1 2013-03-17 00:03:24 TheXev has joined
   2 2013-03-17 00:05:04 e-v-o has joined
   3 2013-03-17 00:07:41 darinmorrison has joined
   4 2013-03-17 00:08:16 fishfish has quit (Quit: Bye!)
   5 2013-03-17 00:10:21 ashod has quit (Quit: Page closed)
   6 2013-03-17 00:11:08 Xeno-Genesis has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
   7 2013-03-17 00:11:09 TheXev has left ("Leaving")
   8 2013-03-17 00:12:27 bernard75 has quit ()
   9 2013-03-17 00:16:10 undecim has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  10 2013-03-17 00:16:42 <nanotube> warren: well, we could ask them random trivia questions as preconditions for joining. then they'd search google. :P
  11 2013-03-17 00:17:08 tyn has joined
  12 2013-03-17 00:17:36 <sipa> What do you get when you multiply six by nine?
  13 2013-03-17 00:18:04 TheXev has joined
  14 2013-03-17 00:18:07 <nanotube> hehe should be something that requires googling >_>
  15 2013-03-17 00:18:12 TheXev has left ()
  16 2013-03-17 00:18:25 <warren> nanotube: does this channel require freenode registration to join?
  17 2013-03-17 00:18:39 <Twixed> what is lemon party ?
  18 2013-03-17 00:19:01 <nanotube> warren: nope
  19 2013-03-17 00:19:13 <warren> nanotube: wouldn't that be an improvement at least?
  20 2013-03-17 00:19:37 the-bucket-shop has quit (Quit: the-bucket-shop)
  21 2013-03-17 00:20:00 <sipa> is there a problem?
  22 2013-03-17 00:20:04 <nanotube> dunno. we don't really get much spam here....
  23 2013-03-17 00:20:22 <warren> Not really spam, just dumb questions that could have been answered by minimal effort.
  24 2013-03-17 00:20:51 denisx has joined
  25 2013-03-17 00:21:01 asdasada has joined
  26 2013-03-17 00:21:58 e-v-o has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
  27 2013-03-17 00:26:22 <cyphase> what is bitcoin anyway?
  28 2013-03-17 00:27:20 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
  29 2013-03-17 00:29:16 <jaakkos> what is the rebroadcast interval for a tx if the client doesn't see it getting to a block?
  30 2013-03-17 00:32:18 <starsoccer> hey
  31 2013-03-17 00:32:24 <starsoccer> lol wrong box
  32 2013-03-17 00:33:18 <gavinandresen> I need a complete copy of the 0.8-side of the fork-- somebody who was running 0.8 during the fork, could you send me your last couple blk00NNN.dat files ?
  33 2013-03-17 00:34:52 <warren> gavinandresen: I have it,
  34 2013-03-17 00:34:55 lb4956 has quit ()
  35 2013-03-17 00:34:56 <denisx> gavinandresen: my 0.8 is still running since
  36 2013-03-17 00:35:09 <denisx> blk00009.dat is 96MB in size
  37 2013-03-17 00:35:14 <warren> oh.  damn.  It was testnet.
  38 2013-03-17 00:35:55 <nanotube> gavinandresen: i have it, if you still don't have an offer.
  39 2013-03-17 00:35:56 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  40 2013-03-17 00:36:06 <nanotube> cyphase: haha
  41 2013-03-17 00:36:35 tyn has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  42 2013-03-17 00:36:35 <gavinandresen> nanotube denisx : can either of you put it somewhere I can download?
  43 2013-03-17 00:36:45 <nanotube> gavinandresen: sure i can do that.
  44 2013-03-17 00:36:49 <gavinandresen> great, thanks
  45 2013-03-17 00:37:01 <denisx> ok, you do it
  46 2013-03-17 00:37:04 <nanotube> heh
  47 2013-03-17 00:37:35 <denisx> last write to 0008 was Mar 17 01:06 CET
  48 2013-03-17 00:37:35 <nanotube> so in .bitcoin/blocks i have blk0000X up to 0005. you want the last two? that'd be 128+16 ?
  49 2013-03-17 00:37:40 <denisx> maybe you need that too?
  50 2013-03-17 00:38:48 <denisx> ah, it has different sizes depending on the starttime?
  51 2013-03-17 00:39:16 <gavinandresen> jaakkos: ResendWalletTransaction() resends at a random time between 1 second and 30 minutes after the last time it resent.
  52 2013-03-17 00:39:44 <jaakkos> gavinandresen: thanks!
  53 2013-03-17 00:40:35 <gavinandresen> nanotube: just the last is probably fine
  54 2013-03-17 00:40:52 <gavinandresen> nanotube: … what is the timestamp on the second-to-last?  If before the fork, then the last is definitely good enough
  55 2013-03-17 00:42:20 <nanotube> second to last timestamp is "Mar 15 00:18" so... probably need second to last
  56 2013-03-17 00:42:37 <nanotube> third to last 'Mar 11 21:27' (EST)
  57 2013-03-17 00:42:49 <denisx> also too late
  58 2013-03-17 00:42:58 <nanotube> heh ok , last 3 it is
  59 2013-03-17 00:43:35 <gavinandresen> 11 Mar 21:27 was just before the fork
  60 2013-03-17 00:43:46 <gavinandresen> oh, wait-- EST....
  61 2013-03-17 00:44:05 <gavinandresen> yeah, need second and third to last....
  62 2013-03-17 00:44:14 <nanotube> ok, second almost done
  63 2013-03-17 00:45:25 the-bucket-shop has joined
  64 2013-03-17 00:55:23 toffoo has joined
  65 2013-03-17 00:55:47 Boydy has joined
  66 2013-03-17 00:55:47 Boydy has quit (Changing host)
  67 2013-03-17 00:55:47 Boydy has joined
  68 2013-03-17 01:02:18 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  69 2013-03-17 01:03:30 axhlf has joined
  70 2013-03-17 01:04:49 <jgarzik> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=80312.msg1631744#msg1631744
  71 2013-03-17 01:04:53 <jgarzik> <grau> It seems the transaction format of SD changed. I do not see the usual dust.
  72 2013-03-17 01:06:18 frosks has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  73 2013-03-17 01:08:40 grau has joined
  74 2013-03-17 01:11:36 B0g4r7 has joined
  75 2013-03-17 01:12:02 jimbit is now known as jjiimm_64
  76 2013-03-17 01:12:33 jjiimm_64 is now known as jimbit
  77 2013-03-17 01:13:05 grau has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
  78 2013-03-17 01:13:33 jimbit is now known as jjiimm_64
  79 2013-03-17 01:15:04 TwilightSparklee has joined
  80 2013-03-17 01:22:09 glitch003 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  81 2013-03-17 01:24:48 TwilightSparklee has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi)
  82 2013-03-17 01:36:51 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  83 2013-03-17 01:39:15 sgstair has quit (Quit: .•«UPP»•.)
  84 2013-03-17 01:40:43 Eleuthria has joined
  85 2013-03-17 01:41:20 <Eleuthria> gmaxwell or jgarzik, are either of you available?  Quick question I wanted to ask in PM
  86 2013-03-17 01:43:12 rowit has joined
  87 2013-03-17 01:43:40 <rowit> hey all - any suggestions on a good OSX IRC client?
  88 2013-03-17 01:44:10 <Eleuthria> rowit:  Not specifically an IRC client (especially to purists), but when I use OSX I absolutely love Adium as a multi-protocol IM client which supports IRC
  89 2013-03-17 01:44:42 <Eleuthria> I like to keep my IRC chats in the same tabbed windows as my normal IMs
  90 2013-03-17 01:44:54 <jrmithdobbs> gavinandresen: that email sounds about right
  91 2013-03-17 01:45:01 <jrmithdobbs> gavinandresen: might bump it to 90 instead of 60 days though
  92 2013-03-17 01:45:17 <Eleuthria> gavin is in here?  didn't see him
  93 2013-03-17 01:45:23 <gavinandresen> I'm hiding
  94 2013-03-17 01:45:32 <Eleuthria> Can I send you a quick PM for clarifications?
  95 2013-03-17 01:45:35 <gavinandresen> sure
  96 2013-03-17 01:45:44 <jrmithdobbs> in case there actually are any businesses that might want to actually test changes to any bitcoin stuff (like anyone tests ;p)
  97 2013-03-17 01:46:10 <gavinandresen> jrmithdobbs: more than 2 months to test??  that's a sorry business....
  98 2013-03-17 01:46:24 <jrmithdobbs> gavinandresen: i'd say make it a quarter, ya
  99 2013-03-17 01:46:31 sgstair has joined
 100 2013-03-17 01:46:31 <jrmithdobbs> people are slow as shit
 101 2013-03-17 01:47:03 <gavinandresen> not my problem.
 102 2013-03-17 01:47:32 <gavinandresen> If they REALLY want to be slow, then they should implement the workaround in the next two months (create DB_CONFIG file), then take their sweet time upgrading to 0.8.1
 103 2013-03-17 01:47:51 <sipa> people on debian still get 0.3.24 i think...
 104 2013-03-17 01:48:11 <jrmithdobbs> 90 days doesn't seem unreasonable to me =/
 105 2013-03-17 01:49:50 <gavinandresen> okey dokey.  I'm sticking with 60 days, if I had my druthers it would've been 30....
 106 2013-03-17 01:49:51 <rowit> Eleuthria: Thanks! I'll give Adium a shot
 107 2013-03-17 01:50:57 <gavinandresen> Wait, strike that.  If I could, I would've made it eleven days.
 108 2013-03-17 01:51:28 <sipa> no offence, but i think it's wrong to think that you can decide that
 109 2013-03-17 01:51:47 <sipa> of course we can propose an upgrade scheme, i doubt many would disagree
 110 2013-03-17 01:52:14 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
 111 2013-03-17 01:52:32 <gavinandresen> do we really have to have a long drawn-out discussion on whether 30 or 60 or 90 or 365 days is the right amount of time?
 112 2013-03-17 01:52:33 <copumpkin> BDFL
 113 2013-03-17 01:53:02 <sipa> no, but if it's controversial, it may or may not be the best choice
 114 2013-03-17 01:53:32 <sipa> sorry, i'm not helping you with this, and i also don't know what the best timeframe is
 115 2013-03-17 01:54:02 <gavinandresen> mmm.  I'm willing to be the bad guy this time; if it is controversial, then I take the blame.
 116 2013-03-17 01:54:03 <sipa> i'm just very unconfortable with the idea of forcing people to upgrade without time to discuss it
 117 2013-03-17 01:54:09 rowit1 has joined
 118 2013-03-17 01:54:35 <gavinandresen> again, they don't have to upgrade-- they can put a DB_CONFIG file in their datadir and continue on, blissfully running 0.3.24....
 119 2013-03-17 01:55:02 <gavinandresen> If they DID have to change software, then I would agree with you, 60 days is not enough time.
 120 2013-03-17 01:56:12 <sipa> same thing
 121 2013-03-17 01:56:27 <sipa> (again, not saying 60 days is not enough - but i like to be cautious)
 122 2013-03-17 01:57:18 * gavinandresen grumbles about herding cats.....
 123 2013-03-17 01:57:39 <sipa> i'll stop commenting now, since i'm not helping either way
 124 2013-03-17 01:58:34 <gavinandresen> I wonder how long it will take past May 15'th for a large enough block to get mined to kick off the stragglers...
 125 2013-03-17 02:00:49 Blitzboom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 126 2013-03-17 02:01:23 <Luke-Jr> IMO, there's really no excuse for not applying critical fixes in 2 months
 127 2013-03-17 02:01:44 <Eleuthria> Luke-Jr:  Agreed.  Especially when we've already seen the results of the bug on live.
 128 2013-03-17 02:03:11 denisx has joined
 129 2013-03-17 02:04:27 <nanotube> gavinandresen: not going to quibble over 60 or 90 days, but i think there should me more alerts in the interim. just to reduce the chance of people missing them before may8 final alert.
 130 2013-03-17 02:04:32 joehoyle- has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
 131 2013-03-17 02:05:45 <jaakkos> so, a guy run into this issue with litecoin... i'm quite sure it affects bitcoin as well
 132 2013-03-17 02:05:46 <cyphase> upgrade or bust. literally
 133 2013-03-17 02:06:24 <jaakkos> he starts a new client with no block chain downloaded, but with an imported wallet file
 134 2013-03-17 02:06:42 <jaakkos> the block chain starts to download, and coins appear to his addresses
 135 2013-03-17 02:06:44 <Luke-Jr> gavinandresen: if it helps, you can announce that I'll spin 0.4.x+ backports sometime during the week of Mar 24
 136 2013-03-17 02:07:00 <jaakkos> however, some of these coins were later spent, but the client doesn't know that yet
 137 2013-03-17 02:07:10 AtashiCon has joined
 138 2013-03-17 02:07:23 <Eleuthria> jaakkos:  That's normal until the full blockchain was downloaded on the client.
 139 2013-03-17 02:07:24 <jaakkos> now the client allows him to create a tx, which attempts to double-spend the outputs
 140 2013-03-17 02:07:28 ic3 has quit (Quit: leaving)
 141 2013-03-17 02:07:30 <Luke-Jr> gavinandresen: side note: increasing the locks to fix this uses about 100 MB more memory
 142 2013-03-17 02:07:35 <Eleuthria> the double spend won't work
 143 2013-03-17 02:07:36 <jaakkos> the network drops the broadcast
 144 2013-03-17 02:07:45 <jaakkos> however, the tx also contained outputs that are *truly* unspent
 145 2013-03-17 02:08:03 <Luke-Jr> jaakkos: yes, it affects Bitcoin as well, known issue
 146 2013-03-17 02:08:04 <jaakkos> now, even when the chain has finished downloading, the client will not get rid of this invalid tx, it shows with 0 confirmations
 147 2013-03-17 02:08:09 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: so how cleanly you think libccoin or w/e will bind to node.js? ;p
 148 2013-03-17 02:08:15 <jaakkos> AND... the unspent money is unspendable forever
 149 2013-03-17 02:08:27 <Luke-Jr> jaakkos: until he rebuilds the wallet, yes
 150 2013-03-17 02:08:28 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: cause i have some evil agent ideas ;p
 151 2013-03-17 02:08:29 <Eleuthria> Re-running the client with --rescan should fix that
 152 2013-03-17 02:08:29 <jaakkos> Luke-Jr: ok, is this already fixed?
 153 2013-03-17 02:08:36 <rowit1> jaakkos: the whole tx should be discarded by the network.  It sounds like a problem with the client, not the network
 154 2013-03-17 02:08:39 <nanotube> that said, that's probably a quibble also, and the alert schedule is reasonable enough.
 155 2013-03-17 02:08:43 <Luke-Jr> jaakkos: no, it's not an easy fix. maybe 0.9's wallet changes will do it
 156 2013-03-17 02:08:57 <Luke-Jr> rowit1: it is
 157 2013-03-17 02:08:59 <jaakkos> rowit1: yes of course it's discarded but the problem is that now, the client doesn't let him spend money that he should be able to spend.
 158 2013-03-17 02:09:12 <sipa> -rescan won't fix that
 159 2013-03-17 02:09:16 <sipa> -salvagewallet will
 160 2013-03-17 02:10:18 <gavinandresen> nanotube: it might make sense to have the one-month-to-go alert expire after a week instead of 24 hours. Although are there really that many people who run the full client just once a week?
 161 2013-03-17 02:10:21 <jaakkos> alright, i will tell him. interesting problem :) thanks
 162 2013-03-17 02:10:55 <gavinandresen> nanotube: … and the people we really want to upgrade/workaround are merchants/services
 163 2013-03-17 02:11:51 <nanotube> gavinandresen: well, sometimes i go a few days without starting the client. so just talking from my own usage pattern. :)
 164 2013-03-17 02:12:08 <nanotube> and by sometimes i mean 'rather often' :)
 165 2013-03-17 02:13:53 mojod has quit (Quit: Changing server)
 166 2013-03-17 02:14:29 johnsoft1 is now known as johnsoft
 167 2013-03-17 02:15:53 <gavinandresen> nanotube: ok, lets plan second alert lasts a week.  People who didn't upgrade but who do set DB_CONFIG will be annoyed… but they're going to be annoyed after 15 May anyway.
 168 2013-03-17 02:16:46 <jaakkos> the guy is saying -salvagewallet doesn't help, his balance is still 0. 'dumpprivkey' successfully prints key for an address that has unspent coins as seen in an online block explorer.
 169 2013-03-17 02:17:02 <sipa> jaakkos: is he fully synced?
 170 2013-03-17 02:17:06 <jaakkos> yes
 171 2013-03-17 02:17:23 <nanotube> gavinandresen: sounds good. :)
 172 2013-03-17 02:17:24 AtashiCon has quit (Quit: AtashiCon)
 173 2013-03-17 02:17:27 <sipa> does litecoin even implement -salvagewallet?
 174 2013-03-17 02:17:51 <jaakkos> should -qt fail with unrecognized options? i will ask him...
 175 2013-03-17 02:18:02 <sipa> no
 176 2013-03-17 02:18:07 <sipa> it ignores unknown options
 177 2013-03-17 02:19:15 AtashiCon has joined
 178 2013-03-17 02:19:21 AtashiCon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 179 2013-03-17 02:19:34 <cyphase> doesn't look like litecoin supports -salvagewallet
 180 2013-03-17 02:19:38 o2 has joined
 181 2013-03-17 02:19:43 <jaakkos> ok
 182 2013-03-17 02:19:44 <cyphase> it's not in the options list
 183 2013-03-17 02:20:26 <sipa> gavinandresen: people who don't upgrade to 0.8(.1) will be annoyed anyway by the speed of the software :)
 184 2013-03-17 02:20:35 stretchwarren has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 185 2013-03-17 02:20:45 <gavinandresen> sipa: very true!  they've been annoyed for months....
 186 2013-03-17 02:21:12 <warren> (So here's your chance to make unpopular changes.)
 187 2013-03-17 02:21:50 zoinky has joined
 188 2013-03-17 02:22:16 AtashiCon has joined
 189 2013-03-17 02:22:34 <warren> cyphase: I hear someone is launching a blockchain-like client-side encrypted wallet service soon.  If that happens, they'll be able to import the offending keys and spend it.
 190 2013-03-17 02:22:58 <warren> oh
 191 2013-03-17 02:23:00 <warren> jaakkos: ^
 192 2013-03-17 02:23:17 stretchwarren has joined
 193 2013-03-17 02:23:56 <jaakkos> warren: okay :) i'm currently figuring out all possible keys that he might need to dump and import..
 194 2013-03-17 02:24:18 <warren> oh. i suppose manual dump and import will work.
 195 2013-03-17 02:24:33 <jaakkos> the question is, can i be certain that the only keys we need to dump are the ones from the invalid tx?
 196 2013-03-17 02:25:00 <warren> when you import, do you only need to rescan after the last one?
 197 2013-03-17 02:25:36 <jaakkos> i think it will rescan after each import?
 198 2013-03-17 02:25:51 <warren> jaakkos: you can turn off rescan
 199 2013-03-17 02:25:57 <Eleuthria> By default it will rescan after import, but you can tell it not to
 200 2013-03-17 02:28:29 Eloims has quit ()
 201 2013-03-17 02:30:09 `Nothing4You has joined
 202 2013-03-17 02:30:20 Lexx__ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 203 2013-03-17 02:32:13 Nothing4You has quit (Disconnected by services)
 204 2013-03-17 02:32:15 `Nothing4You is now known as Nothing4You
 205 2013-03-17 02:35:01 <pete79> should the RPC API include GetAlerts() ?
 206 2013-03-17 02:35:10 Eleuthria has left ()
 207 2013-03-17 02:36:04 FredEE has joined
 208 2013-03-17 02:39:49 <gavinandresen> getinfo tells you about alerts.  There should be an -alertnotify=<command> ….
 209 2013-03-17 02:39:57 johnsoft1 has joined
 210 2013-03-17 02:41:15 <cyphase> hmm, good point by etotheipi_ on the dev list; the bitcoin conference is going on the weekend of may 15th
 211 2013-03-17 02:41:28 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
 212 2013-03-17 02:42:00 johnsoft has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 213 2013-03-17 02:43:29 Lexx__ has joined
 214 2013-03-17 02:44:30 <pete79> gavinandresen: thanks
 215 2013-03-17 02:45:20 chicagobitcoins has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 216 2013-03-17 02:45:44 johnsoft1 is now known as johnsoft
 217 2013-03-17 02:46:57 vellest has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com)
 218 2013-03-17 02:47:01 <gavinandresen> cyphase: I hear they have computers and the Internet in San Jose… actually, I know they do, I used to live there.
 219 2013-03-17 02:48:17 <sipa> but but... if the blockchain fails there won't _be_ an internet anymore
 220 2013-03-17 02:48:19 <sipa> oh, wait
 221 2013-03-17 02:48:40 <cyphase> gavinandresen, yea, yea, okay. just something to think about :P
 222 2013-03-17 02:49:57 stikonas has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
 223 2013-03-17 02:51:48 brson has quit (Quit: leaving)
 224 2013-03-17 02:54:47 rowit has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 225 2013-03-17 02:55:35 tyn has joined
 226 2013-03-17 02:55:49 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 227 2013-03-17 02:56:03 <etotheipi_> I don't know about you guys, but I'd prefer to be at home on my command&control center when there's a disaster... not deciding whether to go to my scheduled talk or let the hard fork grow
 228 2013-03-17 02:56:21 <etotheipi_> </exaggeration>
 229 2013-03-17 02:56:51 <sipa> so bring you command&control center along :)
 230 2013-03-17 02:57:21 tockitj has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 231 2013-03-17 03:01:59 safra has joined
 232 2013-03-17 03:02:00 <cyphase> yea, doesn't yours fit in your pocket?
 233 2013-03-17 03:10:25 <jrmithdobbs> seriously, it's 2013
 234 2013-03-17 03:11:05 Guest9061 has joined
 235 2013-03-17 03:11:05 Guest9061 has quit (Client Quit)
 236 2013-03-17 03:11:48 joehoyle- has joined
 237 2013-03-17 03:11:58 chicagobitcoins has joined
 238 2013-03-17 03:16:10 safra has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 239 2013-03-17 03:18:47 rbecker is now known as RBecker
 240 2013-03-17 03:19:21 joehoyle- has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 241 2013-03-17 03:21:37 johnsoft is now known as ryeandwheat
 242 2013-03-17 03:22:33 ryeandwheat is now known as lookingtobuybitc
 243 2013-03-17 03:22:45 lookingtobuybitc is now known as bitcoinswithpayp
 244 2013-03-17 03:22:58 bitcoinswithpayp is now known as bitcoins4paypal
 245 2013-03-17 03:25:41 <ProfMac> any clue ---->  Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: org/apache/mina/filter/SSLFILTER
 246 2013-03-17 03:30:34 K1773R is now known as K1773R|OFF
 247 2013-03-17 03:31:10 _g has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 248 2013-03-17 03:31:38 mow_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 249 2013-03-17 03:32:08 K1773R is now known as OFF!~K1773Rfre@www.darkgamex.ch|K1773R
 250 2013-03-17 03:34:33 b4tt3r135 has joined
 251 2013-03-17 03:34:55 mow has joined
 252 2013-03-17 03:38:35 moarrr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 253 2013-03-17 03:41:15 zechiel has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 254 2013-03-17 03:43:15 Quetzalcoatl_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 255 2013-03-17 03:43:45 Goonie has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 256 2013-03-17 03:46:18 rapter has joined
 257 2013-03-17 03:48:29 joehoyle- has joined
 258 2013-03-17 03:48:47 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 259 2013-03-17 03:50:45 AtashiCon has quit (Quit: AtashiCon)
 260 2013-03-17 03:50:57 AtashiCon has joined
 261 2013-03-17 03:52:25 jorash has joined
 262 2013-03-17 03:53:17 joehoyle- has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 263 2013-03-17 03:53:28 <jorash> hi guys... is the source code for the btc hashing algo (not just SHA256, but also the particulars of btc) available for download?
 264 2013-03-17 03:54:34 fiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 265 2013-03-17 03:55:49 Quetzalcoatl_ has joined
 266 2013-03-17 03:55:57 bitcoins4paypal is now known as johnsoft
 267 2013-03-17 03:57:58 <etotheipi_> jorash: sha256(sha256(X)) is used for block headers,  ripemd160(sha256(X)) is for publickey->address
 268 2013-03-17 03:57:59 <etotheipi_> that's it
 269 2013-03-17 03:58:10 stalled has joined
 270 2013-03-17 03:58:38 LobsterMan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 271 2013-03-17 03:58:42 fiesh has joined
 272 2013-03-17 03:58:59 <jorash> thank you
 273 2013-03-17 03:59:55 <nanotube> jorash: the whole client is foss. you can grab it off bitcoin.org and read. there are also docs on the wiki. specifically see ,,(bc,wiki block hashing algo)
 274 2013-03-17 03:59:57 <gribble> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_hashing_algorithm | Jan 16, 2013 ... Block hashing algorithm. From Bitcoin. Jump to: navigation, search. When generating, you constantly hash the block header. The block is also ...
 275 2013-03-17 04:01:05 HiWEB has joined
 276 2013-03-17 04:01:58 AtashiCon has quit (Quit: AtashiCon)
 277 2013-03-17 04:02:12 AtashiCon has joined
 278 2013-03-17 04:02:12 hanti is now known as HANTI
 279 2013-03-17 04:18:40 cosurgi has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 280 2013-03-17 04:19:06 jorash has quit ()
 281 2013-03-17 04:22:29 <warren> Is it wise for the distributed leadership to be together in one place? =)
 282 2013-03-17 04:22:48 gmatteson_ has joined
 283 2013-03-17 04:23:21 rapter has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 284 2013-03-17 04:24:45 joehoyle has joined
 285 2013-03-17 04:26:15 <Graet> better than being in pieces in several places :P
 286 2013-03-17 04:28:44 darinmorrison has quit ()
 287 2013-03-17 04:29:17 joehoyle has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 288 2013-03-17 04:29:55 b4tt3r135 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 289 2013-03-17 04:32:15 stanley has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 290 2013-03-17 04:33:41 stanley has joined
 291 2013-03-17 04:44:58 Ashaman_ has joined
 292 2013-03-17 04:46:15 Raccoon` has joined
 293 2013-03-17 04:46:56 Raccoon has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 294 2013-03-17 04:46:56 Raccoon` is now known as Raccoon
 295 2013-03-17 04:47:30 DamascusVG has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 296 2013-03-17 04:47:48 DamascusVG has joined
 297 2013-03-17 04:47:48 DamascusVG has quit (Changing host)
 298 2013-03-17 04:47:48 DamascusVG has joined
 299 2013-03-17 04:48:05 Nothing4You has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 300 2013-03-17 04:48:53 stochasm has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 301 2013-03-17 04:48:59 <warren> Does the Version field of the block header really need 4 bytes?  (not a problem, just surprised)
 302 2013-03-17 04:49:09 Ashaman has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 303 2013-03-17 04:49:21 CaptainBlaze has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 304 2013-03-17 04:51:49 o2 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 305 2013-03-17 04:52:26 stochasm has joined
 306 2013-03-17 04:52:56 Allicoin has joined
 307 2013-03-17 04:53:12 <jgarzik> warren: at the moment, no
 308 2013-03-17 04:53:27 <Allicoin> #bitcoin-cad
 309 2013-03-17 04:53:37 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: bind?  no idea
 310 2013-03-17 04:53:46 Nothing4You has joined
 311 2013-03-17 04:54:45 keystroke has joined
 312 2013-03-17 04:54:45 keystroke has quit (Changing host)
 313 2013-03-17 04:54:45 keystroke has joined
 314 2013-03-17 04:55:19 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
 315 2013-03-17 04:55:28 TheSeven has joined
 316 2013-03-17 04:55:46 <Allicoin> JOIN #bitcoin-cad
 317 2013-03-17 04:56:01 <Allicoin> JOIN <#bitcoin-cad>
 318 2013-03-17 04:56:20 <Allicoin> I don't know what I am doing.... this is not very intuative
 319 2013-03-17 04:56:37 <keystroke> type a / before the join /join #bitcoin-cad
 320 2013-03-17 04:56:48 Nothing4You has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 321 2013-03-17 04:57:35 <Allicoin> thanks!
 322 2013-03-17 04:57:57 <keystroke> sure :)
 323 2013-03-17 04:58:03 hsmiths has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 324 2013-03-17 04:58:16 Nothing4You has joined
 325 2013-03-17 04:59:13 <jgarzik> Regarding SatoshiDICE... <dooglus> They don't charge the 0.0005 BTC fee to losing payouts any more (as of about a week, I think) so the smallest payout now is 0.5% of the 0.01 BTC min bet, or 5000 satoshis.
 326 2013-03-17 04:59:20 <jgarzik> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=80312.msg1632751#msg1632751
 327 2013-03-17 05:00:08 hsmiths has joined
 328 2013-03-17 05:00:14 D34TH has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 329 2013-03-17 05:00:14 <keystroke> so they got rid of some of the dust?
 330 2013-03-17 05:01:02 5EXAAKWHH has joined
 331 2013-03-17 05:05:44 5EXAAKWHH has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 332 2013-03-17 05:07:14 denisx has joined
 333 2013-03-17 05:09:33 hsmiths has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 334 2013-03-17 05:10:20 moleccc has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 335 2013-03-17 05:11:20 <Nothing4You> bitcoin-qt stuff doesn't seem to be configured to use qt paths
 336 2013-03-17 05:11:23 hsmiths has joined
 337 2013-03-17 05:11:34 <Nothing4You> after installing it no longer compiles
 338 2013-03-17 05:11:42 JDuke128 has joined
 339 2013-03-17 05:12:19 <Nothing4You> there is no /usr/bin/lrelease on my system, there are /usr/lib/qt4/bin/lrelease and /usr/bin/lrelease-qt4 though
 340 2013-03-17 05:13:27 <Nothing4You> that gives some "RCC: Error in 'src/qt/bitcoin.qrc': Cannot find file 'locale/bitcoin_countrycode.qm"
 341 2013-03-17 05:13:45 <Nothing4You> it ignores that error and keeps building
 342 2013-03-17 05:13:59 <Nothing4You> then
 343 2013-03-17 05:14:13 <Nothing4You> cd /home/rschwab/build/bitcoin-git/src/bitcoin-build; /bin/sh share/genbuild.sh /home/rschwab/build/bitcoin-git/src/bitcoin-build/build/build.h
 344 2013-03-17 05:14:13 <Nothing4You> g++ -c -m64 -pipe -fstack-protector-all -march=x86-64 -mtune=generic -O2 -pipe -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -D_REENTRANT -fdiagnostics-show-option -Wall -Wextra -Wformat -Wformat-security -Wno-unused-parameter -Wstack-protector -fPIE -DQT_GUI -DBOOST_THREAD_USE_LIB -DBOOST_SPIRIT_THREADSAFE -DUSE_UPNP=1 -DSTATICLIB -DUSE_IPV6=1 -DHAVE_BUILD_INFO -DLINUX -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -DQT_NO_DEBUG
 345 2013-03-17 05:14:13 <Nothing4You> -DQT_NETWORK_LIB -DQT_GUI_LIB -DQT_CORE_LIB -I/usr/lib/qt/mkspecs/linux-g++-64 -Isrc -Isrc/json -Isrc/qt -Isrc/leveldb/include -Isrc/leveldb/helpers -I/usr/include/qt5 -I/usr/include/qt5/QtNetwork -I/usr/include/qt5/QtGui -I/usr/include/qt5/QtCore -Ibuild -o build/bitcoin.o src/qt/bitcoin.cpp
 346 2013-03-17 05:14:16 <Nothing4You> In file included from src/qt/bitcoin.cpp:4:0:
 347 2013-03-17 05:14:20 <Nothing4You> src/qt/bitcoingui.h:4:23: fatal error: QMainWindow: No such file or directory
 348 2013-03-17 05:14:24 <Nothing4You> compilation terminated.
 349 2013-03-17 05:14:26 <Nothing4You> make: *** [build/bitcoin.o] Error 1
 350 2013-03-17 05:15:09 stanley has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 351 2013-03-17 05:15:15 polrpaul has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 352 2013-03-17 05:16:42 DotSlash has joined
 353 2013-03-17 05:18:11 keystroke has quit ()
 354 2013-03-17 05:18:40 cads has joined
 355 2013-03-17 05:19:15 stanley has joined
 356 2013-03-17 05:23:07 moleccc has joined
 357 2013-03-17 05:24:17 aethero has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.3 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
 358 2013-03-17 05:25:27 ntu has joined
 359 2013-03-17 05:26:25 DotSlash has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.90 [Firefox 19.0.2/20130307023931])
 360 2013-03-17 05:26:40 Boydy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 361 2013-03-17 05:26:56 hsmiths2 has joined
 362 2013-03-17 05:27:17 grau_ has joined
 363 2013-03-17 05:27:48 <dooglus> jgarzik: is that news to you?
 364 2013-03-17 05:28:18 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
 365 2013-03-17 05:29:27 twobitcoins__ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 366 2013-03-17 05:30:27 Namworld has quit ()
 367 2013-03-17 05:30:36 protus has quit (Quit: protus)
 368 2013-03-17 05:30:39 hsmiths has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 369 2013-03-17 05:31:45 Boydy has joined
 370 2013-03-17 05:31:45 Boydy has quit (Changing host)
 371 2013-03-17 05:31:45 Boydy has joined
 372 2013-03-17 05:32:43 <dooglus> jgarzik: I've seen no word from Erik about it.  This is where I heard about the change: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=150405.msg1603585#msg1603585
 373 2013-03-17 05:33:40 PlantMan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 374 2013-03-17 05:36:40 <jgarzik> dooglus: News to me, yes.  But we don't track these sorts of things as we should.
 375 2013-03-17 05:37:05 protus has joined
 376 2013-03-17 05:37:44 <dooglus> jgarzik: I've not actually looked to see if it's true at all - but parrot it as if it is...
 377 2013-03-17 05:37:58 <jgarzik> dooglus: As a major user of the network, there should be better tracking of their behavior
 378 2013-03-17 05:38:01 <jgarzik> dooglus: hehe
 379 2013-03-17 05:38:32 <dooglus> someone should make annoying posts of their behaviour to the development forum every day, say?
 380 2013-03-17 05:38:39 <jgarzik> hehehe
 381 2013-03-17 05:41:45 BTC_Bear is now known as BTC_Bear|hbrntng
 382 2013-03-17 05:42:05 <warren> dooglus: someone asked me if I was the whale yesterday.
 383 2013-03-17 05:44:35 <dooglus> were you insulted?
 384 2013-03-17 05:45:14 <warren> Surprised to have been found out.
 385 2013-03-17 05:46:24 <dooglus> ah...
 386 2013-03-17 05:48:38 <warren> (joking, of course)
 387 2013-03-17 05:54:05 dc8181 has joined
 388 2013-03-17 05:55:08 Leviathanzz has joined
 389 2013-03-17 05:55:51 leviathanbaphz has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 390 2013-03-17 06:03:49 defunctzombie is now known as defunctzombie_zz
 391 2013-03-17 06:05:05 <muhoo> so much drama in the BTC
 392 2013-03-17 06:05:19 <muhoo> it's hard being snoop d o double-g
 393 2013-03-17 06:06:11 <grau_> dooglus: so its confirmed SD is no longer dusting? I reconed, and asked yesterday in forums but got no reply.
 394 2013-03-17 06:06:13 dc8181 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 395 2013-03-17 06:07:59 <jgarzik> grau_: we can answer this question ourselves, with the blockchain data :)
 396 2013-03-17 06:08:17 <warren> grau_: if we only had a convenient way to query the block chain...
 397 2013-03-17 06:08:20 <jgarzik> grau_: surely bitsofproof has a fancy query ready for this :)
 398 2013-03-17 06:09:02 <grau_> jgarzik: you got me :)
 399 2013-03-17 06:09:35 <grau_> I saw that yesterday, but also sow a downtime of SD. I did not know if its malfunction or change
 400 2013-03-17 06:09:37 <muhoo> really, has nobody put the blockchain into a queryable database?
 401 2013-03-17 06:10:01 <grau_> muhoo: bitsofproof does
 402 2013-03-17 06:10:11 <jgarzik> grau_: once post dooglus linked above indicated the change may have happened a week ago
 403 2013-03-17 06:10:11 <grau_> if you have the patience
 404 2013-03-17 06:10:29 <jgarzik> grau_: anyway, the data is in your hands to answer the question :)
 405 2013-03-17 06:10:42 <grau_> jgarzik: no. The first change was just increasing dust granurality
 406 2013-03-17 06:11:03 <grau_> jgarzik: yesterday something else changed.
 407 2013-03-17 06:12:07 <grau_> jgarzik: to be honest: I have one instance of bitsofproof that runs in sync and that is now running with LevelDB
 408 2013-03-17 06:12:23 <warren> grau_: not surprising for a polluter to change behavior to avoid calls for regulation.  It's no guarantee that they or someone else can't do it in the future though.
 409 2013-03-17 06:12:27 <grau_> jgarzik: to get a relational one in sync takes days
 410 2013-03-17 06:13:01 <jgarzik> grau_: a simple per-block iteration is surely possible though
 411 2013-03-17 06:13:29 <grau_> jgarzik: sure, I would have to write a few lines of code to do whatever query
 412 2013-03-17 06:14:34 iwilcox has joined
 413 2013-03-17 06:14:41 <phantomcircuit> relational dbs max out at about 5k inserts/second with 1 index
 414 2013-03-17 06:14:58 <phantomcircuit> assuming you're not querying the db simultaneously
 415 2013-03-17 06:15:05 <phantomcircuit> days would be a long time
 416 2013-03-17 06:16:05 <grau_> phantomcircuit: When inserting new blocks in the relational configuration bitsofproof needs seconds to insert.
 417 2013-03-17 06:16:32 <grau_> The reason is that it normalizes txout and txin and indexes by address
 418 2013-03-17 06:16:55 <grau_> I however think that it is just a question of budget you need to get relational a good performance
 419 2013-03-17 06:16:59 <phantomcircuit> i assume you've already removed all of the foreign key constraints
 420 2013-03-17 06:17:14 <phantomcircuit> it mostly isn't
 421 2013-03-17 06:17:17 <grau_> phantomcircuit: no I did not.
 422 2013-03-17 06:17:19 HiWEB has left ()
 423 2013-03-17 06:17:23 <phantomcircuit> do that
 424 2013-03-17 06:17:34 <phantomcircuit> that si usually a huge performance boost
 425 2013-03-17 06:17:40 <grau_> phantomcircuit: The point of relational db is to have them
 426 2013-03-17 06:17:42 <phantomcircuit> and is only an integrity issue if you care
 427 2013-03-17 06:17:58 <phantomcircuit> grau_, remove them and add them after that batch insert
 428 2013-03-17 06:18:20 <phantomcircuit> or even change them to deferred and insert more than 1 block at a time
 429 2013-03-17 06:18:54 <grau_> phantomcircuit: I already use batch inserts. Disabling indices for download is an option
 430 2013-03-17 06:19:27 <phantomcircuit> grau_, if you're starting from zero and building the database
 431 2013-03-17 06:19:35 <phantomcircuit> remove the foreign key constraints
 432 2013-03-17 06:19:40 <phantomcircuit> and indexes
 433 2013-03-17 06:19:48 <phantomcircuit> then add them at the end of the batch insert
 434 2013-03-17 06:19:56 o2 has joined
 435 2013-03-17 06:19:57 <grau_> phantomcircuit: The whole point of relational db is to enable data mining with a tradeoff of online processing performance
 436 2013-03-17 06:20:00 <phantomcircuit> as long as you'r enot querying the db while you're building it
 437 2013-03-17 06:20:03 <phantomcircuit> you'll be fine
 438 2013-03-17 06:20:26 <phantomcircuit> alternatively you can have a binary pair of databases
 439 2013-03-17 06:20:31 <phantomcircuit> one which is building
 440 2013-03-17 06:20:40 <phantomcircuit> one which is live and query able
 441 2013-03-17 06:20:46 <phantomcircuit> then trade off between them
 442 2013-03-17 06:20:46 <grau_> phantomcircuit: I do not have a problem. It works, just slower than LevelDB which is not a surprise
 443 2013-03-17 06:20:50 <phantomcircuit> h4x
 444 2013-03-17 06:21:00 <phantomcircuit> shrug
 445 2013-03-17 06:22:00 <grau_> phantomcircuit: It still has a performance to keep up with the online tx. It just takes days to sync (just like 0.7)
 446 2013-03-17 06:22:26 <phantomcircuit> i guess with 0.7 you can put it on a tmpfs and it doesn't take days though
 447 2013-03-17 06:23:33 reizuki__ has joined
 448 2013-03-17 06:23:33 reizuki__ has quit (Changing host)
 449 2013-03-17 06:23:33 reizuki__ has joined
 450 2013-03-17 06:26:42 zoinky has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 451 2013-03-17 06:27:00 tyn has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 452 2013-03-17 06:28:49 RBecker is now known as rbecker
 453 2013-03-17 06:31:57 [Tycho] has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 454 2013-03-17 06:36:16 cads has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 455 2013-03-17 06:36:26 gagecolton2 has joined
 456 2013-03-17 06:36:27 stretchwarren has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 457 2013-03-17 06:37:21 gagecolton has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 458 2013-03-17 06:38:09 <doublec> hope all those pools on version 1 blocks realise we're 14% away from a supermajority causing their blocks to be orphaned
 459 2013-03-17 06:38:17 stretchwarren has joined
 460 2013-03-17 06:38:33 banghouse has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 461 2013-03-17 06:41:19 zoinky has joined
 462 2013-03-17 06:41:24 zoinky has left ()
 463 2013-03-17 06:41:37 toffoo has quit ()
 464 2013-03-17 06:43:18 <cyphase> woo, mined a block on testnet
 465 2013-03-17 06:43:57 <cyphase> after 5 failed attempts
 466 2013-03-17 06:44:25 <warren> difficulty = 4.00000000
 467 2013-03-17 06:44:42 <cyphase> yea, i know
 468 2013-03-17 06:45:01 <warren> I've been mining testnet for days and I have nothing.
 469 2013-03-17 06:45:22 <cyphase> how many mh/s?
 470 2013-03-17 06:45:27 <dooglus> recent 'dusting': http://blockchain.info/tx-index/60950169
 471 2013-03-17 06:45:42 <warren> 0.17Mh/s
 472 2013-03-17 06:46:02 <cyphase> warren, try changing algorithms
 473 2013-03-17 06:46:07 <cyphase> which one are you using now?
 474 2013-03-17 06:46:29 <warren> presumably sha256 with a 2% cpulimit
 475 2013-03-17 06:46:40 <cyphase> i mean which implementation
 476 2013-03-17 06:47:03 <cyphase> switching from c to cryptopp_asm32 gave me a ~20x improvement
 477 2013-03-17 06:47:13 <warren> https://github.com/downloads/pooler/cpuminer/pooler-cpuminer-2.2.3-linux-x86_64.tar.gz
 478 2013-03-17 06:47:57 <warren> I just turned it on for no purpose.
 479 2013-03-17 06:48:08 <iwilcox> dooglus: Meh.  Thought SD had raised "you lost" stuff over dusty thresholds?
 480 2013-03-17 06:48:24 blkashdla has quit ()
 481 2013-03-17 06:48:27 warreng has joined
 482 2013-03-17 06:51:13 Boydy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 483 2013-03-17 06:56:11 <dooglus> iwilcox: here's a more recent one - it seems they return 0.5% of min bet 0.01: http://blockchain.info/tx-index/60968447
 484 2013-03-17 06:57:37 <iwilcox> Now you've got me questioning whether I imagined their change.  *finds bitcointalk post*
 485 2013-03-17 06:58:06 <dooglus> iwilcox: they lose 10% in fees, you only lose 1.9% on average, so this is a net losing bet for them
 486 2013-03-17 06:58:28 <iwilcox> Heh, poor SD :)
 487 2013-03-17 06:59:08 <dooglus> for you too, of course.  only the miners win
 488 2013-03-17 07:01:04 <iwilcox> dooglus: I read this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=150493.msg1603675#msg1603675
 489 2013-03-17 07:01:25 <iwilcox> and checked a few txns and it seemed true.  Perhaps it changed back after SD's recent downtime.
 490 2013-03-17 07:01:34 <petertodd> 0.00005 is still an unspendable transaction too. To spend it ads 120 bytes to a transaction, 120/1000 * 0.0005 = 0.00006, so a 0.00001 BTC loss.
 491 2013-03-17 07:03:10 coolsa has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 492 2013-03-17 07:03:14 <dooglus> petertodd: except the first 10k is free?
 493 2013-03-17 07:03:21 <petertodd> oops, wait, forgot the pubkey, so 153bytes * 0.0005BTC/KB = 0.0000765BTc, so a 0.0000265BTC net loss.
 494 2013-03-17 07:03:37 <Ant0> umm
 495 2013-03-17 07:03:39 <Ant0> something weird is happening
 496 2013-03-17 07:03:42 <petertodd> Only because of miner charity, don't expect that forever.
 497 2013-03-17 07:03:48 rmp has joined
 498 2013-03-17 07:03:48 <Ant0> on blockchain they say I have 50 BTC
 499 2013-03-17 07:04:03 <petertodd> Also the priority code won't let you spend that for a long time in the free 10k anyway.
 500 2013-03-17 07:04:13 <Ant0> 53.10055731 BTC $ 2,495.72
 501 2013-03-17 07:04:20 <Ant0> but thats not true
 502 2013-03-17 07:04:21 <Ant0> :s
 503 2013-03-17 07:04:36 <dooglus> petertodd: your size calculation is nearly right though.  I make it 147 to 149 bytes per input
 504 2013-03-17 07:04:44 <iwilcox> Ant0: Have you messed about with wallet imports/exports?
 505 2013-03-17 07:04:59 <grau_> Ant0: which block?
 506 2013-03-17 07:05:20 <petertodd> dooglus: Yeah, I just added them up in my head. Depends on luck w/ the signature size as you know.
 507 2013-03-17 07:05:22 <dooglus> petertodd: and the priority code will let you spend it very soon if you mix it with a big enough input
 508 2013-03-17 07:05:45 <Ant0> nope iwilcox
 509 2013-03-17 07:05:49 <dooglus> petertodd: eg. blockchain.info/tx-index/50754520
 510 2013-03-17 07:05:57 <Ant0> it started this morning
 511 2013-03-17 07:06:02 <Ant0> I have added two read only wallets
 512 2013-03-17 07:06:16 <petertodd> dooglus: Well sure, but that just means you're paying the fee with that big input. Still doesn't help the case where you've spent all your big coins and are wondering if it's worth it to keep the wallet around.
 513 2013-03-17 07:06:39 <dooglus> petertodd: right.  dust is hard to spend.
 514 2013-03-17 07:06:47 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
 515 2013-03-17 07:07:19 <petertodd> dooglus: Newbies throw away dust wallets all the time because they get frustrated - that's the problem. Similar problem with coinad and it's ilk.
 516 2013-03-17 07:07:58 <warren> Is there an anonymous way to donate and discard a dust wallet?
 517 2013-03-17 07:08:05 <dooglus> petertodd: dust wallets are slow to spend from too
 518 2013-03-17 07:08:28 <petertodd> warren: Maybe, but this is a newbie problem, so I can't see that helping.
 519 2013-03-17 07:08:30 <dooglus> warren: I've had a dust wallet emailed to me before to spend the dust for them
 520 2013-03-17 07:09:27 <warren> petertodd: in the long-term we need to tax the uneconomically small tx's to make it cost too much to create to begin with.
 521 2013-03-17 07:09:52 grau_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 522 2013-03-17 07:09:54 <petertodd> warren: gmaxwell has some neat pre-payment ideas in that realm
 523 2013-03-17 07:10:16 <warren> where were they posted?
 524 2013-03-17 07:10:45 <petertodd> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/User:Gmaxwell/alt_ideas is his general dump of ideas
 525 2013-03-17 07:10:55 <petertodd> not sure if that specific one is in there
 526 2013-03-17 07:11:02 <warreng> warren: hello!
 527 2013-03-17 07:11:12 owowo has quit (Quit: sayonara)
 528 2013-03-17 07:11:27 JDuke128 has quit (Quit: [BB])
 529 2013-03-17 07:12:01 <warreng> i like your nick.
 530 2013-03-17 07:16:25 <SomeoneWeird> lol
 531 2013-03-17 07:18:08 PlantMan has joined
 532 2013-03-17 07:19:40 manet has joined
 533 2013-03-17 07:21:42 Boydy has joined
 534 2013-03-17 07:31:00 mappum has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 535 2013-03-17 07:34:06 Boydy has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 536 2013-03-17 07:37:07 Boydy has joined
 537 2013-03-17 07:37:07 Boydy has quit (Changing host)
 538 2013-03-17 07:37:07 Boydy has joined
 539 2013-03-17 07:41:20  has quit (Clown|!~clown@static-87-79-93-140.netcologne.de|Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 540 2013-03-17 07:42:10 grau has joined
 541 2013-03-17 07:44:35 pobri19` is now known as Pobri19
 542 2013-03-17 07:46:17 Pobri19 is now known as pobri19
 543 2013-03-17 07:47:09 o2 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 544 2013-03-17 07:50:03 ThomasV has joined
 545 2013-03-17 07:55:07 btcur has joined
 546 2013-03-17 07:59:57 rmp has left ("Leaving")
 547 2013-03-17 08:00:09 o2 has joined
 548 2013-03-17 08:05:27 <warren> oh
 549 2013-03-17 08:05:29  has joined
 550 2013-03-17 08:05:46 <warren> Ant0: I think there's a bug in blockchain where a read-only wallet fails to become spendable later if you add a privkey
 551 2013-03-17 08:06:27 <Ant0> warren I didnt added the priv key
 552 2013-03-17 08:06:40 <warren> ok, misunderstood you
 553 2013-03-17 08:06:45 <Ant0> but both my read only wallet seems to have "received" around 25 ghost btc each
 554 2013-03-17 08:14:22 manet has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 555 2013-03-17 08:15:27 BTCOxygen has joined
 556 2013-03-17 08:15:28 saulimus has joined
 557 2013-03-17 08:17:25 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 558 2013-03-17 08:18:50 FredEE has quit (Quit: FredEE)
 559 2013-03-17 08:19:40 BTCOxygen has quit (1!~BTCOxygen@unaffiliated/mroxy/bot/btcoxygen|Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 560 2013-03-17 08:20:27 ovidiusoft has joined
 561 2013-03-17 08:24:26 manet has joined
 562 2013-03-17 08:32:56 gritcoin has quit (Quit: gritcoin)
 563 2013-03-17 08:36:06 gritcoin has joined
 564 2013-03-17 08:37:19 spilk has joined
 565 2013-03-17 08:38:11 <spilk> Could anyone send me some test coins for testing? mvKW3a5gBzAmM4X8qA9DJosEQz15FnbkMn
 566 2013-03-17 08:38:44 <warren> spilk: http://testnet.mojocoin.com/
 567 2013-03-17 08:39:01 <spilk> i tried some of the faucets, but nothing ever showed up
 568 2013-03-17 08:39:16 <lianj> synced yet?
 569 2013-03-17 08:39:51 viperhr has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 570 2013-03-17 08:40:05 <spilk> thats what i was wondering. Qt shows 59795 blocks as being completed (most recent being 11mins ago) but bitcoind shows 107651 blocks
 571 2013-03-17 08:40:39 gritcoin has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 572 2013-03-17 08:40:55 Goonie has joined
 573 2013-03-17 08:47:25 Joric has joined
 574 2013-03-17 08:47:38 space_cadet has joined
 575 2013-03-17 08:47:38 space_cadet has quit (Changing host)
 576 2013-03-17 08:47:38 space_cadet has joined
 577 2013-03-17 08:48:51 manet has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 578 2013-03-17 08:48:52 Boydy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 579 2013-03-17 08:54:00 vigilyn2 has joined
 580 2013-03-17 08:54:05 Nothing4You has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 581 2013-03-17 08:55:42 zveda has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 582 2013-03-17 08:56:48 vigilyn has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 583 2013-03-17 08:59:41 twobitcoins has joined
 584 2013-03-17 09:00:26 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 585 2013-03-17 09:02:24 <dooglus> iwilcox: the pos you linked to seems to be true.  SD's smallest dust is now 5000 satoshis - which is still dust
 586 2013-03-17 09:03:44 gritcoin has joined
 587 2013-03-17 09:04:27 manet has joined
 588 2013-03-17 09:05:09 Hashdog has joined
 589 2013-03-17 09:06:53 manet has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 590 2013-03-17 09:07:43 zveda has joined
 591 2013-03-17 09:09:38 <iwilcox> dooglus: Yeah, upon re-reading it properly I realised that.  D'oh!
 592 2013-03-17 09:13:33 ic3 has joined
 593 2013-03-17 09:15:17 Guest15522 has joined
 594 2013-03-17 09:19:39 PlantMan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 595 2013-03-17 09:20:33 Guest15522 has quit (Quit: Yo!)
 596 2013-03-17 09:25:13 testnode9 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 597 2013-03-17 09:25:41 testnode9 has joined
 598 2013-03-17 09:41:33 Nothing4You has joined
 599 2013-03-17 09:43:39 <Ant0> damn im running out of food
 600 2013-03-17 09:43:47 <Ant0> and no money :p
 601 2013-03-17 09:44:13 <Ant0> 14GPNioy3mi3D9iMge67j5UAoEy5hT4btn btc pls :P
 602 2013-03-17 09:44:19 <Ant0> just kidding
 603 2013-03-17 09:44:27 <Ant0> ups wrong chat lol
 604 2013-03-17 09:44:37 <Ant0> sorry^2
 605 2013-03-17 09:47:56 <da2ce7_d> this notice: http://bitcoin.org/may15.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Feedhintbitcoin+%28Feedhint.com%2Fbitcoin%29
 606 2013-03-17 09:48:08 <da2ce7_d> needs to have a 'draft' flag on it
 607 2013-03-17 09:48:15 <da2ce7_d> since people are already linking to it.
 608 2013-03-17 09:48:40 <da2ce7_d> and may get confused that there is no 0.8.1 version yet.
 609 2013-03-17 09:48:50 HansDollar has joined
 610 2013-03-17 09:48:51 BTC_Bear has quit (hbrntng!~BTC_Bear@unaffiliated/btc-bear/x-5233302|Quit: Leaving...)
 611 2013-03-17 09:48:51 <Joric> set_lg_dir ? what's lg
 612 2013-03-17 09:50:06 <da2ce7_d> gavinandresen: ^^
 613 2013-03-17 09:50:07 <HansDollar> Could anyone answer a question about the bitcoin protocol for me? Specifically, in regard to parsing transaction messages... it seems the Wiki entry for the protocol is either wrong, or I'm just confused.
 614 2013-03-17 09:51:00 <grau> HansDollar: ask
 615 2013-03-17 09:52:22 <HansDollar> grau: The protocol example shows that in the hex output of a tx message, there is supposed to be a byte that says how many outpoints there are. Just as there is a similar such byte for inpoints. The problem is, where the inpoint value is correct, the outpoint value is not...
 616 2013-03-17 09:52:24 tockitj has joined
 617 2013-03-17 09:53:46 <HansDollar> Is it not the Wiki page says "1+	 tx_out count	var_int	 Number of Transaction outputs" but I'm consistently seeing it read "30" for that byte (on transactions with one outpoint), which is 48 after a base_10 conversion.
 618 2013-03-17 09:54:52 rebroad has joined
 619 2013-03-17 09:55:04 rebroad is now known as Guest56048
 620 2013-03-17 09:55:13 <HansDollar> sorry, that should have been, "Is it not? The Wiki..."
 621 2013-03-17 09:55:26 <Guest56048> .
 622 2013-03-17 09:55:34 <grau> paste the hex dump you are talking about.
 623 2013-03-17 09:55:49 Guest56048 is now known as rebroad_
 624 2013-03-17 09:55:50 <grau> on the wiki ?
 625 2013-03-17 09:55:59 <HansDollar> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification#tx
 626 2013-03-17 09:56:14 <HansDollar> The transaction example shows number of outputs is a var_int type.
 627 2013-03-17 09:56:56 <Apexseals> lol man
 628 2013-03-17 09:57:02 <Apexseals> nvidia cards still havent gotten any better at mining
 629 2013-03-17 09:57:05 <grau> It also shows the hex broken down
 630 2013-03-17 09:57:12 <Apexseals> msi gtx 670 power edition.  105mh/s
 631 2013-03-17 09:57:16 <grau> and out is 02
 632 2013-03-17 09:57:49 <Apexseals> i could pre-order a 30gh/s mini rig...but ugh...they wont be selling for a long time
 633 2013-03-17 09:57:54 <Apexseals> erm,  shipping
 634 2013-03-17 09:57:57 <rebroad_> what is the reason debug.log ever contains IP addresses?
 635 2013-03-17 09:58:24 <HansDollar> grau: Yes, I see that. I'm reading the hex as it is defined, and everything else is parsing correctly (pk_scripts, inputs, values, etc...) but the byte for # of outpoints doesn't seem to be a var_int as it says it is on the protocol page.
 636 2013-03-17 09:58:45 <rebroad_> I mean, can they perhaps only be shown when a node misbehaves.. I'd like to include some logged for block downloading so that each connected node is given a number, without it being easy to associate with the IP address.
 637 2013-03-17 09:59:36 <grau> It might be that the page is inconsitent, but be assured that on the wire nr. of txouts is var_int
 638 2013-03-17 10:00:16 <HansDollar> Meaning, I grab the version, number of inputs, the previous output, read the script length, read the number of bytes the script length says to read, read 4 bytes for sequence, and the next byte is supposed to be number of outpoints... but it seems wrong
 639 2013-03-17 10:01:10 <HansDollar> For a tx with 1 outpoint, I always see that byte show "30" instead of the "01" it should be.
 640 2013-03-17 10:01:11 <grau> HansDollar: parsing it with my eyes hower looks correct. Sequence is FFFFFFF and therafter you get 02
 641 2013-03-17 10:01:29 Ogig has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 642 2013-03-17 10:01:44 <HansDollar> The example is correct. It doesn't correlate to the txs I'm seeing come in from the network.
 643 2013-03-17 10:02:13 ThomasV has joined
 644 2013-03-17 10:02:27 <grau> Then your parser is wrong.
 645 2013-03-17 10:02:38 <HansDollar> I'm doing it by hand just to verify.
 646 2013-03-17 10:02:46 <grau> I wrote a parser myself. It is a pain.
 647 2013-03-17 10:03:08 <HansDollar> If it was a different value every time I saw it, I would think otherwise, but every tx I see with 1 outpoint shows "30" for that byte value.
 648 2013-03-17 10:03:33 <grau> Then the parser is definitelly wrong
 649 2013-03-17 10:04:08 <grau> what language are you using?
 650 2013-03-17 10:04:14 <HansDollar> Not running them through a parser. I'm verifying it by hand compared to the example to understand the protocol, so that I can write a parser.
 651 2013-03-17 10:04:27 <HansDollar> I think maybe python. Not sure yet.
 652 2013-03-17 10:04:52 <grau> There are lots of python parser on github. look for Armory for start.
 653 2013-03-17 10:05:17 <grau> or there is pynode from jgarzik
 654 2013-03-17 10:05:26 <HansDollar> Armory is far too big for what I need to do. I'll take a look at pynode though
 655 2013-03-17 10:08:27 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 656 2013-03-17 10:14:40 viperhr has joined
 657 2013-03-17 10:14:53 oleganza has joined
 658 2013-03-17 10:15:01 gritcoin has quit (Quit: gritcoin)
 659 2013-03-17 10:15:05 JZavala has joined
 660 2013-03-17 10:22:45 bitcoin1 has joined
 661 2013-03-17 10:24:00 bitcoin1 has quit (Client Quit)
 662 2013-03-17 10:24:55 _pr has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 663 2013-03-17 10:25:12 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 664 2013-03-17 10:26:52 CaptainBlaze has joined
 665 2013-03-17 10:27:27 _pr has joined
 666 2013-03-17 10:30:13 B0g4r7 has joined
 667 2013-03-17 10:36:25 Joric has quit ()
 668 2013-03-17 10:37:58 NilamDoc has joined
 669 2013-03-17 10:42:29 pete78 has joined
 670 2013-03-17 10:43:03 manet has joined
 671 2013-03-17 10:43:35 NilamDoc has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 672 2013-03-17 10:44:44 _pr has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 673 2013-03-17 10:44:56 ThomasV has left ("Quitte")
 674 2013-03-17 10:45:19 ThomasV has joined
 675 2013-03-17 10:48:44 NilamDoc has joined
 676 2013-03-17 10:50:26 stretchwarren has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 677 2013-03-17 10:51:16 jacklynx has joined
 678 2013-03-17 10:53:35 stretchwarren has joined
 679 2013-03-17 10:54:45 BTCOxygen has joined
 680 2013-03-17 10:55:17 Wayward- has joined
 681 2013-03-17 10:55:17 Raccoon` has joined
 682 2013-03-17 10:57:19 <bVector> is it possible for two transactions to have the same transaction id?
 683 2013-03-17 10:57:21 Raccoon has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 684 2013-03-17 10:57:24 Raccoon` is now known as Raccoon
 685 2013-03-17 10:58:08 Wayward has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 686 2013-03-17 10:59:30 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 687 2013-03-17 11:00:12 copumpkin has joined
 688 2013-03-17 11:00:27 one_zero has quit ()
 689 2013-03-17 11:03:31 jacklynx has left ()
 690 2013-03-17 11:05:19 oleganza has quit (Quit: oleganza)
 691 2013-03-17 11:05:27 tockitj has quit (Changing host)
 692 2013-03-17 11:05:27 tockitj has joined
 693 2013-03-17 11:07:54 <lianj> bVector: no. only if you found a sha256 collision which highly unlikely
 694 2013-03-17 11:08:06 Xeno-Genesis has joined
 695 2013-03-17 11:11:52 <tockitj> bVector, it is possible
 696 2013-03-17 11:12:22 <bVector> how hard would it be in terms of computational time for a single system or a gpu?
 697 2013-03-17 11:12:51 <tockitj> more than universe lifetime probably
 698 2013-03-17 11:12:57 <iwilcox> The best known attack on SHA256 is, well, 2^255.5
 699 2013-03-17 11:13:34 <iwilcox> (C'mon, guys!) :)
 700 2013-03-17 11:13:37 <tockitj> odds to do it would be very much against you - but it *is* possible
 701 2013-03-17 11:14:01 <saulimus> people do win the lottery, don't they... ;)
 702 2013-03-17 11:14:22 <tockitj> we'll this is a bit harder than winning lottery (:
 703 2013-03-17 11:14:33 <iwilcox> The point is you'd be a fool to try it because you'd expect it to cost you more in electricity than you'd make.
 704 2013-03-17 11:15:20 <tockitj> more like winning 10-20 lotteries in sequence (:
 705 2013-03-17 11:15:21 <bVector> how do you make money by generating two txid's that are the same? :P
 706 2013-03-17 11:15:39 <tockitj> iwilcox, but he might also get it from first try ? (:
 707 2013-03-17 11:15:42 <iwilcox> tockitj: Well, sure, for some order of magnitude of 'more'
 708 2013-03-17 11:16:09 <iwilcox> bVector: Dunno, you're the one trying it ;)
 709 2013-03-17 11:17:31 <lianj> who said he is trying it. maybe just think he found one
 710 2013-03-17 11:17:46 whiterabbit has joined
 711 2013-03-17 11:18:59 <tockitj> i'd like to see that coallision then (:
 712 2013-03-17 11:19:12 <lianj> ^^
 713 2013-03-17 11:19:44 <iwilcox> It's the sort of thing that might get exploited as part of some larger swiss-cheese attack I guess.  Say the client forgot to 'AND' the conditions: txid matches, can produce m for hash(m), have private key matching sig(tx)
 714 2013-03-17 11:20:17 <iwilcox> So you never know.
 715 2013-03-17 11:21:06 wrabbit has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 716 2013-03-17 11:21:07 whiterabbit is now known as wrabbit
 717 2013-03-17 11:22:00 RazielZ has joined
 718 2013-03-17 11:26:09 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
 719 2013-03-17 11:28:28 OPrime has joined
 720 2013-03-17 11:28:47 viperhr has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 721 2013-03-17 11:29:36 CodesInChaos has joined
 722 2013-03-17 11:30:19 JDuke128 has joined
 723 2013-03-17 11:31:08 Twixed has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 724 2013-03-17 11:31:22 Twixed has joined
 725 2013-03-17 11:33:19 rebroad_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 726 2013-03-17 11:34:16 rebroad_ has joined
 727 2013-03-17 11:35:15 HansDollar has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 728 2013-03-17 11:45:50 lightdark has joined
 729 2013-03-17 11:47:39 <CodeShark> how do I edit en.bitcoin.it wiki pages?
 730 2013-03-17 11:48:24 <CodeShark> or rather, how can I get permissions to edit?
 731 2013-03-17 11:49:16 Twixed has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 732 2013-03-17 11:50:03 Twixed has joined
 733 2013-03-17 11:51:23 rebroad_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 734 2013-03-17 11:54:22 <Graet> login, make a micro btc payment and once it goes through you get permission CodeShark
 735 2013-03-17 11:54:55 <CodeShark> micropayment to whom?
 736 2013-03-17 11:57:07 <CodeShark> the help docs don't seem to say anything regarding people who are already very familiar with bitcoin and want to contribute
 737 2013-03-17 11:57:17 <CodeShark> only for people who don't know anything about bitcoin
 738 2013-03-17 11:57:42 Twixed has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 739 2013-03-17 11:59:33 <Graet> i fou8nd out when i wnet back to edit my pools details on the pools page and found i was unable to, when you go to login there is a link you can click, apparently it is to stop ppl spamming
 740 2013-03-17 12:00:28 <CodeShark> oh, hmm - thanks
 741 2013-03-17 12:08:34 ThomasV has joined
 742 2013-03-17 12:15:42 saulimus has quit (Quit: saulimus)
 743 2013-03-17 12:15:54 orbliviator has joined
 744 2013-03-17 12:17:30 orblivion has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 745 2013-03-17 12:19:47 kadoban has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 746 2013-03-17 12:20:21 Duly has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 747 2013-03-17 12:21:30 NilamDoc has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 748 2013-03-17 12:26:34 blaeks has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 749 2013-03-17 12:27:40 OPrime has quit (Quit: OPrime)
 750 2013-03-17 12:33:13 OPrime has joined
 751 2013-03-17 12:40:06 b00tkitz has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 752 2013-03-17 12:41:40 b00tkitz has joined
 753 2013-03-17 12:42:49 the-bucket-shop has quit (Quit: the-bucket-shop)
 754 2013-03-17 12:50:01 HANTI is now known as hanti
 755 2013-03-17 12:56:00 JDuke128 has quit (Quit: [BB])
 756 2013-03-17 12:56:32 pegu has joined
 757 2013-03-17 12:56:53 Guest44966 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 758 2013-03-17 13:01:25 g2x3k has joined
 759 2013-03-17 13:01:25 g2x3k has quit (Changing host)
 760 2013-03-17 13:01:25 g2x3k has joined
 761 2013-03-17 13:01:27 oleganza has joined
 762 2013-03-17 13:02:34 oleganza has quit (Client Quit)
 763 2013-03-17 13:07:57 Twixed has joined
 764 2013-03-17 13:09:47 AtashiCon has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 765 2013-03-17 13:11:03 daybyter has joined
 766 2013-03-17 13:15:40 Xeno-Genesis has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 767 2013-03-17 13:20:05 cyphurnz has joined
 768 2013-03-17 13:21:34 <sipa> CodeShark: just go to the login page, it has instructions
 769 2013-03-17 13:22:35 kanoi_ has joined
 770 2013-03-17 13:23:54 Xeno-Genesis has joined
 771 2013-03-17 13:24:49 d4de has joined
 772 2013-03-17 13:26:11 kanoi has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 773 2013-03-17 13:26:35 CaptainBlaze has quit (Quit: CaptainBlaze)
 774 2013-03-17 13:28:43 kanoi_ is now known as kanoi
 775 2013-03-17 13:30:01 CaptainBlaze has joined
 776 2013-03-17 13:31:29 kanoi has quit (Quit: leaving)
 777 2013-03-17 13:36:52 whyme has joined
 778 2013-03-17 13:38:25 polrpaul has joined
 779 2013-03-17 13:38:40 polrpaul has quit (Client Quit)
 780 2013-03-17 13:38:57 polrpaul has joined
 781 2013-03-17 13:40:01 rdponticelli has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
 782 2013-03-17 13:40:25 polrpaul has quit (Client Quit)
 783 2013-03-17 13:40:38 polrpaul has joined
 784 2013-03-17 13:43:23 sanchaz has joined
 785 2013-03-17 13:43:35 sanchaz has quit (Changing host)
 786 2013-03-17 13:43:35 sanchaz has joined
 787 2013-03-17 13:46:27 MobGod has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 788 2013-03-17 13:51:09 toffoo has joined
 789 2013-03-17 13:54:54 vellest has joined
 790 2013-03-17 13:55:06 Anduck has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 791 2013-03-17 13:56:54 whyme has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 792 2013-03-17 13:57:23 Anduck has joined
 793 2013-03-17 13:59:13 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
 794 2013-03-17 13:59:40 chao has joined
 795 2013-03-17 14:00:30 sanchaz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 796 2013-03-17 14:01:13 chao has quit (Client Quit)
 797 2013-03-17 14:01:39 chao has joined
 798 2013-03-17 14:04:27 the-bucket-shop has joined
 799 2013-03-17 14:13:57 reizuki__ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
 800 2013-03-17 14:16:16 Xeno-Genesis has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 801 2013-03-17 14:18:10 OPrime has quit (Quit: OPrime)
 802 2013-03-17 14:22:51 Anduck has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 803 2013-03-17 14:24:01 rbecker is now known as RBecker
 804 2013-03-17 14:25:58 pizzacat has joined
 805 2013-03-17 14:26:48 Anduck has joined
 806 2013-03-17 14:26:48 Anduck has quit (Changing host)
 807 2013-03-17 14:26:48 Anduck has joined
 808 2013-03-17 14:29:57 chao has quit (Quit: Reconnecting)
 809 2013-03-17 14:30:13 chao has joined
 810 2013-03-17 14:30:40 chao has quit (Client Quit)
 811 2013-03-17 14:30:41 <pizzacat> does anyone know if a 0.7.2 blockchain can be copied to a 0.6.2 client? i keep getting exceptions
 812 2013-03-17 14:31:32 Nuevoencantabria has joined
 813 2013-03-17 14:31:47 chao has joined
 814 2013-03-17 14:32:05 bernard75 has joined
 815 2013-03-17 14:32:05 bernard75 has quit (Changing host)
 816 2013-03-17 14:32:05 bernard75 has joined
 817 2013-03-17 14:32:16 safra has joined
 818 2013-03-17 14:33:38 Lolcust has quit (Quit: Nap time)
 819 2013-03-17 14:33:55 Ant0 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 820 2013-03-17 14:34:12 lightdark has left ()
 821 2013-03-17 14:36:14 coinbit_ has joined
 822 2013-03-17 14:40:05 Xeno-Genesis has joined
 823 2013-03-17 14:45:26 <Vinnie_win> When I go to blockchain.info all I see is "SatoshiDICE...."
 824 2013-03-17 14:45:35 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 825 2013-03-17 14:45:39 RBecker is now known as rbecker
 826 2013-03-17 14:48:07 Nuevoencantabria is now known as Ant0
 827 2013-03-17 14:48:33 <Ant0> true Vinnie_win
 828 2013-03-17 14:48:36 <Ant0> pft
 829 2013-03-17 14:49:55 coinbit_ has left ()
 830 2013-03-17 14:51:47 safra has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 831 2013-03-17 14:53:48 davout has joined
 832 2013-03-17 14:53:48 davout has quit (Changing host)
 833 2013-03-17 14:53:48 davout has joined
 834 2013-03-17 14:58:23 valparaiso has quit (Quit: valparaiso)
 835 2013-03-17 15:03:18 davout_ has joined
 836 2013-03-17 15:04:33 Bohren has joined
 837 2013-03-17 15:06:11 davout has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 838 2013-03-17 15:09:51  has quit (Clown|!~clown@static-87-79-93-140.netcologne.de|Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 839 2013-03-17 15:12:45 Allicoin has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 840 2013-03-17 15:12:51 valparaiso has joined
 841 2013-03-17 15:14:32 MJR_ has joined
 842 2013-03-17 15:15:40 rdymac has joined
 843 2013-03-17 15:16:25 rdymac has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 844 2013-03-17 15:17:42 Lolcust has joined
 845 2013-03-17 15:20:38 pizzacat has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 846 2013-03-17 15:22:53 davout has joined
 847 2013-03-17 15:22:53 davout has quit (Changing host)
 848 2013-03-17 15:22:53 davout has joined
 849 2013-03-17 15:23:46 <KipIngram> Man, it takes *forever* to synch the blockchain...
 850 2013-03-17 15:24:27 <sipa> which version?
 851 2013-03-17 15:24:51 <joe_k> would be kind of interesting to have packaged blockchains on s3 for people to snarf at full tilt without p2p, then bring up to date with p2p
 852 2013-03-17 15:25:29 <sipa> joe_k: you mean bootstrap.dat ?
 853 2013-03-17 15:25:48 <KipIngram> I understand why the blockchain needs to be available, but does the client routinely use the whole thing?  Could the "older part" be replaced by a crc or something for "routine use"?
 854 2013-03-17 15:25:58 <aXs__> last 0.8 i started clean synced in less than a day
 855 2013-03-17 15:26:09 <Scrat> joe_k: packaged blockchains require trust. bootstrap does not. http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/blockchain/bootstrap.dat.torrent/download
 856 2013-03-17 15:26:10 <sipa> KipIngram: not if you're running a fully validating node
 857 2013-03-17 15:26:30 <sipa> KipIngram: if you can't afford the storage it needs, you can run a more lightweight client like Multibit
 858 2013-03-17 15:26:32 davout_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 859 2013-03-17 15:26:49 <KipIngram> I can afford the storage.
 860 2013-03-17 15:26:58 flug has joined
 861 2013-03-17 15:27:07 <KipIngram> I'm just in the learning phase and trying to absorb as much as possible.
 862 2013-03-17 15:27:15 <sipa> ok :)
 863 2013-03-17 15:27:22 <joe_k> Scrat: easy enough to verify the package on the first p2p block received.   but yes i suspected someone already did it.  then again, a torrent is still p2p
 864 2013-03-17 15:27:36 flug has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 865 2013-03-17 15:27:43 <Ant0> http://img.imgur.com/YNVYxiT.png <-- what?
 866 2013-03-17 15:27:43 <joe_k> for me p2p is usually slower than direct client-to-server, maybe b/c i have 35mbit cable
 867 2013-03-17 15:28:05 <sipa> joe_k: feel free to put on a webserver
 868 2013-03-17 15:28:12 <joe_k> oh sure i might
 869 2013-03-17 15:28:15 <Scrat> joe_k: I'll pm you a direct link
 870 2013-03-17 15:28:18 <sipa> bittorrent is just a convenient medium for mass distribution
 871 2013-03-17 15:28:26 <sipa> i think some people host bootstrap.dat on http
 872 2013-03-17 15:28:43 <sipa> Ant0: solo asic miners?
 873 2013-03-17 15:29:23 johnsoft1 has joined
 874 2013-03-17 15:29:44 <Ant0> or the CIA
 875 2013-03-17 15:29:45 <Ant0> :P
 876 2013-03-17 15:29:50 MobiusL has joined
 877 2013-03-17 15:30:48 LainZ has joined
 878 2013-03-17 15:30:59 joehoyle- has joined
 879 2013-03-17 15:31:09 D34TH has joined
 880 2013-03-17 15:31:16 Suiram has joined
 881 2013-03-17 15:31:36 johnsoft has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 882 2013-03-17 15:31:42 Lolcust has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 883 2013-03-17 15:33:43 <Graet> that only shows 7 of about 28 pools
 884 2013-03-17 15:34:30 <Graet> http://blockorigin.pfoe.be/top.php actually tries (and succeeds ) to be accurate
 885 2013-03-17 15:35:53 joehoyle- has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 886 2013-03-17 15:36:01 31NACZ467 has joined
 887 2013-03-17 15:36:10 pizzacat has joined
 888 2013-03-17 15:36:18 <aXs__> Graet: i don't see mtred
 889 2013-03-17 15:36:54 <Graet> where?
 890 2013-03-17 15:37:00 <aXs__> Graet: on the top
 891 2013-03-17 15:37:14 <Graet> #10?
 892 2013-03-17 15:37:29 <aXs__> ah
 893 2013-03-17 15:37:33 <Graet> :)
 894 2013-03-17 15:37:53 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
 895 2013-03-17 15:37:58 <aXs__> Graet: i was ctrl-f "mtred" .. thanks pointing that out :)
 896 2013-03-17 15:38:09 <Graet> welcome :)
 897 2013-03-17 15:38:36 <Graet> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123726.0  << Ant0
 898 2013-03-17 15:39:11 vigilyn2 is now known as vigilyn
 899 2013-03-17 15:39:12 <Ant0> gona read it thx Graet
 900 2013-03-17 15:39:13 safra has joined
 901 2013-03-17 15:39:16 vigilyn has quit (Changing host)
 902 2013-03-17 15:39:16 vigilyn has joined
 903 2013-03-17 15:39:19 <Graet> :)
 904 2013-03-17 15:39:23 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 905 2013-03-17 15:41:21 tyn has joined
 906 2013-03-17 15:41:56 bernard75 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 907 2013-03-17 15:42:07 Diablo-D3 has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
 908 2013-03-17 15:42:50 <Luke-Jr> gavinandresen: erm, pretty sure the may15 page has a config recommended that does *not* completely fix the problem..
 909 2013-03-17 15:43:26 <Luke-Jr> double-checking
 910 2013-03-17 15:43:52 berni23 has joined
 911 2013-03-17 15:44:26 <Luke-Jr> yeah, looks like the lock limit there will work up to reorgs 2 deep - that will usually be okay, but 292692 is needed to handle up to 6 deep
 912 2013-03-17 15:45:05 <Luke-Jr> will post to ML since you seem AFK
 913 2013-03-17 15:47:22 <sipa> Luke-Jr: i get 117000
 914 2013-03-17 15:47:26 <sipa> for a 6 deep reorg, max
 915 2013-03-17 15:47:34 <sipa> (assuming at least one signature per txin)
 916 2013-03-17 15:48:24 <sipa> even somewhat less
 917 2013-03-17 15:50:07 ThomasV has joined
 918 2013-03-17 15:50:12 Lolcust has joined
 919 2013-03-17 15:51:23 darkskiez has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 920 2013-03-17 15:51:35 31NACZ467 has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
 921 2013-03-17 15:52:09 ThomasV has quit (Client Quit)
 922 2013-03-17 15:52:38 darkskiez has joined
 923 2013-03-17 15:52:38 darkskiez has quit (Changing host)
 924 2013-03-17 15:52:38 darkskiez has joined
 925 2013-03-17 15:56:34 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 926 2013-03-17 15:59:12 <sipa> 114036
 927 2013-03-17 16:01:55 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 928 2013-03-17 16:01:58 <Luke-Jr> sipa: counting the 5 blocks that have to be undone, plus 6 to replay?
 929 2013-03-17 16:02:17 <Luke-Jr> I wonder if we should be addressing CVE-2013-2292 in this hardfork somehow..
 930 2013-03-17 16:02:43 <sipa> Luke-Jr: counting 6 being undone, and 7 being reconnected
 931 2013-03-17 16:03:29 oleganza has joined
 932 2013-03-17 16:03:33 <sipa> Luke-Jr: calculated as 1000000 bytes, minus size of a header, minus size of the minimal coinbase
 933 2013-03-17 16:04:00 <sipa> Luke-Jr: that results in one almost-1M transaction left, which then gets 1 output and as many inputs as possible
 934 2013-03-17 16:04:14 <sipa> each input having at least one signature
 935 2013-03-17 16:04:25 <Luke-Jr> sipa: I didn't realize the header counted toward the 1000000, and I forgot a coinbase
 936 2013-03-17 16:04:30 <sipa> results in 8809 txins
 937 2013-03-17 16:04:38 <sipa> which means 8811 txids affected
 938 2013-03-17 16:05:03 <Luke-Jr> I'm counting inputs at 0-length scriptSig
 939 2013-03-17 16:05:15 <sipa> yeah, then it'a certainly a lot more
 940 2013-03-17 16:05:42 <Luke-Jr> don't want a hostile miner to be able to exploit it..
 941 2013-03-17 16:05:50  has joined
 942 2013-03-17 16:08:40 joehoyle- has joined
 943 2013-03-17 16:13:09 MJR_ has quit (Quit: MJR_)
 944 2013-03-17 16:13:57 B0g4r7 has joined
 945 2013-03-17 16:14:06 tyn has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 946 2013-03-17 16:17:02 the-bucket-shop has left ()
 947 2013-03-17 16:17:19 defunctzombie_zz is now known as defunctzombie
 948 2013-03-17 16:19:17 i2pRelay has joined
 949 2013-03-17 16:20:52 stikonas has joined
 950 2013-03-17 16:22:24 D34TH_ has joined
 951 2013-03-17 16:22:31 D34TH has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 952 2013-03-17 16:25:34 flyingkiwiguy has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 953 2013-03-17 16:27:18 flyingkiwiguy has joined
 954 2013-03-17 16:30:00 PlantMan has joined
 955 2013-03-17 16:30:11 banghouse has joined
 956 2013-03-17 16:30:35 banghouse is now known as Guest59706
 957 2013-03-17 16:32:18 Guest59706 is now known as banghouse
 958 2013-03-17 16:32:59 FredEE has joined
 959 2013-03-17 16:34:45 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
 960 2013-03-17 16:35:07 BTC_Bear has joined
 961 2013-03-17 16:36:32 rdymac has joined
 962 2013-03-17 16:36:51 tyn has joined
 963 2013-03-17 16:39:39 Lolcust has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 964 2013-03-17 16:40:55 joehoyle- has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 965 2013-03-17 16:43:19 kadoban has joined
 966 2013-03-17 16:45:48 Moredread has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 967 2013-03-17 16:53:39 zooko has joined
 968 2013-03-17 16:53:43 space_cadet has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 969 2013-03-17 16:54:23 D34TH_ is now known as D34TH
 970 2013-03-17 16:54:33 D34TH has quit (Changing host)
 971 2013-03-17 16:54:33 D34TH has joined
 972 2013-03-17 16:54:58 Lolcust has joined
 973 2013-03-17 16:55:16 MobGod has joined
 974 2013-03-17 16:56:20 Diapolo has joined
 975 2013-03-17 16:59:21 Lolcust has quit (Client Quit)
 976 2013-03-17 17:01:36 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 977 2013-03-17 17:01:36 joehoyle- has joined
 978 2013-03-17 17:03:41 tyn has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 979 2013-03-17 17:04:41 rdymac has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 980 2013-03-17 17:07:43 orbliviator has quit ()
 981 2013-03-17 17:08:16 Elite69 has quit (Quit: -->)
 982 2013-03-17 17:09:02 <Scrat> looks like b.i has stopped sending unconfirmed inputs
 983 2013-03-17 17:09:15 <Scrat> piuk's mailbox must have been full of angry SD players :p
 984 2013-03-17 17:09:32  has quit (Clown|!~clown@static-87-79-93-140.netcologne.de|Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 985 2013-03-17 17:12:50 da2ce7 has joined
 986 2013-03-17 17:13:43 orblivion has joined
 987 2013-03-17 17:15:28 da2ce7_d has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 988 2013-03-17 17:16:20 Lolcust has joined
 989 2013-03-17 17:18:21 impulse has quit (Quit: leaving)
 990 2013-03-17 17:21:47 Ogig has joined
 991 2013-03-17 17:22:04 <egecko> nice. my code ran over night
 992 2013-03-17 17:22:36 moore_ has joined
 993 2013-03-17 17:22:37 rbecker is now known as RBecker
 994 2013-03-17 17:24:02 johnsoft1 is now known as johnsoft
 995 2013-03-17 17:29:03 Bohren has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 996 2013-03-17 17:32:02 ali has joined
 997 2013-03-17 17:32:44 toffoo has quit ()
 998 2013-03-17 17:33:00 defunctzombie is now known as defunctzombie_zz
 999 2013-03-17 17:34:05 ali has quit (Client Quit)
1000 2013-03-17 17:36:48 bitafterbit has joined
1001 2013-03-17 17:38:55 `Nothing4You has joined
1002 2013-03-17 17:39:07 Nothing4You has quit (Disconnected by services)
1003 2013-03-17 17:39:09 `Nothing4You is now known as Nothing4You
1004 2013-03-17 17:41:29 johnsoft1 has joined
1005 2013-03-17 17:41:45 blinky has quit (Read error: No route to host)
1006 2013-03-17 17:42:06 Joric has joined
1007 2013-03-17 17:42:24 ali has joined
1008 2013-03-17 17:42:39 zer0def has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1009 2013-03-17 17:44:06 johnsoft has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1010 2013-03-17 17:47:55 rebroad_ has joined
1011 2013-03-17 17:49:54 joehoyle- has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
1012 2013-03-17 17:50:09 johnsoft has joined
1013 2013-03-17 17:52:39 johnsoft1 has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1014 2013-03-17 17:53:05 X-Scale has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1015 2013-03-17 17:53:46 `Nothing4You has joined
1016 2013-03-17 17:54:12 Nothing4You has quit (Disconnected by services)
1017 2013-03-17 17:54:16 `Nothing4You is now known as Nothing4You
1018 2013-03-17 17:57:30 daybyter has joined
1019 2013-03-17 17:57:30 Lolcust has quit (Quit: Nap time)
1020 2013-03-17 17:58:31 coolsa has joined
1021 2013-03-17 17:58:35 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1022 2013-03-17 17:59:02 `Nothing4You has joined
1023 2013-03-17 17:59:10 copumpkin has joined
1024 2013-03-17 17:59:30 BurtyBB has joined
1025 2013-03-17 17:59:38 `Nothing4You has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1026 2013-03-17 18:00:21 Linkandzelda has left ("http://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere.")
1027 2013-03-17 18:01:27 delqn has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1028 2013-03-17 18:02:22 Nothing4You has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1029 2013-03-17 18:02:55 ic3_ has joined
1030 2013-03-17 18:03:04 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1031 2013-03-17 18:04:21 Diapolo has left ()
1032 2013-03-17 18:04:25 ic3 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1033 2013-03-17 18:04:28 ThomasV has joined
1034 2013-03-17 18:04:39 fishfish has joined
1035 2013-03-17 18:05:45  has joined
1036 2013-03-17 18:06:33 gritcoin has joined
1037 2013-03-17 18:06:54 ic3_ is now known as ic3
1038 2013-03-17 18:14:27 altamic has joined
1039 2013-03-17 18:14:42 Joric has quit ()
1040 2013-03-17 18:14:58 daughterly has joined
1041 2013-03-17 18:16:36 altamic has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1042 2013-03-17 18:19:54 o2 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1043 2013-03-17 18:27:27 toffoo has joined
1044 2013-03-17 18:28:25 DotSlash has joined
1045 2013-03-17 18:28:27 Lolcust has joined
1046 2013-03-17 18:30:09 X-Scale has joined
1047 2013-03-17 18:33:03 Lolcust has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1048 2013-03-17 18:33:20 Twixed has quit (Quit: leaving)
1049 2013-03-17 18:37:31 ali has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1050 2013-03-17 18:37:49 hydrogenesis has joined
1051 2013-03-17 18:39:14 defunctzombie_zz is now known as defunctzombie
1052 2013-03-17 18:40:21 CaptainBlaze has quit (Quit: CaptainBlaze)
1053 2013-03-17 18:41:45 iddo has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1054 2013-03-17 18:42:08 Lolcust has joined
1055 2013-03-17 18:42:47 flug has joined
1056 2013-03-17 18:42:59 m00p has joined
1057 2013-03-17 18:43:05 iddo has joined
1058 2013-03-17 18:43:10 rdymac has joined
1059 2013-03-17 18:48:11 hydrogenesis has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPad - http://colloquy.mobi)
1060 2013-03-17 18:49:37 moore_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1061 2013-03-17 18:49:42 CaptainBlaze has joined
1062 2013-03-17 18:55:50 viperhr has joined
1063 2013-03-17 18:57:30 tyn has joined
1064 2013-03-17 18:58:55 space_cadet has joined
1065 2013-03-17 18:58:55 space_cadet has quit (Changing host)
1066 2013-03-17 18:58:55 space_cadet has joined
1067 2013-03-17 19:01:37 toffoo has quit ()
1068 2013-03-17 19:01:52 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1069 2013-03-17 19:01:58 andytoshi has joined
1070 2013-03-17 19:02:25 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1071 2013-03-17 19:04:06 DotSlash has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.90 [Firefox 19.0.2/20130307023931])
1072 2013-03-17 19:06:42 rebroad_ is now known as Rebroad
1073 2013-03-17 19:09:03 Lolcust has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1074 2013-03-17 19:14:15 berni23 has quit (Excess Flood)
1075 2013-03-17 19:14:24 bernard75 has joined
1076 2013-03-17 19:16:06 cyphurnz has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1077 2013-03-17 19:21:04 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1078 2013-03-17 19:21:43 glitch003 has joined
1079 2013-03-17 19:24:01 flug has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1080 2013-03-17 19:25:57 manet_ has joined
1081 2013-03-17 19:26:25 <glitch003> so this might be a stupid question, but how does the bitcoin client know the addresses of the other nodes the first time it launches?
1082 2013-03-17 19:27:12 <gmaxwell> glitch003: there is a built in list of 500 starting points, it also queries several dns names that return working nodes. Once it finds some it learns about more via the network.
1083 2013-03-17 19:27:50 <glitch003> that makes sense, thanks
1084 2013-03-17 19:28:13 Lolcust has joined
1085 2013-03-17 19:28:17 <skinnkavaj> sipa: thanks for this http://bitcoin.sipa.be/
1086 2013-03-17 19:28:19 brian_ has joined
1087 2013-03-17 19:28:27 Eleuthria has joined
1088 2013-03-17 19:29:31 manet has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1089 2013-03-17 19:31:54 mow_ has joined
1090 2013-03-17 19:32:17 mow has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1091 2013-03-17 19:32:57 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1092 2013-03-17 19:33:33 m00p has joined
1093 2013-03-17 19:34:15 space_cadet has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1094 2013-03-17 19:35:10 space_cadet has joined
1095 2013-03-17 19:35:10 space_cadet has quit (Changing host)
1096 2013-03-17 19:35:10 space_cadet has joined
1097 2013-03-17 19:38:23 owowo has joined
1098 2013-03-17 19:38:33 Lolcust has quit (Quit: Nap time)
1099 2013-03-17 19:42:17 tyn has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1100 2013-03-17 19:42:44 yokosan has joined
1101 2013-03-17 19:44:55 <yokosan> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=154240.0 thoughts? comments? fixes?
1102 2013-03-17 19:46:25 dvide has joined
1103 2013-03-17 19:48:05 <lianj> better sell fast
1104 2013-03-17 19:49:13 dd444 has joined
1105 2013-03-17 19:49:15 <dd444> are there any currencies like bitcoins in development yet?
1106 2013-03-17 19:49:57 <bVector> wat
1107 2013-03-17 19:50:03 <bVector> you mean like bitcoins?
1108 2013-03-17 19:50:15 <dd444> yes but a new one
1109 2013-03-17 19:50:19 <Eleuthria> Sure, dozens
1110 2013-03-17 19:50:26 <dd444> cool
1111 2013-03-17 19:50:35 <bVector> bitcoins are in development and is similar to bitcoins
1112 2013-03-17 19:50:44 <dd444> can you name any?
1113 2013-03-17 19:50:44 <Eleuthria> They're all worthless, but they exist ;p
1114 2013-03-17 19:50:47 <owowo> called scamcoins
1115 2013-03-17 19:51:01 <bVector> dd444: bvectorcoins
1116 2013-03-17 19:51:06 <bVector> do you want to buy some?
1117 2013-03-17 19:51:06 <dd444> cool
1118 2013-03-17 19:51:07 Lolcust has joined
1119 2013-03-17 19:51:10 <dd444> dunno
1120 2013-03-17 19:51:11 <Eleuthria> PPCoin, Novacoin, Solidcoin, Devcoin, Litecoin, i0coin, ixcoin, Liquidcoin
1121 2013-03-17 19:51:15 <Eleuthria> etc., etc.
1122 2013-03-17 19:51:21 zrad has joined
1123 2013-03-17 19:51:24 <bVector> dont forget bvectorcoins
1124 2013-03-17 19:51:31 <owowo> owowowcoin
1125 2013-03-17 19:51:44 <dd444> what one is the most popular?
1126 2013-03-17 19:51:46 <Eleuthria> Everybody knows Guildcoins are the way of the future.
1127 2013-03-17 19:51:54 <bVector> they're currently the most popular coins and are growing the fastest, let me know how you'd like to pay for some
1128 2013-03-17 19:52:21 <dd444> k
1129 2013-03-17 19:52:24 <dd444> cool
1130 2013-03-17 19:53:11 <owowo> but payment only in bitcoin
1131 2013-03-17 19:53:50 dug_ has joined
1132 2013-03-17 19:54:44 dug_ has quit (Client Quit)
1133 2013-03-17 19:55:01 hsmithsN7 has joined
1134 2013-03-17 19:55:27 PlantMan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1135 2013-03-17 19:55:38 coolsa has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1136 2013-03-17 19:56:15 coolsa has joined
1137 2013-03-17 20:02:43 <dd444> ok but can you buy other things with guildcoins?
1138 2013-03-17 20:02:58 <Eleuthria> You can buy Bitcoins with them of course ;p
1139 2013-03-17 20:03:11 <dd444> cool
1140 2013-03-17 20:03:15 <sipa> dd444: i think the only mildly succesful altcoin is litecoin
1141 2013-03-17 20:03:19 <Eleuthria> if you find somebody dumb enough to trade
1142 2013-03-17 20:03:31 <sipa> and guildcoins are a joke by Eleuthria i think, as he runs btc guild
1143 2013-03-17 20:03:51 <dd444> they have the monopoly then?
1144 2013-03-17 20:03:53 <Eleuthria> Naw, I'm going back to the hardfork and renaming it to Guildcoins (/sarcasm)
1145 2013-03-17 20:04:12 <sipa> i guess bitcoin has a large first-mover advantage
1146 2013-03-17 20:04:27 <sipa> and no altcoin has added any very significant improvements over it, imho
1147 2013-03-17 20:04:59 <Eleuthria> LTC at the very least offers two things.  Faster confirmations (not revolutionary enough)
1148 2013-03-17 20:05:25 <Eleuthria> And different hash algorithm so it couldn't be crushed by a few Avalons.
1149 2013-03-17 20:05:28 stretchwarren has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1150 2013-03-17 20:05:57 <Eleuthria> But neither of those is enough to justify the valuation since they're basically unspendable
1151 2013-03-17 20:05:59 <sipa> i'm sure it could be crushed by a hypothetical and perhaps slightly more expensive Avaliteons
1152 2013-03-17 20:07:13 space_cadet has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1153 2013-03-17 20:07:22 joh______ has joined
1154 2013-03-17 20:07:33 yokosan has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1155 2013-03-17 20:08:08 LainZ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1156 2013-03-17 20:08:35 grau_ has joined
1157 2013-03-17 20:09:04 stretchwarren has joined
1158 2013-03-17 20:10:19 bitafterbit has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1159 2013-03-17 20:10:34 <Eleuthria> Is pull 2373 the only required update to the old 0.8 for moving forward with the 0.7->0.8 transition?
1160 2013-03-17 20:11:27 grau has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1161 2013-03-17 20:11:33 <sipa> Eleuthria: 0.8.1 was just tagged
1162 2013-03-17 20:13:13 <Eleuthria> Hmm...I'm confused by the change to "start enforcing 21 March 2013"
1163 2013-03-17 20:13:32 RBecker is now known as rbecker
1164 2013-03-17 20:14:14 <Eleuthria> Wouldn't that mean in the next few days we could have another hard fork if a block was designed maliciously?
1165 2013-03-17 20:14:22 <sipa> just as we can now
1166 2013-03-17 20:14:23 mow_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1167 2013-03-17 20:14:26 PrinceCortex has joined
1168 2013-03-17 20:14:33 <Eleuthria> But if for example....Guild updated to 0.8.1 right now
1169 2013-03-17 20:14:55 <sipa> the problem is that the extra rule on itself also has a risk for forking, if less than 50% of mining power updates to 0.8.1
1170 2013-03-17 20:15:15 <sipa> because certain blocks can be acceptable to 0.7.x but not to the temporary rule in 0.8.1
1171 2013-03-17 20:16:01 mow has joined
1172 2013-03-17 20:16:19 TAiS46 has joined
1173 2013-03-17 20:16:25 <sipa> so there is a short delay before it becomes active, to give miners the time to upgrade
1174 2013-03-17 20:16:32 <gmaxwell> Eleuthria: 0.7.x is not entirely self-consistent.
1175 2013-03-17 20:16:41 PrinceCortex has quit (Client Quit)
1176 2013-03-17 20:17:16 XRPTrader has quit (Quit: XRPTrader)
1177 2013-03-17 20:17:27 bock has joined
1178 2013-03-17 20:17:37 <sipa> Eleuthria: note that 0.8.1 also limits the size of created blocks immediately, so there is no risk of accidentally _creating_ a forking block before thursday
1179 2013-03-17 20:18:00 i2pRelay has quit (Quit: KillYourTV)
1180 2013-03-17 20:18:28 i2pRelay has joined
1181 2013-03-17 20:19:28 <Eleuthria> But since the affected transaction part doesn't take effect until Thursday, lets say more than 50% of hash power moved to 0.8.1 before Thursday.
1182 2013-03-17 20:19:47 daedalus2027 has joined
1183 2013-03-17 20:19:48 <sipa> ok
1184 2013-03-17 20:19:49 <Eleuthria> Is it possible for a block under 500kb to still trigger that, if it was designed specifically to do that?
1185 2013-03-17 20:20:00 <Eleuthria> And force a hard fork prior to Thursday
1186 2013-03-17 20:20:03 <daedalus2027> hi, did the network split again?
1187 2013-03-17 20:20:03 defunctzombie is now known as defunctzombie_zz
1188 2013-03-17 20:20:11 Diablo-D3 has joined
1189 2013-03-17 20:20:37 AtashiCon has joined
1190 2013-03-17 20:20:44 <gmaxwell> daedalus2027: why are you asking that?
1191 2013-03-17 20:20:44 <sipa> Eleuthria: a 500 KiB block can't exceed the 10000 lock limit
1192 2013-03-17 20:21:20 enquirer4 has joined
1193 2013-03-17 20:21:21 <sipa> if it was very specifically designed to, maybe
1194 2013-03-17 20:21:33 <sipa> but that would require transactions with tons of empty txin scripts, for example
1195 2013-03-17 20:21:33 <Eleuthria> That's my biggest concern with upgrading right now.
1196 2013-03-17 20:21:43 <Eleuthria> I know accidentally it would be virtually impossible.
1197 2013-03-17 20:22:05 dd444 has quit ()
1198 2013-03-17 20:22:08 <daedalus2027> gmaxwell: beacuse im geting a tons of errors after the block height=216315
1199 2013-03-17 20:22:18 <gmaxwell> daedalus2027: tons of errors?
1200 2013-03-17 20:22:32 <gmaxwell> daedalus2027: Can you please provide more details? What errors?
1201 2013-03-17 20:22:44 <daedalus2027> gmaxwell: yes http://pastebin.com/EENDXTkj
1202 2013-03-17 20:23:00 <gmaxwell> In any case, height 216315 is a long time back now
1203 2013-03-17 20:23:16 <daedalus2027> gmaxwell: i am not sure in what version of the client should i be
1204 2013-03-17 20:23:26 <gmaxwell> daedalus2027: your database is corrupt.
1205 2013-03-17 20:23:39 <gmaxwell> I assume thats an older version?
1206 2013-03-17 20:23:51 <daedalus2027> yes i am in 7.0.2
1207 2013-03-17 20:24:10 <daedalus2027> shoul i upgrade?
1208 2013-03-17 20:24:15 <gmaxwell> daedalus2027: are you a large mining pool or solo miner?
1209 2013-03-17 20:24:24 tyn has joined
1210 2013-03-17 20:24:49 <daedalus2027> gmaxwell: solo miner in a pool
1211 2013-03-17 20:25:13 <gmaxwell> Do you mean p2pool?
1212 2013-03-17 20:25:35 <daedalus2027> nope i am in deepbit
1213 2013-03-17 20:25:49 <sipa> then you're not a solo miner :D
1214 2013-03-17 20:26:06 <sipa> your miner software isn't even connected to your own bitcoind
1215 2013-03-17 20:26:19 <gmaxwell> Then you are not a miner, as far as the bitcoin system is concerned. You're just selling computer time to deepbit, and what version of bitcoin you run is irrelevant. You should upgrade 0.8, it will fix your corrupted database and all will be good.
1216 2013-03-17 20:26:21 <daedalus2027> yes
1217 2013-03-17 20:26:35 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
1218 2013-03-17 20:27:04 <daedalus2027> thank you
1219 2013-03-17 20:27:04 HiWEB has joined
1220 2013-03-17 20:28:11 <sipa> Eleuthria: in theory, a 500000 byte block can affect up to 12193 txids, but it would require several specially-crafted blocks in a row to even build the inputs for that
1221 2013-03-17 20:28:17 TD has joined
1222 2013-03-17 20:28:25 hsmithsN7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1223 2013-03-17 20:30:10 Duly has joined
1224 2013-03-17 20:30:46 BTC_Bear has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1225 2013-03-17 20:32:35 jtimon has joined
1226 2013-03-17 20:33:17 Joric has joined
1227 2013-03-17 20:33:22 epylar has joined
1228 2013-03-17 20:35:06 mappum has joined
1229 2013-03-17 20:35:38 <sipa> Eleuthria: one way to be even more sure, is run 0.7.x, and have a 0.8.1 connect to that 0.7.x (and nowhere else), and use the 0.8.1 to build blocks
1230 2013-03-17 20:36:08 <Eleuthria> But then I'm still sitting behind the 0.7 bottleneck on processing new blocks
1231 2013-03-17 20:36:29 <sipa> ah, that's the problem; not the speed of createnewblock
1232 2013-03-17 20:36:30 <sipa> right
1233 2013-03-17 20:36:35 <Eleuthria> It's both
1234 2013-03-17 20:36:52 brson has joined
1235 2013-03-17 20:37:07 <Eleuthria> but I'd be adding delay of 0.7 confirming the new block, then relaying it to 0.8, which then processes the block (though much faster), and then can finally produce new work
1236 2013-03-17 20:37:20 <sipa> right; no solution
1237 2013-03-17 20:37:27 <Eleuthria> Well, its a compatibility solution
1238 2013-03-17 20:37:37 <Eleuthria> But it leaves me no better than just using 0.7
1239 2013-03-17 20:37:47 <sipa> yes, i understand
1240 2013-03-17 20:38:11 <sipa> but it's a very hasty soft fork we're doing essentially now, with the temporary 0.8.1 rule
1241 2013-03-17 20:38:22 o2_ has joined
1242 2013-03-17 20:38:32 <sipa> if not everyone starts enforcing it at the same time, we risk more forks
1243 2013-03-17 20:39:08 <epylar> i was wondering why descriptions of the satoshi dice problem usually say 'they pay transaction fees so they usually get priority over "legitimate" transactions'.. couldn't legitimate transactions pay transaction fees too?
1244 2013-03-17 20:39:18 <epylar> it seems like the dice fees are pretty low
1245 2013-03-17 20:39:21 <Eleuthria> yes
1246 2013-03-17 20:39:39 <Eleuthria> The sdice problem is highly overstated
1247 2013-03-17 20:39:59 <sipa> they are filling my hard disk, and aren't paying me for that
1248 2013-03-17 20:40:10 <sipa> yes, i voluntarily run my node, so i shouldn't expect payment
1249 2013-03-17 20:40:20 <petertodd> epylar: They pay double the "standard" 0.0005 fee that is recommended generally, and people don't seem to realize it is a market.
1250 2013-03-17 20:40:24 <warren> epylar: what is an appropriate tx fee in fiat?
1251 2013-03-17 20:40:25 <Eleuthria> Silk Road does too sipa ;p
1252 2013-03-17 20:40:29 <sipa> but i run it because i believe it contributes to building a global payment system that is worth having
1253 2013-03-17 20:40:33 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1254 2013-03-17 20:40:59 <sipa> and if it is mainly being used for purposes that i do not feel are economically useful for the system, it may drop my incentive to run that node
1255 2013-03-17 20:40:59 <epylar> i'm not sure what's appropriate, but it does create more incentive to mine by raising the "market" transaction fee
1256 2013-03-17 20:41:22 <epylar> sipa: the disk usage thing i do see as a problem
1257 2013-03-17 20:42:04 <epylar> do we expect fairly useless things like dice to grow larger over time?
1258 2013-03-17 20:42:14 <gmaxwell> epylar: when I looked a couple weeks ago they were paying 0.001 BTC on all transactions, meaning a large data size (e.g. 100k) transacition might need to pay as much as 0.1 BTC to be ahead...
1259 2013-03-17 20:42:17 <epylar> or be drowned out by useful transactions as bitcoin becomes more accepted?
1260 2013-03-17 20:42:19 <petertodd> epylar: http://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees-usd is interesting, since the fork it looks like the fees collected by miners have dropped significantly.
1261 2013-03-17 20:42:39 <epylar> 0.1 is pretty high.. about $5 today.
1262 2013-03-17 20:42:47 <Eleuthria> petertodd:  That's because dice was down for a while I believe
1263 2013-03-17 20:42:51 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1264 2013-03-17 20:42:55 tyn has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1265 2013-03-17 20:43:03 <petertodd> epylar: I figure as people realize you can use the blockchain for storage there is no end to the amount of data people will want to put into it.
1266 2013-03-17 20:43:06 <epylar> wow, that's some spike
1267 2013-03-17 20:43:08 <Eleuthria> And fewer dice transactions are getting confirmed because the bitcoind BTC Guild rolled back to had an anti-dice patch in it from a long time ago
1268 2013-03-17 20:43:20 <gmaxwell> epylar: it's just from one transaction that paid a very large fee.
1269 2013-03-17 20:43:33 copumpkin has joined
1270 2013-03-17 20:43:37 <petertodd> Eleuthria: I know, which shows you that tx fees are significant. (but yeah, as gmaxwell says for the big spike)
1271 2013-03-17 20:44:13 <petertodd> Eleuthria: Pales in comparison to the block reward, but thing of the pool ops that pay their bills with fees.
1272 2013-03-17 20:44:31 <Eleuthria> pales in comparison might be a bit strong
1273 2013-03-17 20:44:39 <warren> Eleuthria: delaying SD payouts has the benefit of shaking confidence in its users, which may lead to solving the problem
1274 2013-03-17 20:44:50 <Eleuthria> when I was running 0.8 with larger block sizes, the fees added 2-3% to the total block reward quite often
1275 2013-03-17 20:44:53 <warren> in the short-term at least
1276 2013-03-17 20:45:02 <epylar> i know we can use the merkle tree pruning and have most people run light clients, but we'll always have a bunch of nodes that have to store every transaction.  so what are the current thoughts on solving the general problem of spamming the chain?
1277 2013-03-17 20:45:20 deadweasel has quit (Disconnected by services)
1278 2013-03-17 20:45:31 <petertodd> Eleuthria: Sure, which as I say is a pool ops margin - people running the mining hardware don't care.
1279 2013-03-17 20:45:31 <sipa> i think the only viable solution to that is limiting the block size
1280 2013-03-17 20:45:36 <sipa> to some extent
1281 2013-03-17 20:45:46 <Eleuthria> petertodd:  Except many pools share tx fees
1282 2013-03-17 20:46:06 <Eleuthria> Including BTC Guild on PPLNS, which over half its users are now using
1283 2013-03-17 20:46:06 <petertodd> Eleuthria: Oh, I didn't realize that's happening now.
1284 2013-03-17 20:46:54 <warren> epylar: One current problem is our fee structure has a tiny flaw.  Per KB size in the block chain is not our only cost.  We are failing to charge fees proportional to the growth of economically unspendable uxto that is nearly permanent cost separate from the block size.
1285 2013-03-17 20:46:55 <epylar> so limiting the block size has the effect of increasing the market transaction fee rate, and crowding out the spammy stuff?
1286 2013-03-17 20:47:15 <gmaxwell> epylar: among other effects.
1287 2013-03-17 20:47:35 <sipa> in general, it keeps it viable for many people to run validating nodes
1288 2013-03-17 20:47:53 <sipa> (which doesn't mean the block size must forever remain what it is now)
1289 2013-03-17 20:48:03 <epylar> i suppose there's no way to prune ancient history by storing some sort of self-signed summary?  (and of course at least one person would still have to hold the entire history)
1290 2013-03-17 20:48:23 <epylar> also there are a very large number of potential addresses
1291 2013-03-17 20:48:28 <epylar> so maybe that wouldn't save much space.
1292 2013-03-17 20:48:32 <sipa> epylar: sure there is; it's called the unspent transaction output set
1293 2013-03-17 20:48:43 <sipa> since 0.8, the client stores this explicitly
1294 2013-03-17 20:48:47 <epylar> ah.
1295 2013-03-17 20:48:55 <sipa> and it contains all data necessary to validate future transactions
1296 2013-03-17 20:50:36 <epylar> well that's nice.  is there a mechanism to legitimately remove all history older than a certain number of years, say, to the point where it's permanently gone?  that's kind of tricky because the unspent set isn't explicitly validated by any future blocks.. it's just a summary of the past.
1297 2013-03-17 20:50:42 <epylar> you'd have to trust central signing authorities
1298 2013-03-17 20:51:17 <sipa> if you have the UTXO set (~160 MB now), you can validate all transactions
1299 2013-03-17 20:51:24 <sipa> no need for blocks
1300 2013-03-17 20:51:30 <epylar> understood, but you have to trust whoever gives you the UTXO set
1301 2013-03-17 20:51:39 <sipa> you don't- you build it yourself
1302 2013-03-17 20:51:44 <gmaxwell> epylar: a normal node does not make use of historical data once it has validated except for the purpose of giving it to other nodes.
1303 2013-03-17 20:51:45 <sipa> by validating history
1304 2013-03-17 20:51:51 <sipa> that doesn't mean you need to _keep_ history
1305 2013-03-17 20:52:03 <epylar> but it does need to exist at least once.. no way to permanently remove it for everyone.
1306 2013-03-17 20:52:12 <epylar> so we do incur a permanent cost of a sort with every transaction
1307 2013-03-17 20:52:18 <epylar> permanent recurring even.
1308 2013-03-17 20:52:19 <Eleuthria> Do we know the peak size of the UTXO set?
1309 2013-03-17 20:52:31 <Eleuthria> Like on X date it reached it's highest size of Y MB?
1310 2013-03-17 20:52:34 <gmaxwell> epylar: the security model of bitcoin precludes that— then you'd have to trust that they didn't steal or make up a bunch of coins if you don't check.
1311 2013-03-17 20:52:41 <epylar> sipa: i can see that removing some of the ongoing storage cost, though.  just need to temporarily store some things for validation.
1312 2013-03-17 20:52:59 <epylar> and temp space availability goes up all the time.  drives keep getting bigger.
1313 2013-03-17 20:53:05 <gmaxwell> Eleuthria: I would be surprised if any block in the last year has shrank it.
1314 2013-03-17 20:53:14 <epylar> ancient history would be fairly easy to distribute on physical media if it came to that
1315 2013-03-17 20:53:19 <gmaxwell> Certantly its unusual for it to shrink.
1316 2013-03-17 20:53:20 <epylar> wouldn't have to use network resources
1317 2013-03-17 20:53:36 <Eleuthria> gmaxwell:  Would be unusual, but if a lot of old outputs got consolidated (moved to sell off for fiat for example)
1318 2013-03-17 20:53:39 <Eleuthria> It could shrink it
1319 2013-03-17 20:53:44 <gmaxwell> epylar: the maximum size, assuming that 0 value txouts don't get mined is about 44 petabytes.
1320 2013-03-17 20:54:19 Rebroad has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1321 2013-03-17 20:54:31 <gmaxwell> Eleuthria: sure. and such transactions happen, I'd just be surprised if any recent block was net shrinking, there are a lot of very small outputs being created that are never consumed.
1322 2013-03-17 20:54:51 <gmaxwell> sipa: do you still have the script to do txouts by value by time? An updated graph would be interesting.
1323 2013-03-17 20:54:52 vigilyn2 has joined
1324 2013-03-17 20:55:02 <warren> gmaxwell: if clients had a "discard" button that donated dust keys to *somewhere* ...
1325 2013-03-17 20:55:06 vigilyn has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1326 2013-03-17 20:55:15 TD has joined
1327 2013-03-17 20:55:15 <epylar> well, let's see, hard drive space goes up by a factor of maybe 20 or so per decade?
1328 2013-03-17 20:55:35 <Eleuthria> What file does the UTOX set get saved to in 0.8?
1329 2013-03-17 20:55:42 <Eleuthria> *TXO
1330 2013-03-17 20:55:56 <TD> it's a leveldb
1331 2013-03-17 20:56:00 <epylar> or wait, maybe between 20-30
1332 2013-03-17 20:56:08 <gmaxwell> warren: yea, I'd review and support a patch to add a "throw away wallet" that published all your privkeys somewhere.
1333 2013-03-17 20:56:35 <warren> gmaxwell: where should somewhere be?
1334 2013-03-17 20:56:45 <epylar> 2013, 4 tb -> 2023, 120 tb -> 2033, 3.6 pb -> 2043, 108 pb.
1335 2013-03-17 20:56:47 <gmaxwell> Eleuthria: the data is in chainstate/ though the accurate size is available via rpc.
1336 2013-03-17 20:56:55 <epylar> so somewhere between 2033 and 2043 we might reasonably see drives that could hold 44 petabytes?
1337 2013-03-17 20:57:02 <Eleuthria> Ah, what's the RPC call for that? :)
1338 2013-03-17 20:57:12 <sipa> epylar: gettxoutsetinfo
1339 2013-03-17 20:57:15 <sipa> eh, Eleuthria
1340 2013-03-17 20:57:30 <gmaxwell> (note: slow rpc command)
1341 2013-03-17 20:57:38 <Eleuthria> lol
1342 2013-03-17 20:57:41 <Eleuthria> Now you tell me ;p
1343 2013-03-17 20:57:48 <Eleuthria> not that slow
1344 2013-03-17 20:57:52 <gmaxwell> well it's not that slow.
1345 2013-03-17 20:58:00 <Eleuthria> 154,706,669 bytes, not bad
1346 2013-03-17 20:58:15 <Eleuthria> You could store that in RAM on most cheap VPS
1347 2013-03-17 20:58:18 daedalus2027 has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1348 2013-03-17 20:58:29 <TD> indeed
1349 2013-03-17 20:58:29 <gmaxwell> Eleuthria: thats the idea, it's a major part of why 0.8 is fast.
1350 2013-03-17 20:59:20 <sipa> Eleuthria: the actual database is larger than that, as it has indexing and bloom filters and other overhead
1351 2013-03-17 20:59:26 <gmaxwell> Eleuthria: but the growth (at least last time sipa charted it) seemed to have the same rate as the overall ... at least after the introduction of SD. :(  http://bitcoin.sipa.be/pruning-size.png
1352 2013-03-17 20:59:29 <sipa> but it could be serialized to that size, without further compression
1353 2013-03-17 21:00:01 grau_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1354 2013-03-17 21:00:08 gritcoin has quit (Quit: gritcoin)
1355 2013-03-17 21:00:31 <gmaxwell> (see, around block 100k we saw nice divergence where the utxo was clearly more scalable than the whole chain, but then that breaks down as tiny ouputs started to be created enmass :()
1356 2013-03-17 21:00:52 <Eleuthria> Yeah :/
1357 2013-03-17 21:01:22 <gmaxwell> It's still better though, but less so. Thus the concern about outputs which aren't even economical to spend.
1358 2013-03-17 21:01:27 <TD> sipa: in future the keys could be prefixed with a hotness tag, so outputs that some heuristic judges are likely to unspent for a long time could be moved to a separate key range that doesn't fill up the memory cache
1359 2013-03-17 21:01:31 <Eleuthria> I guess I don't have the same hatred of sdice because the few times I gamble it doesn't send me back satoshis
1360 2013-03-17 21:01:43 <Eleuthria> It's only the people making micro-bets that get back satoshi-sized responses
1361 2013-03-17 21:02:07 <gmaxwell> TD: we can also just keep likely hot utxo explicitly in the cache.
1362 2013-03-17 21:02:11 grau has joined
1363 2013-03-17 21:02:19 <TD> eventually wallets can start to auto-defrag themselves and the micropayments can start to get mopped up
1364 2013-03-17 21:02:22 <sipa> did someone say splay tree?
1365 2013-03-17 21:02:47 <gmaxwell> sipa: can't commit a splay tree. :P
1366 2013-03-17 21:02:56 <sipa> details!
1367 2013-03-17 21:02:59 <TD> well, leveldb isn't a splay tree, but things that were recently written are in memory anyway
1368 2013-03-17 21:02:59 <gmaxwell> lol
1369 2013-03-17 21:03:04 <TD> heh
1370 2013-03-17 21:03:07 <warren> Eleuthria: Deciding to deal with the uneconomical dust uxto issue isn't necessarily a moral judgement of SD.
1371 2013-03-17 21:03:21 <gmaxwell> TD: You don't think people will be furious about auto-defrag that has net-cost?
1372 2013-03-17 21:03:22 <Eleuthria> warren:  Agreed
1373 2013-03-17 21:03:25 btcur has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1374 2013-03-17 21:03:52 <sipa> TD: and recently written data is at a higher level
1375 2013-03-17 21:03:55 <TD> in the long long long run, we may want to end up with the utxo db split across multiple disks, so it can benefit from increased spindles
1376 2013-03-17 21:04:19 <TD> gmaxwell: i was thinking wallets could just fill up to whatever the next fee level is without actually going over it
1377 2013-03-17 21:04:20 <petertodd> warren: All they have to do is increase the 'you lost' return tx.
1378 2013-03-17 21:04:37 <gmaxwell> most of the committed utxo discussion has a high branching factor, in part for storage parallelism.
1379 2013-03-17 21:04:58 <sipa> wait, the discussion has a branching factor?
1380 2013-03-17 21:05:03 <TD> gmaxwell: also wallets that are always on can submit free transactions that mop up satoshis when they know the user isn't likely to want to make a spend with them, eg, at night, so it's ok if they take a little longer to confirm
1381 2013-03-17 21:05:13 <petertodd> TD: I don't think anyone hasn't been assuming that... it's important for miners anyway so they can validate new blocks fast.
1382 2013-03-17 21:05:17 <sipa> http://xkcd.com/761/
1383 2013-03-17 21:05:27 <petertodd> TD: (as utxo > ram obviously)
1384 2013-03-17 21:05:33 <TD> well, currently utxo < ram
1385 2013-03-17 21:05:34 <gmaxwell> TD: there isn't a next fee level anymore, gavin changed the fee calculation to be continuous. I whined a bit that this removes the incentive to sweep, but it's the case that the fee motivation was continuous anyways.
1386 2013-03-17 21:05:36 extor has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1387 2013-03-17 21:05:56 <TD> gmaxwell: i thought it was per kb, when did it change?
1388 2013-03-17 21:06:01 Belkaar_ has joined
1389 2013-03-17 21:06:07 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1390 2013-03-17 21:06:07 Belkaar_ is now known as Belkaar
1391 2013-03-17 21:06:15 BTCTrader2 has joined
1392 2013-03-17 21:06:23 <gmaxwell> TD: with the prioritize by fee logic that went in .. in 0.7.0 (IIRC?)
1393 2013-03-17 21:06:24 <TD> sipa: lol
1394 2013-03-17 21:07:18 <gmaxwell> TD: see also, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1722
1395 2013-03-17 21:08:26 <TD> what a weird-ass cast
1396 2013-03-17 21:08:51 <gmaxwell> Fundimentally the change is right... miner income depends on the non-quantized fees per kb. The quantized behavior was just an incentive, if we want one (and think miners will agree) we should make it explicit.
1397 2013-03-17 21:09:03 hsmithsN7 has joined
1398 2013-03-17 21:09:12 <TD> anyway, i'm assuming that after the block size limit is removed all transactions will get included very fast anyway, even if they're low priority
1399 2013-03-17 21:09:34 <gmaxwell> lol
1400 2013-03-17 21:09:35 <sipa> block size limit _removed_ ?
1401 2013-03-17 21:09:36 <sipa> wtf?
1402 2013-03-17 21:09:38 <gmaxwell> Good luck with that.
1403 2013-03-17 21:09:58 <petertodd> TD: Thanks, I've had a lot of interest in my new blockchain backup service.
1404 2013-03-17 21:10:19 <TD> you know what i mean. removed == automatically/manually set to levels where block size always meets demand for transactions
1405 2013-03-17 21:10:28 <TD> ie, people are not attempting to outbid each other for an artificially scarce resource
1406 2013-03-17 21:10:29 <sipa> i hope we never do that
1407 2013-03-17 21:10:35 <petertodd> TD: I'm starting a new pool actually to get my "unspendable but not provably so" outputs mined too.
1408 2013-03-17 21:10:54 <jgarzik> sipa: +1
1409 2013-03-17 21:11:10 <jgarzik> TD: that's a fundamentally broken system
1410 2013-03-17 21:11:11 <sipa> increasing it along with increasing computation power, sure
1411 2013-03-17 21:11:12 <petertodd> TD: Like, imagine I'm a pop star, and I want to make sure my music is still around 20 years from now when I'm inexplicably remembered again.
1412 2013-03-17 21:11:49 <TD> shrug. if you want to make a backup service that sucks compared to its competition, go ahead.
1413 2013-03-17 21:11:59 <TD> i predict usage will be low
1414 2013-03-17 21:12:04 <jgarzik> TD: Satoshi obviously wanted fees to support the system long term.  If there is no scarcity, there are no fees.
1415 2013-03-17 21:12:18 <TD> i don't believe that's correct at all
1416 2013-03-17 21:12:25 <TD> but we've been around this a million times already
1417 2013-03-17 21:12:41 <petertodd> TD: Sucks? Nah, we're offering security and quality! Where else can you *know* your data is secure, just by performing a transaction?
1418 2013-03-17 21:12:43 <TD> trying to come up with a block size limit that's "big enough but not too big" is a doomed exercise in central planning
1419 2013-03-17 21:12:44 <jgarzik> TD: The current situation, where block subsidy dominates other incentives, clouds thinking on block size
1420 2013-03-17 21:13:22 Hashdog has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1421 2013-03-17 21:13:25 <sipa> i'm not convinced about that either, but i don't think such an assumption is even needed to see why a block size following transaction demand risks (= not certain) killing decentralization
1422 2013-03-17 21:13:51 safra has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1423 2013-03-17 21:14:18 <epylar> i'm always forgetting my passwords to things
1424 2013-03-17 21:14:22 extor has joined
1425 2013-03-17 21:14:22 <epylar> i think i'm going to start storing them on the block chain
1426 2013-03-17 21:14:23 <petertodd> I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations and it looks like attacking decentralization by purchasing transaction space will always be cheaper than atttacking via a 51% attack directly.
1427 2013-03-17 21:14:43 <TD> petertodd: your "backup service" would routinely create blocks that fail to win races as nobody else would have seen your transactions. also, you're assuming that people will always serve the entire chain for free
1428 2013-03-17 21:14:43 copumpkin is now known as Hadoop
1429 2013-03-17 21:14:44 <jgarzik> a lot of things are cheaper than a 51% attack
1430 2013-03-17 21:14:45 <petertodd> Ultimately UTXO space and network bandwidth costs money that could be spent on mining hardware.
1431 2013-03-17 21:14:48 <jgarzik> that's not saying much
1432 2013-03-17 21:15:00 <jgarzik> a network-based attack is cheaper than a 51% attack, and far more likely to be successful
1433 2013-03-17 21:15:12 <TD> if you back up data into the block chain but only 5% of all nodes are non-pruning and charge money to download the entire chain, then what you created is a shitty service that will be uncompetitive
1434 2013-03-17 21:15:19 <petertodd> TD: Who said the service is going to be cheap? I'll price it at the per-KB fee as any other transaction, which fortunately will be low in the future.
1435 2013-03-17 21:15:31 <epylar> how much would it cost, today, to break bitcoin by flooding the network with transactions?
1436 2013-03-17 21:15:32 <TD> so why would i pay you to back up my files when google will do it cheaper and faster?
1437 2013-03-17 21:15:49 chmod755 has joined
1438 2013-03-17 21:15:53 <TD> epylar: zero. bitcoin is already broken because it's flooded with transacations. hence the need to raise the block sizes
1439 2013-03-17 21:15:55 <petertodd> TD: Because on the chain, I know that I can get my files back even if the provider goes out of business.
1440 2013-03-17 21:16:04 cads has joined
1441 2013-03-17 21:16:10 <epylar> assume we raise the block size.  how much does it cost to break it then?
1442 2013-03-17 21:16:12 extor has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1443 2013-03-17 21:16:28 <TD> finding a backup provider that isn't going to suddenly disappear is dramatically simpler and cheaper than coming up with bizarre hacks on top of financial transaction systems.
1444 2013-03-17 21:16:53 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1445 2013-03-17 21:17:12 extor has joined
1446 2013-03-17 21:17:14 <gmaxwell> TD: you don't "come up with"— you point and click.
1447 2013-03-17 21:17:23 <jgarzik> TD: Answer: Google Reader ;p
1448 2013-03-17 21:17:25 <petertodd> TD: Fortunately, with our leading edge software, you don't even have to know it's a bizzare hack! Just look at our slick website!
1449 2013-03-17 21:17:37 <petertodd> TD: We also offer instant timestamping!
1450 2013-03-17 21:17:40 Hadoop is now known as copumpkin
1451 2013-03-17 21:17:49 <TD> so you will just be expensive and crap and take forever to backup or restore files. losing proposition.
1452 2013-03-17 21:17:55 <sipa> similarly unsure about the vaibility of such a system
1453 2013-03-17 21:18:07 <sipa> but i don't think you need to resort to such assumptions either
1454 2013-03-17 21:18:13 <TD> sipa: decentralization doesn't mean "can run on my personal computer". that's the fundamental appeal to emotion that underlies all these arguments. decentralization means you can, if you want, bring up a node and you don't need any kind of approval or deals with other people, you just run it.
1455 2013-03-17 21:18:30 epylar has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1456 2013-03-17 21:18:31 <sipa> TD: it's a continuum
1457 2013-03-17 21:18:31 hsmithsN7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1458 2013-03-17 21:18:39 epylar has joined
1459 2013-03-17 21:18:42 <gmaxwell> TD: wanting to run it is also a question— and thats a much harder bar than _can_ run it.
1460 2013-03-17 21:18:59 <warren> TD: the viability of the backup service's business model isn't the issue here.  Assuming the block chain won't be abused if you remove size limits and drive down fees is the issue.
1461 2013-03-17 21:19:03 <sipa> the ultimate validation decentralization means it runs on my TI-82, and the world gets to do one transaction a day
1462 2013-03-17 21:19:18 <sipa> i.e. decentralized validation, but centralized ability to do transactions
1463 2013-03-17 21:19:27 <petertodd> TD: From my marketing literature: "Chain backup is how we ensure business continuity regardless of what happens to us. While normally you connect through our Dedicated Chain Servers, you always have the option of getting your data back without us."
1464 2013-03-17 21:19:41 <sipa> obviously that is not ideal
1465 2013-03-17 21:19:52 <TD> so what? i might want to bring up a BGP session from my living room and bypass all those annoying ISPs. i can't do that without a ton of effort that makes it impractical, which is why I pay cablecom instead. but the internet is still decentralized.
1466 2013-03-17 21:19:53 <petertodd> sipa: But I don't own a TI-82, can I do it on my abacus?
1467 2013-03-17 21:20:21 <epylar> what if we started storing the transaction summary with each block?
1468 2013-03-17 21:20:35 <gmaxwell> The internet is only weakly decenteralized
1469 2013-03-17 21:20:38 Namworld has joined
1470 2013-03-17 21:20:42 * gmaxwell types while wearing an IETF tshirt.
1471 2013-03-17 21:20:46 <TD> petertodd: and when people charge to serve older parts of the chain? sure, i can get my data back - for a price. much simpler to just use a company that isn't going to go out of business. or two, if i have to.
1472 2013-03-17 21:20:51 Joric has quit ()
1473 2013-03-17 21:21:01 <petertodd> TD: Don't underestimate the power of buzzwords.
1474 2013-03-17 21:21:14 coinft has joined
1475 2013-03-17 21:21:14 <gmaxwell> (and not very secure— witness gaffs like pakastan taking out youtube /by accident/ :P )
1476 2013-03-17 21:21:16 <epylar> if we did that, we could permanently remove older blocks once we had enough proof of work on top of them
1477 2013-03-17 21:21:17 <petertodd> TD: You also haven't answered why my timestamping thing can't get traction.
1478 2013-03-17 21:21:32 <petertodd> TD: Bitcoin is a lot cheaper than commercial timestamping services.
1479 2013-03-17 21:21:34 <TD> people have been able to use bitcoin for timestamping since forever. nobody cares, it seems.
1480 2013-03-17 21:21:35 <sipa> epylar: we can do that right now
1481 2013-03-17 21:21:36 <epylar> actually, the blocks would be too large to do that.
1482 2013-03-17 21:21:45 <TD> in future i'm sure it'll be more common, but timestamping is fundamentally esoteric.
1483 2013-03-17 21:21:50 <gmaxwell> TD: in any case, blockchain data storage isn't just hypothetical, e.g. see the namecoin tool for it.
1484 2013-03-17 21:21:55 <epylar> sipa: again, by permanent, I mean permanent, never to be stored again for anyone
1485 2013-03-17 21:22:09 <petertodd> TD: Bitcoin hasn't been popular enough for the people who need timestamping to even know about it, if Bitcoin becomes significantly more popular, that will change.
1486 2013-03-17 21:22:11 <sipa> epylar: that's fundamentally impossible for a zero-trust node
1487 2013-03-17 21:22:40 <epylar> i suppose it doesn't matter how much proof of work you have on top of it if you don't know what came before it
1488 2013-03-17 21:22:41 <petertodd> re: namecoin, the chain has grown by about 300MB in the past three weeks.
1489 2013-03-17 21:23:21 <TD> sipa: it's not fundamentally impossible. if one day nobody had a copy of the first parts of the chain at all, bitcoin would still work, it just means you'd have to bootstrap new nodes by copying a database from an existing node, which you'd have to trust was correct. of course, if it wasn't correct, you'd still get forked onto a separate chain.
1490 2013-03-17 21:23:27 <epylar> it could still be spoofed because you could assign pretty much any difficulty to your "initial" block
1491 2013-03-17 21:23:33 defunctzombie_zz is now known as defunctzombie
1492 2013-03-17 21:23:33 <epylar> and generate a bunch of blocks on top of it
1493 2013-03-17 21:23:39 <sipa> TD: you used the word 'trust'
1494 2013-03-17 21:23:48 * TD shrugs
1495 2013-03-17 21:23:54 <TD> i can't see a time when nobody at all has a copy of the chain
1496 2013-03-17 21:23:59 <sipa> TD: not saying that's completely impossible in the future, just saying that it's incompatible with zero trust
1497 2013-03-17 21:24:10 bitafterbit has joined
1498 2013-03-17 21:24:25 <epylar> so the only thing a full node has to 'trust' now is the genesis block?
1499 2013-03-17 21:24:26 <petertodd> TD: If I have a copy of the chain, and can use it to provide my "Bitcoin access node" service I charge money for, why should I give you a copy of the UTXO set?
1500 2013-03-17 21:24:39 <petertodd> epylar: Sort of, all the software too.
1501 2013-03-17 21:24:45 <TD> sipa: bitcoin already relies on majority consensus, you don't really have zero trust …. you have to trust the majority hashpower won't collude against you.
1502 2013-03-17 21:24:53 <gmaxwell> TD: "if it wasn't correct", no— thats if your incorrectness isn't consistent. Perfectly possible to stick a billion btc txout in the database and happily get most validators onto it then spend it.
1503 2013-03-17 21:24:55 <TD> sipa: if you got a bad database, you'd eventually be detected and kicked out.
1504 2013-03-17 21:24:58 <epylar> the agreed upon protocol rules and the genesis block.  not too bad.
1505 2013-03-17 21:25:10 <sipa> TD: no, i don't need to assume the majority hashpower doesn't collude against me
1506 2013-03-17 21:25:19 <TD> you do if you're selling stuff
1507 2013-03-17 21:25:21 <petertodd> epylar: Yeah, having to trust the implementation is in practice the worse part.
1508 2013-03-17 21:25:22 <gmaxwell> TD: the computing power majority is only used for ordering, it is as narrow as possible— and that narrowness is part of what makes it reasonable to trust that it won't defect.
1509 2013-03-17 21:26:29 <gmaxwell> And things like the inflation schedule, ownership, .. everything except ordering are validated autonomously. Proof, not trust.
1510 2013-03-17 21:26:33 <TD> petertodd: why should anyone sell software instead of renting it out? people will sell copies of the database, or just make them available for free. after all, they have a stake in bitcoin operating correctly.
1511 2013-03-17 21:26:46 <TD> anyway, this is a hypothetical
1512 2013-03-17 21:27:08 <TD> i don't think there's any danger of old parts of the chain being deleted by everyone
1513 2013-03-17 21:27:14 <sipa> neither do i
1514 2013-03-17 21:27:42 moore_ has joined
1515 2013-03-17 21:27:43 <TD> just pointing out that if it did happen, it'd require some trust (or at least a lot of cross checking) to bring up a new node, but bitcoin wouldn't break or anything
1516 2013-03-17 21:28:09 chetoo has joined
1517 2013-03-17 21:28:10 <petertodd> TD: Old parts of the chain isn't the issue, the new parts are the issue. If the UTXO set takes dozens of terrabytes, it will be hard to get a copy, and not many people will have one.
1518 2013-03-17 21:28:55 <gmaxwell> of course it won't be deleted— as of now, but it's important that isn't confused with a belief that its size doesn't matter. If the first 100k blocks were 50TB then, I couldn't be confident that they wouldn't get deleted everywhere.
1519 2013-03-17 21:29:05 <TD> a 100,000-fold increase would be a nice problem to have.
1520 2013-03-17 21:29:19 <gmaxwell> a 100,000 fold _user_ increase.
1521 2013-03-17 21:29:29 <gmaxwell> Not a 100,000 size increase without user increases.
1522 2013-03-17 21:29:30 <petertodd> TD: Transaction volume and value aren't nessesarily corrolated, SD is a good example.
1523 2013-03-17 21:29:47 chetoo has quit (Killed (idoru (Spam is off topic on freenode.)))
1524 2013-03-17 21:29:56 <petertodd> TD: That hedge fund claiming to have a few million BTC probably did all of few hundred transactions to date.
1525 2013-03-17 21:29:59 <jgarzik> There is the general problem of needing some incentive to NOT dump everything into the chain.
1526 2013-03-17 21:30:03 <TD> yeah, i'd expect cheap transactions to stimulate demand. but the assumption that demand will always equal supply is contradicted by the fact that it took us 4+ years to hit the 250kb soft limit.
1527 2013-03-17 21:30:03 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1528 2013-03-17 21:30:07 <jgarzik> All this is just beating around the sides of that issue.
1529 2013-03-17 21:30:36 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: there's definitely an "my block will be orphaned if it is too big" incentive.
1530 2013-03-17 21:30:40 <TD> well, i think gavins point is reasonable - if you generate enormous blocks then they won't propagate very fast and you're more likely to get orphaned
1531 2013-03-17 21:30:45 <gmaxwell> TD: and at the time we hit the 250k soft limit we were having 90% of the transactions involving a single party.
1532 2013-03-17 21:30:48 <petertodd> jgarzik: Yes. We've got one, price. Sadly if a transaction is going to be cheap enough that we don't need off-chain payments at all, it's also going to be cheap enough that you can dump data into the blockchain.
1533 2013-03-17 21:30:51 <jgarzik> So simply increasing the block size, when the block size limit is reached, is simply not sustainable.
1534 2013-03-17 21:30:52 TAiS46 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1535 2013-03-17 21:31:03 <gmaxwell> (and a significant fraction of those being just a couple counterparties)
1536 2013-03-17 21:31:03 <jgarzik> Overly simplistic
1537 2013-03-17 21:31:41 <epylar> if bitcoin ever hits a trillion users we're definitely in trouble
1538 2013-03-17 21:31:42 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: It isn't obvious to me that this is overly simplistic. Or rather "increase when doing so is obviously correct(tm)"
1539 2013-03-17 21:31:43 <petertodd> TD: Gavin's point is silly, because I can use additional network infrastructure to reduce the orphan rate as low as I want. the limit is what is the average bandwidth of the mining majority, and that will increase as I use that bandiwdth in your scenario.
1540 2013-03-17 21:31:51 <TD> i think there'll be an equilibrium somewhere. the real limits are imposed by the physics of what our hardware can do
1541 2013-03-17 21:32:09 <sipa> define "our" ?
1542 2013-03-17 21:32:12 <sipa> google's?
1543 2013-03-17 21:32:14 <gmaxwell> TD: physics doesn't have an inherent preference for security or decenteralization, humans do.
1544 2013-03-17 21:32:15 <TD> obviously there's no "no limit at all" because storage, bandwidth are not infinite, but trying to guesstimate then hard-code the limit
1545 2013-03-17 21:32:19 <gavinandresen> petertodd: no, you can't.  You cannot overcome the speed of light, so unless you START with all miners in the same server closet, you'll never get there.
1546 2013-03-17 21:32:21 <TD> "our" as in "what society has access to"
1547 2013-03-17 21:32:23 <petertodd> epylar: At a trillion users we can afford less decentralization, because a trillion users are going to be really pissed if something like the recent Cypress 10% haircut happens.
1548 2013-03-17 21:32:48 <TD> google doesn't have magically 10x faster hard disks. it just has more of them. and they're all busy doing other things anyway, so the idea that we can just throw hardware at any problem to solve it is a myth
1549 2013-03-17 21:32:59 <sipa> gavinandresen: hence the incentive for miners to get into the same server closet
1550 2013-03-17 21:33:02 <gavinandresen> petertodd: you have a tendency to ignore path-dependency effects, and assume an endpoint that we can't get to
1551 2013-03-17 21:33:03 <TD> sorry. …. trying to guess and hard code a limit is the wrong way to go about things
1552 2013-03-17 21:33:10 <petertodd> gavinandresen: Read my points in full before you reply.
1553 2013-03-17 21:33:16 <epylar> there seems to be a fundamental n^2 problem (where n is the number of users, assuming every user contributes about the same kb/sec to the block chain, then you'd see n^2 bytes per second being added)
1554 2013-03-17 21:33:22 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: speed of light is a statement about latency, not bandwidth. And as I was pointing out to TD there— whatever kinds of limits you can get from physics do not necessarily jive with the purpose and goals of the system.
1555 2013-03-17 21:33:42 <epylar> actually if you assume n is linearly proportional to time t, you have a t^3 problem in block chain size
1556 2013-03-17 21:34:09 <petertodd> TD: Having a whole lot of disks certainely will help Google with processing incoming blocks fast - it's an IOPs problem after all.
1557 2013-03-17 21:34:28 <TD> petertodd: but machines at google are not free or anything even close to it. we have to pay very close to the same costs that everyone else does.
1558 2013-03-17 21:35:34 <petertodd> TD: Do you think spending money on hardware to process incoming blocks adds to the security of the network against 51% attacks?
1559 2013-03-17 21:35:41 <gavinandresen> Okey dokey.  Maybe we can compromise here:  first question for me is:  is it OK if people have to pay $50/month for a cheap VPS (or live in a place with great broadband to the home) to be a full node?
1560 2013-03-17 21:35:44 <epylar> but network, CPU, and storage resources increase proportional to exp(t)
1561 2013-03-17 21:35:47 <epylar> so maybe that's not too bad
1562 2013-03-17 21:35:56 <petertodd> gavinandresen: No.
1563 2013-03-17 21:35:58 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: why would they do that?
1564 2013-03-17 21:36:21 <petertodd> gavinandresen: Mining must be viable anonymously.
1565 2013-03-17 21:36:33 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: because they're paranoid and untrusting.  Or just happen to have extra bandwidth.  Why do people run Tor relays?
1566 2013-03-17 21:36:34 TAiS46 has joined
1567 2013-03-17 21:36:39 <TD> petertodd: gavin has been reading your points and i agree with him. you end up going down theoretical rabbit-holes because you're working backwards from a pre-ordained conclusion …. namely an extremist position that flatly contradicts Satoshis original vision for the project.
1568 2013-03-17 21:37:02 <jouke> gavinandresen: yes they can. They can even do that with multiple people they trust.
1569 2013-03-17 21:37:17 <TD> petertodd: why must "mining be viable anonymously"? nobody mines via Tor today, and bitcoin works, so apparently bitcoin is viable without that.
1570 2013-03-17 21:37:40 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: because doing so is relatively cheap. I don't mean to argue any particular price but instead propose the deeper criteria— that if it's not cheap enough that many will do it for no direct gain then it isn't clear that the system is viable.
1571 2013-03-17 21:37:40 <sipa> the argument "it works today, so it will forever" is not very useful, imho
1572 2013-03-17 21:38:14 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: I strongly disagree. And strongly agree with TD's point:  the system I signed up for is the system Satoshi described originally on the crypto mailing list.
1573 2013-03-17 21:38:21 <TD> the argument is "it works today, so if you think it won't work tomorrow, you need a good justification for that". if the scenario in question is "governments are systematically banning bitcoin" then we can ignore the argument, because then it's all game over anyway and we won't be around to care
1574 2013-03-17 21:38:21 <petertodd> TD: It'd be interesting if I had never come up with this fidelity banking crap; would you and Gavin perhaps argue with my ideas more?
1575 2013-03-17 21:38:36 <gmaxwell> TD: some people do mine behind tor FWIW, but I don't think thats all that relevent, peter's argument there is that it becomes attractive to coersively controll miners unless they can be hidden. (I dunno if I agree that it matters much though)
1576 2013-03-17 21:38:43 <petertodd> TD: re: Tor, Bitcoin has never been seriously attacked, so we don't know if we need Tor, but we certainely might.
1577 2013-03-17 21:39:11 <epylar> actually maybe it's more accurate to say network/compute/storage resources are Ω(E^t)
1578 2013-03-17 21:39:17 <TD> i can guarantee you that if governments want to attack bitcoin, banning miners will not be the way it is accomplished.
1579 2013-03-17 21:39:20 <gavinandresen> petertodd: you're not going to break out the precautionary principle, are you?
1580 2013-03-17 21:39:30 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: Funny, so did I. I signed up for a system which could have security supported by fees without cartel behavior imposing implicit size caps to keep fee funding viable.
1581 2013-03-17 21:39:35 safra has joined
1582 2013-03-17 21:39:36 * TD has spent far too much time reading reports written by financial regulators
1583 2013-03-17 21:39:37 <petertodd> gavinandresen: I already did.
1584 2013-03-17 21:40:01 <TD> petertodd: argue with them more or less?
1585 2013-03-17 21:40:21 jtimon has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1586 2013-03-17 21:40:24 <TD> petertodd: chaumiam banking isn't really relevant imho. i agree people will do transactions off chain, i don't think chaum banks will be it, for a variety of reasons
1587 2013-03-17 21:40:25 <petertodd> TD: I take it you assume government will attack exchanges right?
1588 2013-03-17 21:40:42 <flyingkiwiguy> TD: the weak points are the interfaces with fiat currency systems
1589 2013-03-17 21:41:11 <TD> "attack" might be the wrong word. in some parts of the world financial regulation is so dysfunctional that basically anything new is already illegal, so zombie-like application of existing laws would be enough to cause issues (just because licensing is so slow/expensive/flaky/etc)
1590 2013-03-17 21:41:40 <sipa> i signed up for a mighty experiment, fighting technological scalability and perhaps - very perhaps - achieving an economic and sociologic improvement; if that system cannot guarantee it remains decentralized without support of miners and full nodes that work "for the common good", that experiment has failed
1591 2013-03-17 21:42:03 <TD> but yeah, if governments wanted to attack bitcoin, it'd just be done via new rules that say "to accept digital cash-like instruments you must get license X Y and Z" and then have the bureaucracy for that be so slow/awkward that nobody can be bothered
1592 2013-03-17 21:42:05 <brian_> how would be illegal to buy numbers?
1593 2013-03-17 21:42:13 <sipa> i don't know what degree of decentralization we should aim for
1594 2013-03-17 21:42:14 gritcoin has joined
1595 2013-03-17 21:42:22 <sipa> probably many users don't care about it
1596 2013-03-17 21:42:26 josEPhar has joined
1597 2013-03-17 21:42:32 <epylar> sipa: wouldn't there be an economic incentive for people to switch to implementations with higher block size limits?
1598 2013-03-17 21:42:33 <petertodd> TD: Right, which means we should ensure that Bitcoin users stay at best pseudo-anonymous, and ensure that we can have at least some central control over who gets transactions confirmed, so that when those regulators come we can point to how we're going to meet their demands.
1599 2013-03-17 21:42:35 <sipa> but in the limit, that means we end up with just the same as what we have now
1600 2013-03-17 21:42:37 <epylar> without having to invoke common good
1601 2013-03-17 21:42:43 zrad has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1602 2013-03-17 21:42:49 <flyingkiwiguy> exchanges hold govt issued fiat on account - there are lots of regulations concerning customer deposits
1603 2013-03-17 21:43:04 <gmaxwell> I like to direct people to http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-source  "The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work" ... and so yes, I do being forced by economic reality to trust third party supernodes because running my own is too costly and would just leave me forked when they don't agree with the supernode cartel is a kind of trust that shouldn't happen with bitcoin.
1604 2013-03-17 21:43:08 <petertodd> TD: I'm being serious, for the long-term survivial of 'Bitcoin' that's a very good approach to take, and would ensure the value of Bitcoin remains high.
1605 2013-03-17 21:43:12 <TD> regulators wouldn't try regulating mining. that just isn't how these guys think. they'd just regulate usage. you cannot build an economy entirely out of Tor users.
1606 2013-03-17 21:43:12 <gavinandresen> sipa: my 0.8.1 gitian checksums match
1607 2013-03-17 21:43:15 <epylar> you don't have to exchange for fiat to have a viable currency.  you could simply trade for goods and services.
1608 2013-03-17 21:43:19 <sipa> epylar: it's decentralization of creating transactions vs. decentralization of validating that everyone plays by the rules
1609 2013-03-17 21:43:38 <sipa> epylar: and the first we have already; it's called cash
1610 2013-03-17 21:43:54 <flyingkiwiguy> agreed epylar, but to bootstrap it...
1611 2013-03-17 21:44:09 <TD> gmaxwell: well, if you're going to start quoting satoshi, he very clearly wanted bitcoin to scale up and his argument was "it will likely never outpace moores law"
1612 2013-03-17 21:44:10 <gmaxwell> I do also note that this concern isn't one that is especially hard to see, almost every technology person who thinks criticially about TD's scalability wiki article (e.g. Dan Kaminsky) walks away with the criticism that if you do that the system will not be decenteralized anymore.
1613 2013-03-17 21:44:14 <epylar> yeah, the bootstrapping is hard, but eventually you wouldn't have to have fiat exchanges
1614 2013-03-17 21:44:15 <TD> and he had that position since the start.
1615 2013-03-17 21:44:26 <epylar> as long as a lot of people use it and trust it.  it would be like gold.
1616 2013-03-17 21:44:26 <TD> so …. he clearly didn't worry about that issue too much
1617 2013-03-17 21:44:27 <petertodd> sipa: Re: experiment, my involvement with Bitcoin is because I believe the world should have a truely decentralized currency. Not because I think I'm going to make any money doing so.
1618 2013-03-17 21:45:03 <TD> gmaxwell: the version kaminsky wrote about is old. it talked about sharding work across multiple machines. which is fine too, but it seems with the latest code even that isn't necessary.
1619 2013-03-17 21:45:04 <flyingkiwiguy> epylar: the buzz word is disintermediation
1620 2013-03-17 21:45:11 <gmaxwell> TD: I certantly agree it should scale up. So long as it doesn't outpace the technology or demand none of my concerns are concerns. But removing the block limit makes it quite possible— on the basis of what simply can happen— to outpace and fall over.
1621 2013-03-17 21:45:19 <petertodd> TD: So what if Satoshi said that? He got the technical way to achieve his overall goal wrong. Wouldn't be the first time that's happened.
1622 2013-03-17 21:45:20 <gavinandresen> All righty, here's an argument for eliminating the max block size completely:  If we do, then limiting it in the future, if Bad Things start to happen, is merely a soft fork.
1623 2013-03-17 21:45:39 PrinceCortex has joined
1624 2013-03-17 21:45:45 <sipa> gavinandresen: and a soft fork requires miner consensus
1625 2013-03-17 21:46:02 <sipa> which means relying on exactly those you're going to hurt economically
1626 2013-03-17 21:46:13 <gavinandresen> sipa: sure.  A consensus of miners, which is what the concern is all about, right?  less than 50% of hashpower forcing out miners....
1627 2013-03-17 21:46:14 <TD> petertodd: my point is that saying "i didn't sign up for this" is wrong. bitcoins long term goal was always clear. also, to be blunt, if you want to try and argue you're smarter than satoshi go right ahead, but he has a significant achievement on his side.
1628 2013-03-17 21:46:15 <gmaxwell> And half the arguments here is that removing the limit misaligns the miners with the users of the system in a way which harms decenteralization (but the decenteralization doesn't harm miners)
1629 2013-03-17 21:46:41 <petertodd> gavinandresen: I've come up with, what, 4 main reasons why miners have perverse incentives regarding large blocks, and you want to put the ability to 'fix' the issue in their hands?
1630 2013-03-17 21:46:46 <gmaxwell> (in fact, a loss of decenteralization arguably helps miners— except in so far as they are also users of the system in other ways)
1631 2013-03-17 21:46:54 <gavinandresen> petertodd: yes.
1632 2013-03-17 21:47:08 <TD> a lot of these arguments fail at that point
1633 2013-03-17 21:47:10 <petertodd> gavinandresen: Guess that answers my question...
1634 2013-03-17 21:47:30 <epylar> the system is at the mercy of miners anyway
1635 2013-03-17 21:47:34 <TD> miners are not independent of the rest of the system. they have already demonstrated willingness to endure serious personal sacrifices for the good of the system
1636 2013-03-17 21:47:39 PrinceCortex has left ()
1637 2013-03-17 21:47:40 <TD> because what's good for bitcoin is good for them
1638 2013-03-17 21:47:40 <epylar> and vice versa i suppose
1639 2013-03-17 21:47:51 <petertodd> TD: What exactly is this 'bitcoin' that you say has a long-term goal anyway?
1640 2013-03-17 21:47:56 cyphurnz has joined
1641 2013-03-17 21:48:01 <petertodd> TD: The source code I downloaded has a 1MB limit...
1642 2013-03-17 21:48:04 <TD> see how Eleuthria sacrificed a lot of money in order to heal a chain split that he was on the winning side of.
1643 2013-03-17 21:48:15 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1644 2013-03-17 21:48:20 <sipa> TD: which i am very happy to see; but i don't want to depend on such behaviour
1645 2013-03-17 21:48:27 <petertodd> TD: Sure, while mining is still small enough to be a semi-hobby activity, although that is changing.
1646 2013-03-17 21:48:31 <TD> petertodd: one that was planned to be removed "once the community is ready for it"
1647 2013-03-17 21:48:40 <epylar> TD: one could argue that he had an incentive to preserve its long term viability, but what if it were so entrenched that his incentive was to stay on the winning side?
1648 2013-03-17 21:48:43 <gmaxwell> TD: you can keep reiterating that its wrong, but that doesn't make it so. Satoshi's claims don't make an _sense_ in the context of no limits whatsoever. It's trivial to demonstrate breaking such a system, and avoiding the break requires some way to impose a limit, and the limit must be a consensus, how will you choose it? another blockchain? :P
1649 2013-03-17 21:48:48 <TD> sipa: you already do - miners have no direct incentive to include any transactions at all, right?
1650 2013-03-17 21:48:53 <petertodd> TD: Planned by whome exactly? Some guy who just vanished?
1651 2013-03-17 21:49:11 <jouke> euh, sacrificed a lot of money? He was the first running on the .7-chain and I guess that made him a lot of money as well?
1652 2013-03-17 21:49:19 <sipa> TD: if satoshi were present today, i'd very much like to discuss this with him
1653 2013-03-17 21:49:21 <TD> the guy who created the system. yes. i know you have no respect for that at all, but i do.
1654 2013-03-17 21:49:29 <petertodd> TD: All your talk about miners behaving alturisticly really makes me want to start up a mining pool...
1655 2013-03-17 21:49:38 <sipa> TD: but without discussion, just a idea of how he assumed things would work out, doesn't mean much
1656 2013-03-17 21:49:41 <warren> Note that imposing dynamic fees on particular behaviors (uneconomically small uxto) to guard against disproportionate uxto growth does not require a soft or hard fork.
1657 2013-03-17 21:49:45 <TD> go right ahead. see how many people you get with a policy of "fuck bitcoin, i'm going to back up my files into my blocks"
1658 2013-03-17 21:49:51 <TD> i suspect you won't find blocks very often
1659 2013-03-17 21:49:54 fishfish has quit (Quit: Bye!)
1660 2013-03-17 21:50:09 <epylar> you could also say that the big miners are forming a cartel to preserve people's trust in the system long enough to make some more fiat before it collapses. :)
1661 2013-03-17 21:50:13 <TD> sipa: why? he always made his views on this topic clear. if he was around now i think he'd be amazed by all the fuss ....
1662 2013-03-17 21:50:17 <petertodd> TD: I respect good ideas more than I do good people.
1663 2013-03-17 21:50:19 <TD> he'd just talk about moores law, i guess
1664 2013-03-17 21:50:45 <petertodd> TD: Heh, I should rick-roll the mainnet blockchain.
1665 2013-03-17 21:50:48 <sipa> TD: and moore's law is why i am not against increasing the block size limit
1666 2013-03-17 21:51:01 Belkaar has joined
1667 2013-03-17 21:51:02 <gmaxwell> TD: the only people I've ever seen making the argument that th block size should never increase are the people arguing for increasing it in their strawman characterizations of other people's positions.
1668 2013-03-17 21:51:13 <sipa> but that's very different from just dropping it altogether
1669 2013-03-17 21:51:13 <TD> gmaxwell: as pointed out, if some miners start creating "breaker blocks" then they can be soft-forked off and erased
1670 2013-03-17 21:51:34 <TD> ok
1671 2013-03-17 21:51:37 <sipa> or putting it in the hands of miners
1672 2013-03-17 21:51:43 <TD> so, you want to increase it, but not drop it
1673 2013-03-17 21:51:45 <TD> so what is the right size?
1674 2013-03-17 21:51:53 <gmaxwell> "Just enough."
1675 2013-03-17 21:51:57 <TD> enough for what?
1676 2013-03-17 21:52:10 optimator has joined
1677 2013-03-17 21:52:20 <TD> most obviously, enough for satoshidice?
1678 2013-03-17 21:52:27 <petertodd> TD: Enough for Bitcoin to remain useful yet decentralized.
1679 2013-03-17 21:52:37 <TD> that's not a number
1680 2013-03-17 21:52:40 <gavinandresen> ok, so how big is that?
1681 2013-03-17 21:52:40 * sipa is going for a walk
1682 2013-03-17 21:52:41 <TD> pick a number.
1683 2013-03-17 21:52:41 <sipa> cya
1684 2013-03-17 21:52:45 <TD> enjoy
1685 2013-03-17 21:52:55 owowo has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1686 2013-03-17 21:53:03 <petertodd> We don't know the right number, but we do know we can make the number smaller, and thus more decentralized, if we accept that we can't have a pony.
1687 2013-03-17 21:53:11 TAiS46 has quit (Quit: TAiS46)
1688 2013-03-17 21:53:20 <gavinandresen> I say we can't know "the right number"
1689 2013-03-17 21:53:35 <warren> petertodd: just punish the bad pony, and more people can have ponies.
1690 2013-03-17 21:53:36 <TD> if you don't know the right number, then talking about making it bigger or smaller is meaningless
1691 2013-03-17 21:53:41 <gavinandresen> … which is why I want to leave it up ti miners and merchants and users.
1692 2013-03-17 21:53:48 Eleuthria has left ()
1693 2013-03-17 21:54:02 <gmaxwell> TD: the size should be a size that clearly doesn't result in all the negative concerns which have been described: not large enough to prevent altruistic operation of full nodes (relative to 'moores law'), not so large that there is no competative pressure for fees resulting in a fee race to the bottom. The number changes over time. Simply doing something like incrementing (e.g. doubling) when it's clear that the pent demand exists and ...
1694 2013-03-17 21:54:08 <gmaxwell> ... computers are fast enough is in the space of things I think is reasonable.
1695 2013-03-17 21:54:24 <TD> what does "computers are fast enough" mean?
1696 2013-03-17 21:54:27 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: you can't leave it up without a consensus mechenism. Merchants and users' consensus mechenism is the software.
1697 2013-03-17 21:54:40 <gavinandresen> I say eliminate the hard size, and then we can all lobby miners and merchants and client developers for what we think the right 'soft' size is.
1698 2013-03-17 21:54:46 <TD> can i join two computers together and say they're now fast enough to double the tx rate?
1699 2013-03-17 21:55:04 <epylar> parallel programming is not trivial
1700 2013-03-17 21:55:13 <petertodd> warren: Don't remind me about how rule 22 applied to the thread saying the devs needed a spanking...
1701 2013-03-17 21:55:13 <TD> it's completely trivial for sharding a bitcoin node.
1702 2013-03-17 21:55:26 <TD> as the cost is virtually all in cpu
1703 2013-03-17 21:55:28 <epylar> hmm.. perhaps it's power per dollar or per watt then?
1704 2013-03-17 21:55:33 <gmaxwell> TD: What I'm describing is a soft consensus process. Basically, whatever value that everyone who speaks up with credibility can say "that sounds okay"... by doing whatever measurements they want to do.
1705 2013-03-17 21:55:43 sgornick has joined
1706 2013-03-17 21:55:59 <gmaxwell> (which is, effectively the consensus process used in the IETF most of the time, with fair success)
1707 2013-03-17 21:56:10 <TD> well, somebody needs to make a decision at some point, and so far, gavins argument sounds ok to me.
1708 2013-03-17 21:56:12 sanchaz has joined
1709 2013-03-17 21:56:22 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: … so why wouldn't soft consensus work with a soft upper limit?
1710 2013-03-17 21:56:23 sanchaz has quit (Changing host)
1711 2013-03-17 21:56:23 sanchaz has joined
1712 2013-03-17 21:56:43 <gavinandresen> … if you go against the consensus and produce too large a block, then you orphan.  No biggie.
1713 2013-03-17 21:56:53 tre-spective has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1714 2013-03-17 21:56:54 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: because imposing it basically means enormous theft risk. The second someone rejects a block you'll get forks.
1715 2013-03-17 21:56:57 BTCTrader2 has quit (Quit: BTCTrader2)
1716 2013-03-17 21:57:09 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: only if the "consensus" is purely up to miners.
1717 2013-03-17 21:58:06 <TD> you can always instruct your client to reject blocks over a certain size too
1718 2013-03-17 21:58:15 <gmaxwell> TD: Think about what happens there.
1719 2013-03-17 21:58:24 <TD> eg, if mtgox did that, then miners would have a lot of pressure on the to come into line with their choice
1720 2013-03-17 21:58:27 <gmaxwell> We have one: it's called the definition of the system.
1721 2013-03-17 21:58:38 vellest has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com)
1722 2013-03-17 21:58:43 <gmaxwell> If people set random values then you'll just get really fantastic forks with great big doublespending theft on them.
1723 2013-03-17 21:58:44 <warren> gavinandresen: have you fully rejected the notion that KB size is not the only cost?
1724 2013-03-17 21:58:44 <epylar> if you reject blocks over a certain size and everyone else accepts them and you're not a miner, you stop being able to see any new transactions
1725 2013-03-17 21:58:46 <petertodd> Pressure from whome?
1726 2013-03-17 21:58:49 <gmaxwell> (as we just saw)
1727 2013-03-17 21:59:06 <petertodd> *whom
1728 2013-03-17 21:59:20 <TD> so don't set random values then? people can come together and put their max accepted size into the public domain.
1729 2013-03-17 21:59:23 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: why would people set random values?  You think they're idiots?
1730 2013-03-17 21:59:34 <petertodd> gavinandresen: You been on the forums lately?
1731 2013-03-17 21:59:44 <TD> i did
1732 2013-03-17 21:59:54 <TD> i saw a ton of threads containing highly academic arguments about block size limits
1733 2013-03-17 21:59:59 HiWEB has quit (Quit: HiWEB)
1734 2013-03-17 22:00:00 <epylar> ha, forums
1735 2013-03-17 22:00:03 <gavinandresen> ok, I'll put it another way:  don't be an idiot.
1736 2013-03-17 22:00:11 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: I don't think people are idiots. I think these things are subtle. The idea that its critical that the number be exactly the same for all would be very very surprising with it exposed as a knob.
1737 2013-03-17 22:00:58 <TD> well, this is why i originally suggested a limit that floated like difficulty
1738 2013-03-17 22:01:19 <TD> if miners routinely start filling up blocks then the size limit automatically goes up by 50% or whatever
1739 2013-03-17 22:01:27 <gmaxwell> TD: again, if you make it miner controlled you run into a misalignment of miners with the system as a whole (and with each other, for that matter).
1740 2013-03-17 22:01:40 <TD> so the size is "effectively" infinite but really random troll blocks can't happen
1741 2013-03-17 22:01:49 <warren> Floating the limit, or increasing the limit, is throwing more hardware at the problem while completely ignoring the underlying issue.
1742 2013-03-17 22:01:59 * gavinandresen is stepping out to upload 0.8.1 binaries
1743 2013-03-17 22:02:28 <petertodd> Which when Google has gotten into the mining pool/validating node business gives them every incentive to push that limit as far as it will go; they're competitors will give up one by one.
1744 2013-03-17 22:02:47 <jouke> I just want to be able to delay the relay of big blocks
1745 2013-03-17 22:02:56 Joost has joined
1746 2013-03-17 22:03:09 <gmaxwell> TD: that kind of limit— which indeed stops trolls— doesn't prevent the "fees tends to zero, so difficulty tends to zero" concern, it doesn't prevent "the majority of beefy miners push out the minority of slower miners; eventually there is one miner" concern, etc.
1747 2013-03-17 22:03:09 <TD> yes, you're right. google will obviously sacrifice its brand name and reputation by generating spam transactions in order to undermine bitcoin to ensure that ….. wait what?
1748 2013-03-17 22:03:36 <gmaxwell> TD: So this is really your fundimental problem. You don't agree that decenteralization and zero trust are valuable.
1749 2013-03-17 22:03:38 <petertodd> What spam transactions? They're just micropayments.
1750 2013-03-17 22:03:48 <warren> petertodd: that's a better argument if you don't say "Google".  Anyone with sufficient infra could do it.
1751 2013-03-17 22:04:01 <gmaxwell> You keep making these areuments like "google will obviously sacrifice its brand name and reputation" and so the users of bitcoin should just trust it.
1752 2013-03-17 22:04:28 BTCTrader2 has joined
1753 2013-03-17 22:04:34 <petertodd> warren: I use Google because they, and Amazon, are the two really obvious examples of organizations with the infrastructure to do it.
1754 2013-03-17 22:04:38 <gmaxwell> $soverign will obviously not debase its reputation by debasing its currency, "trust it".  This is what bitcoin was designed to avoid the need for it.
1755 2013-03-17 22:04:53 <epylar> so say the block limit is changed or eliminated.. that's a hard fork.   meaning people have to be convinced to accept it.  is it just going to be 'trust the devs', or is there going to be some sort of rationale based on these arguments?
1756 2013-03-17 22:05:02 <petertodd> warren: More to the point, I fully believe Google *will* get into the business of running validating nodes if Bitcoin becomes mainstream, regardless of the blocksize.
1757 2013-03-17 22:05:11 <TD> we're never going to agree on this. you can't even pick a level of usage that you feel is "decentralized" vs "centralized"
1758 2013-03-17 22:05:14 <gmaxwell> td: and I agree— trust work vaguely OKAY. But if you're allright with trusting $bigcorp— well— GO USE PAYPAL. it is _fundimentally_ more efficient than bitcoin.
1759 2013-03-17 22:05:24 chmod755 has quit (Quit: chmod755)
1760 2013-03-17 22:05:40 <TD> it's really hard to see anyone needing more than a handful of computers to run a node even with 100,000 fold growth
1761 2013-03-17 22:05:44 <TD> which would be crazy
1762 2013-03-17 22:05:58 <petertodd> TD: But we do have ways to let the overall amount of usage be much bigger with much less hardware: off-chain transactions.
1763 2013-03-17 22:06:06 <gmaxwell> Would be interesting to see a demonstration of that, if its so simple— you can turn off pow and show it.
1764 2013-03-17 22:06:14 <TD> and gmaxwell actually has 32 core machines at home. so the idea that there is a binary division where bitcoin goes from "i can run it on my computer" to "only google can run it" just makes no sense
1765 2013-03-17 22:06:31 <gmaxwell> But even still, if you need to dedicate a small cluster to run bitcoin then very few people will validate and you will get a defacto centeralized system.
1766 2013-03-17 22:06:33 <TD> well, we already know how fast the chain can be replayed. but yes, real load tests would be nice to have.
1767 2013-03-17 22:06:38 <petertodd> TD: CPU power is what I suspect will be the least important limit. Network bandwidth is.
1768 2013-03-17 22:06:44 <warren> TD: Nobody is suggesting that the block size limit shouldn't eventually be increased.  What might be easier to agree upon are mitigating measures to address fee/behavior imbalances that exist in our current slightly flawed fee structure.
1769 2013-03-17 22:06:46 <TD> why? there are tons of websites that use multiple computers in the world
1770 2013-03-17 22:06:47 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1771 2013-03-17 22:06:50 <TD> hardware just isn't expensive
1772 2013-03-17 22:06:59 <petertodd> TD: No it isn't. Network bandwidth is.
1773 2013-03-17 22:07:15 <gmaxwell> TD: because instead you can just run a SPV node and validate nothing, I even know someone who has written such software! :P
1774 2013-03-17 22:07:19 <petertodd> TD: Decentralized network bandwidth is even more expensive, and eventually impossible.
1775 2013-03-17 22:07:19 <epylar> actually say we remove the block size limit.  wouldn't that open up alternate implementations to add a block size restriction knob?
1776 2013-03-17 22:07:23 <TD> bandwidth is pathetically cheap and dropping all the time. i mean, it wasn't so long ago that youtube seemed impossible no matter how rich you were. now it can be funded with ads.
1777 2013-03-17 22:07:29 <epylar> i guess this was already discussed earlier
1778 2013-03-17 22:07:54 <petertodd> TD: Lol, lots of people realized years ago how youtube would be possible: move the caching servers to the ISPs.
1779 2013-03-17 22:07:54 <gmaxwell> epylar: No, because there must be consensus for the limit or you get irreconsilable forks... consensus failure is the worst kind of failure for our system.
1780 2013-03-17 22:08:11 <petertodd> TD: Doesn't help a system where every transaction must be broadcast to every validating node.
1781 2013-03-17 22:08:30 * gmaxwell gives up for now
1782 2013-03-17 22:08:31 Belkaar has joined
1783 2013-03-17 22:08:51 <TD> so having caching relays works OK for distributing large video files, but not for blocks because …… wait. there's no reason. you could easily have the p2p network relay blocks around with knowledge of network topology.
1784 2013-03-17 22:08:58 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Large-block sizes are a DoS attack against developer wrist bandwidth.
1785 2013-03-17 22:09:00  has quit (Clown|!~clown@static-87-79-93-140.netcologne.de|Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1786 2013-03-17 22:09:01 safra has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1787 2013-03-17 22:09:11 bolapara has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1788 2013-03-17 22:09:21 <TD> but i doubt it'd ever be necessary either
1789 2013-03-17 22:09:43 <TD> a million hashes is tiny
1790 2013-03-17 22:09:45 * petertodd has sore wrists, quitting.
1791 2013-03-17 22:09:50 <TD> yay, i win
1792 2013-03-17 22:10:14 <epylar> so what's your position?  no block size limit?
1793 2013-03-17 22:10:29 int03h has joined
1794 2013-03-17 22:10:41 <TD> no limit. a floating limit. a soft limit imposed by orphan rates, whatever. they're all pretty close.
1795 2013-03-17 22:10:46 <epylar> ah
1796 2013-03-17 22:11:03 * epylar is glad he doesn't have to decide this stuff
1797 2013-03-17 22:11:06 <TD> it's not really my position. it's satoshis position.
1798 2013-03-17 22:11:14 <TD> that i happen to agree with
1799 2013-03-17 22:11:35 <warren> Appeal to authority.
1800 2013-03-17 22:11:38 tiagocorrecto has joined
1801 2013-03-17 22:11:42 <gmaxwell> Lying is not going to get me to continue the discussion.
1802 2013-03-17 22:12:11 <TD> warren: the fallacy is actually "appeal to inappropriate authority": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Fallacious_appeal_to_authority
1803 2013-03-17 22:12:41 <warren> TD: Satoshi's design was correct in every way.
1804 2013-03-17 22:13:10 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1805 2013-03-17 22:13:50 <TD> if you think bitcoins design is badly flawed, then i guess the question is, what brought you here in the first place?
1806 2013-03-17 22:14:09 <epylar> that's kind of black and white thinking.  it can be flawed without being badly flawed.
1807 2013-03-17 22:14:24 LainZ has joined
1808 2013-03-17 22:14:49 <warren> TD: The original design failed to account for uxto's in fees, which do not scale with the fee imposed on block size.  The design is not badly flawed at all, just needs a minor adjustment.
1809 2013-03-17 22:14:52 <int03h> lol that seem like grey thinking ..
1810 2013-03-17 22:15:00 Belkaar has joined
1811 2013-03-17 22:15:05 BTCTrader2 has quit (Quit: BTCTrader2)
1812 2013-03-17 22:15:13 <gmaxwell> It's an objective fact that satoshi made many mistakes in the details. I don't think the overall design is flawed, and I think you are being disingenuous in implying that other people here disagree with satoshi or that he specifically intended no limits to block size at all.
1813 2013-03-17 22:15:34 tiagocorrecto has left ("Leaving")
1814 2013-03-17 22:15:58 owowo has joined
1815 2013-03-17 22:16:11 <gmaxwell> Many people— myself included— understand size constraints as important to how bitcoin's security would be funded. If you have no size constraint then ... it's not at all obvious how it would work. (maybe it could still work— but whatever that maybe is, its not something satoshi obviously planned)
1816 2013-03-17 22:16:33 <warren> TD: this argument doesn't suggest block limits never increase.  It is just saying we can fix the fee formula to better reflect actual costs and delay the need to increase the block limit, which helps the network to remain decentralized longer.
1817 2013-03-17 22:16:47 <TD> http://marc.info/?l=cryptography&m=122567739309991&w=2
1818 2013-03-17 22:17:01 <TD> we can see what satoshi thought of this because scalability was the very first criticism of the design ever leveled
1819 2013-03-17 22:17:32 <gmaxwell> TD: But do not that nowhere does he say no blocksize limits. He just argues that limits can become large.
1820 2013-03-17 22:17:41 <petertodd> hal posted! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=154290.0
1821 2013-03-17 22:18:01 <TD> hal is amazing. last i heard he can only control a computer with eye movements now :(
1822 2013-03-17 22:18:16 <gmaxwell> And a long post with software too!
1823 2013-03-17 22:18:30 <petertodd> :( I hope he could get someone else to write that huge post for him.
1824 2013-03-17 22:19:30 <gmaxwell> petertodd: don't feel _too_ bad. Or imagine what some kind of alien would feel for you that you can only exist in 3 spatial dimensions and can't solve complex math without a computer or whatever. It's all relative.  It's sad that he's limited, but only finitely sad.
1825 2013-03-17 22:19:53 AndChat-624225 has joined
1826 2013-03-17 22:20:40 <petertodd> gmaxwell: A fascinating thing that has come out of psychology is that people appear to have a set happiness level, and while circumstances change it temporarily, it almost always returns to the set level eventually under any circumstance.
1827 2013-03-17 22:21:08 <gmaxwell> 'hedonistic adaptation'
1828 2013-03-17 22:21:24 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1829 2013-03-17 22:21:40 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Yup
1830 2013-03-17 22:22:04 <gmaxwell> <alien> "Odd. Your joy quotent appears to have a DC blocking filter"
1831 2013-03-17 22:22:41 <epylar> unfortunately that set point can be changed.  for example, by your health, quality of food, amount of exercise.
1832 2013-03-17 22:22:42 <epylar> maybe fortunately also.
1833 2013-03-17 22:22:59 <epylar> if you get thrown into depression, it can be lowered.
1834 2013-03-17 22:23:13 <petertodd> gmaxwell: I soldered a diode over the series capacitor in my one.
1835 2013-03-17 22:23:25 <flyingkiwiguy> strange attractors
1836 2013-03-17 22:28:05 <cads> hey gmaxwell, I read your proposal on storj; awesome conceptual work!
1837 2013-03-17 22:28:50 <cads> hey warren, how're you
1838 2013-03-17 22:29:11 debiantoruser has joined
1839 2013-03-17 22:29:16 <gmaxwell> I need to spend less time chatting and more coding. :P and then actually finish some of that (and a lot of other half finished projects)
1840 2013-03-17 22:31:03 <cads> gmaxwell: no worries
1841 2013-03-17 22:31:13 <cads> I think it'll inspire someone
1842 2013-03-17 22:32:10 int03h_ has joined
1843 2013-03-17 22:32:47 <cads> hey guys, what is the current state of the art in extant bitcoin anonymization services? And the theoretical ones?
1844 2013-03-17 22:32:57 <cads> looking at things like http://blog.ezyang.com/2012/07/secure-multiparty-bitcoin-anonymization/
1845 2013-03-17 22:33:25 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1846 2013-03-17 22:33:26 Joost has quit (Quit: Joost)
1847 2013-03-17 22:33:30 <cads> I'm following a hunch from Rivest's '97 paper speculating on financial encryption
1848 2013-03-17 22:33:36 epylar has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1849 2013-03-17 22:33:40 int03h has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1850 2013-03-17 22:33:49 int03h_ is now known as int03h
1851 2013-03-17 22:33:58 <petertodd> implemented: e-wallet services and trust-dependent mixers, semi-implemented: manual trust-free mixing, not-implemented: automated trust-free mixing and fidelity-bonded chaum token banks
1852 2013-03-17 22:34:12 int03h has quit (Client Quit)
1853 2013-03-17 22:34:24 <cads> in that paper, he suggests that it will be impossible to anonymize large cryptocurrency transactions because no government would allow. That seems reasonable and social.
1854 2013-03-17 22:34:49 epylar has joined
1855 2013-03-17 22:34:57 <cads> But he also says that small scale transactions will not be anonymized either, because the cost would be too high
1856 2013-03-17 22:35:01 <petertodd> Only if the government can control the currency. With Bitcoin as it stands that would be hard.
1857 2013-03-17 22:35:16 <cads> (the second claim I find more worrying by far than the first)
1858 2013-03-17 22:35:24 <_W_> cads: considering this can be done in software entirely peer-to-peer between consenting parties, I do not see how those objections apply
1859 2013-03-17 22:35:34 safra has joined
1860 2013-03-17 22:36:01 Belkaar has joined
1861 2013-03-17 22:36:06 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1862 2013-03-17 22:36:57 hsmithsN7 has joined
1863 2013-03-17 22:37:21 <cads> _W_: I suppose I have to find out about the costs of existing technologies
1864 2013-03-17 22:37:27 MC-Droid has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1865 2013-03-17 22:37:27 <cads> thanks petertodd
1866 2013-03-17 22:37:46 Bwild has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1867 2013-03-17 22:37:50 <_W_> well the cost of developing software is a single-time cost. What they call a "smart cow" problem - only one party, ever, anywhere, needs to solve it
1868 2013-03-17 22:38:46 Bwild has joined
1869 2013-03-17 22:40:06 <gmaxwell> _W_: if only that were so. :P
1870 2013-03-17 22:40:07 hsmithsN7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1871 2013-03-17 22:40:13 <cads> _W_: I refer to transaction costs
1872 2013-03-17 22:40:19 BTCTrader2 has joined
1873 2013-03-17 22:40:24 TAiS46 has joined
1874 2013-03-17 22:40:25 <cads> the cost of running your bitcoins through the mixer
1875 2013-03-17 22:40:30 <_W_> cads: again, if you do this as consenting peers, there's no one to collect fees
1876 2013-03-17 22:40:32 <cads> is quite tangible
1877 2013-03-17 22:40:48 bitafterbit has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1878 2013-03-17 22:41:12 <_W_> though as petertodd says, there's no (known) implementation yet
1879 2013-03-17 22:41:24 <cads> _W_: I just have to find out what the anonymization service supply curve is like, and what demand curve is like
1880 2013-03-17 22:41:44 <cads> and we'll have an estimate of how much small scale anonymization we'll see
1881 2013-03-17 22:41:48 <cads> simple, right?
1882 2013-03-17 22:42:11 <petertodd> One of the more used implementations seems to be what gmaxwell called "petermix", that is a bunch of people tell petertodd on IRC that they want to create a joint transaction and he dicks around for a while organizing it by hand.
1883 2013-03-17 22:42:22 tre-spective has joined
1884 2013-03-17 22:42:22 <_W_> well software doesn't follow the general scarcity models you seem to be assuming holds
1885 2013-03-17 22:42:28 tre-spective has quit (Changing host)
1886 2013-03-17 22:42:28 tre-spective has joined
1887 2013-03-17 22:42:33 <cads> we can't assume "math and consenting peers" and deduce "everyone chooses to pursue anonymity for all transactions"
1888 2013-03-17 22:42:40 <cads> _W_: yes
1889 2013-03-17 22:42:49 <cads> _W_: but computers do.
1890 2013-03-17 22:43:15 <cads> but hey, lets not debate here
1891 2013-03-17 22:43:41 kupo2001 has joined
1892 2013-03-17 22:43:59 <kupo2001> can someone help me with getting 6 ATI 7950's to work in BAMT
1893 2013-03-17 22:44:08 <cads> thanks again for the leads guys
1894 2013-03-17 22:44:12 <kupo2001> I can get 4 no problem once i install 5 or 6 it seems to crash
1895 2013-03-17 22:45:11 <Graet> kupo2001, this is dev try #bitcoin-mining or #bamt
1896 2013-03-17 22:45:21 <kupo2001> Ok sorry, Thank you
1897 2013-03-17 22:45:25 <Graet> :)
1898 2013-03-17 22:46:49 JWU42 has joined
1899 2013-03-17 22:46:53 gritcoin is now known as gritcoin_
1900 2013-03-17 22:46:55 npouillard has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1901 2013-03-17 22:47:22 npouillard has joined
1902 2013-03-17 22:49:40 toffoo has joined
1903 2013-03-17 22:50:58 Ant0 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1904 2013-03-17 22:51:15 darkee has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1905 2013-03-17 22:51:19 Belkaar has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1906 2013-03-17 22:51:28 viperhr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1907 2013-03-17 22:51:49 rbecker is now known as RBecker
1908 2013-03-17 22:54:31 Belkaar has joined
1909 2013-03-17 22:55:13 Bwild has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1910 2013-03-17 22:55:25 Ant0 has joined
1911 2013-03-17 22:57:28 <gavinandresen> 0.8.1 binaries and README ready for sanity testing:  https://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.8.1/
1912 2013-03-17 22:57:44 <gavinandresen> … I'll be back after dinner ...
1913 2013-03-17 22:58:15 BTCTrader2 is now known as XRPTrader2
1914 2013-03-17 23:01:38 rowit1 has left ()
1915 2013-03-17 23:02:28 Bwild has joined
1916 2013-03-17 23:04:41 ovidiusoft has quit (Quit: leaving)
1917 2013-03-17 23:05:56  has joined
1918 2013-03-17 23:08:58 BTC_Bear has joined
1919 2013-03-17 23:11:01 one_zero has joined
1920 2013-03-17 23:11:17 CaptainBlaze has quit (Quit: CaptainBlaze)
1921 2013-03-17 23:11:45 kupo2001 has left ()
1922 2013-03-17 23:11:56 Belkaar has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1923 2013-03-17 23:12:16 bernard75 has quit ()
1924 2013-03-17 23:12:21 josEPhar has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1925 2013-03-17 23:12:32 bernard75 has joined
1926 2013-03-17 23:15:10 hsmithsN7 has joined
1927 2013-03-17 23:15:31 AndChat-624225 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1928 2013-03-17 23:15:57 AndChat-624225 has joined
1929 2013-03-17 23:16:00 Belkaar has joined
1930 2013-03-17 23:16:34 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1931 2013-03-17 23:17:15 AndChat-624225 has quit (Client Quit)
1932 2013-03-17 23:17:53 NightDog_workst has joined
1933 2013-03-17 23:19:11 henu has joined
1934 2013-03-17 23:20:58 rlifchitz has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1935 2013-03-17 23:21:30 bernard75 has quit ()
1936 2013-03-17 23:21:37 bernard75 has joined
1937 2013-03-17 23:21:37 bernard75 has quit (Changing host)
1938 2013-03-17 23:21:37 bernard75 has joined
1939 2013-03-17 23:21:45 Belkaar has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1940 2013-03-17 23:21:58 bernard75 has quit (Client Quit)
1941 2013-03-17 23:22:05 Guest21196 has joined
1942 2013-03-17 23:22:05 Guest21196 has quit (Changing host)
1943 2013-03-17 23:22:05 Guest21196 has joined
1944 2013-03-17 23:22:44 <NightDog_workst> If I where do develop a new bitcoin pool server, not caring about backwards compatibility, what protocol should I implement towards the miners?
1945 2013-03-17 23:22:47 Guest21196 has quit (Client Quit)
1946 2013-03-17 23:24:40 gritcoin has joined
1947 2013-03-17 23:24:48 hsmithsN7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1948 2013-03-17 23:25:09 hsmithsN7 has joined
1949 2013-03-17 23:25:13 JWU42 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1950 2013-03-17 23:25:30 Belkaar has joined
1951 2013-03-17 23:25:53 tre-spective has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1952 2013-03-17 23:27:53 gritcoin_ has quit (Quit: gritcoin_)
1953 2013-03-17 23:29:22 <henu> do you guys know where i should report bugs of bitcoin-qt?
1954 2013-03-17 23:29:47 Guest21196 has joined
1955 2013-03-17 23:29:47 <henu> just a minor bug, but its annoying me :)
1956 2013-03-17 23:29:52 Guest21196 has quit (Client Quit)
1957 2013-03-17 23:29:53 <gmaxwell> henu: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?state=open
1958 2013-03-17 23:29:59 <henu> thx
1959 2013-03-17 23:30:14 Guest21196 has joined
1960 2013-03-17 23:30:18 m00p has joined
1961 2013-03-17 23:30:19 Guest21196 has quit (Client Quit)
1962 2013-03-17 23:30:28 Guest21196 has joined
1963 2013-03-17 23:30:28 Guest21196 has quit (Client Quit)
1964 2013-03-17 23:30:36 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1965 2013-03-17 23:31:37 phma_ has joined
1966 2013-03-17 23:32:31 Belkaar has joined
1967 2013-03-17 23:33:04 rlifchitz has joined
1968 2013-03-17 23:33:33 CaptainBlaze has joined
1969 2013-03-17 23:34:19 etioioetioet has joined
1970 2013-03-17 23:34:19 etioioetioet has quit (Changing host)
1971 2013-03-17 23:34:19 etioioetioet has joined
1972 2013-03-17 23:35:10 etioioetioet has quit (Client Quit)
1973 2013-03-17 23:35:19 etioioetioet has joined
1974 2013-03-17 23:35:20 etioioetioet has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1975 2013-03-17 23:35:56 rhhreeh has joined
1976 2013-03-17 23:35:56 rhhreeh has quit (Changing host)
1977 2013-03-17 23:35:56 rhhreeh has joined
1978 2013-03-17 23:36:10 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1979 2013-03-17 23:36:43 i2pRelay has joined
1980 2013-03-17 23:37:21 <brian_> I've a question, provably this was answered several times but I couldn't find it anywhere (so, sorry in advance..): would be possible for some transactions with (eg) unconfirmed inputs to be in the mem pool forever?
1981 2013-03-17 23:37:24 rhhreeh is now known as bernard75
1982 2013-03-17 23:37:54 <gmaxwell> brian_: presumably your computer will fail eventually. :)
1983 2013-03-17 23:38:36 <brian_> yeah but maybe you could preserver your mempool with a modified client
1984 2013-03-17 23:39:16 <brian_> there are some transactions that had been made 3 months ago..
1985 2013-03-17 23:39:30 catcow has joined
1986 2013-03-17 23:39:31 pete78 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1987 2013-03-17 23:39:43 CaptainBlaze has quit (Quit: CaptainBlaze)
1988 2013-03-17 23:39:48 <gmaxwell> brian_: the sender and reciever of a transaction will normally rebroadcast them too.
1989 2013-03-17 23:40:45 <brian_> uhm
1990 2013-03-17 23:41:26 _pr has joined
1991 2013-03-17 23:42:57 henu has left ()
1992 2013-03-17 23:44:23 tyn has joined
1993 2013-03-17 23:44:38 <brian_> brb
1994 2013-03-17 23:44:46 <brian_> thanks gmaxwell
1995 2013-03-17 23:45:05 Nuevoencantabria has joined
1996 2013-03-17 23:45:17 rdymac has joined
1997 2013-03-17 23:47:58 Ant0 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1998 2013-03-17 23:49:21 tyn has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1999 2013-03-17 23:49:43 RBecker is now known as rbecker
2000 2013-03-17 23:53:47 rdymac has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2001 2013-03-17 23:58:55 rdymac has joined