1 2013-04-21 00:00:49 jMyles has joined
   2 2013-04-21 00:00:59 bibbybob has quit (Quit: Leaving)
   3 2013-04-21 00:00:59 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
   4 2013-04-21 00:01:31 i2pRelay has joined
   5 2013-04-21 00:04:55 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
   6 2013-04-21 00:05:07 graingert_ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
   7 2013-04-21 00:06:52 debiantoruser has joined
   8 2013-04-21 00:09:01 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
   9 2013-04-21 00:09:33 i2pRelay has joined
  10 2013-04-21 00:11:16 rdymac has joined
  11 2013-04-21 00:13:15 suporte85 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  12 2013-04-21 00:17:01 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  13 2013-04-21 00:17:33 i2pRelay has joined
  14 2013-04-21 00:21:12 jj0hns0n has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  15 2013-04-21 00:21:34 xenesis has quit (Quit: xenesis)
  16 2013-04-21 00:25:04 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  17 2013-04-21 00:25:37 i2pRelay has joined
  18 2013-04-21 00:25:55 johnsoft has joined
  19 2013-04-21 00:29:48 ColinT has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
  20 2013-04-21 00:30:01 robocoin has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
  21 2013-04-21 00:33:05 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  22 2013-04-21 00:33:27 dumpster has left ()
  23 2013-04-21 00:33:40 i2pRelay has joined
  24 2013-04-21 00:38:41 johnsoft1 has joined
  25 2013-04-21 00:39:41 gmatteson_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  26 2013-04-21 00:41:10 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  27 2013-04-21 00:41:30 johnsoft has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
  28 2013-04-21 00:41:38 i2pRelay has joined
  29 2013-04-21 00:45:02 brson has quit (Quit: leaving)
  30 2013-04-21 00:49:10 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  31 2013-04-21 00:49:43 i2pRelay has joined
  32 2013-04-21 00:50:43 robbak has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  33 2013-04-21 00:51:11 robbak has joined
  34 2013-04-21 00:54:23 AndChat377264 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
  35 2013-04-21 00:55:48 paulo_ has joined
  36 2013-04-21 00:57:14 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  37 2013-04-21 00:57:46 i2pRelay has joined
  38 2013-04-21 01:00:20 xait9 has joined
  39 2013-04-21 01:02:26 median^ has joined
  40 2013-04-21 01:05:17 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  41 2013-04-21 01:05:49 i2pRelay has joined
  42 2013-04-21 01:08:13 Maroni is now known as chorao2
  43 2013-04-21 01:08:23 Spami has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
  44 2013-04-21 01:12:39 a_meteorite has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  45 2013-04-21 01:12:59 GMP has joined
  46 2013-04-21 01:13:19 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  47 2013-04-21 01:13:51 i2pRelay has joined
  48 2013-04-21 01:17:00 canooon has joined
  49 2013-04-21 01:19:21 Impaler has joined
  50 2013-04-21 01:20:39 gmatteson__ has left ()
  51 2013-04-21 01:21:09 a_meteorite has joined
  52 2013-04-21 01:21:21 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  53 2013-04-21 01:21:53 i2pRelay has joined
  54 2013-04-21 01:22:28 Guest90733 has joined
  55 2013-04-21 01:23:22 roconnor has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  56 2013-04-21 01:23:48 MK9 has joined
  57 2013-04-21 01:24:19 JZavala has joined
  58 2013-04-21 01:24:34 BurtyBB has joined
  59 2013-04-21 01:24:49 chorao2 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  60 2013-04-21 01:25:11 BurtyBB has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  61 2013-04-21 01:25:23 Industrial has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  62 2013-04-21 01:25:23 BurtyBB has joined
  63 2013-04-21 01:28:20 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
  64 2013-04-21 01:28:27 MK9 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
  65 2013-04-21 01:29:23 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  66 2013-04-21 01:29:50 johnsoft1 is now known as johnsoft
  67 2013-04-21 01:29:55 i2pRelay has joined
  68 2013-04-21 01:29:57 BitCuriousJ has joined
  69 2013-04-21 01:30:14 BitCuriousJ has left ()
  70 2013-04-21 01:30:27 colintulloch has joined
  71 2013-04-21 01:30:37 colintulloch is now known as ColinT
  72 2013-04-21 01:30:41 agricocb has joined
  73 2013-04-21 01:30:49 systemParanoid has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  74 2013-04-21 01:31:19 franl has joined
  75 2013-04-21 01:32:11 joesmoe has quit (Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
  76 2013-04-21 01:35:07 countbot has joined
  77 2013-04-21 01:35:07 countbot has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  78 2013-04-21 01:37:25 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  79 2013-04-21 01:37:53 catcow has left ()
  80 2013-04-21 01:37:57 i2pRelay has joined
  81 2013-04-21 01:38:25 countbot has joined
  82 2013-04-21 01:38:26 countbot has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  83 2013-04-21 01:38:43 ColinT has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  84 2013-04-21 01:39:48 countbot has joined
  85 2013-04-21 01:39:48 countbot has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  86 2013-04-21 01:40:20 bitit has joined
  87 2013-04-21 01:42:33 countbot has joined
  88 2013-04-21 01:42:34 countbot has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  89 2013-04-21 01:45:26 o2 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  90 2013-04-21 01:45:27 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  91 2013-04-21 01:45:42 o2 has joined
  92 2013-04-21 01:45:54 Casimir1904 has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
  93 2013-04-21 01:45:59 i2pRelay has joined
  94 2013-04-21 01:46:01 Impaler has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
  95 2013-04-21 01:49:41 nova90 has joined
  96 2013-04-21 01:52:37 nova907767 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
  97 2013-04-21 01:53:30 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  98 2013-04-21 01:54:02 i2pRelay has joined
  99 2013-04-21 01:56:32 rdymac has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 100 2013-04-21 01:57:43 AndChat377264 has joined
 101 2013-04-21 01:59:58 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 102 2013-04-21 02:01:01 devrandom has joined
 103 2013-04-21 02:01:33 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 104 2013-04-21 02:02:05 i2pRelay has joined
 105 2013-04-21 02:03:28 owowodopolous has quit (Quit: sayonara)
 106 2013-04-21 02:03:35 zylche has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 107 2013-04-21 02:03:43 scribble has joined
 108 2013-04-21 02:03:53 zylche has joined
 109 2013-04-21 02:03:53 zylche has quit (Changing host)
 110 2013-04-21 02:03:53 zylche has joined
 111 2013-04-21 02:04:22 <scribble> how to speed up a sync?
 112 2013-04-21 02:05:16 countbot has joined
 113 2013-04-21 02:05:16 countbot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 114 2013-04-21 02:05:53 <btcfaucet> adding some nodes, dedicating more resources, setting a higher dbcache value. this is what i'm aware of. if any of that is wrong or there's any more, also interested to hear
 115 2013-04-21 02:06:03 <btcfaucet>     "blocks" : 199636,
 116 2013-04-21 02:08:59 <scribble> 199636. glad i'm not going through that at least.
 117 2013-04-21 02:09:34 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 118 2013-04-21 02:10:06 i2pRelay has joined
 119 2013-04-21 02:10:37 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
 120 2013-04-21 02:10:40 <scribble> compression?
 121 2013-04-21 02:11:07 countbot has joined
 122 2013-04-21 02:11:09 countbot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 123 2013-04-21 02:11:35 treaki__ has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 124 2013-04-21 02:14:21 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 125 2013-04-21 02:15:48 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
 126 2013-04-21 02:17:19 andyh2 has joined
 127 2013-04-21 02:17:36 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 128 2013-04-21 02:18:08 i2pRelay has joined
 129 2013-04-21 02:19:28 phlogiston has joined
 130 2013-04-21 02:19:30 agricocb has joined
 131 2013-04-21 02:20:35 <ubias> scribble, for new installs you can use the bootstrap.dat which is available as a torrent
 132 2013-04-21 02:20:41 chorao2 has joined
 133 2013-04-21 02:20:44 roconnor has joined
 134 2013-04-21 02:21:07 <scribble> okay. thanks ubias
 135 2013-04-21 02:21:33 countbot has joined
 136 2013-04-21 02:23:27 <holorga> skype
 137 2013-04-21 02:23:32 <holorga> oops sry
 138 2013-04-21 02:24:01 treaki__ has joined
 139 2013-04-21 02:24:58 countbot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 140 2013-04-21 02:25:09 macboz has joined
 141 2013-04-21 02:25:33 phlogiston has left ()
 142 2013-04-21 02:25:38 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 143 2013-04-21 02:26:10 i2pRelay has joined
 144 2013-04-21 02:28:57 johnsoft1 has joined
 145 2013-04-21 02:29:21 roconnor has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 146 2013-04-21 02:31:05 countbot has joined
 147 2013-04-21 02:31:08 johnsoft has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 148 2013-04-21 02:33:40 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 149 2013-04-21 02:34:13 i2pRelay has joined
 150 2013-04-21 02:41:01 <imTorim> If you want some free bitcoins/litecoins are are good at coming up names for a website, please PM me.
 151 2013-04-21 02:41:42 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 152 2013-04-21 02:42:14 i2pRelay has joined
 153 2013-04-21 02:46:22 countbot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 154 2013-04-21 02:47:13 AtashiCon has quit (Quit: AtashiCon)
 155 2013-04-21 02:48:25 AtashiCon has joined
 156 2013-04-21 02:49:45 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 157 2013-04-21 02:50:17 i2pRelay has joined
 158 2013-04-21 02:50:20 franl has quit (Quit: Life of Brian)
 159 2013-04-21 02:54:29 jedunnig_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 160 2013-04-21 02:55:40 fiesh_ has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 161 2013-04-21 02:55:42 jedunnigan has joined
 162 2013-04-21 02:57:39 Gnaf has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 163 2013-04-21 02:57:46 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 164 2013-04-21 02:58:18 i2pRelay has joined
 165 2013-04-21 02:59:20 PhantomSpark has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 166 2013-04-21 02:59:23 fiesh has joined
 167 2013-04-21 03:05:12 AtashiCon has quit (Quit: AtashiCon)
 168 2013-04-21 03:05:48 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 169 2013-04-21 03:06:20 i2pRelay has joined
 170 2013-04-21 03:09:16 Tom_Soft has joined
 171 2013-04-21 03:09:28 Gnaf has joined
 172 2013-04-21 03:10:42 AtashiCon has joined
 173 2013-04-21 03:10:56 AtashiCon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 174 2013-04-21 03:11:12 Apexseals has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 175 2013-04-21 03:11:29 Apexseals has joined
 176 2013-04-21 03:11:54 countbot has joined
 177 2013-04-21 03:12:05 vucx has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 178 2013-04-21 03:12:36 AtashiCon has joined
 179 2013-04-21 03:13:44 xait9 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 180 2013-04-21 03:13:48 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 181 2013-04-21 03:14:21 i2pRelay has joined
 182 2013-04-21 03:15:44 colintulloch has joined
 183 2013-04-21 03:15:55 colintulloch is now known as ColinT
 184 2013-04-21 03:18:54 andyh2 has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
 185 2013-04-21 03:19:19 DLN-001 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 186 2013-04-21 03:21:51 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 187 2013-04-21 03:22:23 i2pRelay has joined
 188 2013-04-21 03:22:52 dino__ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 189 2013-04-21 03:22:57 ColinT has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 190 2013-04-21 03:23:14 colintulloch has joined
 191 2013-04-21 03:23:35 colintulloch is now known as ColinT
 192 2013-04-21 03:25:14 vucx has joined
 193 2013-04-21 03:25:34 countbot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 194 2013-04-21 03:25:44 rainworm has joined
 195 2013-04-21 03:27:56 FredEE has joined
 196 2013-04-21 03:28:07 smellis_ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 197 2013-04-21 03:29:54 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 198 2013-04-21 03:30:26 i2pRelay has joined
 199 2013-04-21 03:33:08 imTorim is now known as Bitflip
 200 2013-04-21 03:33:37 Bitflip is now known as Bitflipco
 201 2013-04-21 03:37:57 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 202 2013-04-21 03:38:29 i2pRelay has joined
 203 2013-04-21 03:38:41 Impaler has joined
 204 2013-04-21 03:42:20 impulse has joined
 205 2013-04-21 03:44:30 OneMiner_ has joined
 206 2013-04-21 03:45:18 countbot has joined
 207 2013-04-21 03:45:59 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 208 2013-04-21 03:46:32 i2pRelay has joined
 209 2013-04-21 03:46:33 bitcoinmike has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 210 2013-04-21 03:46:37 bitcoinmike has joined
 211 2013-04-21 03:46:38 OneMiner_ has quit (Client Quit)
 212 2013-04-21 03:46:38 OneMiner has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 213 2013-04-21 03:47:10 OneMiner has joined
 214 2013-04-21 03:49:24 andyh2 has joined
 215 2013-04-21 03:50:28 OneMiner has quit (Client Quit)
 216 2013-04-21 03:50:49 OneMiner has joined
 217 2013-04-21 03:53:19 andyh2 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 218 2013-04-21 03:53:32 fishfish_ has joined
 219 2013-04-21 03:53:35 bitit has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 220 2013-04-21 03:54:01 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 221 2013-04-21 03:54:34 i2pRelay has joined
 222 2013-04-21 03:54:55 bitit has joined
 223 2013-04-21 03:56:08 paybitcoin has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 224 2013-04-21 03:56:17 Bitflipco is now known as Torin
 225 2013-04-21 03:56:21 whiterabbit has joined
 226 2013-04-21 03:56:26 Torin is now known as BitFlip
 227 2013-04-21 03:56:28 paybitcoin has joined
 228 2013-04-21 03:57:20 fishfish has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 229 2013-04-21 03:57:59 defunctzombie_zz is now known as defunctzombie
 230 2013-04-21 03:59:13 whiterab1it has joined
 231 2013-04-21 03:59:47 wrabbit has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 232 2013-04-21 03:59:52 whiterab1it is now known as wrabbit
 233 2013-04-21 04:00:12 BitFlip is now known as BitFlip|Office
 234 2013-04-21 04:00:26 BitFlip is now known as Office!~imTorim@102.109.208.203.cable.dyn.gex.ncable.com.au|BitflipCo
 235 2013-04-21 04:00:37 JWU_42 has joined
 236 2013-04-21 04:01:44 whiterabbit has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 237 2013-04-21 04:01:45 JWU_42 has quit (Client Quit)
 238 2013-04-21 04:02:03 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 239 2013-04-21 04:02:34 i2pRelay has joined
 240 2013-04-21 04:03:44 paybitcoin has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 241 2013-04-21 04:03:49 paybitcoin1 has joined
 242 2013-04-21 04:05:02 paraipan has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
 243 2013-04-21 04:05:26 wizkid057 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 244 2013-04-21 04:06:00 bitcoinmike has quit (!~bitcoinmi@70-138-88-80.lightspeed.hstntx.sbcglobal.net|Quit: Bye)
 245 2013-04-21 04:07:01 Insu has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 246 2013-04-21 04:08:19 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
 247 2013-04-21 04:08:28 [7] has joined
 248 2013-04-21 04:08:33 wizkid057 has joined
 249 2013-04-21 04:09:14 sebicas has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 250 2013-04-21 04:10:05 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 251 2013-04-21 04:10:37 i2pRelay has joined
 252 2013-04-21 04:10:40 BitflipCo is now known as Bitflip-office
 253 2013-04-21 04:10:47 Bitflip-office is now known as Bitflip-Office
 254 2013-04-21 04:11:47 defunctzombie is now known as defunctzombie_zz
 255 2013-04-21 04:12:08 whiterabbit has joined
 256 2013-04-21 04:12:51 Bitflip-Office is now known as imTorin
 257 2013-04-21 04:13:07 whiterab1it has joined
 258 2013-04-21 04:14:11 Btceldur has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 259 2013-04-21 04:14:39 bitflipco has joined
 260 2013-04-21 04:15:23 wrabbit has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 261 2013-04-21 04:15:24 whiterab1it is now known as wrabbit
 262 2013-04-21 04:17:20 whiterabbit has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 263 2013-04-21 04:18:08 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 264 2013-04-21 04:18:39 i2pRelay has joined
 265 2013-04-21 04:20:57 thorie has left ()
 266 2013-04-21 04:23:07 emryss has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 267 2013-04-21 04:23:19 bitflipco is now known as bitflip-office
 268 2013-04-21 04:23:28 bitflip-office has quit ()
 269 2013-04-21 04:23:42 bitflip-office has joined
 270 2013-04-21 04:24:02 [\\\] has joined
 271 2013-04-21 04:24:18 bitflip-office has quit (Client Quit)
 272 2013-04-21 04:24:25 ColinT has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
 273 2013-04-21 04:24:51 bitflipco has joined
 274 2013-04-21 04:26:10 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 275 2013-04-21 04:26:41 i2pRelay has joined
 276 2013-04-21 04:27:31 <denisx> anyone know what ozcoins 700 BTC PPS problem was/is?
 277 2013-04-21 04:27:57 imTorin has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 278 2013-04-21 04:28:02 bitflipco has quit (Client Quit)
 279 2013-04-21 04:28:22 bitflipco has joined
 280 2013-04-21 04:32:40 SvenDiagram has left ()
 281 2013-04-21 04:34:12 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 282 2013-04-21 04:34:45 i2pRelay has joined
 283 2013-04-21 04:37:58 nimdAHK is now known as wall
 284 2013-04-21 04:38:15 wall is now known as nimdAHK
 285 2013-04-21 04:38:26 [\\\] is now known as screwed
 286 2013-04-21 04:39:01 screwed is now known as [\\\]
 287 2013-04-21 04:41:59 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
 288 2013-04-21 04:42:15 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 289 2013-04-21 04:42:47 i2pRelay has joined
 290 2013-04-21 04:46:14 johnsoft has joined
 291 2013-04-21 04:48:27 BlackPrapor has joined
 292 2013-04-21 04:48:45 johnsoft1 has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 293 2013-04-21 04:49:08 cpo has joined
 294 2013-04-21 04:50:17 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 295 2013-04-21 04:50:49 i2pRelay has joined
 296 2013-04-21 04:51:39 bVector has joined
 297 2013-04-21 04:52:45 whiterabbit has joined
 298 2013-04-21 04:52:49 joesmoe has joined
 299 2013-04-21 04:53:05 joesmoe has quit (Client Quit)
 300 2013-04-21 04:53:39 nimdAHK has quit (Quit: Connection reset by peer)
 301 2013-04-21 04:53:49 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
 302 2013-04-21 04:55:22 nimdAHK has joined
 303 2013-04-21 04:55:41 wrabbit has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 304 2013-04-21 04:55:42 whiterabbit is now known as wrabbit
 305 2013-04-21 04:58:18 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 306 2013-04-21 04:58:50 i2pRelay has joined
 307 2013-04-21 04:59:50 cpo has quit ()
 308 2013-04-21 05:00:30 <bitflipco> Join #bitflip for free coin giveaways :)
 309 2013-04-21 05:03:52 whiterabbit has joined
 310 2013-04-21 05:05:03 AlbertTuring has joined
 311 2013-04-21 05:06:20 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 312 2013-04-21 05:06:30 bitflipco has quit ()
 313 2013-04-21 05:06:52 i2pRelay has joined
 314 2013-04-21 05:07:23 wrabbit has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 315 2013-04-21 05:07:24 whiterabbit is now known as wrabbit
 316 2013-04-21 05:10:23 cads has joined
 317 2013-04-21 05:10:26 emryss has joined
 318 2013-04-21 05:14:21 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 319 2013-04-21 05:14:38 i2pRelay has joined
 320 2013-04-21 05:14:52 Trevor5090 has joined
 321 2013-04-21 05:15:37 <Trevor5090> is there a way to determine IP address of BTC senders?
 322 2013-04-21 05:15:53 <Trevor5090> on specific transaction's(based on txid)?
 323 2013-04-21 05:17:12 whiterabbit has joined
 324 2013-04-21 05:17:37 jj0hns0n has joined
 325 2013-04-21 05:17:56 Davincij15 has joined
 326 2013-04-21 05:20:23 wrabbit has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 327 2013-04-21 05:20:26 whiterabbit is now known as wrabbit
 328 2013-04-21 05:21:00 robbak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 329 2013-04-21 05:21:23 robbak has joined
 330 2013-04-21 05:22:15 Guest90733 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 331 2013-04-21 05:22:23 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 332 2013-04-21 05:22:55 i2pRelay has joined
 333 2013-04-21 05:23:07 macboz has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
 334 2013-04-21 05:23:25 <MC1984_> nope
 335 2013-04-21 05:25:01 colintulloch has joined
 336 2013-04-21 05:25:11 colintulloch is now known as ColinT
 337 2013-04-21 05:25:17 ThomasV has joined
 338 2013-04-21 05:25:43 agilenature has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 339 2013-04-21 05:27:18 MiningBuddy- has joined
 340 2013-04-21 05:27:21 MiningBuddy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 341 2013-04-21 05:30:24 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 342 2013-04-21 05:30:53 denisx has joined
 343 2013-04-21 05:30:56 i2pRelay has joined
 344 2013-04-21 05:32:15 Guest56070 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 345 2013-04-21 05:32:35 jj0hns0n has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com)
 346 2013-04-21 05:32:46 <Trevor5090> is that a no the IP question mc?
 347 2013-04-21 05:32:50 ColinT has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 348 2013-04-21 05:33:33 <MC1984_> no ips
 349 2013-04-21 05:33:41 tvbcof_ has joined
 350 2013-04-21 05:36:27 johnsoft1 has joined
 351 2013-04-21 05:37:49 johnsoft has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 352 2013-04-21 05:38:26 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 353 2013-04-21 05:38:58 i2pRelay has joined
 354 2013-04-21 05:40:09 hsmiths has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 355 2013-04-21 05:41:58 hsmiths has joined
 356 2013-04-21 05:44:54 jedunnigan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 357 2013-04-21 05:45:10 mollison has joined
 358 2013-04-21 05:45:35 <mollison> what encryption system is bitcoin-qt using when you encrypt a wallet?
 359 2013-04-21 05:46:28 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 360 2013-04-21 05:46:51 Peacemaker420 has joined
 361 2013-04-21 05:47:00 i2pRelay has joined
 362 2013-04-21 05:48:35 robbak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 363 2013-04-21 05:49:02 robbak has joined
 364 2013-04-21 05:49:15 <Luke-Jr> mollison: AES
 365 2013-04-21 05:49:31 countbot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 366 2013-04-21 05:50:05 joesmoe has joined
 367 2013-04-21 05:52:32 pete79 has joined
 368 2013-04-21 05:53:55 dbe has joined
 369 2013-04-21 05:54:19 dbe is now known as Guest39672
 370 2013-04-21 05:54:29 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 371 2013-04-21 05:55:02 i2pRelay has joined
 372 2013-04-21 05:55:34 ielo has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 373 2013-04-21 05:56:07 joesmoe has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 374 2013-04-21 05:56:45 brwyatt has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 375 2013-04-21 05:58:02 Peacemaker420 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 376 2013-04-21 05:58:41 colintulloch has joined
 377 2013-04-21 05:58:41 <prismatictrail> is there a good explanation anywhere for why the tx replacement stuff matters at all?
 378 2013-04-21 05:58:51 colintulloch is now known as ColinT
 379 2013-04-21 05:59:06 joesmoe has joined
 380 2013-04-21 05:59:38 <Luke-Jr> prismatictrail: basically any case where you want to allow a (non-malicious) double-spend
 381 2013-04-21 06:00:26 paulo_ has quit ()
 382 2013-04-21 06:02:20 <prismatictrail> that sounds like a paradox. trying to bake contract enforcement into the blockchain or something?
 383 2013-04-21 06:02:30 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 384 2013-04-21 06:02:36 PhantomSpark has joined
 385 2013-04-21 06:03:02 i2pRelay has joined
 386 2013-04-21 06:03:45 ypSami has quit (Quit: ypSami)
 387 2013-04-21 06:04:13 <gmaxwell> prismatictrail: for example, you pay someone... but it's not getting mined fast enough for your taste so you'd like to replace the payment for one with a greater fee.
 388 2013-04-21 06:05:22 <Luke-Jr> or even, you pay someone and it's taking a while to get mined, and now you want to pay someone else too - you add the 2nd payment to the first one and do both in one shot
 389 2013-04-21 06:05:55 ColinT has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 390 2013-04-21 06:07:37 <prismatictrail> Okay, thanks. That makes sense.
 391 2013-04-21 06:07:39 Tantadruj has quit (Quit: DoubleRecall Turns Paywalls Into Advertising Dollars - NYTimes.com http://nyti.ms/odHOgy)
 392 2013-04-21 06:10:21 chorao2 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 393 2013-04-21 06:10:33 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 394 2013-04-21 06:11:04 i2pRelay has joined
 395 2013-04-21 06:11:54 vigilyn has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 396 2013-04-21 06:12:04 vigilyn has joined
 397 2013-04-21 06:12:21 mollison has left ("ISON #awesome #bitcoin-otc #bitcoin-market #bitcoin-pit")
 398 2013-04-21 06:13:16 coolsa has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 399 2013-04-21 06:16:02 Davincij15 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 400 2013-04-21 06:18:36 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 401 2013-04-21 06:19:07 i2pRelay has joined
 402 2013-04-21 06:22:52 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
 403 2013-04-21 06:23:19 imTorin has joined
 404 2013-04-21 06:26:39 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 405 2013-04-21 06:26:59 chorao2 has joined
 406 2013-04-21 06:27:10 i2pRelay has joined
 407 2013-04-21 06:32:48 ubias has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 408 2013-04-21 06:34:39 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 409 2013-04-21 06:35:10 i2pRelay has joined
 410 2013-04-21 06:35:43 ryanender_ has joined
 411 2013-04-21 06:39:49 grau has joined
 412 2013-04-21 06:42:33 Haifisch has joined
 413 2013-04-21 06:42:41 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 414 2013-04-21 06:43:12 i2pRelay has joined
 415 2013-04-21 06:44:12 hydrogenesis has joined
 416 2013-04-21 06:45:16 johnsoft has joined
 417 2013-04-21 06:46:49 johnsoft1 has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 418 2013-04-21 06:47:39 mollison has joined
 419 2013-04-21 06:50:39 Guest39672 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 420 2013-04-21 06:50:39 Sealy has joined
 421 2013-04-21 06:50:44 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 422 2013-04-21 06:51:15 i2pRelay has joined
 423 2013-04-21 06:55:25 da2ce7 has joined
 424 2013-04-21 06:56:29 hydrogenesis has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPad - http://colloquy.mobi)
 425 2013-04-21 06:58:46 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 426 2013-04-21 06:59:11 ryanender_ has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 427 2013-04-21 06:59:17 i2pRelay has joined
 428 2013-04-21 07:00:49 countbot has joined
 429 2013-04-21 07:02:02 countbot has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 430 2013-04-21 07:03:48 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 431 2013-04-21 07:04:48 grau has joined
 432 2013-04-21 07:05:04 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 433 2013-04-21 07:06:47 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 434 2013-04-21 07:07:18 i2pRelay has joined
 435 2013-04-21 07:08:45 robbak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 436 2013-04-21 07:09:01 countbot has joined
 437 2013-04-21 07:09:11 robbak has joined
 438 2013-04-21 07:14:27 countbot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 439 2013-04-21 07:14:29 Namworld has quit ()
 440 2013-04-21 07:14:49 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 441 2013-04-21 07:15:00 gagecolton has joined
 442 2013-04-21 07:15:20 i2pRelay has joined
 443 2013-04-21 07:22:50 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 444 2013-04-21 07:23:27 i2pRelay has joined
 445 2013-04-21 07:28:55 countbot has joined
 446 2013-04-21 07:30:20 countbot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 447 2013-04-21 07:30:52 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 448 2013-04-21 07:31:28 i2pRelay has joined
 449 2013-04-21 07:32:30 Spami has joined
 450 2013-04-21 07:32:30 Spami has quit (Changing host)
 451 2013-04-21 07:32:30 Spami has joined
 452 2013-04-21 07:34:13 countbot has joined
 453 2013-04-21 07:36:12 wirehead has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 454 2013-04-21 07:36:51 Hotshot has joined
 455 2013-04-21 07:38:54 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 456 2013-04-21 07:39:24 i2pRelay has joined
 457 2013-04-21 07:46:00 macboz has joined
 458 2013-04-21 07:46:56 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 459 2013-04-21 07:47:05 countbot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 460 2013-04-21 07:47:53 i2pRelay has joined
 461 2013-04-21 07:49:04 countbot has joined
 462 2013-04-21 07:51:06 mollison has left ("QUIT :Leaving.")
 463 2013-04-21 07:51:15 gagecolton has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 464 2013-04-21 07:52:08 Insu has joined
 465 2013-04-21 07:54:56 hydrogenesis has joined
 466 2013-04-21 07:55:26 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 467 2013-04-21 07:55:33 <imTorin> Hey guys - I got a quick question. How do some addresses have a link to their website on Blockchain.info? http://gyazo.com/a0b60770db932eff6bafea6429ec56a8
 468 2013-04-21 07:55:57 i2pRelay has joined
 469 2013-04-21 07:56:51 hydrogenesis has quit (Client Quit)
 470 2013-04-21 07:59:10 <weex> you just make a link like http://blockchain.info/address/__________
 471 2013-04-21 08:00:40 realazthat has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 472 2013-04-21 08:01:12 dbe has joined
 473 2013-04-21 08:01:39 dbe is now known as Guest32590
 474 2013-04-21 08:02:54 BlackPrapor has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 475 2013-04-21 08:03:02 BlackPrapor has joined
 476 2013-04-21 08:03:22 <kadoban_> imTorin: you mean how satoshidice addresses link to their site? i think that's done manually, just because bc.i knows what it is
 477 2013-04-21 08:03:28 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 478 2013-04-21 08:03:36 <imTorin> Many addresses do it
 479 2013-04-21 08:04:00 i2pRelay has joined
 480 2013-04-21 08:04:03 <imTorin> http://gyazo.com/c1dd431a911ca952078a14b193bb9497
 481 2013-04-21 08:04:05 <imTorin> Like this for example
 482 2013-04-21 08:04:06 egis has joined
 483 2013-04-21 08:05:44 Guest32590 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 484 2013-04-21 08:05:54 <kadoban_> i still think it's probably manual, it's only popular addresses i'd assume?
 485 2013-04-21 08:07:15 toffoo has quit ()
 486 2013-04-21 08:10:24 countbot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 487 2013-04-21 08:11:14 countbot has joined
 488 2013-04-21 08:11:31 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 489 2013-04-21 08:12:02 i2pRelay has joined
 490 2013-04-21 08:16:13 countbot has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 491 2013-04-21 08:19:33 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 492 2013-04-21 08:20:04 i2pRelay has joined
 493 2013-04-21 08:23:35 Thepok has joined
 494 2013-04-21 08:25:04 saulimus has joined
 495 2013-04-21 08:25:38 theorbtwo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 496 2013-04-21 08:25:40 realazthat has joined
 497 2013-04-21 08:25:59 theorbtwo has joined
 498 2013-04-21 08:27:06 countbot has joined
 499 2013-04-21 08:27:35 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 500 2013-04-21 08:28:06 i2pRelay has joined
 501 2013-04-21 08:32:11 countbot has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 502 2013-04-21 08:33:43 Tom_Soft has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 503 2013-04-21 08:33:46 peddamat has joined
 504 2013-04-21 08:33:57 robbak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 505 2013-04-21 08:34:06 Hotshot has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 506 2013-04-21 08:34:29 robbak has joined
 507 2013-04-21 08:35:38 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 508 2013-04-21 08:36:04 ThomasV has joined
 509 2013-04-21 08:36:09 i2pRelay has joined
 510 2013-04-21 08:36:09 topace has quit (Read error: Connection timed out)
 511 2013-04-21 08:36:47 topace has joined
 512 2013-04-21 08:37:11 topace is now known as Guest1522
 513 2013-04-21 08:43:42 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 514 2013-04-21 08:44:13 i2pRelay has joined
 515 2013-04-21 08:45:17 mollison has joined
 516 2013-04-21 08:45:27 <mollison> when building from source, how do i verify the integrity of the source?
 517 2013-04-21 08:45:41 <mollison> i'm building the bitcoin-qt client... sorry
 518 2013-04-21 08:46:17 <SomeoneWeird> it should be signed
 519 2013-04-21 08:50:14 SwedFTP_ has joined
 520 2013-04-21 08:50:17 SwedFTP_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 521 2013-04-21 08:50:29 SwedFTP has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 522 2013-04-21 08:50:49 SwedFTP has joined
 523 2013-04-21 08:50:49 SwedFTP has quit (Changing host)
 524 2013-04-21 08:50:49 SwedFTP has joined
 525 2013-04-21 08:50:57 <mollison> SomeoneWeird: my google skills and man page skills are failing me on how to check a signature on a git commit. But I also don't know where to get gavin's key
 526 2013-04-21 08:51:19 Thepok has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 527 2013-04-21 08:51:32 <gmaxwell> Our git commits are not signed.
 528 2013-04-21 08:51:39 <SomeoneWeird> http://bitcoin.org/gavinandresen.asc
 529 2013-04-21 08:51:45 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 530 2013-04-21 08:51:59 <SomeoneWeird> commits aren't, sources are, though iirc ?
 531 2013-04-21 08:52:30 i2pRelay has joined
 532 2013-04-21 08:52:34 robbak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 533 2013-04-21 08:52:39 FredEE has quit (Quit: FredEE)
 534 2013-04-21 08:52:58 robbak has joined
 535 2013-04-21 08:53:18 <kadoban_> the tags are signed, aren't they?
 536 2013-04-21 08:54:37 <mollison> kadoban_: yeah. looking at the git code.
 537 2013-04-21 08:55:04 <mollison> kadoban_: er... sorry, that was confusing, but my answer is "yes"
 538 2013-04-21 08:55:11 viperhr has joined
 539 2013-04-21 08:55:14 <kadoban_> mollison: git tag -v should be the way to check the sigs
 540 2013-04-21 08:55:57 viperhr1 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 541 2013-04-21 08:57:36 <mollison> kadoban_: it looks like the most recent signed tag from gavin is from feb. 18. is there a more recent version of the source (in git or otherwise) that is signed?
 542 2013-04-21 08:58:00 <gmaxwell> mollison: the releases are signed and contain the source.
 543 2013-04-21 08:58:49 <kadoban_> mollison: v0.8.1, march 17 or so
 544 2013-04-21 08:59:52 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 545 2013-04-21 09:00:01 <mollison> the official releases happen at sourceforge? is that correct?
 546 2013-04-21 09:00:25 i2pRelay has joined
 547 2013-04-21 09:01:10 dissipate has joined
 548 2013-04-21 09:01:17 <Luke-Jr> mollison: only ones with wide testing
 549 2013-04-21 09:01:24 Odyessus has joined
 550 2013-04-21 09:01:52 <Luke-Jr> mollison: usually that means the newest stable release
 551 2013-04-21 09:02:12 <mollison> ok, thanks, that's what i want.
 552 2013-04-21 09:02:25 dvide has quit ()
 553 2013-04-21 09:04:54 GordonG3kko has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 554 2013-04-21 09:05:32 GordonG3kko has joined
 555 2013-04-21 09:07:48 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 556 2013-04-21 09:07:49 <EvilPete> hmm.. is this normal? I'm seeing the same getblocks requests over and over every second for days.. http://pastebin.com/bhJ3Zbvj
 557 2013-04-21 09:07:51 mollison has left ("QUIT :Leaving.")
 558 2013-04-21 09:08:18 i2pRelay has joined
 559 2013-04-21 09:09:21 SvenDiagram has joined
 560 2013-04-21 09:10:06 mollison has joined
 561 2013-04-21 09:10:26 <EvilPete> and this is the more localized version: http://pastebin.com/x9bzTGT4
 562 2013-04-21 09:12:00 El has joined
 563 2013-04-21 09:12:23 El is now known as Guest82943
 564 2013-04-21 09:13:04 <mollison> when i run the 0.8.1 release i get a scary warning about backing up my bitcoin directory and deleting everything but wallet.dat. so i'm assuming that release was before the database upgrade?
 565 2013-04-21 09:13:12 <mollison> i.e. is that why i'm getting that scary warning?
 566 2013-04-21 09:14:53 <gmaxwell> You're getting that misleading message because it can't open your wallet.
 567 2013-04-21 09:15:28 <gmaxwell> Prior to 0.8 most bdb errors were related to the blockchain, which was why it told you to deleted everything except the wallet.. but now the wallet is the only thing that uses bdb.
 568 2013-04-21 09:15:48 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 569 2013-04-21 09:16:20 i2pRelay has joined
 570 2013-04-21 09:16:43 <mollison> gmaxwell: so 0.8.1 is using bdb version 4 and my wallet was created fro ma newer client using bdb version 5. is that correct?
 571 2013-04-21 09:17:56 macboz has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 572 2013-04-21 09:17:58 <dissipate> quick question: does a transaction originating from the bitcoinqt client ever have more than 2 outputs (the address the user is sending the BTC to and the 'change' address)?
 573 2013-04-21 09:18:07 ov has joined
 574 2013-04-21 09:18:09 robbak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 575 2013-04-21 09:18:13 <gmaxwell> mollison: Is it? were you previously using a version you compiled and then changed back to the release binaries?
 576 2013-04-21 09:18:21 <kadoban_> dissipate: sure
 577 2013-04-21 09:18:32 <gmaxwell> dissipate: sure, you can add outputs right in the gui.
 578 2013-04-21 09:18:38 robbak has joined
 579 2013-04-21 09:18:44 <mollison> gmaxwell: i was previously using the binary that comes by default in arch linux
 580 2013-04-21 09:19:20 <dissipate> gmaxwell, with 'add recipient'. ah, i see.
 581 2013-04-21 09:19:40 Guest1522 has quit (Read error: Connection timed out)
 582 2013-04-21 09:20:07 <gmaxwell> mollison: If arch is compiling against a v5 bdb ... that sucks.
 583 2013-04-21 09:20:14 Guest1522 has joined
 584 2013-04-21 09:20:55 Odyessus has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPad - http://colloquy.mobi)
 585 2013-04-21 09:21:19 <mollison> gmaxwell: by "that sucks," you just mean in terms of annoyance, right? there's nothing _wrong_ with v5 bdb?
 586 2013-04-21 09:21:34 <mollison> gmaxwell: b/c it's definitely annoying, haha
 587 2013-04-21 09:22:11 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 588 2013-04-21 09:22:57 <mollison> gmaxwell: even removing my wallet.dat, i still have the same scary warning when i run the release version
 589 2013-04-21 09:23:45 <gmaxwell> mollison: removing the wallet.dat isn't enough if you've crossed BDB versions... you need to remove database/  (which just has wallet related data)
 590 2013-04-21 09:23:49 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 591 2013-04-21 09:23:55 dbe has joined
 592 2013-04-21 09:24:13 countbot has joined
 593 2013-04-21 09:24:19 dbe is now known as Guest57380
 594 2013-04-21 09:24:21 i2pRelay has joined
 595 2013-04-21 09:24:21 <gmaxwell> bdb v5 is apparently slower— but it doesn't matter much now that we use it only with the wallet— and much less tested with bitcoin. But the sucks is mostly the incompatibility.
 596 2013-04-21 09:24:34 <wumpus> there's nothing *wrong* with v5 bdb, I've been using it for ages... but we don't recommend it because you will get into trouble when you try to use the precompiled bitcoin with your wallet, and that would cause many users to panic
 597 2013-04-21 09:26:29 Sealy has quit (Quit: Sealy)
 598 2013-04-21 09:26:44 B0g4r7 has joined
 599 2013-04-21 09:28:34 <wumpus> the precompiled bitcoin will always use bdb 4 until we eventually move to a non-bdb wallet format
 600 2013-04-21 09:29:06 vimanu has joined
 601 2013-04-21 09:30:06 canooon has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 602 2013-04-21 09:30:11 <mollison> wumpus: presumably future versions of bitcoin-qt will stay backwards compatible with old wallets that use bdb?
 603 2013-04-21 09:30:23 <wumpus> yes. bdb4
 604 2013-04-21 09:30:43 robbak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 605 2013-04-21 09:30:51 <mollison> wumpus: but they will not be backwards compatible with a bdb5 wallet?
 606 2013-04-21 09:31:13 robbak has joined
 607 2013-04-21 09:31:14 canooon has joined
 608 2013-04-21 09:31:32 <wumpus> eventually I suppose a separate conversion script will be added, that will be called auotmatically when it detects an old wallet
 609 2013-04-21 09:31:46 <wumpus> no, we will never switch to bdb5
 610 2013-04-21 09:31:50 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 611 2013-04-21 09:32:23 i2pRelay has joined
 612 2013-04-21 09:33:11 <mollison> wumpus: that's kind of a problem for me since i'm on arch linux and therefore already on bdb5
 613 2013-04-21 09:33:28 <mollison> and not by my own choice
 614 2013-04-21 09:33:50 <wumpus> don't panic, it is possible to convert your bdb5 wallet to a bdb4 one, there are scripts around for that
 615 2013-04-21 09:34:37 <mollison> shouldn't the whole bdb4 vs bdb5 issue only depend on how the host system where bitcoin is compiled, not the actual bitcoin source code?
 616 2013-04-21 09:34:39 <wumpus> it is just not convenient and cannot be handled automatically in any safe way, it is complexity that we want to avoid hence bdb4 is the canonical wallet format
 617 2013-04-21 09:35:25 <wumpus> sure... you can use bdb5... as I said, I do that myself. But that's my personal risk.
 618 2013-04-21 09:35:54 <Luke-Jr> mollison: it does, but bdb4.8 is the supported version
 619 2013-04-21 09:36:07 <Luke-Jr> mollison: and bdb breaks compatibility
 620 2013-04-21 09:36:35 <Luke-Jr> so, your bdb5 wallet will not load on a system running the official bdb4.8-built binaries
 621 2013-04-21 09:37:07 <imTorin> Idle in #bitflip for your chance to win free bitcoins every day.
 622 2013-04-21 09:37:08 <Luke-Jr> but if you compile bitcoin-qt 0.10 or whatever finally gets rid of bdb, the import tool will work with your bdb5 if you build it with bdb5
 623 2013-04-21 09:37:32 <mollison> Luke-Jr: OK good, that's what i was thinking and hoping
 624 2013-04-21 09:38:02 Casimir1904 has joined
 625 2013-04-21 09:38:11 <wumpus> Luke-Jr: ah, yes, you're right
 626 2013-04-21 09:38:28 <wumpus> the *precompiled* bitcoin won't be able to import bdb5 wallets, but of course if you compile it yourself it can
 627 2013-04-21 09:39:16 mappum has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 628 2013-04-21 09:39:51 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 629 2013-04-21 09:40:03 <mollison> wumpus: but it could be that more distros switch over to bdb5 before you all stop using bdb
 630 2013-04-21 09:40:20 Line_ has joined
 631 2013-04-21 09:40:22 i2pRelay has joined
 632 2013-04-21 09:40:32 <mollison> wumpus: at which point there will be lots of people who, like me, inadvertently have a bdb5 wallet
 633 2013-04-21 09:40:33 <wumpus> yes, for recent debian/ubuntu you already need to add a ppa to specifically get the old bdb
 634 2013-04-21 09:40:48 <wumpus> but all the build docs warn about this
 635 2013-04-21 09:41:02 <mollison> yeah, i saw that warning
 636 2013-04-21 09:41:57 <mollison> what's the reason that you all don't "officially support" bdb5? i mean, can't bdb5 also open bdb4 files?
 637 2013-04-21 09:41:57 <wumpus> if you don't read the build docs, well, what can we do...
 638 2013-04-21 09:42:39 <wumpus> just read back -- I've been trying to explain that all the time,and Luke-Jr too
 639 2013-04-21 09:42:59 AlbertTuring has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
 640 2013-04-21 09:43:11 <mollison> so the answer is, "no, bdb5 can't support bdb4 files" ?
 641 2013-04-21 09:43:30 <wumpus> it can, but it will mangle them in a way that bdb4 cannot read anymore
 642 2013-04-21 09:43:38 <wumpus> so if you experience trouble you cannot downgrade anymore
 643 2013-04-21 09:43:47 <wumpus> (ie if you're user of the precompiled bitcoin)
 644 2013-04-21 09:43:47 <mollison> by "mangle" do you mean, "convert them to bdb5 format" ?
 645 2013-04-21 09:43:50 <wumpus> yes
 646 2013-04-21 09:43:56 <EvilPete> at beast the code can detect and refuse to compile with bdb5..
 647 2013-04-21 09:44:00 <mollison> ok
 648 2013-04-21 09:44:08 <wumpus> no, EvilPete, because it's fine to compile with bdb5
 649 2013-04-21 09:44:14 <wumpus> if you make a conscious choice to
 650 2013-04-21 09:46:57 <EvilPete> yeah, I was more trying to say that the limit of what can be done as an anti-foot-shooting measure is to refuse by default.  Of course it could be enabled consciously, but the most that can be done for people who don't read the docs/warnings is that.
 651 2013-04-21 09:47:07 macboz has joined
 652 2013-04-21 09:47:09 <pjorrit_> thaht might work better than builddocs though ;)
 653 2013-04-21 09:47:29 <wumpus> that's true, well, if you manage to make a warning like that with qmake/makefile, be my guest :)
 654 2013-04-21 09:47:52 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 655 2013-04-21 09:48:05 <mollison> EvilPete's suggestion would have prevented this whole mess in my case. My feet were not shot by myself, but by distro packagers. can't expect someone to read build docs when they don't actually do the build. :P
 656 2013-04-21 09:48:23 i2pRelay has joined
 657 2013-04-21 09:48:39 <pjorrit_> you would expect the packagers to read it though
 658 2013-04-21 09:48:41 <mollison> of course it's not bitcoin devs' fault either, it's just an unfortunate thing (or i guess we could blame it on the bdb people)
 659 2013-04-21 09:49:03 <EvilPete> #if DB_VERSION_MAJOR > 4 && !defined(ENABLE_BDB5) #error "refusing to use bdb5 by default" etc
 660 2013-04-21 09:49:12 one_zero has joined
 661 2013-04-21 09:49:15 <wumpus> normally you'd put something like that in a configure script, you'd force the user to add --build-with-bdb5 to continue, but we don't have that at the moment
 662 2013-04-21 09:49:25 <gmaxwell> EvilPete: we should have done that, alas but that ship has sailed.
 663 2013-04-21 09:49:32 <mollison> pjorrit_: well, it's not clear that the packager did anything _wrong_. i mean, arch linux is already committed to doing bdb5.
 664 2013-04-21 09:49:37 <EvilPete> it doesn't help old tarballs either
 665 2013-04-21 09:49:44 <gmaxwell> we're going to move away from bdb entirely eventually in any case.
 666 2013-04-21 09:49:44 <mollison> but it's aggravating to me as a person who doesn't use solely that one distro
 667 2013-04-21 09:50:02 <pjorrit_> doesnt matter.. you use bitcoin and the wallet is very important
 668 2013-04-21 09:50:16 <pjorrit_> you cant just make that hard to use in another client
 669 2013-04-21 09:50:21 cardpuncher has joined
 670 2013-04-21 09:50:37 <wumpus> gmaxwell: exactly
 671 2013-04-21 09:51:19 <Luke-Jr> mollison: FWIW, on Gentoo we have it setup to depend on bdb 4.8 despite other versions being installed in parallel
 672 2013-04-21 09:52:08 <mollison> Luke-Jr: it's nice that it's being done that way on gentoo in my opinion
 673 2013-04-21 09:52:10 da2ce7 has quit (2!~kvirc@opentransactions/dev/da2ce7|Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 674 2013-04-21 09:52:41 <wumpus> it was a mistake in the first place to not use a wallet format that is completely under control of the bitcoin source itself, and relies on an external library that might change compatibility at any time... but hindsight is easy
 675 2013-04-21 09:53:04 <mollison> wumpus: what are you all going to switch to for the wallet? leveldb?
 676 2013-04-21 09:53:09 <wumpus> no
 677 2013-04-21 09:53:13 <wumpus> a custom append only format
 678 2013-04-21 09:53:25 <wumpus> we won't make the same mistake again
 679 2013-04-21 09:54:09 <mollison> oh i see
 680 2013-04-21 09:54:11 <dissipate> wumpus, why not support multiple database back ends for the wallet and call it a day?
 681 2013-04-21 09:54:44 <wumpus> because it's better to have one good one and maintain that and try to make it bug free and reliable and compatible forever
 682 2013-04-21 09:55:11 <mollison> you guys are going to have people who use arch linux now (and possibly other distros) complaining in 10 years that their wallets are broken... and sadly some may just assume the data is corrupted or something and give up
 683 2013-04-21 09:55:59 <wumpus> I suspect by that time there will be companies dedicated to wallet recovery
 684 2013-04-21 09:56:00 <Luke-Jr> mollison: that's exactly why we're moving to a simple format
 685 2013-04-21 09:56:08 hnz has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 686 2013-04-21 09:56:33 <EvilPete> Incidents like this probaby add urgency to the issue too.
 687 2013-04-21 09:56:59 <EvilPete> although "urgent" isn't a word that goes well in sentences with wallets.
 688 2013-04-21 09:58:34 Micha has joined
 689 2013-04-21 10:01:11 cardpuncher has left ()
 690 2013-04-21 10:01:14 hnz has joined
 691 2013-04-21 10:02:29 gst has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 692 2013-04-21 10:02:54 <gmaxwell> mollison: we'll probably ship static wallet loaders that are static linked against varrious bdb versions after we've switched to our own wallet format.
 693 2013-04-21 10:03:10 <gmaxwell> EvilPete: What incident?
 694 2013-04-21 10:03:42 <gmaxwell> I mean, if distros are going to swap out our libraries under us with unsupported (by us) versions ... all bets are kinda off. :(
 695 2013-04-21 10:03:58 gst has joined
 696 2013-04-21 10:06:39 <wumpus> gmaxwell: I wonder if it is possible in bdb5 to open a bdb4 database read-only, so without converting it... for a wallet converter that'd be enough
 697 2013-04-21 10:07:12 <wumpus> then we could just build the converter against bdb5 and it will read all old versions as well
 698 2013-04-21 10:07:24 <sipa> wumpus: if there is no log to replay, yes
 699 2013-04-21 10:07:40 <wumpus> oh, right
 700 2013-04-21 10:07:44 <sipa> unfortunately bdb doesn't know that unyil you open it
 701 2013-04-21 10:07:59 <mollison> just build the converter against bdb5 and who cares if it "mangles" it... the user is converting the wallet anyway
 702 2013-04-21 10:08:19 <wumpus> mollison: nah at worst it could copy it first
 703 2013-04-21 10:08:27 <wumpus> remove the mangled version afterward
 704 2013-04-21 10:08:33 nus-- is now known as nus
 705 2013-04-21 10:08:33 <mollison> true
 706 2013-04-21 10:08:46 da2ce7-mobile has joined
 707 2013-04-21 10:08:54 <sipa> i added some relevant fomments to #2410
 708 2013-04-21 10:08:59 <sipa> comments!
 709 2013-04-21 10:09:32 robbak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 710 2013-04-21 10:09:58 robbak has joined
 711 2013-04-21 10:10:50 <gmaxwell> wumpus: we could also test to see which one it is, then startup the right import tool.. buit it would mean needing both libraries to build both import tools.
 712 2013-04-21 10:10:51 <wumpus> but I suppose you would want a converter the other way as well, in case the user wants to downgrade (for whatever reason)
 713 2013-04-21 10:11:44 <wumpus> gmaxwell: indeed that'd require gitian with both bdb versions installed
 714 2013-04-21 10:12:33 RazielZ has joined
 715 2013-04-21 10:16:48 quaz0r has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 716 2013-04-21 10:20:16 Guest57380 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 717 2013-04-21 10:20:34 marijnfs has joined
 718 2013-04-21 10:23:42 CodesInChaos has joined
 719 2013-04-21 10:27:11 holorga has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 720 2013-04-21 10:28:51 parasciidic has quit (Quit: Quit:)
 721 2013-04-21 10:29:04 <mollison> are you guys ever going to support offline wallets in the standard client like the armory does?
 722 2013-04-21 10:30:08 <mollison> i think that is really needed. i like armory a lot but i think that theoretically speaking, it suffers security-wise by the fact that not nearly so many people are looking at and working on the code
 723 2013-04-21 10:30:21 <gmaxwell> Patches accepted.
 724 2013-04-21 10:30:32 Ogig has joined
 725 2013-04-21 10:30:52 quaz0r has joined
 726 2013-04-21 10:31:08 <gmaxwell> Though you _can_ do them today with the reference software, it just doesn't have an easy user interface. Well, perhaps thats an understatement, but it's possible
 727 2013-04-21 10:31:38 <mollison> ok! awesome! i doubt i will be submitting a patch since i am stretched for time, but maybe once by bitcoins appreciate significantly i will sponsor someone to do it :P
 728 2013-04-21 10:31:46 <Micha> iPhone!~Michagogo@wikia/Michagogo|gmaxwell: How? o_O
 729 2013-04-21 10:32:12 <mollison> *my
 730 2013-04-21 10:33:27 <gmaxwell> Micha|iPhone: http://people.xiph.org/~greg/signdemo.txt
 731 2013-04-21 10:33:34 peddamat has quit ()
 732 2013-04-21 10:33:34 <kadoban_> Micha|iPhone: the createrawtransaction and signtransaction stuff seems like enough
 733 2013-04-21 10:35:19 holorga has joined
 734 2013-04-21 10:39:02 zebedee_ has joined
 735 2013-04-21 10:39:11 <wumpus> mollison: generating offline wallets is fundamentally incompatible with the idea of bitcoin-qt, as it is a hot wallet connected to the internet. Please generate offline wallets with an offline tool on an offline pc...
 736 2013-04-21 10:40:19 <mollison> wumpus: you can generate offline wallets with bitcoin-qt on an offline computer just fine
 737 2013-04-21 10:40:28 <mollison> already
 738 2013-04-21 10:40:29 <wumpus> yes but it is not a supported use case
 739 2013-04-21 10:40:46 <gmaxwell> wumpus: you can run bitcoin-qt on an net disconnected machine to generate a wallet... (it's kinda .. weird.. and god knows, people using raw transactions are playing with a loaded gun)
 740 2013-04-21 10:40:54 <wumpus> a key generation tool can be really simple, none of the block chain or wallet communication logic is needed
 741 2013-04-21 10:41:10 <gmaxwell> wumpus: the key generation tools people generally use, however, are not very good.
 742 2013-04-21 10:41:16 <coingenuity> gmaxwell: sir, do not tell me not to practice my ak47 juggling
 743 2013-04-21 10:41:18 <wumpus> I know gmaxwell, but it's just encouraging dangerous behaviour
 744 2013-04-21 10:41:19 <coingenuity> :D
 745 2013-04-21 10:41:42 <mollison> actually my current project is to create a bunch of offline wallets with bitcoin-qt, each holding a small amount of bitcoins
 746 2013-04-21 10:41:54 <mollison> so i can bring them on one at a time when i need to spend them
 747 2013-04-21 10:41:56 <gmaxwell> wumpus: e.g. vanitygen doesn't generate compressed keys (why?!) .. the JS ones universally have moderately scary RNGs. :(
 748 2013-04-21 10:42:05 <wumpus> I fully support your hobby of ak47 juggling, but I intend to make it as difficult as possible to get into that hobby  by accident
 749 2013-04-21 10:42:17 <gmaxwell> There was a java on people were using that just used some basic random() function which java doesn't promise to be cryptographically strong.
 750 2013-04-21 10:42:21 <mollison> i decided to use bitcoin-qt to generate the offline wallets even though it's inefficient vs. vanitygen etc. because i trust it more
 751 2013-04-21 10:42:43 <wumpus> yeah... that's true gmaxwell.. though armory is supposed to be good at it
 752 2013-04-21 10:43:15 <gmaxwell> Yea, I'd generally recommend armory.. then again, I am not sure if I've seen any evidence of anyone other than etotheipi reading the code. :(
 753 2013-04-21 10:43:54 <wumpus> that *a good tool for offline wallets* needs to exist is clear, but I'm just not sure bitcoin-qt is the right place for it
 754 2013-04-21 10:44:08 <gmaxwell> ::nods::
 755 2013-04-21 10:44:09 <wumpus> I'd fully expect people to start printing the privkeys in the hot wallets and expecting it to be secure
 756 2013-04-21 10:44:16 <Micha> iPhone!~Michagogo@wikia/Michagogo|gmaxwell: Loaded gun? Why?
 757 2013-04-21 10:44:20 Anduck has joined
 758 2013-04-21 10:44:26 <Anduck> there hasnt been a block in 2 hours?
 759 2013-04-21 10:44:33 <gmaxwell> What -qt should have though is facilities for interfacing to such a tool. Obviously the tool itself could be something very simple.
 760 2013-04-21 10:44:37 <gmaxwell> ;;bc,tslb
 761 2013-04-21 10:44:38 <gribble> Error: "bc,tslb" is not a valid command.
 762 2013-04-21 10:44:38 <Anduck> or is the service im using failing to show it
 763 2013-04-21 10:44:41 <gmaxwell> ;;tslb
 764 2013-04-21 10:44:42 <mollison> wumpus: my view is that really core functionality that is needed for security-conscious users should be in the main client whenever possible so that lots of eyes are looking at it
 765 2013-04-21 10:44:44 <gribble> Time since last block: 1 hour, 58 minutes, and 55 seconds
 766 2013-04-21 10:44:56 <wumpus> gmaxwell: indeed
 767 2013-04-21 10:45:12 <jouke> Anduck: bc.info is wrong
 768 2013-04-21 10:45:17 <Anduck> aight
 769 2013-04-21 10:45:19 <gmaxwell> Micha|iPhone: because it's really easy to fatfinger while working with raw transactions and send a ton of coins to fees.
 770 2013-04-21 10:45:52 <Micha> iPhone!~Michagogo@wikia/Michagogo|Well, if you type manually, sure.
 771 2013-04-21 10:46:31 <Micha> iPhone!~Michagogo@wikia/Michagogo|Also, at least then you're just about guaranteed to get into the next block ;-)
 772 2013-04-21 10:46:32 <gmaxwell> or paste or whatever. It's very easy to send coins off to fees by mistake with the raw txn interface and serveral people have.
 773 2013-04-21 10:46:44 <gmaxwell> haha yes, with your 100 BTC fee or whatever. lol.
 774 2013-04-21 10:46:55 <mollison> wumpus: and that includes generating offline wallets and (hopefully in the future, though it'll probably be more controversial) offline transaction signing like armory
 775 2013-04-21 10:47:00 <Micha> iPhone!~Michagogo@wikia/Michagogo|:D
 776 2013-04-21 10:47:21 parasciidic has joined
 777 2013-04-21 10:47:52 <gmaxwell> mollison: in any case, something doesn't have to be _in_ bitcoin-qt itself to get lots of eyes on it.
 778 2013-04-21 10:48:06 <gmaxwell> But being entirely seperate from bitcoin-qt doesn't help getting eyes on it.
 779 2013-04-21 10:48:28 <mollison> true. i mean, part of the official sources would be good enough.
 780 2013-04-21 10:49:09 <mollison> and probably better, actually. i'm a fan of small tools that do one job well.
 781 2013-04-21 10:49:47 <wumpus> hm yes that'd be a possibility
 782 2013-04-21 10:50:00 michagogo has joined
 783 2013-04-21 10:50:40 Micha has quit (iPhone!~Michagogo@wikia/Michagogo|Disconnected by services)
 784 2013-04-21 10:52:46 <wumpus> there's no reason we couldn't package another executable just for that, ie bitcoin offline tools, which can be used separtely from the rest on resource-constrained computers without internet
 785 2013-04-21 10:54:14 <gmaxwell> yep.
 786 2013-04-21 10:54:59 <marijnfs> if i want to connect to a node of the bitcoin network, i just open a tcp port to one of the nodes on the appriate port right?
 787 2013-04-21 10:55:14 shurnormal has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 788 2013-04-21 10:55:16 <marijnfs> im trying to do a version handshake, but i get no response
 789 2013-04-21 10:55:29 <wumpus> that's the basic idea yes...
 790 2013-04-21 10:56:48 <wumpus> maybe look at it with wireshark and compare to the packets sent by a real client
 791 2013-04-21 10:58:27 <marijnfs> hmm ill try that
 792 2013-04-21 11:00:00 <marijnfs> at the moment i am omitting the addresses https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification#version
 793 2013-04-21 11:00:09 <marijnfs> i set version to 60002
 794 2013-04-21 11:00:13 shurnormal has joined
 795 2013-04-21 11:00:40 <marijnfs> as in the example there
 796 2013-04-21 11:00:46 <marijnfs> so  i think the message is pretty much right
 797 2013-04-21 11:00:52 <bitnumus> 2hour block?
 798 2013-04-21 11:01:18 <kadoban_> bitnumus: there's more after that. check places other than blockchain.info
 799 2013-04-21 11:01:28 <bitnumus> ?
 800 2013-04-21 11:01:50 <bitnumus> ;;tslb
 801 2013-04-21 11:01:53 <gribble> Time since last block: 2 hours, 16 minutes, and 4 seconds
 802 2013-04-21 11:02:00 <bitnumus> ...
 803 2013-04-21 11:02:22 <wumpus> another possibility would be to single-step through (listen-only) bitcoind after the connection and packet comes in to see why it doesn't send a response, but that one is harder to do
 804 2013-04-21 11:02:26 <kadoban_> bitnumus: http://blockexplorer.com/ compare the block numbers to blockchain.info's, and check your own node if you have one
 805 2013-04-21 11:02:38 <bitnumus> Kadoban what's this for?
 806 2013-04-21 11:02:48 <bitnumus> I'm merely asking if its a strangely long block?
 807 2013-04-21 11:03:01 <kadoban_> bitnumus: i'm saying you're wrong, it isn't 2 hours since a block, there are more after the one you're seeing
 808 2013-04-21 11:03:27 <bitnumus> So what does gribble reference
 809 2013-04-21 11:03:43 <kadoban_> probably blockchain.info if i had to guess
 810 2013-04-21 11:05:34 <wumpus> yes it uses bc.i
 811 2013-04-21 11:05:39 qwebirc45141 has joined
 812 2013-04-21 11:05:47 <gmaxwell> bitnumus: blockchain.info and blockexplorer but it only checks the other if its primary fails, I believe.
 813 2013-04-21 11:05:55 <gmaxwell> (fails to respond)
 814 2013-04-21 11:06:00 <gmaxwell> and yea, its _frequently_ wrong.
 815 2013-04-21 11:08:31 <marijnfs> wumpus: i feel like there is something i have to do for the tcp connection
 816 2013-04-21 11:08:45 <marijnfs> do i have to listen on another port for the reply?
 817 2013-04-21 11:08:52 <wumpus> no, you don't
 818 2013-04-21 11:09:16 <wumpus> you just connect, send the right stuff, and you get a reply
 819 2013-04-21 11:09:37 <wumpus> this is not some crazy protocol like ftp where you have to open separate data ports :)
 820 2013-04-21 11:11:30 <wumpus> also, what node are you connecting to? are you sure it is working correctly?
 821 2013-04-21 11:12:40 rosster has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 822 2013-04-21 11:15:44 <marijnfs> i did a dns lookup on that testnetwork dns and chose one
 823 2013-04-21 11:15:44 <marijnfs> but i have tried several already, im doing something wrong
 824 2013-04-21 11:16:24 paracyst has quit ()
 825 2013-04-21 11:16:41 rdymac has joined
 826 2013-04-21 11:16:48 <wumpus> it may be best to run your own node, so yoy have both sides under control
 827 2013-04-21 11:19:49 <marijnfs> yeah i tried running bitcoind with -debug and -debugnet but didnt see any info on the connection (though is seemed to connect)
 828 2013-04-21 11:19:53 <kadoban_> marijnfs: have you tried just really simple protocol analysis? even pointing your node and the reference node at netcat and comparing would probably save you a ton of time
 829 2013-04-21 11:20:08 <marijnfs> how do i do that?
 830 2013-04-21 11:20:54 <kadoban_> marijnfs: if you have to ask that, i'd probably recommend a real tool like wireshark, you can see what's actually being sent/received
 831 2013-04-21 11:21:13 <marijnfs> yeah i was looking at it, but seems complicated
 832 2013-04-21 11:21:25 <marijnfs> and it says there are no interfaces
 833 2013-04-21 11:21:41 <kadoban_> protocols are complicated too ;)  try running as administrator
 834 2013-04-21 11:22:08 <wumpus> it's worth learning
 835 2013-04-21 11:22:38 <kadoban_> and ya, if you're going to be doing this type of work, there's really no way around it imo, you need that or another similar tool
 836 2013-04-21 11:23:31 <wumpus> and as packet sniffers come wireshark is really a user friendly tool, you could do the same with tcpdump but you'll have to figure out what command line arguments to use
 837 2013-04-21 11:24:40 rosster has joined
 838 2013-04-21 11:25:34 <marijnfs> wireshark shows the packet as 'red'
 839 2013-04-21 11:25:37 <marijnfs> probably not good
 840 2013-04-21 11:27:58 <marijnfs> what does it mean?
 841 2013-04-21 11:29:46 <kadoban_> you're really going to have to read at least some basic documentation
 842 2013-04-21 11:30:10 <marijnfs> so i see the packet with the message in it
 843 2013-04-21 11:30:17 <marijnfs> and i get an ack back from the node
 844 2013-04-21 11:30:38 <kadoban_> cool. now compare that packet with one sent by the reference client
 845 2013-04-21 11:30:51 dbe has joined
 846 2013-04-21 11:31:15 dbe is now known as Guest52703
 847 2013-04-21 11:33:04 <marijnfs> so record again and just start bitcoin?
 848 2013-04-21 11:33:06 Bitvind has joined
 849 2013-04-21 11:35:04 Guest52703 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 850 2013-04-21 11:39:22 <kadoban_> marijnfs: probably start bitcoin with -connect= set to some port you control and just listen on at first, but yes
 851 2013-04-21 11:41:17 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 852 2013-04-21 11:42:22 jorgamund has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 853 2013-04-21 11:42:53 resistor has joined
 854 2013-04-21 11:43:00 AndChat377264 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 855 2013-04-21 11:43:01 <marijnfs> ok i found a version message send by bitcoin, but not sure what to look for exactly
 856 2013-04-21 11:43:21 Impaler has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
 857 2013-04-21 11:43:45 MobPhone has quit (Quit: -a- bbl)
 858 2013-04-21 11:43:45 Impaler has joined
 859 2013-04-21 11:44:00 <kadoban_> look for differences from your packet. when you find them, compare to the protocol definition and see if it's an error or just a different choice
 860 2013-04-21 11:44:28 Tom_Soft has joined
 861 2013-04-21 11:45:15 <marijnfs> is there a minimum version of the protocol, i.e. lower versions are ignored?
 862 2013-04-21 11:46:14 debiantoruser has joined
 863 2013-04-21 11:48:09 <wumpus> yes, there is a minimum version of the protocol, I wouldn't know by heart what it is though
 864 2013-04-21 11:49:05 bitit has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 865 2013-04-21 11:49:29 <marijnfs> my timestamp seems higher as well, will it ignore me if the time is in the future?
 866 2013-04-21 11:49:41 bitit has joined
 867 2013-04-21 11:49:48 <marijnfs> i have: 7f d5 7c e6 01 00 00 00
 868 2013-04-21 11:52:35 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 869 2013-04-21 11:56:07 robbak has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 870 2013-04-21 11:56:32 robbak has joined
 871 2013-04-21 11:59:01 <marijnfs> are addr_recv and addr_from necessary? why does it need this info explicitly if it has a connection?
 872 2013-04-21 12:00:02 <dissipate> what happens when a transaction output that has a non-standard script ends up in a bitcoinqt wallet? e.g. an output that is provably unspendable.
 873 2013-04-21 12:00:42 <sipa> dissipate: wallets only consider outputs they understand in the first place
 874 2013-04-21 12:01:09 jeewee has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 875 2013-04-21 12:01:15 <sipa> it can't be considered an output 'to' you, if it cannot be understood
 876 2013-04-21 12:02:28 <dissipate> sipa, and bitcoind?
 877 2013-04-21 12:02:35 <dissipate> sipa, same thing?
 878 2013-04-21 12:02:44 jeewee has joined
 879 2013-04-21 12:02:56 <sipa> dissipate: bitcoind is bitcoin-qt with the GUI removed
 880 2013-04-21 12:03:09 <sipa> there is no difference in implementation between them
 881 2013-04-21 12:03:33 <sipa> i wasn't even talking about those in particular
 882 2013-04-21 12:04:58 <dissipate> sipa, i'm trying to wrap my head around the fact that bitcoinqt and bitcoind can only 'understand' a fraction of the full blown bitcoin protocol, which as far as i can tell can have outputs that have nothing to do with bitcoin addresses that everyone thinks are essential to bitcoin.
 883 2013-04-21 12:05:27 <sipa> dissipate: the reason is that wallets lroduce their own receive addresses
 884 2013-04-21 12:05:47 <sipa> they can't be expected to accept anything but what is sent to thkse addresses
 885 2013-04-21 12:05:51 <sipa> why is rh
 886 2013-04-21 12:05:56 <sipa> that a problem?
 887 2013-04-21 12:06:10 Grouver has joined
 888 2013-04-21 12:06:22 wingcom has joined
 889 2013-04-21 12:06:22 <sipa> not every wallet needs to support every script type
 890 2013-04-21 12:06:35 <ThomasV> is txindex=1 the optioni to disable pruning?
 891 2013-04-21 12:06:48 <dissipate> sipa, what if someone sends to me BTC via a multi-sig output?
 892 2013-04-21 12:06:52 <sipa> ThomasV: there is no pruning
 893 2013-04-21 12:06:57 Sealy has joined
 894 2013-04-21 12:07:08 <ThomasV> sipa: so what is this option for?
 895 2013-04-21 12:07:25 <sipa> dissipate: then you need a wallet that supports receiving to multisig scripts
 896 2013-04-21 12:07:26 <dissipate> sipa, they send BTC to my address but the script is multi-sig.
 897 2013-04-21 12:08:07 median^ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 898 2013-04-21 12:08:18 <sipa> dissipate: that still requires the multisig address to be in the receiving wallet
 899 2013-04-21 12:08:36 <dissipate> sipa, does bitcoinqt recognize the tx if the address is one of the many in the multi-sig output?
 900 2013-04-21 12:08:44 andriod has joined
 901 2013-04-21 12:08:53 <sipa> they cant just send to a random script for which they know you have the key, and expect your software to understand it
 902 2013-04-21 12:09:10 <sipa> ThomasV: for maintaining a txid-to-diskpos index
 903 2013-04-21 12:09:30 <ThomasV> sipa: oh, without providing block height?
 904 2013-04-21 12:09:36 Btceldur has joined
 905 2013-04-21 12:09:44 <sipa> ThomasV: ?
 906 2013-04-21 12:09:56 taha has joined
 907 2013-04-21 12:10:25 <sipa> dissipate: yes, but with a restriction: all involved keys must be yours
 908 2013-04-21 12:10:32 <dissipate> sipa, i think the scripts are too  much for the average bitcoiner, and i anticipate a great deal of fragmentation among clients that may or may not support certain script types.
 909 2013-04-21 12:11:00 <sipa> dissipate: which means it's mostly proof of cobcept
 910 2013-04-21 12:11:05 <ThomasV> sipa: nvm, I realize that's something in the patch used by electrum servers
 911 2013-04-21 12:11:29 PK has joined
 912 2013-04-21 12:11:38 <kadoban_> dissipate: i'm not sure i see why that would even be a problem
 913 2013-04-21 12:11:45 <sipa> dissipate: i do not see any problem... you want to receive coins, ask your wallet for an address, and give it to me
 914 2013-04-21 12:11:52 <dissipate> sipa, not to mention the absolute absurdity of provably unspendable outputs
 915 2013-04-21 12:12:22 <sipa> dissipate: your client will make sure it understands scripts corresponding to the address it handed out
 916 2013-04-21 12:12:33 <sipa> and more isn't useful
 917 2013-04-21 12:12:39 <dissipate> kadoban_, one client supports multi-sig, the other doesn't. someone tries to send BTC via a multi-sig output where the receiver doesn't have a client that supports that.
 918 2013-04-21 12:12:56 <sipa> dissipate: that's ridiculous
 919 2013-04-21 12:13:15 Ogig has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 920 2013-04-21 12:13:24 <sipa> dissipate: if you're participating in multisig, your client participated in construction of the p2sh address
 921 2013-04-21 12:13:38 <kadoban_> dissipate: who would do that? in what world would someone accept a multi-sig transaction but not have the client to accept it?
 922 2013-04-21 12:13:47 <dissipate> sipa, why? the person asks for 4 addresses, i give him 4 addresses. he generates 1 multi-sig output, and i'm like WTF, i'm not getting the coins.
 923 2013-04-21 12:14:28 <sipa> you should never expext someone to accwpt coins on anytginf but the addresses you give him
 924 2013-04-21 12:15:00 <sipa> if you give him 4 addresses and he combines them into kne (btw: not possible! you need the full publoc keys for that), he is at fault
 925 2013-04-21 12:15:17 andriod has quit ()
 926 2013-04-21 12:15:24 <PK> sipa: btw, I finally managed to catch up with the block chain. But I had to restart it a few times.
 927 2013-04-21 12:15:29 <sipa> if you're receivong in a multisig address, you must give him the multisig address
 928 2013-04-21 12:15:38 <dissipate> sipa, 4 people each send 1 address from their bitcoinqt client. the sender generates 1 multi-sig output. the coins show up in none of the bitcoinqt clients.
 929 2013-04-21 12:15:56 <sipa> dissipate: and rightfully so
 930 2013-04-21 12:16:15 <sipa> the sender shouldn't generate the receiver address£
 931 2013-04-21 12:16:46 <dissipate> sipa, i'm not saying anyone is actually going to do this. i'm just saying there is big potential for client fragmentation.
 932 2013-04-21 12:17:00 <sipa> i do not see the problem
 933 2013-04-21 12:17:53 <sipa> it's like saying "why don't you receive my money? i sent it to this linear combination of public keys that are known to be yours!"
 934 2013-04-21 12:18:17 <sipa> do not send to an address the receiver didn't tell you
 935 2013-04-21 12:20:11 <sipa> and we're now talking about addresses
 936 2013-04-21 12:20:53 <sipa> but over time, especially with the payment protocol that is being developed, we can return to directly communjcating output scripts at which to receive coins
 937 2013-04-21 12:21:00 andriod has joined
 938 2013-04-21 12:21:13 <sipa> and then there is no compatibility issue at all anymore
 939 2013-04-21 12:21:44 andriod has quit (Client Quit)
 940 2013-04-21 12:21:52 <sipa> the receiver says "send to this script", and the sender doesn't need to understand it, just treats it as a black box and sends to that script
 941 2013-04-21 12:22:45 <dissipate> sipa, you are proposing replacing bitcoin addresses with just the scripts themselves?
 942 2013-04-21 12:23:06 andriod has joined
 943 2013-04-21 12:23:10 <dissipate> sipa, makes sense, i suppose, except for the variable lengths. guess it could be padded.
 944 2013-04-21 12:23:14 andriod has quit (Client Quit)
 945 2013-04-21 12:23:52 denisx has joined
 946 2013-04-21 12:23:56 <kadoban_> bitcoin addresses are already variable length actually, just usually in a pretty small range
 947 2013-04-21 12:24:08 <dissipate> sipa, but how is the client going to know how to generate the sig that solves the script?
 948 2013-04-21 12:24:35 <dissipate> for instance, a puzzle script. the client has to know to start generating stuff to solve the puzzle.
 949 2013-04-21 12:24:39 <sipa> dissipate: because the receiver _creates_ the script to be solved in the firat place
 950 2013-04-21 12:24:45 one_zero has quit ()
 951 2013-04-21 12:25:25 <sipa> and he is the one who has to solve it
 952 2013-04-21 12:25:30 <dissipate> sipa, that's great if the receiver isn't using multiple clients (e.g. one to watch their BTC and an offline one)
 953 2013-04-21 12:25:50 <sipa> well clearly in that case they need to be compatible
 954 2013-04-21 12:26:16 <sipa> if you share wallets between clients, they need to understand eachother's receive scripts
 955 2013-04-21 12:26:56 <dissipate> sipa, so why wasn't this done from the beginning? why is everyone thinking about addresses instead of just scripts?
 956 2013-04-21 12:27:26 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 957 2013-04-21 12:27:55 <kadoban_> dissipate: because addresses are a much easier concept, and they're enough for the vast majority of uses/users?
 958 2013-04-21 12:28:38 <dissipate> kadoban_, seems like a change is needed. seems to me everyone should be thinking about transactions and scripts, instead of addresses.
 959 2013-04-21 12:28:57 <sipa> i consider addresses a horrible hack
 960 2013-04-21 12:29:21 <dissipate> sipa, how is it a hack? they are just standard scripts!
 961 2013-04-21 12:29:33 <sipa> originally bitcoin was designed to send transactions to ip addresses, where the sceipt was negotiated on the fly
 962 2013-04-21 12:30:00 <dissipate> sipa, bitcoinqt was built around them, blockchain.info was as well. but that doesn't mean you can't get rid of them and replace them with scripts.
 963 2013-04-21 12:30:10 grapevine has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 964 2013-04-21 12:30:34 <sipa> which guaranteed immeduate notification, not making the sender responsible for broadcasting, transparently supported any script, guaranteed no address reuse, ...
 965 2013-04-21 12:30:47 <marijnfs> im comparing my version handshake to what bitcoind does; in the addr_from part it puts my external ip adress with the bitcoin port, but my tcp connection is on whatever port it wants
 966 2013-04-21 12:30:50 <marijnfs> is that a problem?
 967 2013-04-21 12:31:04 <sipa> but because of jnsecure implementation, that was deprecated, and a new script type with pubkeyhashes was introduced
 968 2013-04-21 12:31:18 <sipa> which were nkt sent to an IP bht broadcast kmmediately to the network
 969 2013-04-21 12:31:30 <sipa> bah, typing on a phone sucks
 970 2013-04-21 12:31:34 paybitcoin has joined
 971 2013-04-21 12:31:56 <dissipate> sipa, and so what is the problem? addresses can be replaced entirely with scripts, right?
 972 2013-04-21 12:32:01 daybyter has joined
 973 2013-04-21 12:32:04 <sipa> indeed
 974 2013-04-21 12:32:15 <sipa> but theh are inconvenient to type
 975 2013-04-21 12:32:27 <sipa> i also have no problem with the shortened form as auch
 976 2013-04-21 12:32:44 <sipa> but they should be "key identifiers", not addresses"
 977 2013-04-21 12:32:52 scribble has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 978 2013-04-21 12:33:02 <sipa> addresses should be URLs :)
 979 2013-04-21 12:33:16 <dissipate> sipa, who types addresses?
 980 2013-04-21 12:33:24 <sipa> nobody!
 981 2013-04-21 12:33:38 <dissipate> sipa, wait a second, do scripts fit in a QR code...
 982 2013-04-21 12:33:38 <sipa> but that is why they were created
 983 2013-04-21 12:33:45 <jouke> sipa: aren't they meanwhile?
 984 2013-04-21 12:33:56 paybitcoin1 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 985 2013-04-21 12:34:01 <jouke> dissipate: they do and it is used widely in the bitcoincommunity
 986 2013-04-21 12:34:20 tnkflx_ has joined
 987 2013-04-21 12:34:21 <sipa> dissipate: URLs fit in a QR code, and you can fetch a script by contacting the URL
 988 2013-04-21 12:34:36 <dissipate> jouke, huh? i do not hear of widespread use of non-standard scripts
 989 2013-04-21 12:34:46 <sipa> which guarantees you can also immediately notify the recwiver with the transaction
 990 2013-04-21 12:34:46 <tnkflx_> if I run a default 0.8.1 bitcoind -daemon on linux, does it have pruning automatically?
 991 2013-04-21 12:34:48 da2ce7-mobile has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 992 2013-04-21 12:34:52 <jouke> Oh, you mean complete scripts, right
 993 2013-04-21 12:34:57 <sipa> tnkflx_: there is no pruning
 994 2013-04-21 12:35:26 <tnkflx_> ok, I meant the full hist index
 995 2013-04-21 12:35:26 <jouke> But yes, a qr-code is able to contain quite a bit data, so I guess so
 996 2013-04-21 12:35:43 <dissipate> sipa, that's insecure if the URL is not using HTTPS. the script can be intercepted and rewritten.
 997 2013-04-21 12:35:58 <sipa> dissipate: read the payment protocol
 998 2013-04-21 12:36:20 <sipa> gist.github.com/gavinandreses somewhere
 999 2013-04-21 12:36:28 * jouke is silently awaithing the payment protocol :)
1000 2013-04-21 12:36:37 <jouke> would solve a lot of issues
1001 2013-04-21 12:36:43 * sipa too, not so silently
1002 2013-04-21 12:37:00 <sipa> andresen
1003 2013-04-21 12:37:52 <dissipate> sipa, wiki link?
1004 2013-04-21 12:38:05 egis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1005 2013-04-21 12:38:24 <dissipate> sipa, this? https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification
1006 2013-04-21 12:38:28 <sipa> tnkflx_: it will download and store all transaction history, but not maintain an index for it
1007 2013-04-21 12:38:45 <sipa> dissipate: no it is being developed, and it's not on the wikinfor it afaik
1008 2013-04-21 12:38:51 <sipa> there will be a BIP for it
1009 2013-04-21 12:39:14 <tnkflx_> aha ok, tnx
1010 2013-04-21 12:39:23 tnkflx_ has left ()
1011 2013-04-21 12:39:38 <marijnfs> is it ok to leave the user_agent empty?
1012 2013-04-21 12:39:47 <marijnfs> in a version message
1013 2013-04-21 12:39:56 <dissipate> sipa, and what does it say about securely transmitting scripts?
1014 2013-04-21 12:40:25 <dissipate> sipa, addresses can be rewritten while in transit, why not a script?
1015 2013-04-21 12:41:09 Impaler has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1016 2013-04-21 12:41:26 <sipa>  https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/4120476#file-btcpayments-rst
1017 2013-04-21 12:41:29 <sipa> read that
1018 2013-04-21 12:43:35 <dissipate> sipa, checking it out, thanks.
1019 2013-04-21 12:44:05 <dissipate> sipa, right off the bat, it looks like this protocol is address-centric not script-centric.
1020 2013-04-21 12:44:44 <dissipate> why would you have an address and a refund address? you could have a script and a refund script!
1021 2013-04-21 12:44:57 <sipa> it is
1022 2013-04-21 12:46:23 <dissipate> sipa, ah, nevermind. i jumped to conclusions after just reading the intro. :P
1023 2013-04-21 12:47:00 PartTimeLegend has joined
1024 2013-04-21 12:48:12 <sipa> ;;later tell gavinandresen small amendment for the payment protocol: in case a paymenturl is present, the client MUST send the transaction there, and MUST not broadcast it (as it's not known whether the receiver will accept it)
1025 2013-04-21 12:48:13 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
1026 2013-04-21 12:49:22 <michagogo> ;;help later
1027 2013-04-21 12:49:23 <gribble> Error: There is no command "later".
1028 2013-04-21 12:49:28 <michagogo> o_O
1029 2013-04-21 12:49:34 <dissipate> hmm. not sure about this part: "If the sum of outputs.amount is zero, the customer will be asked how much to pay, and the bitcoin client may choose any or all of the Outputs (if there are more than one) for payment."
1030 2013-04-21 12:49:35 mE\Ta has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1031 2013-04-21 12:49:38 <michagogo> ;;later help
1032 2013-04-21 12:49:38 <gribble> Error: The "Later" plugin is loaded, but there is no command named "help" in it.  Try "list Later" to see the commands in the "Later" plugin.
1033 2013-04-21 12:49:43 <michagogo> ;;list later
1034 2013-04-21 12:49:43 <gribble> notes, remove, and tell
1035 2013-04-21 12:49:55 <sipa> dissipate: for donations if arbitrary amount
1036 2013-04-21 12:49:57 <dissipate> why in the heck would a merchant send outputs with a sum of 0?
1037 2013-04-21 12:50:05 <sipa> of
1038 2013-04-21 12:50:12 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1039 2013-04-21 12:50:15 joesmoe has quit (Quit: One of these days I'm going to find this *peer* guy and reset *his* connection.)
1040 2013-04-21 12:50:40 <dissipate> sipa, i see.
1041 2013-04-21 12:51:35 paraipan has joined
1042 2013-04-21 12:51:40 <dissipate> sipa, If the sum of outputs.amount is non-zero, then the customer will be asked to pay the sum, and the payment shall be split among the Outputs with non-zero amounts (if there are more than one; Outputs with zero amounts shall be ignored).
1043 2013-04-21 12:52:34 <dissipate> so it ignores outputs with zero amounts in this case. that means the merchant cannot send a hybrid payment message, one with outputs that must be paid and outputs that are donation outputs.
1044 2013-04-21 12:53:45 <sipa> well it is for one payment
1045 2013-04-21 12:54:07 mE\Ta has joined
1046 2013-04-21 12:55:27 nus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1047 2013-04-21 12:55:44 nus has joined
1048 2013-04-21 12:55:52 rdponticelli has joined
1049 2013-04-21 12:57:38 <dissipate> sipa, so the 'tip jar' on a payment to a pizza place has to be a whole other payment request?
1050 2013-04-21 12:58:02 <sipa> good point
1051 2013-04-21 12:58:19 <sipa> feel free to make suggestions :)
1052 2013-04-21 12:58:47 <marijnfs> holy shit got something back, i was using the old testnet magic
1053 2013-04-21 12:58:51 <marijnfs> thanks for the help guys
1054 2013-04-21 12:58:55 <sipa> ha!
1055 2013-04-21 12:59:34 da2ce7-mobile has joined
1056 2013-04-21 13:05:11 ielo has joined
1057 2013-04-21 13:07:27 testnode9 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1058 2013-04-21 13:07:34 duckybsd has joined
1059 2013-04-21 13:12:01 gavinandresen has joined
1060 2013-04-21 13:13:26 andriod has joined
1061 2013-04-21 13:13:50 PartTimeLegend has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1062 2013-04-21 13:13:58 <gavinandresen> sipa: RE: payment_url and the payment protocol:  I changed it from "here's this other, completely separate way of sending a payment" to "here's a convenient way of getting a PaymentACK."   Assumption is now that the client will ALWAYS broadcast the payment over the p2p network.
1063 2013-04-21 13:14:18 <sipa> gavinandresen: i think that's a really bad idea
1064 2013-04-21 13:14:44 <gavinandresen> sipa: why?  I gets really complicated if there are two different ways of sending transactions from client to merchant
1065 2013-04-21 13:15:03 <sipa> then i'd rather have paymenturl the required and only way
1066 2013-04-21 13:15:34 <gavinandresen> NACK on that, we aren't going to eliminate plain-old pay-to-bitcoin-address transactions!
1067 2013-04-21 13:15:34 <sipa> if it's just for paymentack's, sure, it makes sense to have it optional
1068 2013-04-21 13:15:56 andriod has quit (Client Quit)
1069 2013-04-21 13:15:56 <sipa> we're not eliminating plain-only pay-to-bitcoin-address transactions
1070 2013-04-21 13:16:12 <sipa> but it's also a means for the merchant to immediately know the payment
1071 2013-04-21 13:16:12 andriod has joined
1072 2013-04-21 13:16:30 <sipa> so he doesn't depend on the sender remaining online and rebroadcasting until it gets relayed
1073 2013-04-21 13:16:33 andriod has quit (Client Quit)
1074 2013-04-21 13:16:45 <gavinandresen> sipa:  Sure, the merchant can do that
1075 2013-04-21 13:17:10 <sipa> not if it's optional for the sender to use the payment url
1076 2013-04-21 13:17:14 robbak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1077 2013-04-21 13:17:27 <sipa> and it's also a way for tying incoming transactions to payments, for the merchant
1078 2013-04-21 13:17:41 robbak has joined
1079 2013-04-21 13:17:48 <sipa> if it's optional to use it, it means he is required to maintain which address belongs to which payment
1080 2013-04-21 13:17:54 andriod has joined
1081 2013-04-21 13:18:02 <sipa> and complicating use where third parties do this for him
1082 2013-04-21 13:18:05 andriod has quit (Client Quit)
1083 2013-04-21 13:18:22 <sipa> no offence, but imho the payment URL is the utmost important part of the protocol
1084 2013-04-21 13:18:49 Mr_G has joined
1085 2013-04-21 13:18:55 <Bitvind> The last 20k blocks are really slow to sync/download, is that due to them containing lots of transactions, or do I misunderstand something?
1086 2013-04-21 13:18:57 <gavinandresen> no offence taken; lets back up a second
1087 2013-04-21 13:19:04 n5 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1088 2013-04-21 13:19:16 <sipa> and i understand you want it optional for compatibility, so not having a payment url in the protobuf is perfectly fine to me
1089 2013-04-21 13:19:26 <gavinandresen> So:  merchant creates a PaymentRequest.  The only way a PaymentRequest and a Payment message are tied together is through the merchant_data
1090 2013-04-21 13:19:36 <gavinandresen> … so the merchant has to remember that somehow.
1091 2013-04-21 13:19:38 <gavinandresen> yes?
1092 2013-04-21 13:19:40 <sipa> yes
1093 2013-04-21 13:19:52 <gavinandresen> so why can't they also remember what payment address is associated?
1094 2013-04-21 13:20:06 <gavinandresen> (address/output/whatever)
1095 2013-04-21 13:20:30 <sipa> perhaps he wants to have the payments managed by a third party
1096 2013-04-21 13:20:46 <gavinandresen> fine, so that third party remembers.
1097 2013-04-21 13:20:46 <sipa> but still needs the payment data to know which invoice is being paid
1098 2013-04-21 13:21:09 <gavinandresen> merchant_data = { third party : ID, invoice : ID } … or whatever
1099 2013-04-21 13:22:21 <sipa> i don't understand why you want to make the slow, unreliable and non-flexible part of the communication channel (the p2p protocol) required, but make the fast, reliable and flexible part (even when requested) optional
1100 2013-04-21 13:22:46 <sipa> as far as i can see, it's superior in every way
1101 2013-04-21 13:22:53 <gavinandresen> Except that it can fail
1102 2013-04-21 13:23:00 <sipa> if it fails, you want it to fail
1103 2013-04-21 13:23:10 <gavinandresen> … and then the user's wallet is in an indeterminate state
1104 2013-04-21 13:23:27 <gavinandresen> It can fail in between the sending of Payment and receipt of PaymentACK
1105 2013-04-21 13:23:28 grapevine has joined
1106 2013-04-21 13:23:33 <sipa> you're already trusting the merchant because you're sending him money
1107 2013-04-21 13:23:35 grapevine is now known as Guest66012
1108 2013-04-21 13:24:04 <sipa> if it fails accidentally, a sender can retransmit
1109 2013-04-21 13:24:20 <sipa> if it fails because of malicious intent, you're screwed anyway
1110 2013-04-21 13:24:35 <gavinandresen> Ok… well here's a practical concern:  what if I want to bundle up several transactions for privacy reasons?  E.g. pay two merchants at once in one transaction?
1111 2013-04-21 13:25:04 <gavinandresen> One merchant sends an "OK" PaymentACK, the other sends a "REJECTED" ....
1112 2013-04-21 13:25:13 agilenature has joined
1113 2013-04-21 13:25:41 <sipa> that seems a strange use case
1114 2013-04-21 13:25:46 <gavinandresen> sure
1115 2013-04-21 13:25:47 <sipa> but i admit i hadn't considered it
1116 2013-04-21 13:26:04 <gavinandresen> It might be a "misdirect the change to somewhere else" use case
1117 2013-04-21 13:26:26 <gavinandresen> … or even a "save on transaction fees by paying monthly bills all together" use case
1118 2013-04-21 13:26:57 <sipa> i suppose you need two rounds then, first requesting whether they accept it all, then actually sending it
1119 2013-04-21 13:27:11 <sipa> which needlessly complicates things
1120 2013-04-21 13:27:12 <gavinandresen> The first round is "get a fresh PaymentRequest"
1121 2013-04-21 13:27:14 jok has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1122 2013-04-21 13:27:29 <gavinandresen> … which is why I got rid of the notion of a re-usable PaymentRequest
1123 2013-04-21 13:27:49 <gavinandresen> (you should just store the bitcoin:?payment= URI and fetch it again if you want to do that)
1124 2013-04-21 13:27:55 <sipa> fully agree
1125 2013-04-21 13:28:30 jok has joined
1126 2013-04-21 13:28:49 testnode9 has joined
1127 2013-04-21 13:28:57 <gavinandresen> The initial bit of coding that made me back off from relying on payment_url as THE way of broadcasting the transaction was considering what should happen if the payment_url was temporarily unavailable.
1128 2013-04-21 13:29:26 <sipa> if it's temporarily unavailable, it likely also means getting a fresh payment request was unavailable
1129 2013-04-21 13:29:27 <gavinandresen> Writing code to re-fetch the payment_url for…. some arbitrary period of time… bleuch
1130 2013-04-21 13:29:28 ielo has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1131 2013-04-21 13:29:38 <sipa> they typically happen within a very short time of eachother
1132 2013-04-21 13:29:50 FuzzyBear has joined
1133 2013-04-21 13:29:58 <gavinandresen> mmm. But no guarantee, websites do go down, there are DDos attacks, etc
1134 2013-04-21 13:30:11 <sipa> and really... if you make using the paymentack optional, there is no point in having merchant_data in the first place
1135 2013-04-21 13:30:23 <sipa> as there's no guarantee you'll even use it
1136 2013-04-21 13:30:32 <sipa> eh, paymenturl
1137 2013-04-21 13:30:40 <gavinandresen> I think of it as a courtesy:  "here is a nice message for the user assuring them that the merchant has their payment"
1138 2013-04-21 13:31:14 <sipa> I think of it of a avoiding the stupid P2P protocol as a communication mechanism between two parties that are already communication directly anyway.
1139 2013-04-21 13:31:48 <gavinandresen> okey dokey.  The transaction WILL be broadcast over the P2P network in any case
1140 2013-04-21 13:32:03 <gavinandresen> well, I suppose it could be mined directly…..
1141 2013-04-21 13:32:11 <sipa> exactly
1142 2013-04-21 13:32:12 andriod has joined
1143 2013-04-21 13:32:12 <gavinandresen> … but that just delays when it is broadcast
1144 2013-04-21 13:32:37 <gavinandresen> what is the advantage of NOT broadcasting it right away?
1145 2013-04-21 13:32:40 <sipa> it just means you have the ability to shift the responsability for getting the network to accept a transaction to the receiver
1146 2013-04-21 13:33:38 <sipa> the advantage of not broadcasting immediately (in addition to sending it to the payment url) is small- mostly just dealing with cases where the merchant for some reason doesn't want to accept the transaction (timeout passed, for example)
1147 2013-04-21 13:33:54 [1]Grouver has joined
1148 2013-04-21 13:34:07 testnode9 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1149 2013-04-21 13:34:19 <jouke> Hmmm, I would use that.
1150 2013-04-21 13:34:23 <gavinandresen> mmm.  I think the extra implementation complexity and some possible use cases outweigh
1151 2013-04-21 13:34:32 Grouver has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1152 2013-04-21 13:34:33 [1]Grouver is now known as Grouver
1153 2013-04-21 13:34:44 <jouke> At the moment we have to check for late transactions and send them back.
1154 2013-04-21 13:34:46 <sipa> but the advantage of requiring sending to the payment url is large imho: it means the sender doesn't need to remain online to make sure the network accepts the transactions
1155 2013-04-21 13:35:01 <sipa> it also means the merchant is guaranteed to know it immediately
1156 2013-04-21 13:35:18 andriod has quit (Client Quit)
1157 2013-04-21 13:35:35 <sipa> and he gets it as a nice package together with all metadata, which means easier processing (you don't even have to listen to 0-conf transactions on the network anymore, though you probably will)
1158 2013-04-21 13:35:50 andriod has joined
1159 2013-04-21 13:36:04 andriod has quit (Client Quit)
1160 2013-04-21 13:36:31 <sipa> agree, it's more complex, but that's because you assume all the hard parts of dealing with incoming payments that just arrive on the P2P protocol already exists
1161 2013-04-21 13:36:36 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1162 2013-04-21 13:36:41 <gavinandresen> sipa: I agree… which is why I think setting a payment_url will be very popular
1163 2013-04-21 13:36:57 <sipa> by not requiring that part, i think you can greatly simplify future merchant applications
1164 2013-04-21 13:37:25 <gavinandresen> merchants are going to need all the hard parts anyway, unless you expect them to trust a less-than-zero-confirmation transaction!
1165 2013-04-21 13:37:47 <jouke> less than zero?
1166 2013-04-21 13:38:07 <gavinandresen> less than zero == serialized transaction I just got in a Payment message but haven't done any checking on
1167 2013-04-21 13:38:13 <jouke> Right
1168 2013-04-21 13:38:39 <gavinandresen> (when I say merchants I really mean BitPay, of course)
1169 2013-04-21 13:39:14 <sipa> gavinandresen: i really think not being able to rely on clients sending you the transactions directly would make the payment protocol less useful
1170 2013-04-21 13:40:04 <gavinandresen> I'm ok with having the spec say clients MUST post to payment_url.
1171 2013-04-21 13:40:06 testnode9 has joined
1172 2013-04-21 13:40:15 <da2ce7-mobile> Can a merchant ACK receiving the payment tx.  Then confirm the payment at a later time,  say after a few blocks?
1173 2013-04-21 13:40:20 <gavinandresen> But they should broadcast the transaction first
1174 2013-04-21 13:40:57 <gavinandresen> Oh, and just because the spec says clients MUST doesn't mean everybody will follow the spec… there might be situations where they just can't.
1175 2013-04-21 13:41:17 <sipa> gavinandresen: in that case you'll have to make merchant_data encrypted
1176 2013-04-21 13:41:35 <gavinandresen> sipa: I'm not following
1177 2013-04-21 13:41:42 <sipa> gavinandresen: otherwise someone can sniff a payment request, see an incoming payment on the p2p network, combine them, and submit it to get a paymentack
1178 2013-04-21 13:42:11 <gavinandresen> sipa: I'm still not following.  So?
1179 2013-04-21 13:42:35 <gavinandresen> oh, you're thinking that a payment ACK might have sensitive data?
1180 2013-04-21 13:42:38 <sipa> no
1181 2013-04-21 13:43:13 <sipa> i'm talking about claiming that you can fullfill an invoice by submitting a payment that originates from someone else
1182 2013-04-21 13:43:35 <gavinandresen> oh.  Well, yeah, the merchant has to make sure that a Payment actually fulfills the matching PaymentRequest
1183 2013-04-21 13:44:09 <gavinandresen> Well, actually, no… the Payment/PaymentACK should be seen as merely a courtesy.
1184 2013-04-21 13:44:22 <sipa> i disagree there
1185 2013-04-21 13:44:28 <gavinandresen> If a payment is received and confirmed over the p2p network, THEN the merchant should consider it fulfilled. not before.
1186 2013-04-21 13:44:36 testnode9 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1187 2013-04-21 13:44:43 <gavinandresen> Anything else is prone to attack
1188 2013-04-21 13:44:51 robbak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1189 2013-04-21 13:44:55 testnode9_ has joined
1190 2013-04-21 13:45:20 <sipa> anyway, my problem doesn't exist if you don't ever reuse addresses
1191 2013-04-21 13:45:22 robbak has joined
1192 2013-04-21 13:45:25 <gavinandresen> PaymentACK is not proof of anything…   a confirmed transaction and a PaymentRequest is proof of payment.
1193 2013-04-21 13:45:27 <sipa> which you probably shouldn't
1194 2013-04-21 13:45:47 canooon has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1195 2013-04-21 13:45:48 <sipa> the paymentack is a courtasy to the sender
1196 2013-04-21 13:45:59 <sipa> but the payment is the way to get your transaction to the merchant
1197 2013-04-21 13:46:35 <gavinandresen> I'd say "another way", because broadcasting the transaction on the p2p network should still be considered the primary way
1198 2013-04-21 13:46:44 <sipa> that's what i want to get rid of
1199 2013-04-21 13:47:00 <sipa> broadcasting on the p2p network is way to get your transactions to miners
1200 2013-04-21 13:47:15 <sipa> and to get 0-conf protection to the degree that it's possible, if you want that
1201 2013-04-21 13:47:26 <gavinandresen> merchants will certainly want that
1202 2013-04-21 13:47:31 <sipa> absolutely
1203 2013-04-21 13:47:52 <sipa> but it's not a good way to communicate your transaction to a merchant (it misses the metadata and it is unreliable)
1204 2013-04-21 13:48:16 <sipa> the sender shouldn't be responsible for that
1205 2013-04-21 13:48:59 <gavinandresen> ok… well, then what should the code do if it sends a Payment message but never receives a PaymentACK?
1206 2013-04-21 13:49:09 <sipa> then nothing happened
1207 2013-04-21 13:49:20 gst has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1208 2013-04-21 13:49:40 <gavinandresen> mmm. bad assumption
1209 2013-04-21 13:49:46 <sipa> if they are malicious, it's not different from broadcasting on the p2p network, and they not responding
1210 2013-04-21 13:49:46 gst has joined
1211 2013-04-21 13:50:01 <gavinandresen> the merchant MIGHT have the transaction, and MIGHT broadcast it at any point later
1212 2013-04-21 13:50:05 BurtyBB is now known as BurtyB
1213 2013-04-21 13:50:22 <gavinandresen> do we assume that they do, or that they don't?  And are there security implications in those assumptions?
1214 2013-04-21 13:50:30 <sipa> good question
1215 2013-04-21 13:50:33 testnode9_ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1216 2013-04-21 13:50:58 <sipa> for now, let's assume neither party is malicious
1217 2013-04-21 13:50:58 <gavinandresen> Much cleaner to always broadcast, and treat the Payment/PaymentACK as a good way of giving the merchant metadata and getting a user-friendly "your payment is processing" response
1218 2013-04-21 13:51:24 <gavinandresen> sipa: no offence, but I'm getting near the end of my rope with beating this to death
1219 2013-04-21 13:51:42 <sipa> no offence taken, i see your point of view
1220 2013-04-21 13:51:59 ov has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1221 2013-04-21 13:52:12 <jouke> gavinandresen: in your way, does the merchant get the signedtransaction as well?
1222 2013-04-21 13:52:19 <gavinandresen> jouke: yes
1223 2013-04-21 13:52:48 Irencus has joined
1224 2013-04-21 13:52:59 <jouke> Because that seems to be our main problem.
1225 2013-04-21 13:53:58 <jouke> And wallets that sends transactions only once in while because their webwallets-hotwallet is empty
1226 2013-04-21 13:54:04 <sipa> i still think it's easier to say: try sending it to the merchant, if nothing happens, perhaps try again or say the transaction fails
1227 2013-04-21 13:54:13 <sipa> and not bother with anything else
1228 2013-04-21 13:54:29 <jouke> But at that time our offer has expired and we have to send the bitcoins back to the sender
1229 2013-04-21 13:54:37 <sipa> if the transaction gets broadcast anyway, it means they received the payment, and there is no problem either
1230 2013-04-21 13:55:31 <sipa> that's a very good point: what if the merchant receives the transaction on p2p but never via the protocol... they can't do a refund even in case something goes wrong
1231 2013-04-21 13:55:50 <jouke> Hmm
1232 2013-04-21 13:56:22 <sipa> gavinandresen: that's something i didn't think about before: seeing the transaction broadcast if you didn't broadcast it yourself, is a guarantee the merchant received the transaction and all metadata
1233 2013-04-21 13:57:02 <sipa> so i guess you could say that the paymentack is indeed a courtesy, but payment (including signed payment request) + confirmed transaction in the chain is a proof a payment
1234 2013-04-21 13:57:14 <gavinandresen> sipa: sure.  PaymentRequest plus a confirmed transaction that satisfies its outputs is proof of payment....
1235 2013-04-21 13:57:57 <sipa> but if you broadcast without knowing the received received the payment, you don't know whether they have all metadata
1236 2013-04-21 13:58:23 <gavinandresen> yup
1237 2013-04-21 13:58:34 <sipa> so it means they need to be able to deal with transactions without merchant_data or refund info... exactly what the payment protocol was designed to convey
1238 2013-04-21 13:58:51 <gavinandresen> you know they have merchant_data, because they gave it to you
1239 2013-04-21 13:59:07 <sipa> yes, so?
1240 2013-04-21 13:59:10 <gavinandresen> refund_to -- yes, they might not have that information.  Then again, clients might send empty refund_to
1241 2013-04-21 13:59:24 <gavinandresen> … in which case refunds have to be processed some manual way
1242 2013-04-21 13:59:40 <gavinandresen> (spec could say that there MUST be at least one Output in refund_to, I suppose)
1243 2013-04-21 13:59:48 <gavinandresen> (doesn't mean clients will actually conform....)
1244 2013-04-21 13:59:51 <sipa> it makes sense in some cases to have it optional
1245 2013-04-21 14:00:07 macboz_ has joined
1246 2013-04-21 14:00:09 <jouke> Or merchants might reject payments that have no refund address specified
1247 2013-04-21 14:00:10 <sipa> but i think the paymentrequest should be able to say "i NEED a refund address, otherwise no-go"
1248 2013-04-21 14:00:38 <gavinandresen> I think we're overdesigning, and need to get some experience
1249 2013-04-21 14:00:47 malaimo has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1250 2013-04-21 14:01:01 <sipa> well, requiring a refund is easier :)
1251 2013-04-21 14:01:26 <gavinandresen> sure, and bitcoin-qt will always put a refund address there
1252 2013-04-21 14:01:40 <gavinandresen> … hopefully soon using a fancy HD wallet
1253 2013-04-21 14:01:42 <sipa> ok, so make the spec require at least one refund address :)
1254 2013-04-21 14:01:57 <HM> are there not any payment APIs you have stolen^H^H^Hsought inspiration from?
1255 2013-04-21 14:01:59 <gavinandresen> … where refund addresses are related to the payment address somehow...
1256 2013-04-21 14:02:11 <sipa> perhaps
1257 2013-04-21 14:02:26 <michagogo> Okay, this is probably a stupid question, but how about having a merchant be able to sign a blockchain entry that says "cancel this payment"? Or rather, what obvious reason not to do that am I missing?
1258 2013-04-21 14:02:27 <sipa> we can flesh out those details later, they're wallet-specific
1259 2013-04-21 14:02:39 macboz has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1260 2013-04-21 14:02:52 malaimo has joined
1261 2013-04-21 14:03:55 <sipa> gavinandresen: but what is the problem with: if a payment_url is specified, do not broadcast, but attempt to send to payment_url; if it fails, you end up in the same unsure state as when you just broadcasted on P2P, except that if it confirms, everything is fine
1262 2013-04-21 14:04:12 ielo has joined
1263 2013-04-21 14:04:15 duckybsd has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1264 2013-04-21 14:05:03 <gavinandresen> sipa: extra implementation complexity.
1265 2013-04-21 14:05:08 <sipa> how so?
1266 2013-04-21 14:05:21 <gavinandresen> sipa: Now you have to lock the unspent outputs until the HTTP POST … response has completed (or failed)
1267 2013-04-21 14:05:49 <gavinandresen> … so your "send transaction" code has to be able to either sign and send, or sign, lock inputs… wait… wait… wait….
1268 2013-04-21 14:06:01 <gavinandresen> …. timeout?  unlock?
1269 2013-04-21 14:06:15 <sipa> well you put the transaction in the wallet, just don't broadcast it
1270 2013-04-21 14:06:34 <sipa> as i said: same unsure state as when you did broadcast it, but have no idea whether it relayed or not
1271 2013-04-21 14:06:42 <gavinandresen> but there is a random timer going off re-broadcasting any wallet transactions that have 0-confirmations....
1272 2013-04-21 14:07:01 <sipa> ok, add a flag "don't broadcast"
1273 2013-04-21 14:07:09 <sipa> i'll implement that for you if you want
1274 2013-04-21 14:07:12 <gavinandresen> like I said, extra implementation complexity
1275 2013-04-21 14:07:18 <gavinandresen> and a lot more test cases to test
1276 2013-04-21 14:07:47 <sipa> and far less complexity for payment processing software
1277 2013-04-21 14:07:49 <gavinandresen> (test:  Send Payment, get PaymentACK.  Test:  Send Payment, get immediate failure.  Test: Send Payment, connection hangs. etc)
1278 2013-04-21 14:08:44 <CodeShark> couldn't this be handled asynchronously?
1279 2013-04-21 14:08:53 <gavinandresen> I don't see the far less complexity for the payment processing software.  The payment processing software will just be looking for confirmations of PaymentRequests in the block chain, or double-spend attempts
1280 2013-04-21 14:09:09 <sipa> gavinandresen: and deal with missing refunds, and missing merchant_data
1281 2013-04-21 14:09:22 <sipa> if you have to deal with missing merchant_data anyway, drop it altogether, it has no purpose
1282 2013-04-21 14:09:37 <sipa> it's supposed to simplify transaction processing, but if you can't rely on knowing it, it's pointless
1283 2013-04-21 14:09:56 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1284 2013-04-21 14:10:25 <sipa> if you can't rely on refund info being present, because of simple network communication problems, you'll get much more manual overhead to deal with
1285 2013-04-21 14:10:38 <gavinandresen> merchant_data is an optimization, allowing the processing software to take a shortcut so it doesn't have to parse the signed transaction to dig out the Outputs to figure out which request this Payment corresponds to
1286 2013-04-21 14:10:42 <gavinandresen> that is all
1287 2013-04-21 14:10:56 rdponticelli has joined
1288 2013-04-21 14:11:11 <sipa> in some more private cases, there may be not a way to contact the client at all, if there is no refund
1289 2013-04-21 14:11:13 <gavinandresen> For actual "I received a valid payment" merchant_data is irrelevant, it is all about the Outputs being confirmed
1290 2013-04-21 14:11:54 <sipa> and a simple network error may result in that refund data not getting transmitted, but the transaction being irrevocable broadcast anyway
1291 2013-04-21 14:12:30 <sipa> so please, if you want to dumb the protocol down to something far less useful than it was envisioned to be because you don't like the complexity on the wallet client side, just remove refund and merchant data
1292 2013-04-21 14:12:35 robbak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1293 2013-04-21 14:13:02 robbak has joined
1294 2013-04-21 14:13:16 <gavinandresen> I'm going to step away from my keyboard now, because, like I said, I'm at the end of my rope with beating this to death
1295 2013-04-21 14:13:23 <sipa> yes, me too
1296 2013-04-21 14:14:24 <sipa> i wish i had the time to help you implement this, as all implementation work is falling onto you... and it's easy for me to complain
1297 2013-04-21 14:14:28 <sipa> sorry about that
1298 2013-04-21 14:14:33 <sipa> but please... please reconsider
1299 2013-04-21 14:15:32 <sipa> i _am_ thankful someone is doing the work to actually make it happen
1300 2013-04-21 14:16:14 qwebirc45141 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1301 2013-04-21 14:16:58 wirehead has joined
1302 2013-04-21 14:20:09 <CodeShark> wallets are a lot more complicated than they first appear
1303 2013-04-21 14:20:55 <CodeShark> the ultimate objective should be to completely remove the address/script level stuff from the UI abstraction layer
1304 2013-04-21 14:21:10 <sipa> well that's what the payment protocol does
1305 2013-04-21 14:21:27 <sipa> a user shouldn't ever see a script or address there
1306 2013-04-21 14:21:30 <CodeShark> reading the document
1307 2013-04-21 14:25:40 <Perlboy> Umm, so something has come up, does this block look peculiar to anyone: http://blockexplorer.com/block/000000000000019758ad1597983a1c899210a94b7d56c504a2bce23dbc60fc08
1308 2013-04-21 14:26:06 ovidiusoft has joined
1309 2013-04-21 14:26:13 <Perlboy> 1 transaction? and generated 20 seconds within the most recent block with records: http://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000000001c9f88aa30f5da59fc57ed0a0c65ddec049ba9d006dd351eda0
1310 2013-04-21 14:26:15 iddo has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1311 2013-04-21 14:26:22 iddo has joined
1312 2013-04-21 14:26:25 colintulloch has joined
1313 2013-04-21 14:26:36 colintulloch is now known as ColinT
1314 2013-04-21 14:26:50 <Perlboy> hey CodeShark, I'm playing with your multiwallet code btw
1315 2013-04-21 14:26:56 <CodeShark> oh, cool
1316 2013-04-21 14:27:05 <Perlboy> despite the fact it hasn't been merged...
1317 2013-04-21 14:27:06 agricocb has joined
1318 2013-04-21 14:27:58 <sipa> Perlboy: timestamps have a variance of up to hours
1319 2013-04-21 14:28:09 <sipa> Perlboy: and yes, it's perfectly legal to only mine a coinbase
1320 2013-04-21 14:28:36 <Perlboy> sipa, do you elect to do that?
1321 2013-04-21 14:28:44 <sipa> 'elect' ?
1322 2013-04-21 14:28:53 <Perlboy> like is that 'mine new coins only' vs. 'mine new coins & transactions'
1323 2013-04-21 14:29:03 <Perlboy> i didn't realise you could choose not to do transactions...
1324 2013-04-21 14:29:11 jspilman has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1325 2013-04-21 14:29:15 <sipa> of course i don't like the fact that miners do that
1326 2013-04-21 14:29:37 <sipa> but there's nothing to prevent them... if the fees are not convincing enough to mine transactions
1327 2013-04-21 14:29:40 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1328 2013-04-21 14:34:08 <SomeoneWeird> yeah, transactions are optional Perlboy
1329 2013-04-21 14:37:11 robbak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1330 2013-04-21 14:37:36 robbak has joined
1331 2013-04-21 14:38:39 <Perlboy> SomeoneWeird, well there you go i didn't know they were optional
1332 2013-04-21 14:38:42 <gavinandresen> sipa: ok, so the use case I think we will really care about:  user participates in a transaction mixing service. They get a PaymentRequest, their wallet cooperates with a bunch of other people who also got PaymentRequests in the last minute or two to create a transaction from 11 users paying 9 different merchants.
1333 2013-04-21 14:38:53 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1334 2013-04-21 14:39:20 i2pRelay has joined
1335 2013-04-21 14:40:05 <sipa> gavinandresen: that's an interesting use case
1336 2013-04-21 14:41:07 <sipa> there's no doubt about the fact that if you have payment requests + confirmed transaction paying it, the payment went through
1337 2013-04-21 14:41:59 <sipa> the reason for me bringing this up, i guess, is 1) making sure that merchants receive the metadata  2) make sure clients are not responsible for getting the transaction confirmed
1338 2013-04-21 14:42:37 <sipa> and that seems hard to combine with your use case here
1339 2013-04-21 14:42:56 <sipa> as there are multiple merchants involved
1340 2013-04-21 14:44:38 <sipa> i'll think about it some more
1341 2013-04-21 14:47:04 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1342 2013-04-21 14:47:06 <gavinandresen> thanks.  I'm grumpy because the jenkins pull-tester build environment is still broken somehow, after I've spent many hours fixing several other ways it was broken (well, several other ways it didn't have protocol buffer support)
1343 2013-04-21 14:47:35 i2pRelay has joined
1344 2013-04-21 14:48:38 grau has joined
1345 2013-04-21 14:51:38 Guest66012 is now known as grapevine
1346 2013-04-21 14:53:24 Belxjander has joined
1347 2013-04-21 14:55:06 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1348 2013-04-21 14:55:19 defunctzombie_zz is now known as defunctzombie
1349 2013-04-21 14:55:36 i2pRelay has joined
1350 2013-04-21 14:58:03 <sipa> gavinandresen: yeah, gitian is a bitch...
1351 2013-04-21 14:58:14 <sipa> and it seems few people really care about it too
1352 2013-04-21 14:58:39 <gavinandresen> gitian I got working….
1353 2013-04-21 14:58:48 <gavinandresen> jenkins is another slog
1354 2013-04-21 14:58:56 egis_ has joined
1355 2013-04-21 14:59:11 <gavinandresen> I think the jenkins qt is being build without OpenSSL support
1356 2013-04-21 14:59:14 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: ping ?
1357 2013-04-21 15:02:12 stalled has joined
1358 2013-04-21 15:03:08 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1359 2013-04-21 15:03:39 i2pRelay has joined
1360 2013-04-21 15:04:37 JWU_42 has joined
1361 2013-04-21 15:05:19 JWU_42 has quit (Client Quit)
1362 2013-04-21 15:05:31 Grouver has quit (Quit:  HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <- Would you like to know more?)
1363 2013-04-21 15:06:46 ProfMac has joined
1364 2013-04-21 15:08:39 JWU_42 has joined
1365 2013-04-21 15:08:43 owowo has joined
1366 2013-04-21 15:09:41 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1367 2013-04-21 15:10:48 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
1368 2013-04-21 15:10:53 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
1369 2013-04-21 15:11:00 JWU_42 has quit (Client Quit)
1370 2013-04-21 15:11:09 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1371 2013-04-21 15:11:47 i2pRelay has joined
1372 2013-04-21 15:12:41 macboz_ has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1373 2013-04-21 15:17:47 altgribble` is now known as altgribble
1374 2013-04-21 15:18:20 egis_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1375 2013-04-21 15:18:26 altgribble has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1376 2013-04-21 15:18:37 egis has joined
1377 2013-04-21 15:19:11 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1378 2013-04-21 15:19:41 altgribble has joined
1379 2013-04-21 15:19:42 ielo has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1380 2013-04-21 15:20:02 paybitcoin1 has joined
1381 2013-04-21 15:20:07 i2pRelay has joined
1382 2013-04-21 15:20:14 paybitcoin has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1383 2013-04-21 15:20:41 nimdAHK_ has joined
1384 2013-04-21 15:21:06 hneio has joined
1385 2013-04-21 15:21:21 nimdAHK has quit (Disconnected by services)
1386 2013-04-21 15:21:25 hneio is now known as nimdAHK
1387 2013-04-21 15:21:44 Vinnie_win has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1388 2013-04-21 15:22:37 robocoin has joined
1389 2013-04-21 15:23:49 Vinnie_win has joined
1390 2013-04-21 15:24:56 nimdAHK_ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1391 2013-04-21 15:27:40 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1392 2013-04-21 15:28:11 Scrat has joined
1393 2013-04-21 15:28:37 i2pRelay has joined
1394 2013-04-21 15:29:25 qwertyoruiop is now known as swag
1395 2013-04-21 15:29:32 swag is now known as qwertyoruiop
1396 2013-04-21 15:30:16 Sealy has quit (Quit: Sealy)
1397 2013-04-21 15:31:15 qwertyoruiop is now known as immacrynow
1398 2013-04-21 15:31:20 immacrynow is now known as qwertyoruiop
1399 2013-04-21 15:32:26 marijnfs has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1400 2013-04-21 15:34:55 testnode9 has joined
1401 2013-04-21 15:36:08 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1402 2013-04-21 15:36:40 i2pRelay has joined
1403 2013-04-21 15:38:02 ielo has joined
1404 2013-04-21 15:39:13 ocminer has joined
1405 2013-04-21 15:41:11 gagecolton has joined
1406 2013-04-21 15:42:49 <savantguy> can someone explain to me what a difficulty of 1, 2, or 4 means when mining?
1407 2013-04-21 15:44:11 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1408 2013-04-21 15:44:43 i2pRelay has joined
1409 2013-04-21 15:46:04 roconnor has joined
1410 2013-04-21 15:47:10 gruez has joined
1411 2013-04-21 15:48:51 <sipa> savantguy: it relates to the ratio of the maximal target over the actual target, under which valid block hashes have to be when interpreted as numbers
1412 2013-04-21 15:48:51 whiterabbit has joined
1413 2013-04-21 15:49:33 <sipa> the maximum target is ~ 2^224
1414 2013-04-21 15:49:42 <savantguy> hm
1415 2013-04-21 15:49:49 <sipa> if the actual target is the same, the difficulty is 1
1416 2013-04-21 15:50:02 <sipa> if the target is 10 times lower, the difficulty is 10
1417 2013-04-21 15:50:15 <sipa> ;;target
1418 2013-04-21 15:50:15 <gribble> I do not know about 'target', but I do know about these similar topics: 'trade'
1419 2013-04-21 15:50:17 <savantguy> is there a min or max difficulty that can be set?
1420 2013-04-21 15:50:35 <sipa> the minimum difficulty is clearly 1
1421 2013-04-21 15:50:46 <sipa> as the maximal target is well... maximal
1422 2013-04-21 15:51:01 <sipa> there is no maximum difficulty
1423 2013-04-21 15:51:23 <gruez> sipa: wait what?
1424 2013-04-21 15:51:26 <gruez> can't it be so high
1425 2013-04-21 15:51:28 <Scrat> 256 bit hash with all zeros
1426 2013-04-21 15:51:30 <gruez> that block hashes has to be 0
1427 2013-04-21 15:51:30 <Scrat> pretty hard :p
1428 2013-04-21 15:51:38 robocoin has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1429 2013-04-21 15:52:04 <pjorrit_> it's pretty damn weird if we'd get to that, the blockchain would probably be broken by then
1430 2013-04-21 15:52:10 <sipa> gruez: right, in practice the difficulty can't go above 2^224
1431 2013-04-21 15:52:15 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1432 2013-04-21 15:52:25 <sipa> as that means the target is 0
1433 2013-04-21 15:52:27 robocoin has joined
1434 2013-04-21 15:52:27 robocoin has quit (Changing host)
1435 2013-04-21 15:52:27 robocoin has joined
1436 2013-04-21 15:52:32 <sipa> and every block hash is 0
1437 2013-04-21 15:52:42 <gruez> WE BROKE SHA-256
1438 2013-04-21 15:52:45 <savantguy> ok
1439 2013-04-21 15:52:48 whiterab1it has joined
1440 2013-04-21 15:52:50 wrabbit has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1441 2013-04-21 15:53:02 whiterab1it is now known as wrabbit
1442 2013-04-21 15:53:05 <pjorrit_> on average get the 0 hash every 10 minutes would be pretty near broken :)
1443 2013-04-21 15:53:10 i2pRelay has joined
1444 2013-04-21 15:53:56 torsthaldo has joined
1445 2013-04-21 15:54:02 <sipa> even a difficulty of 2^96 probably means we've reached a computational speed where ecdsa is no longer safe
1446 2013-04-21 15:55:19 <lianj> sipa: why ecdsa, its it just about block hashing?
1447 2013-04-21 15:55:19 <pjorrit_> how much 2^n are we on now?
1448 2013-04-21 15:56:05 whiterabbit has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1449 2013-04-21 15:56:18 <gruez> pjorrit_: log_2(difficulty)?
1450 2013-04-21 15:56:42 <pjorrit_> yea aight, what's difficulty? i have no ready sourc
1451 2013-04-21 15:57:05 robbak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1452 2013-04-21 15:57:21 <sipa> ;;diff
1453 2013-04-21 15:57:22 <gribble> 8974296.01488785
1454 2013-04-21 15:57:26 whiterabbit has joined
1455 2013-04-21 15:57:29 robbak has joined
1456 2013-04-21 15:57:32 <sipa> ^ current difficulty
1457 2013-04-21 15:57:41 <sipa> close to 2^23
1458 2013-04-21 15:58:31 <pjorrit_> thx, that's already quite crazy if you ask me
1459 2013-04-21 15:58:48 <sipa> ;;calc log([diff])/log(2)
1460 2013-04-21 15:58:49 <gribble> 23.0973673411
1461 2013-04-21 16:00:09 <sipa> qb
1462 2013-04-21 16:00:20 pete79 has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1463 2013-04-21 16:00:38 wrabbit has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1464 2013-04-21 16:00:41 whiterabbit is now known as wrabbit
1465 2013-04-21 16:00:42 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1466 2013-04-21 16:01:13 <sipa> lianj: sure, but many things in bitcoin obly have a 2^128 security, so getting close to that is a problem, even if not directly
1467 2013-04-21 16:01:15 i2pRelay has joined
1468 2013-04-21 16:02:58 ToryJujube has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1469 2013-04-21 16:03:02 <lianj> true, but most if not all mining hardware is only optimised for sha256, no?
1470 2013-04-21 16:03:34 <CodeShark> ecdsa doesn't have huge memory requirements either, though
1471 2013-04-21 16:04:20 <CodeShark> so in principle, highly optimized hardware could be inexpensively produced
1472 2013-04-21 16:04:35 <lianj> yea, was just confused that 'ecdsa is broken when block hashing power is too big'
1473 2013-04-21 16:04:47 MobPhone has joined
1474 2013-04-21 16:05:05 Anduckkkkk has joined
1475 2013-04-21 16:05:06 Anduckkkkk has quit (Changing host)
1476 2013-04-21 16:05:06 Anduckkkkk has joined
1477 2013-04-21 16:05:14 <sipa> lianj: no, ecdsa is broken if computation power becomes too large... and high difficulty is an indirect indicayor for that
1478 2013-04-21 16:05:15 Anduckkkkk has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1479 2013-04-21 16:05:35 <sipa> kf course you can expect specialized sha256 mining hardware to be faster than generalpurpose computing
1480 2013-04-21 16:05:42 Bitvind has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1481 2013-04-21 16:05:47 <sipa> but not more than a few orders of magnitude
1482 2013-04-21 16:06:01 <CodeShark> but the same technology could also be used to make massively parallel ecdsa circuits
1483 2013-04-21 16:06:29 <sipa> savantguy: please ask in the channel
1484 2013-04-21 16:07:06 rainworm has quit ()
1485 2013-04-21 16:07:16 <lianj> ok makes sense. just saying that the network is able to hash 2^128 ist doesn't mean than can switch to ecdsa cracking by flipping a button, at least i guess/hope that :D
1486 2013-04-21 16:07:31 Anduck has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1487 2013-04-21 16:08:04 <Scrat> network is close to 2^70 _total_ hashes
1488 2013-04-21 16:08:09 bibbybob has joined
1489 2013-04-21 16:08:30 <CodeShark> ASICs built for one purpose are next to useless for something just slightly different - but someone with deep enough pockets could certainly get access to the technology required to build ecdsa ASICs
1490 2013-04-21 16:08:44 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1491 2013-04-21 16:08:44 <sipa> lianj: sure
1492 2013-04-21 16:09:19 i2pRelay has joined
1493 2013-04-21 16:09:37 <savantguy> so does increasing the miner difficulty create a higher hashrate if there are network bottlenecks?
1494 2013-04-21 16:10:24 <CodeShark> we could always move to secp521r1 :)
1495 2013-04-21 16:11:53 <sipa> savantguy: thw difficulty goes up if the global hashrate increases
1496 2013-04-21 16:12:13 <sipa> savantguy: not sure what you mean by network bottlenecks
1497 2013-04-21 16:13:32 Guest90733 has joined
1498 2013-04-21 16:13:38 bitit has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1499 2013-04-21 16:13:45 <savantguy> not the network difficulty
1500 2013-04-21 16:13:49 <savantguy> talking about the mining pools
1501 2013-04-21 16:13:54 <savantguy> I see a diff 2
1502 2013-04-21 16:13:56 <savantguy> or diff 4
1503 2013-04-21 16:13:56 whiterabbit has joined
1504 2013-04-21 16:14:05 <savantguy> and in slush's stratum proxy
1505 2013-04-21 16:14:14 <savantguy> I can change the difficulty rate
1506 2013-04-21 16:14:33 <savantguy> https://github.com/slush0/stratum-mining-proxy/blob/master/mining_libs/stratum_listener.py
1507 2013-04-21 16:14:35 <savantguy> line 23
1508 2013-04-21 16:14:58 <Scrat> changing the difficulty is easy if you happen to be a omnipotent being
1509 2013-04-21 16:15:22 <savantguy> why is it set to 1 there?
1510 2013-04-21 16:15:35 wrabbit has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1511 2013-04-21 16:15:41 whiterabbit is now known as wrabbit
1512 2013-04-21 16:16:46 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1513 2013-04-21 16:16:53 <michagogo> savantguy: If I'm not mistaken, the way mining pools track miners' hashrates is by having them report more frequently than when a block is solved
1514 2013-04-21 16:17:18 i2pRelay has joined
1515 2013-04-21 16:17:30 <savantguy> right
1516 2013-04-21 16:17:31 <CodeShark> pay-per-share uses a lower difficulty than what's required for proof-of-work
1517 2013-04-21 16:17:32 <sipa> savantguy: if you increase the pool share difficulty, you'll have less network traffic, but more variance in payout
1518 2013-04-21 16:17:35 <michagogo> In other words, they'll tell the client "every time you get a hash that fits difficulty x, send it to me", where x is much much smaller than the actual difficulty
1519 2013-04-21 16:17:55 <savantguy> ok explain to me this variance in payout
1520 2013-04-21 16:18:13 <CodeShark> the lower the difficulty, the more regularly you'll hit blocks
1521 2013-04-21 16:18:14 <savantguy> so lower = more problem to solve?
1522 2013-04-21 16:18:21 <savantguy> so 1 = better?
1523 2013-04-21 16:18:23 MK9 has joined
1524 2013-04-21 16:18:26 <CodeShark> the law of large numbers comes into play
1525 2013-04-21 16:18:27 <sipa> savantguy: why do you mine in a pool in the first place
1526 2013-04-21 16:18:28 <savantguy> sorry a bit confused on this
1527 2013-04-21 16:18:29 <sipa> savantguy: ?
1528 2013-04-21 16:18:38 <savantguy> more timely payouts
1529 2013-04-21 16:18:41 <sipa> bingo
1530 2013-04-21 16:18:51 <sipa> that's decreasing variance
1531 2013-04-21 16:18:56 <CodeShark> and statistically, if you have a lower difficulty, the payout over a smaller time interval is more predictable
1532 2013-04-21 16:19:22 <sipa> solo mining has the highest variance... the average payout is the same, but you'll either get nothing at all (very likely) or a lot (very unlikely)
1533 2013-04-21 16:19:26 <savantguy> ok so by increasing the difficulty in stratum proxy code can cause more variance in the payout due to ___
1534 2013-04-21 16:19:43 <sipa> because you'll submit less 'solved work'
1535 2013-04-21 16:19:45 <CodeShark> for high difficulty, you need a very high hash rate for the law of large numbers to become perceptible
1536 2013-04-21 16:19:48 <sipa> but it will be worth more
1537 2013-04-21 16:19:51 <savantguy> ahh
1538 2013-04-21 16:20:22 chorao2 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1539 2013-04-21 16:20:24 <savantguy> so in theory if you can increase the difficulty you can max out your hardware hast rate *if* there are bottlenecks from the miners to this stratum proxy?
1540 2013-04-21 16:20:38 <CodeShark> if you toss a coin five times, there's still a decent (albeit not the predominant chance) that it will land heads four out of five times
1541 2013-04-21 16:20:38 <savantguy> so if I have 100 miner clients connecting to proxy
1542 2013-04-21 16:20:45 <sipa> savantguy: you can always max out your hardware
1543 2013-04-21 16:20:59 <sipa> it'll all about how much network interaction you permit
1544 2013-04-21 16:21:03 <CodeShark> but if you toss the same coin a million times, assuming it's fair, it's very highly unlikely it will land heads 80% of the time
1545 2013-04-21 16:21:16 <michagogo> savantguy: A lower miner pool difficulty will submit more often
1546 2013-04-21 16:21:44 <michagogo> A higher difficulty will submit less often, but be worth more per submission proportional to how much less often it submits
1547 2013-04-21 16:21:55 <michagogo> And with higher difficulty, it also becomes less regular
1548 2013-04-21 16:21:55 <HM> Currently costs around $0.30 in electricity on those new 5 GH/s ASICs to mine a coin (on average)
1549 2013-04-21 16:22:13 mughat_2 has joined
1550 2013-04-21 16:22:38 <savantguy> ahh
1551 2013-04-21 16:22:50 robbak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1552 2013-04-21 16:22:55 mughat has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1553 2013-04-21 16:23:16 robbak has joined
1554 2013-04-21 16:23:19 <sipa> pool to miner: "here is some work; it's a block if you reach difficulty 8 million, but tell me anytime you find something that would beat difficulty 1"
1555 2013-04-21 16:23:43 Mr_G has quit ()
1556 2013-04-21 16:23:44 <sipa> vs "something that would beat difficulty 2, but we'll count it twice"
1557 2013-04-21 16:23:58 <savantguy> @sipa ahh ok
1558 2013-04-21 16:24:15 <savantguy> so it cuts down on the network traffic to report that
1559 2013-04-21 16:24:24 <sipa> yup
1560 2013-04-21 16:24:36 <CodeShark> 5/32 that 80% of 5 tosses are heads vs. ~1.034e-82711 that 80% out of a million tosses are heads
1561 2013-04-21 16:24:37 <savantguy> interesting
1562 2013-04-21 16:24:40 <sipa> and less work for the pool
1563 2013-04-21 16:24:49 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1564 2013-04-21 16:24:49 <sipa> to verify everything you submit
1565 2013-04-21 16:25:06 <sipa> typically, the higher your hash rate, the higher the difficulty you're confortable with
1566 2013-04-21 16:25:08 n5 has joined
1567 2013-04-21 16:25:21 i2pRelay has joined
1568 2013-04-21 16:25:43 <savantguy> so for example
1569 2013-04-21 16:25:56 <savantguy> how long does it take a 100mh/s system to find over a diff of 2 ?
1570 2013-04-21 16:26:07 <savantguy> just ballbark?
1571 2013-04-21 16:26:28 coolsa has joined
1572 2013-04-21 16:26:46 <sipa> ;;calc (2**48/65536*2)/100000000
1573 2013-04-21 16:26:46 <gribble> 85.89934592
1574 2013-04-21 16:26:52 <sipa> 85s
1575 2013-04-21 16:27:33 Tom_Soft has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1576 2013-04-21 16:27:41 <savantguy> thanks
1577 2013-04-21 16:30:08 FredEE has joined
1578 2013-04-21 16:32:49 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1579 2013-04-21 16:33:36 JDuke128 has joined
1580 2013-04-21 16:33:48 i2pRelay has joined
1581 2013-04-21 16:38:21 <FuzzyBear> hello
1582 2013-04-21 16:39:16 shurnormal has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
1583 2013-04-21 16:39:37 shurnormal has joined
1584 2013-04-21 16:41:18 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1585 2013-04-21 16:41:43 daybyter has joined
1586 2013-04-21 16:41:50 i2pRelay has joined
1587 2013-04-21 16:42:45 <FuzzyBear> I have a question, well in need of a little help as I am trying to connect to the bitcoind server through my program and am following the guidelines on https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/API_reference_(JSON-RPC) but can not get the JSON.net reference to recognise the objects created on the page, any advice?
1588 2013-04-21 16:44:10 DaQatz has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1589 2013-04-21 16:44:58 <FuzzyBear> no one here to help?? :(
1590 2013-04-21 16:45:18 xenesis has joined
1591 2013-04-21 16:45:34 Guest82943 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1592 2013-04-21 16:46:37 <CodeShark> first of all, start by connecting directly via something like command line curl
1593 2013-04-21 16:46:58 xenesis_ has joined
1594 2013-04-21 16:47:08 <FuzzyBear> hello any c# developers here?
1595 2013-04-21 16:47:34 <CodeShark> have you tried connecting just using standard HTTP with a tool like curl?
1596 2013-04-21 16:47:48 Namworld has joined
1597 2013-04-21 16:48:52 <FuzzyBear> hello codeshark, ok yes i have a simple consol application setup and just trying to say make a simple 'getbalance' request
1598 2013-04-21 16:49:22 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1599 2013-04-21 16:49:35 <CodeShark> send it a POST with the following postdata: '{"method":"getbalance","params":[],"id":null}'
1600 2013-04-21 16:49:45 xenesis has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1601 2013-04-21 16:49:53 i2pRelay has joined
1602 2013-04-21 16:51:14 xenesis_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1603 2013-04-21 16:51:15 <CodeShark> with curl it would look like curl -v -d '{"method":"getbalance","params":[],"id":null}' http://username:password@hostname:port
1604 2013-04-21 16:51:33 xenesis has joined
1605 2013-04-21 16:51:41 ColinT has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
1606 2013-04-21 16:52:08 <CodeShark> first make sure the problem isn't transport layer, firewalls, etc...
1607 2013-04-21 16:52:15 <FuzzyBear> i'm sending it a webRequest.Method = "POST";
1608 2013-04-21 16:52:28 <FuzzyBear> just looking now how to send the postdata
1609 2013-04-21 16:52:29 <CodeShark> then make sure it isn't an authentication issue
1610 2013-04-21 16:52:43 <CodeShark> lastly, make sure you've formatted the request correctly
1611 2013-04-21 16:52:54 nomailin1 has joined
1612 2013-04-21 16:53:39 <CodeShark> before you try any of this, though - have you had success just calling bitcoind from the command line?
1613 2013-04-21 16:53:45 <CodeShark> bitcoind getbalance works?
1614 2013-04-21 16:55:41 xenesis has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1615 2013-04-21 16:56:09 Thepok has joined
1616 2013-04-21 16:56:23 xenesis has joined
1617 2013-04-21 16:57:24 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1618 2013-04-21 16:57:25 nomailin1 has quit (Client Quit)
1619 2013-04-21 16:57:55 chorao2 has joined
1620 2013-04-21 16:57:56 i2pRelay has joined
1621 2013-04-21 16:58:03 xenesis_ has joined
1622 2013-04-21 16:58:07 Guest82943 has joined
1623 2013-04-21 16:58:11 MK9 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1624 2013-04-21 16:58:58 JackStorm has joined
1625 2013-04-21 16:59:46 dino___ has joined
1626 2013-04-21 17:00:56 xenesis has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1627 2013-04-21 17:02:35 xenesis_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1628 2013-04-21 17:02:58 Davincij15 has joined
1629 2013-04-21 17:03:24 <FuzzyBear> hey codeshark yeah i can call from command line no prob, nearly sorted to postdata i think :)
1630 2013-04-21 17:03:26 milone has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1631 2013-04-21 17:03:44 <CodeShark> ok
1632 2013-04-21 17:04:04 milone has joined
1633 2013-04-21 17:05:25 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1634 2013-04-21 17:05:35 jtimon has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1635 2013-04-21 17:05:57 i2pRelay has joined
1636 2013-04-21 17:06:36 CodeShark has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1637 2013-04-21 17:06:39 yeahoffline has joined
1638 2013-04-21 17:07:09 xenesis_ has joined
1639 2013-04-21 17:07:43 ThomasV has joined
1640 2013-04-21 17:09:35 xenesis__ has joined
1641 2013-04-21 17:09:45 peddamat has joined
1642 2013-04-21 17:10:15 <SomeoneWeird> so do I only have todo ./bitcoind for it to start downloading blocks ?
1643 2013-04-21 17:10:37 <SomeoneWeird> nvm
1644 2013-04-21 17:11:14 qeb has joined
1645 2013-04-21 17:11:23 xenesis_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1646 2013-04-21 17:12:34 kadoban_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1647 2013-04-21 17:12:54 kadoban has joined
1648 2013-04-21 17:13:27 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1649 2013-04-21 17:13:59 i2pRelay has joined
1650 2013-04-21 17:14:08 xenesis__ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1651 2013-04-21 17:14:18 xenesis has joined
1652 2013-04-21 17:15:49 ProfMac has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1653 2013-04-21 17:16:38 robbak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1654 2013-04-21 17:17:06 robbak has joined
1655 2013-04-21 17:19:02 bitafterbit has joined
1656 2013-04-21 17:19:05 xenesis has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1657 2013-04-21 17:19:56 chorao2 has quit ()
1658 2013-04-21 17:21:29 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1659 2013-04-21 17:22:01 i2pRelay has joined
1660 2013-04-21 17:22:07 dbe has joined
1661 2013-04-21 17:22:32 dbe is now known as Guest65608
1662 2013-04-21 17:23:32 JDuke128 has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1663 2013-04-21 17:23:38 MaxValor has joined
1664 2013-04-21 17:23:59 ProfMac has joined
1665 2013-04-21 17:26:38 LainZ has quit ()
1666 2013-04-21 17:27:34 defunctzombie is now known as defunctzombie_zz
1667 2013-04-21 17:28:15 jackass_ has joined
1668 2013-04-21 17:28:53 cads has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1669 2013-04-21 17:29:31 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1670 2013-04-21 17:30:43 i2pRelay has joined
1671 2013-04-21 17:32:27 chorao2 has joined
1672 2013-04-21 17:33:37 chorao2 has quit (Client Quit)
1673 2013-04-21 17:34:17 chorao2 has joined
1674 2013-04-21 17:35:58 gruez has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1675 2013-04-21 17:36:09 egis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1676 2013-04-21 17:37:59 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1677 2013-04-21 17:38:10 neo2 has joined
1678 2013-04-21 17:38:17 ielo has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1679 2013-04-21 17:38:32 i2pRelay has joined
1680 2013-04-21 17:38:43 <dino___> Anyone here familiar with goxtool?  Have some questions about the internals
1681 2013-04-21 17:40:42 da2ce7_d has joined
1682 2013-04-21 17:42:30 taha has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1683 2013-04-21 17:42:59 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1684 2013-04-21 17:44:18 ColinT has joined
1685 2013-04-21 17:46:01 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1686 2013-04-21 17:46:56 i2pRelay has joined
1687 2013-04-21 17:47:12 zw has joined
1688 2013-04-21 17:49:11 Guest90733 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1689 2013-04-21 17:50:28 ikea_meatballs has joined
1690 2013-04-21 17:51:35 stochasm has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1691 2013-04-21 17:51:45 c4pt has joined
1692 2013-04-21 17:52:06 <c4pt> code":-32700   what does it mean if i get this as a parse error with bitcoind or litecoind as rpc user and rpc password?
1693 2013-04-21 17:54:28 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1694 2013-04-21 17:55:00 i2pRelay has joined
1695 2013-04-21 17:56:43 PartTimeLegend has joined
1696 2013-04-21 18:00:37 Scrat_p has joined
1697 2013-04-21 18:00:52 Scrat is now known as Guest35845
1698 2013-04-21 18:00:58 Scrat_p is now known as Scrat
1699 2013-04-21 18:01:26 Guest35845 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1700 2013-04-21 18:02:31 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1701 2013-04-21 18:03:26 i2pRelay has joined
1702 2013-04-21 18:06:14 ProfMac has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1703 2013-04-21 18:06:38 defunctzombie_zz is now known as defunctzombie
1704 2013-04-21 18:06:45 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1705 2013-04-21 18:08:44 iddo has quit (Changing host)
1706 2013-04-21 18:08:44 iddo has joined
1707 2013-04-21 18:10:20 ligar has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1708 2013-04-21 18:10:26 robbak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1709 2013-04-21 18:10:30 ligar has joined
1710 2013-04-21 18:10:51 robbak has joined
1711 2013-04-21 18:10:56 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1712 2013-04-21 18:11:29 i2pRelay has joined
1713 2013-04-21 18:12:33 vigilyn has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1714 2013-04-21 18:12:41 vigilyn has joined
1715 2013-04-21 18:17:55 OneFixt has joined
1716 2013-04-21 18:18:59 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1717 2013-04-21 18:19:31 i2pRelay has joined
1718 2013-04-21 18:21:13 testnode9 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1719 2013-04-21 18:22:25 ProfMac has joined
1720 2013-04-21 18:24:09 ligar has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1721 2013-04-21 18:24:32 caedes has joined
1722 2013-04-21 18:24:33 caedes has quit (Changing host)
1723 2013-04-21 18:24:33 caedes has joined
1724 2013-04-21 18:25:04 ligar has joined
1725 2013-04-21 18:25:36 Muis_ has joined
1726 2013-04-21 18:26:37 DaQatz has joined
1727 2013-04-21 18:26:37 hydrogenesis has joined
1728 2013-04-21 18:26:51 denisx has joined
1729 2013-04-21 18:27:01 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1730 2013-04-21 18:27:50 Irencus has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1731 2013-04-21 18:27:57 i2pRelay has joined
1732 2013-04-21 18:28:22 Muis has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1733 2013-04-21 18:28:27 Muis_ is now known as Muis
1734 2013-04-21 18:29:52 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1735 2013-04-21 18:29:54 joesmoe has joined
1736 2013-04-21 18:33:04 cads has joined
1737 2013-04-21 18:34:21 Phraust has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1738 2013-04-21 18:34:46 Phraust has joined
1739 2013-04-21 18:35:11 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1740 2013-04-21 18:35:42 i2pRelay has joined
1741 2013-04-21 18:36:15 Siskiyou has joined
1742 2013-04-21 18:40:06 LainZ has joined
1743 2013-04-21 18:40:20 desidero has joined
1744 2013-04-21 18:40:59 testnode9 has joined
1745 2013-04-21 18:41:17 nidefawl has joined
1746 2013-04-21 18:42:06 <dissipate> does anyone know when and if addresses will be replaced entirely with scripts in bitcoinqt?
1747 2013-04-21 18:43:04 <[Tycho]> Why ?
1748 2013-04-21 18:43:06 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1749 2013-04-21 18:43:07 JDuke128 has joined
1750 2013-04-21 18:43:15 <kadoban> dissipate: i'm not a dev, but honestly there's no way that ever happens. do you see everyone magically switching? addresses will always be at least an option
1751 2013-04-21 18:43:25 <michagogo> dissipate: I think sipa and gavinandressen were talking about it before
1752 2013-04-21 18:43:38 i2pRelay has joined
1753 2013-04-21 18:43:42 <michagogo> s/ss/s/
1754 2013-04-21 18:43:59 Diablo-D3 has joined
1755 2013-04-21 18:45:02 <dissipate> kadoban, addresses are a subset of the script functionality. they could have both. and furthermore, gavin's proposal for payment messages in incompatible with a strictly address based client, as it is script based: https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/4120476#file-btcpayments-rst
1756 2013-04-21 18:45:21 mollison has left ("QUIT :Leaving.")
1757 2013-04-21 18:45:40 ielo has joined
1758 2013-04-21 18:45:53 <dissipate> [Tycho], why? because scripts allow for more advanced transactions.
1759 2013-04-21 18:46:05 <dissipate> [Tycho], notably, multi-sig transactions
1760 2013-04-21 18:46:25 <[Tycho]> Multisig are already available, afaik.
1761 2013-04-21 18:46:31 theymos has joined
1762 2013-04-21 18:46:54 <[Tycho]> I think that you need to at least support multisig in the GUI first...
1763 2013-04-21 18:47:00 <dissipate> [Tycho], yep, but not in bitcoinqt AFAIK
1764 2013-04-21 18:47:26 MK9 has joined
1765 2013-04-21 18:47:40 <[Tycho]> I think it may be at least more than a year since gavin asked everyone to support ms in blockchain, but still no support in clients...
1766 2013-04-21 18:47:54 <dissipate> [Tycho], you support scripts themselves, and then you get everything. multisig, password based, puzzle based...
1767 2013-04-21 18:48:08 jeef has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1768 2013-04-21 18:48:14 <[Tycho]> For a short time multisigs were available on blockchain.info web-wallet, but then removed.
1769 2013-04-21 18:48:20 chorao2 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1770 2013-04-21 18:48:33 gruez has joined
1771 2013-04-21 18:48:47 <[Tycho]> dissipate: we already have support for scripts, but one year is long enough in bitcoin world...
1772 2013-04-21 18:48:54 * K1773R reminds the python3 script that uploaded arbitrary data to the blockchain with multisig :P
1773 2013-04-21 18:49:27 <dissipate> [Tycho], yes, i know. but i'm wondering when full blown script support will be in bitcoinqt.
1774 2013-04-21 18:49:46 jeef has joined
1775 2013-04-21 18:49:46 <lianj> dissipate: whats full blown script support?
1776 2013-04-21 18:49:56 <[Tycho]> dissipate: BTW, what you are developing ?
1777 2013-04-21 18:50:05 MobGod has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1778 2013-04-21 18:50:41 <dissipate> lianj, instead of the receiver sending an address to the sender, they send a bitcoin script. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script
1779 2013-04-21 18:50:45 rdymac has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1780 2013-04-21 18:50:56 <dissipate> [Tycho], nothing. i'm just curious.
1781 2013-04-21 18:51:07 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1782 2013-04-21 18:51:40 i2pRelay has joined
1783 2013-04-21 18:52:13 <lianj> dissipate: you know that the default client only relays standard scripts currently. creating non standard ones are somewhat useless atm
1784 2013-04-21 18:52:42 <dissipate> lianj, that's exactly what i'm inquiring about: when bitcoinqt will support full scripts.
1785 2013-04-21 18:53:04 <lianj> it wont (soon).
1786 2013-04-21 18:53:52 Irencus has joined
1787 2013-04-21 18:54:07 jeef has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1788 2013-04-21 18:54:17 <lianj> also letting normal users create own (stupid) scripts would in many cases result in destroyed or easily stolen coins.
1789 2013-04-21 18:54:26 <dissipate> lianj, and no it is not useless. suppose i'm running a company that buys bitcoins for investors. i want a 2 of 3 key system that allows the BTC to be transferred if 2 of 3 keys are provided. instead of generating a bitcoin address for the sender i am purchasing the coins from, i send a script that has the 2 of 3 key mechanism built right in.
1790 2013-04-21 18:54:46 <michagogo> For example, a script of OP_RETURN
1791 2013-04-21 18:55:02 jeef has joined
1792 2013-04-21 18:55:03 <lianj> dissipate: thats multisig and its a standard script type.
1793 2013-04-21 18:55:34 <dissipate> lianj, just one example. perhaps i want a much more complicated script.
1794 2013-04-21 18:55:53 vimanu has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1795 2013-04-21 18:56:02 <dissipate> michagogo, yeah, provably unspendable outputs are ridiculous
1796 2013-04-21 18:57:34 <lianj> the default client's script functionally was stripped down to only relay standard type scripts. that just how it is right now
1797 2013-04-21 18:58:20 gruez has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1798 2013-04-21 18:58:30 <dissipate> lianj, see this: https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/4120476#file-btcpayments-rst
1799 2013-04-21 18:59:09 <lianj> yep
1800 2013-04-21 18:59:13 <dissipate> lianj, gavin has come up with a 'bitcoin payment message' protocol. it is script based, not address based. clearly this is incompatible with bitcoinqt right now.
1801 2013-04-21 18:59:16 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1802 2013-04-21 18:59:42 i2pRelay has joined
1803 2013-04-21 19:00:13 <dissipate> script: a "TxOut" script where payment should be sent. This will normally be one of the standard Bitcoin transaction scripts (e.g. pubkey OP_CHECKSIG).
1804 2013-04-21 19:00:54 <lianj> dissipate: its a pre chain protocol and has nothing todo with scripts. and like you quoted "This will normally be one of the standard Bitcoin transaction scripts"
1805 2013-04-21 19:01:18 <[Tycho]> Wow, a considerable news coverage about bitcoin on TV...
1806 2013-04-21 19:01:45 <lianj> [Tycho]: this week? is there a nice post that lists them again?
1807 2013-04-21 19:02:15 <midnightmagic> [Tycho]: I heard interviews about it on CBC radio the other morning driving to work. Man they need to find better people to talk to.
1808 2013-04-21 19:02:41 <dissipate> midnightmagic, everyone is interviewing amir taaki
1809 2013-04-21 19:03:20 <[Tycho]> Today or yesterday, just got a link to TV company's site.
1810 2013-04-21 19:03:48 <[Tycho]> About 5 minutes long.
1811 2013-04-21 19:04:03 <[Tycho]> Not very evil.
1812 2013-04-21 19:04:04 robbak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1813 2013-04-21 19:04:28 robbak has joined
1814 2013-04-21 19:04:47 <wumpus> dissipate: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2539
1815 2013-04-21 19:06:44 Azetab has joined
1816 2013-04-21 19:06:55 <dissipate> wumpus, and that supports arbitrary scripts?
1817 2013-04-21 19:07:13 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1818 2013-04-21 19:07:56 coderrr has joined
1819 2013-04-21 19:08:35 <wumpus> I think so, as it implements gavin's payment protocol
1820 2013-04-21 19:08:42 <dissipate> huh? this only supports addresses: https://bitcoincore.org/~gavin/createpaymentrequest.php
1821 2013-04-21 19:08:49 Azetab has quit (Client Quit)
1822 2013-04-21 19:08:49 Irencus has quit ()
1823 2013-04-21 19:09:00 <wumpus> but it may not be complete yet, it's only the first version
1824 2013-04-21 19:09:04 Squidicuz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1825 2013-04-21 19:09:06 <dissipate> that is not a full implementation of the payment protocol, as it clearly says 'scripts'
1826 2013-04-21 19:09:14 <wumpus> anyway, testing is very welcome
1827 2013-04-21 19:09:29 Squidicuz has joined
1828 2013-04-21 19:09:33 peddamat has quit ()
1829 2013-04-21 19:10:13 whiterabbit has joined
1830 2013-04-21 19:10:24 <dissipate> wumpus, did you see this part of the protocol? If the sum of outputs.amount is non-zero, then the customer will be asked to pay the sum, and the payment shall be split among the Outputs with non-zero amounts (if there are more than one; Outputs with zero amounts shall be ignored).
1831 2013-04-21 19:11:23 <dissipate> it disallows one scenario where someone wants to send you a bill but also a tip jar (e.g. a pizza place wants to bill you for a pizza but also wants you to tip the deliveryman).
1832 2013-04-21 19:11:44 <dissipate> it means a new payment request would have to be generated for the tip jar. not very efficient.
1833 2013-04-21 19:11:45 wrabbit has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1834 2013-04-21 19:11:47 whiterabbit is now known as wrabbit
1835 2013-04-21 19:12:00 nova90 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1836 2013-04-21 19:12:06 bitcoiner has quit (Changing host)
1837 2013-04-21 19:12:06 bitcoiner has joined
1838 2013-04-21 19:12:51 gagecolton has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1839 2013-04-21 19:13:55 <wumpus> indeed, but that may be on purpose, I don't know
1840 2013-04-21 19:14:56 MaxValor has quit ()
1841 2013-04-21 19:16:02 <jarpiain> dissipate: arbitrary scripts can still be represented as addresses, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0016
1842 2013-04-21 19:16:17 rdymac has joined
1843 2013-04-21 19:17:59 Guest65608 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1844 2013-04-21 19:18:26 twmz has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1845 2013-04-21 19:19:34 <dissipate> jarpiain, makes sense to me.
1846 2013-04-21 19:20:07 twmz has joined
1847 2013-04-21 19:20:09 zrad has joined
1848 2013-04-21 19:23:29 xenesis has joined
1849 2013-04-21 19:23:31 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1850 2013-04-21 19:23:50 jtimon has joined
1851 2013-04-21 19:24:31 Otaci has joined
1852 2013-04-21 19:24:48 nova90 has joined
1853 2013-04-21 19:24:55 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
1854 2013-04-21 19:24:59 <dissipate> jarpiain, that was proposed over a year ago
1855 2013-04-21 19:25:05 <dissipate> jarpiain, guess progress is slow...
1856 2013-04-21 19:25:07 MaybeJustNothing has joined
1857 2013-04-21 19:25:38 snakie_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1858 2013-04-21 19:26:09 Otaci has quit (Client Quit)
1859 2013-04-21 19:26:18 <wumpus> how do you mean progress is slow? it has also been implemented for ages
1860 2013-04-21 19:26:49 i2pRelay has joined
1861 2013-04-21 19:28:01 <dissipate> wumpus, what do you mean implemented? i was just told that there was no ETA on supporting arbitrary scripts in bitcoinqt.
1862 2013-04-21 19:28:35 <wumpus> P2SH addresses can be used
1863 2013-04-21 19:29:13 <dissipate> wumpus, where/how do you generate them?
1864 2013-04-21 19:29:19 <wumpus> don't ask me
1865 2013-04-21 19:29:32 <dissipate> wumpus, well, that's a problem...
1866 2013-04-21 19:30:12 <wumpus> not for me :)
1867 2013-04-21 19:30:39 jaqenhghar has joined
1868 2013-04-21 19:30:55 <dissipate> wumpus, so you don't use or care about scripts?
1869 2013-04-21 19:31:11 <wumpus> no, I don't use scripts
1870 2013-04-21 19:31:15 <jarpiain> dissipate: you can use the raw transactions api with bitcoind or bitcoin-qt debug console
1871 2013-04-21 19:31:32 Guest82943 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1872 2013-04-21 19:31:55 <dissipate> jarpiain, when i generate the hash, can i send that as the address for someone sending me BTC via bitcoinqt?
1873 2013-04-21 19:32:29 <jarpiain> dissipate: yes, you can send to BIP16 addresses with bitcoin-qt
1874 2013-04-21 19:33:42 <dissipate> jarpiain, did you notice that a BIP16 hash is 20 bytes while the max length for an actual script is 9 bytes? over twice the size of the raw script!
1875 2013-04-21 19:33:46 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1876 2013-04-21 19:34:11 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1877 2013-04-21 19:34:21 <jgm> Are there any safeguards in bitcoind when sending it a raw transaction that the transaction is sane?  The two obvious examples are that the input transaction has enough coin to pay for the output transaction, and that the output transaction accounts for all of the coin (except for reasonable transaction fees)
1878 2013-04-21 19:34:42 <jarpiain> 9 bytes is not right. Where did you read that?
1879 2013-04-21 19:34:42 i2pRelay has joined
1880 2013-04-21 19:34:44 <wumpus> max length for a script 9 bytes doesn't sound true
1881 2013-04-21 19:35:07 jackass_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1882 2013-04-21 19:35:11 <jgm> dissipate: that's the max length for the varint holding the length of the script, I think you'll find
1883 2013-04-21 19:35:23 <dissipate> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transactions#Output
1884 2013-04-21 19:35:54 <dissipate> jgm, ah, you are right.
1885 2013-04-21 19:36:00 <wumpus> even a simple pay to public key is longer than 9 bytes
1886 2013-04-21 19:36:02 <dissipate> where is the max length for the script itself?
1887 2013-04-21 19:36:51 <jgm> Not sure that the protocol gives one outside of the limit which the varint can represent
1888 2013-04-21 19:37:59 <lianj> jgm: yep, in theory everything that fits in varint but with max block size there is another limit
1889 2013-04-21 19:38:11 <dissipate> jgm, that means i can generate looong scripts that could flood the network satoshi dice style, vastly increasing the CPU cycles needed to process these outputs.
1890 2013-04-21 19:38:35 Steve132 has joined
1891 2013-04-21 19:38:56 <jgm> dissipate: from what i've seen transaction fees increase with size of script, so i suspect you'd be more than welcome to try it
1892 2013-04-21 19:38:56 <lianj> if you pay for that loong scripts. also the network wont see it because the client doesn't relay non standard scripts.
1893 2013-04-21 19:39:13 <Steve132> With a raw transaction, how does the change address get decided?
1894 2013-04-21 19:39:17 <Steve132> Like, for example
1895 2013-04-21 19:39:29 <lianj> Steve132: you cant
1896 2013-04-21 19:39:37 <jgm> lianj: yep that would be a limiting factor
1897 2013-04-21 19:39:47 <Steve132> ?
1898 2013-04-21 19:39:49 <Steve132> what?
1899 2013-04-21 19:39:56 LainZ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1900 2013-04-21 19:40:00 <lianj> Steve132: you cant guess the change address
1901 2013-04-21 19:40:05 Siskiyou has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1902 2013-04-21 19:40:05 <dissipate> lianj, well in this case, BIP16 addresses are only good for short scripts. no?
1903 2013-04-21 19:40:07 <Steve132> I didn't say if I could guess it
1904 2013-04-21 19:40:13 <Steve132> I asked how its specified
1905 2013-04-21 19:40:21 <lianj> Steve132: random
1906 2013-04-21 19:40:48 <Steve132> ok, so my client generates the private keys?
1907 2013-04-21 19:40:54 <dissipate> lianj, furthermore, a full blown script may not fit in a qr code?
1908 2013-04-21 19:40:56 <Steve132> for the change address
1909 2013-04-21 19:41:03 <Steve132> and sends a transaction with two outputs?
1910 2013-04-21 19:41:09 <Steve132> with all the coins?
1911 2013-04-21 19:41:16 wereHams1er is now known as wereHamster
1912 2013-04-21 19:41:18 <wumpus> the idea behind BIP16 is that the longer scripts can be in the inputs, instead of the outputs, afaik
1913 2013-04-21 19:41:19 <lianj> dissipate: your tx isn't in a qr code anyway
1914 2013-04-21 19:41:28 <lianj> what wumpus said
1915 2013-04-21 19:41:55 <lianj> also the recipient defines the script, no?
1916 2013-04-21 19:42:04 <wumpus> input scripts can be up to 500 bytes, at least to pass IsStandard
1917 2013-04-21 19:42:08 <dissipate> wumpus, i'm confused. i thought the input only had to provide the sigs.
1918 2013-04-21 19:42:15 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1919 2013-04-21 19:42:23 <wumpus> yes lianj
1920 2013-04-21 19:42:46 i2pRelay has joined
1921 2013-04-21 19:42:48 <lianj> dissipate: read p2sh bip again. with that you have 'inner scripts' inside the inputs then
1922 2013-04-21 19:43:03 <dissipate> Steve132, nope. not necessarily 2 outputs. could be any number of outputs, depending on how many addresses the user paid.
1923 2013-04-21 19:43:28 <Steve132> Right.  The important question is that the client determines the change addresses
1924 2013-04-21 19:43:45 <dissipate> Steve132, with the bitcoinqt client, it does.
1925 2013-04-21 19:43:55 <Steve132> what about other clients?
1926 2013-04-21 19:44:20 <dissipate> Steve132, in theory, those could allow the user to pick a change address, or have some other scheme.
1927 2013-04-21 19:44:47 <Steve132> ok.   But the network doesn't decide...if I make a 1 input 1 output transaction
1928 2013-04-21 19:44:48 <dissipate> lianj, ok, i'll check that out.
1929 2013-04-21 19:44:56 <Steve132> from an address with 1 btc
1930 2013-04-21 19:44:58 <wumpus> some other clients (at least one android one) return the change to the address that it was sent from
1931 2013-04-21 19:45:10 <dissipate> Steve132, nope, the network doesn't decide at all.
1932 2013-04-21 19:45:20 <Steve132> and I send 0.5 btc to some address
1933 2013-04-21 19:45:24 DaQatz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1934 2013-04-21 19:45:32 <Steve132> the other 0.5 btc goes to the miners
1935 2013-04-21 19:45:34 <Steve132> right?
1936 2013-04-21 19:45:34 <jgm> Steve132: raw transaction rules are simple.  coins input - coins output = transaction fee
1937 2013-04-21 19:45:40 <Steve132> got it
1938 2013-04-21 19:45:47 <dissipate> Steve132, if a change address is omitted, that .5 btc will go as a fee to the miner.
1939 2013-04-21 19:46:32 <wumpus> change is a completely virtual thing, it is there for user friendlyness, because a transaction always has to spend the whole input
1940 2013-04-21 19:46:35 DaQatz has joined
1941 2013-04-21 19:46:51 <Steve132> and a change address is simply specified as a second output
1942 2013-04-21 19:46:55 <Steve132> by the client
1943 2013-04-21 19:47:10 <wumpus> second, or first, randomly
1944 2013-04-21 19:47:19 <jgm> Worth noting that there is no such thing as a "change" address outside of the pretty clients.  When you're talking at the protocol level they're just addresses
1945 2013-04-21 19:47:51 <Steve132> ok...so how does something like an offline wallet work...if I exported some address
1946 2013-04-21 19:47:54 <wumpus> as the idea is that for an outside observer it shouldn't be easy to see which is the change address and which is the destination address
1947 2013-04-21 19:47:57 <Steve132> private keys...like printed them out
1948 2013-04-21 19:48:06 <Steve132> then I send some btc
1949 2013-04-21 19:48:31 <Steve132> then I try to resore it...wouldn't it be invalid because the address I printed doesn't have anything in it any more?
1950 2013-04-21 19:50:05 <wumpus> yes you should generate unique private keys/addresses for an offline wallet, preferably generated on an offline computer
1951 2013-04-21 19:50:16 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1952 2013-04-21 19:50:49 i2pRelay has joined
1953 2013-04-21 19:50:55 <dissipate> lianj, i'm confused. an input does not have a pubKey script. it has a 'sig' script.
1954 2013-04-21 19:51:01 <wumpus> if you just export an privkey from your hot wallet and print that it won't work, the coins may still be spent 
1955 2013-04-21 19:51:28 <dissipate> lianj, so how can a 'sig' script be used to alleviate size issues with the pubkey script in an output?
1956 2013-04-21 19:51:44 <Steve132> So how do offline wallets work?
1957 2013-04-21 19:51:59 grau has joined
1958 2013-04-21 19:52:27 <wumpus> offline wallets are simply keypairs that have been generated offline
1959 2013-04-21 19:52:36 <dissipate> Steve132, they are usually completely offline? this is fine if you are just receiving coins.
1960 2013-04-21 19:52:51 <Steve132> sure...but I mean, like
1961 2013-04-21 19:53:04 <Steve132> how can you restore a wallet from private keys
1962 2013-04-21 19:53:05 pooler has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1963 2013-04-21 19:53:11 <wumpus> if you want to spend from them you need to either import the private key, or do some offline signing thing
1964 2013-04-21 19:53:14 <Steve132> if the private keys are useless if you spend even 1 satoshi
1965 2013-04-21 19:54:14 <dissipate> Steve132, you can generate the public keys from the private keys
1966 2013-04-21 19:54:42 nus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1967 2013-04-21 19:54:44 <wumpus> when you import you can use the key only once, as it has then been shown to the outside world, so you need to generate a new offline address if you want to send the coins back to your offline wallet
1968 2013-04-21 19:54:45 nus- has joined
1969 2013-04-21 19:55:19 <Steve132> so like
1970 2013-04-21 19:55:28 <Steve132> what if I have an online account
1971 2013-04-21 19:55:33 <Steve132> and I back up my private key
1972 2013-04-21 19:55:48 <Steve132> and I send 0.01 btc
1973 2013-04-21 19:55:54 <Steve132> then my hard drive crashes
1974 2013-04-21 19:55:58 <Steve132> everything is gone
1975 2013-04-21 19:55:59 <Steve132> right?
1976 2013-04-21 19:56:05 hydrogenesis has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPad - http://colloquy.mobi)
1977 2013-04-21 19:56:28 <wumpus> you'd need to back up your entire wallet, not just that one key
1978 2013-04-21 19:56:37 <dissipate> lianj, looks like BIP16 is only good for 'standard' transactions
1979 2013-04-21 19:56:44 jeef has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1980 2013-04-21 19:57:02 <wumpus> the wallet contains spare keys (the key pool), so yo udon't need to backup after every transaction
1981 2013-04-21 19:57:08 <Steve132> I see
1982 2013-04-21 19:57:11 <dissipate> Steve132, what do you mean by an 'online account'?
1983 2013-04-21 19:57:21 <Steve132> so if I run out of keys in the key pool
1984 2013-04-21 19:57:26 <Steve132> by spending
1985 2013-04-21 19:57:31 <Steve132> then my offline wallet is gone
1986 2013-04-21 19:57:31 <dissipate> wumpus, but you would be a fool not to.
1987 2013-04-21 19:57:47 <wumpus> the standard keypool size is 100
1988 2013-04-21 19:57:55 <Steve132> still
1989 2013-04-21 19:58:04 <wumpus> no Steve132... an offline wallet is not simply printing your online one
1990 2013-04-21 19:58:08 <Steve132> I spend a day drunk on satoshidice
1991 2013-04-21 19:58:11 <dissipate> Steve132, in my opinion, you are better off sending the change back to a known address in your backup.
1992 2013-04-21 19:58:15 jeef has joined
1993 2013-04-21 19:58:18 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1994 2013-04-21 19:58:37 JDuke128 has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1995 2013-04-21 19:58:38 <wumpus> dissipate: yes, it's wise to do it anyway
1996 2013-04-21 19:59:15 i2pRelay has joined
1997 2013-04-21 19:59:37 Apexseals has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1998 2013-04-21 19:59:55 Apexseals has joined
1999 2013-04-21 20:00:07 pooler has joined
2000 2013-04-21 20:01:31 <wumpus> your offline and online keys should be disjunct, there must be no overlap, or bad things can happen.. so if you import a key from your offline wallet you should scrap it from the offline wallet.. if you have change in your online wallet and want to store it offline, you  need to send it to a new address in your offline wallet
2001 2013-04-21 20:02:04 <jgm> Steve132: no reason why you can't send the change back to the address from which you're spending it.  Although there is a general idea about having a single address per transaction it's not inherently better than any other way of working (for an arbitrary value of "better", anyway)
2002 2013-04-21 20:03:01 LainZ has joined
2003 2013-04-21 20:03:43 cads has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2004 2013-04-21 20:04:33 Azetab has joined
2005 2013-04-21 20:05:12 dino___ has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com)
2006 2013-04-21 20:05:41 djoot has joined
2007 2013-04-21 20:05:41 djoot has quit (Changing host)
2008 2013-04-21 20:05:41 djoot has joined
2009 2013-04-21 20:05:55 PK has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2010 2013-04-21 20:06:39 zw has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2011 2013-04-21 20:06:46 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2012 2013-04-21 20:07:13 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2013 2013-04-21 20:07:19 i2pRelay has joined
2014 2013-04-21 20:08:29 quaz0r has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2015 2013-04-21 20:08:49 tmsk has joined
2016 2013-04-21 20:09:22 djoot has quit (Client Quit)
2017 2013-04-21 20:10:55 sgornick has joined
2018 2013-04-21 20:14:48 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2019 2013-04-21 20:15:19 i2pRelay has joined
2020 2013-04-21 20:16:40 dust-otc has joined
2021 2013-04-21 20:18:08 ocminer has quit (Quit: ocminer)
2022 2013-04-21 20:20:45 xenesis_ has joined
2023 2013-04-21 20:21:26 djoot has joined
2024 2013-04-21 20:21:26 djoot has quit (Changing host)
2025 2013-04-21 20:21:26 djoot has joined
2026 2013-04-21 20:21:54 michagogo has quit (Quit: Goodnight)
2027 2013-04-21 20:22:18 quaz0r has joined
2028 2013-04-21 20:22:50 jtimon has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
2029 2013-04-21 20:22:50 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2030 2013-04-21 20:23:06 jtimon has joined
2031 2013-04-21 20:23:21 <Steve132> can someone explain BIP 16 a little better
2032 2013-04-21 20:23:22 i2pRelay has joined
2033 2013-04-21 20:23:43 xenesis has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2034 2013-04-21 20:23:43 xenesis_ is now known as xenesis
2035 2013-04-21 20:24:04 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2036 2013-04-21 20:25:19 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
2037 2013-04-21 20:27:01 Muis_ has joined
2038 2013-04-21 20:27:13 Azetab has quit (Quit: Azetab)
2039 2013-04-21 20:29:21 Muis has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2040 2013-04-21 20:29:26 Muis_ is now known as Muis
2041 2013-04-21 20:29:34 JackStorm has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2042 2013-04-21 20:29:50 zrad has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2043 2013-04-21 20:30:53 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2044 2013-04-21 20:31:17 JackStorm has joined
2045 2013-04-21 20:31:25 i2pRelay has joined
2046 2013-04-21 20:33:01 jtimon has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
2047 2013-04-21 20:33:18 jtimon has joined
2048 2013-04-21 20:33:26 stochasm has joined
2049 2013-04-21 20:35:32 <Steve132> from BIP 16,12,17, "The purpose of pay-to-script-hash is to move the responsibility for supplying the conditions to redeem a transaction from the sender of the funds to the redeemer."
2050 2013-04-21 20:35:39 <Steve132> Can someone explain what that means to me?
2051 2013-04-21 20:35:58 Spami has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
2052 2013-04-21 20:35:58 BTCOxygen has joined
2053 2013-04-21 20:36:10 <Steve132> Reading these, it seems that p2sh seems to be a way to sign multiple transactions...but it seems more complicated and general-purpose than that
2054 2013-04-21 20:36:21 <HM> the person who sends you money currently specifies the terms under which you can redeem it (the script)
2055 2013-04-21 20:36:33 <HM> P2SH means you give them the hash of the script, and they use it
2056 2013-04-21 20:36:48 <HM> you then supply the script when you redeem the transaction
2057 2013-04-21 20:37:03 <wumpus> it means that the recipient can provide the script to redeem it, instead of the sender
2058 2013-04-21 20:37:06 <wumpus> exactly HM
2059 2013-04-21 20:37:22 <HM> it's good for making the terms of transactions more opaque
2060 2013-04-21 20:38:32 copumpkin has quit ()
2061 2013-04-21 20:38:55 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2062 2013-04-21 20:39:17 Scrat has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2063 2013-04-21 20:39:27 i2pRelay has joined
2064 2013-04-21 20:41:45 felixhandte has joined
2065 2013-04-21 20:42:17 BenderCoin has joined
2066 2013-04-21 20:43:30 <Steve132> got it
2067 2013-04-21 20:43:34 <Steve132> thanks
2068 2013-04-21 20:45:05 BenderCoin has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2069 2013-04-21 20:45:39 resistor is now known as resistor_
2070 2013-04-21 20:45:48 resistor_ is now known as resistor
2071 2013-04-21 20:45:56 resistor is now known as resistor_
2072 2013-04-21 20:46:23 robocoin has quit (Quit: robocoin)
2073 2013-04-21 20:46:38 Spami has joined
2074 2013-04-21 20:46:39 Spami has quit (Changing host)
2075 2013-04-21 20:46:39 Spami has joined
2076 2013-04-21 20:46:57 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2077 2013-04-21 20:47:29 i2pRelay has joined
2078 2013-04-21 20:49:17 [Elementum] has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2079 2013-04-21 20:50:16 saulimus has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2080 2013-04-21 20:50:50 rzoom has joined
2081 2013-04-21 20:51:00 saulimus has joined
2082 2013-04-21 20:51:11 BenderCoin has joined
2083 2013-04-21 20:51:44 paracyst has joined
2084 2013-04-21 20:52:49 D34TH has joined
2085 2013-04-21 20:52:58 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2086 2013-04-21 20:54:59 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2087 2013-04-21 20:55:31 i2pRelay has joined
2088 2013-04-21 20:56:13 dbe has joined
2089 2013-04-21 20:56:37 dbe is now known as Guest4636
2090 2013-04-21 20:57:21 agricocb has joined
2091 2013-04-21 20:59:04 rdymac has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2092 2013-04-21 20:59:09 RedEmerald has quit (Changing host)
2093 2013-04-21 20:59:09 RedEmerald has joined
2094 2013-04-21 20:59:32 roconnor has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2095 2013-04-21 21:01:18 GlitchNZ has joined
2096 2013-04-21 21:02:38 PartTimeLegend has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2097 2013-04-21 21:03:00 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2098 2013-04-21 21:03:08 <sipa> Steve132: it's signing multiple transactions
2099 2013-04-21 21:03:30 <Steve132> Can you explain what that means?
2100 2013-04-21 21:03:32 i2pRelay has joined
2101 2013-04-21 21:03:54 <sipa> so instead of needing to give the full script to senders
2102 2013-04-21 21:04:10 <sipa> you just give them a hash (in the form of a p2sh address)
2103 2013-04-21 21:04:48 <sipa> they create an output that says "verify whether 1) a script 2) its input is provided, the script is valid, and its hash is X"
2104 2013-04-21 21:05:35 <sipa> so the sender doesn't need to knkw the scriot, which is good, because they don't care about it
2105 2013-04-21 21:05:45 <sipa> know, script
2106 2013-04-21 21:07:05 <sipa> so instead of the actual script being put in the outout by the sender, it becomes a subscript that is provided by the spender
2107 2013-04-21 21:07:48 <dissipate> sipa, but that's the part i don't understand. the input can only have a sig script.
2108 2013-04-21 21:09:10 <dissipate> sipa, also, the input hasn't been created yet. what if the client loses the actual script?
2109 2013-04-21 21:09:18 <lianj> who said that it can only have a sig script
2110 2013-04-21 21:09:27 [Elementum] has joined
2111 2013-04-21 21:09:58 BlackPrapor has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2112 2013-04-21 21:10:44 <dissipate> lianj, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transactions#general_format_.28inside_a_block.29_of_each_input_of_a_transaction_-_Txin
2113 2013-04-21 21:11:03 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2114 2013-04-21 21:11:13 darksk1ez has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2115 2013-04-21 21:11:36 i2pRelay has joined
2116 2013-04-21 21:12:16 <lianj> dissipate: it doesn't have to be a scriptsig
2117 2013-04-21 21:12:21 darksk1ez has joined
2118 2013-04-21 21:12:24 egis has joined
2119 2013-04-21 21:12:43 <dissipate> lianj, and what about the other issue? the input hasn't been generated... the actual script can be lost.
2120 2013-04-21 21:12:46 LainZ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2121 2013-04-21 21:13:43 <lianj> thats true. recipient fault who gave you the p2sh address then
2122 2013-04-21 21:13:57 Guest4636 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2123 2013-04-21 21:14:19 <dissipate> lianj, guess the actual script is the private key?
2124 2013-04-21 21:14:48 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2125 2013-04-21 21:14:50 <lianj> no
2126 2013-04-21 21:15:12 Bohren has joined
2127 2013-04-21 21:17:48 <sipa> it's not secret
2128 2013-04-21 21:18:40 <sipa> dissipate: so, say you want to create a P2SH output for a simple pay-to-pubkey script
2129 2013-04-21 21:18:43 <sipa> ok
2130 2013-04-21 21:18:45 <sipa> ?
2131 2013-04-21 21:19:06 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2132 2013-04-21 21:19:18 jaqenhghar has quit (Quit: Page closed)
2133 2013-04-21 21:19:33  has quit (Clown|!~clown@unaffiliated/clown/x-0272709|Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2134 2013-04-21 21:19:36 <sipa> so, normally, the scriptPubKey in the output created by the sender, would be "<pubkey> OP_CHECKSIG"
2135 2013-04-21 21:19:38 i2pRelay has joined
2136 2013-04-21 21:19:47 HM2 has joined
2137 2013-04-21 21:20:04 <sipa> and to use it, the receiver would create a transaction with a scriptSig "<signature>"
2138 2013-04-21 21:20:11 <sipa> right?
2139 2013-04-21 21:20:22 <dissipate> sipa, ok...
2140 2013-04-21 21:21:02 <dissipate> yep, that's how i thought it worked from the beginning...
2141 2013-04-21 21:21:22 <sipa> for example, if it was a pay-to-scripthash (aka standard address), the scriptPubKey would be "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubkeyhash> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG"
2142 2013-04-21 21:21:45 <sipa> and the corresponding scriptSig would be "<signature> <pubkey>"
2143 2013-04-21 21:21:51 <sipa> right?
2144 2013-04-21 21:22:11 HM has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2145 2013-04-21 21:22:12 <dissipate> yep
2146 2013-04-21 21:22:15 <sipa> ok
2147 2013-04-21 21:22:20 <sipa> so now with P2SH
2148 2013-04-21 21:22:32 Scrat has joined
2149 2013-04-21 21:22:41 <sipa> the actual script we want is "<pubkey> OP_CHECKSIG", so we serialize that script, and calculate its hash
2150 2013-04-21 21:22:47 <sipa> and we give the sender that hash
2151 2013-04-21 21:23:15 meefozio has joined
2152 2013-04-21 21:23:18 <sipa> he creates an output with scriptPubKey (very confusing name now), "OP_HASH160 <scripthash> OP_EQUAL"
2153 2013-04-21 21:23:31 <dissipate> and the actual script?
2154 2013-04-21 21:23:40 <sipa> isn't there, since the sender doesn't know it
2155 2013-04-21 21:23:51 <dissipate> right
2156 2013-04-21 21:23:59 <sipa> what goes into the scriptSig that claims it: "<signature> <script>"
2157 2013-04-21 21:24:00 <dissipate> so then what?
2158 2013-04-21 21:24:12 <sipa> where <script> is the serialized script "<pubkey> OP_CHECKSIG"
2159 2013-04-21 21:24:23 tmsk_ has joined
2160 2013-04-21 21:24:35 <dissipate> where are the variables to satisfy the script?
2161 2013-04-21 21:24:42 <sipa> <signature> is one
2162 2013-04-21 21:24:53 <sipa> it's also in the scriptSig
2163 2013-04-21 21:25:03 <sipa> just the last push of the scriptSig is the actual script
2164 2013-04-21 21:25:10 <sipa> and the rest is its arguments
2165 2013-04-21 21:25:49 <dissipate> interesting. so in this case, the actual script is part of the scriptSig?
2166 2013-04-21 21:25:55 <sipa> indeed
2167 2013-04-21 21:26:01 <sipa> that's the entire point
2168 2013-04-21 21:26:11 <sipa> moving the actual script from output to input
2169 2013-04-21 21:26:14 <dissipate> ok, that makes sense.
2170 2013-04-21 21:26:20 <sipa> so the sender doesn't need to know it
2171 2013-04-21 21:26:29 <lianj> to redeem all that is needed is "<inner-script> OP_HASH160 <inner-script-hash> OP_EQUAL"
2172 2013-04-21 21:26:55 <dissipate> sipa, and this has already been implemented?
2173 2013-04-21 21:27:04 <sipa> sure
2174 2013-04-21 21:27:06 <sipa> it works
2175 2013-04-21 21:27:09 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2176 2013-04-21 21:27:21 tmsk has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2177 2013-04-21 21:27:22 tmsk_ is now known as tmsk
2178 2013-04-21 21:27:42 i2pRelay has joined
2179 2013-04-21 21:27:54 <dissipate> sipa, so why haven't we all switched to just using PSH hashes instead of the public key addresses everyone is using now?
2180 2013-04-21 21:28:32 <sipa> for normal scripts there is no advantage
2181 2013-04-21 21:28:45 <sipa> as there exists already a scheme for conveying such script
2182 2013-04-21 21:28:50 <sipa> namely standard addresses
2183 2013-04-21 21:29:33 <dissipate> sipa, but the advantage is that it allows arbitrary scripts to be used by anyone in the future. for instance, blockchain.info would switch to just PSH hashes instead of the addresses.
2184 2013-04-21 21:29:47 <sipa> sure
2185 2013-04-21 21:29:59 <sipa> but complex scripts haven't seen much uptake in general
2186 2013-04-21 21:30:06 <dissipate> sipa, right now, i see a big possibility for confusion on this matter.
2187 2013-04-21 21:30:19 <sipa> how so?
2188 2013-04-21 21:30:53 <dissipate> people only really know about the addresses, not the scripts. if the scripts remain a 'hidden feature', there is going to be confusion.
2189 2013-04-21 21:30:59 <sipa> i can give you a p2sh address right now, you won't know, and don't need to know, and you could send couns to it, and it would work
2190 2013-04-21 21:31:16 sgornick has joined
2191 2013-04-21 21:31:37 <sipa> i think people shouldn't be seeing script or addresses at all
2192 2013-04-21 21:31:37 <dissipate> sipa, and what is blockchain.info going to show as the script in the output?
2193 2013-04-21 21:31:52 <sipa> the p2sh dummy script
2194 2013-04-21 21:32:14 <sipa> i can demonstrate this if you want to
2195 2013-04-21 21:32:30 EPiSKiNG- has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2196 2013-04-21 21:32:48 wizkid057 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2197 2013-04-21 21:32:59 <dissipate> sipa, ok
2198 2013-04-21 21:33:27 <dissipate> sipa, is this going to be a multi-sig script?
2199 2013-04-21 21:33:34 <sipa> i can give you a p2sh address to pay to, and then return it to you
2200 2013-04-21 21:33:49 <sipa> or i can tell you how to create a p2sh address yourself
2201 2013-04-21 21:33:50 starsoccer has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2202 2013-04-21 21:34:00 <sipa> let's keep it simple and just to a single pubkey
2203 2013-04-21 21:34:15 <dissipate> sipa, ok, where is the generator?
2204 2013-04-21 21:34:21 <sipa> bitcoind rpc
2205 2013-04-21 21:34:29 <sipa> createmultisigaddress afaik
2206 2013-04-21 21:35:11 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2207 2013-04-21 21:35:13 <dissipate> and bitcoind keeps track of the actual script for this multi-sig transaction?
2208 2013-04-21 21:35:20 <sipa> indeed
2209 2013-04-21 21:35:42 <BlueMatt> ;;later tell gavinandresen pong (sorry, was out of town all weekend)
2210 2013-04-21 21:35:43 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
2211 2013-04-21 21:35:43 i2pRelay has joined
2212 2013-04-21 21:35:46 <Diablo-D3> sipa: hey I want your opinion
2213 2013-04-21 21:35:54 <dissipate> sweet
2214 2013-04-21 21:35:56 <sipa> but you can recreate it if you have the pubkeys
2215 2013-04-21 21:36:11 <sipa> BlueMatt: when do you arrive in .xh?
2216 2013-04-21 21:36:13 <sipa> .ch
2217 2013-04-21 21:36:15 <Diablo-D3> sipa: what would happen if someone recreated bitcoin without the scripts
2218 2013-04-21 21:36:19 <BlueMatt> sipa: the 1st
2219 2013-04-21 21:36:25 wallet421 has joined
2220 2013-04-21 21:36:35 <sipa> Diablo-D3: predicting the future is hard
2221 2013-04-21 21:36:38 <BlueMatt> sipa: wait, no flight starts on the 1st, get there the 2nd
2222 2013-04-21 21:36:41 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, what would they replace the scripts with?
2223 2013-04-21 21:36:48 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: hard coded actions
2224 2013-04-21 21:36:57 <sipa> you could replace scripts with just addresses
2225 2013-04-21 21:37:09 <Diablo-D3> pay, and a bunch of pay ifs
2226 2013-04-21 21:37:18 <sipa> only support send-to-pubkeyhash
2227 2013-04-21 21:37:24 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, then you would have specific formats for multi-sig, puzzle txs etc. not as flexible.
2228 2013-04-21 21:37:27 <sipa> or pay-to-pubkey
2229 2013-04-21 21:37:33 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: well
2230 2013-04-21 21:37:34 saulimus has quit (Quit: saulimus)
2231 2013-04-21 21:37:44 <Scrat> DiabloCoin
2232 2013-04-21 21:38:08 <Steve132> Not to seem like a newb
2233 2013-04-21 21:38:09 <sipa> BlueMatt: cool
2234 2013-04-21 21:38:12 <Diablo-D3> we only need multiownership and pay second confirm
2235 2013-04-21 21:38:21 <dissipate> sipa, you do realize that fees are not based on the computational complexity of the scripts, but only on the number of bytes the scripts use up? bug or feature?
2236 2013-04-21 21:38:22 <Steve132> but with ecdsa, is 'signing' a message equivilant to encrypting it?
2237 2013-04-21 21:38:39 <Steve132> I sign a message using bob's public key...that means only bob can read it right?
2238 2013-04-21 21:38:44 <Diablo-D3> Steve132: yes
2239 2013-04-21 21:38:48 <Steve132> or do you have to use something like RSA to do that
2240 2013-04-21 21:38:48 <sipa> Steve132: ecdsa cannot do encryption, only signing
2241 2013-04-21 21:38:54 <dissipate> Steve132, if by encrypting it with the public key, yeah.
2242 2013-04-21 21:38:58 [Elementum] has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2243 2013-04-21 21:38:59 <Diablo-D3> sipa: er?
2244 2013-04-21 21:39:15 <sipa> rsa is very special in that its signing operation is the same as encryption in reverse
2245 2013-04-21 21:39:25 <sipa> this is not typical for signature schemes
2246 2013-04-21 21:39:40 <sipa> and ecdsa cannot do encryption at all
2247 2013-04-21 21:39:50 <Steve132> sipa: when I 'sign' it...what does that mean?
2248 2013-04-21 21:39:54 <sipa> its output is just a boolean: correct sig or not
2249 2013-04-21 21:40:01 <sipa> Steve132: look at tbe algorithm
2250 2013-04-21 21:40:07 robbak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2251 2013-04-21 21:40:12 <Steve132> I know I understand the algorithm
2252 2013-04-21 21:40:26 <Steve132> I mean, like, could an attacker intercept a signed message and read it?
2253 2013-04-21 21:40:31 robbak has joined
2254 2013-04-21 21:40:32 <sipa> yes
2255 2013-04-21 21:40:38 <Steve132> ok
2256 2013-04-21 21:40:40 <dissipate> Steve132, of course.
2257 2013-04-21 21:40:41 <sipa> nothing in bitcoin os encrypted
2258 2013-04-21 21:40:42 <Steve132> but can't modify it
2259 2013-04-21 21:40:44 <Steve132> got it
2260 2013-04-21 21:40:48 <BlueMatt> sipa: yea, cant wait
2261 2013-04-21 21:40:50 <sipa> is
2262 2013-04-21 21:40:51 <dissipate> Steve132, the signature just proves it came from you
2263 2013-04-21 21:41:17 <Steve132> got it.
2264 2013-04-21 21:41:17 <dissipate> sipa, wallets are encrypted?
2265 2013-04-21 21:41:25 <sipa> yeah
2266 2013-04-21 21:41:29 <sipa> client side stuff, sure
2267 2013-04-21 21:41:32 <Steve132> What is the preferred /encryption/ scheme nowadays?
2268 2013-04-21 21:41:39 <sipa> but the protocol doesn't care about that
2269 2013-04-21 21:41:42 <sipa> AES
2270 2013-04-21 21:41:50 <Steve132> AES
2271 2013-04-21 21:41:52 <sipa> for symmetric encryption
2272 2013-04-21 21:41:57 <wallet421> steve132 AES, and key exchange auth with rsa
2273 2013-04-21 21:42:01 <wallet421> dh
2274 2013-04-21 21:42:03 <Diablo-D3> when are they could to do AES2
2275 2013-04-21 21:42:09 <Scrat> DiabloCoin will use Double Rot13
2276 2013-04-21 21:42:19 <dissipate> Steve132, don't worry. the NSA has it back doored, so you can call them if you lose  your passphrase/key
2277 2013-04-21 21:42:21 <Diablo-D3> Scrat: no man, quadruple, no one will ever figure it out
2278 2013-04-21 21:42:24 <Steve132> haha
2279 2013-04-21 21:42:42 <BlueMatt> sipa: at least I have housing for after the 1st month...ah well life's no fun if you know where you're gonna be staying for a month :)
2280 2013-04-21 21:42:43 <sipa> rot104 will beat everuthing
2281 2013-04-21 21:42:45 <Steve132> AES is symmetric-key, isn't it?
2282 2013-04-21 21:42:57 <wallet421> steve yes
2283 2013-04-21 21:43:11 <wallet421> so if you wanna do asym encryption, use RSA
2284 2013-04-21 21:43:13 <Steve132> Whats the best public-key system?
2285 2013-04-21 21:43:15 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2286 2013-04-21 21:43:16 <Steve132> ok
2287 2013-04-21 21:43:20 <Diablo-D3> I dunno, I'm seriously considering doing DiabloCoin as a research project
2288 2013-04-21 21:43:46 <sipa> Steve132: depends on your priorities
2289 2013-04-21 21:43:47 i2pRelay has joined
2290 2013-04-21 21:43:50 <ProfMac> what research questions?
2291 2013-04-21 21:43:53 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, what are the features of 'DiabloCoin'?
2292 2013-04-21 21:44:07 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: seeing if scrypt can be used correctly
2293 2013-04-21 21:44:15 <Diablo-D3> seeing if everything CAN be handled with scripts
2294 2013-04-21 21:44:19 <sipa> Steve132: ec based stuff has very small signatures, for example
2295 2013-04-21 21:44:22 <wallet421> i do use 3DES for symetic encryption of integer values
2296 2013-04-21 21:44:51 Phoebus has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2297 2013-04-21 21:45:09 <Diablo-D3> seeing if a bitcoin-like currency can be used without tx scripts
2298 2013-04-21 21:45:10 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, consider the fact that tx fees are not based on the computational complexity of the scripts. :P
2299 2013-04-21 21:45:20 <dissipate> at least in Bitcoin
2300 2013-04-21 21:45:28 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: I'm not sure if I want to even handle that
2301 2013-04-21 21:45:57 <Steve132> My question is this: what, if anything, would be the best way to transmit a bitcoin private key to a trusted 3rd party
2302 2013-04-21 21:46:05 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, i thought you were talking about getting rid of the scripts
2303 2013-04-21 21:46:13 <Steve132> and obviously you don't want to do plaintext
2304 2013-04-21 21:46:32 <dissipate> Steve132, some encrypted channel like over SSH or SSL
2305 2013-04-21 21:46:40 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: I thought you were asking about how tx fees are based on tx size and not computational complexity
2306 2013-04-21 21:46:40 <Steve132> right
2307 2013-04-21 21:46:44 <Steve132> and SSL uses RSA
2308 2013-04-21 21:46:53 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: I wouldnt want to consider how to tie tx fees to computational complexity
2309 2013-04-21 21:47:08 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: although I'd like to tie tx fees to historical tx fees.
2310 2013-04-21 21:47:35 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, you would run the script through a complexity analyzer that would output the number of CPU cycles that would be required to run the script, and then generate a tx fee based on that.
2311 2013-04-21 21:49:50 <wallet421> SSL used RSA-DH for key exchange, encryption is RC_4 or AES
2312 2013-04-21 21:50:41 Elmf has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2313 2013-04-21 21:51:03 xenesis_ has joined
2314 2013-04-21 21:51:16 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2315 2013-04-21 21:51:19 brson has joined
2316 2013-04-21 21:51:28 <dissipate> sipa, is there a complexity analyzer for the bitcoin scripts?
2317 2013-04-21 21:51:49 i2pRelay has joined
2318 2013-04-21 21:51:59 xenesis has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2319 2013-04-21 21:51:59 xenesis_ is now known as xenesis
2320 2013-04-21 21:52:13 <sipa> dissipate: yes, count the number of OP_CHECKSIGs in it
2321 2013-04-21 21:53:05 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: yes, but I would have to very carefully write a script language that wasnt turing complete
2322 2013-04-21 21:53:34 <dissipate> sipa, so why isn't the tx fee based on that?
2323 2013-04-21 21:53:39 <sipa> dissipate: why would it be?
2324 2013-04-21 21:53:48 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, already been done for bitcoin
2325 2013-04-21 21:53:50 <sipa> cpu time isn't a limited resource now
2326 2013-04-21 21:54:14 <dissipate> sipa, someone could cause a big slow down by transmitting txs with heavy scripts
2327 2013-04-21 21:54:24 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: yes, but the script language isnt very powerful
2328 2013-04-21 21:54:25 <sipa> there are limits
2329 2013-04-21 21:54:37 <sipa> from a miner's (short term, rational) perspective, the best thing to optimize for is fee per byte
2330 2013-04-21 21:54:44 <dissipate> sipa, limits on the size of the script, not the complexity
2331 2013-04-21 21:54:51 <sipa> yes there are
2332 2013-04-21 21:54:51 Sealy has joined
2333 2013-04-21 21:55:13 <dissipate> sipa, well, i mean there is a limit on the complexity, but what if someone is spamming the most complex scripts?
2334 2013-04-21 21:55:38 banghouse has joined
2335 2013-04-21 21:55:44 <sipa> there is a limit on the number of checksigs in a block
2336 2013-04-21 21:55:55 <wallet421> i can do about 8000 checksigs/seconds
2337 2013-04-21 21:56:07 starsoccer has joined
2338 2013-04-21 21:56:14 <sipa> wallet421: i can do about 80000 :p
2339 2013-04-21 21:56:19 <wallet421> whats the maxlenght of script?
2340 2013-04-21 21:56:38 <sipa> 10k
2341 2013-04-21 21:56:47 <dissipate> wallet421, there isn't one. just a limit on the block size.
2342 2013-04-21 21:56:52 <sipa> and individual data elements in it are max 520 bytes
2343 2013-04-21 21:56:59 <sipa> there is no max size for transactions
2344 2013-04-21 21:57:09 Guest57834 has joined
2345 2013-04-21 21:57:18 <dissipate> sipa, where did you see 10K?
2346 2013-04-21 21:57:23 Phoebus has joined
2347 2013-04-21 21:57:31 <sipa> if (script.size() > 10000) return false
2348 2013-04-21 21:57:35 <sipa> in script.cpp EvalScript
2349 2013-04-21 21:57:57 <dissipate> sipa, yikes, that should be in the docs.
2350 2013-04-21 21:58:06 <Diablo-D3> well
2351 2013-04-21 21:58:07 <sipa> "docs" ?
2352 2013-04-21 21:58:09 <Diablo-D3> what Im thinking is this
2353 2013-04-21 21:58:18 <dissipate> sipa, and what is the maximum complexity for a 10K script?
2354 2013-04-21 21:58:20 <sipa> which is this mythical specification you're talking about?
2355 2013-04-21 21:58:26 <dissipate> sipa, wiki
2356 2013-04-21 21:58:35 <sipa> that's either outdated or wrong
2357 2013-04-21 21:58:39 <Diablo-D3> a tx that says "send these coins to this address"
2358 2013-04-21 21:58:39 <wallet421> dissipate for checksig you need 2 values on the stack
2359 2013-04-21 21:59:04 <sipa> you can do a OP_DUP OP_DUP OP_DUP OP_DUP .... OP_CHECKSIG ...
2360 2013-04-21 21:59:15 <Diablo-D3> sipa: lol.
2361 2013-04-21 21:59:17 <wallet421> also you need to make sure the signatures DO match?
2362 2013-04-21 21:59:18 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2363 2013-04-21 21:59:23 <dissipate> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification
2364 2013-04-21 21:59:27 <wallet421> or dont?
2365 2013-04-21 21:59:32 neo2 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2366 2013-04-21 21:59:36 i2pRelay has joined
2367 2013-04-21 21:59:36 <sipa> dissipate: that's just the serialization of data, not the network validity rules
2368 2013-04-21 21:59:43 <sipa> dissipate: and i don't think it's up to date either
2369 2013-04-21 22:00:00 <Diablo-D3> a tx that says "these addresses together are group owners known as this address"
2370 2013-04-21 22:00:01 <sipa> doesn't include BIP34, BIP37, BIP38
2371 2013-04-21 22:00:26 <Diablo-D3> (and also includes the number required to make a tx work)
2372 2013-04-21 22:00:27 <denisx> is there a limit how big a tx can be?
2373 2013-04-21 22:00:32 <sipa> denisx: no
2374 2013-04-21 22:00:47 <dissipate> denisx, nope. but if it's too big, it won't fit in a block
2375 2013-04-21 22:00:54 <denisx> ok
2376 2013-04-21 22:01:03 <denisx> and a limit for the coinbase tx?
2377 2013-04-21 22:01:09 <Diablo-D3> and a tx that says "unless this designated party countersigns this tx by this block, this tx is not valid"
2378 2013-04-21 22:01:15 <sipa> no, but the coinbase input is limited to 100 bytes
2379 2013-04-21 22:01:16 taha has joined
2380 2013-04-21 22:01:27 <dissipate> question is if a miner will include a tx that takes up a whole block with the minimum fee...
2381 2013-04-21 22:01:45 <Diablo-D3> and then the clients will prompt users in cases that require more signatures
2382 2013-04-21 22:01:54 wizkid057 has joined
2383 2013-04-21 22:02:08 <Diablo-D3> am I missing any cases?
2384 2013-04-21 22:02:31 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, timestamp based expiration?
2385 2013-04-21 22:02:38 <wallet421> coinbase tx size is limited due block max size
2386 2013-04-21 22:02:58 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: yeah, I just said that
2387 2013-04-21 22:03:26 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, but a block could take hours to generate. a timestamp is a time based deadline.
2388 2013-04-21 22:03:46 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: time is not possible over global distances unless I require all users use GPS clocks.
2389 2013-04-21 22:04:07 <dissipate> GMT?
2390 2013-04-21 22:04:14 <Diablo-D3> no, GPS.
2391 2013-04-21 22:04:32 <wallet421> there was a discussion about p2p mining a few days ago, i only got half of it. what was the general concensus?
2392 2013-04-21 22:04:35 <dissipate> i thought NTP was on GMT...
2393 2013-04-21 22:04:36 <Diablo-D3> see, theres a bunch of satellites in orbit that, among other things, keep accurate time
2394 2013-04-21 22:04:41 <sipa> wallet421: you mean p2pool?
2395 2013-04-21 22:04:43 <Diablo-D3> wallet421: "use p2pool"
2396 2013-04-21 22:04:47 <wallet421> p2pool
2397 2013-04-21 22:04:51 <wallet421> yeah
2398 2013-04-21 22:05:00 <sipa> nothing to conclude, it works great
2399 2013-04-21 22:05:03 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, actually, i don't think GPS time is as accurate. doesn't take into account leap seconds
2400 2013-04-21 22:05:06 <Diablo-D3> wallet421: I dont know why anyone would use anything but p2pool
2401 2013-04-21 22:05:14 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: it doesnt need to
2402 2013-04-21 22:05:23 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: leap seconds are a human representation problem
2403 2013-04-21 22:05:28 <Diablo-D3> it has nothing to do with time keeping
2404 2013-04-21 22:05:29 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, but the advantage there is time is always monotonically increasing with GPS
2405 2013-04-21 22:05:40 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: anything that counts in seconds never has to worry about leap seconds
2406 2013-04-21 22:05:51 <Diablo-D3> same with unixtime
2407 2013-04-21 22:06:18 imTorin has quit (Quit: Page closed)
2408 2013-04-21 22:06:20 <Scrat> Diablo-D3: ofc it has
2409 2013-04-21 22:06:21 <Diablo-D3> lets say the first epoch of your time is a leap second'ed minute
2410 2013-04-21 22:06:22 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, and you think the financial world concurs with this perspective?
2411 2013-04-21 22:06:32 <Diablo-D3> the second minute starts on second 62.
2412 2013-04-21 22:06:45 <Diablo-D3> your clock has ticked 62 seconds no matter if there was a leap second or not.
2413 2013-04-21 22:06:58 <Diablo-D3> it does not effect the count of seconds.
2414 2013-04-21 22:07:04 <wallet421> what about integrating p2pool in the main client then? it would create incentive of "solomining" with p2pool do generate again "some" coins
2415 2013-04-21 22:07:11 <Scrat> Diablo-D3: converting that timestamp to human readable does though
2416 2013-04-21 22:07:22 <Diablo-D3> Scrat: yes, and thats what I already said
2417 2013-04-21 22:07:22 <sipa> wallet421: i'm divided
2418 2013-04-21 22:07:31 <sipa> wallet421: on one hand it would be nice, but it's feature creep
2419 2013-04-21 22:07:32 <Diablo-D3> [05:42:56] <Diablo-D3> dissipate: leap seconds are a human representation problem
2420 2013-04-21 22:07:37 rdymac has joined
2421 2013-04-21 22:07:44 <sipa> wallet421: also, it's written in python :)
2422 2013-04-21 22:07:54 ToryJujube has joined
2423 2013-04-21 22:07:57 <wallet421> sipa, well thats a plus isnt it ;)
2424 2013-04-21 22:07:58 <Diablo-D3> people who write bad code frequently get confused on that issue, so don't feel like you're alone
2425 2013-04-21 22:08:04 <sipa> and it's only for a specific target userbase
2426 2013-04-21 22:08:33 <Diablo-D3> anyhow, time in DiabloCoin will be just like time in Bitcoin
2427 2013-04-21 22:08:39 <Diablo-D3> it will not be a useful time source.
2428 2013-04-21 22:09:12 <sipa> make it use max 1 minute off in block timestamps instead of 2 hours :)
2429 2013-04-21 22:09:46 <Diablo-D3> sipa: that I've been considering.
2430 2013-04-21 22:09:56 <Diablo-D3> I want to punish people with broken clocks _anyhow_
2431 2013-04-21 22:10:03 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2432 2013-04-21 22:10:08 <Diablo-D3> if you're on the internet, there is no reason why your clock should EVER be off
2433 2013-04-21 22:10:13 <sipa> integrate an NTP client
2434 2013-04-21 22:10:23 <wallet421> sipa, i do agree with you on the feature creep argument, but the 51% pool attack would be handled by it wouldnt it?
2435 2013-04-21 22:10:32 <sipa> wallet421: how so?
2436 2013-04-21 22:10:32 <Diablo-D3> every OS in the past 10 years has shipped with NTP, every OS in the past 20-30 years can run NTP.
2437 2013-04-21 22:10:36 <sipa> you still need miners
2438 2013-04-21 22:10:46 <sipa> mining is and remains a specialized business
2439 2013-04-21 22:11:14 <Diablo-D3> and osx and android ships with ntp on
2440 2013-04-21 22:11:24 Sealy has quit (Quit: Sealy)
2441 2013-04-21 22:11:28 <Diablo-D3> windows 8 afailk still doesnt but its a single checkbox to turn it on
2442 2013-04-21 22:11:31 <Diablo-D3> *afaik
2443 2013-04-21 22:12:06 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
2444 2013-04-21 22:12:08 <[Tycho]> I think that Android syncs with GSM by default, not NTP. Are you sure ?
2445 2013-04-21 22:12:17 xenesis_ has joined
2446 2013-04-21 22:12:32 <Diablo-D3> [Tycho]: if you have a GPS or cell phone component, it'll sync with those
2447 2013-04-21 22:12:34 xenesis has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2448 2013-04-21 22:12:34 xenesis_ is now known as xenesis
2449 2013-04-21 22:12:40 <Diablo-D3> [Tycho]: android works on wifi-only devices too
2450 2013-04-21 22:13:09 <[Tycho]> So you think that it can sync with GPS without any special apps ?
2451 2013-04-21 22:13:18 <Diablo-D3> [Tycho]: Im pretty sure it can, but I might be wrong
2452 2013-04-21 22:13:29 <wallet421> so it is the same problem if 60% hashrate would come from p2pool or 60% is from 50btc/slush/btcguild?
2453 2013-04-21 22:13:33 <Diablo-D3> cell phone towers themselves sync with GPS for assisted directional stuff
2454 2013-04-21 22:13:46 <Diablo-D3> so even if android cant, its still close enough
2455 2013-04-21 22:14:03 rdponticelli has joined
2456 2013-04-21 22:14:18 <wallet421> if so, then there is no real reason to integrate it in the reference client
2457 2013-04-21 22:14:29 <Diablo-D3> wallet421: no, its not
2458 2013-04-21 22:14:35 felixhandte has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
2459 2013-04-21 22:14:36 <[Tycho]> I'm not sure, but I think that GSM clock can be wrong
2460 2013-04-21 22:14:37 <Diablo-D3> wallet421: p2pool works by having every user run their own bitcoind
2461 2013-04-21 22:14:46 <Diablo-D3> [Tycho]: yes, it can be
2462 2013-04-21 22:14:51 <Diablo-D3> [Tycho]: sometimes towers ie
2463 2013-04-21 22:14:53 <Diablo-D3> *lie
2464 2013-04-21 22:15:18 <Diablo-D3> [Tycho]: although as far as I know, you don't need to connect to a tower to get time/direction from it
2465 2013-04-21 22:15:39 <Diablo-D3> [Tycho]: so you can just listen for time/location signals from all local towers and deduce an accurate time
2466 2013-04-21 22:15:41 <wallet421> Diablo-D3: thats a desired thing if everyone runs bitcoind?
2467 2013-04-21 22:15:50 <Diablo-D3> wallet421: with p2pool, you MUST run bitcoind
2468 2013-04-21 22:15:59 tmsk has quit (Quit: tmsk)
2469 2013-04-21 22:16:04 <wallet421> yes i understand how it works
2470 2013-04-21 22:16:20 yeahoffline has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2471 2013-04-21 22:16:20 <Diablo-D3> wallet421: 51% attacks happen through making your bitcoind do evil things
2472 2013-04-21 22:16:31 <wallet421> yes
2473 2013-04-21 22:16:34 ThomasV has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2474 2013-04-21 22:16:41 <Diablo-D3> wallet421: even if p2pool was 100% of mining, it cannot become 100% of evil bitcoinds
2475 2013-04-21 22:16:47 <wallet421> and if one big pool runs an evil bitcoind
2476 2013-04-21 22:17:13 <wallet421> extactly thats my point
2477 2013-04-21 22:17:26 <Diablo-D3> its why I've been promoting p2pool for the past year or two
2478 2013-04-21 22:17:33 <Diablo-D3> and its also why most (if not all) bitcoin devs use it
2479 2013-04-21 22:17:53 <sipa> it's so cool to see two people argue for exactly the same thing, using exactly the same arguments
2480 2013-04-21 22:17:59 <sipa> but have it still look like they disagree
2481 2013-04-21 22:18:01 <Diablo-D3> sipa: the wonders of irc
2482 2013-04-21 22:18:17 <wallet421> inb4 circlejerk
2483 2013-04-21 22:20:36 <Diablo-D3> sipa: okay so
2484 2013-04-21 22:20:44 <Diablo-D3> sipa: what can I currently do with bitcoin script?
2485 2013-04-21 22:21:06 <Diablo-D3> I know I can send tx normally, and require multiple signatures for a tx
2486 2013-04-21 22:21:36 LainZ has joined
2487 2013-04-21 22:21:38 <sipa> currently? M-of-N
2488 2013-04-21 22:21:45 <sipa> with N <= 3
2489 2013-04-21 22:22:21 <Diablo-D3> hrm
2490 2013-04-21 22:22:26 <Diablo-D3> so my ideas are already a step up
2491 2013-04-21 22:23:00 owowo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2492 2013-04-21 22:23:22 Graet has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2493 2013-04-21 22:23:29 <wallet421> whats currently the lowest bitcoind version that wouldnt fork?
2494 2013-04-21 22:23:37 <Diablo-D3> wallet421: 0.8.1
2495 2013-04-21 22:23:43 owowo has joined
2496 2013-04-21 22:23:56 <wallet421> srly?
2497 2013-04-21 22:24:04 <Diablo-D3> sipa: because I want to be able to bind coins to a group address
2498 2013-04-21 22:24:12 <sipa> 0.8 won't fork either
2499 2013-04-21 22:24:20 <wallet421> and what block height would the fork happen for other versions?
2500 2013-04-21 22:24:20 MK9 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2501 2013-04-21 22:24:32 <sipa> and anything above 0.4 or 0.5 or so will likely work if you increase the BDB database limits
2502 2013-04-21 22:24:33 <wallet421> i think it would be nice to have a wikipage about that
2503 2013-04-21 22:24:43 D34TH has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2504 2013-04-21 22:24:48 <sipa> http://bitcoin.org/may15.html
2505 2013-04-21 22:24:55 <sipa> every alert links to that page
2506 2013-04-21 22:24:58 chorao2 has joined
2507 2013-04-21 22:25:22 D34TH has joined
2508 2013-04-21 22:25:31 <Diablo-D3> sipa: so like, I can make a tx that goes "these three addresses, x, y, z, are known as a, and to send a tx from a you require signatures from all 3"
2509 2013-04-21 22:25:45 <sipa> Diablo-D3: that works right now
2510 2013-04-21 22:25:56 <sipa> 3-of-3 multisig + P2SH
2511 2013-04-21 22:26:13 <Diablo-D3> sipa: yeah, but it'll be unlimited
2512 2013-04-21 22:26:15 <wallet421> so until may15, bitcoind/0.1.5 wouldnt fork?
2513 2013-04-21 22:26:31 <Diablo-D3> sipa: and they'll be an automatic 2016 block timer on it
2514 2013-04-21 22:26:42 <sipa> Diablo-D3: ok
2515 2013-04-21 22:27:00 <Diablo-D3> sipa: so if the missing signatures never come up, the tx becomes invalid
2516 2013-04-21 22:27:02 Mad7Scientist has quit (Excess Flood)
2517 2013-04-21 22:27:12 shamoon has joined
2518 2013-04-21 22:27:20 Mad7Scientist has joined
2519 2013-04-21 22:27:29 <sipa> wallet421: except that the currently lowest bitcoin version supported right now on the network is 0.2.10, iirc
2520 2013-04-21 22:27:41 <sipa> wallet421: but that is due to p2p protocol differences, not block validity rules
2521 2013-04-21 22:27:42 <shamoon> if i execute the sendfrom myaccount, 1someaddress, 5, 1 - will that deduct from the balnace of my account?
2522 2013-04-21 22:27:47 <shamoon> myaccount, rather
2523 2013-04-21 22:28:07 <sipa> shamoon: yes, but accounts have nothing to do with addresses or coin selection
2524 2013-04-21 22:28:34 <sipa> (which is what most people assume when they ask that question)
2525 2013-04-21 22:28:48 <shamoon> i understand - i'm just trying to track user balance sipa
2526 2013-04-21 22:28:54 <sipa> ok
2527 2013-04-21 22:29:08 <sipa> if you use the accounts feature, you must use sendfrom
2528 2013-04-21 22:29:08 <shamoon> thanks
2529 2013-04-21 22:29:09 jedunnigan has joined
2530 2013-04-21 22:29:21 <sipa> as sendtoaddress is basically just sendfrom with account="" hardcoded
2531 2013-04-21 22:30:03 <shamoon> sipa: thank you
2532 2013-04-21 22:30:07 <Diablo-D3> sipa: can bitcoin bind multiple addresses as a group address?
2533 2013-04-21 22:30:11 shamoon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2534 2013-04-21 22:30:26 <sipa> Diablo-D3: multiple pubkeys in a p2sh address, yes
2535 2013-04-21 22:30:51 robbak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2536 2013-04-21 22:30:52 <Diablo-D3> sipa: but the N-of-M logic is in the tx not the p2sh address?
2537 2013-04-21 22:31:06 <sipa> it's in the script backing the p2sh address
2538 2013-04-21 22:31:12 <sipa> which is provided when redeeming it
2539 2013-04-21 22:31:16 robbak has joined
2540 2013-04-21 22:31:29 <Diablo-D3> sipa: ahh, see, I wouldn't do that in mine I think
2541 2013-04-21 22:31:46 <Diablo-D3> sipa: I'd have a tx type that says "member a signing for group address x's tx y"
2542 2013-04-21 22:31:52 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, BTW, unix time doesn't take into account time dilation. it should really be a table of the seconds passed at the velocity of the Earth's rotation.
2543 2013-04-21 22:32:08 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: it doesnt need to
2544 2013-04-21 22:32:14 <sipa> Diablo-D3: why would the transaction need to know that?
2545 2013-04-21 22:32:25 <sipa> nobody cares about that information until it is redeemed
2546 2013-04-21 22:32:28 <Diablo-D3> sipa: you're right it wouldnt
2547 2013-04-21 22:32:44 <Diablo-D3> sipa: well wait
2548 2013-04-21 22:32:52 <Diablo-D3> sipa: Im talking about signing it to make it a valid tx
2549 2013-04-21 22:33:01 <dissipate> sipa, i thought we just went over all this with the pay to script hash!
2550 2013-04-21 22:33:18 <Diablo-D3> sipa: if you have group address x with members a, b, c: a, b, c need to all sign tx t
2551 2013-04-21 22:33:49 <Diablo-D3> sipa: I guess I can just use a normal send tx to do further signing
2552 2013-04-21 22:33:58 <Diablo-D3> sipa: since its not a countersign, but concurrent signatures
2553 2013-04-21 22:34:24 <Steve132> So, I know ecdsa has a really good keysize to key strength ratio
2554 2013-04-21 22:34:49 <Steve132> like, an effective key strength of 80 bits can be found with a key of size 160
2555 2013-04-21 22:34:49 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, i'm not sure what you are getting at. this seems like an issue for the client of the receiver...
2556 2013-04-21 22:35:06 <Steve132> What is the best public-key system
2557 2013-04-21 22:35:12 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: N-of-M sending
2558 2013-04-21 22:35:12 <Steve132> On those terms?
2559 2013-04-21 22:35:31 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, right. how is this different from bitcoin's pay to script hash?
2560 2013-04-21 22:35:44 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: DiabloCoin doesn't use scripts.
2561 2013-04-21 22:35:48 <Diablo-D3> so it'd need a tx type just for that
2562 2013-04-21 22:36:22 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, what was the reasoning for doing away with scripts?
2563 2013-04-21 22:36:39 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: they're both too powerful and not powerful enough at the same time
2564 2013-04-21 22:36:47 <Diablo-D3> plus there is no UI for using scripts
2565 2013-04-21 22:37:22 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, but the thing is that the sender doesn't care at all with pay to script hash. it's up to the receiver to have the proper clients to support that script.
2566 2013-04-21 22:37:44 <Diablo-D3> like, if someone sends a coin from a pay to script address, and I own a member of that N-of-M group, the client doesn't know how to alert me to also sign
2567 2013-04-21 22:37:49 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, clients can be built to support the scripts. it's extensible.
2568 2013-04-21 22:37:56 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: yes, but it doesn't currently exist
2569 2013-04-21 22:38:00 <Diablo-D3> so the feature might as well not exist at all
2570 2013-04-21 22:38:22 JTF195 has joined
2571 2013-04-21 22:38:30 <sipa> Steve132: on which terms?
2572 2013-04-21 22:38:36 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, it's pretty much dormant, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. someone could be building clients that support N of M and a bunch of other stuff, right now.
2573 2013-04-21 22:38:55 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: yes, but what Im saying is, DiabloCoin would support it from day one
2574 2013-04-21 22:38:57 <sipa> you have verification speed, signing speed, keygen speed, signature size, pubkey size, ... that play a role
2575 2013-04-21 22:39:04 <sipa> Steve132: which matter to you?
2576 2013-04-21 22:39:16 <Steve132> Well, like I heard somewhere that ECDSA is nice because the keys are relatively small with regard to the effective strength of the keys
2577 2013-04-21 22:39:29 <Steve132> but you can't use ecdsa for encryption
2578 2013-04-21 22:39:31 <Diablo-D3> Steve132: ECDSA is nice because its EC signing
2579 2013-04-21 22:39:32 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, suppose a game company comes out with a game, and they allow for scripting and level building. even if no one uses it right away doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.
2580 2013-04-21 22:39:41 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: woah woah woah dude
2581 2013-04-21 22:39:43 Guest57834 has quit (Changing host)
2582 2013-04-21 22:39:43 Guest57834 has joined
2583 2013-04-21 22:39:45 bitafterbit has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2584 2013-04-21 22:39:51 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: back the failtrain up there a bit
2585 2013-04-21 22:39:59 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: I said it might as well not exist, not that it shouldnt exist
2586 2013-04-21 22:40:02 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, wait a second, are you talking about DiabloCoin as a client or as a protocol?
2587 2013-04-21 22:40:04 <sipa> Steve132: you can use ECDH to derive an ephemeral symmetric key, and then use AES with that key for encryption
2588 2013-04-21 22:40:06 <Steve132> so like, I'm asking...like, whats a good asymmetric system that you could easily use on an embedded system
2589 2013-04-21 22:40:07 Guest57834 is now known as EPiSKiNG-
2590 2013-04-21 22:40:10 <Diablo-D3> [06:16:28] <Diablo-D3> dissipate: yes, but what Im saying is, DiabloCoin would support it from day one
2591 2013-04-21 22:40:17 bibbybob has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2592 2013-04-21 22:40:25 rdymac has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
2593 2013-04-21 22:40:35 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: DiabloCoin is an alt-chain concept that uses brand new code and doesnt fork from Bitcoin like all the rest do
2594 2013-04-21 22:40:41 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: for research purposes
2595 2013-04-21 22:40:45 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, it's not clear to me that you are referring to 'DiabloCoin' the protocol or 'DiabloCoin' the client
2596 2013-04-21 22:40:51 <sipa> Steve132: it has key sizes similar to ECDSA, and needs a 32-byte overhead when encrypting
2597 2013-04-21 22:40:53 Ashaman has joined
2598 2013-04-21 22:40:54 <Steve132> Yeah, for my application (merely tangentially btc related, really) I really need an asymmetric system
2599 2013-04-21 22:40:55 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: they are one and the same.
2600 2013-04-21 22:41:17 rdymac has joined
2601 2013-04-21 22:41:22 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: DiabloCoin the client will be the reference client and will implement all required functionality
2602 2013-04-21 22:41:24 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, so your gripe with Bitcoin is that the reference client doesn't support scripts 100%?
2603 2013-04-21 22:41:35 <HM2> Schnorr signatures can be smaller than ECDSA as well, because the hash can be shorter
2604 2013-04-21 22:41:43 <HM2> slightly cheaper to calculate as well
2605 2013-04-21 22:41:44 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: I dont really have a gripe with Bitcoin, Im just saying that these might be better off as dedicated tx types
2606 2013-04-21 22:41:55 <Diablo-D3> HM2: cheaper isnt better
2607 2013-04-21 22:42:00 LainZ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2608 2013-04-21 22:42:04 <HM2> for signing it is
2609 2013-04-21 22:42:17 jtimon has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2610 2013-04-21 22:42:18 <HM2> well verification
2611 2013-04-21 22:42:20 <Diablo-D3> HM2: we need a signature scheme that is very hard to produce private keys from public
2612 2013-04-21 22:42:29 <HM2> Actually i'm not sure if it's cheaper to verify Schnorr, i think it may be
2613 2013-04-21 22:42:38 <sipa> Diablo-D3: ... every signature scheme has that property
2614 2013-04-21 22:42:38 <Diablo-D3> whichever scheme does this the best is theoretically the best for bitcoin
2615 2013-04-21 22:42:42 <sipa> otherwise it's stupid
2616 2013-04-21 22:42:48 <Diablo-D3> sipa: there are stupid schemes out there
2617 2013-04-21 22:42:51 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, i disagree. i say let the ecosystem build up *around* the capabilities. why would you want your 'DiabloCoin' be limited by a reference client?
2618 2013-04-21 22:42:57 Tantadruj has joined
2619 2013-04-21 22:43:06 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: Bitcoin is.
2620 2013-04-21 22:43:14 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, perhaps there are some really cool and useful things that can be done with Bitcoin script.
2621 2013-04-21 22:43:17 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: all clients have a bare minimum that they must implement
2622 2013-04-21 22:43:31 <HM2> Diablo-D3: both Schnorr and ECDSA boil down to the same single DLP
2623 2013-04-21 22:43:46 <HM2> ECDSA was only developed because schnorr was patented
2624 2013-04-21 22:43:47 <Diablo-D3> HM2: then it might possibly not matter which you use
2625 2013-04-21 22:43:49 <Diablo-D3> ahhh
2626 2013-04-21 22:43:51 <Diablo-D3> see
2627 2013-04-21 22:43:56 <Diablo-D3> ECDSA wins automatically then
2628 2013-04-21 22:44:04 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, bitcoin isn't limited by the reference client. there's already other ones out there and the Bitcoin script opens up more possibilities.
2629 2013-04-21 22:44:07 <Diablo-D3> Software must be compatible with prison states like the USA
2630 2013-04-21 22:44:10 <HM2> Diablo-D3: the parents have expired
2631 2013-04-21 22:44:13 <HM2> patents*
2632 2013-04-21 22:44:15 <Diablo-D3> …. heh
2633 2013-04-21 22:44:20 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2634 2013-04-21 22:44:28 <Diablo-D3> HM2: Ill have to look into schnorr then
2635 2013-04-21 22:44:30 <Steve132> sipa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_curve_Diffie%E2%80%93Hellman
2636 2013-04-21 22:44:43 <HM2> Diablo-D3: i like it, it's an elegant scheme
2637 2013-04-21 22:44:46 <Steve132> I'm reading that and it seems to do what I want, but it doesn't seem to specify how to use that as encryption
2638 2013-04-21 22:44:53 <sipa> Steve132: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Encryption_Scheme
2639 2013-04-21 22:44:54 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: yes, but a client must implement a minimum of things
2640 2013-04-21 22:44:55 digitalmagus has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2641 2013-04-21 22:45:06 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: the bitcoin reference client does this
2642 2013-04-21 22:45:09 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, Timekoin needs developers! http://timekoin.org/
2643 2013-04-21 22:45:17 digitalmagus has joined
2644 2013-04-21 22:45:22 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: the difference here is the DiabloCoin reference client has a larger number of things it must implement
2645 2013-04-21 22:45:32 <Diablo-D3> do not read as: more difficult
2646 2013-04-21 22:45:39 <HM2> IES is basically Ephemeral key + ECDH + Encryption from what I can make out
2647 2013-04-21 22:46:06 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, still don't see the reason to get rid of scripts. diablocoin could have scripts but just offer more support for n of m txs built in.
2648 2013-04-21 22:46:16 <HM2> oh it splits the key to generate a MAC as well
2649 2013-04-21 22:46:45 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: I can't think of a reasonable use for scripts once I do n-of-m, third party countersigning, and timeouts.
2650 2013-04-21 22:47:33 rdymac has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2651 2013-04-21 22:47:35 xenesis_ has joined
2652 2013-04-21 22:47:43 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, you don't see the fun in puzzle txs and provably unspendable outputs??
2653 2013-04-21 22:47:50 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: no.
2654 2013-04-21 22:47:57 <dissipate> :(
2655 2013-04-21 22:48:12 <Diablo-D3> it has no place in serious software
2656 2013-04-21 22:48:18 xenesis has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2657 2013-04-21 22:48:18 xenesis_ is now known as xenesis
2658 2013-04-21 22:48:38 <phantomcircuit> Diablo-D3, he did say fun
2659 2013-04-21 22:48:43 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, and the minimum fees for n of m txs in diablocoin?
2660 2013-04-21 22:48:48 <Diablo-D3> SERIOUS SOFTWARE IS SERIOUS BUSINESS
2661 2013-04-21 22:48:51 <Diablo-D3> or whatever
2662 2013-04-21 22:48:55 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: same as normal.
2663 2013-04-21 22:48:59 <sipa> WHY SO SIRIUS
2664 2013-04-21 22:49:05 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: fee on each of the Ns.
2665 2013-04-21 22:49:14 <Diablo-D3> sipa: that meme is evil.
2666 2013-04-21 22:49:14 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, going to support merged mining?
2667 2013-04-21 22:49:19 <sipa> what do fees have anything to do with that?
2668 2013-04-21 22:49:25 <sipa> miners should chose those
2669 2013-04-21 22:49:26 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: I haven't seen the point of merged mining yet
2670 2013-04-21 22:49:30 gst has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2671 2013-04-21 22:49:33 taha has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2672 2013-04-21 22:49:50 <etotheipi_> sipa: is there a serialization format already in existence for transmitting branches of merkle trees?
2673 2013-04-21 22:50:09 <Diablo-D3> sipa: I agree, but the fees will still be normal
2674 2013-04-21 22:50:10 <sipa> etotheipi_: yes
2675 2013-04-21 22:50:15 gst has joined
2676 2013-04-21 22:50:17 <sipa> etotheipi_: BIP37 specifies it
2677 2013-04-21 22:50:17 cads has joined
2678 2013-04-21 22:50:29 <sipa> etotheipi_: partial merkle tree structure
2679 2013-04-21 22:50:29 <etotheipi_> sipa: perfect, that's exactly what I was looking for!
2680 2013-04-21 22:50:34 <Diablo-D3> if I require 2-of-3 to send a tx, it will be a bare minimum of 2 normal txes.
2681 2013-04-21 22:51:53 devrandom has joined
2682 2013-04-21 22:52:22 bakingbread has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2683 2013-04-21 22:52:38 <dissipate> Diablo-D3, merged mining allows you to bootstrap your DiabloCoin with existing miners
2684 2013-04-21 22:52:56 <Diablo-D3> dissipate: yes, but DiabloCoin will have a miner built in.
2685 2013-04-21 22:53:19 orblivion has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2686 2013-04-21 22:53:39 orblivion has joined
2687 2013-04-21 22:55:55 defunctzombie has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2688 2013-04-21 22:56:30 denisx has joined
2689 2013-04-21 22:56:31 <Steve132> sipa: I'm sorry to be asking so many generic crypto questions
2690 2013-04-21 22:56:34 <Steve132> I'm just learning
2691 2013-04-21 22:56:58 <Steve132> what, if any, concerns are there with using the strength of factoring
2692 2013-04-21 22:57:03 <Steve132> to do sorta the same thing
2693 2013-04-21 22:57:06 <Steve132> like
2694 2013-04-21 22:57:13 <Steve132> I'm reading ECDH
2695 2013-04-21 22:57:40 <Steve132> and the basic gist is to use elliptic point mulitplication
2696 2013-04-21 22:57:46 <Steve132> and exploit the fact that its commutative
2697 2013-04-21 22:57:49 <sipa> yup
2698 2013-04-21 22:57:52 <sipa> so what you do
2699 2013-04-21 22:57:59 <sipa> when you want to encrypt a message
2700 2013-04-21 22:58:06 <Steve132> so why not use just regular factoring
2701 2013-04-21 22:58:13 <sipa> shorter keys
2702 2013-04-21 22:58:15 <Steve132> like
2703 2013-04-21 22:58:22 <sipa> you can do regular DH
2704 2013-04-21 22:58:33 <sipa> which works using multiplication modulo a prime
2705 2013-04-21 22:58:36 <Steve132> generate two random integers a_private a_public
2706 2013-04-21 22:58:49 <Steve132> and b_private b_public
2707 2013-04-21 22:59:05 <Steve132> and compute a_private * b_public = a_public * b_private
2708 2013-04-21 22:59:06 <Steve132> or something
2709 2013-04-21 22:59:16 <Steve132> sipa: is that the basic idea?
2710 2013-04-21 22:59:20 <HM2> that's basically DH
2711 2013-04-21 22:59:27 <Steve132> ok
2712 2013-04-21 22:59:30 <sipa> yes, that's DH
2713 2013-04-21 22:59:30 daughterly has joined
2714 2013-04-21 22:59:37 <Steve132> but ECDH has smaller keys?
2715 2013-04-21 22:59:43 <sipa> for the same security level, yes
2716 2013-04-21 22:59:47 <Steve132> cool
2717 2013-04-21 22:59:48 <Steve132> I get it
2718 2013-04-21 23:00:01 <sipa> so
2719 2013-04-21 23:00:01 <Steve132> Second question (again, feel free to ask me to stop bugging you)
2720 2013-04-21 23:00:05 <sipa> to encryption a message
2721 2013-04-21 23:00:21 <sipa> to a public key P (which is an EC point)
2722 2013-04-21 23:00:35 <Steve132> ECDH the 'shared secret' is the X point...isn't the shared secret only 32 bytes?
2723 2013-04-21 23:00:41 <Steve132> I guess 32 bytes is a lot
2724 2013-04-21 23:00:42 <Steve132> actually
2725 2013-04-21 23:00:48 <sipa> it's 256 bits
2726 2013-04-21 23:00:53 <sipa> you generate a temporary private key x, with corresponding public key X
2727 2013-04-21 23:01:08 <sipa> you multiply P*x, resulting in a point Q
2728 2013-04-21 23:01:29 <HM2> also : usually you hash the shared secret rather than using it directly
2729 2013-04-21 23:01:30 <sipa> you hash that point, and use it as symmetric key for AES encrypting your message
2730 2013-04-21 23:01:36 <HM2> :)
2731 2013-04-21 23:01:44 <Steve132> neat
2732 2013-04-21 23:01:53 <sipa> then you transmit X + AES(key=H(Q),msg=m)
2733 2013-04-21 23:02:13 <sipa> to decrypto, multiply X by p, and you get Q again
2734 2013-04-21 23:02:22 <sipa> and you can find the symmetric key
2735 2013-04-21 23:03:07 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2736 2013-04-21 23:03:31 Thepok has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2737 2013-04-21 23:03:32 i2pRelay has joined
2738 2013-04-21 23:03:34 duckybsd has joined
2739 2013-04-21 23:03:39 <HM2> DH is a bit like boolean OR, you need one private key
2740 2013-04-21 23:03:47 <HM2> point addition can be a bit like boolean AND
2741 2013-04-21 23:03:51 <HM2> it's pretty cool
2742 2013-04-21 23:04:27 rdymac has joined
2743 2013-04-21 23:04:30 JZavala has joined
2744 2013-04-21 23:04:33 <sipa> an attacker only known P and X, and can't derive Q from that
2745 2013-04-21 23:04:40 taha has joined
2746 2013-04-21 23:05:27 <Steve132> Can one of the keys be static?
2747 2013-04-21 23:05:48 <sipa> the keypair p/P is tied to the identity of the receiver
2748 2013-04-21 23:05:50 whiterabbit has joined
2749 2013-04-21 23:05:54 <sipa> you can reuse it
2750 2013-04-21 23:06:20 <Steve132> second question: if my message /is/ an ECDSA private key
2751 2013-04-21 23:06:55 <Steve132> could I do something tricky where I use the same private key for the ECDH?
2752 2013-04-21 23:06:59 ColinT has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2753 2013-04-21 23:07:03 wrabbit has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2754 2013-04-21 23:07:09 whiterabbit is now known as wrabbit
2755 2013-04-21 23:07:20 <sipa> sounds dangerous
2756 2013-04-21 23:07:38 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2757 2013-04-21 23:07:39 <Steve132> yeah
2758 2013-04-21 23:07:41 <Steve132> I can see that
2759 2013-04-21 23:07:49 <HM2> why would you want to send someone the private key you're using to share it with them?
2760 2013-04-21 23:08:50 xenesis_ has joined
2761 2013-04-21 23:09:03 xenesis has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2762 2013-04-21 23:09:03 xenesis_ is now known as xenesis
2763 2013-04-21 23:09:16 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2764 2013-04-21 23:09:55 <HM2> Steve132: you can combine addition and multiplication to create more complex key derivation
2765 2013-04-21 23:09:57 <HM2> e.g.
2766 2013-04-21 23:10:11 <HM2> (a + bc)*G = aG + bcG
2767 2013-04-21 23:10:24 <Steve132> HM2: well, I mean
2768 2013-04-21 23:10:24 <HM2> you need either private key b or c, AND key a
2769 2013-04-21 23:11:15 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2770 2013-04-21 23:11:15 <Steve132> I'm basically thinking this
2771 2013-04-21 23:11:19 <Steve132> suppose I'm Alice
2772 2013-04-21 23:11:39 mappum has joined
2773 2013-04-21 23:11:46 i2pRelay has joined
2774 2013-04-21 23:11:52 defunctzombie has joined
2775 2013-04-21 23:11:54 <Steve132> I want to send Bob a message containing a private ECDH key..without going into /why/ I want that
2776 2013-04-21 23:11:55 JTF195 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2777 2013-04-21 23:11:58 <Steve132> Bob doesn't know I exist yet
2778 2013-04-21 23:12:16 <Steve132> An I can only send bob 1 message
2779 2013-04-21 23:12:20 JTF195 has joined
2780 2013-04-21 23:12:21 <Steve132> so
2781 2013-04-21 23:12:35 <Steve132> Bob needs my public key for the ECDH transaction
2782 2013-04-21 23:12:51 <Steve132> so I send him that as the first part of the message...
2783 2013-04-21 23:13:02 <Steve132> I already know bob's public key
2784 2013-04-21 23:13:56 JTF195 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2785 2013-04-21 23:14:09 JTF195 has joined
2786 2013-04-21 23:14:25 <Steve132> call the first ECDH key the 'transaction' key....   Call the key I want to send him the 'message' key....anyway so I encrypt the private message key I want to send to him with AES using the shared secret from the ECDH
2787 2013-04-21 23:14:37 <Steve132> and I append ta to the second part of the message
2788 2013-04-21 23:14:53 <Steve132> so, I've had to generate two ECDSA keys so far
2789 2013-04-21 23:15:04 <Steve132> the one for the 'transaction' and the one in the message
2790 2013-04-21 23:15:30 <Steve132> bob gets the message, uses my public key from the first part and his private key to decrypt the AES message
2791 2013-04-21 23:15:31 <HM2> protocols are where you will screw yourself over
2792 2013-04-21 23:15:47 <HM2> they are harder than using and understanding cryptographic primitives
2793 2013-04-21 23:15:48 <Steve132> and he gets the message
2794 2013-04-21 23:15:49 <Steve132> done
2795 2013-04-21 23:15:58 <Steve132> well, so far, its pretty standard
2796 2013-04-21 23:16:00 JTF195 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2797 2013-04-21 23:16:14 <HM2> Alice can't send Bob her public key over an insecure channel
2798 2013-04-21 23:16:14 JTF195 has joined
2799 2013-04-21 23:16:17 <HM2> how can Bob trust it
2800 2013-04-21 23:16:40 <Steve132> he can't
2801 2013-04-21 23:16:48 <Steve132> but that doesn't matter...suppose I only want to go 1 way
2802 2013-04-21 23:17:03 <Steve132> as in, it doesn't matter if Bob trusts alice
2803 2013-04-21 23:17:34 <Steve132> besides, isn't that how public-key cryptography works?  public keys can be transmitted insecurely
2804 2013-04-21 23:17:50 <Steve132> because they only work to decrypt messages that have been encoded with corresponding private keys
2805 2013-04-21 23:18:00 <HM2> they can be transmitted in cleartext (unencrypted)
2806 2013-04-21 23:18:06 <HM2> but you still need the authenticate the other party
2807 2013-04-21 23:18:08 xenesis_ has joined
2808 2013-04-21 23:18:25 <HM2> anyone can replace your public key in transit and then silently man in the middle you
2809 2013-04-21 23:18:31 <HM2> that's why we have Certificate Authorities
2810 2013-04-21 23:18:36 <Steve132> Right, so you are sayin that bob can't prove that alice sent the message
2811 2013-04-21 23:18:53 xenesis has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2812 2013-04-21 23:18:53 xenesis_ is now known as xenesis
2813 2013-04-21 23:18:55 <Steve132> what if that doesn't matter?  Like, what if it only matters that bob recieve the message with no interference
2814 2013-04-21 23:19:16 <HM2> true, an intermediary can't decrypt the message
2815 2013-04-21 23:19:18 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2816 2013-04-21 23:19:41 Bohren has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2817 2013-04-21 23:19:41 <Steve132> sorta like a box that only bob is allowed to open...he doesn't care if alice sent it or not
2818 2013-04-21 23:19:49 i2pRelay has joined
2819 2013-04-21 23:19:57 <Steve132> the point is that its only for bob
2820 2013-04-21 23:20:18 <HM2> sure that works, but what's the usecase?
2821 2013-04-21 23:20:41 Darin has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2822 2013-04-21 23:20:49 <HM2> Alice may as well use a random ephemeral key if Bob doesn't know what it's to be, or better yet you should use a standard like IES
2823 2013-04-21 23:21:21 <Steve132> Yeah, Alice is going to use a random ephemeral key
2824 2013-04-21 23:21:27 <Steve132> but my question is this
2825 2013-04-21 23:21:35 <Steve132> since Alice is going to throw the key away anyway
2826 2013-04-21 23:21:58 <Steve132> and alice wants to transmit an ephemeral key to bob
2827 2013-04-21 23:22:03 <Steve132> can she use both?
2828 2013-04-21 23:22:07 <Steve132> securely?
2829 2013-04-21 23:22:11 Darin has joined
2830 2013-04-21 23:22:18 <Steve132> like, only generate one ephemeral key instead of two?
2831 2013-04-21 23:22:30 ovidiusoft has quit (Quit: leaving)
2832 2013-04-21 23:22:51 <HM2> yes
2833 2013-04-21 23:23:11 <HM2> Alice generates a random keypair, uses it to encrypt a message to Bob, sends Bob the public part and the encrypted message
2834 2013-04-21 23:23:16 <HM2> Only Bob can decrypt it
2835 2013-04-21 23:23:23 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2836 2013-04-21 23:23:47 <HM2> the problem you will have is there's no authentication, so someone can still tamper with the message even if they can't decrypt it
2837 2013-04-21 23:24:29 <HM2> they could chain some plaintext that read "meet at 8" to "meet at 7", then go and arrest Bob at 7 and impersonate him when Alice showed up :P
2838 2013-04-21 23:24:35 <HM2> *change some plaintext
2839 2013-04-21 23:25:23 rdymac has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2840 2013-04-21 23:25:41 <HM2> that's why IES derives a MAC as well
2841 2013-04-21 23:27:20 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2842 2013-04-21 23:27:39 <Steve132> how could you modify the message wihtout decrypting it?
2843 2013-04-21 23:27:51 i2pRelay has joined
2844 2013-04-21 23:28:05 <Steve132> reliably?
2845 2013-04-21 23:28:25 <Steve132> That seems impossble...
2846 2013-04-21 23:28:37 <HM2> it was a silly example
2847 2013-04-21 23:28:50 McKay has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
2848 2013-04-21 23:29:09 McKay has joined
2849 2013-04-21 23:29:36 <Steve132> Ok?
2850 2013-04-21 23:29:43 <HM2> it's problematic when the message is of a standard form with some encryption modes
2851 2013-04-21 23:29:46 <tumak> note that you can use ECDH for intrudctions over completely insecure channel
2852 2013-04-21 23:29:52 <tumak> *introductions
2853 2013-04-21 23:30:14 <HM2> Steve132: google for Encrypt-then-MAC and MAC-then-Encrypt
2854 2013-04-21 23:30:14 Skav has joined
2855 2013-04-21 23:30:19 <sipa> tumak: as long as there is no active attacker
2856 2013-04-21 23:30:57 <sipa> a problem that doesn't exist with the IES case, as the receiver's pubkey is preshared
2857 2013-04-21 23:31:13 <tumak> yup
2858 2013-04-21 23:31:57 <tumak> alice meets bob for the first time, and bobs key is widely known already
2859 2013-04-21 23:32:07 rdymac has joined
2860 2013-04-21 23:32:13 <Steve132> sipa: I don't get it
2861 2013-04-21 23:32:37 <Steve132> why would you need a MAC exactly?
2862 2013-04-21 23:32:58 Bohren has joined
2863 2013-04-21 23:33:03 <Steve132> how could an attacker change the message bob recieves without knowing alice's secret key?
2864 2013-04-21 23:33:14 <HM2> even if the message is oneway, and only readable by Bob, someone can still randomly flip bits and change the message
2865 2013-04-21 23:33:19 <sipa> don't assume that encryption is authentication
2866 2013-04-21 23:33:27 MobPhone has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2867 2013-04-21 23:33:32 duckybsd has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2868 2013-04-21 23:33:44 <sipa> there may be subtle attacks where someone can modify an encrypted message without invalidating the message
2869 2013-04-21 23:34:00 <HM2> Steve132: if Bob was decrypting the message as soon as they received it and doing something observable based on the content, you can basically tweak the message until they react positively
2870 2013-04-21 23:34:01 <tumak> unless you use ecdh for encryption too
2871 2013-04-21 23:34:14 one_zero has joined
2872 2013-04-21 23:34:16 <tumak> but thats inefficient, usually you do ecdh kex and then use symmetric cipher
2873 2013-04-21 23:34:19 <tumak> and you need mac there
2874 2013-04-21 23:35:22 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2875 2013-04-21 23:35:31 <Steve132> ok
2876 2013-04-21 23:35:37 <Steve132> thanks for answering my questions
2877 2013-04-21 23:35:54 i2pRelay has joined
2878 2013-04-21 23:36:03 ColinT has joined
2879 2013-04-21 23:37:12 rdymac has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2880 2013-04-21 23:37:59 JTF195 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2881 2013-04-21 23:38:49 rdymac has joined
2882 2013-04-21 23:38:54 Btceldur has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2883 2013-04-21 23:39:05 JTF195 has joined
2884 2013-04-21 23:40:32 <HM2> Steve132: remember a little knowledge is sometimes worse than none, use decent libraries that do this stuff for you
2885 2013-04-21 23:43:05 cads has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2886 2013-04-21 23:43:25 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2887 2013-04-21 23:43:57 i2pRelay has joined
2888 2013-04-21 23:46:13 Skav has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2889 2013-04-21 23:46:42 MobPhone has joined
2890 2013-04-21 23:48:45 robbak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2891 2013-04-21 23:49:02 skinnkavaj has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2892 2013-04-21 23:49:13 robbak has joined
2893 2013-04-21 23:49:25 ielo has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2894 2013-04-21 23:50:10 skinnkavaj has joined
2895 2013-04-21 23:51:28 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2896 2013-04-21 23:52:00 i2pRelay has joined
2897 2013-04-21 23:55:22 rzoom has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2898 2013-04-21 23:56:36 torsthaldo_ has joined
2899 2013-04-21 23:56:46 skinnkavaj has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2900 2013-04-21 23:57:45 Tantadruj has quit (Quit: DoubleRecall Turns Paywalls Into Advertising Dollars - NYTimes.com http://nyti.ms/odHOgy)
2901 2013-04-21 23:58:29 torsthaldo has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2902 2013-04-21 23:58:38 xenesis has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2903 2013-04-21 23:59:30 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)