1 2012-01-18 00:24:02 <TuxBlackEdo> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OztVYTS_Ei8
  2 2012-01-18 00:35:17 <BlueMatt> TuxBlackEdo: nice
  3 2012-01-18 00:36:18 <BlueMatt> wait devrandom has been here since januarg
  4 2012-01-18 00:49:39 <devrandom> BlueMatt: ?
  5 2012-01-18 00:50:42 <BlueMatt> devrandom: you showed up in git in like january
  6 2012-01-18 00:50:43 <devrandom> sipa: I slightly changed the desc locally to rm -rf $HOME/qt
  7 2012-01-18 00:50:49 <BlueMatt> or was it feb, anyway it was early
  8 2012-01-18 00:50:56 <devrandom> 2010?
  9 2012-01-18 00:50:59 <BlueMatt> 2011
 10 2012-01-18 00:51:08 <devrandom> I meant 2011...
 11 2012-01-18 00:51:17 <BlueMatt> yea
 12 2012-01-18 00:51:19 <devrandom> I'm surprised, I thought it was later
 13 2012-01-18 00:51:26 <BlueMatt> I thought I saw you in that video...
 14 2012-01-18 00:51:35 <BlueMatt> and I dont feel like looking up git commands to find out
 15 2012-01-18 00:52:05 <devrandom> video?
 16 2012-01-18 00:52:13 <BlueMatt> the one TuxBlackEdo linked
 17 2012-01-18 00:53:22 <devrandom> ah, cool
 18 2012-01-18 00:53:41 <devrandom> 1 Feb 2011
 19 2012-01-18 00:53:52 <BlueMatt> damn
 20 2012-01-18 00:53:52 <devrandom> (git log, go to end, look backwards for devrandom)
 21 2012-01-18 00:55:00 <devrandom> maybe we'll actually have people use the gitian downloader this year :-P
 22 2012-01-18 00:55:38 <BlueMatt> when I have a ton of free time, finish cblockstore, and eventually port bitcoin-win32 to use it as an auto-update mechanism...
 23 2012-01-18 01:01:37 <BlueMatt> damn, I didnt show up until March 5...
 24 2012-01-18 01:07:27 <jimmy__> Hey guys, is this the appropriate channel to ask about a build error when I'm trying to build bitcoind ?
 25 2012-01-18 01:07:49 <BlueMatt> Id guess so
 26 2012-01-18 01:08:37 <jimmy__> I'm running 64-bit CentOS on a VPS. And I've got my makefile.centos in my directory. I grabbed the Bitcoin source from git. I'm getting this error message - make: *** No rule to make target `obj/util.o', needed by `bitcoind'.  Stop.
 27 2012-01-18 01:09:14 <BlueMatt> you are using a 3rd party makefile that isnt up to date with the current git head
 28 2012-01-18 01:09:17 <BlueMatt> or so Id guess
 29 2012-01-18 01:09:48 <jimmy__> You're probably correct, is there a location I can find a newer one at
 30 2012-01-18 01:10:02 <jimmy__> The one I got is from a forums post on July 2011
 31 2012-01-18 01:10:04 <BlueMatt> use the makefile.unix provided in the source
 32 2012-01-18 01:10:27 <jimmy__> Gotcha.
 33 2012-01-18 01:10:42 <jimmy__> And do I run it within the src/ directory ? Or rather from there.
 34 2012-01-18 01:10:47 <BlueMatt> src
 35 2012-01-18 01:13:03 <nanotube> BlueMatt: i'm working on it presently
 36 2012-01-18 01:13:31 <BlueMatt> nanotube: on win32 autoupdate via gitian?
 37 2012-01-18 01:14:19 <nanotube> BlueMatt: no seednodes update
 38 2012-01-18 01:14:31 <BlueMatt> oh, ok nice tell sipa that
 39 2012-01-18 01:15:49 <jimmy__> BlueMatt: One last question, how can I specify the DEPS folder?
 40 2012-01-18 01:16:29 <jimmy__> ie. where I've stored OpenSSL, boost, BDB, etc.
 41 2012-01-18 01:17:39 <BlueMatt> CXXFLAGS=-O2 -I/path/to/deps/include/ -L/path/to/deps/libfolder/with/lib*/in/it make -f makefile.unix
 42 2012-01-18 01:18:30 <jimmy__> Gotcha, thanks.
 43 2012-01-18 01:18:48 <BlueMatt> should work, check it
 44 2012-01-18 01:18:52 <jimmy__> Yeh
 45 2012-01-18 01:25:33 <BlueMatt> http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/17/2713814/elevator-source-simulator-mod-multiplayer-parody oh wow thats great
 46 2012-01-18 01:25:47 <luke-jr> nanotube: upload 0.5.2 for us?
 47 2012-01-18 01:26:26 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I don't think that will work, you have the order backward
 48 2012-01-18 01:26:45 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: it will work either way, as an env var or as a make var
 49 2012-01-18 01:26:47 <luke-jr> make -f makefile.unix CXXFLAGS=-O2 BDB_INCLUDE_PATH=/usr/include/db4.8 <-- try that
 50 2012-01-18 01:26:59 <BlueMatt> he just said it worked
 51 2012-01-18 01:27:01 <luke-jr> actually, can probably leave out the CXXFLAGS
 52 2012-01-18 01:27:22 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: it might work, but might also make problems for the -fstack-protector and crap
 53 2012-01-18 01:27:48 <BlueMatt> will it, i only mostly read like 1 line to see what var might work
 54 2012-01-18 01:28:26 <BlueMatt> why would it break the HARDENING stuff, that is all in CXXFLAGSx
 55 2012-01-18 01:28:32 <BlueMatt> no xCXXFLAGS
 56 2012-01-18 01:30:26 <luke-jr> I forget
 57 2012-01-18 01:32:20 <theymos> I don't think setting an environment variable like that will work, since the definition of that variable in the makefile will take precedence.
 58 2012-01-18 01:33:20 <BlueMatt> again, the guy said it worked
 59 2012-01-18 01:33:40 <BlueMatt> no guarantees  on any system other that that guy's
 60 2012-01-18 01:35:55 <nanotube> luke-jr: has gavin given his ok on 0.5.2?
 61 2012-01-18 01:36:17 <luke-jr> nanotube: http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2012/01/17/7
 62 2012-01-18 01:37:18 <luke-jr> nanotube: he said he'd be comfortable with it, if I could identify the cause of the differences between BlueMatt and devrandom's builds; then sipa's finished after he left, identical to devrandom's
 63 2012-01-18 01:37:38 <BlueMatt> meh, upload it
 64 2012-01-18 01:38:02 <luke-jr> nanotube: IMO, if BlueMatt ~= devrandom was good enough provided I could identify the cause of difference, devrandom == sipa should be fine
 65 2012-01-18 01:38:15 <BlueMatt> I probably used bad inputs
 66 2012-01-18 01:38:23 <nanotube> ok, where do i get fileset to upload?
 67 2012-01-18 01:40:50 <luke-jr> nanotube: http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/bitcoin-0.5.2/
 68 2012-01-18 01:41:03 <luke-jr> nanotube: note there are hidden files: README.txt & README.bb
 69 2012-01-18 01:41:12 <luke-jr> probably don't need to upload the .bb, that's for the forum
 70 2012-01-18 01:42:15 <nanotube> yea
 71 2012-01-18 01:42:20 <useryhh> hi, translation will be updated too?
 72 2012-01-18 01:42:47 <devrandom> BlueMatt: luke-jr: I uploaded my qt build to https://gitian.org/qt-win32-4.7.4-gitian.zip
 73 2012-01-18 01:42:53 <devrandom> if that helps
 74 2012-01-18 01:42:58 <devrandom> bbl
 75 2012-01-18 01:43:00 <BlueMatt> oh, luke-jr you need to update translations before pushing that...
 76 2012-01-18 01:43:28 <luke-jr> useryhh: doubt it&
 77 2012-01-18 01:43:34 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: too late
 78 2012-01-18 01:43:49 <luke-jr> if they were in master in time, they should be in 0.5.2
 79 2012-01-18 01:43:50 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: not really
 80 2012-01-18 01:43:51 <useryhh> hum
 81 2012-01-18 01:43:59 <luke-jr> nanotube: it's all ready
 82 2012-01-18 01:44:13 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: tcatm updates the translations before each release
 83 2012-01-18 01:44:26 <luke-jr> well, he didn't this time
 84 2012-01-18 01:45:31 <BlueMatt> meh, whatever but in the future ping tcatm
 85 2012-01-18 01:45:35 <BlueMatt> (please)
 86 2012-01-18 01:47:07 <luke-jr> should be added to release-process.txt &
 87 2012-01-18 01:47:19 <luke-jr> only new strings in 0.5.2 are: "Don't find peers using internet relay chat\n" and "Received from"
 88 2012-01-18 01:47:23 <BlueMatt> it isnt?
 89 2012-01-18 01:47:41 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: not that I saw/see
 90 2012-01-18 01:48:07 <BlueMatt> mmm, well pull request that
 91 2012-01-18 01:54:05 <luke-jr> tcatm: are you around btw?
 92 2012-01-18 01:54:22 <luke-jr> theymos: how about you?
 93 2012-01-18 01:54:53 <theymos> I am around.
 94 2012-01-18 01:55:17 <luke-jr> theymos: anything special needed to update forum? or just post?
 95 2012-01-18 01:55:35 <luke-jr> release-process.txt just says 'update forum' -.-
 96 2012-01-18 01:55:46 <BlueMatt> mmm, well that needs fixed
 97 2012-01-18 01:55:49 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: luke-jr opened pull request 764 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/764>
 98 2012-01-18 01:56:13 <theymos> The latest release is listed in the "news" section and needs to be updated. Let me know when a download link is available and I'll update it.
 99 2012-01-18 01:56:37 <luke-jr> theymos: ok, hopefully it will be tonight
100 2012-01-18 01:56:47 <luke-jr> theymos: do we need to wait until the bitcoin.org is updated, before forum?
101 2012-01-18 01:57:00 <theymos> No.
102 2012-01-18 01:57:33 <BlueMatt> as long as its on sf, oh but you are gonna need gavin's pgp sig on the forum post, but I guess that can wait till after the release as well
103 2012-01-18 01:57:46 <BlueMatt> (the sig can happen after the post)
104 2012-01-18 01:58:13 <luke-jr> /me doesn't recall seeing Gavin's sig on any forum posts O.o
105 2012-01-18 01:58:32 <BlueMatt> really, I thought i did, maybe Im dreaming that though
106 2012-01-18 01:59:29 <theymos> I think I remember him signing the hashes.
107 2012-01-18 02:00:47 <luke-jr> theymos: but the forum post? O.o
108 2012-01-18 02:01:34 <Diablo-D3> meh
109 2012-01-18 02:01:39 <Diablo-D3> I need to quit using midstate
110 2012-01-18 02:01:48 <Diablo-D3> but I need to go remember what order I have to call shit in
111 2012-01-18 02:04:10 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: especially since midstate is deprecated
112 2012-01-18 02:04:42 <Diablo-D3> well, I have a function named, I think, sharound
113 2012-01-18 02:04:46 <Diablo-D3> which has a very obvious usage
114 2012-01-18 02:05:23 <Diablo-D3> either I or someone else just has to put the right ones in the right order
115 2012-01-18 02:05:28 <Diablo-D3> and produce the midstate normally
116 2012-01-18 02:06:13 <k9quaint> well, realsolid finally got around to banning me from his channel
117 2012-01-18 02:06:22 <k9quaint> (after I was idle in it for 7 days)
118 2012-01-18 02:10:13 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr * rebe21db3dc4a cgminer/util.c: Advertise that we can make our own midstate, so the pool can skip generating it for us http://tinyurl.com/6opvp23
119 2012-01-18 02:10:14 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * rc077eea29ee7 cgminer/util.c: Merge pull request #72 from luke-jr/adv_midstate http://tinyurl.com/7hkah3a
120 2012-01-18 02:19:11 <BlueMatt> heh, big bang theory fucked up, raj pulled the jenga block twice in a row
121 2012-01-18 02:19:33 <Diablo-D3> ...
122 2012-01-18 02:19:45 <BlueMatt> dont like the big bang theory?
123 2012-01-18 02:19:51 <BlueMatt> Ill admit Im pretty damn bored...
124 2012-01-18 02:21:28 <Diablo-D3> its a horrid fucking show
125 2012-01-18 02:21:53 <BlueMatt> meh its not /that/ bad
126 2012-01-18 02:38:07 <Diablo-D3> okay so
127 2012-01-18 02:38:14 <Diablo-D3> Im trying to turn windows into useful
128 2012-01-18 02:38:20 <TuxBlackEdo> doors?
129 2012-01-18 02:38:29 <Diablo-D3> I have jdk, kernel analyzer, sdk 2.6
130 2012-01-18 02:38:49 <Diablo-D3> I need to figure out what Im going to do about git
131 2012-01-18 02:39:34 <luke-jr> [21:10:57] <forrestv> there are p2pool nodes at both 85.247.9.10 and 127.247.9.10&
132 2012-01-18 02:39:36 <luke-jr> lol
133 2012-01-18 02:40:01 <Folklore> luke-jr
134 2012-01-18 02:40:04 <Folklore> fight sopa man
135 2012-01-18 02:40:09 <luke-jr> Folklore: no. shoo.
136 2012-01-18 02:40:13 <Diablo-D3> so what else should I do?
137 2012-01-18 02:40:25 <BlueMatt> Diablo-D3: google git windows
138 2012-01-18 02:40:26 <Folklore> oh forgot you're all about the dmca
139 2012-01-18 02:40:37 <Diablo-D3> blueMatt: but I need a command line
140 2012-01-18 02:40:40 <luke-jr> nanotube: how's it coming?
141 2012-01-18 02:40:52 <Diablo-D3> mingw+msys maybe?
142 2012-01-18 02:41:07 <Diablo-D3> and then I need to see if I can get some working vim on windows
143 2012-01-18 02:41:11 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: install Gentoo GNU/Windows
144 2012-01-18 02:41:16 <BlueMatt> Diablo-D3: maybe, never bothered to use windows for development, seriously wtf would you want to do that?
145 2012-01-18 02:41:31 <Diablo-D3> bluematt: cant get kernel analyzer working right in linux
146 2012-01-18 02:41:49 <forrestv> luke-jr, stop quoting me, i was tired :P
147 2012-01-18 02:43:19 <luke-jr> forrestv: but it's funny!
148 2012-01-18 02:43:37 <Diablo-D3> [10:39:34] <luke-jr> [21:10:57] <forrestv> there are p2pool nodes at both 85.247.9.10 and 127.247.9.10&
149 2012-01-18 02:43:42 <Diablo-D3> home sweet home
150 2012-01-18 02:43:46 <Folklore> anyone have stats on linux users downloads for bitcoin client?
151 2012-01-18 02:43:54 <luke-jr> Folklore: SourceForge does
152 2012-01-18 02:44:03 <luke-jr> Folklore: doubled after The Good Wife
153 2012-01-18 02:44:07 <BlueMatt> <Diablo-D3> [10:39:34] <luke-jr> [21:10:57] <forrestv> there are p2pool nodes at both 85.247.9.10 and 127.247.9.10&
154 2012-01-18 02:44:18 <BlueMatt> lets just tag everyone in one pointless message
155 2012-01-18 02:44:23 <luke-jr> [22:44:07] <BlueMatt> <Diablo-D3> [10:39:34] <luke-jr> [21:10:57] <forrestv> there are p2pool nodes at both 85.247.9.10 and 127.247.9.10&
156 2012-01-18 02:44:33 <Diablo-D3> [10:44:22] <luke-jr> [22:44:07] <BlueMatt> <Diablo-D3> [10:39:34] <luke-jr> [21:10:57] <forrestv> there are p2pool nodes at both 85.247.9.10 and 127.247.9.10&
157 2012-01-18 02:44:47 <Diablo-D3> AHAHAHA
158 2012-01-18 02:44:48 <Diablo-D3> HOLY SHIT
159 2012-01-18 02:44:54 <Diablo-D3> windows thinks diablominer is potentially harmful!
160 2012-01-18 02:45:14 <luke-jr> it is
161 2012-01-18 02:45:40 <BlueMatt> windows thinks everything is harmful (except viruses, those just get around the "protection")
162 2012-01-18 02:45:47 <Diablo-D3> Program:Win32/BitCOinMiner
163 2012-01-18 02:45:56 <Diablo-D3> Program:MacOS_X/BitCoinMiner
164 2012-01-18 02:46:01 <Diablo-D3> Program:Linux/BitCoinMiner
165 2012-01-18 02:46:08 <Diablo-D3> Program:Solaris/BitCoinMiner
166 2012-01-18 02:46:10 <Diablo-D3> lololol
167 2012-01-18 02:48:54 <Diablo-D3> I think Im going to send a DMCA to Microsoft
168 2012-01-18 02:48:59 <TuxBlackEdo> Diablo-D3,
169 2012-01-18 02:49:04 <TuxBlackEdo> bitcoin miner?
170 2012-01-18 02:49:05 <BlueMatt> heh, sue their ass
171 2012-01-18 02:49:08 <TuxBlackEdo> are you kidding me
172 2012-01-18 02:49:15 <TuxBlackEdo> it's all about realcoin nowadays
173 2012-01-18 02:49:16 <Diablo-D3> and by DMCA, I mean luke them.
174 2012-01-18 02:50:22 <cjdelisle> Luke 'em
175 2012-01-18 02:51:22 <luke-jr> TuxBlackEdo: are you onboard for takedown of Realcoin?
176 2012-01-18 02:51:35 <[Tycho]> What is Realcoin ?
177 2012-01-18 02:51:49 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: latest scamcoin
178 2012-01-18 02:51:50 <BlueMatt> is it merged-mined?
179 2012-01-18 02:51:53 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: no
180 2012-01-18 02:52:01 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: which means it'd be expensive if I did it alone
181 2012-01-18 02:52:06 <Folklore> wikipedia about to write article on solidcoin, tried to give link about lukes dmca stuff
182 2012-01-18 02:52:08 <BlueMatt> heh, ofc not the scamcoins keep getting worse...
183 2012-01-18 02:52:08 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: it's also closed source
184 2012-01-18 02:52:12 <Folklore> but has some weird guy singing anti-sopa stuff
185 2012-01-18 02:52:13 <[Tycho]> Some new coin spawned and died when I was sleeping again ? :)
186 2012-01-18 02:52:21 <TuxBlackEdo> yes luke-jr
187 2012-01-18 02:52:27 <luke-jr> Folklore: Solidcoin isn't notable.
188 2012-01-18 02:52:27 <TuxBlackEdo> i am onboard to take realcoin down
189 2012-01-18 02:52:32 <Folklore> I think bitcoin and similar is healthy, helps grow the ecosystem
190 2012-01-18 02:52:38 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: it's scheduled to spawn in a week or so
191 2012-01-18 02:53:27 <[Tycho]> Actually I don't really care about altcoins at all. Especially about useless ones. I'm not even using merged mining.
192 2012-01-18 02:53:52 <[Tycho]> May be the namecoin is the one not so useless :)
193 2012-01-18 02:54:03 <Folklore> if you think about it, bitcoins an alt as well
194 2012-01-18 02:54:12 <Folklore> since the original author and his direction left a long time ago
195 2012-01-18 02:54:22 <Folklore> so rather silly putting down other projects
196 2012-01-18 02:57:47 <TuxBlackEdo> Folklore, stfu
197 2012-01-18 02:59:27 <Folklore> it's true my friend
198 2012-01-18 03:09:42 <MC1984> [Tycho] why dont you MM?
199 2012-01-18 03:11:09 <[Tycho]> It would require code modification, but doesn't gets me any profit from this.
200 2012-01-18 03:15:36 <MC1984> nmc is worth money?
201 2012-01-18 03:16:11 <BlueMatt> barely
202 2012-01-18 05:02:55 <cjdelisle> 01:15 -!- enquirer [~enquirer@109.172.15.27] has joined #bitcoin-dev
203 2012-01-18 05:02:56 <cjdelisle> 01:15 -!- enquirer [~enquirer@109.172.15.27] has quit [Excess Flood]
204 2012-01-18 05:03:18 <SomeoneWeird> LOL holy shit
205 2012-01-18 06:11:33 <Diablo-D3> FINALLY
206 2012-01-18 06:11:37 <Diablo-D3> I got app profiler to work
207 2012-01-18 06:11:38 <Diablo-D3> lawlz
208 2012-01-18 08:54:07 <diki> >terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::bad_cast'
209 2012-01-18 12:19:13 <sipa> nanotube: how do you mean, no seednodes update?
210 2012-01-18 15:33:40 <finway> Really? genjix start a scamcoin? Realcoin?
211 2012-01-18 15:34:12 <finway> because of what? sopa?
212 2012-01-18 15:34:48 <finway> And Tycho is against Gavin?
213 2012-01-18 15:35:04 <finway> What a mess
214 2012-01-18 15:35:07 <luke-jr> finway: genjix wrote code for pay. nothing more.
215 2012-01-18 15:35:17 <luke-jr> finway: interested in the takedown? I can't do this one alone
216 2012-01-18 15:35:28 <finway> not interested.
217 2012-01-18 15:35:53 <finway> your pool looks unstable.
218 2012-01-18 15:36:23 <luke-jr> it's under attack again.
219 2012-01-18 15:36:32 <finway> As this coin is not mm, are you using users power?
220 2012-01-18 15:36:34 <luke-jr> #eligius for the latest
221 2012-01-18 15:36:44 <luke-jr> finway: I'm looking for volunteers to assist.
222 2012-01-18 15:38:44 <finway> I dont like this situation, we should move on, not stuck by some nonsense "special case" issue.
223 2012-01-18 15:39:03 <finway> especially pools vs dev
224 2012-01-18 15:39:42 <finway> That's not cool
225 2012-01-18 15:39:43 <finway> especially "centralized" pool vs dev
226 2012-01-18 15:42:01 <finway> I think when p2pool grow big, i'll move to that,  at least , i can support Gavin.
227 2012-01-18 15:42:05 <luke-jr> finway: I agree, but Gavin insists on ignoring solutions and pushing forward with flawed designs
228 2012-01-18 15:43:08 <finway> I don't know, OP_EVAL is too good, P2SH is too bad, and CHV is just fine?
229 2012-01-18 15:43:15 <luke-jr> hopefully when his vote date comes and goes without support, he'll reconsider
230 2012-01-18 15:43:26 <luke-jr> CHV seems to be the best so far
231 2012-01-18 15:43:36 <luke-jr> piuk has some ideas, but I'm not sure anything usable yet
232 2012-01-18 15:44:04 <finway> Gavin dont think so.
233 2012-01-18 15:44:07 <helo> who on earth would want to attack luke-jr?
234 2012-01-18 15:44:53 <helo> maybe satan...
235 2012-01-18 15:45:01 <luke-jr> finway: Gavin isn't perfect, nor unbiased.
236 2012-01-18 15:45:50 <finway> I thought P2SH is supported by majority of core devs
237 2012-01-18 15:46:23 <finway> but Tycho with "his" biggest pool reject it.
238 2012-01-18 15:46:36 <finway> It's not cool, pool vs dev
239 2012-01-18 15:47:03 <finway> Pool should act Decentralized.
240 2012-01-18 15:47:14 <finway> not monoply
241 2012-01-18 15:48:15 <alexwaters1> luke-jr: vote date for Gavin? what is that?
242 2012-01-18 15:48:30 <alexwaters1> who thinks they can do better?
243 2012-01-18 15:49:49 <luke-jr> finway: while there might be a majority of devs who will support BIP16, most of them also agree CHV (which is also P2SH) is better
244 2012-01-18 15:50:17 <luke-jr> alexwaters1: Gavin is having miners vote on BIP16 mid-February
245 2012-01-18 15:50:24 <luke-jr> I forget which day
246 2012-01-18 15:50:43 <finway> I think old clients don't verify CHV txes?  at least P2SH does.
247 2012-01-18 15:51:05 <luke-jr> thankfully, I have confirmed a significant amount of hashrate will not be supporting BIP16
248 2012-01-18 15:51:07 <alexwaters1> luke-jrt: thanks I thought you were talking about something completely different
249 2012-01-18 15:51:13 <finway> That's one think why P2SH is better than OP_EVAL
250 2012-01-18 15:51:18 <luke-jr> finway: old clients don't verify any P2SH transactions
251 2012-01-18 15:51:41 <luke-jr> finway: OP_EVAL and BIP16 do a basic check that the provided code is correct, but they don't do the actual verification in it
252 2012-01-18 15:52:01 <luke-jr> finway: there is no significant improvement by this check
253 2012-01-18 15:52:31 <luke-jr> the only vulnerability is if you have an old client and accept zero-confirmation transactions
254 2012-01-18 15:52:36 <luke-jr> which has never been recommended
255 2012-01-18 15:52:53 <luke-jr> also, since old clients can't receive these transactions anyway, it's not even plausable
256 2012-01-18 15:53:52 <luke-jr> there's a VERY remote possibility a 1-confirmed transaction might get reversed for an old client, but that's already possible with orphans
257 2012-01-18 15:54:09 <luke-jr> (in fact, the chance of an orphan reversal is greater than this chance)
258 2012-01-18 15:54:18 <finway> Then why Gavin leave for a few days, and still don't suport CHV?
259 2012-01-18 15:54:36 <luke-jr> he seems to think he has majority hashpower behind BIP16, so doesn't care about anything else
260 2012-01-18 15:54:42 <luke-jr> no idea where he got that idea
261 2012-01-18 15:55:06 <CIA-76> bitcoin: m0mchil * raee208751d97 poclbm/ (BitcoinMiner.py HttpTransport.py Transport.py): fixed problem with referencing non-existent 'failure' method http://tinyurl.com/7wjwz53
262 2012-01-18 15:55:07 <CIA-76> bitcoin: m0mchil * r7bddecbe9531 poclbm/ (Transport.py poclbm.py): unsuccessfully trying to parse server strings with urlsplit http://tinyurl.com/7s2zefw
263 2012-01-18 15:55:09 <CIA-76> bitcoin: m0mchil * r5e994e7af4ae poclbm/ (HttpTransport.py Transport.py poclbm.py socks.py): proxy support http://tinyurl.com/72wvm2k
264 2012-01-18 15:55:10 <CIA-76> bitcoin: m0mchil * r425639c5ad4c poclbm/BitcoinMiner.py: BFI_INT patch only specific devices http://tinyurl.com/89jqx9d
265 2012-01-18 15:56:21 <gmaxwell> Eliel: because we've been working on this since october, it isn't a hurry. And because there will be a 6-9 month delay once its out before it's safely usable by most users.
266 2012-01-18 15:57:08 <gmaxwell> Eliel: It's not gavins fault that people started caring months after the code was written and people who'd been around considered it more or less settled.
267 2012-01-18 15:57:18 <gmaxwell> (not that it's really anyone elses fault either, it just is)
268 2012-01-18 15:57:31 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: if it was settled on OP_EVAL, it'd be fine with me&
269 2012-01-18 15:57:57 <gmaxwell> guess what! more people need to be happy than you! :)
270 2012-01-18 15:58:03 <luke-jr> :P
271 2012-01-18 15:58:06 <finway> I just dont' see a big difference between P2SH and CHV, Gavin compromised on OP_EVAL, so you can't compromise on CHV?
272 2012-01-18 15:58:07 <luke-jr> CHV makes everyone happy I think
273 2012-01-18 15:58:16 <finway> at least, he's the core dev
274 2012-01-18 15:58:31 <helo> "nobody cared before, they have no right to care now!" - SOPA Supporters
275 2012-01-18 15:58:43 <luke-jr> finway: that doesn't really make sense
276 2012-01-18 15:58:51 <k9quaint> I was hoping SOPA would pass, and the internet would leave the US
277 2012-01-18 15:59:17 <k9quaint> it would be painful for a few years, but afterwards probably much more stable
278 2012-01-18 15:59:23 <luke-jr> finway: BIP16 breaks the Bitcoin protocol
279 2012-01-18 15:59:40 <luke-jr> finway: also, please stop confusing P2SH (which describes OP_EVAL, BIP16, and CHV) with BIP16 :p
280 2012-01-18 15:59:42 <alexwaters1> lol, nothing changes...
281 2012-01-18 15:59:52 <luke-jr> it doesn't help the conversation progress to guess which one people mean
282 2012-01-18 16:00:07 <finway> I know i know /P2SH/
283 2012-01-18 16:00:27 <luke-jr> most people here have settled on 'BIP16'
284 2012-01-18 16:00:59 <gmaxwell> helo: I wasn't discounting the complaints.
285 2012-01-18 16:01:30 <helo> yeah i know... just reminded me of the crappy argument for SOPA
286 2012-01-18 16:01:56 <luke-jr> what Gavin doesn't realize, is that by ignoring other solutions, he's just delaying P2SH further since BIP16 won't get the miner voting support
287 2012-01-18 16:02:01 <helo> today is "bring up sopa hate" day :)
288 2012-01-18 16:02:15 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: ping? :P
289 2012-01-18 16:02:25 <[Tycho]> Hello.
290 2012-01-18 16:02:50 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: have you read up CHV yet?
291 2012-01-18 16:03:11 <[Tycho]> Yes, but I can't remember what it was about.
292 2012-01-18 16:03:59 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: basically, a new opcode that simply checks the hash of the end of scriptSig matches the one on the stack
293 2012-01-18 16:04:10 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: no evaluation, special-casing, or any other funny business
294 2012-01-18 16:04:27 <[Tycho]> Scripts are cool, but as I said, I don't like the fact that those things will require out-of-blockchain communication between sender and receiver.
295 2012-01-18 16:05:06 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: why woudl they?
296 2012-01-18 16:05:10 <finway> OMG
297 2012-01-18 16:05:42 <[Tycho]> I see some conflict there and people are supporting Gavin, so I'm thinking that it may be better to wait until problem solves itself.
298 2012-01-18 16:06:15 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: the problem won't solve itself. can you elaborate on this OOB communication?
299 2012-01-18 16:06:34 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: the whole point of P2SH in general (ie, all 3 BIPs) is to avoid OOB communciation
300 2012-01-18 16:06:38 <[Tycho]> luke-jr: how would the receiver know that this TX is sending money to him ?
301 2012-01-18 16:06:54 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: the receiver knows his own addresses, just like now&
302 2012-01-18 16:07:06 <makomk> [Tycho]: all the solutions require pretty much the same kinds of OOB communication, I think.
303 2012-01-18 16:07:32 <[Tycho]> luke-jr: but the sending TX doesn't contains it ?
304 2012-01-18 16:07:53 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: the sending tx contains the scripthash required to redeem it
305 2012-01-18 16:08:11 <[Tycho]> Ok, but the receiver don't knows the script.
306 2012-01-18 16:08:19 <luke-jr> the receiver created the script initially
307 2012-01-18 16:08:27 <luke-jr> part of getnewaddress (or equivalent)
308 2012-01-18 16:08:33 <[Tycho]> Oh, that.
309 2012-01-18 16:08:55 <luke-jr> 'getnewaddress' creates a script, hashes it, and tells the user the address
310 2012-01-18 16:09:02 <luke-jr> that user communicates the address to another user, just like now
311 2012-01-18 16:09:08 <luke-jr> the other user pays to the address
312 2012-01-18 16:09:36 <[Tycho]> It generates this script as multisig for his wallet and his second device, right ?
313 2012-01-18 16:09:52 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: that's one possibility, yes
314 2012-01-18 16:09:54 <helo> so if the script is a 2-of-3... only 1 of 3 will know the contents of the script?
315 2012-01-18 16:10:07 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: how the receiver wants his redemption script to be, is up to him and his client
316 2012-01-18 16:11:34 <[Tycho]> I'm worried a bit because your poll at the forum shows that most users are supporting P2SH. I know that they don't understand it and they aren't miners at all, but I don't like to oppose the majority.
317 2012-01-18 16:11:42 <Eliel> what problems would OP_EVAL have left if the recursion depth was restricted to just one level?
318 2012-01-18 16:12:34 <[Tycho]> Also I think that recursion depth and script limits should be hardcoded in a unavoidable way, not by static analysis.
319 2012-01-18 16:12:57 <gavinandresen> Hey [Tycho] -- are you still thinking about p2sh ?
320 2012-01-18 16:13:18 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: don't worry about the poll, it's clearly messed up based on the two control options
321 2012-01-18 16:13:30 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: options 1 and 2 are fairly absurd, yet have lots of votes
322 2012-01-18 16:13:40 <[Tycho]> gavinandresen: I don't like P2SH because it adds a special case, not covered by opcodes.
323 2012-01-18 16:13:51 <[Tycho]> luke-jr: no, they aren't.
324 2012-01-18 16:14:06 <[Tycho]> luke-jr: using complete long addresses is not absurd.
325 2012-01-18 16:14:16 <[Tycho]> I can understand this option.
326 2012-01-18 16:14:31 <Folklore> you know what I see around the internet today?
327 2012-01-18 16:14:41 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: is that just an "it doesn't feel right" concern, or do you see some problem that I don't?
328 2012-01-18 16:14:44 <[Tycho]> Other thing I don't like is serialized script form.
329 2012-01-18 16:14:47 <Folklore> a global protest, google, wikipedia,craigslist, and thousands of others
330 2012-01-18 16:14:51 <Folklore> you know what I don't see?
331 2012-01-18 16:15:00 <Folklore> bitcoin.org nor bitcoin talk doing anythig
332 2012-01-18 16:15:05 <Folklore> way to represent guys
333 2012-01-18 16:15:33 <Folklore> keep in mind congress mentioned namecoin by name and are full aware of bitcoin, and if these bills passed bitcoin could easily go bye bye
334 2012-01-18 16:16:01 <Eliel> won't go by by, that's for sure.
335 2012-01-18 16:16:20 <[Tycho]> gavinandresen: we should either have normal scripts or set of special cases, not a mix of both.
336 2012-01-18 16:16:46 <luke-jr> IMO, normal scripts or a single "special case"
337 2012-01-18 16:17:09 <Folklore> Eliel if US makes it illegal, bitcoin use will dwindle into obscurity
338 2012-01-18 16:17:09 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: would you support a patch that "discouraged" building on top of blocks that contained non-standard transactions?
339 2012-01-18 16:17:26 <Folklore> I was really expecting bitcoin to have a link, something to anti-sopa etc...
340 2012-01-18 16:17:33 <Eliel> Folklore: no, I think you're wrong.
341 2012-01-18 16:17:34 <[Tycho]> "discouraged" in what sense ?
342 2012-01-18 16:17:58 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: that would be evil
343 2012-01-18 16:18:09 <[Tycho]> Something tells me you are trying to make a fork in a hard way.
344 2012-01-18 16:18:10 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: "discourage" in the sense that you pretend you never see the initial new block announcement-- you don't relay it, you don't build on top of it.  But if it gets to be part of the longest chain, you accept it.
345 2012-01-18 16:18:19 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: "discouraged" is the term for "try to orphan"
346 2012-01-18 16:19:01 <finway> OMG
347 2012-01-18 16:19:02 <[Tycho]> gavinandresen: does it means that with this patch all P2SH adopters will be left in the orphan branch ?
348 2012-01-18 16:19:42 <finway> OMG
349 2012-01-18 16:19:46 <gavinandresen> No, not if P2SH were the majority-- then the non-P2SH would be left in the orphan branch
350 2012-01-18 16:20:18 <gavinandresen> I'm just asking, I'm not proposing anything.  Reacting to "there should be either ONLY standard transactions OR anything, not a mix of both"
351 2012-01-18 16:20:38 <[Tycho]> Since P2SH is in minority now, I think it's safe enough already.
352 2012-01-18 16:20:51 <gavinandresen> I'm pretty sure P2SH will have a majority by Feb 1
353 2012-01-18 16:21:07 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I'm pretty sure it won't.
354 2012-01-18 16:21:23 <luke-jr> after having discussed it with multiple major pools
355 2012-01-18 16:21:28 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: why are you against forward progress?
356 2012-01-18 16:21:29 <finway> Let's start the campaign
357 2012-01-18 16:21:34 <finway> p2pool campaign
358 2012-01-18 16:21:39 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I'm not. BIP16 is broken.
359 2012-01-18 16:21:48 <gavinandresen> How is BIP 16 broken, specifically?
360 2012-01-18 16:21:55 <finway> i don't like monoply pools.
361 2012-01-18 16:22:21 <Eliel> finway: there's one ongoing, people donating extra coins to p2pool miners.
362 2012-01-18 16:22:21 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: it makes a magic special case, or "standard transaction" part of the protocol
363 2012-01-18 16:22:37 <finway> it's 90G now?
364 2012-01-18 16:22:43 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: as gmaxwell said, ALL of the proposals have some magic/special cases
365 2012-01-18 16:22:44 <[Tycho]> gavinandresen: may be we'll try to make the adoption more smooth ? Let's introduce plain open multisigs and long multisign addresses first, to support 2F auth.
366 2012-01-18 16:23:02 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: only BIP16 AFAICS
367 2012-01-18 16:23:26 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: OP_EVAL had a special case to check to make sure if it was evaluated as a NO-OP it would validate...
368 2012-01-18 16:23:51 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: your proposal has a special case that requires passing extra information between the scritpSig and the scriptPubKey
369 2012-01-18 16:24:31 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: you willing to write up a BIP proposing a long multisig address?
370 2012-01-18 16:24:42 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: that's not a special case (for CHV)
371 2012-01-18 16:24:54 <luke-jr> that's just a new feature for the scripting system
372 2012-01-18 16:25:00 <gavinandresen> It IS a special case-- CHV does nothing if put into the scriptSig
373 2012-01-18 16:25:08 <gavinandresen> That is going outside the scripting system
374 2012-01-18 16:25:10 <luke-jr> it does, just nothing useful
375 2012-01-18 16:25:15 <gavinandresen> What does it do?
376 2012-01-18 16:25:25 <luke-jr> hashes a null string and compares that
377 2012-01-18 16:25:29 <[Tycho]> Also, may be we need to consider multisigs as "standard" TXes too.
378 2012-01-18 16:26:00 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: Ok, if it does that then I'm pretty sure I can exploit that to split the blockchain for old clients.
379 2012-01-18 16:26:17 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I'm pretty sure that's impossible.
380 2012-01-18 16:26:45 <Eliel> [Tycho]: from usability standpoint, it's best to have as few addresses as possible. all the P2SH suggestions share this feature that all types from then on could have the same type of addresses.
381 2012-01-18 16:26:49 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: What does a scriptSig that has just a  single CHV in it do on old and new clients?
382 2012-01-18 16:26:57 <Eliel> *as few address types as possible.
383 2012-01-18 16:27:09 <[Tycho]> Eliel: why ?
384 2012-01-18 16:27:30 <Eliel> [Tycho]: easier for users to tell if they're looking at a bitcoin address or not.
385 2012-01-18 16:27:30 <Folklore> I guess luke and gavin run bitcoin now,since luke all about dmca no wonder your guys site did nothin to fight sopa or pipa, lame. If you don't stand for something, you stand for nothing, and the community was counting on bitcoin devs to do something
386 2012-01-18 16:28:06 <MC1984> does p2pool support merge mine
387 2012-01-18 16:28:11 <graingert> what did Folklore expect? People to stop mining today to protest sopa?
388 2012-01-18 16:28:26 <graingert> MC1984: I believe you can merge mine and p2pool mine
389 2012-01-18 16:28:27 <[Tycho]> Eliel: depends on many things. Remember that it's possible to use strings completely not resembling anything bitcoin-related to send funds.
390 2012-01-18 16:28:38 <graingert> MC1984: but I don't think it's supported natively
391 2012-01-18 16:28:50 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: ping?  What does:    scriptSig:  OP_CODEHASHCHECK   do on new and old clients?
392 2012-01-18 16:28:53 <finway> SOPA is nothing, come to see China's GreatFireWall...
393 2012-01-18 16:29:01 <graingert> MC1984: the best way to do it would be to create a p2pool for namecoin etc and join those as well
394 2012-01-18 16:29:12 <forrestv> graingert, in that when you're merged mining on p2pool you're only solo mining the merged chains
395 2012-01-18 16:29:20 <forrestv> that's the plan :p
396 2012-01-18 16:29:24 <graingert> yes
397 2012-01-18 16:29:27 <graingert> basically
398 2012-01-18 16:29:38 <graingert> but you can still pool mine
399 2012-01-18 16:29:54 <finway> forrestv: do you support P2SH?
400 2012-01-18 16:30:02 <graingert> that allows you to submit shares wraped in bitcoin data
401 2012-01-18 16:30:21 <[Tycho]> The only bad thing about long addresses is more complicated QR-code. No one is going to type in many bitcoin addresses by hand anyway.
402 2012-01-18 16:30:24 <finway> forrestv: i guess it depends on  bitcoind?
403 2012-01-18 16:30:58 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: makes the transaction spending it fail
404 2012-01-18 16:31:01 <luke-jr> on new
405 2012-01-18 16:31:15 <luke-jr> nothing, on old
406 2012-01-18 16:31:58 <helo> anyone who knows about bitcoin or accesses any of its sites knows SOPA is bad
407 2012-01-18 16:32:26 <forrestv> finway, i have a pull req that would make p2pool's blocks reflect bitcoind's opinion: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/759
408 2012-01-18 16:32:33 <forrestv> for now, all blocks have no flags at all
409 2012-01-18 16:33:20 <finway> forrestv: That's great! you just give the voting power back to miner, wonderful job.
410 2012-01-18 16:34:31 <finway> forrestv: i think p2pool is the best thing happened to bitoin in 2011.
411 2012-01-18 16:34:43 <MC1984> yeah
412 2012-01-18 16:34:44 <helo> hasn't really "happened" yet :)
413 2012-01-18 16:34:58 <MC1984> the pools were a necessary step but their time is now passing
414 2012-01-18 16:35:25 <helo> it's still much easier to just point your miners to eligius or a pre-established pool
415 2012-01-18 16:35:47 <helo> people have to care about bitcoin's principles more than they care about the additional time required to set up p2pool
416 2012-01-18 16:36:22 <finway> how about combine bitcoin client & p2pool ?
417 2012-01-18 16:36:29 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: thinking out loud... what if an attacker decided to insert a CHV onto the front of the scriptSig for every transaction they see/relay....
418 2012-01-18 16:36:33 <Eliel> finway: or p2pool and miner?
419 2012-01-18 16:36:47 <Diablo-D3> meh
420 2012-01-18 16:36:49 <finway> it's time to get mining option back to the client.
421 2012-01-18 16:36:52 <Diablo-D3> dont violate the unix way
422 2012-01-18 16:36:58 <Diablo-D3> one app that does one thing well
423 2012-01-18 16:37:23 <finway> Eliel: that's fine too.
424 2012-01-18 16:37:26 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: they shouldn't be capable of doing that&
425 2012-01-18 16:37:30 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: they are.
426 2012-01-18 16:37:47 <luke-jr> they could do a lot of damage in general then
427 2012-01-18 16:38:08 <luke-jr> what stops them from inserting any OP_*VERIFY that fails?
428 2012-01-18 16:38:18 <Eliel> unless the rhing roconner is advocating happens. He's advocating trimming extra crap out of scriptSigs
429 2012-01-18 16:38:18 <helo> since p2pool requires a full node, and the bitcoin client is a full node, it makes sense to allow them to use their bitcoin client as the full node, right?
430 2012-01-18 16:38:26 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: the next node that gets the transaction will reject it as invalid, and miners won't mine it.
431 2012-01-18 16:38:33 <Ferroh> How do you add an IP so that bitcoind can download the blockchain, if it is stuck?
432 2012-01-18 16:38:45 <graingert> finway: also p2pool needs to be split into multiple p2pools
433 2012-01-18 16:38:56 <graingert> in case one becomes too highly spammed
434 2012-01-18 16:39:59 <gmaxwell> helo: thats what p2pool users do.
435 2012-01-18 16:40:00 <Diablo-D3> the only thing I want p2pool to do
436 2012-01-18 16:40:00 <finway> graingert: what's the split line?  1Thash?
437 2012-01-18 16:40:02 <forrestv> graingert, "highly spammed"?
438 2012-01-18 16:40:03 <Diablo-D3> just one tiny change
439 2012-01-18 16:40:05 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: actually, I take it back-- the IsPushOnly check for inputs would fail, so assuming most people aren't relaying/mining nonstandard transactions it'd be ok
440 2012-01-18 16:40:17 <graingert> finway: no idea
441 2012-01-18 16:40:20 <Diablo-D3> is if I supply no rpcuser/pass, read the local .bitcoin/bitcoin.conf
442 2012-01-18 16:40:23 <Diablo-D3> and connect
443 2012-01-18 16:40:31 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: yea, thats a no brainer.
444 2012-01-18 16:40:43 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: BUT:  this is exactly why I like p2sh better than OP_EVAL/CHV, fewer potential gotchas
445 2012-01-18 16:40:45 <Diablo-D3> it'd be a nicety
446 2012-01-18 16:40:52 <gmaxwell> helo: (well not all p2pool users, I don't do that but I think most don't use a dedicated node for it)
447 2012-01-18 16:41:01 <Eliel> Diablo-D3: it's open source, go make a patch :)
448 2012-01-18 16:41:22 <helo> ahh
449 2012-01-18 16:41:30 <gmaxwell> I would have patched it (hey, I've submitted a patch to p2pool) but .. its easier to type the password yourself.
450 2012-01-18 16:41:43 <gmaxwell> (then fix it for everyone :) )
451 2012-01-18 16:41:57 <Diablo-D3> too busy fighting amd's tools
452 2012-01-18 16:42:14 <Diablo-D3> btw, I hate banks
453 2012-01-18 16:42:38 <luke-jr> [12:38:26] <gavinandresen> luke-jr: the next node that gets the transaction will reject it as invalid, and miners won't mine it.
454 2012-01-18 16:42:44 <luke-jr> same for CHV due to isStandard
455 2012-01-18 16:42:46 <Diablo-D3> there seems to be no way to pay a credit card now and have it for next month's statement
456 2012-01-18 16:43:09 <Diablo-D3> so if I pay them like $9001 dollars today, I still have to pay the min next month, where next month might be only 3-4 days away
457 2012-01-18 16:43:28 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I would support making any relay-mutable area OP_PUSH only in the protocol, FWIW
458 2012-01-18 16:44:13 <Eliel> Diablo-D3: only if you're $9002+ dollars in credit.
459 2012-01-18 16:44:45 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: ... so special case everything before the first OP_CODESEPARATOR in the scriptSig as push-only?
460 2012-01-18 16:44:51 <Diablo-D3> Eliel: you know what I mean though
461 2012-01-18 16:45:11 <Eliel> Diablo-D3: yes, I do.
462 2012-01-18 16:45:32 <Diablo-D3> and now I have to fucking wait for shit to fsck
463 2012-01-18 16:45:41 <finway> special-case argument is nonsense.
464 2012-01-18 16:45:51 <Eliel> I'd just enter a delayed payment in my netbank and forget about it.
465 2012-01-18 16:45:59 <finway> If it works, it's fine.
466 2012-01-18 16:46:10 <finway> If it's broken, then invent a new script system, like OP_EVAL
467 2012-01-18 16:48:38 <finway> time to go to bed, 88
468 2012-01-18 16:48:39 <luke-jr> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0017
469 2012-01-18 16:48:41 <luke-jr> finway: ^
470 2012-01-18 16:49:16 <Eliel> I think luke's argument is not that special case is wrong. He's saying that either make it fully special cased or fully generically scriptable.
471 2012-01-18 16:49:39 <Diablo-D3> Im not comfortable with op_eval in the chain at all
472 2012-01-18 16:49:43 <luke-jr> Eliel: at the protocol level, at least
473 2012-01-18 16:49:45 <Diablo-D3> it was a mistake and I said it was a mistake
474 2012-01-18 16:49:47 <finway> perfect is the enemy of good.
475 2012-01-18 16:50:14 <finway> if it works, and if it's safe, it's fine.
476 2012-01-18 16:50:40 <Eliel> so, if it was changed so that anything other than the P2SH type and the original transaction type are not allowed, it'd be consistent enough for luke.
477 2012-01-18 16:51:14 <finway> That's ridiculous.
478 2012-01-18 16:51:24 <luke-jr> Eliel: not quite.
479 2012-01-18 16:51:28 <finway> I think IsStandard() is a special case.
480 2012-01-18 16:51:40 <luke-jr> Eliel: original transaction types shouldn't be "allowed" either.
481 2012-01-18 16:51:41 <finway> It's not  perfect.
482 2012-01-18 16:51:51 <luke-jr> Eliel: but the full scripting system needs to remain functional for compatibility
483 2012-01-18 16:51:56 <finway> We should remove it.
484 2012-01-18 16:51:59 <Diablo-D3> finway: nope, that is not how security works
485 2012-01-18 16:52:08 <Diablo-D3> finway: if it is attacker controllable, it is a security risk
486 2012-01-18 16:52:09 <luke-jr> finway: BIP16 moves IsStandard to the protocol, making it never removable
487 2012-01-18 16:53:20 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: btw, after you left, sipa's build finished with the same Win32 Bitcoin-Qt as devrandom; so http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/bitcoin-0.5.2/* should be ready for uploading
488 2012-01-18 16:54:00 <finway> But we need IsStandard(), don't we? It's not a perfect world.
489 2012-01-18 16:54:21 <finway> SOPA is nothing, if you've saw GFW in China.
490 2012-01-18 16:55:06 <luke-jr> finway: no, we don't.
491 2012-01-18 16:55:27 <luke-jr> finway: Eligius does not check IsStandard, for example, and never has
492 2012-01-18 17:01:34 <finway> luke-jr: yeah, Eligius can survive without IsStandard() , but the bitcoin p2p network need it to survive.
493 2012-01-18 17:01:50 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: "You don't have permission to access /programs/bitcoin/files/bitcoin-0.5.2/bitcoin-0.5.2-win32-setup.exe"
494 2012-01-18 17:01:53 <luke-jr> finway: that doesn't really make sense& :/
495 2012-01-18 17:02:12 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: fixed
496 2012-01-18 17:03:07 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: also, reminder there is a hidden README.txt in there
497 2012-01-18 17:03:49 <MC1984> wait why must p2pool be split up
498 2012-01-18 17:04:46 <luke-jr> MC1984: it doesn't scale
499 2012-01-18 17:05:48 <MC1984> wat
500 2012-01-18 17:06:08 <luke-jr> that's what she said
501 2012-01-18 17:06:20 <luke-jr> <.<
502 2012-01-18 17:06:33 <MC1984> doesnt that defeat the point
503 2012-01-18 17:06:40 <jgarzik> sipa: I'm gonna start poking on IPv6 some more, soon
504 2012-01-18 17:06:59 <jgarzik> sipa: trying to get bitcoin network up on IPv6 for world IPv6 day (June 6, 2012)
505 2012-01-18 17:07:02 <luke-jr> MC1984: not entirely, no
506 2012-01-18 17:07:27 <jgarzik> would be nice to see bitcoin[talk].org with AAAA address by then
507 2012-01-18 17:07:46 <ciscoftw> can you embed a url into a transaction -viewable via the raw blockchain?
508 2012-01-18 17:07:56 <luke-jr> ciscoftw: don't do it. -.-
509 2012-01-18 17:09:39 <ciscoftw> seems cool, so this is entirly possible then?
510 2012-01-18 17:09:57 <MC1984> MFW in 5 years half the blockchain is goldenpalace.com
511 2012-01-18 17:10:05 <luke-jr> ciscoftw: there is a right way, and a wrong way
512 2012-01-18 17:10:16 <ciscoftw> ASCII embedding into blockchain ftw
513 2012-01-18 17:10:37 <luke-jr> ciscoftw: using a transaction is the wrong way
514 2012-01-18 17:10:50 <ciscoftw> ummmm, i understand
515 2012-01-18 17:14:10 <finway> luke-jr: what's wrong with your pool?
516 2012-01-18 17:16:08 <finway> luke-jr: are you stealing shares?
517 2012-01-18 17:17:41 <finway> luke-jr: speed drops, but cgminer keep submitting shares to your pool.
518 2012-01-18 17:17:59 <luke-jr> finway: no.
519 2012-01-18 17:18:07 <luke-jr> finway: someone is DoSing us
520 2012-01-18 17:18:28 <finway> No, dossing should cgminer switch pool.
521 2012-01-18 17:18:30 <luke-jr> finway: got a security expert who'd be willing to dig through a 1.3 GB packet capture?
522 2012-01-18 17:18:39 <luke-jr> finway: well, I'm resisting it obviously
523 2012-01-18 17:19:08 <finway> cgminer is submitting shares perfectly.
524 2012-01-18 17:19:30 <luke-jr> great.
525 2012-01-18 17:19:33 <finway> and dont' switch
526 2012-01-18 17:21:21 <finway> merge_mining is fine, but defeat realcoin by stealing miners' share?  that's not cool.
527 2012-01-18 17:21:21 <luke-jr> if only all miners were that tolerant
528 2012-01-18 17:22:19 <luke-jr> finway: please stop spreading FUD lies
529 2012-01-18 17:23:01 <[Tycho]> I wonder if ABCPool DDoS and sudden disappearance of poolhoppers from deepbit are connected somehow...
530 2012-01-18 17:23:30 <BlueMatt> oh, wow getmininginfo was really poorly done
531 2012-01-18 17:23:37 <BlueMatt> like we needed more damn globals
532 2012-01-18 17:24:06 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: ++
533 2012-01-18 17:24:19 <phantomcircuit> lold
534 2012-01-18 17:24:24 <phantomcircuit> GLOBAL ALL THE THINGS
535 2012-01-18 17:24:27 <phantomcircuit> also
536 2012-01-18 17:24:50 <phantomcircuit> i need a base32 decoder
537 2012-01-18 17:24:52 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: have you seen cblockstore?
538 2012-01-18 17:24:54 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: as if there's a better way?
539 2012-01-18 17:24:54 <phantomcircuit> and encoder
540 2012-01-18 17:25:03 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: yes there always is
541 2012-01-18 17:25:08 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: no, what's cblockstore?
542 2012-01-18 17:25:16 <luke-jr> I mean, short of refactoring the whole block creation into an OO paradigm&
543 2012-01-18 17:36:28 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: is there a reason nPooledTx exists?
544 2012-01-18 17:36:34 <BlueMatt> should mapTransactions.size() not work?
545 2012-01-18 17:40:16 <finway> wow, p2pool passed 100Gh/s
546 2012-01-18 17:41:06 <forrestv> finway, actually, we're experiencing some problems that threw that off a bit..
547 2012-01-18 17:41:24 <forrestv> still about 90, i think
548 2012-01-18 17:42:33 <finway> forrestv: that's not bad.
549 2012-01-18 17:42:53 <MC1984> it whould just be in the client as downloaded
550 2012-01-18 17:43:05 <MC1984> it shouldnt even have a name, it should just be part of bitcoin.......
551 2012-01-18 17:43:23 <MC1984> seeing as the block schedule cant be changed
552 2012-01-18 17:43:49 <finway> forrestv: you should consider make pps mode viable before next hash power down trend.
553 2012-01-18 17:44:25 <luke-jr> PPS mode?
554 2012-01-18 17:44:34 <luke-jr> don't think that's even possible with p2pool
555 2012-01-18 17:44:59 <finway> forrestv: what's the top hashing speed of p2pool ?
556 2012-01-18 17:49:22 <forrestv> finway, you mean highest of all time? around what it is now
557 2012-01-18 17:50:16 <Mango-chan> STOP SOAP AND PIPE!!
558 2012-01-18 17:52:13 <gavinandresen> Anybody feeling awake enough to help me think through the pull request I just made?  https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/765
559 2012-01-18 17:53:48 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: gavinandresen opened pull request 765 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/765>
560 2012-01-18 18:05:43 <sjums__> Hey bot, thanks for the notice
561 2012-01-18 18:08:57 <gavinandresen> Everybody too sleepy to think hard about orphan transactions?  Here's what I want help thinking through:   could there ever be a case where forgetting invalid transactions (e.g. transactions with out-of-range prevout.n) is the wrong thing to do?  E.g. an attack where the attacker keeps sending an invalid transaction hash to you and you keep requesting the transaction data and then finding out the transaction is bad....
562 2012-01-18 18:11:02 <jgarzik> I think we should forget all transactions that do not make it into a block within 24-48 hours of reception
563 2012-01-18 18:11:34 <jgarzik> proper clients will retransmit, and this helps keep the memory pool reasonable
564 2012-01-18 18:12:04 <jgarzik> sweep out the orphans, weirdos, and any other garbage
565 2012-01-18 18:13:56 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: Good Idea, too, I think...  although I worry about network dynamics if all the new clients forgot about some transactions and then an attacker made them all request the data for the transaction they forgot all over again.
566 2012-01-18 18:15:00 <sjums__> Where can i find the best documentation on how the BTC network works?
567 2012-01-18 18:15:28 <gavinandresen> sjums__: there is a sticky in the Dev&Tech forum (Satoshi Client Operations or something like that)
568 2012-01-18 18:16:27 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: I think just limiting the size of the orphan map and ejecting large/old transactions if it fills up might be a better approach
569 2012-01-18 18:17:20 <Diablo-D3> so
570 2012-01-18 18:17:33 <Diablo-D3> dm runs with amd profiler
571 2012-01-18 18:17:35 <Diablo-D3> in windows
572 2012-01-18 18:17:54 <Diablo-D3> but locks up all CL using threads (but not non-CL threads, strangely) when on profiler on linux
573 2012-01-18 18:18:06 <sjums__> from the preface, it looks like what i want :D Thanks..
574 2012-01-18 18:30:37 <ciscoftw> "FFS Luke-Jr leave the blockchain alone!"
575 2012-01-18 18:30:57 <ciscoftw> "there's a right and wrong way" ...huh
576 2012-01-18 18:31:16 <MC1984> yeah.....
577 2012-01-18 18:31:47 <ciscoftw> so am i a douche if i embed?
578 2012-01-18 18:32:25 <MC1984> yes, even more if its the bible
579 2012-01-18 18:32:28 <sipa> jgarzik: IPv6 is in principle ready; what is still missing is a few lines of code
580 2012-01-18 18:33:00 <sipa> jgarzik: but i'm currently working on reworking how ip addresses are maintained
581 2012-01-18 18:33:23 <sipa> jgarzik: since just opening up ipv6 allows for a very nice dos attack where you just fill someone's addr.dat
582 2012-01-18 18:33:56 <ciscoftw> "/Stack is innocent/" isnt completely tasteless
583 2012-01-18 18:34:13 <helo> tastes like... ?
584 2012-01-18 18:34:15 <Joric> i believe the coinbase could be modified only by the pool owner? more specifically EligiusJ ,?mmB?E????u5
585 2012-01-18 18:34:22 <MC1984> the bitlen and Stack embeds are the only cool ones imo
586 2012-01-18 18:34:39 <Joric> block 00000000000001c34b2c76e47138220243d644d7ec1cf9b22391fd072e58dcb2
587 2012-01-18 18:34:54 <ciscoftw> hLUKE-JR IS A PEDOPHILE! HAHAHAHAAHHA
588 2012-01-18 18:35:30 <helo> that was pretty lame in the show... it was just a "hey look, it couldn't have been me!" "oh but look, it could have been you!"
589 2012-01-18 18:36:04 <luke-jr> ciscoftw: yes
590 2012-01-18 18:36:09 <MC1984> meh, i didnt see the twist coming
591 2012-01-18 18:36:16 <Joric> most of those messages are in the coinbase except 20 char ones
592 2012-01-18 18:36:25 <ciscoftw> didnt think the show was that horrible, i mean i wont watch it again -but not as shitty as i was thinking it was going to be
593 2012-01-18 18:36:26 <MC1984> it never occured to me that bitcoin devs could work so well together.....
594 2012-01-18 18:36:30 <luke-jr> sipa: is addr.dat even used?
595 2012-01-18 18:37:14 <sipa> luke-jr: sure
596 2012-01-18 18:37:30 <phantomcircuit> if someone writes a base32 encode/decode routine i'd have most of the tor stuff working... ish
597 2012-01-18 18:37:44 <sipa> gavinandresen: #765 looks sane to me
598 2012-01-18 18:38:00 <gavinandresen> sipa: thanks
599 2012-01-18 18:38:11 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: repurpose the hex one
600 2012-01-18 18:38:22 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: no reason it can't do any base with an array or two
601 2012-01-18 18:38:38 <phantomcircuit> sounds like actual work
602 2012-01-18 18:38:52 <sipa> shouldn't be hard
603 2012-01-18 18:39:06 <helo> i was happy it didn't go all "you bitshift the stack registers and wah-lah, money!"
604 2012-01-18 18:39:13 <gavinandresen> sipa: while I have your attention:  I'm thinking that before we ship multisig we should do something to discourage people from stuffing the now-500-byte-scriptSigs with crap
605 2012-01-18 18:39:53 <phantomcircuit> the 500 byte script sig is in the input of the transaction right?
606 2012-01-18 18:40:01 <gavinandresen> phantomcircuit: right
607 2012-01-18 18:40:01 <phantomcircuit> if it's crap you'll drop the transaction anyways
608 2012-01-18 18:40:11 <gavinandresen> phantomcircuit: not if it is at the front
609 2012-01-18 18:40:23 <phantomcircuit> you mean OP_DROP style
610 2012-01-18 18:40:29 <sipa> gavinandresen: discourage transactions with superfluous pushes?
611 2012-01-18 18:40:44 <gavinandresen> phantomcircuit: No, you can push a bunch of bytes on the stack and that doesn't affect the signature
612 2012-01-18 18:40:49 <gavinandresen> sipa: that's what I'm thinking
613 2012-01-18 18:40:56 <phantomcircuit> oh
614 2012-01-18 18:41:14 <Joric> i wasn't able to get OP_DROP into the block since june 2011
615 2012-01-18 18:41:17 <sipa> gavinandresen: i.e. those that result in a non-singleton stack after evaluation of both scripts
616 2012-01-18 18:41:27 <gavinandresen> sipa: more aggressive alternative is to remove the extra stuff before relaying....
617 2012-01-18 18:41:48 <sipa> i'd rather drop than modify
618 2012-01-18 18:41:56 <gavinandresen> sipa: ... but we'll regret that if we ever do something like OP_EVAL, I think
619 2012-01-18 18:42:01 <gavinandresen> (regret removing)
620 2012-01-18 18:42:17 <makomk> Diablo-D3: I was actually tempted to create a pushpoold variant that could read config files for Bitcoin and multiple MM chains.
621 2012-01-18 18:42:24 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: btw, did you see the website selling embedding messages in the blockchain? ;)
622 2012-01-18 18:42:31 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: yup.
623 2012-01-18 18:42:36 <sipa> bah
624 2012-01-18 18:42:46 <Joric> it was so clever... not
625 2012-01-18 18:43:21 <gavinandresen> sipa: and while on the subject of discouraging wacky transactions... how easy would it be to discourage transactions with non-canonically-encoded signatures?
626 2012-01-18 18:43:34 <makomk> gavinandresen: also, obvious optimisations may be unsafe in the face of odd BIP 016-like changes to script interpretation, right?
627 2012-01-18 18:44:10 <gavinandresen> makomk: not unsafe, just, maybe, unwise
628 2012-01-18 18:44:29 <Diablo-D3> makomk: that'd be neat
629 2012-01-18 18:46:24 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: if I wasn't spending so much time on the p2sh controversy I'd be working on the headers-only branch and faster initial blockchain download... with the goal to eventually allow all non-standard transactions
630 2012-01-18 18:47:15 <[Tycho]> Light clients are nice and future.
631 2012-01-18 18:47:34 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: 0.5.2 Linux build still not up?
632 2012-01-18 18:48:52 <gavinandresen> Speaking of 0.5.2.... anybody care that stable builds are hosted at gitorious not github?
633 2012-01-18 18:49:22 <luke-jr> builds are hosted at SourceForge :p
634 2012-01-18 18:49:31 <gavinandresen> fine, stable source
635 2012-01-18 18:50:25 <luke-jr> should move the main tree there too ;)
636 2012-01-18 18:53:10 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: also, nLastBlockSize isnt even right
637 2012-01-18 18:53:12 <BlueMatt> its approximate
638 2012-01-18 18:54:12 <BlueMatt> can we just revert 340f0876eabcabefa77588585f7c8f29954dcb48 and move on?
639 2012-01-18 18:54:22 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: no reason to troll
640 2012-01-18 18:54:36 <sipa> gavinandresen: make IsStandard() fail for non-DER signatures?
641 2012-01-18 18:54:41 <BlueMatt> I wasnt, I seriously think we should revert the second half of getmininginfo
642 2012-01-18 18:54:55 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: if it isn't right, then there's a bug in the part calculating it, not the part letting people see it
643 2012-01-18 18:54:58 <gavinandresen> sipa: yes.  Is that easy?
644 2012-01-18 18:55:05 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: and reverting it helps nobody
645 2012-01-18 18:55:32 <sipa> gavinandresen: exactly... hard, i think, since you don't "know" what push in a scriptSig is a signature
646 2012-01-18 18:55:43 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: no, its approximate because it doesnt need to be exact, but if you are giving it to people, that becomes stupid
647 2012-01-18 18:56:03 <BlueMatt> reverting it keeps the bitcoin codebase from getting even worse in its structure
648 2012-01-18 18:56:11 <gavinandresen> sipa: For the standard transaction types you know exactly what is what in the scriptSig
649 2012-01-18 18:56:12 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: humans need exact even less than the code
650 2012-01-18 18:56:17 <BlueMatt> just because it wasnt written well to begin with, desnt mean we have to make it worse
651 2012-01-18 18:56:26 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: RPC != useful for humans
652 2012-01-18 18:56:29 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: it doesn't get worse, it just remains the same
653 2012-01-18 18:56:47 <sipa> gavinandresen: right, of course, except that currently IsStandard() doesn't even check for that for inputs
654 2012-01-18 18:56:48 <BlueMatt> in fact, there is no reason anyone even needs nPooledTx, nLastBlock{Size, Tx}
655 2012-01-18 18:57:01 <gavinandresen> sipa: .... it'd be the new AreInputsStandard() ....
656 2012-01-18 18:57:24 <sipa> gavinandresen: you'd need something like "ExtractSigScriptTemplateFromPubKeyScript()"
657 2012-01-18 18:57:41 <sipa> and then match that template with the input, where you can handle signatures specially
658 2012-01-18 18:58:04 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: adding yet more globals for no reason is crap, that should never have been merged
659 2012-01-18 18:58:07 <gavinandresen> sipa: AreInputsStandard already does basically that (had to, to avoid potential DoS with P2SH)
660 2012-01-18 18:59:13 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I'm not going to waste time arguing over something stupid like this. It's better now than it was before. If you want to improve on it, go ahead. If not, that's no excuse to complain it's imperfect.
661 2012-01-18 18:59:14 <sipa> gavinandresen: the IsStandard check now requires a call to EvalScript?
662 2012-01-18 18:59:40 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: TheBlueMatt opened pull request 766 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/766>
663 2012-01-18 18:59:50 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: theres your improvement
664 2012-01-18 19:00:18 <gavinandresen> sipa: no, it does the match-the-opcodes thing (Solver())
665 2012-01-18 19:00:38 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: troll
666 2012-01-18 19:00:39 <sipa> gavinandresen: i see a call to EvalScript there...
667 2012-01-18 19:00:52 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: again, Im serious about that
668 2012-01-18 19:01:52 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: halting improvement until the code it touches is perfect is a sure way to stagnate any project.
669 2012-01-18 19:02:24 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: no, I never said that, I said you shouldnt make it worse that it was
670 2012-01-18 19:02:37 <luke-jr> which I didn't. end of discussion.
671 2012-01-18 19:02:48 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: add another field to CBlock and store the most recently returned block pointer in bitcoinrpc.cpp its not hard, just do it right
672 2012-01-18 19:03:12 <gavinandresen> sipa: the assumption with the EvalScript in AreInputsStandard is that the scriptSig is push-only.....  lemme see....
673 2012-01-18 19:03:46 <gavinandresen> sipa: ... and the normal CTransaction::IsStandard() checks for that, and is called before fetching inputs/ calling AreInputsStandard
674 2012-01-18 19:04:45 <sipa> gavinandresen: right, and it is just to turn the scrpt of pushes into a list of what it pushes
675 2012-01-18 19:04:55 <luke-jr> tcatm: ping
676 2012-01-18 19:04:57 <gavinandresen> sipa: yes
677 2012-01-18 19:07:24 <tcatm> luke-jr: pong
678 2012-01-18 19:09:36 <luke-jr> tcatm: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/13 is ready to go
679 2012-01-18 19:12:45 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: have you thought about possible attacks to CHV based on the CHECKSIGS in the scriptSig signing the scriptPubKey?
680 2012-01-18 19:13:14 <sipa> gavinandresen: so, it would boil down to a) adding extra cases to the test in AreInputsStandard(), which verify that things that ought to be signatures because of the txout script, are signatures (and canonical ones), and b) doing a recursive call at the end in the case of a /P2SH/ transaction
681 2012-01-18 19:13:50 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I'm not sure I understand, so probably not.
682 2012-01-18 19:14:34 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: Just thinking about an attacker prepending stuff in the scriptSig.  E.g. taking a transaction that is:    <sig> <pubkey> CODESEP OP_CHECKSIG  for the scriptSig and a CHV scriptPubKey....
683 2012-01-18 19:15:03 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: the scriptPubKey would need to represent just OP_CHECKSIG in that case
684 2012-01-18 19:15:05 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: ... if they want to be an asshole they could duplicate the <sig> <pubkey> OP_CHECKSIG a couple of times at the front of the scriptSig and the transaction would still verify
685 2012-01-18 19:15:27 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: what do you mean "the scriptPubKey would need to represent...."
686 2012-01-18 19:15:52 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: for <sig> <pubkey> CODESEP OP_CHECKSIG, the scripthash would be just OP_CHECKSIG
687 2012-01-18 19:16:09 <luke-jr> so sending to that address would be more or less a free-for-all
688 2012-01-18 19:16:28 <gavinandresen> Fine, fine, move the <pubkey> after the CODESEP
689 2012-01-18 19:16:53 <luke-jr> couldn't they already duplicate the checksig a few times in the scriptSig?
690 2012-01-18 19:17:50 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: yes, that's why I'm thinking of tigtening up the IsStandard checks along with making the number of bytes allowed for standard transactions in scriptSig bigger
691 2012-01-18 19:17:59 <tcatm> luke-jr: merged
692 2012-01-18 19:18:23 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: CHV is fully compatible with IsStandard AFAIK
693 2012-01-18 19:18:48 <luke-jr> tcatm: is there some other step to make it visible to bitcoin.org?
694 2012-01-18 19:19:23 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: BTW, did you see the BIP?
695 2012-01-18 19:19:25 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: ok, readded nPooledTx and nLastBlockTx in a reasonable way.
696 2012-01-18 19:19:38 <tcatm> Hrm. Looks like the github hook isn't triggered when merging using the web interface.
697 2012-01-18 19:19:45 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: happy now?
698 2012-01-18 19:20:26 <tcatm> luke-jr: You can trigger it manually by GET'ing http://eu1.bitcoincharts.com/bitcoin.org/cgi-bin/update.sh
699 2012-01-18 19:20:35 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: yes, I read it.  There's some cruft leftover from BIP 16 in it, like counting OP_CHECKMULTISIG transacitons
700 2012-01-18 19:21:25 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I left that because it didn't make sense in BIP 16 either, but should be the same concept for CHV
701 2012-01-18 19:21:27 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: ... speaking of which... p2sh should allow about 10 times as many multisig transactions in our current block limits as chv
702 2012-01-18 19:21:51 <luke-jr> is that good?
703 2012-01-18 19:22:06 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: not the same concept at all-- since chv puts the OP_CHECKMULTISIGs unserialized in the scriptSig old clients will already, today, count them as 20 sigops
704 2012-01-18 19:22:23 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: p2sh "hides" them from old clients, so they can be counted accurately
705 2012-01-18 19:22:58 <luke-jr> so that means the +22 example is invalid, correct?
706 2012-01-18 19:23:09 <luke-jr> oh, I think I understand it now
707 2012-01-18 19:23:45 <gavinandresen> the +3 signature operations example is invalid, it has to be +20 to avoid a blockchain split
708 2012-01-18 19:24:50 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: my intent was to avoid redefining any current rules; better now?
709 2012-01-18 19:27:31 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: I still don't like it; a scriptSig like this:      <sig> CODESEP <pubkey> CHECKSIG <sig2> CODESEP <pubkey2>  CHECKSIG   .... has strange semantics.
710 2012-01-18 19:28:24 <gavinandresen> ... because OP_CHECKSIG signs whatever is in the scriptPubKey, and there's no guarantee with CHV that the CHECKSIGS in the scriptSig have any relation to what's in scriptPubKey.
711 2012-01-18 19:28:30 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: it already has strange semantics. CHV just lets the scriptPubKey confirm a specific code *did* execute last.
712 2012-01-18 19:29:38 <sipa> how does IF/THEN/ELSE interact with codesep?
713 2012-01-18 19:29:44 <sipa> is it allowed to span?
714 2012-01-18 19:31:11 <sipa> for example, what about an input script "OP_1 OP_0 OP_IF OP_CODESEP <real script>" ?
715 2012-01-18 19:31:50 <gavinandresen> sipa: unclosed IFs fail validation
716 2012-01-18 19:32:02 <sipa> ok, right
717 2012-01-18 19:32:03 <sipa> good
718 2012-01-18 19:32:14 <gavinandresen> ... and can't span scriptSig/scriptPubKey....
719 2012-01-18 19:55:10 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr explicit_p2sh * re0bda5416956 bitcoind-personal/src/main.cpp: Don't vote for /P2SH/ unless -p2sh specified (and vote against if -p2sh=0) http://tinyurl.com/7mr723g
720 2012-01-18 20:13:24 <Ferroh> putting bots in control like that,
721 2012-01-18 20:13:31 <Ferroh> brings us just one step closer to the robot apocalypse.
722 2012-01-18 20:15:51 <helo> the human apocalypse, that is :)
723 2012-01-18 20:27:22 <ThomasV> !seen theymos
724 2012-01-18 20:51:37 <BlueMatt> heh gribble flooded the chan