1 2013-05-06 00:00:06 <funky> in channel with 0 moderators, and freedom to use ignore
   2 2013-05-06 00:00:06 <skinnkavaj> i fail to see how this solves anything
   3 2013-05-06 00:00:09 <wallet43> -_-
   4 2013-05-06 00:00:09 AusBitBank has joined
   5 2013-05-06 00:00:14 <funky> I find it simple and efficient
   6 2013-05-06 00:00:18 <gmaxwell> skinnkavaj: sure, but they will have to pay thousands of times more per byte for storage.
   7 2013-05-06 00:00:28 <takeyourhatoff> funky: it does not really matter if you agree with it or not, it gives governments excuses to make bitcoin illigial
   8 2013-05-06 00:00:30 <Corndawg> despite all the negative attention I support the change to remove dust trade from bitcoin... thanks guys
   9 2013-05-06 00:00:32 <skinnkavaj> gmaxwell: so what? a person who wants to do it, will do it..
  10 2013-05-06 00:00:35 <gmaxwell> funky: bitcoin doesn't have a freedom to ignore because everyone must validate all the data.
  11 2013-05-06 00:00:39 <funky> takeyourhatoff: that is impossible
  12 2013-05-06 00:00:40 <OGK> Well, ultimately the rules are what the majority of nodes decide the rules are.
  13 2013-05-06 00:00:49 <takeyourhatoff> funky: what is
  14 2013-05-06 00:00:49 <gmaxwell> OGK: thats not so.
  15 2013-05-06 00:00:54 gagecolton has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  16 2013-05-06 00:00:55 <skinnkavaj> gmaxwell: wikileaks already paid HUGE fees
  17 2013-05-06 00:01:03 <OGK> gmaxwell: not technically, but sociologically.
  18 2013-05-06 00:01:06 <funky> takeyourhatoff: gov is gone they can do nothing to stop btc
  19 2013-05-06 00:01:13 <OGK> The minority blockchain will be considered the "Fork chain"
  20 2013-05-06 00:01:19 <gmaxwell> skinnkavaj: wikileaks didn't do that, and the people I talked to about it were very angry that it was being made to look like they did, fwiw.
  21 2013-05-06 00:01:20 <OGK> the majority blockchain will be considered the "mainline chain"
  22 2013-05-06 00:01:25 <funky> gmaxwell: well i have not read any blockchain I doubt many do
  23 2013-05-06 00:01:27 <sipa> OGK: i disagree
  24 2013-05-06 00:01:33 <funky> most mine,  buy and sell
  25 2013-05-06 00:01:35 <takeyourhatoff> funky: yeah i know, i dont even think a move should be made to stop data storage
  26 2013-05-06 00:01:46 <sipa> OGK: any 'economically significant' group using different rules, is a disaster
  27 2013-05-06 00:01:49 <gmaxwell> OGK: any kind of ambiguity of that would basically disprove the concept.
  28 2013-05-06 00:01:53 <sipa> OGK: whether that's a majority or minority
  29 2013-05-06 00:01:57 <gmaxwell> as sipa says.
  30 2013-05-06 00:01:58 <skinnkavaj> gmaxwell: thats not the point.. the point is no matter what, evil guys can put in "bad content" in the blockchain.. this is not a solution to anything
  31 2013-05-06 00:01:59 <OGK> yes, I said it was destructive.
  32 2013-05-06 00:02:03 Aaiiit1 has left ()
  33 2013-05-06 00:02:07 <takeyourhatoff> jaakkos: is there a way to get lots of testnet coins to do something like that?
  34 2013-05-06 00:02:16 <jaakkos> takeyourhatoff: i've never used the testnet
  35 2013-05-06 00:02:20 <funky> I say gmaxwell can try it and then each miner choose to fork or not
  36 2013-05-06 00:02:22 <funky> simple
  37 2013-05-06 00:02:27 <OGK> in that blockchain forks over ideological disputes must be avoided at all costs.
  38 2013-05-06 00:02:37 <OGK> Instead of having 1BTC
  39 2013-05-06 00:02:39 <gmaxwell> skinnkavaj: forget "bad"— it is a tidy way to raise the cost of bulk data storage without making typical econmically sane transactions more expensive.
  40 2013-05-06 00:02:41 <jaakkos> takeyourhatoff: afaik there is also a limit to how many transactions per second a p2p connection is allowed to transmit
  41 2013-05-06 00:02:46 <OGK> I now have 1BTC and 1ATC
  42 2013-05-06 00:03:05 <funky> gmaxwell:  lol who cares what people write go to parachat and see people write stuff 24/7 there
  43 2013-05-06 00:03:07 Diablo-D3 has joined
  44 2013-05-06 00:03:11 <OGK> but I'm digressing.
  45 2013-05-06 00:03:23 <funky> internet is freedom of expression imo
  46 2013-05-06 00:03:24 <gmaxwell> skinnkavaj: we already use minimum fees to discourage abusing the blockchain for messageing and data storage and they're moderately effective... but we can't increase them without screwing over economically sane txn.
  47 2013-05-06 00:03:52 <takeyourhatoff> jaakkos: that is not really a problem, as long as you can send transactions faster than they can be added to the blockchain, you could do it
  48 2013-05-06 00:03:59 <gmaxwell> funky: So, I'll barge into your house and spray paint swasticas all over your walls. "Freedom of expression". ...
  49 2013-05-06 00:04:16 <OGK> but of course if I mine a block
  50 2013-05-06 00:04:21 <OGK> I can include as much child porn as I want.
  51 2013-05-06 00:04:23 <skinnkavaj> gmaxwell: point is that if people want to abuse the blockchain for storage, they are GOING to do it. It's just a matter of price, and with the right price evil content will end up in the blockchain
  52 2013-05-06 00:04:23 <funky> funky and I beat you
  53 2013-05-06 00:04:26 <funky> so yes both free :d
  54 2013-05-06 00:04:26 <wallet43> dont feed the trolls
  55 2013-05-06 00:04:27 sacrelege has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
  56 2013-05-06 00:04:33 <funky> simultaneous freedom
  57 2013-05-06 00:04:44 <OGK> lol
  58 2013-05-06 00:04:53 <gmaxwell> skinnkavaj: and this fundimentally changes the price distinction between storage and non-storage usage.
  59 2013-05-06 00:05:03 <takeyourhatoff> jaakkos: what is that limit?
  60 2013-05-06 00:05:07 <gmaxwell> skinnkavaj: the difference is that in storage abuse the txout value is lost forever.
  61 2013-05-06 00:05:08 <skinnkavaj> gmaxwell: for what good?
  62 2013-05-06 00:05:24 <gmaxwell> skinnkavaj: in order to keep bitcoin cheap and decenteralized for people who want to use it as money.
  63 2013-05-06 00:05:40 <jaakkos> takeyourhatoff: it was 7 the last time i checked.
  64 2013-05-06 00:05:43 <jaakkos> takeyourhatoff: 7 tps
  65 2013-05-06 00:05:56 <jaakkos> (the wiki still says that, not sure if it's been lifted)
  66 2013-05-06 00:05:58 <gmaxwell> jaakkos: no, nodes can realy far far faster than that.
  67 2013-05-06 00:05:58 <wallet43> 0.7
  68 2013-05-06 00:06:07 <takeyourhatoff> jaakkos: well that happens to be the exact amount that the network can do before it hits the block size limit
  69 2013-05-06 00:06:11 <wallet43> oh the max
  70 2013-05-06 00:06:27 <takeyourhatoff> jaakkos: so with a couple hundred IP's and a fair amount of time, you could do it
  71 2013-05-06 00:06:40 edcba has joined
  72 2013-05-06 00:06:50 <skinnkavaj> gmaxwell: so stupid to trying to fix this problem, this is NOT even a problem.. bad people is going to do bad things, no matter what the price are.
  73 2013-05-06 00:06:59 <jaakkos> gmaxwell: so, the 7 tps has been lifted, or perhaps what's on the wiki means something entirely different?
  74 2013-05-06 00:07:01 <skinnkavaj> we can't forbid it
  75 2013-05-06 00:07:17 johnsoft has joined
  76 2013-05-06 00:07:19 funky has left ()
  77 2013-05-06 00:07:50 <jaakkos> (perhaps 7 tps comes from block size limit?)
  78 2013-05-06 00:07:50 icellan has quit (Quit: icellan)
  79 2013-05-06 00:07:55 <takeyourhatoff> gmaxwell: what is the limit then, if there is one?
  80 2013-05-06 00:08:06 <takeyourhatoff> is my attack do able?
  81 2013-05-06 00:08:26 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Has there been more discussion of OP_RETURN lately? I was discussing your merkle-sum-tree verification thing recently with a company running an eWallet.
  82 2013-05-06 00:08:40 <wallet43> skinnkavaj, you cant forbidd it but you can discurage it
  83 2013-05-06 00:08:45 <petertodd> gmaxwell: They said they really need to be able to segregate sections of the proof somehow so they aren't revealing the total funds they hold.
  84 2013-05-06 00:08:50 <jaakkos> takeyourhatoff: the wiki doesn't really say what the 7 tps is, could be that 10 minutes * 7 tps = maximum block size
  85 2013-05-06 00:09:02 <takeyourhatoff> jaakkos: i think it is that
  86 2013-05-06 00:09:09 <OGK> anyways, I'm gonna run, but let me just reiterate my opinion that the person running the software should decide its policies.
  87 2013-05-06 00:09:10 <petertodd> gmaxwell: So I was thinking mark the coins in the blockchain someone to pre-commit to what proof tree they belong to so they can't be re-used.
  88 2013-05-06 00:09:11 <takeyourhatoff> and that being small is good for this attack
  89 2013-05-06 00:09:30 <OGK> not the person who wrote the software for the node.
  90 2013-05-06 00:09:38 <skinnkavaj> wallet43: so stupid to discourage anything technically because of moral, that is not a solution to anything.. it is not going to solve anything
  91 2013-05-06 00:09:55 <skinnkavaj> people are still going to use blockchain to pust immoral stuff
  92 2013-05-06 00:09:59 <edcba> so what is tonight problem ?
  93 2013-05-06 00:10:15 <skinnkavaj> edcba: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196138.0
  94 2013-05-06 00:10:26 <edcba> i'd say encrypt it so you can't run strings on blockchain et voilà ! :)
  95 2013-05-06 00:11:39 <edcba> that or have some mandatory encoding rules depending on the block number ?
  96 2013-05-06 00:11:49 <wallet43> so i run "cat blockchain.dat | decrypt | strings" on it
  97 2013-05-06 00:12:22 <edcba> but anyway with that stupid script thing everything is doomed :p
  98 2013-05-06 00:12:51 <deego> skinnkavaj: If this is unacceptable to you and you can't change their minds, maybe think of an open source (rather than a company) derivative service that allows for smaller transactions? In a way, don't alts already provide that service?
  99 2013-05-06 00:13:06 grazs has joined
 100 2013-05-06 00:13:09 <jaakkos> takeyourhatoff: yep, jgarzik's post from 2011 confirms that
 101 2013-05-06 00:13:18 <OGK> the future is inevitably third party "checking account" services.
 102 2013-05-06 00:13:20 <skinnkavaj> deego: I don't want to go with altcoins, i want bitcoin just like satoshi INTENDED it to be.
 103 2013-05-06 00:13:27 <takeyourhatoff> jaakkos: link?
 104 2013-05-06 00:13:38 <jaakkos> takeyourhatoff: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3971.msg57036#msg57036
 105 2013-05-06 00:13:41 <edcba> skinnkavaj: i doubt we really know what he intended
 106 2013-05-06 00:13:48 <OGK> a bitcoin address will be a "routing number" rather than an "account number"
 107 2013-05-06 00:13:54 <deego> skinnkavaj: gmaxwell pointed out that satoshi himself restricted transaction size.
 108 2013-05-06 00:13:56 <skinnkavaj> edcba: then you have clearly missed out the bitcoin.pdf, you can find it on google
 109 2013-05-06 00:14:00 <OGK> the block size limit guarantees that if bitcoin continues to grow it will follow this course.
 110 2013-05-06 00:14:12 <deego> (herself? :)
 111 2013-05-06 00:14:15 <edcba> skinnkavaj: i did read it before you knew about bitcoin :)
 112 2013-05-06 00:14:44 agricocb has joined
 113 2013-05-06 00:15:05 <edcba> but what is written may not be the same than what he had in mind
 114 2013-05-06 00:15:32 <rdponticelli> This is open source, nobody stops anybody from making it's own puresatoshicoin
 115 2013-05-06 00:15:54 <OGK> When you see the Buddha, kill the Buddha. When you see satoshi, kill satoshi.
 116 2013-05-06 00:16:12 <deego> Kill one satoshi, there will be 21 million more!
 117 2013-05-06 00:16:38 <deego> err, 2.1 quadrillion, rather?
 118 2013-05-06 00:16:39 <OGK> http://www.dailybuddhism.com/archives/670
 119 2013-05-06 00:16:45 XertroV has joined
 120 2013-05-06 00:16:46 <OGK> (explains the koan)
 121 2013-05-06 00:17:07 <edcba> ok if we limit small tx how much cost now what is worrying you today ?
 122 2013-05-06 00:17:07 <takeyourhatoff> does anyone with a lot of testnet coins want to test my memory exhaustion theory?
 123 2013-05-06 00:17:15 <HM> http://greenwire.us/articles/it-security/cryptocurrency/dr-bitcoin-e02-the-unproven-hypothesis/ <-- this article makes me want to claw at my face
 124 2013-05-06 00:17:19 <scripting> talk about bad math skills OGK
 125 2013-05-06 00:17:31 <OGK> scripting: ???
 126 2013-05-06 00:17:36 <HM> "It does things that people think were impossible in computer science. It’s a highly experimental future research water that it’s traveling on"
 127 2013-05-06 00:17:59 <HM> And here I was thinking Bitcoins protocol/design is pretty damn simple
 128 2013-05-06 00:17:59 <gmaxwell> 16:45 < petertodd> gmaxwell: They said they really need to be able to segregate sections of the proof somehow so they aren't revealing the total funds they hold.
 129 2013-05-06 00:18:02 <scripting> u can't even do 21M bitcoins - 1 satoshi
 130 2013-05-06 00:18:06 <gmaxwell> that sort of defeats the proofs... doesn't it?
 131 2013-05-06 00:18:16 <gmaxwell> petertodd: an ewallet hiding the amount of coins they hold is pretty scarry!
 132 2013-05-06 00:18:26 <gmaxwell> (implies they are fractional reserve!)
 133 2013-05-06 00:19:16 <takeyourhatoff> TIL "Bitcoin uses completely untested moon-level crazy cryptography"
 134 2013-05-06 00:19:19 n5 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 135 2013-05-06 00:19:20 <jaakkos> takeyourhatoff: in theory sustaining such attack costs 7 tps * 0.0005 BTC = 12.6000 BTC/h
 136 2013-05-06 00:19:23 <edcba> haha
 137 2013-05-06 00:19:26 <MC1984_> that would be a new low for web wallets
 138 2013-05-06 00:19:37 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Yeah, see I was thinking, the way that could work is they mark coins in advance as to what "section" they belong too, where that section relates to some kind of log.
 139 2013-05-06 00:19:51 <takeyourhatoff> jaakkos: no, that will not ehaust the ram
 140 2013-05-06 00:19:55 <petertodd> gmaxwell: After all, an eWallet could always collude with another eWallet and borrow their coins for signing the proofs...
 141 2013-05-06 00:19:58 <takeyourhatoff> you need way more than that
 142 2013-05-06 00:20:07 <jaakkos> takeyourhatoff: after the initial investment, sustaining
 143 2013-05-06 00:20:12 <OGK> I like this guy's idea about self-interested (i.e. sociopathic) mining.
 144 2013-05-06 00:20:14 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Or just pay them to sign on their behalf.
 145 2013-05-06 00:20:25 <takeyourhatoff> can a dev comment on how much memory a transaction received, just not included into the block chain uses?
 146 2013-05-06 00:20:35 n5 has joined
 147 2013-05-06 00:20:53 oru has quit (Quit: ~)
 148 2013-05-06 00:21:04 <OGK> it's currently the case that if there's two transactions that contradict each other (e.g. double-spend), for example, miners will prefer the one it received first, right?
 149 2013-05-06 00:21:21 <OGK> the sociopathic miner should prefer the one with the higher fee.
 150 2013-05-06 00:21:33 <petertodd> OGK: yes, which is why double-spending is a lot easier in many cases than you would think
 151 2013-05-06 00:21:34 <michagogo> OGK: For all you know, some do
 152 2013-05-06 00:21:39 brson has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 153 2013-05-06 00:22:15 <sipa> takeyourhatoff: a few hundred bytes
 154 2013-05-06 00:22:29 <edcba> max ?
 155 2013-05-06 00:22:37 <takeyourhatoff> sipa: are there protections against spamming loads of transactions?
 156 2013-05-06 00:22:49 oru has joined
 157 2013-05-06 00:22:49 oru has quit (Changing host)
 158 2013-05-06 00:22:49 oru has joined
 159 2013-05-06 00:22:54 <takeyourhatoff> or will that genuinly crash every client that has it's memory exhausted
 160 2013-05-06 00:23:15 [\\\] has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 161 2013-05-06 00:23:32 <jaakkos> sipa: so, with 2^32 / 500 * 0.0005 BTC = 4295 BTC, is it possible to waste 4 GB of everyone's memory and sustain the attack with 7 tps * 0.0005 BTC = 12.6000 BTC/h ?
 162 2013-05-06 00:23:32 <edcba> i doubt there is yet any check for bad node behaviors...
 163 2013-05-06 00:24:07 Ogig has joined
 164 2013-05-06 00:24:25 <edcba> ok maybe we should just prioritize bandwidth too
 165 2013-05-06 00:25:23 <sipa> jaakkos: it may be more than that because of other protection rules, but in theory it's certainly possible to blow up memory pools, yes
 166 2013-05-06 00:25:23 <petertodd> jaakkos: min relay fee is 0.0001
 167 2013-05-06 00:25:27 <takeyourhatoff> jaakkos: sipa i know that seems like a lot of money, but if you are able to bring down the majority of the bitcoin network with just $400000, surely that is a  problem
 168 2013-05-06 00:25:35 <takeyourhatoff> and is not like it is reboot, ok
 169 2013-05-06 00:25:41 <takeyourhatoff> as long as you are sustaining the attack
 170 2013-05-06 00:26:00 <takeyourhatoff> the txn's will get rebroadcast to you and your client will die again
 171 2013-05-06 00:26:38 <takeyourhatoff> ;;calc 2**32/(500*0.0001)
 172 2013-05-06 00:26:39 <gribble> 85899345920
 173 2013-05-06 00:26:43 fishfish has quit (Quit: Bye!)
 174 2013-05-06 00:26:48 michagogo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 175 2013-05-06 00:27:03 <takeyourhatoff> ;;calc 2**32/500)*0.0001
 176 2013-05-06 00:27:04 <gribble> Error: invalid syntax (<string>, line 1)
 177 2013-05-06 00:27:09 <takeyourhatoff> ;;calc( 2**32/500)*0.0001
 178 2013-05-06 00:27:09 <gribble> Error: "calc(" is not a valid command.
 179 2013-05-06 00:27:12 <takeyourhatoff> ;;calc ( 2**32/500)*0.0001
 180 2013-05-06 00:27:13 <gribble> 858.9934592
 181 2013-05-06 00:27:13 [\\\] has joined
 182 2013-05-06 00:28:13 <takeyourhatoff> so with 859BTC, you are saying you can crash most clients on the entire network?
 183 2013-05-06 00:28:21 <takeyourhatoff> does anyone have that much on testnet?
 184 2013-05-06 00:28:54 <edcba> <takeyourhatoff> so with 859BTC, you are saying you can crash most clients on the entire network? < EVERYONE SELLLL !!!!!
 185 2013-05-06 00:29:16 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 186 2013-05-06 00:29:19 <takeyourhatoff> edcba: I don't yet believe this is possible
 187 2013-05-06 00:29:34 Apexseals has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 188 2013-05-06 00:29:52 Apexseals has joined
 189 2013-05-06 00:29:54 <edcba> doesn't matter, i just want to buy cheap bitcoins :)
 190 2013-05-06 00:30:04 copumpkin has joined
 191 2013-05-06 00:30:15 bitbiter has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 192 2013-05-06 00:31:20 sacrelege has joined
 193 2013-05-06 00:31:24 <cjd> network with just $400000 <-- kind of incorrect because if you did find a way to crash people, every serious user would upgrade so your downtime would be like 2 or 3 hours (?)
 194 2013-05-06 00:31:42 [\\\] has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 195 2013-05-06 00:31:51 <takeyourhatoff> cjd: it would not be a quick fix
 196 2013-05-06 00:31:53 <edcba> serious <> majority
 197 2013-05-06 00:31:56 <sipa> sure it would be
 198 2013-05-06 00:32:12 AndChat has joined
 199 2013-05-06 00:32:22 <takeyourhatoff> sipa: how would you do it?
 200 2013-05-06 00:32:34 <sipa> "while (mempool.size() > configured_size) { mempool.droprandomtransaction(); }
 201 2013-05-06 00:32:44 <edcba> :)
 202 2013-05-06 00:32:49 <OGK> But this attack is not a fault of the protocol, just the node's behavior is too trustful.
 203 2013-05-06 00:32:55 <sipa> there's been people thinking about more optimal ways to do it
 204 2013-05-06 00:33:03 <takeyourhatoff> sipa: such as?
 205 2013-05-06 00:33:07 <sipa> but if it actually becomes a problem, a quick fix will be there very quickly
 206 2013-05-06 00:33:09 AndChat64721 has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 207 2013-05-06 00:33:11 <OGK> Realistically the node should have a fixed slab allocation.
 208 2013-05-06 00:33:20 <sipa> takeyourhatoff: taking dependencies and fees into account in the decision
 209 2013-05-06 00:33:20 <OGK> And discards from that slab when it is exhausted.
 210 2013-05-06 00:33:23 <takeyourhatoff> sipa: what if is demonstrated on testnet?
 211 2013-05-06 00:33:24 scripting has left ()
 212 2013-05-06 00:33:28 <cjd> echo "try { `cat main.cpp` } catch (x) { goto 1; }" > main.cpp
 213 2013-05-06 00:33:29 <cjd> :)
 214 2013-05-06 00:33:49 <edcba> quick fix indeed
 215 2013-05-06 00:33:56 <sipa> takeyourhatoff: it wouldn't be hard to pull off on testnet
 216 2013-05-06 00:34:12 <sipa> (i think, but there may be policy rules that i forget)
 217 2013-05-06 00:34:27 <cjd> I'm more interested in transactions which cause chain forks
 218 2013-05-06 00:34:29 <takeyourhatoff> sipa: I thought it was free for all, do as much damage as you can
 219 2013-05-06 00:34:43 <cjd> ideally finding them and making PRs so they don't cause much trouble
 220 2013-05-06 00:34:46 <takeyourhatoff> cjd: it could cause a fork if it kicked miners off
 221 2013-05-06 00:34:51 <OGK> I'm also interested in standardizing a method of transmitting out-of-band information about a transaction.
 222 2013-05-06 00:34:56 <cjd> takeyourhatoff: nah
 223 2013-05-06 00:35:01 <cjd> doubtful
 224 2013-05-06 00:35:04 <edcba> cjd: yeah chain forks may make ppl lose their jobs
 225 2013-05-06 00:35:21 <cjd> o_O
 226 2013-05-06 00:35:32 <edcba> chain *forks*
 227 2013-05-06 00:35:42 <takeyourhatoff> can somebody try memory exhaustion on testnet?
 228 2013-05-06 00:35:47 <OGK> For example, Bank X transmits Bank Y 1000BTC, and says out-of-band "1BTC is for your subaccount 1, 3BTC is for your subaccount 5"
 229 2013-05-06 00:35:58 <OGK> so this isn't on the blockchain itself.
 230 2013-05-06 00:36:05 jaequery has joined
 231 2013-05-06 00:37:07 <OGK> because that's not pertinent to anybody but those two parties.
 232 2013-05-06 00:37:12 <OGK> but standardization is still helpful here.
 233 2013-05-06 00:37:14 [\\\] has joined
 234 2013-05-06 00:37:35 jrra has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 235 2013-05-06 00:37:51 <cjd> heh
 236 2013-05-06 00:38:01 nizeguy has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 237 2013-05-06 00:38:04 <cjd> reading about fidelity bonds
 238 2013-05-06 00:38:08 ardeay_ has left ("Leaving")
 239 2013-05-06 00:38:08 <edcba> <bla><tx id=""><account code="">amount</account>...<tx>...<bla> ?
 240 2013-05-06 00:38:08 <cjd> bitcointalk needs this
 241 2013-05-06 00:38:25 <OGK> edcba: probably more like binary-json
 242 2013-05-06 00:38:28 <OGK> but yeah.
 243 2013-05-06 00:38:51 <edcba> damn web ppl
 244 2013-05-06 00:38:57 <OGK> the problem is how the out-of-band communications are supposed to be negotiated.
 245 2013-05-06 00:39:11 macboz has joined
 246 2013-05-06 00:39:14 <edcba> you know what json lacks of ?
 247 2013-05-06 00:39:16 <edcba> validation :)
 248 2013-05-06 00:39:29 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 249 2013-05-06 00:39:30 <OGK> perhaps a meta field in the transaction that describes a URI
 250 2013-05-06 00:39:38 ToryJujube_ has joined
 251 2013-05-06 00:39:45 <OGK> URL, rather.
 252 2013-05-06 00:39:47 <petertodd> cjd: an interesting idea would be a bitcointalk where people set a BTC limit to bypass their whitelist, new users buy bonds if desired, and everyone is expected to use the ignore button agressively
 253 2013-05-06 00:40:03 <OGK> and supporting clients load that URL to load the out-of-band transaction detail.
 254 2013-05-06 00:40:08 <sipa> OGK: PAYMENT PROTOCOL!
 255 2013-05-06 00:40:17 <cjd> /nod
 256 2013-05-06 00:40:28 jrra has joined
 257 2013-05-06 00:40:38 <edcba> OGK: i have an idea about your thing
 258 2013-05-06 00:40:47 <edcba> run another bitcoin network...
 259 2013-05-06 00:41:04 Chuky has quit (Quit: • IRcap • 8.71 •)
 260 2013-05-06 00:41:07 <OGK> edcba: well that's not worth a dime. :P
 261 2013-05-06 00:41:22 mappum has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 262 2013-05-06 00:41:33 <edcba> then balance the things with the 'official' network
 263 2013-05-06 00:41:39 <OGK> my point is that the block size limit problem can be solved by moving the pertinent data out of band.
 264 2013-05-06 00:41:44 ToryJujube__ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 265 2013-05-06 00:41:46 <cjd> crap I commented on the PR to not relay dust
 266 2013-05-06 00:41:51 <OGK> by voluntary agreement between payment processors.
 267 2013-05-06 00:41:52 <cjd> not my inbox is exploding
 268 2013-05-06 00:41:55 <cjd> what have I done :(
 269 2013-05-06 00:42:17 <sipa> cjd: now you get an idea what's it like to be automatically subscribed for _every_ pullreq :D
 270 2013-05-06 00:42:32 <cjd> D:
 271 2013-05-06 00:42:58 * cjd <3 being the BDFL for cjdns
 272 2013-05-06 00:43:26 <OGK> so I won't be using my own bitcoin address
 273 2013-05-06 00:43:34 <OGK> but address of my payment service provider
 274 2013-05-06 00:43:57 <OGK> with routing information relayed not over bitcoin but directly between payment service providers.
 275 2013-05-06 00:44:07 santoscork has quit (Quit: Auto logout …)
 276 2013-05-06 00:45:05 franl has joined
 277 2013-05-06 00:47:39 chorao has joined
 278 2013-05-06 00:47:57 <edcba> ok so you want to reserve bitcoin for mainly banks
 279 2013-05-06 00:48:20 porquilho has quit ()
 280 2013-05-06 00:48:22 <edcba> and let the banks handle change
 281 2013-05-06 00:48:29 <OGK> with the caveat
 282 2013-05-06 00:48:35 <OGK> that anybody can become a bank
 283 2013-05-06 00:48:35 <OGK> yes.
 284 2013-05-06 00:48:58 <cjd> when the price of bitcoin settles out, 'change' won't be so much
 285 2013-05-06 00:49:04 <edcba> i don't really like that
 286 2013-05-06 00:49:11 Casimir has joined
 287 2013-05-06 00:49:13 <edcba> i'd prefer the opposite view :)
 288 2013-05-06 00:49:19 <OGK> that nobody can become a bank?
 289 2013-05-06 00:49:27 * cjd hands edcba rose colored glasses
 290 2013-05-06 00:49:29 <OGK> good luck with that one. ;)
 291 2013-05-06 00:49:34 <edcba> yes but that i can pay my bread anonymously :)
 292 2013-05-06 00:49:39 <sipa> edcba: what do you prefer, few people being able to create transactions, but many able to verify the integrity of the system... or the other way around?
 293 2013-05-06 00:50:12 <cjd> 20:26 < edcba> yes but that i can pay my bread anonymously <-- but then how do you hit on the girl at the store?
 294 2013-05-06 00:50:29 <OGK> girl I got the bitcents for the bacon yknow?
 295 2013-05-06 00:50:35 <edcba> i'll get the cheapest
 296 2013-05-06 00:50:36 <OGK> I have transactions right here
 297 2013-05-06 00:50:44 <sipa> "it just goes UP UP UP"
 298 2013-05-06 00:51:27 <Jere_Jones> sipa: Do you consider your ec lib ready for production use?
 299 2013-05-06 00:51:29 <cjd> I think price crashes are good because they seperate the speculators from the believers
 300 2013-05-06 00:51:33 <sipa> Jere_Jones: no
 301 2013-05-06 00:51:59 <edcba> we got some clearwire stuff affair in france, ie some firm aggregating monetary streams to make tx anonymous...
 302 2013-05-06 00:52:07 <Jere_Jones> sipa: Missing features or missing people banging on it?
 303 2013-05-06 00:52:53 <OGK> edcba: my proposal is to assist exactly that process
 304 2013-05-06 00:52:59 <OGK> aggregrating many transactions into one
 305 2013-05-06 00:53:02 <sipa> Jere_Jones: the latter, but just banging isn't enough - the thing i am afraid of are not problems that will arise accidentally
 306 2013-05-06 00:53:14 chorao has quit (Quit: ja volto)
 307 2013-05-06 00:53:15 <OGK> and sending the information outside the public eye to get it to the proper parties.
 308 2013-05-06 00:53:28 <Jere_Jones> sipa: understood
 309 2013-05-06 00:53:28 <edcba> yes i see that lol
 310 2013-05-06 00:53:32 <sipa> Jere_Jones: it's subtle overflows or edge cases that are easily triggered by an attacker, but don't arise with random keys
 311 2013-05-06 00:53:48 Casimir1904 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 312 2013-05-06 00:53:59 <OGK> given that it burdens the network as much to send 10000BTC as it does 0.01BTC
 313 2013-05-06 00:54:09 wallet431 has joined
 314 2013-05-06 00:54:15 <OGK> the transaction fee will tend to remain fixed if the free market is in play.
 315 2013-05-06 00:54:32 <OGK> similar costs => similar price
 316 2013-05-06 00:54:41 <edcba> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearstream#The_Second_Clearstream_Affair
 317 2013-05-06 00:54:52 grau has joined
 318 2013-05-06 00:55:09 <OGK> so it will tend to favor larger transactions
 319 2013-05-06 00:55:13 <OGK> because of the per-share cost.
 320 2013-05-06 00:56:35 wallet43 has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 321 2013-05-06 00:57:21 <OGK> assessing a larger fee for larger nominal value transactions is nothing more than price discrimination enabled by a collusive oligarchy.
 322 2013-05-06 00:57:48 <OGK> as BTC grows it will no longer be sustainable.
 323 2013-05-06 00:57:53 phma has joined
 324 2013-05-06 00:58:20 <OGK> because I don't CARE how much money YOU get, only how much I get.
 325 2013-05-06 00:58:42 Casimir has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 326 2013-05-06 00:59:07 skeledrew has joined
 327 2013-05-06 00:59:15 <edcba> maybe you'll want to know how much money the guy sending money has :)
 328 2013-05-06 00:59:38 <edcba> else we'll come back to chargebacks etc
 329 2013-05-06 00:59:57 bitRipperX has quit (Quit: leaving)
 330 2013-05-06 01:00:03 <OGK> Right, chargebacks are only possible when an intermediary has control over your BTC.
 331 2013-05-06 01:00:23 <OGK> a very chargeback-averse person would still control his own BTC even in the end-game economy.
 332 2013-05-06 01:01:10 <edcba> anyway nothing prevents you to do what you want but i don't see why standardizing it requires any attention from this chan :)
 333 2013-05-06 01:01:30 <OGK> fair enough. just fishing for guidance from people smarter than me.
 334 2013-05-06 01:01:45 <OGK> and possibly protocol-level support
 335 2013-05-06 01:02:11 <OGK> y'all got more important shit to jam on today though
 336 2013-05-06 01:02:54 OGK has left ()
 337 2013-05-06 01:03:04 <Corndawg> dev ?:   Is taint something that can be applied to BTC or a BTC trade like say, if someone stole a quantity of BTC and the transaction that it happened in was known?  could taint be applied to that money?     Or am I totally misunderstanding what taint is?
 338 2013-05-06 01:03:49 Apexseals has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 339 2013-05-06 01:04:02 <Corndawg> and if I am... is it ppossible to apply something like this to the BTC protocol... something like it might severely cut down on theft, if not cut it out completely
 340 2013-05-06 01:04:08 Apexseals has joined
 341 2013-05-06 01:04:12 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 342 2013-05-06 01:04:28 <Corndawg> like the digital equiv of marking stolen bank bills with dye
 343 2013-05-06 01:04:35 <Corndawg> forever
 344 2013-05-06 01:05:22 <sipa> Corndawg: and bitcoin 'coins' are split and merged by transactions, the tainted coin you try to track will result in sort of a "percentage tainted" for many coins after a while
 345 2013-05-06 01:06:00 <edcba> Corndawg you can totally follow the money yes
 346 2013-05-06 01:06:18 <edcba> now you can't really who has the money
 347 2013-05-06 01:06:22 <edcba> +tell
 348 2013-05-06 01:06:47 <Corndawg> so what if the world agreed that they would accpet 50% tainted money at 50% rate, 10% tainted at 10%, etc... would that be possible?
 349 2013-05-06 01:07:00 <Corndawg> or buildable into proto
 350 2013-05-06 01:07:02 <edcba> you can't say 50% etc
 351 2013-05-06 01:07:06 <sipa> Corndawg: who would decide the taint?
 352 2013-05-06 01:07:10 <sipa> a court?
 353 2013-05-06 01:07:14 <sipa> which?
 354 2013-05-06 01:07:22 <Corndawg> hmm... dunno yet... just thinking this out
 355 2013-05-06 01:07:33 <Corndawg> community concensus maybe?
 356 2013-05-06 01:07:35 <sipa> taint, if anything, is a personal opinion
 357 2013-05-06 01:07:36 Luke-Jr has joined
 358 2013-05-06 01:07:37 <Corndawg> reddit!
 359 2013-05-06 01:07:38 <Corndawg> j/k
 360 2013-05-06 01:07:40 <Corndawg> :)
 361 2013-05-06 01:07:41 <edcba> but you could do something like that
 362 2013-05-06 01:07:49 keystroke has joined
 363 2013-05-06 01:07:51 <Corndawg> also it could be applied to coin considered forever lost (due to loss, hard drive failure, person deceased, etc)
 364 2013-05-06 01:07:53 jaequery has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 365 2013-05-06 01:07:58 <Corndawg> to keep track of amount lost
 366 2013-05-06 01:08:12 <sipa> that's impossible in any case
 367 2013-05-06 01:08:13 keystroke is now known as Guest61570
 368 2013-05-06 01:08:15 <edcba> like you could have your own client allowing you to taint money and 'refuse' tainted money
 369 2013-05-06 01:08:28 <Corndawg> just trying to figure out a way to build into proto a way to severly limit the benefit of theft
 370 2013-05-06 01:08:47 <Corndawg> remove the motivation to do it
 371 2013-05-06 01:08:50 <Corndawg> maybe
 372 2013-05-06 01:09:19 <Corndawg> of course if by concensus, the hacker could spend it away fast enough before it was tainted
 373 2013-05-06 01:09:25 <Corndawg> that wouldn't solve anyway
 374 2013-05-06 01:09:27 <Corndawg> anything
 375 2013-05-06 01:09:30 <Corndawg> rather
 376 2013-05-06 01:09:40 <edcba> maybe we could have some document for each seller telling which money he won't accept etc
 377 2013-05-06 01:10:06 Faradayy has joined
 378 2013-05-06 01:10:13 <Corndawg> theft isn't huge prob now... but prob will increase as more moms/pops join BTC
 379 2013-05-06 01:10:22 <Corndawg> will become a growing prob that needs dealing with
 380 2013-05-06 01:10:36 <Corndawg> as the ranks of the uncomp savvy join the new age
 381 2013-05-06 01:10:50 <edcba> now having such blacklist may pose problems with privacy...
 382 2013-05-06 01:11:12 <Corndawg> but blacklist on the goods not on the user.. how is that priv problem?
 383 2013-05-06 01:11:24 <sipa> it's also easily defeated with coin mixing
 384 2013-05-06 01:11:28 jaequery has joined
 385 2013-05-06 01:11:41 fanquake has joined
 386 2013-05-06 01:11:45 <Corndawg> not if the 50% 10% rule done
 387 2013-05-06 01:11:52 skeledrew has joined
 388 2013-05-06 01:11:53 <Corndawg> they mix in half good money with half bad
 389 2013-05-06 01:11:54 <sipa> yes it is
 390 2013-05-06 01:11:58 enikanorov has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 391 2013-05-06 01:12:02 <Corndawg> then they get 50% price for both
 392 2013-05-06 01:12:11 <Corndawg> they haven't solved their problem
 393 2013-05-06 01:12:12 <sipa> ??
 394 2013-05-06 01:12:14 <edcba> Corndawg: i knew you have some addr you made 3 tx i want to know which one is yours i blacklist 1/2 outputs...
 395 2013-05-06 01:12:17 Guest76486 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 396 2013-05-06 01:12:47 <CodeShark> sooner or later all money will be tainted
 397 2013-05-06 01:12:51 <Corndawg> no I mean, if a vendor or whever only accepts BTC at half the market rate if it has 50% taint
 398 2013-05-06 01:13:01 <Corndawg> he doesnt canre where it comes from good or bad
 399 2013-05-06 01:13:05 <Corndawg> address
 400 2013-05-06 01:13:06 <edcba> you may not have 50% tainted
 401 2013-05-06 01:13:15 <Corndawg> of course... but whatever percentage
 402 2013-05-06 01:13:17 <edcba> it can only be tainted or not
 403 2013-05-06 01:13:19 <Corndawg> you get my point ;)
 404 2013-05-06 01:13:21 <CodeShark> how do you measure "taint"? by who's criteria?
 405 2013-05-06 01:13:30 <CodeShark> *whose
 406 2013-05-06 01:13:33 <Corndawg> OHHH... so your saying you CANT have a percentage
 407 2013-05-06 01:13:36 <sipa> edcba: sure you can
 408 2013-05-06 01:13:54 <Corndawg> is it atomic or not?
 409 2013-05-06 01:13:59 <Corndawg> binary rather
 410 2013-05-06 01:13:59 <CodeShark> do we set up a bitcoin court to decide whether a particular coin is stolen or not?
 411 2013-05-06 01:14:04 <sipa> with A tainted coins with B untainted coins, the outputs are A/(A+B) tainted
 412 2013-05-06 01:14:08 <Corndawg> hhahah... maybe
 413 2013-05-06 01:14:17 <Corndawg> who knows... still thinking this out
 414 2013-05-06 01:14:29 <edcba> ok but i mean when a specific output is tainted...
 415 2013-05-06 01:14:34 <edcba> it will remain tainted
 416 2013-05-06 01:14:50 <sipa> CodeShark: let people just post their store on bitcointal.org and let the mob judge them!
 417 2013-05-06 01:14:54 <sipa> it will work!
 418 2013-05-06 01:14:59 <sipa> *story
 419 2013-05-06 01:15:02 <sipa> *talk
 420 2013-05-06 01:15:13 <CodeShark> lol
 421 2013-05-06 01:15:15 <edcba> or then the theft will just dilute it really easily
 422 2013-05-06 01:15:15 <Corndawg> actually... that happens now on reddit
 423 2013-05-06 01:15:18 * sipa zZzZ
 424 2013-05-06 01:15:29 <Corndawg> seems to work at least as well as mob justive everywhere else ;)
 425 2013-05-06 01:16:01 resinate has quit (Quit: resinate)
 426 2013-05-06 01:16:15 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 427 2013-05-06 01:16:18 <edcba> intelligence of mob = max(intelligence) from mob/individuals in mob
 428 2013-05-06 01:16:28 <Corndawg> anyway... I'm also thinking that if everyone abided by something like this there are other interesting possiblities
 429 2013-05-06 01:16:38 <Corndawg> like... getting lost coins back
 430 2013-05-06 01:16:41 <Corndawg> for example
 431 2013-05-06 01:16:50 <sipa> CodeShark: i think it's very unlikely you'll get people to agree on what is tainted in the first place
 432 2013-05-06 01:16:57 <Corndawg> you lose coins... you appeal to whatever authority (havent figured out yet)
 433 2013-05-06 01:17:12 * edcba only accepts coinbase
 434 2013-05-06 01:17:15 <edcba> pure coins :)
 435 2013-05-06 01:17:22 <CodeShark> sipa: that's exactly the point
 436 2013-05-06 01:17:25 <Corndawg> 100% taint is applied to ALL of the lost coins and the exact amount is give back to the user out of thin air (like mining)
 437 2013-05-06 01:17:51 <Corndawg> so they have their amount of coins back but they can no longer spend the old coins
 438 2013-05-06 01:17:52 <sipa> Corndawg: that'd break the protocol
 439 2013-05-06 01:18:02 CrypticSquared has joined
 440 2013-05-06 01:18:03 <edcba> if we could decide tainted we'll just revert txes
 441 2013-05-06 01:18:15 fanquake has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 442 2013-05-06 01:18:27 Ogig has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 443 2013-05-06 01:18:29 <Corndawg> just brainstorming here
 444 2013-05-06 01:18:34 <sipa> Corndawg: if you can do that, you need a centralized authority controlling coin creation
 445 2013-05-06 01:18:37 <Corndawg> what decides taint now?
 446 2013-05-06 01:18:37 <CodeShark> if you want to involve courts and other such mechanisms used in a civilized society to, if not get people to agree on what happened, at least get them to agree on the outcome - then we're way outside of the bitcoin world where verification requires mathematical/algorithmic proof
 447 2013-05-06 01:18:44 <sipa> Corndawg: you
 448 2013-05-06 01:19:13 <sipa> Corndawg: but taint is very different from breaking the hard network rule that limits coin creation
 449 2013-05-06 01:19:16 <Corndawg> tain of my own coins?   or I can taint others coins?
 450 2013-05-06 01:19:27 ColinT has joined
 451 2013-05-06 01:19:28 <sipa> as i said: taint is a personal opinion
 452 2013-05-06 01:19:38 <CodeShark> how do we review all these claims of thefts? make sure they are indeed thefts?
 453 2013-05-06 01:19:43 <edcba> tainting is just a database
 454 2013-05-06 01:19:44 <sipa> if you want to consider some coin tainted, and track which coins result from it, fine
 455 2013-05-06 01:19:50 <edcba> like a criminal record
 456 2013-05-06 01:19:54 <CodeShark> what if people start to include other crimes, such as drug dealing...or extorsion?
 457 2013-05-06 01:20:04 <CodeShark> would those also qualify as "taint"?
 458 2013-05-06 01:20:18 <Corndawg> democratic concensus I guess
 459 2013-05-06 01:20:26 * edcba apply pink taint for gay coins
 460 2013-05-06 01:20:27 <sipa> Corndawg: no, everyone individually
 461 2013-05-06 01:20:42 <sipa> if you can convince someone that a coin is tainted and he shouldn't trust it, sure
 462 2013-05-06 01:20:49 <sipa> but the protocol doesn't care
 463 2013-05-06 01:20:52 <sipa> and it shouldn't
 464 2013-05-06 01:20:59 <CodeShark> but it's not enough to convince one guy, sipa - you have to convince everyone
 465 2013-05-06 01:21:04 <sipa> CodeShark: bingo
 466 2013-05-06 01:21:12 jaequery has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 467 2013-05-06 01:21:20 <CodeShark> so what if I convince you that that $10 bill in your pocket was once stolen from someone? the guy at the corner drug store doesn't care
 468 2013-05-06 01:21:20 <edcba> there is no way to refuse coins
 469 2013-05-06 01:21:27 <sipa> CodeShark: bingo
 470 2013-05-06 01:21:32 <CodeShark> he'll gladly accept it
 471 2013-05-06 01:21:44 <sipa> (if it wasn't clear: i don't believe the idea of taint will work)
 472 2013-05-06 01:21:44 <Corndawg> not if it has bank dye on it
 473 2013-05-06 01:21:50 fanquake has joined
 474 2013-05-06 01:22:11 rushed has joined
 475 2013-05-06 01:22:13 <edcba> ok let's remind you that bitcoin is a global money
 476 2013-05-06 01:22:13 <CodeShark> if you refuse to spend those $10 because once they were stolen from someone, the only person that suffers is you
 477 2013-05-06 01:22:15 <sipa> you can use it a tool in tracking coins, which perhaps crime investigation services will one day to
 478 2013-05-06 01:22:18 <cjd> ...and take it promptly to satoshidice to wash that ugly red die off of it
 479 2013-05-06 01:22:22 <Corndawg> it was pretty clear... anyway, just thoguht I would ask since it's been going around my head for a bit
 480 2013-05-06 01:22:23 <edcba> so having laws on them is quite complicated
 481 2013-05-06 01:22:46 <sipa> but not as a global 'property' assigned to them
 482 2013-05-06 01:23:02 <sipa> but that inevitably means someone has to decide on initial tainting
 483 2013-05-06 01:23:03 <Corndawg> CodeShark> but the real prob was you accepting in the first place
 484 2013-05-06 01:23:09 <Corndawg> that $10
 485 2013-05-06 01:23:21 XertroV has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 486 2013-05-06 01:23:30 <Corndawg> yeah the who disices question is the thorniest
 487 2013-05-06 01:23:31 <CodeShark> Corndawg: as long as other people out there are willing to accept it and treat it as legal tender, it is rational for you to also accept it
 488 2013-05-06 01:23:36 <Corndawg> decides
 489 2013-05-06 01:23:50 <sipa> Corndawg: anyway, taint... whatever
 490 2013-05-06 01:24:02 Apexseals has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 491 2013-05-06 01:24:13 <Corndawg> CodeShark> as long as everyone does yes... but if a growing percentage of vendors and people wont... you likely wont either
 492 2013-05-06 01:24:14 <sipa> Corndawg: but if you go the other way, and want to conjure coins to refund thefts, you're going pretty much against the most holy rule
 493 2013-05-06 01:24:18 Apexseals has joined
 494 2013-05-06 01:24:35 <Corndawg> not to refund theft... to refund loss
 495 2013-05-06 01:24:40 <CodeShark> so we're going to set up a centralized database for tainted outputs?
 496 2013-05-06 01:24:40 <sipa> same thing
 497 2013-05-06 01:24:48 <franl> Corndawg, that's what insurance is for.
 498 2013-05-06 01:24:55 <sipa> franl +1
 499 2013-05-06 01:25:00 <Corndawg> theft woun't be refunded... but might be curtailed if something like this could be made to wrok
 500 2013-05-06 01:25:03 <CodeShark> who will manage it? how will we deal with the considerable complication in integration with merchant services?
 501 2013-05-06 01:25:28 <sipa> Corndawg: it means you'll need a network rule that says that some central instance gets to decide these refunds
 502 2013-05-06 01:25:42 <Corndawg> true
 503 2013-05-06 01:25:55 <Corndawg> at some level it would prob come to a central auth
 504 2013-05-06 01:25:55 <sipa> Corndawg: a central instance that has exactly the same power as central banks todat
 505 2013-05-06 01:26:31 Guest76486 has joined
 506 2013-05-06 01:26:36 <sipa> Corndawg: if someone loses a bar of gold, he doesn't get it back either, does he
 507 2013-05-06 01:26:46 <edcba> just keeping track of who is owning what is already hard with bitcoin if now we can invalidate coins :/
 508 2013-05-06 01:27:10 <edcba> your gold is now dust !
 509 2013-05-06 01:27:15 <ezdiy> Corndawg: as always, too much of self-appointed righteousness
 510 2013-05-06 01:27:20 B0g4r7 has joined
 511 2013-05-06 01:27:23 * sipa zZzZ for real
 512 2013-05-06 01:27:27 <ezdiy> if merchants want to refuse tainted btc, good for em
 513 2013-05-06 01:27:38 <CodeShark> won't happen
 514 2013-05-06 01:27:50 <ezdiy> yep
 515 2013-05-06 01:27:51 <Corndawg> sipa> no I get that, but gold also has limitations being a non digital currency, that crypto currencyes dont need to have unless we put those limitations on them arbitrarily
 516 2013-05-06 01:28:01 <ezdiy> it takes one non-cooperating merchant to break the scheme
 517 2013-05-06 01:28:06 <sipa> Corndawg: it's not arbitrary
 518 2013-05-06 01:28:37 <edcba> the problem is tainting hasn't been there from beginning so it will be hard to add now :p
 519 2013-05-06 01:28:40 <sipa> Corndawg: the rule is "nobody has anything to say over your coins"
 520 2013-05-06 01:29:00 <ezdiy> edcba: taiting is actually implement and well researched
 521 2013-05-06 01:29:06 <ezdiy> look up colored bitcoins on forums
 522 2013-05-06 01:29:12 <ezdiy> *implemented
 523 2013-05-06 01:29:22 <edcba> but revoking money and refusing it
 524 2013-05-06 01:29:43 <ezdiy> is just as simply as tracing utxos to "genesis" transaction
 525 2013-05-06 01:29:45 <franl> Without a distributed consensus algorithm for tainting bitcoins, it's got to be centralized, which few will accept.
 526 2013-05-06 01:30:05 <ezdiy> the biggest problem is, whom do you trust about taint info?
 527 2013-05-06 01:30:12 <Corndawg> well maybe a distributed consensus algorithm can be invended
 528 2013-05-06 01:30:15 <Corndawg> who knows
 529 2013-05-06 01:30:16 <ezdiy> i mean, zhoutong posts some txid on forums and thats it?
 530 2013-05-06 01:30:21 <edcba> maybe :)
 531 2013-05-06 01:30:26 <sipa> distributed consensus is easy: it's called paxos
 532 2013-05-06 01:30:43 <sipa> decentralized consensus is harder, but it also exists: it's called a blockchain
 533 2013-05-06 01:30:59 SirDefaced has joined
 534 2013-05-06 01:31:21 <CodeShark> but the kinds of decisions that are made when it comes to inclusion/exclusion of transactions from the block chain are fairly black and white
 535 2013-05-06 01:31:34 <ezdiy> one interesting scheme would be 'pay-to-blacklist' insurance company
 536 2013-05-06 01:31:44 <CodeShark> there's some subjectivity in what miners might choose to include - but the rules are fairly specific (with a few bugs here and there)
 537 2013-05-06 01:31:44 <ezdiy> such company would pursue merchants to join the scheme
 538 2013-05-06 01:31:51 <edcba> we'll have to count the votes for each block
 539 2013-05-06 01:32:00 <edcba> etc
 540 2013-05-06 01:32:06 <ezdiy> and whomever wants can pay to blacklist certain taint
 541 2013-05-06 01:32:08 <edcba> ok maybe not that hard
 542 2013-05-06 01:32:12 <CodeShark> in the case of defining what constitutes "theft", not even an entire legislature and a court system can always reach consensus :p
 543 2013-05-06 01:32:31 <ezdiy> ie, same principle as spamhaus
 544 2013-05-06 01:32:51 nova907767 has joined
 545 2013-05-06 01:32:53 <CodeShark> i.e. two people sign a contract, one of them believes the other violated it
 546 2013-05-06 01:32:57 <edcba> hmm dnsbl :)
 547 2013-05-06 01:33:07 <CodeShark> now we need to interpret the contract and determine who is right
 548 2013-05-06 01:33:11 XertroV has joined
 549 2013-05-06 01:33:13 <CodeShark> how do we do this algorithmically?
 550 2013-05-06 01:33:16 <edcba> reminds me of wonderful moments on irc...
 551 2013-05-06 01:33:32 <CodeShark> perhaps the actual circumstances weren't even stipulated in the contract
 552 2013-05-06 01:33:37 <edcba> at least nobody will pick my bitcoins temporarily
 553 2013-05-06 01:33:46 <CodeShark> in which case it will require judgment by some disinterested third party
 554 2013-05-06 01:33:49 <ezdiy> Corndawg: deciding breach of contract algorithmically is hard
 555 2013-05-06 01:33:55 <ezdiy> CodeShark: deciding breach of contract algorithmically is hard
 556 2013-05-06 01:33:56 <Corndawg> I agree
 557 2013-05-06 01:34:07 <edcba> unless contract is purely digital
 558 2013-05-06 01:34:08 <Corndawg> I never claimed it was an easy prob to solve  ;)
 559 2013-05-06 01:34:08 <CodeShark> it's not only hard - it's sometimes impssible
 560 2013-05-06 01:34:09 <ezdiy> because contracts would have to be formalized in machine-readable way
 561 2013-05-06 01:34:41 <ezdiy> forth and oracle is powerful enough, but you have to still trust oracle in the end
 562 2013-05-06 01:34:54 <franl> Bitcoin scripts as contracts?
 563 2013-05-06 01:34:55 <ezdiy> so you might as well trust just escrow, which is the same principle
 564 2013-05-06 01:35:08 <ezdiy> franl: yeah, its kinda useless
 565 2013-05-06 01:35:11 <CodeShark> and in the end it usually comes down to either one guy beat the other guy into submission (or worse) - or involving a third party that mediates
 566 2013-05-06 01:35:12 <ezdiy> the whole oracle concept
 567 2013-05-06 01:35:25 luna has joined
 568 2013-05-06 01:35:44 <ezdiy> since oracle is always central notary about contract input variables which are evaluated
 569 2013-05-06 01:35:46 <SirDefaced> im trying to compile Bitcoin-qt in windows environment but i keep getting a boost error, the QT will compile into an EXE but refuses to open, the db.log gives me an error about mutex. Anyone have any idea?
 570 2013-05-06 01:35:50 <ezdiy> contract only limits what oracle can/not do
 571 2013-05-06 01:35:54 nova90 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 572 2013-05-06 01:36:49 <franl> ezdiy, yeah, Bitcoin shouldn't be morphed into a judicial system.
 573 2013-05-06 01:37:07 skeledrew has joined
 574 2013-05-06 01:37:15 <ezdiy> well, you can still do interesting things though
 575 2013-05-06 01:37:20 <ezdiy> like divorces
 576 2013-05-06 01:37:37 <ezdiy> if two sides agree to divorce, their "shared" wallet up to that point
 577 2013-05-06 01:37:41 <ezdiy> could be split 50/50 etc
 578 2013-05-06 01:37:45 <ezdiy> a lot of contracts work like that
 579 2013-05-06 01:37:55 XertroV has quit (Client Quit)
 580 2013-05-06 01:37:58 <SirDefaced> C:\boost_1_53_0/boost/thread/win32/shared_mutex.hpp:52:99: warning: dereferencin
 581 2013-05-06 01:37:58 <SirDefaced> g type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules [-Wstrict-aliasing]
 582 2013-05-06 01:37:58 <SirDefaced> C:\boost_1_53_0/boost/thread/win32/shared_mutex.hpp:52:99: warning: dereferencin
 583 2013-05-06 01:37:58 <SirDefaced> g type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules [-Wstrict-aliasing]
 584 2013-05-06 01:37:58 <SirDefaced> C:\boost_1_53_0/boost/thread/win32/shared_mutex.hpp:53:52: warning: dereferencin
 585 2013-05-06 01:37:58 <SirDefaced> g type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules [-Wstrict-aliasing]
 586 2013-05-06 01:37:59 <SirDefaced> C:\boost_1_53_0/boost/thread/win32/shared_mutex.hpp:53:52: warning: dereferencin
 587 2013-05-06 01:37:59 <SirDefaced> g type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules [-Wstrict-aliasing]
 588 2013-05-06 01:38:00 <SirDefaced> In file included from C:\boost_1_53_0/boost/interprocess/detail/windows_intermod
 589 2013-05-06 01:38:00 <SirDefaced> ule_singleton.hpp:26:0,
 590 2013-05-06 01:38:01 <SirDefaced> sorry sorry
 591 2013-05-06 01:38:06 <ezdiy> lol
 592 2013-05-06 01:38:22 <ezdiy> SirDefaced: #boost perhaps?
 593 2013-05-06 01:38:25 <CodeShark> compiler output should go to other window? :p
 594 2013-05-06 01:38:26 <SirDefaced> ty
 595 2013-05-06 01:38:33 <SirDefaced> ^_^
 596 2013-05-06 01:38:46 <ezdiy> btw, i'm not even sure mingw compiling works on windows
 597 2013-05-06 01:38:55 <ezdiy> SirDefaced: have you tried using msvc?
 598 2013-05-06 01:39:32 <edcba> also you can try linux
 599 2013-05-06 01:39:53 <ezdiy> there are always brave souls developing on win32
 600 2013-05-06 01:40:02 <ezdiy> heck even original btc client was win32 only :)
 601 2013-05-06 01:40:14 <edcba> i still wonder how it got built
 602 2013-05-06 01:40:14 <franl> Night all, time to crash.
 603 2013-05-06 01:40:15 franl has quit (Quit: O Elbereth!  Gilthoniel!  We still remember ...)
 604 2013-05-06 01:41:37 <SirDefaced> ezdiy i can compile it perfectly in linux but only the linux binary, cross compiling has gave me a headache, and if it was up to me, id only use linux. But i want to learn how to do it for windows as well. :/
 605 2013-05-06 01:41:55 <ezdiy> SirDefaced: ah
 606 2013-05-06 01:41:56 zylche__ has joined
 607 2013-05-06 01:42:00 <amiller_> fucking booelan circuits how do the ywork
 608 2013-05-06 01:42:07 <ezdiy> i just run virtualbox with winxp + msvc
 609 2013-05-06 01:42:23 <SirDefaced> i have no tried msvc hmmm
 610 2013-05-06 01:42:36 <SirDefaced> because everything i have read says "use mingw or die" pretty much.
 611 2013-05-06 01:42:37 <ezdiy> mingw cross toolchain is super headache if youre doing that
 612 2013-05-06 01:42:42 <ezdiy> nah
 613 2013-05-06 01:42:59 <ezdiy> qt/boost works perfect with msvc
 614 2013-05-06 01:43:12 <SirDefaced> maaaaaan -,-
 615 2013-05-06 01:43:32 * SirDefaced tosses a chair across the room.
 616 2013-05-06 01:44:46 <SirDefaced> ezdiy thank you! im going to give it a try riiiight now.
 617 2013-05-06 01:45:22 zylche_ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 618 2013-05-06 01:45:31 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 619 2013-05-06 01:48:42 Apexseals has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 620 2013-05-06 01:48:55 Belxjander has quit (Quit: Sayonara)
 621 2013-05-06 01:49:02 Apexseals has joined
 622 2013-05-06 01:49:23 jaequery has joined
 623 2013-05-06 01:49:44 gritball_ has joined
 624 2013-05-06 01:50:03 skeledrew has joined
 625 2013-05-06 01:50:08 XertroV has joined
 626 2013-05-06 01:50:29 <duSn> SirDefaced: please come back and voice what you find
 627 2013-05-06 01:50:38 <SirDefaced> du
 628 2013-05-06 01:50:41 gritball has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 629 2013-05-06 01:50:48 <SirDefaced> duSn* i will buddy
 630 2013-05-06 01:51:04 TradeFortress has joined
 631 2013-05-06 01:51:23 Belxjander has joined
 632 2013-05-06 01:51:49 <SirDefaced> im also trying the alternative method with gitian in linux aswell to see which is easier/time effective
 633 2013-05-06 01:53:50 wallet431 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 634 2013-05-06 01:55:02 <duSn> mingw/msys/bash/ too?
 635 2013-05-06 01:55:56 <SirDefaced> duSn yes
 636 2013-05-06 01:55:58 <owowo> so what will be the smallest amount of bitcoin that can be send? with 0.8.2
 637 2013-05-06 01:56:52 <jgarzik> heh
 638 2013-05-06 01:56:58 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 639 2013-05-06 01:57:03 <jgarzik> mr. jdillon got the super-troll going, didn't he? :)
 640 2013-05-06 01:59:40 px has joined
 641 2013-05-06 01:59:50 seeingidog__ has joined
 642 2013-05-06 01:59:56 skeledrew has joined
 643 2013-05-06 02:01:27 <owowo> dunno, about jdillion, but there is another thread on bitcointroll where they are already crying about "boycott 0.8.2"
 644 2013-05-06 02:01:47 <owowo> drama never ends...
 645 2013-05-06 02:02:15 <jgarzik> owowo: yeah, jdillon's was the genesis troll ;p
 646 2013-05-06 02:02:49 <owowo> but I'm just curious, dom't want to search the code for the answer, that's why I'm asking, cus my eyes already hurt again... :P
 647 2013-05-06 02:03:43 canoon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 648 2013-05-06 02:04:00 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 649 2013-05-06 02:04:26 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 650 2013-05-06 02:08:21 normanrichards has joined
 651 2013-05-06 02:14:25 ColinT has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 652 2013-05-06 02:14:49 ColinT has joined
 653 2013-05-06 02:15:30 <SirDefaced> now trying with Gitian and getting this error "Refusing to fetch into current branch refs/heads/master of non-bare repository"
 654 2013-05-06 02:15:51 richcollins has joined
 655 2013-05-06 02:16:09 <Luke-Jr> SirDefaced: fix for that is https://github.com/devrandom/gitian-builder/pull/33
 656 2013-05-06 02:16:15 <Luke-Jr> devrandom: going to merge? :P
 657 2013-05-06 02:16:19 molec has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 658 2013-05-06 02:17:30 <cjd> hi luke
 659 2013-05-06 02:17:32 <cjd> May  5 06:56:26 vps named[18854]: client 2001:1af8:2100:1::10#64532: query (cache) 'dNsseeD.BitcOin.dashJr.OrG/A/IN' denied
 660 2013-05-06 02:17:37 Faradayy has quit ()
 661 2013-05-06 02:18:03 <SirDefaced> luke you are the man!!
 662 2013-05-06 02:19:14 <SirDefaced> oh also When i went into #boost they said you can get rid of that warning perhaps by editing boost library to use <mjcaisse> state_data state_={0,0,0,0,0,0};
 663 2013-05-06 02:19:46 <SirDefaced> for boost windows warning that i posted earlier.
 664 2013-05-06 02:20:15 Apexseals has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 665 2013-05-06 02:21:10 Apexseals has joined
 666 2013-05-06 02:23:00 GordonG3kko has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 667 2013-05-06 02:23:22 GordonG3kko has joined
 668 2013-05-06 02:23:42 mollison has left ("PART #bitcoin-mining :QUIT :Leaving.")
 669 2013-05-06 02:23:45 IanCormac has joined
 670 2013-05-06 02:24:02 phpwn has joined
 671 2013-05-06 02:24:23 skeledrew has joined
 672 2013-05-06 02:24:45 <IanCormac> Can someone explain what we hope to accomplish with the new minimum output value limit?
 673 2013-05-06 02:24:49 jaequery has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 674 2013-05-06 02:26:28 <IanCormac> I don't understand why this would prevent people who are doing 1 satoshi transactions from just doing 5430 satoshi transactions instead. However, I can see a lot of problems it would cause
 675 2013-05-06 02:27:16 jaequery has joined
 676 2013-05-06 02:27:16 seeingidog__ has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 677 2013-05-06 02:27:38 <Belxjander> IanCormac: well it also comes up as an anti-blockchain-spam rule as a side-effect... doesn't stop it... but does raise the price :)
 678 2013-05-06 02:28:02 <IanCormac> Yeah, by an incredibly small margin. We already have transaction fees to prevent blockchain spam
 679 2013-05-06 02:28:13 <IanCormac> and besides, why should the client enforce anti-spam measures?
 680 2013-05-06 02:28:14 Tril has joined
 681 2013-05-06 02:28:38 tsche has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 682 2013-05-06 02:29:16 <Belxjander> IanCormac: it shouldn't...
 683 2013-05-06 02:29:30 <IanCormac> Right, but that's what this patch does, right?
 684 2013-05-06 02:29:49 <Belxjander> IanCormac: it is just an alternate use of the minimum transfer rule just upping the price of the spam :)
 685 2013-05-06 02:29:50 <IanCormac> the client no longer relays transactions that meet this much broader "dust" classification
 686 2013-05-06 02:29:59 <Belxjander> seems to be the only real way to make it happen properly
 687 2013-05-06 02:30:02 <IanCormac> The price of spam used to be 0 satoshis
 688 2013-05-06 02:30:08 <IanCormac> Make what happen properly?
 689 2013-05-06 02:30:13 <IanCormac> This won't change anything for spammers
 690 2013-05-06 02:30:21 <IanCormac> they already had to pay a ~5 cent transaction fee
 691 2013-05-06 02:30:23 <IanCormac> or larger
 692 2013-05-06 02:30:28 <Belxjander> well... it is the only real way to combat "spam".... make the spammer pay for each message
 693 2013-05-06 02:30:47 <IanCormac> Don't they do that already with transaction fees?
 694 2013-05-06 02:31:35 bitit has joined
 695 2013-05-06 02:32:29 phpwn has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 696 2013-05-06 02:33:53 tsche has joined
 697 2013-05-06 02:34:35 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 698 2013-05-06 02:35:01 johnsoft has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 699 2013-05-06 02:35:36 <IanCormac> Anyone? Is there any reasoning behind the new minimum output value limit besides forcing spammers to pay marginally more significant amounts per spam transaction?
 700 2013-05-06 02:35:59 skeledrew has joined
 701 2013-05-06 02:37:02 <vrs> IanCormac: block chain size
 702 2013-05-06 02:37:30 <owowo> IanCormac:  I would guess the blockchain got really dusty.. like my miner ;o)
 703 2013-05-06 02:37:33 <IanCormac> How will this actually decrease blockchain size by any significant amount?
 704 2013-05-06 02:37:48 <cjd> IanCormac: tx fees are ignored for very old coins so I could send an enormous shitstorm of tiny payments to you and it would cost you more to spend them than it does to leave them in the chain
 705 2013-05-06 02:38:33 resinate has joined
 706 2013-05-06 02:38:37 <IanCormac> So the solution, then, is to change the algorithms the miners are using, NOT to censor otherwise valid transactions by refusing to relay them
 707 2013-05-06 02:38:52 <IanCormac> They are lots of valid reasons to have valueless transactions
 708 2013-05-06 02:38:57 <IanCormac> or near-valueless
 709 2013-05-06 02:39:03 <cjd> ahh relay wat ahh want
 710 2013-05-06 02:40:09 <cjd> yeah, the code will make miners not mine them either
 711 2013-05-06 02:40:21 <cjd> unless they are willing to mine non-standard transactions
 712 2013-05-06 02:40:22 <IanCormac> Right, so let's just do that
 713 2013-05-06 02:40:37 <IanCormac> no reason to make everyone else block the transactions too
 714 2013-05-06 02:41:09 <cjd> well.. you can also flood the p2p net with crap transactions as well
 715 2013-05-06 02:41:09 <IanCormac> And miners are more equipped to make decisions about what they think should be included than average joe with his bitcoin-qt is
 716 2013-05-06 02:41:46 <jgarzik> IanCormac: if normal clients don't block transactions, then you relay 99% spam
 717 2013-05-06 02:41:52 <jgarzik> IanCormac: the network is trivially flooded
 718 2013-05-06 02:42:18 XertroV has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 719 2013-05-06 02:42:21 bitit has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 720 2013-05-06 02:42:47 bitit has joined
 721 2013-05-06 02:42:47 <IanCormac> Here's a solution that makes a lot more sense regarding tokens, smart property, etc: factor in number of outputs in fee evaluation, if we don't do that already
 722 2013-05-06 02:42:57 <IanCormac> No reason to block the transactions outright
 723 2013-05-06 02:43:19 dawei101 has joined
 724 2013-05-06 02:43:29 <cjd> IanCormac: smart property and colored coin transactions are trivially implemented with transactions which otherwise look perfectly normal
 725 2013-05-06 02:43:40 <cjd> there's no reason why you have to make them look like dust spam
 726 2013-05-06 02:43:58 <IanCormac> And for what reason should a transaction be forced to look "normal"?
 727 2013-05-06 02:44:17 <IanCormac> What about 2-output, 1-satoshi transactions?
 728 2013-05-06 02:44:23 <IanCormac> Those have a lot of perfectly valid uses
 729 2013-05-06 02:44:37 <cjd> which can be implemented other ways
 730 2013-05-06 02:44:44 <IanCormac> But which shouldn't have to be
 731 2013-05-06 02:44:47 <gmaxwell> IanCormac: that doesn't actually solve anything. Say your smart property becomes worthless.. Now there is a technically viable txout in the txout set which the nextwork is forced to carry _forever_ but which is worthless so only a griefer would spend it.
 732 2013-05-06 02:45:04 <cjd> this is like saying "in order to send my perfectly valid email, I *have* to make it look just like viagra spam" I don't buy it.
 733 2013-05-06 02:45:06 <jgarzik> IanCormac: Those transactions may also be trivially used to store data that we must carry for eternity
 734 2013-05-06 02:45:43 <luna> if this is another mention of cp
 735 2013-05-06 02:45:50 <luna> gonna go crazy
 736 2013-05-06 02:45:57 <gmaxwell> IanCormac: Bitcoin is a currency, it's is not a messaging network or a data storage service or whatever else. To the extent that some non-currency users can work along side it without adding additional costs thats fine, but you don't get to bloat the unprunable utxo set.
 737 2013-05-06 02:47:42 <IanCormac> gmaxwell: So how is this a preferable option to charging people based on the number of outputs? And quite frankly, I don't think it's up to you to decide whether or not Bitcoin is a data storage service or not
 738 2013-05-06 02:47:51 <IanCormac> Didn't the very first block have a message in it?
 739 2013-05-06 02:47:52 <cjd> jgarzik: Suppose I wanted to make some huge changes to libccoin by making every function require a memory allocator (a struct with a malloc function) would you be totally against this?
 740 2013-05-06 02:48:16 <gmaxwell> IanCormac: Then people can choose to not use my software.  It's also not up to _you_ to decide that you can force third party people to store data for you without a fight.
 741 2013-05-06 02:49:11 <jgarzik> cjd: That would be an odd way to implement a common pattern.
 742 2013-05-06 02:49:20 <gmaxwell> IanCormac: because adding up insane tx fees doesn't help because it doesn't address the underlying issue of the perpetually stored txouts being uneconomical to redeem, instead increasing fees screws over regular currency users doing regular currency things.
 743 2013-05-06 02:49:27 <jgarzik> cjd: Usually you have a library-wide memory allocator setting.  Set that once at lib init time.
 744 2013-05-06 02:49:42 <jgarzik> cjd: Few programs need more than one allocator at a time.
 745 2013-05-06 02:49:57 <IanCormac> gmaxwell: What the hell kind of regular user has a 1000-output transaction?
 746 2013-05-06 02:50:07 <IanCormac> the vast majority of transactions are 2-output, are they not?
 747 2013-05-06 02:50:07 <gmaxwell> Or if you're in an enviroment where allocator behavior matters you make the program constant memory (other than stack) and allocate it up front.
 748 2013-05-06 02:50:15 andyh2 has joined
 749 2013-05-06 02:50:16 mappum has joined
 750 2013-05-06 02:50:30 <IanCormac> That seems to be a much better indicator of spam than transaction value
 751 2013-05-06 02:51:05 <gmaxwell> IanCormac: 1000? perhaps not— but more than two? sure. people use send many all the time.  The low value txouts are _fundimental_ to the data storage transactions, because they directly add to the cost of the storage because they can never be redeemed.
 752 2013-05-06 02:51:14 <cjd> jgarzik: All of my code uses allocators so that I can group things together by the lifetime of the memory, so for example when I send a ping message, I fork an allocator and use it to store all various state associated with the ping, when it returns or times out, I call allocator->free(allocator) and all of that state is cleaned up.
 753 2013-05-06 02:51:37 larsig has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 754 2013-05-06 02:51:49 <gmaxwell> They are anti-fundimental to actual currency usage, since sending someone an amount thats worth less than it costs to send is not actually a payment.
 755 2013-05-06 02:51:52 <cjd> In cjdns there is are no "destructors" or unregister type functions because I hook the allocator->free() function.
 756 2013-05-06 02:52:29 l00kiNg has left ("Leaving...")
 757 2013-05-06 02:52:46 <gmaxwell> IanCormac: that makes a very clear seperation between abusive and non-abusive usage which you can't get by hitting every user with an additional fee per txout. If you do that, the abusive use would just use two txouts per transaction.
 758 2013-05-06 02:53:28 <IanCormac> If abusive use could only make two txouts per transaction, would they not start paying a lot more in fees to get the same abusive txout volume?
 759 2013-05-06 02:54:03 larsig has joined
 760 2013-05-06 02:54:37 <cjd> https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns/blob/master/memory/Allocator.h <-- this is basically the single element responsable for cjdns not becoming a ball of mud
 761 2013-05-06 02:56:39 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 762 2013-05-06 02:56:49 <cjd> my toy bitcoin parser: 210943 blocks in 1 minute 36 seconds.
 763 2013-05-06 02:56:57 <cjd> because my harddrive is crap
 764 2013-05-06 02:57:02 mrkent has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 765 2013-05-06 02:57:08 fiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 766 2013-05-06 02:57:24 fiesh has joined
 767 2013-05-06 02:57:37 seeingidog__ has joined
 768 2013-05-06 02:57:52 skeledrew has joined
 769 2013-05-06 02:58:03 <cjd> I'm using an allocator which allocates data for the block structure out of an 8MB buffer and resets the pointer after parsing each block
 770 2013-05-06 02:58:29 <IanCormac> ?? Isn't it true that doing txout-based fees would actually charge based on space used *after* the transaction has been sent, punishing spammers but not punishing people doing generic small transactions?
 771 2013-05-06 02:58:38 <gmaxwell> IanCormac: only a third more or so, as you don't save /that/ much from the common parts— and again you'd then be discouraging sendmany which is widely used by regular users, supported in all (?) clients, and is the _preferable_ way for someone to do multiple payments at once.
 772 2013-05-06 02:59:22 <gmaxwell> IanCormac: Isn't it true that you're a member of the communist party??
 773 2013-05-06 02:59:28 <IanCormac> And why should sendmany not get charged proportionately more than a send to a single user?
 774 2013-05-06 02:59:38 <IanCormac> And that is not true, not sure how that's relevant
 775 2013-05-06 02:59:56 <gmaxwell> IanCormac: because they're already charged proportional to their _size_ any other basis for charging is not economically rational for miners.
 776 2013-05-06 03:00:49 <gmaxwell> IanCormac: I'm interested in knowing what usage you're concerned with this harming.
 777 2013-05-06 03:01:15 <IanCormac> I'm concerned with crippling Bitcoin's capability to support transactions of extremely small denominations
 778 2013-05-06 03:01:27 <gmaxwell> So far, no one has suggested one on the pull accept the colored coins one— which I think was answered to people's satisfaction. (That it just means you need to make the color coins large enough to pay for cleaning themselves up)
 779 2013-05-06 03:02:06 <gmaxwell> IanCormac: What capability? You already are forced to include a fee of 50,000x larger when paying a "payment" of 1e-8 and then that "payment" costs more to redeem than it yields in Bitcoin value.
 780 2013-05-06 03:02:20 <IanCormac> And you keep talking about cleaning themselves up; it's not like it's suddenly impossible to send to an unknown private key
 781 2013-05-06 03:02:33 <IanCormac> gmaxwell: And? Just because *you* don't want to use that capability doesn't mean others don't
 782 2013-05-06 03:02:54 <gmaxwell> IanCormac: Bitcoin is a currency, if you want to abuse it for non-currency usages then I invite you to go get your own software.
 783 2013-05-06 03:03:15 <IanCormac> Didn't satoshi himself use it for a non-currency usage in the very first block?
 784 2013-05-06 03:03:24 px has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com)
 785 2013-05-06 03:03:31 <IanCormac> Surely you don't disagree with his ideas for what Bitcoin should be able to do
 786 2013-05-06 03:03:33 <luna> come on now
 787 2013-05-06 03:03:41 <gmaxwell> IanCormac: ...
 788 2013-05-06 03:03:49 <luna> you just being silly
 789 2013-05-06 03:03:54 <IanCormac> No, not really
 790 2013-05-06 03:04:03 <gmaxwell> Yes, really.
 791 2013-05-06 03:04:12 <luna> use bitmessage if you want to send newspaper snippets
 792 2013-05-06 03:04:12 <gmaxwell> Please behave like a non-idiot while in here.
 793 2013-05-06 03:04:15 <IanCormac> I disagree with the assertion that Bitcoin should *only* be used as a currency
 794 2013-05-06 03:04:21 seeingidog__ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 795 2013-05-06 03:04:37 <IanCormac> It has more capabilities than that for a reason
 796 2013-05-06 03:04:48 <gmaxwell> IanCormac: Good for you then.  I disagree that your house should be used only for your living in it, so I'm going to start storing scorpions there.
 797 2013-05-06 03:05:34 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
 798 2013-05-06 03:05:35 <IanCormac> If my house was an ethereal protocol where people who used it for storage paid to do so, I would be fine with that.
 799 2013-05-06 03:05:38 <gmaxwell> IanCormac: You don't get to demand other people store your data for you. If you try to make such demands, don't be surprised when they tell you _NO_.
 800 2013-05-06 03:05:49 <jgarzik> cjd: Yeah, sorry, probably too intrusive a change
 801 2013-05-06 03:05:51 <IanCormac> Aren't you demanding that every time you make a transaction?
 802 2013-05-06 03:06:14 <IanCormac> You're just setting arbitrary definitions of how much storage and for what purpose you think is appropriate
 803 2013-05-06 03:06:15 <jgarzik> cjd: Just don't see a lot of demand for such an API-wide change.  On 32-bit x86, it could have some real impact, because registers are so few.
 804 2013-05-06 03:06:26 <gmaxwell> IanCormac: People participate in Bitcoin to support a decenteralized currency along with the mecheniations required to do so.
 805 2013-05-06 03:06:29 johnsoft has joined
 806 2013-05-06 03:06:37 <IanCormac> Speak for yourself
 807 2013-05-06 03:06:46 <gmaxwell> I do.
 808 2013-05-06 03:06:52 <IanCormac> >People
 809 2013-05-06 03:07:00 <cjd> jgarzik: yeah, I was just thinking about all of the goto/free type stuff and it would probably be faster for me to pull the scripting stuff my direction than push allocators your direction
 810 2013-05-06 03:07:02 <luna> IanCormac: I think you could start an argument in an empty room
 811 2013-05-06 03:07:08 <luna> disagree with the shade of wallpaper
 812 2013-05-06 03:07:23 <luna> think the doorframe could be put to another use
 813 2013-05-06 03:07:25 <Belxjander> IanCormac: whats the difference between a ledger used for monetary accounting and such accounting practice as to encode data into the same accounting ?
 814 2013-05-06 03:08:27 <cjd> good ol' bitcoin, backed by the full faith and credit of interenet drama and will never lose it's value :)
 815 2013-05-06 03:08:44 <Belxjander> gmaxwell: no point in using the blockchain for messaging unless you encode data as part of *valid* transactions
 816 2013-05-06 03:08:54 <gmaxwell> cjd: <3
 817 2013-05-06 03:08:59 lolcookie has joined
 818 2013-05-06 03:09:16 <cjd> yur jelly because cjdns is boring xD
 819 2013-05-06 03:09:40 <Belxjander> cjd: wiggling it in the corner all see-through green ?
 820 2013-05-06 03:09:49 CrypticSquared has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 821 2013-05-06 03:10:12 RBecker is now known as rbecker
 822 2013-05-06 03:10:28 <SirDefaced> So this is my findings so far.. Linux - gitian build > windows compiling everything with mingw
 823 2013-05-06 03:10:54 PartTimeLegend has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 824 2013-05-06 03:11:42 Corndawg has quit (Quit: Bitcoin... Whats in your wallet.dat?)
 825 2013-05-06 03:13:46 bitRipperX has joined
 826 2013-05-06 03:14:21 <bitRipperX> anyone on here using bitcoinjs-server implemented in nodejs
 827 2013-05-06 03:14:23 <bitRipperX> ?
 828 2013-05-06 03:14:26 ColinT has quit (Quit: Linkinus - http://linkinus.com)
 829 2013-05-06 03:14:55 Graet has joined
 830 2013-05-06 03:17:19 Tantadruj has quit (Quit: DoubleRecall Turns Paywalls Into Advertising Dollars - NYTimes.com http://nyti.ms/odHOgy)
 831 2013-05-06 03:17:58 seeingidog__ has joined
 832 2013-05-06 03:18:11 XertroV has joined
 833 2013-05-06 03:20:53 sacrelege has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 834 2013-05-06 03:22:31 D34TH has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 835 2013-05-06 03:24:38 <gmaxwell> heheh
 836 2013-05-06 03:24:59 jaequery has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 837 2013-05-06 03:25:55 <gmaxwell> 'The setting is over here, you set it like this'  "Wow dude, you are a fucking Nazi.  Do as I say BITCOIN! I'm done here if this change is made.  No one dictates what I should or shouldn't send.  I don't give a fuck who you are. How much were you paid by the FEDS?  Was it enough?  You want to regulate bitcoin?  Fuck this."
 838 2013-05-06 03:26:11 <Vinnie_win> So this is the drama du jour
 839 2013-05-06 03:26:23 <cjd> oh you read that
 840 2013-05-06 03:26:34 <gmaxwell> these people have _got_ to be gavin sockpuppets doing this to make me giggle and increase solidarity in the competent user community. No one can possibly be that stupid. :P
 841 2013-05-06 03:26:42 <cjd> I was like... wall of text   [X]<--click
 842 2013-05-06 03:27:02 <cjd> hehehe
 843 2013-05-06 03:28:12 CrypticSquared has joined
 844 2013-05-06 03:30:16 amstan_ has joined
 845 2013-05-06 03:30:33 <bitRipperX> someone mentioned yesterday the wiki is out of data. Where can I find the most up to date rules for writing a compliant server?
 846 2013-05-06 03:30:38 <bitRipperX> do I have to read the source?
 847 2013-05-06 03:30:41 Corndawg has joined
 848 2013-05-06 03:31:05 <cjd> bitRipperX: you're writing something in node.js?
 849 2013-05-06 03:32:49 <bitRipperX> I want to use the bitoinjs-server library in my project but it doesn't work. I'm willing to submit patches but I want to make sure I'm not using outdated documentation
 850 2013-05-06 03:32:50 XertroV has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 851 2013-05-06 03:32:58 <SirDefaced> Luke-Jr: zlibs link is down in the release instructions.
 852 2013-05-06 03:33:08 <Luke-Jr> …
 853 2013-05-06 03:33:19 <bitRipperX> cjd: yeah, in nodejs
 854 2013-05-06 03:33:42 <cjd> Someone I know was playing with bitcoinjs and had poor experiences
 855 2013-05-06 03:33:51 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 856 2013-05-06 03:34:11 <cjd> what do you want to do using it?
 857 2013-05-06 03:34:21 <SirDefaced> yea >_<
 858 2013-05-06 03:35:09 <cjd> might make sense to either connect to a satoshiclient or write a C++/node.js module to do some of the heavy lifting
 859 2013-05-06 03:35:21 <bitRipperX> yeah, I'm not overly impressed with it at the moment but it looks like it has a lot of potential. I want to register transactiona and get alerts once they've been confirmed x number of times.
 860 2013-05-06 03:36:16 Gnaf_ has joined
 861 2013-05-06 03:36:19 Gnaf has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 862 2013-05-06 03:36:29 <amstan_> i noticed the current url for the channel logs from the topic is broken, could that be fixed?
 863 2013-05-06 03:37:12 <cjd> register transactions?
 864 2013-05-06 03:37:16 <cjd> you mean send them into the network?
 865 2013-05-06 03:37:22 Gnaf_ is now known as Gnaf
 866 2013-05-06 03:37:33 CrypticSquared has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 867 2013-05-06 03:37:35 <bitRipperX> cjd: yeah
 868 2013-05-06 03:37:44 <cjd> and you're crafting them manually?
 869 2013-05-06 03:37:50 skeledrew has joined
 870 2013-05-06 03:39:09 <bitRipperX> cjd: no, not really. The idea is, I will be generating thousands (eventually) of addressees for a bunch of wallets. I want to watch those addresses for transactions in realtime.
 871 2013-05-06 03:39:24 <cjd> ahh
 872 2013-05-06 03:39:27 <bitRipperX> the bitcoinjs library seemed perfect for this
 873 2013-05-06 03:39:32 <bitRipperX> but alas
 874 2013-05-06 03:39:41 <cjd> so faster than you can do with http polling against the satoshi client
 875 2013-05-06 03:39:47 <bitRipperX> exactly
 876 2013-05-06 03:40:00 new299_ has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 877 2013-05-06 03:40:12 new299_ has joined
 878 2013-05-06 03:40:16 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 879 2013-05-06 03:40:18 <cjd> checkout picocoin, there's a blockscan function there
 880 2013-05-06 03:40:48 enikanorov has joined
 881 2013-05-06 03:41:07 <cjd> write your node.js thing to recieve block messages from the satoshi client the push them to a pipe, put blockscan on the other side of that pipe
 882 2013-05-06 03:41:10 <cjd> child process
 883 2013-05-06 03:41:24 luna has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 884 2013-05-06 03:41:28 <cjd> and blockscan wants a txt file with a list of addresses when it starts up
 885 2013-05-06 03:41:31 ivan`_ is now known as ivan`
 886 2013-05-06 03:41:38 <lianj> gmaxwell: s/This/There/ ?
 887 2013-05-06 03:41:46 <cjd> and it prints a message every time a payment to one of those addresses is paid to
 888 2013-05-06 03:42:09 phpwn has joined
 889 2013-05-06 03:42:10 <SirDefaced> zlib 1.2.6 doesnt work but zlib 1.2.8 does
 890 2013-05-06 03:42:49 <gmaxwell> oops
 891 2013-05-06 03:43:08 <gmaxwell> lianj: it was technically correct, I note.
 892 2013-05-06 03:43:32 gjs278 has joined
 893 2013-05-06 03:43:52 dawei1011 has joined
 894 2013-05-06 03:44:34 <cjd> kinda like the coinlab contract, it's gramatically correct but it doesn't say what you think it does
 895 2013-05-06 03:44:58 <bitRipperX> awesome man, thanks for the advice. I'll look into the satoshi client and picocoin. eventually I'm going to be running this on a hosted linux box. will the be a problem for the satoshi client?
 896 2013-05-06 03:45:31 <cjd> always put a satoshi client between your stuff and the w0rld
 897 2013-05-06 03:45:42 <cjd> even if you don't use it for your wallet
 898 2013-05-06 03:45:44 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: btw, dunno if you saw - but your "keep crap out of hashes by requiring a preimage" idea also breaks "from address" nonsense ;)
 899 2013-05-06 03:45:59 <bitRipperX> cjd: also, is blockscan part of picocoin or are you referring to a separate thing?
 900 2013-05-06 03:46:17 <cjd> picocoin is a few little chain tools
 901 2013-05-06 03:47:10 <bitRipperX> ah I see. I've been stressing about this bitcoinjs thing. I liked the idea of diving into it and fixiing it, but I need to get this project up and running ASAP.
 902 2013-05-06 03:47:34 <bitRipperX> thanks again
 903 2013-05-06 03:47:49 <cjd> oh
 904 2013-05-06 03:47:50 JTF195 has joined
 905 2013-05-06 03:47:50 dawei101 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 906 2013-05-06 03:48:06 <cjd> you'll still need bitcoinjs to do the version handshake with your satoshi client
 907 2013-05-06 03:48:36 <cjd> but once you have that, you can listen for block messages and relay them on to picocoin and it will print stuff if you got paid
 908 2013-05-06 03:49:10 confused has joined
 909 2013-05-06 03:49:23 <cjd> I have a pretty complete little piece of C which can talk bitcoin to the satoshi client, I might build a node.js C module out of it
 910 2013-05-06 03:49:43 <cjd> conn.on('block', function() ....
 911 2013-05-06 03:49:58 <cjd> get nice parsed blocks
 912 2013-05-06 03:50:40 <confused> can someone give me a hand I am total confused with this phrase "has ALU's in some small multiple of four, if not just four ALU's alone" I have no idea what this mean, can somebody explain that to me?
 913 2013-05-06 03:50:42 richcollins has quit (Quit: richcollins)
 914 2013-05-06 03:52:27 <bitRipperX> cjd: when you say satoshi client, you mean bitcoind/bitcoin-qt right?
 915 2013-05-06 03:52:28 Ahimoth has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 916 2013-05-06 03:52:29 Apexseals has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 917 2013-05-06 03:52:52 <cjd> yeah
 918 2013-05-06 03:53:20 <confused> can someone give me a hand I am total confused with this phrase "has ALU's in some small multiple of four, if not just four ALU's alone" I have no idea what this mean, can somebody explain that to me?
 919 2013-05-06 03:53:22 Ahimoth has joined
 920 2013-05-06 03:53:29 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
 921 2013-05-06 03:53:35 <SirDefaced> Luke-jr also the libpng links is broken too BUT 1.6.2 from sourceforge works
 922 2013-05-06 03:53:38 TheSeven has joined
 923 2013-05-06 03:53:58 <Luke-Jr> SirDefaced: why are you telling me specifically? XD
 924 2013-05-06 03:54:08 <SirDefaced> because i thought you made the file :P
 925 2013-05-06 03:54:29 IanCormac has joined
 926 2013-05-06 03:54:30 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 927 2013-05-06 03:54:30 confused has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 928 2013-05-06 03:54:32 <Luke-Jr> where'd you get that idea? <.<
 929 2013-05-06 03:54:32 IanCormac has left ()
 930 2013-05-06 03:54:46 * SirDefaced shrugs
 931 2013-05-06 03:54:48 <bitRipperX> cjd: ahhh ok. Yeah, so when I couldn't get the bitcoinjs lib working I reverted to making rpc calls to my local satoshi client. So I'm sorta familiar with that.
 932 2013-05-06 03:54:59 amstan_ has left ("Konversation terminated!")
 933 2013-05-06 03:55:22 brimster has joined
 934 2013-05-06 03:56:16 chorao has joined
 935 2013-05-06 03:56:26 <cjd> bitRipperX: it's obviously faster to talk bitcoin p2p with your local satoshi client but rpc polling works
 936 2013-05-06 03:56:43 CrypticSquared has joined
 937 2013-05-06 03:57:46 <bitRipperX> cjd: so to summarize, I would push all blocks to a pipe and on the other side have a block scanner watching the file. In my module I would keep a small table of addresses and pass that to picoscan. Once I get a mactch from both ends I do something
 938 2013-05-06 03:58:27 molec has joined
 939 2013-05-06 03:58:33 SvenDiagram has joined
 940 2013-05-06 03:58:58 mapppum has joined
 941 2013-05-06 03:59:21 <cjd> bitRipperX: you need to change the format of the data you push to blkscan
 942 2013-05-06 03:59:21 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: I wouldn't be foolish enough to assume that someone wouldn't keep some big database of preimages— thats why I didn't promote that as an advantage.
 943 2013-05-06 03:59:38 <gmaxwell> (or indeed, it preventing unsolicited payments)
 944 2013-05-06 03:59:46 <Luke-Jr> :|
 945 2013-05-06 04:00:07 <cjd> bitRipperX: it's a simple format,   [4 byte magic][length little endian][ block content..... ]
 946 2013-05-06 04:00:10 <cjd> real 2m3.355s <-- picocoin w/ transaction search stubbed out
 947 2013-05-06 04:00:10 <cjd> real 1m42.528s <-- my parser
 948 2013-05-06 04:00:11 <cjd> real 1m35.601s <-- cat >/dev/null
 949 2013-05-06 04:00:18 <bitRipperX> cjd: ok, I don't know much about picoscan so I won't ask useless questions. I'll look into it and see what it requires.
 950 2013-05-06 04:00:30 <bitRipperX> I really appreciate the help
 951 2013-05-06 04:00:33 <cjd> sure thing
 952 2013-05-06 04:02:08 mappum has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 953 2013-05-06 04:02:09 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 954 2013-05-06 04:02:20 mapppum is now known as mappum
 955 2013-05-06 04:03:07 Tril has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 956 2013-05-06 04:03:47 <jgarzik> cjd: That's blkscan, from picocoin.git, that you are benchmarking?
 957 2013-05-06 04:03:50 <jgarzik> Just curious.
 958 2013-05-06 04:04:32 <cjd> yeah blkscan -b bootstrap.dat
 959 2013-05-06 04:05:08 <cjd> and I commented out index_block() and the other one... search_for_transactions() ?
 960 2013-05-06 04:05:13 <cjd> so it should be parsing only
 961 2013-05-06 04:06:10 <cjd>     setvbuf(stdin, inBuf, _IOFBF, 1<<19); <-- single biggest speedup in my code
 962 2013-05-06 04:06:11 <bitRipperX> cjd: actually, one more question. What's the mechanisim for communicating with the client? Other than RPC I not clear how I could get that pipe set up.
 963 2013-05-06 04:06:38 <cjd> bitRipperX: bitcoin p2p, aka the way bitcoin nodes talk to eachother
 964 2013-05-06 04:07:00 <cjd> you can ask a lot more of a client and a lot faster if you just pretend to be another client
 965 2013-05-06 04:07:20 <jgarzik> cjd: Well it's index_block() + scan_block().  scan_block() still costs
 966 2013-05-06 04:07:32 <jgarzik> cjd: Another q: what platform?  Linux or BSD or OSX or other?
 967 2013-05-06 04:07:36 <cjd> linux
 968 2013-05-06 04:07:47 <cjd> with ZFS-on-linux to mess things up a bit ;)
 969 2013-05-06 04:07:49 <cjd> 	//index_block(height, &block, *fpos);
 970 2013-05-06 04:07:50 <cjd> 	//scan_block(height, &block);
 971 2013-05-06 04:07:53 <cjd> those are the ones
 972 2013-05-06 04:08:38 <cjd> I think read() is probably your bottleneck, I'm using an abstraction of fread()
 973 2013-05-06 04:08:50 * cjd abstract all the things
 974 2013-05-06 04:09:01 skeledrew has joined
 975 2013-05-06 04:09:06 randy-waterhouse has joined
 976 2013-05-06 04:11:23 <jgarzik> cjd: I'm not sure what that last means ;p
 977 2013-05-06 04:11:26 <amiller_> abstract all the things
 978 2013-05-06 04:12:10 <jgarzik> cjd: fread_block() does two read(2) per block, which is not the most efficient.  That has nothing to do with abstraction though.
 979 2013-05-06 04:12:33 moleccc has joined
 980 2013-05-06 04:13:16 <randy-waterhouse> The second is transactions that are even smaller; one might imagine a computer paying a smartphone 100 satoshis per kilobyte in exchange for being able to borrow the smartphone’s cellular internet connection. These are the kinds of transactions that Bitcoin was actually never intended for, and which are better done with either some kind of centralized off-blockchain clearing mechanism
 981 2013-05-06 04:13:30 <cjd> yeah, my propensity to wrap everything doesn't make it faster, it's just something I tend to do
 982 2013-05-06 04:13:49 <randy-waterhouse> srry ... wrong thread ... ;(
 983 2013-05-06 04:14:37 <bitRipperX> cjd: ok I gota ya. So I would modify the bitcoinjs library to request the info I need, reformat it and then use the block scanner to monitor it. Gotcha!
 984 2013-05-06 04:14:43 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
 985 2013-05-06 04:14:56 jgarzik has quit (Quit: reboot)
 986 2013-05-06 04:16:54 FabianB has joined
 987 2013-05-06 04:16:54 FabianB has quit (Changing host)
 988 2013-05-06 04:16:54 FabianB has joined
 989 2013-05-06 04:18:09 FabianB_ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 990 2013-05-06 04:22:24 XertroV has joined
 991 2013-05-06 04:22:59 RazielXYZ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 992 2013-05-06 04:23:45 <devrandom> Luke-Jr: merged three of your gitian-builder pull requests
 993 2013-05-06 04:23:56 <devrandom> did not get notified - looks like a github bug
 994 2013-05-06 04:24:13 <Luke-Jr> maybe email issue?
 995 2013-05-06 04:24:58 Guest61570 has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 996 2013-05-06 04:25:04 XertroV has quit (Client Quit)
 997 2013-05-06 04:25:22 <devrandom> hmmm... no, nevermind.  it just got buried in my mailbox
 998 2013-05-06 04:26:20 <devrandom> is there some other clever solution for pdebuild?  e.g. fakeroot or something?
 999 2013-05-06 04:26:39 <Luke-Jr> devrandom: not afaik
1000 2013-05-06 04:26:47 IanCormac has joined
1001 2013-05-06 04:26:53 <Luke-Jr> devrandom: I also ended up stuck on the fact that it requires access to your private GPG keys :/
1002 2013-05-06 04:27:41 <Luke-Jr> as its output is double-signed
1003 2013-05-06 04:28:00 <devrandom> could do the sudo thing with a command-line flag to enable, and disabled by default
1004 2013-05-06 04:28:32 <devrandom> hmmm... GPG keys... maybe sign with a diff key that's in turn signed with your key
1005 2013-05-06 04:31:24 <Luke-Jr> I don't know if Ubuntu supports that
1006 2013-05-06 04:32:35 clarkm has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1007 2013-05-06 04:33:28 <owowo> unfortunately, since I've deliberately let myself being banned from bitcointroll, I cannot tell these idiots: "FUCK YOU"... this is just ridiculous... Gavin really should not bother even to post in these threads, he even should not read it
1008 2013-05-06 04:34:15 <cjd> read what? :)
1009 2013-05-06 04:34:39 clarkm has joined
1010 2013-05-06 04:34:39 clarkm has quit (Changing host)
1011 2013-05-06 04:34:39 clarkm has joined
1012 2013-05-06 04:34:52 <IanCormac> oops, left my IRC open. Hey gmaxwell, sorry for being a cunt earlier, I was making totally contrived examples
1013 2013-05-06 04:35:29 <gonffen_> is bitcointalk always an army of pitchfork holders?
1014 2013-05-06 04:35:45 <gmaxwell> IanCormac: s'okay. I shold have just ignored you when you went down that route. :P
1015 2013-05-06 04:35:57 <gonffen_> oh I see that conversation is already in progress...
1016 2013-05-06 04:36:04 <gmaxwell> owowo: how the hell does someone get banned there!?
1017 2013-05-06 04:36:17 k9quaint has joined
1018 2013-05-06 04:36:28 <rdponticelli> By being rational?
1019 2013-05-06 04:36:34 <gmaxwell> gonffen_: it's really a small minority of users there... the forum norms lean very far against banning anyone.
1020 2013-05-06 04:36:48 <gmaxwell> rdponticelli: They haven't banned me yet!
1021 2013-05-06 04:36:50 <gmaxwell> ... oh crap.
1022 2013-05-06 04:37:01 IanCormac has quit (Quit: IanCormac)
1023 2013-05-06 04:37:08 <owowo> gmaxwell: by trolling the trolls in a 99% troll thread...  it too me like 3 posts.
1024 2013-05-06 04:37:13 <rdponticelli> :p
1025 2013-05-06 04:37:16 <owowo> *took
1026 2013-05-06 04:37:36 <gmaxwell> owowo: wow, well I assume you were just assumed to be the sock of an already banned user or something... or you linked to malware.
1027 2013-05-06 04:37:51 <gmaxwell> (though hell, the forum hardly bans people for linking to malware!)
1028 2013-05-06 04:38:35 <gonffen_> I'm not sure if this news is relieving or discouraging...
1029 2013-05-06 04:39:11 <gonffen_> the thread warning about the proposed change in transaction fees though :/
1030 2013-05-06 04:39:16 <owowo> gmaxwell: maybe because I called the mods "modtrolls"
1031 2013-05-06 04:41:51 richcollins has joined
1032 2013-05-06 04:42:42 <owowo> gmaxwell:  http://i.imgur.com/xdgokaZ.png  and I used the F word a lot ;o)
1033 2013-05-06 04:44:02 skeledrew1 has joined
1034 2013-05-06 04:44:06 CrypticSquared has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1035 2013-05-06 04:45:19 <gmaxwell> lol
1036 2013-05-06 04:45:34 jgarzik has joined
1037 2013-05-06 04:45:42 jgarzik has quit (Changing host)
1038 2013-05-06 04:45:42 jgarzik has joined
1039 2013-05-06 04:45:49 <gmaxwell> owowo: let this be a lesson to you: stay way from those idiot threads. :P
1040 2013-05-06 04:45:51 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1041 2013-05-06 04:46:54 CrypticSquared has joined
1042 2013-05-06 04:47:58 bitRipperX has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
1043 2013-05-06 04:55:52 <owowo> gmaxwell: in other words: stay away from bitcointroll.org ;o)
1044 2013-05-06 04:57:20 owowo has quit (Quit: sayonara)
1045 2013-05-06 05:00:57 ThomasV has joined
1046 2013-05-06 05:01:39 sud3n has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1047 2013-05-06 05:07:05 _ape has quit ()
1048 2013-05-06 05:07:30 <gmaxwell> It's not _all_ bad.
1049 2013-05-06 05:07:48 lolcookie has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1050 2013-05-06 05:08:05 lolcookie has joined
1051 2013-05-06 05:08:15 Vinnie_win has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1052 2013-05-06 05:10:18 Vinnie_win has joined
1053 2013-05-06 05:10:19 Vinnie_win has quit (Excess Flood)
1054 2013-05-06 05:10:37 Vinnie_win has joined
1055 2013-05-06 05:11:19 Arnavion has joined
1056 2013-05-06 05:13:09 Elmf has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1057 2013-05-06 05:18:44 <ezdiy> gonffen_: it will be interesting in a sense what sd will do
1058 2013-05-06 05:18:57 <Luke-Jr> ezdiy: unlikely
1059 2013-05-06 05:19:34 <Luke-Jr> ezdiy: I think Gavin picked the dust amount so it didn't affect them
1060 2013-05-06 05:20:08 whiterabbit has joined
1061 2013-05-06 05:20:27 <ezdiy> Luke-Jr: was it 5k satoshi or something?
1062 2013-05-06 05:20:38 <Luke-Jr> ezdiy: IIRC
1063 2013-05-06 05:21:01 <gonffen_> it's 54uBTC
1064 2013-05-06 05:21:15 <ezdiy> hm, i'm not really sure how that solves the spam issue then
1065 2013-05-06 05:21:38 <gmaxwell> ezdiy: sd isn't the only spam source, and they've gotten better (they no longer produce 1e-8 outputs anymore)]
1066 2013-05-06 05:21:56 <gonffen_> do you really think it would stop SD if the minimum was equivalent to $0.10?
1067 2013-05-06 05:22:03 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: I don't see how changing the amount makes them any better
1068 2013-05-06 05:22:18 <Luke-Jr> the network cost is the same regardless of the amounts used
1069 2013-05-06 05:22:22 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: because the txouts created aren't totally pointless to redeem.
1070 2013-05-06 05:22:28 <duSn> maybe they do the math to figure out the 'new' minimum
1071 2013-05-06 05:22:35 <duSn> do=can't do
1072 2013-05-06 05:22:49 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: I suppose. It's easy enough to redeem 1 satoshi outputs though
1073 2013-05-06 05:22:56 <Luke-Jr> I have to do it regularly
1074 2013-05-06 05:22:58 * Luke-Jr sighs
1075 2013-05-06 05:23:13 * cjd gives luke a satoshi to make him feel better
1076 2013-05-06 05:23:19 ningu has joined
1077 2013-05-06 05:23:33 wrabbit has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1078 2013-05-06 05:23:34 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: yea, but costs much more than 1 satoshi worth of fee or priority to do so— if you've got lots of stored priority or a pool it doesn't matter much. :)
1079 2013-05-06 05:23:34 whiterabbit is now known as wrabbit
1080 2013-05-06 05:24:03 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: I usually have to wait a few weeks to do it feeless
1081 2013-05-06 05:24:12 <ningu> hey, so I was just reading https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Smart_Property and I'm wondering... for the loan/collateral use case, who exactly is envisioned as the creditor? (existing) banks, private individuals, banks that operate only in bitcoins, or what?
1082 2013-05-06 05:24:32 <ezdiy> (btw, did anyone research the idea of subsidizing coin recombine / penalize coin split when scoring txes?)
1083 2013-05-06 05:25:12 <ezdiy> ningu: i think the simplest example of that would be escrow
1084 2013-05-06 05:25:13 <gmaxwell> ezdiy: it's been discussed, but doesn't scale super well since it doesn't align super well with miner short term profits.
1085 2013-05-06 05:26:18 <ningu> ezdiy: ok, but escrow is gov't enforced. I guess I could boil my question down to: is smart property intended to work within existing lending regimes or create a new one outside of gov't control?
1086 2013-05-06 05:26:21 <cjd> actually IMO waving the fee for anything which reduces the number of unspent outputs would be a nice thing to do
1087 2013-05-06 05:26:27 <ezdiy> ningu: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/User:Casascius/Escrow_scheme_draft
1088 2013-05-06 05:26:33 <ezdiy> ningu: for actual escrow in blockchain
1089 2013-05-06 05:26:35 <ningu> thanks, will read
1090 2013-05-06 05:26:55 <ningu> I suppose if you have your own way of enforcing contracts you don't need others to
1091 2013-05-06 05:27:18 <ezdiy> cjd: yeah, the trick is to make it fit with current blockchain use
1092 2013-05-06 05:27:49 Faradayy has joined
1093 2013-05-06 05:27:51 <ningu> I also have some really stupid questions, like... if I can sell my car by selling its digital key, presumably I could also lose my key and no longer be able to start my car
1094 2013-05-06 05:27:57 <cjd> just need some miners to dedicate to saying "yes, we are willing to mine transactions free if they benefit the greater good"
1095 2013-05-06 05:28:00 <ezdiy> cjd: for example, usual a to b send is 1 txin, 2 txouts (ie coin split, penalize - priority is 1/2)
1096 2013-05-06 05:28:25 <ningu> or I might want to lend it to a friend for the day but not have him steal it, etc.
1097 2013-05-06 05:28:32 <ezdiy> cjd: if there are 1000 dust txins, 1 txout it would be deemed as top priority while in fact being humongous tx
1098 2013-05-06 05:28:42 <cjd> yeap
1099 2013-05-06 05:29:06 <cjd> but that cleans up a part of the dataset which every validating node needs to keep nomatter what
1100 2013-05-06 05:29:41 <ezdiy> theres also negative incentive to reuse your own address to return change
1101 2013-05-06 05:29:53 <ezdiy> well, MyWallet does that anyway so whatever
1102 2013-05-06 05:30:32 <cjd> hmm
1103 2013-05-06 05:30:35 <cjd> I like this idea
1104 2013-05-06 05:31:21 <ezdiy> i think in the future it could work like to allocate separate pools for different kinds of scoring in a block
1105 2013-05-06 05:31:24 bitit has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1106 2013-05-06 05:31:39 <cjd> the sender needs to pay fees only for the outputs of the tx, not for the inputs
1107 2013-05-06 05:31:44 <ezdiy> ie 1/3 of utxo efficient txes, 1/3 of data-size efficient (ie fee per kb), 1/3 for free txes
1108 2013-05-06 05:31:47 <ezdiy> or something like that
1109 2013-05-06 05:31:54 <ningu> ezdiy: so, that thing you linked just describes how a transaction would be regulated, but not anything about how the real-world transaction would be accomplished
1110 2013-05-06 05:32:18 bitit has joined
1111 2013-05-06 05:32:18 <ezdiy> ningu: real world transactions are accomplished using that scheme
1112 2013-05-06 05:32:33 <ezdiy> ningu: mostly bets :)
1113 2013-05-06 05:32:48 <ningu> ezdiy: right, but I thought teh point of smart property was to be able to digitally transfer ownership of real world objects
1114 2013-05-06 05:32:58 <ningu> by means of a key that would be required to use the object
1115 2013-05-06 05:33:05 <ezdiy> yup
1116 2013-05-06 05:33:08 <cjd> a tx which contains more outputs than inputs borrows from the commons and this debt must be paid back when someone claims those outputs.
1117 2013-05-06 05:33:14 grau has joined
1118 2013-05-06 05:33:17 <ezdiy> ningu: ask mike about that
1119 2013-05-06 05:33:25 <ningu> ok
1120 2013-05-06 05:33:32 <ezdiy> ningu: i think there is no actual implementation
1121 2013-05-06 05:33:45 <ningu> yeah, I figured, but I also figure someone has been thinking about it
1122 2013-05-06 05:33:47 <ezdiy> lots of people enjoy walls of text about nifty things
1123 2013-05-06 05:34:00 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1124 2013-05-06 05:34:13 <ezdiy> nobody bothers to code anymore lol
1125 2013-05-06 05:34:30 <ningu> ah well
1126 2013-05-06 05:34:45 <ningu> I still want to know how I can be certain not to lose my digital car key :)
1127 2013-05-06 05:35:17 <Luke-Jr> ningu: the same way you don't lose your keys now
1128 2013-05-06 05:35:28 <ezdiy> cjd: well my initial formula was like size_kb * txout_n / txin_n
1129 2013-05-06 05:35:37 cheerio_ has joined
1130 2013-05-06 05:35:47 <ningu> Luke-Jr: yes, but if I do lose them, I already know what my recourses are.
1131 2013-05-06 05:35:50 <ezdiy> cjd: but as gmaxwell mentioned, there are huge corner cases :(
1132 2013-05-06 05:36:11 gagecolton has joined
1133 2013-05-06 05:36:16 <ningu> whereas presumably the point of these keys would be that they couldn't easily be duplicated
1134 2013-05-06 05:36:40 <cjd> ezdiy: that function is not quite correct but it is close. If negative then IMO it should just be free so miners don't have to pay which would be weird
1135 2013-05-06 05:36:55 CrypticSquared has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1136 2013-05-06 05:37:05 <ningu> I guess if you have access to the physical object you can always defeat the security, but that raises the question of how secure it is... etc.
1137 2013-05-06 05:37:15 <ezdiy> cjd: um that score is never negative :)
1138 2013-05-06 05:37:17 quaz0r has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1139 2013-05-06 05:37:33 <cjd> oh right indeed
1140 2013-05-06 05:37:37 <cjd> heh
1141 2013-05-06 05:37:43 <ezdiy> (the lower the score, the "better" the transaction is)
1142 2013-05-06 05:37:50 <Luke-Jr> ningu: presumably a cryptolocksmith could replace the keys on the car
1143 2013-05-06 05:38:04 <ezdiy> _n is just number of connected inputs/outputs
1144 2013-05-06 05:38:15 <ezdiy> regardless of sums represented
1145 2013-05-06 05:38:19 rushed has quit (Quit: rushed)
1146 2013-05-06 05:38:59 <cjd> your algorithm does seem to be a nice generic case
1147 2013-05-06 05:39:08 <ningu> and would the cryptolocksmith use tools that everyone has access to? or be specially regulated?
1148 2013-05-06 05:40:05 <duSn> tax the crytolocksmith tools
1149 2013-05-06 05:40:17 <Luke-Jr> ningu: I presume the same as mechanical locksmiths
1150 2013-05-06 05:40:42 Luke-Jr has quit (Quit: rebooting..)
1151 2013-05-06 05:40:51 chorao has quit ()
1152 2013-05-06 05:41:47 <ningu> ok, so in that scenario smart property would also be gov't recognized property
1153 2013-05-06 05:42:27 <ningu> and putting up smart property as collateral would mean I'm entering into a loan which is legally equivalent to any other loan and subject to the same regulations... it's just easier to verify my property's worth
1154 2013-05-06 05:42:27 <duSn> the last 2 statements make zero sense
1155 2013-05-06 05:42:39 <duSn> the last 3 statements make zero sense
1156 2013-05-06 05:43:03 GordonG3kko has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1157 2013-05-06 05:43:19 GordonG3kko has joined
1158 2013-05-06 05:43:25 <ningu> duSn: cryptolocksmiths can't be regulated the same as mechanical locksmiths unless they're regulated by the gov't since that's how mechanical locksmiths are regulated.
1159 2013-05-06 05:43:48 <duSn> how can you regulate open source freely available software?
1160 2013-05-06 05:44:11 <ningu> I don't know. that's why I'm asking how this situation would play out.
1161 2013-05-06 05:44:21 SvenDiagram has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1162 2013-05-06 05:44:21 holorga has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1163 2013-05-06 05:44:21 guruvan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1164 2013-05-06 05:45:00 MobiusL has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1165 2013-05-06 05:45:10 <ningu> it's inevitable that someone will lose their keys. so as designers of this tech do we want to say (1) that person is screwed, or (2) that person can someone prove the property is theirs and regain access? and if (2), how is access regained and how do they prove ownership if the key essentially *is* ownership?
1166 2013-05-06 05:45:13 <duSn> worry more about 'govt regulatory authority on bitcoin
1167 2013-05-06 05:45:26 <ningu> s/someone/somehow/
1168 2013-05-06 05:45:44 <duSn> or people with real computer power undermining the whole thing
1169 2013-05-06 05:45:46 <ningu> for some reason the property aspect of it is more interesting to me. I guess because I just heard about it and never thought about it.
1170 2013-05-06 05:45:48 <ezdiy> ningu: you can use x-of-y signing for that case
1171 2013-05-06 05:46:15 <ezdiy> ningu: ie 3 other keys can agree to change the master key
1172 2013-05-06 05:46:38 <ningu> hmm... but only all 3 at once?
1173 2013-05-06 05:46:47 <ezdiy> it can be any number out of any number
1174 2013-05-06 05:46:52 <ningu> ah, ok
1175 2013-05-06 05:46:53 <ezdiy> for example 2 out of 10 keys
1176 2013-05-06 05:47:11 <ningu> so when you buy the car (for example) you specify how the master key can be changed?
1177 2013-05-06 05:48:01 krator44 has joined
1178 2013-05-06 05:48:15 <ningu> that seems reasonable enough as long as you have someone you trust, which most people do
1179 2013-05-06 05:48:20 <ezdiy> ningu: yup
1180 2013-05-06 05:48:25 <ningu> or at least, people assume they do and act accordingly
1181 2013-05-06 05:48:34 <ezdiy> ningu: and not only that, also it can be someone who can enforce the word of law on you
1182 2013-05-06 05:48:49 <ezdiy> for example two keys of car maker and judge can override your master key
1183 2013-05-06 05:48:56 <ningu> hmm
1184 2013-05-06 05:49:06 <ezdiy> (ie judge orders car maker to co-sign and your key is void)
1185 2013-05-06 05:49:16 damientrog has joined
1186 2013-05-06 05:49:23 <ezdiy> ditto for bank when car is on a lease
1187 2013-05-06 05:49:24 <ezdiy> etc
1188 2013-05-06 05:49:34 guruvan has joined
1189 2013-05-06 05:50:31 grau has joined
1190 2013-05-06 05:50:37 <ningu> ok, that makes sense -- sounds like it could be adapted to most situations or legal regimes or whatever
1191 2013-05-06 05:51:11 quaz0r has joined
1192 2013-05-06 05:51:30 <ezdiy> ningu: for some situations yeah, but i think mike is way too optimistic about it
1193 2013-05-06 05:51:46 <ningu> what if I'm a government and I want to make sure judge + car marker always can reset the master key... what's to prevent rogue owners from disabling that?
1194 2013-05-06 05:52:01 <ezdiy> ningu: such a thing would serve nice as a tool of enforcement (court order or a bank can take your car away from you, whether you like it or not)
1195 2013-05-06 05:52:37 <ningu> yeah, to me there seems to be a huge tension in the idea of smart property between allowing for more state control of property, and allowing individuals more freedom to use their property
1196 2013-05-06 05:52:50 <ningu> and I was just wondering how folks here had thought through that stuff
1197 2013-05-06 05:53:30 <ezdiy> ningu: think of it as a car license plate
1198 2013-05-06 05:53:45 CrypticSquared has joined
1199 2013-05-06 05:53:47 <ezdiy> sure you can hack the car to work w/o smart property rules
1200 2013-05-06 05:53:48 zylche__ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1201 2013-05-06 05:55:03 <ezdiy> ningu: mike is the super-optimistic kind
1202 2013-05-06 05:55:12 <ezdiy> historically, crypto has been more abused than used for good
1203 2013-05-06 05:55:14 <ningu> yeah, but for license plates at least you won't get away with that for long in reality, so I guess you're saying it would/could be the same for smart property
1204 2013-05-06 05:55:20 <ezdiy> so i'd envision of some kind of car DRM
1205 2013-05-06 05:55:21 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1206 2013-05-06 05:55:30 <ezdiy> sure, DRM can be bypassed (hw hack level)
1207 2013-05-06 05:55:30 <ningu> I also wonder what's to prevent people from copying their keys just like they can with physical keys
1208 2013-05-06 05:55:31 XertroV has joined
1209 2013-05-06 05:55:35 <ezdiy> but then your car will be illegal to operate
1210 2013-05-06 05:56:06 SvenDiagram has joined
1211 2013-05-06 05:56:12 <ezdiy> ningu: copying private keys is hard
1212 2013-05-06 05:56:15 <ningu> so if you maintain a copy you can sell the key and still have it. but that, at least, seems like the kind of problem bitcoin has solved
1213 2013-05-06 05:56:27 <ezdiy> ningu: like it is hard to copy EMV credit cards
1214 2013-05-06 05:56:40 <ningu> ok, so it must not be anything like duplicating a file
1215 2013-05-06 05:56:40 <ezdiy> you cant copy a fips chip protected private key :)
1216 2013-05-06 05:56:58 holorga has joined
1217 2013-05-06 05:57:08 <ningu> I mean, my ssh private keys are just files
1218 2013-05-06 05:57:18 <ezdiy> my ssh private keys are on smart card
1219 2013-05-06 05:57:20 iwilcox has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1220 2013-05-06 05:57:21 <ezdiy> and you cant copy it
1221 2013-05-06 05:57:27 <ezdiy> as well you cant copy car keys
1222 2013-05-06 05:57:27 <ningu> hmm
1223 2013-05-06 05:57:33 <ningu> that's a good idea :)
1224 2013-05-06 05:57:49 jeewee has joined
1225 2013-05-06 05:57:55 iwilcox has joined
1226 2013-05-06 05:58:10 MobiusL has joined
1227 2013-05-06 05:58:20 <ezdiy> ningu: btw, http://bitcointrezor.com/
1228 2013-05-06 05:58:36 <ezdiy> to get idea how "bitcoin keys" would work in practice
1229 2013-05-06 05:58:47 <ezdiy> this is just a hw wallet, but in the future it can be also used as car keys
1230 2013-05-06 05:58:47 XertroV has quit (Client Quit)
1231 2013-05-06 06:00:31 lolcookie_ has joined
1232 2013-05-06 06:02:37 debiantoruser has joined
1233 2013-05-06 06:03:23 AndChat has quit (64721!~AndChat64@1.157.9.83|Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1234 2013-05-06 06:04:22 iwilcox has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1235 2013-05-06 06:04:28 lolcookie has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1236 2013-05-06 06:05:55 Guest78790 has joined
1237 2013-05-06 06:07:33 randy-waterhouse has left ()
1238 2013-05-06 06:09:57 atweiden has joined
1239 2013-05-06 06:14:34 mrkent has joined
1240 2013-05-06 06:17:52 Luke-Jr has joined
1241 2013-05-06 06:18:08 <wumpus> sheesh, who called the pitchfork brigade on 0.8.2
1242 2013-05-06 06:18:35 <gonffen_> jdillion is riding the horse
1243 2013-05-06 06:19:41 saulimus has joined
1244 2013-05-06 06:21:08 gritball_ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1245 2013-05-06 06:22:29 zylche has joined
1246 2013-05-06 06:22:29 zylche has quit (Changing host)
1247 2013-05-06 06:22:29 zylche has joined
1248 2013-05-06 06:22:44 Guest78790 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1249 2013-05-06 06:26:19 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
1250 2013-05-06 06:26:29 Julius129 has quit ()
1251 2013-05-06 06:28:17 iwilcox has joined
1252 2013-05-06 06:28:17 iwilcox has quit (Changing host)
1253 2013-05-06 06:28:17 iwilcox has joined
1254 2013-05-06 06:28:32 paybitcoin1 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1255 2013-05-06 06:30:22 XertroV has joined
1256 2013-05-06 06:30:24 paybitcoin has joined
1257 2013-05-06 06:32:58 iwilcox_ has joined
1258 2013-05-06 06:33:04 iwilcox has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1259 2013-05-06 06:34:38 XertroV has quit (Client Quit)
1260 2013-05-06 06:36:32 paybitcoin1 has joined
1261 2013-05-06 06:37:20 paybitcoin has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1262 2013-05-06 06:38:53 richcollins has quit (Quit: richcollins)
1263 2013-05-06 06:39:47 <wumpus> it's pretty scary, maybe we could add a configuration setting so people can decide for their own client whether to relay/mine according to the new or old rules... I mean, it's better than people en masse not upgrading and gives some idea of choice...
1264 2013-05-06 06:40:00 Anj has joined
1265 2013-05-06 06:41:04 iwilcox_ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1266 2013-05-06 06:41:32 Anj has quit (Client Quit)
1267 2013-05-06 06:43:09 andyh2 has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
1268 2013-05-06 06:43:49 andyh2 has joined
1269 2013-05-06 06:44:42 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1270 2013-05-06 06:44:44 <cjd> wumpus: pretty sure if you set -mintxfee=0 you relay everything
1271 2013-05-06 06:44:55 <gmaxwell> wumpus: I don't think there is any actual risk there.
1272 2013-05-06 06:44:57 <Luke-Jr> wumpus: they can always choose to use 0.8.1
1273 2013-05-06 06:45:05 <wumpus> ok, can someone communciate that to the angry mob?
1274 2013-05-06 06:45:21 <wumpus> Luke-Jr: I want to avoid people stopping to upgrade
1275 2013-05-06 06:45:29 <cjd> communicating with angry mobs is dangerous
1276 2013-05-06 06:45:34 <Luke-Jr> wumpus: I figure it's a temporary panic
1277 2013-05-06 06:45:48 <wumpus> cjd: I'm not good at it either
1278 2013-05-06 06:46:03 <gmaxwell> wumpus: if you look at the thread you can see people are being told that there is a setting.
1279 2013-05-06 06:46:22 <cjd> fire a shotgun in the air first to break everyone's train of thought then talk :)
1280 2013-05-06 06:46:36 <wumpus> gmaxwell: ok I must say I didn't read everything, I just woke up to zillions of threads on the forums and reddit telling people not to upgrade, that scared me :)
1281 2013-05-06 06:47:00 <gmaxwell> wumpus: yea, all smoke no fire.
1282 2013-05-06 06:47:28 <wumpus> to not to upgrade to a version that doesn't exist yet*
1283 2013-05-06 06:47:35 <wumpus> right
1284 2013-05-06 06:49:12 <cjd> if it continues for a few days then write a press release about what it really is and how to disable it if you care, then put that up on bitcoinfoundation and refuse to communicate with anyone except to post the link
1285 2013-05-06 06:50:29 <gmaxwell> cjd: I think I'd need to see evidence of it being more than 5-6 big litecoin heads promoting this.
1286 2013-05-06 06:50:30 <Luke-Jr> on the bright side, I don't see any sign of Bitcoin Magazine giving it any attention
1287 2013-05-06 06:50:56 <cjd> ahh figures
1288 2013-05-06 06:51:08 Chuky has joined
1289 2013-05-06 06:51:08 <gmaxwell> I'm a little sad that only one of the people yelling loudly (Daily Anarchist) has listened and changed position.
1290 2013-05-06 06:51:12 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: that's weird - I'd think litecoin fanboys would like it
1291 2013-05-06 06:51:44 <cjd> no, they would like to make a big deal out of it to make bitcoin look scary
1292 2013-05-06 06:52:00 <cjd> pump and dump scam
1293 2013-05-06 06:53:01 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: the weird thing is that litecoin's antidust rules are way more agressive.
1294 2013-05-06 06:53:06 <wumpus> cjd: I think that's a good idea, it may be good to give a little bit of attention to it in a place that has a lot of readers, just to put concerns to rest  (and tell people that if they have to protest, there is the choice of using an option, not just not upgrading)
1295 2013-05-06 06:53:47 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: you were saying, http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1drnvp/bitcoin_developers_adding_0007_minimum/
1296 2013-05-06 06:53:49 <cjd> biggest key is not to let people see you react
1297 2013-05-06 06:53:57 <jspilman> Luke-Jr: http://bitcoinmagazine.com/bitcoin-developers-adding-0-007-minimum-transaction-output-size/
1298 2013-05-06 06:54:05 <wumpus> the problem with replying to the forums is that people don't read the replies, they just read the opening posts
1299 2013-05-06 06:54:19 <Luke-Jr> sigh
1300 2013-05-06 06:54:22 <gmaxwell> But it's very interesting to see the comments on reddit vs the forum.
1301 2013-05-06 06:56:25 seeingidog__ has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1302 2013-05-06 06:56:28 <cjd> reddit seems to have a better control on people gaming the site to start a troll storm
1303 2013-05-06 06:56:45 <wumpus> reddit has a few very clueful commenters, and trolls are usually voted downs
1304 2013-05-06 06:57:07 Arbition is now known as tetramethyl-
1305 2013-05-06 06:57:11 <cjd> well lots of very smart people on the forum as well
1306 2013-05-06 06:57:19 <wumpus> yes but they get buried
1307 2013-05-06 06:57:24 <cjd> yeap
1308 2013-05-06 06:57:31 iwilcox has joined
1309 2013-05-06 06:57:32 iwilcox has quit (Changing host)
1310 2013-05-06 06:57:32 iwilcox has joined
1311 2013-05-06 06:58:49 <Luke-Jr> reddit seems to have troll armies too
1312 2013-05-06 06:59:35 <cjd> ideally a site like reddit would use reputation to weigh one's vote
1313 2013-05-06 06:59:36 <wumpus> the problem with the forum is that the individual posts take a lot of room, and after a few posts you have multiple pages... of which most are junk, with some diamonds.. only few people plough through all the pages, so everything said is forgotten very soon
1314 2013-05-06 06:59:43 <cjd> but that uses a lot of processor power
1315 2013-05-06 06:59:52 nus has joined
1316 2013-05-06 06:59:53 <cjd> force directed graphing
1317 2013-05-06 07:00:16 <wumpus> it has essentially no short/long term memory so trolls can do the same thing all day
1318 2013-05-06 07:00:21 <Luke-Jr> cjd: trolls will give other trolls reputation
1319 2013-05-06 07:01:05 <cjd> if you use force directed graphing to determine who is most credible then it works unless you have a sudden influx of idiots
1320 2013-05-06 07:01:06 <wumpus> also all threads sink at the same rate except when posted in.... it should be possible to sink threads such as "rip satoshi" faster
1321 2013-05-06 07:02:25 <cjd> even in the face of a sudden influx of idiots the force directed graphing method should work well since the new people lack reputation to give to one another
1322 2013-05-06 07:02:50 <cjd> people buying accounts of old members would be a risk (not sure if realistic)
1323 2013-05-06 07:02:54 <wumpus> the problem, cjd, is that many of those explicitly trolling threads are created by long-term members :p
1324 2013-05-06 07:03:21 <cjd> yeah but reputation != age
1325 2013-05-06 07:03:25 <wumpus> it should be possible to vote away individual threads/posts, not so much users
1326 2013-05-06 07:03:33 <cjd> yeah
1327 2013-05-06 07:03:40 <wumpus> everyone makes a dumb post once in a while
1328 2013-05-06 07:04:20 ningu has left ()
1329 2013-05-06 07:04:32 <cjd> an upvote or downvote on a forum post links you to that post (or the equal anti-post in the case of a downvote)
1330 2013-05-06 07:04:40 <cjd> that link pulls you toward it on the graph
1331 2013-05-06 07:05:00 <cjd> others who up/down the same thing are pulled closer on the graph
1332 2013-05-06 07:05:08 SvenDiagram has quit (Quit: SvenDiagram)
1333 2013-05-06 07:05:16 <cjd> eventually you have a community consensus and then the trolls on the outskirts
1334 2013-05-06 07:05:51 iwilcox has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1335 2013-05-06 07:05:53 <cjd> tricky part is:  you should not get free reputation just for agreeing with popular things all the time
1336 2013-05-06 07:06:38 <cjd> you get reputation for linking yourself to it before it becomes popular
1337 2013-05-06 07:06:49 <cjd> re a lot of cpu power :)
1338 2013-05-06 07:07:37 <gmaxwell> "force directed graphing" ... boo. lameo robokafka technolog.y
1339 2013-05-06 07:09:30 * cjd googles robokafka
1340 2013-05-06 07:09:34 * cjd finds little
1341 2013-05-06 07:09:35 <gmaxwell> I create one sycophant account that always agrees with the smart people and copies helpful things around, never says anything controversial.  It up-rates trolls. Game over.  Even more awesome... if you use a propagation of negative trust on positive trust edges (e.g. using an undirected graph), then I create a bunch of babbykiller accounts that trust the respected people to drag them down. :P
1342 2013-05-06 07:10:59 <gmaxwell> cjd: personal neologism. Using machine learning and assorted optimization techniques to replace human decisions often has outright immoral outcomes. E.g. "apparently you have to pay more for car insurance because you like watermellon, and there is a strong coorlation between liking watermellon and increased accidents"
1343 2013-05-06 07:11:52 <cjd> lol @ example
1344 2013-05-06 07:12:17 <cjd> but yeah, force directed graphing is indeed too naive
1345 2013-05-06 07:12:48 <SomeoneWeird> hahah
1346 2013-05-06 07:12:56 <gmaxwell> cjd: it's basically this technique, www.cs.umd.edu/~golbeck/papers/sign.pdf  but yea. No joy.
1347 2013-05-06 07:13:23 <gmaxwell> They even try to cull out some of the force directed stupidity, but its still stupid as soon as you introduce people who would try to game it.
1348 2013-05-06 07:13:55 <cjd> would need to be more of an investment type system.. when you vote on something part of your capital is attached to it
1349 2013-05-06 07:14:14 <Belxjander> gmaxwell: name me a human being who won7t try to game any system for personal advantage ? :)
1350 2013-05-06 07:15:34 <cjd> thanks for the paper
1351 2013-05-06 07:16:03 <cjd> the trust in a person thing makes it far more complex since then you have to deal with trust in honesty vs. trust in competence.
1352 2013-05-06 07:16:14 <duSn> sister mary elephant ... i mean sister teresa
1353 2013-05-06 07:16:35 <duSn> sister=mother
1354 2013-05-06 07:18:45 CodesInChaos has joined
1355 2013-05-06 07:24:12 krator44 has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1356 2013-05-06 07:24:37 <gmaxwell> cjd: part of the problem with trust is that its non-transitive.
1357 2013-05-06 07:24:41 Nash has joined
1358 2013-05-06 07:25:06 <gmaxwell> There are plenty of people whom I am quite confident that they won't rip anyone off— but I wouldn't trust their ability to rate others farther than I could throw them. (and I'm not very strong)
1359 2013-05-06 07:25:19 <cjd> yeap +1 that
1360 2013-05-06 07:26:43 <cjd> the idea that people "buy in" to an idea/article/comment and if it becomes popular then those who got in early get more reputation might be worth explorting
1361 2013-05-06 07:26:51 <cjd> s/ting/ing/
1362 2013-05-06 07:27:37 <gmaxwell> wumpus: here is the quality of the arguments in these threads: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196474.msg2044805#msg2044805
1363 2013-05-06 07:28:30 <cjd> obvious schemer is obvious
1364 2013-05-06 07:29:48 mappum has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1365 2013-05-06 07:31:57 Chuky has quit (Quit: • IRcap • 8.71 •)
1366 2013-05-06 07:33:18 czaanja has joined
1367 2013-05-06 07:36:26 <gmaxwell> http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2939#comic
1368 2013-05-06 07:36:59 <Belxjander> cjd: thats pyramid scheming the comment reputation points
1369 2013-05-06 07:38:47 <cjd> =)
1370 2013-05-06 07:38:59 iwilcox has joined
1371 2013-05-06 07:38:59 iwilcox has quit (Changing host)
1372 2013-05-06 07:38:59 iwilcox has joined
1373 2013-05-06 07:40:37 <cjd> well now I can convert bootstrap.dat into json :)
1374 2013-05-06 07:40:56 grau has joined
1375 2013-05-06 07:41:29 <Luke-Jr> why?
1376 2013-05-06 07:42:50 <cjd> writing a parser, this is just one step on the road
1377 2013-05-06 07:43:01 <Luke-Jr> just JSON is eww
1378 2013-05-06 07:43:03 <Luke-Jr> but*
1379 2013-05-06 07:43:17 dvide has quit ()
1380 2013-05-06 07:43:59 <cjd> yeah
1381 2013-05-06 07:44:04 <cjd> I can hope to look at it though
1382 2013-05-06 07:44:04 iwilcox has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1383 2013-05-06 07:44:14 <cjd> I don't hope to make much use of it
1384 2013-05-06 07:44:17 <cjd> too slow
1385 2013-05-06 07:44:31 iwilcox has joined
1386 2013-05-06 07:46:28 Nash has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1387 2013-05-06 07:49:42 <SomeoneWeird> bson > json > *
1388 2013-05-06 07:50:24 andyh2 has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
1389 2013-05-06 07:50:40 safra has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1390 2013-05-06 07:51:45 iwilcox has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1391 2013-05-06 07:53:00 TradeFortress has quit (Changing host)
1392 2013-05-06 07:53:00 TradeFortress has joined
1393 2013-05-06 07:54:58 <cjd> this 1MB block limit is quite nice
1394 2013-05-06 07:55:07 <cjd> I can guess how much memory I will need
1395 2013-05-06 07:56:12 iwilcox_ has joined
1396 2013-05-06 07:56:37 paracyst has quit ()
1397 2013-05-06 07:56:38 melvster1 has joined
1398 2013-05-06 07:56:50 sud3n has joined
1399 2013-05-06 07:57:19 iwilcox_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1400 2013-05-06 07:57:31 iwilcox_ has joined
1401 2013-05-06 07:57:31 iwilcox_ has quit (Changing host)
1402 2013-05-06 07:57:31 iwilcox_ has joined
1403 2013-05-06 07:59:18 john_vienna_work has joined
1404 2013-05-06 07:59:26 Nash has joined
1405 2013-05-06 08:01:07 melvster1 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1406 2013-05-06 08:02:30 iwilcox_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1407 2013-05-06 08:03:24 safra has joined
1408 2013-05-06 08:05:19 czaanja has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1409 2013-05-06 08:08:03 iwilcox_ has joined
1410 2013-05-06 08:12:02 iwilcox_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1411 2013-05-06 08:13:19 iwilcox_ has joined
1412 2013-05-06 08:14:09 cheerio_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1413 2013-05-06 08:19:07 czaanja has joined
1414 2013-05-06 08:19:29 icellan has joined
1415 2013-05-06 08:20:08 cheerio has joined
1416 2013-05-06 08:25:19 ThomasV has joined
1417 2013-05-06 08:26:38 <ProfMac> ::2009:103 is a nice ipv6 address.
1418 2013-05-06 08:27:24 DarkGhost` has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1419 2013-05-06 08:27:43 DarkGhost` has joined
1420 2013-05-06 08:27:50 ToryJujube has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1421 2013-05-06 08:34:11 tetramethyl- is now known as Arbition
1422 2013-05-06 08:34:36 Nash has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1423 2013-05-06 08:35:08 DarkGhost` has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1424 2013-05-06 08:35:35 DarkGhost has joined
1425 2013-05-06 08:37:21 crypt0queen has joined
1426 2013-05-06 08:38:07 LainZ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1427 2013-05-06 08:40:36 nizeguy has joined
1428 2013-05-06 08:41:29 PRab has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.90 [Firefox 20.0.1/20130409194949])
1429 2013-05-06 08:45:11 wallet43 has joined
1430 2013-05-06 08:45:19 Mr_G has joined
1431 2013-05-06 08:46:49 Nash has joined
1432 2013-05-06 08:47:20 CrypticSquared has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1433 2013-05-06 08:47:30 Casimir has joined
1434 2013-05-06 08:47:32 Casimir is now known as Casimir1904
1435 2013-05-06 08:47:47 n5 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1436 2013-05-06 08:48:19 taha has joined
1437 2013-05-06 08:49:37 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1438 2013-05-06 08:50:13 grau has joined
1439 2013-05-06 08:54:23 neo2 has joined
1440 2013-05-06 08:55:07 john_vienna_work has quit (Quit: Bye...)
1441 2013-05-06 08:55:48 crypt0queen has left ()
1442 2013-05-06 08:59:27 n5 has joined
1443 2013-05-06 08:59:57 icellan has quit (Quit: icellan)
1444 2013-05-06 09:00:56 iwilcox_ is now known as iwilcox
1445 2013-05-06 09:01:13 davout has joined
1446 2013-05-06 09:02:34 Mr_G has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1447 2013-05-06 09:04:54 GMP has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1448 2013-05-06 09:06:29 Mercaptopurine has joined
1449 2013-05-06 09:06:50 icellan has joined
1450 2013-05-06 09:07:42 <Mercaptopurine> Hey, Anyone have answers to questions about asicminer's blade? I'm getting one soon and wanted to know if it was possible to run it on a school network...
1451 2013-05-06 09:07:55 sacrelege has joined
1452 2013-05-06 09:08:51 <Mercaptopurine> ok, well, I'll leave this up... query me if you can help.
1453 2013-05-06 09:09:07 dust-otc has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1454 2013-05-06 09:09:39 michagogo has joined
1455 2013-05-06 09:09:43 dust-otc has joined
1456 2013-05-06 09:10:07 gritball has joined
1457 2013-05-06 09:11:26 Mercaptopurine is now known as noitev
1458 2013-05-06 09:12:38 sl1982 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1459 2013-05-06 09:15:39 sl1982 has joined
1460 2013-05-06 09:16:39 ProfMac has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1461 2013-05-06 09:17:56 raghu has joined
1462 2013-05-06 09:18:50 raghu has quit (Client Quit)
1463 2013-05-06 09:19:15 _pr has joined
1464 2013-05-06 09:19:15 _pr has quit (Changing host)
1465 2013-05-06 09:19:15 _pr has joined
1466 2013-05-06 09:20:23 john_vienna has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1467 2013-05-06 09:20:43 cjd has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1468 2013-05-06 09:20:59 cjd has joined
1469 2013-05-06 09:24:46 roconnor_ has joined
1470 2013-05-06 09:24:57 X-Scale has quit ()
1471 2013-05-06 09:26:03 Scrat2 is now known as Scrat
1472 2013-05-06 09:26:30 systemParanoid has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1473 2013-05-06 09:26:33 Scrat is now known as Guest88275
1474 2013-05-06 09:27:18 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1475 2013-05-06 09:27:46 roconnor has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1476 2013-05-06 09:27:57 Guest88275 has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.3.8)
1477 2013-05-06 09:28:12 Scrat2 has joined
1478 2013-05-06 09:28:45 Thepok has joined
1479 2013-05-06 09:29:10 hpprinter100 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1480 2013-05-06 09:29:15 Scrat2 is now known as Scrat
1481 2013-05-06 09:31:50 rdymac has joined
1482 2013-05-06 09:31:51 Nash has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1483 2013-05-06 09:31:59 B0g4r7 has joined
1484 2013-05-06 09:33:09 Ferroh has joined
1485 2013-05-06 09:33:10 john_vienna has joined
1486 2013-05-06 09:33:54 mollison has joined
1487 2013-05-06 09:36:29 <mollison> regarding the whole minimum output thing... why not just decide an acceptable rate of growth for the blockchain per annum, limit block sizes accordingly, and be done with it?
1488 2013-05-06 09:36:37 Sealy has joined
1489 2013-05-06 09:36:56 <mollison> i'm not actually just suggesting it... i assume there is an obvious reason why that would be dumb and i'm curious to know what that reason is
1490 2013-05-06 09:38:22 bitit has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1491 2013-05-06 09:56:00 jtimon has joined
1492 2013-05-06 09:56:20 hnz_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1493 2013-05-06 09:56:36 gagecolton has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1494 2013-05-06 09:58:58 Namworld has quit ()
1495 2013-05-06 10:02:20 hnz has joined
1496 2013-05-06 10:03:35 rdymac has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
1497 2013-05-06 10:03:55 sl1982 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1498 2013-05-06 10:04:19 Ferroh has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1499 2013-05-06 10:05:26 Ferroh has joined
1500 2013-05-06 10:05:46 <takeyourhatoff> mollison: putting magic number in the code is bad because they become inappropriate faster than they can be changed.
1501 2013-05-06 10:05:55 sl1982 has joined
1502 2013-05-06 10:06:13 <takeyourhatoff> if the growth were to suddenly change, it would cause big problems
1503 2013-05-06 10:07:13 roconnor__ has joined
1504 2013-05-06 10:07:25 <mollison> takeyourhatoff: it's not any more magic than the current suggestion, and big problems would be caused _anyway_ if the growth were to suddenly change
1505 2013-05-06 10:07:31 roconnor_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1506 2013-05-06 10:08:05 <weex> mollison: the point is really to weigh cost vs benefit of these very small transactions
1507 2013-05-06 10:08:39 <weex> the cost is validation, relaying, storage for some nodes forever
1508 2013-05-06 10:08:44 <weex> the benefit?
1509 2013-05-06 10:08:50 <takeyourhatoff> mollison: it is a little less magic, the bitcoin network will still be usable if the price increases 100x with this suggestion, just no outputs less than 7$. if with your suggestion, bitcoin txn volume incrreases 100x, then 99-98% of txns are not getting confirmed
1510 2013-05-06 10:08:55 Ogig has joined
1511 2013-05-06 10:09:04 <takeyourhatoff> ever
1512 2013-05-06 10:09:05 <mollison> weex: which of those costs is the limiting factor - validation, relaying, or storage?
1513 2013-05-06 10:09:34 <takeyourhatoff> storage
1514 2013-05-06 10:09:43 <mollison> takeyourhatoff: and the network is not usable because the blockchain is growing too quickly. assuming storage is the limiting factor, that is the factor that needs to be addressed by policy.
1515 2013-05-06 10:10:12 <weex> mollison: like how?
1516 2013-05-06 10:10:15 <takeyourhatoff> mollison: policy, you mean like a centrilised body that dictates a set of constants everybody has to use?
1517 2013-05-06 10:10:40 <mollison> takeyourhatoff: my argument is purely mathematical, but i guess my point is not being made clearly enough
1518 2013-05-06 10:10:50 <mollison> weex: like how, what? what are you asking?
1519 2013-05-06 10:11:04 <weex> addressing the storage factor
1520 2013-05-06 10:11:28 <weex> validation also matters as it takes longer for blocks with many transactions to be relayed
1521 2013-05-06 10:11:41 <weex> but storage is probably the thing most of us notice more
1522 2013-05-06 10:12:05 ovidiusoft has joined
1523 2013-05-06 10:12:37 <mollison> weex: well, whether it's validation or storage, the problem is, really, that there is a maximum block size that is regarded as feasible on a regular basis, and we don't want to go over that limit
1524 2013-05-06 10:12:59 <mollison> so, the proposal is to not go over that limit by limiting dust outputs
1525 2013-05-06 10:13:22 <mollison> however, that is only policing it indirectly... the limit can still be surpassed by legitimate use of non-dust outputs, eventually
1526 2013-05-06 10:13:50 <mollison> you can police it directly by just saying, "we don't feel safe if we have blocks larger than size X and/or a total block chain larger than size Y," and limiting block size accordingly
1527 2013-05-06 10:14:10 <weex> to your original question, if there were an annual limit then someone could dos other more valuable uses right?
1528 2013-05-06 10:14:37 <mollison> you have to adjust X and Y and the block size limit every once in a while... like, once a year at most... depending on storage technology that comes out and possibly the speed at which we can do validation given CPU hardware
1529 2013-05-06 10:15:41 <sipa> mollison: limiting of dust output is more related to not spamming the UTXO set with outputs that will not be spent anyway, because they cost more on average to consume than they are worth (or close to it)
1530 2013-05-06 10:15:45 <mollison> weex: if the block size is limited, the most valuable transactions (in terms of fees) get placed into blocks only, so a dos attack is not practical
1531 2013-05-06 10:15:57 <sipa> it's of course related to the block size limit, but not entirely the same thing
1532 2013-05-06 10:16:22 Dyaheon- has quit ()
1533 2013-05-06 10:17:17 saulimus has quit (Quit: saulimus)
1534 2013-05-06 10:17:34 <mollison> sipa: if that is the problem, and not storage or validation, than why not just let people who create dust learn the lesson the hard way? i mean, who cares if they create some transactions they decide to never spend?  it doesn't seem like a problem for regular users, only for (e.g.) satoshidice, colored coins, etc.
1535 2013-05-06 10:17:53 <mollison> *create some outputs
1536 2013-05-06 10:19:28 <sipa> mollison: unspent transaction outputs must be kept in fast-accessible memory by every fully validating node
1537 2013-05-06 10:19:35 CrypticSquared has joined
1538 2013-05-06 10:19:51 <sipa> mollison: an output that is never spent is therefor much more expensive to the network than one that is
1539 2013-05-06 10:20:19 <sipa> so what dust prevention does is penalize creating such outputs in the first place
1540 2013-05-06 10:20:28 CrypticSquared has quit (Client Quit)
1541 2013-05-06 10:20:44 CrypticSquared has joined
1542 2013-05-06 10:22:30 macboz has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1543 2013-05-06 10:23:08 <mollison> sipa: all right, thanks, that helps. So if that's the case, why not decide on a safe upper limit on the number of unspent transaction outputs per block, and make that a rule? seems like that would directly address the problem and therefore allow economic feedback to kick in... miners would charge more in tx fees for many unspent outputs
1544 2013-05-06 10:25:32 noitev is now known as noitev-asleep
1545 2013-05-06 10:27:35 Dyaheon has joined
1546 2013-05-06 10:36:33 toffoo has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1547 2013-05-06 10:37:53 <mollison> sipa: i also posted the question on the forum in jdillon's massive warning thread
1548 2013-05-06 10:38:14 rdymac has joined
1549 2013-05-06 10:40:38 <mollison> i.e. massive trolling thread
1550 2013-05-06 10:44:04 <takeyourhatoff> sipa: how much ram does a transaction take up in memory before it is included in a block?
1551 2013-05-06 10:44:11 toffoo has joined
1552 2013-05-06 10:44:36 michagogo_ has joined
1553 2013-05-06 10:44:40 michagogo has quit (Killed (moorcock.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services)))
1554 2013-05-06 10:44:41 michagogo_ is now known as michagogo
1555 2013-05-06 10:46:43 <mollison> takeyourhatoff: the problem is the memory they take up after they are included in a block (but not yet spent), not before they are included in a block
1556 2013-05-06 10:47:37 <takeyourhatoff> mollison: not if I am trying to crash clients by exhausting their memory
1557 2013-05-06 10:47:52 <mollison> takeyourhatoff: and really i think you want to know how much memory an output is (there are N per transaction), not a transaction
1558 2013-05-06 10:48:35 <takeyourhatoff> mollison: I each of the transactions I spend will only have one output
1559 2013-05-06 10:49:15 <SomeoneWeird> then you're doing it wrong
1560 2013-05-06 10:49:20 <SomeoneWeird> but you shouldn't be doing it at all :)
1561 2013-05-06 10:49:32 <mollison> +1
1562 2013-05-06 10:50:43 <wallet43> sipa: could we reallow 0 ouputs then? they dont consume much space, will never be spent, will have fees attached
1563 2013-05-06 10:50:52 <wallet43> dont bloat the utxo set
1564 2013-05-06 10:51:37 <wallet43> i d love if satoshi dice just sends 0 outputs to lost bets
1565 2013-05-06 10:51:58 <takeyourhatoff> SomeoneWeird: I will be more efficient with multiple outputs?
1566 2013-05-06 10:52:29 cheerio has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1567 2013-05-06 10:52:37 <mollison> wallet43: i don't think the devs will go for that because they seem to want to discourage non-currency uses for bitcoin
1568 2013-05-06 10:53:37 <takeyourhatoff> wallet43: if it has 0 outputs, why would they send them, it would not notify the looser
1569 2013-05-06 10:54:39 <mollison> takeyourhatoff: he means an output were you send 0 satoshis to an address
1570 2013-05-06 10:54:58 <takeyourhatoff> oh
1571 2013-05-06 10:55:00 <wallet43> exactly
1572 2013-05-06 10:55:11 <mollison> takeyourhatoff: which clearly is not meaningful except for non-currency uses
1573 2013-05-06 10:55:24 <takeyourhatoff> or dontations for miners
1574 2013-05-06 10:55:34 <mollison> it would be better for sdice to just email you if you lose the bet
1575 2013-05-06 10:55:35 <wallet43> so there is still a "confirmation" tx for every bet
1576 2013-05-06 10:55:39 <wallet43> but no dust is created
1577 2013-05-06 10:55:52 <wallet43> since 0 satoshi outputs dont create new UTXO
1578 2013-05-06 10:55:55 <mollison> wallet43: it still takes up space in the blockchain
1579 2013-05-06 10:56:15 <wallet43> yes but only a few bytes, which you pay with in fees
1580 2013-05-06 10:56:33 <mollison> wallet43: yes, but including functionality in bitcoin that has no use for currency is a no-go
1581 2013-05-06 10:57:45 <wallet43> okay so why is the OP_DROP
1582 2013-05-06 10:58:29 rushed has joined
1583 2013-05-06 11:00:12 <mollison> wallet43: i'm not familiar with what that does
1584 2013-05-06 11:00:38 <mollison> nevermind, looked it up
1585 2013-05-06 11:00:41 <mollison> i mean, that's just part of Script
1586 2013-05-06 11:00:53 <mollison> and Script is useful for currency purposes
1587 2013-05-06 11:00:58 toffoo has quit ()
1588 2013-05-06 11:01:09 <mollison> if there are parts of Script that are not useful for currency purposes... it's a good question why they exist
1589 2013-05-06 11:03:21 <wallet43> im not sure but i think op drop is missued for arbitrary storage of data in the blockchaiin (like that wikileaks and cp links stuff)
1590 2013-05-06 11:04:05 <sipa> wallet43: huh? 0 value outputs are the worst
1591 2013-05-06 11:04:06 <mollison> wallet43: possibly (i don't know), but what it really does is remove the top Script stack item, which seems like it could be useful (I think?)
1592 2013-05-06 11:04:26 <sipa> wallet43: they take space, you have to maintain them for eternity, and there is absolutely no reason why anyone would ever spend them
1593 2013-05-06 11:04:51 <mollison> sipa: did you see this question?: why not decide on a safe upper limit on the number of unspent transaction outputs per block, and make that a rule?
1594 2013-05-06 11:05:06 <sipa> mollison: how does that solve anything?
1595 2013-05-06 11:05:31 <sipa> it still doesn't prevent outputs not being consumed
1596 2013-05-06 11:05:50 <sipa> mollison: or do you mean the total UTXO size, limit that at each block?
1597 2013-05-06 11:06:15 <mollison> sipa: i guess that's what i mean, yes.
1598 2013-05-06 11:06:27 <sipa> that would be a tremendous limit on usability
1599 2013-05-06 11:06:59 <mollison> sipa: but if that's the actual problem, it's a limit on usability anyway
1600 2013-05-06 11:07:09 <sipa> wallet43: why do you think 0-value outputs don't create UTXO?
1601 2013-05-06 11:07:23 <mollison> sipa: he doesn't think that, you can ignore that discussion, we already resolved it
1602 2013-05-06 11:11:23 daybyter has joined
1603 2013-05-06 11:11:37 <mollison> sipa: if the real problem is too many unspent transaction outputs that have to be maintained in memory, that is something that can be addressed directly, rather than addressing it indirectly with the new dust rules. And under the new dust rules, the problem can still happen if enough people are eventually using bitcoin. So i don't see why a direct solution wouldn't be preferable.
1604 2013-05-06 11:12:50 bitit has joined
1605 2013-05-06 11:14:26 <sipa> mollison: it's a delicate balance between not hindering growth and not hindering validation
1606 2013-05-06 11:15:24 <sipa> mollison: if blockchain activity grows along with actually increased economic interest in the system, there is little problem with it becoming harder to validate as well... you get more incentives to do so
1607 2013-05-06 11:15:28 <wallet43> where are utxo saved? rev*?
1608 2013-05-06 11:15:34 <sipa> chainstate/*
1609 2013-05-06 11:15:54 xorgate has quit ()
1610 2013-05-06 11:16:10 duSn has quit (Quit: leaving)
1611 2013-05-06 11:16:12 <wallet43> sipa: i dont think its the case atm, but it would need to create one since 0 satoshi cant be spent?
1612 2013-05-06 11:16:24 <sipa> wallet43: it CAN be spent
1613 2013-05-06 11:16:26 <sipa> that's the problem
1614 2013-05-06 11:16:38 <Luke-Jr> I have spent 0 satoshi coins :D
1615 2013-05-06 11:16:39 <michagogo> It's pointless to do so, but it could be used as an input
1616 2013-05-06 11:16:41 <wallet43> accordingt to block validity?
1617 2013-05-06 11:16:44 <sipa> yes
1618 2013-05-06 11:16:45 <wallet43> hm...
1619 2013-05-06 11:16:50 <Luke-Jr> michagogo: it cleans up the UTXO
1620 2013-05-06 11:17:08 <Luke-Jr> someone should go collect all p2pool's UTXO spam..
1621 2013-05-06 11:17:12 <mollison> sipa: right. well, it may be the case that you can do what i'm saying and there is still plenty of "room" for legitimate traffic _now_, given what it is reasonable to validate.
1622 2013-05-06 11:17:30 <michagogo> Luke-Jr: I mean from a currency standpoint
1623 2013-05-06 11:17:49 <sipa> mollison: the thing is that actual currency usage results in UTXOs that are generally spendable, and get spent in time
1624 2013-05-06 11:18:05 xorgate has joined
1625 2013-05-06 11:18:25 icellan has quit (Quit: icellan)
1626 2013-05-06 11:18:47 <sipa> mollison: while many non-currency uses (which burden the system, from the point of view of those who are only interested in its currency purpose) result in either unspendable (but not provably unspendable) or economically uninteresting outputs to spend
1627 2013-05-06 11:18:54 one_zero has quit ()
1628 2013-05-06 11:19:11 <sipa> mollison: so the dust rule makes the latter more expensive while hardly impacting the first
1629 2013-05-06 11:19:40 qeb has joined
1630 2013-05-06 11:20:05 <mollison> sipa: yeah, i gotcha. i mean, can't you just not load really old unspent tx outs into memory and just allow a page fault if somebody tries to spend one? or is that infeasible for performance reasons?
1631 2013-05-06 11:21:08 <sipa> mollison: they're in the database anyway
1632 2013-05-06 11:21:31 <sipa> but it has to be accessible and quickly
1633 2013-05-06 11:21:50 <sipa> compared to blockchain storage which is just bulk storage and sequential high-latency access
1634 2013-05-06 11:22:06 <mollison> sipa: this suggestion is actually the top comment on the hacker news story (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5660118), though that is not my comment
1635 2013-05-06 11:22:26 <sipa> of course those that are accessed frequently (or are expected to be) get cached in layers above
1636 2013-05-06 11:22:58 michagogo has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1637 2013-05-06 11:23:07 <mollison> sipa: but the kinds of outputs you are worried about almost never get spent (by definition), so they do not need to be taking up space in memory.
1638 2013-05-06 11:23:22 <sipa> by "memory" i don't mean "RAM"
1639 2013-05-06 11:23:26 <mollison> sipa: maybe once in a while they need to be spent and it causes a page fault... does that really matter?
1640 2013-05-06 11:23:37 jim00001 has joined
1641 2013-05-06 11:23:48 <sipa> i'm not talking about actual implementations
1642 2013-05-06 11:23:53 <mollison> sipa: , OK, by "memory" you mean what?
1643 2013-05-06 11:24:00 <sipa> "fast-accessible storage"
1644 2013-05-06 11:24:19 <sipa> outputs take space in that for the time they are not spent
1645 2013-05-06 11:24:29 <sipa> sure, you can optimize by caching some more and some less
1646 2013-05-06 11:24:29 <mollison> sipa: so, these almost-never-spent outputs just need to be on disk, then
1647 2013-05-06 11:24:35 <sipa> yes
1648 2013-05-06 11:24:54 <mollison> sipa: so that seems OK
1649 2013-05-06 11:24:58 <sipa> but it's still a database, which has far higher maintainance overhead than bulk storage
1650 2013-05-06 11:25:04 bitRipperX has joined
1651 2013-05-06 11:25:15 <sipa> it's still pointless to allow creation of an output that you know will never ever be spent
1652 2013-05-06 11:25:53 <bitRipperX> I just installed piccoin to test out. Is it just me or is the documentation a bit....sparse.  I don't see anything anywhere abotu what brd is or how to use it.
1653 2013-05-06 11:26:26 <sipa> mollison: it'd be nice if there was a way to make creators of transactions pay for the cost of storing the outputs, and refund them when they get redeemed
1654 2013-05-06 11:26:32 <mollison> sipa: true... but whether it's "pointless" or not is irrelevant, the question is whether the fact of these unspent outputs existing in the database actually causes any problem
1655 2013-05-06 11:26:58 <sipa> mollison: they are a cost, and they have no benefit
1656 2013-05-06 11:27:30 <mollison> sipa: right, but you can't perfectly detect outputs that are never to be spent... dust is just a proxy for those
1657 2013-05-06 11:27:41 <sipa> sure
1658 2013-05-06 11:27:43 <mollison> sipa: so the question is, is the cost enough to justify using a proxy
1659 2013-05-06 11:27:45 <sipa> but it's just a policy
1660 2013-05-06 11:27:50 <mollison> sipa: an imperfect proxy
1661 2013-05-06 11:27:53 <sipa> they're filling my disk
1662 2013-05-06 11:27:58 <sipa> and i'm not getting paid for that
1663 2013-05-06 11:28:01 <mollison> sipa: so the question _really_ is, what _is_ the cost, quantifiably?
1664 2013-05-06 11:28:18 <wallet43> a few bytes on every full node
1665 2013-05-06 11:28:50 <wallet43> blockchain.info is connected to atleas 2k full nodes
1666 2013-05-06 11:28:52 <mollison> sipa: they're filling your disk, but _that_ in itself is a very small cost compared to the penalty we all "pay" by using a proxy that rules out lots of legitimate bitcoin uses
1667 2013-05-06 11:29:39 <sipa> mollison: if you find a better solution, feel free to suggest it
1668 2013-05-06 11:30:28 <mollison> sipa: well, i am. if disk usage is a problem, calculate acceptable disk usage per annum and set maximum block size accordingly. that's going to be an issue anyway, eventually.
1669 2013-05-06 11:30:56 <sipa> but you cannot limit maximum block sizes without a network rule, which requires a huge amount of consensus
1670 2013-05-06 11:31:29 <sipa> while this is just a local relay policy that everyone is free to set individually (with the software having a sane default)
1671 2013-05-06 11:32:35 <sipa> mollison: given the fact that bitcoin transactions have ~ the same cost to the network, there must exist some amount (which can vary over time) for which it makes no sense to use the blockchain for
1672 2013-05-06 11:32:48 <mollison> sipa: how effective is blockchain pruning going to eventually be? because if it's not that effective, there is going to have to be a decision on what is an acceptable rate of growth of the blockchain, and a rule will have to exist to limit that (I think currently it's 54 GB a year or something)
1673 2013-05-06 11:33:01 <ahf> what's piccoin?
1674 2013-05-06 11:33:10 <mollison> i.e. i think 54 GB/yr is the max it can grow if all space in every block were used
1675 2013-05-06 11:33:15 <sipa> blockchain pruning is a misleading name
1676 2013-05-06 11:33:37 <mollison> hmm, OK
1677 2013-05-06 11:33:40 <sipa> the blockchain doesn't get pruned - you need it entirely if you want to verify history (duh)
1678 2013-05-06 11:33:48 <sipa> that doesn't mean that everyone needs to store it entirely
1679 2013-05-06 11:34:15 <mollison> sipa: well, exactly, so there are two kinds of nodes... those that need to store it entirely, and those that only need part of it
1680 2013-05-06 11:34:34 <sipa> yes
1681 2013-05-06 11:34:36 <mollison> sipa: either of which could run into problems if either the full chain, or the "partial chain" grows too fast
1682 2013-05-06 11:34:47 <sipa> the "partial chain" is the UTXO set
1683 2013-05-06 11:34:53 <sipa> + block headers
1684 2013-05-06 11:35:00 <mollison> sipa: hmm, that makes perfect sense
1685 2013-05-06 11:35:13 <sipa> + the last few blocks, so you can reorganize away easily
1686 2013-05-06 11:36:44 dawei1011 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1687 2013-05-06 11:36:46 <mollison> so i guess my ultimate point is... if we are worried about the size of the whole blockchain, we can limit the size of blocks accordingly with policy. If we are worried about the UTXO set, we can limit the # of unspent outputs per block. that is my basic point.
1688 2013-05-06 11:36:58 <mollison> yes, they both require network consensus
1689 2013-05-06 11:37:16 <mollison> but if one of those two things is actually something that needs to be worried about... well, that's something that will have to be faced in the future
1690 2013-05-06 11:37:32 <mollison> no matter what
1691 2013-05-06 11:38:08 <mollison> so might as well address the issue directly instead of doing something indirect like trying to police dust
1692 2013-05-06 11:38:11 <sipa> what do you mean by "# unspent outputs per block"... how many each block can add?
1693 2013-05-06 11:38:23 JStoker has quit (Quit: JStoker is gone :()
1694 2013-05-06 11:39:29 <mollison> sipa: it would be some large, fixed number decided by policy
1695 2013-05-06 11:40:06 <mollison> sipa: that would serve to discourage miners from including transactions with lots of outputs... unless the transaction includes a sufficient fee
1696 2013-05-06 11:40:34 <mollison> sipa: so it would make it expensive for people to create lots of dusty transactions, and therefore discourage it
1697 2013-05-06 11:41:00 <wallet43> unspent outputs are per transaction not per block
1698 2013-05-06 11:41:20 <mollison> wallet43: no, i'm talking per block
1699 2013-05-06 11:41:34 <sipa> mollison: i'm still not clear by what you mean
1700 2013-05-06 11:41:39 <mollison> sipa: actually, an even more "accurate" solution, would be to determine an acceptable rate of growth of the total UTXO set
1701 2013-05-06 11:41:58 <sipa> each block contains transactions... each transaction consumes some outputs, and produces some outputs
1702 2013-05-06 11:42:03 <sipa> what exactly do you want to limit
1703 2013-05-06 11:42:15 <mollison> sipa: i.e., a safe upper bound given today's technology and what we can reasonable assume will exist in the near future
1704 2013-05-06 11:42:35 <sipa> you're not answering my question
1705 2013-05-06 11:43:02 <sipa> i'm asking what you want to limit... not how you would determine an appriopriate limit
1706 2013-05-06 11:43:38 <mollison> sipa: then you dynamically adjust the maximum number of outputs allowed per block (if necessary) to make sure the rate of growth of the UTXO set is not surpassed
1707 2013-05-06 11:44:17 iwilcox has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1708 2013-05-06 11:44:40 iwilcox has joined
1709 2013-05-06 11:44:41 iwilcox has quit (Changing host)
1710 2013-05-06 11:44:41 iwilcox has joined
1711 2013-05-06 11:44:41 <mollison> sipa: so it may be that, say, every 2 weeks, the number of outputs you can have _per block_ is recomputed
1712 2013-05-06 11:45:52 <mollison> sipa: so transaction outputs in each block are now a competitive resource, and you may need to pay a higher fee if your transaction uses more outputs, to actually be included in a block
1713 2013-05-06 11:49:11 <mollison> sipa: actually, regarding the per-limit block on transaction outputs. you could actually have the limit be (# of total new outputs - # of prior outputs that no longer exist). so now, there is an economic incentive to get rid of dust.
1714 2013-05-06 11:49:38 <sipa> mollison: that seems a very radical way of doing things, but yes
1715 2013-05-06 11:50:07 <sipa> mollison: the common proposal is to use the UTXO delta a transaction causes to be used in its priority calculation
1716 2013-05-06 11:50:21 <sipa> so you get a bonus for consuming many, a penalty for producing many
1717 2013-05-06 11:51:10 rdymac has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
1718 2013-05-06 11:51:23 rdymac has joined
1719 2013-05-06 11:51:31 <mollison> sipa: you say radical, but to me it is the analog to the fact that transaction fees will eventually scale up as block space becomes limited. it's the same thing, but for a different "resource" - total UTXO size.
1720 2013-05-06 11:51:52 <mollison> sipa: it creates the same kind of economic feedback loop
1721 2013-05-06 11:52:45 <mollison> sipa: so I think the "common proposal" you mentioned is going in the right direction, but it doesn't "close the loop", economically speaking
1722 2013-05-06 11:53:57 rdymac has quit (Client Quit)
1723 2013-05-06 11:54:09 <mollison> with what i am suggesting, not only are transaction fees kept to a minimum relating to the total UTXO size that can be accomodated, there is actually an incentive for people to go collect dust - miners could potentially pay people for doing this, since it allows them to have more outputs that they can actually collect fees for.
1724 2013-05-06 11:54:28 rdymac has joined
1725 2013-05-06 11:55:34 SwedFTP_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1726 2013-05-06 11:55:47 SwedFTP_ has joined
1727 2013-05-06 11:55:48 ForceMajeure has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1728 2013-05-06 11:57:02 ForceMajeure has joined
1729 2013-05-06 11:57:27 sacrelege has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1730 2013-05-06 11:57:39 fishfish has joined
1731 2013-05-06 11:59:27 atweiden has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1732 2013-05-06 11:59:35 that_some_guy has joined
1733 2013-05-06 11:59:39 <that_some_guy> Hello!
1734 2013-05-06 12:00:56 <that_some_guy> I have a small-ish question - is there some reference documentation for BTC sources, or is it basically "read the comments" ? I'm basically trying to figure out how would one go about creating a new transaction type (custom script), and am massively at loss
1735 2013-05-06 12:00:58 mrkent has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1736 2013-05-06 12:01:50 <wallet43> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script
1737 2013-05-06 12:02:14 <wallet43> what kind of transaction?
1738 2013-05-06 12:02:23 pizzacat has joined
1739 2013-05-06 12:02:38 phungus has quit (Quit: leaving)
1740 2013-05-06 12:02:46 RazielXYZ has joined
1741 2013-05-06 12:02:47 mrkent has joined
1742 2013-05-06 12:02:47 mrkent has quit (Changing host)
1743 2013-05-06 12:02:47 mrkent has joined
1744 2013-05-06 12:03:14 leakybuckit has joined
1745 2013-05-06 12:03:23 <that_some_guy> The  scriptPubKey: OP_RETURN one.
1746 2013-05-06 12:03:36 sacrelege has joined
1747 2013-05-06 12:03:58 <that_some_guy> Basically, I want to try making an alt-coin which allows to make the "unspendable" transaction
1748 2013-05-06 12:04:15 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1749 2013-05-06 12:04:39 <kinlo> that_some_guy: you can have unspendable transactions already wiht bitcoin
1750 2013-05-06 12:04:50 <that_some_guy> ?
1751 2013-05-06 12:04:53 <kinlo> not that you want to do that, but still, it can be done
1752 2013-05-06 12:05:17 SwedFTP_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1753 2013-05-06 12:05:33 <that_some_guy> I thought mainnet does not "welcome"   OP_RETURN style TX due to not being standard ? Am I massively behind the curve ?
1754 2013-05-06 12:05:38 * that_some_guy is slowpoke
1755 2013-05-06 12:05:58 <kinlo> mainnet does indeed not allow those transactions
1756 2013-05-06 12:06:02 JStoker has joined
1757 2013-05-06 12:06:06 <mollison> 0 1 OP_EQUAL
1758 2013-05-06 12:06:11 <kinlo> regardless, why do you want to do that?
1759 2013-05-06 12:06:19 <kinlo> why do you want to destroy bitcoins?
1760 2013-05-06 12:06:33 <kinlo> you can just convert them to fee's...
1761 2013-05-06 12:06:35 <that_some_guy> Hahaha, more like, I wanna destroy my own altcoins :)
1762 2013-05-06 12:06:51 SwedFTP has joined
1763 2013-05-06 12:06:55 <kinlo> send them to an address of which you don't have the private key?
1764 2013-05-06 12:07:01 <kinlo> that's basicly the same
1765 2013-05-06 12:07:24 <that_some_guy> well,  I want to learn to make custom transactions for altcoins while I'm at it
1766 2013-05-06 12:07:37 <that_some_guy> I'm not very good at this stuff though]
1767 2013-05-06 12:08:08 <kinlo> if you're gonna change the source, change it so the isStandard() function accepts your new transaction as standaard too
1768 2013-05-06 12:08:49 <wallet43> your an altcoin developer?
1769 2013-05-06 12:09:02 <that_some_guy> More like an altcoin meddler
1770 2013-05-06 12:09:22 CrypticSquared has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1771 2013-05-06 12:09:45 <that_some_guy> Well, that I figured out the is standard part, more or less, but for some reason I just can't wrap my head around constructing the custom TX
1772 2013-05-06 12:10:03 enikanorov_ has joined
1773 2013-05-06 12:10:04 enikanorov has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1774 2013-05-06 12:10:04 flykoko has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1775 2013-05-06 12:10:27 flykoko has joined
1776 2013-05-06 12:11:46 <wallet43> if you just want to have unnspenable outputs use scriptPubKey: OP_RETURN
1777 2013-05-06 12:12:23 <mollison> that_some_guy: there are example transactions on the wiki i think
1778 2013-05-06 12:12:36 <mollison> that_some_guy: it's just a matter of putting the right bits in the right places
1779 2013-05-06 12:12:59 CrypticSquared has joined
1780 2013-05-06 12:14:25 SwedFTP has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1781 2013-05-06 12:14:54 SwedFTP has joined
1782 2013-05-06 12:15:22 jim00001 has quit (Quit: jim00001)
1783 2013-05-06 12:15:26 Insti has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1784 2013-05-06 12:16:14 jim00001 has joined
1785 2013-05-06 12:16:16 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1786 2013-05-06 12:17:11 Guest76486 is now known as gaantr2
1787 2013-05-06 12:17:13 <bitRipperX> jgarzik: Hi, is there any documentation anywhere on how to use the blkscan utility?
1788 2013-05-06 12:18:11 <that_some_guy> wallet43 exactly what I am trying to achieve
1789 2013-05-06 12:18:15 greenstar has joined
1790 2013-05-06 12:19:38 <xeroc> is there some C-source for a program just to sign a transaction with a given privat key? including ECDAS ...
1791 2013-05-06 12:19:59 <xeroc> simething like .. $ signThisTX rawTX privKey
1792 2013-05-06 12:20:07 rushed has left ()
1793 2013-05-06 12:20:08 <xeroc> not using the bitcoin deamon?
1794 2013-05-06 12:22:11 qeb has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1795 2013-05-06 12:24:05 <wallet43> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/96371bc6e01e2bf9a6d78b92860160fb6ffd2180/src/rpcrawtransaction.cpp#L338
1796 2013-05-06 12:24:15 <mollison> xeroc: i'm not sure, but i think you can import and export private keys using the debug console in bitcoin-qt, which doesn't answer your question but may allow you do what you need to do
1797 2013-05-06 12:24:47 <xeroc> wallet43: thx ..
1798 2013-05-06 12:25:09 <xeroc> mollison: thx .. that i allready know .. i habe a raw tx .. and the privkey .. just want to sign the tx with the given privkey
1799 2013-05-06 12:25:37 <mollison> sorry i can't be more helpful
1800 2013-05-06 12:25:48 <xeroc> no prob ..
1801 2013-05-06 12:26:04 <xeroc> it seems like i have to code that on my own ..
1802 2013-05-06 12:26:10 <wallet43> you have an ecdsa library?
1803 2013-05-06 12:27:01 <wallet43> https://github.com/warner/python-ecdsa im using it a lot its well documented but its python
1804 2013-05-06 12:27:03 <xeroc> found sipa's: https://github.com/sipa/secp256k1
1805 2013-05-06 12:29:03 * sipa needs to put a big disclaimer in there
1806 2013-05-06 12:29:54 <sipa> also, you need a ton of logic to just be able to compute signature hashes for transactions
1807 2013-05-06 12:29:59 <sipa> which isn't included in that library
1808 2013-05-06 12:30:54 Raccoon` has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1809 2013-05-06 12:31:30 <wallet43> is there a reason why bitcoin uses secp256k1 not nist256p?
1810 2013-05-06 12:31:40 Raccoon` has joined
1811 2013-05-06 12:31:55 bitit has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1812 2013-05-06 12:32:16 bitit has joined
1813 2013-05-06 12:33:59 quaz0r has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1814 2013-05-06 12:40:32 SwedFTP has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1815 2013-05-06 12:41:04 Guest93532 is now known as pigeons
1816 2013-05-06 12:41:21 skinnkavaj has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1817 2013-05-06 12:42:25 skinnkavaj has joined
1818 2013-05-06 12:43:57 bitRipperX is now known as bcnb
1819 2013-05-06 12:44:19 SwedFTP has joined
1820 2013-05-06 12:44:19 SwedFTP has quit (Changing host)
1821 2013-05-06 12:44:19 SwedFTP has joined
1822 2013-05-06 12:46:08 SwedFTP has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1823 2013-05-06 12:46:32 quaz0r has joined
1824 2013-05-06 12:47:25 SwedFTP has joined
1825 2013-05-06 12:47:25 SwedFTP has quit (Changing host)
1826 2013-05-06 12:47:25 SwedFTP has joined
1827 2013-05-06 12:49:46 jim00001 has quit (Quit: jim00001)
1828 2013-05-06 12:50:24 mughat_3 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1829 2013-05-06 12:50:44 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1830 2013-05-06 12:52:52 SwedFTP has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1831 2013-05-06 12:53:34 new299_ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1832 2013-05-06 12:54:29 new299_ has joined
1833 2013-05-06 12:54:38 Grouver has joined
1834 2013-05-06 12:54:44 SwedFTP has joined
1835 2013-05-06 12:54:44 SwedFTP has quit (Changing host)
1836 2013-05-06 12:54:44 SwedFTP has joined
1837 2013-05-06 12:54:54 porquilho has joined
1838 2013-05-06 12:54:54 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1839 2013-05-06 12:55:47 Insti has joined
1840 2013-05-06 12:56:15 slothbag has joined
1841 2013-05-06 12:56:17 wallet43 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1842 2013-05-06 12:57:47 TradeFortress has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1843 2013-05-06 12:58:06 <slothbag> Hi all, anyone know of an easy Bitcoin ECDSA verify routine for PHP?  or a lightweight command line alternative in node or python etc
1844 2013-05-06 13:00:35 <porquilho> I like all development community
1845 2013-05-06 13:00:38 <porquilho> thanks!
1846 2013-05-06 13:02:21 lolcookie_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1847 2013-05-06 13:02:36 lolcookie has joined
1848 2013-05-06 13:03:34 that_some_guy has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.2.0 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
1849 2013-05-06 13:04:10 lolcookie has quit (Client Quit)
1850 2013-05-06 13:04:28 lolcookie has joined
1851 2013-05-06 13:04:39 someone42 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1852 2013-05-06 13:05:30 datagutt has joined
1853 2013-05-06 13:05:52 <CodeShark> slothbag: http://www.php.net/manual/en/function.openssl-verify.php
1854 2013-05-06 13:06:32 <slothbag> is that compatible with the bitcoin signing? i assume I have to convert out of base58 first?
1855 2013-05-06 13:06:50 <CodeShark> bitcoin never uses base58 internally
1856 2013-05-06 13:07:16 g0thX has joined
1857 2013-05-06 13:07:17 <CodeShark> base58 is primarily intended for user interfaces
1858 2013-05-06 13:07:52 <slothbag> I have stored a base58 public key as users will be inputting it.. so i think I will need to do the conversion.. though that shouldnt be too hard
1859 2013-05-06 13:08:40 <sipa> public keys are usually not base58 encoded, but hex
1860 2013-05-06 13:09:42 <xeroc> WTF .. last block >40 minutes ago? whats going on?
1861 2013-05-06 13:09:51 <slothbag> isnt this 1HB5XMLmzFVj8ALj6mfBsbifRoD4miY36v  (wikileaks) base58?
1862 2013-05-06 13:10:19 <sipa> slothbag: that's an address, not a pubkey
1863 2013-05-06 13:10:21 <CodeShark> slothbag: http://pastebin.com/bdaqPa6r
1864 2013-05-06 13:10:23 <sipa> but it's base58 yes
1865 2013-05-06 13:10:34 <sipa> ;;tblb 2400
1866 2013-05-06 13:10:35 <gribble> The expected time between blocks taking 40 minutes and 0 seconds to generate is 13 hours, 1 minute, and 55 seconds
1867 2013-05-06 13:10:38 <sipa> xeroc: ^
1868 2013-05-06 13:10:51 <xeroc> ah .. here we go ..
1869 2013-05-06 13:11:18 <CodeShark> slothbag: in particular, note the fromBase58Check function
1870 2013-05-06 13:11:38 <slothbag> sorry, yeah my mistake.. i have public addresses, which I can convert to a public key (hex) then feed that into the openssl_verify.. thanks
1871 2013-05-06 13:12:57 <sipa> you cannot convert an address into a public key
1872 2013-05-06 13:13:19 <xeroc> .. because its shorter :-)
1873 2013-05-06 13:13:20 <CodeShark> an address is ripemd160(sha256(pubkey))
1874 2013-05-06 13:13:41 <xeroc> address: 160 bit | pub key: 256 bit
1875 2013-05-06 13:13:43 <CodeShark> even if it were the same width, reversing the hash functions is computationally prohibitive
1876 2013-05-06 13:13:55 <xeroc> yhea .
1877 2013-05-06 13:14:04 krator44 has joined
1878 2013-05-06 13:14:24 m00p has joined
1879 2013-05-06 13:14:31 <xeroc> even for a quamtum computer .. (which is NOT faster than other computers are)
1880 2013-05-06 13:15:13 CrypticSquared has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1881 2013-05-06 13:16:14 <slothbag> so the bitcoin-qt can verify a message just by using the address.. (so obviously not using the public key).. can the same be done with openssl_verify?
1882 2013-05-06 13:16:19 <CodeShark> no
1883 2013-05-06 13:16:28 <CodeShark> it needs the full public key to do verification
1884 2013-05-06 13:17:01 systemParanoid has joined
1885 2013-05-06 13:17:07 <CodeShark> transaction outputs only need to use the address, though - as long as the inputs claiming them contain the full public key
1886 2013-05-06 13:17:12 <slothbag> damn.. so has anyone replicated how bitcoin-qt does it into an easy to use library :)
1887 2013-05-06 13:17:13 agricocb has joined
1888 2013-05-06 13:17:29 <CodeShark> bitcoin-qt uses the openssl c library
1889 2013-05-06 13:17:49 <CodeShark> whether it's an "easy" library is somewhat a matter of opinion :)
1890 2013-05-06 13:18:27 <CodeShark> php and other such languages also use the openssl c routines
1891 2013-05-06 13:18:28 <slothbag> i found an implementation from brainwallet that does the sign/verify in Javascript.. maybe i'll try that running through NodeJS
1892 2013-05-06 13:19:21 <CodeShark> for signing it's probably ok - but for verification, you might face some performance issues
1893 2013-05-06 13:19:27 <CodeShark> unless you have natively implemented low-level routines
1894 2013-05-06 13:20:19 <CodeShark> the operations are actually not too complex - perhaps the most difficult part is the need for multiprecision integer arithmetic
1895 2013-05-06 13:21:30 <slothbag> im just working on a proof of concept.. if it works i'll pay someone to write me something in C :)
1896 2013-05-06 13:21:46 <slothbag> thanks for the tips
1897 2013-05-06 13:21:46 <CodeShark> sipa has his own C library for secp256k1 :)
1898 2013-05-06 13:21:52 <CodeShark> I've also written a couple libraries
1899 2013-05-06 13:22:27 <shesek> bitcoinjs could really use some more documentation
1900 2013-05-06 13:22:28 <CodeShark> I've implemented it in C, C++, Java, and Mathematica
1901 2013-05-06 13:22:57 <CodeShark> Mathematica is my "testing" implementation since it supports multiprecision arithmetic as built-in operations
1902 2013-05-06 13:23:20 <shesek> is it actively developed? seems kinda abandoned
1903 2013-05-06 13:23:59 g0thX has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1904 2013-05-06 13:24:09 <CodeShark> so if you want to do proof-of-concept, slothbag, I'd highly recommend using a language that has built-in arbitrary precision ints :)
1905 2013-05-06 13:26:23 <CodeShark> javascript has a couple serious deficiencies - it doesn't have built-in multiprecision ints (and the multiprecision libraries that exist don't integrate too smoothly into the language) - and all its numerics are floating points
1906 2013-05-06 13:27:00 <The_Fly> unless you use TypedArrays ;)
1907 2013-05-06 13:27:01 <CodeShark> this means that things like bitwise operations are horribly inefficient
1908 2013-05-06 13:27:34 sacrelege has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1909 2013-05-06 13:29:39 grau has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1910 2013-05-06 13:30:15 <slothbag> I dont want to get too bogged down in the low level stuff.. hopefully this existing JS library works well enough to get up and running..
1911 2013-05-06 13:30:30 Plinker has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1912 2013-05-06 13:31:17 TD has joined
1913 2013-05-06 13:31:23 slothbag has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1914 2013-05-06 13:31:51 <sipa> CodeShark: message signing/verification uses pubkey recovery
1915 2013-05-06 13:31:54 Plinker_ has joined
1916 2013-05-06 13:32:08 <CodeShark> BitcoinBase58Chars = "123456789ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz"; ToBase58[v_, n_, chars_] :=
1917 2013-05-06 13:32:08 <CodeShark>  If[n == 0, Return[Characters[chars][[v + 1]]],
1918 2013-05-06 13:32:08 <CodeShark>   Return[ToBase58[v, Floor[n/58], chars] <>
1919 2013-05-06 13:32:09 <CodeShark>     Characters[chars][[Mod[n, 58] + 1]]]]
1920 2013-05-06 13:32:11 <sipa> CodeShark: so it computes the pubkey from message and signature, and then compares that pubkey against the provided address
1921 2013-05-06 13:32:31 <CodeShark> a Mathematica two-liner for converting an int to bas58 :)
1922 2013-05-06 13:32:44 <bcnb> I would like to watch a few hundred addressed and find out if a tranaction has been made to one of them. I want to send the notification to a node.js application.  I'm running my own satoshi client.
1923 2013-05-06 13:32:50 <CodeShark> arbitrary precision ints are very convenient :)
1924 2013-05-06 13:33:43 <bcnb> can this only be done by slamming my client with GETBLOCKS messages?
1925 2013-05-06 13:34:26 cc_8 has joined
1926 2013-05-06 13:34:26 cc_8 is now known as alphaguru
1927 2013-05-06 13:35:53 <CodeShark> bcnb: lol - you're one more person looking for exactly the functionality that I've spent the better part of my days in bitcoin implementing :p
1928 2013-05-06 13:36:54 <TD> bcnb: there are a bunch of ways to do that
1929 2013-05-06 13:37:32 <CodeShark> TD: unfortunately, none out of the box with bitcoind (without either using horrendous hacks or having to do some relatively advanced stuff)
1930 2013-05-06 13:38:03 <TD> bcnb: some ways ... blockchain.info offers a service for it, there is a --walletnotify flag in new bitcoin versions that runs an external script when the wallet changes, so if it contains your keys that works, you could use bitcoinj and write a little java app to do it, you could use armory/electrum offline wallets, etc
1931 2013-05-06 13:38:21 <TD> CodeShark: yeah indeed. but i guess over time bitcoind will become less of a swiss army knife and more of a pure server you connect other tools to.
1932 2013-05-06 13:39:06 jim00001 has joined
1933 2013-05-06 13:39:23 <TD> bcnb: there is also a patch to add support for 0mq to bitcoind. a little server that listens to the P2P network and sends JSON-RPCs for particular events would be easy to write in bitcoinj. and useful to the community too - i just never got around to writing it
1934 2013-05-06 13:40:27 greenstar has left ()
1935 2013-05-06 13:40:31 SirDefaced has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1936 2013-05-06 13:40:33 roconnor__ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1937 2013-05-06 13:41:00 <CodeShark> one of these days I'll publish my websockets pub/sub server
1938 2013-05-06 13:41:36 duckybsd has joined
1939 2013-05-06 13:41:49 <CodeShark> I have a C++ class library where all you have to do is implement a couple virtual methods
1940 2013-05-06 13:42:23 <CodeShark> onTx, onBlock, etc...
1941 2013-05-06 13:42:51 <CodeShark> but that still requires compiling and building your own custom app
1942 2013-05-06 13:43:10 <CodeShark> I'm looking to add the websockets pub/sub stuff to it and a simple API
1943 2013-05-06 13:43:16 <bcnb> TD: eventually I will want to monitor thousands of addresses belonging to dozens of wallets. blockchain.info wouldn't be scalable and I think the bitcoind client only works with one wallet right? I'll look into bitcoinj and theh 0mq patch. Those look promising
1944 2013-05-06 13:43:53 <CodeShark> blockchain.info is not only not scalable - it also has availability issues
1945 2013-05-06 13:43:55 <TD> bcnb: a bitcoinj based solution requires that the addresses are held in RAM (at least for now), but thousands of keys is not a problem. the app itself would not require anything more than a P2P connection and a few local files.
1946 2013-05-06 13:44:32 <CodeShark> my websockets pub/sub system uses a trie filter
1947 2013-05-06 13:44:38 <TD> (although the current Wallet code in bitcoinj might need some scalability tweaks to do lots and lots of keys - in a few places the code iterates over all of them, things like that)
1948 2013-05-06 13:44:41 Keefe has quit (Quit: leaving)
1949 2013-05-06 13:45:36 grau has joined
1950 2013-05-06 13:45:47 <CodeShark> it can handle hundreds of thousands of addresses - perhaps millions (haven't done a full stress test) with no problem
1951 2013-05-06 13:46:10 grau has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1952 2013-05-06 13:46:11 grau_ has joined
1953 2013-05-06 13:46:20 neo2 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1954 2013-05-06 13:48:23 <CodeShark> the API also supports notification on confirmations and letting the subscriber specify when it no longer requires confirmations for a particular transaction
1955 2013-05-06 13:49:29 <CodeShark> an important design goal is that it should gracefully recover if either the subscriber or the listener/filter get disconnected
1956 2013-05-06 13:49:33 Goonie_ has joined
1957 2013-05-06 13:49:47 <CodeShark> i.e. it will still receive alerts, even if late
1958 2013-05-06 13:49:51 <bcnb> CodeShark: do you have this class libary available for public consumption?
1959 2013-05-06 13:50:05 <CodeShark> the class library, yes - the streaming server with full API, no
1960 2013-05-06 13:50:34 <CodeShark> https://github.com/CodeShark/CoinClasses/blob/master/examples/listener2/listener2.cpp
1961 2013-05-06 13:51:07 <jgm> TD: Sorry meant to say earlier but put my Bitcoin attempt on Github.  Most of it is just reimplementation of things you have already done, but items such as BTCUnit and Value might be of interest to you.  It's at http://github.com/wealdtech/bitcoin
1962 2013-05-06 13:51:18 <CodeShark> just write your own versions of onTx, onBlock, etc...
1963 2013-05-06 13:51:29 <TD> jgm: cool
1964 2013-05-06 13:51:31 <TD> will take a look
1965 2013-05-06 13:53:08 <bcnb> TD: so for the bitcoinj implementation I would need to have P2P support in my nodejs app then coonnect that to bitcoinj. And bitcoinj would need to have some custom code to watch my address of interest?
1966 2013-05-06 13:53:42 <TD> jgm: yeah that looks pretty much like what i want to do. i might steal some of this code for bitcoinj at some point.
1967 2013-05-06 13:53:43 Casimir1904 has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1968 2013-05-06 13:54:11 <TD> bcnb: your nodejs app would just have to listen to whatever RPC mechanism you choose. the bitcoinj app converts between the P2P network and whatever your node app wants.
1969 2013-05-06 13:54:16 <TD> bcnb: that would be the idea (json-rpc or whatever)
1970 2013-05-06 13:54:22 * TD knows not much about node.js apps and what they use
1971 2013-05-06 13:54:53 <TD> bcnb: boils down to the same thing as CodeShark is saying. you'd need to write an app that turns method calls into RPCs to your node.js app
1972 2013-05-06 13:54:56 <TD> or you could try looking at bitcoinjs
1973 2013-05-06 13:55:00 <TD> but i'm not sure if it's still being maintained
1974 2013-05-06 13:55:08 systemParanoid has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1975 2013-05-06 13:55:37 <CodeShark> one of these days I'll publish my websockets pub/sub server - I've used it for a couple node.js projects
1976 2013-05-06 13:55:37 Keefe has joined
1977 2013-05-06 13:55:37 Keefe has quit (Changing host)
1978 2013-05-06 13:55:37 Keefe has joined
1979 2013-05-06 13:56:07 <CodeShark> websockets is probably the simplest streaming mechanism to use for node.js
1980 2013-05-06 13:56:34 systemParanoid has joined
1981 2013-05-06 13:56:42 Casimir1904 has joined
1982 2013-05-06 13:56:50 <CodeShark> just minimal additional overhead to a regular TCP socket
1983 2013-05-06 13:57:09 <CodeShark> negligible, really
1984 2013-05-06 13:58:42 Sealy has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1985 2013-05-06 13:59:14 <bcnb> TD: Yeah, I've been wrestling with bitcoinjs for a few days. It's not working. I thought about submittitng patches to the project because its exactly what I need but that would take too long. I was hoping to find some short term solution while I work on bitcoinjs on the side
1986 2013-05-06 13:59:37 <CodeShark> I'm not sure I'd implement the verification engine in js, though :p
1987 2013-05-06 14:00:24 <CodeShark> I only use js for things like message queueing, database updates, etc...
1988 2013-05-06 14:00:30 <TD> bcnb: if you build a solution please do advertise it around a bit. this seems to be a common need and we lack a good implementation of it. bitcoind can do some kinds of json callbacks but not everything needed.
1989 2013-05-06 14:00:45 * TD only uses js when running inside a web browser
1990 2013-05-06 14:00:52 <CodeShark> TD: haha
1991 2013-05-06 14:01:20 * sipa too
1992 2013-05-06 14:01:24 <bcnb> TD: Will do. the 0mq solution looks promising as a short term thing but I will definitly put some work into getting bitcoinjs working.
1993 2013-05-06 14:01:55 sacredchao has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1994 2013-05-06 14:02:17 sacredchao has joined
1995 2013-05-06 14:02:28 MobPhone has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1996 2013-05-06 14:02:54 <CodeShark> I was talking about serverside js, of course :P
1997 2013-05-06 14:03:00 MobPhone has joined
1998 2013-05-06 14:03:37 <CodeShark> for better or worse, browserside, js is the only general-purpose language that is practically universally supported
1999 2013-05-06 14:03:54 <TD> yes. i never really understood the server-side js movement
2000 2013-05-06 14:04:08 <CodeShark> node.js has some pretty cool features
2001 2013-05-06 14:04:12 <TD> like?
2002 2013-05-06 14:04:29 swulf-- has joined
2003 2013-05-06 14:04:33 <CodeShark> javascript is something of a combination of C-like imperative syntax with lisp-like functional programming
2004 2013-05-06 14:04:54 <CodeShark> it supports a fully asynchronous I/O model
2005 2013-05-06 14:05:15 <CodeShark> blocking is a big no no
2006 2013-05-06 14:05:21 <TD> i don't see how. it has no feature that are any different to java, in that respect. except that it's a lot slower and you don't have IDEs developed over such a long period of time to help you. or even a compiler, unless you use closure compiler for everything.
2007 2013-05-06 14:05:27 <CodeShark> so it forces you to think in different ways than writing in, say, C or Java
2008 2013-05-06 14:05:40 <TD> you can write non-blocking code in any language, that isn't really a feature. most people choose not to because it's a pain in the ass and often unnecessary
2009 2013-05-06 14:05:45 <TD> but you can certainly do it, if you want to
2010 2013-05-06 14:06:02 <CodeShark> well, the point is that javascript was designed to make nonblocking code simpler to write
2011 2013-05-06 14:06:05 <swulf--> The MIT license doesn't oblige me to publish changes I make to a project  (that I only use privately), does it?
2012 2013-05-06 14:06:17 <CodeShark> and at the same time, javascript was designed to discourage blocking code
2013 2013-05-06 14:06:17 <TD> swulf--: AFAIK no license requires that (except affero gpl?)
2014 2013-05-06 14:06:35 <TD> CodeShark: how does it make it simpler to write? you pass closures around, just like any other language.
2015 2013-05-06 14:06:43 <swulf--> gpl would require it if the changes were used commercially, right?
2016 2013-05-06 14:06:48 <TD> i suppose the latest versions of js have features that you can't use on the web or something?
2017 2013-05-06 14:07:03 <TD> swulf--: i said affero gpl - not the same thing as regular gpl. almost nothing uses affero gpl.
2018 2013-05-06 14:07:13 <swulf--> ah, well then..
2019 2013-05-06 14:07:14 <TD> swulf--: no licenses you are likely to encounter require disclosure of private changes
2020 2013-05-06 14:07:24 <CodeShark> you can chain event handlers, TD
2021 2013-05-06 14:07:26 <swulf--> TD: *even if* those changes are made for profit?
2022 2013-05-06 14:07:41 <CodeShark> object.onX(function() { }).onY(function() { })...
2023 2013-05-06 14:07:44 <TD> swulf--: regardless of the motive. GPL only requires open sourcing your code if you redistribute it to other people.
2024 2013-05-06 14:07:50 <swulf--> right
2025 2013-05-06 14:07:50 <sipa> swulf--: even the GPL doesn't require you to publish changes to anyone except those to which you distribute the modified software
2026 2013-05-06 14:07:56 <TD> CodeShark: how is that different to java or any other language that supports closures?
2027 2013-05-06 14:08:06 <CodeShark> I've never used closures in java
2028 2013-05-06 14:08:10 <swulf--> that's good.
2029 2013-05-06 14:08:13 <CodeShark> didn't even know it supported them :p
2030 2013-05-06 14:08:26 <CodeShark> as far as I know, Java is essentially a dumbed-down C++ :)
2031 2013-05-06 14:08:43 <TD> they are basically the same, except you provide objects instead of raw functions and are a bit more verbose. but good IDEs can automatically write them for you and collapse them down to a less verbose form, so in the end it's not a big deal. and you get the type safety.
2032 2013-05-06 14:08:44 <sipa> meh, Java can emulate closures perfectly if you wrap them in an object
2033 2013-05-06 14:08:54 <sipa> it's just a bit of syntactic hassle
2034 2013-05-06 14:09:01 ville-- has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2035 2013-05-06 14:09:04 <CodeShark> yeah, but emulation is not the same thing as having the syntax as a key feature of the language
2036 2013-05-06 14:09:09 <TD> yeah, but nobody actually writes java by hand these days :)
2037 2013-05-06 14:09:12 malaimo has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2038 2013-05-06 14:09:14 <CodeShark> you can also write a LISP interpreter in Java :p
2039 2013-05-06 14:09:34 <TD> CodeShark: java doesn't emulate them. closures *are* a part of the language. if you create an anonymous inner class it can close over variables in the outer scope
2040 2013-05-06 14:10:03 <TD> it just uses anonymous classes instead of anonymous functions
2041 2013-05-06 14:10:08 <CodeShark> that's not a very common style in java, though
2042 2013-05-06 14:10:15 ville-- has joined
2043 2013-05-06 14:10:28 <TD> sure it is. always has been. people provide closures for event handlers and things
2044 2013-05-06 14:10:33 <CodeShark> although I should perhaps look into it so I sound at least a tad bit more intelligent when I talk about it :p
2045 2013-05-06 14:10:36 <sipa> yes, it's sure is common
2046 2013-05-06 14:10:40 <sipa> especially in GUI code
2047 2013-05-06 14:10:40 <TD> bitcoinj uses them for async operations using guava ListenableFutures
2048 2013-05-06 14:10:47 malaimo has joined
2049 2013-05-06 14:10:48 <CodeShark> ok, in the GUI stuff, I suppose it is
2050 2013-05-06 14:11:13 <TD> so it builds up chains of async operations (wait for some coins to be received, then create and broadcast a tx, then wait for it to be broadcast, then do this and that, etc)
2051 2013-05-06 14:11:44 <TD> yes it's very common in GUIs especially on android because you aren't supposed to block the gui thread (like in js development)
2052 2013-05-06 14:12:19 <TD> you *can* block it, but it will make your app stutter and if you do it too much you might get the dreaded "application not responding" error. android provides a developer mode that can catch you doing blocking things on the ui thread, if you want to
2053 2013-05-06 14:13:27 <TD> indeed with Netty all network IO operations are asynchronous
2054 2013-05-06 14:13:42 <TD> so you can write node style code if you want. you have the choice though.
2055 2013-05-06 14:13:47 zeph97 has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net)
2056 2013-05-06 14:13:57 <TD> you can block if you like. the fact that node requires non-blocking isn't some brilliant insight into software design
2057 2013-05-06 14:14:05 <TD> it's because javascript is inherently single threaded
2058 2013-05-06 14:14:37 <matjeh> reminds me of win16
2059 2013-05-06 14:14:41 ville-- has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2060 2013-05-06 14:14:47 zeph97 has joined
2061 2013-05-06 14:14:58 ville-- has joined
2062 2013-05-06 14:15:42 * TheSeven will found an unchanged litecoin clone tomorrow and call it tuesdaycoin :P
2063 2013-05-06 14:16:01 <TD> jgm: would you be willing to sign (online) the google CLA? it basically says you agree not to sue us and i would need it to re-use your code.
2064 2013-05-06 14:16:12 <matjeh> win16 coding: Yield() all over the place. a loop of something? ahhh just Yield() every iteration. non-blocking!
2065 2013-05-06 14:16:24 <kjj> so, I was thinking about adding RPC calls to modify the fee values without a restart, mostly to silence the mouthbreathers on the forum, but decided it was a good idea anyway
2066 2013-05-06 14:16:29 <TD> matjeh: heh. yes. web dev is similar to win16 coding in many ways, none flattering ....
2067 2013-05-06 14:16:33 <CodeShark> but even in languages that support copious multithreading, unless apps are very carefully written, resource bottlenecks (in particular, shared memory, locks, and synchronization objects) often outweight most of the benefits of running multiple threads
2068 2013-05-06 14:16:54 <TD> CodeShark: that is a very large assertion that would require very large evidence to support it.
2069 2013-05-06 14:17:21 <jgm> TD: Sure, where is it?
2070 2013-05-06 14:17:24 <TD> CodeShark: also obviously you can do multi-threading with a mix of techniques, depending on whatever is appropriate.
2071 2013-05-06 14:17:34 <TD> jgm: https://developers.google.com/open-source/cla/individual
2072 2013-05-06 14:17:43 <TD> jgm: thanks! there's a little form at the bottom with an i agree button
2073 2013-05-06 14:17:54 <CodeShark> multithreading, when each thread manages its own stack and very little synchronization is needed, provides huge performance boosts
2074 2013-05-06 14:18:14 <CodeShark> but if these two conditions aren't met, oftentimes threads are just waiting on each other
2075 2013-05-06 14:18:46 <TD> yes, indeed. such is the art of writing software ...
2076 2013-05-06 14:18:58 jeewee has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
2077 2013-05-06 14:20:09 Haifisch has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2078 2013-05-06 14:21:13 <grau_> CodeShark: having 2+ kernels in the cheapest mobile or PC does simply require you to use multithreading.
2079 2013-05-06 14:21:57 jonass has joined
2080 2013-05-06 14:22:38 <jgm> TD: done
2081 2013-05-06 14:22:52 <TD> thanks!
2082 2013-05-06 14:22:54 <TD> much appreciated
2083 2013-05-06 14:23:09 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2084 2013-05-06 14:23:31 <CodeShark> anyhow, time for bed :)
2085 2013-05-06 14:23:34 <CodeShark> goodnight
2086 2013-05-06 14:23:47 <jgm> Nw, let me know if you have any questions/comments on it.
2087 2013-05-06 14:24:20 mappum has joined
2088 2013-05-06 14:26:43 g0thX has joined
2089 2013-05-06 14:28:19 normanrichards has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2090 2013-05-06 14:28:50 CodeShark has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2091 2013-05-06 14:28:53 chmod755 has joined
2092 2013-05-06 14:29:05 rdymac has joined
2093 2013-05-06 14:30:39 macboz has joined
2094 2013-05-06 14:30:56 Skav has joined
2095 2013-05-06 14:30:58 BTCOxygen has joined
2096 2013-05-06 14:31:32 agricocb has joined
2097 2013-05-06 14:33:33 MobPhone has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2098 2013-05-06 14:33:37 quaz0r has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2099 2013-05-06 14:40:01 duckybsd has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2100 2013-05-06 14:40:09 g0thX has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2101 2013-05-06 14:40:58 testnode9 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2102 2013-05-06 14:43:30 agricocb has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2103 2013-05-06 14:45:46 Michail1 is now known as Michail1_
2104 2013-05-06 14:46:17 Skav has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2105 2013-05-06 14:47:03 MobPhone has joined
2106 2013-05-06 14:47:23 jeewee has joined
2107 2013-05-06 14:48:00 quaz0r has joined
2108 2013-05-06 14:48:31 SirDefaced has joined
2109 2013-05-06 14:51:34 agricocb has joined
2110 2013-05-06 14:52:52 xorgate has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2111 2013-05-06 14:53:27 xorgate has joined
2112 2013-05-06 14:54:28 taha has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2113 2013-05-06 14:55:35 Skav has joined
2114 2013-05-06 14:56:26 MobPhone_ has joined
2115 2013-05-06 14:57:23 Skav has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2116 2013-05-06 14:57:56 MobPhone has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2117 2013-05-06 14:58:50 swulf-- has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
2118 2013-05-06 15:00:23 MobPhone has joined
2119 2013-05-06 15:01:22 MobPhone_ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2120 2013-05-06 15:03:02 egis has joined
2121 2013-05-06 15:04:50 Skav has joined
2122 2013-05-06 15:05:07 swulf-- has joined
2123 2013-05-06 15:05:58 sacredchao has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2124 2013-05-06 15:06:05 john_vienna_work has joined
2125 2013-05-06 15:06:17 sacredchao has joined
2126 2013-05-06 15:07:07 zapu has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2127 2013-05-06 15:07:32 MobPhone has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2128 2013-05-06 15:10:34 MobPhone has joined
2129 2013-05-06 15:12:46 icellan has joined
2130 2013-05-06 15:13:10 Skav has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2131 2013-05-06 15:18:06 Skav has joined
2132 2013-05-06 15:19:08 mrkent has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2133 2013-05-06 15:19:32 Tantadruj has joined
2134 2013-05-06 15:20:22 seeingidog__ has joined
2135 2013-05-06 15:21:04 MobPhone has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
2136 2013-05-06 15:22:34 Michail1_ is now known as Michail1
2137 2013-05-06 15:24:40 g0thX has joined
2138 2013-05-06 15:27:36 lolcookie_ has joined
2139 2013-05-06 15:30:39 lolcookie has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
2140 2013-05-06 15:34:57 iwilcox has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2141 2013-05-06 15:39:52 imsaguy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2142 2013-05-06 15:40:06 jtimon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2143 2013-05-06 15:41:53 jtimon has joined
2144 2013-05-06 15:43:14 graingert has joined
2145 2013-05-06 15:43:14 graingert has quit (Changing host)
2146 2013-05-06 15:43:14 graingert has joined
2147 2013-05-06 15:43:54 g0thX has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2148 2013-05-06 15:44:08 robocoin has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2149 2013-05-06 15:44:26 ASSNTITTIES has joined
2150 2013-05-06 15:44:29 robocoin has joined
2151 2013-05-06 15:44:30 robocoin has quit (Changing host)
2152 2013-05-06 15:44:30 robocoin has joined
2153 2013-05-06 15:44:39 roconnor has joined
2154 2013-05-06 15:44:42 ASSNTITTIES is now known as lolcookie
2155 2013-05-06 15:46:54 normanrichards has joined
2156 2013-05-06 15:48:21 lolcookie_ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2157 2013-05-06 15:51:40 sud3n has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2158 2013-05-06 15:52:04 wrabbit has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2159 2013-05-06 15:52:25 wrabbit has joined
2160 2013-05-06 15:54:55 graingert has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat-GNOME)
2161 2013-05-06 15:57:24 leakybuckit has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2162 2013-05-06 16:00:20 Tantadruj has quit (Quit: DoubleRecall Turns Paywalls Into Advertising Dollars - NYTimes.com http://nyti.ms/odHOgy)
2163 2013-05-06 16:01:35 Gnaf has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2164 2013-05-06 16:03:28 fronti has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2165 2013-05-06 16:05:12 Gnaf has joined
2166 2013-05-06 16:06:14 BurtyB2 is now known as BurtyB
2167 2013-05-06 16:07:15 SwedFTP_ has joined
2168 2013-05-06 16:09:20 defunctzombie_zz is now known as defunctzombie
2169 2013-05-06 16:10:17 SwedFTP has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2170 2013-05-06 16:11:27 Faradayy has quit ()
2171 2013-05-06 16:12:26 krator44 has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
2172 2013-05-06 16:13:06 krator44 has joined
2173 2013-05-06 16:18:20 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
2174 2013-05-06 16:18:34 saracen has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
2175 2013-05-06 16:19:44 jeewee has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
2176 2013-05-06 16:20:32 saracen has joined
2177 2013-05-06 16:22:20 lolcookie has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2178 2013-05-06 16:22:38 lolcookie has joined
2179 2013-05-06 16:23:35 macboz_ has joined
2180 2013-05-06 16:24:22 macboz has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2181 2013-05-06 16:24:35 Muis_ has joined
2182 2013-05-06 16:25:47 jaequery has joined
2183 2013-05-06 16:26:40 jaequery has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2184 2013-05-06 16:27:19 bibbybob has joined
2185 2013-05-06 16:27:46 Muis has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
2186 2013-05-06 16:27:57 Muis_ is now known as Muis
2187 2013-05-06 16:28:00 Detritus is now known as stomped
2188 2013-05-06 16:30:28 jevin has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com)
2189 2013-05-06 16:30:30 stomped is now known as Detritus
2190 2013-05-06 16:33:23 ltcbtc has joined
2191 2013-05-06 16:33:35 jevin has joined
2192 2013-05-06 16:37:28 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2193 2013-05-06 16:38:08 imsaguy has joined
2194 2013-05-06 16:38:53 <vazakl-> bitcoin is awesome!
2195 2013-05-06 16:39:06 Belkaar has joined
2196 2013-05-06 16:40:13 bitit has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2197 2013-05-06 16:40:36 Thepok has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2198 2013-05-06 16:41:15 jok has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2199 2013-05-06 16:41:24 larsig has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2200 2013-05-06 16:48:27 topace has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2201 2013-05-06 16:53:21 saulimus has joined
2202 2013-05-06 17:02:41 topace has joined
2203 2013-05-06 17:03:04 topace is now known as Guest48059
2204 2013-05-06 17:04:19 fishfish has quit (Quit: Bye!)
2205 2013-05-06 17:05:00 <[Author]> vazakl-: No, bitcoin sucks. Sell them all, for cheap, to me.
2206 2013-05-06 17:06:21 m00p has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2207 2013-05-06 17:08:10 MaybeJustNothing has joined
2208 2013-05-06 17:09:19 Chuky has joined
2209 2013-05-06 17:10:26 syskk has joined
2210 2013-05-06 17:10:37 <syskk> I'm trying to package with macdeployqt and it's stuck at "Running AppleScript:" is it normal?
2211 2013-05-06 17:10:57 <syskk> actually I got this message now: 064:1103: execution error: Finder got an error: AppleEvent timed out. (-1712)
2212 2013-05-06 17:10:58 <syskk> Error running osascript.
2213 2013-05-06 17:11:05 _Elementum_ has quit ()
2214 2013-05-06 17:12:03 gagecolton has joined
2215 2013-05-06 17:12:04 safra has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2216 2013-05-06 17:16:13 ToryJujube_ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2217 2013-05-06 17:17:17 Thepok has joined
2218 2013-05-06 17:19:30 Btceldur has joined
2219 2013-05-06 17:22:20 bcnb has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
2220 2013-05-06 17:22:48 iwilcox has joined
2221 2013-05-06 17:22:48 iwilcox has quit (Changing host)
2222 2013-05-06 17:22:48 iwilcox has joined
2223 2013-05-06 17:23:00 ProfMac has joined
2224 2013-05-06 17:24:11 nsillik_ has joined
2225 2013-05-06 17:24:30 Thepok has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
2226 2013-05-06 17:27:41 safra has joined
2227 2013-05-06 17:31:56 brson has joined
2228 2013-05-06 17:33:25 anarchy5 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2229 2013-05-06 17:33:50 saracen has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2230 2013-05-06 17:34:28 <vazakl-> bitcoin is the best
2231 2013-05-06 17:36:21 <jgarzik> vazakl-, [Author]: please take off-topic chatter elsewhere, such as #bitcoin
2232 2013-05-06 17:37:20 ThomasV has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2233 2013-05-06 17:37:42 ThomasV has joined
2234 2013-05-06 17:37:48 mrkent has joined
2235 2013-05-06 17:37:48 mrkent has quit (Changing host)
2236 2013-05-06 17:37:48 mrkent has joined
2237 2013-05-06 17:38:18 saracen has joined
2238 2013-05-06 17:39:02 <skinnkavaj> doing design here, does anyone know colour: # for bitcoins orange?
2239 2013-05-06 17:39:26 Bjander has joined
2240 2013-05-06 17:40:01 mollison has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2241 2013-05-06 17:40:40 Sliver has quit (Quit: Sliver quits..)
2242 2013-05-06 17:41:01 syskk has quit (Quit: syskk)
2243 2013-05-06 17:41:29 jedunnigan has joined
2244 2013-05-06 17:41:43 <chmod755> skinnkavaj, what? you mean the B logo? i think it's #f7931a
2245 2013-05-06 17:43:48 intrd has joined
2246 2013-05-06 17:44:56 defunctzombie is now known as defunctzombie_zz
2247 2013-05-06 17:48:11 syskk has joined
2248 2013-05-06 17:48:22 <syskk> anyone else has trouble with the macdeployqt script?
2249 2013-05-06 17:48:44 michagogo has joined
2250 2013-05-06 17:48:46 <intrd> how can I mine in a Stratum network using CPU in Windows? I tested Ufasoft but whenever he connects a network Stratum returns the error "Unhandled exception"
2251 2013-05-06 17:48:48 Bjander has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2252 2013-05-06 17:48:57 Bjander has joined
2253 2013-05-06 17:49:09 paracyst has joined
2254 2013-05-06 17:49:22 iwilcox has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2255 2013-05-06 17:49:54 Bjander has quit (Client Quit)
2256 2013-05-06 17:49:59 davout has quit (Quit: sls)
2257 2013-05-06 17:50:04 michagogo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2258 2013-05-06 17:50:50 elgrecoFL has quit (Excess Flood)
2259 2013-05-06 17:51:50 <rdponticelli> intrd: Mining with cpu is not worth the hassle, but you can ask in #bitcoin-mining
2260 2013-05-06 17:51:55 fanquake has quit (Quit: fanquake)
2261 2013-05-06 17:52:02 normanrichards has quit (Quit: normanrichards)
2262 2013-05-06 17:52:23 michagogo has joined
2263 2013-05-06 17:52:35 normanrichards has joined
2264 2013-05-06 17:52:38 elgrecoFL has joined
2265 2013-05-06 17:52:52 SirDefaced has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2266 2013-05-06 17:52:59 resinate has quit (Quit: resinate)
2267 2013-05-06 17:53:42 rdponticelli has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2268 2013-05-06 17:53:44 Vinnie_win has quit ()
2269 2013-05-06 17:54:31 michagogo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2270 2013-05-06 17:54:51 <gmaxwell> I wonder what I was running on May 1st? http://0bin.net/paste/8634414aa95ee54aed0896a71935b6869bddd779#upnLRRrmxSkgEaHbdvCjjy19VYa7//Hi6VEeGrjDj98=
2271 2013-05-06 17:54:55 michagogo has joined
2272 2013-05-06 17:55:45 <intrd> rdponticelli i know, but i have some mainframes(without gpu)..
2273 2013-05-06 17:55:56 evan_ has joined
2274 2013-05-06 17:57:30 rdponticelli has joined
2275 2013-05-06 17:57:55 <evan_> We're starting a development effort to make a bitcoin exchange that is decentralized and solves the major problems with all of the current ones. If anyone is interested, I'm looking for 2x C++ developers to hack the bitcoin client into the trading client. If you're interested let me know -- eduffield82@gmail.com. Shoot me a resume :)
2276 2013-05-06 17:59:11 JTF195 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2277 2013-05-06 17:59:22 newbie has joined
2278 2013-05-06 17:59:46 newbie is now known as Guest32725
2279 2013-05-06 18:01:33 <cjd> evan_: cool, I'm working on the same project in off-time
2280 2013-05-06 18:02:05 <cjd> but I use only C (it is similar style to C++) and my free time is precious and little
2281 2013-05-06 18:03:19 <ThomasV> evan_: how will it work?
2282 2013-05-06 18:04:02 CaptainBlaze has joined
2283 2013-05-06 18:04:09 mrkent has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2284 2013-05-06 18:04:17 <cjd> I'm not sure how well your approach of working against the mail client will work
2285 2013-05-06 18:04:40 <cjd> the main client is heavily optimized to run fast which means the data is in a weird form
2286 2013-05-06 18:04:59 nsillik_ has quit (Quit: nsillik_)
2287 2013-05-06 18:05:24 john_vienna_work has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2288 2013-05-06 18:05:31 <evan_> cjd & Thomas, cool. Basically we're going to make a fork of bitcoin that is called xcoin. each xcoin will represent $1 and can be traded by p2p clients. So you'll goto a site convert USD into xcoin, then you can use your xcoin to get into or out of any crypto currency
2289 2013-05-06 18:05:36 taha has joined
2290 2013-05-06 18:06:08 <cjd> expend your vision xD
2291 2013-05-06 18:06:21 <evan_> So the exchange will work like torrent basically and you can be certain that the other person has money because of the public ledger like bitcoin
2292 2013-05-06 18:06:34 iwilcox has joined
2293 2013-05-06 18:06:35 iwilcox has quit (Changing host)
2294 2013-05-06 18:06:35 iwilcox has joined
2295 2013-05-06 18:06:40 intrd has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2296 2013-05-06 18:06:41 <cjd> yeah, atomic swaps
2297 2013-05-06 18:06:54 lolcookie has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2298 2013-05-06 18:07:09 <ThomasV> so your backing of xcoin is fully centralized :)
2299 2013-05-06 18:07:13 <evan_> if you want out of btc, you can get xcoin then goto the site and it will exchange xcoin for USD or whatever currency you want
2300 2013-05-06 18:07:24 LainZ has joined
2301 2013-05-06 18:07:24 <evan_> correct, that is the only limitation
2302 2013-05-06 18:07:39 <ThomasV> that's useless
2303 2013-05-06 18:07:45 <cjd> 10,000 independent equity offerings all represented as different colored coins within the bitcoin chain
2304 2013-05-06 18:07:45 <evan_> you think?
2305 2013-05-06 18:08:10 <cjd> people swapping equity-for-bitcoin and equity-for-equity all of the time
2306 2013-05-06 18:08:10 <ThomasV> evan_: I think you should do an exchange that does not use a bank account
2307 2013-05-06 18:08:24 <evan_> ThomasV, how would you manage that?
2308 2013-05-06 18:08:36 <evan_> ThomasV, how do you get USD into the system?
2309 2013-05-06 18:08:50 <ThomasV> evan_: something like nashx.com , but with fungibility
2310 2013-05-06 18:09:07 <ThomasV> nashx is brilliant
2311 2013-05-06 18:09:08 <cjd> people able to place their earnings in equity in a basket of businesses in their local community, and still spend them as cash
2312 2013-05-06 18:09:25 <jspilman> when transmitting a new tx, how does reference client pick which peers to send it to?
2313 2013-05-06 18:09:37 <cjd> randomly IIRC
2314 2013-05-06 18:09:47 <cjd> jspilman: ^
2315 2013-05-06 18:10:14 <jspilman> cjd: one peer, chosen randomly? n peers?
2316 2013-05-06 18:10:21 <michagogo> More than one
2317 2013-05-06 18:10:32 <michagogo> That's all I know
2318 2013-05-06 18:10:32 <swulf--> how many people here are sick and tired of talking about the "dust" change?
2319 2013-05-06 18:10:38 <ProfMac> I want to estimate which block will be mined at 3:15 AM, May 10.  This may or may not be the moment of my birthday.
2320 2013-05-06 18:11:22 <evan_> hmm
2321 2013-05-06 18:11:42 <michagogo> ProfMac: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Number+of+minutes+until+3%3A15+AM%2C+May+10+divided+by+10
2322 2013-05-06 18:11:44 <jspilman> after the initial broadcast, will it automatically try again at any point if it doesn't make it into a block?
2323 2013-05-06 18:11:53 <michagogo> ;;list bitcoinstats
2324 2013-05-06 18:11:53 <gribble> Error: 'bitcoinstats' is not a valid plugin.
2325 2013-05-06 18:11:57 <michagogo> ;;list bitcoininfo
2326 2013-05-06 18:11:58 <gribble> Error: 'bitcoininfo' is not a valid plugin.
2327 2013-05-06 18:12:00 <michagogo> ;;list
2328 2013-05-06 18:12:01 <gribble> Admin, Alias, Anonymous, AutoMode, BadWords, BitcoinData, Channel, ChannelLogger, ChannelStats, Conditional, Config, Debug, Dict, Dunno, Factoids, Filter, Format, GPG, GPGExt, Games, Gatekeeper, Google, Internet, Later, Market, Math, MessageParser, Misc, Network, OTCOrderBook, Owner, Plugin, RSS, RatingSystem, Reply, Scheduler, Seen, Services, Status, String, Time, Topic, URL, Unix, User, (1 more message)
2329 2013-05-06 18:12:06 <michagogo> ;;list bitcoindata
2330 2013-05-06 18:12:06 <gribble> avgprc, bcstats, blockdiff, blocks, bounty, diff, diffchange, estimate, genprob, genrate, gentime, halfreward, hextarget, interval, nethash, nextretarget, prevdiff, prevdiffchange, tblb, timetonext, totalbc, and tslb
2331 2013-05-06 18:12:09 <michagogo> ;;blocks
2332 2013-05-06 18:12:10 <gribble> 234840
2333 2013-05-06 18:12:26 <michagogo> ;;calc 234840+470
2334 2013-05-06 18:12:26 <gribble> 235310
2335 2013-05-06 18:12:27 <ProfMac> michagogo:  a Web page.  That's the cat's pajamas!
2336 2013-05-06 18:12:34 alphaguru has quit ()
2337 2013-05-06 18:12:38 <michagogo> ProfMac: Approximately block 235310
2338 2013-05-06 18:12:40 <rdponticelli> michagogo: Do that privately with gribble
2339 2013-05-06 18:12:45 <michagogo> sorry
2340 2013-05-06 18:13:08 dust-otc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2341 2013-05-06 18:13:45 iwilcox has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2342 2013-05-06 18:13:51 <evan_> Well, I'm not married to that idea. If you guys want to team up, I'm looking for help.
2343 2013-05-06 18:14:05 <cjd> When you design your exchange, you must remember what it is that makes bitcoin lasting. The people who believe in it, not the people who speculate.
2344 2013-05-06 18:14:06 iwilcox has joined
2345 2013-05-06 18:15:05 <evan_> cjd, the people who speculate are the price discovery mechanism, they are important too :)
2346 2013-05-06 18:15:24 <cjd> Speculators cause instability, it's the people who place their money in BTC as a political statement who keep a price crash from becoming the end of bitcoin.
2347 2013-05-06 18:15:29 <chmod755> cjd++
2348 2013-05-06 18:16:09 nsillik has joined
2349 2013-05-06 18:16:15 <evan_> cjd, if everyone hoarded though the price would never go down
2350 2013-05-06 18:16:29 <ProfMac> michagogo: thanks.
2351 2013-05-06 18:16:52 <cjd> speculators always want to make a quick buck (note I said buck, not coin)
2352 2013-05-06 18:16:57 da2ce7 has joined
2353 2013-05-06 18:17:29 <evan_> cjd, yeah but again they are actually helping find the true price. If they think it's undervalued, then they buy driving the price up and vice versa
2354 2013-05-06 18:17:44 <evan_> cjd, markets don't work otherwise.
2355 2013-05-06 18:17:44 <cjd> I'd rather 1 believer who will stand by me than 1000 speculators who will desert at the first sign of trouble.
2356 2013-05-06 18:17:57 burabao has joined
2357 2013-05-06 18:18:03 <cjd> Actually they make the market more opaque
2358 2013-05-06 18:18:20 <burabao> Hi, i'm going to start developing a webapp for bitcoin, running on raspberry pi
2359 2013-05-06 18:18:23 <cjd> if people only bought when they wanted to own and only sold when they didn't, the market would be stable
2360 2013-05-06 18:18:36 <burabao> do i have any chance to generate some testnet coins on such device?
2361 2013-05-06 18:19:04 <cjd> the people who influence the price by buying and selling based on the price cause oscillations which make the market work less efficiently
2362 2013-05-06 18:19:19 da2ce7_d has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2363 2013-05-06 18:19:27 <swulf--> cjd: I never thought people did anything other than 'buy when they want' and 'sell when they want' -- what other factors are there?
2364 2013-05-06 18:19:54 <chmod755> evan_, i disagree a currency shouldn't be mostly used to be traded against other currencies
2365 2013-05-06 18:20:05 <cjd> swulf--: buying and selling to gamble on the price
2366 2013-05-06 18:20:19 <swulf--> and people don't make that decision based on what they "want" ?
2367 2013-05-06 18:20:32 <cjd> they want to get rich quick
2368 2013-05-06 18:20:38 <swulf--> so they don't want to get rich?
2369 2013-05-06 18:21:19 g0thX has joined
2370 2013-05-06 18:21:26 iwilcox has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2371 2013-05-06 18:21:31 <swulf--> "i want to buy now" and i "want to sell now" are *exactly* the subjective emotions of a rational actor in the market
2372 2013-05-06 18:21:33 iwilcox has joined
2373 2013-05-06 18:21:33 iwilcox has quit (Changing host)
2374 2013-05-06 18:21:33 iwilcox has joined
2375 2013-05-06 18:21:44 <cjd> but they don't continuously buy get-rich-quick coins *cough* ltc *cough* they instead buy and sell in a way that amplifies spikes and crashes
2376 2013-05-06 18:21:45 <chmod755> uhm guys, i think this discussion shouldn't be in #bitcoin-dev
2377 2013-05-06 18:21:59 <burabao> yes but people who think 'i want to buy now one million'
2378 2013-05-06 18:22:02 <swulf--> don't change the topic
2379 2013-05-06 18:22:12 <burabao> probabily hope to influnce the price
2380 2013-05-06 18:22:17 <burabao> to get it higher and earn
2381 2013-05-06 18:22:22 <burabao> without real production
2382 2013-05-06 18:22:41 <cjd> chmod755: we started out making design decisions for a future client, that's -dev valid IMO
2383 2013-05-06 18:22:43 <swulf--> whats the problem with that? buying a million coins is going to cost a pretty penny. the price may or may not change, it's called risk
2384 2013-05-06 18:22:57 <evan_> anywho, if anyone is interested in making a bitcoin exchange... email me :) eduffield82@gmail.com. We're starting soon.
2385 2013-05-06 18:22:58 <burabao> world's cockroaches imo
2386 2013-05-06 18:22:59 <cjd> a lot of dev is social decision making, IE: what will benefit society the most
2387 2013-05-06 18:23:12 evan_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2388 2013-05-06 18:23:13 <chmod755> cjd, it's not really technical now tho
2389 2013-05-06 18:23:29 <cjd> it has degraded, as does everything xD
2390 2013-05-06 18:23:48 <swulf--> evan: i've had this idea before, to separate the purchase of usd for a virtual credit that can be exchagned within the blockchain itself.. it's a great idea. i recommend you implement it. you dont need a separate blockchain (called 'xcoin') to do it, though
2391 2013-05-06 18:24:02 Guest14712 is now known as nym
2392 2013-05-06 18:24:06 <swulf--> you should use colored coins, but with the latest "dust" change i guess that makes it difficult
2393 2013-05-06 18:24:09 <cjd> swulf--: he took off
2394 2013-05-06 18:24:15 <swulf--> oops
2395 2013-05-06 18:24:15 nsillik has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2396 2013-05-06 18:24:16 <swulf--> missed that
2397 2013-05-06 18:24:23 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2398 2013-05-06 18:24:24 nsillik has joined
2399 2013-05-06 18:24:29 <cjd> the dust thing doesn't affect sane colored coin impls
2400 2013-05-06 18:24:35 <cjd> sadly none exist yet
2401 2013-05-06 18:24:43 <swulf--> it does
2402 2013-05-06 18:24:46 <cjd> no
2403 2013-05-06 18:24:48 <swulf--> i have a prototype implementation
2404 2013-05-06 18:25:04 <swulf--> yup. at least in my code, a "colored coin" was valued at 1 satoshi
2405 2013-05-06 18:25:13 <cjd> so just mix some uncolored coins with each of your transactions
2406 2013-05-06 18:25:14 agricocb has joined
2407 2013-05-06 18:25:32 <swulf--> transfering 1 satoshi in a transaction with 1 input and 1 output can't be done with the dust change
2408 2013-05-06 18:25:47 <cjd> so mix in some non-colored coins
2409 2013-05-06 18:25:51 <cjd> easy peasy
2410 2013-05-06 18:26:01 <swulf--> why should i have to do that?
2411 2013-05-06 18:26:08 <swulf--> i'd be happy to just pay a tx fee and get it over with
2412 2013-05-06 18:26:26 <cjd> because you can perform some hilarious attacks against the system as it is now
2413 2013-05-06 18:26:28 <rdponticelli> Imho, the colored crew should make a coloredcoin, optimized to be used that way...
2414 2013-05-06 18:26:35 <cjd> which I prefer not to discuss
2415 2013-05-06 18:26:36 <rdponticelli> Bitcoin just is something else
2416 2013-05-06 18:26:44 <swulf--> cjd, I don't believe that's true, considering it's never happened
2417 2013-05-06 18:27:14 <burabao> did anyone know
2418 2013-05-06 18:27:18 <burabao> if i can mine testnet coins
2419 2013-05-06 18:27:18 <gmaxwell> swulf--: For a number of reasons, including the fact that if your color loses value then people will not lost money to clean up the bloat you've added to the utxo set.
2420 2013-05-06 18:27:20 <burabao> with raspberry pi
2421 2013-05-06 18:27:21 <swulf--> as it stands today, it's cheaper to flood the network with 1 BTC outputs than it is with 1 Satoshi outputs
2422 2013-05-06 18:27:23 <burabao> for development?
2423 2013-05-06 18:27:57 <gmaxwell> swulf--: 'cheaper' except for the 1e8 difference in cost of the outputs...
2424 2013-05-06 18:28:07 <swulf--> but if i own the input and the output it costs me nothing
2425 2013-05-06 18:28:24 owowo has joined
2426 2013-05-06 18:28:28 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2427 2013-05-06 18:28:29 iwilcox has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2428 2013-05-06 18:28:44 <gmaxwell> swulf--: except you have to have the outputs in the first place, and while you're busy owning them and holding them in that form you can't spend them on other things.
2429 2013-05-06 18:29:25 <gmaxwell> swulf--: In any case, part of the point of making sure your colored coins have a larger value is making sure that it's always in the owner's fininical interest to sweep up the coin when done and not just delete the private key when the color becomes worthless.
2430 2013-05-06 18:29:36 <swulf--> but that's not important to an attacker. i've got 10k bitcoins to spent. i'll create a tx with 10000 outputs of 1 btc each making a txn huge, and do it every 8 minutes. i'll pay zero fees while i do it, too
2431 2013-05-06 18:29:51 <swulf--> s/spent/spend*
2432 2013-05-06 18:30:12 <gmaxwell> swulf--: and if your colorcoin scheme can't survive your colored coins costing about as much as a grain of rice... I can promise that it's not scheme which is terribly compatible with Bitcoin.
2433 2013-05-06 18:30:27 <cjd> xD
2434 2013-05-06 18:30:39 <swulf--> that's kind of the silliness of the whole debate, isn't it?  what's ridiculously cheap and what isn't?
2435 2013-05-06 18:31:11 <gmaxwell> swulf--: uh. you're predicating an attacker using 10k btc in their attack.. 'cheap'. lol.
2436 2013-05-06 18:31:19 bitanarchy has joined
2437 2013-05-06 18:31:38 <gmaxwell> Presumably if you have 10k BTC you're probably prefer to not undermine the value of that 10k btc by crapping up bitcoin's distributedness. :P
2438 2013-05-06 18:31:45 <swulf--> are you supposing a party seriously interested in damaging bitcoin can't amass 10k coins?
2439 2013-05-06 18:31:56 <swulf--> wow
2440 2013-05-06 18:32:20 <cjd> it comes down to this: bitcoin doesn't work for microtransactions (nano?) because of the need for 100% consensus
2441 2013-05-06 18:32:42 <bitanarchy> Can somebody explain me ripple? I just dont get it...
2442 2013-05-06 18:32:53 <swulf--> the actual value of an output is *not important* -- it boggles my mind that even the core developers don't see that.  the only thing that matters is the size of a transaction. i can't say that clearly enough. the *ONLY* thing that matters is the size of a transaction.
2443 2013-05-06 18:33:13 <gmaxwell> swulf--: ... No. But if they must amass an additional 10k coins per unit of attack... this is not a cheap attack. Someone trying to do that might be a good problem to have.
2444 2013-05-06 18:33:15 <swulf--> it could be 10k outputs of 1 btc each, or it could be 1 output of 1 satoshi.  the size is WAY more imporant
2445 2013-05-06 18:33:36 <gmaxwell> swulf--: except thats simply not so.
2446 2013-05-06 18:33:50 <swulf--> but the point is that while still allowing a 10k 1-btc-each output attack, now 1-satoshi outputs are broken
2447 2013-05-06 18:33:56 sacrelege has joined
2448 2013-05-06 18:34:01 <swulf--> the logic is flawed beyond belief
2449 2013-05-06 18:34:12 <swulf--> sorry... few beers tonight :)
2450 2013-05-06 18:34:24 <gmaxwell> Come back when sober.
2451 2013-05-06 18:34:36 <swulf--> ;)
2452 2013-05-06 18:34:37 <cjd> heh
2453 2013-05-06 18:34:40 hackerGBQ has joined
2454 2013-05-06 18:35:33 <swulf--> at current market rates, 10k coins is only 1.2m$
2455 2013-05-06 18:35:58 <hackerGBQ> anybody discussing here or just sitting for coffee to arrive..lol
2456 2013-05-06 18:36:09 debiantoruser has joined
2457 2013-05-06 18:38:11 <cjd> are "strange" DER encodings considered non-standard?
2458 2013-05-06 18:38:19 jackass_ has joined
2459 2013-05-06 18:38:29 <cjd> *yet
2460 2013-05-06 18:40:20 <Ferroh> How do you remove auto-op on freenet?
2461 2013-05-06 18:40:34 <Ferroh> I tried " flags #bitcoin-cad ferroh -O"
2462 2013-05-06 18:40:38 <Ferroh> it says permissions unchanged
2463 2013-05-06 18:40:46 <Ferroh> (and still auto-ops me)
2464 2013-05-06 18:41:02 hackerGBQ has quit (Quit: ThrashIRC v2.9 sic populo comunicated)
2465 2013-05-06 18:41:07 <Ferroh> gmaxwell: you know things ^^
2466 2013-05-06 18:42:12 PrinceCortex has joined
2467 2013-05-06 18:43:15 PrinceCortex has quit (Client Quit)
2468 2013-05-06 18:44:48 <burabao> are testnet trascanctios really *slow*
2469 2013-05-06 18:45:21 Goonie_ has left ()
2470 2013-05-06 18:46:09 <jgm> burabao: depends if anyone is mining
2471 2013-05-06 18:46:24 brson has quit (Quit: leaving)
2472 2013-05-06 18:46:40 brson has joined
2473 2013-05-06 18:47:16 Sliver has joined
2474 2013-05-06 18:47:30 LorenzoMoney has joined
2475 2013-05-06 18:49:14 <burabao> jgm: i know, how can i see that?
2476 2013-05-06 18:52:55 LorenzoMoney has left ("Ciao!")
2477 2013-05-06 18:53:04 Thepok has joined
2478 2013-05-06 18:54:28 <jspilman> http://blockexplorer.com/testnet
2479 2013-05-06 18:55:41 jonass has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2480 2013-05-06 18:56:32 burabao has quit (Quit: leaving)
2481 2013-05-06 18:58:09 bitanarchy has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.90 [Firefox 20.0.1/20130409194949])
2482 2013-05-06 18:58:47 systemParanoid has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
2483 2013-05-06 18:58:50 NxTitle has joined
2484 2013-05-06 19:01:06 <jspilman> looking at RelayTransaction() and ResendWalletTransaction() -- it looks like transactions are sent to all peers, and retried randomly about every 15 minutes?
2485 2013-05-06 19:01:19 <EvilPete> 2013-05-06 18:35:53 ERROR: Non-canonical signature: S value negative
2486 2013-05-06 19:01:21 <EvilPete> 2013-05-06 18:36:05 ERROR: Non-canonical signature: R value excessively padded
2487 2013-05-06 19:01:36 <EvilPete> those are badly encoded DER signatures, no?
2488 2013-05-06 19:02:41 toffoo has joined
2489 2013-05-06 19:02:50 <sipa> EvilPete: yes
2490 2013-05-06 19:03:19 seeingidog__ has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
2491 2013-05-06 19:03:32 taha has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2492 2013-05-06 19:04:04 <gmaxwell> I still think the error prefix there is going to cause a lot of confusion w/ the next release.
2493 2013-05-06 19:04:37 <EvilPete> "Non-canonical public key: compressed nor uncompressed" - people playing games?  (eg: putting ascii there instead of an actual signature?)
2494 2013-05-06 19:05:30 jspilman has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2495 2013-05-06 19:06:07 <sipa> gmaxwell: then let's remove it
2496 2013-05-06 19:06:39 BlackPrapor has joined
2497 2013-05-06 19:08:37 Nesetalis has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2498 2013-05-06 19:08:51 ardeay_ has joined
2499 2013-05-06 19:09:16 <gmaxwell> EvilPete: nah, there is just some broken client(s) out there, — we mostly tracked them down and got them fixed, but were unable to determine the source of a small number of straggling transactions.
2500 2013-05-06 19:09:19 Nesetalis has joined
2501 2013-05-06 19:09:51 daybyter has joined
2502 2013-05-06 19:10:32 <sipa> gmaxwell: the pubkey error is different
2503 2013-05-06 19:11:16 seeingidog__ has joined
2504 2013-05-06 19:11:53 systemParanoid has joined
2505 2013-05-06 19:12:40 normanrichards has quit (Quit: normanrichards)
2506 2013-05-06 19:13:50 bibbybob has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2507 2013-05-06 19:14:10 qeb has joined
2508 2013-05-06 19:14:10 qeb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2509 2013-05-06 19:14:21 paybitcoin has joined
2510 2013-05-06 19:14:25 Julius129 has joined
2511 2013-05-06 19:16:29 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/the-well-deserved-fortune-of-satoshi-nakamoto/ are these graphs correct?
2512 2013-05-06 19:17:00 <ThomasV> I read some of your comments in the thread, but this seems different
2513 2013-05-06 19:17:48 paybitcoin1 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2514 2013-05-06 19:17:54 phpwn has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2515 2013-05-06 19:18:23 pizzacat has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2516 2013-05-06 19:18:29 jspilman has joined
2517 2013-05-06 19:19:29 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2518 2013-05-06 19:19:34 Thepok has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
2519 2013-05-06 19:20:01 taha has joined
2520 2013-05-06 19:20:09 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: It's different, though I commented on that too. One stupid thing there is that he made this $1m claim based on _all_ unspent blocks in the first year. He never bothers adding up the blocks that meet his linear pattern. He also never bothered to acknowledge that these results strongly refute his initial hashrate claims, kinda demotivated me in following up further.
2521 2013-05-06 19:20:51 <gmaxwell> (along with his other personal attacks. :( )
2522 2013-05-06 19:22:12 ProfMac_ has joined
2523 2013-05-06 19:23:11 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: adding these blocks should not be very difficult. but still, I am wondering if this graph is correct or made up :)
2524 2013-05-06 19:23:20 ProfMac has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2525 2013-05-06 19:24:13 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: no idea, I assume its correct.
2526 2013-05-06 19:24:27 <ThomasV> there were so many incorrect claims in the beginning, that it's difficult to imagine he would eventually do such a nice finding
2527 2013-05-06 19:25:55 <gmaxwell> I don't think it's that difficult. It's this same obnoxious style of learning and discovery that some other people have used. Keep making outlandish claims and force other people
2528 2013-05-06 19:26:01 <gmaxwell> into doing your research for you.
2529 2013-05-06 19:26:11 <ThomasV> :)
2530 2013-05-06 19:26:39 <ThomasV> well, other ppl did not do the graphs for him, did they?
2531 2013-05-06 19:27:34 <gmaxwell> In this case it came out of him claiming that satoshi had XYZ (insane amount) of hashpower because the extranonce in the genesis block was 3 and the 'apparent difficulty' of the genesis hash was very high, which he argued meant that the 'extranonce counter' had wrapped and when people pointed out it didn't use to wrap.....
2532 2013-05-06 19:27:57 <gmaxwell> .... he then posted claiming to have discovered a security vulnerablity in all versions of bitcoin.
2533 2013-05-06 19:28:34 <gmaxwell> to which people responded it did wrap now because it hurt privacy somewhat...
2534 2013-05-06 19:28:40 <ThomasV> yes, I saw that, but that's not a reason to dismiss the finding on extranonce correlations
2535 2013-05-06 19:28:54 <sipa> instead of just checking the source code (he's obviously capable of reading source code), which is publically available, even the very old versions
2536 2013-05-06 19:29:05 jonass has joined
2537 2013-05-06 19:29:08 <sipa> but yes, i also think the original find is valid
2538 2013-05-06 19:29:17 <sipa> even though the conclusions may not be
2539 2013-05-06 19:29:26 <gmaxwell> Oh I didn't say it should be dismissed. Just that the source is a jerk and wastes a lot of people's time. :P
2540 2013-05-06 19:29:29 <jonass> guys, any idea why i get "Removed plural forms as the target language has less forms." while running qmake?
2541 2013-05-06 19:29:32 bibbybob has joined
2542 2013-05-06 19:29:46 <wumpus> jonass: it's a pointless warning, just ignore it
2543 2013-05-06 19:29:59 <gmaxwell> (but I'm still happy to have his contributions when he's not creating wild goose chases)
2544 2013-05-06 19:30:11 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: some excellent scientists are jerks and ruin other people's lives
2545 2013-05-06 19:30:20 Vinnie_win has joined
2546 2013-05-06 19:30:21 <jonass> wumpus, okay. but no makefile was generated?!
2547 2013-05-06 19:30:32 <sipa> jonass: it should be generated
2548 2013-05-06 19:30:40 <wumpus> if not there must have been another error as well
2549 2013-05-06 19:30:51 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: sure, but his work is not excellent science generally. But sometime even fools (not that he is a fool either) make interesting discoveries.
2550 2013-05-06 19:31:21 <ThomasV> heh
2551 2013-05-06 19:31:26 <jonass> sipa i does on linux / mac 10.8,? but not on mac osx 10.6 no warning nothin.
2552 2013-05-06 19:31:39 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: in any case, if there is anything outlandishly wrong in his current conclusions, I wouldn't know. I felt like I was being victimized by him so I stopped reading.
2553 2013-05-06 19:31:53 <wumpus> I've always found his posts amusing to read, a bit of mystery and puzzles about the block chain, but I wouldn't make too serious conclusions about it
2554 2013-05-06 19:32:21 <sipa> jonass: and there is no other error?
2555 2013-05-06 19:32:33 <sipa> jonass: very strange, but i'm not familiar with applestuff at all
2556 2013-05-06 19:33:09 <gmaxwell> (something about the whole cycle of: he claims something obviously wrong that could be solved by a moments research, I shoot it down, he accuses me of being unethical and biased and greedy, .. then he revises his work to include my corrections and throws it on a page with ads... just doesn't sit well with me)
2557 2013-05-06 19:33:10 <jonass> sipa, yes no error just no makefile. :) is there a way to get some verbose output with qmake?
2558 2013-05-06 19:33:15 <EvilPete> sigh.. I'm learning the hard way to not argue with idiots on bitcointalk..  have been going round and round with a guy who "knows" that all faucet payments to the same address are merged and can be spent as a single "input" later.
2559 2013-05-06 19:34:04 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
2560 2013-05-06 19:34:04 <EvilPete> at least its in pm.
2561 2013-05-06 19:34:33 <wumpus> jonass: -d is something with debug level...
2562 2013-05-06 19:35:20 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2563 2013-05-06 19:35:36 rbecker is now known as RBecker
2564 2013-05-06 19:35:55 <jonass> wumpus, -d look good! thx. searching...
2565 2013-05-06 19:36:57 <gmaxwell> EvilPete: whats worse is that later you'll discover that he's CTO of some 'important' bitcoin company. :(
2566 2013-05-06 19:37:09 <michagogo> Wow
2567 2013-05-06 19:37:24 <michagogo> If you had 10 BTC, all in 1-satoshi sized dust
2568 2013-05-06 19:37:36 <michagogo> It would take hundreds of gigabytes to spend it all
2569 2013-05-06 19:37:57 marketanarchist has joined
2570 2013-05-06 19:38:03 <gmaxwell> michagogo: sounds about right. I think people don't really grok how tiny a satoshi is.
2571 2013-05-06 19:38:10 <michagogo> ikr
2572 2013-05-06 19:38:24 <michagogo> (what does "grok" mean?)
2573 2013-05-06 19:38:32 <cjd> xD
2574 2013-05-06 19:38:40 <gmaxwell> "understand" "comprehend" "internalize"
2575 2013-05-06 19:38:41 <swulf--> "1 satoshi" is no smaller than "1 bitcoin" and that's kind of frustrating...
2576 2013-05-06 19:38:41 <EvilPete> gmaxwell: I've discovered that you should check post histories to get a bit of context for people..
2577 2013-05-06 19:38:58 <Diablo-D3> swulf--: errr 1 satoshi is a LOT smaller than 1 bitcoin
2578 2013-05-06 19:39:00 <swulf--> it's just a number with the exact same number of bits, one of which has more zeros
2579 2013-05-06 19:39:15 <swulf--> Diablo: not if you measure in bits.
2580 2013-05-06 19:39:23 <Diablo-D3> well no, bitcoin is a fixed point number
2581 2013-05-06 19:39:26 <jonass> wumpus, my fault. it won't generate a Makefiile, instead it generate a XCode project file. /-)
2582 2013-05-06 19:39:48 <Diablo-D3> satoshi is the smallest representation said fixed point number
2583 2013-05-06 19:39:51 <wumpus> if you had $1000, all in $0.000001 coins, it would be darn hard to spend too :-)
2584 2013-05-06 19:39:55 <swulf--> Diablo: does a txn with 1 input and 1 output differ in size depending on the output being 1 BTC or 1 Satoshi?
2585 2013-05-06 19:40:07 <gmaxwell> EvilPete: the problem is that even if you do, other people don't. I've spent a lot of time arguing with people that I have past (observational) expirence that they are militantly ignorant and beyond help. ... but if no one corrects them, a lot of people who haven't looked won't realize they're wrong.
2586 2013-05-06 19:40:10 <Diablo-D3> swulf--: no, because that statement doesnt make any sense
2587 2013-05-06 19:40:16 <swulf--> Why?
2588 2013-05-06 19:40:27 <Diablo-D3> swulf--: its like asking if $1.00 or 100 cents is smaller.
2589 2013-05-06 19:40:45 <sipa> Diablo-D3: it makes perfect sense to me
2590 2013-05-06 19:40:49 <swulf--> no, it's like asking whether the amount of data transfer required to send $1 or $0.01 is different..
2591 2013-05-06 19:40:57 <sipa> the size of a transaction in bytes is very well-defined
2592 2013-05-06 19:40:57 * EvilPete grabs popcorn.. this should be good.
2593 2013-05-06 19:41:01 <Diablo-D3> and it isn't
2594 2013-05-06 19:41:04 <Diablo-D3> not in bitcoin anyways
2595 2013-05-06 19:41:04 <sipa> as is the size of the unspent outputs
2596 2013-05-06 19:41:06 gartenstuhl is now known as trbck
2597 2013-05-06 19:41:13 <Diablo-D3> maybe in… DUN DUN DUNNNNNN DIABLOCOIN it might be
2598 2013-05-06 19:41:42 <sipa> wha'evva
2599 2013-05-06 19:41:48 <swulf--> it really doesn't matter what bits are set in the value field of an output of a transaction....
2600 2013-05-06 19:42:27 <Diablo-D3> swulf--: it does if you're highly compressing it
2601 2013-05-06 19:42:40 <swulf--> what algorithm are you using?
2602 2013-05-06 19:42:46 grau has joined
2603 2013-05-06 19:42:51 <Diablo-D3> swulf--: go home, you're drunk
2604 2013-05-06 19:42:57 <swulf--> i'm not ;)
2605 2013-05-06 19:43:33 Casimir1904 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2606 2013-05-06 19:43:39 <EvilPete> swulf--: this isn't really about number of bytes. its about being able to send outputs to people that aren't economical for the recipient to spend, which means it is cheaper for the recipient to delete the wallet than spend them.  That means those unspent outputs live on forever in every validating client.
2607 2013-05-06 19:44:09 <swulf--> that's an interesting point that i've not really thought about much
2608 2013-05-06 19:44:12 Casimir1904 has joined
2609 2013-05-06 19:44:14 jonass has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2610 2013-05-06 19:44:17 <swulf--> but isn't it something of concern regardless?
2611 2013-05-06 19:44:27 <marketanarchist> would it be possable to create an alt coin where coins could be helled in escrow by the blockchain untill both parties signed off on the release but trapped in limbo forever if either party declined to sign off on the releas, you know as a means for creating a distributed censorship resistant solution to the prisoners dilema
2612 2013-05-06 19:44:30 grau_ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2613 2013-05-06 19:44:48 <sipa> marketanarchist: sounds perfectly possible in bitcoin today
2614 2013-05-06 19:44:55 <gmaxwell> marketanarchist: an altcoin?! huh? you're describing bitcoin.
2615 2013-05-06 19:45:05 <swulf--> gmaxwell: any resources available on answering the question on "Why do unspent outputs have to remain in client memory?" ?
2616 2013-05-06 19:45:08 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
2617 2013-05-06 19:45:22 <sipa> swulf--: how do you otherwise verify transactions that may consume them?
2618 2013-05-06 19:45:23 <gmaxwell> swulf--: what do you mean by memory?
2619 2013-05-06 19:45:31 <EvilPete> swulf--: look for the "UTXO bloat" threads
2620 2013-05-06 19:45:31 <sipa> it doesn't need to be in RAM
2621 2013-05-06 19:45:33 <gmaxwell> swulf--: I think people get confused by memory there.
2622 2013-05-06 19:45:42 <sipa> just moderately quickly accessible
2623 2013-05-06 19:45:48 <swulf--> sipa: long term quick-access storage is relatively cheap..
2624 2013-05-06 19:45:54 <gmaxwell> When US computer sciency people say memory we're including disk in these cases. We just mean fast reliable storage.
2625 2013-05-06 19:46:03 <jspilman> oh fun - block 91842 - duplicate txid d5d27987d2a3dfc724e359870c6644b40e497bdc0589a033220fe15429d88599.  so if I'm reading BIP30 correctly, if you get a duplicate txId it will always reference the latest instance of that txid?
2626 2013-05-06 19:46:21 <sipa> jspilman: indeed
2627 2013-05-06 19:46:24 <swulf--> gmax: yes, you're right!
2628 2013-05-06 19:46:35 <jspilman> thanks
2629 2013-05-06 19:46:39 <michagogo> Erm, duplicate txid?
2630 2013-05-06 19:46:47 <michagogo> Isn't txid the hash of a transation?
2631 2013-05-06 19:46:48 <swulf--> when i saw previous utxo mentioned, it seemed to me that RAM was of specific concern
2632 2013-05-06 19:46:51 <michagogo> i.e. unique?
2633 2013-05-06 19:46:51 <sipa> marketanarchist: read BIP30
2634 2013-05-06 19:46:54 <sipa> eh
2635 2013-05-06 19:46:57 <sipa> michagogo: read BIP30
2636 2013-05-06 19:47:01 <michagogo> What is that
2637 2013-05-06 19:48:10 <sipa> read it and you'll know
2638 2013-05-06 19:48:13 <wumpus> michagogo: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0030
2639 2013-05-06 19:48:52 <jgarzik> gmaxwell, sipa: well I also think there is a misconception floating around, where people think UTXO must be in RAM
2640 2013-05-06 19:49:03 <michagogo> What's a BIP? o_O
2641 2013-05-06 19:49:13 <sipa> This page describes a BIP (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal).
2642 2013-05-06 19:49:13 <sipa> Please see BIP 0001 for more information about BIPs and creating them.
2643 2013-05-06 19:49:15 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: I dunno where this keeps coming from, I've certantly seen it too.
2644 2013-05-06 19:49:22 <jgarzik> michagogo:  https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Improvement_Proposals
2645 2013-05-06 19:49:22 twobitcoins__ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2646 2013-05-06 19:49:28 <michagogo> Ah
2647 2013-05-06 19:49:31 <wumpus> you can find it all one the wiki
2648 2013-05-06 19:49:58 <grau> jgarzik: do you reveal your plan?
2649 2013-05-06 19:50:12 <jgarzik> grau: ?
2650 2013-05-06 19:50:16 <gmaxwell> sipa: wrt ERROR  I think in general we should avoid using ERROR in the logs for anything where it doesn't indicate either that your local node is broken or something we'd like people to show up here and tell us about.
2651 2013-05-06 19:50:16 ProfMac has joined
2652 2013-05-06 19:50:31 <sipa> gmaxwell: ACK
2653 2013-05-06 19:50:46 <jgarzik> ack
2654 2013-05-06 19:51:08 <grau> jgarzik: i mean you wrote moving on for a new challenge
2655 2013-05-06 19:51:29 <jgarzik> grau: may 17
2656 2013-05-06 19:51:35 <gmaxwell> I heard jgarzik is going to mars.
2657 2013-05-06 19:51:45 systemParanoid has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2658 2013-05-06 19:51:50 <jgarzik> thought i was already there
2659 2013-05-06 19:51:51 <michagogo> jgarzik: What about the 17th?
2660 2013-05-06 19:51:59 <grau> ok, that makes it even harder to uess :)
2661 2013-05-06 19:52:03 syskk has quit (Quit: syskk)
2662 2013-05-06 19:52:07 <grau> to guess i mean
2663 2013-05-06 19:52:14 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: I heard it was alpha centauri...
2664 2013-05-06 19:52:29 <sipa> BlueMatt: go visit Satoshi there?
2665 2013-05-06 19:52:35 <sipa> or just a casual business trip
2666 2013-05-06 19:52:42 <wumpus> hehe
2667 2013-05-06 19:52:47 <jgarzik> Daemon Enterprises LLC
2668 2013-05-06 19:53:20 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: have you announced what you are actually doing yet?
2669 2013-05-06 19:53:20 ProfMac_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2670 2013-05-06 19:53:29 <jgarzik> may 17
2671 2013-05-06 19:53:40 <BlueMatt> thats a date not a what ;)
2672 2013-05-06 19:53:48 <michagogo> What is May 17th?
2673 2013-05-06 19:54:05 <BlueMatt> apparently when jgarzik announced the bitcoin project he is going to work on
2674 2013-05-06 19:54:12 trbck has quit (Quit: -)
2675 2013-05-06 19:54:18 <grau> San Jose Bitcoin 2013
2676 2013-05-06 19:54:35 trbck has joined
2677 2013-05-06 19:55:45 santoscork has joined
2678 2013-05-06 19:56:33 daughterly has joined
2679 2013-05-06 19:57:56 Aaiiit1 has joined
2680 2013-05-06 19:58:47 <Aaiiit1> anyone who has some more documentation and explanation around how to make contracts or multi signature transactions?
2681 2013-05-06 19:59:26 <Aaiiit1> Trying to wrap my head around it.
2682 2013-05-06 20:01:49 taha has quit (Quit: Iyi aksamlar..)
2683 2013-05-06 20:05:20 realazthat is now known as realweed
2684 2013-05-06 20:06:41 reneg has joined
2685 2013-05-06 20:07:22 ielo has joined
2686 2013-05-06 20:09:25 jspilman has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2687 2013-05-06 20:09:42 reneg has quit (Client Quit)
2688 2013-05-06 20:09:42 imsaguy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2689 2013-05-06 20:09:55 reneg has joined
2690 2013-05-06 20:11:34 reneg has quit (Client Quit)
2691 2013-05-06 20:13:05 <Julius129> how long would it take to calculate the balance of an specific address in the blockchain
2692 2013-05-06 20:13:14 santoscork has quit (Quit: Hibernation Time …)
2693 2013-05-06 20:13:24 reneg has joined
2694 2013-05-06 20:13:35 tholenst has joined
2695 2013-05-06 20:13:49 <edcba> not much
2696 2013-05-06 20:13:50 <helo> s/specific/arbitrary/ -> as long as it takes to sync the blockchain
2697 2013-05-06 20:14:17 gavinandresen has joined
2698 2013-05-06 20:14:17 gavinandresen has quit (Changing host)
2699 2013-05-06 20:14:17 gavinandresen has joined
2700 2013-05-06 20:14:26 saulimus has quit (Quit: saulimus)
2701 2013-05-06 20:14:41 dvide has joined
2702 2013-05-06 20:14:50 seeingidog__ has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
2703 2013-05-06 20:14:55 <grau> Julius129: seconds using bits of proof API
2704 2013-05-06 20:15:00 g8ejhgi has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2705 2013-05-06 20:15:30 <edcba> why are you asking ?
2706 2013-05-06 20:15:32 <Julius129> okay.. im coding exchange software, and i want to "watch" balances in cold storage
2707 2013-05-06 20:15:50 <Julius129> lets say, i have to iterate through the entire block chain
2708 2013-05-06 20:15:53 <edcba> you still can keep a balance of every address
2709 2013-05-06 20:15:55 realweed is now known as realazthat
2710 2013-05-06 20:16:14 reneg has quit (Client Quit)
2711 2013-05-06 20:16:31 <edcba> then it's quite instantaneous
2712 2013-05-06 20:16:47 reneg has joined
2713 2013-05-06 20:16:55 <michagogo> Aaiiit1: Did you already read the relevant wikipages?
2714 2013-05-06 20:17:05 toffoo has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2715 2013-05-06 20:17:13 <grau> edcba: there are quite a few adresses
2716 2013-05-06 20:17:38 <Julius129> the standard client does not support this right?
2717 2013-05-06 20:17:58 <edcba> i don't think it does that
2718 2013-05-06 20:18:24 <edcba> but i doubt it takes a lot of time to calc a balance
2719 2013-05-06 20:18:33 <Julius129> bits of proof is built in java
2720 2013-05-06 20:18:46 <grau> does that matter?
2721 2013-05-06 20:19:09 <Aaiiit1> @michagogo  yep, i'm looking for some example code and stuff,  still trying to understand contracts
2722 2013-05-06 20:19:44 toffoo has joined
2723 2013-05-06 20:19:44 sensorii has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2724 2013-05-06 20:19:47 guruvan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2725 2013-05-06 20:20:00 tholenst has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2726 2013-05-06 20:20:00 testnode9 has joined
2727 2013-05-06 20:20:09 <grau> Julius129: bits of proof is using LevelDB native to store. It is as fast or even faster as the "original" to retrieve anything you look for
2728 2013-05-06 20:20:17 <Julius129> im not a fan of java, but i guess it can get the job done
2729 2013-05-06 20:20:29 sensorii has joined
2730 2013-05-06 20:20:30 guruvan has joined
2731 2013-05-06 20:20:34 <Julius129> how can i run it on freebsd
2732 2013-05-06 20:20:38 <Julius129> is that even possible..
2733 2013-05-06 20:21:04 <grau> it has a message bus you talk to with python or whatever your favorite is, to ask questions like transactions for an address
2734 2013-05-06 20:21:13 seeingidog__ has joined
2735 2013-05-06 20:22:08 <grau> What do you use to build an exchange?
2736 2013-05-06 20:22:09 treetrunk has joined
2737 2013-05-06 20:22:46 <Julius129> C# MVC4 for the front end web server, the back end server will run on freebsd
2738 2013-05-06 20:23:01 Plinker_ is now known as Plinker
2739 2013-05-06 20:23:21 <grau> the back end is where you would have the blockchain right?
2740 2013-05-06 20:23:36 Vinnie_win has quit ()
2741 2013-05-06 20:23:55 <Julius129> back end server is where the transactions live and authentication happens yes
2742 2013-05-06 20:25:27 xorgate has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2743 2013-05-06 20:25:44 <grau> bop has this split infrastructure. p2p node and blockchain isolated from the rest with a message bus. The wallet and transaction creation could be on the fromt end
2744 2013-05-06 20:26:24 <Julius129> bop?
2745 2013-05-06 20:26:56 <grau> bits of proof ( i am lazy writing)
2746 2013-05-06 20:27:28 <Julius129> yes i see so
2747 2013-05-06 20:27:31 <grau> should have picked some shorter name ....
2748 2013-05-06 20:27:56 <Julius129> are you the developer of bop?
2749 2013-05-06 20:28:01 <grau> yes
2750 2013-05-06 20:28:14 qeb has joined
2751 2013-05-06 20:28:24 chmod755 has quit (Quit: chmod755)
2752 2013-05-06 20:28:52 <upb> < Julius129> C# MVC4 for the front end web server, the back end server will run on freebsd <- haha, thats like saying the frontend will be implemented on jQuery and backend on solaris
2753 2013-05-06 20:28:57 <upb> apples and oranges
2754 2013-05-06 20:29:02 Jasmin68k has joined
2755 2013-05-06 20:29:06 MC1984_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2756 2013-05-06 20:29:12 tholenst has joined
2757 2013-05-06 20:29:34 <Julius129> i like MVC4
2758 2013-05-06 20:29:49 <Julius129> but i want to do the magic on another box
2759 2013-05-06 20:30:08 <grau> upb: he aparently cares of the front end only, that is why is an interesting prospect for me. let him experiment
2760 2013-05-06 20:30:24 <upb> :)
2761 2013-05-06 20:31:22 <Julius129> on many "exchanges" if the web layer is hacked, they just take all the records from the db
2762 2013-05-06 20:31:59 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
2763 2013-05-06 20:32:11 <upb> running the 'backend' 'on freebsd' doesnt save you from that
2764 2013-05-06 20:32:36 <cjd> have the frontend use the backend via an API
2765 2013-05-06 20:32:52 <cjd> then let your users have the same API access
2766 2013-05-06 20:32:53 <Julius129> backend will be locked off from the internet, and only have the custom APi exposed
2767 2013-05-06 20:33:57 <cjd> pretty sure mtgox website just like connects to mtgox websocket and gives you a pretty version of the websocket
2768 2013-05-06 20:34:02 <grau> the question is rather where do you sign transactions
2769 2013-05-06 20:34:08 <cjd> all logic is behind the websocket
2770 2013-05-06 20:34:14 Darin has joined
2771 2013-05-06 20:34:20 <upb> nice, as long as the custom api isnt equivalent to having access to the database interface
2772 2013-05-06 20:34:41 <cjd> provide a websocket and if it is, we'll know it soon :)
2773 2013-05-06 20:34:45 <upb> also, why are people calling interfaces apis these days ÖP pretty prevalent with all kinds of appers/startuppers
2774 2013-05-06 20:34:45 <Julius129> and I want to implement a one-time token from the backend, to make sure the web interface cant do nothing if a real user did not use a yubi or SMS
2775 2013-05-06 20:36:11 mrkent has joined
2776 2013-05-06 20:36:11 mrkent has quit (Changing host)
2777 2013-05-06 20:36:11 mrkent has joined
2778 2013-05-06 20:36:19 <Julius129> i am also storing transactions in blobs with signatures on the src and dst accounts, with a third signature from the engine on the entry, it will make tampering quite hard
2779 2013-05-06 20:36:43 <Julius129> but reading easy, as the web interface can read and verify the records
2780 2013-05-06 20:37:45 Guest48059 is now known as topace
2781 2013-05-06 20:37:52 topace has quit (Changing host)
2782 2013-05-06 20:37:52 topace has joined
2783 2013-05-06 20:38:10 <grau> what do you mean with transactions?
2784 2013-05-06 20:38:15 michagogo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2785 2013-05-06 20:38:16 resinate has joined
2786 2013-05-06 20:38:18 <grau> orders?
2787 2013-05-06 20:38:20 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
2788 2013-05-06 20:38:37 <Julius129> inter-account transfers and orders, sells
2789 2013-05-06 20:38:43 <Julius129> just moving credits around
2790 2013-05-06 20:38:48 <Julius129> collecting fees,etc
2791 2013-05-06 20:39:21 <grau> you have a tamper resistant ledger with bitcoin already
2792 2013-05-06 20:39:34 realazthat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2793 2013-05-06 20:39:56 realazthat has joined
2794 2013-05-06 20:39:56 realazthat has quit (Changing host)
2795 2013-05-06 20:39:56 realazthat has joined
2796 2013-05-06 20:39:57 <Julius129> yes, but i need to take care of fiat locally
2797 2013-05-06 20:40:41 <gmaxwell> Julius129: perhaps you should talk to fellowtraveler, it sounds like you're doing stuff that his opentransactions library could help with.
2798 2013-05-06 20:40:41 <Julius129> ive focused on the fiat part quite alot
2799 2013-05-06 20:40:59 ThomasV has joined
2800 2013-05-06 20:41:27 <Julius129> im going to google opentransactions
2801 2013-05-06 20:42:00 epylar has joined
2802 2013-05-06 20:42:22 <epylar> So what's this I hear about censoring transactions? :)
2803 2013-05-06 20:42:23 <epylar> kidding
2804 2013-05-06 20:42:33 <epylar> i actually read the github page.
2805 2013-05-06 20:42:39 egis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2806 2013-05-06 20:43:25 linguinho has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2807 2013-05-06 20:43:54 linguinho has joined
2808 2013-05-06 20:44:27 <Julius129> ok ive seen opentransactions a long time ago
2809 2013-05-06 20:44:35 xenesis has joined
2810 2013-05-06 20:46:20 <Julius129> ive implemented the same thing in about 3000 lines,  but its alot more raw
2811 2013-05-06 20:49:23 Apexseals has joined
2812 2013-05-06 20:49:29 g0thX has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2813 2013-05-06 20:50:12 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2814 2013-05-06 20:52:52 Prattler has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.in)
2815 2013-05-06 20:55:00 epylar has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2816 2013-05-06 20:55:01 nomailing has joined
2817 2013-05-06 20:56:18 jciri has joined
2818 2013-05-06 20:56:46 <Julius129> testnet is at block 71337, sometimes i see it tries to fetch upto 105 000+
2819 2013-05-06 20:57:09 <Julius129> which is obviously not right
2820 2013-05-06 20:57:13 Grouver has quit (Quit:  HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <- Would you like to know more?)
2821 2013-05-06 20:57:25 agricocb has joined
2822 2013-05-06 20:57:45 <Julius129> how can i find out which node is telling me im 34000 blocks behind and block it somehow?
2823 2013-05-06 20:59:31 <gmaxwell> "i see it tries to fetch upto 105 000" what does that mean??
2824 2013-05-06 21:01:05 <Julius129> it says the estimated blocks is 105 000 something
2825 2013-05-06 21:01:11 jciri has quit (Client Quit)
2826 2013-05-06 21:01:18 <Julius129> and then tries to fetch like 34 000 ones
2827 2013-05-06 21:02:21 systemParanoid has joined
2828 2013-05-06 21:03:24 <Julius129> send version message: version 70001, blocks=71334, us=****, them=75.119.251.161:51144, peer=75.119.251.161:51144
2829 2013-05-06 21:03:25 <Julius129> receive version message: version 60000, blocks=140700, us=****, them=0.0.0.0:0, peer=75.119.251.161:51144
2830 2013-05-06 21:03:26 <Julius129> socket closed
2831 2013-05-06 21:03:28 jgarzik has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2832 2013-05-06 21:03:50 sydna has joined
2833 2013-05-06 21:03:57 Gnaf has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2834 2013-05-06 21:04:37 <gmaxwell> Julius129: the height thing is just a display, its reported based on a median of your peers. It doesn't change the fetching behavior there. (except to not pick nodes with very low height relative to your current height for initial block download)
2835 2013-05-06 21:05:25 <Julius129> so that is normal
2836 2013-05-06 21:07:12 resinate has quit (Quit: resinate)
2837 2013-05-06 21:07:48 twobitcoins has joined
2838 2013-05-06 21:08:00 ardeay_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2839 2013-05-06 21:08:05 jgarzik has joined
2840 2013-05-06 21:08:28 jgarzik is now known as Guest65242
2841 2013-05-06 21:09:08 qeb has quit (Quit: ["Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com"])
2842 2013-05-06 21:09:19 sensorii has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2843 2013-05-06 21:11:37 iwilcox has joined
2844 2013-05-06 21:11:37 iwilcox has quit (Changing host)
2845 2013-05-06 21:11:37 iwilcox has joined
2846 2013-05-06 21:14:52 <gmaxwell> Julius129: well, it would be interesting to know waht drugs 75.119.251.161 is on.
2847 2013-05-06 21:14:55 xorgate has joined
2848 2013-05-06 21:16:11 <Julius129> just going to ban it on my fw
2849 2013-05-06 21:16:27 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
2850 2013-05-06 21:17:49 <gmaxwell> it shouldn't be able to trigger that alone.
2851 2013-05-06 21:18:03 sensorii has joined
2852 2013-05-06 21:18:09 <sydna> out of curiosity, what is that node doing?
2853 2013-05-06 21:18:57 <Julius129> no idea but its making my client try and download 30000 blocks that dont exist
2854 2013-05-06 21:19:32 <sydna> out of interest I've -connect'd to it
2855 2013-05-06 21:19:46 Denario has joined
2856 2013-05-06 21:20:06 <sydna> not seeing any strange behaviour yet
2857 2013-05-06 21:20:08 <Julius129> is it time travelling on your side too
2858 2013-05-06 21:20:20 g0thX has joined
2859 2013-05-06 21:20:32 <sydna> time traveling?
2860 2013-05-06 21:21:50 <Julius129> giving you blocks that dont exist yet
2861 2013-05-06 21:21:56 <Julius129> i see its connecting to me
2862 2013-05-06 21:22:14 <Julius129> so its probably not even a real client
2863 2013-05-06 21:22:22 <sydna> nope, I was ~5 blocks behind, it sent them fine and is now happily relaying TX
2864 2013-05-06 21:23:04 <sydna> we'll see what happens in a minute or two when there's a new block
2865 2013-05-06 21:23:14 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, canadians, they're always behind the times
2866 2013-05-06 21:23:36 phpwn has joined
2867 2013-05-06 21:23:47 santoscork has joined
2868 2013-05-06 21:24:18 ardeay_ has joined
2869 2013-05-06 21:24:34 Jasmin68k has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
2870 2013-05-06 21:24:44 sacrelege has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2871 2013-05-06 21:25:53 gagecolton has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2872 2013-05-06 21:26:24 tsche has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2873 2013-05-06 21:26:35 tsche has joined
2874 2013-05-06 21:27:46 zooko has joined
2875 2013-05-06 21:28:05 mollison has joined
2876 2013-05-06 21:29:54 <zooko> Folks: is there a service, tool, or helpful person on this channel, who will take two transactions and tell me a chain between them, if any exists?
2877 2013-05-06 21:30:28 agricocb has joined
2878 2013-05-06 21:30:28 <zooko> Also: I'm planning to attend the conference in San Jose! ☺
2879 2013-05-06 21:30:48 <midnightmagic> zooko: ! dammit!
2880 2013-05-06 21:31:41 SirDefaced has joined
2881 2013-05-06 21:31:48 <sipa> zooko: great!
2882 2013-05-06 21:32:11 jackass_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2883 2013-05-06 21:32:46 <midnightmagic> zooko: Some people in here have built a path search mechanism using a sql database translation of the blockchain.
2884 2013-05-06 21:32:51 <midnightmagic> zooko: I have no idea if they keep it up.
2885 2013-05-06 21:33:52 marketanarchist has quit (Quit: Page closed)
2886 2013-05-06 21:34:19 <midnightmagic> zooko: The usual query is the tightness of relationship between two addresses, though.
2887 2013-05-06 21:34:50 <zooko> midnightmagic: I don't understand that. I used blockchain.info's "taint" thing, but I didn't understand that.
2888 2013-05-06 21:35:14 taha has joined
2889 2013-05-06 21:36:36 <midnightmagic> zooko: Don't feel bad, taint analysis on blockchain.info is useless.
2890 2013-05-06 21:37:11 g0thX has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2891 2013-05-06 21:37:49 noitev-asleep is now known as noitev
2892 2013-05-06 21:37:59 rdymac has joined
2893 2013-05-06 21:38:56 <sydna> Julius129: still seems to be stable for me with that block. maybe it's outgoing connections are different. crazy anyway.
2894 2013-05-06 21:39:35 <midnightmagic> zooko: Some people in here, who either haven't read your question yet or are just being quiet, have taken every transaction in the blockchain and stuffed them into a SQL database using input/output edges. The data represents a graph. It is possible to search this graph via repetitive select statements to discover reachability between two nodes.
2895 2013-05-06 21:40:02 <midnightmagic> Or 'represents multiple graphs' because of course not everything is reachable from everything else.
2896 2013-05-06 21:40:31 <sydna> midnightmagic: that's interesting actually. I wonder how many completely private trees there are.
2897 2013-05-06 21:40:56 <sydna> midnightmagic: private as in, coins that have never touched any others but themselves
2898 2013-05-06 21:41:08 gagecolton has joined
2899 2013-05-06 21:41:13 brocktice has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2900 2013-05-06 21:41:25 gribble has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2901 2013-05-06 21:41:26 owowo has quit (Quit: sayonara)
2902 2013-05-06 21:41:38 rdymac has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2903 2013-05-06 21:41:56 gagecolton has quit (Client Quit)
2904 2013-05-06 21:42:17 gagecolton has joined
2905 2013-05-06 21:42:18 <midnightmagic> sydna: As I understand it, that question was once upon a time answered by the comprehensive (but now horribly out-dated) blockchain analyses done in.. those two 28c3 bitcoin talks I think.
2906 2013-05-06 21:42:59 yohann has joined
2907 2013-05-06 21:43:45 <midnightmagic> sydna: I do not mean to imply they were accurate. Only comprehensive. Their analyses of identities did not seem to take into account exotic transaction types, of which there are many now in the blockchain.
2908 2013-05-06 21:43:45 <Julius129> sydna, i will screenshot it next time i see it happening
2909 2013-05-06 21:43:46 <sydna> midnightmagic: oh alright. I suspect you'd mainly find private trees within the early part of the block chain. mining pools now mean that almost every block reward is split and sent to many parties on the spot
2910 2013-05-06 21:43:49 <zooko> midnightmagic: yeah. I guess "Abe" could easily be scripted to do that. I guess I should download that and a copy of the blockchain....
2911 2013-05-06 21:44:16 <gmaxwell> ... or you could run a couple line python program against the regular rpc.
2912 2013-05-06 21:44:35 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
2913 2013-05-06 21:44:55 <midnightmagic> zooko: The calls you're going to want to look into are getrawtransaction and decoderawtransaction, and getblock and getblockhash.
2914 2013-05-06 21:44:56 <sydna> Abe does have a few indexes the normal client doesn't have though, doesn't it?
2915 2013-05-06 21:45:17 <gmaxwell> you don't need any indexes for what he asked for here beyond txindex=1
2916 2013-05-06 21:45:31 Guest65242 has quit (Changing host)
2917 2013-05-06 21:45:31 Guest65242 has joined
2918 2013-05-06 21:45:36 Guest65242 is now known as jgarzik_
2919 2013-05-06 21:45:44 <sydna> gotcha.
2920 2013-05-06 21:46:21 <zooko> What's txindex=1?
2921 2013-05-06 21:46:22 <midnightmagic> sydna: Thankfully, lots of people are back to solo mining now (myself included.) It's nice to see ASIC is enabling that again.
2922 2013-05-06 21:46:47 <jgarzik_> zooko: normally _all_ transactions are not indexed, only the unspent ones
2923 2013-05-06 21:46:53 BTCOxygen has joined
2924 2013-05-06 21:47:04 <jgarzik_> zooko: txindex=1 enables indexing for all the millions of transactions
2925 2013-05-06 21:47:24 <sydna> jgarzik_: how much does blow out the size of the database to?
2926 2013-05-06 21:47:51 <zooko> I see, thanks.
2927 2013-05-06 21:47:59 <zooko> midnightmagic: nice!
2928 2013-05-06 21:48:10 <Julius129> jgarzik_, so if i have txindex=1 enabled i can ask the client via RPC what the balance is of specific address?
2929 2013-05-06 21:48:14 brocktice has joined
2930 2013-05-06 21:48:23 <sipa> Julius129: no, transactions are indexed, not addresses
2931 2013-05-06 21:48:28 <sydna> midnightmagic: even someone with a 5GH/s ASIC will struggle though. 103 days for them at the current difficulty
2932 2013-05-06 21:48:29 <sipa> that would require an even larger database
2933 2013-05-06 21:48:46 <sydna> Abe /does/ have that index, that is what I was thinking of
2934 2013-05-06 21:49:03 <sydna> an up to date Abe database is about 40GB at the moment
2935 2013-05-06 21:49:06 <sipa> jgarzik_: also, without txindex there is no transaction index at all, technically
2936 2013-05-06 21:49:40 m00p has joined
2937 2013-05-06 21:50:38 <ardeay_> ;;ticker
2938 2013-05-06 21:50:39 <altgribble> BTCUSD ticker | Best bid: 107.92173, Best ask: 108.10000, Bid-ask spread: 0.17827, Last trade: 107.92173, 24 hour volume: 132400.63338214, 24 hour low: 108.10000, 24 hour high: 124.90000, 24 hour vwap: 118.64266
2939 2013-05-06 21:50:48 <zooko> Yeah, the only slowdown for me is acquiring a copy of the blockchain.
2940 2013-05-06 21:50:56 <zooko> Otherwise Abe seems good. I like Python.
2941 2013-05-06 21:50:58 <midnightmagic> sydna: 5GH is what CPUs were back when GPU first became widespread. I don't have much opinion on that right now I guess.
2942 2013-05-06 21:50:59 Namworld has joined
2943 2013-05-06 21:51:09 <sydna> midnightmagic: good point
2944 2013-05-06 21:51:14 rdymac has joined
2945 2013-05-06 21:51:27 <sydna> zooko: connecting to a very fast node will help you out. there's a good list here
2946 2013-05-06 21:51:30 <sydna> http://blockchain.info/hub-nodes
2947 2013-05-06 21:51:52 <sipa> or use bootstrap.dat
2948 2013-05-06 21:52:01 <midnightmagic> zooko: There is a block seed torrent. Lemme dig it up for you.. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=145386.0
2949 2013-05-06 21:52:12 phlogiston has joined
2950 2013-05-06 21:52:13 michael___ has joined
2951 2013-05-06 21:52:35 <sydna> midnightmagic: I didn't realise it had been updated recently, I thought it was only the first 200000 blocks last time I looked
2952 2013-05-06 21:53:02 <midnightmagic> sydna: I figure perhaps it'd help provided the seeders are still seeding.
2953 2013-05-06 21:53:06 keystroke has joined
2954 2013-05-06 21:53:25 yohann has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2955 2013-05-06 21:53:30 keystroke is now known as Guest19899
2956 2013-05-06 21:53:31 ielo has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2957 2013-05-06 21:53:38 <sydna> still having fast peers after the first 4.8GB will help
2958 2013-05-06 21:53:56 <jgarzik_> I need to update that
2959 2013-05-06 21:54:06 <jgarzik_> should be plenty of seeders
2960 2013-05-06 21:54:10 sensorii has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2961 2013-05-06 21:54:19 guruvan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2962 2013-05-06 21:54:22 <zooko> So, the reason I'm asking is that Dan Kaminsky wrote in Wired that not one stolen ⓢ has ever been spent.
2963 2013-05-06 21:54:23 <zooko> midnightmagic: thanks!
2964 2013-05-06 21:54:50 gfinn has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2965 2013-05-06 21:54:50 gst has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2966 2013-05-06 21:54:51 <midnightmagic> zooko: I read that also. I don't understand how he can make that claim.
2967 2013-05-06 21:54:58 <sydna> if people stole with no intent to spend, why would they bother?
2968 2013-05-06 21:55:06 guruvan has joined
2969 2013-05-06 21:55:08 <zooko> https://twitter.com/zooko/status/330492519521591297
2970 2013-05-06 21:55:16 <jgarzik_> all coins are in the state of "haven't been spent... yet"
2971 2013-05-06 21:55:19 <zooko> sydna: that's a good point.
2972 2013-05-06 21:55:20 <jgarzik_> no coin is spent, until it is.
2973 2013-05-06 21:55:29 MaybeJustNothing has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2974 2013-05-06 21:55:29 sacredchao has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2975 2013-05-06 21:55:29 holorga has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2976 2013-05-06 21:55:29 metabyte_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2977 2013-05-06 21:55:29 gruvfunk has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2978 2013-05-06 21:55:29 <midnightmagic> sydna: The possibility of zerocoin on the distant horizon?
2979 2013-05-06 21:55:35 <jgarzik_> so you cannot say there is no intent to spent
2980 2013-05-06 21:55:37 <jgarzik_> could be just waiting
2981 2013-05-06 21:55:40 jgarzik_ is now known as jgarzik
2982 2013-05-06 21:55:53 <sydna> midnightmagic: is there though?
2983 2013-05-06 21:56:06 brocktice has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2984 2013-05-06 21:56:15 Denario has left ("Saliendo")
2985 2013-05-06 21:56:25 <midnightmagic> sydna: The first one to provide an open-transactions-issue bitcoin that people are willing to use will probably see some kind of stolen coins.
2986 2013-05-06 21:56:28 <midnightmagic> IMO.
2987 2013-05-06 21:56:35 <zooko> So, then he told someone that I am helping him investigate this. >:-{ https://twitter.com/dakami/status/331483567727190016
2988 2013-05-06 21:56:46 sacredchao has joined
2989 2013-05-06 21:56:59 <sydna> you can already anonymise your coins fairly well though.
2990 2013-05-06 21:57:14 <sydna> pretty much any service with a central wallet can be abused in that fashion
2991 2013-05-06 21:57:21 MaybeJustNothing has joined
2992 2013-05-06 21:57:34 porquilho has quit ()
2993 2013-05-06 21:57:39 sensorii has joined
2994 2013-05-06 21:57:50 <jgarzik> sydna: It's not as easy, because large amounts of stolen coins obviously go in and out
2995 2013-05-06 21:58:11 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
2996 2013-05-06 21:58:17 <midnightmagic> sydna: the mpex guy has stated the anonymous nature of mpex + tor basically makes his system a good laundry. I don't know why he keeps telling everybody that though.
2997 2013-05-06 21:58:32 <sydna> jgarzik: certainly, but for small amounts you can probably slip under the radar
2998 2013-05-06 21:58:36 <jgarzik> sydna: Only the biggest online wallets see 10's of thousands of BTC in deposits/withdrawals, and correlating a 40K input with 40K output is pretty easy, even with intermediate stages.
2999 2013-05-06 21:58:57 <midnightmagic> zooko: lol, what is he in here watching you work? How does he know you're doing this?
3000 2013-05-06 21:59:15 <sydna> point taken
3001 2013-05-06 21:59:17 Grouver has joined
3002 2013-05-06 21:59:53 <zooko> Thanks for the magnet link!
3003 2013-05-06 21:59:58 <zooko> midnightmagic: Heh heh.
3004 2013-05-06 22:00:10 <zooko> midnightmagic: no, I'm doing this *because* he falsely claimed that I was doing this.
3005 2013-05-06 22:00:11 <zooko> I'll show him!
3006 2013-05-06 22:00:12 systemParanoid has quit (Quit: Leaving)
3007 2013-05-06 22:00:33 <SirDefaced> When intalling the win32 deps for gitian, how long is it supposed to take on average?
3008 2013-05-06 22:00:45 <jgarzik> zooko: note that picocoin's blkscan can scan through a ~7GB raw blockchain in under 3 minutes, https://github.com/jgarzik/picocoin/blob/master/src/blkscan.c
3009 2013-05-06 22:00:45 phlogiston has left ()
3010 2013-05-06 22:00:58 <jgarzik> zooko: pynode's q_avg_size also scans the entire chain, though more slowly because it's python
3011 2013-05-06 22:01:07 <jgarzik> both are helpful in performing oddball chain queries
3012 2013-05-06 22:01:18 <zooko> jgarzik: cool! ☺
3013 2013-05-06 22:02:01 gst has joined
3014 2013-05-06 22:02:27 tcatm has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
3015 2013-05-06 22:02:30 Btceldur has quit ()
3016 2013-05-06 22:02:43 <gmaxwell> zooko: https://people.xiph.org/~greg/traverse.py is a really dumb script that walks all the inputs to a transaction backwards. Give it a txid on the commandline.
3017 2013-05-06 22:02:48 <zooko> jgarzik: would you recommend pynode over abe?
3018 2013-05-06 22:02:55 <zooko> gmaxwell: thanks!
3019 2013-05-06 22:03:09 <jgarzik> zooko: well, they do different things
3020 2013-05-06 22:03:13 <midnightmagic> zooko: I have a friend in Uganda that does that sort of thing all the time to get me to do stuff, except in his case he turns it into a competition with someone I don't like very much.
3021 2013-05-06 22:03:36 <jgarzik> zooko: pynode just maintains a chain database.  up to you what you do with it.  ABE is much more featureful, and has pre-packaged queries that pynode does not.
3022 2013-05-06 22:03:53 michael___ has quit (Quit: Page closed)
3023 2013-05-06 22:03:53 <jgarzik> zooko: pynode is essentially a hackable bitcoin client
3024 2013-05-06 22:04:01 <zooko> Yeah, it looks good.
3025 2013-05-06 22:04:08 <zooko> midnightmagic: haha!
3026 2013-05-06 22:04:35 <gmaxwell> good luck actually running abe. :P
3027 2013-05-06 22:05:24 <cjd> abe doesn't work with the new version?
3028 2013-05-06 22:05:44 <cjd> or is now broken for some reason...?
3029 2013-05-06 22:05:58 <gmaxwell> cjd: I mean, the last time I tried running it it imported for three days and by then I ran out of space for the database.. it was at 60 some gigabytes when it died.
3030 2013-05-06 22:06:15 <cjd> ahh :)
3031 2013-05-06 22:06:28 <cjd> I suppose things were a bit more simple when john wrote it
3032 2013-05-06 22:07:01 <gmaxwell> zooko: I don't know about the context of that tweet (it's not like you can ever tell) but you should be pretty careful in drawing any conclusions from raw blockchain analysis. There can be a lot of invisble things going on that are hard to reason about.
3033 2013-05-06 22:07:23 mrkent has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
3034 2013-05-06 22:07:56 Guest19899 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
3035 2013-05-06 22:07:56 <gmaxwell> For example, you might conclude that a theif hasn't spent his stolen coin. But in reality he might have already sold it in exchange for 10% of its value in clean coin.. and some bitcoin rich person is just sitting on a bit pile of it to be slowly laundered over decades.
3036 2013-05-06 22:09:13 ovidiusoft has quit (Quit: leaving)
3037 2013-05-06 22:09:13 <zooko> gmaxwell: haha.
3038 2013-05-06 22:09:21 seeingidog__ has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
3039 2013-05-06 22:09:26 <zooko> gmaxwell: good point.
3040 2013-05-06 22:09:51 seeingidog__ has joined
3041 2013-05-06 22:10:39 <cjd> So how about preferring blocks which contain more transactions that reduce the UTXO set?
3042 2013-05-06 22:11:04 <cjd> preferring == forwarding and mining against if there are 2 blocks at same hight
3043 2013-05-06 22:11:43 <gmaxwell> cjd: because thats bad for convergence, someone with more reducy block can hold back on announcing it in order to spend time mining on it in private.
3044 2013-05-06 22:12:28 <cjd> hmm
3045 2013-05-06 22:12:32 <gmaxwell> cjd: plus its trivially gamed. ... produce a crappile of transactions.. then when you mine a block "lookie at what a great citizen I am, mining all these cleanup transactions that mysteriously only I was aware of"
3046 2013-05-06 22:13:32 <cjd> well the ones which expand the UTXO set should deduct preference from the block
3047 2013-05-06 22:13:45 chorao has joined
3048 2013-05-06 22:13:55 <Luke-Jr> cjd: ANY preference is harmful to convergence
3049 2013-05-06 22:15:16 <cjd> hold back on announcing it in order to spend time  mining on it in private <-- does that actually improve odds or is it just a btc legend?
3050 2013-05-06 22:15:58 <sydna> I don't see how that would do anything but reduce your chances
3051 2013-05-06 22:16:54 <cjd> seems like it would be net zero but even if it is, there is still the problem of miners who think it isn't...
3052 2013-05-06 22:17:12 shesek has joined
3053 2013-05-06 22:18:18 <gmaxwell> cjd: it certantly does IF the network will still switch to the delayed block.
3054 2013-05-06 22:18:36 phma has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
3055 2013-05-06 22:18:46 <sydna> oh! you mean holding onto an orphaned block and hoping that you solve another quickly?
3056 2013-05-06 22:18:46 CaptainBlaze has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
3057 2013-05-06 22:18:57 CaptainBlaze has joined
3058 2013-05-06 22:19:02 Elmf has joined
3059 2013-05-06 22:19:46 <gmaxwell> 14:50 < cjd> well the ones which expand the UTXO set should deduct preference from the block
3060 2013-05-06 22:19:56 <gmaxwell> ^yes, but I leave other miners to create those blocks.
3061 2013-05-06 22:20:12 <gmaxwell> then I sweep them up in my blocks.
3062 2013-05-06 22:20:36 <cjd> ideally the incentive would translate to fees
3063 2013-05-06 22:20:45 <cjd> but point taken re complexity being attackable
3064 2013-05-06 22:21:48 <gmaxwell> cjd: I did describe how to solve uneconomically spendable utxo bloat entirely, but its probably too big of a change for bitcoin.
3065 2013-05-06 22:21:59 <gmaxwell> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/User:Gmaxwell/alt_ideas search for prepayment
3066 2013-05-06 22:23:06 <cjd> interesting
3067 2013-05-06 22:23:11 <cjd> yur satoshi :P
3068 2013-05-06 22:23:19 <gmaxwell> The idea is that the transaction creating an output takes the blocksize cost of redeeming it.
3069 2013-05-06 22:24:38 tholenst has quit (Quit: Page closed)
3070 2013-05-06 22:24:39 bibbybob has quit (Quit: Leaving)
3071 2013-05-06 22:24:43 <gmaxwell> so, e.g. a 400 byte transaction which creates outputs which would take 1000 bytes to redeem would subtract 1400 from the blocksize. When those outputs were redeemed (say all in one block) they'd add 1000 to the allowed size. Though in some claps to prevent sillyness.
3072 2013-05-06 22:25:16 <K1773R> gmaxwell: on the vanitygen thread you posted an "announcement" that you've create a version which creates compressed keys, afterwards i asked in the thread if you can publish it but no answer so far, did you miss it?
3073 2013-05-06 22:25:26 <jaakkos> wiki says a 51% attacker can't "Reverse other people's transactions" because "It's much more difficult to change historical blocks, and it becomes exponentially more difficult the further back you go." which is BS
3074 2013-05-06 22:25:33 <gmaxwell> K1773R: yea, I missed it. Sorry.
3075 2013-05-06 22:25:46 jim00001 has quit (Quit: jim00001)
3076 2013-05-06 22:26:02 <K1773R> so in this case, could you be so friendly to publish it?
3077 2013-05-06 22:26:25 reneg has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
3078 2013-05-06 22:26:27 <gmaxwell> K1773R: meh. I'd rather not publish it because I don't have time to adequately test it. (I mean, beyond just checking that a couple it gave me worked)
3079 2013-05-06 22:26:41  has quit (Clown|!~clown@unaffiliated/clown/x-0272709|Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
3080 2013-05-06 22:26:49 reneg has joined
3081 2013-05-06 22:26:54 <K1773R> declare it as unstable/beta, if ppl use it and fail/loose coins its not ur fault
3082 2013-05-06 22:27:08 <gmaxwell> Peoples reasonably expected behavior is always my fault.
3083 2013-05-06 22:27:16 <gmaxwell> I _know_ how people use vanitygen.
3084 2013-05-06 22:27:33 <K1773R> i know ppls... thats why i say it ^^
3085 2013-05-06 22:27:37 <K1773R> in this case, how about sending it to me in private?
3086 2013-05-06 22:27:39  has joined
3087 2013-05-06 22:27:39 reneg has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
3088 2013-05-06 22:28:24 <gmaxwell> sure I can do that, gimme an email address?
3089 2013-05-06 22:28:37 resinate has joined
3090 2013-05-06 22:28:40 <sydna> is there any specific advantage to creating compressed addresses?
3091 2013-05-06 22:28:44 <gmaxwell> ...
3092 2013-05-06 22:28:52 <sipa> sydna: they require smaller transactions to spend from
3093 2013-05-06 22:29:16 <gmaxwell> Their public keys are half the size, and thats a good chunk of the data in a typical scriptsig
3094 2013-05-06 22:29:17 <K1773R> so less fees ;)
3095 2013-05-06 22:29:37 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
3096 2013-05-06 22:29:40 duSn has joined
3097 2013-05-06 22:31:12 <sydna> right, I was thinking about the length of the base58 address
3098 2013-05-06 22:31:34 <sydna> if you were so inclined, you could make very short addresses by brute force too, couldn't you?
3099 2013-05-06 22:31:35 <sipa> it's not the address that is compressed
3100 2013-05-06 22:31:45 <sipa> it's an address that corresponds to a public key which is compressed
3101 2013-05-06 22:31:49 <gmaxwell> K1773R: sent; keep in mind: mostly untested, you really should match that the returned private key actually matches the displayed public key.
3102 2013-05-06 22:33:00 <K1773R> gmaxwell: thanks. of course i will. if not its my fault.
3103 2013-05-06 22:33:06 <sydna> sipa: the length of a bit coin address depends on key containing 0s doesn't it? or have I got my wires crossed in that
3104 2013-05-06 22:33:18 <sipa> sydna: correct
3105 2013-05-06 22:33:44 <sydna> could you brute force to get one with many 0s, and therefor very short?
3106 2013-05-06 22:33:45 phpwn has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
3107 2013-05-06 22:33:53 <sipa> sydna: no, 0's make it longer
3108 2013-05-06 22:33:54 phma has joined
3109 2013-05-06 22:34:02 tcatm has joined
3110 2013-05-06 22:34:02 tcatm has quit (Changing host)
3111 2013-05-06 22:34:02 tcatm has joined
3112 2013-05-06 22:34:07 <sipa> eh
3113 2013-05-06 22:34:12 <sipa> wait, i'm wrong, sorry
3114 2013-05-06 22:37:33 <sydna> guess I'll read up on it, could be a bit of fun
3115 2013-05-06 22:37:48 czaanja has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
3116 2013-05-06 22:39:29 <sipa> by computing 256^N times more addresses, you can reduce the length by N*0.365658 characters :)
3117 2013-05-06 22:40:45 <sydna> hm. getting it down to 25 from 34 would be doable, but not particularly remarkable
3118 2013-05-06 22:41:31 <sipa> ehm, that would require more computation steps than cracking ECDSA
3119 2013-05-06 22:41:51 <sydna> you're right. I'm being extra dopey for some reason.
3120 2013-05-06 22:42:02 <sydna> might right a quick POC just for the fun of it though
3121 2013-05-06 22:42:19 <sipa> 1-2 characters less may be doable
3122 2013-05-06 22:42:53 <sipa> 3 would already require about as much work as the bitcoin network did in its history
3123 2013-05-06 22:47:09 <sydna> probably not worth it for a couple of leading zeros
3124 2013-05-06 22:47:14 <HM> the length of an address seems pretty irrelevant, they aren't friendly to type
3125 2013-05-06 22:47:34 gagecolton has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
3126 2013-05-06 22:47:39 <zooko> Sorry if this is a dumb question, but why is "convergence" important, if "convergence" here means that independent miners choose the same transactions to include in their blocks?
3127 2013-05-06 22:47:49 gagecolton has joined
3128 2013-05-06 22:47:50 <sydna> HM: having a vanity address in general is fairly useless too really
3129 2013-05-06 22:47:56 <midnightmagic> zooko: Convergence means everybody agrees what the topmost blocks are.
3130 2013-05-06 22:47:59 <zooko> And "Here" means gmaxwell said that cjd's proposal was bad for convergence.
3131 2013-05-06 22:48:05 <zooko> Oh.
3132 2013-05-06 22:48:29 <zooko> So when Luke-Jr said "ANY preference is harmful to convergence", he meant...
3133 2013-05-06 22:48:48 <zooko> Luke-Jr: were you talking about preference among transactions, on the part of a miner?
3134 2013-05-06 22:48:54 mrkent has joined
3135 2013-05-06 22:48:57 sydna has quit (Quit: sydna)
3136 2013-05-06 22:48:57 <midnightmagic> zooko: amiller_ did some neat calculations a while back that makes the conspiracy theorist in me think satoshi made block target time 10 minutes so it would work with colonies on the moon. :)
3137 2013-05-06 22:49:43 <sipa> not on mars though :(
3138 2013-05-06 22:49:46 tcatm has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
3139 2013-05-06 22:49:49 <zooko> I was just thinking that I'm going to miss amiller_ at the Bitcoin conference. ☹
3140 2013-05-06 22:50:04 <sipa> he isn't coming?
3141 2013-05-06 22:51:02 <zooko> Apparently not. ☹ ☹
3142 2013-05-06 22:51:29 <sipa> amiller_: how can we convince you to come? :)
3143 2013-05-06 22:52:48 Ahimoth has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
3144 2013-05-06 22:53:29 Ahimoth has joined
3145 2013-05-06 22:54:37 seeingidog__ has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
3146 2013-05-06 22:55:16 seeingidog__ has joined
3147 2013-05-06 22:56:33 Grouver has quit (Quit:  HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <- The alternative IRC client)
3148 2013-05-06 22:56:41 jtimon has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
3149 2013-05-06 22:58:37 nomailing has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
3150 2013-05-06 23:00:25 <EvilPete> gosh, damn having two conferences at once.
3151 2013-05-06 23:01:17 <sipa> ?
3152 2013-05-06 23:01:22 nomailing has joined
3153 2013-05-06 23:02:29 <Luke-Jr> at once? O.o
3154 2013-05-06 23:02:36 agricocb has joined
3155 2013-05-06 23:02:44 <Luke-Jr> spring in the US, fall in Europe. I don't see an overlap
3156 2013-05-06 23:03:01 <gmaxwell> zooko: no he means that if miner choose to extend a _later_ block instead of an earlier one (esp based on some criteria the block author controls) that it makes the network take longer to converge, not just in the trivial sense but also increasing the rate of large reorgs.
3157 2013-05-06 23:03:20 HM2 has joined
3158 2013-05-06 23:03:25 HM has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
3159 2013-05-06 23:03:29 <nospinzy> what is the easiest way to validate a bitcoin address thru php
3160 2013-05-06 23:05:16 Gnaf has joined
3161 2013-05-06 23:05:49 andyh2 has joined
3162 2013-05-06 23:06:29 macboz_ has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
3163 2013-05-06 23:07:05 logger235 has joined
3164 2013-05-06 23:08:06 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
3165 2013-05-06 23:08:38 taha has quit (Quit: Leaving)
3166 2013-05-06 23:09:01 X-Scale has joined
3167 2013-05-06 23:09:12 tcatm has joined
3168 2013-05-06 23:09:52 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
3169 2013-05-06 23:12:50 SwapperMall has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
3170 2013-05-06 23:12:57 duckybsd has joined
3171 2013-05-06 23:13:35 quaz0r has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
3172 2013-05-06 23:15:34 BTCOxygen has joined
3173 2013-05-06 23:17:40 X-Scale has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
3174 2013-05-06 23:18:47 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
3175 2013-05-06 23:18:47 one_zero has joined
3176 2013-05-06 23:19:41 brocktice has joined
3177 2013-05-06 23:19:54 BTCOxygen has joined
3178 2013-05-06 23:20:13 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
3179 2013-05-06 23:21:07 logger235 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
3180 2013-05-06 23:21:07 CrypticSquared has joined
3181 2013-05-06 23:21:26 BTCOxygen is now known as 1!~BTCOxygen@unaffiliated/btcoxygen|BTCOxygen
3182 2013-05-06 23:25:48 gribble has joined
3183 2013-05-06 23:26:44 quaz0r has joined
3184 2013-05-06 23:27:49 sagax_ has joined
3185 2013-05-06 23:28:42 andyh2 has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
3186 2013-05-06 23:29:05 sagax__ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
3187 2013-05-06 23:29:25 phungus has joined
3188 2013-05-06 23:30:42 HM has joined
3189 2013-05-06 23:30:55 HM2 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
3190 2013-05-06 23:31:28 <zooko> gmaxwell: I see.
3191 2013-05-06 23:32:05 roconnor has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
3192 2013-05-06 23:34:36 Phil21 has joined
3193 2013-05-06 23:34:43 new299_ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
3194 2013-05-06 23:35:11 macboz has joined
3195 2013-05-06 23:36:13 new299_ has joined
3196 2013-05-06 23:38:01 duckybsd has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
3197 2013-05-06 23:38:25 CodeShark has joined
3198 2013-05-06 23:42:19 keystroke has joined
3199 2013-05-06 23:42:43 keystroke is now known as Guest93646
3200 2013-05-06 23:42:46 macboz has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
3201 2013-05-06 23:43:44 randy-waterhouse has joined
3202 2013-05-06 23:45:13 legitnick1 has joined
3203 2013-05-06 23:49:41 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
3204 2013-05-06 23:49:50 BTCOxygen has joined
3205 2013-05-06 23:50:06 krator44 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
3206 2013-05-06 23:50:20 BTCOxygen is now known as 1!~BTCOxygen@unaffiliated/btcoxygen|BTCOxygen
3207 2013-05-06 23:50:46 icellan has quit (Quit: icellan)
3208 2013-05-06 23:51:46 legitnick1 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
3209 2013-05-06 23:52:02 HM has quit ()
3210 2013-05-06 23:52:11 HM has joined
3211 2013-05-06 23:54:23 santoscork has quit (Quit: Auto logout …)
3212 2013-05-06 23:56:26 legitnick1 has joined
3213 2013-05-06 23:56:50 legitnick1 is now known as Guest83054
3214 2013-05-06 23:57:57 Guest83054 is now known as legitnick1
3215 2013-05-06 23:58:20 Elmf has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
3216 2013-05-06 23:58:22 Chuky has quit (Quit: • IRcap • 8.71 •)
3217 2013-05-06 23:58:27 legitnick1 is now known as Guest61882
3218 2013-05-06 23:58:39 Guest61882 is now known as legitnick1
3219 2013-05-06 23:59:12 denisx has joined
3220 2013-05-06 23:59:56 mollison has quit (Remote host closed the connection)