1 2013-11-05 00:00:15 <gmaxwell> (remove the 00 and adjust four size fields (redundancy, hurrah!))
   2 2013-11-05 00:00:22 realazthat has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
   3 2013-11-05 00:00:27 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
   4 2013-11-05 00:00:44 <gmaxwell> might be handy to have a canonicizer script.
   5 2013-11-05 00:00:57 <michagogo> Is there a "strip the padding script" out there I haven't managed to find?
   6 2013-11-05 00:01:11 <michagogo> I'll take that as a "no" :P
   7 2013-11-05 00:01:24 <michagogo> s/ script"/" script/
   8 2013-11-05 00:01:48 <MC1984> so your opinion of this paper is roughly "its not that exciting". I need to stop assuming research is legit because they have cite notes and used the proper font
   9 2013-11-05 00:01:50 <gmaxwell> not that I'm aware of.
  10 2013-11-05 00:02:01 terry has joined
  11 2013-11-05 00:02:23 licnep has joined
  12 2013-11-05 00:02:24 terry is now known as Guest70676
  13 2013-11-05 00:02:30 debiantoruser has joined
  14 2013-11-05 00:02:36 <gmaxwell> MC1984: I don't think it's non-legit, but it's not an urgent issue.
  15 2013-11-05 00:02:54 realazthat has joined
  16 2013-11-05 00:03:14 <MC1984> well not more urgent than all the other issues
  17 2013-11-05 00:03:35 Application has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  18 2013-11-05 00:03:58 <gmaxwell> MC1984: I mean, I don't know if its actually pratically exploitable in any degree, if it is exploited it would be very visible (creating lots of orphans)
  19 2013-11-05 00:04:19 <MC1984> would it even matter
  20 2013-11-05 00:06:50 <MC1984> maybe it would. Maybe people would get angry.
  21 2013-11-05 00:08:30 <MC1984> maybe p2pool would start being a thing then
  22 2013-11-05 00:09:09 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  23 2013-11-05 00:09:40 agnostic98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  24 2013-11-05 00:10:54 <MC1984> welp time for bed
  25 2013-11-05 00:10:57 MC1984 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  26 2013-11-05 00:14:41 freewil has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  27 2013-11-05 00:14:51 Andrevan has joined
  28 2013-11-05 00:15:50 upb has joined
  29 2013-11-05 00:15:55 agricocb1 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  30 2013-11-05 00:18:49 macboz has joined
  31 2013-11-05 00:20:11 DaQatz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  32 2013-11-05 00:20:15 neep3r_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  33 2013-11-05 00:20:42 Cazz0r has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  34 2013-11-05 00:20:47 <HaltingState> is anyone doing the selfish miner attack yet lol
  35 2013-11-05 00:20:51 Dingo___ has joined
  36 2013-11-05 00:21:00 Cazz0r has joined
  37 2013-11-05 00:22:12 TheButterZone has joined
  38 2013-11-05 00:24:39 <HaltingState> gmaxwell, one solution is to time stamp the blocks and have the honest miners continue on blocks based upon time stamp
  39 2013-11-05 00:24:56 <gmaxwell> ...
  40 2013-11-05 00:25:03 grau has joined
  41 2013-11-05 00:25:06 <HaltingState> and just ignore the blocks that would cause orphans if they are within 2 blocks of last public
  42 2013-11-05 00:25:13 <gmaxwell> ...
  43 2013-11-05 00:25:57 <gmaxwell> HaltingState: Neither of these are remotely sensible proposals.
  44 2013-11-05 00:26:15 zeddan81 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  45 2013-11-05 00:26:33 <gmaxwell> HaltingState: I don't have time to play distributed systems 101 today, sadly. But I'm sure you'll figure out why I'm giving you a wtf look if you think about it for a while. :)
  46 2013-11-05 00:26:47 groglogic has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  47 2013-11-05 00:27:42 a_meteor has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  48 2013-11-05 00:28:33 ParadoxBTC has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
  49 2013-11-05 00:29:15 grau has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  50 2013-11-05 00:29:24 <HaltingState> gmaxwell, your right; hmm however, simplier attack is just having mining pools agree to mine each others blocks and attempt to orphan blocks from other pools when possible
  51 2013-11-05 00:29:30 <HaltingState> and i dont think that can be prevented
  52 2013-11-05 00:29:50 neep3r has joined
  53 2013-11-05 00:29:54 <HaltingState> the problem here is that an individual pool can do this attack with coordinating with other pools; but dont think it matters
  54 2013-11-05 00:29:54 zeddan81 has joined
  55 2013-11-05 00:30:40 michagogo has quit (Quit: goodnight)
  56 2013-11-05 00:31:24 dansmith_btc has joined
  57 2013-11-05 00:32:56 foorfi has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
  58 2013-11-05 00:34:54 <gmaxwell> HaltingState: that doesn't do anything useful unless the cartel is a majority hashrate.
  59 2013-11-05 00:35:10 <gmaxwell> (unless I misunderstood what you were saying there)
  60 2013-11-05 00:35:14 <HaltingState> ah; they have to keep the blocks secret
  61 2013-11-05 00:35:22 <HaltingState> in order to derive the advantage
  62 2013-11-05 00:35:49 <gmaxwell> not just secret, secret and then they have to announce as late as possible and still beat compeating blocks.
  63 2013-11-05 00:36:24 Dingo___ has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
  64 2013-11-05 00:37:06 btcbtc has joined
  65 2013-11-05 00:37:39 <brocktice> do yourselves a favor, don't read the slashdot discussion on that paper...
  66 2013-11-05 00:37:51 <Sorcier_FXK> :D
  67 2013-11-05 00:42:10 Thepok has joined
  68 2013-11-05 00:45:01 xiangfu has joined
  69 2013-11-05 00:45:12 CryptoBuck has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  70 2013-11-05 00:45:20 <Apocalyptic> Sorcier_FXK, are you involved in bitcoin developpement somehow ?
  71 2013-11-05 00:45:27 <Sorcier_FXK> no
  72 2013-11-05 00:45:35 <Sorcier_FXK> just a farmer
  73 2013-11-05 00:45:44 CryptoBuck has joined
  74 2013-11-05 00:46:15 <Apocalyptic> your nick looks familiar, i may have seen it during some CTFs
  75 2013-11-05 00:46:47 <Sorcier_FXK> maybe ^^
  76 2013-11-05 00:46:57 <sipa> gmaxwell: for the key derivation, you don't need them
  77 2013-11-05 00:47:13 <sipa> gmaxwell: there is a link to a page with intermediate results for the test vectors
  78 2013-11-05 00:47:42 johnsoft has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  79 2013-11-05 00:48:25 dansmith_btc has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  80 2013-11-05 00:50:08 <sipa> brocktice: thanks for the advice
  81 2013-11-05 00:50:53 <gulli_> Could you guys look at this picture and give me some pointers. There is probably a lot wrong and I need to think more about it, just trying to see how I could orginize things. I am, as I said before, creating a bitcoin <-> Game currency exchange
  82 2013-11-05 00:50:57 <gulli_> https://notendur.hi.is/~glf/plan.png
  83 2013-11-05 00:51:23 DaQatz has joined
  84 2013-11-05 00:51:46 btcbtc has quit (Quit: btcbtc)
  85 2013-11-05 00:52:11 johnsoft has joined
  86 2013-11-05 00:53:54 canoon has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  87 2013-11-05 00:54:49 <Apocalyptic> gulli_, i wouldn't go with Java
  88 2013-11-05 00:55:06 <gulli_> why not?
  89 2013-11-05 00:59:44 btcbtc has joined
  90 2013-11-05 01:00:02 Application has joined
  91 2013-11-05 01:00:53 agentbob has joined
  92 2013-11-05 01:00:58 mhanne has quit (Changing host)
  93 2013-11-05 01:00:58 mhanne has joined
  94 2013-11-05 01:02:02 CheckDavid has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  95 2013-11-05 01:02:04 Belkaar has joined
  96 2013-11-05 01:02:20 Guest264 has left ()
  97 2013-11-05 01:02:41 maaku has joined
  98 2013-11-05 01:03:52 btcbtc has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  99 2013-11-05 01:04:10 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 100 2013-11-05 01:05:17 toffoo has joined
 101 2013-11-05 01:05:39 crass has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 102 2013-11-05 01:08:05 btcbtc has joined
 103 2013-11-05 01:10:34 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 104 2013-11-05 01:11:48 meLon has joined
 105 2013-11-05 01:12:13 debiantoruser has joined
 106 2013-11-05 01:12:31 saulimus has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 107 2013-11-05 01:13:35 groglogic has joined
 108 2013-11-05 01:13:43 owowo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 109 2013-11-05 01:14:30 MagicalTux has joined
 110 2013-11-05 01:16:07 skinnkavaj has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 111 2013-11-05 01:16:30 nomailing has quit (Quit: nomailing)
 112 2013-11-05 01:16:50 skinnkavaj has joined
 113 2013-11-05 01:16:50 skinnkavaj has quit (Changing host)
 114 2013-11-05 01:16:50 skinnkavaj has joined
 115 2013-11-05 01:19:39 soheil has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 116 2013-11-05 01:20:12 soheil has joined
 117 2013-11-05 01:21:04 Thepok has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 118 2013-11-05 01:24:28 soheil has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 119 2013-11-05 01:24:58 BTCTrader has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 120 2013-11-05 01:26:49 owowo has joined
 121 2013-11-05 01:27:06 ahmedbodi is now known as zz_ahmedbodi
 122 2013-11-05 01:27:20 loltu has joined
 123 2013-11-05 01:27:20 Tykling has joined
 124 2013-11-05 01:28:56 rolme has joined
 125 2013-11-05 01:31:54 debiantoruser has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 126 2013-11-05 01:32:23 one_zero has joined
 127 2013-11-05 01:33:31 skinnkavaj has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 128 2013-11-05 01:34:48 beethoven8201 has joined
 129 2013-11-05 01:35:11 debiantoruser has joined
 130 2013-11-05 01:37:33 DougieBot5000 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 131 2013-11-05 01:38:08 JTF195 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 132 2013-11-05 01:38:43 Bubba_bubblegum has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
 133 2013-11-05 01:39:23 Anduck has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 134 2013-11-05 01:39:54 saulimus has joined
 135 2013-11-05 01:40:05 rolme has quit (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
 136 2013-11-05 01:41:24 gingpark has joined
 137 2013-11-05 01:41:33 TheButterZone has left ()
 138 2013-11-05 01:41:52 gingpark1 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 139 2013-11-05 01:43:01 skinnkavaj has joined
 140 2013-11-05 01:43:11 dlidstrom has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 141 2013-11-05 01:43:15 Raccoon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 142 2013-11-05 01:43:20 Raccoon^ is now known as Raccoon
 143 2013-11-05 01:44:30 hsmiths has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 144 2013-11-05 01:46:02 jordandotdev__ has joined
 145 2013-11-05 01:50:12 RoboTedd_ has joined
 146 2013-11-05 01:50:22 hsmiths has joined
 147 2013-11-05 01:51:36 BTCTrader has joined
 148 2013-11-05 01:51:36 BTCTrader has quit (Changing host)
 149 2013-11-05 01:51:36 BTCTrader has joined
 150 2013-11-05 01:51:44 RoboTedd_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 151 2013-11-05 01:51:45 RoboTeddy has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 152 2013-11-05 01:51:46 BTCTrader has quit (Client Quit)
 153 2013-11-05 01:51:47 soheil has joined
 154 2013-11-05 01:51:55 robocoin_ has joined
 155 2013-11-05 01:52:03 Guest11508 has joined
 156 2013-11-05 01:52:18 RoboTeddy has joined
 157 2013-11-05 01:52:31 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 158 2013-11-05 01:53:11 <Evilmax> ;;blocks
 159 2013-11-05 01:53:12 <gribble> 267999
 160 2013-11-05 01:54:05 debiantoruser has joined
 161 2013-11-05 01:54:40 robocoin has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 162 2013-11-05 01:55:34 independent has joined
 163 2013-11-05 01:55:34 independent has quit (K-Lined)
 164 2013-11-05 01:55:35 jordandotdev__ is now known as jordandotdev_
 165 2013-11-05 01:57:00 <HaltingState> brocktice, "Indeed, the built-in deflation ensures an eventual collapse, especially in the presence of alternatives currencies." they are smoking crack
 166 2013-11-05 01:57:16 <HaltingState> the coin supply inflates and then it becomes fixed
 167 2013-11-05 01:57:24 <HaltingState> and that is somehow "deflation"?
 168 2013-11-05 01:57:41 <beethoven8201> HaltingState: coins also get destroyed
 169 2013-11-05 01:57:42 <HaltingState> you could say "google stock is deflationary"
 170 2013-11-05 01:57:54 <HaltingState> and therefore google stock must collapse!
 171 2013-11-05 01:58:00 <HaltingState> but people are buying it because they expect it to go up
 172 2013-11-05 01:58:15 <HaltingState> what does "its deflationary and therefore must collapse" even mean!?
 173 2013-11-05 01:58:32 <HaltingState> "it goes up and therefore must go down?" i cant understand what he is trying to communicate
 174 2013-11-05 02:00:01 <HaltingState> people used to use sea shells and beads as currency... *sigh*
 175 2013-11-05 02:01:34 ericmuyser has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 176 2013-11-05 02:01:36 <HaltingState> gmaxwell, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=324413.msg3476697#msg3476697 good post
 177 2013-11-05 02:02:08 <HaltingState> sybil attack should not be issue; just have the large mining pools direct connect with each other and RSA sign communications etc.. then non-issue
 178 2013-11-05 02:02:34 bitspill has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 179 2013-11-05 02:03:00 dansmith_btc has joined
 180 2013-11-05 02:03:03 <Apocalyptic> RSA sign ?
 181 2013-11-05 02:03:33 Diablo-D3 has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
 182 2013-11-05 02:03:42 <HaltingState> can authenticate nodes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_(algorithm)#Signing_messages
 183 2013-11-05 02:03:48 Diablo-D3 has joined
 184 2013-11-05 02:04:27 <sipa> HaltingState: adding trusted links between miners is something they'll probably do anyway
 185 2013-11-05 02:04:28 <HaltingState> have node for your mining and pool and say "only these people can connect to it" and they have to prove identies, or could use simple password etc but then each mining pool has to exchange information with every other pool
 186 2013-11-05 02:04:29 <Apocalyptic> I know about RSA thank you very much
 187 2013-11-05 02:04:53 <sipa> supported for authentication on P2P is certainly a useful improvement, but be careful to call it the solution
 188 2013-11-05 02:04:54 <HaltingState> so you add the rsa key to the "trusted node" list
 189 2013-11-05 02:05:07 <Apocalyptic> i just don't know where that came from, and for auth purposes i would use another crypto  than RSA
 190 2013-11-05 02:05:09 <sipa> as relying on it decreases the ability to mine anonymously
 191 2013-11-05 02:05:27 <sipa> yeah, we use ECDSA for everything already; better stick with just one
 192 2013-11-05 02:05:33 <Apocalyptic> HaltingState, by design there shouldn't be such things as "trusted node" to even begin with
 193 2013-11-05 02:05:37 <sipa> it's far superior to RSA also
 194 2013-11-05 02:05:39 <Apocalyptic> and what sipa said
 195 2013-11-05 02:05:49 <HaltingState> the problem in altcoins with the orphaned blocks could probably be solved if network propagation of blocks was improved; i think the alt coins are being sybil attacked for economic advantage, expecially at launch
 196 2013-11-05 02:05:50 <sipa> in performance and size of signatures
 197 2013-11-05 02:06:33 <gmaxwell> HaltingState: those "altcoins" have screwed up their settings and have blocks far too close togeather.
 198 2013-11-05 02:06:35 <sipa> miners probably are already establishing trusted links between eachother
 199 2013-11-05 02:06:44 <sipa> (though not authenticated)
 200 2013-11-05 02:07:39 <HaltingState> gmaxwell, i dont see why 15 second blocks should not be possible; with the network propagation so slow because of sybil attacks.. its ratio of block time to time to propagate blocks across network i think
 201 2013-11-05 02:07:53 canooon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 202 2013-11-05 02:08:18 <sipa> HaltingState: the block interval should be >> average propagation delay through the network
 203 2013-11-05 02:08:19 molecular has joined
 204 2013-11-05 02:08:34 <sipa> HaltingState: i'm sure large blocks already take more than 15s to propagate
 205 2013-11-05 02:08:39 <gmaxwell> HaltingState: because no matter how awesome the software is the speed of light and bandwidth of links is finite.
 206 2013-11-05 02:08:44 <sipa> without any attacks
 207 2013-11-05 02:08:54 <gmaxwell> and it's not good enough to be less it must be much less.
 208 2013-11-05 02:09:17 handle_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 209 2013-11-05 02:09:19 handle has joined
 210 2013-11-05 02:10:17 neep3r has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 211 2013-11-05 02:10:45 moleccc has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 212 2013-11-05 02:10:51 neep3r has joined
 213 2013-11-05 02:11:04 <Vinnie_win> Anyone wanna work on rippled with me?
 214 2013-11-05 02:11:08 <HaltingState> instead of 15 minute blocks, make the blocks 10 times as frequent but 1/10th the size; then the bandwidth/s is constant and block chain growth constant
 215 2013-11-05 02:11:51 <gmaxwell> man I shouldn't have mentioned bandwidth. I need to learn never make two arguments because people will go after the weaker one.
 216 2013-11-05 02:11:53 ericmuyser has joined
 217 2013-11-05 02:12:00 <gmaxwell> HaltingState: speed of light.
 218 2013-11-05 02:12:00 <HaltingState> capping block size would force people to pay higher transaction fees and make people bid to get into the block, which might be interesting for the end game
 219 2013-11-05 02:12:15 skinnkavaj has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 220 2013-11-05 02:12:39 <sipa> HaltingState: maybe, but irrelevant to this discussion
 221 2013-11-05 02:12:57 <HaltingState> gmaxwell, the speed of light issue is not too bad; i wrote video game in C++ and I am in california and playing someone in Australia on other side of world almost and ping is 280 ms
 222 2013-11-05 02:13:11 <HaltingState> so round trip around planet cant be more than a second
 223 2013-11-05 02:13:12 <sipa> HaltingState: but it's not just one link
 224 2013-11-05 02:13:25 <phantomcircuit> HaltingState, dear god 280ms on a real time game is unplayable
 225 2013-11-05 02:13:30 <gmaxwell> HaltingState: 18:06 <@gmaxwell> and it's not good enough to be less it must be much less.
 226 2013-11-05 02:13:45 <sipa> HaltingState: it's a random graph, sending blocks and transactions from one peer to another
 227 2013-11-05 02:13:55 <sipa> we're not talking about the time from one node to another
 228 2013-11-05 02:14:06 oPen_syLar has joined
 229 2013-11-05 02:14:08 <sipa> we're talking about the time from _any_ miner to _every_ node
 230 2013-11-05 02:14:08 <HaltingState> phantomcircuit, no; you do physics updates 15/second and you interpolate between physics updates and you do client side prediction and you add a 150 ms lag between when player pushes button and when it does it
 231 2013-11-05 02:14:44 <HaltingState> and you dont even notice it; latency is not as much a problem as "jitter"; as long as latency is constant people adapt (if its implemented correctly)
 232 2013-11-05 02:15:05 neep3r has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 233 2013-11-05 02:15:12 <sipa> and as gmaxwell says, that propagation delay (including processing done at every step, going through kernel and application buffers, processing queues, ...) must be much smaller still than the average block time
 234 2013-11-05 02:15:47 <sipa> otherwise you're going to create an incentive for miners or attackers to collude (as colluding nodes don't have the orphaning disadvantage from latency)
 235 2013-11-05 02:15:48 <HaltingState> gmaxwell, is correct; i am not disagreeing/
 236 2013-11-05 02:15:54 <phantomcircuit> HaltingState, lol i notice anything more than 80ms lag playing css
 237 2013-11-05 02:16:01 <sipa> 15s is way too low
 238 2013-11-05 02:16:01 neep3r has joined
 239 2013-11-05 02:16:09 <phantomcircuit> and that's with valves fairly sophisticated hitbox stuff
 240 2013-11-05 02:16:10 <sipa> maybe 2-3 minutes would have been doable
 241 2013-11-05 02:16:25 <sipa> but meh, not even an order of magnitude difference with what we have
 242 2013-11-05 02:16:30 [\\\] is now known as [\\\\]
 243 2013-11-05 02:16:50 [\\\\] is now known as [\\\\\\\\\\\\\\]
 244 2013-11-05 02:17:02 DBordello is now known as [\\\\\\\\\]
 245 2013-11-05 02:17:14 <HaltingState> i think 15 second is possible and lower limit is probably 5 seconds; but would require direct links between all the major mining pools; might also require just sending the PoW header and block information to validate block and then sending the data/payload asynchronously
 246 2013-11-05 02:17:16 <phantomcircuit> sipa, i've seen observed propogation delay to nodes that are remotely connectable of 60 seconds
 247 2013-11-05 02:17:21 [\\\\\\\\\] is now known as DBordello
 248 2013-11-05 02:18:16 [\\\\\\\\\\\\\\] is now known as [\\\]
 249 2013-11-05 02:18:25 <sipa> HaltingState: if we're relying on direct links between miners, something is fundamentally broken
 250 2013-11-05 02:19:16 * sipa zZzZ
 251 2013-11-05 02:19:47 <HaltingState> 60 seconds delay is interesting; if there is a cartel of miner pools with direct links who is also sybil attacking to delay other blocks from propagating then everyone in the cartel pools makes more money and everyone else suffers, but its still secure and still works; just a bit unfair to smaller pools
 252 2013-11-05 02:20:11 <sipa> "unfair to smaller pools" == centralization
 253 2013-11-05 02:20:18 <gmaxwell> HaltingState: go compute the orphaning rates for that even if you assume the network has a one second delay, they're enormous and that results in huge dillution which is advantagious for hashrate consolidated attackers.
 254 2013-11-05 02:20:56 ericmuyser has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 255 2013-11-05 02:21:07 <gmaxwell> E.g. 1 sec in lambda = 1/5 seconds is some thing like 18%
 256 2013-11-05 02:21:28 <HaltingState> ahhh i see. orphan rate is ratio of propagation time to block time and you want block time to be many multiples of propagation time
 257 2013-11-05 02:21:31 ericmuyser has joined
 258 2013-11-05 02:21:32 btcbtc has quit (Quit: btcbtc)
 259 2013-11-05 02:21:52 <sipa> HaltingState: not ratio, but close to it
 260 2013-11-05 02:22:32 <gmaxwell> HaltingState: it's an exponential function, not a ratio but yea. It needs to be many multiplies to prevent high orphaning (and dillution, and centeraization advantages) from being an isuse.
 261 2013-11-05 02:22:59 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, anyways i think the general conclusion is that they dont fully understand the incentives for mining pools and have largely gotten the model wrong by oversimplifying
 262 2013-11-05 02:23:02 <gmaxwell> if you're too close the network will just stop converging for large spans and you'll get these great big reorgs.
 263 2013-11-05 02:23:24 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: I don't think thats the case but you may not have spent more time thinking about it than I have.
 264 2013-11-05 02:23:26 <HaltingState> if i were running a mining pool; i would be doing direct connects to mining pools and sybil attacking with a botnet to delay propagation of blocsk from others; so i assume someone is doing that. its not major issue however except for minors
 265 2013-11-05 02:24:19 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, substantially they ignore that mining pools have an incentive in bitcoins remaining valuable; their attack necessarily makes them less valuable
 266 2013-11-05 02:24:39 <sipa> phantomcircuit: imho, that is not a good argument
 267 2013-11-05 02:24:48 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, additionally while on average it would result in a higher return for pools with substantial hashing power it would also increase the variance
 268 2013-11-05 02:25:02 <sipa> if you continue that into the extreme, nobody will ever try attacking the system as it decreases the long term value
 269 2013-11-05 02:25:19 <sipa> it's of course a valid argument in practice
 270 2013-11-05 02:25:30 <phantomcircuit> and finally and i suspect most significantly they dont answer the question of what happens when two selfish pools are operating at roughly equivalent hashing rates
 271 2013-11-05 02:25:32 <HaltingState> its ripple's security model :)
 272 2013-11-05 02:25:35 <sipa> but we should aim for a system that doesn't need such assumptions to be secure
 273 2013-11-05 02:25:41 <phantomcircuit> i suspect that they both lose out in the end
 274 2013-11-05 02:25:42 <HaltingState> "nobody will ever try attacking the system as it decreases the long term value" <-- ripple ahaha
 275 2013-11-05 02:26:26 ericmuyser has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 276 2013-11-05 02:26:52 <phantomcircuit> sipa, it's the combination of all of them that has the largest impact
 277 2013-11-05 02:27:00 <phantomcircuit> by itself that's not a significant consideration
 278 2013-11-05 02:27:16 <phantomcircuit> but if they tried and only were able to increase their revenues 25%
 279 2013-11-05 02:27:20 <phantomcircuit> well that's just pointless
 280 2013-11-05 02:27:27 independent has joined
 281 2013-11-05 02:27:34 independent has quit (K-Lined)
 282 2013-11-05 02:27:50 <HaltingState> if one mining pool increases revenue against another; does not affect bitcoin; mining is just unfair now, but security is same and does not affect anyone except miners
 283 2013-11-05 02:29:00 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: not just a little more variance, a LOT, this was elu's almost instant comment on the subject.
 284 2013-11-05 02:32:31 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, yeah i assumed as much but wasn't sure
 285 2013-11-05 02:32:52 <phantomcircuit> either way it's pretty clear to me that their conclusion is wrong
 286 2013-11-05 02:34:26 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: when successful it makes you get more blocks by orphaning the other guys more, but you get less blocks (because you get orphaned more too) so you don't really enjoy _gains_ until the difficulty drops.
 287 2013-11-05 02:35:43 oPen_syLar has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
 288 2013-11-05 02:37:15 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, ah i hadn't thought of that
 289 2013-11-05 02:37:23 <phantomcircuit> im sure it's much easier to just ddos everybody :/
 290 2013-11-05 02:41:03 sensorii has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 291 2013-11-05 02:41:30 a_meteor has joined
 292 2013-11-05 02:46:03 sensorii has joined
 293 2013-11-05 02:48:16 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 294 2013-11-05 02:50:56 gulli has joined
 295 2013-11-05 02:50:56 foamz has quit ()
 296 2013-11-05 02:51:18 <gulli> Anyone know what language mtgox is using server side?
 297 2013-11-05 02:51:26 <BlueMatt> magic
 298 2013-11-05 02:51:31 <BlueMatt> and some brainfuck
 299 2013-11-05 02:51:45 foamz has joined
 300 2013-11-05 02:52:18 <petertodd> Magic BrainFuck - Enterprise Edition
 301 2013-11-05 02:52:29 gulli_ has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 302 2013-11-05 02:52:33 soheil has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 303 2013-11-05 02:52:46 saulimus has quit (Quit: saulimus)
 304 2013-11-05 02:53:08 soheil has joined
 305 2013-11-05 02:53:32 apurplehorse has joined
 306 2013-11-05 02:53:35 <petertodd> hmm... I think that needs a "2013 XP" at the end
 307 2013-11-05 02:54:23 <gulli> https://github.com/MtGox
 308 2013-11-05 02:54:32 <gulli> is this official?
 309 2013-11-05 02:54:52 <petertodd> probably?
 310 2013-11-05 02:54:56 <BlueMatt> try #mtgox?
 311 2013-11-05 02:55:11 Coincidental has joined
 312 2013-11-05 02:55:17 <gulli> its all in php and python
 313 2013-11-05 02:55:23 <gulli> but surely they arent using that
 314 2013-11-05 02:55:24 <BlueMatt> MagicalTux does love php
 315 2013-11-05 02:55:29 <BlueMatt> it used to be all php
 316 2013-11-05 02:55:49 <gulli> lol really? the #1 exchange?
 317 2013-11-05 02:55:52 <gulli> shit
 318 2013-11-05 02:56:09 <gulli> do you know what they changed to?
 319 2013-11-05 02:56:16 <BlueMatt> in case you didnt notice, none of the bitcoin sites are particularly professional (yet)
 320 2013-11-05 02:57:00 <gulli> yeah I know
 321 2013-11-05 02:57:16 soheil has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 322 2013-11-05 02:57:43 <gulli> but I really find it hard to believe that they use php for anything at all now
 323 2013-11-05 02:57:53 <BlueMatt> no idea, ask on #mtgox
 324 2013-11-05 02:57:57 <gulli> since there is such a high volume of transactions there
 325 2013-11-05 02:58:09 <gulli> I asked, playing the waiting game now
 326 2013-11-05 02:59:10 cads has joined
 327 2013-11-05 03:03:59 xeroc has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 328 2013-11-05 03:04:14 xeroc has joined
 329 2013-11-05 03:04:23 sensorii has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 330 2013-11-05 03:05:05 sensorii has joined
 331 2013-11-05 03:05:29 jeremias has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 332 2013-11-05 03:05:37 jeremias has joined
 333 2013-11-05 03:05:43 beethoven8201 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 334 2013-11-05 03:06:37 beethoven8201 has joined
 335 2013-11-05 03:07:55 Subo1977_ has joined
 336 2013-11-05 03:08:00 kuzetsa has quit (Quit: Stop doing that it. You don't want it to fall off.)
 337 2013-11-05 03:08:03 Subo1977 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 338 2013-11-05 03:08:54 perdec has joined
 339 2013-11-05 03:10:00 bitspill has joined
 340 2013-11-05 03:10:25 a_meteor has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 341 2013-11-05 03:12:09 da2ce7 has joined
 342 2013-11-05 03:15:31 perdec has quit (Quit: perdec)
 343 2013-11-05 03:15:58 neep3r has quit ()
 344 2013-11-05 03:18:06 Bkil has joined
 345 2013-11-05 03:19:45 rolme has joined
 346 2013-11-05 03:24:15 grau has joined
 347 2013-11-05 03:25:34 perdec has joined
 348 2013-11-05 03:26:27 grau has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 349 2013-11-05 03:26:58 Bkil has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 350 2013-11-05 03:27:01 Bkil_ has joined
 351 2013-11-05 03:27:06 kuzetsa has joined
 352 2013-11-05 03:27:27 Bkil_ has quit (Client Quit)
 353 2013-11-05 03:29:44 rolme has quit (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
 354 2013-11-05 03:30:31 rck109d_ has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.90.1 [Firefox 24.0/20130910160258])
 355 2013-11-05 03:33:24 roconnor has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
 356 2013-11-05 03:34:07 independent has joined
 357 2013-11-05 03:37:54 Raziel has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 358 2013-11-05 03:40:57 johnsoft has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 359 2013-11-05 03:41:12 agricocb has joined
 360 2013-11-05 03:41:18 agricocb has quit (Changing host)
 361 2013-11-05 03:41:19 agricocb has joined
 362 2013-11-05 03:41:38 johnsoft has joined
 363 2013-11-05 03:46:39 <copumpkin> is there much to this? https://twitter.com/el33th4xor/status/397569695164792832
 364 2013-11-05 03:46:45 grau has joined
 365 2013-11-05 03:47:54 <BlueMatt> copumpkin: no
 366 2013-11-05 03:48:13 <copumpkin> is there a summary of the current thoughts on that paper somewhere I can read it?
 367 2013-11-05 03:48:22 <BlueMatt> check the bitcoin-development thread
 368 2013-11-05 03:49:02 <BlueMatt> mostly its all predicated on a miner having very strong network connectivity (ie incredibly low latency to many other miners and some knowledge of which nodes are behind how much hashpower)
 369 2013-11-05 03:49:10 <BlueMatt> which, to be fair, is somewhat possible today
 370 2013-11-05 03:49:19 <BlueMatt> but as miners get better peering with each other, that will go away
 371 2013-11-05 03:49:32 * BlueMatt goes back to coding a high-speed relay nodes to give miners a better peering system to break such things
 372 2013-11-05 03:49:39 <copumpkin> :) thanks
 373 2013-11-05 03:50:01 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
 374 2013-11-05 03:50:06 <petertodd> BlueMatt: No it won't though: speed of light fundementally limits latency, and for more money you can reduce that latency. If a pools spends that money, they get large rewards that a smaller pool can't duplicate.
 375 2013-11-05 03:50:47 <BlueMatt> petertodd: afaiu, a few ms worth of decreased latency wont help much on this kind of attack
 376 2013-11-05 03:51:23 <petertodd> BlueMatt: even a few ms worth helps a lot, because you only need to see a peers block header to trigger you releasing the block you withheld.
 377 2013-11-05 03:55:19 gulli has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 378 2013-11-05 03:56:27 parus has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 379 2013-11-05 03:57:41 Neozonz is now known as Disc!~Neozonz@unaffiliated/neozonz|Neozonz
 380 2013-11-05 03:58:02 parus has joined
 381 2013-11-05 03:59:07 Application has joined
 382 2013-11-05 04:01:46 hsmiths has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 383 2013-11-05 04:01:46 Coincidental has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 384 2013-11-05 04:01:47 <BlueMatt> petertodd: "meh", its mostly a geography thing at that point, I suppose if you had lots of "evil" miners you may be able to make some geographic area more profitable, but you still have to have some ridiculous peering setup
 385 2013-11-05 04:01:47 Coincidental has joined
 386 2013-11-05 04:01:47 Subo1977 has joined
 387 2013-11-05 04:01:47 Subo1977_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 388 2013-11-05 04:02:13 hsmiths has joined
 389 2013-11-05 04:02:13 <petertodd> BlueMatt: right, which is why I said on the email list that this is quite reminiscent to high-speed trading, where you optimize where you place your nodes, and even mining hardware, by geography, and that an optimal large-scale mining effort pursuing this strategy would do exactly that.
 390 2013-11-05 04:02:44 <petertodd> Again, if someone is willing to make that investment, they get significantly greater return on investment than those who don't, which encourages centralization.
 391 2013-11-05 04:02:50 <BlueMatt> except that in this case if you fuck up and are a ms late, you lose a block's worth of money
 392 2013-11-05 04:02:56 <BlueMatt> so its quite a large bet that you will always win
 393 2013-11-05 04:03:02 <gavinandresen> petertodd: …. so what if three people make that investment ?
 394 2013-11-05 04:03:28 <gavinandresen> If it is rational to make that investment, then multiple people will do it.
 395 2013-11-05 04:03:34 <petertodd> gavinandresen: That's where it gets really interesting: then whoever managed to get the best balance of low-latency to cost wins, again, just like in high-speed trading!
 396 2013-11-05 04:03:35 <gavinandresen> If multiple people do it, then they can't all win.
 397 2013-11-05 04:03:54 <copumpkin> emergent HFM
 398 2013-11-05 04:03:56 <gavinandresen> … and if you are not SURE you are going to win, then why risk making that investment?
 399 2013-11-05 04:04:03 * BlueMatt admits to have only skimmed most of the thread today after he got out of the gre...a few hours of that thread got quite long
 400 2013-11-05 04:04:40 <gavinandresen> Investing in a fancier user interface or better customer support might be a better strategy.
 401 2013-11-05 04:04:42 <petertodd> gavinandresen: ...why risk making any investment?
 402 2013-11-05 04:04:43 <gavinandresen> In any case:  "meh"
 403 2013-11-05 04:05:07 <BlueMatt> what happened to the idea of going from first-block to deterministic function (eg lower hash of block hash)
 404 2013-11-05 04:05:10 <BlueMatt> ?
 405 2013-11-05 04:05:34 <BlueMatt> seemed easy and fixing
 406 2013-11-05 04:05:43 <petertodd> gavinandresen: Someone with existing high-speed trading/low-latency networking knowledge would be in a better position to make that investment - they may even be able to leverage an existing network for not much cost.
 407 2013-11-05 04:05:57 Coincidental has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 408 2013-11-05 04:06:07 <gavinandresen> petertodd: okey dokey
 409 2013-11-05 04:06:22 <BlueMatt> then you cant race the network, you can only get lucky with a 50/50 shot
 410 2013-11-05 04:06:45 <copumpkin> what's the worst-case outcome from all this?
 411 2013-11-05 04:06:48 <copumpkin> assuming someone can pull it off
 412 2013-11-05 04:07:17 oPen_syLar has joined
 413 2013-11-05 04:07:17 oPen_syLar has quit (Changing host)
 414 2013-11-05 04:07:17 oPen_syLar has joined
 415 2013-11-05 04:07:20 <petertodd> BlueMatt: It's nothing to do with luck, it's about maximizing your returns, and minimizing the returns of your competitors.
 416 2013-11-05 04:07:27 <BlueMatt> copumpkin: if you can (magically) pull it off flawlessly, you can "block" 1(+) block per block you generate
 417 2013-11-05 04:07:56 <copumpkin> that sounds like fun
 418 2013-11-05 04:07:58 <BlueMatt> petertodd: thats my point, what happened to the suggestion that we stop picking based on first-seen and switch to some deterministic function?
 419 2013-11-05 04:08:18 cads has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 420 2013-11-05 04:08:19 <petertodd> Heck, the scary thing is that Bitcoin is still small enough that plenty of financial institutions could implement this as a training exercise for their staff.
 421 2013-11-05 04:08:31 <petertodd> BlueMatt: The authors suggested that exact fix actually.
 422 2013-11-05 04:08:35 <gavinandresen> petertodd: why is that scary if plenty of them can do it?
 423 2013-11-05 04:08:49 <gavinandresen> if plenty of them can do it, then plenty of them will… voila, decentralized.
 424 2013-11-05 04:08:59 <petertodd> gavinandresen: because one of them might succeed and turn a profit.
 425 2013-11-05 04:09:13 <BlueMatt> petertodd: I was under the impression they suggested doing random-selection?
 426 2013-11-05 04:09:18 <gavinandresen> petertodd: you seem to have very little faith in the power of competition.
 427 2013-11-05 04:09:20 groglogic has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 428 2013-11-05 04:09:48 <BlueMatt> petertodd: anyway, what was wrong with deterministic function?
 429 2013-11-05 04:09:56 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: seem like the short-term incentive for miners is to stick with first-block-seen-wins.
 430 2013-11-05 04:10:15 <petertodd> BlueMatt: In their paper they sugggested and analyzed random-selection, they said on the email list that they left out deterministic selection due to lack of space, but did think of it.
 431 2013-11-05 04:10:34 <BlueMatt> petertodd: again, what's wrong with it? (I havent thought much, just asking)
 432 2013-11-05 04:10:38 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: if orphan rates go up because people start selfish mining (I'm still not convinced their calculations are correct), then it would be trivial to defeat by going to random-block or lowest-hash
 433 2013-11-05 04:10:45 <petertodd> BlueMatt: as gavin says, first-block-seen-wins is in miners short-term incentives because first-block is most likely to have the majority of hashing power.
 434 2013-11-05 04:11:04 <BlueMatt> ahh, ok, so aside from migration it wouldn't be too bad
 435 2013-11-05 04:11:07 <gavinandresen> Just the fact that it is trivial to defeat might keep anybody from doing it.
 436 2013-11-05 04:11:08 <BlueMatt> well, yea, probably not worth doing
 437 2013-11-05 04:11:23 <BlueMatt> anyway, suggests we need more orphan monitoring too :p
 438 2013-11-05 04:11:25 <copumpkin> darn game theory
 439 2013-11-05 04:11:28 <copumpkin> how does it work!
 440 2013-11-05 04:11:43 <petertodd> Their proposed solutions, both in the paper and deterministic, do work, the problem is they don't result in quite 51% strength, and both solutions are short-term irrational for individual miners.
 441 2013-11-05 04:12:18 <petertodd> So it'd be good to come up with solutions that are stronger; I was working on analyzing another deterministic version that was short-term economically rational for individual miners.
 442 2013-11-05 04:12:34 <gavinandresen> The whole "double-down on withholding blocks" feels too much like the Martingale betting strategy to me, it smells like some of the gains might be concentrated in tail-end events that are at risk of failing spectacularly.  But I might be completely wrong, haven't done the math
 443 2013-11-05 04:13:07 ProfMac has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 444 2013-11-05 04:13:22 <petertodd> BlueMatt: heh, well, read me mistaken first impression of their paper - I suggested orphan monitoring, and then realized it actually makes the problem worse depending on how you implement it :(
 445 2013-11-05 04:13:48 da2ce7 has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com)
 446 2013-11-05 04:13:59 <BlueMatt> petertodd: how does making people aware of how the network is performing (ie not taking automated action) make the problem worse?
 447 2013-11-05 04:14:03 <gavinandresen> Mmm.  If there are two selfish miners, I believe the one with the most hashing power always wins.  But how do you know if you've got the most hashing power?
 448 2013-11-05 04:14:32 <gavinandresen> … could always be some Mystery Miner who has never released any blocks working away in secret....
 449 2013-11-05 04:14:50 <justusranvier> Are all mining pools actually using first-seen right now? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=324413.msg3485173#msg3485173
 450 2013-11-05 04:14:51 <petertodd> gavinandresen: modern economics recognizes that competition tends to lead towards oligopolies and monopolies in situations where more capital investment yields greater returns
 451 2013-11-05 04:15:12 <gavinandresen> petertodd: mmm.  We're Doomed!
 452 2013-11-05 04:15:21 gulli has joined
 453 2013-11-05 04:15:34 <gavinandresen> That darn monopolistic Apple Computer....
 454 2013-11-05 04:15:40 <gavinandresen> biggest damn company in the world...
 455 2013-11-05 04:15:51 <gavinandresen> … investing in those fancy UIs that nobody can compete with….
 456 2013-11-05 04:15:57 <gavinandresen> … if only I had a choice....
 457 2013-11-05 04:16:23 * BlueMatt agrees with gavinandresen and goes back to coding high-speed relay nodes and apis that smarter people than him can use to design fancy UIs
 458 2013-11-05 04:16:25 shripadk has joined
 459 2013-11-05 04:16:52 <petertodd> BlueMatt: What I suggested was to relay block headers, full and "near-target". However when you do that, miners can use that information to easily pick the side of a fork that has the majority of hashing power, which is in their advantage.
 460 2013-11-05 04:17:08 <BlueMatt> I did see that much
 461 2013-11-05 04:17:19 <shripadk> hello all :) what is the upper limit of N in a M-of-N transaction? is there one?
 462 2013-11-05 04:17:22 <petertodd> BlueMatt: Now if you truly don't act on the information, then doesn't make the problem worse, but it's easy to create situations where you can without much work.
 463 2013-11-05 04:17:42 <gavinandresen> shripadk: 3 for standard transactions that will be relayed.  20 in the protocol.
 464 2013-11-05 04:18:02 <petertodd> BlueMatt: Also, relaying such info is a bit useful for the attacker.
 465 2013-11-05 04:18:03 random_cat_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 466 2013-11-05 04:18:05 <shripadk> gavinandresen: thanks :) so anything greater than 3 today will not be relayed?
 467 2013-11-05 04:18:09 <gavinandresen> shripadk: if you need more than 3 then you are probably doing it wrong.  Whatever "it" is.
 468 2013-11-05 04:18:30 <BlueMatt> petertodd: I was talking about making nice graphs for developers and people to watch so we'd see if someone was doing something fishy
 469 2013-11-05 04:18:49 <gavinandresen> shripadk: and yes, more than -of-3 will not be relayed and will probably not be mined.
 470 2013-11-05 04:18:55 <petertodd> gavinandresen: try an industry that hasn't undergone transformational change, lots of examples in mining and other industry where the leaders just don't change for decades and no-one else has a hope of challenging them due to the economies of scale.
 471 2013-11-05 04:19:03 <shripadk> gavinandresen: i'm developing a gui client for making it easy to do M-of-N. so is there any reason why greater than 3 is wrong?
 472 2013-11-05 04:19:18 <petertodd> BlueMatt: Sure, but where are you going to get the info for those nice graphs?
 473 2013-11-05 04:19:36 <BlueMatt> monitoring nodes conveniently placed near all the miners?
 474 2013-11-05 04:19:38 random_cat_ has joined
 475 2013-11-05 04:19:51 <petertodd> shripadk: bare multisig has a limit of three, however for P2SH multisig we don't have any specific limit. (although there is a 520 byte limit on the P2SH scriptPubKey size)
 476 2013-11-05 04:19:59 * BlueMatt goes back to coding high-speed relay nodes designed to be placed near all the miners that pools have shown some interest in peering with...
 477 2013-11-05 04:20:27 <petertodd> BlueMatt: that works - changing relay code to relay orphans would be more fool-proof and guaranteed
 478 2013-11-05 04:20:38 elevatioN has joined
 479 2013-11-05 04:21:31 Diablo-D3 has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
 480 2013-11-05 04:21:42 <gavinandresen> shripadk: don't do a -of-greater-than-3 P2SH, it will get stuck and you won't be able to redeem it (or your users won't be able to)
 481 2013-11-05 04:22:13 <shripadk> petertodd: thanks :) will look into P2SH then. btw how do i calculate the size in bytes of a raw transaction? i checked up online for a way to calculate the size and many offer different methods… but most of them seem too magical to actual take them seriously… an example: size_in_bytes = ((180 * total_inputs) + (34 * total_outputs) + 10)
 482 2013-11-05 04:22:24 <shripadk> gavinandresen: okay will make sure i limit it to 3 then
 483 2013-11-05 04:22:46 <gavinandresen> shripadk: are you just giving users a low-level "create a multisig transaction" GUI ?  Or are you making the GUI task-specific?  (like "setup a secure wallet" or "create a three-party escrow")
 484 2013-11-05 04:23:06 <petertodd> shripadk: gavin's incorrect, but be careful due to that 520 byte limit. I'd suggest you read up on the details of the low-level transaction format, see the protocol specification page on the bitcoin.it wiki
 485 2013-11-05 04:23:11 <gavinandresen> shripadk: … and is your GUI intended for the geekiest of the geeks, or ordinary users?
 486 2013-11-05 04:23:18 <shripadk> i was wanting to create a multisig transaction guy but now i think i'll have to make it task specific
 487 2013-11-05 04:23:39 <shripadk> gavinandresen: i was wanting to make it easy for ordinary users to execute m-of-n
 488 2013-11-05 04:23:51 <shripadk> *gui
 489 2013-11-05 04:24:20 <gavinandresen> shripadk: start with the user experience would be my advice….
 490 2013-11-05 04:24:38 <gavinandresen> … and don't listen to petertodd, he is incorrect.
 491 2013-11-05 04:24:41 <shripadk> gavinandresen: advice taken! so it'll be task specific then
 492 2013-11-05 04:24:47 <shripadk> gavinandresen: ha okay :P
 493 2013-11-05 04:25:18 <petertodd> shripadk: sorry, that's a 500 byte limit.
 494 2013-11-05 04:25:27 <petertodd> gavinandresen: lol, what do you want to bet?
 495 2013-11-05 04:25:50 <gavinandresen> petertodd: I wrote the AreInputsStandard() routine you know....
 496 2013-11-05 04:25:55 <shripadk> petertodd: np :) i'll read up on P2SH myself… BIP0016 is the one right?
 497 2013-11-05 04:26:10 firepacket- has joined
 498 2013-11-05 04:26:23 <petertodd> shripadk: yup
 499 2013-11-05 04:26:29 <shripadk> gavinandresen: can you please help me figure out how to calculate the size of a raw transaction? i googled quite a bit… but i haven't yet looked at the source
 500 2013-11-05 04:26:41 <petertodd> gavinandresen: yes, and you missed a case
 501 2013-11-05 04:26:44 <BlueMatt> shripadk: are you creating the transactions yourself?
 502 2013-11-05 04:26:57 groglogic has joined
 503 2013-11-05 04:27:00 <shripadk> BlueMatt: yes.. but wanting to automate it mostly
 504 2013-11-05 04:27:19 <gavinandresen> petertodd: ok, educate me.  How do you redeem a 1-of-4 P2SH multisig with a standard transaction?
 505 2013-11-05 04:27:26 <BlueMatt> shripadk: seems like there is a bitcoin library in just about every language at this point (of varying quality, but if you're just making transactions, should work)
 506 2013-11-05 04:28:27 <shripadk> BlueMatt: yes true. but there isn't one that i found that would calculate the size of raw transactions… most of what i found is only calculations that are inaccurate at most by +/- 20-30 bytes
 507 2013-11-05 04:28:37 <BlueMatt> what language?
 508 2013-11-05 04:28:44 firepacket- has quit (Client Quit)
 509 2013-11-05 04:29:03 <gavinandresen> shripadk: what are you trying to do that you need to calculate the size?  Size depends on a lot of things (compressed or uncompressed public keys to start)
 510 2013-11-05 04:29:07 <shripadk> BlueMatt: i have looked at javascript and python libs… but i'm mostly interested in javascript
 511 2013-11-05 04:29:08 <lianj> shripadk: you mean to calc fees or what?
 512 2013-11-05 04:29:33 <shripadk> gavinandresen, lianj: yes to calculate fees
 513 2013-11-05 04:29:38 <BlueMatt> but, yea, the size is nondeterministic and depends on a few factors so its not guaranteed to be some constant
 514 2013-11-05 04:29:40 <petertodd> gavinandresen: 672d4dddfd5f667fe1088c06a8164c4caba109576f310599ce68808cce8ce603
 515 2013-11-05 04:29:56 <petertodd> gavinandresen: I just did
 516 2013-11-05 04:30:43 rolme has joined
 517 2013-11-05 04:30:56 perdec has quit (Quit: perdec)
 518 2013-11-05 04:31:09 oPen_syLar has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 519 2013-11-05 04:31:17 melvster has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 520 2013-11-05 04:31:32 oPen_syLar has joined
 521 2013-11-05 04:31:33 <shripadk> oh i can just use sendtomany instead
 522 2013-11-05 04:31:36 oPen_syLar has quit (Changing host)
 523 2013-11-05 04:31:36 oPen_syLar has joined
 524 2013-11-05 04:31:42 <gavinandresen> petertodd: that's a main network txid?
 525 2013-11-05 04:31:56 <petertodd> gavinandresen: yup
 526 2013-11-05 04:32:17 <petertodd> gavinandresen: depends on "f7fd59e2a27dd12ca9423efa20a40a29cb74f125a7df80d3184a33c869436ad0"
 527 2013-11-05 04:32:48 macboz has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 528 2013-11-05 04:32:54 <petertodd> http://0bin.net/paste/x4paFW9whWOh2n8k#wXlWGKNNXqmHpA+PD8Pjx7l18Q6wkyM4/UsNZsKsVwg= <- raw tx
 529 2013-11-05 04:33:11 patcon has joined
 530 2013-11-05 04:33:56 a_meteor has joined
 531 2013-11-05 04:35:54 agnostic98 has joined
 532 2013-11-05 04:37:11 Evilmax has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 533 2013-11-05 04:39:15 rdponticelli has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
 534 2013-11-05 04:39:31 Andrevan has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.4.2-rc1)
 535 2013-11-05 04:39:59 Andrevan has joined
 536 2013-11-05 04:40:16 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
 537 2013-11-05 04:40:28 TheSeven has joined
 538 2013-11-05 04:40:48 rdponticelli has joined
 539 2013-11-05 04:41:43 random_cat_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 540 2013-11-05 04:43:22 <gavinandresen> petertodd: I sit corrected.  Do you know if that is a regression, or an unintended feature?
 541 2013-11-05 04:43:52 <petertodd> gavinandresen: pretty sure it's always been like that - I'd be reluctant to tighten the rules now
 542 2013-11-05 04:43:55 Diablo-D3 has joined
 543 2013-11-05 04:44:11 <petertodd> gavinandresen: what we should fix is how we don't actually check that the 0 placeholder byte is actually zero...
 544 2013-11-05 04:44:12 <shripadk> petertodd, gavinandresen so its possible to do -of-4 P2SH multisig? so then its possible to do m-of-n as well?
 545 2013-11-05 04:44:33 <gavinandresen> petertodd: mmm.  The 500-byte limit keeps things sane.
 546 2013-11-05 04:44:52 <petertodd> shripadk: yup, but... there's two issues: 1) P2SH fundementally can't have more than a 520 byte scriptPubKey, which limits you to -of-15 even with compressed keys. (but make sure you check this!)
 547 2013-11-05 04:45:00 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 548 2013-11-05 04:45:01 owowo has quit (Quit: °!°                    ~~ S4n1tY 1S Fut1l3 ~~                        °!°)
 549 2013-11-05 04:45:15 <petertodd> shripadk: 2) scriptSigs can be no more than 500 bytes, including the P2SH scriptPubKey, which limits things even further
 550 2013-11-05 04:45:29 <shripadk> petertodd: okay thanks for this info :) i'll go through p2sh seriously now
 551 2013-11-05 04:45:54 <petertodd> gavinandresen: that we don't check the 0's is a mutabilty issue
 552 2013-11-05 04:46:08 <gavinandresen> yes, I know.
 553 2013-11-05 04:46:39 a5m0 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 554 2013-11-05 04:47:00 <petertodd> gavinandresen: I've also seen transactions with more than one zero; gotta get around to debugging exactly what allows that. (placeholder something I assume)
 555 2013-11-05 04:47:26 <justusranvier> Is the 500 byte limit a protocol limit, or a standard definition limit?
 556 2013-11-05 04:47:45 <shripadk> petertodd, gavinandresen: do you have an example of one 2-2 of 2-3 transaction done using P2SH that i can use for reference?
 557 2013-11-05 04:47:48 <petertodd> justusranvier: IsStandard. 520 bytes limit is a protocol limit.
 558 2013-11-05 04:47:57 <petertodd> shripadk: 672d4dddfd5f667fe1088c06a8164c4caba109576f310599ce68808cce8ce603
 559 2013-11-05 04:48:08 <shripadk> petertodd: thanks
 560 2013-11-05 04:48:10 <petertodd> justusranvier: might be 521 bytes actually...
 561 2013-11-05 04:48:10 <justusranvier> i.e. Could a mining pool which accepted non-standard transaction mine a transaction that was a m-of-20 ?
 562 2013-11-05 04:48:11 agnostic98 has joined
 563 2013-11-05 04:48:15 <petertodd> justusranvier: yes
 564 2013-11-05 04:48:45 <petertodd> justusranvier: try it on eligius for us
 565 2013-11-05 04:48:47 <justusranvier> So you can still do m-of-20 if you want, as long as you find a pool who will agree to mine them for you?
 566 2013-11-05 04:49:06 random_cat_ has joined
 567 2013-11-05 04:49:17 <petertodd> justusranvier: yup. You can embed the rick-roll song in the blockchain is you mine it yourself...
 568 2013-11-05 04:49:34 a5m0 has joined
 569 2013-11-05 04:49:47 netg has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 570 2013-11-05 04:50:04 netg has joined
 571 2013-11-05 04:50:14 <justusranvier> Voting pools in OpenTransactions might want to use high values of n for their operations.
 572 2013-11-05 04:50:29 <gavinandresen> RE: putting rick-roll in the blockchain:  dont' do that, by the way.  It has already been done.
 573 2013-11-05 04:50:51 <justusranvier> Like 9-12
 574 2013-11-05 04:50:58 <petertodd> on testnet
 575 2013-11-05 04:53:33 <Luke-Jr> gavinandresen: not with video!
 576 2013-11-05 04:53:34 <Luke-Jr> <.<
 577 2013-11-05 04:53:44 noosemoose has joined
 578 2013-11-05 04:53:49 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: what do you charge per KB again?
 579 2013-11-05 04:54:06 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: 42 BTC
 580 2013-11-05 04:54:11 molec has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 581 2013-11-05 04:54:29 Namworld has quit ()
 582 2013-11-05 04:54:36 molec has joined
 583 2013-11-05 04:54:47 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: pff, I'm sure I can get a better price than that
 584 2013-11-05 04:55:10 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: no no, it's extra for you! :P
 585 2013-11-05 04:55:14 * petertodd keeps meaning to sign such a tx with a 1BTC fee and post it in the mining section of the forum
 586 2013-11-05 04:55:53 <petertodd> Actually, I hid a 1BTC giveway in one of my posts, but to mine it you're forced to put a usage of OP_CODESEPARATOR in the mainnet blockchain.
 587 2013-11-05 04:56:03 random_cat_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 588 2013-11-05 04:56:03 wiretapped has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 589 2013-11-05 04:56:45 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: I'm supposed to fear that?
 590 2013-11-05 04:57:03 wiretapped has joined
 591 2013-11-05 04:57:06 s7r has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 592 2013-11-05 04:57:17 shripadk has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 593 2013-11-05 04:57:28 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: um, sure... (actually your eval thing used codeseparator didn't it?)
 594 2013-11-05 04:57:33 noosemoose has quit (Client Quit)
 595 2013-11-05 04:58:03 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: BIP 17 did, but it never evaled in any form..
 596 2013-11-05 04:58:19 <petertodd> oh, right, not eval, codecheckhash
 597 2013-11-05 04:58:34 <Luke-Jr> CHECKHASHVERIFY
 598 2013-11-05 04:58:47 <Luke-Jr> to keep in the spirit of stupidly named opcodes that tell nothing about what they do
 599 2013-11-05 04:58:49 <Luke-Jr> lol
 600 2013-11-05 04:58:55 <petertodd> did you ever mine an example tx? though I guess it wouldn't have really tested it out in terms of an actual signature
 601 2013-11-05 04:59:01 <Luke-Jr> plenty
 602 2013-11-05 04:59:06 <Luke-Jr> gavinandresen forced me to do all testing on mainnet
 603 2013-11-05 04:59:14 <petertodd> lol
 604 2013-11-05 04:59:29 random_cat_ has joined
 605 2013-11-05 04:59:32 <Luke-Jr> he had a bot on testnet spending against the softforking rule
 606 2013-11-05 04:59:37 JTF195 has joined
 607 2013-11-05 04:59:40 <petertodd> that's hilarious
 608 2013-11-05 04:59:44 ProfMac has joined
 609 2013-11-05 05:00:02 <petertodd> also, assholish
 610 2013-11-05 05:00:08 <Luke-Jr> more hilarious tohugh
 611 2013-11-05 05:00:09 <Luke-Jr> though*
 612 2013-11-05 05:00:11 <gavinandresen> yeah, I feel a little guilty about that
 613 2013-11-05 05:00:15 zer0def has joined
 614 2013-11-05 05:00:24 shripadk has joined
 615 2013-11-05 05:00:39 <gavinandresen> If I was a realy asshole I would've pretended it wasn't me doing it
 616 2013-11-05 05:00:54 <Luke-Jr> didn't you at the time? <.<
 617 2013-11-05 05:01:24 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: still, I'm pretty sure that OP_CODESEPARATOR has never appeared on mainnet in such a way that the checksig code was used to evaluate it
 618 2013-11-05 05:03:04 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: besides older versions when it had more meaning?
 619 2013-11-05 05:03:18 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: older versions never used in in the blockchain
 620 2013-11-05 05:03:33 <Luke-Jr> not in the blockchain, but it was used
 621 2013-11-05 05:04:15 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 622 2013-11-05 05:04:15 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: kinda unfortunate actually, as satoshi *nearly* made a design that wouldhave let you create signatures that signed code in the scriptSig; you'd have been able to delegate signing authority after the fact
 623 2013-11-05 05:04:36 * petertodd curses satoshi for probably being a student who had classes to return to in january...
 624 2013-11-05 05:04:58 * wizkid057 blames Luke-Jr
 625 2013-11-05 05:05:13 <petertodd> ah, mystery solved!
 626 2013-11-05 05:05:17 apurplehorse has quit ()
 627 2013-11-05 05:05:27 <petertodd> although... wait.. but I'm satoshi!
 628 2013-11-05 05:05:39 <wizkid057> shh
 629 2013-11-05 05:05:55 <wizkid057> you're not supposed to know that
 630 2013-11-05 05:05:59 <Luke-Jr> lol
 631 2013-11-05 05:06:15 <Luke-Jr> TBC is proof I'm not satoshi ;)
 632 2013-11-05 05:06:22 <petertodd> my horrible experience with Bitcoin 1.0 has lead to second-system effect with the Bitcoin 2.0 I'm designing...
 633 2013-11-05 05:06:30 <Luke-Jr> so it's important the NSA knows about TBC
 634 2013-11-05 05:06:31 <Luke-Jr> <.<
 635 2013-11-05 05:06:50 <wizkid057> thats just what satoshi would do to throw us off his trail...
 636 2013-11-05 05:07:03 <petertodd> ...yeah, that's why I wrote it for windows
 637 2013-11-05 05:07:25 <petertodd> it's also why the crypto all sucks, er, wait, no that's because I have a fine arts degree...
 638 2013-11-05 05:08:35 ProfMac has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 639 2013-11-05 05:08:55 <wizkid057> just XOR everything with "WILL THE REAL SATOSHI PLEASE STAND UP".  Solid encryption.
 640 2013-11-05 05:08:57 <shripadk> petertodd, gavinandresen: so if i send 1-of-4 multisig tx on testnet it shouldn't even broadcast it right?
 641 2013-11-05 05:09:17 <gavinandresen> shripadk: sure it will, testnet allows non-standard transactions
 642 2013-11-05 05:09:23 ProfMac has joined
 643 2013-11-05 05:09:58 <shripadk> gavinandresen: okay so then how do i know for sure that >3 is non-standard… the only way is to test on mainnet?
 644 2013-11-05 05:10:05 <petertodd> wizkid057: you laugh, but this is the most embarassing crypto mistake I've ever made: https://github.com/opentimestamps/opentimestamps-client/commit/288f3c17626974de7eaef4f1c9b5cd93eecf40f6
 645 2013-11-05 05:10:28 <petertodd> wizkid057: I swear someone must have slipped something into my drink
 646 2013-11-05 05:11:26 <wizkid057> ... i didnt know about this before I made the joke I swear. lol
 647 2013-11-05 05:11:30 <gavinandresen> shripadk: yes.  Unless you get petertodd to implement his idea of a switch to control the accepts-only-standard-transactions-on-testnet… (I'm busy with other stuff righ tnow)
 648 2013-11-05 05:12:45 <petertodd> wizkid057: heh, I left it in the git tree delibrately to remind myself everyone has their moments of idiocy
 649 2013-11-05 05:13:49 <petertodd> wizkid057: the great thing was I had explained it to a professional cryptographer over lunch earlier that day, and he too completely missed it! he swore later on that he genuinely just blanked on it
 650 2013-11-05 05:14:08 <shripadk> gavinandresen: okay thanks :) do you have an example of creating a P2SH tx similar to the one in this gist of yours: https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/3966071
 651 2013-11-05 05:14:19 <wizkid057> :)
 652 2013-11-05 05:14:25 digitalmagus2 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 653 2013-11-05 05:15:21 <gavinandresen> shripadk: nope
 654 2013-11-05 05:15:48 <shripadk> gavinandresen: okay np :) i'll figure it out myself then
 655 2013-11-05 05:16:36 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 656 2013-11-05 05:18:03 debiantoruser has joined
 657 2013-11-05 05:21:26 Polyatomic has joined
 658 2013-11-05 05:21:36 Polyatomic has quit (Changing host)
 659 2013-11-05 05:21:36 Polyatomic has joined
 660 2013-11-05 05:21:52 xiangfu has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 661 2013-11-05 05:24:02 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 662 2013-11-05 05:24:04 rolme has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 663 2013-11-05 05:25:18 debiantoruser has joined
 664 2013-11-05 05:27:21 xiangfu has joined
 665 2013-11-05 05:32:42 shripadk has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 666 2013-11-05 05:39:40 xiangfu has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 667 2013-11-05 05:42:45 macboz has joined
 668 2013-11-05 05:43:05 arioBarzan has joined
 669 2013-11-05 05:43:42 super3 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 670 2013-11-05 05:44:12 <gmaxwell> heh: "By now, the Bitcoin market has priced in this information.  Bitcoin is at $239 on Mt. Gox."
 671 2013-11-05 05:45:05 <petertodd> gmaxwell: as I said on the foundation forum, one of Bitcoin's strengths is that even though it's currently flawed, it can be changed in response to an attack
 672 2013-11-05 05:45:08 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: what the mining strategy paper?
 673 2013-11-05 05:45:29 <gmaxwell> yes.
 674 2013-11-05 05:45:34 <BlueMatt> hah
 675 2013-11-05 05:46:44 <gmaxwell> kinda concerning, I mean, the paper doesn't worry _me_ but like ... why isn't it worrying the markets?
 676 2013-11-05 05:46:55 btcbtc has joined
 677 2013-11-05 05:47:15 <BlueMatt> because they're markets
 678 2013-11-05 05:47:36 <BlueMatt> especially the bitcoin market is really quite oblivious to technical issues
 679 2013-11-05 05:47:38 <BlueMatt> or it doesnt care...
 680 2013-11-05 05:47:41 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, because they're irrational
 681 2013-11-05 05:47:54 <gmaxwell> yea, I've observed it in the past, though this time we're up 5% since the paper started making the rounds.
 682 2013-11-05 05:47:55 <petertodd> Also much of the dev team doesn't take the paper seriously, which is a clear indication to the markets that they don't need to take it seriously.
 683 2013-11-05 05:48:43 <gmaxwell> I hope the folks writing the super sensationalist headlines found a way to short bitcoin. :P
 684 2013-11-05 05:48:57 <petertodd> heh, well it did have a quick drop...
 685 2013-11-05 05:49:24 <BlueMatt> petertodd: until the dev team ends up wrong and there is a serious problem
 686 2013-11-05 05:49:34 <BlueMatt> petertodd: more realistically, the markets dont pay attention to the dev team
 687 2013-11-05 05:49:37 <gmaxwell> petertodd: I hope you don't think I'm not taking it seriously, ... Do you think I'm wrong in not considering it an urgent concern demanding sudden changes?
 688 2013-11-05 05:49:44 <BlueMatt> petertodd: I mean how many traders do you think idle in here...
 689 2013-11-05 05:49:57 <petertodd> BlueMatt: Well, heck, even I got contacted by *two* reporters about the issue.
 690 2013-11-05 05:50:02 <BlueMatt> lol
 691 2013-11-05 05:50:15 <gmaxwell> I had people in the hall at IETF ask me about it, but no reporters.
 692 2013-11-05 05:50:35 <gmaxwell> (also coworkers)
 693 2013-11-05 05:50:41 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Heck no, assembling the right type of low-latency network to really take advantage of this takes time.
 694 2013-11-05 05:50:50 * BlueMatt is glad he gets ignored by reporters because he doesnt post on the ml enough :)
 695 2013-11-05 05:51:04 <BlueMatt> (and doesnt do enough work, but...whatever)
 696 2013-11-05 05:51:33 <petertodd> BlueMatt: heh, I get contacted before I don't do enough work. :P
 697 2013-11-05 05:51:57 <gmaxwell> petertodd: not just that, it's super detectable. .. and even if it works for all hashpower levels and the right networket the absolute return is small with small hashpwoer....
 698 2013-11-05 05:52:12 <justusranvier> Has the news about this reached China yet? Maybe that's why nobody is panic selling.
 699 2013-11-05 05:52:14 <petertodd> gmaxwell: but equally the dismissive attitude taken by so many is wrong, both now, and also in that it discourages people from working on this stuff
 700 2013-11-05 05:53:05 <petertodd> gmaxwell: sure, although super detectable isn't necessarily all that useful if there isn't will-power to actually fix it - that the easier fixes go against miner incentives worries me.
 701 2013-11-05 05:53:05 <gmaxwell> a large pool that would have the hashpower to make real absolute return on it probably couldn't take the PR risk...
 702 2013-11-05 05:53:33 <petertodd> gmaxwell: maybe. maybe not. ASICminer a few months ago might not have had any reason to care about the PR risk...
 703 2013-11-05 05:54:11 <gmaxwell> Perhaps, but its a fine line. The paper itself used somewhat sensational language that had people demanding ill-considered changes right away. And the press has been a bit over the top. If you're going to binary-classify responses....
 704 2013-11-05 05:54:26 patcon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 705 2013-11-05 05:54:47 <gmaxwell> petertodd: yea, well in general the hashpower consolidation is a problem, and has been a problem, will continue to be one. But that much isn't news.
 706 2013-11-05 05:54:53 patcon has joined
 707 2013-11-05 05:55:06 <gmaxwell> But I've had basically no luck moving the needle on that front.
 708 2013-11-05 05:55:30 perdec has joined
 709 2013-11-05 05:55:47 <petertodd> gmaxwell: I wouldn't call the paper's language sensational.
 710 2013-11-05 05:56:11 <gavinandresen> I would
 711 2013-11-05 05:56:40 <gavinandresen> e.g. using the term "toss up" to describe the block race between first- and second- broadcast is very misleading
 712 2013-11-05 05:56:54 <gavinandresen> propagation is exponential, so first-broadcast will win almost always
 713 2013-11-05 05:57:10 <gavinandresen> … unless you can pull off a massive sybil, which you can't.....
 714 2013-11-05 05:57:12 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Well, franly that's not the impression I got, and the impression one of my co-workers gave me was he thought it was very balanced and well done.
 715 2013-11-05 05:57:43 <petertodd> gavinandresen: what makes you think you can't?
 716 2013-11-05 05:57:57 <justusranvier> Not sensational? http://hackingdistributed.com/2013/11/04/bitcoin-is-broken/
 717 2013-11-05 05:57:58 <gavinandresen> miners have an incentive to be well-connected to each other.
 718 2013-11-05 05:58:04 <petertodd> justusranvier: I said the paper...
 719 2013-11-05 05:58:28 <petertodd> gavinandresen: well-connected doesn't prevent this attack
 720 2013-11-05 05:59:01 patcon has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 721 2013-11-05 05:59:07 <petertodd> gavinandresen: notably, mike's (and my) idea of putting node addresses in blocks makes the attacker easier to pull off rather than harder.
 722 2013-11-05 06:00:11 toffoo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 723 2013-11-05 06:01:17 toffoo has joined
 724 2013-11-05 06:01:18 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: yea, I wtfed at that too.
 725 2013-11-05 06:01:39 <gmaxwell> Random headlines: "Bitcoin Protocol Vulnerability Could Lead To a Collapse" "Researchers Say 'Bitcoin Is Broken' And Could Collapse" "'Selfish miner' attack could devastate Bitcoin, researchers say" "Bitcopocalypse! Top crypto-currency can be HIJACKED, warn boffins" "Bitcoin open to takeover, researchers discover with new algorithm"
 726 2013-11-05 06:02:21 <gavinandresen> petertodd: I'm not following.  My point is that honest miners have an incentive to connect directly to each other and quickly propagate blocks.  They also have an incentive to keep those connections private to prevent sybil / dos attacks
 727 2013-11-05 06:02:31 <gmaxwell> justusranvier: holy crap
 728 2013-11-05 06:02:41 <gavinandresen> … and they have an incentive to kick out cheating miners if they can detect that they are cheating...
 729 2013-11-05 06:02:41 <gmaxwell> justusranvier: I hadn't seen that
 730 2013-11-05 06:03:03 <petertodd> gmaxwell: that sentence specifically refers the situation where the attacker, who has the ability to learn when a new block is created, in response immediately reveals one of their blocks. It's nearly simultaneous, so calling it a "toss up" is reasonable.
 731 2013-11-05 06:03:43 <justusranvier> gmaxwell: Based on that blog post, I halfway expect the author to be revans on the forum.
 732 2013-11-05 06:03:45 <gavinandresen> "who has the ability to learn when a new block is created" …. "Imagine blocks being transmitted on an infinte plane with zero friction...."
 733 2013-11-05 06:04:41 <petertodd> gavinandresen: Mike and I proposed putting node addresses in blocks. Now if you do this the attacker has an easier time knowing where to broadcast their blocks when they need to reveal them; the attacker optimizes for low-latency. Meanwhile if those nodes also tell arbitrary peers what blocks those miners have created, the attacker can use that information to find out when a new block is created sooner.
 734 2013-11-05 06:05:00 <gmaxwell> petertodd: think you could get their simulation code out of them?
 735 2013-11-05 06:05:19 <gmaxwell> petertodd: it might be useful to run the simulations with some reasonable constraints on what the observing nodes could do.
 736 2013-11-05 06:05:37 <petertodd> gavinandresen: yes, and that ability is achieved by obtaining low-latency nodes, not rocket science, just find computers with low ping times to the miners.
 737 2013-11-05 06:05:41 <arioBarzan> a bunch of stupid people think they have found something new. Satoshi himself has talked about this long time ago. If people have short memory is their own fault. http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09967.html
 738 2013-11-05 06:06:53 <gmaxwell> arioBarzan: thats not really related.
 739 2013-11-05 06:06:56 <petertodd> gmaxwell: just ask them, they replied to me pretty quickly. Frankly I think "reasonable constraints" is missing the point - regardless of what the constraints are, if you invest more money, you'll get a better result re: latency. Once you beat everyone else, you can use the attack very effectively unless we apply some kind of effective countermeasure.
 740 2013-11-05 06:07:28 groglogic has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 741 2013-11-05 06:07:52 <gmaxwell> arioBarzan: but as I linked to in my posts, bytecoin did write about this class of behavior: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2227.msg30083#msg30083
 742 2013-11-05 06:08:28 <gmaxwell> petertodd: yes, but as you note: that takes money. And then what is the return?
 743 2013-11-05 06:08:42 <gmaxwell> Spend $10000/mo to earn $10/mo more is not a win. :)
 744 2013-11-05 06:10:27 <petertodd> gmaxwell: The return is that your competitors make very little money, and the miners mining on their pools give up and switch to you, and/or difficulty drops and you earn more money. We don't know exactly what the constraints are, but we shouldn't assume such a network is expensive: they already exist and as I said above, it may be the case that doing some bitcoin mining as a side project would be pretty cheap.
 745 2013-11-05 06:11:05 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Eventually you can add fees to the equation, and also note my comment on the list about how this screws up nLockTime sacrifices.
 746 2013-11-05 06:14:44 <gmaxwell> meh. I would probably put this concern someplace somewhat lower than the middle in my list of concerns about bitcoin, below many other possible consilidation sources.
 747 2013-11-05 06:15:04 canoon has joined
 748 2013-11-05 06:15:10 <gmaxwell> If we have been reorg producing things we have many problems, I am not worred about sacrifices related to this.
 749 2013-11-05 06:15:47 <petertodd> gmaxwell: The sacrifices are an example where the miner pursuing this strategy most effectively gets all the reward.
 750 2013-11-05 06:16:12 <petertodd> I think this is quite a bit worse than other consolidation pressures that we've found by virtue of how effective it is.
 751 2013-11-05 06:16:40 <gmaxwell> I'm sorry. We already have single pools kissing 40% on their own. How can anything be _worse_?
 752 2013-11-05 06:16:57 <gmaxwell> in terms of short term behavior that can be adapted away by users, at least?
 753 2013-11-05 06:17:15 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Because those pools aren't, and can't quite yet, effectively stop the 10% pools from getting bigger.
 754 2013-11-05 06:17:40 <petertodd> gmaxwell: 40% isn't enough hashing power to take their inflation subsidies away from them basically.
 755 2013-11-05 06:18:23 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Now if a relatively simple fix *is* possible, and can be deployed, we're probably ok, even if in theory it's economically irrational for a miner to use the fix. But, I'd like to know that.
 756 2013-11-05 06:19:44 <petertodd> ...and hilariously, right as we've been having this conversation mtgox price volume shot up, and price gyrated wildly.
 757 2013-11-05 06:19:54 <gmaxwell> yea, the bots read irc. :P
 758 2013-11-05 06:20:12 <gmaxwell> watch this
 759 2013-11-05 06:20:15 <petertodd> OH FUCK, THE CHAIN IS FORKING!
 760 2013-11-05 06:20:15 <gmaxwell> buffer overflow
 761 2013-11-05 06:20:20 <gmaxwell> jinx
 762 2013-11-05 06:20:25 <petertodd> heh
 763 2013-11-05 06:20:35 perdec has quit (Quit: perdec)
 764 2013-11-05 06:20:42 <petertodd> hey cool, so turns out a chain fork causes the price to rise!
 765 2013-11-05 06:20:48 Eneerge has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 766 2013-11-05 06:20:58 <gmaxwell> every technical problem causes the price to rise.
 767 2013-11-05 06:21:14 <petertodd> hmm....
 768 2013-11-05 06:21:26 <petertodd> UNDEAD SATOSHI RISES!
 769 2013-11-05 06:22:00 <beethoven8201> stupid question here ... how are the dev's going to coordinate a block size increase across all the different clients?
 770 2013-11-05 06:22:15 <gavinandresen> beethoven8201: very slowly
 771 2013-11-05 06:22:17 <petertodd> beethoven8201: clients don't check blocksize
 772 2013-11-05 06:22:25 <petertodd> beethoven8201: at least the vast majority don't (SPV)
 773 2013-11-05 06:22:26 <beethoven8201> sorry node is what I meant
 774 2013-11-05 06:22:32 Eneerge has joined
 775 2013-11-05 06:22:46 <beethoven8201> if there are forks of -qt, for example
 776 2013-11-05 06:22:48 <BlueMatt> woo, fast-relay daemon implemented (yay bitcoinj)
 777 2013-11-05 06:22:53 <beethoven8201> that don't update, what do you do?
 778 2013-11-05 06:23:00 <BlueMatt> (yes, fast-relay in java, but fuck you, I wrote the network stack, it performs well)
 779 2013-11-05 06:23:01 <beethoven8201> do they just break off the main chain?
 780 2013-11-05 06:23:11 <petertodd> beethoven8201: there's a pretty simple update mechanism, you cange the version in the block header and vote on the change basically
 781 2013-11-05 06:23:16 <gavinandresen> beethoven8201: https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/2355445
 782 2013-11-05 06:24:02 <petertodd> BlueMatt: blocks or blockheaders?
 783 2013-11-05 06:24:09 <BlueMatt> petertodd: blocks + txn
 784 2013-11-05 06:24:19 <petertodd> BlueMatt: cool, we need alternate mechanisms...
 785 2013-11-05 06:24:36 <BlueMatt> petertodd: Im gonna set up a few nodes and then get a bunch of miners/merchants to peer with this node
 786 2013-11-05 06:24:43 <BlueMatt> (and then make it public if its stable)
 787 2013-11-05 06:25:09 <petertodd> BlueMatt: cool. For blocks is it checking headers for validity?
 788 2013-11-05 06:25:15 <BlueMatt> it does depend on having a single bitcoind on the backend to check validity
 789 2013-11-05 06:25:15 <beethoven8201> gavinandresen: will we be able to monitor/estimate what percentage of the nodes / miners are using what version of software?
 790 2013-11-05 06:25:25 <BlueMatt> but it could pretty trivially just use bitcoinj spv mode and not bother
 791 2013-11-05 06:26:09 <petertodd> BlueMatt: could you do a version that only checks header validity? that's enough to prevent DoS attacks, and it'd be really good to have something that could relay blocks in case we ever run into block-dependent relay bugs
 792 2013-11-05 06:26:19 <beethoven8201> gavinandresen: never mind -- I see this in the version number
 793 2013-11-05 06:26:21 <beethoven8201> thanks
 794 2013-11-05 06:26:27 <petertodd> BlueMatt: tx's aren't so important; tx relaying failing doesn't harm consensus much
 795 2013-11-05 06:26:37 ThomasV has joined
 796 2013-11-05 06:27:08 <BlueMatt> petertodd: yea, that'll happen
 797 2013-11-05 06:27:09 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: you've not seen jgarzik's brd? :P
 798 2013-11-05 06:27:17 <petertodd> BlueMatt: thanks
 799 2013-11-05 06:27:32 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: meh, Im lazy
 800 2013-11-05 06:28:05 <petertodd> BlueMatt: heh, you'll like my semi-paper describing a crypto-currency system, heck, a decentralized consensus system, where block data isn't validated at all.
 801 2013-11-05 06:31:11 <ThomasV> midnightmagic: ping
 802 2013-11-05 06:33:19 btcbtc has quit (Quit: btcbtc)
 803 2013-11-05 06:34:28 btcbtc has joined
 804 2013-11-05 06:35:29 coingenuity has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 805 2013-11-05 06:42:15 daktak has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 806 2013-11-05 06:42:47 daktak has joined
 807 2013-11-05 06:43:00 johnsoft has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 808 2013-11-05 06:43:42 johnsoft has joined
 809 2013-11-05 06:50:53 btcbtc has quit (Quit: btcbtc)
 810 2013-11-05 06:52:48 arioBarzan has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
 811 2013-11-05 07:02:53 reizuki__ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
 812 2013-11-05 07:06:35 btcbtc has joined
 813 2013-11-05 07:11:47 bitspill has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 814 2013-11-05 07:13:35 GingerGeek[Away] has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 815 2013-11-05 07:14:58 GingerGeek[Away] has joined
 816 2013-11-05 07:15:13 GingerGeek[Away] is now known as GingerGeek
 817 2013-11-05 07:15:43 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 818 2013-11-05 07:16:34 xiangfu has joined
 819 2013-11-05 07:17:38 debiantoruser has joined
 820 2013-11-05 07:22:14 BenderCoin has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 821 2013-11-05 07:22:34 btcbtc has quit (Quit: btcbtc)
 822 2013-11-05 07:25:22 Alina-malina has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 823 2013-11-05 07:28:25 Alina-malina has joined
 824 2013-11-05 07:30:44 CryptoBuck has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 825 2013-11-05 07:32:45 btcbtc has joined
 826 2013-11-05 07:34:54 CryptoBuck has joined
 827 2013-11-05 07:35:05 CryptoBuck has quit (Client Quit)
 828 2013-11-05 07:35:19 CryptoBuck has joined
 829 2013-11-05 07:37:02 btcbtc has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 830 2013-11-05 07:39:39 zacm has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 831 2013-11-05 07:47:09 wrabbit has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 832 2013-11-05 07:49:40 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 833 2013-11-05 07:50:17 wrabbit has joined
 834 2013-11-05 07:51:54 damethos has joined
 835 2013-11-05 07:52:21 cads has joined
 836 2013-11-05 07:53:07 xiangfu has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 837 2013-11-05 08:01:55 RoboTeddy has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 838 2013-11-05 08:04:10 adam3us has joined
 839 2013-11-05 08:04:13 adam3us has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 840 2013-11-05 08:04:44 askmike has joined
 841 2013-11-05 08:05:18 adam3us has joined
 842 2013-11-05 08:09:04 askmike has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 843 2013-11-05 08:10:00 fanquake has joined
 844 2013-11-05 08:12:24 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 845 2013-11-05 08:14:14 debiantoruser has joined
 846 2013-11-05 08:18:54 elevatioN has quit ()
 847 2013-11-05 08:20:10 da2ce7 has joined
 848 2013-11-05 08:20:55 arioBarzan has joined
 849 2013-11-05 08:25:43 beethoven8201 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 850 2013-11-05 08:32:43 TD has joined
 851 2013-11-05 08:42:50 ericmuyser has joined
 852 2013-11-05 08:45:42 arioBarzan has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
 853 2013-11-05 08:49:16 ThomasV has joined
 854 2013-11-05 08:49:48 toffoo has quit ()
 855 2013-11-05 08:57:59 msvb-lab has joined
 856 2013-11-05 09:09:56 <HaltingState> sipa, I added crytographic random number generator to my golang wrapper and added unit tests
 857 2013-11-05 09:10:10 <HaltingState> https://github.com/haltingstate/secp256
 858 2013-11-05 09:10:42 <HaltingState> it would be nice if there was a c function for checking if nonce was valid, but ..
 859 2013-11-05 09:11:40 askmike has joined
 860 2013-11-05 09:11:46 oru has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 861 2013-11-05 09:12:09 pecket has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 862 2013-11-05 09:12:22 agnostic98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 863 2013-11-05 09:13:17 xiangfu has joined
 864 2013-11-05 09:15:59 dansmith_btc has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 865 2013-11-05 09:19:05 pecket has joined
 866 2013-11-05 09:26:04 oru has joined
 867 2013-11-05 09:26:04 oru has quit (Changing host)
 868 2013-11-05 09:26:04 oru has joined
 869 2013-11-05 09:26:25 Pucilowski has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
 870 2013-11-05 09:26:41 Pucilowski has joined
 871 2013-11-05 09:27:22 robocoin_ is now known as robocoin
 872 2013-11-05 09:27:59 Guest49185 has joined
 873 2013-11-05 09:29:41 Thepok has joined
 874 2013-11-05 09:31:53 t7 has joined
 875 2013-11-05 09:34:19 <HaltingState> sipa, look in secp256_test.go; is so elegant, this library and its interface
 876 2013-11-05 09:35:03 <HaltingState> your library is so elegant and then the golang library on top of this is amazing and clean; key generation, signatures and testing in 3 lines!
 877 2013-11-05 09:36:36 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
 878 2013-11-05 09:38:51 gmaxwell has quit (Quit: weee)
 879 2013-11-05 09:41:16 gmaxwell has joined
 880 2013-11-05 09:43:30 agnostic98 has joined
 881 2013-11-05 09:45:19 Andrevan has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 882 2013-11-05 09:49:45 MiSKLaCH has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 883 2013-11-05 09:50:09 ovidiusoft has joined
 884 2013-11-05 09:50:41 dansmithbtc2 has quit (Changing host)
 885 2013-11-05 09:50:41 dansmithbtc2 has joined
 886 2013-11-05 09:53:44 <HaltingState> sipa, secp256.test: /home/atomos/secp256/./secp256k1/src/impl/num_gmp.h:55: secp256k1_num_get_bin: Assertion `len-shift <= rlen' failed.
 887 2013-11-05 09:53:44 <HaltingState> SIGABRT: abort
 888 2013-11-05 09:54:56 <HaltingState> i am taking a  fixed message and then generating random signatures and testing the random signatures and its crashing
 889 2013-11-05 09:58:07 wizkid057 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 890 2013-11-05 10:00:28 Andrevan has joined
 891 2013-11-05 10:02:23 rolme has joined
 892 2013-11-05 10:02:59 MiSKLaCH has joined
 893 2013-11-05 10:05:31 markus__ has joined
 894 2013-11-05 10:05:39 <HaltingState> sipa, what i am doing is creating a random signatures (just completely random byte string) and trying to verify if they are valid signature for a pubkey and it crashes/aborts
 895 2013-11-05 10:06:35 macboz has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
 896 2013-11-05 10:07:09 GingerGeek has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 897 2013-11-05 10:07:42 <sipa> HaltingState: can you create an issue or something about it?
 898 2013-11-05 10:07:48 <sipa> i don't have time to look now
 899 2013-11-05 10:08:36 Nesetalis has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 900 2013-11-05 10:09:52 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 901 2013-11-05 10:10:31 Guest49185 has quit (Changing host)
 902 2013-11-05 10:10:31 Guest49185 has joined
 903 2013-11-05 10:10:40 <HaltingState> k
 904 2013-11-05 10:10:46 Guest49185 is now known as iwilcox
 905 2013-11-05 10:11:55 paybitcoin1 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 906 2013-11-05 10:12:31 rolme has quit (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
 907 2013-11-05 10:13:08 paybitcoin has joined
 908 2013-11-05 10:15:44 GingerGeek[Away] has joined
 909 2013-11-05 10:15:58 GingerGeek[Away] is now known as GingerGeek
 910 2013-11-05 10:16:42 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 911 2013-11-05 10:16:54 Eiii has quit ()
 912 2013-11-05 10:21:32 coingenuity has joined
 913 2013-11-05 10:21:39 coingenuity has quit (Changing host)
 914 2013-11-05 10:21:39 coingenuity has joined
 915 2013-11-05 10:27:04 askmike has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 916 2013-11-05 10:27:37 askmike has joined
 917 2013-11-05 10:30:58 askmike_ has joined
 918 2013-11-05 10:31:27 askmike has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 919 2013-11-05 10:31:38 reizuki__ has joined
 920 2013-11-05 10:31:38 reizuki__ has quit (Changing host)
 921 2013-11-05 10:31:38 reizuki__ has joined
 922 2013-11-05 10:33:35 JTF195 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 923 2013-11-05 10:35:57 JTF195 has joined
 924 2013-11-05 10:41:44 arioBarzan has joined
 925 2013-11-05 10:42:42 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 926 2013-11-05 10:44:20 Liquid__ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 927 2013-11-05 10:44:42 Liquid__ has joined
 928 2013-11-05 10:45:12 grau has joined
 929 2013-11-05 10:45:37 JTF195 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 930 2013-11-05 10:46:06 Evilmax has joined
 931 2013-11-05 10:46:06 Evilmax has quit (Changing host)
 932 2013-11-05 10:46:06 Evilmax has joined
 933 2013-11-05 10:46:52 atian has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 934 2013-11-05 10:46:57 tmsk has joined
 935 2013-11-05 10:48:46 pecket has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 936 2013-11-05 10:48:52 atian has joined
 937 2013-11-05 10:50:35 reizuki__ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
 938 2013-11-05 10:52:25 arioBarzan has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 939 2013-11-05 10:52:30 arioBarzan_ has joined
 940 2013-11-05 10:55:26 TD[away] is now known as TD
 941 2013-11-05 10:58:02 easye has joined
 942 2013-11-05 10:58:55 pecket has joined
 943 2013-11-05 10:59:31 <HaltingState> sipa, https://github.com/sipa/secp256k1/issues/16  I am checking other fields now and stuff
 944 2013-11-05 10:59:38 <HaltingState> your at the internet task force thing?
 945 2013-11-05 11:00:17 Polyatomic has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 946 2013-11-05 11:00:24 <HaltingState> their might need to be a function to verify if a compact signature is valid; i am generating compact signatures as random strings and it crashes, but validly generated signatures for the wrong message validate correctly
 947 2013-11-05 11:02:08 melvster has joined
 948 2013-11-05 11:02:24 <HaltingState> i might add this to the C test cases if its quick
 949 2013-11-05 11:03:25 arioBarzan_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 950 2013-11-05 11:03:44 arioBarzan has joined
 951 2013-11-05 11:04:11 markus__ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 952 2013-11-05 11:08:42 agricocb has joined
 953 2013-11-05 11:15:13 xnyhps has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 954 2013-11-05 11:15:23 xnyhps has joined
 955 2013-11-05 11:16:16 <HaltingState> sipa, writing unit tests in C now for the cases i tried in golang; will see if i can replicate; then will push
 956 2013-11-05 11:18:26 wizkid057 has joined
 957 2013-11-05 11:18:53 nethershaw has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 958 2013-11-05 11:19:28 <arioBarzan> For the sake of argument, if the alleged "selfish mining" attack is pooled effectively, how it would relate to the checkpoints which currently is put in the bitcoin-qt? If one could find a longer chain, should people ignore the checkpoints if it conflicts with that longer chain?
 959 2013-11-05 11:20:41 justaskingplz has left ()
 960 2013-11-05 11:21:15 justaskingplz has joined
 961 2013-11-05 11:21:39 <justaskingplz> a selfish mining attack would not target blocks of a sufficient age
 962 2013-11-05 11:21:47 <justaskingplz> especially checkpoint blocks
 963 2013-11-05 11:22:44 <justaskingplz> it becomes extremely hard to orphan blocks that old
 964 2013-11-05 11:25:13 <arioBarzan> I know that would be "extremely hard", but I believe if hypothetically it does, either the checkpoints would be irrelevant, or the rule of longer chain.
 965 2013-11-05 11:28:09 <sipa> arioBarzan: if checkpoints ever become relevant, we have failed
 966 2013-11-05 11:29:04 <sipa> arioBarzan: the point of having checkpoints is not to lock-in the chain (though that is a side effect, and often misunderstood as preventing attacks); their purpose is to make an optimization safe
 967 2013-11-05 11:29:16 <HaltingState> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/21517274/img/c_woot.png
 968 2013-11-05 11:29:28 <sipa> to prevent someone who is catching up, from being fed a chain with invalid transactions
 969 2013-11-05 11:29:29 <HaltingState> so long since i have written C, probably 4 months? but its like reflex...
 970 2013-11-05 11:29:48 michagogo has joined
 971 2013-11-05 11:30:34 <arioBarzan> Some weeks ago, I mined a block at the height of 175, and then replaced the checkpoints with hash of my fake block and connected to my node to internet. It was very interesting experiment. I guess the nodes who ran old clients at the time had difficulties when connected to my rouge node.
 972 2013-11-05 11:31:00 paraipan has joined
 973 2013-11-05 11:31:05 Raziel has joined
 974 2013-11-05 11:31:06 skinnkavaj has joined
 975 2013-11-05 11:31:06 skinnkavaj has quit (Changing host)
 976 2013-11-05 11:31:06 skinnkavaj has joined
 977 2013-11-05 11:31:50 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 978 2013-11-05 11:32:06 <sipa> arioBarzan: in fact, there are some ideas to abolish checkpoints entirely, or at least significantly reduce their importance
 979 2013-11-05 11:32:38 <michagogo> cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|"<arioBarzan> Some weeks ago, I mined a block at the height of 175, and then replaced the checkpoints with hash of my fake block and connected to my node to internet. It was very interesting experiment. I guess the nodes who ran old clients at the time had difficulties when connected to my rouge node."
 980 2013-11-05 11:32:47 <michagogo> cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|Why not a yellow node?
 981 2013-11-05 11:32:57 <sipa> :D
 982 2013-11-05 11:33:04 <michagogo> cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|Also, that would just mean that your node would disagree with other nodes
 983 2013-11-05 11:33:17 <sipa> it literally means he forked himself off :)
 984 2013-11-05 11:33:23 <michagogo> cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|They'd take your block, and simply not relay it
 985 2013-11-05 11:33:44 <michagogo> cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|And your client will refuse to accept the actual chain, so you've just created a 1-man fork
 986 2013-11-05 11:34:25 <arioBarzan> I was trying to learn about mining, so it was easier for me to mine at difficulty 1. so for experimental reasons it was convenient to fork myself out :)
 987 2013-11-05 11:34:36 <michagogo> arioBarzan: There's a testnet for that :-P
 988 2013-11-05 11:35:05 <sipa> unfortunately, testnet difficulty is at 18k or so now
 989 2013-11-05 11:35:25 <sipa> there's still the regtest network (maybe not in 0.8.5 yet, unsure)
 990 2013-11-05 11:35:55 <HaltingState> sipa, src/tests.c:480:3: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘secp256k1_ecdsa_recover_compact’ [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
 991 2013-11-05 11:35:55 <HaltingState>    int ret = secp256k1_ecdsa_recover_compact(
 992 2013-11-05 11:36:05 <HaltingState> in test.c
 993 2013-11-05 11:36:08 <sipa> with difficulty 0.00000000023 :)
 994 2013-11-05 11:36:42 <sipa> < HaltingState> your at the internet task force thing?    <-- no, gmaxwell is
 995 2013-11-05 11:36:57 <HaltingState> the test.c file is not importing the .h secp256k hmm
 996 2013-11-05 11:37:05 <sipa> it probably should
 997 2013-11-05 11:37:05 <michagogo> Does regtest actually connect to other nodes across the network?
 998 2013-11-05 11:37:09 <michagogo> I thought it was local-only
 999 2013-11-05 11:37:11 <sipa> michagogo: not by default
1000 2013-11-05 11:37:13 <HaltingState> sipa, "it probably should" ahahah ya
1001 2013-11-05 11:37:15 <arioBarzan> michagogo: Testnet wouldn't be that much enjoyable. In my forked chain, I used the same type of addresses as main net. It was also easy to use the public data for initial 175 blocks (from blockchain.info and other sites)
1002 2013-11-05 11:37:39 <michagogo> Anyway, it's pretty easy to mine diff 1 blocks on testnet, as long as you don't need more than 6 in rapid succession
1003 2013-11-05 11:37:45 <michagogo> just set your system clock ahead
1004 2013-11-05 11:37:59 <michagogo> What internet task force thing?
1005 2013-11-05 11:37:59 agnostic98 has joined
1006 2013-11-05 11:38:02 <HaltingState> your unit tests look like they are fine for ECC operations but there are no top level functional tests i guess
1007 2013-11-05 11:38:17 zacm has joined
1008 2013-11-05 11:38:18 <sipa> indeed
1009 2013-11-05 11:38:27 <sipa> feel free to contribute :)
1010 2013-11-05 11:38:43 Bwild has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1011 2013-11-05 11:38:49 <HaltingState> /home/atomos/secp256k1/src/tests.c:482: undefined reference to `secp256k1_ecdsa_recover_compact'
1012 2013-11-05 11:39:04 <HaltingState> soooo its not linking that in, even in tests...
1013 2013-11-05 11:39:18 <sipa> heh
1014 2013-11-05 11:39:24 <sipa> that makes no sense
1015 2013-11-05 11:39:42 <HaltingState> i know
1016 2013-11-05 11:40:37 <Apocalyptic> how many people have the push priv to the main bitcoin github ?
1017 2013-11-05 11:41:09 Bwild has joined
1018 2013-11-05 11:41:35 <sipa> Apocalyptic: 7
1019 2013-11-05 11:43:37 <sipa> HaltingState: you need to either link with secp256k1.o, or include the necessary impl/*.h files directly
1020 2013-11-05 11:43:48 oPen_syLar has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
1021 2013-11-05 11:44:07 <pigeons> michagogo: http://www.ietf.org/meeting/88/index.html i guess
1022 2013-11-05 11:44:09 <HaltingState> sipa, on it; i am writing your unit tests and the things i crashed it with in golang
1023 2013-11-05 11:44:58 Relicka has quit (Quit: Bye!)
1024 2013-11-05 11:46:23 cybermoron has joined
1025 2013-11-05 11:47:32 fanquake has left ()
1026 2013-11-05 11:48:43 Relicka has joined
1027 2013-11-05 11:51:34 Relicka has quit (Client Quit)
1028 2013-11-05 11:53:19 rolme has joined
1029 2013-11-05 11:54:29 Relicka has joined
1030 2013-11-05 11:57:12 <arioBarzan> A quote from Gavin reads: " The other safeguard, Andresen explained, has been Bitcoin’s “get big quick” strategy.  If enough Bitcoins can be put into circulation quickly, then it becomes much harder for any faction to corner the market in Bitcoins or to compromise their integrity." http://bollier.org/taxonomy/term/12
1031 2013-11-05 11:57:26 <arioBarzan> anyone could explain this further?
1032 2013-11-05 11:58:04 OrP has joined
1033 2013-11-05 11:59:30 <arioBarzan> what is meant by "to corner the market in Bitcoins" ?
1034 2013-11-05 12:00:53 <pigeons> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_the_market
1035 2013-11-05 12:00:53 _ingsoc has joined
1036 2013-11-05 12:01:19 <pigeons> set the price by controlling the supply
1037 2013-11-05 12:01:20 mrkent has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1038 2013-11-05 12:03:07 rolme has quit (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
1039 2013-11-05 12:03:56 arioBarzan has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
1040 2013-11-05 12:05:06 <melvster> can lock_time actually be used today?
1041 2013-11-05 12:06:13 <melvster> oh found it, it says it's in the std client
1042 2013-11-05 12:06:41 <sipa> yes, but without tx replacements it's not very useful
1043 2013-11-05 12:08:29 <melvster> sipa: sorry for my ignorance, but what are tx replacements?
1044 2013-11-05 12:09:19 <melvster> to do with the sequence number?
1045 2013-11-05 12:09:53 <TD> yes
1046 2013-11-05 12:09:56 paraipan has joined
1047 2013-11-05 12:10:04 * melvster reading https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts
1048 2013-11-05 12:10:07 <sipa> melvster: sending a new version of a transaction, which replaces an older one
1049 2013-11-05 12:10:24 <melvster> very cool
1050 2013-11-05 12:10:37 canoon has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1051 2013-11-05 12:10:41 <melvster> so i take it that tx replacements isnt implemented ...
1052 2013-11-05 12:10:42 mrkent has joined
1053 2013-11-05 12:11:43 pooler has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1054 2013-11-05 12:11:49 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1055 2013-11-05 12:11:56 <TD> it was implemented and switched off
1056 2013-11-05 12:12:06 <melvster> ah thanks
1057 2013-11-05 12:13:49 <HaltingState> sipa, bad news; i replicated it in C
1058 2013-11-05 12:13:58 pooler has joined
1059 2013-11-05 12:14:07 <HaltingState> trying to push now; i have your copy of repo; how do i push to my copy
1060 2013-11-05 12:14:50 <michagogo> HaltingState: git remote delete origin;git remote add origin <url>
1061 2013-11-05 12:15:07 <michagogo> and perhaps git remote add upstream <sipa's url>
1062 2013-11-05 12:15:15 <HaltingState> atomos@maslow:~/secp256k1$ git push -f https://github.com/haltingstate/secp256k1.git/
1063 2013-11-05 12:15:15 <HaltingState> fatal: You are pushing to remote 'https://github.com/haltingstate/secp256k1.git/', which is not the upstream of
1064 2013-11-05 12:15:15 <HaltingState> your current branch 'master', without telling me what to push
1065 2013-11-05 12:15:15 <HaltingState> to update which remote branch.
1066 2013-11-05 12:15:37 <michagogo> HaltingState: oh, try appending "master" to that
1067 2013-11-05 12:15:54 <HaltingState> fatal: remote origin already exists.
1068 2013-11-05 12:16:00 <t7> remote add url master
1069 2013-11-05 12:16:07 <t7> makes it a bit easier
1070 2013-11-05 12:16:17 <michagogo> HaltingState: actually, it's rm, not delete
1071 2013-11-05 12:16:18 <t7> not master
1072 2013-11-05 12:16:23 <michagogo> but it looks like there's also a rename
1073 2013-11-05 12:16:41 <michagogo> git remote rename origin upstream;git remote add origin <url>
1074 2013-11-05 12:17:12 mrkent has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1075 2013-11-05 12:17:30 <HaltingState> atomos@maslow:~/secp256k1$ git remote rename origin upstream;git remote add origin https://github.com/haltingstate/secp256k1atomos@maslow:~/secp256k1$ git push
1076 2013-11-05 12:17:30 <HaltingState> fatal: The current branch master has no upstream branch.
1077 2013-11-05 12:17:39 <HaltingState> michagogo, thanks i think that worked; magic incantations
1078 2013-11-05 12:18:07 skinnkavaj has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1079 2013-11-05 12:18:37 Guest213213 has joined
1080 2013-11-05 12:19:50 <HaltingState> atomos@maslow:~/secp256k1$ git push  --set-upstream origin maste
1081 2013-11-05 12:19:51 <HaltingState> error: src refspec maste does not match any.
1082 2013-11-05 12:19:51 <HaltingState> error: failed to push some refs to 'https://github.com/haltingstate/secp256k1'
1083 2013-11-05 12:20:07 <HaltingState> nm missing r!! lol
1084 2013-11-05 12:20:45 <HaltingState> omg, i broke github!!! wtf
1085 2013-11-05 12:21:16 ThomasV has joined
1086 2013-11-05 12:21:37 <sipa> lol
1087 2013-11-05 12:23:51 skinnkavaj has joined
1088 2013-11-05 12:23:52 <HaltingState> sipa, pushing; this is bad
1089 2013-11-05 12:23:55 tmsk has quit (Quit: tmsk)
1090 2013-11-05 12:24:04 <HaltingState> sipa, https://github.com/haltingstate/secp256k1
1091 2013-11-05 12:24:13 <HaltingState> do "make tests_fuzzer" and ./tests_fuzzer
1092 2013-11-05 12:24:38 <HaltingState> i generate random signatures and messages and do secp256k1_ecdsa_recover_compact() which is signature check
1093 2013-11-05 12:24:51 <HaltingState> and 600 out of 10,000 are returning 1...
1094 2013-11-05 12:25:44 <sipa> i would expect more
1095 2013-11-05 12:26:32 <sipa> it's not a signature check
1096 2013-11-05 12:26:41 <sipa> it computes a public for which this is a valid signature
1097 2013-11-05 12:27:05 <HaltingState> it says in documentation that if it returns valid pubkey that signature is valid
1098 2013-11-05 12:27:05 <sipa> pretty much every message/signature combination should result in a valid public key
1099 2013-11-05 12:27:14 <sipa> yes
1100 2013-11-05 12:27:50 <HaltingState>  *  Returns: 1: public key succesfully recovered (which guarantees a correct signature).
1101 2013-11-05 12:27:50 <HaltingState>  *           0: otherwise.
1102 2013-11-05 12:27:56 <sipa> yes
1103 2013-11-05 12:28:01 <sipa> i don't understand the problem
1104 2013-11-05 12:28:15 <sipa> only that i would expect almost 100% to return 1
1105 2013-11-05 12:28:35 <HaltingState> "public key succesfully recovered (which guarantees a correct signature)."
1106 2013-11-05 12:28:47 <sipa> for that publci key, yes
1107 2013-11-05 12:28:56 <HaltingState> it says that if it returns one, the signature is correct
1108 2013-11-05 12:28:58 <sipa> for signature checking, you still have to compare that public key to what you'd expect
1109 2013-11-05 12:29:16 <sipa> it just reconstructs *some* public key, for which this signature would be valid
1110 2013-11-05 12:29:34 mrkent has joined
1111 2013-11-05 12:30:27 MC1984 has joined
1112 2013-11-05 12:30:27 MC1984 has quit (Changing host)
1113 2013-11-05 12:30:27 MC1984 has joined
1114 2013-11-05 12:30:32 <sipa> if you start from a valid signature for message M and key K
1115 2013-11-05 12:30:39 <sipa> and modify either the message or the signature
1116 2013-11-05 12:30:46 <sipa> you won't recover K from it anymore
1117 2013-11-05 12:30:54 <sipa> so the recovery still returns 1
1118 2013-11-05 12:30:59 <sipa> but it's not what you expect
1119 2013-11-05 12:31:20 saulimus has joined
1120 2013-11-05 12:31:41 <sipa> or put otherwise: there is no way to check that a signature is valid without knowing who should have sent it
1121 2013-11-05 12:31:45 one_zero has quit ()
1122 2013-11-05 12:31:54 <HaltingState> also i am using a random number generator with fixed seed and numebr is 535, 539, 9460 out of 1000 etc and wtf
1123 2013-11-05 12:32:25 <HaltingState> it should be generating same sequence everytime, the seed is fixed on my random number generator; so wtf?
1124 2013-11-05 12:32:39 <sipa> can you please stop panicking and just read up on what key recovery is in the first place?
1125 2013-11-05 12:32:53 <HaltingState> sipa, https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/21517274/img/Screenshot%20from%202013-11-05%2004%3A30%3A06.png
1126 2013-11-05 12:33:29 <HaltingState> i am generating same message and same signature ; same sequence everytime program is run and i am counting up number of times signature recovery returns 1 and the number is changing; meaning is stocastic or there is memory leak
1127 2013-11-05 12:34:46 <sipa> line 34
1128 2013-11-05 12:34:52 <sipa> don't you mean & instead of &&
1129 2013-11-05 12:35:13 <HaltingState> ahaha
1130 2013-11-05 12:35:26 <sipa> and t is not initialized
1131 2013-11-05 12:35:35 <sipa> dude, stop implementing your own RNG
1132 2013-11-05 12:35:36 JTF195 has joined
1133 2013-11-05 12:35:45 fangkui has joined
1134 2013-11-05 12:35:45 Guest213213 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1135 2013-11-05 12:36:12 <HaltingState> sipa, i  crashed it :)
1136 2013-11-05 12:36:19 a_meteor has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1137 2013-11-05 12:36:30 <sipa> ?
1138 2013-11-05 12:36:32 <HaltingState> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/21517274/img/Screenshot%20from%202013-11-05%2004%3A33%3A49.png
1139 2013-11-05 12:36:39 <HaltingState> i replicated the segfault
1140 2013-11-05 12:37:08 <sipa> that is more interesting :)
1141 2013-11-05 12:37:18 <sipa> i'll look at it tonight
1142 2013-11-05 12:37:53 <HaltingState> t should not matter, it gets set so its not used unitialized
1143 2013-11-05 12:38:10 <HaltingState> but valgrind is not showing anything; this is crazy
1144 2013-11-05 12:38:12 <sipa> in rand_byte
1145 2013-11-05 12:38:34 <HaltingState> hehe :)
1146 2013-11-05 12:39:08 <HaltingState> ya now its straight core dump
1147 2013-11-05 12:39:49 fangkui has left ()
1148 2013-11-05 12:41:15 oPen_syLar has joined
1149 2013-11-05 12:44:01 arioBarzan has joined
1150 2013-11-05 12:50:06 AusBitBank has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1151 2013-11-05 12:51:24 xiangfu has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1152 2013-11-05 12:51:40 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1153 2013-11-05 12:52:35 mrkent has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1154 2013-11-05 12:52:42 paraipan has joined
1155 2013-11-05 12:52:45 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1156 2013-11-05 13:01:07 Zarutian has joined
1157 2013-11-05 13:02:56 CheckDavid has joined
1158 2013-11-05 13:02:56 CheckDavid has quit (Changing host)
1159 2013-11-05 13:02:56 CheckDavid has joined
1160 2013-11-05 13:06:00 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1161 2013-11-05 13:08:29 agnostic98 has joined
1162 2013-11-05 13:09:33 djcoin has joined
1163 2013-11-05 13:11:42 grazs has joined
1164 2013-11-05 13:12:59 Musk has joined
1165 2013-11-05 13:20:58 arioBarzan has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1166 2013-11-05 13:21:15 arioBarzan has joined
1167 2013-11-05 13:21:44 Musk has quit (Quit: Linkinus - http://linkinus.com)
1168 2013-11-05 13:23:27 skinnkavaj has quit (Ping timeout: 262 seconds)
1169 2013-11-05 13:24:13 paracyst has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1170 2013-11-05 13:24:26 Musk has joined
1171 2013-11-05 13:25:21 skinnkavaj has joined
1172 2013-11-05 13:30:43 oPen_syLar has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1173 2013-11-05 13:31:34 GingerGeek has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1174 2013-11-05 13:32:37 BurtyB has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1175 2013-11-05 13:33:08 BurtyB has joined
1176 2013-11-05 13:33:31 GingerGeek[Away] has joined
1177 2013-11-05 13:33:49 GingerGeek[Away] is now known as GingerGeek
1178 2013-11-05 13:35:03 OrP has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1179 2013-11-05 13:36:00 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
1180 2013-11-05 13:36:09 gjj has joined
1181 2013-11-05 13:37:38 darkee has quit (Quit: darkee)
1182 2013-11-05 13:37:39 Guest6290 has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1183 2013-11-05 13:37:56 Guest6290 has joined
1184 2013-11-05 13:38:01 Guest6290 has quit (Client Quit)
1185 2013-11-05 13:38:21 graingert has joined
1186 2013-11-05 13:38:21 graingert has quit (Changing host)
1187 2013-11-05 13:38:21 graingert has joined
1188 2013-11-05 13:38:49 <gulli> Hey, could anyone give me feedback on how this system could work?
1189 2013-11-05 13:38:50 <gulli> https://notendur.hi.is/~glf/plan.png
1190 2013-11-05 13:39:00 <gulli> Im making a small exchange, game cyrrency <-> btc/ltc
1191 2013-11-05 13:39:46 <graingert> what's an HD wallet?
1192 2013-11-05 13:40:03 <graingert> are there not open source exchange code-bases available, gulli?
1193 2013-11-05 13:40:40 michagogo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1194 2013-11-05 13:40:54 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 259 seconds)
1195 2013-11-05 13:42:43 GhengisKhan has joined
1196 2013-11-05 13:43:36 rolme has joined
1197 2013-11-05 13:43:43 <gulli> greingert: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Deterministic_wallet
1198 2013-11-05 13:44:02 <gulli> graingert: no ><
1199 2013-11-05 13:50:01 da2ce7 has quit (Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
1200 2013-11-05 13:50:58 <graingert> gulli: https://github.com/justcoin/snow
1201 2013-11-05 13:51:03 <graingert> according to pigeons
1202 2013-11-05 13:51:11 Coincidental has joined
1203 2013-11-05 13:53:09 Coincidental has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1204 2013-11-05 13:53:29 Coincidental has joined
1205 2013-11-05 13:53:40 andytoshi has joined
1206 2013-11-05 13:53:44 rolme has quit (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
1207 2013-11-05 13:57:36 Coincidental has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1208 2013-11-05 13:58:05 agricocb has joined
1209 2013-11-05 13:58:22 nethershaw has joined
1210 2013-11-05 14:00:34 agricocb has quit (Client Quit)
1211 2013-11-05 14:00:55 agricocb has joined
1212 2013-11-05 14:01:16 mortikia has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1213 2013-11-05 14:01:27 mortikia has joined
1214 2013-11-05 14:01:46 <pigeons> i'm not saying to use it for something other than a game, was just responding to "does open source exchange code exist?"
1215 2013-11-05 14:01:55 tcatm has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1216 2013-11-05 14:02:02 tcatm has joined
1217 2013-11-05 14:02:02 tcatm has quit (Changing host)
1218 2013-11-05 14:02:02 tcatm has joined
1219 2013-11-05 14:05:10 minty has joined
1220 2013-11-05 14:06:08 andytoshi has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.4.1)
1221 2013-11-05 14:08:34 arioBarzan has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
1222 2013-11-05 14:09:38 mintmoney has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1223 2013-11-05 14:10:58 gjj has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1224 2013-11-05 14:11:36 gjj has joined
1225 2013-11-05 14:14:20 ThomasV has joined
1226 2013-11-05 14:15:55 gjj has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1227 2013-11-05 14:16:21 Subo1977 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1228 2013-11-05 14:20:41 ds is now known as away!ds@gateway/shell/cloudant/x-kqsgikodvlabxlrd|dongshengcn
1229 2013-11-05 14:23:54 Subo1977 has joined
1230 2013-11-05 14:28:08 MC1984 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1231 2013-11-05 14:30:18 [\\\] has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1232 2013-11-05 14:31:43 Subo1977 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1233 2013-11-05 14:33:29 Subo1977 has joined
1234 2013-11-05 14:33:59 daybyter has joined
1235 2013-11-05 14:36:04 Namworld has joined
1236 2013-11-05 14:38:00 agnostic98 has joined
1237 2013-11-05 14:39:30 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1238 2013-11-05 14:39:59 askmike has joined
1239 2013-11-05 14:41:13 CryptoBuck has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1240 2013-11-05 14:41:58 darkee has joined
1241 2013-11-05 14:42:14 gjj has joined
1242 2013-11-05 14:42:18 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1243 2013-11-05 14:42:52 askmike_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1244 2013-11-05 14:42:59 t7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1245 2013-11-05 14:43:22 agricocb has joined
1246 2013-11-05 14:43:23 gjj has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1247 2013-11-05 14:43:47 zeddan81 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1248 2013-11-05 14:43:58 gjj has joined
1249 2013-11-05 14:44:13 askmike has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1250 2013-11-05 14:44:21 t7 has joined
1251 2013-11-05 14:44:22 zeddan81 has joined
1252 2013-11-05 14:44:29 agricocb has quit (Client Quit)
1253 2013-11-05 14:48:46 agricocb has joined
1254 2013-11-05 14:50:24 wiretapped has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1255 2013-11-05 14:50:51 wiretapped has joined
1256 2013-11-05 14:58:58 Thepok has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1257 2013-11-05 14:59:52 frb has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1258 2013-11-05 15:00:49 frb has joined
1259 2013-11-05 15:00:50 bitspill has joined
1260 2013-11-05 15:03:01 melvster has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1261 2013-11-05 15:06:43 patcon has joined
1262 2013-11-05 15:07:25 askmike has joined
1263 2013-11-05 15:08:57 Anduck has joined
1264 2013-11-05 15:08:57 Anduck has quit (Changing host)
1265 2013-11-05 15:08:57 Anduck has joined
1266 2013-11-05 15:09:33 patcon_ has joined
1267 2013-11-05 15:11:40 patcon has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1268 2013-11-05 15:12:53 GhengisKhan has left ()
1269 2013-11-05 15:13:07 perdec has joined
1270 2013-11-05 15:13:33 daybyter has quit (Write error: Broken pipe)
1271 2013-11-05 15:13:36 nicknack4u has joined
1272 2013-11-05 15:13:43 Vprx has joined
1273 2013-11-05 15:14:23 nicknack4u has left ()
1274 2013-11-05 15:17:21 DougieBot5000 has joined
1275 2013-11-05 15:18:29 shesek has joined
1276 2013-11-05 15:22:20 grnbrg has joined
1277 2013-11-05 15:22:40 askmike has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1278 2013-11-05 15:27:45 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1279 2013-11-05 15:31:01 nomailing has joined
1280 2013-11-05 15:32:06 <michagogo> cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|;;bc,stas
1281 2013-11-05 15:32:08 <gribble> Error: "bc,stas" is not a valid command.
1282 2013-11-05 15:32:14 <michagogo> cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|;;bc,stats
1283 2013-11-05 15:32:18 <gribble> Current Blocks: 268098 | Current Difficulty: 3.9092878763808584E8 | Next Difficulty At Block: 268127 | Next Difficulty In: 29 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 4 hours, 1 minute, and 23 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 511860733.453 | Estimated Percent Change: 30.93452
1284 2013-11-05 15:32:47 <michagogo> cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|;;diffchange
1285 2013-11-05 15:32:49 <gribble> Estimated percent change in difficulty this period | 30.91167 % based on data since last change | 34.68031 % based on data for last three days
1286 2013-11-05 15:33:30 elevatioN has joined
1287 2013-11-05 15:35:34 rolme has joined
1288 2013-11-05 15:37:55 twiked has joined
1289 2013-11-05 15:39:13 agnostic98 has joined
1290 2013-11-05 15:41:35 ericmuyser has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1291 2013-11-05 15:42:11 ericmuyser has joined
1292 2013-11-05 15:43:47 ericmuys_ has joined
1293 2013-11-05 15:43:54 ericmuyser has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1294 2013-11-05 15:45:54 rolme has quit (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
1295 2013-11-05 15:46:04 ericmuys_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1296 2013-11-05 15:46:12 ericmuyser has joined
1297 2013-11-05 15:46:16 _ingsoc has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1298 2013-11-05 15:46:52 ericmuyser has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1299 2013-11-05 15:47:12 askmike has joined
1300 2013-11-05 15:48:05 _ingsoc has joined
1301 2013-11-05 15:54:57 _ingsoc has quit (Quit: leaving)
1302 2013-11-05 15:54:57 patcon_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1303 2013-11-05 15:55:17 arioBarzan has joined
1304 2013-11-05 15:55:19 _ingsoc has joined
1305 2013-11-05 15:55:27 patcon has joined
1306 2013-11-05 15:56:06 perdec has quit (Quit: perdec)
1307 2013-11-05 15:56:09 _ingsoc has quit (Client Quit)
1308 2013-11-05 15:56:30 _ingsoc has joined
1309 2013-11-05 15:56:38 patcon_ has joined
1310 2013-11-05 15:59:48 patcon has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1311 2013-11-05 15:59:49 xiangfu has joined
1312 2013-11-05 16:00:29 arioBarzan has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
1313 2013-11-05 16:01:25 FabianB has joined
1314 2013-11-05 16:02:54 FabianB_ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1315 2013-11-05 16:04:17 toffoo has joined
1316 2013-11-05 16:05:40 rdymac has quit (Excess Flood)
1317 2013-11-05 16:05:41 t7 has quit (Quit: home)
1318 2013-11-05 16:05:53 rdymac has joined
1319 2013-11-05 16:06:41 mintmoney has joined
1320 2013-11-05 16:08:46 nomailing has quit (Quit: nomailing)
1321 2013-11-05 16:11:28 <petertodd> TD: re: https://plus.google.com/+MikeHearn/posts/LW1DXJ2BK8k, +∞
1322 2013-11-05 16:12:47 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1323 2013-11-05 16:14:01 <brocktice> nice
1324 2013-11-05 16:18:37 saulimus has quit (Quit: saulimus)
1325 2013-11-05 16:20:50 paracyst has joined
1326 2013-11-05 16:22:22 lachesis has joined
1327 2013-11-05 16:24:38 <grau> TD: I applaud your courage to come out with a straight opinion on the matter.
1328 2013-11-05 16:26:35 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1329 2013-11-05 16:27:22 <petertodd> grau: ..and I'm sad that "courage" is an appropriate word in this situation :(
1330 2013-11-05 16:27:26 Vprx has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1331 2013-11-05 16:28:38 ThomasV has joined
1332 2013-11-05 16:32:03 jordandotdev_ is now known as jordandotdev
1333 2013-11-05 16:35:21 <firedrops> Integrity comes to mind..
1334 2013-11-05 16:35:24 t7 has joined
1335 2013-11-05 16:40:51 licnep_ has joined
1336 2013-11-05 16:41:58 roconnor has joined
1337 2013-11-05 16:42:10 ovidiusoft has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1338 2013-11-05 16:42:31 licnep has quit ()
1339 2013-11-05 16:43:00 licnep_ has left ()
1340 2013-11-05 16:43:38 licnep has joined
1341 2013-11-05 16:44:10 Vprx has joined
1342 2013-11-05 16:46:54 bitspill has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1343 2013-11-05 16:47:21 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
1344 2013-11-05 16:50:02 xiangfu has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1345 2013-11-05 16:53:03 pecket has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1346 2013-11-05 16:56:40 rdymac has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1347 2013-11-05 16:57:54 rdymac has joined
1348 2013-11-05 16:58:40 rdymac has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1349 2013-11-05 16:59:35 askmike has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1350 2013-11-05 16:59:57 bitspill has joined
1351 2013-11-05 17:00:06 askmike has joined
1352 2013-11-05 17:00:13 shripadk has joined
1353 2013-11-05 17:01:32 justusranvier has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1354 2013-11-05 17:01:34 <shripadk> petertodd: hey :) can you please explain how you created this 1-of-4 p2sh tx (672d4dddfd5f667fe1088c06a8164c4caba109576f310599ce68808cce8ce603) ? i tried wrapping my head around it but am not able to figure out how.
1355 2013-11-05 17:01:57 pecket has joined
1356 2013-11-05 17:01:59 <nanotube> how long does it take to build the txindex on first run?
1357 2013-11-05 17:02:05 <nanotube> (and how much disk space)
1358 2013-11-05 17:02:53 rdymac has joined
1359 2013-11-05 17:03:39 <sipa> nanotube: a bit longer than a normal reindex, depending on the size of dbcache
1360 2013-11-05 17:03:57 mintmoneyman has joined
1361 2013-11-05 17:04:37 askmike has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1362 2013-11-05 17:05:04 Zarutian has joined
1363 2013-11-05 17:05:08 <sipa> and around 1 GB of extra space
1364 2013-11-05 17:06:20 mintmoney has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1365 2013-11-05 17:09:28 agnostic98 has joined
1366 2013-11-05 17:10:04 <gmaxwell> 04:04 < sipa> yes, but without tx replacements it's not very useful < I think locktime without replacements is totally useful, since you can just replace outside of the network. :) lets you do timeout refunds for escrows.. uh, except for transaction malleability...
1367 2013-11-05 17:13:23 Raziel has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1368 2013-11-05 17:13:58 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1369 2013-11-05 17:14:00 testicon^work is now known as testicon
1370 2013-11-05 17:15:29 HaltingState has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1371 2013-11-05 17:16:27 Raziel has joined
1372 2013-11-05 17:20:28 AndyOfiesh has joined
1373 2013-11-05 17:24:19 HaltingState has joined
1374 2013-11-05 17:27:18 MC1984 has joined
1375 2013-11-05 17:27:18 MC1984 has quit (Changing host)
1376 2013-11-05 17:27:18 MC1984 has joined
1377 2013-11-05 17:30:30 dongshengcn is now known as ds|away
1378 2013-11-05 17:30:34 neekoman has joined
1379 2013-11-05 17:32:34 <petertodd> shripadk: I used the addmultisigaddress RPC command
1380 2013-11-05 17:32:45 <shripadk> petertodd: so that is enough then?
1381 2013-11-05 17:33:00 <shripadk> petertodd: coz I just broadcasted a 1-of-4 tx and it was confirmed
1382 2013-11-05 17:33:23 <petertodd> shripadk: yup
1383 2013-11-05 17:33:30 <shripadk> petertodd: to redeem it i can just use the scriptPubKey and redeemScript?
1384 2013-11-05 17:33:38 <petertodd> shripadk: correct
1385 2013-11-05 17:33:44 <petertodd> shripadk: are all the private keys in your wallet?
1386 2013-11-05 17:33:51 <shripadk> petertodd: yes all private keys in my wallet
1387 2013-11-05 17:34:15 <petertodd> shripadk: right, well signrawtransaction will be able to sign it even without scriptPubKey or redeemScript actually, because it already knows that information
1388 2013-11-05 17:34:22 <shripadk> petertodd: if private keys are in different wallets, i can always exchange the signed transactions between the clients right?
1389 2013-11-05 17:34:29 <shripadk> petertodd: until complete: true
1390 2013-11-05 17:34:41 <shripadk> petertodd: *hex of the signed transactions
1391 2013-11-05 17:34:54 <petertodd> shripadk: correct, and in that case you do need scriptPubKey and redeemScript because the bitcoin wallet only puts multisig txouts in your wallet if you own all the keys
1392 2013-11-05 17:35:13 agricocb has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1393 2013-11-05 17:35:27 <shripadk> petertodd: awesome! :) thanks! now where does this issue of -of-3 limit arise? i'm still confused as the flow is the same for raw multisig tx
1394 2013-11-05 17:35:31 <petertodd> gmaxwell: and locktime with replacements is just another type of zeroconf transaction
1395 2013-11-05 17:35:59 mintmoney has joined
1396 2013-11-05 17:36:07 mintmoneyman has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1397 2013-11-05 17:36:18 <kjj> what -of-3 limit?
1398 2013-11-05 17:36:23 <petertodd> shripadk: read the IsStandard* and AreInputsStandard() functions; basically the limit is just for transactions that get relayed automatically ("standard" transactions)
1399 2013-11-05 17:36:46 <petertodd> shripadk: testnet on the other hand will relay any transaction
1400 2013-11-05 17:36:57 <petertodd> bbl
1401 2013-11-05 17:37:24 <shripadk> petertodd: i did see those functions in the source. but when you say "get relayed automatically" what does that mean? I was able to get a 1-of-4 tx relayed on mainnet… or am i missing something here?
1402 2013-11-05 17:37:31 <shripadk> okay
1403 2013-11-05 17:37:41 wiretapped has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1404 2013-11-05 17:37:43 djcoin has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.4.1)
1405 2013-11-05 17:38:07 wiretapped has joined
1406 2013-11-05 17:38:43 markus__ has joined
1407 2013-11-05 17:39:33 Application has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1408 2013-11-05 17:40:49 agricocb has joined
1409 2013-11-05 17:40:56 elevatioN has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1410 2013-11-05 17:43:17 TD has left ("Leaving")
1411 2013-11-05 17:43:20 ds is now known as away!ds@gateway/shell/cloudant/x-kqsgikodvlabxlrd|dongshengcn
1412 2013-11-05 17:43:45 <gmaxwell> 000000000000000000028c32e6952731326747bae4be8db0f832d6eea0362050  height=266381 < checkout the zeros on that baby.. apparent work of 78.62 bits.
1413 2013-11-05 17:44:32 <gmaxwell> (that would be accepted by the network at a difficulty of 110 trillion)
1414 2013-11-05 17:44:44 MiningBuddy- has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1415 2013-11-05 17:44:49 MiningBuddy has joined
1416 2013-11-05 17:45:13 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: daaamn
1417 2013-11-05 17:45:34 _ingsoc_ has joined
1418 2013-11-05 17:45:37 <shripadk> kjj: for m-of-n limit for n is 3. anything greater than 3 won't be relayed. <- is what i read on the forums
1419 2013-11-05 17:45:53 <shripadk> kjj: but i just made a 1-of-4 tx on mainnet and it was relayed
1420 2013-11-05 17:46:18 <shripadk> kjj: so i'm confused now as to where that limit of 3 applies.
1421 2013-11-05 17:46:37 _ingsoc has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1422 2013-11-05 17:46:43 <MC1984> 78 bits?
1423 2013-11-05 17:46:44 <shripadk> petertodd, kjj: this was the mainnet tx a4e160c67524c402fc70899b034d442515f88a9d0e0472822b5c78cd5cd81805 and this was the redeem tx b0db24927af903f87db6771f5450e3252ab86671f2f49fc4f146ca71de73ba5f (it will be redeemed once the previous tx gets 6 confirmations)…
1424 2013-11-05 17:46:56 <AndyOfiesh> Does the core dev team have any plans to implement a deterministic signature scheme, and if so will it be RFC 6979?
1425 2013-11-05 17:47:02 MiningBuddy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1426 2013-11-05 17:47:04 deepc0re has joined
1427 2013-11-05 17:47:16 MiningBuddy has joined
1428 2013-11-05 17:47:16 MiningBuddy has quit (Changing host)
1429 2013-11-05 17:47:16 MiningBuddy has joined
1430 2013-11-05 17:47:56 <gmaxwell> AndyOfiesh: not at this time. We're currently happy with what we have, as the code has been well audited, and replacing K selection in openssl is somewhat ugly. If we switch to libsecp256k1 we'd likely change then.
1431 2013-11-05 17:48:24 <gmaxwell> I strongly recommend embedded implementations use determinstic dsa right away.
1432 2013-11-05 17:48:37 <gmaxwell> (and any other implementation which is otherwise difficult to audit)
1433 2013-11-05 17:48:43 <swulf--> I'm having a difficult time figuring out how to sign a p2sh output (for us as an input)  .. the standard hash(scriptSig + scriptPubKey) doesn't seem to work
1434 2013-11-05 17:48:44 <BlueMatt> AndyOfiesh: immediate plans, no, would like to do it in the future, yes
1435 2013-11-05 17:48:57 <gmaxwell> AndyOfiesh: see also, http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.bitcoin.devel/2734
1436 2013-11-05 17:49:03 melvster has joined
1437 2013-11-05 17:49:42 <MC1984> hm those guys have requested a bip for the selfish miner thing
1438 2013-11-05 17:49:54 <MC1984> is it true they didnt speak to anyone before publishing
1439 2013-11-05 17:50:15 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, yes and yes and also their proposed change makes their attack easier not harder
1440 2013-11-05 17:50:36 askmike has joined
1441 2013-11-05 17:50:40 <MC1984> hmm, who are they and what are they trying to achieve
1442 2013-11-05 17:51:11 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, i was tempted to accuse them of intentionally trying to subvert bitcoin in my last email to the dev mailing list but thought better of it
1443 2013-11-05 17:51:13 <BlueMatt> they are academics who identified a potentially real, though incredibly hard to implement, attack
1444 2013-11-05 17:51:39 <BlueMatt> as academics often do...
1445 2013-11-05 17:51:40 <phantomcircuit> rather i think they're just academics being academics publishing things that are nonsense with no thought of the consequences
1446 2013-11-05 17:51:54 <MC1984> well we dont want to discourage anyone and everyone from looking at the code
1447 2013-11-05 17:52:00 boycey has joined
1448 2013-11-05 17:52:30 <MC1984> i suppose you can talk to them now theyve showed up on the devlsit
1449 2013-11-05 17:52:36 <gmaxwell> It's fine, no need to be defensive. The attack isn't substantial or urgent enough that I think they behaved incorrectly by not sending a message to bitcoin-security.
1450 2013-11-05 17:53:07 <MC1984> the whople responsible disclosure thing is like a well known convention right
1451 2013-11-05 17:53:16 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, which i believe is true, except they would clearly disagree on the seriousness
1452 2013-11-05 17:53:29 <phantomcircuit> in which case they should have attempted disclosure prior to publishing
1453 2013-11-05 17:53:31 <gmaxwell> We're almost at a new all-time-high market price. If their sensationalism bothers you, comfort yourself in the thought that perhaps they sold short a bunch of coins before publishing. :)
1454 2013-11-05 17:53:37 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: except for the hugely, astoundingly out-of-proportion blog post, yes
1455 2013-11-05 17:53:43 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, lol
1456 2013-11-05 17:53:44 <boycey> Hi - how likely is it that a solution will be implemented to the arXiv paper?
1457 2013-11-05 17:53:52 neekoman has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1458 2013-11-05 17:54:01 <BlueMatt> incredibly, it makes their attack easier, not harder
1459 2013-11-05 17:54:06 <BlueMatt> (for some definition of easy)
1460 2013-11-05 17:54:10 <phantomcircuit> boycey, the current opinion is that a solution isn't necessary becaue their assumptions are flawed (ie totally wrong)
1461 2013-11-05 17:54:25 <BlueMatt> s/incredibly/incredibly unlikely/
1462 2013-11-05 17:54:26 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: the attack is certainely real, it's just not something that is a short-term problem, especially right now given all the human interventions that we can do
1463 2013-11-05 17:54:26 <MC1984> gmaxwell lol if so
1464 2013-11-05 17:54:59 <petertodd> gmaxwell: re: 78.62, wow
1465 2013-11-05 17:55:15 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: I don't think thats my view. My view is closer to what PT just said.  It's also not a class of thing we were previously unaware of. I'm concnered now that this is becoming a distraction from more serious concerns.
1466 2013-11-05 17:55:18 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, their conclusion that the rules for mining is not incentive compatible is clearly a significant reach
1467 2013-11-05 17:55:26 <MC1984> i see it as kind of like NASA cataloguing all near earth objects over 10 meters or whatever
1468 2013-11-05 17:55:40 <MC1984> sounds scary, isnt really but is still useful to know about
1469 2013-11-05 17:55:53 <gmaxwell> boycey: see also, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=324413.msg3476697#msg3476697
1470 2013-11-05 17:56:19 markus__ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1471 2013-11-05 17:56:30 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, shrug
1472 2013-11-05 17:56:31 <MC1984> phantomcircuit yeah they made some pretty over conclusive statements about it
1473 2013-11-05 17:56:42 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: I strongly disagree; we can't assume anything more than short-term economically rational, and the ability to get the low-avg-latency network needed to pull it off is acheivable for a lot of parties.
1474 2013-11-05 17:57:18 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, the basics of their analysis of the strategy is correct, their conclusion about economic rationality however are not only well beyond the scope of their analysis but clearly well beyond their expertise
1475 2013-11-05 17:58:01 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: re: (0): Ive just begun setting up vps' to run leightweight relay nodes and am soliciting miners/pools to give them dns names which they can addnode in the coming days :)
1476 2013-11-05 17:58:27 <BlueMatt> also, if you're a poolop/large merchant/exchange, please pm for a form to fill out to peer with the private nodes
1477 2013-11-05 17:58:30 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: sure, but we prefer to have systems which are secure under pessimistic assumptions.
1478 2013-11-05 17:58:33 <BlueMatt> public nodes will come out eventually
1479 2013-11-05 17:58:34 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: thing is, so if someone launches that attack *right now* what happens? a bunch of pissed off pool ops get together on IRC and manually screw with peering and relay rules until the attack fails. They lose a few hundred thousand, but that's the extent of the damage.
1480 2013-11-05 17:59:09 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, if you tried the attack right now im fairly certain you would lose money
1481 2013-11-05 17:59:17 etotheipi_ has joined
1482 2013-11-05 17:59:31 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: yeah, listen to gmaxwell re: rationality. Being able to assume only short-term rational behavior is a *much* stronger assumption, and if we can build systems where only that assumption is required we're much better off.
1483 2013-11-05 17:59:35 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: why?
1484 2013-11-05 17:59:56 <nanotube> sipa: thanks :)
1485 2013-11-05 18:00:17 TD has joined
1486 2013-11-05 18:00:20 TD is now known as TD[away]
1487 2013-11-05 18:00:51 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, because you dont gain a real advantage over other miners until the difficulty changes
1488 2013-11-05 18:01:04 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, and until it does it's actually costing you orphaned blocks
1489 2013-11-05 18:01:18 <gmaxwell> you gain an advantage over other miners, you just don't gain additional income until the difficulty changes. :)
1490 2013-11-05 18:01:20 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: if you pull it off correctly it *does not* cost you orphaned blocks
1491 2013-11-05 18:01:24 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, so if you tried to pull off the attack and were detected prior to the difficulty change
1492 2013-11-05 18:01:31 <phantomcircuit> then you're just losing money
1493 2013-11-05 18:01:49 <gmaxwell> petertodd: nah, pulled off correctly you'd still have _some_ unless you really did partition the network. Just everyone else would have a lot more.
1494 2013-11-05 18:01:56 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: modulo infrastructure and R&D time, what causes you to lose money?
1495 2013-11-05 18:02:04 <petertodd> gmaxwell: the attack has nothing to do with partitioning the network
1496 2013-11-05 18:02:13 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, opportunity cost of orphaned blocks
1497 2013-11-05 18:02:27 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, the attack is fundamentally about partitioning the network
1498 2013-11-05 18:02:31 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: and you're wrong to assume that the attack involves orphaned blocks
1499 2013-11-05 18:02:37 digitalmagus2 has joined
1500 2013-11-05 18:02:41 <gmaxwell> petertodd: even with a much better relay network, some portion is going to mine on the honest block first. So as a result of the delay you will be orphaned sometimes.
1501 2013-11-05 18:02:44 boycey_ has joined
1502 2013-11-05 18:02:47 boycey_ has quit (Client Quit)
1503 2013-11-05 18:02:48 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: ok, define "partitioning", specifically, what do you think happens during the attack?
1504 2013-11-05 18:02:53 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
1505 2013-11-05 18:03:14 boycey_ has joined
1506 2013-11-05 18:03:24 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, some % of the miners see an honest block first and the rest see your saved block that you release as soon as you see the honest block
1507 2013-11-05 18:03:26 <petertodd> gmaxwell: right, and with a sufficiently good relay network, you can drive that cost down to near zero; my point is there is no *fundemental* aspect of the attack that requires you to get your blocks orphaned
1508 2013-11-05 18:03:31 MiningBuddy has quit (Quit: ( Quit ))
1509 2013-11-05 18:03:37 datagutt has joined
1510 2013-11-05 18:03:58 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1511 2013-11-05 18:04:01 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, without a complete segmentation of the network (ie isolate each and every peer) you're not going to be able to reduce the % of miners working on an honest block to 0
1512 2013-11-05 18:04:04 <gmaxwell> petertodd: indeed, you're not fundimentally required to get orphaned, though it does work by orphaning other miners.
1513 2013-11-05 18:04:16 boycey has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1514 2013-11-05 18:04:16 boycey_ is now known as boycey
1515 2013-11-05 18:04:21 <phantomcircuit> indeed you'r not going to be able to do that even if you could since the miner that found it would obviously have it
1516 2013-11-05 18:04:23 <gmaxwell> but as phantomcircuit notes, it won't be zero, so you really will lose expected income until the retarget.
1517 2013-11-05 18:04:26 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: correct. And if you can reliable release prior to others propagating their blocks you win and essentialy never experience an orphan yourself.
1518 2013-11-05 18:04:48 d9b4bef9 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1519 2013-11-05 18:04:50 agricocb has joined
1520 2013-11-05 18:05:01 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, sure except that's impossible without completely taking over the network anyways, if you can do that we have much much bigger problems
1521 2013-11-05 18:05:44 d9b4bef9 has joined
1522 2013-11-05 18:06:23 <gmaxwell> petertodd: instead of this silly debate, you can at least agree that that the profit doesn't come until the retarget?
1523 2013-11-05 18:06:37 <petertodd> gmaxwell, phantomcircuit: both of you are focusing on "there must be *some* cost", I'm saying if you start with a reasonable amount of hashing power, say you're one of the larger pools, and you start with a good infrastructure there's no inherent cost. With my "training exercise for high-freq-trade programmers" example, getting that infrastructure might cost way less than you would expect.
1524 2013-11-05 18:07:07 <petertodd> gmaxwell: nope, not taking transaction fees into account, especially if people start doing announce/commit sacrifices.
1525 2013-11-05 18:07:25 <petertodd> fortunately *those* two factors aren't a big deal, but we're lucky there
1526 2013-11-05 18:08:03 <gmaxwell> in any case, I don't have time for this.
1527 2013-11-05 18:08:15 <petertodd> gmaxwell: yeah, go enjoy IETF or whatever :)
1528 2013-11-05 18:08:19 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, im not sure you quite understand the cost of the infrastructure to front run the entire p2p network
1529 2013-11-05 18:08:45 <phantomcircuit> without a very successful sybil attack that would be fairly expensive
1530 2013-11-05 18:08:56 <phantomcircuit> add to that you're goign to have some % of orphans no matter what
1531 2013-11-05 18:09:04 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: I do because I did it in minature once... anyway, again, if you already have infrastructure for another purpose, the additional cost of sybil attacking Bitcoin is pretty minimal
1532 2013-11-05 18:09:08 <phantomcircuit> and ironically that there are large pools like btcguild
1533 2013-11-05 18:09:22 <gmaxwell> wow, these guys are now acting like a bad parody of someone trying to crap a vulnerability into Bitcoin: "Exploits must be published and fixed FAST".
1534 2013-11-05 18:09:22 <phantomcircuit> actually makes this attack harder since your orphaned rate will be much higher
1535 2013-11-05 18:09:38 <petertodd> gmaxwell: I know eh... I hope they're just overly excited
1536 2013-11-05 18:09:40 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, he hasn't answered my email
1537 2013-11-05 18:09:44 <phantomcircuit> which is hilarious
1538 2013-11-05 18:10:06 * gmaxwell increaments the probablity on the short-position hypothesis.
1539 2013-11-05 18:10:46 _ingsoc_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1540 2013-11-05 18:10:47 agnostic98 has joined
1541 2013-11-05 18:11:42 <MC1984> should we get popcorn?
1542 2013-11-05 18:12:21 _ingsoc has joined
1543 2013-11-05 18:14:03 melvster has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1544 2013-11-05 18:15:46 alexwaters has joined
1545 2013-11-05 18:20:36 cysm has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1546 2013-11-05 18:20:41 banghouse has joined
1547 2013-11-05 18:22:50 <shripadk> petertodd: i'm getting "TX Rejected" when i try to redeem (broadcast the spend-from-multisig tx). you can see that this address (39xfH1AUfjawtcQECZaaBbCt42LkqNFW3s) has 0.001BTC. what can be the cause for this?
1548 2013-11-05 18:24:48 paracyst has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1549 2013-11-05 18:25:11 <MC1984> And be sure that before today, today,
1550 2013-11-05 18:25:11 <MC1984> and after today, very smart people are at their computer planning attacks
1551 2013-11-05 18:25:11 <MC1984> on Bitcoin. Exploits must be published and fixed FAST.
1552 2013-11-05 18:25:17 <MC1984> rather excitible
1553 2013-11-05 18:25:46 gjj has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1554 2013-11-05 18:26:08 Application has joined
1555 2013-11-05 18:26:13 gjj has joined
1556 2013-11-05 18:26:45 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, i believe what he's looking for is
1557 2013-11-05 18:26:52 <phantomcircuit> "LOOK AT ME"
1558 2013-11-05 18:26:58 <phantomcircuit> in which case
1559 2013-11-05 18:27:00 <phantomcircuit> bravo
1560 2013-11-05 18:27:18 <MC1984> maybe theyre just genuine in thier concern
1561 2013-11-05 18:27:36 <MC1984> and think they have found a way to blow up bitcoin and are trying to get people to take it seriously
1562 2013-11-05 18:27:36 <gmaxwell> MC1984: which is why they emailed bitcoin-security instead of writing press releases?
1563 2013-11-05 18:27:36 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, that's the funny thing
1564 2013-11-05 18:27:55 <phantomcircuit> if their concern is genuine then their failure to attempt responsible disclosure is aggregious
1565 2013-11-05 18:28:08 <phantomcircuit> if their concern is fake and they're media whores then it's not
1566 2013-11-05 18:28:10 <MC1984> yes thats true
1567 2013-11-05 18:28:11 cap2002 has joined
1568 2013-11-05 18:28:24 <phantomcircuit> one guess which i think
1569 2013-11-05 18:28:26 <MC1984> assuming its known bitcoin has a responsible disclosure mechanism
1570 2013-11-05 18:28:43 cypher has joined
1571 2013-11-05 18:29:09 <MC1984> im just trying to give people the benefit of the doubt for once instead of being a misanthropic asshole :<
1572 2013-11-05 18:29:27 <sipa> if anything, they could just have mailed us
1573 2013-11-05 18:30:46 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1574 2013-11-05 18:31:23 Application has joined
1575 2013-11-05 18:31:53 BCBot` has joined
1576 2013-11-05 18:31:57 BCBot has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1577 2013-11-05 18:32:21 torsthaldo has joined
1578 2013-11-05 18:34:51 soheil has joined
1579 2013-11-05 18:36:28 melvster has joined
1580 2013-11-05 18:41:59 <shripadk> okay guys this is just weird… i had created a raw transaction and signed it correctly.. got the hex code with complete:1. i broadcasted the tx but it isn't getting included in any block (txid: b0db24927af903f87db6771f5450e3252ab86671f2f49fc4f146ca71de73ba5f) . now when i tried to rebroadcast it, i get error: {"code":-22,"message":"TX rejected"} …  any ideas?
1581 2013-11-05 18:42:19 askmike has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1582 2013-11-05 18:42:45 askmike has joined
1583 2013-11-05 18:43:31 <tgs3> shripadk: what was the tx fee, how long you waited?
1584 2013-11-05 18:44:17 <shripadk> tgs3: there isn't a tx fee for this. i'm just redeeming from a multisig address (tx: a4e160c67524c402fc70899b034d442515f88a9d0e0472822b5c78cd5cd81805) the entire amount.
1585 2013-11-05 18:44:34 <shripadk> this is the raw tx hex: https://gist.github.com/shripadk/7323876
1586 2013-11-05 18:44:46 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1587 2013-11-05 18:46:23 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1588 2013-11-05 18:47:08 askmike has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1589 2013-11-05 18:47:13 <shripadk> tgs3: also, i waited for about half an hour now
1590 2013-11-05 18:47:13 paracyst has joined
1591 2013-11-05 18:47:21 cysm has joined
1592 2013-11-05 18:48:43 Grouver has joined
1593 2013-11-05 18:50:55 Eiii has joined
1594 2013-11-05 18:53:37 impulse9 has joined
1595 2013-11-05 18:54:11 bitspill has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1596 2013-11-05 18:54:11 <phantomcircuit> lol
1597 2013-11-05 18:54:11 <phantomcircuit> http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1pxwod/fatal_flaw_found_in_bitcoin_the_monkey_attack/
1598 2013-11-05 18:54:24 <phantomcircuit> well that pretty much explains why the price has been unaffected
1599 2013-11-05 18:54:27 <shripadk> cat debug.log  | grep 'wtx b0db24927af903f87db6771f5450e3252ab86671f2f49fc4f146ca71de73ba5f' | wc -l shows that bitcoind tried relaying this tx 3 times since it was first broadcasted. is this normal?
1600 2013-11-05 18:54:51 groglogic has joined
1601 2013-11-05 18:54:58 <brocktice> hahaha
1602 2013-11-05 18:55:00 agnostic98 has joined
1603 2013-11-05 18:57:49 MC1984_ has joined
1604 2013-11-05 18:57:49 MC1984_ has quit (Changing host)
1605 2013-11-05 18:57:49 MC1984_ has joined
1606 2013-11-05 18:59:02 alexwaters has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1607 2013-11-05 19:00:43 MC1984 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1608 2013-11-05 19:04:26 gjs278 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1609 2013-11-05 19:06:41 <melvster> lol I think people under estimate how resilient bitcoin is
1610 2013-11-05 19:09:14 askmike has joined
1611 2013-11-05 19:10:22 <melvster> i dont think any more there's any feasible attack that will be more than temporary
1612 2013-11-05 19:10:39 <melvster> and an attack may just make it stronger
1613 2013-11-05 19:10:39 ovidiusoft has joined
1614 2013-11-05 19:11:06 <gmaxwell> I wish that were true, but I think thats hopeful thinking.
1615 2013-11-05 19:11:17 jevin has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1616 2013-11-05 19:11:21 <gmaxwell> Certantly its the case for some things, but it cannot be true for all.
1617 2013-11-05 19:11:50 <melvster> gmaxwell: absolute ground zero would be to destroy satoshi's chain, but a new chain would be rebuilt quickly
1618 2013-11-05 19:13:02 <gmaxwell> melvster: if you could do that, why bother creating a new one?
1619 2013-11-05 19:13:13 jevin has joined
1620 2013-11-05 19:13:45 <melvster> gmaxwell: because a ton of people would love to come back in at 1cent or whatever ...
1621 2013-11-05 19:14:10 <melvster> but i dont think satoshi's chain is likely to get damaged
1622 2013-11-05 19:14:53 <AndyOfiesh> Regarding my earlier question about implimentation of a deterministic signature scheme, is there any reason to implement RFC 6979 over something simpler like K=hmac512(privkey||msg, "bitcoin sig")?
1623 2013-11-05 19:15:50 jegz has joined
1624 2013-11-05 19:16:13 <phantomcircuit> AndyOfiesh, lots of people have seen an implemented the RFC
1625 2013-11-05 19:16:16 <melvster> rfc6979 is only informational, not standards track btw ...not saying it's bad tho ...
1626 2013-11-05 19:16:22 <phantomcircuit> custom crypto is nearly always a bad idea
1627 2013-11-05 19:16:27 <phantomcircuit> otoh
1628 2013-11-05 19:16:31 <phantomcircuit> bitcoin is all custom crypto
1629 2013-11-05 19:16:34 tuxdev has joined
1630 2013-11-05 19:17:30 <gmaxwell> AndyOfiesh: 6979 is nearly that, with some padding schemes that made people more comfortable against fringe attacks, and it's seen more review.
1631 2013-11-05 19:17:46 <jegz> sipa: dude when is watchonly going to be merged
1632 2013-11-05 19:17:56 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
1633 2013-11-05 19:18:07 <Luke-Jr> jegz: never? it's not suitable for merging in its current form
1634 2013-11-05 19:18:10 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: when you guys actually implement deterministic signing, is that what you're going to use (RFC6979)?
1635 2013-11-05 19:18:24 <jegz> Luke-Jr: dude wtf is wrong with it??
1636 2013-11-05 19:18:36 <Luke-Jr> jegz: the current patch has no valid use case
1637 2013-11-05 19:18:44 <Luke-Jr> jegz: it only makes sense in the form of a watch-only *wallet*
1638 2013-11-05 19:18:44 <jegz> use case?
1639 2013-11-05 19:18:49 <jegz> oh
1640 2013-11-05 19:18:58 <Luke-Jr> jegz: which is waiting on multiwallet and HD wallet support
1641 2013-11-05 19:19:10 <jegz> so what's the hold up on those
1642 2013-11-05 19:19:15 <Luke-Jr> or at least HD wallet - I guess some use cases would like a single watch-only wallet
1643 2013-11-05 19:19:31 <jegz> well my use-case wants a single watch-only wallet
1644 2013-11-05 19:19:32 <Luke-Jr> no idea, sipa will have to comment on HD wallet :p
1645 2013-11-05 19:19:43 <Luke-Jr> codeshark is(was?) behind multiwallet
1646 2013-11-05 19:19:43 denisx has joined
1647 2013-11-05 19:19:59 andytoshi has joined
1648 2013-11-05 19:20:07 <Luke-Jr> I suspect it's just a "time to do it" t hing
1649 2013-11-05 19:20:08 <jegz> come-on guys, you are making history over here, pick up the pace ;-)
1650 2013-11-05 19:20:09 <Luke-Jr> thing8
1651 2013-11-05 19:20:23 <Luke-Jr> jegz: hire sipa away from Google so he can work on it full time :P
1652 2013-11-05 19:20:33 banghouse has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1653 2013-11-05 19:21:09 <jegz> oh i didn't know he worked at Google :p
1654 2013-11-05 19:21:34 <jegz> i guess 20% just isn't cutting it
1655 2013-11-05 19:21:44 rlifchitz has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1656 2013-11-05 19:21:50 andytoshi has quit (Client Quit)
1657 2013-11-05 19:22:01 <denisx> is this bullshit? http://hackingdistributed.com/2013/11/04/bitcoin-is-broken/
1658 2013-11-05 19:22:22 andytoshi has joined
1659 2013-11-05 19:22:28 <Luke-Jr> yes
1660 2013-11-05 19:22:39 rlifchitz has joined
1661 2013-11-05 19:22:40 <denisx> thought so
1662 2013-11-05 19:23:22 <Luke-Jr> there is *possibly* a *very minor* theoretical *bad incentive*
1663 2013-11-05 19:23:45 vrs has joined
1664 2013-11-05 19:23:47 michagogo has joined
1665 2013-11-05 19:23:58 <Luke-Jr> probably even more minor than the known bad incentive of making smaller blocks so they propagate faster..
1666 2013-11-05 19:24:19 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: I ask because if we implement deterministic signing in Armory, I'd like to use what you guys use... unless you never plan to use it
1667 2013-11-05 19:24:35 <Luke-Jr> etotheipi_: hey!
1668 2013-11-05 19:24:38 Nopik has joined
1669 2013-11-05 19:24:39 <etotheipi_> hi Luke-Jr
1670 2013-11-05 19:24:51 <Luke-Jr> etotheipi_: did you see my question about Armory signed msgs?
1671 2013-11-05 19:25:00 <etotheipi_> Luke-Jr: ironically... working on that now
1672 2013-11-05 19:25:09 <Luke-Jr> which solution?
1673 2013-11-05 19:25:30 <etotheipi_> doing signed messages compatible with Bitcoin-Qt
1674 2013-11-05 19:25:34 <Luke-Jr> ah, great
1675 2013-11-05 19:25:47 <etotheipi_> I just thought i might take the opportunity to upgrade to deterministic signatures if it makes sense
1676 2013-11-05 19:25:51 <shripadk> tgs3: phew okay it was my mistake. thanks for the tip on fees. i used pywallet to remove the tx (luckily it did not get relayed) and had to rescan the chain before broadcasting again… now i'm able to redeem the funds with a small fee 55d24a314f8c95fd0032185092a4843e084c5ce6b6d44c696a084a7350a9caf4
1677 2013-11-05 19:25:56 gjs278 has joined
1678 2013-11-05 19:26:52 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1679 2013-11-05 19:26:55 <Luke-Jr> etotheipi_: maybe; of course the verifiers can't possibly know, so no big deal either
1680 2013-11-05 19:28:20 <etotheipi_> Luke-Jr: understood... but there's still a lot of reasons to be concerned about the RNGs, and if the deterministic schemes are reliable, I don't see why I wouldn't do it
1681 2013-11-05 19:28:29 <shripadk> petertodd: i redeemed the funds however blockchain.info reports a "Confirmation Warning" with message : "This transaction has a non-standard input". https://blockchain.info/tx/55d24a314f8c95fd0032185092a4843e084c5ce6b6d44c696a084a7350a9caf4 how is it that when you redeemed your 1-of-4 p2sh it doesn't show that confirmation warning? https://blockchain.info/tx/672d4dddfd5f667fe1088c06a8164c4caba109576f310599ce68808cce8ce603
1682 2013-11-05 19:28:54 imsaguy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1683 2013-11-05 19:28:58 <Luke-Jr> etotheipi_: yeah, I agree it's a good idea. and pretty hard for the deterministic scheme I'm aware of (hashing private key data) to be unreliable
1684 2013-11-05 19:29:16 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: what sipa and I had discussed before was the RFC plus HMAC-SHA512 (since BIP32 uses that anyways). I don't want to say thats set in stone before its even implemented in libsecp256k1.
1685 2013-11-05 19:29:17 <Luke-Jr> after all, if they have the private key, finding K isn't a problem; and if they can find K, they can't reverse the hash to get the private key
1686 2013-11-05 19:29:36 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: does libsecp256k1 sign messages, or only verify?
1687 2013-11-05 19:29:43 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: well you don't want to have issues like hash extension attacks...
1688 2013-11-05 19:29:58 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: it has signing too.
1689 2013-11-05 19:30:09 imsaguy has joined
1690 2013-11-05 19:30:19 <gmaxwell> thought not constant time signing.
1691 2013-11-05 19:30:35 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: does openssl do constant-time signing?
1692 2013-11-05 19:30:49 <jouke> what is the 'services' field in getpeerinfo?
1693 2013-11-05 19:31:25 <Luke-Jr> jouke: bitfield of services.
1694 2013-11-05 19:31:33 <Luke-Jr> jouke: only defined service is 1 (full node)
1695 2013-11-05 19:31:46 <jouke> Ah thanks
1696 2013-11-05 19:32:47 FabianB_ has joined
1697 2013-11-05 19:32:58 boycey has quit (Quit: boycey)
1698 2013-11-05 19:33:23 FabianB has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1699 2013-11-05 19:33:44 <Evilmax> hi all
1700 2013-11-05 19:33:45 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: also, I thought HMAC algos were designed to avoid length extension attacks
1701 2013-11-05 19:33:46 <Evilmax> please
1702 2013-11-05 19:33:54 <Evilmax> can someone help me?
1703 2013-11-05 19:34:08 <Evilmax> i want connect bitcoin daemon through a lan
1704 2013-11-05 19:34:17 <Evilmax> i am using "curl" command
1705 2013-11-05 19:34:19 cap2002 has quit ()
1706 2013-11-05 19:34:22 <Evilmax> but i get an error
1707 2013-11-05 19:34:33 <Evilmax> i am trying from yesterday
1708 2013-11-05 19:35:04 minty has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1709 2013-11-05 19:35:11 patcon_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1710 2013-11-05 19:35:27 <Evilmax> curl http://user:pass@192.168.1.2:8332/
1711 2013-11-05 19:35:37 patcon has joined
1712 2013-11-05 19:35:40 <Evilmax> i get this error:
1713 2013-11-05 19:35:40 <Evilmax> {"result":null,"error":{"code":-32700,"message":"Parse error"},"id":null}
1714 2013-11-05 19:36:14 <Evilmax> i presume this is the right chan for the question
1715 2013-11-05 19:36:34 <Evilmax> in config: rpcallowip=192.168.1.*
1716 2013-11-05 19:36:35 <shripadk> Evilmax: curl --user test:123 http://192.168.1.2:8332/
1717 2013-11-05 19:36:46 <Evilmax> i connect 192.168.1.2 from 192.168.1.3
1718 2013-11-05 19:36:50 <Evilmax> ah ok
1719 2013-11-05 19:37:06 <Evilmax> test:123?
1720 2013-11-05 19:37:10 <Evilmax> what is that?
1721 2013-11-05 19:37:19 <shripadk> user:pass
1722 2013-11-05 19:37:23 <shripadk> sorry
1723 2013-11-05 19:37:40 <Evilmax> ok
1724 2013-11-05 19:38:02 <Evilmax> curl user:pass http://192.168.1.2:8332/ ??
1725 2013-11-05 19:38:05 <Evilmax> right?
1726 2013-11-05 19:38:34 <shripadk> Evilmax: yep
1727 2013-11-05 19:38:38 tuxdev has left ("Leaving")
1728 2013-11-05 19:38:43 <shripadk> Evilmax: example: curl -u user:pass -d '{"id":"t0", "method": "getbalance" }' http://192.168.1.2:8332/
1729 2013-11-05 19:38:59 <Evilmax> ah
1730 2013-11-05 19:39:03 <Evilmax> weel i try
1731 2013-11-05 19:39:14 askmike has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1732 2013-11-05 19:39:15 <Evilmax> i have to insert always a command
1733 2013-11-05 19:39:16 <Evilmax> so
1734 2013-11-05 19:39:40 askmike has joined
1735 2013-11-05 19:39:43 Vprx has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1736 2013-11-05 19:39:45 <Evilmax> well friend!
1737 2013-11-05 19:39:49 <Evilmax> it works:)
1738 2013-11-05 19:40:07 <shripadk> Evilmax: :)
1739 2013-11-05 19:40:15 patcon has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1740 2013-11-05 19:40:19 patcon_ has joined
1741 2013-11-05 19:40:21 <MagBo> Evilmax: also, consider using httpie, it's beautiful. I forgot my cURL after I started using it.
1742 2013-11-05 19:40:22 <Evilmax> curl -u user:pass -d '{"id":"t0", "method": "getbalance" }' http://192.168.1.2:8332/
1743 2013-11-05 19:40:24 <Evilmax> {"result":0.00000000,"error":null,"id":"t0"}
1744 2013-11-05 19:40:31 <Evilmax> just a last thing
1745 2013-11-05 19:40:40 <Evilmax> there is an error after balance
1746 2013-11-05 19:40:43 <Evilmax> why?
1747 2013-11-05 19:40:46 <Evilmax> ok MagBo
1748 2013-11-05 19:40:55 MiningBuddy has joined
1749 2013-11-05 19:40:58 <Evilmax> httpie i presume is linux command
1750 2013-11-05 19:41:25 <shripadk> Evilmax: if there was an error retrieving balance for whatever reason, that field will but filled with the details. since there is no error, the value of the key is null.
1751 2013-11-05 19:42:17 <Evilmax> i mean...can i only ask for balance to daemon? without anything else?
1752 2013-11-05 19:42:28 <shripadk> Evilmax: nope
1753 2013-11-05 19:42:30 <Evilmax> in this way, maube i will get a simple answer
1754 2013-11-05 19:42:33 <Evilmax> ah ok
1755 2013-11-05 19:42:55 <Evilmax> and do you know a link where i can find all commands available...like that one you gave me?
1756 2013-11-05 19:43:00 kill\switch has joined
1757 2013-11-05 19:43:01 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1758 2013-11-05 19:43:13 <Evilmax> i know bitcoind man page, i mean for use curl
1759 2013-11-05 19:43:18 <Evilmax> curl syntax
1760 2013-11-05 19:43:33 <MagBo> Evilmax: httpie is a wrapper in python, I guess you can run it from Windows as well. Also, please refer to http://www.jsonrpc.org/specification to clarify any confusion regarding the responses from the bitcoind.
1761 2013-11-05 19:43:42 <Evilmax> or just i have to replace "getbalance" with anothere directive?
1762 2013-11-05 19:43:50 askmike has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1763 2013-11-05 19:44:06 Nesetalis has joined
1764 2013-11-05 19:44:12 <Evilmax> no MagBo...i run daemon on win..and "clients" will be on linux
1765 2013-11-05 19:44:24 <MagBo> Evilmax: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Original_Bitcoin_client/API_Calls_list
1766 2013-11-05 19:44:25 debiantoruser has joined
1767 2013-11-05 19:44:27 <Evilmax> because in linux it needs too much time to download blocks
1768 2013-11-05 19:44:41 <Evilmax> ok friends...thank you all...i will visit those links!
1769 2013-11-05 19:45:39 <jouke> I have a node (A) that has this empty transaction bug that is connected to an other node (b) on the same machine. Node B doesn't ban node A, but does node B also try to broadcast those empty transactions?
1770 2013-11-05 19:45:52 <shripadk> Evilmax: there is just one other way to query (those commands to which you can pass arrays), example: curl -u user:pass -d '{"id":"t0", "method": "sendtoaddress", "params": "["1PGXTsbbrnXBnTgEdssRCH8Ukc57DvapcP", "0.1"]"}' http://192.168.1.2:8332/
1771 2013-11-05 19:47:50 owowo has joined
1772 2013-11-05 19:48:26 OrP has joined
1773 2013-11-05 19:51:21 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: no, openssl's implementation for our curve is not constant time.
1774 2013-11-05 19:52:00 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: and yes, HMAC is intended to avoid length extension, I meant that just an example of how simple constructs may not be as secure as they seem.
1775 2013-11-05 19:52:26 groglogic has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1776 2013-11-05 19:52:28 gjs278 has joined
1777 2013-11-05 19:53:18 groglogic has joined
1778 2013-11-05 19:53:54 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
1779 2013-11-05 19:55:10 t7 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1780 2013-11-05 19:55:35 <andytoshi> hey all, i have been having trouble with bitcoin since updating fedora,
1781 2013-11-05 19:55:39 <andytoshi> ./autogen.sh gives me
1782 2013-11-05 19:55:41 <andytoshi> configure.ac:31: error: possibly undefined macro: AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE
1783 2013-11-05 19:56:59 daybyter has joined
1784 2013-11-05 19:57:08 <vrs> currently reading the selfish mining paper and it looks to me that if you nerf the 1-on-1 case (public and private chains of the same length), the attack degrades to a simple 50% attack or at least close to it
1785 2013-11-05 19:57:09 meLon has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1786 2013-11-05 19:57:42 <vrs> and becomes rather unfeasible at least for small pools
1787 2013-11-05 19:58:02 <vrs> larger pools might have it easer to decelop leads of two
1788 2013-11-05 19:58:06 <vrs> develop*
1789 2013-11-05 19:59:29 adam3us has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1790 2013-11-05 19:59:35 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1791 2013-11-05 20:00:28 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, Luke-Jr: it seems the bar is lower here, because K isn't even exposed to any attackers... they would have to know K even if they could successully pre-image the hash
1792 2013-11-05 20:01:06 <Luke-Jr> etotheipi_: of course, my point was just that there's really no attack vector for this kind of thing
1793 2013-11-05 20:01:16 <Luke-Jr> even if they *could* get it, they'd be no closer
1794 2013-11-05 20:01:18 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1795 2013-11-05 20:01:38 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: sort of. It's actually hard to reason about the security of this if you assume the hash weak. If you have signatures with the same key with different Ks that have linear relationships you can often recover the private key in DSA.
1796 2013-11-05 20:02:32 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: understood... but most of cryptography in general depends on the fact that the hashes have a seemingly random output for different inputs
1797 2013-11-05 20:02:38 <gmaxwell> (e.g. the recoveries that work when you know two signatures have equal K have variants that work if you can setup linear equations between several Ks)
1798 2013-11-05 20:02:54 <etotheipi_> if there was any linearities in the values of K that you get out of this, then it would be a major break in the hashing algo
1799 2013-11-05 20:03:36 agnostic98 has joined
1800 2013-11-05 20:04:35 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: yes, though the random oracle assumption is a bit handwavy. Generally a hash break breaks the signature since we hash the input anyways. ... but, for example, having some bit level imbalances in the hash wouldn't.  In any case, I'm perfectly comfortable with derandomized DSA (I did recommend we adopt a standard way of doing it (see earlier bitcoin-development link)), I'm just preaching trying to assume as little as possible.
1801 2013-11-05 20:04:58 <vrs> also i wish they had cut to the chase and not spent four pages on "it's happening"
1802 2013-11-05 20:06:25 agnostic98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1803 2013-11-05 20:06:57 agnostic98 has joined
1804 2013-11-05 20:07:16 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: understood... I'm just having hard time understanding how we add more risk to the process doing this than relying on RNGs that we know will be sufficient *non*-random in many environments
1805 2013-11-05 20:08:08 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1806 2013-11-05 20:08:18 <etotheipi_> I think it's important for us to make a definitive assessment of this, because even if the RNGs are good, many people are too traumatized from the recent breaks/media, and would prefer this
1807 2013-11-05 20:08:46 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: We don't. I don't know why you think I'm saying we are: See I proposed we do this: http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg02721.html
1808 2013-11-05 20:09:19 <gmaxwell> My only comments here are that I don't think just pulling a good looking function out of a hat without broad peer review is a good idea. Thats all.
1809 2013-11-05 20:09:31 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: fair enough
1810 2013-11-05 20:09:38 rdymac has quit (Excess Flood)
1811 2013-11-05 20:09:58 <kjj> holy shit.  that guy's stupid paper turned into a DOS on the dev team and mailing list
1812 2013-11-05 20:10:24 <etotheipi_> kjj: luckily it's not a scalable DoS attack
1813 2013-11-05 20:10:54 rdymac has joined
1814 2013-11-05 20:10:56 <kjj> sure it is.  arxiv doesn't screen submissions
1815 2013-11-05 20:11:21 <vrs> I think the paper is interesting but a little too alarmist for my tastes
1816 2013-11-05 20:11:26 <etotheipi_> kjj: but *actually* stupid/irrelevant/unbased papers won't DoS the team because they don't represent anything worth spending our time on them
1817 2013-11-05 20:11:30 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1818 2013-11-05 20:11:43 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1819 2013-11-05 20:12:22 <petertodd> kjj: lol
1820 2013-11-05 20:12:42 debiantoruser has joined
1821 2013-11-05 20:12:46 <MC1984_> is there anyone 'in bitcoin' who has a formal background in game theory?
1822 2013-11-05 20:12:52 <etotheipi_> the only way to continuously DoS the team is to continue to come up with attacks that represent real threats... and that's actually godo
1823 2013-11-05 20:12:59 <petertodd> kjj: it's too bad, if they'd just been reasonable they could have gotten so much respect. :(
1824 2013-11-05 20:13:39 rolme has joined
1825 2013-11-05 20:13:56 <kjj> I just get sick of explaining to people that if someone already owns the entire network, we have bigger problems than them collecting a little extra mining revenue
1826 2013-11-05 20:13:56 <gmaxwell> We certantly need more people poking and researching.  Amiller's post on the forum gives a reasonable perspective.
1827 2013-11-05 20:14:11 <gmaxwell> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=324413.msg3491426#msg3491426
1828 2013-11-05 20:15:00 <AndyOfiesh> It makes sense that the news media would accept the notion that miners would jump on selfish mining if it could make them a few extra bucks regardless of the damage to the  public good.
1829 2013-11-05 20:16:14 <gmaxwell> AndyOfiesh: four years ago I might have predicted that, but since then I've met a lot of miners.  Greedy/Rational is not currently the right model at all. I don't think I've ever seen a remotely accurate model of miner's behavior that doesn't invoke a crack pipe at some point in the model.
1830 2013-11-05 20:16:14 Insti has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1831 2013-11-05 20:17:09 <vrs> gmaxwell: nice post; is that linked tech report a kind of proto-bitcoin in its approach to byzantine consensus or an entirely different beast?
1832 2013-11-05 20:17:11 <kjj> the beauty of bitcoin, in my opinion, is that it doesn't particularly care why miners mine
1833 2013-11-05 20:17:20 <etotheipi_> at least in its current state, I don't feel like the "flocking" behavior described in the paper is even close to what would actually happen
1834 2013-11-05 20:18:09 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Can I quote you re: "a crack pipe" in my upcoming Bitcoin Miner Behavior Model paper?
1835 2013-11-05 20:18:21 <gmaxwell> petertodd: hah. I suppose.
1836 2013-11-05 20:19:37 shripadk has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1837 2013-11-05 20:19:42 <petertodd> gmaxwell: and I take back my earlier comments saying the paper was reasonable - frankly I was blinded by my own knowledge that there was no way the attack was going to succeed in the short-term.
1838 2013-11-05 20:20:11 <kjj> I should write up a presentation on things that it looks like bitcoin should need or care about, but really doesn't
1839 2013-11-05 20:21:36 damethos has quit (Quit: Bye)
1840 2013-11-05 20:21:56 <gmaxwell> petertodd: well I read the paper with a filter that removed hype needed to achieve publication. I suggest anyone else do the same.
1841 2013-11-05 20:22:56 arioBarzan has joined
1842 2013-11-05 20:22:59 <MC1984_> arxiv publish anything though
1843 2013-11-05 20:23:14 <gmaxwell> sure.
1844 2013-11-05 20:23:28 <gmaxwell> MC1984_: I presume they plan on submitting this elsewhere too.
1845 2013-11-05 20:23:39 <MC1984_> yeah
1846 2013-11-05 20:23:42 rolme has quit (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
1847 2013-11-05 20:23:48 <MC1984_> and its already got some MSM coverage
1848 2013-11-05 20:23:51 [\\\] has joined
1849 2013-11-05 20:24:04 <petertodd> MC1984_: which *isn't* a bad thing so long as you know that
1850 2013-11-05 20:24:16 <MC1984_> im still surprised the price didnt dip even a bit with that CNN "bitc fucked" article
1851 2013-11-05 20:25:07 <MC1984_> could it be that bitcoiners are more savvy than believing the news outright?
1852 2013-11-05 20:25:14 rdymac has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1853 2013-11-05 20:25:47 <MC1984_> now thats what i call a flawed hypothesis
1854 2013-11-05 20:26:27 <gmaxwell> MC1984_: look at some of the comments even here < melvster> i dont think any more there's any feasible attack that will be more than temporary < melvster> and an attack may just make it stronger
1855 2013-11-05 20:26:31 <vrs> MC1984_, hm perhaps relying on their more bitcoin-savvy friends?
1856 2013-11-05 20:26:34 <gmaxwell> You can't disrupt the True Believers.
1857 2013-11-05 20:27:20 <gmaxwell> plus there is a simple algorithim:  "Wait for a Bitcoin doomed headline. Is the market price $0? If not, Doom is overhyped. Buy."
1858 2013-11-05 20:27:44 <gmaxwell> which uh... has a corner case failure mode which people may be discounting excessively.
1859 2013-11-05 20:28:01 dparrish_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1860 2013-11-05 20:28:14 shripadk has joined
1861 2013-11-05 20:28:22 <MC1984_> im not so sure the price would drop to zero save the case where txns simply stop happening for some reason
1862 2013-11-05 20:28:26 [Author] has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1863 2013-11-05 20:28:44 <vrs> well all the money already on the exchanges would still put a dent in the price
1864 2013-11-05 20:28:54 rdymac has joined
1865 2013-11-05 20:29:02 [Author] has joined
1866 2013-11-05 20:29:26 <MC1984_> people are putting up with getting turned upside down and having thier hair used as a mop for the bankers puke party of a crash out there in the real world
1867 2013-11-05 20:30:02 dparrish has joined
1868 2013-11-05 20:30:05 <MC1984_> bitcoin could keep rolling in some capacity with anything somewhat less than total system failure, maybe
1869 2013-11-05 20:30:54 <melvster> even if the crypto breaks, the price may crash, but we'll just find better crypto, and it will rise again
1870 2013-11-05 20:31:08 <MC1984_> im not saying thats a good thing, bullshit should be fixed or we should give up and go home
1871 2013-11-05 20:31:21 <MC1984_> because weve already got a bullshit system and dont need another one
1872 2013-11-05 20:31:28 <Evilmax> MagBo
1873 2013-11-05 20:31:35 <Evilmax> how do you rune httpie on ubuntu?
1874 2013-11-05 20:31:41 <melvster> i dont think there is any scenario that cannot be fixed maybe in as little as a few days
1875 2013-11-05 20:31:42 <Evilmax> run*
1876 2013-11-05 20:33:53 <vrs> melvster: there are a few plausible to less plausible doomsday scenarios on the wiki, I don't remember where though
1877 2013-11-05 20:34:06 <melvster> vrs: seen it yes
1878 2013-11-05 20:34:16 <melvster> some great contingency planning
1879 2013-11-05 20:34:25 <edcba> meteorite goes right to earth
1880 2013-11-05 20:34:29 <edcba> bitcoin can't be fixed
1881 2013-11-05 20:34:42 <edcba> even in months
1882 2013-11-05 20:34:46 <vrs> solution: put a miner on the moon
1883 2013-11-05 20:34:49 <melvster> lol
1884 2013-11-05 20:34:57 <melvster> under the sea
1885 2013-11-05 20:35:04 <edcba> vrs: temporary workaround
1886 2013-11-05 20:35:07 <MC1984_> in that case we must send a copy of the blockchain into deep space
1887 2013-11-05 20:35:17 <melvster> some guy in swiss is mining in a nuclear bunker
1888 2013-11-05 20:35:21 <MC1984_> the universe must remember who we were as a people
1889 2013-11-05 20:36:42 <edcba> said the last 134M civilizations before us
1890 2013-11-05 20:36:51 Insti has joined
1891 2013-11-05 20:37:22 nanotube has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1892 2013-11-05 20:37:53 loltu has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1893 2013-11-05 20:37:53 reneg_ has joined
1894 2013-11-05 20:38:08 reneg_ has quit (Client Quit)
1895 2013-11-05 20:38:35 loltu has joined
1896 2013-11-05 20:39:10 reneg_ has joined
1897 2013-11-05 20:39:25 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1898 2013-11-05 20:39:55 reizuki__ has joined
1899 2013-11-05 20:40:00 debiantoruser has joined
1900 2013-11-05 20:41:25 nomailing has joined
1901 2013-11-05 20:42:21 AusBitBank has joined
1902 2013-11-05 20:44:07 saulimus has joined
1903 2013-11-05 20:44:15 arioBarzan has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1904 2013-11-05 20:44:45 arioBarzan has joined
1905 2013-11-05 20:44:56 nanotube has joined
1906 2013-11-05 20:46:59 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1907 2013-11-05 20:47:40 debiantoruser has joined
1908 2013-11-05 20:47:43 Thepok has joined
1909 2013-11-05 20:48:39 arioBarzan has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1910 2013-11-05 20:48:53 arioBarzan has joined
1911 2013-11-05 20:49:46 arioBarzan has quit (Client Quit)
1912 2013-11-05 20:50:08 fas has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1913 2013-11-05 20:52:46 fas has joined
1914 2013-11-05 20:53:30 RoboTeddy has joined
1915 2013-11-05 20:53:41 mintmoneyman has joined
1916 2013-11-05 20:54:22 tmsk has joined
1917 2013-11-05 20:54:54 <Evilmax> it's possible run (on windows) bitcoind daemon and bitcoin qt client together?
1918 2013-11-05 20:54:59 <Evilmax> i get an error
1919 2013-11-05 20:55:05 <Evilmax> about .lock file
1920 2013-11-05 20:55:14 <michagogo> Evilmax: No
1921 2013-11-05 20:55:26 <Evilmax> mmm
1922 2013-11-05 20:55:27 <michagogo> Evilmax: but you can run Bitcoin-Qt with -server
1923 2013-11-05 20:55:34 <Evilmax> ah ok
1924 2013-11-05 20:55:40 <Evilmax> from prompt?
1925 2013-11-05 20:55:53 <Evilmax> i need daemon running but i also want the gui
1926 2013-11-05 20:56:34 <michagogo> Evilmax: either add -server to the command-line, or put server=1 in the conf file
1927 2013-11-05 20:56:53 dparrish has quit (Ping timeout: 251 seconds)
1928 2013-11-05 20:56:59 <Evilmax> ok
1929 2013-11-05 20:56:59 mintmoney has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1930 2013-11-05 20:57:22 [Author] has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1931 2013-11-05 20:58:53 _ingsoc has quit (Quit: leaving)
1932 2013-11-05 20:59:21 shamoon has joined
1933 2013-11-05 20:59:31 <shamoon> what is the purpose of the contrib folder?
1934 2013-11-05 21:00:06 skinnkavaj has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1935 2013-11-05 21:00:31 JontyX has joined
1936 2013-11-05 21:01:59 <BlueMatt> to store things that dont fit elsewhere
1937 2013-11-05 21:04:35 [Author] has joined
1938 2013-11-05 21:04:53 Coincidental has joined
1939 2013-11-05 21:06:29 <shamoon> are they relevant to the source code or more like tools?
1940 2013-11-05 21:06:32 <shamoon> like wallet tools, etc?
1941 2013-11-05 21:06:58 RoboTedd_ has joined
1942 2013-11-05 21:08:34 dparrish has joined
1943 2013-11-05 21:08:38 RoboTeddy has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1944 2013-11-05 21:09:00 <BlueMatt> tools, by far
1945 2013-11-05 21:09:08 <shamoon> and what are checkpoints?
1946 2013-11-05 21:09:34 <shamoon> src/checkpoints.cpp
1947 2013-11-05 21:09:37 <BlueMatt> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/checkpoints.h#L12
1948 2013-11-05 21:09:45 skinnkavaj has joined
1949 2013-11-05 21:09:46 Musk has quit (Quit: Linkinus - http://linkinus.com)
1950 2013-11-05 21:10:14 damethos has joined
1951 2013-11-05 21:10:41 <shamoon> where / what checks for a checkpoint?
1952 2013-11-05 21:11:39 tmsk has quit (Quit: tmsk)
1953 2013-11-05 21:12:39 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1954 2013-11-05 21:12:53 fas has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1955 2013-11-05 21:13:12 TD has joined
1956 2013-11-05 21:14:28 debiantoruser has joined
1957 2013-11-05 21:17:52 agnostic98 has joined
1958 2013-11-05 21:19:21 AndyOfiesh has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1959 2013-11-05 21:21:19 <EPiSKiNG-> is it possible to generate a transaction ID when there are insufficient balances on input addresses?
1960 2013-11-05 21:22:23 <michagogo> shamoon: checkpoints.cpp or something like that
1961 2013-11-05 21:22:29 <Evilmax> tnx michagogo
1962 2013-11-05 21:23:10 W0rmDr1nk has joined
1963 2013-11-05 21:23:11 <W0rmDr1nk> hi
1964 2013-11-05 21:23:47 <W0rmDr1nk> is there any reason the suggested changes in here is not already incorporated: http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.0243
1965 2013-11-05 21:24:12 <MC1984_> cos there is more important stuff
1966 2013-11-05 21:24:13 <michagogo> W0rmDr1nk: yes
1967 2013-11-05 21:24:31 <W0rmDr1nk> except for the fact that is primarily just a stopgap where as something like proof-of-stake might be a more permanent solutions
1968 2013-11-05 21:24:36 <W0rmDr1nk> MC1984_, fair enough
1969 2013-11-05 21:24:40 <Apocalyptic> EPiSKiNG-, yes
1970 2013-11-05 21:24:55 <michagogo> W0rmDr1nk: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development
1971 2013-11-05 21:25:10 <MC1984_> W0rmDr1nk consensus seems to be its sensationalised
1972 2013-11-05 21:25:16 Application has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1973 2013-11-05 21:25:22 nova90 has joined
1974 2013-11-05 21:25:33 <MC1984_> i wish i had the chops to skim the paper and work that out for myself, but it dont
1975 2013-11-05 21:26:20 <kjj> I'm telling you guys, it can't possibly be a coincidence that this crap comes up like clockwork every couple of weeks.  someone is actively trying to slow down development
1976 2013-11-05 21:26:32 <andytoshi> MC1984_: it is not too bad
1977 2013-11-05 21:26:51 <andytoshi> there are two pages that require some analysis, but you can just trust the calculations and verify the rest
1978 2013-11-05 21:26:59 <andytoshi> it is very well-written
1979 2013-11-05 21:27:24 <MC1984_> well i read the abstract and then pgdn till conclusion
1980 2013-11-05 21:27:43 <MC1984_> i am drowning in tabs though. Im bad at managment like that
1981 2013-11-05 21:28:17 <MC1984_> that you adhd youve always been a friend to me
1982 2013-11-05 21:28:25 <michagogo> cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|kjj: one theory I've seen is that the authors of the paper took a short position on bitcoins
1983 2013-11-05 21:28:56 <W0rmDr1nk> thanks for link, nice discussion on forum
1984 2013-11-05 21:29:36 nova90 has quit (Client Quit)
1985 2013-11-05 21:30:30 <kjj> possible, but seems unlikely to be the bigger picture
1986 2013-11-05 21:31:27 reneg_ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1987 2013-11-05 21:31:34 <MC1984_> heres my conspiracy theory: maybe its not a conspiracy
1988 2013-11-05 21:32:22 <kjj> heh.  I'm well aware that it isn't an actual conspiracy.  it just gets frustrating
1989 2013-11-05 21:32:33 <JontyX> MC1984_: I am also ADHD
1990 2013-11-05 21:32:39 <JontyX> FTW
1991 2013-11-05 21:32:42 <JontyX> w00p
1992 2013-11-05 21:33:23 [\\\] has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1993 2013-11-05 21:33:28 <MC1984_> yay were in the shitclub woo
1994 2013-11-05 21:33:51 JTF195 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1995 2013-11-05 21:34:13 <Happzz> anyone with spare testnet coins?
1996 2013-11-05 21:34:13 <Happzz> send some to n2SWSL1JS9nrq1fLWgfDDA2tBaosddXMmE please
1997 2013-11-05 21:34:37 <MC1984_> you working on something?
1998 2013-11-05 21:34:56 reneg_ has joined
1999 2013-11-05 21:34:59 <Apocalyptic> Happzz, ask nkuttler
2000 2013-11-05 21:36:57 taha has joined
2001 2013-11-05 21:40:18 <MC1984_> Solution: a modified puzzle using (efficient) zero-knowledge proofs would make hosted mining (and mining pools, incidentally) impractical.
2002 2013-11-05 21:40:21 <MC1984_> wow is this true?
2003 2013-11-05 21:41:11 <Luke-Jr> MC1984_: no
2004 2013-11-05 21:41:15 <kjj> making part of mining impractical is the easy part
2005 2013-11-05 21:41:17 <vrs> efficient zero knowledge proofs?
2006 2013-11-05 21:41:17 <Luke-Jr> you cannot stop hosted mining
2007 2013-11-05 21:41:56 <MC1984_> well thats a shame
2008 2013-11-05 21:42:08 <gmaxwell> MC1984_: you can only make it easy for a mining host to rob their investors.
2009 2013-11-05 21:42:33 <MC1984_> make it so?
2010 2013-11-05 21:42:36 <gmaxwell> MC1984_: which doesn't seem helpful yet, as people with hosted mining don't even demand any proof at all that they're not being robbed.
2011 2013-11-05 21:42:45 <MC1984_> heh
2012 2013-11-05 21:42:46 <gmaxwell> maybe it would be helpful in the future.
2013 2013-11-05 21:43:03 <gmaxwell> Step 1) start a hosted mining company that robs all the miners...
2014 2013-11-05 21:43:06 <MC1984_> yes still so much trust around
2015 2013-11-05 21:43:19 <gmaxwell> but the problem there is that most companies that do that don't even mine, they just gobble the initial investment. :P
2016 2013-11-05 21:45:16 <MC1984_> keeps happening
2017 2013-11-05 21:45:17 shripadk has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2018 2013-11-05 21:45:29 nova90 has joined
2019 2013-11-05 21:45:38 ThomasV has joined
2020 2013-11-05 21:45:59 <Happzz> no one has any testnet coins to spare? :X
2021 2013-11-05 21:46:23 <BlueMatt> Happzz: there's a few faucets
2022 2013-11-05 21:46:42 <Happzz> i'd just go mine some i guess
2023 2013-11-05 21:46:50 <Apocalyptic> good luck
2024 2013-11-05 21:46:56 <Apocalyptic> diff is ~18k
2025 2013-11-05 21:47:45 <Happzz> this is the testnet...
2026 2013-11-05 21:47:49 <helo> Happzz: incoming
2027 2013-11-05 21:48:20 <Happzz> i'd just hate to work with mbtcs :p
2028 2013-11-05 21:48:31 <Happzz> helo thanks
2029 2013-11-05 21:48:31 <Happzz> brb
2030 2013-11-05 21:51:32 [\\\] has joined
2031 2013-11-05 21:51:38 <andytoshi> guys, has anyone been having trouble running autogen.sh?
2032 2013-11-05 21:51:49 <andytoshi> i upgraded fedora and my build environment has apparently shifted
2033 2013-11-05 21:51:50 <gmaxwell> Luke posted about how to do local block submission with BFGminer, which would prevent a pool from being selfish without miner cooperation https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=324413.msg3492597#msg3492597
2034 2013-11-05 21:51:50 <andytoshi> configure.ac:31: error: possibly undefined macro: AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE
2035 2013-11-05 21:51:59 <Luke-Jr> andytoshi: missing deps
2036 2013-11-05 21:52:52 Application has joined
2037 2013-11-05 21:53:51 <gmaxwell> andytoshi: that sounds busted, probably missing m4 macros for pkg-config?
2038 2013-11-05 21:54:06 <W0rmDr1nk> [Bitcoin-development] BIP proposal - patch to raise selfish mining threshold. - petertodd's story is quite funny
2039 2013-11-05 21:54:13 shripadk has joined
2040 2013-11-05 21:54:23 <Luke-Jr> I'd guess libtool
2041 2013-11-05 21:54:39 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: I was guessing libtool initially but then I looked at our configure.ac and revised my guess.
2042 2013-11-05 21:54:58 <andytoshi> gmaxwell: yeah, i think luke is close to the mark
2043 2013-11-05 21:55:03 Joan has joined
2044 2013-11-05 21:55:03 <andytoshi> before it bombs out, it says
2045 2013-11-05 21:55:08 <andytoshi> autoreconf: configure.ac: not using Gettext
2046 2013-11-05 21:55:09 <gmaxwell> oh wait pkg-config is libtool. derp.
2047 2013-11-05 21:55:11 <andytoshi> autoreconf: configure.ac: not using aclocal
2048 2013-11-05 21:55:15 fanquake has joined
2049 2013-11-05 21:55:17 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: no it isn't.. O.o
2050 2013-11-05 21:55:21 <andytoshi> but i have gettext and aclocal and libtool <.<
2051 2013-11-05 21:55:53 firepacket has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2052 2013-11-05 21:56:21 fanquake has left ()
2053 2013-11-05 21:56:25 <warren> andytoshi: did you install openssl with ec?  (not this problem, but you'll have it later)
2054 2013-11-05 21:56:38 Joan has quit (Client Quit)
2055 2013-11-05 21:57:09 <andytoshi> warren: yeah, it should be in my local dir so the upgrade will not have affected it
2056 2013-11-05 21:57:10 <MC1984_> hahha
2057 2013-11-05 21:57:19 <MC1984_> petertodd i can tell you had a lot of fun writing that
2058 2013-11-05 21:57:20 <andytoshi> i ran aclocal manually guys and then ./autogen worked
2059 2013-11-05 21:57:30 <andytoshi> very strange..
2060 2013-11-05 21:57:32 groglogic has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2061 2013-11-05 21:57:38 <andytoshi> configure also worked..
2062 2013-11-05 21:57:42 <andytoshi> make is running..
2063 2013-11-05 21:58:37 eoss has joined
2064 2013-11-05 22:00:07 groglogic has joined
2065 2013-11-05 22:00:15 <petertodd> MC1984_: MineForeman even republished it: http://mineforeman.com/2013/11/06/the-end-of-bitcoin-is-nigh-again/
2066 2013-11-05 22:00:48 <petertodd> MC1984_: kinda hilarious that the first short story I've ever had "published" was made in response to an academic paper...
2067 2013-11-05 22:01:10 <BlueMatt> hah, nice
2068 2013-11-05 22:01:13 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2069 2013-11-05 22:01:15 <MC1984_> creative writing is now peer review
2070 2013-11-05 22:01:27 <MC1984_> the literary world explode
2071 2013-11-05 22:01:29 dongshengcn is now known as ds|away
2072 2013-11-05 22:02:24 <BlueMatt> http://i.imgur.com/wGNyKLX.jpg (yes, the position of the title is rather arbitrary, but it works well as my desktop background)
2073 2013-11-05 22:03:31 <lianj> BlueMatt: now with labels :P
2074 2013-11-05 22:03:57 <BlueMatt> heh
2075 2013-11-05 22:04:24 <petertodd> MC1984_: lol! well, I did go to art school... Which is doubly funny, because I'm trying to figure out narrative mode the bit in the middle would be, where I describe what I would have written instead of actually writing it... god help me if that's a novel narrative mode. :P
2076 2013-11-05 22:05:11 <MC1984_> BlueMatt hell am i looking at?
2077 2013-11-05 22:05:26 rolme has joined
2078 2013-11-05 22:05:29 <BlueMatt> amiller's map of the bitcoin network (ie estimated node connections)
2079 2013-11-05 22:05:43 <MC1984_> orly
2080 2013-11-05 22:06:01 <andytoshi> /bin/ld: leveldb/libleveldb.a(filename.o): relocation R_X86_64_32 against `.rodata.str1.1' can not be used when making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC
2081 2013-11-05 22:06:04 <andytoshi> effing fedora...
2082 2013-11-05 22:06:13 <petertodd> BlueMatt: that is seriously cool
2083 2013-11-05 22:06:29 <gmaxwell> andytoshi: make clean
2084 2013-11-05 22:06:40 <BlueMatt> petertodd: yes, hence the deskop background :)
2085 2013-11-05 22:06:44 <gmaxwell> it's just dirty data that isn't cleaned up from a move from preautotools to post.
2086 2013-11-05 22:06:48 <W0rmDr1nk> petertodd, was quite a nice story
2087 2013-11-05 22:06:49 <andytoshi> gmaxwell: oh, derp
2088 2013-11-05 22:06:49 <MC1984_> BlueMatt does that exist in higher res or without so much blankspace
2089 2013-11-05 22:06:52 <andytoshi> thx
2090 2013-11-05 22:06:59 <W0rmDr1nk> petertodd, sure everybody is waiting for the book
2091 2013-11-05 22:07:03 <BlueMatt> MC1984_: its cropped on my desktop, hence the strange placement
2092 2013-11-05 22:07:27 <BlueMatt> you'd have to ask amiller if you want a higher-res version
2093 2013-11-05 22:07:47 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
2094 2013-11-05 22:08:00 firepacket has joined
2095 2013-11-05 22:08:27 <petertodd> W0rmDr1nk: thanks! I'll see what I can do about the novel :P
2096 2013-11-05 22:08:35 <MC1984_> be nice to know what those clusters are
2097 2013-11-05 22:08:36 RoboTedd_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2098 2013-11-05 22:08:43 <MC1984_> and how nodes are grouped
2099 2013-11-05 22:08:54 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: FWIW, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=325737.msg3492937#msg3492937
2100 2013-11-05 22:09:12 RoboTeddy has joined
2101 2013-11-05 22:09:21 <BlueMatt> MC1984_: its an active research topic :p
2102 2013-11-05 22:10:04 <MC1984_> reminds me of the ipv4 map clusterd by ASN i saw
2103 2013-11-05 22:12:14 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2104 2013-11-05 22:13:28 debiantoruser has joined
2105 2013-11-05 22:13:31 <shripadk> Happzz: sent :)
2106 2013-11-05 22:14:14 a12321a_ has joined
2107 2013-11-05 22:15:28 bitspill has joined
2108 2013-11-05 22:15:36 <Happzz> yup, i see, thanks guys
2109 2013-11-05 22:15:39 <Happzz> that should be enough
2110 2013-11-05 22:15:53 rolme has quit (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
2111 2013-11-05 22:16:59 paraipan has joined
2112 2013-11-05 22:17:29 johnsoft has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2113 2013-11-05 22:17:34 <shripadk> petertodd: you told me earlier that P2SH can't have more than 520 byte scriptPubKey and 500 byte scriptSigs…  i just broadcasted a -of-15 over testnet and the total size of transaction is only 224 bytes? http://blockexplorer.com/testnet/tx/ec9baad981fbe13877033d81023b1567b7e310520ff0319fd2d05b2f2dd5a915
2114 2013-11-05 22:17:54 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2115 2013-11-05 22:18:24 patcon_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2116 2013-11-05 22:18:54 patcon has joined
2117 2013-11-05 22:19:26 <lianj> shripadk: the redeeming tx will be big then
2118 2013-11-05 22:19:39 <petertodd> shripadk: you'll find that output impossible to spend
2119 2013-11-05 22:19:54 <shripadk> liana, petertodd: okay i'll try that now then :)
2120 2013-11-05 22:19:58 <shripadk> *lianj
2121 2013-11-05 22:20:28 <petertodd> shripadk: er, sorry, that one you can spend, but -of-16 you wouldn't be able too
2122 2013-11-05 22:20:44 <shripadk> petertodd: what is the difference?
2123 2013-11-05 22:21:02 debiantoruser has joined
2124 2013-11-05 22:21:09 Grouver has quit (Quit:  HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <- *I* use it, so it must be good!)
2125 2013-11-05 22:21:15 <shripadk> petertodd: so on mainnet i should be able to broadcast -of-15 p2sh without worries
2126 2013-11-05 22:21:45 <petertodd> shripadk: that's the whole point of p2sh: paying *to* the scriptPubKey is always possible, it's spending it that might be hard
2127 2013-11-05 22:21:50 licnep has quit (Quit: quit)
2128 2013-11-05 22:22:24 <shripadk> petertodd: okay. i get it now. but how did you figure out that i would be able to spend -of-15 but not -of-16 even without me trying to spend it in the first place?
2129 2013-11-05 22:22:26 licnep has joined
2130 2013-11-05 22:23:07 cap2002 has joined
2131 2013-11-05 22:23:07 deepc0re_ has joined
2132 2013-11-05 22:23:29 soheil has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2133 2013-11-05 22:23:34 <petertodd> shripadk: work out how big the inner scriptPubKey would have to be, and remember that a pushdata > either 520, or 521 bytes (I forget which) is invalid
2134 2013-11-05 22:23:38 <shripadk> petertodd: okay this makes sense. so if i do 1-of-15 i might be able to spend it. but if its say 10-of-15 the size of scriptPubKey may be too large (>520 bytes) to spend it
2135 2013-11-05 22:23:44 soheil has joined
2136 2013-11-05 22:24:08 patcon has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2137 2013-11-05 22:24:17 ovidiusoft has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2138 2013-11-05 22:24:24 rdymac_ has joined
2139 2013-11-05 22:24:25 deepc0re has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2140 2013-11-05 22:25:17 transisto has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2141 2013-11-05 22:25:40 <shamoon> make[1]: *** No rule to make target `libleveldb.a'.  Stop.
2142 2013-11-05 22:25:43 <shamoon> when i try to make
2143 2013-11-05 22:25:52 transisto has joined
2144 2013-11-05 22:26:06 patcon has joined
2145 2013-11-05 22:26:46 rdymac has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2146 2013-11-05 22:26:47 rdymac_ is now known as rdymac
2147 2013-11-05 22:27:18 <andytoshi> cool, got it built, thanks guys
2148 2013-11-05 22:27:37 <andytoshi> though now i have an assertation failure :), will do some debugging...
2149 2013-11-05 22:27:39 <andytoshi> bitcoind: key.cpp:135: {anonymous}::CECKey::CECKey(): Assertion `pkey != __null' failed.
2150 2013-11-05 22:27:57 <petertodd> shripadk: exactly!
2151 2013-11-05 22:28:00 CheckDavid has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2152 2013-11-05 22:28:07 gjj has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2153 2013-11-05 22:28:41 <shripadk> petertodd: thanks! :) i think i have finally understood the limitations
2154 2013-11-05 22:30:05 bitspill has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2155 2013-11-05 22:31:14 reneg_ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2156 2013-11-05 22:31:46 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
2157 2013-11-05 22:32:49 <shamoon> trying to build
2158 2013-11-05 22:32:54 <shamoon> make -f makefile.unix
2159 2013-11-05 22:32:56 <shamoon> yields make[1]: *** No rule to make target `libleveldb.a'.
2160 2013-11-05 22:33:58 TD has joined
2161 2013-11-05 22:34:33 <andytoshi> shamoon: bitcoin uses autotools now
2162 2013-11-05 22:34:50 <andytoshi> in the toplevel directory you should see autogen.sh and friends
2163 2013-11-05 22:34:57 reneg_ has joined
2164 2013-11-05 22:35:08 <shamoon> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tree/v0.8.2
2165 2013-11-05 22:35:09 <shamoon> here?
2166 2013-11-05 22:35:10 <shamoon> andytoshi: ?
2167 2013-11-05 22:35:57 <andytoshi> yeah :P
2168 2013-11-05 22:36:01 <andytoshi> i guess, it is not there in 0.8.2
2169 2013-11-05 22:36:21 rdymac has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2170 2013-11-05 22:36:25 <andytoshi> so makefile.unix should be working..
2171 2013-11-05 22:36:33 <shamoon> should be
2172 2013-11-05 22:36:37 <shamoon> but i get this leveldb issue
2173 2013-11-05 22:37:03 <andytoshi> what if you go into the leveldb directory and run make there? does it work?
2174 2013-11-05 22:37:13 [\\\] has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2175 2013-11-05 22:37:22 <shamoon> no makefile
2176 2013-11-05 22:37:37 <andytoshi> interesting
2177 2013-11-05 22:37:43 <andytoshi> there is one on the github site
2178 2013-11-05 22:37:52 <andytoshi> in src/leveldb
2179 2013-11-05 22:38:25 <andytoshi> maybe you do not have all the files somehow? what does git status say?
2180 2013-11-05 22:38:28 <shamoon> hmm
2181 2013-11-05 22:38:29 <shamoon> werid
2182 2013-11-05 22:38:31 <shamoon> yeah
2183 2013-11-05 22:38:32 <shamoon> i may not
2184 2013-11-05 22:38:34 <shamoon> i'll reget
2185 2013-11-05 22:38:50 <shamoon> https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin/compare/bitcoin:master...master-0.8
2186 2013-11-05 22:38:54 <shamoon> i'm trying to get that bitcoin version
2187 2013-11-05 22:39:21 <shamoon> which appears to be 0.8.2.2
2188 2013-11-05 22:40:02 Application has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2189 2013-11-05 22:40:03 <andytoshi> what if you do "git log leveldb/Makefile" ?
2190 2013-11-05 22:40:09 <andytoshi> maybe there is a history of where it went..
2191 2013-11-05 22:40:52 <shamoon> fatal: ambiguous argument 'leveldb/Makefile': unknown revision or path not in the working tree.
2192 2013-11-05 22:41:04 <andytoshi> you might also want to try #leveldb-dev
2193 2013-11-05 22:41:04 <shamoon> so is v0.8.2 the right version?
2194 2013-11-05 22:41:05 <shamoon> i'll re-get it
2195 2013-11-05 22:41:18 <andytoshi> not sure what the right version is, sorry
2196 2013-11-05 22:41:42 <andytoshi> #litecoin-dev i mean
2197 2013-11-05 22:41:48 <andytoshi> sorry
2198 2013-11-05 22:44:10 [\\\] has joined
2199 2013-11-05 22:44:12 johnsoft has joined
2200 2013-11-05 22:45:23 jaakkos has joined
2201 2013-11-05 22:45:54 rdymac has joined
2202 2013-11-05 22:46:09 RoboTedd_ has joined
2203 2013-11-05 22:47:06 shamoon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2204 2013-11-05 22:47:37 damethos has quit (Quit: Bye)
2205 2013-11-05 22:47:49 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2206 2013-11-05 22:48:51 RoboTeddy has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2207 2013-11-05 22:50:17 c0rw1n has joined
2208 2013-11-05 22:52:28 oon_ has quit (Quit: leaving)
2209 2013-11-05 22:52:32 quicklazy has joined
2210 2013-11-05 22:53:51 AusBitBank has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2211 2013-11-05 22:54:54 <amiller> ;seen reeep
2212 2013-11-05 22:56:19 <gmaxwell> amiller: looking for petertodd (retep on the forum)
2213 2013-11-05 22:56:36 <amiller> reeep is different than petertodd i think
2214 2013-11-05 22:56:56 <c0rw1n> no
2215 2013-11-05 22:57:02 <amiller> oh
2216 2013-11-05 22:57:07 <c0rw1n> peter todd is retep on bitcointalk and petertodd here
2217 2013-11-05 22:57:25 <c0rw1n> (was no'ing to that other line)
2218 2013-11-05 22:57:35 * michagogo just finished creating a "hello world" in 3 billion lines of code
2219 2013-11-05 22:57:41 <gmaxwell> (retep is peter backwards) otherwise I dunno who reeep is. :P
2220 2013-11-05 22:57:46 <EPiSKiNG-> what does it mean when an output is already spent?
2221 2013-11-05 22:57:54 <EPiSKiNG-> An outpoint is already spent [(95639199, 0), (94675677, 0), (13134805, 0), (2591292, 0)]
2222 2013-11-05 22:58:40 <MC1984_> oh wow retep is peter backwards
2223 2013-11-05 22:58:44 <michagogo> It's 125 GB
2224 2013-11-05 22:59:31 <michagogo> Notepad++ refuses to open it, and Ruby won't actually run it -- "C:/Users/Micha/Desktop/3 billion line hello world.rb: failed to allocate memory (NoMemoryError)"
2225 2013-11-05 22:59:52 <michagogo> It's compressing very well, though :-P
2226 2013-11-05 23:00:01 <MC1984_> why would you do that
2227 2013-11-05 23:00:10 <c0rw1n> dafuq did you type an helllo world in 3 bil lines? Java?
2228 2013-11-05 23:00:20 <michagogo> 7zip on Ultra, 3.5 GB into 0.5 MB
2229 2013-11-05 23:00:54 Application has joined
2230 2013-11-05 23:01:30 <michagogo> c0rw1n: It's in Ruby
2231 2013-11-05 23:01:41 <michagogo> Generated with https://zerobin.net/?d7f5378024835025#J7oZhnCBU9edEEApCcwKg6V1p0Bth4VQNJ+Gs/P7S38=
2232 2013-11-05 23:01:57 aupiff has joined
2233 2013-11-05 23:02:47 <c0rw1n> something like that guy who plugged the output of a decrypto program into Malbolge to program an hello world in that?
2234 2013-11-05 23:02:57 <petertodd> retep == the type of nickname an 11 year old would pick...
2235 2013-11-05 23:02:58 melvster has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2236 2013-11-05 23:03:07 <c0rw1n> or am i being more of an idiot than what's possibly funny
2237 2013-11-05 23:03:07 <michagogo> c0rw1n: Hmm?
2238 2013-11-05 23:03:10 shesek has joined
2239 2013-11-05 23:03:33 Ashaman has joined
2240 2013-11-05 23:03:36 <gmaxwell> petertodd: no, Null Character is something an 11 year old would pick.
2241 2013-11-05 23:03:49 reneg_ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2242 2013-11-05 23:03:56 <petertodd> gmaxwell: null character? well, that's a fairly smart 11 year old at least :P
2243 2013-11-05 23:04:05 <c0rw1n> oh you don't know about that. ok. Some guy once programmed the worst programming language EVAR, and the only HelloWorld program that would run on it has been coded by a decrypto program of some sort
2244 2013-11-05 23:04:16 [\\\] has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2245 2013-11-05 23:04:17 <c0rw1n> bcause no human could program ANYthing in Malbolge
2246 2013-11-05 23:05:36 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
2247 2013-11-05 23:06:57 andytoshi has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.4.1)
2248 2013-11-05 23:07:17 reneg_ has joined
2249 2013-11-05 23:08:19 roconnor has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2250 2013-11-05 23:09:25 patcon_ has joined
2251 2013-11-05 23:10:00 patcon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2252 2013-11-05 23:14:18 patcon_ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2253 2013-11-05 23:14:56 a12321a_ has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
2254 2013-11-05 23:15:46 a12321a_ has joined
2255 2013-11-05 23:16:00 melvster has joined
2256 2013-11-05 23:18:07 deepc0re_ has quit (Quit: deepc0re_)
2257 2013-11-05 23:21:39 michagogo has quit (Quit: goodnight)
2258 2013-11-05 23:23:42 da2ce7 has joined
2259 2013-11-05 23:23:58 RoboTedd_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2260 2013-11-05 23:24:43 da2ce7 has quit (Client Quit)
2261 2013-11-05 23:24:59 gjj has joined
2262 2013-11-05 23:25:07 RoboTeddy has joined
2263 2013-11-05 23:26:08 patcon has joined
2264 2013-11-05 23:26:34 da2ce7 has joined
2265 2013-11-05 23:31:01 reneg_ has quit (Quit: -a- Connection Timed Out)
2266 2013-11-05 23:33:11 W0rmDr1nk has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2267 2013-11-05 23:33:22 reneg_ has joined
2268 2013-11-05 23:34:24 reneg has quit (Quit: reneg)
2269 2013-11-05 23:35:05 JontyX has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2270 2013-11-05 23:35:31 JontyX has joined
2271 2013-11-05 23:39:42 clr_ has joined
2272 2013-11-05 23:39:55 nomailing has quit (Quit: nomailing)
2273 2013-11-05 23:40:07 justusranvier has joined
2274 2013-11-05 23:41:01 a12321a_ has quit (Quit: Page closed)
2275 2013-11-05 23:41:49 antycoin has joined
2276 2013-11-05 23:45:18 meLon has joined
2277 2013-11-05 23:48:20 Coincidental has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2278 2013-11-05 23:49:02 <gmaxwell> http://fieryspinningsword.com/2013/11/06/hashrate-amplification-attacks/
2279 2013-11-05 23:49:05 <gmaxwell> good comments
2280 2013-11-05 23:49:08 reneg_ has quit (Quit: -a- Connection Timed Out)
2281 2013-11-05 23:49:52 reneg has joined
2282 2013-11-05 23:51:23 hnz has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2283 2013-11-05 23:51:24 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, lol https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2227.msg30108#msg30108
2284 2013-11-05 23:51:35 <phantomcircuit> hey look it's gavin saying exactly what my first reaction was
2285 2013-11-05 23:51:50 <phantomcircuit> gavinandresen, high five
2286 2013-11-05 23:52:02 reneg1 has joined
2287 2013-11-05 23:52:36 Nopik has quit (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
2288 2013-11-05 23:52:46 [\\\] has joined
2289 2013-11-05 23:52:47 <EPiSKiNG-> would having a large mining pool/rig set re-broadcast a transaction be any different than using bitcoind -server ?
2290 2013-11-05 23:52:57 <EPiSKiNG-> is: bitcoind sendrawtransaction hex-tx-here
2291 2013-11-05 23:53:00 <EPiSKiNG-> *ie:
2292 2013-11-05 23:53:18 darsie has joined
2293 2013-11-05 23:53:52 <phantomcircuit> EPiSKiNG-, i dont follow
2294 2013-11-05 23:54:08 <sipa> as opposed to what?
2295 2013-11-05 23:54:18 <EPiSKiNG-> I have a transaction that is not yet broadcasted to the network
2296 2013-11-05 23:54:32 <sipa> any reason to?
2297 2013-11-05 23:54:53 <phantomcircuit> sipa, he's witholding it for the silly attack
2298 2013-11-05 23:54:55 <EPiSKiNG-> will it be broadcasted/get confirmed any faster if a large mining rig broadcasts vs. bitcoind?
2299 2013-11-05 23:55:01 <phantomcircuit> EPiSKiNG-, oh
2300 2013-11-05 23:55:03 roconnor has joined
2301 2013-11-05 23:55:07 <sipa> i don't understand
2302 2013-11-05 23:55:13 <EPiSKiNG-> It's a BTC withdrawal fro MtGox that is over 24 hrs old
2303 2013-11-05 23:55:18 <EPiSKiNG-> and isn't showing on the blockchain
2304 2013-11-05 23:55:27 <sipa> how does the mining rig not be a bitcoind?
2305 2013-11-05 23:55:27 <phantomcircuit> EPiSKiNG-, do you have a txid?
2306 2013-11-05 23:55:30 <EPiSKiNG-> [15:17] <MagicalTux> Fixed double-spend or missing input TX fc229175d95429effd1a980e136fc83e2b0029025e614c61460e7425aacd3827 value 378.68151796 BTC by re-issuing as 96712fb93aca2130feb4d45d41a593efc35d562e37cb3675690d8f4d4b6d698a
2307 2013-11-05 23:56:10 <phantomcircuit> EPiSKiNG-, i dont think either of them has been relayed widely
2308 2013-11-05 23:56:36 <sipa> do you have the transaction data?
2309 2013-11-05 23:56:38 <sipa> in hex
2310 2013-11-05 23:56:45 hnz has joined
2311 2013-11-05 23:56:50 <phantomcircuit> sipa, he could
2312 2013-11-05 23:56:58 reneg2 has joined
2313 2013-11-05 23:56:58 <phantomcircuit> mtgox has an api call that returns all the unconfirmed txs
2314 2013-11-05 23:57:16 <EPiSKiNG-> sipa: not yet
2315 2013-11-05 23:57:19 <phantomcircuit> EPiSKiNG-, yeah none of my (well connected) nodes have seen either of those
2316 2013-11-05 23:57:30 <EPiSKiNG-> in about 1.5 hrs i will
2317 2013-11-05 23:57:42 <EPiSKiNG-> phantomcircuit: gox is fuckin up. :(
2318 2013-11-05 23:57:55 <EPiSKiNG-> I put a .001 fee on it too
2319 2013-11-05 23:58:18 <phantomcircuit> EPiSKiNG-, neither of those hashes appear in https://data.mtgox.com/api/0/bitcoin_tx.php
2320 2013-11-05 23:58:23 <EPiSKiNG-> right
2321 2013-11-05 23:58:25 reneg1 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2322 2013-11-05 23:58:31 <EPiSKiNG-> it won't for another 1.25 hrs or so
2323 2013-11-05 23:58:31 <phantomcircuit> EPiSKiNG-, guess something is broken
2324 2013-11-05 23:58:40 <phantomcircuit> EPiSKiNG-, why?
2325 2013-11-05 23:58:45 mrkent2 has joined
2326 2013-11-05 23:58:47 <phantomcircuit> waiting for mark to get to work? :)
2327 2013-11-05 23:58:57 <EPiSKiNG-> because the API only returns tx hashes that are older than 2 hrs
2328 2013-11-05 23:59:04 <phantomcircuit> oh
2329 2013-11-05 23:59:22 <phantomcircuit> i did not know that
2330 2013-11-05 23:59:22 <gavinandresen> phantomcircuit: 2010-super-high-five to you, too
2331 2013-11-05 23:59:55 <phantomcircuit> :)