1 2011-11-16 00:00:22 <CIA-89> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr * r8b5b79daddfe gentoo/net-p2p/bitcoin-qt/ (3 files): net-p2p/bitcoin-qt: 0.5.0_rc5
  2 2011-11-16 00:10:15 <CIA-89> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr * r97882dafbbdf gentoo/net-p2p/bitcoin-qt/ (Manifest bitcoin-qt-9999.ebuild): net-p2p/bitcoin-qt: update 9999, and remove 9999.1
  3 2011-11-16 00:10:17 <CIA-89> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr * rb477752742b6 gentoo/net-p2p/bitcoind/ (6 files): net-p2p/bitcoind: remove old rcs
  4 2011-11-16 00:10:18 <CIA-89> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr * rb6754c1dd390 gentoo/net-p2p/bitcoin-qt/bitcoin-qt-9999.1.ebuild: net-p2p/bitcoin-qt: forgot to `git rm' 9999.1
  5 2011-11-16 00:10:19 <CIA-89> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr * r756d7478bfb0 gentoo/net-p2p/wxbitcoin/ (Manifest wxbitcoin-0.4.1_rc4.ebuild): net-p2p/wxbitcoin: remove rc4
  6 2011-11-16 00:20:17 <CIA-89> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr * r12a9ce4ee70a gentoo/net-p2p/pushpool/ (Manifest pushpool-0.5.1.ebuild pushpool-9999.ebuild): net-p2p/pushpool: promote 0.5.1 to stable, and remove keywords from 9999
  7 2011-11-16 00:30:19 <CIA-89> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr * r6baf66dcfe2a gentoo/net-p2p/namecoin/ (Manifest namecoin-0.3.24.63.ebuild namecoin-9999.ebuild): net-p2p/namecoin: apply updates/fixes made to bitcoind since forking the ebuild
  8 2011-11-16 00:30:21 <CIA-89> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr * r9e9dd1ee1a7d gentoo/net-p2p/namecoin/ (Manifest namecoin-0.3.24.63.ebuild namecoin-0.3.24.64.ebuild): net-p2p/namecoin: 0.3.24.64
  9 2011-11-16 00:30:22 <CIA-89> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr * r08cec14c0c71 gentoo/app-misc/cgminer/ (Manifest cgminer-2.0.8.ebuild): app-misc/cgminer: 2.0.8
 10 2011-11-16 00:38:34 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: how goes?
 11 2011-11-16 00:39:12 <gavinandresen> wxwidgets-32 and -64 built, building -win32....
 12 2011-11-16 00:39:34 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: 0.4.1rc5-win32?
 13 2011-11-16 00:39:49 <gavinandresen> no, the wxwidgets dependency.
 14 2011-11-16 00:40:19 <gavinandresen> After that's done, I'll be able to build 0.4.1rc5
 15 2011-11-16 00:40:46 <luke-jr> what's "built" mean then? O.o
 16 2011-11-16 00:41:03 <gavinandresen> I hadn't gitian-compiled wxwidgets before
 17 2011-11-16 00:41:57 <gavinandresen> ... so I have to compile it and then move the result into the gitian-builder/inputs directory.
 18 2011-11-16 00:42:13 <gavinandresen> That's a one-time setup thing.
 19 2011-11-16 00:42:36 <gavinandresen> (happily 0.4 and 0.5 use the same version of boost, so I don't have to recompile that monster)
 20 2011-11-16 00:43:15 <gavinandresen> see the 0.5 doc/release-process.txt for all the gory details
 21 2011-11-16 00:45:15 <luke-jr> yeah, just saying& you said you had wxwidgets-32 and -64 built, but then you said you still had to :p
 22 2011-11-16 00:49:27 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: I need three versions of wxwidgets: 32 and 64-bit for Linux, and a win32 for Windows....
 23 2011-11-16 00:49:44 <luke-jr> ahh
 24 2011-11-16 00:50:00 <gavinandresen> Oof, and a macosx version, too... forgot about that...
 25 2011-11-16 00:50:13 <gavinandresen> (wonders if he still has one hanging around....)
 26 2011-11-16 00:50:43 <luke-jr> >_<
 27 2011-11-16 00:50:51 <luke-jr> gitian supports OSX?
 28 2011-11-16 00:51:11 <gavinandresen> no, osx builds are done the old-fashioned way
 29 2011-11-16 00:51:48 <gavinandresen> ... and you just have to trust whoever does them (I've been building them recently)
 30 2011-11-16 00:51:48 <luke-jr> nuts, that WOULD be a killer feature for gitian
 31 2011-11-16 00:52:56 <cjdelisle> how long does the build take in gitian?
 32 2011-11-16 00:53:52 <gavinandresen> cjdelisle: an hour or so, assuming all the do-it-once dependencies are compiled.
 33 2011-11-16 00:54:22 <cjdelisle> I see
 34 2011-11-16 00:54:30 <gavinandresen> cjdelisle: ... at least, an hour or so on the cheap machine I bought just to do builds...
 35 2011-11-16 02:06:09 <roconnor_> etotheipi_: next math to look for would be given two keys find a random number such that the signature can be verified by either public key
 36 2011-11-16 02:06:31 <roconnor_> which would be an ... interesting property
 37 2011-11-16 02:11:19 <etotheipi_> ahh... interesting problem
 38 2011-11-16 02:11:23 <etotheipi_> i'm sure there is a relationship
 39 2011-11-16 02:12:03 <roconnor_> bearing in mind that if anyone recovers the "random" nonce, the private keys are comprimised
 40 2011-11-16 02:12:11 <roconnor_> as sony knows
 41 2011-11-16 02:13:50 <etotheipi_> oh, I bet that's a discrete log prblem
 42 2011-11-16 02:16:01 <etotheipi_> that's not necessarily true... it's may be that the second key contains as much information as the nonce:
 43 2011-11-16 02:16:11 <etotheipi_> meaning that if you have one, you have the other
 44 2011-11-16 02:16:24 <etotheipi_> but I don't feel like figuring out the math right now...
 45 2011-11-16 02:18:52 <roconnor_> :)
 46 2011-11-16 02:20:15 <cjdelisle> I had an interesting thought, suppose you made an RSA sig and then you modded it and set the public exponent to something huge
 47 2011-11-16 02:20:34 <cjdelisle> could you carry out a memory exhaustion attack on the validator?
 48 2011-11-16 02:21:01 <roconnor_> cjdelisle: exponentation over finite fields can be done in constant space
 49 2011-11-16 02:21:08 <cjdelisle> ahh crap
 50 2011-11-16 02:21:11 <roconnor_> and in fact is done in constant space
 51 2011-11-16 02:21:18 <etotheipi_> if the exponent, e, is huge, you just replace it with (e mod N) which should be a fairly quick operation
 52 2011-11-16 02:21:40 <roconnor_> etotheipi_: (e mod (phi N))
 53 2011-11-16 02:22:06 <etotheipi_> where N is the order of the group... I assume that's what your "phi" is
 54 2011-11-16 02:22:23 <cjdelisle> My thinking was: ya know those spam bots that connect to you on port993 to see if you're a mail server? ....
 55 2011-11-16 02:23:34 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: 0.4.1rc5 linux/windows binaries are uploading to sourceforge now
 56 2011-11-16 02:24:28 <gavinandresen> osx will have to wait until tomorrow, I'm tired....
 57 2011-11-16 03:08:19 <Mad7Scientist> Can someone help me? Bitcoin won't start because it cannot obtain a lock on .bitcoin
 58 2011-11-16 03:08:48 <cocktopus> Mad7Scientist: sounds like it is already running
 59 2011-11-16 03:08:56 <cocktopus> kill any ghost processes?
 60 2011-11-16 03:09:10 <Mad7Scientist> it isn't running and lsof shows noohting
 61 2011-11-16 03:09:14 <Mad7Scientist> it's an NFS mounted share
 62 2011-11-16 03:09:17 <Mad7Scientist> it always worked before
 63 2011-11-16 03:09:54 <cocktopus> hmm, does locking work properly over NFS?
 64 2011-11-16 03:10:25 <Mad7Scientist> Is there a stale lock file there?
 65 2011-11-16 03:11:29 <Mad7Scientist> let me try remounting it
 66 2011-11-16 03:13:18 <phantomcircuit> Mad7Scientist, heh nfs is your problem
 67 2011-11-16 03:13:21 <phantomcircuit> inb4infinitelock
 68 2011-11-16 04:01:20 <Mad7Scientist> It works now
 69 2011-11-16 04:01:26 <Mad7Scientist> the NFS server locking system got messed up
 70 2011-11-16 04:01:30 <Mad7Scientist> ;;bc,blocks
 71 2011-11-16 04:01:31 <gribble> 153500
 72 2011-11-16 04:03:38 <jgarzik> Mad7Scientist: sounds like you should use NFSv4 exclusively?
 73 2011-11-16 04:04:07 <Mad7Scientist> what's wrong with v3
 74 2011-11-16 04:04:26 <cocktopus> v4 has better locking iirc
 75 2011-11-16 04:04:41 <cocktopus> and other cool stuff besides
 76 2011-11-16 04:04:47 <jgarzik> Mad7Scientist: in v4, locking has been tightly integrated into the nfs protocol itself
 77 2011-11-16 04:05:16 <Mad7Scientist> why not fix the bugs in v3 first
 78 2011-11-16 04:05:23 <jgarzik> Mad7Scientist: in <= v3, it is a bolt-on, with all the attendent race conditions and other problems one may imagine from a separate, bolted-on, potentially optional lock/mount facilities
 79 2011-11-16 08:19:42 <wboy1> Hey Guys if you are a js developer,and interested to join a funded bitcoin related startup ,drop me a message thanks!
 80 2011-11-16 08:23:12 <erus`> wboy1: tell me more about your startup :)
 81 2011-11-16 10:34:55 <wboy1> Hey Guys if you are a js developer,and interested to join a funded bitcoin related startup ,drop me a message thanks!
 82 2011-11-16 10:35:54 <AliciaC> not interested
 83 2011-11-16 11:15:03 <edcba> how much btc/month ? :)
 84 2011-11-16 14:10:57 <CIA-89> libbitcoin: Kamil Domanski * rd6f070a07674 /m4/ax_berkeley_db_cxx.m4: m4/ax_berkeley_db_cxx.m4: added db 5.1 to list
 85 2011-11-16 15:04:28 <gavinandresen> I need help!  If you can, please download and sanity test the new builds:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=52008
 86 2011-11-16 15:34:00 <Ken`> 0.5 runs on my Ubuntu 11.10 (and looks nice!), but I find the UI a bit confusing (new address).
 87 2011-11-16 15:35:25 <gavinandresen> Ken`: thanks for helping test!
 88 2011-11-16 15:37:37 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: 0.4.1 only has zip for mac?
 89 2011-11-16 15:38:07 <gavinandresen> yes, I lost my create-a-dmg script somewhere in the upgrade-to-qt shuffle
 90 2011-11-16 15:38:43 <gavinandresen> ... and I don't feel like recreating it.
 91 2011-11-16 15:40:52 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: only noticed because 0.5.0 has a dmg :P
 92 2011-11-16 15:50:56 <CIA-89> libbitcoin: genjix * r1db7684e69ff /include/bitcoin/bitcoin.hpp: Convenience header.
 93 2011-11-16 15:50:57 <CIA-89> libbitcoin: genjix * rb6ff345cb30d / (17 files in 8 dirs): inventory, not inv (we dont like abbrevs here)
 94 2011-11-16 17:40:51 <jacobwg> Okay, so I'm trying to understand how the traditional "authority" part of the bitcoin network works, but after reading the wiki and lots of articles, I seem to still be unable to get it.  Is this a good place to ask questions?
 95 2011-11-16 17:40:58 <CIA-89> libbitcoin: genjix * r17ceb5430e74 /include/bitcoin/storage/bdb_storage.hpp: Use DB_CXX_HEADER for different bdb paths.
 96 2011-11-16 17:41:00 <CIA-89> libbitcoin: genjix * r882338eb4322 /bitcoin.sql: WITH TIME ZONE
 97 2011-11-16 17:41:22 <luke-jr> yes
 98 2011-11-16 17:41:30 <phantomcircuit> lol @ luke-jr
 99 2011-11-16 17:41:35 <jacobwg> lol
100 2011-11-16 17:41:41 <jacobwg> Okay, here goes
101 2011-11-16 17:41:41 <luke-jr> where is that idiot genjix?
102 2011-11-16 17:41:52 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, hiding
103 2011-11-16 17:41:57 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: I found him on IM
104 2011-11-16 17:42:02 <luke-jr> I'm calling him out
105 2011-11-16 17:43:37 <jacobwg> First question - how exactly is ownership of bitcoins and validity of transactions ensured?  The design doc that I read seemed to say that each client needed to know about all transactions in order to be secure& is that true?
106 2011-11-16 17:43:59 <luke-jr> jacobwg: yup
107 2011-11-16 17:44:39 <jacobwg> kk, so how exactly do the clients get to know about the transactions, for instance, since there is no central server?
108 2011-11-16 17:44:49 <jacobwg> Do the clients maintain a list of all other clients?
109 2011-11-16 17:46:28 <phantomcircuit> jacobwg, they're connected in a mesh
110 2011-11-16 17:46:35 <gavinandresen> jacobwg: not all other clients, but a random selection of other clients.  The p2p network is a randomly connected network
111 2011-11-16 17:46:37 <phantomcircuit> 8 connections minimum per peer outbound
112 2011-11-16 17:46:44 <phantomcircuit> and upto 120 inbound
113 2011-11-16 17:46:50 <phantomcircuit> or is that 125-8 inbound?
114 2011-11-16 17:47:31 <jacobwg> Okay, so I'll do some more digging on mesh networks.  followup question - how does a client get the initial list of connections?  i.e. when you first get started.
115 2011-11-16 17:47:50 <phantomcircuit> jacobwg, when i say mesh network im almost certainly using the term incorrectly
116 2011-11-16 17:48:01 <phantomcircuit> jacobwg, the client basically picks 8 random peers
117 2011-11-16 17:48:05 <jacobwg> no problem :)
118 2011-11-16 17:48:20 <jacobwg> Right, but how does the client get the list of peers?
119 2011-11-16 17:48:28 <jacobwg> Is there a central peer list somewhere?
120 2011-11-16 17:48:30 <luke-jr> jacobwg: to create new coins from scratch, you have to do a proof-of-work; from there, it's all based on signing keys
121 2011-11-16 17:48:34 <phantomcircuit> jacobwg, there are a couple of ways, a dns server, an irc server, or if those fail static ips
122 2011-11-16 17:49:06 <luke-jr> jacobwg: once the client gets an IP from one of the ways phantomcircuit mentioned, it can get more over the p2p
123 2011-11-16 17:49:24 <jacobwg> So, there is some kind of central server for getting started, but after that, it's all p2p?
124 2011-11-16 17:49:34 <gavinandresen> jacobwg: good info on bootstrapping here:  https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Network
125 2011-11-16 17:49:39 <luke-jr> there's multiple DNS servers
126 2011-11-16 17:49:44 <jacobwg> Or several "central" servers
127 2011-11-16 17:49:48 <luke-jr> could always use more
128 2011-11-16 17:50:17 <jacobwg> Or I guess you could know about just one other peer and could get the rest from them in this kind of network
129 2011-11-16 17:50:19 <luke-jr> the DNS servers just talk p2p to get IPs, test them, and add them to a round-robin
130 2011-11-16 17:50:41 <luke-jr> so you don't even connect to the "central" one
131 2011-11-16 17:50:49 <luke-jr> it just gives you a random assortment of IPs
132 2011-11-16 17:51:01 <jacobwg> Okay, makes sense
133 2011-11-16 17:51:38 <gavinandresen> ... that reminds me, need to update the hard-coded seed list for the next release....
134 2011-11-16 17:52:39 <jacobwg> second question - if it is based on your peers confirming transactions, then what would happen if you were to flood the network with malicious peers?  Is there some kind of protection against lots of peers advocating transactions that don't exist?
135 2011-11-16 17:53:07 <jacobwg> Or is the key signing designed so that they couldn't generate those transactions
136 2011-11-16 17:53:10 <gmaxwell> jacobwg: You should go read the original bitcoin paper.
137 2011-11-16 17:53:13 <gavinandresen> invalid transactions are simply dropped.
138 2011-11-16 17:53:33 <gmaxwell> jacobwg: http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
139 2011-11-16 17:53:40 <gavinandresen> If you send too many invalid transactions, the latest version of bitcoin will drop its connection to you
140 2011-11-16 17:53:41 <jacobwg> gmaxwell: I think I did, though I can re-read it
141 2011-11-16 17:54:14 <jacobwg> gavinandresen: but what if you were to add 10000 clients advocating something that didn't exist?
142 2011-11-16 17:54:26 <gmaxwell> Yea, this is evidence you need to read the paper again.
143 2011-11-16 17:54:30 <gavinandresen> Then bandwidth on the network will go up.
144 2011-11-16 17:54:34 <luke-jr> jacobwg: Bitcoin isn't democratic at that level.
145 2011-11-16 17:54:43 <gmaxwell> What luke-jr said.
146 2011-11-16 17:54:46 <luke-jr> Bitcoin is based on laws.
147 2011-11-16 17:54:59 <luke-jr> if your 10000 clients are trying to break the laws, they get ignored
148 2011-11-16 17:55:09 <gmaxwell> The Three Laws of Bitcoin. Except there are more like 30 than three. :)
149 2011-11-16 17:55:15 <gavinandresen> jacobwg: are you asking about a denial-of-service attack, or are you worried that a bad transaction will get accepted?
150 2011-11-16 17:55:20 <luke-jr> to change the laws, you change the client code. but the change only affects you ;)
151 2011-11-16 17:55:46 <gmaxwell> Everyone independantly enforces The Law without trusting anyone else.
152 2011-11-16 17:56:02 <gmaxwell> The only thing that the network needs to come to agreement on is the mutual order that events happened in.
153 2011-11-16 17:56:07 <gavinandresen> Transactions are valid if they are included in valid blocks.  And you can't flood the network with valid blocks, because you have to perform the proof-of-work calculation for the block to be valid
154 2011-11-16 17:56:10 <jacobwg> gavinandresen: I'm basically researching this not for bitcoin specifically, but for another p2p network project
155 2011-11-16 17:56:20 <gmaxwell> The agreement about order is also not democratic. It's based on computing power.
156 2011-11-16 17:56:36 <luke-jr> I'm not sure bitcoin's design would work for general p2p
157 2011-11-16 17:56:38 <gmaxwell> jacobwg: you'll likely discover that bitcoin solves non of those problems in ways that are useful to you. :)
158 2011-11-16 17:57:09 <gmaxwell> (those problems are super hard, which is one reason all open p2p except bit coin is insecure.
159 2011-11-16 17:57:33 <jacobwg> Okay, this makes more sense.  The only way you can trust a peer is if you are using the same client that is enforcing the same rules
160 2011-11-16 17:57:59 <jacobwg> Yeah, I'm looking into bitcoin (and namecoin) since it seems to be an example of p2p that "got it right"
161 2011-11-16 17:58:12 <gavinandresen> jacobwg: same rules, yes.  But you don't trust your peers, you validate the information they send you
162 2011-11-16 17:58:18 <luke-jr> jacobwg: with bitcoin, you don't trust peers ever.
163 2011-11-16 17:58:46 <jacobwg> Well, right, but the only way to accept a transaction is if you and your peer use the same laws
164 2011-11-16 17:59:09 <gmaxwell> jacobwg: it gets it right with a fairly high cost.
165 2011-11-16 18:00:16 <gmaxwell> (cost which can be supported because it's a currency, it might not work well for other things.. namecoin needed to do some special stuff basically sharing work with bitcoin in order to achieve stability)
166 2011-11-16 18:02:03 <jacobwg> Basically what I'm trying to do is get some kind of secure p2p key-value store (in essence) where you could store arbitrary encrypted data - my brain is starting to overload :)
167 2011-11-16 18:02:51 <jacobwg> Sort of like what namecoin is doing with dns
168 2011-11-16 18:03:22 <phantomcircuit> jacobwg, https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs
169 2011-11-16 18:04:08 <jacobwg> phantomcircuit, I've seen it, but didn't think it was p2p, per se - I'll have to look some more
170 2011-11-16 18:04:21 <phantomcircuit> it's federated i'd say
171 2011-11-16 18:04:38 <phantomcircuit> jacobwg, a true p2p key-value store would be freenet
172 2011-11-16 18:05:04 <jacobwg> true.  I should probably do some more digging on how freenet works
173 2011-11-16 18:08:03 <jacobwg> Anyway, thanks everyone for the info and help!  This gives me some more stuff to research.
174 2011-11-16 18:46:15 <CIA-89> libbitcoin: Kamil Domanski * r798a9084200a / (4 files in 3 dirs): conditional berkdb in configure
175 2011-11-16 18:46:18 <CIA-89> libbitcoin: Kamil Domanski * r9b50fdd8db29 / (4 files in 3 dirs): conditional postgres in configure
176 2011-11-16 19:05:50 <CIA-89> libbitcoin: Kamil Domanski * r685c5c6ee22d /include/bitcoin/Makefile.am: fixed minor Makefile.am mistake
177 2011-11-16 19:20:46 <CIA-89> libbitcoin: Kamil Domanski * rdf21fca406b2 /src/ (3 files in 2 dirs): proto mumbo-jumbo, ask genjix what just happened
178 2011-11-16 19:50:16 <CIA-89> bitcoin: Kamil Domanski * rf9fc6dafdd8c gentoo/net-p2p/libbitcoin/ (Manifest libbitcoin-9999.ebuild): net-p2p/libbitcoin-9999: updated deps and use flags
179 2011-11-16 19:50:17 <CIA-89> bitcoin: Kamil Domanski * r232502795a10 gentoo/app-crypt/subvertx/ (Manifest subvertx-9999.ebuild): app-crypt/subvertx-9999: updated libbitcoin dep to reflect new useflags
180 2011-11-16 20:45:13 <molecular> tcatm, the trade table on bitcoincharts.com is really slowing things down when loading new data. an option to turn it off would be great, no?
181 2011-11-16 20:47:49 <tcatm> it shouldn't slow down anything as the image is loaded independently from the table
182 2011-11-16 20:49:33 <molecular> it's slow in the client, I guess. building the table document elements?
183 2011-11-16 20:49:45 <tcatm> could be
184 2011-11-16 20:50:04 <molecular> I tend to use low setting for time interval
185 2011-11-16 20:50:10 <molecular> it's ok for "auto"
186 2011-11-16 20:50:28 <molecular> but low values, like 1 minute in 2 day view are lots of data... a little too much for my atom to render
187 2011-11-16 20:50:42 <molecular> it was quick without the data table
188 2011-11-16 21:10:55 <CIA-89> libbitcoin: Kamil Domanski * r23be37ef2915 /configure.ac: fixed pkg-config issue on some systems (including gentoo)
189 2011-11-16 22:41:21 <tcatm> molecular: fix deployed :)
190 2011-11-16 22:42:39 <molecular> awesome! insanely fast now in comparions. thank you so much. addy?
191 2011-11-16 22:42:46 <molecular> comparison
192 2011-11-16 22:43:03 <tcatm> 1Nqr3MqVyUp6k3o3QPePAdn4Yg4tzgB9kw
193 2011-11-16 22:43:14 <molecular> already in clipboard from page, sorry for even asking...
194 2011-11-16 22:43:36 <molecular> not much at all, just like micro-donations ;)
195 2011-11-16 22:45:03 <tcatm> Could be worth a lot someday ;)
196 2011-11-16 22:45:27 <molecular> oh yes
197 2011-11-16 22:45:57 <molecular> "remember when we passed around bitcoins worth aircraft carriers for little favors?"
198 2011-11-16 22:46:49 <tcatm> Almost... I remember passing around hundreds of bitcoins for small donations :P
199 2011-11-16 23:01:25 <CIA-89> libbitcoin: genjix * rb367539dd77d / (include/bitcoin/address.hpp src/address.cpp): pubkey_to_address -> public_key_to_address (no abbrev in public API)