1 2011-08-06 00:13:20 <josephcp> mybitcoin seems to have updated their page https://www.mybitcoin.com/ they claim that they had a transaction reversed from an orphan block... seems pretty trivial to check whether any orphaned transactions had double-spent transactions, no?
  2 2011-08-06 00:17:17 <ThomasV> the saga goes on
  3 2011-08-06 00:17:40 <ThomasV> they do not tell the percentage of loss :-D
  4 2011-08-06 00:19:42 <josephcp> i bet what really happened if they were attacked was they deposited funds even before a confirmation of a block
  5 2011-08-06 00:20:30 <josephcp> i remember their SCI didn't make me wait minutes for a block confirmation when I used it
  6 2011-08-06 00:21:34 <phantomcircuit> josephcp, where they accepting 1 block confirms?
  7 2011-08-06 00:22:25 <josephcp> phantomcircuit: i remeber they accepted a transaction the moment the transaction was on the network (0 confirms), but I could be wrong, i haven't used their SCI (as a user) in months
  8 2011-08-06 00:24:27 <phantomcircuit> if that's true
  9 2011-08-06 00:24:28 <phantomcircuit> lol
 10 2011-08-06 00:24:30 <josephcp> if we were to check for double-spent transactions it seems like it'd be trivial, no? check for duplicate txids with different outputs?
 11 2011-08-06 00:24:48 <josephcp> i mean if their story from their website holds up
 12 2011-08-06 00:24:52 <phantomcircuit> it's fairly hard because the mainline client silently drops duplicate txids
 13 2011-08-06 00:25:02 <phantomcircuit> although i believe that it does log them in debug.log
 14 2011-08-06 00:26:15 <josephcp> seems like a trivial attack though if they accepted (and DEPOSITED) with 0 confirmations, just directly connect to their bitcoin node, send the transaction, and send a different transaction directly to the pools at the same time
 15 2011-08-06 00:26:25 <ThomasV> but they say they waited for 1 confirm, not zero
 16 2011-08-06 00:26:55 <josephcp> ThomasV: do they? i vaguely remember the SCI allowed purchases instantly, i've never accepted anything over their SCI so they could've waited to actually deposit funds..
 17 2011-08-06 00:27:43 <ThomasV> josephcp: rtf statement
 18 2011-08-06 00:27:44 <josephcp> well in any case seems pretty trivial to see if their story holds up by checking whether duplicate TXIDs exist with different outputs
 19 2011-08-06 00:27:59 <josephcp> ThomasV: i'm saying the statement might be wrong because a blockchain attack like that is HARD
 20 2011-08-06 00:29:01 <ThomasV> you mean it is hard with 1 conf or woth 0 ?
 21 2011-08-06 00:29:07 <josephcp> with 1 conf
 22 2011-08-06 00:29:17 <josephcp> theoretically it sounds trivial with 0 conf
 23 2011-08-06 00:29:21 <ThomasV> yes
 24 2011-08-06 00:29:41 <lfm> you could do 0 conf without even modifying any software
 25 2011-08-06 00:29:45 <ThomasV> "It appears to be human error combined with a misunderstanding of how Bitcoin secures transactions into the next block. Our programmer was under the assumption that one block was good enough to secure a transaction. Two years ago when the software was written, this single confirm myth was a popular belief."
 26 2011-08-06 00:30:15 <josephcp> yeah i bet the programmer really just confirmed transactions the moment it hit the network instead of waiting for even 1 measly block based on what I remember from their SCI, ThomasV
 27 2011-08-06 00:31:16 <gmaxwell> orphan blocks are saved...
 28 2011-08-06 00:31:26 <gmaxwell> so it wouldn't be hard to see if there had been a reversal
 29 2011-08-06 00:31:30 <josephcp> gmaxwell: exactly, seems pretty easy to check whether that statement is even remotely true
 30 2011-08-06 00:32:42 <josephcp> AFAIK i don't even know of one reported case lately of double spending a txid with even 1 block confirm on the real network...
 31 2011-08-06 00:32:43 <lfm> do people think Satoshi was wrong to look for 6 confirming blocks?
 32 2011-08-06 00:37:48 <gmaxwell> lfm: 6 is pretty conservative these days, I think.. for most transactions.
 33 2011-08-06 00:38:45 <gmaxwell> >1 is needed those, splits happen naturally with some regularity. You could keep trying over and over again aganst a bank like site and eventually end up with transactions on both sides of a split.
 34 2011-08-06 00:38:53 <gmaxwell> er those* though.
 35 2011-08-06 00:39:13 <gmaxwell> In fact, people might actually be doing network partitioning attacks already because the miners don't peer with each other.
 36 2011-08-06 00:40:16 <gmaxwell> E.g. I can run 1000 botnet powered 'nodes' (really proxies to a single host) and manage to substantially seperate two big miners. I spend on both... after the 'bank' credits me I drop the attack.
 37 2011-08-06 00:41:18 <ThomasV> how can you know you separate them ?
 38 2011-08-06 00:41:48 <gmaxwell> You just keep trying.
 39 2011-08-06 00:42:02 <gmaxwell> Well, you know you've seperated them when you're not hearing the blocks on the other side.
 40 2011-08-06 00:42:18 <ThomasV> will the client drop connections based on best pingtimes, or something like that ?
 41 2011-08-06 00:42:34 <gmaxwell> No.
 42 2011-08-06 00:42:51 <gmaxwell> It doesn't drop intentionally (Except due to the anti-flood logic)
 43 2011-08-06 00:43:19 <gmaxwell> Rotating connections is something that ought to be added. (e.g. hold N static change M periodically, in order to weaking partitioning)
 44 2011-08-06 00:51:14 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, i thought orphan blocks where dropped interesting
 45 2011-08-06 00:51:33 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: nah, they're left in the blocks file forever. nothing is erased from it.
 46 2011-08-06 00:51:39 <phantomcircuit> ah
 47 2011-08-06 00:51:40 <phantomcircuit> neat
 48 2011-08-06 00:51:49 <phantomcircuit> so their story can be confirmed
 49 2011-08-06 00:52:00 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: could an attacker forge packets from miner A sent to miner B, in order to trigger anti-flood logic?
 50 2011-08-06 00:52:05 <gmaxwell> (because that would require some cross file atomic operation since all the later index entries would need to be updated)
 51 2011-08-06 00:52:08 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: no.
 52 2011-08-06 00:52:27 <gmaxwell> Miners don't connect to each other except by chance anyways. It's a flaw in the current operational practices.
 53 2011-08-06 00:52:34 <gmaxwell> If they did they couldn't be partitioned by an attacker.
 54 2011-08-06 00:52:45 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, actually TCP sequence numbers aren't nearly enough on gbps lines
 55 2011-08-06 00:52:57 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: bitcoin never opens the window much.
 56 2011-08-06 00:53:09 <gmaxwell> And you need to guess _both_ port numbers.
 57 2011-08-06 00:53:20 <phantomcircuit> no just 1
 58 2011-08-06 00:53:28 <phantomcircuit> obviously one of them will be 8333
 59 2011-08-06 00:53:32 <Namegduf> One of those numbers could be changed but cannot reliably be assumed to be
 60 2011-08-06 00:53:33 <gmaxwell> I suppose you could flood one off eventually, but in that case... you might as well just fill their pipes
 61 2011-08-06 00:53:45 <Namegduf> So "just one" you can sort of rely on.
 62 2011-08-06 00:53:47 <phantomcircuit> 8 bits on the port + 32 bits on the sequence number
 63 2011-08-06 00:54:02 <gmaxwell> more like 14 bits on the port.
 64 2011-08-06 00:54:20 <Namegduf> If you could make a statistical attack on the port, that would be enough.
 65 2011-08-06 00:54:20 <phantomcircuit> connect side is limited to the upper half of the range
 66 2011-08-06 00:54:40 <gmaxwell> log2(32768) = 15
 67 2011-08-06 00:54:48 <Namegduf> phantomcircuit: Halving the range drops one bit, not half the bits.
 68 2011-08-06 00:54:59 <gmaxwell> Namegduf: its random. I was being giving saying 14.
 69 2011-08-06 00:55:01 <phantomcircuit> oh right
 70 2011-08-06 00:55:24 <gmaxwell> In any case,  indeed. So you could slay their connections (TCPMD5 FTW) but its irrelevant because there is currently no such connection.
 71 2011-08-06 00:55:55 <Namegduf> In general, any router between the two capable of passive sniffing and delaying of packets can defeat those measures, though
 72 2011-08-06 00:56:16 <gmaxwell> Well, if you can filter the traffic you can filter the traffic.
 73 2011-08-06 00:56:22 <Namegduf> Right
 74 2011-08-06 00:56:28 <Namegduf> Bitcoin assumes one can't.
 75 2011-08-06 00:56:31 <gmaxwell> If the big miners fully mesh though you'd have to be ISP-in-the-middle in many places though.
 76 2011-08-06 00:56:48 <gmaxwell> Eh, bitcoin makes fairly few assumptions about the network.
 77 2011-08-06 00:56:57 <phantomcircuit> it would take ~6 days on average to break into a tcp connection
 78 2011-08-06 00:57:04 <phantomcircuit> from a gbps line to another
 79 2011-08-06 00:57:17 <phantomcircuit> (2^(32+15) bytes / 1 gigabit/s)/2 ~= 6 days
 80 2011-08-06 00:57:34 <gmaxwell> I mean, this is really just the 50% attack problem except (1) the miners are unwitting participants, (2) it doesn't need 50%, the power is amplified by your ability to split the network.
 81 2011-08-06 00:57:56 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: great, and it would be reestablished quickly once it realized it lost its mind.
 82 2011-08-06 00:58:01 <Namegduf> gmaxwell: I mean in terms of avoiding partition
 83 2011-08-06 00:58:09 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, not if they're using -addnode ;)
 84 2011-08-06 00:58:13 <Namegduf> It assumes you can't filter traffic because if you can filter traffic there's easy ways to do it
 85 2011-08-06 00:58:16 <gmaxwell> Yea, addnode is useless.
 86 2011-08-06 00:58:19 <Namegduf> Not practical to defend against.
 87 2011-08-06 00:58:40 <gmaxwell> fair enough.
 88 2011-08-06 00:58:41 <lfm> there would be lots of evidence left around if it really happened
 89 2011-08-06 00:58:48 <gmaxwell> lfm: right.
 90 2011-08-06 00:59:15 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: yea, this is why we need a -keepnode (or -trustnode, really) which reserves a slot and makes an effort to keep it up.
 91 2011-08-06 00:59:50 <gmaxwell> we also need to seriously reconsider the logic used for the /16 filtering, because it allowes people who inbound to you to choose who you'll try outbounding to.
 92 2011-08-06 01:00:07 <Namegduf> Oooh, tricky.
 93 2011-08-06 01:00:16 <gmaxwell> e.g. if I get a node on the /16 of each big miner, I can agressively connect to other nodes and prevent them from connecting to the miners on the same /16s as my drones.
 94 2011-08-06 01:00:21 <Namegduf> Flag connections as inbound/outbound?
 95 2011-08-06 01:00:48 <gmaxwell> We flag but we use all in the filter. One line change to ignore inbound... which I've been running locally, but it deserves some careful consideration.
 96 2011-08-06 01:01:00 <Namegduf> Yeah.
 97 2011-08-06 01:01:14 <Namegduf> I don't think it tries to make guarantees about having "so many" outbound vs inbound
 98 2011-08-06 01:01:28 <gmaxwell> well it always tries to make 8 outbound.
 99 2011-08-06 01:01:31 <Namegduf> Ah.
100 2011-08-06 01:01:51 <gmaxwell> But it excludes nodes in /16s we already have connections to (in or out) from consideration.
101 2011-08-06 01:02:24 <gmaxwell> because of the unequal distribution of the internet, a few dozen of well placed drones can make a target have fairly few non-drone choices.
102 2011-08-06 01:03:28 <gmaxwell> e.g. I map a map of all listening bitcoin nodes, then I find the /16s with the most honest nodes.. and I get drones on them. From those drones I connect super agressively to my target, thus denying them access to big hunks of honest nodes.
103 2011-08-06 01:03:57 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, brb implementing
104 2011-08-06 01:03:59 <gmaxwell> eventually you end up only connected to an attacker, or to nodes which are only connected to the attacker...
105 2011-08-06 01:04:02 <gmaxwell> ah
106 2011-08-06 01:04:05 <gmaxwell> hah
107 2011-08-06 01:04:12 <phantomcircuit> a far more efficient version of simple connect slot exhaustion
108 2011-08-06 01:04:25 <gmaxwell> amusingly, having multiple attackers might make things more secure if the attackers still forward normally other than their attack.
109 2011-08-06 01:04:36 <phantomcircuit> lol
110 2011-08-06 01:04:48 <Namegduf> Clearly, the libertarian solution is for everyone to attack at once, thus completely blocking each other.
111 2011-08-06 01:04:56 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, i thought of the same attack but highly unoptimized
112 2011-08-06 01:04:59 <gmaxwell> This would be a reason to disconnect nodes which aren't looking helpful we want to encourage attackers to forward normally!
113 2011-08-06 01:05:07 <Namegduf> Haha
114 2011-08-06 01:05:34 <gmaxwell> (or at least some portion of slots should be reserved for nodes which look like they are behaving normally)
115 2011-08-06 01:05:46 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, measuring helpfulness is a notoriously difficult thing to do
116 2011-08-06 01:06:38 <phantomcircuit> anybody here use bit-pay.com?
117 2011-08-06 01:07:21 <gmaxwell> well, there are some things: nodes that tell you about blocks are helpful.
118 2011-08-06 01:07:28 <gmaxwell> and you can't really fake that.
119 2011-08-06 01:07:34 <phantomcircuit> hmm true
120 2011-08-06 01:08:02 <gmaxwell> if attacker A is trying to split the mining power, and attacker B is trying to split the mining power... and they foward blocks that don't promote the split they are trying to create, they'll step on each other.
121 2011-08-06 01:08:22 <gmaxwell> er don't block the split is what I meant.
122 2011-08-06 01:08:55 <gmaxwell> Unless they happen to choose the same split... which they might, because some miners are easier to find and isolate than others.
123 2011-08-06 01:09:19 <gmaxwell> Ideally you want to create a split where one side is only big enough to mine N blocks fast enough for the site not to notice.
124 2011-08-06 01:10:05 <gmaxwell> If the site only checks one block eligius alone would be perfectly fine, and its easy to find .. dunno how easy it is to isolate, since luke has outbound ddos-the-network patches. ;)
125 2011-08-06 01:10:32 <gmaxwell> though perhaps all the orphans he had prior to his current agressive network posture were due to an attack.
126 2011-08-06 01:11:08 <gmaxwell> might explain some of the surprisingly long (>30s) block propagations which have been observed.
127 2011-08-06 01:12:07 <gmaxwell> in any case, first step is to validate that a respend has happened.
128 2011-08-06 01:22:52 <lfm> gmaxwell: hmm, there is a couple pairs of duplicate coinbase txn  in blocks 91842 and 91812 and  in blocks 91880 and 91722
129 2011-08-06 01:23:09 <gmaxwell> Yea, the duplicate coinbases were known.
130 2011-08-06 01:23:29 <lfm> a pool goofed?
131 2011-08-06 01:23:34 <gmaxwell> They're harmless: same input ID, so only one can be spent.. some crazy custom miner lost 50btc forever.
132 2011-08-06 01:23:55 <gmaxwell> Paying to a single address, not incrementing extranonce ... duplicate coinbase.
133 2011-08-06 01:24:04 <gmaxwell> I didn't know about the second one, only the first.
134 2011-08-06 01:24:06 <gmaxwell> Odd...
135 2011-08-06 01:24:07 <lfm> ya, ok. I am working on code to find attempted double spends
136 2011-08-06 01:24:18 <gmaxwell> well, success, kinda.
137 2011-08-06 01:24:20 <gmaxwell> :)
138 2011-08-06 01:24:36 <lfm> not really what I was trying to find! hehe
139 2011-08-06 01:25:52 <gmaxwell> hm. now I'm puzzled.  I ran a node with IsMine removed .. and the balance was short 50.01[...]1 btc. I thought it was 50 from the duplicate coinbase, and 1.0...01 from midnightmagic's magic block. But apparently not if there was a second duplicate.
140 2011-08-06 01:26:13 <gmaxwell> I wonder where the 50 was lost from if it wasn't counting the duplicates as lost.
141 2011-08-06 01:26:36 <gmaxwell> Hmph. too bad it takes hours to rescan with IsMine removed. :)
142 2011-08-06 01:28:13 <lfm> gmaxwell: I was able to balance the inputs and outputs with the "lost" 0.01000001
143 2011-08-06 01:28:46 <gmaxwell> hm!
144 2011-08-06 01:29:22 <gmaxwell> maybe I was failing to count the very most recent block.
145 2011-08-06 01:29:38 <lfm> or block 0
146 2011-08-06 01:29:45 <gmaxwell> I'd cut out the isconfirmed check, but perhaps depth 0 still got it.
147 2011-08-06 01:29:54 <gmaxwell> yea, hm, I could have been off by one that way too I guess.
148 2011-08-06 01:31:01 <lfm> so anyway now we have anothe 100btc confirmed as permenantly lost
149 2011-08-06 01:31:15 <gmaxwell> another?
150 2011-08-06 01:31:30 <lfm> besides the 0.01000001
151 2011-08-06 01:32:46 <lfm> prolly insignificant compared to block of early testers who lost whole wallts and stuff
152 2011-08-06 01:32:52 <gmaxwell> Sure.
153 2011-08-06 01:33:07 <gmaxwell> I've lost ~500 btc most likely.
154 2011-08-06 01:33:34 <gmaxwell> But I'm not actually sure about it, because I'd left bitcoin running for a long time without looking at it.
155 2011-08-06 01:33:45 <copumpkin> how about the 17k? :P
156 2011-08-06 01:33:46 <copumpkin> from bitomat
157 2011-08-06 01:33:51 <gmaxwell> And it may someday turn up on some disk I missed checking, though thats pretty unlikely.
158 2011-08-06 01:34:16 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: if it was really lost. ;)  Someone could just be playing a really long game.
159 2011-08-06 01:34:36 <gmaxwell> the 100 + 0.01000001 has zero ambiguity. It's lost for sure any anyone can validate that.
160 2011-08-06 01:36:34 <gmaxwell> e.g. Plan for immortality 3825:  (1) run a big bitcoin wallet service. (2) 'lose' a huge number of bitcoins. (3) die and have yourself cryogenically preserved. (4) 300 years from now a trust with control of the 'lost' coins show up and puts 10% of mankinds wealth into reviving you.  ;)
161 2011-08-06 01:37:36 <copumpkin> lol
162 2011-08-06 01:37:50 <copumpkin> I think the community could do with a notification service
163 2011-08-06 01:38:02 <copumpkin> that watches addresses for any movement
164 2011-08-06 01:40:19 <gmaxwell> of course, 300 years from now would anyone care about a little zombie coins being spent (assuming the trust started spending slowly)? :)
165 2011-08-06 01:55:31 <luke-jr> so MyBitcoin claims the theft was double-spends
166 2011-08-06 01:55:39 <luke-jr> doesn't that implicate Deepbit?
167 2011-08-06 02:00:38 <BurningToad> not really double spends... but just sent funds that only survived one confirmation, and then withdrew different funds from mybitcoin
168 2011-08-06 02:00:39 <iddo> huh? how can anyone else double-spend the coins that were under mybitcoin control?
169 2011-08-06 02:01:05 <luke-jr> BurningToad: how can 1-confirmation transactions be reversed other than deepbit?
170 2011-08-06 02:01:23 <iddo> ahh
171 2011-08-06 02:02:26 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: er, any orphan potentially reverses it!
172 2011-08-06 02:02:41 <gmaxwell> (if the opposite sides of the split have different transactions)
173 2011-08-06 02:02:45 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: potentially, but what's the probability of that?
174 2011-08-06 02:03:59 <gmaxwell> 100% if someone was working to make it possible. For example, I get a link to you and a link to deepbit (somehow). I constantly present each of you conflicting transactions both paying different accounts at RandomEwallet with different inputs.
175 2011-08-06 02:04:04 <BurningToad> could be as simple as some script that kept depositing coins, and then trying to withdraw them as fast as possible?  Maybe some network manipulation on mybitcoin's bitcoinds?
176 2011-08-06 02:04:23 <gmaxwell> As soon as one block makes it to randomewallet I withdraw it.
177 2011-08-06 02:04:39 <iddo> why would mybitcoin accept funds after 1-confirmation ?
178 2011-08-06 02:04:56 <gmaxwell> If randomEwallet eventually hears an eligius block first but then it gets orphaned, poof.
179 2011-08-06 02:05:10 <gmaxwell> I can make this much more likely if I conduct a network attack where I intentionally partition miners.
180 2011-08-06 02:05:20 <gmaxwell> (assuming the miners don't peer with each other)
181 2011-08-06 02:05:35 <gmaxwell> E.g. I get a botnet to pretend to be 1000 bitcoin nodes (by forwarding the tcp connections back to me)
182 2011-08-06 02:05:56 <gmaxwell> Then I've got a pretty good chance of being the only working path between a medium and a large miner.
183 2011-08-06 02:06:12 <gmaxwell> So I split the network (don't let the two miners hear about each others blocks)
184 2011-08-06 02:06:16 <luke-jr> hmm
185 2011-08-06 02:06:34 <gmaxwell> I put txn in both sides... withdraw. pop the split.
186 2011-08-06 02:06:55 <gmaxwell> I might have to try a bunch of times to be successful, but I could automate it.
187 2011-08-06 02:07:39 <BurningToad> or, mybitcoin.com WAS rooted, and this is an attempt to get some user/passwords along with bitcoins ;)
188 2011-08-06 02:07:45 <gmaxwell> To prevent this: wait for more txn (duh) which makes this much harder (someone will notice splits that deep),  miners should peer with each other (most important), and high target services should peer with miners.
189 2011-08-06 02:07:59 <gmaxwell> People are now analyizing the block data to verify the claim.
190 2011-08-06 02:08:20 <gmaxwell> Orphan blocks are not erased, so if there was a reversal it can be detected using the block data from any node that heard the orphaned block.
191 2011-08-06 02:09:28 <gmaxwell> If people can find it, the next question will be "how did it happen"... e.g. is there an evil miner? (well, not that unlikely.. you don't need _that_ much hash power to make a 1 deep orphan assuming you also network attack the wallet service.
192 2011-08-06 02:09:45 <gmaxwell> or did it happen via a larger network splitting attack.
193 2011-08-06 02:10:49 <iddo> why 1 deep and not 6 deep ? mybitcoin accepted funds after just one block ?
194 2011-08-06 02:11:07 <luke-jr> well, if this doesn't implicate Deepbit, I personally think their story is probably true
195 2011-08-06 02:11:12 <luke-jr> iddo: apparently
196 2011-08-06 02:11:21 <gmaxwell> well, it will get validated.
197 2011-08-06 02:11:56 <gmaxwell> and .. in any case, if it _was_ a partitioning attack, that kind of attack is made _much_ easier by the concentration of mining power.
198 2011-08-06 02:12:20 <gmaxwell> It's really hard to partition dozens of potential block solvers.. much easier to parition just a few.
199 2011-08-06 02:12:24 <gmaxwell> Or one.
200 2011-08-06 02:15:14 <iddo> sounds fishy to me, mybitcoin advetised that the wallet with most of their bitcoins isn't even online
201 2011-08-06 02:15:30 <gmaxwell> how much do they say was stolen this way?
202 2011-08-06 02:15:41 <gmaxwell> the problem with a reversal attack is that you could potentially do it many times...
203 2011-08-06 02:15:49 <gmaxwell> even causing them to refill from their offline wallet
204 2011-08-06 02:15:56 <gmaxwell> "oh lots of withdraws"
205 2011-08-06 02:16:10 <gmaxwell> not noticing the that the site balance and the wallet balance were not in agreement.
206 2011-08-06 02:16:52 <gmaxwell> If they didn't have safty checks in to catch imbalances, they might only notice when they ran out of money and couldn't satisify a withdraw.
207 2011-08-06 02:20:03 <iddo> so the idea is to let e.g. deepbit work on the txn that will survive, and meanwhile let mybitcoin see another txn ?
208 2011-08-06 02:20:59 <iddo> unless you can really partition the network, i guess this cannot be done even if you wait just for 2 confirmations
209 2011-08-06 02:23:41 <iddo> if event of finding two hashes at same time is p for very small p, then it should be less than p^2 after 2 blocks etc.
210 2011-08-06 02:28:53 <gmaxwell> depends on who you can partition an how.
211 2011-08-06 02:30:27 <gmaxwell> For example if you can make a partition of deepbit+slush|mybitcoin+everyone-else thats >50% on one side, but enough on the other that you could leave it going for a little while before it was too obvious.
212 2011-08-06 02:30:45 <gmaxwell> It wouldn't work 100% of the time, of course, but you lose nothing when it fails
213 2011-08-06 02:31:01 <luke-jr> iddo: their thing today says the offline was unaffected
214 2011-08-06 02:31:41 <gmaxwell> e.g. if your attack 'fails' it just means that the first confirm mybitcoin saw is the one that ends up surviving.
215 2011-08-06 02:32:12 <gmaxwell> e.g. if someone connected to the network and broke your partitoning before your 'reversal' side (the one without mybitcoin) was longer.
216 2011-08-06 02:32:21 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: someone on the ML was recently suggesting broadcasting double-spend attempts
217 2011-08-06 02:32:26 <luke-jr> this makes it look like a good idea
218 2011-08-06 02:33:10 <gmaxwell> The problem here is that if they parition effectively there they could also limit the txn flooding, so no node would see both. Make it much more likely to get noticed but still possible.
219 2011-08-06 02:33:52 <gmaxwell> The better idea is to get a -keepnodes feature and get large miners to peer with each other (fewer orphans), it's in their best interest as well as everyone elses (paritioning miners becomes very hard).
220 2011-08-06 02:34:47 <gmaxwell> you could still do crap like partition mybitcoin, then mine a block for it on the partition.. and if its operators aren't paying attention they may not notice that it's split from the network for hours at a time.
221 2011-08-06 02:34:55 <gmaxwell> But at least you need a good amount of hash power for that.
222 2011-08-06 02:35:21 <gmaxwell> (enough to perform the attack before someone notices that mybitcoin is two dozen blocks behind.
223 2011-08-06 02:35:24 <gmaxwell> )
224 2011-08-06 02:35:56 <gmaxwell> though I assume if you paritioned it, you'd still let txn across just not blocks. so txn would keep working during the attack the only way to notice would be that getting one confirm would take a long time.
225 2011-08-06 02:36:23 <shadders> luke-jr: what should I expect to find following X-Mining-Extensions: ? X-Roll-NTime or rollntime
226 2011-08-06 02:36:28 <shadders> case sensitive?
227 2011-08-06 02:36:34 <luke-jr> shadders: rollntime lowercase
228 2011-08-06 02:37:07 <shadders> reject-reason noncerange are the defined name for those extensions?
229 2011-08-06 02:37:48 <gmaxwell> this is why 6 confirms is still good  if a netwok attacker partitions you, they'd have to mine 6 blocks just for you to attack... thats too many (300 btc in lost income alone!), as it'll take them a very long time unless they are one of the bigger pools.
230 2011-08-06 02:55:13 <Frozenlock> My apologies for asking this simple question in this serious channel, but could someone please tell me what is the format of the wallet.dat file? (to read my privates and public keys, for example)
231 2011-08-06 02:56:50 <gmaxwell> it's bdb
232 2011-08-06 02:57:29 <Frozenlock> Thanks!
233 2011-08-06 02:58:32 <luke-jr> shadders: reject-reason doesn't require advertising tho
234 2011-08-06 03:00:03 <jrmithdobbs> hmm this seems like a bad idea
235 2011-08-06 03:00:19 <jrmithdobbs> but i've found a hacky way to give a raw block device for use with dm_crypt a uuid
236 2011-08-06 03:01:10 <jrmithdobbs> example: mkswap /dev/sdc 40; creates a 40K swap space, then, just to be space, give cryptsetup the --offset 80 option
237 2011-08-06 03:01:35 <jrmithdobbs> someone tell me why this is awful besides blkid saying the partition is SWAP when it's ont ;p
238 2011-08-06 03:01:38 <jrmithdobbs> s/ont/not/
239 2011-08-06 03:02:18 <jrmithdobbs> s/just to be space/just to be safe/
240 2011-08-06 03:06:29 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: sounds like a good way to hide a partition
241 2011-08-06 03:07:03 <jrmithdobbs> no i don't want to hide it, i want to make it usable by uuid
242 2011-08-06 03:07:07 <jrmithdobbs> it's p much the opposite of hiding it
243 2011-08-06 03:59:18 <m03sizlak> hey, ive launched a HTML5 bitcoin blackjack site, check it out  http://bitjack21.com
244 2011-08-06 03:59:35 <upb> not clicking :)
245 2011-08-06 04:02:40 <lfm> m03sizlak: is that announcement on a cron job now?
246 2011-08-06 04:04:12 <m03sizlak> hey im trying to promote a legitimate use for bitcoins
247 2011-08-06 04:04:36 <lfm> so it IS a cron job huh
248 2011-08-06 04:08:34 <[Tycho]> He is spamming.
249 2011-08-06 04:09:28 <jrmithdobbs> m03sizlak: you mean a service that is illegal for about 50% of this channel
250 2011-08-06 04:10:46 <m03sizlak> the server is in the UK, its very legal
251 2011-08-06 04:10:51 <m03sizlak> and bitcoins are not currency
252 2011-08-06 04:10:58 <m03sizlak> nothing illegal about it
253 2011-08-06 04:11:57 <lfm> so you're claiming poker is not gambling.
254 2011-08-06 04:12:09 <lfm> oh blackjack
255 2011-08-06 04:12:49 <m03sizlak> of course its gambling
256 2011-08-06 04:12:56 <m03sizlak> but its gambling BITCOINS
257 2011-08-06 04:13:07 <m03sizlak> and internet gambling (even for money) is legal in the UK
258 2011-08-06 04:13:15 <m03sizlak> but bitcoins are of course not money
259 2011-08-06 04:13:36 <arcatan> what makes you think they're not money?
260 2011-08-06 04:13:39 <lfm> oh, then your claiming online gambling isnt illegal for us citizens?
261 2011-08-06 04:14:15 <m03sizlak> if you use money it might be
262 2011-08-06 04:14:27 <m03sizlak> its debatable
263 2011-08-06 04:14:33 <neofutur> m03sizlak: move this to #bitcoin-games
264 2011-08-06 04:15:07 <lfm> neofutur: you just made that channel up just now didnt you!?
265 2011-08-06 04:15:42 <neofutur> #bitcoin-games is here for days
266 2011-08-06 04:26:03 <neofutur> /msg chansrv info #bitcoin-games
267 2011-08-06 04:26:06 <neofutur> and its not mine
268 2011-08-06 04:27:00 <neofutur> (08:26) -ChanServ(ChanServ@services.)- Information on #bitcoin-games:
269 2011-08-06 04:27:30 <neofutur> ( here for months , not days )
270 2011-08-06 04:38:17 <gmaxwell> I wrote a rebuttal to dan's scalibility argument https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability#Note_to_readers
271 2011-08-06 04:44:33 <iddo> cool
272 2011-08-06 04:44:44 <upb> btw its a terabyte :)
273 2011-08-06 04:45:20 <iddo> though i only now noticed that he took that 1gb per block number from this bitcoin wiki page
274 2011-08-06 04:47:05 <gmaxwell> {{sofixit}}
275 2011-08-06 04:47:07 <gmaxwell> it's a wiki.
276 2011-08-06 04:47:16 <gmaxwell> please proofread my spew.
277 2011-08-06 04:51:21 <iddo> maybe i'm wrong, but this seems a little incoherent: "Bitcoin is a more complete replacement for checks, wire transfers, money orders, gold coins, CDs, savings accounts, etc. and if widely adopted probably replace the uses of credit cards which would be better served by these other things if they worked better online."
278 2011-08-06 04:54:00 <gmaxwell> I mean, I commonly use a debit card where giving someone a check would suffice just fine, except for the whole three days it would take to mail a check.
279 2011-08-06 04:54:45 <gmaxwell> Thats an example where a direct bitcoin transaction would usually be a perfect fit: not instant, potentially high value...
280 2011-08-06 04:56:25 <upb> makes sense
281 2011-08-06 04:58:13 <iddo> but in wiki you start by saying bitcoin doesnt have properties of credit cards, then say it can replace credit cards without specifying the reasoning
282 2011-08-06 04:59:10 <iddo> when i read it i wasnt sure if you meant "probably won't replace"
283 2011-08-06 04:59:10 <upb> eh i think the point is that it replaces some specific uses of credit cards
284 2011-08-06 05:04:04 <iddo> i actually doubt that anti-fraud is good argument for credit cards implemented on top of bitcoin, i think bitcoin contracts can be better, i.e. without involving trust
285 2011-08-06 05:04:20 <gmaxwell> "It depends"
286 2011-08-06 05:05:00 <iddo> the one obvious benefit of credit cards is instant transactions
287 2011-08-06 05:05:05 <gmaxwell> E.g. making the merchant eat some kinds of fraud sometimes make economic sense (basically where the merchant has good ability to mitigate the risk)
288 2011-08-06 05:05:29 <gmaxwell> Making the buyer eat other kinds of fraud also makes sense.
289 2011-08-06 05:06:04 <iddo> but i'm saying bitcoin can prevent the fraud
290 2011-08-06 05:07:06 <gmaxwell> nah, bitcoin can't check to make sure that what someone shipped you wasn't a box of rocks.  If you do a two-party trustless escrow, then you're vulnerable to holdup extortion. If you have a third party you're back to trust and they can be tricked. "it was rocks he sent me" "it was gpus!"
291 2011-08-06 05:07:07 <iddo> in the sense that dishonest participant will only lose money
292 2011-08-06 05:08:34 <gmaxwell> (I'm not really arguing that bitcoin can't help it's just not the only tool in our toolbox. We shouln't hesitate to use it, but we shouldn't be afraid that other things exist either)
293 2011-08-06 05:08:50 <iddo> let's say product p costs x bitcoins, so merchant and customer lock 2x bitcoins each, then merchant sends p, then they unlock it as 3x to merchant and x back to customer
294 2011-08-06 05:09:11 <iddo> if either one of them is dishonest then he just loses money
295 2011-08-06 05:09:50 <gmaxwell> Yep, you can do that. And if my balls are made of harder brass than yours, (or really, my tolerance of loss is less perhaps I'm spending stolen money to begin with) I can still extort you in this game of chicken.
296 2011-08-06 05:10:51 <iddo> why would you participate in such protocol if you knew in advance that you would give in to extortion?
297 2011-08-06 05:11:02 <gmaxwell> bitcoin also adds a fun wrinkle. because coin supply is finite, if I'm very rich it's actually in my interest to destroy my own coins, so long as I can destroy some of yours too. :)
298 2011-08-06 05:11:03 <random_cat> nothing about bitcoin removes the need for trust
299 2011-08-06 05:11:34 <gmaxwell> iddo: because you won't give into infinite extortion, but you may give into a little exortion.
300 2011-08-06 05:11:49 <iddo> i'm missing technical detail, maybe bitcoin contracts can prevent extortion?
301 2011-08-06 05:12:17 <gmaxwell> People use that kind of small extortion all the time. They'll go to buy something... get it all unpackaged, paperwork ready... sales guy committed.. then the demand a slightly better price.
302 2011-08-06 05:12:27 <gmaxwell> iddo: you just described how they can do it, but the protection isn't perfect.
303 2011-08-06 05:13:09 <iddo> can you do this? lock 2x coins of A with 2x coins of B so that only by providing both private keys you can unlock, and the outputs can *only* be unlocked as 3x to A and x to B
304 2011-08-06 05:13:13 <iddo> can it be done?
305 2011-08-06 05:13:43 <random_cat> what if i bring a gun?
306 2011-08-06 05:13:44 <gmaxwell> No. But even if it could it wouldn't matter.
307 2011-08-06 05:13:59 <gmaxwell> "I won't unlock that txn until you've also paid me 0.01 extra btc seperately"
308 2011-08-06 05:14:11 <iddo> :)
309 2011-08-06 05:14:41 <gmaxwell> and "Look, I'm willing to wait this out. Just pay up, I know you have the margins"  .. people would.
310 2011-08-06 05:15:09 <gmaxwell> They'd hate you, and they'd smear your reputation justly... but if reputation matters, thats not zero trust.
311 2011-08-06 05:15:22 <iddo> but the basic property that i said holds: any participant who is dishonet will gain nothing and will lose money... i doubt that visa can offer you this property
312 2011-08-06 05:16:09 <random_cat> ugh
313 2011-08-06 05:16:20 <iddo> also, instead of 2x and 2x for product that costs x, you can do e.g. 9x and 9x, so now there is higher incentive to be honest because the locked coins worth much more than the product
314 2011-08-06 05:16:39 <gmaxwell> iddo: but it's not, I'm pretty sure that I could reliably extort a little bit in those kinds of transactions.. so long as the extortion was fairly small. Eventually people would lynch me, the state would lock me up, my bad reputation would get me shuned, etc. but all those things work without fancy transactions.
315 2011-08-06 05:16:54 <gmaxwell> iddo: but the stakes of the extortion are higher.
316 2011-08-06 05:17:00 <hcc_> il y a t'il des fran??ais ici
317 2011-08-06 05:17:05 <iddo> and a problem is, if the product gets lost in the mail...
318 2011-08-06 05:17:07 <gmaxwell> Are you going to turn down my 0.01 BTC demand when you have 100 BTC tied up?
319 2011-08-06 05:17:39 <iddo> personally, yes i will turn it down... why should i encourage extorters...
320 2011-08-06 05:17:46 <gmaxwell> yea... sometimes there are disputes. Disputes are best settled by people who can think. Bitcoin is a very rigid system. Thats normally good, but not when you need judgement.
321 2011-08-06 05:18:20 <gmaxwell> iddo: keep saying that when your rent is due, and your suppliers are cutting you off, etc. It might not always work, but it would work often.
322 2011-08-06 05:18:54 <hcc_> Hello, I need your help, someone could tell me how you win the bitcoins
323 2011-08-06 05:19:42 <iddo> also as described in bitcoin contracts wiki, after e.g. 6 months the coins go to bitcoin faucet or charities, so you can feel a little better about it....
324 2011-08-06 05:20:12 <gmaxwell> https://fr.bitcoin.it/wiki/Accueil  < hmph, the french page is not very useful
325 2011-08-06 05:20:46 <hcc_> thank
326 2011-08-06 05:23:38 <gmaxwell> iddo: in any case, if you think my mention of anti-fraud there is questionable please remove it.
327 2011-08-06 05:23:46 <gmaxwell> The core point is really instant transactions.
328 2011-08-06 05:23:56 <iddo> in a technical sense, visa doesnt have any tools that bitcoin doesnt have to prevent this kind of extortion, any real-world tools that visa can use, you can also use directly with bitcoin
329 2011-08-06 05:24:14 <gmaxwell> beyond that I wanted to make the point that alternative systems give people choices, which will make them simply better for some things.
330 2011-08-06 05:24:26 <gmaxwell> Visa has an ongoing relationship with you.
331 2011-08-06 05:24:38 <gmaxwell> (well the bank that sits between you and visa, but whatever)
332 2011-08-06 05:25:32 <gmaxwell> You won't hold up visa because you value the relationship more (visa doesn't have any doubt when visa itself thinks you've screwed it, vs random joe saying you've extorted him not being trusted by other traders)
333 2011-08-06 05:25:59 <gmaxwell> and because visa is more likely to fight back, because they'll deal with more fraud they'll have dedicated procedures and staff that joe trader will not
334 2011-08-06 05:26:34 <gmaxwell> they can also do things like "know where you live" as part of their ongoing relationship with you, something you might not want to tell every vendor you deal with.
335 2011-08-06 05:27:18 <gmaxwell> I don't mean to argue that it's better it's just different. Their tools are almost a superset of bitcoins. (well are a superset if you deal with them using bitcoin)
336 2011-08-06 05:27:30 <iddo> so i guess you can exchange bitcoins with party in ongoing fashion... i just mean in technical sense the visa protocol doesnt offer anything, you can do this "know where you live" with bitcoins too, there's no special property of visa that allows it
337 2011-08-06 05:27:37 <ThomasV> someone reduced the wiki trade page by 50%...
338 2011-08-06 05:28:14 <ThomasV> probably edited an old version
339 2011-08-06 05:28:27 <gmaxwell> iddo: correct, but e.g. every single person you trade with learning and validing your address while possible just isnt efficient.
340 2011-08-06 05:28:38 <gmaxwell> It has costs, both in the validation and in the privacy harm.
341 2011-08-06 05:28:50 <ThomasV> MagicalTux: can you revert him ?
342 2011-08-06 05:29:20 <gmaxwell> If knowing my address were required for enough trust... I'd rather tell it to a few trusted intermediaries than everyone I need trust with.
343 2011-08-06 05:29:43 <gmaxwell> I don't need "visa" for that, call it whatever you want. It's still an overlay on top of bitcoin.
344 2011-08-06 05:29:53 <gmaxwell> (even if the transactions themselves are all bitcoin transactions)
345 2011-08-06 05:30:01 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: it's a wiki, you can edit.
346 2011-08-06 05:30:04 <gmaxwell> make an account.
347 2011-08-06 05:30:07 <gmaxwell> validate your email.
348 2011-08-06 05:30:09 <gmaxwell> then edit.
349 2011-08-06 05:30:24 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: it's easier when youre a sysop
350 2011-08-06 05:30:36 <gmaxwell> reverting is trivial.
351 2011-08-06 05:30:49 <gmaxwell> [history] [click a good version] [edit this page] [save]
352 2011-08-06 05:30:49 <iddo> anyway for relatively small transactions, like something that costs now $100, i think it'd work well to use protocol where each sides only loses if he's dishonest
353 2011-08-06 05:31:05 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: I know, I am a mediawiki dev
354 2011-08-06 05:31:10 <iddo> if it's something that costs $1,000,000 now, you might want to meet the merchant in person anyway
355 2011-08-06 05:31:33 <gmaxwell> Oh, you're that thomasv. :)
356 2011-08-06 05:31:43 <gmaxwell> the extension from wikisource, no?
357 2011-08-06 05:31:50 <ThomasV> yes
358 2011-08-06 05:32:28 <gmaxwell> iddo: who knows, bitcoin's distributed contracts are basically something new.  I'm pretty sure you wouldn't use them for soda-pop txn (you'll just take the risk)
359 2011-08-06 05:33:02 <gmaxwell> (new meaning I don't think there exists a good parallel anywhere else in the world)
360 2011-08-06 05:33:14 <iddo> yes, but for the ebay crowd they can be very useful i think
361 2011-08-06 05:33:50 <iddo> clearcoin had to be shut down because of too much demand? contracts achieve the same, without trusted 3rd party
362 2011-08-06 05:34:07 <gmaxwell> iddo: gavin wanted to focus.
363 2011-08-06 05:34:20 <gmaxwell> I'm glad thought, I felt it created a conflict of interest.
364 2011-08-06 05:34:43 <gmaxwell> (not attacking gavin's character conflicts are still problems even if they are just imaginary)
365 2011-08-06 05:35:26 <iddo> but i think it's true that there heavy demand for clearcoin? i saw other escrow services in popping up in forums after it shut down
366 2011-08-06 05:36:24 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: is this the edit that you're talking about? https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Trade&diff=prev&oldid=14263
367 2011-08-06 05:36:53 <gmaxwell> iddo: there is. We really need to get pull 319 into bitcoin... or at least the IsStandard part of it.
368 2011-08-06 05:37:07 <iddo> anyway the point is that 3rd party is useless because of bitcoin contracts, unless it's a 3rd party that actually does real-world dispute resolutions
369 2011-08-06 05:37:13 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: yes. I just thought that a revert would be cleaner than an undo
370 2011-08-06 05:37:24 <iddo> what is pull 319 ?
371 2011-08-06 05:37:31 <ThomasV> but it's not a big deal
372 2011-08-06 05:38:08 <gmaxwell> iddo: https://github.com/groffer/bitcoin/commit/dc2dfbab6a0f75070fc3b962da4eb2967e9659df
373 2011-08-06 05:38:26 <gmaxwell> iddo: UI for multiple signer transactions.
374 2011-08-06 05:39:06 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: that trade page is too big ; it would be better to split it into multiple subpages
375 2011-08-06 05:39:08 <iddo> cool
376 2011-08-06 05:39:25 <gmaxwell> iddo: but the focus now is on stablility, not new features.
377 2011-08-06 05:39:48 <iddo> this is just GUI stuff? no need to change the protocol that the miners are running, right?
378 2011-08-06 05:39:56 <gmaxwell> kinda.
379 2011-08-06 05:40:42 <gmaxwell> right now most nodes won't relay non-standard transactions (unless they are in a block), most miners won't mine them either... this is due to varrious attacks against bitcoin that have happened.
380 2011-08-06 05:41:00 <gmaxwell> So the patch also changes the definition of standard transactions to include these kinds of transactions.
381 2011-08-06 05:41:17 <iddo> ok
382 2011-08-06 05:42:14 <gmaxwell> I proposed on the list that the patch get split first the IsStandard change, and that go in pronto.. so that the network will be ready once the rest goes in and people with their own builds could start using it sooner.
383 2011-08-06 05:43:02 <iddo> but you said that attacks can happen because of the IsStandard change?
384 2011-08-06 05:43:16 <gmaxwell> No, (hopefully) not for this one.
385 2011-08-06 05:43:48 <gmaxwell> There are an ~infinite number of possible kinds of transactions. The IsStandard change just adds an additional limited class.
386 2011-08-06 05:43:53 <iddo> so earlier attacks were because of some bad implementation? as opposed to inherent problem?
387 2011-08-06 05:44:39 <gmaxwell> Yes. Which has been fixed but there has been concern about lurking implementation bugs. Also, there are chain flooding attacks which are generic (not bugs) which might be easier if you can use weird transactions.
388 2011-08-06 05:45:30 <gmaxwell> So the policy right now, I think... is functionality will be slowly turned back on as a need is demonstrated.
389 2011-08-06 05:45:45 <iddo> chain flooding is increasing block sizes by sending coins between addresses that you control?
390 2011-08-06 05:46:06 <gmaxwell> Or just creating TXN stuffed with garbage data, which IsStandard prevents right now.
391 2011-08-06 05:46:49 <iddo> so it just slows the network, but doesnt make the blockchain bigger?
392 2011-08-06 05:47:22 <gmaxwell> Hm? No. Doesn't even slow the network. Unmodified nodes won't even forward such transactions.
393 2011-08-06 05:48:05 <iddo> so what is the effect of txn stuffed with garbage?
394 2011-08-06 05:48:13 <gmaxwell> Making the chain bigger.
395 2011-08-06 05:48:21 <gmaxwell> Which isn't harmful here or there.
396 2011-08-06 05:48:50 <gmaxwell> But if its too easy someone will distribute "blockchainfs" and lots of people will do it, and the cost of operating bitcoin may outpace the value of operating bitcoin.
397 2011-08-06 05:49:00 <iddo> why txn of garbage is accepted into a block?
398 2011-08-06 05:49:08 <gmaxwell> It's not.
399 2011-08-06 05:49:17 <gmaxwell> Oh you mean absent IsStandard?
400 2011-08-06 05:49:19 <iddo> so why the chain gets bigger?
401 2011-08-06 05:49:33 <gmaxwell> We're talking across each other.
402 2011-08-06 05:49:43 <gmaxwell> There is no effect at all because all your peers will just drop them.
403 2011-08-06 05:49:57 <gmaxwell> you waste your own bandwidth (and that of your direct peers) in sending one.
404 2011-08-06 05:50:08 <iddo> so "making the chain bigger" referred to what?
405 2011-08-06 05:50:14 <gmaxwell> If we didn't have IsStandard filtering out weird transactions.
406 2011-08-06 05:50:28 <gmaxwell> Then they would go into the blockchain and they would blot it up.
407 2011-08-06 05:50:31 <gmaxwell> er bloat.
408 2011-08-06 05:51:27 <iddo> but if you only allow limited class like you said, then it's not a problem right?
409 2011-08-06 05:51:31 <gmaxwell> Correct.
410 2011-08-06 05:51:37 <iddo> cool
411 2011-08-06 05:51:57 <gmaxwell> I was just explaining why this change has to happen before people can make these transactions reliably. It's not a problem.
412 2011-08-06 05:53:58 <iddo> best scenario is bitcoin price drops to $0.01, then you can make these changes without pressure
413 2011-08-06 05:54:06 <iddo> then i can buy some bitcoins
414 2011-08-06 05:54:17 <iddo> and then the price should go up because of the extra features
415 2011-08-06 05:58:42 <ThomasV> lol ; shall we drive the price down for you, iddo?
416 2011-08-06 05:59:29 <iddo> if you implement cool features then you will only drive the price up
417 2011-08-06 06:01:07 <Diablo-D3> ;;bc,mtgox
418 2011-08-06 06:01:07 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":10.99,"low":9.5,"avg":10.141563316,"vwap":10.090118487,"vol":30184,"last":9.82115,"buy":9.82125,"sell":9.83951}}
419 2011-08-06 06:01:12 <Diablo-D3> heh
420 2011-08-06 06:01:15 <Diablo-D3> prices are dropping
421 2011-08-06 06:43:01 <shadders> for noncerange mining extension is specified if miner returns a valid share with nonce outside range?
422 2011-08-06 06:43:16 <shadders> *is behaviour specified
423 2011-08-06 06:55:48 <d33tah> got a question
424 2011-08-06 06:56:00 <d33tah> is it planned to add qrcode support to the official bitcoin client?
425 2011-08-06 06:56:12 <d33tah> i think there should be some standard for it
426 2011-08-06 07:03:14 <d33tah> what do you think of bitcoin having its own URI standard?
427 2011-08-06 07:03:23 <d33tah> like bitcoin://adress/1blahblahblah
428 2011-08-06 07:05:39 <Diablo-D3> that gets rehashed periodically
429 2011-08-06 07:05:43 <Diablo-D3> no one ever proceeds with it
430 2011-08-06 07:05:52 <d33tah> huh?
431 2011-08-06 07:06:16 <Diablo-D3> lots of talk, no action
432 2011-08-06 07:06:50 <d33tah> which might mean that noone wants it hard enough :P
433 2011-08-06 07:06:55 <d33tah> and the qrcodes?
434 2011-08-06 07:07:05 <Diablo-D3> same problem
435 2011-08-06 07:07:10 <d33tah> hm
436 2011-08-06 07:07:21 <d33tah> is there a plan for adding comments for transactions?
437 2011-08-06 07:09:51 <Diablo-D3> same problem.
438 2011-08-06 07:09:59 <d33tah> uh-uh
439 2011-08-06 07:10:08 <d33tah> maybe there should be more bounties?
440 2011-08-06 07:11:36 <Diablo-D3> aaaaaaand same problem.
441 2011-08-06 07:12:02 <deetah> that's one I could take care of, provided i'd get some fee ;d
442 2011-08-06 07:12:32 <Diablo-D3> lol
443 2011-08-06 07:12:40 <deetah> any possible?
444 2011-08-06 07:12:49 <deetah> i mean, you got any working bounty system?
445 2011-08-06 07:13:14 <Diablo-D3> the closest there is to one is just starting a forum thread and getting people to pledge
446 2011-08-06 07:13:43 <deetah> i think there might be another way of getting the pledges
447 2011-08-06 07:14:12 <deetah> make them donate in advance, with the promise of returning the whole amount if the bounty doesn't get open
448 2011-08-06 07:16:38 <deetah> what do you think?
449 2011-08-06 07:17:46 <doublec> who would hold the advance donations?
450 2011-08-06 07:17:59 <deetah> that's a good question. i dunno.
451 2011-08-06 07:18:03 <doublec> it's been suggested before, and like Diablo-D3's previous responses, intertia has been low for people to do it
452 2011-08-06 07:19:04 <deetah> i think that such system could be fairly easy to start
453 2011-08-06 07:19:17 <deetah> and then it would just be the law of demand and supply to get stuff done
454 2011-08-06 07:19:31 <deetah> anyway, i dunno who to make a bank
455 2011-08-06 07:20:18 <doublec> you also get problems of deciding who gets the bounty if multiple groups work on it
456 2011-08-06 07:20:22 <deetah> guess no project admin would volunteer to take it up once a whole system would be ready?
457 2011-08-06 07:20:35 <doublec> and people being annoyed if the money they gave for the bounty is awarded for a solution they don't agree with
458 2011-08-06 07:21:06 <deetah> that's just the risk they gotta accept. expectations would have to be specified very tightly.
459 2011-08-06 07:21:44 <deetah> i mean, it's a functionality. it's supposed to do something, no matter what way, provided the result is correct. if someone has a better idea, let him make his own bounty
460 2011-08-06 07:23:07 <deetah> and for the groups... i think it should be single-dev until people'd figure out how to split the rewards
461 2011-08-06 07:25:13 <doublec> if you think it's a good idea, do it
462 2011-08-06 07:25:19 <deetah> ;)
463 2011-08-06 07:25:38 <deetah> it would need some sketching
464 2011-08-06 07:25:52 <deetah> could I count on some fees once it'd be done?
465 2011-08-06 07:26:27 <doublec> i have no idea
466 2011-08-06 07:27:03 <deetah> and there is no other bounty system other than arranging on the forums and gathering the money?
467 2011-08-06 07:29:00 <mabus> what on earth would be the point of a bitcoin URI
468 2011-08-06 07:29:14 <mabus> and who is adding support for it to every program to make it useful
469 2011-08-06 07:29:26 <deetah> well, i think browsers would be enough
470 2011-08-06 07:30:11 <mabus> enough to accomplish what
471 2011-08-06 07:30:22 <deetah> it'd be convenient - you see a link to bitcoin://, you just click it and you can see with your client, what's the person's balance, transactions, and could send some money
472 2011-08-06 07:31:06 <mabus> ok so i write a firefox extension that replaces bitcoin:// with blockexplorer.com/ , collect bounty, profit?
473 2011-08-06 07:31:35 <deetah> plus, combined with qrcodes, it would make a coherent standard allowing transactions to send via mobile devices
474 2011-08-06 07:31:44 <deetah> not really, integration with the client is the key
475 2011-08-06 07:32:10 <deetah> there's quite a lot written on the bitcoin wiki
476 2011-08-06 07:32:54 <mabus> so you click in your browser and it manipulates your bitcoin client
477 2011-08-06 07:32:59 <mabus> this does not make sense to me
478 2011-08-06 07:33:14 <deetah> rather sends a message
479 2011-08-06 07:33:21 <deetah> like with e-mails
480 2011-08-06 07:33:29 <deetah> a message to the client
481 2011-08-06 07:33:33 <deetah> suggesting to make a payment
482 2011-08-06 07:40:10 <Blitzboom> any idea if the 0.4 is going to be in the near future?
483 2011-08-06 07:40:18 <Blitzboom> the release
484 2011-08-06 07:45:03 <deetah> i'm doing some sketchwork on the bounty system
485 2011-08-06 07:45:14 <deetah> and i found two issues
486 2011-08-06 07:45:44 <deetah> first - let's say a dev takes up a bounty. i think the bounty should be lock so nobody else can take it up. how to limit the time until it gets reopened?
487 2011-08-06 07:46:11 <mtrlt> locking does not scale
488 2011-08-06 07:46:15 <deetah> second - how to decide whether the bounty was solved or not? project admin? voting?
489 2011-08-06 07:46:35 <mtrlt> and you can just say that "i'll lock" and never do anything and everything grinds to a halt :P
490 2011-08-06 07:46:58 <deetah> mtrlt: didn't think of it. you're right. then what? proof of work? first to commit?
491 2011-08-06 07:48:08 <mtrlt> dunno, i'm better at noticing faults than creating something new :P
492 2011-08-06 07:48:21 <deetah> make it a brainstorm. any ideas, even stupid ones
493 2011-08-06 07:48:26 <deetah> ?
494 2011-08-06 07:49:39 <deetah> doublec: still there?
495 2011-08-06 07:50:32 <deetah> and another issue, quite important
496 2011-08-06 07:50:38 <deetah> should we let users add bounties, or devs?
497 2011-08-06 07:51:33 <deetah> like "plx let me make the bitcoin client bg pink" made by user, then donated by others and finally a dev contributes a patch, or
498 2011-08-06 07:52:05 <deetah> "i'm willing to add qrcode support to bitcoin client for 200BTC" made by a dev, then users donating till they reach the price?
499 2011-08-06 07:52:11 <deetah> the first model sounds better to me
500 2011-08-06 07:53:06 <josephcp> is there an easy way to get a list of orphan blocks?
501 2011-08-06 07:53:22 <deetah> any comments?
502 2011-08-06 07:53:26 <josephcp> by block hash
503 2011-08-06 07:54:12 <Ken`> deetah: both?
504 2011-08-06 07:55:52 <deetah> hm. there are two ways to connect that. either we make the both groups the same and just let the users donate until somebody interested in coding shows up, or we let the devs make the devs make willing offers
505 2011-08-06 07:58:22 <doublec> deetah: maybe something like cosource.com http://web.archive.org/web/20000304121144/http://www.cosource.com/info/what.html
506 2011-08-06 07:59:18 <doublec> deetah: they don't exist anymore so maybe they're model wasn't successful :)
507 2011-08-06 07:59:49 <Ken`> what's wrong with using a forum for these purposes anyway
508 2011-08-06 08:00:33 <burst> deetah: bounties are a good way to incentivize development, but bitcoin really needs the investment of some serious backers to produce the tools that will be atractive to laymen
509 2011-08-06 08:01:50 <deetah> to make backers come, the app must be more convenient
510 2011-08-06 08:02:00 <Ken`> well with Ruxum's new support for Asian currencies, perhaps some bounties can be outsourced ;)
511 2011-08-06 08:02:05 <deetah> the more esrious the client looks, the more chances for backers to come
512 2011-08-06 08:02:13 <deetah> imho it's gotta be shiny at some part
513 2011-08-06 08:02:27 <Ken`> being shiny usually comes at the cost of security..
514 2011-08-06 08:02:35 <wumpus> burst: I don't agree "investment of bankers" is neccesarily needed. The open source model has worked very well for quite some projects...
515 2011-08-06 08:03:19 <burst> not bankers, backers
516 2011-08-06 08:03:21 <deetah> doublec: and what about the first authority? i mean the dev would have to send his proposals without the incentive
517 2011-08-06 08:03:30 <deetah> what about voting?
518 2011-08-06 08:03:38 <wumpus> have you seen the qt ui? it is already a lot 'shinier'
519 2011-08-06 08:05:11 <burst> there are some great tools coming out. go bitcoin!
520 2011-08-06 08:06:03 <wumpus> and an UI designer is helping me with making it even better... things are going forward nicely
521 2011-08-06 08:06:36 <deetah> anyway, what do you think of user approving the dev's submissions by voting? 30% of non-anonymous votes would make the submission get accepted and the money would be sent to the dev
522 2011-08-06 08:10:29 <burst> I would like to see a bitcoin app and pc client that allow easy two-way transactions between them. enough of the online wallets
523 2011-08-06 08:10:50 <wumpus> yep
524 2011-08-06 08:11:09 <wumpus> qr codes would be great for that
525 2011-08-06 08:11:43 <deetah> woulda coulda shoulda :P
526 2011-08-06 08:12:16 <wumpus> it's on my list, but it's very lonely in active bitcoin developer land
527 2011-08-06 08:12:41 <burst> I'll never trust an online wallet, even mt gox only has a little at a time
528 2011-08-06 08:13:20 <wumpus> the current online wallet paradignm indeed doesn't work
529 2011-08-06 08:13:33 <wumpus> it should be more like an encrypted database accessed by the client
530 2011-08-06 08:14:12 <wumpus> so that the 'storage facility' cannot get the actual data, a bit like how some competitors to dropbox work...
531 2011-08-06 08:15:12 <wumpus> this would solve two problems, one you can easily back it up, two the provider cannot run with the coins
532 2011-08-06 08:16:41 <burst> qr codes are fine, the interface can be simple, it just needs to use a webcam and smartphone cam to xfer back and forth. then the pc can encrypt the wallet and back it up for storage with the smartphone holding "walking around" money
533 2011-08-06 08:16:56 <wumpus> it would need support in the client for other (remote) database backends, though
534 2011-08-06 08:17:10 <wumpus> which isn't rocket science but not entirely trivial either
535 2011-08-06 08:19:40 <wumpus> I might give it a spin but the TODO list is already very very long
536 2011-08-06 08:20:37 <wumpus> Eliel: let's hope so
537 2011-08-06 08:21:03 <Eliel> their system would have been quite vulnerable to it
538 2011-08-06 08:21:13 <wumpus> if there's any use for this 'attack' it is to find stolen coins, if it cannot work for that it's pointless
539 2011-08-06 08:21:20 <Eliel> considering the details revealed in the latest update
540 2011-08-06 08:22:52 <wumpus> huh what timejacking attack are you talking about? I thought you meant blitcoin
541 2011-08-06 08:23:02 <Eliel> but, that's one more site that fell because it was built before the security aspects of bitcoin needed to be taken seriously. Even though it sounds like they did take security seriously.
542 2011-08-06 08:23:17 <Eliel> no, that's not timejacking
543 2011-08-06 08:23:28 <wumpus> then what do you mean?
544 2011-08-06 08:23:30 <Eliel> http://culubas.blogspot.com/2011/05/timejacking-bitcoin_802.html
545 2011-08-06 08:23:34 <Eliel> this describes the attack
546 2011-08-06 08:24:03 <Eliel> also, there was some kind of group that announced they're doing a timejacking attack on bitcoin network.
547 2011-08-06 08:24:49 <Eliel> I don't have a link to the announcement as I only heard of it second hand myself
548 2011-08-06 08:25:14 <wumpus> from what I understood there was an exploit in the mybitcoin merchant system
549 2011-08-06 08:25:34 <wumpus> probably some simple input validation fail
550 2011-08-06 08:25:50 <Eliel> yes, their system took a single block to mean a transaction was verified
551 2011-08-06 08:27:08 <wumpus> could be, but until service providers stop using naive php scripts, I think an attack on that is much more likely than an attack on bitcoin itself
552 2011-08-06 08:27:39 <Eliel> timejacking attack gives an attacker 2 hours to make 6 blocks in the usual case. However, since mybitcoin accepted just one block as verification, it made the attack a lot easier.
553 2011-08-06 08:27:57 <wumpus> if the mybitcoin guy could blame the bitcoin system itself he would.. he'd embrace anything he could blame except himself :-)
554 2011-08-06 08:28:19 <Eliel> as far as I can see, he doesn't look to be blaming people
555 2011-08-06 08:28:23 <doublec> he dones't need to blame anything - he's anyonymous and could just disappear
556 2011-08-06 08:28:32 <wumpus> exactly.. which is probably why he made a mistake himself
557 2011-08-06 08:29:22 <doublec> wumpus: they seem to be taking the blame from what I can tell
558 2011-08-06 08:29:34 <wumpus> yes
559 2011-08-06 08:29:54 <Eliel> they also appear to realize people aren't going to be using them anymore.
560 2011-08-06 08:30:09 <burst> wouldn't simply introducing transaction fees incentivise non-pooling miners and increase network security?
561 2011-08-06 08:30:41 <wumpus> everyone can introduce transaction fees
562 2011-08-06 08:30:47 <Eliel> so they're just allowing people to get their coins (as much as they can still pay) and are then shutting down (and releasing the source code)
563 2011-08-06 08:30:47 <wumpus> a lot of miners already require them
564 2011-08-06 08:31:35 <Eliel> if the bigger pools joined together and decided to only include transactions with certain size fees, it would slow lower fee transactions a lot.
565 2011-08-06 08:31:41 <wumpus> I hope they point out the security problem in their source code, otherwise the hackers will have a blast with the clone services using it :p
566 2011-08-06 08:32:10 <Eliel> wumpus: well, I doubt too many bitcoin users are too hot on any webwallet right now
567 2011-08-06 08:33:18 <mabus> meh, people are still using mtgox
568 2011-08-06 08:33:21 <mabus> including me
569 2011-08-06 08:33:30 <wumpus> it does seem that the exchanges are the most reliable 'webwallets' at this moment, yes mtgox was hacked too but at least they had protections in place to make sure the coins remained in the system
570 2011-08-06 08:33:56 <wumpus> and some of them are starting to offer two factor auth
571 2011-08-06 08:34:17 <doublec> wumpus: I only know of two webwallets so it's hard to compare
572 2011-08-06 08:34:23 <wumpus> so I guess they are the future banks of bitcoin
573 2011-08-06 08:35:01 <mtrlt> yep combined bank and exchange makes more sense :p
574 2011-08-06 08:53:35 <wumpus> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=34838.msg433720#msg433720
575 2011-08-06 09:11:16 <sacarlson> wumpus: ya I love bitcoin-qt
576 2011-08-06 09:11:33 <sacarlson> wumpus: is that some how connected to you?
577 2011-08-06 09:13:00 <sacarlson> I've never even seen the first before (1) Multiple wallet support. Create/Open/Close wallet file. that sounds cool
578 2011-08-06 09:20:18 <wumpus> sacarlson: yes it's badly needed
579 2011-08-06 09:20:40 <sacarlson> wumpus: good idea
580 2011-08-06 09:21:08 <sacarlson> wumpus: my prime goal is to add offline import export
581 2011-08-06 09:22:06 <sacarlson> I guess I use your user interface of bitcoint-qt in my multicoin-qt
582 2011-08-06 09:22:44 <wumpus> cool :) please contribute things back if they're generally useful
583 2011-08-06 09:23:00 <sacarlson> wumpus: I publish on github
584 2011-08-06 09:23:58 <wumpus> btw what you mean with offline import export? of transactions, or keys?
585 2011-08-06 09:23:59 <sacarlson> wumpus: https://github.com/sacarlson/MultiCoin-qt  but I consider it expermental
586 2011-08-06 09:24:13 <wumpus> it's all experimental at this stage, but we got to get the ball rolling
587 2011-08-06 09:24:21 <sacarlson> wumpus: offline import export transactions sorry
588 2011-08-06 09:25:03 <wumpus> there's ton of great ideas floating around for ages, they need to be implemented! :D
589 2011-08-06 09:25:58 <sacarlson> wumpus: yes that why I created multicoin to try to pull the stuf I liked into a group
590 2011-08-06 09:27:08 <sacarlson> wumpus: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=24209.msg300830#msg300830
591 2011-08-06 09:27:18 <wumpus> we should somehow make these projects get some more profile / exposure
592 2011-08-06 09:27:35 <sacarlson> wumpus: and my present focus of next incorportation is https://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=28278.msg372731#msg372731
593 2011-08-06 09:27:59 <wumpus> I'm a bit afraid my rally on the forums will only attract trolls and dusts, but it's worth a try I guess..
594 2011-08-06 09:28:54 <sacarlson> wumpus: I push you git on my forum as it's the best in gui interface that I know
595 2011-08-06 09:29:57 <wumpus> okay, I don't know that much about gui git interfaces, qt-creator also has something built-in but it is very basic
596 2011-08-06 09:31:42 <sacarlson> wumpus: I don't consider myself a programer more of an integrator
597 2011-08-06 09:32:21 <sacarlson> and first stage quality control
598 2011-08-06 09:40:16 <sacarlson> with multicoin-qt we get to use your nice bitcoin-qt interface now on namecoin and soon BeerTokens
599 2011-08-06 09:40:19 <HaltingState> wumpus, "t the exchanges are the most reliable 'webwallets' at this moment" dont store money in mtgox;  it will go down or be taken down someday.  its not worth risking
600 2011-08-06 09:41:48 <sacarlson> HaltingState: that's why we have escrow incorporated into MultiCoin so we hopefully won't need exhanges as much in the future
601 2011-08-06 09:42:47 <sacarlson> HaltingState: or you just keep your deposit in an exchange in an escrow to back your activity
602 2011-08-06 09:44:32 <mabus> lol beertokens
603 2011-08-06 09:44:33 <mabus> wtf
604 2011-08-06 09:45:25 <mabus> oh, thank you urbandictionary
605 2011-08-06 09:46:52 <HaltingState> sacarlson, what is multicoin
606 2011-08-06 09:47:30 <sacarlson> HaltingState: for details on MultiCoin see: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=24209.msg300830#msg300830
607 2011-08-06 09:48:06 <sacarlson> mabus: for details on BeerTokens see: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=9493.msg136917#msg136917
608 2011-08-06 09:49:14 <sacarlson> HaltingState: in short MultiCoin is a branch of bitcoins with some small changes added
609 2011-08-06 09:50:16 <sacarlson> HaltingState: MultiCoin continues to keep synced with changes in bitcoin as they arise
610 2011-08-06 09:53:47 <HaltingState> sacarlson, does anyone use multicoin
611 2011-08-06 09:54:16 <HaltingState> are there multicoin exchanges
612 2011-08-06 09:54:23 <sacarlson> HaltingState: I don't have a tracker of how many people use multicoin if that's what you mean
613 2011-08-06 09:54:39 <HaltingState> gimme links to multicoin sites or information about it
614 2011-08-06 09:54:44 <sacarlson> HaltingState: multicoin is a client just like bitcoin
615 2011-08-06 09:55:08 <HaltingState> branch of bitcoin source; new client; not new block chain
616 2011-08-06 09:55:12 <sacarlson> HaltingState: it works with bitcoins, namecoins, weeds, testnet and .....
617 2011-08-06 09:55:16 <HaltingState> i thought you were talking about a new block chain
618 2011-08-06 09:55:21 <HaltingState> what language is multicoin written in
619 2011-08-06 09:55:40 <sacarlson> HaltingState: (06:47:29 PM) sacarlson: HaltingState: for details on MultiCoin see: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=24209.msg300830#msg300830
620 2011-08-06 09:55:43 <HaltingState> sacarlson, what is weeds?
621 2011-08-06 09:56:44 <sacarlson> HaltingState: weeds is also discritbed in the article as being a proof of concept test chain
622 2011-08-06 09:57:15 <HaltingState> multicoin is written in C.  It is very easy to insert backdoors/buffer overflow exploits in C code, that are difficult or impossible to detect.  Sort of worries me.
623 2011-08-06 09:57:35 <sacarlson> HaltingState: Multicoin is writen in C++ it's the same code as bitcoin just branched
624 2011-08-06 09:57:56 <HaltingState> Has anyone fuzzed the mainline bitcoin client?
625 2011-08-06 09:58:03 <sacarlson> HaltingState: you can see the changes made in the git history
626 2011-08-06 09:58:42 <sacarlson> HaltingState: fuzzed?
627 2011-08-06 09:59:24 <HaltingState> fuzzing is a method where you supply random input to program at any point that accepts outside input, to get it to crash
628 2011-08-06 09:59:54 <HaltingState> it is one method that people find javascript exploits for IE etc... or find zero days
629 2011-08-06 10:00:23 <HaltingState> http://www.infosecinstitute.com/blog/2005/12/fuzzers-ultimate-list.html
630 2011-08-06 10:00:25 <sacarlson> HaltingState: nope never seen any signs of such an exploit in bitcoin.
631 2011-08-06 10:01:58 <sacarlson> HaltingState: only one I've heard being used in your list is Data retrieval with SQL Injection Hacking
632 2011-08-06 10:02:30 <bauerbob> tcatm: hi, neofutur said you might be able to help me. i want to compare btc prices to other indexes, so i built a script that weights the prices from http://bitcoincharts.com/t/trades.csv?symbol=bitmarketEUR per day. unfortunately this url provides only the last few days. i tried adding "&start=0" as it says in the wiki, but that parameter has no effect at all
633 2011-08-06 10:02:37 <sacarlson> HaltingState: but that's on the server website side of bitcoin exploits not really releated to bitcoin but it's infrastructure
634 2011-08-06 10:03:12 <HaltingState> I think we will start to see mainline clients getting hacked over network; worries me
635 2011-08-06 10:03:41 <sacarlson> HaltingState: easy to hack a windows system that can capture the walet file
636 2011-08-06 10:04:06 <sacarlson> HaltingState: but the safeguard for that is not keep all you money in the online walet
637 2011-08-06 10:04:41 <HaltingState> exactly, thats why i would not keep an online wallet
638 2011-08-06 10:04:41 <sacarlson> HaltingState: not so easy on a linux system
639 2011-08-06 10:05:07 <sacarlson> HaltingState: online I mean on your system being used on the network
640 2011-08-06 10:06:26 <HaltingState> the people going after bitcoin will not be using zerodays on linux network services being run by non-servers/end user computers
641 2011-08-06 10:07:25 <neofutur> my choice is having my wallet on a secure dedicated server ssh , bitcoind
642 2011-08-06 10:07:39 <sacarlson> HaltingState: I think normal people don't know how to secure a windows system, most people will find at some point that an online system will be more secure
643 2011-08-06 10:07:44 <tcatm> bauerbob: full history will be available again soon
644 2011-08-06 10:07:45 <neofutur> available everywhere, mine, and pretty secure
645 2011-08-06 10:08:12 <HaltingState> sacarlson, you cannot secure a windows system because microsoft refuses to patch bugs unless you release 0-days publicly
646 2011-08-06 10:08:18 <neofutur> and ssh is available nearly everywhere even on phones like android . . .
647 2011-08-06 10:08:20 <HaltingState> and then it still takes them months
648 2011-08-06 10:08:30 <bauerbob> tcatm: great! thank you very much
649 2011-08-06 10:08:32 <sacarlson> HaltingState: well stop using windows then
650 2011-08-06 10:08:39 <HaltingState> who uses windows?
651 2011-08-06 10:08:49 <sacarlson> HaltingState: I don't know but not me
652 2011-08-06 10:09:42 <sacarlson> It's time for me to become inebreated
653 2011-08-06 10:10:05 <sacarlson> it's time to go out and have my beer
654 2011-08-06 10:10:15 <sacarlson> nice chat all
655 2011-08-06 10:12:21 <jan__> hey! i have generated coins on the testnet... so i have transactions of category "immature". but with which json api call can i access those coins? they don't seem to be assigned to any (not even the server) account, someone has an idea?
656 2011-08-06 10:12:57 <phantomcircuit> jan__, they dont really exist until you have 120 confirms
657 2011-08-06 10:13:02 <phantomcircuit> so they probably show up no where
658 2011-08-06 10:13:10 <phantomcircuit> but listtransactions might show it
659 2011-08-06 10:14:38 <jan__> ahh. cool! thanks a lot! that is it. only slighty over 100 confirms right now. and yes, i have seen this via listtransactions... 120 is the magic boundary... ok... cool to know! thx
660 2011-08-06 11:18:14 <gribble> Error: "btc" is not a valid command.
661 2011-08-06 11:18:14 <RealSolid> ;;btc stats
662 2011-08-06 11:41:45 <sacarlson> well I got rained out here so now I'm back
663 2011-08-06 11:44:18 <makomk> Evil thought: I bet some variant of dakami's attack could be used to locate nodes close enough to big miners to launch a single-confirmation double spend from.
664 2011-08-06 12:03:45 <CIA-103> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * r5c370b8 / src/main/java/com/diablominer/DiabloMiner/DiabloMiner.java : Remove rollNTimeExpire variable and use refresh/1000, make LP flush all ... https://github.com/Diablo-D3/DiabloMiner/commit/5c370b8cc61f7ecfd6d02b0f5d94d8876be69f7d
665 2011-08-06 12:12:08 <shadders> whoops... just realised pushpool vs poolserverj test had a wee issue... pushpool shares table was innodb, psj's was myisam.
666 2011-08-06 12:12:29 <Diablo-D3> so both tests were wrong
667 2011-08-06 12:12:42 <shadders> preliminary restests show about 50% improvement for pushpool performance over the initial tests...
668 2011-08-06 12:13:20 <shadders> improvement is only for submits, requests are the same
669 2011-08-06 12:13:50 <shadders> psj still over double the submit speed but will have to repeat all the tests that involved submits...
670 2011-08-06 12:14:56 <shadders> Diablo-D3: the first two sets of test were valid because they didn't touch that table...
671 2011-08-06 12:16:06 <Diablo-D3> the tests are not valid because who the hell is dumb enough to use mysql
672 2011-08-06 12:16:40 <shadders> Figured I should make full disclosure asap in case someone else noticed and accused me of rigging it (which is why I provided all the test configs)
673 2011-08-06 12:18:17 <shadders> Well actually I don't know who's using what db engines...  I figure any pushpool pool large enough to DB bound would have to... postgres doesn't offer non-transactional, sqlite doesn't offer replicated dbs..
674 2011-08-06 12:25:01 <Diablo-D3> shadders: pg is several times faster than mysql
675 2011-08-06 12:25:08 <Diablo-D3> so the argument is moot
676 2011-08-06 12:25:46 <shadders> pg faster for writes against MyISAM?  got a reference?
677 2011-08-06 12:26:19 <Diablo-D3> myisam is not datasafe thus cannot be used in any production setups.
678 2011-08-06 12:28:29 <shadders> bs... it depends how it's being used... shares table only needs a single insert per row, no further writes after that.  You know if it wrote successfully at the end of the query.  Unless the db crashes in the middle of the insert, but there are far more likely reasons for shares going missing than that
679 2011-08-06 12:29:01 <Diablo-D3> dont care.
680 2011-08-06 12:29:10 <Diablo-D3> I will not allow mysql anywhere near my shit.
681 2011-08-06 12:30:09 <lianj> square shit
682 2011-08-06 12:34:14 <shadders> you shit in a database?  what sort of index you use?
683 2011-08-06 12:35:48 <shadders> what happens when you rollback a transaction?
684 2011-08-06 12:38:20 <lianj> the smell stays
685 2011-08-06 12:39:31 <sytse> when you rollback a transaction, your shit will be moved from the database room to the memories room
686 2011-08-06 12:39:35 <sytse> so don't enter the memories room
687 2011-08-06 12:39:44 <sytse> the smell might cost you your life
688 2011-08-06 12:40:06 <shadders> that's cool... I was worried it would go back where it came from...
689 2011-08-06 12:40:17 <sytse> (also, don't go to work for the database, you'll have to trolley shit everywhere)
690 2011-08-06 13:20:32 <topi`> makomk: indeed, it would be possible to do such an attack using dakami's tools to pinpoint biggest miners and then ddos them for the duration of the double spend attack
691 2011-08-06 13:21:05 <topi`> but then again, there are clever ways to protect your business from dos
692 2011-08-06 13:22:13 <makomk> topi`: I was more thinking pick miners that take a long time to hear about each other's blocks and send them conflicting transactions.
693 2011-08-06 13:23:04 <makomk> Sooner or later you'll get lucky and manage to get a spend that's reverted by a chain rearrangement after one block.
694 2011-08-06 13:26:16 <topi`> hmm
695 2011-08-06 13:26:57 <topi`> with some probability P that you guessed right who's forging the next block :)
696 2011-08-06 13:28:23 <topi`> makomk: are you the guy behind the FPGA miner code? :) that sounds like an interesting project
697 2011-08-06 13:30:47 <CIA-103> bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p: Stefan Thomas master * rdfce321 / .npmignore : Ignore build-cc folder in NPM release. See #25. - http://bit.ly/nsYGxm https://github.com/bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p/commit/dfce3211d7a124f53ab90a5cb313a05748295212
698 2011-08-06 13:44:45 <Doktor99__> super noob question: why are there 2 hashes per trial. Why not just end with SHA256(header), and be done?
699 2011-08-06 13:45:30 <asher^> <insert pimp my ride meme>
700 2011-08-06 13:48:24 <tcatm> Doktor99__: there is no good reason for that. satoshi decided to use 2x sha256
701 2011-08-06 13:50:12 <Doktor99__> I guess it's arbitrary
702 2011-08-06 13:50:21 <GMP> Doktor99__: my guess would be: when partial collisions in 1xSHA256 will be found, chances are 2x thing can remain secure
703 2011-08-06 13:51:30 <Doktor99__> right, but SHA256(SHA265(x)) is not more 'secure' than SHA256(x), right?
704 2011-08-06 13:52:21 <mtrlt> what do you mean by secure
705 2011-08-06 13:52:22 <Doktor99__> it takes twice as much work, so if SHA(x) had been used by Satoshi, then the difficultly would be double to maintain the same block generation rate (approximately)
706 2011-08-06 13:52:27 <mtrlt> if what GMP said is right, it is more secure imo.
707 2011-08-06 15:02:37 <neofutur> hi all, i m trying to choose one of the forks of jgarzik s cpuminer on github
708 2011-08-06 15:02:51 <neofutur> anyone here can recommend on of those forks ?
709 2011-08-06 15:03:16 <lfm> I am running cgminer. it seems ok
710 2011-08-06 15:04:00 <neofutur> https://github.com/jgarzik/cpuminer/network
711 2011-08-06 15:04:06 <neofutur> there are so many forks
712 2011-08-06 15:04:54 <neofutur> i m already using cpuminer and will stick to it but which fork should I choose to upgrade it . . . .
713 2011-08-06 15:05:55 <neofutur> ah yes cgminer is the most active fork
714 2011-08-06 15:06:01 <neofutur> thanks lfm
715 2011-08-06 15:06:31 <neofutur> you confirm mi idea of choosing the most active / most merging one
716 2011-08-06 15:06:55 <neofutur> SerajewelKS: I also switched to a fork of your bitcoin-mining-proxy today
717 2011-08-06 15:11:10 <makomk> topi`: sorry, had to go do something. I'm one of the people that works on the FPGA miner code, yeah. This largely involves cursing Xilinx's tools at the moment.
718 2011-08-06 15:16:39 <topi`> makomk: are there any good open source tools for FPGAs nowadays?
719 2011-08-06 15:17:22 <topi`> but I suppose I don't need the Xilinx tool if somebody else makes the design for me? just so that I only need to flash the bitstream.
720 2011-08-06 15:20:15 <makomk> There aren't really any open source tools for them at all.
721 2011-08-06 15:21:57 <topi`> that's bad :/
722 2011-08-06 15:22:58 <makomk> It's unavoidable, probably; they're fairly exotic hardware that it's hard to design tools for and that the manufacturers refuse to release low-level programming details for.
723 2011-08-06 15:23:34 <topi`> hmm, maybe I need to fund a project for open hardware FPGAs ;)
724 2011-08-06 15:23:51 <makomk> Heheheheheheh.
725 2011-08-06 15:24:48 <jrmithdobbs> topi`: some of the vendor's tools are free but none are open that i know of
726 2011-08-06 15:28:02 <neofutur> noob question, what FPGA means ? 3D graphics cards ?
727 2011-08-06 15:28:42 <jrmithdobbs> field programmable gate array
728 2011-08-06 15:31:25 <jrmithdobbs> neofutur: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=FPGA
729 2011-08-06 15:35:46 <neofutur> thanks jrmithdobbs
730 2011-08-06 15:36:23 <neofutur> argh "enable javascript to use LMGTFY" ;(
731 2011-08-06 15:36:34 <neofutur> will have to lauch a graphical browser later ;(
732 2011-08-06 15:48:13 <ahbritto> Is the transaction fee policy spelled out somewhere?
733 2011-08-06 15:53:45 <ahbritto> In particular, the minimum fees for pools and for forwarded transactions?
734 2011-08-06 15:56:13 <diki> it really will be tempting to hold find a block for a pool but not sumbit it
735 2011-08-06 15:56:18 <diki> ...
736 2011-08-06 15:56:21 <diki> let me rephrase
737 2011-08-06 15:56:38 <diki> If i find a block but not submit it to the pool, it will be very tempting to find a way to redeem it
738 2011-08-06 16:01:20 <marf_away> its impossible
739 2011-08-06 16:17:21 <Caesium> yes, you can't, the block is tied to the pool's wallet.
740 2011-08-06 16:23:15 <mtrlt> and the miners aren't even given the whole block
741 2011-08-06 16:23:17 <mtrlt> only the header
742 2011-08-06 16:27:57 <luke-jr> even if you figured out the block data, you'd screw yourself :P
743 2011-08-06 16:28:26 <diki> screw myself?
744 2011-08-06 16:28:30 <diki> like how?
745 2011-08-06 16:50:41 <min0r> does 3.24 have encrypted wallet.dat yet?
746 2011-08-06 16:50:51 <min0r> are devs going to work on security?
747 2011-08-06 16:53:10 <gmaxwell> What do you mean by "are devs going to work on security"?
748 2011-08-06 16:53:49 <luke-jr> min0r: security is an OS thing
749 2011-08-06 16:54:05 <luke-jr> I'm pretty sure wallet.dat is already go-r
750 2011-08-06 16:54:09 <freewil> minor thinks mybitcoin security hole was wallet security issue
751 2011-08-06 16:54:15 <luke-jr> that's the extent of a wallet's duty
752 2011-08-06 16:54:21 <luke-jr> lol
753 2011-08-06 16:54:41 <min0r> as devs i think you guys should educate the community on security if you want bitcoin as a concept to succeed
754 2011-08-06 16:54:59 <min0r> sorry but you guys are the ones designing the network and code, the lay people dont understand.
755 2011-08-06 16:55:00 <gmaxwell> freewil: I thought mybitcoin already disclosed that they had some bug in their shopping cart interface that let someone screw with their account balance.
756 2011-08-06 16:55:05 <luke-jr> min0r: we do. how often do I say "why are you still using Windows?"
757 2011-08-06 16:55:15 <freewil> gmaxwell, thats what i thought too
758 2011-08-06 16:55:28 <gmaxwell> min0r: You've failed to answer my question. Are you only here to troll?
759 2011-08-06 16:55:46 <luke-jr> min0r: the network and code is pretty secure
760 2011-08-06 16:56:13 <luke-jr> but your wallet can only be as secure as your computer
761 2011-08-06 16:56:19 <luke-jr> encryption is mainly a PR feature
762 2011-08-06 16:56:25 <luke-jr> it doesn't REALLY give you any security
763 2011-08-06 16:56:50 <gmaxwell> As far as your first question goes, the wallet encryption stuff is in git-trunk (next version) not 0.3.24.  Though it can only barely be described as a security feature.
764 2011-08-06 16:56:52 <XRcode> it only adds security in the case where someone gains remote access
765 2011-08-06 16:56:59 <luke-jr> XRcode: not even then
766 2011-08-06 16:57:10 <luke-jr> it just means when the virus steals your wallet, they have to add an extra step
767 2011-08-06 16:57:11 <gmaxwell> XRcode: not even then, really. Or rather only under certian conditions.
768 2011-08-06 16:57:17 <luke-jr> "Give me your passphrase if you want 10% back"
769 2011-08-06 16:57:36 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: or just sit quietly until you unlock it, then sniff the password.
770 2011-08-06 16:57:45 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: that too
771 2011-08-06 16:58:19 <XRcode> yeah i suppose, doesn't do much if they are determined
772 2011-08-06 16:58:21 <freewil> luke-jr, never thought of that although that would be like getting in a car at gunpoint to go into a dark forest in the boonies
773 2011-08-06 16:58:24 <XRcode> makes it more difficult
774 2011-08-06 16:58:25 <XRcode> thats all
775 2011-08-06 16:58:38 <gmaxwell> XRcode: the wallet stealer would just wait until you unlock then either pull the unencryted data out of bitcoin's memory, or sniff the keyboard. Once a badguy has control of your computer there is very little that can be done on the computer to stop them.
776 2011-08-06 16:58:50 <luke-jr> I'd sniff the keyboard.
777 2011-08-06 16:58:55 <luke-jr> that password might work for other stuff