1 2014-04-12 00:02:20 sontol has quit (Quit: Page closed)
   2 2014-04-12 00:06:56 bbbrian has joined
   3 2014-04-12 00:08:51 ghtdak has left ()
   4 2014-04-12 00:11:00 Gyps has quit (Quit: Gyps)
   5 2014-04-12 00:13:01 bbbrian has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
   6 2014-04-12 00:13:39 Eagle[TM] has joined
   7 2014-04-12 00:14:29 EagleTM has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
   8 2014-04-12 00:15:14 Luke-Jr has joined
   9 2014-04-12 00:16:48 jonathan__ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  10 2014-04-12 00:19:07 tf2honeybadger has joined
  11 2014-04-12 00:20:16 pierreat1ork has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
  12 2014-04-12 00:20:42 ppvkignx has quit ()
  13 2014-04-12 00:20:47 pierreatwork has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  14 2014-04-12 00:20:47 <sipa> ProfMac: It's CNode, not CPeer
  15 2014-04-12 00:21:00 <sipa> ProfMac: and submitblock actually works differently, as it bypasses the inv mechanism
  16 2014-04-12 00:21:08 strainwrld has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  17 2014-04-12 00:21:37 listtransactions has joined
  18 2014-04-12 00:22:50 <listtransactions> Hey, are there any devs here? I'm having a problem with listtransactions in Bitcoin 0.9.1.
  19 2014-04-12 00:23:04 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  20 2014-04-12 00:23:32 <listtransactions> I tried migrating a wallet that was on 0.8.6 to 0.9.1, and suddenly listtransactions started showing change transactions.
  21 2014-04-12 00:24:49 <listtransactions> As I'm tracking how much BTC is going into which accounts, this makes the feature useless to me, as it's reporting BTC going randomly into different accounts.
  22 2014-04-12 00:26:01 llllllllll has quit ()
  23 2014-04-12 00:26:23 <gmaxwell> listtransactions: no one else has reported something like that. Is it possible you also restored an old wallet at the same time.
  24 2014-04-12 00:26:26 <gmaxwell> ?
  25 2014-04-12 00:26:32 Krellan_ has joined
  26 2014-04-12 00:26:41 davispuh has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  27 2014-04-12 00:29:22 <listtransactions> What do you mean at the same time?
  28 2014-04-12 00:30:07 <listtransactions> I opened 0.9.1, let it download the blockchain, then closed it, replaced the wallet.dat with the one from 0.8.6, then opened it.
  29 2014-04-12 00:30:19 <listtransactions> As soon as I started sending transactions, change started showing up in listtransactions.
  30 2014-04-12 00:31:11 <listtransactions> There was a time when both 0.8.6 and 0.9.1 were running at the same time, on different computers with two copies of the wallet.dat, but I didn't think this would be an issue, as it has a large key pool.
  31 2014-04-12 00:31:40 <listtransactions> The thing is, the change transactions didn't show up in 0.8.6.
  32 2014-04-12 00:32:52 mrkent has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  33 2014-04-12 00:32:52 mrkent2 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  34 2014-04-12 00:32:56 <tommygunner> you know you can control the change address in 0.9.1
  35 2014-04-12 00:33:08 <listtransactions> The API said that was only for sending raw transactions
  36 2014-04-12 00:33:15 <listtransactions> The API doc, I mean
  37 2014-04-12 00:33:24 kdomanski has joined
  38 2014-04-12 00:35:10 <tommygunner> have a look at the send tab
  39 2014-04-12 00:35:23 <listtransactions> All I have is bitcoind
  40 2014-04-12 00:35:26 <listtransactions> Ubuntu server
  41 2014-04-12 00:36:13 banghouse has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  42 2014-04-12 00:36:38 <sipa> listtransactions: can you put the output of listtransactions somewhere?
  43 2014-04-12 00:36:40 <sipa> (pastebin)
  44 2014-04-12 00:37:00 SoftwareMechanic has quit (Quit: SoftwareMechanic)
  45 2014-04-12 00:38:27 <listtransactions> I may need to redact some info, account names and addresses.
  46 2014-04-12 00:39:16 phoenix52 has joined
  47 2014-04-12 00:39:35 <listtransactions> Do you need a specific part that involves change transactions, or any section?
  48 2014-04-12 00:40:00 phoenix52 has quit (Client Quit)
  49 2014-04-12 00:40:53 [Author] has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
  50 2014-04-12 00:41:27 fanquake has joined
  51 2014-04-12 00:42:00 davout has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  52 2014-04-12 00:42:37 davout has joined
  53 2014-04-12 00:43:27 <sipa> yeah, just some evidence
  54 2014-04-12 00:43:43 <listtransactions> Okay, I found one.
  55 2014-04-12 00:44:37 <listtransactions> http://pastebin.com/embed_js.php?i=9KVJxjdC
  56 2014-04-12 00:44:42 Applicat_ has joined
  57 2014-04-12 00:45:00 <listtransactions> I sent the ~0.07 BTC to 14fD3mzRfBB7ziP5bzb49pw4aMLVjzm64e
  58 2014-04-12 00:45:16 <listtransactions> And some change ended up in someone's account
  59 2014-04-12 00:46:12 [Author] has joined
  60 2014-04-12 00:46:20 JackH has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  61 2014-04-12 00:46:57 <listtransactions> I just looked up the txid in 0.8.6, and only the 0.07 transaction shows up there.
  62 2014-04-12 00:47:16 bbbrian has joined
  63 2014-04-12 00:47:22 banghouse has joined
  64 2014-04-12 00:47:45 <sipa> the "..." indicates something non-empty?
  65 2014-04-12 00:48:42 <sipa> so, if the behaviour changed, that's a bug in any case
  66 2014-04-12 00:49:28 <sipa> but i'm not sure what the right behaviour should be, as it seems you have an account associated with that 'change' address 17R...
  67 2014-04-12 00:50:41 <sipa> what does validateaddress 17Rj... say; on both 0.8.6 and 0.9.1?
  68 2014-04-12 00:51:37 <listtransactions> The ... indicates the account. It's someone's account name, so I don't want to link it to their address.
  69 2014-04-12 00:51:44 <listtransactions> Let me check validateaddress
  70 2014-04-12 00:52:09 <sipa> in particular, the 'account' field
  71 2014-04-12 00:53:22 <listtransactions> 0.9.1 says it belongs to that person's account
  72 2014-04-12 00:53:30 <listtransactions> 0.8.6 doesn't list the account
  73 2014-04-12 00:53:55 <listtransactions> It might be an address that was assigned in one client and not the other
  74 2014-04-12 00:54:03 <listtransactions> Hmmm
  75 2014-04-12 00:54:10 <listtransactions> There's a large key pool in the wallet
  76 2014-04-12 00:54:25 <sipa> well, if you assign the change address to some account, sends to it will be regarded as incoming payments
  77 2014-04-12 00:54:29 johnsoft has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  78 2014-04-12 00:54:52 johnsoft has joined
  79 2014-04-12 00:55:03 johnsoft has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  80 2014-04-12 00:55:08 <sipa> the question is only whether you did that, or the system did that on itself
  81 2014-04-12 00:55:12 <sipa> the latter would be a bug
  82 2014-04-12 00:55:13 <listtransactions> Okay... suppose one version of the wallet is in 0.8.6. Then I send the wallet to 0.9.1.
  83 2014-04-12 00:55:17 <sipa> the former incorrect usage
  84 2014-04-12 00:55:22 johnsoft has joined
  85 2014-04-12 00:55:35 <sipa> 'one version of the wallet' ?
  86 2014-04-12 00:55:37 <listtransactions> I take a snapshot of the wallet and send it. While it's sending, I keep sending transactions in 0.8.6.
  87 2014-04-12 00:55:46 <sipa> are you running the same wallet in two setups at once?
  88 2014-04-12 00:55:51 <listtransactions> Then, when the wallet arrives in 0.9.1, I assign new addresses.
  89 2014-04-12 00:56:12 davout has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  90 2014-04-12 00:56:23 <listtransactions> Could some of those new addresses be change addresses, since there's a key pool?
  91 2014-04-12 00:56:27 <sipa> yes
  92 2014-04-12 00:56:34 <listtransactions> That must be it
  93 2014-04-12 00:56:42 <sipa> if you have two setups in parallel using the same wallet file, all kinds of hell will break lose
  94 2014-04-12 00:56:49 <listtransactions> Thanks, this was really worrying me.
  95 2014-04-12 00:56:51 <sipa> including double-spending yourself
  96 2014-04-12 00:57:07 davout has joined
  97 2014-04-12 00:57:39 <listtransactions> Okay. Makes sense.
  98 2014-04-12 00:58:12 wallet42 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
  99 2014-04-12 00:58:17 <listtransactions> One more thing
 100 2014-04-12 00:58:43 <listtransactions> On 0.8.6, using sendmany something causes change transactions to show up in the wallet, too.
 101 2014-04-12 00:58:59 <listtransactions> This is without two wallets running at the same time
 102 2014-04-12 00:59:06 <listtransactions> sometimes*
 103 2014-04-12 00:59:48 <listtransactions> Is there a way to set the change address, so that sendtoaddress and sendmany will use just one address for change?
 104 2014-04-12 01:00:02 <sipa> they always use only one address for change
 105 2014-04-12 01:00:06 <sipa> and they always use a fresh one
 106 2014-04-12 01:00:09 <sipa> from the keypool
 107 2014-04-12 01:00:32 <sipa> so, one that has not been either used as change before, or given out by getnewaddress
 108 2014-04-12 01:00:52 hoffmabc has joined
 109 2014-04-12 01:01:07 <sipa> you could in theory do a setlabel on that address, if you have seen it (perhaps by seeing it in another wallet) already anyway
 110 2014-04-12 01:01:19 <sipa> that could cause that, i guess
 111 2014-04-12 01:01:28 <sipa> it's not removed from the keypool if you do setlabel
 112 2014-04-12 01:01:34 <listtransactions> Hmm. I wonder how this happened, then.
 113 2014-04-12 01:01:41 phantomspark has joined
 114 2014-04-12 01:02:02 <listtransactions> I've never used setlabel
 115 2014-04-12 01:02:31 anton000 has joined
 116 2014-04-12 01:02:35 <sipa> eh, setaccount
 117 2014-04-12 01:02:42 <listtransactions> Oh
 118 2014-04-12 01:03:22 <listtransactions> Still, never used that back when this happened. It's certainly possible that getnewaddress was called right in the midst of when sendmany was being called, could that cause any issues?
 119 2014-04-12 01:03:42 <sipa> no
 120 2014-04-12 01:03:51 <sipa> i don't think so
 121 2014-04-12 01:04:12 <listtransactions> So if I send a transaction now, the change will only go to addresses that have never been used before?
 122 2014-04-12 01:04:55 <sipa> if you're using wallet files in several places, 'never been used' isn't the right word
 123 2014-04-12 01:05:04 <listtransactions> No, only one place.
 124 2014-04-12 01:05:11 <sipa> 'never been given out or used as change by this instance of the wallet'
 125 2014-04-12 01:05:42 grau has joined
 126 2014-04-12 01:05:50 mkarrer has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 127 2014-04-12 01:05:54 <listtransactions> Well, I could swear that's not what happened--it seemed to go into addresses that were pretty old.
 128 2014-04-12 01:06:51 <sipa> is the wallet encrypted?
 129 2014-04-12 01:06:51 <listtransactions> But I can't be absolutely certain nothing odd was going on the time, it was a while ago.
 130 2014-04-12 01:06:54 <listtransactions> No
 131 2014-04-12 01:07:02 <sipa> then certainly not
 132 2014-04-12 01:07:32 <listtransactions> Hm. Okay, well, it's good to understand how this works.
 133 2014-04-12 01:07:35 <listtransactions> Thanks for all your help.
 134 2014-04-12 01:07:38 <sipa> yw
 135 2014-04-12 01:08:22 rdponticelli has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
 136 2014-04-12 01:08:55 listtransactions has left ()
 137 2014-04-12 01:08:55 rdponticelli has joined
 138 2014-04-12 01:09:17 anton000 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 139 2014-04-12 01:10:06 grau has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 140 2014-04-12 01:10:33 zcopley has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 141 2014-04-12 01:11:25 anton000 has joined
 142 2014-04-12 01:11:49 johnsoft has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 143 2014-04-12 01:12:43 johnsoft has joined
 144 2014-04-12 01:13:37 AndrewJackson has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 145 2014-04-12 01:14:20 hoffmabc has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi)
 146 2014-04-12 01:14:33 hmmma has joined
 147 2014-04-12 01:17:21 brson has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 148 2014-04-12 01:17:36 brson has joined
 149 2014-04-12 01:22:45 tkolsto has joined
 150 2014-04-12 01:23:49 coingenuity has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 151 2014-04-12 01:26:34 go1111111 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 152 2014-04-12 01:28:04 go1111111 has joined
 153 2014-04-12 01:28:36 <Luke-Jr> hm
 154 2014-04-12 01:28:41 tf2honeybadger has left ()
 155 2014-04-12 01:28:56 <Luke-Jr> it would be a shame to merely remove accounts in 0.10, since HD wallets will make accounts backup-safe
 156 2014-04-12 01:29:00 <Luke-Jr> could*
 157 2014-04-12 01:29:39 <Luke-Jr> and an additional layer for accounts couldn't do the same
 158 2014-04-12 01:29:39 viajero has quit (Quit: viajero)
 159 2014-04-12 01:30:53 Krellan_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 160 2014-04-12 01:31:32 hsmiths has quit (Quit: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety)
 161 2014-04-12 01:32:44 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: no it can't make accounts backup safe.
 162 2014-04-12 01:33:03 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: why not?
 163 2014-04-12 01:33:06 hsmiths has joined
 164 2014-04-12 01:33:08 <gmaxwell> tell me how a move or a sendfrom is supposted to survive backup? how the names of the acocunts will survive backup?
 165 2014-04-12 01:33:17 <gmaxwell> er survive without a backup. :P
 166 2014-04-12 01:33:59 <Luke-Jr> move = ok, remove this
 167 2014-04-12 01:34:08 <Luke-Jr> sendfrom = change address from a per-account chain
 168 2014-04-12 01:41:42 roconnor has joined
 169 2014-04-12 01:47:34 Eagle[TM] has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 170 2014-04-12 01:47:48 [\\\] is now known as assbot_sucks
 171 2014-04-12 01:48:33 assbot_sucks is now known as [\\\]
 172 2014-04-12 01:50:11 jakov has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 173 2014-04-12 01:51:02 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: your sendfrom answer is incomplete, ... you need to know what account was charged and what was credited. Even if you force all transactions to have change you only can learn one account that way.
 174 2014-04-12 01:51:18 non2 has quit (Quit: Quitte)
 175 2014-04-12 01:51:30 ppvkignx has joined
 176 2014-04-12 01:52:10 [\\\] is now known as assbot_sucks
 177 2014-04-12 01:53:44 assbot_sucks is now known as [\\\]
 178 2014-04-12 01:57:22 HectorJ has joined
 179 2014-04-12 01:57:41 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: sendfrom only affects one account
 180 2014-04-12 01:57:54 <Luke-Jr> unless it's a send-to-self, in which case you know the account of the receiving address..
 181 2014-04-12 01:58:52 <gmaxwell> okay true. but still— accounts are _much_ less useful without move.
 182 2014-04-12 01:59:20 <gmaxwell> and the account code is terrible cruft in the codebase, whole seperate paths to implement things.
 183 2014-04-12 01:59:27 <Luke-Jr> right
 184 2014-04-12 01:59:43 <Luke-Jr> but an overlay accounting system *can't* use the HD keys in a smart way :<
 185 2014-04-12 02:00:00 <Luke-Jr> it *could* implement "move" on top of this
 186 2014-04-12 02:00:25 hsmiths has quit (Quit: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety)
 187 2014-04-12 02:02:23 jumpnmove has joined
 188 2014-04-12 02:03:06 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: presumably full hdwallet support will add different functionality for that... e.g. getnewaddress <branch_id>
 189 2014-04-12 02:04:02 banghouse has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 190 2014-04-12 02:04:24 Luke-Jr has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 191 2014-04-12 02:04:27 GhostJump has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 192 2014-04-12 02:05:21 Luke-Jr has joined
 193 2014-04-12 02:05:53 hsmiths has joined
 194 2014-04-12 02:06:18 coingenuity has joined
 195 2014-04-12 02:06:49 kallisti has joined
 196 2014-04-12 02:07:27 banghouse has joined
 197 2014-04-12 02:07:57 ArthurNumba2 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 198 2014-04-12 02:10:10 dims_ has joined
 199 2014-04-12 02:11:19 <kallisti> Hi, I have a quick question regarding hard-forks. Would it be possible to resolve hard-forks by creating a client with a hard-encoded "merge" transaction that contains the info about the last same block, the first different block(s), a merge height (block #) and a min-version to end the lifetime of the elder client? Such a transaction would accept all transactions on both forks until the point of merger so no coins are lost.
 200 2014-04-12 02:11:19 rdbell has joined
 201 2014-04-12 02:11:50 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
 202 2014-04-12 02:12:23 <sipa> kallisti: no, because hard forks don't exist from the point of view of the system
 203 2014-04-12 02:12:30 napedia has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 204 2014-04-12 02:12:35 <sipa> it's two sets of nodes which consider eachother's blocks invalid
 205 2014-04-12 02:12:38 jonathan_ has joined
 206 2014-04-12 02:12:56 <kallisti> sipa, that isn't always the case, but it is a worst case
 207 2014-04-12 02:12:59 <gmaxwell> kallisti: it's not clear to me what problem you're attempting to solve.  Ignoring accidents, there doesn't need to be any 'resolve' since the system itself can cordinate making incompatible changes.
 208 2014-04-12 02:13:07 <sipa> kallisti: yes it is- that is a hard fork
 209 2014-04-12 02:13:19 <kallisti> I'm talking about creating a third client which accepts both versions for the sake of merging a hard fork
 210 2014-04-12 02:13:26 <gmaxwell> kallisti: you may have a definition problem here. The words hard fork mean what sipa describes.
 211 2014-04-12 02:14:01 <kallisti> I understand what a hard fork is, and how people lose money because of them
 212 2014-04-12 02:14:14 <kallisti> So I'm investigating solutions.
 213 2014-04-12 02:14:17 arnie__ has joined
 214 2014-04-12 02:14:32 <gmaxwell> kallisti: how people lose money?  Bitcoin has not had such an event.
 215 2014-04-12 02:14:54 <kallisti> BS!
 216 2014-04-12 02:15:08 <gmaxwell> kallisti: you cannot 'merge' a seperate chain reliably without inflating the supply of coins. (if there is no contradiction then you can just include the nonconflicting transactions in both and there is nothing to merge)
 217 2014-04-12 02:15:09 <kallisti> Bitcoin did have a hard fork
 218 2014-04-12 02:15:29 <kallisti> And anyone that paid $$ for coins on the losing fork, lost money
 219 2014-04-12 02:15:30 <sipa> yes, one
 220 2014-04-12 02:15:35 <sipa> no, not true
 221 2014-04-12 02:15:44 <sipa> those transactions were mined on both sides
 222 2014-04-12 02:15:46 <gmaxwell> kallisti: No, not really, I assume you're talking about the non-determinstic rejection of large blocks last year. This was not really a hard fork it was something odd.
 223 2014-04-12 02:15:58 <sipa> except one, which was repaid later
 224 2014-04-12 02:16:03 <gmaxwell> kallisti: and thats not the case, no one lost money.
 225 2014-04-12 02:16:18 <sipa> the _only_ solution to a hard fork is above the technology
 226 2014-04-12 02:16:25 <sipa> a hard fork is when the technology has failed
 227 2014-04-12 02:16:44 <kallisti> I wasn't aware that both sides mined the same transactions.
 228 2014-04-12 02:17:01 <sipa> without double-spend attacks each transaction just ends up on both sides
 229 2014-04-12 02:17:08 <gmaxwell> of course they did. (also, even if they hadn't that by itself doesn't make anyone lose money)
 230 2014-04-12 02:18:03 <kallisti> Actually, what happens if there is a fork and I buy coins that were mined on the losing fork?
 231 2014-04-12 02:18:09 <gmaxwell> to lose money, there has to be a successful double spend attack, which was unsuccessful on the chain you follow but the chain you follow isn't ultimately succesful. And this is largely orthorgonal to hard forks, as it can happen just as well without any hard forking.
 232 2014-04-12 02:18:24 <kallisti> Since those coins don't exist, I lose money, correct?
 233 2014-04-12 02:18:29 <gmaxwell> kallisti: can't happen easily, newly mined coins are impossible to move for 100 blocks.
 234 2014-04-12 02:18:53 <gmaxwell> (specifically to prevent that kind of risk)
 235 2014-04-12 02:20:18 <kallisti> Regardless, would it be possible to create a new transaction that stitches together two hard-forks?
 236 2014-04-12 02:20:28 pdrayton has quit ()
 237 2014-04-12 02:20:30 <kallisti> Say the fork is at block 100
 238 2014-04-12 02:20:50 <gmaxwell> kallisti: you're not defining what you're talking about clearly enough to get an answer.
 239 2014-04-12 02:21:06 <kallisti> So the transaction would contain the hash at 100, and the two hashes at 101, a merge point, and a minimum version to reject one of the client types
 240 2014-04-12 02:21:18 <sipa> transactions are independent from blocks, for starters, so it would be sort of a merger-block, not a merger-transaction
 241 2014-04-12 02:21:41 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, iirc there was a successful double spend in the hard fork between 0.7 and 0.8
 242 2014-04-12 02:21:48 <sipa> phantomcircuit: yes, one
 243 2014-04-12 02:21:51 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: yes though they paid it back.
 244 2014-04-12 02:21:53 <sipa> and it was repaid
 245 2014-04-12 02:21:55 <phantomcircuit> ah
 246 2014-04-12 02:22:06 <phantomcircuit> technically i think it still counts even if it was paid back :P
 247 2014-04-12 02:22:11 <sipa> sure
 248 2014-04-12 02:22:19 <sipa> we had a hard fork, and the system was at risk
 249 2014-04-12 02:23:04 <gmaxwell> I still think hard fork is not a very accurate description of what happened there, ... it was .. "something screwy", since some of the pre-0.8 nodes accepted that chain.
 250 2014-04-12 02:23:09 <kallisti> @Sipa, the system technically is always at risk
 251 2014-04-12 02:23:12 <gmaxwell> kallisti: you're still not defining what is actually being accomplished there.
 252 2014-04-12 02:24:06 <kallisti> If micrsoft were to include a new version of bitcoin in one of their upgrades, that everyone automatically gets, where bitcoin is integrated with their desktop, and that version created a new fork it would put everyone at risk.
 253 2014-04-12 02:24:31 <sipa> maybe, but there's nothing we can do about that
 254 2014-04-12 02:24:40 <sipa> we can't make their software accept something it doesn't
 255 2014-04-12 02:24:43 <kallisti> Hense why I am working on the fork issue because it is a security flaw in the system
 256 2014-04-12 02:25:01 <sipa> and we won't accept things we consider invalid
 257 2014-04-12 02:25:07 <sipa> a hard fork is a disagreement about the rules
 258 2014-04-12 02:25:13 <sipa> you don't fix it with technology
 259 2014-04-12 02:25:13 ZeWaren has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 260 2014-04-12 02:25:15 <kallisti> It may not be a gaping hole that hackers can use, but it is a risk that may be able to be eliminated.
 261 2014-04-12 02:25:21 <sipa> you fix it by making people agree on the rules
 262 2014-04-12 02:25:22 <gmaxwell> and we must not accept what we consider invalid, or the system is not secure.
 263 2014-04-12 02:25:35 <gmaxwell> 19:21 <@gmaxwell> kallisti: you're still not defining what is actually being accomplished there.
 264 2014-04-12 02:27:06 <sipa> so what have you accomplished? in addition to the two sets of nodes with each their own chain, you introduce a new chain that is accepted only by people running your metanode, which has a chain that neither of the two other parties accept either
 265 2014-04-12 02:27:13 <sipa> end result: 3 chains
 266 2014-04-12 02:27:20 <sipa> and they don't resolve
 267 2014-04-12 02:27:21 <kallisti> @gmaxwell, the two hard-fork solutions I've come up with are a less political (mathmatical) resolution to hard-forks and this second solution to "merge" the forks. Though it is clear this wouldn't be a transaction, it would be a block so I'm not sure how well it would work.
 268 2014-04-12 02:27:54 <gmaxwell> kallisti: You haven't actually described what the resulting end state is at all though.
 269 2014-04-12 02:27:57 <kallisti> @sipa, not true
 270 2014-04-12 02:28:12 <gmaxwell> you're just saying "merge" as if it were apparent what that means precisely. It isn't.
 271 2014-04-12 02:28:20 <kallisti> Basically I'm talking about creating a new client that allows merge transactions
 272 2014-04-12 02:28:26 <sipa> kallisti: okay.
 273 2014-04-12 02:28:42 <kallisti> So when the time comes that a fork happens, hopefully both clients already support this type of transaction
 274 2014-04-12 02:28:43 <sipa> kallisti: what requirements are there for the two chains it allows merging?
 275 2014-04-12 02:28:48 <gmaxwell> kallisti: "merge transactions"? Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
 276 2014-04-12 02:29:14 <kallisti> If the two different chains are both driven by clients that support a merge transaction than a merge would be possible
 277 2014-04-12 02:29:33 <sipa> you haven't answered my question
 278 2014-04-12 02:29:37 <gmaxwell> or any of mine.
 279 2014-04-12 02:29:41 <kallisti> If the two clients pre-date merge support, than you are right, there would just become a new fork.
 280 2014-04-12 02:30:06 <jcorgan> kallisti: so, what precisely is a merge transaction?
 281 2014-04-12 02:30:22 <sipa> kallisti: okay; we add merge blocks to the client. under which conditions is a merge block valid? certainly the two chains it derives from must individually already be valid?
 282 2014-04-12 02:30:25 ZeWaren has joined
 283 2014-04-12 02:30:29 <sipa> kallisti: agree?
 284 2014-04-12 02:30:43 <kallisti> @gmaxwell the requirements rae as I stated, the matching block and the forking blocks (hashes) would be part of the merge transaction
 285 2014-04-12 02:30:50 <kallisti> rae=are
 286 2014-04-12 02:31:00 <sipa> kallisti: pleae answer my question
 287 2014-04-12 02:31:38 <kallisti> I think your both basically asking the same question
 288 2014-04-12 02:31:57 <sipa> kallisti: you're saying that a merge block is valid simply if it references two chains?
 289 2014-04-12 02:32:02 <gmaxwell> I don't think we are, though both questions would make things more clear.
 290 2014-04-12 02:32:52 <sipa> kallisti: so i can create an invalid block chain (which pays me 42 million BTC), and then merge it with the real one, and people would accept that?
 291 2014-04-12 02:32:55 <kallisti> @sipa when I came in here I was thinking along the lines of transactions
 292 2014-04-12 02:33:05 <sipa> BLOCK CHAINS ARE NOT TRANSACTIONS
 293 2014-04-12 02:33:09 <kallisti> I honestly need to go back to the drawing board to figure  out the validation
 294 2014-04-12 02:33:22 <sipa> no, that's the very first thing you should think about
 295 2014-04-12 02:33:34 <sipa> validation is what we're trying to solve here
 296 2014-04-12 02:33:37 <kallisti> For the newest client, validation is simple because its hard-coded, the client is already expecting the merge.
 297 2014-04-12 02:34:04 <kallisti> I'm not sure how the existing clients would know if they should accept the merge or not
 298 2014-04-12 02:34:06 <sipa> please come back once you're figured out exactly how to validate it
 299 2014-04-12 02:34:09 <gmaxwell> kallisti: I think we want to know is "what do you hope to accomplish, specifically, not with ill defined words like 'merge'" and then "under what conditions will what you propose act" and "what will be the resulting final state of the system after it acts"
 300 2014-04-12 02:34:13 <sipa> i'm not talking about existing clients at all
 301 2014-04-12 02:34:13 <jcorgan> kallisti: think of it in these terms: at the tip of each chain, their is a distinct but overlapping UTXO set, and after a merge block, there is only one UTXO set.  Define how you get from two to one.
 302 2014-04-12 02:34:17 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 303 2014-04-12 02:34:17 <sipa> we upgrade everyone
 304 2014-04-12 02:34:21 <kallisti> But regardless, the merge record is an end-of-life for one of the clients
 305 2014-04-12 02:34:35 <sipa> and we assume you can magically merge the states of two valid chains as well
 306 2014-04-12 02:35:04 <sipa> you still will need to require that your merger can only merge two otherwise valid transactions
 307 2014-04-12 02:35:19 <sipa> and the problem is exactly that there are two sets of clients which don't agree on what is valid!
 308 2014-04-12 02:35:35 <kallisti> @jcorgan I'm aware there are database issues with this, as I said, I'm trying to solve the issue, I didn't say I've solved it.
 309 2014-04-12 02:36:34 <jcorgan> its not a database issue.  you need to precisly define what happens to the unspent txouts on each chain, and how clients after a merge block reconcile differences between them.
 310 2014-04-12 02:36:39 <sipa> i don't think you understand what you're trying to solve
 311 2014-04-12 02:36:40 aschildbach has joined
 312 2014-04-12 02:36:46 aschildbach_ has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 313 2014-04-12 02:38:34 <kallisti> @jcorgan the idea is that both parts of the chain become valid, not much different than the physical structure of an actual chain
 314 2014-04-12 02:38:59 <gmaxwell> I don't understand what issue you think you're solving. I have some suspicion that you may be trying to solve one that didn't exist; since earlier you seemed to indicate that you thought that everyone who transacted in the losing side lost funds.
 315 2014-04-12 02:39:07 <kallisti> @jcorgan this structure was before I knew transactions can and do exist in both forks
 316 2014-04-12 02:40:03 <gmaxwell> kallisti: so a classical example of a hard fork would be something like I mine a block that pays me 2 billion non-existing bitcoins. the other nodes don't accept this since it violates the rules, so it's a hard fork relative to them.
 317 2014-04-12 02:40:08 <gmaxwell> What would you propose to do there.
 318 2014-04-12 02:40:18 xdotcommer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 319 2014-04-12 02:41:39 <kallisti> @gmaxwell, regardless of the solution, that block obviously couldn't be accepted
 320 2014-04-12 02:41:58 <gmaxwell> Thats what a hard fork is... so you propose to merge that, no?
 321 2014-04-12 02:42:39 <kallisti> The validation issue isn't yet solved as to how merge blocks would be validated
 322 2014-04-12 02:42:51 <kallisti> But they would be generated by being hard-coded into clients
 323 2014-04-12 02:43:45 xdotcommer has joined
 324 2014-04-12 02:44:00 joesmoe has joined
 325 2014-04-12 02:44:00 <gmaxwell> I'm still no closer to having any idea what exactly you're trying to do. Can you try telling me what you want to accomplish without using the word merge (or any obvious synonym)
 326 2014-04-12 02:44:04 <gmaxwell> ?
 327 2014-04-12 02:45:24 <kallisti> I already stated that @gmaxwell
 328 2014-04-12 02:45:48 <kallisti> I'm trying to find a permanent solution to dealing with hard-forks which eliminates risk when hard-forks occur.
 329 2014-04-12 02:46:04 <gmaxwell> What risk do you wish to eliminate?
 330 2014-04-12 02:46:22 <kallisti> And I'm not talking about intentional hard forks, I'm talking about big ones, with big mining power on both sides of the fork.
 331 2014-04-12 02:46:54 cbeams has joined
 332 2014-04-12 02:47:05 eoss has joined
 333 2014-04-12 02:47:18 <jcorgan> kallisti: please describe the risks you wish to eliminate in terms of risks to whom, and what the bad outcome is you would prevent
 334 2014-04-12 02:47:22 <kallisti> The risk of buying coins that evaporate due to being on a losing fork.
 335 2014-04-12 02:48:06 <kallisti> more specifically, the risk of buying coins that were mined on a losing fork.
 336 2014-04-12 02:48:33 <gmaxwell> kallisti: okay, that risk is already largely addressed by the fact that newly created coins can't be moved for 100 blocks, and if there is a 'invalid' fork that long your client will begin warning you that you shouldn't trust transactions.
 337 2014-04-12 02:49:15 <gmaxwell> (and 100 blocks is long enough that even without the warnings generally you'll know that something is wrong and not to trust transactions you've recieved)
 338 2014-04-12 02:49:23 <kallisti> @gmaxwell, I've never been one to accept the statusquo
 339 2014-04-12 02:49:53 Subo1977 has joined
 340 2014-04-12 02:50:05 papa3 has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 341 2014-04-12 02:50:17 <kallisti> If the system isn't perfect, it will be compromised and people will eventually lose money. Google murphy's law.
 342 2014-04-12 02:50:39 <warren> surprised you let that go for so long
 343 2014-04-12 02:50:45 <gmaxwell> I guess something could have gone wrong with my ban button.
 344 2014-04-12 02:50:51 <jcorgan> it was good practice :)
 345 2014-04-12 02:51:05 arnie__ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 346 2014-04-12 02:51:15 <gmaxwell> I at least wanted to clear up any honest misunderstanding.
 347 2014-04-12 02:53:40 Subo1977_ has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 348 2014-04-12 02:53:46 grau has joined
 349 2014-04-12 02:55:13 Guest35230 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 350 2014-04-12 02:55:20 Liquid has joined
 351 2014-04-12 02:55:44 Liquid is now known as Guest49683
 352 2014-04-12 02:56:08 beachandbytes has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 353 2014-04-12 02:56:17 phantomspark has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 354 2014-04-12 02:58:25 eoss has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 355 2014-04-12 02:58:33 grau has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 356 2014-04-12 03:02:18 <davec> hmm looking at the code importprivkey should return null when attempting to import a duplicate key, but I seee
 357 2014-04-12 03:02:21 <davec>         // Don't throw error in case a key is already there
 358 2014-04-12 03:02:24 <davec>         if (pwalletMain->HaveKey(vchAddress))
 359 2014-04-12 03:02:26 <davec>             return Value::null;
 360 2014-04-12 03:02:33 papa3 has joined
 361 2014-04-12 03:02:37 <davec> $ ./bitcoind -testnet importprivkey $(./bitcoind.exe -testnet dumpprivkey <address redacted>)
 362 2014-04-12 03:02:40 <davec> error: {"code":-4,"message":"Error adding key to wallet"}
 363 2014-04-12 03:02:57 akstunt600 has joined
 364 2014-04-12 03:03:12 ryanxcharles has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 365 2014-04-12 03:03:24 Aido_ has joined
 366 2014-04-12 03:05:13 Aido has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 367 2014-04-12 03:06:46 tkolsto has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 368 2014-04-12 03:07:13 cadaver has joined
 369 2014-04-12 03:08:44 tkolsto has joined
 370 2014-04-12 03:12:49 banghouse has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 371 2014-04-12 03:13:38 twobitcoins has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 372 2014-04-12 03:15:25 TheSeven has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 373 2014-04-12 03:15:34 twobitcoins has joined
 374 2014-04-12 03:15:35 Luke-Jr has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 375 2014-04-12 03:15:57 Luke-Jr has joined
 376 2014-04-12 03:16:40 TheSeven has joined
 377 2014-04-12 03:18:07 kallist has joined
 378 2014-04-12 03:19:57 Luke-Jr has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 379 2014-04-12 03:20:49 brady2600 has joined
 380 2014-04-12 03:22:15 <davec>  hmm looking at the code, importprivkey should return null when attempting to import a duplicate key, but I see:
 381 2014-04-12 03:22:18 <davec> $ ./bitcoind -testnet importprivkey $(./bitcoind.exe -testnet dumpprivkey <address redacted>)
 382 2014-04-12 03:22:27 <davec> error: {"code":-4,"message":"Error adding key to wallet"}
 383 2014-04-12 03:24:09 <kallist> @gribble, I'll be taking this security risk to the media since you can't be civil
 384 2014-04-12 03:24:15 <kallist> Goodbye
 385 2014-04-12 03:24:26 kallist has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 386 2014-04-12 03:24:49 Burrito has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 387 2014-04-12 03:26:26 <warren> gribble can't be civil?
 388 2014-04-12 03:26:41 tkolsto has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 389 2014-04-12 03:27:06 <gmaxwell> davec: I had no idea it was supposted to return null, and knew it returned an error.
 390 2014-04-12 03:27:17 phantomspark has joined
 391 2014-04-12 03:27:49 <gmaxwell> davec: I don't think the precise behavior is especially important in that case, the documentation for that api doesn't specify it.
 392 2014-04-12 03:28:13 tkolsto has joined
 393 2014-04-12 03:28:19 <davec> right, I don't think it's a big deal either way, but I just found it odd since I see
 394 2014-04-12 03:28:22 <davec>         // Don't throw error in case a key is already there
 395 2014-04-12 03:28:25 <davec>         if (pwalletMain->HaveKey(vchAddress))
 396 2014-04-12 03:28:28 <davec>             return Value::null;
 397 2014-04-12 03:29:48 da2ce7 has joined
 398 2014-04-12 03:33:45 ryanxcharles has joined
 399 2014-04-12 03:34:00 ghtdak has joined
 400 2014-04-12 03:38:07 ryanxcharles has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 401 2014-04-12 03:38:37 <phantomcircuit> davec, probably  the code underlying that function was changed after the comment
 402 2014-04-12 03:38:55 <phantomcircuit> generally speaking it's safer for things to explode than to silently fail
 403 2014-04-12 03:39:36 HaltingState has joined
 404 2014-04-12 03:39:36 HaltingState has quit (Changing host)
 405 2014-04-12 03:39:36 HaltingState has joined
 406 2014-04-12 03:43:30 <akstunt600> http://rt.com/usa/weev-appeal-conviction-vacated-972/
 407 2014-04-12 03:43:36 sbrossie has joined
 408 2014-04-12 03:43:36 <akstunt600> finally letting weev out
 409 2014-04-12 03:44:35 <HaltingState> gmaxwell, "two-way pegging method " that you invented; do you have link
 410 2014-04-12 03:44:46 <HaltingState> "Greg Maxwell then proposed a two-way pegging method that enables Bitcoin to connect with a sidechain which is a mathematically-controlled peg between Bitcoin main and the other chain network"
 411 2014-04-12 03:45:05 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, you have a different name for it now right?
 412 2014-04-12 03:45:12 <phantomcircuit> something without comical sexual inuendo
 413 2014-04-12 03:45:34 <HaltingState> "i love blockchain pegging"
 414 2014-04-12 03:45:40 <phantomcircuit> lol
 415 2014-04-12 03:46:46 <HaltingState> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=321228.0
 416 2014-04-12 03:46:48 <HaltingState> coinswap i think
 417 2014-04-12 03:50:10 kallisti has joined
 418 2014-04-12 03:50:26 anton000 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 419 2014-04-12 03:50:39 ghtdak has left ()
 420 2014-04-12 03:51:05 anton000 has joined
 421 2014-04-12 03:51:31 Coincidental has joined
 422 2014-04-12 03:54:13 sbrossie has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 423 2014-04-12 03:54:20 <kallisti> I have advised my media contact that there is a risk in bitcoin that if a hard-fork occurs, and the dispute lasts more than 100 blocks that anyone buying bitcoins mined on what eventually becomes the losing fork will lose money.  I was working on solving this problem myself but administrators here couldn't be adults about the situation.  So now it will be up to individuals to decide if they're willing to accept this level of risk or not, otherwise
 424 2014-04-12 03:54:20 <kallisti>  this issue will need to be resolved by bitcoin developers.
 425 2014-04-12 03:54:28 brson has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 426 2014-04-12 03:54:56 <kdomanski> adios
 427 2014-04-12 03:55:25 <maaku> HaltingState: coinswap is something different
 428 2014-04-12 03:55:58 msvb-lab has joined
 429 2014-04-12 03:56:30 banghouse has joined
 430 2014-04-12 03:57:46 <maaku> HaltingState: see adam3us' message to the development list re: pegging
 431 2014-04-12 03:57:46 <maaku> btw maybe 'pegged cross-chain assets' would at least avoid the -ing connotation of that word
 432 2014-04-12 03:59:00 maaku has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
 433 2014-04-12 03:59:19 <brady2600> meh just go with pegging, it will make it popular
 434 2014-04-12 03:59:53 <phantomcircuit> yeah the random guy in the phillipines with his super connections
 435 2014-04-12 03:59:55 <phantomcircuit> right
 436 2014-04-12 04:00:18 <brady2600> call it greg-pegging, to give credit.
 437 2014-04-12 04:00:39 beachandbytes has joined
 438 2014-04-12 04:01:02 beachandbytes has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
 439 2014-04-12 04:01:15 maaku has joined
 440 2014-04-12 04:01:17 joesmoe has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 441 2014-04-12 04:01:32 maaku is now known as Guest56969
 442 2014-04-12 04:03:52 Guest54654 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 443 2014-04-12 04:04:01 CheckDavid has quit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
 444 2014-04-12 04:04:09 roidster has joined
 445 2014-04-12 04:04:31 nsh has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 446 2014-04-12 04:06:40 twobitcoins has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 447 2014-04-12 04:07:10 twobitcoins has joined
 448 2014-04-12 04:14:25 beachandbytes has joined
 449 2014-04-12 04:16:39 nova907767 has joined
 450 2014-04-12 04:19:05 nova90 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 451 2014-04-12 04:21:31 <brady2600> where is the config dir on unix  .bitcoin?
 452 2014-04-12 04:23:33 Luke-Jr has joined
 453 2014-04-12 04:23:54 <rdbell> brady2600: Should be /home/<user>/.bitcoin normally
 454 2014-04-12 04:23:58 <rdbell> ~/.bitcoin
 455 2014-04-12 04:24:12 tkolsto has quit (Quit: leaving)
 456 2014-04-12 04:26:29 zone117x has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 457 2014-04-12 04:27:29 zone117x has joined
 458 2014-04-12 04:30:56 olalonde has joined
 459 2014-04-12 04:31:26 banghouse has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 460 2014-04-12 04:37:29 bbbrian has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 461 2014-04-12 04:38:37 olalonde has quit (Quit: olalonde)
 462 2014-04-12 04:38:53 olalonde has joined
 463 2014-04-12 04:39:01 cbeams has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 464 2014-04-12 04:42:01 grau has joined
 465 2014-04-12 04:44:59 debiantoruser has joined
 466 2014-04-12 04:45:32 cadaver has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 467 2014-04-12 04:46:28 grau has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 468 2014-04-12 04:47:34 ericmuyser has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 469 2014-04-12 04:52:08 Lao_Ban_1 is now known as Lao_Ban_
 470 2014-04-12 04:54:44 <Tiraspol> http://i.imgur.com/5X9CbCn.png
 471 2014-04-12 04:57:26 <kdomanski> uh, is that Gavin on the left?
 472 2014-04-12 05:03:28 <w1zman> it mark k
 473 2014-04-12 05:03:28 HaltingState has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 474 2014-04-12 05:03:30 <w1zman> it's
 475 2014-04-12 05:07:10 <Guest69296> lol
 476 2014-04-12 05:07:45 Guest69296 is now known as wiz
 477 2014-04-12 05:09:44 <kdomanski> ah
 478 2014-04-12 05:10:18 austinhill has joined
 479 2014-04-12 05:12:53 orperelman has joined
 480 2014-04-12 05:17:21 grau has joined
 481 2014-04-12 05:34:08 t3st3r has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 482 2014-04-12 05:34:51 rdbell has quit (Quit: rdbell)
 483 2014-04-12 05:36:07 mrkent has joined
 484 2014-04-12 05:36:07 mrkent has quit (Changing host)
 485 2014-04-12 05:36:07 mrkent has joined
 486 2014-04-12 05:38:15 ppvkignx has quit ()
 487 2014-04-12 05:44:26 m104 has joined
 488 2014-04-12 05:48:38 m104 has quit (Client Quit)
 489 2014-04-12 05:51:53 olalonde has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 490 2014-04-12 05:53:55 olalonde has joined
 491 2014-04-12 05:54:41 Insti has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 492 2014-04-12 05:57:05 alecalve has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 493 2014-04-12 06:04:34 roconnor has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 494 2014-04-12 06:08:14 Raziel has joined
 495 2014-04-12 06:14:16 ppvkignx has joined
 496 2014-04-12 06:15:27 cheetah2 has joined
 497 2014-04-12 06:24:36 ppvkignx has quit ()
 498 2014-04-12 06:25:34 paveljanik has joined
 499 2014-04-12 06:30:13 beachandbytes has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 500 2014-04-12 06:31:58 banghouse has joined
 501 2014-04-12 06:32:56 roidster has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 502 2014-04-12 06:34:05 cadaver has joined
 503 2014-04-12 06:35:56 melvster has joined
 504 2014-04-12 06:37:08 banghouse has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 505 2014-04-12 06:39:47 ppvkignx has joined
 506 2014-04-12 06:41:58 Guest____ has joined
 507 2014-04-12 06:42:57 viperhr has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 508 2014-04-12 06:45:23 Insti has joined
 509 2014-04-12 06:50:09 dfletcher has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 510 2014-04-12 06:50:13 Raziel has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 511 2014-04-12 06:51:01 ppvkignx has left ()
 512 2014-04-12 06:53:38 ValicekB has quit ()
 513 2014-04-12 06:56:58 Lao_Ban_ has left ()
 514 2014-04-12 06:57:17 ValicekB has joined
 515 2014-04-12 06:57:20 _yoy_ has joined
 516 2014-04-12 07:00:46 YoY__ has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 517 2014-04-12 07:01:11 olalonde has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 518 2014-04-12 07:03:56 OneMiner has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 519 2014-04-12 07:04:29 Belxjander has quit (Quit: Sayonara)
 520 2014-04-12 07:04:33 beachandbytes has joined
 521 2014-04-12 07:04:35 olalonde has joined
 522 2014-04-12 07:06:13 McKay has joined
 523 2014-04-12 07:07:13 OneMiner has joined
 524 2014-04-12 07:07:28 MoALTz has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 525 2014-04-12 07:08:30 copumpkin has quit (Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
 526 2014-04-12 07:08:59 ThomasV has joined
 527 2014-04-12 07:09:47 dizko_ has quit (Quit: sigh)
 528 2014-04-12 07:09:51 Coincidental has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 529 2014-04-12 07:11:11 McKay has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 530 2014-04-12 07:12:01 MoALTz has joined
 531 2014-04-12 07:12:02 McKay has joined
 532 2014-04-12 07:14:01 dizko has joined
 533 2014-04-12 07:14:11 t3st3r has joined
 534 2014-04-12 07:16:42 impulse has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 535 2014-04-12 07:17:02 McKay has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 536 2014-04-12 07:17:23 McKay has joined
 537 2014-04-12 07:17:33 SoftwareMechanic has joined
 538 2014-04-12 07:19:22 dfletcher has joined
 539 2014-04-12 07:26:52 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 540 2014-04-12 07:27:02 davout has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 541 2014-04-12 07:27:38 davout has joined
 542 2014-04-12 07:28:47 cbeams has joined
 543 2014-04-12 07:31:24 tombtc has joined
 544 2014-04-12 07:36:14 Krellan_ has joined
 545 2014-04-12 07:37:03 austinhill has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 546 2014-04-12 07:38:13 aschildbach has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 547 2014-04-12 07:39:57 hanncx has quit (Quit: hanncx)
 548 2014-04-12 07:44:14 Neozonz has joined
 549 2014-04-12 07:44:28 s7r_o has joined
 550 2014-04-12 07:45:14 random_cat has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 551 2014-04-12 07:45:52 s7r has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 552 2014-04-12 07:47:20 Neozonz has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 553 2014-04-12 07:54:02 cbeams has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 554 2014-04-12 07:54:31 cbeams has joined
 555 2014-04-12 07:55:16 cbeams has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 556 2014-04-12 07:55:22 cbeams_ has joined
 557 2014-04-12 07:56:20 cbeams_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 558 2014-04-12 07:58:05 ryanxcharles has joined
 559 2014-04-12 07:59:21 random_cat has joined
 560 2014-04-12 08:01:35 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 561 2014-04-12 08:01:37 markus_ has joined
 562 2014-04-12 08:01:52 tarantillo_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 563 2014-04-12 08:02:14 tarantillo_ has joined
 564 2014-04-12 08:02:31 Coincidental has joined
 565 2014-04-12 08:04:33 cbeams has joined
 566 2014-04-12 08:04:58 Coincidental has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 567 2014-04-12 08:05:34 rnicoll has joined
 568 2014-04-12 08:08:50 impulse has joined
 569 2014-04-12 08:09:09 ryanxcharles has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 570 2014-04-12 08:09:49 s7r_o_b has joined
 571 2014-04-12 08:09:56 s7r_o has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 572 2014-04-12 08:15:48 cheetah2 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 573 2014-04-12 08:17:26 qwdf has joined
 574 2014-04-12 08:20:22 cadaver has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 575 2014-04-12 08:27:15 SoftwareMechanic has quit (Quit: SoftwareMechanic)
 576 2014-04-12 08:27:20 s7r_o_b is now known as s7r
 577 2014-04-12 08:27:38 Guest____ has quit (Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
 578 2014-04-12 08:29:03 aschildbach has joined
 579 2014-04-12 08:30:14 mE\Ta has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 580 2014-04-12 08:32:32 s7r has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 581 2014-04-12 08:32:57 s7r has joined
 582 2014-04-12 08:36:31 jazper- has quit ()
 583 2014-04-12 08:36:45 olalonde has quit (Quit: olalonde)
 584 2014-04-12 08:37:24 Namworld has quit ()
 585 2014-04-12 08:40:06 ryanxcharles has joined
 586 2014-04-12 08:42:06 orperelman has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 587 2014-04-12 08:42:16 olalonde_ has joined
 588 2014-04-12 08:43:23 markus_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 589 2014-04-12 08:44:41 ryanxcharles has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 590 2014-04-12 08:49:50 cbeams has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 591 2014-04-12 08:50:20 cbeams has joined
 592 2014-04-12 08:50:38 olalonde_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 593 2014-04-12 08:52:52 olalonde has joined
 594 2014-04-12 08:54:30 cbeams has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 595 2014-04-12 08:57:10 prophetx has joined
 596 2014-04-12 08:57:47 prophetx has quit (Client Quit)
 597 2014-04-12 09:05:23 spirolateral has joined
 598 2014-04-12 09:07:05 qwdf has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 599 2014-04-12 09:07:13 nickler has joined
 600 2014-04-12 09:12:33 nickler has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 601 2014-04-12 09:19:36 jordandotdev has quit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
 602 2014-04-12 09:25:42 Guyver2 has joined
 603 2014-04-12 09:26:27 Guyver2 has quit (Client Quit)
 604 2014-04-12 09:28:46 Luke-Jr has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 605 2014-04-12 09:29:06 Luke-Jr has joined
 606 2014-04-12 09:38:24 Guest__ has joined
 607 2014-04-12 09:38:52 mkarrer has joined
 608 2014-04-12 09:42:25 Clown has joined
 609 2014-04-12 09:42:25  is now known as Clown|!~clown@unaffiliated/clown/x-0272709|Guest27036
 610 2014-04-12 09:42:25 Guest27036 has quit (Killed (rajaniemi.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services)))
 611 2014-04-12 09:42:25 Clown is now known as |Clown|
 612 2014-04-12 09:42:51 rdymac has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 613 2014-04-12 09:43:01 popophobia has joined
 614 2014-04-12 09:48:26 phoenix52 has joined
 615 2014-04-12 09:50:49 gpmnlxdw has joined
 616 2014-04-12 09:50:57 lolstate has joined
 617 2014-04-12 09:52:24 rdymac has joined
 618 2014-04-12 09:57:48 nickler has joined
 619 2014-04-12 10:00:07 paveljanik has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
 620 2014-04-12 10:06:36 llllllllll has joined
 621 2014-04-12 10:09:23 phantomspark has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 622 2014-04-12 10:11:05 CheckDavid has joined
 623 2014-04-12 10:14:00 spinza has quit (Disconnected by services)
 624 2014-04-12 10:14:00 spinza_ has joined
 625 2014-04-12 10:15:29 w1zman has quit ()
 626 2014-04-12 10:16:52 ThomasV has joined
 627 2014-04-12 10:17:11 spinza has joined
 628 2014-04-12 10:19:36 ido370 has joined
 629 2014-04-12 10:20:27 spinza_ has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 630 2014-04-12 10:26:31 wallet42 has joined
 631 2014-04-12 10:26:53 jtcwang has joined
 632 2014-04-12 10:29:08 jakov has joined
 633 2014-04-12 10:29:08 jakov has quit (Changing host)
 634 2014-04-12 10:29:08 jakov has joined
 635 2014-04-12 10:31:42 spirolateral has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 636 2014-04-12 10:31:48 bitblender has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 637 2014-04-12 10:34:02 banghouse has joined
 638 2014-04-12 10:34:30 ryanxcharles has joined
 639 2014-04-12 10:38:06 banghouse has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 640 2014-04-12 10:38:45 cbeams has joined
 641 2014-04-12 10:38:54 ryanxcharles has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 642 2014-04-12 10:38:55 karc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 643 2014-04-12 10:39:30 karc has joined
 644 2014-04-12 10:41:58 ralphtheninja has joined
 645 2014-04-12 10:44:08 cbeams has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 646 2014-04-12 10:46:56 bitblender has joined
 647 2014-04-12 10:48:11 ralphtheninja has quit (Quit: leaving)
 648 2014-04-12 10:50:06 GAit has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 649 2014-04-12 10:53:45 beachandbytes has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 650 2014-04-12 11:00:41 nsh has joined
 651 2014-04-12 11:01:10 nsh has quit (Changing host)
 652 2014-04-12 11:01:10 nsh has joined
 653 2014-04-12 11:01:18 dexX7 has joined
 654 2014-04-12 11:05:18 jtcwang1 has joined
 655 2014-04-12 11:08:09 Eiii has quit ()
 656 2014-04-12 11:09:07 phantomspark has joined
 657 2014-04-12 11:10:47 rdymac has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 658 2014-04-12 11:12:14 popophobia has quit (Quit: popophobia)
 659 2014-04-12 11:12:22 rdymac has joined
 660 2014-04-12 11:21:53 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 661 2014-04-12 11:22:08 phantomspark has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 662 2014-04-12 11:27:37 Belkaar has quit (Quit: quit)
 663 2014-04-12 11:28:25 anton000 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 664 2014-04-12 11:30:35 ArthurNumbanumba has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 665 2014-04-12 11:31:02 jtcwang1 has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 666 2014-04-12 11:31:02 jtcwang has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 667 2014-04-12 11:31:11 ArthurNumbanumba has joined
 668 2014-04-12 11:32:25 HANTI has joined
 669 2014-04-12 11:34:42 Belkaar has joined
 670 2014-04-12 11:35:23 anton000 has joined
 671 2014-04-12 11:35:51 raistlinthewiz has quit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
 672 2014-04-12 11:38:07 <hno> theymos, what happened with http://blockexplorer.com/testnet? Showed correct data yesterday but now it's gone back to 2014-03-21?
 673 2014-04-12 11:38:57 <vetch> hno: test.bitcore.io testnet.btclook.com
 674 2014-04-12 11:39:39 popophobia has joined
 675 2014-04-12 11:39:54 jakov has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 676 2014-04-12 11:40:03 zcopley has joined
 677 2014-04-12 11:41:21 phantomspark has joined
 678 2014-04-12 11:42:09 anton000 has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 679 2014-04-12 11:43:44 zcopley has quit (Client Quit)
 680 2014-04-12 11:45:52 <Luke-Jr> hno: I don't think theymos has anything to do with blockexplorer.com?
 681 2014-04-12 11:46:14 anton000 has joined
 682 2014-04-12 11:46:34 <vetch> Luke-Jr: he wrote it, didn't he?
 683 2014-04-12 11:46:47 <Luke-Jr> pretty sure that was tcatm
 684 2014-04-12 11:46:53 <Luke-Jr> but I don't think he runs it anymore, either
 685 2014-04-12 11:47:49 <vetch> at any rate, it hasn't scaled well and is less than ideal for anything
 686 2014-04-12 11:48:17 <vetch> hno: oh, and this one is probably the best of all of them http://test.webbtc.com/
 687 2014-04-12 11:49:11 orperelman has joined
 688 2014-04-12 11:49:11 <dexX7> https://www.biteasy.com/testnet is very fast
 689 2014-04-12 11:49:11 HANTI is now known as hanti
 690 2014-04-12 11:49:40 <dexX7> huh no blocks for 3 days?
 691 2014-04-12 11:50:08 <vetch> yep, looks like it's fast but completely broken.
 692 2014-04-12 11:50:24 <dexX7> yup :/
 693 2014-04-12 11:50:51 <vetch> yeah it's stuck on my orphan chain
 694 2014-04-12 11:51:21 <rnicoll> vetch, I've written so many things like that "It does the wrong thing REALLY QUICKLY! It's like 100 times faster than the right thing..."
 695 2014-04-12 11:52:22 <vetch> rnicoll: sounds about right. biteasy.com is really fast but doesn't bother with reorganisations.
 696 2014-04-12 11:53:19 <rnicoll> vetch, I should add, I'm doing much better these days :)
 697 2014-04-12 11:54:00 rdymac has quit (Excess Flood)
 698 2014-04-12 11:55:37 popophobia has quit (Quit: popophobia)
 699 2014-04-12 11:55:52 rdymac has joined
 700 2014-04-12 11:58:52 saulimus has joined
 701 2014-04-12 12:09:21 olalonde has quit (Quit: olalonde)
 702 2014-04-12 12:11:50 rnicoll has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 703 2014-04-12 12:13:31 Raziel has joined
 704 2014-04-12 12:14:23 nomailing has joined
 705 2014-04-12 12:14:42 nomailing has quit (Client Quit)
 706 2014-04-12 12:17:38 phoenix52 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 707 2014-04-12 12:17:39 one_zero has quit ()
 708 2014-04-12 12:19:05 w1zman has joined
 709 2014-04-12 12:22:13 wallet42 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 710 2014-04-12 12:22:57 jeremias has joined
 711 2014-04-12 12:22:59 djcoin_ has quit (Quit: djcoin_)
 712 2014-04-12 12:23:18 <jeremias> I'm trying to play around with BIP 0070
 713 2014-04-12 12:23:38 <jeremias> will Output.script be in most cases standard Bitcoin address?
 714 2014-04-12 12:24:13 <sipa> presumably
 715 2014-04-12 12:25:17 Guest__ has quit (Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
 716 2014-04-12 12:25:29 <jeremias> k
 717 2014-04-12 12:25:46 <jeremias> has any wallets/merchants started to implement BIP 0070 yet?
 718 2014-04-12 12:25:51 <jeremias> or have any implementations?
 719 2014-04-12 12:26:00 <sipa> bitpay, bitcoin core, bitcoinj
 720 2014-04-12 12:26:03 <vetch> Bitcoin Core supports BIP70 as of 0.9
 721 2014-04-12 12:26:25 coolblade has quit (Quit: coolblade)
 722 2014-04-12 12:27:22 <jeremias> hmm, maybe try it out with low-value items from bitpay
 723 2014-04-12 12:27:38 cbeams has joined
 724 2014-04-12 12:27:42 <aschildbach> jeremias: and Bitcoin Wallet for Android/BlackBerry/Nokia X
 725 2014-04-12 12:27:55 <jeremias> ok cool
 726 2014-04-12 12:28:30 phantomspark has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 727 2014-04-12 12:29:04 <jeremias> aschildbach: does your wallet nowadays have also blackberry/nokia versions? :)
 728 2014-04-12 12:29:09 <jeremias> that's cool
 729 2014-04-12 12:29:32 <aschildbach> jeremias: The blackberry version is ~2 years old already I think.
 730 2014-04-12 12:29:39 <aschildbach> Nokia X support is brand new.
 731 2014-04-12 12:30:13 <aschildbach> Amazon rejected the app because of the GPL license.
 732 2014-04-12 12:30:23 <jeremias> ah, I see
 733 2014-04-12 12:31:14 <jeremias> aschildbach: does android wallet send automatically refund address as well?
 734 2014-04-12 12:31:23 <jeremias> eg. how well it implements BIP 0070?
 735 2014-04-12 12:31:49 <aschildbach> jeremias: Yes it sends a refund address. There is no way (yet) for the payee to tell the payer if a refund is possible.
 736 2014-04-12 12:32:23 cbeams has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 737 2014-04-12 12:32:41 <aschildbach> I'd say it implements BIP70 fully.
 738 2014-04-12 12:33:11 <jeremias> cool
 739 2014-04-12 12:33:42 <jeremias> can thos google protocol buffers extended easily
 740 2014-04-12 12:33:58 <aschildbach> yes its quite easy
 741 2014-04-12 12:34:26 <aschildbach> fields are just numbered
 742 2014-04-12 12:34:49 banghouse has joined
 743 2014-04-12 12:34:52 <jeremias> ok
 744 2014-04-12 12:35:13 <aschildbach> We have been using this a the wallet format since 3 years.
 745 2014-04-12 12:35:16 <jeremias> so you can add new fields on the bottom, and that won't cause problems?
 746 2014-04-12 12:35:22 <jeremias> protocol buffers?
 747 2014-04-12 12:35:25 <vetch> sipa: do you know if the Tor browser bundle blocks bitcoin: URI? it's a fairly ridiculous privacy issue if they don't..
 748 2014-04-12 12:35:35 <aschildbach> Yes protocol buffers.
 749 2014-04-12 12:35:40 <jeremias> as a wallet format?
 750 2014-04-12 12:35:49 <jeremias> isn't it more like for messaging?
 751 2014-04-12 12:35:51 ThomasV has joined
 752 2014-04-12 12:36:00 <jeremias> eg. how do you store it?
 753 2014-04-12 12:36:25 <jeremias> well, I guess I have lot's to learn
 754 2014-04-12 12:36:52 <aschildbach> https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj/blob/master/core/src/bitcoin.proto
 755 2014-04-12 12:36:59 <aschildbach> You can use it for both.
 756 2014-04-12 12:37:32 <jeremias> I see
 757 2014-04-12 12:37:36 <aschildbach> I mean where is the difference between a structure you send through a wire and one you write to disc?
 758 2014-04-12 12:38:10 <jeremias> well, I understand that it can be done
 759 2014-04-12 12:38:43 <aschildbach> The only gotcha is Protobuf generally leaves message delimiting to the protocol layer above.
 760 2014-04-12 12:38:57 <aschildbach> A file is delimited automatically. A stream is not.
 761 2014-04-12 12:38:58 coolblade has joined
 762 2014-04-12 12:39:20 banghouse has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 763 2014-04-12 12:41:10 <jeremias> aschildbach: so, if I create payment request from Android Wallet, how does it broadcast the request?
 764 2014-04-12 12:42:08 <aschildbach> I've summed all forms of payment request up: https://github.com/schildbach/bitcoin-wallet/wiki/Payment-Requests
 765 2014-04-12 12:42:27 <aschildbach> Generally, you can scan a QR code or tap via NFC.
 766 2014-04-12 12:43:24 <aschildbach> I did not find a way to put payment requests into an e-mail attachment with the correct mime type (the email client ignore the type).
 767 2014-04-12 12:44:07 phantomspark has joined
 768 2014-04-12 12:45:11 Starduster has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 769 2014-04-12 12:45:27 coolblade has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 770 2014-04-12 12:45:38 coolblade has joined
 771 2014-04-12 12:45:40 <jeremias> hmm, so it encodes the protobuf PaymentRequest object to the QR code?
 772 2014-04-12 12:46:27 <jeremias> but the bitpay model is providing the object via web service?
 773 2014-04-12 12:46:49 Belxjander has joined
 774 2014-04-12 12:48:02 <wumpus> jeremias: it encodes a URI like bitcoin:?r=https://server.com/paymentrequest into the QR code, not the payment request (which can be fairly large, too large to fit into QR codes conveniently)
 775 2014-04-12 12:48:31 <aschildbach> jeremias: Regarding QR-codes, Bitcoin Wallet support either BIP72 (sort of), which means using a BIP21 URI + an URL where to fetch the BIP70 PR
 776 2014-04-12 12:48:51 <jeremias> yeah I know about that... but the android wallet probably isn't doing that, because normal users don't have SSL certificates and probably don't want to run web server on their devices?
 777 2014-04-12 12:48:54 papa3 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 778 2014-04-12 12:48:54 orperelman has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 779 2014-04-12 12:49:12 <aschildbach> jeremias: Also, there is experimental support for putting the BIP70 payment request into the URL directly.
 780 2014-04-12 12:49:57 <aschildbach> jeremias: Bitcoin Wallet currently does not sign, although there is an experimental branch for it.
 781 2014-04-12 12:50:09 <aschildbach> jeremias: You can import a cert into your phone and sign with that.
 782 2014-04-12 12:50:16 cbeams has joined
 783 2014-04-12 12:51:44 <jeremias> so does it means that everyone who wants to request payments using the new protocol have to get certificates?
 784 2014-04-12 12:51:47 cbeams_ has joined
 785 2014-04-12 12:51:54 cbeams has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 786 2014-04-12 12:52:00 cbeams_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 787 2014-04-12 12:52:02 <jeremias> or use the old method?
 788 2014-04-12 12:52:07 papa3 has joined
 789 2014-04-12 12:52:09 cbeams has joined
 790 2014-04-12 12:53:10 <wumpus> vetch: AFAIK the tor browser bundle doesn't do any 'special' URI handling at all
 791 2014-04-12 12:53:27 <wumpus> vetch: no bitcoin, no magnet, nothing
 792 2014-04-12 12:53:57 <sipa> jeremias: signing is optional
 793 2014-04-12 12:54:22 MolokoBox has quit (Read error: Connection timed out)
 794 2014-04-12 12:54:23 <wumpus> all of the URI types launching an external application would be a privacy leak in one way or the other, at least of the external application isn't configured to use tor, which would be a bad assumption to make
 795 2014-04-12 12:54:25 <aschildbach> jeremias: X.509 PKI is optional. Depending on your usecase, it's perhaps not even recommended to use that.
 796 2014-04-12 12:54:43 <aschildbach> jeremias: Can you tell about your usecase?
 797 2014-04-12 12:54:46 <vetch> wumpus: alright. bit of a trap if the user expects only the old bitcoin: URI without payment requests though.
 798 2014-04-12 12:55:03 <jeremias> aschildbach: I don't have specific usecase, I'm more like playing around with the tech
 799 2014-04-12 12:55:07 <wumpus> vetch: well if the user has configured bitcoin client to use tor (which he should) there is no problem
 800 2014-04-12 12:55:08 <jeremias> developing django-bitcoin
 801 2014-04-12 12:55:14 MolokoBox has joined
 802 2014-04-12 12:55:55 <jeremias> hmm, so it could work via .onion addresses
 803 2014-04-12 12:55:58 <wumpus> vetch: if not, you're leaking your IP all over the place anyway if you make (or even receive) a payment
 804 2014-04-12 12:56:09 <aschildbach> jeremias: Ok, I see. If you feel like it, have a look at my bip72-bluetooth branch which implements BIP72 via Bluetooth.
 805 2014-04-12 12:56:32 <vetch> wumpus: uncomfortable notion.
 806 2014-04-12 12:56:35 <wumpus> jeremias: sure, why not
 807 2014-04-12 12:56:53 <aschildbach> jeremias: And based on that, there is bip70-sign, which implements payment request signing on the wallet side. It works, but its a little bit rough still.
 808 2014-04-12 12:57:10 <wumpus> vetch: just use tor
 809 2014-04-12 12:57:49 <vetch> wumpus: I think that's probably worse. attracts attention.
 810 2014-04-12 12:58:37 <jeremias> hmm
 811 2014-04-12 12:58:42 <jeremias> I like the tor solution more
 812 2014-04-12 12:58:48 <wumpus> well, if you're in a country where even tor gets you into trouble, I'd suggest being really careful with bitcoin
 813 2014-04-12 12:58:54 <vetch> wumpus: but all the same, it's an accessible solution.
 814 2014-04-12 12:59:50 coolblade has quit (Quit: coolblade)
 815 2014-04-12 13:00:10 <wumpus> (I mean running a non-exit tor node, tor exit nodes are known to attract all kinds of unwelcome attention, but that's not the default)
 816 2014-04-12 13:00:23 <jeremias> well, I guess if you want to transfer the data over securely, there is two alternatives: tor, or https -urls
 817 2014-04-12 13:00:37 <jeremias> if I understand correctly
 818 2014-04-12 13:00:48 <vetch> wumpus: in reality probably almost all countries are hostile to Tor to some degree.
 819 2014-04-12 13:00:58 roidster has joined
 820 2014-04-12 13:01:33 <jeremias> vetch: not really
 821 2014-04-12 13:01:40 <wumpus> vetch: this is getting off topic for #bitcoin-dev...
 822 2014-04-12 13:01:47 <vetch> yep, sorry.
 823 2014-04-12 13:02:10 <jeremias> well, I don't see the problem id anything technical is not on the table
 824 2014-04-12 13:02:43 <jeremias> we have visited the central police in Finland one time with Bitcoin presentation, and they were quite a positive both towards tor and bitcoin
 825 2014-04-12 13:03:09 <jeremias> err, positive is probably not the right word, but anyway
 826 2014-04-12 13:03:51 lolstate has quit (Quit: lolstate)
 827 2014-04-12 13:04:34 Belxjander has quit (Quit: System Restarting!!!)
 828 2014-04-12 13:05:34 wallet42 has joined
 829 2014-04-12 13:11:19 da2ce7 has quit (Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
 830 2014-04-12 13:11:24 karc has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 831 2014-04-12 13:14:11 Ostkaka has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 832 2014-04-12 13:14:48 rdbell has joined
 833 2014-04-12 13:16:15 anton000 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 834 2014-04-12 13:17:08 rnicoll has joined
 835 2014-04-12 13:18:33 <rnicoll> sipa, I'm doing terrible things to the Bitcoin payment protocol, and trying to merge it into Dogecoin. Are you the best person to talk to for some opinions on decisions to be made (mostly branding)?
 836 2014-04-12 13:19:40 <vetch> (hahaha)
 837 2014-04-12 13:20:12 <jeremias> lol
 838 2014-04-12 13:21:12 pierreat1ork has joined
 839 2014-04-12 13:21:12 pierreatwork has joined
 840 2014-04-12 13:27:08 papa3 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 841 2014-04-12 13:27:39 dude32 has joined
 842 2014-04-12 13:29:00 dude32 has left ()
 843 2014-04-12 13:30:51 karc has joined
 844 2014-04-12 13:33:20 <sipa> rnicoll: such protocol, much payment
 845 2014-04-12 13:34:03 <rnicoll> sipa, very wow, yes :)
 846 2014-04-12 13:34:05 <vetch> isn't dogecoin miles away from the bitcoin head? I doubt the payment protocol would even merge at all
 847 2014-04-12 13:34:26 <rnicoll> vetch, we've got a client based on 0.9, which is basically release ready apart from making BPP work
 848 2014-04-12 13:34:37 dude32 has joined
 849 2014-04-12 13:35:08 <vetch> that's surprising
 850 2014-04-12 13:35:15 <rnicoll> sipa, the main question is, are you happy for us to call it Bitcoin payment protocol when we're implementing it? It's your work, want to keep the name, but equally if you want to distance yourselves I'd understand
 851 2014-04-12 13:35:18 <rnicoll> vetch, we try :0
 852 2014-04-12 13:35:19 <rnicoll> :)
 853 2014-04-12 13:35:43 <wumpus> rnicoll: at least it should make a 'woof' sound after succesfully fetching a payment request
 854 2014-04-12 13:35:57 <rnicoll> wumpus, I will see what I can do
 855 2014-04-12 13:37:54 <rnicoll> sipa, well, I'm going to be working on a request generator/test framework, will be here if you want to go "Nooooo, don't call it Bitcoin anything!"
 856 2014-04-12 13:40:00 <wumpus> rnicoll: if it implements BIP70 on an alternative chain it can still be called BIP70, but won't calling it 'bitcoin payment protocol' confuse people that use it?
 857 2014-04-12 13:40:27 <wumpus> just 'payment protocol
 858 2014-04-12 13:40:29 <vetch> just "payment protocol"
 859 2014-04-12 13:40:31 <wumpus> would do
 860 2014-04-12 13:40:38 <wumpus> heh
 861 2014-04-12 13:40:41 debiantoruser has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 862 2014-04-12 13:40:51 <vetch> well, we're in agreement at least.
 863 2014-04-12 13:41:11 <rnicoll> wumpus, vetch, yeah, that would work. As said, I mostly want to give you guys credit. Can just call it "payment protocol" in the client and credit you guys in docs
 864 2014-04-12 13:42:41 debiantoruser has joined
 865 2014-04-12 13:44:28 paveljanik has joined
 866 2014-04-12 13:45:34 <rnicoll> last question; obviously we either have to not use "main" and "test" for the network labels, or alternatively use a different MIME type so Dogecoin requests aren't easily mixed up. I'd personally rather keep the MIME type and use "main-doge" and "test-doge", but again wanted feedback...
 867 2014-04-12 13:46:36 <wumpus> sounds sensible to me
 868 2014-04-12 13:46:36 c0rw1n has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 869 2014-04-12 13:46:40 papa2 has joined
 870 2014-04-12 13:46:58 c0rw1n has joined
 871 2014-04-12 13:47:04 embicoin has joined
 872 2014-04-12 13:47:08 <wumpus> on the other hand keeping the mime type the same can give you problems, which application gets to handle it?
 873 2014-04-12 13:47:50 <rnicoll> wumpus, well the.... oh... oh that's not good... new MIME type it is :)
 874 2014-04-12 13:47:53 <wumpus> if the bitcoin payment request is configure to launch bitcoin, then it will error out if it sees main-doge or test-doge
 875 2014-04-12 13:49:21 <wumpus> in theory there could be some kind of generic BIP90 dispatcher that routes the payment request to the right app based on the network, but that would be hard to coordinate, and you probably have used a different URI scheme as well already
 876 2014-04-12 13:49:52 <sipa> rnicoll: i don't care :)
 877 2014-04-12 13:50:11 <rnicoll> also, while I'd rather not clutter the MIME namespace too much, given we're a long way off most coins getting to this point, probably overthinking it
 878 2014-04-12 13:50:35 <rnicoll> sipa, awesome. Just easier to ask and find you don't care, than release and suddenly you're "Our protocol!"
 879 2014-04-12 13:51:52 <sipa> rnicoll: though you should probably ask gavin/mike/... many others rather than me if you really worry abour that
 880 2014-04-12 13:51:53 badhatter_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 881 2014-04-12 13:52:20 <rnicoll> sipa, will do, thanks!
 882 2014-04-12 13:54:31 YoY_ has joined
 883 2014-04-12 13:56:22 karc has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 884 2014-04-12 13:56:50 dhill has quit (Quit: leaving)
 885 2014-04-12 13:57:44 _yoy_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 886 2014-04-12 14:01:27 raistlinthewiz has joined
 887 2014-04-12 14:02:54 karc has joined
 888 2014-04-12 14:03:35 lolstate has joined
 889 2014-04-12 14:05:30 austinhill has joined
 890 2014-04-12 14:06:11 Belxjander has joined
 891 2014-04-12 14:07:59 rdbell has quit (Quit: rdbell)
 892 2014-04-12 14:10:05 digitalmagus2 has joined
 893 2014-04-12 14:11:39 Guest____ has joined
 894 2014-04-12 14:14:39 digitalmagus2 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 895 2014-04-12 14:16:16 anton000 has joined
 896 2014-04-12 14:20:07 jakov has joined
 897 2014-04-12 14:20:07 jakov has quit (Changing host)
 898 2014-04-12 14:20:07 jakov has joined
 899 2014-04-12 14:20:54 Raziel has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 900 2014-04-12 14:23:28 rdbell has joined
 901 2014-04-12 14:23:51 Belxjander has quit (Read error: No route to host)
 902 2014-04-12 14:24:54 jokosh has joined
 903 2014-04-12 14:25:50 non2 has joined
 904 2014-04-12 14:26:19 Belxjander has joined
 905 2014-04-12 14:26:25 hmmma has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 906 2014-04-12 14:27:55 dhill has joined
 907 2014-04-12 14:28:25 <aschildbach> rnicoll: I would differentiate by mime-type rather than by network field.
 908 2014-04-12 14:28:40 <aschildbach> For exactly the dispatching reason.
 909 2014-04-12 14:28:59 <rnicoll> aschildbach, yeah, that seems to be the feedback so far, and makes sense. Also means if we diverge on implementation later, it's not a hell of a mess to unpick
 910 2014-04-12 14:29:10 <aschildbach> Exactly
 911 2014-04-12 14:29:32 roconnor has joined
 912 2014-04-12 14:29:41 Guest____ has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com)
 913 2014-04-12 14:30:22 <rnicoll> oh, also, if you guys are surprised we have a 0.9-derived client (and many thanks to everyone who worked on 0.9, it's great stuff) near launch, imagine how much I'm not looking forward to Litecoin finding out
 914 2014-04-12 14:32:01 rdbell has quit (Quit: rdbell)
 915 2014-04-12 14:32:24 <rnicoll> and yes I mean 0.9.1 of course, not 0.9
 916 2014-04-12 14:32:37 <vetch> not that there's any functional difference between them
 917 2014-04-12 14:33:27 <rnicoll> the OpenSSL version bump might be important for something :)
 918 2014-04-12 14:34:01 <sipa> well, it's not like heartbleed is actually a serious bug or anything, right?
 919 2014-04-12 14:34:07 <rnicoll> especially as I think payment protocol requests can be fetched via HTTPS direct from the client?
 920 2014-04-12 14:34:20 <rnicoll> sipa, yeah, probably not worth worrying about :)
 921 2014-04-12 14:35:27 mljsimone has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 922 2014-04-12 14:35:49 banghouse has joined
 923 2014-04-12 14:36:13 mljsimone has joined
 924 2014-04-12 14:40:45 banghouse has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 925 2014-04-12 14:42:21 Persopolis has joined
 926 2014-04-12 14:42:50 cbeams has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 927 2014-04-12 14:44:40 ZoltanTokay has joined
 928 2014-04-12 14:44:43 <ZoltanTokay> http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/22utb0/mtgox_release_document_to_ask_for_refund/
 929 2014-04-12 14:45:36 <dexX7> <Apocalyptic> ^ malware
 930 2014-04-12 14:47:13 setkeh has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 931 2014-04-12 14:48:04 impulse has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 932 2014-04-12 14:50:24 badhatter has joined
 933 2014-04-12 14:57:18 <Luke-Jr> [13:43:46] <rnicoll> last question; obviously we either have to not use "main" and "test" for the network labels, or alternatively use a different MIME type so Dogecoin requests aren't easily mixed up. I'd personally rather keep the MIME type and use "main-doge" and "test-doge", but again wanted feedback… <-- or both..
 934 2014-04-12 14:57:36 <Luke-Jr> the network field exists specifically to differentiate
 935 2014-04-12 14:58:55 <rnicoll> Luke-Jr, well, from discussion using a different MIME type is more sensible, anyway, so that solves that issue as a side-effect
 936 2014-04-12 15:03:36 cbeams has joined
 937 2014-04-12 15:04:47 impulse has joined
 938 2014-04-12 15:07:11 ryanxcharles has joined
 939 2014-04-12 15:10:11 Alchemy has joined
 940 2014-04-12 15:10:31 olalonde has joined
 941 2014-04-12 15:10:48 Alchemy is now known as Guest25136
 942 2014-04-12 15:13:22 daemon has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 943 2014-04-12 15:15:44 <hno> Luke-Jr, blockexplorer.com/testnet says "All times are UTC. Tell me (theymos) if you find any bugs."
 944 2014-04-12 15:16:03 draino_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 945 2014-04-12 15:17:14 ft_ has joined
 946 2014-04-12 15:17:21 austinhill has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 947 2014-04-12 15:18:14 ft_ has quit (Client Quit)
 948 2014-04-12 15:20:00 Subo1977_ has joined
 949 2014-04-12 15:21:22 _yoy_ has joined
 950 2014-04-12 15:22:06 banghouse has joined
 951 2014-04-12 15:24:24 Subo1977 has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 952 2014-04-12 15:24:57 YoY_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 953 2014-04-12 15:28:29 JWU42 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 954 2014-04-12 15:29:25 markus__ has joined
 955 2014-04-12 15:31:14 phoenix52 has joined
 956 2014-04-12 15:32:49 mE\Ta has joined
 957 2014-04-12 15:35:10 Guest56969 has left ("http://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere.")
 958 2014-04-12 15:35:23 maaku has joined
 959 2014-04-12 15:36:25 maxschumacher91 has joined
 960 2014-04-12 15:37:55 <wumpus> rnicoll: Luke-Jr: using both is a good idea; if for some reason the bitcoin payment requests ends up in the client for another chain (or vice versa), it can show an error
 961 2014-04-12 15:39:19 <rnicoll> wumpus, also a good point. Also means if someone decides to fork from our client, it's not as hard to adapt
 962 2014-04-12 15:39:38 Guest25136 is now known as daemon
 963 2014-04-12 15:43:02 pierreat1ork has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 964 2014-04-12 15:43:02 pierreatwork has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 965 2014-04-12 15:46:15 <hno> and blockexplorer.com/testnet works again.
 966 2014-04-12 15:47:42 copumpkin has joined
 967 2014-04-12 15:49:35 banghouse has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 968 2014-04-12 15:55:10 saulimus has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 969 2014-04-12 15:57:50 ryanxcharles has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 970 2014-04-12 16:00:50 <hno> the testned difficulty magic.. do work even if someone is generating blocks "in future"?
 971 2014-04-12 16:01:21 <vetch> yep
 972 2014-04-12 16:01:31 <vetch> time warp 20 minutes, solve an easy block
 973 2014-04-12 16:04:16 ido370 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 974 2014-04-12 16:06:46 <hno> so the one who is minint
 975 2014-04-12 16:07:16 <hno> so the one who is mining "in the future" gets first chance?
 976 2014-04-12 16:07:38 <vetch> well no, they just have a higher target than anybody mining at the present time
 977 2014-04-12 16:07:49 <vetch> (higher target meaning significantly easier)
 978 2014-04-12 16:08:19 <vetch> you can only do that a few times before your blocks start getting rejected anyway.
 979 2014-04-12 16:08:58 <hno> just noticed that i had not found any blocks today which made me wonder.
 980 2014-04-12 16:10:01 <vetch> a miner mined for a very long time with a fast ASIC, the difficulty of testnet is sky high
 981 2014-04-12 16:10:40 <vetch> 1024
 982 2014-04-12 16:10:50 rnicoll has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 983 2014-04-12 16:10:58 <shesek> but it'll reset back to normal quite fast
 984 2014-04-12 16:11:01 <shesek> in 20 minutes iirc
 985 2014-04-12 16:11:10 <vetch> just for one block.
 986 2014-04-12 16:11:15 rnicoll has joined
 987 2014-04-12 16:12:03 <shesek> right... and after that it'll reset again in 20 minutes
 988 2014-04-12 16:12:14 <shesek> so we'll basically have a block every 20 minutes instead of 10
 989 2014-04-12 16:14:21 davispuh has joined
 990 2014-04-12 16:15:19 Ostkaka has joined
 991 2014-04-12 16:18:45 Joric has joined
 992 2014-04-12 16:19:41 zcopley has joined
 993 2014-04-12 16:20:11 jokosh has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 994 2014-04-12 16:20:36 jokosh has joined
 995 2014-04-12 16:20:38 <maaku> which is sufficient for testing :P
 996 2014-04-12 16:20:41 Luke-Jr has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 997 2014-04-12 16:20:42 jokosh has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 998 2014-04-12 16:21:08 jokosh has joined
 999 2014-04-12 16:21:09 Luke-Jr has joined
1000 2014-04-12 16:21:20 JWU42 has joined
1001 2014-04-12 16:22:42 jokosh has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1002 2014-04-12 16:23:05 jokosh has joined
1003 2014-04-12 16:24:17 dims_ has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1004 2014-04-12 16:24:40 nickler has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1005 2014-04-12 16:25:11 jokosh has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1006 2014-04-12 16:25:43 dims_ has joined
1007 2014-04-12 16:28:10 paracyst has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1008 2014-04-12 16:28:58 banghouse has joined
1009 2014-04-12 16:30:18 anton000 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1010 2014-04-12 16:30:35 Zarutian has joined
1011 2014-04-12 16:30:36 lolstate has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1012 2014-04-12 16:31:22 MoALTz_ has joined
1013 2014-04-12 16:31:38 JWU42 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1014 2014-04-12 16:31:47 nadio has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1015 2014-04-12 16:32:15 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1016 2014-04-12 16:33:00 nadio has joined
1017 2014-04-12 16:33:59 MoALTz has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1018 2014-04-12 16:34:09 MoALTz__ has joined
1019 2014-04-12 16:35:00 zcopley has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1020 2014-04-12 16:35:55 zcopley has joined
1021 2014-04-12 16:36:27 hsmiths has quit (Quit: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety)
1022 2014-04-12 16:36:42 MoALTz_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1023 2014-04-12 16:38:26 Happzz has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1024 2014-04-12 16:39:03 jonathan_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1025 2014-04-12 16:39:14 phantomspark has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1026 2014-04-12 16:39:43 Happzz has joined
1027 2014-04-12 16:44:02 CheckDavid has quit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
1028 2014-04-12 16:48:09 dims_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1029 2014-04-12 16:48:39 Neozonz has joined
1030 2014-04-12 16:50:24 <ProfMac> I am reading source to understand the client.  My first task is to understand the source code related to sending a block out to the peers on the network.  I started with Submitblock on git, and I have looked at https://dev.visucore.com/bitcoin/doxygen.  Hearn told me "ProfMac: push_inventory puts the CInv into a queue for the CPeer" but I have not made progress looking for that.  I would appreciate any more hints anyone can shar
1031 2014-04-12 16:50:53 paracyst has joined
1032 2014-04-12 16:51:24 Neozonz has quit (Disc!~Neozonz@unaffiliated/neozonz|Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1033 2014-04-12 16:52:07 lolstate has joined
1034 2014-04-12 16:53:18 Aido_ is now known as Aido
1035 2014-04-12 16:55:43 <wumpus> ProfMac: peers request the block using "getdata", after which the clients sends back a "block" message (see ProcessGetData)
1036 2014-04-12 16:56:52 zcopley has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1037 2014-04-12 16:57:08 zzyzx has joined
1038 2014-04-12 16:57:12 * rnicoll vaguely remembers grepping for CPeer yesterday, but also couldn't find it
1039 2014-04-12 16:57:13 <wumpus> "inv" messages (that tell a peer that you have a certain object) are sent to peers in SendMessages
1040 2014-04-12 16:57:20 ido has joined
1041 2014-04-12 16:57:43 <wumpus> (among other places, but that's where the queue is processed)
1042 2014-04-12 16:57:44 ido has left ()
1043 2014-04-12 16:58:21 banghouse has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1044 2014-04-12 16:59:00 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1045 2014-04-12 16:59:23 ThomasV has joined
1046 2014-04-12 16:59:59 roidster has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1047 2014-04-12 17:00:02 zzyzx is now known as roidster
1048 2014-04-12 17:00:06 sbrossie has joined
1049 2014-04-12 17:00:31 roidster is now known as Guest81099
1050 2014-04-12 17:01:11 grau has joined
1051 2014-04-12 17:01:22 Persopolis has quit ()
1052 2014-04-12 17:02:58 <sipa> ProfMac: it's CNode, not CPeer
1053 2014-04-12 17:03:14 <sipa> ProfMac: and block announcenent works different from normal relay
1054 2014-04-12 17:03:30 <sipa> announcement just broadcasts the block immediately  to all peers
1055 2014-04-12 17:03:41 <sipa> without waiting for a getdata after an inv
1056 2014-04-12 17:04:18 maxschumacher91 has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1057 2014-04-12 17:06:48 <ProfMac> wumpus, sipa, thanks.  I'll go read more.  I do want to focus very narrowly on the handling of new blocks.
1058 2014-04-12 17:07:16 <sipa> by new, you mean just miner, or just received?
1059 2014-04-12 17:07:27 <sipa> *just mined
1060 2014-04-12 17:07:44 lolstate has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1061 2014-04-12 17:07:46 jonathan_ has joined
1062 2014-04-12 17:09:37 Joric has quit ()
1063 2014-04-12 17:10:41 phantomspark has joined
1064 2014-04-12 17:13:22 <ProfMac> sipa, Oh, since I'm trying to learn code from zero orientation, I probably should chose something very narrow so I have some hope to get it.  I have assumed that Submitblock is used by mining pool software.  I have the eloipool source, but I have not read it & verified my assumption.
1065 2014-04-12 17:13:35 <sipa> yup
1066 2014-04-12 17:13:42 <ProfMac> good
1067 2014-04-12 17:14:09 mE\Ta has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1068 2014-04-12 17:17:32 ClarusCogitatio has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1069 2014-04-12 17:18:45 ClarusCogitatio has joined
1070 2014-04-12 17:19:54 wallet42 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1071 2014-04-12 17:20:35 <cbeams> There are a couple places online where @gmaxwell refers to the "block tester test suite". Is this referring to @BlueMatt's 'test-scripts' repo, or something else?
1072 2014-04-12 17:21:18 olalonde has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1073 2014-04-12 17:22:06 <sipa> yes
1074 2014-04-12 17:22:20 <sipa> there are several layers here, i guess
1075 2014-04-12 17:22:49 popophobia has joined
1076 2014-04-12 17:22:50 <sipa> pulltester runs some script that builds bitcoin for several platforms (including windows) and runs its unit teats
1077 2014-04-12 17:23:30 jgarzik has joined
1078 2014-04-12 17:23:42 <sipa> the unit tests (in the bitcoin repo) have support for bluematt's comparison tool (if installed), which feeds it certain sequences of invalid blocks
1079 2014-04-12 17:24:16 olalonde has joined
1080 2014-04-12 17:24:55 lolstate has joined
1081 2014-04-12 17:24:55 grau has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1082 2014-04-12 17:25:02 grau has joined
1083 2014-04-12 17:28:07 <cbeams> thanks, sipa.
1084 2014-04-12 17:28:40 popophobia has quit (Quit: popophobia)
1085 2014-04-12 17:28:47 hearn has joined
1086 2014-04-12 17:28:55 hearn has quit (Client Quit)
1087 2014-04-12 17:29:29 notsetkeh has joined
1088 2014-04-12 17:30:55 nickler has joined
1089 2014-04-12 17:40:19 JWU42 has joined
1090 2014-04-12 17:49:46 phantomspark has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1091 2014-04-12 17:49:56 defunctzombie has joined
1092 2014-04-12 17:50:20 <defunctzombie> what is the upper limit on how many private keys the bitcoin-qt software can store?
1093 2014-04-12 17:52:11 defunctzombie is now known as defunctzombie_zz
1094 2014-04-12 17:54:40 cagedwisdom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1095 2014-04-12 17:55:31 cbeams has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1096 2014-04-12 17:59:05 Namworld has joined
1097 2014-04-12 18:05:41 <c0rw1n> disk space
1098 2014-04-12 18:06:27 gpmnlxdw has quit (Quit: 离开)
1099 2014-04-12 18:07:03 daybyter has joined
1100 2014-04-12 18:11:08 hanncx has joined
1101 2014-04-12 18:11:39 Starduster has joined
1102 2014-04-12 18:13:55 bbbrian has joined
1103 2014-04-12 18:14:40 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
1104 2014-04-12 18:17:04 c0rw1n has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1105 2014-04-12 18:17:06 markus__ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1106 2014-04-12 18:18:07 Eiii has joined
1107 2014-04-12 18:18:07 Eiii has quit (Changing host)
1108 2014-04-12 18:18:07 Eiii has joined
1109 2014-04-12 18:19:27 banghouse has joined
1110 2014-04-12 18:19:56 ryanxcharles has joined
1111 2014-04-12 18:20:30 c0rw1n has joined
1112 2014-04-12 18:21:20 fanquake has left ()
1113 2014-04-12 18:22:27 beachandbytes has joined
1114 2014-04-12 18:22:39 <midnightmagic> ..  realistically the wallet can't grow much larger than a GB or so without making the startup extend into 10-30 minutes.
1115 2014-04-12 18:23:18 <c0rw1n> that slow? Ø_Ø
1116 2014-04-12 18:23:35 cbeams has joined
1117 2014-04-12 18:23:50 <c0rw1n> oh 1G ok not 1k addresses (am an idiot)
1118 2014-04-12 18:24:20 cbeams has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1119 2014-04-12 18:25:49 <midnightmagic> I'm restarting a wallet I have here that's.. mm.. 204MB and I'll tell you how long it takes for the wallet to load, I have logtimestamps turned on
1120 2014-04-12 18:26:13 <vetch> why is the bitcoin.it wiki behind cloudflare now?
1121 2014-04-12 18:26:17 <midnightmagic> this particular one is very very slow.
1122 2014-04-12 18:26:24 <c0rw1n> they got ddosed?
1123 2014-04-12 18:27:17 <vetch> cloudflare was used to cover up the fact that bitcointalk.org was compromised. I thought theymos was totally against it.
1124 2014-04-12 18:27:26 <vetch> theymos owning the wiki now.
1125 2014-04-12 18:27:40 <midnightmagic> ... wat
1126 2014-04-12 18:27:59 <vetch> uh, you remember late last year when the domain of bitcointalk.org was stolen?
1127 2014-04-12 18:28:32 <vetch> at that point cloudflare was used because they sign any domain of their customers with no identification.
1128 2014-04-12 18:29:18 nsh has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1129 2014-04-12 18:29:20 <midnightmagic> i thought it wasn't actually stolen
1130 2014-04-12 18:29:39 <vetch> the name servers were changed, close enough
1131 2014-04-12 18:30:12 Aido has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1132 2014-04-12 18:32:03 <vetch> but anyway, the wiki's SSL is broken.
1133 2014-04-12 18:32:15 austinhill has joined
1134 2014-04-12 18:33:46 <c0rw1n> isn't ssl broken everywhere as of now?
1135 2014-04-12 18:33:52 JackH has joined
1136 2014-04-12 18:33:53 JWU42 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1137 2014-04-12 18:34:15 <vetch> broken as in, browsers refuse to connect to it rather than plausibly insecure.
1138 2014-04-12 18:34:58 cbeams has joined
1139 2014-04-12 18:35:23 defunctzombie_zz is now known as defunctzombie
1140 2014-04-12 18:35:44 JWU42 has joined
1141 2014-04-12 18:35:48 JWU42 has quit (Changing host)
1142 2014-04-12 18:35:48 JWU42 has joined
1143 2014-04-12 18:35:57 defunctzombie has left ("Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com")
1144 2014-04-12 18:37:35 phantomspark has joined
1145 2014-04-12 18:38:38 ryanxcharles has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1146 2014-04-12 18:40:30 Chief_Panda has joined
1147 2014-04-12 18:40:30 Chief_Panda has quit (Changing host)
1148 2014-04-12 18:40:30 Chief_Panda has joined
1149 2014-04-12 18:46:00 mE\Ta has joined
1150 2014-04-12 18:46:29 olalonde has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1151 2014-04-12 18:46:55 CheckDavid has joined
1152 2014-04-12 18:48:09 olalonde has joined
1153 2014-04-12 18:49:06 bbbrian has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1154 2014-04-12 18:51:42 austinhill has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1155 2014-04-12 18:52:10 <midnightmagic> yeah, so that wallet is still loading.
1156 2014-04-12 18:52:35 Aido has joined
1157 2014-04-12 18:53:35 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1158 2014-04-12 18:56:07 Applicat_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1159 2014-04-12 18:57:02 dude32 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1160 2014-04-12 18:58:34 MolokoBox has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1161 2014-04-12 18:59:03 <c0rw1n> 26 minutes and counting, that's under 10MB/minute
1162 2014-04-12 18:59:30 Guest81099 is now known as roidster
1163 2014-04-12 19:01:15 rdbell has joined
1164 2014-04-12 19:01:45 Coincidental has joined
1165 2014-04-12 19:03:03 paxtoncamaro91 has joined
1166 2014-04-12 19:03:19 paul0 has joined
1167 2014-04-12 19:04:42 banghouse has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1168 2014-04-12 19:05:38 austinhill has joined
1169 2014-04-12 19:06:20 Raziel has joined
1170 2014-04-12 19:08:09 <PRab> Any idea why bitcoind doesn't follow Junctions on windows?
1171 2014-04-12 19:08:55 <PRab> I copied the data dir to my ssd then did "mklink /J" and it puked when I tried to start it up.
1172 2014-04-12 19:08:55 Raziel has quit (Client Quit)
1173 2014-04-12 19:09:16 <PRab> When I did "mklink /D" it worked just fine.
1174 2014-04-12 19:09:24 Raziel has joined
1175 2014-04-12 19:09:49 <c0rw1n> they have symlinks on windows? in practice, not onl in the filesystem capabilities? since when?
1176 2014-04-12 19:10:04 <PRab> Windows vista
1177 2014-04-12 19:10:14 jordandotdev has joined
1178 2014-04-12 19:10:17 <c0rw1n> ok
1179 2014-04-12 19:10:25 ikbenwouter has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1180 2014-04-12 19:10:28 <c0rw1n> same volume?
1181 2014-04-12 19:10:47 <PRab> Nope, one is C:\ the other is F:\
1182 2014-04-12 19:10:50 hsmiths has joined
1183 2014-04-12 19:11:07 <c0rw1n> i think hardlinks can't be done across volumes
1184 2014-04-12 19:11:32 <PRab> correct, but I never tried to use a hardlink.
1185 2014-04-12 19:11:46 <PRab> that would have been "mklink /H"
1186 2014-04-12 19:12:09 <c0rw1n> ok. idk the syntax of windows mklink
1187 2014-04-12 19:12:35 <c0rw1n> what happens when you try while the f: is mounted in a directory under c: ?
1188 2014-04-12 19:13:16 <PRab> I hadn't tried that.
1189 2014-04-12 19:13:36 <c0rw1n> i have no idea if that would change anything
1190 2014-04-12 19:13:57 <c0rw1n> but the ways of windows are strange and mysterious
1191 2014-04-12 19:14:03 <PRab> If I have some free time, I'll give it a shot.
1192 2014-04-12 19:14:17 <PRab> I think the same thing about linux sometime.
1193 2014-04-12 19:14:28 <c0rw1n> heh, not like you can type man mklink :\
1194 2014-04-12 19:15:25 <midnightmagic> c0rw1n: There. It finished.   wallet              2594019ms; on a 32-cpu machine with 128GB ram, and the wallet in that case lives on a SSD volume. The wallet is 204500992 bytes big.
1195 2014-04-12 19:15:34 <midnightmagic> c0rw1n: It's possible that my wallet is more complex than normal peoples'.
1196 2014-04-12 19:15:46 austinhill has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1197 2014-04-12 19:15:49 jonathan_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1198 2014-04-12 19:15:50 <midnightmagic> The SSD is a very quick Samsung 840 pro
1199 2014-04-12 19:16:03 austinhill has joined
1200 2014-04-12 19:16:03 <c0rw1n> 40 minutes -_Ø
1201 2014-04-12 19:16:09 jonathan_ has joined
1202 2014-04-12 19:17:12 beachandbytes has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1203 2014-04-12 19:19:43 MoALTz__ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1204 2014-04-12 19:20:59 Application has joined
1205 2014-04-12 19:21:48 robertjw has joined
1206 2014-04-12 19:23:11 KillYourTV has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1207 2014-04-12 19:24:54 austinhill has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1208 2014-04-12 19:25:18 olalonde has quit (Quit: olalonde)
1209 2014-04-12 19:25:18 <kuzetsa> midnightmagic: wow, 200 mb wallet?
1210 2014-04-12 19:25:34 <kuzetsa> mine's still less than 5mb
1211 2014-04-12 19:27:53 KillYourTV has joined
1212 2014-04-12 19:29:52 Guyver2 has joined
1213 2014-04-12 19:29:57 Burrito has joined
1214 2014-04-12 19:30:43 Burrito has quit (Client Quit)
1215 2014-04-12 19:31:05 Burrito has joined
1216 2014-04-12 19:31:14 Burrito has quit (Changing host)
1217 2014-04-12 19:31:14 Burrito has joined
1218 2014-04-12 19:31:54 phantomspark has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1219 2014-04-12 19:32:20 stickie has joined
1220 2014-04-12 19:34:31 phantomspark has joined
1221 2014-04-12 19:36:39 J_levin has joined
1222 2014-04-12 19:37:15 <J_levin> Am watching a talk about Researchers trying to get some information from developers
1223 2014-04-12 19:37:39 <J_levin> I am doing some work on the incentives of miners to include more transactions in blocks
1224 2014-04-12 19:38:55 <J_levin> I want to get some feedback on two dynamics that I am analysing
1225 2014-04-12 19:39:30 <J_levin> The increase in the size of a block slows propagation. This means that the probability of another block being found and beating your block round the network has increased. This is the true marginal cost of including an extra transaction in a block as the cost of computation is negligible.
1226 2014-04-12 19:41:39 c0rw1n is now known as c0rw|dinner
1227 2014-04-12 19:42:51 mrkent has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1228 2014-04-12 19:43:47 digitalmagus2 has joined
1229 2014-04-12 19:44:15 rdymac has quit (Excess Flood)
1230 2014-04-12 19:44:24 rdymac has joined
1231 2014-04-12 19:44:30 Namworld has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1232 2014-04-12 19:45:22 GAit has joined
1233 2014-04-12 19:48:34 haqe17 has joined
1234 2014-04-12 19:51:21 <gmaxwell> J_levin: there are some complincations, not all miners and not all of the world forward blocks in the manner you thin.
1235 2014-04-12 19:51:47 <gmaxwell> J_levin: for example p2pool preforwards the transasctions and as a result must send much less data when it finds a block.
1236 2014-04-12 19:52:44 beachandbytes has joined
1237 2014-04-12 19:52:51 cbeams has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1238 2014-04-12 19:52:54 Iriez has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1239 2014-04-12 19:54:16 Zifre_ has joined
1240 2014-04-12 19:55:46 embicoin has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1241 2014-04-12 19:57:10 mE\Ta has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1242 2014-04-12 19:57:13 Zifre has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1243 2014-04-12 19:57:18 embicoin has joined
1244 2014-04-12 20:00:41 runeks has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1245 2014-04-12 20:01:32 runeks has joined
1246 2014-04-12 20:05:47 viperhr has joined
1247 2014-04-12 20:07:18 T19EL_ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1248 2014-04-12 20:08:22 cbeams has joined
1249 2014-04-12 20:08:23 T19EL has joined
1250 2014-04-12 20:08:36 J_levin has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1251 2014-04-12 20:08:46 rdbell has quit (Quit: rdbell)
1252 2014-04-12 20:09:05 digitalmagus2 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1253 2014-04-12 20:09:29 kalz has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1254 2014-04-12 20:10:18 dkog has quit (Quit: dkog)
1255 2014-04-12 20:10:26 mE\Ta has joined
1256 2014-04-12 20:12:54 c0rw is now known as dinner!~c0rw1n@232.99-67-87.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be|c0rw1n
1257 2014-04-12 20:16:02 J_Levin has joined
1258 2014-04-12 20:16:32 grau has joined
1259 2014-04-12 20:17:43 <J_Levin> Thanks @gmaxwell I understand that not all pools will propagate blocks and transactions in the same way. I want to assess some of the claims that the marginal cost of including a transaction is high. If as you say there are different ways to ensure faster propagation, I still think it is important to understand the incentives driving this behaviour
1260 2014-04-12 20:18:10 msvb-lab has quit (Quit: msvb-lab)
1261 2014-04-12 20:18:19 T19EL has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1262 2014-04-12 20:18:33 <J_Levin> The other interesting dynamic is The increase in the size of a block also means that due to the slower propagation, miners that have not heard about the new block will be working on a block that is more likely to be orphaned (working on an old problem). This is a negative externality on the network and increases the profitability of the miner producing the bigger block and those that were quick to hear about it.
1263 2014-04-12 20:18:35 Iriez has joined
1264 2014-04-12 20:19:07 <GAit> is it me or there seems to be some issue with cloudflare certificate and the bitcoin wiki?
1265 2014-04-12 20:20:12 kalz has joined
1266 2014-04-12 20:20:39 beachandbytes has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1267 2014-04-12 20:21:04 grau has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1268 2014-04-12 20:22:38 Namworld has joined
1269 2014-04-12 20:22:49 grau has joined
1270 2014-04-12 20:23:07 <gmaxwell> J_Levin: just making sure you're aware of that.
1271 2014-04-12 20:23:33 <J_Levin> does that mean that P2Pool propagates blocks faster?
1272 2014-04-12 20:24:07 <gmaxwell> J_Levin: it does, and /very/ seldom has an orphan block.
1273 2014-04-12 20:24:28 roconnor has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1274 2014-04-12 20:24:38 T19EL has joined
1275 2014-04-12 20:24:43 <J_Levin> @gmaxwell do you know where I can find some reliable orphan data for P2Pool?
1276 2014-04-12 20:25:52 Coincidental has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1277 2014-04-12 20:26:29 <gmaxwell> unfortunately the recent data is less useful because P2Pool's relative hashrate has fallen to low enough that its harder to make observations of the real orphan rate.  The author of p2pool probably has the best historic data.
1278 2014-04-12 20:26:43 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1279 2014-04-12 20:27:18 lolstate has quit (Quit: lolstate)
1280 2014-04-12 20:28:28 <gmaxwell> J_Levin: people have written pretty extensively about their own informal analysises of block propagation as a function of size, but I don't think any of their work has been especially rigorous.  Though there has been some data published that finds a size dependence (as expected), though that data is before 'modern' bitcoin software existed which caches the validation so relaying a block involves very little computation.
1281 2014-04-12 20:28:34 saulimus has joined
1282 2014-04-12 20:29:24 akrmn has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1283 2014-04-12 20:30:17 <J_Levin> @gmaxwell Good to know. We are working on providing a more rigorous approach and data source using distributed nodes but unfortunately will not be finished before I need to submit this paper
1284 2014-04-12 20:30:56 Coincidental has joined
1285 2014-04-12 20:32:18 <J_Levin> @gmaxwell when that paper talks about propagation delays, do you think most of that is attributed to computation at each hop or something else?
1286 2014-04-12 20:33:29 <gmaxwell> considering that we went from 2 seconds of computation on slower computers for larger blocks to more like 100ms, I think most of it was computation, not serialization delay.
1287 2014-04-12 20:33:47 <gmaxwell> The bitcoin reference software also has a 100ms sleep in the message handling loop that adds considerable latency.
1288 2014-04-12 20:34:56 <sipa> does it still?
1289 2014-04-12 20:34:59 <sipa> i believe 0.9 removed that
1290 2014-04-12 20:35:09 <J_Levin> @gmaxwell Great stuff, the 100ms sleep is independent of block size I presume.
1291 2014-04-12 20:35:13 MolokoDeck has joined
1292 2014-04-12 20:35:24 <hno> J_Levin, there is counter factors to that in improved network latency in general. I have looked into all of our blocks which have become stale and it's always either been very very close (within a couple of seconds) hits found by other pools or operational issues outside bitcoin. So no block propagation due to size is not worrying me much, and even thinking of increasing it a bit.
1293 2014-04-12 20:35:40 neofutur has quit (Quit: leaving)
1294 2014-04-12 20:35:55 ne0futur_ has joined
1295 2014-04-12 20:36:03 joesmoe has joined
1296 2014-04-12 20:36:59 <gmaxwell> sipa: it's still there. It sometimes skips it when it knows it already has mode data to process.
1297 2014-04-12 20:37:16 <gmaxwell> But when it actually runs out of data it sleeps.
1298 2014-04-12 20:38:00 <J_Levin> hno, thanks for that. The reason that I would suggest it is very close is due to the information propagation. It is highly unlikely after approximately 8 seconds that another block can beat yours round the network for two reasons: 1. Less miners are working on a conflicting block 2. Your block is more likely to be included in the main chain even given a partition
1299 2014-04-12 20:38:01 <gmaxwell> ThreadMessageHandler needs a semaphore to avoid it completely, I htink.
1300 2014-04-12 20:41:09 <J_Levin> I think optimal block size strategy for pools is likely to depend on share of the hashing rate and connectivity to the network. Am trying to formalise the model over the next week and would like to have it peer reviewed.
1301 2014-04-12 20:42:16 <hno> Optimal is quite subjective. There is other factors involved than only maximising coin generation.
1302 2014-04-12 20:43:12 <ProfMac> There is something I don't understand here.  I assume that two competing blocks will not have identical work.  I am also assuming that "work" is the number of leading 0 bits in the hash.  I also have heard that the client accepts the block chain with the largest work.  Given all this, I assume that all the clients should accept the same block, no matter which it receives first.  Yet, i don't think that happens.
1303 2014-04-12 20:43:37 <ProfMac> Unfortunately, I have not read enough code to understand all of this from what the source says.
1304 2014-04-12 20:44:39 <ProfMac> Is there an advantage to a miner to keep mining a little longer, in the hopes of producing a competing block with larger work?
1305 2014-04-12 20:45:21 <sipa> ProfMac: all your assumptions are wrong
1306 2014-04-12 20:45:34 <ProfMac> Please help clarify.
1307 2014-04-12 20:45:37 <sipa> ProfMac: two competing blocks have almost always the same work
1308 2014-04-12 20:45:48 <sipa> work is defined as the expected number of hashes needed to satisfy the target
1309 2014-04-12 20:45:53 <ProfMac> (all, that's somehow interesting itself.)
1310 2014-04-12 20:46:06 <sipa> so it doesn't depend on the hash of the block; only on its difficulty
1311 2014-04-12 20:47:12 <sipa> also, the actual rule is: nodes consider the chain active which: 1) is valid  2) among the valid ones, has the most work  3) among those with the same work, has the earliest seen tip block
1312 2014-04-12 20:48:52 <hno> And is work of a chain then measured as sum of the difficulty of the block chain?
1313 2014-04-12 20:49:16 <ProfMac> This is probably the area where I will learn the source code after I finish understanding all of Submitblock.  Do you have some hints for where to read, such as procedure names or file name+line numbers?
1314 2014-04-12 20:50:05 <J_Levin> hno, I agree there are many other factors that play a role in mining strategy, I still think that it is important to get to grips with the economic incentives if profit were the only motive. Could you provide some other objectives that you pursue as part of your strategy?
1315 2014-04-12 20:50:12 Jamesz has joined
1316 2014-04-12 20:51:00 <J_Levin> Does anyone know who runs this http://bitcoinstats.com/network/propagation/ and if the data is available?
1317 2014-04-12 20:51:54 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1318 2014-04-12 20:52:28 wallet42 has joined
1319 2014-04-12 20:52:30 <ProfMac> sipa: thanks.
1320 2014-04-12 20:52:34 <hno> Pools also need to consider reputation, and everyone mining also keep in mind the viability of the network as it's all in our interest that bigcoin surives and does well.
1321 2014-04-12 20:52:35 <gmaxwell> it's cdecker's work, and they should make it available if you request it.
1322 2014-04-12 20:52:39 <gmaxwell> If they don't let me know.
1323 2014-04-12 20:52:47 <hno> bitcoin.
1324 2014-04-12 20:53:04 <hno> J_Levin ^
1325 2014-04-12 20:53:26 pierreat1ork has joined
1326 2014-04-12 20:53:26 pierreatwork has joined
1327 2014-04-12 20:54:14 <hno> J_Levin, from a coin generation perspectove alone there is nothing that stops us from mining coinbase transaction only. But if we did that then bitcoin would not work, and it would be meaningless for us to mine in the long run.
1328 2014-04-12 20:55:13 <ProfMac> Can a 51% attack go back 2016 blocks, mine an alternate valid chain for a long time, and catastrophically gain control when their now long chain becomes the highest difficulty?
1329 2014-04-12 20:55:41 <sipa> ProfMac: that's a 51% attack
1330 2014-04-12 20:55:51 <sipa> it allows rewriting the chain (with valid blocks)
1331 2014-04-12 20:56:22 <J_Levin> thanks hno, one thing that I also thought about was are there punishment strategies available to prevent such behaviour. Could pools with significant hashing power refuse to mine on top of 0 transaction blocks?
1332 2014-04-12 20:56:33 <ProfMac> neglecting checkpoints, can it go back as far as it has computation resources to succeed with?
1333 2014-04-12 20:56:48 <sipa> ProfMac: which is to the genesis block, yes
1334 2014-04-12 20:56:57 <sipa> J_Levin: they can shun them, but not refuse
1335 2014-04-12 20:57:14 <ProfMac> Thanks.
1336 2014-04-12 20:57:21 <sipa> J_Levin: refusing would cause a fork, unless a majority of the hashpower would decide to implement such a rule (which turns it into a softforking change)
1337 2014-04-12 20:57:46 <hno> J_Levin, perhaps, but 0 transaction block happens every now and then today by how pools operate. There is a small window after a block is found until the pool have learnt what transactions to include.
1338 2014-04-12 20:58:29 joesmoe has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1339 2014-04-12 20:59:10 <cbeams> how can a block be "found" (solved?) without any transactions?
1340 2014-04-12 20:59:17 <hno> we did mine one such block some time ago.
1341 2014-04-12 20:59:20 <cbeams> and in any case, wouldn't any block have at least a generation transaction?
1342 2014-04-12 20:59:47 <sipa> yes, they means blocks with only a coinbase
1343 2014-04-12 20:59:49 <hno> cbeams, sure, the coinbase generation transaction is always there. That is inserted by the pool.
1344 2014-04-12 21:00:27 <J_Levin> sipa, the interesting thing for me here is that say a miner had 30% of the network hashpower and made a statement about how they would shun blocks with 0 transactions in. Then the other 70% of the hashpower would have to make an assessment whether over 50% had adopted the same strategy. There need not be explicit rule making to move to this new equilibrium
1345 2014-04-12 21:01:25 <cbeams> interesting. I was actually just wondering about this anyway: so a miner (or pooL) creates a new block with nothing more than its coinbase, and then the block gets solved before any transactions have had a chance to be added to it?
1346 2014-04-12 21:01:52 <sipa> J_Levin: not if it's just shunning (shunning means you allow such blocks still, but prefer newer blocks with the same work if they have more transactions than just the coinbase)
1347 2014-04-12 21:01:53 <hno> J_Levin, that might indeed happen if some large miner for some strange reason routinely starts to mine empty blocks. But the likelyhood for that happening is imho below 0.
1348 2014-04-12 21:02:24 <hno> not counting operational error.
1349 2014-04-12 21:02:39 <J_Levin> hno, glad to hear it!
1350 2014-04-12 21:03:04 ericmuyser has joined
1351 2014-04-12 21:03:24 <J_Levin> sipa, is refusing not in the strategy set?
1352 2014-04-12 21:03:29 hanti is now known as HANTI
1353 2014-04-12 21:03:34 <hno> Why not routinely mine empty blocks:
1354 2014-04-12 21:04:04 <hno> - Mining empty blocks undermines your reputation, meaning less hashrate wants to use the pool.
1355 2014-04-12 21:04:18 <sipa> J_Levin: only if you know a majority of the hashrate does implement the same rule
1356 2014-04-12 21:04:53 non2 has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1357 2014-04-12 21:04:59 roboaunt has joined
1358 2014-04-12 21:05:15 <hno> - Mining empty blocks undermines the bitcoin network as such, greatly risking the bitcoin value. Miners want value to be stable and increasing. Not unreliable and decreasing.
1359 2014-04-12 21:05:29 banghouse has joined
1360 2014-04-12 21:05:44 paveljanik has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1361 2014-04-12 21:06:37 <J_Levin> Sorry to keep pushing this but it is really useful for my understanding. Is this only due to the economically rational strategy is to mine on the longest chain? My understanding is that the information about what strategies miners are pursuing are private
1362 2014-04-12 21:07:30 <sipa> J_Levin: if you implement a stronger validity rule than the majority of the network, you will end up on your own chain, as you'll refuse the one the rest builds
1363 2014-04-12 21:07:33 <midnightmagic> cbeams: They mean non-coinbase tx. But it is possible to have a generation transaction that pays less than the reward.
1364 2014-04-12 21:07:38 <sipa> J_Levin: which means an irreconsilable fork
1365 2014-04-12 21:08:00 <J_Levin> thanks sipa
1366 2014-04-12 21:08:04 <topynate> hno: it's a prisoner's dilemma situation. so long as the other miners carry on putting txs in blocks, you can cheat by mining empty blocks without seriously affecting the price
1367 2014-04-12 21:08:41 <topynate> or rather your gain due to cheating might outweigh the harm you do. so tragedy of the commons, rather than PD, i guess
1368 2014-04-12 21:08:48 Application has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1369 2014-04-12 21:09:21 <ProfMac> Does the transaction fee, in principle, put pressure against just that behavior?
1370 2014-04-12 21:09:45 rdbell has joined
1371 2014-04-12 21:10:01 banghouse has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1372 2014-04-12 21:10:05 <hno> cbeams, yes, pools can start mine on a new block as soon as it hears about the previous block. There is then a slight delay before it receives a list of transactions to include in the block. This is from an slightly asymmetric path in how pools get block information.
1373 2014-04-12 21:10:30 ericmuyser has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1374 2014-04-12 21:10:43 <hno> ProfMac, yes the transaction fees also put pressure agains such behavior.
1375 2014-04-12 21:10:45 <topynate> ProfMac: yes, there has to be a fee per kilobyte that makes it profitable to include a transaction.
1376 2014-04-12 21:11:04 <sipa> ProfMac: no
1377 2014-04-12 21:11:26 <sipa> ProfMac: because if you refuse a transaction, and a competitor miner includes it, you still have to do the work of validating it
1378 2014-04-12 21:11:38 <J_Levin> topynate, it gets slightly stranger when you consider the other participants that you are affecting when you include another transaction. The people that hear about a very big block are in a relatively strong position for the next block given the large block gets accepted. The miners that hear about the big block late due to its size are at a relative disadvantage for the next block.
1379 2014-04-12 21:11:56 <sipa> ProfMac: eh, i didn't answer your actual question
1380 2014-04-12 21:12:04 <sipa> ProfMac: assuming a limit block space and competition for it, yes
1381 2014-04-12 21:14:35 Coincidental has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1382 2014-04-12 21:15:39 bbbrian has joined
1383 2014-04-12 21:15:50 Zifre_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1384 2014-04-12 21:16:20 <hno> J_Levin, that's very marginal I think. The disadvantage is more at the slower propagating block than the miners.
1385 2014-04-12 21:17:06 <hno> the slower a block propagates the higher risk of it getting forked. But from perspective of each miner the risk is much lower.
1386 2014-04-12 21:17:31 <hno> as each miners hash rate is small in relation to the whole network.
1387 2014-04-12 21:17:36 <rnicoll> for anyone interested, Dogecoin 1.7 beta (which is our Bitcoin 0.9-based release) just went out. http://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/22vnkk/dogecoin_17_beta_1_very_fix_much_test_so/
1388 2014-04-12 21:17:54 <ProfMac> I usually ask about pathological cases, because I think I learn faster from them.  If a 51% group mines the 2016th block after a long delay, and mines the next 2016 blocks at lower difficulty, then continues mining so that the total of all the difficulties finally exceeds the 49% chain, do they gain control?
1389 2014-04-12 21:18:14 non2 has joined
1390 2014-04-12 21:18:30 <sipa> ProfMac: yes
1391 2014-04-12 21:18:32 <hno> ProfMac, there is no need for 2016 blocks.
1392 2014-04-12 21:18:36 ericmuyser has joined
1393 2014-04-12 21:18:40 <sipa> the 2016 blocks is irrelevant
1394 2014-04-12 21:18:45 <J_Levin> hno, please explain "from the perspective of each miner the risk is much lower"
1395 2014-04-12 21:18:51 <sipa> if you have more hashrate, you will eventually pass the rest
1396 2014-04-12 21:19:37 Application has joined
1397 2014-04-12 21:19:50 <hno> J_Levin, the one announcing a block competes with all the other hashpower of the network to get their block accepted, and wants everyone to see their block as quicly as possible.
1398 2014-04-12 21:20:02 <ProfMac> hno, sipa: I agree, just making the example more tight than necessary, to pre-trim the conversation.
1399 2014-04-12 21:20:03 <hno> A miner that sees a block late only impacts with his own hash rate.
1400 2014-04-12 21:21:08 <J_Levin> hno, would they not want only 50% to see it quickly and the other 50% to see it more slowly? Sorry I am coming off as a big skeptic but just really trying to get my head around the incentives
1401 2014-04-12 21:21:09 <hno> so chances of him creating a fork from seeing a block late is less than the risk for the first block to get forked by the network.
1402 2014-04-12 21:22:19 <hno> ProfMac, the attack only needs to go for as many blocks as merchants consider as requirement for validating a transaction.
1403 2014-04-12 21:22:22 <J_Levin> hno, ok I get what you are saying.
1404 2014-04-12 21:23:53 nickler has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1405 2014-04-12 21:24:03 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1406 2014-04-12 21:25:32 <hno> ProfMac, are you trying to elaborate some scheme that involves difficulty manipulation in a fork and trying to gain benefit from that? The work requirement should stop that I think.
1407 2014-04-12 21:25:44 austinhill has joined
1408 2014-04-12 21:25:56 nickler has joined
1409 2014-04-12 21:26:11 <cbeams> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_hashing_algorithm explains that the Time field in the block header is updated "every few seconds". What component in the system is responsible for managing/broadcasting these updates? And are they actually as imprecise as "every few seconds"?
1410 2014-04-12 21:27:09 <hno> cbeams, everyone basically. bitcoind sets it when it tells pools. Pools sets it when it tells miners. miners sets it when it makes work items.
1411 2014-04-12 21:27:19 MiningBuddy has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1412 2014-04-12 21:28:04 <hno> cbeams, there is always a quite large span of block times mined at any point in time.
1413 2014-04-12 21:28:05 <ProfMac> hno:  my actual project is considered off-topic by some, not all.  There is a vulnerability when many miners bring the difficulty high, then quit mining during the next 2016, and the validation times become excessive.  I trying to think about how to prevent, and how to repair, such an event.
1414 2014-04-12 21:28:47 Application has joined
1415 2014-04-12 21:29:33 <hno> ProfMac, the same criterias as above makes sure that miners have no interest in trying that game.
1416 2014-04-12 21:29:55 dkog has joined
1417 2014-04-12 21:30:11 austinhill has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1418 2014-04-12 21:30:21 <cbeams> thanks, @hno. is it typical, then, for a miner to update the Time value when accepting and adding a new transaction to the block currently being solved?
1419 2014-04-12 21:30:21 <hno> unless they are into mining solely for the purpose of destroying the network.
1420 2014-04-12 21:30:25 <gmaxwell> ProfMac: That really is offtopic here.  Many people do not consider that a vulnerability, 'fixing' it in advance reduces security to things like isolation which are more serious concerns (because if the network is ever stranded there are worse problems and it could be fixed manually if it were bad enough and the community agreed), and this channel really isn't for speculation about non-nearterm stuff.
1421 2014-04-12 21:30:47 <hno> cbeams, even stratum miners not at all touching the transactions update the block time.
1422 2014-04-12 21:32:04 <ProfMac> gmaxwell:  yes.  I am trying to stay under the radar by being focused on actual behavior and source code questions.
1423 2014-04-12 21:33:12 MiningBuddy has joined
1424 2014-04-12 21:36:05 <hno> ProfMac, the economics of mining makes it very very unlikely for such large proportion of the mining power wanting to destroy the network. I do not see it realistic to see more than 30% of the mining power to suddenly drop out (two or tree of the bigger players suddenly becoming unable to mine for whatever reason). The remaining power is still quite sufficient to keep the network running at a good (even if not perfect) rate until difficulty adjusts.
1425 2014-04-12 21:36:53 <cbeams> hno, what are the factors that determine when block time gets updated? Thus far in the conversation, it sounds as if it is entirely at the discretion of the pool or individual miner. Are there not tradeoffs that dictate the frequency of these updates?
1426 2014-04-12 21:37:00 haqe17 has quit (Quit: NNnNNnnNnN)
1427 2014-04-12 21:37:24 <hno> cbeams, there is no tradeoffs. Only needs to be kept fairly consistent.
1428 2014-04-12 21:37:54 <hno> The cost of uptading it on every single work mined is marginal.
1429 2014-04-12 21:38:08 <ProfMac> hno: yes.  As you have deduced and gmaxwell has mentioned, going further in this direction is off-topic.  I'm willing to chat in some (new) channel, but I want to remain welcome here.
1430 2014-04-12 21:38:09 <hno> work == block header.
1431 2014-04-12 21:38:40 ericmuys_ has joined
1432 2014-04-12 21:39:06 <gmaxwell> ProfMac: thanks for being sensitive to that. Your source code questions have been fine IMO. (not that people always have time to answer…)
1433 2014-04-12 21:40:49 <cbeams> hno (and others), many thanks for the answers.
1434 2014-04-12 21:41:16 <gmaxwell> cbeams: since every hashing attempt is independant, and so there is no real inherent cost in updating the time... some hardware may add some very slight overheades, e.g. if it foolishly requires flushing the pipeline, but none are significant or inherent.
1435 2014-04-12 21:43:25 <cbeams> gmaxwell, right--it was actually my initial assumption that block time would be updated per hash attempt, but then seeing the "every few seconds" text on the wiki threw me off. That would obviously be much less frequent than every attempt.
1436 2014-04-12 21:43:57 <hno> with asic miners the block time gets updated per block header, not per hashing attempt. Each block header lasts for some seconds.
1437 2014-04-12 21:44:49 <hno> and each miner processes a large amount of block headers in parallell.
1438 2014-04-12 21:49:16 nova90 has joined
1439 2014-04-12 21:52:03 nova907767 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1440 2014-04-12 21:52:40 sserrano44 has joined
1441 2014-04-12 21:53:05 danielpbarron has quit (Quit: Jesus Caused 9/11 http://atruechurch.info/)
1442 2014-04-12 21:55:24 JackH has quit (Quit: JackH)
1443 2014-04-12 21:55:43 <shesek> can someone help me confirm this is properly uniformly distributed? https://gist.github.com/shesek/e23252cc5973a44fa236
1444 2014-04-12 21:56:16 Guyver2 has quit (Quit: :))
1445 2014-04-12 21:56:36 J_Levin has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1446 2014-04-12 22:01:14 <sipa> shesek: looks good to me
1447 2014-04-12 22:01:18 viajero has joined
1448 2014-04-12 22:01:53 eculver has quit (Quit: leaving)
1449 2014-04-12 22:03:16 skinnkavaj has joined
1450 2014-04-12 22:03:38 brson has joined
1451 2014-04-12 22:08:50 <shesek> sipa, thanks
1452 2014-04-12 22:10:48 Cray-on- has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1453 2014-04-12 22:11:13 brady2600 has left ()
1454 2014-04-12 22:11:25 grau has joined
1455 2014-04-12 22:12:47 sserrano44 has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1456 2014-04-12 22:12:58 dkog has quit (Quit: dkog)
1457 2014-04-12 22:13:29 <sipa> if not for that pesky copyright notice, my latest pullreq would actually reduce the number of lines of code!
1458 2014-04-12 22:13:51 cbeams has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1459 2014-04-12 22:15:44 Cray-on- has joined
1460 2014-04-12 22:15:46 grau has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1461 2014-04-12 22:18:39 <warren> "You attempted to reach en.bitcoin.it, but instead you actually reached a server identifying itself as ssl6751.cloudflare.com. This may be caused by a misconfiguration on the server or by something more serious. An attacker on your network could be trying to get you to visit a fake (and potentially harmful) version of en.bitcoin.it."
1462 2014-04-12 22:18:43 <warren> oops
1463 2014-04-12 22:18:45 <warren> wrong channel
1464 2014-04-12 22:19:46 phoenix52 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1465 2014-04-12 22:20:23 dude32 has joined
1466 2014-04-12 22:20:26 phantomspark has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1467 2014-04-12 22:21:01 cbr has joined
1468 2014-04-12 22:23:03 davispuh has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1469 2014-04-12 22:23:20 <gmaxwell> shesek: to convince yourself of that— since your input space is so small: e.g. in python set(Counter([math.floor(x/40) for x in range(65536) if not x>=1626*40]).values()) ... assuming that random(2) is uniform bytes.
1470 2014-04-12 22:23:43 grau has joined
1471 2014-04-12 22:26:07 dkog has joined
1472 2014-04-12 22:26:56 danielpbarron has joined
1473 2014-04-12 22:31:33 <shesek> gmaxwell, I ended up switching to a word list which is a power of 2, which makes this easier... no random values can bias the result, so no need to discard anything
1474 2014-04-12 22:32:12 viajero has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1475 2014-04-12 22:32:32 nullAnon has quit (Quit: leaving)
1476 2014-04-12 22:32:39 viajero has joined
1477 2014-04-12 22:32:50 lclc has joined
1478 2014-04-12 22:34:24 brson has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1479 2014-04-12 22:35:39 gingpark has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1480 2014-04-12 22:35:41 kenrestivo has left ()
1481 2014-04-12 22:35:42 roconnor has joined
1482 2014-04-12 22:36:40 skinnkavaj has quit ()
1483 2014-04-12 22:37:43 Raziel has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1484 2014-04-12 22:38:00 pierreat1ork has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1485 2014-04-12 22:38:25 pierreatwork has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1486 2014-04-12 22:40:02 random_cat_ has joined
1487 2014-04-12 22:42:03 random_cat has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1488 2014-04-12 22:47:13 djcoin_ has joined
1489 2014-04-12 22:50:48 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1490 2014-04-12 22:52:43 lclc has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1491 2014-04-12 22:53:09 <GAit> does anyone know if google is going to fix android openssl in 4.1.1 ?
1492 2014-04-12 22:53:58 <GAit> or is that actually a manufacturer/distributor issue?
1493 2014-04-12 22:55:02 <warren> how is this relevant to #bitcoin-dev ?
1494 2014-04-12 22:55:54 Chief_Panda has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1495 2014-04-12 22:55:59 <GAit> it's not, sorry, not directly anyway, I was reading the update on Bitcoin Wallet (on Android) and noticed the warning
1496 2014-04-12 22:56:48 <warren> can't bitcoin wallet disable parts that expose openssl?
1497 2014-04-12 22:56:59 <GAit> yeah the exchange rate
1498 2014-04-12 22:57:04 <warren> Bitcoin Core 0.8.x wasn't exposed even with the insecure openssl if you had RPC SSL disabled.
1499 2014-04-12 22:57:04 <GAit> and it does
1500 2014-04-12 22:57:07 <warren> ahh ok
1501 2014-04-12 22:57:15 <GAit> at least in the update
1502 2014-04-12 22:57:51 <sipa> warren: heh?
1503 2014-04-12 22:57:52 <GAit> disabled for 4.1.1 as any wifi or server could potentially attack you if I understood correctly
1504 2014-04-12 22:58:53 <GAit> I just can't believe so many people are going to stay exposed with the bug
1505 2014-04-12 22:59:13 <warren> sipa: ?
1506 2014-04-12 22:59:24 <sipa> warren: how was 0.8 not exposed?
1507 2014-04-12 22:59:36 <warren> sipa: RPC SSL was the only way it was exposed
1508 2014-04-12 22:59:45 <sipa> warren: yes i know
1509 2014-04-12 22:59:57 <sipa> warren: oh, i misread!
1510 2014-04-12 23:00:16 <sipa> warren: i thought you said "even with rpc ssl enabled"
1511 2014-04-12 23:00:42 rdbell has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1512 2014-04-12 23:01:30 rdbell has joined
1513 2014-04-12 23:04:01 <GAit> aschildbach: if I wanted to implement the same NFC transaction scheme you used in the Android Wallet, should I just look in github in the source or is there some document?
1514 2014-04-12 23:05:20 <GAit> perhaps there's a BIP which I missed
1515 2014-04-12 23:06:27 banghouse has joined
1516 2014-04-12 23:07:32 zzyzx has joined
1517 2014-04-12 23:09:04 Chief_Panda has joined
1518 2014-04-12 23:10:04 roidster has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1519 2014-04-12 23:10:10 zzyzx is now known as roidster
1520 2014-04-12 23:10:27 McKay has left ()
1521 2014-04-12 23:10:48 roidster is now known as Guest29316
1522 2014-04-12 23:11:01 banghouse has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1523 2014-04-12 23:12:26 austinhill has joined
1524 2014-04-12 23:16:56 <shesek> in BIP39, doesn't the use of a checksum makes "Described method also provides plausible deniability, because every passphrase generates a valid seed" incorrect?
1525 2014-04-12 23:17:57 mortale has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1526 2014-04-12 23:18:53 ericmuyser has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1527 2014-04-12 23:19:05 <sipa> shesek: yes, which is sad
1528 2014-04-12 23:19:21 mortale has joined
1529 2014-04-12 23:19:41 <sipa> they "fix" that by making the checksum optional
1530 2014-04-12 23:19:52 <shesek> o_O
1531 2014-04-12 23:20:07 <shesek> its quite odd, its right in the paragraph before that
1532 2014-04-12 23:20:27 sbrossie has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1533 2014-04-12 23:20:28 <shesek> one paragraph ends with "software must compute checksum of the mnemonic sentence using wordlist and issue a warning if it is invalid.", and the one after that stars with "Described method also provides plausible deniability, because every passphrase generates a valid seed"
1534 2014-04-12 23:20:54 [\\\] is now known as imsaguy
1535 2014-04-12 23:21:30 imsaguy is now known as [\\\]
1536 2014-04-12 23:22:36 <shesek> what does the BIP specify exactly when the checksum isn't used? just a way to generate the mnemonic from a byte stream?
1537 2014-04-12 23:24:09 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1538 2014-04-12 23:24:10 Starduster has quit (Quit: gotta go)
1539 2014-04-12 23:26:26 c0rw1n is now known as c0rw|sleep
1540 2014-04-12 23:29:34 <sipa> yes
1541 2014-04-12 23:29:43 <sipa> and that's the sad part
1542 2014-04-12 23:30:54 austinhill has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1543 2014-04-12 23:32:36 <shesek> sipa, do you feel like there's any point in implementing that?
1544 2014-04-12 23:32:58 <gmaxwell> It's uber yuck.
1545 2014-04-12 23:33:02 saulimus has quit (Quit: saulimus)
1546 2014-04-12 23:33:25 <shesek> the checksum doesn't really add any value in my case, and there are easier ways to generate random words
1547 2014-04-12 23:33:39 <sipa> either it is a mnemonic system with checksumming, but it requires a hardcoded wordlist
1548 2014-04-12 23:33:52 cadaver has joined
1549 2014-04-12 23:33:56 <sipa> or it is a drop dead brainwallet system
1550 2014-04-12 23:34:10 <sipa> and implememtations can choose between them
1551 2014-04-12 23:35:34 Applicat_ has joined
1552 2014-04-12 23:35:35 <GAit> we use the former.
1553 2014-04-12 23:35:53 <gmaxwell> You hope. :P
1554 2014-04-12 23:36:28 <shesek> the way the mnemonic is used to derive the seed does imply the former
1555 2014-04-12 23:36:40 <GAit> yes. hope, but it takes some work :)
1556 2014-04-12 23:36:52 <shesek> this whole BIP makes no sense - "there are no constraints on sentence structure and clients are free to implement their own wordlists or even whole sentence generators"
1557 2014-04-12 23:37:32 <shesek> this doesn't work well at all with the checksumming and doesn't really standardize anything
1558 2014-04-12 23:37:44 <sipa> you're not the first one to notice
1559 2014-04-12 23:38:24 <GAit> has there been any suggestion/improvement of notice on the BIP?
1560 2014-04-12 23:38:36 <sipa> many discussions on the mailing list
1561 2014-04-12 23:38:48 <sipa> several alternatives
1562 2014-04-12 23:38:58 <sipa> but people want one standard
1563 2014-04-12 23:39:16 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1564 2014-04-12 23:39:37 jordandotdev has quit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
1565 2014-04-12 23:39:55 <sipa> maybe i should make a bip out of https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102349.0, and implement that in bitcoin core
1566 2014-04-12 23:40:34 <sipa> (it has free structure and wordlists, adaptive security, and is not usable for brainwallets)
1567 2014-04-12 23:41:20 rdbell has quit (Quit: rdbell)
1568 2014-04-12 23:41:30 phantomspark has joined
1569 2014-04-12 23:42:44 viajero has quit (Quit: viajero)
1570 2014-04-12 23:44:08 cagedwisdom_ has joined
1571 2014-04-12 23:45:25 <GAit> sipa: it's very interesting, i had not seen it before. it's good it's hard to come up with brainwallets for it. In which case, is the salt necessary assuming people will have to use random data and not brainwallets/passwords?
1572 2014-04-12 23:45:57 cagedwisdom_ has quit (Client Quit)
1573 2014-04-12 23:46:16 cagedwisdom has joined
1574 2014-04-12 23:46:40 <gmaxwell> GAit: no, but sometimes one is trivially available... and can be helpful e.g. adding additional protection if the user reuses the same key elsewhere.
1575 2014-04-12 23:47:46 <GAit> I'd be happy to swap over if it becomes a BIP
1576 2014-04-12 23:48:14 maaku has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1577 2014-04-12 23:48:57 rdbell has joined
1578 2014-04-12 23:49:01 cbr_ has joined
1579 2014-04-12 23:50:55 maaku has joined
1580 2014-04-12 23:51:06 cbr has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1581 2014-04-12 23:51:18 maaku is now known as Guest75548
1582 2014-04-12 23:51:28 hmmma has joined
1583 2014-04-12 23:52:05 <GAit> gmaxwell: do you think apps should offer 128 and more or just 128 bit of entropy for mnemonics? I think the trezor has a slider
1584 2014-04-12 23:52:38 <GAit> secure, extremely secure, paranoia
1585 2014-04-12 23:54:40 <gmaxwell> I don't know that something like that provides a lot of value, simply because the 128 bit level appears adequate given what we know (and if it's not, 256 may not be in any case), and much below 128 is not adequate given what we know.  Sometimes it can be useful to provide choices that don't really matter which help people feel comfortable and in control, but I don't know that the tradeoff is free here, since increased length increases ...
1586 2014-04-12 23:54:46 <gmaxwell> ... the chance of losing it somewhat.
1587 2014-04-12 23:55:15 <GAit> not only that, it's an extra step for the user
1588 2014-04-12 23:55:35 <GAit> and they don't know which one they should use
1589 2014-04-12 23:55:53 <GAit> I'd pick the most secure if we're talking about money
1590 2014-04-12 23:57:37 <gmaxwell> in my mind the user is bounded rational, they want to make good decisions but they have very limited time to learn and consider their options. So you want to give them only the most meaningful choices to spend their time wisely, and in the rest do your best to act in their place, making the choice you believe they would have made if they had as much time as you to study the questions.
1591 2014-04-12 23:58:00 Guest75548 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)