1 2013-11-09 00:00:37 sacrelege has joined
   2 2013-11-09 00:04:15 <sipa> BCB: if you have a transaction index, yes
   3 2013-11-09 00:04:27 <sipa> getblockhash to finda block at a given height
   4 2013-11-09 00:04:43 <sipa> getblock to find the txids in a block with a given hash
   5 2013-11-09 00:05:08 <sipa> and getrawtransaction to find the transaction with a given hash
   6 2013-11-09 00:05:50 fanquake has joined
   7 2013-11-09 00:07:32 fanquake has quit (Client Quit)
   8 2013-11-09 00:07:51 fanquake has joined
   9 2013-11-09 00:08:35 msvb-lab has quit (Quit: msvb-lab)
  10 2013-11-09 00:10:02 <BCB> sipa: I have the coinbase I'm trying to get the ASCII-translation
  11 2013-11-09 00:10:40 <gmaxwell> BCB: like this? echo Gygw | base64 -d
  12 2013-11-09 00:10:51 MC1984_ has joined
  13 2013-11-09 00:11:50 MC1984 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  14 2013-11-09 00:12:07 <BCB> gmaxwell: Gygw ??
  15 2013-11-09 00:12:42 <gmaxwell> BCB: run it and you'll learn about decoding messages from the network.
  16 2013-11-09 00:12:47 OrP has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  17 2013-11-09 00:13:38 CodeShark has joined
  18 2013-11-09 00:13:53 mE\Ta has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
  19 2013-11-09 00:14:06 <BCB> gmaxwell: ran it
  20 2013-11-09 00:14:18 <gmaxwell> Are you enlighened?
  21 2013-11-09 00:14:33 <BCB> no
  22 2013-11-09 00:14:34 <gmaxwell> Aww.
  23 2013-11-09 00:15:17 <BCB> gmaxwell:  getblock returns  value "coinbase"
  24 2013-11-09 00:15:59 <BCB> gmaxwell: which looks like a txid
  25 2013-11-09 00:16:04 <BCB> is there a way to decode that
  26 2013-11-09 00:16:29 <gmaxwell> In any case, you can just feed the hex to some hex to ascii converter... just be cautious, the input could be malicious and some display mechenisms can do unwelcome things.
  27 2013-11-09 00:17:19 da2ce7 has quit (Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
  28 2013-11-09 00:19:44 <BCB> gmaxwell: thx.  (i'm trying to read luke-jr's prayers)
  29 2013-11-09 00:19:59 owowo is now known as |8w8w8|
  30 2013-11-09 00:21:07 a_meteor has joined
  31 2013-11-09 00:21:16 ubuntu has joined
  32 2013-11-09 00:21:40 ubuntu is now known as Guest45743
  33 2013-11-09 00:23:50 Kireji has joined
  34 2013-11-09 00:24:00 <Kireji> why is bitcoin using sourceforge? http://bitcoin.org/en/download
  35 2013-11-09 00:24:02 ubuntu__ has joined
  36 2013-11-09 00:24:33 <Kireji> I've now read multiple times on various projects that SF force ad- and spy-ware- laden installers onto projects now?
  37 2013-11-09 00:25:38 <gmaxwell> Kireji: thats incorrect.
  38 2013-11-09 00:26:20 <gmaxwell> Kireji: SF has some program where projects can opt into adding adglop in exchange for some revenue sharing thing.
  39 2013-11-09 00:27:54 mE\Ta has joined
  40 2013-11-09 00:29:04 RoboTeddy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  41 2013-11-09 00:29:20 tsche has quit ()
  42 2013-11-09 00:29:55 Anduck has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
  43 2013-11-09 00:31:40 Anduck has joined
  44 2013-11-09 00:31:48 Liquid__ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  45 2013-11-09 00:35:55 s7r has joined
  46 2013-11-09 00:37:15 MC1984_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  47 2013-11-09 00:39:12 Liquid has joined
  48 2013-11-09 00:39:35 Liquid is now known as Guest9858
  49 2013-11-09 00:39:54 Squidicuz has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  50 2013-11-09 00:41:43 MC1984 has joined
  51 2013-11-09 00:42:53 btcbtc has joined
  52 2013-11-09 00:44:18 porquilho has joined
  53 2013-11-09 00:44:40 Squidicuz has joined
  54 2013-11-09 00:49:08 reneg_ has joined
  55 2013-11-09 00:49:11 reneg_ has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
  56 2013-11-09 00:49:43 reneg_ has joined
  57 2013-11-09 00:50:04 reneg_ has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
  58 2013-11-09 00:51:33 reneg_ has joined
  59 2013-11-09 00:51:37 reneg_ has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
  60 2013-11-09 00:51:38 reneg has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  61 2013-11-09 00:52:04 reneg has joined
  62 2013-11-09 00:52:06 reneg has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
  63 2013-11-09 00:52:33 reneg has joined
  64 2013-11-09 00:56:11 W0rmDr1nk has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  65 2013-11-09 00:57:35 Guest45743 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  66 2013-11-09 00:57:35 ubuntu__ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  67 2013-11-09 00:57:44 digitalmagus2 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
  68 2013-11-09 01:00:17 mappum has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  69 2013-11-09 01:00:36 mappum has joined
  70 2013-11-09 01:02:33 mrkent2 has joined
  71 2013-11-09 01:03:05 a_meteor has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  72 2013-11-09 01:03:20 cap2002 has quit ()
  73 2013-11-09 01:07:56 dikidera has joined
  74 2013-11-09 01:09:22 dikidera has left ()
  75 2013-11-09 01:09:36 reneg1 has joined
  76 2013-11-09 01:09:36 diki has joined
  77 2013-11-09 01:09:56 <diki> It sucks when you point out a flaw in a dice game that allows the operator to do selective hashes while still being "provably fair" and I get muted by the sockpuppets of that dice game..
  78 2013-11-09 01:11:23 <diki> What do you guys think I should do?
  79 2013-11-09 01:11:36 <diki> I've pointed out the problem to the operator, he just refuses to fix it.
  80 2013-11-09 01:12:46 dust-otc has joined
  81 2013-11-09 01:12:54 <Kireji> gmaxwell: thanks
  82 2013-11-09 01:12:54 <dizko> play a different game?
  83 2013-11-09 01:13:20 ubuntu has joined
  84 2013-11-09 01:13:20 ubuntu is now known as firedrops
  85 2013-11-09 01:13:21 eristisk has joined
  86 2013-11-09 01:13:28 <diki> dizko:True, but I can't just let innocent people be scammed(I cant verify for certain that the dice operator is scamming, but it's not impossible)
  87 2013-11-09 01:13:43 <dizko> gmaxwell: i maintain a few lightweight relays to get the best connectivity for my main node.  they all ran out of memory and dropped the connections which I really needed,
  88 2013-11-09 01:14:07 <dizko> gmaxwell: aside from having more memory or accepting less connections, is there any way i can set bitcoind to prefer certain ip's ?
  89 2013-11-09 01:14:31 <dizko> diki: just out of curiosity, which game?
  90 2013-11-09 01:14:38 <diki> dizko:primedice.com
  91 2013-11-09 01:14:48 <gmaxwell> dizko: ran out of memory?
  92 2013-11-09 01:14:54 <gmaxwell> What version are you running?
  93 2013-11-09 01:15:04 <gmaxwell> Bitcoin doesn't neatly close connections when it runs out of memory, it crashes.
  94 2013-11-09 01:15:18 <dizko> gmaxwell: MAYBE, though actually this happened yesterday and i added a bunch of swap just in case
  95 2013-11-09 01:15:27 <dizko> gmaxwell: ah so perhaps something else is happening
  96 2013-11-09 01:15:38 <gmaxwell> What version are you running?
  97 2013-11-09 01:15:55 <dizko> i was in a rush when i woke upt o fix it so i may have lost any useful state about the daemons (restarted)
  98 2013-11-09 01:15:58 <dizko> let me get the ver string
  99 2013-11-09 01:16:34 <dizko> Bitcoin version v0.8.5-beta
 100 2013-11-09 01:16:44 <gmaxwell> Hm okay.
 101 2013-11-09 01:17:04 <dizko> it was getting some 104 connection error last time
 102 2013-11-09 01:17:08 <gmaxwell> (prior to 0.8.4 nodes could be trivially crashed by anyone who connected to them)
 103 2013-11-09 01:17:29 <dizko> they didnt actually crash, the processes were still running and seemed to have connections
 104 2013-11-09 01:19:45 <Apocalyptic> then they didn't run out of memory
 105 2013-11-09 01:20:11 <Fistful_of_LTC> could ia transaction possibly never be confirmed if it was made with no fees?
 106 2013-11-09 01:20:43 <Apocalyptic> i'm having a similar issue...
 107 2013-11-09 01:21:18 jcorgan has joined
 108 2013-11-09 01:21:45 <diki> Fistful_of_LTC:Yes.
 109 2013-11-09 01:22:03 <diki> If no miner likes it, he may choose not to include in a block
 110 2013-11-09 01:22:17 <Kireji> gmaxwell: what prompted my comment was gimp announcement they were dropping SF becuase of ads, citing this http://www.gluster.org/2013/08/how-far-the-once-mighty-sourceforge-has-fallen - as long as it's not causing a problem for people trying to use/install bitcoin
 111 2013-11-09 01:22:23 <diki> So far eligius has been very very generous
 112 2013-11-09 01:22:44 <Fistful_of_LTC> diki: how likely is this?
 113 2013-11-09 01:22:47 <Kireji> original source for the discussion was on http://www.gimp.org/
 114 2013-11-09 01:23:02 <Fistful_of_LTC> diki: is there a way to cancel such a transaction, or repeat it with fee?
 115 2013-11-09 01:23:22 <diki> Fistful_of_LTC:I believe in the future it might be possible, as for today...no idea.
 116 2013-11-09 01:23:22 qwertyoruiop has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 117 2013-11-09 01:23:53 <Fistful_of_LTC> is there a way to mine it myself?
 118 2013-11-09 01:23:56 <Apocalyptic> Fistful_of_LTC, i think you could, but it's not recommended,
 119 2013-11-09 01:24:13 <Fistful_of_LTC> Apocalyptic: how?
 120 2013-11-09 01:24:26 <Apocalyptic> (make a new TX that spends the same inputs that is)
 121 2013-11-09 01:24:28 <diki> Fistful_of_LTC:Of course
 122 2013-11-09 01:24:48 <diki> Fistful_of_LTC:But it's unlikely you can do it without at least 1000th/s or more at current difficulty.
 123 2013-11-09 01:24:54 <diki> Unless you are talking about Litecoin
 124 2013-11-09 01:25:06 <gmaxwell> Kireji: yea, no worries, if they do anything evil it will be detected and shut down right away.
 125 2013-11-09 01:25:16 <Fistful_of_LTC> no, bitcoin, so my bitcoins are basically gone for the time being huh
 126 2013-11-09 01:25:33 <Apocalyptic> diki, talking about eligius I messaged Luke-Jr earlier if he could include a tx, no answer so far
 127 2013-11-09 01:25:35 <diki> Fistful_of_LTC:After a while, the nodes will forget about it
 128 2013-11-09 01:25:41 <Fistful_of_LTC> this is weird, first time i have a transaction take more than 1h and it's taking 7..
 129 2013-11-09 01:25:52 <Fistful_of_LTC> diki: how long is a while?
 130 2013-11-09 01:25:55 <diki> Fistful_of_LTC:And you can remove the tx from your wallet, and they will be back
 131 2013-11-09 01:26:02 <diki> Fistful_of_LTC:Only the devs can tell you.
 132 2013-11-09 01:26:13 <Fistful_of_LTC> ah i can remove the tx from my wllet huh
 133 2013-11-09 01:26:38 adam3us has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 134 2013-11-09 01:27:32 <Fistful_of_LTC> any dev's in #bitcoin-dev ?
 135 2013-11-09 01:28:26 <Apocalyptic> Fistful_of_LTC, what's your tx ?
 136 2013-11-09 01:28:27 <diki> Fistful_of_LTC:A lot.
 137 2013-11-09 01:28:44 RoboTeddy has joined
 138 2013-11-09 01:28:56 <gmaxwell> Fistful_of_LTC: #bitcoin-dev is not really for tech support.
 139 2013-11-09 01:29:18 <Fistful_of_LTC>  Register to talk | http://bitcoin.org/ https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/ | Version: 0.8.5 | #bitcoin-dev: Development of the Bitcoin | This channel is logged: http://bitcoin
 140 2013-11-09 01:29:21 <Fistful_of_LTC> 20:11 < diki> dizko:primedice.com
 141 2013-11-09 01:29:23 <Fistful_of_LTC> 20:12 < gmaxwell> dizko: ran out of memory?
 142 2013-11-09 01:29:26 <Fistful_of_LTC> 20:12 < gmaxwell> What version are you running?
 143 2013-11-09 01:29:28 <Fistful_of_LTC> 20:12 < gmaxwell> Bitcoin doesn't neatly close connections when it runs out of memory, it crashes.
 144 2013-11-09 01:29:31 <Fistful_of_LTC> 20:12 < dizko> gmaxwell: MAYBE, though actually this happened yesterday and i added a bunch of swap just in case
 145 2013-11-09 01:29:32 Fistful_of_LTC has quit (Quit: leaving)
 146 2013-11-09 01:29:52 Fistful_of_LTC has joined
 147 2013-11-09 01:30:10 <Fistful_of_LTC> i'm very sory about that! i mistakenly clicked my mouse wrong
 148 2013-11-09 01:30:55 <Fistful_of_LTC> this is my tx: https://blockchain.info/tx/b147250165e0a7a726a88ab0cacff08305a84263f61db7d554bc22056c4be83f
 149 2013-11-09 01:31:38 macboz_ has joined
 150 2013-11-09 01:31:42 sustrik has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 151 2013-11-09 01:32:26 <Fistful_of_LTC> Apocalyptic: i see a thread on the forum about adding expiry time to unconfirmed tx or adding rebroadcast features
 152 2013-11-09 01:32:28 <diki> Fistful_of_LTC:Interesting, it's not small
 153 2013-11-09 01:32:40 <diki> it's new, but not as small as I expected it to be
 154 2013-11-09 01:32:44 <Fistful_of_LTC> diki: what do you mean?
 155 2013-11-09 01:32:57 <Fistful_of_LTC> smaller is more likely to go unconfirmed?
 156 2013-11-09 01:33:06 <Apocalyptic> Fistful_of_LTC, i'm in a similar case, waiting for 16 hours now
 157 2013-11-09 01:33:33 <Fistful_of_LTC> Apocalyptic: you think it's due to the network right now?
 158 2013-11-09 01:33:51 <Fistful_of_LTC> *devs in here, any idea if it could be a problem with the network?
 159 2013-11-09 01:34:05 <dizko> gmaxwell: socket recv error 104
 160 2013-11-09 01:34:16 <Apocalyptic> it's not an network issue, just that there are lot of txs  lately
 161 2013-11-09 01:34:19 <Fistful_of_LTC> a fork or something
 162 2013-11-09 01:34:42 <Apocalyptic> and miners seems to have a very small pool for 0-fee tx, whatever the priority...
 163 2013-11-09 01:34:46 <Fistful_of_LTC> so it should get through eventually?
 164 2013-11-09 01:34:55 <Apocalyptic> I trusted bitcoind to get the fees right
 165 2013-11-09 01:35:16 <Apocalyptic> I have no idea, hope so
 166 2013-11-09 01:35:59 jcorgan has quit (Quit: jcorgan)
 167 2013-11-09 01:36:26 <gmaxwell> nothing weird is going on, the network is just busy.
 168 2013-11-09 01:36:27 <dizko> gmaxwell: oh well, i just dug up the log from the relay node, it banned my address.
 169 2013-11-09 01:36:56 <gmaxwell> dizko: ah, can you paste to me the ban entry and the one before it showing the complaint?
 170 2013-11-09 01:37:05 <gmaxwell> (obviously feel free to hide the IP...)
 171 2013-11-09 01:38:28 <dizko> the previous line seems unrelated
 172 2013-11-09 01:38:53 <dizko> Added 1 addresses from 87.236.211.15: 3584 tried, 12904 new
 173 2013-11-09 01:38:53 <dizko> connection from XX.XX.XX.XX:35711 dropped (banned)
 174 2013-11-09 01:38:57 <Apocalyptic> gmaxwell, the problem is I don't see the network activity decrease anytime soon
 175 2013-11-09 01:39:18 <gmaxwell> dizko: go back to where it logged misbehaving for your node. That entry is too late, it's hanging up on connection.
 176 2013-11-09 01:39:41 abrkn\ has joined
 177 2013-11-09 01:40:29 abrkn has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 178 2013-11-09 01:42:13 <dizko> gmaxwell: its basically lots of those same ban messages, one send/recieve pair of version messages that seem to be fine
 179 2013-11-09 01:42:21 <dizko> only one that's different is
 180 2013-11-09 01:42:26 <dizko> Misbehaving: XX.XX.XX.XX:37319 (0 -> 10)
 181 2013-11-09 01:43:04 <dizko> they're running the same exact binary
 182 2013-11-09 01:43:20 <gmaxwell> dizko: yes, I need the message _above_ that one.
 183 2013-11-09 01:44:01 <dizko> ERROR: CTransaction::CheckTransaction() : vin empty
 184 2013-11-09 01:44:01 <dizko> ERROR: CTxMemPool::accept() : CheckTransaction failed
 185 2013-11-09 01:44:05 <gmaxwell> (you should find more of those, e.g. 10 -> 20 etc.. it bans at 100 unless you've changed that option)
 186 2013-11-09 01:44:19 <dizko> that's the only one for that ip address
 187 2013-11-09 01:44:31 <dizko> havent changed anything
 188 2013-11-09 01:45:24 <dizko> the only thing i have set in there different from standard are a timeout and maxconnections
 189 2013-11-09 01:45:45 <dizko> and it was not even close to what maxconn was set to
 190 2013-11-09 01:46:19 <ryan-c> are the transaction fees on testnet the same as mainnet?
 191 2013-11-09 01:47:19 <ryan-c> also, does eligius still include non-standard transactions in blocks?
 192 2013-11-09 01:47:49 <dizko> gmaxwell: looking at the log on another node its virtually identical
 193 2013-11-09 01:48:30 <gmaxwell> dizko: Your node is emitting invalid transactions, it's a wallet bug we're aware of but haven't tracked down the cause yet.
 194 2013-11-09 01:48:33 AndyOfiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 195 2013-11-09 01:48:57 <dizko> gmaxwell: its probably my fault right?  im using rawtx
 196 2013-11-09 01:49:38 <dizko> gmaxwell: but i guess if i create a bad input it shouldnt relay it
 197 2013-11-09 01:50:19 <dizko> so i guess i have to write a script to tail the log and notice when im banned and restart it =/
 198 2013-11-09 01:50:20 <gmaxwell> dizko: are you using the wallet on that node at all?
 199 2013-11-09 01:50:59 Anduck has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 200 2013-11-09 01:51:02 <dizko> gmaxwell: no i have a ring of open relays, and then on the main server it run's bitcoind and is set to connect only to the relay nodes
 201 2013-11-09 01:51:24 <dizko> so the rpc connection is to the one local on the main server
 202 2013-11-09 01:51:25 <gmaxwell> dizko: I understand that. I'm asking if you use the wallet on the main server.
 203 2013-11-09 01:51:28 <dizko> yes
 204 2013-11-09 01:52:03 reneg_ has joined
 205 2013-11-09 01:52:04 robocoin_ has joined
 206 2013-11-09 01:52:48 RoboTeddy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 207 2013-11-09 01:52:51 <dizko> is there anything i could look for on that box to help with debug?
 208 2013-11-09 01:52:55 reneg1 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 209 2013-11-09 01:53:02 <dizko> also, you'd think when i restart the relays it would just happen again
 210 2013-11-09 01:54:01 <dizko> though i suppose if its not throwing an error locally when i send the tx, it would not reprocess that one
 211 2013-11-09 01:54:06 RoboTeddy has joined
 212 2013-11-09 01:54:46 reneg has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 213 2013-11-09 01:54:58 <gmaxwell> dizko: it will just happen again, eventually.
 214 2013-11-09 01:54:59 robocoin has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 215 2013-11-09 01:55:41 <gmaxwell> dizko: it's happing as a result of periodic rebroadcasts of bad data in your wallet. Your raw txn usage is unrelated, unless its how you triggered the bad behavior.
 216 2013-11-09 01:55:48 saivann_ has joined
 217 2013-11-09 01:55:52 <dizko> ahh
 218 2013-11-09 01:55:53 mrkent2 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 219 2013-11-09 01:56:29 <dizko> well it isnt happening more than one a day or so, which is bad but not horrible.   i can script up something to restart them when it happens for now
 220 2013-11-09 01:56:37 <gmaxwell> dizko: any idea if any txn to or from you have ever been double spent? (e.g. any txn stuck at 0 confirms in list transactions?)
 221 2013-11-09 01:56:43 <dizko> is there a place i can subscribe to this bug so i know if its fixed?
 222 2013-11-09 01:56:54 <dizko> ill check
 223 2013-11-09 01:57:13 <dizko> actually no it looks clean
 224 2013-11-09 01:57:24 <gmaxwell> if you make sure I have your email, I'll contact you to test a fix when we have one.
 225 2013-11-09 01:57:37 <gmaxwell> I'm looking to see if there is an open issue.
 226 2013-11-09 01:57:45 <dizko> thank you
 227 2013-11-09 01:58:38 saivann has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 228 2013-11-09 01:59:58 <dizko> id rather not do this because i already recently spent a good bit of tx fees cleaning up dust, but if I had to I could send all the value to another wallet, and recreate the wallet from the original keys.  we have fixed addresses so i have a finite number of keys that i actually need
 229 2013-11-09 02:00:08 <dizko> but i guess that wont help much in finding the bug
 230 2013-11-09 02:00:34 <gmaxwell> dizko: I couldn't find an issue, but I opened one. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3225
 231 2013-11-09 02:00:39 agnostic98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 232 2013-11-09 02:00:40 <dizko> great thanks!
 233 2013-11-09 02:01:23 agath has quit (Quit: Ich mache hachfleisch aus dir! Porco dio!)
 234 2013-11-09 02:01:32 <Delerium> is there an extended error message for TX Rejected -22 to give a bit more insight why it was rejected when sending rawtransactions?
 235 2013-11-09 02:01:46 <Delerium> or is it simply a case of trawling through the debug.log?
 236 2013-11-09 02:02:13 twmz has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 237 2013-11-09 02:03:11 <gmaxwell> trawling through the debug.log it is.
 238 2013-11-09 02:04:08 <Delerium> yey \o/ :(
 239 2013-11-09 02:04:17 <maaku> is the compact signature format covered by a BIP?
 240 2013-11-09 02:04:33 twmz has joined
 241 2013-11-09 02:05:05 <gmaxwell> I don't believe so, I believe it predates the BIP process.
 242 2013-11-09 02:05:16 <maaku> k thx
 243 2013-11-09 02:06:32 agath has joined
 244 2013-11-09 02:07:26 andyo has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 245 2013-11-09 02:07:28 agnostic98 has joined
 246 2013-11-09 02:07:52 ds is now known as away!ds@gateway/shell/cloudant/x-kqsgikodvlabxlrd|dongshengcn
 247 2013-11-09 02:08:19 abrkn\ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 248 2013-11-09 02:11:02  has quit (8w8w8|!~ted@gateway/tor-sasl/ovovo|Quit: °!°       888           ~~ S4n1tY 1S Fut1l3 ~~              888       °!°)
 249 2013-11-09 02:11:20 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 250 2013-11-09 02:12:11 tych0 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 251 2013-11-09 02:14:31 twmz has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 252 2013-11-09 02:14:53 imton has joined
 253 2013-11-09 02:30:55 <imton> guys, in the console debug mode, when syncing, what does this means "progress=0.333761"
 254 2013-11-09 02:31:11 <imton> how should I interprete that number
 255 2013-11-09 02:31:28 <gmaxwell> it's roughtly 1/3rd of the way done.
 256 2013-11-09 02:31:57 <imton> gmaxwell: thanks! is there any way to get that from an RPC call?
 257 2013-11-09 02:31:57 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: it counts just blocks doesn't it?
 258 2013-11-09 02:32:12 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: no.
 259 2013-11-09 02:32:17 <gmaxwell> imton: no.
 260 2013-11-09 02:32:36 reneg_ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
 261 2013-11-09 02:32:58 <imton> gmaxwell: is there any other way to get any syncing info from RPC ?
 262 2013-11-09 02:33:03 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: what does it count?
 263 2013-11-09 02:33:16 * midnightmagic stops being lazy and goes and looks for his own damn self
 264 2013-11-09 02:33:44 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: transactions.
 265 2013-11-09 02:33:56 <gmaxwell> imton: getinfo gives the height in blocks.
 266 2013-11-09 02:34:09 mapppum has joined
 267 2013-11-09 02:34:39 <imton> yeah, right know i get "blocks" => 234645
 268 2013-11-09 02:34:56 <imton> how can I get the current height?
 269 2013-11-09 02:35:02 <imton> (to calc the diff)
 270 2013-11-09 02:35:50 <midnightmagic> hah
 271 2013-11-09 02:35:56 <midnightmagic> fSigcheckVerificationFactor = 5.0, that's interesting.
 272 2013-11-09 02:36:06 <midnightmagic> it's a guess based on past transaction volume
 273 2013-11-09 02:37:07 <gmaxwell> imton: you can't the node never knows when it's "synced" it's always syncing.
 274 2013-11-09 02:37:15 mappum has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 275 2013-11-09 02:37:24 <gmaxwell> the progress indicator thing is just a guess and is halariously inaccurage when its near 100%.
 276 2013-11-09 02:37:54 <midnightmagic> it's pretty awesome.
 277 2013-11-09 02:37:56 <imton> gmaxwell: thanks, that 2nd answer answers my next question
 278 2013-11-09 02:38:06 <imton> :)
 279 2013-11-09 02:38:26 dongshengcn is now known as ds|away
 280 2013-11-09 02:39:33 DaQatz has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 281 2013-11-09 02:41:18 diki has quit ()
 282 2013-11-09 02:43:35 sacrelege has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 283 2013-11-09 02:48:16 <imton> gmaxwell: I don't get why progress is around 0.35, get info block height reports 234645 and current block height is about 268,609
 284 2013-11-09 02:49:55 osmosis has joined
 285 2013-11-09 02:50:39 <gmaxwell> imton: because most of the early blocks had very few transactions and validate very quickly.
 286 2013-11-09 02:51:18 <imton> gmaxwell: oh! thanks
 287 2013-11-09 02:52:03 btcbtc has quit (Quit: btcbtc)
 288 2013-11-09 02:53:20 twmz has joined
 289 2013-11-09 02:53:22 Thepok has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 290 2013-11-09 02:59:56 AndyOfiesh has joined
 291 2013-11-09 02:59:57 moleccc has joined
 292 2013-11-09 03:00:34 independent has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 293 2013-11-09 03:00:53 reneg has joined
 294 2013-11-09 03:01:05 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 295 2013-11-09 03:02:47 wailher has joined
 296 2013-11-09 03:03:11 groglogic has joined
 297 2013-11-09 03:03:11 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 298 2013-11-09 03:06:18 akrmn has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 299 2013-11-09 03:07:05 JontyX has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 300 2013-11-09 03:07:51 JontyX has joined
 301 2013-11-09 03:11:38 reneg1 has joined
 302 2013-11-09 03:11:43 mrkent has joined
 303 2013-11-09 03:13:10 * Zarutian is on the opinon that bitcoin-qt needs a "spy" feature to display others' transactions when syncing
 304 2013-11-09 03:14:18 daktak_ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 305 2013-11-09 03:15:20 B0g4r7 has joined
 306 2013-11-09 03:16:42 shesek has joined
 307 2013-11-09 03:19:51 CheckDavid has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 308 2013-11-09 03:21:14 oru has quit (Quit: ~)
 309 2013-11-09 03:29:00 AndyOfiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 310 2013-11-09 03:30:46 oru has joined
 311 2013-11-09 03:32:24 reneg_ has joined
 312 2013-11-09 03:32:52 andyo has joined
 313 2013-11-09 03:34:45 reneg has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 314 2013-11-09 03:36:08 kis has joined
 315 2013-11-09 03:38:58 roconnor has joined
 316 2013-11-09 03:39:01 reneg_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 317 2013-11-09 03:39:08 reneg has joined
 318 2013-11-09 03:41:07 reneg_ has joined
 319 2013-11-09 03:43:13 reneg has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 320 2013-11-09 03:44:30 SwampTony has joined
 321 2013-11-09 03:46:33 toffoo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 322 2013-11-09 03:46:36 reneg_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 323 2013-11-09 03:46:37 reneg has joined
 324 2013-11-09 03:46:50 Bkil has joined
 325 2013-11-09 03:48:11 toffoo has joined
 326 2013-11-09 03:48:28 debiantoruser has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 327 2013-11-09 03:48:30 duckybsd has joined
 328 2013-11-09 03:49:13 rodarmor has joined
 329 2013-11-09 03:51:24 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 330 2013-11-09 03:51:29 DaQatz has joined
 331 2013-11-09 03:53:15 SwampTony has quit ()
 332 2013-11-09 03:54:30 Thepok has joined
 333 2013-11-09 03:56:33 Subo1977 has joined
 334 2013-11-09 03:56:33 mE\Ta has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 335 2013-11-09 03:56:50 eristisk has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 336 2013-11-09 03:57:30 Subo1977_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 337 2013-11-09 03:58:28 tesserajk has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 338 2013-11-09 03:59:06 FluffyBunny has joined
 339 2013-11-09 04:00:42 richcollins has joined
 340 2013-11-09 04:01:21 Bkil has quit (Quit: Bye)
 341 2013-11-09 04:02:34 duckybsd has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 342 2013-11-09 04:03:42 DLN-001 has joined
 343 2013-11-09 04:05:46 hydrogenesis has joined
 344 2013-11-09 04:06:00 dust-otc has quit (Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
 345 2013-11-09 04:06:10 canoon has joined
 346 2013-11-09 04:07:51 joepie91 has joined
 347 2013-11-09 04:09:31 Thepok has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 348 2013-11-09 04:10:51 shesek has joined
 349 2013-11-09 04:13:08 <Fistful_of_LTC> wow, now 11hours and my transaction not confirmed, not even once, even later tx i've made are already fully ocnfirmed
 350 2013-11-09 04:13:16 agnostic98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 351 2013-11-09 04:13:45 rodarmor has quit (Quit: rodarmor)
 352 2013-11-09 04:13:51 agnostic98 has joined
 353 2013-11-09 04:16:00 AndyOfiesh has joined
 354 2013-11-09 04:16:01 hydrogenesis has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPad - http://colloquy.mobi)
 355 2013-11-09 04:18:38 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 356 2013-11-09 04:18:54 porquilho has quit ()
 357 2013-11-09 04:24:33 groglogic has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 358 2013-11-09 04:24:45 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 359 2013-11-09 04:24:52 parus_ has left ()
 360 2013-11-09 04:24:59 hydrogenesis has joined
 361 2013-11-09 04:25:41 <Fistful_of_LTC> have you devs seen this: https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-confirmation-time
 362 2013-11-09 04:25:55 <Fistful_of_LTC> Apocalyptic and i aren't the only ones with confirmation latency
 363 2013-11-09 04:26:07 <Fistful_of_LTC> there must be a problem with the blockchain
 364 2013-11-09 04:26:25 <Fistful_of_LTC> are pools being DDoSed ?
 365 2013-11-09 04:26:40 <warren> Fistful_of_LTC: they really need a chart of fee/KB for unconfirmed tx's
 366 2013-11-09 04:28:29 Thepok has joined
 367 2013-11-09 04:28:54 <dizko> without sending rawtx, is there a way to tell bitcoin-qt to include a fee and override it's calculation?
 368 2013-11-09 04:29:09 DLN-001 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 369 2013-11-09 04:29:32 tesserajk has joined
 370 2013-11-09 04:32:01 SwapperMall_ has joined
 371 2013-11-09 04:32:10 tesserajk has quit (Client Quit)
 372 2013-11-09 04:32:44 SwapperMall__ has joined
 373 2013-11-09 04:32:46 groglogic has joined
 374 2013-11-09 04:33:43 SwapperMall has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 375 2013-11-09 04:33:58 PRab has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 376 2013-11-09 04:34:23 hydrogenesis has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPad - http://colloquy.mobi)
 377 2013-11-09 04:35:12 kis has left ()
 378 2013-11-09 04:36:05 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
 379 2013-11-09 04:36:07 SwapperMall_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 380 2013-11-09 04:36:17 [7] has joined
 381 2013-11-09 04:37:26 Thepok has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 382 2013-11-09 04:38:02 FluffyBunny has quit (Quit: Off to my cookies… And milk…)
 383 2013-11-09 04:38:14 <maaku> or overlay that chart with bitcoin price
 384 2013-11-09 04:38:25 themsay has joined
 385 2013-11-09 04:38:30 <maaku> no suprise that the network is clogged with people moving in and out of exchanges
 386 2013-11-09 04:39:20 Krellan has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 387 2013-11-09 04:39:59 agnostic98 has joined
 388 2013-11-09 04:42:00 <Apocalyptic> maaku, right, the network is clogged, it still doesn't justify why some dust tx with a 0.0001 are prioritized
 389 2013-11-09 04:42:35 <dizko> reference client calculated my  tx fee at 0, and its been almost a day
 390 2013-11-09 04:42:40 <dizko> and its not dust =(
 391 2013-11-09 04:42:46 <Apocalyptic> same here dizko !
 392 2013-11-09 04:43:05 <maaku> Apocalyptic: sure it does. lookinto the priority algorithm
 393 2013-11-09 04:43:06 <dizko> i mean, first of all i wouldnt have not included a fee, i know they're working on fees....but..mrr
 394 2013-11-09 04:43:43 <Apocalyptic> maaku, greedy miners...
 395 2013-11-09 04:43:55 skinnkavaj has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 396 2013-11-09 04:44:04 <dizko> the only way to include a fee when sending with bitcoind would be to use rawtx, correct?
 397 2013-11-09 04:44:11 <Apocalyptic> shouldn't the coin age / input amounts matter most  ?
 398 2013-11-09 04:44:17 <maaku> i'm not sure what bitcoin has to do with it
 399 2013-11-09 04:44:34 <maaku> non-fee transactions are priotized by input age, size and such
 400 2013-11-09 04:44:40 <Apocalyptic> i know
 401 2013-11-09 04:44:45 tesserajk has joined
 402 2013-11-09 04:45:04 <maaku> fee transactions are totally different. if you want it acted on quickly, tack on a fee
 403 2013-11-09 04:45:20 <Apocalyptic> well i never had issues with it until today
 404 2013-11-09 04:45:20 <maaku> if you let it be free.. be happy if ever gets confirmed
 405 2013-11-09 04:45:24 <dizko> maaku: how do you specify the fee from bitcoind command line?  only by using rawtx right?
 406 2013-11-09 04:45:36 <maaku> setminfee i think
 407 2013-11-09 04:45:38 <Apocalyptic> if bitcoind decided the fee is 0 tx, i got it confirmed in the next blocks, always
 408 2013-11-09 04:45:57 <Apocalyptic> dizko settxfee
 409 2013-11-09 04:46:15 <dizko> thx
 410 2013-11-09 04:46:18 <Apocalyptic> np
 411 2013-11-09 04:46:36 molecular has joined
 412 2013-11-09 04:46:41 <dizko> at least now i know for next time
 413 2013-11-09 04:46:49 <dizko> now to get my 50btc mined =(
 414 2013-11-09 04:46:59 <warren> OK interesting, toffoo has block files from 0.7.2 that he synced since 0.3.x.  They work with the 0.7.2 client.  After import into 0.8.x and clean shutdown, 0.8.x thinks it is corrupted the next time he runs it.
 415 2013-11-09 04:47:00 <Apocalyptic> i always rely on bitcoind to set the correct fee
 416 2013-11-09 04:47:11 <warren> I asked him to compress his 0.7.2 block files and upload for analysis.
 417 2013-11-09 04:49:01 <maaku> Apocalyptic: bitcoind will still set the correct fee
 418 2013-11-09 04:49:13 <maaku> settxfee just puts a floor in place
 419 2013-11-09 04:49:16 <maaku> iirc
 420 2013-11-09 04:49:19 molec has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 421 2013-11-09 04:49:39 <Apocalyptic> by "correct" i mean that it will get confirmed in a reasonable amount of time in any situation
 422 2013-11-09 04:49:40 <dizko> maaku: i think my tx conformed (either that or it has a bug in fee calculation) but it set it to 0
 423 2013-11-09 04:49:48 <Apocalyptic> this is clearly not the case here
 424 2013-11-09 04:49:52 <dizko> at least if i added -something- it'd have a better chance of getting mined this decade
 425 2013-11-09 04:50:06 <Apocalyptic> maaku, i know what settxfee does, thanks
 426 2013-11-09 04:50:54 <dizko> i normally dont send manually like that, the inputs.io thing made me reconsider how much i was keeping in hot wallet and i moved a bit out
 427 2013-11-09 04:51:28 <dizko> but in the past it had always calculated a fee that got confirmed reasonably fast
 428 2013-11-09 04:51:48 <Apocalyptic> same for me
 429 2013-11-09 04:52:11 <Apocalyptic> but due to this tx amount increase, it's no longer true...
 430 2013-11-09 04:52:42 <Apocalyptic> that's what I don't get, miners shouldn't prioritize by fee first
 431 2013-11-09 04:52:54 <dizko> i think it would be a nice service to set up a little marketplace for people to bid on having miners mine tx's that either didnt conform or you dont want to wait for
 432 2013-11-09 04:53:19 <Apocalyptic> yeah, would offer a very generous fee just to get it through now
 433 2013-11-09 04:53:20 <dizko> id gladly pay 0.01 or even a little more to get it done
 434 2013-11-09 04:53:44 <maaku> Apocalyptic: I'm just saying that if you allow 0-fee txns, then it is incorrect to   \
 435 2013-11-09 04:53:48 <dizko> i have enough shit to do besides trying to doublespend my own tx
 436 2013-11-09 04:54:04 <Apocalyptic> plus it won't let you dizko
 437 2013-11-09 04:54:11 <Apocalyptic> as long as it's in the mempool of the nodes
 438 2013-11-09 04:54:19 <Apocalyptic> maaku, ?
 439 2013-11-09 04:54:23 <dizko> maaku:  ive been told repeatedly that 0 fee tx's are perfectly legit, and the wiki says as much
 440 2013-11-09 04:54:29 <maaku> Apocalyptic: n/m
 441 2013-11-09 04:54:38 <maaku> dizko: 0-fees are legit
 442 2013-11-09 04:54:47 <maaku> just don't expect any timeframe, whatsoever for confirmation
 443 2013-11-09 04:54:56 <maaku> they basically end up on the bottom of the pile
 444 2013-11-09 04:54:58 <Apocalyptic> that's just wrong
 445 2013-11-09 04:55:08 <maaku> wrong? you get what you pay for
 446 2013-11-09 04:55:13 MC1984 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 447 2013-11-09 04:55:17 <maaku> if you want a tx confirmed rapidly, use settxfee
 448 2013-11-09 04:55:33 <maaku> set it to something rediculously low even
 449 2013-11-09 04:55:40 <dizko> maaku: just to confirm, if settxfee is lower than would conform, it will include a larger fee yes?
 450 2013-11-09 04:55:56 <maaku> dizko: i believe so, yes
 451 2013-11-09 04:56:08 <Apocalyptic> dizko, yes
 452 2013-11-09 04:56:08 <maaku> in the GUI it will ask you, just like it normally would when it needs an extra fee
 453 2013-11-09 04:56:14 <maaku> i don't know about JSON-RPC
 454 2013-11-09 04:56:18 <maaku> that's a different code path
 455 2013-11-09 04:56:41 <Apocalyptic> if you don't have enough it will even refuse to relay the tx
 456 2013-11-09 04:56:45 <dizko> i dont actually need this immediately, fortunately.  it was headed for my offline wallet
 457 2013-11-09 04:57:41 <dizko> Apocalyptic: hrm not sure about that.   my app uses rawtx and before i learned to correctly calculate fees I sent lots of nasty ones out there that did get relayed but shouldnt have
 458 2013-11-09 04:58:06 <dizko> they usually went away fairly quickly when i get them out of my wallet
 459 2013-11-09 04:58:25 <maaku> dizko: if the tx is large enough (plus some other considerations), there is a limit where you do need a minimum fee to be relayed
 460 2013-11-09 04:58:36 <dizko> maaku: yea larger than 10k
 461 2013-11-09 04:58:38 <maaku> at least by the default client
 462 2013-11-09 04:59:02 <Apocalyptic> dizko, with rawtx maybe
 463 2013-11-09 04:59:07 <dizko> maaku: in any case i guess i know what to do differently next time, thanks
 464 2013-11-09 04:59:19 <Apocalyptic> i was talking about the behaviour when using sendfrom/sendtoaddress RPC
 465 2013-11-09 04:59:37 <dizko> hopefully this eventually confirms, if not ill have to find a miner willing to let me reward them for doing it
 466 2013-11-09 04:59:43 <dizko> or buy a mining rig hahah
 467 2013-11-09 05:04:03 Raziel has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 468 2013-11-09 05:05:47 Application has joined
 469 2013-11-09 05:05:47 Application has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 470 2013-11-09 05:06:19 Application has joined
 471 2013-11-09 05:08:34 throughn1thing has joined
 472 2013-11-09 05:09:14 coius has joined
 473 2013-11-09 05:10:06 SwampTony has joined
 474 2013-11-09 05:10:11 pataroose has joined
 475 2013-11-09 05:10:13 kadoban_ has joined
 476 2013-11-09 05:10:23 valparaiso_ has joined
 477 2013-11-09 05:10:49 MobGod_ has joined
 478 2013-11-09 05:11:20 eristisk has joined
 479 2013-11-09 05:11:22 axiom_ has joined
 480 2013-11-09 05:13:51 MagBo_ has joined
 481 2013-11-09 05:14:08 throughnothing has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 482 2013-11-09 05:14:08 saulimus has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 483 2013-11-09 05:14:08 coeus_ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 484 2013-11-09 05:14:09 axiom has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 485 2013-11-09 05:14:09 trbck has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 486 2013-11-09 05:14:09 valparaiso has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 487 2013-11-09 05:14:09 phungus has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 488 2013-11-09 05:14:09 kadoban has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 489 2013-11-09 05:14:09 DrHaribo has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 490 2013-11-09 05:14:09 dexX7 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 491 2013-11-09 05:14:09 reneg has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 492 2013-11-09 05:14:09 phungus has joined
 493 2013-11-09 05:14:09 MobGod has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 494 2013-11-09 05:14:10 trbck has joined
 495 2013-11-09 05:14:10 MagBo has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 496 2013-11-09 05:14:10 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 497 2013-11-09 05:14:10 DrHaribo has joined
 498 2013-11-09 05:14:10 BurtyB has joined
 499 2013-11-09 05:14:10 phungus has quit (Changing host)
 500 2013-11-09 05:14:10 phungus has joined
 501 2013-11-09 05:14:10 valparaiso_ is now known as valparaiso
 502 2013-11-09 05:14:12 DrHaribo has quit (Changing host)
 503 2013-11-09 05:14:12 DrHaribo has joined
 504 2013-11-09 05:14:39 reneg has joined
 505 2013-11-09 05:15:50 fluidjax has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 506 2013-11-09 05:16:14 eoss has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 507 2013-11-09 05:16:19 fluidjax has joined
 508 2013-11-09 05:19:48 reneg has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 509 2013-11-09 05:23:40 contrapumpkin has joined
 510 2013-11-09 05:24:06 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 511 2013-11-09 05:25:45 Angus has left ()
 512 2013-11-09 05:31:10 eristisk has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 513 2013-11-09 05:35:12 reneg has joined
 514 2013-11-09 05:39:56 <shesek> anybody using bitcoinjs-lib?
 515 2013-11-09 05:40:09 elevatioN has joined
 516 2013-11-09 05:40:40 SwampTony has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 517 2013-11-09 05:43:52 RoboTeddy has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 518 2013-11-09 05:45:01 eristisk has joined
 519 2013-11-09 05:45:16 a_meteor has joined
 520 2013-11-09 05:46:36 <warren> are block dates UTC?
 521 2013-11-09 05:47:00 saizai has joined
 522 2013-11-09 05:47:13 saulimus has joined
 523 2013-11-09 05:47:32 <gmaxwell> they're whatever miners want to put in the headers... though they are constrained to not be more than 2 hr in the future relative to bitcoin network time.
 524 2013-11-09 05:48:00 <saizai> howdy all. I need an example of a CoinJoin transaction on blockchain.info that I can use as a reference for a comment on the pending FEC advisory opinion request. Could one of you please point me to one?
 525 2013-11-09 05:48:53 <petertodd> saizai: what's the comment?
 526 2013-11-09 05:49:04 <saizai> petertodd: see header @ https://makeyourlaws.org
 527 2013-11-09 05:49:07 groglogic has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 528 2013-11-09 05:49:25 <petertodd> saizai: I mean, what's being said about coinjoin?
 529 2013-11-09 05:49:48 <saizai> petertodd: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1laZxfuna-AXsW9WC4b53s_Eb1YAg7pY-YQAGKcUE9iw/edit# page 13
 530 2013-11-09 05:50:04 <saizai> the paragraph using footnote 23
 531 2013-11-09 05:50:45 <saizai> am editing it now, considering whether to recommend that multi-origin transactions must never be refunded given coinjoin etc would make that a possible mixing loophole
 532 2013-11-09 05:51:45 <petertodd> saizai: even single-origin transactions should never be refunded to the originating address - get a refund address when the donation is made. (e.g. by interactive form on a website)
 533 2013-11-09 05:52:13 <petertodd> saizai: you have no way of knowing if the person controls the address the funds came from
 534 2013-11-09 05:52:28 <saizai> yes, but you prevent refund to a third party
 535 2013-11-09 05:52:42 <saizai> in the simple case of single in/out address transaction
 536 2013-11-09 05:52:46 <petertodd> saizai: don't bother mentioning mixing or anything, just make it clear that Bitcoin doesn't have a refund mechanism built in
 537 2013-11-09 05:52:57 <saizai> giving it back to the origin is the only reasonable method
 538 2013-11-09 05:53:00 <petertodd> saizai: no you don't, the third party might be the one that sent the funds on behalf of someone else
 539 2013-11-09 05:53:07 <saizai> of course
 540 2013-11-09 05:53:13 <saizai> but then you would be giving it back to that same third party
 541 2013-11-09 05:53:17 <saizai> which is fine
 542 2013-11-09 05:53:20 <petertodd> saizai: legally no
 543 2013-11-09 05:53:28 <saizai> howso
 544 2013-11-09 05:53:52 <saizai> in the case of multi in, I'm not sure if it's *ever* okay to refund it
 545 2013-11-09 05:53:58 <petertodd> saizai: because the person who *legally* made the payment, and asked for funds to be sent, != the address
 546 2013-11-09 05:54:10 <saizai> actually no
 547 2013-11-09 05:54:14 <Apocalyptic> as in for exemple a withdrawal from an exchange
 548 2013-11-09 05:54:16 <petertodd> saizai: it's really simple: you refund by asking for a refund address. The payment protocol will do this for you.
 549 2013-11-09 05:54:20 <Luke-Jr> saizai: there is no from address
 550 2013-11-09 05:54:28 <saizai> whoever actually sent the money is the one who sent it :p
 551 2013-11-09 05:54:29 <Luke-Jr> saizai: addresses are only valid *destinations* to use *once*
 552 2013-11-09 05:54:37 <saizai> someone merely claiming to have sent it could be lying
 553 2013-11-09 05:54:55 <petertodd> saizai: well, since you don't have a refund address that just means you can't refund. that's all there is too it
 554 2013-11-09 05:55:16 <saizai> petertodd: supposing that it's 1 in 1 out
 555 2013-11-09 05:55:27 <petertodd> saizai: that has nothing to do with it.
 556 2013-11-09 05:55:28 <saizai> I get 1 btc to a linked address
 557 2013-11-09 05:55:36 <saizai> I give it back to the origin
 558 2013-11-09 05:55:42 <saizai> how have I enabled a transfer of any sort?
 559 2013-11-09 05:55:42 <Luke-Jr> saizai: short of collecting a return address (as the payment protocol does), it is impossible to return/refund a bitcoin transaction
 560 2013-11-09 05:55:46 <petertodd> saizai: you do not know anything about the origin
 561 2013-11-09 05:55:58 <saizai> I don't know whose it is, true
 562 2013-11-09 05:55:59 <Luke-Jr> saizai: the origin is NOT an address
 563 2013-11-09 05:56:04 * saizai tilts head
 564 2013-11-09 05:56:05 <Luke-Jr> there is no address in the origin
 565 2013-11-09 05:56:08 <midnightmagic> saizai: Additionally, there are types of addresses that *might not be possible to spend from ever again* and so paying back to those destroys the bitcoin
 566 2013-11-09 05:56:13 <petertodd> saizai: where origin is the *legal* meaning of the *person* who sent the funds, not some ultra-low-level technical thing that's meaningless
 567 2013-11-09 05:56:33 <saizai> midnightmagic: yeah, I'm aware of that. that is okay
 568 2013-11-09 05:56:38 <saizai> legally at least
 569 2013-11-09 05:56:46 <Luke-Jr> saizai: the bitcoin payment protocol *does* support refunds/returns, but the address mechanism does not at all
 570 2013-11-09 05:57:02 ThomasV has joined
 571 2013-11-09 05:57:04 <saizai> the problems I have to prevent are that a PAC can't in any way enable mixing or transfer from one party to another
 572 2013-11-09 05:57:04 <petertodd> saizai: any lawyer who actually understood Bitcoin would tell you that legally that's unacceptable.
 573 2013-11-09 05:57:10 <Luke-Jr> as long as you use the payment protocol only, you can do refunds
 574 2013-11-09 05:57:54 <petertodd> saizai: Exactly! And by returning funds to an address when you *do not* know if the will end up with the *person* who sent them enables transfer from one party to another.
 575 2013-11-09 05:58:00 <midnightmagic> theymos?  you listening?  tell your datacentre to stop resetting incoming TCP from Apple devices!
 576 2013-11-09 05:58:19 <saizai> petertodd: it'll end up with whoever gave them to me
 577 2013-11-09 05:58:20 <midnightmagic> (on port 443)
 578 2013-11-09 05:58:28 <saizai> 'cause it's giving them back to the same address I got it from
 579 2013-11-09 05:58:43 <petertodd> saizai: Look, if you want to ignore me, I'm not going to waste my time. Bye
 580 2013-11-09 05:58:44 <Luke-Jr> saizai: you DID NOT get it from any address
 581 2013-11-09 05:58:51 <petertodd>  /ignore saizai
 582 2013-11-09 05:58:54 <Luke-Jr> saizai: transactions do NOT come from addresses
 583 2013-11-09 05:59:02 <saizai> Luke-Jr: then I'm misunderstanding something
 584 2013-11-09 05:59:07 <Luke-Jr> saizai: yes, obviously
 585 2013-11-09 05:59:16 <saizai> please explain what I'm missing.
 586 2013-11-09 05:59:26 <Luke-Jr> and it's not entirely your fault, given the number of popular websites full of misinfo
 587 2013-11-09 05:59:42 <Luke-Jr> saizai: Bitcoin transactions are sent *to* an address, but it is impossible to know who they came from
 588 2013-11-09 05:59:58 <saizai> also I should note that if it's "this is only okay under some super technical method", it's not okay 'cause the FEC won't have a fucking clue what that means
 589 2013-11-09 06:00:15 <saizai> I have to be able to explain it to the lawyers, and trust me when I say they've already told me to dumb stuff down a lot ;)
 590 2013-11-09 06:00:44 <saizai> Luke-Jr: don't they come *from* an address also, supposing the simple 1 in / 1 out case?
 591 2013-11-09 06:00:48 <Luke-Jr> saizai: No, they don't.
 592 2013-11-09 06:00:49 <midnightmagic> "Even though it appears that funds come from somewhere, it's impossible to pay back whoever sent the money by paying that somewhere back."
 593 2013-11-09 06:00:52 <midnightmagic> there.
 594 2013-11-09 06:00:55 <saizai> where do they come from?
 595 2013-11-09 06:00:59 <midnightmagic> "Accept my assertion, otherwise we have to get technical."
 596 2013-11-09 06:01:22 <saizai> midnightmagic: yeah, I have to give at least a bit more explanation than that. I don't get to merely assert :-P
 597 2013-11-09 06:01:23 <Luke-Jr> saizai: from an account in another wallet, which you cannot identify a return address for
 598 2013-11-09 06:01:44 * saizai tilts head
 599 2013-11-09 06:01:48 <midnightmagic> "And these guys on IRC get cranky when they talk about this because nobody but they understand it."
 600 2013-11-09 06:01:54 <Luke-Jr> midnightmagic: lol
 601 2013-11-09 06:01:58 paxtoncamaro91 has joined
 602 2013-11-09 06:02:16 <saizai> Luke-Jr: you said I get BTC *to* an address
 603 2013-11-09 06:02:24 <saizai> suppose I then send something using that BTC
 604 2013-11-09 06:02:25 <Luke-Jr> you *send* Bitcoins *to* an address.
 605 2013-11-09 06:02:33 <saizai> is it not originating *from* the address it was sent to?
 606 2013-11-09 06:02:36 <saizai> if not, from what?
 607 2013-11-09 06:02:36 <Luke-Jr> nope
 608 2013-11-09 06:02:46 <Luke-Jr> once it's received, the address has no more relevance
 609 2013-11-09 06:02:53 <saizai> again, (supposing the simplest possible case scenario)
 610 2013-11-09 06:03:20 <midnightmagic> saizai: You are granting the authority to spend that amount onwards. You are not asserting any origin when you create a transaction.
 611 2013-11-09 06:03:38 <midnightmagic> Like, perhaps the universe has no beginning.
 612 2013-11-09 06:03:45 null has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 613 2013-11-09 06:03:52 <Luke-Jr> saizai: when you spend the funds, you never make any reference to that address
 614 2013-11-09 06:04:01 <saizai> eg https://blockchain.info/tx/538872d054d318364d50ce0e62ba476a136d59e4e430def447379e76c9d357a6
 615 2013-11-09 06:04:13 <Luke-Jr> ignore blockchain.info
 616 2013-11-09 06:04:16 <Luke-Jr> it is a hive of misinformation
 617 2013-11-09 06:04:24 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 618 2013-11-09 06:04:25 <midnightmagic> saizai: Don't ever use that site as reference material, that place is horrible, and often completely incorrect in human-harming ways.
 619 2013-11-09 06:04:40 <saizai> ><
 620 2013-11-09 06:05:17 <midnightmagic> Just because it represents something visually does not mean it is doing so with any correctness.
 621 2013-11-09 06:05:31 null has joined
 622 2013-11-09 06:05:46 <saizai> am I incorrect in understanding that in the above tx, address …ME has received .002 BTC?
 623 2013-11-09 06:05:53 * Luke-Jr thinks with as much time as we waste telling people to ignore bc.i, we could maybe have written a sane replacement O.o
 624 2013-11-09 06:06:00 <saizai> and that address …Qar sent them?
 625 2013-11-09 06:06:13 <Luke-Jr> addresses don't send transactions.
 626 2013-11-09 06:06:36 <midnightmagic> Luke-Jr: there may be no way to accurately represent the data in a way humans can immediately grasp. Some concepts have no analogue in the real world.
 627 2013-11-09 06:06:43 <Luke-Jr> Here is that transaction, with no added misinformation: http://codepad.org/Nntmw7fz
 628 2013-11-09 06:07:11 richcollins has quit (Quit: richcollins)
 629 2013-11-09 06:07:33 <Luke-Jr> correction: blockhash, confirmations, time, and blocktime are NOT part of the transaction
 630 2013-11-09 06:07:41 <saizai> also FWIW, I'd appreciate feedback on any of the rest of that comment
 631 2013-11-09 06:08:09 * saizai peers at coinpad link
 632 2013-11-09 06:08:42 <saizai> okay
 633 2013-11-09 06:09:00 <saizai> so the tx originates from a tx but goes *to* an address?
 634 2013-11-09 06:09:14 <Luke-Jr> at a low-level
 635 2013-11-09 06:09:29 <Luke-Jr> at a high-level (ie, legal/personal), it originates from an account in a wallet
 636 2013-11-09 06:09:43 <Luke-Jr> which may be entirely unrelated to that low-level tx origin
 637 2013-11-09 06:09:57 <Apocalyptic> Luke-Jr, did you get my pm ?
 638 2013-11-09 06:10:01 <midnightmagic> saizai: After the Tide detergent comment, add in antique chairs, Pokemon, and truckloads of gravel. :-)
 639 2013-11-09 06:10:04 <Luke-Jr> Apocalyptic: I often don't see PMs.
 640 2013-11-09 06:10:17 <saizai> midnightmagic: that was a quote. I don't get to rewrite it :P
 641 2013-11-09 06:10:20 dust-otc has joined
 642 2013-11-09 06:10:22 <CodeShark> saizal: bitcoin addresses are merely hashes for signing keys - each transaction can have multiple inputs, each using a different signing key
 643 2013-11-09 06:10:47 <midnightmagic> saizai: Yeah but you can add to it for explanatory purposes. Because you could put anything in there, and the more absurd the better.
 644 2013-11-09 06:11:07 <saizai> Luke-Jr: in the simplest case scenario, is there no way for me to determine an address that I can send btc to that necessarily belongs to (at most) the same entity that sent me the btc in the first place, regardless of who tells me what on the website?
 645 2013-11-09 06:11:16 <Luke-Jr> saizai: correct
 646 2013-11-09 06:11:19 <saizai> (and I'm okay with that address being unusable)
 647 2013-11-09 06:11:22 Coincidental has joined
 648 2013-11-09 06:11:43 <saizai> midnightmagic: I already added 'oranges
 649 2013-11-09 06:11:50 <saizai> in the body text
 650 2013-11-09 06:12:04 <saizai> I think it'd be better for us to leave the silliness to our dear quotee ;)
 651 2013-11-09 06:12:16 DBordello has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 652 2013-11-09 06:12:19 <Apocalyptic> Luke-Jr, I just wanted to ask if you can include a tx of mine in eligius so it gets mined... I'm waiting for 20 hours
 653 2013-11-09 06:12:24 joesmoe has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 654 2013-11-09 06:12:41 <saizai> CodeShark: right, I was asking about the simplest possible case, eg if there's only one input
 655 2013-11-09 06:12:52 <midnightmagic> saizai: Are you a lawyer?
 656 2013-11-09 06:12:53 <Luke-Jr> Apocalyptic: what's the rush?
 657 2013-11-09 06:12:57 <saizai> midnightmagic: nope
 658 2013-11-09 06:13:03 <midnightmagic> saizai: Did you write this comment?
 659 2013-11-09 06:13:07 <saizai> yes
 660 2013-11-09 06:13:09 AndyOfiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 661 2013-11-09 06:13:11 <saizai> in its entirety
 662 2013-11-09 06:13:16 <Luke-Jr> saizai: even if there's only one input, it is not necessarily related to the account sending the transaction
 663 2013-11-09 06:13:17 <Apocalyptic> Luke-Jr, it's for a deal
 664 2013-11-09 06:13:28 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
 665 2013-11-09 06:13:31 <Luke-Jr> Apocalyptic: tx fees are for this kind of thing
 666 2013-11-09 06:13:34 <saizai> a friend pointed out a couple things (labeled with comments as 'added') that I should cover
 667 2013-11-09 06:13:34 <CodeShark> saizal: consider the case of someone sending bitcoins from an exchange account
 668 2013-11-09 06:13:42 <midnightmagic> saizai: Taking the position of the court with whom you disagreed, who are you to say that the SEC v. Shavers Magistrate erred?
 669 2013-11-09 06:13:50 <Apocalyptic> Luke-Jr, I know, i forgot and bitcoind thought it's ok
 670 2013-11-09 06:13:52 <CodeShark> the "sending address" would belong to the exchange, not the account holder
 671 2013-11-09 06:13:54 <saizai> midnightmagic: I said no such thing
 672 2013-11-09 06:14:02 <Luke-Jr> Apocalyptic: PM me a raw transaction of it?
 673 2013-11-09 06:14:13 <CodeShark> *saizai, not saizal :p
 674 2013-11-09 06:14:14 <Luke-Jr> saizai: you didn't?
 675 2013-11-09 06:14:15 <saizai> midnightmagic: I said that CAF erred in their interpretation of Shavers
 676 2013-11-09 06:14:21 <midnightmagic> "Neither the WJ Howey nor Shavers sought to define "money", "cash", or "currency" in the narrow senses used by the FECA and the BSA."
 677 2013-11-09 06:14:29 <saizai> correct.
 678 2013-11-09 06:14:33 <saizai> they didn't
 679 2013-11-09 06:14:37 <Apocalyptic> Luke-Jr, it's already in eligius pool i believe
 680 2013-11-09 06:14:40 <saizai> they defined it in the sense of the Securities Act
 681 2013-11-09 06:14:49 <Apocalyptic> should I send the raw tx anyway or just the hash ?
 682 2013-11-09 06:14:58 <saizai> note that the FEC had the same analysis in its draft ao
 683 2013-11-09 06:14:59 <Luke-Jr> Apocalyptic: txid, in #eligius
 684 2013-11-09 06:15:05 <midnightmagic> saizai: Then, who are you to disagree with their interpretation of the SEC v. Shavers Magistrate?
 685 2013-11-09 06:15:07 <saizai> (which I saw only after writing the entire first section)
 686 2013-11-09 06:15:23 <saizai> midnightmagic: the same analysis as I did.
 687 2013-11-09 06:15:43 DBordello has joined
 688 2013-11-09 06:15:43 <saizai> go read their ao ;)
 689 2013-11-09 06:15:46 <saizai> or the draft rather
 690 2013-11-09 06:16:04 <midnightmagic> saizai: I find it tremendously amusing that the greed for additional money is being used as a massive lever to declare bitcoin not-money.
 691 2013-11-09 06:16:18 * saizai tilts head
 692 2013-11-09 06:16:19 <saizai> howso?
 693 2013-11-09 06:16:51 <midnightmagic> saizai: I personally think the Magistrate had his head up his arse; I'm just curious to know whether your analysis is going to have reputational weight behind it to bat them soundly about the head.
 694 2013-11-09 06:17:15 <saizai> midnightmagic: I'm not commenting one way or another on whether the Shavers court was right or wrong
 695 2013-11-09 06:17:21 <saizai> I'm saying that it's inapplicable to this context
 696 2013-11-09 06:17:21 a_meteor has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
 697 2013-11-09 06:17:24 <midnightmagic> saizai: Why not? It clearly was.
 698 2013-11-09 06:17:39 <midnightmagic> Ah, you mean in the comment document. Not in here.
 699 2013-11-09 06:17:43 <saizai> because it's not necessary for me to reach that question
 700 2013-11-09 06:18:01 <saizai> all I have to do here is say "they're full of shit in claiming that this says what they say it does"
 701 2013-11-09 06:18:32 <saizai> i.e. I'm just saying that Shavers, whether or not you agree with that court, is irrelevant here
 702 2013-11-09 06:18:53 <midnightmagic> It's good you are taking a negative stance. It leaves open the question as to whether the Magistrate was smoking crack in his other affirmations. (Which he was.)
 703 2013-11-09 06:19:18 <saizai> I don't even know what other affirmations he made that you object to :p
 704 2013-11-09 06:19:38 <saizai> I was just examining the opinion for its analysis on the point quoted
 705 2013-11-09 06:20:00 <midnightmagic> saizai: Do you have any legal training?
 706 2013-11-09 06:20:15 <saizai> midnightmagic: yes and no
 707 2013-11-09 06:20:21 <saizai> I have audited law school classes
 708 2013-11-09 06:20:22 <midnightmagic> What does that mean?
 709 2013-11-09 06:20:30 <midnightmagic> Ah.
 710 2013-11-09 06:20:34 <saizai> I have read law texts
 711 2013-11-09 06:20:47 <saizai> my lawyers have reviewed other filings I've written and said they're good
 712 2013-11-09 06:21:09 <saizai> eg we're about to submit an AOR ourselves on some totally unrelated questions
 713 2013-11-09 06:21:23 SwampTony has joined
 714 2013-11-09 06:21:30 <midnightmagic> saizai: Are you trying to get comment on all 17 pages?
 715 2013-11-09 06:21:33 <saizai> I wrote the AOR entirely, our lawyers reviewed it, they had some touchups and strategic input but said I was mostly dead on
 716 2013-11-09 06:21:48 <saizai> midnightmagic: on any of it you feel like reading
 717 2013-11-09 06:21:53 <saizai> we're submitting it on the 12th.
 718 2013-11-09 06:21:57 <saizai> I'd like it to be good
 719 2013-11-09 06:22:43 shesek has joined
 720 2013-11-09 06:22:44 <Luke-Jr> saizai: are you correcting the part about refunds/returns? if so, maybe it's worth looking at
 721 2013-11-09 06:23:03 <saizai> Luke-Jr: I am
 722 2013-11-09 06:23:13 <saizai> hence looking at coinjoin etc
 723 2013-11-09 06:23:24 <saizai> and reconsidering whether any refunds should be allowed at all even in the simplest case scenario
 724 2013-11-09 06:23:26 <Luke-Jr> CoinJoin isn't really relevant to that topic
 725 2013-11-09 06:23:34 <Luke-Jr> it's not a matter of being allowed
 726 2013-11-09 06:23:44 <Luke-Jr> it's a matter of it just isn't possible with address usage
 727 2013-11-09 06:24:12 <saizai> (allowed as a matter of FEC legal policy, given the technical considerations under conditions of possible malice)
 728 2013-11-09 06:24:52 dust-otc has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com)
 729 2013-11-09 06:24:56 <saizai> I was trying to find some refund condition that *would* be acceptable
 730 2013-11-09 06:24:58 <CodeShark> refunds could be allowed as part of a higher level protocol - but not at the level of the current p2p protocol
 731 2013-11-09 06:25:12 <CodeShark> for instance, the payment protocol
 732 2013-11-09 06:25:15 <saizai> i.e. a simplest possible scenario where you could give the btc back to whoever sent it to you
 733 2013-11-09 06:25:19 <midnightmagic> saizai: This line is incorrect: "In Bitcoin, by contrast, transactions can be made securely and completely anonymous."
 734 2013-11-09 06:25:30 <saizai> but if that doesn't exist, I have to explain why
 735 2013-11-09 06:25:50 <saizai> and if I can't understand and explain it, the commission sure has hell won't be able to
 736 2013-11-09 06:26:09 <CodeShark> saizai: the "sending addresses" will belong to whomever signs the transaction, which might or might not be the same entity that owns those coins
 737 2013-11-09 06:26:21 <Luke-Jr> saizai: why it doesn't exist? why would anyone assume it *does* exist?
 738 2013-11-09 06:26:56 <saizai> hmm
 739 2013-11-09 06:27:17 <Luke-Jr> if I shove cash in your mailbox when you're not there, that's the same scenario
 740 2013-11-09 06:27:18 <saizai> Luke-Jr: because that's the current law, in normal non-cryptofuckery scenarios ;)
 741 2013-11-09 06:27:29 <saizai> yeah, that's different
 742 2013-11-09 06:27:32 <Luke-Jr> no, it isn't.
 743 2013-11-09 06:27:34 <saizai> but if I get something from you
 744 2013-11-09 06:27:37 <Luke-Jr> that's *exactly* how bitcoin transactions are
 745 2013-11-09 06:27:39 <midnightmagic> saizai: "In Bitcoin, by contrast, transactions can be made securely and semi-anonymously."  <-- better
 746 2013-11-09 06:27:41 <saizai> like someone walks up to me and gives me cash
 747 2013-11-09 06:27:42 <CodeShark> saizai: imagine sending money from your bank to someone but the transaction only says what bank it's from, not who owns the account at the bank
 748 2013-11-09 06:27:47 <saizai> I could give it back to them
 749 2013-11-09 06:27:55 <midnightmagic> cryptofuckery. :-)
 750 2013-11-09 06:28:03 <Luke-Jr> saizai: but that's not what it is. if all you have is a transaction, then whoever sent it effectively shoved cash in your mailbox and ran
 751 2013-11-09 06:28:07 <saizai> midnightmagic: not a legal term ;)
 752 2013-11-09 06:28:10 <Apocalyptic> saizai, ... you don't listen to what Luke-Jr is saying
 753 2013-11-09 06:28:17 <Luke-Jr> sure, if someone sends you bitcoins face-to-face, you know who they are
 754 2013-11-09 06:28:39 <CodeShark> saizai: did you read the example I gave earlier of someone sending bitcoins from either an online exchange or an online wallet?
 755 2013-11-09 06:28:40 <Luke-Jr> but otherwise, it's the same scenario
 756 2013-11-09 06:28:44 <saizai> Luke-Jr: I was explaining why the Commission believes that returns are possible
 757 2013-11-09 06:28:44 <midnightmagic> He has a mental idea of what a transaction is and the link is what he's using to understand what Luke is saying. If he breaks the link there's a void and nothing makes sense anymore.
 758 2013-11-09 06:28:54 <saizai> i.e. in the context of non-bitcoin contributions of things
 759 2013-11-09 06:29:02 <pigeons> you can allow refunds, just can't assume that refunding to the address that signed the transaction will get the funds where they need to go. you may have to contact the customer out of band or use another method
 760 2013-11-09 06:29:20 roconnor_ has joined
 761 2013-11-09 06:29:21 <saizai> CodeShark: yeah, that one (eg https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Green_address) is a better example
 762 2013-11-09 06:29:22 <Luke-Jr> saizai: how do they handle cash drops from unknown donors in your mailbox?
 763 2013-11-09 06:29:33 <saizai> Luke-Jr: that is ambiguous
 764 2013-11-09 06:29:40 <saizai> technically, up to $50 cash is allowed
 765 2013-11-09 06:29:43 <Luke-Jr> …
 766 2013-11-09 06:29:50 <saizai> but it's up to $50 per year per contributor per recipient
 767 2013-11-09 06:29:58 <saizai> and well you see the loophole I hope
 768 2013-11-09 06:30:01 <Luke-Jr> if I go shove $50k cash in whoever's mailbox, how do you deal with it?
 769 2013-11-09 06:30:02 <midnightmagic> Apocalyptic: Most people have trouble with the notion. I did. (I still think in the very rare, single-input, single-output base case there is a from *address* even though it has nothing to do with people.)
 770 2013-11-09 06:30:18 <saizai> Luke-Jr: I have to give it to a permitted recipient, i.e. a 501(c)3 or 501(c)4
 771 2013-11-09 06:30:26 <saizai> the amount over $50.
 772 2013-11-09 06:30:28 <Apocalyptic> midnightmagic, I did as well at first, mainly because the way bc.i showsit
 773 2013-11-09 06:30:29 <Luke-Jr> saizai: there's your answer.
 774 2013-11-09 06:30:43 <saizai> Luke-Jr: I already have that as the alternate case :)
 775 2013-11-09 06:30:57 <saizai> but I think that https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Green_address type origins is the clincher for 'no refunds ever'
 776 2013-11-09 06:31:03 <Luke-Jr> saizai: that's the only possible case, in the scenario where someone just sends a bitcoin transaction without any meeting or notification
 777 2013-11-09 06:31:17 <Luke-Jr> saizai: Green addresses aren't real.
 778 2013-11-09 06:31:23 <midnightmagic> Cool, charity donations.
 779 2013-11-09 06:31:26 <saizai> because while that sent it to me, sending it back sends it to mtgox not the person
 780 2013-11-09 06:31:44 <saizai> since they can't tell who to attribute to
 781 2013-11-09 06:31:46 <Luke-Jr> someone should go fix that wiki page
 782 2013-11-09 06:31:57 <midnightmagic> s/someone/Luke-Jr/
 783 2013-11-09 06:32:43 * midnightmagic hides
 784 2013-11-09 06:32:43 <Luke-Jr> midnightmagic: :<
 785 2013-11-09 06:32:43 <midnightmagic> I'm kidding! Not the face!
 786 2013-11-09 06:32:43 <saizai> midnightmagic: c4s aren't charities :)
 787 2013-11-09 06:32:43 <CodeShark> Luke-Jr: the Green address page is somewhat irrelevant - other than as a very specific example of the "sender address" not belonging to whomever is sending
 788 2013-11-09 06:32:43 <Apocalyptic> Luke-Jr, btw BTC-Guild just mined it, but thanks anyway for looking into it
 789 2013-11-09 06:32:43 <saizai> they're "social welfare organizations"
 790 2013-11-09 06:32:52 <saizai> but a c3 is usually a charity and you can give it to them
 791 2013-11-09 06:32:58 <dizko> Apocalyptic: congrats ;)
 792 2013-11-09 06:33:05 <saizai> CodeShark: that's kinda what I need
 793 2013-11-09 06:33:09 <Apocalyptic> heh, was about time :)
 794 2013-11-09 06:33:28 <CodeShark> saizai: in general, if you send bitcoins from a Mt. Gox account (whether you use a green address or not) the "sending address" will not belong to the coin owner but to Mt. Gox
 795 2013-11-09 06:33:31 <saizai> a clear and simple to explain / understand explanation of why there's no way to refund bitcoin to the originator
 796 2013-11-09 06:33:39 <saizai> right
 797 2013-11-09 06:33:43 <Luke-Jr> "sender address" nonsense is really like dusting cash for fingerprints
 798 2013-11-09 06:33:45 <saizai> and that scenario is one I failed to consider
 799 2013-11-09 06:33:59 <midnightmagic> saizai: NetBSD Foundation is a 501(c)3 to whom I have been trying to donate for years now.
 800 2013-11-09 06:34:10 <saizai> I think it's one that basically forces a "no refunds ever" policy
 801 2013-11-09 06:34:24 <CodeShark> refunds can be negotiated at a higher level
 802 2013-11-09 06:34:33 <CodeShark> i.e. payment protocol
 803 2013-11-09 06:34:46 <Luke-Jr> saizai: it might be an option for them to regulate the requirement of the payment protocol for restricted donations. maybe.
 804 2013-11-09 06:34:48 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 805 2013-11-09 06:34:53 <Luke-Jr> it'd be annoying right now though.
 806 2013-11-09 06:34:53 <CodeShark> but the p2p protocol as it stands right now has no concept of "refund address"
 807 2013-11-09 06:34:56 <saizai> CodeShark: in a way that doesn't permit me to be used as an intermediary for mixing?
 808 2013-11-09 06:35:06 ralphtheninja has quit (Quit: leaving)
 809 2013-11-09 06:35:34 <CodeShark> saizai: not sure I understand your question
 810 2013-11-09 06:35:50 <Luke-Jr> saizai: not really.
 811 2013-11-09 06:35:50 <saizai> mind that the refund scenarios are either (a) my code notices 'well shit they gave us too much, gotta do something with the extra automatically' or (b) the user says 'gimme back mah monay'
 812 2013-11-09 06:36:22 <saizai> CodeShark: you mention that the higher level protocol allows for refunds
 813 2013-11-09 06:36:23 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: he's concerned about liability if Joe gives Fred's address as the refund address
 814 2013-11-09 06:36:32 <saizai> exactly
 815 2013-11-09 06:36:33 <Luke-Jr> which IMO is paranoia, but meh
 816 2013-11-09 06:36:50 <saizai> Luke-Jr: it's called legal liability ;)
 817 2013-11-09 06:37:02 <CodeShark> not sure I understand the use case here
 818 2013-11-09 06:37:03 <dizko> shouldnt you be able to pay back the change address from the original tx?
 819 2013-11-09 06:37:09 <Luke-Jr> dizko: no
 820 2013-11-09 06:37:11 <saizai> the rules have to preclude the usage of PACs as launderers
 821 2013-11-09 06:37:16 <Luke-Jr> saizai: I see no reason you would be liable for such abuse.
 822 2013-11-09 06:37:31 <Luke-Jr> saizai: you're not laundering - someone else is trying to
 823 2013-11-09 06:37:43 <saizai> Luke-Jr: I'm liable if I am not reasonable in my actions to prevent abuse
 824 2013-11-09 06:37:49 <Luke-Jr> saizai: as long as you keep records (easy with bitcoin), you can point detectives in the right direction
 825 2013-11-09 06:38:08 <saizai> e.g. if I know or should have known that I was setting something up that was easy to abuse
 826 2013-11-09 06:38:09 agnostic98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 827 2013-11-09 06:38:17 <Luke-Jr> saizai: your actions (refusing to process refunds over a protocol that supports it) in this case are not reasonable
 828 2013-11-09 06:38:19 <saizai> or if I know that someone was doing something naughty and I helped
 829 2013-11-09 06:38:19 <CodeShark> saizai: are you trying to develop a specific application/service? or are you just considering hypotheticals?
 830 2013-11-09 06:38:34 agnostic98 has joined
 831 2013-11-09 06:38:44 joesmoe has joined
 832 2013-11-09 06:38:46 MiningBuddy has joined
 833 2013-11-09 06:38:57 CryptoBuck has joined
 834 2013-11-09 06:38:58 MiningBuddy- has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 835 2013-11-09 06:39:02 <warren> top
 836 2013-11-09 06:39:04 <saizai> CodeShark: I am developing software for democratized campaign finance. Bitcoin is something we intended to address at a later date
 837 2013-11-09 06:39:07 <warren> grr
 838 2013-11-09 06:39:15 <Luke-Jr> it's pretty reasonable to give a refund when the regulators require you too; the ability for it to be abused is irrelevant to it being reasonable here
 839 2013-11-09 06:39:17 <saizai> but our hand's forced 'cause this has to be responded to now
 840 2013-11-09 06:39:20 <CodeShark> wrong window, warren :p
 841 2013-11-09 06:39:36 <Luke-Jr> warren: top - 06:36:51 up 22:55, 34 users,  load average: 2.99, 2.84, 2.90
 842 2013-11-09 06:39:41 <Luke-Jr> warren: Tasks: 305 total,   5 running, 299 sleeping,   1 stopped,   0 zombie
 843 2013-11-09 06:40:02 <warren> CodeShark: I apparently wanted a random system top
 844 2013-11-09 06:40:05 * Luke-Jr wonders wtf his load is so high for
 845 2013-11-09 06:40:43 <dizko> luke-jr: how many cpus?   run queue of 2-4 x numprocs is healthy for a busy system
 846 2013-11-09 06:40:49 <saizai> also Luke-Jr, please keep in mind that the Commission is not exactly super technical
 847 2013-11-09 06:40:53 <saizai> and lawyers ain't either
 848 2013-11-09 06:41:05 <Luke-Jr> saizai: my point exactly
 849 2013-11-09 06:41:07 <saizai> so whatever the rule is, it can't depend on something that I can't explain to a 50 year old
 850 2013-11-09 06:41:13 <warren> Luke-Jr: I totally don't care, but your bfgminer --scrypt on windows mines scrypt for a few minutes then goes haywire with displaying hundreds of Mh of something with no apparent errors and no actual hashing.
 851 2013-11-09 06:41:23 <warren> (I don't care.)
 852 2013-11-09 06:41:30 <Luke-Jr> warren: me either
 853 2013-11-09 06:41:30 licnep has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 854 2013-11-09 06:41:37 <saizai> therefore I think my argument is going to be flatly "no refunds ever"
 855 2013-11-09 06:42:00 <saizai> because it's just too damn hard to know you're sending it back to whoever sent it to you
 856 2013-11-09 06:42:12 <saizai> compared to the legal standards that apply to e.g. returning real life goods
 857 2013-11-09 06:42:13 <pigeons> you can give refunds, just not automatically to the address that signed the transaction that sent it to you
 858 2013-11-09 06:42:19 <dizko> Luke-Jr: what are your thoughts on a marketplace service that allows people to get tx mined faster by offering a reward to miners?
 859 2013-11-09 06:42:22 <saizai> or checks or whatnot
 860 2013-11-09 06:42:29 <CodeShark> saizai: the payment protocol attempts to address some of these issues using x509 certificates
 861 2013-11-09 06:42:30 <Luke-Jr> pigeons: read backlog
 862 2013-11-09 06:42:36 <pigeons> ok
 863 2013-11-09 06:42:41 <Luke-Jr> dizko: you mean transaction fees? we've had that since 2009
 864 2013-11-09 06:42:49 arioBarzan has joined
 865 2013-11-09 06:42:52 <saizai> pigeons: the problem is I have to preclude the refund actually going to a third party
 866 2013-11-09 06:42:57 <saizai> that'd be illegal for me to do
 867 2013-11-09 06:42:58 themsay has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
 868 2013-11-09 06:43:07 <CodeShark> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0070
 869 2013-11-09 06:43:14 <saizai> (see links @ top of https://makeyourlaws.org for context)
 870 2013-11-09 06:43:35 <dizko> i didnt have a min tx size set and i sent a tx and bitcoind decided it was ok with 0 fee.  my mistake, but id like to get it mined.   it seems to be a not that unusual problem
 871 2013-11-09 06:43:35 <pigeons> i didnt know donations gave refunds anyway
 872 2013-11-09 06:43:41 <CodeShark> if you use something like BIP_0070 in requesting donations you CAN give refunds
 873 2013-11-09 06:43:50 <saizai> CodeShark: is that implemented?
 874 2013-11-09 06:44:33 <CodeShark> I haven't tested it out but it has been added to the master branch of bitcoind
 875 2013-11-09 06:44:36 <saizai> as in, standard usage etc not as in usage by you guys
 876 2013-11-09 06:45:00 <CodeShark> the merchant also needs to implement his side, though
 877 2013-11-09 06:45:09 <dizko> Luke-Jr: Apocalyptic just had the same thing happen basically
 878 2013-11-09 06:45:35 <dizko> Luke-Jr: it seems like a bit of a gap currently, its easy to make a mistake and get a transaction stuck in limbo
 879 2013-11-09 06:45:36 <CodeShark> is it in widespread use? I don't think so - not yet - but it attempts to address precisely this type of issue, saizai
 880 2013-11-09 06:45:54 <saizai> CodeShark: then I can refer to it as a possible future thing to be revisited
 881 2013-11-09 06:46:02 <saizai> but the AOR has to be decided based on current facts
 882 2013-11-09 06:46:11 <Luke-Jr> dizko: it's not limbo, it's just a short delay for confirmation
 883 2013-11-09 06:46:20 <saizai> if you read the draft AO, it has a clause at the end about 'this might change if facts do'
 884 2013-11-09 06:46:34 <dizko> Luke-Jr: 24 hours isnt short for 50 bitcoins, imho
 885 2013-11-09 06:46:46 <midnightmagic> Luke-Jr: > 36 hours here.  :-(
 886 2013-11-09 06:46:48 <dizko> Luke-Jr: admittedly its my mistake, i should have had the min fee param set
 887 2013-11-09 06:47:00 <saizai> so I can say basically 'right now, there's no way to reliably refund bitcoin to the originator. So, no refunds ever. However, this thing might happen in the future which the FEC can revisit if/when that happens'
 888 2013-11-09 06:47:03 <Luke-Jr> dizko: it's just confirmation, the transaction is still valid immediately
 889 2013-11-09 06:47:22 <Luke-Jr> saizai: payment protocol is as reliable as it will ever be
 890 2013-11-09 06:47:27 shesek has joined
 891 2013-11-09 06:47:41 <dizko> Luke-Jr: just for peace of mind id gladly pay $5 to confirm a $15000 transaction, seems like there would be a marketplace opportunity here
 892 2013-11-09 06:47:44 <CodeShark> saizai: more accurate would be to say that there's no way within the bitcoin p2p protocol itself to give refunds…but it's always possible to negotiate that at a higher level
 893 2013-11-09 06:47:51 <saizai> Luke-Jr: in the sense of giving it back to the sender, not in the sense of giving it to *someone* :P
 894 2013-11-09 06:48:07 <CodeShark> and ALL merchant sites need to negotiate transactions at a higher level anyhow, even if only to provide the customer with a sending address
 895 2013-11-09 06:48:16 <Luke-Jr> dizko: PM me txid, pastebin of raw tx
 896 2013-11-09 06:48:28 <saizai> CodeShark: sure, I discuss 'linked address' usage
 897 2013-11-09 06:48:47 <saizai> as the only OK way to accept bitcoins in the first place
 898 2013-11-09 06:49:03 <CodeShark> you can identify the sender based the fact they sent it to an address you gave them
 899 2013-11-09 06:49:16 <dizko> thank you.   im also interested in this refund issue conversation, have a recently experience with a user who's action resulted in a payment being sent to coinbase's fee payment address.  over a week and no reply to them
 900 2013-11-09 06:49:19 <saizai> CodeShark: nope, I could tell you what address I was told to send it to
 901 2013-11-09 06:49:24 <warren> I need to stop sync part way at a particular height to debug something, where is the best place to add a stop?
 902 2013-11-09 06:49:33 <saizai> then I tell the pac to send it to me
 903 2013-11-09 06:49:43 <saizai> thus the pac becomes a mixer between you and me
 904 2013-11-09 06:49:52 <saizai> and that's illegal
 905 2013-11-09 06:50:03 arioBarzan has left ()
 906 2013-11-09 06:50:14 <saizai> (under the FECA)
 907 2013-11-09 06:50:33 <saizai> (under FinCEN it's fine so long as there's no exchange into currency)
 908 2013-11-09 06:50:38 <CodeShark> saizai: you could ID the person before giving them a sending address
 909 2013-11-09 06:50:55 <saizai> CodeShark: yes
 910 2013-11-09 06:50:58 <saizai> and I say that in part 5
 911 2013-11-09 06:51:02 <saizai> of section 1
 912 2013-11-09 06:51:11 <gmaxwell> saizai: you need to get it through your head that bitcoin transactions do not specify a "from", if it's unlawful to be paid without a "from" under FECA then bitcoin can't be lawfully used there.
 913 2013-11-09 06:51:23 <saizai> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1laZxfuna-AXsW9WC4b53s_Eb1YAg7pY-YQAGKcUE9iw/edit# B
 914 2013-11-09 06:51:29 <saizai> page 9
 915 2013-11-09 06:51:40 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: he's past that now
 916 2013-11-09 06:51:49 <gmaxwell> saizai: To know who is paying you in bitcoin you do so by collecting that information before giving them an address to pay.
 917 2013-11-09 06:52:06 <saizai> gmaxwell: it's lawful to for me to take your money if you say it's from you
 918 2013-11-09 06:52:22 <saizai> even thought you might've gotten it from your buddy 10 minutes ago
 919 2013-11-09 06:52:30 <saizai> however it's not lawful for me to give it back to anyone but you
 920 2013-11-09 06:52:31 pooler has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.90.1 [Firefox 25.0/20131028112810])
 921 2013-11-09 06:52:40 <saizai> and if there's no way for me to do that, then no refunds for you
 922 2013-11-09 06:53:10 <Luke-Jr> saizai: there is a way. you're just being paranoid about maybe it being received by someone else.
 923 2013-11-09 06:53:15 <saizai> (if you do get it from your buddy, you'll have committed a crime, but I won't have so long as you told me you didn't and I don't know otherwise)
 924 2013-11-09 06:53:20 <saizai> Luke-Jr: yup, I am
 925 2013-11-09 06:53:29 <saizai> gotta be
 926 2013-11-09 06:53:47 <dizko> saizai: why not have the sender confirm their identity by sending you a payment of a random tiny size that you specify ?
 927 2013-11-09 06:53:48 <saizai> because that part has a more stringent requirement
 928 2013-11-09 06:53:51 <gmaxwell> saizai: there is no way to do that anywhere. I can give you an envelope of money and say that refunds go to bank account for Bob Whomever acct@12345.
 929 2013-11-09 06:54:00 <dizko> saizai: kind of like how banks confirm ach
 930 2013-11-09 06:54:08 <saizai> dizko: that only confirms that the sender communicates with and/or is the person sending the payment
 931 2013-11-09 06:54:12 <gmaxwell> dizko: that doesn't make any sense.
 932 2013-11-09 06:54:18 <saizai> which is no different than just taking payment to a linked address in the first place
 933 2013-11-09 06:54:47 <saizai> gmaxwell: yeah, if you do that with cash money, it's probably illegal
 934 2013-11-09 06:54:50 <saizai> because it's too fishy
 935 2013-11-09 06:54:51 Krellan has joined
 936 2013-11-09 06:55:04 <saizai> and I'd be liable for participating
 937 2013-11-09 06:55:15 <dizko> gmaxwell: well it makes sense in the sense that if someone sent me an email saying 'hey i paid you this' , how else would i confirm they really own that address?
 938 2013-11-09 06:55:20 <saizai> whereas if you do that with a check, I can refund it
 939 2013-11-09 06:55:24 <gmaxwell> saizai: even if you had a 'from' in bitcoin, you couldn't refund to it without a risk that the control of the funds was transfering to another person.
 940 2013-11-09 06:55:30 <saizai> back to the account designated on the check
 941 2013-11-09 06:55:35 <Luke-Jr> dizko: you only gave the address they paid to that one person
 942 2013-11-09 06:55:46 <saizai> hence why the FECA limits non-check transactions.
 943 2013-11-09 06:55:48 <gmaxwell> dizko: what luke said  (but failing that, — signmessage)
 944 2013-11-09 06:56:01 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: signmessage does NOT work in that case!
 945 2013-11-09 06:56:21 <midnightmagic> strange to be clamping down so hard on this sort of thing when obvious largesses elsewhere go unexamined and unpunished.
 946 2013-11-09 06:56:21 licnep has joined
 947 2013-11-09 06:56:24 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: not reliably, for sure.
 948 2013-11-09 06:56:37 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: it proves nothing about the transaction he sent
 949 2013-11-09 06:56:44 <saizai> gmaxwell: right, and that's why I think I'm going to rewrite my recommendation to be 'no refunds period'
 950 2013-11-09 06:56:49 <dizko> midnightmagic: nothing sane about legalities
 951 2013-11-09 06:56:54 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: I could "prove" I sent a transaction I had nothing to do with that way
 952 2013-11-09 06:56:55 <saizai> midnightmagic: we oppose other things too
 953 2013-11-09 06:57:04 <saizai> fwiw, this is part of the reason for part 6
 954 2013-11-09 06:57:08 <midnightmagic> dizko: Most of the legalities I've encountered up here in Canada make sense to me.
 955 2013-11-09 06:57:17 * midnightmagic reads part 6.
 956 2013-11-09 06:57:19 <saizai> it gives an opening to start closing the c4->superpac loophole
 957 2013-11-09 06:57:34 <saizai> by letting them say a superpac can't take bitcoin-derived money from a c4
 958 2013-11-09 06:57:52 <dizko> midnightmagic: ive only lived in the us and japan, and there is a lot of WTF!%@$!
 959 2013-11-09 06:57:59 <saizai> whereas right now c4->superpac contributions are a giant fucking loophole in campaign finance reporting law
 960 2013-11-09 06:58:00 <midnightmagic> saizai: The comments about anonymity are incorrect. I pointed one out earlier, but the intro to part 6 is also incorrect in like fashion.
 961 2013-11-09 06:58:37 <saizai> midnightmagic: in the sense of foonote 17?
 962 2013-11-09 06:59:00 <saizai> and remember that FEC auditors are not high end cryptogeeks
 963 2013-11-09 06:59:25 <dizko> so, what if you have a shared bank account.   you send money, ask for a refund, how do you prove that it's one party or the other in the shared account?
 964 2013-11-09 06:59:28 <CodeShark> remaining securely anonymous requires considerable effort
 965 2013-11-09 06:59:36 <CodeShark> it's not the default
 966 2013-11-09 06:59:59 <midnightmagic> Footnote #17 is incorrect, insofar as the only people who could conceivably operate anonymously while using bitcoin can probably be counted by hand.
 967 2013-11-09 07:00:21 <midnightmagic> saizai: Realistically, nobody can use bitcoin anonymously.
 968 2013-11-09 07:00:50 <midnightmagic> saizai: And it will stay that way until the core client has undergone fairly drastic changes.
 969 2013-11-09 07:01:04 <CodeShark> true anonymity would require coin mixing
 970 2013-11-09 07:01:43 <CodeShark> otherwise, at best bitcoin is pseudonymous and it's merely a matter of associating a few "identities" with an individual to track most of their funds
 971 2013-11-09 07:02:47 <midnightmagic> CodeShark: Not just coin mixing. It requires perfect opsec outside of Bitcoin, in relationships, in computer usage..
 972 2013-11-09 07:03:08 <CodeShark> necessary but not sufficient
 973 2013-11-09 07:04:23 <CodeShark> having said that, bitcoin does offer at least some level of plausible deniability as to ownership of funds
 974 2013-11-09 07:04:35 <dizko> saizai: if you can accept bitcoin for political donations, dont you have to record the information of the person donating?   if someone donated with a credit card, but were really a proxy for another person, you couldnt prove that either.
 975 2013-11-09 07:04:54 <midnightmagic> CodeShark: I suppose Ulbricht's private wallet is still a mystery.
 976 2013-11-09 07:06:22 <saizai> ok, I edited page 9 to reflect the proposal and the origin problem
 977 2013-11-09 07:06:39 <saizai> and page 10 (F) to say no refunds period
 978 2013-11-09 07:06:54 <saizai> dizko: I don't need to, it goes back to the origin account
 979 2013-11-09 07:07:32 <saizai> midnightmagic: people who can reliably trace bitcoin in the presence of bitlaundry can also be counted by hand :P
 980 2013-11-09 07:07:33 <midnightmagic> saizai: In essence, what I'm trying to convey is that saying bitcoin is anonymous is a bit like saying every person could live completely off-grid, or could be a spy. Virtually nobody currently is, and the effort to do so is herculean and beyond the willpower of normal humans.
 981 2013-11-09 07:08:13 <saizai> dizko: correct. so long as I give any money back only to the payment method used, and I rely on your attestation that the money was yours, I'm ok. the FEC ruled on that before.
 982 2013-11-09 07:08:22 <dizko> midnightmagic: grandmas and children are probably not terrorists but they still get anal probed at us airports.  applying logic to a legal situation is pointless
 983 2013-11-09 07:08:23 <midnightmagic> saizai: Most normal people couldn't trail a spy either.
 984 2013-11-09 07:08:41 <saizai> midnightmagic: and FEC auditors are normal people
 985 2013-11-09 07:08:55 <saizai> whereas tracing a bank transfer is easy
 986 2013-11-09 07:09:00 <saizai> and the bank had to do KYC
 987 2013-11-09 07:09:05 <saizai> so there's a good audit trail
 988 2013-11-09 07:09:16 <midnightmagic> saizai: In that case, FEC auditors are well outside the realm of people, and likely out of contact with, people who can use bitcoin anonymously.
 989 2013-11-09 07:09:20 <dizko> saizai: so the onus is on the person donating / receiving the refund to attest to them being the party who made the payment?
 990 2013-11-09 07:09:22 <saizai> with mixers in play and so forth? not likely
 991 2013-11-09 07:09:29 <saizai> dizko: correct
 992 2013-11-09 07:09:34 <saizai> or no
 993 2013-11-09 07:09:35 <saizai> hm.
 994 2013-11-09 07:09:37 <midnightmagic> saizai: mixers are mostly irrelevant, depending on what they're doing.
 995 2013-11-09 07:09:40 <saizai> for donating, yes
 996 2013-11-09 07:09:43 <saizai> for refunding, no
 997 2013-11-09 07:09:47 <saizai> for refunding the onus is on me
 998 2013-11-09 07:09:56 <saizai> for me taking your money, if you say it's yours, I can rely on that
 999 2013-11-09 07:10:00 <dizko> saizai: so why cant you just say "give me [whatever proof is acceptable]" and allow refund by whatever means they attest to being one they own and control?
1000 2013-11-09 07:10:09 <saizai> but if I give it back I have to give it back the way I got it
1001 2013-11-09 07:10:15 <dizko> ahh
1002 2013-11-09 07:10:33 <saizai> though for non bitcoin I'm allowed to give you back the cash value
1003 2013-11-09 07:10:36 <dizko> so really its just a matter of the law not being up to the current state of the art in technology
1004 2013-11-09 07:10:44 <saizai> because that wouldn't violate FinCEN regs
1005 2013-11-09 07:10:51 patar has joined
1006 2013-11-09 07:10:59 <midnightmagic> saizai: Mixers are already pointed out to be useless by researchers who presented at 28c3.
1007 2013-11-09 07:11:03 <saizai> but eg if you pay me with paypal, I refund you only with paypal
1008 2013-11-09 07:11:07 <dizko> you should go lobby at the senate hearings ;)
1009 2013-11-09 07:11:11 <saizai> I dont' refund you with cash
1010 2013-11-09 07:11:45 <saizai> dizko: when is the law ever up to the state of the art in tech?
1011 2013-11-09 07:12:01 <midnightmagic> saizai: So, bitcoin is not anonymous. Also, I reject the notion that researchers would not make their efforts available to law enforcement.
1012 2013-11-09 07:12:16 <saizai> I'm trying to at least argue for a sane interpretation here that preserves the policy objectives of campaign finance law
1013 2013-11-09 07:12:26 <saizai> and precludes illegal and/or slimy activity
1014 2013-11-09 07:12:32 <saizai> à la SuperPAC
1015 2013-11-09 07:12:50 <saizai> midnightmagic: I didn't claim they wouldn't
1016 2013-11-09 07:13:03 <midnightmagic> saizai: Including FEC auditors.
1017 2013-11-09 07:13:03 <phantomcircuit> midnightmagic, mixers are pointless?
1018 2013-11-09 07:13:15 <saizai> (though I definitely know cypherpunks who sure as fuck would not cooperate with any government agent)
1019 2013-11-09 07:13:18 <midnightmagic> phantomcircuit: Most of them.
1020 2013-11-09 07:13:26 <midnightmagic> phantomcircuit: Or should I say, most of the attempts.
1021 2013-11-09 07:13:32 licnep has quit (Quit: quit)
1022 2013-11-09 07:13:39 <saizai> midnightmagic: you think bitlaundry will keep records and give them to the FEC?
1023 2013-11-09 07:13:45 <saizai> somehow I doubt it
1024 2013-11-09 07:13:48 <dizko> midnightmagic: what's the gist of the basic flaw, not enough participants in a given timeframe?
1025 2013-11-09 07:14:03 <phantomcircuit> midnightmagic, lots of random weird sized inputs -> equal sized outputs of various sizes probably powers of 2
1026 2013-11-09 07:14:11 <phantomcircuit> gl following that
1027 2013-11-09 07:14:19 pataroose has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1028 2013-11-09 07:14:41 <midnightmagic> phantomcircuit: Where did the inputs come from, and who is smart enough to keep the outputs separate? :-)
1029 2013-11-09 07:15:04 <phantomcircuit> midnightmagic, well at somepoint wallets will be able to do auotmated coinjoin transactions
1030 2013-11-09 07:15:08 <midnightmagic> phantomcircuit: People in this room. Strip out all the douches who mix their inputs back into spends, and who's left? People who should've coinjoined.
1031 2013-11-09 07:15:11 <phantomcircuit> and if you do that with your entire wallet
1032 2013-11-09 07:15:14 rob19_ has joined
1033 2013-11-09 07:15:18 <phantomcircuit> then you dont need to keep the outputs separate
1034 2013-11-09 07:15:47 <phantomcircuit> or are we making a distinction between coinjoin and mixers
1035 2013-11-09 07:15:55 <midnightmagic> Yes.
1036 2013-11-09 07:16:03 <phantomcircuit> (the only real difference is that the mixer could keep records but promises not to)
1037 2013-11-09 07:17:03 <midnightmagic> I agree with everything you've said. I just don't think it reasonably applies to five-nines of bitcoin users out there.
1038 2013-11-09 07:17:05 tesserajk has quit (Quit: tesserajk)
1039 2013-11-09 07:17:17 <saizai> midnightmagic: there are two problems with that
1040 2013-11-09 07:17:18 <phantomcircuit> that's probably true
1041 2013-11-09 07:17:25 <saizai> 1. normal people can use bitlaundry. it's trivial.
1042 2013-11-09 07:17:28 <saizai> 2. China
1043 2013-11-09 07:17:53 <saizai> there can't be a loophole that allows a sophisticated attacker to game the system
1044 2013-11-09 07:17:59 <saizai> because there will be sophisticated attackers
1045 2013-11-09 07:18:00 <midnightmagic> saizai: Unless bitlaundry is doing something different, or isn't what I think it is, it is the service which was apparently trivially de-anonymized by researchers in their 28c3 presentation.
1046 2013-11-09 07:18:04 <saizai> and the system sure as fuck is getting gamed
1047 2013-11-09 07:18:13 <saizai> cf. citizens united etc
1048 2013-11-09 07:18:23 <midnightmagic> I don't know what you mean with China. You mean to imply it's a black box?
1049 2013-11-09 07:18:41 <maaku> saizai: what does a political group do if it finds 50,000 in cash in an unmarked envelope on its doorstep?
1050 2013-11-09 07:18:44 <saizai> midnightmagic: s/bitlaundry/whatever new thing needs to be done/
1051 2013-11-09 07:19:01 <midnightmagic> maaku: He answered that earlier. I think they have to give it to 501(c)(3|4)
1052 2013-11-09 07:19:01 <saizai> maaku: keep $50, give the rest to a 501(c)3 or a 501(c)4 within 10 days
1053 2013-11-09 07:19:44 <maaku> ok it was long logs sorry i missed it, but that's what you do with unclaimed refunds
1054 2013-11-09 07:19:54 <midnightmagic> saizai: Same thing. We're talking vast improbabilities. And even the good people of China are vulnerable to a quality graph-search.
1055 2013-11-09 07:20:17 rob19_ has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1056 2013-11-09 07:21:44 <saizai> maaku: yes, and that's what I am recommending
1057 2013-11-09 07:21:53 <saizai> see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1laZxfuna-AXsW9WC4b53s_Eb1YAg7pY-YQAGKcUE9iw/edit# page 10
1058 2013-11-09 07:21:54 <maaku> ok
1059 2013-11-09 07:22:16 <saizai> for a PAC, any situation in which you can refund money is one in which you can instead give it to a c3/c4
1060 2013-11-09 07:22:32 <saizai> you never *have* to give it back to the contributor. they gave it to you, it's yours
1061 2013-11-09 07:22:44 <saizai> it's only a courtesy to make a refund
1062 2013-11-09 07:23:06 <saizai> (if it's an earmark, you have to give it as earmarked, but that's close enough)
1063 2013-11-09 07:23:32 <maaku> saizai: what about a c6?
1064 2013-11-09 07:24:26 <saizai> maaku: lemme check, it hasn't come up before
1065 2013-11-09 07:24:38 <maaku> btw, page 5, are you aware of the terminology of 'convertible currency'?
1066 2013-11-09 07:24:59 <saizai> I don't think I'm allowed to give anything whatsoever to a c6
1067 2013-11-09 07:24:59 <maaku> not really critical to this - i run a c6 so i am curious
1068 2013-11-09 07:25:09 <saizai> but I'm not 100% sure
1069 2013-11-09 07:25:15 <saizai> I've never seen it come up
1070 2013-11-09 07:25:30 <midnightmagic> saizai: The message you are passing on about anonymity is equally as incorrect as the from-address misconception. It's a mistake to make them think it's possible.
1071 2013-11-09 07:25:35 <maaku> CAF's statement that "Bitcoins can be converted to U.S. Dollars", while true, argues directly against their claim that Bitcoins are "monetary" or "currency" <--- not really
1072 2013-11-09 07:25:52 <saizai> explain?
1073 2013-11-09 07:26:26 <saizai> midnightmagic: like all security questions, it's a matter of attacker vs defender sophistication
1074 2013-11-09 07:26:26 <maaku> if i take monopoly money and put a stamp on it, and say any monopoly money with stamps I will convert 1:1 for dollars, then that is "convertible currency"
1075 2013-11-09 07:26:42 <maaku> it's 1:1 convertible
1076 2013-11-09 07:26:42 <saizai> midnightmagic: could the NSA crack my attempts to obscure my identity? probably
1077 2013-11-09 07:26:48 <saizai> could an FEC auditor? probably not
1078 2013-11-09 07:26:55 <maaku> that's my understanding of FinCEN terminology
1079 2013-11-09 07:26:55 apurplehorse has joined
1080 2013-11-09 07:27:06 <saizai> hence my caveats of 'reliably' etc
1081 2013-11-09 07:27:09 jegz has joined
1082 2013-11-09 07:27:22 <midnightmagic> saizai: No. This one isn't a question of attacker sophistication. There are literally only a handful of people in the world who could use it anonymously. And of the ones I know, none of them think they could pull it off without drastically changing how they live their lives, permanently.
1083 2013-11-09 07:27:33 <saizai> maaku: I don't know whether I'm allowed to touch that
1084 2013-11-09 07:27:37 <maaku> I think you're right, bitcoin is a commodity not convertible currency, but you're explanation is wrong.
1085 2013-11-09 07:27:58 adam3us has joined
1086 2013-11-09 07:27:59 <saizai> maaku: how would you suggest changing it to be right?
1087 2013-11-09 07:28:10 <saizai> please note I'm not saying it's not a "convertible currency" in that sense
1088 2013-11-09 07:28:24 <saizai> but rather, that because it needs to be converted to currency to have value, it's not a currency at all
1089 2013-11-09 07:28:35 <saizai> that's not the same as, say, a check
1090 2013-11-09 07:28:41 <saizai> checks aren't "converted" to cash
1091 2013-11-09 07:28:46 <maaku> maybe point out that bitcoin fluctuates against the dollar like other commodities
1092 2013-11-09 07:28:50 <midnightmagic> saizai: And by "using it anonymously" I mean "using it in a way that isn't nearly-instantly, trivially de-anonymizable using semi-automatic tools which have already been developed for the job."
1093 2013-11-09 07:29:00 <maaku> and is not directly convertible (like community currencies are, for example)
1094 2013-11-09 07:29:07 <saizai> they're just honored at face value; checks *are* monetary instruments, money, currency, etc for FEC purposes
1095 2013-11-09 07:29:11 <maaku> it's floated not pegged
1096 2013-11-09 07:29:21 <maaku> but i'd rather get a lawyer's input on this
1097 2013-11-09 07:29:40 <saizai> maaku: FWIW, try reading the draft AO linked there
1098 2013-11-09 07:29:42 <maaku> i'm just a startup guy that's muddled through these same laws to see if my startup is legal
1099 2013-11-09 07:29:48 <saizai> I wrote section 1 before it was published
1100 2013-11-09 07:30:04 <saizai> its analysis is substantially parallel to mine
1101 2013-11-09 07:30:15 <saizai> which hopefully gives some credibility to my legal ability.
1102 2013-11-09 07:30:50 <saizai> midnightmagic: the problem is that it has to defend against the most sophisticated attacker
1103 2013-11-09 07:31:05 <saizai> I would agree that in many or even most cases, yes it could be traced
1104 2013-11-09 07:31:05 <midnightmagic> saizai: I'm saying a FEC auditor could email any of those de-anonymizing researchers and ask them for help, and likely get it. The analysis tools and the "already-known" dataset is growing, monolithic, requires virtually no effort to query, and has been demonstrated in public.
1105 2013-11-09 07:31:07 <maaku> btw are you the same saizai from berekely conlangs?
1106 2013-11-09 07:31:27 <saizai> but it can't be traced in the same ease as, say, checks
1107 2013-11-09 07:31:30 <saizai> maaku: I am.
1108 2013-11-09 07:31:33 <saizai> http://s.ai
1109 2013-11-09 07:31:34 <maaku> small world
1110 2013-11-09 07:31:39 * saizai curtsies
1111 2013-11-09 07:31:54 <maaku> we took philosophy classes together at de anza many years ago
1112 2013-11-09 07:31:57 <saizai> midnightmagic: they could, hypothetically
1113 2013-11-09 07:32:00 <saizai> woah
1114 2013-11-09 07:32:03 <saizai> srsly?
1115 2013-11-09 07:32:09 <midnightmagic> saizai: I would argue most txn could be traced with greater ease and in certainly a shorter period of time than normal bank cheques.
1116 2013-11-09 07:32:10 * saizai moves to pm
1117 2013-11-09 07:33:10 tsche has joined
1118 2013-11-09 07:33:19 <saizai> midnightmagic: most, maybe so
1119 2013-11-09 07:33:40 <dizko> midnightmagic: i still struggle getting my head around that.   i get that its all just outputs being sent to a public key address, but there is an address associated with where they came from no?   do you know of a good reference that can help me internalize the "no from address" concept?
1120 2013-11-09 07:33:41 <saizai> but I suggest you reframe your threat model
1121 2013-11-09 07:33:47 <saizai> think about the whole SuperPAC thing
1122 2013-11-09 07:33:50 <saizai> that was subtle
1123 2013-11-09 07:33:59 <saizai> it took several combined legal maneuvers
1124 2013-11-09 07:34:04 <saizai> but now it's a thing, and it's easy to do
1125 2013-11-09 07:34:12 <saizai> and it's fucking with our election law
1126 2013-11-09 07:34:28 <saizai> I don't want this to open up any similar loophole
1127 2013-11-09 07:35:58 <saizai> hence urging major caution
1128 2013-11-09 07:36:01 <midnightmagic> saizai: Nearly all. But this is going around in circles. You aren't interested in pursuing the 28c3 talks I mentioned, so..  meh. Good luck. I'm sad I'll probably have to be one of the people who deal with the influx of additional misinformed headspace you are likely creating.
1129 2013-11-09 07:36:04 <adam3us> is there some ref we're talking about re no sender addr?
1130 2013-11-09 07:36:08 <saizai> in principle, personally? I'm pro bitcoin
1131 2013-11-09 07:36:23 <midnightmagic> dizko: Let's take our discussion to #bitcoin
1132 2013-11-09 07:36:24 <saizai> but I know FEC rules better than most bitcoin folk
1133 2013-11-09 07:36:31 <saizai> and I've seen how people fuck with 'em
1134 2013-11-09 07:37:02 <adam3us> maaku: no sender addr?
1135 2013-11-09 07:37:17 <saizai> midnightmagic: how would you suggest revising what I wrote in a way that does not alter the policy arguments?
1136 2013-11-09 07:37:24 <saizai> but is more accurate
1137 2013-11-09 07:37:39 <saizai> I am always interested in being precise
1138 2013-11-09 07:38:32 <saizai> but just understand, what I'm articulating here is not "this is provably impossible to trace" but rather "with a moderately sophisticated opponent, this is extremely hard to trace"
1139 2013-11-09 07:38:33 Fistful_of_LTC has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1140 2013-11-09 07:39:24 wailher has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1141 2013-11-09 07:39:27 <midnightmagic> saizai: I gave you examples which do not materially alter your arguments but are more accurate. Substitute "semi-anonymous" for "anonymous" and don't make claims about strong anonymity. Strip comments about "can remain securely anonymous" and "large number of anonymizing methods". <-- because almost none of them work.
1142 2013-11-09 07:40:25 <saizai> how would you suggest explaining that mixers are a thing in the broad sense, then?
1143 2013-11-09 07:40:54 <saizai> also fwiw "anonymous" has a legal meaning in this context
1144 2013-11-09 07:41:08 <saizai> namely, either not attributed or attributed to the wrong party
1145 2013-11-09 07:41:10 SwampTon_ has joined
1146 2013-11-09 07:41:25 <pigeons> so just leave that word out
1147 2013-11-09 07:41:35 <saizai> "strong" I can remove
1148 2013-11-09 07:41:54 <saizai> but "anonymous" per se, I can't; it's a legal reference
1149 2013-11-09 07:41:57 OrP has joined
1150 2013-11-09 07:42:09 <saizai> 11 CFR 110.4
1151 2013-11-09 07:42:57 BNCatDIGISHELL has joined
1152 2013-11-09 07:43:11 apurplehorse has quit ()
1153 2013-11-09 07:43:42 SwampTony has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1154 2013-11-09 07:45:13 <saizai> midnightmagic: okay, I've removed the 'completely' type adjectives on anonymous
1155 2013-11-09 07:45:30 <gavinandresen> saizai: you seem to be pretty hung up on the little details.  Isn't there a loophole big enough to drive a truck through with ALL forms of online donations?  You're relying on people to tell the truth about their identity/citizenship/etc, right?  There is no "go to the campaign office and present photo id"
1156 2013-11-09 07:45:42 SwampTony has joined
1157 2013-11-09 07:45:42 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1158 2013-11-09 07:47:26 <gavinandresen> Or to put it another way:  a 'moderately sophisticated opponent' can hijack PayPal accounts if they want to criminally fund a campaign.  It doesn't seem to be a problem in actual practice.
1159 2013-11-09 07:48:04 <gavinandresen> Holding bitcoin donations to a higher standard than other forms of payment is unfair.
1160 2013-11-09 07:48:21 <warren> "criminally fund a campaign" just gave me giggles.
1161 2013-11-09 07:48:45 SwampTon_ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1162 2013-11-09 07:48:53 <gavinandresen> mmm.  I'm imagining whole FLEETS of black-hats who are just itching to give money to politicians… (NOT)
1163 2013-11-09 07:50:02 <saizai> midnightmagic: I've also rewritten footnote 17 page 8-9 to be more explicit and acknowledge that attack
1164 2013-11-09 07:50:03 Bohren_ has joined
1165 2013-11-09 07:50:07 ralphtheninja has joined
1166 2013-11-09 07:50:09 Fistful_of_LTC has joined
1167 2013-11-09 07:50:13 <saizai> gavinandresen: yes, the FEC addressed that issue
1168 2013-11-09 07:50:33 <saizai> I'm allowed to rely on your assertion of citizenship, so long as it's credible and I have no reason to believe to the contrary
1169 2013-11-09 07:50:56 <saizai> however, if there is doubt, I'm liable
1170 2013-11-09 07:51:26 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1171 2013-11-09 07:51:47 <gavinandresen> saizai: okey dokey.  This is mostly off-topic for bitcoin-dev, and asking engineers about illogical, ill-conceived, self-contradictory campaign finance laws isn't going to be productive.
1172 2013-11-09 07:52:01 <maaku> adam3us: ?
1173 2013-11-09 07:52:08 <saizai> also, it's a lesser danger for the assertion to be flawed than for the payment method to be
1174 2013-11-09 07:52:25 <saizai> because if you break the payment method, game over
1175 2013-11-09 07:52:44 <saizai> if you break only the assertion, there are limits to how much damage you can do
1176 2013-11-09 07:52:54 <saizai> and it's easier to arrest you
1177 2013-11-09 07:53:30 <saizai> FWIW, I think the "$50 cash" exception is one big loophole
1178 2013-11-09 07:53:46 <saizai> another is the c4 -> superpac contribution allowance
1179 2013-11-09 07:53:56 <saizai> those are really the only major ones that come to mind though
1180 2013-11-09 07:54:43 <saizai> midnightmagic: do you think my revised wording re anonymity etc is more accurate?
1181 2013-11-09 07:54:49 <saizai> if not, please suggest alternatives
1182 2013-11-09 07:54:59 <saizai> though mind, I have to use the specific word "anonymous"
1183 2013-11-09 07:55:02 <midnightmagic> saizai: I'll read it through again. Do I just reload it?
1184 2013-11-09 07:55:09 <saizai> it should be autoupdated
1185 2013-11-09 07:55:11 <midnightmagic> Why not semi-anonymous?
1186 2013-11-09 07:55:33 <saizai> "anonymous" has a statutory definition in 11 CFR 110.4
1187 2013-11-09 07:55:49 <midnightmagic> Ah is that why you were so reluctant.
1188 2013-11-09 07:55:49 <saizai> it's a legal term here, not a cryptographic term
1189 2013-11-09 07:56:02 <saizai> sorry about that ;)
1190 2013-11-09 07:56:20 <saizai> http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.4
1191 2013-11-09 07:57:11 <midnightmagic> saizai: Is there a definitions which specifies what it means by the term "anonymous" somewhere else in the document or is it just using the term here as normal english?
1192 2013-11-09 07:57:18 <saizai> (b)(1)(iii) and (c)(3)
1193 2013-11-09 07:57:36 <midnightmagic> saizai: Let's take this somewhere else. Maybe #bitcoin ?
1194 2013-11-09 07:57:47 <saizai> fine by me
1195 2013-11-09 07:58:46 gtomy has joined
1196 2013-11-09 07:58:56 OrP has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1197 2013-11-09 07:59:19 gtomy has left ()
1198 2013-11-09 07:59:58 CodeName has joined
1199 2013-11-09 08:03:42 <adam3us> midnightmagic: "dizko: midnightmagic: i still struggle getting my head around that.   i get that its all just outputs being sent to a public key address, but there is an address associated with where they came from no?   do you know of a good reference that can help me internalize the "no from address" concept?"
1200 2013-11-09 08:03:58 <adam3us> midnightmagic: whats with the no from address?
1201 2013-11-09 08:04:28 elevatioN has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1202 2013-11-09 08:04:56 <adam3us> maaku: sorry it was a ref to midnightmagic misread so i guess q was for him unless you were also talking in that thread (no history past that point)
1203 2013-11-09 08:05:57 Tom_Soft has joined
1204 2013-11-09 08:06:28 canooon has joined
1205 2013-11-09 08:06:49 canooon has quit (Client Quit)
1206 2013-11-09 08:06:53 Starduster has joined
1207 2013-11-09 08:07:28 freewil has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1208 2013-11-09 08:07:42 <midnightmagic> adam3us: Pardon me? :)
1209 2013-11-09 08:08:44 <adam3us> midnightmagic: its a quote of what dizko asked you, presumably relating to something you said off the top of my scroll window; maybe its non -tech but i cant tell what was said to give rise to the question
1210 2013-11-09 08:08:47 reneg_ has joined
1211 2013-11-09 08:09:25 <adam3us> midnightmagic: "midnightmagic: "dizko: midnightmagic: i still struggle getting my head around that.   i get that its all just outputs being sent to a public key address, but there is an address associated with where they came from no?   do you know of a good reference that can help me internalize the "no from address" concept?""
1212 2013-11-09 08:10:07 <adam3us> midnightmagic: yeah ok i mean no from address sounds like zerocoin type stuff hence my potential interest
1213 2013-11-09 08:10:36 <midnightmagic> adam3us: I was translating the strenuous objections of Luke and gmaxwell and everyone else who objects, for the digestion of people who don't understand why everyone strenuously objects to the notion of from-addresses in bitcoin.
1214 2013-11-09 08:11:17 <midnightmagic> adam3us: Sometimes it seems like I can tell where the stumbling block is, but..  eh. Might be in my head.
1215 2013-11-09 08:11:18 <pigeons> adam3us: they are talking about normal bitcoin usage, but perhaps not how many refer to it, no special zerocoin stuff
1216 2013-11-09 08:11:42 reneg has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1217 2013-11-09 08:11:50 <adam3us> midnightmagic: well they do exist, as a side effect, and the attempts to mitigate that are not that robust except for zerocoin, which is quite inefficient
1218 2013-11-09 08:12:05 <midnightmagic> adam3us: Nothing special. Just that people "shouldn't" think of input txn translations to addresses as "from addresses" in the envelope-in-the-mail sense.
1219 2013-11-09 08:12:32 zxz2013 has joined
1220 2013-11-09 08:12:34 <midnightmagic> adam3us: Since in many cases there is no mapping to an actual single person in the inputs to a txn.
1221 2013-11-09 08:12:46 <midnightmagic> and it might even be a script which can't be satisfied anymore.
1222 2013-11-09 08:13:31 <adam3us> midnightmagic: ell thts somewhat true - i mean input tx are not addresses, they are former unique txouts, that are always associate with an address; but there can be multiple txin associated with the same addr and multiple addr associated with the same user
1223 2013-11-09 08:15:02 <adam3us> midnightmagic: (always, excluding silly/exotic things like pay to anyone, hashlock with no sig key etc)
1224 2013-11-09 08:15:29 <adam3us> midnightmagic: the only thing preventing re-satisfaction later is if the sender loses a key no?
1225 2013-11-09 08:15:33 <midnightmagic> Right. And what about coinjoin'd txn, or multisig, or p2sh, or the case where someone pays via a withdraw from MtGox, or otherwise behaves in a way not anticipated by the people who think in terms of USPS.
1226 2013-11-09 08:16:21 <adam3us> midnightmagic: right, the tx can have multiple txin owned by different users, and/or controlled by multisigs
1227 2013-11-09 08:16:47 <midnightmagic> adam3us: I'm assuming it is possible to create a script which can only be logically satisfied once, because of a foggy memory. I can't think of an actual example.
1228 2013-11-09 08:16:47 Bohren_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1229 2013-11-09 08:17:20 Bohren has joined
1230 2013-11-09 08:17:29 <adam3us> adam3us: i dont think so; there is so far no external iformation avilable to the script except for timelock>target
1231 2013-11-09 08:17:39 <midnightmagic> adam3us: Thus, there's nothing clever you're missing. :) I'm trying to explain Luke-Jr/gmaxwell's "Stop it, there is no from address dammit" comments to users, to those users.
1232 2013-11-09 08:17:49 <adam3us> midnightmagic: gotcha
1233 2013-11-09 08:18:02 OrP has joined
1234 2013-11-09 08:18:20 <adam3us> midnightmagic: maybe one could say dont get excited they are not from addresses, they are unique randomized cheque serial numbers
1235 2013-11-09 08:18:42 <saizai> midnightmagic Luke-Jr gmaxwell: FWIW, it'd be helpful if you had a page on the bitcoin wiki explaining this issue
1236 2013-11-09 08:19:01 <adam3us> midnightmagic: and you're looking potentially at a batch being processed by a bank clerk, they may not be owned by the same person
1237 2013-11-09 08:19:19 <saizai> because frankly, I'm a relatively knowledgable person about Bitcoin compared to 99% of humanity, and I didn't understand it
1238 2013-11-09 08:19:36 <saizai> and I don't have a good reference that I can point people to that explains it to a normal person
1239 2013-11-09 08:20:07 <Luke-Jr> adam3us: no, they don't exist
1240 2013-11-09 08:20:38 <Luke-Jr> you *can* do lots of different things with data; that doesn't mean it makes sense to do so
1241 2013-11-09 08:21:32 Bohren has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1242 2013-11-09 08:21:35 <midnightmagic> round three.
1243 2013-11-09 08:21:38 <Luke-Jr> :P
1244 2013-11-09 08:21:52 * midnightmagic gets a wet towel, bucket of ice, and cold iron ready
1245 2013-11-09 08:21:53 <adam3us> Luke-Jr: dont exist - you  mean sender addr?
1246 2013-11-09 08:21:57 <Luke-Jr> adam3us: yes
1247 2013-11-09 08:22:16 <dooglus_> just received this spam: http://i.imgur.com/pp0QLTN.png
1248 2013-11-09 08:22:18 <adam3us> Luke-Jr: I disagree, its just that there can be multiple
1249 2013-11-09 08:22:40 <Luke-Jr> just because a particular EC key hash controls a coin, and that hash can also be converted to Base58 to get an address, does not mean the coin it can spend is somehow being sent from that address
1250 2013-11-09 08:24:08 imton has quit (Quit: imton)
1251 2013-11-09 08:24:16 jedunnigan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1252 2013-11-09 08:25:14 <Luke-Jr> nor is there any reason to give a special meaning to that relationship
1253 2013-11-09 08:26:05 <adam3us> Luke-Jr: well its clear that in all transactions (except insecure ones, where miner can take) that there are signaturs from addresses, they are authorized to control
1254 2013-11-09 08:26:36 <gmaxwell> It has a pedantic meaning (the scriptpubkey isn't in the transaction) and a pragmatic meaning (trying to infer a correct 'from' e.g. for use as a refund or accounting purposes from the history _will_ cause errors today which cost people coin, and will cause more errors in the future with fancier transaction protocols)
1255 2013-11-09 08:26:52 shesek has joined
1256 2013-11-09 08:27:10 <Luke-Jr> adam3us: there are signatures for EC keys, not from addresses
1257 2013-11-09 08:27:13 <adam3us> gmaxwell: yes well the addr = H(pubkey) is in the tx, or the p2sh
1258 2013-11-09 08:27:23 <gmaxwell> adam3us: whats ownership even mean in the context of a complex script which can't be satistified multiple ways by multiple parties.
1259 2013-11-09 08:27:54 <Luke-Jr> adam3us: H(pubkey) != addr
1260 2013-11-09 08:27:55 <gmaxwell> adam3us: go look at that transaction I offered before as a good mental puzzle.
1261 2013-11-09 08:28:15 <adam3us> Luke-Jr: yes but no one has succeeded ever to make one addresses controlled by two ec keys (malleability and multisig/script excluded)
1262 2013-11-09 08:28:23 <Luke-Jr> adam3us: irrelevant
1263 2013-11-09 08:29:22 <Luke-Jr> there is no case where it is relevant where a coin had been sent to in a previous transaction, short of detective work and forensics
1264 2013-11-09 08:29:29 <adam3us> gmaxwell: ownership is not quite the right word, i think authorization, and in the same way bank mandates can have 3 of 3, 2 of 3; 1 or 2 of 3 etc its no different, just more flexible as its a mini program
1265 2013-11-09 08:29:39 <gmaxwell> adam3us: https://blockchain.info/tx/54fabd73f1d20c980a0686bf0035078e07f69c58437e4d586fb29aa0bee9814f  and a decode of it: http://0bin.net/paste/6QW9pVIJJJdrq1V-#lnLPAash4zwmsZ6jF4nF2jwxazUsE9M207fe1faxgjk=
1266 2013-11-09 08:29:50 <Luke-Jr> and there is no inherent relationship between the address and the EC signature
1267 2013-11-09 08:29:55 <Luke-Jr> direct*
1268 2013-11-09 08:31:02 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1269 2013-11-09 08:31:54 <Luke-Jr> that is, there is neither a high-level nor low-level relationship between that address and the current transaction at hand
1270 2013-11-09 08:31:58 <adam3us> gmaxwell: well that appears to show an undisclosed p2sh address or something - so no one knows yet what it takes to satisfy it, but never the less unless its a random number, and unsatisfiable, there will exist some logic of which combination of addresses can control it
1271 2013-11-09 08:32:00 <gmaxwell> adam3us: mostly when I talk about "there is no from" address, I'm talking about the pratical sense. That attempting to infer a "source" from a transaction for accounting or refund purposes is fraught with peril and is known to have caused funds to be lost many times.
1272 2013-11-09 08:32:53 <gmaxwell> adam3us: well I'm asking what the "from address" is in that transaction. It's a confirmed transaction in the blockchain, so you know it was not unsatisfiable.
1273 2013-11-09 08:33:07 <adam3us> gmaxwell: that i agree with, there ought to be an equiv of a reply-to perhaps; hashcash was borne out of the mentality that from and envelope is meaningless human label attached to something that is and SHOULD REMAIN essentially defact anonymous
1274 2013-11-09 08:33:38 <Luke-Jr> the *apparent* relationship only comes about when we confusedly try to mix high-level and low-level concepts
1275 2013-11-09 08:33:55 ThomasV has joined
1276 2013-11-09 08:34:02 <adam3us> gmaxwell: (it annoyed me a lot that the usual sysadmin approach to spam was like identd, domain sig, blah blah, trying to get authoritarian, and digital driver license on the net which to me was damage)
1277 2013-11-09 08:34:23 <gmaxwell> adam3us: there very intentionally isn't one— because that data should be private. You should be providing one prior the counterparty offering a pubkey to pay to.  Unfortunately address usage overtook send to ip.
1278 2013-11-09 08:35:04 <gmaxwell> ( adam3us: yea, indeed. I'm a long term fan of POW. )
1279 2013-11-09 08:35:22 <gmaxwell> (s/POW/POW as a mechnism for a 'fair' way of limiting damage)
1280 2013-11-09 08:35:44 reneg has joined
1281 2013-11-09 08:36:24 <adam3us> gmaxwell: at the time i was a mixmaster remailer operator and we were battling mail2news systtematic abuse as a wy to discredit or make remailers unpopular - a usenet news post is not free in the same way a bitcoin broadcast is not
1282 2013-11-09 08:37:14 <gmaxwell> adam3us: in any case that txn is redeeming some fancy script I found in the blockchain, the solution involves a signature, but it's not pay-to-pubkey-hash so the pubkey isn't in the signature and because the scriptpubkey is some fancy thing it can't even be represented as an address currently.
1283 2013-11-09 08:37:55 <gmaxwell> the scriptpubkey on the coin its spending was: "OP_DUP 0 OP_LESSTHAN OP_VERIFY OP_ABS 1 16 OP_WITHIN OP_TOALTSTACK 0378d430274f8c5ec1321338151e9f27f4c676a008bdf8638d07c0b6be9ab35c71 OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY OP_FROMALTSTACK"
1284 2013-11-09 08:37:55 <adam3us> gmaxwell: i probably dont und... ah ok it seems to undecoded hex or the inputs unspecified so i cant tell what it means
1285 2013-11-09 08:38:02 <gmaxwell> adam3us: it's all decoded.
1286 2013-11-09 08:38:31 <gmaxwell> the hex in the signature is just an ECDSA signature and the number -1.
1287 2013-11-09 08:39:02 reneg_ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1288 2013-11-09 08:39:03 one_zero has joined
1289 2013-11-09 08:39:03 <gmaxwell> thats all thats there, no ECDSA public key.
1290 2013-11-09 08:39:56 <adam3us> gmaxwell: ok this script lang syntx is horrid paper...
1291 2013-11-09 08:40:29 <gmaxwell> http://0bin.net/paste/ANrWzWgBxvOP-nYg#FV/EfGm4gaphjkGLVEg9N6b48Bn73ksFRN5FnxbZCdo=  < this is the full transaction its consuming an output from ( a60143eb3f8d3cd1f42cca874f35736186d67c488efd3c1b7214bbd74b310e0c )
1292 2013-11-09 08:40:55 Anduck has joined
1293 2013-11-09 08:41:06 <gmaxwell> adam3us: pft. it's not _that_ bad. What, you never used forth? :P  It's a lot easier to read than x86 asm.
1294 2013-11-09 08:42:07 mappppum has joined
1295 2013-11-09 08:42:11 <adam3us> gmaxwell: yes i know stack machines - i programmed a scheduler an wrote some core bits of a gcc compiler port to  inmos transputer) an asm level stack machine
1296 2013-11-09 08:42:21 <adam3us> gmaxwell: but yes i find x86 easier to read
1297 2013-11-09 08:43:04 reneg_ has joined
1298 2013-11-09 08:43:13 shesek has joined
1299 2013-11-09 08:43:22 <adam3us> gmaxwell: scheduler = priority kernel hardware level scheduler that can task switch in a few ticks, inmos argument for stack is you can switch faster
1300 2013-11-09 08:43:40 reneg has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1301 2013-11-09 08:44:17 <adam3us> gmaxwell: ok so i guess i could puzzle it out , but basically its some fancy version of anyone could claim this, or with a bit of work they could?
1302 2013-11-09 08:45:22 mapppum has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1303 2013-11-09 08:45:27 <gmaxwell> adam3us: yes, — though anyone has to also provide a ecdsa signature.  (the scriptsig has a signature and -1)... Had to figure out what the private key was.
1304 2013-11-09 08:46:07 <gmaxwell> (since it was obviously a puzzle I spent a few minutes trying to figure out the private key)
1305 2013-11-09 08:46:21 <adam3us> gmaxwell: but the verification is in some way weakened so it can be computed
1306 2013-11-09 08:47:15 Namworld has quit ()
1307 2013-11-09 08:47:59 <adam3us> gmaxwell: i was noticing playing with ecdsa based chameleon hash that if you can multiply the public key even by a scalar, and the recipient doesnt check the sig recovers to a recipient decided public key, then you can sign anything
1308 2013-11-09 08:48:33 <gmaxwell> adam3us: the public key in the transaction is G*SHA256("correct horse battery staple") with the x-only encoding.
1309 2013-11-09 08:49:13 <adam3us> gmaxwell: so what you brute forced that??
1310 2013-11-09 08:49:33 <gmaxwell> adam3us: we occasionally get freaking out security bugreports from someone who notices that you can take a bitcoin signmessage and change the data while holding the signature constant and it just returns a different address. :)
1311 2013-11-09 08:50:02 <gmaxwell> adam3us: for some definition of brute-force, it's a well known bad password http://xkcd.com/936/
1312 2013-11-09 08:50:22 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1313 2013-11-09 08:50:24 <gmaxwell> (well xkcd tells you its a good one, because xkcd is addressing the website security model)
1314 2013-11-09 08:50:49 <gmaxwell> I don't think it was my first guess. I didn't spend more than 10 minutes on it.
1315 2013-11-09 08:50:51 <adam3us> gmaxwell: yes they dont understand the ecdsa sig verification steps, they should go read fips 186-3
1316 2013-11-09 08:50:59 TD has joined
1317 2013-11-09 08:51:02 <Luke-Jr> wasn't it a good one, until xkcd published it? XD
1318 2013-11-09 08:51:19 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: 44 bits isn't good for a bitcoin private key. :P
1319 2013-11-09 08:51:28 <Luke-Jr> hmm, words have that few bits? :o
1320 2013-11-09 08:52:03 <Luke-Jr> I guess those are more commonish words than "just any word"
1321 2013-11-09 08:52:10 shesek has joined
1322 2013-11-09 08:52:33 <adam3us> gmaxwell: still that doesnt change the picture that is just an address authorized to spend that has a weakish brain wallet
1323 2013-11-09 08:52:37 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: depends on the dictionary size. In general the properties that make a passphrase easy to remember make it easier for a powerful statistical model to rank.
1324 2013-11-09 08:53:11 <adam3us> gmaxwell, Luke-Jr: did you guys get my proposal about outsourcing key stretching to untrusted GPU farm?
1325 2013-11-09 08:53:20 Coincidental has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1326 2013-11-09 08:54:05 <adam3us> gmaxwell, Luke-Jr: i found a way to blind & unblind rivest et al's RSA based time-lock puzzle so you dont have to trust the workers, and so you can pay them 50c to add 44-bits to your key
1327 2013-11-09 08:54:26 <gmaxwell> adam3us: yea, but on the pedantic argument: nowhere is the ecdsa public key in the transaction spending it, nor can the scriptpubkey be expressed as an address.  Pulling out an ecdsa key is not generally sufficient in the bitcoin system to reliably identify access. E.g. consider multisig.
1328 2013-11-09 08:54:26 <adam3us> gmaxwell, Luke-Jr: 44+40 = 84, or to grind it, it costs more than its worth
1329 2013-11-09 08:54:45 <gmaxwell> adam3us: I saw it, and thought it interest!
1330 2013-11-09 08:54:54 <gmaxwell> re interesting.
1331 2013-11-09 08:55:07 shesek has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1332 2013-11-09 08:55:33 shesek has joined
1333 2013-11-09 08:55:42 <adam3us> gmaxwell: still brain wallets are dangerous even if secure, you'll forget the 44-bits or your kids/gf/wife etc will lose it when you get hit by a truck
1334 2013-11-09 08:55:47 RoboTeddy has joined
1335 2013-11-09 08:55:49 <gmaxwell> yep.
1336 2013-11-09 08:55:52 RoboTeddy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1337 2013-11-09 08:56:05 <gmaxwell> People overestimate memory... well naturally you don't remember what you've forgotten.
1338 2013-11-09 08:56:27 RoboTeddy has joined
1339 2013-11-09 08:56:33 <adam3us> gmaxwell: yes my brother in law (one of the smartest people i know) setup pgp at my suggestion (years ago now) and forgot the password within a week
1340 2013-11-09 08:57:03 <gmaxwell> There have been proposals to do something similar with ecdsa homorophism.   E.g. you take to_point(sha256("lame passphrase))  and then you *G and give the public point to a computing farm, and they increment the public point until it reaches a distinguished value.
1341 2013-11-09 08:57:13 <adam3us> gmaxwell: if you dont use it repeatedly its far far worse, and long time, stress, a blow to the head, early alzheimers blah
1342 2013-11-09 08:57:57 <gmaxwell> adam3us: I've suffered memory loss from a severe fever brought on by an infection.
1343 2013-11-09 08:57:58 <adam3us> gmaxwell: yes, acutally i re-explored that too because DL has advantages over RSA (eg where do you store the per user N for your brain wallet...)
1344 2013-11-09 08:58:34 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, i suspect you'd be surprised with what you can remember if you do it daily
1345 2013-11-09 08:58:54 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: sure I remember a couple 128 bit keys. but I could trip and fall and forget them tomorrow.
1346 2013-11-09 08:58:55 <adam3us> gmaxwell: the difference is RSA blinding itself is info theoretically secure (up to the factorizability of the user chosen n)
1347 2013-11-09 08:59:00 <phantomcircuit> but yeah in general it's a terrible idea to assume you'll remember something that bad
1348 2013-11-09 08:59:11 <adam3us> gmaxwell: you need o be able to create randomized instances of the verification step
1349 2013-11-09 08:59:46 OrP has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1350 2013-11-09 09:00:03 zxz2013 has left ()
1351 2013-11-09 09:00:37 <adam3us> gmaxwell: i found another thing where i could stretch the signature verifiability instead (using normal ecdsa, no RSA n needed)
1352 2013-11-09 09:00:49 <gmaxwell> if you to_point(sha256("lame passphrase))*G  and then the public increments are sha256("lame passphrase"||2) and the miner selected increment, I think verifier distinguishing (e.g. identifying your real public key) is as hard as solving the discrete log... but they could correlate repeated instances of the same problem.
1353 2013-11-09 09:01:55 <adam3us> gmaxwell: my point is you do not know the distinguisher and you have no where safe to store it, if its stored it can be ground by others
1354 2013-11-09 09:01:58 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1355 2013-11-09 09:03:25 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1356 2013-11-09 09:05:33 <gmaxwell> adam3us: the distinguisher is just "the point starts with {lots} of zeros" it doesn't need to be secret because you're blinded by addition with sha256("lame passphrase"||2)
1357 2013-11-09 09:07:02 shesek has joined
1358 2013-11-09 09:10:02 Anduck has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1359 2013-11-09 09:10:53 <adam3us> gmaxwell: but i think x=H(p), Q=xG, b=H(p||2), Q'=xG+bG=(x+b)G, is Q itself is grindable and you give Q to the kdf miner
1360 2013-11-09 09:11:11 <sipa> -> wizards?
1361 2013-11-09 09:11:25 <adam3us> sipa: (oh yeah:)
1362 2013-11-09 09:12:02 shesek has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1363 2013-11-09 09:12:31 shesek has joined
1364 2013-11-09 09:13:41 patar has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1365 2013-11-09 09:13:56 roconnor_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1366 2013-11-09 09:14:56 mappppum has left ()
1367 2013-11-09 09:15:21 mappum has joined
1368 2013-11-09 09:15:23 shesek has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1369 2013-11-09 09:15:34 OrP has joined
1370 2013-11-09 09:16:58 shesek has joined
1371 2013-11-09 09:18:37 div has left ()
1372 2013-11-09 09:18:54 div has joined
1373 2013-11-09 09:20:45 daktak has joined
1374 2013-11-09 09:21:10 msvb-lab has joined
1375 2013-11-09 09:21:42 <saizai> gmaxwell: i've referenced your CoinCovenant SCIP proposal @ p15 fn26
1376 2013-11-09 09:22:25 jaakkos has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1377 2013-11-09 09:23:15 jaakkos has joined
1378 2013-11-09 09:25:33 kill\switch has left ()
1379 2013-11-09 09:28:06 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1380 2013-11-09 09:35:39 SwampTony has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1381 2013-11-09 09:41:42 shesek has joined
1382 2013-11-09 09:42:20 RoboTeddy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1383 2013-11-09 09:42:58 mE\Ta has joined
1384 2013-11-09 09:46:12 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1385 2013-11-09 09:46:31 mapppum has joined
1386 2013-11-09 09:50:01 mappum has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1387 2013-11-09 09:52:12 shesek has joined
1388 2013-11-09 09:55:58 jegz has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1389 2013-11-09 09:57:31 CodeName has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1390 2013-11-09 10:00:24 kill\switch has joined
1391 2013-11-09 10:02:15 CodeName has joined
1392 2013-11-09 10:05:04 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1393 2013-11-09 10:05:43 deego has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1394 2013-11-09 10:06:24 roconnor_ has joined
1395 2013-11-09 10:06:33 roconnor has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1396 2013-11-09 10:07:34 deego has joined
1397 2013-11-09 10:11:22 toffoo has quit ()
1398 2013-11-09 10:11:52 kill\switch has left ()
1399 2013-11-09 10:14:21 Thepok has joined
1400 2013-11-09 10:16:00 duckybsd has joined
1401 2013-11-09 10:16:23 deepc0re has joined
1402 2013-11-09 10:16:33 duckybsd has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1403 2013-11-09 10:18:15 shesek has joined
1404 2013-11-09 10:20:00 Zoop_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1405 2013-11-09 10:22:06 debiantoruser has joined
1406 2013-11-09 10:25:11 Zoop_ has joined
1407 2013-11-09 10:27:46 reizuki__ has joined
1408 2013-11-09 10:32:11 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1409 2013-11-09 10:33:46 agnostic98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1410 2013-11-09 10:33:48 akrmn has joined
1411 2013-11-09 10:34:21 agnostic98 has joined
1412 2013-11-09 10:39:00 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1413 2013-11-09 10:43:06 datagutt has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1414 2013-11-09 10:45:45 Thepok has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1415 2013-11-09 10:45:58 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1416 2013-11-09 10:46:10 CodeName has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1417 2013-11-09 10:47:00 shesek has joined
1418 2013-11-09 10:47:05 deepc0re has quit (Quit: deepc0re)
1419 2013-11-09 10:50:02 enquirer11 has joined
1420 2013-11-09 10:50:59 shesek has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1421 2013-11-09 10:51:26 mapppum has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1422 2013-11-09 10:52:16 enquirer10 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1423 2013-11-09 10:54:29 mrkent has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1424 2013-11-09 10:58:04 ircuser-6 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1425 2013-11-09 11:00:55 deepc0re has joined
1426 2013-11-09 11:01:58 SwampTony has joined
1427 2013-11-09 11:02:40 reizuki__ has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1428 2013-11-09 11:04:56 agnostic98 has joined
1429 2013-11-09 11:08:14 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1430 2013-11-09 11:08:24 agnostic98 has joined
1431 2013-11-09 11:11:55 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1432 2013-11-09 11:12:21 agnostic98 has joined
1433 2013-11-09 11:17:27 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1434 2013-11-09 11:27:00 SwampTony has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1435 2013-11-09 11:27:15 deepc0re has quit (Quit: deepc0re)
1436 2013-11-09 11:27:32 CheckDavid has joined
1437 2013-11-09 11:27:33 SwampTony has joined
1438 2013-11-09 11:27:43 CheckDavid has quit (Changing host)
1439 2013-11-09 11:27:43 CheckDavid has joined
1440 2013-11-09 11:30:44 mE\Ta has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1441 2013-11-09 11:31:01 ralphtheninja has quit (Quit: leaving)
1442 2013-11-09 11:32:12 SwampTony has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1443 2013-11-09 11:37:09 Eiii has quit ()
1444 2013-11-09 11:38:50 wiretapped has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1445 2013-11-09 11:39:52 wiretapped has joined
1446 2013-11-09 11:44:54 ircuser-6 has joined
1447 2013-11-09 11:45:05 _ingsoc has joined
1448 2013-11-09 11:47:37 canoon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1449 2013-11-09 11:49:06 matjeh has joined
1450 2013-11-09 11:50:27 SwampTony has joined
1451 2013-11-09 11:59:40 abrkn has joined
1452 2013-11-09 12:00:00 skinnkavaj has joined
1453 2013-11-09 12:00:03 skinnkavaj has quit (Changing host)
1454 2013-11-09 12:00:03 skinnkavaj has joined
1455 2013-11-09 12:00:30 pablog has joined
1456 2013-11-09 12:00:32 pablog has quit (Changing host)
1457 2013-11-09 12:00:32 pablog has joined
1458 2013-11-09 12:01:25 JontyX has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1459 2013-11-09 12:01:31 JontyX has joined
1460 2013-11-09 12:04:46 moleccc has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1461 2013-11-09 12:05:21 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1462 2013-11-09 12:10:09 Raziel has joined
1463 2013-11-09 12:10:42 abrkn has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1464 2013-11-09 12:12:19 agnostic98 has joined
1465 2013-11-09 12:13:13 a_meteor has joined
1466 2013-11-09 12:25:29 datagutt has joined
1467 2013-11-09 12:25:52 canoon has joined
1468 2013-11-09 12:27:17 SwampTony has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1469 2013-11-09 12:28:07 SwampTony has joined
1470 2013-11-09 12:30:15 denisx has joined
1471 2013-11-09 12:31:52 neofutur_ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1472 2013-11-09 12:32:42 SwampTony has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1473 2013-11-09 12:32:52 OrP has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1474 2013-11-09 12:32:52 neofutur has joined
1475 2013-11-09 12:41:46 ThomasV has joined
1476 2013-11-09 12:44:37 mappum has joined
1477 2013-11-09 12:46:08 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1478 2013-11-09 12:47:19 Polyatomic has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1479 2013-11-09 12:52:07 mappum has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1480 2013-11-09 12:57:04 a_meteor has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1481 2013-11-09 12:57:13 daybyter has joined
1482 2013-11-09 12:57:31 ovidiusoft has joined
1483 2013-11-09 12:57:59 reneg_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1484 2013-11-09 12:58:17 reneg has joined
1485 2013-11-09 13:00:13 tmsk has joined
1486 2013-11-09 13:01:11 dkog has joined
1487 2013-11-09 13:03:10 shesek has joined
1488 2013-11-09 13:03:53 molec has joined
1489 2013-11-09 13:04:29 bbooss has joined
1490 2013-11-09 13:05:34 shesek has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1491 2013-11-09 13:06:14 reizuki__ has joined
1492 2013-11-09 13:06:14 reizuki__ has quit (Changing host)
1493 2013-11-09 13:06:14 reizuki__ has joined
1494 2013-11-09 13:07:02 CryptoBuck has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1495 2013-11-09 13:07:34 shesek has joined
1496 2013-11-09 13:07:49 CryptoBuck has joined
1497 2013-11-09 13:12:51 ericmuyser has joined
1498 2013-11-09 13:12:58 bbooss has left ()
1499 2013-11-09 13:13:23 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1500 2013-11-09 13:14:09 shesek has joined
1501 2013-11-09 13:17:28 <HaltingState> how are blocks identified? a hash?
1502 2013-11-09 13:17:44 <HaltingState> in transaction when you are spending a particular block, what is the block id?
1503 2013-11-09 13:19:01 <HaltingState> i mean a transaction input
1504 2013-11-09 13:19:17 jaakkos has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1505 2013-11-09 13:19:18 shesek has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1506 2013-11-09 13:19:47 shesek has joined
1507 2013-11-09 13:20:16 jaakkos has joined
1508 2013-11-09 13:23:18 shesek has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1509 2013-11-09 13:23:46 shesek has joined
1510 2013-11-09 13:24:18 rdymac has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1511 2013-11-09 13:25:12 Hasimir- has joined
1512 2013-11-09 13:25:17 Hasimir has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1513 2013-11-09 13:26:50 Hasimir- has quit (Changing host)
1514 2013-11-09 13:26:51 Hasimir- has joined
1515 2013-11-09 13:27:57 Hasimir- is now known as Hasimir
1516 2013-11-09 13:28:50 gavinandresen has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1517 2013-11-09 13:31:03 rdymac has joined
1518 2013-11-09 13:33:20 <HaltingState> if there are two transactions with same transaction tx, can it cause blockchain fork?
1519 2013-11-09 13:35:20  has quit (Clown|!~clown@unaffiliated/clown/x-0272709|Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1520 2013-11-09 13:35:42 canoon has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1521 2013-11-09 13:37:36 one_zero has quit ()
1522 2013-11-09 13:39:55 _ingsoc has quit (Quit: leaving)
1523 2013-11-09 13:42:50 gavinandresen has joined
1524 2013-11-09 13:43:34 <CodeShark> the earth will get hit by an asteroid before two different transactions with the same hash are accidentally discovered
1525 2013-11-09 13:44:13 <CodeShark> as for deliberate collisions, the consensus is that it is "extremely difficult"
1526 2013-11-09 13:45:32 <CodeShark> and to your earlier questions: "how are blocks identified? a hash?" yes
1527 2013-11-09 13:45:57 tych0 has joined
1528 2013-11-09 13:46:22 <CodeShark> transactions and blocks are identified by hashes, which although in theory are not unique in practice they are
1529 2013-11-09 13:47:11 <CodeShark> a hash has 256 bits of entropy
1530 2013-11-09 13:48:35 <CodeShark> as for two transactions with the same hash, this was a problem at one time only because the coinbase transactions in different blocks could be the same
1531 2013-11-09 13:50:33 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1532 2013-11-09 13:50:57 <CodeShark> it has since been solved - check out https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0030
1533 2013-11-09 13:51:51  has joined
1534 2013-11-09 13:51:51  has quit (Clown|!~clown@2001-4dd0-203e-1-5875-2885-e5e1-f805.ipv6dyn.netcologne.de|Changing host)
1535 2013-11-09 13:51:51  has joined
1536 2013-11-09 13:52:02 shesek has joined
1537 2013-11-09 13:53:36 <CodeShark> and https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0034
1538 2013-11-09 13:56:12 shesek has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1539 2013-11-09 13:57:09 shesek has joined
1540 2013-11-09 13:59:46 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1541 2013-11-09 14:02:59 tsche has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1542 2013-11-09 14:03:09 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1543 2013-11-09 14:04:10 Bohren_ has joined
1544 2013-11-09 14:08:18 Bohren_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1545 2013-11-09 14:08:36 <HaltingState> CodeShark, what is a coinbase
1546 2013-11-09 14:08:42 <HaltingState> thanks, these links help a lot
1547 2013-11-09 14:09:06 <CodeShark> HaltingState: the coinbase transaction is the first transaction in the block, the one that pays out the block reward
1548 2013-11-09 14:09:47 <HaltingState> what is a 'not fully spent" transaction?
1549 2013-11-09 14:09:56 <HaltingState> transactions are either spent or unspent/
1550 2013-11-09 14:10:00 <CodeShark> a transaction that has at least one output that has not been spent
1551 2013-11-09 14:10:01 <HaltingState> is there something in between
1552 2013-11-09 14:10:08 <CodeShark> outputs are fully spent or fully unspent
1553 2013-11-09 14:10:13 <HaltingState> ahhh
1554 2013-11-09 14:10:24 <CodeShark> a transaction can be partially spent as only some of its outputs might be spent
1555 2013-11-09 14:10:50 <HaltingState> so now you have to track  transactions and their outputs to make sure they are not fully spent; why not just require that hashes of output cannot match an unspent output?
1556 2013-11-09 14:11:08 tsche has joined
1557 2013-11-09 14:11:09 <CodeShark> output hashes are not used as identifiers
1558 2013-11-09 14:11:19 <CodeShark> outputs are instead identified by transaction hash and output index
1559 2013-11-09 14:11:27 <HaltingState> ah, that makes sense
1560 2013-11-09 14:12:04 agnostic98 has joined
1561 2013-11-09 14:12:09 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1562 2013-11-09 14:12:23 jaakkos has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1563 2013-11-09 14:13:18 jaakkos has joined
1564 2013-11-09 14:14:51 shesek has joined
1565 2013-11-09 14:18:57 crank has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1566 2013-11-09 14:20:02 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1567 2013-11-09 14:20:24 pablog has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1568 2013-11-09 14:21:14 shesek has joined
1569 2013-11-09 14:22:11 MC1984 has joined
1570 2013-11-09 14:24:09 macboz_ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1571 2013-11-09 14:24:24 contrapumpkin is now known as copumpkin
1572 2013-11-09 14:24:48 shesek has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1573 2013-11-09 14:25:20 shesek has joined
1574 2013-11-09 14:26:53 shesek has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1575 2013-11-09 14:27:21 shesek has joined
1576 2013-11-09 14:29:41 tholenst has joined
1577 2013-11-09 14:32:47 deego` has joined
1578 2013-11-09 14:33:39 pablog has joined
1579 2013-11-09 14:34:07 duckybsd has joined
1580 2013-11-09 14:34:37 duckybsd has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1581 2013-11-09 14:34:50 Bkil has joined
1582 2013-11-09 14:35:26 deego has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1583 2013-11-09 14:38:32 Bkil has quit (Client Quit)
1584 2013-11-09 14:39:01 deepc0re has joined
1585 2013-11-09 14:40:45 OrP has joined
1586 2013-11-09 14:42:08 [\\\] has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1587 2013-11-09 14:42:16 [\\\]_y has joined
1588 2013-11-09 14:43:01 Bohren_ has joined
1589 2013-11-09 14:43:10 Bohren_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1590 2013-11-09 14:45:10 tholenst has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1591 2013-11-09 14:45:36 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1592 2013-11-09 14:49:33 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1593 2013-11-09 14:50:29 shesek has joined
1594 2013-11-09 14:50:57 AusBitBank has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1595 2013-11-09 14:50:59 Skav has joined
1596 2013-11-09 14:51:13 MobPhone has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1597 2013-11-09 14:52:52 debiantoruser has joined
1598 2013-11-09 14:55:46 owowo has joined
1599 2013-11-09 14:55:53 OrP has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1600 2013-11-09 14:57:50 deepc0re has quit (Quit: deepc0re)
1601 2013-11-09 14:58:37 owowo is now known as |8w8w8|
1602 2013-11-09 15:00:20 CryptoBuck has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1603 2013-11-09 15:00:29 CryptoBuck has joined
1604 2013-11-09 15:04:03 reizuki__ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1605 2013-11-09 15:07:44 OrP has joined
1606 2013-11-09 15:08:33 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1607 2013-11-09 15:08:33 Raziel has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1608 2013-11-09 15:12:01 Raziel has joined
1609 2013-11-09 15:12:24 agnostic98 has joined
1610 2013-11-09 15:14:18 Muis is now known as Raoul_
1611 2013-11-09 15:15:10 Raoul_ is now known as Muis
1612 2013-11-09 15:15:27 shesek has joined
1613 2013-11-09 15:16:48 pablog has left ()
1614 2013-11-09 15:17:43 shesek has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1615 2013-11-09 15:18:20 reneg_ has joined
1616 2013-11-09 15:18:27 reneg has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1617 2013-11-09 15:20:14 shesek has joined
1618 2013-11-09 15:21:23 deepc0re has joined
1619 2013-11-09 15:28:02 arioBarzan has joined
1620 2013-11-09 15:35:46 patcon has joined
1621 2013-11-09 15:37:43 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1622 2013-11-09 15:42:43 shesek has joined
1623 2013-11-09 15:43:10 <dobry-den> outputs dont have hashes
1624 2013-11-09 15:44:05 ericmuyser has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1625 2013-11-09 15:44:16 shesek has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1626 2013-11-09 15:44:41 ericmuyser has joined
1627 2013-11-09 15:44:42 shesek has joined
1628 2013-11-09 15:45:21 deepc0re has quit (Quit: deepc0re)
1629 2013-11-09 15:45:45 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1630 2013-11-09 15:47:23 <dobry-den> oh, already been CodeSharked. had to scroll down
1631 2013-11-09 15:47:57 shesek has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1632 2013-11-09 15:48:23 ThomasV has joined
1633 2013-11-09 15:48:47 shesek has joined
1634 2013-11-09 15:49:25 d3p0rt3d has joined
1635 2013-11-09 15:49:37 ericmuyser has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1636 2013-11-09 15:54:03 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1637 2013-11-09 15:58:46 damethos has joined
1638 2013-11-09 16:00:11 bbrian has joined
1639 2013-11-09 16:01:02 deepc0re has joined
1640 2013-11-09 16:01:28 eoss has joined
1641 2013-11-09 16:04:05 Muis has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1642 2013-11-09 16:04:16 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1643 2013-11-09 16:07:15 shesek has joined
1644 2013-11-09 16:12:16 PRab has joined
1645 2013-11-09 16:12:35 agnostic98 has joined
1646 2013-11-09 16:16:26 deepc0re has quit (Quit: deepc0re)
1647 2013-11-09 16:17:17 Muis has joined
1648 2013-11-09 16:17:50 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1649 2013-11-09 16:25:11 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1650 2013-11-09 16:30:33 wailher has joined
1651 2013-11-09 16:30:42 OrP has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1652 2013-11-09 16:32:11 Zarutian has joined
1653 2013-11-09 16:32:19 thelorax123 has joined
1654 2013-11-09 16:34:48 tesserajk has joined
1655 2013-11-09 16:34:53 eoss has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1656 2013-11-09 16:38:39 _ingsoc has joined
1657 2013-11-09 16:39:32 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1658 2013-11-09 16:39:32 _Avyd has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1659 2013-11-09 16:40:26 shesek has joined
1660 2013-11-09 16:40:57 thelorax123 has joined
1661 2013-11-09 16:41:19 tesserajk has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1662 2013-11-09 16:42:50 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1663 2013-11-09 16:44:50 ielo has joined
1664 2013-11-09 16:45:22 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1665 2013-11-09 16:47:25 Subo1977_ has joined
1666 2013-11-09 16:50:51 Subo1977 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1667 2013-11-09 16:51:04 thelorax123 has joined
1668 2013-11-09 16:51:42 <sipa> HaltingState: you don't spend a block
1669 2013-11-09 16:52:12 <sipa> HaltingState: ah, seems it was already explained
1670 2013-11-09 16:52:18 <HaltingState> yes
1671 2013-11-09 16:52:30 <HaltingState> i was thinking about this and realized hash collision might cause fork
1672 2013-11-09 16:52:42 <sipa> since BIP30 it is illegal to have two transactions with the same hash in the same chain
1673 2013-11-09 16:52:48 <HaltingState> the migitation measure seems scary; broke compatibility
1674 2013-11-09 16:52:56 <HaltingState> so earlier blocks are invalid lol
1675 2013-11-09 16:53:10 <sipa> no, BIP30 is only active since februari 2012
1676 2013-11-09 16:53:13 <sipa> iirc
1677 2013-11-09 16:53:35 <sipa> and since BIP34 it is effectively impossible (except for hash collision on sha256) to create the same transction twice
1678 2013-11-09 16:53:37 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1679 2013-11-09 16:53:43 <arioBarzan> sipa: if a miner mines a block with two such tx's, would it get orphaned?
1680 2013-11-09 16:54:00 <sipa> arioBarzan: not orphan, it wouldn't be valid in the first placed
1681 2013-11-09 16:54:07 <sipa> every node would just ignore it
1682 2013-11-09 16:54:48 thelorax123 has joined
1683 2013-11-09 16:54:58 <arioBarzan> what if he mines another block on top of that?
1684 2013-11-09 16:55:30 <sipa> arioBarzan: king of his own world
1685 2013-11-09 16:55:47 <sipa> it's like creating a block with a too high subsidy
1686 2013-11-09 16:55:52 <sipa> or an invalid transaction
1687 2013-11-09 16:55:57 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1688 2013-11-09 16:56:09 <sipa> it's just an invalid block, and the world will ignore it
1689 2013-11-09 16:57:17 gulli has joined
1690 2013-11-09 16:57:18 gulli has quit (Client Quit)
1691 2013-11-09 16:57:43 gulli has joined
1692 2013-11-09 16:57:44 thelorax123 has joined
1693 2013-11-09 16:59:24 Syphor_William has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1694 2013-11-09 16:59:36 <dobry-den> sipa: how did the chain handle multiple txns-with-same-hash pre-feb2012?
1695 2013-11-09 16:59:50 <sipa> dobry-den: the new one would "overwrite" the old one
1696 2013-11-09 16:59:51 CryptoBuck has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1697 2013-11-09 17:00:38 arioBarzan has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
1698 2013-11-09 17:00:48 <sipa> dobry-den: it was march 15, 2012, sorry
1699 2013-11-09 17:00:57 saulimus has quit (Quit: saulimus)
1700 2013-11-09 17:01:53 <dobry-den> ah, of course they'd be the same txn. - theyre hashed
1701 2013-11-09 17:02:17 <dobry-den> i cant imagine having to "expect" that scenario in my code as im parsing the chain
1702 2013-11-09 17:02:24 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1703 2013-11-09 17:03:06 jedunnigan has joined
1704 2013-11-09 17:03:08 <dobry-den> it'd be interesting to see how blockexplorer.com/blockchain.info handles some examples
1705 2013-11-09 17:03:51 thelorax123 has joined
1706 2013-11-09 17:04:31 Namworld has joined
1707 2013-11-09 17:04:37 AndyOfiesh has joined
1708 2013-11-09 17:04:44 <Fistful_of_LTC> 24 hours hassed and no confirmations on my tx
1709 2013-11-09 17:05:27 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1710 2013-11-09 17:05:35 deepc0re has joined
1711 2013-11-09 17:05:41 <Fistful_of_LTC> "in queue 7 hours wait time' ..https://blockchain.info/tx/b147250165e0a7a726a88ab0cacff08305a84263f61db7d554bc22056c4be83f
1712 2013-11-09 17:07:09 deepc0re has quit (Client Quit)
1713 2013-11-09 17:07:29 ielo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1714 2013-11-09 17:07:49 thelorax123 has joined
1715 2013-11-09 17:08:38 <Fistful_of_LTC> how long til the network "forgets" about it?
1716 2013-11-09 17:09:38 <dobry-den> forget?
1717 2013-11-09 17:10:23 <sipa> transactions are intended to be irreversible
1718 2013-11-09 17:10:26 <dobry-den> you have what looks to be 0 fees
1719 2013-11-09 17:11:56 ielo has joined
1720 2013-11-09 17:12:26 <dobry-den> so no miner is in a rush to include it, but i think it will be eventually included but a chump/charitable miner
1721 2013-11-09 17:12:28 agnostic98 has joined
1722 2013-11-09 17:13:32 <sipa> the reference client always reserves some configurable space for high-priority feeless transactions, afaik
1723 2013-11-09 17:14:41 <dobry-den> surely miners use their own software
1724 2013-11-09 17:14:55 <Happzz> so bitcoin-qt created this
1725 2013-11-09 17:14:55 <Happzz> http://blockchain.info/tx/3a04623cbe5e126d55f352681ac72e2bfb40f9396c3b25e5774eb5b957eef1b4
1726 2013-11-09 17:14:58 <Happzz> i see 0 fee
1727 2013-11-09 17:15:09 <Happzz> i never messed with the settings or the source.
1728 2013-11-09 17:15:45 <sipa> dobry-den: oh no
1729 2013-11-09 17:16:05 <sipa> dobry-den: eligius uses an own branch
1730 2013-11-09 17:16:20 <sipa> and maybe a few others do too
1731 2013-11-09 17:16:26 <sipa> but most don't, afaik
1732 2013-11-09 17:17:12 <sipa> Happzz: bitcoin-qt uses rules that guarantee your transaction will propagate
1733 2013-11-09 17:17:21 <sipa> Happzz: doesn't mean that miners will pick it up immediately
1734 2013-11-09 17:17:31 <Happzz> k
1735 2013-11-09 17:17:39 <sipa> and there is a sudden rush of many transactions, so confirmation times go up significantly
1736 2013-11-09 17:17:52 <Happzz> alright, was just wondering
1737 2013-11-09 17:18:45 nvk has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1738 2013-11-09 17:19:06 elevatioN has joined
1739 2013-11-09 17:20:05 <dobry-den> sipa: what determines the "high-priority" part of a fee-less txn? outputs value?
1740 2013-11-09 17:21:07 <sipa> dobry-den: age*value of the inputs
1741 2013-11-09 17:21:13 <sipa> per byte
1742 2013-11-09 17:21:49 <sipa> iirc, if it has > 4 bitcoindays-destroyed per kilobyte, it's high-priority
1743 2013-11-09 17:22:27 h2odysee has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1744 2013-11-09 17:22:35 Syphor_William has joined
1745 2013-11-09 17:22:43 AndyOfiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1746 2013-11-09 17:23:01 <dobry-den> i imagine you can encourage inclusion by referring to another unincluded fee-less txn with a new txn with a fee
1747 2013-11-09 17:23:34 theorbtwo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1748 2013-11-09 17:25:21 _ingsoc has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1749 2013-11-09 17:25:56 wereHams1er has quit (Changing host)
1750 2013-11-09 17:25:56 wereHams1er has joined
1751 2013-11-09 17:25:59 wereHams1er is now known as wereHamster
1752 2013-11-09 17:26:59 <sipa> dobry-den: only for miners which use client-pays-for-parent scheduling
1753 2013-11-09 17:27:03 <skinnkavaj> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=329183
1754 2013-11-09 17:27:03 <sipa> which eligius does
1755 2013-11-09 17:27:06 <skinnkavaj> The bitcoin router
1756 2013-11-09 17:27:52 dexX7 has joined
1757 2013-11-09 17:29:16 patcon has quit (Read error: No route to host)
1758 2013-11-09 17:29:58 patcon has joined
1759 2013-11-09 17:31:43 pooler_ has joined
1760 2013-11-09 17:32:04 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1761 2013-11-09 17:32:56 deepc0re has joined
1762 2013-11-09 17:37:02 deepc0re has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1763 2013-11-09 17:37:13 rdymac has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1764 2013-11-09 17:38:35 _ingsoc has joined
1765 2013-11-09 17:39:52 <MC1984> skinnkavaj bit simplistic]
1766 2013-11-09 17:40:14 <MC1984> the only economic force i can think of that would keep mining out of datacenters is heat
1767 2013-11-09 17:40:30 <MC1984> specifically, domiciles need heat and datacetners dont
1768 2013-11-09 17:40:49 <Fistful_of_LTC> sini know and hope it is but apparently if no nodes accepts it should be forgotten by the network? no?
1769 2013-11-09 17:40:50 <MC1984> until people start living in datacenters that should stay true
1770 2013-11-09 17:40:59 <sipa> Fistful_of_LTC: every node accepts it
1771 2013-11-09 17:41:31 <sipa> Fistful_of_LTC: but miners have many transactions to choose from when building a block; they pick the ones with highest fee/priority first
1772 2013-11-09 17:41:40 <Fistful_of_LTC> ok
1773 2013-11-09 17:41:47 <MC1984> of course what will piss me right off is professional asic people selling thier heat to surrounding houses and shit
1774 2013-11-09 17:42:20 <MC1984> its hardly a scalable business though, heat is hard to contain and transport by definition
1775 2013-11-09 17:42:21 <Fistful_of_LTC> sipa: does having more transactions mean the difficulty may decrease (or just slow down) as well?
1776 2013-11-09 17:42:33 <sipa> Fistful_of_LTC: no
1777 2013-11-09 17:42:46 <sipa> not sure how they are related
1778 2013-11-09 17:42:48 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
1779 2013-11-09 17:42:56 <sipa> difficulty just scales with global hashrate
1780 2013-11-09 17:42:56 <Fistful_of_LTC> more reward
1781 2013-11-09 17:43:13 <sipa> ah, but transaction fee income is tiny compared to subsidy
1782 2013-11-09 17:43:24 eoss has joined
1783 2013-11-09 17:43:28 e0s_ has joined
1784 2013-11-09 17:43:30 e0s__ has joined
1785 2013-11-09 17:43:37 <Fistful_of_LTC> in the case where it does become significant, it just goes to miners for that block ?
1786 2013-11-09 17:43:37 <sipa> also, i'd think the difficulty would go up with many transactions
1787 2013-11-09 17:43:55 <sipa> as there is more money for miners
1788 2013-11-09 17:44:09 <Fistful_of_LTC> lets say total fee were 25 BTC, miner would get 50 BTC right now for solving 1 block?
1789 2013-11-09 17:44:20 richcollins has joined
1790 2013-11-09 17:44:31 <sipa> yes
1791 2013-11-09 17:44:42 <Fistful_of_LTC> ok
1792 2013-11-09 17:45:33 rdymac has joined
1793 2013-11-09 17:45:51 <Fistful_of_LTC> would it be possible to have a dynamic amount of blocks released, depending on the fee accumulated? perhaps having more blocks when more fees are accumulated?
1794 2013-11-09 17:46:06 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1795 2013-11-09 17:46:22 wallet43 has joined
1796 2013-11-09 17:46:24 <sipa> no
1797 2013-11-09 17:46:39 <sipa> the purpose of blocks being slow is global propagation time
1798 2013-11-09 17:47:00 <sipa> if anything, with larger blocks, the time between them should be higher
1799 2013-11-09 17:47:12 <sipa> but this is such a fundamental rule in bitcoin, that i expect it will never be changed
1800 2013-11-09 17:47:34 <Fistful_of_LTC> i see
1801 2013-11-09 17:48:14 thelorax123 has joined
1802 2013-11-09 17:49:13 <dobry-den> skinnkavaj: that bitcoin router lost me at the part about the lottery
1803 2013-11-09 17:49:22 <MC1984> playing with block times essentially plays with the moeny supply
1804 2013-11-09 17:49:49 <sipa> MC1984: not necessarily
1805 2013-11-09 17:49:51 agnostic98 has joined
1806 2013-11-09 17:50:09 <sipa> you can distribute the payout relatively to the time factor
1807 2013-11-09 17:50:41 <MC1984> true
1808 2013-11-09 17:51:43 nvk has joined
1809 2013-11-09 17:53:30 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1810 2013-11-09 17:53:39 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1811 2013-11-09 17:53:53 agnostic98 has joined
1812 2013-11-09 17:55:56 thelorax123 has joined
1813 2013-11-09 17:56:33 richcollins has quit (Quit: richcollins)
1814 2013-11-09 17:57:04 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1815 2013-11-09 17:57:13 Tom_Soft has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1816 2013-11-09 17:57:31 richcollins has joined
1817 2013-11-09 17:58:39 <firepacket> just out of curiosity, does litecoin suffer observably at all for using a shorter confirm time?
1818 2013-11-09 17:59:40 MoALTz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1819 2013-11-09 18:01:09 nvk1 has joined
1820 2013-11-09 18:02:48 MoALTz has joined
1821 2013-11-09 18:03:51 nvk has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1822 2013-11-09 18:04:39 damethos has quit (Quit: Bye)
1823 2013-11-09 18:05:27 <sipa> firepacket: how do you mean?
1824 2013-11-09 18:06:33 <firepacket> like, does litecoin see more orphans or something?
1825 2013-11-09 18:06:52 <firepacket> is there an observable effect of the lower confirm time?
1826 2013-11-09 18:06:54 Application has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1827 2013-11-09 18:07:02 damethos has joined
1828 2013-11-09 18:09:23 theorbtwo has joined
1829 2013-11-09 18:09:34 <sipa> ah
1830 2013-11-09 18:09:47 patcon has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1831 2013-11-09 18:09:47 <sipa> unsure
1832 2013-11-09 18:09:54 <sipa> maybe warren knows
1833 2013-11-09 18:09:59 <firepacket> people always try to tell me litecoin is better because it is faster. it's hard to counter without being able to point to a benefit of a longer confirm
1834 2013-11-09 18:10:08 richcollins has quit (Quit: richcollins)
1835 2013-11-09 18:10:39 <sipa> depending on the attack model, you still need more confirmations for the same security level
1836 2013-11-09 18:11:00 <firepacket> yeah, but the first confirm is faster
1837 2013-11-09 18:11:23 <firepacket> 1 ltc confirm is better than 0 btc confirms
1838 2013-11-09 18:11:27 Skav has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1839 2013-11-09 18:11:45 <sipa> sure, but regarding initial confirmation, you really only have instant and not-imstant
1840 2013-11-09 18:12:13 <firepacket> what do you mean?
1841 2013-11-09 18:12:35 <sipa> 2 minutes or 10 minutes is both too slow for person-to-person
1842 2013-11-09 18:13:05 <firepacket> i dont know if everyone would agree
1843 2013-11-09 18:13:18 <sipa> and if you'd reduce it to seconds, it would be incredibly insecure
1844 2013-11-09 18:13:21 maaku has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1845 2013-11-09 18:13:42 nvk1 has quit (Quit: Leaving... Sign up for Coinkite https://coinkite.com/promo/btcirc)
1846 2013-11-09 18:13:44 <sipa> as in seconds you cannot even have your transaction propagated across the network
1847 2013-11-09 18:14:05 <firepacket> yeah that makes sense
1848 2013-11-09 18:14:25 damethos has quit (Quit: Bye)
1849 2013-11-09 18:14:26 <sipa> well, i'm not saying it doesn't matter - 2.5 minutes is better than 10, if only considering that aspect
1850 2013-11-09 18:14:28 <firepacket> i wonder if the lower confirm will cause issues if litecoin grows? it would be more bandwidth heavy
1851 2013-11-09 18:14:37 <sipa> but it's a very moderate improvement only
1852 2013-11-09 18:14:48 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
1853 2013-11-09 18:15:23 maaku has joined
1854 2013-11-09 18:15:46 maaku is now known as Guest66674
1855 2013-11-09 18:15:47 thelorax123 has joined
1856 2013-11-09 18:16:07 <swulf--> does the guy who maintains BitcoinJS frequent here?
1857 2013-11-09 18:18:56 <dobry-den> firepacket: moving the goal-posts for block-generation time a few minutes in a direction is already arbitrary
1858 2013-11-09 18:19:03 toffoo has joined
1859 2013-11-09 18:19:13 <dobry-den> the real point is that if you need sub-block-generation confidence, there are other facilities
1860 2013-11-09 18:20:38 <Jason> what is the smallest amount of btc that can be sent?
1861 2013-11-09 18:20:48 <Jason> i'm trying to send 0.00000001 with bitcoind and it's refusing it.
1862 2013-11-09 18:21:10 <firepacket> 72 satoshi i think?
1863 2013-11-09 18:21:18 <Jason> firepacket: hrm
1864 2013-11-09 18:21:25 <Jason> for some reason bitcoind doesn't like that
1865 2013-11-09 18:21:27 <firepacket> from what i understood the confirm time was chosen carefully by satoshi, surely it must matter
1866 2013-11-09 18:21:39 <Jason> oh?
1867 2013-11-09 18:21:40 <firepacket> eventually it might matter? surely.
1868 2013-11-09 18:21:43 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1869 2013-11-09 18:22:52 jedunnigan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1870 2013-11-09 18:22:58 patcon has joined
1871 2013-11-09 18:23:23 <dobry-den> Jason: bitcoinj specifies 5430 satoshis. dunno how it maps to bitcoind
1872 2013-11-09 18:23:27 <sipa> swulf--: is it maintained at all? justmoon works for ripple now
1873 2013-11-09 18:24:37 thelorax123 has joined
1874 2013-11-09 18:24:38 <Jason> dobry-den: hm
1875 2013-11-09 18:24:55 <dobry-den> Jason: i believe the general idea being that you have to at least pay for the energy and storage you impose upon the network
1876 2013-11-09 18:25:01 <sipa> dobry-den: it's a formula, based on the average marginal redeeming size, multiplied by tje base cost per byye
1877 2013-11-09 18:25:25 dexX7 has quit ()
1878 2013-11-09 18:25:36 <sipa> so that you cannot create an output that is worth less than 3 times what it would cost to redeem
1879 2013-11-09 18:25:37 wailher has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1880 2013-11-09 18:25:49 <sipa> the base cost itself, is configurable, however
1881 2013-11-09 18:26:13 <sipa> it is 10k satoshi per kilobyte, iirc
1882 2013-11-09 18:26:16 <sipa> by default
1883 2013-11-09 18:26:54 deepc0re has joined
1884 2013-11-09 18:27:57 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1885 2013-11-09 18:28:50 rolme has joined
1886 2013-11-09 18:28:53 <dobry-den> sipa: what's the 'cost to redeem' referring to?
1887 2013-11-09 18:29:16 thelorax123 has joined
1888 2013-11-09 18:29:27 jedunnigan has joined
1889 2013-11-09 18:30:19 dansmithbtc2 has quit (Quit: I'm using a Free IRC Bouncer from BNC4FREE - http://bnc4free.com/)
1890 2013-11-09 18:30:36 <dobry-den> obviously there's no hard cost associated with creating fee-less transactions, so i think you're referring to channel costs like storage and energy
1891 2013-11-09 18:33:11 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1892 2013-11-09 18:34:02 super3 has joined
1893 2013-11-09 18:34:44 thelorax123 has joined
1894 2013-11-09 18:34:58 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1895 2013-11-09 18:36:06 thelorax123 has joined
1896 2013-11-09 18:36:30 <BlueMattBot> Yippie, build fixed!
1897 2013-11-09 18:36:30 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin build #440: FIXED in 44 min: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin/440/
1898 2013-11-09 18:37:53 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1899 2013-11-09 18:38:31 wailher has joined
1900 2013-11-09 18:39:18 thelorax123 has joined
1901 2013-11-09 18:41:35 <sipa> dobry-den: right, the idea is that there will ultimately be a price per byte for tramsactions
1902 2013-11-09 18:41:49 <sipa> which is set by the economy
1903 2013-11-09 18:41:53 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1904 2013-11-09 18:42:31 <sipa> nodes will estimate this price, and use the rule that creating an output which costs over 1/3 of its value to redeem, is not worth it
1905 2013-11-09 18:43:17 <sipa> right now, no such market-set price exists, and it is just a configurable value on the client, defaulting to 10k satoshi per kilobyte
1906 2013-11-09 18:44:28 Thepok has joined
1907 2013-11-09 18:45:28 <berndj> what's the incentive for selfish miners (or maybe rather: asshole miners) to accept feeless transactions in order to hurt the network?
1908 2013-11-09 18:45:39 <berndj> miner's own storage costs << network costs
1909 2013-11-09 18:46:13 <sipa> none
1910 2013-11-09 18:46:16 <dobry-den> if you're mining, you can certainly ignore arbitrary txns
1911 2013-11-09 18:46:41 <sipa> i expect that as the mining economy matures, feeless transactions will go away
1912 2013-11-09 18:47:08 <berndj> if blocksize is the bottleneck, then i guess the incentive is that you could make more money by sorting by fee
1913 2013-11-09 18:47:35 <sipa> sorting by fee-per-byte, which is what is done
1914 2013-11-09 18:47:36 <berndj> but before blocks fill up you can just accept all the dust you want
1915 2013-11-09 18:47:50 <sipa> except for a small portion used for feeless transactions
1916 2013-11-09 18:48:22 deego` is now known as deego
1917 2013-11-09 18:49:21 <berndj> i guess what i'm saying is: if i were a miner, i would flatly reject tx that cost *me* more to store than they're worth, but i'd still accept those that cost the *network* more to store than the tx fees they bring (assuming there's room in the block)
1918 2013-11-09 18:49:42 <sipa> they don't cost you anything to store
1919 2013-11-09 18:50:01 BCB is now known as eat
1920 2013-11-09 18:50:02 <sipa> as if you reject them, another miner will include them
1921 2013-11-09 18:50:12 <sipa> and you'll still have to verify, relay and store them
1922 2013-11-09 18:50:36 eat is now known as aethero
1923 2013-11-09 18:50:38 <sipa> so there is no extra cost to accepting a transaction, unless you expect near everyone to reject it
1924 2013-11-09 18:50:56 <sipa> amd the rational behaviour is just to sort by fee-per-byye, and fill every block
1925 2013-11-09 18:51:06 aethero is now known as BCB
1926 2013-11-09 18:51:37 groglogic has joined
1927 2013-11-09 18:52:32 Guest66674 has left ()
1928 2013-11-09 18:52:41 jMyles has joined
1929 2013-11-09 18:52:56 maaku has joined
1930 2013-11-09 18:53:36 thelorax123 has joined
1931 2013-11-09 18:54:42 dansmithbtc2 has joined
1932 2013-11-09 18:56:20 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1933 2013-11-09 18:58:43 shesek has joined
1934 2013-11-09 18:59:11 RoboTeddy has joined
1935 2013-11-09 19:01:41 shesek has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1936 2013-11-09 19:02:58 shesek has joined
1937 2013-11-09 19:04:23 agnostic98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1938 2013-11-09 19:04:59 agnostic98 has joined
1939 2013-11-09 19:05:30 thelorax123 has joined
1940 2013-11-09 19:05:49 shesek has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1941 2013-11-09 19:07:25 shesek has joined
1942 2013-11-09 19:07:58 bitborg has joined
1943 2013-11-09 19:08:04 shesek has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1944 2013-11-09 19:08:30 shesek has joined
1945 2013-11-09 19:08:51 Namworld has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1946 2013-11-09 19:09:01 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1947 2013-11-09 19:09:48 shesek has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1948 2013-11-09 19:10:00 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1949 2013-11-09 19:10:16 shesek has joined
1950 2013-11-09 19:11:32 <Alina-malina> what all possibl languages are available the bitcoin source code?
1951 2013-11-09 19:12:20 _alp_ has left ()
1952 2013-11-09 19:12:53 _alp_ has joined
1953 2013-11-09 19:13:23 shesek has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1954 2013-11-09 19:14:15 <_alp_> I have seen C++, Java, C#, Go, sure there are plenty more
1955 2013-11-09 19:14:29 Application has joined
1956 2013-11-09 19:15:47 thelorax123 has joined
1957 2013-11-09 19:15:51 agnostic98 has joined
1958 2013-11-09 19:16:37 e0s__ has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1959 2013-11-09 19:16:43 eoss has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1960 2013-11-09 19:17:05 e0s_ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1961 2013-11-09 19:17:25 agnostic98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1962 2013-11-09 19:18:20 shesek has joined
1963 2013-11-09 19:18:41 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1964 2013-11-09 19:18:46 shesek has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1965 2013-11-09 19:19:18 shesek has joined
1966 2013-11-09 19:19:40 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1967 2013-11-09 19:20:35 shesek has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1968 2013-11-09 19:21:00 shesek has joined
1969 2013-11-09 19:22:55 kanzure has joined
1970 2013-11-09 19:24:05 thelorax123 has joined
1971 2013-11-09 19:24:29 Application has joined
1972 2013-11-09 19:25:59 jedunnigan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1973 2013-11-09 19:26:35 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1974 2013-11-09 19:26:36 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1975 2013-11-09 19:27:37 <Jason> 18:22:11  < dobry-den> Jason: i believe the general idea being that you have to  at least pay for the energy and storage you impose upon  the network
1976 2013-11-09 19:27:43 <Jason> dobry-den: what would that be?
1977 2013-11-09 19:28:20 <dobry-den> Jason: sipa explains it above
1978 2013-11-09 19:28:27 <dobry-den> how it's derived
1979 2013-11-09 19:28:59 thelorax123 has joined
1980 2013-11-09 19:29:02 <maaku> Alina-malina: the reference client is C++
1981 2013-11-09 19:29:20 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1982 2013-11-09 19:29:56 <dobry-den> Ruby, Clojure, Javascript on Node.js
1983 2013-11-09 19:30:17 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1984 2013-11-09 19:30:32 [\\\]_y is now known as [\\\]
1985 2013-11-09 19:32:31 shesek has joined
1986 2013-11-09 19:33:22 FabianB_ has joined
1987 2013-11-09 19:34:07 FabianB has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1988 2013-11-09 19:34:50 <dobry-den> Question about ECC - I understand point-addition between two points, and how they're chained together `privkey` times. But how do you start the process with just one point?
1989 2013-11-09 19:34:56 <dobry-den> Is that what point-doubling is for?
1990 2013-11-09 19:36:45 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1991 2013-11-09 19:36:46 <tcatm> You start with point 1, then add it to point 1 so you'll get point 2. Then you add point 1 over and over again yielding 3, 4, 5, ...
1992 2013-11-09 19:36:46 Anduck has joined
1993 2013-11-09 19:37:36 <gmaxwell> dobry-den: you use point doubling to multiply a point with a scalar rapidly... so you don't have to add G 2^255 times. :P
1994 2013-11-09 19:37:57 eoss has joined
1995 2013-11-09 19:38:01 e0s_ has joined
1996 2013-11-09 19:38:05 eoss has quit (Changing host)
1997 2013-11-09 19:38:05 eoss has joined
1998 2013-11-09 19:38:06 e0s__ has joined
1999 2013-11-09 19:38:08 AndyOfiesh has joined
2000 2013-11-09 19:39:23 Apexseals has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2001 2013-11-09 19:39:36 shesek has joined
2002 2013-11-09 19:39:42 Apexseals has joined
2003 2013-11-09 19:40:14 <dobry-den> tcatm: oh, of course
2004 2013-11-09 19:40:18 <dobry-den> it's added to itself
2005 2013-11-09 19:40:20 mappum has joined
2006 2013-11-09 19:41:56 starsoccer has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2007 2013-11-09 19:42:10 <dobry-den> i guess p + p is the only operation i don't understand how to visualize on a graph
2008 2013-11-09 19:44:19 <dobry-den> oh, i see
2009 2013-11-09 19:44:43 <dobry-den> tangent line is used
2010 2013-11-09 19:45:00 ovidiusoft has joined
2011 2013-11-09 19:45:46 e0s__ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2012 2013-11-09 19:45:46 <dobry-den> gmaxwell: yeah, i feel stupid now
2013 2013-11-09 19:46:38 <_alp_> how is public key calc from private key?
2014 2013-11-09 19:46:59 Luna has joined
2015 2013-11-09 19:47:01 <gmaxwell> _alp_: you multiply the curve generator point with the private key. The result is a public key.
2016 2013-11-09 19:47:21 e0s__ has joined
2017 2013-11-09 19:47:58 <dobry-den> _alp_: G * priv
2018 2013-11-09 19:48:03 Luna has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
2019 2013-11-09 19:48:51 Luna has joined
2020 2013-11-09 19:49:14 Luna has quit (Disconnected by services)
2021 2013-11-09 19:49:39 <_alp_> gmaxwell: and it's represented as just the x coordinate with a shortcut for + or - for the y?
2022 2013-11-09 19:50:39 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2023 2013-11-09 19:50:55 <gmaxwell> _alp_: both are done in bitcoin. Newer stuff should be using the 'compressed' (x only) form.
2024 2013-11-09 19:51:54 rolme has quit (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
2025 2013-11-09 19:52:53 Luna has joined
2026 2013-11-09 19:52:56 shesek has joined
2027 2013-11-09 19:54:02 Application has joined
2028 2013-11-09 19:54:02 datagutt has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2029 2013-11-09 19:54:10 Luna has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
2030 2013-11-09 19:54:31 shesek has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
2031 2013-11-09 19:55:02 shesek has joined
2032 2013-11-09 19:58:09 shesek has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
2033 2013-11-09 19:58:42 shesek has joined
2034 2013-11-09 20:00:54 agnostic98 has joined
2035 2013-11-09 20:06:10 AndyOfiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2036 2013-11-09 20:08:37 _ingsoc has quit (Quit: leaving)
2037 2013-11-09 20:10:01 <HaltingState> gmaxwell, do you know a binary operation on bitstrings of length N that is commutative and invertable but not xor?
2038 2013-11-09 20:10:25 <gmaxwell> HaltingState: addition (mod 2^n)
2039 2013-11-09 20:10:27 <HaltingState> commutative, with way of computing inverse for element, but is not xor
2040 2013-11-09 20:10:29 <HaltingState> hmmm
2041 2013-11-09 20:10:45 <HaltingState> any other ideas?
2042 2013-11-09 20:11:35 datagutt has joined
2043 2013-11-09 20:11:54 <HaltingState> addition mod 2^n is good one
2044 2013-11-09 20:12:08 <gmaxwell> Those are the two obvious ones, which also have inverses under the operation. If you just want invertable you can use any operation (even a nonlinear one) on half N to get an invertable change by using a feistel structure.
2045 2013-11-09 20:13:01 <HaltingState> i was thinking of problem of "how do you checkmark the bitcoin state" so for instance at each block you want to have hash of open /unspect outputs
2046 2013-11-09 20:13:18 thelorax123 has joined
2047 2013-11-09 20:13:33 <HaltingState> so you have   x1,x2,x3,x4 and you want to compute hash, but then remove x3 and be able to compute hash quickly without going through all 3 and rehashing
2048 2013-11-09 20:13:51 <gmaxwell> there are commutative hash functions.
2049 2013-11-09 20:14:43 deego has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2050 2013-11-09 20:14:44 <gmaxwell> in any case, hash trees already give you log(n) updates.
2051 2013-11-09 20:14:57 <HaltingState> ah
2052 2013-11-09 20:14:59 <gmaxwell> which is basically a constant number of operations in a finite universe.
2053 2013-11-09 20:15:04 <HaltingState> merkle trees
2054 2013-11-09 20:15:21 <gmaxwell> and don't depend on any sketchy assumptions.
2055 2013-11-09 20:15:54 <gmaxwell> (well, at least not any _more_ sketchy assumptions ... beyond one way functions existing at all and your hash function actually being good…)
2056 2013-11-09 20:16:53 deego has joined
2057 2013-11-09 20:16:53 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2058 2013-11-09 20:17:20 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2059 2013-11-09 20:18:14 shesek has joined
2060 2013-11-09 20:19:35 Luna has joined
2061 2013-11-09 20:19:51 thelorax123 has joined
2062 2013-11-09 20:20:26 jakov has joined
2063 2013-11-09 20:21:05 johnsoft has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2064 2013-11-09 20:21:09 Luna has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
2065 2013-11-09 20:21:42 johnsoft has joined
2066 2013-11-09 20:22:58 Eiii has joined
2067 2013-11-09 20:23:05 Eiii has quit (Changing host)
2068 2013-11-09 20:23:05 Eiii has joined
2069 2013-11-09 20:23:51 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2070 2013-11-09 20:25:11 thelorax123 has joined
2071 2013-11-09 20:28:35 Luna has joined
2072 2013-11-09 20:29:37 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2073 2013-11-09 20:33:29 thelorax123 has joined
2074 2013-11-09 20:38:20 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2075 2013-11-09 20:38:25 Belxjander has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2076 2013-11-09 20:38:51 toffoo has quit ()
2077 2013-11-09 20:38:55 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2078 2013-11-09 20:39:37 thelorax123 has joined
2079 2013-11-09 20:40:43 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2080 2013-11-09 20:40:56 [\\\] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2081 2013-11-09 20:43:48 Zarutian has joined
2082 2013-11-09 20:44:45 shesek has joined
2083 2013-11-09 20:45:12 thelorax123 has joined
2084 2013-11-09 20:45:22 Gabralkhan has joined
2085 2013-11-09 20:46:10 easye has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2086 2013-11-09 20:46:33 tmsk_ has joined
2087 2013-11-09 20:48:27 tmsk has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2088 2013-11-09 20:49:28 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2089 2013-11-09 20:49:28 Polyatomic has joined
2090 2013-11-09 20:50:35 Namworld has joined
2091 2013-11-09 20:51:29 GingerGeek is now known as GingerGeek[Away]
2092 2013-11-09 20:57:03 bitborg has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2093 2013-11-09 20:57:17 thelorax123 has joined
2094 2013-11-09 20:57:40 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2095 2013-11-09 20:57:44 bitborg_ has joined
2096 2013-11-09 20:58:36 pataroose has joined
2097 2013-11-09 20:59:20 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2098 2013-11-09 21:00:46 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2099 2013-11-09 21:01:54 starsoccer has joined
2100 2013-11-09 21:02:37 shur has joined
2101 2013-11-09 21:03:24 thelorax123 has joined
2102 2013-11-09 21:03:34 <shur> Hai am not seeing a prefix for configuring with a standalone bdb?
2103 2013-11-09 21:03:51 <shur> debian wheezy
2104 2013-11-09 21:03:58 thelorax123 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2105 2013-11-09 21:04:03 <shur> (no bdb 4.8, only 5.1)
2106 2013-11-09 21:04:33 OrP has joined
2107 2013-11-09 21:05:20 <gmaxwell> shur: bdb >4.8 isn't officially supported by us, it works but makes wallet files incompatible. in git there is a configure script option to build with other bdb.. in the makefiles in 0.8.5 you can adjust the include paths.
2108 2013-11-09 21:05:38 Pengoo has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
2109 2013-11-09 21:06:19 thelorax123 has joined
2110 2013-11-09 21:06:29 <shur> okay, that's why i looked for a CUSTOM_INCLUDES flag or such at the end of the ./configure --help
2111 2013-11-09 21:06:33 <shur> without finding it
2112 2013-11-09 21:06:56 <shur> okay now I founded it
2113 2013-11-09 21:07:10 <shur> wearrrrll includedir
2114 2013-11-09 21:07:58 shesek has joined
2115 2013-11-09 21:08:44 <shur> ah, no. Seems to not be that flag
2116 2013-11-09 21:09:14 [\\\] has joined
2117 2013-11-09 21:09:38 <shur> may be a needed symlink to catch ok the installed standalone bdb 4.8
2118 2013-11-09 21:11:29 a_meteor has joined
2119 2013-11-09 21:12:37 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2120 2013-11-09 21:13:44 thelorax123 has joined
2121 2013-11-09 21:13:45 <shur> i think i finally found it hardcoded as bdbpath in v0.8.5:configure:9662
2122 2013-11-09 21:14:00 <shur> is there a wiki for debian builds or something?
2123 2013-11-09 21:15:02 <shur> i can't afford using a vm with ooboontoo or micrOSoft
2124 2013-11-09 21:15:03 Application has joined
2125 2013-11-09 21:15:42 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2126 2013-11-09 21:17:00 thelorax123 has joined
2127 2013-11-09 21:17:03 <Luke-Jr> shur: configure is a generated file, not part of the code
2128 2013-11-09 21:19:07 bitborg_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2129 2013-11-09 21:19:46 bitborg has joined
2130 2013-11-09 21:20:17 Pengoo has joined
2131 2013-11-09 21:20:17 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2132 2013-11-09 21:21:04 <shur> yeah whatever
2133 2013-11-09 21:21:24 thelorax123 has joined
2134 2013-11-09 21:21:54 <shur> does not work for me
2135 2013-11-09 21:22:12 <shur> i think am falling back 2 the dollah :D
2136 2013-11-09 21:23:39 ericmuyser has joined
2137 2013-11-09 21:24:38 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2138 2013-11-09 21:25:36 <Luke-Jr> shur: so use bdb 4.8
2139 2013-11-09 21:25:47 thelorax123 has joined
2140 2013-11-09 21:26:05 <Luke-Jr> shur: if you're not even willing to help debug problems, why do you bother testing unreleased development code?
2141 2013-11-09 21:26:15 <Jason> Luke-Jr: hi
2142 2013-11-09 21:26:26 <Jason> Luke-Jr: what is the minimum amount of btc bitcoind allows clients to send?
2143 2013-11-09 21:27:16 <shur> I told you am trying to use bdb 4.8 with the v0.8.5 tag
2144 2013-11-09 21:27:25 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2145 2013-11-09 21:27:27 <shur> but there is no option to do it
2146 2013-11-09 21:28:14 <shur> because there is no bdb 4.8 in debian and there is no configure or autoconf option to specify a bdb location
2147 2013-11-09 21:28:33 thelorax123 has joined
2148 2013-11-09 21:29:09 <shur> and don't tell me that would be testing unreleased development code, because the docs are telling 'debian is supported'
2149 2013-11-09 21:29:19 kis has joined
2150 2013-11-09 21:29:27 mappum has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2151 2013-11-09 21:29:51 kis has left ()
2152 2013-11-09 21:30:22 abcdbitcoin has joined
2153 2013-11-09 21:30:32 <Luke-Jr> shur: there are no releases of bitcoind with a configure script.
2154 2013-11-09 21:30:52 <Luke-Jr> that only exists in new, experimental, and unfinished development code
2155 2013-11-09 21:31:17 abrkn has joined
2156 2013-11-09 21:31:49 <shur> aaah true, true
2157 2013-11-09 21:31:59 Pengoo has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2158 2013-11-09 21:32:21 <shur> so I just append include prefixes to the `make ...` instruction and that way should work
2159 2013-11-09 21:33:12 <shur> the `make -f makefile.unix` one, got it now
2160 2013-11-09 21:33:58 MobPhone has joined
2161 2013-11-09 21:36:46 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2162 2013-11-09 21:37:07 <Luke-Jr> shur: if you can write up a detailed bug report for the configure issue on github, we'd appreciate it
2163 2013-11-09 21:37:18 <Luke-Jr> that will ensure 0.9 goes smoothly for you when it's released
2164 2013-11-09 21:40:20 zer0def has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2165 2013-11-09 21:40:47 thelorax123 has joined
2166 2013-11-09 21:41:25 <shur> for when is it scheduled that release?
2167 2013-11-09 21:42:02 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2168 2013-11-09 21:44:14 thelorax123 has joined
2169 2013-11-09 21:47:17 Pengoo has joined
2170 2013-11-09 21:48:43 <shur> even in v0.8.5 `make -f makefile.unix -I ../../db-4.8.30/build_unix/db_cxx.h` is not passing that path to g++, so am afraid am long to reporting something of trunk
2171 2013-11-09 21:49:49 groglogic has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2172 2013-11-09 21:50:21 abcdbitcoin has quit (Quit: Page closed)
2173 2013-11-09 21:51:23 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2174 2013-11-09 21:51:32 tyn has joined
2175 2013-11-09 21:52:12 <shur> like if I had to patch makefile.unix to use the includes specified outside makefile.unix contents
2176 2013-11-09 21:54:04 thelorax123 has joined
2177 2013-11-09 21:54:36 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2178 2013-11-09 21:56:53 stevei has joined
2179 2013-11-09 21:56:55 zer0def has joined
2180 2013-11-09 21:57:30 damethos has joined
2181 2013-11-09 21:58:28 msvb-lab has quit (Quit: msvb-lab)
2182 2013-11-09 21:58:49 elevatioN has quit ()
2183 2013-11-09 22:00:08 jtimon has joined
2184 2013-11-09 22:00:29 Starduster has quit (Quit: gotta go)
2185 2013-11-09 22:03:54 <shur> `'CXXFLAGS=-I/usr/local/BerkeleyDB.4.8/include/ -DHAVE_CXX_STDHEADERS' make -f makefile.unix` built db.o at last, should I make kind of a debian wheezy compilation guide, or would forking bitcoin be a better idea? never forked any github project
2186 2013-11-09 22:05:15 jaakkos has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2187 2013-11-09 22:05:56 <berndj> shur, normally you'd add include paths as ./configure CPPFLAGS="-I /whatever/include"; configure knows to "preserve" some variables (like CPPFLAGS) across ./config.status
2188 2013-11-09 22:07:06 tesserajk has joined
2189 2013-11-09 22:07:37 AndyOfiesh has joined
2190 2013-11-09 22:07:42 OrP has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2191 2013-11-09 22:08:21 <shur> then you are prompting me to drop v0.8.5 in favor of trunk
2192 2013-11-09 22:08:23 upsala has joined
2193 2013-11-09 22:08:44 upsala has quit (Client Quit)
2194 2013-11-09 22:09:12 <shur> thought jumping between tags would be a safer approach
2195 2013-11-09 22:09:17 jaakkos has joined
2196 2013-11-09 22:12:34 ovidiusoft has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
2197 2013-11-09 22:17:26 a_meteor has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2198 2013-11-09 22:19:30 thelorax123 has joined
2199 2013-11-09 22:21:01 wailher has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2200 2013-11-09 22:21:24 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2201 2013-11-09 22:23:28 <berndj> shur, no, i thought you were on trunk and were struggling to make it compile
2202 2013-11-09 22:23:34 tmsk_ has quit (Quit: tmsk_)
2203 2013-11-09 22:24:01 AusBitBank has joined
2204 2013-11-09 22:24:07 mappum has joined
2205 2013-11-09 22:24:22 <berndj> s/trunk/master/. i'm on master too fwiw, but don't have any real money in it
2206 2013-11-09 22:24:43 pooler_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2207 2013-11-09 22:25:25 pooler_ has joined
2208 2013-11-09 22:25:50 AndyOfiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2209 2013-11-09 22:25:59 Krellan_ has joined
2210 2013-11-09 22:27:49 mappum has quit (Client Quit)
2211 2013-11-09 22:28:01 mappum has joined
2212 2013-11-09 22:28:33 thelorax123 has joined
2213 2013-11-09 22:28:59 pooler_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2214 2013-11-09 22:29:42 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2215 2013-11-09 22:30:07 pooler_ has joined
2216 2013-11-09 22:30:46 thelorax123 has joined
2217 2013-11-09 22:31:31 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2218 2013-11-09 22:32:58 thelorax123 has joined
2219 2013-11-09 22:34:23 PRab has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2220 2013-11-09 22:35:20 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2221 2013-11-09 22:36:30 thelorax123 has joined
2222 2013-11-09 22:38:38 AndyOfiesh has joined
2223 2013-11-09 22:39:42 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2224 2013-11-09 22:40:26 e0s__ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2225 2013-11-09 22:45:19 wailher has joined
2226 2013-11-09 22:46:21 pooler_ is now known as pooler
2227 2013-11-09 22:46:36 zeiris_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2228 2013-11-09 22:47:42 e0s_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2229 2013-11-09 22:48:58 shur has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
2230 2013-11-09 22:49:10 shur has joined
2231 2013-11-09 22:50:22 e0s_ has joined
2232 2013-11-09 22:53:06 oPen_syLar has joined
2233 2013-11-09 22:53:09 oPen_syLar has quit (Changing host)
2234 2013-11-09 22:53:09 oPen_syLar has joined
2235 2013-11-09 22:55:42 richcollins has joined
2236 2013-11-09 22:59:03 e0s__ has joined
2237 2013-11-09 22:59:48 debiantoruser has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2238 2013-11-09 23:00:41 damethos has quit (Quit: Bye)
2239 2013-11-09 23:01:39 catcow- has joined
2240 2013-11-09 23:02:44 saulimus has joined
2241 2013-11-09 23:03:31 catcow is now known as theothercatcow
2242 2013-11-09 23:05:21 catcow- has quit (Client Quit)
2243 2013-11-09 23:05:39 catcow has joined
2244 2013-11-09 23:07:28 rolme has joined
2245 2013-11-09 23:11:03 Raccoon^ has joined
2246 2013-11-09 23:13:57 Raccoon^ is now known as Raccoon
2247 2013-11-09 23:17:44 TD has joined
2248 2013-11-09 23:19:01 saizai has quit (Quit: saizai)
2249 2013-11-09 23:20:00 stevei has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2250 2013-11-09 23:20:39 theothercatcow has left ("http://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere.")
2251 2013-11-09 23:24:59 hno has joined
2252 2013-11-09 23:27:29 gulli has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
2253 2013-11-09 23:30:39 <Fistful_of_LTC> 30 hours for a tx to get confirmed!
2254 2013-11-09 23:34:22 <gavinandresen> "The Bitcoin Network is Experience Heavy Transactional Volume At The Moment. Transactions May Take Longer To Confirm Than Normal."
2255 2013-11-09 23:34:51 CodeName has joined
2256 2013-11-09 23:34:57 CodeName has quit (Client Quit)
2257 2013-11-09 23:35:22 <hno> There is something that do not add up for me in block propagaion. I have 3 bitcoind nodes, all of which is onterconnected with addnode. Still there can be long delays in block propagaion, differences of many minuts observed.
2258 2013-11-09 23:35:59 <Zarutian> hno: you suspect something is up?
2259 2013-11-09 23:36:10 <hno> Not sure. It's odd at least.
2260 2013-11-09 23:36:34 <gavinandresen> hno: "okey dokey" -- can you help figure out why?
2261 2013-11-09 23:37:16 <gavinandresen> e.g. can you add extra LogPrint statements to the code and recompile to see where the bottlenecks are?
2262 2013-11-09 23:37:27 jouke has quit (Changing host)
2263 2013-11-09 23:37:27 jouke has joined
2264 2013-11-09 23:37:45 <gavinandresen> (actually, info needed to figure out why might already be in the debug.log files if you turn on -logtimestamps)
2265 2013-11-09 23:38:17 <hno> gavinandresen,sure, ansolutely.
2266 2013-11-09 23:38:26 <gavinandresen> hno: awesome, thanks
2267 2013-11-09 23:38:42 <hno> also seeind oddness with addnode in general, but might just be me not understanding how it works.
2268 2013-11-09 23:39:20 <hno> right now the nodes is all up to date, but I'll add the logtimestamps. Was wondering about that as well.
2269 2013-11-09 23:39:38 <jouke> hno: I have experienced the same thing. I have manualy banned some nodes and it seemed to work. But this is just gut feeling. If I weren't so busy next week I would look into it :( . Definately need more developpers :-/
2270 2013-11-09 23:39:58 jaakkos has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2271 2013-11-09 23:40:09 <hno> and I'll monitor them for the next days. Should be able to allocate some serious dev time to look at code by beginning of next week.
2272 2013-11-09 23:40:54 * hno speaks C as native language, just haven't looked into much of bitcoin source yet.
2273 2013-11-09 23:40:57 jaakkos has joined
2274 2013-11-09 23:42:06 <hno> jouke, so you think it's a problem of some other connected node blocking propagaion somehow?
2275 2013-11-09 23:42:33 tesserajk has quit (Quit: tesserajk)
2276 2013-11-09 23:42:57 <jouke> hno: just vague suspicions based on nothing.
2277 2013-11-09 23:43:05 GNULinuxGuy has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2278 2013-11-09 23:43:33 <hno> Ok. Should have some substantial data to look at in a couple days, and time.
2279 2013-11-09 23:43:53 AndyOfiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2280 2013-11-09 23:46:57 tesserajk has joined
2281 2013-11-09 23:47:14 tesserajk has quit (Client Quit)
2282 2013-11-09 23:47:22 duckybsd has joined
2283 2013-11-09 23:48:05 <hno> I have a gut feeling it's related to the other addnode issues observed. Does not really seem to keep the nodes connected proper.
2284 2013-11-09 23:48:30 groglogic has joined
2285 2013-11-09 23:48:41 iddo has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2286 2013-11-09 23:49:31 duckybsd has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2287 2013-11-09 23:50:43 thelorax123 has joined
2288 2013-11-09 23:51:15 tesserajk has joined
2289 2013-11-09 23:51:22 tesserajk has quit (Client Quit)
2290 2013-11-09 23:52:22 hnz has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2291 2013-11-09 23:52:56 iddo has joined
2292 2013-11-09 23:53:28 debiantoruser has joined
2293 2013-11-09 23:53:35 <RoboTeddy> is there a TODO list of work to make the network less vulnerable to denial of service attacks?
2294 2013-11-09 23:53:46 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2295 2013-11-09 23:54:16 <MC1984> in what way is it vulnerable
2296 2013-11-09 23:54:37 <MC1984> actually i bet you could map and ddos each node fairly good right now
2297 2013-11-09 23:55:02 <MC1984> probably leaving only the large processors and pools up, which would be terrible
2298 2013-11-09 23:55:08 thelorax123 has joined
2299 2013-11-09 23:55:18 <groglogic> well, any Internet exposed software with a distrib arch can face a DoS attempt; there are standard ways of mitigating that (timeouts, required secrets, max length reads, IP packet firewalls, etc.)
2300 2013-11-09 23:56:09 <Zarutian> I2P connections with encrypted leaseSets come to mind as mitigation method against DDoS
2301 2013-11-09 23:56:23 <Zarutian> s/connections/endpoints/
2302 2013-11-09 23:56:43 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
2303 2013-11-09 23:56:45 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2304 2013-11-09 23:57:01 hnz has joined
2305 2013-11-09 23:57:10 rolme has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
2306 2013-11-09 23:57:16 <groglogic> RoboTeddy: i for one have started spending time thinking about this area. i'm sure the core devs have been already. it's hard to make any distributed/P2P software be perfectly immune to DoS though, esp if you want to transact/communicate with folks/network-addresses not previously in your whitelist
2307 2013-11-09 23:57:46 <MC1984> i know a good way: moar nodes
2308 2013-11-09 23:58:03 <RoboTeddy> is it possible to make the thinking public, or does making it public help create a roadmap for potential attackers?
2309 2013-11-09 23:58:31 eristisk has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2310 2013-11-09 23:58:37 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2311 2013-11-09 23:58:42 <MC1984> theres a closed security list for the really nasty stuff
2312 2013-11-09 23:58:59 <groglogic> moar nodes, and more flavors/versions of builds, more heterogeneity and participants seem like good shotgun/passive ways to improve resilience, agreed
2313 2013-11-09 23:59:39 <MC1984> whats passive about having ideally at least 100,000 or so full verifier nodes?
2314 2013-11-09 23:59:49 <MC1984> strength in numbers, we r leejun and all that
2315 2013-11-09 23:59:50 thelorax123 has joined