1 2013-08-30 00:00:10 eian has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2 2013-08-30 00:02:01 Applicat_ has joined
3 2013-08-30 00:02:29 normanrichards has joined
4 2013-08-30 00:04:25 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
5 2013-08-30 00:05:51 ralphtheninja has quit (Quit: leaving)
6 2013-08-30 00:07:31 reneg has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
7 2013-08-30 00:09:03 freewil has joined
8 2013-08-30 00:09:57 normanrichards has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
9 2013-08-30 00:13:55 reneg has joined
10 2013-08-30 00:16:08 c0rw1n has joined
11 2013-08-30 00:20:29 hsmiths has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
12 2013-08-30 00:20:50 jicksta has quit (Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzzâ¦)
13 2013-08-30 00:21:12 jicksta has joined
14 2013-08-30 00:22:09 chorao has joined
15 2013-08-30 00:26:24 macboz has joined
16 2013-08-30 00:26:46 hsmiths has joined
17 2013-08-30 00:34:44 jicksta has quit (Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzzâ¦)
18 2013-08-30 00:40:52 Gues_____ has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com)
19 2013-08-30 00:43:56 <Luke-Jr> bitcoin-qt.ljr20130721: src/main.h:1204: double CMemPoolTx::FeesPerKB() const: Assertion `nSumTxSize >= 0' failed.
20 2013-08-30 00:44:03 * Luke-Jr ponders which pullreq is to blame for that one
21 2013-08-30 00:44:14 <phantomcircuit> lol
22 2013-08-30 00:45:50 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: what? you're running my mempool code?
23 2013-08-30 00:45:53 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: I think that's your pre-CPFP stuff
24 2013-08-30 00:45:56 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: yeah
25 2013-08-30 00:46:07 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: eek, that shit's not all that well tested... or so I thought :P
26 2013-08-30 00:46:28 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: if it's a pullreq and not incompatible with other pullreqs or totally buggy, I'm probably running it :P
27 2013-08-30 00:46:44 GordonG3kko has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
28 2013-08-30 00:47:15 <phantomcircuit> Luke-Jr, you running my loverly IsConfirmed speed up?
29 2013-08-30 00:47:18 <phantomcircuit> it's loverly
30 2013-08-30 00:47:37 <Luke-Jr> phantomcircuit: was it pullreq'd before 2013-07-21? :p
31 2013-08-30 00:48:05 <phantomcircuit> nope
32 2013-08-30 00:48:07 <phantomcircuit> today
33 2013-08-30 00:48:07 <phantomcircuit> ish
34 2013-08-30 00:48:23 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: Lol, well I'd be surprised if mining works on it, though it'll probably look like it works...
35 2013-08-30 00:49:26 GordonG3kko has joined
36 2013-08-30 00:52:44 awishformore has joined
37 2013-08-30 00:55:54 CheckDavid has quit (Quit: Leaving)
38 2013-08-30 00:57:16 awishformore has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
39 2013-08-30 00:57:49 metric has left ()
40 2013-08-30 01:05:03 xire has joined
41 2013-08-30 01:17:56 asa1024 has joined
42 2013-08-30 01:18:01 xire has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
43 2013-08-30 01:26:01 eculver has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
44 2013-08-30 01:26:06 freewil has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
45 2013-08-30 01:29:16 c0rw1n has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
46 2013-08-30 01:31:15 toffoo has joined
47 2013-08-30 01:31:39 agricocb has joined
48 2013-08-30 01:32:13 c0rw1n has joined
49 2013-08-30 01:34:53 <jgarzik> hrm-dee-hrm
50 2013-08-30 01:35:10 <jgarzik> finally got a reproducer for that "leaves thousands of sockets in time_wait" issue people occasionally report, with RPC
51 2013-08-30 01:35:34 <petertodd> jgarzik: Oh, that's fixed in latest RPC.
52 2013-08-30 01:35:38 c0rw1n_ has joined
53 2013-08-30 01:35:48 <petertodd> jgarzik: I've got a reproducer for that too.
54 2013-08-30 01:35:48 <jgarzik> petertodd, what is the bug?
55 2013-08-30 01:36:02 <petertodd> jgarzik: It's not really a bug, more of a limitation of TCP.
56 2013-08-30 01:36:29 <petertodd> You don't see it normally because client addresses are well distributed - it only crops up if you get a zillion connections from a single IP. (liek localhost)
57 2013-08-30 01:37:15 c0rw1n has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
58 2013-08-30 01:38:03 c0rw1n_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
59 2013-08-30 01:38:21 c0rw1n has joined
60 2013-08-30 01:38:41 <jgarzik> petertodd, would you mind elaborating on your comment "oh, that's fixed in the latest RPC" with concrete details?
61 2013-08-30 01:40:41 <petertodd> jgarzik: Latest version has connection re-use.
62 2013-08-30 01:40:55 <petertodd> jgarzik: Granted, there may be a case where the connections close anyway.
63 2013-08-30 01:41:00 Neozonz has joined
64 2013-08-30 01:41:24 random_cat has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
65 2013-08-30 01:42:13 c0rw1n_ has joined
66 2013-08-30 01:42:24 c0rw1n has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
67 2013-08-30 01:42:49 random_cat has joined
68 2013-08-30 01:43:53 Thepok has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
69 2013-08-30 01:45:05 Neozonz has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
70 2013-08-30 01:48:23 <jgarzik> certainly a good test for the RPC server's connection reuse code
71 2013-08-30 01:48:30 <jgarzik> 99,000 blocks and going strong
72 2013-08-30 01:48:53 Neozonz has joined
73 2013-08-30 01:48:56 <petertodd> jgarzik: Yup, note that my make-bootstrap.py runs fine now, while a similar bit of code preior to re-use failed badly.
74 2013-08-30 01:49:14 Neozonz has quit (Disc!~Neozonz@unaffiliated/neozonz|Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
75 2013-08-30 01:49:32 <jgarzik> petertodd, what is your sha256sum for bootstrap.dat >= height 250000 ?
76 2013-08-30 01:50:01 <petertodd> jgarzik: Haven't had a chance to get that; first one ran out of disk space.
77 2013-08-30 01:50:30 <jgarzik> who the heck runs out of disk space in the year 2013??? :)
78 2013-08-30 01:50:52 <petertodd> jgarzik: People who use SSD's for /home apparently.
79 2013-08-30 01:52:10 reneg has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
80 2013-08-30 01:53:30 mappum has joined
81 2013-08-30 01:54:42 Neozonz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
82 2013-08-30 01:56:05 <petertodd> jgarzik: Oh, do me a favor: tell me the sha256 your code produces for, say, block 100...
83 2013-08-30 01:56:40 <petertodd> just in case I need to debug something really stupid like an off-by-one...
84 2013-08-30 01:57:23 <jgarzik> petertodd, will do after this run
85 2013-08-30 01:57:36 <jgarzik> block 120,000
86 2013-08-30 01:58:56 <petertodd> thanks
87 2013-08-30 02:00:53 Neozonz has joined
88 2013-08-30 02:00:53 Neozonz has quit (Changing host)
89 2013-08-30 02:00:53 Neozonz has joined
90 2013-08-30 02:01:33 stephantua has joined
91 2013-08-30 02:04:55 stephantual has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
92 2013-08-30 02:06:14 mrkent has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
93 2013-08-30 02:10:33 Applicat_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
94 2013-08-30 02:11:40 reneg has joined
95 2013-08-30 02:11:59 foobar_m1n has joined
96 2013-08-30 02:13:38 paybitcoin has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
97 2013-08-30 02:13:48 normanrichards has joined
98 2013-08-30 02:14:07 paybitcoin has joined
99 2013-08-30 02:16:03 reneg_ has joined
100 2013-08-30 02:16:06 c0rw1n_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
101 2013-08-30 02:16:30 cads has joined
102 2013-08-30 02:17:26 foobar_m1n has left ()
103 2013-08-30 02:17:34 reneg_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
104 2013-08-30 02:17:38 Subo1977_ has joined
105 2013-08-30 02:17:46 reneg_ has joined
106 2013-08-30 02:18:04 reneg has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
107 2013-08-30 02:18:19 darknyan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
108 2013-08-30 02:19:32 darknyan has joined
109 2013-08-30 02:20:03 outkzt has quit ()
110 2013-08-30 02:20:04 Subo1977 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
111 2013-08-30 02:20:47 owowo is now known as GreeD
112 2013-08-30 02:21:16 GreeD is now known as owowo
113 2013-08-30 02:26:54 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
114 2013-08-30 02:37:31 stalled has joined
115 2013-08-30 02:49:24 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: did you assign BIP 73?
116 2013-08-30 02:49:33 <Luke-Jr> I thought gavinandresen was just adding it to the existing BIP O.o
117 2013-08-30 02:49:37 AlexNagy has joined
118 2013-08-30 02:50:34 <gavinandresen> I already bugged Stephen about not following Proper BIP Procedure.
119 2013-08-30 02:53:57 <petertodd> gavinandresen: Oh, reminds me, I did a OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY implementation redefining OP_NOP1. Copies locktime off the stack, compares it with the IsFinal() algorithm against the block including the spend tx, and fails the script if locktime not reached. Also uses IsMajority with nVersion=3 to enable the behavior.
120 2013-08-30 02:54:21 <petertodd> gavinandresen: Similar to the OP_DEPTH you suggested before.
121 2013-08-30 02:54:59 <petertodd> Testing of course will be the fun bit...
122 2013-08-30 02:56:31 Skav has joined
123 2013-08-30 02:56:33 MobPhone has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
124 2013-08-30 02:56:45 <gavinandresen> petertodd: I'm not sure it is worth poking around the edges of Script by defining new opcodes or SIGHASH types; I think we're going to want to hide a 100% redesign behind an OP_NOP.
125 2013-08-30 02:58:33 <petertodd> gavinandresen: I agree actually. Part of why I think it's worth doing a simple one like OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY is to test out the soft-fork procedure for a 100% redesign.
126 2013-08-30 02:58:56 <petertodd> gavinandresen: Probably based on merklized abstract syntax trees for one thing. Also gmaxwell and I have been talking about changing the way tx's are hashed.
127 2013-08-30 02:58:59 <gavinandresen> soft fork procedure works just fine, we did it with P2SH.
128 2013-08-30 02:59:26 <petertodd> gavinandresen: Haven't tried it with a new opcode - IE go through the motions of doing all the testing.
129 2013-08-30 02:59:51 <gavinandresen> Mmm. OP_CHECKSIG should be broken down into one or more OP_PUSH_somethings, OP_HASH_N_ITEMS_ON_THE_STACK, then an ECDSA_CHECK_SIG....
130 2013-08-30 03:00:11 <petertodd> Yup, we're all on the same page there.
131 2013-08-30 03:00:21 <petertodd> Also a tx hash should be the digest of a merkle tree over the individual parts.
132 2013-08-30 03:00:29 <gavinandresen> petertodd: meh. if we're going to do all that testing, might as well do it with something big that is designed to be easy to test and easy to reason about
133 2013-08-30 03:03:33 <petertodd> Well where's your wishlist for scriptv2 anyway?
134 2013-08-30 03:06:27 <gavinandresen> creating scriptv2 is way down on the priority list. In case you haven't noticed, getting simple multisig transactions happening has turned out to be incredibly slow and painful
135 2013-08-30 03:06:40 <gavinandresen> "walk before you run" and all that.....
136 2013-08-30 03:06:59 <gavinandresen> (and "talk is cheap", too)
137 2013-08-30 03:07:05 Application has joined
138 2013-08-30 03:07:25 <petertodd> Getting people to support P2SH has been incredibly slow and painful...
139 2013-08-30 03:07:43 <Luke-Jr> 0.9 should make all new addresses P2SH? :P
140 2013-08-30 03:08:00 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: jdillon had a 2.5BTC bounty for that IIRC
141 2013-08-30 03:08:10 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: for writing it? it should be trivial
142 2013-08-30 03:08:35 <gavinandresen> it is trivial. And a really bad idea.
143 2013-08-30 03:08:39 <Luke-Jr> in fact, didn't CoiledCoin already implement the code?
144 2013-08-30 03:08:44 <Luke-Jr> gavinandresen: bad idea why? O.o
145 2013-08-30 03:08:48 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: Yes, which is why when he proposed it he even said he wouldn't pay out to non-core devs for a week or something given how trivial it was.
146 2013-08-30 03:09:27 <gavinandresen> bad idea because existing users with existing bitcoin addresses would have no problems with any merchants-- it would be new users with new wallets who would find all the broken merchants/exchanges/etc
147 2013-08-30 03:09:42 <gavinandresen> If I was designing a way to turn off new usersâ¦.
148 2013-08-30 03:09:53 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: Though specifically I think his was to depreciate only bare multisig and pay-to-pubkey - pay to pubkey hash would still be allowed.
149 2013-08-30 03:10:06 <gavinandresen> (I've started to suspect jdillon is a very sophisticated troll with the ulterior motive of destroying bitcoin)
150 2013-08-30 03:10:09 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: I thought that was a reasonable compromise - no-one uses bare multisig.
151 2013-08-30 03:10:18 <petertodd> Meh
152 2013-08-30 03:10:24 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
153 2013-08-30 03:10:33 TheSeven has joined
154 2013-08-30 03:10:33 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: It was also not a hard-fork rule, just a isstandard change.
155 2013-08-30 03:11:09 <Luke-Jr> gavinandresen: hmm, could be released along with some discourage-address-reuse-more stuff
156 2013-08-30 03:11:21 <warren> discourage how?
157 2013-08-30 03:11:36 <petertodd> warren: Just don't relay if you've seen an address before in the past n minutes.
158 2013-08-30 03:11:37 <Luke-Jr> warren: don't expose addresses in an addressbook manner
159 2013-08-30 03:11:47 <petertodd> warren: ^
160 2013-08-30 03:11:57 <Luke-Jr> warren: user does Receive the same way they do Send
161 2013-08-30 03:11:59 <petertodd> The address book is insane... Armory's design is much better.
162 2013-08-30 03:12:24 <Luke-Jr> fill out the info, then it shows up in Transactions as "not received", with a QR Code and URI there
163 2013-08-30 03:12:28 <Luke-Jr> so it's clear it's for a single transaction
164 2013-08-30 03:13:24 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: oh, nice, the "not received" is a good touch
165 2013-08-30 03:13:52 <gmaxwell> 19:48 < Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: did you assign BIP 73?
166 2013-08-30 03:13:54 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: Or do a separate "waiting for funds" tab or somesuch.
167 2013-08-30 03:13:55 <gmaxwell> hm? no.
168 2013-08-30 03:14:03 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: gavinandresen already got that
169 2013-08-30 03:15:19 <gmaxwell> hm. yea, I would have just suggested merging that into the main payment protocol bip.
170 2013-08-30 03:17:14 <gavinandresen> I should have been more specific-- I told Stephen he should get consensus from QR-scanning-wallet implementors and then "bang out a BIP"
171 2013-08-30 03:18:07 <gavinandresen> He skipped the get consensus bit....
172 2013-08-30 03:18:14 <coingenuity> ERROR: CBlock::WriteToDisk() : OpenBlockFile failed <<<<< has this error ever been figured out
173 2013-08-30 03:18:26 <coingenuity> "the osx error" as people have been calling it
174 2013-08-30 03:18:50 <gavinandresen> I've never seen that error
175 2013-08-30 03:19:42 <coingenuity> gavinandresen: has been plaguing OSX/Debian both since 0.8
176 2013-08-30 03:19:48 <gavinandresen> okey dokey
177 2013-08-30 03:20:09 <gavinandresen> if none of the core developers can reproduce it, it is really, really, really hard for us to fix it
178 2013-08-30 03:20:10 <gmaxwell> coingenuity: uh, thats not consistent with my understanding. Corruption issues in OSX/debian, but they don't look like that. That looks like out of disk space or something.
179 2013-08-30 03:20:10 <Luke-Jr> first I've seen it too
180 2013-08-30 03:21:02 <coingenuity> gmaxwell: disk has only 6% usage :X
181 2013-08-30 03:21:04 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: Hm. I wonder if all payment request implementations can easily send an accept header. E.g. if you're forced to use webkit as your http library on IOS I wonder if you can customize the accept headers.
182 2013-08-30 03:21:12 <gmaxwell> coingenuity: or something.
183 2013-08-30 03:21:22 <coingenuity> yeah...
184 2013-08-30 03:21:25 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: I've never seen a HTTP library which can't send headers
185 2013-08-30 03:22:24 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: We'll likely run into problems with stupid transparent proxies/firewalls in enterprisey places.
186 2013-08-30 03:22:42 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: I think HTTPS support at all might be a barrier
187 2013-08-30 03:22:42 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: Though SSL *mostly* gets rid of that issue...
188 2013-08-30 03:23:19 <petertodd> gavinandresen: Failing that, working HTTPS support that actually checks certs properly.
189 2013-08-30 03:23:48 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: indeed, wellâ I'd say that e.g. your choice someplace might be "use system http library, or implement https yourself" and because of the ssl the latter is not trivial.
190 2013-08-30 03:24:00 <gmaxwell> and using the system library may impose interesting restrictions.
191 2013-08-30 03:24:01 Transisto has quit ()
192 2013-08-30 03:24:20 * Luke-Jr ponders if there's a way to generate a token of some sort that can be used to pre-authorize a transfer before the destination is known, similar to people passing around private keys, but with a fixed output amount and not exposing the private key itself
193 2013-08-30 03:25:34 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: Well, in a semi-user-friendly way you can do the one-time-password scriptPubKeys I proposed, but that gets ugly quick.
194 2013-08-30 03:26:01 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: I don't see how that would help?
195 2013-08-30 03:26:23 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: basically we need a signature that can be adapted to any scriptPubKey
196 2013-08-30 03:26:26 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: so you was possession to authorize redemption, right? Why don't you want to give someone a private key?
197 2013-08-30 03:26:36 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: Funds get put on a txout only spendable by the OTP, then provide it to spend to the "any destination"
198 2013-08-30 03:26:42 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: Best I can do though.
199 2013-08-30 03:27:23 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: giving a private key is ugly, forces you to put the exact amount you want on an output, and possibly exposes private info about the rest of your HD wallet?
200 2013-08-30 03:28:19 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: What's your use-case exactly?
201 2013-08-30 03:28:40 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: you generate a random private key, write a transaction paying funds to it and sign it, and give the key and transaction to the recipent. they can then announce it and also write a txn spending its output.
202 2013-08-30 03:28:56 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: I want to buy something from bitcoinstore at a friend's house.
203 2013-08-30 03:29:15 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: Ok, so you don't trust your friends computer 100%?
204 2013-08-30 03:29:24 <Luke-Jr> right, he runs Windows
205 2013-08-30 03:29:55 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: I was hoping for some EC magic ;)
206 2013-08-30 03:29:56 MiningBuddy- has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
207 2013-08-30 03:30:00 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: Well, actually that case is exactly what OTP's do well. You know exactly how much BTC you're risking, and the funds can be unlocked by passwords on a sheet of paper.
208 2013-08-30 03:30:02 MiningBuddy has joined
209 2013-08-30 03:30:02 MiningBuddy has quit (Changing host)
210 2013-08-30 03:30:02 MiningBuddy has joined
211 2013-08-30 03:31:04 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: HASH160 <H(nonce)> EQUAL IF <insecure-key> CHECKSIG ELSE <secure-key> CHECKSIG ENDIF for example
212 2013-08-30 03:31:50 <petertodd> Good way to transfer funds from cold-storage for instance.
213 2013-08-30 03:34:07 jtimon has joined
214 2013-08-30 03:34:52 <petertodd> Oh, and for the ECC magic version: generate a pubkey via ECC multiplication or addition, and keep one half of what was needed to generate it secret, storing the other half on the insecure computer. Provide the missing half to generate the full key and redeem.
215 2013-08-30 03:35:25 <petertodd> The magic release key can be just as short as the OTP version actually as you'd do H(magic) to generate the ECC half.
216 2013-08-30 03:35:27 NFS_ has joined
217 2013-08-30 03:35:47 <petertodd> Damn, I could implement this really quickly... and the TX's are all standard.
218 2013-08-30 03:36:34 <petertodd> Too bad, I'd nearly come up with a reason for the scripting language. :/
219 2013-08-30 03:38:19 [Author] has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net)
220 2013-08-30 03:38:40 [Author] has joined
221 2013-08-30 03:38:52 <petertodd> OK, so here's the other intersting thing: You can use this to implement oracles too. Revealing the sec key is == revealing a nonce in any of the stuff alp's busy implementing. On the other hand, all those examples need non-std tx's anyway, so the only advantage is it's easy for the oracle to prove they do in fact have the sec key.
222 2013-08-30 03:39:58 enquirer has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
223 2013-08-30 03:42:16 NFS_ has quit (Quit: Page closed)
224 2013-08-30 03:45:17 Anduck has joined
225 2013-08-30 03:45:27 moarrr has joined
226 2013-08-30 03:45:47 k9quaint has quit (Read error: No route to host)
227 2013-08-30 03:50:15 Anduck has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
228 2013-08-30 03:50:40 <petertodd> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260898.msg3040083#msg3040083 <- wrote it up, in addition this is good for privacy in the oracle case because the ECC multiplication means the oracle can never know if somone made use of the seckey they revealed.
229 2013-08-30 03:52:16 <lianj> petertodd: you made those testnet txs?
230 2013-08-30 03:55:52 <petertodd> lianj: which ones?
231 2013-08-30 03:57:08 ThomasV has joined
232 2013-08-30 03:57:15 jtimon has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
233 2013-08-30 03:57:26 <lianj> hash160 if if op_checksig else opchecksig end else op_checkmultisig
234 2013-08-30 03:57:46 <petertodd> oh, no those are alp's
235 2013-08-30 03:58:20 <lianj> ah
236 2013-08-30 03:58:46 <petertodd> pff, you think I actually write code? :/
237 2013-08-30 04:03:15 <lianj> sorry for offtopic but want to see how many disconnect.. if any⦠سÙ
ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙØØ® Ì·Ì´ÌØ® Ì·Ì´ÌØ® Ì·Ì´ÌØ® اÙ
ارتÙØ® Ì·Ì´ÌØ®
238 2013-08-30 04:03:27 <lianj> meh
239 2013-08-30 04:06:35 cads has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
240 2013-08-30 04:12:15 licnep has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
241 2013-08-30 04:12:17 peetaur2 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
242 2013-08-30 04:16:23 Applicat_ has joined
243 2013-08-30 04:19:22 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
244 2013-08-30 04:20:15 reneg has joined
245 2013-08-30 04:22:07 reneg_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
246 2013-08-30 04:23:38 <gmaxwell> lianj: if you did that in #bitcoin freenode would have k-lined you.
247 2013-08-30 04:26:33 <warren> (huh?)
248 2013-08-30 04:26:52 <gmaxwell> it's exploiting a bug in Apple IOS unicode parsing.
249 2013-08-30 04:26:55 <gmaxwell> Crashes IOS devices.
250 2013-08-30 04:28:14 <warren> oh
251 2013-08-30 04:29:11 <lianj> gmaxwell: the bad thing i did it in work groupchat because i knew they all use osx. and it not only parted them but didn't allow them to join again until the scrollbuffer was gone
252 2013-08-30 04:29:40 <gmaxwell> it's been done in here several times today, so there was probably no one left.
253 2013-08-30 04:29:45 * petertodd runs off to make a non-standard transaction
254 2013-08-30 04:29:47 <petertodd> :P
255 2013-08-30 04:30:25 sacredchao has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
256 2013-08-30 04:30:27 <gmaxwell> oh hahah
257 2013-08-30 04:30:42 <lianj> :D
258 2013-08-30 04:30:45 sensorii has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
259 2013-08-30 04:31:10 <gmaxwell> lianj: any idea if this bug can be used to get code execution?
260 2013-08-30 04:31:25 Subo1977_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
261 2013-08-30 04:31:25 KillYourTV has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
262 2013-08-30 04:31:25 MobiusL has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
263 2013-08-30 04:31:42 Subo1977 has joined
264 2013-08-30 04:32:05 <lianj> not sure. i think not
265 2013-08-30 04:32:45 sacredchao has joined
266 2013-08-30 04:33:18 <lianj> isn't it the same or close to the one from a couple of month back. that also was never turned into something useful
267 2013-08-30 04:33:44 <gmaxwell> guess it's hard to tell if w/ closed code.
268 2013-08-30 04:35:43 <lianj> osx rops exist
269 2013-08-30 04:36:32 sensorii has joined
270 2013-08-30 04:36:35 reneg has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
271 2013-08-30 04:36:53 <gmaxwell> one that can run from text is interesting though, because, e.g. petertodd's nonstandard txn statement.
272 2013-08-30 04:36:56 KillYourTV has joined
273 2013-08-30 04:37:07 <gmaxwell> crazy unicode in transaction -> your mywallet is empty.
274 2013-08-30 04:37:15 <warren> causes entire system or just app to die?
275 2013-08-30 04:37:54 <lianj> ^^
276 2013-08-30 04:38:06 <lianj> prolly just the people watching it on bc.i
277 2013-08-30 04:38:10 <warren> ooh man, what about all those old MacOS versions they no longer maintain? hosed.
278 2013-08-30 04:40:01 egis has joined
279 2013-08-30 04:44:55 MobiusL has joined
280 2013-08-30 04:46:07 <gmaxwell> extract from coingenuity's logs, WTF! http://0bin.net/paste/Hhf1LTn2RHe3E5BY#CVmV9m5WMiDZeM1FlT4OOP6bWF5X8VfpOZzyANTh89g=
281 2013-08-30 04:47:42 moarrr has quit ()
282 2013-08-30 04:56:54 <petertodd> gmaxwell: wierd
283 2013-08-30 04:57:43 <gmaxwell> I would guess the pos was past the end but how did the open pass?
284 2013-08-30 04:58:43 <petertodd> Said "unable to open file", sure the open worked?
285 2013-08-30 05:00:17 <petertodd> gmaxwell: you see this? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=284000.0
286 2013-08-30 05:00:35 <gmaxwell> Just responded.
287 2013-08-30 05:00:52 <gmaxwell> (1) the stupid fork detection code is being unhelpful here.
288 2013-08-30 05:01:15 <gmaxwell> I'm guessing that his IBD pull selected peer went away.
289 2013-08-30 05:01:24 <gmaxwell> and so he's just sitting around until a block happens.
290 2013-08-30 05:01:27 <petertodd> He's connected to an ancient node, so maybe it's managed to mine a block and got forked.
291 2013-08-30 05:01:34 <petertodd> Ah
292 2013-08-30 05:01:47 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
293 2013-08-30 05:01:50 <doublec> I have a node that constantly warns ""Warning: Please check that your computer's date and time are correct! If your clock is wrong Bitcoin will not work properly."
294 2013-08-30 05:01:56 <doublec> but time is correct as far as I can see
295 2013-08-30 05:02:04 <gmaxwell> doublec: time zone correct?
296 2013-08-30 05:02:05 <petertodd> doublec: timezone correct?
297 2013-08-30 05:02:14 <gmaxwell> usually thats a result of the timezone being wrong.
298 2013-08-30 05:02:21 <petertodd> say-the-same-thing...
299 2013-08-30 05:02:43 eoss has joined
300 2013-08-30 05:02:49 <lianj> woa, lots of blocks currently
301 2013-08-30 05:03:19 <doublec> seems to be, I'm on NZST
302 2013-08-30 05:03:30 <doublec> but I'll investigate
303 2013-08-30 05:03:44 <petertodd> doublec: bitcoind getinfo, what does 'timeoffset' say?
304 2013-08-30 05:04:16 <gmaxwell> (hm why doesn't peerinfo return the peers timeoffsets)
305 2013-08-30 05:04:35 <petertodd> good idea
306 2013-08-30 05:05:42 <doublec> petertodd: I don't have a timeoffset (running 0.8.1)
307 2013-08-30 05:06:11 <petertodd> doublec: hmm... well I'd suggest upgrading for a lot of reasons anyway
308 2013-08-30 05:06:46 <doublec> in my debug.log I see bunches of Added time data, samples 11, offset -1 (+0 minutes)
309 2013-08-30 05:06:57 <doublec> and the occasional Added time data, samples 2, offset -2505753 (-41762 minutes)
310 2013-08-30 05:06:59 <gmaxwell> 0_o
311 2013-08-30 05:07:43 btcbtc has quit (Quit: btcbtc)
312 2013-08-30 05:07:51 <doublec> most entries are very small offsets
313 2013-08-30 05:08:00 <doublec> those large ones are on initial node startup
314 2013-08-30 05:08:39 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Ah, here's why: nTime from the 'version' message isn't saved, just added to the time data.
315 2013-08-30 05:09:12 <gmaxwell> yea that should be fixed.. we shouldn't be using time from peers we're not connected to to build our correction in any case.
316 2013-08-30 05:10:07 <petertodd> gmaxwell: So save nTimeOffset's for each peer, and compute the master off-set from the set of current peers?
317 2013-08-30 05:10:24 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Oh, and should be only outgoing peers I think.
318 2013-08-30 05:10:55 <gmaxwell> doublec: okay you have that message because at start you had a bunch of times way off from yours and none like yours and it seems we never remove the message once triggered.
319 2013-08-30 05:11:06 <doublec> gmaxwell: ah ok, makes sense, thanks
320 2013-08-30 05:11:40 <gmaxwell> petertodd: my thought was to include incoming but only if they're within a small window of the time you got from outgoing.
321 2013-08-30 05:11:54 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Fair enough, to fine-tune.
322 2013-08-30 05:12:51 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Though easier just to not include them re: calculating it - then it can be a simple mapTimeOffset<peer> where peers are added and removed as needed.
323 2013-08-30 05:14:00 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Er, heck, peers are small enough just iterate over the peer list every time a peer is added/dropped...
324 2013-08-30 05:15:17 <gmaxwell> I'd also like to have some (sadly platform specific) code to check if ntp is in use and healthy and if so, to refuse to believe far off peer times.
325 2013-08-30 05:15:37 <petertodd> reasonable
326 2013-08-30 05:16:00 <gmaxwell> hm. also need to change it to undercorrect by 1 second (towards your local time) so that the network will drift back if it gets offset.
327 2013-08-30 05:16:30 <gmaxwell> e.g. you think the time is 100 network says 150 then your corrected time should be 149.
328 2013-08-30 05:16:54 <petertodd> ha, yeah, you can do that pull-req, or I could just make a accidental off-by-one error in mine...
329 2013-08-30 05:17:26 <gmaxwell> yea, the only reason I haven't done it already is I'd like to actualy try out the behavior and its kind of a pita.
330 2013-08-30 05:17:33 <petertodd> yup
331 2013-08-30 05:17:52 <gmaxwell> e.g. see how long it takes to readjust
332 2013-08-30 05:18:16 <petertodd> and god help you if you accidentally the other way...
333 2013-08-30 05:18:50 <gmaxwell> hey, cute way to sneak in an inflationary bug in an altcoin, esp if you remove the sanity check so network time can go far into the future.
334 2013-08-30 05:19:02 <petertodd> ha
335 2013-08-30 05:19:13 <gmaxwell> esp since so long as eveyone's clock agrees it would be stable.
336 2013-08-30 05:19:35 <gmaxwell> so you could start off with a couple nodes and it would look fine.. and then the clock starts slipping forward and blocks get faster and faster in realtime.
337 2013-08-30 05:19:49 <petertodd> yeah, fixing that would be damn ugly
338 2013-08-30 05:20:11 <gmaxwell> well esp if you didnt notice for a while and built a bunch of far future chain.
339 2013-08-30 05:20:15 AlexNagy has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
340 2013-08-30 05:21:20 AlexNagy has joined
341 2013-08-30 05:21:20 AlexNagy has quit (Changing host)
342 2013-08-30 05:21:20 AlexNagy has joined
343 2013-08-30 05:27:11 reneg_ has joined
344 2013-08-30 05:30:30 owowo has quit (Quit: dead)
345 2013-08-30 05:31:07 Application has joined
346 2013-08-30 05:32:08 Application has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
347 2013-08-30 05:32:47 Application has joined
348 2013-08-30 05:34:01 Applica__ has joined
349 2013-08-30 05:34:02 Applica__ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
350 2013-08-30 05:34:43 Applica__ has joined
351 2013-08-30 05:35:02 Applicat_ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
352 2013-08-30 05:35:21 CodeShark has joined
353 2013-08-30 05:35:50 <maaku> whoever keeps spamming that malformed unicode, please (1) kindly stop, and (2) die in a fire
354 2013-08-30 05:35:51 reneg__ has joined
355 2013-08-30 05:36:23 <maaku> i have to drop into sql to find and delete chat history for my irc client to even load up again
356 2013-08-30 05:36:28 <maaku> seriously not fun
357 2013-08-30 05:36:50 reneg_ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
358 2013-08-30 05:37:14 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
359 2013-08-30 05:38:45 malaimo has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
360 2013-08-30 05:39:54 <gmaxwell> maaku: hopefully exploitation of that bug can't lead to something worseâ
361 2013-08-30 05:40:15 malaimo has joined
362 2013-08-30 05:40:20 <gmaxwell> also, your latest attacker is 21:02 < lianj> sorry for offtopic but want to see how many disconnect.. if anyâ¦
363 2013-08-30 05:40:43 <maaku> quite possibly could; things like this make me nervious about running osx
364 2013-08-30 05:42:10 <gmaxwell> I don't yet do this for the terminal I IRC in, but I do all my webbrowsing in a VM because of the nastyness of the internet.
365 2013-08-30 05:42:24 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
366 2013-08-30 05:42:27 <maaku> good idea i think i'll start the same
367 2013-08-30 05:42:57 <petertodd> ;;google irsii exploits for the version gmaxwell uses
368 2013-08-30 05:42:57 <gribble> No matches found.
369 2013-08-30 05:43:05 <petertodd> guess you're safe
370 2013-08-30 05:43:21 <lianj> totally ^^
371 2013-08-30 05:43:44 <maaku> bug has all the symptoms of a buffer overflow ... wouldn't be suprised if a clever construction enabled remote execution
372 2013-08-30 05:44:49 <lianj> will see. don't have an apple machine with osx on it to tinker
373 2013-08-30 05:45:03 <lianj> and ofc am not clever enough
374 2013-08-30 05:45:35 <CodeShark> there's an IRC attack going on?
375 2013-08-30 05:45:53 <maaku> CodeShark: it's a os x vulnerability
376 2013-08-30 05:45:58 Applica__ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
377 2013-08-30 05:45:59 <CodeShark> oh? what is it?
378 2013-08-30 05:46:35 <CodeShark> my limechat has been crashing today
379 2013-08-30 05:46:36 <maaku> unicode sequence that when processed by CoreText (osx/ios' text rendering framework) crashes the process
380 2013-08-30 05:46:42 <CodeShark> aha
381 2013-08-30 05:46:47 <CodeShark> interesting
382 2013-08-30 05:47:12 <maaku> http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/29/bug-in-apples-coretext-allows-specific-string-of-characters-to-crash-ios-6-os-x-10-8-apps/
383 2013-08-30 05:47:56 <maaku> haha, people put it in their wifi network name
384 2013-08-30 05:48:13 <maaku> crash any ios device nearby with wifi on
385 2013-08-30 05:48:34 Application has joined
386 2013-08-30 05:48:50 <gmaxwell> I don't think you can put non-ascii in a ssid.
387 2013-08-30 05:49:02 <edcba> why not lol
388 2013-08-30 05:49:03 <lianj> didn't know ssids supported unicode
389 2013-08-30 05:49:11 <edcba> it's all bytes
390 2013-08-30 05:49:15 <lianj> true
391 2013-08-30 05:49:23 <lianj> but that ios read it as such
392 2013-08-30 05:49:40 <gmaxwell> Should name my AP âââ
393 2013-08-30 05:49:54 <maaku> gmaxwell: i think i will
394 2013-08-30 05:50:02 <maaku> or PILE OF POO
395 2013-08-30 05:50:07 <Diablo-D3> name it unicode for poo
396 2013-08-30 05:50:10 <Diablo-D3> damnit maaku
397 2013-08-30 05:50:10 <lianj> gmaxwell: nice to type then
398 2013-08-30 05:50:22 <ThomasV> I'd like to know what the string means in Arabic
399 2013-08-30 05:50:31 <lianj> prolly gibberish
400 2013-08-30 05:50:40 mapppum has joined
401 2013-08-30 05:51:13 <CodeShark> if it actually meant something in arabic that would have some pretty ugly implications :p
402 2013-08-30 05:51:46 normanrichards has quit (Quit: normanrichards)
403 2013-08-30 05:51:54 <ThomasV> lol yeah
404 2013-08-30 05:51:57 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: no worse than "Bush hid the facts"
405 2013-08-30 05:52:23 btcbtc has joined
406 2013-08-30 05:52:31 <lianj> http://i.imgur.com/NEywyVS.png
407 2013-08-30 05:52:47 <gmaxwell> (windows overzealous charset determination code would turn any textfile that started with that string into mojobake due to parsing it at UCS-2)
408 2013-08-30 05:53:53 altamic has joined
409 2013-08-30 05:54:14 mappum has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
410 2013-08-30 05:54:14 <maaku> gmaxwell: the multi-party sort requires a serial chain of operations, yes?
411 2013-08-30 05:54:27 <maaku> that might be requiring a bit much...
412 2013-08-30 05:54:58 <gmaxwell> maaku: yes, darnit I went for a walk right after writing that and ment to go add as a disadvantage is that it requires all parties to be online in realtime.
413 2013-08-30 05:55:20 <gmaxwell> I mean, technically it doesn't but it's log^2 N rounds of communication.
414 2013-08-30 05:55:34 homlly is now known as flywind
415 2013-08-30 05:56:05 <gmaxwell> er. log2^2 N so if you're only logging in once a day it'll be 10 days to complete your computation. :P
416 2013-08-30 05:58:20 BTCOxygen has joined
417 2013-08-30 05:58:31 msvb-lab has joined
418 2013-08-30 05:59:31 <gmaxwell> maaku: the number of rounds of corse depends on the geometry of the sorting network. the implemention in viff.dk has a sort which uses more than the theoretical minimum number, but has a lot of parallelism.
419 2013-08-30 06:00:13 <gmaxwell> er uses more than the minimum number of comparisons... but I don't think one can be done which has less than log2^2(N) communication.
420 2013-08-30 06:00:14 macboz has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
421 2013-08-30 06:03:22 Transisto has joined
422 2013-08-30 06:06:56 JZavala has joined
423 2013-08-30 06:09:45 valparaiso has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
424 2013-08-30 06:10:07 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
425 2013-08-30 06:11:15 licnep has joined
426 2013-08-30 06:11:55 valparaiso has joined
427 2013-08-30 06:14:10 altamic has quit (Quit: altamic)
428 2013-08-30 06:18:56 tailcalled has joined
429 2013-08-30 06:19:26 moarrr has joined
430 2013-08-30 06:19:42 bizoro has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
431 2013-08-30 06:23:39 btcbtc has quit (Quit: btcbtc)
432 2013-08-30 06:24:32 ahbritto_ has joined
433 2013-08-30 06:24:47 reneg has joined
434 2013-08-30 06:26:53 flywind has left ()
435 2013-08-30 06:28:26 reneg__ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
436 2013-08-30 06:29:23 reneg has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
437 2013-08-30 06:29:50 AusBitBank has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
438 2013-08-30 06:30:01 paracyst has quit ()
439 2013-08-30 06:32:19 Keefe has joined
440 2013-08-30 06:33:05 gst has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
441 2013-08-30 06:33:30 gst has joined
442 2013-08-30 06:35:14 stevei has joined
443 2013-08-30 06:37:12 <gmaxwell> so.. that "mastercoin" thing has started its blockchain spamming. :(
444 2013-08-30 06:37:13 <gmaxwell> https://blockchain.info/address/15og4WXZPwkMnnsb3dj6HqgTUfcRLx4J9b
445 2013-08-30 06:38:26 <petertodd> wtf?
446 2013-08-30 06:39:19 <gmaxwell> it works by sending a colored coin to a destination bitcoin address (mastercoin payment), and then also using two additional txouts to embed data.
447 2013-08-30 06:39:31 <petertodd> ugh
448 2013-08-30 06:39:59 <gmaxwell> https://sites.google.com/site/2ndbtcwpaper/MasterCoin%20Specification.pdf
449 2013-08-30 06:40:27 <gmaxwell> so his system attacks us with perpetually unprunable data for every transaction.
450 2013-08-30 06:40:28 <petertodd> what a dumb-ass - could have done that with multisig
451 2013-08-30 06:40:44 <gmaxwell> I'm sorry, I was incorrect to not be worried about it a few days ago.
452 2013-08-30 06:40:55 <gmaxwell> He's not bringing in mobs of support with a mastercoin giveaway.
453 2013-08-30 06:41:00 <gmaxwell> s/not/now/
454 2013-08-30 06:41:48 <petertodd> well yet another example of why the only real limit on UTXO growth is the blocksize limit
455 2013-08-30 06:42:28 stevei has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
456 2013-08-30 06:42:45 <gmaxwell> well, as why utxo expiration is necessary.. while I'm bending my mind to figure out ways to get people to clean up txouts, this guy is pumping the chain full of forever unspendable ones.
457 2013-08-30 06:43:16 <gmaxwell> it looks like the system requires all the txn to involve particular addresses, so it seems it would currently be pretty easy to block directly.
458 2013-08-30 06:43:30 <petertodd> yeah, although that can change pretty easily
459 2013-08-30 06:43:53 mapppum has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
460 2013-08-30 06:44:15 mappum has joined
461 2013-08-30 06:45:05 <petertodd> This is also why i keep on saying OP_RETURN should be pushed forward, and on top of that it should be strictly easier and cheaper to use it than any other mechanism
462 2013-08-30 06:47:02 twobitcoins has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
463 2013-08-30 06:48:08 macboz has joined
464 2013-08-30 06:48:12 <gmaxwell> petertodd: but as you said, he could have been using multisig for this. There isn't a technical issue here.
465 2013-08-30 06:49:43 OPrime has joined
466 2013-08-30 06:49:52 <petertodd> gmaxwell:Yes, but if you say over and over again "hey! here's this op return mechanism!" people will know about it. The multisig trick isn't well known.
467 2013-08-30 06:51:37 <petertodd> Also note how we could easily make a new address to make it trivial to pay to op_return, perhaps starting with 0 or x or d
468 2013-08-30 06:52:14 <petertodd> Of course, yeah, there are limits to how far such measures can go...
469 2013-08-30 06:52:21 <gmaxwell> petertodd: I had the idea of 0 value outputs in sendtoaddress and sendmany being an OP_RETURN that pushes the unpacked address as data.
470 2013-08-30 06:52:27 <petertodd> yup
471 2013-08-30 06:53:12 <gmaxwell> in any case, I made a simple post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=272577.msg3040712#msg3040712
472 2013-08-30 06:53:16 <gmaxwell> lets see what happens there.
473 2013-08-30 06:53:48 <petertodd> IMO mention the multisig thing right there
474 2013-08-30 06:54:03 <gmaxwell> I didn't think we had to actually worry about this because he hasn't written his software yet. I believe are all just transactions he's doing 'by hand' in order to promote his system.
475 2013-08-30 06:54:12 Subo1977 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
476 2013-08-30 06:54:31 <petertodd> heh, which means he probably can't easily do a multisig scriptPubKey...
477 2013-08-30 06:54:40 Subo1977 has joined
478 2013-08-30 06:55:11 <gmaxwell> should figure out whos mining these things.
479 2013-08-30 06:55:17 stevei has joined
480 2013-08-30 06:55:50 <petertodd> everyone is: they are fee paying
481 2013-08-30 06:56:00 <petertodd> just barely follow gavin's rule too
482 2013-08-30 06:56:23 <gmaxwell> ah, indeed I can't count zeros
483 2013-08-30 06:56:39 <petertodd> at least it's just 73, for now...
484 2013-08-30 07:00:47 <gmaxwell> this is an example somewhat of the futility of trying to use rule to enforce behavior. People are urinating on the wall of town hall, you put up a fence to stop them... and they just urinate on the fence and insist that it's righteous because they stayed outside of the fence like the rule said.
485 2013-08-30 07:01:21 <gmaxwell> It's really hard to have a rule and have people not interpret its boundary as a permission.
486 2013-08-30 07:01:24 <petertodd> Yup. What you need is an electric fence.
487 2013-08-30 07:02:05 <gmaxwell> radioactive fence.
488 2013-08-30 07:02:30 PrimeStunna_ has joined
489 2013-08-30 07:02:33 <petertodd> electric radioactive fence - when you're going for a darwin award, might as well have some redundency
490 2013-08-30 07:03:51 PrimeStunna has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
491 2013-08-30 07:04:32 pecket has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
492 2013-08-30 07:06:34 Anduck has joined
493 2013-08-30 07:06:35 Anduck has quit (Changing host)
494 2013-08-30 07:06:35 Anduck has joined
495 2013-08-30 07:07:20 PrimeStunna has joined
496 2013-08-30 07:07:39 PrimeStunna_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
497 2013-08-30 07:10:23 <gmaxwell> petertodd: :(
498 2013-08-30 07:10:47 <gmaxwell> some searching reveals that he was fighting against the anti-dust changes and it was pointed out to him that unprunable data is bad.
499 2013-08-30 07:11:01 <petertodd> figures
500 2013-08-30 07:11:11 <gmaxwell> so I'm not hopeful that this is a simple education matter.
501 2013-08-30 07:11:48 <petertodd> The only good solution is hard limits IMO; I told Warren I'd be happy to help out on a UTXO expiration proposal for Litecoin.
502 2013-08-30 07:11:49 ThomasV has joined
503 2013-08-30 07:12:13 _ingsoc has joined
504 2013-08-30 07:12:35 <gmaxwell> 'Yup! But it's not a deal-breaker. Upon further consideration, I realized it's just another form of "you have to pay to put data in the block chain" which is fine. It doesn't prevent message-based protocols from working.'
505 2013-08-30 07:13:12 <petertodd> wow
506 2013-08-30 07:13:23 <petertodd> I wonder if he really understands what the UTXO set even is
507 2013-08-30 07:14:12 <gmaxwell> (Thats from this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=197799.msg2395350#msg2395350)
508 2013-08-30 07:14:34 flywind has joined
509 2013-08-30 07:14:47 <petertodd> gah
510 2013-08-30 07:15:02 <gmaxwell> At least we can be happy that he doesn't have software for it yet... 100 people doing this would be worse than one...
511 2013-08-30 07:15:04 <petertodd> the colored coin community in general seems to be filled with stupid people
512 2013-08-30 07:15:21 <gmaxwell> I have a super sexy hammer, you are now my nail.
513 2013-08-30 07:15:46 <gmaxwell> I'm guilty of it too, finding all kinds of things to throw SCIP at... but at least that fixation doesn't create big externalized costs.
514 2013-08-30 07:15:47 <petertodd> ...and you said I'm full of cringe-worthy ideas
515 2013-08-30 07:15:55 flywind has quit (Changing host)
516 2013-08-30 07:15:55 flywind has joined
517 2013-08-30 07:16:32 <gmaxwell> Colored coins people hit on the BIG IDEA that bitcoin tracks things and then the mind spins with all the things you could track, without stopping to think if all of them really make sense to track using bitcoin.
518 2013-08-30 07:17:04 <petertodd> yup, whereas smart people realize the nuances of what exactly bitcoin can track - in particular what exactly bitcoin means for trust
519 2013-08-30 07:17:21 <petertodd> thinking the colored coins are even important is a huge red flag...
520 2013-08-30 07:18:41 <gmaxwell> well I've thought they were neat but on reflection keep realizing that almost any use involves some kind of trusted entity to give them meaning, and in that caseâ might as well have that entity do the tracking.
521 2013-08-30 07:19:19 <petertodd> yup. The *one* example where colored coins actually can make sense is fidelity bonds.
522 2013-08-30 07:19:42 <gmaxwell> oh it's not the _one_ you can construct other ones, but fewer than people seem to think.
523 2013-08-30 07:20:03 <petertodd> oh yeah? examples?
524 2013-08-30 07:20:27 <petertodd> oh, actualy key-value stuff I guess...
525 2013-08-30 07:21:20 <gmaxwell> petertodd: e.g. look at my coinwitness post⦠one of my suggestion involved effectively using a colored coin and then making the SCIP give it value. So the trusted part is a proven program.
526 2013-08-30 07:21:40 <petertodd> gmaxwell: good point
527 2013-08-30 07:22:20 <gmaxwell> in any case, this thing highlights the helpfulness of P2SH^2. :(
528 2013-08-30 07:22:22 <petertodd> Ok, I'll generalize: the one example where colored coins actually can make sense is for intrinsic assets.
529 2013-08-30 07:22:34 <petertodd> gmaxwell: how so?
530 2013-08-30 07:23:30 <gmaxwell> petertodd: because they're not just storing commitments, their design actually has it using bitcoin for data storage.
531 2013-08-30 07:23:55 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Ah, yeah that's pretty moronic.
532 2013-08-30 07:24:11 <petertodd> gmaxwell: There are so few cases where commitments aren't enough...
533 2013-08-30 07:24:45 AusBitBank has joined
534 2013-08-30 07:24:50 <gmaxwell> hard for me to tell how important forcing bitcoin to store their data is to their plans here.
535 2013-08-30 07:25:14 awishformore has joined
536 2013-08-30 07:25:55 <gmaxwell> In any case, so, a modification of the dice blocking patches that people had previously circulated should be highly effective. Their protocol requires that this address be involved in every transaction: 1EXoDusjGwvnjZUyKkxZ4UHEf77z6A5S4P
537 2013-08-30 07:26:30 _ingsoc has quit (Quit: leaving)
538 2013-08-30 07:26:46 <petertodd> Well, it'll work, but would you call those dice blocking patches effective?
539 2013-08-30 07:27:15 tsche has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
540 2013-08-30 07:28:01 phedny has joined
541 2013-08-30 07:29:04 <gmaxwell> I suspect more people would pick them up for this. :-/
542 2013-08-30 07:29:33 jcorgan has joined
543 2013-08-30 07:29:33 <petertodd> Could be an interesting test-case, but I'd be somewhat frightened if it succeeded.
544 2013-08-30 07:30:12 phedny has left ()
545 2013-08-30 07:30:18 phedny has joined
546 2013-08-30 07:30:28 <gmaxwell> ... I see that this effort has recieved 2578 bitcoins. I give up. There is _NO_ profit in defending bitcoin from this nonsense, and apparently large profit to be made crapping on it in this manner.
547 2013-08-30 07:30:44 <petertodd> yup
548 2013-08-30 07:31:09 <petertodd> So, for Litecoin, I was thinking a fixed max UTXO size made sense.
549 2013-08-30 07:31:15 <gmaxwell> thats even going to make this hard to fix because people have now invested $300k presumably with hopes of big payoffs.
550 2013-08-30 07:31:21 <gmaxwell> petertodd: that has problems. :(
551 2013-08-30 07:31:39 <gmaxwell> I mean there is always a fixed max if you don't allow 0 value outputs... but...
552 2013-08-30 07:31:42 <petertodd> Indeed, but can we fix them?
553 2013-08-30 07:31:47 Anduckkk has joined
554 2013-08-30 07:32:01 <gmaxwell> If you make a smaller fixed max you have non-determinsm in txo life. :( and I think that would be really bad.
555 2013-08-30 07:32:47 <petertodd> On the other hand, if the non-determinism can have known minimums.
556 2013-08-30 07:32:50 <gmaxwell> I can comfortably tell people txo will expire in some long span (esp since they can precompute nlocked send to self heartbeat txn)... but a non-determinstic time? uh yuck.
557 2013-08-30 07:33:02 <gmaxwell> okay, sure perhaps but then why not always use the minimum?
558 2013-08-30 07:33:24 <maaku> gmaxwell: i'd love your opinion sometime on my own response to the mastercoin et al nonsense : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=280292.0
559 2013-08-30 07:33:25 <petertodd> Well, minimums could be calculated from your % of total coins basically.
560 2013-08-30 07:33:28 Anduck has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
561 2013-08-30 07:35:15 CodeShark has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com)
562 2013-08-30 07:35:18 <petertodd> maaku: your PGPG signed message for your donation addr needs to contain some text saying what the address is for
563 2013-08-30 07:35:34 toffoo has quit ()
564 2013-08-30 07:35:40 tsche has joined
565 2013-08-30 07:35:51 <maaku> oops
566 2013-08-30 07:35:51 <jcorgan> what is the maximum buffer length guaranteed to hold a bitcoin ECDSA signature?
567 2013-08-30 07:36:10 <petertodd> jcorgan: infinity
568 2013-08-30 07:36:19 <jcorgan> was afraid of that
569 2013-08-30 07:36:25 <petertodd> jcorgan: minimum on the other hand is I think 73 bytes?
570 2013-08-30 07:36:37 <jcorgan> lol
571 2013-08-30 07:36:38 <gmaxwell> :P
572 2013-08-30 07:36:38 <petertodd> jcorgan: (note what exactly you asked...)
573 2013-08-30 07:36:46 <jcorgan> i should be sleeping, not in #bitcoin-dev
574 2013-08-30 07:36:52 <petertodd> me too
575 2013-08-30 07:37:00 <petertodd> but the jokes must go on
576 2013-08-30 07:37:37 <gmaxwell> petertodd: at some point you should tell jcorgan your idea of using nlocked valid transactions as your costly thing in participating in a coinjoin.
577 2013-08-30 07:38:32 <petertodd> jcorgan: So, if I make a nLockTime'd transaction, I've guaranteed that at some point prior to when the nLockTime expires, I'll pay a transaction fee sufficient to spend that txout, either from the nLockTime'd transaction, or from another one.
578 2013-08-30 07:39:01 <petertodd> jcorgan: Thus you can use that as anti-DoS, and the beauty of it is the tx can spend the same txouts you were planning to spend anyway, just to a scriptPubKey that you control.
579 2013-08-30 07:39:39 <jcorgan> need to think on that
580 2013-08-30 07:39:58 reneg has joined
581 2013-08-30 07:40:26 <petertodd> jcorgan: There is some subtley: the fee must be sufficient, and you need to prevent txout reuse by keeping the nLockTime not too far into the future. Though "fee is sufficient" can just be done adaptively.
582 2013-08-30 07:40:59 <jcorgan> "fee is sufficient" would be judged by others joining or not
583 2013-08-30 07:41:23 mappum has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
584 2013-08-30 07:41:41 <petertodd> My idea was to do a 2-party mix system where you pay for your messages that way, and the mix itself is just a dumb "Announce I want to mix" -> "Hey! Here's some txin's/txouts I want, but they're encrypted to you so no-one else knows" -> "here's my sigs, now add yours" -> broadcast full tx
585 2013-08-30 07:41:57 <petertodd> For a 2-party mix, the other party knows what txins/txouts are yours anyway...
586 2013-08-30 07:42:05 <jcorgan> yep
587 2013-08-30 07:42:34 viperhr has joined
588 2013-08-30 07:42:36 <petertodd> jcorgan: Well you set a bandwidth limit and just sort messages by fee, much like bitcoin already does/will do more of in the future for transactions in general.
589 2013-08-30 07:43:23 <petertodd> The *big* advantage of fees, is that provided this gets used a lot an attacker needs to be spending or controlling a significant fraction of all the tx fees on the network - rather costly.
590 2013-08-30 07:43:32 <jcorgan> the tradeoffs/issues are relatively different among the three different mix scenarios I envision
591 2013-08-30 07:44:05 <sipa> jouke: 72 bytes if you do not include the sighashtype byte
592 2013-08-30 07:44:13 <petertodd> Yup, and implementing more than one is a good thing; the 2-party mixer would be best as a always on mixer, just recognize the security isn't absolute.
593 2013-08-30 07:44:42 <jcorgan> even the 2-party mix provides some dilution of information
594 2013-08-30 07:44:50 <petertodd> for sure
595 2013-08-30 07:44:51 <jcorgan> and has a nice side effect on everyone else
596 2013-08-30 07:45:26 <jcorgan> the other end is the completely decentralized multi-party mix in the midst of hostile participants
597 2013-08-30 07:46:03 stephantua has quit (Quit: Zzzzz..zzzzz)
598 2013-08-30 07:46:25 <petertodd> Well, the thing is iterated 2-party mixes are very close to multi-party mixes - after all an attacker could pretend to be all the other parties in the mix.
599 2013-08-30 07:46:59 <jcorgan> well, the idea i have is to form a hash chain of mix accepts, so an attacker can't force the mix membership
600 2013-08-30 07:47:04 <petertodd> I'm unconvinced that fancy multi-party crypto actually buys you much in decentralized systems; centralized systems it's another matter because your participation can be controlled by stuff like a bitcointalk account or a good OTR reputation.
601 2013-08-30 07:47:49 <petertodd> jcorgan: Again, there is no way to know if the attacker is sybiling without anti-sybil, and all we have for that is cost, or centralized/web-of-trust systems involving humans.
602 2013-08-30 07:48:41 reneg has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
603 2013-08-30 07:49:36 <jcorgan> for cost, i'm proposing the initiator of a decentralized coinjoin includes a difficulty in the offer broadcast, that joiners need to meet with a hash of their join and the prior join hash
604 2013-08-30 07:49:53 <sipa> gmaxwell: regarding rules and permission: if you get to argue with someone who thinks this: entering a house whose door is not locked is still illegal
605 2013-08-30 07:50:09 <jcorgan> that introduces both ordering and POW
606 2013-08-30 07:50:17 <petertodd> If the cost is denominated in PoW, you've made it cheaper for dedicated attackers than defenders.
607 2013-08-30 07:50:32 <petertodd> I'm really inclined to keep cost denominated in Bitcoins.
608 2013-08-30 07:50:35 <jcorgan> but of course is not immune to dedicated attackers, as you just said
609 2013-08-30 07:50:47 <jcorgan> i'm listening
610 2013-08-30 07:51:21 <petertodd> Well, one nifty thing with all this stuff is you can do rough consensus on balances. For instance buy a fidelity bond, and spend the value of the bond down bit by bit.
611 2013-08-30 07:51:46 <petertodd> Now each spend is a tx with a signature, a in-value, out-value, and an index. Rules are, all this must form a chain.
612 2013-08-30 07:52:06 <petertodd> So if you can find two tx's with the same index, that's your fraud proof. Sure you'll get away with fraud once in a while, but...
613 2013-08-30 07:52:27 <jcorgan> sorry, not following, might be the current BAC
614 2013-08-30 07:52:29 <petertodd> It's not strong enough for anythign but proof-of-expenditure, but for that it's fine.
615 2013-08-30 07:52:37 <petertodd> lol
616 2013-08-30 07:53:07 sserrano44 has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
617 2013-08-30 07:53:58 <jcorgan> i'd really like to read a write up of the idea of making the coinjoin join cost be denominated in BTC instead of PoW
618 2013-08-30 07:54:02 PrimeStunna has quit (Quit: PrimeStunna)
619 2013-08-30 07:54:18 <petertodd> Well, you understand how my fee-based system is one way?
620 2013-08-30 07:54:32 <jcorgan> not quite, no
621 2013-08-30 07:55:30 <petertodd> It's denominated in Bitcoins in the sense that by spending a fee I'm giving up Bitcoins.
622 2013-08-30 07:55:36 valparaiso has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
623 2013-08-30 07:55:53 <jcorgan> ok
624 2013-08-30 07:56:14 <petertodd> An attacker can't spend fees much cheaper than you or I can, assuming they don't control more than a majority of hashing power.
625 2013-08-30 07:56:22 <jcorgan> right
626 2013-08-30 07:56:33 <petertodd> Another example of "denominated in fees" is to just spend BTC to an unspendable output.
627 2013-08-30 07:56:41 <petertodd> s/fees/Bitcoins/
628 2013-08-30 07:57:04 <jcorgan> it would be useful to have that unspendable output actually be spendable if the join succeeds
629 2013-08-30 07:57:13 saivann has quit ()
630 2013-08-30 07:57:32 <petertodd> Yeah, although i think that'll need scripting language support.
631 2013-08-30 07:57:41 ahbritto_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
632 2013-08-30 07:58:44 <petertodd> In any case, assuming I do sacrifice some Bitcoins in a *provable* way, provable after the fact, (fidelity bonds) I can "spend" the value of that sacrifice bit by bit by signing statements saying I've spent xBTC of that sacrifice for some purpose.
633 2013-08-30 07:59:00 <petertodd> Point is you don't need *solid* consensus for that to work - fraud proofs are enough.
634 2013-08-30 08:00:04 <jcorgan> i need to google how bitcoin-based fidelity bonds would work
635 2013-08-30 08:00:18 <petertodd> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Fidelity_bonds
636 2013-08-30 08:00:23 <jcorgan> thanks
637 2013-08-30 08:01:14 <jcorgan> one of the criteria for the protocol i'm attempting to design is that it work entirely off-chain until the final TX is assembled and all the participant signatures are sent, then just the final TX gets broadcast for mining
638 2013-08-30 08:01:31 <petertodd> Well, what do you really mean by off-chain?
639 2013-08-30 08:02:18 <jcorgan> all the participants are on an anonymous broadcast network (not the bitcoin one), and can make all protocol decisions based on existing local knowledge and what they hear on the broadcast channel
640 2013-08-30 08:02:48 <petertodd> Ah, we agree there. (although I think it's fine for the broadcast network to be just a bitcoin p2p extension)
641 2013-08-30 08:03:13 Anduckkk is now known as Anduck
642 2013-08-30 08:03:14 <gmaxwell> toffoo seems to confirm OSX is working better for him now.
643 2013-08-30 08:03:27 gavinandresen has left ()
644 2013-08-30 08:03:28 <jcorgan> i think for the 2-party mix, including it in the standard p2p protocol is uncontroversial
645 2013-08-30 08:03:47 <petertodd> Maybe :)
646 2013-08-30 08:04:21 <jcorgan> but for the the more paranoid multi-party mixes, there are political considerations that would likely prevent it from being a standard feature
647 2013-08-30 08:04:23 <gmaxwell> And ripper234 with the "we're helping you by spamming you" defense. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=272577.msg3040803#msg3040803 :(
648 2013-08-30 08:04:34 <petertodd> Point is though, who cares whether or not it's controversial? The people maintaining the various clients can't do a damn thing about it if you decide to just go ahead and implement it.
649 2013-08-30 08:05:04 <petertodd> Set a service bit and at worst run some DNS seeds.
650 2013-08-30 08:05:14 <jcorgan> sure
651 2013-08-30 08:05:25 <petertodd> Better to have support, but don't let that stop you.
652 2013-08-30 08:05:30 <jcorgan> but I think working within the community to get consensus is the first choice
653 2013-08-30 08:05:32 <maaku> a generalized form of coinjoin has much more application than mixing however
654 2013-08-30 08:05:53 <maaku> donation matching, colored coin exchange
655 2013-08-30 08:06:14 <jcorgan> 2-party mixes have the beneficial property of lowering TX size and reducing fees
656 2013-08-30 08:06:33 <jcorgan> and are easy to understand
657 2013-08-30 08:07:11 <petertodd> Yup. Admittedly, we're just talking about 10 bytes of header per transaction, but don't let that stop you. :P
658 2013-08-30 08:07:30 <jcorgan> hey, i'm just doing some marketing here
659 2013-08-30 08:07:35 <petertodd> I know!
660 2013-08-30 08:08:41 <petertodd> And actually, the really interesting stuff will one day be shared wallets, where you really minimize transaction size by using txouts that just happen to be the correct size already, even if it's from someone totally different's wallet.
661 2013-08-30 08:08:42 <maaku> how does 2-party mixes lower tx size or reduce fees?
662 2013-08-30 08:08:55 <jcorgan> but the fully decentralized, industrial strength multiparty mixes over a separate, uber-secret network, well that's just for drug money laundering and terrorists
663 2013-08-30 08:08:56 <petertodd> maaku: because each tx has 10 bytes of header
664 2013-08-30 08:09:14 <petertodd> jcorgan: yeah, pretty much. So might as well have both.
665 2013-08-30 08:09:16 <maaku> petertodd: so including more than 2 parties would save bytes, no?
666 2013-08-30 08:09:28 <jcorgan> yes
667 2013-08-30 08:09:29 Raziel has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
668 2013-08-30 08:09:29 <maaku> fewer transactions = fewer bytes
669 2013-08-30 08:09:31 <petertodd> maaku: Yup, 10 bytes per tx saved.
670 2013-08-30 08:09:47 Raziel has joined
671 2013-08-30 08:10:09 <jcorgan> i'm just saying that 2-party mixing can be "sold" as a size reduction benefit, and that's actually true as well
672 2013-08-30 08:10:36 <maaku> size reduction compared with what?
673 2013-08-30 08:10:45 <petertodd> jcorgan: Yeah, and once you start doing heavier compression, it's actually a pretty decent savings.
674 2013-08-30 08:10:54 <jcorgan> with each person sending their own separate TX
675 2013-08-30 08:11:23 <maaku> ok. i thought you were saying 2-party mix was smaller, lesser fees than multi-party
676 2013-08-30 08:11:47 ahbritto_ has joined
677 2013-08-30 08:12:16 chorao has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
678 2013-08-30 08:13:01 <jcorgan> 2-party mixes can also do away with much of the complexity of a multi-party, DOS-resistant, anonymous join
679 2013-08-30 08:13:13 ahbritto has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
680 2013-08-30 08:13:22 <petertodd> Yup, and they're fast enough that it's reasonable to enable them by default.
681 2013-08-30 08:14:04 <petertodd> Also, the protocol I described above can actually be an n-party mix.
682 2013-08-30 08:14:12 <jcorgan> it's that lack of complexity that I think makes it a reasonable thing to extend into the standard bitcoin protocol
683 2013-08-30 08:15:17 <petertodd> The one crypto primitive missing, or really, not yet used, is asymmetric encryption to a bitcoin pubkey, and even that can be left out in version 0
684 2013-08-30 08:15:25 <jcorgan> and it's not entirely clear to me how much better n-party mixes are to just cascading multiple 2-party mixes
685 2013-08-30 08:16:35 <petertodd> yup
686 2013-08-30 08:17:40 <maaku> jcorgan: well, there's the potential that for each 2-party mix you've connected to an attacker's sybil
687 2013-08-30 08:17:56 <petertodd> maaku: There's that potential for an n-party-mix too. :(
688 2013-08-30 08:17:59 <maaku> whereas a mpc shuffle would have given a guaranteed private mix
689 2013-08-30 08:18:12 <petertodd> Not if n-1 parties are socks.
690 2013-08-30 08:20:15 <jcorgan> at least with an initiator broadcasting the start of a coinjoin chain and the responders hashchaining their responses with PoW, if a non-sock puppet gets into the chain, there is no way to exclude them
691 2013-08-30 08:20:50 stevei has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
692 2013-08-30 08:21:06 <jcorgan> that's my current idea, anyway
693 2013-08-30 08:21:14 viperhr has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
694 2013-08-30 08:21:25 <jcorgan> certainly not foolproof
695 2013-08-30 08:21:34 <petertodd> I'd think that's equally true for the iterated 2-party-mix scenario though too.
696 2013-08-30 08:22:23 <jcorgan> yeah, i guess that's true too
697 2013-08-30 08:22:57 <petertodd> It's still the case that fancy crypto is valuable in private groups mind you, but for the true decentralized version sybil's are pretty powerful.
698 2013-08-30 08:24:46 <jcorgan> agree
699 2013-08-30 08:25:03 <petertodd> ...sooo, who wants to write this? :P
700 2013-08-30 08:25:39 <jcorgan> i will eventually, at least for what i've thought of so far, but i don't think it makes sense to code something until we're confident it actually is worth coding up
701 2013-08-30 08:26:07 <jcorgan> my initial implementation will be a sneakernet version to just test things out
702 2013-08-30 08:26:20 <jcorgan> as i'm not at all sure what a good broadcast channel is
703 2013-08-30 08:26:26 <petertodd> My thinking is to implement the core engine class first, ignoring the broadcast channel.
704 2013-08-30 08:26:27 <jcorgan> bitmessage seems good
705 2013-08-30 08:26:58 <jcorgan> but the core protocol and message formats are independent of that
706 2013-08-30 08:27:26 <petertodd> As for the broadcast channel, I'm solidly for just making a P2P protocol extension. You add a NODE_COINJOIN service bit, reserve some # of connection slots for peers supporting the protoocl, and maybe add support to DNS seed software.
707 2013-08-30 08:28:14 <petertodd> Making it compatible with wallet software can come last.
708 2013-08-30 08:28:20 <jcorgan> i'm happy with that
709 2013-08-30 08:28:32 <jcorgan> but i'm an outsider looking in :)
710 2013-08-30 08:28:43 <petertodd> No such thing as an outsider in Bitcoin really. :P
711 2013-08-30 08:29:40 <jcorgan> my initial idea was to create some scripts that would execute each stage of the protocol and could generate strings that could be emailed
712 2013-08-30 08:30:01 <petertodd> Seems reasonable enough
713 2013-08-30 08:30:29 <petertodd> The P2P protocol stuff is really separate - heck, I was originally thinking a general purpose message system would be nice.
714 2013-08-30 08:30:41 <petertodd> Probably overkill...
715 2013-08-30 08:30:50 <jcorgan> oh, i just realized you must be retep
716 2013-08-30 08:30:54 <petertodd> heh
717 2013-08-30 08:31:00 ahbritto has joined
718 2013-08-30 08:31:00 ahbritto has quit (Changing host)
719 2013-08-30 08:31:00 ahbritto has joined
720 2013-08-30 08:31:05 <jcorgan> i've been thinking on that post in the thread
721 2013-08-30 08:31:21 <petertodd> oh, my first fleshed out proposal?
722 2013-08-30 08:31:36 <jcorgan> well, the one that mentioned the general purpose messaging system
723 2013-08-30 08:31:40 <petertodd> yeah
724 2013-08-30 08:32:03 <jcorgan> would be nice, somewhat orthogonal to my stuff :)
725 2013-08-30 08:32:33 <petertodd> I've had that idea, and the mixer, for months now. jgarzik's been thinking about other uses for P2P flood fill too, like decentralized IRC, though it may be difficult to make it general purpose enough.
726 2013-08-30 08:32:43 <petertodd> NODE_COINJOIN for now is fine IMO.
727 2013-08-30 08:33:40 GingerGeek[Away] is now known as GingerGeek
728 2013-08-30 08:33:45 <jcorgan> well, greg's coinjoin posted crystallized things for me, but i've seen the need for automated mixing from the beginning
729 2013-08-30 08:34:01 <jcorgan> (of my involvement in bitcoin)
730 2013-08-30 08:34:13 <petertodd> yup, I think the best thing about the post is how it's caused a bit of competition to happen
731 2013-08-30 08:34:40 <petertodd> "FUCKING AMIR! NO WAY IN HELL I'M LETTING HIM BEAT ME!" :P
732 2013-08-30 08:34:47 <jcorgan> lol
733 2013-08-30 08:34:52 <jcorgan> i'm not in it for the bounty
734 2013-08-30 08:34:59 <jcorgan> i have coins to mix and no way to mix them :)
735 2013-08-30 08:35:02 <petertodd> ha
736 2013-08-30 08:35:10 <jcorgan> scratching that itch as they say
737 2013-08-30 08:35:15 <petertodd> I may or may not have coins that may or may not need to be mixed...
738 2013-08-30 08:36:38 <maaku> i'm running a foundation that could use the matched-donation model...
739 2013-08-30 08:36:59 <jcorgan> maaku: please elaborate
740 2013-08-30 08:37:30 pecket has joined
741 2013-08-30 08:37:37 <maaku> freicoin foundation - we're handling the initial distribution through matched donations to charity
742 2013-08-30 08:37:51 <maaku> coinjoin is a possible method for implementing that
743 2013-08-30 08:38:57 <jcorgan> i'm not sure i follow
744 2013-08-30 08:40:04 <jcorgan> is your goal to make a 2-party transaction without the ability for either party to drop out?
745 2013-08-30 08:40:45 <jcorgan> i suspect their are existing ways (probably not automated) to do that
746 2013-08-30 08:40:54 <maaku> no
747 2013-08-30 08:41:15 <maaku> gmaxwell describes the protocol in his thread
748 2013-08-30 08:41:48 <jcorgan> what is the end goal you want to accomplish?
749 2013-08-30 08:50:50 mikalv has joined
750 2013-08-30 08:51:00 stevei has joined
751 2013-08-30 08:51:23 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
752 2013-08-30 08:52:34 BTCOxygen has joined
753 2013-08-30 08:54:29 Guest24260 has quit (Quit: The Game)
754 2013-08-30 08:55:14 stevei has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
755 2013-08-30 08:59:08 Wren has joined
756 2013-08-30 08:59:11 Wren is now known as Guest59366
757 2013-08-30 08:59:16 egis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
758 2013-08-30 09:01:18 t7 has joined
759 2013-08-30 09:08:29 valparaiso has joined
760 2013-08-30 09:10:50 Eiii has quit ()
761 2013-08-30 09:10:59 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
762 2013-08-30 09:13:00 GordonG3kko has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
763 2013-08-30 09:13:24 Application has joined
764 2013-08-30 09:14:21 valparaiso has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
765 2013-08-30 09:14:54 graingert has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
766 2013-08-30 09:16:22 hydromet has joined
767 2013-08-30 09:16:37 jcorgan has quit (Quit: jcorgan)
768 2013-08-30 09:18:17 GordonG3kko has joined
769 2013-08-30 09:18:22 shesek has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
770 2013-08-30 09:21:07 arioBarzan has joined
771 2013-08-30 09:22:11 shesek has joined
772 2013-08-30 09:25:22 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
773 2013-08-30 09:29:40 valparaiso_afk has joined
774 2013-08-30 09:29:51 valparaiso_afk is now known as valparaiso
775 2013-08-30 09:30:28 graingert has joined
776 2013-08-30 09:33:06 tailcalled has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
777 2013-08-30 09:34:21 valparaiso has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
778 2013-08-30 09:35:54 iwilcox has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
779 2013-08-30 09:36:21 Thepok has joined
780 2013-08-30 09:41:44 iwilcox has joined
781 2013-08-30 09:47:54 arioBarzan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
782 2013-08-30 09:48:47 arioBarzan has joined
783 2013-08-30 09:50:52 bmcgee has joined
784 2013-08-30 09:51:19 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
785 2013-08-30 09:52:00 stevei has joined
786 2013-08-30 09:54:21 Luke-Jr has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
787 2013-08-30 09:54:33 Luke-Jr has joined
788 2013-08-30 09:55:41 <arioBarzan> 1000 BTC for free: I want to send 1000 BTC to anybody who is running bitcoin-qt with an EMPTY wallet on his computer and has NOT yet synced with bitcoin network. anybody interested?
789 2013-08-30 09:58:33 GMP has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
790 2013-08-30 09:59:07 <sipa> testnet, i hope?
791 2013-08-30 09:59:14 <arioBarzan> it is not testnet
792 2013-08-30 10:00:03 <Anduck> arioBarzan yeah sure go on :P 15CfnefQSV9G1JB91PXjoiqHJZc3yzZpFv
793 2013-08-30 10:00:19 fanquake has joined
794 2013-08-30 10:01:32 <arioBarzan> Anduck: are you listening on 8333 ?
795 2013-08-30 10:01:37 <Anduck> arioBarzan: yes
796 2013-08-30 10:01:40 stevei has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
797 2013-08-30 10:02:42 <arioBarzan> Anduck: email me vicriani@emeil.ir and I'll send you my ip then you could connect to my node and receive your coins
798 2013-08-30 10:02:55 <Anduck> can i start syncing the bitcoind? =P
799 2013-08-30 10:03:39 <arioBarzan> Anduck: yes, start bitcoind -connect=<my ip>
800 2013-08-30 10:03:43 <Anduck> ok
801 2013-08-30 10:04:14 <Anduck> ok i sent you an email
802 2013-08-30 10:04:49 <arioBarzan> Anduck: wait few seconds please
803 2013-08-30 10:05:47 macboz has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
804 2013-08-30 10:08:01 pierre` has joined
805 2013-08-30 10:08:48 shesek has joined
806 2013-08-30 10:10:02 <arioBarzan> Anduck: replied to your email.
807 2013-08-30 10:10:13 <Anduck> arioBarzan: started bitcoind with -connect=yourip
808 2013-08-30 10:11:11 <arioBarzan> Anduck: got it?
809 2013-08-30 10:11:21 <Anduck> i see no coins
810 2013-08-30 10:11:32 <sipa> wth are you trying to do, arioBarzan?
811 2013-08-30 10:11:34 <hydromet> hello, does anyone here have an opinion on Master Coin?
812 2013-08-30 10:12:01 <arioBarzan> sipa: I am giving people 1000 BTC for free, nothing else
813 2013-08-30 10:12:12 <sipa> arioBarzan: sorry, i don't believe you
814 2013-08-30 10:12:24 <Anduck> "errors" : "Warning: Displayed transactions may not be correct! You may need to upgrade, or other nodes may need to upgrade."
815 2013-08-30 10:12:27 <arioBarzan> sipa: email me and get your coins if you like
816 2013-08-30 10:12:41 execut3 has joined
817 2013-08-30 10:12:49 <Anduck> and i yet don't see any coins received.
818 2013-08-30 10:13:00 <sipa> Anduck: be wary in any case
819 2013-08-30 10:13:07 <Anduck> yup
820 2013-08-30 10:13:14 <arioBarzan> Anduck: txid = 392a0037f5b8d75221a2629b8d8bd32c02946ab6600bf51bdc88d0e2a0fbdd63
821 2013-08-30 10:14:19 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
822 2013-08-30 10:14:38 <arioBarzan> sipa: why people should be worried if as I said have an empty wallet and are receiving 1000 BTC for free?
823 2013-08-30 10:14:38 <Anduck> bitcoind gettransaction 392a0037f5b8d75221a2629b8d8bd32c02946ab6600bf51bdc88d0e2a0fbdd63
824 2013-08-30 10:14:38 <Anduck> error: {"code":-2,"message":"Safe mode: Warning: Displayed transactions may not be correct! You may need to upgrade, or other nodes may need to upgrade."}
825 2013-08-30 10:14:40 <sipa> arioBarzan: are you doing a sybil attack, and feeding him a low-difficulty fake chain?
826 2013-08-30 10:15:17 <hydromet> "sybil attack" (fascinating name)
827 2013-08-30 10:15:34 <Anduck> 0 blocks
828 2013-08-30 10:15:41 <sipa> hydromet: a sybil attack is one where you surround a node with attackers
829 2013-08-30 10:15:50 <sipa> hydromet: so he doesn't see any honest nodes
830 2013-08-30 10:15:55 shesek has joined
831 2013-08-30 10:16:18 <hydromet> sipa: fascinating
832 2013-08-30 10:16:33 <Anduck> arioBarzan: no tx received
833 2013-08-30 10:16:35 <Anduck> :(
834 2013-08-30 10:16:38 <arioBarzan> Anduck: you may run your daemon with -checkpoints=0
835 2013-08-30 10:16:40 <Diablo-D3> nab
836 2013-08-30 10:16:41 <Diablo-D3> man
837 2013-08-30 10:16:42 <Anduck> or may be received but not accepted
838 2013-08-30 10:16:45 <Diablo-D3> why dont more people love erlang
839 2013-08-30 10:16:54 Squidicuz has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
840 2013-08-30 10:17:00 <hydromet> sipa: do you think Master Coin will gain legs and take off?
841 2013-08-30 10:17:25 <Anduck> arioBarzan: still no coins :P
842 2013-08-30 10:17:32 <Anduck> tell me when the txid shows at blockchain.info
843 2013-08-30 10:18:11 <hydromet> Diablo-De3: I've heard good things about erlang (some of the guys at Braintree Payments like it), but the world still largely loves C/ C++ and Java
844 2013-08-30 10:18:27 <Diablo-D3> hydromet: why would anyone use a language that makes it difficult to write good code
845 2013-08-30 10:18:44 <hydromet> Diablo-D3: I hear you
846 2013-08-30 10:18:50 execut3 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
847 2013-08-30 10:19:01 <Diablo-D3> I used C for 15+ years
848 2013-08-30 10:19:03 <hydromet> Diablo-D3: have you looked at Clojure? This is a language that has my curiosity
849 2013-08-30 10:19:16 <Diablo-D3> I have tried almost every language
850 2013-08-30 10:19:17 <arioBarzan> Anduck: http://i.imgur.com/PwshwLL.png
851 2013-08-30 10:19:17 <Diablo-D3> they all suck
852 2013-08-30 10:19:22 <Diablo-D3> erlang pisses me off the least
853 2013-08-30 10:19:28 <Diablo-D3> hydromet: clojure is pointless
854 2013-08-30 10:19:42 <hydromet> why is clojure pointless?
855 2013-08-30 10:19:51 <Anduck> arioBarzan: too bad, my client don't like that transaction. it's in the different chain?
856 2013-08-30 10:19:54 <Diablo-D3> because if you're stuck on the jvm, just use scala
857 2013-08-30 10:19:56 <hydromet> I don't know enough about it
858 2013-08-30 10:20:18 <arioBarzan> Anduck: Are you sure you did not have synced with network before?
859 2013-08-30 10:20:37 <hydromet> if I'm not mistaken clojure can run in the CLR too
860 2013-08-30 10:20:43 <Diablo-D3> hydromet: scala coders masturbate about how their language has immutability and currying and lazy eval and TCO
861 2013-08-30 10:20:52 <Diablo-D3> hydromet: but still works on the jvm and can call java
862 2013-08-30 10:20:54 <Anduck> arioBarzan: yeah i think my bitcoind version hates your invalid chain or something :I
863 2013-08-30 10:21:15 <arioBarzan> Anduck: I am running bitcoin 0.8.4
864 2013-08-30 10:21:37 <Anduck> whatever i'll go back to the real chain, not this "test" chain =D
865 2013-08-30 10:21:40 <_dr> how do you mine 50BTC in 2013?
866 2013-08-30 10:21:46 hydromet has left ()
867 2013-08-30 10:21:49 <Diablo-D3> _dr: you dont. you mine 254.
868 2013-08-30 10:21:51 <arioBarzan> Anduck: run your bitcoind -connect=<mynode> -checkpoints=0
869 2013-08-30 10:21:51 <Diablo-D3> er, 25
870 2013-08-30 10:22:03 <arioBarzan> Anduck: ok
871 2013-08-30 10:22:03 <_dr> Diablo-D3: i'm misreading the screenshot then
872 2013-08-30 10:22:41 <Anduck> ok i started syncing with the real deal :P
873 2013-08-30 10:22:51 <Diablo-D3> _dr: block reward was halved already, its 25 =P
874 2013-08-30 10:23:20 <_dr> Diablo-D3: i know :) that's why i was asking rather rhetorically
875 2013-08-30 10:23:21 <_dr> 12:17 arioBarzan$ Anduck: http://i.imgur.com/PwshwLL.png
876 2013-08-30 10:23:23 <arioBarzan> Anduck: the point I wanted to make is the real chain has been nothing more than a sham. Few people could mine thousands of bitcoins at difficulty 1 and now people pay for those coins
877 2013-08-30 10:24:13 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
878 2013-08-30 10:24:29 <Anduck> arioBarzan: they would be bitcoins in different chain than the -everywhere accepted- bitcoin main chain
879 2013-08-30 10:24:34 GordonG3kko has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
880 2013-08-30 10:25:12 <Anduck> arioBarzan: read about altcoins
881 2013-08-30 10:26:29 <Anduck> you can start your own chain... the thing is to get people accept it as a valued stuff so you can trade it
882 2013-08-30 10:27:46 GordonG3kko has joined
883 2013-08-30 10:32:42 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
884 2013-08-30 10:34:35 arioBarzan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
885 2013-08-30 10:35:15 Application has joined
886 2013-08-30 10:36:48 valparaiso has joined
887 2013-08-30 10:37:52 shesek has joined
888 2013-08-30 10:40:08 viperhr has joined
889 2013-08-30 10:40:54 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
890 2013-08-30 10:41:03 BTCOxygen has joined
891 2013-08-30 10:41:03 BTCOxygen is now known as 1!~BTCOxygen@unaffiliated/oxygen|BTCOxygen
892 2013-08-30 10:41:49 shesek has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
893 2013-08-30 10:45:00 shesek has joined
894 2013-08-30 10:48:03 paraipan has joined
895 2013-08-30 10:53:26 mrkent has joined
896 2013-08-30 10:53:26 mrkent has quit (Changing host)
897 2013-08-30 10:53:26 mrkent has joined
898 2013-08-30 10:57:56 random_cat has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
899 2013-08-30 11:00:37 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
900 2013-08-30 11:01:26 paraipan has joined
901 2013-08-30 11:04:25 jtimon has joined
902 2013-08-30 11:08:27 one_zero has quit ()
903 2013-08-30 11:10:55 YouIsCat has joined
904 2013-08-30 11:11:33 <YouIsCat> listsinceblock [blockhash] [target-confirmations] <-- What does the last parameter mean?
905 2013-08-30 11:11:47 stephantual has joined
906 2013-08-30 11:11:50 <YouIsCat> I assumed "minimum amount of confirmations to show up in the output", but it ignores this value for me.
907 2013-08-30 11:13:40 niko has quit (Ping timeout: 624 seconds)
908 2013-08-30 11:18:32 sacredchao has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
909 2013-08-30 11:19:36 sacredchao has joined
910 2013-08-30 11:20:46 cads has joined
911 2013-08-30 11:26:02 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
912 2013-08-30 11:27:14 eian has joined
913 2013-08-30 11:30:25 niko has joined
914 2013-08-30 11:39:19 ltcbtc has joined
915 2013-08-30 11:42:44 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: read new hpmor chapter
916 2013-08-30 11:43:20 c0rw1n has joined
917 2013-08-30 11:43:21 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: next chapter is over a month away :<
918 2013-08-30 11:45:42 <YouIsCat> Would be really great to get this sorted out...
919 2013-08-30 11:46:05 <Diablo-D3> YouIsCat: I dont think it works.
920 2013-08-30 11:47:17 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
921 2013-08-30 11:47:59 daybyter has joined
922 2013-08-30 11:48:12 * jgarzik pushes linearize.py (formerly mkbootstrap.py) out to bitcoin/bitcoin.git/contrib/misc
923 2013-08-30 11:48:14 <jgarzik> petertodd, ^
924 2013-08-30 11:48:49 ltcbtc has quit (Quit: latez)
925 2013-08-30 11:49:03 Application has joined
926 2013-08-30 11:51:19 _ingsoc has joined
927 2013-08-30 11:54:57 <YouIsCat> Diablo-D3: You mean it's actually broken?
928 2013-08-30 11:55:01 <YouIsCat> Or maybe not even implemented yet?
929 2013-08-30 11:55:21 <YouIsCat> I guess I can work around it... but it kinda ruins my nice setup I had going.
930 2013-08-30 11:55:30 <Diablo-D3> I think its actually broken
931 2013-08-30 11:55:35 <Diablo-D3> I tried it a long time ago and it never worked
932 2013-08-30 11:56:37 <YouIsCat> :(
933 2013-08-30 11:57:14 <YouIsCat> Well, I'll work around it and pretend it never existed.
934 2013-08-30 11:57:58 <Diablo-D3> file a bug report
935 2013-08-30 11:59:02 ThomasV has joined
936 2013-08-30 11:59:53 <gjs278> we start a new altcoin tonight, let's get rich gentlemen
937 2013-08-30 12:00:47 <YouIsCat> Fuck new altcoins. Focus on Bitcoin.
938 2013-08-30 12:00:53 <YouIsCat> It clearly needs lots and lots more attention.
939 2013-08-30 12:02:13 <Diablo-D3> dude
940 2013-08-30 12:02:16 <Diablo-D3> if I wanted a new alt coin
941 2013-08-30 12:02:19 <Diablo-D3> I'd write it myself
942 2013-08-30 12:03:03 stephantual has quit (Quit: Zzzzz..zzzzz)
943 2013-08-30 12:05:43 awishformore has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
944 2013-08-30 12:11:07 Diapolo has joined
945 2013-08-30 12:12:52 Diapolo has left ()
946 2013-08-30 12:15:20 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
947 2013-08-30 12:16:52 Application has joined
948 2013-08-30 12:18:53 btcbtc has joined
949 2013-08-30 12:19:18 pooler_ has joined
950 2013-08-30 12:24:25 pooler_ has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.90.1 [Firefox 17.0.8/20130814213623])
951 2013-08-30 12:24:48 GingerGeek is now known as GingerGeek[Away]
952 2013-08-30 12:25:42 CheckDavid has joined
953 2013-08-30 12:26:06 YouIsCat has left ()
954 2013-08-30 12:27:55 <jgarzik> I want an altcoin generator
955 2013-08-30 12:28:02 <jgarzik> randomly sets various parameters
956 2013-08-30 12:28:30 <jgarzik> even generates a marketing name for the coin, and an initial forum post extolling its virtues over bitcoin
957 2013-08-30 12:28:46 <Eliel> I think we have enough of random altcoin generators out there :)
958 2013-08-30 12:28:54 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: lol, BitPay told you to do whatever you want, didn't they? :P
959 2013-08-30 12:29:25 <gjs278> someone from bitpay told me they use my monit script I posted on the forum two years ago to keep their bitcoind alive
960 2013-08-30 12:29:45 <jgarzik> gjs278, heh, not true
961 2013-08-30 12:29:52 <gjs278> well the "avi" is a liar
962 2013-08-30 12:29:56 <gjs278> then*
963 2013-08-30 12:30:06 <jgarzik> BitPay does not employ anyone named Avi
964 2013-08-30 12:30:10 <gjs278> weird
965 2013-08-30 12:30:29 <_dr> which makes avi all the more a liar :P
966 2013-08-30 12:30:33 <gjs278> yeah for real
967 2013-08-30 12:30:42 eian has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
968 2013-08-30 12:31:06 <Luke-Jr> lol
969 2013-08-30 12:31:34 <jgarzik> probably just business name confusion. everyone in this space matched one of: bit*, coin*, *bit, *coin, *dice
970 2013-08-30 12:31:49 <jgarzik> *matches
971 2013-08-30 12:32:32 <gjs278> I checked my skype logs, he's just some sort of middleman from what I can tell. he manages our bitpay account for some reason and files support tickets lol
972 2013-08-30 12:33:30 <gjs278> localminima: thank you Gary I will discuss that with Bitpay's COO and CTO right now.
973 2013-08-30 12:33:34 <gjs278> he just has direct contacts I guess
974 2013-08-30 12:33:42 stephantua has joined
975 2013-08-30 12:34:12 <jgarzik> not hard in a small company, where the CEO and CTO both have well known email addresses and forum accounts :)
976 2013-08-30 12:34:25 <jgarzik> anyone with a search engine has direct contacts ;p
977 2013-08-30 12:34:45 <jgarzik> or anyone who visits a bitcoin show and takes home a business card
978 2013-08-30 12:35:26 <gjs278> I'm trying to figure out what this guy does for us, I think you may have just gotten mr avi canned
979 2013-08-30 12:35:43 <Graet> lol
980 2013-08-30 12:36:57 Namworld has joined
981 2013-08-30 12:43:04 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
982 2013-08-30 12:43:18 Anduck has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
983 2013-08-30 12:45:11 bmcgee has quit (Quit: bmcgee)
984 2013-08-30 12:52:36 <sipa> jgarzik: doesn't mean they'll answer you :)
985 2013-08-30 12:55:47 viperhr has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
986 2013-08-30 12:59:48 bmcgee has joined
987 2013-08-30 13:00:49 normanrichards has joined
988 2013-08-30 13:01:15 ThomasV has joined
989 2013-08-30 13:08:31 Skav has quit (Quit: -a- Android IRC 2.1.10 Just need to be Chiznillen)
990 2013-08-30 13:08:45 MobiusL has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
991 2013-08-30 13:08:57 Elmf has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
992 2013-08-30 13:12:41 pooler has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.90.1 [Firefox 23.0/20130803193131])
993 2013-08-30 13:15:45 Elmf has joined
994 2013-08-30 13:18:47 Insti has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
995 2013-08-30 13:20:44 Goonie has joined
996 2013-08-30 13:23:25 MobiusL has joined
997 2013-08-30 13:27:08 Belxjander has quit (Read error: No route to host)
998 2013-08-30 13:27:22 Prattler has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.in)
999 2013-08-30 13:28:12 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1000 2013-08-30 13:28:13 MobiusL has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1001 2013-08-30 13:29:12 MobiusL has joined
1002 2013-08-30 13:29:39 datagutt has joined
1003 2013-08-30 13:29:46 mrkent has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1004 2013-08-30 13:30:19 Insti has joined
1005 2013-08-30 13:31:00 c0rw1n has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1006 2013-08-30 13:31:31 stevei has joined
1007 2013-08-30 13:33:46 bmcgee has quit (Quit: bmcgee)
1008 2013-08-30 13:34:41 viperhr has joined
1009 2013-08-30 13:42:04 normanrichards has quit (Quit: normanrichards)
1010 2013-08-30 13:49:24 patcon_ has joined
1011 2013-08-30 13:53:32 _ingsoc has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1012 2013-08-30 13:55:28 _ingsoc has joined
1013 2013-08-30 13:58:23 michagogo has joined
1014 2013-08-30 13:59:18 yubrew has joined
1015 2013-08-30 14:03:05 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1016 2013-08-30 14:03:45 macboz has joined
1017 2013-08-30 14:06:25 qbasicer_ has joined
1018 2013-08-30 14:06:43 qbasicer has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1019 2013-08-30 14:08:05 AusBitBank has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1020 2013-08-30 14:12:57 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1021 2013-08-30 14:14:38 Application has joined
1022 2013-08-30 14:17:32 nanotube has quit (Excess Flood)
1023 2013-08-30 14:20:19 hnz has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1024 2013-08-30 14:20:51 hnz has joined
1025 2013-08-30 14:23:08 PrimeStunna has joined
1026 2013-08-30 14:24:21 HM2 has quit (Quit: Segmentation fault)
1027 2013-08-30 14:24:22 datagutt has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1028 2013-08-30 14:26:18 nanotube has joined
1029 2013-08-30 14:26:31 HM has joined
1030 2013-08-30 14:31:08 Belxjander has joined
1031 2013-08-30 14:32:19 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1032 2013-08-30 14:33:25 Application has joined
1033 2013-08-30 14:39:21 knightz has joined
1034 2013-08-30 14:41:40 pizzacat has joined
1035 2013-08-30 14:42:18 stephantual has joined
1036 2013-08-30 14:43:01 <jgarzik> OK, bootstrap.dat
1037 2013-08-30 14:43:02 stephantua has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1038 2013-08-30 14:43:17 <jgarzik> I get d066814010e2f9717f36cbf8dcf9be70c372ef3956ea51fe4094e480048fa914 for sha256sum of bootstrap.dat @ height 250000
1039 2013-08-30 14:43:40 * michagogo checks his logs
1040 2013-08-30 14:45:32 <michagogo> jgarzik: That matches the hash that I got from https://gist.github.com/dooglus/5002764
1041 2013-08-30 14:45:50 <sipa> #bitcoin-dev-20130829.log:00:17:56< michagogo> And it does look like d066814010e2f9717f36cbf8dcf9be70c372ef3956ea51fe4094e480048fa914 is right
1042 2013-08-30 14:45:53 <sipa> #bitcoin-dev-20130830.log:16:42:40< jgarzik> I get d066814010e2f9717f36cbf8dcf9be70c372ef3956ea51fe4094e480048fa914 for sha256sum of bootstrap.dat @ height 250000
1043 2013-08-30 14:45:58 <michagogo> RIght
1044 2013-08-30 14:46:08 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: quick! http://luke.dashjr.org/tmp/chores/problems5012.html
1045 2013-08-30 14:46:10 <Luke-Jr> :P
1046 2013-08-30 14:46:36 <michagogo> Luke-Jr: How does one perform subtraction on Hebrew characters?
1047 2013-08-30 14:46:58 <michagogo> 1<final tzadi> minus tet?
1048 2013-08-30 14:47:00 <Luke-Jr> michagogo: those aren't hebrew characters, your browser is broken
1049 2013-08-30 14:47:36 <michagogo> Luke-Jr: What are the characters on the top row, 3rd from left?
1050 2013-08-30 14:47:50 <Luke-Jr> michagogo: tonal digits
1051 2013-08-30 14:48:14 <Luke-Jr> which I'd be surprised if hebrew characters looked like O.o
1052 2013-08-30 14:48:43 * michagogo is using Chrome
1053 2013-08-30 14:48:57 <Luke-Jr> Chromium works fine for me
1054 2013-08-30 14:49:29 <michagogo> http://i.imgur.com/P3ixt8q.png
1055 2013-08-30 14:49:34 <jgarzik> sometimes I despise LVM
1056 2013-08-30 14:49:40 <michagogo> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hebrew_letter_tet.svg
1057 2013-08-30 14:49:54 egis has joined
1058 2013-08-30 14:50:09 <Luke-Jr> michagogo: interesting similarity - your browser is indeed rendering it correctly
1059 2013-08-30 14:50:10 <michagogo> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hebrew_letter_Tsadik-final_handwriting.svg
1060 2013-08-30 14:50:13 * jgarzik is currently wasting time letting the hardware copy 9GB of data from drive A -> drive A, just because LVM+installer layout decided I needed multiple LVM partitions on the same drive
1061 2013-08-30 14:50:52 pizzacat has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1062 2013-08-30 14:51:33 <Luke-Jr> michagogo: my hebrew fonts use significantly different glyphs in practice O.o
1063 2013-08-30 14:51:54 <michagogo> Luke-Jr: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hebrew_letter_Tsadik-final_handwriting.svg is the letter as it's written by hand
1064 2013-08-30 14:52:46 <michagogo> (the print version looks like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hebrew_letter_final_tsadi.svg )
1065 2013-08-30 14:53:33 <michagogo> jgarzik: And if https://www.dropbox.com/s/f9oasejq6wlu52z/bootstrap.dat.torrent is suitable, I just saved you the trouble of creating it :-P
1066 2013-08-30 14:53:43 hydromet has joined
1067 2013-08-30 14:54:31 <hydromet> hello, I was wondering if I could get a little bit of help regarding Bitcoin-Qt which I have running perfectly on my Mac (thanks especially Gavin!)
1068 2013-08-30 14:55:06 <michagogo> hydromet: What kind of help?
1069 2013-08-30 14:55:23 <Luke-Jr> running perfectly, yet needs help? <.<
1070 2013-08-30 14:55:36 wrabbit has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1071 2013-08-30 14:55:44 <hydromet> well its more of a use case question
1072 2013-08-30 14:55:56 <sipa> how about asking your question, instead of asking to ask?
1073 2013-08-30 14:56:57 patcon_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1074 2013-08-30 14:57:27 patcon has joined
1075 2013-08-30 14:58:04 <hydromet> I've received bitcoins via four transactions into my wallet (each transaction I had created an address for via Bitcoin-Qt). I'd like to consolidate them.
1076 2013-08-30 14:58:10 <hydromet> How best to do so?
1077 2013-08-30 14:58:11 <jgarzik> michagogo, appreciated, though I prefer to create it through my existing script. http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/bootstrap.dat.torrent
1078 2013-08-30 14:58:24 <sipa> hydromet: send to yourself
1079 2013-08-30 14:58:27 <michagogo> No problem.
1080 2013-08-30 14:58:40 <sipa> hydromet: but, why?
1081 2013-08-30 14:58:40 <michagogo> hydromet: First: why do you want to consolidate?
1082 2013-08-30 14:58:59 <michagogo> jgarzik: Is that torrent now active?
1083 2013-08-30 14:59:00 <hydromet> its been recommended to me to do so
1084 2013-08-30 14:59:11 ThomasV has joined
1085 2013-08-30 14:59:20 <michagogo> jgarzik: Ah, I see a second seed in the swarm
1086 2013-08-30 14:59:21 <sipa> for what reason?
1087 2013-08-30 14:59:31 <hydromet> to conduct an experiment
1088 2013-08-30 14:59:44 <sipa> can you elaborate on the experiment? :)
1089 2013-08-30 14:59:46 <michagogo> What experiment?
1090 2013-08-30 14:59:47 <hydromet> but I don't know yet all of the details
1091 2013-08-30 15:00:01 <hydromet> a friend of mine who works in finance is curious
1092 2013-08-30 15:00:03 <sipa> in general, consolidating is unnecessary and deanonymises
1093 2013-08-30 15:00:15 <sipa> and it will happen automatically as necessary
1094 2013-08-30 15:00:19 peetaur2 has joined
1095 2013-08-30 15:01:46 * jgarzik likes watching torrent work: syncing a node from old torrent -> new torrent is quite quick
1096 2013-08-30 15:02:02 <jgarzik> replace torrentfile, and you already have 70+% of the new file
1097 2013-08-30 15:02:07 <hydromet> if I send to myself to consolidate, should I first create a new address in the "Addresses" section of Bitcoin-Qt and then send to that address?
1098 2013-08-30 15:02:13 <sipa> ideally, yes
1099 2013-08-30 15:02:16 patcon has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1100 2013-08-30 15:03:36 <hydromet> sipa: why is it that when I select "New Address" in Bitcoin-Qt's Addresses section, the user has to manually enter an address in the Address textfield, but this is not the case when clicking New Address in the Receive section of Bitcoin-Qt?
1101 2013-08-30 15:04:24 <sipa> hydromet: one is your addressbook, with addresses of others
1102 2013-08-30 15:04:31 <sipa> hydromet: in receive, it's your own addresses
1103 2013-08-30 15:04:41 <michagogo> "Addresses" should probably be renamed.
1104 2013-08-30 15:05:12 Goonie has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1105 2013-08-30 15:05:15 handle has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1106 2013-08-30 15:05:16 <hydromet> michagogo: agree
1107 2013-08-30 15:05:32 <sipa> pull requests welcome :)
1108 2013-08-30 15:05:38 <hydromet> :)
1109 2013-08-30 15:05:49 wrabbit has joined
1110 2013-08-30 15:06:09 wrabbit is now known as Guest80666
1111 2013-08-30 15:06:49 handle has joined
1112 2013-08-30 15:07:13 flywind has left ()
1113 2013-08-30 15:07:19 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1114 2013-08-30 15:07:19 <hydromet> so if I consolidate by sending to myself, I can create my own address (in the Receive section) and add that same address (in the Addresses section)?
1115 2013-08-30 15:07:59 <michagogo> No need to add it in the Addresses section
1116 2013-08-30 15:08:03 <michagogo> Just paste it into Send
1117 2013-08-30 15:08:09 <michagogo> But again, why exactly are you consolidating?
1118 2013-08-30 15:08:10 Application has joined
1119 2013-08-30 15:08:12 <hydromet> ok
1120 2013-08-30 15:08:16 <hydromet> thank you
1121 2013-08-30 15:08:18 <michagogo> You shouldn't need to consolidate.
1122 2013-08-30 15:08:45 tsst has joined
1123 2013-08-30 15:08:54 <hydromet> I'll ask my friend in finance if he has any suggestions for a word that might be less confusing than "address" and perhaps it might be worthy of a pull request
1124 2013-08-30 15:09:11 <Luke-Jr> hydromet: what's confusing about address?
1125 2013-08-30 15:09:57 Guest80666 has quit (Client Quit)
1126 2013-08-30 15:10:17 wrabbit_ has joined
1127 2013-08-30 15:10:41 <hydromet> Luke-Jr: in Bitcoin-Qt, at least, it would be more consistent if the Send section had the option to create a new address (similar to Receive section)
1128 2013-08-30 15:10:52 <michagogo> ...what?
1129 2013-08-30 15:10:57 <Luke-Jr> hydromet: it makes no sense to send to yourself
1130 2013-08-30 15:11:05 <michagogo> When you send bitcoins, there's no reason to create an address
1131 2013-08-30 15:11:10 <hydromet> instead of having a standalone "Addresses" section
1132 2013-08-30 15:11:20 <Luke-Jr> michagogo: well, refund address, but the payment protocol does that behind the scenes
1133 2013-08-30 15:11:21 Subo1977_ has joined
1134 2013-08-30 15:11:21 <michagogo> (actually, that's not true, but an address is silently created in the background)
1135 2013-08-30 15:11:42 <michagogo> Luke-Jr: Oh, good point. (I was just thinking of the change)
1136 2013-08-30 15:11:46 <Luke-Jr> hydromet: probably the standalone addresses section will go away
1137 2013-08-30 15:11:52 <hydromet> thank you
1138 2013-08-30 15:12:08 <hydromet> consider that my pull request :)
1139 2013-08-30 15:12:23 <michagogo> hydromet: A pull request is when you do the coding
1140 2013-08-30 15:12:27 <Luke-Jr> ^
1141 2013-08-30 15:12:28 <hydromet> I know
1142 2013-08-30 15:12:28 <michagogo> And then submit it to them to pull
1143 2013-08-30 15:12:36 <Luke-Jr> hydromet: it's also not as simple as just removing it
1144 2013-08-30 15:12:38 <hydromet> github is our friend
1145 2013-08-30 15:12:49 <Luke-Jr> hydromet: it'd need a replacement for the "Receive coins" interface
1146 2013-08-30 15:12:51 <hydromet> I understand (have written my fair share of code)
1147 2013-08-30 15:13:05 Subo1977 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1148 2013-08-30 15:13:40 <hydromet> I will give this some serious thought and ask my friend in finance for some suggestions and then see what I can contribute to the UI design
1149 2013-08-30 15:13:55 wrabbit_ has quit (Changing host)
1150 2013-08-30 15:13:55 wrabbit_ has joined
1151 2013-08-30 15:14:08 <Luke-Jr> hydromet: basically the idea is, to imitate the Send tab
1152 2013-08-30 15:14:32 <hydromet> my friend in finance said that most of the software systems historically are asymmetric in terms of code (most of it is about how to keep the user from screwing up, avoiding fat finger input etc.)
1153 2013-08-30 15:14:37 <Luke-Jr> hydromet: user enters the amount they would like, what it's for/from, and it generates a new URI and QR Code
1154 2013-08-30 15:17:08 <Luke-Jr> I wonder if there's a good way to email a payment request :o
1155 2013-08-30 15:17:24 <Luke-Jr> does the current payment protocol support serverless operation?
1156 2013-08-30 15:18:17 patcon has joined
1157 2013-08-30 15:20:57 normanrichards has joined
1158 2013-08-30 15:21:14 dust-otc has joined
1159 2013-08-30 15:21:30 <michagogo> What do you think about changing it from Addresses to Address book?
1160 2013-08-30 15:21:53 <hydromet> I like Address book better
1161 2013-08-30 15:23:02 <hydromet> but I will see if I can come back with something useful (might take me a day or so, to talk over with my friend)
1162 2013-08-30 15:23:28 <jgarzik> Block chain torrent updated. Seeders requested! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=145386.0
1163 2013-08-30 15:23:55 Belxjander has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1164 2013-08-30 15:24:06 <michagogo> jgarzik: is it http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/bootstrap.dat.torrent ?
1165 2013-08-30 15:24:44 <jgarzik> michagogo, the official link is on sourceforge. gtf.org is my personal mirror. they are equivalent.
1166 2013-08-30 15:24:56 <michagogo> As long as it's the same file, I'm on there
1167 2013-08-30 15:24:58 <jgarzik> (the forum post shows the SF link)
1168 2013-08-30 15:25:01 <michagogo> Though I g2g in a min :-/
1169 2013-08-30 15:25:03 <jgarzik> same file
1170 2013-08-30 15:25:18 <michagogo> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2956
1171 2013-08-30 15:26:12 <jgarzik> I have two boxes on the torrent, one seeding, one @ 89%
1172 2013-08-30 15:26:23 <michagogo> alster013?
1173 2013-08-30 15:26:37 <jgarzik> yes
1174 2013-08-30 15:26:47 <jgarzik> us2.exmulti.net, eu3.exmulti.net
1175 2013-08-30 15:26:49 <michagogo> I've given you 25 MB.
1176 2013-08-30 15:27:03 PrimeStunna has quit (Quit: PrimeStunna)
1177 2013-08-30 15:28:22 <jgarzik> I really wonder if /anybody/ bothers to check my PGP signature on this torrent stuff
1178 2013-08-30 15:28:45 <michagogo> jgarzik: No need in my case -- I independantly built the file :-P
1179 2013-08-30 15:28:49 <michagogo> (sp)
1180 2013-08-30 15:28:56 <michagogo> Anyway, g2g for now :-/
1181 2013-08-30 15:28:57 michagogo has quit (Quit: ש×ת ש×××)
1182 2013-08-30 15:30:54 <lianj> jgarzik: i build one for testnet too
1183 2013-08-30 15:31:00 <lianj> http://l.uphnix.de/bitcoin_blockchain.html
1184 2013-08-30 15:34:51 CheckDavid has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1185 2013-08-30 15:36:28 mrkent has joined
1186 2013-08-30 15:36:40 mrkent has quit (Changing host)
1187 2013-08-30 15:36:41 mrkent has joined
1188 2013-08-30 15:36:43 GingerGeek[Away] is now known as GingerGeek
1189 2013-08-30 15:36:46 <jgarzik> lianj, I should build a torrent for that too
1190 2013-08-30 15:36:48 jcorgan has joined
1191 2013-08-30 15:38:56 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1192 2013-08-30 15:39:54 saivann has joined
1193 2013-08-30 15:40:01 danda_ has joined
1194 2013-08-30 15:41:28 mrkent has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1195 2013-08-30 15:43:05 <jgarzik> wow
1196 2013-08-30 15:43:14 <petertodd> jgarzik: got a sha256 match between your tool and mine for the first 250 blocks, now doing 250,000
1197 2013-08-30 15:43:16 <jgarzik> miners on <channel censored> don't even know what a bitcoin node is
1198 2013-08-30 15:43:47 <petertodd> jgarzik: please say you're talking about coal miners
1199 2013-08-30 15:43:51 <jgarzik> sometimes it's sad how mining is so plug-and-get-paid that they don't think about the network they are helping
1200 2013-08-30 15:44:02 <Luke-Jr> heh
1201 2013-08-30 15:44:02 <petertodd> yup...
1202 2013-08-30 15:45:01 saulimus has joined
1203 2013-08-30 15:45:01 <Luke-Jr> but it's one person
1204 2013-08-30 15:45:04 <Luke-Jr> I *hope*
1205 2013-08-30 15:45:07 <petertodd> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.80 <- gah, AnonyMint is cluttering up the coinjoin thread with crap
1206 2013-08-30 15:45:09 <BlueMatt> minerS
1207 2013-08-30 15:45:25 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: that's my point; I haven't seen it pluralised for real yet
1208 2013-08-30 15:45:36 <BlueMatt> except for jgarzik's statement...
1209 2013-08-30 15:45:47 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: it's #eligius
1210 2013-08-30 15:45:56 <BlueMatt> before you can mine, we should require a popup with mining configuration settings that are deliberately confusingly worded and require that you wait at least 30 seconds before you can click OK
1211 2013-08-30 15:46:15 <BlueMatt> oh, and you have to successfully answer a series of multiple-choice questions that require that you've read the satoshi paper
1212 2013-08-30 15:46:22 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: good luck :/
1213 2013-08-30 15:46:31 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: going to be hard enough to push miners to run full nodes
1214 2013-08-30 15:46:36 <BlueMatt> yea....
1215 2013-08-30 15:47:58 <BlueMatt> can someone get a patent on repeated double-sha256 so we can sue people who distribute mining software that doesnt require a basic understanding of the system?
1216 2013-08-30 15:48:29 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1217 2013-08-30 15:48:56 <gmaxwell> petertodd: I removed his last post, he's spewing generally, not quite sure what to do with that stuff thats vaguely ontopic.
1218 2013-08-30 15:50:02 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: that'd be the hardware.. :/
1219 2013-08-30 15:50:27 stephantual has quit (Quit: Zzzzz..zzzzz)
1220 2013-08-30 15:51:02 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: might work if you patent the merkle tree :P
1221 2013-08-30 15:51:05 <BlueMatt> Luke-Jr: well, ok, hardware must get a signature verifying that the software driving it is certified by $PERSON
1222 2013-08-30 15:51:23 <BlueMatt> there we go, lets patent the merkle tree structure in bitcoin
1223 2013-08-30 15:51:23 Guest____ has joined
1224 2013-08-30 15:51:24 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: you just locked out free software
1225 2013-08-30 15:51:34 oPen_syLar has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1226 2013-08-30 15:52:18 <BlueMatt> Luke-Jr: obviously that was all something of a joke...
1227 2013-08-30 15:52:34 <Luke-Jr> :P
1228 2013-08-30 15:52:44 <gmaxwell> alas. no way to enforce non-stupidity.
1229 2013-08-30 15:53:29 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: 1st rule of life: you can find stupid people anywhere
1230 2013-08-30 15:53:57 <BlueMatt> s/can/will/, s/anywhere/everywhere/
1231 2013-08-30 15:54:43 ThomasV has joined
1232 2013-08-30 15:55:23 i2pRelay has joined
1233 2013-08-30 15:56:37 deepc0re has joined
1234 2013-08-30 15:58:58 Clown- has joined
1235 2013-08-30 16:00:13 t7 has quit (Quit: hometime)
1236 2013-08-30 16:02:20 has quit (Clown|!~clown@unaffiliated/clown/x-0272709|Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1237 2013-08-30 16:02:38 btcbtc has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1238 2013-08-30 16:05:06 k9quaint has joined
1239 2013-08-30 16:06:07 owowo has joined
1240 2013-08-30 16:08:42 Guest____ has quit (Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzzâ¦)
1241 2013-08-30 16:09:14 Guest____ has joined
1242 2013-08-30 16:14:49 ToryJujube has joined
1243 2013-08-30 16:17:41 joepie91 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1244 2013-08-30 16:18:39 Guest____ has quit (Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzzâ¦)
1245 2013-08-30 16:28:23 qeb has joined
1246 2013-08-30 16:28:55 t7 has joined
1247 2013-08-30 16:32:04 bizoro has joined
1248 2013-08-30 16:32:10 bizoro has quit (Changing host)
1249 2013-08-30 16:32:10 bizoro has joined
1250 2013-08-30 16:33:56 t7 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1251 2013-08-30 16:34:10 bmcgee has joined
1252 2013-08-30 16:35:24 mrkent has joined
1253 2013-08-30 16:35:24 mrkent has quit (Changing host)
1254 2013-08-30 16:35:24 mrkent has joined
1255 2013-08-30 16:36:05 daybyter has joined
1256 2013-08-30 16:39:24 btcbtc has joined
1257 2013-08-30 16:40:38 _ingsoc has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1258 2013-08-30 16:40:44 OPrime has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1259 2013-08-30 16:42:39 <jgarzik> Solver() is just bonkers
1260 2013-08-30 16:42:46 <petertodd> haha
1261 2013-08-30 16:42:46 digitalmagus2 has joined
1262 2013-08-30 16:42:49 <jgarzik> my JS code is so much more clear, I wonder what I'm missing
1263 2013-08-30 16:42:50 _ingsoc has joined
1264 2013-08-30 16:43:07 <petertodd> I've got half-completed unittests for solver BTW, should finish those
1265 2013-08-30 16:44:55 CheckDavid has joined
1266 2013-08-30 16:47:54 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: hopefully you don't have ecdsa signing inside your solving loop?
1267 2013-08-30 16:48:07 sserrano44 has joined
1268 2013-08-30 16:49:32 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Solver() is the pattern matcher
1269 2013-08-30 16:50:13 <sipa> also
1270 2013-08-30 16:51:02 <jgarzik> it's not solving anything. bleh that terminology. :) it's matching patterns, and capturing sub-strings.
1271 2013-08-30 16:51:22 <jgarzik> don't make me whip out a regex extension and prove it
1272 2013-08-30 16:51:25 qeb has quit (Quit: ["Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com"])
1273 2013-08-30 16:52:21 <petertodd> jgarzik: extra points if the regex matches the raw script bytes directly
1274 2013-08-30 16:52:34 nsh_ has quit (Changing host)
1275 2013-08-30 16:52:34 nsh_ has joined
1276 2013-08-30 16:52:36 nsh_ is now known as nsh
1277 2013-08-30 16:52:55 * jgarzik can see it nowÂ
/^\odup\ohash160\ophk\oequvalverify\ochecksig$/
1278 2013-08-30 16:53:16 * jgarzik corrects.. /^\odup\ohash160(\ophk)\oequvalverify\ochecksig$/
1279 2013-08-30 16:53:35 <sipa> i really want to split script into 3 parts
1280 2013-08-30 16:53:52 <sipa> a core part that can be depended on by ctransaction, and just has the type definition
1281 2013-08-30 16:53:55 <jgarzik> /^(\opubkey)\ochecksig$/
1282 2013-08-30 16:53:58 <sipa> a part that does verifications
1283 2013-08-30 16:54:08 <sipa> and a part that does matching/signing for wallets
1284 2013-08-30 16:54:14 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: what is this undocumented \o ?
1285 2013-08-30 16:54:22 eoss has joined
1286 2013-08-30 16:54:24 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, bitcoin op
1287 2013-08-30 16:54:40 <Luke-Jr> oh, something just for this purpose
1288 2013-08-30 16:54:57 <Luke-Jr> here i was hoping it was an actual Perl feature
1289 2013-08-30 16:54:59 <Luke-Jr> <.<
1290 2013-08-30 16:55:13 <jgarzik> it should be
1291 2013-08-30 16:55:19 <jgarzik> sipa, makes sense
1292 2013-08-30 16:55:30 <Luke-Jr> well, technically I guess you could use $dup = qr/\x02/;
1293 2013-08-30 16:55:36 <Luke-Jr> and then /^$dup/
1294 2013-08-30 16:56:34 <Luke-Jr> $hash160 = qr/[\0-\xff]{20}/;
1295 2013-08-30 16:56:39 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: Yeah, I had a summer job asa Perl programmer once - after the summer was over the first thing I did was drop out of computer science and go to art school.
1296 2013-08-30 16:58:03 <jgarzik> the JS code (and other languages do similar) splits up a script into an array of script elements (opcodes/data), which enables writing code to directly match scripts: if chunk[0].length == normal_pubkey_size && chunk[1] == OP_CHECKSIG { Â
}
1297 2013-08-30 16:58:24 <petertodd> sipa: sounds reasonable to me - it's the most consensus critical part
1298 2013-08-30 16:58:25 <jgarzik> C++ code has a bit of this, but tends to keep it all in one bytestream
1299 2013-08-30 16:59:15 <sipa> jgarzik: what if you have an incomplete op?
1300 2013-08-30 16:59:58 <petertodd> jgarzik: With the Python code I made CScript() only have a iterator interface because I figured usually you can either be clever and avoid the intermediary memory usage, or failing that you can just do tuple(script)
1301 2013-08-30 17:00:18 <sipa> the problem is that an incomplete op in a script is valid
1302 2013-08-30 17:00:24 <sipa> if it is never evaluated
1303 2013-08-30 17:00:26 mrkent has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1304 2013-08-30 17:00:35 <petertodd> sipa: You mean an incomplete pushdata? That's not valid.
1305 2013-08-30 17:00:38 <sipa> so you can't parse eagerly
1306 2013-08-30 17:00:44 <sipa> sure?
1307 2013-08-30 17:01:02 valparaiso_ has joined
1308 2013-08-30 17:01:10 <petertodd> sipa: Yup, every pushdata is parsed, even checked against the 520 bytes max size limit.
1309 2013-08-30 17:01:16 <sipa> right
1310 2013-08-30 17:01:20 <sipa> mever mind then
1311 2013-08-30 17:01:26 valparaiso has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1312 2013-08-30 17:01:29 <Luke-Jr> I think you mean invalid opcodes
1313 2013-08-30 17:01:33 valparaiso_ is now known as valparaiso
1314 2013-08-30 17:01:33 <petertodd> sipa: Now OP_RETURN can return early, but that can only make the script fail currently.
1315 2013-08-30 17:01:39 <sipa> right
1316 2013-08-30 17:01:56 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: ha, yeah they're fun... one of them doesn't even count towards the opcode limit
1317 2013-08-30 17:01:58 <sipa> but if you fail to parse an scriptPubKey, the transaction isn't invalid
1318 2013-08-30 17:02:09 <petertodd> sipa: correct
1319 2013-08-30 17:02:27 <petertodd> sipa: Which is yet another reason to not actually parse the script until you need to, like I'm doing.
1320 2013-08-30 17:02:47 <sipa> indeed
1321 2013-08-30 17:02:52 BTCOxygen has joined
1322 2013-08-30 17:03:49 <petertodd> Also I made sure that repr(invalid) == 'CScript(OP_FOO, OP_BAR, <invalid PUSHDATA(n)>)' because I'm pedantic, I even unittest that...
1323 2013-08-30 17:05:45 * Luke-Jr is annoyed with libmicrohttpd
1324 2013-08-30 17:06:02 <lianj> petertodd: whats invalid pushdata?
1325 2013-08-30 17:06:17 BTCOxygen2 has joined
1326 2013-08-30 17:06:24 <bizoro> is it ok to use master build to commerce transactions?!
1327 2013-08-30 17:06:41 skeltoac has joined
1328 2013-08-30 17:06:48 BTCOxygen2 is now known as BTC0xygen
1329 2013-08-30 17:06:50 <petertodd> lianj: a truncated pushdata, either truncated data, or truncated data and truncated length word
1330 2013-08-30 17:06:52 <bizoro> git master*
1331 2013-08-30 17:06:53 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1332 2013-08-30 17:06:59 <maaku> bizoro: why would you want to?
1333 2013-08-30 17:07:01 <petertodd> bizoro: please don't
1334 2013-08-30 17:07:21 <maaku> if it's a specific feature you need, back port it to a version branch
1335 2013-08-30 17:07:28 <lianj> petertodd: ah
1336 2013-08-30 17:07:30 stephantual has joined
1337 2013-08-30 17:07:53 <lianj> petertodd: isn't that just a broken script then?
1338 2013-08-30 17:08:21 <petertodd> lianj: yes, but I like my libraries to tell me what's going on
1339 2013-08-30 17:08:39 <lianj> true
1340 2013-08-30 17:08:49 <Luke-Jr> bizoro: if you don't mind taking big risks maybe
1341 2013-08-30 17:09:13 <petertodd> bizoro: Note that if you use git master you're really trusting github not to steal your coins...
1342 2013-08-30 17:10:22 <petertodd> Public Service Announcement: run git log --show-signatures | grep gpg in the bitcoin git repo...
1343 2013-08-30 17:10:48 <petertodd> You can create those with the -S flag to git commit (and I think git merge)
1344 2013-08-30 17:10:57 <petertodd> s/signatures/signature/g
1345 2013-08-30 17:11:45 <skeltoac> any contributors doing their development on OSX with homebrew instead of macports? I'm wasting the day trying just to get a working bitcoind. must I go back to macports?
1346 2013-08-30 17:12:04 <Luke-Jr> anyone know why someone would say bitcoins are *safer* than cash? O.o
1347 2013-08-30 17:12:32 <edcba> you can't be killed when receiving bitcoin
1348 2013-08-30 17:12:34 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: I have a allergy to cotton
1349 2013-08-30 17:12:38 <skeltoac> Luke-Jr because they have a different idea of safety?
1350 2013-08-30 17:12:39 Diapolo has joined
1351 2013-08-30 17:12:45 <bizoro> petertodd: Yes, that's true...
1352 2013-08-30 17:13:02 <Luke-Jr> edcba: it'll happen someday
1353 2013-08-30 17:13:26 <bizoro> I'll not do it btw... just wondering
1354 2013-08-30 17:13:42 <petertodd> bizoro: You want to be really safe? Check the gitian signatures on the last release to figure out the SHA1 commit hash, and then compile that release yourself.
1355 2013-08-30 17:14:01 <skeltoac> bitcoins can't transmit bacteria
1356 2013-08-30 17:14:01 <Luke-Jr> (nevermind that SHA1 is broken..)
1357 2013-08-30 17:14:23 <Luke-Jr> is there a reason we don't sign git commits?
1358 2013-08-30 17:14:30 <maaku> well it's not /that/ broken
1359 2013-08-30 17:14:46 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: nah, it's thought that pre-image attacks on SHA1 won't happen for decades, even collission attacks on arbitrary data is miles away
1360 2013-08-30 17:14:48 <maaku> Luke-Jr: or use monotone
1361 2013-08-30 17:15:13 <petertodd> maaku: Actually, just write a script that calculates SHA256 commit ids.
1362 2013-08-30 17:15:16 <Diapolo> Can someone give my hs a short connection try 2l2u6mrojvm6zypx.onion:8333?
1363 2013-08-30 17:15:22 valparaiso has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1364 2013-08-30 17:15:31 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: I think the tags are signed, but only one signature is supported by git anyway. :/
1365 2013-08-30 17:16:32 i2pRelay has joined
1366 2013-08-30 17:17:16 Diapolo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1367 2013-08-30 17:18:51 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: maybe git needs signature objects independent from the commit object itself
1368 2013-08-30 17:19:35 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: It very much does!
1369 2013-08-30 17:19:56 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: Should be possible to go through a series of commits and add signatures to them after the fact for instance.
1370 2013-08-30 17:20:19 graingert has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1371 2013-08-30 17:20:49 valparaiso has joined
1372 2013-08-30 17:20:55 <petertodd> Though part of Linus's rational is that you can't encourage people to just sign commits automatically, or it becomes meaningless, on the other hand, the malicious repo operator is a serious threat.
1373 2013-08-30 17:21:18 <bizoro> can't you append commits signatures and sign them?!
1374 2013-08-30 17:21:26 <petertodd> bizoro: nope
1375 2013-08-30 17:21:51 coingenuity has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1376 2013-08-30 17:22:02 <maaku> petertodd: look at monotone, it's had these features since long before git existed ...
1377 2013-08-30 17:22:39 <sipa> you don't sign commits, do you? only tags
1378 2013-08-30 17:22:47 Guest32424 has joined
1379 2013-08-30 17:23:14 <maaku> sipa: currently, yes. but if you had signed commits you could do some more powerful things
1380 2013-08-30 17:23:19 <bizoro> there should be a p2p github...
1381 2013-08-30 17:23:29 <maaku> like auto-integration based on commit signature key
1382 2013-08-30 17:24:25 <petertodd> maaku: I used monotone prior to git actually, problem is the monotone model sucks for distributed development; what git got really right is to recognize that a revision control system is actually better described as a revision communication system.
1383 2013-08-30 17:25:00 <petertodd> sipa: I sign individual commits myself, better granularity.
1384 2013-08-30 17:25:17 <petertodd> sipa: Of course, my signature only means that I reviewed my own code mostly...
1385 2013-08-30 17:25:34 <petertodd> bizoro: Freenet project is working on that I think
1386 2013-08-30 17:26:39 <bizoro> petertodd, I was thinking about building a mail-like service using pgp, like skype, but fully p2p
1387 2013-08-30 17:27:30 <bizoro> you know if torchat sends offline messages via peers?
1388 2013-08-30 17:27:56 btcbtc has quit (Quit: btcbtc)
1389 2013-08-30 17:28:00 eculver has joined
1390 2013-08-30 17:28:00 eculver has quit (Changing host)
1391 2013-08-30 17:28:00 eculver has joined
1392 2013-08-30 17:28:35 <petertodd> bizoro: look at how linux kernel development re: git is actually done...
1393 2013-08-30 17:28:37 <sipa> petertodd: oh, didn't know you could do that
1394 2013-08-30 17:28:38 <petertodd> bizoro: no idea
1395 2013-08-30 17:28:53 <petertodd> sipa: it's pretty new, note how completion doesn't know about it
1396 2013-08-30 17:29:08 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: Linux is very centralized though
1397 2013-08-30 17:29:19 <Luke-Jr> not that Bitcoin-Qt is doing much better yet
1398 2013-08-30 17:29:23 _ingsoc has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1399 2013-08-30 17:30:08 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: I mean how patches are passed around via email in the kernel dev world
1400 2013-08-30 17:30:36 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: yeah, that creates some centralization because of how git handles them
1401 2013-08-30 17:30:49 <Luke-Jr> I think darcs has that working decentralised..
1402 2013-08-30 17:30:58 MobPhone has joined
1403 2013-08-30 17:31:06 * Luke-Jr should give darcs a try someday
1404 2013-08-30 17:31:10 _ingsoc has joined
1405 2013-08-30 17:32:36 viperhr has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1406 2013-08-30 17:32:54 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: darcs is completely unsuitable for security related stuff because it can't give guarantees on what's actually in the repo
1407 2013-08-30 17:32:55 viperhr has joined
1408 2013-08-30 17:33:10 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: IE no crypto-hashed commit ids...
1409 2013-08-30 17:33:27 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: re: centralization, how so?
1410 2013-08-30 17:33:52 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: emailed patches get new commit ids when applied
1411 2013-08-30 17:33:57 <Luke-Jr> making merges impractical
1412 2013-08-30 17:34:16 <Luke-Jr> and merges are basically cornerstone to decentralization of course
1413 2013-08-30 17:34:44 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: you sure? in my experience emailed patches, if you do everything right, have reproducable commit ids
1414 2013-08-30 17:35:06 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: if applied on even a slightly different HEAD, yes
1415 2013-08-30 17:35:13 <bizoro> I don't know what will happen when linus dies... xP
1416 2013-08-30 17:36:11 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: well sure, but applying a patch on a slightly different HEAD will always have a different commit id no matter what you do - apply on the same head and merge that into your history
1417 2013-08-30 17:36:23 Clown- has left ()
1418 2013-08-30 17:36:24 has joined
1419 2013-08-30 17:36:24 has quit (Clown|!~clown@2001-4dd0-203e-1-dc75-1441-5add-81ba.ipv6dyn.netcologne.de|Changing host)
1420 2013-08-30 17:36:24 has joined
1421 2013-08-30 17:36:31 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: but git am doesn't do that
1422 2013-08-30 17:37:17 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: The information required to do that is in the patch though; teach git am to do that!
1423 2013-08-30 17:37:37 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: I don't think git ever merged the last patch I submitted :/
1424 2013-08-30 17:38:20 <Luke-Jr> which is annoying, since I use it every few minutes <.<
1425 2013-08-30 17:38:38 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: Oh, actually you know what, I'm wrong, the revision ID in a git-format-patch patch is the id of the revision itself, not the parent(s)
1426 2013-08-30 17:38:52 Thepok has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1427 2013-08-30 17:38:54 <bizoro> some patches just get ignored by most commiters... I don' know, maybe there isn't time to read them all
1428 2013-08-30 17:39:29 <Luke-Jr> bizoro: yeah, I think busy projects require new contributions to retry over and over sometimes :/
1429 2013-08-30 17:39:34 <Luke-Jr> maybe I should try again
1430 2013-08-30 17:40:06 paraipan has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1431 2013-08-30 17:40:52 abrkn has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1432 2013-08-30 17:41:35 <bizoro> and even those commiters are often regulated by linus... some time ago Linus went ragemad against the v4l maintainer... xP
1433 2013-08-30 17:41:47 dust-otc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1434 2013-08-30 17:42:34 tsst has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1435 2013-08-30 17:42:55 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: hmm... looks like there is a way to get format-patch to do what I want, it's just not the default. There's also a second way to send around patches that's the actual patches directly, although I forget what the command was.
1436 2013-08-30 17:43:28 Heimdall has joined
1437 2013-08-30 17:46:45 saivann has quit ()
1438 2013-08-30 17:47:20 owowo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1439 2013-08-30 17:47:40 Anduck has joined
1440 2013-08-30 17:48:51 owowo has joined
1441 2013-08-30 17:50:04 <petertodd> Interesting, git has something called a 'mergetag' which records all the information associated with a tag, even a PGP signed one, in a commit, and can later verify that signature.
1442 2013-08-30 17:52:14 <bizoro> that's sweet
1443 2013-08-30 17:52:27 saivann has joined
1444 2013-08-30 17:52:40 <petertodd> I think it may do what I want re signing stuff after the fact: http://git-blame.blogspot.ca/2011/11/helping-kernel-workflow-redux.html
1445 2013-08-30 17:55:42 bmcgee has quit (Quit: bmcgee)
1446 2013-08-30 17:55:58 <petertodd> Ha, and there's our Jeff Garzik involved in one of the discussions that lead to the more recent PGP stuff in git: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ide/50518/focus=50677
1447 2013-08-30 17:56:50 Thepok has joined
1448 2013-08-30 17:58:40 altamic has joined
1449 2013-08-30 17:59:15 bmcgee has joined
1450 2013-08-30 18:00:03 altamic has quit (Client Quit)
1451 2013-08-30 18:01:20 testnode9 has joined
1452 2013-08-30 18:01:57 paraipan has joined
1453 2013-08-30 18:06:28 stevei has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1454 2013-08-30 18:14:04 dust-otc has joined
1455 2013-08-30 18:17:14 valparaiso has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1456 2013-08-30 18:17:43 valparaiso has joined
1457 2013-08-30 18:18:04 Dyaheon has quit ()
1458 2013-08-30 18:19:00 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1459 2013-08-30 18:20:38 i2pRelay has joined
1460 2013-08-30 18:26:23 nomailing has joined
1461 2013-08-30 18:30:21 PrimeStunna has joined
1462 2013-08-30 18:30:40 FabianB has joined
1463 2013-08-30 18:30:46 mrkent has joined
1464 2013-08-30 18:30:46 mrkent has quit (Changing host)
1465 2013-08-30 18:30:46 mrkent has joined
1466 2013-08-30 18:31:28 FabianB_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1467 2013-08-30 18:33:38 GChriss has joined
1468 2013-08-30 18:34:05 <GChriss> If I'm running bitcoind v0.7.2.0 on a linux box, started from scratch w/ default values a day or two ago, login to check blockchain progress, and find my wallet.dat missing + a new RPC password set + missing files, does that mean I've been hacked?
1469 2013-08-30 18:35:05 <sipa> you can't run bitcoind without setting a password
1470 2013-08-30 18:35:12 <sipa> so you must have done so before
1471 2013-08-30 18:35:21 <sipa> also, 0.7.2 is obsolete
1472 2013-08-30 18:35:26 dust-otc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1473 2013-08-30 18:35:33 viperhr has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1474 2013-08-30 18:35:54 peter has joined
1475 2013-08-30 18:35:54 peetaur2 has quit (Killed (hobana.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services)))
1476 2013-08-30 18:35:54 peter is now known as peetaur2
1477 2013-08-30 18:36:05 <gmaxwell> GChriss: wallet.dat "missing"? Are you perhaps looking in the wrong place or had previously run it under another account?
1478 2013-08-30 18:36:53 <gmaxwell> GChriss: the software won't run without a wallet.datâ it'll create one if there is none there.
1479 2013-08-30 18:36:58 valparaiso has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1480 2013-08-30 18:37:36 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1481 2013-08-30 18:37:36 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1482 2013-08-30 18:37:40 <GChriss> hi! as far as I can tell this has all the hallmarks of hacking, including auto-log wiping. was using the default trisquel package; no password set or required
1483 2013-08-30 18:37:56 BTCOxygen has joined
1484 2013-08-30 18:37:56 BTCOxygen is now known as 1!~BTCOxygen@unaffiliated/oxygen|BTCOxygen
1485 2013-08-30 18:37:58 valparaiso has joined
1486 2013-08-30 18:38:04 <sipa> 'trisquel' ?
1487 2013-08-30 18:38:16 <GChriss> there _was_ a wallet + BLK* files, until there wasn't
1488 2013-08-30 18:38:32 <GChriss> sipa: yes, please see: http://trisquel.info/
1489 2013-08-30 18:39:11 <GChriss> already removed everything; looking into paper wallets now
1490 2013-08-30 18:40:03 Application has joined
1491 2013-08-30 18:40:26 <GChriss> +a RPC password I've never seen before. I'm hoping it was localized to just bitcoind and not other system processes
1492 2013-08-30 18:40:52 roconnor has joined
1493 2013-08-30 18:41:01 <sipa> no idea what the packagers of that distro did, but bitcoind itself will not run without an rpc password
1494 2013-08-30 18:41:04 <sipa> or a wallet
1495 2013-08-30 18:42:31 Application has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1496 2013-08-30 18:43:40 <GChriss> oh, I might have been confused: bitcoind was running as root, was looking at user-level files
1497 2013-08-30 18:43:46 <gmaxwell> GChriss: ah ha!
1498 2013-08-30 18:45:32 <gmaxwell> sipa: trisquel is ubuntu which has been stripped of stuff which is less free as in freedom than the FSF would like.
1499 2013-08-30 18:45:46 toffoo has joined
1500 2013-08-30 18:45:54 <jgarzik> woo hoo.
1501 2013-08-30 18:46:00 * jgarzik pushes out JS P2SH signing
1502 2013-08-30 18:47:31 awishformore has joined
1503 2013-08-30 18:49:22 <petertodd> jgarzik: oh, with your new solver code? nice
1504 2013-08-30 18:54:12 mrkent has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1505 2013-08-30 18:55:44 hnz has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1506 2013-08-30 18:59:07 pooler_ has joined
1507 2013-08-30 18:59:40 hnz has joined
1508 2013-08-30 19:00:13 Belkaar has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1509 2013-08-30 19:02:34 egis has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1510 2013-08-30 19:03:29 Belkaar has joined
1511 2013-08-30 19:06:52 normanrichards has quit (Quit: normanrichards)
1512 2013-08-30 19:07:16 MobPhone has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1513 2013-08-30 19:07:57 Application has joined
1514 2013-08-30 19:08:52 Application has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1515 2013-08-30 19:09:35 robocoin_ has joined
1516 2013-08-30 19:10:45 testnode9 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1517 2013-08-30 19:12:03 robocoin has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1518 2013-08-30 19:20:07 patcon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1519 2013-08-30 19:20:33 patcon has joined
1520 2013-08-30 19:22:11 patcon has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1521 2013-08-30 19:22:22 patcon has joined
1522 2013-08-30 19:27:37 paracyst has joined
1523 2013-08-30 19:28:00 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1524 2013-08-30 19:30:14 chorao has joined
1525 2013-08-30 19:30:31 GingerGeek is now known as GingerGeek[Away]
1526 2013-08-30 19:30:38 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1527 2013-08-30 19:30:50 K1773R has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1528 2013-08-30 19:31:02 normanrichards has joined
1529 2013-08-30 19:31:13 wrabbit_ has quit (Quit: Reconnecting)
1530 2013-08-30 19:31:18 BTCOxygen has joined
1531 2013-08-30 19:31:34 wrabbit has joined
1532 2013-08-30 19:35:52 K1773R has joined
1533 2013-08-30 19:36:34 Liquid3xB has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1534 2013-08-30 19:38:51 Liquid3xB has joined
1535 2013-08-30 19:39:23 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1536 2013-08-30 19:40:29 bmcgee has quit (Quit: bmcgee)
1537 2013-08-30 19:40:37 Krellan_ has joined
1538 2013-08-30 19:44:34 altamic has joined
1539 2013-08-30 19:44:35 jtimon has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1540 2013-08-30 19:45:36 Krellan_ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1541 2013-08-30 19:46:22 altamic has quit (Client Quit)
1542 2013-08-30 19:46:26 justusranvier has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1543 2013-08-30 19:46:32 stevei has joined
1544 2013-08-30 19:49:49 altamic has joined
1545 2013-08-30 19:50:04 altamic has left ()
1546 2013-08-30 19:52:04 justusranvier has joined
1547 2013-08-30 19:52:23 Krellan_ has joined
1548 2013-08-30 19:55:29 saivann has quit ()
1549 2013-08-30 19:55:36 wrabbit has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1550 2013-08-30 19:57:47 Krellan_ has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1551 2013-08-30 19:58:04 richcollins has joined
1552 2013-08-30 19:58:11 datagutt has joined
1553 2013-08-30 20:00:13 patcon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1554 2013-08-30 20:00:43 patcon has joined
1555 2013-08-30 20:01:48 Application has joined
1556 2013-08-30 20:03:11 toffoo has quit ()
1557 2013-08-30 20:04:46 patcon has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1558 2013-08-30 20:07:26 NimeshNeema has left ()
1559 2013-08-30 20:09:49 normanrichards has quit (Quit: normanrichards)
1560 2013-08-30 20:11:51 bmcgee has joined
1561 2013-08-30 20:12:04 patcon has joined
1562 2013-08-30 20:18:56 <jcorgan> jgarzik: fixed the typo introduced in #2957, see #2959
1563 2013-08-30 20:20:01 <sipa> jcorgan: done
1564 2013-08-30 20:20:14 <jcorgan> heh, my first bitcoin commit :)
1565 2013-08-30 20:20:25 <sipa> keep going!
1566 2013-08-30 20:21:15 normanrichards has joined
1567 2013-08-30 20:21:36 chorao has quit ()
1568 2013-08-30 20:24:48 <petertodd> jcorgan: at least yours didn't get, like, 15 comments: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1160
1569 2013-08-30 20:26:04 <_ingsoc> Lol. Tough crowd. xD
1570 2013-08-30 20:26:49 <jcorgan> yeah, i guess i got lucky
1571 2013-08-30 20:28:19 <petertodd> jcorgan: me needed good gramer and speling
1572 2013-08-30 20:29:13 wrabbit has joined
1573 2013-08-30 20:31:15 <warren> petertodd: I am not convinced hard limits is the right approach to expiration. I'd like to see different variants of how it would work.
1574 2013-08-30 20:31:59 <sipa> just put a hard limit on the UTXO size (or growth thereof) per block
1575 2013-08-30 20:32:57 <sipa> unfortunately, selecting an optimal set of transactions to include in a block becomes significantly harder that way...
1576 2013-08-30 20:34:08 <warren> why is a hard limit the right approach at all?
1577 2013-08-30 20:34:58 <gmaxwell> warren: because there must be some consensus mechnism, and the right value cannot be algorithmically determined, and the opinions of people who are not miners is highly relevant too.
1578 2013-08-30 20:35:50 <sipa> the nice thing about this rule is that it doesn't require a value dependency
1579 2013-08-30 20:36:26 <warren> gmaxwell: I liked your example of 1e-8 = 1 year, 1e-7 = 2 years, etc.
1580 2013-08-30 20:36:32 <petertodd> 16:30 < warren> petertodd: I am not convinced hard limits is the right approach to expiration. I'd like to see
1581 2013-08-30 20:36:44 <petertodd> warren: needs to be economically flexible though
1582 2013-08-30 20:36:46 <warren> sipa: perhaps I need to better see an explanation of how a hard limit approach works.
1583 2013-08-30 20:36:59 <sipa> warren: it means that a block which exceeds the limit is invalid
1584 2013-08-30 20:37:31 <sipa> so miners have an incentive to choose non-utxo-bloating transactions over those that do bloat (given the same fee)
1585 2013-08-30 20:37:50 Namworld has quit ()
1586 2013-08-30 20:38:15 <gmaxwell> warren: yes, that has some attractiveness, but its not "scale invariant". If someday 1e-8 buys a house, then thats a bit weird.
1587 2013-08-30 20:38:50 <warren> sipa: how is that "expiration"?
1588 2013-08-30 20:38:54 <sipa> warren: it's not
1589 2013-08-30 20:38:58 <gmaxwell> warren: one possibility would be scaling it based on all the existing coins, but then it becomes somewhat less determinstic... but only non-determinstic in one direction.
1590 2013-08-30 20:39:06 <sipa> but it forces you to expire if you want to create a transaction
1591 2013-08-30 20:39:09 <sipa> or pay a fee
1592 2013-08-30 20:39:25 <sipa> s/expire/consume/
1593 2013-08-30 20:39:48 <sipa> are we now using 3 terms for the same thing? (scale invariant, economically flexible, value dependent) ?
1594 2013-08-30 20:40:05 <sipa> *independent
1595 2013-08-30 20:40:30 <gmaxwell> sipa: yes, I generally agree, that limited UTXO increase is interesting. (though block size limits still make sense, e.g. a 10 gbyte block which reduces the utxo size is still problematic! :) )
1596 2013-08-30 20:40:42 <sipa> gmaxwell: yup, you likely want both
1597 2013-08-30 20:40:43 bmcgee has quit (Quit: bmcgee)
1598 2013-08-30 20:40:52 <sipa> but how do you set the increase formula...
1599 2013-08-30 20:41:15 <sipa> warren: but expiration of coins is only a measure to prevent a bloated UTXO set; why not make the rule that the UTXO set just can't be bloated
1600 2013-08-30 20:41:23 <sipa> and let the economy figure a way to deal with it
1601 2013-08-30 20:42:11 <warren> I need to think more about that. It sounds like an arbitrary limit. I accept that UTXO set size grows with actual usage.
1602 2013-08-30 20:42:12 <gmaxwell> sipa: one problem with the "can't be bloated" is how do you average out the effect? If you just have a hard limit on the total utxo size then there is cleanup cost externalization.
1603 2013-08-30 20:42:38 <sipa> warren: agree, it's an arbitrary limit, but i don't think there is any way around setting an arbitrary limit
1604 2013-08-30 20:42:45 <warren> cleanup cost == blockchain bloat for no reason?
1605 2013-08-30 20:42:50 <gmaxwell> warren: it actually shouldn't grow with actual usage... it should reach a steady state size and stop growing... except for people losing keys (and the coins with them).
1606 2013-08-30 20:42:57 bmcgee has joined
1607 2013-08-30 20:43:00 <warren> sipa: what's politically feasible here may be different elsewhere
1608 2013-08-30 20:43:08 <sipa> set coin lifetimes is also an arbitrary limit
1609 2013-08-30 20:43:16 <sipa> it's just a consensus of those using the system
1610 2013-08-30 20:44:20 <warren> "<gmaxwell> warren: it actually shouldn't grow with actual usage" of Bitcoin and Litecoin, one of them is having a rapid growth problem. The other started bloated and hasn't grown much at all.
1611 2013-08-30 20:44:23 <petertodd> See, in general my thinking is that the consensus should be based on a fixed resource cost for the currency, which means a fixed UTXO set size, but as gmaxwell points out that makes the lifetime of any given txout unknown because it's the actions of others that determine the UTXO's being used.
1612 2013-08-30 20:45:22 <warren> "makes the lifetime of any given txout unknown because it's the actions of others that determine the UTXO's being used." doesn't sound right to me. a deterministic lifetime based upon your OWN behavior sounds more certain, giving users control over their own coins.
1613 2013-08-30 20:45:22 <gmaxwell> warren: pretty sure that ltc's growth rate is still faster than btc's relative to transaction volume, in fact.
1614 2013-08-30 20:45:57 <gmaxwell> petertodd: sipa pointed out that you can get limited size without limting life by limiting blocks.
1615 2013-08-30 20:46:05 <petertodd> warren: Well as in I take all the UTXOs in existance, sort by value/size, and include only nGiB worth of them.
1616 2013-08-30 20:46:08 <warren> gmaxwell: highly doubtful given the behavioral disincentives to do useless microtransactions, but neither of us have done an actual measurement, so let's call it a draw for now?
1617 2013-08-30 20:46:13 <petertodd> gmaxwell: limited growth rate, not limited size.
1618 2013-08-30 20:46:36 <gmaxwell> warren: well last time we had an argument like this the result brought me much merryment, so .. should we measure? :P
1619 2013-08-30 20:46:36 <petertodd> warren: What behavior disincentives? Relay rules don't mean shit.
1620 2013-08-30 20:47:26 <gmaxwell> warren: in any case. yea, not really important now.
1621 2013-08-30 20:47:44 <gmaxwell> petertodd: limited growth rate if targeting a size is limited size.
1622 2013-08-30 20:48:06 <gmaxwell> petertodd: say there was a utxo targe size of 1TB and each block could only add up to 0.01% of the space remaining.
1623 2013-08-30 20:48:20 <maaku> petertodd jcorgan gmaxwell : I pushed some of my coinjoin implementation, more to follow https://github.com/maaku/coinjoin/blob/master/coinjoin.py
1624 2013-08-30 20:48:23 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Well, Bitcoin and Litecoin both have that. max UTXO == 1MB * blocks... :P
1625 2013-08-30 20:48:38 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Averaging is hard to get right though...
1626 2013-08-30 20:49:00 <gmaxwell> eventually 'consuming old utxo' becomes your transaction fee. the problem is that any miner that was below their limit would be incentivized to create extra outputs just to consume them later.
1627 2013-08-30 20:49:02 <maaku> gmaxwell: if you grep the file for 'REVIEW' you'll find a crypto question I have
1628 2013-08-30 20:49:04 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Could be that just having a separate UTXO growth and scriptSig growth limit is a big step forward though.
1629 2013-08-30 20:49:20 <maaku> not sure if it's safe to use deterministic padding for the blind signature (in general, or the way I'm doing it)
1630 2013-08-30 20:49:30 <gmaxwell> maaku: K.
1631 2013-08-30 20:49:35 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1632 2013-08-30 20:49:55 <sipa> °C.
1633 2013-08-30 20:50:03 <warren> If my rough estimates are correct, the majority of our the UTXO set growth has been p2pool-11 with 600 outputs x 30 times a day, which has been cut down to 25-33% with the recent hardfork, still dusting but a lot less often.
1634 2013-08-30 20:50:46 <warren> I mean, still dusting but in bigger chunks, less often for the smallest miners who are then scared away by variance to PPS.
1635 2013-08-30 20:50:55 ColinT has joined
1636 2013-08-30 20:51:04 saulimus has quit (Quit: saulimus)
1637 2013-08-30 20:51:15 <petertodd> warren: Who cares right now? We're talking about soft-fork rules that will be in place for a long time.
1638 2013-08-30 20:51:25 <petertodd> warren: *Who cares what it is right now?
1639 2013-08-30 20:51:28 idstam has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1640 2013-08-30 20:51:37 <warren> petertodd: "What behavior disincentives? Relay rules don't mean shit." This argument only applies to hostile miners, and they're welcome to try.
1641 2013-08-30 20:51:57 <gmaxwell> hostile? hardly.
1642 2013-08-30 20:52:07 wrabbit has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1643 2013-08-30 20:52:09 <petertodd> warren: 'hostile' is a matter of opinion - lots of profit to be made if people are willing to pay fees.
1644 2013-08-30 20:52:16 <gmaxwell> go look at that mastercoin thing, no one involved is hostile.
1645 2013-08-30 20:52:45 <petertodd> warren: I'll bet you I could get rickroll into the bitcoin blockchain by just creating a suitable tx with a ~10BTC or so fee.
1646 2013-08-30 20:52:52 <warren> It sounds like we'll soon have more alt coins than people on the planet.
1647 2013-08-30 20:53:01 ToryJujube has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1648 2013-08-30 20:53:08 <sipa> one for every subset of humans
1649 2013-08-30 20:54:00 <warren> The altcoin generator app can also create an entire army of shill bots to praise it.
1650 2013-08-30 20:56:35 <warren> Is there a chart of BTC UTXO/time anywhere?
1651 2013-08-30 20:57:26 <sipa> i made a graph once, but it's outdated since a long time
1652 2013-08-30 20:58:53 <gmaxwell> sipa: so 1.6e93910 altcoins soon?
1653 2013-08-30 20:59:35 <gmaxwell> (thats roughly partition(7.1 billion people))
1654 2013-08-30 20:59:42 <sipa> gmaxwell: yeah, and if you want to do a multisig transaction, you just exchange to the coin defined by those participating in it
1655 2013-08-30 20:59:46 asuk has joined
1656 2013-08-30 20:59:50 <gmaxwell> sipa: hahaha
1657 2013-08-30 21:00:13 eoss has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1658 2013-08-30 21:00:40 datagutt has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1659 2013-08-30 21:00:57 <sipa> gmaxwell: i do get a different number, though
1660 2013-08-30 21:01:39 <sipa> 1.63782e2137312969
1661 2013-08-30 21:01:57 <gmaxwell> hm. thats much bigger than mine. I wonder if I used the right number for 7.1 billion. :P
1662 2013-08-30 21:02:18 <sipa> 2^7100000000, right?
1663 2013-08-30 21:03:22 <warren> Hmm, altcoin generator needs to also generate praising articles to publish at Coindesk where they have no quality or journalistic standards.
1664 2013-08-30 21:03:47 stevei has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1665 2013-08-30 21:04:01 <gmaxwell> warren: it's simple, the altcoin generator sells premined coin on an exchange, and uses the procedes to pay mechnical turk to write the articles.
1666 2013-08-30 21:04:25 <gmaxwell> sipa: indeed, you're right, I was mathfailing.
1667 2013-08-30 21:04:35 datagutt has joined
1668 2013-08-30 21:05:14 <warren> gmaxwell: I'll post a 5 million foocoin bounty for someone to write the generator.
1669 2013-08-30 21:05:58 stochasm has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1670 2013-08-30 21:06:47 stochasm has joined
1671 2013-08-30 21:06:58 <warren> gmaxwell: but no, I don't think humans are needed to write the articles. They are so formulaic in content and predictable in shill comments praising the innovation of their leader, that it just requires modifications to scigen and some post bots.
1672 2013-08-30 21:07:27 stochasm has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1673 2013-08-30 21:08:17 stochasm has joined
1674 2013-08-30 21:09:15 moarrr has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1675 2013-08-30 21:13:02 random_cat has joined
1676 2013-08-30 21:14:21 eoss has joined
1677 2013-08-30 21:16:59 macboz has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1678 2013-08-30 21:17:57 wrabbit has joined
1679 2013-08-30 21:20:16 Transisto has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1680 2013-08-30 21:21:39 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1681 2013-08-30 21:21:43 Plinker has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1682 2013-08-30 21:21:55 dvide has joined
1683 2013-08-30 21:23:14 stephantual has quit (Quit: Zzzzz..zzzzz)
1684 2013-08-30 21:23:24 <gmaxwell> maaku: so, I am not at all versed with the information leak risks in RSA _blinding_, and should research this. A known value there should be fine, but I would prefer to use a nonce. E.g. some hash of the original proposal or something that all participants have would still avoid your extra communications overhead.
1685 2013-08-30 21:23:41 Application has joined
1686 2013-08-30 21:24:43 <maaku> gmaxwell: the OAEP padding scheme I'm using is prefixed nonce derived from hashes of the value being blinded ... it just typically also is XOR'd with random data
1687 2013-08-30 21:24:58 <maaku> I removed the random XOR, but it should still be unique
1688 2013-08-30 21:25:32 Squidicuz has joined
1689 2013-08-30 21:25:37 _ingsoc has quit (Quit: leaving)
1690 2013-08-30 21:25:53 <maaku> hrm, i see what you mean about adding data though
1691 2013-08-30 21:26:09 <maaku> btw thanks for reviewing it
1692 2013-08-30 21:26:19 <gmaxwell> I don't really think there is much concern here: all of your keys are completely ephemeral.
1693 2013-08-30 21:27:03 <maaku> cool
1694 2013-08-30 21:27:09 <gmaxwell> (yea, I'm familar with how OAEP works, it's effectively a fiestel construction to make a large block cipher out of a hash)
1695 2013-08-30 21:29:19 <gmaxwell> maaku: you better finish this quick before someone points to ECC ring signature code and I suggest you change to that. :P
1696 2013-08-30 21:30:09 <gmaxwell> (not really though, w/ ring signatures I actually don't know how to prevent DOS)
1697 2013-08-30 21:32:01 <maaku> i didn't know there was an efficient ecc ring signature scheme
1698 2013-08-30 21:32:40 <gmaxwell> maaku: I didn't either. That AnonyMint guy seemed to be saying that there was, I asked for a citation.
1699 2013-08-30 21:33:19 <gmaxwell> I can't tell if that guy is trolling or what, his posting history has a bunch of pretty trolly stuff in it.
1700 2013-08-30 21:33:27 Transisto has joined
1701 2013-08-30 21:33:40 paulpw has joined
1702 2013-08-30 21:34:18 paulpw has quit (Client Quit)
1703 2013-08-30 21:34:51 stephantual has joined
1704 2013-08-30 21:37:32 <maaku> well the blinding stuff is actually a really small part
1705 2013-08-30 21:37:42 Transisto has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1706 2013-08-30 21:37:58 <maaku> just the logistics of managing mixing offers, output entropy, etc. is more engineering work
1707 2013-08-30 21:38:38 <gmaxwell> I know, indeed. I only pointed it out as a "it can be done" sort of thing. All the real work in this stuff is the boring but painful protocol details.
1708 2013-08-30 21:38:44 <gmaxwell> And UIâ¦
1709 2013-08-30 21:39:54 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1710 2013-08-30 21:42:01 <maaku> the ring signature is simpler protocol, but you lose the ability to identify and penalize someone who drops out
1711 2013-08-30 21:43:36 <gmaxwell> maaku: yup. or rather, dropout isn't the problemâ the problem is that you have 8 people and get 9 signed outputs. Now what? You can't tell who did it in order to penalize them.
1712 2013-08-30 21:44:21 patcon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1713 2013-08-30 21:44:24 <gmaxwell> I wouldn't be surprised if with most ring signature schemes you could have everyone reveal their random keys and thus uncloak everyone, but that needs a consensus protocol to cleanly decide that the mix failed before people start signing.
1714 2013-08-30 21:44:52 patcon has joined
1715 2013-08-30 21:45:41 <petertodd> maaku: If I'm reading your code right, in your implementation change outputs aren't blinded - why not?
1716 2013-08-30 21:46:10 <maaku> petertodd: because there's no point
1717 2013-08-30 21:46:22 <petertodd> maaku: Why wouldn't there be a point?
1718 2013-08-30 21:46:28 <maaku> but you could always request it to be blinded if you wanted
1719 2013-08-30 21:46:42 <maaku> petertodd: because you have the offer, the amount isn't unique, so you can identify who it's from
1720 2013-08-30 21:46:58 <petertodd> maaku: Oh, so your offers are fixed value amount?
1721 2013-08-30 21:47:21 <maaku> the offers specify the value for each output
1722 2013-08-30 21:47:53 <maaku> and mixing has no effect if the outputs aren't the same size, so those are the only ones you need to blind
1723 2013-08-30 21:48:19 <petertodd> Right, see, I'd argue that specifying the change as a output amount works too, and gives people who just want to mix some range amount of coins more options in finding peers to mix with.
1724 2013-08-30 21:48:33 <maaku> so to keep the number of signatures down, you can leave change addreses in the clear
1725 2013-08-30 21:48:38 <petertodd> IE, I want to mix between 1BTC and 2BTC, and someone happens to have a 1.2BTC change output.
1726 2013-08-30 21:49:18 <maaku> petertodd: I think it'd be more useful for people to universally adopt conventions on mixed token sizes
1727 2013-08-30 21:49:42 <maaku> mixing 1.2btc is only useful if there are other people mixing 1.2btc
1728 2013-08-30 21:50:06 Transisto has joined
1729 2013-08-30 21:50:23 <maaku> hrm, maybe not
1730 2013-08-30 21:50:24 <gmaxwell> petertodd: blinding the change is actually somewhat problematic. The output and change need to be seperate messages or they get linked by virtue of being in the same message.
1731 2013-08-30 21:50:40 <petertodd> maaku: Right, but as I say, a UI can be designed as "Make x BTC worth of funds anonymous" and behind the scenes you find transactions for useful amounts until all the funds are mixed.
1732 2013-08-30 21:50:49 <maaku> gmaxwell: i group the blinding messages together, but unblinding is separate
1733 2013-08-30 21:51:00 <gmaxwell> petertodd: so you have to do a seperate blinding mix of change outputs.. okay so far.. but now you get a change output that claims to be 9999 BTC.
1734 2013-08-30 21:51:14 <gmaxwell> maaku: yea, I just meant the actual cryptographic operations... how you seralize is another matter.
1735 2013-08-30 21:51:32 <gmaxwell> petertodd: so who do you blame for that crazy change output?
1736 2013-08-30 21:51:36 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Yeah, sound like some specific problems related to this implementation. I'd still argue that in general you want change to be just as ameniable to mixing as anything else.
1737 2013-08-30 21:51:53 <maaku> petertodd: it is
1738 2013-08-30 21:52:00 <maaku> perhaps it's a poorly chosen word
1739 2013-08-30 21:52:13 <gmaxwell> petertodd: it cannot be unless its the same size as something else. Once its the same size then sure all is cool.
1740 2013-08-30 21:52:16 <hydromet> using Bitcoin-Qt, if I want to create one of my own bitcoin addresses then I simply do so using Receive -> New receiving address and entering an optional label then selecting Ok. This address is automatically generated for me once I enter my passphrase to my wallet. How does Bitcoin-Qt guarantee this cryptographic public address (33 characters in length) is unique within the bitcoin network?
1741 2013-08-30 21:52:18 <maaku> you can choose some outputs to be cleartext, some to be blinded
1742 2013-08-30 21:52:33 <petertodd> maaku: Well, my understanding here is that the participants know linkage from txin->cleartext txout
1743 2013-08-30 21:52:36 <maaku> i just called the clear ones 'change' because i figured that'd be the use case
1744 2013-08-30 21:52:51 <maaku> petertodd: yes
1745 2013-08-30 21:52:57 <gmaxwell> hydromet: the requesting your passphrase there is a bug which will be fixed in the next major release. (not your question, but I thought I'd point it out)
1746 2013-08-30 21:53:07 patcon has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1747 2013-08-30 21:53:08 <petertodd> gmaxwell: As I say, it gives people more options: maybe I have a 100BTC output, and 1.5BTC change, someone else just needs to mix some smaller amount, so copies my change amount.
1748 2013-08-30 21:53:09 <jcorgan> hydromet: it's not guaranteed, just so extremely unlikely that you needn't worry about it
1749 2013-08-30 21:53:12 <maaku> petertodd: if you want your change outputs blinded, then blind them
1750 2013-08-30 21:53:44 <gmaxwell> hydromet: It doesn't "guarantee" but probability does, practically. The numbers are enormous the probability of a collision is below consideration.
1751 2013-08-30 21:53:46 <hydromet> gmaxwell: in the next major release the passphrase will not be required?
1752 2013-08-30 21:54:23 <gmaxwell> maaku: uh, hows that work in your scheme? what happens if someone asks for a change output larger than their input?
1753 2013-08-30 21:54:35 <hydromet> jcorgan: does Bitcoin-Qt use a random number generating program in part to create this probabilistically unique address?
1754 2013-08-30 21:55:03 <gmaxwell> hydromet: Correct, thats what I said, it prompting for a passphrase on generation is a bug.
1755 2013-08-30 21:55:23 <jcorgan> hydromet: yes
1756 2013-08-30 21:55:29 <gmaxwell> hydromet: it uses the operating systems facilities for cryptographically strong randomness and other sources.
1757 2013-08-30 21:55:36 <hydromet> gmaxwell: jcorgan: great to know, thanks
1758 2013-08-30 21:55:43 <maaku> that's not in code i posted yet, but either the transaction won't validate (outputs > inputs), or someone won't sign (their output is missing)
1759 2013-08-30 21:56:05 <gmaxwell> maaku: er, that gives an easy way to jam it. :(
1760 2013-08-30 21:56:18 <maaku> but if i understand it correctly, the protocol won't even get that far
1761 2013-08-30 21:56:44 <hydromet> gmaxwell: so for example Bitcoin-Qt on Mac OS X uses one of the Apple supplied tools (srand, rand etc.)?
1762 2013-08-30 21:57:37 <gmaxwell> hydromet: egads no!, those aren't cryptographically strong. It uses /dev/urandom on OSX IIRC.
1763 2013-08-30 21:57:38 <maaku> hrm, i can include the full output in the signature
1764 2013-08-30 21:57:43 <maaku> that would allow it to get detected earlier
1765 2013-08-30 21:58:19 <gmaxwell> maaku: right, if you can make the values non-blind that would achieve what you want.
1766 2013-08-30 21:58:49 <maaku> ?
1767 2013-08-30 21:58:55 <maaku> right now they aren't part of the blind signature, isn't that the problem?
1768 2013-08-30 21:59:09 <gmaxwell> maaku: I don't know if you caught what petertodd was saying. He's pointing out that if you and I are mixing 10 BTC inputs, and it so happens that I have 1 BTC change, then it would be good if PT could join the transaction with his 1 BTC input, and it would at least be anonymized relative to my change.
1769 2013-08-30 21:59:56 Transisto has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1770 2013-08-30 21:59:57 <maaku> gmaxwell: it can be adjusted to do that with some extra logic
1771 2013-08-30 22:00:11 <gmaxwell> maaku: no. if the change is blinded then you can't tell who provided a bad change value. I think you should be doing is one of these blind signature rounds for every distinct output value, though there may be other ways to solve it.
1772 2013-08-30 22:00:15 <maaku> so long as people get agreement on which amounts are blinded and which aren't
1773 2013-08-30 22:00:19 Transisto has joined
1774 2013-08-30 22:01:00 <maaku> gmaxwell: sure you can, it won't match the original offers
1775 2013-08-30 22:01:07 <maaku> no signature ops to detect that
1776 2013-08-30 22:01:14 <gmaxwell> basically you want to make it so that there will _never_ be a case where more outputs show up than you have coins for. So you can be confident that if someone refuses to sign its because they're intentionally jamming the process.
1777 2013-08-30 22:01:25 <gmaxwell> maaku: but you don't know who did it.
1778 2013-08-30 22:01:53 <gmaxwell> so, sure, people don't signâ but is it because the values were bad or is it because they're trying to jam the process?
1779 2013-08-30 22:02:28 <maaku> i guess what i'm saying is it's not a very effective DoS
1780 2013-08-30 22:02:37 <maaku> just as equivalently, why not send out random messages
1781 2013-08-30 22:02:47 <maaku> it doesn't take much more work to reject them
1782 2013-08-30 22:02:50 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1783 2013-08-30 22:03:08 <gmaxwell> How can you stop someone? they join every mix and it fails in the last stage before people sign.. and you try again and it fails again.
1784 2013-08-30 22:03:53 <gmaxwell> If you're willing to take that risk you can even skip the blind signing, just share a secret key value with all the participants and they provide that with their outputs (or encrypt their outputs with it) when they reconnect to provide outputs.
1785 2013-08-30 22:03:56 <maaku> gmaxwell: i can sign the request (containing the shuffled outputs), would that work?
1786 2013-08-30 22:04:07 <jcorgan> only thing I can think of is to make joining "costly" by some suitable metric
1787 2013-08-30 22:04:14 <maaku> force the person doing the shuffle to identify themselves
1788 2013-08-30 22:04:48 Transisto has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1789 2013-08-30 22:04:57 Transisto has joined
1790 2013-08-30 22:05:08 <gmaxwell> The blind signing solved this, its just that you have to only have one value of coins in any blind signing session, so if you want to have multiple blinded values of different amounts you must run it multiple times.
1791 2013-08-30 22:05:32 Application has joined
1792 2013-08-30 22:06:05 <maaku> gmaxwell: there are simpler ways to solve it
1793 2013-08-30 22:06:36 PrimeStunna has quit (Quit: PrimeStunna)
1794 2013-08-30 22:06:38 <maaku> have the shuffler identify themselves so you can penalize them
1795 2013-08-30 22:06:46 <maaku> or penalize the whole group a little bit each time a join fails
1796 2013-08-30 22:06:55 <maaku> the attacker won't last very long
1797 2013-08-30 22:08:19 <petertodd> maaku: Assuming # of honest >> # of attackers. Sounds like I can destroy other peoples fidelity bonds/whatever this way, and the cost to the defenders is some multiple of the cost to me.
1798 2013-08-30 22:09:01 <petertodd> maaku: Ok if it's some limited resource they'd be paying anyway, but that's more true with fee-based systems; this is a dedicated mix transaction.
1799 2013-08-30 22:09:14 Transisto has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1800 2013-08-30 22:09:31 <maaku> well i plan on adding the locked fee you talked about
1801 2013-08-30 22:09:40 <petertodd> cool, that's good
1802 2013-08-30 22:09:47 <maaku> but this specific issue is easy to solve if the proposed shuffle is signed
1803 2013-08-30 22:10:05 <maaku> and that doesn't reveal anything except the bad participant
1804 2013-08-30 22:10:16 <maaku> so i don't see what the issue is (honestly asking)
1805 2013-08-30 22:11:35 <petertodd> maaku: So long as you can single out the one attacker it's not so bad, although one ugly issue is you can still flood the communications channel by pretending to be honest participants in a mix that you are also sabotaging at the saem time.
1806 2013-08-30 22:12:04 <petertodd> Hmm... this could be an issue inherent to n-party mixers though...
1807 2013-08-30 22:13:23 Transisto has joined
1808 2013-08-30 22:14:28 WKNiGHT has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.in)
1809 2013-08-30 22:16:10 <gmaxwell> maaku: okay, I don't know what design you're using where there is a shuffler.
1810 2013-08-30 22:16:56 <maaku> shuffle = randomize the order of the outputs?
1811 2013-08-30 22:17:01 <maaku> that's necessary in a mixer, no?
1812 2013-08-30 22:17:24 <gmaxwell> but if you're only using the blindsigning to blind the shuffler, the shuffler still need to know the value of the output he's signing for when he signs it (and uses a different signing key for each denomination) so he can identify which user is giving him outputs requesting screwy sizes.
1813 2013-08-30 22:17:43 Transisto has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1814 2013-08-30 22:18:12 <gmaxwell> maaku: no, it's not. users would provide their outputs in random orderâ it you can just take them in the order you recive them. or just sort them numerically by pubkey, or whatever.
1815 2013-08-30 22:18:12 Elmf has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1816 2013-08-30 22:19:31 <maaku> ok, either way. the shuffle makes sure it's random. or you can sort the signatures or whatever
1817 2013-08-30 22:19:38 msvb-lab has quit (Quit: msvb-lab)
1818 2013-08-30 22:19:48 <maaku> but someone takes the blinded tokens, signs them, and distributes an order list of outputs
1819 2013-08-30 22:20:13 <hydromet> gmaxwell: sigh, I suppose Apple has some reason for including rand and srandom on OS X for historical reasons ... good to know about /dev/urandom
1820 2013-08-30 22:20:16 <maaku> i was calling that person the shuffler
1821 2013-08-30 22:21:25 AusBitBank has joined
1822 2013-08-30 22:22:00 <gmaxwell> maaku: okay, I'd assumed you were doing the N^2 thing where all parties were signing the blinded values. This eliminates the need for one party to play the shuffler. But it's probably much simpler to implement it with a shuffler.
1823 2013-08-30 22:22:07 Chamuyo has joined
1824 2013-08-30 22:22:19 <gmaxwell> If you do that then you still, however, have to have a different signing key for every denomination.
1825 2013-08-30 22:22:30 Chamuyo has left ()
1826 2013-08-30 22:22:33 <gmaxwell> otherwise someone can make the shuffler fail even though its not shufflers fault.
1827 2013-08-30 22:23:11 <gmaxwell> (this is exactly the same behavior that chaum token banks need to have)
1828 2013-08-30 22:23:25 <maaku> how?
1829 2013-08-30 22:24:10 <gmaxwell> The problem is that people show up to the shuffler with their inputs and ask the shuffler to blind sign their tokens. The shuffler needs to make sure that it doesn't give out more in tokens then there are outputs.
1830 2013-08-30 22:24:39 <gmaxwell> Then the parties anonymously reconned to the shuffler and provide their unblinded tokens which tell the shuffler where to send the outputs.
1831 2013-08-30 22:25:30 <gmaxwell> if the shuffler uses only one signing key he can't tell the tokens apart (which is the point of blinding them) but then people could ask for more outputs than they had inputs.
1832 2013-08-30 22:25:57 <gmaxwell> and the shuffler then fails to do it's job.. e.g. it can't produce a valid transaction that includes all parties.
1833 2013-08-30 22:26:12 <maaku> we covered that already; include the value in the blinded token
1834 2013-08-30 22:26:48 <gmaxwell> right, so I give the shuffler a blinded token that says pay 99999 BTC to 1COW .. even though I provided only 10 btc input.
1835 2013-08-30 22:27:14 <gmaxwell> he can't tell, and he signs... (because its blinded). Later you give him the unblinded token back and now he's stuck.
1836 2013-08-30 22:27:24 <gmaxwell> but its your fault not his, but he can't even tell who you are.
1837 2013-08-30 22:28:26 <gmaxwell> so what I'm suggesting is that you also provide the value outside of the blinding, and he uses a signing key that depends on the value. And then when you redeem he checks using the right key.
1838 2013-08-30 22:28:49 <gmaxwell> and then he can avoid issuing more value than he has input.
1839 2013-08-30 22:29:11 WKNiGHT has joined
1840 2013-08-30 22:29:11 WKNiGHT has quit (Changing host)
1841 2013-08-30 22:29:11 WKNiGHT has joined
1842 2013-08-30 22:30:01 <maaku> ok
1843 2013-08-30 22:31:30 <gmaxwell> (you also need to make sure that the shuffler publicly commits to the keys he is using first, otherwise he can give you marked tokens, e.g. by using a different set of keys for just your outputs)
1844 2013-08-30 22:31:58 <maaku> yeah he can do that in the Join message
1845 2013-08-30 22:33:07 <gmaxwell> thanks for posting. :)
1846 2013-08-30 22:33:34 <gmaxwell> (need people other than AnonyMint to post, I'm not sure what he's up to...)
1847 2013-08-30 22:36:16 <gmaxwell> maaku: wrt join messages, yea, cruddy thing there is if you are supporting arbitrary values, e.g. for change, you'd have to commit a lot of keys.
1848 2013-08-30 22:36:37 <gmaxwell> I'm sure you can get around this by restricting the number of distinct values or something.
1849 2013-08-30 22:39:27 <maaku> well that was my original approach, to standardize on a set of distinct output sizes, but now i'm not so sure
1850 2013-08-30 22:40:47 <gmaxwell> maaku: just have the inputing parties name the distinct output sizes they are interested in. Up to some number per party.. then you just assign each one to a key, and the maximum number of keys you have is small.
1851 2013-08-30 22:40:57 <maaku> i have a max_sigops value in the offer, which refers to the number of blind signatures required
1852 2013-08-30 22:41:29 <maaku> is having specific amounts valuable? or would a range work?
1853 2013-08-30 22:42:35 Transisto has joined
1854 2013-08-30 22:43:23 <gmaxwell> E.g. I might provide in 11 BTC and ask for 10,1 output values... after everyone gives their amounts the shuffler gives everyone his keys for the requested amounts.. and then I tell the shuffler my blinded 10 btc token and my blinded 1 btc token for him to sign.
1855 2013-08-30 22:44:01 <gmaxwell> A range doesn't work, because it doesn't let him have a small number of signing keys where each key is matched to a particular output value.
1856 2013-08-30 22:44:28 <gmaxwell> (though you could adverise some range or such as a proposed main value of a particular group)
1857 2013-08-30 22:45:08 <gmaxwell> maaku: you're writing this not me, I should hushup and let you figure out how you want to do it.
1858 2013-08-30 22:47:43 <petertodd> gmaxwell: heh. Here's something to think about: identical input values are all well and good for a dedicated mixing transaction, but for opportunistic mixing, how can you best optimize to balance anonymity, fees, and speed of transaction? (for some set of constants K)
1859 2013-08-30 22:47:52 Transisto has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1860 2013-08-30 22:48:29 CodeShark has joined
1861 2013-08-30 22:48:34 <maaku> yeah there's a couple of NP-hard problems hidden in the boring implementation details
1862 2013-08-30 22:48:37 <gmaxwell> heck if I know. For _purely_ opportunistic transactions I think it's easy: you take the first best option.
1863 2013-08-30 22:49:41 <gmaxwell> The rational there is that "do nothing" is not a useful option for opportunistic. For opportunistic, you'd look for the nearest option to your intended change output (or failing that, your txout value), within some short time out and call that good enough.
1864 2013-08-30 22:50:03 <gmaxwell> (or alternatively, if there are any who would pay you to combine with them, you'd take the highest payer)
1865 2013-08-30 22:50:05 Transisto has joined
1866 2013-08-30 22:51:03 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Yeah, that's my suspicion too. I guess the one good thing is that the anti-dos-by-fees system I proposed lets you only reveal one of the txin's you are going to use - if there are more than two or three txin's for the transaction you've got some more flexibility.
1867 2013-08-30 22:51:05 <gmaxwell> The idea with opportunistic is that your primary goal isn't privacy, thats a plesent side effect. Instead you are tryingâ in strict priority order: to get paid, to reduce txn size, to help your fellow man get privacy, and finally to make life hard for data analysis.
1868 2013-08-30 22:51:33 <petertodd> On the other hand the downside is that you can't advertise what txout values you want as easily.
1869 2013-08-30 22:52:30 <gmaxwell> even if opportunistic tends to fail (no mate found) pretty often, the existance of it makes data analysis hard.
1870 2013-08-30 22:52:55 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Ok, so then we've got the naive implementation, followed by a separate "I just want to mix some money" mode where you just copy the other's txout values, followed by?
1871 2013-08-30 22:53:24 <petertodd> Provides plausible deniability too.
1872 2013-08-30 22:53:32 Anduck has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1873 2013-08-30 22:54:05 <petertodd> Hmm... mixing with yourself is probably not a bad option too - advertise one txin, and if no-one else replies, reply to yourself with the other txin.
1874 2013-08-30 22:54:36 Diapolo has joined
1875 2013-08-30 22:54:36 <gmaxwell> petertodd: ideally you could have these modes speaking the same protocol but making different local decisions... may even be different software.
1876 2013-08-30 22:54:46 Transisto has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1877 2013-08-30 22:55:21 <petertodd> Definitely thinking this needs to be a universal protocol with many implementations for many different wallets.
1878 2013-08-30 22:55:24 <gmaxwell> petertodd: some formulations might move all communications to a private channel after the offer... so no need to emulate the rest of the procol if its just yourself.
1879 2013-08-30 22:55:45 PrimeStunna has joined
1880 2013-08-30 22:56:30 <petertodd> gmaxwell: True - I have a hunch you could make return-path-based routing work too, where you say "I want to reply to this message" and nodes forward it back to wherever they got it from.
1881 2013-08-30 22:58:07 eian has joined
1882 2013-08-30 23:02:40 <gmaxwell> I certantly think any implementation of this should try to move the communication to participants only as fast as possible. To get the best privacy for non-coinjoiner it should be infeasable to reliably determine which txn are coinjoined.
1883 2013-08-30 23:03:00 B0g4r7_ has joined
1884 2013-08-30 23:03:35 bmcgee has quit (Quit: bmcgee)
1885 2013-08-30 23:06:23 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Yeah, well, return-path-routing should probably work fine assuming node churn/unreliability is reasonable and the density of malicious attackers isn't high.
1886 2013-08-30 23:09:27 <petertodd> A circular buffer of integer peer indexes is pretty cheap to maintain - we're only going to be getting dozens of unique messages per second max, so maybe a few MB of return path mappings.
1887 2013-08-30 23:09:43 one_zero has joined
1888 2013-08-30 23:09:46 <petertodd> s/circular buffer/limited map/g
1889 2013-08-30 23:10:05 <gmaxwell> petertodd: I think you're way out far ahead of anything I have room in my mind to think about.
1890 2013-08-30 23:10:32 <gmaxwell> anything that adds a directed routing layer to the bitcoin network sounds suspiciously like "step 2. Boil the oceans".
1891 2013-08-30 23:10:54 <petertodd> gmaxwell: lol, be warned that I'll have a whole week with a notepad and the canadian wilderness to come up with dumb ideas :P
1892 2013-08-30 23:11:11 <gmaxwell> I suggest you bring a solar panel and a netbook...
1893 2013-08-30 23:11:20 <gmaxwell> compiling code on a notepad takes a while.
1894 2013-08-30 23:12:04 <petertodd> pff, my down sleeping bag cost me more than a netbook just to save a few hundred grams
1895 2013-08-30 23:15:12 asuk has quit ()
1896 2013-08-30 23:15:46 random_cat has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1897 2013-08-30 23:18:04 <petertodd> Lol, pretty funny though: so 3410m worth of total elevation gain on the trip, * 9.8joules/meter * 1kg = 33.4kJ ~= 1 gram of fat; I wonder what's the actual energy usage including inefficiencies?
1898 2013-08-30 23:18:27 random_cat has joined
1899 2013-08-30 23:18:28 <Diapolo> Guys, good evening... quick question, is there a quick way to propagate a Bitcoin hidden-service, so it get's used by other peers? Or do other users need to know the address?
1900 2013-08-30 23:18:50 <petertodd> Diapolo: Happens automatically provided you tell bitcoind the hidden service address
1901 2013-08-30 23:19:28 <Diapolo> -proxy=127.0.0.1:9050 -externalip=2l2u6mrojvm6zypx.onion -bind=127.0.0.1
1902 2013-08-30 23:19:44 <petertodd> that should work
1903 2013-08-30 23:19:47 eoss has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1904 2013-08-30 23:19:47 <Diapolo> seems to take a long time or something is not working once again with incoming connections
1905 2013-08-30 23:19:58 <Diapolo> I recently upgraded Tor, which killed my config ^^.
1906 2013-08-30 23:20:48 <petertodd> That's the same config as I use, so it should be fine. Double check the external ip is correct I guess?
1907 2013-08-30 23:21:45 <Diapolo> That should do it or? HiddenServiceDir C:\Users\Diapolo\AppData\Local\Vidalia\bitcoin-mainnet HiddenServicePort 8333 127.0.0.1:8333
1908 2013-08-30 23:22:10 <petertodd> I think that should be fine
1909 2013-08-30 23:22:27 <petertodd> Also try connecting to your own node with socat through tor
1910 2013-08-30 23:22:54 <Diapolo> petertodd: Can you give the .onion address a try via bitcoind or -qt?
1911 2013-08-30 23:22:55 <petertodd> (heck, just going to 2l2u6mrojvm6zypx.onion in a webbrowser should work too I think)
1912 2013-08-30 23:23:56 <petertodd> Diapolo: also might want to set the -debug switch and see what's in your debug.log when you try connecting
1913 2013-08-30 23:25:45 Transisto has joined
1914 2013-08-30 23:25:57 <Diapolo> seems I connected to you
1915 2013-08-30 23:28:38 <petertodd> and I connected to you just fine
1916 2013-08-30 23:29:32 <Diapolo> getpeerinfo doesn't show you as inbound do I need to remove your node first that I added via addnode?
1917 2013-08-30 23:30:18 <petertodd> oh, maybe?
1918 2013-08-30 23:30:30 rdymac has quit (Excess Flood)
1919 2013-08-30 23:30:32 <petertodd> though I think that doesn't actually stop the connection
1920 2013-08-30 23:30:41 <petertodd> I dunno, when did you start this node?
1921 2013-08-30 23:30:43 Transisto has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1922 2013-08-30 23:30:58 Guest32424 has quit (Quit: coingenuity.com)
1923 2013-08-30 23:31:04 nomailing has quit (Quit: nomailing)
1924 2013-08-30 23:31:17 <Diapolo> just 20 Minutes ago, it's not running steady
1925 2013-08-30 23:31:31 <gmaxwell> 16:28 < Diapolo> getpeerinfo doesn't show you as inbound do I need to remove your node first that I added via addnode?
1926 2013-08-30 23:31:39 <gmaxwell> you only see 127.0.0.1 as the peer address.
1927 2013-08-30 23:31:40 wamatt has quit (Quit: wamatt)
1928 2013-08-30 23:31:48 coingenuity has joined
1929 2013-08-30 23:31:48 coingenuity has quit (Changing host)
1930 2013-08-30 23:31:48 coingenuity has joined
1931 2013-08-30 23:31:50 <gmaxwell> onion doesn't tell you where the connection is coming from.
1932 2013-08-30 23:32:09 <petertodd> Diapolo: I'd just wait, probably everything is working fine and you'll get inbound in a few hours.
1933 2013-08-30 23:32:19 rdymac has joined
1934 2013-08-30 23:32:22 <Diapolo> I saw a node with peters .onion address as outbound not 127.0.0.1
1935 2013-08-30 23:32:33 <petertodd> Yeah, which means Tor is working fine.
1936 2013-08-30 23:32:40 <jcorgan> with onlynet=Tor I start getting hidden inbounds pretty quickly
1937 2013-08-30 23:33:13 <sipa> Diapolo: for outbound addresses you know the peer's address (as you're connecting to them...)
1938 2013-08-30 23:33:21 <gmaxwell> Diapolo: if you see the onion its because its outbound.
1939 2013-08-30 23:33:25 <Diapolo> petertodd, but I want to confirm connection to my hidden-service you know :)
1940 2013-08-30 23:33:26 <sipa> Diapolo: for inbound you don't, as it appears to be coming from tor
1941 2013-08-30 23:34:22 <Diapolo> to be sure, can anyone try an "addnode 2l2u6mrojvm6zypx.onion add" :)
1942 2013-08-30 23:34:41 Transisto has joined
1943 2013-08-30 23:36:13 eoss has joined
1944 2013-08-30 23:36:40 digitalmagus2 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1945 2013-08-30 23:38:05 <jcorgan> why does bitcoind -conf foo.conf getpeerinfo fail
1946 2013-08-30 23:38:14 eoss has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1947 2013-08-30 23:38:23 <jcorgan> it complains about missing conf in $HOME/.bitcoin
1948 2013-08-30 23:38:33 Thepok has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1949 2013-08-30 23:39:07 <Diapolo> either it is not working or no one tried to reach me yet
1950 2013-08-30 23:40:22 <jcorgan> looks like it is searching for default bitcoin.conf before it parses the command line
1951 2013-08-30 23:40:35 digitalmagus2 has joined
1952 2013-08-30 23:40:44 <gmaxwell> Diapolo: I'm not sure that addnode <onion> works!
1953 2013-08-30 23:41:07 <Diapolo> gmaxwell: I was able to add peters node that way at least
1954 2013-08-30 23:41:12 <Diapolo> but I was not able to remove it
1955 2013-08-30 23:41:47 <jcorgan> am i doing it wrong?
1956 2013-08-30 23:41:50 <Diapolo> jcorgan: tried -conf=foo.conf?
1957 2013-08-30 23:42:17 <jcorgan> facepalm
1958 2013-08-30 23:42:23 * jcorgan is ashamed
1959 2013-08-30 23:42:55 <gmaxwell> Diapolo: I think it doesn't actually work, we should fix that.
1960 2013-08-30 23:43:08 Transisto has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1961 2013-08-30 23:43:36 <Diapolo> gmaxwell: shall I open a quick issue ticket? and can you try an -addnode perhaps?
1962 2013-08-30 23:43:50 <gmaxwell> addnode works fine.
1963 2013-08-30 23:43:55 <gmaxwell> I can add you, one sec.
1964 2013-08-30 23:44:20 richcollins has quit (Quit: richcollins)
1965 2013-08-30 23:45:23 <gmaxwell> 2013-08-30 23:44:28 send version message: version 70001, blocks=255136, us=5yljdotwhmx65nlk.onion:8333, them=2l2u6mrojvm6zypx.onion:8333, peer=2l2u6mrojvm6zypx.onion:8333
1966 2013-08-30 23:45:27 Transisto has joined
1967 2013-08-30 23:45:56 Transisto has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1968 2013-08-30 23:46:27 <Diapolo> gmaxwell: yeah
1969 2013-08-30 23:46:34 eian has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1970 2013-08-30 23:46:36 <Diapolo> 127.0.0.1 and inbound
1971 2013-08-30 23:46:58 <Diapolo> so I did a correct setup, but still wonder why no other peer found my node
1972 2013-08-30 23:47:17 sserrano44 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1973 2013-08-30 23:48:12 <jcorgan> how long does it take for new peers to be paid attention to?
1974 2013-08-30 23:49:47 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1975 2013-08-30 23:50:19 Transisto has joined
1976 2013-08-30 23:50:58 <gmaxwell> Diapolo: are you synced up?
1977 2013-08-30 23:51:21 <gmaxwell> nodes only announce themselves once per 24 hours, and only if they think the are synced up and listening.
1978 2013-08-30 23:51:38 mrkent has joined
1979 2013-08-30 23:51:41 mrkent has quit (Changing host)
1980 2013-08-30 23:51:41 mrkent has joined
1981 2013-08-30 23:51:49 <Diapolo> gmaxwell: yeah
1982 2013-08-30 23:52:22 Application has joined
1983 2013-08-30 23:52:31 <gmaxwell> Diapolo: otherwise it may just be that all HS using nodes currently have their output slots full and no one tried to connect yet.
1984 2013-08-30 23:53:12 <Diapolo> gmaxwell: I'll give it another try tomorrow and will let it run a few hours and see what happens
1985 2013-08-30 23:54:59 eoss has joined
1986 2013-08-30 23:55:12 Transisto has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1987 2013-08-30 23:55:19 <Diapolo> gmaxwell: You saw that I at least have attached an extended documentation into my proxy-pull? need to work out that damn test-plan still :D
1988 2013-08-30 23:55:48 Transisto has joined
1989 2013-08-30 23:56:55 <Diapolo> "subver" : "/Satoshi:0.8.2.2/Grokked:1.01-temp/",?
1990 2013-08-30 23:57:44 stephantual has quit (Quit: Zzzzz..zzzzz)