1 2012-01-24 00:07:37 <diki> hmm...all is well
  2 2012-01-24 00:07:56 <diki> but that calloc is exceeding the allocation than my calculations showed
  3 2012-01-24 00:45:45 <etotheipi_> a_meteorite, roconnor, I've built/run using both 2.6 and 2.7
  4 2012-01-24 00:46:11 <a_meteorite> ah. well I think I got the last lib installing now then I'll give building a try.
  5 2012-01-24 00:46:21 <a_meteorite> if it works I'll be sure to give the instructions for OS X :)
  6 2012-01-24 00:48:09 <roconnor> etotheipi_: how much experience do you have sending transactions through a locally bitcoin peer?
  7 2012-01-24 00:48:38 <roconnor> etotheipi_: in my experiences today with my own software, distributing my transactions through my local bitcoin peer wasn't very effective.
  8 2012-01-24 00:49:07 <luke-jr> roconnor: did I ask you to audit my BIP 17 implementation yet? :P
  9 2012-01-24 00:50:13 <roconnor> luke-jr: I forget if you asked, but I'm not all that intrested in BIP 16 or BIP 17 personally.
 10 2012-01-24 00:50:24 <etotheipi_> roconnor, I've sent hundreds of transactions with Armory... all of them go through localhost
 11 2012-01-24 00:50:27 <luke-jr> roconnor: they came about because of you! :P
 12 2012-01-24 00:50:51 <roconnor> I was very interested in stopping OP_EVAL :P
 13 2012-01-24 00:51:04 <roconnor> etotheipi_: interstesting
 14 2012-01-24 00:51:12 <etotheipi_> roconnor, as long as the tx is valid, there's no reason it shouldn't work
 15 2012-01-24 00:51:16 <roconnor> etotheipi_: and they were processed on the next block more or less.
 16 2012-01-24 00:52:01 <roconnor> etotheipi_: In my very limited experience the local client would immedately relay to its peers and then that is it.
 17 2012-01-24 00:53:09 <roconnor> I.e it wouldn't transmit to new peers.
 18 2012-01-24 00:53:26 <roconnor> bear in mind I know very little about how the p2p works in bitcoin.
 19 2012-01-24 00:55:50 <roconnor> luke-jr: if it makes you feel better I haven't looked at the impelementation of BIP 16 either.
 20 2012-01-24 00:55:58 <etotheipi_> roconnor, the only times I've had a problem is when it turns out the tx wasn't actually valid (i.e. I tried double-spending some outputs)
 21 2012-01-24 00:55:58 <luke-jr> >_<
 22 2012-01-24 00:56:11 <luke-jr> roconnor: if you hadn't looked at the implementation of BIP 12, we'd never have found the bugs :/
 23 2012-01-24 00:56:29 <roconnor> ya
 24 2012-01-24 00:56:45 <roconnor> good thing I thought OP_EVAL was a terrible idea.
 25 2012-01-24 00:56:50 <luke-jr> I was happy with BIP 12, and trusted Gavin to write good code >_<
 26 2012-01-24 00:57:10 <roconnor> etotheipi_: interesting.  Good to hear.
 27 2012-01-24 00:57:29 <roconnor> etotheipi_: I'll gain some more experience manufacturing my own transactions and see how it goes.
 28 2012-01-24 00:58:36 <roconnor> etotheipi_: oh and about BIP 10, I'm not sure I'm necessarily the best person to talk to.  I was mostly interested in serializing my transactions to that format do I could drop them into your client.
 29 2012-01-24 00:58:52 <roconnor> but it turns out that just connecting to a local peer works pretty good.
 30 2012-01-24 00:59:20 <roconnor> etotheipi_: I don't know anything about passing around multi-sig transactions to be signed.
 31 2012-01-24 00:59:28 <roconnor> etotheipi_: other than it seems like a damn good idea.
 32 2012-01-24 01:00:36 <roconnor> luke-jr: it's more Stroustrup's fault than Gavin's fault IMHO.
 33 2012-01-24 01:01:13 <luke-jr> who?
 34 2012-01-24 01:01:27 <gmaxwell> 0_o
 35 2012-01-24 01:01:43 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjarne_Stroustrup
 36 2012-01-24 01:01:47 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: luke-jr opened pull request 780 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/780>
 37 2012-01-24 01:01:49 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: any interest in reviewing BIP 17 implementation?
 38 2012-01-24 01:02:32 <roconnor> luke-jr: do you have a clean diff with a nonBIP16 version of bitcoin?
 39 2012-01-24 01:02:45 <luke-jr> roconnor: yes
 40 2012-01-24 01:02:55 <roconnor> give me a link and I'll stick it in a tab
 41 2012-01-24 01:03:36 <luke-jr> does it need syntax highlighting? :P
 42 2012-01-24 01:03:43 <roconnor> probably not
 43 2012-01-24 01:03:45 <luke-jr> or, do you know how to pastebin w/ syntax?
 44 2012-01-24 01:03:59 <roconnor> I know nothing about pastebin
 45 2012-01-24 01:04:27 <luke-jr> http://paste.pocoo.org/show/539592/
 46 2012-01-24 01:05:28 <roconnor> luke-jr: how many files are involved?
 47 2012-01-24 01:06:13 <roconnor> actually nevermind
 48 2012-01-24 01:06:49 <roconnor> can you also paste a "full" diff of script.cpp; that is a diff with the entire file as context
 49 2012-01-24 01:06:55 <roconnor> if that makes sense to you
 50 2012-01-24 01:07:22 <sipa> diff -C infinity, basical
 51 2012-01-24 01:07:24 <sipa> ly?
 52 2012-01-24 01:07:33 <roconnor> ya
 53 2012-01-24 01:07:44 <roconnor> persumably there is a flag for that, or at least a big enough number should do.
 54 2012-01-24 01:09:21 <a_meteorite> etotheipi_: getting some tough errors, lemme pastebin... it's a linking issue but I'm not sure what it can't link to
 55 2012-01-24 01:09:36 <etotheipi_> a_meteorite, I'll see if I can help... I assume this is OSX?
 56 2012-01-24 01:09:47 <a_meteorite> yup
 57 2012-01-24 01:09:54 <a_meteorite> if I know what it needs to link to I can fix it
 58 2012-01-24 01:10:16 <etotheipi_> gah, I probably should've tested out swift-geeks cmake solution
 59 2012-01-24 01:10:31 <etotheipi_> it might avoid some of this... actually, maybe you could try it...
 60 2012-01-24 01:10:34 <a_meteorite> yeah I had to change a lot of includes, libs, etc
 61 2012-01-24 01:10:41 <a_meteorite> etotheipi_: http://pastebin.com/5LVKVpdd
 62 2012-01-24 01:11:01 <a_meteorite> basically took stuff out of the makefile and changed paths :)
 63 2012-01-24 01:11:25 <Joric> etotheipi_, i added encrypted wallets support this morning https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=34028.100
 64 2012-01-24 01:11:49 <etotheipi_> a_meteorite, it looks like SWIG has a serious issue here... it's not compiling it's own stuff into the module...
 65 2012-01-24 01:11:51 <sipa> Joric: nice!
 66 2012-01-24 01:11:59 <Joric> almost everything could be done in pure python except pybsddb :(
 67 2012-01-24 01:12:13 <a_meteorite> ugh
 68 2012-01-24 01:12:22 <a_meteorite> I know linking on OS X is kinda weird
 69 2012-01-24 01:12:22 <Joric> have to write bsddb module )
 70 2012-01-24 01:12:24 <etotheipi_> Joric, that's great!  I might try to leverage your work to help with wallet conversion... I'll send you a donation
 71 2012-01-24 01:12:29 <a_meteorite> actually, very weird
 72 2012-01-24 01:12:53 <Joric> etotheipi_, that would be great :D
 73 2012-01-24 01:14:02 <etotheipi_> a_meteorite, swift-geek forked and committed cmake stuff to this:  https://github.com/swiftgeek/BitcoinArmory
 74 2012-01-24 01:14:08 <etotheipi_> I don't know a thing about it, yet...
 75 2012-01-24 01:14:23 <etotheipi_> I desperately want to resolve this zero-conf issue and then worry about cross-platform stuff
 76 2012-01-24 01:14:48 <roconnor> whats zero-conf?
 77 2012-01-24 01:14:49 <etotheipi_> (basically every major tx-related issue Armory has right now is resolved with this update... if I can work out this last bug)
 78 2012-01-24 01:15:03 <etotheipi_> roconnor, handling tx's not in the blockchain
 79 2012-01-24 01:15:21 <sipa> you basically implemented a memory pool?
 80 2012-01-24 01:15:27 <etotheipi_> picking them up from the network, and also reflecting your balance appropriately right after you send one
 81 2012-01-24 01:15:38 <roconnor> etotheipi_: ah
 82 2012-01-24 01:15:50 <etotheipi_> sipa, yes... my issue was that I originally wrote the C++ tools to analyze the blockchain, I never built memory-pool into it
 83 2012-01-24 01:15:50 <roconnor> etotheipi_: I thought it was some sort of router-port-forwarding thing
 84 2012-01-24 01:16:01 <sipa> i see
 85 2012-01-24 01:16:11 <etotheipi_> I tried to hack together something temporary for the first release, but it was unsustainable
 86 2012-01-24 01:16:32 <etotheipi_> or rather, it wasn't enough... so I decided to just go through and do it *the right way* right now :)
 87 2012-01-24 01:19:55 <luke-jr> roconnor: -U9999\n2721831
 88 2012-01-24 01:20:18 <a_meteorite> heh, like how cmake outputs "lol" if you're on OS X
 89 2012-01-24 01:20:51 <a_meteorite> etotheipi_: welp, that fork works a slight better...
 90 2012-01-24 01:21:29 <roconnor> luke-jr: thanks
 91 2012-01-24 01:21:37 <a_meteorite> doesn't seem like there's issues with swig now
 92 2012-01-24 01:22:02 <etotheipi_> a_meteorite, are you using "cmake" now instead of my instructions ?
 93 2012-01-24 01:22:14 <a_meteorite> yup
 94 2012-01-24 01:22:16 <etotheipi_> (don't ask me how, I've never used ti before, but I think there's a configure step)
 95 2012-01-24 01:23:07 <a_meteorite> etotheipi_: http://pastebin.com/8iAELLXF
 96 2012-01-24 01:23:34 <a_meteorite> I do develop stuff, but I usually hate the building part and figuring out cross-platformness
 97 2012-01-24 01:24:01 <a_meteorite> seems like there's issues linking to cryptopp
 98 2012-01-24 01:24:12 <a_meteorite> but cmake found it
 99 2012-01-24 01:24:15 <etotheipi_> oh, a_meteorite that looks like a merge issue
100 2012-01-24 01:24:28 <luke-jr> eh?
101 2012-01-24 01:24:40 <etotheipi_> I need to scrub that branch before someone else tries to compile it
102 2012-01-24 01:24:41 <luke-jr> I think I avoid cryptopp for licensing reasons
103 2012-01-24 01:25:02 <sipa> cryptopp's components are mostly public domain
104 2012-01-24 01:25:07 <a_meteorite> etotheipi_: so... cmake's mostly working it's just the code he used?
105 2012-01-24 01:25:10 <etotheipi_> it looks like it's looking for components that were removed
106 2012-01-24 01:25:15 <a_meteorite> er, branch
107 2012-01-24 01:25:39 <luke-jr> sipa: relevance? :P
108 2012-01-24 01:25:50 <a_meteorite> doesn't look like he did the cmake stuff for hthe qtdev branch
109 2012-01-24 01:25:51 <luke-jr> afaict, cryptopp as a whole isn't even licensed for redistribution& O.o
110 2012-01-24 01:26:27 <etotheipi_> a_meteorite, I think that's the issue, he may have mixed some things up... I have to check it out on my own
111 2012-01-24 01:26:52 <a_meteorite> wonder how hard it'd be to slap the cmake stuff on the qtdev branch
112 2012-01-24 01:28:00 <etotheipi_> "The fact that individual files are public domain means that legally you can place code segments, entire files, or small sets of files (up to the limit set by fair use) into your own project and do anything you want with them without worrying about the copyright."
113 2012-01-24 01:28:31 <luke-jr> etotheipi_: which is bad practice :P
114 2012-01-24 01:28:40 <luke-jr> also, public domain isn't legal everywhere
115 2012-01-24 01:28:55 <luke-jr> hence CC0
116 2012-01-24 01:29:05 <etotheipi_> a_meteorite, I don't expect you to debug this stuff for me, but I won't complain if you take a shot at it :)
117 2012-01-24 01:29:09 <a_meteorite> I don't have enough git kung-fu to merge the cmake stuff, so I'm just gonna hack it up and see if it works
118 2012-01-24 01:30:05 <a_meteorite> well I'd like to see it working :)
119 2012-01-24 01:30:21 <etotheipi_> Joric, send me an address, I'll send a donation
120 2012-01-24 01:32:52 <Joric> etotheipi_, 1JoricCBkW8C5m7QUZMwoRz9rBCM6ZSy96
121 2012-01-24 01:37:57 <a_meteorite> etotheipi_: Funnily enough, it appears to error out identically for the latest qtdev branch with the cmake stuff ported right over
122 2012-01-24 01:39:06 <a_meteorite> http://pastebin.com/2UzzhjZq
123 2012-01-24 01:39:10 <etotheipi_> a_meteorite, strange...
124 2012-01-24 01:39:45 <etotheipi_> it sounds like some kind of code-version-mixing issue
125 2012-01-24 01:39:50 <etotheipi_> I'll have to look at it later...
126 2012-01-24 01:39:56 <a_meteorite> yeah
127 2012-01-24 01:40:32 <a_meteorite> I was hoping it would have been easy :(
128 2012-01-24 01:40:41 <a_meteorite> But swig has always been a pain on OS X
129 2012-01-24 01:41:35 <a_meteorite> even if it's not directly at fault, everything I touch that has swig in it seems to have an issue...
130 2012-01-24 01:50:10 <Mad7Scientist> does putting -pipe on g++ increase the memory used during the build?
131 2012-01-24 01:55:05 <CIA-2> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr coinbaser * r9061726c82be bitcoind-personal/src/ (bitcoinrpc.cpp main.cpp main.h): setworkaux JSON-RPC call for arbitrary data blocks in coinbase scriptSig http://tinyurl.com/72kgn97
132 2012-01-24 01:55:06 <CIA-2> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr coinbaser * raa4c111eaded bitcoind-personal/src/init.cpp: Add "/P2SH/" to coinbase by default http://tinyurl.com/78kzkbx
133 2012-01-24 01:59:25 <etotheipi_> a_meteorite, is it possible that you're still using compiled code from before you switched to qtdev?  did you ever compile master?
134 2012-01-24 01:59:55 <a_meteorite> nope, I checked out qtdev, and I had a few make clean's while changing stuff
135 2012-01-24 02:05:08 <CIA-2> bitcoin: various explicit_p2sh * rfbfda5..9965e1 bitcoind-personal/ (9 files in 3 dirs): (12 commits) http://tinyurl.com/7mdc392
136 2012-01-24 02:19:50 <Mad7Scientist> bitcoin is stalled now
137 2012-01-24 02:21:47 <Mad7Scientist> what's that
138 2012-01-24 02:21:52 <Mad7Scientist> I just compiled bitcoin-qt
139 2012-01-24 02:22:02 <Mad7Scientist> it was a pain I had to run each moc command by hand
140 2012-01-24 02:22:20 <luke-jr> &
141 2012-01-24 02:23:06 <luke-jr> or maybe not, hmm
142 2012-01-24 02:26:52 <luke-jr> http://paste.pocoo.org/show/539643/ <-- my GNUmakefile, now fixed :P
143 2012-01-24 02:27:14 <luke-jr> maybe next, I'll make it juggle 0.3.x and 0.4.x ;)
144 2012-01-24 02:30:13 <CIA-2> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr next-test * rb68fa5..af8bb0 bitcoind-personal/ (37 files in 7 dirs): (13 commits) http://tinyurl.com/7vr93zh
145 2012-01-24 02:32:07 <Joric> Mad7Scientist, mac or pc?
146 2012-01-24 02:32:19 <Mad7Scientist> linux
147 2012-01-24 02:33:06 <Joric> i thought it should be super easy there )
148 2012-01-24 02:33:26 <Joric> I spend two days building 0.5.99 on windows it won't run
149 2012-01-24 02:33:29 <Mad7Scientist> apparently it isn't
150 2012-01-24 02:33:40 <Mad7Scientist> maybe try cygwin :)
151 2012-01-24 02:33:42 <Joric> had to rebuild 0.5.2 with a deps archive
152 2012-01-24 02:33:59 <Mad7Scientist> The makefile generated by qmake is horrible
153 2012-01-24 02:34:18 <Mad7Scientist> if you add CFLAGS like -O2 those get passed to moc during the compile which then causes it to fail
154 2012-01-24 02:51:05 <CIA-2> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr 0.5.x * ra0db9a79e5b6 bitcoind-stable/ (4 files in 3 dirs): Merge branch '0.5.0.x' into 0.5.x http://tinyurl.com/7cam5hb
155 2012-01-24 03:26:25 <Joric> could anyone explain how does wallet on blockhain info work? they claim they don't store anything on their servers
156 2012-01-24 03:28:35 <gmaxwell> Cookies!
157 2012-01-24 03:28:45 <gmaxwell> (I don't know, so I suggested the dumbest thing possible)
158 2012-01-24 03:28:52 <Diablo-D3> Joric: er, huh?
159 2012-01-24 03:29:58 <Joric> idk they say they would not be able to recover anything without user password and they don't know it, like, honestly
160 2012-01-24 03:30:11 <Diablo-D3> hrm
161 2012-01-24 03:30:19 <Diablo-D3> encrypted and they simply dont log the password?
162 2012-01-24 03:30:28 <Diablo-D3> not sure if I like the solution
163 2012-01-24 03:30:43 <Diablo-D3> Joric: ooh
164 2012-01-24 03:30:46 <Joric> i assume they would not be able to reset is as well
165 2012-01-24 03:30:52 <Diablo-D3> they might key stretch and AES in browser javascript
166 2012-01-24 03:31:18 <Diablo-D3> what gets uploaded is just the encrypted wad
167 2012-01-24 03:31:23 <k9quaint> if they used the password as the passphrase for key generation, it might be sticky
168 2012-01-24 03:31:31 <gmaxwell> Joric: until they decide to serve up a different page that logs it.
169 2012-01-24 03:31:59 <gmaxwell> if you want a thin client, use software the server can't just change on a whim.
170 2012-01-24 03:32:04 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: that goes with anything
171 2012-01-24 03:32:15 <Diablo-D3> I might start a pay for wallet backup service
172 2012-01-24 03:32:18 <gmaxwell> (e.g. http://ecdsa.org/electrum/ )
173 2012-01-24 03:32:31 <Diablo-D3> works over ssl'ed tor
174 2012-01-24 03:32:47 <k9quaint> Diablo-D3: you will get gitmo'd as a terrorist if you do stuff like that
175 2012-01-24 03:32:48 <Diablo-D3> and offers a client that works on any OS: a local html and js page.
176 2012-01-24 03:32:53 <k9quaint> can't be doin math in the USA
177 2012-01-24 03:33:00 <Diablo-D3> k9quaint: dude, if they were going to arrest me
178 2012-01-24 03:33:05 <Diablo-D3> they would have hired me for DM already
179 2012-01-24 03:33:11 <Diablo-D3> er, I mean arrested me for it
180 2012-01-24 03:33:22 <k9quaint> nah, thats shits weak sause
181 2012-01-24 03:33:27 <k9quaint> *sauce
182 2012-01-24 03:33:46 <Diablo-D3> I dunno though, but I cant get it any fucking faster
183 2012-01-24 03:33:54 <k9quaint> I know, thats the weak part
184 2012-01-24 03:33:59 <k9quaint> you gots to get 100%
185 2012-01-24 03:34:06 <k9quaint> all zee pokemon sir!
186 2012-01-24 03:34:09 <Diablo-D3> dude, Im getting around 102%.
187 2012-01-24 03:34:24 <k9quaint> this sad panda 98% nonsense makes me flaccid
188 2012-01-24 03:34:44 <Diablo-D3> I need to start pulling diapolo-like shit
189 2012-01-24 03:34:48 <Diablo-D3> and force re-order instructions
190 2012-01-24 03:35:10 <Diablo-D3> the hilarity is, his trick doesnt work on vliw4 and gcn
191 2012-01-24 03:35:35 <Diablo-D3> theres about 10 cycles (out of almost 1700) difference between what he does and what I do
192 2012-01-24 03:35:49 <Diablo-D3> on vliw4 I mean
193 2012-01-24 03:36:00 <Diablo-D3> on 5, its a tad more, but I cant tell the difference
194 2012-01-24 03:36:01 <k9quaint> bah, I bet there is more to be saved everywhere else
195 2012-01-24 03:36:06 <Diablo-D3> k9quaint: yeah
196 2012-01-24 03:36:09 <Diablo-D3> because Im now doing shit he isnt
197 2012-01-24 03:36:14 <Diablo-D3> and that caught me up a few cycles
198 2012-01-24 03:36:36 <Diablo-D3> at least I can dump IL on linux without kernel analyzer
199 2012-01-24 03:36:44 <k9quaint> I wonder if pre-fetching work from backup pools in case of downtime might be worthwhile
200 2012-01-24 03:36:53 <Diablo-D3> noi
201 2012-01-24 03:36:54 <Diablo-D3> no
202 2012-01-24 03:37:02 <Diablo-D3> also, DM prefetches 1 from EVERY pool
203 2012-01-24 03:37:06 <k9quaint> or interleaving requests and work to ensure a full pipe
204 2012-01-24 03:37:14 <Diablo-D3> you mean parallel works?
205 2012-01-24 03:37:19 <Diablo-D3> DM does 3 parallel works per GPU
206 2012-01-24 03:37:35 <Diablo-D3> just to not have to deal with locking or complex nonce range queing
207 2012-01-24 03:37:50 <k9quaint> no, interleaving work requests from pools to counter network problems
208 2012-01-24 03:38:35 <k9quaint> you don't have to issue them, just have them stored up with the spare CPU time so if you have to stall because of a pool failure the recovery is faster
209 2012-01-24 03:42:41 <roconnor> luke-jr: I looked through the core changes to EvalScript and VerifyScript, since they are the most important.
210 2012-01-24 03:42:56 <roconnor> luke-jr: it looks good from my first pass; nice and clean.
211 2012-01-24 03:43:21 <luke-jr> good to hear
212 2012-01-24 03:43:27 <luke-jr> thanks for looking through it
213 2012-01-24 03:43:53 <roconnor> The rest of the changes is less important in some sense.
214 2012-01-24 03:43:57 <luke-jr> I'm considering delaying the vote on it until after BIP 16 is rejected
215 2012-01-24 03:44:18 <luke-jr> right now, it's the week prior to Feb 3
216 2012-01-24 03:44:29 <roconnor> luke-jr: I would prefer 2 months or more to inspect all these proposals to change core protocol.
217 2012-01-24 03:44:40 <luke-jr> roconnor: me too, but I don't want to push Gavin's patience too much
218 2012-01-24 03:45:18 <luke-jr> I see BIP 17 as a generous compromise, really.
219 2012-01-24 03:45:21 <roconnor> luke-jr: I'm actually pretty impressed by the simplicity
220 2012-01-24 03:47:19 <luke-jr> roconnor: well, the simpler, the easier to review and usually a sign of being consistent with the rest of the protocol IMO.
221 2012-01-24 03:47:28 <luke-jr> so simplicity was a goal ;)
222 2012-01-24 03:47:31 <roconnor> It's much easier when you don't have to worry about the useless property of pasword-protected scripts, or whatever that property is called.
223 2012-01-24 03:48:10 <Diablo-D3> k9quaint: you mean mine from more than one pool at once?
224 2012-01-24 03:48:12 <Diablo-D3> that what I was doing
225 2012-01-24 03:48:22 <Diablo-D3> then everyone bitched
226 2012-01-24 03:48:33 <Diablo-D3> so I changed it to just go to the next for 100 minutes if the first fails
227 2012-01-24 03:48:51 <k9quaint> Diablo-D3: you should have left it in as an option
228 2012-01-24 03:48:57 <Diablo-D3> k9quaint: meh, well
229 2012-01-24 03:49:02 <Diablo-D3> I left one thing in
230 2012-01-24 03:49:07 <Diablo-D3> each gpu thread is independent
231 2012-01-24 03:49:12 <Diablo-D3> just because one switched doesnt mean the rest do
232 2012-01-24 03:49:46 <Diablo-D3> so a slightly faulty pool can just cause some to switch
233 2012-01-24 03:50:28 <k9quaint> yeah, thats the instance I was thinking about
234 2012-01-24 03:51:06 <k9quaint> pool jitter, if you will
235 2012-01-24 03:51:24 <Diablo-D3> it costs nothing to switch, that specific thread will only be down for a few seconds
236 2012-01-24 03:51:38 <Diablo-D3> it has to time out on the request, and then it fetches the next
237 2012-01-24 03:52:48 <k9quaint> its the "down a few seconds" part I was looking to avoid
238 2012-01-24 03:52:53 <k9quaint> them seconds add up biotch
239 2012-01-24 03:53:00 <Diablo-D3> in a way
240 2012-01-24 03:53:05 <Diablo-D3> you should use stable pools to begin with
241 2012-01-24 03:54:31 <Diablo-D3> k9quaint: btw, most of this is the fault of tcp
242 2012-01-24 03:54:39 <Diablo-D3> if the connection is rejected, it takes 3 second to confirm rejection
243 2012-01-24 03:55:05 <Diablo-D3> if its accepted but takes awhile, I have a 15 second timeout, but the only time it'll get there is if, really, its either being ddossed or its eligius and lp just returned
244 2012-01-24 03:55:33 <k9quaint> thats why I was thinking to interleave the pools work
245 2012-01-24 03:55:45 <Diablo-D3> this effectively still will
246 2012-01-24 03:55:48 <k9quaint> turn the tcp/ip quality into a load balancer of sorts
247 2012-01-24 03:55:51 <Diablo-D3> each work will fail at a different time
248 2012-01-24 03:55:56 <Diablo-D3> k9quaint: yeah see
249 2012-01-24 03:55:58 <Diablo-D3> thats what I kept saying
250 2012-01-24 03:56:09 <k9quaint> well, great minds think alike
251 2012-01-24 03:56:11 <Diablo-D3> it'd randomly choose a pool for each thread, and cycle to the next on the list on failure
252 2012-01-24 03:56:15 <k9quaint> which doesnt explain how you got the idea :|
253 2012-01-24 03:56:16 <Diablo-D3> and everyone was like WELL IT TAKES LONGER
254 2012-01-24 03:56:38 <Diablo-D3> er
255 2012-01-24 03:56:41 <Diablo-D3> and everyone was like WELL IT TAKES LONGER TO GET BTC
256 2012-01-24 03:56:51 <Diablo-D3> and Im like, its not my fault pools have such high payout thresholds
257 2012-01-24 03:57:00 <Diablo-D3> and wtf are you going to do with less than a couple btc anyhow
258 2012-01-24 03:57:26 <k9quaint> first rule of writing great software, don't have users
259 2012-01-24 03:57:33 <k9quaint> they just fuck everything up
260 2012-01-24 03:57:40 <Diablo-D3> no shit
261 2012-01-24 03:57:47 <Diablo-D3> people should be lucky I release my software at all
262 2012-01-24 03:59:07 <Diablo-D3> woah
263 2012-01-24 03:59:09 <Diablo-D3> in other news
264 2012-01-24 03:59:18 <Diablo-D3> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1721.msg709949#msg709949
265 2012-01-24 03:59:20 <Diablo-D3> zoomj
266 2012-01-24 04:01:14 <cjdelisle> nice
267 2012-01-24 04:08:34 <CIA-2> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * r2e1972c / src/main/java/com/diablominer/DiabloMiner/DiabloMiner.java : Fix -aa when used with -v 1 - http://git.io/joEHNg https://github.com/Diablo-D3/DiabloMiner/commit/2e1972c3778ba9dfde59290132bf802f7c32a086
268 2012-01-24 04:17:01 <Mad7Scientist> (gdb) backtrace
269 2012-01-24 04:17:03 <Mad7Scientist> #4  0xb62c536d in fopen () from /lib/libc.so.6
270 2012-01-24 04:17:05 <Mad7Scientist> #5  0x0809dbd1 in ?? ()
271 2012-01-24 04:17:32 <Mad7Scientist> gmaxwell, that's the backtrace of when bitcoin-qt hangs on I/O
272 2012-01-24 04:17:37 <Diablo-D3> Mad7Scientist: thats useless
273 2012-01-24 04:17:49 <phantomcircuit> lol @ ??
274 2012-01-24 04:17:51 <Diablo-D3> compile bitcoin with -ggdb3 next time
275 2012-01-24 04:18:12 <Mad7Scientist> It's related to mining - that thread does the miners
276 2012-01-24 04:18:29 <Mad7Scientist> Diablo-D3, so -g isn't useful for anything?
277 2012-01-24 04:18:48 <phantomcircuit> you really need the full debug symbols to be useful
278 2012-01-24 04:19:13 <Diablo-D3> Mad7Scientist: -g does level one for whatever the native is, which on linux is gdb
279 2012-01-24 04:19:24 <gmaxwell> -g should have given full symbols. does for me.
280 2012-01-24 04:19:31 <gmaxwell> Mad7Scientist: sure you're pointing it at the right binary?
281 2012-01-24 04:19:45 <Diablo-D3> yeah, -g alone does symbols
282 2012-01-24 04:19:51 <gmaxwell> Mad7Scientist: though .. knowing it's hung in open is #@$@ weird.
283 2012-01-24 04:20:03 <Diablo-D3> not really
284 2012-01-24 04:20:06 <Diablo-D3> stack corruption etc
285 2012-01-24 04:20:32 <gmaxwell> yea, but I doubt he has stack corruption here.
286 2012-01-24 04:20:39 <cjdelisle> 4 of open in 5 lines is not accidental IMO
287 2012-01-24 04:20:41 <Mad7Scientist> #0  0xb632ded1 in read () from /lib/libc.so.6
288 2012-01-24 04:20:43 <gmaxwell> It's not crashing, just running very slow.
289 2012-01-24 04:20:48 <Mad7Scientist> maybe open() was a freak chance
290 2012-01-24 04:20:50 <Mad7Scientist> now it says read
291 2012-01-24 04:21:38 <gmaxwell> still, useless without bitcoin symbols. :(
292 2012-01-24 04:21:41 <Mad7Scientist> This problem only happens when mining and stopping that thread in GDB stops the miners
293 2012-01-24 04:22:06 <Mad7Scientist> I have to copy paste all the moc build lines by hand to compile
294 2012-01-24 04:22:47 <Mad7Scientist> windows has a nice utility called filemon
295 2012-01-24 04:23:50 <Mad7Scientist> #0  0xb6501e5d in pread64 () from /lib/libpthread.so.0
296 2012-01-24 04:23:54 <Joric> bloody blockchain info!
297 2012-01-24 04:24:20 <Mad7Scientist> my miner is disconnected like 1/5 of the time because of this I/O thing
298 2012-01-24 04:24:21 <Joric> i just tried to send 2 btc it said cannot create transaction, need 2.01 btc
299 2012-01-24 04:24:25 <Joric> don't use that service
300 2012-01-24 04:25:18 <Joric> it's one input, not a bunch of tiny ones
301 2012-01-24 04:25:32 <Joric> looks like they take 0.01 fee from every transaction
302 2012-01-24 04:26:44 <Joric> are they even competent? they logo look like crap
303 2012-01-24 04:27:02 <Joric> what if it is Tom Williams & Bruce Wagner? )
304 2012-01-24 04:28:12 <Joric> sorry for spelling i was excited
305 2012-01-24 04:28:21 <nanotube> Joric: give up already and use a local client :)
306 2012-01-24 04:28:55 <Mad7Scientist> Joric, sometimes you need 0.01 fee to do a transaction during certain times
307 2012-01-24 04:29:02 <Mad7Scientist> even with the bitcoin program
308 2012-01-24 04:29:29 <Mad7Scientist> When the number of transactions per block is exceeds a certain number
309 2012-01-24 04:29:34 <Mad7Scientist> to prevent DoS
310 2012-01-24 04:29:54 <nanotube> or when inputs are too young
311 2012-01-24 04:31:18 <Mad7Scientist> does having -pipe on g++ increase memory used during the build?
312 2012-01-24 04:31:44 <Mad7Scientist> Because I'm going to have to go thru 550MB VM size again
313 2012-01-24 04:32:13 <Mad7Scientist> Eventually 32 bit system will not be able to compile c++ because of the 2GB VM limit
314 2012-01-24 04:32:21 <Mad7Scientist> (or 3 or 4 with the patcH)
315 2012-01-24 04:36:08 <gmaxwell> Mad7Scientist: you should see what LTO does on big packages like firefox.
316 2012-01-24 04:36:14 <gmaxwell> esp with O3. haha
317 2012-01-24 04:53:56 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: you know, fuck kernel analyzer
318 2012-01-24 04:54:06 <Diablo-D3> I can almost do the same thing with dumped IL on linux
319 2012-01-24 04:54:34 <burnt> hey question, is it best to mind bitcoins via a windows machine or linux?
320 2012-01-24 04:54:46 <Diablo-D3> *mine
321 2012-01-24 04:54:53 <burnt> sorry mine
322 2012-01-24 04:54:54 <burnt> typo
323 2012-01-24 04:54:59 <Diablo-D3> and its better on linux if you're building a dediminer
324 2012-01-24 04:55:59 <burnt> I might be in the wrong chan, just getting into bitcoin and the ideal of mining em, got a decent rig, can upgrade it, wondering what the best os and sw is to mine with, not really thinking about developing anything
325 2012-01-24 04:56:57 <Diablo-D3> if you have no intention of using it as a desktop, use linux
326 2012-01-24 05:03:21 <Joric> miners are the scum of the btc world
327 2012-01-24 05:03:23 <Joric> jk
328 2012-01-24 05:04:27 <Joric> heard it from traders on #bitcoin-otc )
329 2012-01-24 05:06:37 <Diablo-D3> the irony
330 2012-01-24 05:09:07 <burnt> yeah It will be a dedicated rig
331 2012-01-24 05:09:17 <burnt> just wondering what sw is best and if anyone has a link
332 2012-01-24 05:09:20 <burnt> tia :)
333 2012-01-24 05:09:59 <unicron> i like BAMT
334 2012-01-24 05:10:05 <Joric> burnt, #bitcoin-mining is totally about it
335 2012-01-24 05:10:34 <unicron> http://aaronwolfe.com/bamt/
336 2012-01-24 05:12:22 <burnt> thanks
337 2012-01-24 05:18:20 <k9quaint> hmm, a call stack stuck in a file open call on a slow NFS mount
338 2012-01-24 05:18:24 <k9quaint> OH THE HUMANITY
339 2012-01-24 05:55:10 <CIA-2> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr * r4ae7baf0e157 cgminer/ (bitforce.c miner.h): BitForce: Need to use CreateFile and low-level (descriptor-based) C APIs on Windows, since fopen doesn't work with serial ports http://tinyurl.com/7poc8x8
340 2012-01-24 05:55:11 <CIA-2> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r91f8901df218 cgminer/ (bitforce.c miner.h): Merge pull request #92 from luke-jr/bitforce_win32 http://tinyurl.com/73sss5h
341 2012-01-24 06:22:50 <copumpkin> do the multisig options allow requiring N of M signatures?
342 2012-01-24 08:18:57 <diki> in the wiki it says to get the first 4 bytes from the double sha256 extended ripemed160 hash
343 2012-01-24 08:19:05 <diki> well, since I am not so good
344 2012-01-24 08:19:09 <diki> Instead I improvised
345 2012-01-24 08:19:55 <diki> I reversed the the double sha256 extended ripemed160 hash, so that the first 4 bytes are the last 4 bytes
346 2012-01-24 08:20:11 <diki> Then, copied those and reversed them again, thus they appear in correct form
347 2012-01-24 08:20:29 <diki> append them to the extended ripemed hash, hex2bin and base58 encode
348 2012-01-24 08:20:54 <diki> very unorthodox method, but so far it worked...
349 2012-01-24 08:32:52 <diki> I'm thankful that I had no need to meddle with endianness crap or uppercase,lowercase characters
350 2012-01-24 08:35:11 <CIA-2> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r3d4cfce8dffb cgminer/ (ocl.c ocl.h): Instead of using the BFI_INT patching hack on any device reporting cl_amd_media_ops, create a whitelist of devices that need it. This should enable GCN architectures (ATI 79xx cards) to work properly. http://tinyurl.com/7kbjlt9
351 2012-01-24 08:35:12 <CIA-2> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * rd485261e9277 cgminer/bitforce.c: Fix broken non-win32 build with bitforce enabled. http://tinyurl.com/7c6qgf2
352 2012-01-24 11:10:13 <CIA-2> bitcoin: L. Grondin * r752a7ca0315e libbitcoin-perl/ (4 files in 3 dirs): fixing transaction verification procedure http://tinyurl.com/75ako4e
353 2012-01-24 11:10:14 <CIA-2> bitcoin: L. Grondin * r18daa582a484 libbitcoin-perl/Bitcoin/ (Block.pm Script/Codes.pm Script/Codes.pm~): fixed transaction verification system http://tinyurl.com/7ud7ghq
354 2012-01-24 11:10:15 <CIA-2> bitcoin: L. Grondin * re4d6657bac09 libbitcoin-perl/Bitcoin/DataStream.pm: fixing write_compact_size http://tinyurl.com/8ysx2zr
355 2012-01-24 11:10:17 <CIA-2> bitcoin: L. Grondin * rfbdf6b399536 libbitcoin-perl/Bitcoin/Script/Codes.pm: fixing OP_EQUALVERIFY http://tinyurl.com/7en33yy
356 2012-01-24 11:21:01 <occulta> hey, can someone point me in the right direction for UNIX permissions when running the bitcoind? i have a new user which is running the daemon, but the user/pass wont work, so i am assuming its something to do with apache's permissions over the running process?
357 2012-01-24 11:21:39 <occulta> do i just need to add apache to the bitcoind user's group ?
358 2012-01-24 11:22:12 <Eliel> what does apache have to do with bitcoind?
359 2012-01-24 11:22:35 <occulta> its trying to talk to it with JSON?
360 2012-01-24 11:22:55 <occulta> im not a developer, im just trying to implement the code i have been given :)
361 2012-01-24 11:23:28 <occulta> and im getting a HTTP 401, so the basic auth isnt working
362 2012-01-24 11:26:24 <gmaxwell> occulta: you need to set an rpcuser/rpcpassword in bitcoin.conf
363 2012-01-24 11:26:34 <occulta> yes i did this
364 2012-01-24 11:26:58 <occulta> bitcoind getinfo works from shell
365 2012-01-24 11:27:35 <occulta> but if ran from another user over ssh it doesnt,
366 2012-01-24 11:27:59 <occulta> error: incorrect rpcuser or rpcpassword (authorization failed)
367 2012-01-24 11:28:14 <occulta> so i assumed its the same reason i cant connect through apache?
368 2012-01-24 11:28:42 <occulta> i can play around with permissions but i thought i would check the correct way to do things first
369 2012-01-24 11:29:21 <Eliel> theother user can't read the bitcoin.conf
370 2012-01-24 11:29:44 <occulta> yea, because it doesnt have one in its $HOME
371 2012-01-24 11:29:54 <occulta> but what about apache?
372 2012-01-24 11:30:11 <gmaxwell> Eliel and I don't understand where apache comes into this at all.
373 2012-01-24 11:30:35 <occulta> or PHP? i dont know
374 2012-01-24 11:30:45 <occulta> i am trying to connect via PHP and the jsonRPCclient
375 2012-01-24 11:30:51 <Eliel> the problem most likely is that you haven't given the username and password to the connecting code
376 2012-01-24 11:31:20 <occulta> i have with this code:
377 2012-01-24 11:31:22 <occulta> $bitcoin = new jsonRPCClient('http://user:pwd@127.0.0.1:8332/') ;
378 2012-01-24 11:32:47 <occulta> is it possible to run 'bitcoind getinfo' from another UNIX user by specifying a user:pass? this was i can check i have the credentials 100% right
379 2012-01-24 11:33:35 <Eliel> if the other user has a bitcoin.conf with the same username and password, yes
380 2012-01-24 11:34:17 <occulta> it doesnt,
381 2012-01-24 11:34:31 <occulta> but nevermind, this isnt the problem
382 2012-01-24 11:34:49 <occulta> it works fine from the user under which the daemon is running
383 2012-01-24 11:35:02 <Eliel> the user accounts of the system aren't important. having the correct username and password is
384 2012-01-24 11:35:38 <occulta> so when im trying to connect with jsonRPCclient, i have the user:pass correct, what else would cause it to 401?
385 2012-01-24 11:36:13 <occulta> it doesnt matter at all that the user doesnt own any files thats trying to connect to it
386 2012-01-24 11:36:43 <Eliel> correct as in they match to the username and password specified in the bitcoin.conf for the user running bitcoind
387 2012-01-24 11:37:58 <Eliel> if that didn't help, I'm out of ideas on what could be the problem.
388 2012-01-24 11:37:58 <occulta> yes
389 2012-01-24 11:38:20 <occulta> lol, i know you say its not, but i cant see any other reason apart from permissions
390 2012-01-24 11:38:41 <occulta> i can imagine if it was installed under root it would work, dont ask me why
391 2012-01-24 11:39:12 <gmaxwell> 04:34 < occulta> it doesnt,
392 2012-01-24 11:39:13 <gmaxwell> 04:34 < occulta> but nevermind, this isnt the problem
393 2012-01-24 11:39:19 <gmaxwell> er, yea, that _is_ the problem.
394 2012-01-24 11:39:34 <gmaxwell> If bitcoind can't connect, then why would you expect something else to?
395 2012-01-24 11:40:29 <occulta> i did explain
396 2012-01-24 11:40:42 <occulta> that i can connect fine running a shell under that user
397 2012-01-24 11:41:02 <occulta> there is only 3 possible locations for bitcoin.conf? in home directories of my 3 users correct?
398 2012-01-24 11:41:26 <gmaxwell> The location of the bitcoin.conf isn't relevant. Give the parameters on the commandline for the other user.
399 2012-01-24 11:42:10 <occulta> so if its running under user1, try 'user2: bitcoind --rpcuser=user --rpcpass=pass getinfo' ?
400 2012-01-24 11:42:51 <gmaxwell> yep.
401 2012-01-24 11:43:20 <occulta> -bash: syntax error near unexpected token `)'
402 2012-01-24 11:43:26 <occulta> do i need to quote the password?
403 2012-01-24 11:43:49 <occulta> maybe using specials is causing errors?
404 2012-01-24 11:43:52 <wereHamster> occulta: you have an error in your bash script
405 2012-01-24 11:43:53 <Eliel> yes
406 2012-01-24 11:44:05 <occulta> no i dont, i dont think :P
407 2012-01-24 11:44:25 <occulta> when i am using is above, with quotes = error: incorrect rpcuser or rpcpassword (authorization failed)
408 2012-01-24 11:44:27 <wereHamster> bash tends to disagree with you
409 2012-01-24 11:44:50 <occulta> pass being something like this couldnt cause it? o^.H,p1/vw)
410 2012-01-24 11:45:00 <Eliel> try not using special characters in the pass
411 2012-01-24 11:45:05 <occulta> ok
412 2012-01-24 11:45:08 <occulta> lemme restart it
413 2012-01-24 11:45:30 <gmaxwell> Just make it very long and random. The notion that you need special characters to make passwords secure is snake oil.
414 2012-01-24 11:46:03 <occulta> lol?
415 2012-01-24 11:46:42 <Eliel> actually there's just a few problematic special characters but I'm not sure how many failed tries it'd take to figure them all out
416 2012-01-24 11:46:44 <occulta> in this case im sure upper/lower and over 20char is fine, but that comment is crazy for hashed passwords
417 2012-01-24 11:47:24 <occulta> seems the user:pass is only base64 encoded with JSON anyway purely for HTTP encoding purposes
418 2012-01-24 11:49:48 <occulta> so what could be wrong with this
419 2012-01-24 11:49:57 <occulta> bitcoind --rpcuser=bitcoinuser --rpcpass=n3UkPW7472nM2036oJX5 getinfo
420 2012-01-24 11:50:36 <gmaxwell> Whats it responding with?
421 2012-01-24 11:50:45 <occulta> error: incorrect rpcuser or rpcpassword (authorization failed)
422 2012-01-24 11:51:23 <Eliel> you did update bitcoin.conf and restart bitcoind?
423 2012-01-24 11:51:25 <gmaxwell> You're using whatever you have in the bitcoin.conf rpcuser= for rpcuser right?
424 2012-01-24 11:51:40 <occulta> yes, just to check, this is my bitcoin.conf
425 2012-01-24 11:51:45 <occulta> rpcuser=bitcoinuser rpcpassword=n3UkPW7472nM2036oJX5
426 2012-01-24 11:51:49 <occulta> on differnt lines
427 2012-01-24 11:52:10 <Eliel> restarted bitcoind after changing those?
428 2012-01-24 11:52:21 <gmaxwell> occulta: tested here, works for me.
429 2012-01-24 11:52:23 <occulta> i only edited with it stopped, and then started
430 2012-01-24 11:53:14 <occulta> would i matter im starting it with 'sudo -u user2 -H bitcoind -daemon'  ?
431 2012-01-24 11:53:55 <occulta> omfg
432 2012-01-24 11:54:03 <occulta> whats the correct switch
433 2012-01-24 11:54:07 <occulta> rpcpass or rpcpassword?
434 2012-01-24 11:54:23 <gmaxwell> rpcpassword=
435 2012-01-24 11:54:27 <gmaxwell> duuurrr.
436 2012-01-24 11:54:31 <occulta> same for command line?
437 2012-01-24 11:55:03 <gmaxwell> yep.
438 2012-01-24 11:55:07 <occulta> neither works anyway
439 2012-01-24 11:55:17 <occulta> bitcoind --rpcuser=bitcoinuser --rpcpassword=n3UkPW7472nM2036oJX5 getinfo
440 2012-01-24 11:55:37 <occulta> is there anymore verbosity on this error? :S
441 2012-01-24 11:55:46 <gmaxwell> occulta: does the user you're running that as have a bitcoin.conf?
442 2012-01-24 11:56:10 <gmaxwell> occulta: oh, it's -rpcpassword=foo  one dash.
443 2012-01-24 11:56:21 <occulta> yes i just noticed that also gmaxwell
444 2012-01-24 11:56:35 <occulta> no that user doesnt have a bitcoin.conf, but from what i understand it doesnt need one?
445 2012-01-24 11:56:55 <occulta> lol
446 2012-01-24 11:57:00 <occulta> :P
447 2012-01-24 11:57:06 <occulta> head desk
448 2012-01-24 11:57:30 <occulta> so let me try this different password via json
449 2012-01-24 11:58:13 <occulta> yes works
450 2012-01-24 11:58:20 <Eliel> suggestion for bitcoin argument parsing code: issue a warning if given invalid switched on command line or config file
451 2012-01-24 11:58:21 <occulta> so it was my password with illegal chars it seems
452 2012-01-24 11:58:25 <occulta> this should be on the wiki
453 2012-01-24 11:59:15 <occulta> lol, either way Eliel it was the password that was the issue
454 2012-01-24 11:59:17 <gmaxwell> occulta: your json library isn't part of bitcoin.
455 2012-01-24 11:59:53 <occulta> i wonder if the pass would work via shell, but just not via json because of HTTP encoding or something ?
456 2012-01-24 12:00:05 <gmaxwell> I expect so, at least with quotes.
457 2012-01-24 12:00:11 <occulta> anyways, thanks for the patience
458 2012-01-24 12:00:24 <Eliel> occulta: it's not the special characters as such. Only that they most likely made something about url parsing go in an unexpected way
459 2012-01-24 12:00:42 <occulta> i see :)
460 2012-01-24 12:01:09 <occulta> im right in saying all peoples rpc user+pass if used in this manner are visable right?
461 2012-01-24 12:01:19 <occulta> through a browser
462 2012-01-24 12:29:25 <etotheipi_> anyone know if the alternate hashcodes are simply "non-standard" or are they completely disabled?
463 2012-01-24 13:12:10 <occulta> gmaxwell: how can i view a transaction ID via official client or another method ?
464 2012-01-24 13:19:35 <gmaxwell> occulta: the listtransactions rpc tells you.
465 2012-01-24 13:20:02 <gmaxwell> In the GUI you have to be running git. The functionality was missing in prior versions.
466 2012-01-24 13:20:30 <occulta> git? official repo? 0.5.2 or there is latest versions out?
467 2012-01-24 13:20:52 <luke-jr> it's not in 0.5.2
468 2012-01-24 13:21:18 <luke-jr> occulta: there is no such thing as official for a distributed project
469 2012-01-24 13:21:33 <occulta> o right
470 2012-01-24 13:21:41 <occulta> ive only used the bitcoin.org client
471 2012-01-24 13:21:57 <gmaxwell> occulta: 0.5.2 is just bug fixes on 0.5, it doesn't get backports of new features like that.
472 2012-01-24 13:22:01 <occulta> your talking about developement version of this ?
473 2012-01-24 13:25:58 <gmaxwell> Yes, the repository linked from bitcoin.org what will eventually become 0.6 has that feature in the GUI.
474 2012-01-24 13:35:12 <CIA-2> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r9549dacf99f7 cgminer/ (adl.c miner.h): Detect dual GPU cards via the indirect information of - 1st card has a fan ... http://tinyurl.com/7lgeljz
475 2012-01-24 14:16:21 <ThomasV> !seen regulus
476 2012-01-24 14:16:22 <gribble> I have not seen regulus.
477 2012-01-24 14:19:54 <jgarzik> !seen sunlight in ages
478 2012-01-24 14:19:55 <gribble> (seen [<channel>] <nick>) -- Returns the last time <nick> was seen and what <nick> was last seen saying. <channel> is only necessary if the message isn't sent on the channel itself. <nick> may contain * as a wildcard.
479 2012-01-24 14:20:00 <jgarzik> !seen "sunlight in ages"
480 2012-01-24 14:20:01 <gribble> I have not seen sunlight in ages.
481 2012-01-24 14:39:38 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: luke-jr opened issue 781 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/781>
482 2012-01-24 15:08:04 <roconnor> luke-jr: It'd be nice if you put some example BIP 0017 transactions on testnet
483 2012-01-24 15:08:29 <gmaxwell> roconnor: Did you review luke's diff? what are your thoughts?
484 2012-01-24 15:13:24 <roconnor> gmaxwell: It's pretty nice
485 2012-01-24 15:13:53 <roconnor> I mostly was looking at the core protocol changes
486 2012-01-24 15:14:37 <roconnor> since that is what I'm most worried about
487 2012-01-24 15:14:53 <luke-jr> roconnor: there is one, at least
488 2012-01-24 15:15:02 <roconnor> luke-jr: oh do you have a link?
489 2012-01-24 15:15:17 <luke-jr> yeah, 1 sec
490 2012-01-24 15:15:36 <luke-jr> http://blockexplorer.com/testnet/tx/6ac20a9a6e53c53f13b4b3e2c17b259faab4b788dff089ca2b98ef14535e66d0
491 2012-01-24 15:16:36 <luke-jr> I suppose I should redeem it&
492 2012-01-24 15:17:11 <UukGoblin> it already looks redeemed
493 2012-01-24 15:17:18 <UukGoblin> at http://blockexplorer.com/testnet/tx/f1e0cadf564cd56d9705ede1f259d84bc472a81d34061c7a81a78d159fc80711#i143821
494 2012-01-24 15:17:30 <gmaxwell> haha.
495 2012-01-24 15:18:12 <gmaxwell> and TADA we now see BIP17's security weakness vs BIP16.
496 2012-01-24 15:18:19 <gmaxwell> doh.
497 2012-01-24 15:18:27 <luke-jr> :
498 2012-01-24 15:18:33 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: except BIP 16 has the same problem
499 2012-01-24 15:18:33 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, won't BIP16 have the same issue?
500 2012-01-24 15:18:56 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: less of one  What you see there wouldn't be possible with BIP16.
501 2012-01-24 15:19:20 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: no, because you have to actually know the script that hashes to that address. so until you spend someone can't take the funds out from under you.
502 2012-01-24 15:19:34 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: nor with BIP 17 ;)
503 2012-01-24 15:19:46 <luke-jr> if BIP 17 were deployed, that block would be orphaned
504 2012-01-24 15:19:53 <gmaxwell> I admit that its not a big pratical issue, but that particular theft wouldn't have been possible.
505 2012-01-24 15:20:06 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: right.
506 2012-01-24 15:20:15 <gmaxwell> BIP16 is a bit less brittle in that regard.
507 2012-01-24 15:21:01 <gmaxwell> and oh my god. testnet did something useful.
508 2012-01-24 15:21:13 <roconnor> the protection that BIP 16 affords is essentailly zero
509 2012-01-24 15:21:25 <roconnor> luke-jr: I'd like to see an BIP 17 redeemed transaction :)
510 2012-01-24 15:21:27 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, I don't get it. Old un-upgraded nodes would just accept anyone's BIP16 transaction without verification of the script
511 2012-01-24 15:21:37 <gmaxwell> roconnor: They verify the script _hash_.
512 2012-01-24 15:21:41 <gmaxwell> er UukGoblin
513 2012-01-24 15:23:08 <gmaxwell> so I compute H(pay 1abcdefg) = addr.. you pay to addr.  No one but me can redeem addr with BIP16 even in the eyes of old nodes until I disclose "pay 1abcdefg". Once I do well, I better not until I'm qure that there is a strong supermajority of hash power enforcing the rule.
514 2012-01-24 15:23:13 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: which is public the moment they try to spend
515 2012-01-24 15:23:44 <roconnor> I agree with luke-jr and justmoon; pretending that BIP 16 affords more security is essentially nonsense.
516 2012-01-24 15:23:57 <roconnor> at least I think it was justmoon that was arguing this as well.
517 2012-01-24 15:24:13 <gmaxwell> Yes. It just means that BIP17 has more incentive to have a troublemaking race. In practice it won't matter much, I expect we may see a couple of 1 blocks splits as a result of it.
518 2012-01-24 15:25:14 <gmaxwell> roconnor: ::shrugs:: in the long run it doesn't matter. At the moment I'm not aware of any BIP16 testnet transactions being stolen. :)
519 2012-01-24 15:25:49 <roconnor> gmaxwell: are there BIP16 testnet transactions?
520 2012-01-24 15:26:02 <gmaxwell> Yes.
521 2012-01-24 15:26:18 <gmaxwell> er, well, I _think_ so.
522 2012-01-24 15:26:26 <roconnor> link
523 2012-01-24 15:26:28 <roconnor> :)
524 2012-01-24 15:26:48 <gmaxwell> I know where the op_eval ones are.
525 2012-01-24 15:26:56 <UukGoblin> ah, I see
526 2012-01-24 15:27:03 <gmaxwell> roconnor: hahah!
527 2012-01-24 15:27:27 <UukGoblin> why not use a new opcode in BIP17?
528 2012-01-24 15:27:40 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: it does.
529 2012-01-24 15:27:59 <roconnor> UukGoblin: a brand new opcode will be rejected by old clients
530 2012-01-24 15:28:00 <UukGoblin> luke-jr, it replaces OP_NOP2
531 2012-01-24 15:28:08 <UukGoblin> roconnor, ah
532 2012-01-24 15:28:49 <roconnor> unless bizzare precations are taken
533 2012-01-24 15:29:31 <luke-jr> is anyone mining testnet? :x
534 2012-01-24 15:30:26 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I do on demand.
535 2012-01-24 15:30:30 <gmaxwell> Is there a demand?
536 2012-01-24 15:30:41 <luke-jr> roconnor wants a BIP 17 redemption
537 2012-01-24 15:31:11 <gmaxwell> I'll take that as a yes.
538 2012-01-24 15:32:00 <gmaxwell> There.
539 2012-01-24 15:33:05 <gmaxwell> How far back is that testnet redemption?
540 2012-01-24 15:33:42 <luke-jr> ?
541 2012-01-24 15:33:45 <luke-jr> I just made a new one
542 2012-01-24 15:34:10 <gmaxwell> I meant the broken one... 20 blocks back.. meh. I won't be forking testnet myself.
543 2012-01-24 15:34:53 <gmaxwell> (unless someone wants to pay me lost income on it)
544 2012-01-24 15:35:38 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: you'd have to have a hash operation in there too, and the hash of the secret in the address.
545 2012-01-24 15:35:42 <gmaxwell> Certantly not worth it.
546 2012-01-24 15:36:01 <UukGoblin> I wonder why it's not done like that: 1. You present a problem (i.e. need for p2sh-like stuff), 2. You ask people to provide solutions, give them i.e. 3 months to submit them, and perhaps provide a bounty for the one that wins, 3. Give another ~3 months for voting on the best solution, 4. set a date ~6 months in future when the solution goes live
547 2012-01-24 15:36:27 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: didn't say it was worth it, just possible
548 2012-01-24 15:36:41 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: you're presuming that step 3 works. But it doesn't.
549 2012-01-24 15:36:44 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: btw, you didn't confirm all the txns
550 2012-01-24 15:36:51 <UukGoblin> imho it's a saner approach than "let's rush this now! no we don't need a slightly similar proposal because we already have one! no you're just delaying things, let's go with the other one cause I like it more and it was there first!"
551 2012-01-24 15:37:20 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: this has been ongoing since _october_. Characterizing this as lets rush this now is unfair and unjust.
552 2012-01-24 15:37:34 <roconnor> is "168" a valid string of length 1 in C++ ?
553 2012-01-24 15:37:40 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, 4 months for the entire solution seems rushed to me
554 2012-01-24 15:37:46 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: it's not fair to say it's been ongoing since October.
555 2012-01-24 15:37:54 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: when it's going to take at least 6-9 months before its usable.
556 2012-01-24 15:37:58 <UukGoblin> I for one only heard about it in january
557 2012-01-24 15:38:17 <roconnor> luke-jr: um which transaction is yours?
558 2012-01-24 15:38:21 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: and your procedure fails because we had months of OP_EVAL is the one true solution, only to be derailed by last minute complaints (though good ones)
559 2012-01-24 15:38:31 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, I recall gavin wanted it live Feb 15 or so?
560 2012-01-24 15:38:56 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: under that procedure we'd be using OP_EVAL because the complains with it only arrose as a result of roconnor sitting down to implement it in december.
561 2012-01-24 15:39:47 <gmaxwell> Moreover, you just waved your hands at 'vote' it's not like thats magic pixie dust that solves problems. You have a problem. You've decided to solve with with voting? Now you have six problems.
562 2012-01-24 15:39:49 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, in that case the time to submit proposals before the vote would just be extended
563 2012-01-24 15:40:16 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: yea, so you then give anyone who can cook up a proposal an unbounded veto that lets them delay things forever? meh.
564 2012-01-24 15:40:39 <UukGoblin> a late realisation of a problem doesn't mean we should rush with the next solution... quite the contrary
565 2012-01-24 15:41:06 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: OP_EVAL would be better than BIP 16
566 2012-01-24 15:41:20 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: You think this. A lot of people don't agree.
567 2012-01-24 15:41:53 <roconnor> luke-jr: which is your new set of transactions?
568 2012-01-24 15:41:54 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, well, since there was only 1 proposal, an unbounded veto seems ok, as long as we have several proposals, problems with a few of them obviously shouldn't delay voting
569 2012-01-24 15:41:55 <roconnor> on testnet
570 2012-01-24 15:41:56 <gmaxwell> You would also like OP_MIPS_ASM. ::shrugs::
571 2012-01-24 15:42:07 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: ! there was a dozen proposals.
572 2012-01-24 15:42:28 <UukGoblin> oh. I only heard of 3.
573 2012-01-24 15:43:01 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: OP_EVAL and later BIP16 were the near unanimous consensus (save perhaps luke on BIP16 but because he ducked out it didn't look really opposed) of the people in the discussions at each point it went forward.
574 2012-01-24 15:43:24 <gmaxwell> no lots of ideas were floated on the development list and here, and they were merged and massaged.
575 2012-01-24 15:44:00 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, looks like BIP16 was Created: 03-01-2012, so it's just 1.5 months for a complete solution as proposed by Gavin. Nothing to do with October's OP_EVAL.
576 2012-01-24 15:44:50 <UukGoblin> 1.5 months definitely is rushing imho.
577 2012-01-24 15:44:52 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: the actual bip document came after the discussion and implementation.
578 2012-01-24 15:45:43 <UukGoblin> right. But please don't blame voters for not following all the discussions on the forums...
579 2012-01-24 15:46:30 <sipa> i would prefer they followedd the discussion on the msiling lists
580 2012-01-24 15:46:47 <UukGoblin> if it was officially proposed on that date, let's stick to the official date rather than what people were doing before it
581 2012-01-24 15:46:52 <UukGoblin> it's just my opinion though
582 2012-01-24 15:46:57 <gmaxwell> ...
583 2012-01-24 15:47:14 <gmaxwell> It wasn't "officially proposed" on that date.
584 2012-01-24 15:47:24 <roconnor> I kinda like how BIP 17 is sort of a partial restoration of the heavy handed OP_RETURN fix.
585 2012-01-24 15:47:27 <UukGoblin> even if, october or not, it's still too early
586 2012-01-24 15:47:28 <gmaxwell> It was "officially proposed" as a part of the consensus process that came up with it.
587 2012-01-24 15:47:51 <sipa> roconnor: indeed
588 2012-01-24 15:48:15 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: I apologize that people think we should be able to deploy a new feature in somewhat under a years time.
589 2012-01-24 15:48:31 <UukGoblin> that's my 0.2%-of-hashpower vote anyway ;-)
590 2012-01-24 15:48:56 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, client features, protocol features, non-breaking stuff - sure
591 2012-01-24 15:49:08 <UukGoblin> but this, the way I see it, is quite a major change
592 2012-01-24 15:49:14 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: still mining testnet btw?
593 2012-01-24 15:49:17 <gmaxwell> This is non-breaking. .. we can't realistically deploy a breaking change at all. :(
594 2012-01-24 15:49:27 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: No, I turned off after a block. Do you need another?
595 2012-01-24 15:49:35 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: yes, because your block didn't include all the txns
596 2012-01-24 15:49:42 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: in any case, I'm glad you're taking the time to be informed and discuss it!
597 2012-01-24 15:50:43 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: don't blame me unmodified testnet code here.
598 2012-01-24 15:51:00 <luke-jr> hmm
599 2012-01-24 15:51:00 <UukGoblin> well, my 1-year procedure is what I think should happen shall we ever need e.g. the 1MB block size limit
600 2012-01-24 15:51:01 <gmaxwell> okay there.
601 2012-01-24 15:51:07 <roconnor> luke-jr: if you give gmaxwell your txids he can verify he has them before mining :)
602 2012-01-24 15:51:31 <UukGoblin> admittedly, bip16/bip16 is much more backwards-compatible than that
603 2012-01-24 15:51:35 <roconnor> luke-jr: all non-std
604 2012-01-24 15:51:37 <UukGoblin> bip16/bip17 I meant
605 2012-01-24 15:51:45 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: we can't increase the 1MB block size limit that way. Thats a complete irreparable hard flagday. You could replace bitcoin with paypal with equal complexity.
606 2012-01-24 15:52:14 <luke-jr> roconnor: not so sure on that
607 2012-01-24 15:52:15 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: yea, give me the txn ID and I'll see if I accepted it.. but I just did a block, is it there yet?
608 2012-01-24 15:52:18 <luke-jr> someone stole my TNBTC -.-
609 2012-01-24 15:52:36 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: nor do I think it's ever clear that we should lift the 1MB limit.
610 2012-01-24 15:52:40 <roconnor> luke-jr: I don't think my recent experiments on testnet would have worked otherwise.
611 2012-01-24 15:52:46 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: nope, going to have to start over, and check testnet allows non-std scriptSigs
612 2012-01-24 15:52:51 <gmaxwell> UukGoblin: without a tight limit there bitcoin can't be decenteralized.
613 2012-01-24 15:53:05 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, sure, I'm not saying it should be
614 2012-01-24 15:53:08 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: it does....
615 2012-01-24 15:53:31 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, just used it as an example. But I do see that one day 1MB might not be enough, and it might be a problem
616 2012-01-24 15:53:55 <luke-jr> I might need to do this offline&
617 2012-01-24 15:54:07 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: looked like it.. did you see the redeeming script? it was dumb.. probably automatic.
618 2012-01-24 15:54:10 <occulta> hey, what version is the latest git? under 'tags' are these stable and RC's?
619 2012-01-24 15:54:23 <luke-jr> sigh
620 2012-01-24 15:54:33 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: any chance you and I could do an offline mining pair?
621 2012-01-24 15:54:34 <roconnor> luke-jr: It should be possible to send and redeem such a transacation inside one block
622 2012-01-24 15:54:49 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: or at least addnode, to try to beat the theif?
623 2012-01-24 15:57:40 <gmaxwell> meh. got to go for a bit. sorry.
624 2012-01-24 15:59:32 <UukGoblin> gmaxwell, oh, and thanks for taking the time to explain stuff to me :-)
625 2012-01-24 16:17:47 <UukGoblin> hrm, blockexplorer takes a very long time when you put b33145e9910fb6842c03c9b353017e03183e84ce63fc5eae973 in the search box
626 2012-01-24 16:18:16 <UukGoblin> I still can't see the block
627 2012-01-24 16:18:52 <roconnor> UukGoblin: you have to hit "enter"
628 2012-01-24 16:19:04 <UukGoblin> roconnor, lol
629 2012-01-24 16:19:13 <UukGoblin> hm, blockchain.info thinks it's an address
630 2012-01-24 16:19:56 <UukGoblin> roconnor, I did, of course
631 2012-01-24 16:21:31 <roconnor> UukGoblin: your string is an odd length
632 2012-01-24 16:21:37 <roconnor> literally
633 2012-01-24 16:22:11 <UukGoblin> roconnor, I think it misses some 0s in front
634 2012-01-24 16:22:17 <UukGoblin> but blockexplorer could always deal with that
635 2012-01-24 16:22:44 <UukGoblin> 55b4a9cbfc2a935a067f9f8238272ab014e55f84d5f24acc4f9 does the same btw
636 2012-01-24 16:23:21 <roconnor> UukGoblin: http://blockexplorer.com/block/0000000000000b33145e9910fb6842c03c9b353017e03183e84ce63fc5eae973
637 2012-01-24 16:23:23 <roconnor> here you go
638 2012-01-24 16:23:48 <roconnor> sorr, I should have said http://blockexplorer.com/b/161437
639 2012-01-24 16:23:59 <UukGoblin> thanks
640 2012-01-24 16:24:01 <UukGoblin> hrm
641 2012-01-24 16:24:16 <UukGoblin> I think I tried that too, but now it's instantaneous... maybe I missed a 0
642 2012-01-24 16:41:26 <luke-jr> roconnor: I setup Eligius to mine a block on mainnet with some BIP 17 txns
643 2012-01-24 16:41:54 <BlueMatt> why would you do that?
644 2012-01-24 16:42:27 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: so there's some BIP 17 txns he can look at
645 2012-01-24 16:42:38 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: someone's running a bot on testnet that steals anything it can automatically
646 2012-01-24 16:42:58 <BlueMatt> heh, nice
647 2012-01-24 16:44:00 <UukGoblin> I wonder if that bot is running on mainnet too
648 2012-01-24 16:44:01 <luke-jr> (I could hack BIP 17 to add a password to prevent automatic theft, but that'd defeat the point)
649 2012-01-24 16:44:12 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: could be, but I can more easily lock it into a mainnet block
650 2012-01-24 16:44:27 <BlueMatt> how  are you going to do password-protected txes? you would have to force a sig
651 2012-01-24 16:44:27 <UukGoblin> ah right
652 2012-01-24 16:44:48 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: you could just do OP_HASH160 OP_EQUALS ;)
653 2012-01-24 16:44:58 <BlueMatt> would the bot not get that?
654 2012-01-24 16:45:00 <UukGoblin> AHAHAHAH
655 2012-01-24 16:45:15 <UukGoblin> luke-jr, that'd be like bip16 though, wouldn't it? ;-D
656 2012-01-24 16:45:18 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: only if it's a very smart bot that deserves it
657 2012-01-24 16:45:43 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: it'd have the same accidental botproof-without-majority-hashpower attribute
658 2012-01-24 16:45:50 <BlueMatt> bot wouldnt have to be that smart, all it would have to do is check if the tx is still valid when it changes the txout
659 2012-01-24 16:46:08 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: true&
660 2012-01-24 16:46:43 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: also, thanks for finding a reason that BIP 16 doesn't even have casual security improvement over BIP 17 without majority ;)
661 2012-01-24 16:47:30 <BlueMatt> I never said it did, it has hash-check protection, but that is not worth anything
662 2012-01-24 16:47:47 <luke-jr> anyhow, once Eligius mines the next block, we'll have some BIP 17 redemptions on mainnet to test with
663 2012-01-24 17:00:17 <luke-jr> yay,  more Deepbit spam -.-
664 2012-01-24 17:00:32 <BlueMatt> goddamnit [Tycho]
665 2012-01-24 17:00:38 <BlueMatt> why the hell doesnt he use sendmany?
666 2012-01-24 17:11:23 <roconnor> luke-jr: thanks  Let me know when you produce some testnet blocks
667 2012-01-24 17:11:37 <luke-jr> roconnor: mainnet isn't good enough?
668 2012-01-24 17:12:00 <roconnor> oh
669 2012-01-24 17:12:11 <roconnor> well, I normally do my research on testnet
670 2012-01-24 17:13:13 <luke-jr> testnet is harder in this case :P
671 2012-01-24 17:13:19 <roconnor> I guess when gmaxwell gets back he can help mine testnet
672 2012-01-24 17:13:25 <roconnor> there is no rush
673 2012-01-24 17:14:27 <pusle> roconnor made that coin stealing bot?
674 2012-01-24 17:14:44 <pusle> rouge something something ^^
675 2012-01-24 17:14:56 <roconnor> wasn't me; though I applaude the effort
676 2012-01-24 17:15:14 <roconnor> my rouge relayer steals BIP 16 transactions not BIP 17
677 2012-01-24 17:15:24 <pusle> ah okay
678 2012-01-24 17:15:35 <luke-jr> roconnor: is it online yet?
679 2012-01-24 17:15:50 <roconnor> well, it doesn't actually steal BIP 16 transactions, But I could make it do that with some effort
680 2012-01-24 17:16:17 <luke-jr> not too much effort?
681 2012-01-24 17:16:33 <luke-jr> like BlueMatt said, just set your own address for the outputs
682 2012-01-24 17:16:48 <luke-jr> and if it validates still, relay that
683 2012-01-24 17:17:00 <roconnor> more or less
684 2012-01-24 17:17:02 <BlueMatt> you could (and should) generalize it
685 2012-01-24 17:17:06 <luke-jr> can probably replace the outputs outright actually
686 2012-01-24 17:17:15 <BlueMatt> just change txouts, check the tx, and if its valid forward the new one
687 2012-01-24 17:17:35 <luke-jr> don't forget to recalc the fee
688 2012-01-24 17:17:39 <roconnor> right I would just change all the outputs and pray it works
689 2012-01-24 17:17:49 <luke-jr> roconnor: relaying invalid txn = DoS ban
690 2012-01-24 17:17:54 <luke-jr> so you need to validate
691 2012-01-24 17:17:54 <roconnor> oh?
692 2012-01-24 17:18:01 <roconnor> :(
693 2012-01-24 17:18:08 <roconnor> ok
694 2012-01-24 17:18:35 <roconnor> anyhow I'll worry about that later
695 2012-01-24 17:21:26 <pusle> BIP hacking bounty? :&
696 2012-01-24 17:21:56 <luke-jr> pusle: do it and you get all the BIP-based txns! :P
697 2012-01-24 17:22:40 <pusle> hehe, yeah just put the money in there
698 2012-01-24 17:28:42 <BlueMatt> did people give up on those tuesday meetings?
699 2012-01-24 18:36:22 <copumpkin> if I'm running the bitcoin GUI client, can I still issue rpc commands to it?
700 2012-01-24 18:36:35 <copumpkin> bitcoin-qt, that is
701 2012-01-24 18:39:21 <luke-jr> copumpkin: specify -server on command line
702 2012-01-24 18:55:40 <copumpkin> I asked last night, but I didn't see a reply, but do the multisignature spending schemes proposed allow for doing something like 3 of 5 signatures?
703 2012-01-24 18:58:04 <luke-jr> copumpkin: non-standard, yes
704 2012-01-24 18:58:13 <copumpkin> cool :)
705 2012-01-24 18:58:23 <luke-jr> copumpkin: so support BIP 17! :P
706 2012-01-24 18:58:34 <copumpkin> that seems like something that'd want standardizing, cause it's almost more useful than just asking for K signatures
707 2012-01-24 18:58:57 <copumpkin> I'll take a look after work
708 2012-01-24 18:59:46 <luke-jr> copumpkin: well, there's a standard *definition* for them, but they're blocked by mainline bitcoind by default
709 2012-01-24 19:00:13 <luke-jr> only (1-3) of (1-3) is allowed
710 2012-01-24 19:00:24 <midnightmagic> ??
711 2012-01-24 19:00:37 <copumpkin> luke-jr: what's the rationale for limiting the numbers?
712 2012-01-24 19:00:51 <luke-jr> copumpkin: not sure
713 2012-01-24 19:00:54 <copumpkin> I want 3 of 1 signatures!
714 2012-01-24 19:00:56 <copumpkin> :D
715 2012-01-24 19:01:09 <luke-jr> -.-
716 2012-01-24 20:08:44 <Mad7Scientist> There is a bug in the bitcoin build source
717 2012-01-24 20:08:53 <Mad7Scientist> make clean does not cause the moc commands to rerun
718 2012-01-24 20:08:54 <phantomcircuit> elaborate
719 2012-01-24 20:09:08 <phantomcircuit> oh <-- no idea
720 2012-01-24 20:09:10 <phantomcircuit> carry on
721 2012-01-24 20:09:29 <Mad7Scientist> first time make failed like 5 times on the moc commands because the CFLAGS were included which was an error to moc
722 2012-01-24 20:09:37 <Mad7Scientist> so I pasted them in by hand with the cflags removed
723 2012-01-24 20:09:42 <Mad7Scientist> then retyped make
724 2012-01-24 20:09:56 <Mad7Scientist> now after make clean and make it built without any of the moc errors
725 2012-01-24 20:11:14 <Mad7Scientist> wait
726 2012-01-24 20:12:12 <Mad7Scientist> I am not entirely sure what happened. Either the moc commands didn't run again during the this last build or somehow those CFLAGS (like -O2) that were causing it to ftail before (because they shouldn't have been included) didn't get included this time
727 2012-01-24 20:12:32 <Mad7Scientist> /usr/bin/moc -O2 -march=pentium3 -fomit-frame-pointer -mmmx -msse -mfpmath=sse -ftree-vectorize -ftree-vectorizer-verbose=1 -g3 -pipe -Wall -W -D_REENTRANT -I/usr/include/db4.8 -DQT_GUI -DBOOST_THREAD_USE_LIB -DUSE_UPNP=1 -DSTATICLIB -DQT_NO_DEBUG -DQT_GUI_LIB -DQT_CORE_LIB -DQT_SHARED -I/usr/share/qt4/mkspecs/linux-g++ -I/usr/include/qt4/QtCore -I/usr/include/qt4/QtGui -I/usr/include/qt4 -Isrc -Isrc/json -Isrc/qt -
728 2012-01-24 20:12:33 <Mad7Scientist> Ibuild -Ibuild src/qt/bitcoingui.h -o build/moc_bitcoingui.cpp
729 2012-01-24 20:12:46 <Mad7Scientist> That's what I got before
730 2012-01-24 21:01:26 <Mad7Scientist> warning: process 10469 is a cloned process
731 2012-01-24 21:01:29 <Mad7Scientist> what does that mean?
732 2012-01-24 21:06:34 <luke-jr> roconnor: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0017#See_Also (block 163685)
733 2012-01-24 21:12:08 <roconnor> luke-jr: thanks!
734 2012-01-24 21:12:15 <roconnor> I still want one on testnet
735 2012-01-24 21:12:20 <roconnor> but I guess I can make my own
736 2012-01-24 21:12:34 <luke-jr> roconnor: yeah, it's my checkhashverify branch
737 2012-01-24 21:13:18 <roconnor> one advantate of BIP 17 is that it is considerably easier to implement
738 2012-01-24 21:13:22 <roconnor> *advantage
739 2012-01-24 21:29:47 <Eliel> roconnor: gavin was worried about the security implications for the script interpreter code though.
740 2012-01-24 21:30:54 <roconnor> Eliel: that is the flip side, BIP 17 plausibly has farther reaching consequences than BIP 16, but less than the consequences of  OP_EVAL.
741 2012-01-24 21:31:06 <roconnor> Eliel: so in that sense BIP 16 is more conservative than BIP 17.
742 2012-01-24 21:31:24 <roconnor> Eliel: but I think the simplicity of BIP 17 balances the comparison.
743 2012-01-24 21:31:42 <roconnor> that said I haven't carefully looked at BIP 16 yet.
744 2012-01-24 21:36:51 <Eliel> seems to me like most of the potential problems might be avoided by using the same trick as before. That is, treat OP_CODESEPARATOR as a meta-op that divides the code into separately evaluated pieces to make sure the different pieces only interact through stack.
745 2012-01-24 21:37:26 <roconnor> Eliel: I don't actually know what problems are prevented by that
746 2012-01-24 21:37:43 <roconnor> which is why I call the OP_RETURN repair heavy-handed.
747 2012-01-24 21:39:09 <Eliel> is OP_RETURN an actual op? if so, what does it do?
748 2012-01-24 21:40:17 <Eliel> hmm... wiki says it marks transaction invalid
749 2012-01-24 21:41:17 <roconnor> Eliel: it used to terminate evaluation early IIUC
750 2012-01-24 21:41:18 <Eliel> I guess it did something before the fix that made it mark transaction invalid?
751 2012-01-24 21:41:30 <Eliel> oh
752 2012-01-24 22:02:25 <Mad7Scientist> bitcoin was working for 5 seconds then it would block on I/O for 40 seconds
753 2012-01-24 22:02:27 <Mad7Scientist> over and over
754 2012-01-24 22:02:31 <Mad7Scientist> now it started working again!
755 2012-01-24 22:02:43 <Mad7Scientist> just before I could stop it with gdb
756 2012-01-24 22:02:57 <sipa> roconnor: how would you have fixed the OP_RETURN problem?
757 2012-01-24 22:03:18 <roconnor> sipa: making OP_RETURN simply fail was a good move
758 2012-01-24 22:03:34 <roconnor> I don't quite understand what motivated the separation of the two scripts.
759 2012-01-24 22:03:45 <roconnor> well, there are some OP_IF issues.
760 2012-01-24 22:03:56 <roconnor> acutally that is probably fine.
761 2012-01-24 22:03:57 <sipa> probably a "omg what if there are similar bugs still left!"
762 2012-01-24 22:04:09 <roconnor> probably
763 2012-01-24 22:04:27 <roconnor> I certainly understand the urgency and severity of the situation.
764 2012-01-24 22:05:00 <roconnor> some notes on the issues at the time would be helpful in evalutation BIP 17
765 2012-01-24 22:05:19 <sipa> unfortunately, Satoshi has disappeared...
766 2012-01-24 22:06:38 <Mad7Scientist> I wonder how many coins are in his wallet
767 2012-01-24 22:06:47 <Mad7Scientist> Did he assign someone to take over bitcoin.org?
768 2012-01-24 22:08:52 <gmaxwell> seems unfortunate, I think we could have done p2sh without any changes if not for the script splitting.
769 2012-01-24 22:40:20 <luke-jr> Mad7Scientist: bitcoin.org hasn't ever been Satoshi's afaik& sirius owns it, and tcatm admins it
770 2012-01-24 23:00:20 <dwon> Hrm.  Got a corrupted wallet.dat when I was mucking around yesterday.  That sort of thing seems to happen with every app I ever use that uses Berkeley DB (OpenLDAP being a good other example).
771 2012-01-24 23:00:48 <dwon> Has anyone thought about replacing wallet.dat with a plaintext or JSON file?
772 2012-01-24 23:01:13 <gmaxwell> dwon: what does 'mucking around' mean?
773 2012-01-24 23:01:41 <gmaxwell> And are you using binaries or did you compile it yourself? and if the latter, what version of libdb are you linked against?
774 2012-01-24 23:01:41 <roconnor> dwon: I think Amory is like that
775 2012-01-24 23:02:14 <dwon> I tried importing a casascius private key using pywallet, but it ignored my --wallet= option and wrote to ~/.bitcoin/wallet.dat anyway.
776 2012-01-24 23:02:23 <dwon> I had an encrypted wallet, so the whole thing broke.
777 2012-01-24 23:02:31 <gmaxwell> ...
778 2012-01-24 23:02:34 <upb> LOL
779 2012-01-24 23:02:37 <dwon> (also annoying: There's no option to decrypt an encrypted wallet)
780 2012-01-24 23:02:58 <dwon> With a text file, I would have just stopped bitcoind, added a line of text, and started it again.
781 2012-01-24 23:03:02 <gmaxwell> You can't really blame libdb for some crazy tool smashing the file while it was in use.
782 2012-01-24 23:03:27 <gmaxwell> We have an rpc call to import keys.
783 2012-01-24 23:03:44 <dwon> There's no bitcoind command to import keys, as far as I can tell.
784 2012-01-24 23:03:51 <gmaxwell> There is.
785 2012-01-24 23:04:25 <gmaxwell> importprivkey <bitcoinprivkey> [label]
786 2012-01-24 23:04:34 <gmaxwell> (from help)
787 2012-01-24 23:04:38 <dwon> error: {"code":-32601,"message":"Method not found"}
788 2012-01-24 23:04:44 <dwon> I don't think that patch was ever merged into mainline
789 2012-01-24 23:04:53 <sipa> it was
790 2012-01-24 23:04:55 <gmaxwell> dwon: yes, it was.
791 2012-01-24 23:04:56 <sipa> but not yet released
792 2012-01-24 23:05:00 <sipa> it will be in 0.6
793 2012-01-24 23:05:33 <josephcp> if you compile from github it should be there
794 2012-01-24 23:05:48 <gmaxwell> dwon: what you described is actually part of an argument against having just a plain text file for the wallet unfortunately. :(