1 2011-12-23 01:24:22 <genjix> jgarzik: in main.cpp, you should change auto_ptr to unique_ptr
  2 2011-12-23 01:24:40 <genjix> auto_ptr is deprecated. i know the miner is too, but it's a good change to make.
  3 2011-12-23 02:17:11 <finway> Is there any WPS implemented ?
  4 2011-12-23 02:17:26 <finway> WPS- wallet protection service.
  5 2011-12-23 02:19:18 <phantomcircuit> finway, what would such a service do?
  6 2011-12-23 02:19:44 <finway> Isn't this BIP011/012/013 all about ?
  7 2011-12-23 02:20:02 <luke-jr> &
  8 2011-12-23 02:22:36 <gmaxwell> finway: yes, they can't exist yet because the software for these things hasn't been deployed yet.
  9 2011-12-23 02:22:36 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, do you have any idea what he's talking about?
 10 2011-12-23 02:22:50 <gmaxwell> It'll be six+ months before they are viable.
 11 2011-12-23 02:23:31 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: I do it's the idea that you could have addresses which require a signature from you and a signature from a WPS (which calls you or whatever, before signing anything for you) in order to make your bitcoin wallet 100% malware proof.
 12 2011-12-23 02:23:44 <finway> oh, i think this will make bitcoin more secure for the dummies
 13 2011-12-23 02:24:12 <gmaxwell> WPS could take the form of services, or gizmos. In any case, we don't yet have all the required software out there.
 14 2011-12-23 02:25:06 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, oh so basically 2 signer transactions
 15 2011-12-23 02:25:21 <phantomcircuit> i seem to remember that being possible with existing but disabled code
 16 2011-12-23 02:25:31 <phantomcircuit> was it decided that OP_EVAL is just cleaner?
 17 2011-12-23 02:25:42 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: not quite.
 18 2011-12-23 02:25:58 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: the problem with the existing (and not disabled, in fact) is that it's the _senders_ choice.
 19 2011-12-23 02:26:17 <gmaxwell> So I'd have to talk everyone I want to send me funds through sending to my special protected account.
 20 2011-12-23 02:26:31 <gmaxwell> If they send to me directly the malware could get it before I bounce it to the special account.
 21 2011-12-23 02:27:04 <gmaxwell> OP_EVAL makes it possible for me to just give you an address, and you don't give a @#$@#$@ about what my protection/escrow/whatever situation is.. You just pay the address I gave you.
 22 2011-12-23 02:27:35 <finway> I've got the OP_EVAL making receiver to decide how to respend idea.
 23 2011-12-23 02:29:27 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, ah
 24 2011-12-23 02:29:29 <phantomcircuit> that's sensible
 25 2011-12-23 02:29:31 <phantomcircuit> wait
 26 2011-12-23 02:29:41 <phantomcircuit> i just said a community bitcoin decision was sensible
 27 2011-12-23 02:29:44 <gmaxwell> hah
 28 2011-12-23 02:30:00 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: a stopped clock is right twice a day.
 29 2011-12-23 02:30:05 <gmaxwell> :)
 30 2011-12-23 02:31:58 <finway> Can't wait to see services pop up when this BIP0011/12/13 was implemented.
 31 2011-12-23 02:33:20 <lfm> so the receiver can decide how to evealuate it? What if the receiver decides it should just goto the first personb to ask for it with a smile
 32 2011-12-23 02:34:04 <gmaxwell> lfm: then thats his call, he made up the address.
 33 2011-12-23 02:34:28 <gmaxwell> Just like you could post a private key on IRC/forums and later ask people to pay you at the matching address.
 34 2011-12-23 02:34:45 <lfm> so how does the wps enforce their role?
 35 2011-12-23 02:35:52 <gmaxwell> The reciever's chosen criteria has to be in-advance the hash of it is their address.
 36 2011-12-23 02:36:26 <gmaxwell> so they'd write into that criteria that releasing the funds requires signatures from both them and the wps.
 37 2011-12-23 02:38:08 <gmaxwell> there will need to be some yet unspecified interface so that your local wallet can contact the WPS and say 'hey, sign this for me'. Then the wps would look up the relevant details, make phone calls, whatever.
 38 2011-12-23 02:38:18 <gmaxwell> ask you for your moms maden name, etc.
 39 2011-12-23 02:39:20 <lfm> weak
 40 2011-12-23 02:40:06 <gmaxwell> Why is this weak?
 41 2011-12-23 02:40:16 <finway> How to deal with the keys lost ricks
 42 2011-12-23 02:40:48 <gmaxwell> I mean, whatever the WPS does is between you and the WPS. I personally wouldn't use a WPS... but I might use a personal-wps.. e.g. a dumb wps app on an old smartphone.
 43 2011-12-23 02:41:00 <lfm> just maiden name is weak cuz it is a mtter of public recods
 44 2011-12-23 02:41:10 <gmaxwell> yea, I was being silly because people are stupid. :)
 45 2011-12-23 02:41:14 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: hey, would there be any significant overhead to using OP_EVAL addresses even for simple transfers?
 46 2011-12-23 02:42:50 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: no, it's cheap. I ... think it ends up costing about ~1 byte more than doing it the other way.
 47 2011-12-23 02:43:40 <finway> BIP13 status is Draft, will not implemented in 0.6 ?
 48 2011-12-23 02:44:30 <luke-jr> ironically, BIP14 status is Accepted, and 0.6 will (at the current rate) violate it
 49 2011-12-23 02:44:57 <BlueMatt> funny luke
 50 2011-12-23 02:45:17 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I disagree on it being so funny.
 51 2011-12-23 02:51:06 <finway> luke-jr: "Implement BIP 14 (separate protocol from client version)"  I think garvin merged it ?
 52 2011-12-23 02:51:41 <luke-jr> finway: that one violates the spec
 53 2011-12-23 02:52:01 <luke-jr> finway: it sends "bitcoin-qt" for bitcoind
 54 2011-12-23 02:52:19 <BlueMatt> finway: luke interprets the spec differently from pretty much everyone and thus claims bitcoin violates the spec
 55 2011-12-23 02:52:46 <BlueMatt> (I dont think anyone agrees with him)
 56 2011-12-23 02:53:02 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: it's only obvious
 57 2011-12-23 02:53:17 <BlueMatt> ok
 58 2011-12-23 02:53:28 <luke-jr> when the sole purpose is for statistics, providing a value that ruins any statistical value is violation
 59 2011-12-23 02:53:40 <BlueMatt> ok
 60 2011-12-23 02:54:07 <BlueMatt> If the sole purpose is statistics, I would argue it should be reverted from accepted to rejected
 61 2011-12-23 02:54:34 <luke-jr> why?
 62 2011-12-23 02:54:50 <luke-jr> it was accepted
 63 2011-12-23 02:54:59 <BlueMatt> meh, so what?
 64 2011-12-23 02:55:24 <luke-jr> it was accepted with the specification that the user agent field was only useful for statistics
 65 2011-12-23 02:55:38 <luke-jr> "User agent: simple informational tool. Protocol should not be modified depending on user agent."
 66 2011-12-23 02:56:09 <BlueMatt> meh, if the spec sucks, why do we have to implement it?
 67 2011-12-23 02:56:15 <luke-jr> the spec doesn't suck
 68 2011-12-23 02:56:21 <luke-jr> the violation in bitcoind does.
 69 2011-12-23 02:56:22 <BlueMatt> yea it does
 70 2011-12-23 02:56:47 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: if you think so, you should have said why when it was being discussed and drafted, not after everyone agreed on it
 71 2011-12-23 02:57:03 <BlueMatt> meh, I didnt have time to read it when people were discussing it
 72 2011-12-23 02:57:55 <gmaxwell> as has been pointed out to you, almost no one agrees with your interpertation of the text.
 73 2011-12-23 02:58:10 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: there's no other reasonable interpretation
 74 2011-12-23 02:58:15 <gmaxwell> I sure as hell would have loudly rejected something that said you MUST give out details of your local configuration.
 75 2011-12-23 02:58:48 <gmaxwell> Nonsense, it never says you must output particular strings.
 76 2011-12-23 02:59:22 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I never said you MUST give out details
 77 2011-12-23 02:59:34 <luke-jr> I said that if details are given out, they MUST be correct, not leis
 78 2011-12-23 02:59:35 <luke-jr> lies*
 79 2011-12-23 02:59:42 <gmaxwell> there is no logical end to your interpertation, if you must tell if the user is using the GUI interface vs the rpc one must you also give their openssl version? (which would have a much greater influence on the network behavior of the software)
 80 2011-12-23 03:00:24 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: again, I never said any information was required.
 81 2011-12-23 03:00:29 <luke-jr> only that it shouldn't lie.
 82 2011-12-23 03:00:31 <gmaxwell> It's not a lie, it outputs what it outputs. No other software outputs that string.
 83 2011-12-23 03:00:39 <luke-jr> Bitcoin-Qt does.
 84 2011-12-23 03:00:47 <gmaxwell> We're talking about bitcoin-qt.
 85 2011-12-23 03:00:56 <gmaxwell> bitcoind is part of bitcoinqt. It's the same program.
 86 2011-12-23 03:01:09 <luke-jr> no, it isn't.
 87 2011-12-23 03:01:24 <gmaxwell> You are, I believe, the only person with that position.
 88 2011-12-23 03:01:34 <BlueMatt> ok, can we give up on this discussion
 89 2011-12-23 03:01:38 <BlueMatt> its really not worth having
 90 2011-12-23 03:01:52 <finway> BlueMatt: I got it.
 91 2011-12-23 03:02:08 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: bitcoind is the same program as Bitcoin-Qt in the same way that bitcoind is the same program as Spesmilo
 92 2011-12-23 03:02:48 <BlueMatt> can anyone confirm https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/722 in the release of 0.5.1?
 93 2011-12-23 03:03:11 <luke-jr> I recall seeing a commit recently fixing that.
 94 2011-12-23 03:03:33 <gmaxwell> The purpose of the BIP was to seperate the client and protocol version so that non-protocol impacting changes wouldn't bump the protocol and make compatiblity harder for varrious programs.
 95 2011-12-23 03:03:48 <gmaxwell> Thats how _I_ and lots of other people understood it.
 96 2011-12-23 03:04:31 <gmaxwell> And the way the BIP is written it sounds to me that the developers are free to write whatever they want in those fields including intentionally misleanding information if they like.
 97 2011-12-23 03:04:42 <gmaxwell> Though it makes some suggestions about how they should be used.
 98 2011-12-23 03:08:50 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: no, it goes into detail on the content of the User Agent field, specifically to prevent the need of misleading information
 99 2011-12-23 03:09:14 <luke-jr> eg, by forbidding its use for "tweaks", and requiring a specific format
100 2011-12-23 03:10:02 <gmaxwell> I'm not going to argue anymore, I'm going to simply propose changing it.
101 2011-12-23 03:10:13 <gmaxwell> Because I'm fairly confident that no one actually wants the behavior you're describing.
102 2011-12-23 03:10:25 <luke-jr> it's the only useful behaviour
103 2011-12-23 03:10:37 <gmaxwell> also, I'm concerned about your lying here.
104 2011-12-23 03:10:38 <luke-jr> if it's going to be blatently wrong, the field might as well not exist at all
105 2011-12-23 03:10:54 <gmaxwell> I mean really, your above comments are reprehensible considering the actual text.
106 2011-12-23 03:10:58 <luke-jr> no lies from me.
107 2011-12-23 03:10:59 <gmaxwell> For example, "The version numbers are not defined to any strict format"
108 2011-12-23 03:11:16 <gmaxwell> How is that at all consistent with what you've been saying here?
109 2011-12-23 03:11:16 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I never said they were.
110 2011-12-23 03:11:32 <gmaxwell> " and requiring a specific format"
111 2011-12-23 03:11:53 <luke-jr> /NAME:VERSION(COMMENTS)/[&/]
112 2011-12-23 03:11:55 <luke-jr> that format
113 2011-12-23 05:34:50 <genjix> wumpus: are you John?
114 2011-12-23 05:35:21 <genjix> john smith
115 2011-12-23 05:53:46 <lfm> ;;seen wumpus
116 2011-12-23 05:53:47 <gribble> wumpus was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 20 hours, 56 minutes, and 5 seconds ago: <wumpus> yeah, do send a pull :)
117 2011-12-23 05:56:33 <genjix> ;;later tell wumpus if you are john smith and made bitcoin-qt, then nice work. i was digging around it earlier and i think it is well written.
118 2011-12-23 05:56:33 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
119 2011-12-23 06:42:46 <wumpus> genjix: yes I've written that, thanks!
120 2011-12-23 06:43:11 <genjix> wumpus: no worries :)
121 2011-12-23 06:52:58 <wumpus> I've tried to keep it as modular as possible and loosely coupled from the satoshi core, especially in the beginning it wasn't quite sure it would become the official UI
122 2011-12-23 06:53:47 <wumpus> as far as you can speak of 'official' in a decentralized project of course
123 2011-12-23 06:56:28 <wumpus> hehe
124 2011-12-23 06:56:29 <genjix> wumpus: yep i noticed.
125 2011-12-23 06:57:51 <genjix> it reminds me of when i was travelling in russia. nobody spoke english and everything was chaos. then i crossed the border to estonia and suddenly everyone was speaking english, i had internet and unchaotic.
126 2011-12-23 06:58:30 <genjix> cd qt
127 2011-12-23 06:58:52 <cjdelisle> heh
128 2011-12-23 06:59:13 <genjix> blast of fresh air
129 2011-12-23 07:03:16 <wumpus> efforts are underway to organize the rest too, but it's a slow and careful process
130 2011-12-23 07:04:19 <wumpus> how's libbitcoin doing?
131 2011-12-23 07:04:50 <genjix> my checklist: https://bitcoinconsultancy.com/wiki/index.php?title=Libbitcoin
132 2011-12-23 07:05:06 <genjix> i have to make a memory pool for txs next
133 2011-12-23 07:09:00 <wumpus> so it seems that it is approaching bitcoinj functionality-wise now?  it can connect to the network, exchange messages and send transactions, but not mining and forwarding?
134 2011-12-23 07:09:59 <genjix> it verifies blocks for both bdb and postgres and you can forward txs if you wish
135 2011-12-23 07:10:04 <genjix> but txs arent validated yet
136 2011-12-23 07:14:20 <wumpus> okay, yes that's a really hairy part
137 2011-12-23 07:15:20 <Diablo-D3> "Great news, Guys! The stock market crisis is over, I just saw a rabbit masturbating to The Economist!"
138 2011-12-23 07:20:40 <BlueMatt> why do we let Diablo-D3 talk?
139 2011-12-23 07:21:14 <wumpus> genjix: when do you expect the API to stablize enough to be able to use it in projects?
140 2011-12-23 07:21:28 <wumpus> btw, why does that wiki page link to https://github.com/neerajdotname/admin_data/ ?
141 2011-12-23 07:21:57 <SomeoneWeird> lmao BlueMatt
142 2011-12-23 07:22:36 <wumpus> BlueMatt: he's the channel-clown
143 2011-12-23 07:23:26 <genjix> wumpus: 3 months
144 2011-12-23 07:24:19 <genjix> and probably first i'll work on supporting the electrum server with it.
145 2011-12-23 07:25:01 <BlueMatt> wumpus: heh, true...
146 2011-12-23 07:25:20 <genjix> wumpus: oh that link is because it's a web viewer for sql, and i have an sql plugin
147 2011-12-23 07:25:35 <genjix> web sql viewer + sql blockchain = instant block explorer
148 2011-12-23 07:26:09 <wumpus> genjix: right, it's good to have a concrete application in mind to test api ideas against
149 2011-12-23 07:26:45 <wumpus> hehe, I somehow expected a link to the libbitcoin repository itself, so was surprised
150 2011-12-23 07:26:57 <Diablo-D3> blueMatt: what, not a fan of fredo and pidjin?
151 2011-12-23 07:28:40 <BlueMatt> Diablo-D3: ...
152 2011-12-23 07:31:17 <Diablo-D3> what?
153 2011-12-23 07:31:49 <BlueMatt> cant say I usually read it
154 2011-12-23 07:41:35 <Diablo-D3> its one of the rare funny comics
155 2011-12-23 07:42:27 <genjix> what are the bitcoin community hang-outs apart from irc, facebook page, reddit, twitter and the forums?
156 2011-12-23 07:42:40 <Diablo-D3> genjix: you forgot "the internet"
157 2011-12-23 07:43:00 <BlueMatt> why on earth would you want to hang out with the bitcoin community?
158 2011-12-23 07:43:21 <Diablo-D3> beats me, I'd rather hang out with people who actually have money
159 2011-12-23 07:43:24 <Diablo-D3> dohohohohohohoho
160 2011-12-23 07:43:40 <BlueMatt> and sane people...
161 2011-12-23 07:44:07 <Diablo-D3> sane is boring
162 2011-12-23 07:44:16 <BlueMatt> heh, that is true...
163 2011-12-23 07:53:38 <BitMark> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/722
164 2011-12-23 07:53:47 <wumpus> sanity is overrated
165 2011-12-23 07:58:24 <BlueMatt> did anyone confirm that on the released binaries yet?
166 2011-12-23 07:58:42 <BlueMatt> ppa or gitian?
167 2011-12-23 08:02:30 <genjix> oh i forgot that developers should not intermingle with the plebs
168 2011-12-23 08:03:16 <BlueMatt> heh, more like if the forums were a reasonable place to get work done, we would still use them as such
169 2011-12-23 08:03:27 <BlueMatt> but, alas, they arent
170 2011-12-23 08:03:34 <genjix> that is true. they are full of nubs
171 2011-12-23 08:03:36 <wumpus> I used to frequent the forums,  but got sick of the bullies and trolls
172 2011-12-23 08:04:02 <genjix> Topic: Bitcoin *needs* to change
173 2011-12-23 08:04:09 <wumpus> hehe
174 2011-12-23 08:04:17 <BlueMatt> nubs arent a problem, no one has problems with nubs, but trolls and bullshit is all over the place on those forums
175 2011-12-23 08:04:19 <genjix> "guys i just discovered bitcoin yesterday. the block time is far too high. it should be 10 seconds"
176 2011-12-23 08:05:11 <wumpus> yeah all the same discussions over and over
177 2011-12-23 08:05:21 <genjix> yeah that gets to me a bit too
178 2011-12-23 08:05:25 <BlueMatt> we have the same discussions over and over on here too...
179 2011-12-23 08:05:46 <genjix> like a broken record singing the same tunes
180 2011-12-23 08:05:49 <wumpus> well it helps it's mostly the same people, so there is some kind of memory
181 2011-12-23 08:06:11 <BlueMatt> heh, true
182 2011-12-23 08:06:15 <wumpus> genjix: exactly
183 2011-12-23 08:09:10 <BlueMatt> did gavin build with the wrong gitian descriptors?
184 2011-12-23 08:10:47 <wumpus> I don't know
185 2011-12-23 08:11:49 <BlueMatt> I dont see how the release got that unless gavin used an out-of-date descriptor...
186 2011-12-23 08:12:04 <BlueMatt> but then, I got the same results IIRC...
187 2011-12-23 08:12:45 <wumpus> but you'd expect so, as it was somehow compiled without USE_SSL
188 2011-12-23 08:18:06 <wumpus> we all built and signed the windows release but not the linux one
189 2011-12-23 08:18:24 <BlueMatt> I think you are the only one who missed the linux one...
190 2011-12-23 08:18:36 <BlueMatt> (I think only me you and gavin built any of them)
191 2011-12-23 08:20:08 <wumpus> ok.. so if two people built it they both used the wrong gitian descriptor, or something else is wrong
192 2011-12-23 08:20:41 <BlueMatt> no, the hash on the gitian descriptors that were signed were the current ones...
193 2011-12-23 08:22:56 <wumpus> anyway, I've reproduced it too, but the gitian descriptors define USE_SSL everywhere, so I'm spooked
194 2011-12-23 08:23:45 <BlueMatt> same, Im running it to check the logs, but seriously wtf?
195 2011-12-23 08:28:35 <sipa> genjix: re communities: stackexchange
196 2011-12-23 08:29:29 <genjix> ah yes, thanks.
197 2011-12-23 08:30:30 <wumpus> ah yes the stack exchange is pretty nice
198 2011-12-23 08:33:15 <genjix> they're camping the stack exchange
199 2011-12-23 08:33:22 <BlueMatt> damn campers
200 2011-12-23 08:35:05 <SomeoneWeird> lol
201 2011-12-23 09:27:35 <BlueMatt> wumpus: BitMark https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/723
202 2011-12-23 09:50:32 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Wladimir J. van der Laan master * r96b1e08 / (13 files in 7 dirs): Merge pull request #629 from sje397/master ... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/96b1e085c345f9d89288e1c7dfb37fcdbc09c083
203 2011-12-23 10:21:05 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Wladimir J. van der Laan master * rc75abc9 / (3 files): Comments update - http://git.io/duL7FA https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/c75abc9f7e84dd16c9f748802fd82ab2c49ec558
204 2011-12-23 10:21:06 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Wladimir J. van der Laan master * re073457 / (5 files): Move HtmlEscape (escape for qt rich text controls) to qt gui utilities - http://git.io/QpTt7A https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/e0734571912736356839fde75fd10993b0df81d5
205 2011-12-23 10:21:07 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Wladimir J. van der Laan master * r3a6ede1 / (11 files): Merge pull request #683 from laanwj/ui_copy_amount ... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/3a6ede13f8ee2dd5084af87f2ef34adb1451bca6
206 2011-12-23 10:25:38 <FellowTraveler> hi all.
207 2011-12-23 10:31:12 <wumpus> hey
208 2011-12-23 10:36:24 <FellowTraveler> FYI for anyone who's planning to use OT, there is a channel  #opentransactions and you can get support there
209 2011-12-23 10:51:10 <MC1984> stop pimping your fucking pretty yellow metal website
210 2011-12-23 10:52:20 <FellowTraveler> No one can hear you, they're all on my channel now.
211 2011-12-23 10:53:34 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Wladimir J. van der Laan master * r5ad2ca0 / contrib/gitian-descriptors/gitian.yml : Merge pull request #723 from TheBlueMatt/gitianfix ... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/5ad2ca011eaee4f07c71458bb475224608132b25
212 2011-12-23 13:30:06 <CIA-100> bitcoin: mtve broken * r0ead1dcc01fb bitcoin-pl/ (ecdsa.pm test/ecdsa): compressed ec point for http://blockexplorer.com/t/6doQ7eyoAc http://tinyurl.com/7j8tf9h
213 2011-12-23 14:10:17 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr 0.5.x * r961cf14ab3e0 bitcoind-stable/ (3 files in 2 dirs): Merge branch '0.5.0.x' into 0.5.x http://tinyurl.com/6q6x5vu
214 2011-12-23 14:20:09 <CIA-100> bitcoin: various signmessage_gui * r65f7a8..bde280 bitcoind-personal/ (79 files in 8 dirs): (12 commits) http://tinyurl.com/3py2g44
215 2011-12-23 14:29:58 <luke-jr> wumpus: ^ rebased
216 2011-12-23 14:45:22 <BitMark> BlueMatt: thanks
217 2011-12-23 15:39:01 <blacken> Does anyone have any ideas on hosting BTC-related services in a way that would be safe from takedown or seizure by authorities?
218 2011-12-23 15:39:53 <rjk2> blacken: no one here is going to help you evade the law
219 2011-12-23 15:39:56 <rjk2> you are on your own
220 2011-12-23 15:40:06 <blacken> (This question is about availability of the service and protecting trust, not about offering anything that would be considered shady.)
221 2011-12-23 15:40:35 <blacken> rjk2, not asking for help in evading the law (see above)
222 2011-12-23 15:40:59 <EvanR> blacken: actually ill help you evade the law
223 2011-12-23 15:41:09 <rjk2> well then, why would the authorities be interested in you then?
224 2011-12-23 15:41:11 <EvanR> since the law sucks
225 2011-12-23 15:41:16 <blacken> EvanR "ill"?
226 2011-12-23 15:41:25 <EvanR> lol
227 2011-12-23 15:41:27 <blacken> EvanR, haha, I get it, thanks
228 2011-12-23 15:41:46 <blacken> rjk2, one word "bitcoin"
229 2011-12-23 15:42:00 <rjk2> bitcoin is not anonymous, and not illegal
230 2011-12-23 15:42:23 <gjs278> I love lawbreaking
231 2011-12-23 15:42:23 <SomeoneWeird> ^^
232 2011-12-23 15:42:31 <blacken> rjk2, I know it's not anonymous, as far as whether it's illegal, you are not law enforcement or a judge (though I wish you were)
233 2011-12-23 15:42:42 <gjs278> bitcoin is anonymous enough
234 2011-12-23 15:42:43 <blacken> so anyone?
235 2011-12-23 15:42:49 <rjk2> gjs278: nope it isnt
236 2011-12-23 15:42:51 <gjs278> yes it is
237 2011-12-23 15:42:54 <EvanR> why would the existence of bitcoin be illegal
238 2011-12-23 15:42:57 <rjk2> not on its own
239 2011-12-23 15:43:30 <blacken> (but offering BTC related services ~might~ be in ~some~ jurisdictions...)
240 2011-12-23 15:43:38 <blacken> So now that we have that settled... cough cough
241 2011-12-23 15:43:50 <blacken> I'd be grateful for someone's thoughts...
242 2011-12-23 15:44:02 <rjk2> blacken: there are any number of offshore hosting services that are shady, but you will need to do your own digging around and research
243 2011-12-23 15:44:04 <SomeoneWeird> you need to give more info if you want informed help, just saying
244 2011-12-23 15:44:14 <gjs278> what illegal things do you want to do
245 2011-12-23 15:44:17 <gjs278> gambling
246 2011-12-23 15:44:23 <gjs278> phishing
247 2011-12-23 15:44:26 <blacken> no gambling
248 2011-12-23 15:44:30 <blacken> just transactions
249 2011-12-23 15:44:45 <blacken> really nothing most of us would find illegal
250 2011-12-23 15:44:57 <gavinandresen> blacken: Locate yourself in a jurisdiction that is likely to be bitcoin-friendly.  Or do the really hard work of keeping yourself anonymous.  But if you're anonymous you'll have trouble establishing trust/reputation.....
251 2011-12-23 15:45:29 <blacken> gavinandresen, thanks for the serious answer (nice to be taken seriously)  that's exactly my question in most of its dimensions
252 2011-12-23 15:46:09 <blacken> which jurisdictions are considered BTC friendly?
253 2011-12-23 15:46:17 <gavinandresen> There's no easy answer.  Although if you can arrange your service so it doesn't require trust (never holds users' bitcoins, for example) then it will be much easier
254 2011-12-23 15:46:39 <blacken> What's the best way of keeping anonymous (to evade problems and maintain availability of the service)?
255 2011-12-23 15:46:59 <gjs278> not tell anyone who you are
256 2011-12-23 15:47:03 <gavinandresen> blacken:  really hard to say-- my best guess is jurisdictions with good banking privacy laws/reputations are likely to be more bitcoin-friendly, but I'm not an expert.
257 2011-12-23 15:47:36 <blacken> anyone know how to go about finding this info?
258 2011-12-23 15:48:02 <gavinandresen> Tor and I2P are all about being anonymous.
259 2011-12-23 15:48:14 <blacken> yes, I've thought about that too
260 2011-12-23 15:48:14 <luke-jr> blacken: I'm unaware of any reason Bitcoins would be illegal in the US.
261 2011-12-23 15:48:16 <blacken> good ideas
262 2011-12-23 15:48:49 <gavinandresen> And see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Anonymity   for the bitcoin-related issues
263 2011-12-23 15:48:53 <blacken> luke-jr, I know, I know, but you and I are not in law enforcement or a judge of a high court (though I wish you were)
264 2011-12-23 15:49:12 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: (different topic) so, in short, that forceresend patch doesn't work? :|
265 2011-12-23 15:49:26 <blacken> also, taking this a step further
266 2011-12-23 15:49:36 <luke-jr> blacken: perhaps, but there's no defense against uber-paranoia
267 2011-12-23 15:49:45 <blacken> say we're established safely and anonymously
268 2011-12-23 15:50:12 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: I bet it doesn't-- I was starting to tweak it myself then decided I was spending too much time fixing it
269 2011-12-23 15:50:21 <blacken> who in the BTC community would be willing to act as "trust broker" for a good cause?
270 2011-12-23 15:50:24 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: that's a shame
271 2011-12-23 15:50:36 <mcorlett> blacken: See #bitcoin-escrow
272 2011-12-23 15:50:36 <SomeoneWeird> not alot blacken
273 2011-12-23 15:50:45 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: feel free to fix/test, shouldn't be more than an hour or so of work....
274 2011-12-23 15:51:01 <blacken> SomeoneWeird, "not alot" what?
275 2011-12-23 15:51:01 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I don't really understand the resend logic, unfortunately :<
276 2011-12-23 15:51:09 <gavinandresen> (hard part is testing, creating transactions that don't confirm immediately....)
277 2011-12-23 15:51:13 <SomeoneWeird> of people, blacken
278 2011-12-23 15:51:25 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: and I have enough branches ready for merging, that I'd prefer to see in before I spend any more time
279 2011-12-23 15:51:34 <blacken> SomeoneWeird, no idea how many, but I'll start with one good person
280 2011-12-23 15:51:40 <blacken> any ideas where too start?
281 2011-12-23 15:51:47 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: well, with force_send, that's easy
282 2011-12-23 16:10:17 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr blknotify * rda5f0902e815 bitcoind-personal/src/ (init.cpp main.cpp): Execute a command when best block changes (-blocknotify=<cmd>) http://tinyurl.com/82kawxx
283 2011-12-23 16:45:04 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr maintree * r464ad795f844 gentoo/net-p2p/ (8 files in 3 dirs): Clean out some older versions http://tinyurl.com/c2pst35
284 2011-12-23 16:55:12 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr maintree * re04f84fa0a41 gentoo/net-p2p/ (9 files in 4 dirs): Update files dirs http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/gentoo_ebuild.git/commitdiff/e04f84fa0a41f1f4d5cafc0d9da7aa0daf101349
285 2011-12-23 17:45:04 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr maintree * r6e423700a335 gentoo/net-p2p/bitcoind/ (Manifest bitcoind-0.5.1.ebuild): Merge branch 'master' into maintree http://tinyurl.com/6samqok
286 2011-12-23 18:17:42 <gavinandresen> Anybody have time for a quick code review?  https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/726
287 2011-12-23 18:26:15 <nanotube> gavinandresen: wait, am i understanding correctly, that some settings (such as proxy) are stored /in the wallet.dat/ ?
288 2011-12-23 18:27:46 <nanotube> if so... that seems weird, isn't that what the .conf is for?
289 2011-12-23 18:33:43 <sipa> nanotube: all settings that are configurable from within the application are stored in wallet.dat
290 2011-12-23 18:34:31 <rjk2> 0o
291 2011-12-23 18:34:43 <gavinandresen> moving them to bitcoin.conf is probably a good idea, although people might be surprised if their bitcoin.conf changed if they poked a button in the GUI....
292 2011-12-23 18:35:20 <gavinandresen> .... and rewriting a file that the user might have carefully hand-crafted makes me nervous....
293 2011-12-23 18:35:40 <gavinandresen> Anyway, that's a bigger change than I'm going to tackle today.
294 2011-12-23 18:36:47 <rjk2> what i would do is move them to another file that does not yet exist, and allow the bitcoin.conf to contain settings that override those stored in the alternate file
295 2011-12-23 18:37:44 <nanotube> well, just because people would be surprised, doesn't mean they should be
296 2011-12-23 18:37:59 <nanotube> if you look at most programs with .conf files
297 2011-12-23 18:38:12 <nanotube> they are modifiable both by hand and by gui if such exists
298 2011-12-23 18:38:31 <rjk2> yea
299 2011-12-23 18:39:04 <nanotube> if you carefully hand craft the conf, then go around changing settings via gui, in what world would you expect the gui changes not to be reflected in your conf file? :P
300 2011-12-23 18:39:32 <nanotube> yes, not saying it's necessarily the thing to do right now, to change this, but certainly it seems that the separation of client config from wallet would be a desirable goal
301 2011-12-23 19:06:38 <gavinandresen> nanotube:  could you update the list of hardcoded seed nodes again sometime in the next couple of weeks?
302 2011-12-23 19:07:45 <CaptainDDL> Does anyone know how to take a PGP key-id and get a certificate - or encrypt a message with the key-id? or is that a one way hash? :x
303 2011-12-23 19:08:38 <cjdelisle> yea the id is just a hash
304 2011-12-23 19:08:49 <cjdelisle> but you can ask a keyserver for the key with that id
305 2011-12-23 19:09:28 <makomk> Errm... is it just me or does the "Skip ECDSA signature verification when connecting blocks (fBlock=true) during initial download (before the last blockchain checkpoint)." not actually do what it says it does?
306 2011-12-23 19:10:04 <gavinandresen> Just you.  I hope.
307 2011-12-23 19:10:14 <makomk> It actually appears to skip signature verification during the initial block download whether or not it's before the last blockchain checkpoint.
308 2011-12-23 19:10:33 <nanotube> gavinandresen: sure can do.
309 2011-12-23 19:12:20 <makomk> The actual criteria seems to be that it must be before the last checkpoint *or* it must have a timestamp more than 24 hours in the past and the previous block must have been received more than 10 seconds ago.
310 2011-12-23 19:12:33 <makomk> Less than 10 seconds ago, even.
311 2011-12-23 19:13:02 <gavinandresen> makomk: yup, you're right.  Comment should be fixed.
312 2011-12-23 19:21:11 <makomk> gavinandresen: hmmmm. Could a 51% attacker exploit this to spend someone else's coins? Say by setting the timestamps on all their attack blocks to the time at the start of the attack and running it for over 24 hours before releasing them?
313 2011-12-23 19:25:05 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr maintree * rb47d8a07f4c1 gentoo/net-p2p/ (18 files in 4 dirs): Remove unmaintained versions http://tinyurl.com/c86neub
314 2011-12-23 19:25:07 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Anthony G. Basile maintree * rcf1599fd6c03 gentoo/net-p2p/ (9 files in 2 dirs): Import to Gentoo portage tree http://tinyurl.com/cfg6u6j
315 2011-12-23 19:40:14 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * rf4d657ee7f1f cgminer/adl.c: Only adjust gpu engine speed in autotune mode if the gpu is currently at the performance level of that being adjusted. http://tinyurl.com/83fmpo7
316 2011-12-23 20:01:30 <gavinandresen> makomk: (was afk)   I don't see how that could work.... are you imagining an attacker that has also managed to isolate a node so it is ONLY getting the attacker's version of the block chain?
317 2011-12-23 20:10:13 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r400cb21d8baa cgminer/adl.c: Off by one error in performance level. http://tinyurl.com/cgd89ht
318 2011-12-23 20:34:38 <devrandom> gavinandresen: I was not able to reproduce non-determinism in qt-win32 gitian build
319 2011-12-23 20:36:45 <gavinandresen> devrandom: did you try two builds more than 24 hours apart?
320 2011-12-23 20:39:24 <makomk> gavinandresen: that'd be the other way, but I'm imagining them building up a 51+% attack with fiddled timestamps over the course of 24+ hours, convincing nodes to move to their longer chain, then sending *another* block less than 10 seconds later that spent coins they didn't own.
321 2011-12-23 20:40:43 <gavinandresen> ... but that won't work because you can't manipulate timestamps that much
322 2011-12-23 20:41:09 <gavinandresen> You need a top-of-chain with a timestamp more than 24 hours old.
323 2011-12-23 20:41:18 <makomk> Why?
324 2011-12-23 20:41:46 <gavinandresen> Why do you need a top-of-chain with a timestamp more than 24 hours old?  Because  pindexBest->GetBlockTime() < GetTime() - 24 * 60 * 60
325 2011-12-23 20:42:13 <makomk> You can't go *backwards* in time compared to previous blocks in that version of the chain, but you don't have to.
326 2011-12-23 20:42:46 <makomk> Just freeze the timestamps at the start of the attack. Makes it quite expensive.
327 2011-12-23 20:48:12 <makomk> So if I had enough power I could start building my version of the block chain in secret now, set the timestamp on each block to 1 more than its parent, then at whatever point 24+ hours later I got ahead by enough blocks I could build one final block spending Mt Gox's reserves, release the previous blocks in my attack, and because they're all old it should trigger that code and make nodes then accept the final one.
328 2011-12-23 20:50:36 <gavinandresen> makomk: I think you're right, I think that would work.
329 2011-12-23 20:51:19 <gavinandresen> makomk: IsInitialBlockDownload should be more conservative...
330 2011-12-23 20:52:17 <gavinandresen> makomk: ... although worrying about 51% attacks isn't high on my priority list
331 2011-12-23 20:52:28 <gavinandresen> (since we know we're vulnerable anyway)
332 2011-12-23 20:54:36 <makomk> True, I guess.
333 2011-12-23 20:54:55 <gavinandresen> makomk: "discouraging" blocks announced-out-of-the-blue that have out-of-bounds block times is, I think, a good idea.
334 2011-12-23 20:55:16 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * re75c8ec8de20 cgminer/main.c: Fix for non-adl configuration files. http://tinyurl.com/85f53em
335 2011-12-23 20:56:53 <makomk> gavinandresen: Probably. Don't think it'd protect against this attack though. (On the other hand, the SolidCoin devs would quite like a non-hacky way of doing that ;-) )
336 2011-12-23 20:57:13 <gavinandresen> well that's a good reason not to do it, then....
337 2011-12-23 20:58:07 <makomk> Heh.
338 2011-12-23 20:58:24 <Rabbit67890> LOL ShitCoin
339 2011-12-23 20:59:00 <Rabbit67890> He solves attackers with DDOS. His idiotic ways of doing things is that bad.
340 2011-12-23 21:14:24 <devrandom> gavinandresen: yes, three days apart
341 2011-12-23 21:16:55 <gavinandresen> devrandom: if I recall correctly, the problem was building the ... qt? ... input
342 2011-12-23 21:21:04 <devrandom> gavinandresen: yes, I'm building the qt-win32-4.7.4-gitian.zip input
343 2011-12-23 21:23:43 <gavinandresen> devrandom: I'm about to quit for today, or I'd see what I get-- did you fix something, or can you just not reproduce the problem at all?
344 2011-12-23 21:28:01 <devrandom> gavinandresen: I can't reproduce, no changes made
345 2011-12-23 21:35:12 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r78c89dc7ba34 cgminer/main.c: Move longpoll with changes to current active pool, selecting most suitable ... http://tinyurl.com/ctdud6y
346 2011-12-23 21:45:10 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r9d36ee9b4003 cgminer/main.c: Do not add blank lines when there are less cpu threads enabled than processors. http://tinyurl.com/d74hrt7
347 2011-12-23 22:38:59 <BlueMatt> wumpus: wait, whats the point of the qrencode stuff if it only shows stuff in your address book (ie addresses which arent yours)?
348 2011-12-23 22:39:49 <BlueMatt> ;;seen wumpus
349 2011-12-23 22:39:50 <gribble> wumpus was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 12 hours, 8 minutes, and 36 seconds ago: <wumpus> hey
350 2011-12-23 22:44:29 <BlueMatt> nvm
351 2011-12-23 22:50:10 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Kano * rd80e0ef4cef1 cgminer/main.c: Cleanup API thread if it exits early http://tinyurl.com/7z3frke
352 2011-12-23 22:50:11 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r19d5a1976100 cgminer/main.c: Merge pull request #62 from kanoi/master http://tinyurl.com/7a5p37f