1 2013-08-25 00:00:50 paracyst has joined
   2 2013-08-25 00:01:07 sacredchao has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
   3 2013-08-25 00:01:37 sacredchao has joined
   4 2013-08-25 00:01:40 btcbtc_ has joined
   5 2013-08-25 00:03:04 btcbtc has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
   6 2013-08-25 00:04:01 BTCOxygen has joined
   7 2013-08-25 00:08:10 CobaltBlueD has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
   8 2013-08-25 00:12:28 btcbtc_ has quit (Quit: btcbtc_)
   9 2013-08-25 00:14:01 CobaltBlueD has joined
  10 2013-08-25 00:16:15 AusBitBank_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  11 2013-08-25 00:17:38 AusBitBank_ has joined
  12 2013-08-25 00:18:57 juquinha has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  13 2013-08-25 00:21:19 Pengoo has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
  14 2013-08-25 00:24:18 Thepok has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  15 2013-08-25 00:24:59 B0g4r7_ has quit (Read error: No route to host)
  16 2013-08-25 00:28:53 joepie91 has joined
  17 2013-08-25 00:29:02 CobaltBlueD has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  18 2013-08-25 00:32:30 Liquid3xB has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  19 2013-08-25 00:32:52 Liquid3xB has joined
  20 2013-08-25 00:35:46 CobaltBlueD has joined
  21 2013-08-25 00:37:37 cads has joined
  22 2013-08-25 00:39:52 sserrano44 has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
  23 2013-08-25 00:41:29 btcbtc has joined
  24 2013-08-25 00:46:36 Squid_ has joined
  25 2013-08-25 00:48:05 btcbtc_ has joined
  26 2013-08-25 00:48:27 btcbtc has quit (Ping timeout: 241 seconds)
  27 2013-08-25 00:49:13 Squidicuz has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  28 2013-08-25 00:50:58 jtimon has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  29 2013-08-25 00:52:07 richcollins has joined
  30 2013-08-25 00:53:57 awishformore has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  31 2013-08-25 00:54:58 thrasher` has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  32 2013-08-25 00:55:17 thrasher` has joined
  33 2013-08-25 00:56:57 rodarmor has quit (Quit: rodarmor)
  34 2013-08-25 00:58:54 CheckDavid has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  35 2013-08-25 00:59:39 richcollins has quit (Quit: richcollins)
  36 2013-08-25 01:00:16 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  37 2013-08-25 01:03:00 darwin_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  38 2013-08-25 01:06:30 richcollins has joined
  39 2013-08-25 01:15:20 BTCOxygen has joined
  40 2013-08-25 01:15:20 BTCOxygen is now known as Guest29389
  41 2013-08-25 01:15:20 Guest29389 has quit (Killed (card.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services)))
  42 2013-08-25 01:15:21 BTCOxygen is now known as 1!~BTCOxygen@unaffiliated/oxygen|BTCOxygen
  43 2013-08-25 01:17:45 Vinnie_win has quit ()
  44 2013-08-25 01:17:53 sserrano44 has joined
  45 2013-08-25 01:21:42 PrimeStunna_ has joined
  46 2013-08-25 01:23:20 PrimeStunna_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  47 2013-08-25 01:23:38 PrimeStunna_ has joined
  48 2013-08-25 01:24:25 PrimeStunna has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  49 2013-08-25 01:24:25 PrimeStunna_ is now known as PrimeStunna
  50 2013-08-25 01:26:41 c0rw1n has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  51 2013-08-25 01:36:17 richcollins has quit (Quit: richcollins)
  52 2013-08-25 01:36:36 oPen_syLar has joined
  53 2013-08-25 01:36:36 oPen_syLar has quit (Changing host)
  54 2013-08-25 01:36:36 oPen_syLar has joined
  55 2013-08-25 01:37:48 thrasher` has quit (Changing host)
  56 2013-08-25 01:37:49 thrasher` has joined
  57 2013-08-25 01:39:27 agnostic98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  58 2013-08-25 01:40:05 agnostic98 has joined
  59 2013-08-25 01:40:57 <Krellan> gmaxwell: I cleaned up my pingtime implementation and it's here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2937
  60 2013-08-25 01:41:10 <Krellan> Seems to work well.
  61 2013-08-25 01:43:11 <Krellan> It will also tell me if my traffic shaping is hurting bitcoind performance, since over time it acquires many connections, and my DSL line is really narrow on upload.
  62 2013-08-25 01:44:35 AusBitBank_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  63 2013-08-25 01:45:03 agnostic98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  64 2013-08-25 01:46:21 AusBitBank_ has joined
  65 2013-08-25 01:47:44 BTCOxygen has joined
  66 2013-08-25 01:47:44 BTCOxygen has quit (Killed (rajaniemi.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services)))
  67 2013-08-25 01:47:44 BTCOxygen is now known as 1!~BTCOxygen@unaffiliated/oxygen|BTCOxygen
  68 2013-08-25 01:54:57 Muis has joined
  69 2013-08-25 01:55:35 Vinnie_win has joined
  70 2013-08-25 01:56:19 agnostic98 has joined
  71 2013-08-25 01:58:03 Muis_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  72 2013-08-25 01:59:10 AusBitBank_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  73 2013-08-25 02:04:46 AusBitBank_ has joined
  74 2013-08-25 02:05:56 Squid_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  75 2013-08-25 02:09:11 CryptoBuck has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  76 2013-08-25 02:09:15 Pengoo has joined
  77 2013-08-25 02:09:19 Squidicuz has joined
  78 2013-08-25 02:16:09 Subo1977 has joined
  79 2013-08-25 02:16:15 Subo1977_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  80 2013-08-25 02:18:17 Squidicuz has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  81 2013-08-25 02:27:06 jcorgan_ has joined
  82 2013-08-25 02:27:24 jcorgan_ has left ()
  83 2013-08-25 02:29:14 richcollins has joined
  84 2013-08-25 02:33:02 tcatm_ has joined
  85 2013-08-25 02:33:31 thrasher` has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
  86 2013-08-25 02:34:08 richcollins has quit (Quit: richcollins)
  87 2013-08-25 02:34:32 tcatm has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
  88 2013-08-25 02:34:32 fronti has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
  89 2013-08-25 02:34:59 fronti has joined
  90 2013-08-25 02:35:55 thrasher` has joined
  91 2013-08-25 02:36:14 Squidicuz has joined
  92 2013-08-25 02:37:08 Application has joined
  93 2013-08-25 02:38:04 Applicat_ has joined
  94 2013-08-25 02:40:25 AusBitBank_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  95 2013-08-25 02:41:23 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  96 2013-08-25 02:43:48 AusBitBank_ has joined
  97 2013-08-25 02:47:33 <jgarzik> sipa, given the ACKs I'd say it's ok to merge block blacklisting RPC (#2839) whenever you are happy with it
  98 2013-08-25 02:49:13 <gmaxwell> No point.
  99 2013-08-25 02:49:23 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: it needs to be rewritten relative to headers first.
 100 2013-08-25 02:49:58 <gmaxwell> (and I expect it would have ~no code in common with an implementation over headers first)
 101 2013-08-25 02:50:07 jcorgan__ has joined
 102 2013-08-25 02:50:23 <gmaxwell> (if I'm wrong and sipa doesn't agree with me, than I retract and it can be merged away!)
 103 2013-08-25 02:51:53 <gmaxwell> I suppose its less bad when you've obsoleted your own commits. :)
 104 2013-08-25 02:58:16 rodarmor has joined
 105 2013-08-25 03:10:07 PrimeStunna has quit (Quit: PrimeStunna)
 106 2013-08-25 03:10:25 nsillik has quit (Quit: nsillik)
 107 2013-08-25 03:11:23 breesy has joined
 108 2013-08-25 03:11:36 AusBitBank__ has joined
 109 2013-08-25 03:12:30 AusBitBank_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 110 2013-08-25 03:14:09 PrimeStunna has joined
 111 2013-08-25 03:15:26 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
 112 2013-08-25 03:15:36 [7] has joined
 113 2013-08-25 03:23:32 richcollins has joined
 114 2013-08-25 03:27:50 Applicat_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 115 2013-08-25 03:30:14 Application has joined
 116 2013-08-25 03:32:38 Cory has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 117 2013-08-25 03:37:32 Cory has joined
 118 2013-08-25 03:39:13 peetaur2 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
 119 2013-08-25 03:39:32 breesy has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 120 2013-08-25 03:44:59 <jgarzik> petertodd, would you mind re-reviewing #2738 (OP_RETURN)?
 121 2013-08-25 03:46:15 AusBitBank__ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 122 2013-08-25 03:47:39 AusBitBank__ has joined
 123 2013-08-25 03:47:50 mrkent has joined
 124 2013-08-25 04:00:26 <petertodd> jgarzik: sure
 125 2013-08-25 04:00:50 <petertodd> jgarzik: Also, I've gotten all the script_(in)valid.json tests working: https://github.com/petertodd/python-bitcoinlib/tree/pythonize
 126 2013-08-25 04:01:13 <petertodd> jgarzik: Along with plenty of other stuff...
 127 2013-08-25 04:01:40 AusBitBank__ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 128 2013-08-25 04:01:41 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: would you like to merge that soon? I was sort of hoping to delay it until after removing unspendables and payment protocol were in the wild a bit first.
 129 2013-08-25 04:03:04 AusBitBank__ has joined
 130 2013-08-25 04:03:46 <gmaxwell> (in order to give modalities that don't require craming crap in transaction in cases where there is a choice time to get some traction first)
 131 2013-08-25 04:08:14 <jgarzik> gmaxwell, my answer is very amorphous
 132 2013-08-25 04:08:35 <jgarzik> gmaxwell, I try to be "a catalyst", and in general keep pushing things I want forward
 133 2013-08-25 04:08:46 <gmaxwell> okay, well amorphous reflects my thoughts too.
 134 2013-08-25 04:09:02 <jgarzik> gmaxwell, so.. soon?  I would be nice, but it's not necessary by date X or release Y
 135 2013-08-25 04:09:07 <jgarzik> *It
 136 2013-08-25 04:09:09 <gmaxwell> Fair enough.
 137 2013-08-25 04:11:03 CobaltBlueD has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 138 2013-08-25 04:11:20 macboz has joined
 139 2013-08-25 04:11:40 gst has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 140 2013-08-25 04:12:00 gst has joined
 141 2013-08-25 04:13:21 <petertodd> jgarzik: Same comment as last time: harm reduction, so make sure there is an incentive to use OP_RETURN rather than other crap, because right now if I want to put data in the blockchain I might as well just use <33-120 bytes of junk> OP_CHECKSIG/MULTISIG after I've used up my free OP_RETURN txout.
 142 2013-08-25 04:14:06 <petertodd> jgarzik: Also, 80 bytes is too small for a announce/commit sacrifice for instance.
 143 2013-08-25 04:18:45 AusBitBank__ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 144 2013-08-25 04:20:47 breesy has joined
 145 2013-08-25 04:22:05 AusBitBank__ has joined
 146 2013-08-25 04:25:10 <Diablo-D3> http://gifdanceparty.com/
 147 2013-08-25 04:27:25 <gmaxwell> petertodd: it isn't if you define the right kind of encoding for one and make it well known.
 148 2013-08-25 04:27:45 <jgarzik> petertodd, at first glance, most of the python-bitcoinlib changes from today seem mergeable
 149 2013-08-25 04:28:49 <petertodd> gmaxwell: signatures are 73 bytes, so you're going to have to be pretty damn clever and convoluted. 120 bytes on the other hand is enough - I've done announce/commit via CHECKMULTISIG
 150 2013-08-25 04:29:21 <petertodd> jgarzik: kinda surprises me that'd you'd think that :) I've changed the API on stuff
 151 2013-08-25 04:29:47 <gmaxwell> petertodd: ecdsa signatures are 65 bytes. If you have 8 bytes of identifer for the txout you're going to spend, and then a signature, and the transaction in question has a known in advance form, thats enough.
 152 2013-08-25 04:29:59 <jgarzik> petertodd, people /do/ use pynode, so it would be nice to not break (or fix) the one user we have
 153 2013-08-25 04:30:15 AlexNagy has left ("Leaving")
 154 2013-08-25 04:30:54 <petertodd> gmaxwell: It makes no sense to hyper-optimize one application like that at great expense to implementation complexity when so many others aren't.
 155 2013-08-25 04:31:09 <petertodd> jgarzik: Do they use pynode in stock form or highly modified?
 156 2013-08-25 04:31:38 <jgarzik> petertodd, tends to be stock form + site-specific code that is easily hooked in
 157 2013-08-25 04:31:58 <jgarzik> petertodd, thus, both. the stock form is widely used, then added upon.
 158 2013-08-25 04:32:12 <jgarzik> well, FSVO "widely"
 159 2013-08-25 04:32:16 <gmaxwell> petertodd: maybe, just saying that 80 bytes probably is enough.
 160 2013-08-25 04:32:19 <petertodd> jgarzik: Hmm... Well I think it makes sense to merge if I can port pynode over, but equally call it v0.2 and accept that the API's changed.
 161 2013-08-25 04:33:38 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Frankly, I'm just as soon to say the announce/commit protocol is if you get a tx with a pushdata, or sequential series of pushdata's, that happen to be a valid tx it's a valid announce commit.
 162 2013-08-25 04:34:04 <jgarzik> petertodd, sure that's fine.  Just saying that pynode would appreciate an update to any new API, as it depends on python-bitcoinlib
 163 2013-08-25 04:34:17 <jgarzik> no need to bother with compat
 164 2013-08-25 04:34:26 <petertodd> jgarzik: Good - can't do API's in a vacuum anyway.
 165 2013-08-25 04:34:43 <gmaxwell> petertodd: encoding a transaction does require encoding a lot more data than is strictly required for an effective protocol.
 166 2013-08-25 04:35:58 <gmaxwell> petertodd: esp compared to a fairly modest softfork that helps out that case with an OP_ANNOUNCE
 167 2013-08-25 04:36:20 Prattler has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.in)
 168 2013-08-25 04:36:48 <gmaxwell> (embed the transaction hash, OP_ANNOUNCE it... block isn't valid at the chain tip unless you've seen the preimage to the OP_ANNOUNCE)
 169 2013-08-25 04:37:08 <petertodd> gmaxwell: If you want to soft-fork, do OP_BLOCKHEIGHT... announce/commit is fundementally dodgy given how it could encourage hashpower centralization, while blockheight can push things back to the point where it's hard to know of a pool will even be in business.
 170 2013-08-25 04:37:49 <gmaxwell> petertodd: oh, not redeemable until after height X? I suppose.
 171 2013-08-25 04:37:59 <gmaxwell> thats more elegant, indeed, makes the proof smaller too.
 172 2013-08-25 04:38:27 <gmaxwell> though not as useful if you want to do other kinds of announcement other than provably throw away.
 173 2013-08-25 04:38:52 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Much smaller, and I really don't think the worries about re-orgs re: state matter - we already have the exact same issue with anyone-can-spend as well as txid mutability.
 174 2013-08-25 04:39:39 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Oh, OP_ANNOUNCE as a parallel temporary UTXO?
 175 2013-08-25 04:41:39 <gmaxwell> petertodd: OP_ANNOUNCE is basically the P2SH^2 idea made generic. Allows you to insert data which is provably a hash.. but the proof is ephemeral and only enforced at the tip of the chain... so the blockchain history isn't bloated.
 176 2013-08-25 04:41:46 Prattler has joined
 177 2013-08-25 04:42:59 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Yeah, like we discussed before. I'm a bit dubious about the idea because it encourages more bandwidth usage - what's we're constrained by. It'd be tricky to come up with a reasonable pricing mechanism, and it's just as likely there will be strong pressure to not make it limited...
 178 2013-08-25 04:43:04 <gmaxwell> though if you want to talk about rulechanges relative to throwing away coins, some facilitity for making efficient bonds that pay out over many blocks would be nice. I do worry about the risk of big bounties creating reorg incentives, esp when concentrating your tossed coin makes your proof smaller.
 179 2013-08-25 04:43:47 <gmaxwell> petertodd: you can always impose limits on the size of the preimages. It's unconditionally better than having them inside the transactions, and can be made to use no more bandwidth (though with implementation complexity tradeoff)
 180 2013-08-25 04:44:18 <gmaxwell> e.g. 'compress' the transaction + removable data by replacing the push with a 'replace with hash here' token... and then it's no larger than including the data directly.
 181 2013-08-25 04:44:20 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Got any ideas on how to pull off multi-block bounties in a soft-fork though?
 182 2013-08-25 04:44:28 Neskia has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 183 2013-08-25 04:44:41 <gmaxwell> petertodd: special form of anyone can spend transaction which has spending limited.
 184 2013-08-25 04:45:13 <gmaxwell> e.g. anyone can pay into it, but you can only take funds out as fees at a particular rate and continue to pay along the chain.
 185 2013-08-25 04:45:20 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Well, simpliest would be if the pre-image data is just 1:1 with regular tx data in terms of blocksize.
 186 2013-08-25 04:46:01 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Problem is so much stuff assumes that if a txout is spent, that's it, but if you create dummy txouts with constrained scriptPubKeys why not just create multiple outputs in the first place?
 187 2013-08-25 04:46:28 <gmaxwell> petertodd: makes the proof bigger.
 188 2013-08-25 04:47:11 <gmaxwell> which was my concern: people will make really big atomic announce commits because it makes their proof small. And then that has an externalized cost of bountying reorgs.
 189 2013-08-25 04:47:19 <jgarzik> create a route-through-coinbase magic sighash flag or somesuch.  It is magically (a) decentralized P2P mixing and (b) block-locked for 100 blocks.
 190 2013-08-25 04:47:21 Neil has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 191 2013-08-25 04:48:55 <petertodd> gmaxwell: That doesn't work though, because providing only part of a transaction and a sha256 midstate doesn't prove anything because you can't know if what you think is an opcode wasn't just part of a big pushdata.
 192 2013-08-25 04:49:13 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Sacrifice tx's need to be included in their entirety.
 193 2013-08-25 04:49:41 Neil has joined
 194 2013-08-25 04:50:54 <gmaxwell> petertodd: I have no clue what you're talking about there.
 195 2013-08-25 04:51:55 MobiusL has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 196 2013-08-25 04:53:00 * jgarzik doesn't parse the latter either… but RE sacrifice transactions, the normal logic is that you are proving that the data is widely distributed, and that anyone had a chance to spend/mine the timelocked TX#2 embedded within TX#1
 197 2013-08-25 04:53:27 <petertodd> gmaxwell: So I have a sacrifice tx, and I want to prove that the last CTxOut() had a value of 100BTC, and an anyone-can-spend scriptPubKey that is OP_BLOCKHEIGHT locked for 100+ blocks. How do I prove that the CTxOut is real rather than the end of a bigger CTxOut with a big PUSHDATA?
 198 2013-08-25 04:53:48 <petertodd> jgarzik: we're past announce/commit sacrifices here :)
 199 2013-08-25 04:54:12 <gmaxwell> petertodd: provide the whole transaction. Done. And thus you want to use only a single output to make it small. :)
 200 2013-08-25 04:55:28 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Right, but we can't make a soft-fork that lets you spend that single txout multiple times in multiple blocks. The best you can do is make it so each tx spending it is constanted to only spend x% of the value, and include a txout with similar conditions for the other y% - not ideal from a blockchian size perspective.
 201 2013-08-25 04:56:03 <petertodd> gmaxwell: A hard fork is possible of course, or a "SPV soft-fork" made possible because SPV nodes don't verify much...
 202 2013-08-25 04:56:15 <jgarzik> ah, ok
 203 2013-08-25 04:56:33 <gmaxwell> petertodd: oh I see how you misunderstood me.
 204 2013-08-25 04:56:43 <gmaxwell> petertodd: no that isn't how what I was suggesting works.
 205 2013-08-25 04:57:13 Nesetalis has joined
 206 2013-08-25 04:57:16 <gmaxwell> petertodd: you create an anyone can spend output, and there is a soft fork rule that says you can take a certan amount from such an output as fees and must pass the rest forward in another anyone can spend output.
 207 2013-08-25 04:57:46 <gmaxwell> the proof only needs to show the first one, of course, and then the network will dole out the funds over a sufficient period.
 208 2013-08-25 04:58:14 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Er, right, we're on the same page there. The problem is again that while you've made your proof small, there's still a fair bit of blockchain bloat involved.
 209 2013-08-25 04:58:14 <gmaxwell> and if constructed right you could allow the forward transaction to merge multiple of these things, so it's only ever a single pay-forward transaction per block.
 210 2013-08-25 04:58:32 <petertodd> gmaxwell: True, I guess merge rules are alright.
 211 2013-08-25 04:58:52 <gmaxwell> petertodd: one transaction per block for all blocks forever... perhaps as jgarzik suggested it could be via the coinbase to simplify the input side.
 212 2013-08-25 04:59:19 <gmaxwell> e.g. you'd merge via fees, and the pay forward has to be in the coinbase. but I think that doesn't quite get the incentives right. :(
 213 2013-08-25 04:59:38 <gmaxwell> because you actually want the very next miner to collect some of the fees, otherwise he still may have an incentive to reorg.
 214 2013-08-25 05:00:14 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Yeah, should be that whatever is in the magic txout you can spend n% of it for your block, maybe 1%?
 215 2013-08-25 05:00:33 <gmaxwell> but I think this has no overhead vs the one time payment, except for one transaction per block in blocks that would otherwise have no sacrifices going into them.
 216 2013-08-25 05:00:37 <petertodd> Maybe even a lot less? Try to spread the money out over multiple business cycles?
 217 2013-08-25 05:01:23 <gmaxwell> I really think that a peroid of 2016 for complete consumption is fine (if you were to make it uniform)  basically enough to keep you consuming so that the difficulty doesn't drop this cycle.
 218 2013-08-25 05:01:34 jcorgan__ has quit (Quit: jcorgan__)
 219 2013-08-25 05:01:45 <gmaxwell> maybe longer would make sense, but I think 2016 for uniform is probably the minimum that makes sense for adequate smoothing.
 220 2013-08-25 05:02:13 <petertodd> gmaxwell: I was mainly trying to avoid perverse incentives where you sacrifice knowing that you'll get most of the sacrifice back in fees anyway because you have x% of the hashing power.
 221 2013-08-25 05:02:41 <gmaxwell> even with an atomic sacrifice you have an x% _expectation_.
 222 2013-08-25 05:03:23 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Not if the fees only become collectable far enough in the future that you have uncertainty as to whether your pool will even be in business.
 223 2013-08-25 05:03:44 <petertodd> gmaxwell: My expectation of collecting a sacrifice 1000 years in the future is rather low. :P
 224 2013-08-25 05:03:49 <gmaxwell> petertodd: sure but then I don't think the pacing matters on how it plays out. and too far in the future has other risks.
 225 2013-08-25 05:04:08 <gmaxwell> e.g. you really don't want the economic hazard of sacrifices from transactions 100 years ago showing up.
 226 2013-08-25 05:04:31 <gmaxwell> e.g. 1 BTC buys a planet, and then some 100 yr 100 btc sacrifices become payable...
 227 2013-08-25 05:04:38 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Well you want the sacrifice to be a true sacrifice, and you *also* want sacrificed funds, once they finally come due, to be spread out enough tthey don't encourage re-orgs.
 228 2013-08-25 05:05:05 <petertodd> gmaxwell: heh, there's an announce-commit for 1BTC set for 2030 or something in the chain IIRC
 229 2013-08-25 05:05:10 <gmaxwell> I'm sure a whole paper can be written about the reorg incentives...
 230 2013-08-25 05:05:19 <petertodd> gmaxwell: I already did. :P
 231 2013-08-25 05:07:04 <gmaxwell> petertodd: honestly I wish the subsidy worked differently and it just constantly awarded some small amount of all non-existing coins. :(
 232 2013-08-25 05:07:21 <gmaxwell> so then your sacrifice would just make the coins non-exist and done.
 233 2013-08-25 05:07:44 <petertodd> gmaxwell: yeah, which is what OP_SACRIFICE does really...
 234 2013-08-25 05:07:55 <petertodd> gmaxwell: just in a convoluted way :(
 235 2013-08-25 05:08:41 <gmaxwell> if there was a utxo tree committed that showed a sum of existant coins, then the subsidy payment would be obvious from it.
 236 2013-08-25 05:08:52 <petertodd> Yup
 237 2013-08-25 05:09:36 <gmaxwell> I still havn't figured out of schemes that required part of fees to be paid forward made sense.
 238 2013-08-25 05:10:10 <gmaxwell> e.g. half fees in the block go to the miner, have go back into the subsidy pool.
 239 2013-08-25 05:10:43 * Diablo-D3 looks into channel
 240 2013-08-25 05:10:45 <petertodd> One way to think about it is the pool is basically you saying "I don't just want one confirmation, I wasn n"
 241 2013-08-25 05:10:55 * Diablo-D3 isnt sure if he wants to know
 242 2013-08-25 05:11:29 <gmaxwell> right. though so does the coinbase locking for 100 blocks!
 243 2013-08-25 05:12:27 <petertodd> gmaxwell: True!
 244 2013-08-25 05:13:45 AusBitBank__ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 245 2013-08-25 05:15:01 ericmuyser has joined
 246 2013-08-25 05:15:06 AusBitBank__ has joined
 247 2013-08-25 05:15:24 <gmaxwell> the problem I have with splitting schemes like that is they create incentives for backdoor payments.
 248 2013-08-25 05:15:42 <gmaxwell> e.g. I give you a free transaction, and a child that pays directly to your private address.
 249 2013-08-25 05:15:58 <gmaxwell> otherwise its elegant.
 250 2013-08-25 05:16:10 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Maybe better would be to push your transaction checkpoints stuff first?
 251 2013-08-25 05:16:41 <petertodd> gmaxwell: re-using nSequence is a good option for it
 252 2013-08-25 05:17:01 <gmaxwell> I still don't really know how to do that as a resonably efficient soft fork. except perhaps stuffing the data in nlocktime with max serial number.
 253 2013-08-25 05:17:47 <petertodd> What's wrong with nSequence and forcing it to match the last 32-bits of a recent block hash?
 254 2013-08-25 05:18:13 agnostic98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 255 2013-08-25 05:18:43 <gmaxwell> petertodd: dunno. perhaps thats fine. I also don't know if it should deny the transaction entirely or make you burn (some?) fees.
 256 2013-08-25 05:19:13 <petertodd> gmaxwell: I'd say deny entirely
 257 2013-08-25 05:19:38 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Miners might have no fee related incentives too after all.
 258 2013-08-25 05:19:41 <gmaxwell> thoug that would be more motivation to be really conservative with your checkpoints, e.g. never place one past funds you care about.
 259 2013-08-25 05:20:11 <petertodd> past as in newer or older?
 260 2013-08-25 05:21:04 <gmaxwell> if the highest transaction paying you is at X  you put your checkpoints at X. Higher just increases your risk of non-confirmation without protecting your funds. (assuming a silly greedy-rational user model)
 261 2013-08-25 05:21:35 <gmaxwell> (not that I'd think people would do that, would be better if there were less incentive to)
 262 2013-08-25 05:21:45 <petertodd> True, but over a whole userbase that'll have people still moving forward with checkpoints.
 263 2013-08-25 05:22:27 <gmaxwell> sure but txn already have that kind of checkpointing in a way... if you reverse my past txn, you don't get its later child fees.
 264 2013-08-25 05:22:37 <petertodd> The "tx not allowed at all" rule helps discourage attackers who might want to try to rewrite a bunch of the chain to selectively delete some tx's too.
 265 2013-08-25 05:23:23 <gmaxwell> yep thats part of the benefit. Turn personal protection into herd immunity.
 266 2013-08-25 05:23:31 <petertodd> Yup
 267 2013-08-25 05:24:07 <petertodd> Of course the counter argument is if we do this, we can't do a later soft-fork to make it a fee thing...
 268 2013-08-25 05:24:20 <gmaxwell> yea, clamps one way.
 269 2013-08-25 05:24:29 <gmaxwell> but if its a fee thing I have no clue what the rule should be.
 270 2013-08-25 05:24:43 <gmaxwell> like, there isn't a fraction which is obvious to me.
 271 2013-08-25 05:24:53 <petertodd> I *guess* you could just make it the fees get distroyed in that case, but it's not ideal.
 272 2013-08-25 05:25:00 <petertodd> *destroyed
 273 2013-08-25 05:25:30 <gmaxwell> that was my thinking. You could still do censorship reorgs, but there would be a cost in fees lost forever.
 274 2013-08-25 05:25:53 <petertodd> Yeah, problem is the profit motive could easily be outweighed by the "do what we say" motive.
 275 2013-08-25 05:26:07 <petertodd> Better if the whole system will go nuts if you try to pull your censorship crap.
 276 2013-08-25 05:26:33 <gmaxwell> maybe, but it also means that "oh fuck, reorg to remove an exploit!" is viable, wherease if you deny it means double spending risk for some transactions.
 277 2013-08-25 05:26:45 <gmaxwell> "censorship for GOOD!"
 278 2013-08-25 05:27:34 <gmaxwell> e.g. the deny completely means you are forced to create doublespending risk, given that you're already going to do a reorg.
 279 2013-08-25 05:28:16 <gmaxwell> I'd also be inclined to as a rule deny checkpoints that are too close, it actually hurts the fungibility of those coins.
 280 2013-08-25 05:28:18 <petertodd> Yeah, although if it's easy to do such things maybe Bitcoin is less secure then we'd like anyway - why not just have those operators agree to not let double-spends through for awhile?
 281 2013-08-25 05:28:53 <gmaxwell> e.g. I pay you with a coin that is checkpointed at the last block... uh.. that coin is worth less to you than other coins until several blocks pass.
 282 2013-08-25 05:29:06 <petertodd> On the other hand in the future really close checkpoints may help remove reorg incentives, and you already should wait for confirmations anyway.
 283 2013-08-25 05:29:23 <gmaxwell> petertodd: hm. I guess I agree there, they could just watch for 1:1 replacements and hopefully most parties could make them.
 284 2013-08-25 05:29:31 <petertodd> Yup
 285 2013-08-25 05:29:48 <gmaxwell> it's true, but again, I think really close checkpoints argue for fee burning insead of denial.
 286 2013-08-25 05:30:04 <petertodd> And 1:1 replacements can be made a lot easier if there's a sighash version that only hashes the scriptSig's of the txins, rather than the hashes
 287 2013-08-25 05:31:17 <gmaxwell> "don't force miners to expose you to double spends" keeping in mind that there might be additional consensus mechenisms incentivizing miners to mine feeless transactions. Or child pays parent.
 288 2013-08-25 05:31:51 <gmaxwell> e.g. someone pays you with a checkpoint set too close to tip and vanishes. Child pays for parent to get it into the chain.
 289 2013-08-25 05:31:59 Squidicuz has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 290 2013-08-25 05:32:15 <gmaxwell> vs be out funds forever and be constantly pissed when people pay you with funds that are near-tip-checkpointed.
 291 2013-08-25 05:32:48 <gmaxwell> (in fact, that would be a possible theft strategy, constantly pay people with tip checkpointed funds and hope reorgs deny those transactions so you can just doublespend later)
 292 2013-08-25 05:33:17 <petertodd> True, maybe all we can do is remove the fees?
 293 2013-08-25 05:33:30 <petertodd> Anyway as I said, tightening only goes in one direction.
 294 2013-08-25 05:33:35 <gmaxwell> I think either can be done, I'm just trying to reason out the best large scale implications.
 295 2013-08-25 05:34:04 <gmaxwell> I think the most strict we should consider is removing all fees.
 296 2013-08-25 05:34:36 <gmaxwell> (maybe if that proves out well then in the future people clamp it futher)
 297 2013-08-25 05:34:39 temptestnick has quit (Quit: leaving)
 298 2013-08-25 05:34:43 malaimo has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 299 2013-08-25 05:35:17 Squidicuz has joined
 300 2013-08-25 05:35:31 <petertodd> With nSequence there is enough bits to have control over whether you want the fees to be 0%, 50%, 100% whatever.
 301 2013-08-25 05:35:50 <gmaxwell> hm? there are 32, no?
 302 2013-08-25 05:36:08 <petertodd> Exactly, and 32 is already 4 billion times harder to mine.
 303 2013-08-25 05:36:36 malaimo has joined
 304 2013-08-25 05:36:58 <gmaxwell> kinda, I mean, over time there will be collissions. and so you can only checkpoint the earliest value of a specific id.
 305 2013-08-25 05:37:13 <gmaxwell> thats one reason that ideally the checkpoint would include a height.
 306 2013-08-25 05:37:22 <gmaxwell> then it would be 4 billion times harder.
 307 2013-08-25 05:37:26 <petertodd> I think it's worth limiting how far back in time you can go with this - maybe the past 2016 blocks or something?
 308 2013-08-25 05:37:57 <gmaxwell> no. :( I wish, doesn't work right.
 309 2013-08-25 05:38:08 <petertodd> Because people re-org the whole chain?
 310 2013-08-25 05:38:13 <gmaxwell> I produce one CPed 2016 back. Great.. reorg. Ooops.
 311 2013-08-25 05:38:27 <gmaxwell> e.g. my txn slips a block forward and then its hosed.
 312 2013-08-25 05:38:40 <gmaxwell> becomes a kind of inverted nlocktime.
 313 2013-08-25 05:39:18 <petertodd> Ok, so include an absolute height variable % 2016, and then the rest of the bits are for matching.
 314 2013-08-25 05:39:19 <gmaxwell> (because my checkpoint value is now 2017 blocks back and not found in the current chain)
 315 2013-08-25 05:40:21 <gmaxwell> interesting notion. %2048. (because then its implementation is &2047 and it packs into 11 bits exactly)
 316 2013-08-25 05:40:26 <petertodd> Er, sorry, not mod 2016, // 2016
 317 2013-08-25 05:41:08 <petertodd> Yeah, 2048 is fine too.
 318 2013-08-25 05:41:28 <gmaxwell> (oh // .. then >>11 .. but that isn't finite in size.)
 319 2013-08-25 05:41:29 <petertodd> Numbers are pretty good on this stuff too: 100years/10minutes / 2048=2566
 320 2013-08-25 05:42:34 temptestnick has joined
 321 2013-08-25 05:43:24 temptestnick has quit (Client Quit)
 322 2013-08-25 05:44:30 <petertodd> Could also just do absolute height to keep it simple - 2^24 * 10 minutes is 319 years, and even that would be 256 times harder.
 323 2013-08-25 05:47:48 <gmaxwell> or height&65535, 16 bits, and just avoid picking any collided blocks once you care about them.. it'll be eons before one exists.
 324 2013-08-25 05:48:04 Subo1977 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 325 2013-08-25 05:48:22 Subo1977 has joined
 326 2013-08-25 05:48:25 <petertodd> Yeah that works.
 327 2013-08-25 05:48:25 agnostic98 has joined
 328 2013-08-25 05:48:49 <petertodd> 65535 times harder for my one txin is pretty damn good.
 329 2013-08-25 05:49:07 temptestnick has joined
 330 2013-08-25 05:49:08 <gmaxwell> well, all txin that depend on that particular block.
 331 2013-08-25 05:49:35 <gmaxwell> thats one reason I might want more than 256... just because you could have thousands of txins there and it might actually make sense.
 332 2013-08-25 05:49:38 <petertodd> I'm thinking that if everyone is using this you don't have to satisfy just the one txin, but a whole whack of them.
 333 2013-08-25 05:50:08 <petertodd> If people don't pick precisely the same values the thing works even better.
 334 2013-08-25 05:51:26 <petertodd> Though heck, might as well just do it with nLockTime setting which block the nSequences are trying to match.
 335 2013-08-25 05:51:33 richcollins has quit (Quit: richcollins)
 336 2013-08-25 05:51:55 <petertodd> scriptSigs all sign nLockTime
 337 2013-08-25 05:52:19 <petertodd> And that transitions nicely from my "set nLockTime on every tx" scheme.
 338 2013-08-25 05:54:24 <gmaxwell> hm. how do you not break real nlocktime transactions there?
 339 2013-08-25 05:54:51 <gmaxwell> the use is kinda conflicting, as for your scheme you want nlock to be in the future.
 340 2013-08-25 05:54:53 <petertodd> gmaxwell: nSequence == 0xffffffff and nSequence == 0x0 just get treated as "no match"
 341 2013-08-25 05:55:23 <gmaxwell> for my scheme it would have to be in the past. perhaps a fair bit (e.g. hours) in the past.
 342 2013-08-25 05:55:50 <petertodd> gmaxwell: ok, hmm... ok, take 8-bits out as an offset?
 343 2013-08-25 05:55:57 <gmaxwell> I was just typing the same thing.
 344 2013-08-25 05:56:06 <petertodd> say-the-same-thing
 345 2013-08-25 05:56:17 <gmaxwell> "oh how about nlocktime and signal a darn offset?"
 346 2013-08-25 05:56:23 <petertodd> lol
 347 2013-08-25 05:57:18 <gmaxwell> so nlocktime would have the absolute height, and then you'd have an offset, and a checkpoint in the sequence. interesting though.
 348 2013-08-25 05:57:49 <petertodd> one thing I like about the nLockTime version, is it's reasonable to also put a limit on how far back you're going to force people to go to prove the tx was invalid or valid
 349 2013-08-25 05:58:20 <gmaxwell> yes, its true, limits how much checking they have to do.
 350 2013-08-25 05:58:39 <petertodd> say, if not nHeight - 2016 < nLockTime < nHeight + 2016 the rule is ignored
 351 2013-08-25 05:58:50 <petertodd> or, really, should just be invalid
 352 2013-08-25 05:58:56 <petertodd> ignored has issues...
 353 2013-08-25 05:59:24 <petertodd> 4032*80 isn't much data...
 354 2013-08-25 05:59:31 <gmaxwell> I'm not following you there.
 355 2013-08-25 06:00:17 <petertodd> If a tx uses this feature it's only valid if the nLockTime chosen is reasonably close to the nHeight of the block it was mined in basically.
 356 2013-08-25 06:01:02 <gmaxwell> meh, don't like txn becoming invalid.
 357 2013-08-25 06:01:25 <gmaxwell> or at least thats a big change which should be considered on its own, not something you want as a side effect.
 358 2013-08-25 06:01:44 <petertodd> hmm... well is it safe to assume everyone has a full set of block headers? I guess so
 359 2013-08-25 06:02:00 <gmaxwell> you could be spv secure relative to this rule if you didn't in any case.
 360 2013-08-25 06:02:10 <petertodd> true
 361 2013-08-25 06:02:16 <petertodd> that's enough then
 362 2013-08-25 06:02:49 <gmaxwell> I don't think this kind of rule really needs full security in any case. it could even be imposed as a discouragement rule expect that would be more complex to implement for no need.
 363 2013-08-25 06:03:05 <petertodd> True, discouragement is ok.
 364 2013-08-25 06:03:09 <gmaxwell> (well a stronger than usual discouragement rule)
 365 2013-08-25 06:03:28 <gmaxwell> (since you do want to make sure some SOB that does a 6 block reorg doesn't get paid)
 366 2013-08-25 06:03:32 <petertodd> A soft-fork rule change goes through a period of discouragement anyway.
 367 2013-08-25 06:03:42 tsst has joined
 368 2013-08-25 06:04:08 <gmaxwell> I'm just saying that if not all nodes enforce the rule, so long as its a small minority of mining nodes (or preferably not mining nodes at all) it's safe.
 369 2013-08-25 06:04:28 <petertodd> Yeah
 370 2013-08-25 06:04:30 <gmaxwell> and it's cheap to have all the headers and I think we'd like to require that regardless.
 371 2013-08-25 06:05:04 <petertodd> Yeah, and a better long-term thing for those concerns is a merkle-mountain-range soft-fork for linking headers.
 372 2013-08-25 06:05:24 <gmaxwell> so I did think of one downside of no fees vs disallow.
 373 2013-08-25 06:05:38 <petertodd> ?
 374 2013-08-25 06:06:09 Transisto has quit ()
 375 2013-08-25 06:06:31 <gmaxwell> If it is outright disallowed you can do proof compression.  Say I want to prove two txn are in the chain to you.  One at block 1000 one at 1020. The one at 2000 has a checkpoint at 1002.
 376 2013-08-25 06:06:51 Squid_ has joined
 377 2013-08-25 06:07:08 <gmaxwell> I prove 2000 is in the chain with some extra headers beyond it. and then if its checkpoint was a disallow type, then I only need two extra headers to prove 1000 is in the chain.
 378 2013-08-25 06:07:21 <gmaxwell> but that seems like a really fringe optimization to me.
 379 2013-08-25 06:07:28 <petertodd> Ha, clever though.
 380 2013-08-25 06:07:44 Squidicuz has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 381 2013-08-25 06:08:19 <gmaxwell> well, it follows naturally from my CoinCovenants thread where I noted that getting the chain under SCIP requires some additional opcode or something to checkpoint the chain inside a txn.
 382 2013-08-25 06:08:31 <petertodd> Ah, true
 383 2013-08-25 06:08:56 <gmaxwell> though for that I think you might really perfer the full darn hash and not a little 24 bit jobbie.
 384 2013-08-25 06:09:03 owowo has quit (Quit: dead)
 385 2013-08-25 06:09:06 <petertodd> Hmm... I guess to implement this, what'd probably make sense is to bump the tx version number and apply the new rules to those tx's.
 386 2013-08-25 06:09:27 <petertodd> gmaxwell: If it's nLockTime, make the first txin be the first 32 bits, the second txin be...
 387 2013-08-25 06:09:38 Transisto has joined
 388 2013-08-25 06:09:52 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Doesn't play nice with SIGHASH stuff though.
 389 2013-08-25 06:10:02 <gmaxwell> I was about to say, don't do that, each one should stand alone.
 390 2013-08-25 06:10:44 <gmaxwell> esp because in a joint signature you might actually want to have different parties expressing different preferences. though you could nicely array them out over a span of blocks.
 391 2013-08-25 06:11:04 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Heh, actually, make it so it's a match if *any* 32-bit part matches... Handles 0 nicely.
 392 2013-08-25 06:11:26 <gmaxwell> nah, more complicated to implement.. and weird bugs.
 393 2013-08-25 06:11:46 <gmaxwell> though hah on 0.
 394 2013-08-25 06:11:59 <petertodd> Sadly that wouldn't work on Litecoin and other alts.
 395 2013-08-25 06:12:17 <gmaxwell> I'd also suggest that it be setup so we steal a bit as don't care. e.g. if the first bit is a 1 this isn't a checkpoint.
 396 2013-08-25 06:12:34 <petertodd> Sure, 2 billion is still fine. :P
 397 2013-08-25 06:12:51 <gmaxwell> petertodd: hm? I thought we were going to code an offset in there too?
 398 2013-08-25 06:13:24 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Oh right... 8 million
 399 2013-08-25 06:17:29 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 400 2013-08-25 06:17:32 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 401 2013-08-25 06:20:26 Application has joined
 402 2013-08-25 06:23:04 Transisto has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 403 2013-08-25 06:25:45 stalled has joined
 404 2013-08-25 06:26:24 altamic has joined
 405 2013-08-25 06:27:08 Transisto has joined
 406 2013-08-25 06:28:27 altamic has left ()
 407 2013-08-25 06:29:17 Applicat_ has joined
 408 2013-08-25 06:29:17 Transisto has quit ()
 409 2013-08-25 06:30:03 tsche has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 410 2013-08-25 06:30:13 Transisto has joined
 411 2013-08-25 06:30:59 Transisto has quit (Client Quit)
 412 2013-08-25 06:33:05 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 413 2013-08-25 06:34:24 Transisto has joined
 414 2013-08-25 06:35:01 tsche has joined
 415 2013-08-25 06:35:09 oleganza has joined
 416 2013-08-25 06:35:51 Neozonz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 417 2013-08-25 06:36:17 Neozonz has joined
 418 2013-08-25 06:39:43 Transisto has quit ()
 419 2013-08-25 06:47:26 Transisto has joined
 420 2013-08-25 06:54:03 egis has joined
 421 2013-08-25 06:54:51 MoALTz_ has joined
 422 2013-08-25 06:55:36 agricocb has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 423 2013-08-25 06:56:40 one_zero has joined
 424 2013-08-25 06:57:32 MoALTz has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 425 2013-08-25 06:57:52 Transisto has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 426 2013-08-25 06:59:52 _ingsoc has joined
 427 2013-08-25 07:00:08 yubrew_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 428 2013-08-25 07:00:30 Prattler has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.in)
 429 2013-08-25 07:01:23 Transisto has joined
 430 2013-08-25 07:01:49 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 431 2013-08-25 07:05:16 stalled has joined
 432 2013-08-25 07:05:59 Neozonz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 433 2013-08-25 07:06:24 Neozonz has joined
 434 2013-08-25 07:06:24 Neozonz has quit (Changing host)
 435 2013-08-25 07:06:24 Neozonz has joined
 436 2013-08-25 07:15:29 enquirer2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 437 2013-08-25 07:16:17 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 438 2013-08-25 07:17:09 paracyst has quit ()
 439 2013-08-25 07:18:23 MoALTz_ has quit (Quit: brb)
 440 2013-08-25 07:18:43 MoALTz has joined
 441 2013-08-25 07:20:07 oleganza has quit (Quit: oleganza)
 442 2013-08-25 07:22:52 Prattler has joined
 443 2013-08-25 07:27:05 Thepok has joined
 444 2013-08-25 07:27:54 Prattler has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 445 2013-08-25 07:32:05 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 446 2013-08-25 07:32:29 dusty_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 447 2013-08-25 07:35:26 AusBitBank__ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 448 2013-08-25 07:35:38 stalled has joined
 449 2013-08-25 07:40:51 AusBitBank__ has joined
 450 2013-08-25 07:41:57 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 451 2013-08-25 07:44:48 wamatt has joined
 452 2013-08-25 07:56:03 sserrano44 has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 453 2013-08-25 08:04:46 CryptoBuck has joined
 454 2013-08-25 08:07:31 AusBitBank__ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 455 2013-08-25 08:08:00 enquirer has joined
 456 2013-08-25 08:11:45 <runeks> Why would Bitcoin say my -blocknotify script fails to run? When I execute it myself it works fine.
 457 2013-08-25 08:12:26 <gmaxwell> runeks: not giving it the right path?
 458 2013-08-25 08:12:47 <runeks> gmaxwell: I'm using an absolute path. And it worked for a while but stopped working suddenly.
 459 2013-08-25 08:12:57 AusBitBank__ has joined
 460 2013-08-25 08:14:52 <runeks> I mean, bitcoind has been running for several days, executing the command in question without problems. And now it reports an error when executing the same command (which executes without errors when I do it manually and return 0).
 461 2013-08-25 08:15:11 <runeks> But it looks like the return value of -1 has nothing to do with my command, but rather system()'s ability to execute my command.
 462 2013-08-25 08:15:36 <runeks> Ouch. 37M free memory... that might have an effect :)
 463 2013-08-25 08:15:48 ericmuyser has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 464 2013-08-25 08:17:50 ericmuyser has joined
 465 2013-08-25 08:18:04 <runeks> Damn my RPi and its minuscule 512 MB RAM.
 466 2013-08-25 08:20:31 Cesar1 has joined
 467 2013-08-25 08:24:16 ProfMac has joined
 468 2013-08-25 08:24:24 Cesar1 has left ()
 469 2013-08-25 08:29:19 Apexseals has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 470 2013-08-25 08:29:45 Apexseals has joined
 471 2013-08-25 08:29:54 winbtc_moarrr has joined
 472 2013-08-25 08:33:28 mappum has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 473 2013-08-25 08:35:32 cesar_ has joined
 474 2013-08-25 08:35:56 cesar_ is now known as Guest50734
 475 2013-08-25 08:42:21 Guest50734 has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.90.1 [Iceweasel 23.0.1/20130821131936])
 476 2013-08-25 08:42:40 ThomasV has joined
 477 2013-08-25 08:44:12 psychophoniac has quit (Quit: Verlassend)
 478 2013-08-25 08:45:18 psychophoniac has joined
 479 2013-08-25 08:45:47 <runeks> That was the issue. It's running now consuming 42% of the available RAM. Before it was consuming 78.5%. Is this normal though? Consuming an additional 182.5MB of RAM after running for a couple of days?
 480 2013-08-25 08:46:22 agnostic98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 481 2013-08-25 08:48:48 themsay has joined
 482 2013-08-25 08:49:45 jtimon has joined
 483 2013-08-25 08:49:58 c0rw1n has joined
 484 2013-08-25 08:50:18 agnostic98 has joined
 485 2013-08-25 08:51:29 aa has joined
 486 2013-08-25 08:51:53 aa is now known as Guest56136
 487 2013-08-25 08:55:28 <runeks> What would be a good way of accessing the data of the best chain from the disk in Python? I'm considering opening the txdb, which I assume contains this information, but I was wondering if there's an easier method. bitcointools no longer works for this as far as I can see, it uses the Berkeley DB and "blkindex.dat".
 488 2013-08-25 09:01:43 Anduck has joined
 489 2013-08-25 09:01:43 Anduck has quit (Changing host)
 490 2013-08-25 09:01:43 Anduck has joined
 491 2013-08-25 09:05:33 Prattler has joined
 492 2013-08-25 09:07:17 GordonG3kko has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 493 2013-08-25 09:08:24 oleganza has joined
 494 2013-08-25 09:12:34 GordonG3kko has joined
 495 2013-08-25 09:25:15 awishformore has joined
 496 2013-08-25 09:29:36 AusBitBank__ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 497 2013-08-25 09:30:18 <runeks> I think I'll just build bitcoind from HEAD. I can pull full blocks via RPC that way. Reading bitcoind's database seems like a mess.
 498 2013-08-25 09:33:44 toffoo has quit ()
 499 2013-08-25 09:34:04 AusBitBank__ has joined
 500 2013-08-25 09:39:40 Nesetalis has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 501 2013-08-25 09:39:42 Neskia has joined
 502 2013-08-25 09:41:52 tsst has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 503 2013-08-25 09:42:53 tsst has joined
 504 2013-08-25 09:43:15 CryptoBuck has quit ()
 505 2013-08-25 09:43:34 CryptoBuck has joined
 506 2013-08-25 09:43:35 Muis_ has joined
 507 2013-08-25 09:44:17 d34th has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 508 2013-08-25 09:44:27 t2che has joined
 509 2013-08-25 09:44:36 Squidicuz has joined
 510 2013-08-25 09:44:43 robbin has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 511 2013-08-25 09:45:18 CryptoBuck has quit (Client Quit)
 512 2013-08-25 09:45:26 CryptoBuck has joined
 513 2013-08-25 09:45:36 ShapeShifter499 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 514 2013-08-25 09:46:11 bakingbread has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 515 2013-08-25 09:47:13 hellome has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 516 2013-08-25 09:47:26 Squid_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 517 2013-08-25 09:48:16 debianto1user has joined
 518 2013-08-25 09:48:37 btcbtc_ has quit (Quit: btcbtc_)
 519 2013-08-25 09:49:03 tsche has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 520 2013-08-25 09:49:03 Muis has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 521 2013-08-25 09:49:03 GNULinuxGuy has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 522 2013-08-25 09:49:03 _ingsoc has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 523 2013-08-25 09:49:03 pooler has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 524 2013-08-25 09:49:03 dparrish has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 525 2013-08-25 09:49:03 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 526 2013-08-25 09:49:03 monkeynipples has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 527 2013-08-25 09:49:03 pooler has joined
 528 2013-08-25 09:49:04 _W_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 529 2013-08-25 09:49:04 pooler has quit (Changing host)
 530 2013-08-25 09:49:04 pooler has joined
 531 2013-08-25 09:49:08 MoALTz has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 532 2013-08-25 09:49:10 _ingsoc has joined
 533 2013-08-25 09:49:19 blaeks has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 534 2013-08-25 09:49:21 monkeynipples has joined
 535 2013-08-25 09:49:29 Squidicuz has quit (Ping timeout: 282 seconds)
 536 2013-08-25 09:49:32 agnostic98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 537 2013-08-25 09:49:40 _ingsoc is now known as Guest96682
 538 2013-08-25 09:49:45 d34th has joined
 539 2013-08-25 09:49:48 Anduckkk has joined
 540 2013-08-25 09:50:23 Anduck is now known as Guest27758
 541 2013-08-25 09:50:36 robbin has joined
 542 2013-08-25 09:50:44 Guest96682 has quit (Client Quit)
 543 2013-08-25 09:50:44 Anduckkk is now known as Anduck
 544 2013-08-25 09:51:12 ShapeShifter499 has joined
 545 2013-08-25 09:51:20 _W_ has joined
 546 2013-08-25 09:51:21 AusBitBank_ has joined
 547 2013-08-25 09:51:40 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 548 2013-08-25 09:52:12 BTCOxygen has joined
 549 2013-08-25 09:52:31 AusBitBank__ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 550 2013-08-25 09:52:31 Applicat_ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 551 2013-08-25 09:53:31 dparrish has joined
 552 2013-08-25 09:53:56 Guest27758 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 553 2013-08-25 09:54:02 Application has joined
 554 2013-08-25 09:55:31 Insti has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 555 2013-08-25 09:56:07 _vuminh has joined
 556 2013-08-25 09:56:12 Insti has joined
 557 2013-08-25 09:56:38 Squidicuz has joined
 558 2013-08-25 10:00:01 AusBitBank_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 559 2013-08-25 10:01:17 AusBitBank_ has joined
 560 2013-08-25 10:01:31 stalled has joined
 561 2013-08-25 10:02:39 _vuminh has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 562 2013-08-25 10:10:00 guruvan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 563 2013-08-25 10:10:56 guruvan has joined
 564 2013-08-25 10:11:11 shripadk has joined
 565 2013-08-25 10:12:04 thrasher` has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 566 2013-08-25 10:14:05 thrasher` has joined
 567 2013-08-25 10:15:09 BTCOxygen has joined
 568 2013-08-25 10:15:09 BTCOxygen is now known as Guest54206
 569 2013-08-25 10:15:09 Guest54206 has quit (Killed (sendak.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services)))
 570 2013-08-25 10:15:09 BTCOxygen is now known as 1!~BTCOxygen@unaffiliated/oxygen|BTCOxygen
 571 2013-08-25 10:20:26 AusBitBank_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 572 2013-08-25 10:21:59 _ingsoc_ has joined
 573 2013-08-25 10:23:02 AusBitBank_ has joined
 574 2013-08-25 10:24:14 agnostic98 has joined
 575 2013-08-25 10:24:41 bakingbread has joined
 576 2013-08-25 10:30:26 AusBitBank_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 577 2013-08-25 10:31:22 danda has joined
 578 2013-08-25 10:32:14 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 579 2013-08-25 10:32:45 AusBitBank_ has joined
 580 2013-08-25 10:34:04 altamic has joined
 581 2013-08-25 10:34:52 danda__ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 582 2013-08-25 10:35:02 altamic has left ()
 583 2013-08-25 10:41:37 wamatt has quit (Quit: wamatt)
 584 2013-08-25 10:44:43 GordonG3kko has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 585 2013-08-25 10:45:34 GordonG3kko has joined
 586 2013-08-25 10:46:41 AusBitBank_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 587 2013-08-25 10:48:00 wamatt has joined
 588 2013-08-25 10:49:04 ericmuyser has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 589 2013-08-25 10:49:40 ericmuyser has joined
 590 2013-08-25 10:50:27 AusBitBank_ has joined
 591 2013-08-25 10:54:38 ericmuyser has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 592 2013-08-25 10:56:29 msvb-lab has joined
 593 2013-08-25 10:58:25 GhostOfSatoshi has joined
 594 2013-08-25 10:59:16 agnostic98 has joined
 595 2013-08-25 10:59:23 wamatt has quit (Quit: wamatt)
 596 2013-08-25 10:59:36 AusBitBank_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 597 2013-08-25 10:59:37 <shripadk> Hey guys! :) What is your take on persistent notifications? What I mean is that transaction/block notifications are pushed to a list in a persistent store (like redis) and any client can consume notifications from that list (by performing a blocking pop). I've written an extremely simple implementation of this here: https://github.com/shripadk/bitcoin/compare/feature;persistent-notifications . Would a feature like this be accepted into the core?
 598 2013-08-25 11:00:55 <SomeoneWeird> hey - that's neat
 599 2013-08-25 11:01:00 <kinlo> shripadk: what's your intention, to store notifications -- basically blobs -- into the blockchain?
 600 2013-08-25 11:01:18 AusBitBank_ has joined
 601 2013-08-25 11:01:25 _ingsoc_ is now known as _ingsoc
 602 2013-08-25 11:01:28 <shripadk> kinlo: no. to push those notifications into a db store outside of the chain
 603 2013-08-25 11:01:34 <kinlo> oh, no other way around - new blocks/transactions inside redis
 604 2013-08-25 11:02:06 <kinlo> sounds like a good idea.  Perhaps make the protocol redis-independant so other backends can be populated too....
 605 2013-08-25 11:03:28 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 606 2013-08-25 11:03:54 <shripadk> A client that consumes these notifications: https://gist.github.com/shripadk/6333258
 607 2013-08-25 11:04:50 <shripadk> The idea is to ensure that even if the client disconnects/crashes due to some unknown reason, the notifications are not lost
 608 2013-08-25 11:05:08 RazielZ has joined
 609 2013-08-25 11:05:45 c0rw1n has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 610 2013-08-25 11:06:29 <shripadk> kinlo: how do i make it redis independent? know of any other store that has a LIST like data structure?
 611 2013-08-25 11:07:06 CryptoBuck has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 612 2013-08-25 11:07:50 CryptoBuck has joined
 613 2013-08-25 11:08:07 <kinlo> shripadk: dunno, afaik there is no way to see when a new transaction is seen on the network, so any system that just notifies "there is a new transaction and its contents is xxxx" looks a win for everybody
 614 2013-08-25 11:09:52 <shripadk> kinlo: well i presume there are some implementations that notify you whenever a transaction is seen on the network (i guess payment processors like bitpay/bips/coinbase don't poll) but i wanted a persistent one so that if my application dies i don't need to worry about lost notifications
 615 2013-08-25 11:10:04 <runeks> shripadk: Isn't this a bit like the 0mq patch? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2415
 616 2013-08-25 11:10:23 <runeks> Or at least, if this 0mq patch was included, you could write an external client that pushes it to any database you want.
 617 2013-08-25 11:10:36 <shripadk> runeks: yes its inspired by the zmq patch.
 618 2013-08-25 11:11:22 <runeks> shripadk: Cool. My impression is just that the 0mq patch is more versatile, and you can actually get what you want if the 0mq patch is pulled and your database-creation script pulls from the 0mq socket.
 619 2013-08-25 11:12:04 <shripadk> runeks: true. if 0mq patch goes into the core then there is no need for this. however that would mean an extra service for persistence.
 620 2013-08-25 11:12:50 <shripadk> runeks: absolutely. in fact i probably will push my modifications to the 0mq patch too. that one is almost 5 months old and a lot of changes have happened to the core since then.
 621 2013-08-25 11:14:22 abrkn has joined
 622 2013-08-25 11:14:30 <runeks> shripadk: Yes it would mean an extra service for persistence. My take on it though is that it's a bit odd to include something as specific as a Redis notifier in core bitcoin. I think it makes sense to aim for something more general purpose, and people can use that to build whatever kind of database out the notifications that they want.
 623 2013-08-25 11:16:05 <shripadk> runeks: agree. however i don't think there is any other DB that works the way Redis does. You can't classify it as a DB either ways! You can label it a data structure server if you would like to :)
 624 2013-08-25 11:17:42 <shripadk> at least AFAIK there is no DB that provides for a LIST data structure with LPUSH+BRPOP combo. This simplifies things greatly. Just my two satoshis :)
 625 2013-08-25 11:19:13 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
 626 2013-08-25 11:22:02 _ingsoc has quit (Quit: leaving)
 627 2013-08-25 11:22:15 _ingsoc has joined
 628 2013-08-25 11:22:35 <sipa> jgarzik: my current headersfirst branch is based on the blacklisting and lockpushdown pathces, but the blacklisting one is almost rewritten entirrly i think
 629 2013-08-25 11:23:17 <sipa> jgarzik: so feel free to mertge if you think it works (i think it does), but knowing that that logic will change again
 630 2013-08-25 11:23:21 MoALTz has joined
 631 2013-08-25 11:30:10 agnostic98 has joined
 632 2013-08-25 11:34:37 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 633 2013-08-25 11:38:17 yubrew_ has joined
 634 2013-08-25 11:40:19 rodarmor has quit (Quit: rodarmor)
 635 2013-08-25 11:40:34 winbtc_moarrr has quit ()
 636 2013-08-25 11:46:31 GNULinuxGuy has joined
 637 2013-08-25 11:47:36 GhostOfSatoshi has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 638 2013-08-25 11:51:11 joesmoe has quit (Quit: One of these days i'm gonna find this *PEER* guys and reset *HIS* connection.)
 639 2013-08-25 11:57:21 moarrr has joined
 640 2013-08-25 12:00:48 agnostic98 has joined
 641 2013-08-25 12:00:56 Goonie has joined
 642 2013-08-25 12:01:08 <Goonie> BlueMatt: ping
 643 2013-08-25 12:04:55 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 644 2013-08-25 12:05:01 darkskiez has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 645 2013-08-25 12:05:53 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 646 2013-08-25 12:07:02 oleganza has quit (Quit: oleganza)
 647 2013-08-25 12:11:43 asuk has joined
 648 2013-08-25 12:14:35 Sunwicked has joined
 649 2013-08-25 12:17:33 darkskiez has joined
 650 2013-08-25 12:18:11 shripadk has quit (Quit: shripadk)
 651 2013-08-25 12:23:49 paybitcoin1 has joined
 652 2013-08-25 12:24:16 paybitcoin has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 653 2013-08-25 12:26:24 sacrelege has joined
 654 2013-08-25 12:27:07 Eiii has quit ()
 655 2013-08-25 12:31:41 agnostic98 has joined
 656 2013-08-25 12:32:19 one_zero has quit ()
 657 2013-08-25 12:34:31 Muis_ is now known as Muis
 658 2013-08-25 12:35:59 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 659 2013-08-25 12:36:57 Guest56136 has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 660 2013-08-25 12:37:29 aa has joined
 661 2013-08-25 12:37:49 aa is now known as MobiusL
 662 2013-08-25 12:39:44 K1773R has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 663 2013-08-25 12:42:47 valparaiso has quit (Quit: We are not gonna die. You know why? Because we are so... very... pretty.)
 664 2013-08-25 12:43:27 johnsoft has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 665 2013-08-25 12:46:04 K1773R has joined
 666 2013-08-25 12:48:11 valparaiso_afk has joined
 667 2013-08-25 12:48:35 valparaiso_afk is now known as valparaiso
 668 2013-08-25 12:49:19 joesmoe has joined
 669 2013-08-25 12:52:05 c0rw1n has joined
 670 2013-08-25 12:55:36 fanquake has left ()
 671 2013-08-25 13:02:48 agnostic98 has joined
 672 2013-08-25 13:03:21 AusBitBank_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 673 2013-08-25 13:03:26 MoALTz has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 674 2013-08-25 13:03:38 eian has joined
 675 2013-08-25 13:03:49 dvide has joined
 676 2013-08-25 13:07:09 Guest30664 has quit (Quit: The Game)
 677 2013-08-25 13:07:14 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 678 2013-08-25 13:08:49 AusBitBank_ has joined
 679 2013-08-25 13:11:47 Wren has joined
 680 2013-08-25 13:11:53 Wren is now known as Guest24260
 681 2013-08-25 13:12:32 goodbtc has joined
 682 2013-08-25 13:13:56 <goodbtc> annoying thing on bitcoin-qt: I have the port open on my router and correctly forwarded to my desktop where I run bitcoin-qt that is connected to 25+ nodes
 683 2013-08-25 13:15:01 <goodbtc> when my internet connection fail, I receive a new IP on the router, but then no more than 8 nodes are connected anymore, until I stop and start again the program
 684 2013-08-25 13:15:22 asuk has quit (Quit: asuk)
 685 2013-08-25 13:15:26 AusBitBank_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 686 2013-08-25 13:16:33 <goodbtc> why isn't bitcoin-qt checking from time to time to see if he can accept connections from outside (or something like this)
 687 2013-08-25 13:16:36 <gmaxwell> goodbtc: you sure?  it won't rebroadcast its address again for 24 hours (unless you restart it), even if we have no issues relating to discovering the change.
 688 2013-08-25 13:16:52 AusBitBank_ has joined
 689 2013-08-25 13:17:14 <goodbtc> so you say he does that after 24h?
 690 2013-08-25 13:17:46 <goodbtc> maybe I should wait more then :)
 691 2013-08-25 13:18:29 <gmaxwell> goodbtc: yea, it may not work still— I have no clue if the upnp code will discover your new address... but if it does it'll likely take 24 hours to readvertise it.
 692 2013-08-25 13:23:04 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 693 2013-08-25 13:23:39 i2pRelay has joined
 694 2013-08-25 13:24:11 AusBitBank_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 695 2013-08-25 13:25:42 cris` has joined
 696 2013-08-25 13:28:08 minty has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 697 2013-08-25 13:28:14 joesmoe- has joined
 698 2013-08-25 13:29:15 FlyingLeap_ has joined
 699 2013-08-25 13:29:21 BTCOxygen has joined
 700 2013-08-25 13:29:21 BTCOxygen has quit (Killed (pratchett.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services)))
 701 2013-08-25 13:29:21 BTCOxygen is now known as 1!~BTCOxygen@unaffiliated/oxygen|BTCOxygen
 702 2013-08-25 13:29:50 cris has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 703 2013-08-25 13:29:51 mihar_ has quit (Write error: Broken pipe)
 704 2013-08-25 13:29:51 Guest34827 has quit (Write error: Broken pipe)
 705 2013-08-25 13:29:51 joesmoe has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 706 2013-08-25 13:29:51 dooglus has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 707 2013-08-25 13:29:52 psychophoniac has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 708 2013-08-25 13:29:52 FlyingLeap has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 709 2013-08-25 13:29:52 FluffySheap has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 710 2013-08-25 13:29:52 GingerGeek[Away] has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 711 2013-08-25 13:29:52 tych0 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 712 2013-08-25 13:29:53 FluffySh1ap has joined
 713 2013-08-25 13:30:12 GingerGeek[Away] has joined
 714 2013-08-25 13:30:43 GingerGeek[Away] is now known as GingerGeek
 715 2013-08-25 13:31:04 yubrew__ has joined
 716 2013-08-25 13:31:15 stalled has quit (Write error: Connection reset by peer)
 717 2013-08-25 13:31:15 Internet13 has quit (Write error: Connection reset by peer)
 718 2013-08-25 13:31:30 dooglus has joined
 719 2013-08-25 13:31:30 dooglus has quit (Changing host)
 720 2013-08-25 13:31:30 dooglus has joined
 721 2013-08-25 13:31:52 AusBitBank_ has joined
 722 2013-08-25 13:32:28 tsst has quit (Write error: Connection reset by peer)
 723 2013-08-25 13:32:40 c0rw1n has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 724 2013-08-25 13:33:29 mortikia has quit (Write error: Broken pipe)
 725 2013-08-25 13:33:29 Plinker_ has quit (Write error: Broken pipe)
 726 2013-08-25 13:33:34 Plinker__ has joined
 727 2013-08-25 13:33:39 t2che has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 728 2013-08-25 13:33:39 yubrew has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 729 2013-08-25 13:33:40 tsst has joined
 730 2013-08-25 13:33:42 agnostic98 has joined
 731 2013-08-25 13:34:08 egis_ has joined
 732 2013-08-25 13:34:10 egis has quit (Excess Flood)
 733 2013-08-25 13:34:19 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 734 2013-08-25 13:34:19 egis_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 735 2013-08-25 13:34:26 mihar has joined
 736 2013-08-25 13:34:40 Goonie has quit (Write error: Broken pipe)
 737 2013-08-25 13:34:50 mortikia has joined
 738 2013-08-25 13:34:57 blaeks has joined
 739 2013-08-25 13:35:49 breesy has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 740 2013-08-25 13:36:33 Goonie has joined
 741 2013-08-25 13:36:47 Internet13 has joined
 742 2013-08-25 13:38:08 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 743 2013-08-25 13:38:47 tsche has joined
 744 2013-08-25 13:40:01 AusBitBank_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 745 2013-08-25 13:40:18 abrkn\ has joined
 746 2013-08-25 13:41:26 mps has joined
 747 2013-08-25 13:41:46 tych0 has joined
 748 2013-08-25 13:42:36 psychophoniac has joined
 749 2013-08-25 13:43:10 abrkn has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 750 2013-08-25 13:43:21 minty has joined
 751 2013-08-25 13:44:12 joesmoe- has left ()
 752 2013-08-25 13:44:38 joesmoe has joined
 753 2013-08-25 13:45:27 AusBitBank_ has joined
 754 2013-08-25 13:45:44 loadout has joined
 755 2013-08-25 13:46:17 swulf-- has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 756 2013-08-25 13:47:26 loadout has quit (Client Quit)
 757 2013-08-25 13:48:15 BTCOxygen is now known as Guest64224
 758 2013-08-25 13:48:15 BTCOxygen has joined
 759 2013-08-25 13:48:15 Guest64224 has quit (Killed (hitchcock.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services)))
 760 2013-08-25 13:48:15 BTCOxygen is now known as 1!~BTCOxygen@unaffiliated/oxygen|BTCOxygen
 761 2013-08-25 13:49:08 Prattler has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.in)
 762 2013-08-25 13:52:06 AusBitBank_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 763 2013-08-25 13:59:28 AusBitBank_ has joined
 764 2013-08-25 13:59:51 themsay has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
 765 2013-08-25 14:02:21 <jgarzik> sipa, just trying to clear out pull reqs
 766 2013-08-25 14:02:43 <jgarzik> sipa, I don't need the feature.  Trying to dispose of it by merge or closing.
 767 2013-08-25 14:03:54 macboz has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 768 2013-08-25 14:04:21 agnostic98 has joined
 769 2013-08-25 14:06:03 Gnaf has joined
 770 2013-08-25 14:06:16 AusBitBank_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 771 2013-08-25 14:06:30 Gnaf has quit (Changing host)
 772 2013-08-25 14:06:30 Gnaf has joined
 773 2013-08-25 14:07:45 stalled has joined
 774 2013-08-25 14:08:39 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 775 2013-08-25 14:12:50 BCBot has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 776 2013-08-25 14:13:00 BCBot has joined
 777 2013-08-25 14:14:25 <runeks> With regards to multisig transactions. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0011#Specification says that "OP_CHECKMULTISIG transactions are redeemed using a standard scriptSig" but as far as I can see it's not a standard scriptSig because it doesn't include the public keys. Am I wrong?
 778 2013-08-25 14:14:43 AusBitBank_ has joined
 779 2013-08-25 14:15:13 <Luke-Jr> runeks: if it didn't inlcude the pubkeys, it wouldn't work!
 780 2013-08-25 14:15:53 <runeks> Luke-Jr: It would it you fetch the pubkeys from the output.
 781 2013-08-25 14:16:04 <runeks> s/it/if
 782 2013-08-25 14:16:23 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 783 2013-08-25 14:16:35 Neozonz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 784 2013-08-25 14:16:35 Prattler has joined
 785 2013-08-25 14:16:41 arioBarzan has joined
 786 2013-08-25 14:16:43 <Luke-Jr> runeks: oh, you mean without P2SH?
 787 2013-08-25 14:16:59 Neozonz has joined
 788 2013-08-25 14:16:59 Neozonz has quit (Changing host)
 789 2013-08-25 14:16:59 Neozonz has joined
 790 2013-08-25 14:17:02 <runeks> Luke-Jr: Yeah it's BIP 0011.
 791 2013-08-25 14:17:11 BTCOxygen has joined
 792 2013-08-25 14:17:11 BTCOxygen is now known as 1!~BTCOxygen@unaffiliated/oxygen|BTCOxygen
 793 2013-08-25 14:17:46 <Luke-Jr> runeks: in that case, why would it need the pubkeys to be standard?
 794 2013-08-25 14:18:13 <Luke-Jr> a standard scriptSig is simply defined as 1) push-only, 2) no additional pushes than required for scriptPubKey
 795 2013-08-25 14:18:27 Neozonz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 796 2013-08-25 14:18:53 mick has joined
 797 2013-08-25 14:18:57 <runeks> Luke-Jr: Oh. I thought a standard scriptSig was the kind that redeems a Pay-by-Bitcoin-address TxOut
 798 2013-08-25 14:18:59 Neozonz has joined
 799 2013-08-25 14:18:59 Neozonz has quit (Changing host)
 800 2013-08-25 14:18:59 Neozonz has joined
 801 2013-08-25 14:19:05 <runeks> Then it makes sense.
 802 2013-08-25 14:19:17 mick is now known as Guest83983
 803 2013-08-25 14:19:19 <Luke-Jr> runeks: there is no "pay-by-bitcoin-address" txout
 804 2013-08-25 14:19:28 <runeks> I'm just trying to get bitcointools' extract_public_key() function to work to multisig scriptSigs
 805 2013-08-25 14:19:34 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 806 2013-08-25 14:19:44 hnz has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 807 2013-08-25 14:19:52 <runeks> Luke-Jr: Pay-*to*-Bitcoin-address out then?
 808 2013-08-25 14:20:08 Gnaf has quit (Quit: for(uint i=0; i<vPrimes.size(); ++i))
 809 2013-08-25 14:20:18 <Luke-Jr> Bitcoin addresses can be converted to either pay-to-scripthash or pay-to-pubkeyhash scripts
 810 2013-08-25 14:21:14 <jgarzik> runeks, bitcointools is python, right?  I think petertodd just added P2SH/multisig support to python-bitcoinlib, which should do what you want.
 811 2013-08-25 14:21:16 AusBitBank_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 812 2013-08-25 14:22:03 <runeks> jgarzik: Yes it is. I will check python-bitcoinlib out. bitcointools does seem like it's aging, and it hasn't been taken care of.
 813 2013-08-25 14:22:24 <runeks> Luke-Jr: Uh, I'm just talking about the "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <hash160> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG" type txOuts
 814 2013-08-25 14:23:14 <Luke-Jr> pay-to-pubkeyhash then
 815 2013-08-25 14:23:36 <jgarzik> runeks, indeed.  bitcointools was written in the early days of bitcoin, as one of Gavin's first projects.
 816 2013-08-25 14:23:59 <jgarzik> That txout isn't even multsig ;p
 817 2013-08-25 14:24:09 hnz has joined
 818 2013-08-25 14:26:11 <runeks> jgarzik: We went off a tangent. Look further up. It was my misunderstanding of what a "standard" scriptSig is that caused the confusion.
 819 2013-08-25 14:26:40 <runeks> jgarzik: Does python-bitcoinlib let me extract destination addresses out of scriptPubKeys and scriptSigs?
 820 2013-08-25 14:26:52 <runeks> That's what I'm using bitcointools for currently.
 821 2013-08-25 14:27:43 oleganza has joined
 822 2013-08-25 14:28:22 <runeks> extract_public_key() analyzes the script and extracts the address from it: https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcointools/blob/master/deserialize.py#L291
 823 2013-08-25 14:29:09 oleganza has quit (Client Quit)
 824 2013-08-25 14:32:30 asuk has joined
 825 2013-08-25 14:33:30 CheckDavid has joined
 826 2013-08-25 14:35:14 agnostic98 has joined
 827 2013-08-25 14:38:24 stalled has joined
 828 2013-08-25 14:39:37 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 829 2013-08-25 14:40:27 stalled has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 830 2013-08-25 14:40:32 arioBarzan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 831 2013-08-25 14:42:17 asuk has quit (Quit: asuk)
 832 2013-08-25 14:45:59 stalled has joined
 833 2013-08-25 14:47:07 ie6 has joined
 834 2013-08-25 14:50:17 rdponticelli has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 835 2013-08-25 14:51:25 chorao2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 836 2013-08-25 14:51:35 chorao has joined
 837 2013-08-25 14:51:35 chorao has quit (Changing host)
 838 2013-08-25 14:51:35 chorao has joined
 839 2013-08-25 14:51:46 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 840 2013-08-25 14:53:17 rdponticelli has joined
 841 2013-08-25 14:53:37 stalled has joined
 842 2013-08-25 14:56:11 yubrew_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 843 2013-08-25 14:56:34 Subo1977_ has joined
 844 2013-08-25 14:57:01 yubrew has joined
 845 2013-08-25 14:58:00 Guest83983 has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 846 2013-08-25 14:59:36 Subo1977 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 847 2013-08-25 14:59:40 johnsoft has joined
 848 2013-08-25 14:59:46 wboy has joined
 849 2013-08-25 15:03:41 wboy has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 850 2013-08-25 15:03:53 wboy has joined
 851 2013-08-25 15:05:48 btcbtc has joined
 852 2013-08-25 15:06:16 i2pRelay has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 853 2013-08-25 15:07:39 Neozonz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 854 2013-08-25 15:08:02 asuk has joined
 855 2013-08-25 15:08:04 Neozonz has joined
 856 2013-08-25 15:08:04 Neozonz has quit (Changing host)
 857 2013-08-25 15:08:04 Neozonz has joined
 858 2013-08-25 15:08:33 i2pRelay has joined
 859 2013-08-25 15:15:05 ie6 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 860 2013-08-25 15:16:30 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 861 2013-08-25 15:20:19 BTCOxygen is now known as Guest9720
 862 2013-08-25 15:20:19 BTCOxygen has joined
 863 2013-08-25 15:20:19 Guest9720 has quit (Killed (hubbard.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services)))
 864 2013-08-25 15:20:19 BTCOxygen is now known as 1!~BTCOxygen@unaffiliated/oxygen|BTCOxygen
 865 2013-08-25 15:21:32 sacrelege has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 866 2013-08-25 15:23:31 jcorgan has joined
 867 2013-08-25 15:25:53 CheckDavid has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 868 2013-08-25 15:26:12 ie6 has joined
 869 2013-08-25 15:26:45 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 870 2013-08-25 15:29:20 stalled has joined
 871 2013-08-25 15:30:36 rodarmor has joined
 872 2013-08-25 15:30:49 nsillik has joined
 873 2013-08-25 15:31:04 handle has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 874 2013-08-25 15:31:49 handle has joined
 875 2013-08-25 15:32:16 sensorii has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 876 2013-08-25 15:33:19 sensorii has joined
 877 2013-08-25 15:33:42 wboy has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 878 2013-08-25 15:33:53 wboy has joined
 879 2013-08-25 15:42:59 yubrew has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 880 2013-08-25 15:45:55 Edward_Black has quit (Quit: ow ow ow...)
 881 2013-08-25 15:46:41 Edward_Black has joined
 882 2013-08-25 15:47:11 porquilho has joined
 883 2013-08-25 15:49:57 chorao2 has joined
 884 2013-08-25 15:50:56 Thepok has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 885 2013-08-25 15:52:05 handle has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 886 2013-08-25 15:52:22 chorao has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 887 2013-08-25 15:52:27 chorao2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 888 2013-08-25 15:53:06 gst has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 889 2013-08-25 15:53:08 handle has joined
 890 2013-08-25 15:53:12 chorao has joined
 891 2013-08-25 15:53:36 gst has joined
 892 2013-08-25 15:57:16 GMP has joined
 893 2013-08-25 16:01:22 agnostic98 has joined
 894 2013-08-25 16:03:30 PrimeStunna has quit (Quit: PrimeStunna)
 895 2013-08-25 16:03:42 wboy has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 896 2013-08-25 16:03:58 wboy has joined
 897 2013-08-25 16:05:45 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 898 2013-08-25 16:06:47 rodarmor has quit (Quit: rodarmor)
 899 2013-08-25 16:08:56 testnode9 has joined
 900 2013-08-25 16:19:42 eoss has joined
 901 2013-08-25 16:25:36 owowo has joined
 902 2013-08-25 16:28:03 winbtc_moarrr has joined
 903 2013-08-25 16:28:05 moarrr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 904 2013-08-25 16:32:16 proquilho has joined
 905 2013-08-25 16:32:16 agnostic98 has joined
 906 2013-08-25 16:32:19 porquilho has quit ()
 907 2013-08-25 16:33:33 proquilho has left ()
 908 2013-08-25 16:33:37 porquilho has joined
 909 2013-08-25 16:33:54 wboy has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 910 2013-08-25 16:33:55 robocoin has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 911 2013-08-25 16:34:08 wboy has joined
 912 2013-08-25 16:35:20 yubrew has joined
 913 2013-08-25 16:35:44 <starsoccer> is there a way from the bitcoin client console to remove an address?
 914 2013-08-25 16:35:59 <starsoccer> or lock in any funds in that address so they cant be spent
 915 2013-08-25 16:36:57 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 916 2013-08-25 16:36:57 porquilho_ has joined
 917 2013-08-25 16:37:54 roconnor has joined
 918 2013-08-25 16:38:04 porquilho has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 919 2013-08-25 16:38:07 moarrr has joined
 920 2013-08-25 16:38:29 moarrr is now known as Guest6780
 921 2013-08-25 16:39:26 Guest6780 is now known as winbtc_moarrr_
 922 2013-08-25 16:39:29 winbtc_moarrr has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 923 2013-08-25 16:39:32 winbtc_moarrr_ is now known as winbtc_moarrr
 924 2013-08-25 16:40:12 ThomasV has joined
 925 2013-08-25 16:40:57 sacrelege has joined
 926 2013-08-25 16:41:55 porquilho_ has left ()
 927 2013-08-25 16:41:58 porquilho has joined
 928 2013-08-25 16:43:17 <sipa> starsoccer: lockunspent
 929 2013-08-25 16:44:55 _ingsoc has quit (Quit: leaving)
 930 2013-08-25 16:46:01 _ingsoc has joined
 931 2013-08-25 16:48:05 Goonie has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 932 2013-08-25 16:48:40 robocoin has joined
 933 2013-08-25 16:54:24 winbtc_moarrr has quit ()
 934 2013-08-25 16:55:34 Sunwicked has quit ()
 935 2013-08-25 17:02:48 ie6 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 936 2013-08-25 17:03:13 agnostic98 has joined
 937 2013-08-25 17:03:52 wboy has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 938 2013-08-25 17:04:09 wboy has joined
 939 2013-08-25 17:06:41 tgs3 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 940 2013-08-25 17:06:49 tgs3 has joined
 941 2013-08-25 17:07:24 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 241 seconds)
 942 2013-08-25 17:09:14 yubrew has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 943 2013-08-25 17:11:18 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 944 2013-08-25 17:26:12 MiningBuddy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 945 2013-08-25 17:26:23 digitalmagus has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 946 2013-08-25 17:26:23 MiningBuddy- has joined
 947 2013-08-25 17:26:39 digitalmagus has joined
 948 2013-08-25 17:26:39 digitalmagus has quit (Changing host)
 949 2013-08-25 17:26:39 digitalmagus has joined
 950 2013-08-25 17:26:41 sserrano44 has joined
 951 2013-08-25 17:32:20 Cory has quit ()
 952 2013-08-25 17:33:56 spitballshot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 953 2013-08-25 17:34:06 agnostic98 has joined
 954 2013-08-25 17:35:34 Eiii has joined
 955 2013-08-25 17:37:52 wboy has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 956 2013-08-25 17:38:24 wboy has joined
 957 2013-08-25 17:39:21 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 958 2013-08-25 17:39:31 sserrano44 has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 959 2013-08-25 17:43:19 mayday__ has joined
 960 2013-08-25 17:44:07 mayday__ has left ()
 961 2013-08-25 17:44:33 dayout has joined
 962 2013-08-25 17:46:18 abrkn\ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 963 2013-08-25 17:47:02 whizter has joined
 964 2013-08-25 17:48:12 Cory has joined
 965 2013-08-25 17:49:45 tsst has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 966 2013-08-25 17:51:43 sserrano44 has joined
 967 2013-08-25 17:51:48 Guest5159 is now known as gaantr2
 968 2013-08-25 17:52:01 nomailing has joined
 969 2013-08-25 17:54:00 dayout has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
 970 2013-08-25 17:59:10 gst has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 971 2013-08-25 17:59:41 gst has joined
 972 2013-08-25 18:03:27 ericmuyser has joined
 973 2013-08-25 18:04:10 wboy has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 974 2013-08-25 18:04:44 wboy has joined
 975 2013-08-25 18:06:14 yubrew has joined
 976 2013-08-25 18:08:22 da2ce7 has joined
 977 2013-08-25 18:10:09 CryptoBuck has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 978 2013-08-25 18:10:44 CryptoBuck has joined
 979 2013-08-25 18:12:52 MoALTz has joined
 980 2013-08-25 18:13:48 sacrelege has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 981 2013-08-25 18:14:17 toffoo has joined
 982 2013-08-25 18:15:34 michagogo has joined
 983 2013-08-25 18:17:06 minty has quit (Disconnected by services)
 984 2013-08-25 18:17:10 Dagger3 is now known as Dagger2
 985 2013-08-25 18:17:25 mintmoney has joined
 986 2013-08-25 18:17:36 PrimeStunna has joined
 987 2013-08-25 18:20:15 PrimeStunna has quit (Client Quit)
 988 2013-08-25 18:23:05 Namworld has joined
 989 2013-08-25 18:25:06 daybyter has joined
 990 2013-08-25 18:28:53 _ingsoc has quit (Quit: leaving)
 991 2013-08-25 18:29:49 FabianB_ has joined
 992 2013-08-25 18:30:35 FabianB has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 993 2013-08-25 18:30:55 PrimeStunna has joined
 994 2013-08-25 18:33:44 <michagogo> ;;later tell jgarzik Any ETA on the Bootstrap update for the new checkpoint?
 995 2013-08-25 18:33:44 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
 996 2013-08-25 18:34:33 wboy has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 997 2013-08-25 18:34:37 oleganza has joined
 998 2013-08-25 18:34:56 yubrew has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 999 2013-08-25 18:35:01 wboy has joined
1000 2013-08-25 18:35:03 agnostic98 has joined
1001 2013-08-25 18:36:38 CheckDavid has joined
1002 2013-08-25 18:39:13 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1003 2013-08-25 18:46:45 Neozonz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1004 2013-08-25 18:47:10 Neozonz has joined
1005 2013-08-25 18:48:54 User201 has joined
1006 2013-08-25 18:49:04 User201 has quit (Client Quit)
1007 2013-08-25 18:51:10 altamic has joined
1008 2013-08-25 18:51:23 altamic has left ()
1009 2013-08-25 18:59:22 nomailing has quit (Quit: nomailing)
1010 2013-08-25 19:01:33 _ingsoc has joined
1011 2013-08-25 19:04:29 wboy has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1012 2013-08-25 19:04:56 GordonG3kko has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1013 2013-08-25 19:04:56 wboy has joined
1014 2013-08-25 19:05:53 paracyst has joined
1015 2013-08-25 19:05:58 da2ce7 has joined
1016 2013-08-25 19:05:58 agnostic98 has joined
1017 2013-08-25 19:06:25 cads has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1018 2013-08-25 19:06:56 GordonG3kko has joined
1019 2013-08-25 19:07:18 justusranvier has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1020 2013-08-25 19:07:30 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1021 2013-08-25 19:09:04 temptest1ick has joined
1022 2013-08-25 19:11:00 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1023 2013-08-25 19:12:10 temptestnick has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1024 2013-08-25 19:12:32 robocoin has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1025 2013-08-25 19:16:01 <Krellan> Question: When revising a commit that's in a pull request, what's best: add a new commit, squash new commit into existing commit, or close pull request and resubmit?
1026 2013-08-25 19:16:18 <sipa> Krellan: no need to close and resubmit
1027 2013-08-25 19:16:24 justusranvier has joined
1028 2013-08-25 19:16:32 <sipa> adding a commit makes sense if it's intended to be a separate commit
1029 2013-08-25 19:16:37 <sipa> otherwise, squash
1030 2013-08-25 19:16:56 <Luke-Jr> Krellan: separate commits for separate logical changes; whatever it takes to get that :P
1031 2013-08-25 19:17:25 <sipa> in particular, commits are intended to be standalone changes, for which unit tests work
1032 2013-08-25 19:17:28 <Krellan> Thanks.  Was thinking about https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2929 = you're right, no need to construct new CAddress, can just use existing CService.
1033 2013-08-25 19:17:40 <sipa> Krellan: definitely just revise the existing commit
1034 2013-08-25 19:17:48 <Krellan> Will do since so trivial change.
1035 2013-08-25 19:18:11 <sipa> thanks!
1036 2013-08-25 19:18:33 <Krellan> I can see somebody using squash to slip something in, though: you submit something good, everybody says ACK, you squash another commit to it and add something sneakily bad.
1037 2013-08-25 19:18:57 e0s_ has joined
1038 2013-08-25 19:19:17 <sipa> indeed, there's a risk
1039 2013-08-25 19:19:29 <sipa> but it's ultimately the responsability of the merger to check for things like that
1040 2013-08-25 19:19:41 peetaur2 has joined
1041 2013-08-25 19:19:43 <Luke-Jr> sipa: not sure it's even possible to check with Github merging
1042 2013-08-25 19:19:47 <Luke-Jr> there's always a race
1043 2013-08-25 19:20:04 _ingsoc has quit (Quit: leaving)
1044 2013-08-25 19:20:11 <Luke-Jr> Krellan: that's basically happened (no foul intention I think though) with the LevelDB merge
1045 2013-08-25 19:20:26 <Krellan> wow, you're right about that: somebody could perform a squash and push -f that squash, right as the moment the upstream maintainer clicks "accept" on the pull req!
1046 2013-08-25 19:20:29 <sipa> if you're making non-trivial changes after getting an ACK, it's friendly to make a comment about it on the pullreq page
1047 2013-08-25 19:21:09 paracyst has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1048 2013-08-25 19:21:12 <Luke-Jr> GitHub does reorder the events
1049 2013-08-25 19:21:43 <Luke-Jr> if you push -f, it will list the commits after the ACKs
1050 2013-08-25 19:21:54 <Krellan> that's good to know
1051 2013-08-25 19:22:09 <sipa> and it's of course also possible to verify after merging
1052 2013-08-25 19:22:15 <jouke> So, may 15th fork finaly happened? :)
1053 2013-08-25 19:22:39 <Luke-Jr> yep
1054 2013-08-25 19:22:43 <Luke-Jr> a few days ago
1055 2013-08-25 19:22:55 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: Ever figure out why that block that forked it was so small?
1056 2013-08-25 19:23:04 <Luke-Jr> nope :/
1057 2013-08-25 19:23:06 <jouke> hadn't noticed until now :)
1058 2013-08-25 19:23:10 <Luke-Jr> I can only conclude the diagnosis was wrong :|
1059 2013-08-25 19:23:15 <petertodd> eek
1060 2013-08-25 19:23:20 <jouke> pierre`: 800+ kilobyte?
1061 2013-08-25 19:23:20 peetaur2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1062 2013-08-25 19:23:27 <Luke-Jr> jouke: no, it was like 172 kB IIRC
1063 2013-08-25 19:23:46 btcbtc has quit (Quit: btcbtc)
1064 2013-08-25 19:23:49 <jouke> afaik it is this block: 0000000000000024b58eeb1134432f00497a6a860412996e7a260f47126eed07
1065 2013-08-25 19:24:55 <Luke-Jr> [Thursday, August 22, 2013] [12:48:33 AM] <Luke-Jr>     253451 http://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000028d6ae33b846dbbe9a3f6cd82819844a29630366e5cc984c43
1066 2013-08-25 19:25:23 ericmuyser has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1067 2013-08-25 19:25:34 <jouke> huh.
1068 2013-08-25 19:25:37 <Luke-Jr> hmm
1069 2013-08-25 19:26:06 <jouke> 252451
1070 2013-08-25 19:26:22 <jouke> I have two nodes that are stuck on 252450
1071 2013-08-25 19:26:38 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1072 2013-08-25 19:26:46 <sipa> so, 252451 caused the fork :)
1073 2013-08-25 19:26:52 robocoin has joined
1074 2013-08-25 19:27:28 * Luke-Jr facepalms
1075 2013-08-25 19:27:32 <Luke-Jr> I got the number wrong
1076 2013-08-25 19:27:37 <Luke-Jr> now it all makes sense XDF
1077 2013-08-25 19:27:39 <Luke-Jr> XD*
1078 2013-08-25 19:27:41 <jgarzik> whee
1079 2013-08-25 19:27:42 <jouke> yes, so block 0000000000000024b58eeb1134432f00497a6a860412996e7a260f47126eed07 which is 805 KB and had 1486 transactions
1080 2013-08-25 19:27:44 paracyst has joined
1081 2013-08-25 19:27:54 <sipa> oh :)
1082 2013-08-25 19:28:01 peetaur2 has joined
1083 2013-08-25 19:28:01 <sipa> i didn't check the link
1084 2013-08-25 19:28:06 <sipa> jgarzik: ?
1085 2013-08-25 19:28:22 <jgarzik> sipa, so we finally hard-forked away 0.7?
1086 2013-08-25 19:28:25 <sipa> yes
1087 2013-08-25 19:28:38 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: good!
1088 2013-08-25 19:28:52 <jouke> No worry Luke-Jr. We are not mad. Just a little disappointed.
1089 2013-08-25 19:28:58 <sipa> ?
1090 2013-08-25 19:29:00 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: ha, eligius earned $58 for forking Bitcoin.:P
1091 2013-08-25 19:29:06 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: and confirmed stable backports work :p
1092 2013-08-25 19:29:23 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: investigating new spammer to block already :P
1093 2013-08-25 19:29:38 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: ha, what now?
1094 2013-08-25 19:29:38 <sipa> jouke: disappointed because?
1095 2013-08-25 19:29:45 <Luke-Jr> "BetCoin Dice" apparently
1096 2013-08-25 19:29:51 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: lovely...
1097 2013-08-25 19:29:55 <Luke-Jr> sipa: because I should have thought to double check tht
1098 2013-08-25 19:30:07 <jouke> ^
1099 2013-08-25 19:30:13 <jouke> but I was just joking :P
1100 2013-08-25 19:30:38 <jouke> anyway. Ok. Time to shut down some nodes.
1101 2013-08-25 19:31:00 arioBarzan has joined
1102 2013-08-25 19:31:28 <jouke> I still have some .7-nodes connected as it seems.
1103 2013-08-25 19:32:25 oleganza_ has joined
1104 2013-08-25 19:32:37 <Krellan> sipa: Nice, I found it still works when reusing the existing CService, so this trivial patch gets even shorter.  And, I found that squashing in a change causes the commit hash to change, so that's a good way to defend against a sneaky squash.
1105 2013-08-25 19:32:41 oleganza has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1106 2013-08-25 19:32:41 oleganza_ is now known as oleganza
1107 2013-08-25 19:33:03 am42 has joined
1108 2013-08-25 19:33:20 am42 has left ()
1109 2013-08-25 19:33:27 <sipa> Krellan: sure, git commits are cryptographic hashes
1110 2013-08-25 19:33:50 <Luke-Jr> jouke: or upgrade them ;p
1111 2013-08-25 19:33:52 <jcorgan> git branchs are hashchains of commits
1112 2013-08-25 19:34:09 <jouke> Luke-Jr: better idea indeed :)
1113 2013-08-25 19:34:12 <sipa> a branch is just a pointer to a commit
1114 2013-08-25 19:34:22 <sipa> it's the commits themselves that commit to the chain of changes
1115 2013-08-25 19:34:41 <sipa> a branch doesn't have a hash
1116 2013-08-25 19:35:03 <sipa> (or at least not a stable one)
1117 2013-08-25 19:35:07 wboy has quit (Read error: No route to host)
1118 2013-08-25 19:35:46 wboy has joined
1119 2013-08-25 19:36:33 <lianj> a chain or commits (eg prev_block) and the tree root (eg merkle_root) :P
1120 2013-08-25 19:36:39 <lianj> s/or/of
1121 2013-08-25 19:36:40 GordonG3kko has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1122 2013-08-25 19:36:56 agnostic98 has joined
1123 2013-08-25 19:36:59 <Krellan> and an especially good commit is one that starts with 0000000....  :)
1124 2013-08-25 19:37:15 <sipa> unfortunately, git uses sha1, not double-sha256 :)
1125 2013-08-25 19:38:32 <sipa> Krellan: coding nit: no need for () around stats.addrLocal.empty()
1126 2013-08-25 19:38:54 <petertodd> heh, it'd be fun to write a git commit hook that makes all your commits start with 0000000...
1127 2013-08-25 19:39:19 <Krellan> PoW commits = slow down people and make them think before committing silly things
1128 2013-08-25 19:39:25 <sipa> Krellan: . binds tighter than !
1129 2013-08-25 19:39:36 GordonG3kko has joined
1130 2013-08-25 19:39:48 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: or the current date ;)
1131 2013-08-25 19:39:58 <Luke-Jr> (in tonal of course)
1132 2013-08-25 19:40:20 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: lol
1133 2013-08-25 19:40:32 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: Oh, I know: make the commits be incrementing numbers, svn style!
1134 2013-08-25 19:40:39 <Luke-Jr> <.<
1135 2013-08-25 19:41:20 Subo1977_ has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
1136 2013-08-25 19:41:24 Subo1977 has joined
1137 2013-08-25 19:41:25 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1138 2013-08-25 19:41:31 <Krellan> sipa: thanks, I've historically been paranoid about precedence order, don't mind using more parens than strictly necessary
1139 2013-08-25 19:41:40 <jgarzik> svn… sigh
1140 2013-08-25 19:41:50 <jgarzik> "we'll do cvs better!" what a mess.
1141 2013-08-25 19:42:03 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: otoh, it still has features git lacks :/
1142 2013-08-25 19:42:17 <jgarzik> yes, like easy corruption
1143 2013-08-25 19:42:23 <Luke-Jr> git corrupts easy
1144 2013-08-25 19:42:31 <Luke-Jr> I was thinking more like real cherry-picking
1145 2013-08-25 19:42:31 <jgarzik> or hacker-friendly lack of crypto hashed data
1146 2013-08-25 19:42:40 <sipa> i've never seen either SVN or git corrupt :)
1147 2013-08-25 19:42:52 <sipa> but i've heard SVN corruption was commonly caused by their BDB backend :p
1148 2013-08-25 19:42:54 <Luke-Jr> sipa: you obviously don't have 4.5 GB packed git repos ;)
1149 2013-08-25 19:42:58 <jgarzik> sipa, yep
1150 2013-08-25 19:43:01 <Krellan> I'm rather liking the cherry pick feature of git.  Haven't used a lot of git before, but use svn at my day job.
1151 2013-08-25 19:43:09 <Luke-Jr> oh, svn also has append-only storage
1152 2013-08-25 19:43:09 <Luke-Jr> one thing I liked
1153 2013-08-25 19:43:10 <jcorgan> svn is for organizations married to the idea that there must be one true "official" revision
1154 2013-08-25 19:43:24 <Luke-Jr> Krellan: git's cherry-pick is just a hack; svn has real cherry-picking
1155 2013-08-25 19:43:25 <jgarzik> in the Linux kernel community, the kernel repo itself exercises git so well, it has been used as a detector for hard drive failure
1156 2013-08-25 19:43:28 <jcorgan> instead of a community consensus
1157 2013-08-25 19:43:32 <jgarzik> git corrupted -> check hardware
1158 2013-08-25 19:43:36 <sipa> Luke-Jr: what do you mean by real cherry picking?
1159 2013-08-25 19:43:49 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: I think my corruption is just kernel hanging
1160 2013-08-25 19:44:02 <Luke-Jr> sipa: svn merge is aware the commit was cherry-picked, and skips over it
1161 2013-08-25 19:44:10 <Krellan> I split up some work I did into two separate branches, after they had been comingled, and was able to do so without loss of data or duplicating work.
1162 2013-08-25 19:44:15 <Luke-Jr> sipa: git doesn't know it's related at all
1163 2013-08-25 19:44:19 <sipa> right
1164 2013-08-25 19:44:43 <sipa> indeed, it's just generating a patch a cherry-pick time and applying it to another branch
1165 2013-08-25 19:44:49 <sipa> *at
1166 2013-08-25 19:45:29 * jgarzik finally started his C++ pool server.  json-rpc server over http for control. json-rpc client upstream to bitcoind for work.  json-rpc over tcp for stratum. 
1167 2013-08-25 19:46:54 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: I thought you were going to do ZeroMQ upstream?
1168 2013-08-25 19:47:14 <petertodd> jgarzik: what do you want a pool server for?
1169 2013-08-25 19:47:30 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, v0 needs to work out of the box on current software.  v1 can have bells and whistles based on user feedback in the field.
1170 2013-08-25 19:47:32 <sipa> don't pool servers already exist?
1171 2013-08-25 19:47:51 <jgarzik> petertodd, I wrote pushpool, the original pool server.  Now it's old and creaky, but amazingly still has users.
1172 2013-08-25 19:48:00 <Luke-Jr> sipa: just Eloipool at this point - although it does work fine
1173 2013-08-25 19:48:04 msvb-lab has quit (Quit: msvb-lab)
1174 2013-08-25 19:48:15 <jgarzik> pool server universe could use some competition
1175 2013-08-25 19:48:15 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: I think just scamcoin users who can't use SHA256d-based code
1176 2013-08-25 19:48:40 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: heh, most likely you'll just kill Eloipool ;)
1177 2013-08-25 19:48:48 <Luke-Jr> everyone seems to prefer C++ over Python, including myself
1178 2013-08-25 19:49:00 <sipa> to each their own
1179 2013-08-25 19:49:11 <petertodd> jgarzik: ah
1180 2013-08-25 19:49:31 <jgarzik> I hate to admit it , but C++ is starting to come out on top, with RAII.  It's a bit easier to write secure + fast code in C++.  You just have to ignore or turn off a bunch of C++ crap.
1181 2013-08-25 19:50:45 <petertodd> OTOH C++ is still painful as fuck: why does it have to be so hard to do simple things like print an object to look at it in the debugger without getting a bunch of low-level internals crap?
1182 2013-08-25 19:50:50 <jgarzik> boost is a bunch of annoyingly verbose crap.  in python or JS, you can be a lot more terse, distilling the code down to its essence.  With boost, it takes 4x80 chars of ::bind this and ::static_cast_my_ass that to accomplish anything, especially in boost.asio.
1183 2013-08-25 19:51:08 <jgarzik> it needs to be shot in the head, not adopted by C++x11 or whatever it is called
1184 2013-08-25 19:51:26 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: meh, refcounted pointers work nicely
1185 2013-08-25 19:51:31 <Luke-Jr> even if other parts are crazy
1186 2013-08-25 19:51:40 <jgarzik> boost.asio is particularly bad
1187 2013-08-25 19:52:10 <sipa> c++11 seems quite careful about which features they adopt
1188 2013-08-25 19:52:14 <jgarzik> See this project, just to do a skeleton JSON-RPC in boost.asio: https://github.com/jgarzik/rpcsrv
1189 2013-08-25 19:52:18 <sipa> and boost has some commonly-accepted good ideas
1190 2013-08-25 19:52:25 <sipa> doesn't mean all of it is :)
1191 2013-08-25 19:53:59 <petertodd> sigh, all I really want is a language like C++ but with python syntax, and especially list/tuple/repr etc. and garbage collection - is that too much to ask?
1192 2013-08-25 19:54:24 <jcorgan> boost headers do so much preprocessor-time crunching that one day the act of including a boost header will make the compiler gain sentience and the singularity will begin
1193 2013-08-25 19:54:43 da2ce7 is now known as 2!~kvirc@opentransactions/dev/da2ce7|da2ce7
1194 2013-08-25 19:56:25 arioBarzan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1195 2013-08-25 19:57:37 <michagogo> [22:38:27] <petertodd> heh, it'd be fun to write a git commit hook that makes all your commits start with 0000000...
1196 2013-08-25 19:57:37 <michagogo> That's a thing: https://github.com/vog/beautify_git_hash is one implementation.
1197 2013-08-25 19:57:57 edcba has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1198 2013-08-25 19:59:41 melvster has joined
1199 2013-08-25 20:00:33 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1200 2013-08-25 20:00:33 <runeks> petertodd: So what's left of C++ if it has Python syntax and garbage collection?
1201 2013-08-25 20:00:47 <petertodd> runeks: What do you mean "what's left"?
1202 2013-08-25 20:01:06 <jgarzik> petertodd, (RE all I want)  +1000
1203 2013-08-25 20:01:41 <petertodd> jgarzik: I'll even let you have your tabs :P
1204 2013-08-25 20:01:52 <runeks> petertodd: I mean what features of C++ would you like that Python doesn't have?
1205 2013-08-25 20:01:56 <jgarzik> regex/list/dictionary is my list, with the ability to declare complex objects a la python/JS
1206 2013-08-25 20:02:12 <jgarzik> using {} and [] notation
1207 2013-08-25 20:02:36 <Luke-Jr> C++11 can do that for vectors I think
1208 2013-08-25 20:02:41 <Luke-Jr> not sure about maps
1209 2013-08-25 20:02:54 <Luke-Jr> too bad they didn't add operator=~
1210 2013-08-25 20:04:16 <petertodd> runeks: Oh, I want my language to be possible to compile, and I want it to have strong typing. (preferably with the fancy type inferrence stuff)
1211 2013-08-25 20:04:36 <jgarzik> Anyway, my point is that… I don't really like C++, but am reluctantly concluding that it is the best language to implement Serious Secure Software ;p
1212 2013-08-25 20:04:43 <petertodd> runeks: FWIW Cython is actually pretty close to what I want, although it's object model forces pointers often where you don't want to have pointers.
1213 2013-08-25 20:04:57 <petertodd> jgarzik: yup, that's pragmatism
1214 2013-08-25 20:05:14 wboy has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1215 2013-08-25 20:05:15 <jcorgan> runeks: multithreading without the PIL
1216 2013-08-25 20:05:21 <petertodd> jgarzik: I mean, Cython would be what I want nearly, but it seems to still have the odd compiler bug which is unacceptable.
1217 2013-08-25 20:05:21 <jgarzik> RAII and such (which of course JS/python have) are superior to C, but python and JS are both slow, single process and have many warts of their own
1218 2013-08-25 20:05:52 <jgarzik> so for python, I want python with static typing and static compiles and no virtual machine limiting my threading
1219 2013-08-25 20:06:10 <jgarzik> sandboxes / virtual machines always just get in the way
1220 2013-08-25 20:06:10 wboy has joined
1221 2013-08-25 20:07:13 <runeks> petertodd: Ah, I see. I wonder how much it would take to produce a standalone Python executable.
1222 2013-08-25 20:07:25 <jgarzik> JS warts around lack of threading with fancy async-ery, but it is still a gross hack.  Any language that cannot fully multi-thread in 2013 is shite.  I'm talking to you, python, node.js and perl.
1223 2013-08-25 20:07:37 <runeks> jcorgan: Python Imaging Library?
1224 2013-08-25 20:07:45 <jcorgan> python interpreter lock
1225 2013-08-25 20:07:46 <petertodd> runeks: There's already systems to do that actually, it's just that they consist of a python bytecoin interpreter and some bytecoin embedded...
1226 2013-08-25 20:07:48 agnostic98 has joined
1227 2013-08-25 20:08:17 mappum has joined
1228 2013-08-25 20:08:30 melvster has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1229 2013-08-25 20:08:32 gaantr2 has quit ()
1230 2013-08-25 20:08:36 <runeks> petertodd: Yeah I think that's the only option. But what do you think that solution lacks? I mean, why do you want a standalone executable in the first place?
1231 2013-08-25 20:08:56 <petertodd> runeks: I don't care about standalone executables - I care about my code being fast an compiled.
1232 2013-08-25 20:09:31 <petertodd> runeks: For instance IIRC Cython *can't* actually produce a standalone executable, but it can create a compiled library from your cython code which gets called by python code - plenty good enough.
1233 2013-08-25 20:09:57 <petertodd> runeks: Or look at some Lisp implementations which did compilation on the fly... and can be blazingly fast.
1234 2013-08-25 20:09:58 melvster has joined
1235 2013-08-25 20:11:23 <runeks> petertodd: I see. I guess I don't know enough about the virtual machine approach vs just producing native binary code to know how easy that is. Wouldn't garbage collection require some kind of VM though?
1236 2013-08-25 20:11:50 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1237 2013-08-25 20:12:09 <petertodd> runeks: GC has nothing to do with VM's
1238 2013-08-25 20:12:56 <runeks> petertodd: So who's there to clean up if there is no VM?
1239 2013-08-25 20:13:21 <Luke-Jr> runeks: the standard library
1240 2013-08-25 20:13:27 * Diablo-D3 facepalms
1241 2013-08-25 20:13:57 yubrew has joined
1242 2013-08-25 20:14:05 <runeks> Yeah I guess I don't know enough about the internals to figure that out.
1243 2013-08-25 20:14:06 <sipa> runeks: you can even have GC in C by using a Boehm collector
1244 2013-08-25 20:14:07 <petertodd> Interesting: 98c4cdffdd2aaf1c2280b2d22d4b59839c937f1a3dc9daf6fd7db077de90592d blockchain.info is now showing unconfirmed multisig tx's - they used to block them.
1245 2013-08-25 20:15:36 <petertodd> also this one, multisig spend to multisig output: 369db9a12f12eb930912f7b496f884ea6798952be7ef457faadb74655671208d
1246 2013-08-25 20:16:00 <petertodd> oh, wait, no that's confirmed...
1247 2013-08-25 20:17:31 <runeks> petertodd: I ran across several confirmed multisig tx's when trying to build an address-to-txid database.
1248 2013-08-25 20:18:01 <petertodd> runeks: just several?
1249 2013-08-25 20:18:31 edcba has joined
1250 2013-08-25 20:18:52 <runeks> petertodd: Yeah I only noticed several because once I updated bitcointools they didn't throw an error.
1251 2013-08-25 20:19:18 <Diablo-D3> [04:13:39] <sipa> runeks: you can even have GC in C by using a Boehm collector
1252 2013-08-25 20:19:22 <Diablo-D3> lol boehmgc
1253 2013-08-25 20:19:39 <petertodd> runeks: ah, yeah I've made hundreds (thousands?) of them with my timestamper
1254 2013-08-25 20:20:02 <runeks> petertodd: timestamper?
1255 2013-08-25 20:20:02 edcba__ has joined
1256 2013-08-25 20:20:23 <petertodd> runeks: https://github.com/opentimestamps/opentimestamps-server
1257 2013-08-25 20:20:29 <petertodd> runeks: down right now though
1258 2013-08-25 20:22:04 <Diablo-D3> hey guys, serious question
1259 2013-08-25 20:22:05 <Diablo-D3> vim or emacs?
1260 2013-08-25 20:22:17 NimeshNeema is now known as AgentSmith
1261 2013-08-25 20:22:23 <sipa> EDLIN
1262 2013-08-25 20:22:32 <petertodd> vim - it's why RSI hasn't forced me to quit this stuff
1263 2013-08-25 20:22:52 <petertodd> that and my typing bitch
1264 2013-08-25 20:23:06 edcba has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1265 2013-08-25 20:23:11 <Diablo-D3> Ive been using vim for like 15 years
1266 2013-08-25 20:23:19 <Diablo-D3> but Im wondering if I'd actually be happier with emacs
1267 2013-08-25 20:23:33 <jgarzik> Diablo-D3, wonder no longer.  Answer: no
1268 2013-08-25 20:23:40 <jgarzik> Reason: lisp sucks
1269 2013-08-25 20:23:47 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: I actually like lisp
1270 2013-08-25 20:23:52 <petertodd> Diablo-D3: I started on emacs, wrists started getting sore, then switched to vim
1271 2013-08-25 20:24:09 * sipa uses mcedit...
1272 2013-08-25 20:24:10 <Diablo-D3> petertodd: well, if your wrists are getting sore, you're doing something radically wrong
1273 2013-08-25 20:24:21 <runeks> No love for gedit?
1274 2013-08-25 20:24:26 <petertodd> Diablo-D3: yeah, like using emacs...
1275 2013-08-25 20:24:46 <sipa> runeks: i use gedit when i need to copy-paste code
1276 2013-08-25 20:25:05 <Diablo-D3> I dunno, I heard emacs had a much more flexible screen writing system
1277 2013-08-25 20:25:12 <runeks> sipa: And doesn't it do the job wonderfully?
1278 2013-08-25 20:25:20 * jgarzik misses cooledit, which preserved the glorious wordstar shortcuts from the dos days
1279 2013-08-25 20:25:29 <Diablo-D3> so doing shit like having an xterm compliant term as an emacs view window thingy can happen
1280 2013-08-25 20:25:39 <jgarzik> emacs is a system for writing systems
1281 2013-08-25 20:25:46 <jgarzik> it can be a login shell -> not an editor
1282 2013-08-25 20:25:49 <petertodd> Diablo-D3: meh, moded interfaces are the way to go - I also use xmonad with stickeykeys
1283 2013-08-25 20:26:02 <petertodd> jgarzik: yeah, I just wish emacs had a decent editor
1284 2013-08-25 20:26:04 <Diablo-D3> petertodd: well Ive considered a tiling wm
1285 2013-08-25 20:26:10 <petertodd> Diablo-D3: do it
1286 2013-08-25 20:26:21 <Diablo-D3> but I just fullscreen urxvt and use tmux
1287 2013-08-25 20:27:05 <petertodd> Diablo-D3: ...so you use a tiling WM...
1288 2013-08-25 20:27:13 <Diablo-D3> not in X I dont =P
1289 2013-08-25 20:27:50 <Diablo-D3> I dunno, I guess I was just looking for something that I could configure more
1290 2013-08-25 20:28:13 <petertodd> Diablo-D3: you mean dick around with more rather than doing real work? :/
1291 2013-08-25 20:28:30 * petertodd isn't exactly leading a good example...
1292 2013-08-25 20:28:41 eian has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1293 2013-08-25 20:29:01 <Diablo-D3> petertodd: well, like, I dunno
1294 2013-08-25 20:29:21 <lianj> Diablo-D3: tmux is the best zsh tiling wm ever, stay wit hit
1295 2013-08-25 20:29:47 <lianj> no use in using xorg windows that tile if you just need shell windows
1296 2013-08-25 20:30:03 <Diablo-D3> maybe I should just try emacs
1297 2013-08-25 20:30:08 <Diablo-D3> and then if I dont like it, go back to vim
1298 2013-08-25 20:30:14 <lianj> also you can script the hell out tmux
1299 2013-08-25 20:30:17 AgentSmith is now known as NimeshNeema
1300 2013-08-25 20:30:27 <lianj> haha you will come back :)
1301 2013-08-25 20:30:38 <Diablo-D3> lianj: the farthest Ive scripted it is making it do vim window movement keys intelligently
1302 2013-08-25 20:30:51 <Diablo-D3> ie, if Im in vim, dont snoop them
1303 2013-08-25 20:31:07 <Diablo-D3> unless Im at the edge of a vim window layout in the direction I want to go
1304 2013-08-25 20:31:15 <Diablo-D3> and I didnt even code that, its from someone else
1305 2013-08-25 20:32:45 NimeshNeema is now known as AgentBrown
1306 2013-08-25 20:32:56 <Diablo-D3> lianj: I dunno, I think I just want a fully integrated system
1307 2013-08-25 20:32:56 sacrelege has joined
1308 2013-08-25 20:34:08 <lianj> there is good chance you go back, but sure try one
1309 2013-08-25 20:34:19 wboy has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1310 2013-08-25 20:34:33 wboy has joined
1311 2013-08-25 20:37:54 <michagogo> Any gitian builders not yet built 0.8.4rc2 and feel like doing so?
1312 2013-08-25 20:39:13 agnostic98 has joined
1313 2013-08-25 20:39:35 mrmjo has joined
1314 2013-08-25 20:40:51 <jcorgan> runeks: i'm going through your stackexchange reply about redeeming TX outputs
1315 2013-08-25 20:41:04 <runeks> jcorgan: Yeah...
1316 2013-08-25 20:41:12 <jcorgan> and trying to understand how it changes when there are multi TXINs
1317 2013-08-25 20:41:26 <runeks> Let me look it up. It's been a while
1318 2013-08-25 20:41:49 <jcorgan> and when each TXIN is from a TXOUT created by a different keypair
1319 2013-08-25 20:43:12 <sipa> jcorgan: no different than when they are assigned to the same address
1320 2013-08-25 20:43:31 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1321 2013-08-25 20:43:34 <sipa> each txin is signed individually, by the key that belongs to the address the consumed output belongs to
1322 2013-08-25 20:44:27 <jcorgan> sipa: and what each signs is an identical scriptless full TX with the scriptSigs filled in with the prev. TXOUT scriptPubKey, correct?
1323 2013-08-25 20:44:44 Darwerft has joined
1324 2013-08-25 20:45:02 <lianj> jcorgan: kinda, for signature hash type 0x01 that is
1325 2013-08-25 20:45:14 <jcorgan> yeah, i'm assuming that for now
1326 2013-08-25 20:45:32 ThomasV has joined
1327 2013-08-25 20:45:33 egis has joined
1328 2013-08-25 20:45:47 <jcorgan> bit picture: i'm trying to work out the detailed sequence of exchanges needed for gmaxwell's coinjoin
1329 2013-08-25 20:45:52 <jcorgan> s/bit/big/
1330 2013-08-25 20:45:54 egis has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1331 2013-08-25 20:46:02 <runeks> jcorgan: Yeah sipa probably knows more about that than I do. I'd assume you just do exactly the same as with a single tx. Ie. fill out the scriptSig with the scriptPubKey you're redeeming.
1332 2013-08-25 20:46:39 gjs278 has joined
1333 2013-08-25 20:46:53 <runeks> For SIGHASH_ALL at least.
1334 2013-08-25 20:52:10 <jcorgan> if someone constructs and sends an initial TXIN record (hash, index, scriptPubkey, seqno) in an (assumed) anonymous broadcast channel, are they revealing any information?
1335 2013-08-25 20:52:59 <sipa> a txin contains a scriptSig, not a scriptPubKey
1336 2013-08-25 20:53:15 <sipa> or do you mean the consumed txout's scriptPubKey?
1337 2013-08-25 20:53:19 <jcorgan> the initial stage of signing has the scriptPubkey from the previous TXOUT, right?
1338 2013-08-25 20:53:35 <sipa> yes
1339 2013-08-25 20:53:37 <jcorgan> then it gets replaced with the scriptSig made from the whole TX,
1340 2013-08-25 20:54:39 <jcorgan> i'm trying to construct a protocol where people can broadcast their intention to join up in a coinjoin transaction
1341 2013-08-25 20:55:44 <jcorgan> part of that process is constructing the initial TXIN that will get merged into the master TX
1342 2013-08-25 20:56:15 <jcorgan> and i want to make sure the act itself of providing that TXIN does not leak any information about the sender
1343 2013-08-25 20:56:52 <jcorgan> anyone can submit one, but the IP it gets sent from could be thought of as "associated" with the TXOUT
1344 2013-08-25 20:57:04 <jcorgan> (thus the anonymous broadcast mechanism)
1345 2013-08-25 20:57:10 <jcorgan> am I on the right track so far?
1346 2013-08-25 20:59:24 <runeks> sipa: Yes the consumed txOut's pubkey. Temporarily for creating the signature.
1347 2013-08-25 21:03:54 edcba__ has left ()
1348 2013-08-25 21:03:56 <michagogo> jcorgan: Keep in mind, adding txins and txouts can be separate
1349 2013-08-25 21:03:56 <michagogo> Because each person who added a txin will only sign if their txout is in there
1350 2013-08-25 21:04:01 <jcorgan> so the first stage of the protocol constructs a list of participants and builds the first half of a TX with all the inputs
1351 2013-08-25 21:04:20 <jcorgan> michagogo: right, that's the next step
1352 2013-08-25 21:04:20 wboy has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1353 2013-08-25 21:04:30 <jcorgan> of course all the inputs are unsigned
1354 2013-08-25 21:04:33 wboy has joined
1355 2013-08-25 21:06:08 <jcorgan> now, along with the provided input, each participant creates a zerocoin commitment to an output address (and optionally, a change address)
1356 2013-08-25 21:06:54 paracyst has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1357 2013-08-25 21:07:59 <jcorgan> then each participant broadcasts a zerocoin reveal that allows the outputs to the TX to be constructed, but nobody knows which output corresponds to which input, yet it can be verified that everyone is playing by the rules
1358 2013-08-25 21:08:15 <jcorgan> so now all participants can sign the full TX
1359 2013-08-25 21:08:21 <jcorgan> and bob's your uncle
1360 2013-08-25 21:09:29 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1361 2013-08-25 21:09:37 <jcorgan> so i'm slowly working through these steps to go from handwaving to actual steps
1362 2013-08-25 21:10:09 agnostic98 has joined
1363 2013-08-25 21:10:42 debianto1user has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1364 2013-08-25 21:11:49 paracyst has joined
1365 2013-08-25 21:12:22 michagogo has quit (Quit: goodnight)
1366 2013-08-25 21:12:22 <jcorgan> this is inspired by gmawell's coinjoin post the other day and his elaboration on how to use ZC to accomplish it
1367 2013-08-25 21:12:26 <jcorgan> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.msg2984051#msg2984051
1368 2013-08-25 21:13:10 debiantoruser has joined
1369 2013-08-25 21:14:49 <runeks> jcorgan: Sounds cool! I guess the trick is getting users who don't really need mixing to participate. Could you provide a bounty/premium for participating in such a system for users who don't need the anonymization, or would that break anonymity?
1370 2013-08-25 21:14:54 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1371 2013-08-25 21:15:21 <Luke-Jr> runeks: I'd just include it in clients transparently :p
1372 2013-08-25 21:15:29 <Luke-Jr> it's not really mixing, after all
1373 2013-08-25 21:15:47 <Luke-Jr> it's arguably a form of compression; the combined transaction uses less bytes, and can get by with a smaller fee too
1374 2013-08-25 21:16:00 <runeks> Luke-Jr: But if it involves Zerocoin I guess it's somewhat untested, no?
1375 2013-08-25 21:16:13 <Luke-Jr> I haven't read that far.
1376 2013-08-25 21:16:45 oleganza has quit (Quit: oleganza)
1377 2013-08-25 21:16:52 <jcorgan> using zerocoin is one option he presented for a decentralized version
1378 2013-08-25 21:17:04 <jcorgan> the other being blind signatures with an O(n^2) complexity
1379 2013-08-25 21:17:37 <runeks> It would definitely be cool to try flexing zerocoin. So people can start figuring out ways to attack it so it'll gain trust.
1380 2013-08-25 21:18:05 <jcorgan> the zerocoin method reduces to O(n) at the expense of larger protocol data
1381 2013-08-25 21:18:18 <jcorgan> but it's all off-chain until the final TX is broadcast, and that isn't affected
1382 2013-08-25 21:18:23 AgentBrown is now known as NimeshNeema
1383 2013-08-25 21:18:30 yubrew has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1384 2013-08-25 21:18:45 CobaltBlueD has joined
1385 2013-08-25 21:18:53 <jcorgan> it's not really using zerocoin the way it was intended, though
1386 2013-08-25 21:19:04 <runeks> jcorgan: Have you considered incentives? Why would I mix my clean coins in with possibly tainted coins?
1387 2013-08-25 21:19:22 <Luke-Jr> runeks: I just gave a reason :p
1388 2013-08-25 21:19:23 <jcorgan> I haven't thought of it
1389 2013-08-25 21:19:27 CobaltBlueD has left ()
1390 2013-08-25 21:19:31 <petertodd> runeks: To make sure that the whole concept of 'clean' is irrelevant...
1391 2013-08-25 21:19:31 <Luke-Jr> lower transaction fees
1392 2013-08-25 21:19:38 <petertodd> runeks: and what luke said
1393 2013-08-25 21:19:47 <Luke-Jr> yeah, how do you KNOW your coins are clean? ;)
1394 2013-08-25 21:20:09 <Luke-Jr> maybe MtGox has them on its private blacklist
1395 2013-08-25 21:20:11 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: says the guy with a mining pool...
1396 2013-08-25 21:20:14 <runeks> Fair point. I just think it would take off like a rocket if one could earn even a small percentage by mixing in clean coins with other people's coins.
1397 2013-08-25 21:20:23 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: pfft, I'm hardly involved anymore :p
1398 2013-08-25 21:20:48 mrmjo has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1399 2013-08-25 21:20:56 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: that's what you want us to think
1400 2013-08-25 21:21:01 <Luke-Jr> runeks: maybe the people in more desire of privacy will offer to pay the fee for the whole thing, and you get your tx in without fees ;)
1401 2013-08-25 21:21:22 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: I don't even know the real IPs at this point! :P
1402 2013-08-25 21:21:32 <jcorgan> the initiator of the join proposal could offer to receive fewer coins than he put in, and everyone responding would get the extra divvied up
1403 2013-08-25 21:21:43 <jcorgan> but i don't know if that could be done without affecting privacy
1404 2013-08-25 21:22:16 <Luke-Jr> jcorgan: probably
1405 2013-08-25 21:23:02 asuk has quit (Quit: asuk)
1406 2013-08-25 21:23:24 <jcorgan> so a coinjoin offer would be (amount, number of participants, bounty, TX input)
1407 2013-08-25 21:23:38 <Luke-Jr> jcorgan: O.o
1408 2013-08-25 21:23:45 <Luke-Jr> TX input = amount
1409 2013-08-25 21:23:55 <Luke-Jr> not-in TX outputs = bounty
1410 2013-08-25 21:23:59 <jcorgan> actually, they don't have to be the same
1411 2013-08-25 21:24:25 <jcorgan> you could use a TXOUT and send extra to a change address
1412 2013-08-25 21:25:11 <Luke-Jr> no reason others need to know that
1413 2013-08-25 21:25:48 <Krellan> Luke-Jr: Thanks for accepting my decimal formatting patch earlier. Think I found similar hotspots in format_unit2() and pick_unit().
1414 2013-08-25 21:25:54 <jcorgan> i'm assuming it would be easier to get participants if the vout's didn't require exactly matching inputs
1415 2013-08-25 21:26:21 <jcorgan> the change addresses would be as unlinkable as the regular output addresses
1416 2013-08-25 21:26:53 <Luke-Jr> jcorgan: that's my point..
1417 2013-08-25 21:27:09 <jcorgan> oh i get it
1418 2013-08-25 21:28:10 <jcorgan> now, one thing i'm thinking of--does the offer, join, join, join... sequence to build up participants need hash chaining?
1419 2013-08-25 21:28:16 <Luke-Jr> Krellan: np - I think you're right on format_unit2, but IMO it should always floor the value
1420 2013-08-25 21:29:29 <Krellan> I'm not sure what rounding printf internally uses
1421 2013-08-25 21:29:58 <sipa> nearest, afaik
1422 2013-08-25 21:30:07 <jcorgan> this would allow both POW-based DOS mitigation and a way for the coinjoin offerer to accept a specific set of joiners based on the final hash
1423 2013-08-25 21:30:14 whizter has quit ()
1424 2013-08-25 21:30:53 <Krellan> I was able to reproduce it saying "1000.0M" instead of advance to "1.00G" though.
1425 2013-08-25 21:32:25 <jcorgan> but maybe i'm overthinking it
1426 2013-08-25 21:34:23 wboy has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1427 2013-08-25 21:34:35 wboy has joined
1428 2013-08-25 21:35:56 santoscork has joined
1429 2013-08-25 21:39:17 <Krellan> Luke-Jr: There, made unit test that was able to find the hotspots.  http://pastebin.com/TH96nE23
1430 2013-08-25 21:39:23 CodeShark has joined
1431 2013-08-25 21:41:02 agnostic98 has joined
1432 2013-08-25 21:41:21 agnostic98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1433 2013-08-25 21:41:27 <Luke-Jr> Krellan: can you make the unit test like the other unit tests, and pullreq it please? ;)
1434 2013-08-25 21:41:32 agnostic98 has joined
1435 2013-08-25 21:41:55 <Krellan> OK will have to look at the others.
1436 2013-08-25 21:42:01 <Luke-Jr> test_intrange is the only one in master I guess
1437 2013-08-25 21:45:21 <Krellan> Ah OK, was looking around for them.
1438 2013-08-25 21:45:52 <Krellan> That's the only one I found that looks like a test, unless they are elsewhere?
1439 2013-08-25 21:46:15 <Luke-Jr> no, that's probably the only one that made it into the main branch
1440 2013-08-25 21:46:21 <Luke-Jr> the rest were UTF-8 stuff I never merged
1441 2013-08-25 21:47:01 yubrew has joined
1442 2013-08-25 21:49:57 Application has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1443 2013-08-25 21:50:46 <petertodd> sipa: can you re-run whatever script you used to produce this: http://bitcoin.sipa.be/lockheight.txt
1444 2013-08-25 21:51:28 AusBitBank_ has joined
1445 2013-08-25 21:51:31 <sipa> petertodd: not sure i even have that branch anymore
1446 2013-08-25 21:52:20 <petertodd> sipa: ah, too bad - I was very curious to know if luke putting the related fee-sniping patch would show up
1447 2013-08-25 21:52:23 <Krellan> Ah.  I'll add something that looks sort of similar, so the unit test code can be stashed someplace useful for running it next time.
1448 2013-08-25 21:55:28 chorao has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1449 2013-08-25 21:55:54 <jcorgan> what's a good way for person A to demonstrate to B that A controls a particular public key?
1450 2013-08-25 21:56:08 <jcorgan> B could ask A to sign a random nonce
1451 2013-08-25 21:56:23 <jcorgan> but how does A know that nonce is not a hash of $BADTHING
1452 2013-08-25 21:56:56 <Luke-Jr> jcorgan: sign "<date>: For the purposes of <whatever> only, I authorize <xyz>"
1453 2013-08-25 21:59:02 <jcorgan> ok, so a coinjoin offer would have a hash over the full offer data, and a coinjoin accept that is providing an input could prove they control the corresponding output by signing the offer hash with their private key.  Does everyone have all the information needed to verify that?
1454 2013-08-25 22:02:43 <jcorgan> by requiring the coinjoin join responses to include proof of control, this would mitigate DOS that otherwise wouldn't be known about until there was a failure to sign the input later
1455 2013-08-25 22:03:17 <jcorgan> yeah, i'm still there :)
1456 2013-08-25 22:03:23 yubrew has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1457 2013-08-25 22:03:25 <runeks> petertodd: Are you looking for transactions with a lockTime != 0?
1458 2013-08-25 22:03:50 <petertodd> runeks: not quite: I'm looking for tx's with nSquence != 0xffffffff
1459 2013-08-25 22:04:04 yubrew has joined
1460 2013-08-25 22:05:22 wboy has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1461 2013-08-25 22:05:51 <runeks> petertodd: I can modify a script to do that if you don't have anything yourself. Been working on a script that parses the blockchain anyway.
1462 2013-08-25 22:06:05 <petertodd> runeks: thanks, though I think what I just wrote is ok for my purposes
1463 2013-08-25 22:06:07 wboy has joined
1464 2013-08-25 22:06:16 <runeks> petertodd: Cool.
1465 2013-08-25 22:07:08 <petertodd> jcorgan: you have to make it actually expensive for the attacker to screw up the mix - you haven't done that
1466 2013-08-25 22:07:56 <jcorgan> would it be as simple as adding a hash POW
1467 2013-08-25 22:08:17 Thepok has joined
1468 2013-08-25 22:08:22 <petertodd> jcorgan: right, to make participating at all expensive, which is basically what I proposed before in the thread
1469 2013-08-25 22:08:26 <jcorgan> the coinjoin initial offer could specify a difficulty
1470 2013-08-25 22:08:35 <jcorgan> must have missed that
1471 2013-08-25 22:10:12 <petertodd> jcorgan: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.msg2986788#msg2986788
1472 2013-08-25 22:10:39 <Krellan> Luke-Jr: Is test_intrange() called all the time from main? or only in a testing mode? My test takes longer and it would lag startup of bfgminer if done always.
1473 2013-08-25 22:11:19 <petertodd> jcorgan: also I proposed fidelity bonds for trust free mixers via a more complex mechanism, but I doubt it's worth doing: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=172047.0
1474 2013-08-25 22:11:43 <jcorgan> ah, i expected that others would have thought through a lot of this already
1475 2013-08-25 22:11:56 <jcorgan> so i have more reading to do
1476 2013-08-25 22:12:12 <Luke-Jr> Krellan: always. maybe add a --unittest option first then
1477 2013-08-25 22:12:15 <petertodd> jcorgan: yup, but don't let me discourage you, fresh ideas are good so long as you do the research too :)
1478 2013-08-25 22:12:41 <jcorgan> appreciate all the guidance
1479 2013-08-25 22:12:47 <jcorgan> from everyone here
1480 2013-08-25 22:13:05 wboy has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1481 2013-08-25 22:13:37 Transisto has quit ()
1482 2013-08-25 22:14:34 <jcorgan> i'm well established in my normal field, not sure I like being the newby again :)
1483 2013-08-25 22:15:21 <petertodd> jcorgan: Bitcoin is new enough though that you have a chance of being a world-class expert with a lot less work than that normally takes
1484 2013-08-25 22:15:28 nomailing has joined
1485 2013-08-25 22:16:11 PrimeStunna has quit (Quit: PrimeStunna)
1486 2013-08-25 22:16:47 awishformore has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1487 2013-08-25 22:20:38 <sipa> BlueMatt: poke
1488 2013-08-25 22:20:48 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt lives?
1489 2013-08-25 22:20:54 <sipa> occasionally
1490 2013-08-25 22:21:12 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: He's spending a year dead for tax reasons.
1491 2013-08-25 22:21:28 jcorgan has quit (Quit: jcorgan)
1492 2013-08-25 22:21:32 <Luke-Jr> lol
1493 2013-08-25 22:23:22 <sipa> why the hell is my facebook filled with people getting engaged, people getting married or people getting kids?
1494 2013-08-25 22:23:43 <Luke-Jr> sipa: it's some old thing called life
1495 2013-08-25 22:23:48 <sipa> meh
1496 2013-08-25 22:23:51 <Luke-Jr> XD
1497 2013-08-25 22:23:58 <sipa> life is what happens to you while you're busy doing other things
1498 2013-08-25 22:24:02 <petertodd> sipa: how old are you?
1499 2013-08-25 22:24:15 <sipa> petertodd: the last perfect number in years i'll ever reach
1500 2013-08-25 22:24:55 <petertodd> sipa: oh, we're the same age then
1501 2013-08-25 22:25:21 <petertodd> sipa: my facebook is also similarly filled - heck, I should be in BC right now hungover after my cousins wedding...
1502 2013-08-25 22:25:38 <gmaxwell> sipa: I have a solution, don't use facebook. :)
1503 2013-08-25 22:25:52 AusBitBank_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1504 2013-08-25 22:25:52 <sipa> gmaxwell: well, G+ seems a lot better in that respect :D
1505 2013-08-25 22:26:03 <petertodd> they're all CIA plots
1506 2013-08-25 22:26:09 <Luke-Jr> sipa: except Google is evil
1507 2013-08-25 22:26:20 <sipa> Luke-Jr: sure
1508 2013-08-25 22:26:24 <sipa> arrgh
1509 2013-08-25 22:26:30 <sipa> my brain implact starts hurting!
1510 2013-08-25 22:26:45 <petertodd> sipa: That's why I took up caving
1511 2013-08-25 22:26:47 <sipa> implant
1512 2013-08-25 22:26:49 * Luke-Jr wonders how old he is.
1513 2013-08-25 22:27:00 <Luke-Jr> oh, we're all the same age
1514 2013-08-25 22:27:13 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: judging by the number of kids I'll say you're older than your age :P
1515 2013-08-25 22:27:25 <gmaxwell> See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5830739
1516 2013-08-25 22:27:47 <sipa> haha
1517 2013-08-25 22:27:52 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: on the contrary, I would say everyone else is younger than our age!
1518 2013-08-25 22:27:56 <gmaxwell> someone was giving advice on avoiding "noise on facebook" but all his examples of signal sounded like noise to me.
1519 2013-08-25 22:29:12 <petertodd> See, I want to know what would happen if some magic decentralized facebook became popular - I suspect people would hate it all the same regardless of whether or not it invaded privacy.
1520 2013-08-25 22:29:36 <gmaxwell> petertodd: I wouldn't use it, indeed.
1521 2013-08-25 22:29:38 AusBitBank_ has joined
1522 2013-08-25 22:29:39 <sipa> except people have a twisted notion of privacy
1523 2013-08-25 22:29:44 <Luke-Jr> <.<
1524 2013-08-25 22:29:56 * Luke-Jr is kinda involved in a startup doing exactly what petertodd described
1525 2013-08-25 22:30:00 <petertodd> gmaxwell: yup, the real opposition to facebook is due to other reasons
1526 2013-08-25 22:30:12 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: what's your business model?
1527 2013-08-25 22:30:21 <sipa> sharing your personal details to a single company feels much less bad than sharing personal details with your boss, usually
1528 2013-08-25 22:30:25 <Luke-Jr> sipa: I notice people on Facebook thinks it violates their privacy because it shares their info with people they told it to
1529 2013-08-25 22:30:29 <gmaxwell> petertodd: well people have many reasons, _my_ reasons are not purely that the centeralization and the company is intrusive.
1530 2013-08-25 22:30:36 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: yup
1531 2013-08-25 22:30:41 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: dunno, apparently some middle-east royalty want it or something
1532 2013-08-25 22:30:49 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: wtf?
1533 2013-08-25 22:30:53 <sipa> w t f
1534 2013-08-25 22:31:09 <Luke-Jr> lol
1535 2013-08-25 22:31:17 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: it's like the middle-east royalty are getting pissed off that the CIA is keepign tabs on their kids...
1536 2013-08-25 22:31:18 <Luke-Jr> I'm not involved in selling it :p
1537 2013-08-25 22:31:26 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: could be
1538 2013-08-25 22:31:31 <petertodd> crazy
1539 2013-08-25 22:31:38 <petertodd> is there a public website or somesuch?
1540 2013-08-25 22:31:42 <Luke-Jr> not afaik
1541 2013-08-25 22:31:51 <Luke-Jr> I think the target is a number of years away
1542 2013-08-25 22:31:55 <petertodd> huh
1543 2013-08-25 22:32:02 <petertodd> how is the tech going to work?
1544 2013-08-25 22:32:03 <Luke-Jr> it's supposed to have tor or similar integrated
1545 2013-08-25 22:32:16 <petertodd> bizzare
1546 2013-08-25 22:32:43 <gmaxwell> petertodd: I think lowering the cost of communication is generally overrated. Facebook shows the kind of communication that results, people writing inane stuff about their dog..  IRC does the same, but you're seldom expected to read the scrollback.
1547 2013-08-25 22:33:43 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: I see you use next-test yourself: f05d8e62d5eaee5e2284620be4a25212b615c08f29ae8b61919ca27b9f32e44f
1548 2013-08-25 22:33:55 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: hmm?
1549 2013-08-25 22:34:27 <Luke-Jr> is that so surprising?
1550 2013-08-25 22:34:27 <petertodd> gmaxwell: you certainly can spend a lot of time keeping up with the gossip... though for some that's just human nature
1551 2013-08-25 22:34:37 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: It's a nLockTime using tx
1552 2013-08-25 22:34:51 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: i think all of my tx for the past year have been that way <.<
1553 2013-08-25 22:34:56 <Luke-Jr> or at least since soon after you published the code
1554 2013-08-25 22:35:00 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: Scanning the chain - interesting how right now it using that patch doesn't help with privacy... :)
1555 2013-08-25 22:35:21 <gmaxwell> petertodd: yes, it is human nature and I'm not immune to it, which is why I prefer to not be exposed at all.
1556 2013-08-25 22:35:32 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: ah nice, so any problems found related to it?
1557 2013-08-25 22:35:42 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: nope, works great
1558 2013-08-25 22:35:51 <Luke-Jr> I thought I left a comment to that effect?
1559 2013-08-25 22:36:11 <gmaxwell> besides most people I know are never invokved in interesting gossip.  Who's boinking who? Who cares.  Bitcoin people have interesting gossip, but there only a subset of the people I know.
1560 2013-08-25 22:36:31 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Well, keep in mind I spent like 7 years at arts school - I've got a different take on that kind of social interaction stuff. I guess overall I sympathize with those who actually like facebook a lot more.
1561 2013-08-25 22:37:01 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: nah, all you said is 'needs rebase' :P
1562 2013-08-25 22:37:11 <Luke-Jr> >_<
1563 2013-08-25 22:37:12 <gmaxwell> I don't fail to sympathize with them, it's just not for me. I hope there is a decenteralized facebook eventually so they get spyed on a little less.
1564 2013-08-25 22:37:28 <petertodd> gmaxwell: well that we can agree on... the centralization of info sure is scary
1565 2013-08-25 22:39:19 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: I'll be honest it's slightly sobering to see your, er, rather large eligius-related transactions being used with that patch. :P
1566 2013-08-25 22:39:32 yubrew has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1567 2013-08-25 22:40:14 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: I only trust new code with my offline wallet after a lot of testing with the hot :p
1568 2013-08-25 22:40:32 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: lol! I'm not going to ask how much is in the offline wallet
1569 2013-08-25 22:40:50 <Luke-Jr> XD
1570 2013-08-25 22:41:08 <Luke-Jr> too much; I blame MtGox :p
1571 2013-08-25 22:41:23 <petertodd> ha
1572 2013-08-25 22:41:35 <petertodd> I'm glad my country is a bit saner...
1573 2013-08-25 22:41:45 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: only in some areas..
1574 2013-08-25 22:42:04 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: sorry about that :P
1575 2013-08-25 22:42:08 <porquilho> i have a question
1576 2013-08-25 22:42:12 <porquilho> what is most fast paced
1577 2013-08-25 22:42:19 <porquilho> internet chat like in irc
1578 2013-08-25 22:42:23 <porquilho> or real life chat
1579 2013-08-25 22:42:29 <petertodd> huh?
1580 2013-08-25 22:42:35 <Luke-Jr> porquilho: wtf does that have to do with bitcoin development?
1581 2013-08-25 22:42:40 <porquilho> it does
1582 2013-08-25 22:42:45 <porquilho> i explain later
1583 2013-08-25 22:42:50 <porquilho> but now i need to answer that question
1584 2013-08-25 22:43:06 <gmaxwell> almost everyone can speak faster than they can type.
1585 2013-08-25 22:43:06 <porquilho> in your opinions
1586 2013-08-25 22:43:06 <Luke-Jr> real-world auctions?
1587 2013-08-25 22:43:18 <porquilho> Luke-Jr no thats not my idea
1588 2013-08-25 22:43:30 <porquilho> i mean, what is faster mentally
1589 2013-08-25 22:43:30 <Luke-Jr> well don't complain it isn't your idea when you won't tell us your idea!
1590 2013-08-25 22:43:51 <gmaxwell> however, when talking only one person can talk at a time— so IRC can be faster if many people are talking.
1591 2013-08-25 22:44:04 <porquilho> i think real life chatting is more faster becase its more anxious to me, so its a illusion of fastest
1592 2013-08-25 22:44:06 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: interesting, you aren't the only next-test user either: 92daa2ce64330f4011c00021334ff28922a9a72e4227354df79693d4106440b2, well, at least I highly doubt that's you playing satoshidice :P
1593 2013-08-25 22:44:14 <jgarzik> How goes the hard fork?  Any explosions in the past couple hours?
1594 2013-08-25 22:44:26 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: it's been a few weeks I think
1595 2013-08-25 22:44:36 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: I was a bit confused by your post, it had been reported on 0.7 a week or so ago.
1596 2013-08-25 22:45:00 <Luke-Jr> yes, 9 days ago
1597 2013-08-25 22:45:11 <sipa> that long already?
1598 2013-08-25 22:45:15 <Luke-Jr> nobody noticed until a few days ago
1599 2013-08-25 22:45:41 <sipa> i only heard about it 4 days ago
1600 2013-08-25 22:45:44 yubrew has joined
1601 2013-08-25 22:46:20 * jgarzik only heard about it today ;p
1602 2013-08-25 22:46:32 * runeks only heard about it now
1603 2013-08-25 22:46:35 <runeks> What hard fork?
1604 2013-08-25 22:46:42 <Luke-Jr> oh, and nobody built on the forked chain
1605 2013-08-25 22:46:43 <sipa> well, technically it's not a fork
1606 2013-08-25 22:46:48 <Luke-Jr> runeks: the one that's been scheduled since May 15
1607 2013-08-25 22:46:51 <Luke-Jr> before*
1608 2013-08-25 22:47:15 <Luke-Jr> runeks: cutting off older 0.7.x and earlier
1609 2013-08-25 22:47:35 <runeks> Luke-Jr: Ah, I see. I thought we were over that. Didn't that go into effect on May 15?
1610 2013-08-25 22:47:45 <Luke-Jr> runeks: nope, not until 9 days ago
1611 2013-08-25 22:47:54 <Luke-Jr> runeks: it needed a miner to mine a specific kind of block
1612 2013-08-25 22:47:58 <Luke-Jr> which didn't happen until then
1613 2013-08-25 22:48:42 <sipa> the rule took effect on may 16
1614 2013-08-25 22:48:45 <sipa> *15
1615 2013-08-25 22:48:49 <runeks> Luke-Jr: A block with more than a certain number of txs or what?
1616 2013-08-25 22:49:10 <runeks> Or was it something else that caused the fork?
1617 2013-08-25 22:49:21 <sipa> runeks: with more than a certain number of page locks required by the 0.7 bdb implementation for connecting that block
1618 2013-08-25 22:49:29 <sipa> it mostly depends on the number of txins
1619 2013-08-25 22:49:32 <Luke-Jr> side note: frozen soda pop explodes when opened
1620 2013-08-25 22:50:01 <runeks> sipa: Oh. So did we fork?
1621 2013-08-25 22:50:07 <runeks> What was the block number?
1622 2013-08-25 22:50:32 <Luke-Jr> 252451
1623 2013-08-25 22:50:37 <sipa> runeks: we didn't fork, as the other "side" has no blocks
1624 2013-08-25 22:50:47 <sipa> but the condition triggered, and 0.7 can't keep up anymore
1625 2013-08-25 22:51:00 <Luke-Jr> older 0.7*
1626 2013-08-25 22:52:05 <runeks> Well good to know the network can responds to issues like this.
1627 2013-08-25 22:53:28 chorao has joined
1628 2013-08-25 22:57:13 btcbtc has joined
1629 2013-08-25 22:57:32 <gavinandresen> I updated BIP 50 with the "we forked" info
1630 2013-08-25 22:58:51 nomailing has quit (Quit: nomailing)
1631 2013-08-25 22:59:17 yubrew has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1632 2013-08-25 23:00:05 <Luke-Jr> gavinandresen: thanks
1633 2013-08-25 23:01:05 <sipa> gavinandresen: block 22451? :)
1634 2013-08-25 23:01:23 <Luke-Jr> O.o
1635 2013-08-25 23:01:26 <sipa> (fixed)
1636 2013-08-25 23:01:46 yubrew has joined
1637 2013-08-25 23:02:11 <sipa> the date was also wrong
1638 2013-08-25 23:02:15 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1639 2013-08-25 23:05:49 <justusranvier> I think describing the new rules as a "mandatory upgrade" is perferrable to calling it a hard fork. It's makes for less scary headlines.
1640 2013-08-25 23:06:46 <gmaxwell> justusranvier: but less accurate. a mandatory upgrade might be a regular criticial software bug fix. a Hard fork is a change in the bitcoin protocol rules. We've only had one, and they are pretty scarry.
1641 2013-08-25 23:07:03 <gmaxwell> justusranvier: a hardfork could change the supply of bitcoins from 21m to 210m, for example.
1642 2013-08-25 23:07:17 <Luke-Jr> justusranvier: "mandatory" is scarier for some people, since Bitcoin is supposed to be decentralized ;p
1643 2013-08-25 23:07:38 <justusranvier> I can see that - the two different terms scare different groups of people.
1644 2013-08-25 23:07:59 sserrano44 has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1645 2013-08-25 23:08:12 <phantomcircuit> ;;bc,blocks
1646 2013-08-25 23:08:13 <gribble> 254224
1647 2013-08-25 23:08:18 <phantomcircuit> lol
1648 2013-08-25 23:08:24 <phantomcircuit> i have a 0.4.1 client that is up to date
1649 2013-08-25 23:08:31 <gmaxwell> yea, it could happen.
1650 2013-08-25 23:08:36 <Luke-Jr> phantomcircuit: pull :p
1651 2013-08-25 23:08:48 <phantomcircuit> Luke-Jr, im running every release client
1652 2013-08-25 23:08:56 <Luke-Jr> phantomcircuit: every? :o
1653 2013-08-25 23:09:06 <phantomcircuit> 0.4.1  0.5.3  0.5.4rc3	0.6.0  0.6.1  0.6.2  0.6.3  0.7.0  0.7.1  0.7.2  0.8.0	0.8.1  0.8.2
1654 2013-08-25 23:09:12 <phantomcircuit> i should add 0.8.3 and 0.8.4
1655 2013-08-25 23:09:52 <Luke-Jr> phantomcircuit: so you're missing 0.4.2-0.4.8, 0.5.4-0.5.7, 0.6.0.*, 0.6.4
1656 2013-08-25 23:10:10 <phantomcircuit> Luke-Jr, i just have the ones that are still on sourceforge
1657 2013-08-25 23:10:24 <phantomcircuit> monitoring the binary builds as much as the git tags'
1658 2013-08-25 23:10:28 <Luke-Jr> why are those still on sourceforge? O.o
1659 2013-08-25 23:10:44 <phantomcircuit> Luke-Jr, sf keeps old releases forever
1660 2013-08-25 23:10:47 <Luke-Jr> everything before 0.8.1 or so should be removed from SF
1661 2013-08-25 23:11:26 stalled has joined
1662 2013-08-25 23:11:42 asuk has joined
1663 2013-08-25 23:11:53 c0rw1n has joined
1664 2013-08-25 23:16:03 <gavinandresen> I'll remove old release binaries, and add a README that says "If you want to reproduce, use gitian and the git tag"
1665 2013-08-25 23:16:46 richcollins has joined
1666 2013-08-25 23:21:23 asuk has quit (Quit: asuk)
1667 2013-08-25 23:22:45 Thepok has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1668 2013-08-25 23:27:59 richcollins has quit (Quit: richcollins)
1669 2013-08-25 23:32:19 Ltc_btc932 has joined
1670 2013-08-25 23:40:26 Sunwicked has joined
1671 2013-08-25 23:45:33 Darwerft has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1672 2013-08-25 23:45:38 Ltc_btc932 has quit (Quit: irc2go)
1673 2013-08-25 23:47:54 jtimon has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1674 2013-08-25 23:48:23 yubrew has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1675 2013-08-25 23:48:52 jcorgan has joined
1676 2013-08-25 23:49:44 btcbtc has quit (Quit: btcbtc)
1677 2013-08-25 23:51:19 <maaku> i would recommend moving them into a different directory
1678 2013-08-25 23:51:46 PrimeStunna has joined
1679 2013-08-25 23:52:07 <maaku> breaking any links, but keeping them around in case they are needed (for vulnerability analysis, or whatever)
1680 2013-08-25 23:53:06 junkstable has joined
1681 2013-08-25 23:53:08 <Luke-Jr> maaku: gitian can reproduce them :p
1682 2013-08-25 23:53:39 <maaku> Luke-Jr: I've learnt that relying on build processes working into the future is not a good idea
1683 2013-08-25 23:54:26 <Luke-Jr> maaku: time to unlearn it? gitian solves it :P
1684 2013-08-25 23:56:06 <maaku> eh, assuming the tools needed to run gitian still work years from now the way gitian expects them to, and the lucid/precise vms are still constructable, etc.
1685 2013-08-25 23:56:23 porquilho has quit ()
1686 2013-08-25 23:57:29 <sipa> moving to a different directory with a big warning in the readme (or whatever is automatically shown) sounds good to me
1687 2013-08-25 23:57:55 eian has joined
1688 2013-08-25 23:58:23 Anduck has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)