1 2013-07-28 00:03:48 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
   2 2013-07-28 00:05:30 ustreamer-647708 has joined
   3 2013-07-28 00:07:29 ustreamer-647708 has quit (Client Quit)
   4 2013-07-28 00:11:50 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> i'm having trouble with the importprivkey command
   5 2013-07-28 00:11:57 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> *rpc command
   6 2013-07-28 00:12:44 Playermaniac has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
   7 2013-07-28 00:13:11 <sipa> ok?
   8 2013-07-28 00:14:33 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> it flatlines my hard drive when i try to use it
   9 2013-07-28 00:15:08 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> i think it's whenever it's not the first command i enter after i start bitcoin, but i'm not sure
  10 2013-07-28 00:15:13 <sipa> yes, it rescans the blockchain history for activity involving that key
  11 2013-07-28 00:15:24 <sipa> put a 'false' after the command to disable that
  12 2013-07-28 00:15:40 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> i think it ends up working but it takes like 20 minutes
  13 2013-07-28 00:15:48 <sipa> that's entirely expected
  14 2013-07-28 00:17:05 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> oh!!! thanks.
  15 2013-07-28 00:17:12 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> but why does it look in the blockchain for a privatekey?
  16 2013-07-28 00:17:28 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> i thought only public keys were in there...
  17 2013-07-28 00:18:06 <sipa> it doesn't look for the key
  18 2013-07-28 00:18:17 <sipa> it looks for transactions affecting the balance of your wallet
  19 2013-07-28 00:18:33 <sipa> since the wallet now has an extra key
  20 2013-07-28 00:18:49 <Luke-Jr> toran: if the private key being imported has been used before, it's possible someone has sent coins to it
  21 2013-07-28 00:19:00 <Luke-Jr> so it needs to scan the blockchain for those coins
  22 2013-07-28 00:19:01 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> OHHH!! well i need that part so i guess i have to wait
  23 2013-07-28 00:19:05 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> thanks sipa!
  24 2013-07-28 00:19:08 sserrano44 has joined
  25 2013-07-28 00:19:18 <Luke-Jr> toran: if you have a lot of keys to import, you can do 'false' for all but the last one
  26 2013-07-28 00:19:21 <Luke-Jr> I think
  27 2013-07-28 00:19:23 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> right, that makes perfect sense
  28 2013-07-28 00:19:26 <sipa> what Luke-Jr said
  29 2013-07-28 00:19:52 <Luke-Jr> toran: also, note that the majority of importprivkey "use cases" are a bad idea
  30 2013-07-28 00:20:06 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> Luke-Jr will it check all the new ones or just the last one?
  31 2013-07-28 00:20:21 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> what should i be using instead?
  32 2013-07-28 00:20:21 <sipa> it will check all
  33 2013-07-28 00:20:30 <sipa> toran: what are you trying to do?
  34 2013-07-28 00:20:32 <Luke-Jr> toran: depends on what you need to do
  35 2013-07-28 00:20:58 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> it's politically incorrect, but basically, it's a donation address
  36 2013-07-28 00:21:21 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> and then people verify that something happened, and send their private keys to someone so they can use the money
  37 2013-07-28 00:21:38 <sipa> why would people send their private key? :o
  38 2013-07-28 00:21:41 <Luke-Jr> O.o
  39 2013-07-28 00:21:44 <sipa> private keys are intended to be private...
  40 2013-07-28 00:22:00 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> to reward the person for doing the something
  41 2013-07-28 00:22:10 <sipa> so make a normal transaction?
  42 2013-07-28 00:22:20 <Luke-Jr> toran: importing a private key from an untrustworthy source can be used in bad ways by the untrusted party who has it
  43 2013-07-28 00:22:22 wamatt has joined
  44 2013-07-28 00:22:29 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> normal how i don't understand
  45 2013-07-28 00:22:44 <sipa> like, create a transaction to transfer coins
  46 2013-07-28 00:22:52 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> Luke-Jr can you explain?
  47 2013-07-28 00:22:57 <Luke-Jr> sipa: I think he wants to send coins to people who might not be using bitcoin yet :x
  48 2013-07-28 00:23:05 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> it's a multisignature address, created by like a hundred people
  49 2013-07-28 00:23:20 <sipa> that won't work
  50 2013-07-28 00:23:20 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> Luke-Jr no, that's not it
  51 2013-07-28 00:23:27 sserrano44 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  52 2013-07-28 00:23:33 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> why not?
  53 2013-07-28 00:23:43 <Luke-Jr> multisig only goes up to 20..
  54 2013-07-28 00:23:57 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> oh damn
  55 2013-07-28 00:24:05 <Luke-Jr> but
  56 2013-07-28 00:24:09 <warren> sipa: btw, does https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2802 this rescan on importprivkey won't be needed?
  57 2013-07-28 00:24:14 <Luke-Jr> there are ways to generate a private key that you split up
  58 2013-07-28 00:24:16 <Luke-Jr> into N pieces
  59 2013-07-28 00:24:25 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> then it's created by 20 people
  60 2013-07-28 00:24:37 <sipa> warren: i refuse to implement code to take advantage of that
  61 2013-07-28 00:24:51 iwilcox has left ("because")
  62 2013-07-28 00:24:59 iwilcox has joined
  63 2013-07-28 00:25:10 <Luke-Jr> lol
  64 2013-07-28 00:25:34 <sipa> as it means building infrastructure that relies on the presence of a fully-indexed blockchain
  65 2013-07-28 00:25:44 <sipa> which imho means you have a broken design
  66 2013-07-28 00:25:53 <warren> it sounded like you didn't want to write this at all =)
  67 2013-07-28 00:26:00 <sipa> i _hate_ addrindex
  68 2013-07-28 00:26:02 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
  69 2013-07-28 00:26:41 copumpkin has joined
  70 2013-07-28 00:26:50 <sipa> it's just to easy to build a non-scalable system on top of
  71 2013-07-28 00:27:07 <sipa> i hope that watch-only addresses can mitigate that
  72 2013-07-28 00:27:17 <warren> ahh
  73 2013-07-28 00:27:23 <warren> I'm looking forward to that feature
  74 2013-07-28 00:27:40 <sipa> feel free to test :p
  75 2013-07-28 00:27:47 BTCOxygen has joined
  76 2013-07-28 00:27:52 BTCOxygen has quit (1!~BTCOxygen@37.130.228.36|Changing host)
  77 2013-07-28 00:27:52 BTCOxygen has joined
  78 2013-07-28 00:27:52 BTCOxygen is now known as Guest91865
  79 2013-07-28 00:27:52 Guest91865 has quit (Killed (pratchett.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services)))
  80 2013-07-28 00:27:52 BTCOxygen is now known as 1!~BTCOxygen@unaffiliated/oxygen|BTCOxygen
  81 2013-07-28 00:28:01 <Luke-Jr> sipa: watch-only addresses should be post-HD IMO
  82 2013-07-28 00:28:06 <Luke-Jr> as a whole chain :p
  83 2013-07-28 00:28:07 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> is my project a bad use of importprivkey?
  84 2013-07-28 00:28:07 <warren> HD?
  85 2013-07-28 00:28:19 CheckDavid has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  86 2013-07-28 00:28:19 <sipa> Luke-Jr: they're orthogonal
  87 2013-07-28 00:28:42 <Luke-Jr> sipa: well, I don't think it's a good idea to support watch-only addresses independent of a chain <.<
  88 2013-07-28 00:28:57 <sipa> Luke-Jr: i don't see how that's related
  89 2013-07-28 00:28:59 <Luke-Jr> encourages address reuse and such nonsense :\
  90 2013-07-28 00:29:02 Application has joined
  91 2013-07-28 00:29:12 <sipa> toran: I don't understand your project, but IMHO anything that relies on transferring private keys between _people_ is a bad idea
  92 2013-07-28 00:29:13 <Luke-Jr> toran: I still don't understand your project.
  93 2013-07-28 00:29:31 <Luke-Jr> …
  94 2013-07-28 00:29:59 * Luke-Jr wonders how he and sipa keep almost 1:1 mirroring replies to toran
  95 2013-07-28 00:30:10 Applicat_ has joined
  96 2013-07-28 00:30:36 CheckDavid has joined
  97 2013-07-28 00:30:40 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> let me try to explain it another way
  98 2013-07-28 00:30:51 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> let's say your community wants to build a road
  99 2013-07-28 00:31:04 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> it sets up a multisigaddress from 20 people, selected randomly in the community
 100 2013-07-28 00:31:13 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> then someone comes forward and builds the road
 101 2013-07-28 00:31:33 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> those 20 people verify the road was built, and each send their private key to this person
 102 2013-07-28 00:31:41 <sipa> that's ridiculous
 103 2013-07-28 00:31:47 <sipa> you don't need multisig for that
 104 2013-07-28 00:31:49 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> once he receives all the private keys, he can spend the money at the donation address
 105 2013-07-28 00:31:51 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> why?
 106 2013-07-28 00:31:59 <Luke-Jr> it'll work, but it's the Wrong Tool™
 107 2013-07-28 00:32:02 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> what would you recommend instead?
 108 2013-07-28 00:32:16 <sipa> at no point do you need multisig in this design
 109 2013-07-28 00:32:16 <Luke-Jr> toran: create a transaction transferring the money to him, and all 20 people independently sign it
 110 2013-07-28 00:32:36 <Luke-Jr> or do what sipa's about to say <.<
 111 2013-07-28 00:32:48 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> a multisig transaction?
 112 2013-07-28 00:32:54 <sipa> you could have a similar design where you just create a spending transaction jointly created by those 20 people to the roadbuilder's transactions
 113 2013-07-28 00:32:59 <sipa> that you need multisig for
 114 2013-07-28 00:33:03 <sipa> but no key transfer
 115 2013-07-28 00:33:04 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> so then what's the donation address?
 116 2013-07-28 00:33:27 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 117 2013-07-28 00:33:33 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> no key transfer?
 118 2013-07-28 00:33:35 <i2pRelay> * toran@i2p is thinking
 119 2013-07-28 00:33:53 CheckDavid has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 120 2013-07-28 00:34:05 <warren> toran: anything that requires key transfer is a failure of design
 121 2013-07-28 00:34:26 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> let me read up on multisig transactions
 122 2013-07-28 00:34:31 <sipa> toran: multisig allows you to _jointly_ create a transaction, where everyone needs to sign
 123 2013-07-28 00:35:17 iwilcox has quit (Quit: because)
 124 2013-07-28 00:35:18 <Luke-Jr> sipa: what was the multisig-less solution? <.<
 125 2013-07-28 00:35:36 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> but what is wrong with transporting keys around?
 126 2013-07-28 00:36:01 <sipa> toran: it requires the receiver to trust the sender of the key
 127 2013-07-28 00:36:14 <sipa> toran: as there is no guarantee that he deletes his key
 128 2013-07-28 00:36:51 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> for the second objection, that's why i wanted to only require like 15 out of 20 keys
 129 2013-07-28 00:37:07 <sipa> BTW: if anyone wants a preview that misses some parts (bad parallel-fetch heuristics, reindexing is broken): https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commits/headersfirst
 130 2013-07-28 00:37:08 Tantadruj has quit (Quit: DoubleRecall Turns Paywalls Into Advertising Dollars - NYTimes.com http://nyti.ms/odHOgy)
 131 2013-07-28 00:37:11 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> for the first, suppose each verifier is paid by the roadbuilder for the verification?
 132 2013-07-28 00:37:37 <sipa> toran: it's still a needless compromise
 133 2013-07-28 00:37:44 andyh2 has quit (Quit: Linkinus - http://linkinus.com)
 134 2013-07-28 00:37:46 <sipa> tonikt: the 20 key holders can just create a payout transaction
 135 2013-07-28 00:37:56 <sipa> without revealing any private data
 136 2013-07-28 00:38:12 <sipa> s/tonikt/toran/
 137 2013-07-28 00:39:31 imton has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 138 2013-07-28 00:42:18 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> wait is there a json command for multisig transactions? 'cause this is way over my level of expertise
 139 2013-07-28 00:42:36 <sipa> or, alternatively, and this works without multisig, and would work with 10000's of keys
 140 2013-07-28 00:42:48 <sipa> is that everyone indeed generates a random key
 141 2013-07-28 00:43:06 <sipa> the corresponding pubkeys are added together
 142 2013-07-28 00:43:13 imton has joined
 143 2013-07-28 00:43:16 <sipa> the resulting sum pubkey is the address that people pay to
 144 2013-07-28 00:43:17 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> an ecdsa key pair?
 145 2013-07-28 00:43:20 <sipa> yes
 146 2013-07-28 00:43:33 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> a multisig address?
 147 2013-07-28 00:43:56 <sipa> and in the end, when everyone reveals their private key to the roadblock builder, he can add those together to get the privkey corresponding to the address
 148 2013-07-28 00:44:05 LainZ has joined
 149 2013-07-28 00:44:23 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> wait, what do you mean by "add together"
 150 2013-07-28 00:44:29 <sipa> EC addition
 151 2013-07-28 00:45:15 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> :-(
 152 2013-07-28 00:45:20 <sipa> so that is with key tranfer, and it requires trust in the senders, but it doesn't 1) bloat the blockchain with 1000s of keys and 2) doesn't require multisig
 153 2013-07-28 00:45:23 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> are you sure that would be safe and everything?
 154 2013-07-28 00:45:34 <sipa> i'd have to think about it more
 155 2013-07-28 00:46:30 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> thanks, but this is definitely one of those situations where security and anonymity are more important the efficiency and speed
 156 2013-07-28 00:46:40 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> can i come back in a few days after you've thought about it?
 157 2013-07-28 00:46:58 <sipa> i doubt that i will
 158 2013-07-28 00:49:06 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> oh ok
 159 2013-07-28 00:49:13 agnostic98 has joined
 160 2013-07-28 00:49:58 sserrano44 has joined
 161 2013-07-28 00:50:00 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> well another question: what's the difference between addmultisigaddress and createmultisig?
 162 2013-07-28 00:50:14 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> is the latter a transaction? and "key" means private key?
 163 2013-07-28 00:51:09 brson has joined
 164 2013-07-28 00:51:24 <Luke-Jr> sipa: what happens if the pubkey addition overflows?
 165 2013-07-28 00:51:41 <Luke-Jr> or is EC addition not at all like adding the values of each byte? <.<
 166 2013-07-28 00:52:14 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 167 2013-07-28 00:52:24 <gwillen> Luke-Jr: I believe it's modular addition
 168 2013-07-28 00:52:38 <sipa> it's not a modular addition, but it does wrap around like it
 169 2013-07-28 00:52:45 <sipa> so that is no problem
 170 2013-07-28 00:53:01 <sipa> and no it's not like adding the values of every byte - it ridiculously more complex than that
 171 2013-07-28 00:53:18 <Luke-Jr> >_<
 172 2013-07-28 00:53:47 * Luke-Jr wonders how far down "read up on EC" is on his todo list
 173 2013-07-28 00:54:29 sserrano44 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 174 2013-07-28 00:55:09 danjiric has joined
 175 2013-07-28 00:57:53 ielo has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 176 2013-07-28 00:58:03 danjiric has quit (Client Quit)
 177 2013-07-28 00:58:47 coeus has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 178 2013-07-28 01:03:26 bitanarchy has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 179 2013-07-28 01:10:03 <imton> guys, i know this is not the place, but consider next idea a "development" one :p
 180 2013-07-28 01:10:22 <imton> why wouldn't a bitcoin reserver note work?
 181 2013-07-28 01:10:27 <imton> *reserve
 182 2013-07-28 01:10:42 <imton> I mean, like dollar from the Fed Reserve.
 183 2013-07-28 01:10:47 <sipa> you mean a casascius coin?
 184 2013-07-28 01:11:14 <imton> sipa: researching...
 185 2013-07-28 01:11:29 <sipa> it's a coin with a bitcoin private key in it, basically
 186 2013-07-28 01:11:37 brson has quit (Quit: leaving)
 187 2013-07-28 01:11:47 <imton> sipa: wow, yeah!
 188 2013-07-28 01:11:48 <sipa> you can break it open to get to the key, for which the issuer promises that it holds a certain amount
 189 2013-07-28 01:11:49 <imton> but bills
 190 2013-07-28 01:12:03 <sipa> same thing
 191 2013-07-28 01:13:07 <imton> sipa: sorry, could you rephrase past sentence?
 192 2013-07-28 01:13:15 <imton> i don't get what you did mean
 193 2013-07-28 01:13:27 <sipa> there is no fundamental difference between applying that concept to coins or to bills
 194 2013-07-28 01:14:10 <warren> except it requires trust in an issuer, and there's no guarantee it is redeemable, and the tamper proofing isn't tamper proof
 195 2013-07-28 01:14:58 <imton> oh yes, now that I think it better...
 196 2013-07-28 01:15:12 <imton> you need to trust the issuer because he printed / generated the priv key
 197 2013-07-28 01:15:31 <sipa> while for fiat currency, the actual valuables are coins/bills (used to be gold/silver, but no more), and credit cards/... use a proxy to represent value
 198 2013-07-28 01:15:54 <sipa> for bitcoin it's the opposite... the digital form is the real valuable, and physical coins/bills are the proxy :)
 199 2013-07-28 01:17:40 <imton> yeah, but there is a problem also with printed bitcoin coins as proxy… they can not be freely traded like , say dollar, because what if previous owner spent it?
 200 2013-07-28 01:18:08 <sipa> the same is true for any proxy
 201 2013-07-28 01:18:14 <sipa> it always requires trust in the issuer
 202 2013-07-28 01:18:45 <imton> yeah but the issuer could be more trusted than the previous owners
 203 2013-07-28 01:18:51 <sipa> if you accept a paper from a friend saying "this paper is redeemable for $500", you're trusting him just as well
 204 2013-07-28 01:19:14 <imton> you can trust your friend , but you can no trust your friend's friend's
 205 2013-07-28 01:19:55 <imton> what i say is, at the moment of accepting the real bill/coin you can check that is wasn't already spent, which is awesome
 206 2013-07-28 01:20:23 <imton> but what if any previous owner wrote the priv key on , say a paper, and use it?
 207 2013-07-28 01:20:40 sserrano44 has joined
 208 2013-07-28 01:21:12 <imton> a solution for that could be to immediately make a transaction to any other address you own, but won't make any sense the printed bill/coin...
 209 2013-07-28 01:21:27 <imton> I see a solution to this problem...
 210 2013-07-28 01:22:09 <warren> solution?  don't do it.
 211 2013-07-28 01:22:18 <imton> what if the private key is hidden under a kind of that material that you only see if it is kind of cleaned.. i don't know how it is called
 212 2013-07-28 01:22:45 <warren> imton: nothing is tamper proof
 213 2013-07-28 01:25:00 <imton> the problem is that there still a need to make bitcoin easy
 214 2013-07-28 01:25:05 sserrano44 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 215 2013-07-28 01:25:23 <imton> my mom don't get it
 216 2013-07-28 01:25:36 <imton> and if i give her a bill she probably will
 217 2013-07-28 01:26:00 <imton> obviously, time and death will take care of it
 218 2013-07-28 01:26:03 <imton> :p
 219 2013-07-28 01:29:21 macboz has joined
 220 2013-07-28 01:30:10 RoboTeddy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 221 2013-07-28 01:30:41 RoboTeddy has joined
 222 2013-07-28 01:31:02 <sipa> imton: that probably means bitcoin is not ready for your mom
 223 2013-07-28 01:31:19 michagogo has joined
 224 2013-07-28 01:36:22 <imton> can't there be any solution to the issuer of the real bill/coin  trust?
 225 2013-07-28 01:36:28 <imton> i can't think of any
 226 2013-07-28 01:43:25 digitalmagus2 has joined
 227 2013-07-28 01:43:37 digitalmagus2 has quit (Client Quit)
 228 2013-07-28 01:45:33 <sipa> of course not, bitcoin itself only exists at the digital lrvel
 229 2013-07-28 01:45:33 xenland has left ("Konversation terminated!")
 230 2013-07-28 01:46:00 <sipa> without program interacting with the p2p network, there is no way to validate it completely
 231 2013-07-28 01:46:44 <sipa> do whatever physical token you have, you will always rely on trusting its issuer that he won't soend the coins from under you
 232 2013-07-28 01:47:40 c0rw1n has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 233 2013-07-28 01:49:44 agnostic98 has joined
 234 2013-07-28 01:50:36 RoboTeddy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 235 2013-07-28 01:51:27 sserrano44 has joined
 236 2013-07-28 01:53:26 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 237 2013-07-28 01:53:53 <sipa> ;;genrate 10000
 238 2013-07-28 01:53:55 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 10000.0 Mhps, given difficulty of 31256960.7278, is 0.160894247144 BTC per day and 0.00670392696434 BTC per hour.
 239 2013-07-28 01:55:38 sserrano44 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 240 2013-07-28 01:56:46 a_meteorite has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 241 2013-07-28 01:59:59 jgarzik has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 242 2013-07-28 02:09:40 a_meteorite has joined
 243 2013-07-28 02:10:20 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 244 2013-07-28 02:11:01 Belkaar has joined
 245 2013-07-28 02:15:47 Subo1978 has joined
 246 2013-07-28 02:16:14 Subo1978_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 247 2013-07-28 02:19:59 <Luke-Jr> sipa: would one need to know how EC works to implement HD wallets? or is there enough docs in the BIP to just implement those as-is?
 248 2013-07-28 02:20:11 jgarzik has joined
 249 2013-07-28 02:21:09 <sipa> Luke-Jr: unless you need to implement the EC addition yourself, no
 250 2013-07-28 02:22:08 sserrano44 has joined
 251 2013-07-28 02:22:20 <Vinnie_win> hey what's going on folks
 252 2013-07-28 02:23:09 <sipa> Vinnie_win!
 253 2013-07-28 02:23:17 <Vinnie_win> yar
 254 2013-07-28 02:23:35 <sipa> i'll really need to look into git-subtree sometime soon
 255 2013-07-28 02:24:10 <Vinnie_win> Oh! Yeah. I love it.
 256 2013-07-28 02:24:40 <sipa> i mean in order to understand how to manage bitcoin/leveldb
 257 2013-07-28 02:24:42 <Vinnie_win> I'm upgrading the unit test framework in Beast to record and generate JUnit XML which can be directly passed to the Jenkins JUnit plugin (I think its a plugin)
 258 2013-07-28 02:24:47 agnostic98 has joined
 259 2013-07-28 02:24:57 <Vinnie_win> sipa: You can always ping me and we can get on Skype or IRC and I can walk you through it
 260 2013-07-28 02:25:16 <sipa> that'd be helpful; but not now - it's 4:24 am here :)
 261 2013-07-28 02:25:34 <Vinnie_win> sipa: Any time you'd like
 262 2013-07-28 02:25:39 <sipa> great
 263 2013-07-28 02:26:48 <Vinnie_win> I don't hear much cheering for a unit test framework that outputs JUnit XML...
 264 2013-07-28 02:26:51 sserrano44 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 265 2013-07-28 02:27:34 <sipa> i think i subconsciously ignore sentences which have "XML" in it
 266 2013-07-28 02:28:21 wamatt has quit (Quit: wamatt)
 267 2013-07-28 02:30:22 <Vinnie_win> I know what you mean. Truth be told this is the first time I've ever used it. Thankfully, beast has a class that handles it for me.
 268 2013-07-28 02:30:22 * sipa -> zZzZ
 269 2013-07-28 02:30:27 <Vinnie_win> lata
 270 2013-07-28 02:38:10 cads has joined
 271 2013-07-28 02:41:29 <michagogo> [21:46:19] <sipa> do whatever physical token you have, you will always rely on trusting its issuer that he won't soend the coins from under you
 272 2013-07-28 02:41:29 <michagogo> Well, except for the split-key thing
 273 2013-07-28 02:41:41 Nesetalis has quit (Quit: <+shponka> how does one scissor with four people <+shponka> hypercube tribadism)
 274 2013-07-28 02:41:53 <michagogo> (of course, that's only useful if you're the one who had the physical token created, but still.
 275 2013-07-28 02:41:55 <michagogo> )
 276 2013-07-28 02:52:58 sserrano44 has joined
 277 2013-07-28 02:57:53 sserrano44 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 278 2013-07-28 03:08:27 Neozonz has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 279 2013-07-28 03:13:08 Jamesonwa has joined
 280 2013-07-28 03:13:33 Neozonz has joined
 281 2013-07-28 03:13:33 Neozonz has quit (Changing host)
 282 2013-07-28 03:13:33 Neozonz has joined
 283 2013-07-28 03:19:45 prismatictrail has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 284 2013-07-28 03:22:29 macboz has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 285 2013-07-28 03:23:04 darknyan has quit (Excess Flood)
 286 2013-07-28 03:23:45 sserrano44 has joined
 287 2013-07-28 03:24:53 yubrew has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 288 2013-07-28 03:26:10 darknyan has joined
 289 2013-07-28 03:27:23 yubrew has joined
 290 2013-07-28 03:28:29 sserrano44 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 291 2013-07-28 03:30:05 yubrew__ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 292 2013-07-28 03:30:09 darknyan has quit (Quit: Felt like it.)
 293 2013-07-28 03:31:12 Neozonz has joined
 294 2013-07-28 03:31:12 Neozonz has quit (Disc!~Neozonz@198.84.245.103|Changing host)
 295 2013-07-28 03:31:12 Neozonz has joined
 296 2013-07-28 03:33:51 Neozonz has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 297 2013-07-28 03:34:30 imton has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 298 2013-07-28 03:35:11 fishfish has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 299 2013-07-28 03:36:06 darknyan has joined
 300 2013-07-28 03:36:39 Neozonz has quit (Disc!~Neozonz@unaffiliated/neozonz|Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 301 2013-07-28 03:36:53 imton has joined
 302 2013-07-28 03:40:09 Neozonz has joined
 303 2013-07-28 03:40:09 Neozonz has quit (Changing host)
 304 2013-07-28 03:40:09 Neozonz has joined
 305 2013-07-28 03:43:42 Nesetalis has joined
 306 2013-07-28 03:44:56 owowo has quit (Quit: dead)
 307 2013-07-28 03:47:03 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
 308 2013-07-28 03:47:14 TheSeven has joined
 309 2013-07-28 03:50:10 michagogo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 310 2013-07-28 03:50:28 michagogo has joined
 311 2013-07-28 04:09:00 denom has joined
 312 2013-07-28 04:11:43 sserrano44 has joined
 313 2013-07-28 04:18:08 ericmuyser has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 314 2013-07-28 04:25:49 bloke has joined
 315 2013-07-28 04:27:31 ralphtheninja has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 316 2013-07-28 04:28:36 brson has joined
 317 2013-07-28 04:31:20 freewil has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 318 2013-07-28 04:32:30 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 319 2013-07-28 04:40:36 OneMinerUpgrade has quit (Changing host)
 320 2013-07-28 04:40:36 OneMinerUpgrade has joined
 321 2013-07-28 04:40:36 OneMinerUpgrade has quit (Changing host)
 322 2013-07-28 04:40:36 OneMinerUpgrade has joined
 323 2013-07-28 04:40:42 OneMinerUpgrade is now known as OneMiner
 324 2013-07-28 04:42:42 brson has quit (Quit: leaving)
 325 2013-07-28 04:43:03 brson has joined
 326 2013-07-28 04:43:43 BCBot has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 327 2013-07-28 04:44:54 debiantoruser has joined
 328 2013-07-28 04:45:15 debianto1user has joined
 329 2013-07-28 04:45:51 debianto1user has quit (Client Quit)
 330 2013-07-28 04:47:44 debianto1user has joined
 331 2013-07-28 04:53:04 debiantoruser has quit (Quit: leaving)
 332 2013-07-28 04:54:08 thrasher` has quit (Ping timeout: 241 seconds)
 333 2013-07-28 04:55:38 Applicat_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 334 2013-07-28 04:56:37 thrasher` has joined
 335 2013-07-28 05:00:07 BCBot has joined
 336 2013-07-28 05:05:03 BCBot has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 337 2013-07-28 05:12:41 jgtest4 has joined
 338 2013-07-28 05:12:54 jgtest4 has left ()
 339 2013-07-28 05:25:40 [Author] has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 340 2013-07-28 05:28:25 BCBot has joined
 341 2013-07-28 05:30:22 B0g4r7 has quit (Quit: B0g4r7)
 342 2013-07-28 05:30:24 [Author] has joined
 343 2013-07-28 05:33:08 BCBot has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 344 2013-07-28 05:34:18 DaQatz has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 345 2013-07-28 05:34:55 DaQatz has joined
 346 2013-07-28 05:37:43 bloke has left ()
 347 2013-07-28 05:39:07 Thepok has joined
 348 2013-07-28 05:40:34 BCBot has joined
 349 2013-07-28 05:43:25 lordbunson has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 350 2013-07-28 05:46:11 valparaiso is now known as valparaiso_afk
 351 2013-07-28 05:48:50 Nesetalis has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 352 2013-07-28 05:49:26 jeewee has joined
 353 2013-07-28 05:49:50 Nesetalis has joined
 354 2013-07-28 05:54:41 Applicat_ has joined
 355 2013-07-28 05:58:13 BCBot has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 356 2013-07-28 06:06:16 PrimeStunna has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 357 2013-07-28 06:07:15 zer0def has quit (Quit: Quit:)
 358 2013-07-28 06:09:06 OneMiner has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 359 2013-07-28 06:10:17 zer0def has joined
 360 2013-07-28 06:13:20 PrimeStunna has joined
 361 2013-07-28 06:17:18 ThomasV has joined
 362 2013-07-28 06:27:11 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 363 2013-07-28 06:27:49 copumpkin has joined
 364 2013-07-28 06:29:43 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 365 2013-07-28 06:30:59 BCBot has joined
 366 2013-07-28 06:37:57 ThomasV has joined
 367 2013-07-28 06:39:43 brson has quit (Quit: leaving)
 368 2013-07-28 06:40:44 jeewee has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 369 2013-07-28 06:42:50 BCBot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 370 2013-07-28 06:43:28 agnostic98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 371 2013-07-28 06:45:10 wamatt has joined
 372 2013-07-28 06:58:12 Tom_Soft has joined
 373 2013-07-28 06:58:12 Tom_Soft has quit (Client Quit)
 374 2013-07-28 07:04:15 agnostic98 has joined
 375 2013-07-28 07:09:43 agnostic98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 376 2013-07-28 07:10:50 tcatm has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 377 2013-07-28 07:15:11 denom has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 378 2013-07-28 07:21:31 BitCoroner has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 379 2013-07-28 07:23:37 [\\\] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 380 2013-07-28 07:24:41 [\\\] has joined
 381 2013-07-28 07:26:37 wamatt has quit (Quit: wamatt)
 382 2013-07-28 07:29:26 BitCoroner has joined
 383 2013-07-28 07:33:21 lordbunson has joined
 384 2013-07-28 07:34:48 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 385 2013-07-28 07:35:35 <warren> Is there anything in bitcoin code that converts a byte array to hex?  I'm trying to debug something.
 386 2013-07-28 07:35:43 <warren> with prints
 387 2013-07-28 07:36:48 <Luke-Jr> of course, RPC does it all the time
 388 2013-07-28 07:39:37 <warren> HexStr()?
 389 2013-07-28 07:40:08 agnostic98 has joined
 390 2013-07-28 07:40:57 <Luke-Jr> something like that
 391 2013-07-28 07:41:47 Krellan_ has joined
 392 2013-07-28 07:45:55 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 393 2013-07-28 07:47:41 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 394 2013-07-28 07:47:55 michagogo has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 395 2013-07-28 07:48:43 gjs278 has joined
 396 2013-07-28 07:57:43 peetaur2 has joined
 397 2013-07-28 08:01:46 ielo has joined
 398 2013-07-28 08:02:26 <warren> Luke-Jr: thanks, that worked
 399 2013-07-28 08:03:20 Luke-Jr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 400 2013-07-28 08:03:34 <warren> HexStr(BEGIN(nVersion),BEGIN(nVersion)+80,false).c_str(),
 401 2013-07-28 08:07:36 one_zero has joined
 402 2013-07-28 08:14:10 Odyessus has joined
 403 2013-07-28 08:14:58 RoboTeddy has joined
 404 2013-07-28 08:16:29 toffoo has quit ()
 405 2013-07-28 08:17:54 imton has quit (Quit: imton)
 406 2013-07-28 08:24:30 ielo has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 407 2013-07-28 08:25:00 JyZyXEL has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 408 2013-07-28 08:26:13 paraipan has joined
 409 2013-07-28 08:26:27 ielo has joined
 410 2013-07-28 08:28:28 JyZyXEL has joined
 411 2013-07-28 08:31:21 CheckDavid has joined
 412 2013-07-28 08:31:31 jeewee has joined
 413 2013-07-28 08:34:57 Odyessus has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPad - http://colloquy.mobi)
 414 2013-07-28 08:35:16 serialbandicoot has joined
 415 2013-07-28 08:42:40 xdrake has joined
 416 2013-07-28 08:44:49 chorao has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 417 2013-07-28 08:51:48 nomailing has joined
 418 2013-07-28 08:55:59 thrasher` has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 419 2013-07-28 08:57:01 dc8181 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 420 2013-07-28 08:57:25 thrasher` has joined
 421 2013-07-28 08:58:54 dc8181 has joined
 422 2013-07-28 09:03:15 paraipan has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 423 2013-07-28 09:05:29 CodeName has joined
 424 2013-07-28 09:11:12 agnostic98 has joined
 425 2013-07-28 09:12:44 jeewee has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 426 2013-07-28 09:16:00 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 427 2013-07-28 09:20:04 linse has joined
 428 2013-07-28 09:24:18 Applicat_ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 429 2013-07-28 09:25:15 wiretapped has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 430 2013-07-28 09:25:26 Application has joined
 431 2013-07-28 09:26:27 CodeName has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 432 2013-07-28 09:29:42 wiretapped has joined
 433 2013-07-28 09:31:52 ielo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 434 2013-07-28 09:38:10 guyguyguyguy has joined
 435 2013-07-28 09:39:58 paracyst has quit ()
 436 2013-07-28 09:41:09 PrimeStunna has quit (Quit: PrimeStunna)
 437 2013-07-28 09:42:18 mintmoneyman has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 438 2013-07-28 09:42:35 ielo has joined
 439 2013-07-28 09:43:13 tcatm has joined
 440 2013-07-28 09:43:13 tcatm has quit (Changing host)
 441 2013-07-28 09:43:13 tcatm has joined
 442 2013-07-28 09:49:31 iwilcox has joined
 443 2013-07-28 09:51:12 BTCera has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 444 2013-07-28 09:55:53 RoboTeddy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 445 2013-07-28 09:58:12 Jasmin68k has joined
 446 2013-07-28 10:00:26 c0rw1n has joined
 447 2013-07-28 10:02:15 <sipa> unexpected side-effect of headers-first sybc: my bitcoind now uses only 270 MiB RES
 448 2013-07-28 10:02:42 BNCatDIGISHELL has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 449 2013-07-28 10:03:17 <sipa> it seems orphans caused some serieus memory usage
 450 2013-07-28 10:03:58 paraipan has joined
 451 2013-07-28 10:04:53 BNCatDIGISHELL has joined
 452 2013-07-28 10:05:29 ielo has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 453 2013-07-28 10:05:32 <phantomcircuit> sipa, so i noticed it takes about 700 minutes of cpu time to do an initial block sync in 0.7.x 0.6.x and 0.8.x
 454 2013-07-28 10:06:10 Eiii has quit ()
 455 2013-07-28 10:06:15 <phantomcircuit> sipa, that's about what my bitcoind instances use when there is memory pressure
 456 2013-07-28 10:07:11 ielo has joined
 457 2013-07-28 10:08:32 <sipa> phantomcircuit: ftom network, or using reindrx?
 458 2013-07-28 10:08:43 <phantomcircuit> from a local peer
 459 2013-07-28 10:09:03 <phantomcircuit> the wall clock times are radically different
 460 2013-07-28 10:09:08 <phantomcircuit> but cpu time is very close
 461 2013-07-28 10:09:11 <sipa> of course
 462 2013-07-28 10:09:15 <phantomcircuit> just thought that was interesting
 463 2013-07-28 10:10:45 <sipa> this 267 MiB is with 66 connections
 464 2013-07-28 10:10:56 <sipa> i recall seeing twice that amount before
 465 2013-07-28 10:11:38 <sipa> that may have been after running for a much longer time though
 466 2013-07-28 10:11:43 <phantomcircuit> sipa, afaict you'll see anything between 250 MB and 700MB based on swap pressure
 467 2013-07-28 10:12:32 debianto1user has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 468 2013-07-28 10:15:52 JWU42 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 469 2013-07-28 10:17:46 agnostic98 has joined
 470 2013-07-28 10:19:49 mihar has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 471 2013-07-28 10:19:49 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 472 2013-07-28 10:20:30 Namworld has quit ()
 473 2013-07-28 10:21:17 ThomasV has joined
 474 2013-07-28 10:22:36 mihar has joined
 475 2013-07-28 10:27:44 linse has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 476 2013-07-28 10:28:46 Jamesonwa has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 477 2013-07-28 10:30:08 <phantomcircuit> sipa, interesting 0.5.4rc3 http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=qe4QQB2i
 478 2013-07-28 10:31:21 danda has joined
 479 2013-07-28 10:31:24 <sipa> phantomcircuit: i have no idea what such old versions are doing
 480 2013-07-28 10:32:00 swulf-- has joined
 481 2013-07-28 10:33:31 yubrew_ has joined
 482 2013-07-28 10:33:43 <phantomcircuit> sipa, dont expect anybody does
 483 2013-07-28 10:34:42 danda__ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 484 2013-07-28 10:35:26 macboz has joined
 485 2013-07-28 10:35:43 ielo has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 486 2013-07-28 10:37:20 <sipa> phantomcircuit: that may have been one of the versions with a too early p2sh switchover date
 487 2013-07-28 10:37:48 JWU42 has joined
 488 2013-07-28 10:37:49 Application has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 489 2013-07-28 10:37:52 JWU42 has quit (Changing host)
 490 2013-07-28 10:37:52 JWU42 has joined
 491 2013-07-28 10:43:51 Jasmin68k has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 492 2013-07-28 10:44:11 linse has joined
 493 2013-07-28 10:44:51 daybyter has joined
 494 2013-07-28 10:48:19 agnostic98 has joined
 495 2013-07-28 10:48:41 Dyaheon has quit ()
 496 2013-07-28 10:50:26 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 497 2013-07-28 10:51:19 catcowllama has joined
 498 2013-07-28 10:51:19 catcowllama has quit (Changing host)
 499 2013-07-28 10:51:19 catcowllama has joined
 500 2013-07-28 10:54:11 catcow has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 501 2013-07-28 10:56:12 <warren> hmm, in the src/test/*, if you add printf's they don't seem to reach stdout or stderr.  any idea what I'm supposed to do?
 502 2013-07-28 10:56:30 GordonG3kko has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 503 2013-07-28 10:59:04 GordonG3kko has joined
 504 2013-07-28 11:00:14 <sipa> use fprintf(stderr, ...)
 505 2013-07-28 11:00:32 <sipa> printf() is overloaded in util.h to use our logging code
 506 2013-07-28 11:01:31 <warren> thanks
 507 2013-07-28 11:01:45 <warren> hmm, stderr wasn't working though
 508 2013-07-28 11:02:01 <sipa> ?
 509 2013-07-28 11:02:20 <warren> oh, my mistake. it works.
 510 2013-07-28 11:07:02 ielo has joined
 511 2013-07-28 11:08:11 valparaiso_afk is now known as valparaiso
 512 2013-07-28 11:13:55 paraipan has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 513 2013-07-28 11:15:08 _BNCatDIGISHELL has joined
 514 2013-07-28 11:15:54 BNCatDIGISHELL has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 515 2013-07-28 11:17:20 BurtyB2 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 516 2013-07-28 11:21:29 iddo has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 517 2013-07-28 11:21:34 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> hello is anyone here this early?
 518 2013-07-28 11:21:38 iddo has joined
 519 2013-07-28 11:22:20 debiantoruser has joined
 520 2013-07-28 11:25:36 testnode9 has joined
 521 2013-07-28 11:26:40 iddo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 522 2013-07-28 11:26:47 iddo has joined
 523 2013-07-28 11:27:17 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> guess not :-( i'll try again later
 524 2013-07-28 11:27:51 <sipa> no, sorry
 525 2013-07-28 11:28:57 BNCatDIGISHELL has joined
 526 2013-07-28 11:29:42 _BNCatDIGISHELL has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 527 2013-07-28 11:30:26 BurtyB has joined
 528 2013-07-28 11:31:20 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> oh
 529 2013-07-28 11:31:28 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> i'm having trouble with addmultisigadress in rpc and on the command line
 530 2013-07-28 11:31:36 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> it only works in the debug window
 531 2013-07-28 11:32:15 <sipa> does rpc work at all?
 532 2013-07-28 11:32:31 nomailing has quit (Quit: nomailing)
 533 2013-07-28 11:32:35 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> yes i can do other things with it
 534 2013-07-28 11:32:51 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> like send money, get balance, list addresses by account, import priv key
 535 2013-07-28 11:32:58 <sipa> you likely miss some quotation marks
 536 2013-07-28 11:33:13 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> (although it's not loading the balance of the multisigaddress even after i add it, and the imported priv key aren't showing under my list of addresses)
 537 2013-07-28 11:33:48 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> no i copy paste the same thing into the debug window as i do into the command line, and it only works in the debug window
 538 2013-07-28 11:34:05 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> and i'm pretty sure in java i have the same thing, but with the right \' and \"
 539 2013-07-28 11:38:02 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> g2g i'll be back in an hour
 540 2013-07-28 11:42:54 BNCatDIGISHELL has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 541 2013-07-28 11:43:06 BNCatDIGISHELL has joined
 542 2013-07-28 11:43:30 c0rw1n has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 543 2013-07-28 11:44:42 c0rw1n has joined
 544 2013-07-28 11:50:39 agnostic98 has joined
 545 2013-07-28 11:52:26 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
 546 2013-07-28 11:54:57 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 547 2013-07-28 11:55:37 GordonG3kko has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 548 2013-07-28 11:57:11 GordonG3kko has joined
 549 2013-07-28 12:00:13 datagutt has joined
 550 2013-07-28 12:02:42 BNCatDIGISHELL has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 551 2013-07-28 12:03:14 ralphtheninja has joined
 552 2013-07-28 12:04:30 ielo has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 553 2013-07-28 12:04:56 BNCatDIGISHELL has joined
 554 2013-07-28 12:14:26 owowo has joined
 555 2013-07-28 12:16:25 stavros has quit (Disconnected by services)
 556 2013-07-28 12:16:33 stavs has joined
 557 2013-07-28 12:17:15 i2pRelay has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 558 2013-07-28 12:18:11 jeewee has joined
 559 2013-07-28 12:19:45 iddo has quit (Changing host)
 560 2013-07-28 12:19:45 iddo has joined
 561 2013-07-28 12:20:00 i2pRelay has joined
 562 2013-07-28 12:20:30 Thepok has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 563 2013-07-28 12:21:43 agnostic98 has joined
 564 2013-07-28 12:25:50 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 565 2013-07-28 12:26:53 one_zero has quit ()
 566 2013-07-28 12:33:21 ielo has joined
 567 2013-07-28 12:35:30 t7 has joined
 568 2013-07-28 12:45:38 c0rw1n has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 569 2013-07-28 12:49:42 macboz_ has joined
 570 2013-07-28 12:52:16 macboz has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 571 2013-07-28 12:52:48 agnostic98 has joined
 572 2013-07-28 12:54:20 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 573 2013-07-28 12:57:14 <sipa> ;;blocks
 574 2013-07-28 12:57:14 <gribble> 248885
 575 2013-07-28 13:00:22 <sipa> ok, synced from scratch without any special settings (except using libsecp256k1), from random peers, in 1h49m
 576 2013-07-28 13:00:41 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 577 2013-07-28 13:03:17 <Eliel> sipa: that sounds pretty fast
 578 2013-07-28 13:04:28 egis has joined
 579 2013-07-28 13:07:33 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
 580 2013-07-28 13:07:57 yubrew_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 581 2013-07-28 13:08:14 egis has quit (Client Quit)
 582 2013-07-28 13:16:03 Davincij15 has joined
 583 2013-07-28 13:19:39 catcowllama is now known as catcow
 584 2013-07-28 13:23:51 agnostic98 has joined
 585 2013-07-28 13:26:09 saulimus has joined
 586 2013-07-28 13:27:19 yubrew_ has joined
 587 2013-07-28 13:27:54 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 588 2013-07-28 13:31:36 dust-otc has joined
 589 2013-07-28 13:37:35 <swulf--> sipa - that's headers only?
 590 2013-07-28 13:40:23 <sipa> swulf--: no, headers-first
 591 2013-07-28 13:40:26 <gmaxwell> swulf--: uh. no. "headers only" doesn't mean synced!
 592 2013-07-28 13:41:02 <tonikt> 1h49m - you must have a hell of of a server, man
 593 2013-07-28 13:41:14 <sipa> the headers are synchronized in 1 minute or so
 594 2013-07-28 13:41:40 <t7> sipa now do opencl :3
 595 2013-07-28 13:41:50 <tonikt> for me it takes 1h49m to maybe just re-verify all the scripts, while I already have them on disk
 596 2013-07-28 13:42:37 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
 597 2013-07-28 13:43:53 <tonikt> sipa: sorry for jumping in a middle of a conversation; do you have escda lib that works on opencl?
 598 2013-07-28 13:44:41 t7 has quit (Quit: gym)
 599 2013-07-28 13:45:46 <sipa> tonikt: no
 600 2013-07-28 13:46:39 <tonikt> ok. so your pc can verify all the chain in less than 2 hours - still impressive
 601 2013-07-28 13:47:37 <tonikt> (not too mention downloading it)
 602 2013-07-28 13:47:40 <sipa> verification isn't
 603 2013-07-28 13:48:05 <tonikt> so you mean only downloading?
 604 2013-07-28 13:48:22 <sipa> well it is verifying too, and quite bottlenecked by it
 605 2013-07-28 13:48:40 <sipa> but the improvement here is that downloading it doesn't slow it down much
 606 2013-07-28 13:49:13 <tonikt> yep, verifying will aways be a bottlenecked
 607 2013-07-28 13:49:29 jeewee has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 608 2013-07-28 13:49:56 <tonikt> downloading - this can be pretty much optimized, especially if one dares to change the net proto a bit
 609 2013-07-28 13:50:29 <sipa> no need to change the protocol
 610 2013-07-28 13:50:48 <sipa> headers-first and parallel block download work just fine
 611 2013-07-28 13:51:13 <tonikt> no need, but think if you could e.g. get a block size inside with each inv record - you could optimize your getdata much better
 612 2013-07-28 13:51:50 <warren> sipa: how goes the secp256k1 audit?
 613 2013-07-28 13:51:53 <tonikt> if you know a block is only 100 bytes, you ask for more - if you know that it is 500kb, you ask only for the one
 614 2013-07-28 13:52:41 <sipa> don't think that would help much in practice
 615 2013-07-28 13:52:55 <sipa> i'm currently bottlenecked by slow peers mostly
 616 2013-07-28 13:53:03 <sipa> not block size variations
 617 2013-07-28 13:53:06 <tonikt> in practice people bearly ever need to bootstrap their chain]
 618 2013-07-28 13:53:18 <sipa> in theory you mean :)
 619 2013-07-28 13:53:41 <tonikt> :) well, sort of
 620 2013-07-28 13:54:57 agnostic98 has joined
 621 2013-07-28 13:55:20 <tonikt> so either way: think about this: you get all the headers within 1 minute or so
 622 2013-07-28 13:55:20 <sipa> i just keep a list of blocks currently requested from each peer, and try to never that that number drop to 0
 623 2013-07-28 13:55:37 <sipa> so each peer is always busy
 624 2013-07-28 13:55:40 abrkn has joined
 625 2013-07-28 13:55:42 <sipa> unless we can't keep up
 626 2013-07-28 13:56:27 <tonikt> that's a reasonable approach. but you could optimize it even more if you knew what is the size of the blocks that the node is actually supposed to send to you
 627 2013-07-28 13:57:42 <tonikt> still the bottleneck will be the script verification time
 628 2013-07-28 13:57:42 <sipa> yes, butbunfortubatepy there is no trust-free way to obtain that information
 629 2013-07-28 13:57:53 <sipa> but unfortunately
 630 2013-07-28 13:58:02 <tonikt> so yeah, if someone want to port it to opencl, I'm all for it :)
 631 2013-07-28 13:58:38 <sipa> i'll try doing a benchmark on a fast multicore system with secp256k1
 632 2013-07-28 13:58:46 <sipa> pretty sure network will be the bottleneck
 633 2013-07-28 13:59:04 <tonikt> there is no way because the official client is extremely reluctant to make such a simple changes as adding a data size to the inv hash record
 634 2013-07-28 13:59:06 abrkn\ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 635 2013-07-28 13:59:07 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 636 2013-07-28 13:59:14 meLon has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 637 2013-07-28 13:59:31 <sipa> tonikt: as said, there is no way to do that in a trust-free way
 638 2013-07-28 13:59:52 <tonikt> this would be such a simple change - but its just impossible to get it through
 639 2013-07-28 14:00:15 <tonikt> sipa: nor the hashes that5 you get via invs are trust-free
 640 2013-07-28 14:00:18 abrkn has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 641 2013-07-28 14:00:42 <sipa> tonikt: true, there are several ways for peers to screw up your download
 642 2013-07-28 14:00:50 <sipa> but i'd rather not add any
 643 2013-07-28 14:01:46 <tonikt> IMO, if you dont add any you have no much field for improvements
 644 2013-07-28 14:02:12 jeewee has joined
 645 2013-07-28 14:02:14 <gmaxwell> Your opinion is incorrect.
 646 2013-07-28 14:02:49 ericmuyser has joined
 647 2013-07-28 14:02:56 AusBitBank__ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 648 2013-07-28 14:03:04 <tonikt> that suunds like a conclusion :)
 649 2013-07-28 14:03:26 <tonikt> the counter argument would be: you are wrong
 650 2013-07-28 14:03:29 <tonikt> again :)
 651 2013-07-28 14:03:57 <gmaxwell>  /kb tonikt countercounter argument
 652 2013-07-28 14:04:07 <sipa> oh please
 653 2013-07-28 14:04:41 <gmaxwell> tonikt: I mean you can IMO all you like, but sipa has already implemented a major improvement which doesn't increase exposure or force you to trust peers.
 654 2013-07-28 14:05:14 <tonikt> he has - but I am sure that he only understands ways to get it even more optimal
 655 2013-07-28 14:05:15 <gmaxwell> (and, once finished it should reduce some exposure to misbehaving peers—  certantly we cannot tolerate more, adding misbehaving nodes to the network is easy)
 656 2013-07-28 14:05:21 <tonikt> also*
 657 2013-07-28 14:05:53 chazmichaels has joined
 658 2013-07-28 14:06:37 <tonikt> we have "do not touch the net proto vs. touch it a bit"...
 659 2013-07-28 14:06:52 <gmaxwell> tonikt: we already wasted hours with you a few weeks ago with you pushing your weirdo fring design which doesn't match our security goals. Please don't continue with it again.
 660 2013-07-28 14:06:54 <tonikt> sipa: which one would you choose to move forward with your further optimizations?
 661 2013-07-28 14:07:20 <tonikt> gmaxwell: :) you wasted hours on me?
 662 2013-07-28 14:07:30 <tonikt> give me a break :)
 663 2013-07-28 14:07:40 <tonikt> do I look so stupid to believe that?
 664 2013-07-28 14:08:23 <tonikt> you would not have wasted 5 minutes to analyze even a nobel prize worth of an idea, just because it came from me
 665 2013-07-28 14:09:26 <sipa> tonikt: if transaction count and block size were really relevant, i'd vote to put then bip34-like in the coinbase, and have a p2p command to fetch the header + coinbase
 666 2013-07-28 14:09:46 <sipa> i don't think it would help you much, though
 667 2013-07-28 14:10:02 Luke-Jr has joined
 668 2013-07-28 14:10:14 <gmaxwell> 10:02 < tonikt> Hi guys. I was wondering whether there have been any discussion on changes in the network protocol?
 669 2013-07-28 14:10:18 <gmaxwell> 12:12 < petertodd>  /ignore tonikt
 670 2013-07-28 14:10:18 <sipa> i believe a sync protocol is possible that is robust against block size variations
 671 2013-07-28 14:10:20 <gmaxwell> Hours. I was not kidding.
 672 2013-07-28 14:11:19 <tonikt> gmaxwell: you are only quiting me the lines of how you were being assholes to me - how does it help your argument? :)
 673 2013-07-28 14:11:27 <tonikt> quoting*
 674 2013-07-28 14:11:52 <gmaxwell> tonikt: You're welcome to go off and write an alternative p2p protcol. That would be quite useful.  We are uninterested in making changes to the current one that creates additional DOS exposure from dishonest peers.
 675 2013-07-28 14:12:24 <tonikt> sipa: some blocks are 100 bytes big - others are 100+KB big. you obviously would like to know how big they are before asking a peer for a set of them
 676 2013-07-28 14:13:50 <tonikt> gmaxwell: I do not want to write my own p2p protocol. I just want to help yours :)
 677 2013-07-28 14:14:04 <tonikt> and believe me or not: my motives are pure
 678 2013-07-28 14:14:20 <warren> motives != wisdom
 679 2013-07-28 14:14:32 <sipa> tonikt: yes, it would help, i won't argue with that. but i'm not convinced it matters much with a good sync mechanism. if you always have several blocks being requested at any time, so the chance that all of them are small is minimal
 680 2013-07-28 14:14:40 <sipa> and i do not doubt your motives
 681 2013-07-28 14:15:42 <tonikt> sipa: I've also spent some time on analyzing this issue, and there is a huge difference on fetching the fist <100000 blocks and the last 230000 blocks
 682 2013-07-28 14:15:53 <tonikt> it is a problem
 683 2013-07-28 14:16:14 <sipa> the first 100k blocks are nothig
 684 2013-07-28 14:16:21 <gmaxwell> I don't know what I could be said that could be interpreted as doubting your motives.  This doesn't mean that I think what you're proposing is any good— likely to help from a performance perspective, since you proposed adding round trips, or likely to be DOS attack acceptable.
 685 2013-07-28 14:17:11 <tonikt> the round trips - I got them, sipa explained them to me. but there are ways to address them
 686 2013-07-28 14:17:27 <sipa> depends what we're talking about here
 687 2013-07-28 14:17:59 bmcgee has joined
 688 2013-07-28 14:18:03 <sipa> for minimizing latency and bandwidth in the steady-state, i believe we can use some improvements
 689 2013-07-28 14:18:15 <sipa> we are essentially sending every transaction twice
 690 2013-07-28 14:18:15 <tonikt> but even if you have all the hashes of all the blocks that you need to download - being connected to0 20 peers - how are you going to do it in an optimal way, using the current proto?
 691 2013-07-28 14:18:42 <sipa> tonikt: ask all of them for 100 blocks, ask for more as earlier ones arrive
 692 2013-07-28 14:19:29 <gmaxwell> ^ this is not rocket science, and the behavior and given pipelining is always within some small factor of optimal for a long enough reorder window.
 693 2013-07-28 14:19:47 <tonikt> sipa: thats a natural way. but eventually, when you get to #230000, 100 blocks turn into like 1MB chunks of data - and that is not optimal anymore
 694 2013-07-28 14:20:08 <sipa> so reduce the number if the window becomes too large
 695 2013-07-28 14:20:16 <tonikt> actually 10MB chunks
 696 2013-07-28 14:20:29 <tonikt> which "window"?
 697 2013-07-28 14:20:34 <sipa> and theybare not 10MB chunks
 698 2013-07-28 14:20:39 <sipa> every block is its own chunk
 699 2013-07-28 14:20:45 <sipa> you just ask for multiple at once
 700 2013-07-28 14:21:14 <sipa> you don't wait for all 100 to arrive before asking new ones
 701 2013-07-28 14:21:33 <gmaxwell> As ones arive you just pop another out of your to-be-fetched queue and fetch that.
 702 2013-07-28 14:21:36 chazmichaels has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 703 2013-07-28 14:21:49 <tonikt> hey, I can imagine all the workarounds you had came out with to make it optimal
 704 2013-07-28 14:22:01 <sipa> tonikt: by window i mean the range of blocks you are downloading from
 705 2013-07-28 14:22:06 <tonikt> but just think of it: thay are all work arounds
 706 2013-07-28 14:22:21 <sipa> i consider this a very natural way of pipelined fetching
 707 2013-07-28 14:22:27 <gmaxwell> tonikt: this doesn't take any weird workarounds. The protocol is designed to be largely asynchronous.
 708 2013-07-28 14:22:30 <sipa> and yes, knowig exact sizes would improve it
 709 2013-07-28 14:22:39 <tonikt> the protocol does not allow you to download your data in an optimal way
 710 2013-07-28 14:22:46 <tonikt> and nodoby gies a shit about it
 711 2013-07-28 14:22:55 <gmaxwell> sipa: very modestly if at all, since you still don't know the instantanious network rate.
 712 2013-07-28 14:23:05 <sipa> if all your peers are always busy, there is nothing suboptimal at all
 713 2013-07-28 14:23:12 <sipa> you simply cannot ever do better than that
 714 2013-07-28 14:23:22 <gmaxwell> tonikt: You're wrong. Believing you are wrong and having expirence otherwise is very far from "nodoby gies a shit about it".
 715 2013-07-28 14:23:48 BillCosby has joined
 716 2013-07-28 14:24:44 <gmaxwell> And hey, perhaps I'm totally wrong. But if so you can prove it so by just going and implementing your improvements and showing them to be better.
 717 2013-07-28 14:25:33 <tonikt> gmaxwell: havent I already tried to explain it to you how hard it is to improve a p2p protocol just by yourself? :)
 718 2013-07-28 14:25:51 <gmaxwell> But considering that it took some kind of act of god^wsipa to get to you grok that adding synchronous round trips was _bad_, I'm not expecting much.
 719 2013-07-28 14:26:03 agnostic98 has joined
 720 2013-07-28 14:26:24 <gmaxwell> tonikt: you don't have to create something from scratch if you don't want to, go modify the existing one if you want.
 721 2013-07-28 14:26:39 <tonikt> gmaxwell: yeh, you obviously did not follow up to the idea that we came out with sipa at the end
 722 2013-07-28 14:26:57 <sipa> that was about another issue though
 723 2013-07-28 14:27:05 <bmcgee> hey how do i determine the version of a bitcoind?
 724 2013-07-28 14:27:29 <tonikt> it was about the extra latency time when you ask for the missing thx from a new block
 725 2013-07-28 14:27:35 <tonikt> indeed, a different one
 726 2013-07-28 14:28:18 <sipa> tonikt: it is my opinion in this discussion that pipelined downloading can be made very close to optimal without the mechanism relying on unverifiable statistics from peers
 727 2013-07-28 14:28:20 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 728 2013-07-28 14:28:40 <sipa> and there are no protocol changes needed for that
 729 2013-07-28 14:28:47 <gmaxwell> tonikt: I followed until the point that you said you were using drugs and I /ignored you, actually, because I thought further debate with someone who had chemically incapacitated himself to be poor form.
 730 2013-07-28 14:28:52 <tonikt> sipa: you are probably right at the burrent bock size levels
 731 2013-07-28 14:29:15 <tonikt> .. but whehn they grow to i,e. 10MB - the odds might change wowards my solution
 732 2013-07-28 14:29:31 <gmaxwell> And, wrt fetching on new blocks in the steady state, yes lots of smart things can be done there.. see the extensive discussion between luke and I on the old high propagation latency issue.
 733 2013-07-28 14:29:51 <tonikt> gmaxwell: well, then you should not have. aren't we all use drugs after all? :)
 734 2013-07-28 14:30:11 <sipa> ig alcohol counts (and i guess it foes), yes
 735 2013-07-28 14:30:14 <sipa> *does
 736 2013-07-28 14:30:16 <sipa> *if
 737 2013-07-28 14:30:25 abrkn has joined
 738 2013-07-28 14:31:26 <sipa> tonikt: if efficient syncing is not possible anymore after a block size change, given the economy and technology of that time, i'm sure we'll discuss possible improvements
 739 2013-07-28 14:31:32 <gmaxwell> Certantly not while trying to convince other people of my ideas.
 740 2013-07-28 14:32:18 <gmaxwell> tonikt: I don't think the block size differences matter for the initial sync case. (outside of initial sync is another matter)
 741 2013-07-28 14:33:04 <tonikt> there are definitelly two seperate issues to handle here: 1) initial chain download, 2) a new block time propagation
 742 2013-07-28 14:33:39 <tonikt> they are so much different and require a different approach
 743 2013-07-28 14:33:45 <sipa> if blocks are consistenty 10 MB is size, there is no problem either
 744 2013-07-28 14:34:04 <sipa> it's only when there are 99 blocks fo 10 kb and then 1 block of 10 MB that things become too hard to predict
 745 2013-07-28 14:34:26 <tonikt> yes - which is going to be an issue
 746 2013-07-28 14:34:30 <sipa> maybe
 747 2013-07-28 14:34:37 <sipa> at the time, bandwidth is likely to be higher too
 748 2013-07-28 14:34:48 <sipa> or the economics of running a node are different
 749 2013-07-28 14:35:02 <sipa> but yes, maybe
 750 2013-07-28 14:35:21 BillCosby has left ()
 751 2013-07-28 14:35:36 <tonikt> so that is why I dont get your opposition on touching the network protocol
 752 2013-07-28 14:35:57 <tonikt> like it could break things, instead of improving them
 753 2013-07-28 14:36:15 <sipa> i don't consider adding a way to rely on untrusted data an improvement at all
 754 2013-07-28 14:36:21 <sipa> it may be a necessaity
 755 2013-07-28 14:36:27 <sipa> and a reasonable compromise
 756 2013-07-28 14:36:37 imton has joined
 757 2013-07-28 14:37:01 Thepok has joined
 758 2013-07-28 14:37:09 Lolcust has quit (Quit: Nap time)
 759 2013-07-28 14:37:20 Lolcust has joined
 760 2013-07-28 14:37:21 <sipa> but it increases the attack surface, makes reasoning about anti-DoS harder, and generally requires additional maintainance by everyone implementing the protocol
 761 2013-07-28 14:38:21 <tonikt> not really - you could just indicate on the service bits whether you support inv messages that give the length, along with the hash
 762 2013-07-28 14:39:00 <tonikt> then it will naturally get adopted to a better, more optimal, standards
 763 2013-07-28 14:39:51 Lone has joined
 764 2013-07-28 14:39:58 <tonikt> just dont try to get adventage of it in the same release - leave it for further improvements though already available
 765 2013-07-28 14:40:10 <tonikt> like the SPV
 766 2013-07-28 14:40:17 Lone has quit (Client Quit)
 767 2013-07-28 14:40:20 LainZ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 768 2013-07-28 14:40:32 <sipa> i wish we could have hashes that commit to the size
 769 2013-07-28 14:40:55 <CodeShark> you can always disconnect peers that are inaccurate about the sizes
 770 2013-07-28 14:41:10 <sipa> well you should
 771 2013-07-28 14:41:28 <tonikt> thets the point
 772 2013-07-28 14:41:32 <sipa> if someone outright lies about data, that should be considered an attack
 773 2013-07-28 14:42:07 <CodeShark> but yeah, it could lead to some attacks
 774 2013-07-28 14:42:08 <tonikt> and moreover, during the handshake, you can already inform the peer that you are not interested in txs that are e.g. bigger than 5000 bytes
 775 2013-07-28 14:42:21 <tonikt> I dont see any attacks on it
 776 2013-07-28 14:42:36 <tonikt> though I do see it possibly preventing some attacks
 777 2013-07-28 14:42:45 <CodeShark> someone connects from many different IP addresses and advertises that very large blocks are actually very small
 778 2013-07-28 14:43:30 imton has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 779 2013-07-28 14:43:33 <tonikt> CodeShark: connects where? there are thousands of nodes out there
 780 2013-07-28 14:43:55 <tonikt> you cannot chat them all, even if you could with such a silly attack
 781 2013-07-28 14:43:58 <CodeShark> not saying it's easy to exploit - but these things need to be considered
 782 2013-07-28 14:44:59 <tonikt> well, so far the easiest thing to get exploited seems to be sending an inv with an unlimited size of the following data
 783 2013-07-28 14:45:14 <tonikt> and there does not seem to be any prevention against it
 784 2013-07-28 14:46:03 <sipa> what if you get too invs for the same hash, one with a small and one with a large size?
 785 2013-07-28 14:46:11 <sipa> the large one so large that you'd rather not download it
 786 2013-07-28 14:46:17 <sipa> who will you assume is lying?
 787 2013-07-28 14:46:21 <tonikt> :) then you have a problem
 788 2013-07-28 14:46:32 <sipa> it complicates decisions like this
 789 2013-07-28 14:46:45 imton has joined
 790 2013-07-28 14:46:47 <tonikt> I would say: download their both, check the hashes, and ban the bad guy
 791 2013-07-28 14:47:04 <tonikt> what better could you do here?
 792 2013-07-28 14:47:06 <sipa> and if the sizes were obtainable in a trust-free manner (i.e., have hashes that commit to them), then there would be no way to take advantage of this
 793 2013-07-28 14:47:38 <tonikt> in any case, you need to keep a list of ips that you dont trust
 794 2013-07-28 14:47:47 <sipa> IPs are cheap
 795 2013-07-28 14:48:01 <tonikt> and as long as your node is being attacked, you will be building this list up
 796 2013-07-28 14:48:19 <sipa> what if there is an attack that traverses nodes?
 797 2013-07-28 14:48:26 <tonikt> IPs are cheap, but reading 100kb of data from an IP and baning it after it - also deos not seem to be expensive
 798 2013-07-28 14:48:29 <sipa> so you can get nodes banned
 799 2013-07-28 14:48:52 <tonikt> what do you man traverses nodes?
 800 2013-07-28 14:49:04 <tonikt> they cannot force any valid node to send me a fake data
 801 2013-07-28 14:49:14 <sipa> if i can make another node send some data, that will get _him_ banned when he relays it
 802 2013-07-28 14:49:22 <sipa> sure, a good design will not make this possible
 803 2013-07-28 14:49:25 <tonikt> it needs to re-evaluate the hash and the size
 804 2013-07-28 14:49:37 <sipa> but it's sometimes very hard to reason about, and we've had several of these cases before
 805 2013-07-28 14:49:46 <CodeShark> having the block size stored in the header would actually be a very good idea :)
 806 2013-07-28 14:49:51 <sipa> CodeShark: agree
 807 2013-07-28 14:49:53 <tonikt> I though we already had some kind of a good design :)
 808 2013-07-28 14:50:38 <tonikt> lets be realistic - no current node does realay tx without checking it first
 809 2013-07-28 14:50:50 <sipa> validation rules differ between nodes
 810 2013-07-28 14:50:51 <tonikt> so if you get a wring data from it - ban it
 811 2013-07-28 14:51:20 <tonikt> whatever - ban it if you dont like his rules
 812 2013-07-28 14:51:20 <sipa> the network rules don't differ, but for lone transactions there certainly are differences
 813 2013-07-28 14:51:45 <sipa> that means that when you introduce a new safety rule, any attacker can connect to an old node, and get every new node to ban him
 814 2013-07-28 14:51:48 <sipa> not a good idea
 815 2013-07-28 14:52:07 <sipa> leads to separation of the network
 816 2013-07-28 14:53:05 <tonikt> maybe think about it like this: you have a bode and you say to all the other nodes that you dont want any txs that are bigger than 5000 bytes or have a fee lower than 10 satoshis/byte.
 817 2013-07-28 14:53:05 GordonG3kko has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 818 2013-07-28 14:53:18 <tonikt> why cant it be as simple as this?
 819 2013-07-28 14:53:46 <tonikt> this way nobody can spam you with transactions
 820 2013-07-28 14:53:52 <sipa> that seems safe to me
 821 2013-07-28 14:54:24 <tonikt> and it is also very simple to implement
 822 2013-07-28 14:54:39 <tonikt> unlike the new whatever you do there :P
 823 2013-07-28 14:54:49 <sipa> new whatever i do where?
 824 2013-07-28 14:55:48 <tonikt> i mean core bitcoin developers - thay do something there, in the client, hat I personally dnt need
 825 2013-07-28 14:56:19 GordonG3kko has joined
 826 2013-07-28 14:56:23 <sipa> extra filter rules may complicate matters still though, as merchants will need to be aware of the fact that transactions that are received which satisfy criteria for non-relaying for many nodes, the risk for double-spends on it is a lot higher
 827 2013-07-28 14:56:30 <sipa> anything in particular?
 828 2013-07-28 14:56:42 Subo1978_ has joined
 829 2013-07-28 14:56:44 <tonikt> BTW, do you really think that this new payment protocol will be anyhow useful for any normal people>?
 830 2013-07-28 14:56:51 <sipa> yes
 831 2013-07-28 14:56:53 agnostic98 has joined
 832 2013-07-28 14:57:16 <tonikt> OK - we will see
 833 2013-07-28 14:57:18 <sipa> i believe it's absolutely critical that we stop thinking about addresses as payment destinations, and instead of as just keys
 834 2013-07-28 14:57:30 <sipa> addresses ought to be URLs or something like that
 835 2013-07-28 14:57:45 <tonikt> but these certificates issuing authorities are pretty much centralized
 836 2013-07-28 14:57:51 <sipa> you don't need to use that
 837 2013-07-28 14:58:00 <tonikt> its just opposite of what bitcoin was made for
 838 2013-07-28 14:58:14 <sipa> maybe, but it's optional, and people use it anyway
 839 2013-07-28 14:58:23 <sipa> when they are visiting a merchant's https site
 840 2013-07-28 14:58:30 paraipan has joined
 841 2013-07-28 14:58:37 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 842 2013-07-28 14:58:44 <sipa> if there are other means by which you trust a merchant, than those should be incorporated in the payment protocol as well
 843 2013-07-28 14:59:01 <sipa> it's simply mimicking the existing infrastructure
 844 2013-07-28 14:59:26 <tonikt> yeah, I get it that it might be smehow useful, but what I dont get it is why people who actually know about bitcoin, and why it is what it is, are wasting their time on such a bullshit
 845 2013-07-28 15:00:02 <tonikt> its like being a brilliant mathematician and suddenly swictching to developing web services
 846 2013-07-28 15:00:14 <sipa> my reasons for liking the payment protocol have very little to do with trust and certificates
 847 2013-07-28 15:00:15 Subo1978 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 848 2013-07-28 15:00:28 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 849 2013-07-28 15:00:34 <sipa> i simply despise the fact that we're currently using the blockchain as a communication mechanism between private parties
 850 2013-07-28 15:00:36 <CodeShark> you still use X.509 whether you like it or not when visiting merchant sites
 851 2013-07-28 15:00:53 <sipa> and we need an easy way to move such communications to a direct negotiation between the parties
 852 2013-07-28 15:00:53 ThomasV has joined
 853 2013-07-28 15:01:07 <tonikt> but you could always sign your address with pgp, or even bitcoin address
 854 2013-07-28 15:01:18 <sipa> see, that is my problem
 855 2013-07-28 15:01:20 <tonikt> why to build Z509 around it?
 856 2013-07-28 15:01:22 <sipa> you say "your address"
 857 2013-07-28 15:01:32 <sipa> as if it were your identity
 858 2013-07-28 15:01:39 <sipa> but it shouldn't be - it should just be a use-once key
 859 2013-07-28 15:02:02 <sipa> if you can move payment to a two-way negotiation, that problem disappears
 860 2013-07-28 15:02:30 <sipa> for my part, the payment protocol could just be a file you download from somewhere that describes a requested payment
 861 2013-07-28 15:02:43 <sipa> and a file you send back with a transaction and metadata satisfying it
 862 2013-07-28 15:02:44 t7 has joined
 863 2013-07-28 15:03:01 <tonikt> I have a feeling that people have been living without this securitu feature for like decades, and they have not suffered from it so far
 864 2013-07-28 15:03:12 <sipa> it's not a security feature
 865 2013-07-28 15:03:21 <sipa> addresses are secure, if you get them in a secure
 866 2013-07-28 15:03:22 <sipa> way
 867 2013-07-28 15:03:33 <sipa> just as you would obtain your payment descriptor in a secure way
 868 2013-07-28 15:03:41 <tonikt> so it is convenience>
 869 2013-07-28 15:04:04 <tonikt> like the links that were supposed to let you click and pay
 870 2013-07-28 15:04:05 <sipa> it's about avoiding address reuse, about enabling automatic refunds, about being able to attach comments to transactions, ...
 871 2013-07-28 15:04:14 <tonikt> they did not work - did they ?
 872 2013-07-28 15:04:28 <CodeShark> your identity is associated with a public key you use to sign messages - your bitcoin addresses are merely hashes of one-time public keys
 873 2013-07-28 15:04:32 <tonikt> yeah, I understand
 874 2013-07-28 15:04:48 <CodeShark> you need to be able to sign the one-time pubkeys with the more permanent pub key associated with your identity
 875 2013-07-28 15:04:56 <tonikt> I even admire that you always measure more than anyone would have expected from you
 876 2013-07-28 15:04:59 <sipa> i don't think people realize what awful inconvenience results from using the blockchain as a cimmunication mechanism
 877 2013-07-28 15:05:50 <tonikt> But the thing is - these fatures are not needed, IMO
 878 2013-07-28 15:06:03 <sipa> i think it's the single most abused thing in the bitcoin world
 879 2013-07-28 15:06:12 <tonikt> If they were needed, a market would have developed them
 880 2013-07-28 15:06:29 <sipa> the existing mechanism was "good enough" to build some economy around it
 881 2013-07-28 15:06:38 <sipa> if we wait longer, nothing will change it
 882 2013-07-28 15:06:50 <sipa> and we'll be stuck with it forever
 883 2013-07-28 15:06:53 <tonikt> While the actual bitcoin should be focused on chain protocol and network optmimization, that includes DoS resistance
 884 2013-07-28 15:07:07 <sipa> bitcoin is more than the blockchain protocol
 885 2013-07-28 15:07:24 <sipa> and i'm glad someone actually spent the time to implement it
 886 2013-07-28 15:07:31 <sipa> i never found it interesting enough
 887 2013-07-28 15:07:39 <sipa> even though i think i was the first to suggest it
 888 2013-07-28 15:08:17 macboz_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 889 2013-07-28 15:08:23 <tonikt> well, I guess there are different ways to look at it. for me bitcoin is the blockchain protocol
 890 2013-07-28 15:08:32 <tonikt> all the rest is just an IT infrastructure
 891 2013-07-28 15:09:12 <sipa> my largest problem with the current state of things, i think, is that we rely on the P2P protocol (slow, expensive, unreliable) to get your transaction to the receiver
 892 2013-07-28 15:09:26 <sipa> while you're already visiting their website
 893 2013-07-28 15:09:34 <sipa> why not just send the transaction directly to him?
 894 2013-07-28 15:09:47 <sipa> the only one you care about to get it is him
 895 2013-07-28 15:09:53 <CodeShark> he'd still have to broadcast it so that miners get it
 896 2013-07-28 15:10:00 <tonikt> you want to get it mined
 897 2013-07-28 15:10:03 <sipa> sure, but that's what he cares about - not you
 898 2013-07-28 15:10:14 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 899 2013-07-28 15:10:20 <sipa> sure, you should give him a transaction that is minable - obviously
 900 2013-07-28 15:10:32 <sipa> but you shouldn't keep your client running until it's confirmed
 901 2013-07-28 15:10:41 <sipa> once it reaches the receiver, you're fine
 902 2013-07-28 15:10:51 <tonikt> so you are saying that txs relying is not needed at all?
 903 2013-07-28 15:11:02 <t7> maybe double spends are easier if you give the tx to the recipient ?
 904 2013-07-28 15:11:02 <tonikt> maybe I could support this idea :)
 905 2013-07-28 15:11:06 <sipa> tx relaying is needed for getting it to miners, and to get security for the network
 906 2013-07-28 15:11:13 <sipa> it is not needed for _communication_
 907 2013-07-28 15:11:23 <sipa> the problem is that now, you don't even know it reached the receiver
 908 2013-07-28 15:11:35 <sipa> unless they have some way of telling you on their website or via some mail
 909 2013-07-28 15:11:40 <CodeShark> I'm working on a signature request protocol that sort of works that way, sipa
 910 2013-07-28 15:11:45 <tonikt> yes - the only way it makes economical sense is if you send you tx to the receiver and he takes care to deliver it to the monet
 911 2013-07-28 15:11:49 <sipa> that's ridiculous - your client should just say "transaction submitted!"
 912 2013-07-28 15:11:51 <sipa> and DONE
 913 2013-07-28 15:11:52 <tonikt> miner*
 914 2013-07-28 15:11:57 <CodeShark> the receiver would request a signature from you, you don't relay anything
 915 2013-07-28 15:12:19 forrestv has quit (Changing host)
 916 2013-07-28 15:12:19 forrestv has joined
 917 2013-07-28 15:12:30 <CodeShark> the signing node shouldn't even be connected to the p2p network :p
 918 2013-07-28 15:12:40 <sipa> CodeShark: well that's what the payment protocol does essentially, it describes what output(s) a transaction need to have, and you answer using the signed transaction
 919 2013-07-28 15:12:46 <sipa> no need for a P2P protocol either
 920 2013-07-28 15:12:58 <tonikt> think of how a big waste it is to route of these txs if then only need to reach one of the few miners
 921 2013-07-28 15:13:06 <sipa> tonikt: not even
 922 2013-07-28 15:13:16 <sipa> it's perfectly fine to broadcast it to get security of the network
 923 2013-07-28 15:13:18 <CodeShark> the idea is to make this more general than just a payment protocol - so that it supports multifactor auth or multisignatures
 924 2013-07-28 15:13:32 <sipa> but as a customer you don't care about that
 925 2013-07-28 15:13:39 <sipa> you care about getting your transaction to the receiver
 926 2013-07-28 15:13:43 <CodeShark> this isn't just about invoicing
 927 2013-07-28 15:13:47 <tonikt> sipa: what do you mean security?
 928 2013-07-28 15:13:50 <CodeShark> this is a general way to institute signing policies
 929 2013-07-28 15:14:04 <sipa> tonikt: double-spend security, however flawed it is
 930 2013-07-28 15:14:31 <sipa> CodeShark: btw, if i understand it correctly, the merchant would construct the transaction, and you would only sign it?
 931 2013-07-28 15:14:38 <tonikt> sipa: yeah, but nobody accepts txs with less than 3 txs, do they?
 932 2013-07-28 15:14:42 <sipa> tonikt: lol
 933 2013-07-28 15:15:00 <sipa> i wish that we true :)
 934 2013-07-28 15:15:05 <sipa> (you mean confirmations, i suppose)
 935 2013-07-28 15:15:05 saulimus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 936 2013-07-28 15:15:10 <CodeShark> sipa: yes
 937 2013-07-28 15:15:13 <CodeShark> essentially
 938 2013-07-28 15:15:18 <sipa> CodeShark: so they need to know your utxos?
 939 2013-07-28 15:15:21 <CodeShark> at least in this application
 940 2013-07-28 15:15:30 saulimus has joined
 941 2013-07-28 15:15:33 <CodeShark> well, you could also supply inputs
 942 2013-07-28 15:15:46 <tonikt> yes, confirmations, and well: then they should.. :)
 943 2013-07-28 15:15:51 <CodeShark> and a change output
 944 2013-07-28 15:15:53 <sipa> not only that though
 945 2013-07-28 15:16:16 <sipa> making the network aware of your transaction increases the chance that in case of a double-spent, yours will be the one to get mined
 946 2013-07-28 15:16:48 <sipa> even if you don't accept anything with just 0-conf, you still like the transaction to go through
 947 2013-07-28 15:16:50 <CodeShark> the merchant sends you a prototransaction with a single output for the amount of the purchase, you provide any number of inputs and any number of outputs, sign it, and send it back
 948 2013-07-28 15:17:01 handle has joined
 949 2013-07-28 15:17:10 ielo has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 950 2013-07-28 15:17:32 <tonikt> but the only person who can double spend your own tx is yourself
 951 2013-07-28 15:17:40 <CodeShark> the merchant could place certain rules, like maximum number of bytes or minimum fee
 952 2013-07-28 15:17:45 <sipa> i'm talking about the receiver of a transaction
 953 2013-07-28 15:17:51 <sipa> who may not trust the sender
 954 2013-07-28 15:18:04 <sipa> the receiver has all reasons to want the transaction he received to confirm
 955 2013-07-28 15:18:14 <sipa> even if he's not going to offer any services/goods until it does
 956 2013-07-28 15:18:48 <CodeShark> in this approach, only recipients would ever do full verification and relay
 957 2013-07-28 15:18:53 Plinker has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 958 2013-07-28 15:18:56 <CodeShark> senders only sign. period.
 959 2013-07-28 15:19:10 <sipa> i fully agree
 960 2013-07-28 15:19:22 <sipa> well, or construct the transaction
 961 2013-07-28 15:19:41 <CodeShark> well, right - senders also add inputs/outputs
 962 2013-07-28 15:19:46 <sipa> there isn't much difference between giving an unsigned transaction, and asking to add inputs/outputs
 963 2013-07-28 15:19:58 <sipa> or just sending an output and asking to construct a transaction that contains it
 964 2013-07-28 15:20:19 <CodeShark> it's the same thing
 965 2013-07-28 15:21:58 <tonikt> are you talking about some new way of doing txs that I am now aware of?
 966 2013-07-28 15:22:24 <CodeShark> when you receive, you verify the txouts and make sure they get confirmed, then you make that data available somehow to the signing module (which could very well reside on a completely different machine)
 967 2013-07-28 15:22:59 <tonikt> yes, you can
 968 2013-07-28 15:23:09 <tonikt> but for what purpose?
 969 2013-07-28 15:23:32 <CodeShark> the signing module only stores the txouts and dependencies (perhaps the full transaction containing it as well as all transactions it depends on, since unfortunately the txout values are not used when signing)
 970 2013-07-28 15:24:54 <CodeShark> that would mean the signing module could fit on a tiny card and wouldn't need constant network connectivity
 971 2013-07-28 15:25:18 <tonikt> but needs to have all the private keys?
 972 2013-07-28 15:25:23 <CodeShark> yes, of course
 973 2013-07-28 15:25:24 <tonikt> my private keys?
 974 2013-07-28 15:25:32 <CodeShark> if you want to sign you need the private keys
 975 2013-07-28 15:25:33 <CodeShark> of course
 976 2013-07-28 15:25:33 <tonikt> no, thank you
 977 2013-07-28 15:25:38 <CodeShark> it belongs to YOU
 978 2013-07-28 15:25:42 <tonikt> i prefer to sign it myself :)
 979 2013-07-28 15:25:48 <CodeShark> YOU sign it
 980 2013-07-28 15:26:01 <tonikt> outside a network
 981 2013-07-28 15:26:08 <CodeShark> the recipient requests payment from you, you sign it with this device
 982 2013-07-28 15:26:12 <CodeShark> which you have full physical control over
 983 2013-07-28 15:26:34 <tonikt> yeah, yeah - full physical control over
 984 2013-07-28 15:26:42 <CodeShark> the device could poll for updates whenever it connects to a network
 985 2013-07-28 15:26:43 <tonikt> i doubt it :)
 986 2013-07-28 15:26:51 <CodeShark> I don't think you're following
 987 2013-07-28 15:27:09 <tonikt> the only way to be sure is to have your wallet 100% off any network
 988 2013-07-28 15:27:41 <tonikt> maybe I'm not following
 989 2013-07-28 15:27:50 <CodeShark> it's a physical device with a very limited interface to the signing functionality - which could be secured by PIN, joystick, biometrics, whatever
 990 2013-07-28 15:27:58 agnostic98 has joined
 991 2013-07-28 15:27:58 <tonikt> because I think you focus the security on less crucial part
 992 2013-07-28 15:28:16 <tonikt> yes- thats the perfect wallet
 993 2013-07-28 15:28:23 <tonikt> I wish we had such
 994 2013-07-28 15:28:37 <tonikt> but we dont
 995 2013-07-28 15:28:59 agricocb has joined
 996 2013-07-28 15:29:10 <CodeShark> point is the architecture we're talking about would perfectly suit such an approach
 997 2013-07-28 15:29:20 cads has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 998 2013-07-28 15:29:35 <tonikt> oh, ok. then I am looking forward to see it in action
 999 2013-07-28 15:30:14 <tonikt> as for know, there is no way to export your wallet and then using a cold storage, just spend a money from it
1000 2013-07-28 15:30:40 <tonikt> not "export your wallet", but rather UTXO balance
1001 2013-07-28 15:30:43 <CodeShark> to spend from a wallet all you need to do is construct a transaction, sign it, and send it over to someone who can relay it
1002 2013-07-28 15:31:05 <tonikt> yes, I know. I've done it
1003 2013-07-28 15:31:38 <CodeShark> the UTXO could be polled from the network whenever the device connects - it could be done intermittently - and the device has no need for even headers-only SPV
1004 2013-07-28 15:31:48 <tonikt> but why cannot bitcoin client support a cold storage wallet?
1005 2013-07-28 15:32:02 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1006 2013-07-28 15:32:09 <CodeShark> the bitcoin client wasn't designed to support that
1007 2013-07-28 15:32:40 <tonikt> yeah. it also wasnt designed to include x.509, but now it suddenly will :)
1008 2013-07-28 15:32:47 agnostic98 has joined
1009 2013-07-28 15:32:51 <CodeShark> I hope not
1010 2013-07-28 15:32:53 <t7> bitcoin client is too big
1011 2013-07-28 15:32:58 <t7> needs to be split into modules
1012 2013-07-28 15:33:01 <t7> unix style
1013 2013-07-28 15:33:26 <CodeShark> the satoshi reference implementation's focus should be on streamlined full validation and relay
1014 2013-07-28 15:33:50 <t7> gangnam style
1015 2013-07-28 15:33:51 <tonikt> i fully agree here
1016 2013-07-28 15:34:00 <sipa> agree as well
1017 2013-07-28 15:34:06 <tonikt> but how can you slit it now?
1018 2013-07-28 15:34:20 <tonikt> it would have to be literally a seperate executable
1019 2013-07-28 15:34:31 <sipa> there are two ways of doing separation
1020 2013-07-28 15:34:43 <sipa> either separate the codebases
1021 2013-07-28 15:34:47 <sipa> or separate the processes
1022 2013-07-28 15:34:49 <t7> tonikt: or dynamic lib
1023 2013-07-28 15:35:56 <tonikt> i think the only way to be sure is to make it os independent and even host indenpendent - so TCP, like x server
1024 2013-07-28 15:36:37 <tonikt> and no external depemdencied from the core lib - not even boost, if possible :)
1025 2013-07-28 15:36:38 imton has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1026 2013-07-28 15:36:55 <tonikt> otherwise how can one be sure
1027 2013-07-28 15:37:34 <t7> abstract away the connection
1028 2013-07-28 15:37:38 <t7> so it can be tcp or dll :)
1029 2013-07-28 15:37:47 <t7> or static
1030 2013-07-28 15:38:06 <t7> this is why i never finish anything
1031 2013-07-28 15:38:18 <t7> too many layers of abstraction
1032 2013-07-28 15:38:33 imton has joined
1033 2013-07-28 15:38:46 <sipa> lasagna code
1034 2013-07-28 15:38:46 <tonikt> tcp - because static would be harder to implement in other languages
1035 2013-07-28 15:39:20 michagogo has joined
1036 2013-07-28 15:39:57 <tonikt> and it should not be hard to make a blockchain deamon that takes blocks, via JSON-RPC and returns if they are fine
1037 2013-07-28 15:40:21 <tonikt> hell, evem transactions, if you want to include a mempool there
1038 2013-07-28 15:40:31 Muis has joined
1039 2013-07-28 15:40:40 <sipa> why even bother with JSON-RPC
1040 2013-07-28 15:40:51 <sipa> have a small client-side lib to submit them over P2P :)
1041 2013-07-28 15:40:56 <tonikt> yeah, whatever protocol
1042 2013-07-28 15:41:16 <tonikt> a simpler a better
1043 2013-07-28 15:41:37 <tonikt> and also for mining - this is important
1044 2013-07-28 15:41:50 <tonikt> API to get the data they need
1045 2013-07-28 15:42:11 jgarzik has quit (Quit: network rejiggering)
1046 2013-07-28 15:43:04 <tonikt> you can make a pretty small self standing client/ tcp server that does just that
1047 2013-07-28 15:45:13 <tonikt> ... and never touch it for the next 2 years, while doing your "important" stuff :)
1048 2013-07-28 15:45:36 t7 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1049 2013-07-28 15:48:04 HM has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1050 2013-07-28 15:53:50 Lolcust has quit (Quit: Nap time)
1051 2013-07-28 15:54:54 Lolcust has joined
1052 2013-07-28 15:58:00 <tonikt> so what if we could make like a competition, or whatever, who makes the best bitcoin chain server out there?
1053 2013-07-28 15:58:36 <tonikt> I guess we could agree on some king of the minimal API
1054 2013-07-28 16:00:37 <tonikt> sometimes competition turns out to be the only engine o progress ;)
1055 2013-07-28 16:06:48 <Vinnie_win> wuddup
1056 2013-07-28 16:07:24 <Vinnie_win> sipa: Tijuana?
1057 2013-07-28 16:08:04 <sipa> Vinnie_win: ?
1058 2013-07-28 16:08:18 <Vinnie_win> sipa: Tijuana let me help you with gitsubtree :-)
1059 2013-07-28 16:08:36 <sipa> ?
1060 2013-07-28 16:08:54 <Vinnie_win> doh...nevermind... "Tijuana".... "Do you wanna"
1061 2013-07-28 16:09:19 <sipa> ok, didn't get that :)
1062 2013-07-28 16:09:28 <sipa> eh, yes, sure
1063 2013-07-28 16:09:31 <Vinnie_win> Yep my fault
1064 2013-07-28 16:09:49 <Vinnie_win> where do you wanna do this
1065 2013-07-28 16:09:53 HM has joined
1066 2013-07-28 16:09:57 <Vinnie_win> I mean, IRC? Skype?
1067 2013-07-28 16:13:45 <tonikt> hmmm... may I ask what are you planing to do, guys
1068 2013-07-28 16:15:14 <tonikt> not that I am a pervert. I just like to know different social behaviors, at least when they start awkward :)
1069 2013-07-28 16:15:17 agilenature has joined
1070 2013-07-28 16:15:34 <tonikt> Tijuana?
1071 2013-07-28 16:19:47 ielo has joined
1072 2013-07-28 16:20:30 <sipa> i just benchmarked a full sync from scratch (with libsecp256k1, and -dbcache=2000, on a fast machine) in 39 minutes :)
1073 2013-07-28 16:20:54 <sipa> from random peers
1074 2013-07-28 16:21:08 <tonikt> i dont believe it :)
1075 2013-07-28 16:21:29 <sipa> 2013-07-28 15:39:02 SetBestChain: new best=00000000839a8e6886ab5951d76f411475428afc90947ee320161bbf18eb6048  height=1  log2_work=33.000022
1076 2013-07-28 16:21:42 <sipa> 2013-07-28 16:18:32 SetBestChain: new best=000000000000004e86e42b62d2954da687302d785cb5bcaaf46f112f6896759d  height=248909  log2_work=70.920217
1077 2013-07-28 16:22:00 <tonikt> but with script verification?
1078 2013-07-28 16:22:06 <sipa> after the last checkpoint, yes
1079 2013-07-28 16:22:16 <sipa> so after block 225430
1080 2013-07-28 16:22:32 <sipa> i'll do a benchmark with it enabled everywhere
1081 2013-07-28 16:22:46 <tonikt> so after the 39 minutes?
1082 2013-07-28 16:22:51 tim11 has joined
1083 2013-07-28 16:23:10 <tonikt> so let me know tomorrow how much more it needed ;)
1084 2013-07-28 16:23:11 <sipa> no 39 minutes is everything
1085 2013-07-28 16:23:37 <tonikt> with verification?
1086 2013-07-28 16:23:41 <tonikt> thats coool
1087 2013-07-28 16:23:53 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> hello
1088 2013-07-28 16:23:58 <tonikt> you must have a quite fast pc then
1089 2013-07-28 16:25:08 <tonikt> but its a good time
1090 2013-07-28 16:25:35 <tonikt> as they make ollpmpic or world records - they should note these 39 minutes
1091 2013-07-28 16:25:48 <tonikt> 28th of july 2013
1092 2013-07-28 16:25:52 <sipa> lol
1093 2013-07-28 16:26:48 <tonikt> at least I'll remember that ;)
1094 2013-07-28 16:27:10 <gmaxwell> sipa: sounds good.
1095 2013-07-28 16:27:29 <gmaxwell> Too bad you had to change the protocol.
1096 2013-07-28 16:27:32 <sipa> well, when i started working on ultraprune this took 21 minuted :(
1097 2013-07-28 16:27:48 <sipa> heh?
1098 2013-07-28 16:27:51 <gmaxwell> :P
1099 2013-07-28 16:28:14 <gmaxwell> (well, I have it on high authority that it can't be improved without changing the protocol!)
1100 2013-07-28 16:28:21 <gmaxwell> sipa: lots more data now. :)
1101 2013-07-28 16:33:00 abrkn has quit ()
1102 2013-07-28 16:33:37 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> i'm having troulb using addmultisigaddress in anywhere but the debug window
1103 2013-07-28 16:34:29 <tim11> can someone answer me questions about gbt/stratum here?
1104 2013-07-28 16:38:37 <i2pRelay> <toran@i2p> what's the difference between addmultisigaddress and createmultisig?
1105 2013-07-28 16:39:10 <tim11> it is said that gbt leaves more control to the miner because they can detect and prevent a double-spend that the pool operator launches
1106 2013-07-28 16:40:03 <tim11> but gbt can't prevent the pool operator from censoring transactions, so is it really significantly better?
1107 2013-07-28 16:40:34 grau has joined
1108 2013-07-28 16:46:19 daybyter has joined
1109 2013-07-28 16:47:44 bmcgee_ has joined
1110 2013-07-28 16:49:05 bmcgee has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1111 2013-07-28 16:49:05 bmcgee_ is now known as bmcgee
1112 2013-07-28 17:00:37 ericmuyser has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1113 2013-07-28 17:01:11 jgarzik has joined
1114 2013-07-28 17:01:11 jgarzik has quit (Changing host)
1115 2013-07-28 17:01:11 jgarzik has joined
1116 2013-07-28 17:05:37 bmcgee_ has joined
1117 2013-07-28 17:06:37 tcatm has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1118 2013-07-28 17:07:47 ProfMac has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1119 2013-07-28 17:08:16 bmcgee has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1120 2013-07-28 17:08:16 bmcgee_ is now known as bmcgee
1121 2013-07-28 17:08:47 tcatm has joined
1122 2013-07-28 17:08:47 tcatm has quit (Changing host)
1123 2013-07-28 17:08:47 tcatm has joined
1124 2013-07-28 17:09:51 psychophoniac has joined
1125 2013-07-28 17:19:35 CodeShark has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1126 2013-07-28 17:23:11 <tonikt> what do you think would be a minimal api that a bitcoin coe node needs to export for external apps, like wallets, chain exlorers, miners, or payment processors?
1127 2013-07-28 17:24:15 <sipa> that really depends on which of those you're talking about
1128 2013-07-28 17:24:24 <tonikt> I think not so complex, and if you can close it ina a single executable 0 that would be just great, to seperate it from all the araising shit
1129 2013-07-28 17:25:09 <tonikt> I'm taking about: blockahain, script verificstion adn maybe a meomry pool, up to some point
1130 2013-07-28 17:25:15 <tonikt> to facilitate mining
1131 2013-07-28 17:25:33 <tonikt> but pretty juch spam resistant
1132 2013-07-28 17:25:34 <sipa> well but for example, for a block explorer you need a transactions and address index
1133 2013-07-28 17:25:40 <tonikt> so no 100KB transactins
1134 2013-07-28 17:25:56 <sipa> things that are costly to maintained, make pruning impossible, and aren't needed for otherwise normal operation
1135 2013-07-28 17:26:04 <tonikt> if you want to eplore them all - yeah
1136 2013-07-28 17:26:17 <sipa> so you already have an optional feature
1137 2013-07-28 17:26:20 <tonikt> but if you only need the outputs that belojng to your wallet - who cares
1138 2013-07-28 17:26:54 <tonikt> the same fature as id does now  just made otherwise
1139 2013-07-28 17:27:25 <tonikt> like with layers - tat cannot break each other
1140 2013-07-28 17:29:54 <tonikt> buy yeah, as it comes to pruning, dont you think that keeoing a history of the soent ones seems like kind of a waste?
1141 2013-07-28 17:31:05 <tonikt> telling each node to calc it from the beginningm where it has thousands that he can trust - its like the work syzyf did\
1142 2013-07-28 17:31:35 <tonikt> (or whatever his name as)
1143 2013-07-28 17:31:39 <sipa> sisyphus
1144 2013-07-28 17:31:55 <sipa> that's the security model we aim for, and at least in the reference client i think it's important - even just for ideological reasons - to maintain that
1145 2013-07-28 17:32:57 t7 has joined
1146 2013-07-28 17:34:37 PrimeStunna has joined
1147 2013-07-28 17:35:28 Eiii has joined
1148 2013-07-28 17:35:56 saulimus has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1149 2013-07-28 17:37:08 <sipa> tonikt: 43 minutes to sync from scratch with sig checking enabled everywhere
1150 2013-07-28 17:37:21 Playermaniac has joined
1151 2013-07-28 17:37:28 <tonikt> sipa: good for you
1152 2013-07-28 17:37:34 <tonikt> my testnet neds more :)
1153 2013-07-28 17:38:39 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1154 2013-07-28 17:39:37 <tonikt> so how do you do this?
1155 2013-07-28 17:39:46 <tonikt> do you have some secret algo?
1156 2013-07-28 17:39:59 <sipa> you know of libsecp256k1?
1157 2013-07-28 17:40:04 <tonikt> yes
1158 2013-07-28 17:40:23 <tonikt> but youre saying that yiou can fetch all the data witin 21 minute
1159 2013-07-28 17:40:40 <sipa> ok, that combined with a large cache for the UTXO set, parallel block fetching, a fast machine and a very good network connection
1160 2013-07-28 17:41:21 <tonikt> so do you have like a limit, how manyn peers you are fetching the sane bkock from?
1161 2013-07-28 17:41:47 <tonikt> do you first download headers - or you dont boher?
1162 2013-07-28 17:42:01 <sipa> i only ever download every block once
1163 2013-07-28 17:42:14 <sipa> and i only download from outbound peers
1164 2013-07-28 17:42:16 <sipa> so max 8
1165 2013-07-28 17:42:49 <tonikt> so you starat, you ask each 8 peers fro 500 invs, you get 500 and you only download these 500 from one of them?
1166 2013-07-28 17:42:57 <sipa> i don't use "inv" at all
1167 2013-07-28 17:43:07 <sipa> first synchronize using getheaders
1168 2013-07-28 17:43:08 <tonikt> getblocks
1169 2013-07-28 17:43:18 <sipa> no getblocks involved either
1170 2013-07-28 17:43:22 <tonikt> oh, ok
1171 2013-07-28 17:43:31 <tonikt> so getheaders is the key
1172 2013-07-28 17:43:34 <sipa> and then along the best chain, fire off getdata's to peers that have that chain
1173 2013-07-28 17:43:45 <tonikt> that makes sense
1174 2013-07-28 17:43:50 <sipa> while 1) limiting the number of blocks requested per peer
1175 2013-07-28 17:44:01 <sipa> and 2) limiting the size of the "unconnected window"
1176 2013-07-28 17:44:18 <sipa> 32 blocks per peer now, and 1008 blocks in total (=1 week)
1177 2013-07-28 17:44:26 <tonikt> sounds cool. i'd like trying that :)
1178 2013-07-28 17:44:28 <sipa> by unconnected window i mean
1179 2013-07-28 17:44:37 <sipa> that if you're synced up until block N
1180 2013-07-28 17:44:44 <sipa> you only ask for blocks up to N+1008
1181 2013-07-28 17:44:48 <tonikt> getheaders - it always seeamed so useless for me
1182 2013-07-28 17:45:01 <sipa> it's really getblocks as it should have been
1183 2013-07-28 17:45:09 <sipa> as it allows you to verify the returned data immediately
1184 2013-07-28 17:45:39 <sipa> instead of needed to request the actual blocks before you can do so
1185 2013-07-28 17:45:57 <tonikt> thats cool. though, dont you think if you know the block size at this point, you would be able to optimize it so much better?:)
1186 2013-07-28 17:46:30 <tonikt> you ask for multiple if they are small
1187 2013-07-28 17:46:35 <sipa> well, if you tolerate a larger window, it's less of a problem
1188 2013-07-28 17:46:42 <sipa> as you can just ask for more blocks at the time
1189 2013-07-28 17:46:46 <sipa> and keep all peers busy
1190 2013-07-28 17:47:05 shesek has joined
1191 2013-07-28 17:47:11 <sipa> the problem is that i don't want a large window, that makes pruning harder afterwards, as the blocks are not stored in order on disk anymore
1192 2013-07-28 17:48:26 <tonikt> and what do you think about my idea of mining a hash of UTXO db into blocks?
1193 2013-07-28 17:48:39 <tonikt> .. that would make bootstrapping even faster
1194 2013-07-28 17:49:01 xdrake has left ()
1195 2013-07-28 17:49:04 chorao has joined
1196 2013-07-28 17:49:36 <sipa> tonikt: we've been talking about that for years
1197 2013-07-28 17:49:51 <tonikt> sipa: no I did not :)
1198 2013-07-28 17:49:57 <tonikt> maybe for months
1199 2013-07-28 17:50:07 <tonikt> its a good idea
1200 2013-07-28 17:50:11 <sipa> yeah it is
1201 2013-07-28 17:50:19 <sipa> and there are many use cases
1202 2013-07-28 17:51:20 saulimus has joined
1203 2013-07-28 17:51:26 <tonikt> so I wonder, its not really realistic to happen within the next 5 ysr, is it? :)
1204 2013-07-28 17:52:00 <sipa> the problem is that each of these use cases has a different subset of features it requires from the UTXO commitment
1205 2013-07-28 17:52:05 <sipa> some need it indexed by script
1206 2013-07-28 17:52:08 <tonikt> but all it requires is adding a simple hash to a block - and making sure that miners enforce it
1207 2013-07-28 17:52:13 <sipa> some need amounts in the merkle tree
1208 2013-07-28 17:52:36 <sipa> and to make that efficient is not easy, especially as it has to scale to a point that we probably can't imagine now
1209 2013-07-28 17:52:42 <sipa> and it will be a normative rule for the network
1210 2013-07-28 17:53:34 <tonikt> so you are saying that not all of the mining imlementations can browse though all of the utxo and calc a reliable hash of it?
1211 2013-07-28 17:53:48 <sipa> they certainly could
1212 2013-07-28 17:53:55 <sipa> but we need to define an algorithm for that
1213 2013-07-28 17:54:00 <tonikt> it seems quite simple
1214 2013-07-28 17:54:11 <sipa> it's not just "hash the entire UTXO set, serialized as one blob"
1215 2013-07-28 17:54:14 chorao is now known as xdrake
1216 2013-07-28 17:54:17 <sipa> that's terrible expensive to update for miners
1217 2013-07-28 17:54:19 <tonikt> xor all the jashes of all the utxo records
1218 2013-07-28 17:54:23 <sipa> lol
1219 2013-07-28 17:54:23 xdrake is now known as chorao
1220 2013-07-28 17:54:30 <sipa> it needs to be a cryptographic hash
1221 2013-07-28 17:54:43 <tonikt> it is cryptographic :)
1222 2013-07-28 17:54:51 <sipa> xor is not a cryptographic hash...
1223 2013-07-28 17:54:52 <tonikt> equally unpredictible
1224 2013-07-28 17:55:06 <sipa> you need a lecture on crypto, i'm afraid
1225 2013-07-28 17:55:06 <tonikt> the number is big enought
1226 2013-07-28 17:55:59 <tonikt> anyway, you can hash it or wahtever, sorting by txid,out
1227 2013-07-28 17:56:15 <tonikt> though then incremental chnages would not be so hot
1228 2013-07-28 17:56:15 <sipa> you need to turn it into a tree structure
1229 2013-07-28 17:56:24 <sipa> a committed merkle tree
1230 2013-07-28 17:56:31 <tonikt> yeah
1231 2013-07-28 17:57:26 <tonikt> so you think it could work? :)
1232 2013-07-28 17:57:43 <sipa> i'm convinced that it can work
1233 2013-07-28 17:57:44 <tonikt> just not worth the effort
1234 2013-07-28 17:58:04 <sipa> i'm not convinced we can find a combination of features that every full node is willing to spend effort to maintain
1235 2013-07-28 17:59:51 Playermaniac has left ()
1236 2013-07-28 17:59:52 <tonikt> thats ok. they dont need to maintain them - they can ignore the utxo db snaphshot ideas, but how would it hurt anyone?
1237 2013-07-28 17:59:54 Playermaniac has joined
1238 2013-07-28 18:00:14 <sipa> committed UTXO sets are only useful when everyone enforces their correctness
1239 2013-07-28 18:00:16 hsmiths has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
1240 2013-07-28 18:00:24 <sipa> so they need to be validated
1241 2013-07-28 18:00:29 <sipa> and maintained them is not cheap
1242 2013-07-28 18:00:33 <sipa> *maintaining
1243 2013-07-28 18:00:55 <tonikt> yes, but you can chooose to trust this technology, or not
1244 2013-07-28 18:01:16 <sipa> if it's not enforced, there is no reason to trust it
1245 2013-07-28 18:01:26 <tonikt> and if you enforse not allowing blocks that containt illegal id, that will solve the problem
1246 2013-07-28 18:01:41 <sipa> well that's the point
1247 2013-07-28 18:01:49 <sipa> you need full nodes to validate that UTXO hash
1248 2013-07-28 18:02:04 <sipa> and if they are not required to validate it, there is no point in having it in the first place
1249 2013-07-28 18:02:36 <tonikt> why would not them validate it?
1250 2013-07-28 18:02:48 <sipa> because it's expensive to do so
1251 2013-07-28 18:03:06 <tonikt> not as much as downloading a new chain
1252 2013-07-28 18:03:22 <sipa> that's completely beside the point
1253 2013-07-28 18:03:33 <sipa> as the ones enforcing it don't need to download the chain anymore
1254 2013-07-28 18:03:38 <tonikt> maybe
1255 2013-07-28 18:03:50 <tonikt> that is an alternative idea anyway
1256 2013-07-28 18:03:51 <sipa> and it's not the same either
1257 2013-07-28 18:04:01 <sipa> it still only gives you SPV level security about history
1258 2013-07-28 18:04:18 <sipa> which may be an acceptable compromise, but it's strictly less than validating history yourself
1259 2013-07-28 18:04:30 <tonikt> the genesis block is the seed
1260 2013-07-28 18:04:43 <sipa> ...
1261 2013-07-28 18:04:45 <tonikt> why not to let people to change the seed?
1262 2013-07-28 18:05:02 <tonikt> to whatever they know has not been cheated
1263 2013-07-28 18:05:18 <sipa> ideally you have a system that does so automatically, and validates it
1264 2013-07-28 18:05:18 hsmiths has joined
1265 2013-07-28 18:05:44 <tonikt> bitcon does not need a genesis block - it just needs a secured seed
1266 2013-07-28 18:06:48 agnostic98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1267 2013-07-28 18:07:42 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1268 2013-07-28 18:08:16 AtashiCon has quit (Quit: AtashiCon)
1269 2013-07-28 18:10:44 jgarzik has quit (Quit: network reconfig)
1270 2013-07-28 18:11:30 <tonikt> So maybe it is not so stupid after all, to mine theres UTXO checkpoints into blocks. It does not seem to hurt, though open so more possibilities...
1271 2013-07-28 18:12:59 _jps has joined
1272 2013-07-28 18:16:13 AtashiCon has joined
1273 2013-07-28 18:17:04 AtashiCon has quit (Client Quit)
1274 2013-07-28 18:17:16 enquirer has joined
1275 2013-07-28 18:18:44 BurtyB has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1276 2013-07-28 18:19:31 Playermaniac has left ()
1277 2013-07-28 18:19:38 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1278 2013-07-28 18:21:05 AtashiCon has joined
1279 2013-07-28 18:21:58 paraipan has joined
1280 2013-07-28 18:28:57 grau has joined
1281 2013-07-28 18:30:30 jeewee has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1282 2013-07-28 18:32:13 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1283 2013-07-28 18:33:31 dansmithbtc2 has joined
1284 2013-07-28 18:35:26 paybitcoin has joined
1285 2013-07-28 18:35:59 meLon has joined
1286 2013-07-28 18:37:10 agnostic98 has joined
1287 2013-07-28 18:38:07 Dyaheon has joined
1288 2013-07-28 18:40:33 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1289 2013-07-28 18:48:00 Application has joined
1290 2013-07-28 18:48:35 Applicat_ has joined
1291 2013-07-28 18:49:43 _jps has quit (Quit: _jps)
1292 2013-07-28 18:51:55 Happzz has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.in)
1293 2013-07-28 18:52:19 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1294 2013-07-28 18:59:02 Skav has joined
1295 2013-07-28 19:01:45 MobPhone has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1296 2013-07-28 19:02:00 MobPhone has joined
1297 2013-07-28 19:02:13 guyguyguyguy has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1298 2013-07-28 19:02:23 Skav has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1299 2013-07-28 19:02:41 guyguyguyguy has joined
1300 2013-07-28 19:03:29 HM has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1301 2013-07-28 19:05:16 HM has joined
1302 2013-07-28 19:06:39 MobPhone has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1303 2013-07-28 19:06:59 guyguyguyguy has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1304 2013-07-28 19:07:26 guyguyguyguy has joined
1305 2013-07-28 19:08:02 agilenature has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1306 2013-07-28 19:08:21 paybitcoin has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1307 2013-07-28 19:09:16 ericmuyser has joined
1308 2013-07-28 19:09:49 paybitcoin has joined
1309 2013-07-28 19:09:52 paraipan has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
1310 2013-07-28 19:10:58 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1311 2013-07-28 19:11:29 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1312 2013-07-28 19:19:28 Namworld has joined
1313 2013-07-28 19:19:55 CheckDavid has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1314 2013-07-28 19:20:22 phebus has quit (Quit: POKE 1,0)
1315 2013-07-28 19:31:05 shesek has joined
1316 2013-07-28 19:31:49 mrkent has joined
1317 2013-07-28 19:32:27 Phil21_ has left ()
1318 2013-07-28 19:32:59 Phil21 has joined
1319 2013-07-28 19:34:24 CheckDavid has joined
1320 2013-07-28 19:36:59 ThomasV has joined
1321 2013-07-28 19:38:02 PrimeStunna has quit (Quit: PrimeStunna)
1322 2013-07-28 19:39:08 agnostic98 has joined
1323 2013-07-28 19:39:35 PrimeStunna has joined
1324 2013-07-28 19:39:59 linse has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.90.1 [Firefox 22.0/20130627161504])
1325 2013-07-28 19:42:03 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1326 2013-07-28 19:42:51 PrimeStunna has quit (Client Quit)
1327 2013-07-28 19:45:26 BurtyB has joined
1328 2013-07-28 19:51:28 cyphase has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1329 2013-07-28 19:53:32 MobPhone has joined
1330 2013-07-28 19:58:13 edcba has joined
1331 2013-07-28 19:58:24 <edcba> syncing with the netwok takes a while...
1332 2013-07-28 19:59:08 <edcba> why isn't there some option to fast sync through http/bittorrent whatever ?
1333 2013-07-28 19:59:35 <edcba> especially the 60th latest weeks
1334 2013-07-28 20:01:29 brson has joined
1335 2013-07-28 20:02:06 ielo has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1336 2013-07-28 20:06:11 edcba has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1337 2013-07-28 20:06:21 edcba has joined
1338 2013-07-28 20:07:08 brson has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1339 2013-07-28 20:08:31 Scrat has quit (Quit: Connection terminated)
1340 2013-07-28 20:08:44 brson has joined
1341 2013-07-28 20:09:09 Scrat has joined
1342 2013-07-28 20:10:12 agnostic98 has joined
1343 2013-07-28 20:12:14 Avatar[01] has quit (Quit: Bye)
1344 2013-07-28 20:13:06 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1345 2013-07-28 20:13:20 Krellan_ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1346 2013-07-28 20:18:02 realazthat has quit (Quit: realazthat)
1347 2013-07-28 20:19:04 realazthat has joined
1348 2013-07-28 20:20:13 <bmcgee> hey should the response to submitblock indicating a block was valid be of the form { "id": "some id" } or { "id": "some id", "result": "null" }
1349 2013-07-28 20:20:16 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1350 2013-07-28 20:30:36 roconnor has joined
1351 2013-07-28 20:31:32 TD has joined
1352 2013-07-28 20:31:48 iwilcox has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1353 2013-07-28 20:32:03 iwilcox has joined
1354 2013-07-28 20:33:23 AusBitBank has joined
1355 2013-07-28 20:36:35 denisx has joined
1356 2013-07-28 20:37:44 iwilcox has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1357 2013-07-28 20:38:28 paracyst has joined
1358 2013-07-28 20:39:32 brson has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1359 2013-07-28 20:40:02 mariorz_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1360 2013-07-28 20:40:59 agnostic98 has joined
1361 2013-07-28 20:41:26 sodoku has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1362 2013-07-28 20:43:47 iwilcox has joined
1363 2013-07-28 20:45:18 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1364 2013-07-28 20:47:00 skeledrew has joined
1365 2013-07-28 20:48:46 Phoebus has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1366 2013-07-28 20:49:20 wizkid057 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1367 2013-07-28 20:50:01 dust-otc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1368 2013-07-28 20:50:19 arthurb_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1369 2013-07-28 20:50:21 jgarzik has joined
1370 2013-07-28 20:50:21 jgarzik has quit (Changing host)
1371 2013-07-28 20:50:21 jgarzik has joined
1372 2013-07-28 20:50:58 Phoebus has joined
1373 2013-07-28 20:52:48 wizkid057 has joined
1374 2013-07-28 20:54:28 iwilcox has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1375 2013-07-28 20:54:50 iwilcox has joined
1376 2013-07-28 20:54:50 iwilcox has quit (Changing host)
1377 2013-07-28 20:54:50 iwilcox has joined
1378 2013-07-28 20:59:24 Phoebus has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1379 2013-07-28 21:00:58 Phoebus has joined
1380 2013-07-28 21:02:20 <bmcgee> nvm seems I need to configure my json mapper to include null fields
1381 2013-07-28 21:07:31 forrestv has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1382 2013-07-28 21:07:51 EPiSKiNG- has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1383 2013-07-28 21:08:19 starsoccer has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1384 2013-07-28 21:08:50 starsoccer has joined
1385 2013-07-28 21:09:27 wizkid057 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1386 2013-07-28 21:09:43 wizkid057 has joined
1387 2013-07-28 21:10:03 EPiSKiNG- has joined
1388 2013-07-28 21:10:04 EPiSKiNG- is now known as Guest93428
1389 2013-07-28 21:11:00 forrestv has joined
1390 2013-07-28 21:11:28 agnostic98 has joined
1391 2013-07-28 21:14:17 wizkid057 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1392 2013-07-28 21:15:55 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1393 2013-07-28 21:18:21 forrestv has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1394 2013-07-28 21:19:48 forrestv has joined
1395 2013-07-28 21:20:48 <phantomcircuit> sipa, it seems that 140 MB is the minimum bitcoin will run on
1396 2013-07-28 21:20:54 CodeShark has joined
1397 2013-07-28 21:21:08 wizkid057 has joined
1398 2013-07-28 21:21:17 <phantomcircuit> that's 1 connection to another local peer with tons of memory pressure forcing swap
1399 2013-07-28 21:26:03 CodeShark has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1400 2013-07-28 21:29:11 c0rw1n has joined
1401 2013-07-28 21:29:20 mrkent has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1402 2013-07-28 21:29:24 Transisto has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1403 2013-07-28 21:31:09 DoctorBTC has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1404 2013-07-28 21:33:03 Happzz has joined
1405 2013-07-28 21:33:58 _jps has joined
1406 2013-07-28 21:35:40 maaku has joined
1407 2013-07-28 21:37:20 coeus has joined
1408 2013-07-28 21:42:18 agnostic98 has joined
1409 2013-07-28 21:45:08 Transisto has joined
1410 2013-07-28 21:45:31 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1411 2013-07-28 21:46:28 Diablo-D3 has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1412 2013-07-28 21:46:41 brson has joined
1413 2013-07-28 21:47:07 Diablo-D3 has joined
1414 2013-07-28 21:47:57 brson has quit (Client Quit)
1415 2013-07-28 21:48:11 brson has joined
1416 2013-07-28 21:49:20 Arnavion has quit (Quit: Arnavion)
1417 2013-07-28 21:49:33 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1418 2013-07-28 21:49:47 Tantadruj has joined
1419 2013-07-28 21:51:24 Arnavion has joined
1420 2013-07-28 21:55:11 ThomasV has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1421 2013-07-28 21:55:26 metabyte_ has joined
1422 2013-07-28 21:56:41 Transisto has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1423 2013-07-28 21:57:11 brson has quit (Quit: leaving)
1424 2013-07-28 21:57:28 brson has joined
1425 2013-07-28 21:57:55 metabyte has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1426 2013-07-28 21:58:56 Cory has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1427 2013-07-28 21:59:40 Cory has joined
1428 2013-07-28 21:59:49 metabyte_ is now known as metabyte
1429 2013-07-28 22:00:23 Transisto has joined
1430 2013-07-28 22:02:49 brson has quit (Quit: leaving)
1431 2013-07-28 22:03:09 brson has joined
1432 2013-07-28 22:03:22 tim11 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1433 2013-07-28 22:04:22 Luke-Jr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1434 2013-07-28 22:05:16 NimeshNeema has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1435 2013-07-28 22:06:43 toffoo has joined
1436 2013-07-28 22:08:28 agricocb has joined
1437 2013-07-28 22:08:28 bmcgee has quit (Quit: bmcgee)
1438 2013-07-28 22:10:09 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1439 2013-07-28 22:11:43 debiantoruser has joined
1440 2013-07-28 22:13:21 agnostic98 has joined
1441 2013-07-28 22:14:47 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1442 2013-07-28 22:16:21 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1443 2013-07-28 22:16:41 bmcgee has joined
1444 2013-07-28 22:17:59 bmcgee has quit (Client Quit)
1445 2013-07-28 22:21:16 _jps has quit (Quit: _jps)
1446 2013-07-28 22:23:17 copumpkin has joined
1447 2013-07-28 22:23:27 copumpkin has quit (Client Quit)
1448 2013-07-28 22:25:02 copumpkin has joined
1449 2013-07-28 22:28:31 saulimus has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1450 2013-07-28 22:31:36 gavinandresen has joined
1451 2013-07-28 22:31:55 Arnavion has quit (Quit: Arnavion)
1452 2013-07-28 22:33:03 Arnavion has joined
1453 2013-07-28 22:33:21 AusBitBank has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1454 2013-07-28 22:35:34 peetaur2 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1455 2013-07-28 22:38:06 mariorz_ has joined
1456 2013-07-28 22:38:54 CodeShark has joined
1457 2013-07-28 22:42:42 Applicat_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1458 2013-07-28 22:43:41 CodeShark has quit (Client Quit)
1459 2013-07-28 22:44:00 CodeShark has joined
1460 2013-07-28 22:44:23 Application has joined
1461 2013-07-28 22:44:26 agnostic98 has joined
1462 2013-07-28 22:45:04 richcollins has joined
1463 2013-07-28 22:48:38 datagutt has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1464 2013-07-28 22:48:54 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1465 2013-07-28 22:48:57 Diablo-D3 has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1466 2013-07-28 22:49:34 richcollins has quit (Client Quit)
1467 2013-07-28 22:52:05 Skav has joined
1468 2013-07-28 22:53:42 MobPhone has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1469 2013-07-28 22:55:35 richcollins has joined
1470 2013-07-28 22:57:51 t7 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1471 2013-07-28 22:57:58 Skav has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1472 2013-07-28 23:00:18 hnz has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1473 2013-07-28 23:05:11 hnz has joined
1474 2013-07-28 23:14:55 brson_ has joined
1475 2013-07-28 23:15:06 CheckDavid has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1476 2013-07-28 23:15:47 richcollins has quit (Quit: richcollins)
1477 2013-07-28 23:17:28 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
1478 2013-07-28 23:17:38 brson has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1479 2013-07-28 23:18:27 ericmuyser has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1480 2013-07-28 23:18:54 ie6 has joined
1481 2013-07-28 23:19:54 Thepok has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1482 2013-07-28 23:20:58 agnostic98 has joined
1483 2013-07-28 23:21:31 denisx has joined
1484 2013-07-28 23:23:28 Davincij15 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1485 2013-07-28 23:24:33 AusBitBank has joined
1486 2013-07-28 23:34:22 jtimon has joined
1487 2013-07-28 23:37:22 iwilcox has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1488 2013-07-28 23:47:39 CodeName has joined
1489 2013-07-28 23:50:13 Diablo-D3 has joined
1490 2013-07-28 23:51:45 ericmuyser has joined
1491 2013-07-28 23:52:05 MobPhone has joined
1492 2013-07-28 23:52:51 Application has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1493 2013-07-28 23:52:57 Luke-Jr has joined
1494 2013-07-28 23:53:40 brson_ has quit (Quit: leaving)
1495 2013-07-28 23:59:12 Luke-Jr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1496 2013-07-28 23:59:29 lordbunson has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)