1 2011-07-19 00:00:38 <cuddlefish> woo, I can work on testnet and prodnet now
  2 2011-07-19 00:03:39 <cuddlefish> and the plugin-based keystore works too
  3 2011-07-19 00:16:16 <Zagitta> y u no want to patch! goddamit
  4 2011-07-19 00:21:35 <lumos> #bitcoin-dinosaurs
  5 2011-07-19 00:21:39 <lumos> be there or be triangular
  6 2011-07-19 00:25:06 <b4epoche> what happened to pwalletMain->mapKeys in 0.3.24 ?
  7 2011-07-19 00:25:41 <b4epoche> pwalletMain->cs_KeyStore ?
  8 2011-07-19 00:25:53 <upb> cs is a critical section:)
  9 2011-07-19 00:27:22 <b4epoche> s/pwalletMain->mapKeys/pwalletMain->cs_mapKeys
 10 2011-07-19 00:27:26 <b4epoche> w/e
 11 2011-07-19 00:41:54 <cuddlefish> https://github.com/nathanieltheis/Pycoin/tree/master/plugins
 12 2011-07-19 01:08:07 <marvinm_> ;;bc,stats
 13 2011-07-19 01:08:10 <gribble> Current Blocks: 136993 | Current Difficulty: 1564057.4508376 | Next Difficulty At Block: 137087 | Next Difficulty In: 94 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 13 hours, 37 minutes, and 48 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1700056.97894053
 14 2011-07-19 01:20:40 <cuddlefish> Which way is the packet type padded?
 15 2011-07-19 01:20:56 <cuddlefish> know it's NUL-padded, but right or left?
 16 2011-07-19 01:30:55 <cuddlefish> Oh god
 17 2011-07-19 01:31:03 <cuddlefish> why do we mix endiannesss
 18 2011-07-19 01:31:05 <cuddlefish> that's so wrong
 19 2011-07-19 01:31:23 <rethaw> where?
 20 2011-07-19 01:31:35 <cuddlefish> the protoco
 21 2011-07-19 01:32:01 <cuddlefish> Almost all integers are encoded in little endian. Only IP or port number are encoded big endian.
 22 2011-07-19 01:32:41 <rethaw> heh
 23 2011-07-19 01:33:56 <cuddlefish> yaay, construct
 24 2011-07-19 01:34:25 <gribble> Error: "seen,gmaxwell" is not a valid command.
 25 2011-07-19 01:34:25 <jrmithdobbs> ;;seen,gmaxwell
 26 2011-07-19 01:34:37 <jrmithdobbs> i hate you gribble
 27 2011-07-19 01:34:41 <jrmithdobbs> and your stupid syntax
 28 2011-07-19 01:34:52 <cuddlefish> ;;seen gmaxwell
 29 2011-07-19 01:34:52 <gribble> gmaxwell was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 5 hours, 23 minutes, and 30 seconds ago: <gmaxwell> plato: the hash of a block isn't even in the block, it's in the next block.
 30 2011-07-19 01:35:03 <jrmithdobbs> i still hate you gribble
 31 2011-07-19 01:35:06 <jrmithdobbs> cuddlefish: ;p
 32 2011-07-19 01:35:26 <jrmithdobbs> ;;seen gmaxwell_
 33 2011-07-19 01:35:27 <gribble> I have not seen gmaxwell_.
 34 2011-07-19 01:37:37 <gribble> jrmithdobbs ;_;
 35 2011-07-19 01:42:23 <rethaw> jrmithdobbs: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Gribble#General_commands
 36 2011-07-19 01:44:42 <Joric> github needs it's own social platform :) github+
 37 2011-07-19 01:47:25 <Joric> oh there's a 'watch' button
 38 2011-07-19 01:53:09 <Zagitta> anyone that can help me with building bitcoind? i think i've gotten all the dependencies but for some reason it still can't find openssl :s
 39 2011-07-19 01:54:02 <Joric> Zagitta, windows seven?
 40 2011-07-19 02:17:37 <luke-jr> ]bc,stats
 41 2011-07-19 02:18:16 <luke-jr> CMON GRIBBLE
 42 2011-07-19 02:19:39 <rethaw> he'll learn
 43 2011-07-19 02:22:48 <bliket_> juke-jr
 44 2011-07-19 02:22:54 <bliket_> dont you run some big thing
 45 2011-07-19 02:23:13 <cuddlefish> eligius.st
 46 2011-07-19 02:23:17 <bliket_> oh yeah
 47 2011-07-19 02:24:23 <unclemantis> http://blockexplorer.com/address/1Cvvr8AsCfbbVQ2xoWiFD1Gb2VRbGsEf28
 48 2011-07-19 02:25:35 <StanleyBeale> I am selling bitcoins for $13.85/BTC you can pay with paypal, if interested pm me.
 49 2011-07-19 02:26:47 <unclemantis> I was looking up up a hash 160 is and i came across https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address
 50 2011-07-19 02:27:07 <unclemantis> StanleyBeale please go to #bitcoin-bit
 51 2011-07-19 02:27:08 <unclemantis> StanleyBeale please go to #bitcoin-pit
 52 2011-07-19 02:27:09 <unclemantis> and it says "A Bitcoin Address is a 160-bit hash of the public portion of a public/private"
 53 2011-07-19 02:27:10 <jgarzik> yep
 54 2011-07-19 02:27:10 <unclemantis> but on http://blockexplorer.com/address/1Cvvr8AsCfbbVQ2xoWiFD1Gb2VRbGsEf28 it says that public key is the adddress
 55 2011-07-19 02:27:11 <unclemantis> so what is it?
 56 2011-07-19 02:27:20 <unclemantis> is it psunonomous?
 57 2011-07-19 02:29:31 <unclemantis> jgarzik?
 58 2011-07-19 02:32:15 <cuddlefish> unclemantis: a bitcoin address
 59 2011-07-19 02:32:36 <cuddlefish> is a version byte + a 160-bit hash of the key + a 4-byte checksum
 60 2011-07-19 02:32:47 <cuddlefish> and then that's base58-encodede
 61 2011-07-19 02:33:40 <unclemantis> but the base58 encode is refered to as the Bitcoin address both in blockexploer and the wallet client.
 62 2011-07-19 02:33:53 <unclemantis> do you understand why i am getting confused?
 63 2011-07-19 02:34:31 <jgarzik> no
 64 2011-07-19 02:34:36 <jgarzik> it is what cuddlefish just said
 65 2011-07-19 02:35:19 <unclemantis> so 1Cvvr8AsCfbbVQ2xoWiFD1Gb2VRbGsEf28 is not the address. 82dc60f75788fe0fc4c7a75768ae7e3f8e4e2231 is the address
 66 2011-07-19 02:35:58 <jgarzik> unclemantis: that is the opposite of what cuddlefish said
 67 2011-07-19 02:36:07 <jgarzik> unclemantis: 1Cvvr8AsCfbbVQ2xoWiFD1Gb2VRbGsEf28 is a bitcoin address
 68 2011-07-19 02:36:35 <jgarzik> unclemantis: the wiki you're micro-parsing is a simplified summary
 69 2011-07-19 02:36:42 <unclemantis> then why is https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address saying that the hash is the bitcoin address
 70 2011-07-19 02:36:55 <jgarzik> unclemantis: because that is _basically_ true
 71 2011-07-19 02:37:08 <cuddlefish> unclemantis: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification#Addresses is less stupid
 72 2011-07-19 02:37:43 <unclemantis> reading
 73 2011-07-19 02:37:48 <unclemantis> thanks cuddlefish fish
 74 2011-07-19 02:40:01 <unclemantis> stupid pos
 75 2011-07-19 02:40:04 <unclemantis> i am back
 76 2011-07-19 02:41:35 <unclemantis> can i generate a bitcoin address from a public key or the other way around?
 77 2011-07-19 02:42:01 <cuddlefish> yes
 78 2011-07-19 02:42:04 <cuddlefish> well
 79 2011-07-19 02:42:11 <unclemantis> both ways?
 80 2011-07-19 02:42:12 <cuddlefish> you can go address > keyhash
 81 2011-07-19 02:42:17 <cuddlefish> not address -> key
 82 2011-07-19 02:43:12 <unclemantis> 1Cvvr8AsCfbbVQ2xoWiFD1Gb2VRbGsEf28 is the key?
 83 2011-07-19 02:43:35 <unclemantis> or is that the keyhash which is referenced as the address?
 84 2011-07-19 02:43:52 <cuddlefish> that would be the address
 85 2011-07-19 02:44:23 <unclemantis> so what is the key?
 86 2011-07-19 02:44:52 <cuddlefish> hash of the key is x82xdc`xf7Wx88xfex0fxc4xc7xa7Whxae~?x8eN"1
 87 2011-07-19 02:46:44 <unclemantis> ok, so what is the key then?
 88 2011-07-19 02:46:48 <cuddlefish> don't know
 89 2011-07-19 02:46:55 <cuddlefish> that's not in the address
 90 2011-07-19 02:47:03 <unclemantis> we have the address, and the key hash, so what is the key?
 91 2011-07-19 02:47:08 <cuddlefish> we don't know!
 92 2011-07-19 02:47:20 <cuddlefish> if we did, it'd be a crappy hash function
 93 2011-07-19 02:47:20 <unclemantis> ok, so what is the deal with this? 0448390ea5a1a7532a48d7304c592244b9c7f97fbcdfdf529dc70c1525bebdfd5dbd75fb2f49554e77788d4422544f3f34388ccbfda5d3c472b04656f3da96a39b
 94 2011-07-19 02:47:26 <cuddlefish> unclemantis: that's the public key.
 95 2011-07-19 02:47:36 <unclemantis> so is that THE KEY?
 96 2011-07-19 02:47:38 <cuddlefish> that address has been involved in a transaction apparently.
 97 2011-07-19 02:47:42 <cuddlefish> yes
 98 2011-07-19 02:47:50 <cuddlefish> transactions contain the entire pubkey
 99 2011-07-19 02:48:27 <unclemantis> but the public key is unknown, just the bitcoin address and the public key hash?
100 2011-07-19 02:48:45 <unclemantis> and the public key hash is a part of the address plus some other stuff in a base58 encoded string?
101 2011-07-19 02:48:59 <cuddlefish> yep
102 2011-07-19 02:49:01 <cuddlefish> no
103 2011-07-19 02:49:01 <nanotube> unclemantis: public key becomes known once that address spends some coins at least once.
104 2011-07-19 02:49:37 <nanotube> was that 'no' to me, cuddlefish ?
105 2011-07-19 02:50:57 <cuddlefish> nanotube: no
106 2011-07-19 02:51:07 <unclemantis> and the only thing that stores the public key is the network?
107 2011-07-19 02:51:11 <cuddlefish> yes
108 2011-07-19 02:51:24 <cuddlefish> and the sending client, obviously
109 2011-07-19 02:51:29 <unclemantis> but a public/private key is generated but by the client, right?
110 2011-07-19 02:51:40 <cuddlefish> yup
111 2011-07-19 02:52:21 <unclemantis> but only the base58 address is known or needs to be known to send bitcoin, right?
112 2011-07-19 02:52:26 <cuddlefish> yes.
113 2011-07-19 02:52:50 <unclemantis> how is the full public key generated?
114 2011-07-19 02:54:26 <cuddlefish> unclemantis: ECDSA's key generatio
115 2011-07-19 02:54:53 <unclemantis> what i am getting at is this
116 2011-07-19 02:55:12 <unclemantis> say i run a python application such as vanitygen
117 2011-07-19 02:55:18 <cuddlefish> yep
118 2011-07-19 02:55:30 <unclemantis> it gives me an address and a privkey
119 2011-07-19 02:55:39 <unclemantis> i send bitcoin to the public address
120 2011-07-19 02:55:41 <cuddlefish> yep
121 2011-07-19 02:55:47 <unclemantis> i import the privkey into a wallet
122 2011-07-19 02:55:59 <unclemantis> i let the client catch up to the network
123 2011-07-19 02:56:06 <unclemantis> bitcoin appears in my wallet
124 2011-07-19 02:56:08 <unclemantis> so
125 2011-07-19 02:56:11 <cuddlefish> yep
126 2011-07-19 02:56:19 <unclemantis> where does this huge public key comefrom?
127 2011-07-19 02:56:27 <unclemantis> you say it is generated but i don't see where
128 2011-07-19 02:56:38 <cuddlefish> elliptic curve math
129 2011-07-19 02:57:01 <cuddlefish> the public key is a function of the private key
130 2011-07-19 02:57:42 <devrandom> cuddlefish: nanotube is right
131 2011-07-19 02:58:00 <cuddlefish> devrandom: ... what?
132 2011-07-19 02:58:25 <unclemantis> is the public key even required to be published or known to complete a transaction?
133 2011-07-19 02:58:29 <devrandom> to spend an output, you have to supply the pubkey in the signature script
134 2011-07-19 02:58:38 <cuddlefish> yeah, I never disagreed...
135 2011-07-19 02:58:41 <unclemantis> or does it just need to be known to confirm a transaction happened?
136 2011-07-19 02:59:02 <devrandom> ok
137 2011-07-19 02:59:08 <unclemantis> the public key is the proof that the transaction occured??
138 2011-07-19 02:59:15 <cuddlefish> no..
139 2011-07-19 02:59:22 <cuddlefish> ;;google public key cryptography
140 2011-07-19 02:59:22 <gribble> Public-key cryptography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography>; RSA Laboratories - 2.1.1 What is public-key cryptography?: <http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2165>; How PGP works: <http://www.pgpi.org/doc/pgpintro/>
141 2011-07-19 02:59:30 <cuddlefish> Transactions are signed.
142 2011-07-19 03:00:38 <rethaw> cuddlefish: sorry I was away, I was just agreeing with you that no security implementation can be perfect
143 2011-07-19 03:01:02 <rethaw> and there are reasons yubikey is adopted more easily that smart cards would be for mtgox, the driverlessness being one of them
144 2011-07-19 03:01:10 <cuddlefish> wrong channel :P
145 2011-07-19 03:01:31 <rethaw> well, we're talking about pki in here so its all the same to me :0
146 2011-07-19 03:01:34 <unclemantis> apparently :P
147 2011-07-19 03:03:42 <unclemantis> is the public key, or knoledge of the public key after the first transaction even needed?
148 2011-07-19 03:08:48 <unclemantis> is the knoledge of the generated public key even needed or just the base58 if you wish to send bitcoin
149 2011-07-19 03:09:39 <unclemantis> and private key if available can be confirmed by the base58 string?
150 2011-07-19 03:16:46 <unclemantis> question
151 2011-07-19 03:18:18 <unclemantis> when a transaction for say 1 btc is performed from a public/private pair that has a balance of say 6. 1 btc is sent to a public address that belongs to someone and the a new public/private key is generated and the balance of 5 is sent to the new public address?
152 2011-07-19 03:27:30 <unclemantis> hello?
153 2011-07-19 03:27:35 <unclemantis> :P
154 2011-07-19 03:28:15 <rethaw> is that a question?
155 2011-07-19 03:28:19 <unclemantis> it kinda was
156 2011-07-19 03:28:31 <unclemantis> a ? signifies a question in my country :P
157 2011-07-19 03:33:11 <rethaw> it reads like a statement, can you clarify the question?
158 2011-07-19 03:36:31 <unclemantis> i will try
159 2011-07-19 03:37:26 <unclemantis> when i send btc to a public address does the balance of the private key sent to a newly generated private key that the sender owns?
160 2011-07-19 03:40:18 <cuddlefish> Woo
161 2011-07-19 03:40:32 <unclemantis> example http://blockexplorer.com/tx/7f4f1797ec7c3141577bc6a6f4521e72448870b875612fd91a245dac7e6d5198#outputs
162 2011-07-19 03:40:36 <cuddlefish> Parsing the brain-dead variable length ints works
163 2011-07-19 03:40:42 <unclemantis> hover over the ? next to Output
164 2011-07-19 03:40:45 <unclemantis> outputs
165 2011-07-19 03:41:45 <Joric> omg why it's yellow
166 2011-07-19 03:42:49 <unclemantis> exactly!
167 2011-07-19 03:42:56 <unclemantis> it changed colors a half hour ago
168 2011-07-19 03:43:01 <unclemantis> thinking whats his face is working on it
169 2011-07-19 03:43:07 <unclemantis> i think he did it for easier reading
170 2011-07-19 03:43:19 <unclemantis> or to make me think my monitor went all ballistic!!!
171 2011-07-19 03:43:29 <unclemantis> Jan is his name
172 2011-07-19 03:43:36 <unclemantis> not jandd
173 2011-07-19 03:43:52 <cuddlefish> gaah, it's yellow
174 2011-07-19 03:45:05 <unclemantis> oooh, this is nice http://cgi.ebay.com/Ogon-Designs-Titanium-Stainless-Steel-Metal-Card-Wallet-/270702497488#ht_720wt_1177
175 2011-07-19 03:45:36 <unclemantis> yesterday was my birthday. If anyone is looking for last minute gift ideas, this would be a cool one
176 2011-07-19 03:46:44 <Joric> samr7 made gpu version of vanitygen, 5.5 mkeys/s on 5830
177 2011-07-19 03:47:15 <Joric> 7 and 8-character prefixes are no longer out of reach
178 2011-07-19 03:47:15 <unclemantis> woowhooo!!
179 2011-07-19 03:47:23 <unclemantis> collition here we come!
180 2011-07-19 03:48:12 <abishai> there, happy birthday!
181 2011-07-19 03:48:34 <unclemantis> wowhoo!!!!
182 2011-07-19 03:48:48 <abishai> hahaa
183 2011-07-19 03:49:01 <Joric> i've got some kind of mini strat on my bday :) samick, made in indonesia
184 2011-07-19 03:49:48 <Joric> can't get used to it there's 42 mm neck against 51 mm as on classic guitars
185 2011-07-19 03:50:07 <abishai> sweet, I only got 2 Stratocasters but I like the Telemaster sound, someday I will have one
186 2011-07-19 03:50:08 <Joric> i'm feeling i'm adapting to it but it hurts like hell
187 2011-07-19 03:50:43 <unclemantis> oh yes.... it will be yours.
188 2011-07-19 03:51:06 <Joric> i've tried everything looks like the only way is to play somewhere in the middle starting from the 5th fret or so )
189 2011-07-19 03:52:18 <abishai> wait, why mini strat? How old are you?
190 2011-07-19 03:52:36 <cuddlefish> gmaxwell_: you there?
191 2011-07-19 03:53:01 <Joric> 16
192 2011-07-19 03:53:27 <unclemantis> brat
193 2011-07-19 03:53:32 <cuddlefish> unclemantis: i'm 14
194 2011-07-19 03:53:33 <abishai> you re too big for a mini guitar :)
195 2011-07-19 03:55:03 <abishai> and BTC market went to sleep it seems, Im gonna go get something to eat
196 2011-07-19 03:56:54 <cuddlefish> jgarzik: you there?
197 2011-07-19 03:57:03 <unclemantis> cuddlefish so? age has nothing to do with it :)
198 2011-07-19 03:57:05 <Joric> i don't even know what telemaster is i only knew telecasters :)
199 2011-07-19 03:57:14 <unclemantis> Joric is a brat, regardless of age :P
200 2011-07-19 03:57:51 <cuddlefish> jgarzik: you there?
201 2011-07-19 03:57:54 <cuddlefish> *lol
202 2011-07-19 03:58:48 <abishai> well you know what Iron Maiden says, only the good die young
203 2011-07-19 03:59:04 <abishai> hope they are wrong or we are in deep sh*t
204 2011-07-19 04:00:36 <unclemantis> ha ha
205 2011-07-19 04:02:53 <cuddlefish> https://github.com/nathanieltheis/Pycoin
206 2011-07-19 04:03:02 <cuddlefish> now with ability to parse variable length integers
207 2011-07-19 04:03:09 <cuddlefish> and the packet structure
208 2011-07-19 04:03:11 <unclemantis> ok wtf is this?
209 2011-07-19 04:03:28 <unclemantis> "We couldn't find a README for this repository, we strongly recommend adding one. For more details on what formats we support, visit github/markup
210 2011-07-19 04:03:40 <Joric> vanitygen looks cool inside reminds me a linux kernel :)
211 2011-07-19 04:03:55 <cuddlefish> unclemantis: that's just github
212 2011-07-19 04:04:15 <forrestv> cuddlefish, i implemented all of bitcoin's protocols/data structures in python
213 2011-07-19 04:04:31 <forrestv> if you'd like to look ... https://github.com/forrestv/p2pool/tree/master/p2pool/bitcoin
214 2011-07-19 04:04:56 <unclemantis> so what does it do
215 2011-07-19 04:05:06 <cuddlefish> forrestv: eeeew structs
216 2011-07-19 04:05:15 <cuddlefish> new hotness: construct
217 2011-07-19 04:05:28 <cuddlefish> unclemantis: it will be a complete python implemenation of the Bitcoin protocol
218 2011-07-19 04:05:41 <cuddlefish> already, you can generate + store addresses
219 2011-07-19 04:05:43 <unclemantis> i see
220 2011-07-19 04:06:39 <forrestv> cuddlefish, er, i don't really use structs. and i implemented something like construct on my own
221 2011-07-19 04:07:13 <cuddlefish> well
222 2011-07-19 04:07:52 <Joric> i just forked a half-working client https://github.com/joric/brutus
223 2011-07-19 04:07:57 <forrestv> look at data.py ... search for 'tx_type' :p
224 2011-07-19 04:08:02 <cuddlefish> I'm doing it from scratch, and smartly
225 2011-07-19 04:08:09 <Joric> can send/receive transactions already
226 2011-07-19 04:08:32 <cuddlefish> Joric: yeah, that's my next prioritie
227 2011-07-19 04:49:41 <BitMtMan> hola, I want to parse blocks - can i get everything i need out of just the blockxxx.dat, or do i have to correlate between the block and index?
228 2011-07-19 05:02:09 <cuddlefish> lolwut
229 2011-07-19 05:02:14 <cuddlefish> the timestamp is signed...
230 2011-07-19 05:06:30 <spq> BitMtMan: you can read the block*.dat files alone
231 2011-07-19 05:07:50 <BitMtMan> cool, thanks
232 2011-07-19 05:08:03 <spq> that file contains block by block, divided by <magic, full-block-length> integers, pretty easy to parse, just the stuff "under" the blocks is harder to read (varints and such)
233 2011-07-19 05:08:32 <BitMtMan> I'm looking at reading it with AutoIt in a windows environment
234 2011-07-19 05:08:42 <BitMtMan> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification <- gonna assume that it's everything I need?
235 2011-07-19 05:08:48 <cuddlefish> lol, AutoIt
236 2011-07-19 05:08:52 <vegard> cuddlefish: where do you see that?
237 2011-07-19 05:08:59 <cuddlefish> vegard: see what
238 2011-07-19 05:09:03 <cuddlefish> oh
239 2011-07-19 05:09:05 <vegard> that timestamp is signed
240 2011-07-19 05:09:09 <vegard> cuddlefish: btw, bitcointools (python) has several mistakes in that area
241 2011-07-19 05:09:10 <cuddlefish> yeah
242 2011-07-19 05:09:14 <cuddlefish> k
243 2011-07-19 05:09:20 <cuddlefish> I see it in the wiki page
244 2011-07-19 05:09:21 <spq> yep
245 2011-07-19 05:09:37 <cuddlefish> there are uints and ints
246 2011-07-19 05:09:39 <vegard> ah right
247 2011-07-19 05:09:45 <cuddlefish> I assume uints are unsigned and ints are signed
248 2011-07-19 05:10:04 <vegard> I suppose it's a mistake in the wiki
249 2011-07-19 05:10:16 <vegard> not that it makes a huge difference either way
250 2011-07-19 05:10:29 <cuddlefish> vegard: ffffff
251 2011-07-19 05:12:32 <spq> only the version packages mentions ints, everything else uses uints
252 2011-07-19 05:13:26 <cuddlefish> hmm
253 2011-07-19 05:14:10 <spq> only char is mostly not mentioned as uchar (for binary data i would use uchar)
254 2011-07-19 05:15:43 <cuddlefish> sure
255 2011-07-19 05:16:09 <cuddlefish> so this is a fair parser then:
256 2011-07-19 05:16:10 <cuddlefish> 'version': Struct('version', ULInt32('proto_version'), ULInt64('services'), ULInt64('timestamp'), NetAddr('addr_me'), NetAddr('addr_you'), ULInt64('nonce'), VarStr('proto_sub_version'), ULInt64('start_height'))
257 2011-07-19 05:20:58 <spq> best u check the implementation in the orig bitcoin client and correct the wiki
258 2011-07-19 05:24:32 <spq> infact the orig client uses ints where written in the wiki
259 2011-07-19 05:34:53 <Joric> http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=29416.0 slides :)
260 2011-07-19 05:35:33 <BitMtMan> hey, sweet
261 2011-07-19 05:36:17 <AndyBr> ahoy
262 2011-07-19 05:36:58 <Joric> nazdar
263 2011-07-19 05:37:44 <AndyBr> finally made my private net work! for some reason, the gui doesn't use testnet unless -testnet (config is not enough)
264 2011-07-19 05:38:12 <AndyBr> so now my transaction times are only a few minutes *yay*
265 2011-07-19 05:38:27 <Joric> AndyBr, you mean testnet in a box? windows or linux?
266 2011-07-19 05:38:41 <AndyBr> Joric: testnet in a box
267 2011-07-19 05:38:45 <AndyBr> windows
268 2011-07-19 05:39:10 <AndyBr> i have one running on a server (no gui) and the rest runs gui
269 2011-07-19 05:39:43 <Joric> windows builds have a very old and obsolete code that prohibits using two gui instances
270 2011-07-19 05:40:03 <Joric> had to cut it out personally
271 2011-07-19 05:40:11 <AndyBr> okay. i'd build it myself, but i don't have the necessary tools
272 2011-07-19 05:40:29 <AndyBr> to confuse everyone, i shall start selling bananas priced in my private testnet currency! *cackle*
273 2011-07-19 05:40:44 <BitMtMan> bananacoin 4tw
274 2011-07-19 05:41:08 <AndyBr> BitMtMan: i think you just started something that will be hard to stop... BANANACOINS
275 2011-07-19 05:41:58 <AndyBr> if you fell in a coma right now and woke up in five years, you'd be paying your hospital bill in bananacoins (BNA)
276 2011-07-19 05:42:03 <Joric> testnet in a box comes with like 3600 BTC, pretty impressive if they were real :)
277 2011-07-19 05:42:30 <AndyBr> Joric: well, a banana is like 1500 BNA right now anyway (only got two bananas in my fridge)
278 2011-07-19 05:42:55 <AndyBr> brb coffee
279 2011-07-19 05:43:18 <BitMtMan> lol
280 2011-07-19 05:45:30 <ersi> AndyBr: Goes well with a banana-republic ;D
281 2011-07-19 05:46:23 <Joric> google bought http://g.co
282 2011-07-19 05:46:55 <BitMtMan> AndyBr: comes packaged with its own anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8MDNFaGfT4
283 2011-07-19 05:50:09 <Joric> http://i54.tinypic.com/2ecetjq.png
284 2011-07-19 05:57:56 <diki> how and why does one get whitelisted on the forums?
285 2011-07-19 05:58:37 <BitMtMan> http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=15911.0
286 2011-07-19 05:59:31 <Joric> 5 short meaningless posts and you're done
287 2011-07-19 05:59:51 <mtrlt> yep, spam away
288 2011-07-19 06:01:47 <Joric> just browse novice forum a bit i assure you wont be able to stop posting there soon
289 2011-07-19 06:04:20 <AndyBr> Joric: posts or replies?
290 2011-07-19 06:06:43 <Joric> 5 replies is enough
291 2011-07-19 06:58:00 <AndyBr_> ahoy again. mm, coffee :D
292 2011-07-19 06:58:53 <AndyBr_> i'm using pbworks.com at the moment for wikis, but their licensing has gotten -insane-, costs me a lot of money. are there cheaper/free alternatives? (installing mediawiki myself is out of the question, operated one before)
293 2011-07-19 07:13:56 <diki> ;;bc,stats
294 2011-07-19 07:13:59 <gribble> Current Blocks: 137027 | Current Difficulty: 1564057.4508376 | Next Difficulty At Block: 137087 | Next Difficulty In: 60 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 8 hours, 45 minutes, and 0 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1695814.42746137
295 2011-07-19 07:19:49 <cuddlefish> http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=30122.0
296 2011-07-19 07:20:00 <cuddlefish> it's like a penny auction, sort of
297 2011-07-19 07:20:02 <cuddlefish> except now
298 2011-07-19 07:20:03 <cuddlefish> not
299 2011-07-19 07:28:20 <cuddlefish> now only 0.025 BTC per character
300 2011-07-19 07:44:50 <graingert_> cuddlefish, you pinched my idea
301 2011-07-19 07:45:16 <graingert_> cuddlefish, although my plan was to have the payment address as the public key of the private key that would be revealed
302 2011-07-19 07:45:32 <cuddlefish> graingert_: then how the hell do I make a profit
303 2011-07-19 07:46:01 <graingert_> cuddlefish, you have to pinch whatever percent
304 2011-07-19 07:46:19 <cuddlefish> graingert_: i don't have the privkey in Bitcoin format
305 2011-07-19 07:46:27 <graingert_> cuddlefish, kk
306 2011-07-19 07:46:29 <cuddlefish> and Pycoin can't propagate anything key
307 2011-07-19 07:46:35 <cuddlefish> *yet
308 2011-07-19 07:46:51 <graingert_> cuddlefish, right so they get a key that's a pain to spend :p
309 2011-07-19 07:47:07 <graingert_> cuddlefish, unless they update pycoin to propagate
310 2011-07-19 07:47:09 <cuddlefish> it's the thinking man's gambling :P
311 2011-07-19 07:47:26 <graingert_> cuddlefish, interesting method of providing a bounty
312 2011-07-19 07:47:38 <cuddlefish> graingert_: it's pretty trivial to DER it, then base58 it, then import with sipa's patch
313 2011-07-19 07:47:42 <accel> how many SHA1sums can a quard core xeon do per second?
314 2011-07-19 07:47:52 <cuddlefish> accel: not enough
315 2011-07-19 07:47:56 <accel> i'm thinking of using bitcoin's "hardness" criterion as a spam filter
316 2011-07-19 07:47:56 <cuddlefish> and sha1's not in use
317 2011-07-19 07:48:02 <accel> err, sha256
318 2011-07-19 07:48:04 <cuddlefish> accel: lol, hashcash
319 2011-07-19 07:48:08 <cuddlefish> been done
320 2011-07-19 07:48:11 <graingert_> cuddlefish, hey guys I can't get this jar open - but I put a load of gold in it
321 2011-07-19 07:48:26 <cuddlefish> graingert_: gmaxwell did it earlier today
322 2011-07-19 07:48:28 <cuddlefish> with a posted privkey
323 2011-07-19 07:48:44 <graingert> I see
324 2011-07-19 07:49:01 <nameless> |it's rather simple isn't it?
325 2011-07-19 07:49:05 <cuddlefish> nameless|: yep
326 2011-07-19 07:49:05 <nameless> |Smash the jar?
327 2011-07-19 07:49:10 <nameless> |jars break easily
328 2011-07-19 07:49:12 <cuddlefish> it's the bruteforcing that's hard
329 2011-07-19 07:49:21 <nameless> |You don't need to brute force a jar
330 2011-07-19 07:49:24 <cuddlefish> if you use an opencl kernel, i might not even make a profit
331 2011-07-19 07:49:27 <nameless> |they break when you smash then
332 2011-07-19 07:49:34 <nameless> |man
333 2011-07-19 07:49:39 <cuddlefish> nameless|: that's what brute forcing means
334 2011-07-19 07:50:05 <nameless> |cuddlefish: no, brute forcing would be trying to find the combination, not giving a fuck is smashing the jar
335 2011-07-19 07:50:11 <nameless> |(I'm still on the jar analogy)
336 2011-07-19 07:50:32 <cuddlefish> nameless|: you know you want to chip in 1 BTC
337 2011-07-19 07:51:18 <nameless> |cuddlefish: I do not have 1 BTC...
338 2011-07-19 07:51:31 <accel> how can I setup my own hash cash server?
339 2011-07-19 07:51:32 <accel> I want
340 2011-07-19 07:51:34 <accel> this is too cool
341 2011-07-19 07:51:56 <accel> to reduce people emailing me, server will be setup to: "to email me, you need hashcash of 1 hour of quad core compute time"
342 2011-07-19 07:52:24 <noagendamarket> make your mum go wtf is hashing ?
343 2011-07-19 07:52:31 <noagendamarket> lol
344 2011-07-19 07:52:43 <cuddlefish> accel: I prefer a bitcoin requirement
345 2011-07-19 07:52:49 <cuddlefish> just 0.0005 BTC per email
346 2011-07-19 07:53:02 <cuddlefish> it'd be interesting to see the people who end up with huge balances
347 2011-07-19 07:53:05 <cuddlefish> interesting...
348 2011-07-19 07:53:08 <noagendamarket> you can message someone on witcoin for a donation
349 2011-07-19 07:53:13 <cuddlefish> quiet people lose money
350 2011-07-19 07:53:20 <cuddlefish> *gain8
351 2011-07-19 07:53:30 <nameless> |hash cash?
352 2011-07-19 07:53:41 <accel> hashcash is amazing
353 2011-07-19 07:55:49 <accel> why does hashcash only have the receiver's email address
354 2011-07-19 07:55:54 <accel> and does not do "receiver + sender's address"
355 2011-07-19 07:55:58 <sacarlson> accel: wow I'd be a rich man if I was to get funded for all my email spam
356 2011-07-19 07:56:05 <manveru> like utu?
357 2011-07-19 07:56:07 <accel> that wouuld seem to solve problem h
358 2011-07-19 07:56:15 <accel> what does utu stand for?
359 2011-07-19 07:56:45 <accel> the following is fucking beautiful
360 2011-07-19 07:56:46 <accel> # Could't someone overload an ISP server if it verified hashcash stamps for users?
361 2011-07-19 07:56:49 <accel> Hashcash is very efficient to verify. Each stamp takes about 2 microseconds to verify on a 1Ghz machine. To put it another way, the same single machine could verify stamps faster than you could deliver emails over an OC12 (a really fast expensive link ~ 1Gbit/sec rate). If someone is sending you mails that fast, your bottleneck will be your TCP stack, mail server and operating system. Verifying hashcash for users will not noticably increase mail serve
362 2011-07-19 07:58:43 <accel> I love the sheer brilliance of this.
363 2011-07-19 07:59:06 <cuddlefish> accel: It's quoted as a source in the Bitcoin paper
364 2011-07-19 08:00:18 <manveru> zed shaw built a system that replaces tcp with a network where you have to pay hashcash to communicate with people, and the more they hate you the more you have to pay :)
365 2011-07-19 08:01:06 <accel> oh, hashcash predates bitcoin?
366 2011-07-19 08:01:10 <manveru> that was back in 2008 or so
367 2011-07-19 08:01:12 <accel> now the "mining hardness makes sense"
368 2011-07-19 08:01:33 <manveru> http://web.archive.org/web/20090131203618/http://savingtheinternetwithhate.com/
369 2011-07-19 08:02:01 <accel> http://zedshaw.com/essays/ragel_state_charts.html "Enter Utu"
370 2011-07-19 08:02:12 <accel> you know what would be fucking great?
371 2011-07-19 08:02:17 <ersi> Beer.
372 2011-07-19 08:02:19 <accel> if advertisers had to burn CPU to deliver content to me
373 2011-07-19 08:02:36 <noagendamarket> hmm zed shaw doesnt like bitcoin
374 2011-07-19 08:02:46 <noagendamarket> now I know why...
375 2011-07-19 08:03:06 <accel> The goal for Utu is to fight the griefers of the Internet with hate. As you communicate with people over Utu you can tell the Hub you hate them. The amount you hate them turns into a throttling hate calculation they have to do before they can continue talking to anyone.
376 2011-07-19 08:04:22 <gjs278> ;;bc,stats
377 2011-07-19 08:04:24 <gribble> Current Blocks: 137035 | Current Difficulty: 1564057.4508376 | Next Difficulty At Block: 137087 | Next Difficulty In: 52 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 7 hours, 35 minutes, and 52 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1697906.83252028
378 2011-07-19 08:04:25 <accel> 1:00 < griefer > Ruby on Rails sucks!
379 2011-07-19 08:04:27 <accel> 1:11 < joe452 > that should shut him up
380 2011-07-19 08:04:30 <accel> 1:20 < griefer > Damn guys, it takes me 10 minutes to send a message.  You suck!
381 2011-07-19 08:04:33 <accel> 1:21 * griefer leaves #rubyonrails
382 2011-07-19 08:04:46 <accel> (from Utu essay)
383 2011-07-19 08:04:49 <accel> it's fucking brilliant
384 2011-07-19 08:05:29 <graingert> accel, so what IRC client does the hashrate?
385 2011-07-19 08:05:44 <accel> http://zedshaw.com/essays/ragel_state_charts.html <-- none yet, it's just part of the essay here
386 2011-07-19 08:06:45 <graingert> accel, ah kk
387 2011-07-19 08:06:51 <graingert> accel, seems a bit centralized
388 2011-07-19 08:07:03 <accel> what's so brillianta bout it
389 2011-07-19 08:07:10 <accel> in this particular example, yes
390 2011-07-19 08:07:13 <graingert> accel, I think it should probably calculate the amount of bitcoin needed based on the current network hashrate
391 2011-07-19 08:08:35 <accel_> i ahve not been this inspired in a long long time
392 2011-07-19 08:09:45 <graingert> accel_ my comment?
393 2011-07-19 08:09:54 <accel_> zed shaw's utu
394 2011-07-19 08:10:08 <graingert> accel_ ah kk, I think it should work with bitcoin
395 2011-07-19 08:10:25 <graingert> accel it would only be a handful of satoshi
396 2011-07-19 08:10:43 <graingert> and you get moore's law adjustment for free
397 2011-07-19 08:10:52 <mtrlt> so rich people could fuck around as much as they want :P
398 2011-07-19 08:11:05 <graingert> mtrlt, that's how life works
399 2011-07-19 08:11:07 <accel_> just like real life
400 2011-07-19 08:11:11 <graingert> LAWL
401 2011-07-19 08:11:21 <mtrlt> duh
402 2011-07-19 08:11:24 <mtrlt> but why design a system like that
403 2011-07-19 08:11:36 <graingert> mtrlt, because systems like that just crop up
404 2011-07-19 08:11:38 <AndyBr_> hashcash... me gusta
405 2011-07-19 08:12:02 <accel_> i want to invent an email system
406 2011-07-19 08:12:08 <mtrlt> who does the money go to anyway :P
407 2011-07-19 08:12:10 <accel_> where the sender has to donate a pint of blood every time they want to email me
408 2011-07-19 08:14:18 <accel_> that's a bad idea
409 2011-07-19 08:14:28 <accel_> since if I was in a transaction
410 2011-07-19 08:14:37 <accel_> I woudl just divide it into 10000 different transactions
411 2011-07-19 08:14:44 <accel_> to lower the median/average transaction size
412 2011-07-19 08:15:40 <Eliel_> accel_: the ideal fee would be low enough that people wouldn't bother.
413 2011-07-19 08:16:35 <accel_> if the incentives are screwed up
414 2011-07-19 08:16:37 <Eliel_> plus... it would seem to me it would cost much more in transaction fees to send those 10000 transactions than as just one
415 2011-07-19 08:16:43 <accel_> sooner or later, it'll likely break
416 2011-07-19 08:17:36 <Eliel_> especially considering the current 500kb limit on blocksize and increasing transaction cost as the remaining space gets lower
417 2011-07-19 08:18:19 <Eliel_> as it is, currently, the fee structure does not automatically correct itself to be sensible
418 2011-07-19 08:18:36 <Eliel_> thus needing sort of centralized tuning.
419 2011-07-19 08:19:42 <Eliel_> but yes, it needs to be taken into account that people would try to manipulate it.
420 2011-07-19 08:20:11 <Eliel_> median would be more difficult to manipulate, so perhaps forget the average.
421 2011-07-19 08:33:53 <diki> ;;bc,stats
422 2011-07-19 08:33:57 <gribble> Current Blocks: 137039 | Current Difficulty: 1564057.4508376 | Next Difficulty At Block: 137087 | Next Difficulty In: 48 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 7 hours and 48 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1698580.95689492
423 2011-07-19 09:16:07 <sacarlson> I now have a merged version of merge mining with Multicoin,  who would like to help me test a proto net using this software.
424 2011-07-19 09:16:29 <sacarlson> ?
425 2011-07-19 09:17:23 <sacarlson> the first planed proto test is to use the weedsnet as the parent to another proto chain that will be the child chain of weeds in a merged mining experment.
426 2011-07-19 09:22:53 <sacarlson> I'm using the a merged branch of Vincent Durham code from namecoin commit 2e0e926b1d8abfbd released 7/17/11 with MultiCoin to setup a proto chain
427 2011-07-19 09:24:52 <forrestv> Eliel_, the blocksize limit is 500KB? i thought it was 1MB
428 2011-07-19 09:25:22 <Eliel_> I might have read old documentation in that case.
429 2011-07-19 09:25:48 <Eliel_> on the wiki I believe... let me see if I can find it
430 2011-07-19 09:25:58 <forrestv> Eliel_, seems to be that the creation limit is 500KB, but the acceptance limit is 1MB
431 2011-07-19 09:26:19 <Eliel_> what's the difference?
432 2011-07-19 09:26:21 <forrestv> eg. someone can create blocks up to 1MB, but current bitcoinds limit it to 500KB when generating
433 2011-07-19 09:26:35 <Eliel_> oh ok
434 2011-07-19 09:27:09 <Eliel_> I'm relatively new to bitcoin. Still kind of getting my bearings. :)
435 2011-07-19 09:52:39 <gmaxwell_> "balance" : 6842740.25599464,
436 2011-07-19 09:53:03 <BlueMatt> lol, dont you wish
437 2011-07-19 09:53:19 <gmaxwell_> So, about 5509.7 BTC 'lost' via outputs that the client doesn't understand?
438 2011-07-19 09:53:37 <BlueMatt> ?
439 2011-07-19 09:53:55 <BlueMatt> no way in hell that many nonstd txes are getting confirmed
440 2011-07-19 09:54:03 <BlueMatt> or is it counting unconfirmed ones too?
441 2011-07-19 09:54:04 <gmaxwell_> 136965*50=6848250 ; 6848250-6842740.25599464=5509.74400536
442 2011-07-19 09:54:32 <BlueMatt> no, no, no
443 2011-07-19 09:54:33 <gmaxwell_> duh, its not counting the last 120 coinbases.
444 2011-07-19 09:54:47 <BlueMatt> what about txes other than coinbases?
445 2011-07-19 09:55:00 <gmaxwell_> It should be counting those.
446 2011-07-19 09:55:10 <BlueMatt> ok, then the math is wrong
447 2011-07-19 09:55:17 <gmaxwell_> Well, it is but maybe I'm missing some.
448 2011-07-19 09:55:18 <BlueMatt> then those are part of the 5500
449 2011-07-19 09:56:36 <gmaxwell_> The wallet.dat with everything is only 1.2 gigs.
450 2011-07-19 09:56:44 <BlueMatt> 1.2g...damn
451 2011-07-19 09:57:55 <upb> wow so small
452 2011-07-19 09:58:04 <BlueMatt> lol
453 2011-07-19 09:58:05 <upb> ican see how this can easily be used on mobile devices
454 2011-07-19 09:58:38 <prof7bit> i know the answer that will now come
455 2011-07-19 09:58:57 <upb> i know too
456 2011-07-19 09:59:21 <gmaxwell_> upb: What are you going on about?
457 2011-07-19 09:59:38 <upb> 19 04:50 <@AnonymousBTCExchangeOperator> we'll do something soon
458 2011-07-19 09:59:51 <gmaxwell_> There is nothing to be done with respect to this.
459 2011-07-19 10:00:17 <gmaxwell_> A user having every bitcoin transaction in their personal wallet isn't an actual use case.
460 2011-07-19 10:00:18 <upb> yea i guess you patched out IsMine or whatever it was ?
461 2011-07-19 10:00:40 <gmaxwell> Yes.
462 2011-07-19 10:06:55 <prof7bit> the port in the myaddr when sending a version message, is this the port i am listening on? what do I have to put into it when I don't listen to incoming connections?
463 2011-07-19 10:07:15 <forrestv> if i do 'getnewaddress XXX', why does 'getaddressesbyaccount XXX' later not return that original address?
464 2011-07-19 10:07:44 <forrestv> prof7bit, that field isn't used anyway q:
465 2011-07-19 10:08:25 <prof7bit> this means also the address part is not used?
466 2011-07-19 10:09:04 <prof7bit> or does it only use the address and silently assume all peers are using port 8333?
467 2011-07-19 10:09:48 <gmaxwell> okay, also cut out the maturity check.
468 2011-07-19 10:09:49 <gmaxwell> "balance" : 6848199.98999999,
469 2011-07-19 10:09:58 <gmaxwell> now thats beautiful
470 2011-07-19 10:10:09 <gmaxwell> 50.01000001 is missing.
471 2011-07-19 10:10:13 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: have you done a rescan, ie you have everything?
472 2011-07-19 10:10:26 <gmaxwell> the 1e-8 is midnightmagic's lost bit.
473 2011-07-19 10:10:29 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: the 0.00000001 is because one block only generated 49.99999999
474 2011-07-19 10:10:44 <gmaxwell> 50 is perhaps the duplicate coinbase?
475 2011-07-19 10:10:53 <BlueMatt> what duplicate coinbase?
476 2011-07-19 10:11:25 <gmaxwell> Someone solved a second block using an identical merkle root... lemme find it.
477 2011-07-19 10:12:12 <BlueMatt> I wasnt aware we ever had that problem...
478 2011-07-19 10:12:13 <BlueMatt> oh well
479 2011-07-19 10:12:20 <sipa> it happened a few times
480 2011-07-19 10:12:31 <BlueMatt> why was the chain not forked after that?
481 2011-07-19 10:12:35 <prof7bit> it does not complain if i use 0.0.0.0:0 as my address. I hope this does not impact the network.
482 2011-07-19 10:13:00 <sipa> BlueMatt: at the time, i suppose that 50 lost BTC wasn't worth the hassle
483 2011-07-19 10:13:03 <gmaxwell> hm. if it happened more than once then it can't be the cause of the missing 50 there.
484 2011-07-19 10:13:10 <sipa> i doubt it would be now
485 2011-07-19 10:13:38 <BlueMatt> na, if it happened now so many people would call foul play we would have to fork
486 2011-07-19 10:14:03 <sipa> a duplicate coinbase is entirely your own fault...
487 2011-07-19 10:14:13 <sipa> or is something going on i'm not aware of?
488 2011-07-19 10:14:24 <BlueMatt> well no, gmaxwell is saying that a block with that got accepted
489 2011-07-19 10:14:32 <sipa> of course
490 2011-07-19 10:14:36 <gmaxwell> It did, the rules don't prohibit it.
491 2011-07-19 10:14:42 <sipa> why wouldn't it?
492 2011-07-19 10:14:54 <BlueMatt> well yea, if you only generate max 50
493 2011-07-19 10:15:03 <BlueMatt> per block
494 2011-07-19 10:15:12 <sipa> right, there could be a network rule that a duplicate txid is not allowed in a coinbase
495 2011-07-19 10:15:36 <gmaxwell> Well, that would make validation very slightly more expensive.
496 2011-07-19 10:15:45 <sipa> indeed
497 2011-07-19 10:15:58 <sipa> only adding that rule now would cause a block chain split 30000 blocks ago
498 2011-07-19 10:16:07 <sipa> so it would need to be enforced conditionally
499 2011-07-19 10:16:31 <sipa> and honestly... it doesn't harm anyone but the miner himself
500 2011-07-19 10:16:36 <BlueMatt> yep
501 2011-07-19 10:16:38 <sipa> so it his own reponsibility
502 2011-07-19 10:16:41 <sipa> *is
503 2011-07-19 10:16:44 <gmaxwell> http://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000000af0aed4792b1acee3d966af36cf5def14935db8de83d6f9306f2f
504 2011-07-19 10:16:51 <gmaxwell> http://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000000a4d0a398161ffc163c503763b1f4360639393e0e4c8e300e0caec
505 2011-07-19 10:17:29 <BlueMatt> ah, ok, well whatever
506 2011-07-19 10:17:37 <BlueMatt> sorry, I was thinking inverted
507 2011-07-19 10:18:01 <BlueMatt> not duplicate coinbase, but second coinbase per block, I was like what, never knew that happened...
508 2011-07-19 10:18:07 <gmaxwell> What happens with mining on walletcrypto when the pool runs out?
509 2011-07-19 10:18:15 <BlueMatt> you mine to default key
510 2011-07-19 10:18:16 <gmaxwell> ah!
511 2011-07-19 10:18:31 <gmaxwell> well, that creates a risk of making more of these.
512 2011-07-19 10:18:36 <sipa> hmm, true
513 2011-07-19 10:18:54 <sipa> maybe an extra coinbase part could be added in that case
514 2011-07-19 10:18:59 <sipa> eg. with the unix timestamp
515 2011-07-19 10:19:00 <BlueMatt> true...should put a timestamp in coinbase
516 2011-07-19 10:20:17 <gmaxwell> so yea... darnit where is the 50.01 being lost from.
517 2011-07-19 10:20:48 <sipa> what's the problem exactly?
518 2011-07-19 10:21:28 <gmaxwell> sipa: for amusement and testing, I shortcircuted IsMine, IsConfirmed, and Coinbase maturity check.  Then did a rescan.
519 2011-07-19 10:21:32 <gmaxwell> "balance" : 6848199.98999999,
520 2011-07-19 10:21:42 <gmaxwell> So there is 50.01000001 BTC missing.
521 2011-07-19 10:22:03 <sipa> i believe there once was a coinbase with a sub-50 amount
522 2011-07-19 10:22:19 <BlueMatt> thats the missing 0.00000001
523 2011-07-19 10:22:20 <gmaxwell> well there was midnightmagic's, 1e-8.
524 2011-07-19 10:22:36 <sipa> right, so now you're wondering where the lost 0.01 is from?
525 2011-07-19 10:22:47 <BlueMatt> and 50
526 2011-07-19 10:22:48 <gmaxwell> And the lost 50.
527 2011-07-19 10:23:06 <sipa> the 50 is just caused by a duplicate coinbase, no?
528 2011-07-19 10:23:17 <gmaxwell> Was there only one duplicate coinbase?
529 2011-07-19 10:23:22 <sipa> maybe
530 2011-07-19 10:23:42 <gmaxwell> If so, that explains the 50 but not th 0.01.
531 2011-07-19 10:24:00 <sipa> some fee not claimed, maybe?
532 2011-07-19 10:24:03 <gmaxwell> Based on the size of the valle the 0.01 may have been an incident of a miner not taking fees.
533 2011-07-19 10:24:18 <gmaxwell> Yea...
534 2011-07-19 10:24:49 <sipa> if you get to explain all the missing 50.01000001, that is a very nice consistency check
535 2011-07-19 10:24:53 <sipa> for the wallet code
536 2011-07-19 10:25:15 <gmaxwell> indeed. Thats why I bothered letting it do a whole rescan! :)
537 2011-07-19 10:25:22 <gmaxwell> It seems to perform pretty well too.
538 2011-07-19 10:25:27 <sipa> you wallet.dat must be massive now
539 2011-07-19 10:25:30 <sipa> *your
540 2011-07-19 10:25:32 <gmaxwell> 1.2GBytes.
541 2011-07-19 10:25:40 <sipa> encryption turned on?
542 2011-07-19 10:25:48 <gmaxwell> hah, no, but there are no private keys.
543 2011-07-19 10:25:56 <sipa> ah right
544 2011-07-19 10:26:04 <sipa> it's only wtxs obviously
545 2011-07-19 10:26:15 <gmaxwell> "I wish!"
546 2011-07-19 10:26:33 <sipa> well, and bestblock, settings, ...
547 2011-07-19 10:26:38 <sipa> default pubkey
548 2011-07-19 10:26:53 <gmaxwell> yea, there is the keypool here too, obviously.
549 2011-07-19 10:27:21 <sipa> right
550 2011-07-19 10:27:31 <sipa> some more things i'm forgetting as well
551 2011-07-19 10:27:59 <sipa> but just mean, those 1.2GiB is almost entirely caused by wtx's
552 2011-07-19 10:28:55 <TD> good afternoon
553 2011-07-19 10:29:17 <sipa> hi TD
554 2011-07-19 10:30:15 <Zagitta> ello guys
555 2011-07-19 10:31:25 <jeremias> hi
556 2011-07-19 10:31:33 <AndyBr_> how did you get a 1.2gb wallet, gmaxwell?
557 2011-07-19 10:31:44 <AndyBr_> and are there performance issues?
558 2011-07-19 10:31:53 <jeremias> generate enough keys?
559 2011-07-19 10:32:02 <jeremias> btw, can you delete keys from the wallet?
560 2011-07-19 10:32:18 <sipa> jeremias: soon :)
561 2011-07-19 10:32:26 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: how long does it take to do initial load from disk with that?
562 2011-07-19 10:32:50 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: it didn't look like it was obviously longer than usual.
563 2011-07-19 10:33:06 <BlueMatt> hmmm...that indicates a serious problem...
564 2011-07-19 10:33:13 <gmaxwell> (I just restarted it after pulling the maturity problem)
565 2011-07-19 10:33:36 <BlueMatt> if wallet load from disk of a 1.2g wallet doesnt make the client take longer, something else is a real bottleneck...
566 2011-07-19 10:36:47 <gmaxwell> addresses             26634ms
567 2011-07-19 10:37:05 <gmaxwell> block index           12553ms
568 2011-07-19 10:37:49 <BlueMatt> yea addr.dat in general is terrible
569 2011-07-19 10:38:30 <gmaxwell> looks like the wallet is taking a little while, it just wasn't long enough that I really noticed.
570 2011-07-19 10:38:37 <gmaxwell> wallet                96050ms
571 2011-07-19 10:38:40 <gmaxwell> and its up.
572 2011-07-19 10:38:48 <BlueMatt> 90s and you dont notice it?
573 2011-07-19 10:38:58 <BlueMatt> are you running in valgrind?
574 2011-07-19 10:39:31 <gmaxwell> No, I didn't notice it because a totally normal node takes >30 seconds so I'm already in the habbit of not watching closely!
575 2011-07-19 10:39:58 <gmaxwell> If it had taken 5 minutes I would have noticed.
576 2011-07-19 10:39:59 <BlueMatt> still 3x that much is a big difference...oh well 1.3g wallet.dat isnt something that need be supported
577 2011-07-19 10:40:15 <gmaxwell> Right, I think thats perfectly fine.
578 2011-07-19 10:40:30 <gmaxwell> the 26 seconds for addresses is nuts.
579 2011-07-19 10:40:32 <BlueMatt> anyway, 26s for addr.dat is really bad...
580 2011-07-19 10:41:00 <gmaxwell> esp as I'm on a machine with 6 gigs of ram and a fast SSD, and all of this should have been in cache.
581 2011-07-19 10:41:20 <BlueMatt> thats an ssd? mine doesnt take that long on drives
582 2011-07-19 10:41:30 <senseles> Is it possible to buy a copy of ISE used? I'm seeing a few on ebay. But the guy on the forum said there was a yearly licensing fee? Is that for updates? The software will work without it; just not be updated?
583 2011-07-19 10:41:35 <TD> does the wallet even need to be loaded into RAM?
584 2011-07-19 10:41:40 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: how big is your addr.dat?
585 2011-07-19 10:41:43 <BlueMatt> TD: no
586 2011-07-19 10:41:46 <TD> addr.dat grows without bounds, right
587 2011-07-19 10:41:50 <BlueMatt> yes
588 2011-07-19 10:41:55 <TD> i wonder why it takes 90 seconds to open. hrm
589 2011-07-19 10:42:11 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: This one is 56MBytes.
590 2011-07-19 10:42:42 <BlueMatt> wait a sec, grepping my debug.log takes a long time...
591 2011-07-19 10:42:54 <BlueMatt> 1G debug.log...
592 2011-07-19 10:42:54 <Zagitta> my god compiling bitcoind on centos is a pain: /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lgthread-2.0 (about the number 1000 error i get after having fixed all the others)
593 2011-07-19 10:43:00 <BlueMatt> addr.dat == 41M
594 2011-07-19 10:43:16 <sipa> TD: currently, the wallet needs to be loaded on memory
595 2011-07-19 10:43:20 <BlueMatt> and load (on disk drives) takes 3s
596 2011-07-19 10:43:26 <senseles> Zagitta: i put 0.3.24 Centos 5.6 X86_64 binaries on the forums
597 2011-07-19 10:43:28 <sipa> as eg. keys are indexed by pubkey
598 2011-07-19 10:43:45 <sipa> if they would be stored indexed by address, keys wouldn't need to be loaded
599 2011-07-19 10:43:46 <TD> oh, yeah
600 2011-07-19 10:43:54 <senseles> Zagitta: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=27352.0
601 2011-07-19 10:43:54 <Zagitta> senseles: i need it compiled with the multithreaded RCP patch
602 2011-07-19 10:43:56 <TD> wallet format changes required then, perhaps
603 2011-07-19 10:44:00 <TD> (same for bitcoinj)
604 2011-07-19 10:44:07 <senseles> send me the patch ill compile it for you
605 2011-07-19 10:44:12 <senseles> shouldnt take but a few seconds
606 2011-07-19 10:44:27 <sipa> it could go into 0.4.0 maybe still, do the change together with switching to encrypted keys
607 2011-07-19 10:44:33 <b4epoche> sipa:  you going to be around in a couple hours?  The latest wallet.cpp broke my privKey QR code dump.  I think I've figured out a lot of the changes but am stuck on a few.
608 2011-07-19 10:44:38 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: Whats the block number with the missing 1e-8?
609 2011-07-19 10:44:42 <TD> probably not worth delaying 0.4 for that
610 2011-07-19 10:44:52 <TD> i think instawallet is having issues due to wallet size, but beyond that has anyone complained?
611 2011-07-19 10:44:54 <b4epoche> got babysitting duty now.
612 2011-07-19 10:44:58 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: addresses 3717ms, block index 27472ms, wallet 26ms
613 2011-07-19 10:45:08 <BlueMatt> on raid5 7200 rpm drives
614 2011-07-19 10:45:11 <BlueMatt> 1tb trives
615 2011-07-19 10:45:14 <Zagitta> senseles: my god i owe you big if you'd be so kind to do that: http://davids.webmaster.com/~davids/bitcoin-4diff.txt
616 2011-07-19 10:45:20 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: weird, I wonder what else is happening during that time.
617 2011-07-19 10:45:21 <sipa> b4epoche: i won't be here much until thursday evening
618 2011-07-19 10:45:29 <sipa> b4epoche: but if you have questions, ask
619 2011-07-19 10:45:39 <b4epoche> ok, thanks.
620 2011-07-19 10:45:48 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: no idea, but an ssd should be a ton quicker
621 2011-07-19 10:45:58 <gmaxwell> Zagitta: please don't run that "hubmode" patch.
622 2011-07-19 10:46:01 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: are you doing other drives stuff...
623 2011-07-19 10:46:08 <TD> maybe db recovery?
624 2011-07-19 10:46:13 <Zagitta> senseles: i know, i'll run it without -hub
625 2011-07-19 10:46:22 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: the machine is quiet.
626 2011-07-19 10:46:37 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: TD yea, probably db recovery
627 2011-07-19 10:46:40 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: ssd/drive shouln't even matter when it should be hot in cache.
628 2011-07-19 10:46:45 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: he dropped the max outbound connections of hub to like 32, which is a *ton* better if he is accepting like 150 connections...
629 2011-07-19 10:46:47 <gmaxwell> I just down cleanly the prior time.
630 2011-07-19 10:46:49 <b4epoche> sipa:  I guess the big issue is what happened to pwalletMain->mapKeys
631 2011-07-19 10:46:50 <BlueMatt> but it should never be used if you arent accepting
632 2011-07-19 10:47:29 <sipa> b4epoche: the idea is making mapKeys hidden, and use the interface in keystore.h (implemented by CWallet) to access the key store
633 2011-07-19 10:47:58 <b4epoche> ah, that makes sense
634 2011-07-19 10:48:19 <b4epoche> and explains why I was so confused by wallet.cpp
635 2011-07-19 10:48:41 <sipa> the showwallet branch has a more elaborate interface in CKeyStore
636 2011-07-19 10:48:59 <sipa> eg. one for requesting CSecrets directly, and removing keys
637 2011-07-19 10:49:59 <sipa> b4epoche: the real purpose was making script.cpp not depend on wallet
638 2011-07-19 10:50:08 <b4epoche> gotcha...
639 2011-07-19 10:51:08 <gmaxwell> ummm. I did only wake up an hour or so ago... but this hubmode patch just drew my attention to something odd looking?
640 2011-07-19 10:51:11 <gmaxwell> -                if (!addr.IsIPv4() || !addr.IsValid() || setConnected.count(addr.ip & 0x0000ffff))
641 2011-07-19 10:51:15 <BlueMatt> ;;later tell devrandom hey, if you dont mind, Im gonna update wxWidgets-release to 2.9.2
642 2011-07-19 10:51:15 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
643 2011-07-19 10:51:31 <gmaxwell> is addr.ip is some network byte order there?
644 2011-07-19 10:52:27 <senseles> Zagitta: getting warnings from ui.cpp but it compiled
645 2011-07-19 10:52:49 <sipa> gmaxwell: it is
646 2011-07-19 10:52:54 <gmaxwell> oh okay. :)
647 2011-07-19 10:53:41 <Zagitta> senseles: throw a link and an address ;)
648 2011-07-19 10:54:25 <dobalina> hey i'm curious is does yoru bitcoin address always remain the same?
649 2011-07-19 10:54:58 <dobalina> when i open the bitcoin client in the "new address" it shows a different address then the original one... :-.
650 2011-07-19 10:55:16 <AndyBr_> dobalina: you can have many addresses
651 2011-07-19 10:55:17 <dobalina> basically the only proof of how many btcoins you have is by backing up your "wallet" ?
652 2011-07-19 10:55:37 <dobalina> what happens if you change pc's or wtvr...
653 2011-07-19 10:55:53 <AndyBr_> then you have zero money, unless you move your wallet file also
654 2011-07-19 10:56:17 <Eliel_> dobalina: make sure to set up good backups if you have more bitcoins than you'd care to risk losing.
655 2011-07-19 10:56:33 <dobalina> gotcha
656 2011-07-19 10:56:47 <ersi> dobalina: Every time you click 'new address' you get a new one (old ones still valid), all of them tied to your wallet
657 2011-07-19 10:56:56 <ersi> (though no one can see they're tied to your wallet)
658 2011-07-19 10:56:59 <Eliel_> dobalina: here are instructions https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Securing_your_wallet
659 2011-07-19 10:57:34 <dobalina> and there's no possiblity that somepoint in the the future a wallet created under an "older" bt client becomes "incompatible" with a latest upgrade or soethign?
660 2011-07-19 10:57:43 <dobalina> Eliel_ cheers
661 2011-07-19 10:58:12 <Eliel_> dobalina: if the wallet becomes incompatible, there will be conversion tools.
662 2011-07-19 10:58:18 <ersi> oh, and you should always have a crisp backup. Everytime you've made a transaction, recieved one or made a new address
663 2011-07-19 10:58:27 <sipa> dobalina: if we introduce a new address type, we'll definitely keep supporting old ones
664 2011-07-19 10:58:30 <Zagitta> seneles: give me your bitcoin address so i can donate a bit :)
665 2011-07-19 10:58:31 <sipa> if ever
666 2011-07-19 10:58:36 <senseles> it's alright
667 2011-07-19 10:58:42 <senseles> i didnt have anything to do was going crazy :p
668 2011-07-19 10:59:40 <Zagitta> senseles: :p
669 2011-07-19 11:03:57 <Zagitta> senseles: is it supposed to grap 500mb ram right off the bat? o _O
670 2011-07-19 11:04:07 <Zagitta> bitcoin_d_ that is
671 2011-07-19 11:04:20 <senseles> i dont think so
672 2011-07-19 11:04:24 <senseles> Let me try it on my system
673 2011-07-19 11:05:29 <senseles> launched it, been running for a few seconds it's at 1.3% of 4gig
674 2011-07-19 11:05:35 <senseles> in top
675 2011-07-19 11:06:07 <senseles> 1.5%
676 2011-07-19 11:06:11 <Zagitta> senseles: yeah odd, a restart seem to have done the job... anyway it's not downloading blocks
677 2011-07-19 11:06:29 <Zagitta> 26 connections
678 2011-07-19 11:07:10 <senseles> 16 here
679 2011-07-19 11:07:19 <senseles> 1.6%
680 2011-07-19 11:07:43 <Zagitta> what's your virtual mem on it looking like?
681 2011-07-19 11:08:02 <gmaxwell> Well, it uses a lot of virtual because it mmaps the blockchain files.
682 2011-07-19 11:08:11 <gmaxwell> But thats harmless.
683 2011-07-19 11:08:43 <Zagitta> except there's only 600mb ram on an amazon EC2 micro instance :p
684 2011-07-19 11:08:54 <gmaxwell> Ram != virtual memory.
685 2011-07-19 11:09:43 <Zagitta> Mem:    611212k total,   604112k used,     7100k free is a bit missleading then is it not?
686 2011-07-19 11:10:27 <gmaxwell> You have to subtract buffers/cached.
687 2011-07-19 11:10:49 <senseles> ya, what is the cached figure?
688 2011-07-19 11:10:56 <gmaxwell> Because they are all instantly droppable.
689 2011-07-19 11:11:07 <Zagitta> 470864k cached... anyway looks like it started downloading blocks :)
690 2011-07-19 11:12:34 <diki> can you guys improve the rpc code?
691 2011-07-19 11:12:50 <diki> if too much getworks are requested per second, it starts to drop connections
692 2011-07-19 11:15:36 <senseles> gmaxwell: do you know how the xilinix ISE licensing works?
693 2011-07-19 11:15:37 <forrestv> if i do 'getnewaddress XXX', why does 'getaddressesbyaccount XXX' later not return that original address?
694 2011-07-19 11:15:41 <senseles> i figure you'd be the one to ask
695 2011-07-19 11:20:10 <gmaxwell> senseles: the devkits include a free locked copy, but thats about all I know.
696 2011-07-19 11:22:15 <Zagitta> so now that i've got bitcoind and my own pool software set up, what would be the best way to benchmark the amount of getworks it can handle?
697 2011-07-19 11:22:42 <senseles> php json rpc call
698 2011-07-19 11:22:45 <senseles> in a loop
699 2011-07-19 11:23:12 <gmaxwell> I found the 0.01
700 2011-07-19 11:23:41 <Zagitta> senseles: just from localhost?
701 2011-07-19 11:23:51 <gmaxwell> http://blockexplorer.com/block/0000000000004c78956f8643262f3622acf22486b120421f893c0553702ba7b5 < midnightmagic's tribute block, had fees he didn't take.
702 2011-07-19 11:24:28 <senseles> you should probably do it remotely to get a more accurate view
703 2011-07-19 11:24:59 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, is that like coin burning?
704 2011-07-19 11:25:22 <Zagitta> might as well just use my c# code for it then :)
705 2011-07-19 11:25:49 <mtrlt> ha. and he thought he was damning one satoshi to eternal sleep :P
706 2011-07-19 11:32:59 <nanotube> gmaxwell: should be a missing .01000001 :)
707 2011-07-19 12:00:49 <gmaxwell> nanotube: right but only the 0.01 part was unexplained, I knew about the 1e-8.
708 2011-07-19 12:01:49 <Eliel_> ... wait, isn't mightnightmagic throwing out 0.00000002 in there?
709 2011-07-19 12:06:58 <sipa> Eliel_: indeed
710 2011-07-19 12:07:13 <sipa> gmaxwell: see Eliel_'s comment :)
711 2011-07-19 12:07:15 <AndyBr_> o_O
712 2011-07-19 12:07:19 <sipa> sure you can account for it?
713 2011-07-19 12:07:37 <gmaxwell> Eliel_: No, blockexplorer is justbusted.
714 2011-07-19 12:07:51 <gmaxwell> 19rEiwcJBRuLnANRZiX6VCfuJiGoMZs3At: 49.99999999
715 2011-07-19 12:07:59 <gmaxwell> and there was 0.01 in fees in the block
716 2011-07-19 12:08:05 <sipa> oh i see
717 2011-07-19 12:08:26 <sipa> blockexplorer miscalculates the fee because of the incomplete cashing of the fees themselves :)
718 2011-07-19 12:08:48 <gmaxwell> so thats 50.01 - 49.99999999 = 0.01000001.
719 2011-07-19 12:08:51 <Eliel_> pident acts a bit different :) http://pident.artefact2.com/block/0000000000004c78956f8643262f3622acf22486b120421f893c0553702ba7b5
720 2011-07-19 12:09:18 <gmaxwell> Thats correct.
721 2011-07-19 12:09:45 <Eliel_> ah yes, so everything matches then.
722 2011-07-19 12:11:46 <nanotube> gmaxwell: ah i see :)
723 2011-07-19 12:20:01 <TD> sipa: great news
724 2011-07-19 12:20:15 <TD> today somebody received (testnet) bitcoins via NFC for the first time
725 2011-07-19 12:20:26 <TD> "tap to pay" is here for us now :-)
726 2011-07-19 12:20:29 <BlueMatt> TD: thats awsome
727 2011-07-19 12:20:39 <BlueMatt> awesome*
728 2011-07-19 12:20:42 <TD> the ui is really slick. but unfortunately, most phones don't do nfc :(
729 2011-07-19 12:20:52 <BlueMatt> Im sure that is coming rapidly
730 2011-07-19 12:22:06 <TD> i hope so
731 2011-07-19 12:22:24 <TD> qrcodes are nearly as good until then
732 2011-07-19 12:22:35 <BlueMatt> well with all the support people like mastercard, or was it visa? are putting into it...
733 2011-07-19 12:23:01 <TD> right
734 2011-07-19 12:23:07 <sipa> TD: oh, really nice!
735 2011-07-19 12:23:17 <TD> but it seems some OEMs (samsung?) are waiting until the credit card company infrastructure is there before putting NFC adapters into the phones
736 2011-07-19 12:23:21 <TD> :/
737 2011-07-19 12:23:37 <TD> i guess "raw" nfc is not very interesting for them (reasonable)
738 2011-07-19 12:23:39 <ersi> Built It and they Shall Come
739 2011-07-19 12:23:39 <nanotube> qr is just as good and requires no new hw... so what's the big deal?
740 2011-07-19 12:23:50 <TD> nanotube: it's not quite as nice. in practice it's not much different
741 2011-07-19 12:24:05 <TD> but there's something inherently awesome about just touching two phones together and having it instantly pop up on the send coins screen
742 2011-07-19 12:24:14 <TD> it works exactly as you'd imagine it should
743 2011-07-19 12:24:25 <TD> as the tech spreads it'll make the meze grill type use case much easier
744 2011-07-19 12:24:32 <leo_> Hi people, I installed bitcoin on debian 64 and when I try to start the program I see this message on terminal: EXCEPTION: N5boost16exception_detail10clone_implINS0_19error_info_injectorINS_6system12system_errorEEEEE        Cannot assign requested address        bitcoin in ThreadRPCServer()         terminate called after throwing an instance of 'boost::exception_detail::clone_impl<boost::exception_detail::error_info_injector<boost
745 2011-07-19 12:24:40 <leo_> How to fix it?
746 2011-07-19 12:25:04 <nanotube> TD: heh i see... i guess i've always been a fan of 'good enough' :) but the 'magic' experience is not to be underestimated, i suppose. ;)
747 2011-07-19 12:25:09 <BlueMatt> TD: yep, I cant wait, but since the infrastructure is pretty much here, hopefully samsung will hop on the bandwagon, not like the tech is expensive
748 2011-07-19 12:25:23 <TD> yeah
749 2011-07-19 12:30:31 <nanotube> anyone care to try out p2pool now running on mainnet? http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=18313.msg379115#msg379115
750 2011-07-19 12:33:44 <TD> BlueMatt: you mean one that does every single protocol possible? :)
751 2011-07-19 12:33:53 <BlueMatt> yep, thats the idea ;)
752 2011-07-19 12:33:59 <TD> BlueMatt: I guess you'd have to ask Andreas about that. His apps UI would generalize to other backends beyond BitCoinJ
753 2011-07-19 12:34:22 <TD> though obviously the goal is that nobody should need to know/care about the other protocols
754 2011-07-19 12:34:33 <TD> pure p2p connections with lightweight mode should be fast and easy enough
755 2011-07-19 12:34:41 <TD> we're getting there. it's pretty fast to sync the block chain normally.
756 2011-07-19 12:34:47 <BlueMatt> that would be amazing, I mean I use rpc, but webcoin-like stuff is the future imo
757 2011-07-19 12:34:56 <BlueMatt> webwallets/etc
758 2011-07-19 12:35:34 <TD> yeah, maybe. i think on the iPhone you'd have to use webcoin
759 2011-07-19 12:35:42 <BlueMatt> yea, that too
760 2011-07-19 12:35:49 <BlueMatt> but I dont care about iPhone
761 2011-07-19 12:35:53 <TD> on Android the bitcoinj approach has quite the head start
762 2011-07-19 12:35:59 <TD> though stefan is making fast progress
763 2011-07-19 12:36:14 <BlueMatt> Im just not a big fan of storeing coins on a phone
764 2011-07-19 12:36:16 <TD> so we'll see. my gut feeling is that the simplicity of connecting directly to the p2p network will be a big bonus
765 2011-07-19 12:36:20 <TD> literally just install the app and go
766 2011-07-19 12:36:27 <TD> why not? in case you lose the device?
767 2011-07-19 12:36:31 <sipa> BlueMatt: neither am i, but i *love* the idea that i can
768 2011-07-19 12:37:10 <BlueMatt> yea, in case I lose the device, but I just dont feel comforteable on something that I dont have as much control over
769 2011-07-19 12:37:19 <BlueMatt> my computer, I can do anything form the bootloader on up
770 2011-07-19 12:37:31 <TD> fair enough
771 2011-07-19 12:37:41 <TD> i think backing up the wallet to the cloud will solve the "lost device" issue
772 2011-07-19 12:37:47 <BlueMatt> yea, I prefer that
773 2011-07-19 12:37:49 <TD> as long as encryption is good enough
774 2011-07-19 12:37:50 <BlueMatt> like webcoin :)
775 2011-07-19 12:37:59 <TD> it's different
776 2011-07-19 12:38:02 <TD> webcoin needs a server to help you
777 2011-07-19 12:38:10 <TD> if the server goes away, you're stuck. well, you need to find another webcoin server.
778 2011-07-19 12:38:26 <TD> though given how browsers work i'm not sure it'd be easy to move wallets between servers unless those servers co-operate
779 2011-07-19 12:38:31 <BlueMatt> well, ok, but I prefer it, its even more light weight than p2p
780 2011-07-19 12:38:32 <TD> the entire browser security model is intended to prevent exactly that
781 2011-07-19 12:38:40 <TD> that is true
782 2011-07-19 12:38:44 <BlueMatt> it wouldnt be hard to do a secure webcoin with the wallet stored on the phone
783 2011-07-19 12:38:50 <TD> i think keeping centralization to a minimum is worthwhile though
784 2011-07-19 12:39:08 <nanotube> out of curiosity... what exactly is webcoin? is it basically an ewallet?
785 2011-07-19 12:39:33 <BlueMatt> yea, but a secure one (ish)
786 2011-07-19 12:39:40 <TD> on the scale of weightness, bitcoin clients go something like this
787 2011-07-19 12:39:45 <BlueMatt> coins stored locally encrypted
788 2011-07-19 12:39:45 <TD> rpc, webcoin, spv, full
789 2011-07-19 12:39:55 <TD> with rpc the wallet and keys are stored remotely.
790 2011-07-19 12:40:12 <TD> with webcoin the keys are stored locally, but everything else (ie, transactions and the block chain) is stored remotely
791 2011-07-19 12:40:20 <BlueMatt> I like that model
792 2011-07-19 12:40:23 <TD> with spv you store keys and transactions locally, and connect directly to the p2p network, but only some things are verified
793 2011-07-19 12:40:30 <TD> with full, you verify everything yourself
794 2011-07-19 12:40:47 <TD> they give you different efficiency vs independence/privacy tradeoffs
795 2011-07-19 12:40:59 <TD> i think the webcoin model and SPV model will converge over time