1 2013-11-06 00:00:10 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
2 2013-11-06 00:01:01 reneg2 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
3 2013-11-06 00:01:12 groglogi_ has joined
4 2013-11-06 00:03:20 reneg1 has joined
5 2013-11-06 00:03:25 groglogic has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
6 2013-11-06 00:04:02 taha has quit (Quit: Leaving)
7 2013-11-06 00:07:46 Ashaman_ has joined
8 2013-11-06 00:08:19 Ashaman has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
9 2013-11-06 00:08:43 mrkent2 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
10 2013-11-06 00:08:51 DougieBot5000 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
11 2013-11-06 00:09:04 mrkent has joined
12 2013-11-06 00:09:27 darsie has left ("Once you know what it is you want to be true, instinct is a very useful device for enabling you to know that it is")
13 2013-11-06 00:10:02 CodesInChaos has joined
14 2013-11-06 00:13:11 alexwaters has joined
15 2013-11-06 00:14:40 catcow has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
16 2013-11-06 00:14:43 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
17 2013-11-06 00:14:48 reneg1 has quit (Quit: reneg1)
18 2013-11-06 00:15:04 andytoshi has joined
19 2013-11-06 00:15:05 catcowllama has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
20 2013-11-06 00:15:10 reneg1 has joined
21 2013-11-06 00:15:11 reneg1 has quit (Client Quit)
22 2013-11-06 00:16:12 paraipan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
23 2013-11-06 00:16:50 gavinandresen has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
24 2013-11-06 00:17:31 Thepok has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
25 2013-11-06 00:17:32 alexwaters has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
26 2013-11-06 00:18:34 alexwaters has joined
27 2013-11-06 00:18:44 reneg1 has joined
28 2013-11-06 00:18:49 catcowllama has joined
29 2013-11-06 00:18:49 catcow has joined
30 2013-11-06 00:18:49 catcowllama has quit (Changing host)
31 2013-11-06 00:18:49 catcowllama has joined
32 2013-11-06 00:18:49 catcow has quit (Changing host)
33 2013-11-06 00:18:49 catcow has joined
34 2013-11-06 00:19:05 reneg1 has quit (Client Quit)
35 2013-11-06 00:19:23 reneg1 has joined
36 2013-11-06 00:20:09 reneg1 has quit (Client Quit)
37 2013-11-06 00:20:20 msvb-lab has quit (Quit: msvb-lab)
38 2013-11-06 00:22:42 <andytoshi> is there a way i can use a different sending address than receiving address on the mailing list?
39 2013-11-06 00:24:08 macboz has joined
40 2013-11-06 00:24:46 shripadk has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
41 2013-11-06 00:24:51 alexwaters has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
42 2013-11-06 00:25:14 alexwaters has joined
43 2013-11-06 00:25:14 alexwaters has quit (Changing host)
44 2013-11-06 00:25:14 alexwaters has joined
45 2013-11-06 00:25:34 reneg_ has joined
46 2013-11-06 00:25:38 reneg has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
47 2013-11-06 00:25:38 W0rmDr1nk has joined
48 2013-11-06 00:25:56 <Luke-Jr> andytoshi: there is no sending addre.. oh wait
49 2013-11-06 00:25:58 <Luke-Jr> :P
50 2013-11-06 00:26:10 reneg has joined
51 2013-11-06 00:26:43 <lianj> Luke-Jr: :D
52 2013-11-06 00:26:55 <andytoshi> haha :)
53 2013-11-06 00:27:03 gwern has joined
54 2013-11-06 00:27:25 <andytoshi> my email client is not set up to send mail from my home address, since the domain points at a residential IP
55 2013-11-06 00:27:33 <andytoshi> which is blcklisted
56 2013-11-06 00:28:35 <gwern> (reposting here at the urging of another person) so I have a funny little problem with my local bitcoind and I'd like to hear if other people think my interpretation is right. some time ago for a bet (http://www.reddit.com/r/SilkRoad/comments/1pko9y/the_bet_bmr_and_sheep_to_die_in_a_year/) I did a 'getnewaddress' and then 'sendtoaddress' 4btc to https://blockchain.info/address/1AZvaBEJMiK8AJ5GvfvLWgHjWgL59TRPGy when I do listtransactions I see ...
57 2013-11-06 00:28:41 <gwern> ... '..."address" : "1AZvaBEJMiK8AJ5GvfvLWgHjWgL59TRPGy", / "category" : "receive", / "amount" : 4.00000000,...' *then* '..."address" : "1AZvaBEJMiK8AJ5GvfvLWgHjWgL59TRPGy", "category" : "send", "amount" : -4.00000000,...', and 'getbalance 1AZvaBEJMiK8AJ5GvfvLWgHjWgL59TRPGy' yields 0.00000000 even though you can see blockchain.info disagrees. now when I try to do a 'sendfrom 1AZvaBEJMiK8AJ5GvfvLWgHjWgL59TRPGy' I get 'error: ...
58 2013-11-06 00:28:44 <andytoshi> the sourceforge mailing-list page gives me nothing, so i think it's safe to assume there's no way to do this ... sourceforge is not known for being full of features
59 2013-11-06 00:28:47 <gwern> ... {"code":-6,"message":"Account has insufficient funds"}'. am I correct in thinking this is a bug in bitcoind and I do in fact have 4btc in 1AZ and if I do 'dumpprivkey' to a wallet like blockchain.info I can transfer the 4 bitcoins elsewhere without problem?
60 2013-11-06 00:29:53 shesek has joined
61 2013-11-06 00:30:18 reneg_ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
62 2013-11-06 00:30:22 <Luke-Jr> gwern: no, you probably lost the funds because bc.i confused you
63 2013-11-06 00:30:33 <Luke-Jr> gwern: coins aren't "in" addresses, they're in wallets.
64 2013-11-06 00:30:43 gavinandresen has joined
65 2013-11-06 00:31:23 <gwern> Luke-Jr: I hope you aren't right. losing 4btc is no joke
66 2013-11-06 00:31:29 <Luke-Jr> gwern: the (opaque) wallet uses private keys to control them internally, and will in some cases change which private key is used for some amount
67 2013-11-06 00:31:43 <Luke-Jr> gwern: well, if you didn't try messing with wallet internals, you should be fine
68 2013-11-06 00:31:57 <Luke-Jr> but if you went using low-level RPCs like dumpprivkey and such, you're bound to lose something
69 2013-11-06 00:32:08 reneg1 has joined
70 2013-11-06 00:32:11 <gwern> define 'messing with wallet internals'... I thought I was doing something perfectly safe - just a 'getnewaddress' and a 'sendtoaddress'
71 2013-11-06 00:32:14 Anduck has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
72 2013-11-06 00:32:21 <Luke-Jr> gwern: if that's all you did, you should be okay
73 2013-11-06 00:32:44 <Luke-Jr> gwern: is it possible the funds haven't confirmed at all yet?
74 2013-11-06 00:32:52 <gwern> no. this was 1400 confirms ago
75 2013-11-06 00:33:02 <Luke-Jr> what does getinfo say (use pastebin.com)
76 2013-11-06 00:33:27 <gwern> I did do a call to dumpprivkey to see what the output looked like... now you're probably going to tell me that it has side-effects and is not referentially transparent >.>
77 2013-11-06 00:33:56 <Luke-Jr> nah, no side effects in itself
78 2013-11-06 00:34:03 <c0rw1n> you have a beckup of wallet before dumpprivkey right?
79 2013-11-06 00:34:29 <gwern> c0rw1n: yeah, I did a harddrive backup yesterday so there should be 2 copies of my .bitcoin from yesterday there
80 2013-11-06 00:34:30 <c0rw1n> hmm someone said -salvagewallet might fic it (i have no idea)
81 2013-11-06 00:34:45 <Luke-Jr> what does getinfo say (use pastebin.com)?
82 2013-11-06 00:35:39 <gwern> Luke-Jr: http://pastebin.com/gKnr6T45
83 2013-11-06 00:36:46 <Luke-Jr> gwern: first, you have a fundamentally wrong conception
84 2013-11-06 00:36:51 <Luke-Jr> gwern: addresses are not accounts or wallets
85 2013-11-06 00:37:04 <Luke-Jr> they're only used to receive funds
86 2013-11-06 00:37:09 <Luke-Jr> nothing else
87 2013-11-06 00:37:24 <Luke-Jr> they *point* at an account in a wallet, but they aren't either of those in themselves
88 2013-11-06 00:37:34 qwertyoruiop has joined
89 2013-11-06 00:37:43 OrP has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
90 2013-11-06 00:37:49 <Luke-Jr> when you ran getnewtransaction, you specified the name of the account the address would point to
91 2013-11-06 00:38:03 <Luke-Jr> if you didn't specify an account, the address was made to point at the "" account
92 2013-11-06 00:38:44 <Luke-Jr> despite bc.i's misinformation, addresses do NOT have balances or anything like that
93 2013-11-06 00:39:08 <Luke-Jr> listtransactions should also tell you the account the funds went to
94 2013-11-06 00:39:46 <gwern> the 'account' parameter in all is ""
95 2013-11-06 00:39:48 <Luke-Jr> listaccounts will tell you every account in the wallet and its balance
96 2013-11-06 00:39:55 <Luke-Jr> gwern: ok, then your account in question is ""
97 2013-11-06 00:40:23 <Luke-Jr> sendfrom "" "1someaddress" 4
98 2013-11-06 00:40:43 <gwern> what
99 2013-11-06 00:41:01 <gwern> oh man I didn't even notice that it said 'sendfrom <fromaccount> <tobitcoinaddress>' <-- 'fromaccount' rather than 'fromaddress'
100 2013-11-06 00:41:31 <phantomcircuit> gwern, the only way to do fromaddress is with rawtransactions
101 2013-11-06 00:41:38 <Luke-Jr> gwern: there is no from address
102 2013-11-06 00:41:43 * Luke-Jr glares at phantomcircuit
103 2013-11-06 00:41:43 <phantomcircuit> and you shouldn't be messing with those if you dont understand how that works
104 2013-11-06 00:41:55 <phantomcircuit> Luke-Jr, you'll just confuse him more
105 2013-11-06 00:41:59 <Luke-Jr> gwern: transactions are only ever *to* an address
106 2013-11-06 00:42:01 MKCoin has quit (Quit: Leaving)
107 2013-11-06 00:42:09 <Luke-Jr> phantomcircuit: no, I'm de-confusing him
108 2013-11-06 00:42:41 <phantomcircuit> gwern, Luke-Jr is right, but if you want to spend the transaction output in transaction 4f928080f37291920a505e282a2deb64129c7b39295b20e134dfe67bcf67b065
109 2013-11-06 00:42:49 <phantomcircuit> you'll need to use the rawtransactions api
110 2013-11-06 00:42:53 <phantomcircuit> gwern, what was the bet?
111 2013-11-06 00:42:54 <Luke-Jr> gwern: the "from address" blockchain.info is showing is really the address coins had been *previously sent to*, and unrelated to the transaction you're looking at
112 2013-11-06 00:43:12 <gwern> phantomcircuit: that sheep / blackmarket reloaded would shutdown in a year. no one bit.
113 2013-11-06 00:43:20 <gwern> Luke-Jr: gahh. I feel more confused than ever
114 2013-11-06 00:44:12 <sipa> gwern: what a transaction does, is assigning some coins to some address (script really, butforget that for now)
115 2013-11-06 00:44:40 <sipa> gwern: inputs of a transactions are _coins_
116 2013-11-06 00:44:52 <sipa> specific coins created by a previous transactions
117 2013-11-06 00:44:55 <Luke-Jr> gwern: it's usually best to just ignore blockchain.info really
118 2013-11-06 00:45:26 <sipa> gwern: you can talk about the address a particular coin you're spending was previously assigned to
119 2013-11-06 00:45:44 <sipa> and within a wallet that may make sense (it's micromanagement, though)
120 2013-11-06 00:46:07 <gwern> sipa: well, for the bet I wanted an address with 4 bitcoins which could sign a message and prove I had 4 bitcoins to bet with. it was the logical implementation of that desire, as far as I knew
121 2013-11-06 00:46:29 <sipa> yup, makes sense
122 2013-11-06 00:47:02 alexwate_ has joined
123 2013-11-06 00:47:08 <sipa> the problem is mixing abstraction layers
124 2013-11-06 00:47:16 alexwate_ has quit (Client Quit)
125 2013-11-06 00:47:27 <sipa> you can either talk about wallets, or about addresses that hold coins
126 2013-11-06 00:47:42 <sipa> both are possible, but mixing them is very confusing
127 2013-11-06 00:48:00 <gwern> I guess I thought of my wallet as being basically a sort of hashtable/map with public keys/addresses as the key and a balance of bitcoins.
128 2013-11-06 00:48:07 <sipa> (and i doubt i'm helping you know)
129 2013-11-06 00:48:11 alexwaters has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
130 2013-11-06 00:48:16 <sipa> right
131 2013-11-06 00:48:28 <sipa> that is not the case
132 2013-11-06 00:48:30 <gwern> * and a value of bitcoins
133 2013-11-06 00:48:46 <sipa> the balance of a wallet is just the sum of the values of the unspent coins assigned to keys your wallet is able to spend from
134 2013-11-06 00:49:04 <lianj> ^
135 2013-11-06 00:49:05 <sipa> but there is no balance anywhere in the system internally
136 2013-11-06 00:49:21 <sipa> that's only how it is presented by the client
137 2013-11-06 00:49:22 <qwertyoruiop> let's talk theoretically. let's say i take the blockchain 10 blocks before a retarget and let's say i mine those 10 blocks in some amount of time
138 2013-11-06 00:50:03 <qwertyoruiop> and put fake timestamps in those blocks to make the difficulty algorithm retarget to a lower difficulty than the one that it really is
139 2013-11-06 00:50:07 <sipa> gwern: a wallet is a set of keys and a set of coins
140 2013-11-06 00:50:37 <sipa> qwertyoruiop: and it wi
141 2013-11-06 00:50:47 <sipa> ll not help you take over the chain
142 2013-11-06 00:50:48 <qwertyoruiop> then keep mining to make sure i can chunk out 1 block every 10 minutes
143 2013-11-06 00:50:59 <sipa> as the nodes look at the total amount of work in a chain
144 2013-11-06 00:51:06 <sipa> not their length in number of blocks
145 2013-11-06 00:52:19 canoon has joined
146 2013-11-06 00:53:12 <gwern> alright, so straightforward solutions... the overall wallet balance is the correct balance for me, including the 4btc. the specific address balance is 0 and is wrong but I guess the overall wallet is right. so I can send all the bitcoin to a wallet like blockchain.info and then do a getnewaddress and withdraw all the bitcoin to the newaddress. this avoids messing with the account parameter or dumpprivkey
147 2013-11-06 00:53:17 closer has joined
148 2013-11-06 00:54:45 <gwern> since the recipient address would be generated by blockchain.info's software, there shouldn't be any issues with the wallet internals overwriting or erasing bitcoins, and once the balance has left my local wallet, it should be safe to transfer back in or I can erase the local wallet and start fresh
149 2013-11-06 00:55:21 <c0rw1n> (good thing you have backups)
150 2013-11-06 00:55:26 <qwertyoruiop> isn't amount of work a ratio between how much time it took to generate n blocks and n where n is the number of blocks that have to be found for a retarget?
151 2013-11-06 00:55:45 <sipa> gwern: no need for the coins to leave your walley
152 2013-11-06 00:55:50 <gwern> c0rw1n: yeah, so I can recover from any error but something that gets committed to the network
153 2013-11-06 00:56:01 <sipa> gwern: just send them to an address of your own
154 2013-11-06 00:56:10 <gwern> sipa: that's what started thi whole mess!
155 2013-11-06 00:56:20 <sipa> if you really must have them on a particular address
156 2013-11-06 00:56:45 <sipa> i don't see how coins leaving and entering your wallet changes anything
157 2013-11-06 00:56:58 <qwertyoruiop> i believe he wants to start fresh
158 2013-11-06 00:57:00 <qwertyoruiop> with a new wallet
159 2013-11-06 00:57:07 <qwertyoruiop> to make sure he doesn't have any fuckup
160 2013-11-06 00:57:09 <gwern> well, I did need them on a particular address for the bet, but now I just want to send 3 bitcoins back to the original owners who loaned me them - only to discover all this weirdness
161 2013-11-06 00:57:45 <sipa> qwertyoruiop: work is the sum of the difficulties in the blocks of a chain
162 2013-11-06 00:58:09 <sipa> qwertyoruiop: if you change block's timestamp, it may become easier to mine them, but they become worth less as well
163 2013-11-06 00:58:34 <qwertyoruiop> why is that?
164 2013-11-06 00:58:48 <sipa> to prevent your attack :p
165 2013-11-06 00:59:39 <qwertyoruiop> if i keep my attack secret, mine a block with a transaction that spends all mined coins to an exchange address, get enough blocks to have a bigger chain than the main chain and only then publish the chain
166 2013-11-06 00:59:42 <qwertyoruiop> how can they lose value?
167 2013-11-06 01:00:02 <sipa> lose value?
168 2013-11-06 01:00:04 <sipa> oh!
169 2013-11-06 01:00:11 <qwertyoruiop> you say "worth less"
170 2013-11-06 01:00:14 <sipa> i don't mean worth less in terms of bitcoin
171 2013-11-06 01:00:17 <c0rw1n> supply and demand
172 2013-11-06 01:00:33 <sipa> i mean worth less to nodes deciding which chain to consider the right one
173 2013-11-06 01:00:43 <qwertyoruiop> oh
174 2013-11-06 01:00:47 <sipa> they look at how hard it was to mine a chain
175 2013-11-06 01:00:50 <qwertyoruiop> so if a chain has a lower difficulty
176 2013-11-06 01:00:53 <sipa> not at how long it is
177 2013-11-06 01:00:59 <qwertyoruiop> ah
178 2013-11-06 01:01:07 <qwertyoruiop> interesting
179 2013-11-06 01:01:15 <qwertyoruiop> that's not something i read in the bitcoin whitepaper
180 2013-11-06 01:01:36 <sipa> the paper misses many details that are necessary in practice
181 2013-11-06 01:01:53 <qwertyoruiop> is there a writeup of bitcoin as it is today?
182 2013-11-06 01:02:05 <sipa> github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin :)
183 2013-11-06 01:02:17 <qwertyoruiop> that's helpful
184 2013-11-06 01:02:21 <sipa> whivh is not a useful answer, i know
185 2013-11-06 01:02:41 <sipa> there are some things explained on the wiki, in forum posts and on stackexchamge
186 2013-11-06 01:02:47 W0rmDr1nk has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
187 2013-11-06 01:02:54 impulse9 has quit ()
188 2013-11-06 01:03:14 <sipa> but no comprehensive complete picture
189 2013-11-06 01:04:06 <qwertyoruiop> hmm, yet if someone faked timestamps in the last retarget cycle to make difficulty skyrocket..
190 2013-11-06 01:04:22 <gwern> so the impression I am getting here is that you guys think that the 4 bitcoins are not actually at risk here and I am just misunderstanding bitcoin and 'sendfrom'?
191 2013-11-06 01:04:28 <qwertyoruiop> would that be feasible?
192 2013-11-06 01:04:41 <qwertyoruiop> gwern: i understood that you have the private key of the addr with the 4btc
193 2013-11-06 01:04:45 <qwertyoruiop> if you do your coins are safe
194 2013-11-06 01:04:47 <qwertyoruiop> don't worry
195 2013-11-06 01:06:01 <qwertyoruiop> http://brainwallet.org/ helps you see if your priv key is the actual priv key for the address in question. detach your box from the internet before using it to prevent possible stolen privkey
196 2013-11-06 01:06:39 <gwern> this has been such a disillusioning experience. I thought I understood bitcoin as a nice system of public/private keys in a double-ledger setup with one's wallet just being a simple map of keys/values
197 2013-11-06 01:06:43 groglogi_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
198 2013-11-06 01:06:59 <qwertyoruiop> (gwern, i thought that was the case too)
199 2013-11-06 01:07:06 <gwern> but no, it's something murkier i don't understand at all, apparently
200 2013-11-06 01:07:08 <c0rw1n> it is, but the accounts layer is confusing
201 2013-11-06 01:07:11 <qwertyoruiop> (if that makes you feel less stupid-)
202 2013-11-06 01:07:13 gargamel has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
203 2013-11-06 01:07:22 gargamel has joined
204 2013-11-06 01:07:34 <c0rw1n> hey devs what is the accounts thing for? sets of keys?
205 2013-11-06 01:08:01 MKCoin has joined
206 2013-11-06 01:08:07 <phantomcircuit> c0rw1n, it's an accounting thing
207 2013-11-06 01:08:17 <c0rw1n> yes and?
208 2013-11-06 01:08:18 <phantomcircuit> just as it implies
209 2013-11-06 01:08:40 <c0rw1n> okay now I'm confused
210 2013-11-06 01:08:52 <c0rw1n> (again)
211 2013-11-06 01:09:01 <qwertyoruiop> so a wallet is a set of accounts
212 2013-11-06 01:09:10 <qwertyoruiop> and each account is a set of pub/priv key pairs?
213 2013-11-06 01:09:16 <phantomcircuit> c0rw1n, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accounting
214 2013-11-06 01:10:06 <c0rw1n> ah so those accounts. I'm MORE confused.
215 2013-11-06 01:10:11 basss has joined
216 2013-11-06 01:10:14 <phantomcircuit> qwertyoruiop, addresses are assigned to accounts, but when you send from an account it can come from any of the unspent transaction outputs in the wallet
217 2013-11-06 01:10:31 <phantomcircuit> the only way in which it is from an account is that an accounting record is added to the wallet
218 2013-11-06 01:10:42 <qwertyoruiop> that honestly makes no sense
219 2013-11-06 01:11:03 <phantomcircuit> qwertyoruiop, it actually does as an accounting system
220 2013-11-06 01:11:04 <c0rw1n> so gwern could order the 4btc from that .bitcoin to an abitrary address he controls? Right?
221 2013-11-06 01:11:33 <phantomcircuit> personally i dont think the accounting system is robust enough for anything serious at all
222 2013-11-06 01:11:35 <qwertyoruiop> so if i have two accounts and send 4 coins to an addr assigned to the first and 7 to an addr assigned to the second
223 2013-11-06 01:11:43 <c0rw1n> (notwithstanding the seven levels of indrections)
224 2013-11-06 01:11:46 <qwertyoruiop> then spend 7 coins from the first account
225 2013-11-06 01:11:54 <qwertyoruiop> i also spend 3 coins from the second one?
226 2013-11-06 01:11:57 <phantomcircuit> qwertyoruiop, you'll have a negative account balance
227 2013-11-06 01:11:59 <c0rw1n> i think you can't
228 2013-11-06 01:12:03 <c0rw1n> wait you can?
229 2013-11-06 01:12:03 gargamel has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
230 2013-11-06 01:12:09 <phantomcircuit> c0rw1n, im pretty sure you can
231 2013-11-06 01:12:11 <sipa> qwertyoruiop: coins have nothing to do with addresses
232 2013-11-06 01:12:12 <phantomcircuit> but i might be wrong
233 2013-11-06 01:12:16 <sipa> coins belong to the wallet
234 2013-11-06 01:12:21 <sipa> and nothing else
235 2013-11-06 01:12:26 <sipa> accounts are just numbers
236 2013-11-06 01:12:31 <c0rw1n> wtf devs
237 2013-11-06 01:12:40 <sipa> so if your wallet is shared among several people
238 2013-11-06 01:12:48 <phantomcircuit> qwertyoruiop, the only reason that addresses are assigned to accounts is that it makes the generation of the credit record automatic
239 2013-11-06 01:12:49 <sipa> you know who owns how much of it
240 2013-11-06 01:13:02 <phantomcircuit> beyond that it's just a very simple version of quickbooks
241 2013-11-06 01:13:03 <c0rw1n> sipa why nbot several wallets?
242 2013-11-06 01:13:05 <qwertyoruiop> so this whole account thing
243 2013-11-06 01:13:16 <qwertyoruiop> is just a way to keep track of who spends what
244 2013-11-06 01:13:22 <sipa> c0rw1n: for almost everything, multiple wallets is the better solution
245 2013-11-06 01:13:23 <qwertyoruiop> and a pretty simple one
246 2013-11-06 01:13:32 <qwertyoruiop> it seems pretty pointless IMO
247 2013-11-06 01:13:44 <sipa> it is useful, but only for one specific use case
248 2013-11-06 01:13:47 <phantomcircuit> qwertyoruiop, correct and i agree but other people disagree
249 2013-11-06 01:13:49 <sipa> shared wallets
250 2013-11-06 01:13:50 <c0rw1n> i'm a business owner and it seems pointless to me
251 2013-11-06 01:14:00 <c0rw1n> fwiw
252 2013-11-06 01:14:06 <phantomcircuit> sipa, it's not useful for that at all because of the backup problem
253 2013-11-06 01:14:12 <sipa> phantomcircuit: agree
254 2013-11-06 01:14:20 one_zero has joined
255 2013-11-06 01:14:35 <phantomcircuit> it's only useful for personal accounting where if you lose all of your records you can recreate them from memory
256 2013-11-06 01:14:39 <phantomcircuit> or other records
257 2013-11-06 01:14:40 MiningBuddy- has joined
258 2013-11-06 01:14:43 <sipa> it's a halfway implemented and confusing system
259 2013-11-06 01:14:45 <phantomcircuit> otherwise it's completely worthless
260 2013-11-06 01:14:47 <sipa> but it does make sense
261 2013-11-06 01:14:57 <qwertyoruiop> it would make sense if it was implemented
262 2013-11-06 01:15:03 <qwertyoruiop> the right way
263 2013-11-06 01:15:18 <phantomcircuit> qwertyoruiop, building a complete and proper accounting system into bitcoind is not a great idea
264 2013-11-06 01:15:19 <qwertyoruiop> but it just seems pointless and confusing as it is right now
265 2013-11-06 01:15:20 <sipa> i don't think the right way is using bitcoind at all for such purposes
266 2013-11-06 01:15:28 <qwertyoruiop> so why is an incomplete one there?
267 2013-11-06 01:15:30 <c0rw1n> so why build accounts into it?
268 2013-11-06 01:15:36 <qwertyoruiop> you should either have it all or none
269 2013-11-06 01:15:41 <sipa> because at a time, someone needed it :)
270 2013-11-06 01:15:50 banghouse has joined
271 2013-11-06 01:15:59 <sipa> i wasn't even around
272 2013-11-06 01:16:01 <qwertyoruiop> having an halfway completed one seems to contribute to bloat
273 2013-11-06 01:16:04 <firepacket> what is wrong with the accounts system exactly?
274 2013-11-06 01:16:07 <gwern> how old is the account stuff? is it original?
275 2013-11-06 01:16:19 <qwertyoruiop> an user called altoid needed it i guess?
276 2013-11-06 01:16:20 <qwertyoruiop> :p
277 2013-11-06 01:16:23 <c0rw1n> you can't have all of accounting in bitcoind, it wouldn't be compatible with any single tax system anyway
278 2013-11-06 01:16:40 <sipa> gwern: originally bitcoin was a gui-only, windows-only, no-rpc program
279 2013-11-06 01:17:08 <gwern> sipa: I know, but I don't know if this accounting stuff was in the original
280 2013-11-06 01:17:23 <sipa> gwern: threre was no RPC!
281 2013-11-06 01:17:26 <phantomcircuit> firepacket, it's impossible to guarantee that you have a current backup short of making a full backup of your wallet after you assign an address to an account which happens both when you generate a transaction or you receive a transaction with an output you can spend
282 2013-11-06 01:17:27 <c0rw1n> apeared in .8.something
283 2013-11-06 01:17:32 <c0rw1n> afaict
284 2013-11-06 01:17:37 <sipa> accounts only exist in the RPC system
285 2013-11-06 01:18:05 <sipa> accounts were introduced in 0.3.1x i think
286 2013-11-06 01:18:15 <sipa> 0.3.17 or 0.3.18
287 2013-11-06 01:18:25 FluffyBunny has joined
288 2013-11-06 01:18:28 <sipa> maybe earlier
289 2013-11-06 01:18:32 <firepacket> how is that related to accounting? that is because it doesnt use deterministic wallet generation
290 2013-11-06 01:18:33 <sipa> mid 2010
291 2013-11-06 01:18:39 MiningBuddy has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
292 2013-11-06 01:18:52 <sipa> firepacket: what does accounting have to do with key generation?
293 2013-11-06 01:19:04 <firepacket> accounts are just used to organize the addresses in the wallet
294 2013-11-06 01:19:10 <sipa> NO
295 2013-11-06 01:19:13 <qwertyoruiop> no
296 2013-11-06 01:19:15 <qwertyoruiop> that's why it's fucked up
297 2013-11-06 01:19:17 <phantomcircuit> sipa, this is part of why i want to remove the feature entirely, it's super confusing to people
298 2013-11-06 01:19:17 <c0rw1n> no?
299 2013-11-06 01:19:21 <sipa> accounts are just numbrrs
300 2013-11-06 01:19:22 <firepacket> ??
301 2013-11-06 01:19:32 <c0rw1n> yeah, remove that plz, makes zero sense
302 2013-11-06 01:19:33 <qwertyoruiop> you can create 5 accounts and say
303 2013-11-06 01:19:38 <qwertyoruiop> i spend 1 coin from first
304 2013-11-06 01:19:44 <qwertyoruiop> then 2 coins from second etc
305 2013-11-06 01:19:48 <c0rw1n> negative accounts balances wtff
306 2013-11-06 01:19:50 <qwertyoruiop> and you keep track of the expenses
307 2013-11-06 01:19:55 <Belxjander> "key group" assignments?
308 2013-11-06 01:19:57 <qwertyoruiop> and the total wallet had 3 btcs
309 2013-11-06 01:20:00 <sipa> phantomcircuit: in favor
310 2013-11-06 01:20:01 <phantomcircuit> i've told a number of people not to use the accounts feature for shared wallets and im sure for each of them there's 10 people who didn't go on irc and ask
311 2013-11-06 01:20:02 <qwertyoruiop> right?
312 2013-11-06 01:20:17 <phantomcircuit> sipa, now you just have to convince gmaxwell
313 2013-11-06 01:20:17 <sipa> qwertyoruiop: yup
314 2013-11-06 01:20:18 <qwertyoruiop> so why exactly is it there
315 2013-11-06 01:20:19 * phantomcircuit runs
316 2013-11-06 01:20:19 <Belxjander> why not just rework the "Accounts" feature as being each "Account" is its own Wallet with a name?
317 2013-11-06 01:20:23 <qwertyoruiop> if noone should even ues it
318 2013-11-06 01:20:26 <qwertyoruiop> *use
319 2013-11-06 01:20:36 <sipa> Belxjander: how about just implementing support for multiple wallets
320 2013-11-06 01:20:37 perdec has joined
321 2013-11-06 01:20:42 <qwertyoruiop> you should keep it simple, not bloat bitcoin with half made things that do not work
322 2013-11-06 01:20:50 <c0rw1n> why? just add the keys
323 2013-11-06 01:20:53 <firepacket> i still have no idea what you mean
324 2013-11-06 01:20:56 <sipa> people do use it
325 2013-11-06 01:21:04 <c0rw1n> badly, it seems
326 2013-11-06 01:21:12 <Belxjander> sipa: I'm considering writing a Wallet Application with a background "BitCoinD" as a "FileSystem Handler"
327 2013-11-06 01:21:14 <c0rw1n> srsly, gwern is a smart guy
328 2013-11-06 01:21:16 <firepacket> when running bitcoind for a website, each user account on the site corresponds to an account in bitcoind
329 2013-11-06 01:21:23 <firepacket> its used to make bitcoind multiuser
330 2013-11-06 01:21:27 <sipa> firepacket: yup
331 2013-11-06 01:21:37 <firepacket> okay... so whats the problem?
332 2013-11-06 01:21:38 <sipa> it's a shared-user wallet
333 2013-11-06 01:21:55 <firepacket> it's confusing because they show up as labels?
334 2013-11-06 01:22:02 <sipa> it is comfusing, and it is impossible to backup
335 2013-11-06 01:22:11 <sipa> but it does work for that one purpose
336 2013-11-06 01:22:15 <firepacket> yeah but that's just because the wallet generation isnt deterministic
337 2013-11-06 01:22:31 <sipa> not sure how that is related at all
338 2013-11-06 01:22:37 <firepacket> the way the accounts work isn't related to that
339 2013-11-06 01:23:05 <sipa> ok
340 2013-11-06 01:23:22 <sipa> mixing accounts with label was a bad choice, yeah
341 2013-11-06 01:23:50 <sipa> afk
342 2013-11-06 01:24:22 owowo has quit (Quit: °!° ~~ S4n1tY 1S Fut1l3 ~~ °!°)
343 2013-11-06 01:25:08 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
344 2013-11-06 01:26:56 cap2002 has quit ()
345 2013-11-06 01:33:24 clr_ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
346 2013-11-06 01:36:01 soheil has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
347 2013-11-06 01:36:04 random_cat_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
348 2013-11-06 01:36:36 soheil has joined
349 2013-11-06 01:37:21 random_cat_ has joined
350 2013-11-06 01:38:42 qbasicer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
351 2013-11-06 01:41:03 soheil has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
352 2013-11-06 01:41:25 qbasicer has joined
353 2013-11-06 01:43:43 eden has joined
354 2013-11-06 01:44:07 eden is now known as Guest61725
355 2013-11-06 01:44:07 perdec has left ()
356 2013-11-06 01:44:19 Guest61725 has left ()
357 2013-11-06 01:45:36 rolme has joined
358 2013-11-06 01:47:00 xiangfu has joined
359 2013-11-06 01:49:34 AusBitBank has joined
360 2013-11-06 01:52:09 robocoin_ has joined
361 2013-11-06 01:52:15 qbasicer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
362 2013-11-06 01:52:28 patcon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
363 2013-11-06 01:52:43 jegz has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
364 2013-11-06 01:52:59 patcon has joined
365 2013-11-06 01:54:45 qbasicer has joined
366 2013-11-06 01:55:27 robocoin has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
367 2013-11-06 01:55:36 rolme has quit (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzzâ¦)
368 2013-11-06 01:55:57 <andytoshi> http://pastebin.com/AvHbfGAv
369 2013-11-06 01:56:03 <andytoshi> i have a assertation failure
370 2013-11-06 01:56:36 <gmaxwell> andytoshi: you are compiled against the bastardized openssl libraries in fedora.
371 2013-11-06 01:56:49 <gmaxwell> I guess we need to figure out a way to make it refuse to compile.
372 2013-11-06 01:56:55 <andytoshi> cool, i'll fix that then
373 2013-11-06 01:56:56 <andytoshi> thx
374 2013-11-06 01:57:09 <gmaxwell> andytoshi: warren has enbettered libraries.
375 2013-11-06 01:57:22 <andytoshi> ..you may want to just check for EC extensions somehow at runtime and refuse to start
376 2013-11-06 01:57:23 patcon has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
377 2013-11-06 01:57:29 <andytoshi> i have them
378 2013-11-06 01:57:34 <andytoshi> ./configure just did not notice them i think
379 2013-11-06 01:58:08 <andytoshi> because they are in /usr/local/ssl/, and the bastardized libraries are also somewhere
380 2013-11-06 01:58:22 soheil has joined
381 2013-11-06 02:00:30 nova90 has quit (Quit: nova90)
382 2013-11-06 02:01:18 <skinnkavaj> gmaxwell: what is your opinion about PhotoShares?
383 2013-11-06 02:01:27 <gmaxwell> skinnkavaj: never heard of it
384 2013-11-06 02:01:35 <skinnkavaj> gmaxwell: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=325261.0
385 2013-11-06 02:01:41 <skinnkavaj> its another proof of work
386 2013-11-06 02:02:17 <gmaxwell> oh it's _those people_
387 2013-11-06 02:02:18 <skinnkavaj> gmaxwell: only cpu mining, do you believe that?
388 2013-11-06 02:02:26 <gmaxwell> I will never again review their work, sorry.
389 2013-11-06 02:02:31 johnsoft has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
390 2013-11-06 02:02:36 <skinnkavaj> gmaxwell: come on
391 2013-11-06 02:02:42 <skinnkavaj> it was not posted by the same guy
392 2013-11-06 02:02:51 <skinnkavaj> i think he hired a guy to come up with photoshares
393 2013-11-06 02:02:54 <skinnkavaj> please review it
394 2013-11-06 02:03:22 patcon has joined
395 2013-11-06 02:03:29 johnsoft has joined
396 2013-11-06 02:03:39 Belxjander has quit (Read error: No route to host)
397 2013-11-06 02:03:50 <gmaxwell> I reviewed their prior "memory hard" proof of work, and I came up with an algebraic simplification that reduced its memory requirements from 128 mbytes to 8kbytes. I also came up with another attack that let you mine it memory free (though it was sometime incorrect but not enough to matter).
398 2013-11-06 02:04:18 <gwern> ouch. math is hard, let's go shopping...
399 2013-11-06 02:04:37 <gmaxwell> And then I explained this, including with code implementing the attacks. And then they clamed that the code was just a placeholder (nevermind that they'd written pages of text about how awesome their algorithim was, they'd asked for review, etc)
400 2013-11-06 02:05:25 moleccc has joined
401 2013-11-06 02:05:28 <gmaxwell> Now, I was a bit of a dick in my analysis, but the lesson I walked away from this was that reviewing their work is a waste of time because they won't catch the obvious message: Creating strong cryptographic functions is hard and shouldn't be done except as a very last resort.
402 2013-11-06 02:05:38 molecular has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
403 2013-11-06 02:06:01 <skinnkavaj> gmaxwell: you cannot assume they have not listened to you, don't be so arrogant
404 2013-11-06 02:06:14 <gmaxwell> (and probably shouldn't be done at all except by people with a strong grounding and experience analyzing and breaking other structures)
405 2013-11-06 02:06:38 <sipa> "Everyone is smart enough to come up with a mechanism they themselves can't break."
406 2013-11-06 02:06:39 <gwern> skinnkavaj: hm, sounds like a bet! you can bet gmaxwell say 10btc that if he thoroughly reviews their code and breaks their algorithm again, they will misbehave like before
407 2013-11-06 02:06:42 <gmaxwell> skinnkavaj: they didn't, they rushed out _another_ hastily designed homegrown thing which had little reason for existing.
408 2013-11-06 02:06:44 <andytoshi> skinnkavaj: if the moral is "don't make your own cryptographic functions", and they are now asking for a review of a cryptographic function they made..
409 2013-11-06 02:08:04 <gmaxwell> Yea, my argument wasn't that their function was bad (which it was)... it was they had no need to write their own and _shouldn't be_, because it's hard. I don't even believe I'd do better than them. (well okay, I'd probably do better than /them/ but it's something I avoid doing this).. but it's a message they wouldn't recieve and couldn't recieve because promoting their wizbang function is critical to how they market themselves as better than o
410 2013-11-06 02:08:26 <gmaxwell> (well shouldn't be because its hard and because there are already well known things which work okay)
411 2013-11-06 02:08:41 <sipa> gmaxwell: as better than o[...]
412 2013-11-06 02:08:50 <gmaxwell> as better
413 2013-11-06 02:08:50 <gmaxwell> than other things.
414 2013-11-06 02:08:52 <sipa> (hint: /script load splitlong.pl)
415 2013-11-06 02:09:02 * gwern endorses splitlong.pl as well
416 2013-11-06 02:09:10 <gmaxwell> sipa: thanks, I restarted irssi last night. :P
417 2013-11-06 02:09:24 <sipa> gmaxwell: ... why on earth would you do such a thing? :o
418 2013-11-06 02:09:40 copumpkin has joined
419 2013-11-06 02:09:42 <gmaxwell> because I had like 400 windows again.
420 2013-11-06 02:10:01 <sipa> haha
421 2013-11-06 02:10:03 <theorbtwo> /win close, up, enter...
422 2013-11-06 02:10:04 <sipa> i'm at 104
423 2013-11-06 02:10:20 <sipa> theorbtwo: /wc is shorter
424 2013-11-06 02:10:29 <gmaxwell> theorbtwo: quiting is faster once you have 400.
425 2013-11-06 02:10:31 Belxjander has joined
426 2013-11-06 02:10:57 <sipa> if only irssi would re-load history into a window if you rejoin/reopen a channel/pm
427 2013-11-06 02:11:20 <gmaxwell> yea, thats part of how I get so much.
428 2013-11-06 02:12:33 botorosa has joined
429 2013-11-06 02:13:08 c0rw1n has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
430 2013-11-06 02:16:03 groglogic has joined
431 2013-11-06 02:17:21 digitalmagus2 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
432 2013-11-06 02:26:09 alexwaters has joined
433 2013-11-06 02:26:50 soheil has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
434 2013-11-06 02:28:06 botorosa has quit (Read error: Connection timed out)
435 2013-11-06 02:28:21 Subo1977_ has joined
436 2013-11-06 02:29:37 CheckDavid has joined
437 2013-11-06 02:29:49 <MC1984_> why dont you just rip them again and claim your 500o dollar then
438 2013-11-06 02:29:52 <MC1984_> assuming theyd pay
439 2013-11-06 02:30:23 <MC1984_> As well as being an altcoin, ProtoShares is a way to own BitShares before they are launched.
440 2013-11-06 02:30:33 <gwern> MC1984_: yeah, I think that' the problem. if they've welshed before, one should only be willing to try if they find a trustworthy escrow/arbitrator...
441 2013-11-06 02:30:34 <MC1984_> yep my big red flag just went up
442 2013-11-06 02:30:52 <MC1984_> welshed?
443 2013-11-06 02:31:06 <B0g4r7> So help me understand this Selfish Mining paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.0243
444 2013-11-06 02:31:22 <B0g4r7> Why are they saying that 33% is enough to pwn the network?
445 2013-11-06 02:31:34 <Luke-Jr> because they're trolls
446 2013-11-06 02:31:45 <B0g4r7> Someone else help me understand plz.
447 2013-11-06 02:31:49 <Luke-Jr> go read the discussion we've already had
448 2013-11-06 02:32:04 Subo1977 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
449 2013-11-06 02:32:05 <B0g4r7> How far back?
450 2013-11-06 02:32:10 <Luke-Jr> the last 24 hours I think
451 2013-11-06 02:32:32 <B0g4r7> Bah, stupid short buffer.
452 2013-11-06 02:32:33 <gwern> MC1984_: welshed is an old ethnic slur I enjoy using because it doesn't strike most people as a slur. so much the same way as I like to use 'niggardly'
453 2013-11-06 02:32:47 <Luke-Jr> This channel is logged: http://bitcoinstats.com/ | There iâ¦
454 2013-11-06 02:32:49 <gwern> which looks like a slur but isn't one, and dares people to misundertand
455 2013-11-06 02:33:01 <MC1984_> im actually welsh
456 2013-11-06 02:33:09 <gwern> all the better!
457 2013-11-06 02:33:31 <MC1984_> i feel o-offended
458 2013-11-06 02:33:33 <MC1984_> i think
459 2013-11-06 02:33:36 * gwern also keeps a stock of anti-dutch slurs. 'dutch courage', 'dutch wife'...
460 2013-11-06 02:33:55 <B0g4r7> I only have 3 hours worth.
461 2013-11-06 02:33:57 reneg has quit (Quit: -a- Connection Timed Out)
462 2013-11-06 02:34:07 <B0g4r7> Maybe my work client has a longer buffer.
463 2013-11-06 02:34:08 <gwern> (and if you use the phrase 'finger in the dike' in spoken conversation, it sounds like you're homophobic!)
464 2013-11-06 02:34:17 <MC1984_> B0g4r7 tldr its a real issue but blown out of proportion
465 2013-11-06 02:34:48 <B0g4r7> hmm, 'k...
466 2013-11-06 02:34:57 agricocb has joined
467 2013-11-06 02:34:58 <B0g4r7> I guess I'll try and read their whole paper.
468 2013-11-06 02:35:52 reneg has joined
469 2013-11-06 02:36:15 rolme has joined
470 2013-11-06 02:40:15 alexwaters has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
471 2013-11-06 02:46:46 rolme has quit (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzzâ¦)
472 2013-11-06 02:46:47 agnostic98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
473 2013-11-06 02:47:08 gwillen has joined
474 2013-11-06 02:48:23 <gwillen> Hello bitcoin devs! I have a stuck TX. I used "getrawtransaction" + "sendrawtransaction" to ask -qt to rebroadcast, and it said {"code":-22,"message":"TX rejected"}. (The tx was originally sent from -qt in the GUI.) decoderawtransaction works fine. signrawtransaction with an empty privkey list says "complete:true". What might be occurring?
475 2013-11-06 02:50:10 Bkil has joined
476 2013-11-06 02:51:39 reneg has quit (Quit: -a- Connection Timed Out)
477 2013-11-06 02:52:57 Bkil has quit (Client Quit)
478 2013-11-06 02:53:46 reneg has joined
479 2013-11-06 02:56:03 <lianj> gwillen: prolly already in the memory pool
480 2013-11-06 02:56:26 XRayKat1 has joined
481 2013-11-06 02:56:41 <gwillen> lianj: It had better already be in the pool, since this is the same bitcoin-qt that generated the transaction :-)
482 2013-11-06 02:56:51 <gwillen> lianj: but I thought I could use sendrawtransaction to ask it to rebroadcast it?
483 2013-11-06 02:56:53 XRayKat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
484 2013-11-06 02:57:02 <gwillen> It's got an adequate fee but it's been stuck for hours.
485 2013-11-06 02:57:18 <lianj> nope rebroadcast wont work
486 2013-11-06 02:57:22 <gwillen> ..... neeeeeeevermind, forget I said anything.
487 2013-11-06 02:57:27 <gwillen> It just appeared in a block.
488 2013-11-06 02:57:32 <gwillen> Crisis averted. :-)
489 2013-11-06 02:58:05 <gwillen> lianj: Did it used to work? I found a wiki article claiming it would.
490 2013-11-06 02:58:11 <gwillen> (on bitcoin.it I think, I'd have to go check.)
491 2013-11-06 02:58:34 da2ce7 has quit (Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzzâ¦)
492 2013-11-06 02:58:42 <lianj> im not totally sure but recall its some kind of bug
493 2013-11-06 02:58:49 <lianj> could be wrong though
494 2013-11-06 03:01:20 xiangfu has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
495 2013-11-06 03:03:13 xiangfu has joined
496 2013-11-06 03:05:28 owowo has joined
497 2013-11-06 03:07:54 eoss has joined
498 2013-11-06 03:09:42 <gwillen> lianj: ok, thanks
499 2013-11-06 03:10:26 gwillen has left ()
500 2013-11-06 03:10:58 <andytoshi> is openssl statically or dynamically linked?
501 2013-11-06 03:11:22 banghouse has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
502 2013-11-06 03:12:08 <andytoshi> i am still getting this assertation failure even after setting the SSL paths correctly
503 2013-11-06 03:13:40 agnostic98 has joined
504 2013-11-06 03:14:01 rolme has joined
505 2013-11-06 03:14:17 <andytoshi> wait, i lied, i did not set the CRYPTO paths..
506 2013-11-06 03:14:31 xiangfu has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
507 2013-11-06 03:14:58 canoon has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
508 2013-11-06 03:16:25 xiangfu has joined
509 2013-11-06 03:18:01 canoon has joined
510 2013-11-06 03:18:14 <Luke-Jr> andytoshi: everything *should* be dynamic by default
511 2013-11-06 03:18:18 <Luke-Jr> static linking is just bad
512 2013-11-06 03:19:32 <andytoshi> agreed, but i think it is static nonetheless :P
513 2013-11-06 03:19:50 <EPiSKiNG-> anyone know why this hasn't confirmed yet?? https://blockchain.info/address/1HiuxtBsWPKaqkxJYysrNvuPDQmMnj1vFW
514 2013-11-06 03:20:01 <EPiSKiNG-> looks like several blocks have passed with room for it
515 2013-11-06 03:20:08 <andytoshi> i set CRYPTO_LIBS and CRYPTO_PTAH and SSL_LIBS and SSL_PATH, and it seems to be using the /usr/local/ssl paths now...
516 2013-11-06 03:20:13 saulimus has quit (Quit: saulimus)
517 2013-11-06 03:20:30 Bkil has joined
518 2013-11-06 03:20:31 <andytoshi> but it'll be another ten minutes before compilation is done so idk
519 2013-11-06 03:26:06 dparrish has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
520 2013-11-06 03:27:31 patcon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
521 2013-11-06 03:27:58 patcon has joined
522 2013-11-06 03:30:13 ekkis has joined
523 2013-11-06 03:30:38 Bkil has quit (Quit: Leaving)
524 2013-11-06 03:30:47 <ekkis> evening everyone? I'm looking for someone worth interviewing. any thoughts?
525 2013-11-06 03:31:15 CheckDavid has quit (Quit: Leaving)
526 2013-11-06 03:31:53 skinnkavaj has quit (Quit: - nbs-irc 2.39 - www.nbs-irc.net -)
527 2013-11-06 03:32:59 patcon has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
528 2013-11-06 03:33:22 <Luke-Jr> ekkis: about what?
529 2013-11-06 03:33:46 reneg has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
530 2013-11-06 03:34:59 reneg has joined
531 2013-11-06 03:40:01 Application has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
532 2013-11-06 03:40:10 da2ce7 has joined
533 2013-11-06 03:40:49 da2ce7 has quit (Client Quit)
534 2013-11-06 03:41:25 da2ce7 has joined
535 2013-11-06 03:41:41 <ekkis> Luke-Jr: I've been chatting with Scott Hanselman. he wants to interview someone in the bitcoin community. if you don't know him, he's an evangeliser for Microsoft and has a large audience. an interview with him is like having an audience with the pope
536 2013-11-06 03:42:05 <ekkis> he's asked me to introduce him to someone but I don't know anybody, so I thought I'd ask here
537 2013-11-06 03:43:08 <B0g4r7> Gavin seems like a natural choice, if he's available for such.
538 2013-11-06 03:44:15 <Luke-Jr> ekkis: would be fun to slip in a "people should stop using Microsoft products" :D
539 2013-11-06 03:48:50 CryptoBuck has joined
540 2013-11-06 03:50:36 <lianj> Luke-Jr: just "bitcoin-qt.exe is build on linux" :p
541 2013-11-06 03:51:04 <ekkis> heh? I don't think he'd really care
542 2013-11-06 03:51:15 <Luke-Jr> you just said he's an evangeliser for Microsoft
543 2013-11-06 03:51:23 <ekkis> but it would give bitcoin more visibility
544 2013-11-06 03:51:47 <ekkis> Scott is very active, lots of people watch his videos and subscribe to his tweets
545 2013-11-06 03:52:24 <ekkis> so if you guys know anyone who's core to the project or has been fundamental in some way, let me know
546 2013-11-06 03:52:39 macboz_ has joined
547 2013-11-06 03:52:41 <lianj> like Luke-Jr said, gavin
548 2013-11-06 03:52:51 <ekkis> who is gavin?
549 2013-11-06 03:53:10 rolme has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
550 2013-11-06 03:53:23 <Luke-Jr> ekkis: one of the two bitcoin developers on a salary to work on bitcoin full time
551 2013-11-06 03:53:33 roconnor has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
552 2013-11-06 03:53:42 Subo1977 has joined
553 2013-11-06 03:53:44 <ekkis> oh, this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Andresen
554 2013-11-06 03:53:45 Subo1977_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
555 2013-11-06 03:53:57 <ekkis> I see him logged in here?
556 2013-11-06 03:54:04 macboz has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
557 2013-11-06 03:54:18 <ekkis> yip. he certainly seems like _the_ person to talk to
558 2013-11-06 03:54:50 apurplehorse has joined
559 2013-11-06 03:55:18 <ekkis> is he reachable here?
560 2013-11-06 03:55:42 <Luke-Jr> probably soon
561 2013-11-06 03:55:50 <Luke-Jr> he usually gets up in an hour or two I think
562 2013-11-06 03:56:02 <lianj> maybe better write a formal email
563 2013-11-06 03:56:07 <ekkis> ah? he's GMT0?
564 2013-11-06 03:56:17 <Luke-Jr> no, Australia
565 2013-11-06 03:56:21 <ekkis> sure? do you have contact info for him?
566 2013-11-06 03:56:32 <Luke-Jr> it's not private info..
567 2013-11-06 03:56:40 <ekkis> ok
568 2013-11-06 03:56:49 <gwern> australia? perhaps gavin was the *real* DPR
569 2013-11-06 03:58:02 agricocb has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
570 2013-11-06 03:58:12 <BlueMatt> Luke-Jr: we have two paid devs?
571 2013-11-06 03:58:25 <BlueMatt> ekkis: check out the list at http://bitcoin.org/en/press
572 2013-11-06 03:58:40 <BlueMatt> ekkis: asking people on that list is always the best bet
573 2013-11-06 03:58:44 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: jgarzik
574 2013-11-06 03:58:52 patcon has joined
575 2013-11-06 03:59:05 <BlueMatt> Luke-Jr: I dont think bitpay pays him to work full-time on bitcoind, afaiu he works on bitpay codebase lots too
576 2013-11-06 03:59:08 <BlueMatt> but I may be wrong
577 2013-11-06 03:59:39 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: last I checked, he had near zero involvement in BitPay's normal operations
578 2013-11-06 04:00:36 <Luke-Jr> I get the impression he just works on whatever he wants Bitcoin-related, and is available to them if they have emergencies/questions/etc
579 2013-11-06 04:00:45 <melvster> ;;bids 266
580 2013-11-06 04:00:48 <gribble> There are currently 0 bitcoins demanded at or over 266.0 USD, worth 0.0 USD in total. | Data vintage: 0.0042 seconds
581 2013-11-06 04:00:57 <lianj> Luke-Jr: think so too
582 2013-11-06 04:01:11 agricocb has joined
583 2013-11-06 04:01:14 <melvster> ;;asks 266
584 2013-11-06 04:01:15 <gribble> There are currently 1445.6042 bitcoins offered at or under 266.0 USD, worth 382161.363132 USD in total. | Data vintage: 27.4152 seconds
585 2013-11-06 04:07:29 runeks has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
586 2013-11-06 04:07:42 da2ce7 has quit (Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzzâ¦)
587 2013-11-06 04:11:05 bitspill has joined
588 2013-11-06 04:13:46 runeks has joined
589 2013-11-06 04:16:19 elevatioN has joined
590 2013-11-06 04:16:57 XRayKat2 has joined
591 2013-11-06 04:16:58 winterblack has joined
592 2013-11-06 04:17:15 shaller007 has joined
593 2013-11-06 04:17:36 da2ce7 has joined
594 2013-11-06 04:17:43 MoALTz_ has joined
595 2013-11-06 04:18:22 paybitcoin1 has joined
596 2013-11-06 04:18:52 gribble has quit (Disconnected by services)
597 2013-11-06 04:19:02 reneg has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
598 2013-11-06 04:19:13 jordandotdev_ has joined
599 2013-11-06 04:19:34 McKay` has joined
600 2013-11-06 04:19:42 FlyingLeap_ has joined
601 2013-11-06 04:20:36 eoss has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
602 2013-11-06 04:21:02 reneg has joined
603 2013-11-06 04:21:04 EasyAt_ has joined
604 2013-11-06 04:21:15 djoot_ has joined
605 2013-11-06 04:21:24 DaQatz_ has joined
606 2013-11-06 04:22:00 xeroc_ has joined
607 2013-11-06 04:22:03 helo_ has joined
608 2013-11-06 04:22:07 marco has joined
609 2013-11-06 04:22:08 gjj_ has joined
610 2013-11-06 04:22:12 kanzure_ has joined
611 2013-11-06 04:22:31 marco is now known as Guest91244
612 2013-11-06 04:22:34 xnyhps_ has joined
613 2013-11-06 04:22:34 vrs_ has joined
614 2013-11-06 04:23:55 comboy has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
615 2013-11-06 04:24:47 torsthaldo has quit (Ping timeout: 259 seconds)
616 2013-11-06 04:25:02 joepie91_ has joined
617 2013-11-06 04:25:03 Eneerge_ has joined
618 2013-11-06 04:25:18 dustjn- has joined
619 2013-11-06 04:27:36 gribble has joined
620 2013-11-06 04:27:48 agnostic98 has joined
621 2013-11-06 04:28:39 canoon has quit (Quit: Leaving)
622 2013-11-06 04:30:25 johnsoft has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
623 2013-11-06 04:30:56 Applicat_ has joined
624 2013-11-06 04:31:04 johnsoft has joined
625 2013-11-06 04:32:15 macboz_ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
626 2013-11-06 04:32:27 comboy has joined
627 2013-11-06 04:34:14 <ekkis> Luke-Jr: ok. I wrote Gavin and mentioned you suggested him as an ideal candidate. we'll see if he replies...
628 2013-11-06 04:34:21 Application has joined
629 2013-11-06 04:34:40 <gavinandresen> he never replies to ANYTHING....
630 2013-11-06 04:34:54 aceat64 has joined
631 2013-11-06 04:34:54 B0g4r7_ has joined
632 2013-11-06 04:34:54 pooler has joined
633 2013-11-06 04:35:54 <ekkis> gavinandresen: haha? you're awake. did you see my mail?
634 2013-11-06 04:35:59 Applicat_ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
635 2013-11-06 04:36:24 <gavinandresen> just got back from lunch, haven't read email yet...
636 2013-11-06 04:36:36 macboz has joined
637 2013-11-06 04:36:48 <Luke-Jr> ekkis: that was actually B0g4r7 I think, but Gavin's a good candidate ;)
638 2013-11-06 04:37:25 melvster has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
639 2013-11-06 04:37:46 <ekkis> oh, it's the middle of your day. I've been talking with Scott Hanselman who'd like to interview someone on the subject of bitcoin. In case you don't know the name, he's a big evangelist for Microsoft and has a quite large following. you'd be an ideal candidate and I wondered if you'd be up for it
640 2013-11-06 04:37:52 mE\Ta has joined
641 2013-11-06 04:38:22 <gavinandresen> ekkis: sure, have him email me: gavin@bitcoinfoundation.org
642 2013-11-06 04:38:41 <ekkis> awesome. here's a bit of info on scott: http://www.hanselman.com, if you care
643 2013-11-06 04:38:59 <ekkis> thanks!! and take care for now
644 2013-11-06 04:39:02 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
645 2013-11-06 04:39:15 [7] has joined
646 2013-11-06 04:39:47 <andytoshi> ;;bc,blocks
647 2013-11-06 04:39:48 <gribble> 268183
648 2013-11-06 04:40:26 * ekkis has a pretty good notion that an interview with gavinandresen is not insubstantially less difficult than an audience with the pope
649 2013-11-06 04:41:06 <gavinandresen> I'm much easier to talk with than the pope. I don't even make you kiss my ring.
650 2013-11-06 04:41:19 <ekkis> haha
651 2013-11-06 04:41:39 macboz has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
652 2013-11-06 04:41:44 <gwern> perhaps off topic, but I just learned my credit union has been charging me $1.5 when I look up my balance at an atm. I hope bitcoin puts all the banks out of business
653 2013-11-06 04:42:11 Raziel has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
654 2013-11-06 04:42:42 <ekkis> gwern: it will. I have little doubt of it
655 2013-11-06 04:43:07 <cazalla> gwern: that's common practice
656 2013-11-06 04:43:24 <gwern> cazalla: yes. that's why I said 'all', not 'my'
657 2013-11-06 04:44:01 <cazalla> l2onlinebanking
658 2013-11-06 04:44:45 <gwern> (got locked out years ago by anti-hacking measures and no longer live in the state so I can physically visit a branch and reset my account)
659 2013-11-06 04:45:08 <cazalla> l2bitcoin then :P
660 2013-11-06 04:45:16 <ekkis> this technology is going to change everything. it's the beginning of the end. it will defund governments and displace the ruling elite, giving the power to the common man. it means the end of currency devaluation and the sacking of the wealth of nations by the few. it means the end of war
661 2013-11-06 04:45:31 Blackreign has joined
662 2013-11-06 04:45:40 <gwern> cazalla: oh, I do. but I still have to pay rent and buy groceries in dollars
663 2013-11-06 04:45:47 <Belxjander> gwern: I have to visit my bank back in NZ to sort out the new chipped card they sent me and set the pin number on it (currently its entirely useless as a card as I can not set a pin without a physical visit)
664 2013-11-06 04:46:25 <Belxjander> gwern: so I can understand how annoying a lack of access to your own accounts can be
665 2013-11-06 04:46:59 <gwern> yeah. I'm thinking of opening an account at a local credit union. this nickel-and-diming drives me nuts
666 2013-11-06 04:47:59 <Belxjander> gwern: I have 3 Bank accts back in NZ and 2 bank accts here in Japan...
667 2013-11-06 04:50:15 molecular has joined
668 2013-11-06 04:51:53 da2ce7 has quit (Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzzâ¦)
669 2013-11-06 04:52:51 reneg has quit (Quit: -a- Connection Timed Out)
670 2013-11-06 04:53:07 reneg has joined
671 2013-11-06 04:53:14 molec has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
672 2013-11-06 04:53:24 porquilho has joined
673 2013-11-06 04:56:14 Blackreign has left ()
674 2013-11-06 04:57:31 Mike_B has joined
675 2013-11-06 04:58:16 Thepok has joined
676 2013-11-06 04:59:13 apurplehorse has quit ()
677 2013-11-06 04:59:38 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
678 2013-11-06 05:04:11 patcon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
679 2013-11-06 05:04:42 patcon has joined
680 2013-11-06 05:07:06 <mrkent> Anyone going to the december vegas conference?
681 2013-11-06 05:07:52 <ekkis> I really should
682 2013-11-06 05:07:56 DaQatz_ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
683 2013-11-06 05:08:50 patcon has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
684 2013-11-06 05:09:24 <Luke-Jr> I think I'm all conferenced out
685 2013-11-06 05:10:30 <ekkis> yeah. I know the feeling. I've been lying low, focusing on code instead
686 2013-11-06 05:13:03 <Luke-Jr> what coding do you do?
687 2013-11-06 05:13:08 patcon has joined
688 2013-11-06 05:13:09 gwern has left ()
689 2013-11-06 05:13:30 <groglogic> any interest in seeing a kind of beefy "white hat" attack sandbox/service for Bitcoin? for regressions but also for testing attack theories that invevitably come up. test >> code >> theory. probably building on 'testnet', but with lots more stuff. i can write up a detailed proposal for dev feedback. maybe pitch to BF for funding... reactions? if this exists already too, let me know
690 2013-11-06 05:14:03 <Luke-Jr> groglogic: how is it any different from testnet? :p
691 2013-11-06 05:15:22 <groglogic> Luke-Jr: good question. but from my early impressions of it, it would be a superset of what it provides/enables. from everything i've read/seen about testnet, it's not doing what I'm envisioning
692 2013-11-06 05:16:13 EasyAt_ has left ()
693 2013-11-06 05:17:15 EasyAt has joined
694 2013-11-06 05:17:33 Guest81790 has left ()
695 2013-11-06 05:19:24 EasyAt has joined
696 2013-11-06 05:19:55 soixante has joined
697 2013-11-06 05:20:28 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
698 2013-11-06 05:20:30 <soixante> hi ⦠what is doing to solution BTC selfish miner ?
699 2013-11-06 05:20:34 macboz has joined
700 2013-11-06 05:20:57 <justusranvier> Anyone want to speak in Austin next March 6th, the Thursday before SXSW?
701 2013-11-06 05:21:07 shesek has joined
702 2013-11-06 05:21:30 <groglogic> ekkis: i like your opimism/vision there, but never underestimate a nation state with a large powerful military, ruled by lawyers ;-)
703 2013-11-06 05:21:54 <groglogic> ekkis: and arguably bankers, etc.
704 2013-11-06 05:23:03 <groglogic> soixante: people are analyzing it and there are more detailed discussions on bitcointalk and the mailing list
705 2013-11-06 05:23:19 abadr has joined
706 2013-11-06 05:23:47 <ekkis> groglogic: militaries are powerless in cyberspace
707 2013-11-06 05:24:12 ThomasV has joined
708 2013-11-06 05:24:13 <ekkis> soixante: it's not a real threat
709 2013-11-06 05:24:49 <ekkis> groglogic: yes, nations would seek to destroy the system but even in that, they're divided. China for example, has all but endorsed it by now
710 2013-11-06 05:24:53 reneg has quit (Quit: -a- Connection Timed Out)
711 2013-11-06 05:25:08 reneg has joined
712 2013-11-06 05:26:30 <groglogic> ekkis: all this cyberspace runs on hardware in meatspace, where people with guns can come and f*ck shit up, at will
713 2013-11-06 05:28:58 <groglogic> I personally think that as long as at least 1 modern high-tech nation with a big military backs or allows Bitcoin, it will survive. that may be the US gov, that may be China, who knows. as with the "incentive" architecture of Bitcoin itself, I think as long as something makes it in a nation's leadership best interests to allow (or at least not fuck with) Bitcoin, it will survive. turn any serious potential enemies in
714 2013-11-06 05:28:58 <groglogic> to allies, in other words
715 2013-11-06 05:30:12 nvk has joined
716 2013-11-06 05:31:03 <owowo> To the moon!!! â(°0°)â
717 2013-11-06 05:31:06 <owowo> :P
718 2013-11-06 05:31:59 <groglogic> taxation is one big potential threat/opportunity (ala the ancient Chinese: crisis = opportunity). starving governments of taxation revenue is a threat to them. however if you flip that on its head and devise a way to build-in automatic taxation, you could not only mitigate that threat, you also have the upside of, say, automating taxes (hear "tax" think "fee"; same math-wise, just questino of where it pays out to)
719 2013-11-06 05:32:24 <ekkis> groglogic: yes but to destroy bitcoin they'd need to destroy the internet and remember that DARPA designed it primarily with the notion that the system should widthstand substantial damage. it's resilient. aside from that, destroying the net would mean destroying so much more than bitcoin
720 2013-11-06 05:32:32 shesek has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
721 2013-11-06 05:32:54 <Luke-Jr> ekkis: it would be trivial for most governments to destroy Bitcoin right now
722 2013-11-06 05:33:11 shesek has joined
723 2013-11-06 05:33:34 <groglogic> Luke-Jr: I think it would be hard for Lichteinstein to do. impossible for the Vatican
724 2013-11-06 05:34:02 <owowo> dude, do not underestimate old men loving young ones!
725 2013-11-06 05:34:19 <ekkis> groglogic: aside from that, a contingency of small nations, each of whose governments are sufficiently powerless to interfere with it is giving rise to a user base. look at India, the Argentine, a lot of the Africas, where currencies are for shite and BTC provides a great alternative
726 2013-11-06 05:34:26 <Luke-Jr> groglogic: I said most, not all.
727 2013-11-06 05:34:31 <groglogic> i never underestimate the power of old gay men wearing bright red cloaks
728 2013-11-06 05:35:02 <groglogic> Luke-Jr: I know. was having fun
729 2013-11-06 05:35:27 <ekkis> groglogic: automating taxes. there's a thought
730 2013-11-06 05:36:04 <ekkis> Luke-Jr: so long as there's at least one copy of the blockchain somewhere in the world and of the source code, the whole thing can spring right back up after a major assault
731 2013-11-06 05:36:22 <ekkis> so I'm not convinced that the system is that vulnerable
732 2013-11-06 05:36:30 <gmaxwell> This is offtopic for #bitcoin-dev.
733 2013-11-06 05:37:13 <ekkis> yes, you're right. sorry about that
734 2013-11-06 05:37:17 <groglogic> ekkis: totally. i've got an incomplete sketch of what such a system would look like. challenging parts are things like taxing real property, and taxing the exchange of real property, or deeds/instruments. not impossible, just harder. pretty easy to build-in automatic tax extraction of money-only exchanges
735 2013-11-06 05:37:52 <gmaxwell> I suggest moving the conversation to #bitcoin
736 2013-11-06 05:38:06 <groglogic> gmaxwell: sorry. you're right. myself i thought i was in #bitcoin. :-(
737 2013-11-06 05:39:07 <gmaxwell> Happens to me all the time.
738 2013-11-06 05:39:27 <ekkis> the "contract" support in the protocol is very interesting. I haven't spent much time with scripting yet but the project I'm working on will benefit from that? in fact I have a killer app for those scripting facilities
739 2013-11-06 05:40:15 <groglogic> gmaxwell: i once got #kitties mixed up with #quantum-mechanics ... but nobody could tell the diff
740 2013-11-06 05:40:41 <Luke-Jr> â¦
741 2013-11-06 05:40:51 <gmaxwell> Your jokes were simultaneously alive and dead?
742 2013-11-06 05:41:06 <ekkis> I'm not ready yet but at some point I'll come back for guidance. I did work in Forth a long time ago
743 2013-11-06 05:41:13 <groglogic> simultaneously both funny and not. </off-topic-further>
744 2013-11-06 05:41:34 <ekkis> all right. good night everyone. back to code
745 2013-11-06 05:41:55 reneg has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
746 2013-11-06 05:42:01 reneg_ has joined
747 2013-11-06 05:43:39 ekkis has left ("Leaving")
748 2013-11-06 05:44:40 Thepok has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
749 2013-11-06 05:48:42 execut3 has joined
750 2013-11-06 05:52:09 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
751 2013-11-06 05:53:50 abadr has quit (Quit: abadr)
752 2013-11-06 05:57:01 porquilho has quit ()
753 2013-11-06 05:59:05 Guest11508 has left ()
754 2013-11-06 05:59:11 qwertyoruiop has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
755 2013-11-06 06:01:56 qwertyoruiop has joined
756 2013-11-06 06:02:35 <toffoo> days like this make me want to kiss gavinandresen's ring
757 2013-11-06 06:06:15 patcon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
758 2013-11-06 06:06:46 patcon has joined
759 2013-11-06 06:07:52 execut3 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
760 2013-11-06 06:09:50 <owowo> ya, days like when you order a triple grande cappucino at starbucks and you pay 55! cent more then the week before, inflation. Would not have happened if they would take Bitcoin.
761 2013-11-06 06:10:47 <owowo> but hey, govt. says: "There is no inflation."
762 2013-11-06 06:11:22 <owowo> I must be imagining things again.
763 2013-11-06 06:11:28 patcon has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
764 2013-11-06 06:11:47 AusBitBank has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
765 2013-11-06 06:13:37 qwertyoruiop has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
766 2013-11-06 06:14:53 patcon has joined
767 2013-11-06 06:17:27 qwertyoruiop has joined
768 2013-11-06 06:18:15 DaQatz has joined
769 2013-11-06 06:19:36 groglogic has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
770 2013-11-06 06:20:25 Subo1977 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
771 2013-11-06 06:21:38 Luke-Jr has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
772 2013-11-06 06:21:59 Subo1977 has joined
773 2013-11-06 06:22:16 patcon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
774 2013-11-06 06:22:18 Luke-Jr has joined
775 2013-11-06 06:22:42 patcon has joined
776 2013-11-06 06:23:41 <BlueMatt> can someone addnode public.us-east.relay.mattcorallo.com:8334 or public.eu.relay.mattcorallo.com:8334 (mainnet, despite what the port indicates) so I can make sure its all working?
777 2013-11-06 06:25:11 bitspill has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
778 2013-11-06 06:25:12 <BlueMatt> or port 8335
779 2013-11-06 06:26:11 nvk has quit (Quit: Leaving... Sign up for Coinkite https://coinkite.com/promo/btcirc)
780 2013-11-06 06:27:31 eristisk has joined
781 2013-11-06 06:27:40 patcon has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
782 2013-11-06 06:27:42 eristisk has quit (Client Quit)
783 2013-11-06 06:28:31 eristisk has joined
784 2013-11-06 06:29:35 <Tril> bluematt trying.
785 2013-11-06 06:31:02 jrmithdobbs has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
786 2013-11-06 06:32:46 <Tril> BlueMatt I'm connected to both and not receiving any blocks it appears
787 2013-11-06 06:33:15 <BlueMatt> Tril: yes, they do not forward blocks normally, they will only forward new blocks/txn
788 2013-11-06 06:33:24 <BlueMatt> and no txn on port 8334, only txn on 8335
789 2013-11-06 06:33:29 <BlueMatt> (see ml post for details)
790 2013-11-06 06:35:34 <Tril> so they will send me new blocks?
791 2013-11-06 06:35:47 someguy has joined
792 2013-11-06 06:35:51 <BlueMatt> if they're working right, yes
793 2013-11-06 06:36:41 jrmithdobbs has joined
794 2013-11-06 06:41:33 damethos has joined
795 2013-11-06 06:41:44 reizuki__ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
796 2013-11-06 06:42:27 someguy has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
797 2013-11-06 06:43:09 Polyatomic has joined
798 2013-11-06 06:43:09 <Tril> BlueMatt: yeah, I just got that block sent from both
799 2013-11-06 06:43:19 <BlueMatt> nice, thanks for testing
800 2013-11-06 06:43:31 * BlueMatt -> bed
801 2013-11-06 06:43:31 <Tril> 2nd one got marked as misbehaving since I had the block.
802 2013-11-06 06:43:35 <Tril> yw
803 2013-11-06 06:43:39 <BlueMatt> did it get a dos score?
804 2013-11-06 06:43:45 <Tril> 0 -> 0
805 2013-11-06 06:43:49 <BlueMatt> ok, yea, makes sense
806 2013-11-06 06:43:56 <BlueMatt> as long as it doesnt get a dos score thats fine
807 2013-11-06 06:47:47 enquirer has joined
808 2013-11-06 06:49:42 enquirer2 has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
809 2013-11-06 06:53:27 berndj has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
810 2013-11-06 06:53:58 charlie2 has joined
811 2013-11-06 06:54:22 enquirer2 has joined
812 2013-11-06 06:55:49 enquirer3 has joined
813 2013-11-06 06:56:10 jouke_ has joined
814 2013-11-06 06:56:20 LordOfTime has joined
815 2013-11-06 06:56:21 enquirer has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
816 2013-11-06 06:56:40 wereHams1er has joined
817 2013-11-06 06:56:46 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
818 2013-11-06 06:57:04 AusBitBank has joined
819 2013-11-06 06:57:12 sturles_ has joined
820 2013-11-06 06:57:36 avarab has joined
821 2013-11-06 06:57:48 TheLordOfTime has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
822 2013-11-06 06:57:48 owowo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
823 2013-11-06 06:57:48 justusranvier has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
824 2013-11-06 06:57:48 kill\switch has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
825 2013-11-06 06:57:48 cypher has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
826 2013-11-06 06:57:48 handle has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
827 2013-11-06 06:57:48 darkee has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
828 2013-11-06 06:57:48 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
829 2013-11-06 06:57:48 firedrops has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
830 2013-11-06 06:57:48 aupiff has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
831 2013-11-06 06:57:49 swulf-- has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
832 2013-11-06 06:57:49 jouke has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
833 2013-11-06 06:57:49 sturles has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
834 2013-11-06 06:57:49 avar has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
835 2013-11-06 06:57:49 wereHamster has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
836 2013-11-06 06:58:23 LordOfTime has quit (Changing host)
837 2013-11-06 06:58:23 LordOfTime has joined
838 2013-11-06 06:58:23 LordOfTime has quit (Changing host)
839 2013-11-06 06:58:23 LordOfTime has joined
840 2013-11-06 06:58:51 enquirer2 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
841 2013-11-06 06:59:21 Luke-Jr has quit (Excess Flood)
842 2013-11-06 06:59:45 Luke-Jr has joined
843 2013-11-06 07:00:44 <Tril> BlueMatt: while syncing blockchain it sends a copy to your relay node
844 2013-11-06 07:00:47 <Tril> slowing the sync down
845 2013-11-06 07:01:10 aupiff has joined
846 2013-11-06 07:02:05 wiretapped has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
847 2013-11-06 07:02:40 berndj has joined
848 2013-11-06 07:03:25 sensorii has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
849 2013-11-06 07:04:54 owowo has joined
850 2013-11-06 07:05:28 owowo has left ()
851 2013-11-06 07:06:28 sturles_ has quit (Changing host)
852 2013-11-06 07:06:28 sturles_ has joined
853 2013-11-06 07:06:43 enquirer3 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
854 2013-11-06 07:07:01 sturles_ is now known as sturles
855 2013-11-06 07:09:19 justusranvier has joined
856 2013-11-06 07:09:40 rdponticelli has joined
857 2013-11-06 07:10:26 enquirer4 has joined
858 2013-11-06 07:11:10 firedrops has joined
859 2013-11-06 07:12:18 abadr has joined
860 2013-11-06 07:13:45 kill\switch has joined
861 2013-11-06 07:15:54 abadr has quit (Client Quit)
862 2013-11-06 07:16:16 elevatioN has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
863 2013-11-06 07:18:53 jeewee has joined
864 2013-11-06 07:21:21 CryptoBuck has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
865 2013-11-06 07:22:00 CryptoBuck has joined
866 2013-11-06 07:22:20 da2ce7 has joined
867 2013-11-06 07:24:01 enquirer4 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
868 2013-11-06 07:24:07 enquirer5 has joined
869 2013-11-06 07:25:27 mintmoneyman has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
870 2013-11-06 07:26:31 <Tril> I suspect this means every peer will send you every new block, too, I think you're dossing yourself by announcing you have 0 blocks
871 2013-11-06 07:27:04 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
872 2013-11-06 07:27:57 RoboTeddy has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
873 2013-11-06 07:29:05 enquirer6 has joined
874 2013-11-06 07:29:17 AtashiCon has quit (Quit: AtashiCon)
875 2013-11-06 07:29:33 <gmaxwell> Tril: announcing you have zero blocks does nothing.
876 2013-11-06 07:29:46 <gmaxwell> Tril: why do you believe that you're sending blocks to him?
877 2013-11-06 07:30:42 <Tril> tcpdump.
878 2013-11-06 07:31:35 enquirer7 has joined
879 2013-11-06 07:32:12 <gmaxwell> Tril: what are you actually seeing in tcpdump?
880 2013-11-06 07:32:36 enquirer5 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
881 2013-11-06 07:33:18 enquirer6 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
882 2013-11-06 07:33:23 <Tril> I had client behind a few days and peered only to Matt, it received new blocks, then I added a peer with actual blocks and it started sending a lot of packets to Matt. I didn't verify the actual block was being sent but it was definitely wasting my bandwidth so I shut off the peer
883 2013-11-06 07:33:40 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
884 2013-11-06 07:34:03 cyphase has quit (Quit: cyphase.com)
885 2013-11-06 07:34:45 enquirer8 has joined
886 2013-11-06 07:34:47 <gmaxwell> Tril: it should have been sending INVs to matt and thats it.
887 2013-11-06 07:34:59 <gmaxwell> (for each of the new blocks as it accepted them)
888 2013-11-06 07:35:09 da2ce7 has joined
889 2013-11-06 07:35:29 cyphase has joined
890 2013-11-06 07:35:56 enquirer7 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
891 2013-11-06 07:37:37 mintmoney has joined
892 2013-11-06 07:42:14 Namworld has quit ()
893 2013-11-06 07:43:30 <Tril> maybe. is there a wireshark module or something I can monitor that? I forgot the protocol is binary
894 2013-11-06 07:43:35 winterblack has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
895 2013-11-06 07:43:38 Ashaman_ has quit (Ping timeout: 261 seconds)
896 2013-11-06 07:43:49 nethershaw has joined
897 2013-11-06 07:47:29 ThomasV has joined
898 2013-11-06 07:48:00 MarkProffitt has joined
899 2013-11-06 07:49:46 <Luke-Jr> Tril: yes.
900 2013-11-06 07:50:24 enquirer9 has joined
901 2013-11-06 07:53:49 enquirer8 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
902 2013-11-06 07:56:12 qwertyoruiop has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
903 2013-11-06 07:57:08 patcon has joined
904 2013-11-06 07:57:31 enquirer10 has joined
905 2013-11-06 07:59:03 Ashaman has joined
906 2013-11-06 07:59:31 enquirer9 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
907 2013-11-06 08:00:08 qwertyoruiop has joined
908 2013-11-06 08:02:05 ovidiusoft has joined
909 2013-11-06 08:02:45 Ashaman_ has joined
910 2013-11-06 08:03:26 Ashaman has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
911 2013-11-06 08:06:04 <MarkProffitt> Can someoen answer som questions about this Greedy Miner issue? I'm particularly interested in the risk of double spending rather than people getting more coins.
912 2013-11-06 08:06:14 djcoin_ has joined
913 2013-11-06 08:06:22 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
914 2013-11-06 08:06:40 trcjr has joined
915 2013-11-06 08:06:57 <gmaxwell> MarkProffitt: I answered your question some time ago in #bitcoin.
916 2013-11-06 08:07:17 djcoin_ has left ()
917 2013-11-06 08:07:31 <MarkProffitt> I didn't see any answer
918 2013-11-06 08:07:46 <MarkProffitt> I saw some insults and orders to leave
919 2013-11-06 08:08:23 <gmaxwell> 23:47 <@gmaxwell> MarkProffitt: thats not really the kind of issue they're claiming. It's basically an argument that the incentives encourage the mining to be eventually controlled by one party... which would break our decenteralization assumptions.
920 2013-11-06 08:08:27 <gmaxwell> 23:48 <@gmaxwell> MarkProffitt: but they appear to have significantly overhyped the concern, even within that narrow demain, and technical verdicts are mixed if there is even an issue at all. The underlying thing they're wiring about has been known since 2010.
921 2013-11-06 08:09:01 <MarkProffitt> My question IS
922 2013-11-06 08:09:02 <MarkProffitt> aoeu: this is off the original topic a bit but if a group can gain control, I see a potential for a government to do that not to get value of the coins but to ruin the value. Since they have unlimited (stolen) resources they have a very good incentive.
923 2013-11-06 08:09:43 <MarkProffitt> Is there a way to detect that? If so, is there a defense?
924 2013-11-06 08:10:30 <gmaxwell> Detect _what_?
925 2013-11-06 08:12:00 <gmaxwell> MarkProffitt: The subject of the paper you're asking about is that the authors argume that if a cartel of miners performs a certian attack it is more profitable for miners to join the cartel to mine alone, and eventually there would only be the cartel. This isn't just "foo gains control".
926 2013-11-06 08:12:13 <gmaxwell> And, if it's possible, it's highly highly detectable.
927 2013-11-06 08:21:10 vrs_ has left ()
928 2013-11-06 08:21:24 vrs has joined
929 2013-11-06 08:24:38 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, ah, nice, that's exactly what I suggested to conman yesterday ;)
930 2013-11-06 08:25:13 <UukGoblin> well, I suggested to have cgminer do this
931 2013-11-06 08:25:25 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: yea, luke implemented that eons ago.
932 2013-11-06 08:25:27 <UukGoblin> i.e. submit blocks straight to bitcoind
933 2013-11-06 08:25:28 <Belxjander> Hello UukGoblin
934 2013-11-06 08:25:29 _ingsoc has joined
935 2013-11-06 08:25:57 <UukGoblin> cool
936 2013-11-06 08:26:00 <UukGoblin> hi :)
937 2013-11-06 08:29:10 <MarkProffitt> gmaxwell, before I ask anymore questions, is English your first language?
938 2013-11-06 08:29:42 <gmaxwell> MarkProffitt: Do many non-native speakers use repeated-word emphasis?
939 2013-11-06 08:32:25 <MarkProffitt> I have read in multiple places that the BitCoin protocol can be disrupted in some way if a large number of users collude. One amount suggested that it would require 51% to cause the problem.
940 2013-11-06 08:32:59 <MarkProffitt> If that occurs, what does it allow? How could it be detected? Is there a defense?
941 2013-11-06 08:33:20 Belxjander has quit (Quit: Sayonara)
942 2013-11-06 08:33:40 xiangfu has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
943 2013-11-06 08:34:19 RoboTeddy has joined
944 2013-11-06 08:34:50 <gmaxwell> MarkProffitt: Bitcoin is a system which is broadly autonomous zero-trust: Each system independently validates the rules; But the ordering of transactions cannot be decided autonomously for fundamental reasons, and so it uses a consensus process to decide the transaction ordering.
945 2013-11-06 08:35:37 <gmaxwell> MarkProffitt: Of course, any consensus process which didn't have the consensus controlled by a majority would just beâ by definitionâ subject to control by a minority... which is hardly better.
946 2013-11-06 08:36:24 <gmaxwell> MarkProffitt: in bitcoin the "majority" is one over computing powere being applied to authenticate the historyâ though computing power is a bit fuzzy, its more accurate to think of it as consensus of the majority of energy spent authenticating the history.
947 2013-11-06 08:37:28 <gmaxwell> If someone spends more energy (in the forum of computational solutions) on an alternative history, sum total, than the existing oneâ then they can replace the existing one. The replacement, of course, must conform to all the rules, but it may play out transactions in a different order and thus change who gets paid.
948 2013-11-06 08:38:52 agath has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
949 2013-11-06 08:39:07 mintmoney has quit (Quit: Leaving)
950 2013-11-06 08:39:14 <gmaxwell> As you might be sensing from my comment above about consensus and majority and minorities, there isn't really much that can directly be done about that. All security systems have assumptions, Bitcoin's assumptions include that no coalition of dishonest parties controls the majority of computing power being applied to it, nor can the honest pariticipants be substantially prevented from commuincating.
951 2013-11-06 08:39:15 RoboTeddy has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
952 2013-11-06 08:39:18 Belxjander has joined
953 2013-11-06 08:39:18 agath has joined
954 2013-11-06 08:40:09 <gmaxwell> How altruistic vs self-interested the "honest" parties are required to be for the systme to be long term stable is something of an open question.
955 2013-11-06 08:40:24 <MarkProffitt> " Bitcoin's assumptions include that no coalition of dishonest parties controls the majority of computing power" <-- What happens if that assumption is flase?
956 2013-11-06 08:41:17 <MarkProffitt> If I understand correctly there two different scenarior: 1) before all coins are mined; 2) after all the coins have been mined
957 2013-11-06 08:41:31 <gmaxwell> MarkProffitt: the dishonest group can rearrage transactions after users though they were settled, redirecting funds. They can also block transactions. Depending on how much of a majority they have and can keep it, they can replace transactions back in time, though it takes more and more work to go futher back.
958 2013-11-06 08:42:10 <gmaxwell> MarkProffitt: the rate subsidy (newly created coins) falls off geometrically over timeâ halving every 4 years, so there aren't just two states.
959 2013-11-06 08:42:25 toffoo has quit ()
960 2013-11-06 08:42:27 <MarkProffitt> Does that mean they are effectively taking coins away from people?
961 2013-11-06 08:43:19 <MarkProffitt> "voiding checks" ?
962 2013-11-06 08:43:22 <gmaxwell> MarkProffitt: Say they pay you, then they replace history where they first paid those same coins to me. The system's rules doesn't allow the same coin to be spent twice, so in the new history the payment to you is prevented. You would see the coins go away.
963 2013-11-06 08:44:04 <gmaxwell> It would have to be their own coins, or coins of someone who was cooperating with them... they can't freely write history: it must agree with the rules since every node imposes all the rules for themselves.
964 2013-11-06 08:44:20 <MarkProffitt> So it is counterfiting, but the technicalities cause it to happen in revierse
965 2013-11-06 08:44:42 <gmaxwell> MarkProffitt: well, it's not counterfiting in that the total number of coins is not increased.
966 2013-11-06 08:44:54 <MarkProffitt> Yes, I was making an analogy
967 2013-11-06 08:45:02 <gmaxwell> It's like writing a check with invisible ink where the payee changes later. :)
968 2013-11-06 08:45:20 <MarkProffitt> OK, yes, that is my understanding
969 2013-11-06 08:45:42 <MarkProffitt> What would indicate that was happening?
970 2013-11-06 08:45:51 <phantomcircuit> MarkProffitt, it's the equivalent of a chargeback
971 2013-11-06 08:46:02 <phantomcircuit> except it would be exceptionally difficult to do
972 2013-11-06 08:46:10 <gmaxwell> in any case, it all follows naturallyâ physics prevents a globally consistent autonoymous view of ordering, so they "vote" on the order... and if you're the majority in a vote... well, there you go.
973 2013-11-06 08:46:13 <phantomcircuit> more so than reversing an international wire transfer
974 2013-11-06 08:46:32 <gmaxwell> MarkProffitt: people would observe large reorginizations of the chain... one history being replaced with another.
975 2013-11-06 08:46:56 <gmaxwell> Plus the people who got ripped off would presumably notice. :) (the software keeps track of the revoked payment, showing it as 0-confirms forever after)
976 2013-11-06 08:47:05 <MarkProffitt> So one way to watch for that is to keep arichived copies of the chain for comparisons?
977 2013-11-06 08:47:06 _ingsoc has quit (Quit: leaving)
978 2013-11-06 08:47:30 <gmaxwell> all nodes save all blocks they see, they never delete any of them even if they're abandoned.
979 2013-11-06 08:47:34 <gmaxwell> so they're already doing this.
980 2013-11-06 08:47:46 <gmaxwell> There are some webpages that visualize chain reorgs, e.g. http://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks
981 2013-11-06 08:48:26 <gmaxwell> (because the speed of light / communications is finite there is normally a small amount of reorginization, this is why its recommended that transactions not be considered fully settled with an untrusted counterparty until after several confirmations)
982 2013-11-06 08:48:26 <MarkProffitt> So "re-writes" are already detected
983 2013-11-06 08:48:41 ericmuyser has joined
984 2013-11-06 08:48:50 <gmaxwell> MarkProffitt: yes, and logged, and stored and tracked, etc.
985 2013-11-06 08:49:38 <gmaxwell> they can be triggered by techinical bugs (though in those cases the parallel chains are almost identical and so there is no theft there), so many people are watching for ones which are unusually long.
986 2013-11-06 08:50:03 <gmaxwell> (1 deep rewrites happen a couple times a day, 2 deep is more rare, beyond that they're worth inspecting manually)
987 2013-11-06 08:50:19 <MarkProffitt> So, if this is happening, the wallets and maybe IP address involved would need to be changed or else they could be recognized as bad actors through statistics?
988 2013-11-06 08:51:14 <gmaxwell> MarkProffitt: presumably anyone smart (? welll, really resourceful) enough to make trouble that way would not be easily identified by any simple characteristic like that.
989 2013-11-06 08:52:08 <gmaxwell> already standard software mines every block do a different address (in bitcoin the _only_ source of privacy is pseudoanonymity, so generally users are recommended to use a new address for each transaction)
990 2013-11-06 08:52:13 <MarkProffitt> I know of several groups with the resources to do that, so I'm wondering if there is a way to counteract the problem.
991 2013-11-06 08:52:52 <gmaxwell> There isn't. But generally "groups" with resources to do that (in particular with impunity) have much easier avenues available to undermine Bitcoin, for example, by making it unlawful.
992 2013-11-06 08:53:08 mE\Ta has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
993 2013-11-06 08:53:27 agnostic98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
994 2013-11-06 08:53:36 <MarkProffitt> That worked so well for everything else :P
995 2013-11-06 08:54:02 agnostic98 has joined
996 2013-11-06 08:54:51 <MarkProffitt> One problem is "charge backs". Anything else they could do?
997 2013-11-06 08:55:09 <gmaxwell> 21:43 < gmaxwell> ekkis: but it's less good even as that if its liquidity is hurt... I like to point out: Illicitly copied movies still make you laugh, unlawful drugs still get you high. These things work even if no one you know will partake... but outlaw money? Money like goods get their value from people's willingness to accept them. Even outlaws have little use for an outlaw money, since they need to pay for rent and food and such.
998 2013-11-06 08:55:59 <gmaxwell> 21:44 < gmaxwell> ekkis: Also, from a technical perspective, Bitcoin's security model _requires_ the conspicious expendature of energy... it's not secure if driven too far underground.
999 2013-11-06 08:56:03 <gmaxwell> :)
1000 2013-11-06 08:56:42 <MarkProffitt> Is that true after all the coin have been mined?
1001 2013-11-06 08:56:46 <gmaxwell> MarkProffitt: a majority cartel can block transactions that they don't like (... assuming they can identify them, this may be non-trivial if users use bitcoin correctly with a new address for every transaction)
1002 2013-11-06 08:57:44 <gmaxwell> MarkProffitt: Yes. The creation of new coin is 'just' an (important) side effect. Mining exists for the purpose of securing the transaction history, the coins had to be released somehow and so giving it to the miners aligns the incentives (mostly).
1003 2013-11-06 08:58:15 <gmaxwell> (First and foremost mining is the computational vote that determines the consensus transaction order!)
1004 2013-11-06 08:58:52 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1005 2013-11-06 08:59:08 <gmaxwell> perhaps someday Bitcoin is "too big to fail"â too economically significant to too many people to be simply regulated away. That day surely isn't today, however. :)
1006 2013-11-06 08:59:44 <gmaxwell> And maybe it might limp along underground otherwise... but its hard to say how useful or secure it would be in such a state.
1007 2013-11-06 08:59:49 cybermoron has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1008 2013-11-06 09:00:23 antycoin has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1009 2013-11-06 09:03:29 patcon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1010 2013-11-06 09:03:58 patcon has joined
1011 2013-11-06 09:07:18 <MarkProffitt> Who determines the $/BitCoin price?
1012 2013-11-06 09:07:28 <sipa> you
1013 2013-11-06 09:07:44 <MarkProffitt> So that has no connection to the protocol?
1014 2013-11-06 09:07:49 <sipa> the price is what people agree about to pay for it
1015 2013-11-06 09:07:58 <sipa> who sets the gold price?
1016 2013-11-06 09:08:23 <sipa> it has nothing to do with the protocol indeed
1017 2013-11-06 09:08:31 patcon has quit (Ping timeout: 266 seconds)
1018 2013-11-06 09:08:42 <MarkProffitt> I'm thinking about a different issue now.
1019 2013-11-06 09:10:02 patcon has joined
1020 2013-11-06 09:11:36 TD has joined
1021 2013-11-06 09:12:13 <gmaxwell> MarkProffitt: what determines the price of a share of IBM stock?
1022 2013-11-06 09:13:01 <MarkProffitt> Some code at the NYSE
1023 2013-11-06 09:13:17 <gmaxwell> ...
1024 2013-11-06 09:13:24 * gmaxwell gives up
1025 2013-11-06 09:14:23 <MarkProffitt> That is a weak point in lots of trading systems
1026 2013-11-06 09:15:12 <MarkProffitt> Of course that has nothing to do with BitCoin protocol.
1027 2013-11-06 09:15:54 <gmaxwell> MarkProffitt: people open orders offering to buy or sell at prices they specify. (an order book). Other people come along and choose to trade at the best available prices or open more orders. The exchange sites report the order books and the sequences of trades, along with a last price (and weighed average, etc)
1028 2013-11-06 09:16:08 <gmaxwell> and this has nothing to do with the Bitcoin protocol.
1029 2013-11-06 09:16:28 <gmaxwell> Bitcoin is bitcoin, it doesn't give a flying@#$@# how many seashells you think its worth today. :)
1030 2013-11-06 09:18:07 <MarkProffitt> There is a very big problem in that to solve, but I'm too busy with other things to deal with that anytime soon.
1031 2013-11-06 09:18:20 TD has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1032 2013-11-06 09:18:22 ielo has joined
1033 2013-11-06 09:18:36 <MarkProffitt> gmaxwell, thanks for all of the information
1034 2013-11-06 09:18:39 <sipa> MarkProffitt: unsure what problem you are talking about.
1035 2013-11-06 09:19:18 <sipa> if you mean price volatility, the only thing that will improve upon that is growing the (native) Bitcoin economy
1036 2013-11-06 09:19:19 <MarkProffitt> sipa, causing financial stampedes.
1037 2013-11-06 09:19:51 <sipa> that again has nothing to do with the protocol, and certainly nothing we can change throiugh software
1038 2013-11-06 09:20:16 MKCoin has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1039 2013-11-06 09:20:21 <MarkProffitt> You can change it through software, but I'm not sure how at the moment.
1040 2013-11-06 09:20:57 <sipa> good; bring it up again when you know how
1041 2013-11-06 09:21:24 <MarkProffitt> I might, would someone here be interested in coding it?
1042 2013-11-06 09:22:21 <sipa> if you really convince me that something is a good idea, i will certainly consider coding it
1043 2013-11-06 09:22:34 <MarkProffitt> BitCoin actually does reduce the problem a little
1044 2013-11-06 09:22:58 <sipa> but i'm extremely sure that you cannot fix price stability through the client software
1045 2013-11-06 09:23:33 t7 has joined
1046 2013-11-06 09:23:38 <MarkProffitt> Its not an issue of stability, its an issue of tricking people into a herd action.
1047 2013-11-06 09:23:57 <sipa> oh, you want to fix human sociology? :)
1048 2013-11-06 09:23:58 <MarkProffitt> Pump & dump
1049 2013-11-06 09:24:34 <sipa> again, i fail to see what the client code has anything to do with it
1050 2013-11-06 09:24:44 agnostic98 has joined
1051 2013-11-06 09:24:44 <MarkProffitt> If the currency used is BitCoins then fake transactions are much less likely, that reduces how much can be done.
1052 2013-11-06 09:24:51 CryptoBuck has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1053 2013-11-06 09:24:53 shesek has joined
1054 2013-11-06 09:25:23 <sipa> right
1055 2013-11-06 09:25:45 ericmuyser has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1056 2013-11-06 09:25:55 <MarkProffitt> Think about how gold or silver prices are manipulated today. There is far more metals contracts than actual metal.
1057 2013-11-06 09:26:17 ericmuyser has joined
1058 2013-11-06 09:26:21 <MarkProffitt> Some insiders, possibly at the exchanges allow that to occur.
1059 2013-11-06 09:27:20 patcon_ has joined
1060 2013-11-06 09:27:41 patcon has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1061 2013-11-06 09:28:16 ThomasV has joined
1062 2013-11-06 09:28:53 <MarkProffitt> Someone at an exchange could enter a transaction that never occurred, cause people to believe the price had changed and when they start trading on that false belief the insider can cash out and maybe make the fake trade real to hide the fraud.
1063 2013-11-06 09:29:02 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1064 2013-11-06 09:29:14 <MarkProffitt> That is not possible with BitCoin
1065 2013-11-06 09:30:07 Eiii has quit ()
1066 2013-11-06 09:31:27 ericmuyser has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1067 2013-11-06 09:32:23 <MarkProffitt> Some sort of distributed $ / BitCoin trading system could deal with manipulations but I don't think people want to record how they spent their BitCoins. But maybe they would for currency exchanges.
1068 2013-11-06 09:33:40 MKCoin has joined
1069 2013-11-06 09:33:47 <MarkProffitt> I'm just saying this off the top of my head so feel free to point out any flaws.
1070 2013-11-06 09:33:54 <gmaxwell> MarkProffitt: trade frontrunning generally doesn't work, because people will know if they had orders that didn't execute even though the last price crossed them, as its required that the best price executes first.
1071 2013-11-06 09:34:43 <MarkProffitt> You are assuming the rules are being followed by the "referee"
1072 2013-11-06 09:34:57 <MarkProffitt> I'm assuming well placed fraud
1073 2013-11-06 09:35:27 melvster has joined
1074 2013-11-06 09:37:17 gavinandresen has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1075 2013-11-06 09:38:27 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1076 2013-11-06 09:38:47 <MarkProffitt> Here is a suggestion to prvent that. How about extending a BitCoin transaction with another amount and unit, such as "999, USD" which also gets included for hashing so it can be confirmed later. That would make all such transactions public and still pseudo anaonymous.
1077 2013-11-06 09:38:55 shesek has joined
1078 2013-11-06 09:39:28 <MarkProffitt> It doesn't need to be the same protocol as BitCoin, it could be a parallel system.
1079 2013-11-06 09:39:46 * gmaxwell makes a bunch of transactions marked 1.0 BTC 99999999999999999999999999999999999999.99 USD.
1080 2013-11-06 09:39:57 da2ce7 has quit (Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzzâ¦)
1081 2013-11-06 09:40:45 twiked has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1082 2013-11-06 09:40:46 shesek has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1083 2013-11-06 09:40:48 nethershaw has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1084 2013-11-06 09:41:12 shesek has joined
1085 2013-11-06 09:41:23 <MarkProffitt> gmaxwell :))
1086 2013-11-06 09:41:23 twiked has joined
1087 2013-11-06 09:42:24 MarkProffitt has left ()
1088 2013-11-06 09:42:59 Mike_B__ has joined
1089 2013-11-06 09:43:03 MarkProffitt has joined
1090 2013-11-06 09:43:29 Mike_B__ has quit (Client Quit)
1091 2013-11-06 09:43:45 eristisk has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1092 2013-11-06 09:43:57 <Mike_B> test
1093 2013-11-06 09:44:01 shesek has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1094 2013-11-06 09:44:04 <Mike_B> aha, now i can talk :)
1095 2013-11-06 09:44:09 <Mike_B> i was like shit, why is everyone just ignoring me?
1096 2013-11-06 09:44:36 <Mike_B> gmaxwell, i saw your response to the selfish-mine thing. thought it was very good - if someone can pull off a huge sybil attack to segregate miners from one another, selfish-mine is the least of anyone's worries
1097 2013-11-06 09:44:45 <Mike_B> but i was curious why you thought the proposed solution of having nodes relay all blocks (instead of just the first they see) would lead to more problems?
1098 2013-11-06 09:45:02 clopez has quit (Disconnected by services)
1099 2013-11-06 09:45:23 <gmaxwell> Mike_B: well a couple things, their solution wasn't just relay all but to pick blocks randomly to mine on next. This actually _removes_ the incentive to announce your blocks quickly.
1100 2013-11-06 09:45:39 clopez_ has joined
1101 2013-11-06 09:46:07 shesek has joined
1102 2013-11-06 09:46:22 <Mike_B> gmaxwell: for which party - the honest miners or the selfish miners?
1103 2013-11-06 09:46:27 <gmaxwell> Relaying by itself has two (minor) problems: one is that its potential dos attack vector (though perhaps that can be engineered around), and two is a bit more subtle. Bitcoin is a consensus system, it's trying to get all nodes onto the same state and thats very important. It is not in a nodes self interest to help a neighbor reach a different state than its on.
1104 2013-11-06 09:46:58 <gmaxwell> Mike_B: for all miners. Basically it enables their attack absent the sybils, at least for sufficiently large miners.
1105 2013-11-06 09:47:16 <Mike_B> gmaxwell: don't the honest miners still have an incentive to announce their blocks quickly so that they reap the block reward?
1106 2013-11-06 09:47:16 <gmaxwell> Because you can announce your block way late and still be the preferred next block for half the network.
1107 2013-11-06 09:47:32 AtashiCon has joined
1108 2013-11-06 09:48:23 <Mike_B> ok, i see what you mean
1109 2013-11-06 09:48:32 <gmaxwell> Mike_B: to be rewarded your block must be the survivor in the chain. You announce fast, then someone else delays and announces later. Half the network switches to try to extend the later block (even you, in their proposal!). If that block gets extended instead of yours then it gets rewarded.
1110 2013-11-06 09:48:44 shesek has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1111 2013-11-06 09:49:00 <midnightmagic> Mike_B: Additionally, if everyone announced late, there would be more reorgs, which means the effective hashrate of bitcoin would be less, which means the blockchain isn't as strong as it could otherwise have most-efficiently been.
1112 2013-11-06 09:49:15 shesek has joined
1113 2013-11-06 09:49:17 <Mike_B> did the proposed solution have a cap on how late you can announce a block?
1114 2013-11-06 09:49:30 <Mike_B> like for instance, say i announce a solution to an alternate block #2
1115 2013-11-06 09:49:49 <gmaxwell> changing that decision to something else is actually a frequent bad suggestion. (People make it when they realize that propagation differences results in the network randomly being split brain from time to time, so they suggest instead to pick based on block ID) so I've actually responded to _that_ point a couple times, and even run simulations of it.
1116 2013-11-06 09:50:13 <gmaxwell> (basically in a network with latency, picking the first block you hear is uniquely good for convergence time)
1117 2013-11-06 09:50:24 <Mike_B> does the proposed solution expect honest miners would randomly try working on my forked block #2 in addition to whatever the latest normal block is?
1118 2013-11-06 09:50:30 <gmaxwell> Mike_B: no. And I'm not sure that it can and still have the property.
1119 2013-11-06 09:50:32 Thepok has joined
1120 2013-11-06 09:50:46 W0rmDr1nk has joined
1121 2013-11-06 09:50:50 gavinandresen has joined
1122 2013-11-06 09:50:54 <gmaxwell> Mike_B: instead of, basically each miner would flip a coin.
1123 2013-11-06 09:50:57 fanquake has joined
1124 2013-11-06 09:51:12 <gmaxwell> People have subsiquently pointed out that their simulation had no consideration for latency at all.... :(
1125 2013-11-06 09:51:32 <Mike_B> i'm still trying to figure out at which point miners know to ignore announced blocks as too old
1126 2013-11-06 09:51:49 <gmaxwell> Mike_B: when there is a longer chain.
1127 2013-11-06 09:52:13 cybermoron has joined
1128 2013-11-06 09:52:22 <Mike_B> ok, so right now, the current block is 268,217
1129 2013-11-06 09:52:39 <Mike_B> if i were to announce an alternate 268,217, half of the miners would randomly flip to mining on that, under this guy's proposed solution?
1130 2013-11-06 09:52:47 <Mike_B> but, if i were to announce an alternate 268,216, nobody would flip?
1131 2013-11-06 09:52:50 <gmaxwell> yes. right.
1132 2013-11-06 09:53:17 coblee_ has joined
1133 2013-11-06 09:53:29 shesek has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1134 2013-11-06 09:53:33 <gmaxwell> (petertodd also pointed out this proposal would further incentivize miners trying to remine the current block to steal feesâ I think I actually didn't understand it when petertodd said it, but now that I realized it myself, ouch)
1135 2013-11-06 09:53:55 shesek has joined
1136 2013-11-06 09:54:01 <Mike_B> ok, got it. so then wouldn't it still be in your best interest to announce as soon as possible?
1137 2013-11-06 09:54:25 <Mike_B> for instance, say right now, i have block 268,218 privately mined, but i don't tell anyone. then you mine a different block 268,218 and announce it
1138 2013-11-06 09:55:16 <Mike_B> if i wait another 5 minutes before announcing my block, the rest of the network is spending time hashing your block, increasing the chances my block will fail
1139 2013-11-06 09:55:50 <Mike_B> i thought that the selfish-mine strategy, in this case, was "if the network announces a block and you have exactly one private block, announce ASAP so the network can help you establish your block as the winner"
1140 2013-11-06 09:55:51 shesek has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1141 2013-11-06 09:56:14 shesek has joined
1142 2013-11-06 09:56:22 coblee has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1143 2013-11-06 09:56:22 coblee_ is now known as coblee
1144 2013-11-06 09:57:10 <gmaxwell> Mike_B: no, the selfish strategy in this case to delay announcing until you hear a compeating block show up. you get all the extra time to try to get two ahead, and you're only worse off by theâ sayâ one second lead the other block had on you in the rest of the network.
1145 2013-11-06 09:57:25 daybyter has joined
1146 2013-11-06 09:57:41 gavinandresen has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1147 2013-11-06 09:57:54 <midnightmagic> and what happens when 5-6 peer blocks are announced one after the other
1148 2013-11-06 09:58:00 <gmaxwell> e.g. network is on 100, you find a 101, you delay announcing until someone else announces a 101. You announce, and half the network ends up on you because of the random rule.
1149 2013-11-06 09:58:10 <Mike_B> gmaxwell, that's the scenario i'm describing above
1150 2013-11-06 09:58:26 <MarkProffitt> So you have 1 block complete and are well on the way to the 2nd block before you release the 1st causes your competitor to waste their time
1151 2013-11-06 09:58:38 <Mike_B> i have 268,218 already mined but i don't announce it, so I have a lead of 1. then you mine a different block 268,218. the selfish strategy would be for me to announce mine as soon as you do, right? then i use the sybil attack to make sure everyone only hears about my block and not yours.
1152 2013-11-06 09:58:42 <gmaxwell> And if your hashrate is high enough thats a win. (basically the benefit of exclusion trumps other people mining on your block until the competitor shows up)
1153 2013-11-06 09:59:08 <gmaxwell> Mike_B: in the case where nodes are doing the random choice thing you don't need a sybil attack.
1154 2013-11-06 09:59:22 <gmaxwell> they'll mine your late block anyways!
1155 2013-11-06 09:59:25 <Mike_B> gmaxwell: that's what i'm saying
1156 2013-11-06 09:59:53 <Mike_B> the proposed solution transforms the requirements for the attack from "sufficient hashing power + sybil attack" to "sufficient hashing power"
1157 2013-11-06 10:00:02 <Mike_B> right?
1158 2013-11-06 10:00:15 <gmaxwell> Mike_B: right.
1159 2013-11-06 10:00:17 shesek has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1160 2013-11-06 10:00:46 <MarkProffitt> So their "solution" is either stupid or evil.
1161 2013-11-06 10:00:50 <Mike_B> gmaxwell: but what i'm asking is, why are you saying it makes sense, if the proposed change is implemented, for the selfish miners to delay announcing when you do?
1162 2013-11-06 10:00:57 <gmaxwell> and it doesn't really answer the tradeoffs question, because it appears they simulated the network as an interlocked finite state machine, rather than timesteps for latency.
1163 2013-11-06 10:01:34 shesek has joined
1164 2013-11-06 10:01:37 <Mike_B> it seems like if the proposal were adopted, then the strategy, when the machine is in the state 0' (meaning I have one private block and you announce a competing public block), would be for me to announce right away
1165 2013-11-06 10:01:47 <Mike_B> then watch as the network propagates my forked block without requiring a sybil attack at all
1166 2013-11-06 10:01:54 <gmaxwell> Mike_B: I'm saying that it makes sense for them to delay. When right now, absent an information advantage (and maybe with one) is very very strongly in your interest to announce ASAP.
1167 2013-11-06 10:02:32 <gmaxwell> We're failing to communicate somehow. I'm not sure how, but its probably my fault. I'm kinda communicated out.
1168 2013-11-06 10:02:42 <Mike_B> fair enough
1169 2013-11-06 10:02:47 <Mike_B> you've probably been being asked questions about this all day?
1170 2013-11-06 10:02:56 <gmaxwell> no. I've been busy with other things.
1171 2013-11-06 10:03:40 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: He's not grokking where the advantage is in delaying under the paper's proposed solution. What is the quantity of the benefit to delaying under the random-switch model.
1172 2013-11-06 10:03:55 <gmaxwell> Mike_B: let me try again. Today, (absent sybil attacks and the paper being completely valid) miners are all very strongly incentivized to announce as fast as possible.
1173 2013-11-06 10:04:10 <Mike_B> midnightmagic: right. gmaxwell: right.
1174 2013-11-06 10:04:23 <gmaxwell> Mike_B: The paper argues that with an information advantage a selfish miner would be better off delaying until they hear another compeating block.
1175 2013-11-06 10:04:45 shesek has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1176 2013-11-06 10:04:46 <gmaxwell> Mike_B: they say: make the best block selection random among all options, so now the information advantage is irrelevant.
1177 2013-11-06 10:05:36 <gmaxwell> Mike_B: I say, okay, the advantage is irrelevant, but you've actually _strenghtened_ (or created where there was none before) the advantage for a large (e.g. 40% hashpower) miner to delay their blocks.
1178 2013-11-06 10:05:38 shesek has joined
1179 2013-11-06 10:06:46 <gmaxwell> E.g. even if the papers analysis is wrong, even if the big miner has no information advantage.. random selection means that he should delay his blocks if he's big enough that the benefit of other people mining on his block doesn't offset his benefit from keeping it private plus still getting half of other people to mine on it.
1180 2013-11-06 10:08:36 <Mike_B> ok
1181 2013-11-06 10:09:03 <Mike_B> what would be his benefit from keeping it private if he has no information advantage?
1182 2013-11-06 10:09:09 <Mike_B> and if the paper's analysis were wrong?
1183 2013-11-06 10:09:12 patcon_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1184 2013-11-06 10:09:38 patcon has joined
1185 2013-11-06 10:10:11 <gmaxwell> Mike_B: his benefit is that he has a head start in getting 2 ahead compared to the rest of the network.
1186 2013-11-06 10:10:46 <Mike_B> what did you mean by "information advantage?" I thought by that, you meant having a private block mined.
1187 2013-11-06 10:10:48 MoALTz_ has quit (Quit: brb)
1188 2013-11-06 10:10:50 <gmaxwell> e.g. network is at 100. He has a 101 and is working on 102. Network finds another 101 and he announces his. Maybe before then he finds 102.
1189 2013-11-06 10:10:56 gavinandresen has joined
1190 2013-11-06 10:11:08 MoALTz has joined
1191 2013-11-06 10:11:10 <gmaxwell> Mike_B: information advantage means the sybil attack.
1192 2013-11-06 10:11:19 <Mike_B> aha, ok
1193 2013-11-06 10:11:27 <gmaxwell> E.g. he knows before the network does when the network finds a block, he can influence that blocks forwarding, etc.
1194 2013-11-06 10:12:13 <Mike_B> ok, so before i respond, the reason the information advantage becomes irrelevant with the proposed solution is that if nodes are caught only relaying one block and dropping others, they're identifying themselves as malicious and the network can ignore them, right?
1195 2013-11-06 10:12:25 <gmaxwell> no, not at all.
1196 2013-11-06 10:13:13 <gmaxwell> it doesn't matter because announcing your blocks faster than the other guy doesn't matter anymore. Their idea of a sybil attack is kinda odd in that they assume the attacker can't prevent the block from getting out completely, but only that they can get ahead of it.
1197 2013-11-06 10:13:35 <gmaxwell> and it doesn't matter anymore because nodes don't just prefer the first block they heard.
1198 2013-11-06 10:13:51 cybermoron has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1199 2013-11-06 10:13:55 darkee has joined
1200 2013-11-06 10:14:06 <Mike_B> gmaxwell: ok, but say this change is implemented. then, i still do a sybil attack. say i can somehow control 50% of the nodes relaying blocks on the network
1201 2013-11-06 10:14:31 patcon has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1202 2013-11-06 10:14:44 <Mike_B> so half of the network only hears my relays, because i only relay mine and preferentially ignore the other competing block.
1203 2013-11-06 10:14:58 <Mike_B> then, as for the other half of the network - half of it works on my block, half works on your block.
1204 2013-11-06 10:15:03 realazthat has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1205 2013-11-06 10:15:05 <gmaxwell> Mike_B: if it's only 50% then the blocks will still make it around, they may be delayed a bit, but they'll still make it. If you're actually assuming the attacker has _partitioned_ the network then there is no saving it.
1206 2013-11-06 10:15:23 <Mike_B> ah ok, i see what you mean
1207 2013-11-06 10:15:27 <gmaxwell> if an attacker can partition the honest network bitcoin cannot be secure while that attack is going on.
1208 2013-11-06 10:16:11 <Mike_B> ok, so then when you write this
1209 2013-11-06 10:16:12 <Mike_B> Mike_B: I say, okay, the advantage is irrelevant, but you've actually _strenghtened_ (or created where there was none before) the advantage for a large (e.g. 40% hashpower) miner to delay their blocks.
1210 2013-11-06 10:16:26 <gmaxwell> thats one of the reasons I wasn't super impressed with the paper. Basically it poses an attacker which is very powerful, in an envirment where miners are greedy instead of lazy/alturistic (which is more like reality today), but not quite so powerful that we're doomed no matter what you do.
1211 2013-11-06 10:16:32 <Mike_B> the reason you've strengthened the advantage is because you've removed the requirement "be able to perform a sybil attack." right?
1212 2013-11-06 10:17:00 <gmaxwell> Mike_B: yes. And maybe removed the requirement "the papers analysis is correct".
1213 2013-11-06 10:17:30 <Mike_B> analysis of which specific part?
1214 2013-11-06 10:17:35 <Mike_B> the effects of the proposed change?
1215 2013-11-06 10:18:16 <gmaxwell> no, their model of how effective a weak (non-partitioning) sybil attack would be for creating the weird incentives.
1216 2013-11-06 10:18:31 <gmaxwell> As I mentioned it seems they didn't simulate latency.
1217 2013-11-06 10:18:37 <midnightmagic> also it presumes miners are short-term greedy, and a tragedy of the commons is inevitable in that case: if all miners went selfish and the network were destroyed, the long-term worth of the economy of bitcoin and its deflationary currency and the enormous benefits in the long run are destroyed.
1218 2013-11-06 10:18:37 <Mike_B> oh, i see
1219 2013-11-06 10:19:06 <midnightmagic> it is not rational to participate in the destruction of bitcoin -- were the paper correct.
1220 2013-11-06 10:19:13 <gmaxwell> Right and their assumption of miner's beeing greed-rational instead of lazy-altruistic-crazy
1221 2013-11-06 10:19:22 <gmaxwell> er greedy-rational
1222 2013-11-06 10:19:35 <Mike_B> gmaxwell: but you agree, in the case where i have one private block and then while i'm working on my lead you trump me, that should that scenario occur, i need to announce asap, so the network starts working on my block.
1223 2013-11-06 10:19:36 <sipa> midnightmagic: by rational, we often refer to short-term greedy
1224 2013-11-06 10:19:49 <gmaxwell> Mike_B: yep.
1225 2013-11-06 10:20:11 <sipa> midnightmagic: not because that's more meaningful, but because it's much easier to quantify
1226 2013-11-06 10:20:31 macboz has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1227 2013-11-06 10:20:41 <Mike_B> ok, i see
1228 2013-11-06 10:20:51 <Mike_B> so the guy in the paper proposed this change because it fixes gamma at 50%
1229 2013-11-06 10:21:05 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: I like to say greedy-rational for a short term / myopic utility maximizer. Use of the word greedy there seems to disambiguate long term interests. (e.g. as in a greedy algorithim)
1230 2013-11-06 10:21:23 <Mike_B> so under the assumption that it's easy for miners to get enough colluding nodes that they can raise gamma up past 50%, that makes sense
1231 2013-11-06 10:21:30 <Mike_B> otherwise, it doesn't make sense
1232 2013-11-06 10:21:35 <gmaxwell> Mike_B: it's kinda like he fixes the sybil attack by giving every miner a sybil attack. :P
1233 2013-11-06 10:22:14 <Mike_B> gmaxwell: right, every miner gets a 50% sybil attack, the reason he's doing that is because it prevents the apocalyptic scenario he talks about where gamma eventually grows without bound and gets arbitrarily close to 1
1234 2013-11-06 10:22:20 <petertodd> I think it might do us some good if we talk about the "sybil" attack in this scenario as a Total Information Awareness Attack...
1235 2013-11-06 10:22:20 <midnightmagic> sipa: Human farsight and planning are never included in these calculations, it always puzzles me. I have (now) more mining hashrate than the entire bitcoin network did well into 2011. I personally would never switch to selfish-mining in the universe where the paper is magically correct because I want bitcoin to succeed long-term. Thus they are defining my actions as irrational. I disagree.
1236 2013-11-06 10:22:21 Belxjander has quit (Quit: Sayonara)
1237 2013-11-06 10:22:23 <Mike_B> er well, the bound is 1
1238 2013-11-06 10:22:25 <Mike_B> but you know what i mean
1239 2013-11-06 10:22:33 <Mike_B> so i guess the key question is, how hard is it to get to that point
1240 2013-11-06 10:22:56 <midnightmagic> greedy-rational. Yeah that sounds better.
1241 2013-11-06 10:22:59 <petertodd> Knowing more than your competition doesn't quite capture the spirit of the term sybil.
1242 2013-11-06 10:22:59 <gmaxwell> Mike_B: no, thats not even the key question. The key question is does any of it play out like the paper things in a network that has latency! :)
1243 2013-11-06 10:23:20 <Mike_B> gmaxwell - why would latency affect it?
1244 2013-11-06 10:23:44 xeroc_ has quit (Quit: Reconnecting)
1245 2013-11-06 10:23:45 cads has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1246 2013-11-06 10:23:46 <sipa> midnightmagic: for practical consideration ("do we have to drop everything and fix this?"), that matters of course
1247 2013-11-06 10:23:48 taha has joined
1248 2013-11-06 10:23:51 xeroc has joined
1249 2013-11-06 10:24:18 <sipa> midnightmagic: but in the larger picture, i think an argument like "if people do this, bitcoin becomes less valuable" is not useful
1250 2013-11-06 10:24:22 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: and then, borrowing from distributed systems language you contrast that with byzantine and altruistic... and from reality: Lazy, and Crazy.
1251 2013-11-06 10:24:57 <sipa> midnightmagic: in the sense that we'd like a system whose security does not depend on "people doing the right thing for the network"
1252 2013-11-06 10:25:32 <gmaxwell> Mike_B: because communication between miners isn't instant or uniformly slow. E.g. in a network which is latency free and fully meshed there are never any orphans at all!
1253 2013-11-06 10:25:51 agnostic98 has joined
1254 2013-11-06 10:26:19 <gmaxwell> You could simulate a network with latency with the right kind of state machine network, but the topology would be wildly different, you'd replace wires with long runs of degree-2 nodes.
1255 2013-11-06 10:26:20 realazthat has joined
1256 2013-11-06 10:26:21 cads has joined
1257 2013-11-06 10:27:04 <Mike_B> gmaxwell: is this a weighted undirected graph you're talking about here?
1258 2013-11-06 10:27:13 <petertodd> gmaxwell: well optical fiber's actually long strings of very small Bitcoin nodes with buggy validation code that always returns true
1259 2013-11-06 10:27:18 Belxjander has joined
1260 2013-11-06 10:27:21 <sipa> petertodd: lol
1261 2013-11-06 10:27:22 <Mike_B> and you're talking about inserting nodes in the middle of an edge to simulate delays and such?
1262 2013-11-06 10:27:45 <midnightmagic> sipa: But a miner's reward is most-valuable long-term if bitcoin survives long-term. Short-term gain is fine for instant-sell, but if it continues to be deflationary, then there may or may not be a limit on its upper-bound price. The rewards are potentially fantastically high: thus why wouldn't a miner act to bring that future closer to reality, except if it's a guarantee that is will fail.
1263 2013-11-06 10:28:20 <midnightmagic> But it won't, because people are willing to change it to correct flaws.
1264 2013-11-06 10:28:40 <sipa> midnightmagic: depends on hardware investments
1265 2013-11-06 10:29:04 <petertodd> midnightmagic: something I've pointed out before is that a malicious 51% attacker can use the fact that they can sell the coins they mine very quickly as a way to decrease the costs of their attack. With the markets being what they are I can imagine them being able to sell coins even *after* the attack has started.
1266 2013-11-06 10:29:07 cybermoron has joined
1267 2013-11-06 10:29:11 jouke_ has quit (Changing host)
1268 2013-11-06 10:29:11 jouke_ has joined
1269 2013-11-06 10:29:12 <jouke_> Can I add a node with ip:port ?
1270 2013-11-06 10:29:13 <sipa> midnightmagic: if hardware is a significant investment, miners have an interest in keeping the network useful until it repays itself
1271 2013-11-06 10:29:17 <sipa> jouke_: yes
1272 2013-11-06 10:29:39 <sipa> midnightmagic: but that (these days) is rarely more than a few months, i think
1273 2013-11-06 10:29:41 <gmaxwell> petertodd: you've now explained index of refraction! it's hashing time! get read for your nobel!
1274 2013-11-06 10:29:46 <petertodd> sipa: a good argument for ASICs-friendly PoW unfortunately
1275 2013-11-06 10:29:57 <midnightmagic> sipa: Unless the darn price keeps rising like this. :-/
1276 2013-11-06 10:30:08 <sipa> midnightmagic: ok, even more correct
1277 2013-11-06 10:30:12 <gmaxwell> sipa: it's interesting to see people on the forums just howling about how it takes _months_ to pay itself off! 0_o
1278 2013-11-06 10:30:20 <petertodd> gmaxwell: makes more sense than string theory!
1279 2013-11-06 10:30:42 <sipa> midnightmagic: a miner is only interested in the ratio of exchange rate over difficulty, over the period that they need for their hardware investment
1280 2013-11-06 10:30:56 <jouke_> I created a reverse ssh tunnel to my mymachine, but "addnode ip:port add" does not seem to work
1281 2013-11-06 10:31:07 <sipa> oh, in the rpc call
1282 2013-11-06 10:31:16 <gmaxwell> Mike_B: I'm not following your question.
1283 2013-11-06 10:31:19 <gmaxwell> add goes first
1284 2013-11-06 10:31:42 <gmaxwell> oh, no it doesn't.
1285 2013-11-06 10:31:57 <jouke_> sipa: yes
1286 2013-11-06 10:32:14 <Mike_B> "You could simulate a network with latency with the right kind of state machine network" - is a state machine network just a type of weighted graph?
1287 2013-11-06 10:32:18 <jouke_> sipa: in the config it will work?
1288 2013-11-06 10:32:30 <sipa> i don't see why it shouldn't work
1289 2013-11-06 10:32:37 xiangfu has joined
1290 2013-11-06 10:32:41 <sipa> if it's an ipv6 address, you need [host]:port
1291 2013-11-06 10:32:50 <sipa> but otherwise, i don't think there's a problem
1292 2013-11-06 10:32:59 <gmaxwell> Mike_B: No. Think cellular automata... though you could draw one as a graph.
1293 2013-11-06 10:33:24 <jouke_> with the rpc call it does not seem to work, but I'll check if it works with the config.
1294 2013-11-06 10:34:14 <Mike_B> gmaxwell: what are the "nodes" and "wires" you were referring to if not elements of a graph?
1295 2013-11-06 10:34:21 <Mike_B> i thought you meant vertices and edges
1296 2013-11-06 10:35:01 <Mike_B> the only way i know of to define a network topology is as a graph (not sure why they used the word "topology" for it anyway)
1297 2013-11-06 10:36:50 stonecoldpat has quit ()
1298 2013-11-06 10:37:42 <gmaxwell> [OT] The IETF Technical Plenary tomorrow should be really interesting, it's on harding the internet against the NSA. Bruce Schneier will be talking. https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/agenda-utc (scroll to wednesday for the stream links)
1299 2013-11-06 10:37:52 <gmaxwell> Mike_B: nodes and wires are things in the real world.
1300 2013-11-06 10:37:53 gulli has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1301 2013-11-06 10:38:13 <gmaxwell> Mike_B: sorry, you've worn me out for the evening. :)
1302 2013-11-06 10:38:46 <petertodd> gmaxwell: +1 Do you get the sense that big players are willing to go against the wishes of law enforcement and so on with this?
1303 2013-11-06 10:38:47 <midnightmagic> Cool!
1304 2013-11-06 10:39:13 <jouke_> Is the ban rule based on IP and port or only ip?
1305 2013-11-06 10:40:03 <petertodd> jouke_: ip
1306 2013-11-06 10:40:14 <jouke_> damn
1307 2013-11-06 10:40:33 <jouke_> Ok, I need to fix my wallet somehow (it is transmitting empty transactions)
1308 2013-11-06 10:40:37 <petertodd> jouke_: if it had anything to do with port number it wouldn't be all that effective...
1309 2013-11-06 10:40:49 stonecoldpat has joined
1310 2013-11-06 10:41:44 <gmaxwell> petertodd: IETF longstanding policy in many different working groups is that LE demands are a non-consideration (people can add features for that crap, if they like, but formally the standards aren't supposted to do anything special to accomidate them). This is a result of RFC 1984 (no kidding), mostly.
1311 2013-11-06 10:42:22 <gmaxwell> ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1984 )
1312 2013-11-06 10:43:17 <gmaxwell> Also, the related RFC 2084
1313 2013-11-06 10:43:30 <gmaxwell> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2804 "IETF Policy on Wiretapping"
1314 2013-11-06 10:44:23 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Yeah, I've read RFC 1984 (awesome name) But in practice I've always gotten the sense that larger players, the Microsofts and the Googles, have limits to how hard they were willing to push this stuff based in part on government desires.
1315 2013-11-06 10:44:48 <gmaxwell> and still will, no doubt. Though people inside orginizations may be more agressive than the orgs themselves.
1316 2013-11-06 10:44:57 <gmaxwell> And that does matter too.
1317 2013-11-06 10:45:22 <petertodd> gmaxwell: e.g. full-disk-encryption took forever to even become possible on Mac's and Windows, and initially (still?) Apple used completely broken KDF
1318 2013-11-06 10:45:42 <petertodd> gmaxwell: yeah, and hopefully those people in the organizations are getting more lee-way; mainly what I was asking.
1319 2013-11-06 10:47:53 <gmaxwell> there is also the more-than-mti discussion which includes things like not just mandating security (e.g. crypto) but mandating hostile non-interoperability with non-conforming insecure implementations.
1320 2013-11-06 10:48:01 <gmaxwell> which might help out some of those people.
1321 2013-11-06 10:49:02 <petertodd> gmaxwell: that's great news! I think one of the main things we've seen happen in the past is far too much support of insecurity, so to speak.
1322 2013-11-06 10:49:16 <pigeons> reminds me of https://github.com/stpeter/manifesto
1323 2013-11-06 10:50:11 <gmaxwell> yea, thats going to sever google from xmpp.
1324 2013-11-06 10:50:20 <gmaxwell> because apparently google's bridging doesn't do ssl
1325 2013-11-06 10:50:24 <petertodd> gmaxwell: lovely...
1326 2013-11-06 10:50:38 <petertodd> gmaxwell: though google's stopped federation anyway
1327 2013-11-06 10:51:19 <gmaxwell> petertodd: right thats why google isn't going to fix it.
1328 2013-11-06 10:52:15 <gmaxwell> In any case, I've been to far offtopic too long. Y'all should checkout the pleneary if you're up. If you join the jabber room, you'll be able to ask talk at the mic by proxy, though I'm guessing that the lines will be long and they'll have to cut them.
1329 2013-11-06 10:52:58 <petertodd> gmaxwell: adam should update hashcash with bitcoin sacrifices, so the excuse that they can't federate due to spam goes away <- on topic!
1330 2013-11-06 10:53:12 BurtyB has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1331 2013-11-06 10:54:31 reneg_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1332 2013-11-06 10:54:59 reneg has joined
1333 2013-11-06 10:56:41 licnep_ has joined
1334 2013-11-06 10:57:25 stonecoldpat has quit ()
1335 2013-11-06 10:58:47 TD[away] is now known as TD
1336 2013-11-06 10:59:03 <TD> morning!
1337 2013-11-06 10:59:11 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1338 2013-11-06 10:59:32 <TD> petertodd: i don't think we did stop federation?
1339 2013-11-06 11:00:25 <petertodd> TD: https://github.com/hugoroy/blog/blob/master/google-talk-discontinued-will-google-keep-its-promise-and-give-xmpp-users-a-way-out.md
1340 2013-11-06 11:01:43 macboz has joined
1341 2013-11-06 11:02:48 markus__ has joined
1342 2013-11-06 11:03:00 <TD> oh, i see. new product will replace old product, new product doesn't do xmpp
1343 2013-11-06 11:03:03 <TD> so i guess it still works for now
1344 2013-11-06 11:03:12 <petertodd> yup
1345 2013-11-06 11:03:33 macboz has quit (Write error: Connection reset by peer)
1346 2013-11-06 11:03:44 macboz has joined
1347 2013-11-06 11:03:49 <petertodd> walled gardens and all :(
1348 2013-11-06 11:05:56 MarkProffitt has left ()
1349 2013-11-06 11:06:07 _ingsoc has joined
1350 2013-11-06 11:06:26 <TD> yes. it's an unfortunately more general issue than just google and xmpp. i found the teams internal rationale.
1351 2013-11-06 11:06:40 <TD> it boils down to "we think xmpp sucks, is obsolete and we can't add new features to it that users want, so our product would become uncompetitive"
1352 2013-11-06 11:06:52 <petertodd> yup, and no incentive to improve it
1353 2013-11-06 11:07:12 <TD> yes. it's easier to build something proprietary than participate in endless mailing list flamewars to design new JEPs or whatever
1354 2013-11-06 11:07:39 abrkn has joined
1355 2013-11-06 11:07:55 <TD> IM has basically always suffered that problem. zero incentive to interop, the one protocol that was created was created badly (xml for IM was never a good idea), and generally users don't actually use federation very much
1356 2013-11-06 11:07:57 <petertodd> even if they did make the changes they wanted with their own, open, xmpp standard extensions/modifications/whatever there's no incentive to actualy take that last step
1357 2013-11-06 11:08:08 <TD> there were also more general openness issues like they were sick of fighting spam that came in from federation servers
1358 2013-11-06 11:08:22 <petertodd> well, xmpp users use federation a lot... but that's like 0.01%...
1359 2013-11-06 11:08:29 <TD> basically - walled gardens have a lot of practical advantages. no news there.
1360 2013-11-06 11:08:50 <warren> ... that came in from s/federation servers/SMTP/
1361 2013-11-06 11:08:52 <petertodd> hence my comment that we need spam solutions that actually work, but that's only become practical with bitcoin
1362 2013-11-06 11:09:38 <TD> warren: the investment google and other big mail providers have to make in keeping SMTP usable is legendary. if cross-provider mail traffic was much less common, i imagine a lot of them would have given up just like facebook did
1363 2013-11-06 11:10:05 <TD> yeah but it's not only spam. it's also who is going to define the product and drive it forwards. jabber is very much in the open source many-clients world, so actually making upgrades users notice is tough
1364 2013-11-06 11:10:09 stonecoldpat has joined
1365 2013-11-06 11:10:15 <TD> because of all the duplication of effort
1366 2013-11-06 11:10:15 <petertodd> fragile situation really; wouldn't take much to make fully walled gardens for email too attractive
1367 2013-11-06 11:10:23 <TD> well email is already losing that fight
1368 2013-11-06 11:10:28 <TD> most young people don't use email
1369 2013-11-06 11:10:33 <TD> they use facebook and whatsapp exclusively
1370 2013-11-06 11:10:37 <petertodd> TD: I use authsmtp because that fight is being lost...
1371 2013-11-06 11:10:40 <warren> TD: I'm well aware of his much it sucks. I wasted years of my life thanklessly trying to keep spamassassin somewhat usable. I gave up after my first visit to the mountaview campus.
1372 2013-11-06 11:10:42 msvb-lab has joined
1373 2013-11-06 11:10:53 <TD> open, standards based networks have already lost the younger generation. it's unclear whether their behaviour will change as they age, or whether the shift is fundamental
1374 2013-11-06 11:11:01 <petertodd> TD: corporate is when we'll know we've really lost that fight... I use email all the time to talk to suppliers and the like, nothing even close to a replacement for that
1375 2013-11-06 11:11:35 <TD> sure. me too. most of my "interesting" mail traffic (not to local friends) is via smtp still and i guess it will remain that way. a few years ago the whole gmail team was really scared by the notion of a facebook webmail product
1376 2013-11-06 11:11:45 <TD> we thought it might be the end of not only gmail but email in general. but zuckerberg dropped the ball
1377 2013-11-06 11:11:57 <TD> managed to make something that sucked even harder than regular email
1378 2013-11-06 11:12:14 <petertodd> ha, for sure
1379 2013-11-06 11:12:14 <TD> so that fate was averted. but everyone has given up trying to improve SMTP. even just enabling goddamn SMTP-TLS is like a major uphill fight
1380 2013-11-06 11:12:22 <TD> the major providers hardly talk to each other
1381 2013-11-06 11:12:52 markus__ has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
1382 2013-11-06 11:13:09 <petertodd> what's happening with spam fight anyway? is that a stable situation or is it going to get worse?
1383 2013-11-06 11:13:10 <TD> it would not surprise me if one strategic end-game for Bitcoin is "after many years of stagnation, visa and mastercard step up their game and the bitcoin community cannot respond. which parties are stagnating switches around. everyone ends up using credit cards and the US Treasury dept rules the world"
1384 2013-11-06 11:13:23 <warren> greylisting ... worked fine for my own e-mail, but it made my parents quit using my mail server because of non-compliant customer mail servers NEVER being delivered.
1385 2013-11-06 11:13:31 markus__ has joined
1386 2013-11-06 11:13:40 <petertodd> TD: or similarly, how I keep warning that something like mintchip could be the end of Bitcoin as a payment solution
1387 2013-11-06 11:13:41 <TD> spam is stable. there have been many different phases. the recent phases aren't really visible to the outside world. they take place primarily within the confines of the major providers
1388 2013-11-06 11:14:12 Raccoon is now known as HappyBday2me
1389 2013-11-06 11:14:12 HappyBday2me is now known as Raccoon
1390 2013-11-06 11:14:41 <petertodd> better than nothing I guess - corporate use of email has a lot of legal requirements that make solutions that don't look like email extremely difficult to adopt... but not impossible
1391 2013-11-06 11:14:50 <TD> we went through the botnet stage years ago. then there was the "sign up for a million webmail accounts" stage. then there was the "hijack a million legitimate webmail accounts" stage. then there was one that i don't think we've talked about much, but that boils down to companies that professionally reverse engineer the big 3's spam filters and rely heavily on spamming from a constantly shifting set o fdatacenters
1392 2013-11-06 11:14:52 <TD> that was a bitch
1393 2013-11-06 11:15:05 <petertodd> It'd be *extremely* good if email could, for instance, have attachments of a reasonable size. (extremely useful for my job)
1394 2013-11-06 11:15:40 <petertodd> TD: yeah, and more importantly it screws up federation because people just wind up using google for their email w/ outsorucing...
1395 2013-11-06 11:15:46 agricocb has joined
1396 2013-11-06 11:15:48 <TD> yes
1397 2013-11-06 11:16:01 <tgs3> petertodd: #opentransactions is aiming to such a goal
1398 2013-11-06 11:16:06 <TD> the game theory of email doesn't really work
1399 2013-11-06 11:16:06 <W0rmDr1nk> so whats the chances that "BIP proposal - patch to raise selfish mining threshold." is a ruse ? i.e. someone trying to use public pressue to get changes into codebase ?
1400 2013-11-06 11:16:10 <tgs3> p2p emails, signed/crypted by default
1401 2013-11-06 11:16:22 <W0rmDr1nk> seems a bit odd that it reaches news on same day its submitted to mailing list
1402 2013-11-06 11:16:36 <petertodd> TD: game theory as in, every big provider doesn't really want interop?
1403 2013-11-06 11:16:42 <TD> anyway, i think at the moment spam is pretty stable. webmail abuse certainly is. we "won" that fight pretty comprehensively back in 2011 or so
1404 2013-11-06 11:16:54 <TD> no as in, sending email has a marginal cost of zero, so you end up needing to basically solve AI to manage the stream
1405 2013-11-06 11:17:25 <petertodd> W0rmDr1nk: sigh, it's a real attack, it's just overstated as something relevant right now. Just academics trying to drum up their career, when long-term they would have been much better by being less alarmist.
1406 2013-11-06 11:17:26 <TD> you can't launch a serious communications product without SMTP interop, so providers "want" it in that sense, but the downsides are tremendous
1407 2013-11-06 11:18:02 <TD> it looks like XMPP support is being dropped by Microsoft as well. I think XMPP is a good case study in how open systems end up uncompetitive and irrelevant
1408 2013-11-06 11:18:06 <TD> (see also: desktop linux)
1409 2013-11-06 11:18:06 <W0rmDr1nk> petertodd, I know its a real attack, but the proposed resolution is not necisairliy the real resolution
1410 2013-11-06 11:18:09 <petertodd> TD: right, so basically in a perfect world, Adam's hashcash would be used widely, and with soemthing like bitcoin so that there wasn't a huge imbalance between attacker and good guy re: hashcash costs
1411 2013-11-06 11:18:34 <tgs3> TD: what would you say xmpp did wrong?
1412 2013-11-06 11:18:34 <petertodd> W0rmDr1nk: sure, but that's just because the academics are smart, but not omniescent.
1413 2013-11-06 11:18:35 <TD> well, hashcash as envisioned was not a correct solution
1414 2013-11-06 11:18:39 <TD> because it was on a per message basis
1415 2013-11-06 11:18:55 <TD> sending lots of email is not a problem. sending lots of email people don't want is the problem, where "want" is a very vague and fuzzy thing
1416 2013-11-06 11:19:02 <W0rmDr1nk> petertodd, and it seems retarded that they would not maybe mention it first on mailing list before publishing, unless they really care more about hype and fallout than the problem
1417 2013-11-06 11:19:12 <petertodd> W0rmDr1nk: They came up with an ok solution, and published right away when really they should have written up that solution, pointing out it's too has problems.
1418 2013-11-06 11:19:26 flug has joined
1419 2013-11-06 11:19:33 <TD> reputation systems work well, and aren't that complicated to do right, the thing that makes spam control in SMTP hard is there's no real notion of identity beyond DKIM or sender IP, both of which aren't perfect mappings for senders
1420 2013-11-06 11:19:35 <petertodd> W0rmDr1nk: they didn't "publish" really, they uploaded a paper to a repository
1421 2013-11-06 11:19:47 <TD> tgs3: that's a good question ....
1422 2013-11-06 11:19:49 <petertodd> TD: so you'd have reputation on a per-sender basis basically?
1423 2013-11-06 11:19:57 flug has left ()
1424 2013-11-06 11:20:03 <petertodd> TD: would be good for p2p message distribution...
1425 2013-11-06 11:20:12 <TD> petertodd: that's how all modern spam filters work. i think something like 95% of all mail we receive is trivially classified by sender reputation and is nearly never wrong. the hard part is the remaining 5%
1426 2013-11-06 11:20:29 <petertodd> TD: interesting, so the baynesian stuff is long-obsolete 'eh?
1427 2013-11-06 11:20:37 <TD> if *all* mail was required to be associated with a stable sender identity, it gets a lot easier, which is why when Facebook launched their own email interop they announced senders could use DKIM or die
1428 2013-11-06 11:20:42 <petertodd> TD: I forget what I setup my mail server to use, I think spamassassin?
1429 2013-11-06 11:21:16 <TD> such a policy massively reduced their own costs, the downside being smaller providers couldn't message them. but they're the 800 pound gorilla so they figured it'd work. in any event, i don't think i ever receive email from the internet via facebook, so ....
1430 2013-11-06 11:21:18 <petertodd> TD: heh, figures... DKIM's a reasonable measure given that per-provider is really per-user for the identity needs of spam at this level.
1431 2013-11-06 11:21:47 <TD> yeah. right. DKIM doesn't work when you have giant aggregators, of course, like webmail providers. that's why open webmail providers are expected to fight abuse aggressively and people get upset when we don't
1432 2013-11-06 11:21:48 <petertodd> TD: yeah, pretty sure I never setup DKIM on my server, and I'm a nerd who made sure TLS worked w/ my petertodd.org cert
1433 2013-11-06 11:22:07 <TD> DKIM is, as upgrades go, pretty good. i think the majority of all email on the internet is DKIM signed
1434 2013-11-06 11:22:13 <petertodd> TD: yeah, and because they're expected too, DKIM works again if you have a huge investment
1435 2013-11-06 11:22:43 <TD> welll it's inherent to the nature of "lending" your identity to a large, anonymous set of users who can sign up for free
1436 2013-11-06 11:23:04 <TD> tgs3: I think the biggest problem Jabber had is that the community didn't have one canonical "best" client
1437 2013-11-06 11:23:07 <petertodd> TD: DKIM for corporate users, e.g. @foocorp.com, works really nicely
1438 2013-11-06 11:23:22 <TD> tgs3: client development was basically outsourced to the wider open source community, which then of course produced a million clients that varied only in their choice of preferred widget toolkit
1439 2013-11-06 11:23:39 <TD> tgs3: once that happened, adding features users wanted or even just taking risks with the product design became impossible.
1440 2013-11-06 11:24:14 <petertodd> TD: but skinz!
1441 2013-11-06 11:24:23 <TD> petertodd: yep. and for bulk senders. DKIM is a pretty important upgrade in general. again 99% of the effort in spam filtering goes on a tiny fraction of the mail stream that either isn't authenticating (legacy) or is authenticating but is new (enrollment and/or spammers who use DKIM)
1442 2013-11-06 11:24:34 * TD luvz skinz
1443 2013-11-06 11:25:04 <TD> tgs3: also it suffered from the more general open source problem of how to fund it .... jabber.com did OK for a while by selling to corp users, but they had politics issues (i used to be involved with the jabber community, a long time ago)
1444 2013-11-06 11:25:13 <TD> (i worked for a bit for the guy who set up jabber.com)
1445 2013-11-06 11:25:13 * petertodd as a hipster, secretly loves skinz, but won't admit it.
1446 2013-11-06 11:25:16 c0rw1n has joined
1447 2013-11-06 11:25:17 <TD> haha
1448 2013-11-06 11:25:17 agnostic98 has joined
1449 2013-11-06 11:26:14 <TD> tgs3: bitcoin is in danger of going the same way, because right now our best recommended clients aren't really funded. the client that IS funded, is bitcoin-qt, which for performance reasons isn't really usable. also there isn't really any specific product direction there because gavin is too busy directing the "product" of the core protocol and system design.
1450 2013-11-06 11:26:35 <TD> tgs3: Hive might change that by bringing a more professional/funded approach to wallet design, but it's too early to say. and they're mac only of course.
1451 2013-11-06 11:27:12 <TD> tgs3: whether we can navigate our way around the same fate depends a lot on how organised we can get around funding and deployment of features attractive to end users, rather than endless wanking over whether a client should be written in python or c++ or javascript
1452 2013-11-06 11:27:33 <TD> the good news is that as a project that's all about sending money over the internet, we have a better shot at cracking this problem than others before us did ...
1453 2013-11-06 11:29:51 <warren> I see the stream of UI improvements going into 0.9. While they're a good thing, I can't help but wonder how much better it would be as a separate process unhindered by the routing part.
1454 2013-11-06 11:30:15 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1455 2013-11-06 11:30:25 <TD> its' OK but the bitcoin-qt gui part will be increasingly irrelevant until someone makes an SPV mode for it
1456 2013-11-06 11:31:20 stonecoldpat has left ()
1457 2013-11-06 11:31:47 <TD> also it's easy to end up stuck in a local minima. bigger software projects employ dedicated product managers who do UI design, feature design, set priorities etc, but don't do programming
1458 2013-11-06 11:31:49 <TD> (generally)
1459 2013-11-06 11:31:54 stonecoldpat0 has joined
1460 2013-11-06 11:32:03 <TD> that way you can avoid GUIs based on what's easier to code up, rather than what really makes sense
1461 2013-11-06 11:33:25 oPen_syLar has joined
1462 2013-11-06 11:34:34 gingpark has quit ()
1463 2013-11-06 11:34:41 <stonecoldpat0> forgot my password grr - i was going to ask in a mining pool - is the the pool master who publishes the new block to the network? or is it the one who solves the puzzle ?
1464 2013-11-06 11:34:42 gingpark1 has joined
1465 2013-11-06 11:34:50 jeewee has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1466 2013-11-06 11:35:40 <stonecoldpat0> gonna read that new paper everyone is raging on about soon
1467 2013-11-06 11:36:50 damethos has quit (Quit: Bye)
1468 2013-11-06 11:37:29 charlie2 has left ()
1469 2013-11-06 11:37:38 swulf-- has joined
1470 2013-11-06 11:37:43 <swulf--> I'm having trouble generating signatures for spending a multisig output buring in a P2SH address. Am I correct in thinking each signature in the multisig spend scriptSig has to sign the transaction "as if" the scriptPubKey of the prevout was the subscript of the p2sh instead (That is, for the hash, the subscript is serialized instead of the actual scriptPubKey for that specific input) ?
1471 2013-11-06 11:37:50 <swulf--> buried*
1472 2013-11-06 11:37:51 damethos has joined
1473 2013-11-06 11:37:54 _ingsoc has quit (Quit: leaving)
1474 2013-11-06 11:38:59 <swulf--> seems to me like the right way would have been to sign the p2sh script?
1475 2013-11-06 11:39:29 Raziel has joined
1476 2013-11-06 11:39:34 damethos has quit (Client Quit)
1477 2013-11-06 11:40:45 damethos has joined
1478 2013-11-06 11:42:45 <petertodd> TD: not half bad, 30 minutes to setup dkim on my server, but add on another few hours of debugging and reading about it in the first place and it's easy to see why smaller providers don't bother...
1479 2013-11-06 11:42:57 <tgs3> TD: thinking in freemarket spirit, I would say it should be in big players (mtgox?) best interest to sponsor such development
1480 2013-11-06 11:43:46 da2ce7 has joined
1481 2013-11-06 11:43:49 <MC1984_> mike hearn getting some aitplay in my twitter feed for something unrelated to bitcoin
1482 2013-11-06 11:43:57 <MC1984_> feels like a small world
1483 2013-11-06 11:44:47 <petertodd> TD: it would have been better if the bitmessage people had adopted a smtp/email compatible format...get this whole identity stuff bootstrapped a bit, and anti-spam via that :(
1484 2013-11-06 11:45:06 <petertodd> TD: way too attractive to whip out something like some shoddy UI and poor modularity :(
1485 2013-11-06 11:45:27 fanquake has left ()
1486 2013-11-06 11:46:31 <MC1984_> anyone looked at tox?
1487 2013-11-06 11:46:42 <petertodd> MC1984_: tox?
1488 2013-11-06 11:47:17 <MC1984_> tox.im
1489 2013-11-06 11:47:36 <MC1984_> seems in need of a security audit
1490 2013-11-06 11:48:03 <MC1984_> the idea behind it seems to be "what skype should have been"
1491 2013-11-06 11:48:05 <petertodd> MC1984_: ah yeah, looked to me like someone was trying to sabotage the project
1492 2013-11-06 11:48:05 <c0rw1n> seems it's a hosted website thus lolfail at what they say
1493 2013-11-06 11:48:15 saulimus has joined
1494 2013-11-06 11:48:21 <MC1984_> sabotage?
1495 2013-11-06 11:49:50 <petertodd> MC1984_: don't quote me on it, but IIRC there seemed to be some odd politics going on with people trying to raise questions about the security that weren't all that warrented (in the sense that they just needed some more auditing and peer review, not to shutdown the whole project)
1496 2013-11-06 11:50:12 <MC1984_> lol
1497 2013-11-06 11:50:19 <MC1984_> you know tox started out of 4chan right
1498 2013-11-06 11:50:54 <MC1984_> there are regular tox threads on /g/ still
1499 2013-11-06 11:50:58 <petertodd> MC1984_: yup. point being, the problems looked liek reasonable mistakes that could be fixed
1500 2013-11-06 11:51:18 <MC1984_> oh nice, i was worried it was fundamentally flawed
1501 2013-11-06 11:51:45 <MC1984_> i never did find out if the threat model is GPA though
1502 2013-11-06 11:51:53 <petertodd> MC1984_: yeah, again, my memory may be faulty - looked at this a few months ago - but it all looked reasonable for *a* threat model
1503 2013-11-06 11:52:13 <petertodd> You don't need to stop all theoretical threats to make a big improvement on skype :)
1504 2013-11-06 11:52:21 <MC1984_> sure
1505 2013-11-06 11:52:28 rdymac has quit (Excess Flood)
1506 2013-11-06 11:52:42 one_zero has quit ()
1507 2013-11-06 11:53:12 <petertodd> equally of course, the people trying to stop tox could just be misguided crypto-wonks rather than well-funded NSA attacks, sad thing is, now we have proof the latter could be the case :/
1508 2013-11-06 11:53:16 <TD> RedPhone is a good example of how it can be done well
1509 2013-11-06 11:53:27 <TD> i've used it a few times now and it works great. it's simple enough for anyone to use, journalists included
1510 2013-11-06 11:53:48 <TD> petertodd: yeah DKIM isn't bad. there are extra standards people can use to figure out if they set it up right (by getting notified of unsigned mail claiming to be from you)
1511 2013-11-06 11:53:50 <petertodd> TD: yeah, I quite like RedPhone. shame phone-to-phone coms doesn't work great so they need servers in the middle - sound quality could be better
1512 2013-11-06 11:54:19 <MC1984_> it that sort of thing easier or harder with LTE
1513 2013-11-06 11:54:19 <TD> maybe in some star-trek future where IPv6 gets deployed and mobile providers don't firewall phones off by default (despite their lack of listening ports)
1514 2013-11-06 11:54:47 <TD> actually, one thing that a lot of people don't realise is that 3G is really private by default. it's sort of like an easy to use Tor.
1515 2013-11-06 11:54:53 <TD> the reason is that carrier NATs don't keep logs
1516 2013-11-06 11:55:02 <MC1984_> really
1517 2013-11-06 11:55:10 <TD> and even if they did, the remote sites that receive traffic tend not to record connecting port numbers anyway
1518 2013-11-06 11:55:26 <petertodd> TD: my art school gf managed to setup their TextSecure app in about 5 minutes, and he even managed to do it securely based on no more than what she already knew about crypto (nothing!) and their UI
1519 2013-11-06 11:55:28 <TD> so working backwards from "my site got hacked" to "who did this" is a waste of time if the guy was using a 3G dongle, even if it was purchased under their own name
1520 2013-11-06 11:55:34 <MC1984_> they record location information pretty damn well though
1521 2013-11-06 11:55:53 <petertodd> TD: heh, I'll remember that...
1522 2013-11-06 11:56:03 <TD> petertodd: right. textsecure/redphone is how crypto apps SHOULD work. although that said, i never got redphone to work just from the dialer. i always have to add a contact first and initiate the call from inside the app
1523 2013-11-06 11:56:44 <petertodd> TD: I hear there's a lot of pressure to get IPv6 more widely deployed from law enforcement - and in the UK part of why they want to enforce per-user logs is because they know it's going to cost a huge amount of money for ISP's to do the NAT tracking required if they don't go IPv6 for everything
1524 2013-11-06 11:56:55 rdymac has joined
1525 2013-11-06 11:57:07 <petertodd> TD: yeah, that's the one big flaw of redphone unfortunately; dunno if it's a android api limitation
1526 2013-11-06 11:57:33 <TD> well they claim it's supposed to work. so not sure it's an API limitation. pretty sure other apps manage it ...
1527 2013-11-06 11:57:49 <TD> yes IPv6 is a good thing for LE
1528 2013-11-06 11:57:51 <petertodd> TD: odd, oh well, one flaw isn't so bad :)
1529 2013-11-06 11:57:53 <TD> (and everyone else)
1530 2013-11-06 11:58:18 <MC1984_> i knew it
1531 2013-11-06 11:58:19 <petertodd> TD: heh, sad that we're not likely to see carriers get rid of their inbound firewalls though
1532 2013-11-06 11:58:36 <MC1984_> i said years ago ipv6 is great for surveillance and someone called me tinfoil
1533 2013-11-06 11:59:18 <petertodd> MC1984_: yup, like it or not, IPv6 is a brilliant thing for surveillance, although only in the sense that the alternative, IPv4+NAT, isn't
1534 2013-11-06 11:59:40 <petertodd> MC1984_: pure IPv4 if we hadn't run out of addresses is no different than IPv6...
1535 2013-11-06 11:59:51 <TD> well, they want to push internet exits down to the tower level, which they can do with IPv6
1536 2013-11-06 11:59:58 <MC1984_> yes, its the nat introducing ambiguity
1537 2013-11-06 12:00:08 <TD> but i think the worry is that a large DoS attack from the internet to a phone could swamp the tower and other practical constraints
1538 2013-11-06 12:00:25 <petertodd> TD: oh, nice point...
1539 2013-11-06 12:00:40 <MC1984_> otoh, v6 means more endpoint are directly connectible means we dont need to many damn servers for stuff
1540 2013-11-06 12:00:48 <TD> what we might end up with is a crappy UPnP style hack where there's some protocol to ask the network to open up ports on the firewall for the device.
1541 2013-11-06 12:00:54 <MC1984_> re-empowers the endpoint, which i like
1542 2013-11-06 12:00:55 <TD> ( i hope )
1543 2013-11-06 12:01:05 <TD> but it's a bit early for that
1544 2013-11-06 12:01:22 <TD> anyway, IPv6 over LTE will happen. carriers want it. governments want it. end users want it (even if they don't realise it yet). but mostly, carriers want it.
1545 2013-11-06 12:01:28 <petertodd> TD: true, w/ DoS attacks that makes a lot of sense. Although other than the actual hack sucking, it's a reasonable thing to do - basically you're just putting the firewall on the box with the bandwidth.
1546 2013-11-06 12:01:34 <TD> yeah
1547 2013-11-06 12:02:27 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1548 2013-11-06 12:02:44 <petertodd> long term the only thing that'll really work re: firewalling and the like is for net neutrality to be enshrined in law, enforced, and applied to mobile carriers too. Good luck. :(
1549 2013-11-06 12:03:45 <MC1984_> if something bad would happen due to advances in technology were it not for laws banning it, it really only is a matter of time
1550 2013-11-06 12:04:46 <petertodd> yup
1551 2013-11-06 12:05:08 <MC1984_> i love my isp though
1552 2013-11-06 12:05:17 <petertodd> OTOH you are much better if you can force restrictions to be done in obvious ways, rather than subtle ways.
1553 2013-11-06 12:05:34 <MC1984_> they apparently dont even have the boxes capable of doing that stuff, and would kick and scream if anyone tried to make them
1554 2013-11-06 12:05:40 <petertodd> especially if you can force regulators into whitelists, rather than blacklists
1555 2013-11-06 12:06:21 <petertodd> many capitalists with the money hate whitelists, because they know how much money a succesful startup can earn them :P
1556 2013-11-06 12:06:40 <MC1984_> definitely blacklist over here
1557 2013-11-06 12:07:07 <MC1984_> theres a secret list of websites the record industry doesnt like which the top 6 isps have blackholed under court order
1558 2013-11-06 12:07:28 <petertodd> what country?
1559 2013-11-06 12:07:43 <MC1984_> once they blackholed a domain whcih was running 80000 websites under subdomains off it. No fucks given
1560 2013-11-06 12:07:48 <MC1984_> UK
1561 2013-11-06 12:08:03 <petertodd> ah, sorry to hear you live in that third-world shithole
1562 2013-11-06 12:08:22 <MC1984_> theyre mainly using the technical systems set up originally to hide CP. Wonderful scope creep
1563 2013-11-06 12:08:32 <warren> petertodd: maybe your two respective heads of state could converse about it...
1564 2013-11-06 12:09:06 <MC1984_> yeah im sorry too. But its just a symptom of the wider political rot in our system
1565 2013-11-06 12:09:43 <petertodd> heh, and those systems never really hid CP anyway... damn near all the open internet CP got pushed into darknets years ago, not least of which because of how stupid it is to use your web-browser to visit them
1566 2013-11-06 12:10:35 <MC1984_> ill just never stop marvelling at the ability of certain orgs flush with cash to insert themselves as gatekeepers and rent seekers in places where there was none before and everything ran completely fine. A bit like ye old fabled bridge trolls
1567 2013-11-06 12:10:39 <MC1984_> and its allowed to happen
1568 2013-11-06 12:11:08 <petertodd> Who the hell wants to make it trivial for law enforcement to get a court-order tapping your internet connection, and use that obvious evidence as well-deserved justification to raid you home? I've even heard that police actually working in the field *didn't* want those blacklists, because those sites helped catch actual criminals.
1569 2013-11-06 12:11:31 <MC1984_> it was never about the CP
1570 2013-11-06 12:11:36 <petertodd> Absolutely
1571 2013-11-06 12:11:53 <MC1984_> the cleanfeed system also accidentally blocked wikipedia UK wide once
1572 2013-11-06 12:11:59 <petertodd> heh, not surprised there...
1573 2013-11-06 12:12:01 <MC1984_> toplel
1574 2013-11-06 12:12:25 <TD> apparently cleanfeed does actually block quite a lot of extremely nasty CP, despite that it's not workable on tor
1575 2013-11-06 12:12:34 <TD> not all of them use tor, it seems.
1576 2013-11-06 12:12:40 <TD> that's one of the reasons the ISPs do go along with it
1577 2013-11-06 12:12:47 <TD> that said, objectively measuring its performance is impossible.
1578 2013-11-06 12:12:53 <MC1984_> good. doorstep the ones that dont
1579 2013-11-06 12:13:28 <MC1984_> the cleanfeed part of the IWF operations just seems to eba bout warm fuzzies tbh
1580 2013-11-06 12:13:44 <TD> the people who run it are some kind of quasi-independent organisation that the government explicitly supports.
1581 2013-11-06 12:13:48 <petertodd> TD: oh sure, but to be a success it needs to actually have an impact on children... which it definitely doesn't because it makes actual prosecutions harder. You don't want to push the idiots underground too early.
1582 2013-11-06 12:14:02 <MC1984_> i also find it strange how IWF employees are some of the very few people in the country with a legal exemption for looking at the stuff, which is usually strict liability....
1583 2013-11-06 12:14:24 <TD> well, i dunno how effective it is at that. i'd be out of my depth. the big problem i see is that it's a paradox. they refuse to reveal what's on their list because it's so terrible. but the list is used for blocking things. so it shouldn't matter if they publish it
1584 2013-11-06 12:14:26 <petertodd> MC1984_: nothing strange about that, it's a practical necessity
1585 2013-11-06 12:14:32 <MC1984_> just something a bit off about the whole operation
1586 2013-11-06 12:14:38 <TD> essentially they're saying, "we need to have this list to block things, but if we told you what's on it, you might go look at it"
1587 2013-11-06 12:14:54 <TD> MC1984_: iirc they get rotated fairly often
1588 2013-11-06 12:15:04 <TD> because otherwise they start failing psych exams, or something like that
1589 2013-11-06 12:15:08 <MC1984_> petertodd practically yes, but i still find it odd
1590 2013-11-06 12:15:10 oPen_syLar has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
1591 2013-11-06 12:15:15 <petertodd> TD: yeah, I'm mainly basing my comments on having actually talked to some people working in that field myself (specifically the law enforcement side, and socialwork/psych side)
1592 2013-11-06 12:15:39 <TD> then you would know better
1593 2013-11-06 12:15:39 <MC1984_> TD a days work for a days pay.......
1594 2013-11-06 12:15:58 <petertodd> TD: heh, secret blacklists are scary things... I'd like to see that list audited selectively - do a merkle tree of it and pick n samples :)
1595 2013-11-06 12:16:55 <MC1984_> the latest gloating BPI press release about getting yet another uncontested court order against sites helpfully listed them all in bullet point format
1596 2013-11-06 12:17:02 <MC1984_> which news helpfull repreinted
1597 2013-11-06 12:17:11 <petertodd> MC1984_: ha, nice
1598 2013-11-06 12:17:12 <MC1984_> thanks, got some new bookmarks now :D
1599 2013-11-06 12:17:18 Subo1977 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1600 2013-11-06 12:17:36 <TD> petertodd: yes. they aren't inherently unstable though. after all, google+microsoft operate what are effectively secret blacklists of websites for safebrowsing
1601 2013-11-06 12:17:39 <TD> (run very, very, very carefully)
1602 2013-11-06 12:17:50 <TD> and so far it's never been abused, as far as i know
1603 2013-11-06 12:17:58 <MC1984_> its about money though. The private blocking regime needs contesting but no one has the money to do it
1604 2013-11-06 12:18:23 <MC1984_> so far
1605 2013-11-06 12:18:23 <petertodd> TD: the one good thing re: auditing, is at least it's easy to be given a site that was blocked, and verify that yourself...
1606 2013-11-06 12:19:03 <petertodd> The bigger issue is really the infrastructure required to block in the first place, is technologically deep-packet-inspection, and we're much worse off if that's widely deployed.
1607 2013-11-06 12:19:03 <TD> not just money. you'd need to find someone who is willing to stand up and say "i think we should make it easier to access child porn" and actually campaign to make that happen. as so far there's been no evidence of politcal abuse of cleanfeed.
1608 2013-11-06 12:19:12 <TD> and it's not technically run by the government, so there's a bit of separation of powers there
1609 2013-11-06 12:19:24 <MC1984_> not cleanfeed, the BPIs court orders
1610 2013-11-06 12:19:46 <petertodd> If cleanfeed *didn't* require DPI to operate, I'd actually be less worried about it.
1611 2013-11-06 12:19:49 <TD> oh, ok
1612 2013-11-06 12:19:59 skinnkavaj has joined
1613 2013-11-06 12:20:04 <TD> petertodd: i think they are just blocking based on IP normally, hence the accidentally over-blocks
1614 2013-11-06 12:20:38 <TD> MC1984_: right. well that's also hard to challenge because those sites are unquestionably aiding and abetting bulk law breaking. it'd be a lot better if the origin countries handled it of course
1615 2013-11-06 12:20:45 <MC1984_> its basically impossible to have any rational debate about CP and what to do about it in this country. A disabled man got dragged out of his house and burned alive by his neighbours on mere suspicion of being a pedo. This is in britain 2013 not tribal afghanistan
1616 2013-11-06 12:20:48 <TD> but you can see how a judge would conclude that it's not a problem to order the blocking of that
1617 2013-11-06 12:20:57 Subo1977 has joined
1618 2013-11-06 12:21:01 <petertodd> TD: my understanding was they went further than that too; again, if it were purely IP it'd be bad, but at least the auditableness makes it something you can fight
1619 2013-11-06 12:21:39 <MC1984_> TD the promo bay wasnt, and it got blocked
1620 2013-11-06 12:21:43 <petertodd> MC1984_: that case looks more like a neighborhood using "he was a pedo" as an excuse to commit a violent assult
1621 2013-11-06 12:21:53 <MC1984_> until the BPI so fucking graciously "allowed" british people to see it
1622 2013-11-06 12:22:04 <TD> i.e. admitted they were wrong
1623 2013-11-06 12:22:18 <petertodd> MC1984_: yes, accidental over-blocking needs to be something that they are forced to pay damages for
1624 2013-11-06 12:22:28 <TD> well the UK has a bigger problem until cameron gets kicked out, he wants default-on filtering of porn (all of it)
1625 2013-11-06 12:22:30 <petertodd> MC1984_: make it a simple civil action like any other tort
1626 2013-11-06 12:22:33 <MC1984_> that really rustled by goddamn jimmies. Theyve levered themselve sinto a position of gatekeeper and they know it
1627 2013-11-06 12:22:36 <TD> not just a tiny minority of CP or anything like that
1628 2013-11-06 12:22:52 <petertodd> TD: and default-on filtering would *definitely* need DPI to work in practice
1629 2013-11-06 12:22:55 ielo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1630 2013-11-06 12:23:15 <petertodd> TD: unless you want to use that as a way to force every single web-site provider to police their customers content... oh wait
1631 2013-11-06 12:23:27 <MC1984_> petertodd yes those council estate wasters wernt the brightest bunch, but the pedo effect, if you will, is very real
1632 2013-11-06 12:23:33 <MC1984_> the hysteria is incredible
1633 2013-11-06 12:23:39 <petertodd> MC1984_: sure, just saying, that's not the best example
1634 2013-11-06 12:23:47 <TD> it goes through phases. do you remember the Brass Eye episode?
1635 2013-11-06 12:23:51 <TD> haha. that was comedy genius
1636 2013-11-06 12:24:02 <MC1984_> yeah i remembe rthe shitstorm lol
1637 2013-11-06 12:24:13 <petertodd> MC1984_: the pediatrician that got assulted on the other hand (or was it murdered?)
1638 2013-11-06 12:24:22 <petertodd> TD: ?
1639 2013-11-06 12:24:26 <TD> neither
1640 2013-11-06 12:24:28 <MC1984_> her house was attacked
1641 2013-11-06 12:24:34 <TD> yeah
1642 2013-11-06 12:24:40 <TD> i think she was ok though
1643 2013-11-06 12:24:43 <petertodd> MC1984_: ah, that's "better"
1644 2013-11-06 12:24:48 <MC1984_> well she moved
1645 2013-11-06 12:24:50 <MC1984_> i think
1646 2013-11-06 12:25:00 <TD> unfortunately there will always be a violent minority in any community, people who are looking for an excuse to get their aggression out
1647 2013-11-06 12:25:07 <TD> i wish the UK had swiss-style armed service for all
1648 2013-11-06 12:25:13 <MC1984_> my moint point is how dman politically convenient the hysteria is
1649 2013-11-06 12:25:16 agnostic98 has joined
1650 2013-11-06 12:25:21 <MC1984_> moint/main
1651 2013-11-06 12:25:32 <TD> i think if everyone would spend a bit of time in the military and easily have the option to do more, some of those elements would end up in the army instead of torching council houses
1652 2013-11-06 12:25:34 <petertodd> Anyway, the bigger impact isn't the rare violent incident, but rather the more pervasive stuff like single-fathers feeling like they can't take thier kids to the park. (especially adopted kids...)
1653 2013-11-06 12:26:01 <petertodd> TD: problem is militaries these days don't need as many grunts as they used too, even in the infantry
1654 2013-11-06 12:26:06 <MC1984_> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100427/1437179198.shtml
1655 2013-11-06 12:26:10 <tgs3> petertodd: why not? the zomgpedoseveryone craze?
1656 2013-11-06 12:26:27 <petertodd> tgs3: exactly
1657 2013-11-06 12:26:31 <tgs3> petertodd: lol
1658 2013-11-06 12:26:42 <petertodd> Or how males don't feel they can go into teaching, especially for earlier grades.
1659 2013-11-06 12:26:47 <tgs3> that's why democracy is such a stupid idea, most people are idiots
1660 2013-11-06 12:26:48 <TD> arguably in the current world no modern country "needs" an army at all. we live in peaceful times. but the swiss model does mean that you'd have to be insane to think about invading it, because there are _so many_ "grunts" who are trained in marksmenship
1661 2013-11-06 12:27:18 <MC1984_> TD in lieu of decent roles for the majority of young men to do anymore, you might be right
1662 2013-11-06 12:27:20 <petertodd> I can think of.. lets see, maybe even a dozen females that I've known who have gone into teaching, (non-uni level) and a single guy.
1663 2013-11-06 12:27:36 <TD> yeah but that's not necessarily because they're afraid of being labelled a pedo.
1664 2013-11-06 12:27:43 <TD> some jobs just end up with massive gender skew
1665 2013-11-06 12:27:48 <TD> like open source development :)
1666 2013-11-06 12:27:55 paraipan has joined
1667 2013-11-06 12:28:00 <TD> then people don't want to work in an environment where they're the only guy/girl
1668 2013-11-06 12:28:17 <TD> biotech was going that way with dominance by women for a while. i heard some big biotech/genetics firms put on a major effort to recruit men
1669 2013-11-06 12:28:22 <TD> and managed to turn it around somewhat
1670 2013-11-06 12:28:30 <MC1984_> interesting
1671 2013-11-06 12:28:40 <petertodd> TD: it's not all of the problem, but it definitely is some of it - I know of some males who wound up teaching at the university level rather than earlier in part because they figured it'd be easier.
1672 2013-11-06 12:29:11 Polyatomic has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1673 2013-11-06 12:29:18 <petertodd> TD: biotech/genetics is interesting because the field has shifted to use more comp-sci than it used too, among other things
1674 2013-11-06 12:29:41 <MC1984_> i worked in secondary education for a while........i found a logbook of my predecessor where he logged every interation with certain pupils for his own safety :(
1675 2013-11-06 12:29:47 <MC1984_> was not happy
1676 2013-11-06 12:30:23 <MC1984_> and yes there were some precocious little cows there
1677 2013-11-06 12:30:55 <TD> right
1678 2013-11-06 12:31:17 <petertodd> MC1984_: :(
1679 2013-11-06 12:32:00 <petertodd> MC1984_: wider problem too: society needs to accept that for a lot of crimes there just isn't the evidence to convict, and lowering standards invites abuse.
1680 2013-11-06 12:32:14 <petertodd> MC1984_: sad really, but I don't see a way around that
1681 2013-11-06 12:32:26 <MC1984_> evidence doesnt come into it in that context, in terms of outcomes
1682 2013-11-06 12:33:02 <petertodd> MC1984_: yes, but it should: why should some kid have the ability to destroy someone's career with a lie?
1683 2013-11-06 12:33:34 <MC1984_> because thats the britain the tabloids have wrought
1684 2013-11-06 12:33:46 <petertodd> yup
1685 2013-11-06 12:34:05 <MC1984_> i fucking loved how the daily mail wrote an article of lamentation over the guy burned to death
1686 2013-11-06 12:34:09 <TD> the social punishment for overreaction is low. if as a headmaster you side with the teacher, and then it turns out he really is chasing skirt, then liability shifts to you because "the warning signs were there"
1687 2013-11-06 12:34:14 <MC1984_> they lit him up as good as those people did
1688 2013-11-06 12:34:24 <TD> and then lots of parents are upset because they all want to ignore the fact that their children became horny teenagers
1689 2013-11-06 12:34:38 <TD> i don't think that's specific to the UK
1690 2013-11-06 12:34:55 <TD> it happens the same everywhere. it's easier to not take any risks because nobody will forgive mistakes
1691 2013-11-06 12:35:09 <MC1984_> yeah good point
1692 2013-11-06 12:35:16 <petertodd> basically it's one of the few examples where modern law fails us, and we're back to being a primitive society based on popularity
1693 2013-11-06 12:35:20 <MC1984_> thats the rise of "zero tolerance" imo
1694 2013-11-06 12:35:30 <MC1984_> = zero judgement, and no judgement means no fault
1695 2013-11-06 12:35:59 <petertodd> ugh, I was in elementary school just as zero tolerance was really being ramped up in ontario
1696 2013-11-06 12:36:13 <TD> well, the parents might say that it's just risk management. if the teacher was wrongfully accused, they can go to a different school where the controversy isn't known about and get another job, or whatever. if the law got involved they might end up doing time.
1697 2013-11-06 12:36:31 <TD> so the punishment is lower and thus the cost of mistakes is lower.
1698 2013-11-06 12:36:39 <TD> and from their PoV teachers are replaceable commodities
1699 2013-11-06 12:37:00 <MC1984_> thats another symptom of tabloid britain
1700 2013-11-06 12:37:03 <TD> when a teacher is really good/popular, these sorts of problems are less of an issue because more people will go to their defence
1701 2013-11-06 12:37:07 <petertodd> I remember getting badly beaten up once, and even though a teacher found me pinned to the ground with a few kids on top of me, I was threatened with suspension.
1702 2013-11-06 12:37:08 <MC1984_> parents and teachers used to be allies
1703 2013-11-06 12:37:18 <MC1984_> in the interest of the child
1704 2013-11-06 12:37:39 <TD> maybe.
1705 2013-11-06 12:37:52 <petertodd> TD: exactly, hence my comment about us reverting to being a primitive society with a legal system that's popularity contest
1706 2013-11-06 12:38:02 <TD> yeah
1707 2013-11-06 12:38:19 <MC1984_> petertodd the rule of law is wobbling in all sorts of ways here, not jsut the ones discussed
1708 2013-11-06 12:38:23 <TD> i think the more interesting case of this (for guys like us) is not the school setting but rather the adult/workplace setting
1709 2013-11-06 12:38:32 <TD> there have been studies of the number of rape claims submitted to police that turn out to be false
1710 2013-11-06 12:38:33 <petertodd> MC1984_: see, I wound up being homeschooled for like 5 years so... I'd hope my parents and teachers were allies :P
1711 2013-11-06 12:38:37 <MC1984_> for isntance the high court is probably about to rule that journalism = terrorism or something
1712 2013-11-06 12:38:41 <TD> and it's an eyewatering, mind blowingly high number
1713 2013-11-06 12:39:08 <TD> (because police rarely prosecute women for filing false rape claims, so it's seen as a zero cost form of harassment)
1714 2013-11-06 12:39:22 <petertodd> yet if you even try to talk about the possibility that some rape claims are false you're attacked
1715 2013-11-06 12:39:31 <MC1984_> TD thats another kind of hot button topic
1716 2013-11-06 12:39:38 <TD> well it's discussed quite a bit in some circles. like i said, there have been academic studies of this that are quite convincing.
1717 2013-11-06 12:39:52 <TD> it doesn't quite hit the same animal reflexes that anything involving children does
1718 2013-11-06 12:39:57 <TD> but yes it's an under-discussed problem
1719 2013-11-06 12:39:58 owowo has joined
1720 2013-11-06 12:40:00 dommm has joined
1721 2013-11-06 12:40:18 <MC1984_> with things like that i dont know why people cant just go with the data, instead of trying to claim a narrative of all rape claims are true or all are false or somthing
1722 2013-11-06 12:40:19 <vrs> TD this is still -dev
1723 2013-11-06 12:40:27 <vrs> MC1984_ too
1724 2013-11-06 12:40:43 <TD> heh
1725 2013-11-06 12:40:50 <MC1984_> ff no fun allowed
1726 2013-11-06 12:40:53 <petertodd> I dunno, around here I get the sense that the idea that some rape claims are false is not much less controversial than the idea that maybe you shouldn't prosecute teens with photos of themselves on their phones for child pornography production...
1727 2013-11-06 12:41:01 <petertodd> (e.g. canadian media)
1728 2013-11-06 12:41:33 <petertodd> TD: I think you're statement would be more true in, say, an art school university environment
1729 2013-11-06 12:41:58 <petertodd> TD: and even there, they tend to respond well to criticism and don't shun people for it.
1730 2013-11-06 12:42:55 <petertodd> vrs: ok, so maybe if we had the accuser buy a bitcoin fidelity bond first...
1731 2013-11-06 12:43:49 <MC1984_> TD you seem rather asspained at the NSA in that post
1732 2013-11-06 12:44:13 <TD> "asspained"?
1733 2013-11-06 12:44:16 <TD> what a delightful word
1734 2013-11-06 12:44:24 <MC1984_> did you "explode into profanity" like the other guys lol
1735 2013-11-06 12:45:40 <MC1984_> i was actually kind of surprised that there was a time when google wasnt encrypting inter-datacenter traffic tbh
1736 2013-11-06 12:45:50 <MC1984_> it seems obvious
1737 2013-11-06 12:45:53 ahbritto has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1738 2013-11-06 12:46:00 ahbritto_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1739 2013-11-06 12:46:06 <petertodd> MC1984_: "aren't there, like, VPN boxes that do that for you?"
1740 2013-11-06 12:46:32 <MC1984_> yeah ok
1741 2013-11-06 12:46:33 <c0rw1n> maybe they felt that since they're datamining so much that no-one can do o them what they do to everyone?
1742 2013-11-06 12:46:42 <MC1984_> but google is stuffed to the fasters with talent
1743 2013-11-06 12:46:46 <TD> these are private pieces of glass that we light with our own lasers
1744 2013-11-06 12:46:48 <MC1984_> rafters
1745 2013-11-06 12:47:04 <petertodd> TD: going through not so private manholes...
1746 2013-11-06 12:47:16 <TD> and the working assumption before snowden was that western governments would go get the right paperwork
1747 2013-11-06 12:47:23 <TD> so that assumption turned out to be wrong
1748 2013-11-06 12:47:47 <MC1984_> how do you link centers on different continents though
1749 2013-11-06 12:47:48 <TD> (the other assumption is that non-state actors can't tap high speed fiber links, which seems to hold)
1750 2013-11-06 12:48:12 <petertodd> and also that it's not practical or profitable for data theives or something to pop a manhole cover and install the tapping gear themselves - tht part they got right
1751 2013-11-06 12:48:29 <petertodd> TD: on a technical level they're wrong there.
1752 2013-11-06 12:49:15 <MC1984_> "Yes, that's pretty much it. Encryption was being worked on prior to Snowden but it didn't seem like a high priority because there was no evidence it would achieve anything useful, and it cost a lot of resources. Once it became clear how badly compromised the fiber paths were, there was a crash effort to encrypt everything."
1753 2013-11-06 12:49:18 <MC1984_> fair play to that
1754 2013-11-06 12:49:41 <petertodd> MC1984_: yup, pretty reasonable example of ignoring what should have been a low-priority
1755 2013-11-06 12:49:59 <MC1984_> i often wonder to waht extent silicon valley is genuinly angry about this stuff
1756 2013-11-06 12:49:59 <jouke_> One of my nodes has 12 connections. 5 Are 8.99 clients coming from the same servers-range. One is 8.0, four are 8.1, one is 8.3 and only one is 8.5 :-/
1757 2013-11-06 12:50:03 <TD> it wasn't ignored. cross-link encryption tech had already been developed, but it was only protecting a small number of things instead of everything
1758 2013-11-06 12:50:06 <MC1984_> i mean, on princple.
1759 2013-11-06 12:50:11 markus__ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1760 2013-11-06 12:50:16 <TD> it would have eventually rolled out everywhere, but much more slowly
1761 2013-11-06 12:50:22 <MC1984_> Theyll obviously be angry when it knocks the bottom out of the US cloud industry
1762 2013-11-06 12:50:53 <TD> i don't think that's going to happen. there aren't any real alternatives to these big companies and most people/companies don't include the US govt in their threat model (because it is too expensive)
1763 2013-11-06 12:50:58 <petertodd> MC1984_: IBM hardware division has gone from 18% growth to a 40% drop in sales to china in the past few months, starting directly after snowden
1764 2013-11-06 12:51:18 <MC1984_> i wonder if anyone would be angry enough to shut shop and leave Us territory. the EU is a nice big economy
1765 2013-11-06 12:51:40 <MC1984_> google left DPRC for HK once didnt they
1766 2013-11-06 12:52:08 <MC1984_> petertodd heh payback for huawei
1767 2013-11-06 12:52:21 <petertodd> What sucks is that *if* the US government is singling you out for survailance, they have resources such that it's extremely difficult to win. On the other hand, if you are just part of a widespread survaillance effort, you genuinely can win that battle, but for many the cost of the survaillance is so low they don't care.
1768 2013-11-06 12:52:46 gjj_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1769 2013-11-06 12:52:52 <MC1984_> its not low, just abstract
1770 2013-11-06 12:53:02 <petertodd> Corporatins though should consider that sometimes industrial espionage is done lazily, so avoiding that initial mass survailance means the government will never know to make you a priority target.
1771 2013-11-06 12:53:14 <MC1984_> go to germany and pick a random 40-50 year old off the street and ask them how low the lost is
1772 2013-11-06 12:53:20 <MC1984_> cost
1773 2013-11-06 12:53:22 gjj has joined
1774 2013-11-06 12:53:32 <petertodd> MC1984_: heh, germany is an interesting choice there :)
1775 2013-11-06 12:54:25 <petertodd> Anyway, suggests our focus as technology workers should be to make resisting that survailance as cheap as possible for users, even if we don't wind up with systems that can withstand focused attack.
1776 2013-11-06 12:54:54 <MC1984_> i just remember how the stasi manuals had all sorts of stuff about the useful psychological effects on targets, and then whats happening to people at border crossings these days
1777 2013-11-06 12:55:06 <MC1984_> it fits
1778 2013-11-06 12:55:13 <petertodd> for sure
1779 2013-11-06 12:55:30 <MC1984_> so the cost isnt low
1780 2013-11-06 12:55:43 <MC1984_> people might think it is
1781 2013-11-06 12:55:55 <petertodd> perceived cost is what actully matters to people
1782 2013-11-06 12:56:05 <MC1984_> sure
1783 2013-11-06 12:56:07 OrP has joined
1784 2013-11-06 12:56:20 damethos has quit (Quit: Bye)
1785 2013-11-06 12:57:03 <MC1984_> theyre jsut being clever about it this time, hiding the overt bullshit from the public until its way too late to do anything about it
1786 2013-11-06 12:57:24 <MC1984_> the snowden studd got d noticed so fast over here
1787 2013-11-06 12:57:28 <MC1984_> stuff
1788 2013-11-06 12:57:35 andytoshi has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.4.1)
1789 2013-11-06 12:57:43 damethos has joined
1790 2013-11-06 12:58:16 gjj has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1791 2013-11-06 12:58:47 <petertodd> I wouldn't read too much into that... a very plausible explanation for a lot of this stuff is simply that without oversight, it's way too easy for departments at the NSA to expand their scope, something the want to do natrually. In government doing something totally useless, even counter-productive, won't get you put in jail, but simply stealing the funds will, so naturally departments get bigger by expanding their scope to do useless things.
1792 2013-11-06 12:58:58 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1793 2013-11-06 12:59:54 Anduck has joined
1794 2013-11-06 12:59:54 Anduck has quit (Changing host)
1795 2013-11-06 12:59:54 Anduck has joined
1796 2013-11-06 13:02:08 tmsk has joined
1797 2013-11-06 13:02:15 <petertodd> It's also of course a power trip for some people: building mass survailance lets you think you have enormous power, even if you yourself can't use the power because of legal restrictions, and/or the fact that you're some NSA wonk rather than Machiavelli.
1798 2013-11-06 13:04:56 <petertodd> (there's some really scathing reports that a lot of the actual output of this NSA survailance was utterly useless because they never could actually make good use of the social connections data for things the upper levels actually cared about)
1799 2013-11-06 13:05:55 <TD> i think that sounds most likely, yes
1800 2013-11-06 13:08:08 BurtyB has joined
1801 2013-11-06 13:09:00 gjj has joined
1802 2013-11-06 13:12:09 <MC1984_> petertodd you know the head of the NSA (or somthing) literally built a control room for the spying in the style of a star trek bridge
1803 2013-11-06 13:12:15 <MC1984_> captains chair and all
1804 2013-11-06 13:12:29 gjj has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1805 2013-11-06 13:12:29 <MC1984_> can you not glean absolutely everything you need to about the psyche of these people from that
1806 2013-11-06 13:12:58 <c0rw1n> they're nerds?
1807 2013-11-06 13:13:05 gjj has joined
1808 2013-11-06 13:13:18 <MC1984_> heh
1809 2013-11-06 13:13:32 gjj has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1810 2013-11-06 13:13:32 <MC1984_> sociopathic ones
1811 2013-11-06 13:13:47 <owowo> they are gods! :P
1812 2013-11-06 13:13:52 <c0rw1n> sociopathic mega-nerds with infinite money
1813 2013-11-06 13:13:52 copumpkin has joined
1814 2013-11-06 13:13:55 <owowo> Q
1815 2013-11-06 13:13:58 gjj has joined
1816 2013-11-06 13:15:18 _ingsoc has joined
1817 2013-11-06 13:15:45 <petertodd> MC1984_: Exactly.... these aren't the illuminati we're dealing with, this is the illuminati's henchmen. Fortunately, we've got good reason to think the illuminati itself doesn't exist, which makes their henchmen a lot easier to deal with.
1818 2013-11-06 13:15:46 Musk has joined
1819 2013-11-06 13:15:58 diki has joined
1820 2013-11-06 13:16:03 <diki> Someone messed up here
1821 2013-11-06 13:16:03 <MC1984_> it reminded me of some soviet bloc country where a 60s chic control room was built for hte government who thought the key to stable society was collecting metrics on everything and micromanaging
1822 2013-11-06 13:16:03 <petertodd> Lets just make sure we get the problem under control before the illuminati does exist!
1823 2013-11-06 13:16:03 <diki> http://blockchain.info/tx/472a5b6bc408f6863988930658f9744a6c61c18eb7b7475bc286a6a90b858ba9
1824 2013-11-06 13:16:10 <diki> paid over 14btc fee
1825 2013-11-06 13:16:26 <MC1984_> ive seen it on one of those abandoned soviet facilities photosets things
1826 2013-11-06 13:16:26 <petertodd> diki: someone's been doing that for months - I suspect it's intentional
1827 2013-11-06 13:16:44 <MC1984_> the similarity struck me light a hammer
1828 2013-11-06 13:17:29 <TD> oh dear. my post has over 1000 +1's
1829 2013-11-06 13:17:33 <TD> i hope it doesn't end up in what's hot or anything
1830 2013-11-06 13:18:58 <MC1984_> petertodd thats the problem, these vain dumbasses really are going to end up as the illuminati if were not careful
1831 2013-11-06 13:19:01 <MC1984_> thats the danger
1832 2013-11-06 13:19:25 <MC1984_> i wouldnt mind being ruled by benevolent overlords if it was Culture mind style
1833 2013-11-06 13:19:29 damethos has quit (Quit: Bye)
1834 2013-11-06 13:19:53 <TD> lol: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1q0co1/in_june_of_2010_one_bitcoin_was_worth_0004_now/
1835 2013-11-06 13:19:59 <petertodd> MC1984_: a dictatorship is the best form of government, aside from the pesky problem of finding a benevolent dictator :P
1836 2013-11-06 13:20:33 <MC1984_> srs, i think democracy is overrated in a lot of ways
1837 2013-11-06 13:20:39 <MC1984_> which i feel is a shame
1838 2013-11-06 13:21:04 <petertodd> MC1984_: note how often the benevolent dictator model *does* work in opensource projects, where you solve that problem with a meta-structure where you can switch what dictator you pledge allegance too!
1839 2013-11-06 13:21:06 <owowo> what democracy?
1840 2013-11-06 13:21:33 <MC1984_> yeah thats the key
1841 2013-11-06 13:22:26 <petertodd> MC1984_: Bitcoin is unique in that regard because a: the core team doesn't have a dictator and b: the suicide pact of consensus makes everything weird and hard to change
1842 2013-11-06 13:23:11 <MC1984_> yes thats true. one does not simply fork bitcoin
1843 2013-11-06 13:23:12 avarab is now known as avar
1844 2013-11-06 13:24:11 <petertodd> MC1984_: exactly, hence why I said on the foundation forum that the Dark Wallet people are making a huge political mistake by developing a ground-up codebase, rather than promoting the idea that the consensus-critical parts of the satoshi codebase *are* the standard.
1845 2013-11-06 13:24:40 <petertodd> MC1984_: if you get people on that model... then no-one gets to be a dicator even if they want to be.
1846 2013-11-06 13:25:16 agnostic98 has joined
1847 2013-11-06 13:25:20 <petertodd> MC1984_: but instead they're not competent enough to make a bug-for-bug compatible re-implementation, so politically they'll always be subservant to the core team fundemtnally
1848 2013-11-06 13:25:50 <MC1984_> i think amir started libbitcoin in order to avoid that
1849 2013-11-06 13:26:00 <petertodd> sure, and he's doing it wrong
1850 2013-11-06 13:26:42 <petertodd> there's enough forking bugs that the core team can keep his efforts "not safe enough to mine on" for years
1851 2013-11-06 13:26:47 agricocb has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1852 2013-11-06 13:26:52 <MC1984_> i had wondered if libbitcoin could actually be legit given what i know about how hard distributed consensus is now
1853 2013-11-06 13:27:04 <petertodd> good, you're right to wonder
1854 2013-11-06 13:27:18 <MC1984_> i dont think i doubt his sincerity though
1855 2013-11-06 13:27:25 <petertodd> See, Amir doesn't get that there's two things at play: the consensus critical stuff thats'
1856 2013-11-06 13:27:47 <petertodd> that's really hard to change, and relaying rules and other stuff around that core where different implementations can compete.
1857 2013-11-06 13:29:02 <petertodd> e.g. evil 'ol Gavin can make it impossible to get dust mined with the IsDust() rule OMG DICTATOR DICTAOR... but if Amir had a node implementation that miners used, they could do something different
1858 2013-11-06 13:29:12 Neil has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1859 2013-11-06 13:29:56 <MC1984_> so youre saying theve specifically declared independence from our stinking hegemony yet put themselves in a position where the satoshi team can runt hem through hoops for years
1860 2013-11-06 13:29:58 ovidiusoft has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1861 2013-11-06 13:30:02 <petertodd> since Amir is setting himself up to lose that battle, evil 'ol Gavin *is* able to turn what influence he does have into bigger things, like soft-forking changes and even SPV-compat hard-forks relatively easily
1862 2013-11-06 13:30:14 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1863 2013-11-06 13:30:16 <petertodd> MC1984_: exactly!
1864 2013-11-06 13:30:47 <MC1984_> amir claims he is specifically excluded from this process though
1865 2013-11-06 13:30:47 Neil has joined
1866 2013-11-06 13:31:35 <petertodd> Thing is, there's evidence the dev team *isn't* being so machiavellian, because we've done a lot to make it easier for alt-implementations to get it right, but the problem is quite literally something the best experts in the field don't know how to solve yet.
1867 2013-11-06 13:31:59 <petertodd> MC1984_: sure, and he probably was being excluded. But his response to that exclusion is dumb.
1868 2013-11-06 13:32:08 <MC1984_> sigh i hate factions and cliques and shit. what a waste of energy
1869 2013-11-06 13:32:08 <justaskingplz> i saw on the mailing list that there was a bounty for a network simulation of bitcoin
1870 2013-11-06 13:32:15 <justaskingplz> i made one in javascript
1871 2013-11-06 13:32:22 <justaskingplz> http://ebfull.github.io/
1872 2013-11-06 13:32:25 <justaskingplz> it's not nearly complete
1873 2013-11-06 13:32:31 <justaskingplz> would this be remotely useful for that bounty?
1874 2013-11-06 13:32:39 <tgs3> petertodd: what happened about exclusion? Amir is core developer, isn't he
1875 2013-11-06 13:32:57 <justaskingplz> or is someone already coming up with some crazy haskell simulation lol
1876 2013-11-06 13:33:09 <petertodd> tgs3: try git log |grep genjix...
1877 2013-11-06 13:33:51 <petertodd> MC1984_: indeed, Amir's only an order of magnitude less good at writing angry rants rather instead of coding than I am :P
1878 2013-11-06 13:34:30 <pigeons> did all the history from was it svn originally transfer over
1879 2013-11-06 13:34:37 damethos has joined
1880 2013-11-06 13:34:39 <MC1984_> his rants are great
1881 2013-11-06 13:34:42 <petertodd> pigeons: it was
1882 2013-11-06 13:34:55 <MC1984_> i always liked his idealism
1883 2013-11-06 13:34:56 <petertodd> MC1984_: measured by volume, maybe :P
1884 2013-11-06 13:35:25 <petertodd> Unsophisticated idealism bothers me a lot...
1885 2013-11-06 13:35:48 <MC1984_> sometimes its the only kind you can find
1886 2013-11-06 13:35:49 <justaskingplz> kjj: hi? simulation i'm working on http://ebfull.github.io/ or are there better ones in development
1887 2013-11-06 13:36:52 <MC1984_> i think the bitcoinica trouble changed him a bit and he went further over to that side
1888 2013-11-06 13:36:55 <MC1984_> if i had to guess
1889 2013-11-06 13:37:01 <petertodd> MC1984_: sadly - I've tried saying this stuff to Amir directly, and he doesn't get it. Too bad really, because I'd like to make sure the status of the core team, and yes, "dictator gavin" <rolls eyes> stays pretty much the way it is right now.
1890 2013-11-06 13:37:53 <petertodd> MC1984_: in the long run the current situation is probably a bad thing - we need more decentralization than this, and naturally as the dev team runs out of stuff to do there will be pressure to change things that they shouldn't be changing.
1891 2013-11-06 13:38:08 <petertodd> MC1984_: but you know, that's the kind of thing I worry about, not an immediate concern
1892 2013-11-06 13:38:50 <MC1984_> i kind of wish the core team would do a bit more about the technical fundamentals of bitcoin as a scalable yet decentralised system instead of trying to grow its adoption
1893 2013-11-06 13:39:16 <MC1984_> the two havent got to be exclusive or anything, but one comes before the other in my mind at least
1894 2013-11-06 13:39:19 <tgs3> dictatorship can be good, compared to a democracy mob rule of idiots (just saying, I don't know about Amir)
1895 2013-11-06 13:39:54 <petertodd> MC1984_: if you want to define the core team as including myself, gmaxwell, and adam back among others, than the core team is doing exactly that. But there's no rush, so what's happening now is really basic research, analysis, and idea generation.
1896 2013-11-06 13:40:19 <MC1984_> i mean there are already plenty of people who dont mind seeing bitcoin burn or be subsumed as long as they can cash out at 10,000 dollr a coin
1897 2013-11-06 13:41:01 <MC1984_> well yes i realise there are some very good voices in the team on the same side as me
1898 2013-11-06 13:41:05 <petertodd> MC1984_: heh, there is that. Anyway, the big worry is it's uncertain if you could get another crypto-coin off the ground if Bitcoin fails totally.
1899 2013-11-06 13:41:18 ds is now known as away!ds@gateway/shell/cloudant/x-kqsgikodvlabxlrd|dongshengcn
1900 2013-11-06 13:41:41 <MC1984_> id say yes, but the setback would be measured in decades
1901 2013-11-06 13:42:00 <MC1984_> were 5 years inot bitcoin right now and its still pretty stealth mode
1902 2013-11-06 13:42:49 gjj has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1903 2013-11-06 13:43:15 gjj has joined
1904 2013-11-06 13:43:22 <petertodd> MC1984_: yeah, I mean, you've got a point: frankly I don't think gavin and mike, and to a lesser extent jgarzik and sipa understand crypto-coin theory with enough sophistication to push the field ahead. But so what? They all do good work that's needed *now* - other people will naturally research stuff we might need in 5-10 years. And I could *easily* be totally wrong in thinking we need crazy scalability solutions anyway, maybe in the context of ...
1905 2013-11-06 13:43:28 <petertodd> ... the real world we don't.
1906 2013-11-06 13:43:30 <MC1984_> justaskingplz i dont know what im looking at here but its pretty
1907 2013-11-06 13:44:09 <petertodd> MC1984_: heh, if it's decades I think you're better saying that you have no idea :P
1908 2013-11-06 13:44:11 <justaskingplz> refresh i put a smoother version of the simulator up
1909 2013-11-06 13:44:11 <MC1984_> i wasnt goign to namedrop......
1910 2013-11-06 13:44:23 <MC1984_> but ive always seen sipa doing lots of excellent techincal work
1911 2013-11-06 13:45:00 <petertodd> MC1984_: yeah, sipa gets shit done. But everyone in that list writes pretty good code.
1912 2013-11-06 13:45:07 <skinnkavaj> Can anyone here take a look at this and say it is secure? http://sourceforge.net/projects/goxalert/ Scared of getting my wallet hacked. What is sandbox mode!?
1913 2013-11-06 13:45:40 <petertodd> MC1984_: It's just that Bitcoin is unique in that there *are* unresolved big picture questions, they just tend to have relevance at least months down the line, if not years.
1914 2013-11-06 13:46:05 <petertodd> MC1984_: and consensus means getting them right the first time is unusually important...
1915 2013-11-06 13:46:54 <MC1984_> petertodd my main concern is bitcoin (accidentally?) gets steered down a path of centralisation that will be very hard to go back from technically/politically "in 5-10 years" time
1916 2013-11-06 13:47:19 <MC1984_> i keep thinking about hthe blockchainitself and how it only moves one way
1917 2013-11-06 13:47:33 <pigeons> reorg
1918 2013-11-06 13:47:46 <MC1984_> this is a metaphor
1919 2013-11-06 13:47:49 <pigeons> ;)
1920 2013-11-06 13:48:05 <petertodd> MC1984_: something I've been thinking about is how it's much more likely that we'll see a "worse-is-better" result: suppose bitcoin fucks up on scalability, and say, we end up in a worse-case "the only miners effetively control everything and getting into that club is impossible" - for the transactions where you need to dodge their censorship, chances are the numbers will be low enough that just using an alt-coin works modulo 51% attacks - and ...
1921 2013-11-06 13:48:11 <petertodd> ... maybe proof-of-stake will be good enough even in the broken model where it's actually centralized
1922 2013-11-06 13:48:27 <petertodd> MC1984_: or... you could do a usable proof-of-stake coin using the still existant Bitcoin blockchain as a random beacon!
1923 2013-11-06 13:48:36 OrP has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1924 2013-11-06 13:49:09 <MC1984_> but thats messy :(
1925 2013-11-06 13:49:17 <MC1984_> neat and tidyt hings are nicer
1926 2013-11-06 13:49:23 <petertodd> MC1984_: sure, but so is real life, and pragmatism wins.
1927 2013-11-06 13:49:47 <MC1984_> you know hoe long it took me to come round to off chain txns
1928 2013-11-06 13:49:59 <petertodd> MC1984_: heh
1929 2013-11-06 13:50:42 <MC1984_> i already cant understand half the shit going on in bitcoin any more, and i feel like i used to have a pretty good overview of it all once
1930 2013-11-06 13:51:10 <MC1984_> i know too much about everything and not enough about anything. Thats always been my problem.
1931 2013-11-06 13:51:42 <petertodd> MC1984_: speaking of... so lately notice how blocks haven't been growing in size? what also could happen is growth happens sufficiently slowly that off-chian txn do keep pace fast enough that the transaction pressure isn't there in the end, and we never get around to a blocksize hardfork. But that's ugly, because miner revenue keeps dropping, and eventually a 51% attack becomes feasible.
1932 2013-11-06 13:52:06 <petertodd> MC1984_: ha, it is a complex field...
1933 2013-11-06 13:52:12 AusBitBank has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1934 2013-11-06 13:53:06 <TD> i think we've essentially hit the 250kb soft limit and a lot of miners don't realise they're passing up "free money" because our tools suck
1935 2013-11-06 13:53:55 <petertodd> TD: just look at the blocks: not a single one in the past 7 are > 200k
1936 2013-11-06 13:54:16 <petertodd> TD: sure, hash rate growth is doing weird things too, but even that can't account for it all
1937 2013-11-06 13:54:20 <MC1984_> is that all off chain?
1938 2013-11-06 13:54:24 <TD> right. i do see blocks of exactyl 243kb or whatever the magic number pretty often though
1939 2013-11-06 13:54:34 <TD> if a block is slow then it often ends up maxed out
1940 2013-11-06 13:54:54 <petertodd> MC1984_: well inputs.io, as an example, told me that by value their on-chian, off-chain ratio was nearly 50:50 last august
1941 2013-11-06 13:55:06 <petertodd> MC1984_: by # of transactions off-chain dominated
1942 2013-11-06 13:55:07 <MC1984_> justaskingplz needs a legend
1943 2013-11-06 13:55:25 <petertodd> MC1984_: and no offense to them, but that's one of the shittier possible models for that stuff...
1944 2013-11-06 13:55:27 <swulf--> is there a way to enable deterministic signatures (for debugging) ?
1945 2013-11-06 13:55:34 xiangfu has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1946 2013-11-06 13:55:50 <petertodd> TD: sure, but the amount of extra revenue we're talking about isn't much, and maybe it is negative given orphans
1947 2013-11-06 13:56:08 <TD> yeah, not much for sure
1948 2013-11-06 13:57:01 <MC1984_> oh the colour changes are just block propagation
1949 2013-11-06 13:58:29 <petertodd> TD: if you want to change that, get orphaned blockheaders relayed on mainnet so we can give miners real data about orphan rates...
1950 2013-11-06 13:58:38 <petertodd> TD: the unknown is scary
1951 2013-11-06 13:59:18 <TD> right now my main priority (when i manage to scrape together spare time for bitcoin stuff) is making bcj tx broadcast more robust and then doing deterministic wallet work. mining doesn't seem to be a big issue right now
1952 2013-11-06 13:59:34 LordOfTime is now known as TheLordOfTIme
1953 2013-11-06 13:59:35 TheLordOfTIme is now known as TheLordOfTime
1954 2013-11-06 13:59:44 <petertodd> TD: seems reasonable
1955 2013-11-06 14:00:09 moura has joined
1956 2013-11-06 14:00:29 random_cat_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1957 2013-11-06 14:00:32 <justaskingplz> ya color change is change in block height, there's no difficulty adjustment or anything like that though
1958 2013-11-06 14:00:39 xiangfu has joined
1959 2013-11-06 14:00:46 <petertodd> Main thing is I want people thinking about possible negative effects of relaying orphaned block headers. It's not a DoS risk for sure, but is there something else I haven't thought of?
1960 2013-11-06 14:01:04 random_cat_ has joined
1961 2013-11-06 14:02:03 agricocb has joined
1962 2013-11-06 14:02:37 CheckDavid has joined
1963 2013-11-06 14:03:31 <petertodd> TD: if bitcoinj receives a merkleblock from a peer that's empty aside from the coinbase, can that ever cause any problems?
1964 2013-11-06 14:04:15 <petertodd> TD: or heck, lets say there's no coinbase tx at all
1965 2013-11-06 14:05:27 <sipa> petertodd: do you mean a block with 0 transactions
1966 2013-11-06 14:05:32 <sipa> or one with 0 matched transactions?
1967 2013-11-06 14:05:34 <TD> a merkleblock is just a block header, partial merkle tree followed by whatever tx messages the node didn't see
1968 2013-11-06 14:05:49 <TD> there is a check for a PMT that claims to be empty or a block that has zero transactions in it
1969 2013-11-06 14:06:03 <TD> so no, it should not cause any problems. it would result in disconnection of the peer
1970 2013-11-06 14:06:28 <petertodd> sipa: yeah, basically I'm thinking you'd give your peers the block header via the merkleblock message
1971 2013-11-06 14:06:45 <petertodd> sipa: I dunno, maybe this just suggest we should do a specific "blockheader" message to make it clear
1972 2013-11-06 14:06:52 <sipa> petertodd: the PMT structure certainly supports 0 matched transactions
1973 2013-11-06 14:07:20 <petertodd> sipa: exactly, with even the coinbase tx left out
1974 2013-11-06 14:07:36 vrs has left ()
1975 2013-11-06 14:07:53 <petertodd> TD: speaking of, so I assume bitcoinj doesn't bother trying to check the coinbase height? or does it?
1976 2013-11-06 14:08:23 <TD> for what purpose?
1977 2013-11-06 14:08:34 <TD> if you receive a payment in a coinbase txout it won't allow it to be spent until it matures, if that's what you mean
1978 2013-11-06 14:08:51 <petertodd> TD: to check block validity of course, which I agree would be kinda pointless given all the other ways a block can be invalid.
1979 2013-11-06 14:08:53 <TD> what's wrong with the existing header message?
1980 2013-11-06 14:09:08 <TD> petertodd: by "height" you mean something other than how many blocks it's buried under?
1981 2013-11-06 14:09:22 <sipa> TD: height = distance from genesis
1982 2013-11-06 14:09:24 <petertodd> TD: I mean the block-height-in-coinbase rule that was recently added
1983 2013-11-06 14:09:29 <sipa> depth = how many blocks are on top
1984 2013-11-06 14:09:49 helo_ is now known as helo
1985 2013-11-06 14:10:05 <petertodd> TD: I'm just trying to make sure there's no edge cases that relaying block headers could ever trigger
1986 2013-11-06 14:10:41 wiretapped has joined
1987 2013-11-06 14:11:43 <TD> oh i see
1988 2013-11-06 14:11:53 <TD> bcj doesn't do the v2 blocks at the moment
1989 2013-11-06 14:12:01 <TD> i mean it doesn't check that rule in full verification mode
1990 2013-11-06 14:12:05 <TD> BlueMatt might add it at some point
1991 2013-11-06 14:12:37 testnode9 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1992 2013-11-06 14:12:51 <petertodd> Ok here's one: what happens if bitcoinj gets an empty merkleblock, (the orphan) followed by a non-empty merkleblock?
1993 2013-11-06 14:13:14 <TD> i think it should work.
1994 2013-11-06 14:13:17 <petertodd> Or in general, does it do "first-block-seen" as the rule?
1995 2013-11-06 14:13:33 <TD> yes
1996 2013-11-06 14:13:55 <petertodd> right, so the tx's in the second, which ideally should have gotten to your wallet first, will be ignored until the next confirmation?
1997 2013-11-06 14:17:02 <TD> not sure i follow you
1998 2013-11-06 14:17:17 <TD> once a block is received that connects an orphan to the chain, they're both connected in order like the main client would do
1999 2013-11-06 14:17:38 <petertodd> TD: just saying from the user's point of view, that's a case where not relaying orphans at all, or doing so via some other mechanism, would maybe be more desirable
2000 2013-11-06 14:17:54 <petertodd> (other than the merkleblock message)
2001 2013-11-06 14:18:26 Mike_B has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2002 2013-11-06 14:21:04 <petertodd> in fact, come to think of it, the obvious implementation would make this more likely: if you implement it with code that just pushes the appropriate merkleblock to peers rather than going through the INV mechanism, in most cases the peer would get the orphan header first.
2003 2013-11-06 14:21:38 <TD> i think we might want to insist on following the inv/getdata protocol in future
2004 2013-11-06 14:21:46 <TD> to avoid selfish miners getting a speed advantage by ignoring it
2005 2013-11-06 14:22:36 <petertodd> TD: it's a slight privacy problem right now actually, because if you mine a block yourself you always push, telling your peer that you were the miner
2006 2013-11-06 14:22:54 <TD> oh, i thought it was announced as normal
2007 2013-11-06 14:23:37 <petertodd> TD: nope. gmaxwell liked my idea of making some % of blocks we get also get pushed directly, to make that logic uncertain
2008 2013-11-06 14:24:19 <petertodd> It'd also be a bit of work to avoid actually relaying the whole blocks if we used inv for this purpose.
2009 2013-11-06 14:31:23 macboz has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2010 2013-11-06 14:32:33 nvk has joined
2011 2013-11-06 14:39:00 torsthaldo has joined
2012 2013-11-06 14:39:00 sturles has quit (Quit: leaving)
2013 2013-11-06 14:40:21 sturles has joined
2014 2013-11-06 14:40:22 rdymac has quit (Excess Flood)
2015 2013-11-06 14:40:34 sturles has quit (Changing host)
2016 2013-11-06 14:40:34 sturles has joined
2017 2013-11-06 14:43:51 eoss has joined
2018 2013-11-06 14:43:55 rdymac has joined
2019 2013-11-06 14:44:26 [\\\] has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2020 2013-11-06 14:45:25 reizuki__ has joined
2021 2013-11-06 14:45:28 c0rw1n_ has joined
2022 2013-11-06 14:45:28 c0rw1n has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2023 2013-11-06 14:48:45 has quit (Clown|!~clown@unaffiliated/clown/x-0272709|Write error: Connection reset by peer)
2024 2013-11-06 14:48:52 has joined
2025 2013-11-06 14:48:52 has quit (Clown|!~clown@2001-4dd0-203e-1-b8d4-5bb1-a0fe-a139.ipv6dyn.netcologne.de|Changing host)
2026 2013-11-06 14:48:52 has joined
2027 2013-11-06 14:54:48 c0rw1n_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2028 2013-11-06 14:55:07 <HaltingState> is double hashing more secure again preimage?
2029 2013-11-06 14:55:36 <HaltingState> gmaxwell, is sha256(sha256(x)) better than sha256(x xor sha256(x)) etc or something like that or what
2030 2013-11-06 14:57:06 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2031 2013-11-06 14:58:05 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2032 2013-11-06 14:58:16 abrkn has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2033 2013-11-06 15:02:48 rdponticelli has joined
2034 2013-11-06 15:02:55 abrkn has joined
2035 2013-11-06 15:04:00 xiangfu has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2036 2013-11-06 15:04:09 datagutt has joined
2037 2013-11-06 15:07:05 gavinandresen has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2038 2013-11-06 15:11:03 arioBarzan has joined
2039 2013-11-06 15:11:53 Anduck has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
2040 2013-11-06 15:14:56 DougieBot5000 has joined
2041 2013-11-06 15:15:27 arioBarzan has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2042 2013-11-06 15:16:51 taha has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2043 2013-11-06 15:17:04 nomailing has joined
2044 2013-11-06 15:17:22 arioBarzan has joined
2045 2013-11-06 15:18:41 CheckDavid has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2046 2013-11-06 15:19:06 ecurrency has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2047 2013-11-06 15:19:27 ecurrency has joined
2048 2013-11-06 15:21:02 gavinandresen has joined
2049 2013-11-06 15:25:09 agnostic98 has joined
2050 2013-11-06 15:27:39 charlie2 has joined
2051 2013-11-06 15:28:23 swulf-- has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2052 2013-11-06 15:29:30 reizuki__ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
2053 2013-11-06 15:29:39 nomailing has quit (Quit: nomailing)
2054 2013-11-06 15:30:06 [\\\] has joined
2055 2013-11-06 15:30:40 <BlueMatt> Tril: ahh, yes, that should be fixed
2056 2013-11-06 15:30:49 <BlueMatt> Tril: thanks
2057 2013-11-06 15:31:09 <BlueMatt> Tril: well, I think i maybe should check if its required, Im not convinced its sending all blocks...
2058 2013-11-06 15:31:48 <BlueMatt> TD: yea....someday Ill go back to full verification stuff and add v2 blocks and add an easy spv-upgrade path
2059 2013-11-06 15:32:43 <TD> i was never sold on the value of an upgrade path
2060 2013-11-06 15:34:23 <BlueMatt> meh, its pretty trivial code and we really, really need more full nodes
2061 2013-11-06 15:35:14 CheckDavid has joined
2062 2013-11-06 15:35:23 <BlueMatt> re: too much turnover on non-dedicated nodes: meh, gnutella dealt with it...and some people did keep their nodes on all the time just because average desktop users are lazy and leave things on
2063 2013-11-06 15:35:56 <TD> gnutella was popular, what, 10 years ago?
2064 2013-11-06 15:36:05 <TD> the world has changed. most people at home are using laptops now, not always on desktops
2065 2013-11-06 15:36:12 <TD> but anyway, whatever
2066 2013-11-06 15:36:58 <BlueMatt> well, its not like I have time to implement such things anyway, so...
2067 2013-11-06 15:44:30 CheckDavid has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2068 2013-11-06 15:46:12 Bohren has joined
2069 2013-11-06 15:50:11 CheckDavid has joined
2070 2013-11-06 15:50:21 <helo> windows 8 auto-hibernates, so laziness won't benefit the network
2071 2013-11-06 15:50:50 damethos has quit (Quit: Bye)
2072 2013-11-06 15:51:01 <warren> read the thing about MacOS X 10.9 auto-sleeps background processes?
2073 2013-11-06 15:51:06 <warren> bad for bitcoin
2074 2013-11-06 15:51:57 div has joined
2075 2013-11-06 15:52:00 <arioBarzan> for OS X use InsomniaX
2076 2013-11-06 15:52:31 damethos has joined
2077 2013-11-06 15:53:45 sebicas has joined
2078 2013-11-06 15:53:51 andytoshi has joined
2079 2013-11-06 15:56:06 <null> warren: you can disable powernap on application-basis
2080 2013-11-06 15:56:16 <sipa> warren: there's an API to disable it, from what i hear
2081 2013-11-06 15:56:24 <sipa> someone just has to implement it :)
2082 2013-11-06 15:56:36 <warren> will it let you use that API if the app is built to 10.5?
2083 2013-11-06 15:56:46 <sipa> no clue
2084 2013-11-06 15:56:57 <sipa> maybe through some dynamic lookup
2085 2013-11-06 15:57:11 _ingsoc has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2086 2013-11-06 15:57:12 <warren> is dlopen a linux-only thing?
2087 2013-11-06 15:58:48 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2088 2013-11-06 15:59:23 _ingsoc has joined
2089 2013-11-06 16:00:06 Eiii has joined
2090 2013-11-06 16:00:07 firedrops has left ()
2091 2013-11-06 16:01:51 <TD> warren: the function with that name is posix, iirc. the concept is supported on every platform of course
2092 2013-11-06 16:02:10 <TD> i think macos might have a different call to do it
2093 2013-11-06 16:02:13 <TD> (mach-o)
2094 2013-11-06 16:02:19 <sipa> https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Darwin/Reference/ManPages/man3/dlopen.3.html
2095 2013-11-06 16:04:01 Namworld has joined
2096 2013-11-06 16:04:18 skinnkavaj has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2097 2013-11-06 16:05:17 skinnkavaj has joined
2098 2013-11-06 16:05:20 skinnkavaj has quit (Changing host)
2099 2013-11-06 16:05:20 skinnkavaj has joined
2100 2013-11-06 16:07:46 arioBarzan has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2101 2013-11-06 16:08:55 diki has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
2102 2013-11-06 16:10:11 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2103 2013-11-06 16:11:01 _ingsoc has quit (Quit: leaving)
2104 2013-11-06 16:11:33 _ingsoc has joined
2105 2013-11-06 16:15:12 K1773R has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2106 2013-11-06 16:15:31 MagicFab_ has joined
2107 2013-11-06 16:17:56 cads has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2108 2013-11-06 16:19:13 jordandotdev_ has left ()
2109 2013-11-06 16:20:21 [\\\] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2110 2013-11-06 16:21:05 K1773R has joined
2111 2013-11-06 16:22:14 bmcgee has joined
2112 2013-11-06 16:24:35 soixante has quit (Quit: soixante)
2113 2013-11-06 16:25:14 agnostic98 has joined
2114 2013-11-06 16:26:23 Pucilowski has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2115 2013-11-06 16:28:46 abrkn has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2116 2013-11-06 16:29:44 rdymac has quit (Excess Flood)
2117 2013-11-06 16:29:54 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2118 2013-11-06 16:30:43 twbt is now known as bafin
2119 2013-11-06 16:32:55 rdymac has joined
2120 2013-11-06 16:34:15 t7 has quit (Quit: home)
2121 2013-11-06 16:39:46 gst has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2122 2013-11-06 16:41:16 elevatioN has joined
2123 2013-11-06 16:45:15 rdymac has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2124 2013-11-06 16:47:22 robocoin_ is now known as robocoin
2125 2013-11-06 16:49:46 eristisk has joined
2126 2013-11-06 16:49:52 bmcgee has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2127 2013-11-06 16:50:09 bitspill has joined
2128 2013-11-06 16:50:46 bmcgee has joined
2129 2013-11-06 16:50:55 bmcgee has quit (Client Quit)
2130 2013-11-06 16:52:13 TD is now known as TD[away]
2131 2013-11-06 16:52:56 rdymac has joined
2132 2013-11-06 16:53:32 bitspill has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2133 2013-11-06 16:57:08 execut3 has joined
2134 2013-11-06 17:00:24 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2135 2013-11-06 17:00:30 elevatioN has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2136 2013-11-06 17:00:54 fried_dough has joined
2137 2013-11-06 17:01:22 Subo1977_ has joined
2138 2013-11-06 17:01:26 paraipan has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2139 2013-11-06 17:01:26 Subo1977 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2140 2013-11-06 17:01:42 charlie2 has left ()
2141 2013-11-06 17:01:46 wiretapped has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2142 2013-11-06 17:01:48 dommm has quit (Quit: Page closed)
2143 2013-11-06 17:01:57 swulf-- has joined
2144 2013-11-06 17:03:18 tsche has quit ()
2145 2013-11-06 17:04:01 wiretapped has joined
2146 2013-11-06 17:04:10 <MC1984_> quick thought: cant we just do remote block reconstruction or merkleblocks or whatever theyre called and see how that goes before creating a bitcoin backbone or block superhighway or whatever
2147 2013-11-06 17:05:10 nethershaw has joined
2148 2013-11-06 17:05:30 <MC1984_> doing so should make block propagation essentially static regardless of size, and even gradually get faster as bandwidth generally improves (but probably not my much)
2149 2013-11-06 17:08:32 execut3 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
2150 2013-11-06 17:11:26 <petertodd> MC1984_: no, you can't assume transactions were already broadcast
2151 2013-11-06 17:11:42 <MC1984_> doesnt letting nodes sort themselves out instead of manual peerings have implications regarding mapping the network and the security implications of that
2152 2013-11-06 17:12:03 <petertodd> MC1984_: even worse, is if you're a large miner it makes it in your interests to ensure that transactions are *not* broadcast in some situations
2153 2013-11-06 17:12:16 <MC1984_> petertodd there should be a way to fill a node in on anything missing from its memppol it needs to reconstruct the block
2154 2013-11-06 17:12:19 <petertodd> MC1984_: you mean vs. darknets?
2155 2013-11-06 17:12:56 <petertodd> MC1984_: yes, and as I say, that means that blocks that have txs in that some part of the network doesn't broadcast slower, that's *not* necessarily a good thing
2156 2013-11-06 17:14:08 <petertodd> Having said that, it's probably unavoidable that someone will implement that...
2157 2013-11-06 17:14:23 <MC1984_> are we talking about the same thing
2158 2013-11-06 17:14:57 <petertodd> MC1984_: I think you: you mean broadcast the block + tx list, and if the tx isn't in your mempool, grab it?
2159 2013-11-06 17:15:12 <MC1984_> block header
2160 2013-11-06 17:15:18 <petertodd> er, yeah, block header
2161 2013-11-06 17:15:29 <MC1984_> yeah. I thought it was doable
2162 2013-11-06 17:15:44 <petertodd> of course it's doable, it just doesn't necessarily lead to good outcomes if everyone does it
2163 2013-11-06 17:15:49 paraipan has joined
2164 2013-11-06 17:16:28 <MC1984_> well the desired outcome is to decouple block size from propagation delay
2165 2013-11-06 17:16:41 <MC1984_> and generally make it much faster
2166 2013-11-06 17:16:52 <MC1984_> combined with the mempool sync thing
2167 2013-11-06 17:16:52 <petertodd> MC1984_: right, and that isn't necessarily a good thing either!
2168 2013-11-06 17:17:00 <MC1984_> i wonder what the miss rate on txns would be
2169 2013-11-06 17:17:28 <petertodd> for instance, with an unlimited blocksize one of the few things limiting blocksize is that orphans increase as blocks get bigger
2170 2013-11-06 17:17:28 saulimus has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2171 2013-11-06 17:17:39 <MC1984_> shit ur right
2172 2013-11-06 17:18:01 <petertodd> miners could easily respond by not bothering to grab the transactions they don't have, and just assume they're valid
2173 2013-11-06 17:18:34 <MC1984_> if they dont grab them how can they contruct the block
2174 2013-11-06 17:18:51 <petertodd> who said they had too?
2175 2013-11-06 17:19:17 <MC1984_> if they assume its valid and bulild a block on it and it isnt, they get orphaned
2176 2013-11-06 17:19:19 <MC1984_> ?
2177 2013-11-06 17:19:20 <petertodd> all they need to know is what transactions have been mined, so they know not to put those transactions in thhe next block
2178 2013-11-06 17:19:41 <petertodd> sure, but chances are it's valid because the other guy wouldn't waste $5000 by making an invalid block right?
2179 2013-11-06 17:20:44 <MC1984_> wrt the first point, if were gonna end up with a block toll road anyway, wouldnt anything that makes it easier to relay them in a timely manner still help to decentralise it
2180 2013-11-06 17:20:55 <MC1984_> it seems hard to say what the final effect would be
2181 2013-11-06 17:21:21 <petertodd> it only helps decentralize it if there aren't stronger centralizing effects
2182 2013-11-06 17:21:33 <MC1984_> yes
2183 2013-11-06 17:26:02 <petertodd> the validation-less mining is probably the worst part - I see no way to prevent people from passing around blockheaders + txid lists and relying on peers to do the validation for them
2184 2013-11-06 17:26:27 execut3 has joined
2185 2013-11-06 17:26:48 <petertodd> best not to ever make an implementation that will ever give a peer a blockheader and txid list! should use per-peer index numbers rather than actual txids
2186 2013-11-06 17:26:52 reneg has quit (Quit: -a- Connection Timed Out)
2187 2013-11-06 17:27:33 <petertodd> (index then related to what txs we know your peer has)
2188 2013-11-06 17:28:47 groglogic has joined
2189 2013-11-06 17:29:42 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2190 2013-11-06 17:30:00 reneg has joined
2191 2013-11-06 17:30:14 MC1984_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2192 2013-11-06 17:31:23 debiantoruser has joined
2193 2013-11-06 17:32:28 execut3 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2194 2013-11-06 17:33:11 OrP has joined
2195 2013-11-06 17:34:03 djcoin has joined
2196 2013-11-06 17:36:05 dongshengcn is now known as ds|away
2197 2013-11-06 17:39:50 ThomasV has joined
2198 2013-11-06 17:40:07 patcon has joined
2199 2013-11-06 17:41:43 W0rmDr1nk has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
2200 2013-11-06 17:44:59 abrkn has joined
2201 2013-11-06 17:45:46 reneg has quit (Quit: -a- Connection Timed Out)
2202 2013-11-06 17:46:02 reneg has joined
2203 2013-11-06 17:47:19 execut3 has joined
2204 2013-11-06 17:47:35 MC1984 has joined
2205 2013-11-06 17:50:49 t7 has joined
2206 2013-11-06 17:56:21 execut3 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2207 2013-11-06 17:56:45 vdube has joined
2208 2013-11-06 17:57:25 ahbritto has joined
2209 2013-11-06 17:57:47 ahbritto_ has joined
2210 2013-11-06 17:58:12 Musk has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2211 2013-11-06 17:59:04 TD has joined
2212 2013-11-06 18:00:17 Bohren has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2213 2013-11-06 18:00:34 Bohren_ has joined
2214 2013-11-06 18:02:46 bbrian has joined
2215 2013-11-06 18:03:21 TD has quit (Client Quit)
2216 2013-11-06 18:07:37 vdube has quit (Quit: Linkinus - http://linkinus.com)
2217 2013-11-06 18:07:56 Musk has joined
2218 2013-11-06 18:10:55 Bohren_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2219 2013-11-06 18:12:24 execut3 has joined
2220 2013-11-06 18:14:21 freefox has joined
2221 2013-11-06 18:18:04 TD has joined
2222 2013-11-06 18:18:27 markus__ has joined
2223 2013-11-06 18:19:41 freefox has quit (Quit: freefox)
2224 2013-11-06 18:22:52 execut3 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2225 2013-11-06 18:25:01 sodoku has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2226 2013-11-06 18:25:01 michagogo has quit (cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|Remote host closed the connection)
2227 2013-11-06 18:25:02 poggy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2228 2013-11-06 18:25:02 Cazz0r has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2229 2013-11-06 18:26:54 reneg has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2230 2013-11-06 18:27:42 nym has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2231 2013-11-06 18:27:42 licnep_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2232 2013-11-06 18:27:42 Guest70676 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2233 2013-11-06 18:29:25 reneg has joined
2234 2013-11-06 18:29:36 realazthat has quit (Ping timeout: 293 seconds)
2235 2013-11-06 18:30:22 deepc0re has joined
2236 2013-11-06 18:31:51 MC1984 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2237 2013-11-06 18:32:23 MC1984 has joined
2238 2013-11-06 18:32:46 eristisk has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2239 2013-11-06 18:35:21 eristisk has joined
2240 2013-11-06 18:35:31 zz_ahmedbodi is now known as ahmedbodi
2241 2013-11-06 18:39:59 execut3 has joined
2242 2013-11-06 18:41:12 reneg has quit (Quit: -a- Connection Timed Out)
2243 2013-11-06 18:42:14 realazthat has joined
2244 2013-11-06 18:45:53 nym has joined
2245 2013-11-06 18:46:16 execut3 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2246 2013-11-06 18:46:32 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2247 2013-11-06 18:47:57 reneg has joined
2248 2013-11-06 18:48:01 Subo1977 has joined
2249 2013-11-06 18:48:06 Subo1977_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2250 2013-11-06 18:51:26 eristisk has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2251 2013-11-06 18:53:13 Guest70676 has joined
2252 2013-11-06 18:53:20 groglogic has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2253 2013-11-06 18:53:37 licnep_ has joined
2254 2013-11-06 18:54:18 soheil has joined
2255 2013-11-06 18:57:36 groglogic has joined
2256 2013-11-06 18:58:46 poggy has joined
2257 2013-11-06 19:00:01 ds is now known as away!ds@gateway/shell/cloudant/x-kqsgikodvlabxlrd|dongshengcn
2258 2013-11-06 19:00:58 execut3 has joined
2259 2013-11-06 19:02:14 sodoku has joined
2260 2013-11-06 19:03:51 reneg has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2261 2013-11-06 19:05:22 clopez_ is now known as clopez
2262 2013-11-06 19:05:25 reneg has joined
2263 2013-11-06 19:07:00 saulimus has joined
2264 2013-11-06 19:07:13 ovidiusoft has joined
2265 2013-11-06 19:08:28 OrP has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2266 2013-11-06 19:08:56 OrP has joined
2267 2013-11-06 19:09:51 Nopik has joined
2268 2013-11-06 19:11:04 Application has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2269 2013-11-06 19:12:08 execut3 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2270 2013-11-06 19:12:58 Cazz0r has joined
2271 2013-11-06 19:13:12 Guest90512 has joined
2272 2013-11-06 19:13:22 michagogo has joined
2273 2013-11-06 19:14:27 OrP has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2274 2013-11-06 19:15:09 Guest90512 has left ()
2275 2013-11-06 19:15:47 OrP has joined
2276 2013-11-06 19:15:47 Plarkplark has joined
2277 2013-11-06 19:15:49 <Plarkplark> hi devs. Small idea/question. would it be possible to segment blockchain file to 25mb chunks? This would make bootstrapping new (MD5 hashes on all segments) and would make offline nodes (in case of internet failure in some region - sneakerware the blockchain in..) possible?
2278 2013-11-06 19:16:27 <sipa> very possible, but i don't see how that will help your worries
2279 2013-11-06 19:16:28 <Luke-Jr> Plarkplark: â¦
2280 2013-11-06 19:16:43 <Luke-Jr> what sipa said
2281 2013-11-06 19:17:03 <sipa> right now, they're segmented into 128 MiB chunks
2282 2013-11-06 19:17:12 <Plarkplark> Integrity of the single big blockchain file might be harder then checksuming the individual blockchain-slices?
2283 2013-11-06 19:17:14 <sipa> does 128 vs 25 make that much of a difference?
2284 2013-11-06 19:17:34 <sipa> i'd say checksumming fewer files is easier...
2285 2013-11-06 19:17:42 <Plarkplark> true. ok.
2286 2013-11-06 19:18:09 <Plarkplark> What if (if) a region of the world get it's internet cut, any way to get the nodes in the region connected through sneakerware?
2287 2013-11-06 19:18:34 <sipa> yes, certainly possible, but likely we have larger problems than that in that case anyway
2288 2013-11-06 19:18:55 <sipa> also, what medium cannot transport 128 MiB files, but can transport 25 MiB files...?
2289 2013-11-06 19:18:58 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2290 2013-11-06 19:19:34 <Plarkplark> Was thinking HAM readio
2291 2013-11-06 19:19:36 <Plarkplark> *radio
2292 2013-11-06 19:19:46 <sipa> ... you still have to transport the same amount of data
2293 2013-11-06 19:19:51 <sipa> chunking it will not help
2294 2013-11-06 19:19:57 <Plarkplark> true. ok nevermind :)
2295 2013-11-06 19:20:10 <Plarkplark> offline node-connection: possible?
2296 2013-11-06 19:20:24 <sipa> yes
2297 2013-11-06 19:20:40 <sipa> getblock on one node, submitblock on the other
2298 2013-11-06 19:21:00 debiantoruser has joined
2299 2013-11-06 19:21:11 <Luke-Jr> Plarkplark: I recommend bittorrent!
2300 2013-11-06 19:21:23 <Plarkplark> For emergency, like, you know, ISP's banning btc or something (ordered by govt?)
2301 2013-11-06 19:21:32 W0rmDr1nk has joined
2302 2013-11-06 19:21:38 <Plarkplark> already with piratebay here so.
2303 2013-11-06 19:21:45 <Luke-Jr> Plarkplark: piratebay is illegal stuff
2304 2013-11-06 19:22:12 <Luke-Jr> Plarkplark: Bitcoin couldn't withstand a major government ban (but this is off-topic and for #bitcoin )
2305 2013-11-06 19:22:32 <Plarkplark> BTC could be come illegal, maybe. In my country the politics is spooling up - woke up with the radio policitian talking about "regulation, otherwise maybe ban"
2306 2013-11-06 19:22:49 kiwigrc has joined
2307 2013-11-06 19:22:53 <Plarkplark> ok offtopic, sorry. just a thought.
2308 2013-11-06 19:23:02 <wumpus> just use it over tor then
2309 2013-11-06 19:23:10 <sipa> -> #bitcoin
2310 2013-11-06 19:23:28 <Plarkplark> k.
2311 2013-11-06 19:25:43 gjj_ has joined
2312 2013-11-06 19:25:45 jaakkos has quit (Changing host)
2313 2013-11-06 19:25:45 jaakkos has joined
2314 2013-11-06 19:25:46 _ingsoc has quit (Quit: leaving)
2315 2013-11-06 19:26:17 _ingsoc has joined
2316 2013-11-06 19:27:38 execut3 has joined
2317 2013-11-06 19:28:12 gjj has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2318 2013-11-06 19:29:15 execut3 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2319 2013-11-06 19:29:29 kiwigrc has quit (Quit: Page closed)
2320 2013-11-06 19:30:37 execut3 has joined
2321 2013-11-06 19:31:16 execut3 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2322 2013-11-06 19:33:26 reneg has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2323 2013-11-06 19:33:35 FabianB has joined
2324 2013-11-06 19:34:49 FabianB_ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
2325 2013-11-06 19:35:33 Ukyo has joined
2326 2013-11-06 19:35:37 shesek has joined
2327 2013-11-06 19:35:55 shesek has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2328 2013-11-06 19:36:36 <Ukyo> hey guys. I got an issues with bitcoind. a. wallet size causes it to take 5~10 miuntes to load. b. as soon as send is issued, it maxes cpu/ram until restarted, and takes about 10~20 minutes until it announces to the network
2329 2013-11-06 19:36:48 <Ukyo> and then rpc times out after that
2330 2013-11-06 19:36:55 shesek has joined
2331 2013-11-06 19:37:01 <sipa> how large is the wallet?
2332 2013-11-06 19:37:06 <Ukyo> large.
2333 2013-11-06 19:37:07 <sipa> how many keys/transactions?
2334 2013-11-06 19:37:09 mE\Ta has joined
2335 2013-11-06 19:37:11 shesek has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2336 2013-11-06 19:37:22 ahmedbodi has quit (Excess Flood)
2337 2013-11-06 19:37:27 <Ukyo> over ten thousand easily
2338 2013-11-06 19:37:39 ahmedbodi has joined
2339 2013-11-06 19:37:41 Anduck has joined
2340 2013-11-06 19:37:53 <Ukyo> is it just too much to leveldb ?
2341 2013-11-06 19:37:54 <sipa> there have been some improvements to that recently in head
2342 2013-11-06 19:38:03 reneg has joined
2343 2013-11-06 19:38:04 <sipa> no, it has nothing to do with the database
2344 2013-11-06 19:38:13 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
2345 2013-11-06 19:38:14 <sipa> (and the wallet doesn't use leveldb)
2346 2013-11-06 19:38:19 <Ukyo> ah
2347 2013-11-06 19:38:27 <Ukyo> excuse my assumptions :)
2348 2013-11-06 19:39:09 shesek has joined
2349 2013-11-06 19:39:16 shesek has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2350 2013-11-06 19:39:30 <Ukyo> so this is kind of a known issue for the size? i.e. bitcoind isnt really meant for the size and its something being worked on?
2351 2013-11-06 19:39:44 Application has joined
2352 2013-11-06 19:39:46 <sipa> it wasn't designed for it, no
2353 2013-11-06 19:39:50 <Ukyo> It was fine until recently. It seems a massive increase in transactions (not necesssarily keys) caused it
2354 2013-11-06 19:39:55 <sipa> but there are several known possible improvements
2355 2013-11-06 19:40:08 <sipa> keys only affect startup time
2356 2013-11-06 19:40:31 <Ukyo> yeah it has always taken a long time to load
2357 2013-11-06 19:40:47 <Ukyo> the latest and biggest issue is the maxing of resources when doing a send
2358 2013-11-06 19:40:57 <Ukyo> followed by the rpc timeouts
2359 2013-11-06 19:41:05 <Ukyo> for long periods of time
2360 2013-11-06 19:41:08 <sipa> talk to phantomcircuit
2361 2013-11-06 19:41:23 <Ukyo> I tried throwing a really high end dual xeon system at it, didnt seem to change anything
2362 2013-11-06 19:41:45 <Ukyo> k. thanks for helping :)
2363 2013-11-06 19:44:51 radiator has joined
2364 2013-11-06 19:45:00 <radiator> Guys. anyone know where multibit stores the blockchain ?
2365 2013-11-06 19:45:07 <sipa> radiator: it doesn't
2366 2013-11-06 19:45:25 <radiator> so⦠it's a lightweight client in this case?
2367 2013-11-06 19:45:35 <sipa> multibit is an SPV client yes
2368 2013-11-06 19:45:41 <sipa> it only verifies block headers
2369 2013-11-06 19:45:53 <sipa> it doesn't download or verify full blocks
2370 2013-11-06 19:47:01 shesek has joined
2371 2013-11-06 19:47:11 shesek has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2372 2013-11-06 19:56:40 groglogic has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2373 2013-11-06 19:58:28 eristisk has joined
2374 2013-11-06 20:03:39 stalled_ has joined
2375 2013-11-06 20:04:50 eristisk has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2376 2013-11-06 20:05:03 JWU_42 has joined
2377 2013-11-06 20:05:23 eristisk has joined
2378 2013-11-06 20:05:37 <mrkent> can an exsiting config secret be changed and still used?
2379 2013-11-06 20:06:08 <sipa> config secret?
2380 2013-11-06 20:06:22 daybyter has joined
2381 2013-11-06 20:06:52 patcon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2382 2013-11-06 20:07:25 patcon has joined
2383 2013-11-06 20:07:30 eculver_ has joined
2384 2013-11-06 20:10:55 coeus_ has joined
2385 2013-11-06 20:11:01 Ashaman_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2386 2013-11-06 20:11:18 Bohren_ has joined
2387 2013-11-06 20:11:48 patcon has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2388 2013-11-06 20:12:08 Apexseals has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2389 2013-11-06 20:12:11 coeus has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2390 2013-11-06 20:12:11 Phoebus has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2391 2013-11-06 20:12:11 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2392 2013-11-06 20:12:11 Apexseals has joined
2393 2013-11-06 20:12:11 Apexseals has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2394 2013-11-06 20:12:11 Phoebus has joined
2395 2013-11-06 20:12:12 JWU42 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2396 2013-11-06 20:12:12 Graet has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2397 2013-11-06 20:12:12 eculver has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2398 2013-11-06 20:12:12 Graet has joined
2399 2013-11-06 20:12:12 Phoebus has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2400 2013-11-06 20:12:13 ryan-c has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2401 2013-11-06 20:12:13 Phoebus has joined
2402 2013-11-06 20:12:15 Graet has quit (Changing host)
2403 2013-11-06 20:12:15 Graet has joined
2404 2013-11-06 20:12:34 Phoebus has quit (Changing host)
2405 2013-11-06 20:12:34 Phoebus has joined
2406 2013-11-06 20:12:49 Apexseals has joined
2407 2013-11-06 20:14:24 <edcba> mrkent: what secret ? there is no secret inside bitcoin client
2408 2013-11-06 20:14:29 <warren> sipa: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2733 did your rewrite happen?
2409 2013-11-06 20:15:09 ryan-c has joined
2410 2013-11-06 20:15:11 banghouse has joined
2411 2013-11-06 20:15:22 <mrkent> sipa sorry rpcpassword
2412 2013-11-06 20:15:26 <mrkent> edcba ^
2413 2013-11-06 20:15:28 <mrkent> http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xFvLnSGpnRAJ:https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Running_Bitcoin+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
2414 2013-11-06 20:15:49 jtimon has joined
2415 2013-11-06 20:16:18 Bohren_ has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
2416 2013-11-06 20:16:58 patcon has joined
2417 2013-11-06 20:18:04 tmsk has quit (Quit: tmsk)
2418 2013-11-06 20:19:53 <edcba> (goto is not fine)
2419 2013-11-06 20:20:12 <sipa> mrkent: not sure what you mena
2420 2013-11-06 20:20:28 <sipa> mrkent: you can change the rpcpassword; you need to restart for it to take effect though
2421 2013-11-06 20:20:28 <edcba> i think he meant old switches
2422 2013-11-06 20:21:04 <mrkent> i see
2423 2013-11-06 20:21:06 patcon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2424 2013-11-06 20:21:40 patcon has joined
2425 2013-11-06 20:23:39 mE\Ta has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2426 2013-11-06 20:25:29 <W0rmDr1nk> this sounds a bit out of context
2427 2013-11-06 20:25:29 <W0rmDr1nk> http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/11/06/bitcoin-is-not-broken/
2428 2013-11-06 20:26:07 Delerium has joined
2429 2013-11-06 20:26:32 patcon has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
2430 2013-11-06 20:26:53 <Delerium> Is it possible to find the transaction fee associated with a rawtransaction
2431 2013-11-06 20:27:37 groglogic has joined
2432 2013-11-06 20:27:38 <Apocalyptic> sure Delerium you substract the output values from the input ones
2433 2013-11-06 20:28:20 <Delerium> but when im decoding the raw transaction, i cant actually see any input values in the transaction itself
2434 2013-11-06 20:29:02 <sipa> Delerium: that's because the transaction doesn't contain input values
2435 2013-11-06 20:29:02 <Delerium> i can see 4 inputs with hashes but no value against each of them
2436 2013-11-06 20:29:14 <sipa> Delerium: you need to look up the transactions that created them, to find the values
2437 2013-11-06 20:29:36 <sipa> s/created them/created the outputs it spent/
2438 2013-11-06 20:29:48 reneg has quit (Quit: -a- Connection Timed Out)
2439 2013-11-06 20:30:37 reneg has joined
2440 2013-11-06 20:31:01 tmsk has joined
2441 2013-11-06 20:31:02 <radiator> Hi everyone. I made a transaction and set a very very low fee. How long will it take for the BTC to arrive, do u think?
2442 2013-11-06 20:31:11 <radiator> (arrive=be confirmed)
2443 2013-11-06 20:31:16 <sipa> radiator: define very low
2444 2013-11-06 20:31:24 <Delerium> hmmm ok so i need to recursivley look up each transaction in the outputs to get their output values and this will tell me the total 'input' value of the new transaction?
2445 2013-11-06 20:31:26 <sipa> and what is its size
2446 2013-11-06 20:31:32 <sipa> Delerium: not recursively
2447 2013-11-06 20:31:45 <sipa> Delerium: just all prevouts spent by the transaction
2448 2013-11-06 20:31:52 <radiator> sipa: 0.0001 BTC and 0.001 BTC
2449 2013-11-06 20:31:58 <warren> sipa: ooh sorry, found phantomcircuit later did it
2450 2013-11-06 20:32:05 <radiator> sipa : size is around 15 btc
2451 2013-11-06 20:32:12 <sipa> radiator: by size i mean bytes
2452 2013-11-06 20:32:24 <radiator> around 1000 bytes
2453 2013-11-06 20:32:40 <sipa> seems ok
2454 2013-11-06 20:32:44 <sipa> just low priority
2455 2013-11-06 20:32:48 <sipa> can you tell me the txid?
2456 2013-11-06 20:33:18 <radiator> i'll pm it
2457 2013-11-06 20:33:36 <Delerium> thanks sipa, trying it now :)
2458 2013-11-06 20:34:06 eristisk has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2459 2013-11-06 20:35:15 mE\Ta has joined
2460 2013-11-06 20:36:33 <helo> Delerium: you avoid the necessity of doing a recursive lookup by actively maintaining the set of valid unspent outputs
2461 2013-11-06 20:40:01 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
2462 2013-11-06 20:41:49 AusBitBank has joined
2463 2013-11-06 20:42:06 paracyst has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2464 2013-11-06 20:45:14 abrkn has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2465 2013-11-06 20:46:54 _ingsoc_ has joined
2466 2013-11-06 20:46:55 cysm has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2467 2013-11-06 20:48:08 W0rmDr1nk has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2468 2013-11-06 20:48:46 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2469 2013-11-06 20:50:00 _ingsoc has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2470 2013-11-06 20:50:03 debiantoruser has joined
2471 2013-11-06 20:50:11 reneg_ has joined
2472 2013-11-06 20:50:42 <justaskingplz> hey brainstorm time
2473 2013-11-06 20:50:48 <justaskingplz> what if we blinded the prevhash on blocks?
2474 2013-11-06 20:51:33 <justaskingplz> you could then defraud a "selfish miner" pool by mining on the real chain
2475 2013-11-06 20:53:18 <justaskingplz> i guess you'd have to make it hard for the pool to force you to unblind it
2476 2013-11-06 20:53:50 reneg has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2477 2013-11-06 20:53:51 <justaskingplz> maybe make the HMAC use a gigantic blob
2478 2013-11-06 20:53:59 <justaskingplz> obviously increasing block propagation time lol
2479 2013-11-06 20:55:09 <sipa> how can you validate a block whose prevhash you don't know?
2480 2013-11-06 20:55:09 <justaskingplz> stupid idea nvm
2481 2013-11-06 20:55:29 <justaskingplz> the prevhash would be unblinded when the block gets propagated
2482 2013-11-06 20:55:50 <justaskingplz> i'm just saying trick the pool into thinking you're mining on their chain (the evil private chain)
2483 2013-11-06 20:56:04 <justaskingplz> and i guess earn PPS rewards or something
2484 2013-11-06 20:57:04 <justaskingplz> god dammit would be pointless bc of coinbase lol
2485 2013-11-06 20:57:11 <justaskingplz> IGNORE THX
2486 2013-11-06 20:57:41 RoboTeddy has joined
2487 2013-11-06 20:58:41 <MC1984> sipa how long did you say youd been programming
2488 2013-11-06 20:58:44 <Musk> aright something weird just happen
2489 2013-11-06 20:58:48 <MC1984> like 5 years?
2490 2013-11-06 20:59:01 <Musk> any dev can explain this ? https://blockchain.info/address/1DY8NHnh4roXjGjV8vpG7K77mZmnh7YwTL
2491 2013-11-06 20:59:30 <sipa> MC1984: eh, since i was 11
2492 2013-11-06 20:59:35 <sipa> 18 years ago
2493 2013-11-06 20:59:56 padrino has joined
2494 2013-11-06 21:00:00 <MC1984> oh
2495 2013-11-06 21:00:06 <MC1984> the hell am i remembering
2496 2013-11-06 21:00:08 <sipa> MC1984: what is the problem?
2497 2013-11-06 21:00:12 <sipa> eg
2498 2013-11-06 21:00:14 <justaskingplz> musk are you confused because of the balance?
2499 2013-11-06 21:00:17 <sipa> Musk: what is the problem?
2500 2013-11-06 21:00:27 <justaskingplz> click on the transaction hash and look, there are other inputs not shown
2501 2013-11-06 21:00:48 <MC1984> no problem, i just read the thing that said anyone can be an expert at anything with about 10,000 hours of practice
2502 2013-11-06 21:01:17 <sipa> MC1984: i didn't know C++ though before working on bitcoin
2503 2013-11-06 21:01:17 testnode9 has joined
2504 2013-11-06 21:01:32 <MC1984> damn
2505 2013-11-06 21:01:36 <sipa> (i did know C, and some theory behind C++, but no practical experience)
2506 2013-11-06 21:01:45 <Musk> sipa justaskingplz i sent coins to a friends after only 6 confirmation there was a transaction that popup to claim the same i amount i just sent..
2507 2013-11-06 21:02:25 <sipa> Musk: where is his wallet?
2508 2013-11-06 21:02:29 <sipa> what site or software?
2509 2013-11-06 21:02:42 <padrino> That's it: https://blockchain.info/address/1DY8NHnh4roXjGjV8vpG7K77mZmnh7YwTL
2510 2013-11-06 21:02:57 <padrino> And it's not in a trusted site, but that's besides the point. It was only the most recent, smallest transaction that was withdrawn
2511 2013-11-06 21:03:04 reizuki__ has joined
2512 2013-11-06 21:03:06 <padrino> If somebody had access to the wallet, they would've taken it all
2513 2013-11-06 21:03:22 agnostic98 has joined
2514 2013-11-06 21:04:04 <Musk> i'm wondering myself could it be that i was connected to a nasty node that could of done something to the transact.. or could maybe my wallet be comprised and somebody already spent the coins
2515 2013-11-06 21:04:18 <sipa> Musk: can you please answer my question?
2516 2013-11-06 21:04:40 <sipa> there are many reasons why that output might get spent that are perfectly fine
2517 2013-11-06 21:04:41 <padrino> Musk: I was still able to spend the BTC though
2518 2013-11-06 21:04:42 <Musk> My wallet is on my mobile... which is updated and encrypted and all
2519 2013-11-06 21:04:45 <padrino> That's strange, haha
2520 2013-11-06 21:04:52 <sipa> Musk: not yours; his
2521 2013-11-06 21:05:02 <padrino> I was able to spend them, but they were withdrawn before I spent?
2522 2013-11-06 21:05:12 <padrino> I'm not bothered about it now, because I was still able to spend them, so it's fine
2523 2013-11-06 21:05:17 <sipa> padrino: how much did you send?
2524 2013-11-06 21:05:33 <padrino> All of it (including the 0.0015 that had been withdrawn)
2525 2013-11-06 21:06:00 <sipa> you're confusing me
2526 2013-11-06 21:06:10 <sipa> what amount did you send?
2527 2013-11-06 21:06:17 <Musk> padrino could it be that you are a web walle that just sends back coins over to another wallet ?
2528 2013-11-06 21:06:25 <Luke-Jr> Musk: addresses are not wallets.
2529 2013-11-06 21:06:34 <Musk> Luke-Jr i know...
2530 2013-11-06 21:06:35 <Luke-Jr> Musk: if your wallet shows the correct balance, that's all that matters.
2531 2013-11-06 21:06:39 <sipa> ^
2532 2013-11-06 21:06:44 <Luke-Jr> ignore blockchain.info and their stupid misinformation garbage
2533 2013-11-06 21:06:45 <padrino> It may have been that the coins were tumbled, but I'm not sure how a tumbler works
2534 2013-11-06 21:06:54 <sipa> guys
2535 2013-11-06 21:06:56 <padrino> But my previous transaction wasn't tumbled so I'm not entirely sure
2536 2013-11-06 21:07:02 <Musk> Luke-Jr i double checked with blockexplorer also
2537 2013-11-06 21:07:07 <Musk> anyways
2538 2013-11-06 21:07:09 <sipa> you're panicking over something very normal
2539 2013-11-06 21:07:22 <sipa> if you're not going to give more information, we can't help deciding what happened
2540 2013-11-06 21:07:31 <padrino> Luke-Jr my web wallet does, so yes, it's fine
2541 2013-11-06 21:07:31 <Musk> i'm not really panic just was very unsure of the situation...
2542 2013-11-06 21:07:49 <Luke-Jr> Musk: blockexplorer isn't much better in this regard
2543 2013-11-06 21:07:49 <padrino> sipa It might have been the tumbling of coins, as my wallet still has the full amount
2544 2013-11-06 21:08:07 <Musk> scared shitless
2545 2013-11-06 21:08:09 <Musk> xD
2546 2013-11-06 21:08:10 jegz has joined
2547 2013-11-06 21:08:16 <Luke-Jr> padrino: there's no tumbling. you're just looking at misinformation.
2548 2013-11-06 21:08:19 <sipa> padrino: can you just answer instead of sprouting more theories?
2549 2013-11-06 21:08:32 <padrino> sipa what do you want answering?
2550 2013-11-06 21:08:41 <sipa> how much did you send
2551 2013-11-06 21:08:54 <padrino> When I bought the product?
2552 2013-11-06 21:09:02 <padrino> Or in to my wallet
2553 2013-11-06 21:09:08 Musk has quit (Quit: Linkinus - http://linkinus.com)
2554 2013-11-06 21:09:15 <sipa> padrino: the address i'm looking at https://blockchain.info/address/1DY8NHnh4roXjGjV8vpG7K77mZmnh7YwTL is yours, right?
2555 2013-11-06 21:09:18 eristisk has joined
2556 2013-11-06 21:09:21 <padrino> sipa yes
2557 2013-11-06 21:09:32 <padrino> It's an address in a web wallet
2558 2013-11-06 21:09:53 <justaskingplz> what web wallet, it may not be YOUR address it may be a website's address it associates with your account
2559 2013-11-06 21:10:06 <Luke-Jr> justaskingplz: that's all addresses ever are.
2560 2013-11-06 21:10:15 <Luke-Jr> justaskingplz: that makes it his address.
2561 2013-11-06 21:10:17 <padrino> I don't wish to specify the website, but the problem is fine now anyway
2562 2013-11-06 21:10:21 <sipa> ok
2563 2013-11-06 21:10:24 <sipa> let's not worry :)
2564 2013-11-06 21:10:27 <justaskingplz> he's wondering why funds were spent from the address
2565 2013-11-06 21:10:41 <Luke-Jr> justaskingplz: transactions are never from addresses
2566 2013-11-06 21:10:42 <Luke-Jr> only to
2567 2013-11-06 21:10:45 <justaskingplz> i wouldn't call it "my address" if i didn't have the private key, thanks
2568 2013-11-06 21:10:52 <Luke-Jr> this is why blockchain.info is misinformative
2569 2013-11-06 21:11:23 <sipa> padrino: my theory is that what you're seeing is just the spend you just did
2570 2013-11-06 21:11:51 <padrino> sipa, nope, that was on the blockchain before my spend and I spent 0.022BTC not 0.0015
2571 2013-11-06 21:11:56 <padrino> But it doesn't matter now anyway
2572 2013-11-06 21:12:13 <sipa> then it was probably something internal to your webwallet
2573 2013-11-06 21:12:29 <padrino> Yes, I think so
2574 2013-11-06 21:12:33 <padrino> Thanks for the help anyway
2575 2013-11-06 21:13:59 gavinandresen_ has joined
2576 2013-11-06 21:15:26 gavinandresen has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2577 2013-11-06 21:15:26 gavinandresen_ is now known as gavinandresen
2578 2013-11-06 21:18:09 paracyst has joined
2579 2013-11-06 21:18:13 cysm has joined
2580 2013-11-06 21:18:19 taha has joined
2581 2013-11-06 21:18:33 patcon has joined
2582 2013-11-06 21:24:25 padrino has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2583 2013-11-06 21:33:30 djcoin has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.4.1)
2584 2013-11-06 21:36:34 enikanorov__ has joined
2585 2013-11-06 21:37:13 enikanorov_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2586 2013-11-06 21:40:23 MC1984_ has joined
2587 2013-11-06 21:42:46 abrkn has joined
2588 2013-11-06 21:43:27 MC1984 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2589 2013-11-06 21:43:57 markus__ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2590 2013-11-06 21:47:24 Thepok has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2591 2013-11-06 21:51:06 _ingsoc_ has quit (Quit: leaving)
2592 2013-11-06 21:56:11 RoboTedd_ has joined
2593 2013-11-06 21:56:51 abrkn has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2594 2013-11-06 21:58:04 RoboTeddy has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
2595 2013-11-06 22:01:08 tmsk has quit (Quit: tmsk)
2596 2013-11-06 22:01:13 cap2002 has joined
2597 2013-11-06 22:02:58 damethos has quit (Quit: Bye)
2598 2013-11-06 22:03:18 shesek has joined
2599 2013-11-06 22:03:28 Mike_B has joined
2600 2013-11-06 22:05:12 W0rmDr1nk has joined
2601 2013-11-06 22:07:06 paraipan has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2602 2013-11-06 22:08:52 Application has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2603 2013-11-06 22:10:22 Application has joined
2604 2013-11-06 22:11:57 OrP has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2605 2013-11-06 22:12:07 Bohren_ has joined
2606 2013-11-06 22:12:26 owowo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2607 2013-11-06 22:13:53 <dobry-den> Txns in a block have to be verified sequentially in the order they're packed, right?
2608 2013-11-06 22:14:29 Nopik has quit (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzzâ¦)
2609 2013-11-06 22:15:09 RoboTedd_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2610 2013-11-06 22:16:17 <dobry-den> Nevermind. Even if a block's transactions were stored as an unordered set, a random sequential scan of them would force you to verify the txns they refer to in the same set
2611 2013-11-06 22:16:48 RoboTeddy has joined
2612 2013-11-06 22:16:54 jegz has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2613 2013-11-06 22:17:11 Bohren_ has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
2614 2013-11-06 22:17:32 dongshengcn is now known as ds|away
2615 2013-11-06 22:18:37 paraipan has joined
2616 2013-11-06 22:19:34 soheil has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2617 2013-11-06 22:20:11 soheil has joined
2618 2013-11-06 22:21:07 datagutt has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2619 2013-11-06 22:21:39 msvb-lab has quit (Quit: msvb-lab)
2620 2013-11-06 22:25:02 soheil has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2621 2013-11-06 22:25:55 <sipa> dobry-den: they must be correctly ordered
2622 2013-11-06 22:25:58 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
2623 2013-11-06 22:26:00 TD has joined
2624 2013-11-06 22:27:51 ovidiusoft has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2625 2013-11-06 22:29:53 owowo has joined
2626 2013-11-06 22:31:50 soheil has joined
2627 2013-11-06 22:36:23 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2628 2013-11-06 22:36:33 Grouver has joined
2629 2013-11-06 22:38:01 * BlueMatt starts up wireshark and notices the bitcoin protocol decoder was merged :)
2630 2013-11-06 22:38:22 debiantoruser has joined
2631 2013-11-06 22:39:02 MagicFab_ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2632 2013-11-06 22:39:29 <sipa> cool
2633 2013-11-06 22:41:07 Application has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2634 2013-11-06 22:42:58 gjj_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2635 2013-11-06 22:43:24 gjj has joined
2636 2013-11-06 22:44:57 <jouke_> :)
2637 2013-11-06 22:46:50 Thepok has joined
2638 2013-11-06 22:48:06 Plarkplark has quit ()
2639 2013-11-06 22:50:34 Grouver has quit (Quit: HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <- IRC with a difference)
2640 2013-11-06 22:53:23 OrP has joined
2641 2013-11-06 22:57:52 nvk has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2642 2013-11-06 22:59:10 andytoshi has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.4.1)
2643 2013-11-06 22:59:46 patcon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2644 2013-11-06 23:00:22 patcon has joined
2645 2013-11-06 23:01:48 OrP has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2646 2013-11-06 23:02:00 bafin is now known as twbt
2647 2013-11-06 23:04:36 owowo has quit (Quit: °!° ~~ S4n1tY 1S Fut1l3 ~~ °!°)
2648 2013-11-06 23:05:17 patcon has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
2649 2013-11-06 23:06:05 groglogic has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
2650 2013-11-06 23:08:36 groglogic has joined
2651 2013-11-06 23:10:08 owowo has joined
2652 2013-11-06 23:12:33 reneg has joined
2653 2013-11-06 23:15:00 patcon has joined
2654 2013-11-06 23:15:04 reneg_ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2655 2013-11-06 23:17:11 patcon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2656 2013-11-06 23:17:43 patcon has joined
2657 2013-11-06 23:18:53 melvster has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2658 2013-11-06 23:21:41 roconnor has joined
2659 2013-11-06 23:22:28 patcon has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
2660 2013-11-06 23:22:39 OrP has joined
2661 2013-11-06 23:22:56 taha has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2662 2013-11-06 23:23:13 deepc0re has quit (Quit: deepc0re)
2663 2013-11-06 23:23:26 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
2664 2013-11-06 23:26:15 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
2665 2013-11-06 23:26:51 OrP has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2666 2013-11-06 23:27:57 debiantoruser has joined
2667 2013-11-06 23:30:18 gavinandresen has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
2668 2013-11-06 23:30:31 patcon has joined
2669 2013-11-06 23:31:34 <Delerium> sipa: you were advising me earlier on how to get a list of input btc values for a transaction. I have been trying to get the BTC values using gettxout <txid> but any spent outputs arent appearing
2670 2013-11-06 23:32:29 <sipa> gettxout queries the UTXO set
2671 2013-11-06 23:32:36 <sipa> the U in UTXO stands for unspent
2672 2013-11-06 23:32:47 <sipa> you'll need to use getrawtransaction
2673 2013-11-06 23:32:51 mynameis has joined
2674 2013-11-06 23:32:54 <sipa> and first build a transaction index
2675 2013-11-06 23:33:30 bitspill has joined
2676 2013-11-06 23:33:50 <Delerium> rgr thanks
2677 2013-11-06 23:34:23 freewil has joined
2678 2013-11-06 23:36:04 <Delerium> is there a way to check if that output has been spent from the rawtransaction?
2679 2013-11-06 23:37:16 <sipa> no
2680 2013-11-06 23:37:36 <sipa> gettxout can tell you that, though :)
2681 2013-11-06 23:37:47 <Delerium> k thx
2682 2013-11-06 23:38:00 <BlueMatt> sipa: your dnsseed code checks that reported height is at least some minimum value, no?
2683 2013-11-06 23:40:00 <BlueMatt> also, now that the code does everything I want (spv checks on blocks to fast-relay, skip all checks when blocks are being relayed between relay nodes, relay transactions after a bitcoind has verified them), anyone wanna offer an ec2 instance of three so the relay network can get better distribution
2684 2013-11-06 23:40:24 <BlueMatt> (only bandwidth matters, disk isnt touched and cpu only matters insofar is is required to keep the network stack filled with data)
2685 2013-11-06 23:42:01 deepc0re has joined
2686 2013-11-06 23:42:04 patcon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2687 2013-11-06 23:42:07 melvster has joined
2688 2013-11-06 23:44:03 darkskiez has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2689 2013-11-06 23:44:04 gavinandresen has joined
2690 2013-11-06 23:45:52 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
2691 2013-11-06 23:46:08 cap2002 has quit ()
2692 2013-11-06 23:46:37 MagicFab_ has joined
2693 2013-11-06 23:46:53 debiantoruser has joined
2694 2013-11-06 23:47:58 <sipa> BlueMatt: yes
2695 2013-11-06 23:48:01 MagicFab_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2696 2013-11-06 23:48:14 <BlueMatt> good, wouldnt want relay nodes to appear in dnsseed :)
2697 2013-11-06 23:48:32 <BlueMatt> (they have to NODE_NETWORK for bitcoinj reasons, and Im too lazy to fix it)
2698 2013-11-06 23:48:37 reneg_ has joined
2699 2013-11-06 23:50:24 reneg has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2700 2013-11-06 23:51:39 xnyhps_ is now known as xnyhps
2701 2013-11-06 23:51:41 hnz has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2702 2013-11-06 23:51:56 <sipa> BlueMatt: do i understand correctly that data sent to the relay nodes is validated (only SPV for blocks) at the input, but then relayed and forwarded without further checking?
2703 2013-11-06 23:52:02 patcon has joined
2704 2013-11-06 23:52:09 <BlueMatt> correct
2705 2013-11-06 23:52:28 Vinnie_win has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2706 2013-11-06 23:52:33 <sipa> so: (public peer) -> (relay node 1, which validates) -> (relay node 2, doesn't validate) -> (public peer, likely validates)
2707 2013-11-06 23:52:42 <BlueMatt> correct (for blocks)
2708 2013-11-06 23:53:00 <sipa> and for transactions?
2709 2013-11-06 23:53:03 <BlueMatt> for transactiosn its (public peer) -> (relay node 1) -> bitcoind (relay node *) -> (public peers)
2710 2013-11-06 23:53:11 <BlueMatt> relay nodes do not forward txn between each other
2711 2013-11-06 23:53:39 Zarutian has joined
2712 2013-11-06 23:53:40 Neozonz has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2713 2013-11-06 23:53:59 [\\\] has joined
2714 2013-11-06 23:54:09 <sipa> that's interesting
2715 2013-11-06 23:54:41 t7 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2716 2013-11-06 23:54:41 deepc0re has quit (Quit: deepc0re)
2717 2013-11-06 23:54:46 eristisk has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2718 2013-11-06 23:55:49 reneg_ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
2719 2013-11-06 23:56:07 <jouke_> why not?
2720 2013-11-06 23:56:14 andytoshi has joined
2721 2013-11-06 23:56:34 paraipan has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
2722 2013-11-06 23:56:36 <BlueMatt> it is assumed the bitcoind they trust to verify is either the same or they peer between each other
2723 2013-11-06 23:56:52 hnz has joined
2724 2013-11-06 23:56:52 <BlueMatt> (they support multiple trusted bitcoinds, so you can have a subset that is the same too)
2725 2013-11-06 23:56:54 darkskiez has joined