1 2012-01-26 00:08:40 <krysits> for code im like justin bieber for marey carey
 2 2012-01-26 00:25:12 <CIA-2> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr * rdfc79ebb0a37 eloipool/config.py.example: Example config.py file (testnet) http://tinyurl.com/76h2965
 3 2012-01-26 00:37:51 <gmaxwell> Can anyone tell me what legit purpose might justify someone paying, in bitcoins, 105% of expected returns per share for someone mining for them? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60413.0
 4 2012-01-26 00:38:32 <gmaxwell> If they were paying in USD/etc then it would just be a way of buying coins without using a market. If they were paying <100% it would be a pooling business.
 5 2012-01-26 00:38:47 <gmaxwell> (or even just a way of gambling)
 6 2012-01-26 00:39:05 <theymos> I think it's a promotion to build membership.
 7 2012-01-26 00:40:07 <gmaxwell> Some pools have done that but ... whats being promoted here?
 8 2012-01-26 00:41:02 <gmaxwell> Is anyone mining against that? I'd like some samples of its getwork results (I don't need to know the address of the pool or anything)
 9 2012-01-26 00:41:15 <Backburn> keeping NMC with hidden multi-mining?
10 2012-01-26 00:41:34 <gmaxwell> Backburn: NMC returns are tiny and don't justify that.
11 2012-01-26 00:41:42 <doublec> possibly they have mining contracts and are making profit on the difference between the contract and their rate
12 2012-01-26 00:42:15 <theymos> Goat is the top forum advertiser, so he probably does make some significant income. Maybe he sells the hashing as mining contracts for 110% of expected value or something.
13 2012-01-26 00:42:27 <doublec> right, that was my thinking
14 2012-01-26 00:42:29 <gmaxwell> doublec: ah, thats possible. getting paid in USD, buying bitcoin at market and using it to pay the premium to the miners.
15 2012-01-26 00:42:50 <Backburn> sounds like some massive laundering going on
16 2012-01-26 00:43:37 <BTC_Bear> Assumptions... often lead to where you want to take them.
17 2012-01-26 00:43:41 <doublec> I don't know why people pay premium for mining though - I guess to get traffic for new pools or something
18 2012-01-26 00:44:03 <luke-jr> theymos: fix BBE testnet yet? :P
19 2012-01-26 00:44:40 <theymos> luke-jr: I cleared the database, so it should be fixed soon. (Rebuilding the database now.)
20 2012-01-26 00:44:51 <gmaxwell> theymos: will it handle reorgs now? :)
21 2012-01-26 00:45:11 <theymos> I didn't change anything, so probably not.
22 2012-01-26 00:46:31 <luke-jr> theymos: interest in merging BIP17 so you don't get reorg'd again? <.<
23 2012-01-26 00:46:40 <theymos> I wrote this code so long ago and it's so messy that I really hate messing with it. I need to rewrite it one of these days.
24 2012-01-26 00:46:46 <luke-jr> i c
25 2012-01-26 00:47:08 <gmaxwell> adopting BIP17 is no protection against being reorged. :)
26 2012-01-26 00:47:27 <gmaxwell> Next time I reorg testnet perhaps it'll be to test BIP16. :)
27 2012-01-26 00:58:37 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: so merge both!
28 2012-01-26 01:04:34 <theymos> Did [Tycho] decide not to support either BIP 16 or 17?
29 2012-01-26 01:10:13 <CIA-2> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr * r19d2ac98060b eloipool/eloipool.py: Quick and dirty hack to detect (and reject) duplicate share submissions http://tinyurl.com/7ged5m7
30 2012-01-26 01:10:19 <CIA-2> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr * rec07b61e999d eloipool/jsonrpcserver.py: Bugfix: midstate module will expect bytes, not str http://tinyurl.com/75r8ka7
31 2012-01-26 01:13:43 <luke-jr> theymos: as of present, [Tycho] opposes BIP 16 and does not support BIP 17
32 2012-01-26 01:14:02 <luke-jr> theymos: over 50% of hashpower has expressed they will not support BIP 16
33 2012-01-26 01:14:20 <Graet> i think [Tycho] is being sensible
34 2012-01-26 01:14:32 <BlueMatt> when did [Tycho] say he opposed bip 16
35 2012-01-26 01:14:40 <Graet> rushing a decision doesnt seem wise to me
36 2012-01-26 01:14:50 <BlueMatt> he has said that he doesnt like the rate at which p2sh is going (at least the new /p2sh/ stuff)
37 2012-01-26 01:15:11 <BlueMatt> but Ive never seen him say outright he will not support 16
38 2012-01-26 01:15:30 <luke-jr> Graet: I agree a slower pace would be better, but I'm trying to compromise with Gavin on timeframe at least.
39 2012-01-26 01:20:10 <CIA-2> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r77e9b1c2e8b3 cgminer/ocl.c: Use calloced stack memory for CompilerOptions to ensure sprintf writes to the beginning of the char. http://tinyurl.com/6rzsl79
40 2012-01-26 01:20:12 <CIA-2> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * rd662c9c62624 cgminer/main.c: Allow intensity up to 14. http://tinyurl.com/7t9pzaz
41 2012-01-26 01:25:05 <CIA-2> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr * r51f835503db7 eloipool/README: Brief README file documenting dependencies and where to get them http://tinyurl.com/7jokbt6
42 2012-01-26 01:25:06 <CIA-2> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr * re99823ab1af4 eloipool/merkletree.py: Bugfix: a2b_hex in Python 3.2 no longer accepts str, only bytes http://tinyurl.com/87oryzv
43 2012-01-26 01:26:17 <theymos> Interesting that miners (and especially one pool) will veto a decision made by the development group. I think this is the first time this has happened. (Miners could probably be forced to support it if Bitcoin clients applied the extra verification, though.)
44 2012-01-26 01:27:43 <BlueMatt> theymos: who said anything about [Tycho] vetoing anything
45 2012-01-26 01:27:49 <BlueMatt> theymos: I dont know where luke got that
46 2012-01-26 01:29:06 <theymos> Well, he knows about it and isn't "voting", so it seems that he at least doesn't support it.
47 2012-01-26 01:29:46 <BlueMatt> well he hasnt applied it yet
48 2012-01-26 01:29:56 <BlueMatt> and isnt going to in the very near future
49 2012-01-26 01:30:04 <BlueMatt> but I really dont think he will avoid/reject it
50 2012-01-26 01:30:10 <CIA-2> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * ra992b5d89ddc cgminer/main.c: Allow intensity up to 14 for multiple devices as well. http://tinyurl.com/7xjkbha
51 2012-01-26 01:35:08 <doublec> theymos: wasn't there a point at the end of 2010 where a group of miners disagreed with a developer change and for a while publically said they wouldn't update?
52 2012-01-26 01:35:17 <doublec> I can't remember what it wa about
53 2012-01-26 01:36:28 <theymos> Possibly you're thinking of IsStandard? There was some disagreement about that, though it eventually went through without much trouble.
54 2012-01-26 01:36:43 <doublec> theymos: right that was it
55 2012-01-26 01:37:05 <theymos> ArtForz was opposed to it and didn't use it for several months, but eventually he started using it.
56 2012-01-26 01:40:44 <theymos> The last email I received from Satoshi was about that issue, actually. I was opposed to IsStandard partly because I wanted to put arbitrary data in the block chain, and Satoshi emailed me to tell me that you can use 0-value outputs and OP_CHECKSIG to insert arbitrary data.
57 2012-01-26 01:41:51 <doublec> nice, I was opposed at the time too and wasn't going to support it in my pool. I came around as well.
58 2012-01-26 01:42:26 <luke-jr> Eligius still skips IsStandard
59 2012-01-26 01:42:34 <theymos> The P2SH issue can't be resolved slowly like that, unfortunately.
60 2012-01-26 01:42:59 <doublec> luke-jr: have you ever encountered a problem with it?
61 2012-01-26 01:43:10 <luke-jr> doublec: no
62 2012-01-26 01:43:28 <theymos> BBE's node also runs without IsStandard.
63 2012-01-26 01:43:37 <theymos> (Though I don't mine, so it doesn't really matter.)
64 2012-01-26 01:44:14 <doublec> non standard tx's don't get relayed by other nodes, right?
65 2012-01-26 01:44:23 <theymos> Right.
66 2012-01-26 01:44:31 <gmaxwell> doublec: mtgox encountered a several thousand btc problem with eligius' lack of isstandard however! :)
67 2012-01-26 01:44:44 <doublec> gmaxwell: that was them crafting a bad transaction?
68 2012-01-26 01:45:12 <doublec> expensive mistake!
69 2012-01-26 01:45:15 <gmaxwell> doublec: yea, easily identifyable by the fact that eligius mined it with no fee
70 2012-01-26 01:45:51 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: not quite
71 2012-01-26 01:46:17 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: even if I requires IsStandard for most transactions, MtGox can force any to be accepted
72 2012-01-26 01:46:19 <luke-jr> required*
73 2012-01-26 01:48:18 <theymos> Does their access to Eligius allow them to try double-spending something?
74 2012-01-26 01:48:46 <luke-jr> theymos: I don't think they can do that.
75 2012-01-26 01:49:07 <luke-jr> they can only force a transaction in the memory pool to be added to blocks
76 2012-01-26 01:49:17 <luke-jr> I don't think double spends will get that far
77 2012-01-26 01:49:28 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: if you had the normal isstandard checks then those txns wouldn't be in the memory pool.
78 2012-01-26 01:49:48 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: well, obviously I'd put the IsStandard check somewhere else then <.<
79 2012-01-26 01:50:14 <CIA-2> bitcoin: p2k * rd1ce6df251e3 ecoinpool/apps/ecoinpool/src/ (3 files): Adhere to SQL Query Size Limit http://tinyurl.com/7je3dl7
80 2012-01-26 01:50:23 <gmaxwell> me fills luke's memory with rubbish
81 2012-01-26 01:55:06 <sipa> gmaxwell: first time running addrman-bitcoin: segfault
82 2012-01-26 01:55:46 <gmaxwell> oh well, I'm sure your valgrind and gdb were getting dusty.
83 2012-01-26 01:59:05 <gmaxwell> Does anyone have any majory negative feelings about anti-bruteforcing functionality for the RPC port?   E.g. making it slow down requests from not-successful IPs if there are many incorrect passwords? Maybe just some minor enhancements to the existing DoS function?
84 2012-01-26 01:59:10 <gmaxwell> er majorly?
85 2012-01-26 01:59:57 <gmaxwell> I'm now aware of at least two users who have been robbed due to accidentally exposing their RPC ports to the internet.  (well, once accidentally, and one at least one more who thought it was just for mining)
86 2012-01-26 02:00:16 <doublec> how'd the attacker guess the username/password?
87 2012-01-26 02:00:49 <doublec> litecoin (I think) had a problem where someone publish instructions which included a conf file with a default username/password
88 2012-01-26 02:00:56 <gmaxwell> Apparently bruteforcing a kinda dumb set. (thus the anti-bruteforcing thought)
89 2012-01-26 02:00:59 <BlueMatt> sipa: dont you love when that happens?
90 2012-01-26 02:00:59 <doublec> and some users got coins stolen that way
91 2012-01-26 02:01:25 <doublec> anti-bruteforcing sounds good to me
92 2012-01-26 02:01:31 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: better to add that after merging threading IMO <.<
93 2012-01-26 02:01:44 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: hah, yea, perhaps!
94 2012-01-26 02:03:58 <BlueMatt> and let the locking work itself out at a later date
95 2012-01-26 02:04:04 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: btw, my bitcoind never crashed
96 2012-01-26 02:04:40 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: Yea, my whine was about an earlier version of it that didn't have all those locks. :-/
97 2012-01-26 02:04:51 <luke-jr> i c
98 2012-01-26 02:04:54 <gmaxwell> I'm sorry for speaking out of ignorance.
99 2012-01-26 02:05:05 <luke-jr> mine always had locks, but I merged into JK's implementation at some point