryp
 131 2013-03-08 00:56:59 <OneMiner> I once started to learn how to compile things. I found myself, about half an hour later, chewing through a table leg.
 132 2013-03-08 00:57:20 <warren> Blocking is kind of futile anyway.
 133 2013-03-08 00:57:25 <aethero> Chewing through a table leg?
 134 2013-03-08 00:57:33 <warren> aethero: more of the puppies theme.
 135 2013-03-08 00:57:42 <aethero> Puppies theme?
 136 2013-03-08 00:57:47 <OneMiner> I dunno. I went a little crazy. Barking at the moon, happy now?
 137 2013-03-08 00:57:58 <aethero> Barking at the moon?
 138 2013-03-08 00:57:58 <petertodd> jgarzik: go ahead, I'll rebase my stuff
 139 2013-03-08 00:58:04 * OneMiner gives up
 140 2013-03-08 00:58:07 <PRab> Has anyone calculated what the fee per Kb needs to be for it to be profitable for miners to include a transaction?
 141 2013-03-08 00:58:09 <jgarzik> cool
 142 2013-03-08 00:58:19 <aethero> Gives up?
 143 2013-03-08 00:58:19 <gmaxwell> OneMiner: We'll gladly help you compile. It's like literacy everyone should be able to do this.
 144 2013-03-08 00:58:40 <gmaxwell> PRab: it's hard to do that, profitable under what model?
 145 2013-03-08 00:59:06 <PRab> gmaxwell: vs increased chance of producing a stale block.
 146 2013-03-08 00:59:24 JWU42 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 147 2013-03-08 00:59:46 <gmaxwell> PRab: 0.00008 BTC for 250 bytes was some numbers gavin came up with: https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/5044482
 148 2013-03-08 00:59:50 <OneMiner> gmaxwell I'd like to hamper SD in novel and effective ways. I've considered proramming literacy before. I think it could be good to add something like that to public schools. But I'm obviously not one to comment as I can't program anything past a .bat file or uber simple html.
 149 2013-03-08 01:00:06 <warren> gmaxwell: is there any legitimate reason for normal, non-DP's to spend a 0-conf tx?
 150 2013-03-08 01:00:46 <warren> gmaxwell: that's a different question from yesterday, about accepting 0-conf
 151 2013-03-08 01:00:48 <PRab> gmaxwell: +1, Thats exactly what I was looking for!
 152 2013-03-08 01:00:50 <gmaxwell> warren: normal nodes do it for their own change, although arguably they shouldn't because it exposes them to getting stuck transactions due to mutation and also deanonymizes their change.
 153 2013-03-08 01:01:08 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Gavin's numbers are silly though; the most efficient miner isn't the one that hashes blocks and processes transactions efficiently, it's the miner who does that while remaining small and independent.
 154 2013-03-08 01:01:23 c00w has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 155 2013-03-08 01:02:00 <OneMiner> BTW
 156 2013-03-08 01:02:09 <petertodd> Not to say his result is wrong, but the premise for why he's calculating it is.
 157 2013-03-08 01:02:09 <warren> gmaxwell: Would there be any drawback to increasing the fee for spending a 0-conf?  That would catch any mutation of DP behavior that we disapprove of.
 158 2013-03-08 01:02:32 * OneMiner stabs aethero with a half chewed table leg
 159 2013-03-08 01:02:42 <aethero> Half chewed?
 160 2013-03-08 01:02:46 <gmaxwell> warren: yes. its not very economically sensible. We already have a increased 'fee' in the sense that priority is much lower for those txn.
 161 2013-03-08 01:03:06 <warren> sorry, I'm sure somebody already thought of this.
 162 2013-03-08 01:03:12 <OneMiner> ...
 163 2013-03-08 01:03:16 <gmaxwell> warren: but the problem is that once someone is paying a fee how do you balance _any_ kind of preference other than btc/kb against the immediate economic reward of the fee?
 164 2013-03-08 01:03:26 <warren> I just see blocking 1dice is futile, we need an agnostic rule-based change.
 165 2013-03-08 01:03:46 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Ok, so basically, has anyone come up with a decent scheme making creating a lot of UTXO's more expensive than not?
 166 2013-03-08 01:03:50 <gmaxwell> warren: actually no one suggested specifically 0 confirm, and I think it's interesting but it generally falls into the same problem that all preferences have.
 167 2013-03-08 01:03:53 <petertodd> gmaxwell: One that gives stable incentives for miners.
 168 2013-03-08 01:03:58 <OneMiner> Ok, I guess it's good for me.
 169 2013-03-08 01:04:03 * OneMiner learns to compile
 170 2013-03-08 01:04:22 unbalanced__ has joined
 171 2013-03-08 01:04:28 <gmaxwell> petertodd: hardfork to change to a maximum blocksize of 2MB with a maximum utxo increase of 1MB. :(
 172 2013-03-08 01:04:36 <aethero> oneMiner: Good for you?
 173 2013-03-08 01:04:37 coolfengyu has joined
 174 2013-03-08 01:04:45 <gmaxwell> petertodd: that gives you a stable incentive. Nothing else does, I think. :(
 175 2013-03-08 01:04:51 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Hmm... well, at least it's a good idea. <sigh>
 176 2013-03-08 01:05:07 * OneMiner feuds with aethero
 177 2013-03-08 01:05:13 <aethero> :(
 178 2013-03-08 01:05:22 <OneMiner> :(?
 179 2013-03-08 01:05:32 <aethero> Feuds?
 180 2013-03-08 01:05:36 <warren> gmaxwell: Meanwhile, the compressed keys thing, yes you can only enforce it on redeeming, but it still increases their cost without any actual drawbacks to the network.
 181 2013-03-08 01:05:44 <petertodd> gmaxwell: I know block discouraging has been proposed in the past, but it seems extremely dangerous without very widespread support to me.
 182 2013-03-08 01:05:45 <gmaxwell> petertodd: the problem with _any_ ideas around priortizing good behavior is that they potentially are at odds with maximizing income for miners... unless they are fees per KB, because KB is the scarce thing.
 183 2013-03-08 01:06:00 <gmaxwell> petertodd: discouraging is extremely dangerous.
 184 2013-03-08 01:06:15 * aethero is trying to abstract this entire conversation and having absolutely zero luck
 185 2013-03-08 01:06:29 <gmaxwell> warren: if people find it more economical to abandon more txouts that more perpetual storage in fast memory.
 186 2013-03-08 01:06:37 <OneMiner> I've gotta read complex stuff now. :P
 187 2013-03-08 01:06:44 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Yup. And miners aren't going to be happy about soft-forks working against them, although maybe we have a window now where the big pools are big enough... but I suspect we'd very quickly find the miners at those pools creating their own.
 188 2013-03-08 01:06:49 <warren> gmaxwell: attaching a higher fee to undesireable behavior isn't necessarily worse for miners.  For the undesireable behavior to continue, they need to pay a higher fee to have the same priority as before. Miners might like that.
 189 2013-03-08 01:07:23 <aethero> Who gets to define undesireable?
 190 2013-03-08 01:07:25 <petertodd> warren: Hey, why do you think stopping puppies is so hard?
 191 2013-03-08 01:07:28 <gmaxwell> warren: it has a high risk of defection. As a miner you hope all other miners impose that, changing the behavior, while you yourself do not.
 192 2013-03-08 01:07:54 gdoteoff has quit (Quit: Bye)
 193 2013-03-08 01:07:58 <petertodd> aethero: That too. The difficulty in even censoring satoshidice does have a silver lining to it.
 194 2013-03-08 01:08:07 <gmaxwell> aethero: pretty sure one user using 90% of the network's capacity is undesirable regardless of how you define undesirable.
 195 2013-03-08 01:08:18 <aethero> gmaxwell are the miners getting paid?
 196 2013-03-08 01:08:18 gdoteoff has joined
 197 2013-03-08 01:08:35 <warren> petertodd: miners who exclude DP tx's give up fees, and DP really doesn't care *when* the tx becomes confirmed.  It will happen eventually by another miner seeking maximum fees.
 198 2013-03-08 01:08:36 <petertodd> aethero: Yes
 199 2013-03-08 01:08:52 <gmaxwell> aethero: Paid for what? Thats key. Including a transaction implies pepetual storage... for not just you but everyone.
 200 2013-03-08 01:09:06 <petertodd> warren: Yeah, the only really solid way to discourage them is to start mining double-spends.
 201 2013-03-08 01:09:19 <warren> petertodd: that doesn't hurt the DP
 202 2013-03-08 01:09:25 <aethero> Define DP
 203 2013-03-08 01:09:37 <gmaxwell> Dead-puppies.
 204 2013-03-08 01:09:41 <warren> yeah.
 205 2013-03-08 01:09:45 <gmaxwell> (obviously)
 206 2013-03-08 01:09:47 <petertodd> aethero: DP == dead puppies == the thing that's taking up 75% of the blockchain space
 207 2013-03-08 01:09:58 <aethero> what are dead puppies?
 208 2013-03-08 01:10:08 <petertodd> warren: It does if those miners make it easy for people to double-spend their failed bets.
 209 2013-03-08 01:10:16 JWU42 has joined
 210 2013-03-08 01:10:16 JWU42 has quit (Changing host)
 211 2013-03-08 01:10:16 JWU42 has joined
 212 2013-03-08 01:10:19 <warren> Isn't it already easy?
 213 2013-03-08 01:10:29 <petertodd> aethero: Pick a random transaction and I'll tell you if it's a dead puppy.
 214 2013-03-08 01:10:36 <aethero> How?
 215 2013-03-08 01:10:38 <warren> It isn't certain now, but it is reasonably easy.
 216 2013-03-08 01:10:43 <aethero> What *is* a dp?
 217 2013-03-08 01:10:52 <petertodd> aethero: Just pick one off of blockchain.info transaction live ticker
 218 2013-03-08 01:11:05 <aethero> What differentiates a DP from a legit txn?
 219 2013-03-08 01:11:16 <petertodd> warren: You don't see miners making it easy though do you?
 220 2013-03-08 01:11:20 <aethero> http://blockchain.info/tx/780c9cd02696e390c52ab9f73be3178a9294696922475c62e46d4bc0b9c379bc
 221 2013-03-08 01:11:23 <warren> aethero: high fees, 0-conf response payout
 222 2013-03-08 01:11:38 <petertodd> aethero: Not a dead puppy
 223 2013-03-08 01:11:58 <petertodd> warren: To make it easy, write a patch enabling transaction replacement purely by fees.
 224 2013-03-08 01:12:14 <aethero> http://blockchain.info/tx/f95d79ebc274b51cb2abcee19c91473a94e05ba76e50fc5b8c393d7f66cb06fd?
 225 2013-03-08 01:12:31 <petertodd> aethero: dead puppy
 226 2013-03-08 01:12:46 <aethero> http://blockchain.info/tx/04e15cafae29f72bb3cba6710800812062fa28e5f4dc18083c0015d49feaaafb ?
 227 2013-03-08 01:13:00 <petertodd> aethero: not a dead puppy
 228 2013-03-08 01:13:37 <aethero> http://blockchain.info/tx/bef7e388e9dbfc4873a1a6ad5746c1f34b7915a1193567baeb57fb33d9b72a65
 229 2013-03-08 01:13:39 <aethero> last one
 230 2013-03-08 01:13:55 <warren> petertodd: ok, sorry, I misunderstood an aspect of yesterday.
 231 2013-03-08 01:14:00 <petertodd> aethero: another dead puppy
 232 2013-03-08 01:14:04 <aethero> Ok
 233 2013-03-08 01:14:19 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: gimme an address and I'll hand over the 1BTC bounty. :P
 234 2013-03-08 01:14:34 <petertodd> (god help us if the media finds out about how many dead puppies are in bitcoin)
 235 2013-03-08 01:15:01 <warren> petertodd: we could use a temporary bubble pop
 236 2013-03-08 01:15:18 <warren> You know how they say there isn't a central banker here...
 237 2013-03-08 01:15:25 <gmaxwell> s/media/US congress/
 238 2013-03-08 01:15:47 <iwilcox> Have SD never responded on this issue?
 239 2013-03-08 01:15:55 <petertodd> aethero: because random
 240 2013-03-08 01:16:03 <gmaxwell> if someone can point to blocks with 90% DP they may have an easy time arguing that there is no substantial lawful use of the network. :(
 241 2013-03-08 01:16:15 <petertodd> gmaxwell: s/US congress/
 242 2013-03-08 01:16:20 <petertodd> North Korea/
 243 2013-03-08 01:16:36 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Yes, that's a very good reason...
 244 2013-03-08 01:16:41 <warren> iwilcox: we call it DP now.  The imagery makes it feel worse.
 245 2013-03-08 01:16:42 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Good reason to ban address re-use too
 246 2013-03-08 01:17:23 <HM> DP?
 247 2013-03-08 01:17:31 <gmaxwell> HM: see backscroll.
 248 2013-03-08 01:17:39 <HM> Dead puppy
 249 2013-03-08 01:17:47 <HM> I don't know what that is
 250 2013-03-08 01:18:05 <aethero> Double Purpose.
 251 2013-03-08 01:18:27 <HM> what does that mean?
 252 2013-03-08 01:18:37 <aethero> Deep Pinging.
 253 2013-03-08 01:19:17 <petertodd> gmaxwell: RE the puppy patch, someone needs to submit a pull request for the dust part of it.
 254 2013-03-08 01:19:17 <warren> http://pastebin.com/ng9nF4K3
 255 2013-03-08 01:19:32 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: 181SdgXpsnvXjALGAy8Hq3yqJmBBNouJGb, but you don't have to :p
 256 2013-03-08 01:19:57 <gmaxwell> petertodd: ugh. It gives us YET ANOTHER economically sensitive tunable parameter.
 257 2013-03-08 01:20:24 <petertodd> Meh, it's the same logic as the fee code; just make it only act on zero-priority tx's.
 258 2013-03-08 01:22:07 axhlf has joined
 259 2013-03-08 01:22:21 <gmaxwell> petertodd: so respin jeff's patch that makes DUST a define and make it < DUST, so at least it's not more parameter bloat?
 260 2013-03-08 01:22:35 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Sure
 261 2013-03-08 01:24:48 eckey has joined
 262 2013-03-08 01:26:48 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: I sent you half. Other half goes to my legal defense fund as a finders fee. :P
 263 2013-03-08 01:27:23 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: hmm, I received two transactions of 0.25 BTC and 0.50 BTC. you only sent one of these? O.o
 264 2013-03-08 01:27:55 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: If you've been following the pull-reqs, I'm sure some analysis will let you figure out who sent you the other one.
 265 2013-03-08 01:28:22 * Luke-Jr ponders
 266 2013-03-08 01:28:46 JZavala has joined
 267 2013-03-08 01:29:15 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: right I sent 529f4a6354c28fa8e02a5a70f6cf8908698b3399dc484f37c4a904593bd948e7.
 268 2013-03-08 01:29:49 tyn has joined
 269 2013-03-08 01:30:17 hsmiths has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 270 2013-03-08 01:31:00 puhc_ has joined
 271 2013-03-08 01:31:53 puhc has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 272 2013-03-08 01:32:18 hsmiths has joined
 273 2013-03-08 01:32:31 litropy has joined
 274 2013-03-08 01:32:43 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: <sigh> so much for my cautionary tale
 275 2013-03-08 01:32:52 <Luke-Jr> ?
 276 2013-03-08 01:33:23 <petertodd> "locktime" : 224764, "sequence" : 4294967294, I'm likely the only Bitcoin users running a patch that does that.
 277 2013-03-08 01:33:40 <petertodd> Long story short: if your client's behavior is unusual, your anonymity is compromised.
 278 2013-03-08 01:35:33 puhc_ has quit (Client Quit)
 279 2013-03-08 01:35:39 <phantomcircuit> heh you're worried about anonymity
 280 2013-03-08 01:35:44 <Luke-Jr> ^
 281 2013-03-08 01:35:52 eckey has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 282 2013-03-08 01:36:00 <warren> How is a few people deciding to ignore certain tx's going to help the situation?
 283 2013-03-08 01:36:02 <phantomcircuit> there are a number of people running clients which almost certainly break the fundamental rules in some bizarre corner case
 284 2013-03-08 01:36:14 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: I obviously can't be *that* worried....
 285 2013-03-08 01:36:28 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, :)
 286 2013-03-08 01:36:43 gdoteoff has quit (Quit: Bye)
 287 2013-03-08 01:37:08 gdoteoff has joined
 288 2013-03-08 01:37:11 DamascusVG has quit (Quit: I Quit - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p97zsQ51Rw)
 289 2013-03-08 01:37:18 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: But it's a fair design criteria for protocols, for instance trust-free-mixer transactions can be either done in a "probably a mix tx" way, with SIGHASH_ALL, or a "definitely a mix" way, with SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY
 290 2013-03-08 01:38:02 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: Not to mention, you guys now do know I have at least 20BTC...
 291 2013-03-08 01:38:19 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, so you're poor?
 292 2013-03-08 01:38:23 <phantomcircuit> ;)
 293 2013-03-08 01:38:29 puhc has joined
 294 2013-03-08 01:38:33 Tatsuya has joined
 295 2013-03-08 01:38:34 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: Depends on who you ask. :P
 296 2013-03-08 01:38:59 <phantomcircuit> anyways
 297 2013-03-08 01:39:31 <phantomcircuit> even basic attempts at disguising the origin of bitcoins on the network would be computationally challenging to detect
 298 2013-03-08 01:40:08 <petertodd> ...until some yells "Thief!" and declares some coins tainted.
 299 2013-03-08 01:40:39 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, i have yet to hear of a since incident in which tracing coins in the blackchain resulted in anything
 300 2013-03-08 01:41:00 <phantomcircuit> and infact i suspect overtime as people use overlay networks more it will become even harder
 301 2013-03-08 01:41:05 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: I've heard a few. More importantly, the efforts applied to actually do that so far have been pretty week.
 302 2013-03-08 01:41:12 <petertodd> *weak
 303 2013-03-08 01:41:22 <phantomcircuit> especially when you consider that such an overlay network could operate completely anonymously and outside the reach of any law enforcement
 304 2013-03-08 01:41:34 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, public cases?
 305 2013-03-08 01:41:48 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: Yes, all where people have messed up and sent coins to the wrong place.
 306 2013-03-08 01:41:53 <petertodd> Or high fees.
 307 2013-03-08 01:41:55 <phantomcircuit> i've heard of peoples mtgox accounts being frozen but not of people who actually did anything
 308 2013-03-08 01:42:25 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: Anyway, with the way authority these days works, they don't need proof, just probability, that's what's so dangerous about it.
 309 2013-03-08 01:42:42 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: Prosecuters just need to convince a jury after all.
 310 2013-03-08 01:42:56 gdoteof has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 311 2013-03-08 01:44:24 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, yes but to convince the jury they must first find someone to put on trial
 312 2013-03-08 01:45:12 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: ...and god help you if they find some flimsy evidence that finds the wrong person, backed up by a blockchain taint analysis that's fundementally flawed.
 313 2013-03-08 01:45:29 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, hmm that might be true
 314 2013-03-08 01:45:39 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: Potentially it could make holding Bitcoins dangerous in itself.
 315 2013-03-08 01:46:05 <phantomcircuit> then again such a prosecution is only really within reach of the doj and realistically if they charge you with something you're going to jail or spending millions on attorneys
 316 2013-03-08 01:46:13 <phantomcircuit> so you're probably screwed bitcoins or not
 317 2013-03-08 01:46:56 <gmaxwell> This is one of the reasons I created that taint rich thread. It's not enough that it be true that taint analysis is a multilayered joke, it has to be widely understood— or you get maximally bad outcomes: not just bad people getting caught for bad things due to taint analysis (whoppie as far as I care!) but innocent people being falsely accused too.
 318 2013-03-08 01:47:04 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: It's not a black and white thing. Prosecuters are people too, and they very often believe that they are doing the right thing, they just aren't going about it correctly.
 319 2013-03-08 01:47:35 <petertodd> You know, we're lucky that trust-free mixing happens to be more efficient size wise, thus reducing fees.
 320 2013-03-08 01:47:46 <petertodd> Who said you are trying to mix coins? We're just saving on fees.
 321 2013-03-08 01:48:38 <gmaxwell> Keep in mind that most _doctors_ fail a simple word problem on reasoning over prior probabilities. If doctors can't handle it how do you expect prosecuters, courts, or juries to manage it?
 322 2013-03-08 01:49:59 <petertodd> One of the things I really like about off-chain tx systems, is they get back to at least the level of privacy normal financial transactions give you.
 323 2013-03-08 01:50:52 bock has quit (Quit: Verlassend)
 324 2013-03-08 01:51:10 <warren> I need to figure out how to make the deterministic build without Ubuntu...
 325 2013-03-08 01:51:47 <sipa> warren: run it in a virtual machine with ubuntu :)
 326 2013-03-08 01:51:47 <aethero> Here's an idea
 327 2013-03-08 01:51:50 <aethero> DONT DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL
 328 2013-03-08 01:52:19 <phantomcircuit> aethero, the point is you could end up in jail for something you didn't do because of bad analysis
 329 2013-03-08 01:52:29 <petertodd> aethero: Read what I said. The issue isn't just you doing something illegal, it's someone else doing something illegal and you taking the blame due to misunderstood evidence.
 330 2013-03-08 01:53:30 <aethero> Can you give me an example of that?
 331 2013-03-08 01:54:21 xjrn has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 332 2013-03-08 01:54:33 <petertodd> aethero: A thief steals some BTC, and makes a transaction sending money to a randomly picked address. You don't notice the transaction, spend it, and are now blamed.
 333 2013-03-08 01:55:53 <gmaxwell> Even if a conviction is not secured misunderstanding of the evidence causes your home to get searched and your computers seized, your business fails in the interm.
 334 2013-03-08 01:56:24 DamascusVG has joined
 335 2013-03-08 01:57:09 CodeShark has joined
 336 2013-03-08 01:58:21 <warren> gmaxwell: Would something like this be acceptable to bitcoin upstream: a way to configure your bitcoind node to ignore certain tx's from your .conf instead of rebuilding the daemon.  That's agnostic and voluntary enough.
 337 2013-03-08 01:58:34 <aethero> Sounds like scare tactics
 338 2013-03-08 01:58:35 <gmaxwell> or alternatively, someone helps you out on IRC you want to send them 1BTC as thanks. They give you an address. You send. Turns out that the address was some FBI childporn honeypot. They find you from some forum linked address, and now have proof that 'you' paid for child porn.
 339 2013-03-08 01:59:10 <gmaxwell> warren: I'm really not very comfortable with that. The idea that you have to be savvy/motivated enough to recompile creates a natural barrier against overly illconsidered actions.
 340 2013-03-08 01:59:32 <gmaxwell> warren: if people are going to adopt weird policy then they should realy mean it, and really understand it... failing that someone who is an expert should really understand it.
 341 2013-03-08 01:59:49 gritcoin has joined
 342 2013-03-08 01:59:51 <jrmithdobbs> I agree with that
 343 2013-03-08 01:59:58 <PRab> Just playing around with my own "back of a napkin" calculations for expected profitability at different block sizes.
 344 2013-03-08 02:00:00 <PRab> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ap8b8Fy33rWmdHh1WEpwNjhGNExlc29PWjVjdTJ5enc&usp=sharing
 345 2013-03-08 02:00:16 <jrmithdobbs> even though recompiling isn't a very large barrier it's large enough to prevent completely unqualified people from shooting themselves in the foot
 346 2013-03-08 02:00:16 <warren> gmaxwell: while I personally want to block certain things, we're in the extreme minority, will our choice make any difference to success of abuse?
 347 2013-03-08 02:00:26 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: otoh, some p2pool miners are still accepting SD crap because nobody has made an EXE for them
 348 2013-03-08 02:00:28 <petertodd> PRab: can you add units to that?
 349 2013-03-08 02:00:40 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 350 2013-03-08 02:01:08 <PRab> petertodd: yep, some of the columns already have notes if you hover over the header.
 351 2013-03-08 02:01:10 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: thats something that might make more sense within smaller communities. E.g. I don't mind making binaries for IRC channel people who know me and can ask me about them. (though I prefer they build)
 352 2013-03-08 02:01:29 <petertodd> PRab: oh, better, although it's more readable in the headers
 353 2013-03-08 02:01:51 <jgarzik> This post by satoshi was dug up by the reddit folks
 354 2013-03-08 02:01:53 <jgarzik> http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09964.html
 355 2013-03-08 02:01:55 <petertodd> PRab: max block size is 1,000,000 exact
 356 2013-03-08 02:01:59 <gmaxwell> PRab: pretty cool. I'm glad to see that... uh. you're not a fool.
 357 2013-03-08 02:02:44 <PRab> petertodd: oh, I was assuming binary MB, not decimal.
 358 2013-03-08 02:03:00 <petertodd> PRab: No worries, I was making that mistake for weeks...
 359 2013-03-08 02:03:12 <PRab> gmaxwell: I've been thinking about it quite a bit and wanted to at least get something concrete.
 360 2013-03-08 02:03:35 <petertodd> jgarzik: ...gah, satoshi was a man, not a god.
 361 2013-03-08 02:03:46 discretefx has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 362 2013-03-08 02:03:59 <sipa> jgarzik: i saw that; very interesting that he thought about that
 363 2013-03-08 02:04:02 ahbritto__ has joined
 364 2013-03-08 02:04:07 <petertodd> jgarzik: I mean, fuck, I found an off-by-one mistake he made the other day; to think he could somehow predict in advance the right way every aspect of Bitcoin would develop is crazy.
 365 2013-03-08 02:04:25 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: it does show some foresight in the design at least
 366 2013-03-08 02:04:26 <sipa> though i'm not sure i agree with the idea that only miners would run fully validating nodes...
 367 2013-03-08 02:04:52 <gmaxwell> sipa: I think we've noted before: he seemed to have fairly high expectations of the honesty of miners.
 368 2013-03-08 02:04:57 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: Oh sure, I mean it's good to be thinking about that, I'm just only going to take emails like that as a way to understand why the design is, not as some "proof" that his approach is right.
 369 2013-03-08 02:05:08 <sipa> i wasn't aware he thought about scalability to that extent; knowing that he did is interesting, whether he is right or not
 370 2013-03-08 02:05:33 ahbritto has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 371 2013-03-08 02:05:33 gdoteoff has quit (Quit: Bye)
 372 2013-03-08 02:05:36 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: Note how he doesn't say how many full verifying nodes he expects to exist...
 373 2013-03-08 02:05:50 <sipa> yeah "should be safe"
 374 2013-03-08 02:05:58 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: Just vague stuff about "specialists"
 375 2013-03-08 02:06:10 ahbritto_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 376 2013-03-08 02:06:17 <gmaxwell> Well it was a vague response to a vague concern. Order of magnitude stuff.
 377 2013-03-08 02:06:27 <Luke-Jr> it's clear he expected transaction volume to scale with adoption - so back to SD being disproportionate.. :p
 378 2013-03-08 02:06:28 ahbritto has joined
 379 2013-03-08 02:07:34 <gmaxwell> Yea, the disproportionate thing was interesting. If we really had the txn volume to fill blocks now the economy would be big enough to have a lot more seriously smart and productive people working on solving things.
 380 2013-03-08 02:07:46 <iwilcox> Apologies if I've just started listening to the end of a very long discussion on this, but is the current proposal in a nutshell: here's an anti-DP patch; include it in your client if you like?
 381 2013-03-08 02:07:53 <gmaxwell> And fewer people worried that the chain was taking 6GB.
 382 2013-03-08 02:08:07 <gmaxwell> iwilcox: huh? there is no proposal.
 383 2013-03-08 02:08:35 <warren> Hence I asked yesterday if anyone is making a list of different approaches to this problem.
 384 2013-03-08 02:08:38 QwertyYouEyeOp has joined
 385 2013-03-08 02:08:39 i2pRelay has joined
 386 2013-03-08 02:08:48 <jgarzik> petertodd: Frankly I do not think Satoshi had any more wisdom than us, about bitcoin long term.
 387 2013-03-08 02:08:59 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Instead we have a guy with a fine arts degree and a guy with a highschool diploma trying to figure out how to make Bitcoin scale...
 388 2013-03-08 02:09:04 <QwertyYouEyeOp> hey guys, anyone here able to give me a hand with accessing bitcoin channels on freenode through Tor browser?? having some technical difficulties!
 389 2013-03-08 02:09:06 <gmaxwell> iwilcox: someone on the forum asked for a patch that blocks the relay of DP txn, I tossed one up for them. I certantly am not going and advising people to run it. (though if they do I'll give them tech support for it... and I do run it myself)
 390 2013-03-08 02:09:18 <petertodd> jgarzik: Yeah, really, who could?
 391 2013-03-08 02:09:26 <jgarzik> These two positions are almost mutually exclusive:  (1) block sizes much increase to meet traffic demand, (2) transaction fees will increase and support the system long term
 392 2013-03-08 02:09:37 <jgarzik> block sizes increase, there is less demand for space
 393 2013-03-08 02:09:52 <jgarzik> s/much/must/
 394 2013-03-08 02:10:18 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: Now if you can just find an expression of that which more people even understand.  It's so frustrating that people don't even get that this is a hard problem with serious risks involved.
 395 2013-03-08 02:10:27 <petertodd> Yes, although it'll be intereting to see how the trade-offs with off-chain tx systems work; do they become successful enough that on-chain tx's are actually still cheapish?
 396 2013-03-08 02:10:40 <gmaxwell> I'm _really_ getting tired of my position being mischaracterized as "the blocksize can never increase!"
 397 2013-03-08 02:10:45 ByteUnit has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 398 2013-03-08 02:10:47 <petertodd> Same here.
 399 2013-03-08 02:11:08 <petertodd> The issue isn't really blocksize, it's do we expect the majority of economic activity for users to happen on-chain or off-chain?
 400 2013-03-08 02:11:24 <jgarzik> I disagree we should bother answering that question
 401 2013-03-08 02:11:27 <petertodd> If it's on-chain, the blocksize has to increase, potentially dramatically.
 402 2013-03-08 02:11:31 <jgarzik> Ultimately time and miners will answer the question
 403 2013-03-08 02:11:36 <gmaxwell> But people characterize it that way because I am unable to express my several-facitied concerns in a way that everyone can understand, and so they are just left assuming that I hate change.
 404 2013-03-08 02:12:15 <petertodd> jgarzik: That's not realistic though. People will complain to hell, someone will release a version of Bitcoin that increases the limit, and god knows what will happen.
 405 2013-03-08 02:12:32 <petertodd> jgarzik: After all, miners can't force any change really, but they can veto it.
 406 2013-03-08 02:12:33 <aethero> recompiling?
 407 2013-03-08 02:12:38 <warren> jgarzik: I personally am unsatisfied with a fee charge only on KB-size, and this is a way to attack the problem without your #1 or #2.  There must exist certain fee preferences beyond merely per-KB size that apply only to DP-like tx's with little effect on normal uses, e.g. double the fee per KB for a tx that spends a 0-conf or to redeem a non-compressed key.  Miners might accept that because it implies higher fees, without an arms race of ordin
 408 2013-03-08 02:12:38 <warren> ary tx fees.
 409 2013-03-08 02:12:40 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: miners do not own bitcoin, the users of bitcoin do. If you let "miners decide" on anything you disenfranchise everyone who didn't sign up for what miners are deciding.
 410 2013-03-08 02:12:43 <QwertyYouEyeOp> is anyone here able to help someone new with some technical issues?? please!
 411 2013-03-08 02:12:45 ahbritto has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 412 2013-03-08 02:12:47 <aethero> Defin recompiling
 413 2013-03-08 02:12:52 ahbritto__ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 414 2013-03-08 02:13:13 <gmaxwell> QwertyYouEyeOp: try asking in #freenode. ... freenode is very unfriendly towards anonymous access. :(
 415 2013-03-08 02:13:29 <gmaxwell> (you can use tor, but only if you deanonymize yourself first)
 416 2013-03-08 02:13:48 <QwertyYouEyeOp> i see.  so i'm not missing something, then, with trying to stay anonymous?
 417 2013-03-08 02:13:55 <sipa> jgarzik: i don't like thinking about fees, i'm no economist and making long term economic predictions is hard - but i don't think i need to: if block sizes are (extremely) small, noone will make on-chain transactions, but everyone will verify them; if block sizes are (extremely) large, everyone will make on-chain transactions, but nobody will verify them; neither is a useful future imho, so just to avoid the risk on the second, i think block sizes...
 418 2013-03-08 02:14:01 <sipa> must not be allowed to grow unboundedly
 419 2013-03-08 02:15:07 <jgarzik> sipa: that's why I like the simple rule mentioned in earlier discussions (limit += 1MB per year or something)
 420 2013-03-08 02:15:19 <petertodd> sipa: The big problem with the block size growth thing, is that so many seemingly nice proposals involve voting, but the only voting possible happens on the blockchain itself, and that's ultimately miner controlled.
 421 2013-03-08 02:15:41 <jgarzik> += 40k per diff period
 422 2013-03-08 02:15:42 <sipa> petertodd: i know
 423 2013-03-08 02:15:55 <Luke-Jr> sipa: yes, I think keeping block sizes the way they are during the development stages (to encourage dev of alternate mechanisms), and then increasing the block size only later after we fill blocks WITH those in use, is ideal
 424 2013-03-08 02:16:01 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: I would love that but I'm not aware of any simple rule which is obviously not equal to one of sipa's extremes.
 425 2013-03-08 02:16:12 <petertodd> jgarzik: I kinda like log10(hashs/second) myself, but mainly because it'll grow so slowly...
 426 2013-03-08 02:16:13 <PRab> I'm sure someone has said this, but I would be very likely to support any max block size growth that is essentially linear, but very likely disagree with anything that could go exponential.
 427 2013-03-08 02:16:37 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: well, for differing versions of de-anonymize, i don't get their policy as they're trying to stop people doing stupdi shit to have anon access but the encourage stupid (possibly illegal) shit to register without de-anonimyzing
 428 2013-03-08 02:16:37 <jgarzik> in general, I dislike feedback-based or miner-controlled block sizes
 429 2013-03-08 02:16:39 <sipa> ultimately, block size limitations are about preventing miner's incentives to diverge too far from those of the rest of the network
 430 2013-03-08 02:16:46 <jgarzik> pick one algorithm, and cement it in stone.
 431 2013-03-08 02:17:00 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: Yes, and wait long enough until Bitcoin has been subject to attacks enough that we have a sense of the overall security challenge we're facing.
 432 2013-03-08 02:17:10 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: I had thrown out a moderately more complicated one which caps the size growth to the hashrate growth, rational being that it silicon gets better we can measure it with difficulty increasins, also it backstops the fee collapse argument... but I do not love it.
 433 2013-03-08 02:17:16 <petertodd> jgarzik: I've got an algorithm: blocksize = 1000000
 434 2013-03-08 02:17:25 <petertodd> jgarzik: It is the default solution...
 435 2013-03-08 02:17:33 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: freenode's policy does not prevent banned trolls from flooding our channels.
 436 2013-03-08 02:17:55 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: right, it's annoying to people with privacy concerns and ineffective at actually accomplishing it's goals
 437 2013-03-08 02:18:03 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: aka, stupid
 438 2013-03-08 02:18:04 <QwertyYouEyeOp> correct!!
 439 2013-03-08 02:18:07 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Besides, the real issue isn't silicon, it's the even trickier to measure thing of how hard censorship resistant data distribution is.
 440 2013-03-08 02:18:18 <QwertyYouEyeOp> jrmithdobbs: i agree.... kind of defeats the purpose
 441 2013-03-08 02:18:21 <jgarzik> and who can say if this is all just academic?  there may be enough "conscientious objectors" that a fork kills block size changes.
 442 2013-03-08 02:18:21 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: welcome to consensus based policy! ;p
 443 2013-03-08 02:18:21 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: My thinking is mostly that if a size is _safe_ it'll be obviously safe to almost everyone. And so a constant can just be updated. I think this was probably satoshi's thinking too, if he bothered thinking about it at all.
 444 2013-03-08 02:18:38 <OneMiner> Increasing the fee could be a little more effective then planned. With the recent rise in bitcoin's price the fee is at $0.0225/KB. If the price increases much more it effectively increases the fee relative to USD. Plus I think the DP problem will persist because the gamblers may just see it as the cost of doing business.
 445 2013-03-08 02:18:52 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: fee/blocksize is so crucial to the long term health of the system... and I do not think Satoshi thought much about it at all.
 446 2013-03-08 02:18:58 <jgarzik> *relationship
 447 2013-03-08 02:19:01 <gmaxwell> jgarzik:  I'm not setting anyone arguing on the principle it should never change. (thank god!!).
 448 2013-03-08 02:19:17 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Quite likely. Things like "well tor nodes re getting fast these days, and it's a pain in the ass to not be able to deposit my paycheck to my savings account directly"
 449 2013-03-08 02:19:20 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: considering that his statements are now seen to be somewhat inconsistent, you're probably right. :(
 450 2013-03-08 02:19:43 khalahan has quit (Quit: Bye)
 451 2013-03-08 02:19:51 <jrmithdobbs> i wish he would have actually stuck around to justify some of that
 452 2013-03-08 02:20:01 <jrmithdobbs> but he disappeared before the right questions were asked of him it seems
 453 2013-03-08 02:20:09 <warren> For all we know, he's still here.
 454 2013-03-08 02:20:12 <jrmithdobbs> the intent there is very murky
 455 2013-03-08 02:20:25 <gmaxwell> I mean, we could ask him to comment. But I think it would be unwise and unjust for him to do so.
 456 2013-03-08 02:20:39 khalahan has joined
 457 2013-03-08 02:20:43 <jrmithdobbs> warren: yes but without attaching the name that he's dropped answering that question is useless since we all can conjecture ;p
 458 2013-03-08 02:20:48 <gmaxwell> Since god knows, right or wrong, anything he said would have an enormous influence. This is the founder problem.
 459 2013-03-08 02:20:55 <jrmithdobbs> ya
 460 2013-03-08 02:21:12 <warren> religions have the founder problem...
 461 2013-03-08 02:21:14 <QwertyYouEyeOp> Guys - I use BitCoin-QT, and i'm trying to do a transfer from that wallet to an online wallet.  But I'm being told I need to pay the BTC0.005 fee.  surely there's a way around that i fI'm sending to mysefl????
 462 2013-03-08 02:21:14 <gmaxwell> It's so easy to just lean on authority.
 463 2013-03-08 02:21:16 <petertodd> gmaxwell: I think it'd be a very bad idea to get a cult of personality thing going again; better the cult is around someone who might as well be dead.
 464 2013-03-08 02:21:21 <jrmithdobbs> it might end the argument but it might dictate something quite broken by doing so
 465 2013-03-08 02:21:25 <jrmithdobbs> heh
 466 2013-03-08 02:21:35 <warren> gmaxwell: but who writes the canon?
 467 2013-03-08 02:21:42 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Puts Satoshi's life in danger potentially too, if authority doesn't like his opinions...
 468 2013-03-08 02:21:48 <sipa> QwertyYouEyeOp: you're using the network, doing a transaction it might otherwise consider spam; it is irrelevant whether it's too yourself or not
 469 2013-03-08 02:21:54 <sipa> QwertyYouEyeOp: bitcoin is not free
 470 2013-03-08 02:21:58 <gmaxwell> QwertyYouEyeOp: if you're transfering all your coins you could potentially just import the keys from your bitcoin-qt wallet. (though this will give the online wallet access to them) Otherwise— no.
 471 2013-03-08 02:22:21 <warren> QwertyYouEyeOp: which online wallet?
 472 2013-03-08 02:22:53 <QwertyYouEyeOp> so every time i make a transaction from my client i incur the 0.005 fee?  i thought it was optional given certain criteria?
 473 2013-03-08 02:23:07 <sipa> QwertyYouEyeOp: it is optional given certain criteria
 474 2013-03-08 02:23:18 <OneMiner> QwertyYouEyeOp don't you mean 0.0005?
 475 2013-03-08 02:23:44 <QwertyYouEyeOp> yes, 0.0005, sorry.
 476 2013-03-08 02:23:56 <QwertyYouEyeOp> so what criteria do i need to meet?  i thought i'd met them.
 477 2013-03-08 02:24:04 <OneMiner> It's not that much generally. Don't worry broski, it's pretty cheap when you think about it.
 478 2013-03-08 02:24:17 <sipa> QwertyYouEyeOp: you realize you're talking about $0.02, right?
 479 2013-03-08 02:24:34 <QwertyYouEyeOp> it's not the amount i'm concerned about - it's the understanding of the system and the principle.
 480 2013-03-08 02:24:38 <gmaxwell> QwertyYouEyeOp: you must have no outputs smaller than 0.01, and you must have enough priority... which is computed from the some of  age of the inputs times their value  divided by the size of the txn.
 481 2013-03-08 02:25:00 gdoteof has joined
 482 2013-03-08 02:25:06 <gmaxwell> Enough is set so that 1 BTC with 144 confirms (~1 day) in a 250 byte transaction meets the test.
 483 2013-03-08 02:25:28 <CodeShark> QwertyYouEyeOp: the minimum fee is calculated from 1) the size of transaction (in bytes), 2) the size of the transaction outputs (in bitcoins/satoshis), and am I missing anything else, sipa?
 484 2013-03-08 02:25:39 <QwertyYouEyeOp> gmaxwell: ok, well that makes sense for the 2nd part.  i'm transferring >0.01 BTC.  when you say outputs smaller than 0.01, do you mean if i transfer 1.0000001 bitcoins, i pay the fee?  also, how do i think more clearly about the priority?
 485 2013-03-08 02:25:47 <sipa> CodeShark: just from 1)
 486 2013-03-08 02:25:53 <OneMiner> QwertyYouEyeOp I think that you misunderstand that the transaction has to go through the whole network. It's not just in a file on your PC. So the fee applies.
 487 2013-03-08 02:26:17 <sipa> CodeShark: all the rest just determines whether you're allowed to go free or not
 488 2013-03-08 02:26:20 <CodeShark> there's a rule that disallows free transactions if outputs are smaller than 0.01 bitcoins, no?
 489 2013-03-08 02:26:21 <gmaxwell> QwertyYouEyeOp: no. I mean if you send 0.009 for example.  (A transaction can have multiple destinations, none can be under the threshold)
 490 2013-03-08 02:26:22 <QwertyYouEyeOp> oneminer: i understand that.  but as other users have mentioned, the fee is waived given criteria
 491 2013-03-08 02:26:38 <Luke-Jr> QwertyYouEyeOp: 0.01000001 BTC is > 0.01
 492 2013-03-08 02:27:10 <OneMiner> QwertyYouEyeOp oh, my mistake then. Here you go: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees
 493 2013-03-08 02:27:12 <iwilcox> QwertyYouEyeOp: Have you read https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees ?
 494 2013-03-08 02:27:31 <gmaxwell> That page is a little dated and .. not the best.
 495 2013-03-08 02:27:54 <QwertyYouEyeOp> yes, i've read it.  but everyone here seems to be saying something a little different...
 496 2013-03-08 02:28:21 <QwertyYouEyeOp> is anyone able to clearly say whether or not i CAN avoid paying the 0.0005?  say i am transferring 1.000002 bitcoins.
 497 2013-03-08 02:28:35 * warren facepalm
 498 2013-03-08 02:28:52 <jrmithdobbs> QwertyYouEyeOp: there's no way to say without broadcasting the txn and seeing if it's included
 499 2013-03-08 02:28:59 <jrmithdobbs> not with 100% confidence, at least
 500 2013-03-08 02:29:09 xenesis has joined
 501 2013-03-08 02:29:10 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 502 2013-03-08 02:29:17 <jrmithdobbs> because no matter what's codified the people encoding the blocks decide what requires a fee and what doesn't
 503 2013-03-08 02:29:26 <CodeShark> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp starting on line 574
 504 2013-03-08 02:29:39 <sipa> QwertyYouEyeOp: yes, under some circumstances
 505 2013-03-08 02:29:59 <sipa> QwertyYouEyeOp: for example, if your wallet consists of tons of small coins, or only very young coins, then no
 506 2013-03-08 02:30:15 sgornick has joined
 507 2013-03-08 02:30:20 <QwertyYouEyeOp> jrmithdobbs: ok, so it's a function of where the coins that i have come from whether they require a fee?  is that why when i made a transfer once before in a similar amount it didn't require a fee and now it does?
 508 2013-03-08 02:30:30 <jrmithdobbs> not just that
 509 2013-03-08 02:30:41 <warren> QwertyYouEyeOp: also age
 510 2013-03-08 02:30:43 <QwertyYouEyeOp> sipa: how do i check that or work that out?
 511 2013-03-08 02:31:05 <OneMiner> So regarding the TX fees and the DP from before. If the standard fee is doubled and then bitcoin's price doubles (stranger things have happened), transactions could get pretty pricey pretty quickly. Given the volitility of the exchange rate I'd be against that.
 512 2013-03-08 02:31:07 <jrmithdobbs> partially that, yes, but it's also decided arbitrarily by the "miners" encoding the blocks and they are not held to any of the above and could require completely different fees for unrelated reasons
 513 2013-03-08 02:31:50 <OneMiner> One of the selling points is inexpensive transactions after all. Could quite quicly get to the rate you'd pay for a piece of mail.
 514 2013-03-08 02:31:56 <QwertyYouEyeOp> jrmithdobbs: so in theory it's possible that i get a coin that miner has said needs a BTC 1 fee?!
 515 2013-03-08 02:32:06 <jrmithdobbs> QwertyYouEyeOp: what
 516 2013-03-08 02:32:09 <warren> OneMiner: unless the community decides upon behavioral fee preferences, to increase the fee for certain spammy behavior but not normal behavior.
 517 2013-03-08 02:32:27 <gmaxwell> OneMiner: there are many kinds of inexpensive though. You can easily spend $50 on an international wire transfer (or more).
 518 2013-03-08 02:32:48 <jrmithdobbs> hell a cashiers check is $10-20
 519 2013-03-08 02:33:11 <OneMiner> warren Still that could get out of hand. The market rate against the dollar fluctuates wildly. So that would amplify any changes (or reduce them).
 520 2013-03-08 02:34:08 <OneMiner> You could get people trying to mass spam at oppurtune times relative to the exchange rate. In a crazy crazy world kind of scenario.
 521 2013-03-08 02:34:32 <OneMiner> opportune
 522 2013-03-08 02:34:35 <jrmithdobbs> not even a crazy crazy world scenario, people did similar games with hash power around diff changes in the past
 523 2013-03-08 02:34:42 <jrmithdobbs> so that's not theorhetical, that's happened
 524 2013-03-08 02:34:51 <QwertyYouEyeOp> so in summary, it's seemingly arbitrary whether i'm going to be charged a fee given 1) randomness where the blocks come from and the fees the miners demand and 2) the age of the coins i've been given.  is that correct?
 525 2013-03-08 02:34:59 <warren> In my opinion, behavioral fee preferences to better reflect the cost DP-like tx's are externalizing is our most feasible option.  It won't *solve* the problem, just make it more expensive for DP-like behavior.  More expensive gives a chance for miners to accept it as policy, and ordinary users are unaffected so they'd like it too.
 526 2013-03-08 02:35:39 <gmaxwell> QwertyYouEyeOp: the priority test is a simple function. Its determinstic, and doesn't have anything to do with miners demanding things.
 527 2013-03-08 02:36:31 <QwertyYouEyeOp> gmaxwell: on that note, is it possible to force my client to DEMOTE the priority of the transaction to forgo the fee?
 528 2013-03-08 02:36:36 <jrmithdobbs> but the priority test doesn't actually garuantee you anything because no miner is bound by it (though most of them are using variations on the reference client's prioritization code)
 529 2013-03-08 02:36:39 <QwertyYouEyeOp> (i know on some online wallets you can do that)
 530 2013-03-08 02:36:41 <gmaxwell> QwertyYouEyeOp: it simply prevents someone from totally flooding out the network by bouncing a tiny value back and forth to themselves at super high speed. The fees it imposes are small.. at most 0.05 BTC, but typically 0.0005 BTC... which is enough to stop an economically rational attacker but not usually anyone else.
 531 2013-03-08 02:36:49 <OneMiner> warren I'm interested in the behavioral fee idea. I haven't though about that before. Is there an example or link I could get?
 532 2013-03-08 02:37:01 <jrmithdobbs> QwertyYouEyeOp: sure, you can broadcast what ever you like
 533 2013-03-08 02:37:02 <Diablo-D3> EXCEPT
 534 2013-03-08 02:37:10 <Diablo-D3> you don't want to stop legitimate microtransactions
 535 2013-03-08 02:37:11 <jrmithdobbs> QwertyYouEyeOp: but there's also a chance that noone will ever accept it
 536 2013-03-08 02:37:29 <jrmithdobbs> QwertyYouEyeOp: and if that's the case it'll never end up in a block
 537 2013-03-08 02:37:29 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: the reference client will not announce a transaction that it itself wouldn't relay or mine.
 538 2013-03-08 02:37:36 <warren> OneMiner: I dunno, I haven't seen a list of proposals anywhere, and folks here seem to kneejerk reject it because per-KB size fees already somewhat do it, indirectly.
 539 2013-03-08 02:37:48 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: so it's already only nagging him for a fee in the case that its really really likely that the transaction will just get stuck.
 540 2013-03-08 02:37:48 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: he asked if the client could be modified to change that, and yes, obviously it can ;p
 541 2013-03-08 02:37:51 <QwertyYouEyeOp> jrmithdobbs: how would i make that happen using my client?  (running the risk of low priority)?
 542 2013-03-08 02:37:53 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: i'm not condoning or suggesting it
 543 2013-03-08 02:37:55 <OneMiner> warren Right, I see that.
 544 2013-03-08 02:37:55 <CodeShark> QwertyYouEyeOp: there are two things here: whether the satoshi client will relay your transaction and whether a miner will accept it
 545 2013-03-08 02:38:01 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 546 2013-03-08 02:38:02 <CodeShark> they are two completely different things
 547 2013-03-08 02:38:21 <QwertyYouEyeOp> i see.
 548 2013-03-08 02:38:22 <gmaxwell> QwertyYouEyeOp: if you do that the transaction will almost certantly be stuck and then your funds won't be spendable until you find someone to help you hexedit your wallet.
 549 2013-03-08 02:38:33 <warren> OneMiner: the two examples I could think of: 1) Increase the fee on spending 0-conf 2) Increase the fee on non-compressed key tx redemption
 550 2013-03-08 02:38:44 <QwertyYouEyeOp> gmaxwell: haha... sounds like territory i don't want to enter.
 551 2013-03-08 02:38:49 axhlf has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 552 2013-03-08 02:38:57 <QwertyYouEyeOp> i guess what's confusing is that i did a similar transaction yesterday and wasn't charged.  now i'm being charged.
 553 2013-03-08 02:39:09 <OneMiner> warren Nice, I'll ponder this.
 554 2013-03-08 02:39:53 <warren> One problem that there might be with any of these proposals, if 90% of tx's per block are from DP, it could be profitable for DP itself to invest in mining to get it back.
 555 2013-03-08 02:40:14 <warren> well, profitable is not the right word ...
 556 2013-03-08 02:40:34 <iwilcox> If DP could be bothered mining they could probably be bothered running their own blockchain.
 557 2013-03-08 02:40:57 FredEE has joined
 558 2013-03-08 02:41:24 <QwertyYouEyeOp> i'm trying to move BTC 0.5.  here's the message from my client: "This transaction is over the size limit. You can still send it for a fee of 0.0005 BTC, which goes to the nodes that process your transaction and helps to support the network. Do you want to pay the fee?"
 559 2013-03-08 02:41:28 <Luke-Jr> iwilcox: or even using compressed keys
 560 2013-03-08 02:41:39 <QwertyYouEyeOp> what's the deal with the size limit??
 561 2013-03-08 02:41:51 <CodeShark> too many kb
 562 2013-03-08 02:42:01 <CodeShark> 10K is the limit
 563 2013-03-08 02:42:07 <QwertyYouEyeOp> and what causes a file to be large?
 564 2013-03-08 02:42:10 <OneMiner> Microtransactions could be valuable but they would have to be periodical right? Otherwise we'd have the same issue. One satoshi for each toothbrush swipe paid back from dental insurance, each with an individual transaction. Could be a disaster. So it would have to be highly regulated. Diablo-D3
 565 2013-03-08 02:42:18 <CodeShark> or is it 27K?
 566 2013-03-08 02:42:45 <CodeShark> it's large because you've got a lot of inputs, QwertyYouEyeOp
 567 2013-03-08 02:42:47 <warren> OneMiner: these types of behavioral fees are regulatory decisions that influence behavior by adjusting underlying incentives.  It's difficult to come up with rule changes that miners would like, and this at least has a chance of being accepted.
 568 2013-03-08 02:42:50 <Diablo-D3> OneMiner: I think the proper response is "FUCK YOU I CANT EAT ALL THESE APPLES"
 569 2013-03-08 02:43:07 <doublec> QwertyYouEyeOp: lot's of little transactions in your wallet. It uses those as inputs to the one you want to do.
 570 2013-03-08 02:43:12 <Vinnie_win> What's this "dead puppy" address thing?
 571 2013-03-08 02:43:24 <Diablo-D3> OneMiner: but yeah, it wouldn't NEED to be regulated
 572 2013-03-08 02:43:27 <QwertyYouEyeOp> @codeshark:  meaning?  what are the inputs?  is there any way for me to control that?
 573 2013-03-08 02:43:33 <doublec> QwertyYouEyeOp: you must have received a lot of small amounts in the past.
 574 2013-03-08 02:43:34 <Diablo-D3> OneMiner: it'll just get ran over by fee/kb sorting
 575 2013-03-08 02:43:38 <warren> Vinnie_win: http://pastebin.com/ng9nF4K3
 576 2013-03-08 02:43:43 <Vinnie_win> warren: Thank you
 577 2013-03-08 02:43:59 <Vinnie_win> So there's no meaning
 578 2013-03-08 02:44:02 <QwertyYouEyeOp> doublec: yes, i did. that's right.  so is there a way for me to "tidy" this all up?
 579 2013-03-08 02:44:08 <Vinnie_win> Why are DP tx "bad" ?
 580 2013-03-08 02:44:15 unbalanced__ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 581 2013-03-08 02:44:43 <OneMiner> NSFW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxAJqvslV7M&list=PL94A83DC128CC6B4B  had to do it.
 582 2013-03-08 02:44:56 <Luke-Jr> sorry, what is DP?
 583 2013-03-08 02:44:59 <CodeShark> QwertyYouEyeOp: in order to tidy it up on the block chain you need someone to mine it for you - if you can find someone willing to mine it for free and give them the transaction out-of-band, you don't have to pay - but if you want it to propagate via the bitcoin network, you'll probably need to add the fee
 584 2013-03-08 02:45:04 <doublec> QwertyYouEyeOp: yes but it requires doing a number of transactions to yourself to consolidate the small inputs
 585 2013-03-08 02:45:22 <doublec> QwertyYouEyeOp: and doing it over time such that each transaction you do doesn't also get a fee due to priority
 586 2013-03-08 02:45:37 <jgarzik> petertodd: one wonders if the RPC code shouldn't live inside python-bitcoinlib too
 587 2013-03-08 02:45:41 <CodeShark> or you can do what doublec says - but it's probably not worth it :)
 588 2013-03-08 02:45:47 <jgarzik> petertodd: certainly some apps will want both
 589 2013-03-08 02:46:03 <QwertyYouEyeOp> codeshark: what you're suggesting with the miner is too complicated for me at this stage
 590 2013-03-08 02:46:03 <petertodd> jgarzik: Yeah, lets do that
 591 2013-03-08 02:46:08 <doublec> QwertyYouEyeOp: in general, don't send tiny amounts to yourself
 592 2013-03-08 02:46:12 <QwertyYouEyeOp> doublec: so if i pay the fee this time round, does that "consolidate" for me?
 593 2013-03-08 02:46:17 <doublec> QwertyYouEyeOp: or rather, don't receive them
 594 2013-03-08 02:46:21 <doublec> QwertyYouEyeOp: yes
 595 2013-03-08 02:46:21 <OneMiner> Diablo-D3 standard fees right now probably exclude most things that a person would call microtransactions.
 596 2013-03-08 02:46:30 <petertodd> jgarzik: And then we can make the rpc stuff easier to use without piles of hexlify and unhexlify and...
 597 2013-03-08 02:46:32 <warren> Vinnie_win: Bitcoin is a global network, yet DP tx's fill 90% of blocks?  DP is creating a large negative externality on the entire network for personal profit.
 598 2013-03-08 02:46:32 <Diablo-D3> OneMiner: yes BUT you CAN go feeless
 599 2013-03-08 02:46:42 <Diablo-D3> warren: SD you mean?
 600 2013-03-08 02:46:43 <QwertyYouEyeOp> doublec: that was my mistake. i accepted some free coins when i started out.  now i just want to clean them (hence sending them through a wallet).  any suggestiosn for me?
 601 2013-03-08 02:46:52 <warren> Diablo-D3: http://pastebin.com/ng9nF4K3
 602 2013-03-08 02:47:01 <doublec> QwertyYouEyeOp: pay the fee is the easiest way
 603 2013-03-08 02:47:10 <Diablo-D3> wat.
 604 2013-03-08 02:47:21 <Vinnie_win> warren: DP is not SD right?
 605 2013-03-08 02:47:36 <petertodd> Vinnie_win: does SD remind you of live puppies or dead ones?
 606 2013-03-08 02:47:40 <warren> It's really hard to not answer this question.
 607 2013-03-08 02:47:51 <Vinnie_win> SD does not remind me of puppies at all
 608 2013-03-08 02:47:53 <iwilcox> warren: I think perhaps if the pastebin included some why as well as some what.
 609 2013-03-08 02:48:10 <warren> It's funnier as a mysterious code name.
 610 2013-03-08 02:48:11 <petertodd> Vinnie_win: reach deep into your subconsious, feel the association
 611 2013-03-08 02:48:18 <petertodd> warren: agreed
 612 2013-03-08 02:48:40 <Vinnie_win> Here's an outsider's take on what this all sounds like, since I just read gmaxwell's post. Some new entity, who we cannot identify but have given the label "DP" has recently started flooding blocks with transactions containing higher than average fees (0.005BTC/kb)
 613 2013-03-08 02:49:07 <QwertyYouEyeOp> @doublec: and if i pay the fee this time, i've solved the problem?  even if i move the fractional 0.000018181 between my wallets?
 614 2013-03-08 02:50:09 <warren> Vinnie_win: that would be fine if it were distributed across a larger number of users, as the underlying value from exchange increases with the number of users.  But escalation of fees in this manner is premature for that.
 615 2013-03-08 02:50:13 <CodeShark> if you only move 0.000018181 between wallets you'll still have a tiny output problem
 616 2013-03-08 02:50:15 <doublec> QwertyYouEyeOp: Any time you send a tiny amount you are causing trouble.
 617 2013-03-08 02:50:25 <warren> QwertyYouEyeOp: what online wallet are you talking about here?
 618 2013-03-08 02:50:49 <Vinnie_win> warren: Is SatoshiDice the source of these tx?
 619 2013-03-08 02:50:57 <doublec> QwertyYouEyeOp: if you send the total of your wallet, and it's greater than 0.1 or so, you'll consolidate the tiny amounts.
 620 2013-03-08 02:51:10 <QwertyYouEyeOp> @doublec ha. ok.  well, i want to "clean" these coins first, so i guess i'll pay the fee the first time round.  then when i transfer them back to my wallet i'll just stop moving franctional amounts.
 621 2013-03-08 02:51:48 <QwertyYouEyeOp> doublec: well, that's what i thought of doing! so if i send let's say 1.0000181818 BTC, and then send it back to myself, i've consolidated?
 622 2013-03-08 02:51:48 <warren> QwertyYouEyeOp: one way to move it into blockchain wallet is to import the private keys from your wallet.dat.  That way you "move" the BTC value without a network tx and associated fee.
 623 2013-03-08 02:52:10 Namworld has joined
 624 2013-03-08 02:52:22 <doublec> QwertyYouEyeOp: hard to say. it depends on what exactly is in your wallet and how bitcoin selects the inputs to use.
 625 2013-03-08 02:52:24 <QwertyYouEyeOp> warren: the only reason for moving it from wallet is to get clean coins.  i understand what you're saying but it's not what i'm after in this case
 626 2013-03-08 02:52:27 <CodeShark> QwertyYouEyeOp: no need to send them to a separate wallet - you can just send it to a single address in your wallet
 627 2013-03-08 02:52:42 <doublec> QwertyYouEyeOp: easiest to send your entire wallet balance
 628 2013-03-08 02:52:51 <doublec> QwertyYouEyeOp: if you can
 629 2013-03-08 02:53:13 <QwertyYouEyeOp> doublec: think that's what i'm going to do.  as long as it sorts me out and i don't run into this problem down the road.....
 630 2013-03-08 02:53:29 <doublec> like a lot of bitcoin related questions, the answer tends to be "it depends"
 631 2013-03-08 02:53:31 <CodeShark> send your entire wallet balance to a single address in your wallet
 632 2013-03-08 02:53:38 <CodeShark> then you'll have consolidated
 633 2013-03-08 02:53:43 <warren> QwertyYouEyeOp: clean as in fewer inputs, or to disguise their source?  You won't get help here for that.  You might find options on Google, but they charge fees.
 634 2013-03-08 02:53:55 <doublec> I'm asssuming 'fewer inputs'
 635 2013-03-08 02:54:04 <QwertyYouEyeOp> right
 636 2013-03-08 02:54:45 <QwertyYouEyeOp> doublec: does it matter whether i send the entire balance to a new 1) wallet or a new 2) address?
 637 2013-03-08 02:54:59 <CodeShark> QwertyYouEyeOp: no
 638 2013-03-08 02:55:11 <CodeShark> as far as the block chain is concerned, the two are indistinguishable
 639 2013-03-08 02:55:20 <doublec> QwertyYouEyeOp: what CodeShark said
 640 2013-03-08 02:55:42 <QwertyYouEyeOp> codeshark: gotcha
 641 2013-03-08 02:55:59 <QwertyYouEyeOp> (btw, am i doign this right to highlight your names as i send message in response to your comments?  do i just put a colon after your name?)
 642 2013-03-08 02:56:34 <Vinnie_win> retep is Peter Todd
 643 2013-03-08 02:56:56 <Vinnie_win> Dead puppies are transactions from 1dice###
 644 2013-03-08 02:56:58 <doublec> QwertyYouEyeOp: mentioning people's nicks is usually enough to highlight
 645 2013-03-08 02:57:06 <QwertyYouEyeOp> doublec: cool :)
 646 2013-03-08 02:57:08 <HM> except mine
 647 2013-03-08 02:57:15 <HM> because people keep spelling hmm with one m
 648 2013-03-08 02:57:17 EasyAt has joined
 649 2013-03-08 02:57:21 EasyAt has quit (Changing host)
 650 2013-03-08 02:57:21 EasyAt has joined
 651 2013-03-08 02:57:29 <doublec> heh
 652 2013-03-08 02:57:54 <warren> I'd hate to have the name "the".
 653 2013-03-08 02:58:15 <iwilcox> Worse: "lol"
 654 2013-03-08 02:59:05 <HM> why doesn't protobufs have a decent way to represent big ints
 655 2013-03-08 02:59:21 <HM> more programming languages and utilities should support this stuff out of the box
 656 2013-03-08 02:59:44 <aethero> This all sounds really simple to me. The people who run the pools should just do "If bitcoin address = deadpuppy then required fee = 0.01". It will cutdown on the spam, make miners more money, everyone wins.
 657 2013-03-08 02:59:53 <aethero> Unless I am misunderstanding something.
 658 2013-03-08 03:00:14 Guest86077 is now known as pigeons
 659 2013-03-08 03:00:28 <warren> aethero: good luck getting people to agree
 660 2013-03-08 03:00:38 <aethero> Why wouldn't they?
 661 2013-03-08 03:00:52 <Diablo-D3> aethero: I have been asking for that for a year
 662 2013-03-08 03:00:54 <Diablo-D3> I still don't have it
 663 2013-03-08 03:01:00 <Diablo-D3> hell, I was asking for that BEFORE DP
 664 2013-03-08 03:01:04 <Vinnie_win> isn't the problem with dp dust that they can't be economically spent, are unprunable, and take space in the blockchain of every full node in perpetuity?
 665 2013-03-08 03:01:06 <Diablo-D3> just because I knew such a situation would exist
 666 2013-03-08 03:01:15 <Diablo-D3> Vinnie_win: yes
 667 2013-03-08 03:01:27 <Diablo-D3> thus kicking dead puppies is profitable
 668 2013-03-08 03:01:51 <Vinnie_win> aethero: gmaxwell's thoughts on the monopolization of the limited resource: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149668.msg1598230#msg1598230
 669 2013-03-08 03:01:57 <warren> aethero: the path of least resistance is an fee increase agnostic to the address, assessed only on particular behavior.  An increase that is modest enough to not destroy the behavior, but to make it more expensive.  This is the only way miners will accept the rule change.
 670 2013-03-08 03:02:18 meLon has joined
 671 2013-03-08 03:02:42 <jrmithdobbs> what is dead puppy
 672 2013-03-08 03:02:51 <jrmithdobbs> is that a new euphamism for satoshidice?
 673 2013-03-08 03:02:57 <Vinnie_win> jrmithdobbs: Yes
 674 2013-03-08 03:03:02 <jrmithdobbs> haha, i approve
 675 2013-03-08 03:03:05 <warren> Vinnie_win: don't answer the question directly
 676 2013-03-08 03:03:16 <OneMiner> DP is causing lots of harm to this conversation too.
 677 2013-03-08 03:03:27 <OneMiner> The chat is bloated with DP!!! loololoz
 678 2013-03-08 03:03:29 <Vinnie_win> warren: Oh is this what passes for fun?
 679 2013-03-08 03:03:36 <warren> Vinnie_win: yes.
 680 2013-03-08 03:03:40 <aethero> All of this DP convo is going to be stored into perpetuity
 681 2013-03-08 03:03:50 <warren> that's fine.
 682 2013-03-08 03:04:05 <iwilcox> Hey, as long as warren wants to do the correcting every time someone asks or errs, that's up to him/her/it.
 683 2013-03-08 03:04:08 <Diablo-D3> what, no one says a word about me kicking dead puppies?
 684 2013-03-08 03:04:15 * Diablo-D3 likes where this channel is headed
 685 2013-03-08 03:04:27 kritCoin has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 686 2013-03-08 03:04:29 <warren> Diablo-D3: with the new definition, it's fine.
 687 2013-03-08 03:04:40 <Diablo-D3> with the old definition, its a great weekend project!
 688 2013-03-08 03:04:53 <aethero> why all the code mumbo anyway
 689 2013-03-08 03:05:08 <Diablo-D3> well, its just like milk toad
 690 2013-03-08 03:05:10 <Diablo-D3> we hate it and make fun of it
 691 2013-03-08 03:05:32 <iwilcox> warren: So how do you tune "modest enough"?
 692 2013-03-08 03:05:33 <aethero> ah
 693 2013-03-08 03:05:38 kritCoin has joined
 694 2013-03-08 03:05:47 <HM> i don't see how you can block SD
 695 2013-03-08 03:05:49 <warren> iwilcox: that will require some statistical analysis to figure out
 696 2013-03-08 03:05:53 <HM> they'll just rotate their addresses
 697 2013-03-08 03:05:55 <jrmithdobbs> HM: drop it's txns
 698 2013-03-08 03:06:01 <jrmithdobbs> HM: several pools do already
 699 2013-03-08 03:06:08 <HM> ^^
 700 2013-03-08 03:06:15 <jrmithdobbs> HM: yet they don't
 701 2013-03-08 03:06:19 <jrmithdobbs> and it works
 702 2013-03-08 03:06:21 <warren> HM: hence I don't suggest blocking addresses.  I suggest increasing fees on certain behaviors that are abnormal.
 703 2013-03-08 03:06:33 <Diablo-D3> well
 704 2013-03-08 03:06:36 bitit has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 705 2013-03-08 03:06:38 <Diablo-D3> this is where I believe in a miners market
 706 2013-03-08 03:06:40 <Vinnie_win> I believe the owner of SD saw this coming and that's why he sold 10% of his operation to get cash in hand
 707 2013-03-08 03:06:48 <Diablo-D3> let most miners kick dead puppies
 708 2013-03-08 03:06:58 <Diablo-D3> let the miners who don't get raped because their blocks are too huge
 709 2013-03-08 03:07:04 <Diablo-D3> and they get out-raced every time
 710 2013-03-08 03:07:22 <HM> warren: what behaviours?
 711 2013-03-08 03:07:28 <jrmithdobbs> ya it's actually not in any miners interest to include those txns as things stand
 712 2013-03-08 03:07:31 bitit has joined
 713 2013-03-08 03:07:39 <HM> heuristics are always tricky
 714 2013-03-08 03:07:42 <jrmithdobbs> if anything it just lowers their chance of winning the hash lottery due to size
 715 2013-03-08 03:07:43 <Diablo-D3> seriously, Ive repeatedly asked even for a damned patch
 716 2013-03-08 03:07:49 <Diablo-D3> that hardcodes dead puppies in bitcoin and drops them
 717 2013-03-08 03:07:56 <jrmithdobbs> Diablo-D3: luke has one
 718 2013-03-08 03:07:58 <warren> Diablo-D3: it was posted
 719 2013-03-08 03:08:01 <Diablo-D3> REALLY?
 720 2013-03-08 03:08:05 <Diablo-D3> did he build binaries too?
 721 2013-03-08 03:08:11 <warren> No
 722 2013-03-08 03:08:12 <jrmithdobbs> Diablo-D3: it's on gitolite or w/e
 723 2013-03-08 03:08:13 <Diablo-D3> fuck
 724 2013-03-08 03:08:16 <jrmithdobbs> no binaries
 725 2013-03-08 03:08:19 <Diablo-D3> I _really_ hate building bitcoin
 726 2013-03-08 03:08:21 <jrmithdobbs> gitorious
 727 2013-03-08 03:08:22 <Vinnie_win> Diablo-D3: I think this is it? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149668.msg1598216#msg1598216
 728 2013-03-08 03:08:22 <jrmithdobbs> i mean
 729 2013-03-08 03:08:35 <warren> Diablo-D3: willing to pay for binaries?
 730 2013-03-08 03:08:46 <jrmithdobbs> no he's a cheap bastard
 731 2013-03-08 03:08:47 <warren> there's a market solution for people unwilling to build
 732 2013-03-08 03:08:50 <iwilcox> Even if you drop DPs/dust rather than pass it on to your peers, you get the txns back via the next block, right?
 733 2013-03-08 03:08:50 <OneMiner> +1 miners should take care of the DP problem. They need to be empowered though. I'm sure 9/10 don't know squat about how to do this.
 734 2013-03-08 03:08:56 <HM> Diablo-D3: why is that
 735 2013-03-08 03:09:11 <jrmithdobbs> iwilcox: only if the "miners" include it
 736 2013-03-08 03:09:15 Goonie has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 737 2013-03-08 03:09:16 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: does that patch compile against 0.8.0?
 738 2013-03-08 03:09:30 <jrmithdobbs> pretty sure it does
 739 2013-03-08 03:09:38 <Vinnie_win> Here's another way to attack the problem - grow the Bitcoin economy so large that we hit the 1MB limit every time and drive fees above what would be profitable for....hate to use the term but...dead puppies
 740 2013-03-08 03:09:46 <HM> I'm against the patch as anything but a very short term fix. If SD can do this then anyone can and it's a network issue
 741 2013-03-08 03:09:52 <warren> HM: I thought of only two.  1) spending 0-conf tx.  2) redemption of non-compressed keys.  There are likely other behaviors that are easy to identify.
 742 2013-03-08 03:09:54 <Diablo-D3> Vinnie_win: this is what I said about 12 hours ago
 743 2013-03-08 03:09:59 <Diablo-D3> Vinnie_win: everyone agreed
 744 2013-03-08 03:10:06 <iwilcox> jrmithdobbs: OK, but at the moment there are still miners that do.  What's the current benefit of running the satoshi client with the patch, apart from a warm fuzzy feeling?
 745 2013-03-08 03:10:08 RainbowDashh has joined
 746 2013-03-08 03:10:08 <warren> Diablo-D3: what distro do you use?
 747 2013-03-08 03:10:14 <Vinnie_win> Diablo-D3: great minds think alike
 748 2013-03-08 03:10:18 <Diablo-D3> if we just quit fucking around and start buying groceries and starbucks and prostitutes with bitcoins
 749 2013-03-08 03:10:23 <Diablo-D3> dead puppies would go away
 750 2013-03-08 03:10:34 <OneMiner> Feature request: Allow a running client to be modified to block transactions. Deny undesirable transactions or addresses. Problem, an attacker could spam clients to jam up the network.
 751 2013-03-08 03:10:42 <jrmithdobbs> iwilcox: none of their txns in your memory pool ever
 752 2013-03-08 03:10:42 <Diablo-D3> warren: debian, but Ill just build it myself
 753 2013-03-08 03:10:47 <jrmithdobbs> iwilcox: you'll only have them in confirmed blocks
 754 2013-03-08 03:10:48 <HM> Diablo-D3: I am all for people funding my hooker habits if they want to sell me bitcoins
 755 2013-03-08 03:10:51 defunctzombie_zz is now known as defunctzombie
 756 2013-03-08 03:10:57 <iwilcox> warren: Help a newbie out with 1)...aren't there legitimate uses of spends of unconfirmed txns?
 757 2013-03-08 03:10:59 <Diablo-D3> warren: I think they've fixed most of the stuff I bitched about
 758 2013-03-08 03:11:07 <Diablo-D3> worlds cruftiest makefile
 759 2013-03-08 03:11:16 <Diablo-D3> iwilcox: no.
 760 2013-03-08 03:11:30 <warren> iwilcox: I don't know.  This requires a lot more research to be sure potential behaviors really aren't normal.
 761 2013-03-08 03:11:31 <Diablo-D3> iwilcox: and your client will avoid them when possible
 762 2013-03-08 03:11:37 <CodeShark> there are certainly legitimate uses of spending unconfirmed transactions - I was running a server once that split income into multiple exchanges
 763 2013-03-08 03:11:57 <Diablo-D3> iwilcox: and how unconfirmed? 0 confirms? your client cant spend those
 764 2013-03-08 03:12:27 <CodeShark> I needed to split the income in order to balance my exchange accounts
 765 2013-03-08 03:12:45 <warren> Or how about the dust tx?  Jack up the fee on that.  Don't need to block it outright.
 766 2013-03-08 03:13:19 QwertyYouEyeOp has quit ()
 767 2013-03-08 03:13:51 <Vinnie_win> There's another option, bite down on a piece of hard leather for however long it takes for the DP issue to no longer be a problem and just accept the finite amount of extra bloat
 768 2013-03-08 03:14:13 <warren> Vinnie_win: that seems to be the current path.
 769 2013-03-08 03:14:23 <Vinnie_win> warren: It's a valid option really
 770 2013-03-08 03:14:29 <CodeShark> another possible use for spending unconfirmed transactions (but it depends on child-pays-for-parent) is adding more fees to a transaction you're receiving to get it to confirm more quickly
 771 2013-03-08 03:14:39 <iwilcox> Til several other sites clone DP's model.
 772 2013-03-08 03:14:51 <warren> CodeShark: "I was running a server once that split income into multiple exchanges" was this mining income or something else?
 773 2013-03-08 03:15:02 <Vinnie_win> iwilcox: ironically, having multiple separate companies like DP would solve the problem
 774 2013-03-08 03:15:16 <CodeShark> warren: something else
 775 2013-03-08 03:15:34 <Diablo-D3> Vinnie_win: its a valid option but
 776 2013-03-08 03:15:34 <Diablo-D3> meh
 777 2013-03-08 03:15:34 <HM> what's the typical amount on current SD transactions? it's the change causing the problems right?
 778 2013-03-08 03:15:36 <Diablo-D3> its easier to just piss in their cheerios
 779 2013-03-08 03:15:52 <Diablo-D3> HM: no, the tx itself
 780 2013-03-08 03:15:58 <Vinnie_win> Diablo-D3: Getting enough miners to agree to make a change is difficult
 781 2013-03-08 03:16:08 <Diablo-D3> Vinnie_win: bzzt wrong
 782 2013-03-08 03:16:17 <warren> Vinnie_win: I only somewhat agree.
 783 2013-03-08 03:16:23 <Diablo-D3> most of the global mining power is held or managed by 12 people
 784 2013-03-08 03:16:38 <Diablo-D3> a 90% switch is enough to sink the USS Dead Puppy
 785 2013-03-08 03:16:41 <warren> In that thread, it seems BTC Guild won't do anything that is against DP.
 786 2013-03-08 03:16:41 <HM> 12 whole people
 787 2013-03-08 03:16:44 <Vinnie_win> warren: Agree with what, getting miners to make a change or that having several SD companies would speed us towards a resolution?
 788 2013-03-08 03:16:55 <Diablo-D3> HM: yup
 789 2013-03-08 03:16:58 <Diablo-D3> scary isn't it
 790 2013-03-08 03:17:14 <Vinnie_win> that's not good at all
 791 2013-03-08 03:17:15 <warren> Vinnie_win: there exist many DP-like companies, they don't have users for some reason.  Not sure why.
 792 2013-03-08 03:17:29 <HM> Diablo-D3: not really, i imagine 12 people could sink a nations economy if they wanted
 793 2013-03-08 03:17:29 D34TH has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 794 2013-03-08 03:17:30 <Vinnie_win> warren: they aren't directly playable from blockchain.info
 795 2013-03-08 03:17:54 <HM> like that porky fingered guy in that Danish bank who almost tanked the whole thing
 796 2013-03-08 03:18:03 <Vinnie_win> Although there might only be 12 mining operators, if they make a change that results in less profits then a defector could get their users
 797 2013-03-08 03:18:12 <jgarzik> mogri, petertodd: ok, pynode/python-bitcoinlib forked, dust settled, forum post posted.
 798 2013-03-08 03:18:16 <Vinnie_win> Individual miners don't run full nodes anyway what do they care about bloat
 799 2013-03-08 03:18:28 <warren> Vinnie_win: p2pool miners do.
 800 2013-03-08 03:18:37 <Vinnie_win> warren: but p2pool isn't one of the 12
 801 2013-03-08 03:18:38 <doublec> doesn't the sd creator have their own pool anyway? So they'll always be able to inclde their transactions at least some of the time.
 802 2013-03-08 03:18:52 <warren> doublec: they do?  which one?
 803 2013-03-08 03:19:14 <Diablo-D3> p2pool isn't one of the twelve
 804 2013-03-08 03:19:24 <Vinnie_win> what does voorhees say about it
 805 2013-03-08 03:19:27 <HM> A political solution will probably be more effective than a technical one.
 806 2013-03-08 03:19:43 <warren> HM: DP has rejected diplomatic solutions.
 807 2013-03-08 03:19:53 <HM> I meant with the minors
 808 2013-03-08 03:19:55 <iwilcox> Publicly?
 809 2013-03-08 03:19:55 <HM> miners
 810 2013-03-08 03:20:01 <Diablo-D3> yup
 811 2013-03-08 03:20:01 <Diablo-D3> time for defcon1
 812 2013-03-08 03:20:12 <Vinnie_win> rubber hose attack
 813 2013-03-08 03:20:13 <Diablo-D3> wake up Master Negro and get the football for him
 814 2013-03-08 03:20:23 <Diablo-D3> its time to play a game
 815 2013-03-08 03:20:39 <doublec> warren: http://hhtt.1209k.com/
 816 2013-03-08 03:20:41 <HM> thankfully, Satoshi has a backdoor....right? RIGHT?! Oh he doesn't?
 817 2013-03-08 03:20:44 <HM> drag
 818 2013-03-08 03:21:05 <gmaxwell> 19:18 < doublec> doesn't the sd creator have their own pool anyway? <  I guess fireduck does, not clear what his level of involvement is.
 819 2013-03-08 03:22:21 sgornick has joined
 820 2013-03-08 03:22:44 <Vinnie_win> Isn't the owner of sd involved in the bitcoin foundation and various other high profile stuff? it seems this is bad karma
 821 2013-03-08 03:23:17 vampireb has joined
 822 2013-03-08 03:23:54 <Diablo-D3> Vinnie_win: you pay money to be involved in bitcoin foundation
 823 2013-03-08 03:24:01 <Diablo-D3> his money is just as good as anyone else's
 824 2013-03-08 03:25:24 <Vinnie_win> he's not on the board
 825 2013-03-08 03:25:24 <warren> Well, I guess there's no interest in behavioral incentive fee adjustments.  We're stuck with only per-KB fees.
 826 2013-03-08 03:25:35 <Luke-Jr> Vinnie_win: Erik isn't
 827 2013-03-08 03:25:40 <Luke-Jr> Matonis is though
 828 2013-03-08 03:25:47 <Luke-Jr> hopefully when the elections happen that'll change
 829 2013-03-08 03:25:55 <Vinnie_win> Luke-Jr: Right that's what I'm saying. What is Matonis' relationship to SD?
 830 2013-03-08 03:26:01 <Luke-Jr> Vinnie_win: indirect
 831 2013-03-08 03:26:01 <warren> Luke-Jr: who is eligible to vote?
 832 2013-03-08 03:26:12 <Luke-Jr> warren: business members
 833 2013-03-08 03:26:16 <gmaxwell> warren: there is no interest because who can you expect to lose money to impose them?
 834 2013-03-08 03:26:31 <warren> gmaxwell: I'm not convinced that all designs would lose money.
 835 2013-03-08 03:26:31 <Luke-Jr> Vinnie_win: Erik, Matonis, and Roger ver are more or less a trio
 836 2013-03-08 03:27:07 <Luke-Jr> Vinnie_win: Erik floods the blockchain, Matonis dares governments to ban Bitcoin, and Roger ver promotes Bitcoin as radical anarchism
 837 2013-03-08 03:27:10 <Vinnie_win> Ver criminal record, Erik shitting on the commons and Matonis well I just don't like how he looks
 838 2013-03-08 03:27:10 <Diablo-D3> what use is the money if I have to spend it on a bigger hd?
 839 2013-03-08 03:28:21 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: heh
 840 2013-03-08 03:28:25 <gmaxwell> warren: you give me a very high fee transaction but it sucks on your 'incentive' metric. Why am I not going to put it into my block? It's likely that some subsequent miner will do so anyways. So why not me?
 841 2013-03-08 03:28:26 <Vinnie_win> is this tx spam causing confirmation times to go up
 842 2013-03-08 03:28:34 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: (not disagreeing...)
 843 2013-03-08 03:29:03 <jgarzik> Vinnie_win: I would like to see somebody answer that substantively...
 844 2013-03-08 03:29:09 rbecker is now known as RBecker
 845 2013-03-08 03:29:11 <jgarzik> quantified
 846 2013-03-08 03:29:24 <Luke-Jr> if I were out to kill Bitcoin, I'd do exactly what those 3 are doing <.<
 847 2013-03-08 03:29:31 <gmaxwell> warren: if you expect other miners to go all dark-mark and orphan my block, then you've just described a protocol rule, though perhaps a crappy one because its not clear, consentual, and written down.
 848 2013-03-08 03:29:34 <Vinnie_win> jgarzik: If it is, then it's probably mostly laziness of miners to uncomment the soft block size limit
 849 2013-03-08 03:30:36 <Vinnie_win> Is there a graph of average confirmation time somewhere?
 850 2013-03-08 03:30:37 <warren> gmaxwell: If <undesired behavior>, multiply required fee by <factor> such that priority is equal to <normal behavior with normal fee>.  With this metric, DP behavior would need to adjust their fee higher to overcome the <factor> and achieve higher priority.  Miners might like that, and users will like it.
 851 2013-03-08 03:31:29 <iwilcox> Vinnie_win, jgarzik: Isn't it more likely that it's causing the frequency of orphans to go up, or am I missing something?
 852 2013-03-08 03:31:32 <Vinnie_win> jgarzik: ah blockchain.info has an average confirmation time graph, and it appears to be decreasing over the last 12 months: https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-confirmation-time
 853 2013-03-08 03:32:05 <Vinnie_win> ilwilcox: I would imagine these tx have no effect on orphan rate
 854 2013-03-08 03:32:20 <Luke-Jr> Vinnie_win: I'd like to see the graph without SD included in it
 855 2013-03-08 03:32:21 <gmaxwell> warren: But not so. DP keeps on trucking... there is a big backlog of unconfirmed DP transactions. I take them and earn a bunch of extra fees. DP's transactions get confirmed. He has no incentive to increase unless he wants the fastest possible confirmations. The rest of the miners have no reason to keep imposing the rules and forgoing income just to pay the defector.
 856 2013-03-08 03:32:41 <warren> gmaxwell: This is not suggesting a "very high transaction fee" meant to destroy the undesired behavior, just make it more expensive than normal behavior, so they pay more to the externality.  Sort of a "Pigouvian tax", make polluters pay.
 857 2013-03-08 03:32:42 <Vinnie_win> ilwilcox: I think the primary objection is that they are unprunable, correct me if I'm wrong
 858 2013-03-08 03:33:21 gritcoin has quit (Quit: gritcoin)
 859 2013-03-08 03:33:27 <gmaxwell> warren: it could be 1ct. It's in the miners best local interest to defect. It's in his best long term interest if he believes any other miner will defect.
 860 2013-03-08 03:33:41 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: I thought that the size of the mempool hasn't really changed much...someone said that (might have been you)
 861 2013-03-08 03:34:06 <Vinnie_win> I remember a web page that showed the average # of tx in the mempool somewhere
 862 2013-03-08 03:34:31 fiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 863 2013-03-08 03:34:49 <Vinnie_win> Here it is, # of unconfirmed tx looks like it comes from blockchain.info https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149577.msg1594264#msg1594264
 864 2013-03-08 03:35:00 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: huh? not sure what you're talking about. the DP transactions use up a bunch of block space resulting in making bitcoin more costly to run, driving people to centeralized services, etc. and they do this in excess of their real economic impact.
 865 2013-03-08 03:35:12 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: mempool size isn't interesting. it's not a painpoint.
 866 2013-03-08 03:35:20 <warren> gmaxwell: Defection is not certain.  There exists a certain <factor> that balances increased income to miners with fear of reduced income due to DP discouragement.
 867 2013-03-08 03:35:37 <gmaxwell> the DP txn also create UTXO bloat... which is perpetual data that must be in fast storage for validators.
 868 2013-03-08 03:36:38 <gmaxwell> warren: it basically requires near 100% conformance though assuming DP doesn't care about super fast confirmations.
 869 2013-03-08 03:36:39 <HM> why are SD creating unspent transactions
 870 2013-03-08 03:36:54 fiesh has joined
 871 2013-03-08 03:37:01 <warren> HM: instant response is part of the psychological lure of DP
 872 2013-03-08 03:37:09 <gmaxwell> HM: because they use the blockchain to send "you lost" messages.
 873 2013-03-08 03:37:14 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: isn't block space size and utxo bloat the same thing i.e. "unprunable"
 874 2013-03-08 03:37:33 <HM> aren't the "you lost" messages of some monetary value and spendable?
 875 2013-03-08 03:37:37 Jezzz has quit (Excess Flood)
 876 2013-03-08 03:37:44 <phantomcircuit> HM, 1 satoshi
 877 2013-03-08 03:37:46 <phantomcircuit> so no
 878 2013-03-08 03:38:01 <HM> why is 1 satoshi not spendable
 879 2013-03-08 03:38:01 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: no. Blockspace size is usually prunable. UTXO are unprunable but thue ones create are technically spendable but not worth spending.
 880 2013-03-08 03:38:21 <gmaxwell> HM: because it costs more in loss of priority or fees than its worth.
 881 2013-03-08 03:38:37 <HM> then why bother allowing transactions of 1 satoshi
 882 2013-03-08 03:38:49 Guest64346 has joined
 883 2013-03-08 03:38:51 <gmaxwell> They're not all 1 satoshi anymore, they're now small 'random' values. (I assume because people started blocking them)
 884 2013-03-08 03:38:53 <CodeShark> what do you suggest the minimum amount be, HM?
 885 2013-03-08 03:39:01 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: So a concise definition of the objectionable behavior is "creation of economically unspendable outputs"
 886 2013-03-08 03:39:05 <HM> CodeShark: 1 satoshi
 887 2013-03-08 03:39:06 <gmaxwell> HM: at one point bitcoin client software wouldn't.
 888 2013-03-08 03:39:20 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: thats certantly part of it, like many things it's not bad in just one way.
 889 2013-03-08 03:39:26 <warren> gmaxwell: It's better than the entirely ineffective 4.3% of hashing power ignoring DP tx's.  (wild ass guess).  This exploits greed on the part of amoral miners, who can realize they can realize that they can claim a larger portion of DP's pie.
 890 2013-03-08 03:39:43 <warren> redundant redundant
 891 2013-03-08 03:39:43 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: What are the additional problems? I have only identified the one
 892 2013-03-08 03:40:43 <Vinnie_win> Has anyone called our Voorhees in the forum?
 893 2013-03-08 03:40:46 <Vinnie_win> *called out
 894 2013-03-08 03:41:11 <Luke-Jr> the forum is a joke, but multiple people have confronted him there and on IRC
 895 2013-03-08 03:41:46 <Vinnie_win> how about asking MPOE to delist the "security" until they fix the spam
 896 2013-03-08 03:41:49 <Vinnie_win> (long shot I know)
 897 2013-03-08 03:42:12 <warren> Vinnie_win: ineffective, there's tons of other "stock markets"
 898 2013-03-08 03:42:12 <HM> the sad reality is bitcoin needs to be able to scale to any usage pattern. my bank wont' stop me placing a 1p visa transaction
 899 2013-03-08 03:42:34 <HM> the minimum denomination should be spendable
 900 2013-03-08 03:42:35 <Luke-Jr> Vinnie_win: MPOE is run by someone almost as insane as them
 901 2013-03-08 03:42:40 <CodeShark> HM, retailers will stop you placing 1p transactions :p
 902 2013-03-08 03:42:46 <Vinnie_win> warren: Sure there's other markets but the resulting disruption could raise awareness and prompt "shareholder" action
 903 2013-03-08 03:42:48 <CodeShark> because it's they who pay the fees directly
 904 2013-03-08 03:42:49 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: They're creating a huge txn load disproportionally with the economic activity involved.. one or two bot players are basically forcing other bitcoin users to pay 0.005 BTC/kb to get fast transactions.
 905 2013-03-08 03:42:59 <iwilcox> HM: They'll start charging you for a business account if you keep spending 1p.
 906 2013-03-08 03:43:09 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: which isn't perhaps fundimentally a problem, it's an issue in the short term assuming we want to maximize bitcoin's adoption.
 907 2013-03-08 03:43:38 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: I'm not so sure that the tx load is a real problem. The economically unspendable outputs seems the main problem. Is there a third issue?
 908 2013-03-08 03:44:09 <warren> Vinnie_win: the economically unspendable outputs also cause memory bloat on a permanent basis
 909 2013-03-08 03:44:12 <warren> not just disk
 910 2013-03-08 03:44:19 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: I think the load is actually the bigger short term problem. The UTXO bloat is a bigger long term problem.
 911 2013-03-08 03:44:24 <Vinnie_win> warren: Yeah, like gmaxwell said it needs to be in fast storage
 912 2013-03-08 03:44:26 <gmaxwell> warren: what. no they do not.
 913 2013-03-08 03:44:30 <warren> oh? hmm
 914 2013-03-08 03:44:36 <gmaxwell> It needs to be in fast storage but not ram.
 915 2013-03-08 03:44:48 <warren> misunderstood, sorry.
 916 2013-03-08 03:44:53 <warren> HM: I avoided your name.
 917 2013-03-08 03:45:03 <HM> Have a cookie
 918 2013-03-08 03:45:04 <CodeShark> economically unspendable outputs can be put in slower RAM
 919 2013-03-08 03:45:06 <HM> and a dead puppy
 920 2013-03-08 03:45:09 <CodeShark> or slower storage
 921 2013-03-08 03:45:23 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: they must be online though. Otherwise one gets spent and the network forks.
 922 2013-03-08 03:45:33 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: What's the problem with the load? Bandwidth?
 923 2013-03-08 03:45:42 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: if we adopt a self-balancing committed utxo even what you're suggesting may not be possible.
 924 2013-03-08 03:45:53 <CodeShark> yes, of course they must be online - just saying that it's better to give the more probable-to-be-spent transactions faster memory
 925 2013-03-08 03:46:03 <CodeShark> oh...
 926 2013-03-08 03:46:04 <CodeShark> hmm
 927 2013-03-08 03:46:20 <CodeShark> yeah, crap - they are still part of the merkle trees
 928 2013-03-08 03:46:44 <Vinnie_win> Shouldn't we assume that tx load will always be at the point where blocks are filled to the 1MB limit? Because this condition of having an under-utilized network is only temporary and it's proportion of influence will trend towards zero over time
 929 2013-03-08 03:46:45 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: the time it someone making a regular transaction to get confirmed OR the fees they have to pay to not take that time.  Right now to get ahead of DP you need to use 0.005BTC/KB. so a bloaty 100KB transaction would need a fee of 0.5 BTC.
 930 2013-03-08 03:47:24 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: that under-utilizedness is part of our "startup capital"
 931 2013-03-08 03:47:26 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: I see, so it's the fees
 932 2013-03-08 03:47:35 <gmaxwell> also the "startup capital"
 933 2013-03-08 03:48:00 <gmaxwell> think of it this way: if bitcoin is used everywhere and its very valable.. whos going to mind that it takes 24 hours to bringup a new bitcoin node?  No one.
 934 2013-03-08 03:48:00 <Vinnie_win> Good way to think of it. And these bastards are basically stealing this goodwill
 935 2013-03-08 03:48:02 <warren> Vinnie_win: it is more desirable to reach the limit due to organic growth, more users means more inherent value in the network.  One or two bots spamming doesn't increase the value by that metric.
 936 2013-03-08 03:48:19 <Vinnie_win> Yes
 937 2013-03-08 03:48:24 <gmaxwell> If bitcoin is some obsecure and unproven online thing who is going to mind that it takes 24 hours to bringing up new node? everyone.
 938 2013-03-08 03:48:35 <HM> you're forgetting SD isn't your only problem
 939 2013-03-08 03:48:40 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: well 'bastards' may be too strong a word.
 940 2013-03-08 03:48:55 <HM> if SD can do this then anyone can implement this denial of service attack
 941 2013-03-08 03:49:00 <gmaxwell> HM: not quite!
 942 2013-03-08 03:49:06 <Vinnie_win> DP spam creates two problems: economically unspendable and unprunable transactions, and an overall increase in the fees required to get a transaction confirmed in a reasonable time
 943 2013-03-08 03:49:08 <HM> why?
 944 2013-03-08 03:49:10 vigilyn2 has joined
 945 2013-03-08 03:49:14 <gmaxwell> HM: we _were_ attacked this way in the past, thats how we got the minimum fees to begin with!
 946 2013-03-08 03:49:21 vigilyn3 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 947 2013-03-08 03:49:36 <Vinnie_win> ^^ is that the whole of it?
 948 2013-03-08 03:49:36 <gmaxwell> HM: and the fees have been quite effective because the attackers are economically rational and the fees make attacking somewhat expensive.
 949 2013-03-08 03:49:59 <CodeShark> the problem is that SD players are not rational :p
 950 2013-03-08 03:50:05 * Luke-Jr wonders if it would help to make Bitcoin-Qt builds that refuse to relay blocks containing SD crap O.o
 951 2013-03-08 03:50:05 <HM> look, clearly the SD bots are run by SD themselves right?
 952 2013-03-08 03:50:12 <gmaxwell> Our current dead puppy factor breaks the model because the consumers of dead puppies are by definition economically irrational (or at least 'concerned with other things than the price of their txn')
 953 2013-03-08 03:50:13 <HM> otherwise whoever it is would have gone bust?
 954 2013-03-08 03:50:15 <Vinnie_win> HM: They are?
 955 2013-03-08 03:50:21 <warren> We're concerned about a negative externality, pollution that costs everyone for personal gain.  A normal economic way of dealing with pollution is to increase taxes on the behavior.  In our case it can be done in such a way that miners' greed will go along with it once they realize through collusion they can claim a larger portion of DP's profits.
 956 2013-03-08 03:50:32 <CodeShark> why would SD play bots against itself?
 957 2013-03-08 03:50:45 <HM> who knows
 958 2013-03-08 03:50:48 <gmaxwell> HM: you can spend all night on the conspiracy theories. In any case, whatever it is, they've found a way to monitize this behavior which is otherwise very hard to monetize.
 959 2013-03-08 03:50:57 <HM> why would anyone play an -EV game using a bot unless they were somehow profiting?
 960 2013-03-08 03:50:58 <CodeShark> other than block chain advertisement (which is arguably negative), it gets them nothing - and they have to pay fees
 961 2013-03-08 03:51:34 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: SD then pretends it's responsible for most Bitcoin adoption/use, increasing their stock value
 962 2013-03-08 03:51:38 <gmaxwell> Either it's real gambling (with bots?!@?#), or money laundering, or pumping stock, or whatever. ... it's not clear that its reproducable whatever it is. And at least so far nothing else seems to have failed to be thwarted by the basic fee rules.
 963 2013-03-08 03:51:41 <HM> driving up minimum fees might be exactly what they want
 964 2013-03-08 03:51:51 <Vinnie_win> Well, on a positive note I feel a lot better about my Bitcoin investment now that I've witnessed that the principal engineers working on it are calm, rational, thoughtful, and analytical - thanks guys
 965 2013-03-08 03:51:56 <warren> As a collusive miner policy, the pollution behavior tax can be changed or removed at any time.
 966 2013-03-08 03:52:02 <gmaxwell> HM: or forcing larger blocksizes, for that matter. But this is all guessing, who knows.
 967 2013-03-08 03:52:21 Hasimir- is now known as Hasimir
 968 2013-03-08 03:52:22 Hasimir has quit (Changing host)
 969 2013-03-08 03:52:22 Hasimir has joined
 970 2013-03-08 03:52:38 <gmaxwell> warren: implicit collusive policy is very dangerous for the currency because it increases the time until consensus unless its (nearly) unanimous.
 971 2013-03-08 03:52:42 <Vinnie_win> Any increase in minimum fee directly affects DP bottom line
 972 2013-03-08 03:52:44 <warren> DP could combat this by investing in their own mining pool.
 973 2013-03-08 03:53:17 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: dunno about that, they pass the fees onto the players. You're assuming the players are return sensitive. I don't know that the evidence supports that: as DP increase their rake their traffic increased.
 974 2013-03-08 03:53:36 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: they increased the house cut?
 975 2013-03-08 03:53:44 <warren> gmaxwell: a disruption of consensus such that DP players freak out due to uncertainty may also have a desirable outcome (to us), but that isn't what I'm suggesting at all.
 976 2013-03-08 03:53:45 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: yes, twice early on.
 977 2013-03-08 03:54:05 <CodeShark> warren: I think it is safe to assume that DP players are not rational :)
 978 2013-03-08 03:54:12 <Vinnie_win> That's definitely a safe assumption
 979 2013-03-08 03:54:25 <gmaxwell> Their house cut is already very questionably small. but I suppose the actual value doesn't matter: players will just play more.. their cut is actually unbounded. :P
 980 2013-03-08 03:54:30 <HM> My proposal is not to block SD, but to require an even higher fee on SD transactions
 981 2013-03-08 03:54:34 <Vinnie_win> I should put up a site that lets you send Bitcoins and I will guarantee that you always get exactly 99% of your money back...
 982 2013-03-08 03:54:39 <HM> there must be a fee level they cannot support
 983 2013-03-08 03:54:45 <Luke-Jr> HM: same effect
 984 2013-03-08 03:54:56 <gmaxwell> (what I mean by questionably small: the DP factory side of the bet fails the kelly criteria unless their bankroll is like a kazillion dollars)
 985 2013-03-08 03:55:12 <iwilcox> Vinnie_win: With odds that good nobody would play :)
 986 2013-03-08 03:55:22 <gmaxwell> (at least for the larger multipliers)
 987 2013-03-08 03:55:30 <warren> gmaxwell: assuming they arent cheating with hash filters
 988 2013-03-08 03:55:33 <gmaxwell> (meaning that— from a pure math perspective we should expect DP to go bankrupt)
 989 2013-03-08 03:55:51 <gmaxwell> warren: sure sure, if they're not really gambling then all that goes out the window.
 990 2013-03-08 03:56:27 <gmaxwell> So then you have the P(fails at math|irrational rake) vs P(really laundering money|irrational rake) vs P(stock pumping|irrational rake) :P
 991 2013-03-08 03:56:36 <gmaxwell> who know, who cares.. thats tabloid stuff.
 992 2013-03-08 03:57:03 <Vinnie_win> So this undesirable behavior can be detected algorithmically
 993 2013-03-08 03:57:10 <Vinnie_win> (without hard coding a dp address)
 994 2013-03-08 03:58:07 <warren> In any case, none of the proposed solutions to stop DP will work, given they go against amoral profit maximizing miner behavior.  My polluter behavioral tax suggestion at least has a chance of miner adoption since it really does allow them to make more profits.
 995 2013-03-08 03:58:26 <Vinnie_win> warren: how's the behavioral tax go again
 996 2013-03-08 03:58:46 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: the economically non-viable outputs can only be to the extent that we can algorithmically define non-viable.
 997 2013-03-08 03:59:07 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: how about if the output is less than the fee
 998 2013-03-08 03:59:20 <Vinnie_win> I mean to say...what's wrong with checking for output < fee
 999 2013-03-08 03:59:30 <Vinnie_win> obviously there's something wrong with it since no one suggested it
1000 2013-03-08 03:59:34 <HM> I've lost track of how many external Bitcoin observors have said for years it won't scale
1001 2013-03-08 04:00:14 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: uh....
1002 2013-03-08 04:00:20 <HM> I can't help thinking anything that tries to enforce a long term policy is a spiral toward death
1003 2013-03-08 04:00:20 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: hey, thats snazzy.
1004 2013-03-08 04:00:28 <Vinnie_win> come on now
1005 2013-03-08 04:00:30 <HM> social policy*
1006 2013-03-08 04:00:36 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: I know there's something wrong with it
1007 2013-03-08 04:00:39 <warren> Vinnie_win:  If <undesired behavior>, multiply required fee by <factor> such that priority is equal to <normal behavior with normal fee>.  With this metric, DP behavior would need to adjust their fee higher to overcome the <factor> and achieve higher priority.  Through some statistical analysis, miners can come to consensus on a balance of <factor> that boosts their profits.  The end result is lower fees for normal tx's, more miner income.
1008 2013-03-08 04:01:00 <Vinnie_win> warren: Yeah I was really asking about the definition of <undesired behavior>
1009 2013-03-08 04:01:08 RBecker is now known as rbecker
1010 2013-03-08 04:01:08 <warren> Vinnie_win: that requires research as well
1011 2013-03-08 04:01:16 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: I mean, it suffers from the 'some other miner will take it'.. and you have to define something to do with free txn...
1012 2013-03-08 04:01:20 n000by has quit ()
1013 2013-03-08 04:01:48 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: Free txn have to have aged coins so thats a limited resource which will exhaust itself and therefore, not really a problem?
1014 2013-03-08 04:02:42 gritcoin has joined
1015 2013-03-08 04:02:50 <HM> value < fee makes sense to me, might make some coin burning schemes tricky though
1016 2013-03-08 04:03:08 <Vinnie_win> The problem with value<fee is miner defection.
1017 2013-03-08 04:03:08 <warren> gmaxwell: You don't need 100% miner adoption for this to work.  Player uncertainty of "when will my coins confirm?" may be enough to force DP to pay the higher policy.
1018 2013-03-08 04:03:25 <warren> gmaxwell: DP relies much on "instant" psychology
1019 2013-03-08 04:03:34 <HM> a miner isn't going to ignore a 100 BTC fee on a 1 BTC transaction :P
1020 2013-03-08 04:03:39 <Vinnie_win> The win tx are not the problem though, it's the loss tx right?
1021 2013-03-08 04:04:10 <gmaxwell> warren: I've not seen evidence of that. then again, I've not seen too much evidence of actual players existing. :(
1022 2013-03-08 04:04:36 <Vinnie_win> How about asking blockchain.info not to provide playable direct links to dp?
1023 2013-03-08 04:04:37 <gmaxwell> E.g. the tx mutation stuff was going on for weeks before someone showed up claiming that his wallet was stuck because of it.
1024 2013-03-08 04:05:17 <warren> gmaxwell: even DP-absent from this analysis, we *know* certain behaviors that fit within a KB is more costly to the network than other behaviors.  We currently give them all the same fee, but we don't have to.
1025 2013-03-08 04:05:36 <gmaxwell> HM: many would, in fact.  But this kind of argument isn't lost on me. I made it myself on the forum today.
1026 2013-03-08 04:05:38 <iwilcox> If the instant thing is so key to the appeal of DP then rather than impose a monetary fee on DP txns, just tar-pit them.
1027 2013-03-08 04:05:55 <OneMiner> I'm sorry to even say this but whatever solution is chosen it'll have to pass a public relations test in addition to working properly. I can almost hear the anarchists screaming about tyranny. I'm sorry to even type out this FUD but it seems like something to keep in mind.
1028 2013-03-08 04:05:55 <gmaxwell> iwilcox: if you don't mine them someone else will.
1029 2013-03-08 04:06:10 <warren> iwilcox: that's only possible without miner cooperation if all the main clients impose that policy
1030 2013-03-08 04:06:17 <warren> iwilcox: bitcoind, armory, multibit, blockchain, etc.
1031 2013-03-08 04:06:25 <Vinnie_win> OneMiner: I sure hope that people with commit access to Bitcoin's github repo do not use forum opinion to drive development
1032 2013-03-08 04:06:29 <gmaxwell> OneMiner: yea, I had good policy down in the past because of that kind of stuff. oh well.
1033 2013-03-08 04:06:37 <iwilcox> warren: Ditto your revised fee schedule, though, surely+
1034 2013-03-08 04:06:39 <iwilcox> ?
1035 2013-03-08 04:07:00 <warren> iwilcox: no.  Small number of miner operators would need to adopt it, and they have profit incentive to do so.
1036 2013-03-08 04:07:29 <gmaxwell> I mean, Vinnie_win's policy could even be a soft forking network rule. This cures defection.
1037 2013-03-08 04:07:45 <warren> which policy?  If output < fee?
1038 2013-03-08 04:07:49 <gmaxwell> Yes.
1039 2013-03-08 04:07:51 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: You mean the forwarding rules?
1040 2013-03-08 04:08:21 <warren> gmaxwell: that would be one of several behaviors to tax more heavily under my suggestion, with miners happily agreeing to it if they can collect higher fees.
1041 2013-03-08 04:08:35 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: I mean don't allow txn to be mined if output < fee. Miners could still create dust, of course, but they're also full nodes who get to enjoy the utxo costs.
1042 2013-03-08 04:09:11 <HM> I think someone should make a list of desirable transaction properties, and undesirable ones, from a pure network stability point of view, and work on a set of rules that consider all of them
1043 2013-03-08 04:09:14 <warren> Exclude miners from dust collection by the pollution tax.  that's easy enough.  Let the dust receivers deal with the consequences on their own. =)
1044 2013-03-08 04:09:30 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: Not clear how that policy prevents defection. Do you mean to say that out<fee tx will not be forwarded to peers, or that miners shouldn't include them in a block?
1045 2013-03-08 04:09:32 <gmaxwell> warren: huh?!@
1046 2013-03-08 04:09:55 <warren> gmaxwell: failed attempt of a joke
1047 2013-03-08 04:09:58 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: I'm saying that if a block mines a transaction with an output less than the transactions fee, the block is invalid.
1048 2013-03-08 04:10:06 <warren> HM: we don't need to label them as desireable and undesireable.  Cost for different behaviors can be calculated.
1049 2013-03-08 04:10:27 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: So miners will not attempt to build new blocks on top of blocks with out<fee
1050 2013-03-08 04:10:28 <warren> HM: actual cost, not KB cost.
1051 2013-03-08 04:11:04 <HM> this hodge-podge approach of patching transaction policy as problems arise is going to suck. there's just got to be a policy that can be described by some formula that provides "good enough" middle of the road performance
1052 2013-03-08 04:11:05 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: That's will increase an individual miner's orphan rate if less than N% of the miners upgrades to the rule
1053 2013-03-08 04:11:10 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: not just that, but nodes will reject it.. even if miners love it. I'm not promoting that idea, I'm just pointing out that its something which could technically be made a protcol rule.
1054 2013-03-08 04:11:32 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: no, it's VERY bad to have an inconsistent acceptance rule because it forks the network.
1055 2013-03-08 04:11:36 <iwilcox> warren: Let's say bitcoin-qt/bitcoind alone delay relay of DP txns.  They make up 75% of the network.  What do DP players and other clients do?
1056 2013-03-08 04:12:12 <gmaxwell> iwilcox: thats asusming there are players. But assuming that they just connect their nodes directly to the DP factory.
1057 2013-03-08 04:12:33 <warren> HM: This isn't exactly hodge-podge.  A few statisticians calculate the optimal <factor> for different behaviors based on actual cost to the network and what the market is willing to stomach.  Mining operators occasionally adjust their pollution factors to what they think will maximize their own profit.
1058 2013-03-08 04:12:37 <gmaxwell> addnode=1.2.3.4  it's a one line configuration change.
1059 2013-03-08 04:12:51 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: I see. So the reference client will drop blocks with out<fee.
1060 2013-03-08 04:12:55 <gmaxwell> warren: we could call them "The Fed" if that name isn't already taken.
1061 2013-03-08 04:13:03 <warren> gmaxwell: haha
1062 2013-03-08 04:13:22 <HM> The Bank of England is considering negative interest rates
1063 2013-03-08 04:13:31 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: ::nods:: again, I'm not promoting it, just pointing out that it could be done and would cure defection.
1064 2013-03-08 04:14:00 <warren> Vinnie_win: This has nothing to do with orphans.
1065 2013-03-08 04:14:11 <gmaxwell> HM: real interest on treasury bonds is negative in the US right now. (real meaning post inflation)
1066 2013-03-08 04:14:14 <Vinnie_win> warren: Right, got it. It would be a block validation rule in the reference client
1067 2013-03-08 04:14:30 <warren> Vinnie_win: not even that, this would require no changes to clients
1068 2013-03-08 04:14:31 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: The success of that scheme depends on users accepting this change in policy and upgrading
1069 2013-03-08 04:14:48 <Vinnie_win> http://codepad.org/49wHK7KC Anyone want to suggest edits before I post it?
1070 2013-03-08 04:14:53 <warren> Vinnie_win: wait, we're talking about two different things here...
1071 2013-03-08 04:15:07 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: the way we've deployed other softforking changes in the past is having miners add a flag to block indicating that when the flag density was high enough that they'd enforce the rule. This way you don't get forks created.
1072 2013-03-08 04:15:33 <warren> gmaxwell: The pollution tax doesn't require a soft-fork.
1073 2013-03-08 04:15:33 <Vinnie_win> got it
1074 2013-03-08 04:15:46 <Vinnie_win> warren: isn't the pollution tax vulnerable to defection
1075 2013-03-08 04:15:47 <warren> gmaxwell: and it can achieve Vinnie_win's policy goal without client changes
1076 2013-03-08 04:15:48 <HM> gmaxwell: I mean the BoE wants to charge banks for depositing cash with them
1077 2013-03-08 04:16:00 <warren> Vinnie_win: not when miners have profit incentive
1078 2013-03-08 04:16:07 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: it's a perfectly reasonable sounding message. I believe the response will entertain us for minutes at least! :P
1079 2013-03-08 04:16:26 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: can't hurt to try, and costs me nothing
1080 2013-03-08 04:16:35 <Vinnie_win> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101902.msg1598818#msg1598818
1081 2013-03-08 04:16:47 <Vinnie_win> next up, similar post for blockchain.info to remove dp links
1082 2013-03-08 04:16:47 <gmaxwell> warren: your pollution tax stuff is vulnerable to defection and you need to conjure up a Fed to even give you the parameters. :P
1083 2013-03-08 04:16:57 DaQatz has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1084 2013-03-08 04:17:14 <gmaxwell> warren: Vinnie_win's fee criteria for the viability of outputs doesn't have any parameterization.
1085 2013-03-08 04:17:17 <warren> gmaxwell: I'll do more research.
1086 2013-03-08 04:17:30 <Vinnie_win> how about a technical solution on the dp end - can't they just roll multiple tx together into a single tx with larger outputs maybe?
1087 2013-03-08 04:17:31 <HM> I'm kind of ruthless.
1088 2013-03-08 04:17:51 <Vinnie_win> if dp have enough tx volume then they could still have near instant response but roll multiple tx together in 1
1089 2013-03-08 04:17:54 <warren> gmaxwell: I like Vinnie_win's idea too.
1090 2013-03-08 04:18:24 <litropy> bitcoin-qt has been syncing for like 6 hours; I'm at about 80%, averaging about 200 blocks/min. Is this normal?
1091 2013-03-08 04:18:45 <Vinnie_win> I think if there's a way to make dp tx more palatable by combining multiple tx into a single one that doesn't have the unprunable problem they might accept it
1092 2013-03-08 04:19:53 <CodeShark> they could also use a different mechanism for indicating losses than sending 1 satoshi
1093 2013-03-08 04:19:57 <HM> why the fuck don't SD just post results on their website :|
1094 2013-03-08 04:21:00 <gmaxwell> litropy: what version? well. thats not so bad.. the time can depend a lot on how lucky you got with your peers.
1095 2013-03-08 04:21:06 <Vinnie_win> HM: You can gamble straight from your blockchain.info wallet
1096 2013-03-08 04:21:07 <iwilcox> It's more expensive than using Bitcoin for hosting.
1097 2013-03-08 04:21:19 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: they could do lots of things
1098 2013-03-08 04:21:46 <CodeShark> but they won't unless there's some incentive for them to do so
1099 2013-03-08 04:21:53 <gmaxwell> Correct.
1100 2013-03-08 04:22:31 bonks has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1101 2013-03-08 04:22:43 <gmaxwell> Their response to jeff was basically "if we're causing problems, bitcoin is broken, you better work on fixing your software" and they claim to be doing the community a service. To which plenty of #@$@suckers on the forum happily agree.
1102 2013-03-08 04:22:55 <HM> I somewhat agree
1103 2013-03-08 04:23:01 <litropy> gmaxwell, v0.8.0.0
1104 2013-03-08 04:23:04 <warren> gmaxwell: pollution tax is vulnerable to defection even if miners have profit incentive?  The "Fed" part is hard math, but worthwhile given the importance to the health of the network.  Note that the "Fed" isn't an authority at all, it's just someone doing math.
1105 2013-03-08 04:23:20 <Vinnie_win> I disagree completely. Bitcoin in the long run is not broken but dp is doing the equivalent of kicking a baby
1106 2013-03-08 04:23:33 <Vinnie_win> Try that on an adult and see what happens
1107 2013-03-08 04:23:49 <gmaxwell> warren: This is a really boring undergrad nash equlibrium question. It's not hard. Yes, they have an incentive to defect.
1108 2013-03-08 04:23:56 <warren> DP is exploiting network rules for personal gain.  that's fine.  Miners can equally exploit the rules to extract profit from DP.
1109 2013-03-08 04:23:56 <HM> 3 years is ancient for web tech.
1110 2013-03-08 04:24:20 <warren> gmaxwell: what is the incentive?  do they make more profit by defecting?
1111 2013-03-08 04:24:22 <Vinnie_win> warren: Based on what gmaxwell said they are actually exploiting the low adoption level for gain
1112 2013-03-08 04:24:29 <HM> you've built a decentralised system with incomplete rules, but it's big enough such that perfecting the rules is difficult
1113 2013-03-08 04:24:36 <Vinnie_win> warren: A Bitcoin network at full utilization is not vulnerable to dp spam
1114 2013-03-08 04:24:38 <warren> Vinnie_win: yes, that's what I've been saying.
1115 2013-03-08 04:24:43 <gmaxwell> warren: yes. They pickup txn that they are otherwise rejecting.
1116 2013-03-08 04:25:15 <HM> Vinnie_win: what is full utilisation?
1117 2013-03-08 04:25:34 <warren> HM: # of users proportional to volume of transactions
1118 2013-03-08 04:25:34 <Vinnie_win> HM: When there is sufficient transaction volume, it will not be economically viable for dp to send those losing tx
1119 2013-03-08 04:25:58 <HM> huh
1120 2013-03-08 04:26:05 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: sure it is, if joe flooder is willing to pay more per kilobyte, then he can have all the space. By some definition this is not vulnerable, but the resulting TXN fees may not be attractive.
1121 2013-03-08 04:26:15 <HM> surely it's the ratio, not the absolute volume
1122 2013-03-08 04:26:32 <warren> gmaxwell: Neither of us can be 100% certain in this prediction.
1123 2013-03-08 04:26:45 <litropy> I'm about to use bgfminer. Where do I get my username, password, and coinbase address? I'm following the section labeled "Solo Mining" here: https://github.com/luke-jr/bfgminer
1124 2013-03-08 04:26:58 <gmaxwell> warren: In any case do you see how the defection works yet?  It's the same even if the blocks are full.
1125 2013-03-08 04:27:22 <gmaxwell> litropy: from your bitcoin.conf for the first two, the last is just what address you want paid.
1126 2013-03-08 04:27:37 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: I haven't thought about it hard but I suspect that if someone is willing to spend money they can always produce transactions that we would find objectionable but can never be filtered or pressured to stop
1127 2013-03-08 04:27:47 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: agreed.
1128 2013-03-08 04:27:59 <warren> gmaxwell: yes, some will defect.  Given the optimal design of <factors> we can minimize defection.  We don't need 100% compliance for this to work.
1129 2013-03-08 04:28:02 <litropy> gmaxwell, I don't know what address I want paid. Never had one.
1130 2013-03-08 04:28:11 <gmaxwell> warren: Say the blocks are full. A polluting txn shows up that pays enough fee that on a per fee/kb basis its better than some txn you were previously going to include.
1131 2013-03-08 04:28:29 <gmaxwell> litropy: getnewaddress (hit the button or the rpc command) in the client. Be sure to backup your wallet.
1132 2013-03-08 04:28:30 <CodeShark> litropy: set up a wallet and generate an address
1133 2013-03-08 04:28:47 bonks has joined
1134 2013-03-08 04:28:57 <gmaxwell> warren: As soon as one defects then there will be an incentive for more to effect. The system is only stable when all defect.
1135 2013-03-08 04:29:15 <warren> gmaxwell: your scenario assumes the majority defect such that DP isn't forced to pay the higher pollution rate, my scenario assumes the majority of miners collude to maximize profit.
1136 2013-03-08 04:29:36 <gmaxwell> warren: they can't effectively collude because they can costlessly defect.
1137 2013-03-08 04:29:37 <litropy> gmaxwell, my bitcoin.conf only has the password. "rpcpassword=[deleted]"
1138 2013-03-08 04:29:56 <HM> My choice is do nothing
1139 2013-03-08 04:30:01 <gmaxwell> litropy: add a rpcuser=whatever  (doesn't matter) and then you have a username too. :P
1140 2013-03-08 04:30:05 <HM> If Bitcoin is truly valuable then people will pay the higher fees
1141 2013-03-08 04:30:17 <litropy> gmaxwell, I imagine I need to be synced to generate an address?
1142 2013-03-08 04:30:31 <gmaxwell> litropy: no, you can generate an address whenever.. though you must be synced to mine.
1143 2013-03-08 04:30:32 <HM> People are going to have to compete on fees one day anyway, may as well be today
1144 2013-03-08 04:30:43 <warren> litropy: you are in the wrong channel to ask about mining.
1145 2013-03-08 04:30:47 <CodeShark> HM: the problem is that right now it doesn't have very high adoption - and it will only become valuable if it has higher adoption - and higher fees will make higher adoption harder to attain
1146 2013-03-08 04:30:50 <Vinnie_win> HM: No, that's the problem, its too early in Bitcoin's adoption cycle to demand higher fees
1147 2013-03-08 04:30:53 <litropy> warren, please direct me.
1148 2013-03-08 04:31:11 <gmaxwell> HM: sure. I think I've said a bunch of times that I don't know how terrible an issue that part is.. the burning startup capital (including the delay to fee competion) sucks though.
1149 2013-03-08 04:31:19 <Luke-Jr> litropy: what ASIC do you have btw?
1150 2013-03-08 04:31:21 <warren> litropy: it appears that #bfgminer has lots of people.  you could also try #bitcoin and others.
1151 2013-03-08 04:31:36 <warren> litropy: I would recommend blockchain.info for a very easy to use, reasonably secure wallet
1152 2013-03-08 04:31:37 <litropy> Luke-Jr, ASIC?
1153 2013-03-08 04:31:41 <gmaxwell> litropy: #bitcoin-mining  but your questions are fine here..
1154 2013-03-08 04:31:43 paraipan has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
1155 2013-03-08 04:32:01 <warren> gmaxwell: oh, didn't realize that was on topic here.
1156 2013-03-08 04:32:24 GMP has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1157 2013-03-08 04:32:34 <gmaxwell> I would catagorically not recommend blockchain.info. It's a centerally controlled service which has previously been deceptive about their privacy politics and compromised their users privacy for private gain.
1158 2013-03-08 04:32:45 <Vinnie_win> I made an appeal to piuk to drop dp direct gambling links from blockchain.info
1159 2013-03-08 04:32:52 <warren> gmaxwell: oh?  damn.
1160 2013-03-08 04:32:56 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: blockchain.info is great for read-only wallets
1161 2013-03-08 04:33:00 <gmaxwell> (wrt the memory dealers thing and disclosing the identity of a b.i user to pressure them to make good on their trade)
1162 2013-03-08 04:33:24 <litropy> gmaxwell, when I click, Address Book, and then click, New Address, the Address field is blank. I assume that's just for adding a recipient whom already has an address.
1163 2013-03-08 04:34:00 <HM> i have some funds in b.i.
1164 2013-03-08 04:34:17 <HM> it was just convenient, and i needed the coins quickly
1165 2013-03-08 04:34:47 <warren> gmaxwell: OK, I get your argument now about defection.  I don't think it can be proven that I'm wrong, but I can't prove that I'm correct in the collusion theory either.  I suppose it is unfortunate that the non-constant behavioral costs were not anticipated in the original design.
1166 2013-03-08 04:34:49 <gmaxwell> litropy: right.
1167 2013-03-08 04:35:18 <gmaxwell> warren: I con't prove that it wouldn't work in practice. defaults have a lot of inertia. But it doesn't work in theory. :P
1168 2013-03-08 04:35:26 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: okay so, as of now the only 2 viable options are 1) do nothing and 2) soft fork drop blocks with out<fee ?
1169 2013-03-08 04:35:47 <warren> gmaxwell: collusion vs. defection would have some non-technical tipping point.
1170 2013-03-08 04:36:09 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: the out<fee needs a lot more thought, but it could just become a default without a soft fork. The soft fork would only be needed to prevent defection which may not be needed.
1171 2013-03-08 04:36:21 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: certantly the soft fork would be a lot more controversial and technically risky.
1172 2013-03-08 04:36:35 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: I dont understand what you mean about become a default
1173 2013-03-08 04:37:23 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: I mean we could release software that behaves that way but doesn't require blocks abide by it.. e.g. won't make a block breaking that rule. It could be the case that everyone just runs it.
1174 2013-03-08 04:37:44 <gmaxwell> certantly making it a rule is a lot easier if almost everyone is already doing it.
1175 2013-03-08 04:37:47 <litropy> So, could I just use https://www.bitaddress.org, copy that, then put it here: --coinbase-addr [myaddress]
1176 2013-03-08 04:37:47 <HM> wow just imagine what shit we'd be in if Bitcoin needed to handle more than 1 transaction per second
1177 2013-03-08 04:38:05 <warren> gmaxwell: can we fold in any of the other pollution costs into this?
1178 2013-03-08 04:38:13 <gmaxwell> litropy: yep. though hopefully that page isn't logging your key. make sure you save the key.
1179 2013-03-08 04:38:28 <gmaxwell> warren: No. Vinnie's metric had the advantage of being parameter free.
1180 2013-03-08 04:38:38 <warren> oh... good
1181 2013-03-08 04:38:46 <litropy> gmaxwell, what's the safes way to get an address?
1182 2013-03-08 04:38:56 <litropy> safest*
1183 2013-03-08 04:39:08 <gmaxwell> litropy: use the new address button, then backup the wallet.
1184 2013-03-08 04:39:16 <CodeShark> litropy: if you really want to take matters into your own hands, I would recommend setting up your own wallet
1185 2013-03-08 04:39:26 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: the dude is solo mining. :P
1186 2013-03-08 04:39:34 <CodeShark> oh, hmmm
1187 2013-03-08 04:39:42 <CodeShark> ASIC? :)
1188 2013-03-08 04:39:53 DaQatz has joined
1189 2013-03-08 04:40:30 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: When you say release software that behaves that way but doesn't require blocks abide by it, what you mean is a "soft limit", i.e. something miners could easily comment out. Which would be the equivalent of defecting.
1190 2013-03-08 04:40:39 <CodeShark> I tried solo CPU mining and was moderately successful, gmaxwell...on testnet :p
1191 2013-03-08 04:40:45 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: This change would only affect mining
1192 2013-03-08 04:41:15 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: well it would affect relay too.
1193 2013-03-08 04:41:20 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: If I was running dp and you put that change in there I would immediately send an email to all pools informing them of the change and telling them they could make more money if they take it out
1194 2013-03-08 04:41:37 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: bet they won't.
1195 2013-03-08 04:42:03 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: at least one of them will, and then people will pool hop to the pool that pays more
1196 2013-03-08 04:42:16 <litropy> gmaxwell, the only New Address button I see is the one that brings up a prompt with a blank field next to Address. It looks like it's just for adding a recipient.
1197 2013-03-08 04:42:39 RoboTeddy has joined
1198 2013-03-08 04:42:40 <CodeShark> there's relatively little risk in making it a default without the soft fork - and seeing what happens
1199 2013-03-08 04:42:51 <CodeShark> if miners defect, oh well
1200 2013-03-08 04:42:55 <CodeShark> but if they don't, then great
1201 2013-03-08 04:43:14 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win:  I don't agree. This is socially complicated. A lot of people insist the DP factory is doing nothing wrong because they "abide by the rules" ... and they lose that moral rightness when the're "breaking the rules"
1202 2013-03-08 04:43:27 <RoboTeddy> is there a potential weakness in bitcoin during ties? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149665.msg1589982
1203 2013-03-08 04:43:52 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
1204 2013-03-08 04:44:02 [7] has joined
1205 2013-03-08 04:44:12 <CodeShark> for a single block, perhaps - one more reason not to just rely on a single confirmation
1206 2013-03-08 04:44:19 <gmaxwell> RoboTeddy: "false block" wtf does that mean?  ... Yes, the next block choses a tie, but it doesn't follow that this is a weakness.
1207 2013-03-08 04:44:34 <HM> nobody cares about rules. they just want shit to scale and be cheat free
1208 2013-03-08 04:44:45 <CodeShark> ties are not common enough to allow this to really be exploited
1209 2013-03-08 04:44:53 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: well not even one more, thats what that last section of bitcoin.pdf is about. :P the odds of a sequence of ties hiding a convergence failure. :)
1210 2013-03-08 04:45:08 <warren> gmaxwell: would an arbitrary <factor> of 2x for uncompressed blocks harm anyone?
1211 2013-03-08 04:45:10 <iwilcox> HM: You say that, but if Satoshi had decreed it, I think they'd agree.
1212 2013-03-08 04:45:23 <warren> I mean uncompressed keys
1213 2013-03-08 04:45:29 <litropy> Yep, I'm solo mining just to stress test my system. I know I'll get impatient and join a pool tonight, though.
1214 2013-03-08 04:45:32 <RoboTeddy> the attacker might have an additional 50% chance of creating the next block after (and after), since they can likely artificially trigger ties after one happens naturally (see 3rd post in thread)
1215 2013-03-08 04:45:39 HM2 has joined
1216 2013-03-08 04:45:40 HM has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1217 2013-03-08 04:45:48 <CodeShark> uncompressed keys are cheaper CPU-wise
1218 2013-03-08 04:46:01 <litropy> I'm still confused as to how I can get this address by clicking New Address in bitcoin-qt.
1219 2013-03-08 04:46:22 <gmaxwell> RoboTeddy: why do you say they can "likely artificially trigger ties"?
1220 2013-03-08 04:46:25 <iwilcox> The prompt is for a label, litropy
1221 2013-03-08 04:46:41 <litropy> iwlcox, correct. A label and an address.
1222 2013-03-08 04:46:54 <litropy> iwilcox, both fields are blank.
1223 2013-03-08 04:46:56 <gmaxwell> litropy: you don't need to give it a label just hit okay, and it'll show up in your address book
1224 2013-03-08 04:47:17 <warren> litropy: you can generate a random address online or offline, then store that wallet offline. You will want to check it to be sure nobody has used it before.  Then you can mine online with payout to that address, viewing a URL elsewhere to see its balance.
1225 2013-03-08 04:47:31 coolsa has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1226 2013-03-08 04:47:33 <RoboTeddy> gmaxwell: well, someone with 25% of the power has a 50% chance of finding the next block along a given fork of the chain before someone else does. if they succeed, they can /wait/ to publish their block until someone else also finds a block (they can know by connecting to all nodes), resulting in another tie
1227 2013-03-08 04:47:40 <CodeShark> make sure nobody has used it before, warren?
1228 2013-03-08 04:47:43 <litropy> gmaxwell, iwilcox, "The entered address "" is not a valid Bitcoin address."
1229 2013-03-08 04:47:52 <warren> CodeShark: ultra paranoid, I know.
1230 2013-03-08 04:48:06 <CodeShark> unless you have a horrendously crappy random number generator, I'd be more concerned about getting hit by asteroids
1231 2013-03-08 04:48:12 <warren> haha
1232 2013-03-08 04:48:14 <gmaxwell> RoboTeddy: he has a 25% chance of finding the next block overall.
1233 2013-03-08 04:48:18 <gmaxwell> litropy: don't enter an address.
1234 2013-03-08 04:48:23 <litropy> warren, how do I generate one offline? Some things I'm reading say that as soon as I run Bitcoin it generates one.
1235 2013-03-08 04:48:37 <litropy> gmaxwell, I didn't, and it resulted in the error above.
1236 2013-03-08 04:48:45 Mad7Scientist has joined
1237 2013-03-08 04:48:57 <gmaxwell> RoboTeddy: I think we need to back up for a moment. What is a "false block"
1238 2013-03-08 04:49:12 <gmaxwell> RoboTeddy: just staying on your first post, everything you're describing there is normal mining.
1239 2013-03-08 04:49:20 <RoboTeddy> gmaxwell: sorry, I'm not used to the lingo. I mean a block that contains transactions of the attacker's choosing
1240 2013-03-08 04:49:31 <warren> Vinnie_win: I'm glad you thought of that simple solution. I hope it goes well.
1241 2013-03-08 04:49:54 <Vinnie_win> warren: Thanks! I'm surprised no one thought of it...
1242 2013-03-08 04:49:57 <gmaxwell> RoboTeddy: sure, blocks always contain transactions of the blockmakers choosing. This is not problematic.
1243 2013-03-08 04:50:18 <amiller> RoboTeddy, even at 25% the network converges really quickly
1244 2013-03-08 04:50:22 <RoboTeddy> gmaxwell: does it become problematic if one party can write n blocks in a row for small n with some non-negligible probability?
1245 2013-03-08 04:50:25 <Vinnie_win> warren: although, it's not a full solution it's just a metric for determining <undesired behavior>
1246 2013-03-08 04:50:40 <gmaxwell> RoboTeddy: thats what the section at the bottom of bitcoin.pdf is about.
1247 2013-03-08 04:51:03 <warren> Vinnie_win: I'd be surprised if it's allowed in the reference client, but we'll see.
1248 2013-03-08 04:51:14 <gmaxwell> er wait I may have misread your last comment.
1249 2013-03-08 04:51:21 <gmaxwell> RoboTeddy: writing consecutive blocks is not a problem.
1250 2013-03-08 04:51:53 <gmaxwell> RoboTeddy: The only concern in bitcoin is that they not be able to create a false consensus or rewrite an old consensus.
1251 2013-03-08 04:52:29 <RoboTeddy> gmaxwell: OK, thanks. I'll read this and read more about bitcoin and try again :D
1252 2013-03-08 04:52:42 <gmaxwell> RoboTeddy: One thing that catches many people is that they think bitcoin nodes trust miners to obey the system rules, so perhaps thats getting you here? All bitcoin nodes autonoymously enforce all the rules, the only thing mining does is order the transactions.
1253 2013-03-08 04:52:44 <warren> gmaxwell: question regarding Vinnie_win's policy.  Would the output < fee include the effects of age or not?
1254 2013-03-08 04:53:26 <gmaxwell> warren: Vinnie_win's policy is exactly what it says. No outputs smaller than the fee.
1255 2013-03-08 04:53:31 <RoboTeddy> gmaxwell: right, but order is rather important, since it decides which transactions are valid! (double-spending)
1256 2013-03-08 04:53:38 <warren> so yes.
1257 2013-03-08 04:54:10 <gmaxwell> RoboTeddy: sure sure indeed. But all orderings are okay so long as they don't change out from under people when they already assumed them to be forever fixed.
1258 2013-03-08 04:54:54 <RoboTeddy> in practice, how many blocks do people wait to decide that things are "forever fixed" ?
1259 2013-03-08 04:55:20 <gmaxwell> Six seems to be pretty common though given the known hashpower distribution a bit more would be safer.
1260 2013-03-08 04:55:32 <gmaxwell> of course, it depends somewhat one the risks involved.
1261 2013-03-08 04:55:44 <RoboTeddy> that makes sense. thanks gmaxwell!
1262 2013-03-08 04:55:48 <gmaxwell> If you're moving a large sum of coin that would be otherwise irreversable you will wait longer.
1263 2013-03-08 04:55:50 <iwilcox> RoboTeddy: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1170/why-is-6-the-number-of-confirms-that-is-considered-secure/1882#1882
1264 2013-03-08 04:56:57 <iwilcox> So is 'fee' in 'output < fee' the fee in that one transaction?
1265 2013-03-08 04:57:16 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: What if a tx has a fee of 10 and eleven outputs of 1 BTC each?
1266 2013-03-08 04:57:51 <iwilcox> Presumably you're measuring total output.
1267 2013-03-08 04:58:00 <warren> gmaxwell: that would eliminate that 94BTC fee "donation"
1268 2013-03-08 04:58:09 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: what it should probably be is fee/kb for this transaction compared to the value/kb of the output.
1269 2013-03-08 04:58:09 owowo has quit (Quit: sayonara)
1270 2013-03-08 04:58:20 <Vinnie_win> For donations, someone can just send a tx with no outputs
1271 2013-03-08 04:58:59 <petertodd> https://blockchain.info/wallet/send-shared <- smart
1272 2013-03-08 04:58:59 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: ah, okay. that sounds sensible
1273 2013-03-08 04:59:00 <iwilcox> Surely donations to those needy miners can just be handled by finding their pool and sending to a published address ;)
1274 2013-03-08 04:59:05 <gmaxwell> or with an instantly prunable output.
1275 2013-03-08 05:00:23 <gmaxwell> petertodd: ah, they've rebranded the mixer service to not be about money laundering anymore. Good for them!
1276 2013-03-08 05:01:39 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Absolutely, PR is real.
1277 2013-03-08 05:02:17 <gmaxwell> I feel kind of dumb for not reaching out and recommending that in the past rather than simply wining that they were playing with fire.
1278 2013-03-08 05:02:19 <warren> gmaxwell: older clients would just keep resending their non-comforming tx until they see in a block?
1279 2013-03-08 05:02:39 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Oh good, and looks like it's being more efficient with tx's: 4c1f81ef3f42cb9bf2d7a5b9bf7c73778aca82f729ca83ea4f84008b0c96dd38 -> 1a3cb7d6dd9eca5226e4872a52ba2aacd3b5995c02b67d49f23e88edab66a65f
1280 2013-03-08 05:02:48 <gmaxwell> warren: yes. For any behavior change like this we roll out client behavior first.
1281 2013-03-08 05:02:51 <petertodd> gmaxwell: None of the multi-step crap they used to do, and they pay fees now.
1282 2013-03-08 05:03:35 <litropy> Aaaaah. Of course ... it's in Receive coins in bitcoin-qt.
1283 2013-03-08 05:03:41 <warren> gmaxwell: does this require a BIP, or that's only for forks?
1284 2013-03-08 05:04:29 <gmaxwell> litropy: I'm sorry where were you looking?
1285 2013-03-08 05:04:41 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Granted, this also means that a service again exists which would be negatively affected by replacement on increased fees...
1286 2013-03-08 05:04:48 <litropy> gmaxwell, Address Book
1287 2013-03-08 05:05:23 <gmaxwell> litropy: sorry, I don't use the GUI so I didn't anticipate you getting stuck there.
1288 2013-03-08 05:05:34 <jgarzik> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=150473.msg1598885#msg1598885
1289 2013-03-08 05:05:37 <jgarzik> "All the outputs need to be different addresses."
1290 2013-03-08 05:05:40 <jgarzik> Really?
1291 2013-03-08 05:05:43 <jgarzik> That sounds wrong.
1292 2013-03-08 05:05:44 <warren> gmaxwell: sorry, I answered my own question.
1293 2013-03-08 05:05:57 <jgarzik> Seems legal within the protocol.
1294 2013-03-08 05:06:31 <CodeShark> I'm pretty sure I've sent transactions that contain two outputs to the same address before
1295 2013-03-08 05:06:32 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: it is legal within the protocol, but the interface is a map. It is gratitiously inefficient to repeat an output.
1296 2013-03-08 05:06:37 <petertodd> gmaxwell: I guess it's probably ok if I say the replacement only happens if no txout value is decreased by the replacing transaction.
1297 2013-03-08 05:06:46 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: not with unmodified bitcoind you haven't.
1298 2013-03-08 05:06:47 <CodeShark> I only did it as an experiment
1299 2013-03-08 05:07:00 <CodeShark> I did it with my own transaction signing stuff
1300 2013-03-08 05:07:04 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: I'd bet the person asking wants it for SD. :P
1301 2013-03-08 05:07:30 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: but yes, it's permitted in the protocol: https://blockchain.info/tx/d127a741660be02c01855c679ff8de7755bb6c2b2ceaa4848e02b14f4f0aae59
1302 2013-03-08 05:07:32 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Nah, surely because he wants to get himself some taint.
1303 2013-03-08 05:07:35 xempew has joined
1304 2013-03-08 05:08:40 <gmaxwell> I also note that -qt refusing to do it as saved me from double paying someone in a sendmany at least once.
1305 2013-03-08 05:09:35 <CodeShark> I thought you said you don't use the GUI, gmaxwell
1306 2013-03-08 05:11:24 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: I'm using -qt there to refer to the package.
1307 2013-03-08 05:18:17 vampireb has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
1308 2013-03-08 05:18:39 gdoteoff has joined
1309 2013-03-08 05:19:28 random_cat has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1310 2013-03-08 05:20:23 free__ has joined
1311 2013-03-08 05:20:51 random_cat has joined
1312 2013-03-08 05:24:28 MrKain_ has joined
1313 2013-03-08 05:25:26 <MrKain_> Is there developers here, that accept bitcoins in return for help ?
1314 2013-03-08 05:25:39 <CodeShark> what kind of help?
1315 2013-03-08 05:26:01 <CodeShark> PM me if you have a serious proposal :)
1316 2013-03-08 05:26:53 <MrKain_> I just want to ask a whole bunch of question from the basics, but the progress to a whole range of question about the API, and how to do this and that with it
1317 2013-03-08 05:26:54 <iwilcox> I'll happily act as the escrow for the help.
1318 2013-03-08 05:27:00 <iwilcox> (but not the coins)
1319 2013-03-08 05:27:16 gdoteoff has quit (Quit: Bye)
1320 2013-03-08 05:27:19 <MrKain_> edit: but  the progress = but then progress to
1321 2013-03-08 05:27:37 gdoteoff has joined
1322 2013-03-08 05:28:27 <iwilcox> Do faucets get broken by output > fee?
1323 2013-03-08 05:28:45 <MrKain_> You decide
1324 2013-03-08 05:29:23 <Luke-Jr> MrKain_: depending on what you're doing, you may be better off using a service like BitPay
1325 2013-03-08 05:29:46 ielo has joined
1326 2013-03-08 05:29:58 <MrKain_> so, I can hire Bitpay to answer and help with all my questions?
1327 2013-03-08 05:30:10 <MrKain_> They are consultants ?
1328 2013-03-08 05:31:53 <CodeShark> if you have basic questions just ask away - for the very basic stuff, ask in the #bitcoin channel...for the more complex questions ask here
1329 2013-03-08 05:32:16 <CodeShark> if you want to hire me for a project and have a serious proposal, send me a PM
1330 2013-03-08 05:33:57 <MrKain_> As I requested before,  I have a range of questions starting from the very basics, but then progressing to API level questions, and help on how to make use of the API to do certain things I need
1331 2013-03-08 05:34:51 <CodeShark> you can probably get most of that information for free just by asking
1332 2013-03-08 05:35:18 <MrKain_> so, unless you have a very good understanding of the API,, and know how to use it , so that you can help ( teach ), me how to do what I want, for an idea I have for a project,,, it won do
1333 2013-03-08 05:35:18 <gribble> Error: "," is not a valid command.
1334 2013-03-08 05:35:51 <CodeShark> a number of us have been involved in writing that API, MrKain
1335 2013-03-08 05:35:52 <MrKain_> define serious proposal - ... I'm not a company, if that;s what you're asking -
1336 2013-03-08 05:36:00 <CodeShark> not sure you can really know it any better :)
1337 2013-03-08 05:36:05 <litropy> Is this seriously accurate? http://www.bitcoinx.com/profit/
1338 2013-03-08 05:36:25 <MrKain_> writing/designing the API ,, or using the API
1339 2013-03-08 05:36:31 <CodeShark> both
1340 2013-03-08 05:36:39 <CodeShark> you're speaking to several of the authors, in fact
1341 2013-03-08 05:37:46 <egecko> now why on earth would any of them be hanging out in this channel?? :)
1342 2013-03-08 05:38:05 <MrKain_> I guess, because it's called #bitcoin-dev
1343 2013-03-08 05:38:26 defunctzombie is now known as defunctzombie_zz
1344 2013-03-08 05:38:53 <Vinnie_win> Did you guys shoot down out<fee yet?
1345 2013-03-08 05:39:21 <MrKain_> CodeShark which of the developers are you ? Are you one of the people on the list 'developers' on the Bitcoin.org front page ?
1346 2013-03-08 05:40:32 <CodeShark> I joined more recently - but several of those guys are here regularly
1347 2013-03-08 05:41:11 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: How about if sd sends itself a large sum in the losing tx to get around this rule
1348 2013-03-08 05:41:44 <CodeShark> the list of contributors is more extensive than that, MrKain_
1349 2013-03-08 05:42:14 <MrKain_> Ok that;s fine - I don't really consider that 'one of the developers' - with all due respect,, I would consider joining at this point in time,  more 'contributing'
1350 2013-03-08 05:42:28 <CodeShark> call it whatever you want
1351 2013-03-08 05:42:47 <CodeShark> many people who have contributed significant source code are not on that list
1352 2013-03-08 05:43:26 <litropy> I've got 10 processes of bitcoin-qt running. Is that normal? Also, if I just want to run bitcoind after my first sync, will bitcoind have to re-sync and take the same amount of time all over again?
1353 2013-03-08 05:43:55 <egecko> tell me who is kafka.
1354 2013-03-08 05:44:31 <MrKain_> No doubt,,, however, I think there is a distinction between, contributing a great deal to something that is somewhat mature ,, and being the first group of developers to invent the system
1355 2013-03-08 05:44:31 <gribble> Error: "," is not a valid command.
1356 2013-03-08 05:45:00 <CodeShark> MrKain_, it is a system that is evolving
1357 2013-03-08 05:45:01 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: then that output is still worth redeeming.
1358 2013-03-08 05:45:05 <MrKain_> Anyway, it's not important, - As long as you know the API, then I want to pay for your time  ?
1359 2013-03-08 05:45:17 <MrKain_> How  much would every hour of your time cost me
1360 2013-03-08 05:45:17 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: the concern there isn't SD as more generally txouts that are not economically worth redeeming.
1361 2013-03-08 05:45:26 <egecko> sounds like you should go hire satoshi
1362 2013-03-08 05:45:32 <iwilcox> litropy: The sync is a one-off.
1363 2013-03-08 05:45:32 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: please post a dust report
1364 2013-03-08 05:45:37 <egecko> i mean if the inventor is the only one worth talking to
1365 2013-03-08 05:45:51 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: SD could craft every losing tx to include itself as a recipient, and jack up the amount sent. For example, send 10BTC to themselves, 1 satoshi to the loser, and 0.0051 as fees.
1366 2013-03-08 05:45:52 <iwilcox> litropy: Well, the 6GB one is :)
1367 2013-03-08 05:46:13 <MrKain_> I'm sure it would be fascinating -but I don't need to know anything at that low-level - ..
1368 2013-03-08 05:46:18 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: it would apply to _each_ txout.
1369 2013-03-08 05:46:43 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: on a per kilobyte basis?
1370 2013-03-08 05:46:51 <MrKain_> So I guess you give me some bitcoin address and i send you some money now
1371 2013-03-08 05:47:08 <litropy> iwilcox, thx
1372 2013-03-08 05:47:22 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: right. The whole txn gets a fee per byte. Then each txout would be required to have at least that much value per byte.
1373 2013-03-08 05:47:30 <CodeShark> MrKain_, if you're interested in making an offer, do it in a PM
1374 2013-03-08 05:47:46 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: How many additional bytes does an additional, typical txout consume?
1375 2013-03-08 05:48:02 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: i.e. whats the difference in size between a tx with 1 out and a tx with 2 outs?
1376 2013-03-08 05:48:05 <egecko> feel free to send bitcoins to 1GyPFgV7ZrPnjpqLEgHAHZHzTjtH8sXp4z
1377 2013-03-08 05:48:20 <MrKain_> I don't know what to offer - as I said, I am an individual, you tell me how much you want from me, for every 1 hour of your time - starting now I guess
1378 2013-03-08 05:48:24 <MrKain_> if you're not busy
1379 2013-03-08 05:48:54 <MrKain_> Happy to send egecko, if you know the API well, and you tell me how much you want
1380 2013-03-08 05:49:54 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: 34 bytes. Really the rule should probably be twice that as an approximation of what the additional input will add on spending.
1381 2013-03-08 05:50:24 defunctzombie_zz is now known as defunctzombie
1382 2013-03-08 05:50:31 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: don't think I'll have time this evening, perhaps tomorrow night if sipa doesn't wake up and beat me to it.
1383 2013-03-08 05:50:44 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: What if a spammer includes in the set of outputs, an entry to pay 1 satoshi to each of the 12 largest mining pools?
1384 2013-03-08 05:50:54 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: in addition to the regular tx fee?
1385 2013-03-08 05:51:33 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: I'm saying that these pools might have incentive to defect from the proposed change regarding out<fee
1386 2013-03-08 05:51:40 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: I'm pretty sure it's not worth 1 satoshi of anyone's time to even read about that. :P
1387 2013-03-08 05:51:58 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: replace 1 satoshi with a suitably small value that amounts to less than the average fee per byte
1388 2013-03-08 05:52:18 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: Yes, and I think thats okay.
1389 2013-03-08 05:52:33 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: We'd still end up with unspendable txout
1390 2013-03-08 05:53:11 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: we cannot prevent them completely. But now that you have to arrange to pay off pools or whatever it's not the easiest communication channel possible anymore.
1391 2013-03-08 05:53:26 <gmaxwell> you might... setup a webpage! I know.. novel. :P
1392 2013-03-08 05:53:52 <Vinnie_win> I'm just trying to think of all the ways it could be gamed
1393 2013-03-08 05:54:01 <CodeShark> laziness is likely to trump greed here
1394 2013-03-08 05:54:02 <CodeShark> :P
1395 2013-03-08 05:54:35 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: there are lots of more boring ways it could not be good that need consideration.
1396 2013-03-08 05:54:46 <gmaxwell> For example, it makes coinselection harder.
1397 2013-03-08 05:55:26 <Vinnie_win> Why would it? By coin selection, you mean choosing which available coins to use in a tx?
1398 2013-03-08 05:55:57 <gmaxwell> Yes. Because you can't take change less than fee...
1399 2013-03-08 05:56:04 gdoteoff has quit (Quit: Bye)
1400 2013-03-08 05:56:10 <gmaxwell> and it might need to be compromised in that outputs >=0.01 are always permitted just to make it easy to deploy and reason about.
1401 2013-03-08 05:56:21 <Vinnie_win> I like that less
1402 2013-03-08 05:56:27 gdoteoff has joined
1403 2013-03-08 05:56:43 <Vinnie_win> Speaking of which, what will happen in the future when the minimum tx fee has to be changed in the clients?
1404 2013-03-08 05:56:48 <gmaxwell> I know. But to be fair, 0.01 is big enough that it's not likely to be deeply unspendable.
1405 2013-03-08 05:57:06 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: we change it for relay, then we change it for the wallet. We've changed it before.
1406 2013-03-08 05:57:26 <gmaxwell> (in 0.3.24 it went from 0.01 to the current values)
1407 2013-03-08 05:57:32 grau has joined
1408 2013-03-08 05:57:35 <Vinnie_win> fewer users then
1409 2013-03-08 05:58:06 <Vinnie_win> "STOP THE CENSORSHIP!" already in the forum now
1410 2013-03-08 05:58:42 <gmaxwell> http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/branches.html
1411 2013-03-08 05:59:17 * litropy wonders if his block rate will jump as users go to sleep with their machines on.
1412 2013-03-08 05:59:38 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: I do seem to recall that you yourself have been the author of some somewhat inflammatory threads. :P
1413 2013-03-08 05:59:42 <litropy> I've got about 2 hours left.
1414 2013-03-08 05:59:49 <Vinnie_win> I'm guilty
1415 2013-03-08 05:59:52 <litropy> At this rate
1416 2013-03-08 06:00:07 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: just saying, you called it with the "cries of censorship"
1417 2013-03-08 06:00:18 <iwilcox> What'll happen in future when a single Satoshi is worth $1? :)
1418 2013-03-08 06:00:41 <egecko> i will be very happy is what'll happen.
1419 2013-03-08 06:00:43 <Vinnie_win> at that point a hamburger will cost two million dollars
1420 2013-03-08 06:00:58 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: is stop the censorship an actual thread title? lol
1421 2013-03-08 06:01:06 <egecko> why would a hamburger cost 2M just because a satoshi is worth $1USD?
1422 2013-03-08 06:01:24 <OneMiner> How should people even aproch this stuff? Seems like talking to them makes it worse.
1423 2013-03-08 06:01:26 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: it's not the title.... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=150405.msg1599018#msg1599018
1424 2013-03-08 06:01:43 <OneMiner> aproach
1425 2013-03-08 06:01:56 <iwilcox> Vinnie_win: My point was, today's unspendable amount might become perfectly reasonable tomorrow.
1426 2013-03-08 06:01:59 <Vinnie_win> OneMiner: I think, when you read the forum you should approach it from the angle that it has a disclaimer at the bottom saying "for entertainment purposes only". Well that's how I view it.
1427 2013-03-08 06:02:32 <Vinnie_win> egecko: a hamburger would cost 2m because of hyperinflation.
1428 2013-03-08 06:02:37 <OneMiner> Ha! Ya, I spent too much time on this topic today. I'm totally burnt out on it. :P
1429 2013-03-08 06:02:55 <Vinnie_win> iwilcox: Yeah that's why I like comparing it to the fee, it's self adjusting
1430 2013-03-08 06:04:04 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: So, as of now there are two choices. 1) do nothing, and 2) soft fork of dropping tx / blocks where out<fee ?
1431 2013-03-08 06:04:10 grau has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1432 2013-03-08 06:04:20 <egecko> thats a ridiculous notion, the hamburger will never be worth $2M because it is a temporary thing - you eat it, you digest it, it is gone
1433 2013-03-08 06:04:49 <egecko> go eat and digest a bitcoin and you still got a bitcoin cause you cant eat a bitcoin
1434 2013-03-08 06:04:52 <Vinnie_win> egecko: You've never seen hyperinflation? http://www.economonitor.com/lrwray/files/2011/08/image002.jpg
1435 2013-03-08 06:04:54 dust-otc has joined
1436 2013-03-08 06:05:29 <Vinnie_win> The hambuger will never be worth $2m in 2013 dollars but in 2030 dollars it might cost $2m.
1437 2013-03-08 06:05:34 <egecko> you assume that theres someone minding the printing press and there will be btc created forever and ever and ever
1438 2013-03-08 06:05:44 <warren> Vinnie_win: heh, folks shouldn't complain about censorship, it's a market.
1439 2013-03-08 06:06:06 <Vinnie_win> warren: That's what I said
1440 2013-03-08 06:07:15 <OneMiner> Infatuated with the free market, except for this situation.
1441 2013-03-08 06:07:54 <Vinnie_win> No it's still a free market, that's why any proposed technical solution will need to be palatable to a vast majority.
1442 2013-03-08 06:09:42 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: you said that before. Please stop with the soft fork proposal, if you keep that up you'll undermine this as a basic spam hurestic. :(
1443 2013-03-08 06:09:45 topace has quit (Read error: No route to host)
1444 2013-03-08 06:09:58 <gmaxwell> if it doesn't fly as a spam huresitic it can't fly as a soft fork rule.
1445 2013-03-08 06:09:59 grau has joined
1446 2013-03-08 06:09:59 <OneMiner> Clearly, but that won't stop near continuous shouting about it. Before you know it the statists will be conducting a Maoist takeover in order to cencor The Gipper (Satoshi).
1447 2013-03-08 06:10:14 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: ermm...I don't understand...you said yourself it was a soft fork since it involves dropping blocks.
1448 2013-03-08 06:10:35 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: how do we apply the out<fee heuristic then?
1449 2013-03-08 06:10:36 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: I said that defection can be completely eliminated with a soft fork.
1450 2013-03-08 06:10:45 <gmaxwell> But we don't need to elimiate defection, at least not initially.
1451 2013-03-08 06:10:47 <Vinnie_win> ah...so there's 3 choices
1452 2013-03-08 06:11:15 Guest11382 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1453 2013-03-08 06:11:26 <gmaxwell> It's _OKAY_ if there is some defection, because at least the puppy killer would have to pay enough to trigger it.
1454 2013-03-08 06:11:40 <Vinnie_win> The third option is to change the default behavior of the reference mining code to not include tx with out<fee
1455 2013-03-08 06:11:48 <gmaxwell> Which achieves the basic goal of making crapping up the UTXO set not the easiest possible thing.
1456 2013-03-08 06:12:14 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: To make txn with out<fee non-standard, meaning they wouldn't be relayed or mined.
1457 2013-03-08 06:12:44 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: Right. So the effect of this is equivalent to the "soft block limit", in that the code could be simply modified
1458 2013-03-08 06:12:45 <gmaxwell> (the not-relayed also reduces defection somewhat)
1459 2013-03-08 06:13:03 <Vinnie_win> not-relayed is easily overcome by sd simply increasing the outdegree of its node
1460 2013-03-08 06:13:21 <Vinnie_win> The place you want to deploy this to is blockchain.info, they have something like outdegree 3000
1461 2013-03-08 06:13:40 <gmaxwell> I did say somewhat, and I'm not only concerned with SD. Lots of other people have created unspendable and not economically spendable txouts for other reasons.
1462 2013-03-08 06:14:05 <warren> (including some time stamping methods)
1463 2013-03-08 06:14:08 <gmaxwell> For example, asicminer just sent 1 satoshi per share out to all their shareholders.
1464 2013-03-08 06:14:29 <Vinnie_win> wtf
1465 2013-03-08 06:14:59 <gmaxwell> or back when the 'firstbits' website was created there was an orgy of people creating txn with 200+ 1e-8 outputs in order to 'claim' varrious firstbits prefixes.
1466 2013-03-08 06:15:12 <warren> gmaxwell: if Vinnie_win's policy fails, I will work on the underlying math and marketing plan to push for the miner profit maximization solution.
1467 2013-03-08 06:15:38 <gmaxwell> people don't have any clue how this stuff works, they don't consider those junk outputs as having a cost. They think of bitcoin as just balances that display in a wallet.
1468 2013-03-08 06:16:04 anddam has joined
1469 2013-03-08 06:16:09 <warren> We need *some* means of preventing these hidden costs, or charging for it.
1470 2013-03-08 06:16:18 <gmaxwell> and you tell them to please stop and they say "I paid the required fee, you have no right to ask me to stop" in some ways the fact that we force a 0.0005 fee on those actually makes people believe that its perfectly okay.
1471 2013-03-08 06:16:25 <anddam> has 0.8 been reported being very slow at reindexing blocks?
1472 2013-03-08 06:16:35 <gmaxwell> ...
1473 2013-03-08 06:16:46 <gmaxwell> anddam: what do you mean by very slow?
1474 2013-03-08 06:16:59 <phantomcircuit> it's like
1475 2013-03-08 06:17:06 <phantomcircuit> thousands of times faster than 0.7
1476 2013-03-08 06:17:07 <phantomcircuit> so
1477 2013-03-08 06:17:09 <phantomcircuit> no
1478 2013-03-08 06:17:13 <anddam> 8 hours so far and it's at 95%
1479 2013-03-08 06:17:13 tyn has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1480 2013-03-08 06:17:13 <phantomcircuit> nobody has reported that
1481 2013-03-08 06:17:27 <anddam> I guess if I'm havingsome issue
1482 2013-03-08 06:17:31 <phantomcircuit> anddam, you probably just have a bad peer
1483 2013-03-08 06:17:34 <gmaxwell> anddam: thats not reindexing then, I assume thats pulling from the network.
1484 2013-03-08 06:17:36 <warren> anddam: are you using a virtual machine and btrfs or zfs by chance?
1485 2013-03-08 06:17:54 gritcoin has quit (Quit: gritcoin)
1486 2013-03-08 06:18:17 RainbowDashh is now known as Rarityy
1487 2013-03-08 06:19:22 <anddam> i'm on OS X, the machine is pretty good, (decent at least, i5 at 2,5 GHz) and nothing else slow down like the btc client
1488 2013-03-08 06:19:43 Mandrius has joined
1489 2013-03-08 06:19:49 Rarityy is now known as TwilightSparklee
1490 2013-03-08 06:19:53 <anddam> gmaxwell: I'm not sure, the tooltip in qt interface seems to be different than the one displaied when downloading
1491 2013-03-08 06:20:21 Aaron_TangCryp is now known as Aaron_Away
1492 2013-03-08 06:20:33 <gmaxwell> anddam: what block height are you at and how fast is it advancing?
1493 2013-03-08 06:21:10 <anddam> http://d.pr/i/w1y7+
1494 2013-03-08 06:21:31 <anddam> is Bticoin-qt possibly disk-intensive?
1495 2013-03-08 06:21:44 <warren> Vinnie_win: hmm, even if this gets into the reference client and other end-user clients, it can be too bypassed by DP maintaining their own backbone of nodes to miners, and they can issue their own non-conforming client build to their addicts.  So this relies heavily upon miners to adopt the tx acceptance policy.
1496 2013-03-08 06:21:55 <phantomcircuit> anddam, that used to be the limiting factor but as of 0.8 it shouldn't be any more
1497 2013-03-08 06:22:27 <anddam> see there it says "processed" rather than downloaded
1498 2013-03-08 06:22:28 defunctzombie is now known as defunctzombie_zz
1499 2013-03-08 06:22:38 <anddam> also my blockchain was updated before updating the client
1500 2013-03-08 06:22:51 <anddam> I was on 0.7.somethingg (0.7.2?)
1501 2013-03-08 06:23:23 eoss has joined
1502 2013-03-08 06:24:06 <anddam> it started very quickly processing roughly half blockchain in minutes,
1503 2013-03-08 06:24:28 random_cat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1504 2013-03-08 06:24:53 gdoteoff has quit (Quit: Bye)
1505 2013-03-08 06:25:18 gdoteoff has joined
1506 2013-03-08 06:25:52 topace has joined
1507 2013-03-08 06:25:58 <litropy> I have 12 bitcoin-qt processes running. Is that normal?
1508 2013-03-08 06:26:01 <anddam> then I left it overnight and it's at ~96%, the computer is slow as hell, very unresponsive (hence the question abot disk usage), it didn't go to sleep due to power management
1509 2013-03-08 06:26:17 topace is now known as Guest52271
1510 2013-03-08 06:26:36 <Vinnie_win> warren: Yes this modification has the same level of enforcement as the "soft block limit"
1511 2013-03-08 06:26:57 <warren> Vinnie_win: we'll see if the reference client momentum is enough to overcome it
1512 2013-03-08 06:27:10 <warren> I see it very much could.
1513 2013-03-08 06:28:19 X-Scale` is now known as X-Scale
1514 2013-03-08 06:30:46 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1515 2013-03-08 06:30:54 <OneMiner> anddam This isn't any kind of bitcoin specific advice but if it's not running properly you should probably just restart it. I think you'd be fine after that. Is the number of processed blocks still increasing?
1516 2013-03-08 06:30:55 <anddam> can quitting the client while reindexing harm the chain saved on disk?
1517 2013-03-08 06:31:09 <anddam> OneMiner: yes, at a very slow pace
1518 2013-03-08 06:31:25 <warren> anddam: are you swapping?
1519 2013-03-08 06:31:41 RazielZ has joined
1520 2013-03-08 06:31:51 Aaron_Away is now known as Aaron_TangCryp
1521 2013-03-08 06:31:56 sgornick has joined
1522 2013-03-08 06:31:57 <OneMiner> I don't think you'd blow up the chain or anything. I'd restart it if it was me, but others know better than I.
1523 2013-03-08 06:32:18 <anddam> warren: nope, I have several GBs inactive et
1524 2013-03-08 06:32:22 <anddam> yet*
1525 2013-03-08 06:32:35 <litropy> Actually, warren, I'm swapping. Anything I can do other than shutting down other processes?
1526 2013-03-08 06:32:49 <warren> litropy: something is wrong if you have 12 processes
1527 2013-03-08 06:32:54 <OneMiner> litropy That's not normal.
1528 2013-03-08 06:33:22 <litropy> Hm. OneMiner, warren, any ideas? I'm running Ubuntu 12.04
1529 2013-03-08 06:33:30 <OneMiner> Restarts all around! If that dosen't work, 2 foot drop test.
1530 2013-03-08 06:34:10 <litropy> OneMiner, ugh ... this is my first sync. Is this going to make me lose all the syncing I've done?
1531 2013-03-08 06:34:17 <anddam> closed the process, and responsive we're again
1532 2013-03-08 06:34:34 <OneMiner> litropy Nah, dosen't work like that.
1533 2013-03-08 06:34:36 <warren> litropy: there's no guarantees, but people restart clients all the time
1534 2013-03-08 06:34:53 m00p has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1535 2013-03-08 06:34:57 <litropy> K, here goes...
1536 2013-03-08 06:35:04 <OneMiner> For example, if you shut down the computer and start up tomorrow (normally) you don't have to go through the whole chain again.
1537 2013-03-08 06:35:33 <gmaxwell> litropy: it's fine to restart it... though I think you probably just had 12 bitcoin-qt _threads_ which is normal.
1538 2013-03-08 06:36:21 <litropy> gmaxwell, hmm... Each one had a different PID in htop. Thread or no?
1539 2013-03-08 06:36:26 <anddam> nope
1540 2013-03-08 06:36:27 Diablo-D3 has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1541 2013-03-08 06:36:27 <warren> litropy: if that's the case, figure out what's using all your memory and causing swapping.
1542 2013-03-08 06:36:51 <anddam> actually do threads shows in different ps's output lines?
1543 2013-03-08 06:36:54 <anddam> show*
1544 2013-03-08 06:36:55 <gmaxwell> litropy: yes, threads have different pid in htop.
1545 2013-03-08 06:37:04 <anddam> gmaxwell: do they?
1546 2013-03-08 06:37:15 random_cat has joined
1547 2013-03-08 06:37:26 <gmaxwell> not in ps with default options though you can make it show them. But htop shows them by default.
1548 2013-03-08 06:38:28 <anddam> how do the threads share resources if they have different PIDs?
1549 2013-03-08 06:38:35 <iwilcox> I invariably have to kill off the previous, stale bitcoin-qt process to start the client up, even hours after quitting.
1550 2013-03-08 06:38:38 <gmaxwell> anddam: yes, the initial sync is somewhat disk intensive.. but something is broken if its taking you 8 hours and its being disk intensive. The only reason it should take that long is if you're pulling from the network and have slow peers.
1551 2013-03-08 06:38:58 <gmaxwell> iwilcox: what?? gah. You need to report that.
1552 2013-03-08 06:39:09 <anddam> gmaxwell: again this was not a sync, I was fully synced before switching from 0.7.2 to 0.8
1553 2013-03-08 06:39:34 <litropy> Any word on whether botcoind syncs faster?
1554 2013-03-08 06:39:47 <anddam> restarting bitcoin-qt
1555 2013-03-08 06:39:49 <gmaxwell> litropy: its the same.
1556 2013-03-08 06:40:06 <litropy> gmaxwell, thought so.
1557 2013-03-08 06:40:46 <iwilcox> gmaxwell: I suspect it's something to do with Ubuntu and Bitcoin's presence in...I dunno what it's called, but what might be considered the system tray :)
1558 2013-03-08 06:42:43 <litropy> Still truckin' along at about 200 blocks/min
1559 2013-03-08 06:43:49 Shealan has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1560 2013-03-08 06:44:06 <litropy> 1041MB RAM free now, though.
1561 2013-03-08 06:45:47 <OneMiner> litropy Sounds pretty normal. It's much faster than before but still slow compared to most tasks a PC will do.
1562 2013-03-08 06:47:12 <litropy> OneMiner, where do you think the bottleneck is? I'm almost idling on CPU. Still have plenty network overhead. Is it the swarm or the HD?
1563 2013-03-08 06:47:55 <anddam> in ~/Library/Application Support/Bitcoin have blok000N.dat with an average size of 2GB and blocks/blk0000N.dat about the same size, why these very similar name?
1564 2013-03-08 06:48:04 <anddam> is the 2GB limit due to FAT32 or so?
1565 2013-03-08 06:48:13 <OneMiner> litropy When I did it last my CPU was maxed for the first speedy bit. Then the HDD went to work while the CPU took a bit of a break.
1566 2013-03-08 06:48:14 <gmaxwell> anddam: they're hardlinks. only one is actually taking up space.
1567 2013-03-08 06:48:20 toffoo has quit ()
1568 2013-03-08 06:49:21 <gmaxwell> anddam: they're the <0.8 style blocks. 0.8 produces smaller files now. (being larger isn't especially productive, esp compare to being smaller but preallocating)
1569 2013-03-08 06:49:42 <gmaxwell> (and yes, the 2gb size is to avoid OS and FS limits)
1570 2013-03-08 06:50:43 <gmaxwell> litropy: if you were thinking it was using a lot of memory— you might have been confused. Bitcoin uses a lot of address space so virt shows large numbers, but rss is small. This isn't because it's swapping— it's not. It's just due to address space use from somewhat pessimal memory allocation patterns.
1571 2013-03-08 06:50:53 <anddam> are the new files possibile blocks/rev*.dat?
1572 2013-03-08 06:51:15 <gmaxwell> anddam: the new files are everything in blocks/*
1573 2013-03-08 06:51:23 <anddam> possibly*
1574 2013-03-08 06:51:28 <gmaxwell> (also in chainstate/*)
1575 2013-03-08 06:51:33 <litropy> gmaxwell, ah, yes - I know some of those words.
1576 2013-03-08 06:51:56 <gmaxwell> litropy: pay attention to "rss" or "res" in top, not "virt" or "vm". :)
1577 2013-03-08 06:52:40 <anddam> I see, the size of block index was one of my concerns
1578 2013-03-08 06:52:54 <litropy> gmaxwell, yep, each PID has 136MB right now.
1579 2013-03-08 06:52:58 <anddam> I could't see a smartphone doing all that work/taking all that space
1580 2013-03-08 06:53:33 <gmaxwell> anddam: while technically this would actually work on a smartphone at least today— you wouldn't and shouldn't do that. You'd run a SPV node on a smartphone.
1581 2013-03-08 06:53:42 gdoteoff has quit (Quit: Bye)
1582 2013-03-08 06:53:57 <gmaxwell> and the existing smartphone clients are spv nodes or less secure thinclients.
1583 2013-03-08 06:54:04 gdoteoff has joined
1584 2013-03-08 06:54:09 <anddam> reading the wiki about spv now
1585 2013-03-08 06:54:17 <OneMiner> Yea, it would have to wake up ~ every 10 minutes and work on a block. It would probably eat your batteries.
1586 2013-03-08 06:54:31 kritCoin has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.90 [Firefox 20.0/20130227063501])
1587 2013-03-08 06:54:34 <gmaxwell> litropy: because they are threads not really seperate processes it's really 136MB total.
1588 2013-03-08 06:54:46 <anddam> will I be able to remove the blk000?.dat files after reindexing is complete?
1589 2013-03-08 06:54:56 <litropy> gmaxwell, gotcha.
1590 2013-03-08 06:55:11 <anddam> btw bitcoin-qt is still quite slow, it went up to 16.27% since I restarted it
1591 2013-03-08 06:55:20 <gmaxwell> anddam: the top level ones, yes. Not the ones in blocks/  though, as mentioned— they're hardlinks and don't actually take up space.
1592 2013-03-08 06:55:51 <gmaxwell> anddam: For comparison, a reindex from nothing on my laptop takes less than an hour.
1593 2013-03-08 06:55:57 <Vinnie_win> Transaction Spam Awareness: What YOU Can Do! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=150493.0
1594 2013-03-08 06:56:50 bitafterbit has joined
1595 2013-03-08 06:57:30 <anddam> gmaxwell: well, once I delete the top level the blocks/ ones will be the only one taking space
1596 2013-03-08 06:57:47 <anddam> gmaxwell: and I don't like your laptop comparison :-)
1597 2013-03-08 06:57:52 <anddam> that's too fast
1598 2013-03-08 06:59:05 <anddam> gmaxwell: what reindeing mean in this context? I assumed it's something related to the client update and that only happens in such circumstances
1599 2013-03-08 06:59:35 <anddam> would I be better off by moving the bitcoin folder and resyncing with the new client?
1600 2013-03-08 06:59:54 <anddam> I mean the important part is the wallet, right? (not that I have btc in it)
1601 2013-03-08 07:01:17 <gmaxwell> anddam: the top level one isn't actually taking space. It's a hardlink.
1602 2013-03-08 07:01:35 <gmaxwell> anddam: resyncing over the network will be slower for sure. Reindexing is like resyncing from the network, but the data is already local.
1603 2013-03-08 07:01:44 <gmaxwell> And yes, it's a one time thing— unless you have database corruption.
1604 2013-03-08 07:03:09 <anddam> gmaxwell: thanks, I know what hl are. It's not that one or the other isn't taking space but since I'm going to delete one the remaining can be said to "take that space"
1605 2013-03-08 07:03:32 <OneMiner> You guys have some kick butt hardware. My PC took like 1/4-1/2 a day. :P
1606 2013-03-08 07:03:43 <anddam> I guess reindexing involves hashing, I see CPU bursting to 250%
1607 2013-03-08 07:03:59 <anddam> OneMiner: for reindexing?
1608 2013-03-08 07:04:07 <anddam> gmaxwell: is your laptop possibly on SSD?
1609 2013-03-08 07:04:10 <gmaxwell> anddam: it involves a lot of ecdsa validation.
1610 2013-03-08 07:04:21 <gmaxwell> anddam: indeed it is. and it's a quad core i7.
1611 2013-03-08 07:04:42 <OneMiner> anddam Ya, I'm going to say 1/4 of a day for that.
1612 2013-03-08 07:04:52 <gmaxwell> but even on the 7200 rpm spinning disk system it's not that slow to reindex. The new database stuff in 0.8 just isn't as IO bound as the old stuff.
1613 2013-03-08 07:05:13 t7 has joined
1614 2013-03-08 07:05:18 <anddam> OneMiner: so my performance isn't out of the world
1615 2013-03-08 07:05:20 iwilcox is now known as gmaxwe||
1616 2013-03-08 07:05:23 <gmaxwell> anddam: sometimes people who've had really slow syncs turned out to have failing HDD..... not saying thats the case for you, but slow writes can be a warning sign.
1617 2013-03-08 07:05:33 gmaxwe is now known as |!~iwilcox@5ac1696c.bb.sky.com|iwilcox
1618 2013-03-08 07:06:08 <anddam> that's been my suspect for a while, my new SSD has already shipped
1619 2013-03-08 07:06:22 <anddam> actually the alarm was exactly the slowlyness of btcoin-qt
1620 2013-03-08 07:06:56 <OneMiner> Wouldn't supprise me. Mine is a Frankenstein's monster kind of build. Parts harvested from other unuseable corpses.
1621 2013-03-08 07:07:17 <anddam> gmaxwell: you seem to use sync and reindex interchangeably, is that the case?
1622 2013-03-08 07:07:38 <gmaxwell> They're basically the same operation.
1623 2013-03-08 07:07:59 <gmaxwell> The only difference being that reindex always means local data, and sync doesn't say where the data is coming from.
1624 2013-03-08 07:08:01 <anddam> but sync download the data from outside while I already have the chain on my disk
1625 2013-03-08 07:08:11 <anddam> ok
1626 2013-03-08 07:08:19 <gmaxwell> (usually when I'm syncing its from another machine on the local network in any case, even if not already on disk)
1627 2013-03-08 07:08:24 t7` has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1628 2013-03-08 07:08:36 <gmaxwell> but ... I probably have two dozen copies of the blockchain. :P
1629 2013-03-08 07:08:38 <Vinnie_win> Is there a web page that provides historical charts and/or live statistics on the "dp crisis" ?
1630 2013-03-08 07:08:44 Aaron_TangCryp is now known as Aaron_Away
1631 2013-03-08 07:09:06 <gmaxwell> eek. You shouldn't say crisis. Add light not heat. :P
1632 2013-03-08 07:09:09 <anddam> gmaxwell: right, like a single, synced machine acts as peer for the other local peers updating their chain
1633 2013-03-08 07:09:28 <anddam> dp == ?
1634 2013-03-08 07:09:31 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: sipa has some nice charts of the utxo size broken down by txout value, but he hasn't updated them in a while.
1635 2013-03-08 07:09:49 <Vinnie_win> sipa...is that someone's name?
1636 2013-03-08 07:10:11 <gmaxwell> Yes. It's the IRC name of Pieter Wuille.
1637 2013-03-08 07:10:21 <gmaxwell> he's in europe so he's asleep right now.
1638 2013-03-08 07:10:22 <Vinnie_win> http://bitcoin.sipa.be/pruning-txout.png ?
1639 2013-03-08 07:10:38 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: there is one broken down by value.
1640 2013-03-08 07:10:44 <gmaxwell> Vinnie_win: but yes that.
1641 2013-03-08 07:10:54 <Vinnie_win> damn...that google image search is pretty powerful
1642 2013-03-08 07:11:04 <Vinnie_win> "utxo bitcoin size chart" turned that up
1643 2013-03-08 07:11:09 <gmaxwell> http://bitcoin.sipa.be/pruning-size.png
1644 2013-03-08 07:11:25 <anddam> ah, Belgium
1645 2013-03-08 07:11:34 <anddam> from the name I'd have said NL
1646 2013-03-08 07:11:35 <Vinnie_win> gmaxwell: so the distance between the yellow line and the red line shows the cost of dp
1647 2013-03-08 07:11:48 <Vinnie_win> ...and it's logarithmic, ehew
1648 2013-03-08 07:12:15 <gmaxwell> you can see the big spike of very small ones where it breaks away from the rest of the lines... and note that the cart is _log_ y.
1649 2013-03-08 07:12:44 <Vinnie_win> so S.dice launched around block 140,000
1650 2013-03-08 07:13:01 <gmaxwell> so basically the UXTO there is 20MB of 1btc and bigger outputs and 80MB of smaller ones. ... and thats only current as of height 200000.
1651 2013-03-08 07:14:23 <gmaxwell> current size is 150878127 bytes.
1652 2013-03-08 07:14:27 <Vinnie_win> gah...I need something that the masses can comprehend
1653 2013-03-08 07:15:25 <anddam> you can start by explaining to me what pruning means in this context
1654 2013-03-08 07:15:32 <gmaxwell> notice how back before 140k or so the uxto size was mostly flat.. increasing only slowly? but later its catching up to the unpruned size.
1655 2013-03-08 07:16:11 <gmaxwell> anddam: it means excluding old transaction data from transactions whos outputs have been spent from the high speed database used to validate new blocks.
1656 2013-03-08 07:16:39 <Vinnie_win> What about 1CRACK addresses?
1657 2013-03-08 07:16:47 <gmaxwell> (and potentially not keeping them on disk on all nodes, though the current software doesn't go that far because we haven't yet implemented a distributed sync)
1658 2013-03-08 07:17:25 <anddam> gmaxwell: I'm reading the line over and over, it eventually will make sense
1659 2013-03-08 07:17:54 <gmaxwell> sorry. I'm out of time tonight — otherwise I would have tried to explain better. Night all.
1660 2013-03-08 07:18:10 <anddam> thanks for all the info
1661 2013-03-08 07:19:07 <grau> anddam: may I help?
1662 2013-03-08 07:19:52 <Vinnie_win> nite
1663 2013-03-08 07:20:16 <anddam> grau: with what?
1664 2013-03-08 07:20:37 <grau> in case you have questions to workings of the system. I have some insight
1665 2013-03-08 07:20:54 <anddam> grau: the prune thing of qt client slowness?
1666 2013-03-08 07:21:52 <anddam> uso the prune thing, gmaxwell said "excluding old transaction data from transactions whos outputs have been spent from the high speed database used to validate new blocks" I can think of this as a pool of available transactions (the "high speed") used for validating new block
1667 2013-03-08 07:21:54 <grau> pruning means excluding the set of spent transactions from those used to validate new, what do you mean with slowess?
1668 2013-03-08 07:22:17 <anddam> and when one of these trasnasction is used it geets discarded from future usage
1669 2013-03-08 07:22:18 <anddam> ok
1670 2013-03-08 07:22:31 gdoteoff has quit (Quit: Bye)
1671 2013-03-08 07:22:44 <grau> a transaction output if used is always fully spent, therefore no longer needed for future validation
1672 2013-03-08 07:22:53 gdoteoff has joined
1673 2013-03-08 07:23:08 <iwilcox> Why are "light" clients less secure, grau?
1674 2013-03-08 07:23:30 <anddam> grau: I may miss the "transaction output" is, at this point
1675 2013-03-08 07:23:32 <grau> There are differnt "light" clients. SPV and web wallet like.
1676 2013-03-08 07:23:41 <grau> which do you want to hear about?
1677 2013-03-08 07:23:44 <warren> Does the 0.8 preallocating actually write zeroes?
1678 2013-03-08 07:23:57 <iwilcox> grau: Whichever the Android client is :)
1679 2013-03-08 07:24:10 <grau> warren: dunno that detail
1680 2013-03-08 07:24:18 <grau> The android is SPV
1681 2013-03-08 07:24:18 <iwilcox> grau: Expand SPV for me?
1682 2013-03-08 07:24:38 <anddam> grau: the slowness part was referred to my initial issue with bitcoin-qt 0.8 on os x
1683 2013-03-08 07:24:40 <grau> Simplified Payment Verification
1684 2013-03-08 07:24:46 <iwilcox> Ah, OK, ta.
1685 2013-03-08 07:24:48 <warren> iwilcox: see Satoshi's original paper for the simplest explanation, then the wiki page
1686 2013-03-08 07:24:57 <iwilcox> OK, thanks guys.
1687 2013-03-08 07:25:39 <iwilcox> (and sorry to ask noob questions in here; it's just that #bitcoin has been somewhat overrun lately)
1688 2013-03-08 07:25:42 <grau> anddam: running a full node requires processing power
1689 2013-03-08 07:26:07 <anddam> but the wiki page will jus link to the paper
1690 2013-03-08 07:26:10 <anddam> just*
1691 2013-03-08 07:26:15 <OneMiner> Light clients are less secure because they trust info coming from some place. The full, standard client trusts nothing! All blocks are checked. This is not the case with a light client.
1692 2013-03-08 07:26:51 <OneMiner> In other words. A light client can be spoofed.
1693 2013-03-08 07:27:11 <iwilcox> Guess I need to read the paper, but blocks surely come via peers too?
1694 2013-03-08 07:27:13 <grau> SPV client trusts that the majority of nodes is honest
1695 2013-03-08 07:28:03 <grau> yes, SPV is p2p
1696 2013-03-08 07:29:11 Happzz has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1697 2013-03-08 07:29:16 <warren> I've never tried SPV.  Do any have optional SSL certs you can verify against a particular node that you trust?
1698 2013-03-08 07:29:43 <grau> warren: SSL is not used to create trust here
1699 2013-03-08 07:29:51 <warren> only consensus
1700 2013-03-08 07:30:49 <warren> grau: do SPV nodes participate in helping the network retransmit tx's and new blocks?
1701 2013-03-08 07:30:50 <grau> It is the principle of bitcoin to be decentralized, trust from authority like in SSL is orthogonal to that
1702 2013-03-08 07:31:20 <Vinnie_win> you dont need a certificate signed by a central authority to use ssl though
1703 2013-03-08 07:31:40 <Vinnie_win> plus can't you just identify nodes by having them sign something with their private key
1704 2013-03-08 07:31:43 <OneMiner> iwilcox Peers relay new blocks to other peers. The full client doesn't trust a word of it, it'll check for itself. Is that what you are asking?
1705 2013-03-08 07:31:44 <grau> warren: you got me again. I would have to look up that.
1706 2013-03-08 07:31:49 <warren> If I operated nodes myself, I may want to ensure there's no MITM between them.
1707 2013-03-08 07:32:39 <warren> Or not just MITM, but maybe just sniffing
1708 2013-03-08 07:32:47 <grau> Vinnie_win: you can use ssl encryption without authority but that does not create trust, only confidentiality
1709 2013-03-08 07:33:05 <Vinnie_win> grau: Yeah but its assumed that you've already exchanged public keys out of band...?
1710 2013-03-08 07:33:10 <iwilcox> OneMiner: I don't think I'm informed enough to ask sensible questions yet.  I'll go do my homework first :)  Thanks.
1711 2013-03-08 07:33:32 <grau> Vinnie_win: just because I know whom I talk to I do not know if he is cheating
1712 2013-03-08 07:33:34 <warren> There's no reason to need it, but there's always the tor node solution.
1713 2013-03-08 07:33:40 <OneMiner> Haha cool. Don't be a stranger. :)
1714 2013-03-08 07:33:52 <Vinnie_win> grau: but you know he is "him"
1715 2013-03-08 07:34:08 <Vinnie_win> grau: wasn't that the point of the certificate chain, to verify the identity?
1716 2013-03-08 07:34:22 <grau> Vinnie_win: ok, you might know who cheated you, but does that help in retrospective?
1717 2013-03-08 07:34:49 <Vinnie_win> grau: probably not, although that's one of the hazards of picking up the middle of a conversation ^^
1718 2013-03-08 07:35:13 <warren> Who is "psy" on the forum?
1719 2013-03-08 07:35:30 <grau> Vinnie_win: In context of bitcoin ssl does not add value.
1720 2013-03-08 07:36:03 <Vinnie_win> grau: wasn't the point of ssl to be used with spv clients and their servers to prevent interference and also confirm identity
1721 2013-03-08 07:36:15 <warren> There was a much better way to explain that patch that wouldn't make all the nutjobs come out of the woodwork claiming the sky is falling.
1722 2013-03-08 07:36:19 <grau> SPV does not need SSL
1723 2013-03-08 07:37:02 <grau> SSL is needed if client and server mutually authenticate, that is the case e.g. for BitcoinSpinner
1724 2013-03-08 07:43:15 <grau> Vinnie_win: BitcoinSpinner is not SPV since it places trust into the server. An SPV client is Bitcoin Wallet both are on google play.
1725 2013-03-08 07:44:56 <iwilcox> I think CoinBase just released a trust-based client for Android too.
1726 2013-03-08 07:45:21 ducch has joined
1727 2013-03-08 07:48:52 TwilightSparklee has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1728 2013-03-08 07:51:20 gdoteoff has quit (Quit: Bye)
1729 2013-03-08 07:51:34 RainbowDashh has joined
1730 2013-03-08 07:51:40 gdoteoff has joined
1731 2013-03-08 07:55:20 comboy has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1732 2013-03-08 07:56:10 ciphermonk has joined
1733 2013-03-08 07:57:20 eoss has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1734 2013-03-08 08:01:13 coingenuity has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1735 2013-03-08 08:02:07 ducch has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1736 2013-03-08 08:02:52 coingenuity has joined
1737 2013-03-08 08:05:01 <litropy> Any reason why I'd be transitting lots of data during first sync? -qt only uses one port, correct?
1738 2013-03-08 08:05:16 RoboTeddy has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1739 2013-03-08 08:06:37 ovidiusoft has joined
1740 2013-03-08 08:08:56 <warren> litropy: for incoming one port, it might be sending outgoing connections to random peers, check netstat
1741 2013-03-08 08:09:11 zoidlay has joined
1742 2013-03-08 08:09:20 RainbowD_ has joined
1743 2013-03-08 08:09:27 RainbowDashh has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1744 2013-03-08 08:09:28 RainbowD_ is now known as RainbowDashh
1745 2013-03-08 08:09:31 <warren> litropy: if you really don't want random outgoing connections, you can temporarily use -connect <IP ADDRESS> to only connect to a particular node.  that's fine for testing, but you'll need much broader connectivity if you plan to mine.
1746 2013-03-08 08:12:33 comboy has joined
1747 2013-03-08 08:14:09 kipp_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1748 2013-03-08 08:14:23 FredEE has quit (Quit: FredEE)
1749 2013-03-08 08:14:47 kipp has joined
1750 2013-03-08 08:15:58 mappum has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1751 2013-03-08 08:18:06 hydrogenesis has joined
1752 2013-03-08 08:20:10 gdoteoff has quit (Quit: Bye)
1753 2013-03-08 08:20:33 gdoteoff has joined
1754 2013-03-08 08:21:22 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1755 2013-03-08 08:24:07 rdymac has joined
1756 2013-03-08 08:24:10 sgornick has joined
1757 2013-03-08 08:25:44 variousnefarious has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1758 2013-03-08 08:27:12 variousnefarious has joined
1759 2013-03-08 08:28:35 <anddam> I reindexed after updating to 0.8, I'd like to delete old index files. gmaxwell suggested only blocks/ and chainstate/ matter but also that the 0.8 blocks should be smaller, does this mean that blk0000?.dat should be different? Can I remove those?
1760 2013-03-08 08:28:59 <warren> anddam: there's a script in the source that cleans up old .bitcoin
1761 2013-03-08 08:29:38 <warren> anddam: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/contrib/tidy_datadir.sh
1762 2013-03-08 08:29:55 <warren> anddam: I've used it with 0.8, but perhaps make a copy to be safe.
1763 2013-03-08 08:30:16 dust-otc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1764 2013-03-08 08:30:42 hydrogenesis has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi)
1765 2013-03-08 08:34:44 axhlf has joined
1766 2013-03-08 08:36:24 phma has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1767 2013-03-08 08:36:43 phma has joined
1768 2013-03-08 08:36:47 FredEE has joined
1769 2013-03-08 08:37:16 <anddam> always
1770 2013-03-08 08:37:21 <anddam> thanks
1771 2013-03-08 08:37:48 rdymac has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1772 2013-03-08 08:38:21 Tatsuya has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1773 2013-03-08 08:40:39 MC1984_ has joined
1774 2013-03-08 08:40:56 MC1984 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1775 2013-03-08 08:41:27 MC1984_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1776 2013-03-08 08:41:39 MC1984_ has joined
1777 2013-03-08 08:44:20 coblee has quit (Quit: coblee)
1778 2013-03-08 08:48:40 Namworld has quit ()
1779 2013-03-08 08:48:59 gdoteoff has quit (Quit: Bye)
1780 2013-03-08 08:49:19 gdoteoff has joined
1781 2013-03-08 08:53:05 dawei101 has joined
1782 2013-03-08 08:58:42 hydrogenesis has joined
1783 2013-03-08 08:58:51 ielo has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1784 2013-03-08 09:00:11 litropy has quit (Quit: Electrical overload)
1785 2013-03-08 09:01:36 litropy has joined
1786 2013-03-08 09:01:54 axhlf has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1787 2013-03-08 09:02:56 <anddam> bye
1788 2013-03-08 09:02:57 anddam has left ("WeeChat 0.3.9.2")
1789 2013-03-08 09:03:38 PhantomSpark has joined
1790 2013-03-08 09:08:11 hydrogenesis has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi)
1791 2013-03-08 09:11:47 <litropy> Why would I be transmitting to a pool during the first sync?
1792 2013-03-08 09:16:03 Namworld has joined
1793 2013-03-08 09:16:50 <SomeoneWeird> litropy, sending blocks
1794 2013-03-08 09:17:32 <litropy> SomeoneWeird, I make blocks?
1795 2013-03-08 09:17:48 gdoteoff has quit (Quit: Bye)
1796 2013-03-08 09:18:12 gdoteoff has joined
1797 2013-03-08 09:19:16 <litropy> K, so here's something fun: I'm about to run bfgminer on a box with no temp sensors and a single fan. Who wants to take a guess at how many hours it will last?
1798 2013-03-08 09:19:50 <SomeoneWeird> litropy, no but you relay blocks
1799 2013-03-08 09:20:06 <SomeoneWeird> litropy, why would you do that?
1800 2013-03-08 09:26:58 <litropy> SomeoneWeird, haha - I'm not going to go that far - I'm just gonna see how fast it gets hot and then stop the miner
1801 2013-03-08 09:27:33 <SomeoneWeird> cpu?
1802 2013-03-08 09:28:33 <jouke> Hmmm, again my 0.8 bitcoind crashed. 0.7 was more stable is my impression.
1803 2013-03-08 09:29:35 <CodeShark> what was the error?
1804 2013-03-08 09:32:28 <jouke> EXCEPTION: St9bad_alloc
1805 2013-03-08 09:32:28 <jouke> std::bad_alloc
1806 2013-03-08 09:32:28 <jouke> bitcoin in ThreadMessageHandler()
1807 2013-03-08 09:32:42 <CodeShark> sounds like you ran out of memory
1808 2013-03-08 09:33:26 <CodeShark> either add more memory to your system or kill other processes :)
1809 2013-03-08 09:34:00 <sivu> or add swap
1810 2013-03-08 09:34:49 <jouke> When I first bootstrapped with bitcoin 0.8 it used a lot of memory, even when it had caught up with the blockchain.
1811 2013-03-08 09:34:59 <CodeShark> limit the number of connections
1812 2013-03-08 09:35:02 <jouke> I don't have any other real processes running on that machine.
1813 2013-03-08 09:35:36 <CodeShark> most likely you have too many connections open
1814 2013-03-08 09:35:47 <jouke> Oh, maybe that is wrong indeed, I thought I already did
1815 2013-03-08 09:37:18 FredEE has quit (Quit: FredEE)
1816 2013-03-08 09:37:36 Goonie has joined
1817 2013-03-08 09:39:50 kriqCoin has joined
1818 2013-03-08 09:42:30 RainbowDashh is now known as in
1819 2013-03-08 09:42:45 <kinlo> hmmmz, we're currently already up to about 70% v2 blocks..  Adoption is slow but certain
1820 2013-03-08 09:43:01 <kinlo> some pools might run into problems if they don't adapt :)
1821 2013-03-08 09:43:08 Shealan has joined
1822 2013-03-08 09:43:11 <jouke> what are v2 blocks?
1823 2013-03-08 09:43:54 <kinlo> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0034
1824 2013-03-08 09:44:37 axhlf has joined
1825 2013-03-08 09:45:45 <litropy> Aw drats. I only had 4000 blocks left and that suddenly doubled to 8000.
1826 2013-03-08 09:46:36 gdoteoff has quit (Quit: Bye)
1827 2013-03-08 09:46:37 ielo has joined
1828 2013-03-08 09:46:50 <SomeoneWeird> lol
1829 2013-03-08 09:46:58 <litropy> netstat isn't reporting all the info I'm used to anymore - just a * and then the port. Odd. And I'm suddenly maxing my CPU.
1830 2013-03-08 09:46:59 gdoteoff has joined
1831 2013-03-08 09:51:06 MrKain_ has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1832 2013-03-08 09:53:44 axhlf has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1833 2013-03-08 09:54:26 axhlf has joined
1834 2013-03-08 09:54:39 in is now known as RainbowDashh
1835 2013-03-08 09:54:59 <sipa> litropy: entirely expected; the last part of the chain has signature checking enabled
1836 2013-03-08 09:55:14 ielo has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1837 2013-03-08 09:55:37 <litropy> Which part: the jump in block numbers, the max CPU, or both?
1838 2013-03-08 09:55:42 <litropy> sipa, ^^
1839 2013-03-08 09:56:07 <SomeoneWeird> cpu
1840 2013-03-08 09:56:40 <kinlo> litropy: netstat always only outputs that if you're not root
1841 2013-03-08 09:56:43 <sipa> the jump is caused by having more peers and gettimg a better estimate for the total number of blocks
1842 2013-03-08 09:58:33 drizztbsd has joined
1843 2013-03-08 09:58:33 drizztbsd has quit (Changing host)
1844 2013-03-08 09:58:33 drizztbsd has joined
1845 2013-03-08 10:00:42 coblee has joined
1846 2013-03-08 10:00:51 coblee has quit (Client Quit)
1847 2013-03-08 10:01:16 coblee has joined
1848 2013-03-08 10:03:49 <litropy> Hm. sipa, SomeoneWeird, I wonder if It would be more efficient to distribute the CPU tasks to both my boxes.
1849 2013-03-08 10:04:48 <SomeoneWeird> how?
1850 2013-03-08 10:04:49 <SomeoneWeird> lol
1851 2013-03-08 10:08:54 rdymac has joined
1852 2013-03-08 10:13:13 <litropy> SomeoneWeird, not easily. And it would very likely be less efficient.
1853 2013-03-08 10:13:41 <SomeoneWeird> exactly..
1854 2013-03-08 10:13:42 <SomeoneWeird> lol
1855 2013-03-08 10:14:25 da2ce7 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.2.0 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
1856 2013-03-08 10:15:18 <litropy> http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Ubuntu_Precise_Cloud_Computing#Cluster_.28cloud.29_computing
1857 2013-03-08 10:15:26 gdoteoff has quit (Quit: Bye)
1858 2013-03-08 10:15:50 gdoteoff has joined
1859 2013-03-08 10:17:16 <litropy> Is there a possibility that I'm not processing blocks fast enough to keep up? I'm still hovering around 8000.
1860 2013-03-08 10:18:18 <SomeoneWeird> highly doubtful
1861 2013-03-08 10:18:23 coblee has quit (Quit: coblee)
1862 2013-03-08 10:19:07 felixhandte has joined
1863 2013-03-08 10:26:43 tonikt has joined
1864 2013-03-08 10:27:05 CaptainBlaze has quit (Quit: CaptainBlaze)
1865 2013-03-08 10:29:48 ielo has joined
1866 2013-03-08 10:31:53 CaptainBlaze has joined
1867 2013-03-08 10:33:43 coblee has joined
1868 2013-03-08 10:35:11 CaptainBlaze has quit (Client Quit)
1869 2013-03-08 10:35:40 MrKain has joined
1870 2013-03-08 10:42:23 <MrKain> anyone making any interesting bc apps at the moment
1871 2013-03-08 10:44:14 gdoteoff has quit (Quit: Bye)
1872 2013-03-08 10:44:40 gdoteoff has joined
1873 2013-03-08 10:45:07 ielo has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1874 2013-03-08 10:46:55 ielo has joined
1875 2013-03-08 10:53:30 kriqCoin has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1876 2013-03-08 11:00:56 ielo has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1877 2013-03-08 11:04:56 one_zero has quit ()
1878 2013-03-08 11:07:17 MrKain has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1879 2013-03-08 11:13:03 gdoteoff has quit (Quit: Bye)
1880 2013-03-08 11:13:27 gdoteoff has joined
1881 2013-03-08 11:21:58 dawei101 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1882 2013-03-08 11:33:14 PhantomSpark has joined
1883 2013-03-08 11:36:28 PhantomSpark has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1884 2013-03-08 11:37:30 Detritus has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1885 2013-03-08 11:40:27 Detritus has joined
1886 2013-03-08 11:41:52 gdoteoff has quit (Quit: Bye)
1887 2013-03-08 11:42:13 gdoteoff has joined
1888 2013-03-08 11:44:19 rbecker is now known as RBecker
1889 2013-03-08 11:46:13 bitit has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1890 2013-03-08 11:46:38 bitit has joined
1891 2013-03-08 11:54:29 bytedisorder has joined
1892 2013-03-08 11:54:32 kritCoin has joined
1893 2013-03-08 11:54:35 <kritCoin> Hi
1894 2013-03-08 11:54:46 <bytedisorder> Hello hello
1895 2013-03-08 11:54:48 <kritCoin> I want to do windows programming in C
1896 2013-03-08 11:55:02 <kritCoin> I cant stomach the MSDN site, to chaotic
1897 2013-03-08 11:55:10 <bytedisorder> I see
1898 2013-03-08 11:55:12 <kritCoin> I want to write services
1899 2013-03-08 11:55:17 <kritCoin> and use the event log
1900 2013-03-08 11:55:19 <kritCoin> etc
1901 2013-03-08 11:55:30 <bytedisorder> Have fun with that
1902 2013-03-08 11:55:35 <bytedisorder> :O)
1903 2013-03-08 11:55:38 <kritCoin> ëvent Tracing for windows
1904 2013-03-08 11:55:59 <kritCoin> anyone know a good book that explains well instead of jumping around MSDN getting tidbits here and there
1905 2013-03-08 11:56:28 <kritCoin> most people here are diehard programmers me reckon
1906 2013-03-08 11:58:49 RBecker is now known as rbecker
1907 2013-03-08 12:00:13 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
1908 2013-03-08 12:00:25 Guest64346 is now known as Jezzz
1909 2013-03-08 12:00:34 Jezzz has quit (Changing host)
1910 2013-03-08 12:00:34 Jezzz has joined
1911 2013-03-08 12:06:39 <HM2> MSDN is a good resource
1912 2013-03-08 12:06:50 <HM2> it's no man page
1913 2013-03-08 12:06:55 <HM2> but it's a good resource
1914 2013-03-08 12:07:24 <SomeoneWeird> not really relevant to the channel
1915 2013-03-08 12:07:29 <SomeoneWeird> go ask in ##windows or soemthing
1916 2013-03-08 12:08:09 boothill has joined
1917 2013-03-08 12:09:52 <boothill> What do you recommend as the standard monitoring tool for bitcoind ?
1918 2013-03-08 12:10:13 <HM2> ;;difficulty
1919 2013-03-08 12:10:13 <gribble> Error: "difficulty" is not a valid command.
1920 2013-03-08 12:10:17 <HM2> :/
1921 2013-03-08 12:10:41 gdoteoff has quit (Quit: Bye)
1922 2013-03-08 12:11:04 gdoteoff has joined
1923 2013-03-08 12:11:19 <bytedisorder> Hey I want to setup bitcoind to run as a service on startup in Ubuntu
1924 2013-03-08 12:11:30 <bytedisorder> what is the best secure way to do that
1925 2013-03-08 12:11:40 <bytedisorder> create a bitcoind user?
1926 2013-03-08 12:11:41 <Scrat> boothill: daemonize it properly (upstart etc.), poll it every minute with getinfo
1927 2013-03-08 12:12:12 <Scrat> I don't see how the monitoring tool is relevant
1928 2013-03-08 12:13:13 <boothill> Scrat it is important that we keep the bitcoind up and running at all times.
1929 2013-03-08 12:13:31 <bytedisorder> Also after installing bitcoid from the PPA on ubuntu where is the bitcoin.conf
1930 2013-03-08 12:13:40 <boothill> We want to continuously monitor that it is running correctly.
1931 2013-03-08 12:13:46 <bytedisorder> Boothill, you could set up a port monitor on 8332
1932 2013-03-08 12:14:03 <bytedisorder> Then use the PHP-SSH library to go in and restart the service if it fails
1933 2013-03-08 12:14:17 <bytedisorder> or do it all through PHP-SSH
1934 2013-03-08 12:14:21 <Scrat> that won't help if it's frozen (remember the 0.7.1 bug?)
1935 2013-03-08 12:15:01 <Scrat> poll it using an rpc command
1936 2013-03-08 12:15:31 <sipa> doing a getinfo with a timeout seems fine
1937 2013-03-08 12:15:43 <Scrat> I don't know if getinfo every 5 sec would produce any load, I doubt it
1938 2013-03-08 12:16:07 <sipa> a bit, but not much
1939 2013-03-08 12:16:19 <sipa> but it does need a lock on almost all internal data structures
1940 2013-03-08 12:16:28 <sipa> so it will block if anything is stalled
1941 2013-03-08 12:17:21 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1942 2013-03-08 12:18:06 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1943 2013-03-08 12:18:51 <bytedisorder> where is the bitcoin.conf generated in ubuntu when you install bitcoind from the ppa if anybody knows
1944 2013-03-08 12:18:58 <bytedisorder> I can find it for the life of me
1945 2013-03-08 12:19:20 <Shealan> Where's the best place to discuss issues related to the blockchain.info api?
1946 2013-03-08 12:19:59 <Scrat> Shealan: send them (or him) an email. maybe he'll reply after 10 days :p
1947 2013-03-08 12:20:56 <Shealan> how come you say him?
1948 2013-03-08 12:21:02 <Scrat> also b.i's discussion thread on the forum
1949 2013-03-08 12:21:54 <ciphermonk> is there a way to keep account balances updated when using the raw transaction API?
1950 2013-03-08 12:22:19 <sipa> ciphermonk: never thought about that! i don't think there is
1951 2013-03-08 12:22:38 <ciphermonk> ok, I'll just dismiss the accounts balances then for now :)
1952 2013-03-08 12:22:47 <sipa> the raw transaction api was mostly designed to do things fully manually
1953 2013-03-08 12:23:05 <sipa> while account balances are a quite high-level wallet management thing
1954 2013-03-08 12:23:14 <bytedisorder> Alright I'm rinning bitcoind as an upstart process but there is no wallet.dat or bicoin.conf to be found
1955 2013-03-08 12:23:23 <ciphermonk> yeah and I think thats quite fine for most use cases
1956 2013-03-08 12:23:38 <bytedisorder> I'm running this on ubuntu 12.04LTS without desktop (server)
1957 2013-03-08 12:23:43 <Scrat> bytedisorder: when in doubt, find / -name 'bitcoin.conf'
1958 2013-03-08 12:24:15 <ciphermonk> thanks for the answer :)
1959 2013-03-08 12:25:15 <bytedisorder> Scrat: The strange thing is I created a user for it on the VM and set it up to run under that user. Funny enough the command to find bitcoin.conf worked. However it is in the root user's home directory.
1960 2013-03-08 12:25:21 <bytedisorder> Thanks for the answer though
1961 2013-03-08 12:26:50 <HM2> I'd be interested to know what the average fee is on BTC as a % of transaction value
1962 2013-03-08 12:29:05 <Scrat> Shealan: you can also pm me (this is offtopic here) since I've used it in the past. stopped using it when it started eating my payments and not calling back
1963 2013-03-08 12:34:17 <zoidlay> Hello i'm ZoidLay.. im from Denmark.. where are you from ?
1964 2013-03-08 12:36:46 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1965 2013-03-08 12:37:24 copumpkin has joined
1966 2013-03-08 12:39:30 gdoteoff has quit (Quit: Bye)
1967 2013-03-08 12:39:53 gdoteoff has joined
1968 2013-03-08 12:41:16 ashams has joined
1969 2013-03-08 12:41:16 ashams has quit (Changing host)
1970 2013-03-08 12:41:16 ashams has joined
1971 2013-03-08 12:44:33 RazielZ has joined
1972 2013-03-08 12:47:17 Prattler has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.in)
1973 2013-03-08 12:51:22 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1974 2013-03-08 12:52:08 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1975 2013-03-08 12:54:43 <bytedisorder> So I guess its normal for bitcoind not to respond to RPC connections before if finishes downloading the blockchain correct?
1976 2013-03-08 12:55:16 <sipa> bytedisorder: it should
1977 2013-03-08 12:55:16 <Scrat> bytedisorder: yeah it lags sometimes
1978 2013-03-08 12:55:22 <sipa> maybe slower, but it should
1979 2013-03-08 12:55:57 <bytedisorder> I have bitcoind running on an ubutu box now, and when I sent a request via RPC I get no response
1980 2013-03-08 12:56:09 <bytedisorder> the page I am trying to run just loads endlessly
1981 2013-03-08 12:56:14 <bytedisorder> ubuntu
1982 2013-03-08 12:56:27 <bytedisorder> However it is still downloading the blockchain
1983 2013-03-08 12:56:48 abrkn has joined
1984 2013-03-08 12:56:55 <sipa> define 'no response' ?
1985 2013-03-08 12:59:13 <HM2> yeah i've noticed sometimes having started a fresh daemon i can't rpc
1986 2013-03-08 12:59:42 <HM2> i think it just starves it out
1987 2013-03-08 13:00:17 <bytedisorder> Okay no visible response from a browser. Even just running a $bitcoin->getinfo()
1988 2013-03-08 13:00:38 <CodeShark> try calling from command line
1989 2013-03-08 13:00:42 <CodeShark> curl -v
1990 2013-03-08 13:00:59 <sipa> when it is still loading the database, it won't respons to RPC requests
1991 2013-03-08 13:01:07 Prattler has joined
1992 2013-03-08 13:01:52 <bytedisorder> I see that makes sense, because the server response time is like 12ms
1993 2013-03-08 13:02:07 <CodeShark> in general, to diagnose RPC errors it is better to make command line curl calls than something like php wrappers around it
1994 2013-03-08 13:02:12 <bytedisorder> Okay I changed the bitcoin.conf so it times out now
1995 2013-03-08 13:02:21 <CodeShark> so you can get the full information of what's happening and you don't need to write an entire program
1996 2013-03-08 13:02:51 idstam-se has joined
1997 2013-03-08 13:02:54 <bytedisorder> The problem seems to be that the PHP side is not getting an RPOC response because the blockchain is still downloading
1998 2013-03-08 13:02:58 <bytedisorder> RPC*
1999 2013-03-08 13:03:49 <ProfMac> bytedisorder,  bitcoin.conf does not exist by default in Ubuntu.  There should be a ~/.bitcoin directory with the blockchains & such, put it in there.
2000 2013-03-08 13:04:33 <bytedisorder> Yes, I already have bitcoid running as an upstart process and the bitcoin.conf wallet.dat etc generated in the users home directory
2001 2013-03-08 13:04:43 <bytedisorder> bitcoind is running on that box
2002 2013-03-08 13:05:03 <bytedisorder> the issue is my other vm is not getting an rpc message back from bitcoind
2003 2013-03-08 13:05:07 <ProfMac> how do you set up an upstart process?
2004 2013-03-08 13:05:31 bitit has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2005 2013-03-08 13:05:53 <bytedisorder> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=25518.0 there is a short piece on that
2006 2013-03-08 13:06:06 <bytedisorder> I have modified it a bit to fit my needs
2007 2013-03-08 13:06:09 idstam has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2008 2013-03-08 13:06:21 tyn has joined
2009 2013-03-08 13:06:24 <ProfMac> lol.  That's the Unix way, never leave anything alone.
2010 2013-03-08 13:07:06 <CodeShark> bytedisorder: try curl -v -d '{"method":"getinfo","params":[],"id":null}' http://user:password@host:port
2011 2013-03-08 13:07:14 <CodeShark> from the command line
2012 2013-03-08 13:07:44 <bytedisorder> Anyway the process is running on the bitcoin vm, just my web server is not getting an RPC response back which I guess if because it is still downloading the blockchain. CodeShark: from the bitcoin vm or the remote VM?
2013 2013-03-08 13:07:57 <sipa> bytedisorder: which version of bitcoind?
2014 2013-03-08 13:08:12 <CodeShark> try from localhost first, bytedisorder
2015 2013-03-08 13:08:19 gdoteoff has quit (Quit: Bye)
2016 2013-03-08 13:08:26 <CodeShark> at least you can make sure it's not a transport layer issue
2017 2013-03-08 13:08:42 gdoteoff has joined
2018 2013-03-08 13:09:21 <bytedisorder> From localhost I got a 200 which is good, let me SSH the other vm and see
2019 2013-03-08 13:09:59 <CodeShark> do you get a json response?
2020 2013-03-08 13:10:20 <bytedisorder> Okay even on localhost if I use the external IP I am getting a 403 forbidden
2021 2013-03-08 13:10:32 <CodeShark> then it seems you have an authentication issue
2022 2013-03-08 13:10:35 <bytedisorder> With 127.0.0.1 I get a JSON response
2023 2013-03-08 13:10:55 <bytedisorder> yeah apparently, however I am using the same credentials and iptables are empty as of yet
2024 2013-03-08 13:11:09 <CodeShark> server=1 in the bitcoin.conf file
2025 2013-03-08 13:11:10 <bytedisorder> (just created the VM 10 minutes ago
2026 2013-03-08 13:11:18 <CodeShark> make sure that line is not commented out
2027 2013-03-08 13:11:22 <bytedisorder> Yes server=1
2028 2013-03-08 13:11:46 <bytedisorder> and rpcallowip is setup
2029 2013-03-08 13:11:59 abrkn\ has joined
2030 2013-03-08 13:12:00 abrkn is now known as Guest84289
2031 2013-03-08 13:12:29 <CodeShark> did you restart bitcoind after making these changes?
2032 2013-03-08 13:14:21 tonikt has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2033 2013-03-08 13:14:33 <bytedisorder> Yes, okay I fized the issue with using the external IP from localhost, I had to rpcallowip=localhostexternal
2034 2013-03-08 13:14:41 <bytedisorder> now I am getting a 200 OK
2035 2013-03-08 13:15:03 TD has joined
2036 2013-03-08 13:15:55 Guest84289 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2037 2013-03-08 13:18:21 <CodeShark> the jsonrpcclient class for php sucks when it comes to error handling
2038 2013-03-08 13:18:26 <CodeShark> I don't recommend using it for this reason
2039 2013-03-08 13:18:47 <bytedisorder> Wow, I feel like a colossal dumbass. I forgot to make a CSF exception for port 8332 on my web server.
2040 2013-03-08 13:19:34 dawei101 has joined
2041 2013-03-08 13:20:00 <bytedisorder> That was simple to fix.
2042 2013-03-08 13:20:10 <bytedisorder> Thanks CodeShark and all
2043 2013-03-08 13:20:15 <CodeShark> you're welcome :)
2044 2013-03-08 13:20:21 TD_ has joined
2045 2013-03-08 13:20:58 <bytedisorder> Now I can wait for this blockchain to finish, tar numeric the VM and have the server ready to deploy when I need it :)
2046 2013-03-08 13:21:49 <ProfMac> what vm are you running?  I have VirtualBox with Ubuntu 12.04 guest.
2047 2013-03-08 13:23:17 <bytedisorder> I am running Ubuntu 12.04LTS xenpv
2048 2013-03-08 13:23:35 <bytedisorder> I host my own physical nodes
2049 2013-03-08 13:24:01 <bytedisorder> If you ever want to buy a VPS or dedicated server with bitcoin look me up: http://www.bitronictech.net/
2050 2013-03-08 13:24:46 vampireb has joined
2051 2013-03-08 13:24:54 <CodeShark> oh, cool...I might
2052 2013-03-08 13:24:55 zoidlay has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2053 2013-03-08 13:25:00 <CodeShark> not today...but perhaps one of these days
2054 2013-03-08 13:25:40 ciphermonk has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2055 2013-03-08 13:26:49 abrkn\ has quit ()
2056 2013-03-08 13:26:51 <bytedisorder> Hahaha
2057 2013-03-08 13:27:00 <bytedisorder> I was talking to ProfMac
2058 2013-03-08 13:27:12 <ProfMac> I was afk w/ coffee...
2059 2013-03-08 13:27:22 <bytedisorder> Anyway, thanks for the help this is for a little bitcoin faucet I'm setting up
2060 2013-03-08 13:27:37 <bytedisorder> get some back links and traffic
2061 2013-03-08 13:27:45 xenesis has quit (Quit: xenesis)
2062 2013-03-08 13:28:13 datagutt has joined
2063 2013-03-08 13:28:25 <ProfMac> bytedisorder, I have a soho system with IPv6 to a few virtual machines.
2064 2013-03-08 13:29:17 <HM2> does github look buggared to anyone else?
2065 2013-03-08 13:29:31 <HM2> I have 100% zoom but it looks zoomed in
2066 2013-03-08 13:29:48 <HM2> weird, corrupted tab i guess
2067 2013-03-08 13:31:27 <SomeoneWeird> noep
2068 2013-03-08 13:31:29 <SomeoneWeird> nope(
2069 2013-03-08 13:31:41 <SomeoneWeird> *
2070 2013-03-08 13:31:42 <SomeoneWeird> gah
2071 2013-03-08 13:32:17 tyn has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
2072 2013-03-08 13:32:38 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
2073 2013-03-08 13:37:07 gdoteoff has quit (Quit: Bye)
2074 2013-03-08 13:37:32 gdoteoff has joined
2075 2013-03-08 13:41:50 <HM2> is it a coindence that log (256^(255-3) / log 2 = 2016
2076 2013-03-08 13:42:00 <HM2> log (256^(255-3)) / log 2 = 2016
2077 2013-03-08 13:42:02 <HM2> rather
2078 2013-03-08 13:42:32 <sipa> you have to use more powers of two
2079 2013-03-08 13:42:46 <HM2> what do you mean?
2080 2013-03-08 13:42:58 <sipa> log ((2^(2^3)^((2^(2^3)-2^2) / log 2
2081 2013-03-08 13:43:36 <CodeShark> coincidence?
2082 2013-03-08 13:44:21 <CodeShark> why is 2016 special?
2083 2013-03-08 13:44:22 <HM2> 256**252 is the largest exponent in the compact format used in bitcoin
2084 2013-03-08 13:44:30 <sipa> ah!
2085 2013-03-08 13:44:50 <HM2> that's 2**2016 and 2016 is the difficulty adjust interval
2086 2013-03-08 13:44:52 <HM2> 2016 blocks
2087 2013-03-08 13:45:06 <CodeShark> oh
2088 2013-03-08 13:46:09 <bitnumus> hi, whats the correct method to dump a private key for cold storage?
2089 2013-03-08 13:46:27 <bitnumus> what if the wallets balance is spread accross multiple addresses?
2090 2013-03-08 13:46:42 <sipa> backup the wallet.dat file
2091 2013-03-08 13:47:21 <CodeShark> or write a program to iterate through all of them and dump the keys to a file
2092 2013-03-08 13:47:21 BTC_Bear has joined
2093 2013-03-08 13:47:24 <CodeShark> :p
2094 2013-03-08 13:47:34 <sipa> i should get my dumpwallet RPC patch up to date
2095 2013-03-08 13:48:12 <bitnumus> i have many backups, i want to put it on paper
2096 2013-03-08 13:48:40 <BTC_Bear> Is there a DB of dead, shredded, etc... addresses?
2097 2013-03-08 13:48:55 <sipa> what is a 'dead, shredded, etc...' address?
2098 2013-03-08 13:49:21 <BTC_Bear> Addresses in wallets that have been deleted.
2099 2013-03-08 13:49:31 <BTC_Bear> err wallets deleted
2100 2013-03-08 13:49:34 <sipa> you can't delete addresses from a wallet
2101 2013-03-08 13:49:47 <BTC_Bear> You can Delete the wallet
2102 2013-03-08 13:49:49 <sipa> and if you delete a wallet, the wallet is gone; where would it be stored?
2103 2013-03-08 13:50:33 <BTC_Bear> And if someone sends to an address in that deleted wallet? It will be a dead address
2104 2013-03-08 13:50:51 <sipa> yes?
2105 2013-03-08 13:51:16 <BTC_Bear> I know GM has deleted a few wallets in his time, did he keep a record of the addresses deleted? or someone else.
2106 2013-03-08 13:51:38 <sipa> where would you keep a record?
2107 2013-03-08 13:52:00 <sipa> i don't think i understand the question; if you delete a wallet, what is left to keep the address in?
2108 2013-03-08 13:52:13 <sipa> or do you mean some central database where people can put a list of such addresses?
2109 2013-03-08 13:52:19 <BTC_Bear> YES
2110 2013-03-08 13:53:01 <sipa> sounds like a bad idea (how do you prove 1) you owned the address and 2) it is deleted) and unnecessary; just don't send to an address without the recipient wanting the receive something there
2111 2013-03-08 13:53:38 <BTC_Bear> Yea, it's not a great idea. But If GM tells me an address is gone, I'll believe him (sort of)
2112 2013-03-08 13:54:02 <HM2> BTC_Bear: if you just want to remember an addresses you used previously, for some obscure reason, you can look it up in the blockchain as long as you can find a transaction you emitted
2113 2013-03-08 13:54:32 <sipa> who or what is GM?
2114 2013-03-08 13:54:42 <sivu> game master
2115 2013-03-08 13:54:44 <BTC_Bear> Gmaxwell
2116 2013-03-08 13:54:45 <HM2> gmaxwell
2117 2013-03-08 13:54:55 <sivu> game maxwell
2118 2013-03-08 13:54:56 <BTC_Bear> I didn't want to highlight him but meh..
2119 2013-03-08 13:57:05 bitit has joined
2120 2013-03-08 14:02:08 <kritCoin> Gox
2121 2013-03-08 14:02:13 <kritCoin> !ticker --last
2122 2013-03-08 14:02:13 <gribble> 43.25000
2123 2013-03-08 14:03:19 <CodeShark> bitnumus:  bitcoind listreceivedbyaddress 0 true | grep address | sed 's/.*:\s\"//g' | sed 's/\".*$//' | while read LINE; do eval bitcoind dumpprivkey $LINE; done >> keys.txt
2124 2013-03-08 14:04:27 <sipa> CodeShark: won't work for change addresses
2125 2013-03-08 14:04:33 <CodeShark> oh, true
2126 2013-03-08 14:04:46 axhlf has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2127 2013-03-08 14:05:18 <gmaxwell> BTC_Bear: There is no way to externally tell that a wallet is lost. It's not like the world can distinguish it being deleted and really lost.  In my case perhaps someday I'll dig up some old disk and find a lost wallet on it.
2128 2013-03-08 14:05:57 gdoteoff has quit (Quit: Bye)
2129 2013-03-08 14:06:00 axhlf has joined
2130 2013-03-08 14:06:21 gdoteoff has joined
2131 2013-03-08 14:06:21 <BTC_Bear> gmaxwell: I'm not willing to externally tell. I just wondered if someone 'honest' (lol) kept track of deleted addresses in wallets deleted.
2132 2013-03-08 14:06:31 <CodeShark> I don't really like that the satoshi client hides the change addresses from the RPC
2133 2013-03-08 14:06:54 <CodeShark> there should be an RPC parameter to also list the change addresses
2134 2013-03-08 14:07:14 <CodeShark> if enough other people agree, I'll implement that feature
2135 2013-03-08 14:07:44 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: you mean ones that have already been used, right?
2136 2013-03-08 14:07:51 <CodeShark> yes, gmaxwell
2137 2013-03-08 14:08:05 fishfish has joined
2138 2013-03-08 14:08:05 fishfish has quit (Excess Flood)
2139 2013-03-08 14:08:15 <gmaxwell> BTC_Bear: there is a forum thread were people are counting up known-lost-forever bitcoin.
2140 2013-03-08 14:08:31 <gmaxwell> Obviously they're only going to find a fraction of it, and people could lie.
2141 2013-03-08 14:09:09 <BTC_Bear> Yea, I'll create some myself. I need a brick wall to hit my head on. lol...
2142 2013-03-08 14:09:22 <CodeShark> I also propose that even if we don't have BIP0032 implemented yet we keep the change address pool separate from the receiving address pool
2143 2013-03-08 14:09:27 <BTC_Bear> thnx anyways tho...
2144 2013-03-08 14:10:05 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: hah. You realize that the desire to do that specifically motivated part of the BIP0032 design, right?
2145 2013-03-08 14:10:13 <CodeShark> yes, I do
2146 2013-03-08 14:10:22 axhlf has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2147 2013-03-08 14:11:05 axhlf has joined
2148 2013-03-08 14:11:05 <gmaxwell> oh 'even if' ... hm interesting thought. Though I don't know that it would greatly simplify telling people about backups.
2149 2013-03-08 14:11:12 [\\\] has joined
2150 2013-03-08 14:11:19 <gmaxwell> it would be "100 x or 100 y" instead of 100 x+y.
2151 2013-03-08 14:11:31 [\\\] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2152 2013-03-08 14:11:38 fishfish has joined
2153 2013-03-08 14:13:13 Hashdog has joined
2154 2013-03-08 14:14:19 <CodeShark> but as things are now, it is highly not recommended to use the same wallet from multiple machines unless you know exactly what you're doing - and what most makes such things risky is the fact that doing so can lead to the two wallet.dat files diverging
2155 2013-03-08 14:14:37 abrkn has joined
2156 2013-03-08 14:15:37 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: k, I don't see how thats addressed?
2157 2013-03-08 14:15:40 <abrkn> i'm getting "no such host i known" when trying bitconid -rpcconnect=... -rpcport=123 -rpcuse=abc -rpcpassword=foo. has the syntax changed?
2158 2013-03-08 14:15:43 <abrkn> using 0.8
2159 2013-03-08 14:15:51 <abrkn> windows 8 x64
2160 2013-03-08 14:15:56 <CodeShark> if you were to pregenerate a bunch of change addresses AND receiving addresses and then copy the wallet, you wouldn't run this risk (assuming you pregenerated a sufficient number)
2161 2013-03-08 14:16:02 TD_ has quit (Quit: TD_)
2162 2013-03-08 14:16:05 <CodeShark> as long as they were kept separate
2163 2013-03-08 14:16:14 gdoteof has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2164 2013-03-08 14:16:30 <gmaxwell> (even absent divergence it's still risky— if you spend twice before they've heard about the relevant txn you'll get stuck doublespends, but thats a tangent)
2165 2013-03-08 14:16:42 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: but thats true now, set the keypool to 100k and they won't diverge.
2166 2013-03-08 14:16:47 <abrkn>  .\bitcoind.exe -rpcconnect=127.0.0.1 -rpcport=19601 getbalance <-- results in: "error: resolve: No such host is known"
2167 2013-03-08 14:16:50 agricocb has joined
2168 2013-03-08 14:17:00 <CodeShark> they won't diverge as long as the two pools are kept separate
2169 2013-03-08 14:17:01 <abrkn> not much to resolve...
2170 2013-03-08 14:17:39 <CodeShark> then when a client sees a transaction to an address in its wallet it would know to which set it belongs (even if it didn't generate the transaction itself)
2171 2013-03-08 14:17:49 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: I guess we're using different definitions of diverge. I'm not actually aware of any problem being caused by a getnewaddress returning a change address.
2172 2013-03-08 14:18:04 <gmaxwell> You will see payments to your change addresses.
2173 2013-03-08 14:18:38 <CodeShark> gmaxwell, if you make a payment from computer A which sends change, then you do a getnewaddress from computer B, you very might well get the same address both times
2174 2013-03-08 14:19:14 denisx has joined
2175 2013-03-08 14:19:27 <bitnumus> can someone explain this error to me please
2176 2013-03-08 14:19:33 <bitnumus> Private key for address 16xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is not known (code -4)
2177 2013-03-08 14:19:48 <gmaxwell> Yes. Though this just creates confusion doesn't break anything or lose funds.
2178 2013-03-08 14:20:00 <sipa> bitnumus: what does validateaddress say about that address?
2179 2013-03-08 14:20:08 <bitnumus> its says   "ismine"  -  true
2180 2013-03-08 14:20:13 <bitnumus> what else would you like ot know
2181 2013-03-08 14:20:14 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: still can't fix the spends before recieved the conflict problem.
2182 2013-03-08 14:20:24 <sipa> bitnumus: is your wallet encrypted?
2183 2013-03-08 14:20:28 <bitnumus> yes
2184 2013-03-08 14:20:34 <sipa> did you unlock it?
2185 2013-03-08 14:20:38 <bitnumus> nope :D
2186 2013-03-08 14:20:49 <bitnumus> i dont use bitcoind or command line often
2187 2013-03-08 14:20:52 <CodeShark> of course, gmaxwell - but that seems much less likely - and is more easily mitigated
2188 2013-03-08 14:20:57 <bitnumus> i remember now from wheni have, sec
2189 2013-03-08 14:20:57 axhlf has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2190 2013-03-08 14:21:39 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: OKAY. ... well more likely than you think. e.g. if one was offline it'll never discover the other until the txn is in the chain and the wallet is caught up.
2191 2013-03-08 14:21:53 <gmaxwell> so running two copies would still be recommended against.
2192 2013-03-08 14:22:24 <kritCoin> I like the concept
2193 2013-03-08 14:22:25 <CodeShark> well, there are several approaches to dealing with that - for instance, we could addnode and getrawmempool and other stuff like that between the two machines
2194 2013-03-08 14:22:26 <kritCoin> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0032
2195 2013-03-08 14:22:32 <kritCoin> I LIKE
2196 2013-03-08 14:22:38 <kritCoin> so when is the meetup in Zurich
2197 2013-03-08 14:22:49 <kritCoin> i live here you know, would be cool to meet up
2198 2013-03-08 14:23:52 <CodeShark> if the other machine indicates a much higher block count, we might want to wait
2199 2013-03-08 14:23:55 <CodeShark> etc...
2200 2013-03-08 14:24:32 <CodeShark> of course, if the other machine is not online we can't do this
2201 2013-03-08 14:25:04 <CodeShark> but then we can limit the restriction to not spending from the same wallet from two different machines unless the machine is caught up
2202 2013-03-08 14:25:35 <CodeShark> rather than just blanketly saying never use the same wallet from two different machines
2203 2013-03-08 14:27:11 <CodeShark> and synching the two machines would be relatively straightforward
2204 2013-03-08 14:27:15 <CodeShark> or making sure they are synched
2205 2013-03-08 14:28:10 axhlf has joined
2206 2013-03-08 14:28:14 <CodeShark> if the change addresses and receiving addresses get mixed, however, you can never get both wallets to be in the same state again
2207 2013-03-08 14:30:49 vampireb has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
2208 2013-03-08 14:31:05 <TD> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=150588.0
2209 2013-03-08 14:31:18 <TD> finally an SPV client with performance that matches server-based solutions
2210 2013-03-08 14:31:37 <Luke-Jr> Electrum doesn't count?
2211 2013-03-08 14:31:56 <TD> last i saw, electrum is not actually an SPV client. it still uses random servers that you have to manually add.
2212 2013-03-08 14:32:27 <sipa> it does SPV-style verification, but it is not a p2p node
2213 2013-03-08 14:32:28 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2214 2013-03-08 14:32:30 <Luke-Jr> but IIRC it's SPV now (which doesn't care about the protocol)
2215 2013-03-08 14:32:44 <TD> why would you still rely on custom servers, if you had actually implemented the full SPV mode?
2216 2013-03-08 14:32:56 <sipa> in theory, their approach can be faster
2217 2013-03-08 14:32:59 <Luke-Jr> simpler code?
2218 2013-03-08 14:33:01 <TD> what is their approach?
2219 2013-03-08 14:33:12 <sipa> have an address-based index on the server
2220 2013-03-08 14:33:29 <kritCoin> oh, so the blockchain is remote
2221 2013-03-08 14:33:36 <kritCoin> and they keep some kind of index locally
2222 2013-03-08 14:33:43 <sipa> just a wallet, locally
2223 2013-03-08 14:33:47 <Luke-Jr> kritCoin: that's SPV..
2224 2013-03-08 14:33:53 <kritCoin> oh
2225 2013-03-08 14:33:57 <sipa> SPV still needs (a part of) the block headers locally
2226 2013-03-08 14:34:02 ovidiusoft has joined
2227 2013-03-08 14:34:02 <kritCoin> not familiar with acronyms
2228 2013-03-08 14:34:13 <kritCoin> SPV
2229 2013-03-08 14:34:16 <TD> what's the point of the server side index, given you have to download the block headers anyway and can fetch the transactions at the same time?
2230 2013-03-08 14:34:31 <kritCoin> less IO
2231 2013-03-08 14:34:32 <Luke-Jr> TD: download just the headers?
2232 2013-03-08 14:34:42 <kritCoin> mmmm
2233 2013-03-08 14:34:45 gdoteoff has quit (Quit: Bye)
2234 2013-03-08 14:34:55 <CodeShark> SPV = just check proof of work, do not check transactions and signatures, right?
2235 2013-03-08 14:35:01 mogri has quit (Changing host)
2236 2013-03-08 14:35:01 mogri has joined
2237 2013-03-08 14:35:04 <sipa> CodeShark: correct
2238 2013-03-08 14:35:06 gdoteof has joined
2239 2013-03-08 14:35:06 <CodeShark> what do the letters stand for? :)
2240 2013-03-08 14:35:07 <kritCoin> I am putting the blockchain on oracle, I am getting marvelous performance sofar
2241 2013-03-08 14:35:14 <TD> Luke-Jr: you still need the transactions
2242 2013-03-08 14:35:17 <Luke-Jr> eh, I'd think you'd check the signatures as well, but only of the trasnactions you care about?
2243 2013-03-08 14:35:27 <sipa> CodeShark: and verify that the transactions you receive belong to the verified block (headers)
2244 2013-03-08 14:35:28 <TD> Luke-Jr: otherwise you can't verify they're actually in the blocks and you aren't "verifying payments"
2245 2013-03-08 14:35:37 <Luke-Jr> TD: merkle links
2246 2013-03-08 14:35:41 <sipa> Luke-Jr: you can't do verifications without UTXO sets
2247 2013-03-08 14:35:56 <TD> Luke-Jr: you can't verify a merkle branch without actually knowing the transaction so you can verify it hashes to the leaf node on the branch
2248 2013-03-08 14:36:07 <Luke-Jr> TD: hence the server-side index..
2249 2013-03-08 14:36:11 <kritCoin> indexes "point" to real data, thats what the do
2250 2013-03-08 14:36:25 <kritCoin> Its open source this client?
2251 2013-03-08 14:36:28 <TD> https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/master/lib/verifier.py
2252 2013-03-08 14:36:30 <kritCoin> so we can look at code?
2253 2013-03-08 14:36:32 <TD> that appears to be the relevant code
2254 2013-03-08 14:37:01 <kritCoin> oh ok
2255 2013-03-08 14:37:08 <TD> it downloads headers from a single server?
2256 2013-03-08 14:37:36 <kritCoin> with desktop having 16G intern memory, keeping the blockchain in locked memory is no biggy
2257 2013-03-08 14:37:37 <sipa> it does everything with a single server, afaik
2258 2013-03-08 14:37:43 Namworld has quit ()
2259 2013-03-08 14:37:54 <kritCoin> there might be a failover system)
2260 2013-03-08 14:37:59 <TD> that rather defeats the point
2261 2013-03-08 14:38:03 <kritCoin> its a single ip
2262 2013-03-08 14:38:10 <kritCoin> doesnt mean it is a single machine
2263 2013-03-08 14:38:33 <Luke-Jr> kritCoin: it's TCP, so it does
2264 2013-03-08 14:38:36 gdoteof_ has joined
2265 2013-03-08 14:38:41 <kritCoin> could be a whole farm behind it
2266 2013-03-08 14:38:53 <TD> it's not "single machine" that's the issue, it's "single trust point"
2267 2013-03-08 14:38:58 <Luke-Jr> sipa: it works with a single server, but users are able/encouraged to run them
2268 2013-03-08 14:39:01 <kritCoin> ip is short for ip-address
2269 2013-03-08 14:39:08 <TD> the SPV section of satoshis paper is quite clear. you're suppose to seek out the longest/hardest block chain you can find
2270 2013-03-08 14:39:22 <TD> otherwise nothing stops someone from just forging a chain of minimal difficulty
2271 2013-03-08 14:39:30 <kritCoin> true
2272 2013-03-08 14:39:36 <kritCoin> I dont like these shortcuts
2273 2013-03-08 14:39:45 <kritCoin> just keep that bc local
2274 2013-03-08 14:39:46 <kritCoin> !
2275 2013-03-08 14:39:54 <kritCoin> whats 6G anyway these days
2276 2013-03-08 14:39:58 <TD> as far as i know only bitcoinj actually implements SPV mode as described in the paper
2277 2013-03-08 14:40:08 <sipa> TD: same
2278 2013-03-08 14:40:14 tyn has joined
2279 2013-03-08 14:40:38 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
2280 2013-03-08 14:41:04 plaisn has joined
2281 2013-03-08 14:41:10 <TD> this code is a bit odd.
2282 2013-03-08 14:42:49 <CodeShark> oh...SPV = simplified payment verification :)
2283 2013-03-08 14:43:49 <TD> it basically relies on the server to tell it when a re-org occurs. and also to tell it when transactions exist.
2284 2013-03-08 14:43:49 <sipa> yeah
2285 2013-03-08 14:44:13 <TD> it's like someone was told "you should verify that transactions are in the chain using merkle branches" but didn't really understand what it meant
2286 2013-03-08 14:44:14 <TD> oh well
2287 2013-03-08 14:44:36 <sipa> TD: well it does prevent someone from claiming you receive a transaction that isn't confirmed
2288 2013-03-08 14:44:51 <sipa> but you still have to trust the server for serving you the correct best chain
2289 2013-03-08 14:45:18 <CodeShark> by hitting up a bunch of random bitcoin nodes and querying for their height you should be able to get a sense for what the correct height should be
2290 2013-03-08 14:45:21 <sipa> and also that it doesn't omit transactions, but BIP37 has that problem too
2291 2013-03-08 14:45:45 <TD> it's not really an issue with the BIP. a client can easily overlap requests to different nodes. bitcoinj though, does not do it today.
2292 2013-03-08 14:45:57 <CodeShark> as long as the nodes you hit up are not in collusion, if something funny's going on you'll notice
2293 2013-03-08 14:46:04 <TD> CodeShark: doesn't matter. the electrum server can serve you a chain of the right height but wrong difficulty.
2294 2013-03-08 14:46:38 <CodeShark> I suppose that's true, TD - but you can also query for a few random individual blocks from different nodes
2295 2013-03-08 14:47:06 <TD> well, yes, you can do all kinds of things to fix it, and eventually you arrive at just talking to the P2P network as it was intended to work
2296 2013-03-08 14:47:06 <CodeShark> any anomaly will show rather quickly
2297 2013-03-08 14:47:10 <CodeShark> without needing too many queries
2298 2013-03-08 14:47:25 <TD> at which point you don't need a special remote server anymore
2299 2013-03-08 14:47:44 <kritCoin> TD, LOL
2300 2013-03-08 14:48:16 <CodeShark> I agree,
2301 2013-03-08 14:48:18 boothill has left ()
2302 2013-03-08 14:48:20 <CodeShark> TD
2303 2013-03-08 14:48:55 <CodeShark> it's silly to use a nonstandard protocol on top of the p2p protocol to do things that the p2p protocol can already do
2304 2013-03-08 14:49:39 <TD> welll, when this code was written the p2p protocol couldn't do what the author wanted. the right fix for which of course is to fix the p2p protocol as BlueMatt and I did
2305 2013-03-08 14:50:14 <CodeShark> so then there's your answer to why it is the way it is :)
2306 2013-03-08 14:50:23 g2x3k has joined
2307 2013-03-08 14:50:27 <TD> i can't find any unit tests for that code either. sigh.
2308 2013-03-08 14:50:29 <TD> oh well.
2309 2013-03-08 14:51:22 Quazgaa has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2310 2013-03-08 14:51:52 t2che is now known as tsche
2311 2013-03-08 14:52:10 <CodeShark> the author was probably more interested in developing an immediately working solution than in trying to convince others to adopt it
2312 2013-03-08 14:53:12 <CodeShark> now that solutions have been adopted, the electrum approach might be obsolete
2313 2013-03-08 14:53:50 <TD> point is, the solution implemented there doesn't actually work, so it's also rather misleading to call it "spv mode". well, whatever. i agree it's obsolete now.
2314 2013-03-08 14:54:07 <bitnumus> so, there is no way to dump the private keys for a whole wallet?
2315 2013-03-08 14:54:09 <bitnumus> easily
2316 2013-03-08 14:54:13 Prattler has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2317 2013-03-08 14:54:25 <sipa> bitnumus: i had a patch once, but never made it into a proper pullreq
2318 2013-03-08 14:55:01 <CodeShark> I'm tempted to just add an RPC parameter to list used change addresses...but I'm busy with other crap now :p
2319 2013-03-08 14:55:07 <bitnumus> i thought it would be pretty big for alot of people
2320 2013-03-08 14:55:17 <bitnumus> who dont trust magnetic disks or flash media
2321 2013-03-08 14:55:27 Prattler has joined
2322 2013-03-08 14:55:32 <CodeShark> I totally agree that a text format for the wallet is desirable
2323 2013-03-08 14:55:46 <CodeShark> something that any printer can print
2324 2013-03-08 14:55:53 <HM2> base58!
2325 2013-03-08 14:55:58 <jouke> pywallet does a pretty good job
2326 2013-03-08 14:56:09 rdymac has joined
2327 2013-03-08 14:56:29 <jouke> The old one, the one that doesn't use a web interface
2328 2013-03-08 14:56:36 <HM2> I should start a web wallet service that issues wallet backups on postcards from nice places
2329 2013-03-08 14:56:39 paraipan has joined
2330 2013-03-08 14:56:41 <sipa> CodeShark: https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commits/showwallet
2331 2013-03-08 14:56:47 <sipa> it might even still compile :p
2332 2013-03-08 14:56:56 <CodeShark> haha
2333 2013-03-08 14:57:02 <sipa> damn... authored 2 years ago :S
2334 2013-03-08 14:58:59 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2335 2013-03-08 15:00:30 ovidiusoft has joined
2336 2013-03-08 15:00:50 gdbz has joined
2337 2013-03-08 15:02:10 bytedisorder has quit (Quit: Page closed)
2338 2013-03-08 15:03:34 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
2339 2013-03-08 15:03:42 ciphermonk has joined
2340 2013-03-08 15:03:56 gdoteof has joined
2341 2013-03-08 15:04:40 Quazgaa has joined
2342 2013-03-08 15:06:04 <bitnumus> well
2343 2013-03-08 15:06:19 <bitnumus> i dont really want to move coins to a fresh wallet with newly generated addresses
2344 2013-03-08 15:06:25 <bitnumus> just to get privkeys
2345 2013-03-08 15:06:40 <bitnumus> i get paranoid about moving coins lol
2346 2013-03-08 15:06:47 swappermall has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2347 2013-03-08 15:06:48 <CodeShark> you can send the coins to another address in the same wallet
2348 2013-03-08 15:06:56 <CodeShark> and then just export that privkey
2349 2013-03-08 15:07:03 <bitnumus> if its alot fo coins its risky
2350 2013-03-08 15:07:11 <bitnumus> and not advised i thought to keep too many on a single address
2351 2013-03-08 15:07:12 <CodeShark> you can do it in batches
2352 2013-03-08 15:07:38 <CodeShark> doesn't have to be a single transaction
2353 2013-03-08 15:07:42 <bitnumus> i guess i could just dump the keys for the addresses with largest balances?
2354 2013-03-08 15:07:58 <CodeShark> as long as they are not change addresses :)
2355 2013-03-08 15:08:06 <bitnumus> why?
2356 2013-03-08 15:08:19 <CodeShark> I don't think the RPC gives you any access to change addresses in text format
2357 2013-03-08 15:08:37 <CodeShark> unless you want to go through the transactions themselves and parse it out
2358 2013-03-08 15:09:08 <bitnumus> so is that 'listunspent' the way to go?
2359 2013-03-08 15:09:32 <CodeShark> I would like to have that feature - but even then it wouldn't be a complete wallet backup
2360 2013-03-08 15:09:41 <CodeShark> to fully backup the wallet you also need to export the account info
2361 2013-03-08 15:11:30 <sipa> and address book
2362 2013-03-08 15:11:43 <bitnumus> so the best thing to do is have a wallet and never spend anything you send to it, for storage?
2363 2013-03-08 15:12:18 <bitnumus> fresh wallet, 10 addresses, dump privkeys for them and send to them ?
2364 2013-03-08 15:12:31 <CodeShark> that's one approach, sure
2365 2013-03-08 15:13:08 <CodeShark> and if you generate a raw transaction to spend from them you can control the change addresses directly
2366 2013-03-08 15:14:15 <CodeShark> so you can either send the change back to the same address (if you're not too concerned about privacy)...or you can send predetermined amounts to them which you spend in their entirety
2367 2013-03-08 15:14:18 <bitnumus> its annoying because i've only done a few transactions from this wallet
2368 2013-03-08 15:14:55 <bitnumus> quick question, different topic
2369 2013-03-08 15:15:07 <grau> bitnumus: print a note using bitaddress.org and transfer to that address. Should you ever need to spend it import private key into wallet. I think this is safest.
2370 2013-03-08 15:15:08 <CodeShark> or you can convert your binary wallet to base64 or hex or something that's easily printable :)
2371 2013-03-08 15:15:19 <bitnumus> will the satoshi client never generate a keypool that isnt in the blockchian?
2372 2013-03-08 15:15:25 <bitnumus> can 2 keys be generated the same?
2373 2013-03-08 15:15:39 <sipa> bitnumus: in theory, yes; in practice (given a good PRNG), no
2374 2013-03-08 15:15:58 <CodeShark> given a good PRNG, there's a greater probability of all the atoms of your body quantum tunneling to mars
2375 2013-03-08 15:16:08 <bitnumus> PRNG?
2376 2013-03-08 15:16:16 <sipa> pseudo-random number generator
2377 2013-03-08 15:16:30 <CodeShark> bitnumus, the number of possible addresses is 2^160, a HUGE number
2378 2013-03-08 15:16:30 Diablo-D3 has joined
2379 2013-03-08 15:16:41 <CodeShark> meaning the probability of a collision is so tiny as to not even be cause for concern
2380 2013-03-08 15:16:43 <bitnumus> big enoguh for a collision ?
2381 2013-03-08 15:16:44 <sipa> 1461501637330902918203684832716283019655932542976 to be precise
2382 2013-03-08 15:16:57 <CodeShark> the earth will get hit by an asteroid before a collision occurs (assuming a good RNG)
2383 2013-03-08 15:17:09 <BTC_Bear> 2^80 odds are better. :P
2384 2013-03-08 15:17:14 <bitnumus> alot of in theories and assumptions
2385 2013-03-08 15:17:25 <CodeShark> no, this number is exact
2386 2013-03-08 15:17:34 <CodeShark> what is not exact is the RNG :)
2387 2013-03-08 15:17:53 <bitnumus> how logn would it take to generate all the addresses possible, with current tech
2388 2013-03-08 15:18:04 <bitnumus> i guess with something like vanitygen
2389 2013-03-08 15:18:15 <bitnumus> think its faster than the satoshi client at generating addresses
2390 2013-03-08 15:18:31 <BTC_Bear> bitnumus: It's not just the 'time', it's the 'energy'.
2391 2013-03-08 15:18:32 <CodeShark> bitnumus, I'm not sure you appreciate the scale of this number :)
2392 2013-03-08 15:18:38 <bitnumus> i was thiking about vanity addresses, and how possible it is for smoeone to stumble upon one of my addreses.
2393 2013-03-08 15:18:43 <bitnumus> no i dont :P
2394 2013-03-08 15:19:02 <bitnumus> the asteroid context wasnt good enough i guess
2395 2013-03-08 15:19:11 <bitnumus> didnt russia recently get hit by one? :P
2396 2013-03-08 15:19:24 <sipa> bitnumus: i like this calculation: assume the current bitcoin mining hashpower is entirely converted to cracking adddresses, and all available satoshis are distributed over different addresses, there is about 0.0000001% chance per millenium to hit a used address
2397 2013-03-08 15:19:28 <bitnumus> or tis that a meteor  lol
2398 2013-03-08 15:19:46 <bitnumus> ok thats pretty large
2399 2013-03-08 15:20:00 <BTC_Bear> bitnumus: It's not very likely... but then again you might collide with the very first address.
2400 2013-03-08 15:20:01 <bitnumus> ok thanks, ill have a play in a bit and decide what to do
2401 2013-03-08 15:20:16 <bitnumus> BTC_Bear, yea i was banking on that actually
2402 2013-03-08 15:20:20 <BTC_Bear> lol
2403 2013-03-08 15:20:29 <bitnumus> 1Satoshi something isnt it?
2404 2013-03-08 15:20:43 <bitnumus> let me fire up oclvanitygen
2405 2013-03-08 15:20:45 <bitnumus> :)
2406 2013-03-08 15:20:47 <kritCoin> http://www.opengamma.com
2407 2013-03-08 15:21:12 <CodeShark> bitnumus: the address space is big enough so that every single atom of every single human on earth could have 29826564027 all to themselves :)
2408 2013-03-08 15:21:23 <kritCoin> lol
2409 2013-03-08 15:22:26 <CodeShark> not all the addresses might be spendable, though
2410 2013-03-08 15:23:06 <CodeShark> although figuring out which ones is a totally intractable problem with todays (or any foreseeable) technology
2411 2013-03-08 15:25:24 <CodeShark> but assuming a uniform hash distribution of sha256 and ripemd160, it stands to reason that a high proportion of them are
2412 2013-03-08 15:25:46 <CodeShark> spendable, that is
2413 2013-03-08 15:25:51 MrKain has joined
2414 2013-03-08 15:26:45 <BTC_Bear> meh... Just put a satoshi in every address created. So when the collision occurs, they can get their reward. :)
2415 2013-03-08 15:26:56 <CodeShark> lol
2416 2013-03-08 15:29:19 gavinandresen has joined
2417 2013-03-08 15:29:19 gavinandresen has quit (Changing host)
2418 2013-03-08 15:29:19 gavinandresen has joined
2419 2013-03-08 15:29:49 <gavinandresen> bloggity-bloggity this morning: https://bitcoinfoundation.org/blog/?p=135
2420 2013-03-08 15:30:23 <gavinandresen> … please let me know if I said something stupid so I can change it real quick before anybody else reads
2421 2013-03-08 15:32:20 <Vinnie_win> 0.8 sounds so underwhelming
2422 2013-03-08 15:32:23 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
2423 2013-03-08 15:32:44 <gavinandresen> 0.8 was an "exciting to developers, boring to users" release
2424 2013-03-08 15:32:44 <CodeShark> 0.7 to 0.8 actually represents a significant change in the database
2425 2013-03-08 15:32:47 gdoteof has joined
2426 2013-03-08 15:33:01 <CodeShark> well, many users were happy with the faster sync times
2427 2013-03-08 15:33:11 <Vinnie_win> No, I mean why are we using small numbers. "1.0" would be more appropriate along with a big rollout
2428 2013-03-08 15:33:12 <CodeShark> but it didn't really add any other blatant new features
2429 2013-03-08 15:33:44 <CodeShark> it did add some more subtle features
2430 2013-03-08 15:33:54 <CodeShark> or features which are not really being currently used yet
2431 2013-03-08 15:34:04 <Luke-Jr> Vinnie_win: 1.0 means all the basic features are done, and it's stable
2432 2013-03-08 15:34:09 <Luke-Jr> Vinnie_win: Bitcoin-Qt is neither
2433 2013-03-08 15:34:26 MrKain has quit (Quit: Page closed)
2434 2013-03-08 15:34:33 <Luke-Jr> at the current rate, we'll probably be up to 0.20 before 1.0
2435 2013-03-08 15:34:48 <gavinandresen> My 1.0 feature list has been the same for years, and the only things missing are secure-even-if-your-machine-is-pwned wallet and automatic-so-it-is-hard-to-lose-your-wallet backups.
2436 2013-03-08 15:34:51 <abrkn> with bitcoind 0.8 on windows i always get "no such host is known" when using -rpcconnect, even if supplying an ip. what can i do?
2437 2013-03-08 15:35:04 <Luke-Jr> gavinandresen: oh? instant-on isn't on there? O.o
2438 2013-03-08 15:35:19 Aexoden has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2439 2013-03-08 15:35:25 <gavinandresen> I can live without instant-on
2440 2013-03-08 15:35:26 Aexoden has joined
2441 2013-03-08 15:35:48 <Luke-Jr> heh, guess we need to save *something* for 2.0 :p
2442 2013-03-08 15:35:48 <MobGod> anyone know if there is a bit coin ticker for Mac?
2443 2013-03-08 15:35:51 <MobGod> or OSX
2444 2013-03-08 15:35:57 <Luke-Jr> MobGod: #Bitcoin
2445 2013-03-08 15:36:03 abrkn\ has joined
2446 2013-03-08 15:36:03 abrkn is now known as Guest63861
2447 2013-03-08 15:36:43 <MobGod> i'm in #bitcoin
2448 2013-03-08 15:36:58 <MobGod> oh shit sorry i see now
2449 2013-03-08 15:37:04 coolsa has joined
2450 2013-03-08 15:37:10 <sipa> abrkn: that's strange
2451 2013-03-08 15:39:01 tsche has quit ()
2452 2013-03-08 15:39:11 <Vinnie_win> evoorhees claims that Roger Ver and Jon Matonis are not involved with SatoshiDICE
2453 2013-03-08 15:39:16 Guest63861 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2454 2013-03-08 15:39:30 nonick has joined
2455 2013-03-08 15:39:50 <Vinnie_win> can anyone confirm or deny that?
2456 2013-03-08 15:41:09 <Luke-Jr> Vinnie_win: sounds likely
2457 2013-03-08 15:41:21 <abrkn\> sipa. yeah, really frustrating. it's possible i have some weird settings (i do a lot of development, lots of tools)
2458 2013-03-08 15:41:27 <abrkn\> sipa: just no idea where to look
2459 2013-03-08 15:41:49 <abrkn\> sipa: trying to understand what the error means when it shows when connecting to an ip
2460 2013-03-08 15:42:10 darkee has quit (!~darkee@gateway/tor-sasl/darkee|Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2461 2013-03-08 15:42:32 <abrkn\> sipa: just tried 0.7.2, same problem
2462 2013-03-08 15:42:40 <abrkn\> PS C:\Program Files (x86)\Bitcoin\daemon> .\bitcoind72.exe -rpcconnect=127.0.0.1
2463 2013-03-08 15:42:40 <abrkn\> error: resolve: No such host is known
2464 2013-03-08 15:42:41 <sipa> what is your exact command line?
2465 2013-03-08 15:42:58 <sipa> huh
2466 2013-03-08 15:43:03 <abrkn\> is it wrong? :-|
2467 2013-03-08 15:48:23 daybyter has joined
2468 2013-03-08 15:48:37 <TD> gavinandresen: lgtm
2469 2013-03-08 15:48:55 <TD> gavinandresen: the trezor will be, i think, the best solution for now for anti-virus protection
2470 2013-03-08 15:49:05 <gavinandresen> sipa: FYI the last couple days I've been working on using boost::thread::interrupt() and boost::thread::interruption_points  to replace the global fShutdown flag polling we're doing now
2471 2013-03-08 15:49:12 <sipa> gavinandresen: oh, nice!
2472 2013-03-08 15:49:23 <TD> gavinandresen: secure wallet backups is .... hard.
2473 2013-03-08 15:49:28 ByteUnit has joined
2474 2013-03-08 15:49:32 * TD is still pondering the best way to do that
2475 2013-03-08 15:49:49 <gavinandresen> TD: when you figure it out, let us know....
2476 2013-03-08 15:49:56 vigilyn2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2477 2013-03-08 15:50:06 <grau> TD: would deterministic wallet not solve the problem. You only need to backup the master?
2478 2013-03-08 15:50:08 <TD> i'm tempted to cheat for now and just write some code that uploads to a google drive
2479 2013-03-08 15:50:14 vigilyn has joined
2480 2013-03-08 15:50:21 <TD> grau: not really. keys are not the only things people care about in their wallets.
2481 2013-03-08 15:50:35 <TD> grau: consider all the metadata about who you received/sent money to, proofs of payment in future, etc.
2482 2013-03-08 15:50:53 <grau> everything else can be recreated by parsing the chain
2483 2013-03-08 15:50:58 <TD> ...
2484 2013-03-08 15:51:00 <sipa> eh
2485 2013-03-08 15:51:02 <TD> no it can't
2486 2013-03-08 15:51:11 <sipa> the only thing you can reconstruct is your coins
2487 2013-03-08 15:51:14 <TD> by "metadata" i was meaning things like address labels
2488 2013-03-08 15:51:29 <TD> signed payment requests that you can use to prove you paid someone, etc.
2489 2013-03-08 15:51:31 <sipa> which means you indeed won't lose money with a backup of the deterministic root
2490 2013-03-08 15:51:46 <abrkn\> sipa: was my syntax on the command line correct?
2491 2013-03-08 15:51:53 <TD> also, simply saying "you only have to back up once" is great, but that doesn't mean people will actually do it
2492 2013-03-08 15:51:54 <grau> thats what i meant with wallet
2493 2013-03-08 15:51:59 <TD> if it's one click, maybe they will ....
2494 2013-03-08 15:52:09 <TD> ok. so real wallets actually contain more than keys and transactions.
2495 2013-03-08 15:52:15 <etotheipi_> they *generally* do it with Armory
2496 2013-03-08 15:52:27 tsche has joined
2497 2013-03-08 15:52:35 <etotheipi_> it's tough to say percentages, since I've still gotten quite a few people contact me for help recovering their lost passphrase
2498 2013-03-08 15:52:45 ashams has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2499 2013-03-08 15:52:58 <etotheipi_> but it's only a few times in the past year... compared to the thousands of downloads
2500 2013-03-08 15:53:11 <CodeShark> account info, address labels, signed text, etc...can be backed up with lower security requirements than the master key of a deterministic wallet
2501 2013-03-08 15:53:27 <Vinnie_win> evoorhees responding to SD transaction spam: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=150493.msg1600315#msg1600315
2502 2013-03-08 15:53:28 <sipa> CodeShark: still privacy-risky, but indeed
2503 2013-03-08 15:53:29 <CodeShark> which means you can just passphrase encrypt and store on other servers or something simple
2504 2013-03-08 15:53:39 <CodeShark> without requiring a super long passphrase
2505 2013-03-08 15:54:20 <TD> the trick being "store on other servers"
2506 2013-03-08 15:54:58 <TD> and yeah, i'm not actually sure private data about who you interacted with is always less sensitive than the private keys. yes, there's a class of attackers who only care about stealing the keys. but there are other classes who just want to know who you interact with.
2507 2013-03-08 15:55:00 zooko has joined
2508 2013-03-08 15:55:10 <TD> but yes, splitting the data out might be a good next step
2509 2013-03-08 15:55:51 <grau> splitting master key from the rest is a good idea
2510 2013-03-08 15:56:06 <grau> people arent that sensitive of losing labels than money
2511 2013-03-08 15:57:56 ItsDom has joined
2512 2013-03-08 15:58:26 <abrkn\> i'm struggling to use "bitcoin" from npm after upgrade to 0.8. is it defaulting to ssl or something? getting a 401. was fine in 0.7
2513 2013-03-08 15:58:45 <sipa> nothing changed
2514 2013-03-08 15:59:32 <ItsDom> is there any incentive for miners to keep accepting new transactions? Why don't miners try and hash block with barely any transactions in instead?
2515 2013-03-08 15:59:38 <TD> well, they will be once they start needing the data to calculate their tax ....
2516 2013-03-08 15:59:39 hydrogenesis has joined
2517 2013-03-08 16:00:01 <TD> ItsDom: fees+altruism+desire for bitcoin to actually work
2518 2013-03-08 16:00:08 ThomasV has joined
2519 2013-03-08 16:00:11 <TD> ItsDom: plus it doesn't really cost them anything to add txns
2520 2013-03-08 16:00:29 <ItsDom> but if they add a transaction, they have to recalculate the merkle root to hash the block header, right?
2521 2013-03-08 16:00:47 <Scrat> abrkn\: i am using bitcoin from npm just fine. just setting rpc user and password
2522 2013-03-08 16:01:06 mappum has joined
2523 2013-03-08 16:01:11 <CodeShark> recalculation of the merkle root is FAR less frequent than hash calculations
2524 2013-03-08 16:01:12 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
2525 2013-03-08 16:01:28 <CodeShark> header hash calculations, that is
2526 2013-03-08 16:01:30 defunctzombie_zz is now known as defunctzombie
2527 2013-03-08 16:01:58 <CodeShark> the transaction frequency is a few tx per seconds at most
2528 2013-03-08 16:02:09 <CodeShark> during peak usage
2529 2013-03-08 16:02:31 <CodeShark> at 1GH/s, that makes the transaction updates negligible
2530 2013-03-08 16:02:36 <abrkn\> Scrat: weird. my password is insanely long, could that matter?
2531 2013-03-08 16:03:34 <ItsDom> it must be more than a few seconds. one new transaction every 3 seconds would mean each block would only have ~300 transactions?
2532 2013-03-08 16:04:09 <CodeShark> a few tx per second
2533 2013-03-08 16:04:11 <CodeShark> at peak
2534 2013-03-08 16:04:21 <Scrat> abrkn\: i doubt it but you can try with a smaller one
2535 2013-03-08 16:04:28 <ItsDom> aaah, sorry, i thought you said one every few seconds.
2536 2013-03-08 16:05:51 <CodeShark> there's 86400 seconds in a day - we have yet to see a day with that many bitcoin transactions
2537 2013-03-08 16:05:55 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
2538 2013-03-08 16:06:02 <CodeShark> so on average it's actually less than one tx per second
2539 2013-03-08 16:06:38 <CodeShark> although this number is growing
2540 2013-03-08 16:06:50 <CodeShark> but then again, so is the hashing power
2541 2013-03-08 16:06:54 <abrkn\> Scrat: will try. man, this upgrade has caused me so many tears. worse than 0.6->0.7 ;)
2542 2013-03-08 16:07:25 <CodeShark> if 0.7 -> 0.8 is causing you troubles, chances are you're doing something wrong :p
2543 2013-03-08 16:07:40 <ItsDom> okay, thanks. I'm trying to think of  the time complexity of a hash tree, but can't:(
2544 2013-03-08 16:07:51 <abrkn\> CodeShark: it's not the doing wrong part that's bothering me. it's the not-working part that's bothering me
2545 2013-03-08 16:08:08 <Scrat> abrkn\: I sure hope you;'re running all of that on *nix, because the command line stuff you pasted was windows
2546 2013-03-08 16:08:20 <ItsDom> creating a hash tree of say 700 tx must require a fair few hashes...
2547 2013-03-08 16:08:34 <CodeShark> running any version on windows is a source of pain :p
2548 2013-03-08 16:08:49 <ItsDom> lol "defenestration"
2549 2013-03-08 16:09:16 <TD> hashing is super fast
2550 2013-03-08 16:09:35 <CodeShark> unless it requires on the order of a billion hashes, ItsDom, it's negligible :)
2551 2013-03-08 16:09:54 <ItsDom> I'm going to figure it out now:P
2552 2013-03-08 16:10:12 <ItsDom> wish i'd stuck at maths past AS-level now ¬_¬
2553 2013-03-08 16:10:35 <abrkn\> Scrat: my desktop is windows, my servers are ubuntu
2554 2013-03-08 16:11:23 <CodeShark> ItsDom, the number of hashes grows as log n
2555 2013-03-08 16:11:26 <Scrat> abrkn\: I see that there has been a new commit on node-bitcoin adding SSL in the last 2 hrs, maybe he broke it?
2556 2013-03-08 16:11:39 <CodeShark> n being the number of transactions
2557 2013-03-08 16:11:40 etotheipi_ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
2558 2013-03-08 16:11:54 <Scrat> oh, he is here. ping freewil
2559 2013-03-08 16:12:14 <abrkn\> Scrat: that'd be pretty weird, i'll try an earlier version
2560 2013-03-08 16:12:29 <gmaxwell> ItsDom: solving a block requires on average ~18759884576600517 hash operations. Updating transactions every couple of seconds is irrelevant. :P
2561 2013-03-08 16:12:50 <abrkn\> Scrat: 1.5.0 is timestamped 2012-10-13
2562 2013-03-08 16:13:11 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2563 2013-03-08 16:13:21 <abrkn\> Scrat: the 401 issues are happening from my heroku --> bitcoind on ubuntu. could be... anything
2564 2013-03-08 16:13:47 copumpkin has joined
2565 2013-03-08 16:13:50 <Scrat> could be heroku fucking with your request for one
2566 2013-03-08 16:13:56 <abrkn\> Scrat: was my idea also
2567 2013-03-08 16:14:44 <CodeShark> I hate developing on servers behind "clever" layers that alter requests
2568 2013-03-08 16:14:46 <abrkn\> today's just one of those days where i knew exactly what to do and everything that used to work fucks up
2569 2013-03-08 16:14:46 <CodeShark> lol
2570 2013-03-08 16:14:59 <CodeShark> makes debugging next to impossible
2571 2013-03-08 16:15:04 <Scrat> CodeShark: word
2572 2013-03-08 16:15:18 <abrkn\> and theres no convenient way for me to see wtf they're doing
2573 2013-03-08 16:15:22 <abrkn\> if anythign
2574 2013-03-08 16:16:29 <Scrat> abrkn\: you should get a bitcoind running in a VM and develop locally, if you're not doing that already
2575 2013-03-08 16:16:38 bitit has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2576 2013-03-08 16:16:42 dawei101 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
2577 2013-03-08 16:17:29 <abrkn\> Scrat: i just run it on windows locally
2578 2013-03-08 16:18:26 <Scrat> that would open a world of pain for me.. if dev and production OSes are different
2579 2013-03-08 16:18:33 <ItsDom> yeah, so around 35 million hashes a day on figuring out the merkle root, assuming 700 tx per block and a block every 10 mins. not much in the scale of how many hashes it takes to find a block.
2580 2013-03-08 16:19:12 <abrkn\> Scrat: all the programs are the same. node, git, etc.
2581 2013-03-08 16:19:20 <abrkn\> Scrat: some pgsql
2582 2013-03-08 16:20:11 <CodeShark> the deployment mechanism is different, though
2583 2013-03-08 16:20:18 <CodeShark> and each has different quirks
2584 2013-03-08 16:20:30 <HM2> boost multi_index is driving me spare
2585 2013-03-08 16:20:41 <HM2> the template errors indecipherable
2586 2013-03-08 16:20:44 <abrkn\> git push heroku prod prod:master? :)
2587 2013-03-08 16:20:50 <abrkn\> same everywhere hehe
2588 2013-03-08 16:21:13 <CodeShark> I guess if you're not running any compiled code it's less of a concern
2589 2013-03-08 16:21:51 <abrkn\> CodeShark: aye, i avoid any binary deps like the plague. only made exceptions for mongodb-native, pg, bcrypt
2590 2013-03-08 16:22:24 <CodeShark> if you don't care about performance, I guess that's ok :(
2591 2013-03-08 16:22:29 <CodeShark> err
2592 2013-03-08 16:22:31 <CodeShark> meant to be :)
2593 2013-03-08 16:22:39 <CodeShark> finger slipped :P
2594 2013-03-08 16:22:49 <HM2> damn header dependencies
2595 2013-03-08 16:23:37 <abrkn\> CodeShark: stuff like ssl, zlib, ... is already native in node for all os'es
2596 2013-03-08 16:24:03 <CodeShark> right, if your only optimization point is libraries
2597 2013-03-08 16:24:07 <CodeShark> then it's fine
2598 2013-03-08 16:24:25 <CodeShark> I'm talking if you need to optimize your own code for performance
2599 2013-03-08 16:25:16 <CodeShark> for many applications, the library calls are by far the most CPU-intensive portions of the app
2600 2013-03-08 16:25:33 <CodeShark> in which case it's fine to use binary distributions of the libraries that already exist
2601 2013-03-08 16:26:02 <CodeShark> granted they are fast enough for your purposes
2602 2013-03-08 16:26:41 <Scrat> binary libs are a non issue. for me it's the incompatiblity of command line stuff, stdi/o, .confs for every daemon you're using, etc
2603 2013-03-08 16:26:52 <Scrat> maintenance procedures
2604 2013-03-08 16:27:09 <CodeShark> actually, that's sort of what I meant by depoyment mechanisms
2605 2013-03-08 16:27:14 <CodeShark> not just the git push stuff
2606 2013-03-08 16:29:52 <abrkn\> CodeShark: these days i'm happy if i don't need to have any servers, but.. never fucking possibe. haha
2607 2013-03-08 16:29:53 <Scrat> not to mention platform specific bugs
2608 2013-03-08 16:29:58 <ItsDom> Does anyone have any idea approximately how long it takes a message to propagate across the majority of the network?
2609 2013-03-08 16:30:38 <helo> i think gavinandresen said the network is a several seconds wide
2610 2013-03-08 16:31:32 <ItsDom> I like it when units of time get involved with spatial concepts:)
2611 2013-03-08 16:31:36 <ItsDom> thanks.
2612 2013-03-08 16:31:52 <Scrat> ItsDom: 3-5 seconds from what ive seen
2613 2013-03-08 16:32:10 <abrkn\> CodeShark: like, i'd rather just use blockchain.info than run my own bitcoind, but their api falls down every now and then
2614 2013-03-08 16:32:21 <ItsDom> that's pretty snappy then!
2615 2013-03-08 16:32:47 <CodeShark> relying on a single service for your bitcoin data sort of defeats the purpose of bitcoin :p
2616 2013-03-08 16:32:50 <Scrat> abrkn\: please dont. it just fails randomly and can (and will) eat payments randomly without calling back
2617 2013-03-08 16:33:10 <abrkn\> Scrat: aye, always run my own bitcoind and look at every block
2618 2013-03-08 16:33:29 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
2619 2013-03-08 16:35:49 CodeShark has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2620 2013-03-08 16:36:22 MC1984_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2621 2013-03-08 16:36:47 PhantomSpark has quit (2!~kvirc@pool-71-251-16-105.nycmny.fios.verizon.net|Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2622 2013-03-08 16:36:59 toffoo has joined
2623 2013-03-08 16:37:23 <ItsDom> do nodes broadcast peers that they've blocked/banned?
2624 2013-03-08 16:38:50 CaptainBlaze has joined
2625 2013-03-08 16:41:43 Guest52271 is now known as topace
2626 2013-03-08 16:41:49 topace has quit (Changing host)
2627 2013-03-08 16:41:49 topace has joined
2628 2013-03-08 16:41:57 <helo> no
2629 2013-03-08 16:42:35 drizztbsd has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2630 2013-03-08 16:43:54 Muis_ has joined
2631 2013-03-08 16:44:03 Muis has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2632 2013-03-08 16:46:23 ovidiusoft has quit (Quit: leaving)
2633 2013-03-08 16:48:59 <kjj> hey, can anyone see if 7a1539601e5928472eec972e4e12445f99c77f201de7bd641c1eb389e5ec464c is being relayed?
2634 2013-03-08 16:50:47 <lianj> kjj: yes, it is
2635 2013-03-08 16:51:04 <grau> kjj: it went through my server
2636 2013-03-08 16:51:08 <lianj> why shouldnt it be
2637 2013-03-08 16:51:29 <lianj> seen 5 minutes ago here
2638 2013-03-08 16:51:38 <kjj> I was just checking.  I couldn't find it on any of the sites that track such things
2639 2013-03-08 16:52:28 <lianj> http://blockexplorer.com/tx/7a1539601e5928472eec972e4e12445f99c77f201de7bd641c1eb389e5ec464c https://coinbase.com/network/transactions/7a1539601e5928472eec972e4e12445f99c77f201de7bd641c1eb389e5ec464c
2640 2013-03-08 16:52:32 <lianj> http://blockchain.info/tx-index/7a1539601e5928472eec972e4e12445f99c77f201de7bd641c1eb389e5ec464c
2641 2013-03-08 16:53:40 <kjj> odd.  I still can't find it by searching on blockchain.info
2642 2013-03-08 16:55:08 Hashdog has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2643 2013-03-08 16:56:01 <grau> you use the same address inn both output. probably blockchain.info cant deal with
2644 2013-03-08 16:56:25 <kjj> heh
2645 2013-03-08 16:56:49 <kjj> yeah, I had just got done posting on the forums that it wouldn't cause any problems, then I decided to test it
2646 2013-03-08 16:57:04 <grau> it should not be a problem for the protocol
2647 2013-03-08 16:57:26 <grau> it might be a problem for some of the chain review tools
2648 2013-03-08 16:57:29 <kjj> agreed.  but I still figured I'd better test it
2649 2013-03-08 16:58:04 <kjj> and some lucky miner is going to earn ~33 cents from that test because I was lazy
2650 2013-03-08 16:58:08 clav8 has joined
2651 2013-03-08 16:58:14 MiningBuddy has joined
2652 2013-03-08 16:58:14 MiningBuddy has quit (Changing host)
2653 2013-03-08 16:58:14 MiningBuddy has joined
2654 2013-03-08 16:58:34 <grau> so you have a positive test. blockchain.info seems to suffer.
2655 2013-03-08 16:58:37 <lianj> no, seems like blockchain.info has some issue atm
2656 2013-03-08 16:58:48 <lianj> not related to that tx
2657 2013-03-08 16:59:22 <kjj> looked like a database error
2658 2013-03-08 16:59:37 <BlueMatt> TD: we fixed the p2p protocol?
2659 2013-03-08 17:00:15 <grau> why not, you might have created a unique constraint viololation in its tx store
2660 2013-03-08 17:00:34 <Diablo-D3> okay so
2661 2013-03-08 17:00:40 <Diablo-D3> why cant I buy steak with bitcoins yet
2662 2013-03-08 17:00:50 <kjj> that would be funny.
2663 2013-03-08 17:01:00 <kjj> I'm also not seeing it on bitcoin charts's unconfirmed list
2664 2013-03-08 17:01:07 <midnightmagic> jgarzik: Hello. Have you updated the blockchain seed torrent recently? (To the latest block checkpoint for 0.8.0 which I think is 210000?
2665 2013-03-08 17:01:17 <jgarzik> midnightmagic: yes
2666 2013-03-08 17:01:26 <midnightmagic> jgarzik: Badass. Thanks.
2667 2013-03-08 17:01:35 <jgarzik> midnightmagic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=145386.0 (new forum thread)
2668 2013-03-08 17:01:50 <HM2> GAH
2669 2013-03-08 17:01:50 <Diablo-D3> gribble: tell jgarzik is the ASIC box still working?
2670 2013-03-08 17:02:13 <grau> There was a checkpoint of 111111 so I rather use 222222 now :P
2671 2013-03-08 17:02:14 BTC_Bear is now known as BTC_Bear|hbrntng
2672 2013-03-08 17:02:16 rdymac has joined
2673 2013-03-08 17:02:45 ItsDom has quit (Quit: Page closed)
2674 2013-03-08 17:03:01 <midnightmagic> jgarzik: Cool beans.
2675 2013-03-08 17:03:51 ashams has joined
2676 2013-03-08 17:03:51 ashams has quit (Changing host)
2677 2013-03-08 17:03:51 ashams has joined
2678 2013-03-08 17:03:56 <kjj> hmm.  blockchain.info seems to have died 26 minutes ago, well before my test.
2679 2013-03-08 17:04:44 ciphermonk has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2680 2013-03-08 17:06:02 <JWU42> sure enough
2681 2013-03-08 17:08:06 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
2682 2013-03-08 17:11:14 TD_ has joined
2683 2013-03-08 17:17:46 TD_ has quit (Quit: TD_)
2684 2013-03-08 17:21:20 CaptainBlaze has quit (Quit: CaptainBlaze)
2685 2013-03-08 17:22:06 Vinnie_win has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2686 2013-03-08 17:22:54 CaptainBlaze has joined
2687 2013-03-08 17:23:31 <fishfish> it's completely insane that blockchain goes down for extended periods of time like that, considering how many wallets they hold
2688 2013-03-08 17:23:46 <midnightmagic> fishfish: Seriously?
2689 2013-03-08 17:24:14 <midnightmagic> ^^ sarcasm fyi
2690 2013-03-08 17:24:23 Vinnie_win has joined
2691 2013-03-08 17:24:40 <helo> the age old rule: the higher the load, the longer the uptime
2692 2013-03-08 17:24:52 <fishfish> midnightmagic: lol
2693 2013-03-08 17:25:23 <midnightmagic> Ooo..  a "security appliance". What the hell does that even mean.
2694 2013-03-08 17:26:45 <Scrat> midnightmagic: equivalent to putting the mcaffee stamp on your website as a token of security
2695 2013-03-08 17:26:55 <Scrat> seen it on a couple of websites, lol'd heartily
2696 2013-03-08 17:27:52 felixhandte has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2697 2013-03-08 17:32:56 Namworld has joined
2698 2013-03-08 17:33:02 <midnightmagic> Scrat: You know what the scary part is, to me? Real security consultants are scared by the huge amount of money government and corps put into security theatre these days, and have convinced themselves that stuxnet/et al are somehow beyond the reach of normal humans. As though cutting-edge security is now well out of the reach of normal humans.
2699 2013-03-08 17:33:24 <midnightmagic> s/scary/depressing/
2700 2013-03-08 17:33:28 vampireb has joined
2701 2013-03-08 17:35:23 xenesis has joined
2702 2013-03-08 17:36:27 <K1773R> who cares about normal humans?
2703 2013-03-08 17:36:39 <midnightmagic> Civilized humans care about normal humans.
2704 2013-03-08 17:36:52 <grazs> agree
2705 2013-03-08 17:36:53 daybyter has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2706 2013-03-08 17:37:48 TD_ has joined
2707 2013-03-08 17:37:53 <Scrat> midnightmagic: well said. cutting edge security to a corporation is a $80k hardware firewall. sad really
2708 2013-03-08 17:38:24 <midnightmagic> Scrat: agree.
2709 2013-03-08 17:38:49 Shealan has left ()
2710 2013-03-08 17:38:55 WallyJr has joined
2711 2013-03-08 17:38:57 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
2712 2013-03-08 17:39:06 daybyter has joined
2713 2013-03-08 17:40:32 daybyter has quit (Client Quit)
2714 2013-03-08 17:45:52 defunctzombie is now known as defunctzombie_zz
2715 2013-03-08 17:48:05 ThomasV has joined
2716 2013-03-08 17:48:45 ThomasV has quit (Client Quit)
2717 2013-03-08 17:51:28 QM has joined
2718 2013-03-08 17:53:05 ciphermonk has joined
2719 2013-03-08 17:53:28 vampireb has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
2720 2013-03-08 17:56:43 dust-otc has joined
2721 2013-03-08 17:59:56 <fishfish> stuxnet is beyond the reach of normal human, because they likely had to build a full reproduction of a nuclear plant somewhere in area51 to develop it
2722 2013-03-08 18:00:17 <WallyJr> Lol
2723 2013-03-08 18:01:40 <WallyJr> Theres security companies that keep backdoors private and sell them at highprice. With enough funds, you get access to 0days and exploits where few ever thought to look
2724 2013-03-08 18:04:58 Lolcust has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2725 2013-03-08 18:05:01 bock has joined
2726 2013-03-08 18:06:19 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
2727 2013-03-08 18:06:37 <midnightmagic> WallyJr: Those derive from individual security researchers and they have always been around, since the beginning. Trading 0-days doesn't require any money. The people who pay money are the ones who can't or won't develop 0-days themselves.
2728 2013-03-08 18:07:25 PhantomSpark has joined
2729 2013-03-08 18:07:28 <midnightmagic> Besides, there are people like this still: http://aluigi.altervista.org/
2730 2013-03-08 18:10:58 <midnightmagic> In my view, it is evil to sell 0-day on the black market. You are doing the equivalent of stealing money, time, effort, information from the eventual victims and converting that into pre-crime profit.
2731 2013-03-08 18:13:17 hydrogenesis has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPad - http://colloquy.mobi)
2732 2013-03-08 18:13:47 gavinandresen has joined
2733 2013-03-08 18:15:44 TD_ has quit (Quit: TD_)
2734 2013-03-08 18:16:47 <sipa> fishfish: as far as i know, you're not even paying them for the service; why would you expect the wallet to be available at all :p
2735 2013-03-08 18:17:31 <WallyJr> Look at the security firm that showed up a googles pwn2own. They hacked chrome quick, and then forfieted and left
2736 2013-03-08 18:17:42 <WallyJr> Thats no good
2737 2013-03-08 18:25:37 ahbritto has joined
2738 2013-03-08 18:25:50 ahbritto_ has joined
2739 2013-03-08 18:27:19 p8m has joined
2740 2013-03-08 18:28:12 Hashdog has joined
2741 2013-03-08 18:29:14 ovidiusoft has joined
2742 2013-03-08 18:31:17 <OneMiner> I was going to learn how to compile -QT, I think I've been defeated. Anybody know of a very n00b friendly step by step hand holdy kind of walkthrough?
2743 2013-03-08 18:31:32 dust-otc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2744 2013-03-08 18:31:43 <sipa> eh... git clone ..; cd bitcoin; qmake; make
2745 2013-03-08 18:31:49 <sipa> + install a few dependencies
2746 2013-03-08 18:32:24 <OneMiner> Windows documentation seems to be lacking.
2747 2013-03-08 18:32:31 <sipa> oh, windows
2748 2013-03-08 18:32:32 <OneMiner> Should have mentioned the W word.
2749 2013-03-08 18:32:42 <sipa> i'd advise you to install a VM with ubuntu then :)
2750 2013-03-08 18:32:51 <sipa> but i can't help you
2751 2013-03-08 18:32:58 <OneMiner> I don't have the RAM to keep a VM all the time. Only 4GB here.
2752 2013-03-08 18:33:29 <OneMiner> Plus my processor is rapidly becoming old. It's got to be Windows or nothing.
2753 2013-03-08 18:35:01 nouitfvf has joined
2754 2013-03-08 18:35:03 nouitfvf has quit (Client Quit)
2755 2013-03-08 18:35:06 pooler has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2756 2013-03-08 18:35:24 nouitfvf has joined
2757 2013-03-08 18:35:36 defunctzombie_zz is now known as defunctzombie
2758 2013-03-08 18:35:42 <WallyJr> Deff update ur cpu
2759 2013-03-08 18:38:17 pooler has joined
2760 2013-03-08 18:38:17 pooler has quit (Changing host)
2761 2013-03-08 18:38:17 pooler has joined
2762 2013-03-08 18:38:21 Diapolo has joined
2763 2013-03-08 18:38:28 <OneMiner> :(
2764 2013-03-08 18:39:15 MC1984 has joined
2765 2013-03-08 18:40:56 BTC_Bear is now known as hbrntng!~BTC_Bear@unaffiliated/btc-bear/x-5233302|BTC_Bear
2766 2013-03-08 18:44:30 Diapolo has left ()
2767 2013-03-08 18:51:20 sgornick has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
2768 2013-03-08 18:51:57 free__ is now known as welovecp
2769 2013-03-08 18:52:47 WallyJr has quit (Quit: AndroIRC - Android IRC Client ( http://www.androirc.com ))
2770 2013-03-08 18:55:14 <QM> I'm trying to come up with a priority function that will allow miners to easily adjust the blocks space given to "normal users" relative to a higher fee-paying minority, to prevent crowding out.
2771 2013-03-08 18:55:22 <QM> This seems to give the kinds of controls a miner would want: (F+F0)*min(A,A0)^w where F and A are the fees and coin-age, respectively, F0 is a boost given to free transactions, A0 is a cap on coin-age to be considered, and w is an adjustable weighting.
2772 2013-03-08 18:55:34 <QM> Is that too many adjustable parameters?  Is this worthwhile?
2773 2013-03-08 18:58:08 TD_ has joined
2774 2013-03-08 18:58:11 MobGod has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2775 2013-03-08 18:59:14 ciphermonk has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2776 2013-03-08 18:59:46 buddyrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2777 2013-03-08 19:06:25 TD_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2778 2013-03-08 19:07:00 Grouver has joined
2779 2013-03-08 19:08:07 TD_ has joined
2780 2013-03-08 19:08:33 grau has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2781 2013-03-08 19:09:55 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: Witness the deep thought and cost calculations that big, important miners put into block sizes: "
2782 2013-03-08 19:09:55 <jgarzik> P.S. During the update I also changed block size limits on stratum servers (as Gavin and Mike asked me). Pool now creates blocks up to 500kB instead of previous limit of 250kB to help the network with increased traffic."
2783 2013-03-08 19:10:16 <TD_> hey. they're just delegating the deep thought to me and gavin ;)
2784 2013-03-08 19:10:28 <TD_> the correct size is of course some multiple of 42
2785 2013-03-08 19:10:34 <TD_> but 500 is close enough
2786 2013-03-08 19:11:09 <gavinandresen> 511 would be better.
2787 2013-03-08 19:11:16 grau has joined
2788 2013-03-08 19:11:29 <TD_> post fork we'll want to go over 9000
2789 2013-03-08 19:12:00 <jgarzik> tcatm: Seems like bitcoinwatch is "stuttering"... it gets stuck on blocks on occasion
2790 2013-03-08 19:12:16 * jgarzik hopes that is not a general 0.8.0 problem
2791 2013-03-08 19:19:21 <jgarzik> bootstrap.dat torrent now available via https://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/blockchain/
2792 2013-03-08 19:19:58 Habbie_ is now known as Habbie
2793 2013-03-08 19:30:14 nanotube has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2794 2013-03-08 19:30:15 gribble has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2795 2013-03-08 19:32:15 TD_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2796 2013-03-08 19:33:39 <aethero> Oh no
2797 2013-03-08 19:35:14 K1773R is now known as K1773R|OFF
2798 2013-03-08 19:35:40 nanotube has joined
2799 2013-03-08 19:37:44 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: well, if there was one thing we learned from P2SH, it's that Gavin's way is what goes regardless of merits; so that comment is no surprise
2800 2013-03-08 19:38:28 ahbritto has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
2801 2013-03-08 19:38:46 ahbritto_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2802 2013-03-08 19:38:56 <BTC_Bear> Just buy a few seat in the Premium Section and influence your direction. :)
2803 2013-03-08 19:40:14 gribble has joined
2804 2013-03-08 19:41:25 zooko has joined
2805 2013-03-08 19:42:07 D34TH has joined
2806 2013-03-08 19:42:07 D34TH has quit (Changing host)
2807 2013-03-08 19:42:07 D34TH has joined
2808 2013-03-08 19:42:19 <gavinandresen> … must…. resist…. trolls….
2809 2013-03-08 19:42:31 <gavinandresen> bah
2810 2013-03-08 19:42:35 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
2811 2013-03-08 19:43:31 QM has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2812 2013-03-08 19:46:51 <BTC_Bear> I'll apologize for that comment in here, it was in the wrong channel. No buts...
2813 2013-03-08 19:49:40 toffoo has quit ()
2814 2013-03-08 19:52:26 Aaron_Away is now known as Aaron_TangCryp
2815 2013-03-08 19:52:37 <BCB> who's trolling the dev channel??
2816 2013-03-08 19:53:13 <HM2> huh
2817 2013-03-08 19:53:55 owowo has joined
2818 2013-03-08 19:59:14 FredEE_ has joined
2819 2013-03-08 20:05:35 sgornick has joined
2820 2013-03-08 20:07:14 Aaron_TangCryp has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2821 2013-03-08 20:07:35 rbecker is now known as RBecker
2822 2013-03-08 20:10:54 CaptainBlaze has quit (Quit: CaptainBlaze)
2823 2013-03-08 20:15:00 <freewil> Scrat, yeah just added ssl to bitcoin for node
2824 2013-03-08 20:15:08 <freewil> havent published it to npm yet though
2825 2013-03-08 20:16:28 xjrn has joined
2826 2013-03-08 20:18:21 Lolcust has joined
2827 2013-03-08 20:19:00 CaptainBlaze has joined
2828 2013-03-08 20:19:09 ahbritto_ has joined
2829 2013-03-08 20:19:10 ielo has joined
2830 2013-03-08 20:19:16 ahbritto has joined
2831 2013-03-08 20:19:30 CaptainBlaze has quit (Client Quit)
2832 2013-03-08 20:21:24 daybyter has joined
2833 2013-03-08 20:30:43 clav8 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2834 2013-03-08 20:30:44 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2835 2013-03-08 20:34:42 <HM2> Boost.MultiIndex is so damn powerful
2836 2013-03-08 20:34:54 <xjrn> HM2++
2837 2013-03-08 20:35:30 <xjrn> it breeds blank stares when you explain that.  ppl say "that's nice, but we got mysql"
2838 2013-03-08 20:37:49 greenfox has joined
2839 2013-03-08 20:38:57 a5m0 has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
2840 2013-03-08 20:39:44 a5m0 has joined
2841 2013-03-08 20:39:44 a5m0 has quit (Changing host)
2842 2013-03-08 20:39:44 a5m0 has joined
2843 2013-03-08 20:39:53 <Diablo-D3> lol people think mysql is a real db
2844 2013-03-08 20:39:53 <Diablo-D3> lol
2845 2013-03-08 20:41:55 <greenfox> use mariadb ^.^
2846 2013-03-08 20:42:18 <Scrat> use postgres
2847 2013-03-08 20:43:30 <xjrn> use Boost.MultiIndex
2848 2013-03-08 20:43:44 <xjrn> + boost serilaization
2849 2013-03-08 20:43:51 <Scrat> i store everything in char*
2850 2013-03-08 20:47:59 <HM2> xjrn: SQL is for persistance
2851 2013-03-08 20:48:37 <greenfox> how about stone tablets?
2852 2013-03-08 20:49:24 <Scrat> greenfox: low I/O performance
2853 2013-03-08 20:49:37 <Scrat> + no concurrency
2854 2013-03-08 20:50:06 ielo has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2855 2013-03-08 20:50:54 <xjrn> HM2: what are you multi-indexing?
2856 2013-03-08 20:51:12 <HM2> just some bitcoin stuff
2857 2013-03-08 20:51:18 <HM2> just playing
2858 2013-03-08 20:52:06 <xjrn> i'm not sure there's enough bitcoin blockchain info to outpace moore's law in RAM resident local reference.
2859 2013-03-08 20:52:21 MobGod has joined
2860 2013-03-08 20:53:03 <HM2> not if you spread the index over many machines
2861 2013-03-08 20:53:28 <HM2> as i said, just playing atm
2862 2013-03-08 20:53:33 <xjrn> seen stxxl  yet?
2863 2013-03-08 20:55:25 <xjrn> i wouldn't associate boost multindex to horizontal scale problems right off the bat, personally; I'd size up the data and look at the price of RAM before pricing copmute nodes
2864 2013-03-08 20:57:20 nouitfvf has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2865 2013-03-08 20:57:38 <HM2> stxxl looks interesting, but i hadn't
2866 2013-03-08 20:57:58 <xjrn> it doesn't take long to bring in tens of gigs of serialized graph nodes to play with if you know where your swapping pain point is and it's not in the tens of gigs.
2867 2013-03-08 20:58:53 <HM2> the joys of having compiler errors longer than your code
2868 2013-03-08 20:59:08 <ainfo> hi guys :Ö)   is there anything like a "programmer's guide to bitcoin" or something?
2869 2013-03-08 20:59:15 <xjrn> if you squint at btrfs you could almost make the case to not invent you own archive serialization code and try to wing it with fs buffer cache
2870 2013-03-08 20:59:27 <ainfo> i kind of grasped how the server fits together, and reading sourcecode works of course, though, it could help for me to understand the bitcoin system more, with something like a technical reference.
2871 2013-03-08 20:59:54 <ainfo> the bitcoin paper is a bit more conceptual than what i look for, i'd want a doc that describes it at the mechanical level. :) like, what structures and butes go where as for it to work out
2872 2013-03-08 21:00:31 <xjrn> ainfo what's your favorite language>
2873 2013-03-08 21:01:10 <HM2> xjrn: my current serialization format is protocol buffers with LITE_RUNTIME
2874 2013-03-08 21:02:16 <ainfo> xjrn: any does.
2875 2013-03-08 21:02:25 <ainfo> xjrn: anything higher than assembly would be appreciated.
2876 2013-03-08 21:02:28 <ainfo> \sth\
2877 2013-03-08 21:02:29 simon872 has joined
2878 2013-03-08 21:04:04 <xjrn> bitcoinj unit tests might pass as bitcoin in toddler language
2879 2013-03-08 21:04:31 grau has joined
2880 2013-03-08 21:05:08 <xjrn> HM2: clang's template errors are readable
2881 2013-03-08 21:05:14 <HM2> lol
2882 2013-03-08 21:05:24 <HM2> yeah, but the 5000 types in the error message from boost aren't
2883 2013-03-08 21:05:57 <ainfo> xjrn: any suggestion?
2884 2013-03-08 21:06:03 <ainfo> hmm
2885 2013-03-08 21:06:05 <ainfo> aha
2886 2013-03-08 21:06:19 <xjrn> ainfo: don't do what HM2  is doing
2887 2013-03-08 21:07:02 <warren> HM2: avoiding accidental highlighting now?
2888 2013-03-08 21:09:21 <ainfo> xjrn: any doc that would describe this.. at what URL are bitcoinj's uit tests?
2889 2013-03-08 21:09:56 <HM2> warren: nah it's just my backup nick
2890 2013-03-08 21:10:02 <HM2> and i've been too lazy to change it
2891 2013-03-08 21:10:21 K1773R is now known as OFF!~K1773Rfre@www.darkgamex.ch|K1773R
2892 2013-03-08 21:11:25 greenfox has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2893 2013-03-08 21:12:14 davout has joined
2894 2013-03-08 21:12:14 davout has quit (Changing host)
2895 2013-03-08 21:12:14 davout has joined
2896 2013-03-08 21:13:46 grau has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2897 2013-03-08 21:14:10 <HM2> if in doubt, throw more templates at it
2898 2013-03-08 21:18:58 dparrish has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2899 2013-03-08 21:19:52 dparrish has joined
2900 2013-03-08 21:22:36 swappermall has joined
2901 2013-03-08 21:24:00 kipp has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.90 [Firefox 4.0.1/20110413222027])
2902 2013-03-08 21:33:43 RBecker is now known as rbecker
2903 2013-03-08 21:34:59 rbecker is now known as RBecker
2904 2013-03-08 21:36:35 <HM2> xjrn: you should checkout Codesynthesis's ODB, it has great Multiindex integration
2905 2013-03-08 21:39:02 nonick has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2906 2013-03-08 21:39:17 nonick has joined
2907 2013-03-08 21:40:52 grau has joined
2908 2013-03-08 21:41:07 ashams has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2909 2013-03-08 21:43:16 tyn has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
2910 2013-03-08 21:43:57 BurtyBB has joined
2911 2013-03-08 21:44:06 RBecker has quit (Excess Flood)
2912 2013-03-08 21:45:55 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2913 2013-03-08 21:45:56 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2914 2013-03-08 21:46:26 RBecker has joined
2915 2013-03-08 21:49:39 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
2916 2013-03-08 21:50:48 axhlf has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2917 2013-03-08 21:57:53 RBecker is now known as rbecker
2918 2013-03-08 22:01:36 bitafterbit has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2919 2013-03-08 22:02:13 Cory has quit ()
2920 2013-03-08 22:06:46 hackjealousy has joined
2921 2013-03-08 22:10:21 xenesis has quit (Quit: xenesis)
2922 2013-03-08 22:10:28 <BTCOxygen> jgarzik: Ping
2923 2013-03-08 22:11:49 PhantomSpark has joined
2924 2013-03-08 22:12:37 <HM2> lol
2925 2013-03-08 22:12:42 <HM2> blockchain.info is moving servers
2926 2013-03-08 22:12:44 <HM2> oh dear
2927 2013-03-08 22:12:53 [\\\] has joined
2928 2013-03-08 22:12:58 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2929 2013-03-08 22:13:05 <BTCOxygen> I have not seen jgarzik for a loong time
2930 2013-03-08 22:13:10 <BTCOxygen> long*
2931 2013-03-08 22:14:25 <BTCOxygen> anyone lately seen jgarzik ?
2932 2013-03-08 22:14:30 <helo> he's been chillin with the mortals in #bitcoin
2933 2013-03-08 22:14:47 PhantomSpark has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2934 2013-03-08 22:14:59 <BTCOxygen> helo: I dont see him on IRC
2935 2013-03-08 22:15:13 <helo> he's in here too...
2936 2013-03-08 22:15:18 <BTCOxygen> No
2937 2013-03-08 22:15:22 <helo> and will say something in 3...
2938 2013-03-08 22:15:23 agricocb has joined
2939 2013-03-08 22:15:46 <BTCOxygen> helo: Ok found jgarzik
2940 2013-03-08 22:15:49 litropy has quit (Quit: Electrical overload)
2941 2013-03-08 22:16:07 <BTCOxygen> jgarzik is not OPed here so I thought he is not on IRC
2942 2013-03-08 22:16:27 <BTCOxygen> jgarzik: Please Ping me once you get here
2943 2013-03-08 22:16:49 <BTCOxygen> Now things are better
2944 2013-03-08 22:16:54 <BTCOxygen> jgarzik: Hi
2945 2013-03-08 22:17:00 <jgarzik> onomatopoeia
2946 2013-03-08 22:17:15 <BTCOxygen> jgarzik: Which pool are you mining on with your ASIC ?
2947 2013-03-08 22:18:28 <BTCOxygen> jgarzik: are you mining on btcguild ?
2948 2013-03-08 22:18:37 <BTCOxygen> or solo mining?
2949 2013-03-08 22:21:23 <MC1984> gmaxwell why did you write that patch that fucks SD?
2950 2013-03-08 22:23:13 <helo> at least he gave it a reach-around by thoroughly explaining how they could continue to operate in the face of rising fees
2951 2013-03-08 22:23:29 <gmaxwell> MC1984: because someone asked for it. It doesn't 'fucks' it just has the user not relay/mine those transactions.
2952 2013-03-08 22:23:51 <BTCOxygen> jgarzik seems to be away again
2953 2013-03-08 22:23:55 <Scrat> the free market will decide where it wants to relay SD spam
2954 2013-03-08 22:24:07 <Scrat> whether*
2955 2013-03-08 22:24:20 <MC1984> i thought you were pretty laid back about dice
2956 2013-03-08 22:24:49 <iwilcox> It's a pretty laid-back patch.
2957 2013-03-08 22:25:36 <MC1984> i dont think its right to try and bumrush a specific actor out of bitcoin
2958 2013-03-08 22:25:55 <gmaxwell> MC1984: Did you actually go read my response (in that message and the one after it?)
2959 2013-03-08 22:26:07 QM has joined
2960 2013-03-08 22:26:09 <K1773R> gmaxwell: u know ur SD patch is a bit flawed? u will process SD winnings since its not in the txout and its above the dustspam limit
2961 2013-03-08 22:26:24 <MC1984> ill look again
2962 2013-03-08 22:26:28 simon872 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2963 2013-03-08 22:26:30 <gmaxwell> K1773R: I believe the word is spelled "you".
2964 2013-03-08 22:27:10 <gmaxwell> K1773R: ...and yes, I posted that it only doesn't relay the payments to.
2965 2013-03-08 22:27:41 <K1773R> gmaxwell: ok then its fine :) just saw ppls posting ur patch saying it blocks all SD tx's.
2966 2013-03-08 22:27:51 <MC1984> its a patch that takes care of uxto dust in general then?
2967 2013-03-08 22:28:00 <gmaxwell> K1773R: Luke posted a substantially more complicated patch that does.
2968 2013-03-08 22:28:18 <K1773R> MC1984: its a patch to block TX's to SD and dust TX's
2969 2013-03-08 22:28:35 <K1773R> gmaxwell: i know, im using it.
2970 2013-03-08 22:28:40 <gmaxwell> (but then it doesn't do the other things that were requested: it spends time validing the blocked txn)
2971 2013-03-08 22:29:42 <MC1984> remov ethe dice specific stuff and it should be ok to merge
2972 2013-03-08 22:30:05 <K1773R> MC1984: err, the opposite way :P
2973 2013-03-08 22:30:06 <gmaxwell> MC1984: holy crap, that patch was _not_ a proposal for something to merge.
2974 2013-03-08 22:30:22 <gmaxwell> I would close that pull request so fast github would get whiplash.
2975 2013-03-08 22:30:32 <MC1984> not as it is, but dice is highlighting a problem
2976 2013-03-08 22:31:13 <MC1984> ok when i say 'merge it' i mean merge something that fixes the problem dice takes advantage of
2977 2013-03-08 22:31:14 <K1773R> im wondering how long the noise on the forum about SD will last
2978 2013-03-08 22:31:21 <gmaxwell> MC1984: someone on the forum asked for a patch because he wanted to conserve resources on his own systems. He offered 1 BTC. I didn't think his request was inadvisable, as my own systems were already doing it (and have been for months). I posted a patch, thats all.
2979 2013-03-08 22:32:39 <gmaxwell> MC1984: 500kb blocks with 93% SD is _not_ okay. And sure, inhibiting some relay isn't a general solution. But as I pointed out below, people who reuse address and make themselves blocking targets a risk to the whole system.
2980 2013-03-08 22:32:56 one_zero has joined
2981 2013-03-08 22:33:04 <K1773R> gmaxwell: i usually dislike to code in C++ since most codebases are horrible, i really like BTC ones
2982 2013-03-08 22:33:26 <MC1984> i know its not ok
2983 2013-03-08 22:33:29 tyn has joined
2984 2013-03-08 22:34:03 ByteUnit has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2985 2013-03-08 22:34:38 <MC1984> im just uneasy about blocking spcific actors from bitcoin
2986 2013-03-08 22:35:02 LorenzoMoney has joined
2987 2013-03-08 22:35:24 <MC1984> id have to say i agree with what vorhes posted, which can be paraphrased as 'cry more, fix your shit'
2988 2013-03-08 22:36:07 <K1773R> its nothing against SD nor Erik (at least for me), its about wasting CPU cycles and bandwidth which makes everyones life harder who runs a full node.
2989 2013-03-08 22:36:10 <Scrat> MC1984: it's not about that. I'm not against SD, im against their misuse of the system. and they themselves have made it easy for me to ignore their shit (reusing their addresses)
2990 2013-03-08 22:36:27 <Scrat> you cannot block specific actors from bitcoin
2991 2013-03-08 22:36:49 <MC1984> you can try
2992 2013-03-08 22:36:56 <MC1984> blocking 1dice counts as trying
2993 2013-03-08 22:36:59 <K1773R> you can only block SD since they use the 1dice adresses
2994 2013-03-08 22:37:13 <K1773R> argl, tolate :D
2995 2013-03-08 22:37:47 <MC1984> its also debatable whether they are 'misusing' the system
2996 2013-03-08 22:37:48 <Scrat> but that's all you can do
2997 2013-03-08 22:38:32 <MC1984> what its doing is unfortunate but within the rules
2998 2013-03-08 22:38:53 <Scrat> it is also within the rules for miners to chose to ignore them
2999 2013-03-08 22:39:10 <MC1984> quite so
3000 2013-03-08 22:39:15 <MC1984> and anyone else
3001 2013-03-08 22:39:31 <MC1984> if like most of the network takes the decision to do that, so be it
3002 2013-03-08 22:39:35 <K1773R> they arent misusing the system to be honest, the just overload it. since there arent any limits, its not an misuse/abuse.
3003 2013-03-08 22:40:21 <MC1984> starts to get a bit different when a bitcoin dev distributes actual code for it though i think
3004 2013-03-08 22:40:45 <MC1984> theres a hierarchy of trust and leadership there whether we like it or not
3005 2013-03-08 22:41:15 <iwilcox> Presumably you read gmaxwell specifically saying he'd close that pull request?
3006 2013-03-08 22:41:16 <MC1984> if i had to guess, thats maybe why greg just posted raw code and not a binary
3007 2013-03-08 22:41:20 <K1773R> neither gmaxwell nor Luke-Jr distributed it, both patches have been published by request (gmaxwells as request for 1BTC, Luke-Jr had it in his bitcoind fork for eligius and created a patch for me)
3008 2013-03-08 22:41:50 <MC1984> iwilcox im not trying to get on anyones case
3009 2013-03-08 22:41:55 <QM> I'm wondering if priority is enough to distinguish dead puppies from live ones?
3010 2013-03-08 22:42:22 <Scrat> I have a feeling this will lead to a cat and mouse and they will generate new addresses every day
3011 2013-03-08 22:42:33 <Scrat> QM: it's cats
3012 2013-03-08 22:42:45 <iwilcox> I'd have used kittens.
3013 2013-03-08 22:42:53 <K1773R> Scrat: no more dead puppies?
3014 2013-03-08 22:43:07 <QM> what about babies?  Too much?
3015 2013-03-08 22:43:20 * Scrat Primus - Too Many Puppies
3016 2013-03-08 22:43:23 <Scrat> how fitting
3017 2013-03-08 22:43:37 <QM> Heh, I've been singing that in my head lately for some reason...
3018 2013-03-08 22:43:39 <MC1984> wait i dont think greg posted shit, just sent code to that guy and thn he posted it
3019 2013-03-08 22:43:41 <MC1984> my mistake
3020 2013-03-08 22:44:10 GMP has joined
3021 2013-03-08 22:44:31 <K1773R> whos greg? gmaxwell?
3022 2013-03-08 22:45:11 <MC1984> yes
3023 2013-03-08 22:45:43 <QM> Scrat: Yeah, cat and mouse...  Seems to me priority might be a robust way to distinguish between normal use and bots?
3024 2013-03-08 22:45:46 <MC1984> i sometimes use alternate handles to refer to someone without rudly pinging them 1000 times on irc
3025 2013-03-08 22:45:49 <helo> Scrat: if they decide to make changes in the way they do things, maybe they'll go a bit further and make changes in a way that will dissuade the cat from further pursuit?
3026 2013-03-08 22:46:01 <MC1984> well its not a handle its his name lol
3027 2013-03-08 22:46:01 <helo> i.e. stop being abusive
3028 2013-03-08 22:46:16 <K1773R> i could tolerate if Luke-Jr's patch or gmaxwell's (if he addes the txin check) being pushed to git into the contrib folder, but not being merged at all.
3029 2013-03-08 22:47:00 <MC1984> luke made a dice patch
3030 2013-03-08 22:47:03 <MC1984> lawd
3031 2013-03-08 22:47:11 <MC1984> what does it do, remotely detonate thier server
3032 2013-03-08 22:48:12 <D34TH> MC1984: HCF ?
3033 2013-03-08 22:48:14 <D34TH> :D
3034 2013-03-08 22:48:21 <helo> what would be the down side if there was some kind of plugin/extension framework where users could apply different filtering rules to dissuade behavior they don't like?
3035 2013-03-08 22:48:42 <MC1984> probably fucking chaos
3036 2013-03-08 22:49:05 <K1773R> helo: if your a owner of a big pool, tx's for ppls u block would take longer to confirm
3037 2013-03-08 22:49:58 <helo> K1773R: so the miners would be discouraged from including teh kinds of transactions that are most commonly blocked
3038 2013-03-08 22:50:00 <K1773R> still u cant block them alltogether, this would only be feasible if 100% of all ppl who mine (solo or pool's bitcoind) would be patched
3039 2013-03-08 22:50:13 <Vinnie_win> how long does a single-satoshi uxto have to age before it can be sent without a fee?
3040 2013-03-08 22:51:09 <helo> i would guess thousands of years? that's quite a few order of magnitude smaller than any useful amount
3041 2013-03-08 22:51:41 <Vinnie_win> what criteria does the code use to determine the age?
3042 2013-03-08 22:51:48 <LorenzoMoney> it can always be sent without a fee
3043 2013-03-08 22:51:50 <helo> K1773R: the idea isn't to block, but to dissuade bad behavior
3044 2013-03-08 22:52:03 jevin has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com)
3045 2013-03-08 22:52:04 <Vinnie_win> LorenzoMoney: hmm..no, the tx wont get relayed
3046 2013-03-08 22:52:18 <helo> s/relayed/mined/
3047 2013-03-08 22:52:29 <helo> i'm pretty sure even low priority transactions still get relayed
3048 2013-03-08 22:52:40 <ProfMac> join us on #bitcoin-sd
3049 2013-03-08 22:53:03 <K1773R> helo: its not based on value, its based on how old (measured in blocks i guess) the tx is
3050 2013-03-08 22:53:21 <helo> K1773R: i thought it was both
3051 2013-03-08 22:55:13 <K1773R> helo; altough, LorenzoMoney is correct. i did once create a TX with the rawtransaction API which size was around 53KB and i did send 0BTC fee (not even 1 satoshi)
3052 2013-03-08 22:55:34 <LorenzoMoney> ZVinnie, I have sent BTC without any trasnaction fee and it got toits destination. It just took a very long time
3053 2013-03-08 22:56:21 jevin has joined
3054 2013-03-08 22:56:45 QM has quit (Quit: Page closed)
3055 2013-03-08 22:56:59 <Vinnie_win> LorenzoMoney: Yeah that might have worked for reasonable amounts, and while the network is small but I think that sending 1 satoshi as a txout without any fees will never process
3056 2013-03-08 22:58:07 <K1773R> Vinnie_win: if you want only 1 TXout with 1 satoshi, u need a input of exactly 1 satoshi, care to send 1 satoshi to 1K1773RbXRZVRQSSXe9N6N2MUFERvrdu6y ? going to try it :P
3057 2013-03-08 22:58:23 <Vinnie_win> good luck with that, what do you plan on setting the fee to?
3058 2013-03-08 22:58:34 <K1773R> 0 satoshi
3059 2013-03-08 22:58:42 <Vinnie_win> that won't get relayed if the coins are new
3060 2013-03-08 22:59:23 <K1773R> well, my big tx i was talking about contained new coins too, i merged my p2pool outputs
3061 2013-03-08 22:59:43 <Vinnie_win> I dont thnk you can even spend new coins until a certain number of blocks have passed (120 I think...or 24 hours)
3062 2013-03-08 23:00:09 <K1773R> 120 soft, 101 hard (or was it 100, Luke-Jr ?)
3063 2013-03-08 23:00:38 <K1773R> and yes, all coins had 120+ confirmations
3064 2013-03-08 23:01:05 <K1773R> but thats because they are generated coins, if i would receive 1 satoshi i would have to wait atleast 6 confirmations
3065 2013-03-08 23:01:49 swappermall has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
3066 2013-03-08 23:02:36 grau has joined
3067 2013-03-08 23:06:55 grau has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
3068 2013-03-08 23:07:48 <LorenzoMoney> Vinnie, eventually, it will
3069 2013-03-08 23:08:01 LorenzoMoney has left ()
3070 2013-03-08 23:09:42 <helo> there is clearly a meeting going on right now
3071 2013-03-08 23:09:59 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
3072 2013-03-08 23:10:09 <K1773R> where, on bitcoin-DP?
3073 2013-03-08 23:10:12 <Vinnie_win> Is there any compilation of statistics on the total amount of SD spam that has spewed into the block chain? I'd like to put together a marketing / pr package that explains the detrimental effect in laymans terms
3074 2013-03-08 23:10:22 <helo> i've said at least three things without a single correction
3075 2013-03-08 23:10:32 <helo> and that is unheard of
3076 2013-03-08 23:12:02 <K1773R> Vinnie_win: here u go https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=80312.0
3077 2013-03-08 23:12:40 <K1773R> well, its old. got to the last page, theres a new one (2013-Mar-08)
3078 2013-03-08 23:12:46 Hashdog has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
3079 2013-03-08 23:13:06 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
3080 2013-03-08 23:13:23 <Vinnie_win> k1773R: What I was looking for is a measure of how many megabytes the transaction spam is taking up, and how much bandwidth
3081 2013-03-08 23:13:35 <K1773R> its there...
3082 2013-03-08 23:13:44 <Vinnie_win> I'd like to compare the amount of resources used by SD spam to normal tx, and estimate the dollar cost for the perpetual storage
3083 2013-03-08 23:13:50 nowan has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
3084 2013-03-08 23:13:54 nowan_ has joined
3085 2013-03-08 23:14:02 <K1773R> first comes the table, then at the end of the qoute there is the amoutn of TX and size
3086 2013-03-08 23:14:21 <Vinnie_win> wtf...SD tx is 60% of the block chain by volume?
3087 2013-03-08 23:14:36 <K1773R> exactly, now u see why pools want to block SD
3088 2013-03-08 23:14:51 <Vinnie_win> Of course I do...I have no doubt of that
3089 2013-03-08 23:14:59 <K1773R> and we just had a block where 93% of all tx's where SD
3090 2013-03-08 23:15:46 <Vinnie_win> did that come from BTCGuild?
3091 2013-03-08 23:18:28 <K1773R> dunno, cant remember
3092 2013-03-08 23:19:08 paraipan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
3093 2013-03-08 23:19:45 zrad has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
3094 2013-03-08 23:23:24 gdoteof_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
3095 2013-03-08 23:25:30 <xjrn> HM2: love odb, looks awesome.
3096 2013-03-08 23:25:52 <xjrn> reminds me of xshell from the early 90's
3097 2013-03-08 23:33:09 X-Scale has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
3098 2013-03-08 23:33:53 mitzip has quit (Quit: Leaving)
3099 2013-03-08 23:39:16 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
3100 2013-03-08 23:39:50 copumpkin has joined
3101 2013-03-08 23:39:50 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
3102 2013-03-08 23:41:36 torsthaldo has joined
3103 2013-03-08 23:42:52 <HM2> xjrn: xshell?
3104 2013-03-08 23:43:30 <xjrn> HM2: an ancient orb
3105 2013-03-08 23:43:52 <xjrn> HM2: became something like powerbroker then apparently, became nothing
3106 2013-03-08 23:44:34 <HM2> orm's do that
3107 2013-03-08 23:44:49 <HM2> the trick to make orms successful is to design the database first
3108 2013-03-08 23:44:57 clarkm has quit (Quit: leaving)
3109 2013-03-08 23:45:18 <HM2> relational data structures are usually easier than arcane class hierarchies anyway
3110 2013-03-08 23:48:48 <gmaxwell> MC1984: And I retort to him: 'cry more, fix your shit'. If he doesn't like being blocked he shouldn't behave in a blockable manner, — at least if you want to a adopt a shitty morality where you can harm whomever you want as much as you want and them blame them for being victims.
3111 2013-03-08 23:49:44 <xjrn> xhell was a precompiler that baked distributed RMI/ORM listeners into services.   or "B" not or "M", though both fall short of blue chip usefulness
3112 2013-03-08 23:50:37 <gmaxwell> Nothing in Bitcoin is broken, works fine the way it is— but it means that people will need to pay 0.005 BTC/KB (or 0.5 BTC for maximum size transactions) to actually get higher priority than his transactions. Go go free markets. I happen to think that this needlessly squanders our startup goodwill and harms bitcoin, and if users in bitcoin want to adopt adhoc measures to make that a little less bad well...
3113 2013-03-08 23:52:06 <gmaxwell> MC1984: ultimately his reuse of addresses is a hazard for the whole ecosystem. If people use consistent addresses then someone is going to start insisting that people block them. It's much better if the answer to such demands is "there is nothing to block".
3114 2013-03-08 23:52:07 <xjrn> gmaxwell: i personally think log(kb) is better than mult(kb), just my $0.02
3115 2013-03-08 23:53:11 <gmaxwell> xjrn: that doesn't make any economic sense, sadly. anti-spam hurestic that would be fine but we're not talking about anti-spam we're talking about market competition for space.
3116 2013-03-08 23:53:31 <HM2> the problem i have with blocking isn't a moral one
3117 2013-03-08 23:53:36 <HM2> well kinda
3118 2013-03-08 23:53:37 <gmaxwell> xjrn: the scarce resource people are competing for is kilobytes, a greedy-rational miner is going to take the things that give them the most value per kb.
3119 2013-03-08 23:53:46 aethero has left ()
3120 2013-03-08 23:54:02 <HM2> i mean, if SD was a 'useful' site like ebay generating the same volume we'd still be in the same position
3121 2013-03-08 23:54:05 defunctzombie is now known as defunctzombie_zz
3122 2013-03-08 23:54:15 <gmaxwell> HM2: We wouldn't.
3123 2013-03-08 23:54:35 <HM2> whyever not?
3124 2013-03-08 23:54:47 <midnightmagic> HM2: nah we wouldn't be.
3125 2013-03-08 23:54:47 <HM2> ok, SD generates twice the transactions it needs to
3126 2013-03-08 23:54:57 <gmaxwell> For one, it would be activity that came matched with economic growth. They'd also be interested in adopting policy which is not the most inefficient possible because presumably they'd be paying for their inefficiency.
3127 2013-03-08 23:55:10 <gmaxwell> HM2: no, it generates thousands of times the transactions it needs to.
3128 2013-03-08 23:55:28 <HM2> one bet, one result?
3129 2013-03-08 23:55:40 <HM2> the result is needless 98% of the time because you've lost
3130 2013-03-08 23:55:42 <gmaxwell> Go look at the transaction history the overwhelming bulk of the transactions are from a few bots (maybe even only one).
3131 2013-03-08 23:56:03 <xjrn> gmaxwell: so i'm confused, we have a perfect system, but we have abusers of a perfect system, but the system is exempt from imperfections.  is that what you're saying?
3132 2013-03-08 23:56:05 <HM2> right, but we can't be sure that isn't 'legitimate' use of their 'service'
3133 2013-03-08 23:56:16 <gmaxwell> They are doing the analog of walmart putting a hold on your debt card for every item you look at on the shelf.
3134 2013-03-08 23:57:50 <gmaxwell> xjrn: we have a free market. The users who pay the most will get the most priority. So that much is at least self regulating. However, it's in our long term best interest to keep fees as low as they can be for as long as possible while the value of Bitcoin as a unit of exchange grows.
3135 2013-03-08 23:58:54 <gmaxwell> HM2: I have no care about "legitimate", I can say that its /inefficient/. The perfectly legit single bot could do all its doing with a single transaction pair per session, creating an instant 1000 fold reduction in transactions.
3136 2013-03-08 23:59:04 <midnightmagic> What incentive is greater than that of a cognitively-disabled gambler?
3137 2013-03-08 23:59:06 <HM2> i thought the problem was the confirmation time, not the fees
3138 2013-03-08 23:59:11 <xjrn> at any point this system could fork a revision and continue the speculation features with a new validation criterion.
3139 2013-03-08 23:59:37 <midnightmagic> Normal users who are doing legitimate business have to compete with people who are compelled to DDoS the blockchain with their gambling.
3140 2013-03-08 23:59:42 <gmaxwell> HM2: they are two sized of the same coin. If you pay enough fees you get fast confirmation, if you don't you get very slow confirmation.