1 2012-01-30 00:00:08 <sipa> luke-jr: the script is fixed by the one you creates the txout
2 2012-01-30 00:00:11 <sipa> *who
3 2012-01-30 00:00:38 <theymos> The fee schedule could be adjusted to disincentivize having many "calculated sigops" in a transaction.
4 2012-01-30 00:00:50 <luke-jr> sipa: with BIP17, the CHECK*SIG is in the scriptSig
5 2012-01-30 00:01:02 <sipa> luke-jr: i know
6 2012-01-30 00:01:11 <sipa> luke-jr: but the hash of the script is in the txout
7 2012-01-30 00:01:15 <roconnor> luke-jr: <pubkey> OP_CHECKSIG OP_SWAP <pubkey> OP_CHECKSIG OP_ADD ... OP_SWAP <pubkey> OP_CHECKSIG OP_ADD OP_n OP_GREATERTHANOREQUAL
8 2012-01-30 00:01:28 <luke-jr> sipa: and the hash of the script is created by the person who will inevitably redeem it
9 2012-01-30 00:01:35 <roconnor> luke-jr: not that I disagree with your ideas; I'm just throwing out another.
10 2012-01-30 00:01:43 <sipa> luke-jr: right, so that person determines the script
11 2012-01-30 00:01:53 <luke-jr> roconnor: for n-of-3?
12 2012-01-30 00:02:00 <luke-jr> sipa: right, the recipient :p
13 2012-01-30 00:02:01 <roconnor> luke-jr: for n-of-m
14 2012-01-30 00:02:10 <sipa> luke-jr: and that person has no incentive to use the workaround over checksig?
15 2012-01-30 00:02:31 <roconnor> luke-jr: with my ... filled in with nothing you get n-of-3
16 2012-01-30 00:02:35 <luke-jr> sipa: their cost
17 2012-01-30 00:04:19 <luke-jr> roconnor: genius :D
18 2012-01-30 00:04:50 <roconnor> luke-jr: basically it adds up the number of valid signatures and checks that the sum is at least n
19 2012-01-30 00:04:52 <luke-jr> & except then you check all 3 sigs even if you don't need to
20 2012-01-30 00:04:59 <luke-jr> :/
21 2012-01-30 00:05:05 <sipa> luke-jr: i once described a general boolexpr-to-bitcoin-script translation scheme
22 2012-01-30 00:05:12 <Diablo-D3> erm
23 2012-01-30 00:05:17 <Diablo-D3> you need to check all 3 sigs, dont you?
24 2012-01-30 00:05:23 <roconnor> luke-jr: blame bitcoin's stupid anti-dos mechanism.
25 2012-01-30 00:05:38 <roconnor> for making clients do extra work
26 2012-01-30 00:05:53 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: my 2-of-3 script skipped the 3rd if the first 2 were valid
27 2012-01-30 00:06:22 <Diablo-D3> can sigs be ever "never valid"?
28 2012-01-30 00:06:42 <Diablo-D3> or is there no way to check?
29 2012-01-30 00:07:53 <Diablo-D3> because if it can be checked, technically "two valid, one never valid" should be rejected
30 2012-01-30 00:07:54 <roconnor> Diablo-D3: data that is too short will never be a valid signature
31 2012-01-30 00:07:58 <roconnor> such as OP_0
32 2012-01-30 00:08:15 <roconnor> I guess a resonable implementation would see this immedately
33 2012-01-30 00:08:52 <roconnor> ya, if decode sigcode fails for me then the verifySignature isn't executed
34 2012-01-30 00:08:56 <sipa> gavin was talking about disencouraging/non-isstandarding() transactions with non-real-signatures or non-real-pubkeys on the expected places
35 2012-01-30 00:09:08 <roconnor> luke-jr: so checking failing signatures is almost free
36 2012-01-30 00:09:22 <roconnor> luke-jr: so that is fine
37 2012-01-30 00:10:08 <luke-jr> roconnor: but you need to add a dummy item to the stack, defeating the benefit&
38 2012-01-30 00:11:27 <Diablo-D3> roconnor: yeah but
39 2012-01-30 00:11:32 <Diablo-D3> luke is claiming his will go if 2 are valid
40 2012-01-30 00:11:36 <roconnor> luke-jr: I thought the befinit was not doing unnecessary work to verify signatures
41 2012-01-30 00:11:39 <Diablo-D3> even if 2 are valid, the third still needs to fail properly
42 2012-01-30 00:11:49 <roconnor> *benefit
43 2012-01-30 00:12:15 <luke-jr> roconnor: I mean the benefit of your N-of-M script, which was a byte shorter
44 2012-01-30 00:12:24 <luke-jr> or was it just the ease of being able to compute any N-of-M?
45 2012-01-30 00:12:29 <poiuh> sup
46 2012-01-30 00:12:35 <roconnor> luke-jr: I was thinking ease
47 2012-01-30 00:12:44 <roconnor> luke-jr: and hopefully shorter
48 2012-01-30 00:13:32 <luke-jr> hmm
49 2012-01-30 00:13:43 <luke-jr> roconnor: easier to BIPify at least :D
50 2012-01-30 00:14:03 <roconnor> this is in some sense a ridiciouls BIP
51 2012-01-30 00:14:17 <roconnor> the problem is that the anti-DOS stuff is too stupid.
52 2012-01-30 00:14:53 <roconnor> er
53 2012-01-30 00:14:54 <roconnor> wait
54 2012-01-30 00:15:00 <roconnor> is this built into the core rule set?
55 2012-01-30 00:15:08 <roconnor> or is just a network relay problem?
56 2012-01-30 00:15:43 <luke-jr> ?
57 2012-01-30 00:16:19 <sipa> roconnor: which rule are you talking about, exactly?
58 2012-01-30 00:16:34 <roconnor> Is the OP_CHECKMULTISIG counting as 20 part of network relay rules or part of core verificiation rules?
59 2012-01-30 00:16:51 <theymos> Core.
60 2012-01-30 00:17:07 <roconnor> too bad
61 2012-01-30 00:17:18 <sipa> both, actually
62 2012-01-30 00:17:28 <sipa> per transaction it is a network relay rule
63 2012-01-30 00:17:30 <roconnor> it should count as less if you can statically verify that it will do less because an OP_n preceeds it.
64 2012-01-30 00:17:39 <sipa> per block is is a block validation rule
65 2012-01-30 00:17:49 <sipa> roconnor: that is what BIP16 does
66 2012-01-30 00:18:13 <roconnor> BIP16 has a different counting rule?
67 2012-01-30 00:19:11 <roconnor> ugh
68 2012-01-30 00:19:14 <roconnor> it does
69 2012-01-30 00:19:52 <poiuh> biptaculous
70 2012-01-30 00:21:06 <sipa> roconnor: that is one of the advantages BIP16 has, imho
71 2012-01-30 00:21:21 <sipa> and luke is now trying to compensate for that in BIP17 by working around checkmultisig
72 2012-01-30 00:21:50 <roconnor> sipa: no denying BIP16 is a hack though
73 2012-01-30 00:22:03 <sipa> sure it so
74 2012-01-30 00:22:05 <sipa> sure it is
75 2012-01-30 00:24:35 <poiuh> bippity boppity boop
76 2012-01-30 00:28:51 <poiuh> bop
77 2012-01-30 00:41:28 <poiuh> http://www.betabeat.com/2012/01/27/silk-road-secret-website-where-you-can-buy-drugs-is-hiring/ - Silk Road, Secret Website Where You Can Buy Drugs, Is Hiring
78 2012-01-30 00:43:40 <BlueMatt> "that came to light after Gawkers Adrian Chen announced you could buy any drug imaginable"
79 2012-01-30 00:43:53 <BlueMatt> really, no one had ever heard of silk road before gawker?
80 2012-01-30 00:43:55 <BlueMatt> thats bullshit
81 2012-01-30 00:45:26 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: a lot of the mass media makes more sense if you insert (to me) "that came to light (to me) after Gawkers Adrian Chen announced"
82 2012-01-30 00:45:51 <BlueMatt> heh, ok but thats the opposite of the point of media, but ok
83 2012-01-30 00:46:14 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I think the essence of that field is that you pretend everyone in the world cares and knows about the same stuff as you. .. then a darwinian process selects for reporters who are actually representative.
84 2012-01-30 00:46:36 <k9quaint> I think it selects against them
85 2012-01-30 00:47:04 <gmaxwell> If you happen to be non-representative (e.g. you have _the slightest clue_ about the subject at hand) it won't make sense without the "(to me)", because the reporters never have a clue.
86 2012-01-30 00:47:18 <gmaxwell> k9quaint: representative of their readers, not reality.
87 2012-01-30 00:47:55 <k9quaint> I subscribe to playboy for the pictures, not the articles
88 2012-01-30 00:48:21 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: yea, media needs to actually ask experts more...
89 2012-01-30 00:48:45 <BlueMatt> there should be a rule at major publications that each reporter needs to get at least 3 people who know wtf they are talking about to ack articles before they can be published
90 2012-01-30 00:49:40 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: They also should be required to disclose transacripts of their interview. They're terribly about selectively quoting.
91 2012-01-30 00:49:49 <BlueMatt> that too
92 2012-01-30 00:55:16 <CIA-97> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r7bcda9a28fca cgminer/ (adl.c adl.h): Pass the correct GPU from the menu to the adl code. http://tinyurl.com/829yzhl
93 2012-01-30 00:55:17 <CIA-97> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr * rb861d8d8016c eloipool/jsonrpcserver.py: Refactor JSONRPCHandler task scheduling, so that there is (almost) always *some* task scheduled http://tinyurl.com/7ngx5fa
94 2012-01-30 01:07:25 <copumpkin> have things calmed down in here?
95 2012-01-30 01:07:40 <BlueMatt> I believe so
96 2012-01-30 01:07:43 <luke-jr> copumpkin: no, BlueMatt is still here
97 2012-01-30 01:07:49 <luke-jr> can't be calm with him around it seems
98 2012-01-30 01:07:50 <BlueMatt> apparently not
99 2012-01-30 01:12:04 <BTC_Bear> Ok, just to clarify. Can we go over this one more time? A > B, B > A, A ` B, 0 <> (A or B) OR (A and B) >< 0 ? Is an XOR possible? :)
100 2012-01-30 01:12:58 <sipa> what is >< ?
101 2012-01-30 01:13:07 <sipa> and what is your question, actually?
102 2012-01-30 01:13:34 <BlueMatt> I think A is BIP 16 and B is BIP 17
103 2012-01-30 01:14:05 <BTC_Bear> I was just trying to lighten the tension, it means nothing.
104 2012-01-30 01:14:09 <copumpkin> :)
105 2012-01-30 01:14:10 <sipa> ok :)
106 2012-01-30 01:14:37 <sipa> { A > B, B > A, A ` B } is unsolvable :(
107 2012-01-30 01:14:55 <copumpkin> it's insolvable even without the A != B
108 2012-01-30 01:14:57 <BlueMatt> A > B, B > A is unsolvable
109 2012-01-30 01:15:04 <sipa> damn, duh!
110 2012-01-30 01:15:16 <Diablo-D3> not true
111 2012-01-30 01:15:19 <BlueMatt> otoh, 42 works
112 2012-01-30 01:15:24 <Diablo-D3> theres some languages that it can be done.
113 2012-01-30 01:15:32 <gmaxwell> Can A and B be vectors?
114 2012-01-30 01:15:39 <BlueMatt> its 42
115 2012-01-30 01:15:40 <gmaxwell> What space is this in?
116 2012-01-30 01:15:44 <gmaxwell> Is it a proper metric space?
117 2012-01-30 01:15:46 <BlueMatt> 42
118 2012-01-30 01:15:49 <Diablo-D3> lol gmaxwell can do it
119 2012-01-30 01:15:51 <copumpkin> in any strict order, that's impossible
120 2012-01-30 01:15:58 <copumpkin> if it's >= it works fine
121 2012-01-30 01:16:14 <AAA_awright> It's not an empty set?
122 2012-01-30 01:16:14 <Diablo-D3> copumpkin: nope.
123 2012-01-30 01:16:54 <copumpkin> Diablo-D3: it's one of the axioms of a strict partial order: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_partial_order#Strict_and_non-strict_partial_orders
124 2012-01-30 01:18:16 <Diablo-D3> copumpkin: yes, and Im saying that only applies to specific forms of math.
125 2012-01-30 01:18:36 <copumpkin> hmm
126 2012-01-30 01:19:05 <copumpkin> may I have a counterexample then? or are you thinking of 754? :)
127 2012-01-30 01:19:14 <BlueMatt> its 42, god
128 2012-01-30 01:19:21 <sipa> Diablo-D3: and copumpkin already excluded those by requiring > and < to be a strict order
129 2012-01-30 01:19:29 <sipa> BlueMatt wins
130 2012-01-30 01:19:37 <copumpkin> order theory tries to axiomatize the usual ordering relations in a similar way that algebra axiomatizes common operations
131 2012-01-30 01:19:37 <Diablo-D3> copumpkin: go look it up on wikipedia
132 2012-01-30 01:20:01 <copumpkin> ...
133 2012-01-30 01:20:13 <luke-jr> roconnor: any reason to use >= instead of OP_EQUAL?
134 2012-01-30 01:21:31 <copumpkin> see, this is why I like constructive logic
135 2012-01-30 01:21:40 <copumpkin> you're required to provide a witness if you make a claim of existence
136 2012-01-30 01:21:48 <copumpkin> classical logic allows you to say "yo, one exists, find it yourself"
137 2012-01-30 01:22:00 <copumpkin> (usually with more of an argument in support of one existing, granted)
138 2012-01-30 01:23:49 <roconnor> luke-jr: I think OP_EQUALVERIFY is likely better
139 2012-01-30 01:23:58 <Diablo-D3> copumpkin: I am not a search engine, however.
140 2012-01-30 01:24:05 <Diablo-D3> theres strange forms of math that exist
141 2012-01-30 01:24:08 <roconnor> luke-jr: it just means you *need* to OP_0 out extra signatures if you have them, which is probably for the best
142 2012-01-30 01:24:15 <Diablo-D3> even basic rules like that do not work there
143 2012-01-30 01:24:22 <Diablo-D3> I suspect they exist to summon ancient dark gods.
144 2012-01-30 01:24:22 <sipa> copumpkin: just nod and smile
145 2012-01-30 01:24:37 <copumpkin> lol
146 2012-01-30 01:24:41 <copumpkin> fair enough :)
147 2012-01-30 01:24:46 <luke-jr> roconnor: yeah, saves blockchain space
148 2012-01-30 01:24:55 <Diablo-D3> just because I didnt bookmark them doesnt mean they dont exist
149 2012-01-30 01:25:08 <copumpkin> for now I am but a student of wordly math
150 2012-01-30 03:06:16 <niggaholdthat> Hey guys, anyone here developed code around bitcoind's jsonrpc interface?
151 2012-01-30 03:06:24 <niggaholdthat> I need help :(
152 2012-01-30 03:06:37 <splatster> I haven't but I'll give it a shot :)
153 2012-01-30 03:06:51 <BlueMatt> "Ask, dont ask to ask"
154 2012-01-30 03:06:53 <niggaholdthat> Okay, this might be general bitcoin related but - why does bitcoind not reflect my transactions?
155 2012-01-30 03:07:01 <sipa> "reflect" ?
156 2012-01-30 03:07:04 <niggaholdthat> hmm
157 2012-01-30 03:07:21 <niggaholdthat> I've sent two bitcoins to an address generated by bitcoind, it has been a few hours, and bitcoind getbalance does not show anything
158 2012-01-30 03:07:37 <splatster> what is the address?
159 2012-01-30 03:07:44 <luke-jr> niggaholdthat: try listtransactions
160 2012-01-30 03:07:46 <splatster> Details, my friend, details.
161 2012-01-30 03:07:52 <sipa> look up the address on blockchain.info
162 2012-01-30 03:08:02 <niggaholdthat> listtransactions shows 0
163 2012-01-30 03:08:08 <niggaholdthat> http://blockexplorer.com/q/getreceivedbyaddress/19y3ijpZ5bUnihYVo86gtzssM3EtpE6Mwt <- I sent 1.1 to this address
164 2012-01-30 03:08:30 <sipa> blockexplorer only shows transactions that were included in the block chain
165 2012-01-30 03:08:39 <sipa> if they were, you'd certainly see them in your client as well
166 2012-01-30 03:08:48 <sipa> try blockchain.info, it also shows pending transactions
167 2012-01-30 03:08:55 <luke-jr> sipa: it shows it on BBE
168 2012-01-30 03:09:14 <niggaholdthat> is it possible for a transaction to be pending at the same moment blockexplorer shows some value?
169 2012-01-30 03:09:25 <nanotube> niggaholdthat: run getinfo, see what your blockcount is.
170 2012-01-30 03:09:31 <luke-jr> >_<
171 2012-01-30 03:09:36 <luke-jr> blockchain.info shows firstbits
172 2012-01-30 03:09:50 <splatster> niggaholdthat: What is the address you sent the 2 bitcoins to?
173 2012-01-30 03:10:10 <BlueMatt> who runs blockchain.info?
174 2012-01-30 03:10:19 <niggaholdthat> splatster, I sent two bitcoins in total, 1.1 to that addr, and .9 to a friend's bitcoind setup, I will not be posting his address just in case
175 2012-01-30 03:10:43 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: PiUK
176 2012-01-30 03:10:51 <BlueMatt> is that a nick???
177 2012-01-30 03:10:51 <splatster> you could PM it to me or someone else
178 2012-01-30 03:10:55 <luke-jr> &yes
179 2012-01-30 03:10:56 <niggaholdthat> "blocks" : 163743,
180 2012-01-30 03:11:03 <BlueMatt> ;;seen PiUK
181 2012-01-30 03:11:04 <gribble> PiUK was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 7 hours, 11 minutes, and 54 seconds ago: <piuk> ignore that - my mistake
182 2012-01-30 03:11:14 <BlueMatt> mmm
183 2012-01-30 03:11:34 <splatster> niggaholdthat: you're missing a number of blocks i think
184 2012-01-30 03:11:40 <splatster> current block is 164479
185 2012-01-30 03:11:44 <niggaholdthat> how long does that usually take?
186 2012-01-30 03:11:49 <gribble> 164479
187 2012-01-30 03:11:49 <nanotube> ;;bc,blocks
188 2012-01-30 03:11:52 <nanotube> yea
189 2012-01-30 03:11:53 <luke-jr> niggaholdthat: 0.5.2?
190 2012-01-30 03:11:55 <niggaholdthat> fuark that's a lot of blocks
191 2012-01-30 03:12:00 <niggaholdthat> luke-jr .4
192 2012-01-30 03:12:09 <splatster> ;;calc 164479 - 163743
193 2012-01-30 03:12:10 <gribble> 736
194 2012-01-30 03:12:13 <luke-jr> niggaholdthat: could be a while
195 2012-01-30 03:12:19 <luke-jr> actually
196 2012-01-30 03:12:20 <splatster> you are missing 736 blocks
197 2012-01-30 03:12:25 <luke-jr> niggaholdthat: 0.4. what?
198 2012-01-30 03:12:40 <luke-jr> niggaholdthat: 0.4.3 will be faster
199 2012-01-30 03:12:49 <luke-jr> and is the only 0.4.x people should use right now
200 2012-01-30 03:12:51 <niggaholdthat> the bitcoin daemon exists in a folder called /bitcoin-0.4.0-linux/
201 2012-01-30 03:12:54 <niggaholdthat> so I assume 0.4.0
202 2012-01-30 03:13:00 <luke-jr> ancient, and has security flaws
203 2012-01-30 03:13:03 <luke-jr> upgrade to 0.4.3 asap
204 2012-01-30 03:13:06 <niggaholdthat> jesus
205 2012-01-30 03:13:21 <splatster> 0.5.2 is the latest
206 2012-01-30 03:13:29 <niggaholdthat> which is recommended?
207 2012-01-30 03:13:39 <sipa> 0.4.3 or 0.5.2
208 2012-01-30 03:13:54 <niggaholdthat> I should be good if I just download the binary of those versions right?
209 2012-01-30 03:13:57 <niggaholdthat> no recompiling
210 2012-01-30 03:14:04 <sipa> niggaholdthat: are you using the gui, or bitcoind?
211 2012-01-30 03:14:05 <BlueMatt> yea
212 2012-01-30 03:14:06 <luke-jr> http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/bitcoind-0.4.3/ <-- 0.4.3 binaries from BlueMatt
213 2012-01-30 03:14:13 <niggaholdthat> sipa: bitcoind, running this off my linode
214 2012-01-30 03:14:24 <niggaholdthat> luke-jr thanks, I will look into it
215 2012-01-30 03:14:37 <niggaholdthat> are there any major changes I need to know about? new conf settings, compatibility etc
216 2012-01-30 03:14:58 <sipa> the difference between 0.4 and 0.5 is mostly the gui that changed
217 2012-01-30 03:15:04 <luke-jr> niggaholdthat: 0.4.3 has the exact same features as 0.4.0
218 2012-01-30 03:15:11 <luke-jr> niggaholdthat: and it will be that way for all 0.4.x
219 2012-01-30 03:15:11 <niggaholdthat> oh. I don't use the gui, so I should be using 0.4.3?
220 2012-01-30 03:15:13 <CIA-97> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r09184720c293 cgminer/ (main.c miner.h util.c): As share submission is usually staggered, and delays can be costly, submit shares without delay even when --net-delay is enabled. http://tinyurl.com/6sdkww9
221 2012-01-30 03:15:41 <luke-jr> niggaholdthat: basically, the first two numbers of versions tell you what features are supported
222 2012-01-30 03:15:54 <sipa> niggaholdthat: well, is there any reason not to use 0.5.2?
223 2012-01-30 03:16:10 <luke-jr> 0.5.2 gets you a performance boost
224 2012-01-30 03:16:15 <niggaholdthat> sipa that is what I am wondering myself :p
225 2012-01-30 03:16:20 <luke-jr> oh right, 0.4.3 does too <.<
226 2012-01-30 03:16:26 <niggaholdthat> heh
227 2012-01-30 03:16:40 <niggaholdthat> I notice in the title "Old versions harm the network and your security"
228 2012-01-30 03:16:44 <niggaholdthat> is this the case for 0.4.3?
229 2012-01-30 03:17:03 <BlueMatt> 0.4.2 isnt old
230 2012-01-30 03:17:06 <BlueMatt> s/2/3/
231 2012-01-30 03:17:13 <niggaholdthat> oh right
232 2012-01-30 03:17:17 <niggaholdthat> the 3rd digit denotes the version?
233 2012-01-30 03:17:24 <luke-jr> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61125.msg721613#msg721613
234 2012-01-30 03:17:30 <luke-jr> niggaholdthat: 3rd digit denotes bugfixes
235 2012-01-30 03:17:33 <sipa> 0.4.2 and 0.4.3 were relased after 0.5.0
236 2012-01-30 03:17:44 <luke-jr> 0.4.3 and 0.5.2 were released at the same time ;)
237 2012-01-30 03:17:46 <sipa> but just use 0.5.2
238 2012-01-30 03:17:53 <niggaholdthat> the 4 and the 5 denote what? gui fixes?
239 2012-01-30 03:18:01 <luke-jr> niggaholdthat: feature set
240 2012-01-30 03:18:19 <niggaholdthat> okay that makes sense
241 2012-01-30 03:19:58 <niggaholdthat> okay, so switching over to 0.4.3 for bitcoind still doesn't change the problem with the lack of blocks being downloaded - or does it?
242 2012-01-30 03:21:36 <luke-jr> niggaholdthat: it should
243 2012-01-30 03:22:54 <niggaholdthat> thank you, I will give it an shot
244 2012-01-30 03:23:16 <sipa> niggaholdthat: did your system crash some time ago?
245 2012-01-30 03:23:23 <sipa> or did bitcoind not close cleanly?
246 2012-01-30 03:23:38 <niggaholdthat> I kill -9'd bitcoind because it kept hanging
247 2012-01-30 03:23:45 <sipa> ah
248 2012-01-30 03:23:56 <niggaholdthat> would that be a big issue for block downloading?
249 2012-01-30 03:24:03 <niggaholdthat> I assumed bitcoind would resume downloading the blocks once restarted
250 2012-01-30 03:24:06 <luke-jr> it could be
251 2012-01-30 03:24:14 <sipa> it should, but there may be an unresolved issue
252 2012-01-30 03:24:24 <sipa> where the block chain file gets in a corrupted state
253 2012-01-30 03:25:49 <niggaholdthat> thanks
254 2012-01-30 03:26:30 <niggaholdthat> also, is there a reason the bitcoind server takes some time to start up? I noticed even with 0.4.3 "bitcoind getinfo" results in no response from server right after restarting
255 2012-01-30 03:26:38 <sipa> niggaholdthat: could you paste a few pages of what your debug.log contains?
256 2012-01-30 03:26:40 <niggaholdthat> I mean, "couldn't connect to server"
257 2012-01-30 03:26:41 <sipa> the bottom
258 2012-01-30 03:26:52 <sipa> yes, the rpc server isn't started until all block info is loade
259 2012-01-30 03:26:53 <sipa> d
260 2012-01-30 03:27:23 <niggaholdthat> https://www.privatepaste.com/download/01008374fc
261 2012-01-30 03:27:30 <BlueMatt> I love how flash tries to cache movies while they are playing
262 2012-01-30 03:27:49 <BlueMatt> deletes a tmp file and keeps the file open so that you have to grab the file from /proc/procid/fd/...
263 2012-01-30 03:27:52 <niggaholdthat> is there anyway to get the rpc server to start before the blockinfo? or does this not even make sense
264 2012-01-30 03:28:12 <sipa> niggaholdthat: it's a safety measure
265 2012-01-30 03:28:26 <niggaholdthat> now I'm getting a bunch of these: ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
266 2012-01-30 03:28:26 <sipa> otherwise you could see incomplete info
267 2012-01-30 03:28:30 <niggaholdthat> ah, okay
268 2012-01-30 03:28:31 <sipa> oh, good
269 2012-01-30 03:28:42 <sipa> that means block syncing is continuing
270 2012-01-30 03:28:45 <niggaholdthat> I'm guessing that means the missing blocks are downloading
271 2012-01-30 03:28:47 <niggaholdthat> ah okay
272 2012-01-30 03:29:00 <niggaholdthat> another question - is it necessary for older blocks to be downloaded or kept on the server?
273 2012-01-30 03:29:05 <sipa> yes, for now
274 2012-01-30 03:29:14 <niggaholdthat> disk space is cheap but I'd rather avoid doing so
275 2012-01-30 03:29:15 <niggaholdthat> okay
276 2012-01-30 03:31:13 <niggaholdthat> root[~/test/btc/]$ time ./bitcoind getinfo > /dev/null
277 2012-01-30 03:31:22 <niggaholdthat> why does it take so long to getinfo? :(
278 2012-01-30 03:31:31 <BlueMatt> is this 0.5.3?
279 2012-01-30 03:31:34 <BlueMatt> s/3/2/
280 2012-01-30 03:31:37 <niggaholdthat> 0.4.3
281 2012-01-30 03:31:43 <luke-jr> niggaholdthat: it's downloading blocks
282 2012-01-30 03:31:48 <luke-jr> and bitcoind is very lock-happy
283 2012-01-30 03:32:02 <BlueMatt> yea, bitcoin just locks alot
284 2012-01-30 03:32:04 <niggaholdthat> so after catching up with the blocks, does this still happen?
285 2012-01-30 03:32:10 <luke-jr> not as badly
286 2012-01-30 03:32:24 <BlueMatt> (slightly)
287 2012-01-30 03:32:32 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: but it's not in next-test cuz you said it's not ready
288 2012-01-30 03:32:42 <BlueMatt> yea, theres a few things to work out
289 2012-01-30 03:32:45 <BlueMatt> well, only really one
290 2012-01-30 03:32:51 <sipa> which is?
291 2012-01-30 03:32:52 <BlueMatt> theres some nasty perf bug hiding
292 2012-01-30 03:32:58 <sipa> ah, that one
293 2012-01-30 03:33:05 <BlueMatt> from one tmpfs node to another it can be almost 25%
294 2012-01-30 03:33:10 <niggaholdthat> how do larger websites handle this? I understand abstracting bitcoind's functionality to avoid relying on it for everything, but this isn't as easy when you need to get your balance
295 2012-01-30 03:33:29 <luke-jr> niggaholdthat: you probably don't want to run bitcoind on a website
296 2012-01-30 03:33:49 <sipa> niggaholdthat: getinfo is not really a problem during stable operation
297 2012-01-30 03:34:06 <sipa> just while downloading blocks, bitcoind indeed really gets sloppy
298 2012-01-30 03:34:08 <luke-jr> if you're just accepting payments, keep your bitcoin client offline, and generate X addresses every week or month to refill the webserver's address db
299 2012-01-30 03:35:10 <CIA-97> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r5a14ec53c88b cgminer/ (adl.c adl.h main.c): Add a --dev-reorder option to only reorder devices according to PCI Bus ID when requested. http://tinyurl.com/7gy8bmb
300 2012-01-30 03:35:12 <CIA-97> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * rba74fe56600d cgminer/main.c: Clear adl on exiting after probing values since it may attempt to overclock. http://tinyurl.com/7gfd6or
301 2012-01-30 03:35:27 <niggaholdthat> yeah, for accepting payments I have a ton of pregenerated addresses
302 2012-01-30 03:35:35 <niggaholdthat> but I want to process transactions as well
303 2012-01-30 03:40:28 <luke-jr> ah
304 2012-01-30 03:43:43 <roconnor> etotheipi_: what is your source of randomness for signature generation?
305 2012-01-30 03:43:56 <etotheipi_> crypto++ PRNG
306 2012-01-30 03:44:08 <etotheipi_> which claims to pull from all sorts of sources from your system
307 2012-01-30 03:44:12 <etotheipi_> I don't remember the details, though
308 2012-01-30 03:44:15 <roconnor> ok
309 2012-01-30 03:44:22 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: be careful with that.
310 2012-01-30 03:44:59 <gmaxwell> A couple of bits of non-randomness can leak the private key if the private key is reused enough times.
311 2012-01-30 03:45:13 <CIA-97> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * rc9404f4d1190 cgminer/adl.c: Make sure to set virtual adapters if --dev-reorder is not enabled or device numbers don't match. http://tinyurl.com/7nzljmu
312 2012-01-30 03:45:34 <etotheipi_> my understanding is that the crypto++ RNG is as good as any
313 2012-01-30 03:45:50 <etotheipi_> but i'm surely interested to hear evidence otherwise
314 2012-01-30 03:46:02 <etotheipi_> I'm looking it up, now
315 2012-01-30 03:46:29 <gmaxwell> I think I'm a fan of the scheme ed25519 uses.
316 2012-01-30 03:47:08 <gmaxwell> the 'private key' goes through SHA512, left half is the private key. Right half is a secret hashed with the message to create the per signature random value.
317 2012-01-30 03:47:14 <niggaholdthat> how does blockexplorer get balances really fast? is it their network connection?
318 2012-01-30 03:47:33 <sipa> niggaholdthat: probably cached in their database
319 2012-01-30 03:47:36 <gmaxwell> Hm? blockexplorer is pretty slow.
320 2012-01-30 03:48:11 <niggaholdthat> it updates faster than bitcoind/bitcoin-qt on my desktop
321 2012-01-30 03:48:30 <luke-jr> not if you leave them running 24/7
322 2012-01-30 03:48:57 <gmaxwell> niggaholdthat: 0_o you should see new transactions long before they're on blockexplorer, assuming like luke says, you leave them running.
323 2012-01-30 03:49:37 <niggaholdthat> if I leave it running 24/7, does it notice my transactions faster than usual or something?
324 2012-01-30 03:50:15 <gmaxwell> niggaholdthat: assuming you are current with the blockchain you will normally see transactions within a second of so of them being sent, prior to them even being mined.
325 2012-01-30 03:51:26 <etotheipi_> http://bygreencn.wordpress.com/2007/01/18/a-survey-of-pseudo-random-number-generators/
326 2012-01-30 03:51:33 <poiuh> cools
327 2012-01-30 03:51:55 <niggaholdthat> hmm. so would it make sense to leave bitcoind running for a long time before I run my application live?
328 2012-01-30 03:52:03 <niggaholdthat> so that transactions are more instant
329 2012-01-30 03:52:37 <etotheipi_> "[Crypto++ PRNG] is suitable for all cryptographic purposes including generating keys and IVs."
330 2012-01-30 03:53:00 <sipa> niggaholdthat: you just need the block chain
331 2012-01-30 03:53:10 <sipa> niggaholdthat: once you have that, everything is pretty much instantaneously
332 2012-01-30 03:53:19 <sipa> but catching up can take some time
333 2012-01-30 03:58:50 <niggaholdthat> the balance has been reflected! thanks, guys.
334 2012-01-30 03:59:00 <niggaholdthat> I will continue optimizing my use of bitcoind, thank you for all your help
335 2012-01-30 04:05:19 <CIA-97> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r3de7c7f9c29d cgminer/util.c: Stop advertising midstate support until it's fixed. http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/cpuminer/cgminer.git/commitdiff/3de7c7f9c29d9007cb102e7b994c672d7b9c740e
336 2012-01-30 04:08:20 <BlueMatt> can we move the constant cgminer commits to #bitcoin-mining
337 2012-01-30 04:08:25 <BlueMatt> or just out of #bitcoin-dev
338 2012-01-30 04:09:14 <sipa> ack
339 2012-01-30 04:09:39 <BlueMatt> Ive tried it before but luke went crazy
340 2012-01-30 04:10:19 <BlueMatt> well mostly because of his personal bitcoind repo
341 2012-01-30 04:11:56 <sipa> that shouldn't be here either
342 2012-01-30 04:12:04 <sipa> i don't mind bitcoin-stable here, though
343 2012-01-30 04:12:12 <luke-jr> sipa: why are you going along with his trolling?
344 2012-01-30 04:12:44 <BlueMatt> bitcoind-stable can stay, I dont understand why a personal bitcoin fork should be here...
345 2012-01-30 04:12:47 <sipa> i don think all updates to anyone's personal branches should be listed here
346 2012-01-30 04:12:53 <sipa> it's just not interesting
347 2012-01-30 04:12:56 <luke-jr> it is
348 2012-01-30 04:13:49 <sipa> well, i disagree
349 2012-01-30 04:14:10 <BlueMatt> why do you always have to disagree and make a big deal of everything luke?
350 2012-01-30 04:14:32 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: you're destroying bitcoin!
351 2012-01-30 04:14:44 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: you're the troll making a big deal of ON-TOPIC commits
352 2012-01-30 04:14:55 <BlueMatt> meh, whatever
353 2012-01-30 04:15:04 <gmaxwell> about 3/4 of the commit messages that hit the channel have me wondering wtf I'm seeing that for.
354 2012-01-30 04:15:11 <sipa> same
355 2012-01-30 04:15:27 <sipa> who owns this channel?
356 2012-01-30 04:15:28 <BlueMatt> yea, but if luke's gonna make literally everything political...meh
357 2012-01-30 04:15:39 <BlueMatt> nanotube: ping
358 2012-01-30 04:15:52 <BlueMatt> ;;seen nanotube
359 2012-01-30 04:15:52 <gribble> nanotube was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 1 hour, 3 minutes, and 59 seconds ago: <nanotube> yea
360 2012-01-30 04:16:16 <nanotube> pong?
361 2012-01-30 04:16:21 <luke-jr> a lot of discussions here don't relate to me either; is that a reason to censor them?
362 2012-01-30 04:16:32 <BlueMatt> nanotube: can you reenable the commits coming from the bitcoin repo in the rss bot?
363 2012-01-30 04:16:34 <luke-jr> nanotube: BlueMatt was abusing his ops earlier
364 2012-01-30 04:16:56 <luke-jr> nanotube: and now he's trying to reopen an ancient resolved argument
365 2012-01-30 04:17:00 <BlueMatt> yea, I kicked you a few times because you made statements that were blatantly false or stupid
366 2012-01-30 04:17:02 <luke-jr> yet another
367 2012-01-30 04:17:11 <BlueMatt> oh god...wtf?
368 2012-01-30 04:17:11 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: liar, you just outright abused it
369 2012-01-30 04:17:14 <nanotube> >_<
370 2012-01-30 04:17:21 <luke-jr> nanotube has logs
371 2012-01-30 04:17:29 <BlueMatt> I kicked you twice, get over it...
372 2012-01-30 04:17:33 <gmaxwell> omg. where is the garden hose?
373 2012-01-30 04:17:47 <BlueMatt> anyway, nanotube can you reenable commit messages, Im about to turn off and ban the CIA bot
374 2012-01-30 04:17:50 <BlueMatt> (if you dont mind)
375 2012-01-30 04:17:53 <nanotube> ;;give garden hose to gmaxwell
376 2012-01-30 04:17:54 <luke-jr> 3x
377 2012-01-30 04:18:10 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: see, he's threatening to abuse it more
378 2012-01-30 04:18:14 <luke-jr> nanotube*
379 2012-01-30 04:18:22 <sipa> well at least i'm in favor
380 2012-01-30 04:18:29 <luke-jr> the CIA "argument" was resolved months ago
381 2012-01-30 04:18:37 <BlueMatt> omg luke, make an argument stop crying abuse for everything?
382 2012-01-30 04:18:46 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: you're the one making arugments
383 2012-01-30 04:18:52 <nanotube> ok guys... to keep the dev channel full of wonderful devvy goodness, and barren of useless crap that nobody will want to read in the future... let's talk about this in #bitcoin-dev-meta :)
384 2012-01-30 04:19:06 <BlueMatt> sounds good
385 2012-01-30 04:33:29 <BlueMatt> damn
386 2012-01-30 04:33:30 <BlueMatt> too short
387 2012-01-30 04:33:46 <TuxBlackEdo> blow the whistle
388 2012-01-30 04:33:53 <nanotube> BlueMatt: dump the 'if you have a question'
389 2012-01-30 04:34:06 <nanotube> BlueMatt: people who read irc topic, also know to just ask :)
390 2012-01-30 04:34:11 <nanotube> people who don't know to ask, don't read topic
391 2012-01-30 04:34:18 <nanotube> so that bit is falling on deaf ears anyway :)
392 2012-01-30 04:34:31 <BlueMatt> ok, there done
393 2012-01-30 04:36:01 <TuxBlackEdo> can i ask a question?
394 2012-01-30 04:36:07 <luke-jr> no
395 2012-01-30 04:36:10 <TuxBlackEdo> never mind
396 2012-01-30 04:36:16 <sipa> yes, if you do not ask to aks one :)
397 2012-01-30 04:39:23 <nanotube> ;;kick anyone who asks to ask a question. :P
398 2012-01-30 04:41:08 <gribble> Error: You don't have the #bitcoin-dev,op capability. If you think that you should have this capability, be sure that you are identified before trying again. The 'whoami' command can tell you if you're identified.
399 2012-01-30 04:41:08 <luke-jr> ;;kick gribble
400 2012-01-30 04:41:11 <luke-jr> no fun
401 2012-01-30 04:41:51 <gribble> Error: You don't have the #bitcoin-dev,op capability. If you think that you should have this capability, be sure that you are identified before trying again. The 'whoami' command can tell you if you're identified.
402 2012-01-30 04:41:51 <splatster> ;;tell gribble [kick gribble]
403 2012-01-30 04:41:57 <splatster> aww
404 2012-01-30 04:42:06 <gribble> Do you guys think I'm stupid?
405 2012-01-30 04:42:23 <splatster> haha
406 2012-01-30 04:45:07 <gribble> Error: I cowardly refuse to kick myself.
407 2012-01-30 04:45:07 <nanotube> ;;kick gribble
408 2012-01-30 04:48:52 <gribble> Error: You don't have the admin capability. If you think that you should have this capability, be sure that you are identified before trying again. The 'whoami' command can tell you if you're identified.
409 2012-01-30 04:48:52 <lianj> ;;join 0
410 2012-01-30 04:50:53 <splatster> ;;kick [echo $randomNick]
411 2012-01-30 04:50:55 <gribble> Error: You don't have the #bitcoin-dev,op capability. If you think that you should have this capability, be sure that you are identified before trying again. The 'whoami' command can tell you if you're identified.
412 2012-01-30 04:51:17 <splatster> nanotube: do ;;kick [echo $randomNick]
413 2012-01-30 04:51:30 <luke-jr> ;;roulette
414 2012-01-30 04:51:31 <gribble> *click*
415 2012-01-30 04:51:57 <splatster> ;;tell gribble [roulette]
416 2012-01-30 04:51:58 <gribble> Error: You just told me, why should I tell myself?
417 2012-01-30 04:52:14 <etotheipi_> haha, you guys are crazy
418 2012-01-30 04:52:23 <nanotube> ok guys, save that for #bitcoin-games or something :)
419 2012-01-30 04:52:28 <luke-jr> #yandere
420 2012-01-30 04:52:52 <splatster> can you op me on #bitcoin-games?
421 2012-01-30 04:52:59 <splatster> for like 1 minute
422 2012-01-30 04:53:12 <splatster> so i can do ;;kick [echo $randomNick]
423 2012-01-30 05:21:17 <nanotube> BlueMatt: it's still possible ;)
424 2012-01-30 05:21:23 <BlueMatt> anyone have anything they are itching to merge to test #bitcoin-commits
425 2012-01-30 05:21:34 <BlueMatt> nanotube: meh, thats back when a btc was worth pretty much nothing
426 2012-01-30 05:21:43 <BlueMatt> (well short of a dollar)
427 2012-01-30 05:22:11 <BlueMatt> sipa: ?
428 2012-01-30 05:22:32 <nanotube> heh
429 2012-01-30 05:23:51 <gmaxwell> nanotube: says the guy who controls the rng!
430 2012-01-30 05:24:33 <nanotube> haha
431 2012-01-30 05:25:11 <gmaxwell> my plan for extreme profit is to buy random.org and then use it to exploit the gambling sites that use it for their rng.
432 2012-01-30 05:26:00 <BlueMatt> heh
433 2012-01-30 05:26:13 <BlueMatt> thats some careful manipulation there
434 2012-01-30 05:26:34 <nanotube> haha nice idea
435 2012-01-30 05:26:39 <gmaxwell> (I know this sounds stupid, but I know for a fact that there were several bitcoin gambling sites using it because I talked them out of it)
436 2012-01-30 05:27:15 <BlueMatt> oh wow thats bad
437 2012-01-30 05:27:57 <gmaxwell> random.org basically encourage it too, with their FAQ about why their randomness is superior.
438 2012-01-30 05:28:40 <BlueMatt> I can understand the reason for using random.org | pseudorandom data | more psudeorandom data
439 2012-01-30 05:28:51 <BlueMatt> to get some nice randomness, but just random.org...wtf?
440 2012-01-30 05:29:18 <BlueMatt> though I suppose if you have two pseudorandom sources |d you probably dont need random.org anyway
441 2012-01-30 05:30:39 <gmaxwell> if you're using a cryptographically strong prng with even the slighest bit of random/secure input then it doesn't matter to have anything more.
442 2012-01-30 05:30:50 <gmaxwell> If someone can invert SHA-256 they can do more profitable things than win at your poker.
443 2012-01-30 05:31:06 <BlueMatt> yea, but if you have two not great prngs then | helps a ton
444 2012-01-30 05:32:21 <BlueMatt> isnt there some theorum on that?
445 2012-01-30 05:33:14 <BlueMatt> sorry, ofc not OR, XOR
446 2012-01-30 05:33:18 <BlueMatt> that was dumb
447 2012-01-30 05:33:47 <gmaxwell> I figured you just didn't have a ??? key like me.
448 2012-01-30 05:33:55 <Diablo-D3> stop that!
449 2012-01-30 05:33:58 <BlueMatt> heh
450 2012-01-30 05:33:59 <Diablo-D3> this isnt a lisp machine!
451 2012-01-30 05:34:12 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: I actually modeled my keymap off one, in fact.
452 2012-01-30 05:34:20 <Diablo-D3> goddamnit!
453 2012-01-30 05:34:28 <BlueMatt> what did you replace for ???
454 2012-01-30 05:34:29 <gmaxwell> a symbolics keyboard.
455 2012-01-30 05:34:30 <Diablo-D3> no commander keyboard for you!
456 2012-01-30 05:34:53 <Diablo-D3> you know what I dont like?
457 2012-01-30 05:35:00 <Diablo-D3> it has a hyper modifier, it has a space key
458 2012-01-30 05:35:06 <Diablo-D3> but pressing hyper-space does nothing.
459 2012-01-30 05:35:14 <gmaxwell> http://world.std.com/~jdostale/kbd/SpaceCadet3.jpeg ??? is greek-6 for me.
460 2012-01-30 05:35:25 <BlueMatt> heh, nice
461 2012-01-30 05:35:33 <gmaxwell> left-control is greek (capslock is left control)
462 2012-01-30 05:35:50 <Diablo-D3> lol you swapped control?
463 2012-01-30 05:36:06 <BlueMatt> damn, thats nice
464 2012-01-30 05:36:11 <Diablo-D3> Ive been thinking about swapping esc with something
465 2012-01-30 05:36:11 <gmaxwell> ! are my greek-1/2 like the keyboard there but most of my number greeks are different.
466 2012-01-30 05:36:42 <Diablo-D3> (swapping esc with control or capslock == the vim equivilent of emacs keymaps)
467 2012-01-30 05:36:45 <gmaxwell> http://people.xiph.org/~greg/xmodmap.txt < there is my modmap, I've also got a custom compose map.
468 2012-01-30 05:36:55 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: man
469 2012-01-30 05:37:01 <Diablo-D3> I swap middle with thumb on my g5 mouse
470 2012-01-30 05:37:09 <Diablo-D3> I go into windows, and wonder why I cant middle click on shit
471 2012-01-30 05:37:54 <gmaxwell> (that stupid webserver isn't serving that file as utf-8 for some reason)
472 2012-01-30 05:38:17 <BlueMatt> thats a poorly-configured webserver
473 2012-01-30 05:38:20 <BlueMatt> or just an old one
474 2012-01-30 05:38:23 <Diablo-D3> needs more BOM
475 2012-01-30 05:39:07 <gmaxwell> just has a lot of legacy stuff, if I fix it, it'll probably break something.
476 2012-01-30 05:39:33 <BlueMatt> mmm, yep its always the legacy stuff that breaks things like that
477 2012-01-30 05:39:36 <Diablo-D3> TAKE IT APART!
478 2012-01-30 06:02:33 <sipa> etotheipi_: where is the specification for you determinstic wallets?
479 2012-01-30 06:06:26 <BlueMatt> well #bitcoin-commits works
480 2012-01-30 06:06:36 <BlueMatt> though with color that is really annoying
481 2012-01-30 06:15:17 <copumpkin> I don't often agree with luke-jr, but the smackdown in this thread has me cheering: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=57437.msg721297#msg721297
482 2012-01-30 06:15:48 <copumpkin> "No Bitcoin is not free because it doesn't allow me to not include a copyright text and because I say so. So there mr smarty pants!"
483 2012-01-30 06:16:25 <BlueMatt> damn, thats well done
484 2012-01-30 06:16:31 <BlueMatt> well done luke-jr
485 2012-01-30 06:16:36 <copumpkin> "No Bitcoin is not free because it doesn't allow me to not include a copyright text and because I say so. So there mr smarty pants!"
486 2012-01-30 06:16:41 <copumpkin> whoops sorry
487 2012-01-30 06:19:03 <splatster> That's funny
488 2012-01-30 06:20:32 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: I'm thinking unbanning him was a mistake. Or rather, pointing out that he was unbanned a while ago was a mistake.
489 2012-01-30 06:21:10 <copumpkin> is CoinHunter actually RealSolid?
490 2012-01-30 06:21:16 <copumpkin> or just someone else in the project?
491 2012-01-30 06:22:25 <sipa> i doubt there is anyone else in the project
492 2012-01-30 06:22:29 <gmaxwell> hahah
493 2012-01-30 06:22:57 <gmaxwell> Yes, he's realsolid. There was some claim that he wasn't but he screwed up his sockpuppetry at some point.
494 2012-01-30 06:23:14 <copumpkin> lol
495 2012-01-30 06:23:18 <copumpkin> he really doesn't seem very bright
496 2012-01-30 06:23:27 <copumpkin> it's interesting how these cranks develop followings
497 2012-01-30 06:23:29 <gmaxwell> dude is a genius.
498 2012-01-30 06:23:39 <copumpkin> there was a guy much like this in the jailbroken iphone community a while back
499 2012-01-30 06:24:10 <gmaxwell> I think he's been very valuable to me personally. His success has caused me to seriously reevaluate how much weight I give to "well, other people think its okay".
500 2012-01-30 06:24:50 <gmaxwell> His project is like an expirement in how untrustworthy you could make a cryptocurrency and still have at least a few people trust it, and the answer is apparently pretty darn untrustworthy.
501 2012-01-30 06:25:07 <TuxBlackEdo> what would call long poll to send new work?
502 2012-01-30 06:25:11 <sipa> but he fixed the 51% problem!
503 2012-01-30 06:25:21 <sipa> TuxBlackEdo: ?
504 2012-01-30 06:25:26 <TuxBlackEdo> new included transactions in the blockheader?
505 2012-01-30 06:25:42 <TuxBlackEdo> but that would mean long poll would send new work all the time, no?
506 2012-01-30 06:25:45 <sipa> new block
507 2012-01-30 06:25:53 <gmaxwell> sipa: yes, by providing a perpetual 51% attack which he is the perpetrator of, hardcoded into the system !
508 2012-01-30 06:26:14 <TuxBlackEdo> yeah but long polling doesn't send new work only when there is a new block, does it?
509 2012-01-30 06:26:17 <sipa> he just introduced a 0.01% problem along the way ;)
510 2012-01-30 06:26:29 <gmaxwell> haha
511 2012-01-30 06:26:42 <copumpkin> sipa: it's okay cause everyone knows rich people are more trustworthy
512 2012-01-30 06:26:46 <copumpkin> omg it's b4epoche
513 2012-01-30 06:26:52 <copumpkin> I guess he's probably idle
514 2012-01-30 06:27:19 <gmaxwell> If you look at the forum, he's been pretty successful in using bounties to spread negative comments about bitcoin.
515 2012-01-30 06:27:43 <copumpkin> yeah, I was going to write an article at some point about how this kind of phenomenon arises
516 2012-01-30 06:27:49 <TuxBlackEdo> long polling sends new work to the miners only for new blocks?
517 2012-01-30 06:28:04 <TuxBlackEdo> doesn't look like it from my mining logs
518 2012-01-30 06:28:12 <gmaxwell> (thread here: http://solidcointalk.org/topic/270-bitcoin-collapse-bounty-reclaim/)
519 2012-01-30 06:28:25 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: I think it's probably more powerful when your cult prints its own money.
520 2012-01-30 06:28:44 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: probably the only thing more powerful is when the cult saves its members from eternal damnnation.
521 2012-01-30 06:29:25 <sipa> panem et circenses also seemed to have worked in the past
522 2012-01-30 06:29:46 <gmaxwell> They also have a secret bitcoin mining pool for attacking bitcoin.
523 2012-01-30 06:29:51 <copumpkin> gmaxwell: in the iphone world there was no money involved, but still a large chunk of the community rallied behind a guy who was effectively a crank with little to no skill of his own, because he was the "little guy". Despite the fact that on the whole, the jailbreak developers themselves were the "little guy", next to Apple. This guy was littler, and was portraying the jailbreak devs as the corrupt
524 2012-01-30 06:30:25 <copumpkin> he eventually imploded under the weight of his own lies and dropped out of the community
525 2012-01-30 06:31:00 <gmaxwell> "I want to believe"
526 2012-01-30 06:32:52 <copumpkin> I'm not really sure what people want to believe in this kind of situation though. In the iphone situation, people complained that the existing jailbreak devs weren't transparent enough, so in some sense there was an opportunity in the "market" for popularity, and he started a venture that exploited that hole. In the case of bitcoin, there really isn't much lacking except for technical issues that most
527 2012-01-30 06:35:23 <gmaxwell> nah, I think thats not true. The respectable/trustworthy bitcoin people don't communicate in all communication channels.
528 2012-01-30 06:35:34 <gmaxwell> e.g. what respectable bitcoin person posts on facebook or on twitter?
529 2012-01-30 06:35:34 <niggaholdthat> Anyone know if there is any way to get the latest transactions after a certain amount of time with bitcoind? I'd imagine after a large number of transactions that parsing the entirety of "listtransactions" would be a waste of time
530 2012-01-30 06:35:57 <niggaholdthat> I noticed listtransactions provides a unix timestamp but no way to handle data using that timestamp
531 2012-01-30 06:36:17 <copumpkin> gmaxwell: hah, fair enough :) I tweet about bitcoin every so often and zooko does too, but neither of us are actually involved in the development
532 2012-01-30 06:37:01 <gmaxwell> (or have TV shows, or publish in academic journals or..)
533 2012-01-30 06:37:04 <gmaxwell> lots of vacuums.
534 2012-01-30 06:37:09 <copumpkin> yep
535 2012-01-30 06:37:14 <copumpkin> I don't think he really fills those though
536 2012-01-30 06:40:34 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: you around? I've gotten access to the solidcoin bitcoin attacking pool and I want to see if its whats doing the withholding attack on you.
537 2012-01-30 06:43:10 <copumpkin> interesting, http://www.hcrypt.com/
538 2012-01-30 06:44:15 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: made uninteresting: "shapeCPU (concept and implementation) is patented material (German patent pending, amtl. Az. 10 2011 012 328.8). Use is restricted to educational purposes."
539 2012-01-30 06:44:31 <copumpkin> yeah
540 2012-01-30 06:44:36 <gmaxwell> yea.. more technology which will go 20 years before people will useit.
541 2012-01-30 06:44:52 <copumpkin> actually
542 2012-01-30 06:45:01 <copumpkin> the library isn't
543 2012-01-30 06:45:04 <copumpkin> http://www.hcrypt.com/scarab.html
544 2012-01-30 06:45:18 <copumpkin> it's MIT-licensed
545 2012-01-30 06:47:45 <copumpkin> we need roconnor to translate that quickly to haskell
546 2012-01-30 06:47:55 <copumpkin> our resident clean haskell crypto implementer
547 2012-01-30 06:50:01 <gmaxwell> indeed, xor, multiply, and full and half add. hmph. How do you do that? snazzy.
548 2012-01-30 06:50:45 <gmaxwell> I fear my number theory kungfu won't best strong enough to follow that.
549 2012-01-30 06:51:22 <copumpkin> I imagine it'd be easier to follow if the math was unobfuscated by mpz_blahblabhalbha
550 2012-01-30 06:51:48 <dissipate_> wow, hcrypt sounds pretty damn interesting
551 2012-01-30 06:51:59 <dissipate_> does that run on custom hardware?
552 2012-01-30 06:53:05 <gmaxwell> oy, lattice based crypto / poly rings on ideal lattices. trying to understand NTRU already broke my brain
553 2012-01-30 06:58:54 <cjd> I think that's kind of the point of asymmetric crypto, if it was easy to comprehend then we could algebraicly solve a sig varification algo for the signing key
554 2012-01-30 06:59:04 <cjd> *verification
555 2012-01-30 06:59:06 <gmaxwell> cjd: haha.
556 2012-01-30 06:59:36 <gmaxwell> cjd: not so, go look at my beloved lamport signatures. If you accept one way functions they are trivial and intutive.
557 2012-01-30 07:01:30 <cjd> Very nice. I recognize one way functions as being "truely" secure because it would require an unmanagable amount of state to reverse them.
558 2012-01-30 07:02:36 <cjd> I can't see the same kind of security in regular crypto systems. They appear to rely on our inability to deal with discrete periodic functions very well.
559 2012-01-30 07:04:20 <gmaxwell> Yea.. I'm a real fan of lamport. It's the only asymmetric crypto which I could really explain to random family members and have them _really_ understand it and trust it for the right reasons.
560 2012-01-30 07:05:59 <cjd> it is sad that the keys are huge because one time signature is acceptable where the entire world sees each message since you can chain them
561 2012-01-30 07:06:11 <cjd> s/since/so/
562 2012-01-30 07:12:29 <TuxBlackEdo> lol gmaxwell
563 2012-01-30 07:12:44 <TuxBlackEdo> i went to that solicointalk link you were talking about
564 2012-01-30 07:12:56 <TuxBlackEdo> those guys were paid 20 solidcoins each
565 2012-01-30 07:13:20 <TuxBlackEdo> for the "Bitcoin Collapse Bounty"
566 2012-01-30 07:13:29 <TuxBlackEdo> that's like 0.15 bitcoins
567 2012-01-30 07:13:39 <TuxBlackEdo> per person talking badly about bitcoin
568 2012-01-30 07:14:00 <TuxBlackEdo> that's like $1?
569 2012-01-30 07:22:49 <gmaxwell> hm I wonder how much smaller you could make lamport signatures by applying a tree over the message bits.
570 2012-01-30 07:23:50 <gmaxwell> e.g. if the messages bits have a run 0000 then you could disclose the the 1 side with a single hash.
571 2012-01-30 07:24:59 <gmaxwell> e.g. if you have for each bit a 1 and 0 secret. And then a 1 and 0 public part. Then construct simple binary hash trees of the 1 and 0 pubic parts. which utimately hash up to one top public value.
572 2012-01-30 07:26:56 <cjd> hmm
573 2012-01-30 07:27:01 <gmaxwell> even just doing one level.. 00,01,10,11 .. 50% of the time you'd save transmitting one hash on the public side.
574 2012-01-30 07:27:32 <cjd> oh btw, I thought of another way to prevent holding the entire chain
575 2012-01-30 07:27:36 <gmaxwell> (this is all assuming the 'Short public key' style of usage)
576 2012-01-30 07:28:22 <cjd> store the header and a bit field where each set bit represents an unspent tx then when someone wants to spend money, make them provide the tx and the hash branch
577 2012-01-30 07:28:31 <cjd> *unspent tx output
578 2012-01-30 07:29:07 <cjd> then each tx occupies 1 bit
579 2012-01-30 07:29:21 <cjd> err each output occupies 1 bit
580 2012-01-30 07:31:56 <sipa> cjd: and how does this depend on secret information?
581 2012-01-30 07:32:30 <cjd> re how to prevent holding the entire chain/
582 2012-01-30 07:32:57 <cjd> no secrets, it's just that if a block doesn't have any of your money in it, you forget it
583 2012-01-30 07:33:33 <cjd> and if someone spends money, you make them show you the block and you check your bitfield to make sure the output it wasn't already spent
584 2012-01-30 07:38:48 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: Flowdalic opened issue 788 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/788>
585 2012-01-30 11:37:28 <roconnor> gmaxwell: software is not patentable in Europe.
586 2012-01-30 11:37:53 <Diablo-D3> * except in germany
587 2012-01-30 12:46:58 <b4epoche> copumpkin: the job is keeping me pretty busy
588 2012-01-30 13:37:38 <gavinandresen> Happy Monday everybody. I need some help thinking about 0.6 release candidates and p2sh deadlines....
589 2012-01-30 13:49:16 <[eval]> happy monday :)
590 2012-01-30 13:52:15 <[eval]> it looks like the mining deadline isn't going to be met for p2sh?
591 2012-01-30 13:54:15 <sipa> gavinandresen: how is support from pool owvers coming?
592 2012-01-30 13:54:30 <gavinandresen> sipa: http://blockchain.info/p2sh
593 2012-01-30 13:54:58 <gavinandresen> ... not sure how accurate that is, I don't think Deepbit or Eligius is actually supporting BIP 16
594 2012-01-30 13:55:40 <sipa> ok, but maybe there are a few who has said they will deploy bip16-enabled code when the real voting period is there?
595 2012-01-30 13:56:34 <gavinandresen> BTC Guild said they were going to support it, but had/has some personal issue that kept them from actually applying the patch
596 2012-01-30 13:57:28 <[eval]> slush already supports it and tycho has said he'll support it with deepbit once he sees enough support from other pools (trying to be conservative and not exert undue influence)
597 2012-01-30 13:57:41 <gavinandresen> [eval]: yes, BIP 16 won't meet the first deadline....
598 2012-01-30 13:58:03 <gavinandresen> ... so my first question is: how far out to move the deadline?
599 2012-01-30 13:58:47 <[eval]> the voting period is ~1 week?
600 2012-01-30 13:58:50 <[eval]> 1000 blocks?
601 2012-01-30 13:58:56 <gavinandresen> Yes
602 2012-01-30 14:00:02 <[eval]> then 1 week + the stated/expected time of implementation from the mining pools that say they're on board but haven't yet implemented for whatever reason (like btcguild)
603 2012-01-30 14:00:18 <gavinandresen> We could switch to a completely floating deadline... or an "Every two weeks we'll evaluate support"
604 2012-01-30 14:00:22 <gmaxwell> I suggest you find someone of the too soon crowd and use the time they suggest if it's at all realistic. Then they get the job of defending it to them-prime when that time comes.
605 2012-01-30 14:00:24 <[eval]> or 2 weeks + that to be on the safe side in case tycho waffles for a while
606 2012-01-30 14:00:49 <[eval]> that sounds like an even better idea, gavinandresen
607 2012-01-30 14:00:51 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: the floating deadline will result in never-convergence if too many people are "I'll adopt when it's official"
608 2012-01-30 14:00:58 <sipa> agree
609 2012-01-30 14:01:11 <[eval]> every difficulty change, check the previous 2016 blocks (or still 1000 blocks)
610 2012-01-30 14:01:13 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: that's my fear
611 2012-01-30 14:01:35 <[eval]> hrm. nm, i agree with gmaxwell.
612 2012-01-30 14:01:43 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: What are your thoughts? You're the too-rushed person I've talked to the most? What are you looking for?
613 2012-01-30 14:02:43 <gmaxwell> (Okay, guess he's not around now)
614 2012-01-30 14:03:09 <gmaxwell> I think the people who are concerned that this is over hurried are probably under represented in here.
615 2012-01-30 14:03:30 <Graet> i'm one
616 2012-01-30 14:04:00 <Graet> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61429.msg721824#msg721824
617 2012-01-30 14:04:10 <gavinandresen> That's the other thing I'm wondering: where to start the conversation.
618 2012-01-30 14:04:36 <gavinandresen> (where to start/focus: forums? which subforum? bitcoin-development mailing list?)
619 2012-01-30 14:05:10 <gavinandresen> So Graet, what do you think?
620 2012-01-30 14:05:14 <helo> would a testnet-dev, with p2sh implemented for testing, satiate too-rushed at some point?
621 2012-01-30 14:05:45 <gavinandresen> help: ? what do you mean by testnet-dev? p2sh works on testnet right now
622 2012-01-30 14:05:47 <gmaxwell> We have that.
623 2012-01-30 14:05:57 <gmaxwell> it's call git clone .. bitcoind -testnet .. done.
624 2012-01-30 14:06:03 <helo> ah ok... cheers
625 2012-01-30 14:06:04 <Graet> like my post QA
626 2012-01-30 14:06:34 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: so one thing I think we need is some systematic disclosure of what has been done.
627 2012-01-30 14:07:07 <gmaxwell> I suspect that Graet is unaware of the unit tests you've written. (or for that matter, I'm not aware of the specific test cases you've run)
628 2012-01-30 14:07:10 <etotheipi_> sipa, (re: 8 hours ago) I don't have the full spec for the Armory wallets, but I have the file format documented here: http://bitcoinarmory.com/index.php/armory-wallet-files
629 2012-01-30 14:07:42 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: ok, I can post a "State of BIP 16" summary somewhere.
630 2012-01-30 14:07:49 <helo> i assumed testnet was always running exactly what has been released, so people could use it to see how their stuff would work on the real blockchain
631 2012-01-30 14:07:50 <Graet> tbh, ths discussion is so scattered and i'm not on the dev list - so i may be missing much :)
632 2012-01-30 14:08:16 <gavinandresen> Graet: where would you expect the discussion to be centered?
633 2012-01-30 14:08:23 <gmaxwell> Graet: the presence of bugs here and there is to be expected. That alone isn't evidence of inadequate QA. (Not that I'm discounting your concern- I just don't think it's easy to draw the line between expected and problematic)
634 2012-01-30 14:09:02 <gmaxwell> helo: This is why P2SH (BIP16) is in git head. Testnet is running what users on testnet run, oftent git head but not always.
635 2012-01-30 14:09:50 <gmaxwell> (I've also been completely confused about luke complaining that p2sh is in git head with his accusation that gavin is 'forcing' it on people putting it it hit head is how we get it on testnet)
636 2012-01-30 14:10:02 <Graet> gavinandresen i dont mind - as long as i can find it and access it easily, just i have seen conversations in many irc chanels and more than a few forum posts ;)
637 2012-01-30 14:11:01 <sipa> etotheipi_: how do you convert the bytevectors to text?
638 2012-01-30 14:11:12 <sipa> etotheipi_: for the printable wallet?
639 2012-01-30 14:11:17 <Graet> gmaxwell from idling in here and reaing and trying to understand (i'm not a coder) i have seen the QA issue raised before, and while most discussion happens in the middle of my night . i try to keep up with whats happening in here and i have seen worrying reorts of bugs
640 2012-01-30 14:13:08 <gavinandresen> Graet: it is a chronic problem with just about every open source project; writing code is a lot more fun than testing
641 2012-01-30 14:13:24 <Graet> that i do know :D
642 2012-01-30 14:13:55 <sipa> is that only a problem in open-source? :)
643 2012-01-30 14:13:58 <gavinandresen> Graet: if I was a different person I probably would have already formed a not-for-profit organization that figured out how to take bitcoin donations and then (legally) pay somebody to do QA
644 2012-01-30 14:14:03 <Graet> also coders love to code but not deal with users (something else i noticed) :P
645 2012-01-30 14:14:34 <gavinandresen> THe "legally" bit is the tricky bit, I have no idea whether the donations would be taxable as income to the organization or if minimum wage laws would apply to the QA people or yada yada yada
646 2012-01-30 14:14:37 <etotheipi_> sipa, the text on the printable wallet is simply a remapping of hex to another alphabet, intended to be easy[er] to type
647 2012-01-30 14:15:11 <sipa> i see
648 2012-01-30 14:15:15 <Graet> gavinandresen understandable, i tried to get a nfp going in au and encourage others in other countries to do the same, so we could form a world bidy, but about then price deopped from $25 to crash and interest dwindled, was thinking of trying again soon
649 2012-01-30 14:15:34 <Graet> nfp can pay wages to employees and hire contractors
650 2012-01-30 14:15:46 <Graet> this is something i have loked into
651 2012-01-30 14:15:56 <etotheipi_> sipa, each line has 16 bytes + 2 byte checksum for that line, the mapping is: https://github.com/etotheipi/BitcoinArmory/blob/qtdev/qtdialogs.py#L2607
652 2012-01-30 14:16:42 <sipa> etotheipi_: also, forget the comment i made yesterday about only using a single 256-bit source of entropy.. you cannot do that if you want a type-2 wallet... there needs to be a some randomizer seed that is public, apart from the private key
653 2012-01-30 14:16:55 <josephcp> not-for-profits still need to file 1099 paperwork with contractors
654 2012-01-30 14:17:29 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I set BIP 17's "voting week" for the first week of Feb. Better to not overlap, IMO.
655 2012-01-30 14:17:42 <etotheipi_> sipa, you mean what I refer to as the chaincode?
656 2012-01-30 14:17:54 <sipa> etotheipi_: in your case, that seed is the chaincode indeed
657 2012-01-30 14:18:46 <gavinandresen> 1099 paperwork is why I would have to be a different person to actually make a not-for-profit happen....
658 2012-01-30 14:18:50 <etotheipi_> sipa, I don't see why the chaincode can't be deterministically computed from the private key... the only reason is if you allow users to enter just a private key and they enter something with 8 bits of entropy and then collide with someone else
659 2012-01-30 14:19:29 <sipa> etotheipi_: well you need the chaincode even if you don't have the private key
660 2012-01-30 14:19:43 <sipa> for observe-only wallets
661 2012-01-30 14:19:48 <gmaxwell> sipa: you use 256 bits-> H() to get = private key | chaincode.
662 2012-01-30 14:20:09 <etotheipi_> sipa, only someone with the watching-only wallet needs it... as long as the chaincode provides zero information about the priv key, it's shouldn't matter where it comes from
663 2012-01-30 14:20:09 <Graet> whatever 1099 is josephcp - but yes if they are paying they need to keep tax records etc
664 2012-01-30 14:20:11 <gmaxwell> then you can just give the chaincode to someone to have an observe only.
665 2012-01-30 14:20:29 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: do you have any remaining objections to BIP 17 now that the sigop limit issue was solved?
666 2012-01-30 14:20:41 <sipa> if you're going to store both anyway, you may as well generate both from random data
667 2012-01-30 14:20:54 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: yes, my objections remain the same as they ever were. I'm not going to continue arguing.
668 2012-01-30 14:21:04 <BTC_Bear> I've though of a 503 (insert some letter) after the Toys4Tots auction. I just don't know how to do it with out causing a commotion. All the unanswered questions: What we need is a lawyer that take BitCoin hehe
669 2012-01-30 14:21:22 <BTC_Bear> takes*
670 2012-01-30 14:21:46 <BTC_Bear> thought* dam... good morning all
671 2012-01-30 14:22:41 <sipa> gmaxwell, etotheipi_: i guess i'm talking about how you generate the private key and chaincode; i was arguing that you could do with *only* a 256-bit secret, but that turns the whole thing into a type-1 wallet of course
672 2012-01-30 14:22:47 <sipa> *not
673 2012-01-30 14:24:41 <etotheipi_> sipa, not entirely... as long as the program turns around and spits out the resultant chaincode, later, in order to make the watching-only wallet
674 2012-01-30 14:24:44 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: fine; will you at least respect the BIP 17 voting period, and not try to overlap it?
675 2012-01-30 14:25:03 <sipa> etotheipi_: never mind
676 2012-01-30 14:25:25 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: I'm going to start a conversation about how voting should be handled, and will go with whatever consensus emerges
677 2012-01-30 14:25:56 <etotheipi_> gah, I wish I didn't have to go to work...
678 2012-01-30 14:26:35 <helo> if bip17 and bip16 are competing, shouldn't the voting periods coincide?
679 2012-01-30 14:26:35 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: voting *has* to be handled by pools, due to the nature of the change& if you mean "coinbase alone is fail; you HAVE to merge support to vote", I think everyone agrees on that
680 2012-01-30 14:26:48 <luke-jr> helo: what if people want to support both?
681 2012-01-30 14:27:10 <luke-jr> ie, "I support P2SH, I don't care how we get it"
682 2012-01-30 14:27:18 <helo> i didn't know implementing both was being considered
683 2012-01-30 14:27:33 <luke-jr> helo: not implementing both& not caring which
684 2012-01-30 14:28:03 <josephcp> then they can have both flags, no?
685 2012-01-30 14:28:06 <helo> they flip a coin?
686 2012-01-30 14:28:23 <luke-jr> josephcp: they're not flags
687 2012-01-30 14:28:33 <luke-jr> josephcp: you have to *actually* support the change
688 2012-01-30 14:28:41 <luke-jr> helo: then we'll never get anywhere
689 2012-01-30 14:29:33 <josephcp> yeah i guess it'd be silly to broadcast flags without any guarantee of support
690 2012-01-30 14:29:58 <sipa> not silly, but very dangerous
691 2012-01-30 14:30:52 <josephcp> and i guess it'd be a bad idea to support both at the same time too, huh.
692 2012-01-30 14:31:04 <luke-jr> josephcp: maybe not, but nobody's tried it
693 2012-01-30 14:31:14 <luke-jr> long-term, it'd be non-ideal
694 2012-01-30 14:31:16 <josephcp> sounds like a lot of code shuffling around
695 2012-01-30 14:32:05 <Graet> i thought about using seperate node, so miners could choose, but the ppl that worry about latency, or dont check the enws would skew the result
696 2012-01-30 14:32:23 <helo> awareness of bip16/bip17 in general should increase over time... so whichever has the later voting period might have an advantage
697 2012-01-30 14:32:38 <luke-jr> I don't know why Gavin is still opposed to BIP 17 at this point. Seems things could proceed a lot easier.
698 2012-01-30 14:33:41 <helo> seems like there are two decisions that need to be made... whether to support any form of p2sh, and subsequently which approach to support
699 2012-01-30 14:34:17 <luke-jr> helo: and how soon
700 2012-01-30 14:34:36 <luke-jr> a lot of people would rather give this more time
701 2012-01-30 14:36:58 <helo> if someone doesn't like p2sh in general, they can just not use it themselves... are there founded concerns that p2sh could destroy bitcoin for everybody?
702 2012-01-30 14:38:23 <gmaxwell> helo: the reciever of funds could choose to not use p2sh, sure.
703 2012-01-30 14:38:24 <josephcp> helo: well i for one would be 100% behind p2sh if earlier multisig outputs are defined as IsStandard (https://gist.github.com/39158239e36f6af69d6f)
704 2012-01-30 14:38:42 <gmaxwell> josephcp: don't be a "feature terrorist"
705 2012-01-30 14:38:46 <gmaxwell> Please.
706 2012-01-30 14:38:58 <Moron__> my vote can be purchased for 5 btc
707 2012-01-30 14:39:01 <gmaxwell> It's unfair to tie your support to more or less unrelated things.
708 2012-01-30 14:39:19 <gmaxwell> josephcp: if everyone does that we'll be in complete deadlock. :(
709 2012-01-30 14:39:25 <josephcp> it's a lot more conservative than adding p2sh features the only difference from the use case is longer addresses
710 2012-01-30 14:39:42 <josephcp> not exactly "feature terrorism"
711 2012-01-30 14:40:24 <gmaxwell> josephcp: multisig output as is-standard is not the same as P2S-addresses. There are _many_ differences between P2S-address and P2SH-addresses.
712 2012-01-30 14:41:01 <josephcp> yes but the end use-case goals overlap, how you get there is different, and yes p2sh does add a LOT more capability (Which i _DO_ like)
713 2012-01-30 14:41:37 <josephcp> i'm just saying my reservations with p2sh would be gone if that were the case was all :-P
714 2012-01-30 14:42:49 <gmaxwell> josephcp: Can you help me understand why enabling something else makes you comfortable with P2SH?
715 2012-01-30 14:43:12 <gmaxwell> You can already use multisig output transactions today, if you addnode eligius it will mine them.
716 2012-01-30 14:43:36 <helo> i'd be in favor of assuming some form of p2sh is going to be implemented at some point, and treat the vote as a selection of which form will be used
717 2012-01-30 14:43:40 <josephcp> because when everyone uses p2sh addresses it reduces the likelihood that something like that would be included as IsStandard (let alonea priority)
718 2012-01-30 14:44:27 <josephcp> it's a social matter of use case fulfillment, rather than a technical problem (which is the approach you're taking believe, i don't disagree with the technical issues)
719 2012-01-30 14:45:28 <gmaxwell> josephcp: it is indeed the case that non-p2sh multisig would not see much usage longterm, because of block bloat dos attack pressure.
720 2012-01-30 14:46:19 <gmaxwell> It's a little ironic, in fact
721 2012-01-30 14:46:56 <gmaxwell> Luke opposed BIP16 specifically because gavin was unwilling to add a sentence that said non-p2sh style transactions were depricated for new transaction types.
722 2012-01-30 14:46:58 <josephcp> well i'm not necessarily sure i agree with that, the difference is just a bigger n, it's not a geometric difference
723 2012-01-30 14:47:09 <josephcp> i understnad the concern 100% though
724 2012-01-30 14:47:16 <gmaxwell> (The polar opposite of your position, in fact!)
725 2012-01-30 14:47:27 <josephcp> haha :-)
726 2012-01-30 14:48:19 <josephcp> either way i'm doing my best not to make this a big deal, which is a difference that you can appreciate
727 2012-01-30 14:48:22 <gmaxwell> josephcp: It's some factor N on the data that remains post-pruning (e.g. after the log(X) savings from pruning).
728 2012-01-30 14:48:36 <josephcp> ;-)
729 2012-01-30 14:49:31 <josephcp> yeah, there is a noticable difference i agree, but i'm just uncomfortable with, to me, sounds like lossy compression (okay that's a bit hyperbolic)
730 2012-01-30 14:49:57 <gmaxwell> The long term plan for IsStandard() is "return true;" in many people's minds here.
731 2012-01-30 14:50:42 <cjd> +1
732 2012-01-30 14:51:19 <gmaxwell> josephcp: ::srhugs:: we use the same "lossy compression" for ECDSA public keys. Also, if the lossy compression is insecure (H() is subject to preimage attacks) then our signatures are insecure too.
733 2012-01-30 14:51:34 <josephcp> yeah, i understand, which is why i'm doing my best not to make my point of view to be some kind of super big drama in the forums or whatever
734 2012-01-30 14:52:16 <josephcp> still feels like a hack that was all started because OP_XOR or OP_CAT is disabled
735 2012-01-30 14:53:25 <gmaxwell> josephcp: nah, the cat style stuff only worked for some transaction types. If we were coding RPN rules in "addresses" we'd still have the malleability problem.
736 2012-01-30 14:54:09 <gmaxwell> (and the size problem people say long form addresses are okay but they're talking about 2-of-2 .. add a few more and you're quickly up to 1000 character addresses)
737 2012-01-30 14:56:37 <josephcp> yeah i definitely see where it could be useful :-) i'd just personally would prefer to use standard outputs for escrowed transactions is all, i think this is something we agree to disagree on?
738 2012-01-30 14:57:31 <gmaxwell> Why haven't you been using them already then?
739 2012-01-30 14:57:43 <gmaxwell> (an earnest question, I'm not just trying to argue)
740 2012-01-30 14:59:28 <josephcp> not IsStandard, no consensus on script formats (let alone addresses), i'm not saying it's a usable situation *today*
741 2012-01-30 15:00:29 <josephcp> but if one of the multiple proposed in August that used OP_HASH160 was added (and address formats were figured out later) I think I would be really happy?
742 2012-01-30 15:01:32 <gmaxwell> josephcp: I guess why I'm asking is while addnode=eligius is an extra barrier to using this stuff, it's a really small one compared to all of those other issues.
743 2012-01-30 15:02:08 <josephcp> it's a huge barrier from a social adoption perspective, you can't get other people to send you escrowed coins without directly connecting to one pool
744 2012-01-30 15:02:10 <gmaxwell> josephcp: and with that one additional configuration addition you've been able to use these transactions for about a year, but no one has been doing so.
745 2012-01-30 15:02:16 <josephcp> so there's no incentive to create the tools to make it work
746 2012-01-30 15:02:55 <gmaxwell> It's a one line configuration change. The same tool that makes the transactions could easily make the configuration change too.
747 2012-01-30 15:03:45 <josephcp> i wouldn't be surprised if more than half of bitcoin's userbase doesn't even know where the configuration files are haha
748 2012-01-30 15:03:59 <gmaxwell> josephcp: The user doesn't need to know. The author of the tool does.
749 2012-01-30 15:04:04 <josephcp> and the slow adding to blocks is also lame
750 2012-01-30 15:05:11 <gmaxwell> Yes, but are you really arguing that having to wait a couple hours right now is what is totally preventing the use of this?
751 2012-01-30 15:05:47 <gmaxwell> I fear that absent usage, which we could have had all year the only thing enabling this in IsStandard() would actually permit is DOS attacks. :(
752 2012-01-30 15:06:35 <josephcp> I think an interesting compromise would be 3 or 4 escrowed outputs as IsStandard, if you want more you have to use p2sh
753 2012-01-30 15:06:44 <gmaxwell> You say this is important, but save the issues of slow confirmation and the invisible to the user addition of a relay these transactions have been perfectly possible for a year and people simply aren't using them.
754 2012-01-30 15:06:58 <josephcp> more than 3 is the point where the addreses would be ugly anyway
755 2012-01-30 15:07:55 <luke-jr> josephcp: correction, I oppose BIP 16 because it fundamentally modifies the entire system in an inconsistent way
756 2012-01-30 15:07:57 <gmaxwell> josephcp: addresses are ugly with just two, they don't fit on one line in an email anymore and get wrapped so you have to copy and paste in two chunks. I don't think asking services to support 3 address types is desirable.
757 2012-01-30 15:08:00 <josephcp> i think you're underestimating the psychological barrier of IsStandard, creating non-standard transactions feels sketchy, you're relying on a single pool that might not be able to find a block in one day
758 2012-01-30 15:08:24 <luke-jr> the inconsistency would be solved if the old system were deprecated, and only supported for backward compatibility
759 2012-01-30 15:08:38 <gmaxwell> josephcp: it's a new and immature feature. it _should_ feel sketchy. There may be more bugs in checkmultisig than what we've discovered so far.
760 2012-01-30 15:09:36 <sipa> cgminer doesn't support CPU mining anymore?
761 2012-01-30 15:09:39 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: my apologizes Luke, I consiered explaining the "inconsistency would be solved" part, I do actually understand why you reached that conclusion (it makes me happy that I understand you!), but I felt it was a tangent.
762 2012-01-30 15:09:59 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: it makes a difference IMO
763 2012-01-30 15:10:21 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: yea, sorry. I made your weirdly reasonable position sound less reasonable.
764 2012-01-30 15:10:39 <luke-jr> sipa: disabled in binaries and by default
765 2012-01-30 15:10:52 <luke-jr> sipa: --enable-cpumining during configure
766 2012-01-30 15:11:03 <sipa> configure: WARNING: unrecognized options: --enable-cpumining
767 2012-01-30 15:11:08 <luke-jr> sipa: ./autogen.sh
768 2012-01-30 15:11:26 <luke-jr> the goal is to get virus detectors off cgminer's back
769 2012-01-30 15:11:35 <josephcp> yeah, just giving my perspective, <shrug> anyway i have to get going, take care
770 2012-01-30 15:12:09 <gmaxwell> josephcp: thanks! Its been an interesting discussion.
771 2012-01-30 15:12:13 <sipa> luke-jr: thanks!
772 2012-01-30 15:12:44 <gmaxwell> do the virus detectors fire on bitcoin(-qt) itself?
773 2012-01-30 15:12:54 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: not afaik
774 2012-01-30 15:13:01 <luke-jr> the problem is trojans like to include cgminer as their payload
775 2012-01-30 15:13:58 <k9quaint> luke-jr: you need to build in a way to redirect all that hash power to your worker ;)
776 2012-01-30 15:14:49 <k9quaint> donate the money earned to the cancer society or something
777 2012-01-30 15:15:14 <luke-jr> ?
778 2012-01-30 15:15:55 <Ukyo> k9quaint: which one thought.. there are so many.
779 2012-01-30 15:16:08 <Ukyo> *though
780 2012-01-30 15:17:05 <k9quaint> hmmm, how to check if you are the result of a virus payload...
781 2012-01-30 15:17:28 <Ukyo> is your gpu maxed for no reason? heh
782 2012-01-30 15:17:39 <Graet> or cpu ;)
783 2012-01-30 15:18:06 <Graet> they arent that fussy, tho the good ones identify and miner on best hardware
784 2012-01-30 15:18:30 <Ukyo> heh, just package cgminer with dynamic mode -_-
785 2012-01-30 15:25:57 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell suggested I create a table of all the BIP 16 testing that has been done to-date, so I just spent an hour or so doing that: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0016_QA
786 2012-01-30 15:26:44 <gavinandresen> If you've been testing BIP 16, or you've deployed it (Graet, did I see that your pool is supporting it?) a quick edit/sign-off would be really nice.
787 2012-01-30 15:27:08 <gavinandresen> I wish I'd done this before, I think it might be a good way of coordinating testing efforts
788 2012-01-30 15:27:23 <Graet> no gavinandresen . i'm from the undecided, not sure its ready group
789 2012-01-30 15:28:02 <gavinandresen> Graet: ok.
790 2012-01-30 15:28:40 <Ukyo> didn't slush implement already?
791 2012-01-30 15:28:54 <sipa> he did
792 2012-01-30 15:29:20 <Graet> but thanls for the wiki page gavinandresen , it might help in my decision :)
793 2012-01-30 15:30:04 <gavinandresen> Graet: no problem, like I said I should have thought of it before....
794 2012-01-30 15:30:49 <Graet> :)
795 2012-01-30 15:32:48 <gmaxwell> I'm running it on mainnet, but have only mined two blocks with it so far. :) (go go 10GH/s)
796 2012-01-30 15:34:58 <michaelmclees> quick question, it is possible to incorporate a message along with a transaction, encrypted like pgp, so that only the person with the private key to the address you sent money to can decrypt it?
797 2012-01-30 15:35:13 <gavinandresen> quick answer: not really.
798 2012-01-30 15:36:08 <michaelmclees> is it possible to incorporate such a function into the client, using the wallet file for private keys, but keeping such messages out of the block chain?
799 2012-01-30 15:37:01 <michaelmclees> would this not merely be pgp with wallet private keys?
800 2012-01-30 15:37:13 <gavinandresen> michaelmclees: sure, there's already a sign/verify message API
801 2012-01-30 15:37:32 <michaelmclees> oh, i had no idea
802 2012-01-30 15:37:33 <gavinandresen> (and I think wumpus pulled a patch to add it to some advanced button/tab somewhere in the GUI, too)
803 2012-01-30 15:37:40 <sipa> michaelmclees: whatever that message is, it does not belong in the block chain
804 2012-01-30 15:37:57 <cjd> bitcoin keys are ecdsa which doesn't really support encryption
805 2012-01-30 15:38:14 <sipa> michaelmclees: you're sending it to someone, so you probably know how to communicate with them outside of the blockchain too
806 2012-01-30 15:38:20 <cjd> ofc it may be possible to hack a key to support it but it's not an afternoon project (at least not for me)
807 2012-01-30 15:38:41 <sipa> the encryption part is not implemented, but is doable
808 2012-01-30 15:39:11 <michaelmclees> but if someone smarter than I were to look into it, it would be part of the sign/verify message api?
809 2012-01-30 15:39:40 <cjd> sign != encrypt
810 2012-01-30 15:39:53 <michaelmclees> oh, good point
811 2012-01-30 15:40:36 <cjd> being able to like email someone just knowing a bitcoin addr would be kinda neat but not really that useful
812 2012-01-30 15:40:46 <cjd> (IMO)
813 2012-01-30 15:40:49 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: not that I think it should matter, but you know slush doesn't run vanilla 0.3.24 ;)
814 2012-01-30 15:41:01 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: no vanilla bitcoind can mine on mainnet anymore
815 2012-01-30 15:41:06 <gmaxwell> sipa: meh, well you can pretty easily. You take the users public key, you make up a random key. You do ECDH using the random key. You tell them the random key's public key, and you use the hash of the ECDH derrived key for encryption.
816 2012-01-30 15:41:35 <sipa> gmaxwell: yes, i know how :)
817 2012-01-30 15:41:41 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: right, I'll fix that, he runs a variation on the vinced_mergedmine backport (which is forked from 0.3.24)
818 2012-01-30 15:42:11 <cjd> gmaxwell: (I gather that was for me) indeed, didn't think of that, it is much easier than I had thought
819 2012-01-30 15:42:56 <sipa> it's called ECIES, i believe
820 2012-01-30 15:43:29 <michaelmclees> would the message travel the same way as a transaction?
821 2012-01-30 15:43:36 <gmaxwell> opps yes, that was for cjd.
822 2012-01-30 15:43:40 <sipa> michaelmclees: it shouldn't
823 2012-01-30 15:43:46 <cjd> that would be evil
824 2012-01-30 15:43:52 <sipa> well, it could travel along with the transaction
825 2012-01-30 15:43:58 <sipa> but it should not be part of it
826 2012-01-30 15:44:31 <cjd> broadcasting a message out to the entire network is DoSish and probably should cost something
827 2012-01-30 15:44:32 <michaelmclees> what i mean is, would such a scheme allow someone to send millions of large messages that would look like an attack
828 2012-01-30 15:45:20 <gmaxwell> cjd: our network is a broadcasty network, not really sutiable for this...
829 2012-01-30 15:46:39 <cjd> indeed, which is why I'm saying that there should be some flood prevention which drops low payment:size ratio transactions in flood conditions
830 2012-01-30 15:47:38 <gmaxwell> cjd: so I pay myself 1000 BTC and include a 1mb message. ... hard to tune.
831 2012-01-30 15:47:57 <gmaxwell> Better to make the message forwarding a seperate network so that people who don't care about it aren't obligated to participate.
832 2012-01-30 15:48:04 <cjd> oh crap I meant low tx_fee:size ratio
833 2012-01-30 15:48:20 <michaelmclees> if adding an encrypted message meant paying transaction fees, what would be the problem of adding it to the block chain itself?
834 2012-01-30 15:48:47 <gmaxwell> michaelmclees: because the blockchain itself burdens storage and processing for people far into the future.
835 2012-01-30 15:49:10 <gmaxwell> michaelmclees: so the proper fees would be quite high. (bitcoin transactions are intentionally structured to be very small)
836 2012-01-30 15:49:24 <cjd> I think that can be solved but still it costs a lot of people a lot of bandwidth and as far as we know, that can't.
837 2012-01-30 15:49:58 <michaelmclees> hmm
838 2012-01-30 15:50:13 <sipa> michaelmclees: the blockchain is massive beats to maintain, that costs a ton to all miners and relaying nodes
839 2012-01-30 15:50:33 <sipa> michaelmclees: they choose to do so, because they find the idea of what bitcoin allows as a payment system to be useful
840 2012-01-30 15:50:44 <sipa> or because of financial interests
841 2012-01-30 15:51:22 <sipa> but putting anything in the chain that is not strictly necessary for the world to be able to verify it, only increases those costs without benefit
842 2012-01-30 15:51:33 <gmaxwell> We're not even sure if this will scale. You can argue it either way. Sane bitcoiner's should not welcome non-finance data into the system, because that's simply not essential to what bitcoin does and moves us closer to the not-scale result.
843 2012-01-30 15:52:20 <michaelmclees> if such a thing is kept outside the chain, is there still the dos problem of message propagation?
844 2012-01-30 15:52:39 <sipa> no
845 2012-01-30 15:52:51 <sipa> you'd just send it to the receiver himself directly
846 2012-01-30 15:53:04 <michaelmclees> ahh, i didn't know that could be done
847 2012-01-30 15:53:27 <gmaxwell> michaelmclees: there is a feature disabled by default in bitcoin for pay to IP that lets you send a message with it.
848 2012-01-30 15:53:29 <sipa> michaelmclees: well we have this technology called the internet
849 2012-01-30 15:53:41 <sipa> it basically allows us to send messages between computers ;)
850 2012-01-30 15:53:54 <gmaxwell> cjd: So I've gotten quotes in sat bandwidth, it's pretty cheap if you don't want much.
851 2012-01-30 15:54:04 <cjd> :D
852 2012-01-30 15:54:05 <gmaxwell> cjd: at least for capacity on C-band transponders.
853 2012-01-30 15:54:06 <michaelmclees> with that in mind, is adding such a feature into the client a difficult problem to solve?
854 2012-01-30 15:54:14 <cjd> ahh I see
855 2012-01-30 15:54:18 <sipa> michaelmclees: no, but agreeing how it should be done is :)
856 2012-01-30 15:54:26 <cjd> cband is hard to set lots of receivers up for
857 2012-01-30 15:54:37 <cjd> and the idea is 1 transmitter, many receivers
858 2012-01-30 15:54:45 <gmaxwell> Yea. :( well, its easy, but you need either a bigger antenna or low data rate.
859 2012-01-30 15:55:02 <cjd> it will come
860 2012-01-30 15:55:15 <gmaxwell> cjd: with a big (1.5m) antenna I can easily bit the blockchain in a 10KHz channel that costs only $50/month.
861 2012-01-30 15:55:46 <cjd> and if we can reliably remove data from the chain then it can double as a very interesting broadcasting service
862 2012-01-30 15:55:54 <michaelmclees> but why does there need to be agreement on how it is done if it is only the people using it who are affected?
863 2012-01-30 15:57:09 <gmaxwell> If the only people using it are you, then why talk to us? just do what you want. :)
864 2012-01-30 15:57:37 <michaelmclees> so see if it is feasible
865 2012-01-30 15:58:11 <michaelmclees> see if im not way out in left field with the idea itself