1 2011-12-06 00:00:02 <luke-jr> I don't.
  2 2011-12-06 00:00:11 <luke-jr> not when there's a much cleaner way.
  3 2011-12-06 00:00:27 <gmaxwell> but that way doesn't always work.
  4 2011-12-06 00:00:38 <[Tycho]> luke-jr: you are wrong and we aren't.
  5 2011-12-06 00:00:48 <makomk> Why doesn't it work, sorry?
  6 2011-12-06 00:01:04 <gmaxwell> Mqrius: because for some version numbers you can't possibly keep the version number with a common single byte prefix.
  7 2011-12-06 00:01:21 <gmaxwell> because 58 doesn't divide 256 evenly.
  8 2011-12-06 00:01:37 <[Tycho]> What first character will correspond to version 3 ?
  9 2011-12-06 00:01:49 <makomk> Are there any single byte prefixes that you can't get with an appropriate version number though?
 10 2011-12-06 00:01:52 <gmaxwell> This is why namecoin has addresses with both M and N.
 11 2011-12-06 00:02:08 <gmaxwell> (even though there is just one version number)
 12 2011-12-06 00:02:25 <[Tycho]> At least we can say that it's a namecoin address without inserting it somewhere.
 13 2011-12-06 00:02:51 <[Tycho]> So this should be true with mainline version numbers too.
 14 2011-12-06 00:02:53 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: yes you are.
 15 2011-12-06 00:04:10 <makomk> I think the majority of version numbers should result in a single prefix too, come to think of it.
 16 2011-12-06 00:05:02 <luke-jr> the currently unused version 1 yields [Q-Za-o]
 17 2011-12-06 00:05:20 <luke-jr> version 3 always begins with 2
 18 2011-12-06 00:05:33 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: it would be interesting to see a table.
 19 2011-12-06 00:06:05 <luke-jr> version 4 begins with '2' 97% of the time, and the other 3% begins with '3'
 20 2011-12-06 00:06:29 <luke-jr> version 5 always begins with '3'
 21 2011-12-06 00:06:43 <luke-jr> same for ver 6
 22 2011-12-06 00:06:54 <luke-jr> ver 7 is split about 50/50 between '3' and '4'
 23 2011-12-06 00:07:08 <[Tycho]> Cool, so let's assign version "3" to OP_EVAL addresses.
 24 2011-12-06 00:07:10 <luke-jr> ver 8 is always '5'
 25 2011-12-06 00:07:28 <makomk> And so on, presumably.
 26 2011-12-06 00:07:34 <[Tycho]> Or, better, let's use first byte as a version.
 27 2011-12-06 00:07:49 <luke-jr> ver 9 is '4' 94% of the time, and the remaining 6% is '5'
 28 2011-12-06 00:08:10 <makomk> Should be a bit short of 200 different versions that lead to consistent initial bytes at a guess.
 29 2011-12-06 00:08:17 <makomk> INitial characters, even
 30 2011-12-06 00:08:22 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: the first byte is already the version. but addresses are encoded.
 31 2011-12-06 00:08:33 <[Tycho]> The first encoded byte.
 32 2011-12-06 00:08:57 <luke-jr> the encoded form isn't made of bytes
 33 2011-12-06 00:09:02 <[Tycho]> 34 versions should be enough for everyone.
 34 2011-12-06 00:09:15 <[Tycho]> Encoded form is made of characters.
 35 2011-12-06 00:09:47 <[Tycho]> Or 32...
 36 2011-12-06 00:09:50 <[Tycho]> 32 even better.
 37 2011-12-06 00:10:28 <makomk> You do realise that there are already a bunch of coins out there using the current scheme?
 38 2011-12-06 00:10:44 <[Tycho]> Where ?
 39 2011-12-06 00:11:24 <makomk> Take a look at the Alternate Currencies section of the forums.
 40 2011-12-06 00:11:31 <[Tycho]> Ok, first unencoded byte if it's not 1 :)
 41 2011-12-06 00:11:56 <[Tycho]> Alternative currencies will decay anyway.
 42 2011-12-06 00:12:48 <luke-jr> Deepbit will decay anyway.
 43 2011-12-06 00:13:31 <gmaxwell> makomk: sure, but we can just avoid using their prefixes so long as anyone cares about them.
 44 2011-12-06 00:13:38 <gmaxwell> They'd fail to validate even if they did overlap.
 45 2011-12-06 00:15:15 <makomk> (Also, most of the altcoins managed to figure out how to get their preferred prefix just fine with the current versioning scheme...)
 46 2011-12-06 00:16:33 <gmaxwell> makomk: did they?
 47 2011-12-06 00:16:46 <gmaxwell> As I mentioned N/M for namecoin, which is the most popular altchain.
 48 2011-12-06 00:17:33 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: every base58 char has at least one version that begins with only that char
 49 2011-12-06 00:18:08 <luke-jr> 0    => 1,  3    => 2,  5- 6 => 3,  8    => 4,  a- b => 5,  d    => 6,  f-10 => 7, 12    => 8, 14-15 => 9, 17    => A, 19-1a => B, 1c    => C, 1e-1f => D, 21    => E, 23-24 => F, 26    => G, , 28-29 => H, 2b    => J, 2d-2e => K, 30    => L, 32-33 => M, 35    => N, 37-38 => P, 3a    => Q
 50 2011-12-06 00:18:10 <luke-jr> etc
 51 2011-12-06 00:18:21 <gmaxwell> ahh.
 52 2011-12-06 00:18:26 <luke-jr> only version 2 seems to be all over the place
 53 2011-12-06 00:18:42 <luke-jr> the rest not listed above are part of each surrounding letter
 54 2011-12-06 00:18:58 <luke-jr> ok, ver 1 and 2
 55 2011-12-06 00:19:10 <luke-jr> ver 0 and 3+ are at most 2 starting chars
 56 2011-12-06 00:21:39 <luke-jr> also, 91-ff all begin with '2'
 57 2011-12-06 00:22:05 <doublec> solidcoin uses S but there's overlap and they iterate in getnewaddress until an S is found iirc
 58 2011-12-06 00:22:29 <doublec> not that anyone cares about solidcoin here I'm sure :)
 59 2011-12-06 00:22:34 <luke-jr> LOL fail
 60 2011-12-06 00:22:49 <luke-jr> version 3f is ALWAYS 'S'
 61 2011-12-06 00:23:19 <doublec> maybe it's 's'
 62 2011-12-06 00:23:26 <doublec> I forget
 63 2011-12-06 00:24:27 <luke-jr> ver 7d then
 64 2011-12-06 00:25:10 <makomk> 0x7d appears to be the version Solidcoin uses.
 65 2011-12-06 00:25:28 <doublec> yes, it is
 66 2011-12-06 00:25:33 <luke-jr> O.o
 67 2011-12-06 00:25:37 <luke-jr> so they have a useless iteration?
 68 2011-12-06 00:25:43 <luke-jr> "just in case"? XD
 69 2011-12-06 00:26:21 <makomk> I don't remember seeing any code to do that, so I think doublec may be misremembering.
 70 2011-12-06 00:27:03 <doublec> odd, it's only the ui code that does it
 71 2011-12-06 00:27:06 <doublec> makomk: ui.cpp
 72 2011-12-06 00:27:14 <doublec> makomk: in OnButtonNew
 73 2011-12-06 00:27:51 <makomk> Oh, you're right. How pointless.
 74 2011-12-06 00:27:52 <luke-jr> lol, SC is based on wx still?
 75 2011-12-06 00:28:46 <doublec> a lot of the alt coins are based on slightly older bitcoin versions
 76 2011-12-06 00:30:17 <cocktopus> litecoin is all qt and stuff ;)
 77 2011-12-06 00:30:17 <makomk> gmaxwell: anyway, namecoin is a bit unusual in not having a consistent prefix to its addresses.
 78 2011-12-06 00:32:30 <luke-jr> IFF the address format were to be redone, I think it should be 1 char chain ID, 1 char data type ;)
 79 2011-12-06 00:32:44 <luke-jr> ie, Bitcoin, testnet, namecoin based on 1st char
 80 2011-12-06 00:33:11 <luke-jr> and private key, public key, pubkey hash, etc based on 2nd char
 81 2011-12-06 00:33:40 <gmaxwell> and a proper error correcting code rather than this stupid sha256 crap that admits many off by ones?
 82 2011-12-06 00:33:57 <gmaxwell> And a constant length?
 83 2011-12-06 01:17:20 <Lunaqus> -+
 84 2011-12-06 02:15:32 <BlueMatt> arg, why did google change (incorrectly) their ip list and now think Im in france???
 85 2011-12-06 02:15:35 <BlueMatt> wtf TD[gone]
 86 2011-12-06 02:25:59 <Lunaqus> ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
 87 2011-12-06 02:26:00 <Lunaqus> ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
 88 2011-12-06 02:26:01 <Lunaqus> ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
 89 2011-12-06 02:26:02 <Lunaqus> ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
 90 2011-12-06 02:26:03 <Lunaqus> +
 91 2011-12-06 02:26:07 <BlueMatt> oops
 92 2011-12-06 02:26:43 <hippich> snow...
 93 2011-12-06 02:26:48 <hippich> it is cold outside..
 94 2011-12-06 02:26:53 <luke-jr> lol
 95 2011-12-06 02:27:17 <hippich> even with 0.33 snowing days in texas, it is still cold..
 96 2011-12-06 02:28:22 <cocktopus> lol fell asleap on the keyboard
 97 2011-12-06 04:32:40 <nanotube> are there still blockchain snapshots out there somewhere?
 98 2011-12-06 04:34:10 <gmaxwell> yes
 99 2011-12-06 04:34:23 <gmaxwell> nanotube: http://eu1.bitcoincharts.com/blockchain/
100 2011-12-06 04:34:39 <gmaxwell> Why?
101 2011-12-06 04:35:00 <BlueMatt> nanotube doesnt have an up-to-date(ish) copy of the chain sitting around on multiple computers?
102 2011-12-06 04:35:06 <BlueMatt> Im disappointed
103 2011-12-06 04:35:13 <nanotube> no just talking with a guy who's redownloading the chain :)
104 2011-12-06 04:35:22 <BlueMatt> oh, good
105 2011-12-06 04:35:32 <nanotube> my blockchain is all fine and dandy here :)
106 2011-12-06 04:36:01 <gmaxwell> has anyone published oprofile output from a machine synching the chain?
107 2011-12-06 04:36:40 <BlueMatt> not afaik, but Id venture to say the actual limits are pretty well known
108 2011-12-06 04:36:47 <BlueMatt> (mostly hdd limits...)
109 2011-12-06 04:37:36 <gmaxwell> sure, yes, I observed that it was much faster on SSD and faster still on tmpfs.  It's still slow running out of ram and syncing from a local fast host however.
110 2011-12-06 04:37:41 <BlueMatt> cpu, disk, cpu, disk, cpu, disk repeat...
111 2011-12-06 04:37:55 <BlueMatt> cpu being checksumming and tx validation
112 2011-12-06 04:38:03 <BlueMatt> and other block validation
113 2011-12-06 04:40:54 <gmaxwell> this is all what I assume too. Sometimes the profiles can be surprising, at least if no one has actually looked at once.
114 2011-12-06 06:19:23 <Diablo-D3> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3317856
115 2011-12-06 06:19:30 <Diablo-D3> people with hn accounts, upvote positive bitcoin comments
116 2011-12-06 08:08:14 <snimpy> ;;bc,deepbit
117 2011-12-06 08:08:30 <snimpy> ;;asks
118 2011-12-06 08:08:31 <gribble> (asks [--over] <pricetarget>) -- Calculate the amount of bitcoins for sale at or under <pricetarget>. If '--over' option is given, find coins or at or over <pricetarget>.
119 2011-12-06 08:08:51 <snimpy> ;;asks --over 2
120 2011-12-06 08:08:52 <gribble> There are currently 46672.669 bitcoins offered at or over 2.0 USD, worth 150571.189759 USD in total.
121 2011-12-06 08:09:15 <snimpy> ;;asks --over 2
122 2011-12-06 08:09:16 <gribble> There are currently 46755.493 bitcoins offered at or over 2.0 USD, worth 150828.512363 USD in total.
123 2011-12-06 08:09:22 <gribble> There are currently 46755.493 bitcoins offered at or over 2.0 USD, worth 150828.512363 USD in total.
124 2011-12-06 08:09:22 <snimpy> ;;asks --over 2
125 2011-12-06 08:09:24 <snimpy> ;;asks --over 2
126 2011-12-06 08:09:25 <gribble> There are currently 46452.226 bitcoins offered at or over 2.0 USD, worth 149898.684336 USD in total.
127 2011-12-06 08:09:48 <snimpy> ;;bids --over 2
128 2011-12-06 08:09:58 <gribble> (bids [--under] <pricetarget>) -- Calculate the amount of bitcoin demanded at or over <pricetarget>. If '--under' option is given, find coins or at or under <pricetarget>.
129 2011-12-06 08:09:58 <snimpy> ;;bids
130 2011-12-06 08:10:06 <snimpy> ;;bids --under 3
131 2011-12-06 08:10:07 <gribble> There are currently 41109.613 bitcoins demanded at or under 3.0 USD, worth 113209.128013 USD in total.
132 2011-12-06 08:10:19 <snimpy> ;;bids --under 4
133 2011-12-06 08:10:20 <gribble> There are currently 41968.361 bitcoins demanded at or under 4.0 USD, worth 115814.605283 USD in total.
134 2011-12-06 08:10:27 <gribble> There are currently 41968.361 bitcoins demanded at or under 4.0 USD, worth 115814.605283 USD in total.
135 2011-12-06 08:10:27 <snimpy> ;;bids --under 4
136 2011-12-06 08:10:29 <gribble> There are currently 41968.361 bitcoins demanded at or under 4.0 USD, worth 115814.605283 USD in total.
137 2011-12-06 08:10:29 <snimpy> ;;bids --under 4
138 2011-12-06 08:10:39 <snimpy> ;;asks --over 2
139 2011-12-06 08:10:41 <gribble> There are currently 47548.118 bitcoins offered at or over 2.0 USD, worth 153842.908243 USD in total.
140 2011-12-06 08:10:55 <gribble> There are currently 47304.736 bitcoins offered at or over 2.0 USD, worth 153107.507199 USD in total.
141 2011-12-06 08:10:55 <snimpy> ;;asks --over 2
142 2011-12-06 08:10:59 <snimpy> ;;asks --over 2
143 2011-12-06 08:11:00 <gribble> There are currently 47304.736 bitcoins offered at or over 2.0 USD, worth 153107.507199 USD in total.
144 2011-12-06 08:12:18 <gmaxwell> snimpy: you can talk to gribble in private, please do.
145 2011-12-06 08:14:54 <snimpy> kk
146 2011-12-06 08:15:16 <snimpy> didnt watch sry
147 2011-12-06 08:46:43 <a_meteorite> on the same topic as what Diablo-D3 posted, upvote comments suggesting bitcoin http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/n1yx1/scumbag_paypal/
148 2011-12-06 08:47:26 <Diablo-D3> /r/WTF
149 2011-12-06 08:47:27 <Diablo-D3> lol
150 2011-12-06 08:47:48 <a_meteorite> Diablo-D3: yeah, paypal pulling that crap really isn't WTF...
151 2011-12-06 08:47:53 <a_meteorite> but it is on the front page
152 2011-12-06 08:48:03 <Diablo-D3> its a wtf the first time it happened
153 2011-12-06 08:48:14 <Diablo-D3> this is clearly /r/business-as-usual
154 2011-12-06 08:48:21 <a_meteorite> yeah..
155 2011-12-06 08:52:39 <wboy1> Hi guysn,any crypto's that are interested to join an early stage bitcoin-related startup,drop me a message,thanks!
156 2011-12-06 09:04:19 <JFK911> ban wboy1 for this spam please
157 2011-12-06 15:09:49 <gribble> 3050978000
158 2011-12-06 15:10:48 <BlueMatt> nanotube?
159 2011-12-06 15:58:34 <[Tycho]> Hello, devs.
160 2011-12-06 15:58:50 <Diablo-D3> what did you break now, [Tycho]
161 2011-12-06 15:59:48 <[Tycho]> Not yet.
162 2011-12-06 15:59:49 <Diablo-D3> lol TD ran away
163 2011-12-06 16:01:03 <_Fireball> Hello [Tycho]
164 2011-12-06 16:11:22 <[Tycho]> !seen gmaxwell
165 2011-12-06 16:11:23 <gribble> gmaxwell was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 7 hours, 59 minutes, and 3 seconds ago: <gmaxwell> snimpy: you can talk to gribble in private, please do.
166 2011-12-06 16:11:23 <spaola> [Tycho], gmaxwell is right here!
167 2011-12-06 16:12:53 <cjdelisle> hehe
168 2011-12-06 16:13:04 <_Fireball> gribble disagrees ;)
169 2011-12-06 16:13:33 <[Tycho]> May be gribble was just not looking at the channel recently.
170 2011-12-06 16:13:43 <cjdelisle> "you can talk to gribble in private, please get a room"
171 2011-12-06 16:17:22 <graingert> so cold...
172 2011-12-06 16:18:23 <[Tycho]> Yes.
173 2011-12-06 16:21:49 <kinlo> uhmz
174 2011-12-06 17:08:24 <nanotube> BlueMatt: haha some network lags.
175 2011-12-06 17:08:31 <nanotube> nothing to see here
176 2011-12-06 17:08:47 <BlueMatt> nanotube: and the random nonsensical printing?
177 2011-12-06 17:10:07 <nanotube> what random nonsensical printing?
178 2011-12-06 17:10:36 <nanotube> [08:33:45] <snimpy> [01:08:14] ;;bc,deepbit
179 2011-12-06 17:10:42 <nanotube> [11:09:49] <gribble> 3050978000
180 2011-12-06 17:10:49 <nanotube> very sensible. :)
181 2011-12-06 17:10:53 <nanotube> just very (very) delayed
182 2011-12-06 17:12:28 <BlueMatt> ahhh
183 2011-12-06 17:18:47 <nanotube> a sufficiently advanced technology^Wdelay is indistinguishable from magic^Wnonsense. :D
184 2011-12-06 17:23:20 <[Tycho]> I wonder why only chinese sales representatives can directly answer to questions on pricing.
185 2011-12-06 17:24:03 <[Tycho]> European and american ones only ask "How much do you want to spend on this ?" or "What is your budget for this project ?" and so on.
186 2011-12-06 17:24:56 <ThomasV> what are you buying?
187 2011-12-06 17:25:41 <[Tycho]> Not really buying, ordering ASICs.
188 2011-12-06 17:26:29 <[Tycho]> But it's the same happens for buying too.
189 2011-12-06 17:26:49 <makomk> Interesting.
190 2011-12-06 17:29:18 <cocktopus> nice, sounds like [Tycho] is jumping in with both feet and going whole hog at it ;)
191 2011-12-06 17:30:27 <[Tycho]> cocktopus: I just need some hashpower.
192 2011-12-06 17:30:37 <cocktopus> lol, you don't have enough?
193 2011-12-06 17:30:45 <cjdelisle> haha tycho needs hashpower
194 2011-12-06 17:30:52 <cocktopus> he need MOAR
195 2011-12-06 17:30:56 <cocktopus> NAO
196 2011-12-06 17:31:16 <cjdelisle> tx rollback business? :P
197 2011-12-06 17:31:36 <[Tycho]> No, selling shovels business.
198 2011-12-06 17:32:18 <cocktopus> [Tycho]: be sure to put in an ethernet port and ipv6 support, along with a controller that can make it so it can run standalone
199 2011-12-06 17:32:32 <[Tycho]> Who would need ipv6 ?
200 2011-12-06 17:32:36 <cjdelisle> I didn't mean to spend that --> charge it back, with New Deepbit" Chargebacks Plus"
201 2011-12-06 17:32:46 <cocktopus> also, if the power usage is low enough, look into making it work with Power over Ethernet
202 2011-12-06 17:33:01 <cocktopus> cjdelisle: lol
203 2011-12-06 17:33:18 <makomk> I actually still haven't figured out why BFL haven't included ethernet support, but that's another story entirely...
204 2011-12-06 17:33:22 <BlueMatt> oh, and of course make sure the miner works only with deepbit (of course so that it is easier for deepbit users, not to cut others out)
205 2011-12-06 17:33:27 <[Tycho]> Actually I'm just thinking about real daisychaining, not requiring separate USB for each board.
206 2011-12-06 17:33:28 <cocktopus> ipv6, if you are going to make as many as the grains of the sand and sell them to random users ;)
207 2011-12-06 17:33:56 <[Tycho]> Ethernet controller would add costs and is not needed.
208 2011-12-06 17:34:03 <cocktopus> daisy-chain how? using BACnet?
209 2011-12-06 17:34:17 <cocktopus> or do you mean having a USB-host controller
210 2011-12-06 17:34:36 <[Tycho]> If someone is going to build a big farm then additional cost for Ethernet controllers on each board will be considerable.
211 2011-12-06 17:34:41 <gmaxwell> just serial, jeez, no big deal. If you want to be fancy you could use RS-422 .. then you could put your miners at the ends of looong cables. :)
212 2011-12-06 17:34:54 <[Tycho]> AFAIK, PoE switches are really expensive.
213 2011-12-06 17:34:58 <gmaxwell> not just cost, but they consume power, radiate heat, and fail.
214 2011-12-06 17:35:22 <gmaxwell> poe? yuck. yea, the injection and pulloff for that are annoying.
215 2011-12-06 17:35:48 <cocktopus> yeah it may not apply to this application, but don't discount it in other applications
216 2011-12-06 17:36:00 <cocktopus> i find it useful for remote cameras and APs
217 2011-12-06 17:36:30 <BlueMatt> damn it google, Im not in fucking france, change my language back
218 2011-12-06 17:36:58 <cocktopus> http://www.google.com/ncr <-- disables country recognition
219 2011-12-06 17:36:58 <gmaxwell> yea, it's useful.. for cameras and phones.
220 2011-12-06 17:37:14 <BlueMatt> cocktopus: shame it doesnt work for market.android.com
221 2011-12-06 17:37:42 <cocktopus> bluematt: lame
222 2011-12-06 17:38:31 <[Tycho]> Yeah. 1 Gh/s remote cameras anyone ? :)
223 2011-12-06 17:38:49 <gmaxwell> heh.
224 2011-12-06 17:39:01 <gmaxwell> I could mine on my elphel camera pretty easily.
225 2011-12-06 17:39:23 <gmaxwell> the fpga is only a s3-1800 part though, it wouldn't be very fast. Maybe 1/MH/s?
226 2011-12-06 17:41:02 <[Tycho]> cocktopus: considering RS-485, 1Wire or custom solution.
227 2011-12-06 17:41:20 <cocktopus> RS-485 is an oldie but a goodie
228 2011-12-06 17:41:34 <cocktopus> 1wire also sounds interesting, but i haven't used it much
229 2011-12-06 17:42:09 <gmaxwell> With all those things I'd worry a little about a failed unit jamming the bus.
230 2011-12-06 17:42:44 <cocktopus> so you would still go with a star topology?
231 2011-12-06 17:42:47 <[Tycho]> By definition, RS-422 does not allow multiple drivers but only multiple receivers.
232 2011-12-06 17:43:07 <[Tycho]> No, not star.
233 2011-12-06 17:43:17 <cocktopus> sorry i meant gmaxwell
234 2011-12-06 17:44:05 <cocktopus> daisy-chain of course can fail on a single node, but some different types can better recover from a failure of only one node
235 2011-12-06 17:44:06 <[Tycho]> I used 1Wire, it's nice and allows many receivers, but also lacks good system for signaling to host.
236 2011-12-06 17:44:28 <gmaxwell> Yea, I dunno. My reflex would be to build a ring of duplex serial links. But the reality is that a simple star with cheaper parts might not cost anything more to build.
237 2011-12-06 17:45:11 <[Tycho]> I really don't like current 1board-1USB approach.
238 2011-12-06 17:45:17 <gmaxwell> (a ring of duplex links would survive one device failure)
239 2011-12-06 17:45:39 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: build bigger boards... the cheapness of usb due to mass scale is hard to argue with.
240 2011-12-06 17:45:46 <[Tycho]> ngzhang has hardware support for chaining, but the firmware still doesn't supports it.
241 2011-12-06 17:45:55 <cocktopus> well my feeling is that if you are linking more than 10 of them, you would simply go with a multi-board solution in one case
242 2011-12-06 17:46:10 <cocktopus> instead of a longer chain
243 2011-12-06 17:49:50 <BlueMatt> damn it google, I dont want to pay in goddamn euros, I live in the US ffs
244 2011-12-06 17:50:01 <[Tycho]> I'll possibly try to make the board size match 2.5" HDD, but it depends on heat dissipation requirments.
245 2011-12-06 17:50:14 <[Tycho]> This way small HDD boxes can be used as cases.
246 2011-12-06 17:50:27 <[Tycho]> (for single-unit customers)
247 2011-12-06 18:04:19 <c_k> [Tycho]: will you sell these devices to the public?
248 2011-12-06 18:04:34 <[Tycho]> Definitely.
249 2011-12-06 18:04:52 <[Tycho]> Why else would I create them ? :)
250 2011-12-06 18:05:14 <c_k> people like artforz make their own devices and don't really share them ;)
251 2011-12-06 18:05:23 <c_k> it is refreshing to see someone willing to share :)
252 2011-12-06 18:06:55 <cjdelisle> So someone is making a sha256 asic or is it more general purpose?
253 2011-12-06 18:07:09 <[Tycho]> I'll quote again :) "It wasn't the miners who got rich, it was the people who sold the picks and shovels"
254 2011-12-06 18:07:29 <cjdelisle> oh right, selling shovels, now I get it
255 2011-12-06 18:08:22 <cjdelisle> so this is the butterfly labs sha256 asic or it is an fpga type thing?
256 2011-12-06 18:08:43 <[Tycho]> BFL is FPGA. Or, may be, easypath-like.
257 2011-12-06 18:09:19 <cjdelisle> ahh, I'm mildly interested in little boxen that can do high speed crypto of packets which pass through them
258 2011-12-06 18:09:35 <cjdelisle> but it's only a passive intrest really
259 2011-12-06 18:10:49 <rjk2> yeah, i want a nice little WPA crack-in-a-box, and it seems the BFL might have the tech to do it
260 2011-12-06 18:11:46 <jrmithdobbs> rjk2: the little amd e350s that have builtin radeons aren't awful for that considering power consumption
261 2011-12-06 18:12:13 <rjk2> yes quite so
262 2011-12-06 18:12:31 <cjdelisle> if you want to seriously attack wpa you probably want something more like a 5970
263 2011-12-06 18:12:31 <rjk2> my plan was to make a Nano-ITX based system paired with a BFL box
264 2011-12-06 18:12:48 <jrmithdobbs> planning on doing something like that with the one i have. have it sit and scan for/bruteforce rogue networks ;p
265 2011-12-06 18:13:15 <jrmithdobbs> rjk2: i just have one of the little zotac zbox things from a failed experiment for something else
266 2011-12-06 18:13:26 <cjdelisle> I'm more interested in encrypting and decrypting large amounts of traffic quickly
267 2011-12-06 18:13:31 <rjk2> i asked in the thread if BFL would sell me those sweet little boxes with no guts, but haven't heard back yet
268 2011-12-06 18:13:40 <jrmithdobbs> e350 + 4GB ram + iscsi boot (pxe->gpxe chainload)
269 2011-12-06 18:13:56 <rjk2> jrmithdobbs: those things seem cool
270 2011-12-06 18:14:09 <rjk2> they are nano-itx right?
271 2011-12-06 18:14:15 <cjdelisle> where do you get these?
272 2011-12-06 18:14:18 <jrmithdobbs> cjdelisle: the iscsi target that's booting off of does ~200-350M/s aes256-xts to it's arrays ;p
273 2011-12-06 18:14:20 <rjk2> or are they mini-itx
274 2011-12-06 18:14:25 <[Tycho]> cjdelisle: encrypting is far easier than mining. By many orders of magnitude.
275 2011-12-06 18:14:45 <jrmithdobbs> rjk2: think they're there own form factor
276 2011-12-06 18:14:49 <jrmithdobbs> s/there/their/
277 2011-12-06 18:14:52 <rjk2> hm ok
278 2011-12-06 18:14:58 <[Tycho]> Depending on your task, you may just use any hardware VPN box.
279 2011-12-06 18:15:19 <jrmithdobbs> [Tycho]: meh, the atom/e350s are cheaper and faster
280 2011-12-06 18:15:20 <rjk2> yeah i wasn't able to determine the size of the BFL boxes, i know nano-itx is 120mm square
281 2011-12-06 18:15:23 <cjdelisle> yea, I'm thinkng something like 100Mb/s of salsa20/poly1305 decryption and re-encryption
282 2011-12-06 18:15:42 <cjdelisle> a geode might be enough to do it, I have not really looked in to it
283 2011-12-06 18:15:47 <jrmithdobbs> cjdelisle: well 200-350M/s is with i5 aes accel
284 2011-12-06 18:15:56 <jrmithdobbs> (and that's megabyte not bit)
285 2011-12-06 18:16:03 <cjdelisle> /nod
286 2011-12-06 18:16:03 <jrmithdobbs> cjdelisle: and 6 spindles
287 2011-12-06 18:16:18 <cjdelisle> aes doesn't really impress me
288 2011-12-06 18:16:36 <jrmithdobbs> it's adequate for this task
289 2011-12-06 18:16:53 <[Tycho]> jrmithdobbs: depends on the task. Sometimes it's easier to use solution-in-a-box than configure some linuxes.
290 2011-12-06 18:17:00 <jrmithdobbs> what else are you going to use on 2TB+ arrays where you still need decent performance?
291 2011-12-06 18:17:20 <cjdelisle> yea, if geodes aren't fast enough I'd probably go with wpa w/ really big passwd
292 2011-12-06 18:17:43 <jrmithdobbs> the aes accel in the geodes is pretty crap
293 2011-12-06 18:17:48 <jrmithdobbs> i added a vpn1411 to mine
294 2011-12-06 18:17:55 <jrmithdobbs> (mostly for the rng, though)
295 2011-12-06 18:18:07 <cjdelisle> if I do my own crypto it will be salsa20
296 2011-12-06 18:18:33 <jrmithdobbs> salsa20 needs sse2 for the good impl
297 2011-12-06 18:18:44 <jrmithdobbs> geodes don't have sse2
298 2011-12-06 18:18:47 <gmaxwell> don't underestimate the value of intensive public review. AES is kinda lame yes, but man has it had review.
299 2011-12-06 18:19:18 <rjk2> heh, its been around for ever
300 2011-12-06 18:19:28 <rjk2> which means that is is secure
301 2011-12-06 18:19:36 <jrmithdobbs> ya, worst case with aes and a 256bit key is like 2^96 with a related key (irrelevent) attack and 2^95 (?) with whatever that new aes128 thing was
302 2011-12-06 18:19:56 <cjdelisle> AMD's fusions are interesting for high speed crypto
303 2011-12-06 18:20:03 <jrmithdobbs> rjk2: salsa20 is great and all, but it's not received near the same level of review
304 2011-12-06 18:20:10 <cjdelisle> make little router boxen
305 2011-12-06 18:20:16 <rjk2> jrmithdobbs: quite so
306 2011-12-06 18:20:21 <jrmithdobbs> cjdelisle: you mean the e350s and such?
307 2011-12-06 18:20:26 <cjdelisle> /nod
308 2011-12-06 18:20:30 <jrmithdobbs> cjdelisle: because i disagree. they are quite lackluster
309 2011-12-06 18:20:46 <jrmithdobbs> cjdelisle: the atoms do better in my testing
310 2011-12-06 18:20:52 <cjdelisle> interesting
311 2011-12-06 18:21:04 <jrmithdobbs> because they have the aes instructions
312 2011-12-06 18:21:06 <cjdelisle> Atoms have integrated video cards?
313 2011-12-06 18:21:08 <rjk2> jrmithdobbs: have you tested the newer dual-core atoms
314 2011-12-06 18:21:16 <gmaxwell> If you can afford the performance hit nesting AES with "something else" with unrelated keys is an improvement if you're super paranoid. This gets even easier as things add hardware aes accel.
315 2011-12-06 18:21:16 <jrmithdobbs> cjdelisle: oh for cracking no, the fusions are good for that ;p
316 2011-12-06 18:21:29 <jrmithdobbs> rjk2: ya d525s and current gen e350s is my reference point
317 2011-12-06 18:21:34 <rjk2> nice
318 2011-12-06 18:22:18 <cjdelisle> the thing about an e350 is you can do crypto in any algo you like and it will be pretty fast if you use the radeon stuff
319 2011-12-06 18:22:37 <cjdelisle> (theoretically ofc)
320 2011-12-06 18:22:41 <jrmithdobbs> depends on application
321 2011-12-06 18:22:59 <jrmithdobbs> eg, for writing to disks that sucks because you get squashed down to one thread no matter how many spindles
322 2011-12-06 18:23:26 <cjdelisle> more like reading and writing to network devices
323 2011-12-06 18:23:37 <cjdelisle> dma and dma
324 2011-12-06 18:23:58 <jrmithdobbs> same thing applies just you have less bandwidth overall to work with with network so less likely to hit cpu limits
325 2011-12-06 18:24:52 <jrmithdobbs> the max with 2 threads of actual data going through dm_crypt seemed to peak at a bit over 100M/s if *anything* (even fs accounting type stuff) else was going on on the machines
326 2011-12-06 18:25:11 <jrmithdobbs> ~120M/s to be exact
327 2011-12-06 18:25:23 <cjdelisle> hardware aes makes a lot of sense if it can be tricked into providing replay prevention and authentication.
328 2011-12-06 18:26:16 <cjdelisle> which it really only needs authentication if you use a counter as a nonce, replay prevention is pretty easy
329 2011-12-06 18:26:26 <cjdelisle> if you don't mind losing old packets
330 2011-12-06 18:26:31 <jrmithdobbs> cjdelisle: my geode 450 runs an aes256 vpn end point (5Mb up 30Mb down) full speed no problem, btw, for reference
331 2011-12-06 18:26:54 <cjdelisle> is that hardware aes?
332 2011-12-06 18:27:05 <jrmithdobbs> ya on a hifn card
333 2011-12-06 18:27:07 <cjdelisle> sorry for my ignorance on the technology..
334 2011-12-06 18:27:53 <jrmithdobbs> geode has some builtin accel but the machine has a hifn7955 that also does aes-cbc accel ... box is using both
335 2011-12-06 18:28:18 <jrmithdobbs> hifn0 at pci0 dev 12 function 0 "Hifn 7955/7954" rev 0x00: LZS 3DES ARC4 MD5 SHA1 RNG AES PK, 32KB dram, irq 9
336 2011-12-06 18:28:26 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: you run a vpn with asymmetric bw?
337 2011-12-06 18:28:29 <BlueMatt> why?
338 2011-12-06 18:28:42 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: that's just what the link here is
339 2011-12-06 18:28:59 <BlueMatt> mmm, well as long as its not your upstream endpoint...
340 2011-12-06 18:29:10 <jrmithdobbs> no this is the endpoint at my house
341 2011-12-06 18:29:18 <jrmithdobbs> otherside is in a datacenter on level3/cogent
342 2011-12-06 18:29:22 <BlueMatt> mmm, fair enough
343 2011-12-06 18:29:36 <jrmithdobbs> actually might be xo/cogent now
344 2011-12-06 18:29:38 <jrmithdobbs> w/e
345 2011-12-06 18:29:48 <BlueMatt> hopefully not, cogent sucks huge balls
346 2011-12-06 18:29:57 <jrmithdobbs> not really
347 2011-12-06 18:30:06 <jrmithdobbs> they've improved quite a bit the last decade
348 2011-12-06 18:30:26 <jrmithdobbs> and they're actually peered quite well now
349 2011-12-06 18:30:31 <BlueMatt> somewhat, but they are still cheap and rip people off when they can
350 2011-12-06 18:30:39 <BlueMatt> (and get cut off because of it)
351 2011-12-06 18:30:44 <jrmithdobbs> oh sure, dealing with them directly is annoying as fuck
352 2011-12-06 18:30:47 <jrmithdobbs> but I don't have to ;p
353 2011-12-06 18:30:50 <BlueMatt> they have good bw, but occasionally they fuck you
354 2011-12-06 18:31:07 <jrmithdobbs> ya i used to work at the place that box is
355 2011-12-06 18:31:13 <jrmithdobbs> hated dealing with them
356 2011-12-06 18:31:18 <BlueMatt> as in depeering and making your connection fucked for some destinations..
357 2011-12-06 18:31:38 <jrmithdobbs> but once we actually got our redundant links setup *properly* and a few other things and no longer actually had to deal with them at all they're fine;p
358 2011-12-06 18:31:48 <BlueMatt> heh, yep
359 2011-12-06 18:32:14 <jrmithdobbs> haha, i remember, what was that 7 years ago when they pissed off xo
360 2011-12-06 18:32:27 <jrmithdobbs> and cogent effectively dropped off the internet for like 30-90 minutes
361 2011-12-06 18:32:28 <jrmithdobbs> that was fun
362 2011-12-06 18:32:45 <BlueMatt> yea its been a while, but they did that too often for me to ever trust them again...
363 2011-12-06 18:32:54 <jrmithdobbs> it's not happened in a long time now
364 2011-12-06 18:32:58 <jrmithdobbs> they got their shit together
365 2011-12-06 18:33:28 <BlueMatt> now, but Id still rather not trust them...
366 2011-12-06 18:33:53 <jrmithdobbs> at $3-5/Mbit though ...
367 2011-12-06 18:34:05 <jrmithdobbs> with overage rates that == commit rates?
368 2011-12-06 18:34:08 <jrmithdobbs> you can't beat that shit
369 2011-12-06 18:34:10 <BlueMatt> yep, but they are cheap because they do stupid shit to stay cheap...
370 2011-12-06 18:34:36 <jrmithdobbs> so long as there's a secondary link, don't care ;p
371 2011-12-06 18:34:46 <BlueMatt> true
372 2011-12-06 18:34:59 <cjdelisle> those are prices that normal people can get? I thought that was only available to people who were buying 10Gb links.
373 2011-12-06 18:35:00 <BlueMatt> never use them as the only provider
374 2011-12-06 18:35:17 <jrmithdobbs> cjdelisle: those prices start around the 150-200Mbit commit range
375 2011-12-06 18:35:22 <jrmithdobbs> cjdelisle: not nearly as much as you'd think.
376 2011-12-06 18:35:29 <cjdelisle> hmm
377 2011-12-06 18:35:58 <cjdelisle> you know anything about the point to point ip/eth market?
378 2011-12-06 18:36:00 <jrmithdobbs> the trick is being near a POP ;p
379 2011-12-06 18:36:06 <BlueMatt> well you do have to get the connection to them...
380 2011-12-06 18:36:17 <cjdelisle> /nod
381 2011-12-06 18:36:20 <jrmithdobbs> cjdelisle: that's all very regional dependent
382 2011-12-06 18:36:23 <BlueMatt> bw only works if you have a cable ;)
383 2011-12-06 18:36:54 <cjdelisle> I understand point to point is much cheaper than internet access
384 2011-12-06 18:36:57 <jrmithdobbs> every place i've ever dealt with cogent they already had pops in the building or across the parking lot, heh
385 2011-12-06 18:37:05 <jrmithdobbs> cjdelisle: depends.
386 2011-12-06 18:37:30 <rjk2> we are paying $70/mb for a 15 mbps commit :(
387 2011-12-06 18:37:34 <rjk2> ohio sucks
388 2011-12-06 18:37:36 <cjdelisle> heh if it's not then might aswell just vpn for the added flexibility
389 2011-12-06 18:37:41 <gmaxwell> ...
390 2011-12-06 18:37:46 <gmaxwell> Your price shopping sucks.
391 2011-12-06 18:37:52 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: "you mean I'm paying 2k installation fee for you to drop me these two fibre cables through the wall?!" "yup" "bitches"
392 2011-12-06 18:37:56 <gmaxwell> oh only 15. ... well perhaps okay.
393 2011-12-06 18:37:57 <rjk2> well i mean to our building, not in a DC
394 2011-12-06 18:38:02 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: yep
395 2011-12-06 18:38:29 <BlueMatt> installation fees are always a fucking ripoff
396 2011-12-06 18:38:39 <rjk2> but i did get free install :)
397 2011-12-06 18:38:49 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: they didn't even send someone downstairs to catch the other end, we had to fish it out, lol
398 2011-12-06 18:38:50 <BlueMatt> well thats a plus
399 2011-12-06 18:38:52 <jrmithdobbs> fuckers
400 2011-12-06 18:39:12 <BlueMatt> hah, ok well that has to be the best installation story Ive ever heard...
401 2011-12-06 18:39:17 <jrmithdobbs> (speaking of cost cutting measures)
402 2011-12-06 18:39:34 <BlueMatt> drill a hole, feed a cable, charge 2k
403 2011-12-06 18:39:50 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: it wasn't that bad, their suite was literally directly above ours is why they did that, ha
404 2011-12-06 18:39:56 <rjk2> but the cable is expensive !?!?!!!!one1!
405 2011-12-06 18:40:00 <jrmithdobbs> and the building was built out so they could do shit like that
406 2011-12-06 18:40:04 <BlueMatt> still 2k is...kinda fucked up
407 2011-12-06 18:40:04 <jrmithdobbs> so no drilling/etc
408 2011-12-06 18:40:19 <BlueMatt> ha, all they did was feed a cable and charge 2k?
409 2011-12-06 18:40:26 <jrmithdobbs> meh, we talked them down to $3/mbit what do we care
410 2011-12-06 18:40:29 <rjk2> did that include the endpoint box
411 2011-12-06 18:40:35 <BlueMatt> well fair enough
412 2011-12-06 18:40:42 <jrmithdobbs> rjk2: no it went into our 6500
413 2011-12-06 18:40:43 <jrmithdobbs> haha
414 2011-12-06 18:40:49 <rjk2> damn
415 2011-12-06 18:42:34 <luke-jr> so any word from sipa about gmaxwell/[tycho]'s rebellion from his version number spec? :P
416 2011-12-06 18:42:57 <[Tycho]> :)
417 2011-12-06 18:43:01 <jrmithdobbs> say what
418 2011-12-06 18:43:26 <[Tycho]> jrmithdobbs: we like version-2 addresses to start with "2" character.
419 2011-12-06 18:43:27 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: basically they want to use version 3 instead of version 2
420 2011-12-06 18:43:43 <luke-jr> because version 3 makes all addresses start with the '2' char
421 2011-12-06 18:44:15 <luke-jr> whereas version 2 addresses can start with any of 13 different characters
422 2011-12-06 18:45:06 <jrmithdobbs> why not just stop encoding version number and make it a literal ascii value?
423 2011-12-06 18:46:04 <jrmithdobbs> cause what do you have to go to after version 3 to keep a static number while encoded?
424 2011-12-06 18:46:04 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: because that's not feasable, and doesn't solve anything
425 2011-12-06 18:46:21 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: versions 5 and 6 both begin with '3' always
426 2011-12-06 18:46:28 <jrmithdobbs> why isn't it feasible i can think of what has to change in the code off the top of my head and it's trivial
427 2011-12-06 18:46:30 <luke-jr> version 8 always begins with '4'
428 2011-12-06 18:46:40 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: no, it isn't.
429 2011-12-06 18:46:44 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: TIAS
430 2011-12-06 18:46:51 <jrmithdobbs> TIAS?
431 2011-12-06 18:46:56 <luke-jr> try it and see (for yourself)
432 2011-12-06 18:47:10 <luke-jr> in any case, every single base58 char has at least one version that corresponds to it
433 2011-12-06 18:47:22 <luke-jr> versions 91-ff also always begin with '2'
434 2011-12-06 18:47:59 <luke-jr> which makes me inclined to reserve '2'-starting addresses for testnets
435 2011-12-06 18:48:37 <luke-jr> since there's 112 versions that begin with it always
436 2011-12-06 18:49:00 <luke-jr> whereas other base58 chars have only 1-2 versions unique to them
437 2011-12-06 18:49:32 <luke-jr> if we use version 0x19, we can do 'B' ;)
438 2011-12-06 18:53:24 <BlueMatt> we already have a standard, its simple enough (ok, not the simplest possible, but meh) so why change it?
439 2011-12-06 18:53:48 <BlueMatt> also, everyone pretty much agreed when sipa proposed it, why change it now?
440 2011-12-06 18:54:21 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: because it's extremely user unfriendly?
441 2011-12-06 18:54:39 <BlueMatt> and why wasnt this brought up the first time around?
442 2011-12-06 18:54:46 <luke-jr> dunno
443 2011-12-06 18:54:51 <luke-jr> at least I pretty much ignored it
444 2011-12-06 18:55:13 <BlueMatt> is gmaxwell or [Tycho] around?
445 2011-12-06 18:55:29 <[Tycho]> Yes.
446 2011-12-06 19:04:42 <gmaxwell> Yes, [Tycho] is around.
447 2011-12-06 19:04:52 <copumpkin> lol
448 2011-12-06 19:05:24 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: addresses starting with consistent characters is important for usability. I respect the work sipa did, but he missed a criteria.
449 2011-12-06 19:05:48 <BlueMatt> mmm, well I was assuming sipa was around and I was gonna ask him (hes not away...)
450 2011-12-06 19:05:55 <gmaxwell> sipa would point out that joe users shouldn't be using addresses.. we should have payment procotols and whatnot, but we don't. soo..
451 2011-12-06 19:05:56 <BlueMatt> but he appears to be mia...
452 2011-12-06 19:06:26 <gmaxwell> yea, it's a conversation to have with sipa around.
453 2011-12-06 19:06:48 <BlueMatt> (well as soon as I get a chance to fix the outstanding issues on the URI support in bitcoin-qt pull...)
454 2011-12-06 19:07:03 <luke-jr> bitcoin: URIs are still payment protocols :P
455 2011-12-06 19:07:14 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: you don't *want* to fix the outstanding issues :P
456 2011-12-06 19:07:16 <BlueMatt> but they have user-facing addresses
457 2011-12-06 19:07:26 <luke-jr> no, they don't really.
458 2011-12-06 19:07:33 <BlueMatt> well mostly
459 2011-12-06 19:07:35 <luke-jr> URIs are not user-facing
460 2011-12-06 19:07:43 <BlueMatt> but the popup with the address and amount is
461 2011-12-06 19:07:58 <BlueMatt> and not showing that popup would be ridiculous
462 2011-12-06 19:08:16 <luke-jr> true
463 2011-12-06 19:08:31 <[Tycho]> URIs are nice. But knowing what address you are looking at is even better (before even entering it in some software form)
464 2011-12-06 19:08:32 <luke-jr> there's really no *good* way to hide addresses, is there? :/
465 2011-12-06 19:08:38 <luke-jr> & besides possibly Namecoin
466 2011-12-06 19:08:57 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I think the biggest objection is specific to versions 1 and 2
467 2011-12-06 19:09:15 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: version 1 addresses can begin with any of these: QRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijkmno
468 2011-12-06 19:09:26 <luke-jr> and version 2 can begin with any of: 2opqrstuvwxyz
469 2011-12-06 19:09:44 <luke-jr> every other version only has 1 or 2 beginning characters
470 2011-12-06 19:09:46 <[Tycho]> Also we may just skip this version and start right with next one :) That will give us more time to decide :)
471 2011-12-06 19:09:50 <gmaxwell> A real payment protocol solves lots of other things like negoiating the amounts... but yea, we're not getting that now.
472 2011-12-06 19:10:50 <BlueMatt> (to better support merchant's with fee contracts)
473 2011-12-06 19:10:53 <luke-jr> and signmessage
474 2011-12-06 19:11:28 <[Tycho]> What fee contracts ?
475 2011-12-06 19:11:50 <BlueMatt> signmessage is part of a larger payment system, and if you are gonna include it in uri, then its broken unless you have a way to send the signed message back in the protocol
476 2011-12-06 19:11:57 <BlueMatt> ie you need a full payment protocol at that point
477 2011-12-06 19:12:03 <BlueMatt> [Tycho]: eg mtgox's one with eligius
478 2011-12-06 19:12:08 <BlueMatt> where mtgox pays no fee...ever
479 2011-12-06 19:12:12 <helo> i was just about to ask about signmessage content in the bitcoin uri...
480 2011-12-06 19:12:53 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: Not necessarily. "Click here, then paste your payment confirmation in this box: ________"
481 2011-12-06 19:13:12 <gmaxwell> the payment confirmation could include the seralized transaction plus any signmessage stuff.
482 2011-12-06 19:13:24 <gmaxwell> then you also avoid a bunch of propagation annoyances.
483 2011-12-06 19:13:30 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: the signmessage alone should be sufficient.
484 2011-12-06 19:13:41 <gmaxwell> Lots of people seem to start bitcoin.. pay.. turn it off.  and the txn doesn't propagate.
485 2011-12-06 19:13:53 <gmaxwell> then they're bitching that their coins are lost and blah blah.
486 2011-12-06 19:13:58 <luke-jr> well, that's what BlueMatt's "addnode" thing would be for
487 2011-12-06 19:14:07 <gmaxwell> (until they have enough patience to leave it on)
488 2011-12-06 19:14:13 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: true, but that is worse than forcing merchants to use unique addresses (which they should be doing, well ok maybe if the client was better) or sending that data back in the protocol
489 2011-12-06 19:14:18 <gmaxwell> but if you're going to connect to the vendor you might as well have a payment protocol.
490 2011-12-06 19:14:21 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: that doesn't make sure they're current on the chain etc
491 2011-12-06 19:14:29 <helo> in a mobile environment, i was imagining the bitcoin app signing the message and then offering it up as a "signmessage:" URI, so the user at that point would select an app that can handle sending the sendmessage data
492 2011-12-06 19:14:39 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: they don't need to be.
493 2011-12-06 19:14:47 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: nor does it matter
494 2011-12-06 19:14:59 <gmaxwell> but they do need to stay connected long enough and have working peers.
495 2011-12-06 19:15:20 <luke-jr> the catch-22 with the signmessage, is that the message content *should* include the txid
496 2011-12-06 19:16:01 <luke-jr> so IMO, we need to define that all payment confirmation messages always begin with "txid:" or smth like that
497 2011-12-06 19:16:21 <gmaxwell> I don't think it does.. it could just include any nonce, couldn't it?
498 2011-12-06 19:16:24 <BlueMatt> ...or just be a signmessage of the txid...
499 2011-12-06 19:16:27 <luke-jr> so the merchant doesn't need to do two steps, and e-Wallets can securely sign confirmations
500 2011-12-06 19:16:45 <gmaxwell> hm I guess not.
501 2011-12-06 19:16:55 <BlueMatt> though I would still argue against signmessage support as it forces merchants to do things "the right way"
502 2011-12-06 19:16:55 <gmaxwell> so sure, just make it a signmessage of the txid.
503 2011-12-06 19:16:57 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: that would be worse
504 2011-12-06 19:17:10 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: meh, similar enough
505 2011-12-06 19:17:12 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: that's a GOOD thing
506 2011-12-06 19:17:29 <gmaxwell> or TXID plus a sender provided ID.
507 2011-12-06 19:17:32 <luke-jr> the message SHOULD be forced to include a description of the payment too
508 2011-12-06 19:17:44 <gmaxwell> thats a lot to pack in a URI.
509 2011-12-06 19:17:52 <luke-jr> the mechant should provide "1 year subscription: first month's payment" for example
510 2011-12-06 19:17:54 <gmaxwell> .. starting to sound more like a payment protocol.
511 2011-12-06 19:18:00 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: true
512 2011-12-06 19:18:09 <luke-jr> can we sanely POST to a bitcoin: URI?
513 2011-12-06 19:18:11 <BlueMatt> or just dont include signmessage in the uri support, and then we force merchants to do it right to begin with (instead of relying on signmessage)
514 2011-12-06 19:18:20 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: what?
515 2011-12-06 19:18:21 <luke-jr> and the return value can include the txn itself, and sig
516 2011-12-06 19:18:33 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: signmessage *is* the right way.
517 2011-12-06 19:18:39 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: since when?
518 2011-12-06 19:18:49 <gmaxwell> one shot addresses are the right way, weally.
519 2011-12-06 19:18:50 <BlueMatt> unique addresses is the right way, always has been
520 2011-12-06 19:18:53 <gmaxwell> er really.
521 2011-12-06 19:19:06 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: no, unique addresses is a hack to workaround the lack of signmessage
522 2011-12-06 19:19:18 <gmaxwell> No sir!
523 2011-12-06 19:19:23 <gmaxwell> go read bitcoin.pdf again.
524 2011-12-06 19:19:24 <BlueMatt> I dont think anyone agrees with you on that one luke
525 2011-12-06 19:19:26 <jrmithdobbs> how is it a hack
526 2011-12-06 19:19:37 <gmaxwell> Reusing addresses craps all over the _only_ source of casual privacy we have.
527 2011-12-06 19:19:40 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I do.
528 2011-12-06 19:19:52 <BlueMatt> dont think that counts...
529 2011-12-06 19:20:08 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: privacy is overrated.
530 2011-12-06 19:20:15 <gmaxwell> I'm no fan of "zomg anonymity" as a part of bitcoin, but without hiding the ownership of addresses your nosey neighbors can easily snoop on every transaction.
531 2011-12-06 19:20:31 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: Tell me this when DCF decides it doesn't like the food or school books you're buying for your kids.
532 2011-12-06 19:20:31 <luke-jr> fine, so encourage unique addresses whenever possible
533 2011-12-06 19:20:37 <luke-jr> but often, it ISN'T possible
534 2011-12-06 19:20:45 <gmaxwell> We should make it possible then.
535 2011-12-06 19:20:57 <jrmithdobbs> how is it not possible
536 2011-12-06 19:20:58 <BlueMatt> when isnt it?
537 2011-12-06 19:21:04 <jrmithdobbs> worked every time i tried
538 2011-12-06 19:21:07 <gmaxwell> It can be possible except for broadcast tipjar addresses.. and even thoughs could be replaced with payment URIs that hand out addresses.
539 2011-12-06 19:21:23 <helo> an android app that uses bitcoin for purchases could offer a bitcoin: URI to make payment, and offer a handler for a "signmessage:" URI that would be generated by the bitcoin app
540 2011-12-06 19:21:24 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: putting a running wallet on an ecommerce site is a terrible idea.
541 2011-12-06 19:21:34 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: good luck making billboards support unique addresses per person.
542 2011-12-06 19:21:41 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: it's like a big hack me sign. And small VPSes can't even run bitcoin.
543 2011-12-06 19:21:58 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: when did I say you had to put a running wallet on an ecommerce site?
544 2011-12-06 19:22:04 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: good luck getting anyone to type an address from a billboard. .. and if you're going to use a QRcode you can use a proper payment protocol uri.
545 2011-12-06 19:22:09 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: but putting pre-genned addresses is fine
546 2011-12-06 19:22:18 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: QR Codes
547 2011-12-06 19:22:21 <helo> using bitcoin at all is probably a big "hack me" sign, as nobody on the outside will be able to know if the addresses are pre-generated or not
548 2011-12-06 19:22:28 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: there are plenty of ways to make it work fine that don't involve signmessage and reusing addresses
549 2011-12-06 19:22:48 <helo> using the same address is a good sign that one definitely isn't running a wallet
550 2011-12-06 19:22:50 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: bitcoin-payment://my.payment.server:443/feed_the_kids/1.0btc
551 2011-12-06 19:23:05 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: and how do you stop MITM?
552 2011-12-06 19:23:09 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: trust your SSL CA?
553 2011-12-06 19:23:13 <BlueMatt> there is a disconnect here, I dont see how you are posting a public address and expecting to identify your users (as that is why signmessage exists)
554 2011-12-06 19:23:26 <BlueMatt> if you are identifying users, then custom addresses is doable
555 2011-12-06 19:23:32 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: bitcoin-payment://my.payment.server:443/fuckinghexfingerprintsignatures/feed_the_kids/1.0btc
556 2011-12-06 19:23:42 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: exactly
557 2011-12-06 19:23:42 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: &
558 2011-12-06 19:24:05 <gmaxwell> helo: thats not the point if you pregen and they hack you they don't steal any of your money.
559 2011-12-06 19:24:16 <gmaxwell> helo: if you run a wallet and they hack you, they get all the funds connected to keys in it.
560 2011-12-06 19:24:42 <gmaxwell> Pregen is the right thing to do, but then idiots will drain your pool and require manual intervention. kinda ugly.
561 2011-12-06 19:24:43 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: when did anyone recommend you put a running wallet on an ecommerce site?
562 2011-12-06 19:24:54 <helo> so you'll still be targeted, it just won't be fruitful beyond them being able to inject their addresses :)
563 2011-12-06 19:25:10 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: lots of people do it, haven't you noticed people coming in whining about running bitcoin on 256mb VPSes? :)
564 2011-12-06 19:25:13 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: there are cryptographic ways to generate on the fly w/o full privkey
565 2011-12-06 19:25:20 <jrmithdobbs> helo: it's enough to take it from an automated to targeted attack model
566 2011-12-06 19:25:25 <BlueMatt> (someone needs to get on implementing those...)
567 2011-12-06 19:25:53 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: gee, what kind of smart guy would think of that! oh yea, me https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=19137.0
568 2011-12-06 19:26:09 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: hey, I never said it wasnt you
569 2011-12-06 19:26:11 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: but we haven't implemented it for anyone yet... which is what I meant by "it should be made possible"
570 2011-12-06 19:26:16 <gmaxwell> :)
571 2011-12-06 19:26:22 <BlueMatt> ah, didnt see that line
572 2011-12-06 19:26:50 <gmaxwell> well I have a dumb implementation... but I don't know how best to handle integration.
573 2011-12-06 19:27:02 <BlueMatt> anyway, we agree and so far I dont see anyone agreeing that signmessage should be in uri
574 2011-12-06 19:27:21 <BlueMatt> TD I blame you for google suddenly thinking I live in france
575 2011-12-06 19:27:29 <jrmithdobbs> i think signmessage is fundamentally flawed period. trying to use a temporary id a proof of identity is stupid.
576 2011-12-06 19:27:30 <gmaxwell> yea, luke-jr did you get what I was saying about fuckinghexfingerprintsignatures ? does that close your attack?
577 2011-12-06 19:27:37 <jrmithdobbs> s/id a/id as/
578 2011-12-06 19:27:59 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: it's basically replacing Bitcoin address with a SSL key.
579 2011-12-06 19:28:15 <TD> BlueMatt: sorry dude :)
580 2011-12-06 19:28:17 <TD> send me a mail with the details
581 2011-12-06 19:28:35 <BlueMatt> TD: I blame you whenever google does something I dont like though...
582 2011-12-06 19:28:40 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: kinda, but it lets the two parties negoiate things privately. This means they can do things like use a one shot address that appears in the chain.
583 2011-12-06 19:28:41 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: so it now provides the same funtionality as signmessage, but requires a direct connection to the recipient.
584 2011-12-06 19:28:45 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: it decided my AP was in singapore for a while last year for some reason
585 2011-12-06 19:28:53 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: they can do that with URIs too
586 2011-12-06 19:29:00 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: i have photos of my dog on my porch with exif data that says it's in singapore, lol
587 2011-12-06 19:29:06 <BlueMatt> well I can see how they decided my vps which is owned by a french company (despite being in the us) is in france...
588 2011-12-06 19:29:08 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: not with a billboard.
589 2011-12-06 19:29:23 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: actually, yes, with a billboard :P
590 2011-12-06 19:29:36 <luke-jr> well
591 2011-12-06 19:29:41 <BlueMatt> I just find it odd they they would go back and reverse what had previously been right when every other ip->loc db Ive seen has it right...
592 2011-12-06 19:29:41 <luke-jr> to a degree :
593 2011-12-06 19:29:58 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: if you sign the SSL key with the address on the billboard& you can do everything else
594 2011-12-06 19:30:16 <luke-jr> or let that be the first step of negotiation
595 2011-12-06 19:30:38 <BlueMatt> TD: if you feel inspired forwarding 173.246.101.161 to some google ip->loc db department would be appreciated ;)
596 2011-12-06 19:30:44 <BlueMatt> but I was joking...
597 2011-12-06 19:30:57 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: you don't even need to tie it that tightly. When you connect you send a random value, the other side adds an extra random value, sends you the whole message and the signature.
598 2011-12-06 19:31:07 <gmaxwell> Then you don't need to worry about integrating with SSL.
599 2011-12-06 19:31:11 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: sure
600 2011-12-06 19:31:15 <luke-jr> well
601 2011-12-06 19:31:23 <luke-jr> you still need SSL for end-to-end crypto
602 2011-12-06 19:31:27 <luke-jr> otherwise you can be MITM'd
603 2011-12-06 19:32:11 <jrmithdobbs> so in order to make a payment securely on the internet you would need to use a protocol designed to make payments securely on the internet?
604 2011-12-06 19:32:13 <rjk2> lol, assuming you can trust SSL
605 2011-12-06 19:32:15 <jrmithdobbs> why i never
606 2011-12-06 19:32:22 <gmaxwell> hm. I guess you actually do need to bind the SSL.. otherwise someone can mitm the ssl but pass through the coin traffic. alas.
607 2011-12-06 19:32:34 <gmaxwell> rjk2: thats hat he's solving there.
608 2011-12-06 19:33:10 <rjk2> my preferred SSL solution for proving an identity is having the pubkey of the cert stored in the namecoin blockchain ;)
609 2011-12-06 19:33:15 <gmaxwell> I wonder if there is some function available from fastcgi to get a unique session ID from the ssl session that a mitm couldn't keep constant.
610 2011-12-06 19:33:38 <BlueMatt> TD: btw I never said congrats on shipping 0.3, so congrats
611 2011-12-06 19:33:42 <jrmithdobbs> it's in one of the SSL* vars
612 2011-12-06 19:33:47 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: you'd need to sign the SSL key fingerprint
613 2011-12-06 19:33:55 <gmaxwell> that works. okay.
614 2011-12-06 19:39:14 <TD> BlueMatt: thanks :)
615 2011-12-06 19:39:24 <BlueMatt> heh, remote host closed the connection to localhost
616 2011-12-06 19:39:54 <TD> BlueMatt: yeah the ipgeo team is in zurich
617 2011-12-06 19:40:22 <TD> BlueMatt: sorry could you mail me the ip/details to hearn@google.com
618 2011-12-06 19:40:38 <BlueMatt> TD: oh, ok well I was joking but thanks Ill mail it
619 2011-12-06 19:42:36 <justmoon> TD: Have a second to share some wisdom on NFC/smart cards?
620 2011-12-06 19:43:21 <justmoon> you wrote they are 95% proprietary, but I thought NFC was supposed to be a standard (which supports like the four of five most popular physical standards)
621 2011-12-06 19:43:39 <justmoon> four or* five
622 2011-12-06 19:45:41 <lianj> !seen theymos
623 2011-12-06 19:45:42 <gribble> theymos was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 1 day, 18 hours, 35 minutes, and 50 seconds ago: <theymos> I don't see you on IRC very often, ByteCoin.
624 2011-12-06 19:45:43 <spaola> theymos (~theymos@unaffiliated/theymos) was last seen quitting from #bitcoin-dev 1 day, 16 hours, 2 minutes ago stating (Remote host closed the connection).
625 2011-12-06 19:46:27 <lianj> !botfight
626 2011-12-06 19:46:28 <gribble> Error: "botfight" is not a valid command.
627 2011-12-06 19:46:45 <rjk2> !suicide
628 2011-12-06 19:46:46 <gribble> no, you!
629 2011-12-06 19:47:03 <BlueMatt> thats terrible
630 2011-12-06 19:47:21 <BlueMatt> why would gribble tell people to kill themselves?
631 2011-12-06 19:47:24 <rjk2> !cheer blueMatt
632 2011-12-06 19:48:28 <lianj> any clue why http://blockexplorer.com/tx/3a5769fb2126d870aded5fcaced3bc49fa9768436101895931adb5246e41e957 and http://blockexplorer.com/rawtx/3a5769fb2126d870aded5fcaced3bc49fa9768436101895931adb5246e41e957 show different prev_out hashes?
633 2011-12-06 19:49:13 <justmoon> lianj: are you sure they are different? or just different order...
634 2011-12-06 19:49:22 <BlueMatt> looks like order to me
635 2011-12-06 19:50:43 <BlueMatt> post it on the mailing list
636 2011-12-06 19:50:47 <luke-jr> yeah, I will
637 2011-12-06 19:50:48 <lianj> BlueMatt: justmoon: oh, youre right. its just ordered differently
638 2011-12-06 19:50:52 <lianj> thanks!
639 2011-12-06 19:51:11 <justmoon> I wonder which order is the correct one though
640 2011-12-06 19:51:26 <BlueMatt> my bets on raw, but who knows
641 2011-12-06 19:52:02 <lianj> my lib generates the same raw json format, and its ordered the same too
642 2011-12-06 19:52:17 <justmoon> looks like BlueMatt just won his bet
643 2011-12-06 19:52:33 <BlueMatt> yay, you all owe me a btc now
644 2011-12-06 19:53:05 <lianj> from testnet?
645 2011-12-06 19:53:15 <BlueMatt> heh
646 2011-12-06 19:59:38 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: does it use tonal?
647 2011-12-06 20:01:09 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: no
648 2011-12-06 20:01:36 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: while I was using tonal for versions to make it easier to work with, I am translating back to decimal for the spec
649 2011-12-06 20:02:00 <gmaxwell> See. I always say you're a pratical guy.
650 2011-12-06 20:15:30 <luke-jr> hmm
651 2011-12-06 20:15:35 <luke-jr> I hope we never need to export raw public keysw
652 2011-12-06 20:15:57 <luke-jr> Bitcoin raw public keys collide with testnet stuff under my spec <.<
653 2011-12-06 20:16:28 <luke-jr> maybe I should move that
654 2011-12-06 20:16:59 <luke-jr> but then again, if we ever want to add another first-class payment data type, we don't want THAT to collide either
655 2011-12-06 20:18:07 <luke-jr> actually, crap
656 2011-12-06 20:28:36 <luke-jr> there, revised it slightly
657 2011-12-06 20:53:48 <jeremias> would someone please generate a testnet block :P
658 2011-12-06 21:03:42 <gmaxwell> jeremias: I'll generate as many as you like at the current testnet diff for 0.01 btc/block. Minimum order six blocks.
659 2011-12-06 21:04:07 <gmaxwell> (it's kinda pricy, but I'd have to change a bunch of config to swing hashpower into it)
660 2011-12-06 21:04:29 <gmaxwell> perhaps I should setup a webpage so people can buy testnet mining from me. :)
661 2011-12-06 21:05:20 <jeremias> well, automating that kind of service could be easy
662 2011-12-06 21:05:28 <gmaxwell> yea...
663 2011-12-06 21:05:45 <jeremias> but i can order 6 blocks
664 2011-12-06 21:05:50 <jeremias> 0.06BTC :D
665 2011-12-06 21:05:51 <gmaxwell> It's something a big pps pool should do.
666 2011-12-06 21:05:56 <jeremias> i only need one though
667 2011-12-06 21:10:03 <jeremias> the actual need is that developers who develop bitcoin apps need to test confirmations from blocks
668 2011-12-06 21:10:09 <gmaxwell> jeremias: okay, I'm syncing up testnet.. I'll let you know when I'm ready. If it hasn't been mined by someone else by then, then I'll do so and we can bank your credit of blocks for more testing later. :)
669 2011-12-06 21:10:26 <jeremias> I'm not a miner myself, I just need those blocks now and then to see if confirmation works
670 2011-12-06 21:10:27 <gmaxwell> jeremias: some changes should be made to testnet in the net version to make things easier.
671 2011-12-06 21:10:55 <jeremias> so I would be willing to pay some little sum to someone to generate N testnet blocks
672 2011-12-06 21:12:28 <denisx> Iam generating
673 2011-12-06 21:12:58 <gmaxwell> it's cheap enough to generate testnet blocks that there really should just be a button for it.
674 2011-12-06 21:13:48 <jeremias> well, i don't know anything about mining... is it possible to mine testnet blocks with cpu only?
675 2011-12-06 21:13:53 <jeremias> in moderate time
676 2011-12-06 21:14:06 <gmaxwell> jeremias: sure, it'll just take .. er.. 16 core-hours or so?
677 2011-12-06 21:14:12 <jeremias> :D
678 2011-12-06 21:14:15 <jeremias> ok too much
679 2011-12-06 21:15:43 <_Fireball> night
680 2011-12-06 21:19:28 <denisx> found two blocks
681 2011-12-06 21:19:31 <denisx> happy?
682 2011-12-06 21:19:45 <gmaxwell> \0/
683 2011-12-06 21:21:43 <BlueMatt> best story Ive heard all day: http://gizmodo.com/5865349/how-to-legally-rob-a-bank
684 2011-12-06 21:24:58 <jeremias> denisx: don't see anything on blockexplorer...
685 2011-12-06 21:25:06 <jeremias> http://blockexplorer.com/testnet
686 2011-12-06 21:29:05 <denisx> strnge
687 2011-12-06 21:29:09 <denisx> strange
688 2011-12-06 21:34:47 <denisx> ok, wrong bitcoind, now it should work
689 2011-12-06 21:39:41 <denisx> there you go
690 2011-12-06 21:41:40 <gmaxwell> I see it too.
691 2011-12-06 21:41:45 <gmaxwell> (I'm finally synced up now)
692 2011-12-06 21:43:34 <jeremias> fuuu, my transaction wasn't confirmed :(
693 2011-12-06 21:43:40 <jeremias> but thanks
694 2011-12-06 21:45:58 <gmaxwell> I just generated another one... perhaps in that one?
695 2011-12-06 21:46:07 <gmaxwell> heh. it took me 1 seconds. :)
696 2011-12-06 21:46:55 <gmaxwell> alas, mine confirmed no txn.
697 2011-12-06 21:47:01 <jeremias> hmm
698 2011-12-06 21:47:20 <helo> testnet difficulty auto-adjusts in the same number of blocks as realnet?
699 2011-12-06 21:47:25 <gmaxwell> helo: yes.
700 2011-12-06 21:47:47 <gmaxwell> I need to figure out how to automate the switch and only switch when there are txn waiting in the memory pool.
701 2011-12-06 21:47:57 <helo> that's a good idea
702 2011-12-06 21:50:00 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: care to share your txn approval patch with me so I can use it to sell testnet mining?
703 2011-12-06 21:51:01 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: do I get a cut? <.<
704 2011-12-06 21:51:13 <gmaxwell> sure.
705 2011-12-06 21:51:29 <gmaxwell> Though  I expect it will be a cut of a very small amount. :)
706 2011-12-06 21:52:05 <luke-jr> :p
707 2011-12-06 21:53:00 <gmaxwell> something like this would be even better for a big pool to do.. I can only do it reasonable so long as the tn difficulty is low enough that a couple gh gets a block fast.
708 2011-12-06 21:53:53 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: not a bad idea, but sounds like a lot of work&
709 2011-12-06 21:54:03 <luke-jr> switching a big pool like that
710 2011-12-06 21:55:02 <gmaxwell> basically the same logic you'd use for loadbalancing a pool across multiple bitcoinds.. though you don't do that.
711 2011-12-06 21:55:49 <gmaxwell> it only makes sense for PPSish pools, since you can simply charge the testnet user more than your pps fees and your miners shouldn't give a crap since they're still getting paid the same.
712 2011-12-06 21:56:05 <luke-jr> right
713 2011-12-06 21:57:13 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr rpc_accept_txn * rf5caf12ea274 bitcoind-personal/src/ (main.cpp main.h rpc.cpp): JSON-RPC method: accepttxn <txid> -- accepts transaction without a fee http://tinyurl.com/7322df6
714 2011-12-06 21:57:17 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr rpc_accept_txn * r4a02b4ca8e9f bitcoind-personal/src/rpc.cpp: Support piggy-backing an accepttxn onto a getwork http://tinyurl.com/8x2bvo4
715 2011-12-06 21:57:20 <gmaxwell> :)
716 2011-12-06 21:58:06 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: ah, do you actually accept piggy-backed accepttxn today?
717 2011-12-06 21:58:24 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: no
718 2011-12-06 21:58:33 <luke-jr> I never finished the upgrade to 0.4
719 2011-12-06 21:58:47 <luke-jr> & actually, I might have backported that
720 2011-12-06 21:58:49 <luke-jr> I don't know
721 2011-12-06 21:58:50 <luke-jr> >_<
722 2011-12-06 22:02:01 <jeremias> hmm, i don't understand why my transaction doesn't propagate to the testnet network, I'm using the standard client (0.4.0)
723 2011-12-06 22:03:15 <gmaxwell> is there anything unusual about the transaction? (e.g. is your client modified?)
724 2011-12-06 22:03:23 <gmaxwell> is the input its spending confirmed?
725 2011-12-06 22:04:03 <jeremias> no, my client is not modified
726 2011-12-06 22:04:26 <jeremias> how can i see the inputs?
727 2011-12-06 22:06:11 <jeremias> it should be very regular transaction
728 2011-12-06 22:06:33 <jeremias> and broadcasted from a client with 19 connections
729 2011-12-06 22:08:58 <gmaxwell> jeremias: I actually don't know how to see the inputs without modifying the client. There is a way to do it via the GUI IIRC.
730 2011-12-06 22:09:53 <jeremias> well i'm on the command line...
731 2011-12-06 22:10:10 <gmaxwell> sure.
732 2011-12-06 22:10:37 <jeremias> maybe i'll just wait and test it tomorrow, been coding this shit the whole day :D
733 2011-12-06 22:10:50 <jeremias> thanks for the advice
734 2011-12-06 22:17:34 <luke-jr> w00t, I got a git hash collision <.<
735 2011-12-06 22:17:39 <luke-jr> shorthash*
736 2011-12-06 22:18:02 <gmaxwell> yea, duh. people use shorthashes which are far too short.. 32bits? please!
737 2011-12-06 22:18:19 <luke-jr> :P
738 2011-12-06 22:18:27 <luke-jr> 'git lol' shows me an extra digit on it
739 2011-12-06 22:20:33 <the_batman> !seen phantomcircuit
740 2011-12-06 22:20:34 <gribble> phantomcircuit was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 4 days, 15 hours, 20 minutes, and 2 seconds ago: <phantomcircuit> echo "single word"|sha256sum
741 2011-12-06 22:20:34 <spaola> the_batman, phantomcircuit is right here!
742 2011-12-06 22:20:44 <the_batman> eh
743 2011-12-06 22:20:46 <the_batman> ?
744 2011-12-06 22:21:37 <the_batman> spaola your grammar is bot-like
745 2011-12-06 22:23:01 <nanotube> the_batman: you appear to be talking to a bot. would you like help with that? </clippy>
746 2011-12-06 22:23:34 <the_batman> oh he is a bot! I see.
747 2011-12-06 22:23:52 <nanotube> heh
748 2011-12-06 22:24:39 <cjdelisle> !ping
749 2011-12-06 22:24:39 <gribble> pong
750 2011-12-06 22:25:01 <cjdelisle> heh spaola is quietbot
751 2011-12-06 22:25:45 <gribble> ping
752 2011-12-06 22:25:45 <nanotube> !pong
753 2011-12-06 23:47:30 <lianj> http://blockexplorer.com/tx/e411dbebd2f7d64dafeef9b14b5c59ec60c36779d43f850e5e347abee1e1a455 oO
754 2011-12-06 23:51:47 <phantomcircuit> lianj, old DoS attempt
755 2011-12-06 23:52:16 <BlueMatt> lianj: code was added a LONG time ago specifically to prevent that
756 2011-12-06 23:53:33 <lianj> ok, so my client shouldnt support it? :D but it somehow needs to for walking the chain
757 2011-12-06 23:54:59 <phantomcircuit> lianj, anything that's in the blockchain is ok
758 2011-12-06 23:55:09 <phantomcircuit> but your client wont foreward or attempt to put that into a block
759 2011-12-06 23:55:48 <lianj> ah ok
760 2011-12-06 23:57:30 <roconnor> phantomcircuit: would Eligius support such a transaction?
761 2011-12-06 23:57:39 <phantomcircuit> roconnor, only with a very large fee
762 2011-12-06 23:58:18 <[Tycho]> Are you sure about "very large" ?
763 2011-12-06 23:58:43 <roconnor> phantomcircuit: I understand that Eligius's fees are based solely on byte-size
764 2011-12-06 23:58:55 <phantomcircuit> roconnor, yeah i think so
765 2011-12-06 23:59:03 <phantomcircuit> [Tycho], all things being relative