1 2012-01-12 00:00:23 <kam1l> yes
  2 2012-01-12 00:00:30 <kam1l> but pushpool isn't connecting to it
  3 2012-01-12 00:00:43 <kam1l> theres about 60 ports in the server.json file for pushpool
  4 2012-01-12 00:00:47 <gmaxwell> did you set the port to the rpcport in the pushpool config.
  5 2012-01-12 00:00:49 <kam1l> and none of them have very descriptive //s
  6 2012-01-12 00:01:13 <gmaxwell> er, most of the stuff there is database related IIRC
  7 2012-01-12 00:01:21 <kam1l> yeah I figured
  8 2012-01-12 00:01:56 <gmaxwell> There is a walkthrough here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=10321.0
  9 2012-01-12 00:02:19 <kam1l> oh I know
 10 2012-01-12 00:02:26 <kam1l> its perfectly written
 11 2012-01-12 00:02:30 <kam1l> till the last 10 lines or so
 12 2012-01-12 00:02:54 <gmaxwell> You're running pushpool and bitcoind on the same system right?
 13 2012-01-12 00:03:00 <kam1l> yeah
 14 2012-01-12 00:03:07 <gmaxwell> (bitcoind will only accept localhost connections by default)
 15 2012-01-12 00:03:25 <kam1l> yeah
 16 2012-01-12 00:03:27 <kam1l> I know :P
 17 2012-01-12 00:06:11 <kam1l> I think the best way to fix the problem is the "dicking around" solution
 18 2012-01-12 00:15:31 <amiller> roconnor_, this is the basis of how i think your haskell code would be modeled in coq https://gist.github.com/77e1c6cedf946583c9be
 19 2012-01-12 00:18:01 <kam1l> ugh
 20 2012-01-12 00:18:06 <kam1l> I shouldn't be getting any upstream errors
 21 2012-01-12 00:18:13 <kam1l> I'm using default ports for both bitcoind and pushpoold
 22 2012-01-12 00:19:29 <kam1l> HTTP request failed: couldn't connect to host
 23 2012-01-12 00:25:49 <amiller> roconnor_, basically the idea is to make a monad type that encapsulates the bitcoin 'state', meaning it has an error condition, and it has two-stacks that get passed around, and it has a return value you can use to make sense of it
 24 2012-01-12 00:29:41 <amiller> then the OP_CODES are expressed as monadic functions with the do x <- y; notation
 25 2012-01-12 00:30:12 <amiller> and there are a few modules in the user contrib with useful monad tools and lemmas, which i think would help
 26 2012-01-12 00:55:58 <kam1l> ok finally got it working
 27 2012-01-12 00:57:33 <roconnor_> amiller: nice work
 28 2012-01-12 00:58:23 <amiller> thx roconnor_ , here are two monad modules i mentioned : 1. http://coq.inria.fr/pylons/contribs/files/lc/trunk/lc.Monad.html  2. http://coq.inria.fr/pylons/contribs/files/QuicksortComplexity/trunk/monads.html
 29 2012-01-12 00:58:39 <roconnor_> Definition M (A:Set) := BtcState -> option (BtcState * A). I think
 30 2012-01-12 00:58:50 <roconnor_> would be the normal definition
 31 2012-01-12 01:00:31 <kam1l> what changes to the bitcoin.conf file makes the client suitable for mining? there seems to be alot of lag time involved with it
 32 2012-01-12 01:00:45 <kam1l> is noirc=1 a prudent choice?
 33 2012-01-12 01:01:08 <sipa> kam1l: don't mine with the client
 34 2012-01-12 01:01:26 <kam1l> I mine iwth a pool sipa
 35 2012-01-12 01:01:31 <kam1l> my own pool
 36 2012-01-12 01:01:34 <kam1l> I'm testing it
 37 2012-01-12 01:01:47 <kam1l> it seems slow network side
 38 2012-01-12 01:02:03 <doublec> kam1l: the json rpc server in the client is single threaded and block iirc
 39 2012-01-12 01:02:10 <doublec> kam1l: which can cause issues under high load
 40 2012-01-12 01:02:51 <doublec> kam1l: there's a bunch of third party patches that are often used to address this and other things to improve pools
 41 2012-01-12 01:04:01 <kam1l> and now I get to go google hunting eh? :P
 42 2012-01-12 01:04:19 <doublec> kam1l: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=22585.msg384157#msg384157
 43 2012-01-12 01:04:26 <gmaxwell> kam1l: or switch to aggregation software that does its own internal work generation.
 44 2012-01-12 01:04:32 <doublec> right
 45 2012-01-12 01:04:36 <gmaxwell> (e.g. not pushpool)
 46 2012-01-12 01:04:51 <doublec> I think kam1l is writing their own pool?
 47 2012-01-12 01:04:57 <kam1l> nope
 48 2012-01-12 01:04:59 <kam1l> its pushpool :P
 49 2012-01-12 01:05:00 <gmaxwell> kam1l apparently has some farm of hundreds of slow fpgas.
 50 2012-01-12 01:05:03 <doublec> ah ok
 51 2012-01-12 01:05:09 <kam1l> that don't function properly
 52 2012-01-12 01:05:11 <kam1l> ^^
 53 2012-01-12 01:05:12 <gmaxwell> And tried using eligius and managed to DOS it.
 54 2012-01-12 01:05:26 <kam1l> trying to economize them
 55 2012-01-12 01:05:34 <kam1l> and I don't think luke-jr wants me back ahaha
 56 2012-01-12 01:05:37 <doublec> how'd it DOS eligius?
 57 2012-01-12 01:05:44 <kam1l> great question
 58 2012-01-12 01:05:45 <doublec> no longpolls?
 59 2012-01-12 01:05:57 <gmaxwell> doublec: getwork flood.
 60 2012-01-12 01:06:20 <gmaxwell> but yea, dunno why that caused problems.
 61 2012-01-12 01:06:25 <kam1l> whats the best way to deal with that gmaxwell?
 62 2012-01-12 01:06:31 <kam1l> serverside*
 63 2012-01-12 01:06:49 <doublec> kam1l: are you using longpoll?
 64 2012-01-12 01:06:57 <kam1l> yes
 65 2012-01-12 01:07:15 <doublec> how many hundreds of machines is it?
 66 2012-01-12 01:07:15 <kam1l> actually wait, no I'm not*
 67 2012-01-12 01:07:17 <kam1l> had to check aha
 68 2012-01-12 01:07:22 <kam1l> 200 give or take
 69 2012-01-12 01:07:28 <doublec> ah, that'll make a difference if you're not longpolling
 70 2012-01-12 01:07:38 <kam1l> longpolling kills servers?
 71 2012-01-12 01:07:42 <doublec> 200 requests every few seconds vs every minute
 72 2012-01-12 01:07:46 <kam1l> non longpooling*
 73 2012-01-12 01:07:49 <kam1l> ah
 74 2012-01-12 01:07:54 <doublec> increases load x20-30
 75 2012-01-12 01:07:54 <kam1l> I guess I know what to edit then :P
 76 2012-01-12 01:10:03 <osmosis> "getnewaddress
 77 2012-01-12 01:10:13 <osmosis> so does that mean that 'accounts' are the same as the address labels the gui uses?
 78 2012-01-12 01:10:20 <osmosis> and if I want an address I create with getnetaddress to have a label when viewed from the gui, then I should put that in the <account> field ?
 79 2012-01-12 01:17:45 <lfm> nope, you can group addresses into accounts and when you pay out from accounts it doesnt really mean the same coins are used
 80 2012-01-12 01:52:19 <nanotube> osmosis: accounts is a separate layer
 81 2012-01-12 01:52:23 <nanotube> ;;bc,wiki accounts explained
 82 2012-01-12 01:52:25 <gribble> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Accounts_explained | Nov 8, 2011 ... Bitcoin allows accounts too. Each account owns a bunch of addresses. Taking our earlier analogy, you can imagine separate accounts as ...
 83 2012-01-12 01:52:32 <nanotube> more details ^ here osmosis
 84 2012-01-12 03:45:05 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Daniel Folkinshteyn * r512c21629d9e supybot-bitcoin-marketmonitor/OTCWebsite/jsonifyorderbook.py: OTCWebsite: add an orderbook jsonifier script. http://tinyurl.com/6wplrh4
 85 2012-01-12 04:02:16 <osmosis> does bitcoin rpc support adding labels visible in the gui?
 86 2012-01-12 04:23:27 <nanotube> osmosis: according to https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Original_Bitcoin_client/API_Calls_list it seems it doesn't
 87 2012-01-12 12:47:41 <UukGoblin> who runs blockchain.info? It's displaying erroneous data about p2pool
 88 2012-01-12 12:49:26 <UukGoblin> looks like it's piuk, I'll post on the forums
 89 2012-01-12 12:50:14 <tcatm> It might be faster to send him an email.
 90 2012-01-12 12:50:38 <UukGoblin> ok, thanks, will do that instead
 91 2012-01-12 13:32:08 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r3f64fa1 / (src/init.cpp src/main.cpp): Merge pull request #743 from gavinandresen/blocknotify ... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/3f64fa1369bde45034e451c4093e0852e59a1cdf
 92 2012-01-12 14:02:14 <gavinandresen> sipa: ping
 93 2012-01-12 14:02:41 <sipa> gavinandresen: pong
 94 2012-01-12 14:03:03 <gavinandresen> Have you started implementing base58-encoding of compressed/uncompressed public keys?
 95 2012-01-12 14:03:29 <sipa> no, but i assume that's trivial?
 96 2012-01-12 14:03:44 <gavinandresen> Yes, just wanted to avoid some work....
 97 2012-01-12 14:04:08 <sipa> just base58 encoding GetPubKey(), or feeding base58-decoded input to SetPubKey should work
 98 2012-01-12 14:04:23 <sipa> so i don't think you need any changes at all
 99 2012-01-12 14:04:53 <gavinandresen> You proposed a checksum, too, that'll need to get checked
100 2012-01-12 14:06:01 <sipa> sure you're not referring to the base58 format for private keys?
101 2012-01-12 14:06:18 <gavinandresen> I could be confusing myself
102 2012-01-12 14:06:59 <gavinandresen> So, here's why I'm asking:
103 2012-01-12 14:07:24 <sipa> the base58 format for public keys is only used for addmultiaddress or what is it called, and there it does not have a checksum, and simply encodes the serialized pubkey -- that should work for both compressed and uncompressed keys
104 2012-01-12 14:07:26 <gavinandresen> the p2sh branch extends validateaddress to spit out full public keys (if known) in hex and base58
105 2012-01-12 14:07:31 <nanobyte> Is there a place I can see upcoming features for new versions, or some sort of roadmap of sorts? Thanks
106 2012-01-12 14:07:52 <gavinandresen> nanotube: nope.  Want to volunteer to maintain a roadmap?
107 2012-01-12 14:08:04 <sipa> s/nanotube/nanobyte/
108 2012-01-12 14:08:13 <sipa> gavinandresen: i don't think any work at all is required there - it's simply 33 bytes instead of 65 that are encoded
109 2012-01-12 14:08:51 <sipa> and calling CKey::SetPubKey() with a 33-byte pubkey automatically puts it in compressed mode
110 2012-01-12 14:09:01 <gavinandresen> sipa: well, a little work was required on the 'addmultisigaddress' RPC call because hex is a subset of base58....
111 2012-01-12 14:09:34 <sipa> i mean no work in addition to what you already did to make it work for non-compressed keys
112 2012-01-12 14:10:25 <nanobyte> gavinandresen perhaps in the future, right now I am still working towards understanding bitcoin as a whole
113 2012-01-12 14:10:28 <gavinandresen> Right.  So I'm mis-remembering and there's been no proposal to come up with an error-checked encoding of public keys?
114 2012-01-12 14:10:29 <nanotube> omg it's a nanotube impersonator! :)
115 2012-01-12 14:10:43 <nanobyte> Heh
116 2012-01-12 14:11:03 <sipa> gavinandresen: oh, you mean luke's proposed format?
117 2012-01-12 14:11:06 <sipa> right, that uses a version byte and a checksum
118 2012-01-12 14:11:14 <gavinandresen> Maybe, I'm terrible at remembering who proposed what
119 2012-01-12 14:11:39 <sipa> let me search
120 2012-01-12 14:12:27 <gavinandresen> Found it
121 2012-01-12 14:12:40 <gavinandresen> Discussion on bitcoin-development from middle of December
122 2012-01-12 14:12:47 <sipa> this? http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=28523237
123 2012-01-12 14:13:06 <gavinandresen> Yes, that too
124 2012-01-12 14:14:42 <gavinandresen> A checksum and version on base58-encoded public keys seems like the right way to go
125 2012-01-12 14:14:52 <gavinandresen> ... if we think people might be copying/pasting them
126 2012-01-12 14:15:20 <nanobyte> Alright thanks guys
127 2012-01-12 14:15:24 <sipa> gavinandresen: ok, shouldn't be hard to implement
128 2012-01-12 14:15:38 <edcba> now i don't know if the way it is encoded is the right way
129 2012-01-12 14:16:10 <edcba> don't remember the specifics but seemed weird the first time i saw how
130 2012-01-12 14:16:34 <sipa> now they are encoded in base58 without any version byte or checksum
131 2012-01-12 14:16:59 <edcba> ok maybe we don't talk the same keys then
132 2012-01-12 14:20:48 <gavinandresen> sipa: I'm worried about feature creep; I think I'll remove base58 support from the p2sh branch and just have validateaddress spit out the hex version of the pubkey, and have addmultisigaddress take just hex.  Support for base58-encoded pubkeys could then be a separate feature/patch
133 2012-01-12 14:22:53 <sipa> gavinandresen: fine by me
134 2012-01-12 14:27:31 <sipa> gavinandresen: it could be part of a larger add-support-for-pubkey-addresses patch, that also allows them in other RPC commands
135 2012-01-12 14:28:16 <gavinandresen> Yes; the real feature creep would be to teach send() and the GUI to recognize them and create <pubkey> CHECKSIG transactions instead of DUP HASH ...
136 2012-01-12 14:33:21 <CIA-100> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * r14fb9dd / (2 files in 2 dirs): Added 1onevvolf's idea for shuffle+vstore to -vs - http://git.io/vSZg0w https://github.com/Diablo-D3/DiabloMiner/commit/14fb9dde9a2774f88fcab436f45d42bdfa4ea09b
137 2012-01-12 14:46:52 <dikidera> why in the world is this gitshit so hard?
138 2012-01-12 14:46:58 <dikidera> I have to do a ton of stuff to comit...
139 2012-01-12 14:47:20 <Diablo-D3> git commit -a
140 2012-01-12 14:47:21 <Diablo-D3> git push
141 2012-01-12 14:47:23 <Diablo-D3> done.
142 2012-01-12 14:47:30 <copumpkin> lol
143 2012-01-12 14:47:55 <dikidera> >implies Windows
144 2012-01-12 14:48:07 <Diablo-D3> git doesnt work on windows, problem solved
145 2012-01-12 14:48:15 <lianj> :>
146 2012-01-12 14:48:20 <dikidera> There are various git programs for windows
147 2012-01-12 14:49:04 <Diablo-D3> linus claims any compatibility with windows is an accidental bug and will be fixed in a future version
148 2012-01-12 15:07:25 <nanobyte> Heh, yeah linus is a big fan of Windows
149 2012-01-12 15:08:35 <dikidera> damn it
150 2012-01-12 15:08:43 <dikidera> invalid revision, invalid revision
151 2012-01-12 15:08:50 <dikidera> that is all I am getting when creating a branch
152 2012-01-12 15:09:09 <nanobyte> Not having compadibility with an operating system that hundreds of millions of people use sounds self destructive to me though ;)
153 2012-01-12 15:11:12 <nanobyte> Even if that operating system is kinda blah, and not as cool as linux
154 2012-01-12 15:22:57 <k9quaint> git isn't for users, its for developers
155 2012-01-12 15:26:24 <nanobyte> Ahh, woops missed the git part :)
156 2012-01-12 15:26:54 <luke-jr> http://solidcointalk.org/topic/500-more-news/page__st__20__p__5118#entry5118
157 2012-01-12 15:27:05 <luke-jr> SolidCoin "pool" is planned to somehow "attack"  Bitcoin
158 2012-01-12 15:28:23 <copumpkin> wtf
159 2012-01-12 15:28:46 <copumpkin> he must be delusional to see it as a war
160 2012-01-12 15:28:54 <copumpkin> as if most of the bitcoin devs or users give a fuck about solidcoin
161 2012-01-12 15:29:05 <copumpkin> enough to even try to undermine it
162 2012-01-12 15:29:20 <nanobyte> I never even heard of solidcoin hehe
163 2012-01-12 15:29:32 <nanobyte> Only bitcoin and namecoin oh and litecoin
164 2012-01-12 15:31:15 <luke-jr> copumpkin: I've taken legal action
165 2012-01-12 15:31:48 <copumpkin> luke-jr: I know, but even that is a comparatively minor action, and it was on your own behalf
166 2012-01-12 15:31:55 <copumpkin> you aren't acting for the community
167 2012-01-12 15:31:57 <Ahimoth> luke-jr: didn't see the word "attack" anywhere in there, just "offensive" and "retaliation"
168 2012-01-12 15:32:24 <copumpkin> Ahimoth the channel had "war room" in the topic and RealSolid has made it quite clear he sees it as a fight :P
169 2012-01-12 15:32:33 <luke-jr> "offense" is usually (always?) an attack
170 2012-01-12 15:32:35 <copumpkin> luke-jr: they've portrayed it as you being the bitcoin dev henchman etc.
171 2012-01-12 15:32:37 <Ahimoth> yes, byt luke quoted "attack"
172 2012-01-12 15:33:00 <Ahimoth> so if I fart, is that an attack?
173 2012-01-12 15:33:08 <Ahimoth> attack on your senses maybe
174 2012-01-12 15:33:09 <diki> lol
175 2012-01-12 15:33:24 <copumpkin> Ahimoth: offensive vs. defensive contrasted to offensive vs. inoffensive
176 2012-01-12 15:33:27 <copumpkin> the meaning is clearly the former
177 2012-01-12 15:33:29 <copumpkin> which means attack
178 2012-01-12 15:33:41 <copumpkin> you're using it as the latter to trivialize it
179 2012-01-12 15:33:49 <Ahimoth> I guess
180 2012-01-12 15:33:59 <Ahimoth> you might laugh wehn you find out what it is
181 2012-01-12 15:34:02 <copumpkin> RealSolid seems like a bit of a loose cannon
182 2012-01-12 15:34:11 <copumpkin> more of a liability to the solidcoin community than an asset :P
183 2012-01-12 15:34:21 <copumpkin> polarizing them to see it as a battle between currencies, etc.
184 2012-01-12 15:34:35 <diki> I say we team up and find the creator of git
185 2012-01-12 15:34:37 <copumpkin> and as if the dark evil bitcoin-dev cabal is trying to undermine their efforts
186 2012-01-12 15:34:41 <diki> I'll hold him, you guys beat him up
187 2012-01-12 15:34:50 <Ahimoth> copumpkin: they aren't?
188 2012-01-12 15:34:57 <copumpkin> luke-jr might be
189 2012-01-12 15:35:05 <copumpkin> but otherwise I haven't heard a peep about solidcoin in here or anywhere else
190 2012-01-12 15:35:07 <nanobyte> "If we want to win this war we need to start using better tactics. I'm not running or behind this pool but I support the people behind it. "
191 2012-01-12 15:35:19 <Ahimoth> admittedly I haven't heard a peep out of anyone other than luke and gav
192 2012-01-12 15:35:23 <Ahimoth> so you may be right
193 2012-01-12 15:35:24 <copumpkin> Ahimoth: and everyone knows that luke-jr has um "different" views on many things than most people around here
194 2012-01-12 15:35:25 <nanobyte> Not sure how anything they do would effect the bitcoin community
195 2012-01-12 15:35:40 <nanobyte> Guess I don't understand the protocols well enough yet
196 2012-01-12 15:36:10 <helo> diki: do you realize linus torvalds created git? :)
197 2012-01-12 15:38:23 <jgarzik> doubtful
198 2012-01-12 15:40:38 <diki> helo:dont know, dont care
199 2012-01-12 15:41:29 <diki> If I ever meet him, getting new glassess will be least of his problems
200 2012-01-12 15:41:54 <nanobyte> Sounds unpleasant :(
201 2012-01-12 15:42:07 <k9quaint> why is there solidcoin drivel in here :(
202 2012-01-12 15:42:11 <k9quaint> didn't we just spray for that?
203 2012-01-12 15:42:19 <diki> there git drivel here
204 2012-01-12 15:42:27 <nanobyte> I think linus is a pretty guy though, probably best to avoid confrontation ;)
205 2012-01-12 15:42:31 <diki> I've realized that thing needs to be destroyed
206 2012-01-12 15:42:35 <k9quaint> no, thats windows
207 2012-01-12 15:42:45 <k9quaint> git requires a modern OS
208 2012-01-12 15:42:51 <edcba> modern ?
209 2012-01-12 15:42:52 <k9quaint> something from after 1994
210 2012-01-12 15:43:27 <k9quaint> I wonder how well git runs on OS X
211 2012-01-12 15:43:51 <nanobyte> I meant pretty big guy rather, alrighty, time to pull my foot out my mouth and go make some coffee
212 2012-01-12 15:43:52 <diki> if linux was the only os, people would bankrupt
213 2012-01-12 15:44:06 <diki> *go bankrupt
214 2012-01-12 15:44:25 <k9quaint> diki: thats why we have windows, for the drool cup consumers to transfer their money to us digerati
215 2012-01-12 15:44:33 <luke-jr> Ahimoth is a SC dev, no?
216 2012-01-12 15:44:41 <diki> digerati=degenerates?
217 2012-01-12 15:45:00 <k9quaint> diki: digerati = illuminati + digital
218 2012-01-12 15:45:13 <luke-jr> Ahimoth: I don't think the MIT license terms are unreasonable.
219 2012-01-12 15:45:26 <helo> diki: do you think there may be some compelling reasons that has caused git to become so popular?
220 2012-01-12 15:45:37 <k9quaint> luke-jr: diff solidcoin bitcoin | wc -l
221 2012-01-12 15:45:50 <luke-jr> k9quaint: relevance?
222 2012-01-12 15:45:51 <k9quaint> result > 12?
223 2012-01-12 15:46:03 <luke-jr> um, of course
224 2012-01-12 15:46:09 <diki> helo:Not enough testosterone?
225 2012-01-12 15:46:32 <helo> probably :)
226 2012-01-12 15:47:08 <copumpkin> Ahimoth: yeah, regardless of how unpleasant the takedown was, it actually takes effort to not comply with the MIT license. It's pretty much the most liberal of all licenses above public domain
227 2012-01-12 15:47:34 <k9quaint> all MIT asks for is credit
228 2012-01-12 15:47:42 <luke-jr> k9quaint: and leaving the license intact
229 2012-01-12 15:48:01 <k9quaint> luke-jr: either can be viewed as a side effect of the other
230 2012-01-12 15:48:01 <luke-jr> k9quaint: they've revised it give credit, but it still strips the license out
231 2012-01-12 15:48:10 <Ahimoth> luke-jr: yes, I have been contributing to the solidcoin source
232 2012-01-12 15:48:24 <Ahimoth> btw, have you looked at the source recently?
233 2012-01-12 15:48:29 <Ahimoth> for a license?
234 2012-01-12 15:48:32 <luke-jr> Ahimoth: no, I don't look at non-free source out of principle.
235 2012-01-12 15:48:45 <copumpkin> lol
236 2012-01-12 15:48:47 <luke-jr> Ahimoth: I did grep for the license terms in 203
237 2012-01-12 15:49:06 <luke-jr> and found it was still missing.
238 2012-01-12 15:49:10 <Ahimoth> you don't take a hint do you
239 2012-01-12 15:49:27 <k9quaint> oh wow, github took SC down
240 2012-01-12 15:49:28 <Ahimoth> so you completely missed license.txt?
241 2012-01-12 15:49:37 <luke-jr> Ahimoth: license.txt does not contain the MIT license.
242 2012-01-12 15:50:01 <Ahimoth> true, not the full MIT text
243 2012-01-12 15:50:05 <luke-jr> that's required.
244 2012-01-12 15:50:32 <copumpkin> it's also considered odd to remove the license from individual files, I think
245 2012-01-12 15:50:47 <k9quaint> odd indeed
246 2012-01-12 15:51:14 <copumpkin> that's what I mean by it actually takes effort to break the MIT license
247 2012-01-12 15:51:20 <copumpkin> you have to go through the files and take it out, if it was in there
248 2012-01-12 15:51:25 <k9quaint> it takes intent
249 2012-01-12 15:51:46 <luke-jr> copumpkin: yes, but I'd have a hard time using that for takedowns :/
250 2012-01-12 15:52:36 <copumpkin> luke-jr: oh, my goal isn't necessarily a takedown :) I'm just trying to point out how realsolid is a liability to the solidcoin community (giving them the benefit of the doubt as far as all the "scamcoin" accusations run)
251 2012-01-12 15:52:51 <k9quaint> stripping out MIT and replacing it with proprietary license terms is usually not accidental
252 2012-01-12 15:52:55 <CIA-100> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * r51857ea / src/main/java/com/diablominer/DiabloMiner/DiabloMiner.java : Switch back to 3 threads, helps double DMA chips like 69xx and 79xx - http://git.io/9stS3Q https://github.com/Diablo-D3/DiabloMiner/commit/51857ea0110793d4babe68e36850f7e28c43f1e9
253 2012-01-12 15:53:10 <copumpkin> k9quaint: granted, it could just be ignorance of the legalities of open-source software
254 2012-01-12 15:53:14 <copumpkin> as many people are indeed ignorant
255 2012-01-12 15:53:17 <copumpkin> but still
256 2012-01-12 15:53:21 <UukGoblin> he'll probably just put the license back in
257 2012-01-12 15:53:22 <copumpkin> liability if you act on that ignorance :)
258 2012-01-12 15:53:32 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: unfortunately
259 2012-01-12 15:53:39 <luke-jr> however
260 2012-01-12 15:53:45 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: a while back RS was proposing adding DDOS functionality to the SC software 'to protect solidcoin', know if they ended up doing that?
261 2012-01-12 15:53:46 <luke-jr> here's an interesting twist to it all:
262 2012-01-12 15:53:52 <gmaxwell> (to their credit: it was at least controversial)
263 2012-01-12 15:54:16 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: no, I don't know
264 2012-01-12 15:54:20 <luke-jr> anyhow, twist:
265 2012-01-12 15:54:40 <luke-jr> compliance doesn't mean you suddenly get your license back
266 2012-01-12 15:54:45 <k9quaint> copumpkin: no, I actually had a conversation with Realsolid about license issues
267 2012-01-12 15:54:52 <copumpkin> oh
268 2012-01-12 15:54:53 <luke-jr> that is, once you violate it, you lose the license
269 2012-01-12 15:54:54 <k9quaint> he didn't seem to think it was a big deal
270 2012-01-12 15:55:01 <luke-jr> you can't just "unviolate" it
271 2012-01-12 15:55:21 <UukGoblin> luke-jr, oh... interesting... that's not in the license itself...
272 2012-01-12 15:55:27 <luke-jr> so, RealSolid needs to ask all the Bitcoin contributors for a new license ;)
273 2012-01-12 15:55:40 <JFK911> lol
274 2012-01-12 15:55:41 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: no, that's standard copyright law
275 2012-01-12 15:55:45 <UukGoblin> ah.
276 2012-01-12 15:55:47 <UukGoblin> fun!
277 2012-01-12 15:56:00 <roconnor> luke-jr: I don't beleive you.
278 2012-01-12 15:56:00 <UukGoblin> it might not apply to Nigeria though ;-[
279 2012-01-12 15:56:02 <JFK911> professional lawyer?
280 2012-01-12 15:56:22 <JFK911> i heard if you move into compliance, issue is moot
281 2012-01-12 15:56:27 <JFK911> don't think you've got any damages.
282 2012-01-12 15:56:32 <luke-jr> roconnor: it hasn't been tested in court afaik, but it's certainly recognized as a valid interpretation
283 2012-01-12 15:56:42 <roconnor> luke-jr: though I do believe you could continute to purse a civil suit based on the previous violation
284 2012-01-12 15:57:17 <luke-jr> GPLv3 intentionally added a "cure" clause because of that
285 2012-01-12 15:57:30 <luke-jr> ie, it laid out how to get the license automatically reinstated
286 2012-01-12 15:57:45 <roconnor> oh
287 2012-01-12 15:57:52 <gmaxwell> JFK911: if you go through the minor trouble of registering the copyright you're entitled to statutory damages, even if you can't show any actual ones.
288 2012-01-12 15:57:55 <k9quaint> well, they could just make a whole "new project" that is compliant
289 2012-01-12 15:58:05 <JFK911> gmaxwell: $1?
290 2012-01-12 15:58:05 <makomk> luke-jr: the GPL 2 had an explicit termination clause though.
291 2012-01-12 15:58:10 <gmaxwell> haha
292 2012-01-12 15:58:19 <JFK911> how do you get damages on something that's free
293 2012-01-12 15:58:32 <k9quaint> actually, copyright violations in the US now carry criminal charges and jail terms
294 2012-01-12 15:58:47 <k9quaint> (and a plane flight to gitmo)
295 2012-01-12 15:58:53 <gmaxwell> JFK911: $750-$30000 per copy at the courts whim, iirc
296 2012-01-12 15:58:53 <JFK911> im sure not always
297 2012-01-12 15:58:54 <edcba> JFK911: you can profit from something free
298 2012-01-12 15:59:05 <luke-jr> makomk: ?
299 2012-01-12 15:59:24 <luke-jr> k9quaint: since when?
300 2012-01-12 15:59:47 <JFK911> gmaxwell: well if the adversary doesn't show up, yes, the judge will probably sign off on any ridiculous remedies you request, sure.
301 2012-01-12 15:59:50 <luke-jr> JFK911: I don't think it's hard to make a case for damages against SC
302 2012-01-12 16:00:18 <nanobyte> luke-jr: Soon as the protect ip act is made into law i'd imagine
303 2012-01-12 16:00:19 <luke-jr> SC takes away users from BC, and damages BC's reputation
304 2012-01-12 16:00:29 <nanobyte> I believe that's what it's called
305 2012-01-12 16:00:30 <JFK911> i'd love to see realsolid ruined.
306 2012-01-12 16:00:32 <k9quaint> luke-jr: google "Bryan McCarthy" and  "criminal copyright"
307 2012-01-12 16:00:46 <gmaxwell> I suggest we move this all into #bitcoin ?
308 2012-01-12 16:00:46 <JFK911> you should merge mine him, identity thief him, or egg his house.
309 2012-01-12 16:01:09 <luke-jr> JFK911: I won't do anything illegal.
310 2012-01-12 16:01:31 <gavinandresen> I think solidcoin is doing a nice job of making themselves irrelevant and we should ignore them.
311 2012-01-12 16:01:47 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen++ (as usual)
312 2012-01-12 16:02:03 <sipa> I wasn't aware they were still alive.
313 2012-01-12 16:02:08 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: yeah, I just figured it couldn't hurt to enforce our copyrights :p
314 2012-01-12 16:02:27 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: if it blows up into a big press story then it'll do more harm than good
315 2012-01-12 16:02:30 <k9quaint> gmaxwell: gavin was a pointer to satoshi, NICE job clobbering it :|
316 2012-01-12 16:02:39 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: all press is good for Bitcoin right now :p
317 2012-01-12 16:02:45 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: meh, it legitimizes their drama. I don't know if that rises to 'hurt' but I don't think you can say it can't hurt
318 2012-01-12 16:02:58 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: press saying "Bitcoin tries to stop scammers from abusing it" is even better
319 2012-01-12 16:03:10 <k9quaint> the only thing to be had from solidcoin drama is schadenfreude
320 2012-01-12 16:03:22 <gavinandresen> wow, big word!
321 2012-01-12 16:03:37 <gavinandresen> "a big vocabulary is neat"
322 2012-01-12 16:04:00 <luke-jr> lol
323 2012-01-12 16:04:01 <sipa> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9B-ZoS0wvU
324 2012-01-12 16:04:02 <k9quaint> gavin is making fun of me ;(
325 2012-01-12 16:04:09 <k9quaint> my day started off so well too
326 2012-01-12 16:04:23 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: btw, 0.5.2 is just waiting on your Mac build&
327 2012-01-12 16:04:31 <k9quaint> supermodel dream iteration #12,876
328 2012-01-12 16:04:34 <gmaxwell> well, it's the right word.
329 2012-01-12 16:04:39 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: and uploads to SF
330 2012-01-12 16:04:47 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: oh, yeah, I forgot, I uploaded a mac build last night to sourceforge.  Where are the repackaged linux/pc builds?
331 2012-01-12 16:04:59 <gavinandresen> ... and did anybody reproduce Matt's gitian builds?
332 2012-01-12 16:05:02 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: you want me to repkg them?
333 2012-01-12 16:05:05 <gavinandresen> (my gitian machine is having networking issues)
334 2012-01-12 16:05:05 <luke-jr> not afaik
335 2012-01-12 16:05:10 <luke-jr> I trust BlueMatt <.<
336 2012-01-12 16:05:48 <gavinandresen> I trust that BlueMatt is honest, but when it comes to binary releases I think it is good to be paranoid
337 2012-01-12 16:06:19 <gavinandresen> (I'd much rather somebody double-checked my builds so make sure I haven't unknowingly been infected with some malicious malware)
338 2012-01-12 16:06:19 <k9quaint> that depends on how fast you can monetize trojan code :P
339 2012-01-12 16:06:35 <luke-jr> k9quaint: wanna build them? :P
340 2012-01-12 16:06:42 <k9quaint> luke-jr: not in the slightest
341 2012-01-12 16:06:59 <nanobyte> As a new user i'm happy to read that gavinandresen, thank you for that
342 2012-01-12 16:07:17 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: if you could upload http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/bitcoind-0.4.3/ while I repkg 0.5.2, that'd help too
343 2012-01-12 16:07:35 <k9quaint> nanobyte: he is only saying it for your benefit, as soon as you leave, he will revert to normal
344 2012-01-12 16:07:50 <nanobyte> Heheh
345 2012-01-12 16:07:57 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: sorry, I'm not going to spend the time on new-old releases
346 2012-01-12 16:07:58 <devrandom> gavinandresen: I can build... which version?
347 2012-01-12 16:08:23 <gavinandresen> devrandom: luke-jr's 0.5.2rc1 gitorious branch.
348 2012-01-12 16:08:26 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: not even just uploading so it doesn't waste my bw?
349 2012-01-12 16:08:32 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: 0.5.2 final& O.o
350 2012-01-12 16:09:05 <devrandom> ok, didn't realize that BlueMatt was building the stable branch
351 2012-01-12 16:09:08 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: no, sorry, it is a pain in my ass to download and then upload everything.
352 2012-01-12 16:09:29 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: don't suppose you want to add me to SF for uploading?
353 2012-01-12 16:09:52 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: sorry, I don't trust you that much.
354 2012-01-12 16:10:05 <k9quaint> luke-jr: did you really swear under penalty of perjury?
355 2012-01-12 16:10:38 <luke-jr> k9quaint: sure, why not?
356 2012-01-12 16:10:43 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: who else can upload?
357 2012-01-12 16:11:08 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: let me check...
358 2012-01-12 16:11:08 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: 0.5.2 Linux bin @ http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/bitcoind-0.5.2
359 2012-01-12 16:11:10 <luke-jr> err
360 2012-01-12 16:11:12 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: 0.5.2 Linux bin @ http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/bitcoin-0.5.2
361 2012-01-12 16:12:38 <devrandom> luke-jr: where is your repo?
362 2012-01-12 16:12:42 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: jgarzik and laszlo and nanotube and Satoshi and sirius-m have Release permission
363 2012-01-12 16:13:14 <luke-jr> devrandom: git://gitorious.org/+bitcoin-stable-developers/bitcoin/bitcoind-stable.git
364 2012-01-12 16:13:32 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: k
365 2012-01-12 16:16:49 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: btw, the Linux bin 0.5.2 just finished upload
366 2012-01-12 16:17:05 <luke-jr> in case you already started that dl, you might want to verify it completed correct
367 2012-01-12 16:19:33 <devrandom> luke-jr: are stable version #s distinct from main version #s?  i.e. will there never be a main 0.5.2?
368 2012-01-12 16:19:48 <luke-jr> devrandom: next `master' version is 0.6
369 2012-01-12 16:20:22 <devrandom> ok... just trying to figure out if I should append -stable when I release my gitian signature
370 2012-01-12 16:20:29 <luke-jr> no
371 2012-01-12 16:22:32 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: 0.5.2 Win32 Setup is done
372 2012-01-12 16:23:00 <luke-jr> and ZIP too
373 2012-01-12 16:23:19 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: there *is* a README.txt in that dir, but Apache doesn't list it
374 2012-01-12 16:26:20 <nanobyte> Laughs at the idea that RealSolid maybe in here incognito, spying and stealing all of bitcoins design ideas
375 2012-01-12 16:26:24 <nanobyte> =P
376 2012-01-12 16:26:44 <sipa> nanobyte: he can
377 2012-01-12 16:27:13 <luke-jr> nanotube: oh, you're here too? :P
378 2012-01-12 16:27:19 <nanotube> it is foss after all, nanobyte :)
379 2012-01-12 16:27:24 <nanotube> luke-jr: yes, i'm everywhere! P
380 2012-01-12 16:27:27 <nanotube> :P
381 2012-01-12 16:27:40 <nanotube> gavinandresen: what's this i hear about uploading 0.4.3?
382 2012-01-12 16:27:41 <luke-jr> nanotube: read backscroll 20 mins ago
383 2012-01-12 16:29:59 <nanotube> luke-jr: yea i see. just want to get gavin's official "ok to upload this to sf.net frs"
384 2012-01-12 16:30:13 <nanotube> luke-jr: also, the sha1sums references a readme.txt - but it's not on your site
385 2012-01-12 16:30:27 <nanotube> ah, apache
386 2012-01-12 16:30:29 <nanotube> heh
387 2012-01-12 16:30:36 <luke-jr> nanotube: it's SHA256, should it be SHA1?
388 2012-01-12 16:30:58 <nanotube> luke-jr: well, call it sha2sums or sha256sums
389 2012-01-12 16:31:10 <nanotube> usually said sums files let you know what they are via file name
390 2012-01-12 16:31:24 <nanotube> i'm so used to it that i called yours sha1sums when it's actually shasums heh
391 2012-01-12 16:31:38 <luke-jr> nanotube: renamed
392 2012-01-12 16:31:53 <luke-jr> (I called it SHASUMS cuz that's what was on old releases&)
393 2012-01-12 16:32:03 <nanotube> but anyway, how would i get the readme?
394 2012-01-12 16:32:07 <nanotube> just edit url?
395 2012-01-12 16:32:10 <luke-jr> nanotube: type it in the URI? :P
396 2012-01-12 16:32:19 <nanotube> ah yep it works :)
397 2012-01-12 16:32:53 <nanotube> care to make the readme a gpg-clearsigned file? ;)
398 2012-01-12 16:33:09 <luke-jr> it has never been before& :P
399 2012-01-12 16:33:13 <nanotube> or maybe the shasums one
400 2012-01-12 16:33:16 <luke-jr> ok&
401 2012-01-12 16:34:19 <luke-jr> done
402 2012-01-12 16:36:26 <epscy> luke-jr: yandere
403 2012-01-12 16:38:01 <gavinandresen> nanotube: I think uploading "new old" releases to sourceforge is a bad idea.  What do you think?
404 2012-01-12 16:39:17 <gavinandresen> Well, I think it is failed experiment:  bitcoin0.4.1 has a grand total of 274 downloads.
405 2012-01-12 16:39:46 <gavinandresen> ... as opposed to bitcoin-0.5.1 which has 37,0000
406 2012-01-12 16:40:04 <luke-jr> hmm
407 2012-01-12 16:40:48 <gavinandresen> Not worth the time or risk to upload/support anything besides latest-release-candidate and, maybe, latest-bugfixed-previous
408 2012-01-12 16:41:50 <nanotube> gavinandresen: i figure if people want them, they can have them. as long as the site clearly states which is the latest officially supported release?
409 2012-01-12 16:42:38 <gavinandresen> nanotube: okey doke, but I'm not going to spend time auditing or gpg signing them.
410 2012-01-12 16:42:40 <nanotube> that said, given the low number of users, probably not that important either way. so whatever you say goes.
411 2012-01-12 16:43:13 <nanotube> well, it seems that luke is pretty much the sole auditor ?
412 2012-01-12 16:43:28 <luke-jr> I'd honestly almost figure stick to just git tags, but Win/Mac users "need" binaries
413 2012-01-12 16:43:42 <nanotube> should win/mac users even be using those? :)
414 2012-01-12 16:43:55 <luke-jr> nanotube: only for servers :p
415 2012-01-12 16:44:15 <nanotube> luke-jr: as i said, should win/mac users be using those? haha
416 2012-01-12 16:44:49 <luke-jr> nanotube: better than them using 0.4.1 or (0.5.x when they don't need its features) :p
417 2012-01-12 16:45:02 <luke-jr> 137 of them apparently
418 2012-01-12 16:45:21 <nanotube> 137 is for all packages, not just win/mac. let's see ...
419 2012-01-12 16:45:35 <luke-jr> nanotube: no, I counted Windows there :P
420 2012-01-12 16:45:47 <luke-jr> I figure so long as someone's willing to provide binaries, can't hurt to make them available
421 2012-01-12 16:45:56 <devrandom> luke-jr: gitorious is being slow, I will check on my build later
422 2012-01-12 16:46:01 <luke-jr> I'll let BlueMatt decide if 137 Windows users justifies continuing them
423 2012-01-12 16:46:12 <luke-jr> for now, he did make 0.4.3 bins
424 2012-01-12 16:47:14 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: anyhow, on 0.5.2, you built rc1 for some reason& can that just be renamed or no?
425 2012-01-12 16:47:24 <luke-jr> dunno how DMGs work inside :P
426 2012-01-12 16:47:40 <nanotube> luke-jr: i see.
427 2012-01-12 16:47:52 <Backburn> uh we just mined a block with a 86.46790938 reward :O
428 2012-01-12 16:48:04 <Backburn> thats alot of tx fees
429 2012-01-12 16:48:09 <nanotube> gavinandresen: so i guess the question is, are you ok with luke-signed and luke-audited binaries on bitcoin sf.net frs? :)
430 2012-01-12 16:48:10 <luke-jr> Backburn: :o
431 2012-01-12 16:48:18 <nanotube> Backburn: nice!
432 2012-01-12 16:48:20 <gavinandresen> nanotube: no, I'm not
433 2012-01-12 16:48:47 <gavinandresen> nanotube: I'm not ok with any release that is signed/audited by one person
434 2012-01-12 16:48:48 <nanotube> gavinandresen: well, then that answers the question of whether i should be uploading them, doesn't it? ;)
435 2012-01-12 16:49:19 <gmaxwell> 09:48 < gavinandresen> nanotube: I'm not ok with any release that is signed/audited by one person
436 2012-01-12 16:49:22 <gmaxwell> *1000
437 2012-01-12 16:49:30 <gmaxwell> It's not a matter of trust, your machine could be compromised.
438 2012-01-12 16:49:45 <sipa> or the gpg key could be
439 2012-01-12 16:49:56 <gavinandresen> ... and this whole discussion makes me wonder if we should be removing old releases from sourceforge, or somehow marking them as "we haven't looked at these in a long time, no guarantees that they haven't been messed with, double-check signatures and beware"
440 2012-01-12 16:49:57 <luke-jr> nanotube: also, BlueMatt built 0.4.3, not me, and IIRC devrandom is building it now
441 2012-01-12 16:50:39 <devrandom> I'm building 0.5.2
442 2012-01-12 16:50:43 <devrandom> should I be building 0.4.3?
443 2012-01-12 16:50:43 <luke-jr> devrandom: ah, ok
444 2012-01-12 16:50:49 <luke-jr> devrandom: 0.5.2 is more important
445 2012-01-12 16:50:57 <gavinandresen> The risk is that somebody manages to corrupt/replace a seldom-downloaded binary at sourceforge, and it isn't noticed because almost nobody is looking.
446 2012-01-12 16:51:09 <nanotube> luke-jr: ah i see. gavinandresen if the git repos are checked and releases are signed off by bluematt and/or devrandom, does that work?
447 2012-01-12 16:51:12 <devrandom> I'll do both
448 2012-01-12 16:51:15 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: maybe move them to an archive dir?
449 2012-01-12 16:51:17 <nanotube> gavinandresen: well, the shasums files are signed.
450 2012-01-12 16:51:19 <devrandom> once gitorious is unwedged
451 2012-01-12 16:51:35 <gmaxwell> nanotube: but ~no one checks the signatures
452 2012-01-12 16:51:41 <nanotube> gmaxwell: i always do.
453 2012-01-12 16:51:44 <gavinandresen> nanotube: yup, but most people who download will rely on the early-adopting geeks who actually check the signatures to make sure they're OK
454 2012-01-12 16:52:02 <nanotube> gavinandresen: those people should be downloading the latest and greatest by default, anyway
455 2012-01-12 16:52:09 <gmaxwell> nanotube: Want to take a bet that if we put up an old binary with an invalid sig that no one will report it?
456 2012-01-12 16:52:12 <nanotube> only the 'geeks' should be getting the old releases.
457 2012-01-12 16:52:20 <luke-jr> total of 48 downloads of SHASUMS.asc for 0.5.1 :p
458 2012-01-12 16:52:29 <gmaxwell> ^ see
459 2012-01-12 16:52:29 <nanotube> one of them is mine :D
460 2012-01-12 16:52:49 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: what percentage is that?
461 2012-01-12 16:52:59 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: 0? :P
462 2012-01-12 16:53:08 <nanotube> i both checked the gpg sig on the shasums, and the shasum of the archive
463 2012-01-12 16:53:20 <gmaxwell> nanotube: you're also not downloading long ago released old files.
464 2012-01-12 16:53:26 <nanotube> gmaxwell: true. :)
465 2012-01-12 16:53:46 <nanotube> horse, water, drink....
466 2012-01-12 16:53:59 <gmaxwell> I have some confidence that the process works for recent releases. I check them too. (thats why I'd whined about not being able to validate gavin's key)
467 2012-01-12 16:54:06 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: anyhow, on 0.5.2, you built rc1 for some reason& can that just be renamed or not so simple?
468 2012-01-12 16:54:17 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: there were no code changes
469 2012-01-12 16:54:40 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: Yes, it can be renamed
470 2012-01-12 16:54:45 <devrandom> with the gitian downloader end-user don't have to manually check sigs...
471 2012-01-12 16:55:11 <nanotube> speaking of validation... should bitcoin-qt maybe contain an (optional!) automatic updater, that does check sigs?
472 2012-01-12 16:55:48 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: OK, I guess ping me and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/13 when the uploads for 0.5.2 are done then
473 2012-01-12 16:55:54 <imsaguy2> mmm, autoupdate
474 2012-01-12 16:55:58 <imsaguy2> +1 nanotube
475 2012-01-12 16:56:04 <gmaxwell> nanotube: -1
476 2012-01-12 16:56:15 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: do you want me to pastebin the forum release announcement, so you can post it, or just post it myself?
477 2012-01-12 16:56:27 <gmaxwell> Well, if the gitian stuff gets the naks stuff then perhaps. :)
478 2012-01-12 16:56:36 <luke-jr> nanotube: I'd rather see it have a backup function
479 2012-01-12 16:56:58 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: how can 0.5.2 be a final release if there were no release candidate binaries released?
480 2012-01-12 16:57:39 <devrandom> gmaxwell: ok :)
481 2012-01-12 16:57:58 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: there were, just not uploaded :p
482 2012-01-12 16:58:02 <luke-jr> and not Mac
483 2012-01-12 16:58:25 <gavinandresen> if they weren't uploaded then how were they tested?
484 2012-01-12 16:59:06 <luke-jr> random people on IRC
485 2012-01-12 16:59:45 <gavinandresen> I'm not comfortable announcing a new release unless it's had at least a week of testing AFTER rc binaries are available and announced
486 2012-01-12 17:00:19 <gavinandresen> Like I said, when it comes to releasing binaries I'm paranoid.
487 2012-01-12 17:00:36 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: meh, lets just get this announced then
488 2012-01-12 17:00:59 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: ?
489 2012-01-12 17:01:33 <gmaxwell> I mean, there is no point arguing about it. A wide announcement of an RC is almost as good as a full release announcement.
490 2012-01-12 17:02:21 <luke-jr> 33 files changed, 231 insertions(+), 135 deletions(-)
491 2012-01-12 17:02:26 <luke-jr> ^ mostly typo and version bumping :p
492 2012-01-12 17:02:33 <gmaxwell> There are some p2pool users who were seeing deadlocks in 0.5.1 that don't appear to happen in githead. I'd like to get them to try 0.5.2(rc) but I didn't care to link people to a @#$@ dropbox url.
493 2012-01-12 17:02:51 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I'd agree, but 0.5.2 is already tagged for a few days now anyway
494 2012-01-12 17:02:55 <imsaguy2> then use megaupload :p
495 2012-01-12 17:03:01 <luke-jr> imsaguy2: even worse :P
496 2012-01-12 17:03:07 <imsaguy2> I know, I was joking
497 2012-01-12 17:03:32 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: maybe upload them all to 'test' dir then?
498 2012-01-12 17:03:50 <imsaguy2> devrandom: its nice to have a 'name' to a 'nick'
499 2012-01-12 17:03:54 <luke-jr> and move them/update bitcoin.org after you're happy with the length of testing
500 2012-01-12 17:04:11 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: they need to be renamed 'rc1' and the tar needs to be repackaged....
501 2012-01-12 17:04:45 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: you can't assume that there will not be a rc2 after more testing
502 2012-01-12 17:05:07 <gavinandresen> (well, I suppose you COULD assume, but you shouldn't)
503 2012-01-12 17:05:09 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: there has already been v0.5.2 final for days now.
504 2012-01-12 17:05:58 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: the original plan when we discussed it days ago was to do v0.5.2 without any RCs, but I wanted to at least give it a few days testing so I slapped a rc1 on it first&
505 2012-01-12 17:06:11 <gavinandresen> who is "we" ?
506 2012-01-12 17:06:22 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: everyone discussing it at the time, I think you were there?
507 2012-01-12 17:07:32 <gavinandresen> I remember saying I wanted to spend as little time as possible on a 0.5.2 release, but I'd be happy to create a mac build.
508 2012-01-12 17:07:44 <gavinandresen> (I PERSONALLY wanted to spend as little time as possible)
509 2012-01-12 17:08:13 <gavinandresen> I don't remember ever agreeing to short-cutting the release process.
510 2012-01-12 17:08:22 <luke-jr> looks like there was no mention of RCs until I mentioned tagging it and I got a 'wait, are these rcs or stables?' from BlueMatt :P
511 2012-01-12 17:08:43 <luke-jr> doc/release-process.txt doesn't document anything relating to RCs ;)
512 2012-01-12 17:09:45 <luke-jr> I suppose we could upload rc1, and simply never upload 0.5.2 if there's a major problem
513 2012-01-12 17:09:57 <luke-jr> that seems like more work in the probable "no problem" case though
514 2012-01-12 17:10:54 <gmaxwell> every moment spent discussing this is another moment people won't be testing the software. :)
515 2012-01-12 17:11:40 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell++
516 2012-01-12 17:13:25 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: re-zipping everything as 'rc1' takes time
517 2012-01-12 17:13:32 <luke-jr> as does re-uploading it
518 2012-01-12 17:13:47 <luke-jr> progress @ http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/bitcoin-0.5.2rc1/
519 2012-01-12 17:13:59 <nanobyte> Feel like i'm a part of history, watching it go down before a big release that thousands to ten of thousands of people may start using :)
520 2012-01-12 17:15:49 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: rc1 linux done
521 2012-01-12 17:16:00 <nanotube> luke-jr: well... i guess you just get to keep the 0.4.x releases on your server. or create a separate project on sourceforge to house them, if you're concerned about bandwidth.
522 2012-01-12 17:16:26 <luke-jr> nanotube: devrandom will be a second signer soon
523 2012-01-12 17:16:42 <nanotube> ah well we'll revisit with gavin then. :)
524 2012-01-12 17:17:46 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: to your .4 builds include the gui too?
525 2012-01-12 17:18:01 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: there's a GUI binary in them, but completely unsupported
526 2012-01-12 17:18:09 <gmaxwell> if so then we have something to point people who whine about -qt at. :)
527 2012-01-12 17:18:34 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: there was like 50 unresolved wxBitcoin bugs closed by the switch to Qt ;)
528 2012-01-12 17:22:36 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: BlueMatt + devrandom good enough for 0.4.3 that under 300 people will download? :P
529 2012-01-12 17:23:00 <diki> well...64bit cgminer is working...
530 2012-01-12 17:23:15 <diki> with the exception that it crashes
531 2012-01-12 17:23:22 <diki> reason is localtime_r
532 2012-01-12 17:27:25 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/bitcoin-0.5.2rc1/ is now complete
533 2012-01-12 17:27:38 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: obviously you should be able to skip the Mac build you did
534 2012-01-12 17:33:22 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: downloading now, will upload to SF when done.  Can you upload the release announcement as README.txt ?
535 2012-01-12 17:33:55 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: README.txt exists, but Apache hides it in the index for some reason; I have a separate one for the forum post, formatted with forum-markup&
536 2012-01-12 17:34:21 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: ok, got the README.txt
537 2012-01-12 17:34:37 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: README.bb uploaded
538 2012-01-12 17:34:45 <luke-jr> Apache is hiding it as well
539 2012-01-12 17:34:48 <luke-jr> http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/bitcoin-0.5.2rc1/README.bb
540 2012-01-12 18:36:55 <amiller> this is my favorite paper of the day http://www.cs.ru.nl/~wouters/Publications/HoareLogicStateMonad.pdf roconnor
541 2012-01-12 18:38:24 <roconnor> amiller: I'm glad you are creating formal semantics for bitcoin
542 2012-01-12 18:41:48 <copumpkin> me too!
543 2012-01-12 18:42:05 <copumpkin> feel free to run ideas by me
544 2012-01-12 18:42:12 <copumpkin> not that I'll necessarily have much to add :P
545 2012-01-12 18:42:45 <amiller> well thank you, to be honest i can't fairly say i'm expecting to get too far... but i feel like i may be approaching a proof of concept that could help explain why it's a good idea and what could be gained from it though.
546 2012-01-12 18:43:16 <copumpkin> yeah
547 2012-01-12 18:43:35 <copumpkin> realistically, I'd expect formalizing the language to be a lot easier for now than trying to talk about the security of the system
548 2012-01-12 18:43:41 <copumpkin> for all the reasons I've outlined in here before :P
549 2012-01-12 18:51:13 <CIA-100> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * r4ff56b8 / src/main/java/com/diablominer/DiabloMiner/DiabloMiner.java : Add -dt argument for debug timer, quits after 1 min - http://git.io/u2W7Fw https://github.com/Diablo-D3/DiabloMiner/commit/4ff56b84418adf1cf7783e4a4dbbff1762f85c8f
550 2012-01-12 19:10:47 <roconnor> amiller: In particular I'm happy you are getting some leverage out of my haskell code, which was sort of meant as a first step to formalization.
551 2012-01-12 19:35:14 <CIA-100> bitcoin: various coinbaser * r214c1a..d237f6 bitcoind-personal/src/ (bitcoinrpc.cpp init.cpp main.h main.cpp): (7 commits) http://tinyurl.com/3lrgdkn
552 2012-01-12 19:39:52 <luke-jr> ^ rebased coinbaser and cleaned it up a little in safe ways
553 2012-01-12 19:40:08 <luke-jr> (really only 5 commits now)
554 2012-01-12 19:41:24 <edcba> ;;bc,mtgox
555 2012-01-12 19:41:25 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":6.997,"low":6.337,"avg":6.747029723,"vwap":6.741597432,"vol":128779,"last_all":6.7757,"last_local":6.7757,"last":6.7757,"buy":6.70632,"sell":6.76963}}
556 2012-01-12 19:53:07 <riush> in a multisig script, is the order of signatures relevant? or, when i run the script, can i know which sig belongs to which key?
557 2012-01-12 19:55:48 <riush> or do i have to try all combinations and see if one is valid?
558 2012-01-12 20:00:54 <CIA-100> bitcoin: various next-test * r64346a..6af708 bitcoind-personal/ (13 files in 3 dirs): (12 commits) http://tinyurl.com/7vr93zh
559 2012-01-12 20:10:32 <CIA-100> bitcoin: various next-test * r3b70dd..9a93c4 bitcoind-personal/ (31 files in 6 dirs): (15 commits) http://tinyurl.com/7vr93zh
560 2012-01-12 20:10:41 <sipa> riush: the order is important, yes
561 2012-01-12 20:11:50 <gavinandresen> riush: the order of signatures must match the order of the public keys.
562 2012-01-12 20:12:24 <riush> ah okay, thank you
563 2012-01-12 20:13:35 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: did you post README.bb somewhere? or were you waiting for me to do it? (or somethign else?)
564 2012-01-12 20:15:09 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: I didn't post README.bb anywhere-- but I'm not waiting for anything, I'm not spearheading the release.....
565 2012-01-12 20:16:17 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: OK, I just wanted to be sure I didn't step on your toes or anything; I'll post it then
566 2012-01-12 20:16:42 <luke-jr> do RCs usually go on Dev or Discussion?
567 2012-01-12 20:16:53 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: dev
568 2012-01-12 20:17:27 <gavinandresen> ... then watch the download stats on sourceforge (are they visible to everybody?)
569 2012-01-12 20:18:15 <gavinandresen> And assuming you get a reasonable number of downloads over the weekend and no reports of "it is worse than before" then it can go final
570 2012-01-12 20:20:47 <luke-jr> aha, that's the problem with "random people on IRC" testing - no headcount
571 2012-01-12 20:21:51 <gmaxwell> I just asked people in #p2pool to deploy the rc.
572 2012-01-12 20:22:09 <midnightmagic> is there a reason other than testing to deploy rc?
573 2012-01-12 20:22:20 <sipa> luke-jr: in coinbaser, when the command fails, you resize the coinbase to length 1?
574 2012-01-12 20:22:41 <luke-jr> sipa: no? returning should be an error code there&
575 2012-01-12 20:22:57 <luke-jr> oh, that
576 2012-01-12 20:23:08 <luke-jr> yes, if anything fails, there is 1 vout for the coinbase
577 2012-01-12 20:23:10 <sipa> if (rv) { ... ->resize(1); }
578 2012-01-12 20:23:19 <sipa> oh, of course
579 2012-01-12 20:23:42 <luke-jr> I'm super-paranoid about making invalid blocks ;)
580 2012-01-12 20:23:57 <sipa> you should be
581 2012-01-12 20:25:05 <luke-jr> sipa: and yes, just about every error condition has been tested at some point with Eligius ;)
582 2012-01-12 20:25:20 <luke-jr> I think I even have a real-world block out there in some cases
583 2012-01-12 20:25:45 <gavinandresen> Do you'all keep random .cpp files in your bitcoin/src directory?  I'm tempted to replace the explicit list of .cpp files in the makefiles with a $(wildcard *.cpp)
584 2012-01-12 20:26:47 <sipa> luke-jr: for TCP coinbaser, you still use pclose() ?
585 2012-01-12 20:27:54 <sipa> gavinandresen: i often have old/new .cpp files remaining there yes - a wildcard would break compiles then
586 2012-01-12 20:28:08 <sipa> but maybe that's a sign then that i should clean up my source tree
587 2012-01-12 20:28:53 <gavinandresen> sipa:  I guess there is a very small risk of putting an extra .cpp on a build machine and having extra code end up in the binary....
588 2012-01-12 20:29:18 <gavinandresen> the HEADERS definition in the makefiles is no longer used, I'll get rid of it.
589 2012-01-12 20:29:27 <occulta> hey, can anyone tell me how much BW the daemon uses daily ?
590 2012-01-12 20:30:12 <luke-jr> sipa: hmm, I'm not sure why that works& I should probably not do it that way.
591 2012-01-12 20:30:54 <sipa> luke-jr: i believe on many systems pclose and fclose are the same, but i wouldn't count on it
592 2012-01-12 20:31:04 <luke-jr> k, I'll fix that&
593 2012-01-12 20:31:20 <luke-jr> I'll check if Windows needs something special too
594 2012-01-12 20:31:53 <gavinandresen> Speaking of windows... anybody know if makefile.vc actually works?  I'm tempted to remove it unless somebody volunteers to maintain it
595 2012-01-12 20:33:53 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I think it doesn't.
596 2012-01-12 20:34:03 <luke-jr> someone here complained the other day IIRC
597 2012-01-12 20:34:15 <sipa> gavinandresen: i didn't add key.o, netbase.o or rpcdump.o to it recently
598 2012-01-12 20:34:27 <sipa> so at least for 0.5.99 it never worked
599 2012-01-12 20:34:43 <gavinandresen> I'll remove it, and when somebody complains that somebody can volunteer to fix/maintain it
600 2012-01-12 20:35:16 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr getmininginfo * r39fcc89a3c16 bitcoind-personal/src/bitcoinrpc.cpp: Remove 'generate', 'genproclimit', and 'hashespersec' from 'getinfo' entirely http://tinyurl.com/7c6bren
601 2012-01-12 20:35:32 <makomk> Maybe older than that? SolidCoin is the only user of VC++ I can think of, and they appear to have dumped it. (Also they're a fork and don't care what Bitcoin does but it's an indicator...)
602 2012-01-12 20:40:04 <occulta> anyone here doing projects?
603 2012-01-12 20:40:10 <occulta> offering dev services etc?
604 2012-01-12 20:40:46 <sipa> occulta: want to pay for something? :)
605 2012-01-12 20:41:00 <nanotube> occulta: a bunch of people are working on stuff. if you have anything you want done, post an offer. :)
606 2012-01-12 20:47:27 <luke-jr> sipa: fixed
607 2012-01-12 20:47:36 <luke-jr> sipa: Windows *did* need some extra cleanup too!
608 2012-01-12 20:48:31 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: someone in #bitcoin wants a PowerPC Mac build; can you do that?
609 2012-01-12 20:48:40 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: nope
610 2012-01-12 20:48:50 <gavinandresen> ppc is the wrong endian
611 2012-01-12 20:49:24 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: ouch
612 2012-01-12 20:49:29 <sipa> luke-jr: according to the documentation (at least on my ubuntu system) of fdopen(), fclose() will close the file descriptor as well
613 2012-01-12 20:49:52 <sipa> but the extra closesocket call won't harm, and is perhaps needed on windows
614 2012-01-12 20:49:53 <luke-jr> sipa: yes, but Windows has some extra work to fdopen a socket
615 2012-01-12 20:50:02 <luke-jr> closesocket is a Windows-only thing
616 2012-01-12 20:50:13 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr coinbaser * r24b5b5..785dfc bitcoind-personal/src/ (bitcoinrpc.cpp init.cpp main.h main.cpp): (5 commits) http://tinyurl.com/3lrgdkn
617 2012-01-12 20:56:28 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r025d495 / (5 files): Remove broken Visual C++ makefile.vc, and removed annoying HEADERS= list from other makefiles - http://git.io/MxltWg https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/025d495481f2313a1550d8d101415ff3e3a6b89f
618 2012-01-12 21:14:01 <luke-jr> FWIW, Mac user confirms 0.5.2 has a performance improvemnet loading on Mac
619 2012-01-12 21:26:09 <gmaxwell> \0/
620 2012-01-12 21:29:44 <occulta> hey, can someone link me to a good resource for running the daemon on a server? ie, things like should i create a specific new UNIX user expecially for it?
621 2012-01-12 21:31:42 <freewil> occulta, yes run it as it's own user
622 2012-01-12 21:31:56 <freewil> here's some security-related suggestions: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1358/business-grade-bitcoind-implementation
623 2012-01-12 21:32:25 <occulta> thanks alot
624 2012-01-12 21:43:52 <occulta> freewil: does that mean i need to SSH in as that user to start the daemon?
625 2012-01-12 21:44:24 <sipa> su will suffice
626 2012-01-12 21:44:39 <occulta> ah ok
627 2012-01-12 21:44:54 <freewil> i think youd end up doing sudo su -u username
628 2012-01-12 21:44:58 <occulta> any more references around? all i know what to do is ./bitcoind, and i am assuming that is not enough
629 2012-01-12 21:45:11 <luke-jr> freewil: that's: sudo -u username
630 2012-01-12 21:45:14 <occulta> ive checked the wiki, not much there really
631 2012-01-12 21:45:31 <luke-jr> probably want -H too
632 2012-01-12 21:45:42 <luke-jr> occulta: if you have a proper install, no ./
633 2012-01-12 21:46:02 <occulta> proper install? of?
634 2012-01-12 21:46:05 <luke-jr> bitcoind
635 2012-01-12 21:46:13 <occulta> ah, i dont know
636 2012-01-12 21:46:16 <occulta> i dont have anything atm :P
637 2012-01-12 21:46:18 <luke-jr> ie, not built from source yourself
638 2012-01-12 21:46:24 <pierce> probably   ./bitcoind -daemon
639 2012-01-12 21:46:25 <gmaxwell> sudo .. weird. Normally I'd just use su to run as a user.
640 2012-01-12 21:46:39 <occulta> hmm, i was just going to download from bitcoin.org ?
641 2012-01-12 21:46:47 <pierce> nono, sudo ./bitcoind   :-D
642 2012-01-12 21:46:50 <luke-jr> occulta: that's not the Linux way :p
643 2012-01-12 21:47:02 <luke-jr> occulta: what OS?
644 2012-01-12 21:47:09 <occulta> server is ubuntu
645 2012-01-12 21:47:17 <luke-jr> occulta: the website has a link to Ubuntu PPA
646 2012-01-12 21:47:31 <luke-jr> occulta: install bitcoind from that
647 2012-01-12 21:47:37 <luke-jr> then just add a user and do
648 2012-01-12 21:47:37 <occulta> no i think i will use the linux source? thats what i used on my local ubuntu install ?
649 2012-01-12 21:47:45 <luke-jr> sudo -u YOURNEWUSER -H bitcoind -daemon
650 2012-01-12 21:47:56 <luke-jr> occulta: you're  not supposed to install from source
651 2012-01-12 21:48:05 <occulta> o right
652 2012-01-12 21:48:07 <luke-jr> source is for development :P
653 2012-01-12 21:48:11 <occulta> erm
654 2012-01-12 21:48:25 <occulta> im pretty sure i just downloaded the linux tarbell
655 2012-01-12 21:48:28 <luke-jr> &
656 2012-01-12 21:48:32 <luke-jr> well, then you did it wrong :P
657 2012-01-12 21:48:35 <occulta> and do ./bin/64/bitcoin-qt
658 2012-01-12 21:48:36 <occulta> locally
659 2012-01-12 21:48:44 <occulta> is that bad?
660 2012-01-12 21:48:52 <luke-jr> could be worse, but it's not the "right way"
661 2012-01-12 21:48:54 <occulta> for the client that is
662 2012-01-12 21:49:07 <luke-jr> sudo add-apt-repository ppa:bitcoin/bitcoin
663 2012-01-12 21:49:10 <luke-jr> sudo apt-get update
664 2012-01-12 21:49:13 <luke-jr> sudo apt-get install bitcoind
665 2012-01-12 21:49:23 <luke-jr> useradd -m YOURNEWUSER
666 2012-01-12 21:49:24 <luke-jr> sudo -u YOURNEWUSER -H bitcoind -daemon
667 2012-01-12 21:49:34 <occulta> spooooon :)
668 2012-01-12 21:49:49 <luke-jr> HOWEVER
669 2012-01-12 21:49:54 <occulta> !
670 2012-01-12 21:49:56 <luke-jr> it may be better to run bitcoind offline
671 2012-01-12 21:50:03 <luke-jr> and just upload a .txt file of addresses to your server
672 2012-01-12 21:50:11 <luke-jr> that way, if some hacker gets in, they don't rob you
673 2012-01-12 21:50:28 <occulta> that sounds good, but im confused enough as it is lol
674 2012-01-12 21:50:30 <luke-jr> depends what you need to be able to do
675 2012-01-12 21:50:47 <occulta> i need to be able to accept BTC payments to an account based on my website
676 2012-01-12 21:50:50 <occulta> and also withdrawals
677 2012-01-12 21:50:55 <pierce> any given webapp is going to need  getnewaddress etc
678 2012-01-12 21:50:59 <occulta> also money only clears on teh website account when its confirmed
679 2012-01-12 21:51:43 <luke-jr> pierce: if you just accept payments, you can make a database with addresses, and pull them out of there
680 2012-01-12 21:51:51 <luke-jr> pierce: and refill the db from a secure location
681 2012-01-12 21:52:06 <luke-jr> occulta: sounds like you need a full bitcoind local then
682 2012-01-12 21:52:17 <occulta> so follow your steps ?
683 2012-01-12 21:52:18 <luke-jr> occulta: but you also sound like you're not qualified to admin such an operation
684 2012-01-12 21:52:22 <pierce> that added complexity would probably add more security issues than they would be addressing :-)
685 2012-01-12 21:52:24 <luke-jr> occulta: so I suggest hiring someone
686 2012-01-12 21:52:41 <occulta> well, i setup the VPS myself from ssh only
687 2012-01-12 21:52:53 <luke-jr> pierce: impossible ;)
688 2012-01-12 21:52:54 <occulta> no idea about the daemon though
689 2012-01-12 21:53:07 <occulta> got ssl and such
690 2012-01-12 21:53:09 <pierce> occulta:   /ignore luke-jr
691 2012-01-12 21:53:15 <occulta> i think ill be ok :)
692 2012-01-12 21:53:24 <occulta> im not coding the site
693 2012-01-12 21:53:25 <luke-jr> occulta: if you have a bitcoind running on your server (and it sounds like the service you want to provide requires it&), you WILL be the target of crackers trying to break in
694 2012-01-12 21:53:27 <occulta> hiring for that
695 2012-01-12 21:53:36 <luke-jr> occulta: your #1 concern should be security
696 2012-01-12 21:53:37 <occulta> yes, i love webappsec
697 2012-01-12 21:53:40 <occulta> it is
698 2012-01-12 21:53:43 <occulta> its my hobby :)
699 2012-01-12 21:53:50 <luke-jr> occulta: you don't have the qualifications to secure it
700 2012-01-12 21:53:56 <pierce> occulta: you real lcamtuf's new book :-D
701 2012-01-12 21:53:59 <pierce> fun times
702 2012-01-12 21:54:01 <occulta> hmm
703 2012-01-12 21:54:05 <occulta> i dnot agree :)
704 2012-01-12 21:54:28 <gmaxwell> if you think you're qualified, thats the first sign you're probably not. ;)
705 2012-01-12 21:54:29 <occulta> got my iptables setup, fail2ban for BFs, mod_sec for apache, and mod_evasive
706 2012-01-12 21:54:30 <luke-jr> occulta: if you need to ask how to install bitcoind as a new user, there's NO WAY you're qualified for the security required to run this
707 2012-01-12 21:54:33 <occulta> alot of other bitrs
708 2012-01-12 21:54:46 <pierce> phh apache
709 2012-01-12 21:54:49 <occulta> why luke-jr because ive never read about it before, means im stupid at everything else?
710 2012-01-12 21:54:53 <pierce> take a ride on the nginx train
711 2012-01-12 21:55:02 <luke-jr> occulta: because installing stuff is the #1 most basic thing about using any OS
712 2012-01-12 21:55:09 <sipa> occulta: no, but you clearly have some things to learn about unix system administration
713 2012-01-12 21:55:17 <sipa> it has nothing to do with being stupid
714 2012-01-12 21:55:21 <occulta> ive looked at engineX, stick with what i know
715 2012-01-12 21:55:31 <pierce> nginx
716 2012-01-12 21:55:41 <occulta> lol
717 2012-01-12 21:55:45 <occulta> way to annoy you :)
718 2012-01-12 21:55:54 <luke-jr> occulta: what's this website you're going to setup?
719 2012-01-12 21:55:56 <luke-jr> called?
720 2012-01-12 21:56:02 <occulta> mysteriouswebsite.com
721 2012-01-12 21:56:06 <luke-jr> no, really.
722 2012-01-12 21:56:08 <occulta> :O
723 2012-01-12 21:56:17 <pierce> occulta: also, just set it up, fix it later :-D  learn by doing
724 2012-01-12 21:56:36 <occulta> yes im just backing up and i will play, thought i would ask first
725 2012-01-12 21:56:41 <occulta> seemed the right thing to do ;)
726 2012-01-12 21:56:50 <luke-jr> pierce: if you thought MtGox and MyBitcoin problems were bad, you've no idea what you're encouraging&
727 2012-01-12 21:57:04 <pierce> I sell bitcoins through my website, and my friend runs a pool
728 2012-01-12 21:57:09 <pierce> we've seen plenty :-)
729 2012-01-12 21:57:38 <occulta> and sipa im quite happy running the daemon as another user,, and i assumed so
730 2012-01-12 21:57:41 <luke-jr> occulta: if you can hire a web developer, you can hire a security expert.
731 2012-01-12 21:57:54 <occulta> luke-jr: what security measure do i need to take
732 2012-01-12 21:58:03 <luke-jr> occulta: I am not qualified as a security expert.
733 2012-01-12 21:58:06 <occulta> i think im nearly covered
734 2012-01-12 21:58:25 <occulta> ive tested the script i am using locally
735 2012-01-12 21:58:36 <gmaxwell> haha
736 2012-01-12 21:58:40 <occulta> i have nessus pro feed, and ive done 2 days of manual testing also
737 2012-01-12 21:59:00 <occulta> i have someone who can spend longer on it if needed
738 2012-01-12 21:59:00 <pierce> nonono ..  nessus..
739 2012-01-12 21:59:03 <gmaxwell> "But I tested it" ... all good compromise stories begin with this.
740 2012-01-12 21:59:05 <occulta> thanks for your concern
741 2012-01-12 21:59:09 <luke-jr> occulta: tell me where your site is and give me permission to attempt to break in, and I'll see about that& (do this at least once BEFORE you have money on it)
742 2012-01-12 21:59:20 <occulta> i can do that myself luke-jr, thanks though
743 2012-01-12 21:59:35 <gmaxwell> No, actually you can't. Thats the point.
744 2012-01-12 21:59:37 <luke-jr> occulta: ever hear of Metasploit?
745 2012-01-12 21:59:43 <occulta> yes
746 2012-01-12 21:59:46 <gmaxwell> You're blind to the vulnerabilties you created.
747 2012-01-12 21:59:54 <occulta> lol ok
748 2012-01-12 21:59:57 <luke-jr> occulta: before I mentioned it just now?
749 2012-01-12 21:59:58 <occulta> you know me so well :)
750 2012-01-12 22:00:02 <occulta> rapid7
751 2012-01-12 22:00:03 <occulta> ?
752 2012-01-12 22:00:06 <riush_> everybody can build a security system that he cannot exploit himself
753 2012-01-12 22:00:10 <occulta> they own it i think
754 2012-01-12 22:00:13 <pierce> ya
755 2012-01-12 22:00:17 <occulta> but im stupid
756 2012-01-12 22:00:18 <pierce> well, they hired hdm :-)
757 2012-01-12 22:00:25 <occulta> i hate him :)
758 2012-01-12 22:00:35 <pierce> he's a nice guy
759 2012-01-12 22:00:40 <occulta> sometimes lol
760 2012-01-12 22:00:43 <pierce> total twitter troll though
761 2012-01-12 22:00:44 <pierce> ha
762 2012-01-12 22:00:55 <luke-jr> occulta: ok, all I want to know now is what this site you plan to run will be called
763 2012-01-12 22:01:01 <egecko> question.
764 2012-01-12 22:01:01 <luke-jr> so I can note it on my "never use" list
765 2012-01-12 22:01:07 <occulta> i know you do, but its not 'live'
766 2012-01-12 22:01:08 <occulta> so im not posting it :)
767 2012-01-12 22:01:13 <pierce> luke-jr: you must sign NDA first
768 2012-01-12 22:01:15 <luke-jr> I don't care if it's live or not.
769 2012-01-12 22:01:16 <occulta> ill PM you when it is