1 2012-01-19 00:23:41 <MC1984> that agent thing sounds like the internet cube that sells itself on ebay every month
  2 2012-01-19 00:24:32 <MC1984> http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/01/23/2338257/Artwork-Re-Sells-Itself-Weekly-On-eBay weekly
  3 2012-01-19 03:40:10 <CIA-76> bitcoin: various * rd02660..845961 cgminer/ (14 files): (6 commits) http://tinyurl.com/42nz69f
  4 2012-01-19 04:06:26 <gribble> theymos was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 1 day, 2 hours, 6 minutes, and 56 seconds ago: <theymos> I think I remember him signing the hashes.
  5 2012-01-19 04:06:26 <ThomasV> !seen theymos
  6 2012-01-19 04:37:15 <nameless> |someone is spamming the network
  7 2012-01-19 04:37:17 <nameless> |somehow...
  8 2012-01-19 04:37:26 <nameless> |Oh, wait. I'm not scrolled down
  9 2012-01-19 04:37:39 <nameless> |There we go
 10 2012-01-19 04:42:32 <luke-jr> nameless|: probably [Tycho]
 11 2012-01-19 04:45:50 <nameless> |enquirer_ actually
 12 2012-01-19 04:50:12 <[Tycho]> :)
 13 2012-01-19 05:05:13 <CIA-76> bitcoin: ckolivas * r91af258e7756 cgminer/configure.ac: Add configuration option for CPU mining which will default to off. http://tinyurl.com/7mx54pl
 14 2012-01-19 05:05:15 <CIA-76> bitcoin: ckolivas * r332b3ca1e6ad cgminer/ (Makefile.am api.c configure.ac main.c): Configure out building and support of all CPU mining code unless --enable-cpumining is enabled. http://tinyurl.com/6n26p5h
 15 2012-01-19 05:05:18 <CIA-76> bitcoin: ckolivas * ra91e145ff198 cgminer/README: Update README. http://tinyurl.com/6qq3heo
 16 2012-01-19 05:15:10 <CIA-76> bitcoin: ckolivas * r69966ffe1791 cgminer/ (api.c main.c): Update copyright dates. http://tinyurl.com/6urvu7h
 17 2012-01-19 05:45:06 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr * r5dfc8b694f95 cgminer/ (Makefile.am bitforce.c configure.ac main.c miner.h): BitForce FPGA support http://tinyurl.com/7q8t7mh
 18 2012-01-19 05:45:08 <CIA-76> bitcoin: ckolivas * r52b6410fe728 cgminer/main.c: Display what support is built in. http://tinyurl.com/7ub9ad4
 19 2012-01-19 05:58:52 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: nanotube opened pull request 768 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/768>
 20 2012-01-19 06:02:41 <midnightmagic> does BlueMatt delete his github branches after they're merged into master?
 21 2012-01-19 06:11:55 <ThomasV> luke-jr: what did you mean by "detect standalone bitcoin addresses" in your patch?
 22 2012-01-19 06:13:05 <ThomasV> luke-jr: I guess it refers to detection without the bitcoin: marker, right?
 23 2012-01-19 06:13:12 <ThomasV> just to make sure
 24 2012-01-19 06:13:39 <luke-jr> ThomasV: if it sees an address, it makes a link
 25 2012-01-19 06:14:42 <ThomasV> luke-jr: ok, then you are asking for trouble
 26 2012-01-19 06:15:03 <ThomasV> better propose patches that are as harmless as possible
 27 2012-01-19 06:15:10 <luke-jr> it's harmless.
 28 2012-01-19 06:15:43 <ThomasV> luke-jr: I don't see which line in the code does this
 29 2012-01-19 06:21:34 <stcupp> anyone here?
 30 2012-01-19 08:30:03 <CIA-76> bitcoin: m0mchil * r4871f062c0fb poclbm/BitcoinMiner.py: strip NULLs from device name http://tinyurl.com/7o6296u
 31 2012-01-19 10:19:27 <coderrr> any reason why 0.5.2 wasn't tagged?
 32 2012-01-19 12:36:23 <coderrr> graingert, thx for the 28c3 recommendations
 33 2012-01-19 12:36:34 <graingert> coderrr: no problem
 34 2012-01-19 12:36:47 <graingert> did I recommend the TCP/IP one?
 35 2012-01-19 12:37:02 <coderrr> dont think so, which is that
 36 2012-01-19 12:37:06 <coderrr> black ops of ?
 37 2012-01-19 12:37:08 <graingert> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE-JB078Ax4
 38 2012-01-19 12:37:18 <graingert> this is decent for a bit, when talking about bitcoin
 39 2012-01-19 12:37:22 <graingert> but then gets a little dull
 40 2012-01-19 12:37:24 <coderrr> yea saw that one
 41 2012-01-19 12:37:34 <graingert> the presentation about Bitcoin gets a lot wrong
 42 2012-01-19 12:37:53 <graingert> but this presentation, is a much better Bitcoin presentation than the actual Bitcoin presentation
 43 2012-01-19 12:38:08 <coderrr> yea
 44 2012-01-19 12:38:14 <cjdelisle> heh he's nervous
 45 2012-01-19 14:10:04 <luke-jr> coderrr: it is, in the stable repo
 46 2012-01-19 14:11:36 <coderrr> luke-jr, guess i missed that, where is the stable repo?
 47 2012-01-19 14:12:13 <luke-jr> http://gitorious.org/+bitcoin-stable-developers/bitcoin/bitcoind-stable
 48 2012-01-19 14:13:00 <coderrr> ic
 49 2012-01-19 14:24:39 <roconnor> amiller: Interestingly, I was planning on using add instrumentation to my script monad in order to gather statistics, and more importantly, enforce the arbitrary limits on the scripting; (those limits that cannot be checked statically).
 50 2012-01-19 14:32:24 <TuxBlackEdo> i can't just drop the blockchain nightly build into my .bitcoin data dir anymore?
 51 2012-01-19 14:32:30 <TuxBlackEdo> "what(): db::open: invalid argument"
 52 2012-01-19 15:54:42 <copumpkin> ooh, bitcoin on my coq-club
 53 2012-01-19 15:54:59 <copumpkin> amiller: very nice
 54 2012-01-19 16:06:38 <midnightmagic> .. hrm.. what comment from amiller are you guys responding to?
 55 2012-01-19 16:12:38 <amiller> midnightmagic, i made a post to coq-club (the main coq mailing list) summarizing my work so far with bitcoin and coq https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/arc/coq-club/2012-01/msg00075.html
 56 2012-01-19 16:12:55 <luke-jr> on another note, current blockchain votes are 602 for OP_EVAL, 7 against BIP16 (none for), and 3 for CHV :P
 57 2012-01-19 16:12:57 <midnightmagic> thanks!
 58 2012-01-19 16:13:23 <amiller> basically the better i understand roconnor's approach, the more i see glimpses of it in successful coq projects (i highlighted four in the post) but i'm not sure what the effective way to do it is
 59 2012-01-19 16:18:59 <midnightmagic> ah, is this where the haskell conversation was coming from..
 60 2012-01-19 16:19:11 <[Tycho]> Do someone remembers what was wrong with 391d74d80fea85f905fb66403f69eec2f2d525e321eaac5d700fb9dfe1d6e7f4 ?
 61 2012-01-19 16:41:15 <Ken`> amiller: I'm very interested in your project! Are you planning to make it an open-source effort?
 62 2012-01-19 16:43:26 <amiller> hey Ken`, whatever i do will be open source, definitely
 63 2012-01-19 16:44:19 <amiller> i don't have very high expectations of completing it successfully, but i hope it's a helpful start
 64 2012-01-19 16:44:38 <Ken`> well I'd like to help out
 65 2012-01-19 16:44:40 <amiller> coq is awesome black magic
 66 2012-01-19 16:44:48 <Ken`> I'm a fan of Coq and Bitcoin so I can't let this pass
 67 2012-01-19 16:48:15 <BlueMatt> ;;seen gavinandresen
 68 2012-01-19 16:48:15 <gribble> gavinandresen was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 21 hours, 16 minutes, and 1 second ago: <gavinandresen> ... and can't span scriptSig/scriptPubKey....
 69 2012-01-19 16:48:20 <BlueMatt> arg...
 70 2012-01-19 16:54:05 <amiller> Ken`, feel free to yank/fork what you like from my work-in-progress github https://github.com/amiller/coincoq
 71 2012-01-19 16:54:15 <BlueMatt> wait, wtf, tx replacement doesnt allow the addition of more txins?
 72 2012-01-19 16:54:23 <BlueMatt> anyone have any guesses why?
 73 2012-01-19 16:56:20 <BlueMatt> arg, why is there no one useful online atm?
 74 2012-01-19 17:02:03 <cjdelisle> anyone know if there's a scripting trick to make a payment to the miner of a block 10 in the future?
 75 2012-01-19 17:02:21 <BlueMatt> yea, nLockTime
 76 2012-01-19 17:02:30 <cjdelisle> and it will still go into the block?
 77 2012-01-19 17:02:44 <luke-jr> if the miner accepts it
 78 2012-01-19 17:02:51 <cjdelisle> err it will go into the current block and pay out 10 blocks in the furture
 79 2012-01-19 17:02:56 <luke-jr> no
 80 2012-01-19 17:03:01 <BlueMatt> is nLockTime !IsStandard, Im pretty sure it is
 81 2012-01-19 17:03:17 <BlueMatt> no, it will go in a block that is >= nLockTime
 82 2012-01-19 17:03:29 <cjdelisle> hmm not so usefull
 83 2012-01-19 17:03:30 <BlueMatt> (is IsStandard since its not a script that is)
 84 2012-01-19 17:03:48 <BlueMatt> what are you trying to do?
 85 2012-01-19 17:03:53 <cjdelisle> need to "waste" bitcoin for timestamping but don't like the idea of deflating the it.
 86 2012-01-19 17:03:54 <sipa> BlueMatt: TD knows why i believe
 87 2012-01-19 17:04:05 <BlueMatt> sipa: TD[gone] is [gone], sadly
 88 2012-01-19 17:04:28 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: why?
 89 2012-01-19 17:04:41 <nanotube> cjdelisle: then why not just make a tx with a large fee? the miner will get the fee
 90 2012-01-19 17:04:46 <BlueMatt> cjdelisle: you can timestamp w/o wasting bitcoin
 91 2012-01-19 17:05:14 <cjdelisle> include the hash of the change to a peer to peer zonefile in a tx
 92 2012-01-19 17:05:18 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: I think you should write a proper timestamping program
 93 2012-01-19 17:05:38 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: you mean my Namecoin 2.0 proposal?
 94 2012-01-19 17:05:48 <BlueMatt> cjdelisle: OP_DROP and sent it to eligius
 95 2012-01-19 17:05:58 <cjdelisle> I think it was like diablo's
 96 2012-01-19 17:06:06 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: no -.-
 97 2012-01-19 17:06:15 <cjdelisle> needs to require some waste and needs to not get in the next block but can't pay to anyone in particular
 98 2012-01-19 17:06:47 <cjdelisle> paying to the miner of the next block encourages miners to reg lots of domains when they hit a block
 99 2012-01-19 17:06:48 <BlueMatt> cjdelisle: why do you want to waste bitcoin?
100 2012-01-19 17:07:03 <cjdelisle> keep # of new domains non-ridiculous
101 2012-01-19 17:07:11 <BlueMatt> wait, wtf are you trying to do?
102 2012-01-19 17:07:22 <luke-jr> sounds like my Namecoin 2.0, but & weird
103 2012-01-19 17:07:46 <cjdelisle> like a zonefile which is passed around and hash of patches to the file need to be included in a tx
104 2012-01-19 17:08:04 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=217&view=next
105 2012-01-19 17:09:10 <cjdelisle> "Names can be added by associating a Bitcoin output with a value of at least N with the new name." <-- I want it to not be 1 tx per name
106 2012-01-19 17:09:17 <cjdelisle> because I don't want to bloat the chain
107 2012-01-19 17:10:01 <BlueMatt> why are you doing dns in the bitcoin chain anyway?
108 2012-01-19 17:10:02 <BlueMatt> namecoin has its own chain for a reason
109 2012-01-19 17:10:02 <cjdelisle> so if you goto a registrar and ask for 20 names, they make a patch and the hash of that patch goes into a tx
110 2012-01-19 17:10:19 <cjdelisle> because I don't think people should have to but namecoin just to get names
111 2012-01-19 17:10:44 <jercos> domains should be freeeeee!
112 2012-01-19 17:10:48 <BlueMatt> so make a modified version of namecoin where names are free
113 2012-01-19 17:10:56 <cjdelisle> heh
114 2012-01-19 17:10:57 <BlueMatt> that would be 100x easier and less intrusive on the bitcoin chain
115 2012-01-19 17:11:05 <jercos> Then there's no incentive to drive the chain processing.
116 2012-01-19 17:11:19 <cjdelisle> I also don't want to maintain my own chain and fend off the bazillion attackers who will show up
117 2012-01-19 17:11:39 <BlueMatt> meh, if its merged mined, you are fine
118 2012-01-19 17:12:10 <cjdelisle> I also don't wanna mine calebcoins and sell them and be accused of being a scammer
119 2012-01-19 17:12:12 <jercos> Still needs acceptance. If the coins have no value because they're a seperate chain, why would anyone bother setting up a merged miner?
120 2012-01-19 17:12:22 <jercos> Unless of course, someone wants to attack the DNS-bearing chain.
121 2012-01-19 17:12:32 <BlueMatt> you dont even have to have coins if you want free domains
122 2012-01-19 17:12:53 <jercos> And now you go from almost no incentive to none whatsoever. Why would anyone set up a miner for *absolutely nothing*?
123 2012-01-19 17:13:07 <BlueMatt> because they like the idea of free domains?
124 2012-01-19 17:13:12 <jercos> There are a few who would, but the potential attacking power is much higher than the pure philanthropic power
125 2012-01-19 17:13:25 <cjdelisle> so the only other idea that comes to mind is to paymulti to the miners of the last 10 blocks but that makes for big transactions
126 2012-01-19 17:13:50 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: your version bloats the chain worse :P
127 2012-01-19 17:13:51 <cjdelisle> which is why I was wondering if there was some scripting magic I dodn't know about which would allow a prize to become claimable in the future
128 2012-01-19 17:13:54 <BlueMatt> all you need is one or two big bitcoin miners to merged mine and you have more power than namecoin does now anyway
129 2012-01-19 17:14:06 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: there's nothing in my proposal that requires 1 tx per name, other than transfers. I'm sure there's a way to fix that.
130 2012-01-19 17:14:09 <MC1984> tycho wont even MM namecoin :<
131 2012-01-19 17:14:48 <cjdelisle> ok
132 2012-01-19 17:14:56 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: my Namecoin 2.0 proposal is merged with Bitcoin, and doesn't have its own currency ;)
133 2012-01-19 17:15:09 <cjdelisle> ^^that is desirable
134 2012-01-19 17:15:32 <luke-jr> just fix the transfer/unique-tx issue and you're probably good
135 2012-01-19 17:15:43 <cjdelisle> then I guess my only issue is that validating it is highly bitcoin specific
136 2012-01-19 17:15:54 <luke-jr> that's OK :P
137 2012-01-19 17:15:55 <BlueMatt> please dont stuff dns stuff in bitcoin txes
138 2012-01-19 17:16:09 <BlueMatt> thats called abuse
139 2012-01-19 17:16:33 <cjdelisle> with my design you just have a hash of a database diff and if the tx is in the block then it's good
140 2012-01-19 17:17:10 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: some n00bs on stackexchange are giving me a hard time for calling btcmsg abuse
141 2012-01-19 17:17:11 <BlueMatt> wait, so how are you securing this system?
142 2012-01-19 17:17:16 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: link?
143 2012-01-19 17:17:26 <jercos> BlueMatt: Oh don't get on the aboose caboose, it's not abuse if it's useful.
144 2012-01-19 17:17:41 <cjdelisle> lol
145 2012-01-19 17:17:47 <luke-jr> http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/2631/what-are-the-key-differences-between-different-ways-of-embedding-messages-in-the/2635#2635
146 2012-01-19 17:17:52 <BlueMatt> jercos: please dont troll
147 2012-01-19 17:17:54 <cjdelisle> all security can be done out of band
148 2012-01-19 17:18:08 <BlueMatt> cjdelisle: so why do you need the bitcoin chain?
149 2012-01-19 17:18:31 <cjdelisle> IMO everything should be out of band except what specifically requires bitcoin, that is resolving forks and forcing people to waste some money
150 2012-01-19 17:19:02 <BlueMatt> so if you are forcing people to waste money, why dont you go with namecoin
151 2012-01-19 17:19:10 <BlueMatt> also, what if invalid data is put in a tx
152 2012-01-19 17:19:25 <BlueMatt> what if Im a miner and throw in txes where I steal all your domains?
153 2012-01-19 17:19:41 <cjdelisle> can't steal existing domains
154 2012-01-19 17:19:49 <cjdelisle> those would have to be signed over
155 2012-01-19 17:20:01 <cjdelisle> and that's all done in the zone file and patches
156 2012-01-19 17:20:17 <cjdelisle> the only part which ever hits the chain is a hash of a zone file patch
157 2012-01-19 17:21:29 <BlueMatt> what if two zone file patches with two claims to the same domain go in txes in the same block?
158 2012-01-19 17:21:52 <cjdelisle> whichever wastes more btc? or perhaps the one w/ the lower tx hash?
159 2012-01-19 17:22:28 <cjdelisle> whichever wastes/gives the most would be best I guess
160 2012-01-19 17:22:51 <BlueMatt> and why dont you throw these hashes in a MM coinbase instead of txes?
161 2012-01-19 17:23:21 <cjdelisle> because they need to give up some btc
162 2012-01-19 17:23:45 <BlueMatt> why?
163 2012-01-19 17:23:46 <BlueMatt> I thought you wanted domains to be free?
164 2012-01-19 17:23:54 <cjdelisle> nope, that was jercos :)
165 2012-01-19 17:23:57 <BlueMatt> and if you dont, why dont you want domains to be free?
166 2012-01-19 17:24:16 <BlueMatt> why do you need to spend bitcoins to someone random, isnt that useless
167 2012-01-19 17:24:18 <cjdelisle> because the storage space for the zone file isn't?
168 2012-01-19 17:24:58 <cjdelisle> I feel like just sending them into the null address is irresponsible since it makes them nolonger usable and messes with the amount available
169 2012-01-19 17:25:21 <ciscoftw> ..and makes your coins increase in value along the way -thats good isnt it?
170 2012-01-19 17:26:05 <BlueMatt> TD: why can a tx not be replaced with one which adds more inputs?
171 2012-01-19 17:26:11 <cjdelisle> I see myself as an outsider, I'm trying to figure how to do this and tread as lightly as possible
172 2012-01-19 17:26:21 <TD> do you mean, why does the code check for that? or why does it not work after you tried it ?
173 2012-01-19 17:26:35 <BlueMatt> why does the code check for that?
174 2012-01-19 17:26:40 <TD> ask satoshi :)
175 2012-01-19 17:26:42 <TD> i'll have a think about it
176 2012-01-19 17:26:52 <BlueMatt> oh, sipa said you would know as if you had discussed it before...
177 2012-01-19 17:26:55 <TD> probably it wasn't a part of the use cases he had in mind for that feature
178 2012-01-19 17:27:09 <BlueMatt> thats the only usecase I can think of for tx replacement...
179 2012-01-19 17:27:17 <BlueMatt> (increase fee, which may require additional inputs)
180 2012-01-19 17:27:24 <TD> the inputs can't change what they're connected to
181 2012-01-19 17:27:29 <BlueMatt> cjdelisle: the best way is namecoin...
182 2012-01-19 17:27:30 <TD> no, tx replacement is intended for contracts
183 2012-01-19 17:27:40 <TD> not deliberate double spends to increase fees
184 2012-01-19 17:27:57 <BlueMatt> TD: contracts as-in?
185 2012-01-19 17:28:13 <BlueMatt> yea, a tx would have to have at least the same inputs to be valid for replacement
186 2012-01-19 17:29:23 <TD> let me quote satoshi as i'm kind of tired to provide my own example right now
187 2012-01-19 17:29:24 <TD> One use of nLockTime is high frequency trades between a set of parties.  They can keep updating a tx by unanimous agreement.  The party giving money would be the first to sign the next version.  If one party stops agreeing to changes, then the last state will be recorded at nLockTime.  If desired, a default transaction can be prepared after each version so n-1 parties can push an unresponsive party out.  Intermediate transactions do not need
188 2012-01-19 17:32:10 <BlueMatt> mmm, though I could see a use-case for additional txins in that case as well...
189 2012-01-19 17:33:11 <BlueMatt> currently, afaict, you can remove a txin but not add one...
190 2012-01-19 17:55:38 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: gavinandresen opened pull request 769 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/769>
191 2012-01-19 18:21:52 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * raacefd2 / (src/bitcoinrpc.cpp src/main.cpp src/main.h): Merge branch 'getmemorypool_blockflagstime' of https://github.com/forrestv/bitcoin - http://git.io/yUssdQ https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/aacefd279549c4b524def6e46f4a004bf8bb92bf
192 2012-01-19 18:27:23 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: wtf did you do that for?
193 2012-01-19 18:29:28 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * rc55fd06 / (4 files in 3 dirs): Merge branch 'tabs-to-space' of https://github.com/larsr/bitcoin - http://git.io/MK8_Qg https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/c55fd06b990df44df88775d3333d43ad740d726f
194 2012-01-19 18:30:35 <CIA-76> bitcoin: various next-test * rf0bfc7..8366d4 bitcoind-personal/ (35 files in 7 dirs): (18 commits) http://tinyurl.com/7vr93zh
195 2012-01-19 18:32:09 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: wtf did you do that for?
196 2012-01-19 18:32:53 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r1240a1b / src/json/json_spirit_reader_template.h : Back out spacing changes to json spirit code - http://git.io/PjpqKw https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/1240a1b0a82e0e944a6fdcf6ff26001e1bd68904
197 2012-01-19 18:35:22 <gmaxwell> nanotube: why does the new seed node list not have a single address in common with the old one?
198 2012-01-19 18:35:57 <gmaxwell> nanotube: I find that somewhat concerning.
199 2012-01-19 18:36:50 <gmaxwell> (I'm not suggesting you're up to funny business, of course, but thats what funny business would look like so procedurally, as someone who audits commits, I've gotta ask why. :) )
200 2012-01-19 18:36:58 <nanotube> gmaxwell: maybe old seednodes haven't upgraded? old nodes were supposed to be 0.3.24, this time cutoff is 0.4.0
201 2012-01-19 18:37:03 <p2k> yes! https://trac.macports.org/ticket/31354#comment:3 :D
202 2012-01-19 18:37:25 <nanotube> gmaxwell: that's a good question though :)
203 2012-01-19 18:37:32 <gmaxwell> nanotube: ah. That would explain a lot of it!  Though .. none? oy.
204 2012-01-19 18:38:00 <gmaxwell> (maybe an effort should be made to test the old ones there may be some old ones that just got missed)
205 2012-01-19 18:38:03 <gmaxwell> bbl
206 2012-01-19 18:38:33 <p2k> bitcoin devs: you can now remove contrib/miniupnpc/Portfile
207 2012-01-19 18:39:02 <gavinandresen> p2k: right now, or should we wait until it percolates through the macports release process?
208 2012-01-19 18:39:31 <p2k> read the ticket again, it _has_ gone through the macports release process
209 2012-01-19 18:39:37 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: why did you just intentionally break coinbaser by merging a hacked in substitute? -.-
210 2012-01-19 18:39:55 <gavinandresen> p2k:  nifty
211 2012-01-19 18:39:58 <p2k> -> https://trac.macports.org/changeset/89116
212 2012-01-19 18:40:30 <nanotube> gmaxwell: yea dunno. i grab the datadump from mtux, filter it by version and longevity, then run an "is it up check" on whatever remains, and include ones that are up. i guess if someone felt up to it, he could check the old seednode list to see if there's a subset of them that is up and has version > 0.4.0. if there's a significant number, then it's something to look into...
213 2012-01-19 18:41:02 <p2k> gavinandresen: Mac OS X build instructions have to be modified then
214 2012-01-19 18:41:46 <p2k> shall I do that and send a pull request on github?
215 2012-01-19 18:41:56 <gavinandresen> p2k: what's the best way for me to test?  port upgrade miniupnpc   to get the official macport?
216 2012-01-19 18:42:28 <p2k> maybe uninstall it first and reinstall it after a "port selfupdate"
217 2012-01-19 18:43:16 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: why are you against forward progress?
218 2012-01-19 18:44:38 <gavinandresen> p2k: a pull request would be great, thanks
219 2012-01-19 18:45:11 <p2k> ok, it's about time I clean up my github account. I'll just delete the falsely linked repositories and fork freshly
220 2012-01-19 18:45:33 <p2k> archiving my local copies
221 2012-01-19 18:50:43 <p2k> gavinandresen: should I keep that somewhere or delete it as well? https://github.com/p2k/bitcoin-qt/wiki
222 2012-01-19 18:51:03 <p2k> some information and the headlines are outdated
223 2012-01-19 18:52:46 <gavinandresen> p2k: I don't have a strong opinion
224 2012-01-19 18:53:41 <p2k> then what's your weak opinion?
225 2012-01-19 18:55:13 <gavinandresen> weak opinion is it'd be nice to have a "getting started page" with that information somewhere on bitcoin.org.... but I'm not motivated to make that happen
226 2012-01-19 18:55:21 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Forrest Voight coinbaser * r52a3d2635c41 bitcoind-personal/src/ (bitcoinrpc.cpp main.cpp main.h): Separated COINBASE_FLAGS out into main.h and made RPC getmemorypool return it http://tinyurl.com/79cqezu
227 2012-01-19 18:55:24 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Forrest Voight coinbaser * rab845122587e bitcoind-personal/src/bitcoinrpc.cpp: Added mintime and curtime to RPC getmemorypool http://tinyurl.com/7zngenf
228 2012-01-19 18:55:25 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen coinbaser * raacefd279549 bitcoind-personal/src/ (bitcoinrpc.cpp main.cpp main.h): Merge branch 'getmemorypool_blockflagstime' of https://github.com/forrestv/bitcoin http://tinyurl.com/6og5dum
229 2012-01-19 18:55:27 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr coinbaser * r0ab0b69cfeda bitcoind-personal/src/ (10 files in 3 dirs): Merge branch 'master' into coinbaser http://tinyurl.com/7ugspse
230 2012-01-19 18:56:11 <p2k> well ok, since bitcoin is so easy to install on os x, I think we don't really need this
231 2012-01-19 18:56:34 <p2k> I'm also not so motivated to make new screenshots
232 2012-01-19 18:57:10 <p2k> repo deleted
233 2012-01-19 18:57:53 <p2k> and new fork ready
234 2012-01-19 18:58:27 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: next time, if you intend to merge a feature that depends on coinbaser functionality, please merge coinbaser first rather than a hacky stub that breaks clean merging
235 2012-01-19 19:00:00 <nathan7> hi earthlings
236 2012-01-19 19:02:17 <gribble> gavinandresen: next time, if you intend to merge a feature that depends on coinbaser functionality, please merge coinbaser first rather than a hacky stub that breaks clean merging
237 2012-01-19 19:02:17 <luke-jr> ;;echo gavinandresen: next time, if you intend to merge a feature that depends on coinbaser functionality, please merge coinbaser first rather than a hacky stub that breaks clean merging
238 2012-01-19 19:02:33 <helo> nice
239 2012-01-19 19:03:16 <gavinandresen> gribble:  tell luke-jr I'm too pissed at him to listen to him right now.  Call back next week, maybe.
240 2012-01-19 19:04:53 <luke-jr> & tempting: ;;echo gavinandresen: no u
241 2012-01-19 19:04:55 <luke-jr> :p
242 2012-01-19 19:05:22 <userhh> Gavin x Luke-jr. good for bitcoin?
243 2012-01-19 19:05:31 <userhh> kidding
244 2012-01-19 19:06:58 <p2k> gavinandresen: would also be about time to include the new macdeployqtplus
245 2012-01-19 19:07:15 <gavinandresen> p2k: Good Idea.  Can you submit a patch with that, too?
246 2012-01-19 19:07:21 <p2k> yep
247 2012-01-19 19:07:27 <p2k> while I'm at it
248 2012-01-19 19:17:07 <p2k> gavinandresen: erm.. is miniupnpc enabled by default i.e. should I add it to "sudo port install boost db48" ?
249 2012-01-19 19:17:22 <gavinandresen> p2k: yes
250 2012-01-19 19:17:27 <p2k> ok
251 2012-01-19 19:22:55 <p2k> gavinandresen: release-process.txt states your patched macdeployqt. the new macdeployqtplus doesn't use this.
252 2012-01-19 19:23:24 <p2k> should I add a note in that section?
253 2012-01-19 19:23:36 <gavinandresen> p2k: just update it to the way it aught to be
254 2012-01-19 19:24:03 <gavinandresen> (and we'll follow that process for the 0.6 mac builds, and change it again if it needs tweaking)
255 2012-01-19 19:24:34 <p2k> just call me if you need anything
256 2012-01-19 19:24:51 <p2k> or feel free to study my python based macdeployqt
257 2012-01-19 19:25:25 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr coinbaser * rcdf279..b56e73 bitcoind-personal/src/ (bitcoinrpc.cpp init.cpp main.h main.cpp): (6 commits) http://tinyurl.com/3lrgdkn
258 2012-01-19 19:28:14 <p2k> also note that any Qt installation is now supported through the new macdeployqtplus (framework, non-framework, with macports, without macports)
259 2012-01-19 19:29:48 <gavinandresen> p2k: does creating "pretty" .dmg images work for you?  That was flaky on my machine with the old tools, it seemed very hard to get the background image to "stick"
260 2012-01-19 19:30:10 <p2k> testing it all now
261 2012-01-19 19:31:14 <p2k> works like a charm
262 2012-01-19 19:32:00 <p2k> starting the app just to make sure...
263 2012-01-19 19:33:48 <p2k> crashes.. wtf?
264 2012-01-19 19:35:31 <p2k> trying to debug
265 2012-01-19 19:36:16 <gavinandresen> ... I sympathize....  did some of that when I was figuring out why the C macdeployqt created a .App that crashed....
266 2012-01-19 19:37:04 <p2k> that should not be related to macdeployqt
267 2012-01-19 19:37:16 <p2k> bitcoin starts and displays the splashscreen
268 2012-01-19 19:37:25 <p2k> then crashes before showing the wallet
269 2012-01-19 19:37:32 <gavinandresen> p2k: yeah, then different bug.
270 2012-01-19 19:37:38 <p2k> after the blockchain was loaded
271 2012-01-19 19:37:43 <p2k> *-index
272 2012-01-19 19:38:30 <p2k> lolz...
273 2012-01-19 19:38:39 <p2k> bind: Address already in use
274 2012-01-19 19:38:45 <gavinandresen> lol
275 2012-01-19 19:39:39 <p2k> ok everytings fine
276 2012-01-19 19:39:47 <p2k> nice new icons
277 2012-01-19 19:45:59 <p2k> committing, pushing, sending...
278 2012-01-19 19:46:41 <p2k> lol there's a typo in commit title... le fail :)
279 2012-01-19 19:48:42 <p2k> -> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/770
280 2012-01-19 19:52:25 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: p2k opened pull request 770 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/770>
281 2012-01-19 19:52:40 <p2k> ah ok, didn't know that goes automatically
282 2012-01-19 19:58:29 <nanotube> ;;pet
283 2012-01-19 19:58:30 <gribble> *purrrrrrrr*
284 2012-01-19 19:58:55 <gribble> Forget the snack, just send me some bitcoins at 1MgD6rah5zUgEGYZnNmdpnXMaDR3itKYzU :)
285 2012-01-19 19:58:55 <luke-jr> ;;botsnack
286 2012-01-19 19:58:56 <p2k> jeez...
287 2012-01-19 19:59:01 <luke-jr> gribble: ungrateful bot!
288 2012-01-19 20:02:37 <nanotube> lol
289 2012-01-19 20:15:10 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr * r9e40e87a1ed1 cgminer/ (AUTHORS README main.c): Update documentation http://tinyurl.com/6qqne4h
290 2012-01-19 20:15:11 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r418c452eccd7 cgminer/ (AUTHORS README main.c): Merge pull request #74 from luke-jr/doc_update http://tinyurl.com/7tcuycp
291 2012-01-19 20:18:49 <Raccoon> Are there DLLs with exportable functions for the Windows Bitcoin client?
292 2012-01-19 20:18:57 <BlueMatt> no
293 2012-01-19 20:19:05 <Raccoon> allowing for external processes/scripts to utilize bitcoin
294 2012-01-19 20:19:14 <BlueMatt> the bitcoin client has no functions that anyone should use to communicate with bitcoin
295 2012-01-19 20:19:21 <Raccoon> 'should'?
296 2012-01-19 20:19:49 <BlueMatt> in theory you could hack around and communicate with any running process using its own functions (assuming you know the right function pointers)
297 2012-01-19 20:20:10 <Raccoon> but why is it discouraged to develop around the client?
298 2012-01-19 20:20:16 <BlueMatt> use rpc
299 2012-01-19 20:20:27 <BlueMatt> its not discouraged, but no one has stepped up to make an api
300 2012-01-19 20:20:29 <Raccoon> RPC?
301 2012-01-19 20:20:37 <BlueMatt> the regular bitcoind communication method
302 2012-01-19 20:20:52 <BlueMatt> what are you trying to do?
303 2012-01-19 20:20:58 <Raccoon> you mean 'write your own client'
304 2012-01-19 20:21:02 <BlueMatt> no
305 2012-01-19 20:21:37 <BlueMatt> ;;bc,wiki "API reference (JSON-RPC)"
306 2012-01-19 20:21:39 <gribble> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/API_reference_(JSON-RPC) | Sep 7, 2011 ... You can control it via the command-line or by HTTP JSON-RPC commands. You must create a bitcoin.conf configuration file setting an rpcuser ...
307 2012-01-19 20:21:42 <Raccoon> i want to create an IRC bot that generates addresses, can detect received funds, can send out funds, and tracking thereof
308 2012-01-19 20:21:43 <BlueMatt> that
309 2012-01-19 20:21:49 <BlueMatt> yea, you want that page
310 2012-01-19 20:22:03 <Raccoon> ;;bc,wiki "API reference (JSON-RPC)"
311 2012-01-19 20:22:04 <gribble> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/API_reference_(JSON-RPC) | Sep 7, 2011 ... You can control it via the command-line or by HTTP JSON-RPC commands. You must create a bitcoin.conf configuration file setting an rpcuser ...
312 2012-01-19 20:22:25 <Raccoon> hmm
313 2012-01-19 20:22:32 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: can you explain how sigops are counted with OP_EVAL?
314 2012-01-19 20:22:38 <Raccoon> ah, there it is
315 2012-01-19 20:26:01 <BlueMatt> ;;seen gavinandresen
316 2012-01-19 20:26:02 <gribble> gavinandresen was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 47 minutes and 16 seconds ago: <gavinandresen> lol
317 2012-01-19 20:29:22 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: you mean p2sh?
318 2012-01-19 20:29:26 <BlueMatt> oh, yea
319 2012-01-19 20:30:39 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: specifically, why are you adding the scriptpubkey of the input's tx to the calculation of sigops?
320 2012-01-19 20:30:41 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: I hope the explanation in BIP 16 is good... basically, CHECKSIGs count as 1, MULTISIGS as 20, if they're not 'hidden' inside a p2sh
321 2012-01-19 20:31:03 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: because that's the way the old code did it.
322 2012-01-19 20:31:17 <BlueMatt> oh
323 2012-01-19 20:31:28 <BlueMatt> hmmm...
324 2012-01-19 20:31:37 <BlueMatt> well clients cant check that
325 2012-01-19 20:31:53 <gavinandresen> what do you mean?
326 2012-01-19 20:32:14 <BlueMatt> clients dont have the previous txes to pull the scriptpubkey checksig count from...
327 2012-01-19 20:32:23 <gavinandresen> oh, you mean lightweight clients
328 2012-01-19 20:32:25 <BlueMatt> yea
329 2012-01-19 20:32:39 <BlueMatt> sorry, just doing some refactoring and I got confused...
330 2012-01-19 20:32:59 <gavinandresen> no problem
331 2012-01-19 20:34:34 <BlueMatt> actually, for some reason I dont see the old code doing it that way
332 2012-01-19 20:35:00 <BlueMatt> (also it makes no sense to do it that way imo)
333 2012-01-19 20:35:08 <BlueMatt> (but that is irrelevant)
334 2012-01-19 20:35:20 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin build #180: FAILURE in 1 hr 32 min: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin/180/
335 2012-01-19 20:35:21 <BlueMattBot> * Lars.Rasmusson: Replace tabs with four spaces to comply with coding standard in doc/coding.txt
336 2012-01-19 20:35:27 <BlueMatt> ???
337 2012-01-19 20:35:47 <BlueMatt> "i586-mingw32msvc-g++: Internal error: Killed (program cc1plus)"
338 2012-01-19 20:35:48 <BlueMatt> wtf?
339 2012-01-19 20:36:12 <BlueMatt> meh, Ill run it again
340 2012-01-19 20:37:47 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: in the old code there is no checking of sigops in ConnectInputs
341 2012-01-19 20:38:12 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: GetSigOpCount() in main.h from (for example) 0.4.0 loops through all the scriptSigs and scriptPubKeys calling CTransaction::GetSigOpCount
342 2012-01-19 20:39:08 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: yea, but with p2sh in ConnectInputs you check the prevout's scriptPubKey's sigops, not the tx itself
343 2012-01-19 20:39:33 <BlueMatt> in previous version (afaict) no sigops in previous txes are calculated as a part of the sigop count
344 2012-01-19 20:39:49 <BlueMatt> (the nSigOpRet was added with p2sh/op_eval)
345 2012-01-19 20:39:49 <nanotube> <BlueMattBot> Oh no! You're suspected of having broken Bitcoin: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin/180/ <- hehe nice
346 2012-01-19 20:40:13 <BlueMatt> nanotube: yea, it even guesses irc nicks automatically based on (well tbh, I have no idea how it does that...)
347 2012-01-19 20:40:21 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: Yes, sigops are calculated two different ways, the old way and a new way that doesn't always charge CHECKMULTISIG operations 20 sigops
348 2012-01-19 20:40:40 <nanotube> BlueMatt: well, my github nick is the same as irc... so that one was easy
349 2012-01-19 20:40:48 <BlueMatt> so back to my question, can you explain the new way and why its necessary?
350 2012-01-19 20:41:20 <BlueMatt> (sorry if Im being really dense here)
351 2012-01-19 20:41:27 <BlueMatt> nanotube: yea, probably that
352 2012-01-19 20:42:26 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: sure....  let me gather my thoughts
353 2012-01-19 20:42:42 <BlueMatt> np
354 2012-01-19 20:47:45 <Joric_> did anyone of you receive 20 bitcents recently?
355 2012-01-19 20:48:27 <gavinandresen> The critical code is the sigop counting code in CheckBlock/ConnectBlock; CheckBlock makes sure the block is compatible with old clients by counting the old way.
356 2012-01-19 20:49:32 <gavinandresen> The "new" way is to look at the transaction's inputs and the scriptPubKeys that they are spending and get a count of how many sigops are actually required to validate the transaction (ignoring IFs)
357 2012-01-19 20:49:59 <gavinandresen> (and ignoring the fact that a 1 .... 3 CHECKMULTISIG might take anywhere from 1 to 3 signature checks to validate)
358 2012-01-19 20:50:04 <gavinandresen> (it'll always count as 3)
359 2012-01-19 20:50:50 <gavinandresen> As to why bother:  to prevent possible signature-check-denial-of-service attacks
360 2012-01-19 20:51:14 <BlueMatt> well my question is why bother to do both together
361 2012-01-19 20:51:19 <BlueMatt> they are both counted already?
362 2012-01-19 20:52:07 <gavinandresen> we have to count the old way to avoid a possible hard blockchain split with old clients
363 2012-01-19 20:52:19 <gavinandresen> we want to count the new way to prevent possible p2sh-based denial-of-service attacks
364 2012-01-19 20:52:55 <BlueMatt> I understand the old way and that is fine, but Im still fuzzy on the attack vector that the new way prevents
365 2012-01-19 20:53:29 <gavinandresen> I create a transaction with a "zero-sigops" p2sh scriptPubKey.  It gets into the blockchain.
366 2012-01-19 20:54:21 <BlueMatt> and?
367 2012-01-19 20:54:27 <gavinandresen> Now I spend it, with some crazy-expensive script that is 400 bytes long and does as many ECDSA signature checks as possible in 400 bytes
368 2012-01-19 20:55:01 <gavinandresen> Or, much worse, I create 10,000 of those zero-sigops scripts and then mine a block that spends them all.
369 2012-01-19 20:55:25 <gavinandresen> ... making the other miners spend a bunch of CPU time trying to validate all those signatures.
370 2012-01-19 20:55:26 <BlueMatt> yea, so you check the sigop count in the serialized script before executing
371 2012-01-19 20:55:42 <BlueMatt> why do you add the sigop count from the previous tx's sigpubkey?
372 2012-01-19 20:56:13 <gavinandresen> Because when you validate a transaction those are the pubkeys you're validating signatures against.
373 2012-01-19 20:56:44 <BlueMatt> but the scriptpubkey of the previous tx always has 0 sigops
374 2012-01-19 20:57:07 <BlueMatt> (for a p2sh tx)
375 2012-01-19 20:57:18 <gavinandresen> In the p2sh case?  Yes...
376 2012-01-19 20:57:19 <BlueMatt> (otherwise let the old of counting way deal with it)
377 2012-01-19 20:57:59 <gavinandresen> Got it.
378 2012-01-19 20:58:25 <gavinandresen> Counting the sigops you're actually performing seems like a good "belt and suspenders" check
379 2012-01-19 20:58:56 <BlueMatt> but clients cant do it, so clients now might accept a block that full nodes will reject
380 2012-01-19 20:59:18 <BlueMatt> also, now new nodes might reject blocks that old nodes would accept
381 2012-01-19 20:59:24 <gavinandresen> Lightweight clients can't validate signatures, either....
382 2012-01-19 20:59:33 <BlueMatt> and, sigops in scriptpubkeys are getting counted twice
383 2012-01-19 21:00:07 <BlueMatt> and lastly, I dont feel like figuring out what code I need to change to rebase on the new counting method
384 2012-01-19 21:01:11 <gavinandresen> With p2sh new nodes might reject blocks that old nodes would accept in any case
385 2012-01-19 21:01:22 <gavinandresen> (that's why 50+% support is needed)
386 2012-01-19 21:02:16 <BlueMatt> well mostly I dont see the reason for counting them twice
387 2012-01-19 21:02:44 <gavinandresen> The way they're counted now is... just wrong.
388 2012-01-19 21:02:52 <BlueMatt> why?
389 2012-01-19 21:03:29 <BlueMatt> the way theyre counted now is simpler
390 2012-01-19 21:03:31 <gavinandresen> E.g.  a transaction spending 1,000  1-of-20 CHECKMULTISIG to a single output that just a CHECKSIG would be counted as 1 sigop
391 2012-01-19 21:03:36 <BlueMatt> and makes more sense
392 2012-01-19 21:03:45 <gavinandresen> ... but it actually could take 20,000 sigops to process
393 2012-01-19 21:04:27 <BlueMatt> yes, but now you inadvertently created an undependable tx because you forgot to add up your sigopcount in addition to all the other crap you have to deal with
394 2012-01-19 21:04:28 <gavinandresen> Each of the 1,000 inputs would be counted as 20 sigops, but they were counted at the wrong time
395 2012-01-19 21:04:49 <gavinandresen> who forgot to add up?
396 2012-01-19 21:05:01 <gavinandresen> You mean a client generating the transaction?
397 2012-01-19 21:05:27 <BlueMatt> lets say Im writing a custom script with sigops in the outputs and whats required to sign
398 2012-01-19 21:05:32 <gavinandresen> If the client is generating the transaction then it must know the inputs (because it has to sign them)
399 2012-01-19 21:06:41 <BlueMatt> I just dont think it should be counting sigops towards a block that arent in a block
400 2012-01-19 21:06:58 <BlueMatt> (and have already been counted in a previous block)(
401 2012-01-19 21:07:07 <gavinandresen> counted in a different way....
402 2012-01-19 21:07:16 <BlueMatt> counted just the same
403 2012-01-19 21:07:25 <BlueMatt> finally, the new counting method should have a block lockin
404 2012-01-19 21:07:48 <gavinandresen> The problem is a patient attacker can, at very low cost, insert a bunch of 'poison' transactions into the block-chain.
405 2012-01-19 21:07:52 <BlueMatt> (in case some poolop thinks hes funny and makes a nice block which fails the new counting method before 0.6)
406 2012-01-19 21:08:06 <gavinandresen> And then create a killer transaction that gathers them all up and is EXTREMELY expensive to validate
407 2012-01-19 21:08:42 <gavinandresen> (you're right about the block lockin, that's a bug)
408 2012-01-19 21:09:03 <BlueMatt> mmm, thats fair...plus I just went ahead with my rebase so do as you wish
409 2012-01-19 21:15:09 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r67376ca0e1d9 cgminer/README: Update README + FAQ. http://tinyurl.com/7nynpra
410 2012-01-19 21:20:42 <BlueMatt> oh goddamit gavin, I wasnt done yet
411 2012-01-19 21:22:48 <BlueMatt> ;;later tell gavinandresen ok, I think Im reading this wrong (or I hope I am), but the way I read this there are two ways sigops are added the old way (sigops in the tx) and the new way (ONLY sigops in scriptpubkeys of prevouts, not the ones in the current tx) that cant be right?
412 2012-01-19 21:22:49 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
413 2012-01-19 21:25:11 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * rc487383cf4bd cgminer/ (README main.c): Allow CPU mining explicitly enable only if other mining support is built in. http://tinyurl.com/79ayl8s
414 2012-01-19 21:33:24 <BlueMattBot> Yippie, build fixed!
415 2012-01-19 21:33:25 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin build #181: FIXED in 57 min: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin/181/
416 2012-01-19 21:33:37 <BlueMatt> odd, oh well
417 2012-01-19 21:55:40 <TuxBlackEdo> is this a picture of the bitcoin devs? http://i.imgur.com/VhlQK.gif
418 2012-01-19 21:56:03 <sipa> no, Satoshi
419 2012-01-19 22:00:05 <BlueMatt> sipa, gmaxwell: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/771
420 2012-01-19 22:00:24 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: TheBlueMatt opened pull request 771 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/771>
421 2012-01-19 22:10:11 <CIA-76> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r15672b52a6cb cgminer/main.c: Allow invalid values to be in the configuration file, just skipping over them provided the rest of the file is valid JSON. This will allow older configuration files with options no longer existing to still be portable. http://tinyurl.com/7pymmqd
422 2012-01-19 22:10:47 <luke-jr> http://bitcoinstats.org/ <-- useful
423 2012-01-19 22:11:08 <BlueMatt> had you never seen that site?
424 2012-01-19 22:11:39 <luke-jr> nope
425 2012-01-19 22:11:44 <BlueMatt> dont know where they get their node count though
426 2012-01-19 22:11:48 <luke-jr> too bad the Versions page is about to become useless :/
427 2012-01-19 22:11:50 <BlueMatt> because thats just plain wrong
428 2012-01-19 22:12:05 <BlueMatt> about to, as in?
429 2012-01-19 22:12:15 <luke-jr> as in, the non-compliance with BIP 11
430 2012-01-19 22:12:26 <BlueMatt> heh, like they are gonna care
431 2012-01-19 22:12:28 <luke-jr> and the old versions being 60000 always
432 2012-01-19 22:12:37 <BlueMatt> oh, yea
433 2012-01-19 22:12:46 <BlueMatt> anyway, Im pretty sure that page is also very wrong
434 2012-01-19 22:21:40 <TuxBlackEdo> i don't know if this is the right channel to ask for help, but I am trying to run 0.5.2 on xp and it keeps crashing, and I am thinking it got to do with initial block download
435 2012-01-19 22:21:46 <TuxBlackEdo> can i send someone my debug.log?
436 2012-01-19 22:22:56 <BlueMatt> pastebin it
437 2012-01-19 22:23:58 <sipa> BlueMatt: is CBlockStore functionally complete?
438 2012-01-19 22:24:16 <BlueMatt> sipa: yes
439 2012-01-19 22:24:24 <BlueMatt> aside from the perf issues
440 2012-01-19 22:24:32 <BlueMatt> and spv mode isnt
441 2012-01-19 22:24:35 <BlueMatt> (not even close)
442 2012-01-19 22:24:36 <sipa> have you run it with DEBUG_LOCKORDER ?
443 2012-01-19 22:24:38 <BlueMatt> yes
444 2012-01-19 22:24:49 <sipa> i'm already impressed :)
445 2012-01-19 22:24:58 <BlueMatt> and even a DEBUG_LOCKCONTENTION that prints when locks have to wait that I wrote :)
446 2012-01-19 22:25:28 <BlueMatt> sipa: thanks