1 2011-06-28 00:00:02 <kunnis> Code 128... so underappricated.
2 2011-06-28 00:00:44 <kunnis> it's the bastard of symbologies. It's much better then 3of9, but too few people use it.
3 2011-06-28 00:00:53 <kunnis> everyone uses 3/9
4 2011-06-28 00:01:23 <kunnis> but 3/9 sucks and has scan problems... yeah, it's a small odds, but you try doing inventory on 10,000+ items...
5 2011-06-28 00:01:58 <kunnis> MOre then you wanted?
6 2011-06-28 00:02:33 <Zarutian> kunnis: wasnt 3/9 chosen due to how simple the barcoder readers could be for it?
7 2011-06-28 00:02:58 <kunnis> Yes... then 5 years later code 128 came out (mid-80's I think)
8 2011-06-28 00:03:25 <kunnis> yet everyone still uses the uber crappy 3/9, even though every barcode reader since 1990 can read it.
9 2011-06-28 00:04:02 <Zarutian> fascinating
10 2011-06-28 00:04:04 <kunnis> Plus most barcode readers now a day are 2d barcode readers, the extra complexity is no problem.
11 2011-06-28 00:04:19 <kunnis> reading aztec is much harder then code 128
12 2011-06-28 00:05:05 <kunnis> or the PDF---something I never remmember the number---- barcode that Fedex uses. Most 2d scanners are built to read that and the UPS one.
13 2011-06-28 00:05:26 <kunnis> they are high-density and have a lot of error correction.
14 2011-06-28 00:05:53 <kunnis> As I said, I work with barcodes a bit.
15 2011-06-28 00:06:57 <Zarutian> to crashly switch context: I am speculating how one would go about making a sequentail&combinatorical boolean circuit that can verify txns and tally up the btc's transfered to a spefic bitcoin address.
16 2011-06-28 00:07:58 <kunnis> Use a database of some form, and query the data out?
17 2011-06-28 00:11:06 <Zarutian> kunnis: I was thinking more of what boolean circuit components a bitcoin txn verifier would need and how one can specify them from simpler logic gates.
18 2011-06-28 00:37:48 <Glasswalker> Hey, so I'm working on a frontend/gui app for windows to make managing your wallet easy when running remotely over JSON-RPC. But I have a couple questions.
19 2011-06-28 00:38:09 <Glasswalker> Up until this point I have only been doing "passive" parts of the UI. Now I'm getting into transaction creation. So I obviously want to work on testnet
20 2011-06-28 00:38:37 <Glasswalker> If I toggle my current bitcoind server running on my dedicated server (on linux) to testnet in bitcoin.conf will it affect my current wallet?
21 2011-06-28 00:38:52 <Nesetalis> i was just commenting in #bitcoin, some weirdness in my client.. no idea where i got 1 bitcent from... the 'category' is Generate... but i'm not generating, and anyway, its a single bit cent, not ~50 coins
22 2011-06-28 00:39:08 <Glasswalker> Or do I need to setup a different bitcoin altogether to do dev on (actually might not be a bad idea anyway)
23 2011-06-28 00:39:29 <Glasswalker> Also next question, in testnet, how do I go about getting some "test" bitcoins to use for transaction tests?
24 2011-06-28 00:39:59 <Glasswalker> Lastly, if I create 2 payment addresses, can I send from one to the other? (to do test transactions) or do I need 2 completely different wallets to send between?
25 2011-06-28 00:43:21 <luke-jr> Glasswalker: you know that already exists?
26 2011-06-28 00:43:46 <Glasswalker> luke-jr: it does?
27 2011-06-28 00:44:04 <luke-jr> Glasswalker: Spesmilo
28 2011-06-28 00:44:27 <Glasswalker> Oh right, yeah tried it. #1, had a hard time getting it working, #2, I was not all that impressed with the interface, or it's features
29 2011-06-28 00:45:03 <Glasswalker> I'm hoping to improve on that design a bit ;)
30 2011-06-28 00:45:18 <luke-jr> patches welcome
31 2011-06-28 00:46:18 <Nesetalis> anyway... why did i just randomly generate 0.01 BTC? :p
32 2011-06-28 00:46:27 <Glasswalker> Lol Fair enough luke-jr :)
33 2011-06-28 00:46:40 <Glasswalker> I would offer patches to yours, but I'm not a big python coder.
34 2011-06-28 00:46:46 <Glasswalker> I'm more comfortable in .Net these days
35 2011-06-28 00:46:53 <luke-jr> oh well
36 2011-06-28 00:46:59 <Glasswalker> Also it's a fun challenge to build one up
37 2011-06-28 00:46:59 <Nesetalis> escape the MS, come to python, it loves you :O
38 2011-06-28 00:47:02 <luke-jr> I don't use Microsoft garbage.
39 2011-06-28 00:47:10 <luke-jr> trust me, JSON-RPC is not fun
40 2011-06-28 00:47:16 <Nesetalis> and the mono guys are almost as bad.
41 2011-06-28 00:47:25 <Glasswalker> lol yeah mono has had some drama lately
42 2011-06-28 00:47:29 <Nesetalis> mhm
43 2011-06-28 00:47:39 <Glasswalker> but .net is a slick platform, if it wasn't all horded IP by MS
44 2011-06-28 00:47:50 <phrontist> glasswalker: is it?
45 2011-06-28 00:48:03 <luke-jr> Glasswalker: no:P
46 2011-06-28 00:48:04 <phrontist> I just interviewed with a .NET shop
47 2011-06-28 00:48:21 <Glasswalker> I use .net because I'm required to for my job, and frankly I've come to love it. I can code in pretty much everything (including python if I wanted to take the time to try it out)
48 2011-06-28 00:48:27 <Glasswalker> but I really love the .net platform
49 2011-06-28 00:48:39 <phrontist> sell me on it
50 2011-06-28 00:48:40 <Glasswalker> the IDE is fantastic, and the .net framework makes so many things SO easy
51 2011-06-28 00:49:02 <Glasswalker> lol
52 2011-06-28 00:49:05 <phrontist> are we talking about userspace applications or web development or what?
53 2011-06-28 00:49:17 <Glasswalker> I personally do userspace dev in .net
54 2011-06-28 00:49:22 <Glasswalker> as well as embedded dev
55 2011-06-28 00:49:25 <phrontist> huh
56 2011-06-28 00:49:36 <phrontist> what hardware, for the embedded?
57 2011-06-28 00:49:48 <Glasswalker> I've been working on ARM chips, running the .net Micro framework
58 2011-06-28 00:50:12 <luke-jr> LOLOL
59 2011-06-28 00:50:37 <Glasswalker> luke-jr: why is that so funny?
60 2011-06-28 00:52:02 <Nesetalis> found it...
61 2011-06-28 00:52:06 <Nesetalis> can anyone explain what happened here? http://blockexplorer.com/address/16BUCUqsgQrg9VxLbSCPbDrD2eXLqmE9tM
62 2011-06-28 00:52:31 <JFK911> So if they put .net in ARM hardware like they did with java (jazz)
63 2011-06-28 00:52:37 <Optimo> Nesetalis are you mining in a pool?
64 2011-06-28 00:52:41 <JFK911> how will they deploy security service packs?
65 2011-06-28 00:52:43 <doublec> Nesetalis: someone generated a small amount of coins?
66 2011-06-28 00:52:50 <doublec> Nesetalis: probably the eligius pool
67 2011-06-28 00:52:52 <Nesetalis> yes i'm mining in a pool.
68 2011-06-28 00:52:57 <Nesetalis> BTCGuild
69 2011-06-28 00:53:04 <Optimo> that's your payoff, probably reached maturity after some time
70 2011-06-28 00:53:08 <Nesetalis> er
71 2011-06-28 00:53:14 <Nesetalis> the payout comes differently
72 2011-06-28 00:53:30 <conjre> is it coming to the wallet address you gave btcguild?
73 2011-06-28 00:53:36 <Optimo> then maybe you used another pool briefely
74 2011-06-28 00:53:51 <Glasswalker> JFK911: What do you mean security service packs? .net as a platform (at least since 3.5) hasn't had many "service packs" that have been for much more than added featureset or refinement of existing features.
75 2011-06-28 00:53:51 <Nesetalis> nope
76 2011-06-28 00:53:55 <Nesetalis> there is no 'from' address
77 2011-06-28 00:54:01 <Glasswalker> Yes MS is known for having to patch the hell out of their software
78 2011-06-28 00:54:02 <Nesetalis> and all the pools i get from, send it from them to me
79 2011-06-28 00:54:04 <conjre> ooo creepy
80 2011-06-28 00:54:14 <Nesetalis> the 'from' is 'generated'
81 2011-06-28 00:54:16 <Optimo> elligius is one that splits the bounty into separate generated ouputs
82 2011-06-28 00:54:27 <Glasswalker> but as a framework, .net is fairly solid.
83 2011-06-28 00:54:33 <Nesetalis> hm
84 2011-06-28 00:54:50 <Optimo> click on th tx list
85 2011-06-28 00:54:51 <Nesetalis> is there a way to check who found that block?
86 2011-06-28 00:54:54 <samlander> i'll take it over java any day of the week
87 2011-06-28 00:54:55 <Optimo> you can see it's many recipients
88 2011-06-28 00:54:57 <samlander> <3 c#
89 2011-06-28 00:55:23 <Glasswalker> Anyway, this is hardly the place to be discussing this. luke-jr: since you are one of the main devs on spesmilo, do you know how to use the testnet? (and to get bitcoins on it for testing).
90 2011-06-28 00:55:36 <Optimo> http://blockexplorer.com/t/3TYp99UY9R
91 2011-06-28 00:55:40 <luke-jr> same way you use mainnet
92 2011-06-28 00:55:58 <Glasswalker> luke-jr, so you need to mine them?
93 2011-06-28 00:56:06 <Glasswalker> or have someone send them to you?
94 2011-06-28 00:56:09 <luke-jr> yes
95 2011-06-28 00:56:12 <Glasswalker> ahh
96 2011-06-28 00:56:14 <Glasswalker> wierd
97 2011-06-28 00:57:05 <Glasswalker> Well testnet's difficulty is far lower
98 2011-06-28 00:57:20 <Glasswalker> so I should be able to mine some pretty quick if I point my miner at a local testnet connection for a bit
99 2011-06-28 00:57:25 <Glasswalker> Thanks!
100 2011-06-28 00:59:30 <JFK911> Glasswalker: there were a pile of security fixes for several .net verions on wu last tuesday
101 2011-06-28 00:59:50 <JFK911> had to ngen again, etc
102 2011-06-28 01:00:06 <Nesetalis> hey luke-jr, is there a way to see what blocks eligius has solved?
103 2011-06-28 01:00:40 <luke-jr> Nesetalis: my pages have json data, and artefact2 has some fancy graphs
104 2011-06-28 01:00:56 <Glasswalker> JFK911, Well hell, your right :) I apparently stand corrected
105 2011-06-28 01:00:59 <Glasswalker> lol
106 2011-06-28 01:01:37 <Glasswalker> Either way, .Net Micro is a very minimalist version of the framework, meant for control systems, robotics, or small embedded data gathering solutions things like that. Security is not a huge concern really.
107 2011-06-28 01:01:46 <Glasswalker> Provided you write your code with some level of sanity ;)
108 2011-06-28 01:03:18 <Nesetalis> ok it wasnt eligius
109 2011-06-28 01:04:51 <JFK911> Glasswalker: well industrial controls are getting a lot of security attention lately
110 2011-06-28 01:05:17 <conjre> ;;bc,help
111 2011-06-28 01:05:17 <gribble> Alias bc,24hprc, Alias bc,avgprc, Alias bc,bcm, Alias bc,blocks, Alias bc,btceur, Alias bc,btcgbp, Alias bc,btcguild, Alias bc,btcrub, Alias bc,btcto, Alias bc,calc, Alias bc,calcd, Alias bc,channels, Alias bc,convert, Alias bc,deepbit, Alias bc,diff, Alias bc,diffchange, Alias bc,eligius, Alias bc,estimate, Alias bc,fx, Alias bc,gen, Alias bc,gend, Alias bc,help, Alias bc,hextarget, Alias (1 more message)
112 2011-06-28 01:05:44 <JFK911> i think if you put .NET in a television set, maybe you need it to be secure because it might be running a conditional access routine
113 2011-06-28 01:07:52 <dubbz82> heh
114 2011-06-28 01:08:43 <luke-jr> Nesetalis: what was it?
115 2011-06-28 01:09:34 <Glasswalker> JFK911, : True, but a lot of that comes down to very large scale systems on RTOS. .Net Micro isn't targeting that space. Secondly, on the few smaller scale systems that would have concerns of that nature, the problem wouldn't be the framework, it would be the code.
116 2011-06-28 01:09:46 <Optimo> Nesetalis, maybe you had some work done as P-P-M and some as Proportional?
117 2011-06-28 01:09:54 <Glasswalker> Pathes to the framework would mostly be to provide additional safeguards to prevent programmers from doing something silly.
118 2011-06-28 01:10:22 <Nesetalis> this showed up in my wallet a few hours ago luke-jr http://blockexplorer.com/address/16BUCUqsgQrg9VxLbSCPbDrD2eXLqmE9tM
119 2011-06-28 01:10:29 <Optimo> and eligius, for example, if your balance is under 1.0 btc it waits a week to generate it
120 2011-06-28 01:10:41 <Nesetalis> and as far as I'm aware BTCGuild doesnt split generation the way eligius does
121 2011-06-28 01:10:46 <Glasswalker> It's MUCH easier to write insecure code in C or C++ than in .net and neither of those get security patches ;)
122 2011-06-28 01:11:00 <Nesetalis> and thats the only pool ive been mining in for the past 3 weeks
123 2011-06-28 01:11:51 <Optimo> the chnces of it being random address mixup is almost impossible, and the chances of you also being a miner is x bajillion
124 2011-06-28 01:12:41 <Diablo-D3> LOL
125 2011-06-28 01:12:42 <Diablo-D3> .net
126 2011-06-28 01:12:43 <Diablo-D3> bwhahahaha
127 2011-06-28 01:14:59 <dubbz82> Glasswalker, it's not all that hard to write insecure code in c#
128 2011-06-28 01:15:07 <dubbz82> though in vb, they physically disallow it.
129 2011-06-28 01:15:19 <dubbz82> C#, you just gotta go in and enable it...
130 2011-06-28 01:15:25 <theymos> Did you guys see this neat tx script? http://blockexplorer.com/testnet/t/d94WpjWLD This is apparently the first time a strange transaction has ever been redeemed anywhere (it killed testnet BBE for a long time due to a bug). The script is a clone of OP_CHECKMULTISIG.
131 2011-06-28 01:15:29 <dubbz82> though all it is, really, is use of pointers.
132 2011-06-28 01:15:35 <Glasswalker> dubbz82, : I didn't say it was impossible, just that it's MUCH easier to write insecure code in C/C++
133 2011-06-28 01:16:01 <dubbz82> ...define "MUCH" though
134 2011-06-28 01:16:12 <dubbz82> i can go in and enable it in c# in a matter of seconds.
135 2011-06-28 01:16:27 <Glasswalker> buffer overflows, poor string handling, bad memory management, use of pointers in general
136 2011-06-28 01:16:45 <Glasswalker> all those things are core in C/C++ if you do it wrong, it's insecure (and in some cases unstable)
137 2011-06-28 01:16:57 <dubbz82> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa288474(v=vs.71).aspx
138 2011-06-28 01:16:57 <Glasswalker> in C# you have to go out of your way to encounter *most* of that
139 2011-06-28 01:17:07 <dubbz82> just declare a class unsafe
140 2011-06-28 01:17:14 <dubbz82> and you can use pointers to your heart's content
141 2011-06-28 01:17:16 <dubbz82> lol
142 2011-06-28 01:17:21 <Glasswalker> right
143 2011-06-28 01:17:27 <Glasswalker> but you have to go out of your way to do it
144 2011-06-28 01:17:47 <Glasswalker> and simply being unsafe doesn't mean you loose all the advanced memory management, advanced string handling, and so on
145 2011-06-28 01:17:56 <Glasswalker> that are inherant to the language
146 2011-06-28 01:17:56 <Optimo> tiger hashes *;*
147 2011-06-28 01:18:04 <dubbz82> true
148 2011-06-28 01:18:06 <dubbz82> heh
149 2011-06-28 01:18:08 <Glasswalker> :)
150 2011-06-28 01:18:12 <Namegduf> Comparing C# and C/C++ on that point isn't really useful
151 2011-06-28 01:18:17 <dubbz82> yea
152 2011-06-28 01:18:18 <Namegduf> They're entirely different classes of language
153 2011-06-28 01:18:21 <Glasswalker> I agree
154 2011-06-28 01:18:27 <dubbz82> you CAN write the same sorta code in either
155 2011-06-28 01:18:34 <dubbz82> but it's always gonna be less efficient in c#
156 2011-06-28 01:18:34 <Namegduf> C/C++ is basically "cross platform assemply"
157 2011-06-28 01:18:41 <dubbz82> just because the goddamned framework
158 2011-06-28 01:18:42 <dubbz82> lol
159 2011-06-28 01:18:54 <dubbz82> that being said, c# has it's uses
160 2011-06-28 01:18:58 <Glasswalker> quite
161 2011-06-28 01:18:59 <dubbz82> such as GUI stuff :P
162 2011-06-28 01:19:01 <Namegduf> Most all language features have very straightforward mappings into assembly.
163 2011-06-28 01:19:02 <Glasswalker> that's all I argue
164 2011-06-28 01:19:11 <Glasswalker> I came from 15 years of C/C++ programming
165 2011-06-28 01:19:17 <pixglen> can some1 advise me on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/199 ?
166 2011-06-28 01:19:20 <Glasswalker> they have their purpose
167 2011-06-28 01:19:25 <Glasswalker> as does Assembly (shudder)
168 2011-06-28 01:19:27 <dubbz82> Namegduf, not c#, not vb, not .net c++, and not java.
169 2011-06-28 01:19:28 <dubbz82> lol
170 2011-06-28 01:19:41 <Namegduf> dubbz82: I was talking about C/C++
171 2011-06-28 01:19:42 <Namegduf> So, yeah
172 2011-06-28 01:19:53 <Glasswalker> and Java, Python, .Net and so on all have their uses
173 2011-06-28 01:19:55 <dubbz82> heh
174 2011-06-28 01:19:59 <dubbz82> that's two languages
175 2011-06-28 01:19:59 <Namegduf> If .NET C++ is more than C++ with a provided library, which wouldn't surprise me
176 2011-06-28 01:20:03 <Namegduf> Yes, it is.
177 2011-06-28 01:20:07 <dubbz82> out of all of the commonly used ones :P
178 2011-06-28 01:20:10 <Glasswalker> Hell I'm writing some neat largescale sever infrastructure in Go right now
179 2011-06-28 01:20:16 <Glasswalker> and it's got it's uses as well
180 2011-06-28 01:20:19 <Diablo-D3> .net c++ will scare the shit out of you
181 2011-06-28 01:20:25 <Glasswalker> lol
182 2011-06-28 01:20:26 <Diablo-D3> wait
183 2011-06-28 01:20:27 <dubbz82> namegduf, you can compile it without the .net framework
184 2011-06-28 01:20:29 <Diablo-D3> Im not being dragged into this.
185 2011-06-28 01:20:35 <Glasswalker> lmao
186 2011-06-28 01:20:40 <dubbz82> but it's still got it's uses for GUI hacking :P
187 2011-06-28 01:20:41 <Diablo-D3> .net sucks, and you fucking patent whores can shut the fuck up
188 2011-06-28 01:20:48 <Glasswalker> I never should have sed the damn words ".net" in an opensource channel ;)
189 2011-06-28 01:20:52 <Diablo-D3> this is a FOSS channel, go take your closed source FUD elsewhere
190 2011-06-28 01:20:53 <Glasswalker> now look what I've gone and done
191 2011-06-28 01:20:54 <dubbz82> heh
192 2011-06-28 01:21:07 <dubbz82> tbh, i do use the .net stuff
193 2011-06-28 01:21:08 <lfm> pixglen: what do you wan tto know about it?
194 2011-06-28 01:21:19 <dubbz82> just for the reason that it's easier to hack up stuff quickly
195 2011-06-28 01:21:28 <Glasswalker> I'm going to go back to rapidly throwing together a gui in my pretty, easy IDE (which wishes to remain nameless for it's own safety) ;)
196 2011-06-28 01:21:44 <dubbz82> yep.
197 2011-06-28 01:21:45 <dubbz82> lol
198 2011-06-28 01:22:05 <dubbz82> if im gonna c/c++, it's gonna either be done in code::blocks or notepad++
199 2011-06-28 01:22:18 <dubbz82> as for java....eclipse or die.
200 2011-06-28 01:22:37 <Namegduf> Anyways, it's reasonable to suggest a high level language with good safety features could have been used for a reference implementation of a financial application.
201 2011-06-28 01:23:00 <lfm> Namegduf: too late now
202 2011-06-28 01:23:08 <Namegduf> It is, yes.
203 2011-06-28 01:24:07 <cacheson> vim, bitches
204 2011-06-28 01:24:13 <dubbz82> heh
205 2011-06-28 01:24:29 <dubbz82> i'll take my syntax highlighting, kthnxbai
206 2011-06-28 01:24:52 <dubbz82> that and i perfer gedit on linux
207 2011-06-28 01:25:00 <cacheson> vim does syntax highlighting :P
208 2011-06-28 01:25:06 <lfm> editors are boring
209 2011-06-28 01:25:08 <dubbz82> and edit in windows......yes, edit still exists in even win7
210 2011-06-28 01:25:31 <cacheson> dubbz82: does win7 have gorilla.bas?
211 2011-06-28 01:25:42 <dubbz82> er...i think edit still exists in win7...
212 2011-06-28 01:25:44 <dubbz82> lol
213 2011-06-28 01:26:04 <Glasswalker> QuickBasic 7.1 FTW!
214 2011-06-28 01:26:06 <Glasswalker> lol
215 2011-06-28 01:26:11 <Glasswalker> sorry couldn't resist
216 2011-06-28 01:26:14 <dubbz82> heh
217 2011-06-28 01:26:25 <dubbz82> x86 assembly ftw?
218 2011-06-28 01:26:26 <dubbz82> X_X
219 2011-06-28 01:26:49 <dubbz82> actually i took a swing at assembly
220 2011-06-28 01:26:55 <dubbz82> and couldn't quite get the hang of it :/
221 2011-06-28 01:26:55 <lfm> dubbz82: but assembly in intel syntax or unix syntax?
222 2011-06-28 01:27:02 <dubbz82> intel
223 2011-06-28 01:27:07 <dubbz82> gotta write your own OS :P
224 2011-06-28 01:27:08 <Glasswalker> lol dude, back in the day, I remember writing simple dos utilities by opening debug, and hand entering hex.
225 2011-06-28 01:27:27 <Glasswalker> save file as .com and run
226 2011-06-28 01:27:28 <dubbz82> heh
227 2011-06-28 01:27:29 <pixglen> lfm: cdhowie says that: possibly including transactions you have already processed, if the latest block the last time you reconciled has since been orphaned
228 2011-06-28 01:27:35 <dubbz82> i still hex stuff from time to time
229 2011-06-28 01:27:39 <lfm> the was a cool assembler in dos debug actuallt
230 2011-06-28 01:27:46 <dubbz82> you gotta hex dreamcast games for example
231 2011-06-28 01:27:55 <pixglen> lfm: why would checking all txn since a block sometimes catch old txn's?
232 2011-06-28 01:27:56 <dubbz82> to take them from original discs
233 2011-06-28 01:27:58 <dubbz82> to make em bootable
234 2011-06-28 01:27:59 <dubbz82> :P
235 2011-06-28 01:28:26 <lfm> pix if the specified block was in a fork that was superceded
236 2011-06-28 01:28:27 <Glasswalker> dubbz82, but I'm not talking about editing hex, I mean hand writing a program entirely in hex. (as in directly in machine code)
237 2011-06-28 01:28:37 <dubbz82> hah
238 2011-06-28 01:28:40 <dubbz82> that's pretty hardcore
239 2011-06-28 01:28:50 <dubbz82> know some op codes then, eh?
240 2011-06-28 01:28:50 <Glasswalker> only tiny little tools of course
241 2011-06-28 01:28:51 <dubbz82> :D
242 2011-06-28 01:28:59 <pixglen> lfm: does that mean the txn itself is invalid, or just that it appears again?
243 2011-06-28 01:29:11 <Glasswalker> anything large I would write in actual assembly to make it readable lol
244 2011-06-28 01:29:16 <samlander> glasswalker i remember running hex programs on the comodore 64
245 2011-06-28 01:29:18 <pixglen> lfm: i'm assuming that txid's are globally unique right?
246 2011-06-28 01:29:20 <samlander> i'd spend hours entering hex
247 2011-06-28 01:29:27 <lfm> pixglen: either could happen
248 2011-06-28 01:29:41 <Glasswalker> I'm actually considering building my own PC
249 2011-06-28 01:29:43 <pixglen> lfm: ouch
250 2011-06-28 01:29:45 <Glasswalker> from scratch
251 2011-06-28 01:29:49 <samlander> except i didnt have the benefit of being able to save to disk.. i ran from ram
252 2011-06-28 01:29:52 <dubbz82> tbh, i'm still kinda a code noob
253 2011-06-28 01:29:53 <Glasswalker> including designing my own CPU, and writing an OS for it
254 2011-06-28 01:29:57 <Glasswalker> just to relive the glory days ;)
255 2011-06-28 01:29:58 <lfm> pixglen: normally the txn would appear again in another block
256 2011-06-28 01:30:06 <dubbz82> i didn't even know HTML till like 4 years ago
257 2011-06-28 01:30:07 <dubbz82> :P
258 2011-06-28 01:30:08 <samlander> microkernel
259 2011-06-28 01:30:15 <pixglen> lfm: how the heck do we sync up with a database then? ... is there any way of checking whether the txn became invalid?
260 2011-06-28 01:30:22 <Glasswalker> Or I could port Minix to it or something lol
261 2011-06-28 01:30:34 <lfm> pixglen: but if it was a "double spend" then it could be invalid
262 2011-06-28 01:31:07 <pixglen> lfm: if it is a double spend, does the txn come back but marked as invalid then?
263 2011-06-28 01:31:55 <lfm> no, you just have to regognize it is spending from the same input txn
264 2011-06-28 01:32:04 <pixglen> lfm: surely if the txn has a significant number of confirmations, it's practically as good as never being invalidated?
265 2011-06-28 01:32:29 <lfm> pixglen: ya forks should never be that long
266 2011-06-28 01:33:21 <lfm> pixglen: almost all forks are really just one block
267 2011-06-28 01:34:13 <BitcoinForNewegg> if I have a hash that is 0x0 and I release it after someone releases a valid block, does mine overpower thiers?
268 2011-06-28 01:34:50 <lfm> BitcoinForNewegg: there is already some txn you could claim
269 2011-06-28 01:35:50 <lfm> BitcoinForNewegg: but if someone else gets it first, no you wont be able to double spend them
270 2011-06-28 01:37:36 <pixglen> lfm: back to the original qn then, i might see a txn that I've seen b4 in a new block -- what exactly does this "seen again txn" represent?
271 2011-06-28 01:38:11 <BitcoinForNewegg> could I send someone 1000 coins knowing I have 3 blocks calculated
272 2011-06-28 01:38:26 <BitcoinForNewegg> and the second they give me the money after 1 confirmation undo the trade
273 2011-06-28 01:38:37 <lfm> if it is exactly the same txn then it is just a reconfirmation of the txn for that fork so such a txn would be valid in both forks
274 2011-06-28 01:39:08 <BitcoinForNewegg> i calculate 3 blocks without the transaction starting from the blockchain before the transaction
275 2011-06-28 01:39:24 <BitcoinForNewegg> and send the coins to my other address in one of the blocks
276 2011-06-28 01:39:53 <pixglen> lfm: ok ... if i were using the proposed listsinceblock to replay confirmed txn's into another database, i won't miss anything or double anything if I silently dropped any dup txn since the last block checked?
277 2011-06-28 01:40:18 <BitcoinForNewegg> ok let me start over
278 2011-06-28 01:40:31 <BitcoinForNewegg> we start at point XXX in blockchain
279 2011-06-28 01:40:34 <pixglen> lfm: i.e. the dup txn won't have any different spend amounts or different inputs etc.
280 2011-06-28 01:40:47 <BitcoinForNewegg> I calculate 10 new blocks, the 10th is sending all my coins to a new address
281 2011-06-28 01:40:53 <BitcoinForNewegg> I do this in 1 second
282 2011-06-28 01:40:57 <BitcoinForNewegg> i do not broadcast them
283 2011-06-28 01:41:05 <BitcoinForNewegg> now I sell my coins for cash
284 2011-06-28 01:41:12 <BitcoinForNewegg> he sees 2 confirmations
285 2011-06-28 01:41:13 <lfm> pixglen: if you only do "confirmed" txn then you should not need to worry about forks. basiclly ignore txn in the most recent x block and wait till they show up at least x+1 blocks deep
286 2011-06-28 01:41:20 <BitcoinForNewegg> and then I release my 10 blocks
287 2011-06-28 01:41:42 <BitcoinForNewegg> ok he waits for 6 so its confirmed
288 2011-06-28 01:42:00 <BitcoinForNewegg> but I release a 4 block longer chain after its 'confirmed'
289 2011-06-28 01:42:10 <lfm> ya , by convention x = 6
290 2011-06-28 01:42:36 <BitcoinForNewegg> so at XXX + 6 he sees its confirmed
291 2011-06-28 01:42:52 <BitcoinForNewegg> then I release blocks XXX+1-XXX+10 with a different transaction
292 2011-06-28 01:43:04 <lfm> BitcoinForNewegg: sure, good luck with that, essentially to do that you would need more compute power than the rest of bitcoin combined. the old 51% rule
293 2011-06-28 01:43:07 <BitcoinForNewegg> did I just undo it?
294 2011-06-28 01:43:11 <BitcoinForNewegg> no
295 2011-06-28 01:43:26 <BitcoinForNewegg> you woudl need to be patient
296 2011-06-28 01:44:07 <lfm> BitcoinForNewegg: patient?
297 2011-06-28 01:44:09 <BitcoinForNewegg> I could wait a year until eventually I calculate 10 blocks, it has a good chance of happening with 10% of cluster
298 2011-06-28 01:44:38 <BitcoinForNewegg> then when it happens I can execute my evil plan
299 2011-06-28 01:45:08 <lfm> well you would fail the first 10 times and people would start to get suspicious and start to wait for 10 confirms
300 2011-06-28 01:45:10 <BitcoinForNewegg> also DDOSing the major pools for 2 hours would help my odds
301 2011-06-28 01:45:22 <BitcoinForNewegg> but it woudl work?
302 2011-06-28 01:45:44 <BitcoinForNewegg> the clients dont care about when they reciever a block, the hardest to calculate block chain always wins?
303 2011-06-28 01:45:44 <lfm> I doubt it but go ahead try if you wish
304 2011-06-28 01:46:06 <BitcoinForNewegg> i dont plan to try, but I want to make sure I understand how the client works
305 2011-06-28 01:46:28 <cacheson> BitcoinForNewegg: you can't save blocks. you'd be forking the blockchain a year back in the past, which wouldn't do you any good
306 2011-06-28 01:46:58 <BitcoinForNewegg> i mine for a year or so waiting for a time when I caluulate 10 blocks in 2 minutes
307 2011-06-28 01:47:27 <lfm> you said 6 but go on...
308 2011-06-28 01:47:28 <BitcoinForNewegg> when that happens I quickly sell some coins and then undo the confirmed transaction
309 2011-06-28 01:47:40 <BitcoinForNewegg> i calculate 10, they wait for 6, but it doesnt matter
310 2011-06-28 01:48:18 <cacheson> BitcoinForNewegg: the entire network doesn't calculate 10 blocks in 2 minutes
311 2011-06-28 01:48:34 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: gah, can you quit spamming bitcoin-development list with mtgox crap?
312 2011-06-28 01:48:41 <BitcoinForNewegg> it has caluculated 2 blocks in less than 10 seconds before (recently)
313 2011-06-28 01:48:48 <lfm> I expect you might have to wait more than 1 year for that event
314 2011-06-28 01:48:52 <Eremes> some how i can't login to my MTGOX account
315 2011-06-28 01:48:53 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: it is not bitcoin-exchange-support
316 2011-06-28 01:49:00 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: where would you rather it go?
317 2011-06-28 01:49:06 <nhodges> can i have a bitcoin.conf with addnode params only?
318 2011-06-28 01:49:10 <Eremes> tryting to reset the password but the email never arrived
319 2011-06-28 01:49:11 <BitcoinForNewegg> lets say I have 10% of the coins and I am a government
320 2011-06-28 01:49:17 <BitcoinForNewegg> i mean 10% of the power
321 2011-06-28 01:49:23 <cacheson> BitcoinForNewegg: and that happening is highly improbable
322 2011-06-28 01:49:36 <BitcoinForNewegg> but if it did happen would it work, or does the client not allow it?
323 2011-06-28 01:49:42 <cacheson> BitcoinForNewegg: it's not going to happen 10 times in a row. try waiting a couple thousand years
324 2011-06-28 01:49:43 <pixglen> lfm: problem is that API listsinceblock only gives me the last block, so i would have note down all the unconfirmed txn's and then come back and confirm them
325 2011-06-28 01:49:48 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: and that's two separate posts, hardly spam
326 2011-06-28 01:50:06 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: somewhere on-topic. bitcoin-development is for core protocol type stuff (and apparently top-posting <sigh>)
327 2011-06-28 01:50:17 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: we really need a vendor-sec list for stuff like that
328 2011-06-28 01:50:21 <pixglen> lfm: what happens if a txn is "unconfirmed" then? or does the confirmations just never rise above some small number?
329 2011-06-28 01:50:23 <BitcoinForNewegg> okay imagine I rent out 1 hour of all the CPU and GPU power Amazon has to pull off my heist
330 2011-06-28 01:50:30 <lfm> pixglen: you should keep track what block each txn is in
331 2011-06-28 01:50:43 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: ya i'll stop sending it there, there just doesn't seem to be anywhere else appropriate
332 2011-06-28 01:50:46 <BitcoinForNewegg> and redirect my pool into it
333 2011-06-28 01:50:54 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: thanks
334 2011-06-28 01:50:54 <pixglen> lfm: well i figured... hence the msg at the bottom of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/199
335 2011-06-28 01:51:04 <BitcoinForNewegg> and a botnet
336 2011-06-28 01:51:14 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: tho tbqh, after the rest of that balance in that post is gone i wont be looking at it anyways ;p
337 2011-06-28 01:51:14 <pixglen> lfm: don't know enough around the innards of bitcoin to implement that myself though
338 2011-06-28 01:51:30 <lfm> BitcoinForNewegg: imagine you can wave a wand, ok ....
339 2011-06-28 01:51:41 <cacheson> BitcoinForNewegg: the bitcoin network is the fastest supercomputer in the world by several orders of magnitude
340 2011-06-28 01:51:54 <cacheson> so... good luck
341 2011-06-28 01:52:24 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: we need a bitcoin full disclosure list
342 2011-06-28 01:52:36 <lfm> cacheson: you sure of that? I didnt realize ...
343 2011-06-28 01:52:43 <jrmithdobbs> agreed, get gavin to add one to sourceforge?
344 2011-06-28 01:52:55 <pixglen> lfm: can i not store the txid for unconfirmed and low confirmation txn's and check that again later? if the txn is rejected or whatever, what happens to it, does the txn get deleted?
345 2011-06-28 01:53:02 <jrmithdobbs> call it vendor-sec or similar
346 2011-06-28 01:53:03 <cacheson> lfm: last I heard it was faster than the top 50 combined, and has grown since then
347 2011-06-28 01:53:42 <gmaxwell> lfm: using a rather spurious relation of MH/s to flops.
348 2011-06-28 01:53:53 <lfm> pixglen: youd have to notice a conflicting txn, no it doesnt get marked for you afaik
349 2011-06-28 01:54:17 <pixglen> lfm: conflicting txn? what does that mean?
350 2011-06-28 01:54:35 <lfm> pixglen: a double spend
351 2011-06-28 01:54:49 <pixglen> lfm: does it just mean the txn never gets a lot of confirmations?
352 2011-06-28 01:55:02 <cacheson> gmaxwell: seems we should have the advantage in that spurious calculation. you need hashes to attack bitcoin, not flops
353 2011-06-28 01:55:02 <pixglen> lfm: i mean txid's are not re-used right?
354 2011-06-28 01:55:05 <BitcoinForNewegg> the bitcoin network is slow as crap compared to supercomputers
355 2011-06-28 01:55:25 <BitcoinForNewegg> supersomputrs arent used cause they are fast, they are used cause they are fairly fast and have amazing interconnects
356 2011-06-28 01:55:36 <lfm> pixglen: it would sit at 0 confirms. I am not sure if the gui client display shows it as a double spend or not.
357 2011-06-28 01:55:54 <dubbz82> all you need is someone with access to say a few bluegene computers
358 2011-06-28 01:56:01 <gmaxwell> cacheson: right, but if you're going to play that game I can point out that for just a few million you could fab out a mining asic an eclipse the current network.
359 2011-06-28 01:56:04 <dubbz82> and the skill to write their own bitcoin client for it.
360 2011-06-28 01:56:05 <dubbz82> lol
361 2011-06-28 01:56:16 <BitcoinForNewegg> theres already SHA256 asics...
362 2011-06-28 01:56:17 <gmaxwell> dubbz82: most of the big fast computers aren't especially good at mining.
363 2011-06-28 01:56:18 <lfm> pixglen: if it had 1 confirm in a fork it would go back to zero
364 2011-06-28 01:56:29 <gmaxwell> BitcoinForNewegg: existing SHA256 asics are uslessly slow.
365 2011-06-28 01:56:43 <pixglen> lfm: ok... lemme nut out a reasonable algorithm to capture confirmed txn's using listsinceblock
366 2011-06-28 01:56:44 <gmaxwell> BitcoinForNewegg: 1MH/s of mining ~= 1gbit/sec of general SHA256.
367 2011-06-28 01:56:45 <BitcoinForNewegg> its hash of hash + random data right?
368 2011-06-28 01:56:45 <cacheson> gmaxwell: I was responding to the idea of "renting out amazon" to attack bitcoin
369 2011-06-28 01:56:57 <BitcoinForNewegg> how much random data?
370 2011-06-28 01:56:59 <pixglen> 1. grab all txn's since the last block
371 2011-06-28 01:57:00 <dubbz82> gmaxwell, they probably would be, just on grounds of the blatent amount of cpu power you're throwing at it
372 2011-06-28 01:57:14 <pixglen> 2. drop any txn's that duplicate the ones already recorded.
373 2011-06-28 01:57:18 <dubbz82> given it probably wouldn't be nearly as good as if they were gpu heavy setups though..
374 2011-06-28 01:57:31 <BitcoinForNewegg> my point is with 10% of the network you can have a finite chance of undoing a transaction
375 2011-06-28 01:57:37 <pixglen> 3. check for any txn's previously recorded to see if they have now the required # of txn's
376 2011-06-28 01:58:01 <gmaxwell> You can do the math pretty easily enough, I don't know about bluegreen, but I know the cores in jaguar do about 2MH/s each.
377 2011-06-28 01:58:12 <BitcoinForNewegg> supercomputers are not made for bitcoin
378 2011-06-28 01:58:15 <lfm> pixglen: BitcoinForNewegg yes and you also have a finite chance of claiming those btc sent to the zero hash, good luck with that
379 2011-06-28 01:58:21 <pixglen> not sure about step 2 -- should i replace the old txn or drop the new one -- are the dup txn's identical in most respects?
380 2011-06-28 01:58:25 <BitcoinForNewegg> it would be like using UPS to get ur kids to school and back
381 2011-06-28 01:58:27 <dubbz82> BitcoinForNewegg, i'm aware of that
382 2011-06-28 01:58:42 <BitcoinForNewegg> even if thye stuck GPUs in them it woudl be useless
383 2011-06-28 01:58:47 <lfm> pixglen: they are identical, yes
384 2011-06-28 01:59:02 <dubbz82> unless someone wrote a miner optimized FOR them, anyways
385 2011-06-28 01:59:03 <cacheson> BitcoinForNewegg: so my point is, on the supercomputer thing, renting amazon is going to be useless
386 2011-06-28 01:59:16 <gmaxwell> so 448512 MH/s... for computer number 2.
387 2011-06-28 01:59:22 <BitcoinForNewegg> any monkey can cable up 1000 high end servers in a room, but it takes skill to connect them with nanosecond latency 10 gigabit networks
388 2011-06-28 01:59:24 <pixglen> sorry step 3 should be "check for any txn's previously recorded but unconfirmed to
389 2011-06-28 01:59:25 <dubbz82> and even then, it'd probably still be a little...sketchy
390 2011-06-28 01:59:26 <dubbz82> lol
391 2011-06-28 01:59:31 <BitcoinForNewegg> amazon has GPUs
392 2011-06-28 01:59:41 <lfm> the net is over 1e13 hash/sec
393 2011-06-28 01:59:55 <jrmithdobbs> it has teslas that suck at integer math
394 2011-06-28 02:00:09 <pixglen> lfm: that sound reasonable to u? anything i missed in that?
395 2011-06-28 02:00:27 <dubbz82> so what's the next step after consumer grade video cards
396 2011-06-28 02:00:39 <BitcoinForNewegg> MOAR consumer grade video cards
397 2011-06-28 02:00:43 <dubbz82> because it's hitting the point where it's ALMOST too difficult to mine on most consumer grade vid cards
398 2011-06-28 02:00:53 <BitcoinForNewegg> lol its not even close
399 2011-06-28 02:01:02 <BitcoinForNewegg> power costs $.03 per KWH
400 2011-06-28 02:01:09 <dubbz82> ...maybe where you are.
401 2011-06-28 02:01:10 <dubbz82> lol
402 2011-06-28 02:01:13 <lfm> pixglen: sorry I cant say if it is good or not really without thurough annalysis.
403 2011-06-28 02:01:16 <BitcoinForNewegg> industreal power does
404 2011-06-28 02:01:23 <dubbz82> here it's like $0.12/KWH
405 2011-06-28 02:01:43 <BitcoinForNewegg> when you use 5-10 MW for computers that dont require a standby grid its $.03
406 2011-06-28 02:01:45 <pixglen> lfm: no worries -- i just wanted to know roughly if i've covered my bases
407 2011-06-28 02:02:26 <dubbz82> fair enough
408 2011-06-28 02:02:27 <dubbz82> lol
409 2011-06-28 02:03:22 <gmaxwell> BitcoinForNewegg: it's not that cheap anywhere in the US as I recall, make sure you add up the fuel and transport costs.
410 2011-06-28 02:04:01 <lfm> gmaxwell: industrial pricing?
411 2011-06-28 02:04:32 <pixglen> lfm: would double spending txn's always sit at confirmations = 0? is it possible for it to get some confirmations then wind back to zero?
412 2011-06-28 02:04:38 <gmaxwell> http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html
413 2011-06-28 02:04:57 <gmaxwell> lfm: not even&
414 2011-06-28 02:05:53 <jgarzik> mrb_: a bit old, but did you see you got linked in the Financial Times? http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2011/06/21/600441/george-clooney-roils-the-bitcoin-market/
415 2011-06-28 02:07:34 <gmaxwell> pixglen: the network prevents double spending. If you try one will gain confirmations, and the other one will go away.
416 2011-06-28 02:08:21 <pixglen> gmaxwell: what does go away mean? if i look for the txid in the client, it will not be there any more?
417 2011-06-28 02:09:07 <gmaxwell> I believe it just dissapears on the reciever side, I've not actually tried this so I could be incorrect.
418 2011-06-28 02:10:10 <pixglen> gmaxwell, lfm: well deleting the txn on the receive would certainly be useful... is this the case then?
419 2011-06-28 02:11:08 <gmaxwell> It's a pain to try or I'd try it right now just to be sure.
420 2011-06-28 02:11:53 <pixglen> i suppose i could ask the question on the forums
421 2011-06-28 02:12:16 <jrmithdobbs> pixglen: go away means not get forwarded
422 2011-06-28 02:12:41 <gmaxwell> Well, presuming you heard about it (which is unlikely but not impossible if launched at the same time)
423 2011-06-28 02:13:02 <pixglen> jrmithdobbs: ok, suppose my client sees a txn in a block, and that txn is supposed to go away, later on if i look for that txn via its txid, what happens?
424 2011-06-28 02:13:06 <jrmithdobbs> right the first one heard by a given node would be accepted
425 2011-06-28 02:13:25 <jrmithdobbs> or the first one to get into a block if it gets into a block before the entire network hears about it
426 2011-06-28 02:13:47 <jrmithdobbs> pixglen: by definition it never goes away once in a block
427 2011-06-28 02:14:12 <jrmithdobbs> pixglen: assuming that block is not on the losing side of a fork
428 2011-06-28 02:14:18 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: right, say you hear a txn and then you find the longest chain contains another one instead.
429 2011-06-28 02:14:33 <pixglen> jrmithdobbs: lemme get this straight, if it is a double spend or erroneous txn, it still never goes away?
430 2011-06-28 02:14:42 <jrmithdobbs> whether it actually ever gets purged from memory pool is a good question though
431 2011-06-28 02:14:57 <jrmithdobbs> cause once in memory pool i don't think it ever gets re-validated
432 2011-06-28 02:15:02 <jrmithdobbs> but not 100% on that
433 2011-06-28 02:15:20 <pixglen> jrmithdobbs: or r u saying that if it is in a block it is GUARANTEED not a double spend or erroneous txn?
434 2011-06-28 02:15:36 <jrmithdobbs> pixglen: no, the second spend will never be in a block so the one that doesn't get into a block "goes away"
435 2011-06-28 02:15:52 <jrmithdobbs> pixglen: yes that is what i'm saying
436 2011-06-28 02:16:04 <gmaxwell> pixglen: a blockchain is GUARANTEED not to contain any double spends or "erroneous txn" within that chain.
437 2011-06-28 02:16:33 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: you know if memorypool ever gets re-validated?
438 2011-06-28 02:16:33 <pixglen> jrmithdobbs: ok, so if i'm checking for the receipt of funds, and i see a new block, all those txn's are non-erroneous and non-double spends
439 2011-06-28 02:16:39 <gmaxwell> However, at any given instant you are not completely sure that the current top of chain that you see will be in the eventual longest chain.
440 2011-06-28 02:16:56 <theymos> gmaxwell: From the viewpoint of a lightweight client, this is not guaranteed. You need to have all of the blocks to verify this.
441 2011-06-28 02:17:08 <gmaxwell> Which is why the client waits until the txn is burries by 6 blocks before switching from "unconfirmed" to "confirmed"
442 2011-06-28 02:17:08 <jrmithdobbs> well, it has to get re-validated if the node that has it in it's memory pool gens a block because that generates validation on all the txns
443 2011-06-28 02:17:49 <gmaxwell> theymos: it's validated by the later headers extending it.
444 2011-06-28 02:18:13 <folklore> why they log this channel
445 2011-06-28 02:18:15 <gmaxwell> theymos: unless the majority of the hash power has decided to validate and extend blocks with 'double spends or "erroneous txn"'
446 2011-06-28 02:18:19 <pixglen> gmaxwell: interesting... so each block doesn't actually have a list of txn's to confirm, but the mere fact that x blocks follow after the block with this txn means that the txn has x confirmations?
447 2011-06-28 02:18:33 <nhodges> anyone know if i can have a bitcoin.conf with just addnode settings
448 2011-06-28 02:18:41 <jrmithdobbs> pixglen: right
449 2011-06-28 02:18:48 <gmaxwell> pixglen: each block confirms the txn in it as well as the _entire_ past history of the network because the blocks form a chain.
450 2011-06-28 02:19:04 <gmaxwell> nhodges: er, I've never done that but I don't see why you couldn't.
451 2011-06-28 02:20:02 <theymos> gmaxwell: So it's not _guaranteed_, then.
452 2011-06-28 02:20:47 <pixglen> gmaxwell: why then does the top of the chain (the top block or the top 6 blocks??) are considered unconfirmed?
453 2011-06-28 02:21:07 <nhodges> cool will test
454 2011-06-28 02:21:13 <gmaxwell> theymos: Well, I suppose thats fair but you're going to be absolute then nothing is _guaranteed_, since I could have compromised ECDSA or the like.
455 2011-06-28 02:21:27 <jgarzik> will nothing in life is guaranteed for all time :)
456 2011-06-28 02:21:29 <jgarzik> *well
457 2011-06-28 02:21:58 <gmaxwell> pixglen: because the blockchain could split and the blocks you think are the top could be thrown out.
458 2011-06-28 02:22:27 <pixglen> gmaxwell: ok... *thinks*
459 2011-06-28 02:22:40 <nhodges> bitcoin client seems to load back up fine with just addnode
460 2011-06-28 02:22:49 <gmaxwell> The probability of this happening goes down exponentially (so long as we assume no collaborating group of attackers has >50% of the network hash power3)
461 2011-06-28 02:23:06 <gmaxwell> pixglen: if you haven't read it, I strongly recommend http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
462 2011-06-28 02:23:57 <pixglen> gmaxwell: that would mean, in the case of an erroneous txn making it into a block, after a certain # of blocks have passed, that whole fork gets thrown away and i will no longer see that txid in the (now correct) chain
463 2011-06-28 02:23:59 <freakazoid> gmaxwell: what would happen in an extended network partition between, say, North American and Europe?
464 2011-06-28 02:24:06 <freakazoid> North America
465 2011-06-28 02:24:30 <gmaxwell> freakazoid: one side would lose.
466 2011-06-28 02:24:47 <freakazoid> gmaxwell: that's pretty serious lose though
467 2011-06-28 02:24:53 <freakazoid> a bunch of transactions would be reversed
468 2011-06-28 02:25:06 <pixglen> can some1 give me the txid of a txn that is known to be erroneous/double spend etc.? i just want to see what the jsonrpc client tells me
469 2011-06-28 02:25:34 <gmaxwell> No, not quite, only if they were respent.
470 2011-06-28 02:26:59 <gmaxwell> freakazoid: if your chain pops you'll instantly try to remine all the txn that fell out.
471 2011-06-28 02:27:51 <dubbz82_1> guess i wait for a few min for my clone to cut out
472 2011-06-28 02:28:00 <dubbz82_1> :P
473 2011-06-28 02:28:05 <freakazoid> oh, so the only losers would be the miners, then
474 2011-06-28 02:28:10 <freakazoid> and anyone they paid
475 2011-06-28 02:28:21 <freakazoid> ?
476 2011-06-28 02:28:26 <gmaxwell> freakazoid: yea. I assume someone will get backup links via non-internet dependant satellite services eventually.. probably only a few grand a month to do blockchain through space. :)
477 2011-06-28 02:28:32 <gmaxwell> freakazoid: thats why the 100 block (netwok, 120 client imposed) restriction on spending from generated txn exists.
478 2011-06-28 02:28:48 <gmaxwell> freakazoid: if the split runs longer than 120 blocks (remember, with the network partitioned each part is slower) then things get messy unless people notice (dur) and e.g. avoid spending generated txn.
479 2011-06-28 02:28:59 <pixglen> much clearer about txn, errors and blocks now :-)
480 2011-06-28 02:29:00 <freakazoid> gmaxwell: why would they avoid spending it, though?
481 2011-06-28 02:29:12 <freakazoid> gmaxwell: it's not the person who mined that gets screwed
482 2011-06-28 02:29:33 <freakazoid> it's whoever they paid, right?
483 2011-06-28 02:29:40 <gmaxwell> freakazoid: I should have said "accepting payment" but the other way is true. You make a mess if you're not dishonest.
484 2011-06-28 02:30:20 <freakazoid> ah
485 2011-06-28 02:30:43 <gmaxwell> And if you were intentionally dishonest you'll and up with people seeking whatever recourse people will seek the courts in the land of the civilized, or guido breaking your harm if you prefer a more libertarian solution. :)
486 2011-06-28 02:30:56 <gmaxwell> s/harm/arm/
487 2011-06-28 02:30:59 <freakazoid> by "if you're not dishonest" do you mean if you are dishonest you don't care about the mess?
488 2011-06-28 02:31:02 <freakazoid> hehe
489 2011-06-28 02:31:40 <gmaxwell> When there was a big fork created in the past due to a software bug, varrious anouncements were sent to hold off on processing payments.
490 2011-06-28 02:31:52 <pixglen> if i'm polling the client for new txn's in blocks, does it make sense to poll more than once every 10 minutes, since the block generation rate is that? is that ever expected to change?
491 2011-06-28 02:32:11 <gmaxwell> I expect in the future the client will also gauge the health of the network on its own and hold off telling you txn are confirmed if it looks busted.
492 2011-06-28 02:32:34 <gmaxwell> pixglen: it's only once every 10 minutes on the long term average.
493 2011-06-28 02:34:46 <gmaxwell> pixglen: it's just an exponential distribution with a mean of ten minutes times the change in hashrate since the average of the last difficulty cycle.
494 2011-06-28 02:35:36 <gmaxwell> If hashrate isn't changing then it's pretty well defined. Though hashrate has been growing a lot lately so its has tended to be fast.
495 2011-06-28 02:36:18 <gmaxwell> (the system adapts to keep the mean at ten but the the adaptation lags)
496 2011-06-28 02:40:10 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Nick Plante * rd8d8e37763db pushpool/ (msg.c server.c): fixes for OS X (byteswap / endian) http://tinyurl.com/3by9hyn
497 2011-06-28 02:40:12 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Nick Plante * rb986da01b0db pushpool/ (Makefile.am configure.ac): libargp-standalone is required on OS X / FreeBSD http://tinyurl.com/3oartco
498 2011-06-28 02:40:13 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Nick Plante * rff28ca26b8a2 pushpool/server.c: OSByteOrder.h required for OS X http://tinyurl.com/3duppyw
499 2011-06-28 02:40:14 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Jeff Garzik * re1d341314689 pushpool/ (Makefile.am configure.ac msg.c server.c): Merge pull request #33 from zapnap/master http://tinyurl.com/3lsggev
500 2011-06-28 02:56:07 <dubbz82> jeez...bitmarket's api is fugly...lol
501 2011-06-28 03:06:29 <unclemantis> what is the deal with http://www.tradebitcoin.com
502 2011-06-28 03:24:19 <jgarzik> bitcoins sent, last 24h: 4 million
503 2011-06-28 03:28:59 <gmaxwell> wow.
504 2011-06-28 03:38:20 <coderrr> sigh, no love http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=23354.0
505 2011-06-28 03:39:46 <cacheson> coderrr: your target audience probably wants to remain anonymous ;)
506 2011-06-28 03:40:11 <wumpus> coderrr: might be better to submit it as a github pull request, and the mailing list
507 2011-06-28 03:40:17 <coderrr> cacheson, hehe
508 2011-06-28 03:40:24 <wumpus> coderrr: I missed it at least, forum is just too busy
509 2011-06-28 03:40:32 <gmaxwell> coderrr: I commented to bump it, if nothing else.
510 2011-06-28 03:40:44 <coderrr> haha thx :)
511 2011-06-28 03:41:46 <cacheson> yeah, I want it in mainline. I'm far to lazy to patch and compile each release myself :)
512 2011-06-28 03:41:52 <cacheson> too*
513 2011-06-28 03:42:39 <wumpus> I think it'd certainly be welcome in mainline.. but the forum is just not the way to reach the mainline devs :)
514 2011-06-28 03:43:57 <gmaxwell> I do kinda wonder how advanced features like that won't crowd the mainline client an make it newbie unfriendly.
515 2011-06-28 03:44:03 <wumpus> especially not "bitcoin discussion", it is just too full of trolls
516 2011-06-28 03:44:05 <coderrr> really? i figured it'd be hell to get it into mainline
517 2011-06-28 03:44:28 <wumpus> gmaxwell: I intend to add an 'advanced mode' to my (Qt) GUI
518 2011-06-28 03:44:31 <gmaxwell> That said, I don't think being newbie friendly a long term overriding goal for the official client.
519 2011-06-28 03:45:00 <wumpus> same as with, for example, MS office.. those features will be hidden by default unless advanced mode enabled
520 2011-06-28 03:45:29 <gmaxwell> coderrr: hey, what happens when you have an input that pays to two of your addresses?
521 2011-06-28 03:45:58 <coderrr> gmaxwell, what do you mean? you have two outputs that are both your addresses ?
522 2011-06-28 03:46:43 <gmaxwell> you have addresses 1A and 1B, I do a send many to pay both of them at once. Does it consider them connected?
523 2011-06-28 03:47:03 <coderrr> oh, sendmany is only on RPC right ?
524 2011-06-28 03:47:34 <wumpus> yes
525 2011-06-28 03:47:38 <coderrr> well, it doesn't do any connection for outputs, only inputs
526 2011-06-28 03:47:40 <gmaxwell> Yes. Though you could end up with something kinda like that by sending coin to yourself (one output to one address, another for change)
527 2011-06-28 03:47:43 <coderrr> so 1A and 1B would be linked
528 2011-06-28 03:48:30 <coderrr> (except for change), it does link change to the inputs it came from
529 2011-06-28 03:49:02 <coderrr> oh sorry, i misread what you said
530 2011-06-28 03:49:08 <coderrr> 1a and 1b were outputs so they wouldnt be linked
531 2011-06-28 03:49:19 <coderrr> just whatever in addresses taht were used to pay them would be
532 2011-06-28 03:49:40 <gmaxwell> Yea, I suppose thats correct.
533 2011-06-28 03:50:05 <coderrr> the whole point is to show you what addresses other people can reasonable prove you control
534 2011-06-28 03:50:38 <gmaxwell> I'm not sure that linking change is always correct. Depending on the values you sometimes can't tell which output was the change. It's conservative at least.
535 2011-06-28 03:50:49 <coderrr> right change is the gray area
536 2011-06-28 03:50:59 <gmaxwell> it's sort of half-connected.
537 2011-06-28 03:51:02 <coderrr> with change, at best theres a 50/50 you control it
538 2011-06-28 03:51:08 <coderrr> at worst its prbly like 90+%
539 2011-06-28 03:51:17 <coderrr> like if the outptus were 5.0 and 124.18
540 2011-06-28 03:51:43 <gmaxwell> well sometimes you can tell.. e.g. 1.23456->[1.0,.23456] hmmm which one was change? :)
541 2011-06-28 03:51:47 <coderrr> exactly
542 2011-06-28 03:51:47 <gmaxwell> yea.
543 2011-06-28 03:51:55 <coderrr> and also sceanrios where like
544 2011-06-28 03:52:03 <coderrr> if later on two diff change addresses are used as inputs
545 2011-06-28 03:52:16 <coderrr> now you can potentially link all the inputs from those previous txs
546 2011-06-28 03:52:23 <gmaxwell> What you don't want to do is connect it with anything else. but e.g. if you had a bunch of change from group A you'd be better off to connect bits of that change with each other rather than togeather.
547 2011-06-28 03:52:44 <gmaxwell> (like a tree of contamination)
548 2011-06-28 03:52:47 <coderrr> yea yea
549 2011-06-28 03:52:50 <coderrr> yea exactly
550 2011-06-28 03:52:54 <dubbz82> if anyone wants to see my piss poor excuse for coding...feel free
551 2011-06-28 03:52:56 <dubbz82> https://dubbz82@github.com/dubbz82/Bitcoin-Price-Calculator.git
552 2011-06-28 03:53:06 <dubbz82> oh ffs
553 2011-06-28 03:53:13 <dubbz82> wrong shit copied to clipboard
554 2011-06-28 03:53:14 <dubbz82> X_X
555 2011-06-28 03:53:23 <coderrr> so ia lmost feel like change isnt worth it, all things considered
556 2011-06-28 03:53:24 <dubbz82> https://github.com/dubbz82/Bitcoin-Price-Calculator
557 2011-06-28 03:53:29 <dubbz82> ...that instead
558 2011-06-28 03:53:31 <dubbz82> X_X
559 2011-06-28 03:53:37 <coderrr> like rather just send the change back to the input addr
560 2011-06-28 03:53:56 <cacheson> coderrr: I've thought the same myself
561 2011-06-28 03:54:13 <lfm> well the idea IS to make it hard to trace btc
562 2011-06-28 03:54:17 <coderrr> but at least w this patch, it groups it with the inputs, so you can see it easily and its not a big deal
563 2011-06-28 03:54:31 <coderrr> lfm, yea but in reality it seems like that doesnt really happen at all
564 2011-06-28 03:54:43 <coderrr> especially w the default behavior of chosing inputs
565 2011-06-28 03:54:55 <lfm> ya but you dont want to make it easy to tell which is change
566 2011-06-28 03:55:01 <gmaxwell> yea, the change actually reduces your anonymity right now, because it gets recycled back into spends from your other addresses fairly quicky.
567 2011-06-28 03:55:09 <coderrr> my guess is most ppl who have done a bunch of tx;s already have all teh adresses in their wallets linked together
568 2011-06-28 03:55:19 <coderrr> yea
569 2011-06-28 03:56:36 <coderrr> so im thinking of adding an option to the next version to basically do away with change, and always have it send back to the first input
570 2011-06-28 03:56:48 <coderrr> which would just end up making the 'send form addresses' interface cleaner w/ less addresses
571 2011-06-28 03:57:02 <lfm> coderrr: why would anyone want taht patch?
572 2011-06-28 03:57:13 <gmaxwell> coderrr: coin selection which gave first preference to already contaminated inputs would be good if nothing else.
573 2011-06-28 03:57:33 <gmaxwell> lfm: because the change is usually pretty identifyable and it ends up tainting your untained addresses.
574 2011-06-28 03:57:56 <coderrr> lfm, right for reasons stated above, plus the issue of backups
575 2011-06-28 03:58:07 <coderrr> oh and alternatively
576 2011-06-28 03:58:07 <gmaxwell> E.g. you have addr A and B. You spend from A getting change in C with some obvious crazy fractional amount. Later you spend more and it uses C,B. Now all your addresses are linked.
577 2011-06-28 03:58:13 <coderrr> having many change ouputs rather than just 1
578 2011-06-28 04:00:07 <lfm> seems more likely other things will happen that work the other way
579 2011-06-28 04:00:30 <gmaxwell> coderrr: one interesting thing would be some script that took all the inputs available to crosslinked group and then refactored into into some send many transaction along with a payment, and most of the outputs actually going back to yourself but newly unconnected.
580 2011-06-28 04:00:49 <coderrr> yea was just thinking about that
581 2011-06-28 04:01:09 <coderrr> or if u wanted to be really anonymous be constantly sending back to urself
582 2011-06-28 04:02:20 <lfm> so if I want to send an amount to someone I just send it around to my various computers a few time before sending to the target, I can claim I paid someone else and then they used it later
583 2011-06-28 04:42:00 <pixglen> does the 0.3.21 enforce txn fees on users, even when using the jsonrpc interface?
584 2011-06-28 04:43:41 <luke-jr> older versions silently added the fee via jsonrpc
585 2011-06-28 04:45:37 <pixglen> luke-jr: what do newer versions do then?
586 2011-06-28 04:45:57 <conjre> is that why you see 50btc+0.00xxx in block explorer when at the first entry of a block?
587 2011-06-28 04:45:58 <jgarzik> pixglen: if you don't send < 0.01 BTC, there are no fees
588 2011-06-28 04:46:32 <luke-jr> pixglen: error
589 2011-06-28 04:46:39 <pixglen> jgarzik: ever? i thought there was some arcane rule about # of KB in a block or sumthin
590 2011-06-28 04:46:43 <luke-jr> jgarzik: yes there are -.-
591 2011-06-28 04:47:59 <pixglen> luke-jr: is the txn fee arbitrarily imposed then? in newer clients?
592 2011-06-28 04:48:27 <lfm> ya it often seems arbitrary to users
593 2011-06-28 04:48:30 <pixglen> e.g. http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=8153.0
594 2011-06-28 04:48:35 <luke-jr> pixglen: afaik, it errors in newer clients
595 2011-06-28 04:48:50 <luke-jr> lfm: it is arbitrary, by definition
596 2011-06-28 04:50:36 <pixglen> hmm... the JSONRPC interface only has sendfrom or sendtoaddress w/o any txn fee mentioned, i suppose this is set by -paytxfee when running the bitcoind?
597 2011-06-28 04:51:11 <lfm> you might suppose, trouble is its more complex
598 2011-06-28 04:51:17 <pixglen> is the txn fee a fixed amount or a percentage?
599 2011-06-28 04:51:26 <lfm> per kb
600 2011-06-28 04:52:19 <pixglen> how would i know in advance how much the txn will cost?
601 2011-06-28 04:52:30 <gmaxwell> someone out to update the wiki to make the amounts correct so people can be pointed at it...
602 2011-06-28 04:52:43 <lfm> it changes every version
603 2011-06-28 04:52:47 <luke-jr> pixglen: I think the error tells you
604 2011-06-28 04:53:22 <lfm> gmaxwell: you know a way to explain to users how many kb a txn will take in advance?
605 2011-06-28 04:54:05 <luke-jr> lfm: paying in pennies :P
606 2011-06-28 04:54:10 <gmaxwell> lfm: no, ... and because the decision isn't stable... if you get a new payment you may end up with an entirely different required fee.
607 2011-06-28 04:54:14 <pixglen> well, um, if i use the sendfrom or sendtoaddress API to send out a txn, does it fail immediately or do i have to check it every now and then? if it fails, how can i adjust the txn fee since the API doesn't have a txn fee changing method?
608 2011-06-28 04:54:30 <luke-jr> pixglen: fails immediately
609 2011-06-28 04:54:49 <lfm> pixglen: you cant adjust a txn
610 2011-06-28 04:54:54 <gmaxwell> When did it just stop imposing the minimum fees automagically on the rpc?
611 2011-06-28 04:54:56 <luke-jr> pixglen: JSON-RPC has a settxfee command
612 2011-06-28 04:55:26 <pixglen> does settxfee mean the lowest fee, or will it always charge that amount?
613 2011-06-28 04:55:42 <pixglen> luke-jr: not in https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Original_Bitcoin_client/API_Calls_list
614 2011-06-28 04:55:45 <luke-jr> [02:51:26] <lfm> per kb
615 2011-06-28 04:56:04 <luke-jr> pixglen: so add it
616 2011-06-28 04:56:09 <gmaxwell> right. so e.g. its still magically tacking on the fee for outputs less than 0.01.
617 2011-06-28 04:56:21 <gmaxwell> (which is what I thought)
618 2011-06-28 04:58:57 <lfm> and is there still fees for "new" coins vs "OLD" coins to try to penalyes the spammers?
619 2011-06-28 05:00:21 <gmaxwell> Yes. The priority is still tx_value * input_age / tx_data < 510000 (iirc) = 0.0005 fee
620 2011-06-28 05:01:08 <lfm> which is another fee that is almost impossible to explain to users
621 2011-06-28 05:01:41 <conjre> so older coins cost more to send than newer coins? is that what I'm suppose to get from that?
622 2011-06-28 05:01:55 <pixglen> ok, ok, so u're saying i have to send out a txn, check for errors like low txn fee, and bump up the txn fee and try again?
623 2011-06-28 05:02:16 <jgarzik> pixglen: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees
624 2011-06-28 05:02:29 <lfm> conjre: nope, older coins are cheaper
625 2011-06-28 05:02:58 <pixglen> jgarzik: i did read that, but wondered if it's been updated for the 0.3.21 client
626 2011-06-28 05:03:13 <lfm> current is 0.3.23
627 2011-06-28 05:03:39 <jgarzik> pixglen: 0.3.21 did not change anything fee-wise. 0.3.22 and 0.3.23 lowered fees from 0.01 btc/kb to 0.0005 btc/kb
628 2011-06-28 05:04:06 <jgarzik> pixglen: but as long as you (a) aren't sending totally new coins or (b) aren't sending < 0.01 btc, you really should not be paying -any- fee
629 2011-06-28 05:04:14 <jgarzik> pixglen: -paytxfee=0
630 2011-06-28 05:04:42 <pixglen> jgarzik: but the settxfee JSONRPC call explicits says you cannot set it to zero
631 2011-06-28 05:04:57 <lfm> wrong you can set it to zero
632 2011-06-28 05:05:02 <pixglen> nAmount = AmountFromValue(params[0]); // rejects 0.0 amounts
633 2011-06-28 05:05:21 <jgarzik> pixglen: no, you are reading the code comment incorrectly
634 2011-06-28 05:05:35 <jgarzik> pixglen: settxfee can be set to zero
635 2011-06-28 05:05:41 <lfm> amount is not fee
636 2011-06-28 05:06:38 <pixglen> ok, it looks like some kind optimization so you don't have to call AmountFromValue on zero amounts... yes?
637 2011-06-28 05:07:10 <pixglen> int64 nAmount = 0 // is already set beforehand
638 2011-06-28 05:08:13 <pixglen> jgarzik: how about if i'm sending coins that came in as 0.01BTC amounts, doesn't that make the txn large and require fees?
639 2011-06-28 05:08:57 <lfm> pixglen: you can combine them into intermediat sizes first and do them all free
640 2011-06-28 05:09:19 <gjs278> cpuminer segfaults for me when it loses network connection
641 2011-06-28 05:09:27 <gjs278> on deepbit if that makes a difference
642 2011-06-28 05:09:34 <gjs278> it consistently does it on any machine I use it on
643 2011-06-28 05:10:08 <lfm> is that with long polling?
644 2011-06-28 05:10:25 <gjs278> longpolling appears to be activated
645 2011-06-28 05:10:27 <pixglen> lfm: how would i know if my coins came in that way though?
646 2011-06-28 05:10:40 <lfm> pixglen: guess
647 2011-06-28 05:10:55 <pixglen> lfm: can i tell how large a txn is going to be a priori?
648 2011-06-28 05:11:01 <lfm> gjs278: can you try plain getwork?
649 2011-06-28 05:11:05 <gjs278> I didn't care before because I was running it on and off, but with that gpu miner that guy is making based off of cpuminer it's a showstopper
650 2011-06-28 05:11:10 <gjs278> sure
651 2011-06-28 05:11:19 <gjs278> I'll let you know
652 2011-06-28 05:11:34 <pixglen> lfm: urk... it's fine if there's a human behind the sending, but I'm trying to write an automated process to do it and automated processes are very poor at guessing :-)
653 2011-06-28 05:12:08 <lfm> ya that would be tougher
654 2011-06-28 05:12:55 <lfm> pixglen: just set txfee to zero and let bitcoin add fees when It wants
655 2011-06-28 05:14:58 <pixglen> lfm: ok, *trying not to look thoroughly confused* ... if i set txfee to zero, bitcoin may still add fees, and bitcoin may still reject the txn because of low fees??
656 2011-06-28 05:15:06 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, who is mike hearn?
657 2011-06-28 05:15:09 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, ^
658 2011-06-28 05:15:15 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: TD i think
659 2011-06-28 05:15:26 <phantomcircuit> ah
660 2011-06-28 05:15:59 <phantomcircuit> ps i hate php
661 2011-06-28 05:16:05 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: TD
662 2011-06-28 05:16:14 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: bitcoinj author, Google person, etc.
663 2011-06-28 05:16:20 <pixglen> and um, i can inspect the txn via gettransaction to see if a fee had been assessed?
664 2011-06-28 05:16:22 <doublec> pixglen: set an average fee for all transactions and charge that
665 2011-06-28 05:16:22 <lfm> pixglen: like I said the fees are so complicated I dont really think anyone know how they all work. I know I don't
666 2011-06-28 05:16:35 <doublec> pixglen: it'll be high for some, low for others, and hopefully break even for you as the merchant
667 2011-06-28 05:16:37 <phantomcircuit> lfm, i know how mine work
668 2011-06-28 05:16:48 <doublec> pixglen: that's the approach I've taken
669 2011-06-28 05:16:50 <phantomcircuit> lfm, replaced all the fee logic with "pay nothing"
670 2011-06-28 05:16:52 <phantomcircuit> hehe
671 2011-06-28 05:16:58 <phantomcircuit> <-- willing to wait
672 2011-06-28 05:17:42 <lfm> phantomcircuit: now if only the major miners and pools would see that (and the "spammers" would give up)
673 2011-06-28 05:18:09 <phantomcircuit> eh my transactions get sent soon enough
674 2011-06-28 05:18:15 <pixglen> doublec: i don't mind charging a % fee on user withdrawals and mebbe even minimal withdrawal amounts so that i don't get out of pocket, but would like to know how to find out the fee from the txn after it has been assessed, and also that the delivery is guaranteed
675 2011-06-28 05:18:49 <phantomcircuit> lol
676 2011-06-28 05:18:58 <phantomcircuit> <-- just realized im allowing BTC<->BTC trades
677 2011-06-28 05:19:00 <phantomcircuit> facepalm
678 2011-06-28 05:19:02 <doublec> pixglen: doesn't listtransactoins show it?
679 2011-06-28 05:19:02 <lfm> phantomcircuit: Ya, I think Art Forz still send any txn thru free so so long as he has significant power they will get thru
680 2011-06-28 05:19:42 <phantomcircuit> lfm, the truth is the matter is that transactions are only expensive with the current network design
681 2011-06-28 05:20:01 <doublec> pixglen: so does gettransaction
682 2011-06-28 05:20:12 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Jeff Garzik * r4c3a55a73612 pushpool/util.c: util.c: remove unused header http://tinyurl.com/6e9ran8
683 2011-06-28 05:20:13 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Jeff Garzik * r47af5dfce70e pushpool/ (msg.c server.c server.h): Move byteswap compat gadgetry to common location server.h http://tinyurl.com/6fc6etf
684 2011-06-28 05:20:14 <doublec> so you can find out after the fact
685 2011-06-28 05:20:16 <doublec> but not before
686 2011-06-28 05:20:24 <phantomcircuit> with a DHT and a better notification schema you could operate with very little fees
687 2011-06-28 05:20:41 <phantomcircuit> (which is actually an argument for changing the coin generation algorithm)
688 2011-06-28 05:21:45 <lfm> phantomcircuit: I expect bitcoin would have to totally fall apart before those basic sorts of things can be changed, maybe even forget bitcoin and start over with a new currency
689 2011-06-28 05:22:21 <phantomcircuit> the halving of coins would be bait and switched
690 2011-06-28 05:22:36 <pixglen> doublec: ok, i was looking at the actual results on txn, not at the code .... it looks like there is a fee property on the txn
691 2011-06-28 05:22:53 <phantomcircuit> since miners control the rules of the network (as a whole) and something tells me we can convince them to just ignore the money base reduction algorithm
692 2011-06-28 05:23:06 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: you've been smoking the DHT crackpipe too?
693 2011-06-28 05:23:22 <jgarzik> DHTs are so vulnerable to attack and DoS it's not funny
694 2011-06-28 05:23:28 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, eh a DHT + inv flooding would be fairly effective
695 2011-06-28 05:23:43 <jgarzik> uh huh
696 2011-06-28 05:23:47 <pixglen> doublec: but by setting txn fee to zero, bitcoin still assesses a fee on it but at least i'm guaranteed it will "go through" the system, right?
697 2011-06-28 05:23:48 <phantomcircuit> and of course everybody would be free to have a full copy
698 2011-06-28 05:23:59 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: you can take your pick of the places that flodded you the INV at random, thats even better than a DHT.
699 2011-06-28 05:24:10 <gmaxwell> Because you don't even need to communicate anything. Just pick!
700 2011-06-28 05:24:31 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, eh? no the DHT is for storing the transactions (mostly the scripts)
701 2011-06-28 05:24:43 <phantomcircuit> 99% of the block chains size is transaction scripts
702 2011-06-28 05:25:02 <phantomcircuit> if you could store those in a distributed fashion you could massively reduce the individual cost
703 2011-06-28 05:25:38 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: you still need to see them to validate them. Though I'd agree in a world of lite clients actually distributed storage may be helpful.
704 2011-06-28 05:25:54 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, yeah but you only need to see them once to validate them
705 2011-06-28 05:25:59 <lfm> phantomcircuit: maybe - maybe not. if you make bitcoin grow infinitly there would be all sorts of consequences both technical and psycological. the technical would be various overflow values and the psych would be inflation like problems Id think. If the miners have any stockpiles of old coins they might be smart enuf to not want that inflation
706 2011-06-28 05:26:10 <pixglen> ok, guys, i need to test this to see what the JSONRPC API says when a txn fails to go through, will an attempt to send 0.005 BTC do?
707 2011-06-28 05:26:22 <jgarzik> ...and as a bonus, with that DHT scheme, validated transactions may appear or disappear at random
708 2011-06-28 05:26:24 <jgarzik> fun!
709 2011-06-28 05:26:26 <gjs278> use testnet and send yourself hundreds of coins
710 2011-06-28 05:26:55 <jgarzik> pixglen: anything < 0.01 is a microtransaction that requires a fee
711 2011-06-28 05:26:59 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, obviously there would still be full nodes
712 2011-06-28 05:27:07 <jgarzik> pixglen: but as gjs278 said, use testnet
713 2011-06-28 05:27:10 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: yea, that wouldn't at all replace full nodes. It would allow lite nodes to assist in validation.
714 2011-06-28 05:27:21 <nhodges> coming soon, coin cart: http://bitcoinbodega.com
715 2011-06-28 05:27:22 <phantomcircuit> yeah
716 2011-06-28 05:27:36 <phantomcircuit> it would allow nodes with out enough storage space to be useful
717 2011-06-28 05:27:50 <gmaxwell> And if a lite node NAKs you, you can find a full node to get the data from. If thats even required. I'm not really convinced that it is. ::shrugs::
718 2011-06-28 05:27:56 <pixglen> jgarzik: the rules are still the same at testnet right? if i dun wanna mine them i can get some at the testnet faucet?
719 2011-06-28 05:28:06 <phantomcircuit> hell as it stands you can shutdown the network with a lot of ips
720 2011-06-28 05:28:12 <phantomcircuit> (actually only 128)
721 2011-06-28 05:28:27 <gmaxwell> "I'm evarbuddies peer!"
722 2011-06-28 05:28:41 <jgarzik> ...which is still too heavy for mobile phones and similar payment clients, creating a "fat light" client
723 2011-06-28 05:28:43 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, i should run a sybil
724 2011-06-28 05:28:49 <phantomcircuit> just for the shits and giggles of it
725 2011-06-28 05:29:07 <gmaxwell> it's also great, if you get proxies on a thousand or so /16s under your control you can prevent outbound connections to just about every good node too.
726 2011-06-28 05:29:08 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, it's a step in between
727 2011-06-28 05:29:22 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, lol you dont even need that
728 2011-06-28 05:29:25 <jgarzik> yes, a non useful step
729 2011-06-28 05:29:29 <jgarzik> just a full node, at that point
730 2011-06-28 05:29:37 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: perhaps you can find the reason that bitcoin won't keep lots of connections up for more than a few days then. I still haven't tracked that down.
731 2011-06-28 05:29:47 <gmaxwell> It's not worth debating. Build one when it's useful.
732 2011-06-28 05:29:47 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, just fill all 128 connection slots on every connectable peer and wait for old connections to die, magic you control the network perfectly
733 2011-06-28 05:30:25 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: yea, but it's even better if you choose your /16s wisely, since a node won't even attempt to make an outbound connection to a /16 that it's connected to at all. IIRC.
734 2011-06-28 05:30:26 <phantomcircuit> i wrote a poc for it but didn't have anywhere to run it from
735 2011-06-28 05:30:32 <phantomcircuit> (it destroys NAT routers)
736 2011-06-28 05:30:54 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, what do i care if the node wont connect outbound to be?
737 2011-06-28 05:31:07 <phantomcircuit> it has nowhere else to connect to
738 2011-06-28 05:31:08 <phantomcircuit> :P
739 2011-06-28 05:31:10 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: no no, not to you, to anyone else!
740 2011-06-28 05:31:17 <phantomcircuit> yes but it cant
741 2011-06-28 05:31:25 <phantomcircuit> i've filled all the other peers connection slots
742 2011-06-28 05:31:51 <gmaxwell> Also, there are easier ways to break the network.
743 2011-06-28 05:32:09 <gmaxwell> Connect to all visible nodes, flood the whole internet as addresses.
744 2011-06-28 05:32:23 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, well this isn't a break attack, this is a sybil and control what all nodes see attack
745 2011-06-28 05:32:46 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: generally sybil attacks are fairly weak in bitcoin, unless you have substantial hashpower it's mostly a DOS attack.
746 2011-06-28 05:32:46 <phantomcircuit> you could double spend if you could correlate ip with user
747 2011-06-28 05:32:50 <phantomcircuit> pretty easily actually
748 2011-06-28 05:33:02 <lfm> any node that has minconnect (8 default) will not try more outbound connects
749 2011-06-28 05:33:13 <phantomcircuit> yes im aware of all of this
750 2011-06-28 05:33:21 <phantomcircuit> it's an attack that would take days to pull off
751 2011-06-28 05:33:22 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: well, if you don't think someone will notice that you've partitioned the network.
752 2011-06-28 05:33:30 <phantomcircuit> you'd have to wait for other connections to randomly drop
753 2011-06-28 05:33:40 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, im sure someone would notice
754 2011-06-28 05:33:45 <gmaxwell> But it's an argument for being able to add trusted peers that it reserves slots for.
755 2011-06-28 05:34:00 <gmaxwell> (so that you can't partition the miners in order to double spend)
756 2011-06-28 05:34:06 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, ah but trusted peers wouldn't help most people because they dont know who to trust
757 2011-06-28 05:34:12 <phantomcircuit> <-- seems super trust worthy
758 2011-06-28 05:34:14 <phantomcircuit> ;)
759 2011-06-28 05:34:20 <gmaxwell> they can trust you, thats fine.
760 2011-06-28 05:34:30 <lfm> gets obvious when your block counts start to not match first of all, then txn dont go thru etc
761 2011-06-28 05:34:32 <phantomcircuit> hmm
762 2011-06-28 05:35:01 <phantomcircuit> lfm, yeah obviously im assuming they're not using side channels to get other information
763 2011-06-28 05:35:07 <gmaxwell> E.g. if miners are always linked to each other on reserved slots (even if some badguys also have reserved slots) then you can't partition them in order to double spend.
764 2011-06-28 05:35:30 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, i can prevent the victim from seeing legitimate blocks
765 2011-06-28 05:35:37 <phantomcircuit> so they'd just see a VERY slow block day
766 2011-06-28 05:35:47 <gmaxwell> Yes, but you can't mine enough blocks to trigger a reasonable conservative confirmation policy.
767 2011-06-28 05:36:18 <gmaxwell> You going to mine 6 blocks in a day? if you could do that you'd be making more money without being evil. :)
768 2011-06-28 05:36:24 <phantomcircuit> lol no way
769 2011-06-28 05:36:34 <lfm> so to detect it I just need to do ;;bc,blocks
770 2011-06-28 05:36:50 <phantomcircuit> lfm, well assumign i cant isolate gribble ;)
771 2011-06-28 05:37:01 <gmaxwell> lfm: but most people won't... someday the client should be more helpful about this sort of stuff.
772 2011-06-28 05:37:07 <lfm> or ask anyone on the "other" part of the net what their block count is
773 2011-06-28 05:37:23 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, it's also an information recovery attack though, i would be able to correlate ip address with tx
774 2011-06-28 05:37:37 <gmaxwell> Yup. Anonymity is hard period.
775 2011-06-28 05:37:53 <jgarzik> you can correlate without DoS, given enough sampling nodes
776 2011-06-28 05:38:00 <phantomcircuit> well if we ran entirely over tor with all peers being hidden services it would be a lot better
777 2011-06-28 05:38:03 <gmaxwell> yup.
778 2011-06-28 05:38:11 <jgarzik> not really
779 2011-06-28 05:38:16 <gmaxwell> (I was yupping jgarzik)
780 2011-06-28 05:38:20 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, yeah but im talking perfect information, not simple correlation
781 2011-06-28 05:38:31 <gmaxwell> Anonymity is too hard for most people to actually pull off.
782 2011-06-28 05:38:33 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, not really? yes really
783 2011-06-28 05:38:59 <egecko> hrm
784 2011-06-28 05:39:05 <gmaxwell> you could do the same things to nodes on tor
785 2011-06-28 05:39:19 <jgarzik> your router lights still go blinky-blink in an obvious way. easy for gov't to know who's sending TX's over tor, if they are already watching.
786 2011-06-28 05:39:24 <gmaxwell> then you just wait for the next mtgox database leak and you've tied all the addresses you connected to IPs.
787 2011-06-28 05:39:37 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, sure but now you have some random tor info
788 2011-06-28 05:39:55 <jgarzik> bitcoin fingerprint is entirely obvious over tor/i2p/whatever
789 2011-06-28 05:40:08 <gmaxwell> No, you have addresses connected to addresses, so you just need one connection. And tor is super vulnerable to traffic analysis.
790 2011-06-28 05:40:33 <gmaxwell> You have a candiate IP that you can watch traffic to? flood the suspect hidden service for a moment. Tada. Busted.
791 2011-06-28 05:40:34 <egecko> so, if you have a terahash/s rate, i think you could make money mining now that the difficulty is above a million otherwise it looks like you're screwed
792 2011-06-28 05:40:56 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, yeah, but it's still much better
793 2011-06-28 05:42:07 <gmaxwell> Dunno, it's weak against spooks (who you ought to be assuming have real time near complete network visiblity for selected 5-tuples). And if your threat model isn't spooks, then you don't need anything that strong.
794 2011-06-28 05:42:35 <gmaxwell> Anyways, better tor support would be good regardless.
795 2011-06-28 05:43:08 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, well it's weak against spooks unless you move traffic through north korea
796 2011-06-28 05:43:09 <phantomcircuit> xD
797 2011-06-28 05:43:11 <gmaxwell> I pointed that fininshing up bitcoin's v6 support and then mixing in onioncat addresses would do it without much additional work beyond v6 support.
798 2011-06-28 05:43:55 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, true
799 2011-06-28 05:44:45 <gmaxwell> Likewise, trusted peers with reserved connections slots would seriously weaken your proposed sibyl if deployed (and I think the big miners would deploy it)
800 2011-06-28 06:06:59 <pixglen> on testnet i sent 0.5 BTC to the faucet and i still get assessed a 0.005BTC fee? is that right?
801 2011-06-28 06:10:06 <gmaxwell> pixglen: depends on how long you've sat on the coins. Inputs that you turn around quickly are low prioity. You meant 0.0005 right?
802 2011-06-28 06:38:37 <WildSoil> when is estimated difficult increase ?
803 2011-06-28 06:38:40 <WildSoil> time for that ?
804 2011-06-28 06:39:33 <pixglen> gmaxwell: yes, it was a quick turnaround
805 2011-06-28 06:40:41 <ersi> ;;bc,stats
806 2011-06-28 06:40:43 <gribble> Current Blocks: 133645 | Current Difficulty: 1379223.4296725 | Next Difficulty At Block: 135071 | Next Difficulty In: 1426 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 2 days, 8 hours, 35 minutes, and 42 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1461509.22378143
807 2011-06-28 06:40:44 <ersi> WildSoil: ^^
808 2011-06-28 06:45:00 <Anthraxium-64> is it possible to make a php signature that lets random people make bitcoins for you?
809 2011-06-28 06:45:15 <Anthraxium-64> i post at forums alot, and i wondered if that's possible
810 2011-06-28 06:46:44 <Zoiah> Anthraxium-64: no.
811 2011-06-28 06:47:19 <Anthraxium-64> what about the bitcoin plus code then, how does one embed that into php?
812 2011-06-28 06:47:20 <Zoiah> Only something java(script) would work, and this is not allowed in most of not all signatures.
813 2011-06-28 06:47:57 <Zoiah> Also, it would only be mining on the CPU so the amount of bitcoins would be neglicable, even if it was 1000 people.
814 2011-06-28 06:49:27 <Namegduf> Forums will not let you put JavaScript in your signatures.
815 2011-06-28 06:49:38 <Namegduf> If they do, they're open to massive attacks
816 2011-06-28 06:50:03 <Namegduf> Basically, you can write some JavaScript that sends their login cookie to you, or automatically posts spam using their account, or all kinds of stuff.
817 2011-06-28 06:50:13 <Namegduf> So moot anyway.
818 2011-06-28 07:06:11 <Anthraxium-64> how can i make my own CPU cluster with linux?
819 2011-06-28 07:06:20 <Anthraxium-64> i have around 40 pc's lying around here
820 2011-06-28 07:06:34 <ersi> There's plenty of information if you use a so called search engine
821 2011-06-28 07:08:00 <Anthraxium-64> ersi: i tried searching, info is about amazon ec2 clouds and gpu mining.
822 2011-06-28 07:09:34 <ersi> I'd recommend searching about any of these terms; linux netboot/pxe diskless cluster
823 2011-06-28 07:10:10 <jtaylor> or beowulf cluster
824 2011-06-28 07:10:12 <ersi> basically what you'd want is to boot them all from the network with a very minimal install and kick start a miner on each node
825 2011-06-28 07:12:15 <Anthraxium-64> oki
826 2011-06-28 07:13:01 <Anthraxium-64> so i have to create a custom distro?
827 2011-06-28 07:13:40 <ersi> You could take any, and just strip it down
828 2011-06-28 07:13:56 <Mqrius> Does anyone know in what format M2Crypto exports its private keys, or specifically, what steps I need to convert them into something useable? Example: MHQCAQEEIAV4xtRYwCG2SfBW0XgU+7gOadUSbDwCZINKfEYh9JV0oAcGBSuBBAAK
829 2011-06-28 07:13:57 <ersi> I bet netbooting debian would be easy
830 2011-06-28 07:14:14 <ersi> I think they have a netboot image ready, just add the software you need~
831 2011-06-28 07:14:53 <Anthraxium-64> ersi: i am thinking of using arch
832 2011-06-28 07:15:24 <gm> Mqrius: that looks like base64
833 2011-06-28 07:17:10 <Mqrius> gm: Agreed. Hmm, I wonder if just decoding it and re-encoding to base58 is enough to get it to import, or if there's some fundamental difference
834 2011-06-28 07:17:36 <jandd> Mqrius: should work
835 2011-06-28 07:18:34 <jandd> Mqrius: what do you want to do with a base58 encoded private key? You don't want to publish this?
836 2011-06-28 07:18:43 <ersi> Anthraxium-64: Sure, any will do.
837 2011-06-28 07:19:00 <Mqrius> jandd: import it into my wallet. Not the example I posted, of course.
838 2011-06-28 07:19:10 <Anthraxium-64> ersi: how can i mod arch then..
839 2011-06-28 07:19:19 <jandd> Mqrius: ok, fine then
840 2011-06-28 07:19:23 <ersi> Anthraxium-64: Use your hands :|
841 2011-06-28 07:31:10 <yorick> upb: great :)
842 2011-06-28 07:44:32 <prof7bit> has anybody of you seen a service anywhere that will scan each new block and notify me by email about transactions to certain addresses? If not this would be a nice thing to implement if one of you is looking for an idea.
843 2011-06-28 07:45:33 <Mqrius> How do RPC calls work/how do I use them? (Underlying question; how do I import a private key into my wallet?)
844 2011-06-28 07:48:27 <Anthraxium-64> ersi: do i need internet for bitcoin mining?
845 2011-06-28 07:50:00 <sipa> yes
846 2011-06-28 07:50:19 <sipa> Mqrius: using my showwallet patch
847 2011-06-28 07:51:19 <Anthraxium-64> sipa: so i should put my cluster on the 'net
848 2011-06-28 07:51:20 <Anthraxium-64> ?
849 2011-06-28 07:51:35 <Anthraxium-64> do the nodes need internet, or do i need to have internet on the master?
850 2011-06-28 07:51:46 <sipa> what are nodes?
851 2011-06-28 07:52:41 <sipa> nodes need to communicate with a pool or a bitcoind
852 2011-06-28 07:52:53 <sipa> bitcoind needs internet