1 2011-07-09 00:00:18 <gmaxwell> I have a patch that randomly changes a channel every once in a while... this is even better: because /who only shows a portion of the nodes bitcoin won't hear about you except when you join.
  2 2011-07-09 00:00:22 <kunnis> What is IRC used for?  Is it only for finding the addresses of other users?
  3 2011-07-09 00:00:33 <gmaxwell> kunnis: correct.
  4 2011-07-09 00:00:49 <^1bitc0inplz> kunnis: the bitcoind nodes get lonely and like to chat between finding a block or two
  5 2011-07-09 00:00:54 <^1bitc0inplz> ;-)
  6 2011-07-09 00:00:58 <Wuked1> still 20mb after sed -i 's/static/dynamic/' makefile.unix :)
  7 2011-07-09 00:01:00 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: in any case, have you also observed enormous numbers of _inbound_ connections?
  8 2011-07-09 00:01:06 <kunnis> as a psudo-random idea, why not broadcast the major traffic over IRC?
  9 2011-07-09 00:01:08 <BlueMatt> Wuked1: strip it
 10 2011-07-09 00:01:08 <gmaxwell> Because that sure as hell sounds like a sybil attack.
 11 2011-07-09 00:01:26 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: was your node in dns?
 12 2011-07-09 00:01:37 <BlueMatt> though it still shouldnt be that high
 13 2011-07-09 00:01:44 <kunnis> MOst nodes what to find out when a block is created, so why not transmit those over irc?
 14 2011-07-09 00:02:06 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: How the heck should I know, and why would it not happen until I restarted it? (e.g. I was at ~50, restarted, and shot to 1433)
 15 2011-07-09 00:02:34 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: ok, thats odd, might be a sybil on when people join irc then
 16 2011-07-09 00:02:42 <gmaxwell> kunnis: it whould make bitcoin a more centralized system.
 17 2011-07-09 00:03:37 <Wuked1> thanks BlueMatt - 1.2Mb now :)
 18 2011-07-09 00:03:45 <kunnis> Humm, I see.  IF it can't tolerate irc being down, then down ever depend on it.
 19 2011-07-09 00:04:01 <gmaxwell> kunnis: it tolerates IRC being down just fine.
 20 2011-07-09 00:04:11 <BlueMatt> Wuked1: as a side note dont make everything dynamic unless you are only using it on that machine, or the same distro/version
 21 2011-07-09 00:04:20 <kunnis> Yeah
 22 2011-07-09 00:04:32 <Wuked1> sure
 23 2011-07-09 00:05:22 <BlueMatt> Wuked1: sorry, just trying to be thorough, we get all manner of noobs on here ;)
 24 2011-07-09 00:05:55 <Wuked1> Thanks, it's all great. This isn't my forte !
 25 2011-07-09 00:06:28 <BlueMatt> not commenting on you, just saying I try to make what I say clear for noobs unless I know the person Im talking to
 26 2011-07-09 00:06:36 <BlueMatt> even if you arent
 27 2011-07-09 00:06:55 <Wuked1> yeah it's most appreciated
 28 2011-07-09 00:07:09 <Wuked1> thanks for the help
 29 2011-07-09 00:07:12 <BlueMatt> np
 30 2011-07-09 00:07:25 <gmaxwell> hm. 71.191.197/24 has 12 inbound connections to me right now.
 31 2011-07-09 00:07:39 <gmaxwell> (out of 367)
 32 2011-07-09 00:08:18 <gmaxwell> damn. I wish I'd captured data when there were 1433
 33 2011-07-09 00:08:48 <gmaxwell> ah actually all from 71.191.197.79
 34 2011-07-09 00:09:05 <gmaxwell> oh damnit, thats my outbounds.
 35 2011-07-09 00:09:06 <BlueMatt> oh, that might explain a ton
 36 2011-07-09 00:09:07 <gmaxwell> hah
 37 2011-07-09 00:09:12 <BlueMatt> oh, nvm
 38 2011-07-09 00:09:15 <BlueMatt> damn
 39 2011-07-09 00:15:41 <gmaxwell> up to 579 inbound now... But still not more than one per IP. There are two /24s with 2. One /16 with 4, and a bunch of /16s with 2.. but nothing that looks like obvious trouble.
 40 2011-07-09 00:16:37 <jgarzik> wow
 41 2011-07-09 00:16:43 <jgarzik> rss jumped up to 128m
 42 2011-07-09 00:16:52 <jgarzik> 109 connections
 43 2011-07-09 00:17:08 <jgarzik> previously: 108m, 107 connections
 44 2011-07-09 00:17:59 <BlueMatt> arg, well I cant show any connection between upnp and possible port de-mappings, which was my hunch, but something is definitely wrong here
 45 2011-07-09 00:18:13 <BlueMatt> anyone have a generic router?
 46 2011-07-09 00:18:21 <BlueMatt> like *really* generic
 47 2011-07-09 00:22:57 <BlueMatt> ok this is absolutely disturbing: number of accepting nodes for each version has changed almost none since 0.3.24 was released, except for 0.3.23 and 0.3.24, 0.3.23 has gone from 1423 to 595, as one might expect, but 0.3.24 has gone from 13 to 46...
 48 2011-07-09 00:22:59 <BlueMatt> wtf?
 49 2011-07-09 00:23:16 <BlueMatt> there has to be something wrong with 0.3.24
 50 2011-07-09 00:23:56 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: can you make a list of nodes that went away so we can check to see if they are listening?
 51 2011-07-09 00:23:57 <upb> its friday night and youre talking dev stuff :P
 52 2011-07-09 00:23:58 <upb> wtf
 53 2011-07-09 00:23:59 <gmaxwell> (by hand)
 54 2011-07-09 00:24:17 <BlueMatt> upb: well its 4 am and I want to get to bed
 55 2011-07-09 00:24:21 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: let me see...
 56 2011-07-09 00:24:32 <BlueMatt> it will be in long form, but its not too hard to convert back
 57 2011-07-09 00:27:49 <gmaxwell> 19:23 <@BlueMatt> there has to be something wrong with 0.3.24
 58 2011-07-09 00:28:04 <BlueMatt> well thats my current feeling
 59 2011-07-09 00:28:15 <gmaxwell> ^ or because they aren't disconnecting people, their connection slots are filling up and you can't probe them.
 60 2011-07-09 00:28:33 <BlueMatt> doesnt seem right...seems like that is happening *way* too quick for that to be right
 61 2011-07-09 00:29:02 <gmaxwell> On my IRC multiconnect client I'm getting _hundreds_ of connections a few minutes after restarting.
 62 2011-07-09 00:29:22 <gmaxwell> You'd still find me, but only because I'll take a large number of inbound connections.
 63 2011-07-09 00:30:03 <BlueMatt> 10373 <- number of nodes which have gone offline in the past 24h and were on 0.3.23
 64 2011-07-09 00:30:26 <gmaxwell> 0_o
 65 2011-07-09 00:30:42 <BlueMatt> 708 for 0.3.22
 66 2011-07-09 00:30:50 <BlueMatt> so clearly there is a lot of natural turnover
 67 2011-07-09 00:30:56 <BlueMatt> but that just seems wrong
 68 2011-07-09 00:31:11 <BlueMatt> when do full-nodes drop the connection?
 69 2011-07-09 00:31:29 <gmaxwell> Can you filter that down to just nodes that had been stable for a while?
 70 2011-07-09 00:31:38 <gmaxwell> I think it's after they connect but before the version message.
 71 2011-07-09 00:31:39 <BlueMatt> hm...let me see
 72 2011-07-09 00:32:27 <gmaxwell> Which is why I wanted you to list them, if we can still bring up tcp connections to them, they're just full.
 73 2011-07-09 00:32:39 <gmaxwell> (I think)
 74 2011-07-09 00:33:02 <BlueMatt> 144 for 0.3.22 which were fist seen to be up >24h ago
 75 2011-07-09 00:33:13 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: care to post your 5-IRC connections patch someplace?
 76 2011-07-09 00:33:18 <BlueMatt> 7430 for 0.3.23...
 77 2011-07-09 00:33:34 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: no, someoen would get pissed I bet
 78 2011-07-09 00:33:55 <BlueMatt> oops that was inverted
 79 2011-07-09 00:34:20 <BlueMatt> 488 for 0.3.22 and 1523 for 0.3.23 for first_up >=48h ago
 80 2011-07-09 00:35:24 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: now, are these dead nodes still listening on 8333?
 81 2011-07-09 00:35:37 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: how many inbound connections are you seeing now?
 82 2011-07-09 00:36:05 <BlueMatt> let me go read the lib Im using, see where it would complain on a droped connection
 83 2011-07-09 00:36:12 <jgarzik> 114 connections, 139m
 84 2011-07-09 00:36:15 <BlueMatt> will it drop before you send version, or after
 85 2011-07-09 00:36:17 <jgarzik> memory keeps climbing
 86 2011-07-09 00:36:44 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: yea, there is some per-connection memory usage. Once you're capped out on connections it should be stable.
 87 2011-07-09 00:38:13 <BlueMatt> whats the flag, -maxconnections?
 88 2011-07-09 00:39:12 <gmaxwell> Yes, be mindful of your file descriptor limit.. it defaults to 1024 for most linuxlike systems, and you need some for the block database.
 89 2011-07-09 00:39:40 <BlueMatt> well I just want to set it to 1 for now to test where the dropoff happens
 90 2011-07-09 00:45:13 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: in any case, can you check to see if a surprising number of connections are inbound?  you can do that without modifying your client with something like lsof -ni | grep 'bitcoind' | grep 'TCP' | grep ':8333->' | wc -l
 91 2011-07-09 00:46:01 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: got a 'netstat' version? :P
 92 2011-07-09 00:47:29 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: netstat -n | grep 'yourlisteningip:8333' |wc -l  should work.
 93 2011-07-09 00:48:18 <luke-jr> 225
 94 2011-07-09 00:48:19 <luke-jr> 224*
 95 2011-07-09 00:48:26 <luke-jr> out of 737
 96 2011-07-09 00:48:37 <gmaxwell> okay, thats not crazy. But this node has been up a long time?
 97 2011-07-09 00:48:53 <gmaxwell> (As I mentioned, unless you rejoin IRC you get forgotten)
 98 2011-07-09 00:48:54 <luke-jr> dunno
 99 2011-07-09 00:49:15 <luke-jr> hours at most
100 2011-07-09 00:49:15 <upb> D:>netstat -n|grep :8333|wc -l
101 2011-07-09 00:49:16 <upb> 0
102 2011-07-09 00:49:19 <upb> interesting
103 2011-07-09 00:49:35 <gmaxwell> upb: no idea how windows formats the netstat output.
104 2011-07-09 00:49:54 <upb> might be because i dont have bitcoin running tho
105 2011-07-09 00:49:57 <upb> just a wild guess
106 2011-07-09 00:49:59 <gmaxwell> hah
107 2011-07-09 00:51:43 <luke-jr> lol
108 2011-07-09 00:52:36 <jgarzik> holy crap
109 2011-07-09 00:52:51 <jgarzik> 113 connections, jumped from 139m to 151m in the span of a few minutes
110 2011-07-09 00:55:19 <gmaxwell> I have noticed some IPs which are unusually agressive about reconnecting to me: (they always retry right away if disconnected)
111 2011-07-09 00:55:23 <gmaxwell> 2 178.47.93.129
112 2011-07-09 00:55:25 <gmaxwell> 2 60.190.71.138
113 2011-07-09 00:55:28 <gmaxwell> 2 90.151.219.0
114 2011-07-09 00:55:30 <gmaxwell> 3 220.115.251.4
115 2011-07-09 00:55:33 <gmaxwell> 3 77.122.79.225
116 2011-07-09 00:55:35 <gmaxwell> 4 89.204.75.111
117 2011-07-09 00:55:48 <BlueMatt> thats...odd
118 2011-07-09 00:56:33 <alexbobp> creepy
119 2011-07-09 00:56:49 <BlueMatt> ok, well I just started scanning all the nodes that have gone down recently...
120 2011-07-09 00:56:59 <BlueMatt> Im gonna go to bet and let that run and see what the numbers are tomorrow
121 2011-07-09 00:57:35 <justmoon> BlueMatt, good night!
122 2011-07-09 00:57:38 <alexbobp> gmaxwell: seems likely they are trying to de-anonymize you by seeing all the transactions you broadcast
123 2011-07-09 00:58:26 <BlueMatt> gnight all, hopefully this is just a side effect of people taking nodes down temporarily to upgrade and more stable connections...
124 2011-07-09 00:59:23 <upb> country:      CN
125 2011-07-09 00:59:30 <upb> conducting stats of bitcoin :D
126 2011-07-09 01:03:04 <gmaxwell> alexbobp: dunno why people in china and russia would care to de-anonymize me, but who knows.
127 2011-07-09 01:04:51 <dsockwell> upb: are those typos yours?
128 2011-07-09 01:05:01 <dsockwell> or did you paste that?
129 2011-07-09 01:05:25 <gmaxwell> indeed:
130 2011-07-09 01:05:57 <kayK> win 2
131 2011-07-09 01:06:28 <dsockwell> you'd think that the real bareau of statistics would spell its name right
132 2011-07-09 01:06:29 <DontMindMe> gmaxwell: i saw one agressive client in the 46.4.x.x or 46.6.x.x range, just in case you want to know ;)
133 2011-07-09 01:07:48 <gmaxwell> I wonder why some nodes are feeding time offsets like -315536496
134 2011-07-09 01:08:17 <gmaxwell> and +5270395  +5270396  +5624373772903658969
135 2011-07-09 01:08:29 <justmoon> gmaxwell, that doesn't sound very friendly
136 2011-07-09 01:08:47 <justmoon> either buggy or trying to manipulate difficulty maybe?
137 2011-07-09 01:09:00 <gmaxwell> You can't usefully manipulate difficulty that way.
138 2011-07-09 01:09:05 <gmaxwell> but they could be stupid.
139 2011-07-09 01:09:56 <gmaxwell> I suppose someone could actually have their system clock set 10 years in the past.
140 2011-07-09 01:10:09 <justmoon> yeah, definitely
141 2011-07-09 01:10:25 <gmaxwell> 178225650014 years in the future doesn't sound right however!
142 2011-07-09 01:11:10 <mrb_> sipa: are you aware your bitcoin.sipa.be charts are broken?
143 2011-07-09 01:11:48 <DontMindMe> aliens, mining from the future! they can predict the winning hashes!
144 2011-07-09 01:12:12 <gmaxwell> Man, I really need to add timestamps to the debug.log output.
145 2011-07-09 01:13:21 <gmaxwell> it would be neat to grap 'not enough fees' over time.
146 2011-07-09 01:13:24 <gmaxwell> re graph
147 2011-07-09 01:23:00 <freakazoid> I don't think there are any systems whose clocks would handle 178225650014 years from now.
148 2011-07-09 01:23:09 <freakazoid> That would have to be intentionally inserted
149 2011-07-09 01:23:28 <freakazoid> It's possible they're looking for vulnerabilities
150 2011-07-09 01:24:17 <justmoon> freakazoid, or uninitialized memory - it looks pretty random as hex
151 2011-07-09 01:24:42 <freakazoid> hmm
152 2011-07-09 01:24:48 <freakazoid> if their timestamp is 64 bits, I suppose
153 2011-07-09 01:25:14 <gmaxwell> or memory corruption in my node.
154 2011-07-09 01:26:01 <gmaxwell> More likely it's someones moronic bitcoin spider sending crap data in the vesion message.
155 2011-07-09 01:26:09 <gmaxwell> The timestamp in the version message is 64 bits.
156 2011-07-09 01:28:14 <justmoon> gmaxwell, yeah, version message you can get away with anything - the first few day when I started developing my client sent 0 for most of it
157 2011-07-09 01:29:23 <gmaxwell> looks like it was 188.138.99.157:58481 that fed be that crazy far future value.
158 2011-07-09 01:29:28 <gmaxwell> re fed me
159 2011-07-09 01:53:30 <gmaxwell> Loaded 288115 addresses  < yea that needs pruning...
160 2011-07-09 01:54:22 <Diablo-D3> OVER NINE THOUSAND
161 2011-07-09 01:54:27 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: btw, I so fucking hate phatk
162 2011-07-09 01:54:37 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: I gave up trying to overly track everything
163 2011-07-09 01:55:05 <Diablo-D3> but my version looks 120% less shitty.
164 2011-07-09 01:55:52 <jgarzik> 104 connections, 141m
165 2011-07-09 01:56:03 <jgarzik> maybe it has reached a stable point
166 2011-07-09 01:57:12 <gmaxwell> Hmph. I had a .23 -connect= node behind a .24 node I was bringing up and down, and bitcoind crashed on the .23 node at some point without logging anything useful. :-/
167 2011-07-09 02:02:13 <teathsch> anyone know where to find sample code for using the libcurl c api to do rpc calls to bitcoin/namecoin?
168 2011-07-09 02:03:08 <doublec> teathsch: pushpool does that so it can be used as an example
169 2011-07-09 02:03:37 <doublec> teathsch: cpuminer does too
170 2011-07-09 02:03:42 <doublec> teathsch: both by jgarzik
171 2011-07-09 02:05:34 <teathsch> doublec: cool thanks
172 2011-07-09 02:09:38 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: yeah, I'm not sure what would be a good pruning algo
173 2011-07-09 02:10:01 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: "delete old addresses" seems simple, but I would hate to lose useful addresses by being overly aggressive
174 2011-07-09 02:10:57 <Diablo-D3> does it take room to store them?
175 2011-07-09 02:10:59 <jgarzik> but in general, like with the block index, we store addresses in bdb, so (a) storing them in RAM is triple-caching and wasteful, and (b) they need pruning to avoid griefers adding 'the whole internet' to our address book
176 2011-07-09 02:11:11 <jgarzik> Diablo-D3: it loads the entire database into RAM
177 2011-07-09 02:11:16 <Diablo-D3> meh
178 2011-07-09 02:11:21 <Diablo-D3> trim after 1 million
179 2011-07-09 02:11:50 <Diablo-D3> sort by last tx used date
180 2011-07-09 02:11:50 <gmaxwell> Trying to connect to old long dead ones also wastes time.
181 2011-07-09 02:11:55 <Diablo-D3> er
182 2011-07-09 02:11:58 <Diablo-D3> last connection used date
183 2011-07-09 02:15:06 <gmaxwell> Perhaps keep track of how many contiguous connect failures it's had (also resetting to zero on inbound, and not counting failures when there are no nodes up). Nodes with >0 don't get passed on to neighbors, nodes with >2 are pruned oldest first. Or something like that.
184 2011-07-09 02:18:59 <gmaxwell> Perhaps before IRC gets turned off by default the dnsseed stuff should be augmented with a reporting mechanism where you tell each authority about your existance after your first successful inbound connection.
185 2011-07-09 02:19:40 <gmaxwell> This way future pruning doesn't risk making nodes get forgotten, since the dnsseed authorities could reasonably have longer memories.
186 2011-07-09 02:31:23 <upb> hmm wouldnt that allow flooding the zone with loads of fake addresses?
187 2011-07-09 02:31:45 <gmaxwell> upb: No, because the dnsseeds should be testing them itself.
188 2011-07-09 02:31:53 <upb> if you mitigate that by loading them into some 'to be checked' queue, it would allow for ddos
189 2011-07-09 02:32:00 <gmaxwell> (Matt's does, dunno about other ones)
190 2011-07-09 02:32:50 <gmaxwell> upb: it would only allow flooding the to be checked queue, and who cares? An authority could reasonable check the whole internets worth of addresses in a few days.
191 2011-07-09 02:33:41 <upb> hmm true, didnt think how fast the check would be
192 2011-07-09 02:35:00 <upb> maybe require a tcp connection from the address to be added
193 2011-07-09 02:38:45 <gmaxwell> eh, the actual test serves that purpose.
194 2011-07-09 02:40:48 <upb> no
195 2011-07-09 02:40:55 <gmaxwell> Yes it does.
196 2011-07-09 02:41:13 <upb> that way you cant add someone elses address in there
197 2011-07-09 02:41:24 <gmaxwell> It's the same either way:
198 2011-07-09 02:42:19 <gmaxwell> I send a spoofed UDP packet (which doesn't generally work because most end user providers do urpf, but we'll ignore that): then later some poor sucker gets one failed connection attempt from me.
199 2011-07-09 02:42:23 <gmaxwell> vs
200 2011-07-09 02:42:55 <gmaxwell> I send a spoofe tcp sync: then right away some poor sucker gets a syn-ack from mars.
201 2011-07-09 02:43:04 <gmaxwell> s/spoofe/spoofed/
202 2011-07-09 02:43:12 <upb> hmmmm
203 2011-07-09 02:43:37 <upb> yes
204 2011-07-09 02:43:58 <gmaxwell> Either way: one spoofed packet in, one unwelcome packet to other people.  Also, since we control the test attempts, we can do N spoofed packets in in a short timespan, 1 unwelcome packet out.
205 2011-07-09 02:44:37 <gmaxwell> Otherwise someone who keeps sending us spoofed syns is going to bounce syn-acks to some target.
206 2011-07-09 02:46:26 <upb> yeah i guess youre right since the checker only does one connection there isnt any amplification
207 2011-07-09 03:19:10 <jgarzik> <gmaxwell> Perhaps keep track of how many contiguous connect failures it's had (also resetting to zero on inbound, and not counting failures when there are no nodes up). Nodes with >0 don't get passed on to neighbors, nodes with >2 are pruned oldest first. Or something like that.
208 2011-07-09 03:19:15 <jgarzik> ^^ seems like a good idea
209 2011-07-09 04:21:24 <gmaxwell> hmph. There are a lot of txn rejected with not enough fee that I'm observing.
210 2011-07-09 04:41:28 <gmaxwell> or at least I think that 784/hour is an awful lot.
211 2011-07-09 04:41:40 <gmaxwell> (for a node with a default relay policy)
212 2011-07-09 04:42:36 <gmaxwell> Thats the median I've seen over the last 8 days.
213 2011-07-09 04:42:48 <gmaxwell> The peak hour had 1915.
214 2011-07-09 04:58:58 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: microtransactions?
215 2011-07-09 04:59:21 <gmaxwell> I need to change it to log more to know.
216 2011-07-09 04:59:21 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: the code might very well be doing its job... preventing spam
217 2011-07-09 05:06:07 <gmaxwell> https://people.xiph.org/~greg/rej_txn.png < doesn't look like there is a trend at least.
218 2011-07-09 05:40:59 <gmaxwell> doh.
219 2011-07-09 05:41:26 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: well one stupid thing is that if it doesn't makt it into the memorypool we'll keep trying to fetch it again.
220 2011-07-09 05:42:14 <semarjt> hey guys is there a way to delete a bitcoind account?
221 2011-07-09 05:44:22 <wumpus> there is no such thing as a bitcoind account
222 2011-07-09 05:44:30 <wumpus> oh wait, I know what you mean
223 2011-07-09 05:45:16 <semarjt> I think there is not
224 2011-07-09 05:45:17 <wumpus> only way I can think of is to move all addresses to another label
225 2011-07-09 05:45:48 <wumpus> not sure how to do that through the JSON interface though
226 2011-07-09 05:45:55 <semarjt> don't think you can
227 2011-07-09 05:46:11 <wumpus> deleteaccount would be a sensible command
228 2011-07-09 05:46:14 <wumpus> imo
229 2011-07-09 05:46:31 <wumpus> as spec it would move all addresses of that account to the "" main account
230 2011-07-09 05:46:36 <semarjt> seems obvious to me, but then i do CRUD all day
231 2011-07-09 05:47:02 <wumpus> I'd say open a github issue :)
232 2011-07-09 05:55:54 <mircsucksballs> #bitcoin-dev ADCC SEND "if-this-affects-you-suck-a-dildo-cunt" 0 0 0
233 2011-07-09 05:56:47 <lfm> you can assign a address to "" to delete it now
234 2011-07-09 05:57:45 <lfm> setaccount addr ""
235 2011-07-09 05:59:04 <cuddlefish> ... that seems dangerous
236 2011-07-09 05:59:25 <gmaxwell> Why does that seem dangerous?
237 2011-07-09 05:59:36 <lfm> it just changes the account name label
238 2011-07-09 05:59:50 <cuddlefish> Oh, not delete delete
239 2011-07-09 06:00:08 <lfm> ya, you cant really delete an address
240 2011-07-09 06:00:11 <gmaxwell> ERROR: 1310197230 AcceptToMemoryPool() : not enough fees 08add629dd
241 2011-07-09 06:00:21 <gmaxwell> http://blockexplorer.com/tx/08add629ddbedc98c433fdf660ebd68149089b5db460eb7b007e6a17683a53be
242 2011-07-09 06:00:24 <gmaxwell> I don't get it.
243 2011-07-09 06:00:59 <lfm> thats a txn without a fee?
244 2011-07-09 06:01:19 <gmaxwell> Yes, but why would the default policy not accept it?
245 2011-07-09 06:01:40 <lfm> depends which ver of bitcoin blockexplorer is running
246 2011-07-09 06:02:28 <gmaxwell> er. Blockexplorer explores blocks. :)
247 2011-07-09 06:02:43 <gmaxwell> The node not accepting it is one of my .24 nodes.
248 2011-07-09 06:03:10 <lfm> ya blockexporer is also running a ver of bitcoin
249 2011-07-09 06:03:35 <lfm> oh ok.
250 2011-07-09 06:04:22 <gmaxwell> I _guess_ it wasn't accepted because it was redeeming a fairly new output.
251 2011-07-09 06:05:27 <gmaxwell> but that wasn't what I expected.
252 2011-07-09 06:05:31 <phantomcircuit> mining node?
253 2011-07-09 06:05:38 <dsdgsdffsdipgiod> DCC SEND "cock" 0 0 0
254 2011-07-09 06:05:38 <lfm> ya just 1 block old
255 2011-07-09 06:05:39 <dsdgsdffsdipgiod> DCC SEND "foo" 0 0 0
256 2011-07-09 06:05:41 <dsdgsdffsdipgiod> DCC SEND "foo" 0 0 0DCC SEND "foo" 0 0 0
257 2011-07-09 06:05:42 <dsdgsdffsdipgiod> DCC SEND "foo" 0 0 0
258 2011-07-09 06:05:43 <dsdgsdffsdipgiod> DCC SEND "foo" 0 0 0
259 2011-07-09 06:05:44 <dsdgsdffsdipgiod> DCC SEND "foo" 0 0 0
260 2011-07-09 06:05:45 <dsdgsdffsdipgiod> DCC SEND "foo" 0 0 0
261 2011-07-09 06:05:46 <dsdgsdffsdipgiod> DCC SEND "foo" 0 0 0
262 2011-07-09 06:05:47 <dsdgsdffsdipgiod> DCC SEND "foo" 0 0 0
263 2011-07-09 06:05:49 <dsdgsdffsdipgiod> DCC SEND "foo" 0 0 0
264 2011-07-09 06:05:50 <dsdgsdffsdipgiod> DCC SEND "foo" 0 0 0
265 2011-07-09 06:05:56 <cuddlefish> ... wut
266 2011-07-09 06:05:57 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, nanotube UukGoblin BlueMatt
267 2011-07-09 06:05:59 <gmaxwell> fucking idiots.
268 2011-07-09 06:05:59 <phantomcircuit> plz2ban
269 2011-07-09 06:06:04 <phantomcircuit> he'll be back
270 2011-07-09 06:06:13 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, mining node?
271 2011-07-09 06:06:17 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: No.
272 2011-07-09 06:06:20 <phantomcircuit> then meh
273 2011-07-09 06:06:30 <jfsdjkfgsdjgsjkg> DCC SEND "foo" 0 0 0
274 2011-07-09 06:06:31 <jfsdjkfgsdjgsjkg> DCC SEND "foo" 0 0 0
275 2011-07-09 06:06:32 <jfsdjkfgsdjgsjkg> DCC SEND "foo" 0 0 0
276 2011-07-09 06:06:33 <jfsdjkfgsdjgsjkg> DCC SEND "foo" 0 0 0
277 2011-07-09 06:06:34 <jfsdjkfgsdjgsjkg> DCC SEND "foo" 0 0 0
278 2011-07-09 06:06:35 <jfsdjkfgsdjgsjkg> DCC SEND "foo" 0 0 0
279 2011-07-09 06:06:36 <jfsdjkfgsdjgsjkg> DCC SEND "foo" 0 0 0
280 2011-07-09 06:06:44 <phantomcircuit> im tempted to just dos him off the net
281 2011-07-09 06:06:58 <cuddlefish> well now that you've said it you can't do it
282 2011-07-09 06:07:05 <phantomcircuit> of course i can
283 2011-07-09 06:07:11 <phantomcircuit> what's he going to do?
284 2011-07-09 06:07:28 <cuddlefish> more freenode staff
285 2011-07-09 06:07:56 <phantomcircuit> he's in san francisco
286 2011-07-09 06:08:13 <phantomcircuit> i could probably call someone at comcast and get him disconnected
287 2011-07-09 06:08:17 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: I'm curious about the high rate of dropped transaction I'm seeing. It doesn't matter to me personally, but if the txn aren't junk (and this doesn't look like junk) then it may be adversly impacting network health.
288 2011-07-09 06:08:41 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, the problem is that old clients reject new clients txs
289 2011-07-09 06:08:53 <phantomcircuit> this is an issue i have pointed out before
290 2011-07-09 06:08:57 <phantomcircuit> but was basically ignored
291 2011-07-09 06:09:01 <gmaxwell> ::sigh::
292 2011-07-09 06:09:28 <gmaxwell> I've pointed that out to, but that is _NOT_ the issue I'm talking about: I'm sitting here with a .24 node seeing it reject about 800 TXN per hour.
293 2011-07-09 06:09:29 <lfm> on what grounds? suspician of being spam?
294 2011-07-09 06:10:04 <gmaxwell> lfm: yea, the .23 fee rules are rejected by the <=.21 nodes, and there are still a lot of <=.21 nodes out there.
295 2011-07-09 06:10:17 <gmaxwell> But thats not the issue I'm seeing, though its an issue too.
296 2011-07-09 06:11:29 <lfm> the .24 node is rejecting a lot too you say?
297 2011-07-09 06:12:26 <gmaxwell> Yes. About 800/hr, and now that I've changed it to log the txid, I'm lookg at them and the ones I've checked so far don't look that spammy.
298 2011-07-09 06:12:30 <gmaxwell> ERROR: 1310197189 AcceptToMemoryPool() : not enough fees d814435bc6
299 2011-07-09 06:12:35 <gmaxwell> http://blockexplorer.com/tx/d814435bc63ceccb6272d9d158671a5f0cf6e75e7d146d8d483f19ddb02c816f
300 2011-07-09 06:13:50 <lfm> input is only 3 blocks old
301 2011-07-09 06:29:18 <gmaxwell> hehe perhaps the logs ought to be printing the block hashes from the other end, because they're getting a bit ambigious:
302 2011-07-09 06:29:22 <gmaxwell> received getdata for: block 00000000000000001e8d from 213.93.252.185:61865
303 2011-07-09 06:31:12 <lfm> gmax agreed
304 2011-07-09 06:42:31 <gmaxwell> It's sort of amusing that most of the peers that I'm seeing anomalous agressive behaviour from are .ru/.ua
305 2011-07-09 06:43:46 <lfm> damn ruskies, is it a new cold war?
306 2011-07-09 06:49:02 <zapnap> gmaxwell: i don't get what they might accomplish by this...?
307 2011-07-09 06:49:15 <zapnap> just trying to DoS the network with spam?
308 2011-07-09 06:50:20 <lfm> or just testing
309 2011-07-09 06:50:39 <gmaxwell> Seperate stuff... the .ru/.ua nodes I'm talking about just seem to be /really/ aggressive about reconnecting to me, but they don't seem to be doing anything else weird.
310 2011-07-09 06:50:50 <zapnap> ah ok
311 2011-07-09 06:51:08 <gmaxwell> If I disconnect them, they connect back within two seconds.
312 2011-07-09 06:52:12 <lfm> oh ya kinda odd but not problematic it would seem
313 2011-07-09 06:53:05 <gmaxwell> Right. Well, if they are also connecting to lots of other nodes they may be wasting a lot of connection slots, but there isn't much we can do about that.
314 2011-07-09 07:13:21 <Joric> it strikes again http://www.l5b.net/Bitcoin-Speed-Miner/images/left-awards.gif
315 2011-07-09 07:13:58 <Joric> "internet enterpreneur - best idea award"
316 2011-07-09 07:38:58 <Joric> just send a complain to l5b.net, https://supportcenter.godaddy.com/Abuse/SpamReport.aspx if someone got this spam please do the same
317 2011-07-09 07:40:23 <sacarlson> I got my new branch of MultiCoin-qt working and tested today https://github.com/sacarlson/MultiCoin-qt  I added configurable cosmetic changes of the gui window from the config file
318 2011-07-09 07:40:38 <kayK> What is MultiCoin?
319 2011-07-09 07:41:09 <sacarlson> MultiCoin is a branched bitcoin client http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=24209.msg300830#msg300830
320 2011-07-09 07:41:55 <sacarlson> that can operate and create an infinite number of block chain crypto currencies
321 2011-07-09 07:42:33 <kayK> Including things like NameCoin, I imagine?
322 2011-07-09 07:43:25 <sacarlson> I'm not sure about NameCoin as that's has features I havn't looked at yet but in the future I'm more looking for alternate chains
323 2011-07-09 07:44:35 <kayK> Well your MultiCoin concept is a good one. Good luck with it.
324 2011-07-09 07:44:47 <sacarlson> kayK: thanks
325 2011-07-09 07:45:14 <kayK> sacarlson: By the way, is the client able to work on Mac OS X ?
326 2011-07-09 07:45:41 <sacarlson> I'm not sure,  it might since it's a direct port of bitcoin-qt that I think does
327 2011-07-09 07:45:48 <kayK> Super
328 2011-07-09 07:46:13 <sacarlson> kayK: if it does I would like to know about it
329 2011-07-09 07:48:37 <Joric> sacarlson, do you have win32 build?
330 2011-07-09 07:49:08 <sacarlson> joric: no I've only tried it on ubuntu 10.04
331 2011-07-09 07:49:37 <sacarlson> Joric: but there is instructions on how to compile and build it for win32
332 2011-07-09 07:50:25 <sacarlson> it also doesn't have my escrow features that are in my baseline MultiCoin version
333 2011-07-09 09:09:01 <simplechat> hey guys, what's the current target value for mining?
334 2011-07-09 09:09:11 <BlueMatt> ;;bc,hextarget
335 2011-07-09 09:09:12 <gribble> 0000000000000ABBCF0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
336 2011-07-09 09:10:07 <simplechat> ok, so when you take the blockhead and do the doublehash, it has to come under that for it to count as a validly mined block?
337 2011-07-09 09:10:17 <BlueMatt> yep
338 2011-07-09 09:10:31 <simplechat> :) thanks
339 2011-07-09 09:13:02 <simplechat> also, what's the current best for the GPU miners
340 2011-07-09 09:13:08 <simplechat> are they on the order of mhashes, ghashes, thashes?
341 2011-07-09 09:13:27 <Joric> i've seen 48 gh rig on youtube
342 2011-07-09 09:13:56 <simplechat> ok
343 2011-07-09 09:14:06 <simplechat> for a big dual gpu system?
344 2011-07-09 09:14:13 <Joric> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLt8Se3vVNg
345 2011-07-09 09:15:04 <UukGoblin> shiny
346 2011-07-09 09:15:29 <simplechat> UukGoblin, what rig?
347 2011-07-09 09:15:45 <UukGoblin> simplechat, what do you mean what
348 2011-07-09 09:15:47 <UukGoblin> MINE
349 2011-07-09 09:15:49 <Joric> best dual you can get now - 6990x2, 1.7 Gh tops
350 2011-07-09 09:15:54 <simplechat> UukGoblin, yeah, what specs
351 2011-07-09 09:16:14 <UukGoblin> Joric, that's gotta be some serious OC
352 2011-07-09 09:16:19 <UukGoblin> simplechat, 5970s mostly
353 2011-07-09 09:16:32 <simplechat> kk
354 2011-07-09 09:16:37 <Joric> yeah, like liquid nitrogen and shit
355 2011-07-09 09:17:32 <UukGoblin> Joric, I doubt it's power efficient ;-]
356 2011-07-09 09:19:15 <Joric> noone asked for efficiency :)
357 2011-07-09 09:21:03 <simplechat> lol
358 2011-07-09 09:21:09 <simplechat> power costs more then the cost of the equipment
359 2011-07-09 09:21:14 <simplechat> if you keep it running for any length of time
360 2011-07-09 09:26:43 <simplechat> Joric, how much payoff do you get from it?
361 2011-07-09 09:33:06 <phantomcircuit> my current mining solution has an over 9000% roi
362 2011-07-09 09:33:12 <phantomcircuit> (hint i dont mine)
363 2011-07-09 09:34:32 <simplechat> phantomcircuit, more info?
364 2011-07-09 09:34:38 <phantomcircuit> buy low
365 2011-07-09 09:34:41 <phantomcircuit> sell high
366 2011-07-09 09:34:44 <phantomcircuit> crash market
367 2011-07-09 09:34:46 <simplechat> algorithmic trader?
368 2011-07-09 09:34:47 <phantomcircuit> BUY LOW
369 2011-07-09 09:34:57 <simplechat> or just regular day trader?
370 2011-07-09 09:34:59 <phantomcircuit> i kid i kid
371 2011-07-09 09:35:02 <simplechat> lol
372 2011-07-09 09:35:32 <phantomcircuit> no i just bought when the price was pretty low
373 2011-07-09 09:35:42 <phantomcircuit> i've only made 300% ROI actually
374 2011-07-09 09:36:03 <simplechat> -_-
375 2011-07-09 09:36:10 <phantomcircuit> iknorite
376 2011-07-09 09:36:12 <phantomcircuit> terrible?
377 2011-07-09 09:38:30 <Joric> simplechat, i took numbers from here i don't have a rig https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison
378 2011-07-09 09:38:44 <simplechat> kk
379 2011-07-09 09:39:15 <phantomcircuit> simplechat, profit is almost entirely dependent on the rate at which difficulty increases
380 2011-07-09 09:39:35 <simplechat> yeah
381 2011-07-09 09:54:10 <molecular> sipa, I'm trying to force discussion of sipa:showwallet: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=8091.msg344165#msg344165 (and above)
382 2011-07-09 09:55:18 <molecular> sipa, I want the importprivkey in default branch quite badly ;), but there are valid objections against dumpprivkey (usage problems due to key being in more than one wallet)
383 2011-07-09 09:55:33 <molecular> sipa, is it possible to separate the two?
384 2011-07-09 09:56:53 <sipa> molecular: i was just answering in the thread
385 2011-07-09 09:57:23 <molecular> cool ;)
386 2011-07-09 09:58:10 <Joric> speaking of importkey - https://github.com/samr7/vanitygen is quite cool thing :)
387 2011-07-09 09:58:18 <molecular> yeah, I'm using that
388 2011-07-09 09:58:21 <molecular> it's awesome
389 2011-07-09 09:59:16 <molecular> still working on "molecular", quite long
390 2011-07-09 09:59:37 <Joric> it says there's also a vanity address patch for official client
391 2011-07-09 09:59:48 <molecular> yeah, I saw that somewhere
392 2011-07-09 10:00:06 <sipa> vanitygen is like 100x faster than the vanity patch
393 2011-07-09 10:00:34 <molecular> I think it's cool to have that in external tool. why clutter the client with that?
394 2011-07-09 10:00:45 <molecular> given there's "importprivkey" of course
395 2011-07-09 10:01:10 <molecular> btw sipa: I tested importprivkey and dumpprivkey successfully with no problems
396 2011-07-09 10:01:34 <molecular> a couple times actually since you rebased ~2 weeks ago
397 2011-07-09 10:01:40 <sipa> good
398 2011-07-09 10:01:53 <sipa> no problems with incorrectly reported balances directly after importing?
399 2011-07-09 10:03:07 <molecular> hmm, not that I noticed
400 2011-07-09 10:03:47 <molecular> I can only confirm that this worked in one instance. The other times I didn't directly check the balance
401 2011-07-09 10:03:58 <molecular> should I retest this?
402 2011-07-09 10:03:59 <sipa> ok
403 2011-07-09 10:04:13 <sipa> any testing is welcome, but i can't reproduce the problem either
404 2011-07-09 10:04:35 <sipa> dinox had a problem where balances were incorrect after importing, and restarting the client would fix it
405 2011-07-09 10:05:06 <sipa> i did some changes after that, which could have fixed it
406 2011-07-09 10:05:48 <sipa> BlueMatt, jgarzik: what is the plan now for preventing the wallet corruption thing when encrypting?
407 2011-07-09 10:05:52 <sipa> and downgrading?
408 2011-07-09 10:06:12 <sipa> renaming the file?
409 2011-07-09 10:08:59 <molecular> did db.[cpp|h] and main.[cpp|h] get removed?
410 2011-07-09 10:09:05 <molecular> trying to pull showwallet
411 2011-07-09 10:11:23 <sipa> huh
412 2011-07-09 10:11:43 <sipa> they seem to be there
413 2011-07-09 10:11:44 <molecular> it drives me insance
414 2011-07-09 10:11:57 <molecular> now I have local uncommited changes that look like your patch
415 2011-07-09 10:12:12 <molecular> after: git fetch sipa showwallet
416 2011-07-09 10:14:53 <Joric> how to pull showwallet into a local master? cherry-pick?
417 2011-07-09 10:15:33 <sipa> i'll rebase
418 2011-07-09 10:25:11 <molecular> Joric, I just did the following:
419 2011-07-09 10:25:13 <molecular> git clone git://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.git; cd bitcoin
420 2011-07-09 10:25:33 <molecular> this conflicts (src/wallet.cpp)
421 2011-07-09 10:25:41 <molecular> it this correct to do it that way?
422 2011-07-09 10:26:16 <molecular> sorry, last line should read "git merge sipa/showwallet"
423 2011-07-09 10:27:11 <sipa> depends on whether you just want my showwallet branch, or a merge of current git head with it
424 2011-07-09 10:27:22 <BlueMatt> sipa: my plan: do nothing, let old clients get mad, give errors, show no balance etc, and just handle the "you have an unencrypted key in your encrypted wallet" result gracefully
425 2011-07-09 10:27:32 <BlueMatt> which would mean importing the key but not putting it in pool or ADDRESS
426 2011-07-09 10:27:49 <BlueMatt> (to avoid the pool-padding attack)
427 2011-07-09 10:27:49 <sipa> eh?
428 2011-07-09 10:27:54 <sipa> hmm
429 2011-07-09 10:28:14 <molecular> sipa, I just want to re-test showwallet
430 2011-07-09 10:28:33 <sipa> then just do git checkout showwallet
431 2011-07-09 10:28:36 <molecular> should I just "pull" showwallet or "clone" or what
432 2011-07-09 10:28:42 <sipa> and maybe git reset --hard sipa/showwallet
433 2011-07-09 10:29:11 <Blitzboom> any other main features besides wallet encryption 0.4 will bring?
434 2011-07-09 10:29:19 <BlueMatt> key import/export
435 2011-07-09 10:29:26 <Blitzboom> great
436 2011-07-09 10:29:36 <BlueMatt> probably nothing huge besides that
437 2011-07-09 10:29:56 <Blitzboom> how about introducing mBTC?
438 2011-07-09 10:30:10 <sipa> i'd wait with that
439 2011-07-09 10:30:28 <Blitzboom> for when the prices are higher than now?
440 2011-07-09 10:30:32 <Blitzboom> 100+
441 2011-07-09 10:30:40 <molecular> how can I ask git about what I currently have checked out?
442 2011-07-09 10:30:45 <sipa> git status
443 2011-07-09 10:31:13 <molecular> that just says: currently on no branch, nothing to commit
444 2011-07-09 10:31:25 <sipa> then do git checkout showwallet
445 2011-07-09 10:31:28 <sipa> what happens?
446 2011-07-09 10:31:41 <Eliel_> Is there a reason to wait with the mBTC thing? just make it a configuration option. Then people can decide themselves how they'd prefer to see the balance.
447 2011-07-09 10:31:43 <molecular> nick@zero ~/bitcoin/bitcoin_5 $ git checkout sipa/showwallet
448 2011-07-09 10:32:19 <BlueMatt> Blitzboom: Im not market analyst, but I think weve got a while before 100 (if ever)
449 2011-07-09 10:32:19 <molecular> am I set now?
450 2011-07-09 10:32:36 <Blitzboom> BlueMatt: i think its already a hassle with those decimal points
451 2011-07-09 10:32:41 <Joric> git clone git://github.com/sipa/bitcoin.git; cd bitcoin; git checkout showwallet worked fine
452 2011-07-09 10:33:01 <molecular> Joric, thanks
453 2011-07-09 10:33:01 <sipa> molecular: you're good
454 2011-07-09 10:33:05 <molecular> sipa, thanks
455 2011-07-09 10:33:12 <molecular> I will never understand git
456 2011-07-09 10:33:21 <Blitzboom> for example, have a look at https://bitmunchies.com/
457 2011-07-09 10:33:39 <sipa> BlueMatt: meh, valgrind just found a uninitialized value in 0.3.24
458 2011-07-09 10:34:01 <BlueMatt> arg...
459 2011-07-09 10:34:15 <kinlo> nobody is mining on the testnet  ? :)
460 2011-07-09 10:34:19 <sipa> and also 30MiB of possibly lost allocated memory
461 2011-07-09 10:34:46 <BlueMatt> well that might explain the OOMs
462 2011-07-09 10:35:07 <Joric> kinlo, i'm mining on the testnet-in-a-box with difficulty 0.125, it feels so good
463 2011-07-09 10:35:09 <Blitzboom> anyway, usage of smaller denominations would be psychologically beneficial imo
464 2011-07-09 10:35:17 <Blitzboom> you own "more"
465 2011-07-09 10:35:21 <kinlo> mmmz, yeah, talking about real testnet :p
466 2011-07-09 10:35:31 <sipa> running an -O0 compiled bitcoin in valgrind is horribly slow, though
467 2011-07-09 10:35:32 <BlueMatt> Blitzboom: well write a patch ;)
468 2011-07-09 10:35:34 <molecular> sipa: before testing the "balance update bug", should I sync the blockchain to the point where the tx to the address I want to import is included?
469 2011-07-09 10:35:50 <BlueMatt> sipa: running with -O2 in valgrind is slow too
470 2011-07-09 10:36:12 <sipa> molecular: i believe dinox had a full block chain when he encountered the bug, but i'm not sure
471 2011-07-09 10:36:32 <molecular> ok, I will simply test both cases
472 2011-07-09 10:37:54 <Joric> could anyone explain why testnet-in-a-box uses m and n prefixes simultaneously?
473 2011-07-09 10:38:15 <BlueMatt> sipa: what is your take on wallet encryption backward compat? I think the only options Ive seen are either rename wallet.dat, or do nothing and let old clients generate errors
474 2011-07-09 10:38:38 <Joric> vanitygen says prefix m/n no possible :(
475 2011-07-09 10:39:03 <Blitzboom> dat.wallet :D
476 2011-07-09 10:39:16 <BlueMatt> more like wallet-crypted.dat
477 2011-07-09 10:39:22 <sipa> BlueMatt: renaming the file is a though thing to do, but from a usability standpoint possibly necessary
478 2011-07-09 10:40:02 <BlueMatt> I agree its though, but I actually think its better for the client to generate crazy error messages than just open up with a clean wallet, leaving the user to think his wallet got deleted
479 2011-07-09 10:40:18 <sipa> that's a good point
480 2011-07-09 10:40:51 <Blitzboom> yes, that would be a health concern
481 2011-07-09 10:41:29 <sipa> finally, my -O0 valgrinded bitcoin is connected
482 2011-07-09 10:42:37 <Blitzboom> are there any through bitcoin means self-sufficient devs here yet? :D
483 2011-07-09 10:43:03 <molecular> who do not mine, you mean?
484 2011-07-09 10:43:18 <Blitzboom> no, i mean devs who can afford to retire on their coins
485 2011-07-09 10:43:18 <Joric> i'm having different prefixes on the same data directory - mwHAzEaLZWQpLy5yMDAZMMqdDRyZcFjffF, n2HCsYjddZXY6jENVV1r3cUkjT8repefym - possibly a bug?
486 2011-07-09 10:43:40 <Blitzboom> except for satoshi of course &
487 2011-07-09 10:43:52 <molecular> Artforz probably could, no?
488 2011-07-09 10:44:06 <Blitzboom> i doubt that, he has hardware expenses
489 2011-07-09 10:44:08 <sipa> Joric: "prefixes" ?
490 2011-07-09 10:44:19 <Joric> sipa, m and n
491 2011-07-09 10:44:30 <molecular> does Artforz frequent the channels no more, haven't seen him in a while
492 2011-07-09 10:44:46 <doublec> Joric: they're both valid. it's the same with namecoin. For that it can be M or N.
493 2011-07-09 10:45:25 <sipa> indeed
494 2011-07-09 10:58:39 <warpi> hello! do anyone have a good regular expression for finding bitcoin addresses? would this work? [[a-z][A-Z][0-9]]{25,32}
495 2011-07-09 10:59:04 <BlueMatt> its not a-z, A-Z
496 2011-07-09 10:59:46 <BlueMatt> and if you mean mainnet, it has to start with 1
497 2011-07-09 10:59:55 <Joric> hehe cool i just imported a test address
498 2011-07-09 11:00:29 <molecular> was money on that address?
499 2011-07-09 11:00:30 <Joric> gotta generate something fancy
500 2011-07-09 11:00:55 <Joric> molecular, zero?
501 2011-07-09 11:01:09 <molecular> zero doesn't count, not for testing balance update bug ;)
502 2011-07-09 11:01:32 <Joric> omg theres a bug?
503 2011-07-09 11:01:49 <molecular> not a bad one
504 2011-07-09 11:01:51 <molecular> if at all
505 2011-07-09 11:02:01 <sipa> maybe not anymore :)
506 2011-07-09 11:02:10 <molecular> still compiling
507 2011-07-09 11:02:32 <molecular> then I can retest ;)
508 2011-07-09 11:02:50 <Joric> i'm wondering if i generate vanity address could anyone generate exactly the same address using vanity gen? :) didn't check if it uses a random seed
509 2011-07-09 11:03:45 <molecular> highly unlikely
510 2011-07-09 11:03:49 <Joric> nope looks they are different each time
511 2011-07-09 11:03:51 <molecular> it uses random seed
512 2011-07-09 11:04:03 <molecular> Joric, "looks like", hehe. might still be possible.
513 2011-07-09 11:04:16 <molecular> there's still enough bits left to make it insanely unlikely.
514 2011-07-09 11:04:40 <molecular> try finding the key to some address you know has a lot of money on it by entering it completely into vanitygen ;)
515 2011-07-09 11:05:35 <molecular> src/net.cpp:1092: undefined reference to `strupnperror'
516 2011-07-09 11:05:36 <makomk> Interesting. You know that guy that posted on the forums that he'd shredded and deleted his non-backed up bitcoin wallet with lots of bitcoins in some time ago?
517 2011-07-09 11:05:54 <wtfman> question: are the files from the src folder even important for users or just developers?
518 2011-07-09 11:05:57 <diki> there was a simple example of a c miner, but i forgot the link
519 2011-07-09 11:06:05 <diki> anyone know it?
520 2011-07-09 11:06:17 <molecular> cpuminer?
521 2011-07-09 11:06:26 <diki> nope
522 2011-07-09 11:06:44 <molecular> i think I remember looking at the code, but dont recall the name
523 2011-07-09 11:06:45 <diki> it did use the sane code
524 2011-07-09 11:06:52 <Joric> what's expected in 0.4.0 ?
525 2011-07-09 11:06:53 <diki> *same
526 2011-07-09 11:07:30 <molecular> diki, puddinpop?
527 2011-07-09 11:08:04 <diki> it wasnt a miner
528 2011-07-09 11:08:12 <diki> just a 30-40 line example
529 2011-07-09 11:08:21 <diki> with in program defined hash1,midstate etc
530 2011-07-09 11:08:44 <sipa> Joric: wallet encryption, wallet import/export
531 2011-07-09 11:09:14 <diki> sipa:your site is borked
532 2011-07-09 11:10:45 <Joric> molecular, there is a fine pyminer - https://github.com/jgarzik/pyminer i'm using it currently as a reference it's just one file
533 2011-07-09 11:10:45 <molecular> diki you mean the hashrate graphs?
534 2011-07-09 11:10:56 <diki> yes
535 2011-07-09 11:11:16 <molecular> yeah, weird. was the case 2 days ago and then it was ok again and now borked again.
536 2011-07-09 11:11:27 <sipa> my bitcoind died again
537 2011-07-09 11:11:43 <BlueMatt> oom?
538 2011-07-09 11:12:08 <sipa> yes
539 2011-07-09 11:12:29 <BlueMatt> how much memory was it using at the time?
540 2011-07-09 11:13:12 <sipa> see http://bitcoin.sipa.be/dmesg.log
541 2011-07-09 11:14:35 <BlueMatt> arg
542 2011-07-09 11:16:15 <sipa> graphs should be up-to-date agin
543 2011-07-09 11:16:17 <sipa> again
544 2011-07-09 11:17:42 <diki> can you maybe fix the numbers?
545 2011-07-09 11:17:48 <diki> like 2.5e+06 etc
546 2011-07-09 11:18:51 <BlueMatt> sipa: any clue how many connections at that time?
547 2011-07-09 11:19:36 <sipa> BlueMatt: limited to 16
548 2011-07-09 11:19:41 <sipa> so no more than that
549 2011-07-09 11:19:46 <sipa> connections isn't the problem
550 2011-07-09 11:19:56 <BlueMatt> arg...how can noone reproduce this
551 2011-07-09 11:20:09 <BlueMatt> 500m, Im getting max of around 100m
552 2011-07-09 11:20:30 <BlueMatt> what calls this node, a ton of rpc getinfo's?
553 2011-07-09 11:20:51 <sipa> oh, it has gavin's monitorreceived patch
554 2011-07-09 11:21:04 <sipa> that's also what i'm investigating now
555 2011-07-09 11:21:55 <sipa> it's getblock calls + monitorblock callbacks
556 2011-07-09 11:23:33 <BlueMatt> hmm...well Ill let you test monitor blocks and Ill do some testing too in a minute
557 2011-07-09 11:25:49 <sipa> the problem seems to occur in Reorganize
558 2011-07-09 11:25:53 <sipa> but it seems internal bdb
559 2011-07-09 11:25:55 <sipa> *in
560 2011-07-09 11:26:07 <BlueMatt> thats not good...
561 2011-07-09 11:27:24 <sipa> in the pdb->put call in CDB::Write()
562 2011-07-09 11:28:39 <UukGoblin> hrm, it looks like the QR code on a bitbill is incorrect, it doesn't have a mandatory 4px white border around it
563 2011-07-09 11:29:29 <sipa> is that mandatory?
564 2011-07-09 11:30:35 <phantomcircuit> UukGoblin, i dont think any of the qrcode libraries actually use the border anyways...
565 2011-07-09 11:30:56 <UukGoblin> actually not sure how mandatory it is ;-] just saying it should be there
566 2011-07-09 11:31:10 <UukGoblin> phantomcircuit, probably not
567 2011-07-09 11:38:59 <diki> so anyone remember the sample miner?
568 2011-07-09 11:39:07 <diki> i looked at it a week ago, but i cant remember it
569 2011-07-09 11:40:48 <jtaylor> on what plattform are the bitcoin linux binaries compiled?
570 2011-07-09 11:41:26 <BlueMatt> ubuntu 10.04
571 2011-07-09 11:41:36 <BlueMatt> (for win32 and linux binaries)
572 2011-07-09 11:41:41 <BlueMatt> for mac, well on a mac
573 2011-07-09 11:41:44 <jtaylor> thx
574 2011-07-09 11:42:07 <BlueMatt> see the gitian files in contrib of the src dir
575 2011-07-09 11:42:23 <diki> so basically, if i compile a fully linux dependant program ON linux for windows, will it work?
576 2011-07-09 11:42:36 <diki> will it work on windows
577 2011-07-09 11:42:39 <BlueMatt> depends on how you compile it
578 2011-07-09 11:42:47 <BlueMatt> windows and linux binaries have a different format
579 2011-07-09 11:42:53 <BlueMatt> and obviously depend on different libs
580 2011-07-09 11:42:54 <diki> eah
581 2011-07-09 11:42:56 <diki> winpe
582 2011-07-09 11:43:08 <BlueMatt> if you compile with mingw, yes but then it wont run on linux (without wine)
583 2011-07-09 11:43:32 <diki> erm....if i compile with mingw on linux, that means that the same program will work on linux
584 2011-07-09 11:43:41 <BlueMatt> no it wont
585 2011-07-09 11:43:43 <diki> because it would have a compiled binary for linux
586 2011-07-09 11:43:45 <BlueMatt> mingw compiles for windows
587 2011-07-09 11:43:47 <diki> which it does
588 2011-07-09 11:43:57 <BlueMatt> read up on what cross compiling is/means
589 2011-07-09 11:44:03 <diki> yes i know dude
590 2011-07-09 11:44:09 <jtaylor> then maybe someone can comment on http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=27308.0 that its already used for the binaries, so probably no regressions
591 2011-07-09 11:44:13 <diki> but i am too lazy to type every bit of word
592 2011-07-09 11:44:24 <jtaylor> ubuntu enables -fstack-protector in hardening-wrapper
593 2011-07-09 11:44:31 <jtaylor> (I have no forum acc)
594 2011-07-09 11:47:50 <BlueMatt> wtf? someone is running a node which identifies itself as 0.3.23.1...there is no 0.3.23.1
595 2011-07-09 11:48:09 <diki> so?
596 2011-07-09 11:48:15 <BlueMatt> just found it odd
597 2011-07-09 11:48:28 <diki> maybe i should run a node which idents as diki
598 2011-07-09 11:48:31 <diki> would be awesome
599 2011-07-09 11:48:36 <BlueMatt> cant, has to be an int
600 2011-07-09 11:48:45 <senseles> 3.1.3.3.7
601 2011-07-09 11:49:37 <diki> more like 13337
602 2011-07-09 11:49:38 <BlueMatt> ok, so after tweaking some settings and doing some more scans, node count is back up just fine
603 2011-07-09 11:49:54 <senseles> I feel bad for whoever is hosting deepbit's server
604 2011-07-09 11:49:57 <BlueMatt> diki: you dont know what 31337 means do you?
605 2011-07-09 11:49:59 <senseles> thats like 3 days in a row they're offline
606 2011-07-09 11:50:19 <diki> my post is totally independant to senseles's
607 2011-07-09 11:50:25 <diki> meaning i didn't even read his, when i posted mine
608 2011-07-09 11:50:39 <BlueMatt> anyway, looks like 0.3.24 is getting ok pickup, time to set dns to only 0.3.24
609 2011-07-09 11:51:24 <senseles> Is 0.3.24 released yet?
610 2011-07-09 11:51:28 <BlueMatt> yes
611 2011-07-09 11:58:46 <diki> heehaw
612 2011-07-09 12:00:16 <sipa> BlueMatt: can't find it
613 2011-07-09 12:00:26 <sipa> not sure if it's something that's bitcoin's fault of bdb's
614 2011-07-09 12:00:42 <BlueMatt> for some reason I doubt its bdb's
615 2011-07-09 12:00:57 <BlueMatt> have you tested previous versions to see where it might have happened?
616 2011-07-09 12:01:49 <sipa> no, not yet
617 2011-07-09 12:04:37 <Joric> damn i could not make vanity address there's no i in base58
618 2011-07-09 12:05:06 <BlueMatt> you can use 1
619 2011-07-09 12:05:28 <BlueMatt> and there is i, not I
620 2011-07-09 12:05:31 <BlueMatt> (I think)
621 2011-07-09 12:06:54 <Joric> oh you right there is
622 2011-07-09 12:07:17 <Joric> there's no l
623 2011-07-09 12:07:36 <BlueMatt> (because it looks like I and 1)
624 2011-07-09 12:07:39 <BlueMatt> so just use 1
625 2011-07-09 12:08:38 <BlueMatt> bbl, and then Ill try to reproduce it sipa
626 2011-07-09 12:13:01 <kveras> there is 1BTC for anyone who solves this: I had the Bitcoin app for android installed with 13BTC in the wallet. The program stopped to start, only crashed right away. I tried restarting the phone, did not solve the problem. I then reinstalled the program, but now it seems like I have a new empty wallet with another address instead. What to do???
627 2011-07-09 12:13:05 <kveras> https://market.android.com/details?id=com.bitcoinandroid&pli=1
628 2011-07-09 12:14:18 <Joric> hehe i just got an idea with 1BTC
629 2011-07-09 12:14:42 <Joric> 1BTC8hTuA4STT7Xbh14B2g2rTS5jtpiSeC aint it cool
630 2011-07-09 12:15:04 <doublec> kveras, the description for the app says the wallet file is backed up in the cloud. Have you tried restoring?
631 2011-07-09 12:15:07 <Joric> takes like 1 second to generate
632 2011-07-09 12:15:59 <kveras> doublec, I can't decipher where I should find it. also, looking through the code for the app, I am afraid that my new wallet overwrote the first one in the cloud.
633 2011-07-09 12:16:08 <Joric> one could also generate 10BTC*, 100BTC* etc :)
634 2011-07-09 12:16:36 <doublec> kveras: it sounds like your coins are gone
635 2011-07-09 12:16:53 <doublec> kveras: perhaps the app developers have some ideas - have you tried getting in touch?
636 2011-07-09 12:17:36 <kveras> doublec, I have written him an email, but no answer so far
637 2011-07-09 12:17:48 <senseles> I compiled Bitcoin 0.3.24 under CentOS 5.6 X86_64 w/ Static libs if anyone needs it http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=27352.0
638 2011-07-09 12:17:49 <Joric> oops there's no 0 aswell, damn base58
639 2011-07-09 12:17:57 <kveras> doublec, not sure where he is from, so I should give him some time if it's in the middle of the night
640 2011-07-09 12:19:25 <doublec> kveras: are you sure the wallet is empty - it might be catching up with the blockchain
641 2011-07-09 12:19:33 <doublec> kveras: and not have it all yet so showing a balance as zero
642 2011-07-09 12:19:59 <kveras> doublec, it indicates that it has catched up with the chain.
643 2011-07-09 12:20:06 <kveras> and I have got a new adress
644 2011-07-09 12:20:40 <doublec> kveras: new addresses appear all the time - it's no indicator of the status of the wallet
645 2011-07-09 12:21:08 <doublec> kveras: what does it say your block count is?
646 2011-07-09 12:21:47 <kveras> doublec, the app does not provide that number
647 2011-07-09 12:22:00 <kveras> it's just an indicator at the top when it's checking for new
648 2011-07-09 12:22:01 <doublec> kveras: how do you know it has the full block chain then?
649 2011-07-09 12:22:50 <kveras> the app downloads a snapshot of the chain when installing, then it just catches up with the ones since installation
650 2011-07-09 12:30:56 <redshark1802> hello, please could anyone with experience in using pushpoold look at this thread http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=27045.0
651 2011-07-09 12:32:09 <denisx> re
652 2011-07-09 12:34:09 <senseles> what percentage of stale entries are you getting?
653 2011-07-09 12:34:40 <redshark1802> about 70-90%
654 2011-07-09 12:35:11 <senseles> it's the ntime setting
655 2011-07-09 12:35:17 <senseles> at least thats what fixed it for me
656 2011-07-09 12:35:37 <redshark1802> the one suggested byanni
657 2011-07-09 12:35:41 <redshark1802> ?
658 2011-07-09 12:35:42 <senseles> yep
659 2011-07-09 12:35:54 <senseles> just make sure you put it in the correct part of the config
660 2011-07-09 12:36:06 <redshark1802> i've put it on the end
661 2011-07-09 12:36:07 <senseles> you can place it at the end before the last line }
662 2011-07-09 12:36:47 <senseles> you already tried that and it's still happening?
663 2011-07-09 12:36:54 <redshark1802> yep
664 2011-07-09 12:37:01 <senseles> what is your open file limit?
665 2011-07-09 12:37:32 <senseles> i was getting some errors there under high usage
666 2011-07-09 12:37:38 <senseles> had to up it to like 512,000
667 2011-07-09 12:38:30 <redshark1802> where can i see that?
668 2011-07-09 12:39:44 <senseles> http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/linux-increase-the-maximum-number-of-open-files/
669 2011-07-09 12:39:48 <senseles> change the sysctl.conf
670 2011-07-09 12:40:05 <senseles> and make sure to update sysctl
671 2011-07-09 12:40:15 <doublec> yeah you definitely need to up the number of open files
672 2011-07-09 12:40:19 <senseles> (the parameters already running)
673 2011-07-09 12:41:43 <Diablo-D3> "Shut that denture-filled cock-holster you call a mouth you withered up bag of blackened bitter shiat and get in the farking coffin so we can pat you in the face with a shovel and say good riddance to your narrow-minded farkknuckle view of the world."
674 2011-07-09 12:41:45 <Joric> "double slashed b sounds too much like /b/" (forum)
675 2011-07-09 12:42:01 <Diablo-D3> Joric: my quote was better
676 2011-07-09 12:43:35 <doublec> redshark1802: that won't fix your 'unknown-work' issue though
677 2011-07-09 12:43:48 <redshark1802> that's to bad
678 2011-07-09 12:43:50 <redshark1802> :(
679 2011-07-09 12:46:33 <Joric> how do you think could address like 1BTC8hTuA4STT7Xbh14B2g2rTS5jtpiSeC be usefull? vanitygen generates those almost instantly :)
680 2011-07-09 12:47:08 <doublec> redshark1802: it's the type of error you'd get if you were asking one bitcoind instance for the 'getwork' but submitting the result to the pool
681 2011-07-09 12:47:13 <doublec> redshark1802: which seems odd
682 2011-07-09 12:47:28 <doublec> redshark1802: are you both connecting directly to the pool?
683 2011-07-09 12:47:35 <doublec> redshark1802: and long polling is working?
684 2011-07-09 12:47:48 <doublec> redshark1802: ie. you're not using any in between proxy?
685 2011-07-09 12:49:15 <redshark1802> lp is working fine. and i have only one instance of bitcoind running, no proxy
686 2011-07-09 12:51:47 <doublec> redshark1802: no connetivity problems with the bitcoind? it's up to date with the block chain and has lots of connections/
687 2011-07-09 12:52:44 <redshark1802> "connections" : 65, version .323
688 2011-07-09 12:53:22 <redshark1802> did you try the pushpool fix with the latest version of pushpool or prior to 0.5?
689 2011-07-09 12:54:26 <molecular> wow, loading 1500 blocks sure takes a long time (>1.5h now)
690 2011-07-09 12:54:43 <molecular> is it because they contain many tx?
691 2011-07-09 12:54:59 <BlueMatt> its because you are connected to pre-0.3.24 nodes
692 2011-07-09 12:54:59 <redshark1802> it's really frustrating
693 2011-07-09 12:55:15 <BlueMatt> if you use dnsseed and connect to 0.3.24 nodes, it should be fine
694 2011-07-09 12:55:15 <molecular> hmm....
695 2011-07-09 12:55:17 <doublec> redshark1802: I don't use pushpool (I wrote my own pool software) but I know people who are using recent versions  fine
696 2011-07-09 12:55:31 <sipa> BlueMatt: 0.3.23 shows the same uninitialized value used
697 2011-07-09 12:55:43 <BlueMatt> sipa: and you think that is the source?
698 2011-07-09 12:55:53 <sipa> ?
699 2011-07-09 12:55:58 <BlueMatt> of the problem
700 2011-07-09 12:55:58 <sipa> source of what?
701 2011-07-09 12:56:30 <doublec> molecular: I have a 0.3.24 node here if you are looking for one to connect too: 206.71.179.116
702 2011-07-09 12:56:30 <sipa> there are two issues: 1) OOM 2) use of uninitilialized value
703 2011-07-09 12:56:37 <sipa> about the OOM, i have no idea
704 2011-07-09 12:56:40 <BlueMatt> oh
705 2011-07-09 12:56:41 <molecular> since I'm connecting to only one node and that is mine, the fix is easy ;)
706 2011-07-09 12:56:56 <BlueMatt> and the uninitialized value is causing problems?
707 2011-07-09 12:57:09 <sipa> not at all, it seems
708 2011-07-09 12:57:14 <sipa> but it worried me
709 2011-07-09 12:57:20 <BlueMatt> oh, ok
710 2011-07-09 12:57:30 <sipa> also, 0.3.23 does not seem to leak less memory than 0.3.24
711 2011-07-09 12:57:42 <sipa> but i'd need to run it for a long time to be sure
712 2011-07-09 13:01:30 <sipa> BlueMatt: one very minor remark about newenc: crypter.h has at the bottom of the file two incorrectly-indented definitions
713 2011-07-09 13:03:54 <BlueMatt> sipa: oh, thanks mustve been a copy/paste fail
714 2011-07-09 13:11:04 <sipa> BlueMatt: that mlock() wrapper macro looks broken to me
715 2011-07-09 13:11:11 <sipa> ((void *)(((size_t)(a)) & ((size_t)(((PAGESIZE)<<1)-1))))
716 2011-07-09 13:11:19 <BlueMatt> I didnt write that...
717 2011-07-09 13:11:21 <sipa> that throws away all high bits of a
718 2011-07-09 13:11:26 <BlueMatt> looked right to me...
719 2011-07-09 13:11:48 <sipa> it should throw away the low bits
720 2011-07-09 13:12:49 <sipa> jrmithdobbs wrote it?
721 2011-07-09 13:13:09 <BlueMatt> yea
722 2011-07-09 13:14:19 <sipa> the first argument should be (void*)((size_t)a ~ (PAGESIZE-1)), imho
723 2011-07-09 13:14:49 <sipa> (void*)((size_t)a & ~(PAGESIZE-1)), i mean
724 2011-07-09 13:15:30 <gribble> Error: The "Later" plugin is loaded, but there is no command named "tel" in it.  Try "list Later" to see the commands in the "Later" plugin.
725 2011-07-09 13:15:30 <sipa> ;;later tel jrmithdobbs is it possible your mlock() wrapper throws away the high bits of a, instead of the low bits?
726 2011-07-09 13:15:36 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
727 2011-07-09 13:15:36 <sipa> ;;later tell jrmithdobbs is it possible your mlock() wrapper throws away the high bits of a, instead of the low bits?
728 2011-07-09 13:16:55 <jandd> I tried to build bitcoind with -Wall and was shuddering what large amount of warnings I got. Would it be worth the effort to fix these?
729 2011-07-09 13:17:40 <BlueMatt> jandd: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/282
730 2011-07-09 13:19:14 <BlueMatt> sipa: you are right
731 2011-07-09 13:19:50 <BlueMatt> sipa: though dont you still need the left shift before the -1?
732 2011-07-09 13:20:01 <sipa> why?
733 2011-07-09 13:20:12 <sipa> if the pagesize is 4096
734 2011-07-09 13:20:22 <sipa> you need to mask out all bits present in 4095
735 2011-07-09 13:20:29 <sipa> so that it becomes a multiple of 4096
736 2011-07-09 13:20:31 <BlueMatt> 1000... you want to drop 1111... not 0111...?
737 2011-07-09 13:20:39 <jandd> BlueMatt: thanks for the hint ... fixing those warnings would still be a good idea :-)
738 2011-07-09 13:20:47 <sipa> BlueMatt: try it :)
739 2011-07-09 13:20:48 <BlueMatt> jandd: I agree
740 2011-07-09 13:20:50 <BlueMatt> sipa: ah
741 2011-07-09 13:20:55 <BlueMatt> sipa: my math is bad today apparently
742 2011-07-09 13:33:44 <sipa> how do you write code snippets in github comments?
743 2011-07-09 13:35:00 <sipa> nvm
744 2011-07-09 13:37:21 <BlueMatt> you wrote a test program for that?
745 2011-07-09 13:37:26 <BlueMatt> its clearly right
746 2011-07-09 13:40:44 <sipa> actually, it wasn't
747 2011-07-09 13:40:47 <sipa> i just updated it
748 2011-07-09 13:41:14 <BlueMatt> I dont see an update?
749 2011-07-09 13:41:22 <BlueMatt> oh you mean on the actual solution
750 2011-07-09 13:41:41 <BlueMatt> yea I didnt look at the second parameter...
751 2011-07-09 13:43:56 <molecular> sipa: tested "balance update bug", both with incomplete and complete blockchain. result: success in both cases, balance updates magically without restart
752 2011-07-09 13:44:20 <sipa> molecular: great, thanks for testing!
753 2011-07-09 13:45:35 <molecular> no problem
754 2011-07-09 13:45:43 <denisx> sipa: what is the intention of the pagesize calculation?
755 2011-07-09 13:46:06 <BlueMatt> denisx: posix requires mlock to be on page boundaries
756 2011-07-09 13:46:18 <BlueMatt> linux doesnt care, but osx, and probably other *bsds do
757 2011-07-09 13:48:13 <denisx> but now the result can be smaller than the initial value of a
758 2011-07-09 13:48:22 <BlueMatt> it should be
759 2011-07-09 13:48:25 <denisx> ok
760 2011-07-09 13:48:53 <BlueMatt> you want all possible pages that might have part of a in it
761 2011-07-09 13:49:47 <denisx> but if a is 5000, then it is in two pages
762 2011-07-09 13:50:04 <sipa> exactly
763 2011-07-09 13:50:11 <BlueMatt> depends on how big b is, but yea you want to lock two pages then
764 2011-07-09 13:50:28 <sipa> a should be rounded down to a page boundary, a+b should be rounded up to a page boundary
765 2011-07-09 13:51:14 <sipa> and (((a+b-1) | (PS-1)) + 1) does that  :)
766 2011-07-09 13:58:02 <BlueMatt> I love how much people like to say VoltDB is ACID...its in fucking memory, how is that ACID?
767 2011-07-09 13:59:23 <molecular> D for Destructability
768 2011-07-09 13:59:29 <phungus> listtransactions on the receiving end will only be displaying transactions with at least 1 confirmation, correct?
769 2011-07-09 13:59:30 <BlueMatt> clearly
770 2011-07-09 13:59:42 <phedny> RACID .. with R for Resetability
771 2011-07-09 13:59:57 <phedny> or actually ACIR :)
772 2011-07-09 13:59:58 <phungus> or can there be unconfirmed tx seen from the receiver?
773 2011-07-09 14:00:44 <molecular> i don't CAIR
774 2011-07-09 14:01:09 <molecular> about your ACID
775 2011-07-09 14:05:15 <forrestv> why does the wiki say that the maximum target is 0xffff * 2**208 and not 0xffffff * 2**200?
776 2011-07-09 14:10:59 <luke-jr_> forrestv: because that's what it is
777 2011-07-09 14:15:12 <forrestv> why? 0xffffff * 2**208 can be represented by bits
778 2011-07-09 14:17:03 <unclemantis> what prevents instawallet.org from experiencing a rainbow hack?
779 2011-07-09 14:17:34 <BlueMatt> do you even know what a rainbow table is?
780 2011-07-09 14:18:13 <infinitevs> lol
781 2011-07-09 14:18:19 <unclemantis> yes sir! LOL
782 2011-07-09 14:18:27 <unclemantis> ok...... let me ask again in a different way