1 2013-11-24 00:00:09 jaakkos has joined
2 2013-11-24 00:00:27 <amiller> to the extent the developers have a gaol or the documentation conveys a goal, the goal is to subvert all existing social structures to replace them with something better
3 2013-11-24 00:00:41 <amiller> i think they actually have a feature ticket for that
4 2013-11-24 00:00:43 skinnkavaj has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
5 2013-11-24 00:00:51 <HM2> lol
6 2013-11-24 00:00:54 <pigeons> ;)
7 2013-11-24 00:01:15 <HM2> sounds like Ubuntus bug #1
8 2013-11-24 00:01:40 <petertodd> amiller: talking to amir I can tell you he very much wants to make libbitcoin be a better bitcoind
9 2013-11-24 00:01:59 <amiller> what's wrong with that?
10 2013-11-24 00:02:18 martinn has joined
11 2013-11-24 00:02:40 <petertodd> amiller: well, that's what's less clear: they don't talk much about mining, and if people aren't mining on it, the risk isn't as bad. but I get the impression they're going to be encouraging people to mine with it before long too
12 2013-11-24 00:03:15 lachesis_ has joined
13 2013-11-24 00:04:00 <HM2> better an open source project tries to put an alt implementation online than a closed one
14 2013-11-24 00:04:21 deepc0re has quit (Quit: deepc0re)
15 2013-11-24 00:04:24 <HM2> at least you can scream at them on github
16 2013-11-24 00:04:28 <gmaxwell> HM2: a closed one would go absolutely no where. It would be riskless.
17 2013-11-24 00:04:31 lachesis has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
18 2013-11-24 00:04:31 lachesis_ is now known as lachesis
19 2013-11-24 00:04:33 <petertodd> HM2: nah, there's more alt-implementations out there then we could ever need - a closed one wouldn't do any harm to anyone except it's users
20 2013-11-24 00:06:16 <amiller> so the problem with libbitcoin is that it's technically good enough that it could be a plausible alternative for unwitting miners?
21 2013-11-24 00:06:47 <petertodd> yup
22 2013-11-24 00:06:58 <amiller> it could have bugs, the community behind it is prone to advertise it and direct miners towards it, and the problem with the code is that it's too competent
23 2013-11-24 00:07:19 <HM2> miners have a strong incentive to avoid netsplits though right
24 2013-11-24 00:07:23 <HM2> and bugs cause netsplits
25 2013-11-24 00:07:25 <berndj> but possibly/probably still different
26 2013-11-24 00:07:28 MobPhone has joined
27 2013-11-24 00:07:31 Alan-1 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
28 2013-11-24 00:08:01 <berndj> bugs don't cause netsplits if everyone has the bug
29 2013-11-24 00:08:03 <petertodd> HM2: their incentive to avoid them is significantly less than amunt users can lose from them
30 2013-11-24 00:08:11 <gmaxwell> I haven't seen any real evidence that it's been tested at all for agreement with widely deployed nodes except by having it sync the chain... which is only a one sided test, and has very poor coverage.
31 2013-11-24 00:08:31 <pigeons> so because consensus is hard and there can be non-obvious, subtle bugs, such as the bdb locl fork, we can never have another full-node implementation that is significantly mined with?
32 2013-11-24 00:08:41 <petertodd> amiller: well, "too competent" in this case is "just barely competent enough that it works at all" pretty much
33 2013-11-24 00:08:51 <gmaxwell> pigeons: nah, but doing one requires substantial evidence-producing effort.
34 2013-11-24 00:09:10 <HM2> why did they start the project anyway
35 2013-11-24 00:09:13 <gmaxwell> E.g. you can't even use libbitcoin with bluematts' blocktester. (or couldn't when I looked last at least)
36 2013-11-24 00:09:18 <HM2> was their feeling they couldn't get involved in mainline
37 2013-11-24 00:09:25 <petertodd> amiller: anyway, as I wrote on the forums, by making an alt-implementation politically they're making a big mistake if they want to take control away from the bitcoin foundation
38 2013-11-24 00:09:25 <HM2> that you guys have no incentive to improve mainline?
39 2013-11-24 00:09:50 shesek has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
40 2013-11-24 00:09:55 <petertodd> HM2: amir wants to take control away from the bitcoin foundation is a part of why
41 2013-11-24 00:10:24 <pigeons> is that admitting bitcoin foundation has "control" ? ;)
42 2013-11-24 00:10:31 <HM2> that's a lot of effort to expend on a political motive
43 2013-11-24 00:10:33 <gmaxwell> pigeons: bluematt's full node support for bitcoinj is the only I've seen produce the kind of evidence of effort I'd expect, but even thats a long way from complete.
44 2013-11-24 00:10:52 <HM2> if he wanted to do that he could just fork the client and innovate like a mofo
45 2013-11-24 00:11:06 <petertodd> pigeons: heh, that's part of what amir gets wrong... though it's more complex than to just say they do or don't have control
46 2013-11-24 00:11:49 <petertodd> HM2: that was my advise: turn the consensus critical part of the bitcoin reference codebase into a "set-in-stone" library, and focus on a client/node implementation using that library
47 2013-11-24 00:11:57 <petertodd> s/advise/advice/
48 2013-11-24 00:12:27 <HM2> modularisation sounds like a good idea
49 2013-11-24 00:12:36 <berndj> petertodd, do you think the claim that it's there to give an escape route in case a bug were to render a bitcoind monoculture dead overnight, is disingenuous?
50 2013-11-24 00:13:08 <petertodd> HM2: that strategy emphasises that the satoshi bitcoin protocol is something we all must agree on to change, rather than letting the foundation eventually start being seen as the guardians of that *evolving* specification
51 2013-11-24 00:13:32 <petertodd> berndj: yes. bitcoin's strength is the monoculture; consensus systems are weird.
52 2013-11-24 00:13:47 <licnep> alternative clients are a must, and modularization is a good idea imo
53 2013-11-24 00:14:02 <berndj> petertodd, even if there turns out to be a bug that implements OP_GIVEALLYOURMONEY?
54 2013-11-24 00:14:09 <gmaxwell> berndj: espeically
55 2013-11-24 00:14:20 Guest14808 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
56 2013-11-24 00:14:53 <petertodd> berndj: YES! we're better off if everyone either implements the bug, so it's clear the bug needs fixing and the blockchain simply gets cleanly rolled back, or if the bug doesn't happen at all. We're much worse off if only some implementations lets that happen.
57 2013-11-24 00:15:01 <gmaxwell> berndj: the most important thing for a bitcoin node to do is to come to an agreement about the unique best state with ~all other nodes.
58 2013-11-24 00:15:16 <amiller> it's pretty clear that amir is not afraid to spend an enormous amount of personal resource to pursue what he perceives is a socially worthwhile cause
59 2013-11-24 00:15:23 <gmaxwell> berndj: diversity is useful, but diversity in the consensus parts is absolutely fatal.
60 2013-11-24 00:15:26 <berndj> i don't get the part about "rolled back"
61 2013-11-24 00:15:29 <HM2> i don't believe in full decentralisation. all that's important is those in control can be shot and the rest of us can enjoy it and then recover gracefully from the trauma
62 2013-11-24 00:15:51 <licnep> lol you guys are SO afraid of forks
63 2013-11-24 00:16:00 <HM2> in bitcoin that means fork and elect a new pope
64 2013-11-24 00:16:15 <berndj> weren't there a couple of anarcho-jerks who refused to get "rolled back" when something got hacked and the foundation ended up bailing out the bank^Wexchange?
65 2013-11-24 00:16:29 <amiller> i really like the two-factions aspect of bitcoin's community so far, i'm pretty happy with the Foundations efforts especially as it turned out in the recent senate hearings which were really bitcoin-positive
66 2013-11-24 00:16:30 <gmaxwell> berndj: HUH?
67 2013-11-24 00:16:31 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell petertodd: imagine there are eleven implementations, each of which is used by about 9 percent of the hashing power. A bug in one of them would NOT be fatal.
68 2013-11-24 00:16:39 <petertodd> A good analogy: Imagine you have a group of people, and you're trying to make sure that theives can't run off with a tresure chest of gold. All you can do is hang on to the chest and hope you *collectively* are strong enough that a very strong thief can't pull harder than the rest of you. Are you better off if you all hang on to the treasure chest at once, or if sometimes you end up wasting effort pulling in opposite directions?
69 2013-11-24 00:16:43 <gavinandresen> I think we should work towards that
70 2013-11-24 00:16:45 <amiller> but i'm also glad the darkwallet crew is around
71 2013-11-24 00:17:00 <amiller> there should be more factions not fewer
72 2013-11-24 00:17:16 <licnep> petertodd: that's a shitty analogy
73 2013-11-24 00:17:17 <amiller> speaking of which... are there any china-specific bitcoin codebases?
74 2013-11-24 00:17:45 <licnep> more like, is it better if all the people use the same machine to secure the treasure chest, so if a bug in that machine is found everything is fucked?
75 2013-11-24 00:17:51 <petertodd> Now what's even weirder about Bitcoin, is in my treasure chest example, because this is software a really clever attacker could create multiple transactions at once that split the effort *suddenly* into tiny little bits of hashing power, and then overpower any one of those small groups.
76 2013-11-24 00:17:53 <amiller> i predicted a ChinaCoin altcoin by now... but at least a codebase fork or something seems plausible
77 2013-11-24 00:18:08 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: depends on the kind of disagreement but I agree generally. How do we get there when a single party actually physically controls about 20% of the current hashpower? Or when the network hasn't has a largest pool with <30% for years now?
78 2013-11-24 00:18:19 <petertodd> licnep: well, I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong. Decentalized consensus systems are weird that way; totally unlike other systems.
79 2013-11-24 00:18:33 <gmaxwell> licnep: if everything is 'fucked' then things can be fixed.
80 2013-11-24 00:18:53 <licnep> with an alternative implementation they may get fixed even faster
81 2013-11-24 00:18:55 <gmaxwell> licnep: a split in consensus can result in a brakage that can't be fixed because its mutually exclusive.
82 2013-11-24 00:18:57 <licnep> incentives..
83 2013-11-24 00:19:21 <petertodd> licnep: fixing the code does nothing - getting hashing power to use the fix is what helps.
84 2013-11-24 00:19:33 <berndj> isn't bitcoind 0.8.4 already a different implementation than 0.8.5?
85 2013-11-24 00:19:58 <licnep> petertodd: yea of course ideally you'd have at least three main implementations, two is not enough cause one will always have the majority of hashing power
86 2013-11-24 00:20:06 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell petertodd : you both tend to wander off into "what if" land too quickly, in my humble opinion. In practice, we will do the best we can and things will be messy and complicated
87 2013-11-24 00:20:09 <gmaxwell> berndj: noâ not in the consensus criticial parts, and there is extensive (but, not yet enough, agreed) testing infrastructure to verify that.
88 2013-11-24 00:20:09 <petertodd> berndj: not really, the *consensus-critical* part of the code changes rarely, and we work very hard to make sure that we don't acidentally change it
89 2013-11-24 00:20:36 <petertodd> licnep: Doesn't work that way: an attacker can *delibrately* fork all three at once.
90 2013-11-24 00:20:38 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: Please don't bin me in with petertodd.
91 2013-11-24 00:20:55 robbak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
92 2013-11-24 00:21:01 <petertodd> gmaxwell: lol, don't bin me in with a spherical cow model of petertodd's thought processes either :P
93 2013-11-24 00:21:07 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: I'm not proposing a hypothetical. 20% of the hashpower is under physical control of a single person and his employees right now.
94 2013-11-24 00:21:18 robbak has joined
95 2013-11-24 00:21:23 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: how do we get 11 implementations with 9% each in this world that we're living in to day.
96 2013-11-24 00:21:29 erans_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
97 2013-11-24 00:21:35 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: apologies for "binning"
98 2013-11-24 00:21:51 <gmaxwell> S'kay.
99 2013-11-24 00:21:56 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: how? We do things like write a cross-implementation testing tool, JSON-based unit tests
100 2013-11-24 00:22:01 <licnep> petertodd: so what? i'm not sure i get the point
101 2013-11-24 00:22:02 <gavinandresen> We try to tighten up rules
102 2013-11-24 00:22:07 <gavinandresen> We try to simplify when we can
103 2013-11-24 00:22:14 <gmaxwell> (hah, and I'd agree with the complaint in any case. Just not the binning!)
104 2013-11-24 00:22:14 <licnep> definitely such a situation would get noticed and people would stop spending until it's fixed
105 2013-11-24 00:22:14 <gavinandresen> We do all of the things that we're (slowly) doing already
106 2013-11-24 00:22:19 <petertodd> gmaxwell: I agree that in the future we may be at the point where the "10x different implementations" thing actually works out, but we're a long way from getting there.
107 2013-11-24 00:23:01 <petertodd> gmaxwell: For now we're much better off with the "one master codebase" strategy, ironically in part because hashing power is so !@$% centralized that fixing stuff is easy.
108 2013-11-24 00:23:03 <gavinandresen> RE: concentrated hashpower: make it trivial to run p2pool would be a great start
109 2013-11-24 00:23:04 <licnep> hopefully we'll get to genetic implementations that compete against each other, reproduce and evolve..
110 2013-11-24 00:23:19 <licnep> (and become self-conscious)
111 2013-11-24 00:23:29 <petertodd> licnep: yeah, take that to #bitcoin...
112 2013-11-24 00:23:33 <roconnor> What's this coinvalidation thing? I've been browsing the forums looking for information but ... you know how the forums are.
113 2013-11-24 00:23:49 <licnep> petertodd: genetic algorithms are a thing, it's not that far fetched
114 2013-11-24 00:24:09 <petertodd> licnep: This has nothing to do with decentralized consensus systems. Go away.
115 2013-11-24 00:24:29 <HM2> 10 implementations seems unlikely. things tend to settle down in to 2-3 implementations. Take HTTP: 50% apache, 20% Microsoft IIS, 15% nginx, 5% other
116 2013-11-24 00:24:42 <berndj> it has to do with mutation testing
117 2013-11-24 00:24:43 <licnep> petertodd: it's exactly what we were talking about? what? diversification of clients
118 2013-11-24 00:24:51 <licnep> modular or genetic clients could provide that
119 2013-11-24 00:24:56 <HM2> wait that's only 90% :S
120 2013-11-24 00:25:17 <petertodd> HM2: Right, but for *standards* things very often settle down to 1 standard, and we've got a case where security is directly proportinal to how many people are on the one single standard.
121 2013-11-24 00:25:33 <HM2> SSL is that way too
122 2013-11-24 00:25:50 <petertodd> HM2: Like it or not, Bitcoin is really weird that way.
123 2013-11-24 00:26:07 <licnep> the standard is the protocol, not the client
124 2013-11-24 00:26:23 <petertodd> licnep: What language is the standard written in?
125 2013-11-24 00:26:40 shesek has joined
126 2013-11-24 00:26:42 <licnep> petertodd: human readable language?
127 2013-11-24 00:26:53 <petertodd> licnep: nope, C++
128 2013-11-24 00:27:05 <licnep> petertodd: that's cause no one took the time to write it yet
129 2013-11-24 00:27:24 <petertodd> licnep: Directly executable standards are a lovely thing.
130 2013-11-24 00:27:34 <gmaxwell> A standard written in non-machine-excutable language can not be the standard, in a meaningful sense, in a consensus system.
131 2013-11-24 00:27:44 <licnep> i would respectfully disagree
132 2013-11-24 00:27:55 <licnep> the more freedom a standard lives to implementation the better
133 2013-11-24 00:28:05 <berndj> which, exact, dialect of the language though
134 2013-11-24 00:28:08 <petertodd> The real consensus issues that are hard to fix are actually a step beyond the standard itself, issues like "What's the largest re-org that should be supported, for some sense of supported?"
135 2013-11-24 00:28:09 <gmaxwell> e.g. The specification says X. 99% of the nodes do !X. You do X. Whos wrong?
136 2013-11-24 00:28:17 <licnep> gmaxwell: ever heard of the internet?
137 2013-11-24 00:28:24 <licnep> oh in a consensus system
138 2013-11-24 00:28:29 <licnep> it would still work
139 2013-11-24 00:28:30 <gmaxwell> licnep: the internet is not a consensus system.
140 2013-11-24 00:28:37 <licnep> yea didn't read that part
141 2013-11-24 00:29:10 <berndj> is the standard written in GCC 3.4's C++ with STL bugs A, B and C, or in LLVM something or other with STL bugs D, E and F?
142 2013-11-24 00:29:22 <licnep> alternative clients will be a thing anyway, and there's nothing that can be done to stop them
143 2013-11-24 00:29:24 <gmaxwell> (And I note that even in general internet protocols, the robustness principle is now generally considered to be bad advice, as it's resulted in impossible complexity in many cases)
144 2013-11-24 00:29:25 <HM2> I love CoinJoin btw gmaxwell, the concept is so incredibly simple to pickup
145 2013-11-24 00:29:31 n0g has joined
146 2013-11-24 00:29:32 <licnep> unless bitcoin becomes officially centralized
147 2013-11-24 00:29:33 <petertodd> berndj: "is the standard written for a computer with 1GB of ram or 2GB?"
148 2013-11-24 00:29:49 <berndj> not the same thing and i think you know it
149 2013-11-24 00:30:22 <petertodd> berndj: Oh no, it's very similar, which is why I'm saying that even an executable standard is more complex than it sounds.
150 2013-11-24 00:30:27 <gmaxwell> licnep: perhaps you're overly fixated on the word 'client'â the concern isn't about "client" behavior, but consensus behavior. Diversity in client behavior is a fantastic thing which I wish we had more of ASAP.
151 2013-11-24 00:30:52 <berndj> petertodd, crashing because you're out of RAM is very different to continuing to execute, but differently
152 2013-11-24 00:30:57 <petertodd> Which gets down to my non-spherical cow advice that we should stick with the idea of an executable standard for now because even getting consensus on that si something we don't understand well yet.
153 2013-11-24 00:31:01 <gmaxwell> licnep: And sure, there will be other implementations of everythingâ but making sure people know the difficulty and danger in differences in consensus behavior is important.
154 2013-11-24 00:31:38 <licnep> gmaxwell: the consensus part hasn't changed much anyway, and i don't think it's _that_ hard to implement, unless more and more bloat gets added
155 2013-11-24 00:32:00 <petertodd> berndj: Whether or not it's better for a node to crash out of ram in, say, a re-organization is by itself a very complex topic.
156 2013-11-24 00:32:00 <licnep> the transaction scripts are probably part of that unnecessary bloat... but whatever
157 2013-11-24 00:32:06 <gmaxwell> licnep: it's very hard to implement, and we have proof of this in that there are many implementations already and they've all been wrong.
158 2013-11-24 00:32:32 <licnep> 'wrong' is a temporary state
159 2013-11-24 00:32:36 <petertodd> licnep: a few weeks ago I spent something like 2-3 hours looking for consensus bugs in a few of the alt-implementations and found a half-dozen.
160 2013-11-24 00:32:50 <petertodd> licnep: that's how bad it is. How long it will take to get from that to perfect is anyone's guess...
161 2013-11-24 00:32:53 <licnep> petertodd: let me guess, cause of scripts?
162 2013-11-24 00:33:00 <gmaxwell> licnep: which, if widely deployed, can cause millions of dollars in losses which are irrepariable, even to uses who don't use them.
163 2013-11-24 00:33:34 <licnep> gmaxwell: i think you're being overly catastrophic
164 2013-11-24 00:34:02 <gmaxwell> licnep: I think you are a newbie who doesn't understand the enviroment well yet, but you will agree with me after you've learned more. :)
165 2013-11-24 00:34:04 <licnep> they 'could' but that's like a worst case scenario (which of course must be considered)
166 2013-11-24 00:34:37 <gmaxwell> licnep: will, if widely deployed when such a bug still exists: because it's possible to profit from triggering it, so someone will.
167 2013-11-24 00:34:41 <petertodd> licnep: yup, adding scripts to bitcoin may very well have been a bad engineering decision, but they are very useful too.
168 2013-11-24 00:34:46 <licnep> gmaxwell: how many millions were lost in the last fork?
169 2013-11-24 00:35:25 <gmaxwell> licnep: there were funds lost, but not millions. IIRC one person also performed a large (1000 BTC double spend?) but paid it back.
170 2013-11-24 00:35:38 <petertodd> licnep: Every day that Bitcoin doesn't work is worth 3.5 million in mining revenue for sarters.
171 2013-11-24 00:35:44 <petertodd> *starters
172 2013-11-24 00:36:26 <petertodd> licnep: If bitcoin is an important transaction system businesses will be unable to do business whenever the system doesn't work, and that very quickly adds up to millions for any decently large system.
173 2013-11-24 00:36:35 <licnep> every holiday shops loose billions in revenue, those calculations don't make much sense, it's more like delayed revenue
174 2013-11-24 00:36:46 <gmaxwell> licnep: and in that case it wasn't much of a fork, most nodes were on the restrictive side. It would have self resolved in 2-3 blocks except there were two miners on the less restrictive side which alone were >50% hashpower.
175 2013-11-24 00:36:48 <licnep> i get your points tho
176 2013-11-24 00:36:53 <petertodd> licnep: nah, doesn't work that way when there are competitors to your system
177 2013-11-24 00:37:04 <gmaxwell> petertodd: meh, kind of a lame point.
178 2013-11-24 00:37:14 <petertodd> gmaxwell: what, bitcoin being down?
179 2013-11-24 00:37:14 <berndj> gmaxwell, that related to the HUH earlier, but i'm struggling to find the right search terms
180 2013-11-24 00:37:31 <petertodd> gmaxwell: I give those points because they show how in the absense of malic the losses are still huge.
181 2013-11-24 00:37:34 <berndj> something something refused to give it back
182 2013-11-24 00:37:36 <petertodd> *malice
183 2013-11-24 00:37:42 * petertodd needs a new keyboard.
184 2013-11-24 00:38:06 Starduster has joined
185 2013-11-24 00:38:08 dparrish has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
186 2013-11-24 00:38:34 <petertodd> gmaxwell: The most profitable ways to exploit lack of consensus for attackers is still an open research question after all.
187 2013-11-24 00:38:42 <licnep> well you guys have fun when some hacker finally discovers a vuln in the client and makes bitcoin completely useless
188 2013-11-24 00:38:59 <licnep> i think i understand the downside of multiple implementations, but a single one is very risky too
189 2013-11-24 00:39:02 <petertodd> licnep: we support a diversity in client implementations you realize
190 2013-11-24 00:39:08 <midnightmagic> licnep: It's built, operated, and used by humans. Problems will be corrected.
191 2013-11-24 00:39:12 <gmaxwell> licnep: wrt script, I'm sad to see you complain about it. It's indeed a complicated thing, but it's utterly essential if bitcoin's benefits aren't to be lost right away by everything being built on top of it having to be highly centeralized in order to accomplish anything more than just transfering value.
192 2013-11-24 00:39:16 <licnep> petertodd: wouldn't seem so
193 2013-11-24 00:39:21 <licnep> midnightmagic: that's my point exactly
194 2013-11-24 00:39:48 <petertodd> licnep: There *should* be lots of clients out there, the issue is what codebase miners should use, and what codebase people should use to verify that a transaction is valid. That != clients at all.
195 2013-11-24 00:40:22 <petertodd> licnep: Standard advice for merchants is to run a reference implementation node, and have whatever internal systems you are using connect to that trusted node.
196 2013-11-24 00:40:22 <berndj> should there be non-x86 versions?
197 2013-11-24 00:40:24 <licnep> gmaxwell: i know they're really cool, but maybe should be something somehow separated, 'on top' of bitcoin, not really sure tho, haven't given it much thought
198 2013-11-24 00:40:30 <gmaxwell> licnep: consider that when their is risky diversity in consensus any otherwise benign differences between implementations are themselves "vuln"s, we must advance the art of proving that distinct software does the same thing in order to avoid them.
199 2013-11-24 00:40:39 LiDE_ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
200 2013-11-24 00:40:54 <gmaxwell> licnep: they're what generally makes it possible to seperate out _other things_.
201 2013-11-24 00:41:02 <petertodd> licnep: Similarly a diverse set of node implementations is really valuable, because it helps keep the network from being partitioned.
202 2013-11-24 00:42:16 <gmaxwell> s/their/there/ ... need moar sleep.
203 2013-11-24 00:42:17 <midnightmagic> licnep: Namecoin had a bug which allowed people to steal domains completely. People stole a bunch. A fix was released. Everyone upgraded. The coins reverted to their normal owners. It wasn't a big deal. People were shouting "namecoin's dead!" But of course it wasn't. Aside from the problems of improperly spent coins, the system will recover, heal, and immunize itself against that kind of attack again, forever.
204 2013-11-24 00:42:29 <petertodd> It would be absolutely wonderful news to hear that Dark Wallet had decided to use the consensus-critical part of the reference implementation to determine if blocks were valid, and then wrote a ground-up redesign of everything else, including a brand new P2P protocol to distribute those blocks and transactions.
205 2013-11-24 00:42:53 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: uh. you know the names are still stolen right?
206 2013-11-24 00:43:12 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: The client ignores the stolen txn.
207 2013-11-24 00:43:17 <licnep> midnightmagic: maybe, maybe not. If the hack has been there for a while and no one knows how long, it would be hard to choose which transactions are legit and which arent
208 2013-11-24 00:43:20 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: not currently it doesn't.
209 2013-11-24 00:43:31 <licnep> people would very likely run away from btc
210 2013-11-24 00:43:40 <gmaxwell> what licnep said.
211 2013-11-24 00:43:46 <licnep> or maybe not, it really depends, these are hypothetical scenarios
212 2013-11-24 00:43:51 <licnep> it's hard to speculate
213 2013-11-24 00:43:53 <gmaxwell> Fortunately namecoin is mostly worthless esp with names, so there was no mutual exclusion.
214 2013-11-24 00:44:02 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: The fix is in, and d/wav reverted the moment I resync'd the chain.
215 2013-11-24 00:44:34 <gmaxwell> The real kinds of risks are where someone uses a forking bug to rob both mtgox and bitstamp with the same coins. There is no way to make everyone whole without inflating the currency. What now?
216 2013-11-24 00:44:36 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: In fact, there are three separate, parlty independent fixes in three different mainlines that corrected it.
217 2013-11-24 00:44:45 <petertodd> licnep: bitcoin's primary use right now is as a long-term store of value; bitcoin has very little usage as a transaction system right now. So a major problem would probably have little effect given people will know it can be fixed and is only temporary.
218 2013-11-24 00:45:06 treaki_ has joined
219 2013-11-24 00:45:14 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: transfer wav to me then.
220 2013-11-24 00:45:14 <HM2> I had no idea that Gnutella clients used Merkle trees - http://bitzi.com/developer/bitprint
221 2013-11-24 00:45:19 treaki__ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
222 2013-11-24 00:45:21 <HM2> I wonder how long they've been doing that
223 2013-11-24 00:45:29 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: d/wav isn't mine. None of mine were stolen.
224 2013-11-24 00:45:42 <pigeons> i think its kind of silly to say its a long term store of value, we dont know that,
225 2013-11-24 00:45:55 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: d/wav read the hacked message. I rebuilt with the fix. It now reads its original value.
226 2013-11-24 00:46:03 <licnep> petertodd: well that's sad imo,i always hoped the direction was for bitcoin to become a transaction system, i think satoshi's original idea was like that too.
227 2013-11-24 00:46:05 agath has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
228 2013-11-24 00:46:19 <HM2> looks like THEX has been around since 2002
229 2013-11-24 00:46:25 <licnep> he wanted microtransactions, something that was like coins but for the web
230 2013-11-24 00:46:25 agath has joined
231 2013-11-24 00:46:25 <HM2> cool beans
232 2013-11-24 00:46:30 <petertodd> pigeons: we don't know, but it could be; my point is that transactions cost about $40 each so it's obviously not a transaction medium right now.
233 2013-11-24 00:46:54 <licnep> it's still cool if it stays mainly a store of value tho
234 2013-11-24 00:47:02 <licnep> no problem with that, just sadness for missed potential
235 2013-11-24 00:47:13 <shesek> is there a better way to extract the public key of a (multisig) transaction signature other than brute forcing all the possible nRecId and public keys? here's what I'm currently doing, which feels kinda hacky: http://pastie.org/pastes/8504252/text
236 2013-11-24 00:47:21 <midnightmagic> The potential for loss is much greater with a break. But people have seen the utility. lol It's not going away even in the face of a break.
237 2013-11-24 00:47:36 <petertodd> licnep: well it's a shitty system for transactions because it can't both scale and be decentralized. can such a system exist? sure, but bitcoin in its current form isn't that system.
238 2013-11-24 00:47:43 Anduck has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
239 2013-11-24 00:48:09 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: the hardfork hasn't happened yet (not till block 175k iirc?) so say the 'right' owner of wav transfers it, ... how could that get mined?
240 2013-11-24 00:48:10 <licnep> petertodd: yea scalability is an issue i guess, haven't looked that much into it tho
241 2013-11-24 00:48:30 <licnep> we can just pray for moore's law i guess
242 2013-11-24 00:48:43 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: The stolen txn can be mined, the client ignores the theft txn as though they don't exist.
243 2013-11-24 00:49:37 <petertodd> midnightmagic: note how right now even that model doesn't let you update your records after a thief steals your domain
244 2013-11-24 00:49:41 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: right now the original namecoin rules say 'evil' owns wav. Your client seems to think good owns wav. If good transfers wav to me, that wouldn't be permitted under the original rules.
245 2013-11-24 00:50:00 go1111111 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
246 2013-11-24 00:50:18 sc00bie has joined
247 2013-11-24 00:50:30 dparrish has joined
248 2013-11-24 00:50:47 <midnightmagic> petertodd: *shrug* I understood it was corrected even with that later discovery.
249 2013-11-24 00:50:50 <midnightmagic> Might be wrong.
250 2013-11-24 00:51:05 <petertodd> midnightmagic: post-hardfork, it'll be corrected, but for now namecoin doesn't work very well is my point
251 2013-11-24 00:51:32 <petertodd> midnightmagic: it's an interesting example where a system that *didn't* do validation of the contents of a block is actually more useful
252 2013-11-24 00:51:44 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: I know the 'fix' that I'm running hasn't changed anything yet except not mining any of the spends of evil names. But I dunno about all fixes.
253 2013-11-24 00:51:58 <midnightmagic> petertodd: It *appears* to work fine even for stolen domains. That's why d/wav currently reads "Not today!"
254 2013-11-24 00:52:50 <gmaxwell> for all I know they made a mistake and fixed it prematurely in some implementations and the network will fork as soon as someone moves a clawed back na,e
255 2013-11-24 00:53:09 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: It's already happened.
256 2013-11-24 00:53:30 <petertodd> midnightmagic: ah, yeah, that's because you can steal it back basically
257 2013-11-24 00:53:40 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: whats already happened?
258 2013-11-24 00:54:04 <petertodd> midnightmagic: e.g. *because* of the bug, you have a system that doesn't validate the contents of a block, and hence a client-side fix works...
259 2013-11-24 00:54:22 <Luke-Jr> I'm not complaining, but are we merging #namecoin-dev into this channel? (if so, I can /part the former.. :P)
260 2013-11-24 00:54:37 <midnightmagic> bleh that one's dead
261 2013-11-24 00:54:49 <midnightmagic> I don't even think khalahan is in there
262 2013-11-24 00:54:52 <petertodd> midnightmagic: if people were using namecoin with SPV and a UTXO commitment scheme that wouldn't have worked
263 2013-11-24 00:55:06 <Luke-Jr> midnightmagic: is khalahan anywhere? :/
264 2013-11-24 00:55:18 <midnightmagic> Luke-Jr: Yeah he came back to deal with the fix.
265 2013-11-24 00:55:24 <midnightmagic> And he talks to me too.
266 2013-11-24 00:55:29 <midnightmagic> (occasionally)
267 2013-11-24 00:55:29 hsmiths has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
268 2013-11-24 00:55:34 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: voices in your head?
269 2013-11-24 00:55:41 <gmaxwell> Satoshi talks to me too...
270 2013-11-24 00:55:45 <midnightmagic> :-P
271 2013-11-24 00:55:50 <gmaxwell> They said the drugs would start working soon.
272 2013-11-24 00:55:55 <Luke-Jr> topic.. lol .. NEWS: Merged Mining starts at block 19200
273 2013-11-24 00:55:57 <[\\\]> which they?
274 2013-11-24 00:56:00 <[\\\]> the same voices?
275 2013-11-24 00:56:48 n0g has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
276 2013-11-24 00:57:25 <midnightmagic> lol
277 2013-11-24 00:58:29 hsmiths has joined
278 2013-11-24 00:59:31 <midnightmagic> petertodd: anyway, I would say the UTXO and SPV stuff in bitcoin is the tradeoff bitcoin made for performance reasons. It's made bitcoin slightly more fragile in the event of a namecoin-like hack, but really all that needs to happen is a correction to the rules (maybe hardfork) and a fresh utxo and spv authorities and.. meh.
279 2013-11-24 01:00:01 dparrish has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
280 2013-11-24 01:00:21 mattco has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
281 2013-11-24 01:00:47 <petertodd> midnightmagic: sure, I'm just pointing out that UTXO and SPV is just one of many possible designs, each with different sets of trade-offs.
282 2013-11-24 01:00:56 <midnightmagic> petertodd: I agree with you.
283 2013-11-24 01:01:43 <midnightmagic> Apparently there's another issue that Gavin found in namecoin but I don't know what that is.
284 2013-11-24 01:02:06 <petertodd> midnightmagic: like recently found or years ago?
285 2013-11-24 01:02:11 <midnightmagic> recently.
286 2013-11-24 01:02:21 <midnightmagic> like few weeks ago.
287 2013-11-24 01:02:24 <petertodd> midnightmagic: well that codebase has a stack of bugs, probably mostly unfixed...
288 2013-11-24 01:02:39 <midnightmagic> yes, correct it does. :)
289 2013-11-24 01:02:47 <petertodd> midnightmagic: I don't know and would rather not know about security vulnerabilities so I can't comment much there
290 2013-11-24 01:03:09 <midnightmagic> and yet it lurches on! clumps of gravedirt falling from its corpse!
291 2013-11-24 01:03:10 <midnightmagic> ha ha haaa
292 2013-11-24 01:03:39 <petertodd> midnightmagic: ha, yeah, I told a guy almost a year ago that I expected namecoin to die off and he probably should sell most of his investment... so much for that
293 2013-11-24 01:04:01 <petertodd> midnightmagic: though he would have made more with his money in BTC :P
294 2013-11-24 01:04:11 <midnightmagic> true!
295 2013-11-24 01:04:28 * midnightmagic stubbornly rides the zombie
296 2013-11-24 01:05:22 * petertodd tries to imagine that as scene from a Western, rather than a foreign film...
297 2013-11-24 01:06:03 wavelet has joined
298 2013-11-24 01:06:39 roconnor has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
299 2013-11-24 01:06:45 wavelet has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
300 2013-11-24 01:07:20 wavelet has joined
301 2013-11-24 01:07:30 go1111111 has joined
302 2013-11-24 01:07:54 dparrish has joined
303 2013-11-24 01:10:42 hemry has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
304 2013-11-24 01:11:17 hemry has joined
305 2013-11-24 01:11:59 jMyles has joined
306 2013-11-24 01:12:14 Neskia is now known as Nesetalis
307 2013-11-24 01:14:14 eristisk has joined
308 2013-11-24 01:14:49 martinn has quit ()
309 2013-11-24 01:14:57 BenderCoin has quit (Excess Flood)
310 2013-11-24 01:14:57 martinn has joined
311 2013-11-24 01:15:37 hemry has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
312 2013-11-24 01:15:41 eristisk has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
313 2013-11-24 01:15:52 BenderCoin has joined
314 2013-11-24 01:17:12 eristisk has joined
315 2013-11-24 01:17:29 dparrish has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
316 2013-11-24 01:18:22 tsche has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
317 2013-11-24 01:21:23 robbak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
318 2013-11-24 01:21:50 robbak has joined
319 2013-11-24 01:21:54 robbak has quit (Changing host)
320 2013-11-24 01:21:54 robbak has joined
321 2013-11-24 01:23:20 FabianB_ has joined
322 2013-11-24 01:23:40 tsche has joined
323 2013-11-24 01:24:01 Guyver2 has joined
324 2013-11-24 01:24:27 FabianB has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
325 2013-11-24 01:26:00 Guyver2 has quit (Client Quit)
326 2013-11-24 01:26:15 eristisk has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
327 2013-11-24 01:31:15 darksk1ez has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
328 2013-11-24 01:33:09 darsie has joined
329 2013-11-24 01:33:12 <darsie> hey
330 2013-11-24 01:33:13 cadaver has joined
331 2013-11-24 01:34:19 <warren> jgarzik: gmaxwell: I guess jgarzik guessed this earlier... disablewallet is saving me 400MB+ RES on fedora with bitcoind.
332 2013-11-24 01:34:25 <warren> empty wallet
333 2013-11-24 01:35:05 eoss has joined
334 2013-11-24 01:35:46 <darsie> If a bad coin blacklist were implemented, could ppl send bad coins to taint the whole balance of other addresses/wallets? Or could the other wallets/adresses spend all but the bad gift?
335 2013-11-24 01:36:27 <darsie> I know, coins are not stored in adresses, but I don't know where else. They are stored in tx, maybe.
336 2013-11-24 01:36:46 Zarutian has joined
337 2013-11-24 01:36:51 Eiii has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
338 2013-11-24 01:37:26 Eiii has joined
339 2013-11-24 01:37:28 <gmaxwell> warren: please qualifiy "gitian" when you say that.
340 2013-11-24 01:37:47 <warren> gmaxwell: not gitian this time
341 2013-11-24 01:37:55 <gmaxwell> warren: uhhhhhh wtf?
342 2013-11-24 01:38:08 <warren> goes from 750MB to like 420MB
343 2013-11-24 01:38:14 <gmaxwell> warren: my res on my bitcoind is 388396 are you using negative memory?
344 2013-11-24 01:38:29 <gmaxwell> and this is with "connections" : 47,
345 2013-11-24 01:38:33 <gmaxwell> and a fairly large wallet.
346 2013-11-24 01:38:43 <warren> on fedora?
347 2013-11-24 01:38:45 <gmaxwell> 750 is very high.
348 2013-11-24 01:38:49 <gmaxwell> Fedora release 19 (Schrödingerâs Cat)
349 2013-11-24 01:39:00 <warren> is that master?
350 2013-11-24 01:39:07 <gmaxwell> warren: minus a week or so.
351 2013-11-24 01:39:12 <warren> this is my 0.8.5. + weird stuff branch
352 2013-11-24 01:39:29 <gmaxwell> I was also the same usage (under 400mbytes) on 0.8.5
353 2013-11-24 01:39:35 <warren> mmm
354 2013-11-24 01:40:28 eristisk has joined
355 2013-11-24 01:40:36 tsche has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
356 2013-11-24 01:44:34 tsche has joined
357 2013-11-24 01:45:17 dparrish has joined
358 2013-11-24 01:46:13 Application has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
359 2013-11-24 01:46:28 canoon has joined
360 2013-11-24 01:46:44 LiDE has joined
361 2013-11-24 01:47:59 <gulli> What exactly is the identifier here
362 2013-11-24 01:48:00 <gulli> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0032_TestVectors
363 2013-11-24 01:50:03 owowo has quit (Quit: °!° ~~ S4n1tY 1S Fut1l3 ~~ °!°)
364 2013-11-24 01:50:14 RedEmerald has quit (Changing host)
365 2013-11-24 01:50:14 RedEmerald has joined
366 2013-11-24 01:50:22 Starduster has quit (Quit: gotta go)
367 2013-11-24 01:50:43 <gmaxwell> gulli: an address generated off the master public key.
368 2013-11-24 01:51:00 robbak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
369 2013-11-24 01:51:09 LiDE has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
370 2013-11-24 01:51:15 jaekwon has joined
371 2013-11-24 01:51:18 <gulli> sorry, I ment the fpr
372 2013-11-24 01:51:22 <gulli> I know its the address :)
373 2013-11-24 01:51:23 robbak has joined
374 2013-11-24 01:51:34 <gulli> ive been trying to google fpr, not finding anything about it
375 2013-11-24 01:52:46 robocoin_ has joined
376 2013-11-24 01:53:06 ccrm has joined
377 2013-11-24 01:53:15 darkee has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
378 2013-11-24 01:53:55 eristisk has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
379 2013-11-24 01:53:58 darkee has joined
380 2013-11-24 01:54:30 martinn has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
381 2013-11-24 01:55:44 robocoin has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
382 2013-11-24 01:58:31 Coincidental has joined
383 2013-11-24 02:00:46 macboz has joined
384 2013-11-24 02:02:05 Bituser123 has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
385 2013-11-24 02:04:27 robocoin_ is now known as robocoin
386 2013-11-24 02:05:47 fgfhg has joined
387 2013-11-24 02:06:52 fgfhg has left ()
388 2013-11-24 02:09:01 eristisk has joined
389 2013-11-24 02:09:13 brson has joined
390 2013-11-24 02:09:27 Application has joined
391 2013-11-24 02:14:11 brson_ has joined
392 2013-11-24 02:14:16 one_zero has joined
393 2013-11-24 02:17:12 FluffyBunny has joined
394 2013-11-24 02:17:35 brson has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
395 2013-11-24 02:20:21 Coincidental has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
396 2013-11-24 02:20:53 Coincidental has joined
397 2013-11-24 02:22:16 Coincidental has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
398 2013-11-24 02:22:23 Coincide_ has joined
399 2013-11-24 02:22:42 CheckDavid has quit (Quit: Leaving)
400 2013-11-24 02:23:07 brson_ has quit (Quit: leaving)
401 2013-11-24 02:23:20 brson has joined
402 2013-11-24 02:26:35 whatthe-bull has joined
403 2013-11-24 02:28:26 ace_striker has joined
404 2013-11-24 02:32:15 eristisk has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
405 2013-11-24 02:34:34 wallet43 has joined
406 2013-11-24 02:36:04 saracen has joined
407 2013-11-24 02:43:21 roconnor has joined
408 2013-11-24 02:44:24 wallet43 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
409 2013-11-24 02:44:56 eristisk has joined
410 2013-11-24 02:46:25 tsche has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
411 2013-11-24 02:46:44 whatthe-bull has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
412 2013-11-24 02:46:59 darsie has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
413 2013-11-24 02:47:08 ace_striker has left ()
414 2013-11-24 02:50:00 tsche has joined
415 2013-11-24 02:52:19 ccrm has quit ()
416 2013-11-24 02:52:26 martinn has joined
417 2013-11-24 02:55:03 skez has quit (Quit: Leaving)
418 2013-11-24 02:55:27 zer0def has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
419 2013-11-24 02:57:55 xiangfu has joined
420 2013-11-24 02:58:06 tsche has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
421 2013-11-24 02:59:53 <jgarzik> oh brother
422 2013-11-24 02:59:56 <jgarzik> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/23/study-suggests-link-between-dread-pirate-roberts-and-satoshi-nakamoto/?_r=1&
423 2013-11-24 03:00:40 <Diablo-D3> well duh
424 2013-11-24 03:00:50 <Diablo-D3> one invented bitcoin, the other made a bunch of money with it
425 2013-11-24 03:01:05 upb has quit (Changing host)
426 2013-11-24 03:01:05 upb has joined
427 2013-11-24 03:01:06 <Diablo-D3> obvious link is obious
428 2013-11-24 03:02:08 <warren> I doubt satoshi nakamoto woudl have posted using his real name on any bitcoin forum
429 2013-11-24 03:03:16 agnostic98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
430 2013-11-24 03:03:20 <warren> "Earlier this year, the researchers obtained a complete listing of all bitcoin transactions" wow, experts.
431 2013-11-24 03:03:49 <SomeoneWeird> warren, lmao exactly what i thought
432 2013-11-24 03:04:01 tsche has joined
433 2013-11-24 03:04:34 <Diablo-D3> warren: yeah
434 2013-11-24 03:04:37 <Diablo-D3> thats hilarious
435 2013-11-24 03:06:59 CodeShark has joined
436 2013-11-24 03:09:13 <jgarzik> warren, amusingly, they did it by web-crawling a block explorer website
437 2013-11-24 03:09:31 <jgarzik> rather than, you know, downloading and reading the public blockchain itself
438 2013-11-24 03:12:40 <shesek> you gotta be kidding me
439 2013-11-24 03:13:11 <shesek> they wrote a crawler to scrape that information from a website, when they can already, much more easily, get it in a machine-readable format?
440 2013-11-24 03:13:36 <shesek> that's just idiotic
441 2013-11-24 03:13:47 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
442 2013-11-24 03:14:58 thelorax123 has joined
443 2013-11-24 03:16:29 tsche has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
444 2013-11-24 03:16:51 <Polyatomic> Can someone help me understand why transaction fees included in a block reward also need 120 confirmations to mature
445 2013-11-24 03:17:27 <lianj> 100
446 2013-11-24 03:19:34 <K1773R> 101 :P
447 2013-11-24 03:22:52 <lianj> K1773R: really? don't think so
448 2013-11-24 03:23:17 <K1773R> its spendable after 101 confirmations
449 2013-11-24 03:23:26 <K1773R> AFAIK
450 2013-11-24 03:23:38 <lianj> im pretty sure its after 100 and not below < 100
451 2013-11-24 03:25:23 <K1773R> why below 100? i said 101 not 99
452 2013-11-24 03:26:40 tsche has joined
453 2013-11-24 03:27:26 <cfields> anyone around who can approve me on bitcointalk? I've never posted there, and would like to respond to someone
454 2013-11-24 03:28:18 <K1773R> lianj: nvm, your right. the time you spend it and the tx will be confirmed is at least 101. sry about that ;)
455 2013-11-24 03:29:12 n0n0 has joined
456 2013-11-24 03:30:23 Subo1977 has joined
457 2013-11-24 03:30:55 Subo1977_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
458 2013-11-24 03:32:04 <lianj> K1773R: (nSpendHeight - coins.nHeight < COINBASE_MATURITY)
459 2013-11-24 03:33:42 <lianj> if its in the 100th block after its created/coinbase block then its valid
460 2013-11-24 03:35:10 Burritoh has quit (Quit: Leaving)
461 2013-11-24 03:36:05 n0n0 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
462 2013-11-24 03:36:49 tsche has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
463 2013-11-24 03:38:14 catlasshrugged has joined
464 2013-11-24 03:40:10 toffoo has joined
465 2013-11-24 03:42:24 tsche has joined
466 2013-11-24 03:44:28 xiangfu has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
467 2013-11-24 03:46:31 canooon has joined
468 2013-11-24 03:46:56 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
469 2013-11-24 03:47:04 ccrm has joined
470 2013-11-24 03:47:16 <gmaxwell> cfields: I whitelisted you.
471 2013-11-24 03:47:25 <cfields> gmaxwell: thanks
472 2013-11-24 03:48:08 thelorax123 has joined
473 2013-11-24 03:48:14 _ingsoc has joined
474 2013-11-24 03:48:34 CryptoBuck has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
475 2013-11-24 03:48:56 <gmaxwell> lianj: the rule and the wallet-client behavior are not quite the same, it's not a great idea to spend right at the limit because your transaction may not propagate well.
476 2013-11-24 03:48:56 CryptoBuck has joined
477 2013-11-24 03:49:04 CryptoBuck has quit (Client Quit)
478 2013-11-24 03:49:16 martinn has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
479 2013-11-24 03:49:25 <gmaxwell> lianj: in all release versions of bitcoin-qt the wallet wouldn't spend until 120. In git I've reduced that to 101.
480 2013-11-24 03:50:25 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: we'll we've ruined their future research, blockexplorer is gone.
481 2013-11-24 03:51:26 <warren> gone?
482 2013-11-24 03:52:36 <gmaxwell> poof gone
483 2013-11-24 03:52:58 <lianj> gmaxwell: woa, thanks for that info, didn't now. weird also
484 2013-11-24 03:53:21 <lianj> also why does wallet spend relate to not relayed well?
485 2013-11-24 03:54:09 <gmaxwell> lianj: e.g. if you hit 100 but your peers are mostly at 99 and you spent at that point your peers will drop your txn on the floor.
486 2013-11-24 03:54:21 <lianj> oh right
487 2013-11-24 03:54:22 <gmaxwell> and then it won't make progress until you retransmit it later.
488 2013-11-24 03:54:24 <lianj> makes sense then
489 2013-11-24 03:54:32 <gmaxwell> yea, 20 was a bit crazy though.
490 2013-11-24 03:54:49 <lianj> ok so 105-ish should do. 101 even
491 2013-11-24 03:55:04 <lianj> thanks, will change that in my coin selection
492 2013-11-24 03:55:37 <gmaxwell> 1 might still be a bit too early, but I thought it was a reasonable tradeoff for a personal wallet considering that the only cost is that you'll get delayed until the next rebrodcast. For a shared wallet with many coins to choose from higher is probably better.
493 2013-11-24 03:56:22 <gmaxwell> I ran my namecoin daemon for a long time at 100 and got a few stupid delays, moved it to 101 and think I only noticed it get delayed once.
494 2013-11-24 03:56:38 hsmiths has quit (Quit: bit)
495 2013-11-24 03:58:15 hsmiths has joined
496 2013-11-24 04:00:20 canooon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
497 2013-11-24 04:01:27 n0n0 has joined
498 2013-11-24 04:01:39 wei__ has joined
499 2013-11-24 04:01:43 <n0n0> hi! I just asked the following to #bitcoin and have been advised to go to this channel: so i was asking a couple days ago about this 7 txn/s limit issue. I am trying to inform myself and am now looking for information what the status of the software is wrt. sending only partial/compressed blocks out when solving them, to decrease the orphan cost and thus its impact on the transaction fees. Has such functionality already been implemented?
500 2013-11-24 04:02:21 <lianj> gmaxwell: will change it to 105 so everyone can bitch about that number
501 2013-11-24 04:02:23 <lianj> :9
502 2013-11-24 04:02:35 <gmaxwell> lianj: hah. Sounds like a fine number to me. you have my approval. :P
503 2013-11-24 04:03:19 fanquake_ has joined
504 2013-11-24 04:03:20 <gmaxwell> n0n0: there are a number of threads on the bitcointalk forum. If you'd like to expirement with sending only partial/compressed blocks out it would probably be best done as a parallel protocol at first.
505 2013-11-24 04:03:58 <gmaxwell> n0n0: afaik the only implementation of sending compacted blocks out there is p2pool's.
506 2013-11-24 04:04:53 fanquake has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
507 2013-11-24 04:04:54 fanquake_ is now known as fanquake
508 2013-11-24 04:06:28 <gulli> I think nobody answered the question though, why wait so long until you can spend transaction fees from a block?
509 2013-11-24 04:06:47 <n0n0> gmaxwell, ah thank you. i was reading a bit about the details on the minimum transaction fees, and I hope I got it right. I read that the idea is to eventually replace the full transactions with just parts of the transaction hashes when saying 'I got a new block'. I saw that this would increase the transmission of new blocks by 'about a factor of ten easily'. But is that the optimum solution? Can't there be a way to compress this even further or, for exa
510 2013-11-24 04:06:47 <n0n0> mple, for a pool/miner to advertise to its peers: hey, I am going to put these transactions into a block?
511 2013-11-24 04:07:42 <n0n0> what do you mean by a parallel protocol? something that is 'out-of-band' wrt. the main bitcoin protocol?
512 2013-11-24 04:07:43 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
513 2013-11-24 04:07:55 [7] has joined
514 2013-11-24 04:08:09 <gmaxwell> n0n0: well once you get down to the point where the whole message fits into a single IP packet there is likely not much latency impact anymore, your transmission time starts becoming dominated by propagation.
515 2013-11-24 04:08:11 <n0n0> s/increase the transmission/decrease the transmission time/
516 2013-11-24 04:08:23 ccrm has quit ()
517 2013-11-24 04:08:43 martinn has joined
518 2013-11-24 04:08:54 martinn has quit (Client Quit)
519 2013-11-24 04:09:30 <n0n0> true, but assuming that the blocksize gets lifted soon, won't there be thousands of txn in a block (I mean, there are hundreds already, right?) How does that fit into a single udp packet?
520 2013-11-24 04:09:30 martinn has joined
521 2013-11-24 04:09:30 <gmaxwell> n0n0: there is no reason that blocks need to be relayed over any particular protocol. ... they could be sent via carrier pidgeon or what have you. :)
522 2013-11-24 04:09:30 <n0n0> (or TCP)
523 2013-11-24 04:09:30 tsche has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
524 2013-11-24 04:09:37 <n0n0> i see. but that's one of the scaling issues right now, correct? that the finished/validated block is taking so long to propagate and risks being orphaned? or did I miss something?
525 2013-11-24 04:10:03 ccrm has joined
526 2013-11-24 04:11:25 <gmaxwell> Sure, its something that should be improved. We don't currently have good measurements of the propagation though, the best thing we have are numbers that were taken before 0.8 (and the caching just before it) made block validation tens of times faster.
527 2013-11-24 04:12:05 <gmaxwell> And currently the largest source of latency is _probably_ the fact that the message processing loop in the reference software has a 100ms sleep in it.
528 2013-11-24 04:12:28 mattco has joined
529 2013-11-24 04:13:03 <gmaxwell> n0n0: if you start talking about a hard fork to the network to increase the maximum permitted blocksize increased orphaning is the least of the concerns thereâ after all, you could still actually produce smaller blocks if the limit were higher.
530 2013-11-24 04:13:15 <n0n0> ok. but when I researched the blocksize issue, I stumbled upon the whole argument what the minimum fee can realistically be, wether the blocksize needs to be enforced somehow. From that I gathered, that basically there is this 'natural' limit of the block propagating widely into the network quickly enough which basically makes sure that miningpools limit the amount of txn that they take in
531 2013-11-24 04:13:25 martinn has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
532 2013-11-24 04:13:39 <n0n0> gmaxwell, yes i thought this was going to happen soon?
533 2013-11-24 04:14:27 <gmaxwell> n0n0: No. There has been no public movement towards changing it in the soonâ e.g. we don't even know if the software will work correctly without fixes, as no one has even tested it as far as I know, unless you mean soon on the timeframe of years.
534 2013-11-24 04:14:39 tsche has joined
535 2013-11-24 04:15:55 <gmaxwell> And considering that the number of nodes has been falling precipitously for months I don't see how we could hope survive as a decenteralized system if we dramatically increase the network's operating cost without first improving the node behavior to make it not undesirable to run a node at the current operating cost.
536 2013-11-24 04:16:44 <n0n0> i see. i thought that eventually this was going to happen, though? like scaling up to higher rates?
537 2013-11-24 04:17:07 <gmaxwell> n0n0: presumably, though the march of technology makes doing that easier over time.
538 2013-11-24 04:18:11 <gmaxwell> n0n0: it's a bit tricky, both in keeping it viable enough for many parties to run nodes, and because the argument for the long term viability of bitcoin depends on there being a fee market to create transaction fees which are able to replace the subsidy and pay to secure the network.
539 2013-11-24 04:19:18 <n0n0> i see. what is considered many nodes? like just firing it up on your laptop, or rather quite dedicated people?
540 2013-11-24 04:19:57 <n0n0> right now i can pay for my lunch directly on the blockchain and I read that the plan is to not do microtransactions on the chain. will those things be considered mictrotransactions?
541 2013-11-24 04:21:29 <joecool> anyone in here screw with bip32 yubikey neo applet?
542 2013-11-24 04:21:47 <gmaxwell> n0n0: I don't think anyone knows magically what number is enough. Certantly if there are only a few hundred nodes it would be very easy to shutdown bitcoin or impose violations of the system's promises. My hope is that participation would remain inexpensive enough (relative to current technology of the time) that many people could do it casually, without worrying how they'll get paid back for their costs.
543 2013-11-24 04:22:02 <gmaxwell> joecool: hadn't heard of it, I knew neo was supposted to be more powerfulâ¦
544 2013-11-24 04:22:41 <joecool> gmaxwell: it's a javacard implementation, it does have a openpgp smartcard implementation on it too but the keysize is limited to 2048 (got uploading working there though)
545 2013-11-24 04:23:06 <gmaxwell> n0n0: One point is that the blockchain is the upper limit on how decenteralized anything can be in the bitcoin ecosystem. You can build things with different scale tradeoffs on top of it, but nothing built on top of it can be more decenteralized than bitcoin itself.
546 2013-11-24 04:23:07 <joecool> OATH via NFC is pretty cool too for authenticator stuff (use it on localbitcoin, etc)
547 2013-11-24 04:23:08 testnode9 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
548 2013-11-24 04:23:29 <gmaxwell> joecool: but there is a BIP32 signer implemented for it now?
549 2013-11-24 04:23:30 <joecool> gmaxwell: but i hadn't seen anyone mess with the bip32 wallet on it
550 2013-11-24 04:23:33 <joecool> yeah there is
551 2013-11-24 04:23:40 <n0n0> i see.
552 2013-11-24 04:23:43 <gmaxwell> Guess I'll have to go buy one now.
553 2013-11-24 04:24:14 <joecool> i forget the tool that was announced not too long ago (another bip32 device) with screen on it
554 2013-11-24 04:24:21 <joecool> this is cheaper, can do this + rpi
555 2013-11-24 04:24:23 <n0n0> is the main worry the diskspace for archiving the blockchain when scaling up? what is considered the biggest risk in terms of increase in cost when scaling up?
556 2013-11-24 04:24:35 <joecool> if you want a portable signer
557 2013-11-24 04:24:47 <gmaxwell> n0n0: so I think the question there has to do with how fast bitcoin usage grows vs how technology improves. Of course if bitcoin becomes a world currency in a serious way then many more people will be willing to undertake some costs to keep it secure.
558 2013-11-24 04:25:39 <gmaxwell> n0n0: disk space isn't a big concern, since you can just have nodes storing a fraction of the old history: to validate blocks they only need fast access to a trusted table of unspent outputs... right now thats only about 256mbytes.
559 2013-11-24 04:26:45 <gmaxwell> n0n0: bigger concerns are bandwidth requirements, at least today. Also CPU speed for signature validation is potentially an issue, though we can now do 40k signature validations per second on a fast desktop multicore cpu using some code that isn't yet part of the reference client.
560 2013-11-24 04:26:53 <n0n0> if the blocksize changes, that would not necessarily mean a change in the centralisation of the mining power though, right? because miners do not need the whole chain to do their job
561 2013-11-24 04:27:07 MobGod has quit (Excess Flood)
562 2013-11-24 04:27:50 <n0n0> so even if there are just a couple hundred 'full' nodes worldwide, they would still need the dispersed power of the miners, right? so aren't there basically different ways that bitcoin is decentralized?
563 2013-11-24 04:28:14 <gmaxwell> n0n0: dumb hashers, devices that validate nothing and just work on stuff they're given, don't really contribute to decenteralization. But mining is pretty orthogonal, every node validates: and thats what prevents miners from having an obvious common incentive to not start writing themselves blank checks
564 2013-11-24 04:29:05 <n0n0> well, but the dumb hashers are needed in the transaction validating game. so if they vote with their feet, don't they have sufficient power to keep it decentralized?
565 2013-11-24 04:29:07 <gmaxwell> Mining just serves the purpose of giving a consensus ordering of transactions, correctness with the rules is validated autonomously by full nodes.
566 2013-11-24 04:29:55 <gmaxwell> n0n0: so far that doesn't appear to be the case. (e.g. ghash.io appears to have been using their 20% hashpower to rob some gambling site, and it seems to have had no real effect on behavior)
567 2013-11-24 04:30:21 <gmaxwell> Of course, voting with your feet doesn't much matter if the control loop is super slow.
568 2013-11-24 04:30:37 <n0n0> i see. if they would be aware though, they would choose their pools more wisely, right?
569 2013-11-24 04:31:21 dataangel has joined
570 2013-11-24 04:31:58 <n0n0> so, just to see whether i get this right: the risk you are talking about is basically the so-called fully validated nodes saying: 'sure, sure, everything is right', while messing big time with the transaction history?
571 2013-11-24 04:32:01 <gmaxwell> I don't think they careâ e.g. a service where you got paid >100% expectation run by a notorious ponzi operator was super popularâ but it's hard to say what aspects of behavior are short term anomalies.
572 2013-11-24 04:32:28 agnostic98 has joined
573 2013-11-24 04:32:41 <gmaxwell> n0n0: well, in particularâ permitting inflation.
574 2013-11-24 04:32:51 <n0n0> from satoshi's paper, it sounds like that is one of the main parts of the decentralisation and the feedback-loop - the power of the hashers
575 2013-11-24 04:32:57 <n0n0> i see
576 2013-11-24 04:33:37 <gmaxwell> Satoshi didn't forsee mining pools at all and considered them regretable. :( He expected people who owned and operated mining hashpower would be validating the work they worked on.
577 2013-11-24 04:33:41 <n0n0> well, but is this more a worry that this happens 'behind the scenes' or that there is some hard-to-detect moving of balances going on?
578 2013-11-24 04:33:49 <gmaxwell> After allâ why take the risk that their power was misused and devaluated bitcoin.
579 2013-11-24 04:34:22 <n0n0> right. so in other words, you are basically stating that the hashing power is owned by mainly a bunch of idiots?
580 2013-11-24 04:34:26 <gmaxwell> n0n0: there are ways to abuse hashpower that are harder to detectâ or at least plausably denyable.
581 2013-11-24 04:34:55 <n0n0> i see. but for those cases, I was wondering, can't you do stochastical probes into the history, asking around worldwide and comparing the results?
582 2013-11-24 04:35:14 bitspill has joined
583 2013-11-24 04:35:35 <gmaxwell> n0n0: well, it's complicated. Like, I can tell you about these complicated longer term risks and you have toâ in your finite timeâ weigh that against cash in hand. Plus miners have their minds filled up with fradulent mining companies and power costs and other considerations... I would say that a significant majority actually don't understand that mining plays a role in the consensus process, they think it's just a lottery to ...
584 2013-11-24 04:35:41 <gmaxwell> ... award bitcoins.
585 2013-11-24 04:36:08 <n0n0> yeah, i can totally see that by reading r/bitcoin and the like.
586 2013-11-24 04:36:33 <n0n0> are some of the pool operators doing 'education campaigns'?
587 2013-11-24 04:36:34 aceat64 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
588 2013-11-24 04:36:42 <gmaxwell> n0n0: yes, sure but you can see there are double spends but you can't quite tell if the fact that one one or lost was by chance or if a miner was cooperating. As I said, plausably denyable. Statistically you could still catch a pool misbehaving, but right now at least even with a smoking gun it doesn't appear that people care.
589 2013-11-24 04:38:15 <gmaxwell> n0n0: no, I think that for the most part it's in the pool operators interest that the hashers stay ignorant and keep paying them 3% to run the bitcoind mining nodes for them. (hey, its a businessâ¦) Hopefully we'll see more pushing on the decenteralized mining solutions in the future, but they require miners to run full nodes... and we've gotten ourselves in a sort of a weird rut:
590 2013-11-24 04:38:31 <n0n0> i see. but a validating node would still catch those. so that plausible denyabilty would apply in the case all the archive nodes are subject to some conspiracy, right?
591 2013-11-24 04:38:53 <gmaxwell> I know a miner with over $100k in mining asics ... who runs them off a rasberry pi. Telling a miner they need the power of a 5 year old laptop to run their own full node seems to be a shocker for some. :(
592 2013-11-24 04:38:55 <jgarzik> gmaxwell, blockexplorer is gone? disappointing.
593 2013-11-24 04:39:10 <n0n0> (in a future scenario where there are just a handful of archive nodes with the full chain)
594 2013-11-24 04:39:23 <n0n0> wow
595 2013-11-24 04:39:38 <gmaxwell> n0n0: the network isn't instant. Say I produce two transactions that conflict and a miner conspires with me to mine one over the other. Nothing in the archive really tells you clearly that the miner was doing anything wrong.
596 2013-11-24 04:40:20 <n0n0> right, but that kind of 'transaction priotizing' will always happen in some form, correct?
597 2013-11-24 04:40:41 <gmaxwell> right, but reorgs also happen too.
598 2013-11-24 04:40:49 <gmaxwell> I wasn't exagerating about smoking guns either: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=327767.0
599 2013-11-24 04:41:20 <n0n0> right, but isn't that 'preferential mining of double spends', i mean isn't that just applicable for a >50% hashing power attack?
600 2013-11-24 04:41:35 aceat64 has joined
601 2013-11-24 04:42:12 <gmaxwell> n0n0: no, it works probablistically for any level of hashpower and any number of confirms, if its profitably depends on what your success/failure payoffs are.
602 2013-11-24 04:42:40 <gmaxwell> though really unlikely deep forks for doublespends stop being plausably denyable at least.
603 2013-11-24 04:42:56 <pigeons> ah thanks i saw the comment and was going to ask just that, "is there a smoking gun"
604 2013-11-24 04:42:58 <n0n0> right. so basically, satoshidice was accepting 0confirms and if they would not have there wouldn't be that problem?
605 2013-11-24 04:43:43 ccrm has quit ()
606 2013-11-24 04:43:50 <n0n0> so the sad state of affairs is then that ghash.io with that kind of misbehavior is still the 2nd largest pool?
607 2013-11-24 04:43:51 martinn has joined
608 2013-11-24 04:43:53 <gmaxwell> n0n0: wasn't satoshidice, some other site. And no, 25% hashpower can reverse 6 confirms 5% of the time, which would have been profitable here, for example.
609 2013-11-24 04:44:07 <n0n0> i see
610 2013-11-24 04:44:16 <gmaxwell> n0n0: right. Now, there are complicating factors. A substantial chunk of ghash.io's hashpower is captive.
611 2013-11-24 04:44:26 <roconnor> I didn't quite get how the computation that 25% hash power can reverse 6 confirmations 5% of the time.
612 2013-11-24 04:44:41 <n0n0> what do you mean by captive?
613 2013-11-24 04:44:44 <gmaxwell> roconnor: its the program at the bottom of satoshi's paper.
614 2013-11-24 04:44:49 martinn has left ()
615 2013-11-24 04:45:18 <roconnor> ty
616 2013-11-24 04:45:36 <gmaxwell> n0n0: you start a business and make mining asics. lots of mining asics. Then you put them in a datacenter and allow people to buy the hashpower from you in 1gh/s increments. But you continue to control everything, charging the new 'owners' a maintance fee...
617 2013-11-24 04:45:45 <gmaxwell> roconnor: I made a lame web version of it: https://people.xiph.org/~greg/attack_success.html
618 2013-11-24 04:46:09 HM2 has quit (Excess Flood)
619 2013-11-24 04:46:27 <n0n0> i see. so ghash.io is starting to become a big bad entity, basically
620 2013-11-24 04:46:32 <gmaxwell> n0n0: you call this service cex.io. :P and because of the huge order pipeline for mining hardware people are willing to pay huge multiples for available-now hosted mining vs hardware in hand.
621 2013-11-24 04:46:44 K1773R has quit (Excess Flood)
622 2013-11-24 04:47:00 <gmaxwell> (ghash.io is cex.io's "pool", a majority of ghash.io's mining is cex.io miners which can't vote with their feet in any case)
623 2013-11-24 04:47:04 K1773R has joined
624 2013-11-24 04:47:12 <n0n0> i see
625 2013-11-24 04:47:33 <gmaxwell> Moral_hazards++;
626 2013-11-24 04:48:00 <n0n0> sounds to me like bitcoin might be victim then of stupid people doing stupid stuff en masse just by having 'B-signs' in their eyes and 'mining, mining, mining, no matter what'
627 2013-11-24 04:48:57 aceat64 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
628 2013-11-24 04:49:26 <gmaxwell> At least right now, I think thats not entirely incorrect. But I don't take such a negative perspective on it. Mining is actually really hard and risky right now, it's exhausting keeping up with all the fradulent hardware vendors, etc.
629 2013-11-24 04:49:46 paracyst has quit (Excess Flood)
630 2013-11-24 04:50:01 <n0n0> so you expect the business to grow up and miners behaving more responsibly?
631 2013-11-24 04:50:09 <gmaxwell> I really believe that a lot of miners have just exhausted their capacity to worry about stuff... they want to put some money in and get some more money out, sure, but they're willing to consider a finite amount of extra considerations.
632 2013-11-24 04:50:42 <gmaxwell> I think bitcoin will ultimately fail if it doesn't... so at some point other bitcoiners will realize they need to cluestick the mining community, but we'll see how it pans out.
633 2013-11-24 04:51:17 <gmaxwell> We also have a large base of true believers (e.g. see /r/Bitcoin) who are too eager to wave away every risk... so that complicates things.
634 2013-11-24 04:51:32 <gmaxwell> (I think all these risks are survivable, but we can't get over them without being frank about them :) )
635 2013-11-24 04:51:32 iz has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
636 2013-11-24 04:51:44 porquilho has quit ()
637 2013-11-24 04:51:54 <n0n0> no that sounds very reasonable
638 2013-11-24 04:52:53 <jgarzik> Bitcoin is ultimately an engineering system. I always thought that, if bitcoin proved to be viable and growing, it would simply be bought by the rich and powerful ;p Goldman will run miners, HSBC will run miners, banks will run the payment network etc.
639 2013-11-24 04:53:17 <roconnor> how much value is a ghash.io like character forgoing to attempt double spend attacks?
640 2013-11-24 04:53:19 <jgarzik> You make a few non-elites rich along the way, but ultimately The Powers That Be run the network
641 2013-11-24 04:54:13 SomeoneWeird has quit (Excess Flood)
642 2013-11-24 04:54:21 <gmaxwell> Maybe, I'll consider that sad... esp having seen more of how corrupt the banking industry is in general since getting into Bitcoin.
643 2013-11-24 04:54:30 <n0n0> well, i guess some centralization is unavoidable eventually, right?
644 2013-11-24 04:54:31 SomeoneWeird has joined
645 2013-11-24 04:54:34 <gmaxwell> There are lots of possible endgames for Bitcoin.
646 2013-11-24 04:54:45 SomeoneWeird is now known as Guest55038
647 2013-11-24 04:55:02 <roconnor> I guess I want a graph of how much money is required for a pool with a given fraction of hash power to go for a double spend over simply mining.
648 2013-11-24 04:55:15 <gmaxwell> n0n0: Well if you leave 'some' undefined. :P it's not like we're going to all go grinding up sand to build our own cpus. :) But I don't think it's clear that a high degree is unavoidable.
649 2013-11-24 04:55:31 <gmaxwell> roconnor: depends on how valuable the double spends they can make are.
650 2013-11-24 04:55:32 HM has joined
651 2013-11-24 04:55:46 <roconnor> gmaxwell: precisely
652 2013-11-24 04:56:06 <n0n0> gmaxwell, do you consider lets say a small group being able to run a node but not an individual alone still being decentralized?
653 2013-11-24 04:56:16 Guest55038 has quit (Changing host)
654 2013-11-24 04:56:16 Guest55038 has joined
655 2013-11-24 04:56:26 Guest55038 is now known as SomeoneWeird
656 2013-11-24 04:56:29 <gmaxwell> roconnor: e.g. if you can gain 1000 BTC from a successful double spend, it's pretty darn profitable to try. The gambling sites make good targets: accepting few confirmed or unconfirmed txn, being automated, and having large piggybanks to raid.
657 2013-11-24 04:56:33 HM has left ()
658 2013-11-24 04:56:35 <jgarzik> n0n0, decentralized cannot be determined from that definition alone
659 2013-11-24 04:56:39 <roconnor> if I were a merchant it would be nice to get some guidance on how many confirmations I should get when offered a transaction of size $X.
660 2013-11-24 04:56:51 <roconnor> well, X BTC
661 2013-11-24 04:56:55 <jgarzik> decentralized implied <whomever> is widely dispersed, geographically, politically, individually, ...
662 2013-11-24 04:57:00 HM2 has joined
663 2013-11-24 04:57:49 <gmaxwell> n0n0: It depends on if they would do so. Could is a weird metric, as an indivigual for years I maintained personal backups of all of the wikimedia resources (tens of tbytes) when there were no offsite backups of all of it.
664 2013-11-24 04:57:50 GingerGeek[Away] has quit (Ping timeout: 262 seconds)
665 2013-11-24 04:57:59 <n0n0> jgarzik, hmm. but isn't the ability to have technical dispersion tied to the possibilty of political dispersion? and isn't geographical dispersion pretty much a given?
666 2013-11-24 04:58:03 <roconnor> I can probably work it out myself, but persumably someone has already done the math.
667 2013-11-24 04:58:44 <gmaxwell> n0n0: instead I think it's more useful to think about the kinds of attacks that could or couldn't work due to a level of decenteralization. E.g. can a collection of authorities choose to inflate the supply with some well meaning economic arguments or even selfish motivations.
668 2013-11-24 04:59:06 <gmaxwell> roconnor: sadly that question doesn't have an answer. A reorg could be double spending many things not just you.
669 2013-11-24 04:59:07 <n0n0> gmaxwell, i see that point. i actually am wondering about the current state of backups also wrt. to bitcoin. not the blockchain, of course, but are there regular zips to download for the mailing list/forum?
670 2013-11-24 04:59:18 <roconnor> gmaxwell: oh
671 2013-11-24 04:59:24 <roconnor> that is a bit scary
672 2013-11-24 04:59:30 <jgarzik> n0n0, the blockchain is the only thing to back up
673 2013-11-24 04:59:36 <gmaxwell> roconnor: I tried to run numbers assuming that all the txn in a block were double spends and started coming up with numbers like 15-20 blocks for current txn loads... :(
674 2013-11-24 04:59:37 <jgarzik> n0n0, on a global scale
675 2013-11-24 04:59:52 <jgarzik> n0n0, alternate blockchain download methods include http and torrent
676 2013-11-24 04:59:54 <roconnor> gmaxwell: that's not too crazy.
677 2013-11-24 05:00:07 roconnor has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
678 2013-11-24 05:00:07 <gmaxwell> Assuming an attacker with 30% hashpower or whatever the largest pool was at the time.
679 2013-11-24 05:00:23 GingerGeek[Away] has joined
680 2013-11-24 05:00:37 <gmaxwell> n0n0: every full node is currently a backup.
681 2013-11-24 05:00:50 roconnor has joined
682 2013-11-24 05:00:50 GingerGeek[Away] is now known as GingerGeek
683 2013-11-24 05:00:56 <n0n0> jgarzik, well but isn't there a lot of value in the different discussions etc. that happened wrt. to goals/implementation details/problems etc. of bitcoin? i mean, if bitcointalk.org and bitcoin.it gets should down suddenly for whatever reason, i feel a lot of data would e lost
684 2013-11-24 05:00:59 <gmaxwell> in the future that might change but for now, they all are. :)
685 2013-11-24 05:01:01 Skav has joined
686 2013-11-24 05:01:12 <gmaxwell> n0n0: oh there are backups of bitcointalk.org
687 2013-11-24 05:01:26 <gmaxwell> (not public ones, but several people recieve regular backups)
688 2013-11-24 05:01:44 <jgarzik> and then of course the various google etc. caches, archive.org, ...
689 2013-11-24 05:01:47 <gmaxwell> there were backups of bitcoin.it but I'm not sure if they're still ongoing, good that you've brought that up. I'll go ask magicaltux now.
690 2013-11-24 05:01:48 iz has joined
691 2013-11-24 05:01:57 wei__ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
692 2013-11-24 05:02:27 <n0n0> i see ok.
693 2013-11-24 05:03:59 MobPhone has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
694 2013-11-24 05:05:10 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
695 2013-11-24 05:06:49 <n0n0> well, thanks for clarifying these issues for me. i especially didn't know that successful doublespending attacks were occuring with some of the largest pools involved in them. that is indeed kind of scary. is ghash.io still growing in its hashing share?
696 2013-11-24 05:07:50 btcbtc has joined
697 2013-11-24 05:08:26 <gmaxwell> n0n0: doesn't look like its growing much, it had sunk to 20% (through other things growing), and is back up to 25% now. In general things are stable at the moment, hashpower switcharounds mostly seem to be triggered by a new hardware vendor shipping or DOS attacks.
698 2013-11-24 05:10:49 <n0n0> i heard also that there are plans to do extra peering between the pools. is that already happening or just theoretical at the monent?
699 2013-11-24 05:11:05 <gmaxwell> n0n0: it's something thats always existed to some degree or another.
700 2013-11-24 05:11:12 dparrish has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
701 2013-11-24 05:11:35 <gmaxwell> n0n0: but going an encouraging it and making sure its good is helpful, also, bluematt setup a number of fast relayer nodes which have been announced and some people are using.
702 2013-11-24 05:11:51 <n0n0> i see
703 2013-11-24 05:12:28 <gmaxwell> (there has been some historic distrust between pool operators which may have reduced peering which otherwise would have existed)
704 2013-11-24 05:12:41 <n0n0> it sounds like there is a huge social/real-life component involved in the honest nodes keeping everything up and running :) not that i think it is a problem at all. it's just interesting.
705 2013-11-24 05:14:57 <gmaxwell> n0n0: I like to think of it as a second layer of security. Ideally the system is secure on just a technical and simple economic basis, but there are doubts and weak spots and we backstop them with social / human components, hopefully without compromising the involitility of the promises the system makes.
706 2013-11-24 05:15:53 Raziel has quit (Quit: Leaving)
707 2013-11-24 05:16:02 cadaver has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
708 2013-11-24 05:16:38 cadaver has joined
709 2013-11-24 05:18:02 <n0n0> yeah, that makes sense. i was just expecting that the number of dishonest players was <<50% and not like 25% of hashing power
710 2013-11-24 05:20:18 <n0n0> pool with 25% of hashing power trying to do doublespends sounds like a lot to me. i guess i have to hope the explanation is just miners selecting the wrong company.
711 2013-11-24 05:23:36 <pigeons> as gmaxwell mentioned some users have purchased something similar to equipment rental or leased hashing from the company that requires using that pool
712 2013-11-24 05:25:35 pZombie has joined
713 2013-11-24 05:28:50 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 241 seconds)
714 2013-11-24 05:30:04 <n0n0> yeah, i see. it looks like though that ghash.io is under a lot of fire now. that's good! :)
715 2013-11-24 05:34:35 <pZombie> i think there are way more problems. Nothing is really good
716 2013-11-24 05:36:05 <n0n0> what do you mean?
717 2013-11-24 05:36:22 <pZombie> 5% of all coins seized by the FBI. Exchanges that run with the USD, is why you see the strange prices currently, and the drop followed by it. You cannot really have a healthy coin the time you have to rely on banks.
718 2013-11-24 05:36:31 lachesis_ has joined
719 2013-11-24 05:37:00 <pZombie> of course you might argue that people are not supposed to use exchanges, but they will anyway
720 2013-11-24 05:37:50 <pZombie> it's quite obvious something fishy is going on with stamp, is why you see the prices above gox even that has it's own payout issues
721 2013-11-24 05:37:51 <n0n0> rely on banks?
722 2013-11-24 05:37:52 lachesis has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
723 2013-11-24 05:37:52 lachesis_ is now known as lachesis
724 2013-11-24 05:38:02 <pZombie> the exchanges have to
725 2013-11-24 05:38:11 iz has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
726 2013-11-24 05:38:43 <n0n0> ok, but what do you think is going on then that is problematic, exactly?
727 2013-11-24 05:39:05 Coincide_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
728 2013-11-24 05:39:09 <pZombie> well, if you see no problem there, regarding the distribution of the coins, then ok
729 2013-11-24 05:39:13 cadaver has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
730 2013-11-24 05:39:40 Coincidental has joined
731 2013-11-24 05:39:47 <n0n0> you mean exchanges are not properly doing their business?
732 2013-11-24 05:39:59 <pZombie> of course they are not
733 2013-11-24 05:41:14 <pZombie> how could they even? They have to store USD at banks, and banks are not that helpful when it comes to btc
734 2013-11-24 05:41:25 cadaver has joined
735 2013-11-24 05:41:52 <n0n0> ok, but it almost sounds like you suspect the banks conspiring against the exchanges or something? or what are you implying?
736 2013-11-24 05:43:49 c_k has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
737 2013-11-24 05:43:53 Coincidental has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
738 2013-11-24 05:44:46 tsche has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
739 2013-11-24 05:45:00 c_k has joined
740 2013-11-24 05:45:27 <pZombie> n0n0 have you watched the prices lately? btc-e 120 behind stamp usually, 100 behind gox. people are getting their money out via btc on both and dump it onto btc-e they consider to have USD still
741 2013-11-24 05:46:02 <pZombie> if you run an exchange, and simply run with the USD, it keep working still, even if you payout noone
742 2013-11-24 05:47:00 <pZombie> as soon as people realize they cannot get out their USD, they turn the fake USD on the exchange, which is just numbers in the computer to BTC, and try to get it out somewhere else
743 2013-11-24 05:47:18 <pZombie> this is what happened with gox, and now is happening with stamp
744 2013-11-24 05:47:44 <n0n0> i thought mtgox is just slow in getting it out?
745 2013-11-24 05:48:13 <pZombie> slow because of what reason?
746 2013-11-24 05:48:34 <n0n0> i heard people say they have like 25 wires / day?
747 2013-11-24 05:48:38 <pZombie> you really believe it is slow because their computers cannot process is fast enough?
748 2013-11-24 05:49:09 <pZombie> 25 wires per day is alot?
749 2013-11-24 05:49:11 <n0n0> well, i do not know how their backend looks like. i got money out of mtgox once fine, back in 2010 or so
750 2013-11-24 05:49:23 <n0n0> no, it's ridiculously low, of course
751 2013-11-24 05:50:40 <n0n0> so do you think it is the banks or the exchanges themselves?
752 2013-11-24 05:50:52 <pZombie> either or, or both
753 2013-11-24 05:51:18 <n0n0> i know people in germany using euro exchanges having no problems
754 2013-11-24 05:51:23 tsche has joined
755 2013-11-24 05:51:40 <pZombie> you mean like bitcoin24 that also got shut?
756 2013-11-24 05:51:46 <n0n0> i don't know which one
757 2013-11-24 05:51:55 <pZombie> bitstamp had no problems for quite some time
758 2013-11-24 05:52:05 <pZombie> until now
759 2013-11-24 05:52:42 <pZombie> i had to pull out myself, and lose over 1k, but better lose 1k than all
760 2013-11-24 05:53:16 <pZombie> have you heard anything of the owner for the past months?
761 2013-11-24 05:54:12 <n0n0> no? i don't really know any people in the 'scene' of exchanges
762 2013-11-24 05:55:47 roconnor has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
763 2013-11-24 05:57:07 <n0n0> so it sounds like the polish one, bitcoin24, has problem with the polish authorities and didn't really run with the money?
764 2013-11-24 05:57:39 <n0n0> ( I guess this is also rather for #bitcoin, so I'll continue talking there)
765 2013-11-24 05:57:52 <pZombie> in this case it might have been just the banks
766 2013-11-24 06:06:25 Emcy has joined
767 2013-11-24 06:06:25 Emcy has quit (Changing host)
768 2013-11-24 06:06:25 Emcy has joined
769 2013-11-24 06:06:39 Coincidental has joined
770 2013-11-24 06:07:31 dlunch has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
771 2013-11-24 06:08:35 wei__ has joined
772 2013-11-24 06:08:38 dlunch has joined
773 2013-11-24 06:12:35 OneFixt has joined
774 2013-11-24 06:13:32 iz has joined
775 2013-11-24 06:14:23 fluffypony has joined
776 2013-11-24 06:14:56 <fluffypony> so I have a question: is it possible to programmatically get the current block reward? GetBlockValue isn't exposed through the API
777 2013-11-24 06:16:43 <gmaxwell> fluffypony: it's a simple formula.. or you can getblocktemplate extra from there.
778 2013-11-24 06:17:01 <gmaxwell> (simple foruma from the height, which bitcoind gives you in several ways)
779 2013-11-24 06:18:03 <fluffypony> ah didn't think about getblocktemplate
780 2013-11-24 06:20:39 saizai has quit (Quit: saizai)
781 2013-11-24 06:21:12 saizai has joined
782 2013-11-24 06:21:21 Muis has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
783 2013-11-24 06:21:45 Muis has joined
784 2013-11-24 06:23:31 Guest14808 has joined
785 2013-11-24 06:24:00 FluffyBunny has quit (Quit: Off to my cookies⦠And milkâ¦)
786 2013-11-24 06:24:16 <gmaxwell> TD[away]: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=344705.0 < somewhat ... odd response.
787 2013-11-24 06:24:31 aceat64 has joined
788 2013-11-24 06:25:08 paracyst has joined
789 2013-11-24 06:26:53 sc00bie has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
790 2013-11-24 06:27:32 ers35 has joined
791 2013-11-24 06:29:18 saizai has quit (Quit: saizai)
792 2013-11-24 06:35:11 ThomasV has joined
793 2013-11-24 06:39:36 n0n0 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
794 2013-11-24 06:41:54 xiangfu has joined
795 2013-11-24 06:43:17 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
796 2013-11-24 06:44:47 tsche has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
797 2013-11-24 06:51:00 tsche has joined
798 2013-11-24 06:51:22 brson has quit (Quit: leaving)
799 2013-11-24 07:00:37 Bituser123 has joined
800 2013-11-24 07:00:44 Coincidental has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
801 2013-11-24 07:06:34 doge has joined
802 2013-11-24 07:07:47 macboz has quit (Quit: Leaving)
803 2013-11-24 07:10:27 c0rw1n has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
804 2013-11-24 07:10:37 zer0def has joined
805 2013-11-24 07:10:39 doge has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
806 2013-11-24 07:11:09 macboz has joined
807 2013-11-24 07:11:18 fluffypony has left ("Cheerz.")
808 2013-11-24 07:21:39 Coincidental has joined
809 2013-11-24 07:23:42 midnightmagic has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
810 2013-11-24 07:25:43 xiangfu has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
811 2013-11-24 07:27:59 n0n0 has joined
812 2013-11-24 07:28:22 n0n0 is now known as Guest55127
813 2013-11-24 07:29:29 c0rw1n has joined
814 2013-11-24 07:33:12 nanotube has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
815 2013-11-24 07:34:41 macboz has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
816 2013-11-24 07:40:00 Emcy has quit (Quit: Leaving)
817 2013-11-24 07:40:24 Emcy has joined
818 2013-11-24 07:40:24 Emcy has quit (Changing host)
819 2013-11-24 07:40:24 Emcy has joined
820 2013-11-24 07:40:31 reneg has joined
821 2013-11-24 07:40:34 reneg has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
822 2013-11-24 07:40:40 nanotube has joined
823 2013-11-24 07:41:04 reneg has joined
824 2013-11-24 07:41:07 reneg has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
825 2013-11-24 07:42:27 reneg__ has joined
826 2013-11-24 07:43:47 reneg_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
827 2013-11-24 07:43:52 wei__ has quit (Quit: wei__)
828 2013-11-24 07:44:14 reneg has joined
829 2013-11-24 07:46:51 reneg__ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
830 2013-11-24 07:47:41 Heimdallr has quit (Quit: Leaving)
831 2013-11-24 07:48:57 fanquake_ has joined
832 2013-11-24 07:50:44 fanquake has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
833 2013-11-24 07:50:45 fanquake_ is now known as fanquake
834 2013-11-24 07:51:06 Guest55127 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
835 2013-11-24 07:51:27 Guest55127 has joined
836 2013-11-24 07:56:06 <michagogo> cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|6:03:22 <gulli> I think nobody answered the question though, why wait so long until you can spend transaction fees from a block?
837 2013-11-24 07:57:08 <michagogo> cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|Because coinbase coins can cease to exist (as far as the longest chain is concerned), which could invalidate a long chain of transactions in the case of a reorg
838 2013-11-24 07:57:38 reneg_ has joined
839 2013-11-24 07:57:52 <Luke-Jr> michagogo|cloud: it *could* have just flagged any spends of them as generation too..
840 2013-11-24 07:57:57 <Luke-Jr> unfortunately, it's a hardfork to fix that now
841 2013-11-24 07:58:07 <michagogo> cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|Say I mine a block, and a couple blocks later I pay you with the coinbase, and you pay a merchant, and they pay their supplier, etc
842 2013-11-24 07:59:11 <michagogo> cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|If my block gets orphaned, then my transaction to you is invalid
843 2013-11-24 07:59:34 <michagogo> cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|And so is your payment to the merchant, and their payment to their supplier
844 2013-11-24 08:00:01 <michagogo> cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|A whole chain of people losing their money, with no fault of their own
845 2013-11-24 08:00:11 reneg has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
846 2013-11-24 08:00:13 <lianj> thats why there is a coinbase maturity before it can be spend
847 2013-11-24 08:00:44 rdymac has quit (Excess Flood)
848 2013-11-24 08:00:55 <michagogo> cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|(A reorg can still invalidate a long chain of transactions, but only in the case of a double-spend -- normally those transactions will just get into the mempool and get remined)
849 2013-11-24 08:01:52 scoobitydoo has joined
850 2013-11-24 08:01:53 <michagogo> cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|lianj: read up, the question I was answering was "why is coinbase maturity a thing?"
851 2013-11-24 08:02:06 _ingsoc has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
852 2013-11-24 08:02:18 <lianj> oh then nevermind and sorry :)
853 2013-11-24 08:02:20 scoobitydoo has left ()
854 2013-11-24 08:02:35 scoobitydoo has joined
855 2013-11-24 08:03:44 _ingsoc has joined
856 2013-11-24 08:04:48 <sipa> gulli: fpr = fingerprint
857 2013-11-24 08:05:08 rdymac has joined
858 2013-11-24 08:05:57 helpwithQT has joined
859 2013-11-24 08:06:08 helpwithQT has left ()
860 2013-11-24 08:08:42 CryptoBuck has joined
861 2013-11-24 08:10:29 midnightmagic has joined
862 2013-11-24 08:15:38 midnightmagic has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
863 2013-11-24 08:21:14 imton has joined
864 2013-11-24 08:21:17 scoobitydoo has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
865 2013-11-24 08:21:59 darkee has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
866 2013-11-24 08:22:19 darkee has joined
867 2013-11-24 08:22:31 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
868 2013-11-24 08:26:59 freewil has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
869 2013-11-24 08:30:44 robbak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
870 2013-11-24 08:31:07 robbak has joined
871 2013-11-24 08:31:26 midnightmagic has joined
872 2013-11-24 08:31:34 Coincidental has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
873 2013-11-24 08:32:11 reneg_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
874 2013-11-24 08:32:28 reneg has joined
875 2013-11-24 08:32:38 reneg has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
876 2013-11-24 08:33:02 reneg has joined
877 2013-11-24 08:33:09 toffoo has quit ()
878 2013-11-24 08:36:38 bitspill has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
879 2013-11-24 08:37:39 imton_ has joined
880 2013-11-24 08:38:09 Tantadruj has quit (Quit: DoubleRecall Turns Paywalls Into Advertising Dollars - NYTimes.com http://nyti.ms/odHOgy)
881 2013-11-24 08:38:20 Tantadruj has joined
882 2013-11-24 08:39:04 reneg_ has joined
883 2013-11-24 08:39:07 reneg_ has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
884 2013-11-24 08:39:33 imton has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
885 2013-11-24 08:39:34 imton_ is now known as imton
886 2013-11-24 08:40:00 reneg_ has joined
887 2013-11-24 08:41:11 robbak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
888 2013-11-24 08:41:32 cadaver has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
889 2013-11-24 08:41:36 robbak has joined
890 2013-11-24 08:41:44 reneg has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
891 2013-11-24 08:42:55 tmsk has joined
892 2013-11-24 08:43:05 tmsk has quit (Client Quit)
893 2013-11-24 08:43:24 tmsk has joined
894 2013-11-24 08:43:35 eristisk has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
895 2013-11-24 08:48:25 reneg_ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
896 2013-11-24 08:52:16 reneg has joined
897 2013-11-24 08:52:20 reneg has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
898 2013-11-24 08:53:23 reneg has joined
899 2013-11-24 08:53:26 reneg has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
900 2013-11-24 08:54:10 reneg has joined
901 2013-11-24 08:54:13 reneg has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
902 2013-11-24 08:54:39 reneg has joined
903 2013-11-24 08:55:10 gfawkes_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
904 2013-11-24 08:56:21 robbak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
905 2013-11-24 08:56:47 robbak has joined
906 2013-11-24 08:56:55 robbak has quit (Changing host)
907 2013-11-24 08:56:55 robbak has joined
908 2013-11-24 08:57:47 Fnar has joined
909 2013-11-24 08:58:56 reneg has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
910 2013-11-24 09:00:48 reneg_ has joined
911 2013-11-24 09:02:49 _ingsoc has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
912 2013-11-24 09:03:06 darkee has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
913 2013-11-24 09:03:30 darkee has joined
914 2013-11-24 09:04:09 edcba has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
915 2013-11-24 09:04:58 _ingsoc has joined
916 2013-11-24 09:05:20 Guest55127 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
917 2013-11-24 09:05:51 agnostic98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
918 2013-11-24 09:06:46 Emcy has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
919 2013-11-24 09:08:38 ThomasV has joined
920 2013-11-24 09:13:02 darkee has quit (Quit: darkee)
921 2013-11-24 09:15:29 Tantadruj has quit (Quit: DoubleRecall Turns Paywalls Into Advertising Dollars - NYTimes.com http://nyti.ms/odHOgy)
922 2013-11-24 09:16:43 edcba has joined
923 2013-11-24 09:18:07 damethos has joined
924 2013-11-24 09:29:16 Emcy has joined
925 2013-11-24 09:35:57 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
926 2013-11-24 09:37:21 agnostic98 has joined
927 2013-11-24 09:37:21 jn7n has joined
928 2013-11-24 09:40:59 ircuser-6 has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
929 2013-11-24 09:41:36 skinnkavaj has joined
930 2013-11-24 09:41:36 skinnkavaj has quit (Changing host)
931 2013-11-24 09:41:36 skinnkavaj has joined
932 2013-11-24 09:42:09 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
933 2013-11-24 09:42:35 Polyatomic has quit (Quit: Leaving)
934 2013-11-24 09:44:35 tholenst has joined
935 2013-11-24 09:49:37 Guyver2 has joined
936 2013-11-24 09:52:26 robbak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
937 2013-11-24 09:52:53 robbak has joined
938 2013-11-24 10:05:28 kinglet has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
939 2013-11-24 10:06:37 kinglet has joined
940 2013-11-24 10:06:39 SwampTony has joined
941 2013-11-24 10:08:27 Anduck has joined
942 2013-11-24 10:11:12 kinglet has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
943 2013-11-24 10:13:49 kinglet has joined
944 2013-11-24 10:21:03 SwampTony has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
945 2013-11-24 10:21:21 SwampTony has joined
946 2013-11-24 10:21:26 SwampTony has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
947 2013-11-24 10:21:45 SwampTony has joined
948 2013-11-24 10:22:03 kinglet has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
949 2013-11-24 10:23:05 robbak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
950 2013-11-24 10:23:31 robbak has joined
951 2013-11-24 10:24:38 kinglet has joined
952 2013-11-24 10:24:38 kinglet has quit (Changing host)
953 2013-11-24 10:24:38 kinglet has joined
954 2013-11-24 10:28:42 ircuser-6 has joined
955 2013-11-24 10:28:59 kinglet has quit (Ping timeout: 241 seconds)
956 2013-11-24 10:34:44 skinnkavaj has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
957 2013-11-24 10:35:54 kinglet has joined
958 2013-11-24 10:35:54 kinglet has quit (Changing host)
959 2013-11-24 10:35:54 kinglet has joined
960 2013-11-24 10:39:13 kinglet_ has joined
961 2013-11-24 10:39:29 py has joined
962 2013-11-24 10:39:31 kinglet has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
963 2013-11-24 10:39:35 agnostic98 has joined
964 2013-11-24 10:43:03 CryptoBuck has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
965 2013-11-24 10:43:08 py has quit (Client Quit)
966 2013-11-24 10:44:06 CryptoBuck has joined
967 2013-11-24 10:45:09 skinnkavaj has joined
968 2013-11-24 10:45:09 skinnkavaj has quit (Changing host)
969 2013-11-24 10:45:09 skinnkavaj has joined
970 2013-11-24 10:46:27 darkee has joined
971 2013-11-24 10:46:33 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
972 2013-11-24 10:47:19 20WAANFOO has joined
973 2013-11-24 10:49:35 <HaltingState> gmaxwell, ripple is really adhoc; he takes a sha512 and then throws out everything but first 256 bits instead of using sha256... dont even want to think about it
974 2013-11-24 10:52:16 Eiii has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
975 2013-11-24 10:56:58 Guyver2 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
976 2013-11-24 10:57:32 avantgeek_ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
977 2013-11-24 10:59:17 Thepok has joined
978 2013-11-24 11:01:59 Skav is now known as MobPhone
979 2013-11-24 11:02:49 _ingsoc has quit (Quit: leaving)
980 2013-11-24 11:03:31 hmmma has joined
981 2013-11-24 11:04:24 SwampTony has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
982 2013-11-24 11:04:59 SwampTony has joined
983 2013-11-24 11:05:21 xiangfu has joined
984 2013-11-24 11:06:51 Guest14808 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
985 2013-11-24 11:07:14 <sipa> HaltingState: that's no less crazy than bitcoin's use of double-sha256 imho
986 2013-11-24 11:09:29 SwampTony has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
987 2013-11-24 11:09:38 <HaltingState> sipa, double sha256 protects against type 1 preimage attacks
988 2013-11-24 11:09:45 <HaltingState> its like sha256 but with more rounds
989 2013-11-24 11:09:58 <HaltingState> and if bitcoin is using same hash in 30 years, sha256 would not be enough
990 2013-11-24 11:10:08 <sipa> maybe
991 2013-11-24 11:10:37 <HaltingState> but sha512 and then dropping half the bits does not extend number of rounds; its just voodoo
992 2013-11-24 11:11:19 <sipa> it's a very weak criticism imo... there are way worse problems with it
993 2013-11-24 11:11:59 <sipa> sha512 is faster than sha256 on 64-bit hardware; truncating it gives you something with similar security properties
994 2013-11-24 11:13:14 hmmma has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
995 2013-11-24 11:13:36 reizuki has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
996 2013-11-24 11:14:21 <tholenst> It should really give the same security properties, otherwise sha512 would be considered broken
997 2013-11-24 11:14:44 <tholenst> Not badly broken, but slightly broken still
998 2013-11-24 11:14:47 Gnaf_ has joined
999 2013-11-24 11:16:22 tmsk has quit (Quit: tmsk)
1000 2013-11-24 11:17:30 Gnaf_ has quit (Client Quit)
1001 2013-11-24 11:17:41 Gnaf has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1002 2013-11-24 11:33:20 cluelessperson has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1003 2013-11-24 11:33:47 btcbtc has quit (Quit: btcbtc)
1004 2013-11-24 11:34:03 cluelessperson has joined
1005 2013-11-24 11:34:50 handle has joined
1006 2013-11-24 11:35:41 SwampTony has joined
1007 2013-11-24 11:36:18 go1111111 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1008 2013-11-24 11:36:32 Niko- has joined
1009 2013-11-24 11:36:46 owowo has joined
1010 2013-11-24 11:37:00 SwampTony has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1011 2013-11-24 11:37:35 canoon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1012 2013-11-24 11:37:36 SwampTony has joined
1013 2013-11-24 11:41:52 SwampTony has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1014 2013-11-24 11:42:09 Guyver2 has joined
1015 2013-11-24 11:53:37 Gnaf has joined
1016 2013-11-24 11:54:07 Gnaf has quit (Changing host)
1017 2013-11-24 11:54:07 Gnaf has joined
1018 2013-11-24 11:57:29 saizai has joined
1019 2013-11-24 11:57:51 samson_ has joined
1020 2013-11-24 11:59:44 <Luke-Jr> sipa: also, SHA-512 has known weaknesses
1021 2013-11-24 12:01:17 <Luke-Jr> unless I'm remembering something different
1022 2013-11-24 12:02:22 wiretapped has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1023 2013-11-24 12:02:33 <coin1> i don´t think any relevant weakness was found in sha2
1024 2013-11-24 12:02:42 xiangfu has quit (Quit: leaving)
1025 2013-11-24 12:02:44 wiretapped has joined
1026 2013-11-24 12:02:58 xiangfu has joined
1027 2013-11-24 12:03:02 <Luke-Jr> there was something found where a more-bits algo was reduced to less effectiveness than a fewer-bits one
1028 2013-11-24 12:03:53 <robbak> (Does anyone here know the internals of the mycelium wallet's data.xml file? Or where anyone who might know would hang out?)
1029 2013-11-24 12:04:23 farmanimal has joined
1030 2013-11-24 12:04:27 K1773R has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1031 2013-11-24 12:06:34 gjs278 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1032 2013-11-24 12:07:21 <sipa> Luke-Jr: AES-256 being weaker than AES-128?
1033 2013-11-24 12:08:25 gjs278 has joined
1034 2013-11-24 12:09:07 SwampTony has joined
1035 2013-11-24 12:09:10 jMyles has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1036 2013-11-24 12:11:54 <tholenst> Is there an explanation anywhere why the semantics of OP_CHECKSIG are so complicated?
1037 2013-11-24 12:12:40 K1773R has joined
1038 2013-11-24 12:12:44 <tholenst> Or rather why they are as is. It is clear to me that too simple semantics don't work.
1039 2013-11-24 12:13:11 <sipa> you mean the computation of the signature hash?
1040 2013-11-24 12:13:41 <tholenst> yes
1041 2013-11-24 12:14:33 <coin1> Luke-Jr, never heard of that, do you have any link?
1042 2013-11-24 12:15:52 _ingsoc has joined
1043 2013-11-24 12:19:33 <Luke-Jr> sipa: that may be it
1044 2013-11-24 12:24:29 reizuki has joined
1045 2013-11-24 12:24:29 reizuki has quit (Changing host)
1046 2013-11-24 12:24:29 reizuki has joined
1047 2013-11-24 12:24:52 SwampTony has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1048 2013-11-24 12:25:27 saizai has quit (Quit: saizai)
1049 2013-11-24 12:25:27 SwampTony has joined
1050 2013-11-24 12:25:51 SwampTony has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1051 2013-11-24 12:26:22 SwampTony has joined
1052 2013-11-24 12:26:52 Guyver2 has quit (Quit: :))
1053 2013-11-24 12:32:36 btcbtc has joined
1054 2013-11-24 12:32:57 fanquake has left ()
1055 2013-11-24 12:34:55 TD has joined
1056 2013-11-24 12:37:27 btcbtc has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1057 2013-11-24 12:38:55 agnostic98 has joined
1058 2013-11-24 12:38:57 TD has quit (Client Quit)
1059 2013-11-24 12:39:14 mrpuffin has joined
1060 2013-11-24 12:40:30 a_meteor has joined
1061 2013-11-24 12:41:36 cads has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1062 2013-11-24 12:42:03 GingerGeek has quit (Excess Flood)
1063 2013-11-24 12:42:07 Raziel has joined
1064 2013-11-24 12:42:37 GingerGeek has joined
1065 2013-11-24 12:43:21 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1066 2013-11-24 12:43:40 throwaway123 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1067 2013-11-24 12:44:00 throwaway123 has joined
1068 2013-11-24 12:44:33 Thepok has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1069 2013-11-24 12:45:36 owowo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1070 2013-11-24 12:47:38 gritball_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1071 2013-11-24 12:48:32 TD has joined
1072 2013-11-24 12:50:02 mattco has quit ()
1073 2013-11-24 12:50:14 gritball has joined
1074 2013-11-24 12:52:33 mmckx has joined
1075 2013-11-24 12:53:09 owowo has joined
1076 2013-11-24 12:58:28 testnode9 has joined
1077 2013-11-24 13:00:27 yeahoffline has joined
1078 2013-11-24 13:01:08 samson_ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1079 2013-11-24 13:01:15 samson_ has joined
1080 2013-11-24 13:03:35 daybyter has joined
1081 2013-11-24 13:08:37 Uglux has joined
1082 2013-11-24 13:10:18 mattco has joined
1083 2013-11-24 13:12:38 Gnaf has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.90.1 [Firefox 25.0.1/20131112160018])
1084 2013-11-24 13:20:24 mhanne has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1085 2013-11-24 13:25:25 Anduck has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1086 2013-11-24 13:26:31 wallet43 has joined
1087 2013-11-24 13:27:53 c0rw1n has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1088 2013-11-24 13:31:15 Grouver has joined
1089 2013-11-24 13:31:56 Anduck has joined
1090 2013-11-24 13:32:02 Anduck has quit (Changing host)
1091 2013-11-24 13:32:02 Anduck has joined
1092 2013-11-24 13:32:34 one_zero has quit ()
1093 2013-11-24 13:33:05 <warren> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3296 <-- seeing all kinds of interesting garbage with this patch
1094 2013-11-24 13:37:37 <gmaxwell> warren: figure out why your memory usage is so high? Could you try running 0.8.5 stock and seeing if its still high?
1095 2013-11-24 13:38:07 <warren> gmaxwell: i'll try tomorrow
1096 2013-11-24 13:38:25 <warren> trying to finish reviewing your external ip patch without falling asleep
1097 2013-11-24 13:39:08 agnostic98 has joined
1098 2013-11-24 13:42:08 damethos has quit (Quit: Bye)
1099 2013-11-24 13:43:45 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1100 2013-11-24 13:44:15 Namworld has quit ()
1101 2013-11-24 13:45:37 jaakkos has quit (Changing host)
1102 2013-11-24 13:45:37 jaakkos has joined
1103 2013-11-24 13:49:02 SwampTony has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1104 2013-11-24 13:49:03 xiangfu_ has joined
1105 2013-11-24 13:49:21 valparaiso has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1106 2013-11-24 13:49:40 SwampTony has joined
1107 2013-11-24 13:51:10 mrpuffin has left ()
1108 2013-11-24 13:54:13 gritball_ has joined
1109 2013-11-24 13:54:34 SwampTony has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1110 2013-11-24 13:54:51 xiangfu__ has joined
1111 2013-11-24 13:56:20 yeahoffline has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1112 2013-11-24 13:56:56 yeahoffline has joined
1113 2013-11-24 13:57:26 gritball has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1114 2013-11-24 14:00:57 t7 has joined
1115 2013-11-24 14:01:33 yeahoffline has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1116 2013-11-24 14:04:32 yeahoffline has joined
1117 2013-11-24 14:04:39 iwilcox_ has joined
1118 2013-11-24 14:04:39 iwilcox_ has quit (Changing host)
1119 2013-11-24 14:04:39 iwilcox_ has joined
1120 2013-11-24 14:06:56 a_meteor has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1121 2013-11-24 14:07:07 D33PZ has joined
1122 2013-11-24 14:07:45 a_meteor has joined
1123 2013-11-24 14:07:53 yeahoffline has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1124 2013-11-24 14:07:54 iwilcox has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1125 2013-11-24 14:07:54 iwilcox_ is now known as iwilcox
1126 2013-11-24 14:08:20 yeahoffline has joined
1127 2013-11-24 14:08:26 D33PZ has quit (Client Quit)
1128 2013-11-24 14:11:27 GingerGeek has left ("Leaving")
1129 2013-11-24 14:12:16 LiDE has joined
1130 2013-11-24 14:12:50 yeahoffline has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1131 2013-11-24 14:13:30 Starduster has joined
1132 2013-11-24 14:13:59 c0rw1n has joined
1133 2013-11-24 14:26:40 _ingsoc has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1134 2013-11-24 14:26:55 da2ce7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1135 2013-11-24 14:27:21 yeahoffline has joined
1136 2013-11-24 14:28:08 da2ce7 has joined
1137 2013-11-24 14:28:23 _ingsoc has joined
1138 2013-11-24 14:30:09 da2ce7_laptop has joined
1139 2013-11-24 14:30:10 da2ce7_laptop has quit (Client Quit)
1140 2013-11-24 14:32:13 tholenst has quit (Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs))
1141 2013-11-24 14:32:40 SwampTony has joined
1142 2013-11-24 14:32:54 SwampTony has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1143 2013-11-24 14:39:10 wei__ has joined
1144 2013-11-24 14:39:48 melvster has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1145 2013-11-24 14:40:28 twiceaday has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1146 2013-11-24 14:40:41 yeahoffline has quit ()
1147 2013-11-24 14:41:17 twiceaday has joined
1148 2013-11-24 14:41:28 melvster has joined
1149 2013-11-24 14:44:03 <gulli> I'm using bitcoinj. In one of the testvectors the fingerprint is 0x3442193e, I am on the otherhand getting 3442193e. It shoulnt matter though, does it? 0x just means its a constant, right?
1150 2013-11-24 14:44:22 AusBitBank has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1151 2013-11-24 14:44:31 <TD> an 0x prefix is the standard notation for "the following number is in hex" so that's correct, it doesn't matter
1152 2013-11-24 14:44:37 <TD> btw there is a #bitcoinj channel
1153 2013-11-24 14:45:07 _ingsoc has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1154 2013-11-24 14:45:58 Grouver has quit (Quit: HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <- s0 d4Mn l33t |t'z 5c4rY!)
1155 2013-11-24 14:46:00 Zarutian has joined
1156 2013-11-24 14:46:31 _ingsoc has joined
1157 2013-11-24 14:47:03 valparaiso has joined
1158 2013-11-24 14:48:00 <gulli> I know, im there
1159 2013-11-24 14:48:09 <gulli> just often we dont talk there :)
1160 2013-11-24 14:48:42 <TD> oh yes, so you are :)
1161 2013-11-24 14:48:47 <TD> sorry. didn't notice that
1162 2013-11-24 14:48:57 <TD> well the channel is new so it doesn't have much traffic yet
1163 2013-11-24 14:50:17 _ingsoc_ has joined
1164 2013-11-24 14:50:58 <gulli> I know hehe
1165 2013-11-24 14:51:14 Zarutian has quit (Quit: not quite it!)
1166 2013-11-24 14:54:42 gritball has joined
1167 2013-11-24 14:54:46 _ingsoc has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1168 2013-11-24 14:56:44 a_meteor has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1169 2013-11-24 14:57:11 c0rw1n has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1170 2013-11-24 14:57:34 gritball_ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1171 2013-11-24 15:13:43 Uglux has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1172 2013-11-24 15:16:07 <gmaxwell> sipa: libsecp256k1 only does about verifies 400/sec on 1ghz arm cortex-a9. :(
1173 2013-11-24 15:16:39 zyrox has joined
1174 2013-11-24 15:18:09 <sipa> gmaxwell: hmm, that's an order of magnitude less per cycle than an i7
1175 2013-11-24 15:18:28 <sipa> how many does openssl do?
1176 2013-11-24 15:18:31 <TD> it's a chip meant for smartphones
1177 2013-11-24 15:18:51 <TD> not really surprising that an intel core stomps it
1178 2013-11-24 15:19:15 <sipa> i know performance/cycle is hardly meaningful when comparing architectures, but i don't have a good grasp on what to expect from such a chip
1179 2013-11-24 15:19:21 mynameis has joined
1180 2013-11-24 15:21:27 <TD> it's complicated. these sorts of chips do a lot of thermal throttling too
1181 2013-11-24 15:21:44 <gmaxwell> A9's IPC is usually not that bad, it's a multi-issue out of order core. Mine doesn't do any thermal throttling.
1182 2013-11-24 15:21:46 <TD> so performance can be good and then bad
1183 2013-11-24 15:21:49 <TD> ah ok
1184 2013-11-24 15:22:07 <berndj> http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2013/11/24#l1385267211 gambling sites make good targets for robbing because what they send you is every bit as fungible as what you pay them with, right?
1185 2013-11-24 15:22:14 <sipa> gmaxwell: is that using 32-bit or 64-bit code?
1186 2013-11-24 15:22:15 <gmaxwell> sipa: how are you benchmarking ecdsa on openssl?
1187 2013-11-24 15:22:37 <gmaxwell> sipa: 32bit. (64bit arm is mostly not available yet)
1188 2013-11-24 15:22:39 <sipa> gmaxwell: -benchmark :p
1189 2013-11-24 15:23:01 Mqrius has joined
1190 2013-11-24 15:23:26 <sipa> well the 32-bit code in libsecp256k1 is about 4 times as slow as the 64-bit assembly-optimized one on an i7 too
1191 2013-11-24 15:23:27 <berndj> similarly robbing a machine moving company wouldn't work, right? well you could still do damage to them, but you wouldn't be gaining anything unless you actually wanted a lathe moved
1192 2013-11-24 15:24:47 <sipa> gmaxwell: so i think the performance per cycle is probably only a factor 2-3 slower
1193 2013-11-24 15:25:32 <Mqrius> On a fresh install of ubuntu 13.10, with an internet-facing IP address, how do I get bitcoin-qt more than 8 connections? I don't think I'm running any firewalls, so 1833 should be open already, no? I'm running on a laptop with an SSD and an i7, and I'm not sure HD is still the bottleneck there.
1194 2013-11-24 15:26:10 <edcba> there is some switch for that iirc...
1195 2013-11-24 15:26:23 <sipa> Mqrius: your HD will not matter at all in getting connections
1196 2013-11-24 15:26:31 <Mqrius> Port 8333*
1197 2013-11-24 15:26:37 <sipa> if you want more connections, first other nodes need to know about you - that can take a while
1198 2013-11-24 15:26:48 has joined
1199 2013-11-24 15:26:48 has quit (Clown|!~clown@2001-4dd0-203e-1-6ccc-b2d1-6248-bd4e.ipv6dyn.netcologne.de|Changing host)
1200 2013-11-24 15:26:48 has joined
1201 2013-11-24 15:26:52 citiz3n has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1202 2013-11-24 15:26:53 <sipa> unrelated, why do you want more connections?
1203 2013-11-24 15:26:58 <Mqrius> sipa: well aware. Usually this question is disregarded with "it's not the connections that's the bottleneck, it's your hard disk access"
1204 2013-11-24 15:27:15 <sipa> more connections, if anything, slow down initial syncing
1205 2013-11-24 15:27:16 <gmaxwell> Mqrius: more connections will not make it synchronize any faster.
1206 2013-11-24 15:27:21 <edcba> you are trying to download blockchain ?
1207 2013-11-24 15:27:25 <Mqrius> Yeah.
1208 2013-11-24 15:27:39 <edcba> better downloading your initial one...
1209 2013-11-24 15:27:42 xiangfu__ has quit (Quit: leaving)
1210 2013-11-24 15:27:44 <gmaxwell> sipa: speaking of that, hows things with headers first?
1211 2013-11-24 15:27:47 xiangfu_ has quit (Quit: leaving)
1212 2013-11-24 15:27:48 <sipa> gmaxwell: no time
1213 2013-11-24 15:27:50 <Mqrius> gmaxwell: are you saying that even with an SSD, hard disk access is the bottleneck?
1214 2013-11-24 15:28:05 citiz3n has joined
1215 2013-11-24 15:28:15 <gmaxwell> Mqrius: No.
1216 2013-11-24 15:28:45 <sipa> in the initial part, the block fetching logic is normally the bottleneck
1217 2013-11-24 15:28:47 <gmaxwell> sipa: Okay, just making sure that the crazy send headers withhold block DOS didn't scare you off of it. :)
1218 2013-11-24 15:28:48 <sipa> in the end, it's CPU
1219 2013-11-24 15:29:08 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1220 2013-11-24 15:29:26 <Mqrius> "block fetching logic", is an abstract concept bottlenecked by some hardware.
1221 2013-11-24 15:29:31 <gmaxwell> Mqrius: It only pulls from a single peer at a time in any case, so having more can never help.
1222 2013-11-24 15:29:38 <Mqrius> Hm. Right
1223 2013-11-24 15:30:04 <sipa> Mqrius: no, it's just a silly algorithm that's easily confused
1224 2013-11-24 15:30:23 <sipa> hardware has fairly little to do with it, unless it's really slow
1225 2013-11-24 15:30:38 <Mqrius> I see
1226 2013-11-24 15:30:39 <sipa> if you want to fetch blocks quickly, use -connect (or -addnode) with the IP of a fast peer
1227 2013-11-24 15:30:44 <sipa> or use bootstrap.dat
1228 2013-11-24 15:30:45 <wumpus> if the download is the bottleneck, you could download a bootstrap.dat (through a torrent, for example) to make it go faster
1229 2013-11-24 15:31:16 <sipa> increasing the database cache size can speed up initial sync considerably as well
1230 2013-11-24 15:31:23 <sipa> -dbcache=N, with N a number in megabytes
1231 2013-11-24 15:32:08 ValicekB has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1232 2013-11-24 15:32:54 <Mqrius> sipa: how does it use that? If I set it to half of my ram, will bad things happen?
1233 2013-11-24 15:33:15 <wumpus> bootstrap.dat torrent: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=145386.0
1234 2013-11-24 15:33:19 <sipa> Mqrius: what OS?
1235 2013-11-24 15:33:24 <Mqrius> Ubuntu
1236 2013-11-24 15:33:28 <sipa> Mqrius: set it to 1 GB or so
1237 2013-11-24 15:33:41 <sipa> on 64-bit, you can go as high as you like
1238 2013-11-24 15:33:51 <sipa> on 32-bit, don't go above 2 GB or so
1239 2013-11-24 15:33:57 <sipa> but more 1 GB hardly helps
1240 2013-11-24 15:34:02 <sipa> *than
1241 2013-11-24 15:34:03 <Mqrius> Alright
1242 2013-11-24 15:34:12 <sipa> also, it means if something goes wrong, you have to redo more
1243 2013-11-24 15:34:15 <Mqrius> Well, with 16GB, I've got some to spare anyway
1244 2013-11-24 15:34:51 Emcy has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1245 2013-11-24 15:35:34 Emcy has joined
1246 2013-11-24 15:35:34 Emcy has quit (Changing host)
1247 2013-11-24 15:35:34 Emcy has joined
1248 2013-11-24 15:38:04 agnostic98 has joined
1249 2013-11-24 15:39:39 <Mqrius> That's odd. When I -connect to my other machine on the same network, it says it doesn't have any connections.
1250 2013-11-24 15:39:49 <Mqrius> (other machine is also ubuntu)
1251 2013-11-24 15:39:50 dparrish has joined
1252 2013-11-24 15:40:02 * Mqrius checks iptables
1253 2013-11-24 15:41:29 ValicekB has joined
1254 2013-11-24 15:41:35 <Mqrius> Ah right.
1255 2013-11-24 15:41:37 dparrish has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1256 2013-11-24 15:42:09 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1257 2013-11-24 15:43:46 skinnkavaj has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1258 2013-11-24 15:46:05 Goonie has joined
1259 2013-11-24 15:46:06 Goonie has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1260 2013-11-24 15:47:41 Subo1977_ has joined
1261 2013-11-24 15:48:57 xiangfu has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1262 2013-11-24 15:49:55 Belxjander has quit (Quit: Sayonara)
1263 2013-11-24 15:50:07 Belxjander has joined
1264 2013-11-24 15:51:16 Subo1977 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1265 2013-11-24 15:52:48 c0rw1n_ has joined
1266 2013-11-24 15:54:02 c0rw1n_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1267 2013-11-24 15:54:27 c0rw1n has joined
1268 2013-11-24 15:54:41 skinnkavaj has joined
1269 2013-11-24 15:59:04 c0rw1n_ has joined
1270 2013-11-24 15:59:57 c0rw1n_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1271 2013-11-24 16:00:29 c0rw1n_ has joined
1272 2013-11-24 16:00:44 c0rw1n has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1273 2013-11-24 16:01:59 c0rw1n_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1274 2013-11-24 16:09:47 i2pRelay has joined
1275 2013-11-24 16:18:23 _ingsoc_ has quit (Quit: leaving)
1276 2013-11-24 16:18:49 _ingsoc has joined
1277 2013-11-24 16:19:16 gruvfunk has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1278 2013-11-24 16:22:44 <dooglus_> I had a problem a week or so ago with one of my bitcoind processes getting 'stuck' on a block - and it's happening again now
1279 2013-11-24 16:23:03 <dooglus_> one of my bitcoinds is 4 blocks behind the other - but is still getting messages from its peers
1280 2013-11-24 16:23:27 <dooglus_> the logfile says things like: Added 1 addresses from 124.125.31.99: 2222 tried, 15340 new
1281 2013-11-24 16:23:30 <dooglus_> received getdata for: tx 9c89e555202712a18e4f651b776bfa766596f2b05733052a56df59d082904585
1282 2013-11-24 16:23:32 <Apocalyptic> is that related to the main just-dice node ?
1283 2013-11-24 16:23:36 <dooglus_> yes
1284 2013-11-24 16:23:52 qwerty72 has joined
1285 2013-11-24 16:23:53 <dooglus_> any deposits confirmed in the last 4 blocks won't have been credited because of this
1286 2013-11-24 16:24:26 <sipa> dooglus_: does it fix itself after some time?
1287 2013-11-24 16:26:55 <dooglus_> sipa: last time it fixed itself when I restarted bitcoind
1288 2013-11-24 16:27:07 <sipa> do RPCs still work?
1289 2013-11-24 16:27:12 <dooglus_> sipa: it's broken now if there's anything you want me to run. yes.
1290 2013-11-24 16:27:19 <dooglus_> $ bc getconnectioncount -> 8
1291 2013-11-24 16:27:33 <sipa> and more complex ones?
1292 2013-11-24 16:27:46 <sipa> does getblocktemplate work, for example?
1293 2013-11-24 16:28:38 Emcy has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1294 2013-11-24 16:28:52 <dooglus_> yes
1295 2013-11-24 16:29:14 <dooglus_> (if spewing ~567k of stuff is working...)
1296 2013-11-24 16:30:17 <dooglus_> $ grep height ~/.bitcoin/debug.log | tail -1
1297 2013-11-24 16:30:17 roconnor has joined
1298 2013-11-24 16:30:18 <dooglus_> SetBestChain: new best=0000000000000003d7c61c3b8fb15a1306906daf976344eb085572ac3427a4c9 height=271278 log2_work=74.184421 tx=27740593 date=2013-11-24 15:40:37 progress=0.999999
1299 2013-11-24 16:31:49 <dooglus_> this is "Bitcoin version v0.8.0-dirty-beta"
1300 2013-11-24 16:31:52 <dooglus_> no
1301 2013-11-24 16:31:56 <dooglus_> "Bitcoin version v0.8.4-beta"
1302 2013-11-24 16:32:38 <sipa> ;;blocks
1303 2013-11-24 16:32:39 <gribble> 271284
1304 2013-11-24 16:33:04 <Apocalyptic> dooglus_, why don't you upgrade to 0.8.5
1305 2013-11-24 16:33:19 <K1773R> dooglus_: i had the same with 0.8.5, but restarting wouldnt help. the only way to fix it was by resyncing :(
1306 2013-11-24 16:33:21 wei__ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1307 2013-11-24 16:33:31 <sipa> dooglus_: is there anything about a blocks being rejected?
1308 2013-11-24 16:33:41 <sipa> InvalidChainFound warning
1309 2013-11-24 16:34:22 <dooglus_> nothing like that, no
1310 2013-11-24 16:35:01 <sipa> can you put the debug.log since that last block somewhere?
1311 2013-11-24 16:35:35 <dooglus_> sure
1312 2013-11-24 16:38:41 <dooglus_> do you have a GPG key I can use?
1313 2013-11-24 16:39:15 agnostic98 has joined
1314 2013-11-24 16:39:21 <sipa> http://bitcoin.org/pieterwuille.asc
1315 2013-11-24 16:41:45 <dooglus_> sipa: http://just-dice.com/debug.log.sipa.gpg
1316 2013-11-24 16:42:02 Blasteris has joined
1317 2013-11-24 16:42:09 <sipa> 503
1318 2013-11-24 16:42:22 <dooglus_> dumb cloudflare - using a browser?
1319 2013-11-24 16:42:31 <sipa> no, wget
1320 2013-11-24 16:42:44 <dooglus_> wget can't jump through cloudflare's hoops
1321 2013-11-24 16:42:58 <dooglus_> can I email it?
1322 2013-11-24 16:43:18 <dooglus_> it 34k
1323 2013-11-24 16:43:21 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1324 2013-11-24 16:43:24 <sipa> ha
1325 2013-11-24 16:43:33 <sipa> no need
1326 2013-11-24 16:43:35 <dooglus_> ok
1327 2013-11-24 16:44:36 gfawkes_________ has joined
1328 2013-11-24 16:44:44 <dooglus_> shall I just restart it? the natives are getting restless
1329 2013-11-24 16:45:01 <dooglus_> or is there anything useful you can get from RPC calls?
1330 2013-11-24 16:45:30 gfawkes_________ is now known as gfawkes
1331 2013-11-24 16:46:20 <sipa> getpeerinfo shows normal peers?
1332 2013-11-24 16:46:43 <sipa> can you run with -debug for a while, and see if it happens again?
1333 2013-11-24 16:46:52 <sipa> i have no suggestions for what you could do now
1334 2013-11-24 16:47:10 <sipa> or was it -debugnet in 0.8.5
1335 2013-11-24 16:47:14 <dooglus_> it has happened twice
1336 2013-11-24 16:47:27 <dooglus_> the last time was probably over a week ago
1337 2013-11-24 16:47:32 <dooglus_> I'm running 0.8.4
1338 2013-11-24 16:47:37 <dooglus_> maybe 0.8.5 ixes it
1339 2013-11-24 16:47:39 <dooglus_> f
1340 2013-11-24 16:47:41 <sipa> doubtfu
1341 2013-11-24 16:47:42 <sipa> l
1342 2013-11-24 16:50:36 <dooglus_> I see 2 options:
1343 2013-11-24 16:50:36 <dooglus_> -debug Output extra debugging information. Implies all other -debug* options
1344 2013-11-24 16:50:40 <dooglus_> -debugnet Output extra network debugging information
1345 2013-11-24 16:51:26 kouiskas has joined
1346 2013-11-24 16:51:33 rdymac has quit (Excess Flood)
1347 2013-11-24 16:52:44 Uglux has joined
1348 2013-11-24 16:52:45 rdymac has joined
1349 2013-11-24 16:53:40 <dooglus_> debugnet=1 in bitcoin.conf is enough?
1350 2013-11-24 16:54:23 <sipa> no, you'll need -debug
1351 2013-11-24 16:54:27 <sipa> or debug=1
1352 2013-11-24 16:54:43 <sipa> it'll increase the size of debug.log significantly though
1353 2013-11-24 16:56:34 Anduck has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1354 2013-11-24 16:59:51 <dooglus_> I restarted with just debugnet=1 in the conf file, and it's not seeing the missing blocks
1355 2013-11-24 16:59:56 <dooglus_> will restart again with -debug
1356 2013-11-24 17:00:22 <sipa> is it catching up?
1357 2013-11-24 17:00:28 <dooglus_> no
1358 2013-11-24 17:00:47 <sipa> it may take a new block being found and announced before it does
1359 2013-11-24 17:02:56 <dooglus_> ok
1360 2013-11-24 17:03:15 porquilho has joined
1361 2013-11-24 17:03:37 <Apocalyptic> why so sipa ?
1362 2013-11-24 17:03:46 btcbtc has joined
1363 2013-11-24 17:05:47 <dooglus_> restarted with -debug and now it's catching up...
1364 2013-11-24 17:10:54 jakov has joined
1365 2013-11-24 17:11:09 <beethoven8201> what's a good alternative to BIP38?
1366 2013-11-24 17:12:06 <jakov> theres one that encrypts the master keys of HD wallets
1367 2013-11-24 17:12:19 <jakov> isnt very developed though, doesnt even have a reference implentation afaik
1368 2013-11-24 17:13:51 Tantadruj has joined
1369 2013-11-24 17:14:20 <gmaxwell> beethoven8201: Kogelman draft, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=258678
1370 2013-11-24 17:14:29 Anduck has joined
1371 2013-11-24 17:14:29 Anduck has quit (Changing host)
1372 2013-11-24 17:14:29 Anduck has joined
1373 2013-11-24 17:14:31 <gmaxwell> jakov: Kogelman has an implementation.
1374 2013-11-24 17:14:54 <jakov> ok good
1375 2013-11-24 17:15:03 <gmaxwell> jakov: I dunno what you mean by "isnt very developed", unlike BIP38 it actually has input from multiple people. But its not done, indeed.
1376 2013-11-24 17:15:42 <gmaxwell> I'm trying to get Mike Caldwell to comment on it, he indicated he would, but finite time and all.
1377 2013-11-24 17:16:28 agnostic98 has joined
1378 2013-11-24 17:16:57 ThomasV has joined
1379 2013-11-24 17:18:06 <beethoven8201> gmaxwell: is BIP32 the standard for deterministic wallets going forward (are you a bit biased? ;) )
1380 2013-11-24 17:18:52 <roconnor> gmaxwell: satoshi's whitepaper noted that double spending is easier when you know the sending address beforehand and can prepare a parallel chain ... as is the case with SatoshiDice.
1381 2013-11-24 17:20:13 AndroUser2 has joined
1382 2013-11-24 17:20:29 Silverion has joined
1383 2013-11-24 17:20:55 <sipa> beethoven8201: as far as i know, most wallet authors intend to implement it
1384 2013-11-24 17:21:00 qwerty72 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1385 2013-11-24 17:21:07 <sipa> (but i'm likely biased as well :p)
1386 2013-11-24 17:21:10 <gmaxwell> beethoven8201: There is no other standard for determinstic wallets in bitcoin space, just adhoc stuff.
1387 2013-11-24 17:21:21 <beethoven8201> okay thanks that was the answer I was looking for
1388 2013-11-24 17:21:26 <beethoven8201> when do you think this standard will be finalized?
1389 2013-11-24 17:21:33 <beethoven8201> it was proposed in July
1390 2013-11-24 17:21:35 <gmaxwell> It's finalized.
1391 2013-11-24 17:21:43 <beethoven8201> is there an implementation?
1392 2013-11-24 17:21:46 <sipa> many
1393 2013-11-24 17:21:48 <gmaxwell> Yes, many.
1394 2013-11-24 17:21:53 <beethoven8201> oh where
1395 2013-11-24 17:22:00 <beethoven8201> is this what armory does?
1396 2013-11-24 17:22:17 <sipa> armory uses its own scheme for now
1397 2013-11-24 17:22:32 <sipa> but read bip32, there are links at the bottom of the page
1398 2013-11-24 17:23:03 <sipa> and the last change to it was in april, and i "announced" it as final at the san jose conference
1399 2013-11-24 17:23:10 <beethoven8201> oh I mean is there an implementation for the Base58 encoded HD Wallet root key with optional encryption
1400 2013-11-24 17:23:23 <beethoven8201> theh paper wallet based off bip32
1401 2013-11-24 17:24:05 <sipa> oh
1402 2013-11-24 17:24:07 <gmaxwell> The encryption stuff is the Kogelman draft.
1403 2013-11-24 17:24:44 <gmaxwell> beethoven8201: Although what do you need encryption for? (which isn't satified by some other mechenism)
1404 2013-11-24 17:24:47 AndroUser2 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1405 2013-11-24 17:25:16 saulimus has joined
1406 2013-11-24 17:25:52 <beethoven8201> gmaxwell: I want to store a paper wallet in a location, but I want it to be safe from theft
1407 2013-11-24 17:26:08 Uglux has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1408 2013-11-24 17:26:17 <beethoven8201> additionally I want it to be usable by someone without a lot of technical background
1409 2013-11-24 17:26:29 <beethoven8201> like a family member, child, etc
1410 2013-11-24 17:27:10 <sipa> i'd rather encrypt the seed than the master key for that
1411 2013-11-24 17:27:20 <beethoven8201> yes -- I am considering doing that
1412 2013-11-24 17:27:25 <beethoven8201> and then the question is how to encrypt
1413 2013-11-24 17:27:43 <beethoven8201> I can't tell a family member to use a reference AES implementation with no IV, etc
1414 2013-11-24 17:27:51 <beethoven8201> that will never remember / learn how to do that
1415 2013-11-24 17:27:58 <sipa> fair enough
1416 2013-11-24 17:28:26 <gmaxwell> Welp you're not going to be any better off with current schemes since they're still evolving, they're likely to be mostly forgotten by the time anyone goes to use them.
1417 2013-11-24 17:28:48 <sipa> that's a good argument for asking for a standard way to do it :)
1418 2013-11-24 17:28:54 <gmaxwell> The best you can do is to include detailed instructions (even a copy of an implementation), and even if your family members don't personally understand them then they can find help.
1419 2013-11-24 17:29:05 <beethoven8201> exactly. I thought maybe truecrypt volume
1420 2013-11-24 17:29:06 <gmaxwell> And indeed, standarization will help too.
1421 2013-11-24 17:29:16 <beethoven8201> but truecrypt volumes have a minimum size like 270K or something
1422 2013-11-24 17:29:21 <beethoven8201> due to FAT volume requirements
1423 2013-11-24 17:29:27 <beethoven8201> so not convenient to have in paper / QR code format
1424 2013-11-24 17:29:43 <gmaxwell> beethoven8201: my recovery information includes instructions, software, and a list of people whom I think are qualified and trustworthy to help.
1425 2013-11-24 17:30:00 <beethoven8201> what encryption method would you recommend?
1426 2013-11-24 17:30:08 <beethoven8201> preferably it's something with a GUI
1427 2013-11-24 17:30:17 <beethoven8201> or at least not many lines of command line
1428 2013-11-24 17:30:25 <sipa> gpg?
1429 2013-11-24 17:30:38 <sipa> there must be gui's for that by now...
1430 2013-11-24 17:30:50 n0g has joined
1431 2013-11-24 17:31:04 <beethoven8201> gpg is kinda big though
1432 2013-11-24 17:31:11 <beethoven8201> in a perfect world I'd like it to fit on a QR code
1433 2013-11-24 17:31:41 dugo has left ()
1434 2013-11-24 17:31:51 dugo has joined
1435 2013-11-24 17:32:11 btcbtc_ has joined
1436 2013-11-24 17:32:50 JWU42 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1437 2013-11-24 17:32:56 Uglux has joined
1438 2013-11-24 17:33:00 <gmaxwell> beethoven8201: I think you can trust that gpg compatible software will be obtainable in the future.
1439 2013-11-24 17:33:13 <saracen> I've been thinking about this same problem for a while now. If I die tomorrow, my girlfriend will have no idea how to use or access my bitcoins.
1440 2013-11-24 17:33:28 btcbtc has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1441 2013-11-24 17:33:32 MobPhone has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1442 2013-11-24 17:33:33 <gmaxwell> saracen: write instructions.
1443 2013-11-24 17:33:33 <saracen> If it's tomorrow, BIP38 might help, but if it's in a years time, that might have moved on
1444 2013-11-24 17:33:50 <sipa> BIP38 only helps if it's a single key that holds everything
1445 2013-11-24 17:34:09 <sipa> which may be acceptable for cold storage, but it's useful as a wallet
1446 2013-11-24 17:34:16 <sipa> *not useful
1447 2013-11-24 17:34:17 otoburb has quit (Quit: leaving)
1448 2013-11-24 17:34:28 <wumpus> unless you use it to encrypt multiple keys, all with the same passphrase, but that probably hurts security
1449 2013-11-24 17:34:44 MobPhone has joined
1450 2013-11-24 17:35:15 <wumpus> or does it really generate the key from the passphrase?
1451 2013-11-24 17:35:53 JWU42 has joined
1452 2013-11-24 17:36:00 <wumpus> no, BIP38 doesn't, it's just a way to encrypt private keys
1453 2013-11-24 17:36:43 <gmaxwell> There really should be no single-key-only schemes for this stuff.. even if you only plan on using one key, a multikey system will cover that too.
1454 2013-11-24 17:37:07 <gmaxwell> And there are plenty of cases where you need, or just want, multiple keys.
1455 2013-11-24 17:37:55 <TD> saracen: write down the private key, on paper, unencrypted
1456 2013-11-24 17:38:25 <saracen> TD: Then I'd be concerned they'd be stolen :(
1457 2013-11-24 17:38:26 <TD> saracen: put it in a box, then leave it with someone who doesn't know what it is, e.g. a bank
1458 2013-11-24 17:38:33 <sipa> lol
1459 2013-11-24 17:38:37 <saracen> lol
1460 2013-11-24 17:38:38 <sipa> the irony :)
1461 2013-11-24 17:38:41 <wumpus> hehe
1462 2013-11-24 17:38:44 <TD> :)
1463 2013-11-24 17:38:48 <gmaxwell> I don't think this is bad advice, though it's amusing. :)
1464 2013-11-24 17:38:51 jk1275 has joined
1465 2013-11-24 17:39:01 <TD> saracen: people leave valuable items for children/wives/girlfriends (ok maybe not girlfriends) all the time
1466 2013-11-24 17:39:04 <wumpus> that will work know, but at a certain point in the future, people will know what it is :p
1467 2013-11-24 17:39:07 <TD> there are infrastructures in place that can handle this
1468 2013-11-24 17:39:12 <gmaxwell> you can make minor enhancements easily, like splitting the key in half.
1469 2013-11-24 17:39:29 <TD> wumpus: no they won't. when you put something into a vault at a bank, the bankers give you a box with a key and then leave you alone
1470 2013-11-24 17:39:34 <TD> wumpus: they have no idea what's in the boxes
1471 2013-11-24 17:39:38 <gmaxwell> alan apparently keeps his keys split and stuck into books in his home.
1472 2013-11-24 17:39:46 * gmaxwell brb flying to alan's house
1473 2013-11-24 17:39:51 <saracen> ha
1474 2013-11-24 17:39:56 <TD> yes. i would not recommend that.
1475 2013-11-24 17:40:01 * TD waves his fist at sonos
1476 2013-11-24 17:40:10 <wumpus> TD: ok, agreed on the banks, but I mean if you just ask someone to keep a piece of paper for you
1477 2013-11-24 17:40:10 <TD> why does stupid sonos gear always explode just when i want to listen to music\
1478 2013-11-24 17:40:38 <saracen> I wonder if it's worth making a document with all these methods, but from the perspective of being accessed from the future. I know there's documents that explain the best ways for cold storage atm...
1479 2013-11-24 17:40:56 <sipa> TD: because lightbulbs only break when you turn them on
1480 2013-11-24 17:41:12 avar has quit (Quit: leaving)
1481 2013-11-24 17:41:22 saulimus has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1482 2013-11-24 17:41:22 <TD> wumpus: yes. i would not recommend "creative" ways to store important documents or codes, personally. i saw justmoon after he managed to lose a triply-backed-up wallet containing 7000 bitcoins
1483 2013-11-24 17:41:30 <TD> he was pretty sick about it and that was years ago
1484 2013-11-24 17:41:33 avar has joined
1485 2013-11-24 17:41:44 <jakov> how did that happen?
1486 2013-11-24 17:41:48 <jakov> did he post anywhere
1487 2013-11-24 17:42:06 <TD> he explained it at the time yes. basically .... by being too clever and not testing that the backups were restorable
1488 2013-11-24 17:42:11 <gmaxwell> I have some IRC logs describing it, it was pretty confusing in any case.
1489 2013-11-24 17:42:16 <TD> one was on a truecrypt drive on a usb key and it just wasn't mountable
1490 2013-11-24 17:42:22 <gmaxwell> But in general, like all major disasters: multiple things failed.
1491 2013-11-24 17:42:23 <TD> one he couldn't remember the passphrase for
1492 2013-11-24 17:42:26 <TD> the other i forgot
1493 2013-11-24 17:42:38 <TD> it got deleted by accident i think, and then he went to restore the backups and found they were unusable
1494 2013-11-24 17:42:47 <gmaxwell> the other was with someone else who went missing or something and couldn't be found ever again or something like that.
1495 2013-11-24 17:42:51 <TD> generally if you haven't tested if you can restore a piece of backed up data, it's not really backed up
1496 2013-11-24 17:43:24 <sipa> "We have noticed that backups are more written than read. Therefore we optimized this hardware for backups: it's write only."
1497 2013-11-24 17:43:37 <wumpus> that's good advice, you should regularly check wether it's recoverable too
1498 2013-11-24 17:43:38 <beethoven8201> sipa: that sounds like xkcd
1499 2013-11-24 17:43:43 otoburb has joined
1500 2013-11-24 17:43:49 <wumpus> if possible before there's only one copy left...
1501 2013-11-24 17:43:53 <sipa> beethoven8201: pretty sure it's older :)
1502 2013-11-24 17:44:03 <beethoven8201> yeah I think you're right
1503 2013-11-24 17:44:13 saulimus has joined
1504 2013-11-24 17:44:14 Uglux has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1505 2013-11-24 17:44:26 <TD> saracen: don't worry about the future. if it puts your mind at ease, print out a copy of the private-key encoding BIP and store it along side the keys themselves. and consider giving it all to your parents for safekeeping. but if you do that, don't tell anyone and risk making them a target for breakins
1506 2013-11-24 17:44:27 wallet43 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1507 2013-11-24 17:44:30 <beethoven8201> gmaxwell: do you know if any major wallets will work with bip32 soon?
1508 2013-11-24 17:44:34 <TD> haha
1509 2013-11-24 17:45:37 jk12752 has joined
1510 2013-11-24 17:45:58 <TD> ye gods. sonos is such an epic fail. i so badly want to give me money to a company that can get this right
1511 2013-11-24 17:46:02 kouiskas has quit ()
1512 2013-11-24 17:46:52 <gmaxwell> This is also why I'm fond of the suggestions to use a netbook as an offline signer. You can use it to check for recoverability without putting the keys in question online.
1513 2013-11-24 17:47:02 Uglux has joined
1514 2013-11-24 17:47:20 <gmaxwell> beethoven8201: both electrum and armory have written implementations now, presumably to be in their next releases.
1515 2013-11-24 17:47:57 <gmaxwell> Electrums should have been out by now, but it was held up by wanting to add metadata to the mnenonic encoding.
1516 2013-11-24 17:48:22 <TD> beethoven8201: it's on the roadmap for bitcoinj too. there's already code for the algorithm itself and the mnemonic code. but it's not integrated with the rest of the wallet
1517 2013-11-24 17:48:31 <TD> hopefully i'll find time soon. been busy with other bugs lately
1518 2013-11-24 17:49:15 <sipa> also, electrum planned to use a non-standard wallet structure
1519 2013-11-24 17:49:17 <TD> beethoven8201: i think eventually every wallet will use it. it makes too much sense not to
1520 2013-11-24 17:49:18 <gmaxwell> Bitcoin-qt also has an implementation of the algorithim itself, but not any of the wallet support.
1521 2013-11-24 17:49:36 <sipa> because they wanted to be able to scan for accounts without knowing the secret
1522 2013-11-24 17:50:09 <sipa> (which exposes them to the private subkey + public parent key problem)
1523 2013-11-24 17:50:11 <gmaxwell> so all public? ::sigh::
1524 2013-11-24 17:50:19 Liquid_ has joined
1525 2013-11-24 17:50:32 <sipa> yeah, i advised against it
1526 2013-11-24 17:50:38 <gmaxwell> yea, I think its only a matter of time before someone doing that gets compromised due to it.
1527 2013-11-24 17:50:45 <TD> sipa: that problem being .... exposing a private subkey and the parent pubkey allows you to derive privkeys you're not supposed to be able to?
1528 2013-11-24 17:50:52 <sipa> TD: yes
1529 2013-11-24 17:51:03 <TD> yeah ok. thought so.
1530 2013-11-24 17:51:15 <gmaxwell> Right, if your derrivation is all public disclosing one private key and the extended public key exposes everything.
1531 2013-11-24 17:51:25 <sipa> parent extended pubkey + any private key beneath it == parent extended private key
1532 2013-11-24 17:52:05 <TD> why do they want to be able to scan for accounts (key subtrees?) without knowing the secret? is this related to them doing stuff on the server side/
1533 2013-11-24 17:52:09 <gmaxwell> so, e.g. "Hey, give me a new private key to leave coins in for you later" == 0wned.
1534 2013-11-24 17:52:23 <gmaxwell> TD: yea, presumably they want the server to be able to enumerate the lookahead for you.
1535 2013-11-24 17:52:27 <TD> right
1536 2013-11-24 17:52:35 <TD> doing that client-side certainly complicates things
1537 2013-11-24 17:52:38 <TD> though not unmanageable so
1538 2013-11-24 17:52:39 <gmaxwell> meaning they'll _also_ be giving untrusted parties the extended public key.
1539 2013-11-24 17:53:09 * sipa pings ThomasV
1540 2013-11-24 17:53:15 <ThomasV> pong
1541 2013-11-24 17:53:19 * TD looks at the news: deal on iran and swiss reject 1:12 initiative
1542 2013-11-24 17:53:23 <TD> sudden outbreak of common sense!
1543 2013-11-24 17:53:45 <sipa> TD: did you expect 1:12 to be accepted?
1544 2013-11-24 17:53:46 <gmaxwell> TD: 1:12 was the cap on the executive compensation vs minimum or whatever?
1545 2013-11-24 17:53:51 <TD> yeah
1546 2013-11-24 17:53:59 <TD> sipa: i had no idea. for a while pre-polling was looking kind of indecisive
1547 2013-11-24 17:54:02 Guest76232 has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1548 2013-11-24 17:54:09 <TD> i mean, it had a decent chance
1549 2013-11-24 17:54:21 <TD> gmaxwell: yes. within a company no more than 1:12 pay gap
1550 2013-11-24 17:54:24 <gmaxwell> seemed like a kind of pointless proposal, places would just change to compensating executives in other ways that evaded the law.
1551 2013-11-24 17:54:24 cads has joined
1552 2013-11-24 17:54:29 <sipa> if it was accepted, i think we'd see many contractor companies doing cheap labor stuff :)
1553 2013-11-24 17:54:42 <gmaxwell> "Oh the executive works for a parent company, which only employes executives"
1554 2013-11-24 17:54:49 <sipa> ^ that
1555 2013-11-24 17:54:59 <TD> yeah. i guess that's one reason why it was not accepted.
1556 2013-11-24 17:55:16 <TD> though earlier this year the swiss did pass a law allowing shareholders to veto executive compensation, or something like that
1557 2013-11-24 17:55:26 <TD> which would seem to pose somewhat similar problems
1558 2013-11-24 17:55:46 <TD> with enough legalese these things can eventually be made to work i guess
1559 2013-11-24 17:55:57 <sipa> ThomasV: what's the current plan wrt. electrum bip32 accounts?
1560 2013-11-24 17:56:00 <gmaxwell> I dunno what its like over there, but in the US executive pay in a lot of place is pretty insane, I understand why someone wants to do something about it. But it's sort of like trying to abstractly do something about "darkness".
1561 2013-11-24 17:56:46 <ThomasV> sipa: I postponed bip32 until version 2.0, because of the ongoing discussions on bip39
1562 2013-11-24 17:57:10 jaakkos has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1563 2013-11-24 17:57:44 jaakkos has joined
1564 2013-11-24 17:57:46 Wegot has joined
1565 2013-11-24 17:57:57 <TD> street lights!
1566 2013-11-24 17:57:57 <TD> and yes it's got silly everywhere. and it's a very recent phenomenon. i was surprised to learn that 1:12 was the gap in the '90s
1567 2013-11-24 17:57:58 <TD> it didn't seem very large when i first heard it, but the '90s wasn't very long ago. the explosion in executive pay is a 21st century thing
1568 2013-11-24 17:58:06 <gmaxwell> I get the impression that it's like sports coaches, we can't actually measure how good one is, so what they're paid becomes a proxy for how good they are...
1569 2013-11-24 17:58:34 <TD> yeah
1570 2013-11-24 17:58:38 <TD> pretty much
1571 2013-11-24 17:58:38 <sipa> i think for sports coaches the direct impact is easier to measure
1572 2013-11-24 17:58:43 <Wegot> What the hell is the "dark wallet"?
1573 2013-11-24 17:58:58 <TD> i guess people aren't so upset about huge rewards for great CEOs. but the way some of them walk away from train wrecks with enormous payoffs obviously was going to lead to unrest sooner or later
1574 2013-11-24 17:59:26 <ThomasV> sipa: I also got an e-mail from the trezor devs, where they dropped the idea of a bidirectional conversion between the seed phrase and the master public key.
1575 2013-11-24 17:59:36 <ThomasV> so it should be easier now
1576 2013-11-24 18:00:14 <sipa> ThomasV: maybe i should bring up my adaptive self-strengtening proposal again then :)
1577 2013-11-24 18:00:46 <ThomasV> sipa: maybe.. I plan to propose something where this at least can be used as an option
1578 2013-11-24 18:00:50 ivan\ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1579 2013-11-24 18:01:07 <sipa> what else would you want in it?
1580 2013-11-24 18:01:29 <wumpus> Wegot: just some new wallet software being developed
1581 2013-11-24 18:01:30 <ThomasV> I insist on having a version number, at least for electrum
1582 2013-11-24 18:01:47 <gmaxwell> I do think any of this stuff should be strenghtened, even if the common use case isn't with crappy user generated keys. It's good to make misuse hard.
1583 2013-11-24 18:02:06 <sipa> ThomasV: for encoding wallet structure?
1584 2013-11-24 18:02:13 <ThomasV> yes
1585 2013-11-24 18:02:24 <gmaxwell> and even the very limited devices like the trezor could do _some_ strenghtening.
1586 2013-11-24 18:02:29 <sipa> yeah, my opinion remains that that doesn't belong in the key data
1587 2013-11-24 18:02:33 BGL has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1588 2013-11-24 18:02:37 <sipa> it can trivially be backed up outside of it
1589 2013-11-24 18:03:53 <ThomasV> sipa: then lt's use different words :) both the key data and this version number belong in what the user is asked to remember.
1590 2013-11-24 18:04:29 <ThomasV> and for usability, I want the user to remember only one "phrase"
1591 2013-11-24 18:04:36 <sipa> i understand
1592 2013-11-24 18:05:24 <sipa> but it's the result of needing all state in one piece of data
1593 2013-11-24 18:05:42 <ThomasV> indeed
1594 2013-11-24 18:05:43 <sipa> while for other wallet approaches, only the actual secret key data needs to be there
1595 2013-11-24 18:05:53 <sipa> so your use case is fundamentally different
1596 2013-11-24 18:05:59 <ThomasV> I know, you already told me that
1597 2013-11-24 18:06:14 <ThomasV> well, I do not want to impose my use case to other wallets :)
1598 2013-11-24 18:06:17 ivan\ has joined
1599 2013-11-24 18:06:41 n0g has left ()
1600 2013-11-24 18:06:46 <sipa> but there will be incompatibilities, unless we define an extra standard for wallet structures
1601 2013-11-24 18:07:25 <sipa> in my opinion, you should just use the default structure, and if only a seed is known, use that structure
1602 2013-11-24 18:08:05 <sipa> i know you want to derive accounts data server side
1603 2013-11-24 18:08:08 <TD> ThomasV: you can always present a picture of what the user should write down, with a number in a circle or something like that
1604 2013-11-24 18:08:16 <sipa> but there are darn big risks in that
1605 2013-11-24 18:08:16 tmsk has joined
1606 2013-11-24 18:08:30 mynameis has quit (Quit: mynameis)
1607 2013-11-24 18:08:46 <ThomasV> sipa: what do you mean, "derive account data server side" ??
1608 2013-11-24 18:09:13 <sipa> ThomasV: you want the server to scan through all accounts, right?
1609 2013-11-24 18:09:25 <ThomasV> huh?
1610 2013-11-24 18:09:25 <sipa> that was the reason for deviating from the default bip32 wallet structure
1611 2013-11-24 18:09:31 <sipa> or do i misremember?
1612 2013-11-24 18:09:34 <ThomasV> oh no..
1613 2013-11-24 18:09:55 <ThomasV> well, for regular accounts, I can use the default bip32 structure, that's fine
1614 2013-11-24 18:09:58 tmsk has quit (Client Quit)
1615 2013-11-24 18:10:19 tmsk has joined
1616 2013-11-24 18:10:28 saulimus has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1617 2013-11-24 18:10:44 LiDE has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1618 2013-11-24 18:10:54 <ThomasV> I realized I can just derive the master public key of the "next" unused account everytime the user creates a new account
1619 2013-11-24 18:11:05 <ThomasV> so it's not a problem anymore
1620 2013-11-24 18:12:00 <sipa> that means creating a new account will require unlocking
1621 2013-11-24 18:12:06 <sipa> which is fine, i think
1622 2013-11-24 18:12:15 saulimus has joined
1623 2013-11-24 18:12:18 <ThomasV> sipa: but an electrum server does know nothing about accounts
1624 2013-11-24 18:12:22 <ThomasV> yes
1625 2013-11-24 18:12:24 <sipa> sure
1626 2013-11-24 18:12:39 <TD> ThomasV: what if the wallet is cloned
1627 2013-11-24 18:12:54 <ThomasV> TD: that was precisely in order to address that
1628 2013-11-24 18:14:00 rdymac has quit (Excess Flood)
1629 2013-11-24 18:14:07 <ThomasV> TD: a cloned wallet will detect that an account was created, and request a password for the "next" account
1630 2013-11-24 18:16:47 rdymac has joined
1631 2013-11-24 18:17:27 mynameis has joined
1632 2013-11-24 18:19:05 <michagogo> cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|19:40:33 <beethoven8201> sipa: that sounds like xkcd
1633 2013-11-24 18:19:05 <michagogo> cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|More like BOFH
1634 2013-11-24 18:20:05 <michagogo> cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|17:19:03 <berndj> http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2013/11/24#l1385267211 gambling sites make good targets for robbing because what they send you is every bit as fungible as what you pay them with, right?
1635 2013-11-24 18:20:05 <michagogo> cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|berndj: It's specifically sites that tell you whether or not you've won the moment that you place a bet, AIUI
1636 2013-11-24 18:21:00 <michagogo> cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|The attack is, make a bet. If you win, great. If you don't win, double-spend the bet and get that version mined
1637 2013-11-24 18:24:04 Nesetalis has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1638 2013-11-24 18:24:21 Nesetalis has joined
1639 2013-11-24 18:26:19 Happzz has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.in)
1640 2013-11-24 18:26:21 BW^- has joined
1641 2013-11-24 18:26:34 <BW^-> phantomcircuit: PM
1642 2013-11-24 18:26:53 <BW^-> who uses libbitcoin today?
1643 2013-11-24 18:28:43 nadio has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1644 2013-11-24 18:31:33 Happzz has joined
1645 2013-11-24 18:32:16 KillYourTV has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1646 2013-11-24 18:33:23 MobPhone has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1647 2013-11-24 18:33:36 KillYourTV has joined
1648 2013-11-24 18:35:06 nadio has joined
1649 2013-11-24 18:35:06 nadio has quit (Changing host)
1650 2013-11-24 18:35:06 nadio has joined
1651 2013-11-24 18:38:17 BGL has joined
1652 2013-11-24 18:40:36 mynameis has quit (Quit: mynameis)
1653 2013-11-24 18:42:37 Wegot_ has joined
1654 2013-11-24 18:45:44 Wegot has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1655 2013-11-24 18:45:46 reneg_ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1656 2013-11-24 18:46:35 Mqrius_ has joined
1657 2013-11-24 18:46:36 mynameis has joined
1658 2013-11-24 18:46:49 Pete has joined
1659 2013-11-24 18:47:16 Pete is now known as Guest90583
1660 2013-11-24 18:47:51 jk1275 has quit (Quit: jk1275)
1661 2013-11-24 18:50:11 Mqrius has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1662 2013-11-24 18:50:24 BW^- has quit (Quit: Miranda IM! Smaller, Faster, Easier. http://miranda-im.org)
1663 2013-11-24 18:50:48 mhanne has joined
1664 2013-11-24 18:50:48 mhanne has quit (Changing host)
1665 2013-11-24 18:50:48 mhanne has joined
1666 2013-11-24 18:53:56 markus__ has joined
1667 2013-11-24 18:54:48 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1668 2013-11-24 18:55:43 markus__ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1669 2013-11-24 18:56:05 thelorax123 has joined
1670 2013-11-24 18:56:32 iCoradan has joined
1671 2013-11-24 18:57:13 davec has quit (Quit: leaving)
1672 2013-11-24 18:57:33 davec has joined
1673 2013-11-24 18:57:34 BW^- has joined
1674 2013-11-24 18:57:49 <iCoradan> hello
1675 2013-11-24 18:58:23 <iCoradan> What IDE do you recommend to Bitcoin Dev?
1676 2013-11-24 18:58:29 dparrish has joined
1677 2013-11-24 18:58:32 <sipa> notepad
1678 2013-11-24 18:58:32 reneg has joined
1679 2013-11-24 18:58:35 reneg has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1680 2013-11-24 18:58:41 <iCoradan> :-)
1681 2013-11-24 18:59:05 reneg has joined
1682 2013-11-24 18:59:06 <sipa> (i'm only half kidding, i wrote a significant part of the current code using mcedit...)
1683 2013-11-24 18:59:07 reneg has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1684 2013-11-24 18:59:19 <iCoradan> hehehe
1685 2013-11-24 18:59:22 <iCoradan> I know
1686 2013-11-24 18:59:32 reneg has joined
1687 2013-11-24 18:59:43 <iCoradan> but to navigate by the folders, files, etc...
1688 2013-11-24 18:59:53 <iCoradan> do you have any prefer?
1689 2013-11-24 19:00:02 Guest90583 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1690 2013-11-24 19:00:05 <sipa> bash
1691 2013-11-24 19:00:51 <sipa> (don't listen to me, i'm one of those people who rarely use guis)
1692 2013-11-24 19:01:14 <iCoradan> :-)
1693 2013-11-24 19:01:17 <michagogo> cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|sipa: mcedit?
1694 2013-11-24 19:01:22 <sipa> yes
1695 2013-11-24 19:01:32 * michagogo cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|suspects sipa doesn't mean the Minecraft map editor
1696 2013-11-24 19:01:49 <sipa> your suspicion is correct
1697 2013-11-24 19:02:21 <sipa> http://texteditors.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Mcedit
1698 2013-11-24 19:02:44 <michagogo> cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|Ah
1699 2013-11-24 19:02:52 <michagogo> cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|BTW, how is your name pronounced?
1700 2013-11-24 19:03:02 <sipa> very close to "Peter" in english
1701 2013-11-24 19:04:08 <sipa> (just a stronger t, and a real r sound at the end)
1702 2013-11-24 19:05:01 <michagogo> cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p8lM2X9oTg&t=7 ?
1703 2013-11-24 19:05:36 jk12752 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1704 2013-11-24 19:05:47 <sipa> yup
1705 2013-11-24 19:05:56 dparrish has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1706 2013-11-24 19:08:19 dparrish has joined
1707 2013-11-24 19:08:53 Mqrius has joined
1708 2013-11-24 19:10:12 Wegot has joined
1709 2013-11-24 19:10:32 <Wegot> sipa: how long have you been involved with bitcoin?
1710 2013-11-24 19:10:53 ovidiusoft has joined
1711 2013-11-24 19:10:54 <iCoradan> I am started in bitcoin dev...
1712 2013-11-24 19:11:01 <iCoradan> starting
1713 2013-11-24 19:11:18 <sipa> Wegot: early 2011
1714 2013-11-24 19:11:35 Mqrius_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1715 2013-11-24 19:11:43 <iCoradan> Thus I am looking for an IDE to start...
1716 2013-11-24 19:11:53 <Wegot> ahh, so you never got to speak with satoshi
1717 2013-11-24 19:12:01 <sipa> Wegot: i have one email from him :)
1718 2013-11-24 19:12:01 <michagogo> cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|iCoradan: Your IDE of choice is fine
1719 2013-11-24 19:12:25 <Wegot> I think all the emails he sent should be released to the public
1720 2013-11-24 19:12:34 <michagogo> cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|iCoradan: But notepad++, vim, nano, notepad, textedit, textmate, etc are all fine
1721 2013-11-24 19:12:34 agnostic98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1722 2013-11-24 19:13:11 agnostic98 has joined
1723 2013-11-24 19:13:15 <iCoradan> Ok, if you recommended those I will try to start with them
1724 2013-11-24 19:13:20 dparrish has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1725 2013-11-24 19:13:26 <sipa> i wouldn't consider any of those an IDE
1726 2013-11-24 19:13:32 <sipa> but any editor is fine
1727 2013-11-24 19:13:47 <iCoradan> yes I know
1728 2013-11-24 19:13:51 <iCoradan> those are editors
1729 2013-11-24 19:13:54 Wegot_ has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1730 2013-11-24 19:14:09 <iCoradan> I thought that it was better an IDE
1731 2013-11-24 19:14:10 <iCoradan> but...
1732 2013-11-24 19:14:21 <sipa> well if you have an IDE you like for C++, use it
1733 2013-11-24 19:14:32 <sipa> if not, well, either use it or don't :)
1734 2013-11-24 19:14:37 <sipa> i've never felt the necessity
1735 2013-11-24 19:15:09 <sipa> anything specifically that interests you to work on?
1736 2013-11-24 19:15:31 <iCoradan> I want to start...
1737 2013-11-24 19:15:42 <sipa> haha
1738 2013-11-24 19:15:52 <iCoradan> I want understand all code and them I will choose
1739 2013-11-24 19:16:09 <iCoradan> :-)
1740 2013-11-24 19:16:10 michagogo has joined
1741 2013-11-24 19:16:11 Anduck has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1742 2013-11-24 19:16:34 michagogo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1743 2013-11-24 19:16:44 <iCoradan> If you can give to me any advice, go ahead...
1744 2013-11-24 19:17:11 michagogo has joined
1745 2013-11-24 19:17:13 <Wegot> Damn man, being a site reliability engineer for google would suck
1746 2013-11-24 19:17:33 <Wegot> dealing with a few low trafficked sites is enough to drive me crazy
1747 2013-11-24 19:17:49 patcon has joined
1748 2013-11-24 19:17:51 <sipa> iCoradan: i guarantee you you won't understand all code before you've worked a lot on it
1749 2013-11-24 19:17:57 <sipa> Wegot: i like it, actually :p
1750 2013-11-24 19:18:14 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1751 2013-11-24 19:18:20 <iCoradan> ok, I know
1752 2013-11-24 19:18:33 <iCoradan> I think two or three months of work about code
1753 2013-11-24 19:18:38 <Wegot> i've always wondered, how much would it take to take google.com down
1754 2013-11-24 19:18:46 <sipa> Wegot: a lot
1755 2013-11-24 19:18:53 Neskia has joined
1756 2013-11-24 19:19:04 <sipa> iCoradan: picking something that interests you, and focussing on just that part initially is usually a good strategy
1757 2013-11-24 19:19:24 <Wegot> this could take it down i bet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srizbi_botnet
1758 2013-11-24 19:19:53 <iCoradan> at that moment my I want to see how the transacctions are processed
1759 2013-11-24 19:20:08 <iCoradan> and include in a block
1760 2013-11-24 19:20:23 <sipa> processing of transactions is very different from mining
1761 2013-11-24 19:20:29 <iCoradan> if there is verification before or not
1762 2013-11-24 19:20:35 <sipa> yes, absolutely
1763 2013-11-24 19:20:46 <sipa> miners really just pull data off validation nodes
1764 2013-11-24 19:20:55 <sipa> which maintain a state of valid blocks and transactions
1765 2013-11-24 19:21:03 <iCoradan> yes I know
1766 2013-11-24 19:21:36 Nesetalis has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1767 2013-11-24 19:21:39 <iCoradan> what do you mean with different from mining?
1768 2013-11-24 19:21:47 <sipa> mining is creating blocks
1769 2013-11-24 19:21:51 <iCoradan> yes
1770 2013-11-24 19:21:55 <sipa> processing transactions is checking whether they are valid
1771 2013-11-24 19:21:59 <sipa> everyone does that
1772 2013-11-24 19:22:03 <sipa> also those that don't mine
1773 2013-11-24 19:22:20 <sipa> (well, all fully verifying nodes)
1774 2013-11-24 19:22:45 <iCoradan> everyone = all wallets, you mean?
1775 2013-11-24 19:22:52 <sipa> no, all fully verifying nodes
1776 2013-11-24 19:23:05 <sipa> you can have wallets outside of that
1777 2013-11-24 19:23:07 patcon has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1778 2013-11-24 19:23:23 <sipa> for example electrum clients are not nodes, or webwallets, or offline wallets, or paper wallets, ...
1779 2013-11-24 19:23:28 <iCoradan> yes, of course
1780 2013-11-24 19:23:41 eoss has joined
1781 2013-11-24 19:23:43 <iCoradan> everyone= all connected wallets, yes?
1782 2013-11-24 19:23:44 <sipa> but bitcoin-qt and bitcoind implement full nodes (as well as wallets)
1783 2013-11-24 19:24:03 <sipa> depends, do you call a running electrum a connected wallet?
1784 2013-11-24 19:24:14 <sipa> or a webwallet with a logged in user?
1785 2013-11-24 19:24:40 Mqrius has left ("Leaving")
1786 2013-11-24 19:24:50 <iCoradan> I mean wallet on the network
1787 2013-11-24 19:25:09 <iCoradan> ok
1788 2013-11-24 19:25:16 <sipa> probably, but using the word 'wallet' is confusing here
1789 2013-11-24 19:25:21 <sipa> it has nothing to do with the wallet
1790 2013-11-24 19:25:23 <iCoradan> then I cant understand
1791 2013-11-24 19:25:35 <sipa> i run a bitcoind that has no wallet for example
1792 2013-11-24 19:25:42 <sipa> it's still a full node that participates on the network
1793 2013-11-24 19:26:04 <iCoradan> when the transaction is included on a block, before or later that it is validated by nodes?
1794 2013-11-24 19:26:20 <sipa> not sure what you're asking
1795 2013-11-24 19:26:23 <iCoradan> How do minners control this?
1796 2013-11-24 19:26:25 <Wegot> why validate transactions if im not mining?
1797 2013-11-24 19:26:47 <michagogo> iCoradan: Any transaction that a node broadcasts is verified before being relayed further
1798 2013-11-24 19:26:48 <sipa> Wegot: because being able to verify that nobody is cheating is the single greatest thing about bitcoin
1799 2013-11-24 19:27:01 <sipa> and bitcoin's decentralization relies on you being able to do so
1800 2013-11-24 19:27:44 <Wegot> yeah but the miners do all that verification stuff?
1801 2013-11-24 19:27:49 <sipa> yes
1802 2013-11-24 19:27:55 toffoo has joined
1803 2013-11-24 19:27:56 <sipa> but they are only a small minority
1804 2013-11-24 19:28:03 <sipa> most of the nodes that validate do not mine
1805 2013-11-24 19:28:09 <iCoradan> ok, then when transaccion is on broadcast is validated by the node that launch to the network?
1806 2013-11-24 19:28:28 <Wegot> ahh soo the validating nodes just broadcast the valid transactions so a miner gets them
1807 2013-11-24 19:28:32 <sipa> iCoradan: i'm having trouble understanding your sentence
1808 2013-11-24 19:28:32 jaakkos has quit (Changing host)
1809 2013-11-24 19:28:32 jaakkos has joined
1810 2013-11-24 19:28:42 <jaakkos> Wegot: the miners solve the double spending problem, but everyone participates in validating transactions' signatures.
1811 2013-11-24 19:28:52 <iCoradan> and when it arrives to minner, it include it into its processing block
1812 2013-11-24 19:28:59 <sipa> iCoradan: yes
1813 2013-11-24 19:29:21 <sipa> every node really keeps a list of unconfirmed transactions it considers valid
1814 2013-11-24 19:29:25 tmsk has quit (Quit: tmsk)
1815 2013-11-24 19:29:31 <sipa> miners pull from this list to build the next block
1816 2013-11-24 19:29:43 <sipa> but it's always maintained, as you need it to verify incoming transactions for example
1817 2013-11-24 19:30:30 <Wegot> thanks a lot for explaining things guys
1818 2013-11-24 19:30:30 <BW^-> anyone using Bitcoin programmatically here, to count confirmations or alike?
1819 2013-11-24 19:30:30 <iCoradan> and confirmation process is when block is close yes?
1820 2013-11-24 19:30:36 <BW^-> (not using bitcoind rpc)
1821 2013-11-24 19:30:46 <sipa> iCoradan: a block is a confirmation (it confirms every transaction it contains)
1822 2013-11-24 19:30:51 <Wegot> i'll remember ya'll when im a core developer :D
1823 2013-11-24 19:30:52 <iCoradan> ok
1824 2013-11-24 19:30:57 michagogo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1825 2013-11-24 19:31:08 <iCoradan> the next block on the chain are confirmations too
1826 2013-11-24 19:31:14 michagogo has joined
1827 2013-11-24 19:31:27 <sipa> yes, the first block that contains a transaction forms its first confirmation
1828 2013-11-24 19:31:35 <sipa> every block on top of that is an extra confirmation
1829 2013-11-24 19:31:44 <iCoradan> ok, I understand
1830 2013-11-24 19:31:52 <sipa> as more blocks on top means it becomes harder to reverse
1831 2013-11-24 19:32:18 <iCoradan> what part of code can I watch to see this?
1832 2013-11-24 19:32:42 michagogo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1833 2013-11-24 19:32:54 <sipa> you mean block processing, or transaction relaying, or confirmations being calculated, or ...?
1834 2013-11-24 19:33:00 <sipa> those are all very different things
1835 2013-11-24 19:33:32 <iCoradan> those three parts
1836 2013-11-24 19:33:50 <iCoradan> 1.- transation relaying
1837 2013-11-24 19:33:52 reneg has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1838 2013-11-24 19:33:57 <iCoradan> 2.- Block processing
1839 2013-11-24 19:34:10 <iCoradan> 3.- confirmations calculus
1840 2013-11-24 19:34:28 <sipa> it's not that easy :)
1841 2013-11-24 19:34:42 <iCoradan> :-)
1842 2013-11-24 19:34:57 <iCoradan> I will study the code...
1843 2013-11-24 19:34:58 <sipa> there's the network handler thread in net.cpp which fetches data from connected peers, and breaks them up in packages
1844 2013-11-24 19:35:11 <sipa> then there's processmessages in main.cpp which processes those messages one by one
1845 2013-11-24 19:35:37 <sipa> for new blocks, they're handed to processblock in main.cpp which invokes a few dozen other functions related to validating them and updating the database with them
1846 2013-11-24 19:36:00 <iCoradan> aha
1847 2013-11-24 19:36:10 <sipa> for new transactions, they're attempted to be added to the memory pool (which on its turn also invokes a ton of validation processing), and if successful, relays it to other peers
1848 2013-11-24 19:36:12 <iCoradan> It seems good begining
1849 2013-11-24 19:36:19 <iCoradan> net.cpp
1850 2013-11-24 19:36:45 <sipa> net.cpp and main.cpp are unfortunately the messiest places of the code
1851 2013-11-24 19:36:51 <sipa> as they're doing a bit of everything
1852 2013-11-24 19:37:17 <sipa> confirmations are calculated as the difference in height of the block that contained a transaction, and the height of the current block + 1
1853 2013-11-24 19:37:36 <iCoradan> aha
1854 2013-11-24 19:37:40 <sipa> the wallet codes uses this to decide what to include in balances, what to show in transactions, and which coins to use as inputs for new transactions
1855 2013-11-24 19:38:25 Tantadruj has quit (Quit: DoubleRecall Turns Paywalls Into Advertising Dollars - NYTimes.com http://nyti.ms/odHOgy)
1856 2013-11-24 19:38:27 <iCoradan> and which are the limits?
1857 2013-11-24 19:38:41 <sipa> of what?
1858 2013-11-24 19:38:47 <iCoradan> confirmation limits to include in balances?
1859 2013-11-24 19:39:16 <sipa> you need 1 confirmation before an incoming coin is considered spendable
1860 2013-11-24 19:39:21 <iCoradan> ok
1861 2013-11-24 19:39:22 <sipa> and 0 confirmations if it's coming from yourself
1862 2013-11-24 19:39:29 <iCoradan> ok
1863 2013-11-24 19:39:34 <sipa> for new transactions, coins with 6 confirmations or more are preferred
1864 2013-11-24 19:39:52 <sipa> and the number of confirmations itself has no limit
1865 2013-11-24 19:39:54 Tantadruj has joined
1866 2013-11-24 19:40:08 <sipa> you may want to read up about some basic stuff first
1867 2013-11-24 19:40:24 <sipa> stackexchange and the wiki are probably good places to start
1868 2013-11-24 19:40:28 <sipa> and satoshi's whitepaper
1869 2013-11-24 19:40:40 <iCoradan> yes but that number is fixed by the service providers (exchanges, etc.), but not by the default node code
1870 2013-11-24 19:41:00 go1111111 has joined
1871 2013-11-24 19:41:22 Anduck has joined
1872 2013-11-24 19:41:27 <sipa> at which number of confirmations to accept transactions, is a choice everyone can make for themself
1873 2013-11-24 19:41:28 <iCoradan> yes
1874 2013-11-24 19:41:39 <sipa> though using 0 has significant risks
1875 2013-11-24 19:41:50 <iCoradan> I am writing a blog about the Bitcoin, with examples
1876 2013-11-24 19:41:55 <iCoradan> it is in spanish sorry
1877 2013-11-24 19:42:04 <iCoradan> http://www.ejemplosbitcoin.com
1878 2013-11-24 19:42:07 <sipa> i assumed you were spanish :
1879 2013-11-24 19:42:44 <sipa> (because of 'transaccion')
1880 2013-11-24 19:42:46 <iCoradan> I will create its english version, but later
1881 2013-11-24 19:42:51 <iCoradan> :-)
1882 2013-11-24 19:43:03 <iCoradan> yes... :-)
1883 2013-11-24 19:45:07 kill\switch has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1884 2013-11-24 19:46:11 reneg has joined
1885 2013-11-24 19:46:14 reneg has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1886 2013-11-24 19:46:45 reneg has joined
1887 2013-11-24 19:46:51 reneg has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1888 2013-11-24 19:47:16 reneg has joined
1889 2013-11-24 19:47:58 cads has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1890 2013-11-24 19:48:08 kill\switch has joined
1891 2013-11-24 19:48:20 <iCoradan> this is the main idea of the first post:
1892 2013-11-24 19:48:24 <iCoradan> Thus, we can consider that in the end the coin once set in the digital world has been a kind of evolution with respect to the previously known coins, a new element of dual behavior appears, called Bitcoin Address, through which we interact with the new electronic money: sometimes observe that behaves as a bill and others as an account or both at same time.
1893 2013-11-24 19:51:08 ext0 has joined
1894 2013-11-24 20:03:08 kill\switch has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1895 2013-11-24 20:03:38 kill\switch has joined
1896 2013-11-24 20:04:11 <iCoradan> sipa
1897 2013-11-24 20:04:19 <iCoradan> one question more, plz
1898 2013-11-24 20:04:23 <iCoradan> you said
1899 2013-11-24 20:04:35 <iCoradan> every node really keeps a list of unconfirmed transactions it considers valid
1900 2013-11-24 20:04:41 <iCoradan> miners pull from this list to build the next block
1901 2013-11-24 20:05:00 <iCoradan> you mean that nodes relay to de miners that list?
1902 2013-11-24 20:05:40 <roconnor> iCoradan: yes, more or less
1903 2013-11-24 20:05:58 daybyter has joined
1904 2013-11-24 20:06:30 <iCoradan> how more or less?
1905 2013-11-24 20:06:42 <iCoradan> the miner has another list
1906 2013-11-24 20:06:59 <iCoradan> not the same that one node
1907 2013-11-24 20:07:10 <iCoradan> the miner list is own
1908 2013-11-24 20:07:13 <iCoradan> isnt it?
1909 2013-11-24 20:07:22 <roconnor> I haven't been following the conversation, but lists of unconfirmed transactions can be merged.
1910 2013-11-24 20:07:33 <iCoradan> ok
1911 2013-11-24 20:07:39 deepc0re_ has joined
1912 2013-11-24 20:07:41 agnostic98 has joined
1913 2013-11-24 20:08:01 <iCoradan> so the miner not validated the transaction?
1914 2013-11-24 20:08:13 Eiii has joined
1915 2013-11-24 20:08:24 <iCoradan> only see if it is unconfirmed and if yes it include it on a block
1916 2013-11-24 20:08:31 <iCoradan> isnt it?
1917 2013-11-24 20:08:54 samson_ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1918 2013-11-24 20:09:07 <roconnor> miners need to validate transactions they want to include in a block so they don't produce bad blocks that other nodes will reject.
1919 2013-11-24 20:09:20 d9b4bef9 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1920 2013-11-24 20:09:35 samson_ has joined
1921 2013-11-24 20:09:38 <iCoradan> ok
1922 2013-11-24 20:10:05 <sipa> iCoradan: every node keeps a list of transactions it considers valid, but are not yet in a block
1923 2013-11-24 20:10:07 <iCoradan> and when the block is close others nodes validate all transactions includes on that block or not?
1924 2013-11-24 20:10:16 d9b4bef9 has joined
1925 2013-11-24 20:10:19 <sipa> miners are not special
1926 2013-11-24 20:10:25 <iCoradan> ok
1927 2013-11-24 20:10:32 Nesetalis has joined
1928 2013-11-24 20:10:38 <iCoradan> and when the block is close others nodes validate all transactions includes on that block or not?
1929 2013-11-24 20:10:42 <sipa> what do you mean by "block is close" ?
1930 2013-11-24 20:11:02 <roconnor> iCoradan: no one anywhere in the network is trusting anyone else to have done anything properly.
1931 2013-11-24 20:11:10 <iCoradan> block is found
1932 2013-11-24 20:11:29 <roconnor> iCoradan: all nodes validate new blocks.
1933 2013-11-24 20:11:39 <iCoradan> ok, but how?
1934 2013-11-24 20:11:45 <sipa> yes, when a new block propagatea, everyone validates it before sending it on
1935 2013-11-24 20:11:47 <iCoradan> validate all transactions on it?
1936 2013-11-24 20:11:51 <sipa> yes
1937 2013-11-24 20:11:54 <iCoradan> ok
1938 2013-11-24 20:11:58 <sipa> and more
1939 2013-11-24 20:12:00 <roconnor> yes, and that the proof of work is correct
1940 2013-11-24 20:12:10 <roconnor> an a few other things
1941 2013-11-24 20:12:27 <iCoradan> and one more thing
1942 2013-11-24 20:12:42 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1943 2013-11-24 20:12:47 Neskia has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1944 2013-11-24 20:13:06 <iCoradan> how miners knows who is founder of a block?
1945 2013-11-24 20:14:10 <iCoradan> the miner send the block with 000000 hash but how the others miners know that he is the founder?
1946 2013-11-24 20:14:27 <ThomasV> is it possible to know through rpc if bitcoind is running with txindex=1 ?
1947 2013-11-24 20:15:09 <licnep> iCoradan: i think the miner also hashes his address in the block, as the address who will receive the mined bitcoins, but i'm not sure
1948 2013-11-24 20:15:24 <iCoradan> ok
1949 2013-11-24 20:15:29 <iCoradan> It is possible
1950 2013-11-24 20:15:44 <iCoradan> it would be a proof
1951 2013-11-24 20:16:05 <iCoradan> so the transactions with new 25BTCs is included on a found block
1952 2013-11-24 20:16:15 <iCoradan> isnt it?
1953 2013-11-24 20:16:22 <coin1> it is
1954 2013-11-24 20:16:25 <michagogo> cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|iCoradan: A miner is allowed to include one transaction in each block that creates bitcoins out of thin air
1955 2013-11-24 20:16:27 <iCoradan> ok
1956 2013-11-24 20:16:38 <michagogo> cloud!uid14316@wikia/Michagogo|Those bitcoins can go to wherever the miner chooses
1957 2013-11-24 20:16:45 <coin1> iCoradan, you can find more info here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_hashing_algorithm
1958 2013-11-24 20:19:48 <iCoradan> I am reading it
1959 2013-11-24 20:20:45 <iCoradan> But i cant see the miner transaction to proof the block discover
1960 2013-11-24 20:20:47 <coin1> you can check https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block too for some more 'big picture'
1961 2013-11-24 20:21:35 <iCoradan> I supose that the miner relay the discovered block and the nonce which obtain the hash
1962 2013-11-24 20:22:26 reneg_ has joined
1963 2013-11-24 20:22:31 <iCoradan> Ok I am understanding the proccess
1964 2013-11-24 20:22:42 <iCoradan> thank you very much to everyone
1965 2013-11-24 20:22:44 <iCoradan> thanks
1966 2013-11-24 20:23:00 <coin1> look to blockchain.info
1967 2013-11-24 20:23:09 <coin1> check the latest block that was discovered
1968 2013-11-24 20:23:16 <coin1> and follow the transactions that are included
1969 2013-11-24 20:23:39 <iCoradan> yes I will look at it
1970 2013-11-24 20:23:41 reneg__ has joined
1971 2013-11-24 20:23:44 <coin1> you will find one transaction that is the reward and it will say ' no inputs - newly generated coins '
1972 2013-11-24 20:23:57 reneg has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1973 2013-11-24 20:24:14 <iCoradan> coinbase
1974 2013-11-24 20:24:15 <iCoradan> yes
1975 2013-11-24 20:24:18 <iCoradan> I know it
1976 2013-11-24 20:24:29 <iCoradan> But I didnt know where
1977 2013-11-24 20:24:31 cads has joined
1978 2013-11-24 20:24:41 <iCoradan> if the same discovered block or in the next
1979 2013-11-24 20:27:26 <sipa> well the next block is made by another miner :)
1980 2013-11-24 20:27:32 reneg_ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1981 2013-11-24 20:28:12 <licnep> why is it 25.22483214 BTC i thought it was exactly 25?
1982 2013-11-24 20:28:22 <sipa> the rest is fee income
1983 2013-11-24 20:28:35 ShadowRi5ing has joined
1984 2013-11-24 20:28:36 <sipa> miners can claim the fees payd by the transactions they include
1985 2013-11-24 20:28:43 <licnep> oh right, the fees
1986 2013-11-24 20:31:04 <licnep> have you guys contacted leveldb's devs for the corruption issue? did they say anything?
1987 2013-11-24 20:33:12 ShadowRi5ing has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1988 2013-11-24 20:33:58 <sipa> there's an issue filed
1989 2013-11-24 20:34:00 <iCoradan> what miners?
1990 2013-11-24 20:34:10 <iCoradan> if the block is discovered by one miner
1991 2013-11-24 20:34:27 <iCoradan> the fees...
1992 2013-11-24 20:34:35 <sipa> there is no 'the block'
1993 2013-11-24 20:34:40 <sipa> miners find blocks
1994 2013-11-24 20:34:48 <sipa> and build.on eachother's blocks
1995 2013-11-24 20:34:50 * gmaxwell imagines James T. Kirk's voice
1996 2013-11-24 20:34:53 <iCoradan> ok transactions relayed
1997 2013-11-24 20:34:58 <iCoradan> ??
1998 2013-11-24 20:35:02 MobGod has joined
1999 2013-11-24 20:35:28 <iCoradan> build on each other blocks?
2000 2013-11-24 20:35:32 <iCoradan> how?
2001 2013-11-24 20:35:44 <sipa> please familiarize yourself with some of the basics first
2002 2013-11-24 20:35:51 <sipa> have you read the whitepaper?
2003 2013-11-24 20:35:54 <iCoradan> yes
2004 2013-11-24 20:36:00 MobGod has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
2005 2013-11-24 20:36:25 <iCoradan> it is front of me
2006 2013-11-24 20:36:43 MobGod has joined
2007 2013-11-24 20:36:54 <iCoradan> how miner build on each other blocks?
2008 2013-11-24 20:36:56 MobGod has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
2009 2013-11-24 20:37:33 MobGod has joined
2010 2013-11-24 20:37:45 agnostic98 has joined
2011 2013-11-24 20:37:47 <iCoradan> I understand that miner build on its block, but I cant understand it builds on others
2012 2013-11-24 20:37:50 imton has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2013 2013-11-24 20:38:03 <sipa> every block refers to a predecessor block
2014 2013-11-24 20:38:12 <sipa> by incorporating its hash in the header
2015 2013-11-24 20:38:20 <iCoradan> yes I know that
2016 2013-11-24 20:38:21 <sipa> that way, blocks form a tree structure
2017 2013-11-24 20:38:28 <iCoradan> yes I know that
2018 2013-11-24 20:38:36 <sipa> and paths through tjat tree are called block chains
2019 2013-11-24 20:38:52 <sipa> this meams you have to know which block you want to build on top of as a miner
2020 2013-11-24 20:38:57 <iCoradan> so the answer is that fees is for work made in previus blocks?
2021 2013-11-24 20:38:59 <sipa> as you have to include its hash
2022 2013-11-24 20:39:05 <sipa> no
2023 2013-11-24 20:39:29 <sipa> every block can claim the 25 BTC subsidy + the fees of all transactions it itself includes
2024 2013-11-24 20:39:37 <iCoradan> yes
2025 2013-11-24 20:39:37 ShadowRi5ing has joined
2026 2013-11-24 20:39:48 <sipa> i was just saying there is no 'the block'
2027 2013-11-24 20:39:54 <sipa> there are just blocks
2028 2013-11-24 20:40:08 imton has joined
2029 2013-11-24 20:40:12 <sipa> and which one ends up in the chain that everyone eventually accepts is not known
2030 2013-11-24 20:40:14 <iCoradan> the fees of all transactions it itself includes = fees to...?
2031 2013-11-24 20:40:26 <sipa> the fees of those transactions
2032 2013-11-24 20:40:31 <iCoradan> but to?
2033 2013-11-24 20:40:32 MoALTz has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2034 2013-11-24 20:40:33 <coin1> iCoradan, when ppl want to send btc around sometimes they have to pay fees
2035 2013-11-24 20:40:37 <sipa> every transaction has inputs and outputs
2036 2013-11-24 20:40:43 <iCoradan> yes
2037 2013-11-24 20:40:51 <iCoradan> and the fees are to?
2038 2013-11-24 20:40:55 <iCoradan> who?
2039 2013-11-24 20:41:03 <sipa> ...
2040 2013-11-24 20:41:12 <sipa> to the miner who puts the transaction in a block
2041 2013-11-24 20:41:15 <coin1> the fees are unrelated to the mining, they are paid by the person who wants to make a transaction
2042 2013-11-24 20:41:17 <iCoradan> ok
2043 2013-11-24 20:41:28 <iCoradan> to the miner that discover block, isnt it?
2044 2013-11-24 20:41:32 <coin1> yes
2045 2013-11-24 20:41:53 <coin1> hence the 25btc+plus fees
2046 2013-11-24 20:41:56 <iCoradan> yes sorry this is that I think since the begining
2047 2013-11-24 20:42:15 <iCoradan> but somebody says other miners
2048 2013-11-24 20:42:23 <coin1> eheh sorry but it looks like you're more confused than when when you started
2049 2013-11-24 20:42:26 <iCoradan> and that confused to me, sorry
2050 2013-11-24 20:42:44 <iCoradan> the fees are to the miner has discovered block
2051 2013-11-24 20:42:49 <sipa> yes
2052 2013-11-24 20:42:52 <iCoradan> ok
2053 2013-11-24 20:42:55 <iCoradan> now yes
2054 2013-11-24 20:43:03 <iCoradan> sorry I had a confusion
2055 2013-11-24 20:43:23 <iCoradan> with the others miners
2056 2013-11-24 20:43:45 patcon has joined
2057 2013-11-24 20:44:37 <iCoradan> very useful to me that information
2058 2013-11-24 20:44:39 <iCoradan> thanks
2059 2013-11-24 20:45:41 <iCoradan> there are two types of fees then
2060 2013-11-24 20:46:10 <sipa> which?
2061 2013-11-24 20:46:23 <iCoradan> fees to owner of the service that make possible the transaction and this is an ouput
2062 2013-11-24 20:46:36 <iCoradan> and the fees of the block discoverment
2063 2013-11-24 20:46:55 <iCoradan> to the miner that discovered the block
2064 2013-11-24 20:46:58 <iCoradan> isnt it?
2065 2013-11-24 20:47:07 <sipa> why do you need a service to make transactions possible?
2066 2013-11-24 20:47:17 <iCoradan> that it is an output too
2067 2013-11-24 20:47:21 <sipa> of course, the word 'fee' means more in english
2068 2013-11-24 20:47:22 <iCoradan> no need it
2069 2013-11-24 20:47:30 <sipa> anytime you pay someone for a service it is a fee
2070 2013-11-24 20:47:31 <iCoradan> but if you used it, for example, an exchanger
2071 2013-11-24 20:47:46 <iCoradan> the exchanger put one output to him
2072 2013-11-24 20:48:01 <sipa> but within the bitcoin protocol, there is just one type of fee: the one paid by transaction creators to those who mine the transaction
2073 2013-11-24 20:48:44 <sipa> that's like saying there are two types of files: those on a computer filesystem, and those in paper form
2074 2013-11-24 20:48:46 <iCoradan> ok
2075 2013-11-24 20:48:59 <iCoradan> I understand
2076 2013-11-24 20:49:07 <sipa> the word has more meanings once you're not talking about the system anymore
2077 2013-11-24 20:49:15 <coin1> is there a nicer blockchain viewer for the testnet than blockexplorer ?
2078 2013-11-24 20:50:26 ShadowRi5ing has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2079 2013-11-24 20:57:16 _ingsoc has quit (Quit: leaving)
2080 2013-11-24 20:57:57 mynameis has quit (Quit: mynameis)
2081 2013-11-24 20:58:11 agnostic98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2082 2013-11-24 20:58:28 agnostic98 has joined
2083 2013-11-24 21:01:05 erans has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
2084 2013-11-24 21:01:38 erans has joined
2085 2013-11-24 21:03:57 MobPhone has joined
2086 2013-11-24 21:08:55 rdymac has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2087 2013-11-24 21:09:21 anonymous25346 has joined
2088 2013-11-24 21:09:57 rdymac has joined
2089 2013-11-24 21:10:27 mynameis has joined
2090 2013-11-24 21:12:27 anonymous25346 has quit (Client Quit)
2091 2013-11-24 21:13:31 damethos has joined
2092 2013-11-24 21:14:52 fluffypuppy has joined
2093 2013-11-24 21:16:48 thelorax123 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2094 2013-11-24 21:17:57 thelorax123 has joined
2095 2013-11-24 21:18:42 <gulli> What the difference between an internal chain and an external one (Deterministic Key generation)
2096 2013-11-24 21:22:09 <Vinnie_win> Is there a punch line for this?
2097 2013-11-24 21:23:49 <gulli> haha lol, didnt notice that
2098 2013-11-24 21:23:56 <gulli> no its a question missing the question mark
2099 2013-11-24 21:24:11 <sipa> gulli: keeping change addresses separate, as they are more private
2100 2013-11-24 21:24:33 <sipa> gulli: so you can reveal just your public addresses, to let others see your receives
2101 2013-11-24 21:24:45 <sipa> but not (trivially) the spends
2102 2013-11-24 21:25:21 <gulli> So if Im generating public keys for a hotwallet it would be external?
2103 2013-11-24 21:25:32 <gulli> I'm gonna read more on it
2104 2013-11-24 21:26:17 <sipa> if it is addresses you intend to show anyone else, use the external chain
2105 2013-11-24 21:26:28 <sipa> if it is addresses you only use yourself, it is internal
2106 2013-11-24 21:26:54 <gmaxwell> can someone give me a working testnet node I can addnode?
2107 2013-11-24 21:27:48 thelorax123 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2108 2013-11-24 21:28:57 thelorax123 has joined
2109 2013-11-24 21:29:16 AusBitBank has joined
2110 2013-11-24 21:29:21 typex has joined
2111 2013-11-24 21:29:23 p15_ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2112 2013-11-24 21:31:21 eristisk has joined
2113 2013-11-24 21:34:04 <gulli> sipa, is what you are refering to as Private derivation in BIP0032 an internal chain?
2114 2013-11-24 21:34:09 erans has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2115 2013-11-24 21:35:13 btcbtc_ has quit (Quit: btcbtc_)
2116 2013-11-24 21:36:37 btcbtc has joined
2117 2013-11-24 21:37:22 <gmaxwell> http://opensource.yubico.com/yubico-bitcoin-java/apidocs/com/yubico/bitcoin/api/YkneoBitcoin.html < more than a little annoying that it can't fetch arbritary key locations.
2118 2013-11-24 21:37:33 starsoccer has quit (Quit: See ya later bitches)
2119 2013-11-24 21:37:43 <sipa> gulli: i know it is confusing, but there is internal/external chains, private/public keys, and private/public derivation
2120 2013-11-24 21:37:51 <samson_> If Bitcoin was being written for the first time right now would it use ed25519 instead of secp256k1 ?
2121 2013-11-24 21:37:58 <sipa> gulli: and they have nothing to do with eavhother
2122 2013-11-24 21:38:05 <sipa> samson_: that seems likely, yes
2123 2013-11-24 21:38:15 <samson_> ok thanks
2124 2013-11-24 21:38:42 <gulli> ok I'm gonan try to get my head around this by reading more and experimenting with some code
2125 2013-11-24 21:38:46 <sipa> gulli: internal/external chains are concepts from the defaupt wallet structure
2126 2013-11-24 21:39:17 <sipa> gulli: private derivation means you need to parent private key, and is indicayed by a ' on the index
2127 2013-11-24 21:39:42 <gmaxwell> samson_: though secp256k1 isn't _that_ much worse a choice, has similar performance, etc.
2128 2013-11-24 21:39:45 BCBot has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2129 2013-11-24 21:40:06 kouiskas has joined
2130 2013-11-24 21:40:10 <gulli> sipa: ok thanks
2131 2013-11-24 21:40:15 zyrox has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2132 2013-11-24 21:42:52 iCoradan has quit (Quit: Page closed)
2133 2013-11-24 21:43:54 cheeseburgerlock has joined
2134 2013-11-24 21:43:56 patcon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2135 2013-11-24 21:44:23 patcon has joined
2136 2013-11-24 21:45:32 cheeseburgerlock has left ()
2137 2013-11-24 21:47:19 BW^- has quit (Quit: Miranda IM! Smaller, Faster, Easier. http://miranda-im.org)
2138 2013-11-24 21:47:33 kouiskas has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.in)
2139 2013-11-24 21:48:03 kouiskas has joined
2140 2013-11-24 21:48:56 patcon has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
2141 2013-11-24 21:51:01 Guest14808 has joined
2142 2013-11-24 21:51:08 Guest14808 has quit (Client Quit)
2143 2013-11-24 21:51:30 Sleepnbum has joined
2144 2013-11-24 21:55:52 kouiskas has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2145 2013-11-24 21:56:22 kouiskas has joined
2146 2013-11-24 21:56:41 BCBot has joined
2147 2013-11-24 22:01:55 Eiii has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2148 2013-11-24 22:02:34 Eiii has joined
2149 2013-11-24 22:02:34 Eiii has quit (Changing host)
2150 2013-11-24 22:02:34 Eiii has joined
2151 2013-11-24 22:04:06 roconnor has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
2152 2013-11-24 22:04:19 dust-otc has joined
2153 2013-11-24 22:06:20 rdymac has quit (Excess Flood)
2154 2013-11-24 22:09:57 rdymac has joined
2155 2013-11-24 22:11:13 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2156 2013-11-24 22:12:50 MobGod has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2157 2013-11-24 22:19:12 nsh- has joined
2158 2013-11-24 22:21:20 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
2159 2013-11-24 22:21:21 Blasteris has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2160 2013-11-24 22:21:54 damethos has quit (Quit: Bye)
2161 2013-11-24 22:26:31 dparrish has joined
2162 2013-11-24 22:26:59 reneg__ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2163 2013-11-24 22:27:54 drayah has joined
2164 2013-11-24 22:28:28 ovidiusoft has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
2165 2013-11-24 22:29:13 ThomasV has joined
2166 2013-11-24 22:31:41 drayah has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2167 2013-11-24 22:32:03 Sleepnbum has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2168 2013-11-24 22:32:54 drayah has joined
2169 2013-11-24 22:33:39 drayah has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2170 2013-11-24 22:34:04 drayah has joined
2171 2013-11-24 22:36:07 jabuti1 has joined
2172 2013-11-24 22:36:13 drayah has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2173 2013-11-24 22:36:34 jabuti1 has left ()
2174 2013-11-24 22:37:59 Wegot has quit (Quit: Page closed)
2175 2013-11-24 22:38:14 Namworld has joined
2176 2013-11-24 22:39:22 dparrish has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2177 2013-11-24 22:39:35 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2178 2013-11-24 22:39:35 Guyver2 has joined
2179 2013-11-24 22:41:27 20WAANFOO has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2180 2013-11-24 22:41:33 mmckx has left ()
2181 2013-11-24 22:42:03 hemry has joined
2182 2013-11-24 22:43:31 brson has joined
2183 2013-11-24 22:43:31 brson has quit (Client Quit)
2184 2013-11-24 22:44:09 denisx has joined
2185 2013-11-24 22:44:40 brson has joined
2186 2013-11-24 22:46:06 hemry has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2187 2013-11-24 22:48:45 hemry has joined
2188 2013-11-24 22:48:52 <TD> sipa: yt
2189 2013-11-24 22:49:19 torsthaldo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2190 2013-11-24 22:49:30 CheckDavid has joined
2191 2013-11-24 22:52:14 Application has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2192 2013-11-24 22:52:32 drayah has joined
2193 2013-11-24 22:55:31 <TD> sipa: the bip32 test vectors don't have what i'd guess should be the most common need: a plain old wallet with a couple of keys (i.e. all derivation is private)
2194 2013-11-24 22:57:23 agnostic98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2195 2013-11-24 22:57:23 dust-otc has quit (Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzzâ¦)
2196 2013-11-24 23:00:58 gulli has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
2197 2013-11-24 23:01:26 Vinnie_win has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
2198 2013-11-24 23:04:21 stevedekorte has joined
2199 2013-11-24 23:04:21 stevedekorte has quit (Client Quit)
2200 2013-11-24 23:05:10 tippan has joined
2201 2013-11-24 23:06:03 throwaway123 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2202 2013-11-24 23:06:21 metric has joined
2203 2013-11-24 23:08:06 throwaway123 has joined
2204 2013-11-24 23:08:49 typex has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2205 2013-11-24 23:08:50 <sipa> TD: ?
2206 2013-11-24 23:08:57 <sipa> TD: the test vectors just test the derivation
2207 2013-11-24 23:09:36 <sipa> and they test all modes of operation, at different levels
2208 2013-11-24 23:10:34 jakov has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.4 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
2209 2013-11-24 23:13:15 <sipa> TD: do you mean, they don't demonstrate how to build a wallet?
2210 2013-11-24 23:13:26 <shesek> Is it possible to get searchrawtransactions (of pull request #2802) to include unconfirmed transactions? If not, can someone point me in the right direction for modifying it to do so?
2211 2013-11-24 23:13:55 <sipa> TD: they're certainly not intended as documentation, just as a means to verify your derivation code
2212 2013-11-24 23:14:28 <sipa> shesek: iterating through the mempool, and matching their in/outputs against the address you're searching for should be easy
2213 2013-11-24 23:15:23 gritball has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2214 2013-11-24 23:15:28 fluffypuppy has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2215 2013-11-24 23:15:41 <gmaxwell> I'm still in need of a working testnet node. :(
2216 2013-11-24 23:16:14 BW^- has joined
2217 2013-11-24 23:16:56 <shesek> gmaxwell, I /noticed you earlier, you didn't get it?
2218 2013-11-24 23:17:09 Thepok has joined
2219 2013-11-24 23:17:48 <gmaxwell> shesek: No
2220 2013-11-24 23:18:41 <TD> sipa: yes i know
2221 2013-11-24 23:18:54 <sipa> random fact: /notice was added to the IRC standard as a less-than-normal priority message, with the intention that bots should never reply to a notice to prevent loops
2222 2013-11-24 23:19:04 TeleDongz has joined
2223 2013-11-24 23:19:14 <TD> sipa: i'm writing some code to generate a deterministic wallet. and i was hoping i could write a unit test that the keys selected for receiving/change (i.e. external/internal) against test vectors
2224 2013-11-24 23:19:27 <TD> but they aren't written that way
2225 2013-11-24 23:19:36 <TD> it's not a big deal though
2226 2013-11-24 23:19:44 <sipa> right, i see
2227 2013-11-24 23:19:46 <sipa> that makes sense
2228 2013-11-24 23:21:53 <sipa> i could certainly add something of the form, "with seed X, here are the first 5 internal and external addresses for chain 0 and 1"
2229 2013-11-24 23:22:41 gritball has joined
2230 2013-11-24 23:22:44 <shesek> sipa, so I would modify FindTransactionsByDestination to lookup in both the blocktree and the mempool?
2231 2013-11-24 23:23:06 <sipa> shesek: you could
2232 2013-11-24 23:23:23 btcbtc has quit (Quit: btcbtc)
2233 2013-11-24 23:25:15 <shesek> sipa, I'll try looking into that, thanks
2234 2013-11-24 23:26:06 <shesek> I barely know my way around bitcoin'd source code, perhaps there's some example of looking up in the mempool somewhere that I can use as a reference?
2235 2013-11-24 23:26:24 <shesek> s/'d/'s
2236 2013-11-24 23:26:28 <gmaxwell> shesek: the mempool is exposed in the rpc. getrawmempool.
2237 2013-11-24 23:27:16 <sipa> that, the mempool p2p command, and block construction are the only places that i can think of where the entire mempool is iterated
2238 2013-11-24 23:28:06 MobGod has joined
2239 2013-11-24 23:28:19 <sipa> shesek: you'll need another interface than FindTransactionsByDestination though, as it produces a set of CExtDiskTxPos objects
2240 2013-11-24 23:28:29 <sipa> which refer to transactions on disk, not mempool transactions
2241 2013-11-24 23:28:54 dparrish has joined
2242 2013-11-24 23:31:37 <TD> sipa: that would be good
2243 2013-11-24 23:31:45 <TD> sipa: i feel i keep giving you documentation things to do :)
2244 2013-11-24 23:32:17 <sipa> TD: yes, and i don't even have time to do what i want myself...
2245 2013-11-24 23:32:37 <TD> indeed :( well, i could add some test vectors, but they'd be just assuming my code is correct :)
2246 2013-11-24 23:32:48 <TD> the actual derivation code passes the test vectors that exist
2247 2013-11-24 23:32:50 <TD> so i'm sure it is
2248 2013-11-24 23:32:58 <TD> but you know, it's just a bit more proper to do it the other way around
2249 2013-11-24 23:33:00 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2250 2013-11-24 23:33:08 <sipa> there is bip32 derivation code in bitcoin head too
2251 2013-11-24 23:33:18 <sipa> and a unit test that implements the test vectors
2252 2013-11-24 23:33:38 <TD> right, same for bitcoinj. all i've been doing is writing code that sets up the default wallet structure m/0/1/{0,1,2,3} etc
2253 2013-11-24 23:35:53 fluffypuppy has joined
2254 2013-11-24 23:36:37 btcbtc has joined
2255 2013-11-24 23:37:33 Thepok has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2256 2013-11-24 23:38:22 patcon has joined
2257 2013-11-24 23:39:25 agnostic98 has joined
2258 2013-11-24 23:39:33 hmmma has joined
2259 2013-11-24 23:41:11 btcbtc has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2260 2013-11-24 23:42:10 btcbtc has joined
2261 2013-11-24 23:43:32 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2262 2013-11-24 23:43:34 dparrish has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2263 2013-11-24 23:45:15 Scrat has joined
2264 2013-11-24 23:46:44 Burritoh has joined
2265 2013-11-24 23:47:16 patcon has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2266 2013-11-24 23:47:41 patcon has joined
2267 2013-11-24 23:50:05 Thepok has joined
2268 2013-11-24 23:50:35 go1111111 has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2269 2013-11-24 23:50:53 Starduster has quit (Quit: gotta go)
2270 2013-11-24 23:52:49 btcbtc has quit (Quit: btcbtc)
2271 2013-11-24 23:53:21 drayah has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2272 2013-11-24 23:53:38 hnz has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
2273 2013-11-24 23:54:53 gulli has joined
2274 2013-11-24 23:55:31 shesek has joined
2275 2013-11-24 23:56:12 <gulli> So the external and internal chains, these are basically just branches I decided served a special purspose
2276 2013-11-24 23:57:41 zyrox has joined
2277 2013-11-24 23:57:43 hnz has joined