1 2011-07-05 00:03:38 <BlueMatt> tcatm: hm, I really dont like the looks of either of these...Im no C++ programmer
  2 2011-07-05 00:03:46 <BlueMatt> what is the actual correct way to do this?
  3 2011-07-05 00:09:01 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, what are you doing?
  4 2011-07-05 00:09:12 <BlueMatt> throw exception from LoadWallet
  5 2011-07-05 00:09:24 <BlueMatt> whats the C++ way to throw it
  6 2011-07-05 00:09:31 <BlueMatt> do you define constants
  7 2011-07-05 00:09:38 <BlueMatt> or create a crazy object like RPCError
  8 2011-07-05 00:09:57 <BlueMatt> probably extending std::exception instead of Object, but thats irrelevant
  9 2011-07-05 00:09:59 <phantomcircuit> you inhereit std::exception
 10 2011-07-05 00:10:05 <phantomcircuit> and throw that
 11 2011-07-05 00:10:13 <phantomcircuit> but really c++ exceptions are wicked ugly
 12 2011-07-05 00:10:14 <BlueMatt> thought so
 13 2011-07-05 00:10:20 <BlueMatt> yea, tell me about it
 14 2011-07-05 00:10:39 <phantomcircuit> the google c++ code style guide just flat out says not to use them
 15 2011-07-05 00:10:41 <BlueMatt> frankly, Id rather just return a constant, but thats just me
 16 2011-07-05 00:11:17 <phantomcircuit> exceptions in c++ have actually been security issues in the past, cant say i even remotely understand how but they were
 17 2011-07-05 00:11:33 <BlueMatt> lol http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.xml#Exceptions
 18 2011-07-05 00:11:39 <BlueMatt> "We do not use C++ exceptions."
 19 2011-07-05 00:12:08 <BlueMatt> well thats good enough for me, Im returning a constant int
 20 2011-07-05 00:12:28 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, c++ code that uses exceptions really only works when you have an extensive list of all the possible exceptions a function can throw
 21 2011-07-05 00:12:35 <phantomcircuit> which ends up being pretty ridiculous
 22 2011-07-05 00:12:58 <BlueMatt> well its just as bad with returning an int
 23 2011-07-05 00:13:11 <BlueMatt> hence why satoshi did the RPCError crap
 24 2011-07-05 00:13:17 <BlueMatt> which has the string and int in it
 25 2011-07-05 00:13:21 <BlueMatt> but thats also ugly
 26 2011-07-05 00:13:27 <BlueMatt> you are throwing an object...wtf?
 27 2011-07-05 00:13:35 <phantomcircuit> returning an int you can see all the possible error codes right there in the function
 28 2011-07-05 00:13:45 <phantomcircuit> with exceptions you could be catching an exception 20 calls deep
 29 2011-07-05 00:13:59 <BlueMatt> you can do the same for returning
 30 2011-07-05 00:14:13 <BlueMatt> return function's return, and down the rabbit hole you go
 31 2011-07-05 00:14:18 <kgo> Hello all.  I've fired up testnet-in-a-box.  I'm trying to connect with a bitcoin client from another machine on my network.  I tried "bitcoin -testnet -connect=192.168.1.101" but that didn't work.  What should I be running?
 32 2011-07-05 00:14:43 <BlueMatt> In any case, Im more comfortable with return int so thats what Ill do
 33 2011-07-05 00:15:02 <phantomcircuit> yeah but it's possible to avoid the rabbit hole
 34 2011-07-05 00:15:26 <phantomcircuit> either way exceptions are slow as hell (each one creates a call stack)
 35 2011-07-05 00:20:06 <BlueMatt> tcatm: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/381/files what you had in mind?
 36 2011-07-05 00:23:10 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, throwing integers?
 37 2011-07-05 00:23:12 <phantomcircuit> plz2not
 38 2011-07-05 00:23:18 <BlueMatt> no, huh
 39 2011-07-05 00:23:24 <BlueMatt> returnig
 40 2011-07-05 00:23:28 <BlueMatt> returning*
 41 2011-07-05 00:23:36 <phantomcircuit> that link says throw
 42 2011-07-05 00:23:43 <phantomcircuit> throw DB_CORRUPT;
 43 2011-07-05 00:23:47 <BlueMatt> ah you are right
 44 2011-07-05 00:24:19 <phantomcircuit> unless DB_CORRUPT is an insane #define to new DbCorruptException
 45 2011-07-05 00:24:21 <phantomcircuit> or something
 46 2011-07-05 00:24:29 <picci> Tamo: pm, sorry i saw it like 20 min's late :D
 47 2011-07-05 00:26:12 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r9390431 / src/util.cpp : Merge pull request #379 from gavinandresen/nocommas ... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9390431ce49893cbdf23846edb4bdf72b3d4e830
 48 2011-07-05 00:27:18 <phantomcircuit> uh
 49 2011-07-05 00:27:39 <phantomcircuit> removing the commas is a change to the rpc api
 50 2011-07-05 00:28:01 <phantomcircuit> which should possibly warrant something like setversion
 51 2011-07-05 00:29:14 <phantomcircuit> has anybody considered versioning the rpc api?
 52 2011-07-05 00:30:32 <marioxcc> phantomcircuit: there is a lot of work to be done
 53 2011-07-05 00:30:49 <phantomcircuit> yes
 54 2011-07-05 00:30:57 <phantomcircuit> i was wondering if anybody had considered it
 55 2011-07-05 00:31:01 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, ^
 56 2011-07-05 00:31:45 <BlueMatt> yea, well rpc needs overhauled...
 57 2011-07-05 00:32:04 <BlueMatt> in fact maybe Ill do that, add non-floats, etc
 58 2011-07-05 00:32:16 <BlueMatt> maybe version, but that could go in http headers
 59 2011-07-05 00:32:57 <BlueMatt> in any case, Im off to be, tcatm mind acking one of the pulls, or commenting again? jgarzik sipa, the same
 60 2011-07-05 00:42:19 <luke-jr> b4epoche_: I agree CocoaBitcoin commits would be nice to have here
 61 2011-07-05 00:43:33 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: rc2 tagged
 62 2011-07-05 00:44:52 <luke-jr> justmoon: I can probably hack my BitGit CIA stuff to trim the commit msg and append the URI-- I just thought I already had! :P\n1197437
 63 2011-07-05 00:45:34 <Diablo-D3> heh, I just use github's built in CIA support
 64 2011-07-05 00:46:30 <justmoon> Diablo-D3, I set up CIA's advanced filtering mechanism today so that it only prints the first line of the commit message, precisely because github's built-in feature sends the whole thing
 65 2011-07-05 00:46:53 <jgarzik> luke-jr: avoiding merge commits would be nice
 66 2011-07-05 00:47:05 <luke-jr> jgarzik: the merge itself, or just its children?
 67 2011-07-05 00:47:23 <jgarzik> luke-jr: merge itself, same result as git log produces with --no-merges
 68 2011-07-05 00:47:25 <luke-jr> jgarzik: mine limits itself to 2-3 commits-- if there's more, it summarizes them
 69 2011-07-05 00:47:29 <justmoon> Diablo-D3, the problem was that if you trim the message to only the first line, githubs link url gets cut off, so I had to add the full long url at the end, now it works, but shows both the long and short urls for single line commit messages
 70 2011-07-05 00:47:35 <amiller> hey is there a pure javascript bitcoin wallet yet
 71 2011-07-05 00:47:38 <luke-jr> jgarzik: hmm, not sure how easy that change would be
 72 2011-07-05 00:47:43 <Diablo-D3> you shouldnt have commits longer than 72 characters anyhow
 73 2011-07-05 00:47:59 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: sometimes a full description on lines 2+ is nice
 74 2011-07-05 00:48:14 <Diablo-D3> no, see
 75 2011-07-05 00:48:16 <Diablo-D3> I just dont give a fuck
 76 2011-07-05 00:48:20 <luke-jr> good for you
 77 2011-07-05 00:48:22 <Diablo-D3> if I write paragraphs of shit
 78 2011-07-05 00:48:23 <Diablo-D3> who cares
 79 2011-07-05 00:48:23 <luke-jr> don't read ti then
 80 2011-07-05 00:48:33 <Diablo-D3> github cuts it off
 81 2011-07-05 00:55:53 <luke-jr> hrm
 82 2011-07-05 00:57:15 <Joric> kgo, looks like testnet in a box only supported on linux http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=4483.0 i'm trying to run two daemons with no luck
 83 2011-07-05 00:58:45 <kgo> Joric, thanks.  Actually I got everything to work.  2 daemons on a debian vm.  The only reason my windows box didn't connect was because I synced with the real testnet, and the chain was much longer.  When I moved the .bitcoin/testnet directory out of the way, that command worked.
 84 2011-07-05 01:02:51 <Joric> bitcoin, y u no support 2 gui clients running simultaneously with different datadirs
 85 2011-07-05 01:06:34 <Joric> even if i run -daemon the second process exits after a while
 86 2011-07-05 01:14:10 <Tamo> http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=26104.0
 87 2011-07-05 01:14:55 <Joric> squatters...
 88 2011-07-05 01:40:14 <CIA-103> bitcoin: David Joel Schwartz hub_mode * r30bfa77af6f3 bitcoind-personal/src/ (net.cpp net.h): Implement a new option ("-hub") to work aggressively to acquire connections http://tinyurl.com/5wyrre7 http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/bitcoind/luke-jr.git/commitdiff/30bfa77af6f3c007873a4c4775c23f7306e3fa8b
 89 2011-07-05 01:40:15 <CIA-103> bitcoin: David Joel Schwartz rpc_keepalive * r29fff4577a2b bitcoind-personal/src/rpc.cpp: correct support for HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1, including the proper use of keep alives http://tinyurl.com/65cgtyc http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/bitcoind/luke-jr.git/commitdiff/29fff4577a2b0310a525dfb7858801f45f3c1c72
 90 2011-07-05 01:49:49 <jgarzik> luke-jr: are you splitting up and committing that stuff in http://davids.webmaster.com/~davids/bitcoin-3diff.txt ?
 91 2011-07-05 01:50:05 <jgarzik> luke-jr: pretty much every pool operator wants HTTP/1.1 keep-alive support, like, yesterday
 92 2011-07-05 01:50:09 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr eligius_sendfee * rf11485..7861f3 bitcoind-personal/src/ (init.cpp ui.cpp main.h main.cpp): (5 commits) http://tinyurl.com/43njjlo http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/bitcoind/luke-jr.git/shortlog/refs/heads/eligius_sendfee
 93 2011-07-05 01:50:30 <jgarzik> luke-jr: nobody likes hub mode, though
 94 2011-07-05 01:50:54 <rethaw> are you guys working on pool software?
 95 2011-07-05 01:51:23 <jgarzik> rethaw: I was talking about bitcoind, but yes I also work on pool software
 96 2011-07-05 01:52:46 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, what's the proper procedure when someone gets a DbRunRecoveryException
 97 2011-07-05 01:54:42 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: depends on the circumstances.  we already run recovery at bitcoin startup, so minor problems are simply "run bitcoin again"  you can also use the external utility db_recover
 98 2011-07-05 01:55:03 <phantomcircuit> there's a guy in #bitcoin saying he's getting it on startup on debian
 99 2011-07-05 01:55:12 <phantomcircuit> hopefully it's a simple version mismatch
100 2011-07-05 01:55:20 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: since wallet.dat is atomically checkpointed, removing everything but wallet.dat is the outside-of-bdb stupid-but-effective recovery
101 2011-07-05 01:56:06 <phantomcircuit> is this documented anywhere?
102 2011-07-05 01:56:33 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: bdb docs.  it's a db4 "environment" so standard environment recovery
103 2011-07-05 01:56:47 <kubhoosh> developers come and share your projects @ http://www.bitcoinsyndicate.com
104 2011-07-05 01:56:52 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: but the stupid-but-effective method is often easier to explain to average users
105 2011-07-05 02:00:12 <CIA-103> bitcoin: various combo * rc92e39..d523d0 bitcoind-personal/ (10 files in 2 dirs): (12 commits) http://tinyurl.com/3go73zb http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/bitcoind/luke-jr.git/shortlog/refs/heads/combo
106 2011-07-05 02:04:34 <luke-jr> jgarzik: yes, I split 3diff.txt into about 4 or 5 branches
107 2011-07-05 02:04:52 <luke-jr> jgarzik: I want hub mode. :p
108 2011-07-05 02:05:04 <luke-jr> stales give Eligius a bad name
109 2011-07-05 02:05:51 <luke-jr> jgarzik: Keepalive requires threading, of course.
110 2011-07-05 02:06:15 <Joric> is forum read-only? could anyone give me a voice? http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?action=profile;u=24067
111 2011-07-05 02:06:42 <rethaw> go to newbie forum and poke around
112 2011-07-05 02:06:50 <rethaw> a sticky there will make everything clear
113 2011-07-05 02:10:16 <jgarzik> luke-jr: keep-alives do not necessarily require threading.  plenty of single-process async I/O servers do them.
114 2011-07-05 02:10:49 <jgarzik> luke-jr: speaking generally, of course.  threading may be the best route for bitcoind.
115 2011-07-05 02:11:21 <luke-jr> jgarzik: well, I mean for bitcoind :p
116 2011-07-05 02:11:28 <luke-jr> the pre-threading one does'nt do async either
117 2011-07-05 02:12:29 <luke-jr> jgarzik: also, I made the -pollpidfile more generic, since it really has nothing to do with pushpool specifically
118 2011-07-05 02:25:16 <lolwat`> is theymos ever here?
119 2011-07-05 02:25:25 <Diablo-D3> no cause hes a noob
120 2011-07-05 02:27:52 <phantomcircuit> Diablo-D3, lol
121 2011-07-05 02:28:09 <phantomcircuit> Diablo-D3, because everybody is like HEY BRO FORUMS ARE SLOW
122 2011-07-05 02:28:17 <Diablo-D3> dude
123 2011-07-05 02:28:22 <Diablo-D3> I just want the powers to ban people
124 2011-07-05 02:29:32 <phantomcircuit> join #bitcoin
125 2011-07-05 02:29:49 <noagendamarket> lol
126 2011-07-05 02:29:56 <Rabbit67890> lolwat`:
127 2011-07-05 02:30:04 <phantomcircuit> i said
128 2011-07-05 02:30:21 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr * r90a907a17850 gentoo/net-p2p/ (6 files in 2 dirs): net-p2p/bitcoind and net-p2p/wxbitcoin: re-add USE=eligius ported to 0.3.24+ http://tinyurl.com/3ekdyjb http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/gentoo_ebuild.git/commitdiff/90a907a17850f5a4afb9822fdb8221e61963c5d1
129 2011-07-05 02:30:22 <phantomcircuit> join #bitcoin
130 2011-07-05 02:30:26 <lolwat`> Rabbit67890, ?
131 2011-07-05 02:30:41 <Diablo-D3> yes and?
132 2011-07-05 02:31:29 <Rabbit67890> ?
133 2011-07-05 02:32:10 <Rabbit67890> btw what happened to bitcoin built in GPU miner
134 2011-07-05 02:33:33 <lolwat`> Rabbit67890, you said my name that is why i said ?
135 2011-07-05 02:33:35 <sacarlson> Rabbit67890: oh bummer they took that out?
136 2011-07-05 02:33:51 <Diablo-D3> Rabbit67890: it never had one
137 2011-07-05 02:33:59 <sacarlson> Diablo-D3: yes it did
138 2011-07-05 02:34:01 <Diablo-D3> it has a _CPU_ miner
139 2011-07-05 02:34:06 <lolwat`> http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=25786.msg325574
140 2011-07-05 02:34:09 <Diablo-D3> but its a pile of shit, and slower than the rest
141 2011-07-05 02:34:13 <Rabbit67890> It had a testing version on q mac GPU miner
142 2011-07-05 02:34:14 <lolwat`> can someone help me understand what theymos is not understanding
143 2011-07-05 02:34:26 <lolwat`> er http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=25786
144 2011-07-05 02:34:36 <sacarlson> Diablo-D3: oh your correct it had a cpu minner
145 2011-07-05 02:34:40 <lolwat`> or in general what is not clear about that
146 2011-07-05 02:34:58 <Rabbit67890> My iPhone spellcheck is useless
147 2011-07-05 02:35:01 <Diablo-D3> hows this
148 2011-07-05 02:35:07 <Diablo-D3> if mtgox gets instant TX
149 2011-07-05 02:35:11 <Diablo-D3> I will stop using it.
150 2011-07-05 02:35:37 <sacarlson> Diablo-D3: what is instant TX?
151 2011-07-05 02:36:12 <sacarlson> Diablo-D3: they pay more for transactions so they get quicker movement?
152 2011-07-05 02:36:53 <lolwat`> maybe he was referring to my thread? sacarlson look at my thread and see if you can see what theymos doesn't understand :]
153 2011-07-05 02:37:09 <Diablo-D3> sacarlson: see lolwat's thread
154 2011-07-05 02:37:21 <lolwat`> Diablo-D3, huh why would you stop using it?
155 2011-07-05 02:37:31 <Diablo-D3> because its a security risk
156 2011-07-05 02:37:34 <lolwat`> ??
157 2011-07-05 02:37:35 <lolwat`> how
158 2011-07-05 02:37:47 <Diablo-D3> because I have not yet created a BDIC.
159 2011-07-05 02:37:55 <lolwat`> BDIC?
160 2011-07-05 02:38:21 <lolwat`> did you even read the scheme? explain how it is a security risk
161 2011-07-05 02:39:14 <Diablo-D3> bitcoin deposit insurance company
162 2011-07-05 02:39:22 <Diablo-D3> lolwat`: because it requires me to trust people that I do not trust
163 2011-07-05 02:39:29 <lolwat`> who does it require you to trust??
164 2011-07-05 02:39:35 <lolwat`> i think you did not read or understand it...
165 2011-07-05 02:39:36 <sacarlson> lolwat`: Diablo-D3: oh cool looks like escrow multisign that I'm working on with groffer
166 2011-07-05 02:39:55 <lolwat`> sacarlson I think everything needed is in bitcoin right now
167 2011-07-05 02:39:59 <lolwat`> except nLocktime
168 2011-07-05 02:40:07 <Diablo-D3> a multisign escrow could work
169 2011-07-05 02:40:14 <Diablo-D3> but it'd be easier to just have a BDIC.
170 2011-07-05 02:40:23 <lolwat`> Diablo-D3, you might want to read and understand it before saying stupid things
171 2011-07-05 02:41:02 <lolwat`> you would rather have an insurance company than a secure protocol that doesn't require any trust and noone can screw the other?
172 2011-07-05 02:41:11 <lolwat`> cool story bro, just use paypal then
173 2011-07-05 02:41:23 <Diablo-D3> lolwat`: because I'd run it and I only trust myself.
174 2011-07-05 02:41:25 <Rabbit67890> ^^
175 2011-07-05 02:41:31 <lolwat`> sacarlson, do you see something unclear in the scheme that causes others to doubt it?
176 2011-07-05 02:41:33 <sacarlson> lolwat`: well I can't seem to get the minners to accept the new nonstandard transaction to enable multisign but it will be open soon as seen is now already avalible on MulitCoin https://github.com/sacarlson/MultiCoin
177 2011-07-05 02:42:16 <lolwat`> tbh im not terribly worried about that as I said last time I think multicoin has a stronger future anyway
178 2011-07-05 02:42:29 <lolwat`> don't waste too much time trying to get bitcoin miners to accept new t
179 2011-07-05 02:42:31 <lolwat`> new tx
180 2011-07-05 02:42:43 <lolwat`> the only thing is make it easy to reuse work
181 2011-07-05 02:43:06 <lolwat`> are you storing multicoin merkleroot in bitcoin blockchain so miners can mine multicoin for free if they mine bitcoin?
182 2011-07-05 02:43:19 <sacarlson> lolwat`: well if they don't then beertokens will take over that already accepts them http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=24209.0
183 2011-07-05 02:43:31 <lolwat`> that is all you need IMO, if you do that
184 2011-07-05 02:43:55 <lolwat`> sacarlson, yes exactly, a better version supporting more scripts will take over, as long as you let miners mine both for free
185 2011-07-05 02:44:13 <lolwat`> so you don't have some kind of group/herd problem where noone wants to switch first
186 2011-07-05 02:45:00 <sacarlson> lolwat`: you must not understand beertokens then it's a preminted version of crypto-currency but other could follow http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=9493.0
187 2011-07-05 02:45:11 <lolwat`> sacarlson, so, do you store merkleroots for beertokens/whatever in bitcoin blockchain, so miners can simultaneously mine both bitcoins and w/e else? this is crucial for it to take off IMO or else it is going to be hard
188 2011-07-05 02:45:31 <lolwat`> ok not beertokens, but w/e else is proposed in multicoin
189 2011-07-05 02:45:43 <sacarlson> lolwat`: yes that has been proposed
190 2011-07-05 02:46:52 <sacarlson> lolwat`: all of these methods are up for proposal as they become functional and available https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Alternative_Chains
191 2011-07-05 02:48:14 <sacarlson> they will all be a part of MultiCoin for testing and evaluation
192 2011-07-05 03:15:50 <AlonzoTG> Before I spend two weeks implementing Bozo the Clown's Bitcoin Protocol, I was wondering if a more competent design is on the horizon?
193 2011-07-05 03:16:56 <shLONG> http://bitcoinsyndicate.com/index.php/topic,5.0.html
194 2011-07-05 03:17:22 <phantomcircuit> AlonzoTG, no it's not
195 2011-07-05 03:17:23 <phantomcircuit> enjoy
196 2011-07-05 03:17:46 <phantomcircuit> (also the network serialization code is necessary to calculate the hashes anyways, so that's 90% of the pita right there)
197 2011-07-05 03:17:50 <shLONG> http://bitcoinsyndicate.com/index.php/topic,3.msg0/boardseen.html#new
198 2011-07-05 03:30:13 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr coinbaser * re9a0e4d7a25f bitcoind-personal/src/main.cpp: Execute command specified by -coinbaser when creating a new block, which can output data to control where the generation goes http://tinyurl.com/672oap7 http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/bitcoind/luke-jr.git/commitdiff/e9a0e4d7a25f2a41641ce46011cabe1195a77285
199 2011-07-05 03:30:14 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr coinbaser * rb3fb0d04fc17 bitcoind-personal/src/main.cpp: coinbaser: replace %d in command line with available funds http://tinyurl.com/69sms8c http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/bitcoind/luke-jr.git/commitdiff/b3fb0d04fc17948b513d9f483f98599975b1683c
200 2011-07-05 03:40:08 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr policy * r77b21e59ce81 bitcoind-personal/src/main.cpp: accept and relay non-standard transactions http://tinyurl.com/66ooswp http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/bitcoind/luke-jr.git/commitdiff/77b21e59ce81dbd8b5079f4880d066dd29dfc797
201 2011-07-05 03:40:09 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr policy * r13f3a3843cec bitcoind-personal/src/main.cpp: accept my own transactions (or those paying me) without a fee http://tinyurl.com/6guoj99 http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/bitcoind/luke-jr.git/commitdiff/13f3a3843cece53cee05fdc2fe92e257d193d82d
202 2011-07-05 03:57:54 <jgarzik> luke-jr: not sure what you're talking about, re -pollpidfile
203 2011-07-05 03:58:17 <luke-jr> jgarzik: I made it -blknotifypidfile
204 2011-07-05 03:59:08 <jgarzik> luke-jr: still don't know what you're talking about
205 2011-07-05 03:59:19 <denisx> jgarzik: it would replace the blkmond
206 2011-07-05 03:59:53 <jgarzik> denisx: what would replace blkmond?
207 2011-07-05 04:00:24 <denisx> jgarzik: the patch for bitcoind where you can add -blknotifypidfile
208 2011-07-05 04:00:44 <denisx> it was named pollpidfile before
209 2011-07-05 04:00:55 <jgarzik> denisx: ah.  never heard of/seen such a patch.
210 2011-07-05 04:01:22 <denisx> http://davids.webmaster.com/~davids/bitcoin-4diff.txt
211 2011-07-05 04:02:42 <jgarzik> denisx: I guess it depends on your pool setup.  when I ran my pool, all my bitcoind's were remote for safety.  blkmond running locally was, therefore, the lowest cost solution.
212 2011-07-05 04:03:12 <jgarzik> I wouldn't trust bitcoind on same node as pushpoold, in case you get hacked.
213 2011-07-05 04:38:16 <cuddlefish> Gavin's donation address in profile:
214 2011-07-05 04:38:21 <cuddlefish> Gavin Andresen 15VjRaDX9zpbA8LVnbrCAFzrVzN7ixHNsC 19541.95641595 BTC
215 2011-07-05 04:38:27 <cuddlefish> and somehow the faucet is dry.
216 2011-07-05 04:39:39 <gmaxwell> cuddlefish: that actually the faucent input address, and gavin posted about needing to do some security management stuff because he wasn't comfortable leaving thousands of btc on the faucet webserver.
217 2011-07-05 04:40:02 <gmaxwell> (and it's not dry, and I don't think it has been dry recently at all)
218 2011-07-05 04:41:29 <cuddlefish> ah
219 2011-07-05 04:41:43 <cuddlefish> but 19k BTC?
220 2011-07-05 05:26:53 <glassresistor> so mtgox was hacked again, someone just emptied out my account
221 2011-07-05 05:27:43 <glassresistor> they changed my pass, converted all the money to btc and withdrew it all
222 2011-07-05 05:27:44 <phantomcircuit> glassresistor, got proof?
223 2011-07-05 05:28:00 <glassresistor> phantomcircuit: define proof
224 2011-07-05 05:28:21 <glassresistor> my entire account got emptied out and i didn't do it
225 2011-07-05 05:28:38 <glassresistor> and i hadn't logged into gox in a week or so
226 2011-07-05 05:29:15 <sivu> so maybe it was your account that got hacked
227 2011-07-05 05:29:24 <phantomcircuit> glassresistor, screen shot?
228 2011-07-05 05:29:38 <phantomcircuit> just to be clear
229 2011-07-05 05:29:42 <phantomcircuit> im tempted to believe you
230 2011-07-05 05:29:50 <phantomcircuit> tempted is the wrong word
231 2011-07-05 05:29:59 <phantomcircuit> im inclined to believe you
232 2011-07-05 05:30:29 <glassresistor> how would i prove it?
233 2011-07-05 05:30:37 <glassresistor> screen shot of what?
234 2011-07-05 05:31:59 <doublec> glassresistor: what address were the coins sent to?
235 2011-07-05 05:32:00 <phantomcircuit> i guess not actually
236 2011-07-05 05:32:02 <glassresistor> phantomcircuit: do you work with mtgox?  does anyone know if there is insurance or reimbursment?
237 2011-07-05 05:32:05 <phantomcircuit> long password?
238 2011-07-05 05:32:12 <glassresistor> 16 char randomly generated
239 2011-07-05 05:32:21 <glassresistor> stored in an encrypted directory
240 2011-07-05 05:33:48 <hvala> I think there is no way they can break that password from hash
241 2011-07-05 05:34:18 <hvala> did you access mtgox through https?
242 2011-07-05 05:34:52 <glassresistor> hvala: of course, behind wpa2
243 2011-07-05 05:34:56 <glassresistor> or eth0
244 2011-07-05 05:35:21 <hvala> that looks like you have been hacked to me
245 2011-07-05 05:35:37 <hvala> because on that side you did nothing wrong
246 2011-07-05 05:35:50 <hvala> or mtgox started keeping passwords in plain text
247 2011-07-05 05:36:50 <hvala> windows or linux?
248 2011-07-05 05:37:45 <enquirer> if anyone else complains of same, it's probably mtgox
249 2011-07-05 05:38:03 <hvala> glassresistor: do you use windows or linux?
250 2011-07-05 05:39:45 <glassresistor> hvala: linux selinux as wel
251 2011-07-05 05:39:59 <glassresistor> im very secure, i do dev and web security for a living
252 2011-07-05 05:40:33 <hvala> ok, sorry
253 2011-07-05 05:40:47 <doublec> glassresistor: what address were the coins sent to?
254 2011-07-05 05:41:47 <doublec> glassresistor: I'm assuming you can look that up...
255 2011-07-05 05:41:51 <hvala> maybe your girlfriend or friend who nows a password? that gets even experts..
256 2011-07-05 05:42:05 <Zoiah> glassresistor: fyi, mtgox has no insurance or reimbursement. There's only pointing to 'stupid insecure users' until a large break is published.
257 2011-07-05 05:42:26 <hvala> knows..
258 2011-07-05 05:43:58 <Zoiah> But without more information, which might not be available to you, it's hard to say by outsiders where the break occurred.
259 2011-07-05 05:48:35 <hvala> if it is hacked, it should be a server side installed script to collect plaintext passwords
260 2011-07-05 05:49:19 <sturles> Firefox plugin, perhaps?
261 2011-07-05 05:50:22 <hvala> sturles: yupp
262 2011-07-05 05:50:24 <hvala> maybe
263 2011-07-05 05:50:42 <hvala> but that would be a personal hack, not for mtgox
264 2011-07-05 05:56:32 <enquirer> may be ask mtgox for access logs
265 2011-07-05 05:57:24 <enquirer> when exactly hacker logged into account
266 2011-07-05 06:03:08 <doublec> the lack of response to 'what address were the coins sent to' makes me dubious there was a hack
267 2011-07-05 06:06:33 <hvala> doublec: if he has no access to mtgox, he can not see to what address the coins were sent to, because he had dollars on account
268 2011-07-05 06:07:01 <doublec> hvala: if he has no access to mtgox, how does he know coins were stolen?
269 2011-07-05 06:07:22 <hvala> don't know
270 2011-07-05 06:07:31 <hvala> good question
271 2011-07-05 06:08:05 <hvala> but he said the password was changed, than he could know only if he restored the account
272 2011-07-05 06:08:13 <doublec> just the whole "I'm a security expert, I use selinux, I use encrypted dictionaries, directories, hashed passwords, it's my linving, I got hacked" sounds suspicious
273 2011-07-05 06:08:53 <doublec> and then not being able to provide basic information to track the issue
274 2011-07-05 06:09:02 <doublec> of course, he could be busy panicing, so who knows
275 2011-07-05 06:09:19 <doublec> I know I'd be digging into it rather than answering on irc so possibly that
276 2011-07-05 06:10:03 <hvala> yes, panic, and we are probably not much help
277 2011-07-05 06:10:48 <enquirer> yeah should talk directly to mtgox
278 2011-07-05 06:10:53 <hvala> doublec: good analysis
279 2011-07-05 06:11:00 <hvala> :)
280 2011-07-05 08:23:29 <erus`> whats a suitable number of conformations before you can feel (fairly) sure a payment is legit
281 2011-07-05 08:24:39 <tcatm> 3..6
282 2011-07-05 08:25:00 <erus`> that few :)
283 2011-07-05 08:25:27 <tcatm> depends on amount. < 10 BTC should be fine with 2 or 3
284 2011-07-05 08:25:57 <[Tycho]> < 10 BTC should be fine with 1-2 :)
285 2011-07-05 08:26:16 <erus`> who is making the 40k BTC transactions on block explorer?
286 2011-07-05 08:26:23 <erus`> drug lords?
287 2011-07-05 08:27:18 <[Tycho]> Bitcoin collectioners :)
288 2011-07-05 08:27:52 <phantomcircuit> erus`, i would accept 1 confirmation for < 10 BTC
289 2011-07-05 08:28:49 <erus`> is there a rough guestimate of the number of bitcoins in circulation?
290 2011-07-05 08:29:04 <phantomcircuit> there is an exact number
291 2011-07-05 08:29:04 <sipa> define circulation?
292 2011-07-05 08:29:07 <phantomcircuit> ;;bc,stats
293 2011-07-05 08:29:09 <gribble> Current Blocks: 134849 | Current Difficulty: 1379192.2882281 | Next Difficulty At Block: 135071 | Next Difficulty In: 222 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 day, 7 hours, 4 minutes, and 48 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1575367.76743766
294 2011-07-05 08:29:18 <phantomcircuit> 134849*50
295 2011-07-05 08:31:04 <erus`> 6742450
296 2011-07-05 08:32:53 <erus`> so a 40000 tx is like 0.75% of the total bitcoins
297 2011-07-05 08:32:59 <erus`> thats lots
298 2011-07-05 08:52:03 <sturles> Looks like someone's spending wallet.  The 40k transactions is what's left when a portion has been sent out.
299 2011-07-05 08:52:37 <sturles> I wish bitcoinexplorer had a tree function.  Would make everything clearer.
300 2011-07-05 08:53:12 <enquirer> so what, if i spend 1BTC, entire world can see how much money is in my wallet?
301 2011-07-05 08:53:37 <mtrlt> you don't have to spend anything
302 2011-07-05 08:53:41 <sipa> all the world can see which coins you used for the transaction
303 2011-07-05 08:53:43 <enquirer> because 39,999 change appears on block explorer?
304 2011-07-05 08:53:44 <mtrlt> oyu can see every wallet's state right now
305 2011-07-05 08:53:57 <mtrlt> i mean, addresses
306 2011-07-05 08:53:59 <mtrlt> you can't see wallets.
307 2011-07-05 08:54:01 <sipa> if you only had a 40000k BTC coin, yes there will be 39999 change
308 2011-07-05 08:54:14 <sipa> not even addresses
309 2011-07-05 08:54:37 <sturles> If you transfer all your coins to one address, people will be able to see what's left on that address, yes.
310 2011-07-05 08:54:44 <sipa> though coins sent to the single address can be assumed to belong to the same owner
311 2011-07-05 08:55:03 <sipa> but eg. with e-wallet services there is no reason for that even
312 2011-07-05 08:55:43 <sturles> Your wallet have lot's of addresses.  There is no reason to keep all at the same address.
313 2011-07-05 08:57:28 <Diablo-D3> well
314 2011-07-05 08:57:35 <Diablo-D3> yeah =/
315 2011-07-05 08:57:49 <enquirer> so for large trnsfers, it's better (for privacy) to split to many addresses
316 2011-07-05 08:57:50 <Diablo-D3> but thats why you send yourself random but normal values
317 2011-07-05 08:58:28 <enquirer> wait, even that can be traced
318 2011-07-05 08:58:59 <enquirer> hmm drug lords not satisfied (
319 2011-07-05 09:02:28 <enquirer> our focus group)
320 2011-07-05 09:02:52 <Diablo-D3> you mean the CIA
321 2011-07-05 09:04:52 <enquirer> should make a wallet with many addresses, fund them independently with small sums, then transfer to another wallet with many small addresses
322 2011-07-05 09:05:48 <enquirer> and do it over ~24 hours to minimize correlation
323 2011-07-05 09:06:40 <coderrr> enquirer,
324 2011-07-05 09:06:55 <coderrr> relevant http://coderrr.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/patching-the-bitcoin-client-to-make-it-more-anonymous/
325 2011-07-05 09:13:47 <enquirer> great, hope it makes its way into mainstream client
326 2011-07-05 09:14:37 <enquirer> it could be outright dangerous if everyone knew you have 40000 btc ...
327 2011-07-05 09:14:58 <coderrr> yea
328 2011-07-05 09:15:33 <enquirer> quite an incentive to kidnap you and use hot iron decryption attack )
329 2011-07-05 09:15:41 <coderrr> yep
330 2011-07-05 09:16:46 <coderrr> wonder if any bitcoin banks will have under duress challenge/response phrases :p
331 2011-07-05 09:19:28 <quellhorst> who ha 40k btc?
332 2011-07-05 09:19:53 <coderrr> enquirer
333 2011-07-05 09:20:03 <quellhorst> enquirer: damn, how long have you been into btc?
334 2011-07-05 09:24:07 <[Tycho]> That method is called "thermorectal cryptoanalysis" here
335 2011-07-05 09:24:08 <sturles> enquirer: No thanks.  Pollutes the block chain with unneccessary transactions, and will make you (or me) have to pay fees for large transactions due to size.
336 2011-07-05 09:25:44 <enquirer> sturles: i'm financing my next drug shipment. think i care about polluting the block chain?
337 2011-07-05 09:25:48 <sturles> coderrr: There is an error in your text.  The official bitcoin client does not pick at random.  It makes a smart pick.
338 2011-07-05 09:26:07 <sturles> enquirer: No, not you.
339 2011-07-05 09:26:33 <coderrr> sturles, i know, but its close enuf to random for the avg user
340 2011-07-05 09:26:43 <coderrr> and it acutally does do a random shuffle along w some other criteria
341 2011-07-05 09:27:02 <sturles> It is smart for an average user, leading to smaller fees and an optimal block chain.  You do not disclose that.
342 2011-07-05 09:27:11 <coderrr> sturles, smart is subjective
343 2011-07-05 09:27:16 <coderrr> if you want anonymity its downright stupid
344 2011-07-05 09:27:24 <sturles> coderrr: Your text is misleading and false.
345 2011-07-05 09:27:33 <coderrr> i dont think so
346 2011-07-05 09:27:44 <sturles> Bitcoins aren't anonymous.
347 2011-07-05 09:27:57 <coderrr> sturles, did you read the whole thing before you drag me into an arguemnt ?
348 2011-07-05 09:28:40 <sturles> I read enough bs that I didn't bother reading the rest.
349 2011-07-05 09:28:47 <coderrr> sturles, k buddy
350 2011-07-05 09:29:26 <sturles> If you could at least make the text factually correct, it may be worth it.
351 2011-07-05 09:30:34 <sturles> The point you are making sums up to that Wikileaks don't do enough to anonymize donors.
352 2011-07-05 09:30:49 <sturles> They coulkd easily make a random address for each visitor.
353 2011-07-05 09:31:11 <coderrr> so enquirer how are things ?
354 2011-07-05 09:31:21 <enquirer> i bought my first btc for cash from a guy on the street. at this point it's anonymous
355 2011-07-05 09:31:33 <sturles> If you donate to an official addres, you are breaking your anonymity.  It is obvious.
356 2011-07-05 09:31:53 <sturles> enquirer: Sure he didn't take pictures?
357 2011-07-05 09:32:50 <enquirer> not sure ... good you asked, reminded me i should go and kill him
358 2011-07-05 09:35:51 <enquirer> later i bought some from mtgox, and this is traceable to me, and it's in the same wallet .. is there an app to split/combine wallets?
359 2011-07-05 09:36:53 <coderrr> enquirer, you could use my patch to send to another wallet
360 2011-07-05 09:36:54 <sturles> Same wallet or same address?
361 2011-07-05 09:37:00 <coderrr> but then you might incur a tx fee
362 2011-07-05 09:37:27 <coderrr> i think there is some work on importing/exporting privkeys (addresses) not sure if thats in any client yet though
363 2011-07-05 09:38:00 <sturles> There is no automatic connection between keys in your wallet, but if you used the same address you broke anonymity rule #1.
364 2011-07-05 09:38:27 <enquirer> same wallet, diff addresses of course
365 2011-07-05 09:39:48 <coderrr> enquirer, create new wallet,use my patch to send from your mtgox receive address to an address in your new wallet
366 2011-07-05 09:39:55 <enquirer> k
367 2011-07-05 09:39:57 <coderrr> then you dont have to worry about mixing the two
368 2011-07-05 09:44:41 <MrSam> hmm
369 2011-07-05 09:44:42 <MrSam> mtgox
370 2011-07-05 09:47:42 <enquirer> i liked this: Chrome is just like a keylogger: it saves whatever you type in it and sents to Google.
371 2011-07-05 10:00:58 <phungus> you can change privacy settings in Chrome too
372 2011-07-05 10:01:12 <phungus> it doesn't have to send anything anywhere
373 2011-07-05 10:01:14 <diki> ;;bc,stats
374 2011-07-05 10:01:16 <gribble> Current Blocks: 134865 | Current Difficulty: 1379192.2882281 | Next Difficulty At Block: 135071 | Next Difficulty In: 206 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 day, 4 hours, 57 minutes, and 16 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1575155.61888361
375 2011-07-05 10:03:45 <quellhorst> look at the selloff
376 2011-07-05 10:16:23 <quellhorst> enquirer: so you better sell off your 40k btc before they go back down to $.70 each
377 2011-07-05 10:16:47 <quellhorst> heck if btc hit $.10 i'd probably put $10k into it
378 2011-07-05 10:29:41 <phantomcircuit> britcoin's bank account is changing from Lloyds TSB to HSBC
379 2011-07-05 10:30:13 <MrSam> good for you
380 2011-07-05 11:07:11 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: haha, it's scarey how close to my code that vanity generator is
381 2011-07-05 11:13:21 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: and i just found the bug in my address logic because of it, lol
382 2011-07-05 11:21:57 <coderrr> jrmithdobbs, what rate do those vanity generates run at compared to mining ?
383 2011-07-05 11:22:20 <jrmithdobbs> your question doesn't make sense
384 2011-07-05 11:22:42 <coderrr> jrmithdobbs, like if card X can do 1Gh/s how many addrs can it generate a second ?
385 2011-07-05 11:23:08 <jrmithdobbs> 0
386 2011-07-05 11:23:22 <jrmithdobbs> seeing as noone's implemented it in CUDA/opencl?!
387 2011-07-05 11:23:33 <coderrr> oh ic haha
388 2011-07-05 11:23:34 <coderrr> damn
389 2011-07-05 11:25:32 <vegard> address generation on the CPU seems to be on the order of "not more than 10 per second"
390 2011-07-05 11:25:43 <jrmithdobbs> not at all
391 2011-07-05 11:25:48 <coderrr> oh damn x_x
392 2011-07-05 11:25:51 <jrmithdobbs> more like 2.5-7k/sec per core
393 2011-07-05 11:25:51 <vegard> not at all. please enlighten me.
394 2011-07-05 11:26:14 <jrmithdobbs> depending on which code you're using, so long as it's not the bitcoin proper code
395 2011-07-05 11:26:28 <vegard> duh
396 2011-07-05 11:26:38 <vegard> you're right. I meant "not more than 10,000 per second"
397 2011-07-05 11:27:17 <jrmithdobbs> if you're doing just genning of privkeys and dumping them with no encoding, ya, maxes about 10k/sec/core
398 2011-07-05 11:27:52 <jrmithdobbs> if you're actually encoding them so they're usable it drops down to ~7.5k, and if you're actuall encoding the pubkeys ~2.5k
399 2011-07-05 11:28:49 <edcba> anyway start with "assuming some cpu can generate 1 billion addrs a second..."
400 2011-07-05 11:29:24 <edcba> or do the inverse operation
401 2011-07-05 11:29:26 <jrmithdobbs> doesn't work though because some gpus are great at sha256 but address gen requires a ripe160md as well
402 2011-07-05 11:29:42 <edcba> at which rate should i worry
403 2011-07-05 11:29:53 <edcba> ie starting with 2**160 down to the rate
404 2011-07-05 11:31:32 <vegard> worry about vanity addresses? :-P
405 2011-07-05 11:31:48 <edcba> oh we were talking about vanity addrs
406 2011-07-05 11:31:51 <edcba> damn lol
407 2011-07-05 11:32:03 <jrmithdobbs> i'm sure he's worrying about how quickly keys can be generated
408 2011-07-05 11:32:08 <jrmithdobbs> to force collisions
409 2011-07-05 11:32:22 <edcba> collisions on vanity part ?
410 2011-07-05 11:32:30 <jrmithdobbs> oh maybe you weren't
411 2011-07-05 11:32:48 <jrmithdobbs> edcba: i meant collision of the whole address
412 2011-07-05 11:33:03 <edcba> yes collisions on whole addr is completely out of question
413 2011-07-05 11:33:08 <jrmithdobbs> no it's not
414 2011-07-05 11:33:11 <edcba> lol
415 2011-07-05 11:33:21 <jrmithdobbs> it's very improbable
416 2011-07-05 11:34:16 <edcba> so there is a chance !
417 2011-07-05 11:35:17 <edcba> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA
418 2011-07-05 11:35:34 <toxicFork> hi, trying to run bitcoind on a machine without /usr access, so using LD_LIBRARY_PATH after I downloaded the libs individually and placed them into a directory, but when I run bitcoind now I get a segfault
419 2011-07-05 11:35:38 <edcba> how ppl react when you say "very improbable"
420 2011-07-05 11:36:05 <jrmithdobbs> edcba: ecdsa keys are basically just a random number, so, start at 0xffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff and work backwards
421 2011-07-05 11:36:49 <jrmithdobbs> it's a pretty huge range tho ;p
422 2011-07-05 11:39:23 <toxicFork> is there a collection of "libs necessary for bitcoind" in an archive or something?
423 2011-07-05 11:39:57 <diki> ;;bc,stats
424 2011-07-05 11:40:01 <gribble> Current Blocks: 134871 | Current Difficulty: 1379192.2882281 | Next Difficulty At Block: 135071 | Next Difficulty In: 200 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 day, 4 hours, 23 minutes, and 20 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1570074.41367906
425 2011-07-05 11:47:53 <Rocketfella> Is there a roadmap for the blockchain? I guess it grows exponentially before finally settling on a high constant growth rate, right?
426 2011-07-05 11:51:46 <sipa> jrmithdobbs: see the PS in my post in vanitygen's thread
427 2011-07-05 11:52:59 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: no, i've seen the slowness without using the vanity patch
428 2011-07-05 11:53:10 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: refilling keypool takes way longer than it should
429 2011-07-05 11:53:50 <sipa> ah, that's what you mean
430 2011-07-05 11:54:08 <egecko> android now controls 40% of the mobile market.
431 2011-07-05 11:54:17 <jrmithdobbs> ya, it should only be doing an EC addition for each key genned
432 2011-07-05 11:55:13 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: i've seen keypool refill take >3 seconds and it's only genning 100 keys+addr encoded pub key pairs
433 2011-07-05 11:55:41 <jrmithdobbs> (on a box with basically no cpu utilization at the time)
434 2011-07-05 11:56:43 <sipa> i suppose sync issues with the db
435 2011-07-05 11:57:01 <sipa> trying to write each key to wallet.dat separately
436 2011-07-05 12:15:10 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Chris Howie * r20876d342b62 mining-proxy/htdocs/ (common.inc.php index.php): Raise timeout on work submission requests http://tinyurl.com/3qt9tls http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/mining-proxy.git/commitdiff/20876d342b6238f2a7b68f04dcc9aa04cbcee734
437 2011-07-05 12:19:32 <sipa> BlueMatt: bah, i was trying to refactor the code a bit further so HaveKey and GetKey work on addresses instead of on public keys
438 2011-07-05 12:19:45 <sipa> BlueMatt: so to get rid of mapPubKeys
439 2011-07-05 12:20:05 <sipa> apparetly there is *ONE* place in the code where i actually need to be able to convert an address back to a pubkey
440 2011-07-05 12:20:18 <sipa> SetDefaultReceivingAddress
441 2011-07-05 12:21:01 <erus`> im getting a message saying i need to pay a fee before i can transfer some money
442 2011-07-05 12:21:12 <erus`> how long do i have to wait to avoid the fee?
443 2011-07-05 12:45:31 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: thoughts on the 2/5 here that your patch kicks back as invalid?
444 2011-07-05 12:45:34 <jrmithdobbs> http://pastebin.com/igp5QepJ
445 2011-07-05 12:46:50 <sipa> jrmithdobbs: those were obtained using a dumpprivkey of the same version?
446 2011-07-05 12:47:39 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: no, i'm debugging something else and it seems like 2/5-3/5 aren't correct, the ones that import import properly and show the expected address generated from the same code generating the privkeys
447 2011-07-05 12:48:03 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: i see there's been debug stuff added to key.h but it's not spitting anything into testnet/debug.log
448 2011-07-05 12:48:23 <mmartian> ;;bc.estimate
449 2011-07-05 12:48:24 <gribble> Error: "bc.estimate" is not a valid command.
450 2011-07-05 12:48:30 <mmartian> ;;bc,estimate
451 2011-07-05 12:48:31 <gribble> 1572789.75237206
452 2011-07-05 12:49:14 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: erm, you have a != 32 in there again
453 2011-07-05 12:49:37 <mmartian> ;;bc,stats
454 2011-07-05 12:49:39 <gribble> Current Blocks: 134882 | Current Difficulty: 1379192.2882281 | Next Difficulty At Block: 135071 | Next Difficulty In: 189 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 day, 2 hours, 49 minutes, and 39 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1572789.75237206
455 2011-07-05 12:50:19 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: are you zero padding to force to 32 length?
456 2011-07-05 12:50:28 <sipa> jrmithdobbs: that's the intention
457 2011-07-05 12:50:50 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: where are you zero padding so I can pad the same way? ;p
458 2011-07-05 12:51:03 <sipa> in GetSecret
459 2011-07-05 12:51:34 <sipa> the output is resized to 32 bytes, and the result from bn2bin is written at the end of the output vector
460 2011-07-05 12:51:45 <sipa> so it's front-padding with zeroes
461 2011-07-05 12:51:47 <jrmithdobbs> k so at the front
462 2011-07-05 12:51:50 <jrmithdobbs> ya
463 2011-07-05 12:52:07 <jrmithdobbs> pretty lol, i just stripped my code out that did that not noticing you'd changed it on your new branch to do that, lol
464 2011-07-05 12:52:23 <jrmithdobbs> oh well, easy fix,  git checkout to the rescue
465 2011-07-05 13:00:20 <CIA-103> bitcoin: kripz * r358163d7c985 mining-proxy/htdocs/ (common.inc.php config.inc.php.sample): Added an option for human time which will display "54 seconds/minutes/etc ago" http://tinyurl.com/3lalo2x http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/mining-proxy.git/commitdiff/358163d7c9857338d4768cef0dcd5a6c68606abd
466 2011-07-05 13:00:22 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Chris Howie * rc861f9a4a684 mining-proxy/htdocs/common.inc.php: Fix up human-time patch (code formatting, etc.) http://tinyurl.com/3rgtt9x http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/mining-proxy.git/commitdiff/c861f9a4a68408f843d5c15823eea6435943edb6
467 2011-07-05 13:00:25 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Chris Howie * r757f936f1983 mining-proxy/htdocs/ (common.inc.php views/admin/dashboard.view.php): Add format_date_with_prefix function http://tinyurl.com/3mvjjns http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/mining-proxy.git/commitdiff/757f936f19832d58b6f4f9c63a2fd063444b996e
468 2011-07-05 13:00:30 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Chris Howie * rffff19a7586c mining-proxy/htdocs/ (3 files in 2 dirs): Merge branch 'human-time' http://tinyurl.com/3cewosw http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/mining-proxy.git/commitdiff/ffff19a7586cb742296c19cb3890dadbb22c36cf
469 2011-07-05 13:41:20 <lfm> there are a lot of 0.00000001 amounts in the block chain, seems like a waste
470 2011-07-05 13:43:03 <b4epoche_> well, when 1 btc = $100,000,000 might not be a waste
471 2011-07-05 13:43:33 <lfm> and till then it is
472 2011-07-05 13:43:37 <mtrlt> lol
473 2011-07-05 13:43:49 <epscy> any day now
474 2011-07-05 13:44:34 <lfm> of course when $1 buys 10000000BTC then it will really be a waste
475 2011-07-05 13:44:36 <b4epoche_> next mtgox hack = drive the price up
476 2011-07-05 13:49:02 <lfm> 16137 addresses with 1 satoshi each
477 2011-07-05 13:50:35 <lfm> 31416 addresses with less than 100
478 2011-07-05 13:51:53 <b4epoche_> did Satoshi name such a worthless thing after himself or was the community's doing?
479 2011-07-05 13:52:13 <nefario> community
480 2011-07-05 13:52:46 <b4epoche_> what an honor ;-)
481 2011-07-05 13:52:57 <lfm> was his idea to create the thing
482 2011-07-05 13:53:46 <lfm> so it serves him right
483 2011-07-05 13:54:03 <b4epoche_> what thing?  the eight decimal places?
484 2011-07-05 13:54:08 <lfm> ya
485 2011-07-05 13:54:38 <mtrlt> the whole thing
486 2011-07-05 13:55:11 <b4epoche_> well, people could have called 0.1 btc a satoshi, and maybe 0.0000001 btc a bush
487 2011-07-05 13:55:48 <lfm> short a zero there
488 2011-07-05 13:56:02 <b4epoche_> gotta give Bush a little credit ;-)
489 2011-07-05 13:56:22 <lfm> we needed a name for the smallest unit
490 2011-07-05 13:56:54 <lfm> dont need a name for 0.1btc
491 2011-07-05 13:57:14 <b4epoche_> so, you should have named something worthless for something worthless
492 2011-07-05 13:57:28 <lfm> so which would be the greater honor? a name thats usfull or not?
493 2011-07-05 13:58:04 <b4epoche_> ever hear of a Benjamin?
494 2011-07-05 13:58:09 <b4epoche_> that's worth something
495 2011-07-05 13:58:12 <lfm> yup
496 2011-07-05 13:58:50 <b4epoche_> and one satoshi could have been 10 nbtc
497 2011-07-05 13:59:03 <lfm> we needed a name for the smallest unit
498 2011-07-05 13:59:13 <b4epoche_> 10 nbtc
499 2011-07-05 13:59:49 <lfm> ya or a microcent, we did consider those, we got what stuck
500 2011-07-05 14:00:04 <evelyn66> ;;bc,stats
501 2011-07-05 14:00:12 <gribble> Current Blocks: 134893 | Current Difficulty: 1379192.2882281 | Next Difficulty At Block: 135071 | Next Difficulty In: 178 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 day, 1 hour, 7 minutes, and 4 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1575629.64656720
502 2011-07-05 14:00:47 <Optimo> lol market manipulation
503 2011-07-05 14:00:56 <lfm> ?
504 2011-07-05 14:01:04 <b4epoche_> Optimo:  you manipulating?
505 2011-07-05 14:01:07 <Optimo> that's just the thing I like to say
506 2011-07-05 14:01:20 <Optimo> not me
507 2011-07-05 14:01:22 <lfm> why?
508 2011-07-05 14:01:43 <Optimo> because in this young market nobody knows shit about how it will behave so it's just lulz
509 2011-07-05 14:01:53 <b4epoche_> hmm&  maybe 0.00000001 btc should have been 1 optimo
510 2011-07-05 14:03:44 <Optimo> hmm deepbit is getting near that 40% mark again
511 2011-07-05 14:04:11 <lfm> maybe he will be able to drive the price up again then
512 2011-07-05 14:04:33 <b4epoche_> how's that?
513 2011-07-05 14:05:04 <Optimo> I guess this might be late miner dumping
514 2011-07-05 14:05:05 <lfm> market manipulation, nobody knows
515 2011-07-05 14:05:10 <Optimo> tehre was no banking yesterday
516 2011-07-05 14:05:16 <b4epoche_> drive price up means you need $$
517 2011-07-05 14:05:19 <Optimo> http://falkvinge.net/2011/07/03/bitcoins-four-drivers-part-3-merchant-trade/
518 2011-07-05 14:05:32 <lfm> only in the usa
519 2011-07-05 14:05:44 <b4epoche_> well, more not-btc
520 2011-07-05 14:06:06 <b4epoche_> yea, I'm surprised this plunge didn't happen sooner.
521 2011-07-05 14:06:24 <b4epoche_> with mtgox down it seemed like there should be a build up of selling pressure
522 2011-07-05 14:06:28 <lfm> your not surprized it happenes after the mtgox hack?
523 2011-07-05 14:06:48 <Optimo> this reminds me - b4epoche you might know from your neck of the woods - coal miners were paid in coins that could only be spent int eh company store
524 2011-07-05 14:07:03 <Optimo> saw this on history channel
525 2011-07-05 14:07:13 <b4epoche_> interesting, didn't know that
526 2011-07-05 14:07:16 <Optimo> mtgox should open a store
527 2011-07-05 14:07:33 <b4epoche_> lfm:  I'm surprised there wasn't a bigger sell-off when mtgox first reopened
528 2011-07-05 14:07:54 <b4epoche_> my wife used to work at Kmart and they paid in cash
529 2011-07-05 14:07:59 <gdoteof> can someone give me an idea / approximation on the time it would take to bruteforce/crack a bitcoin addresses' private key?
530 2011-07-05 14:08:04 <b4epoche_> to try to get you to spend it before leaving
531 2011-07-05 14:08:50 <lfm> smart
532 2011-07-05 14:09:01 <Optimo> gdoteof, I don't have a figure but it would probably cost you more to bruteforce it than you would stand to gain
533 2011-07-05 14:09:21 <gdoteof> Optimo: clearly.  not intending to.. just looking for some numbers
534 2011-07-05 14:09:35 <gdoteof> i'm giving a presentation thursday 'bitcoin for anarchists'
535 2011-07-05 14:09:37 <lfm> gdoteof: afaik the quickest way is to fund some math department to come up with a quicker way
536 2011-07-05 14:09:37 <Optimo> yeah. the forums might have brushed on that...
537 2011-07-05 14:09:39 <sipa> gdoteof: to brute-force a private key correspondig to a given address, on a single normal CPU, would take around 2.5*10^44 s
538 2011-07-05 14:10:09 <sipa> that's 7.7*10^36 years
539 2011-07-05 14:10:13 <gdoteof> sipa: great
540 2011-07-05 14:10:19 <gdoteof> so pretty easy then =D
541 2011-07-05 14:10:29 <snowing> unless you are in a hurry
542 2011-07-05 14:10:35 <lfm> ya we'll get right on that
543 2011-07-05 14:10:38 <b4epoche_> and taking Moore's Law into account?
544 2011-07-05 14:11:09 <b4epoche_> extrapolated over 7*10^36 years of course
545 2011-07-05 14:11:30 <lfm> moore's rule of thumb
546 2011-07-05 14:11:44 <sipa> taking moore's law into account (doubling every 18 months), it will take 221 years before we can do it in one second
547 2011-07-05 14:12:06 <mtrlt> but doing it in one month is pretty good too.
548 2011-07-05 14:12:12 <mtrlt> or would be
549 2011-07-05 14:12:24 <sipa> ok, 189 years then
550 2011-07-05 14:12:28 <lfm> so 210 years
551 2011-07-05 14:12:33 <lfm> oh ok
552 2011-07-05 14:12:41 <b4epoche_> wow, only have to extrapolate for 200 years...
553 2011-07-05 14:12:57 <sipa> i took 0.3s as time for doing a ecdsa multiplication + hashing
554 2011-07-05 14:13:01 <sipa> eh
555 2011-07-05 14:13:03 <sipa> 0.3ms
556 2011-07-05 14:13:14 <mtrlt> mmm
557 2011-07-05 14:13:23 <sipa> i think it's typically more than that
558 2011-07-05 14:13:25 <mtrlt> what if you do that on a gpu? :P
559 2011-07-05 14:13:40 <sipa> no idea at all
560 2011-07-05 14:14:58 <lfm> also depends which moore's law you use
561 2011-07-05 14:15:34 <sipa> let's say you could speed it up 100x using GPUs
562 2011-07-05 14:15:52 <mtrlt> it wouldn't shave that many years.
563 2011-07-05 14:16:01 <b4epoche_> well, people should be taking this like they do in physics&  within an order of magnitude error
564 2011-07-05 14:16:11 <lfm> was 2xspeed every year, then it was 18 months, now I think its even more
565 2011-07-05 14:16:27 <mtrlt> would shave about 10 years.
566 2011-07-05 14:16:34 <snowing> moores law is transistor count, not processing speed, but maybe they go hand in hand
567 2011-07-05 14:16:35 <mtrlt> from 189 years :P
568 2011-07-05 14:17:05 <sipa> "number of components on an integrated circuit for a fixed price" or something is moore's law
569 2011-07-05 14:17:22 <lfm> snowing: ya, consider transistor count as just adding cores
570 2011-07-05 14:17:29 <b4epoche_> snowing:  correct&  but I would think hashing would scale well with trans count
571 2011-07-05 14:17:41 <phedny_> so.. let's say 180 years with 1 gpu.. now take like 2500 gpu's allow you to get one in a month?
572 2011-07-05 14:17:42 <snowing> b4epoche_: for sure
573 2011-07-05 14:18:12 <mtrlt> phedny_: no
574 2011-07-05 14:18:19 <mtrlt> phedny_: the 180 year calculation assumes moore's law.
575 2011-07-05 14:18:26 <mtrlt> phedny_: without moore's law, it's like 10^24 years
576 2011-07-05 14:18:29 <snowing> maybe one month, in 180 years
577 2011-07-05 14:18:34 <mtrlt> yeah
578 2011-07-05 14:18:38 <lfm> phedny_: the original 10^36 years was using all the processing power on earth in parallel already
579 2011-07-05 14:18:38 <phedny_> ah, wait
580 2011-07-05 14:18:40 <mtrlt> wait 180 years, then buy 2500 gpus ;)
581 2011-07-05 14:18:59 <sipa> you'd need around 2^159 attempts
582 2011-07-05 14:19:04 <snowing> or 181 and buy only 1250 :)
583 2011-07-05 14:19:17 <sipa> and each attempt currently costs you around 0.3ms per CPU
584 2011-07-05 14:20:07 <Optimo> with a chance at between 0 and 400,000 coins
585 2011-07-05 14:20:14 <mtrlt> a more interesting question is, how long will it take to find a key to an address with money
586 2011-07-05 14:20:18 <mtrlt> any address.
587 2011-07-05 14:20:38 <Optimo> more addresses have closer to 0 coins I would guess
588 2011-07-05 14:20:44 <mtrlt> yeah
589 2011-07-05 14:20:46 <mtrlt> but still
590 2011-07-05 14:20:47 <sipa> well, there are 21M BTC in total at that point
591 2011-07-05 14:20:48 <b4epoche_> well, lfm had some stats earlier
592 2011-07-05 14:20:55 <lfm> the 1111111111111111111114oLvT2 address is the current challenge address
593 2011-07-05 14:21:05 <sipa> distributed (unevenly) over 2^160 addresses
594 2011-07-05 14:21:16 <b4epoche_> [11:49:01] <lfm> 16137 addresses with 1 satoshi each
595 2011-07-05 14:21:17 <b4epoche_> [11:50:35] <lfm> 31416 addresses with less than 100
596 2011-07-05 14:21:18 <mtrlt> i think someone said that there are like 300k addresses in use currently
597 2011-07-05 14:21:31 <b4epoche_> lfm:  out of how many addresses?
598 2011-07-05 14:22:02 <lfm> b4epoche_ about 230 thousand
599 2011-07-05 14:22:10 <Optimo> we'll just strap-on better crypto later ;p
600 2011-07-05 14:23:23 <b4epoche_> as long as the power of the network is greater than the power of one, I think we're fine
601 2011-07-05 14:23:53 <lfm> yes spock
602 2011-07-05 14:24:26 <mtrlt> i wonder why there are so many 1-satoshi addresses -_-
603 2011-07-05 14:24:44 <b4epoche_> spock?
604 2011-07-05 14:24:44 <lfm> dust spammers mainly Id think
605 2011-07-05 14:25:13 <sipa> ok, within 112 years, the equivalent of one current 5970 would be able to earn 1 satoshi per year of ecdsa-key-cracking
606 2011-07-05 14:25:17 <lfm> b4epochesounded like you were paraphrasing "the needs of the many outweight the needs of the one"
607 2011-07-05 14:25:41 <upb> hmm http://bitcoinity.org/markets?theme=light
608 2011-07-05 14:25:48 <upb> ^- this info is totally inconsistent :/
609 2011-07-05 14:25:52 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: ping
610 2011-07-05 14:26:01 <b4epoche_> lfm:  ah, spock said that?
611 2011-07-05 14:26:03 <mtrlt> assuming ecdsa isn't broken :-)
612 2011-07-05 14:26:08 <mtrlt> during those 112 years
613 2011-07-05 14:26:09 <comboy> upb: mtgox api went down again
614 2011-07-05 14:26:09 <sipa> BlueMatt: i just found a bug in v0.3.24rc2
615 2011-07-05 14:26:16 <BlueMatt> sipa: as did I
616 2011-07-05 14:26:22 <BlueMatt> sipa: you mean pull 383?
617 2011-07-05 14:26:25 <upb> oh
618 2011-07-05 14:26:38 <sipa> BlueMatt: yes
619 2011-07-05 14:26:41 <b4epoche_> on three&  present your bug.
620 2011-07-05 14:26:48 <b4epoche_> lets see if they're the same
621 2011-07-05 14:27:12 <BlueMatt> sipa: arg ok, well Im not gonna bother building rc2, Ill just let someone pull that and 384 and then Ill build rc3
622 2011-07-05 14:27:41 <upb> comboy: :D:D
623 2011-07-05 14:27:56 <b4epoche_> a release candidate of a beta of an alpha?
624 2011-07-05 14:28:05 <lfm> mtrlt thats why I said the quickest way is probably to fund a math department
625 2011-07-05 14:28:17 <mtrlt> lfm: :D
626 2011-07-05 14:28:17 <sipa> b4epoche_: what's the alpha?
627 2011-07-05 14:28:35 <b4epoche_> bitcoin client sure feels like an alpha
628 2011-07-05 14:28:55 <BlueMatt> its not really
629 2011-07-05 14:29:04 <BlueMatt> its pretty much beta
630 2011-07-05 14:29:12 <BlueMatt> it is feature-complete
631 2011-07-05 14:29:13 <sipa> alpha typically means that there are large pieces of functionality missing
632 2011-07-05 14:29:36 <lfm> when do we get 0.4rc?
633 2011-07-05 14:29:48 <sipa> lfm: soon after 0.3.24, probably
634 2011-07-05 14:29:56 <BlueMatt> lfm: when we get (finally) 0.3.24 out the door
635 2011-07-05 14:30:12 <b4epoche_> I guess it all depends on what features the client should have.
636 2011-07-05 14:30:21 <b4epoche_> I'd call bitcoind feature complete
637 2011-07-05 14:30:37 <BlueMatt> well it fully implements bitcoin
638 2011-07-05 14:30:44 <BlueMatt> it just doesnt have all the options people might want
639 2011-07-05 14:30:54 <BlueMatt> hence its beta imo, but thats fairly irrelevant
640 2011-07-05 14:31:19 <sipa> according to google, beta means "fully mature"
641 2011-07-05 14:31:29 <sipa> according to microsoft, beta means "probably crashes"
642 2011-07-05 14:31:52 <BlueMatt> according to me, beta means bitcoin's current state, but everyone has their own beta definition
643 2011-07-05 14:32:08 <BlueMatt> according to apple, everything means feature incomplete
644 2011-07-05 14:32:09 <mtrlt> sipa: so, all microsoft products are beta :o
645 2011-07-05 14:32:20 <sipa> mtrlt: edlin is pretty stable by now
646 2011-07-05 14:32:24 <mtrlt> lol
647 2011-07-05 14:32:34 <mtrlt> it damn well should be. :P
648 2011-07-05 14:33:14 <b4epoche_> by the time something gets close to beta I'm bored of it and have moved on
649 2011-07-05 14:34:49 <diki> i am wondering...why does jgarzik make his works so complicated...such as using a struct which is a member of another struct and the like
650 2011-07-05 14:35:09 <diki> even though i may not know C, i still think many of these pointers and such can be avoided
651 2011-07-05 14:35:19 <BlueMatt> what are you talking about?
652 2011-07-05 14:35:19 <nanotube> compartmentalization is good. :)
653 2011-07-05 14:36:11 <b4epoche_> diki:  get to work proceduralizing the code...
654 2011-07-05 14:36:23 <b4epoche_> most of the classes and crap could be avoided too
655 2011-07-05 14:36:29 <lfm> diki what code is that?
656 2011-07-05 14:36:45 <diki> well...his miner and pushpoold
657 2011-07-05 14:39:07 <lfm> diki you ever seen the bashminer?
658 2011-07-05 14:39:14 <diki> bashminer?
659 2011-07-05 14:39:16 <diki> never heard ofi
660 2011-07-05 14:39:18 <diki> of it
661 2011-07-05 14:39:26 <lfm> that is simple code if that what you like
662 2011-07-05 14:40:34 <BlueMatt> if you dont like compartmentalization, you should check out the bitcoin client, it is so easy to read ;)
663 2011-07-05 14:40:53 <diki> oh yah...it's super duper easy to read
664 2011-07-05 14:41:14 <BlueMatt> and now you know why jgarzik codes that way
665 2011-07-05 14:41:20 <diki> when i saw this...(*a)(*b)something i almost fell of the chair
666 2011-07-05 14:41:40 <BlueMatt> oh you mean just general use of pointers
667 2011-07-05 14:41:46 <BlueMatt> well that makes it much more efficient
668 2011-07-05 14:41:53 <BlueMatt> than having to copy stuff all over the place
669 2011-07-05 14:41:55 <diki> i am talking about the bitcoin client
670 2011-07-05 14:42:22 <diki> inline pthread_t CreateThread(void(*pfn)(void*), void* parg, bool fWantHandle=false)<-
671 2011-07-05 14:42:41 <lfm> ya so?
672 2011-07-05 14:42:54 <diki> void(*pfn)(void*)<-wtf?
673 2011-07-05 14:43:15 <lfm> pointer to a function that takes a pointer?
674 2011-07-05 14:43:16 <diki> also called...a function pointer or sumtin
675 2011-07-05 14:43:54 <BlueMatt> yea a pointer to a function, that takes a pointer as a param, whats so ugly about that?
676 2011-07-05 14:44:03 <mtrlt> well, function pointers in C _are_ ugly
677 2011-07-05 14:44:10 <diki> it's not so much as ugly but hard to understand
678 2011-07-05 14:44:13 <lfm> I seen much worse
679 2011-07-05 14:44:34 <BlueMatt> b4epoche: now that I agree with, a { on the same line is much more readable
680 2011-07-05 14:44:36 <mtrlt> b4epoche_: and i hate when i can't distinguish one-line {}less blocks and multiline ones at one glance :-)
681 2011-07-05 14:44:44 <lfm> if your talking about starting threads, its the obvious way to go
682 2011-07-05 14:44:56 <diki> an example of minerd -> struct cgpu_info *cgpu = thr_info[work->thr_id].cgpu;<-it's going ot take me a lot of time to figure out how this works
683 2011-07-05 14:45:14 <diki> and what it mean
684 2011-07-05 14:45:16 <diki> s
685 2011-07-05 14:46:35 <diki> it's cool it works under windows...but when i look under the hood..hard for me to alter it
686 2011-07-05 14:46:50 <lfm> diki ok, it might have been written so its easier for you to understand, but I dont think that was a primary criteria when satoshi was writing it
687 2011-07-05 14:46:55 <wasabi> Use a different miner. :)
688 2011-07-05 14:47:05 <diki> every other miner is python...even harder
689 2011-07-05 14:47:07 <wasabi> http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=23506.0
690 2011-07-05 14:47:15 <wasabi> .Net
691 2011-07-05 14:47:16 <diki> except hashkill, but that is another story
692 2011-07-05 14:47:24 <wasabi> C#, etc etc.
693 2011-07-05 14:47:25 <lfm> diki look up bashminer, its not in python
694 2011-07-05 14:47:27 <wasabi> And a bit of C++/CLI.
695 2011-07-05 14:47:49 <wasabi> What's your project anyways?
696 2011-07-05 15:06:26 <lebish> anyone know the *bsd equiv of MSG_DONTWAIT?
697 2011-07-05 15:07:51 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: pong
698 2011-07-05 15:07:54 <CIA-103> bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p: Stefan Thomas master * r3b2617c / (lib/rpc/getwork.js lib/rpc/jsonrpcserver.js): Added block submission and extra nonce to getwork. (+6 more commits...) - http://bit.ly/mEcOJV https://github.com/bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p/commit/3b2617ca8b6fb3c934263815bfc8134c7280a0ad
699 2011-07-05 15:08:31 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: <BlueMatt> sipa: arg ok, well Im not gonna bother building rc2, Ill just let someone pull that and 384 and then Ill build rc3
700 2011-07-05 15:08:48 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: that being 383
701 2011-07-05 15:10:17 <erus`> jgarzik: how do i build and install this? https://github.com/jgarzik/python-bitcoinrpc
702 2011-07-05 15:10:26 <erus`> i dont know much about python modules
703 2011-07-05 15:10:31 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Matt Corallo master * r3f0950e / (src/makefile.mingw src/makefile.osx src/makefile.unix): Revert "Make UPnP default on Bitcoin but not on Bitcoind." ... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/3f0950ea019ad43c2a8fc79c2aa61845003bd4dc
704 2011-07-05 15:10:32 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Matt Corallo master * r0992399 / (contrib/gitian-win32.yml contrib/gitian.yml): Enable UPnP by default on bitcoin, but not on bitcoind (on gitian) ... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/09923991e58e3c7f92cbcf1a7cf89a8bd5304d15
705 2011-07-05 15:11:51 <jgarzik> sipa: what is pull req #383 about?  there is very little description of the problem at hand.  what synchronization?
706 2011-07-05 15:12:28 <sipa> jgarzik: effectively, you cannot change the default address from the GUI
707 2011-07-05 15:12:35 <sipa> it updates in the GUI, but that's it
708 2011-07-05 15:20:09 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr force_send * rc723843922ab bitcoind-personal/src/ (main.cpp main.h noui.h rpc.cpp): don't automatically include fees via JSON-RPC, and allow forcing them to send with under the 'minimum' http://tinyurl.com/3lyqjya http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/bitcoind/luke-jr.git/commitdiff/c723843922aba082fab29aff14de5a48d92b1efc
709 2011-07-05 15:21:17 <erle-> does makefile.linux-mingw stand for "linux and mingw"?
710 2011-07-05 15:21:25 <erle-> or should i use makefile.unix on linux?
711 2011-07-05 15:21:51 <BlueMatt> linux-mingw means build for mingw on linux
712 2011-07-05 15:21:54 <BlueMatt> ie crosscompile
713 2011-07-05 15:21:58 <erle-> ok
714 2011-07-05 15:30:09 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr combo * rc3203cd9b363 bitcoind-personal/src/ (main.cpp main.h noui.h rpc.cpp): Merge branch 'force_send' into combo http://tinyurl.com/5rntncq http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/bitcoind/luke-jr.git/commitdiff/c3203cd9b363ce37b092d87b46ff9a37672df04a