1 2013-07-01 00:01:10 viperhr has joined
   2 2013-07-01 00:01:28 De_Lemming has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
   3 2013-07-01 00:07:45 one_zero has joined
   4 2013-07-01 00:08:24 MobPhone has joined
   5 2013-07-01 00:11:48 De_Lemming has joined
   6 2013-07-01 00:20:13 o3u has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
   7 2013-07-01 00:20:47 o3u has joined
   8 2013-07-01 00:21:46 guruvan has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
   9 2013-07-01 00:23:01 clav8 has joined
  10 2013-07-01 00:24:43 agnostic98 has joined
  11 2013-07-01 00:27:59 Namworld has joined
  12 2013-07-01 00:27:59 guruvan has joined
  13 2013-07-01 00:32:33 nimdAHK has joined
  14 2013-07-01 00:35:17 realazthat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  15 2013-07-01 00:36:51 realazthat has joined
  16 2013-07-01 00:42:17 realazthat has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
  17 2013-07-01 00:46:17 mrkent has joined
  18 2013-07-01 00:46:17 mrkent has quit (Changing host)
  19 2013-07-01 00:46:17 mrkent has joined
  20 2013-07-01 00:46:32 mrkent has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
  21 2013-07-01 00:47:00 mrkent has joined
  22 2013-07-01 00:47:00 mrkent has quit (Changing host)
  23 2013-07-01 00:47:00 mrkent has joined
  24 2013-07-01 00:47:05 Skav has joined
  25 2013-07-01 00:47:12 agnostic98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  26 2013-07-01 00:47:43 Luke-Jr has quit (Excess Flood)
  27 2013-07-01 00:48:30 Luke-Jr has joined
  28 2013-07-01 00:48:55 MobPhone has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  29 2013-07-01 00:49:29 nimdAHK has quit (Quit: Quit: Quit: Quit: Quit recursing, please.)
  30 2013-07-01 00:49:59 Skav has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  31 2013-07-01 00:50:18 MobPhone has joined
  32 2013-07-01 00:52:05 shesek has joined
  33 2013-07-01 00:52:58 execut3 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
  34 2013-07-01 00:53:44 super3 has joined
  35 2013-07-01 00:59:40 realazthat has joined
  36 2013-07-01 01:00:05 macboz has joined
  37 2013-07-01 01:04:31 realazthat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  38 2013-07-01 01:07:12 rdymac has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  39 2013-07-01 01:14:10 graingert has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
  40 2013-07-01 01:14:15 FredEE has quit (Quit: FredEE)
  41 2013-07-01 01:16:19 realazthat has joined
  42 2013-07-01 01:18:51 JWU42 has joined
  43 2013-07-01 01:20:17 bitit has joined
  44 2013-07-01 01:21:16 justusranvier has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
  45 2013-07-01 01:21:22 xenland has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
  46 2013-07-01 01:23:14 Neozonz has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  47 2013-07-01 01:25:18 agnostic98 has joined
  48 2013-07-01 01:28:08 justusranvier has joined
  49 2013-07-01 01:28:08 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  50 2013-07-01 01:35:28 Mac6}ugh has joined
  51 2013-07-01 01:35:52 wamatt has joined
  52 2013-07-01 01:38:06 d9b4bef9 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  53 2013-07-01 01:38:32 so has joined
  54 2013-07-01 01:39:05 d9b4bef9 has joined
  55 2013-07-01 01:39:28 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  56 2013-07-01 01:41:22 Mac6}ugh has left ()
  57 2013-07-01 01:42:28 shesek has joined
  58 2013-07-01 01:50:24 <BW^-> in ordinary propagation work, is CTxMemPool::accept ever used?
  59 2013-07-01 01:50:58 <nsh> there's a thingumy somewhere that shows which functions are called by which iirc
  60 2013-07-01 01:51:27 <BW^-> nsh: hm. like.. what, where?
  61 2013-07-01 01:51:38 <nsh> trying to find now
  62 2013-07-01 01:51:40 <BW^-> nsh: is the memory pool involved at all in the ordinary propagation work?
  63 2013-07-01 01:51:45 <BW^-> would seem reasonable for it not to be?
  64 2013-07-01 01:51:47 <nsh> reasonably sure i didn't imagine it...
  65 2013-07-01 01:51:56 <BW^-> yeah
  66 2013-07-01 01:52:09 <nsh> i'm not familiar with the source, i'm afraid
  67 2013-07-01 01:52:11 <BW^-> nsh: what made me think the though, is that CTxMemPool::accept contains *lots* of doublechecking code
  68 2013-07-01 01:52:24 d9b4bef9 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  69 2013-07-01 01:52:33 * nsh looks
  70 2013-07-01 01:52:40 <BW^-> nsh: of the kind that, if it is for use as an extension of local wallet operations only, it would effectively be internal inconsistency checks, like, "noone broke the code" kind of things
  71 2013-07-01 01:53:05 d9b4bef9 has joined
  72 2013-07-01 01:53:05 <BW^-> nsh: look at main.cpp:854-860 for instance, "        // do all inputs exist?
  73 2013-07-01 01:53:05 <BW^-> // Note that this does not check for the presence of actual outputs (see the next check for that),
  74 2013-07-01 01:53:05 <BW^-> // only helps filling in pfMissingInputs (to determine missing vs spent)."
  75 2013-07-01 01:53:34 <BW^-> nsh: so it's like a *complete doublechecking* that the input is correct - and, unless someone messed up wallet.db in a magically bad way, it can never be needed
  76 2013-07-01 01:53:48 <BW^-> nsh: so this is why i thought, maybe these doublechecks are verification rules on the propagation path
  77 2013-07-01 01:54:09 <BW^-> though of course, doublechecks always have some value, through adding consistency.
  78 2013-07-01 01:54:33 freewil has joined
  79 2013-07-01 01:54:33 <nsh> mightn't it be checking validity of transactions that are reported to it by the network before adding them to the mempool?
  80 2013-07-01 01:54:49 <nsh> you need to be pretty stringent on that otherwise you can get DoS from evil nodes
  81 2013-07-01 01:54:50 <BW^-> nsh: so the mempool is involved in propagation work?
  82 2013-07-01 01:54:52 mappum has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
  83 2013-07-01 01:55:08 <nsh> mempool is all the transactions that have been heard about that are "current" on the network
  84 2013-07-01 01:55:12 <BW^-> nsh: mhm, so this implies that CTxMemPool::accept is part of the propagation path?
  85 2013-07-01 01:55:13 imd23 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  86 2013-07-01 01:55:20 <nsh> i don't know what you mean by propagation
  87 2013-07-01 01:55:24 <BW^-> aha
  88 2013-07-01 01:55:44 <BW^-> nsh: ok. so, if you're a node N out on the network, and you receive a new transaction propagated/being broadcasted A, then you'll put it on your mempool?
  89 2013-07-01 01:55:51 <nsh> if it's valid, right
  90 2013-07-01 01:55:54 <BW^-> aha noted
  91 2013-07-01 01:55:55 imd23 has joined
  92 2013-07-01 01:55:58 <nsh> and you'll tell others about it by broadcast
  93 2013-07-01 01:55:59 <BW^-> ok so this is in the propagation path - ok noted, cool
  94 2013-07-01 01:56:01 <BW^-> makes sense. :)
  95 2013-07-01 01:56:03 <nsh> it's "gossip" protocol
  96 2013-07-01 01:56:06 <BW^-> yeah
  97 2013-07-01 01:56:12 <BW^-> yeap, then it makes great sense!
  98 2013-07-01 01:56:18 <BW^-> that this doublechecking code is there
  99 2013-07-01 01:56:34 <nsh> this might be useful: http://www.bitcoinsecurity.org/category/bitcoin-2/
 100 2013-07-01 02:02:07 <BW^-> nsh: ok checked itnice
 101 2013-07-01 02:03:27 <nsh> BW^-, are you taking notes on this btw?
 102 2013-07-01 02:03:29 <BW^-> nsh: on restart of a bitcoind server, is there any persistent storage of the mempool?
 103 2013-07-01 02:03:34 <nsh> nope, it's wiped
 104 2013-07-01 02:03:44 <BW^-> nsh: on everything that i consider added understanding, i do take notes, yes.
 105 2013-07-01 02:03:55 <BW^-> nsh: it's been quite a lot til now :)
 106 2013-07-01 02:04:13 <nsh> have you considered doing the notes online somewhere so that other people who are attempting to puzzle out the source code can collaborate
 107 2013-07-01 02:04:17 <nsh> and avoid replication of effort?
 108 2013-07-01 02:04:48 <BW^-> nsh: by/in the extension this would be a completely realistic goal, and a relevant one indeed.
 109 2013-07-01 02:05:35 <nsh> i am also slowly working towards grokking the codebase, though i'll probably use jgarzik's python library and pynode client as i'm literate in python
 110 2013-07-01 02:05:38 <BW^-> nsh: though, i do feel that i need to get to a limited general level of insight before i can decide further about htis
 111 2013-07-01 02:05:39 <nsh> and not at all in C++
 112 2013-07-01 02:05:45 <nsh> but it'd be nice to have someone to work with
 113 2013-07-01 02:05:48 <nsh> right
 114 2013-07-01 02:05:49 <BW^-> nsh: aha
 115 2013-07-01 02:05:56 <BW^-> nsh: actually, I think the C++ code makes lots of sense.
 116 2013-07-01 02:06:11 <BW^-> nsh: if you would be interested in doing some kind of cooperation kind of hting, sure i could be up to that
 117 2013-07-01 02:06:14 <nsh> oh, sure. i just need to figure out / remember how the language works
 118 2013-07-01 02:06:14 <BW^-> i mean, it's very general in nature
 119 2013-07-01 02:06:24 <nsh> what's general?
 120 2013-07-01 02:06:29 <BW^-> nsh: i mean, how it works
 121 2013-07-01 02:06:58 <BW^-> nsh: we're focusing on getting its fundamental workings now, not on anything exotic at all
 122 2013-07-01 02:07:25 * nsh nods
 123 2013-07-01 02:07:38 <BW^-> nsh: i don't know what you want to do in particular of course, though I'd imagine the fact it's C++ shouldn't make a big difference
 124 2013-07-01 02:07:43 <BW^-> i mean, it's close to pseudocode mostly really
 125 2013-07-01 02:07:52 * nsh smiles
 126 2013-07-01 02:07:54 <BW^-> as long as you don't need to change any particular amount of code,
 127 2013-07-01 02:08:05 <nsh> i merely at this stage would like to understand, perhaps with a view to contributing in some way in the future
 128 2013-07-01 02:08:21 <nsh> it strikes me as something worthy of understanding :)
 129 2013-07-01 02:08:26 <BW^-> a misunderstanding on whether something is a reference or passing of structure content in one or two places should not make a difference
 130 2013-07-01 02:08:32 <BW^-> nsh: yeah
 131 2013-07-01 02:08:33 <nsh> brb, bleeding
 132 2013-07-01 02:08:40 <BW^-> nsh: ouch ok let me know when back
 133 2013-07-01 02:09:00 <BW^-> hm
 134 2013-07-01 02:09:00 <BW^-> so
 135 2013-07-01 02:10:17 <BW^-> soo, a "sendtoaddress" RPC call has gone all the way up to CTxMemPool::addUnchecked - so now the transaction is in the mempool.
 136 2013-07-01 02:10:34 <BW^-> what is listening to mempool updates as to broadcast it on the network -
 137 2013-07-01 02:10:59 <BW^-> what's the next evaluation that will happen regarding this transaction now?
 138 2013-07-01 02:11:56 <nsh> BW^-, check this thread too: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=41718.0
 139 2013-07-01 02:12:30 <nsh> and the threads linked from the last post
 140 2013-07-01 02:12:36 <BW^-> nsh: aha cool
 141 2013-07-01 02:12:37 <nsh> they go into some detail of the internal operation
 142 2013-07-01 02:12:43 <nsh> haven't read them thoroughly yet myself
 143 2013-07-01 02:12:48 <BW^-> nsh: what do you want to do with btcd now, understand its workings more, is that the goal?
 144 2013-07-01 02:13:22 <nsh> right
 145 2013-07-01 02:13:24 mappum has joined
 146 2013-07-01 02:13:27 <BW^-> ok cool
 147 2013-07-01 02:13:39 <nsh> then, if it's not beyond my capabilities, assist with bug fixes and implementation of feature requests
 148 2013-07-01 02:13:44 <BW^-> nsh: yeah if you want to i'd be happy to pass on anything i learn
 149 2013-07-01 02:13:49 <nsh> great :)
 150 2013-07-01 02:13:50 <BW^-> nsh: great, yep that sounds awesome
 151 2013-07-01 02:13:50 <BW^-> and
 152 2013-07-01 02:14:10 <BW^-> i do acknowledge the general value of learning this, as you pointed out
 153 2013-07-01 02:14:12 <nsh> also documentation of the code requires some effort
 154 2013-07-01 02:14:12 <BW^-> \that\
 155 2013-07-01 02:14:33 <nsh> s/effort/work/
 156 2013-07-01 02:15:58 <BW^-> yes, there is more to do thre
 157 2013-07-01 02:15:59 <BW^-> there
 158 2013-07-01 02:16:04 <BW^-> nsh: PM
 159 2013-07-01 02:16:12 <nsh> k
 160 2013-07-01 02:20:20 <BW^-> w8
 161 2013-07-01 02:20:22 <BW^-> nsh: any clue about
 162 2013-07-01 02:20:34 <BW^-> nsh: what code will handle the next step in transaction handling after insertion to mempool ?
 163 2013-07-01 02:21:54 super3 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 164 2013-07-01 02:26:04 gnnr has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 165 2013-07-01 02:28:23 Neozonz has joined
 166 2013-07-01 02:28:23 Neozonz has quit (Disc!~neozonz@192-0-172-99.cpe.teksavvy.com|Changing host)
 167 2013-07-01 02:28:23 Neozonz has joined
 168 2013-07-01 02:36:07 <CodeShark> there it stays until a new block is seen
 169 2013-07-01 02:36:29 <BW^-> codeshark: wow - so no broadcast at all until then
 170 2013-07-01 02:36:30 <BW^-> though
 171 2013-07-01 02:36:44 <BW^-> codeshark: about how frequently is there a new block? (*checking log*)
 172 2013-07-01 02:36:48 <CodeShark> it's broadcast immediately when it is determined it is valid
 173 2013-07-01 02:36:49 <nsh> 10m
 174 2013-07-01 02:37:04 <CodeShark> on average there's 10 minutes between blocks but there's high variance
 175 2013-07-01 02:37:04 <BW^-> codeshark: ah
 176 2013-07-01 02:37:07 <nsh> blocks are discovered as a poisson process with an expectation of 10m
 177 2013-07-01 02:37:19 <nsh> though it varies with network hashpower
 178 2013-07-01 02:37:29 <nsh> which changes a lot as miners come on and offline
 179 2013-07-01 02:37:40 <BW^-> wait
 180 2013-07-01 02:37:40 <BW^-> so
 181 2013-07-01 02:37:48 <BW^-> you commit a new transaction to your mempool
 182 2013-07-01 02:38:07 <BW^-> codeshark,nsh: what is the next piece of code that processes it - there's an immediate broadcast to the network isn't it?
 183 2013-07-01 02:38:24 <nsh> too ignorant of the code to say, sorry
 184 2013-07-01 02:38:36 c_k has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 185 2013-07-01 02:40:22 <CodeShark> BW^-: look at ProcessMessage in main.cpp
 186 2013-07-01 02:40:46 <BW^-> codeshark: what trigs ProcessMessage, a 1second-timer or alike?
 187 2013-07-01 02:41:35 <nsh> BW^-, see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=41719.0
 188 2013-07-01 02:41:48 <nsh> -- Thread ThreadMessageHandler in net.cpp
 189 2013-07-01 02:42:12 <nsh> "This thread goes through all the nodes and calls ProcessMessages(pnode) in main.cpp which looks for valid messages on the node receive queue (pFrom->vRecv) and if it finds one, it calls ProcessMessage(CNode* pfrom, string strCommand, CDataStream& vRecv), which is also in main.cpp."
 190 2013-07-01 02:42:37 <nsh> i'd heartily recommend reading all these posts so that your questions are more pointed and annoy the busy devs less :)
 191 2013-07-01 02:42:57 <nsh> but for the grace of them go we
 192 2013-07-01 02:44:03 <CodeShark> or just look at the source code :)
 193 2013-07-01 02:44:44 <CodeShark> grep "ProcessMessage(" to see where it is called, or use something like doxygen
 194 2013-07-01 02:45:18 <nsh> aha, that was it!
 195 2013-07-01 02:45:23 <nsh> https://dev.visucore.com/bitcoin/doxygen/
 196 2013-07-01 02:47:48 bitit has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 197 2013-07-01 02:48:36 <CodeShark> http://blockhawk.net/bitcoindoc/html/main_8cpp.html#a8ba92b1a4bce3c835e887a9073d17d8e
 198 2013-07-01 02:49:08 bitit has joined
 199 2013-07-01 02:49:53 <nsh> sweet
 200 2013-07-01 02:51:37 c_k has joined
 201 2013-07-01 03:03:21 <BW^-> codeshark: good point
 202 2013-07-01 03:03:29 <BW^-> nsh: very good point, yes i'm doing this right now :))
 203 2013-07-01 03:05:19 fanquake has joined
 204 2013-07-01 03:05:27 <CodeShark> BW^-: you might also want to look at ThreadMessageHandler in net.cpp
 205 2013-07-01 03:07:10 <Diablo-D3> goddamnit
 206 2013-07-01 03:07:10 jgarzik has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 207 2013-07-01 03:07:14 <Diablo-D3> bitcoin says my wallet is corrupt
 208 2013-07-01 03:07:36 <CodeShark> always keep at least two copies of a wallet :)
 209 2013-07-01 03:07:48 <nsh> salt, meet wound...
 210 2013-07-01 03:07:54 <CodeShark> heh
 211 2013-07-01 03:07:57 <Diablo-D3> I have a copy, but it refuses to retrieve all the transactions
 212 2013-07-01 03:08:09 <CodeShark> can it at least read the private keys?
 213 2013-07-01 03:10:40 squwiggle has joined
 214 2013-07-01 03:10:52 squwiggle is now known as xenland
 215 2013-07-01 03:11:31 o3u has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 216 2013-07-01 03:11:42 robocoin has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 217 2013-07-01 03:11:42 test_ has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 218 2013-07-01 03:12:11 <Diablo-D3> CodeShark: it refuses to start
 219 2013-07-01 03:12:40 <CodeShark> I was actually working a little on the wallet loading error handling earlier today...could certainly use many improvements
 220 2013-07-01 03:12:59 FredEE has joined
 221 2013-07-01 03:13:10 rdponticelli has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 222 2013-07-01 03:13:23 <CodeShark> so it exits with either copy of the wallet?
 223 2013-07-01 03:13:29 Neozonz has quit (Disc!~neozonz@unaffiliated/neozonz|Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 224 2013-07-01 03:13:55 <CodeShark> I think someone had written a tool to recover the keys from corrupt wallets
 225 2013-07-01 03:14:17 <CodeShark> forgot who and where
 226 2013-07-01 03:15:21 justusranvier has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 227 2013-07-01 03:16:56 rdponticelli has joined
 228 2013-07-01 03:17:19 <CodeShark> the wallet refusing to retrieve all the transactions isn't such a terrible thing - recover the keys, start a new wallet, import the keys, and resync :)
 229 2013-07-01 03:17:32 <nsh> there's this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=160295.0
 230 2013-07-01 03:17:56 <nsh> (unresolved)
 231 2013-07-01 03:18:17 <nsh> also: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3533/error-loading-wallet-dat-wallet-corrupted
 232 2013-07-01 03:18:23 <CodeShark> I'd rather move the wallet entirely off of bdb :)
 233 2013-07-01 03:18:26 <nsh> (solved by using an older version)
 234 2013-07-01 03:18:37 <nsh> might be indicated...
 235 2013-07-01 03:19:03 <nsh> "I intend to add a sort of "recovery mode" in 0.7.0 for situations like this." -Pieter Wuille
 236 2013-07-01 03:19:38 jgarzik has joined
 237 2013-07-01 03:19:38 jgarzik has quit (Changing host)
 238 2013-07-01 03:19:38 jgarzik has joined
 239 2013-07-01 03:20:34 <nsh> <sipa>	joehallofame: i've just implemented a very quick "wallet recovery mode" patch for bitcoin; if i make you a windows build of it, would you consider trying it? (it's hardly tested, but it may save your wallet)
 240 2013-07-01 03:20:36 <nsh> http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2012/04/01
 241 2013-07-01 03:21:21 o3u has joined
 242 2013-07-01 03:21:56 justusranvier has joined
 243 2013-07-01 03:21:56 justusranvier has quit (Changing host)
 244 2013-07-01 03:21:56 justusranvier has joined
 245 2013-07-01 03:25:10 Subo1978_ has joined
 246 2013-07-01 03:25:45 robocoin has joined
 247 2013-07-01 03:27:04 malaimo has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 248 2013-07-01 03:28:26 Subo1978 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 249 2013-07-01 03:28:40 Eiii has quit ()
 250 2013-07-01 03:28:45 <Diablo-D3> YAY
 251 2013-07-01 03:28:46 <Diablo-D3> FIXED IT
 252 2013-07-01 03:28:47 malaimo has joined
 253 2013-07-01 03:29:01 <Diablo-D3> db4.8_dump -p ~/.bitcoin/wallet.dat > wallet.txt
 254 2013-07-01 03:29:06 <Diablo-D3> db4.8_load -f wallet.txt wallet.dat.new
 255 2013-07-01 03:29:11 <Diablo-D3> mv wallet.dat.new ~/.bitcoin/wallet.dat
 256 2013-07-01 03:29:24 <CodeShark> ah, cool
 257 2013-07-01 03:29:41 * Diablo-D3 shuts down bitcoin makes immediate copy of new wallet
 258 2013-07-01 03:31:06 <nsh> Diablo-D3, nice one :)
 259 2013-07-01 03:31:21 <Diablo-D3> I wonder why my old wallet didnt contain all the keys
 260 2013-07-01 03:31:21 * nsh drinks in celebration of Diablo-D3's not-so-bad luck
 261 2013-07-01 03:31:28 <Diablo-D3> Im pretty sure I havent made 100 new tx since then
 262 2013-07-01 03:31:28 o3u has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 263 2013-07-01 03:32:27 [7] has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 264 2013-07-01 03:32:52 o3u has joined
 265 2013-07-01 03:34:48 BTC_Bear has joined
 266 2013-07-01 03:35:04 TheSeven has joined
 267 2013-07-01 03:40:28 <BW^-> bitcoind supports Simple Payment Verification through the fClient variable?
 268 2013-07-01 03:41:46 macboz has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
 269 2013-07-01 03:42:34 Eiii has joined
 270 2013-07-01 03:42:34 Eiii has quit (Changing host)
 271 2013-07-01 03:42:34 Eiii has joined
 272 2013-07-01 03:43:06 justusranvier has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 273 2013-07-01 03:47:51 guruvan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 274 2013-07-01 03:49:11 guruvan has joined
 275 2013-07-01 03:49:58 justusranvier has joined
 276 2013-07-01 03:53:38 <Luke-Jr> BW^-: bitcoind does not support SPV yet
 277 2013-07-01 03:54:11 <nsh> Luke-Jr, is it actively planned or kinda waylaid?
 278 2013-07-01 03:54:33 <nsh> there are two currently maintained 3rd party SPV nodes afaik
 279 2013-07-01 03:54:44 <nsh> although i vaguely recall some issues with android wallet
 280 2013-07-01 03:55:03 <BW^-> luke-jr: as i understand it from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=41718.0 , back in 2011 it was supported, anyhow
 281 2013-07-01 03:55:04 <BW^-> aha noted
 282 2013-07-01 03:55:30 <Luke-Jr> BW^-: never by bitcoind
 283 2013-07-01 03:55:46 dvide has quit ()
 284 2013-07-01 03:55:55 <Luke-Jr> your link admits "This is currently not considered to be finished code."
 285 2013-07-01 03:58:22 agnostic98 has joined
 286 2013-07-01 04:00:53 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 287 2013-07-01 04:01:01 BW^- has quit (Quit: Miranda IM! Smaller, Faster, Easier. http://miranda-im.org)
 288 2013-07-01 04:12:06 JimJones has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 289 2013-07-01 04:15:15 Heimdall has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 290 2013-07-01 04:18:24 ericmuyser has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 291 2013-07-01 04:18:46 ericmuyser has joined
 292 2013-07-01 04:21:01 RoboTeddy has joined
 293 2013-07-01 04:22:35 wei_ has quit (Quit: wei_)
 294 2013-07-01 04:22:53 Neozonz has joined
 295 2013-07-01 04:22:53 Neozonz has quit (Changing host)
 296 2013-07-01 04:22:53 Neozonz has joined
 297 2013-07-01 04:27:30 RoboTeddy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 298 2013-07-01 04:31:02 De_Lemming has quit (Quit: De_Lemming)
 299 2013-07-01 04:36:13 jgarzik has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 300 2013-07-01 04:36:42 MC1984 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 301 2013-07-01 04:41:32 roconnor has joined
 302 2013-07-01 04:43:00 jeewee has joined
 303 2013-07-01 04:46:14 mappum has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 304 2013-07-01 04:47:01 owowo has quit (Quit: sayonara)
 305 2013-07-01 04:51:53 FredEE has quit (Quit: FredEE)
 306 2013-07-01 04:54:07 mappum has joined
 307 2013-07-01 04:59:59 agnostic98 has joined
 308 2013-07-01 05:04:07 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 309 2013-07-01 05:07:22 santoscork has quit (Quit: Hibernation Time …)
 310 2013-07-01 05:08:57 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 311 2013-07-01 05:09:15 Neozonz has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 312 2013-07-01 05:13:15 melvster has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 313 2013-07-01 05:13:39 Neozonz has joined
 314 2013-07-01 05:13:39 Neozonz has quit (Changing host)
 315 2013-07-01 05:13:39 Neozonz has joined
 316 2013-07-01 05:13:54 jeewee has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 317 2013-07-01 05:20:52 Neozonz has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 318 2013-07-01 05:36:20 FredEE has joined
 319 2013-07-01 05:42:04 agnostic98 has joined
 320 2013-07-01 05:44:03 RazielZ has joined
 321 2013-07-01 05:49:21 <gmaxwell> recursive build?! egads!
 322 2013-07-01 05:50:10 <nsh> "i'm sorry Madam, it's gitians all the way down..."
 323 2013-07-01 05:50:35 <gmaxwell> Why did we ask for this?  My own expirence is that it's horrible makes doing things like putting all the object files out of the way a pain, slows compiling, etc.
 324 2013-07-01 05:56:25 Plinker_ has joined
 325 2013-07-01 05:57:30 MC1984 has joined
 326 2013-07-01 05:59:32 <sipa> gmaxwell: jeff asked for that, afaik
 327 2013-07-01 05:59:52 <sipa> don't know why, and i personally have no opinion
 328 2013-07-01 06:03:26 Eiii has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 329 2013-07-01 06:05:07 <gmaxwell> Well theuni's comments there reflect my expirences too: its slow, screws things up, and once people realized that good multiple directory support was possible without it many changed their projects to not be recursive.  Though, it's a bit less bad when you're not building a library.
 330 2013-07-01 06:11:08 grau has joined
 331 2013-07-01 06:13:18 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 332 2013-07-01 06:18:01 bitit has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 333 2013-07-01 06:21:32 bitit has joined
 334 2013-07-01 06:22:17 GordonG3kko has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 335 2013-07-01 06:23:26 imd23 has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 336 2013-07-01 06:25:35 <CodeShark> are OpenSSL compressed keys always exactly 33 bytes in length? (sign byte + 32 bytes for x coordinate)?
 337 2013-07-01 06:25:41 <sipa> yes
 338 2013-07-01 06:26:10 <k9quaint> gmaxwell: you are just afraid of make :P
 339 2013-07-01 06:26:50 <sipa> though openssl doesn't have that much to do with it, it's lart of SEC and other standards
 340 2013-07-01 06:26:55 <sipa> part
 341 2013-07-01 06:27:16 <CodeShark> yes, just making sure that the OpenSSL code in my CoinKey class doesn't throw me something weird on occasion which throws off my validation logic
 342 2013-07-01 06:30:28 <phantomcircuit> CodeShark, yes but openssl will accept zero padded values
 343 2013-07-01 06:30:33 imd23 has joined
 344 2013-07-01 06:30:46 <CodeShark> ok, as long as it doesn't give me zero padded outputs everything is fine
 345 2013-07-01 06:30:49 <phantomcircuit> but bitcoin treats them as nonstandard after 0.8.2
 346 2013-07-01 06:34:06 GordonG3kko has joined
 347 2013-07-01 06:36:47 BTC_Bear has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 348 2013-07-01 06:38:25 <sipa> phantomcircuit: not afaik
 349 2013-07-01 06:38:29 maaku has joined
 350 2013-07-01 06:38:37 <sipa> and that would be completely nonstandard...
 351 2013-07-01 06:38:37 <phantomcircuit> sipa, no not yet?
 352 2013-07-01 06:38:52 maaku is now known as Guest15390
 353 2013-07-01 06:39:04 <phantomcircuit> sipa, openssl definitely does accept null padded just about everything
 354 2013-07-01 06:39:14 <sipa> CodeShark is talking about public keys
 355 2013-07-01 06:39:18 <sipa> are you?
 356 2013-07-01 06:39:34 <sipa> sounds like you are referring to the DER encoded signatures
 357 2013-07-01 06:39:34 <phantomcircuit> no
 358 2013-07-01 06:40:09 <sipa> public keys are exactly 33 or exactly 65 bytes
 359 2013-07-01 06:40:25 <sipa> well, or 1 byte for the point at infinity
 360 2013-07-01 06:40:35 <sipa> but that is nkot a valid public key
 361 2013-07-01 06:44:14 BTC_Bear has joined
 362 2013-07-01 06:49:11 Guest15390 has left ()
 363 2013-07-01 06:49:30 maaku has joined
 364 2013-07-01 06:53:26 freewil has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 365 2013-07-01 07:01:20 <sipa> CodeShark: and it will zero-pad, if there are zeroes, to make the x coordinate 32 bytes
 366 2013-07-01 07:02:20 FredEE has quit (Quit: FredEE)
 367 2013-07-01 07:02:37 <CodeShark> right. eventually I'll probably end up swapping out openssl for your secp256k1 library
 368 2013-07-01 07:03:21 <maaku> what's the advantage of your secp256k1 library?
 369 2013-07-01 07:03:37 <CodeShark> smaller footprint, a LOT faster, fewer dependencies
 370 2013-07-01 07:04:01 <CodeShark> and hopefully cleaner syntax, too :)
 371 2013-07-01 07:05:42 <CodeShark> downside: hasn't been field tested as much
 372 2013-07-01 07:06:30 <maaku> audited for timing attacks, memory clears?
 373 2013-07-01 07:06:43 <CodeShark> right, sidechannel attacks are a possibility
 374 2013-07-01 07:07:43 <CodeShark> although sidechannel attacks are probably not as big a risk as many seem to think they are
 375 2013-07-01 07:08:08 <CodeShark> if someone has sufficient access to your machine to mount a sidechannel attack they probably can also install a keystroke logger
 376 2013-07-01 07:08:53 <CodeShark> sidechannel attacks are a bigger risk when talking across a network
 377 2013-07-01 07:08:56 <maaku> sidechannel attacks are doable (and demonstrated) on the cloud
 378 2013-07-01 07:08:58 <CodeShark> or to an untrusted device
 379 2013-07-01 07:09:04 justusranvier has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 380 2013-07-01 07:09:21 <maaku> you just have to get on the same cluster as the vm
 381 2013-07-01 07:09:34 <sipa> maaku: the primary purpose was speeding up validation, where timing attacks don't matter
 382 2013-07-01 07:09:46 <sipa> for signing, you want more resitant algoryhms
 383 2013-07-01 07:09:52 <maaku> ok
 384 2013-07-01 07:10:05 <sipa> some parts are constant time, but certainly not everything
 385 2013-07-01 07:10:22 <CodeShark> in any case, for signing I think I know how to get constant-time and constant cache-access
 386 2013-07-01 07:10:32 <sipa> me too :)
 387 2013-07-01 07:10:51 <sipa> anyway, audited... certainly not enough
 388 2013-07-01 07:10:58 <CodeShark> and for signing performance doesn't really matter as much
 389 2013-07-01 07:11:12 <CodeShark> well, let me qualify that
 390 2013-07-01 07:11:32 <CodeShark> for signing on a typical personal computer (or even smartphone or tablet)
 391 2013-07-01 07:11:36 <sipa> it signs in 30us now or so
 392 2013-07-01 07:11:42 <sipa> and verifies in 90us
 393 2013-07-01 07:11:48 <CodeShark> for signing on an 8-bit processor, performance does matter - a LOT :)
 394 2013-07-01 07:11:56 <warren> maaku: you can build bitcoin on RHEL or Fedora without replacing openssl
 395 2013-07-01 07:12:29 <maaku> warren: i was questioning the security, not the usefullness
 396 2013-07-01 07:12:44 <sipa> and you should
 397 2013-07-01 07:14:21 <maaku> not that I don't trust sipa to write crypto code, but “i rewrote the core crypto routines to be faster” should set off alarm bells regardless ;)
 398 2013-07-01 07:15:13 <sipa> absolutely
 399 2013-07-01 07:15:43 <CodeShark> the problem isn't so untractable as to be impossible to check for holes - but in the crypto world, whenever anything that's been used for a while is replaced it should set off alarm bells :)
 400 2013-07-01 07:15:47 justusranvier has joined
 401 2013-07-01 07:16:09 <sipa> but i'm working on the auditing part :)
 402 2013-07-01 07:18:08 <petertodd> That making core crypto routines faster is a desired thing shows how badly Bitcoin scales. :( If I ever make a cryptocoin, I'm writing it in Python, and architecting it so that's acceptable!
 403 2013-07-01 07:19:00 <nsh> also openssl isn't necessarily slow because "it has to be". it's a larger entity and therefore the code is not structure for maximum efficiency in ECDSA
 404 2013-07-01 07:19:20 <CodeShark> lol - that's an interesting way to challenge yourself, petertood
 405 2013-07-01 07:19:25 <CodeShark> *petertodd
 406 2013-07-01 07:19:36 <sipa> it also just doesn't have all secp256k1-specific tricks implemented
 407 2013-07-01 07:19:56 <nsh> what are the chances one of those tricks opens up a subtle vulnerability though, i wonder
 408 2013-07-01 07:20:01 <petertodd> Heh, in general if you can't make it fast enough in Python you probably are using bad algorithms. :) But only in general...
 409 2013-07-01 07:20:07 <CodeShark> zero for validation
 410 2013-07-01 07:20:08 <nsh> that's possibly an open question is advanced magics
 411 2013-07-01 07:20:14 <nsh> *in
 412 2013-07-01 07:20:20 <CodeShark> nsh, the possibility is zero if only used for validation
 413 2013-07-01 07:20:23 <nsh> oh ok
 414 2013-07-01 07:20:29 <CodeShark> sipa's code is clearly not suited to signing yet
 415 2013-07-01 07:20:31 <CodeShark> ;)
 416 2013-07-01 07:20:36 * nsh nods
 417 2013-07-01 07:20:53 <petertodd> CodeShark: could be a subtle incompatibility vulnerability too though.
 418 2013-07-01 07:21:28 <sipa> well, all tricks boil dpwn to mathematical identities
 419 2013-07-01 07:21:38 <sipa> and they are quite easy to explain
 420 2013-07-01 07:21:39 <CodeShark> petertodd: you mean data formats?
 421 2013-07-01 07:21:41 <maaku> petertodd: we will eventually see GPU and FPGA secp256k1, I'm sure
 422 2013-07-01 07:21:41 <nsh> true, forking risks open up almost a new category of possible problems that have not had a history in the literature
 423 2013-07-01 07:21:52 <sipa> whether they're imp,ementee correctly is something else entirely
 424 2013-07-01 07:22:15 <CodeShark> data formats would have to be validated and made canonical and guaranteed unique before even attempting to switch
 425 2013-07-01 07:22:24 <petertodd> nsh: Yeah, people often forget how Bitcoin is blazing a new path there.
 426 2013-07-01 07:22:33 <nsh> someone needs to herd up a bunch of discrete mathematics grad students and for a two week intensive on bitcoin for this purpose :)
 427 2013-07-01 07:22:36 * nsh nods
 428 2013-07-01 07:23:07 <nsh> it's the first consensuated distributed database of its kind, and the stakes are massive
 429 2013-07-01 07:23:18 <nsh> i don't know how you guys aren't all chain-smoking to be honest
 430 2013-07-01 07:23:29 <petertodd> nsh: I don't think I've *ever* seen a crypto anything talk about the risk of a false negative signature validation.
 431 2013-07-01 07:24:02 <CodeShark> there are plenty of greater forking risks than potential incompatibilities in crypto libraries (as long as my previous point is adhered to) - such as resource limitations or unknown bugs
 432 2013-07-01 07:24:05 <petertodd> nsh: In addition to Bitcoin I do cave exploration; I also try to avoid actually writing code. :P
 433 2013-07-01 07:24:16 * nsh smiles
 434 2013-07-01 07:24:25 <sipa> in most setups, a false negative just means that someone who was authorized can't grt in
 435 2013-07-01 07:24:41 <petertodd> sipa: Yup, not a horrible thing.
 436 2013-07-01 07:24:41 <sipa> for bitcoin, it means All Hell Breaks Loose(tm)
 437 2013-07-01 07:24:47 <nsh> right
 438 2013-07-01 07:24:59 <nsh> there's a talk/thesis in that aspect alone
 439 2013-07-01 07:25:32 <petertodd> Heck, has there even ever been a from scratch crypto-currency implementation? I'm pretty sure every alt-coin ever made is based on bitcoind.
 440 2013-07-01 07:26:02 <nsh> maybe in Adam Back's head
 441 2013-07-01 07:26:12 <petertodd> nsh: ha
 442 2013-07-01 07:26:35 <sipa> petertodd: i'd love to do that as an experimemt
 443 2013-07-01 07:26:47 <petertodd> sipa: I came up with a half-decent timestamping blockchain today actually; might be worthwhile implementing it quickly just to have that datapoint.
 444 2013-07-01 07:26:48 cads has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 445 2013-07-01 07:27:02 <nsh> petertodd, pray tell :)
 446 2013-07-01 07:27:06 * sipa stops earth's time for 2 years
 447 2013-07-01 07:27:19 <nsh> petertodd, would you do that in python?
 448 2013-07-01 07:27:21 <sipa> hey hi everyone
 449 2013-07-01 07:27:38 <nsh> <farnsworth> terrible news, everybody!
 450 2013-07-01 07:30:02 <petertodd> nsh: yes, python! from a users point of view what sucks about bitcoin timestamps, done right, is that they take a confirmation at least; the user wants 1 second max confs.
 451 2013-07-01 07:30:04 omnibrain has joined
 452 2013-07-01 07:30:14 <nsh> right...
 453 2013-07-01 07:31:12 <petertodd> So what you want ideally is a blockchain with a 1 second interval, which is kinda crazy, but if the blocksize is tiny it's not actually all that bad. (propagation is fast for ~1-5KiB messages)
 454 2013-07-01 07:31:50 <nsh> right, 10m was just so the moon colony can be part of bitcoin
 455 2013-07-01 07:31:50 <nsh> :)
 456 2013-07-01 07:31:54 <petertodd> Timestamping is also kinda unique, because there is no such thing as a double-spend, kinda. For anti-DoS you don't want to sure much more than 1 block per second for all time.
 457 2013-07-01 07:32:00 <nsh> hmm
 458 2013-07-01 07:32:19 <nsh> s/sure/store?
 459 2013-07-01 07:33:13 <petertodd> s/sure/store/ So structure your blockchain as a DAG, with a defined "most-work" path, and secondaries, and at some point just throw out sufficiently low-PoW paths through the DAG.
 460 2013-07-01 07:33:19 Eiii has joined
 461 2013-07-01 07:33:36 <nsh> ohhhhh
 462 2013-07-01 07:33:49 <nsh> hah, i like it!
 463 2013-07-01 07:34:04 <nsh> that's like reorgs by design
 464 2013-07-01 07:34:21 <nsh> constantly reorgs
 465 2013-07-01 07:34:31 <petertodd> Yes! Which helps make the 1s block interval saner.
 466 2013-07-01 07:34:36 <nsh> and because ordering isn't so vital
 467 2013-07-01 07:34:41 <nsh> that's the other property that makes that doable
 468 2013-07-01 07:34:45 <nsh> gotcha
 469 2013-07-01 07:34:48 <nsh> very nice :)
 470 2013-07-01 07:35:05 <nsh> this could work for namecoin stuff as well, couldn't it?
 471 2013-07-01 07:35:22 <petertodd> Yup, I don't think aiming for 1s *accuracy* is really all that realistic, but 1s resolution is fine and more importantly it means the user only has to wait a few seconds to be fairly sure their timestamp got recorded.
 472 2013-07-01 07:35:38 <nsh> yup, within the window of human patience
 473 2013-07-01 07:35:40 <CodeShark> at some point you have to sacrifice C, A, or P :)
 474 2013-07-01 07:35:54 <petertodd> I've got a different key-value DAG think I'm calling zookeyv for namecoin stuff actually.
 475 2013-07-01 07:36:18 <nsh> i'd like to see that when it's possible
 476 2013-07-01 07:36:55 <nsh> oh, you've mentioned it on the list
 477 2013-07-01 07:37:27 <petertodd> Of course, you should ask, what are these blocks going to be anyway? Well actually, the obvious thing is to make it easily Bitcoin "merge-mine" compatible, and by that, I mean a block is just a merkle path from a txout to a Bitcoin block header, either a real one in chain, or a lesser PoW one.
 478 2013-07-01 07:37:56 <petertodd> The timestamp-specific bit is then just a merkle-tree of one or more previous blocks.
 479 2013-07-01 07:37:57 <nsh> hmm
 480 2013-07-01 07:38:19 <nsh> i think i understand vaguely. but i'm still a bit foggy on merkle-tree matters
 481 2013-07-01 07:38:33 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: well, it has to be in the real blockchain to get timestamped forward
 482 2013-07-01 07:38:57 <petertodd> Finally, the rule for best-block selection, IE what you mine your next block on, works totally different from Bitcoin: pick the highest total work for the given time and build upon that.
 483 2013-07-01 07:39:19 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: yeah, hence making it possible to "mine" one of these blocks by just making a transaction.
 484 2013-07-01 07:39:38 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: Which is fine because the structure is a DAG rather than a chain.
 485 2013-07-01 07:39:50 <nsh> wait, how do you enforce the rate of mining?
 486 2013-07-01 07:40:01 <nsh> can difficulty be adjusted with that much resolution?
 487 2013-07-01 07:40:23 <petertodd> nsh: By just picking the hardest PoW with a given timestamp, within the 1s or whatever interval.
 488 2013-07-01 07:40:39 <nsh> hmm
 489 2013-07-01 07:40:52 <nsh> right, ok
 490 2013-07-01 07:40:56 <petertodd> nsh: You just don't *need* difficulty at all, because all you care about is limiting the max block rate - there's no economics involved.
 491 2013-07-01 07:41:06 <nsh> gotcha
 492 2013-07-01 07:41:18 <Luke-Jr> you don't even need to limit the rate really. just measure it provably.
 493 2013-07-01 07:41:25 <Luke-Jr> but limiting it might be easiest way to do that
 494 2013-07-01 07:41:54 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: The limit is just because 1s is a reasonable amount for a user to wait, and that gives a good upper limit on blockchain size.
 495 2013-07-01 07:41:57 <petertodd> Luke-Jr:
 496 2013-07-01 07:42:19 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: well, I was thinking it might be good to slow down when people don't need it
 497 2013-07-01 07:42:26 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: More timestamps than 1/s can be handled by nodes co-operatively creating merkle trees of digests requested - haven't figured out how exactly that will work.
 498 2013-07-01 07:42:45 <nsh> Luke-Jr, there might be things that are useful to timestamp for 'clock' transactions
 499 2013-07-01 07:42:50 <nsh> such as, dunno, weather data or something
 500 2013-07-01 07:42:58 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: But it does slow down! If people don't make timestamps, blocks just won't get added. Of course, you can always make false ones, but that is impossible to stop.
 501 2013-07-01 07:43:20 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: then you can't prove the time passed ;p
 502 2013-07-01 07:43:58 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: This works in conjunction with the Bitcoin blockchain remember, which I really hope advances forward...
 503 2013-07-01 07:44:04 <nsh> use lol
 504 2013-07-01 07:44:07 <nsh> *lol
 505 2013-07-01 07:44:12 <Luke-Jr> true
 506 2013-07-01 07:44:15 <nsh> maybe people stop using money and then we can't timestamp document anymore
 507 2013-07-01 07:44:16 <nsh> :(
 508 2013-07-01 07:44:29 <petertodd> nsh: Same risk for using Bitcoin to timestamp directly.
 509 2013-07-01 07:44:44 testnode9 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 510 2013-07-01 07:45:01 * nsh nods
 511 2013-07-01 07:45:06 <nsh> wasn't being serious :)
 512 2013-07-01 07:45:47 <petertodd> One ugly thing with this scheme is it's easy for griefers to use some hashing power to rewrite the chain between full-diff Bitcoin blocks - if that's a problem getting pools to merge mine this would be required.
 513 2013-07-01 07:46:16 <nsh> hm
 514 2013-07-01 07:46:50 <nsh> would be a pretty esoteric thing to grief
 515 2013-07-01 07:46:53 <petertodd> Yeah, it's either allow rewrites, or the blockchain can get arbitrarily large due to huge side-forks - there is a tradeoff.
 516 2013-07-01 07:46:55 <nsh> not that this has ever put people off
 517 2013-07-01 07:47:09 tsche has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 518 2013-07-01 07:47:11 <nsh> right
 519 2013-07-01 07:47:57 <petertodd> Exactly - and timestamping is a lot more important than people realize. Timestamping is a huge business, just not one we often see because it's so associated with highly regulated industries.
 520 2013-07-01 07:48:33 <nsh> right, it's massively important in various legal contexts
 521 2013-07-01 07:48:51 <nsh> and probably quite a nice earner for a small industry
 522 2013-07-01 07:49:20 <petertodd> Yup, and timestamping as a business is weird, because what they're really selling is legal services, not technical services, and the pricing is often amazingly expensive.
 523 2013-07-01 07:49:30 * nsh nods
 524 2013-07-01 07:49:46 <Luke-Jr> you're assuming any legal context cares about technical timestamp stuff
 525 2013-07-01 07:49:46 <nsh> but at least that means they won't be so threatened by a network solution
 526 2013-07-01 07:49:50 <petertodd> In the long run blockchain timestamping could be seriously, seriously disruptive... but that's a long way away.
 527 2013-07-01 07:50:03 <nsh> well, they'd still be able to sell their legal expertise
 528 2013-07-01 07:50:06 <nsh> and contacts, etc.
 529 2013-07-01 07:50:20 <nsh> they'd just use the blockchain to avoid having to have on-site tech people
 530 2013-07-01 07:50:27 <nsh> it might be a good thing for efficiency in the final reckoning
 531 2013-07-01 07:50:36 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: That's the thing, they do! Which is why the thing timestamping companies are really selling is the service by which their lawyers come to court and convince judge and jury of why the tech works.
 532 2013-07-01 07:50:37 <nsh> if visa used bitcoin they'd probably save money
 533 2013-07-01 07:50:51 PRab_ has joined
 534 2013-07-01 07:51:05 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: well, my point is all this is only useful *in addition* to existing stuff
 535 2013-07-01 07:51:06 <petertodd> nsh: Supposedly mastercard's backend architecture looks rather like Bitcoin...
 536 2013-07-01 07:51:10 <Luke-Jr> in a legal context
 537 2013-07-01 07:51:12 <nsh> petertodd, so i've heard
 538 2013-07-01 07:51:28 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, i find that hard to believe
 539 2013-07-01 07:51:37 pjorrit has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 540 2013-07-01 07:51:45 <nsh> phantomcircuit, maybe not the mathematics, but the architecture
 541 2013-07-01 07:51:48 <phantomcircuit> stream processors? absolutely
 542 2013-07-01 07:51:49 <nsh> dunno
 543 2013-07-01 07:51:58 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: Sure, my point is once the tech is there, independent lawyers will realize they can offer that legal service themselves, gradually changing the way courts look at it all.
 544 2013-07-01 07:51:59 <phantomcircuit> nsh, there's no reason for them to do that
 545 2013-07-01 07:52:10 <nsh> right, they don't have a trust problem
 546 2013-07-01 07:52:12 <phantomcircuit> visa/mastercard are really nothing more than structured messaging networks
 547 2013-07-01 07:52:31 <phantomcircuit> they probably store messages but only for auditing reasons
 548 2013-07-01 07:52:38 <phantomcircuit> (which is very important for them)
 549 2013-07-01 07:52:39 tsche has joined
 550 2013-07-01 07:52:40 <petertodd> nsh: But they *do* have a consensus problem; lots of consensus solving things looks kinda like Bitcoin if you squint a bit.
 551 2013-07-01 07:52:43 PRab has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 552 2013-07-01 07:52:48 <nsh> mmm
 553 2013-07-01 07:52:57 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, uh how do they have a consensus problem?
 554 2013-07-01 07:53:03 <nsh> i was just imaging what happens if some state collapses like somalia
 555 2013-07-01 07:53:11 <nsh> and some criminals get in control of the visa station
 556 2013-07-01 07:53:26 <nsh> they ought to have contingencies for that
 557 2013-07-01 07:53:49 <phantomcircuit> nsh, there isn't a visa station in somalia for starters
 558 2013-07-01 07:53:49 <nsh> i guess they just stop listening
 559 2013-07-01 07:53:56 <nsh> right, hypothetical
 560 2013-07-01 07:53:56 BTC_Bear is now known as BTC_Bear|hbrntng
 561 2013-07-01 07:54:21 <phantomcircuit> nsh, hypothetically if militants assault the visa center then they're probably in a lot of trouble
 562 2013-07-01 07:54:25 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: All databases are like that - even allowing for going over your limit they still need to come to consensus over what nodes are alive and dead and so on. Pretty standard stuff actually, but from what I've heard mastercard's setup looks more like Bitcoin than most.
 563 2013-07-01 07:54:28 <nsh> heh, true
 564 2013-07-01 07:54:30 <phantomcircuit> since the audit would cost millions
 565 2013-07-01 07:54:46 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: Yeah, hopefully visa's egg basket is one strong basket...
 566 2013-07-01 07:55:05 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, supposedly it's very secure
 567 2013-07-01 07:55:15 <phantomcircuit> it's probably secure enough they have insurance
 568 2013-07-01 07:55:21 <phantomcircuit> which is the real protection
 569 2013-07-01 07:55:49 <nsh> the cost of insurance is (theoretically) a function of the non-insurance protections
 570 2013-07-01 07:55:56 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: Heh, that'd be a hell of an insurance contract... I could believe that they don't have insurance actually.
 571 2013-07-01 07:56:11 <nsh> they're insured by the state, like the big banks :)
 572 2013-07-01 07:56:12 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: Potential losses are just so enormous...
 573 2013-07-01 07:56:14 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, visa doesn't handle account balances, they only handle preapproval limits which can be safely forgotten
 574 2013-07-01 07:56:36 <nsh> some people have some pretty large limits...
 575 2013-07-01 07:56:42 <petertodd> petertodd: They do handle account balances, the balances of their *merchants*
 576 2013-07-01 07:56:52 testnode9 has joined
 577 2013-07-01 07:56:56 <phantomcircuit> nsh, the card limit isn't the same as the preapproval limit
 578 2013-07-01 07:57:00 <nsh> oh, ok
 579 2013-07-01 07:57:04 roconnor has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 580 2013-07-01 07:57:34 <nsh> it's just what requires no human intervention?
 581 2013-07-01 07:57:35 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, nope merchants have banks
 582 2013-07-01 07:57:47 <phantomcircuit> just the way there are issuing banks there are merchant banks
 583 2013-07-01 07:58:04 <phantomcircuit> and the vast majority of merchants deal with an intermediary processor anyways
 584 2013-07-01 07:58:17 <phantomcircuit> visa isn't actually directly interacting with your local coffeeshop
 585 2013-07-01 07:58:34 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: Oh, so that stuff isn't going throught he visa datacenter? Interesting, that's very different from the way the media was talking about it.
 586 2013-07-01 07:59:01 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, it does but it goes through an intermediary who collects all the fees as one
 587 2013-07-01 07:59:12 <phantomcircuit> so visa clears to a single processor account
 588 2013-07-01 07:59:18 <phantomcircuit> and the processor clears to the merchants
 589 2013-07-01 07:59:23 <nsh> makes sense, i guess
 590 2013-07-01 07:59:29 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: Right, so the intermediary has a copy of the transaction records essentially.
 591 2013-07-01 07:59:35 wei_ has joined
 592 2013-07-01 07:59:45 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: Which means if visa's datacenter goes down it's less of a disaster.
 593 2013-07-01 08:01:00 <phantomcircuit> nsh, no it's more liek you go to starbucks and want to buy $4 in coffee, starbucks asks their processor for approval the processor checks for preapprovals, if none it asks visa which checks for preaprovals assuming there isn't one, visa forwards to the issuing bank who replies with success/fail PLUS some approval information to reduce the number of inquiries
 594 2013-07-01 08:01:16 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, no it's still a colossal disaster
 595 2013-07-01 08:01:21 <nsh> hmm
 596 2013-07-01 08:01:26 <phantomcircuit> but everything can be cached
 597 2013-07-01 08:01:39 <nsh> so it's a caching system basically
 598 2013-07-01 08:01:42 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: Right, which means it's a *recoverable* disaster.
 599 2013-07-01 08:01:49 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, yup
 600 2013-07-01 08:01:59 <phantomcircuit> nsh, yeah it's a giant caching system
 601 2013-07-01 08:02:07 <nsh> the processors are like financial squid proxies
 602 2013-07-01 08:02:11 <phantomcircuit> which is designed to avoid talking to the bank directly very much
 603 2013-07-01 08:02:14 * nsh nods
 604 2013-07-01 08:02:17 <phantomcircuit> since they really cant handle it
 605 2013-07-01 08:02:27 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: Even losing an hour of transactions world wide, unrecoverably, would probably be a billion dollar loss just in legal+auditing fees...
 606 2013-07-01 08:02:27 <nsh> i can see how it would evolve that way
 607 2013-07-01 08:02:48 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, yeah that's not what happens
 608 2013-07-01 08:02:53 <phantomcircuit> the merchant can resend
 609 2013-07-01 08:02:56 <phantomcircuit> the processor can resend
 610 2013-07-01 08:03:01 * nsh goes for cigarette
 611 2013-07-01 08:03:07 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: Yeah, *lots* of backups there.
 612 2013-07-01 08:03:18 <phantomcircuit> the only problem is if visa loses approval numbers and cant detect duplicates
 613 2013-07-01 08:03:29 <phantomcircuit> but that's mostly just annoying
 614 2013-07-01 08:03:31 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: Heh, meanwhile we're using visa as a model for bitcoin scaling...
 615 2013-07-01 08:03:48 <phantomcircuit> well
 616 2013-07-01 08:04:01 <phantomcircuit> the problem they're solving is infinitely easier
 617 2013-07-01 08:04:18 <petertodd> We don't have to detect fraud...
 618 2013-07-01 08:04:27 <phantomcircuit> a single computer could probably process all the transactions they deal with
 619 2013-07-01 08:04:35 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, lol visa doesn't detect fraud
 620 2013-07-01 08:04:47 <phantomcircuit> merchant, processor, issuing bank
 621 2013-07-01 08:04:49 <petertodd> Well what makes their scaling problem hard then?
 622 2013-07-01 08:04:59 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, it's not
 623 2013-07-01 08:05:01 <phantomcircuit> lol
 624 2013-07-01 08:05:23 <petertodd> ?: phantomcircuit> since they really cant handle it
 625 2013-07-01 08:05:29 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, the banks cant
 626 2013-07-01 08:05:43 <petertodd> Ah, yeah, bank systems are ancient...
 627 2013-07-01 08:06:29 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, mostly they just take trade offs which favor safety over speed
 628 2013-07-01 08:06:40 <phantomcircuit> sometimes they favor durability over availability too
 629 2013-07-01 08:07:02 <petertodd> Of course, what's tough about Bitcoin scaling, even with nice network connections and everything, is how the second anything goes wrong with those finely tuned speed demons you wind up with a fork and all hell breaks loose.
 630 2013-07-01 08:07:16 <phantomcircuit> heh
 631 2013-07-01 08:07:17 <petertodd> The fact that we can have performance related forks is ugly.
 632 2013-07-01 08:07:47 <phantomcircuit> yeah im not sure it's that likely though
 633 2013-07-01 08:08:07 <phantomcircuit> since miners have financial incentive to follow the chain which has more transactions
 634 2013-07-01 08:08:09 <petertodd> Well, at 1MB we've got so much excess capacity... I'm thinking future volumes.
 635 2013-07-01 08:08:53 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: Right, but they don't have that much incentive to add in enough excess capacity to deal with performance issues, reorgs, etc. let alone non-mining nodes.
 636 2013-07-01 08:09:21 <petertodd> Would have been intersting actually to let that DoS attack the other week go on and see if it created any forks...
 637 2013-07-01 08:09:53 <phantomcircuit> lol
 638 2013-07-01 08:10:18 <petertodd> Might have been what the attackers were trying to do for all we know.
 639 2013-07-01 08:10:31 <phantomcircuit> i doubt it
 640 2013-07-01 08:10:42 <petertodd> why?
 641 2013-07-01 08:11:27 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, wasn't widespread
 642 2013-07-01 08:11:48 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: That's only because I implemented a fix that protected the whole network while the attack was going on.
 643 2013-07-01 08:12:07 <petertodd> The attackers were trying different sized transactions to get the right balance between size and propagation speed.
 644 2013-07-01 08:12:14 <nsh> hmm
 645 2013-07-01 08:12:18 signor777 has joined
 646 2013-07-01 08:12:22 <nsh> is there a post-mortem on that event somewhere?
 647 2013-07-01 08:12:30 <phantomcircuit> hmm
 648 2013-07-01 08:12:58 <nsh> one nice thing about bitcoin, you have no stortage of volunteer stress-testers... :)
 649 2013-07-01 08:12:59 <petertodd> They started with 32MB, which takes forever, then dropped down progressively. The lower you go the faster the wave of bloat tx's spreads around the network, although you spend more money in fees.
 650 2013-07-01 08:13:02 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, i suspect it was just someone who was bored
 651 2013-07-01 08:13:18 <petertodd> nsh: not yet
 652 2013-07-01 08:13:56 <Luke-Jr> nsh: I couldn't tell, given the complete bottleneck of testing…
 653 2013-07-01 08:14:18 <nsh> well, there's testing, and there's trying to be  nuisance
 654 2013-07-01 08:14:32 <nsh> we have a lot of the latter, but not so much of the well-intentioned and organised former
 655 2013-07-01 08:14:55 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: Well, given how quickly it happened after Mike mentioning the thing whomever did it had a decent amount of insight into how Bitcoin works. But yeah, decent chance they didn't have a plan to exploit it for profit.
 656 2013-07-01 08:15:18 <nsh> like the double-spend during the fork incident
 657 2013-07-01 08:15:25 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: I was impressed that they attacked testnet first...
 658 2013-07-01 08:15:59 <petertodd> nsh: Yup, and who knows how many double-spends against the silk road and the like happened?
 659 2013-07-01 08:16:09 <nsh> hmm
 660 2013-07-01 08:16:19 <nsh> i guess that's a cost of doing illegal business
 661 2013-07-01 08:16:25 <petertodd> heh
 662 2013-07-01 08:16:25 GordonG3kko has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 663 2013-07-01 08:16:51 GordonG3kko has joined
 664 2013-07-01 08:17:03 <phantomcircuit> it's actually pretty easy to prevent that kind of double spend
 665 2013-07-01 08:17:14 <nsh> how?
 666 2013-07-01 08:17:18 <phantomcircuit> run muleiplt versions and compare the best chain
 667 2013-07-01 08:17:28 <nsh> hmm
 668 2013-07-01 08:17:35 <nsh> makes sense
 669 2013-07-01 08:17:47 bitit has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 670 2013-07-01 08:17:49 <SomeoneWeird> connect to different nodes though
 671 2013-07-01 08:19:10 GordonG3kko has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 672 2013-07-01 08:19:42 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: Speaking of... you know, given that you block satoshidice from your mempool now, and Eligius has 3.17% of the total, that's probably enough hashing power to make a double-spend attack against SatoshiDice slightly profitable.
 673 2013-07-01 08:19:43 <phantomcircuit> SomeoneWeird, that happens naturally
 674 2013-07-01 08:19:59 justusranvier has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 675 2013-07-01 08:20:04 GordonG3kko has joined
 676 2013-07-01 08:20:18 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: not sure it's even possible - don't they wait for 1 confirm now?
 677 2013-07-01 08:20:29 <phantomcircuit> Luke-Jr, only for larger transactions
 678 2013-07-01 08:20:34 <phantomcircuit> talk about failure to comprehend
 679 2013-07-01 08:20:42 <Luke-Jr> phantomcircuit: iow, anything worthwhile
 680 2013-07-01 08:20:55 <phantomcircuit> Luke-Jr, lots of transactions is better
 681 2013-07-01 08:21:05 <phantomcircuit> you're less likely to just randomly get unlucky
 682 2013-07-01 08:21:06 <Luke-Jr> ok, so do it *shrug*
 683 2013-07-01 08:21:26 <phantomcircuit> 3.17% isn't even close to high enough
 684 2013-07-01 08:21:34 <phantomcircuit> their margin is like 4%
 685 2013-07-01 08:21:54 <Luke-Jr> Eligius isn't unique in blocking dice crap
 686 2013-07-01 08:21:57 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: 1.9^
 687 2013-07-01 08:21:59 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: 1.9%
 688 2013-07-01 08:22:09 <nsh> how can you compare hashing power percentage to SD margin?
 689 2013-07-01 08:22:14 * nsh doesn't follow
 690 2013-07-01 08:22:20 <phantomcircuit> Luke-Jr, needs to only block the losers to have better odds
 691 2013-07-01 08:22:24 <Luke-Jr> probably peering to Eligius will get your double spend to all the miners blocking them
 692 2013-07-01 08:22:39 <Luke-Jr> phantomcircuit: well, only broadcast a conflict for losers
 693 2013-07-01 08:23:07 <petertodd> nsh: Basically you expect to lose 1.9% on every bet, but if there is a 3.17% chance of eligius picking up your double-spend you've come out ahead, slightly.
 694 2013-07-01 08:23:09 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, either way
 695 2013-07-01 08:23:18 <nsh> hmm, ok
 696 2013-07-01 08:23:32 <nsh> would be a noisy attack
 697 2013-07-01 08:23:34 <petertodd> nsh: Big risk of ruin of course, but I'll let someone else calculate that...
 698 2013-07-01 08:23:39 * nsh nods
 699 2013-07-01 08:23:44 <petertodd> nsh: Only if satoshidice is watching for it...
 700 2013-07-01 08:23:49 <nsh> true
 701 2013-07-01 08:24:01 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: SD has silently refused to pay out winners before anyway
 702 2013-07-01 08:24:02 <nsh> i'd fire up the botnet :)
 703 2013-07-01 08:24:09 <nsh> yeah, they also cheat a lot
 704 2013-07-01 08:24:18 <nsh> which probably bumps their margins quite a bit
 705 2013-07-01 08:24:28 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: Irrelevant given your bets are all small and automated.
 706 2013-07-01 08:24:52 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: I don't see how it's relevant. They can just omit 2% of your winnings
 707 2013-07-01 08:24:55 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, no he's saying they wont broadcast the winning transaction for winnders
 708 2013-07-01 08:24:57 <petertodd> nsh: Of course, you can always just implement my replace-by-fee patch. :)
 709 2013-07-01 08:24:58 <phantomcircuit> they just drop it
 710 2013-07-01 08:25:27 <phantomcircuit> so you're stuck having sent them btc they just keep
 711 2013-07-01 08:25:35 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: Right, but if you have a lot of different pools of coins to work with you've shutdown the site at that point.
 712 2013-07-01 08:25:38 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: mmm, that still needs testing, doesn't it? <.<
 713 2013-07-01 08:26:01 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: Apparently one solo miner is using it.
 714 2013-07-01 08:26:29 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: The version I implemented is stupidly simple...
 715 2013-07-01 08:26:55 justusranvier has joined
 716 2013-07-01 08:27:40 agnostic98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 717 2013-07-01 08:28:27 johnsoft has joined
 718 2013-07-01 08:32:49 <jouke> Hmm, interesting, after couple of days my node still only has 73 connections.
 719 2013-07-01 08:32:51 <jaromil> re all, maybe someone here likes to bring some light into the conversation on http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/how-the-bitcoin-1-manipulate-the-currency-deceive-its-user-community-and-make-its-future-uncertain/2013/06/30
 720 2013-07-01 08:34:23 * Luke-Jr wonders why that nonsense FUD is getting so much attention
 721 2013-07-01 08:35:08 <nsh> because price is going down and people want a conspiracy to blame?
 722 2013-07-01 08:35:18 <Luke-Jr> maybe
 723 2013-07-01 08:35:23 toffoo has quit ()
 724 2013-07-01 08:35:35 <Luke-Jr> but the more obvious "conspiracy" would be mtgox stopping withdrawls
 725 2013-07-01 08:35:40 <petertodd> We're doing well if ~10% is considered "going down"
 726 2013-07-01 08:36:41 swulf-- has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 727 2013-07-01 08:37:30 <nsh> Dolchstoßlegende...
 728 2013-07-01 08:38:22 <signor777> Are m-of-n transactions currently accepted by miners? eg 4-of-6?
 729 2013-07-01 08:38:23 t7 has joined
 730 2013-07-01 08:38:33 <sipa> with n up to 3, yes
 731 2013-07-01 08:38:37 <nsh> signor777, up to-- right
 732 2013-07-01 08:38:51 <nsh> so 1 or 2 of 3
 733 2013-07-01 08:39:01 <nsh> or zero..
 734 2013-07-01 08:39:12 <petertodd> nsh: zero isn't allowed actually
 735 2013-07-01 08:39:15 <sipa> ha, i wonder if 0 would work D:
 736 2013-07-01 08:39:21 <nsh> heh, okay :)
 737 2013-07-01 08:39:44 <nsh> signor777, do you have a use-case for 4-of-6?
 738 2013-07-01 08:40:17 <signor777> nsh: yes, we're trying to store a large amount of bitcoins
 739 2013-07-01 08:40:41 <signor777> and we want to reduce the risk of a party of two robbing the coins :)
 740 2013-07-01 08:40:47 <nsh> and paper wallet in a safe isn't plausible?
 741 2013-07-01 08:41:06 <t7> what are m-of-n transactions ? signed by only some parties?
 742 2013-07-01 08:41:14 <signor777> t7: yes
 743 2013-07-01 08:41:20 <t7> clever
 744 2013-07-01 08:41:25 <nsh> t7, a transaction that can be spent with only m of the n signatures, right
 745 2013-07-01 08:41:37 <signor777> nsh: plausible yes, but multi-sig would be better
 746 2013-07-01 08:41:50 <nsh> signor777, make a large anonymous donation to sipa
 747 2013-07-01 08:41:51 <nsh> :)
 748 2013-07-01 08:43:10 <Luke-Jr> signor777: note that you can do fancy ECDSA key splitting for some use cases
 749 2013-07-01 08:43:25 <Luke-Jr> nsh: allowing higher M-of-N is actually up to the miners
 750 2013-07-01 08:43:25 <nsh> interesting, Luke-Jr
 751 2013-07-01 08:43:31 <nsh> Luke-Jr, right
 752 2013-07-01 08:43:39 <nsh> i thought it was limited in bitcoind
 753 2013-07-01 08:43:50 <signor777> Luke-Jr: Yeah i know, but that still means that at some point the private key is revealed
 754 2013-07-01 08:44:19 Eiii has quit ()
 755 2013-07-01 08:44:25 <Luke-Jr> well, anyone can send to a M-of-N of any M/N already; you'd just need to get a miner to cooperate when you spend
 756 2013-07-01 08:44:52 <signor777> i broadcasted a 3-of-4 transaction yesterday, and it worked fine. How is this possible? I used this tool: https://github.com/CodeShark/CoinClasses
 757 2013-07-01 08:45:02 <petertodd> signor777: txid?
 758 2013-07-01 08:45:04 <signor777> this is the transaction: https://blockchain.info/de/tx/1db946fee1e44c8444191b7f98b47fc21db179a01546d99bb051d105c49d3dba
 759 2013-07-01 08:45:30 <signor777> Luke-Jr: Do you know of any software that supports it?
 760 2013-07-01 08:45:58 <signor777> I mean mining software
 761 2013-07-01 08:46:22 <nsh> if it's mined, will nodes accept the block then?
 762 2013-07-01 08:46:29 aceat64 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 763 2013-07-01 08:46:35 <nsh> i thought there was a limit on the relevant opcode
 764 2013-07-01 08:47:32 <petertodd> signor777: odd, that might be a bug...
 765 2013-07-01 08:47:43 <Luke-Jr> signor777: by miners, I mean individuals
 766 2013-07-01 08:48:32 <signor777> petertodd: Pretty useful bug, though :)
 767 2013-07-01 08:49:16 <nsh> useful in all cases except where it causes Armageddon
 768 2013-07-01 08:49:57 <petertodd> signor777: Yup, we screwed that up. You see CTransaction::IsStandard() is what implements the n-of-3 limit, but for a P2SH that isn't actually called, instead just Solver() is checked.
 769 2013-07-01 08:50:14 <nsh> heh
 770 2013-07-01 08:50:24 mappum has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 771 2013-07-01 08:50:25 <nsh> does that cause larger problems?
 772 2013-07-01 08:50:28 <signor777> please don't fix it :D
 773 2013-07-01 08:50:29 <petertodd> There is a 500 byte scriptSig limit, but compressed keys work.
 774 2013-07-01 08:50:29 <nsh> *could
 775 2013-07-01 08:50:39 testnode9 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 776 2013-07-01 08:50:49 * nsh performs brief security audit. brb
 777 2013-07-01 08:50:53 <nsh> :P
 778 2013-07-01 08:50:56 <petertodd> nsh: Not really, although it could have some ugly edge cases, like a 4-of-4 wouldn't be redeemable due to the 500 byte limit.
 779 2013-07-01 08:51:10 TD[gone] is now known as TD
 780 2013-07-01 08:51:12 <nsh> right, i guess not many people will be putting large amount on that atm
 781 2013-07-01 08:51:17 <nsh> considering it's not officially supported
 782 2013-07-01 08:51:36 <petertodd> Dammit, I actually came *so* close to noticing this a year ago when I was making the first P2SH tx's on mainnet...
 783 2013-07-01 08:51:47 testnode9 has joined
 784 2013-07-01 08:51:48 * nsh buys signor777 a beer
 785 2013-07-01 08:51:57 <signor777> yay :)
 786 2013-07-01 08:51:58 <petertodd> I should have thought more carefully why my 1-of-4 got mined...
 787 2013-07-01 08:52:26 <TD> there's a 500 byte input size limit?
 788 2013-07-01 08:52:30 <TD> where's that?
 789 2013-07-01 08:52:49 <petertodd> IsStandardTx()
 790 2013-07-01 08:53:09 <TD> ah yes
 791 2013-07-01 08:53:47 <petertodd> nsh: Heh, if you wanna audit, what's weird about what we accept as a pubkey in a standard transaction?
 792 2013-07-01 08:54:04 <nsh> good question. no idea :)
 793 2013-07-01 08:54:11 <signor777> why aren't 4-of-6 transactions not accepted though? Not tested enough? or what is the reasoning behind this?
 794 2013-07-01 08:54:17 * nsh attempts to have a look
 795 2013-07-01 08:54:20 <petertodd> nsh: If you catch that one you've paying attention.
 796 2013-07-01 08:54:35 <petertodd> signor777: General Bitcoin philosophy of being conservative in what we accept on mainnet.
 797 2013-07-01 08:54:59 <petertodd> signor777: Frankly all CHECKMULTISIG anything has been used for is testing and bloating up the UTXO set...
 798 2013-07-01 08:55:28 melvster has joined
 799 2013-07-01 08:55:29 <petertodd> signor777: We keep getting burned by non-conservative defaults after all...
 800 2013-07-01 08:55:51 <TD> i'd like to start relaxing the IsStandard checks actually
 801 2013-07-01 08:56:03 <TD> i don't think we've got burned so far.
 802 2013-07-01 08:56:06 <petertodd> TD: wishlist + use-cases?
 803 2013-07-01 08:56:39 <TD> well, look at the payment channels work. it requires CHECKMULTISIG. it wouldn't have happened, or would have been much less useful, if CHECKMULTISIG wasn't whitelisted. someone came to me the other day and was saying he had a company that wanted to shard its money across 4-of-6 keys
 804 2013-07-01 08:56:40 <nsh> 1. i'd like to be able to spend other people's coins
 805 2013-07-01 08:56:45 <nsh> ty in advance
 806 2013-07-01 08:56:49 <TD> if you give people the features, they'll find legitimate uses for them
 807 2013-07-01 08:56:57 <TD> obviously it's hard to reason about apps that don't happen though
 808 2013-07-01 08:57:11 <petertodd> TD: competent people use testnet and think about what could be
 809 2013-07-01 08:57:34 <TD> yeah, but then you have a 6 month+ waiting time until it's usable. that can be an issue in some cases. not everyone is willing to be so long term.
 810 2013-07-01 08:57:54 <nsh> solution: try it on litecoin
 811 2013-07-01 08:57:55 <nsh> :)
 812 2013-07-01 08:57:58 <TD> also it opens up "political" risk that someone might come up with some whatever reason to not whitelist the script you need and then your work is wasted. if it's a commercial endevour that can be an issue
 813 2013-07-01 08:58:11 <petertodd> nsh: Try it on namecoin - they managed to completely disable IsStandard()
 814 2013-07-01 08:58:12 agnostic98 has joined
 815 2013-07-01 08:58:13 <signor777> I'm also in a company that would like to use 4-of-6 addresses. 2-of-3 is not enough if a large amount of bitcoins needs to be stored. (By large amount i mean at least 2 mio USD)
 816 2013-07-01 08:58:16 <nsh> heh
 817 2013-07-01 08:58:18 <TD> the IsStandard checks made a lot of sense back when the code wasn't well audited and we kept finding security bugs in the opcodes
 818 2013-07-01 08:58:41 <petertodd> TD: ...and we keep finding bugs in Bitcoin all the same
 819 2013-07-01 08:58:42 MobPhone has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 820 2013-07-01 08:59:02 <petertodd> signor777: Do you need to spend these funds often or infrequently?
 821 2013-07-01 08:59:13 <TD> not ones that are fixed by restricting the n or m in CHECKMULTISIG, for instance.
 822 2013-07-01 08:59:24 <TD> anyway, it's not a huge deal. but i'm sure people would use it if we opened up the limits on those.
 823 2013-07-01 08:59:34 <signor777> petertodd: not sure yet, but rather infrequently i'd say. Maybe once a month?
 824 2013-07-01 08:59:57 <petertodd> TD: People don't even use CHECKMULTISIG as it is. John Dillon currently has the largest P2SH txout, and that's just 57BTC
 825 2013-07-01 08:59:59 <nsh> could it be implemented with a "your bitcoin warranty is void" disclaimer?
 826 2013-07-01 09:00:25 <petertodd> signor777: That's easy to do then; use use Eligius to mine the tx's. Thats about a day or two delay.
 827 2013-07-01 09:01:25 <signor777> petertodd: I'm not familiar with eligius. How are they different than other pools? Different mining software?
 828 2013-07-01 09:01:28 <phantomcircuit> TD, it's fairly easy to shard access to the private key using shamirs shared secret algorithm
 829 2013-07-01 09:01:41 <petertodd> signor777: They'll mine almost any transaction you send them.
 830 2013-07-01 09:01:42 <phantomcircuit> secret sharing algorithm
 831 2013-07-01 09:01:47 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 832 2013-07-01 09:01:51 <phantomcircuit> the words are there but maybe the wrong order
 833 2013-07-01 09:01:54 <TD> phantomcircuit: you know what i meant. they don't want anyone to ever have the single private key.
 834 2013-07-01 09:01:54 <signor777> phantomcircuit: Yes, but that reveals the private key at some point, we'd like to avoid that
 835 2013-07-01 09:02:06 <TD> this is a not uncommon problem when it comes to large sums of money owned by a company.
 836 2013-07-01 09:02:24 <TD> now if you could do Shoup style threshold sigs with ECDSA it wouldn't be an issue, and i'm sure you can from reading the literature. the problem is, lack of an implementation.
 837 2013-07-01 09:02:36 <TD> plus even then it's not quite as good as the real CHECKMULTISIG
 838 2013-07-01 09:02:45 <petertodd> signor777: Of course, you realize there is AFAIK no software written yet to support this stuff, and doing it by hand has lead to tragic results before.
 839 2013-07-01 09:02:59 <nsh> signor777, it only reveals the private key at the point where its privacy ceases to be required, doesn't it?
 840 2013-07-01 09:03:14 <nsh> the funds would be spent to another address with another privkey
 841 2013-07-01 09:03:27 <TD> i'm reminded of when javascript performance started improving. i remember asking people what the point was. javascript was always going to be slow on some browser, so you couldn't really use it anyway, and besides where were the use cases?
 842 2013-07-01 09:03:39 <petertodd> nsh: No, because the private key is revealed you have no guarantee over where the funds end up going.
 843 2013-07-01 09:03:47 <TD> the V8 guy who ran the project said, basically, "if you give people performance they'll find ways to use it"
 844 2013-07-01 09:04:01 <nsh> petertodd, well it's a race condition between the people who solve the shared secret,  i guess
 845 2013-07-01 09:04:09 fluidjax has joined
 846 2013-07-01 09:04:11 <phantomcircuit> TD, yes in horrible annoying ways
 847 2013-07-01 09:04:12 <phantomcircuit> :/
 848 2013-07-01 09:04:33 <petertodd> nsh: Exactly. The whole point of the system is to ensure that they all have to *agree* on where the funds are going, not just that they have been unlocked.
 849 2013-07-01 09:04:41 <nsh> gotcha
 850 2013-07-01 09:05:02 <signor777> nsh: yes, but it means that at this point someone has the private key and could generate any transaction he wishes. By using multi-sig, every keyholder could check the transaction first and then sign it
 851 2013-07-01 09:05:05 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: ...and javascript isn't powering a 1.5billion economy running on uncharted software engineering re: consensus.
 852 2013-07-01 09:05:08 <nsh> it's possible to have an algorithm where the solving of the secret and lodging of the transaction are reasonably atomic, perhaps?
 853 2013-07-01 09:05:21 <petertodd> nsh: Yes, it's called CHECKMULTISIG :P
 854 2013-07-01 09:05:22 <nsh> multi-sig is almost certainly the most elegant solution though
 855 2013-07-01 09:05:23 <nsh> hah
 856 2013-07-01 09:05:24 <signor777> nsh: or if we used 2-of-3 two people had this power
 857 2013-07-01 09:05:24 <nsh> :)
 858 2013-07-01 09:05:56 <TD> nsh: yes it's possible. see the scheme by El-Sawi
 859 2013-07-01 09:06:15 <TD> http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-6Mi_6Eh8f4J:citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.67.9913%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
 860 2013-07-01 09:06:40 <nsh> ty
 861 2013-07-01 09:07:33 ThomasV has joined
 862 2013-07-01 09:07:59 * nsh still wants this SCIP thing to turn out to be an endless christmas of puppydogs and rainbows for cyptography 
 863 2013-07-01 09:08:28 <petertodd> nsh: I think of it in terms of pain and misery for my foes, but each to their own.
 864 2013-07-01 09:08:33 <nsh> :)
 865 2013-07-01 09:08:53 <petertodd> nsh: You figured out my pubkey puzzle?
 866 2013-07-01 09:08:58 MobPhone has joined
 867 2013-07-01 09:09:11 <nsh> nope, got distracted by the fact that i broke chromium by having a billion tabs open and corrupting the sqlite db
 868 2013-07-01 09:09:12 <nsh> :/
 869 2013-07-01 09:09:35 <nsh> i'd probably fail hard anyway. my eyes glaze over when i try to read C++ for more than 5 minutes
 870 2013-07-01 09:09:43 <petertodd> nsh: Ah, well, read through Solver() in script.cpp... I'm really curious to see if someone else notices it.
 871 2013-07-01 09:09:48 <nsh> okay :)
 872 2013-07-01 09:10:10 rdymac has joined
 873 2013-07-01 09:10:33 <nsh> is this related to P2SH?
 874 2013-07-01 09:10:39 <petertodd> pubkeys in general
 875 2013-07-01 09:10:48 <nsh> okay
 876 2013-07-01 09:11:37 Guest83631 has joined
 877 2013-07-01 09:13:20 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, what puzzle?
 878 2013-07-01 09:13:47 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: Read Solver() in script.cpp and see if you notice anything unusual about pubkeys.
 879 2013-07-01 09:14:20 <phantomcircuit> which Solder
 880 2013-07-01 09:14:25 <phantomcircuit> solver*
 881 2013-07-01 09:14:40 <phantomcircuit> bool Solver(const CScript& scriptPubKey, txnouttype& typeRet, vector<vector<unsigned char> >& vSolutionsRet)
 882 2013-07-01 09:14:52 <phantomcircuit> bool Solver(const CKeyStore& keystore, const CScript& scriptPubKey, uint256 hash, int nHashType,                  CScript& scriptSigRet, txnouttype& whichTypeRet)
 883 2013-07-01 09:14:57 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: you figure that part out :P
 884 2013-07-01 09:15:13 <phantomcircuit> yeah that shit is confusing at first
 885 2013-07-01 09:15:37 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: yeah, code used for two different purposes there.
 886 2013-07-01 09:16:46 <phantomcircuit> also are you talking about the actual pubkeys or scriptPubKey
 887 2013-07-01 09:16:55 <phantomcircuit> which is also annoyingly confusing
 888 2013-07-01 09:17:03 <petertodd> actual pubkeys
 889 2013-07-01 09:17:29 <nsh> what do script1 and script2 represent?
 890 2013-07-01 09:17:36 <sipa> petertodd: can you any clues what kind of thing we're looking for?
 891 2013-07-01 09:17:54 <petertodd> sipa: just something unusual about pubkeys
 892 2013-07-01 09:18:12 <nsh> you win when the iterators pc1 and pc2 get to the end of the respective scripts
 893 2013-07-01 09:18:17 stretchwarren has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 894 2013-07-01 09:18:53 * nsh admits he has no idea what 95% of the barenames in this function correspond to
 895 2013-07-01 09:19:06 <petertodd> nsh: lol
 896 2013-07-01 09:19:12 <nsh> whenever i think i understand bitcoin even a little bit, taking a lot at the source code soon dispels the notion :)
 897 2013-07-01 09:19:16 <nsh> *look
 898 2013-07-01 09:19:23 <TD> satoshi's code is rather dense
 899 2013-07-01 09:19:35 <petertodd> nsh: every time I find a bitcoin bug, I realize I didn't understand bitcoin as well as I thought I had :P
 900 2013-07-01 09:19:42 * nsh cheats and looks at python-bitcoinlib
 901 2013-07-01 09:19:46 <petertodd> TD: satoshi's got nothing on forrestv
 902 2013-07-01 09:19:47 <nsh> hah :)
 903 2013-07-01 09:20:02 * sipa looks for the C code he wrote at 16
 904 2013-07-01 09:20:03 <TD> yeah, python doesn't really aid in writing readable code
 905 2013-07-01 09:20:07 <TD> heh
 906 2013-07-01 09:20:15 <petertodd> nsh: ah, well now you can determine if this odd thing is a forking bug!
 907 2013-07-01 09:20:20 <TD> a few years ago I found an A* pathfinder that I wrote when I was 17, in object pascal!
 908 2013-07-01 09:20:23 <sipa> aaargh one-space indents!
 909 2013-07-01 09:20:28 <sipa> how could i read that
 910 2013-07-01 09:20:30 <nsh> lol
 911 2013-07-01 09:20:37 <nsh> your visual acuity was better back then :)
 912 2013-07-01 09:20:42 <sipa> i'm sure it was!
 913 2013-07-01 09:20:45 <TD> it actually wasn't bad. it had comments and reasonable indentation and things. and it worked. i remember being quite proud at the time. i think it was the most complicated algorithm i'd ever implemented.
 914 2013-07-01 09:20:50 <petertodd> TD: pff, long live indents as syntax
 915 2013-07-01 09:21:01 <sipa> TD: haha
 916 2013-07-01 09:21:22 <nsh> petertodd, what has forrestv written?
 917 2013-07-01 09:21:25 <sipa> p2pool
 918 2013-07-01 09:21:34 <nsh> right
 919 2013-07-01 09:21:50 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, len(OP_PUBKEY) [33,120] not 33 or 120
 920 2013-07-01 09:21:55 <nsh> dense code in python is merely the expression of elegance :)
 921 2013-07-01 09:22:06 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: bingo
 922 2013-07-01 09:22:12 <nsh> implement everything as a list comprehension
 923 2013-07-01 09:22:12 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: well, almost...
 924 2013-07-01 09:22:27 <nsh> oh, i even saw that :(
 925 2013-07-01 09:22:31 <petertodd> nsh: obfusucated python is a terrifying thing
 926 2013-07-01 09:22:32 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, eh close enough
 927 2013-07-01 09:22:39 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: what's odd about 120?
 928 2013-07-01 09:22:48 <phantomcircuit> i honestly have no idea
 929 2013-07-01 09:22:53 <phantomcircuit> sipa, ^
 930 2013-07-01 09:23:01 <petertodd> nono, someone other than sipa :P
 931 2013-07-01 09:23:08 <phantomcircuit> lol
 932 2013-07-01 09:23:23 <phantomcircuit> uncompressed pubkey?
 933 2013-07-01 09:23:31 <phantomcircuit> but no that's too long still
 934 2013-07-01 09:23:32 <nsh> it's 160 bits
 935 2013-07-01 09:23:39 <phantomcircuit> i have no idea
 936 2013-07-01 09:24:06 <sipa> uncompressed pubkeys are 120 bytes
 937 2013-07-01 09:24:07 <sipa> eh
 938 2013-07-01 09:24:08 <sipa> 65
 939 2013-07-01 09:24:27 <phantomcircuit> yeah
 940 2013-07-01 09:24:31 <phantomcircuit> 120 is still way too big
 941 2013-07-01 09:24:32 <sipa> but i'm sure satoshi wanted to keep compatibility with potential future signature schemes
 942 2013-07-01 09:24:32 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: me neither! I don't have a clue why 120 bytes was allowed
 943 2013-07-01 09:24:48 <phantomcircuit> hmm
 944 2013-07-01 09:24:51 <phantomcircuit> sipa, maybe
 945 2013-07-01 09:24:54 <petertodd> sipa: indeed, but that could have been added so much later
 946 2013-07-01 09:25:11 <sipa> note that initial versions of bitcoin had almost zero dos protection
 947 2013-07-01 09:25:18 <petertodd> however, 120 bytes lets you do something kinda cool: 2d201879608ed2d14c362dff713a6d17d680cb42d5175dfe42e960e94736be04
 948 2013-07-01 09:25:42 <nsh> that's a rejected tx
 949 2013-07-01 09:25:53 <petertodd> sipa: my understanding was satoshi was a god amongst men... and that somehow meant no-one dared attack him
 950 2013-07-01 09:26:05 <nsh> :)
 951 2013-07-01 09:26:16 <petertodd> nsh: rejected?
 952 2013-07-01 09:26:29 <nsh> well, i searched for that string and http://blockchain.info/ru/rejected came up
 953 2013-07-01 09:26:33 <sipa> how dare you even suggest the possibility of anyone *thinking* about such a blasphemous action as disagreeing with him?
 954 2013-07-01 09:26:34 <TD> sipa: it may have been that older versions of openssl generated signatures with more crap encoded in them, or something like that. or he was worried that it would at some point.
 955 2013-07-01 09:26:37 <nsh> (i don't know why in russian...)
 956 2013-07-01 09:26:55 B0g4r7_ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 957 2013-07-01 09:27:04 <sipa> TD: but this is about public keys, not signatures
 958 2013-07-01 09:27:08 <phantomcircuit> TD, it's for the pubkeys not the sigs
 959 2013-07-01 09:27:14 <petertodd> nsh: oh, that's just a fluke, question is what's special about what's inside the tx?
 960 2013-07-01 09:27:16 <phantomcircuit> wait
 961 2013-07-01 09:27:16 <sipa> TD: and i'm pretty sure signatures are and have always been DER-encoded
 962 2013-07-01 09:27:30 <sipa> (and DER encoding is unique)
 963 2013-07-01 09:27:38 <phantomcircuit> could it be to support greater than 256 bit ecdsa?
 964 2013-07-01 09:27:39 <TD> yeah, i meant, if more stuff was encoded into it
 965 2013-07-01 09:28:00 <nsh> "unexpected error decoding transaction" :)
 966 2013-07-01 09:28:02 <phantomcircuit> no too short
 967 2013-07-01 09:28:03 <phantomcircuit> lol
 968 2013-07-01 09:28:17 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: maybe, but supporting that is a hard-fork... although I wonder if satoshi really grasped how important hard forks were at day 1
 969 2013-07-01 09:28:29 <petertodd> nsh: pff, blockexplorer sucks for this stuff.
 970 2013-07-01 09:28:35 <TD> another possibility is he started prototyping it with somewhat weak RSA
 971 2013-07-01 09:28:37 <sipa> petertodd: honestly, i don't think he did
 972 2013-07-01 09:28:39 <nsh> i tried https://coinb.in/decode-raw-transaction.html
 973 2013-07-01 09:28:53 <sipa> petertodd: i think he always assumed he could make any change and wait long enough
 974 2013-07-01 09:29:00 <TD> actually i think he assumed it'd never hard fork
 975 2013-07-01 09:29:03 jdnavarro has joined
 976 2013-07-01 09:29:08 <TD> he mentioned once that the design was "set in stone" once released
 977 2013-07-01 09:29:22 <petertodd> nsh: weird, works for me
 978 2013-07-01 09:29:29 <sipa> TD: i doubt he never intended to re-enable the disabled opcodes
 979 2013-07-01 09:29:31 <nsh> hmm
 980 2013-07-01 09:29:34 <sipa> TD: or never raise the block limit
 981 2013-07-01 09:29:37 <petertodd> TD: right, but when? I'm talking day 1
 982 2013-07-01 09:29:50 <nsh> hmm
 983 2013-07-01 09:29:53 <petertodd> TD: I really think the release of bitcoin v0.1 was a bit of a rush job
 984 2013-07-01 09:29:56 <TD> those were clearly actions he didn't originally intend to take. so yes, his view must have evolved over time
 985 2013-07-01 09:29:58 <TD> lol
 986 2013-07-01 09:29:59 <TD> rush job?
 987 2013-07-01 09:30:02 <TD> he spent over two years on it
 988 2013-07-01 09:30:12 <TD> at some point he needed to release what he had
 989 2013-07-01 09:30:17 justusranvier has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 990 2013-07-01 09:30:24 <sipa> 2 years sounds very reasonable
 991 2013-07-01 09:30:25 <petertodd> TD: so what? I'm at a startup that's over 10 years old, and if we were to release tomorrow it'd be a horrible rush job.,
 992 2013-07-01 09:30:33 <sipa> i suppose the largest time was designign, not implementing
 993 2013-07-01 09:30:36 <TD> if it's 10 years old it's not a startup anymore dude ;)
 994 2013-07-01 09:30:55 <petertodd> TD: There's emails from Nov 2008 that sound like he hadn't even decided to put transaction fees in.
 995 2013-07-01 09:30:57 <nsh> "ship early, get sunk"
 996 2013-07-01 09:31:26 <petertodd> TD: It is when you still have no revenue; geophysics is hard.
 997 2013-07-01 09:31:49 <nsh> petertodd, what does your company do (for future values of do)?
 998 2013-07-01 09:32:12 B0g4r7_ has joined
 999 2013-07-01 09:32:23 <petertodd> nsh: We're making an airborne gravity sensor.
1000 2013-07-01 09:32:49 <nsh> oh, neat
1001 2013-07-01 09:33:11 <nsh> for control systems?
1002 2013-07-01 09:33:26 <petertodd> nsh: Basically, you need to measure a force approximately a trillionth the weight of a fly, on an airplane in turbulance.
1003 2013-07-01 09:33:27 <TD> sipa: indeed he said that was the case. even so it must have taken a lot of implementation effort. one reason why i think he probably was working on it full time or close to full time at some points
1004 2013-07-01 09:34:05 <nsh> petertodd, easy, just hypothesize a fly with the mass of the galactic centre blackhole
1005 2013-07-01 09:34:25 <petertodd> nsh: um... a less scary fly... :P
1006 2013-07-01 09:34:30 <nsh> pft
1007 2013-07-01 09:35:22 <petertodd> nsh: My favorite bit is how the operator moving their arm produces a gravity signal significantly in excess of what we're trying to measure.
1008 2013-07-01 09:35:33 <nsh> jeez..
1009 2013-07-01 09:35:45 <nsh> what time resolution do you require?
1010 2013-07-01 09:36:03 <petertodd> nsh: Pretty low, this is geology after all.
1011 2013-07-01 09:36:12 <nsh> fly/1 trillion ~ 10-18 kilograms
1012 2013-07-01 09:36:25 <nsh> +^
1013 2013-07-01 09:36:27 BTC_Bear has quit (hbrntng!~BTC_Bear@unaffiliated/btc-bear/x-5233302|Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1014 2013-07-01 09:36:35 <nsh> petertodd, just average then i guess
1015 2013-07-01 09:36:59 stretchwarren has joined
1016 2013-07-01 09:37:01 justusranvier has joined
1017 2013-07-01 09:37:01 <nsh> but if this is geology why can't you use a thousand sensors with a thousand times worse sensitivity?
1018 2013-07-01 09:37:20 <nsh> and, ehm, triangular?
1019 2013-07-01 09:37:20 <petertodd> nsh: Because they you are just averaging noise together.
1020 2013-07-01 09:37:22 <nsh> *triangulate
1021 2013-07-01 09:37:36 <nsh> i thought one of the nice properties of noise is that it obeys the central limit theorem?
1022 2013-07-01 09:38:22 <petertodd> nsh: That's not relevant in this situation - the signal is unknown and buried in the noise.
1023 2013-07-01 09:38:38 <nsh> right
1024 2013-07-01 09:39:12 <petertodd> nsh: Another way to think about it, is suppose you had a dust sample, and wanted to weigh it; would a thousand kitchen scales make the measurement any better?
1025 2013-07-01 09:39:37 <nsh> no, but you can artificially increase the mass of a mote of dust with accelerations maybe
1026 2013-07-01 09:39:44 <nsh> hard to do that with the earth
1027 2013-07-01 09:39:49 <petertodd> nsh: Indeed!
1028 2013-07-01 09:40:05 <nsh> so all we need is an earthshaker
1029 2013-07-01 09:40:08 <nsh> paycheck please
1030 2013-07-01 09:40:09 <petertodd> So, here's the question, then how the fuck could you possibly measure such a tiny force on a bumpy airplane?
1031 2013-07-01 09:40:22 <nsh> use some quantum wizardry
1032 2013-07-01 09:40:38 macboz has joined
1033 2013-07-01 09:40:39 <nsh> (i can guess this because you're previously indicated that your colleagues do quantum wizardry)
1034 2013-07-01 09:40:41 <petertodd> er... that's part of it actually, but not at the level that I'm asking the question about. :)
1035 2013-07-01 09:40:43 <sipa> http://theproofistrivial.com/
1036 2013-07-01 09:40:46 <nsh> oh, ok
1037 2013-07-01 09:40:57 <nsh> lol sipa
1038 2013-07-01 09:41:10 <petertodd> sipa: oh, yeah, that's exactly how
1039 2013-07-01 09:41:29 <nsh> also use a notebook with very small margins
1040 2013-07-01 09:41:37 <nsh> then wait 300 years for bored englishman to do it for you
1041 2013-07-01 09:41:38 <nsh> :)
1042 2013-07-01 09:41:42 <petertodd> nsh: Remember that the *only* way gravity interacts with mass is by exerting a force on it.
1043 2013-07-01 09:41:54 * nsh nods
1044 2013-07-01 09:42:04 <nsh> wait, gravitation is quantized
1045 2013-07-01 09:42:10 <nsh> can you count the frequency of the quanta?
1046 2013-07-01 09:42:25 <nsh> except we can't detect those
1047 2013-07-01 09:42:28 <petertodd> nsh: we don't actually know that; quantum gravity is 100% a theory and may never be detectable
1048 2013-07-01 09:42:32 <nsh> right
1049 2013-07-01 09:42:40 <nsh> hmm
1050 2013-07-01 09:42:45 <petertodd> You're thinking *way* too fancy about this. :P
1051 2013-07-01 09:42:51 <nsh> i know
1052 2013-07-01 09:43:02 <nsh> ah, it's like the thigumy experment
1053 2013-07-01 09:43:06 <nsh> you make something follow a loop
1054 2013-07-01 09:43:08 <nsh> very fastt
1055 2013-07-01 09:43:12 <nsh> and measure perturbations
1056 2013-07-01 09:43:18 <nsh> ?
1057 2013-07-01 09:43:43 <petertodd> You mean the rotating turntable accellerometer gravity sensors?
1058 2013-07-01 09:44:00 <nsh> i was thinking of something electromagnetic
1059 2013-07-01 09:44:03 <nsh> but it might be analogous
1060 2013-07-01 09:44:14 <sipa> i was thinking something EM as well
1061 2013-07-01 09:44:26 <petertodd> Ah, yeah, but you're kinda on the right track: the trick is you change what exactly you are measuring.
1062 2013-07-01 09:44:43 <petertodd> What's the one big thing experimentalists do to make something measurable?
1063 2013-07-01 09:45:02 <nsh> you find a proxy variable that is a sensitive function of the variable you want to measure
1064 2013-07-01 09:45:04 <sipa> speed it up to near lightspeed, and let it collide
1065 2013-07-01 09:45:31 <TD> given it's been 10 years - is what you want to do actually possible at all?
1066 2013-07-01 09:45:47 <nsh> shhh TD, this is petertodd's job we're playing with :)
1067 2013-07-01 09:45:53 <TD> i mean, with the current state of the art :)
1068 2013-07-01 09:46:02 <petertodd> TD: as a commercially viable product, quite possibly no
1069 2013-07-01 09:46:22 <nsh> it's actually just a venture capital laundering service they operate
1070 2013-07-01 09:46:23 <petertodd> TD: every sub-part of this problem seems to require the state of the art
1071 2013-07-01 09:46:37 <nsh> the mafia own the equipment they buy
1072 2013-07-01 09:46:44 <petertodd> nsh: ok, what's the most simple example of a "proxy variable"?
1073 2013-07-01 09:46:51 <nsh> distance
1074 2013-07-01 09:46:53 <nsh> or duration
1075 2013-07-01 09:47:03 <nsh> like in the spectrometer set-ups
1076 2013-07-01 09:47:06 <petertodd> nsh: what type of measurement is a distance measurement?
1077 2013-07-01 09:47:16 <nsh> length
1078 2013-07-01 09:47:26 * nsh thinks harder
1079 2013-07-01 09:47:33 <nsh> angular?
1080 2013-07-01 09:47:35 <petertodd> nsh: distance and duration have something in common
1081 2013-07-01 09:47:47 <nsh> they're fundamental units?
1082 2013-07-01 09:47:53 <nsh> so, use a derived unit?
1083 2013-07-01 09:47:56 mE\Ta has joined
1084 2013-07-01 09:47:59 <petertodd> It's not the units, it's how they are measured.
1085 2013-07-01 09:48:12 <nsh> hmm
1086 2013-07-01 09:48:19 <petertodd> Like, what's different about a mass measurement verses a distance or duration measurement?
1087 2013-07-01 09:48:39 * nsh scrunches up face
1088 2013-07-01 09:48:57 <nsh> give up
1089 2013-07-01 09:49:20 <petertodd> An ideal mass measurement is an absolute measurement, while distance and duration are relative.
1090 2013-07-01 09:49:25 <nsh> ah, right
1091 2013-07-01 09:49:38 <petertodd> So now apply that to measuring gravity.
1092 2013-07-01 09:50:04 <nsh> hmmmm
1093 2013-07-01 09:50:20 <nsh> so you relativise the measurement somehow
1094 2013-07-01 09:50:21 <nsh> ?
1095 2013-07-01 09:50:27 <petertodd> yes! but how?
1096 2013-07-01 09:50:45 <petertodd> Also, when the plane moves, what does that look like to the gravity sensor?
1097 2013-07-01 09:50:45 mE\Ta has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1098 2013-07-01 09:50:45 <nsh> <Q> just change the gravitational constant of the universe. d'uh..
1099 2013-07-01 09:51:06 <nsh> as a an acceleration
1100 2013-07-01 09:51:23 <petertodd> Right, and is an accelleration distinguishable from a gravitational field?
1101 2013-07-01 09:51:31 <nsh> if we believe einstein
1102 2013-07-01 09:51:35 <nsh> it's not
1103 2013-07-01 09:51:41 <petertodd> Bit of a problem no?
1104 2013-07-01 09:51:51 <nsh> hmm
1105 2013-07-01 09:51:54 <nsh> except
1106 2013-07-01 09:51:59 <nsh> GPS?
1107 2013-07-01 09:52:04 <petertodd> Nope
1108 2013-07-01 09:52:06 <nsh> ok
1109 2013-07-01 09:52:21 <nsh> there's something, my brain is telling me there's a out somewhere
1110 2013-07-01 09:52:42 <petertodd> *Way* too imprecise; the displacement in the sensor is on the order of magnitude of well under an atom in size.
1111 2013-07-01 09:52:43 <nsh> acceleration also affects the rate of clocks
1112 2013-07-01 09:52:55 <nsh> but so does gravity
1113 2013-07-01 09:53:04 <petertodd> nsh: No clocks involved, but actually you can make crude gravity sensors from ultra-precise clocks too.
1114 2013-07-01 09:53:10 <nsh> right
1115 2013-07-01 09:53:11 BTC_Bear has joined
1116 2013-07-01 09:53:12 <petertodd> nsh: I mean, as a commercially viable product.
1117 2013-07-01 09:53:46 <nsh> does the solution require having an reference frame that's accelerated relative to the plane?
1118 2013-07-01 09:53:55 <nsh> or even two different frames in different accelerations
1119 2013-07-01 09:53:56 <petertodd> Lets suppose you had a point source of gravity, like a really dense lump of plutonium, what does the gravitational field around that lump look like?
1120 2013-07-01 09:54:15 <nsh> spherical decay function
1121 2013-07-01 09:54:28 <nsh> inverse square
1122 2013-07-01 09:54:47 <petertodd> Ok, so how can I use that to distinguish that field from the false field caused by my bumpy airplane?
1123 2013-07-01 09:55:11 <nsh> your plutonium has inertia that's independent of the plane
1124 2013-07-01 09:55:28 <petertodd> nsh: Remember, I can't do anything to the thing I'm measuring.
1125 2013-07-01 09:55:45 <nsh> hmm, hold on
1126 2013-07-01 09:55:45 <petertodd> nsh: It's sitting in the ground waiting for me to find it and mine it.
1127 2013-07-01 09:55:49 <nsh> oh right
1128 2013-07-01 09:56:05 <nsh> (thought it was part of the apparatus, sorry)
1129 2013-07-01 09:56:20 <nsh> (all the best solutions involve carrying about highly radioactive elements)
1130 2013-07-01 09:56:24 <petertodd> heh...
1131 2013-07-01 09:56:48 <petertodd> So, if all I have is a plain old gravity sensor, can I even see the spherical field at all? (assume the sensor isn't moving for a movement)
1132 2013-07-01 09:56:58 <petertodd> s/movement/moment/
1133 2013-07-01 09:57:02 xeroc has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1134 2013-07-01 09:57:12 <nsh> no, you can only see it when it changes relative to the larger field of the earth
1135 2013-07-01 09:57:22 <nsh> but that doesn't actually exists, as it's a simplication of all the other lumps
1136 2013-07-01 09:57:41 <petertodd> Indeed. But, if I move my sensor slightly, and remeasure I can detect the change.
1137 2013-07-01 09:57:55 <nsh> right, so i guess you'd do some circling trajectory
1138 2013-07-01 09:58:13 <petertodd> What happens if I have two sensors operating at the same time?
1139 2013-07-01 09:58:26 <nsh> okay, so you want to decompose the resultant gravity into the product of a bunch of different lumpy bits
1140 2013-07-01 09:58:31 <nsh> *sum
1141 2013-07-01 09:58:33 <petertodd> Sure
1142 2013-07-01 09:58:47 agnostic98 has joined
1143 2013-07-01 09:58:47 <nsh> so you have two sensors on two different trajectories
1144 2013-07-01 09:58:54 <nsh> and you difference those
1145 2013-07-01 09:59:03 <petertodd> you're getting very close...
1146 2013-07-01 09:59:20 <petertodd> What happens when the plane hits a bump?
1147 2013-07-01 09:59:34 <nsh> everything gets pulled in one direction
1148 2013-07-01 09:59:46 paracyst has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1149 2013-07-01 09:59:58 <petertodd> Right, now what do my sensors read next to that plutonium lump?
1150 2013-07-01 10:00:06 <nsh> hmm
1151 2013-07-01 10:00:29 * nsh shakes head
1152 2013-07-01 10:00:30 justusranvier has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1153 2013-07-01 10:01:05 <petertodd> Remember, we've got two sensors, they are separated by some fixed distance, but they are both bolted securely to the airplane and move in unison.
1154 2013-07-01 10:01:17 BTC_Bear has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1155 2013-07-01 10:01:17 <nsh> right
1156 2013-07-01 10:01:25 <petertodd> Both sensors point in the exactly same direction. (or exactly opposite, same diff)
1157 2013-07-01 10:01:30 <nsh> do they respond to the bump at slightly different times?
1158 2013-07-01 10:01:44 <nsh> or can we assume perfect rigidity?
1159 2013-07-01 10:01:45 BTC_Bear has joined
1160 2013-07-01 10:01:57 <petertodd> Perfectly rigid spherical cow model.
1161 2013-07-01 10:02:00 <nsh> ok
1162 2013-07-01 10:02:23 <nsh> so they'd theoretically measure it at two different angles
1163 2013-07-01 10:02:30 <nsh> that is a result of the seperation between the sensors
1164 2013-07-01 10:02:32 xeroc has joined
1165 2013-07-01 10:02:33 <nsh> separation
1166 2013-07-01 10:02:46 <nsh> (you might need a wide plane)
1167 2013-07-01 10:02:59 <petertodd> But when the sensors are bumped what happens? They move in unison right...
1168 2013-07-01 10:03:04 <nsh> right
1169 2013-07-01 10:03:17 <nsh> but the displacement of the angle is smaller on one sensor than the other
1170 2013-07-01 10:03:22 <petertodd> So what can I do to the output of those sensors to make bumps irrelevant?
1171 2013-07-01 10:03:28 <petertodd> Nothing to do with angles here.
1172 2013-07-01 10:03:31 <nsh> ok
1173 2013-07-01 10:04:20 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1174 2013-07-01 10:04:22 <nsh> i'm still stalling, i'm afraid
1175 2013-07-01 10:04:34 <petertodd> What if I subtract the output of one sensor from the other?
1176 2013-07-01 10:04:54 <nsh> oh, right of course
1177 2013-07-01 10:05:02 <nsh> they're affected in the same way by the bump
1178 2013-07-01 10:05:06 <petertodd> yup
1179 2013-07-01 10:05:10 <nsh> that was the point of the rigidity assumption
1180 2013-07-01 10:05:15 <petertodd> what about the lump of plutonium though?
1181 2013-07-01 10:05:38 GordonG3kko has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1182 2013-07-01 10:05:41 <nsh> it's not equidistant to the sensors in the general case
1183 2013-07-01 10:05:55 <nsh> so the strength of a change caused by the bump is also different
1184 2013-07-01 10:06:09 <nsh> *amount
1185 2013-07-01 10:06:18 <petertodd> equidistant is an important detail - put the plutonium whereever you think it would be most easily detected
1186 2013-07-01 10:06:24 mE\Ta has joined
1187 2013-07-01 10:06:32 <nsh> hmmm
1188 2013-07-01 10:06:48 <nsh> say it's in a line with the sensors?
1189 2013-07-01 10:06:52 <petertodd> sure
1190 2013-07-01 10:07:04 justusranvier has joined
1191 2013-07-01 10:07:32 <nsh> still not clear
1192 2013-07-01 10:07:56 <petertodd> remember how it produced a inverse square spherical field?
1193 2013-07-01 10:08:01 <nsh> yup
1194 2013-07-01 10:08:12 <petertodd> so what does one sensor read verses the other?
1195 2013-07-01 10:08:16 <nsh> oh, one does up the other goes down
1196 2013-07-01 10:08:21 <nsh> (got a pen out, lol)
1197 2013-07-01 10:08:24 <petertodd> ha
1198 2013-07-01 10:08:33 <petertodd> well, they may both go up too, but they won't go up the same amount
1199 2013-07-01 10:08:38 <nsh> right
1200 2013-07-01 10:08:52 <petertodd> so what are you measuring then?
1201 2013-07-01 10:09:18 <nsh> the different in how the bump affects the signal on the sensors
1202 2013-07-01 10:09:21 <nsh> *difference
1203 2013-07-01 10:09:32 <nsh> but you need to have a signal first...
1204 2013-07-01 10:09:52 <petertodd> well, the bump we canceled out, so we're not measuring it at all, but the plutonium lump we're measuring, question is, what measurment is that?
1205 2013-07-01 10:09:56 <petertodd> IE units?
1206 2013-07-01 10:10:16 <nsh> kg
1207 2013-07-01 10:10:18 GordonG3kko has joined
1208 2013-07-01 10:10:25 <petertodd> nope
1209 2013-07-01 10:10:32 <nsh> oh, density?
1210 2013-07-01 10:10:41 <petertodd> how does the sensor know the density of the lump?
1211 2013-07-01 10:11:15 <nsh> it measures of the force over a curve?
1212 2013-07-01 10:11:20 <nsh> s/of //
1213 2013-07-01 10:12:00 <nsh> you need to at least feel it from a range of directions
1214 2013-07-01 10:12:01 <petertodd> ok, so it measures a force, but I know how much the test mass in the sensor masses, so what can I compute from that force?
1215 2013-07-01 10:12:10 <petertodd> (just talking about one sensor here)
1216 2013-07-01 10:12:15 <nsh> k
1217 2013-07-01 10:12:31 artfoo has quit (Quit: leaving)
1218 2013-07-01 10:12:46 <nsh> you can compute the resultant mass at the centre of the lump in the direction of the force
1219 2013-07-01 10:13:07 <nsh> no, that requires knowing the distance
1220 2013-07-01 10:13:07 <petertodd> no you can't, you have no idea where the lump of plutonium is
1221 2013-07-01 10:13:10 <nsh> yeah
1222 2013-07-01 10:13:18 <petertodd> it's buried in the ground after all :)
1223 2013-07-01 10:13:27 <petertodd> if I knew where it is i'd just dig for it...
1224 2013-07-01 10:13:32 <nsh> :)
1225 2013-07-01 10:13:41 <nsh> but the mass over the distance squared
1226 2013-07-01 10:14:04 * Scrat had to scroll up 5 pages to realise this isn't about how to build an plutonium implosion bomb
1227 2013-07-01 10:14:13 <nsh> Scrat, we're getting to that :)
1228 2013-07-01 10:14:26 <petertodd> focus again on the actual gravity sensor, what are the units of the measurement it makes?
1229 2013-07-01 10:14:38 <nsh> newtons
1230 2013-07-01 10:15:01 <petertodd> right, but since I know how much mass the test mass has, what can I compute from mass and newtons?
1231 2013-07-01 10:15:10 <petertodd> that's that force doing to that mass?
1232 2013-07-01 10:15:29 <nsh> accelerating it
1233 2013-07-01 10:15:37 <nsh> F = ML / T^2
1234 2013-07-01 10:15:43 <petertodd> indeed, so, what are the units of a single sensor?
1235 2013-07-01 10:15:57 <nsh> ms^-2
1236 2013-07-01 10:16:14 <phantomcircuit> cookies/second
1237 2013-07-01 10:16:18 <phantomcircuit> nom nom nom
1238 2013-07-01 10:16:21 <petertodd> good, and since I have two sensors with distance l apart, what are the units of the measurement made by both sensors combined?
1239 2013-07-01 10:16:24 Nesetalis has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1240 2013-07-01 10:17:01 <nsh> and you're differencing?
1241 2013-07-01 10:17:07 <petertodd> yes
1242 2013-07-01 10:17:17 <nsh> unitless
1243 2013-07-01 10:17:22 <nsh> no
1244 2013-07-01 10:17:39 <nsh> same units, no?
1245 2013-07-01 10:18:16 <petertodd> what's the equation giving me the output of this pair of sensors? g1,g2 are the two individual sensors, l is the distance between them
1246 2013-07-01 10:18:24 <nsh> oh, hold on
1247 2013-07-01 10:18:50 <nsh> just 1/s^2?
1248 2013-07-01 10:18:59 <petertodd> yes! slightly bizzare 'eh?
1249 2013-07-01 10:19:06 <nsh> heh...
1250 2013-07-01 10:19:17 <nsh> that else is measured in that?
1251 2013-07-01 10:19:25 <petertodd> I mean, it's change is accelleration over distance, or the gradient of the gravitational field
1252 2013-07-01 10:19:46 <nsh> of course
1253 2013-07-01 10:19:53 <nsh> the gradient is the thing you're after
1254 2013-07-01 10:19:53 <petertodd> but that gradient winds up as 1/s^2 is hard to wrap ones head around; 1/s is just frequency of course...
1255 2013-07-01 10:20:11 <petertodd> yup, and gradiant is an example of a relative measurement
1256 2013-07-01 10:20:13 * nsh tries to imagine a physical process that multiplies two frequencies
1257 2013-07-01 10:20:38 <nsh> intermodulation
1258 2013-07-01 10:20:50 <petertodd> yup
1259 2013-07-01 10:21:52 <nsh> but you get two different resultants in that. you get a sum and a product
1260 2013-07-01 10:21:55 <petertodd> Now see, the magic of the machine where I work is how they achieve essentially a pair of gravity sensors mounted next to each other where the precision of the balance is enough to both reject the bumps of the airplane, yet still measure the signal.
1261 2013-07-01 10:22:22 <nsh> right, i can see how it requires cutting edge stuff...
1262 2013-07-01 10:22:40 <nsh> i think what you need is a test mass that varies periodically
1263 2013-07-01 10:23:03 <nsh> not sure they exist :(
1264 2013-07-01 10:23:38 <petertodd> Yeah, ultra-precision engineering. Measuring the movement of the apparatus is similarly difficult, and we do that with superconducting coils - as you move the coil in relation to the superconducting test mass a current flows, and you measure that current with quantum squid sensors.
1265 2013-07-01 10:23:53 * nsh nods
1266 2013-07-01 10:24:15 <petertodd> Then just arrange it all so that the two sensors cancel out, and make that cancellation damn near perfect to within a ludicrious precision.
1267 2013-07-01 10:24:41 <petertodd> Then because that's still not good enough, put the whole assembly in a mechanical isolation system floating on air.
1268 2013-07-01 10:24:45 santoscork has joined
1269 2013-07-01 10:24:46 wei_ has quit (Quit: wei_)
1270 2013-07-01 10:24:54 <nsh> hold on... can't you use the effect of a superconducting coil to repulse intrusions in its magnetic field as a way to cancel out perturbations in some way?
1271 2013-07-01 10:24:57 <petertodd> Then because that's not good enough, post-process the living daylights out of the data.
1272 2013-07-01 10:25:14 <petertodd> nsh: How would you what the perturbations were in the first place?
1273 2013-07-01 10:25:29 <nsh> mmm
1274 2013-07-01 10:26:01 <petertodd> Also, how do you change the current in a superconducting coil?
1275 2013-07-01 10:26:20 <nsh> dunno
1276 2013-07-01 10:27:04 daktak has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1277 2013-07-01 10:27:15 <petertodd> Well, you can put another non-superconducting circuit next to it and drive it... but good luck controlling that finely enough.
1278 2013-07-01 10:27:22 daktak has joined
1279 2013-07-01 10:27:40 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1280 2013-07-01 10:27:42 * nsh wonders if diamagnetism could help
1281 2013-07-01 10:28:00 <petertodd> What do you think superconductors are?
1282 2013-07-01 10:28:07 <nsh> magic?
1283 2013-07-01 10:28:09 <nsh> :)
1284 2013-07-01 10:28:19 <petertodd> They're examples of perfectly diamagnetic materials.
1285 2013-07-01 10:28:22 <nsh> right
1286 2013-07-01 10:29:02 <nsh> but i was thinking as the superconductor resists the acceleration of something magnetic into it, there's also a measurable
1287 2013-07-01 10:29:05 michagogo has joined
1288 2013-07-01 10:29:07 <petertodd> ...and the reason why they are, is simply because when you move a magnetic field, it induces a current in opposition to your magnetic field. Well, in a superconductor that current never dies out!
1289 2013-07-01 10:29:16 <nsh> right
1290 2013-07-01 10:29:25 <nsh> but can you measure it without ruining it?
1291 2013-07-01 10:29:39 squwiggle has joined
1292 2013-07-01 10:29:57 <nsh> some kind of quantum half-measurement
1293 2013-07-01 10:30:02 * nsh is shooting in the dark here really :)
1294 2013-07-01 10:30:22 <petertodd> That's exactly what we do! Again, the moving test mass changes the magnetic field experienced by the superconducting coil, such then *must* have a changing current to oppose that change in magnetic field, and with a squid sensor you can then measure that current.
1295 2013-07-01 10:30:46 <petertodd> (well, measure that current by using it to create a magnetic field, and measuring that magnetic field, or specifically, the change in that magnetic field...)
1296 2013-07-01 10:30:56 <petertodd> relative measurements the whole way down. :P
1297 2013-07-01 10:31:00 <nsh> :)
1298 2013-07-01 10:31:03 <nsh> awesome
1299 2013-07-01 10:31:47 <nsh> what's the current challenge?
1300 2013-07-01 10:31:50 <nsh> or challenges
1301 2013-07-01 10:31:58 <nsh> just honing the precisions?
1302 2013-07-01 10:32:05 xenland has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1303 2013-07-01 10:32:17 <nsh> wouldn't the metalic thermoexpansion of the armature be a big problem?
1304 2013-07-01 10:32:25 <petertodd> Squid sensors themselves are fun too: so, you apply a magnetic flux to them, units Webers, and they output a voltage. But it's quantum, so Vout=sin(Φ)
1305 2013-07-01 10:32:28 macboz has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1306 2013-07-01 10:32:33 <petertodd> er, Vout=sin(phi)
1307 2013-07-01 10:32:37 <nsh> hmm
1308 2013-07-01 10:32:52 <petertodd> nsh: well, it's all bathed in liquid helium so temperature doesn't change much
1309 2013-07-01 10:33:00 <nsh> oh, right
1310 2013-07-01 10:33:11 justusranvier has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1311 2013-07-01 10:33:11 testnode9 has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1312 2013-07-01 10:33:17 <nsh> how compressible is liquid helium? :)
1313 2013-07-01 10:33:20 <petertodd> nsh: I mean, basically if you can think of *anything* that could cause a problem, it probably is something that we have to control very, very carfully.
1314 2013-07-01 10:33:27 <nsh> right
1315 2013-07-01 10:34:01 <petertodd> nsh: But I won't tell you what aspects we control the most carefully. :P Just assume it's all controlled within the limits of what is possible is pretty accurate.
1316 2013-07-01 10:34:12 * nsh nods
1317 2013-07-01 10:34:42 <nsh> my brain is trying to tell me there might be another solution involving phonons for some reason
1318 2013-07-01 10:34:45 <petertodd> So, back to that squid sensor, what would you do with a screwy measurement that gave you Vout=sin(phi)? (phi is our input signal)
1319 2013-07-01 10:35:01 <nsh> phi being a phase?
1320 2013-07-01 10:35:15 <nsh> no
1321 2013-07-01 10:35:19 <petertodd> phi being the magnetic flux measured by the sensor
1322 2013-07-01 10:35:30 <nsh> right, sorry
1323 2013-07-01 10:35:53 <petertodd> (magnetic flux is the amount of total magnetic flux going through a loop of wire)
1324 2013-07-01 10:35:55 * michagogo wonders what this discussion's about
1325 2013-07-01 10:36:09 <petertodd> michagogo: I used the word plutonium...
1326 2013-07-01 10:36:10 <nsh> michagogo, petertodd finding all the plutonium
1327 2013-07-01 10:36:35 <nsh> and me struggling to remember basic physics :)
1328 2013-07-01 10:36:41 <petertodd> michagogo: trolling the NSA
1329 2013-07-01 10:36:46 <nsh> also that :)
1330 2013-07-01 10:36:53 <nsh> hi amiller_ :)
1331 2013-07-01 10:37:05 <petertodd> nsh: Don't feel bad; I'm walking you through experimental technique really.
1332 2013-07-01 10:37:13 <nsh> okay :)
1333 2013-07-01 10:37:29 <nsh> (it was someone else here who works for the NSA, not amiller_ sorry)
1334 2013-07-01 10:37:40 <nsh> anyway
1335 2013-07-01 10:38:14 <petertodd> So, back to my screwy sensor, I want to be able to measure a range of more than just 2*pi magnetic flux... yet my sensor only gives me sin(flux)
1336 2013-07-01 10:38:19 <nsh> you measure sin(phi) so that's periodic so you only get the output modulo 2pi
1337 2013-07-01 10:38:19 testnode9 has joined
1338 2013-07-01 10:38:26 <nsh> right
1339 2013-07-01 10:38:44 egis has joined
1340 2013-07-01 10:38:45 egis_ has joined
1341 2013-07-01 10:38:46 <nsh> hmm
1342 2013-07-01 10:38:48 <petertodd> You could do that... but what happens to my resolution and noise immunity over that curve?
1343 2013-07-01 10:38:55 egis has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1344 2013-07-01 10:38:58 egis_ has quit (Client Quit)
1345 2013-07-01 10:39:15 <nsh> it's worse at the top and bottom
1346 2013-07-01 10:39:17 egis has joined
1347 2013-07-01 10:39:24 <nsh> when sin varies less wrt phi
1348 2013-07-01 10:39:30 <petertodd> Indeed. So I really want to keep the sensor in the middle.
1349 2013-07-01 10:39:31 <walch> should I assume that bitcoin will move to the QT 5.0+ at some point? it's only versions past that which support HiDPI resources.
1350 2013-07-01 10:39:34 <nsh> so you have another sensor at pi phase difference?
1351 2013-07-01 10:39:35 <petertodd> How do I do that?
1352 2013-07-01 10:39:41 squwiggle has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1353 2013-07-01 10:39:47 <nsh> is that possible?
1354 2013-07-01 10:39:55 <nsh> s2 = sin(phi + pi)
1355 2013-07-01 10:40:05 squwiggle has joined
1356 2013-07-01 10:40:05 <petertodd> nsh: Well, I couldn't just generate a gravity field on demand... but this is a magnetic field.
1357 2013-07-01 10:40:08 justusranvier has joined
1358 2013-07-01 10:40:26 <nsh> so you have a field that you switch on and off with a high frequency?
1359 2013-07-01 10:40:41 <petertodd> Why switch it on and off?
1360 2013-07-01 10:40:48 swulf-- has joined
1361 2013-07-01 10:40:54 <petertodd> (funny enough you are right, but for the wrong reasons...)
1362 2013-07-01 10:40:56 daybyter has joined
1363 2013-07-01 10:41:07 <nsh> because you want to have it there and not have it there and the further apart those things are the less resolution you have
1364 2013-07-01 10:41:33 <petertodd> nsh: Why not just modulate it so that it precisely cancels out my signal?
1365 2013-07-01 10:41:46 <nsh> oh, hmm
1366 2013-07-01 10:42:00 gjs278 has joined
1367 2013-07-01 10:42:13 <nsh> i thought you wanted the signal... :)
1368 2013-07-01 10:42:25 <nsh> or you only want the change in the signal?
1369 2013-07-01 10:42:30 aceat64 has joined
1370 2013-07-01 10:43:14 <petertodd> Sure, but if I add a second coil that can also apply a magnetic field to my squid sensor, I can make the second, modulation, coil cancel out the effect of the sense coil.
1371 2013-07-01 10:43:28 <petertodd> ...and I can determine if that cancellation is perfect.
1372 2013-07-01 10:43:36 <nsh> ah
1373 2013-07-01 10:44:15 <nsh> is that somewhat like a carrier frequency?
1374 2013-07-01 10:44:25 <petertodd> Not yet. :)
1375 2013-07-01 10:44:35 <nsh> or has my brain just given up and gone fishing
1376 2013-07-01 10:44:45 <petertodd> Remember, this can work just fine with a DC, or fixed, signal.
1377 2013-07-01 10:44:51 msvb-lab has joined
1378 2013-07-01 10:45:26 <petertodd> But, how can I know if the cancellation is perfect?
1379 2013-07-01 10:45:27 <nsh> and we're trying to get it on the steep part of the sine curve?
1380 2013-07-01 10:45:35 <petertodd> Yes, we want exactly that!
1381 2013-07-01 10:46:08 bitanarchy has joined
1382 2013-07-01 10:46:12 <nsh> hmm
1383 2013-07-01 10:46:32 <nsh> but two opposite sin curves cancel everywhere
1384 2013-07-01 10:46:39 <nsh> but if they're staggered
1385 2013-07-01 10:46:48 <nsh> that sum at the steep parts?
1386 2013-07-01 10:46:49 <petertodd> Why are there two curves involved?
1387 2013-07-01 10:46:53 <lupine> sin curves ^^
1388 2013-07-01 10:46:59 <nsh> because of the modulating coil?
1389 2013-07-01 10:47:25 <petertodd> Who said the modulation coil is outputting a sinewave? It's just cancelling out the input signal, which can be a DC signal.
1390 2013-07-01 10:47:34 <nsh> right, sorry
1391 2013-07-01 10:48:12 <nsh> hmm, i think i'm stuck again
1392 2013-07-01 10:48:37 <nsh> oh
1393 2013-07-01 10:48:38 <nsh> silly
1394 2013-07-01 10:48:45 <nsh> at zero the sin curve is steepest
1395 2013-07-01 10:48:51 <petertodd> Yes
1396 2013-07-01 10:48:54 * nsh facepalms
1397 2013-07-01 10:48:57 <petertodd> But how do I know I'm on the steep part?
1398 2013-07-01 10:49:24 <nsh> you see how quickly it varies as you change your modulation signal?
1399 2013-07-01 10:49:40 <petertodd> Ah... so what's the best way to do that?
1400 2013-07-01 10:49:50 <nsh> make it periodic
1401 2013-07-01 10:49:59 <petertodd> Remember the modulation signal *also* has to precisely cancel out the input signal still.
1402 2013-07-01 10:50:11 <petertodd> Ok, so I make it periodic, how big should the amplitude swing be?
1403 2013-07-01 10:50:27 <nsh> hmmm
1404 2013-07-01 10:50:33 Lolcust has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1405 2013-07-01 10:50:42 <nsh> it should be just enough to make it go from max to min
1406 2013-07-01 10:50:59 <petertodd> Ok, so if it's going from max to min, how am I actually going to measure that?
1407 2013-07-01 10:51:05 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1408 2013-07-01 10:51:16 <nsh> well you get sin(phi) as your measurement
1409 2013-07-01 10:51:17 Lolcust has joined
1410 2013-07-01 10:51:41 <nsh> so the the amplitude of the modulation swing is correct, you should measure in the full range of that
1411 2013-07-01 10:51:53 <petertodd> Specifically sin(1/2 * pi * sin(mod)) actually.
1412 2013-07-01 10:52:08 <petertodd> But that's kinda complex...
1413 2013-07-01 10:52:08 <nsh> hmm
1414 2013-07-01 10:52:19 <petertodd> For one thing, making accurate sine waves like that is a bitch.
1415 2013-07-01 10:52:52 <petertodd> ...and what happens if the signal shifts by pi?
1416 2013-07-01 10:53:22 <nsh> it wouldn't do that without going through some values in between though?
1417 2013-07-01 10:53:27 Diapolis_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1418 2013-07-01 10:53:46 <petertodd> Well, that might happen when the machine is turned on!
1419 2013-07-01 10:53:59 <nsh> hmm
1420 2013-07-01 10:54:20 <petertodd> Notice how the slope is opposite? So the response is opposite, which means I don't know which way to push the modulation signal to cancel out the input signal!
1421 2013-07-01 10:54:37 <nsh> ah
1422 2013-07-01 10:54:38 Diapolis has joined
1423 2013-07-01 10:54:46 <nsh> so that's why you flip it?
1424 2013-07-01 10:54:52 <nsh> at high frequency
1425 2013-07-01 10:55:15 <petertodd> However... what if I modulate the modulation coil by a square wave with an amplitude of pi flux?
1426 2013-07-01 10:55:36 <nsh> that's fancytalk for what i just said :)
1427 2013-07-01 10:55:41 <petertodd> lol, yes
1428 2013-07-01 10:55:43 <nsh> modulo the amplitude
1429 2013-07-01 10:56:20 <petertodd> Yeah, now, my input signal will have a contradictory effect, +in on one half, and -in on the other.
1430 2013-07-01 10:56:39 <nsh> right, got it
1431 2013-07-01 10:56:42 <nsh> very sneaky :)
1432 2013-07-01 10:56:43 <petertodd> I can multiply that by my high-frequency modulation and recover the signal!
1433 2013-07-01 10:56:55 <nsh> take that, nature!
1434 2013-07-01 10:57:27 <petertodd> Indeed! And because it's all high frequency stuff, I can use filtering and other magic to be very selective about it all, which is good when you're dealing with nano-volts.
1435 2013-07-01 10:57:36 <nsh> indeed
1436 2013-07-01 10:57:52 <nsh> i wonder if you can generalise this technique to other situations in which you can only measure something modulo a constant
1437 2013-07-01 10:57:53 <petertodd> (I've managed to build circuits that operate alarmingly well as "is engineering sitting at his desk" sensors...)
1438 2013-07-01 10:58:00 <nsh> haha
1439 2013-07-01 10:58:05 <petertodd> Absolutely you can.
1440 2013-07-01 10:58:24 * nsh racks brain for alternative use-cases
1441 2013-07-01 10:58:34 <petertodd> This is just a particularly involved example... a nice one two because it shows relative upon relative upon relative measurements...
1442 2013-07-01 10:58:43 <nsh> yup
1443 2013-07-01 10:59:26 <petertodd> and, working at the cutting edge of what the tech can do, I have to understand all this in annoying detail... I mean, you can buy squid controllers off the shelf, but you have to understand what they are really doing.
1444 2013-07-01 10:59:37 * nsh nods
1445 2013-07-01 11:00:16 <nsh> so even if another ten years go by and you haven't got a bazillion dollar mining contract, you're at least at the frontier of the technology and its applications
1446 2013-07-01 11:01:00 <petertodd> um, yah... they don't call it the cutting edge for nothing...
1447 2013-07-01 11:01:05 agnostic98 has joined
1448 2013-07-01 11:01:22 * petertodd is not very punny, or is he?
1449 2013-07-01 11:01:26 <nsh> bleeding one days, i imagine :)
1450 2013-07-01 11:01:29 <nsh> *on some
1451 2013-07-01 11:01:33 <petertodd> heh
1452 2013-07-01 11:01:46 <nsh> metaphorically, i hope
1453 2013-07-01 11:01:54 <petertodd> usually :P
1454 2013-07-01 11:01:59 <nsh> :)
1455 2013-07-01 11:02:20 <nsh> right, well i certainly enjoyed the brain workout. thanks
1456 2013-07-01 11:02:54 <petertodd> heh, thanks, I find it helps me understand this stuff best if I can explain it to someone else. :)
1457 2013-07-01 11:03:34 <petertodd> Keeps you focused on the meaning behind the math.
1458 2013-07-01 11:03:53 <nsh> yup, pedagogy is a great means of refining comprehension
1459 2013-07-01 11:05:26 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1460 2013-07-01 11:05:46 <petertodd> when I was taking calculus/analysis I was always the one leading study groups through exercises, even though I was damn near failing...
1461 2013-07-01 11:06:04 <nsh> i sad a similar experience at university
1462 2013-07-01 11:06:06 <nsh> *had
1463 2013-07-01 11:06:12 <petertodd> freudian slip :P
1464 2013-07-01 11:06:16 <nsh> indeed :)
1465 2013-07-01 11:06:40 <nsh> did you used to work for queensland, by the way?
1466 2013-07-01 11:06:49 <petertodd> queensland? nah
1467 2013-07-01 11:06:57 <nsh> oh, must be another peter todd who does surveying
1468 2013-07-01 11:07:05 <nsh> tried to see if there was literature about your work
1469 2013-07-01 11:07:20 <nsh> i guess startups don't publish much in journals
1470 2013-07-01 11:07:21 <petertodd> ha, nah, I wouldn't show up on anything there - I'm just a lowly electronics designer
1471 2013-07-01 11:07:26 <nsh> right
1472 2013-07-01 11:07:41 <petertodd> everything I explained is well known stuff
1473 2013-07-01 11:07:48 * nsh nods
1474 2013-07-01 11:08:58 <nsh> so your company is hammering away at the accuracy engineering problem mainly
1475 2013-07-01 11:09:15 <nsh> but doing something well enough to get funding for ten years :)
1476 2013-07-01 11:09:53 <petertodd> *Lots* of stuff. It's just one of those problems where the more you look at it the harder it turns out to be.
1477 2013-07-01 11:10:25 <nsh> such is the way of things
1478 2013-07-01 11:10:28 <nsh> it would be boring otherwise
1479 2013-07-01 11:10:36 <petertodd> It would be *done* otherwise!
1480 2013-07-01 11:10:39 <nsh> :)
1481 2013-07-01 11:11:05 <nsh> and then you'd be rich and unemployed. how tragic :)
1482 2013-07-01 11:11:41 <petertodd> heh, rich... I suspect startups like my company get far more investment money than they deserve, economically speaking, because they're selling dreams.
1483 2013-07-01 11:12:34 <nsh> yeah, but finding nice stuff underground is historically quite rewarding
1484 2013-07-01 11:12:53 <nsh> and these industries are overcapitalised anyway
1485 2013-07-01 11:12:56 <petertodd> Heh, we could quite seriously push back the collapse of civilization due to resource exhaustion by a few years...
1486 2013-07-01 11:13:26 <nsh> thus further dissuading the transition to sustainable technologies and dooming humanity
1487 2013-07-01 11:13:27 <nsh> thanks :)
1488 2013-07-01 11:13:40 <petertodd> Mining/oil and gas is especially frustrating because smarts often don't get rewarded simply because often dumb people get lucky.
1489 2013-07-01 11:13:50 * nsh nods
1490 2013-07-01 11:14:13 <petertodd> Lots of people I work with have horror stories about companies literally doing junk like employing dowsers, and getting away with it due to the odd lucky break.
1491 2013-07-01 11:14:44 <petertodd> nsh: heh, well, the ex-space guys I work with are all for asteroid mining - and our tech could help!
1492 2013-07-01 11:14:45 <nsh> yup, i've read about "remote sensing experts" and how much they can "earn" in the industry
1493 2013-07-01 11:14:51 <nsh> oh wow, awesome
1494 2013-07-01 11:15:11 <nsh> i read recently about a bunch of top people who quit their jobs are very big firms to make a serious asteroid mining venture
1495 2013-07-01 11:15:13 <nsh> *at
1496 2013-07-01 11:15:22 <petertodd> nsh: I know! Now if you'll just sign on the dotted line your money can be part of that exciting future in space...
1497 2013-07-01 11:15:42 <MC1984> 2023 - an experimental asteroid mining automaton is sent out. Contact is lost 3 years into the mission
1498 2013-07-01 11:15:42 <nsh> hehe, service guarantees citizenship
1499 2013-07-01 11:15:49 <petertodd> Planetary Resourses is the real deal, although the media hyped them up a little bit.
1500 2013-07-01 11:16:06 <nsh> http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1h47je/we_are_engineers_from_planetary_resources_we_quit/
1501 2013-07-01 11:16:08 <nsh> that it, aye
1502 2013-07-01 11:16:09 <MC1984> 2078 - The Machine Empire turns up in high earth orbit and transmits our terms of surrendur
1503 2013-07-01 11:16:21 <nsh> MC1984, :)
1504 2013-07-01 11:16:41 <nsh> isn't planetary resources a bit of a misnomer?
1505 2013-07-01 11:16:57 <nsh> unless they subscribe to the vulcan theory of the asteroid belt...
1506 2013-07-01 11:17:02 <petertodd> nsh: with their upcoming asteroid bombardment campaign, no
1507 2013-07-01 11:17:10 <nsh> hmm?
1508 2013-07-01 11:17:26 <petertodd> nsh: when the asteroids are on our planet, they are planetary resources!
1509 2013-07-01 11:17:39 <nsh> heh
1510 2013-07-01 11:17:48 <nsh> they're planning to bring them back?
1511 2013-07-01 11:17:53 <nsh> isn't that bit fuel prohibitive?
1512 2013-07-01 11:17:58 <MC1984> dumb
1513 2013-07-01 11:18:02 <petertodd> heh... well that's where the media hype starts
1514 2013-07-01 11:18:08 <MC1984> wait
1515 2013-07-01 11:18:21 <MC1984> can they mine the xenon they need for vasimir on site?
1516 2013-07-01 11:18:26 <petertodd> Nah, first they're just going to do survey missions, followed by some efforts to mine water for rocket fuel.
1517 2013-07-01 11:18:35 <nsh> here's what you could do, push four of five asteroids about in a very precise way to engineer a gravitational dynamic that results in one of them being ejected towards earth
1518 2013-07-01 11:18:41 <nsh> then apologise for killing everyone
1519 2013-07-01 11:18:49 <petertodd> Mining minerals is a *long* way off; they're target market is going to be government space exploration efforts for a long time.
1520 2013-07-01 11:19:43 nomailing has joined
1521 2013-07-01 11:20:14 Subo1978_ is now known as Subo1978
1522 2013-07-01 11:20:55 <MC1984> gold bugs gonna be pissed about off planet mining
1523 2013-07-01 11:21:04 <MC1984> its cheating!
1524 2013-07-01 11:21:12 <MC1984> bitcoin up atleast lol
1525 2013-07-01 11:21:19 <petertodd> it's the ASICs of gold
1526 2013-07-01 11:21:39 <MC1984> theres a diamond out there the size of a stellar core
1527 2013-07-01 11:21:42 <MC1984> lets go and get that
1528 2013-07-01 11:22:01 <nsh> lol
1529 2013-07-01 11:22:01 <petertodd> you first... gravitational field is a bit much...
1530 2013-07-01 11:22:29 <nsh> asimovian robots will be the ones sent
1531 2013-07-01 11:22:39 <nsh> then they'll unintentionally be victorious over the aliens they encounter
1532 2013-07-01 11:22:45 <nsh> by not mentioning that they aren't human
1533 2013-07-01 11:23:01 <petertodd> heh
1534 2013-07-01 11:23:07 <MC1984> mfw de beers gets th diamond star declared illegal and america nukes it
1535 2013-07-01 11:23:15 <petertodd> sadly I am human, so I'm gonna get some sleep :)
1536 2013-07-01 11:23:16 <petertodd> later
1537 2013-07-01 11:23:34 <nsh> 'night
1538 2013-07-01 11:24:24 <nsh> (water is burnt rocket fuel...)
1539 2013-07-01 11:24:29 <nsh> oh, i suppose you'd split it using solar power
1540 2013-07-01 11:24:50 viperhr1 has joined
1541 2013-07-01 11:24:57 <MC1984> chemical thrust is for plebs
1542 2013-07-01 11:24:59 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1543 2013-07-01 11:25:19 gjs278 has joined
1544 2013-07-01 11:25:30 <nsh> MC1984, how do you expel it then?
1545 2013-07-01 11:25:38 <nsh> rail gun?
1546 2013-07-01 11:25:44 <MC1984> expel what
1547 2013-07-01 11:25:53 <nsh> the water that you're using as fuel
1548 2013-07-01 11:26:06 <nsh> rockets accelerate by pushing things the opposite way
1549 2013-07-01 11:26:16 <MC1984> xenon bro
1550 2013-07-01 11:26:32 <nsh> ion thruster?
1551 2013-07-01 11:26:39 <MC1984> ye
1552 2013-07-01 11:26:47 <nsh> hmm
1553 2013-07-01 11:27:04 <nsh> i don't mining water will help you keep that ticking along
1554 2013-07-01 11:27:08 <sturles> THIS: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/420700/microwave-powered-rocket-ascends-without-fuel/
1555 2013-07-01 11:27:09 <nsh> +think
1556 2013-07-01 11:27:13 <sturles> Is the future of rocket engines.
1557 2013-07-01 11:27:21 <MC1984> oh its that reactionless thing
1558 2013-07-01 11:27:22 <sturles> No fuel carried.
1559 2013-07-01 11:27:34 <MC1984> saw it a few years ago but i call bullshit now
1560 2013-07-01 11:27:35 <nsh> i thought reactionless engines were sci-fi
1561 2013-07-01 11:27:46 <nsh> oh, it's a reverse solar sail?
1562 2013-07-01 11:28:00 <MC1984> reactionless or intertia drives should be impossible
1563 2013-07-01 11:28:17 <nsh> per the current understanding of physics
1564 2013-07-01 11:28:31 <MC1984> WE HAVE SOLVED PHYSICS
1565 2013-07-01 11:28:40 <sturles> And this: http://www.dvice.com/2013-2-8/china-claims-successful-test-microwave-relativity-engine
1566 2013-07-01 11:28:47 <michagogo> Like that Heinlin thing?
1567 2013-07-01 11:29:06 <michagogo> Clip this box to any part of the spaceship, instant near-lightspeed travel
1568 2013-07-01 11:29:10 viperhr has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1569 2013-07-01 11:29:31 <nsh> yup, throw VC money into the box first though
1570 2013-07-01 11:30:08 <MC1984> laser thrust is another one
1571 2013-07-01 11:30:23 <michagogo> (oh, and get close to the sun first)
1572 2013-07-01 11:30:24 <MC1984> light pressure
1573 2013-07-01 11:30:44 <nsh> that's a light sail
1574 2013-07-01 11:30:55 <nsh> or you use it the burn off bits from the craft
1575 2013-07-01 11:30:55 <michagogo> Right, IIRC that's what Libby's space drive was in that Heinlein story
1576 2013-07-01 11:30:59 msvb-lab has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1577 2013-07-01 11:31:06 <michagogo> Metuselah's Children, I think it was
1578 2013-07-01 11:32:07 agnostic98 has joined
1579 2013-07-01 11:32:27 adam3us has joined
1580 2013-07-01 11:34:42 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1581 2013-07-01 11:36:28 one_zero has quit ()
1582 2013-07-01 11:37:12 wiretapped has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1583 2013-07-01 11:37:20 Arbition has quit (Quit: Client quit)
1584 2013-07-01 11:37:28 wiretapped has joined
1585 2013-07-01 11:37:50 Arbition has joined
1586 2013-07-01 11:38:55 msvb-lab has joined
1587 2013-07-01 11:46:24 mrkent has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1588 2013-07-01 11:48:39 Plinker_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1589 2013-07-01 11:48:58 bitanarchy has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1590 2013-07-01 11:50:02 bitanarchy has joined
1591 2013-07-01 11:52:01 warren has left ("Leaving")
1592 2013-07-01 11:52:15 santoscork has quit (Quit: Hibernation Time …)
1593 2013-07-01 11:53:36 tonikt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1594 2013-07-01 11:53:41 Prattler has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1595 2013-07-01 11:53:59 testnode9 has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1596 2013-07-01 11:54:46 Jackneill has joined
1597 2013-07-01 11:54:46 Jackneill has quit (Changing host)
1598 2013-07-01 11:54:46 Jackneill has joined
1599 2013-07-01 11:55:18 santoscork has joined
1600 2013-07-01 11:56:02 Prattler has joined
1601 2013-07-01 11:56:20 imd23 has quit (Quit: imd23)
1602 2013-07-01 11:58:54 testnode9 has joined
1603 2013-07-01 12:01:21 GordonG3kko has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1604 2013-07-01 12:03:11 agnostic98 has joined
1605 2013-07-01 12:04:19 GordonG3kko has joined
1606 2013-07-01 12:07:49 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1607 2013-07-01 12:10:48 squwiggle_ has joined
1608 2013-07-01 12:11:05 squwiggle has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1609 2013-07-01 12:19:22 testnode9_ has joined
1610 2013-07-01 12:21:42 warren has joined
1611 2013-07-01 12:22:51 <warren> Interesting ... one of our users tar'ed the entire database and blockchain while it was running and ran another node from it.  It shows tons of invalid transactions and "CheckForkWarningConditions: Warning: Large valid fork found" in debug.log but doesn't crash.
1612 2013-07-01 12:23:05 testnode9 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1613 2013-07-01 12:23:09 <warren> corrupted database I know, but interesting that the node doesn't think anything is internally wrong.
1614 2013-07-01 12:24:31 <bitanarchy> is there an armory channel?
1615 2013-07-01 12:28:45 rdymac has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1616 2013-07-01 12:29:09 <TD> well, the issue is the leveldbs are atomic but there are two of them, and then there's the block data itself. the entire caboodle is not atomic
1617 2013-07-01 12:30:59 <sipa> they don't refer to eachother
1618 2013-07-01 12:31:16 <sipa> but the block data needs to be present of course
1619 2013-07-01 12:31:43 rdymac has joined
1620 2013-07-01 12:37:02 BTC_Bear has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1621 2013-07-01 12:40:35 zer0def has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1622 2013-07-01 12:40:57 zer0def has joined
1623 2013-07-01 12:48:14 justusranvier has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1624 2013-07-01 12:49:41 <BCB> ;;ticker --last
1625 2013-07-01 12:49:42 <gribble> 95.01100
1626 2013-07-01 12:53:33 BTC_Bear has joined
1627 2013-07-01 12:53:50 BW^- has joined
1628 2013-07-01 12:54:02 <BW^-> does bitcoind 0.8.3 use Berkeley DB for anything anymore - not, right?
1629 2013-07-01 12:54:11 <BW^-> including the wallet
1630 2013-07-01 12:54:27 <michagogo> IIRC it does
1631 2013-07-01 12:54:29 <michagogo> For the wallet
1632 2013-07-01 12:54:43 <BW^-> aha right
1633 2013-07-01 12:54:54 justusranvier has joined
1634 2013-07-01 12:54:58 <BW^-> I just got error -30975 and googling it says it's DB_RUNRECOVERY, so makes perfect sense.
1635 2013-07-01 12:55:05 <kinlo> yes, berkley isn't going to go away any time soon
1636 2013-07-01 12:55:17 <kinlo> people want backwards compatibility with their wallets
1637 2013-07-01 12:56:33 <BW^-> kinlo: mhm makes good sense.
1638 2013-07-01 12:56:53 <walch> in /bitcoin/share/pixmaps/ there's a number of bitmap images that I can't seem to find a use for. are they just there for legacy reasons?
1639 2013-07-01 12:57:25 <walch> addressbook16.bmp for example is defined in the QT definitions, but not actually used anywhere else
1640 2013-07-01 12:58:32 jtimon has joined
1641 2013-07-01 13:01:09 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1642 2013-07-01 13:03:01 <walch> somewhat answering my own question, they're left over from the restructuring of 0.3.0 > 0.4.0. there's no reason for them to exist anymore.
1643 2013-07-01 13:03:28 De_Lemming has joined
1644 2013-07-01 13:04:31 <kinlo> walch: if you believe they are no longer needed, feel free to create a pull request that removes them
1645 2013-07-01 13:04:57 hnz has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1646 2013-07-01 13:05:05 jdnavarro has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1647 2013-07-01 13:05:19 agnostic98 has joined
1648 2013-07-01 13:06:22 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1649 2013-07-01 13:07:05 testnode9_ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1650 2013-07-01 13:07:07 <walch> kinlo: I intend to
1651 2013-07-01 13:07:39 imd23 has joined
1652 2013-07-01 13:08:37 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1653 2013-07-01 13:09:04 hnz has joined
1654 2013-07-01 13:16:26 SchmalzTech has joined
1655 2013-07-01 13:19:03 testnode9_ has joined
1656 2013-07-01 13:19:50 bmcgee has joined
1657 2013-07-01 13:20:44 <bmcgee> hey guys, I had found a page on the wiki describing how the compressed difficulty hashes worked. Thought i bookmarked it, can't find it again. Any of you have the link?
1658 2013-07-01 13:20:47 macboz has joined
1659 2013-07-01 13:22:15 <bmcgee> nvm found it
1660 2013-07-01 13:26:06 agricocb has joined
1661 2013-07-01 13:35:41 jgarzik has joined
1662 2013-07-01 13:35:57 bmcgee_ has joined
1663 2013-07-01 13:36:21 <jgarzik> mornin'
1664 2013-07-01 13:36:23 agnostic98 has joined
1665 2013-07-01 13:36:54 <CodeShark> heya jgarzik
1666 2013-07-01 13:37:14 bmcgee has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1667 2013-07-01 13:37:14 bmcgee_ is now known as bmcgee
1668 2013-07-01 13:39:59 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1669 2013-07-01 13:49:05 wizzkid has joined
1670 2013-07-01 13:53:23 imd23 has quit (Quit: imd23)
1671 2013-07-01 13:53:29 signor777 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1672 2013-07-01 13:54:44 <bmcgee> hey can someone explain what the ** operation is in this example?      0x0404cb * 2**(8*(0x1b - 3))
1673 2013-07-01 13:55:10 <CodeShark> looks like exponentiation
1674 2013-07-01 13:55:47 <bmcgee> I had a feeling it was, just want to confirm
1675 2013-07-01 13:55:48 wizzkid has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1676 2013-07-01 13:55:52 <kinlo> ** is exponentiation yes
1677 2013-07-01 13:55:56 <bmcgee> never seen it represented like this before
1678 2013-07-01 13:55:56 <CodeShark> it basically looks like a left bitshift on the leftmost factor
1679 2013-07-01 13:56:18 <bmcgee> ok cool thx
1680 2013-07-01 13:56:41 stalled has joined
1681 2013-07-01 13:57:53 Neozonz has joined
1682 2013-07-01 13:57:53 Neozonz has quit (Changing host)
1683 2013-07-01 13:57:53 Neozonz has joined
1684 2013-07-01 14:02:44 <sipa> looks like compact uint226 decoding
1685 2013-07-01 14:07:25 agnostic98 has joined
1686 2013-07-01 14:09:05 cc_8 has joined
1687 2013-07-01 14:09:05 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1688 2013-07-01 14:09:09 signor777 has joined
1689 2013-07-01 14:10:02 omnibrain has quit (Quit: leaving)
1690 2013-07-01 14:10:18 omnibrain has joined
1691 2013-07-01 14:10:24 signor777 has quit (Client Quit)
1692 2013-07-01 14:11:41 taha has joined
1693 2013-07-01 14:14:16 nomailing has quit (Quit: nomailing)
1694 2013-07-01 14:15:11 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1695 2013-07-01 14:15:56 mE\Ta has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1696 2013-07-01 14:16:13 CodeShark has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1697 2013-07-01 14:18:56 Tom_Soft has joined
1698 2013-07-01 14:19:42 Eiii has joined
1699 2013-07-01 14:19:42 Eiii has quit (Changing host)
1700 2013-07-01 14:19:42 Eiii has joined
1701 2013-07-01 14:19:49 Tom_Soft has quit (Client Quit)
1702 2013-07-01 14:21:22 justusranvier has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1703 2013-07-01 14:21:42 ThomasV has joined
1704 2013-07-01 14:27:49 miscrean1ty has joined
1705 2013-07-01 14:28:04 justusranvier has joined
1706 2013-07-01 14:29:11 <tych0> 8
1707 2013-07-01 14:29:25 <tych0> whoops :-)
1708 2013-07-01 14:30:26 kwikness has joined
1709 2013-07-01 14:31:14 miscreanity has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1710 2013-07-01 14:31:49 <The_Fly> 42
1711 2013-07-01 14:37:34 BW^- has quit (Quit: Miranda IM! Smaller, Faster, Easier. http://miranda-im.org)
1712 2013-07-01 14:38:45 santoscork has quit (Quit: Quiet while I make like a cat)
1713 2013-07-01 14:40:52 wrabbit has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1714 2013-07-01 14:40:57 GordonG3kko has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1715 2013-07-01 14:41:01 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1716 2013-07-01 14:41:55 JimJones has joined
1717 2013-07-01 14:45:07 Namworld has quit ()
1718 2013-07-01 14:45:54 bmcgee has quit (Quit: bmcgee)
1719 2013-07-01 14:46:53 wrabbit has joined
1720 2013-07-01 14:47:56 stalled has joined
1721 2013-07-01 14:49:48 Diapolis has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1722 2013-07-01 14:51:10 msvb-lab has quit (Quit: msvb-lab)
1723 2013-07-01 14:51:16 GordonG3kko has joined
1724 2013-07-01 14:53:32 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1725 2013-07-01 14:55:01 signor777 has joined
1726 2013-07-01 15:02:55 msvb-lab has joined
1727 2013-07-01 15:03:09 amiller_ has left ()
1728 2013-07-01 15:03:19 amiller has joined
1729 2013-07-01 15:03:30 <amiller> how often are multisig transactions actually used?
1730 2013-07-01 15:03:36 <amiller> can i search blockchain.info for just the multisig transactions
1731 2013-07-01 15:04:11 <jgarzik> very rarely
1732 2013-07-01 15:04:33 <jgarzik> https://blockchain.info/wallet/escrow
1733 2013-07-01 15:04:46 <jgarzik> that's a useful tool for /building/.  Not sure about searching
1734 2013-07-01 15:04:50 Diapolis has joined
1735 2013-07-01 15:05:47 bmcgee has joined
1736 2013-07-01 15:08:46 theymos has joined
1737 2013-07-01 15:09:31 agnostic98 has joined
1738 2013-07-01 15:11:09 BlackPrapor has joined
1739 2013-07-01 15:12:02 o3u has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1740 2013-07-01 15:12:08 tsche has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1741 2013-07-01 15:12:27 Neozonz has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1742 2013-07-01 15:12:53 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1743 2013-07-01 15:13:03 o3u has joined
1744 2013-07-01 15:16:38 taha has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1745 2013-07-01 15:16:57 tsche has joined
1746 2013-07-01 15:18:06 justusranvier has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1747 2013-07-01 15:18:51 Neozonz has joined
1748 2013-07-01 15:25:11 justusranvier has joined
1749 2013-07-01 15:28:38 BTC_Bear has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
1750 2013-07-01 15:30:05 free499__ has joined
1751 2013-07-01 15:31:18 Diablo-D3 has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1752 2013-07-01 15:31:55 michagogo has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1753 2013-07-01 15:32:17 testnode9_ has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1754 2013-07-01 15:35:29 TD is now known as TD[gone]
1755 2013-07-01 15:37:03 taha has joined
1756 2013-07-01 15:38:50 <Vinnie_win> sup d00dz
1757 2013-07-01 15:40:29 agnostic98 has joined
1758 2013-07-01 15:44:34 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1759 2013-07-01 15:44:59 macboz has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1760 2013-07-01 15:47:36 agnostic98 has joined
1761 2013-07-01 15:50:32 filleokus has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1762 2013-07-01 15:52:37 BlackPrapor has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1763 2013-07-01 15:53:38 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1764 2013-07-01 15:53:43 filleokus has joined
1765 2013-07-01 15:54:04 agricocb has joined
1766 2013-07-01 15:54:34 <Vinnie_win> Did you guys ever decide if you want the entire leveldb commit log inserted into the bitcoin commit log?
1767 2013-07-01 15:58:17 Thepok has joined
1768 2013-07-01 15:59:25 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1769 2013-07-01 16:00:35 <Vinnie_win> Is the build still broken / not passing unit tests on master?
1770 2013-07-01 16:00:51 <jouke> What does this mean? Not all txinputs are known to that node?
1771 2013-07-01 16:00:52 <jouke> ERROR: CScriptCheck() : <xxx> VerifySignature failed
1772 2013-07-01 16:00:53 <jouke> ERROR: CTxMemPool::accept() : ConnectInputs failed <xxx>
1773 2013-07-01 16:01:33 <sipa> Vinnie_win: we'll need more powerful BlueMatt-poking tools, it seems
1774 2013-07-01 16:01:43 <sipa> Vinnie_win: noone else has commented about it
1775 2013-07-01 16:01:49 t7 has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.90 [Firefox 22.0/20130618035212])
1776 2013-07-01 16:01:57 <sipa> i'll poke them too :)
1777 2013-07-01 16:01:58 <Vinnie_win> sipa: I'm going to amend my pull request again, since there's a bitcoin commit from 6/12
1778 2013-07-01 16:02:32 <Vinnie_win> sipa: "Added GNU/kFreeBSD kernel name" to build_detect_platform from Vaclav on 6/12
1779 2013-07-01 16:04:01 FredEE has joined
1780 2013-07-01 16:04:29 <BlueMatt> sipa: ugg...I didnt have internet all weekend, Ill try today
1781 2013-07-01 16:04:56 <warren> jouke: I saw that today, corrupted index, -reindex fixed it
1782 2013-07-01 16:05:02 <kinlo> is there any decent thin bitcoin client with an rpc interface?
1783 2013-07-01 16:05:15 <kinlo> seems to me all thin clients are gui only
1784 2013-07-01 16:06:15 BTCOxygen has joined
1785 2013-07-01 16:06:58 roconnor has joined
1786 2013-07-01 16:08:27 <Vinnie_win> sipa: Do you have any interest in the unity build for leveldb?
1787 2013-07-01 16:08:35 <jouke> warren: that is strange. But it happens at two different nodes.
1788 2013-07-01 16:08:40 <Ry4an> kinlo: Armory has/had a daemon mode IIRC https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=92496.0
1789 2013-07-01 16:08:44 <warren> hm
1790 2013-07-01 16:08:54 <jouke> Both 8.3
1791 2013-07-01 16:08:58 <sipa> Vinnie_win: unity?
1792 2013-07-01 16:09:11 <sipa> Vinnie_win: you must be talking about a different unity than i know
1793 2013-07-01 16:09:37 <Vinnie_win> sipa: Yes, replace 44 individual cpp files in the bitcoin makefile with just one: https://gist.github.com/vinniefalco/5880905
1794 2013-07-01 16:09:45 <sipa> oh
1795 2013-07-01 16:09:47 taha has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1796 2013-07-01 16:09:52 <sipa> yes, i saw that
1797 2013-07-01 16:10:18 GordonG3kko has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1798 2013-07-01 16:10:23 <Vinnie_win> sipa: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/847974/c-the-benefits-disadvantages-of-unity-builds
1799 2013-07-01 16:10:52 <mhanne> amiller: i've just added a listing of txouts by script type: http://webbtc.com/scripts/unknown
1800 2013-07-01 16:10:55 <mhanne> unknown (1575) pubkey (863349) hash160 (48262842) multisig (19648) p2sh (14502)
1801 2013-07-01 16:11:04 <mhanne> (from what bitcoin-ruby thinks, ymmv)
1802 2013-07-01 16:11:08 <amiller> that's awesome, thanks mhanne
1803 2013-07-01 16:11:15 <sipa> mhanne: interesting!
1804 2013-07-01 16:11:23 <mhanne> it's pretty slow, but not many people will use it i guess
1805 2013-07-01 16:11:35 <sipa> damn, pretty close to 50M outputs already
1806 2013-07-01 16:11:47 <jouke> srsly, two different 8.3 nodes give that error, but I can't find any error on my other nodes.
1807 2013-07-01 16:12:19 <sipa> jouke: do the other nodes know about that tx at all?
1808 2013-07-01 16:12:22 <gmaxwell> jouke: its it an error on a block or on some random transaction?
1809 2013-07-01 16:12:44 <jouke> sipa: it just got included in a block
1810 2013-07-01 16:12:58 <sipa> gmaxwell: CTxMemPool::accept() implies it's a lone tx
1811 2013-07-01 16:13:22 <amiller> mhanne, somehow almost all the multisigs are either just to 13MH4zmU4UT4Ct6BhoRFGjigC8gN9a9FNn or no address, or else i'm reading it wrong somehow
1812 2013-07-01 16:13:38 <gmaxwell> sipa: ah I missed that.
1813 2013-07-01 16:13:44 <sipa> jouke: that's worrying
1814 2013-07-01 16:13:59 <gmaxwell> jouke: are your nodes rejecting that block?
1815 2013-07-01 16:14:09 <jouke> gmaxwell: no
1816 2013-07-01 16:14:14 <sipa> jouke: the only thing i can come up with is that it's a non-canonical signature
1817 2013-07-01 16:14:23 <sipa> is there any mention of something like that?
1818 2013-07-01 16:14:29 <gmaxwell> 2013-07-01 15:44:24 ERROR: CScriptCheck() : e6bc3d1190bc1c27e18cf63d623a76d08955116c1b9893e807b8a65abd14a621 VerifySignature failed
1819 2013-07-01 16:14:32 <gmaxwell> 2013-07-01 15:44:24 ERROR: CTxMemPool::accept() : ConnectInputs failed e6bc3d1190bc1c27e18cf63d623a76d08955116c1b9893e807b8a65abd14a621
1820 2013-07-01 16:14:33 GordonG3kko has joined
1821 2013-07-01 16:14:35 <gmaxwell> 2013-07-01 15:45:00 ERROR: CTxMemPool::accept() : CheckTransaction failed
1822 2013-07-01 16:14:36 <sipa> (which is enforced for mempool tx, but not block tx)
1823 2013-07-01 16:14:52 <jouke> how can I check that easily?
1824 2013-07-01 16:15:13 <gmaxwell> yep
1825 2013-07-01 16:15:14 <gmaxwell> thats it
1826 2013-07-01 16:15:15 <jouke> (I don't want to give a tx-id)
1827 2013-07-01 16:15:25 <gmaxwell> jouke: why? I just gave it. Isn't that the same one?
1828 2013-07-01 16:15:34 <amiller> http://blockchain.info/tx/5c593b7b71063a01f4128c98e36fb407b00a87454e67b39ad5f8820ebc1b2ad5 this is an interesting transaction imo
1829 2013-07-01 16:15:42 <mhanne> amiller: right, that address appears quite often.. let me have a look
1830 2013-07-01 16:15:46 <jouke> gmaxwell: that is not the sae one
1831 2013-07-01 16:15:50 Vinnie_win has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1832 2013-07-01 16:15:51 <kinlo> Ry4an: doesn't armory require bitcoin-qt, and isn't that making armory by definition not a thin client/
1833 2013-07-01 16:15:58 Subo1978_ has joined
1834 2013-07-01 16:16:04 <mhanne> amiller: p2sh addresses are no really recognized by bitcoin-ruby yet so they never show up..
1835 2013-07-01 16:16:14 <gmaxwell> jouke: ah okay, well I'm currently getting flooded by that.
1836 2013-07-01 16:16:32 <amiller> wasn't there a guy who recently tried to put all of gpg into the blockchain? did he use multisig? maybe the unknown transactions are his
1837 2013-07-01 16:17:26 <Ry4an> kinlo: that thread mentions efforts to get it to compile w/o qt for headless server usage.  I don't know if that's done.
1838 2013-07-01 16:18:09 <gmaxwell> jouke: in any case, whats the line before the CScriptCheck() error?
1839 2013-07-01 16:18:09 <jouke> But I guess that's it. The person uses the blokchain app on ios
1840 2013-07-01 16:18:09 Vinnie_win has joined
1841 2013-07-01 16:18:23 <kinlo> Ry4an: yeah, but my intention is to run it on a resource constrainted machine, so if it requires bitcoind for it's database, it won't work
1842 2013-07-01 16:18:24 <jouke> gmaxwell: right.. ERROR: Non-canonical signature: S value negative
1843 2013-07-01 16:18:35 <sipa> uh, so it indeed is caused by that non-updatable ios app :(
1844 2013-07-01 16:18:41 <sipa> this is probably a problem...
1845 2013-07-01 16:19:03 <kinlo> why is it non-updatable?
1846 2013-07-01 16:19:07 Subo1978 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1847 2013-07-01 16:19:11 <sipa> because that means re-approval by apple
1848 2013-07-01 16:19:17 <sipa> which they want to avoid
1849 2013-07-01 16:19:18 <kinlo> also, isn't it running serverside-defined javascript?
1850 2013-07-01 16:19:37 <kinlo> plus, has it ever worked?  I never managed to get it to work on my ios device ;)
1851 2013-07-01 16:19:44 <gmaxwell> sipa: what does it connect to?
1852 2013-07-01 16:19:55 <sipa> gmaxwell: no clue
1853 2013-07-01 16:20:22 <kinlo> the blockchain app connects to the blockchain site...
1854 2013-07-01 16:20:29 <gmaxwell> I mean, if its just proxying through some webserver rather than a spv node, then the webserver can just mutate the transactions to fix them.
1855 2013-07-01 16:20:31 <mhanne> amiller: well, that address has 2775 outputs, not sure how many tx.. so it's probably right that it appears so often
1856 2013-07-01 16:20:55 <mhanne> amiller: that other tx is interesting indeed. bitcoin-ruby decodes these as 1-of-0 multisigs :D
1857 2013-07-01 16:21:10 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: assuming the client can handle its txid changing
1858 2013-07-01 16:21:10 <amiller> each of those other txes has like a full set of multisig outputs
1859 2013-07-01 16:21:17 fanquake has left ()
1860 2013-07-01 16:21:33 <kinlo> gmaxwell: doesn't that require the private key?
1861 2013-07-01 16:21:45 <sipa> kinlo: no
1862 2013-07-01 16:21:56 bmcgee has quit (Quit: bmcgee)
1863 2013-07-01 16:22:01 <amiller> so i think basically 99.9% of multisig txouts so far are either using that 13MH as escrow or are part of a spam effort
1864 2013-07-01 16:22:17 <Luke-Jr> kinlo: the reason negative S is non-standard now is that random relay nodes could clone the tx that way
1865 2013-07-01 16:22:34 <sipa> well, one of the reasons
1866 2013-07-01 16:22:42 <kinlo> causing a different txid with the same transaction...
1867 2013-07-01 16:22:47 <sipa> indeed
1868 2013-07-01 16:23:08 <jouke> But. No need to rebuild my index right?
1869 2013-07-01 16:23:24 <sipa> why would you?
1870 2013-07-01 16:23:39 <gmaxwell> Yes, but if they can't handle that they're going to be unhappy regardless when random griefers mutate their txn.. (stopping that is why we're trying to cut out the non-canonical txn)
1871 2013-07-01 16:24:16 <jouke> sipa: well, it was advise that was givven here. I don't think I need to, but I like to double check.
1872 2013-07-01 16:24:35 <sipa> as long as you're not rejecting blocks that seem fine, no problem
1873 2013-07-01 16:24:51 <sipa> you can run a gettxoutsetinfo, and look at the hash
1874 2013-07-01 16:25:05 <sipa> and compare it with someone else running the same command (at the same time/block)
1875 2013-07-01 16:25:18 <jouke> Ok. Thanks.
1876 2013-07-01 16:25:55 <sipa>    "hash_serialized" : "38164f162a1d14d644e80ae0998068fae60f711aeb3d22f65aacffd785eb770d",
1877 2013-07-01 16:26:00 <sipa>     "bestblock" : "0000000000000045c1635efb8934f17bbc3f6755b09adc0235c12e9e675fca6e",
1878 2013-07-01 16:26:27 signor777 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1879 2013-07-01 16:27:37 omnibrain has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1880 2013-07-01 16:28:04 cc_8 has quit ()
1881 2013-07-01 16:34:44 De_Lemming has quit (Quit: De_Lemming)
1882 2013-07-01 16:35:11 optimator has quit ()
1883 2013-07-01 16:37:22 <mhanne> amiller: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=166302.msg1756018#msg1756018
1884 2013-07-01 16:38:28 tmsk has joined
1885 2013-07-01 16:39:12 miscreanity has joined
1886 2013-07-01 16:39:19 theymos has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1887 2013-07-01 16:39:35 <amiller> mhanne, good find
1888 2013-07-01 16:39:39 Diablo-D3 has joined
1889 2013-07-01 16:39:47 <amiller> so the 13M starngeness has been noted by retep
1890 2013-07-01 16:39:53 De_Lemming has joined
1891 2013-07-01 16:39:54 <amiller> er petertodd
1892 2013-07-01 16:40:14 MobiusL has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1893 2013-07-01 16:40:24 <amiller> mhanne, still the other thousands are more weird because they're so large, i can't remember enough details about the spam thing i think they are from to identify it though
1894 2013-07-01 16:41:19 MobiusL has joined
1895 2013-07-01 16:41:49 <mhanne> hm yea, no idea about those.. i'll see what's the problem with decoding them first :)
1896 2013-07-01 16:42:00 <mhanne> maybe they are also some special stuff
1897 2013-07-01 16:42:19 miscrean1ty has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1898 2013-07-01 16:42:33 <amiller> ok i found it, it's this http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1bw9xg/data_in_the_blockchain_wikileaks/
1899 2013-07-01 16:42:59 arsy has joined
1900 2013-07-01 16:43:25 <amiller> so the only remaining question is how many of the 15k txouts aren't part of that wikileaks spam or the 13MH address :p
1901 2013-07-01 16:46:17 <mhanne> oh my - complete with downloader tool also in the blockchain m(
1902 2013-07-01 16:47:12 sark2 has quit (!~sark@37-252-106-157.ip.skylogicnet.com|Read error: Connection timed out)
1903 2013-07-01 16:48:51 sark2 has joined
1904 2013-07-01 16:49:11 BTC_Bear has joined
1905 2013-07-01 16:49:51 sci7 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1906 2013-07-01 16:52:52 tyn has joined
1907 2013-07-01 16:53:32 miscreanity has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1908 2013-07-01 16:55:36 miscreanity has joined
1909 2013-07-01 16:59:41 tonikt has joined
1910 2013-07-01 17:01:24 shesek has joined
1911 2013-07-01 17:07:30 imd23 has joined
1912 2013-07-01 17:10:19 arsy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1913 2013-07-01 17:15:44 bitanarchy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1914 2013-07-01 17:16:15 bitanarchy has joined
1915 2013-07-01 17:21:54 stretchwarren has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1916 2013-07-01 17:23:24 BTC_Bear has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1917 2013-07-01 17:25:18 Vinnie_win_v has joined
1918 2013-07-01 17:27:20 Vinnie_win has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1919 2013-07-01 17:29:27 justusranvier has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1920 2013-07-01 17:31:48 Vinnie_win has joined
1921 2013-07-01 17:34:17 Vinnie_win_v has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1922 2013-07-01 17:34:32 BTC_Bear has joined
1923 2013-07-01 17:35:40 Vinnie_win_b has joined
1924 2013-07-01 17:36:13 Vinnie_win has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1925 2013-07-01 17:36:27 justusranvier has joined
1926 2013-07-01 17:43:01 Krellan__ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1927 2013-07-01 17:44:36 Vinnie_win_b has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1928 2013-07-01 17:46:19 BlackPrapor has joined
1929 2013-07-01 17:49:11 justusranvier has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1930 2013-07-01 17:51:41 zer0def has quit (Quit: Quit:)
1931 2013-07-01 17:55:06 frank_ has joined
1932 2013-07-01 17:56:03 wei_ has joined
1933 2013-07-01 17:56:11 gavinandresen has joined
1934 2013-07-01 17:56:39 zer0def has joined
1935 2013-07-01 17:57:14 De_Lemming has quit (Quit: De_Lemming)
1936 2013-07-01 17:58:30 Neozonz has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1937 2013-07-01 18:00:11 kjj has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1938 2013-07-01 18:00:19 kjj has joined
1939 2013-07-01 18:03:36 Chuck has joined
1940 2013-07-01 18:04:53 swulf--2 has joined
1941 2013-07-01 18:05:34 swulf-- has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1942 2013-07-01 18:06:05 freewil has joined
1943 2013-07-01 18:08:05 Chuck has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1944 2013-07-01 18:08:07 stretchwarren has joined
1945 2013-07-01 18:11:17 Neozonz has joined
1946 2013-07-01 18:11:17 Neozonz has quit (Changing host)
1947 2013-07-01 18:11:17 Neozonz has joined
1948 2013-07-01 18:12:51 sandbote has joined
1949 2013-07-01 18:17:08 Skav has joined
1950 2013-07-01 18:17:24 dan_ has joined
1951 2013-07-01 18:19:39 MobPhone has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1952 2013-07-01 18:22:11 BTCOxygen is now known as BTCOxygen`
1953 2013-07-01 18:22:15 peetaur2 has joined
1954 2013-07-01 18:22:44 BTCOxygen` is now known as BTCOxygen_
1955 2013-07-01 18:22:50 BTCOxygen_ is now known as BTCOxygen
1956 2013-07-01 18:23:33 squwiggle_ is now known as xenland
1957 2013-07-01 18:25:29 Skav has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1958 2013-07-01 18:25:37 MobPhone has joined
1959 2013-07-01 18:26:26 ToryJujube has joined
1960 2013-07-01 18:27:40 tyn has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1961 2013-07-01 18:27:58 cads has joined
1962 2013-07-01 18:28:33 Grouver has joined
1963 2013-07-01 18:30:15 denisx has joined
1964 2013-07-01 18:31:54 Grouver has quit (Client Quit)
1965 2013-07-01 18:33:47 Vinnie_win has joined
1966 2013-07-01 18:33:52 tyn has joined
1967 2013-07-01 18:35:36 stretchwarren has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1968 2013-07-01 18:36:16 * jgarzik demands drama
1969 2013-07-01 18:36:27 paracyst has joined
1970 2013-07-01 18:36:30 <jgarzik> Where is the pushbutton for more drama?  Today is too boring.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=316AzLYfAzw
1971 2013-07-01 18:37:11 <nsh> i have a proof of P = NP i've been saving for a rainy day, jgarzik
1972 2013-07-01 18:37:52 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: 51% some stupid scamcoin, that'll work
1973 2013-07-01 18:38:41 <kjj> jgarzik: do you have any special info on contacting avalon?
1974 2013-07-01 18:39:04 <jgarzik> kjj, no
1975 2013-07-01 18:39:16 <jgarzik> kjj, I file support tickets alongside all over plebs
1976 2013-07-01 18:39:25 <jgarzik> *other
1977 2013-07-01 18:39:28 FredEE has quit (Quit: FredEE)
1978 2013-07-01 18:39:34 tyn has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1979 2013-07-01 18:39:44 <kjj> my tickets have been sitting without reply
1980 2013-07-01 18:41:07 <Luke-Jr> they have tickets? :o
1981 2013-07-01 18:41:28 <Luke-Jr> kjj: could ask around in #avalon and maybe xiangfu will answer if you're lucky - assuming it's a tech question
1982 2013-07-01 18:42:07 <kjj> no, my question is more like "why aren't my orders from Feb 3 showing up in the store while people that ordered on the 18th are getting their units?"
1983 2013-07-01 18:42:21 Diablo-D3 has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1984 2013-07-01 18:42:29 <Luke-Jr> >_<
1985 2013-07-01 18:43:29 tmsk has quit (Quit: tmsk)
1986 2013-07-01 18:43:34 <kjj> or, I suppose I could ask, "why haven't my tickets about those orders been answered?"
1987 2013-07-01 18:47:16 Vinnie_win has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1988 2013-07-01 18:48:32 <psychophoniac> hello everyone, i keep getting this error: http://pastebin.com/r4k5gcx9
1989 2013-07-01 18:48:34 pjorrit has joined
1990 2013-07-01 18:49:00 <psychophoniac> i run bitcoin-qt from terminal, version v0.8.3.0-g40809ae-beta, is the error bad?
1991 2013-07-01 18:49:21 <sipa> does it work?
1992 2013-07-01 18:49:21 <psychophoniac> using xubuntu 12.04, 64 bits. installed from the repos.
1993 2013-07-01 18:49:24 <psychophoniac> yes
1994 2013-07-01 18:49:31 <sipa> in that case it's not bad :)
1995 2013-07-01 18:50:48 <psychophoniac> well then, i just wanted to know and leave this here, in case someone cares. :) have a nice day
1996 2013-07-01 18:51:40 sandbote has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1997 2013-07-01 18:52:16 sandbote has joined
1998 2013-07-01 18:52:23 sandbote has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1999 2013-07-01 18:52:36 Neozonz has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2000 2013-07-01 18:53:44 peetaur2 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
2001 2013-07-01 18:57:38 melvster has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
2002 2013-07-01 18:57:39 peetaur2 has joined
2003 2013-07-01 18:57:40 coingenuity has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.in)
2004 2013-07-01 18:58:14 coingenuity has joined
2005 2013-07-01 19:02:37 melvster has joined
2006 2013-07-01 19:05:05 Toresh has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2007 2013-07-01 19:06:27 daybyter has joined
2008 2013-07-01 19:07:14 sochdon has joined
2009 2013-07-01 19:07:57 sochdon has quit (Client Quit)
2010 2013-07-01 19:08:37 sochdon has joined
2011 2013-07-01 19:08:44 stretchwarren has joined
2012 2013-07-01 19:09:26 sochdon is now known as alcyone
2013 2013-07-01 19:10:31 alcyone has quit (Client Quit)
2014 2013-07-01 19:10:32 dan_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2015 2013-07-01 19:12:41 owowo has joined
2016 2013-07-01 19:13:38 justusranvier_ has joined
2017 2013-07-01 19:13:38 justusranvier_ has quit (Changing host)
2018 2013-07-01 19:13:38 justusranvier_ has joined
2019 2013-07-01 19:16:39 Skav has joined
2020 2013-07-01 19:17:41 MobPhone has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2021 2013-07-01 19:18:36 justusranvier_ has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
2022 2013-07-01 19:19:03 Skav has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2023 2013-07-01 19:19:15 MobPhone has joined
2024 2013-07-01 19:21:27 bitanarchy has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2025 2013-07-01 19:25:04 justusranvier_ has joined
2026 2013-07-01 19:26:54 Neozonz has joined
2027 2013-07-01 19:28:20 Neozonz has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
2028 2013-07-01 19:29:49 Neozonz has joined
2029 2013-07-01 19:29:49 Neozonz has quit (Changing host)
2030 2013-07-01 19:29:49 Neozonz has joined
2031 2013-07-01 19:30:36 mrkent has joined
2032 2013-07-01 19:31:00 PiZZaMaN2K has joined
2033 2013-07-01 19:31:03 patcon has joined
2034 2013-07-01 19:31:05 PiZZaMaN2K has quit (Changing host)
2035 2013-07-01 19:31:05 PiZZaMaN2K has joined
2036 2013-07-01 19:31:15 TD_ has joined
2037 2013-07-01 19:32:05 melvster has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2038 2013-07-01 19:32:12 toffoo has joined
2039 2013-07-01 19:35:34 stretchwarren has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2040 2013-07-01 19:35:46 melvster has joined
2041 2013-07-01 19:38:05 jgarzik has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2042 2013-07-01 19:43:07 santoscork has joined
2043 2013-07-01 19:44:22 patcon_ has joined
2044 2013-07-01 19:47:44 patcon has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2045 2013-07-01 19:51:15 dan_ has joined
2046 2013-07-01 19:52:47 darkee has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2047 2013-07-01 19:53:28 nomailing has joined
2048 2013-07-01 19:57:09 JZavala has joined
2049 2013-07-01 19:57:23 darkee has joined
2050 2013-07-01 19:58:36 sandbote has joined
2051 2013-07-01 20:00:12 patcon has joined
2052 2013-07-01 20:01:14 bobbyblues has joined
2053 2013-07-01 20:01:58 patcon_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2054 2013-07-01 20:02:31 Neozonz has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2055 2013-07-01 20:03:55 ThomasV has joined
2056 2013-07-01 20:07:43 metabyte has quit ()
2057 2013-07-01 20:08:33 nomailing1 has joined
2058 2013-07-01 20:09:26 roconnor_ has joined
2059 2013-07-01 20:09:40 stretchwarren has joined
2060 2013-07-01 20:09:40 patcon has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2061 2013-07-01 20:10:24 egis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2062 2013-07-01 20:10:39 Krellan has joined
2063 2013-07-01 20:11:08 nomailing has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2064 2013-07-01 20:14:12 coingenuity has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2065 2013-07-01 20:15:58 sandbote has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2066 2013-07-01 20:16:04 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
2067 2013-07-01 20:17:43 michagogo has joined
2068 2013-07-01 20:17:55 mrkent has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2069 2013-07-01 20:19:08 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
2070 2013-07-01 20:19:10 tyn has joined
2071 2013-07-01 20:19:47 coingenuity has joined
2072 2013-07-01 20:19:57 foggyb has joined
2073 2013-07-01 20:21:03 foggyb has left ()
2074 2013-07-01 20:26:03 michagogo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2075 2013-07-01 20:26:14 michagogo has joined
2076 2013-07-01 20:26:27 a5m0 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2077 2013-07-01 20:27:49 metabyte has joined
2078 2013-07-01 20:35:23 a5m0 has joined
2079 2013-07-01 20:35:50 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2080 2013-07-01 20:36:37 stretchwarren has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2081 2013-07-01 20:36:52 RazielZ has joined
2082 2013-07-01 20:41:21 imd23 has quit (Quit: imd23)
2083 2013-07-01 20:41:22 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2084 2013-07-01 20:45:21 imd23 has joined
2085 2013-07-01 20:52:02 Guest23972 has joined
2086 2013-07-01 20:58:41 FredEE has joined
2087 2013-07-01 21:01:40 bobbyblues has quit (Quit: leaving)
2088 2013-07-01 21:03:29 agnostic98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2089 2013-07-01 21:08:00 Jackneill has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2090 2013-07-01 21:15:21 BTC_Bear is now known as BTC_Bear|hbrntng
2091 2013-07-01 21:19:08 De_Lemming has joined
2092 2013-07-01 21:21:14 omnibrain has joined
2093 2013-07-01 21:22:23 metabyte_ has joined
2094 2013-07-01 21:23:04 Guest23972 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2095 2013-07-01 21:23:38 Guest23972 has joined
2096 2013-07-01 21:23:45 agnostic98 has joined
2097 2013-07-01 21:24:48 metabyte has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2098 2013-07-01 21:25:49 Guest83631 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2099 2013-07-01 21:28:17 agnostic_ has joined
2100 2013-07-01 21:30:11 nomailing1 has quit (Quit: nomailing1)
2101 2013-07-01 21:30:53 optimator has joined
2102 2013-07-01 21:30:53 optimator has quit (Changing host)
2103 2013-07-01 21:30:53 optimator has joined
2104 2013-07-01 21:31:04 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2105 2013-07-01 21:31:18 SchmalzTech has quit ()
2106 2013-07-01 21:31:37 gfinn has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2107 2013-07-01 21:32:51 brson has joined
2108 2013-07-01 21:35:51 stretchwarren has joined
2109 2013-07-01 21:37:50 bbrian has joined
2110 2013-07-01 21:41:19 PiZZaMaN2K is now known as PiZZaMaN2K|away
2111 2013-07-01 21:41:36 lavajumper has joined
2112 2013-07-01 21:41:58 lavajumper has left ()
2113 2013-07-01 21:42:53 metabyte_ is now known as metabyte
2114 2013-07-01 21:44:21 kwikness has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
2115 2013-07-01 21:47:32 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2116 2013-07-01 21:48:01 roconnor_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2117 2013-07-01 21:54:54 Guest23972 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2118 2013-07-01 21:55:21 Squidicuz has joined
2119 2013-07-01 21:55:33 omnibrain has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2120 2013-07-01 21:58:57 BTC_Bear is now known as hbrntng!~BTC_Bear@unaffiliated/btc-bear/x-5233302|BTC_Bear
2121 2013-07-01 21:59:06 Vinnie_win has joined
2122 2013-07-01 22:00:48 xenland has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
2123 2013-07-01 22:05:07 Vinnie_win has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2124 2013-07-01 22:05:25 Vinnie_win has joined
2125 2013-07-01 22:06:27 roconnor has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
2126 2013-07-01 22:06:36 BW^- has joined
2127 2013-07-01 22:06:39 <BW^-> hi guys
2128 2013-07-01 22:07:24 squwiggle has joined
2129 2013-07-01 22:13:25 tyn has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2130 2013-07-01 22:14:38 <BlueMatt> sipa: pull-tester is back up, happy now?
2131 2013-07-01 22:16:55 owowo is now known as Snowdenorov
2132 2013-07-01 22:19:39 tyn has joined
2133 2013-07-01 22:20:20 <sipa> BlueMatt: wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
2134 2013-07-01 22:21:36 Neozonz has joined
2135 2013-07-01 22:21:37 Neozonz has quit (Changing host)
2136 2013-07-01 22:21:37 Neozonz has joined
2137 2013-07-01 22:25:54 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
2138 2013-07-01 22:28:16 santoscork has quit (Quit: Quiet while I make like a cat)
2139 2013-07-01 22:28:45 FabianB has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2140 2013-07-01 22:28:57 CodeName has joined
2141 2013-07-01 22:30:00 FabianB has joined
2142 2013-07-01 22:30:05 michagogo has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2143 2013-07-01 22:30:06 graingert has joined
2144 2013-07-01 22:30:06 graingert has quit (Changing host)
2145 2013-07-01 22:30:06 graingert has joined
2146 2013-07-01 22:31:15 klmist has joined
2147 2013-07-01 22:32:20 tyn has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2148 2013-07-01 22:32:21 sark2 has quit (!~sark@37-252-106-157.ip.skylogicnet.com|Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2149 2013-07-01 22:33:58 klmist has left ()
2150 2013-07-01 22:35:39 sandbote has joined
2151 2013-07-01 22:36:12 bitanarchy has joined
2152 2013-07-01 22:37:44 Hunger- has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2153 2013-07-01 22:38:33 imd23 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2154 2013-07-01 22:38:58 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2155 2013-07-01 22:41:13 imd23 has joined
2156 2013-07-01 22:41:44 mrkent has joined
2157 2013-07-01 22:44:36 Namworld has joined
2158 2013-07-01 22:45:55 tyn has joined
2159 2013-07-01 22:46:14 Snowdenorov is now known as owowo
2160 2013-07-01 22:46:15 denisx has joined
2161 2013-07-01 22:46:29 o3u has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2162 2013-07-01 22:46:48 o3u has joined
2163 2013-07-01 22:47:02 sandbote has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2164 2013-07-01 22:47:08 TD_ has quit (Quit: TD_)
2165 2013-07-01 22:48:07 CodeShark has joined
2166 2013-07-01 22:49:09 Thepok has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2167 2013-07-01 22:49:19 cads has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2168 2013-07-01 22:51:30 agnostic_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2169 2013-07-01 22:52:58 bitanarchy has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2170 2013-07-01 22:54:41 Thepok has joined
2171 2013-07-01 22:55:38 agnostic98 has joined
2172 2013-07-01 22:58:59 Neozonz has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2173 2013-07-01 22:59:22 justusranvier_ has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
2174 2013-07-01 23:02:18 agnostic_ has joined
2175 2013-07-01 23:03:36 handle has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2176 2013-07-01 23:03:57 GordonG3kko has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2177 2013-07-01 23:05:04 CodeName has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2178 2013-07-01 23:05:34 Hunger- has joined
2179 2013-07-01 23:05:58 swulf-- has joined
2180 2013-07-01 23:06:13 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2181 2013-07-01 23:06:17 GordonG3kko has joined
2182 2013-07-01 23:06:54 justusranvier_ has joined
2183 2013-07-01 23:08:35 swulf--2 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2184 2013-07-01 23:08:57 ToryJujube has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2185 2013-07-01 23:09:04 handle has joined
2186 2013-07-01 23:09:51 B0g4r7_ has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
2187 2013-07-01 23:13:37 <sneak> hi
2188 2013-07-01 23:13:51 <sneak> anyone here working with the winklevii on their proprietary Security System for their bitcoin etf?
2189 2013-07-01 23:14:06 <BW^-> sneak: what's that?
2190 2013-07-01 23:15:34 B0g4r7_ has joined
2191 2013-07-01 23:16:04 peetaur2 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
2192 2013-07-01 23:16:06 sandbote has joined
2193 2013-07-01 23:17:04 CodeName has joined
2194 2013-07-01 23:18:31 licnep has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2195 2013-07-01 23:19:10 one_zero has joined
2196 2013-07-01 23:19:56 Maged has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.90 [Firefox 20.0.1/20130409194949])
2197 2013-07-01 23:21:32 Neozonz has joined
2198 2013-07-01 23:23:29 o3u has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2199 2013-07-01 23:26:41 o3u has joined
2200 2013-07-01 23:27:04 licnep has joined
2201 2013-07-01 23:31:51 Neozonz has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2202 2013-07-01 23:33:13 OneFixt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2203 2013-07-01 23:36:00 <midnightmagic> kjj: Maybe the same reason why my trade-ins haven't been handled yet for B2.
2204 2013-07-01 23:39:24 OneFixt has joined
2205 2013-07-01 23:39:28 <Luke-Jr> sneak: Isn't it more "working for" than "working with"?
2206 2013-07-01 23:39:38 MiningBuddy- has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2207 2013-07-01 23:40:20 agricocb has joined
2208 2013-07-01 23:41:31 Jere_Jones has joined
2209 2013-07-01 23:41:31 Jere_Jones has quit (Changing host)
2210 2013-07-01 23:41:31 Jere_Jones has joined
2211 2013-07-01 23:41:31 squwiggle is now known as xenland
2212 2013-07-01 23:42:27 handle_ has joined
2213 2013-07-01 23:44:48 handle has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2214 2013-07-01 23:46:19 roconnor has joined
2215 2013-07-01 23:47:54 MiningBuddy has joined
2216 2013-07-01 23:47:54 MiningBuddy has quit (Changing host)
2217 2013-07-01 23:47:54 MiningBuddy has joined
2218 2013-07-01 23:50:40 tyn has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2219 2013-07-01 23:50:58 o3u has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2220 2013-07-01 23:51:22 Maged has joined
2221 2013-07-01 23:51:24 tyn has joined
2222 2013-07-01 23:51:59 moses__ has joined
2223 2013-07-01 23:54:39 CodeName has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2224 2013-07-01 23:56:06 justusranvier_ has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
2225 2013-07-01 23:59:56 btsec has joined