1 2012-01-25 00:00:20 <sipa> BlueMatt: https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin-seeder/blob/master/bitcoin.cpp e.g.
2 2012-01-25 00:00:30 <BlueMatt> mmm
3 2012-01-25 00:01:29 <sipa> BlueMatt -> space?
4 2012-01-25 00:01:46 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: you know there's no air out there?
5 2012-01-25 00:01:58 <sipa> and there is no sound either
6 2012-01-25 00:02:06 <sipa> unless you're called George Lucas
7 2012-01-25 00:02:42 <roconnor> luke-jr gmaxwell: I don't suppose I can get you guys to induldge me in another attempt at BIP 17 in testnet?
8 2012-01-25 00:03:04 <roconnor> luke-jr: you could connect directly to gmaxwell and even send the second transaction first.
9 2012-01-25 00:04:40 <BlueMatt> nvm
10 2012-01-25 00:13:51 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: hey, p2pool with a --solo option and a minor tweak to move worker graphs to seperate pages would be a drop in replacement for eligius. 0_o
11 2012-01-25 00:15:06 <gmaxwell> roconnor: I'm game now if luke is game.. I had to run out before... I don't have a listening testnet node, but I could fix that.
12 2012-01-25 00:15:47 <gmaxwell> or he could open an RPC port for me. and I could mine against his node.
13 2012-01-25 00:15:51 <roconnor> gmaxwell: how do you get transactions?
14 2012-01-25 00:16:00 <gmaxwell> roconnor: outbound connections.
15 2012-01-25 00:16:28 <roconnor> also, sending out the second transaction first would help
16 2012-01-25 00:16:39 <roconnor> though I don't know how easy that is for luke-jr to do
17 2012-01-25 00:17:28 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: um, no?
18 2012-01-25 00:17:47 <roconnor> gmaxwell: you could start a regular testnet peer
19 2012-01-25 00:17:59 <roconnor> luke-jr: can connect to it
20 2012-01-25 00:18:02 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: to what? replacing eligius? I didn't expect you to do it but it's an interesting observation.
21 2012-01-25 00:18:16 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: except that it wouldn't do anything like Eligius
22 2012-01-25 00:18:20 <roconnor> and gmaxwell can connect his miner to his peer
23 2012-01-25 00:18:30 <roconnor> maybe I'm making this overly complex
24 2012-01-25 00:18:44 <luke-jr> roconnor: problem is, gmaxwell would relay my BIP 17 txn&
25 2012-01-25 00:18:48 <dwon> gmaxwell: To answer your previous question, I'm building against libdb5.1-dev. Does that sound fine to you?
26 2012-01-25 00:18:50 <doublec> gmaxwell: the 10 second longpolls would be a slight difference
27 2012-01-25 00:18:57 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: p2pool supports payout address in username.. and it's pplns. and it generates per worker graphs. ... thats a lot like eligius.
28 2012-01-25 00:19:09 <roconnor> luke-jr: is it easy for you to send the second transaction first?
29 2012-01-25 00:19:10 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: Eligius isn't PPLNS.
30 2012-01-25 00:19:11 <gmaxwell> doublec: turn 'em off.. not needed if solo.
31 2012-01-25 00:19:16 <luke-jr> roconnor: no
32 2012-01-25 00:19:22 <roconnor> heh
33 2012-01-25 00:19:23 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: oh I thought you switched when you chaged servers.
34 2012-01-25 00:19:24 <roconnor> what a pain
35 2012-01-25 00:19:26 <doublec> oh right, I see - I thought you meant luke running it for others to use
36 2012-01-25 00:19:46 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I see little benefit to PPLNS at this point. ;)
37 2012-01-25 00:19:50 <gmaxwell> doublec: yea, the 10 sec longpolls would result in poor performance.
38 2012-01-25 00:20:48 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: okay, save for the fact that it would be PPLNS instead of SMPPS, and would have lots of fun dos vulnerabilties. ... it would be a pretty much drop in replacement.
39 2012-01-25 00:21:25 <gmaxwell> doublec: running it for others to use, yes but as a central pool, not as a p2pool node.
40 2012-01-25 00:21:32 <gmaxwell> (a p2pool network of one, if you will)
41 2012-01-25 00:21:34 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I disagree.
42 2012-01-25 00:22:03 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: btw, that bitcoind hasn't crashed yet - 1 thread of getinfo, 2 threads of getnewaddress, plus initial blockchain download
43 2012-01-25 00:22:06 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: okay, you'd have to add a bunch of tonal to it too. :)
44 2012-01-25 00:22:22 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: would you like my TBC branch of Bitcoin-Qt?
45 2012-01-25 00:22:59 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I'll replace 100% of my bitcoin-qt usage with it!
46 2012-01-25 00:23:04 <doublec> it's proving very difficult to get in touch with the namecoin creator so he can respond to the current attack going on
47 2012-01-25 00:23:12 <doublec> definitely a negative point for namecoin uptake there
48 2012-01-25 00:23:18 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: so none? :P
49 2012-01-25 00:23:26 <gmaxwell> doublec: you're the obvious next in line, I think.
50 2012-01-25 00:23:32 <doublec> I don't suppose anyone here knows a contact?
51 2012-01-25 00:23:32 <roconnor> doublec: oh ya, try contacting the bitcoin creator
52 2012-01-25 00:23:37 <luke-jr> LOL
53 2012-01-25 00:23:39 <doublec> haha
54 2012-01-25 00:23:56 <gmaxwell> oh my.. its contagious.
55 2012-01-25 00:24:08 <sipa> soon RealSolid will go missing, damn :(
56 2012-01-25 00:24:09 <gmaxwell> makomk: you dodged a bullet, you should thank luke.
57 2012-01-25 00:26:05 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: so care to connect a testnet node to me to test this for roconnor? (or open an RPC port to a testnet node for me?)
58 2012-01-25 00:26:32 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: can you avoid relaying non-std txns? ;)
59 2012-01-25 00:26:53 <gmaxwell> oh.. hah.. it'll get spent on your first...
60 2012-01-25 00:27:03 <luke-jr> or actually
61 2012-01-25 00:27:07 <gmaxwell> just disconnect -connect=127.0.0.1 and write both.
62 2012-01-25 00:27:09 <luke-jr> I think you can just -connect=0.0.0.0
63 2012-01-25 00:27:18 <luke-jr> and I -connect=you
64 2012-01-25 00:27:24 <gmaxwell> yes, that'll work.
65 2012-01-25 00:27:30 <luke-jr> OK
66 2012-01-25 00:27:37 <gmaxwell> okay.. lemme get it listening. what port is testnet? 18333 or something?
67 2012-01-25 00:27:43 <roconnor> yes
68 2012-01-25 00:28:13 <gmaxwell> maybe I'll mine a few and reorg testnet a bit to.
69 2012-01-25 00:28:20 <luke-jr> :p
70 2012-01-25 00:28:41 <gmaxwell> less fun to do that without the threaded rpc patches...
71 2012-01-25 00:29:01 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: you could take the opportunity to test them ;)
72 2012-01-25 00:29:16 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: maybe even test all of my next-test branch
73 2012-01-25 00:29:31 <gmaxwell> I completely trust that the getwork part works, since you've been running it
74 2012-01-25 00:30:07 <luke-jr> http://pastebin.com/XGavcpD7 <-- everything merged into next-test presently
75 2012-01-25 00:30:26 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: if it didn't, I would be shocked. I don't run next-test on Eligius though
76 2012-01-25 00:32:31 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: okay, sent address, tell me when you've relayed txn and I'll start mining.
77 2012-01-25 00:32:46 <gmaxwell> stay connected or it won't mine.
78 2012-01-25 00:35:13 <gmaxwell> wee... connected.
79 2012-01-25 00:35:31 <gmaxwell> hopefully thats luke.
80 2012-01-25 00:36:05 <gmaxwell> hm.. perhaps not.
81 2012-01-25 00:37:00 <luke-jr> wtf
82 2012-01-25 00:37:26 <gmaxwell> It's working, because someone is getblocksing me.
83 2012-01-25 00:37:49 <luke-jr> my bitcoind is refusing to send :/
84 2012-01-25 00:37:54 <luke-jr> OH
85 2012-01-25 00:37:59 <luke-jr> maybe I need to unlock wallet
86 2012-01-25 00:38:00 <luke-jr> <.<
87 2012-01-25 00:38:01 <gmaxwell> thought they are behaving really weird.
88 2012-01-25 00:38:17 <sipa> y00 r bein h4xx0rd
89 2012-01-25 00:38:29 <gmaxwell> oh no, I'm just being dsylexic.
90 2012-01-25 00:39:22 <gmaxwell> askfor tx 22505d90cd1cca139578 0
91 2012-01-25 00:39:23 <gmaxwell> sending getdata: tx 22a837d2d78b4e592b3d
92 2012-01-25 00:40:07 <luke-jr> O.o
93 2012-01-25 00:40:28 <gmaxwell> I did accept this: AcceptToMemoryPool(): accepted 942c593a7b
94 2012-01-25 00:40:50 <gmaxwell> whats your transactions?
95 2012-01-25 00:41:07 <luke-jr> doh
96 2012-01-25 00:41:28 <gmaxwell> sending getdata: tx a439e34e87740475ecf0
97 2012-01-25 00:41:29 <gmaxwell> ERROR: ConnectInputs() : a439e34e87 mapTransactions prev not found 67db4e950b
98 2012-01-25 00:41:32 <gmaxwell> ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool() : ConnectInputs failed a439e34e87
99 2012-01-25 00:41:40 <luke-jr> if (nSigOps > nSize / 65 || nSize < 100)
100 2012-01-25 00:41:42 <luke-jr> return error("AcceptToMemoryPool() : transaction with out-of-bounds SigOpCount");
101 2012-01-25 00:41:43 <luke-jr> no check for testnet
102 2012-01-25 00:42:20 <roconnor> gmaxwell: you enabled --testnet?
103 2012-01-25 00:42:21 <luke-jr> it's a multisig 1-of-1
104 2012-01-25 00:42:26 <roconnor> or just the testnet prot?
105 2012-01-25 00:42:29 <roconnor> *port
106 2012-01-25 00:42:30 <gmaxwell> roconnor: yes.
107 2012-01-25 00:42:37 <luke-jr> roconnor: -testnet only skips the "IsStandard" check, not the sigop-standard check :/
108 2012-01-25 00:42:47 <roconnor> oh right
109 2012-01-25 00:42:48 <sipa> luke-jr: multisig == 20 sigops
110 2012-01-25 00:42:52 <luke-jr> sipa: I know
111 2012-01-25 00:43:13 <gmaxwell> If only there was a proposal which fixed that counting& ;)
112 2012-01-25 00:43:13 <sipa> testnet has the same network rules, i suppose, so it also enforces the sigop check?
113 2012-01-25 00:43:35 <roconnor> still, it shouldn't be exceeded
114 2012-01-25 00:43:46 <sipa> wait, this means that multisig is effectively unusable?
115 2012-01-25 00:43:59 <gmaxwell> the data has to be big enough.
116 2012-01-25 00:44:01 <sipa> as its sigopcount immediately exceeds the nSize/65 check?
117 2012-01-25 00:44:08 <luke-jr> sipa: this isn't a network rule
118 2012-01-25 00:44:22 <sipa> oh, right
119 2012-01-25 00:44:29 <sipa> indeed, it's just a memory pool check
120 2012-01-25 00:44:38 <gmaxwell> I can knock out that check if you like.
121 2012-01-25 00:44:39 <luke-jr> it should probably be || fTestnet there too
122 2012-01-25 00:44:42 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: please
123 2012-01-25 00:44:43 <sipa> indeed
124 2012-01-25 00:44:52 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: do I need to hack my end to retransmit? :P
125 2012-01-25 00:45:10 <gmaxwell> probably. :(
126 2012-01-25 00:45:18 <roconnor> sorry, this is all much more difficult than I expected.
127 2012-01-25 00:45:20 <gmaxwell> or we can just wait.
128 2012-01-25 00:45:55 <roconnor> though it is useful to know that I need to knock out that check to test multisig
129 2012-01-25 00:46:01 <roconnor> etotheipi_: might care about this info
130 2012-01-25 00:46:13 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: hacked mine to resend
131 2012-01-25 00:46:23 <gmaxwell> yea, no need to apologize. ... this is useful learning.
132 2012-01-25 00:46:38 <gmaxwell> lots of slow cores in this machine.. linking..
133 2012-01-25 00:46:39 <onelineproof> so, sipa, the thing I was talking about, im testing now and I think I found one problem. I opened a wallet.dat, changed one character from the private key, then reloaded the client, and it still showed that I have the same address as with the original private key.
134 2012-01-25 00:46:45 <luke-jr> sipa: care to quickly skip that check on testnet in mainline? ;)
135 2012-01-25 00:46:58 <onelineproof> now testing to see what happens when i do a transaction
136 2012-01-25 00:47:12 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: ready when you are
137 2012-01-25 00:47:21 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: up again.
138 2012-01-25 00:47:58 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: ECONNREFUSED
139 2012-01-25 00:48:15 <gmaxwell> hm? it's connected. or is that not you?
140 2012-01-25 00:48:31 <gmaxwell> someone is connected.
141 2012-01-25 00:48:39 <luke-jr> oh well
142 2012-01-25 00:48:42 <luke-jr> debug.log lies then
143 2012-01-25 00:48:49 <gmaxwell> not relaying yet.
144 2012-01-25 00:49:27 <gmaxwell> I'll brb.. going to drive home while this thinks about it.
145 2012-01-25 00:49:38 <sipa> onelineproof: nothing will happen, it effectively ignores the pubkey in the db key
146 2012-01-25 00:50:23 <onelineproof> but the bitcoin-qt client doesnt notify you that you no longer have access to that address
147 2012-01-25 00:52:03 <onelineproof> and the address that it displays obviously comes from the pubkey in the db, since its unchanged, so it does read the pubkey for displaying the address
148 2012-01-25 00:52:18 <onelineproof> maybe when it does a transaction it uses the priv key, but not for everything
149 2012-01-25 00:53:47 <sipa> no it does not use the pubkey at all
150 2012-01-25 00:53:59 <sipa> oh wait
151 2012-01-25 00:54:05 <sipa> maybe it does, never mind
152 2012-01-25 00:54:31 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: no relay yet. :(
153 2012-01-25 00:54:52 <sipa> onelineproof: it does for encrypted wallets, but for normal wallets, the pubkey is effectively not read
154 2012-01-25 00:54:56 <onelineproof> so my main point is that it should somehow notify the user if the priv key does not correspond to the address (which comes from the pubkey)
155 2012-01-25 00:54:59 <sipa> well, read but ignored
156 2012-01-25 00:55:08 <sipa> that would be a good safety check, yes
157 2012-01-25 00:55:09 <onelineproof> o ok, i didnt try encrypted wallets...
158 2012-01-25 00:55:52 <onelineproof> well my cwallet does that check...all it does is do a simple multiplication in elliptic curve space using the crypto library
159 2012-01-25 00:56:03 <sipa> yes, it is not hard
160 2012-01-25 00:59:57 <onelineproof> something like EC_POINT_mul(group, pub_key, privbn, 0, 0, ctx);
161 2012-01-25 01:00:37 <onelineproof> ok then maybe ill add it as a suggestion on the github thingie
162 2012-01-25 01:01:29 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: got them yet?
163 2012-01-25 01:01:51 <gmaxwell> nope.
164 2012-01-25 01:02:13 <gmaxwell> the normal retransmit won't trigger without a block I think!
165 2012-01-25 01:02:35 <gmaxwell> I guess I could mine one.
166 2012-01-25 01:03:21 <gmaxwell> (that was fast.
167 2012-01-25 01:04:07 <gmaxwell> oh there it goes...
168 2012-01-25 01:04:10 <gmaxwell> hmph. orphans.
169 2012-01-25 01:04:22 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: whats your txn id?
170 2012-01-25 01:04:30 <sipa> onelineproof: already implementing
171 2012-01-25 01:04:51 <onelineproof> cool
172 2012-01-25 01:05:24 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: 942c593a7bb5499c2b44fb36e2456285b03e857138131309c2053ff10ff54b80, 22505d90cd1cca13957894ec80c6e97702be09453f834f9116091e975e5ae19e, 6e44f73750745cb623f3bf58cd899b33f38157eabaf254f4851d4177aedbbb0e, 1204863bfbe719eb543341e62b6dbb2ed0a5b0e0fd34c2e9e4d2f4adab265efe, 6501e74021dd6c3838495d6a133491e070a19f198f023ae670418415745a6230, c484754441efc7999ed1521f926654b279711997ae045d24ad6b842a03e0caec,
173 2012-01-25 01:05:26 <luke-jr> 4b8056d8145500bce11504becb4fd6cc6dc6702218b97c1ec312637b8eae9841, 67db4e950b895db8e682610d251a50963e8c43bef42c6c6855c8212f713f494c, a439e34e87740475ecf004652fd4d8b6393400756ccad683fdd39840a922de16
174 2012-01-25 01:05:34 <gmaxwell> I suspect it's here.
175 2012-01-25 01:05:43 <k9quaint> altogether too many notes
176 2012-01-25 01:06:23 <gmaxwell> time for a bit of a reorg.
177 2012-01-25 01:06:36 <sipa> onelineproof: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/782
178 2012-01-25 01:07:41 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: oh?
179 2012-01-25 01:07:54 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: sipa opened pull request 782 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/782>
180 2012-01-25 01:08:11 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I think testnet gained a block while we were off in space.
181 2012-01-25 01:08:17 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: i c
182 2012-01-25 01:08:19 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: in any case, I've reconnected to the real network.
183 2012-01-25 01:08:59 <gmaxwell> (and dropped like eight blocks on it)
184 2012-01-25 01:09:30 <luke-jr> BBE hasn't got it yet
185 2012-01-25 01:09:52 <gmaxwell> weird.. I don't appear to be telling nodes about it!
186 2012-01-25 01:10:03 <roconnor> gmaxwell: mine another :D
187 2012-01-25 01:10:09 <gmaxwell> thats a bug.
188 2012-01-25 01:10:24 <gmaxwell> roconnor: yea.. that will do it.
189 2012-01-25 01:10:40 <roconnor> there it goes
190 2012-01-25 01:11:05 <gmaxwell> ERROR: ConnectInputs() : 22a837d2d7 prev tx already used at (nFile=1, nBlockPos=31538368, nTxPos=31538583)
191 2012-01-25 01:11:27 <gmaxwell> the idiot coin grabber doesn't care if they're already used or not I guess?
192 2012-01-25 01:11:37 <luke-jr> lol
193 2012-01-25 01:11:47 <gmaxwell> man, I wish this node had IP logging I'd know who did it, because they must be connected to me.
194 2012-01-25 01:12:13 <roconnor> gmaxwell: I don't see the redemption transaction
195 2012-01-25 01:12:26 <gmaxwell> well, darn it. luke-jr?
196 2012-01-25 01:12:37 <luke-jr> I don't see any&
197 2012-01-25 01:12:42 <gmaxwell> :-/
198 2012-01-25 01:12:45 <gmaxwell> whats the txn id?
199 2012-01-25 01:12:51 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: 942c593a7bb5499c2b44fb36e2456285b03e857138131309c2053ff10ff54b80, 22505d90cd1cca13957894ec80c6e97702be09453f834f9116091e975e5ae19e, 6e44f73750745cb623f3bf58cd899b33f38157eabaf254f4851d4177aedbbb0e, 1204863bfbe719eb543341e62b6dbb2ed0a5b0e0fd34c2e9e4d2f4adab265efe, 6501e74021dd6c3838495d6a133491e070a19f198f023ae670418415745a6230, c484754441efc7999ed1521f926654b279711997ae045d24ad6b842a03e0caec,
200 2012-01-25 01:12:52 <luke-jr> 4b8056d8145500bce11504becb4fd6cc6dc6702218b97c1ec312637b8eae9841, 67db4e950b895db8e682610d251a50963e8c43bef42c6c6855c8212f713f494c, a439e34e87740475ecf004652fd4d8b6393400756ccad683fdd39840a922de16
201 2012-01-25 01:13:08 <roconnor> http://blockexplorer.com/testnet/t/6cgChXgz1E is one end
202 2012-01-25 01:13:12 <gmaxwell> I'd checked to see I'd accepted the first one.
203 2012-01-25 01:13:16 <roconnor> that the 942
204 2012-01-25 01:13:34 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: don't just give me all of them whats missing?
205 2012-01-25 01:13:38 <luke-jr> aha, I missed /tx
206 2012-01-25 01:13:55 <roconnor> it's totally gonna get stolen :D
207 2012-01-25 01:14:05 <roconnor> it's a lot this time :D
208 2012-01-25 01:14:06 <gmaxwell> hah. if it hasn't been already.
209 2012-01-25 01:14:11 <luke-jr> roconnor: until gmaxwell orphans it hopefully
210 2012-01-25 01:14:35 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: mine another block and see if that helps?
211 2012-01-25 01:15:13 <gmaxwell> lemme shut down... so I shut down and went into connect=0.0.0 mode again, to wipe my memrory pool of any theft.
212 2012-01-25 01:15:22 <luke-jr> hmm
213 2012-01-25 01:15:29 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: you don't seem to have mined them, even if you accepted them :x
214 2012-01-25 01:15:55 <roconnor> another hidden opsigcount check?
215 2012-01-25 01:16:03 <gmaxwell> well, give me an ID of something missing?
216 2012-01-25 01:16:08 <luke-jr> 22505d90cd1cca13957894ec80c6e97702be09453f834f9116091e975e5ae19e
217 2012-01-25 01:16:48 <gmaxwell> hm.
218 2012-01-25 01:16:57 <gmaxwell> ERROR: FetchInputs() : 22505d90cd mapTransactions prev not found 22a837d2d7
219 2012-01-25 01:16:58 <gmaxwell> ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool() : FetchInputs failed 22505d90cd
220 2012-01-25 01:17:13 <gmaxwell> ERROR: ConnectInputs() : 22a837d2d7 prev tx already used at (nFile=1, nBlockPos=31538368, nTxPos=31538583)
221 2012-01-25 01:17:16 <gmaxwell> ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool() : ConnectInputs failed 22a837d2d7
222 2012-01-25 01:18:55 <roconnor> something appears to be wrong with luke-jr transaction series
223 2012-01-25 01:18:57 <luke-jr> I don't see anything redeeming it in BBE
224 2012-01-25 01:19:18 <gmaxwell> did you manage to use the same input in two transactions?
225 2012-01-25 01:19:23 <roconnor> luke-jr: 22505d90cd depends on 22a837d2d7 which doesn't appear to be in your list
226 2012-01-25 01:20:16 <gmaxwell> dependency on an already stolen coin and luke and I are on mutually exclusive forks? luke-jr whats your height?
227 2012-01-25 01:20:26 <gmaxwell> I'm at "blocks" : 44795,
228 2012-01-25 01:21:04 <luke-jr> 44795
229 2012-01-25 01:21:19 <gmaxwell> hm. then you should have the same view of the network as me.
230 2012-01-25 01:21:40 <roconnor> right, and the redeeming transaction isn't there
231 2012-01-25 01:22:01 <roconnor> a transaction is missing from luke-jr's list of transactions
232 2012-01-25 01:22:19 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: try orphaning the theft from before? :/
233 2012-01-25 01:22:25 <luke-jr> bitcoind can't handle thefts I guess
234 2012-01-25 01:23:19 <roconnor> I don't think this latest one is stolen
235 2012-01-25 01:23:31 <gmaxwell> roconnor: I think he respent the old theft or something like that.
236 2012-01-25 01:23:37 <luke-jr> roconnor: no, but bitcoind won't give up the other txns
237 2012-01-25 01:23:40 <roconnor> oh
238 2012-01-25 01:24:05 <roconnor> that is unfortuante
239 2012-01-25 01:24:10 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: if you have bip17 code why aren't you rejecting this chain?
240 2012-01-25 01:24:17 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: & good question
241 2012-01-25 01:24:24 <luke-jr> maybe because I already verified the blocks?
242 2012-01-25 01:24:38 <gmaxwell> right okay so you turned that on after?
243 2012-01-25 01:24:40 <luke-jr> oh
244 2012-01-25 01:24:43 <luke-jr> because the timestamp
245 2012-01-25 01:24:55 <gmaxwell> okay, so set the timestamp, delete your blocks..
246 2012-01-25 01:25:03 <gmaxwell> then when you sync I'll delete mine and sync from you.
247 2012-01-25 01:25:22 <gmaxwell> then I'll reorg the #@$#@ out of testnet, I guess.
248 2012-01-25 01:25:36 <gmaxwell> ah, thats why it's so easy now.. diff of 8.8
249 2012-01-25 01:25:47 <gmaxwell> yea, I'll totally unsteal those coins for you.
250 2012-01-25 01:26:04 <roconnor> heh, I'll have to rerun my experiments but I"m okay with that. My mistakes will be covered up. :P
251 2012-01-25 01:26:25 <gmaxwell> "Watson, prepare the time machine!"
252 2012-01-25 01:27:06 <gmaxwell> I'm going to adjust my firewall settings so only luke can connect..
253 2012-01-25 01:27:31 <luke-jr> found a trivial bug in BIP17 impl :P
254 2012-01-25 01:27:40 <roconnor> luke-jr: is it related to core?
255 2012-01-25 01:28:41 <luke-jr> no
256 2012-01-25 01:28:46 <luke-jr> the GetArg is missing the -
257 2012-01-25 01:28:49 <luke-jr> so changing the time is impossible
258 2012-01-25 01:28:50 <luke-jr> <.<
259 2012-01-25 01:28:51 <gmaxwell> hah
260 2012-01-25 01:29:23 <luke-jr> come to think of it, I bet that bug is in git master too
261 2012-01-25 01:30:10 <luke-jr> 8k blocks so far
262 2012-01-25 01:30:49 <luke-jr> 11k
263 2012-01-25 01:30:58 <gmaxwell> slowpoke.
264 2012-01-25 01:31:08 <roconnor> thats almost as slow as my client
265 2012-01-25 01:31:52 <gmaxwell> once you've resynced. I'll pop my chain. and learn it from you... then I remain a mostly unmodified node.. but I'll be cut back to the point I need to reorg from.
266 2012-01-25 01:33:01 <gmaxwell> hm anyone have handy timewarp code? I could push testnet down to 1... :) then it would be easy to maintain.
267 2012-01-25 01:33:10 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: sp1d3rx opened issue 783 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/783>
268 2012-01-25 01:33:12 <gmaxwell> "testnet difficulty problem solved!"
269 2012-01-25 01:33:32 <roconnor> see, it is a feature afterall
270 2012-01-25 01:33:56 <sipa> gmaxwell: ArtForz
271 2012-01-25 01:34:32 <gmaxwell> sipa: would actually be useful for testing your fix, I suppose.
272 2012-01-25 01:36:42 <luke-jr> 25k
273 2012-01-25 01:37:05 <gmaxwell> Anyone know a faster way to reach art than email?
274 2012-01-25 01:37:26 <doublec> he's often on irc
275 2012-01-25 01:37:28 <gmaxwell> I don't feel like waiting but if I can get the patch now I'll go ahead and timewarp testnet in the process.
276 2012-01-25 01:37:47 <roconnor> gmaxwell: you can shine the ArtForz signal in the sky
277 2012-01-25 01:38:00 <sipa> what is testnet's difficulty:
278 2012-01-25 01:38:01 <sipa> ?
279 2012-01-25 01:38:03 <roconnor> if it is cloudy
280 2012-01-25 01:38:04 <gmaxwell> sipa: 8.
281 2012-01-25 01:38:14 <gmaxwell> ??
282 2012-01-25 01:38:22 <sipa> and your hashrate? :p
283 2012-01-25 01:38:38 <gmaxwell> sipa: I've been throwing 2gh/s at it.
284 2012-01-25 01:38:49 <sipa> ;;bc,calcd 2000000 8
285 2012-01-25 01:38:50 <gmaxwell> I can though a lot more, except the getwork rpc falls down.
286 2012-01-25 01:38:50 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 2000000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 8, is 17 seconds
287 2012-01-25 01:39:05 <roconnor> is that 8 mainnet difficulty or 8 testnet difficulty
288 2012-01-25 01:39:11 <roconnor> stupid different scales
289 2012-01-25 01:39:17 <gmaxwell> what? they're different scales?!
290 2012-01-25 01:39:22 <sipa> yes, factor 2
291 2012-01-25 01:39:40 <gmaxwell> 0_o well getinfo returns "difficulty" : 8.88353262,
292 2012-01-25 01:39:41 <sipa> worst idea ever, imho
293 2012-01-25 01:40:05 <roconnor> My client measures everything in mainnet difficulty IIRC
294 2012-01-25 01:40:16 <gmaxwell> hopefully we sent gavin to rehab after that one?
295 2012-01-25 01:40:34 <gmaxwell> factor of 2 in which direction?
296 2012-01-25 01:40:41 <roconnor> sipa: OP_RETURN was a pretty bad idea
297 2012-01-25 01:40:46 <sipa> 1 testnet = 0.5 realnet
298 2012-01-25 01:40:49 <luke-jr> 30k
299 2012-01-25 01:40:50 <roconnor> I thought it was a factor of 4
300 2012-01-25 01:42:06 <gmaxwell> so at 2gh/s it would take me about 9 hours or so to knock it all the way down..
301 2012-01-25 01:42:19 <roconnor> gmaxwell: down to 1?
302 2012-01-25 01:42:21 <gmaxwell> but if 1 is 0.5 the miner will lose efficiency .. no point in going below 2.
303 2012-01-25 01:42:48 <sipa> actually, i can't find that in the code anymore :s
304 2012-01-25 01:42:53 <gmaxwell> roconnor: assming it takes me 2016*2 blocks to do it.
305 2012-01-25 01:43:01 <roconnor> ah
306 2012-01-25 01:44:09 <luke-jr> 38k
307 2012-01-25 01:46:37 <sipa> gmaxwell: can you verify based on how frequently you find a block, whether there actually is a different difficulty scale?
308 2012-01-25 01:46:46 <sipa> i can't find any trace of it in the code
309 2012-01-25 01:46:48 <gmaxwell> sipa: it's so fast it's hard to tell.
310 2012-01-25 01:47:02 <gmaxwell> It sure didn't seem like 17 seconds on average.
311 2012-01-25 01:47:04 <roconnor> sipa: the difficulty is the ratio to the difficulty of the genessis block
312 2012-01-25 01:47:47 <roconnor> er
313 2012-01-25 01:47:56 <roconnor> ratio of the target to the genessis block
314 2012-01-25 01:48:35 <sipa> that's not how it is calculated
315 2012-01-25 01:48:41 <gmaxwell> Vanitygen users are gonna love compressed public keys.. they'll get a great big speedup by searching both.
316 2012-01-25 01:49:10 <roconnor> gmaxwell: is the EC operation the slow bit?
317 2012-01-25 01:49:17 <sipa> definitely
318 2012-01-25 01:49:36 <gmaxwell> They've made it quite fast now.. but yes.
319 2012-01-25 01:49:54 <gmaxwell> ~18Maddr/s on $random ati gpu now.
320 2012-01-25 01:50:23 <gmaxwell> amusingly this suggests that we could potentially speed up chain validation by doing ecdsa on the gpu.
321 2012-01-25 01:50:23 <roconnor> gmaxwell: shh, don't tell them and just take thier buisness
322 2012-01-25 01:51:27 <roconnor> gives 50:50 odds on luke-jr getting all the way upto block 44795 :P
323 2012-01-25 01:51:47 <gmaxwell> roconnor: yea.. he's been quiet... :)
324 2012-01-25 01:52:43 <gmaxwell> doesn't look like it.
325 2012-01-25 01:52:50 <sipa> i'm quote sure the unly thing different is that difficulty starts are 0.5 for testnet
326 2012-01-25 01:52:55 <sipa> but there is no different scale
327 2012-01-25 01:53:18 <gmaxwell> roconnor: he didn't getdata for it.. so I think he didn't get that far.
328 2012-01-25 01:53:21 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: you should be done now.
329 2012-01-25 01:53:39 <roconnor> gmaxwell: he was pulling from you?
330 2012-01-25 01:53:43 <gmaxwell> yes.
331 2012-01-25 01:53:47 <doublec> with these namecoin spam transactions, I should be expecting to see them in my memory pool on a node, right?
332 2012-01-25 01:53:47 <roconnor> ah
333 2012-01-25 01:54:10 <sipa> not necessarily
334 2012-01-25 01:54:38 <doublec> I'm logging all transactions relayed to me but don't seem them on a node with lots of connections
335 2012-01-25 01:54:41 <gmaxwell> roconnor: hm. the last block he pulled from me was 44794 it looks like so I guess you were right.
336 2012-01-25 01:54:49 <roconnor> heh
337 2012-01-25 01:54:55 <roconnor> well at least we get to debug some BIP 17 code
338 2012-01-25 01:56:11 <gmaxwell> doublec: maybe no new ones are being emitted right now?
339 2012-01-25 01:56:41 <sipa> gmaxwell: actually, you could just look at getwork()'s target, and compare it with difficulty to know
340 2012-01-25 01:57:07 <doublec> gmaxwell: the blocks are still full of them
341 2012-01-25 01:57:21 <sipa> doublec: unless they are being added by a miner
342 2012-01-25 01:57:37 <doublec> right, that was my thought - or sent directly to the miner
343 2012-01-25 01:57:59 <gmaxwell> doublec: someone in #bitcoin was talking about doing this the other day, they didn't sound that sophicated.
344 2012-01-25 01:58:16 <doublec> maybe my logging is wrong
345 2012-01-25 01:58:31 <doublec> I'm seeing other peoples transactions just not the spam ones
346 2012-01-25 01:58:34 <roconnor> that's how doublec gets his nic
347 2012-01-25 01:58:36 <gmaxwell> Do they violate some normal fee rule? e.g. might they only be relayed by modified nodes?
348 2012-01-25 01:58:41 <doublec> haha
349 2012-01-25 01:58:59 <doublec> ah, good point
350 2012-01-25 01:59:14 <sipa> i'm sure he got his NIC from a regular vendor
351 2012-01-25 01:59:40 <gmaxwell> if so then (1) you might be dropping them yourself, and (2) they may only be getting forwarded in some free-relay subset of the network.
352 2012-01-25 02:00:01 <luke-jr> InvalidChainFound: invalid block=00000000036eb1b913c6 height=44758 work=13480243478959218
353 2012-01-25 02:00:02 <luke-jr> InvalidChainFound: current best=0000000019680aaa3920 height=44757 work=13480205323894932
354 2012-01-25 02:00:12 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: oh, good.
355 2012-01-25 02:00:26 <gmaxwell> so your height is 44757?
356 2012-01-25 02:00:28 <etotheipi_> so what's up with multi-sig not working?
357 2012-01-25 02:00:34 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: yes
358 2012-01-25 02:00:44 <doublec> gmaxwell: thanks for the tip, I'll check
359 2012-01-25 02:00:45 <roconnor> etotheipi_: something about relay rules and opsigcounts
360 2012-01-25 02:01:01 <etotheipi_> I seem to remember Gavin mentioning in a post somewhere, that he had to change some constant to 200
361 2012-01-25 02:01:14 <gmaxwell> okaydokie.
362 2012-01-25 02:01:17 <etotheipi_> from... 65
363 2012-01-25 02:01:23 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I'm going to mindwipe my node. one minute.
364 2012-01-25 02:01:24 <etotheipi_> ?
365 2012-01-25 02:01:54 <roconnor> height should be 44774?
366 2012-01-25 02:02:05 <roconnor> oops
367 2012-01-25 02:02:06 <roconnor> nevermind
368 2012-01-25 02:02:33 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: can you kick yours to make it reconnect to me?
369 2012-01-25 02:03:57 <roconnor> awesome; this will totally hide my mistakes :D
370 2012-01-25 02:04:04 <roconnor> I approve of this reorg.
371 2012-01-25 02:04:22 <roconnor> ... unless the transactions are reinserted :(
372 2012-01-25 02:04:51 <sipa> they should be
373 2012-01-25 02:05:14 <gmaxwell> roconnor: better come up with some double spends of that coin.
374 2012-01-25 02:05:25 <roconnor> heh
375 2012-01-25 02:05:26 <gmaxwell> you could wipe your nodes mind and then connect to me too. :)
376 2012-01-25 02:05:40 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: done I think
377 2012-01-25 02:05:49 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: yea, it's syncing now.
378 2012-01-25 02:06:26 <roconnor> does this rely on the source client rebroadcasting?
379 2012-01-25 02:06:30 <gmaxwell> stupid code is prior to the mlock fix on my end.. I might need to apply that.
380 2012-01-25 02:06:37 <sipa> roconnor: no
381 2012-01-25 02:07:08 <etotheipi_> so does this mean it may not be possible to enable multisig without forking?
382 2012-01-25 02:07:19 <sipa> etotheipi_: it's not a network rule
383 2012-01-25 02:07:26 <roconnor> etotheipi_: no, it is strickly a client relay rule
384 2012-01-25 02:07:30 <roconnor> *strictly
385 2012-01-25 02:07:38 <roconnor> the multisig transactions are valid
386 2012-01-25 02:07:43 <etotheipi_> ahh
387 2012-01-25 02:07:46 <roconnor> they just are not relayed at the moment
388 2012-01-25 02:07:47 <roconnor> IIUC
389 2012-01-25 02:07:53 <etotheipi_> so propagation may be tough, but you can still mine them
390 2012-01-25 02:07:58 <roconnor> possibly not accepted by miners
391 2012-01-25 02:08:04 <roconnor> you can mine them yourself.
392 2012-01-25 02:08:07 <roconnor> IIUC
393 2012-01-25 02:08:18 <roconnor> but really this ought to be changed
394 2012-01-25 02:08:20 <roconnor> they should be relayed
395 2012-01-25 02:08:29 <etotheipi_> understood...
396 2012-01-25 02:08:45 <roconnor> at least on testnet
397 2012-01-25 02:08:56 <etotheipi_> so next question... about 4 days ago, I tried to empty my Satoshi wallet
398 2012-01-25 02:09:10 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I'm restarting here with the mlock fixes.. should sync faster now.. (had only made it to 4000 after a couple minutes)
399 2012-01-25 02:09:14 <roconnor> sipa: can etotheipi_ add "filler" to make it pass the check?
400 2012-01-25 02:09:16 <etotheipi_> the tx was not accepted by the network, but my client believes it was valid
401 2012-01-25 02:09:49 <etotheipi_> (my client is the satoshi client, not Armory)
402 2012-01-25 02:09:49 <sipa> roconnor: i suppose, an extra drop in the scriptSig should work
403 2012-01-25 02:10:01 <sipa> *push
404 2012-01-25 02:10:02 <sipa> not drop
405 2012-01-25 02:10:21 <etotheipi_> so my Satoshi client is rebroadcasting this tx every 30 min or so...
406 2012-01-25 02:10:25 <roconnor> sipa: if that works then this check is retarded
407 2012-01-25 02:10:35 <etotheipi_> the outputs are locked, so I can't do anything with it
408 2012-01-25 02:10:43 <gmaxwell> roconnor: it's only a little retarded.
409 2012-01-25 02:10:44 <roconnor> etotheipi_: so I think if you add filler to your scripts they will be relayed
410 2012-01-25 02:10:48 <theymos> etotheipi_: Is it actually invalid?
411 2012-01-25 02:10:50 <gmaxwell> roconnor: it's a size to computation check.
412 2012-01-25 02:11:01 <etotheipi_> theymos, it must not be
413 2012-01-25 02:11:03 <roconnor> etotheipi_: though I guess they become more expensive
414 2012-01-25 02:11:05 <gmaxwell> roconnor: e.g. it prevents txn which are very small but do lots of computation.
415 2012-01-25 02:11:10 <etotheipi_> but I have the raw tx if anyone wants to check it
416 2012-01-25 02:11:20 <etotheipi_> I'm not sure why my client produced an invalid tx
417 2012-01-25 02:11:54 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: do you have a second node that you can see rejecting it?
418 2012-01-25 02:12:10 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: do you know the txn id? (maybe I've seen it and can see why I was rejecting it)
419 2012-01-25 02:12:23 <etotheipi_> well Armory is connected to the Satoshi node... and every time I clear Armory's memory pool, it comes back
420 2012-01-25 02:12:36 <etotheipi_> 6acfd032e78a94d7611b5a2b00f190bc0c970224b39817562f3b1f1a7de6c9ee
421 2012-01-25 02:12:56 <etotheipi_> so it seems the Satoshi node is doing what it's supposed to... keeps broadcasting
422 2012-01-25 02:13:01 <theymos> etotheipi_: The Satoshi client somtimes produces (and keeps) invalid transactions that are double-spending.
423 2012-01-25 02:13:22 <gmaxwell> Doesn't appear to have appeared for me.
424 2012-01-25 02:13:23 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: how goes it?
425 2012-01-25 02:13:40 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: height 8000.
426 2012-01-25 02:13:45 <roconnor> theymos: there is a bug in BBE that you might want to see before gmaxwell bulldozes it
427 2012-01-25 02:13:59 <theymos> roconnor: What is it?
428 2012-01-25 02:14:10 <gmaxwell> Has bbe been tested against deepish reorgs?
429 2012-01-25 02:14:30 <sipa> artforz caused one once
430 2012-01-25 02:14:34 <etotheipi_> theymos, gmaxwell, whoever is interested in why this might've happened: http://pastebin.com/xaQ4hGiH
431 2012-01-25 02:14:38 <sipa> iirc BBE didn't deal with it cleanly
432 2012-01-25 02:14:44 <roconnor> theymos: http://blockexplorer.com/testnet/tx/6c010586ba139c5ef64a0ab8352f16125497cc742fe10f41535b0bc99124beed#o0 says not redeemed
433 2012-01-25 02:14:49 <roconnor> theymos: but it is redeemed by
434 2012-01-25 02:14:55 <roconnor> http://blockexplorer.com/testnet/tx/087e66d6f7869d5a3c73b77ad44bb435e582067cbf2c78415403c32778b16096#o0
435 2012-01-25 02:15:17 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: is that tx id in the same order bitcoin would log it in?
436 2012-01-25 02:15:32 <etotheipi_> it's exactly how it's serialized in blk0001.dat
437 2012-01-25 02:15:35 <etotheipi_> and on the network
438 2012-01-25 02:15:54 <roconnor> gmaxwell: there was a big reorg on testnet some time ago
439 2012-01-25 02:16:00 <roconnor> gmaxwell: probably done by you
440 2012-01-25 02:16:02 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: super useful! https://blockchain.info/rejected
441 2012-01-25 02:16:29 <roconnor> oh it was artzford
442 2012-01-25 02:16:30 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, thanks! I didn't even know about it
443 2012-01-25 02:16:31 <gmaxwell> roconnor: hm? no. I've never previously intentionally reorged testnet.
444 2012-01-25 02:16:38 <theymos> roconnor: It shows up as redeemed for me.
445 2012-01-25 02:16:42 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: it has your txn
446 2012-01-25 02:16:45 <roconnor> artforz
447 2012-01-25 02:16:48 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, (oh, I misunderstood your question... I belive that ID is LE)
448 2012-01-25 02:17:15 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: or rather, it did.. google cache shows it there.
449 2012-01-25 02:17:35 <roconnor> theymos: damn cache
450 2012-01-25 02:17:38 <roconnor> theymos: sorry about that
451 2012-01-25 02:17:55 <theymos> roconnor: np. Thanks for letting me know of a possible problem.
452 2012-01-25 02:18:06 <theymos> BBE testnet should handle reorgs OK, though I haven't tested it much. Mainnet shuts down when there's more than 5 blocks replaced.
453 2012-01-25 02:18:13 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: 6acfd032e78a94d7611b5a2b00f190bc0c970224b39817562f3b1f1a7de6c9ee ConnectInputs failed 6acfd032e7
454 2012-01-25 02:18:15 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, so most likely "connectInputs failed"
455 2012-01-25 02:18:31 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: useless site! it doesn't show the imporant part of that log entry.
456 2012-01-25 02:18:48 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: 13500.
457 2012-01-25 02:19:09 <etotheipi_> I guess I just gotta check the inputs manually...
458 2012-01-25 02:19:09 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: that log entry usually shows which input it can't connect.
459 2012-01-25 02:19:19 <gmaxwell> but the site isn't showing it.
460 2012-01-25 02:19:29 <etotheipi_> or actually, I'll just wait until I dump private keys and import into Armory
461 2012-01-25 02:19:40 <etotheipi_> it does a fresh-rescan of the blockchain and I can construct a new tx
462 2012-01-25 02:19:57 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: would be nice to know what happened...
463 2012-01-25 02:20:33 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, I'm not sure how helpful it will be... I don't even remember where the inputs are from or how I might've ended up with this
464 2012-01-25 02:20:50 <etotheipi_> the only thign I know is I tried to send the exact amt of the wallet, with 0 tx fee
465 2012-01-25 02:20:59 <roconnor> etotheipi_: they are in your transaction
466 2012-01-25 02:21:06 <roconnor> you should be able to trace them by hand
467 2012-01-25 02:21:23 <roconnor> at the very least
468 2012-01-25 02:21:48 <Joric> didn't know there are so many rejected blocks, is it normal?
469 2012-01-25 02:22:03 <etotheipi_> roconnor, I knwo how to find them... I'm just not sure what to do with the information...
470 2012-01-25 02:22:25 <roconnor> etotheipi_: you can plug the inputs into blockexplorer and see which ones are redeemed
471 2012-01-25 02:23:13 <roconnor> then hand craft a new transaction ommiting those inputs
472 2012-01-25 02:23:24 <etotheipi_> roconnor, I know exactly HOW to do it
473 2012-01-25 02:23:40 <etotheipi_> I'm just not seeing the priority when in a couple weeks I can do it in like 2 sec with Armory
474 2012-01-25 02:23:48 <roconnor> sure
475 2012-01-25 02:23:53 <etotheipi_> (once the dump -priv key update is available in satoshi client)
476 2012-01-25 02:24:12 <etotheipi_> I've hand-crafted waaaay too many tx... I just don't feel like digging up my old scripts and doing it again
477 2012-01-25 02:24:46 <roconnor> heh
478 2012-01-25 02:25:08 <roconnor> etotheipi_: send me your private keys and I'll do it for you. ^_^
479 2012-01-25 02:26:05 <Joric> etotheipi_, found out bsddb ships with python 2.7 exe, so the only dep is pycrypto that could be easily replaced with aes.py
480 2012-01-25 02:26:48 <etotheipi_> Joric, if I use any of your code, I"ll probably just modify to use my existing crypto library
481 2012-01-25 02:27:08 <etotheipi_> do you know if bsddb is built into 2.6?
482 2012-01-25 02:27:23 <Joric> it doesn't really affect speed there's a few thousands sha512 iterations but it uses aes just once
483 2012-01-25 02:27:38 <etotheipi_> well, I've got both avail in Armory already
484 2012-01-25 02:27:39 <Joric> idk, i checked 2.7 it's there
485 2012-01-25 02:27:44 <etotheipi_> I use something similar in Armory
486 2012-01-25 02:29:51 <Joric> also i should use xrange here i think ) // for i in range(nDerivIterations)
487 2012-01-25 02:29:52 <etotheipi_> I don't know why I asked... I just imported bsddb in python and it worked (and I don't think I"ve installed it)
488 2012-01-25 02:30:31 <etotheipi_> so Joric, what do I have to run to pull my own private keys out of my encrypted wallet?
489 2012-01-25 02:31:00 <etotheipi_> roconnor, I just realized that since Armory goes through localhost, and localhost is the one with the invalid tx... it won't broadcast my new tx
490 2012-01-25 02:31:03 <Joric> etotheipi_, https://github.com/joric/pywallet it's pretty straightforward
491 2012-01-25 02:31:43 <roconnor> etotheipi_: you can run another bitcoin client under a new user
492 2012-01-25 02:32:00 <roconnor> or the same user in a new home bitcoin directory
493 2012-01-25 02:32:18 <etotheipi_> roconnor, yeah, or i can use that website
494 2012-01-25 02:32:26 <roconnor> oh right
495 2012-01-25 02:32:31 <roconnor> bitsend or whatever
496 2012-01-25 02:32:37 <etotheipi_> I'm just amused that the one node on the entire network that won't take my tx is the only one I'm connected to
497 2012-01-25 02:34:41 <luke-jr> [19:25:48] <luke-jr> etotheipi_: does your client support BIP 17 yet? :D
498 2012-01-25 02:35:38 <roconnor> luke-jr: etotheipi_ doesn't do validation
499 2012-01-25 02:36:45 <etotheipi_> luke-jr, no it doesn't... I gotta iron out the regular client stuff first...
500 2012-01-25 02:36:53 <luke-jr> roconnor: oh
501 2012-01-25 02:37:09 <etotheipi_> but I will have to add, at least a big chunk of it, validation when I cut the umbilical cord to the Satoshi client
502 2012-01-25 02:37:16 <Joric> oddly reference client thinks the presense of 'key' and 'ckey' simultaneously is an error
503 2012-01-25 02:38:06 <Joric> it should have better error handling imo ) why not have both encrypted and unencrypted keys
504 2012-01-25 02:38:28 <roconnor> I'll probably make a BIP 17 branch for my code sometime, since it is so easy to implement.
505 2012-01-25 02:38:38 <gmaxwell> Joric: because people who want to cause you trouble could slip a bunch of unencrypted keys in your wallet and try to trick you into using them.
506 2012-01-25 02:39:18 <roconnor> gmaxwell: encryption is not integrety
507 2012-01-25 02:39:20 <gmaxwell> (you'll notice if they delete your encrypted ones in the process)
508 2012-01-25 02:39:24 <sipa> roconnor: easier than BIP16?
509 2012-01-25 02:39:35 <roconnor> sipa: much easier IMHO
510 2012-01-25 02:39:41 <roconnor> at least changes to the core
511 2012-01-25 02:39:55 <roconnor> for BIP16 I'll have to change my script parser.
512 2012-01-25 02:40:08 <etotheipi_> I guess I should start looking at BIP 0017
513 2012-01-25 02:40:11 <sipa> roconnor: how so?
514 2012-01-25 02:40:42 <roconnor> sipa: well, you want to parse first using the template, and if it suceeds then use that, otherwise parse using the old method
515 2012-01-25 02:40:51 <roconnor> then you need to branch on script eval depending on the parse
516 2012-01-25 02:41:09 <roconnor> I mean, maybe I haven't though it through well enough yet.
517 2012-01-25 02:41:37 <etotheipi_> oh sweet, BIP 0017 uses OP_CS
518 2012-01-25 02:41:47 <roconnor> BIP17 is a small change to the scriptMonad and implementing a new opcode
519 2012-01-25 02:42:12 <sipa> just parse scriptPubKey and scriptSig, then pattern match on scriptPubKey, if so, parse scriptSig's last instruction's data, and run that, otherwise run both scriptSig and scriptPubKey
520 2012-01-25 02:42:37 <sipa> i haven't seen that part of your code though, so i could be wrong :)
521 2012-01-25 02:42:57 <roconnor> sipa: you have to disassemble the sigscript into the code and stack pushes
522 2012-01-25 02:43:24 <roconnor> rather than executing the stack pushes I'd just set up the stack literally
523 2012-01-25 02:43:31 <sipa> right, true
524 2012-01-25 02:43:55 <roconnor> there is relatively a lot more code to write
525 2012-01-25 02:44:03 <roconnor> to do it properly
526 2012-01-25 02:44:17 <roconnor> I don't mean this is a bad thing
527 2012-01-25 02:44:25 <sipa> i guess it depends a lot on how you've structured your implementation
528 2012-01-25 02:44:45 <roconnor> BIP 16 is probably easier to implement if you do a half-assed job :)
529 2012-01-25 02:45:08 <roconnor> I mean I could actually execute the stack pushes
530 2012-01-25 02:45:19 <roconnor> so I don't have to write the stack serialization code
531 2012-01-25 02:45:52 <roconnor> but that would be bad code
532 2012-01-25 02:46:18 <roconnor> If you are going to have an invarient that all the code are stack pushes, then you might as well take advantage of it.
533 2012-01-25 02:46:59 <roconnor> The flip side of BIP16 is you get lots of guarentees
534 2012-01-25 02:48:17 <roconnor> and no more garbage in scriptsigs like in http://blockexplorer.com/testnet/tx/087e66d6f7869d5a3c73b77ad44bb435e582067cbf2c78415403c32778b16096#o0
535 2012-01-25 02:51:41 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: okay, I've been synced a bit..
536 2012-01-25 02:52:29 <gmaxwell> commencing unthievery.
537 2012-01-25 02:53:36 <roconnor> heh
538 2012-01-25 02:53:46 <roconnor> gmaxwell is the testnet police
539 2012-01-25 02:54:12 <gmaxwell> zomg 50% attack!
540 2012-01-25 02:54:42 <roconnor> I'm on the phone with the New York Times right now.
541 2012-01-25 02:54:54 <roconnor> telling them that bitcoin is breaking right NOW!
542 2012-01-25 02:54:56 <Joric> i'm the testnet-in-a-box police it's handy to have 0.25 difficulty
543 2012-01-25 02:55:04 <gmaxwell> [2012-01-24 22:54:53] Rejected 00000000.18cabadd.25b08253 BLOCK! GPU 4 thread 4
544 2012-01-25 02:55:09 <gmaxwell> @#!?
545 2012-01-25 02:55:27 <gmaxwell> How the heck does that happen?
546 2012-01-25 02:55:40 <gmaxwell> IM THE ONLY MINER IN THE UNIVERSE
547 2012-01-25 02:55:51 <roconnor> gmaxwell: you are double spending yourself!
548 2012-01-25 02:56:26 <gmaxwell> roconnor: nah, block solutions rejected because they're stale. solving so fast I'm colliding myself. :-/
549 2012-01-25 02:56:30 <gmaxwell> But it's not even that fast!
550 2012-01-25 02:56:56 <dwon> I just mined a testnet block a few minutes ago. Did I break something?
551 2012-01-25 02:57:07 <gmaxwell> dwon: no you didn't.
552 2012-01-25 02:57:35 <roconnor> dwon: but spend it while you can
553 2012-01-25 02:57:41 <gmaxwell> you may think you did... :)
554 2012-01-25 02:57:43 <gmaxwell> haha.
555 2012-01-25 02:58:07 <dwon> heh. what's your hash rate?
556 2012-01-25 02:58:08 <Diablo-D3> ?
557 2012-01-25 02:58:29 <gmaxwell> wtf man.. this cgminer stuff... kinda scarry.
558 2012-01-25 02:58:35 <gmaxwell> (5s):1991.2 (avg):1969.5 Mh/s | Q:328 A:14 R:8 HW:0 E:4% U:2.14/m
559 2012-01-25 02:59:25 <Diablo-D3> did you bork it?
560 2012-01-25 02:59:30 <gmaxwell> buncha stales .. and I'm the only miner in the universe.
561 2012-01-25 02:59:38 <Diablo-D3> wtf are you doing?
562 2012-01-25 02:59:46 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: reorging testnet.
563 2012-01-25 03:00:16 <roconnor> Diablo-D3: gmaxwell is doing opening a can of justice on testnet's ass
564 2012-01-25 03:00:43 <sipa> He is smiting it
565 2012-01-25 03:00:49 <gmaxwell> I'm half wayish.
566 2012-01-25 03:01:12 <gmaxwell> cutting down the max scan time solved my stupid orphans.
567 2012-01-25 03:06:13 <gmaxwell> "blocks" : 44792,
568 2012-01-25 03:06:22 <gmaxwell> everyone ready to watch your testnet logs soon?
569 2012-01-25 03:06:36 <gmaxwell> "blocks" : 44795,
570 2012-01-25 03:06:49 <roconnor> watching
571 2012-01-25 03:07:09 <gmaxwell> Okay, I'm tied.
572 2012-01-25 03:07:15 <gmaxwell> one ahead...
573 2012-01-25 03:07:22 <gmaxwell> "blocks" : 44799,
574 2012-01-25 03:07:41 <gmaxwell> k.. time for fireworks.
575 2012-01-25 03:07:56 <roconnor> dwon: quick mine 4 blocks
576 2012-01-25 03:08:13 <roconnor> IRC got join
577 2012-01-25 03:08:26 <roconnor> DelayedRepaint
578 2012-01-25 03:08:32 <gmaxwell> Yall ready?
579 2012-01-25 03:08:43 <roconnor> ooh
580 2012-01-25 03:08:53 <sipa> REORGANIZE
581 2012-01-25 03:08:54 <sipa> done
582 2012-01-25 03:08:57 <sipa> 44800
583 2012-01-25 03:09:46 <gmaxwell> overshot a bit there...
584 2012-01-25 03:10:36 <gmaxwell> is bbe broken?
585 2012-01-25 03:11:03 <Mad7Scientist> I'm against encrypting the wallet
586 2012-01-25 03:11:09 <Mad7Scientist> I just think everyone should have a good backup
587 2012-01-25 03:11:15 <gmaxwell> Mad7Scientist: ... then don't?
588 2012-01-25 03:11:23 <Mad7Scientist> and if your laptop is stolen then immediately move all coins to a new wallet
589 2012-01-25 03:11:52 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: okay... so are your transactions all hunky dunky now?
590 2012-01-25 03:11:53 <roconnor> Mad7Scientist: and if your laptop is stolen and returned?
591 2012-01-25 03:12:20 <roconnor> gmaxwell: 50:50 that the transactions were not spent and how the stealer is at work
592 2012-01-25 03:12:27 <Mad7Scientist> it makes no differenc if the wallet is encrypted or not in that case
593 2012-01-25 03:12:35 <Mad7Scientist> they could just as easily install spyware
594 2012-01-25 03:12:46 <roconnor> Mad7Scientist: ya, you are probably right
595 2012-01-25 03:13:16 <gmaxwell> Mad7Scientist: is your laptop chained to your wrist?
596 2012-01-25 03:13:28 <gmaxwell> roconnor: I got transactions from him when the mining was going on.
597 2012-01-25 03:15:10 <gmaxwell> anyone have a use for 2350 TNBTC?
598 2012-01-25 03:16:33 <gmaxwell> yea, I think it's busted.
599 2012-01-25 03:16:42 <sipa> oh no, you killed bbe
600 2012-01-25 03:17:11 <gmaxwell> oh there it goes!
601 2012-01-25 03:17:19 <gmaxwell> hahaha!
602 2012-01-25 03:17:24 <gmaxwell> 1 1 1 1 1 ..
603 2012-01-25 03:17:30 <Mad7Scientist> so I got bitcoin-qt compiled with -g3 and everything and now the I/O lockup when mining thing isn't happening now
604 2012-01-25 03:18:07 <gmaxwell> I guess I started at 44757
605 2012-01-25 03:18:29 <sipa> anyone know what the reasoning is behind deprioritizing connections to non-standard ports?
606 2012-01-25 03:19:10 <gmaxwell> sipa: DOS attack.
607 2012-01-25 03:19:16 <sipa> explain?
608 2012-01-25 03:19:41 <gmaxwell> I announce yourhost:port and then a bunch of bitcoin nodes are connecting to it and yabbering some unwelcome noise before hanging up.
609 2012-01-25 03:19:53 <gmaxwell> I think BBE is kinda broken?
610 2012-01-25 03:21:30 <gmaxwell> I think its showing the old block content, not the ones I overwrote.
611 2012-01-25 03:21:37 <roconnor> I think so too
612 2012-01-25 03:21:45 <k9quaint> I think encrypting the wallet makes a difference in the stolen laptop scenario
613 2012-01-25 03:22:52 <gmaxwell> roconnor: yea, it revised the last 19 but none before that
614 2012-01-25 03:23:03 <gmaxwell> This is pretty awesome: https://blockexplorer.com/testnet/block/000000001c1dc1509cb24319ad048bc7089c9da4c3401050579c0044d176c20b
615 2012-01-25 03:23:04 <etotheipi_> as long as there is key-stretching, and/or a ton of entropy in the passphrase
616 2012-01-25 03:23:09 <gmaxwell> click previous block.
617 2012-01-25 03:23:24 <etotheipi_> unfortunately, so many users are going to pick ridiculously simple encryption passphrases,
618 2012-01-25 03:23:29 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: wtf?
619 2012-01-25 03:23:54 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: alas. they will. reference client uses 100ms of whatever the user's cpu is...
620 2012-01-25 03:24:11 <k9quaint> etotheipi_: users can also be fooled into transferring BTC directly to scammers and thieves with no need to steal the laptop
621 2012-01-25 03:24:20 <gmaxwell> (minimum of 25k iterations, which is 100ms of some fairly slow machine)
622 2012-01-25 03:24:42 <etotheipi_> I figured I would customize it in Armory, so if feel like using such a ludicrous passphrase, you can make it take an hour to unlock :)
623 2012-01-25 03:25:01 <gmaxwell> 100ms is enough that an okay password should survive. It's not enough to save "fuckyou" or "Password!" or "$bitcoin$"
624 2012-01-25 03:25:13 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: BBE doesn't handle reorgs right at all.
625 2012-01-25 03:25:33 <roconnor> etotheipi_: you use scrypt?
626 2012-01-25 03:25:34 <k9quaint> I use the full text of the first 7 books of the Illiad as my passphrase
627 2012-01-25 03:25:53 <etotheipi_> roconnor, I use an algorithm in the same paper as scrypt
628 2012-01-25 03:25:59 <roconnor> good enough
629 2012-01-25 03:26:01 <etotheipi_> it has the same benefits, but it's a bit simpler to implement
630 2012-01-25 03:26:15 <k9quaint> in fact, I can give it out and still be secure as no human on earth can successfully string together that many asterisks without a typo
631 2012-01-25 03:26:16 <etotheipi_> it's just not quite as flexible
632 2012-01-25 03:26:17 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: scrypt itself I feel pretty so so about.
633 2012-01-25 03:26:36 <etotheipi_> (ROMix is what it's called)
634 2012-01-25 03:26:37 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: odd, I remember the author spending a ton of time reworking reorgs to work up to a certain number of blocks (like 8 or something)
635 2012-01-25 03:26:39 <sipa> gmaxwell: how do you mean?
636 2012-01-25 03:27:09 <etotheipi_> I just want to get unlocking above 1 MB/thread, effectively, completely disarming any chance of GPUs helping out
637 2012-01-25 03:27:21 <sipa> scrypt looks like an extremely well-researched solution to the problem they try to tackle
638 2012-01-25 03:27:42 <gmaxwell> sipa: I'm a big fan of the memory hard idea. the implementation choices in scrypt seemes a little random.
639 2012-01-25 03:27:56 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, that's why I liked ROMix... it's very pure
640 2012-01-25 03:28:08 <etotheipi_> just sha512 and some XOR ops
641 2012-01-25 03:28:18 <gmaxwell> the ltc people have now managed something like 3x speedup from their initial version, about half from algebraic simplifications to the hash.
642 2012-01-25 03:28:48 <gmaxwell> (the other half from good old ASM elbow greese)
643 2012-01-25 03:29:28 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: you're using 1MB? Good. some of the upcoming gpu like manycore devices have a lot more cache then the gpus.
644 2012-01-25 03:29:42 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, it actually uses 32 MB on my system
645 2012-01-25 03:29:56 <etotheipi_> it uses the highest value it can (up to the 32 MB) in the time you specify
646 2012-01-25 03:29:59 <gmaxwell> though.. you do know what happens when you roll your own crypto. :)
647 2012-01-25 03:30:06 <etotheipi_> it's not rolled
648 2012-01-25 03:30:12 <etotheipi_> it's in published literature
649 2012-01-25 03:30:17 <gmaxwell> "I use -funroll-loops!"
650 2012-01-25 03:30:27 <etotheipi_> :)
651 2012-01-25 03:30:41 <phantomcircuit> FUN ROLL LOOPS ARE DELICIOUS
652 2012-01-25 03:31:01 <phantomcircuit> everytime i read that
653 2012-01-25 03:31:03 <etotheipi_> and I read the paper... apparently ROMix is provably memory-hard, where scrypt "has nice properties, but they can't prove it"
654 2012-01-25 03:31:15 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: I found a chinese company that will make you custom cereal boxes with whatever yo uwant.
655 2012-01-25 03:31:34 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, omg yes
656 2012-01-25 03:31:35 <etotheipi_> (I don't mean to discredit scrypt... it's great... I just didn't feel it necessary to integrate all these extra crypto modules)
657 2012-01-25 03:31:35 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: I wanted to get a box of -funroll-loops but they had a rather large minimum order
658 2012-01-25 03:31:36 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: BBE sees none
659 2012-01-25 03:31:46 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: bbe is totally busted by this
660 2012-01-25 03:31:58 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: https://blockexplorer.com/testnet/block/000000001c1dc1509cb24319ad048bc7089c9da4c3401050579c0044d176c20b < click previous block
661 2012-01-25 03:32:41 <sipa> etotheipi_: scrypt uses ROMix
662 2012-01-25 03:33:03 <gmaxwell> I'd use scrypt over $homegrown but ISTM they got the right core idea, and a good implementation of that.. then they waved their arms randomly around the rest. But at least it's published.
663 2012-01-25 03:33:04 <etotheipi_> scrypt I thought was an extension of ROMix
664 2012-01-25 03:33:04 <sipa> it extends it with other operation to compensate for the fact that memory-operations take finite time
665 2012-01-25 03:33:59 <etotheipi_> right... ROMix is much more flexible in terms of balancing compute and mem-ops... but I didn't need that, and ROMix is very simple, and proven to be memory-hard... I'm not too concerned about it
666 2012-01-25 03:34:11 <gmaxwell> I'm kinda surprised that they didn't manage to wedge ECOH in there too. ;)
667 2012-01-25 03:34:20 <etotheipi_> err... scrypt is much more flexible
668 2012-01-25 03:36:10 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: :/
669 2012-01-25 03:36:38 <luke-jr> I'm stuck in safe mode -.-
670 2012-01-25 03:37:46 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, LOL
671 2012-01-25 03:38:40 <luke-jr> how do I get out
672 2012-01-25 03:38:48 <Joric> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61044.0 a beautiful mind
673 2012-01-25 03:39:21 <Joric> also lier there's no moneys :( https://bitcointools.appspot.com/?k=deadbeef
674 2012-01-25 03:40:05 <phantomcircuit> Joric, stupidity is not something i believe anybody is particularly worried about protecting...
675 2012-01-25 03:40:59 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, what's the minimum order :)
676 2012-01-25 03:43:52 <dwon> Can we also add code to /bin/rm to prevent you from deleting ~/.ssh/id_rsa ?
677 2012-01-25 03:45:08 <roconnor> sipa: my experimental transactions are gone
678 2012-01-25 03:46:54 <Joric> 0xfacefeed doesn't have any btc on it aswell
679 2012-01-25 03:53:25 <k9quaint> I thought ROMix was only proven to be sequential memory hard with access to a true random oracle
680 2012-01-25 03:53:26 <luke-jr> dwon: I alias'd 'rm' to 'echo NO U'
681 2012-01-25 03:53:38 <dwon> luke-jr: heh
682 2012-01-25 03:53:44 <luke-jr> so every time I habitually try to rm something without thinking, it stops me
683 2012-01-25 03:53:49 <luke-jr> and I have to remember to type out the /bin/
684 2012-01-25 03:53:58 <etotheipi_> k9quaint, where does the random oracle come in? it's a deterministic algorithm
685 2012-01-25 03:54:53 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: sure you didn't re-mine some invalid txn? :P
686 2012-01-25 03:55:04 <dwon> etotheipi_: hash functions are often referred to as "random oracles". They're not quite the same thing, but almost.
687 2012-01-25 03:55:17 <CIA-2> bitcoin: ckolivas * r312724cea1c0 cgminer/adl.c: Adjust fan speed gently while in the optimal range when temperature is drifting to minimise overshoot in either direction. http://tinyurl.com/7aoadso
688 2012-01-25 03:55:28 <dwon> etotheipi_: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_oracle
689 2012-01-25 03:55:40 <etotheipi_> oh
690 2012-01-25 03:56:10 <etotheipi_> well the entirety of Bitcoin relies on SHA having that property (or at least being "close enough")
691 2012-01-25 03:57:20 <k9quaint> um, SHA is not a random oracle
692 2012-01-25 03:57:37 <k9quaint> if you give me a second, I can dig up the attack as proof
693 2012-01-25 03:57:40 <luke-jr> k9quaint: it is when you give it random input
694 2012-01-25 03:58:00 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I couldn't have, I restarted and nuked my chain if I did I'd have to have gotten them from you.
695 2012-01-25 03:58:13 <k9quaint> luke-jr: of course :P
696 2012-01-25 03:58:14 <etotheipi_> k9quaint, the point is, it's "randomness" is good enough for the entire security model of bitcoin
697 2012-01-25 03:58:17 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: hmm
698 2012-01-25 03:58:29 <dwon> luke-jr: Nope. All Merkle???Damg??rd hash functions are vulnerable to length-extension attacks.
699 2012-01-25 03:58:31 <gmaxwell> k9quaint: No MD hash is.. but it's kind of boring.
700 2012-01-25 03:58:43 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: sure you don't want to try next-test with BIP17 on your end? :P
701 2012-01-25 03:59:12 <gmaxwell> (what dwon said)
702 2012-01-25 03:59:19 <dwon> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle%E2%80%93Damg%C3%A5rd_construction#Security_characteristics
703 2012-01-25 03:59:21 <gmaxwell> dwon: do your miss your testnet btc yet?
704 2012-01-25 03:59:53 <dwon> gmaxwell: "block 1b0b884af584bbbd, accepted" <-- I got some more
705 2012-01-25 04:00:05 <gmaxwell> dwon: I can fix that too!
706 2012-01-25 04:00:07 <roconnor> wtf
707 2012-01-25 04:00:09 <roconnor> http://blockexplorer.com/testnet/block/000000000b36050cf688bf13a934eec2eb7d385c19cedeb8783deeaeb2092ea7
708 2012-01-25 04:00:12 <dwon> gmaxwell: :P
709 2012-01-25 04:00:17 <dwon> gmaxwell: you'll break BBE again
710 2012-01-25 04:00:33 <gmaxwell> roconnor: it's all busted.
711 2012-01-25 04:00:50 <luke-jr> so how do I get out of safe mode?
712 2012-01-25 04:00:53 <roconnor> gmaxwell: is it legal for dupicate transactions to be in blocks?
713 2012-01-25 04:00:56 <gmaxwell> So good point here, we can't count on BBE to help us troubleshoot attacks on bitcoin, it can't even handle boring reorgs right.
714 2012-01-25 04:01:13 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: neither can my client apparently
715 2012-01-25 04:01:13 <roconnor> duplicate
716 2012-01-25 04:01:19 <gmaxwell> roconnor: it's not a duplicate.. bbe is confused.
717 2012-01-25 04:01:24 <k9quaint> dwon: so if you take a true random oracle and hash its output using SHA, its vulnerable to an attack?
718 2012-01-25 04:01:25 <roconnor> okay
719 2012-01-25 04:01:37 <doublec> does abe handle it better?
720 2012-01-25 04:02:11 <luke-jr> I'm still at block 44760
721 2012-01-25 04:02:28 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: hah. uh oh!
722 2012-01-25 04:02:53 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I _started_ at 44758 .. so you got some of mine but then got stuck?
723 2012-01-25 04:03:11 <gmaxwell> roconnor: mainnet sees 1/2 deep splits from time to time.
724 2012-01-25 04:03:32 <roconnor> gmaxwell: maybe you minded a BIP17 illegal transaction
725 2012-01-25 04:03:33 <gmaxwell> so I wonder why they haven't broken BBE perhaps no conflicting txn in them.
726 2012-01-25 04:03:36 <roconnor> *mined
727 2012-01-25 04:03:41 <luke-jr> InvalidChainFound: invalid block=000000001b0b884af584 height=44805 work=13482036766980660
728 2012-01-25 04:03:42 <luke-jr> InvalidChainFound: current best=00000000047ded1a1b6d height=44760 work=13480319789087790
729 2012-01-25 04:03:45 <gmaxwell> roconnor: I don't know how I could have. I was only connected to luke.
730 2012-01-25 04:04:05 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: can you dump your 44761?
731 2012-01-25 04:04:06 <gmaxwell> roconnor: and I'd restarted, so I had no memory.
732 2012-01-25 04:04:18 <roconnor> luke-jr had memory
733 2012-01-25 04:04:27 <roconnor> maybe he relayed BIP 17 illegal blocks
734 2012-01-25 04:04:28 <gmaxwell> roconnor: but he shouldn't have relayed bad txn..
735 2012-01-25 04:04:34 <luke-jr> :/
736 2012-01-25 04:04:55 <gmaxwell> he didn't have any illegal blocks.
737 2012-01-25 04:04:55 <roconnor> explains the symptoms
738 2012-01-25 04:05:09 <roconnor> gmaxwell: he may have had orphan transactions
739 2012-01-25 04:05:16 <gmaxwell> the sequence was, he erased his chain and connected to me. (restarting in the process)
740 2012-01-25 04:05:27 <gmaxwell> he resynced until the invalid point and stopped.
741 2012-01-25 04:05:31 <roconnor> after all, the statoshi client keeps illegal transactions
742 2012-01-25 04:05:37 <gmaxwell> Then I shut down and erased my chain.
743 2012-01-25 04:05:38 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: you used -connect?
744 2012-01-25 04:05:54 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: yes, and I checked I was only connected to you. my listen only accepts connections from you too
745 2012-01-25 04:05:57 <gmaxwell> roconnor: in memory
746 2012-01-25 04:06:01 <roconnor> gmaxwell: right you sent the illegal transactions to him
747 2012-01-25 04:06:04 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: can you dump your 44761?
748 2012-01-25 04:06:16 <gmaxwell> roconnor: yes, he should have not accepted them.
749 2012-01-25 04:06:17 <roconnor> gmaxwell: he stashed them because the satoshi client is retarded
750 2012-01-25 04:06:25 <roconnor> and then sent them back to you
751 2012-01-25 04:06:27 <roconnor> which you accepted
752 2012-01-25 04:06:46 <gmaxwell> roconnor: it only stashes its own txn in the wallet, non-self txn are only stored in memory.
753 2012-01-25 04:06:50 <gmaxwell> we need a whiteboard.
754 2012-01-25 04:06:55 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: how?
755 2012-01-25 04:07:01 <roconnor> gmaxwell: the statoshi cleient stashes illegal transactions
756 2012-01-25 04:07:04 <etotheipi_> out of random curiosity, I wonder what percentage of nodes need to fix multi-sig relay logic in order for the network to handle them "normally"...
757 2012-01-25 04:07:07 <gmaxwell> roconnor: in memory!
758 2012-01-25 04:07:17 <roconnor> gmaxwell: did luke-jr shut down before reconnecting to you?
759 2012-01-25 04:07:18 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: getblockhash 44761
760 2012-01-25 04:07:21 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: getblock <hash>
761 2012-01-25 04:07:33 <luke-jr> roconnor: I think so
762 2012-01-25 04:07:35 <gmaxwell> roconnor: yes! he had to to wipe the blocks
763 2012-01-25 04:07:40 <roconnor> oh
764 2012-01-25 04:07:42 <etotheipi_> I guess it depends mostly on the avg number of connections per node.... though I would guess you'd only need like 10% to reach am iner
765 2012-01-25 04:07:44 <roconnor> well there goes that theory
766 2012-01-25 04:07:49 <gmaxwell> 00000000140dc9cc6c849eab9652c3ad64b3e8c609f3bf69098a1ed4c15509b1
767 2012-01-25 04:07:56 <roconnor> luke-jr: maybe you are the one stealing your coins?
768 2012-01-25 04:07:58 <roconnor> :P
769 2012-01-25 04:08:01 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: getblock 00000000140dc9cc6c849eab9652c3ad64b3e8c609f3bf69098a1ed4c15509b1
770 2012-01-25 04:08:08 <gmaxwell> "tx" : [
771 2012-01-25 04:08:10 <gmaxwell> "22a837d2d78b4e592b3d68d4144ce7b0290aa83cb7906ef6f15fb2caae439e3e"
772 2012-01-25 04:08:11 <luke-jr> &
773 2012-01-25 04:08:19 <gmaxwell> (thats it)
774 2012-01-25 04:08:36 <luke-jr> gettransaction <all of those>
775 2012-01-25 04:08:37 <gmaxwell> looking
776 2012-01-25 04:08:48 <gmaxwell> first is the coinbase.
777 2012-01-25 04:09:11 <gmaxwell> looks like gettransaction only works on my transactions. :(
778 2012-01-25 04:09:23 <luke-jr> x.x
779 2012-01-25 04:09:40 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: feel free to fix that and send me a patch.
780 2012-01-25 04:11:12 <gmaxwell> you might try bbe ..
781 2012-01-25 04:11:44 <gmaxwell> yea... they are there.
782 2012-01-25 04:12:13 <roconnor> luke-jr: does your log say which transaction you rejected in the block?
783 2012-01-25 04:12:21 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: not that one
784 2012-01-25 04:12:25 <gmaxwell> doesn't have f1e
785 2012-01-25 04:12:41 <gmaxwell> or 22a
786 2012-01-25 04:12:54 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: also, those stupid error messages should log which txn triggered them.
787 2012-01-25 04:12:55 <luke-jr> ERROR: ConnectInputs() : f1e0cadf56 VerifySignature failed
788 2012-01-25 04:13:14 <sipa> gmaxwell: a gettransaction that works for all transactions it quite easy...
789 2012-01-25 04:13:24 <sipa> i wonder why it doesn't exist
790 2012-01-25 04:13:49 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: (and also what peer it got them from, I think all of our "sign of bad deeds" log entries should log ips.)
791 2012-01-25 04:13:53 <roconnor> AcceptToMemoryPool(): accepted f1e0cadf56
792 2012-01-25 04:13:54 <roconnor> SetBestChain: new best=000000000348fa7591af height=44797 work=13481731526466372
793 2012-01-25 04:13:56 <roconnor> MainFrameRepaint
794 2012-01-25 04:14:34 <roconnor> oh that was the reorg
795 2012-01-25 04:15:05 <gmaxwell> hmph.
796 2012-01-25 04:15:13 <gmaxwell> I think luke might have given me it in the form of a bad block!
797 2012-01-25 04:15:24 <gmaxwell> lemme post my debug.log
798 2012-01-25 04:15:24 <luke-jr> ?
799 2012-01-25 04:16:43 <gmaxwell> http://people.xiph.org/~greg/testnet.debug.txt
800 2012-01-25 04:19:31 <gmaxwell> so... I boggle. Why did I askfor tx f1e0cadf564cd56d9705 0
801 2012-01-25 04:19:36 <gmaxwell> I was only connected to luke at the time.
802 2012-01-25 04:19:45 <gmaxwell> He shouldn't have forwarded that txn because it's invalid to him.
803 2012-01-25 04:20:02 <roconnor> gmaxwell: maybe you are the coin stealer
804 2012-01-25 04:20:15 <luke-jr> lol
805 2012-01-25 04:20:47 <gmaxwell> It didn't happen until I'd solved a couple blocks...
806 2012-01-25 04:20:56 <k9quaint> and all this time we thought it was Eleutheria that was stealing our coins
807 2012-01-25 04:21:06 <k9quaint> turns out it was gmaxwell the whole time
808 2012-01-25 04:21:11 <luke-jr> f1e0cadf56 is one of my earlier attempts :O
809 2012-01-25 04:21:12 <roconnor> gmaxwell: but you asked for it from luke-jr, and he gave it to you
810 2012-01-25 04:21:13 <gmaxwell> so luke and I had done those restarts.. I synced up.. sat for many minutes.. mined two blocks.. and the evil txn just ..emerged. :)
811 2012-01-25 04:21:35 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: well shit! thats why, it was in your wallet, and it WILL relay it even if it thinks its invalid.
812 2012-01-25 04:21:37 <luke-jr> maybe my wallet is corrupt -.-
813 2012-01-25 04:21:58 <luke-jr> any way to purge txn history in my wallet?
814 2012-01-25 04:22:00 <luke-jr> will -rescan help
815 2012-01-25 04:22:02 <luke-jr> ?
816 2012-01-25 04:22:08 <gmaxwell> roconnor: it doesn't log the advertisement.
817 2012-01-25 04:22:17 <roconnor> ya, strange
818 2012-01-25 04:22:26 <roconnor> though your -debug flag is off
819 2012-01-25 04:22:31 <sipa> luke-jr: -rescan will only add/update things in your wallet, not delete
820 2012-01-25 04:22:36 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: so YOU were the stealer all along!
821 2012-01-25 04:22:52 <luke-jr> it's not a theft tho
822 2012-01-25 04:23:15 <gmaxwell> roconnor: git diff tells me I'm not the stealer.
823 2012-01-25 04:23:27 <luke-jr> sipa: how can I delete?
824 2012-01-25 04:23:31 <roconnor> gmaxwell: clearly someone patched git as well
825 2012-01-25 04:23:35 <sipa> luke-jr: not...
826 2012-01-25 04:23:40 <luke-jr> -.-
827 2012-01-25 04:24:05 <sipa> once i update rejectedtx, you'll be able to delete transactions from your wallet
828 2012-01-25 04:24:40 <sipa> what is this "coin stealer", actually?
829 2012-01-25 04:25:09 <CIA-2> bitcoin: ckolivas * rc009c6cd7403 cgminer/adl.c: Don't try to explicitly drift to exactly the target temperature, aim for just below it. http://tinyurl.com/7n5alnr
830 2012-01-25 04:25:13 <roconnor> sipa: there appears to be a bot that takes BIP 17 transactions and steals them
831 2012-01-25 04:25:15 <gmaxwell> sipa: I don't think I can show you now that BBE is a hunk of slag.
832 2012-01-25 04:25:32 <gmaxwell> sipa: or probably any TXN that requires nothing to satisfy it.
833 2012-01-25 04:25:33 <roconnor> sipa: by using the sigScript OP_1
834 2012-01-25 04:26:24 <luke-jr> there's no stray OP_NOP2s on mainnet, right?
835 2012-01-25 04:28:33 <dwon> So why wouldn't I see the 50 generated BTC when I run listaccounts 0 ?
836 2012-01-25 04:29:39 <gmaxwell> dwon: because its not mature yet, which isn't the same as not confirmed.
837 2012-01-25 04:29:58 <dwon> even when I set minconf=0 ?
838 2012-01-25 04:30:11 <gmaxwell> Correct. minconf isn't relevant here.
839 2012-01-25 04:30:20 <roconnor> dwon: mined transactions always require at least 100 confirmations before they are spendable
840 2012-01-25 04:30:25 <gmaxwell> There is a _network rule_ that generated coin is unspendable for 100 blocks.
841 2012-01-25 04:30:44 <gmaxwell> (the client imposes a somewhat higher standard than the network rule)
842 2012-01-25 04:30:54 <gmaxwell> (of 120)
843 2012-01-25 04:31:00 <dwon> oh, wow
844 2012-01-25 04:31:21 <sipa> and the client completely hides it before it reaches depth 1
845 2012-01-25 04:31:46 <sipa> because otherwise people complain too much about disappearing blocks, in the case of a stale ;)
846 2012-01-25 04:32:09 <gmaxwell> the maturity check stuff is important. Normal transactions can get remined if they get orphaned, so long as someone wasn't being evil and respending.
847 2012-01-25 04:32:21 <dwon> yeah, makes sense. ^^^ I was just going to speculate that.
848 2012-01-25 04:32:35 <gmaxwell> But block can't be replaced.. and anything based on them vanishes forever to never return even if there was no evil.
849 2012-01-25 04:33:26 <dwon> Also, a related question: When I mined those coins (using poclbm pointed directly at my bitcoind rpc port) the *address* still only showed up in my keypool, rather than in any account. I had to use setaccount. Is that normal?
850 2012-01-25 04:33:55 <gmaxwell> generated txn don't show up in accounts limitation in the software.
851 2012-01-25 04:34:18 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, what's the easiest way to set up one of my miners to mine on testnet?
852 2012-01-25 04:34:32 <etotheipi_> do you have a server I can connect one of my GPUs to?
853 2012-01-25 04:35:08 <sipa> etotheipi_: just point them to a bitcoind?
854 2012-01-25 04:35:41 <etotheipi_> do I have to set up RPC stuff?
855 2012-01-25 04:35:56 <sipa> well, you need an rpc user and password
856 2012-01-25 04:36:10 <sipa> but without those you can't run bitcoind
857 2012-01-25 04:36:51 <etotheipi_> andi t's gotta be bitcoind?
858 2012-01-25 04:36:56 <sipa> no
859 2012-01-25 04:37:06 <sipa> bitcoin-qt in -server mode will work as well
860 2012-01-25 04:37:10 <sipa> you never used an RPC call?
861 2012-01-25 04:37:30 <etotheipi_> nope... I never needed it
862 2012-01-25 04:37:39 <gmaxwell> wow, you're missing out. bitcoin cli is nice.
863 2012-01-25 04:38:04 <etotheipi_> once I start doing more networking stuff, I'm sure I'll figure it out
864 2012-01-25 04:38:06 <gmaxwell> my testnet setup is ~/src/bitcoin/src/bitcoind -testnet -rpcport=9992 --datadir=/tmp/ -rpcallowip=192.168.16.* -rpcuser=abcabc -rpcpassword=32413123421 -gen=0 -daemon
865 2012-01-25 04:38:24 <gmaxwell> (you can through those params in the conf of course)
866 2012-01-25 04:38:53 <gmaxwell> to use the rpc interface even if you don't have a conf... ~/src/bitcoin/src/bitcoind -testnet -rpcport=9992 --datadir=/tmp/ -rpcallowip=192.168.16.* -rpcuser=abcabc -rpcpassword=32413123421 help
867 2012-01-25 04:39:52 <gmaxwell> sipa: the day I first wrote a 2000 line C program and it compiled and ran on the first time I felt I finally knew C.
868 2012-01-25 04:40:17 <gmaxwell> (I didn't. But hey)
869 2012-01-25 04:40:34 <k9quaint> i was gonna say, that just makes you pedantic :P
870 2012-01-25 04:41:26 <gmaxwell> I think I can't got more than 10 lines without pissing off the C++ compiler.
871 2012-01-25 04:41:30 <gmaxwell> s/got/go/
872 2012-01-25 04:41:57 <sipa> i don't think i've ever written more than 20 lines of C code without getting a compiler error
873 2012-01-25 04:44:04 <gmaxwell> I should setup some wrapper to log the ones I get.
874 2012-01-25 04:44:10 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, is there anything I need to do with the miner itself? do I just point it to that IP and port, and use the same rpc pass/user? any testnet flags or anything?
875 2012-01-25 04:44:33 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: thats it, aim and fire. no flags or anything.
876 2012-01-25 04:45:10 <CIA-2> bitcoin: ckolivas * r4995b7c241fa cgminer/adl.c: On dual GPUs, only autotune the shared fan once per gpu autotune cycle. http://tinyurl.com/799z3qc
877 2012-01-25 04:49:17 <etotheipi_> wtf, I get "Could not locate specified kernel" ... which is weird
878 2012-01-25 04:49:21 <k9quaint> gmaxwell: C is tolerant of line breaks between arithmetic operators, just linebreak after every scalar and operand to pad your results ;P
879 2012-01-25 04:50:00 <etotheipi_> because when I run it from my run_miner script, I have no problem, but when I run the exact same command from the CLI, I get that error, even when I copy what I think is the identical command
880 2012-01-25 04:50:52 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: path setup for the opengl stuff?
881 2012-01-25 04:51:13 <etotheipi_> I've been running 4 GPUs on this rig for 6 months straight
882 2012-01-25 04:51:40 <etotheipi_> and my run_miner script works... but when I pull the CLI line out of it, it doesn't seem to work
883 2012-01-25 04:52:21 <etotheipi_> ehh... doesn't matter now, I just made a copy of the script and hardcoded the change
884 2012-01-25 04:53:19 <etotheipi_> looks like it works now... thanks!
885 2012-01-25 04:55:49 <etotheipi_> oh... my bad... I just noticed that the python script uses the "cwd" options... so you were right
886 2012-01-25 05:23:35 <Mad7Scientist> Your paste can be seen here: http://paste.pocoo.org/show/540379/
887 2012-01-25 05:26:42 <Mad7Scientist> #0 0xb6384871 in open () from /lib/libc.so.6
888 2012-01-25 05:26:43 <Mad7Scientist> #5 0x0809dbd1 in OpenBlockFile (nFile=1, nBlockPos=923920348,
889 2012-01-25 05:27:15 <Mad7Scientist> pszMode=0x821dee9 "rb") at src/main.cpp:1455
890 2012-01-25 05:28:29 <Mad7Scientist> (gdb) backtrace
891 2012-01-25 05:28:36 <Mad7Scientist> ...
892 2012-01-25 05:28:40 <Mad7Scientist> Well that's my I/O issue
893 2012-01-25 05:28:55 <gmaxwell> thats different from the pastebin? whats with the pastebin?
894 2012-01-25 05:28:56 <Mad7Scientist> 3 backtraces (the middle one cut off at #5
895 2012-01-25 05:29:06 <Mad7Scientist> I interrupted it 3 times
896 2012-01-25 05:29:10 <Mad7Scientist> 3 different ones
897 2012-01-25 05:30:44 <BlueMatt> ;;later tell devrandom feature request for gitian-builder/downloader: side output (ie debug symbols) that gets signed but that can be downloaded separately
898 2012-01-25 05:30:44 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
899 2012-01-25 05:30:48 <gmaxwell> can you put the three complete backtraces in a pastebin?
900 2012-01-25 05:30:59 <Mad7Scientist> I'll get the full middle one
901 2012-01-25 05:31:02 <Mad7Scientist> the last one only had two
902 2012-01-25 05:32:28 <Mad7Scientist> Your paste can be seen here: http://paste.pocoo.org/show/540380/ (the one that goes to #5 in this chat)
903 2012-01-25 05:34:47 <Mad7Scientist> 4th backtrace for tonight: http://paste.pocoo.org/show/540381/
904 2012-01-25 05:36:32 <Mad7Scientist> backtrace #5 http://paste.pocoo.org/show/540382/
905 2012-01-25 05:36:34 <k9quaint> thats on an NFS mount right?
906 2012-01-25 05:36:39 <Mad7Scientist> yes
907 2012-01-25 05:36:55 <k9quaint> they all hang during blocking file operations right?
908 2012-01-25 05:37:22 <Mad7Scientist> I think the program can't receive signals during NFS file I/O
909 2012-01-25 05:37:44 <Mad7Scientist> not sure what you mean
910 2012-01-25 05:38:02 <Mad7Scientist> The 0.3.whatever bitcoin didn't have this problem
911 2012-01-25 05:38:02 <phantomcircuit> Mad7Scientist, nfs has a bad tendency to lockup randomly
912 2012-01-25 05:38:17 <Mad7Scientist> what do you mean by lock up
913 2012-01-25 05:38:59 <k9quaint> is this a linux system?
914 2012-01-25 05:40:19 <Mad7Scientist> the thread that is hanging up is doing 8MB/sec read 50KB/sec write during this time
915 2012-01-25 05:40:22 <Mad7Scientist> yes it is
916 2012-01-25 05:40:58 <k9quaint> does the thread hang with status D?
917 2012-01-25 05:41:27 <Mad7Scientist> yes
918 2012-01-25 05:41:36 <k9quaint> did you set the mounts to be soft mounts in fstab?
919 2012-01-25 05:42:42 <Mad7Scientist> users,intr,exec are my NFS flags
920 2012-01-25 05:42:45 <Mad7Scientist> so I guess not
921 2012-01-25 05:42:52 <k9quaint> try soft mounting
922 2012-01-25 05:43:03 <k9quaint> if that doesnt work, try using sync writes
923 2012-01-25 05:43:20 <k9quaint> and if that doesnt work, take that abortion of a protocol out back and shoot it in the head
924 2012-01-25 05:43:29 <k9quaint> bury the corpse somewhere where the RFCs can't find it
925 2012-01-25 05:44:43 <Mad7Scientist> hand/soft is just for a network problem I thought where with hard your programs just hang forever
926 2012-01-25 05:47:40 <Mad7Scientist> It started working fine new
927 2012-01-25 05:48:18 <Mad7Scientist> from time to time these bursts of I/O lockups which last 20 - 40 seconds come around and the program is responsive for like 4 seconds in between those times
928 2012-01-25 05:49:58 <Mad7Scientist> I guess on NFS without sync a network file can be modified but accessing it from another computer will get you the old file
929 2012-01-25 05:50:11 <Mad7Scientist> unless you run sync on the computer that wrote to it
930 2012-01-25 05:50:26 <Mad7Scientist> or some similar system calls are used