1 2012-02-15 00:49:44 <da2ce7> ;;isitdown bitcointalk.org
  2 2012-02-15 00:49:49 <gribble> http://bitcointalk.org Is Down -> Check if your website is up or down?
  3 2012-02-15 00:53:20 <Karmaon> d)dos?
  4 2012-02-15 00:55:10 <splatster> theymos isn't around
  5 2012-02-15 00:55:44 <Karmaon> maybe it's that asshole again
  6 2012-02-15 01:04:42 <finway> So supporting miners will upgrad to support BIP16 on Feb.20 ?
  7 2012-02-15 01:05:15 <finway> Can you make the Chinese version of  Alert message ?
  8 2012-02-15 01:06:28 <BlueMatt> we dont currently have a alert localization method
  9 2012-02-15 01:06:43 <BlueMatt> so its just gotta be english with a link which can be localized
 10 2012-02-15 01:06:54 <finway> ah, sure.
 11 2012-02-15 01:07:28 <BlueMatt> spawn-: not the right chan, try #bitcoin-otc
 12 2012-02-15 01:07:53 <spawn-> k
 13 2012-02-15 01:07:55 <finway> bitcointalk.org is down
 14 2012-02-15 01:08:56 <BlueMatt> finway: meh, its unofficial ;)
 15 2012-02-15 01:12:02 <splatster> Is it a DDoS?
 16 2012-02-15 01:13:04 <BlueMatt> s/them/it/
 17 2012-02-15 01:13:13 <BlueMatt> speaking of which, who does?
 18 2012-02-15 01:13:15 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: ping?
 19 2012-02-15 01:16:42 <finway> BlueMatt:   Does Feb.20 mean  BIP16 switchover or just some  ver checksum thing ?
 20 2012-02-15 01:17:22 <luke-jr> finway: checksum
 21 2012-02-15 01:17:48 <luke-jr> hopefully BIP 17 will get adopted :p
 22 2012-02-15 01:18:26 <finway> luke-jr: meh
 23 2012-02-15 01:18:51 <finway> When is the BIP16 switchover ?
 24 2012-02-15 01:19:12 <luke-jr> mid-March, if the unfortunate occurs
 25 2012-02-15 01:20:17 <finway> luke-jr: hah
 26 2012-02-15 01:20:23 <gmaxwell> finway: there is no need for users to upgrade all at once for BIP16
 27 2012-02-15 01:21:28 <finway> gmaxwell: If they don't, some malicious spending txes trying redeeming from BIP16 address will be relayed right?
 28 2012-02-15 01:21:38 <finway> according to makkok
 29 2012-02-15 01:21:51 <NxTitle> we should just make bitcoin2 that has BIP17 in it
 30 2012-02-15 01:21:57 <luke-jr> finway: relayed is irrelevant
 31 2012-02-15 01:22:07 <luke-jr> NxTitle: Bitcoin2 won't need either BIP
 32 2012-02-15 01:22:09 <gmaxwell> NxTitle: /nick awfulideabot plz
 33 2012-02-15 01:22:14 <NxTitle> gmaxwell: lol
 34 2012-02-15 01:22:23 <NxTitle> luke-jr: then it would be the same as bitcoin :P
 35 2012-02-15 01:22:32 <finway> luke-jr:    the IsStandard problem will not happen with relaying ?
 36 2012-02-15 01:22:57 <luke-jr> NxTitle: not necessarily
 37 2012-02-15 01:23:03 <finway> 0.5.2 clients will refuse these mailcious txes ?
 38 2012-02-15 01:23:08 <luke-jr> finway: if all the miners are upgraded, relaying is irrelevant
 39 2012-02-15 01:23:21 <NxTitle> well, starting from scratch would definitely clean up the codebase, though most likely also adding bugs
 40 2012-02-15 01:23:26 <NxTitle> restarting*
 41 2012-02-15 01:23:34 <NxTitle> or at least cleaning up the protocol
 42 2012-02-15 01:24:16 <finway> luke-jr: but relaying makes me nervous.
 43 2012-02-15 01:24:28 <luke-jr> &
 44 2012-02-15 01:25:14 <gmaxwell> I think everything makes finway nervous. :)
 45 2012-02-15 01:25:15 <finway> I made a txes trying to  spend your coins, and these txes are wondering around the whold network...
 46 2012-02-15 01:25:25 <NxTitle> gmaxwell: that makes me nervous
 47 2012-02-15 01:25:33 <finway> Doesn't that make you nervous ?
 48 2012-02-15 01:25:34 <finway> :P
 49 2012-02-15 01:25:40 <NxTitle> finway: ninja'd
 50 2012-02-15 01:26:16 <gmaxwell> A lot of the network will happily relay txn that use the same input multiple times.
 51 2012-02-15 01:27:36 <NxTitle> wasn't there some problem with BIP16 where created multisig transactions could be spent by anybody if an older client was used?
 52 2012-02-15 01:27:43 <finway> gmaxwell: ok, if you say so, i bet it's not a big deal.
 53 2012-02-15 01:28:50 <finway> I know [Tycho]'s multisig coins are spent by others.
 54 2012-02-15 01:29:28 <gmaxwell> [Tycho] made a hashlocked transaction which someone finally spent.
 55 2012-02-15 01:32:33 <finway> gmaxwell: ok, thanks, i'm an idiot
 56 2012-02-15 02:34:56 <DingoRabiit> Anyone know why the bitcointalk.org forums are down?
 57 2012-02-15 02:37:23 <Karmaon> Short answer: no
 58 2012-02-15 04:24:25 <etotheipi_> does the vanilla Satoshi client follow the fee rules for forwarding transactions?  i.e. if it's below priority, oversize, or contains a dust output, requires a fee?
 59 2012-02-15 04:24:36 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: Yes.
 60 2012-02-15 04:25:01 <etotheipi_> so if Armory is connected only to localhost, I have no way to send zero-tx fees even if the Satoshi client would normally be able to send them
 61 2012-02-15 04:25:05 <gmaxwell> (Otherwise even if they don't get mined a dos attacker can exaust memory pools and forwarding capacity)
 62 2012-02-15 04:25:18 <Diablo-D3> so
 63 2012-02-15 04:25:23 <Diablo-D3> who actually owns a damn gcn?
 64 2012-02-15 04:25:33 <Diablo-D3> because con just tried my miner and he says it gets 23 mhash.
 65 2012-02-15 04:25:37 <etotheipi_> rather, is the reason they work because the satoshi client is actually usually got at least one peer that will forward/mine them?
 66 2012-02-15 04:25:44 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: 'would normally' well, it's applying the same rule all the other ones do.
 67 2012-02-15 04:26:17 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: no, it automatically applies a fee (0.0005) in those cases that it wouldn't forward them itself.
 68 2012-02-15 04:26:33 <etotheipi_> oh right, I'm thinking of the forced-no-fee fork
 69 2012-02-15 04:26:51 <etotheipi_> so the reason that fork works is because you are usually connected to at least one node/miner that will take them?
 70 2012-02-15 04:26:51 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: that one _still_ provides a fee, e.g. for dust outputs.
 71 2012-02-15 04:27:18 <Diablo-D3> no one?
 72 2012-02-15 04:27:25 <unicron_> i have 2x 7970
 73 2012-02-15 04:27:29 <unicron_> if that's what you're asking
 74 2012-02-15 04:27:30 <gmaxwell> Nope. It works because it applies fees to dust outputs, and it works for other transactions because most txn don't need fees, and many that do ... don't after a few hours of rebroadcasting and going nowhere.
 75 2012-02-15 04:27:50 <Diablo-D3> unicron_: TEST MY MINER
 76 2012-02-15 04:28:17 <unicron_> new version?
 77 2012-02-15 04:28:30 <Diablo-D3> yes
 78 2012-02-15 04:28:42 <unicron_> ok hang on
 79 2012-02-15 04:28:47 <Diablo-D3> because if it comes out as 23 mhash
 80 2012-02-15 04:28:50 <Diablo-D3> I have a new fucking record
 81 2012-02-15 04:29:16 <gmaxwell> 23mhash?
 82 2012-02-15 04:29:34 <Graet> sounds impressive - per cpu core?
 83 2012-02-15 04:30:18 <etotheipi_> okay, I'll give up on my noble quest to allow users to replicate the forced-zero-tx-fee functionality... it seems it would only work for some types of transactions IF their Satoshi client is modified...
 84 2012-02-15 04:30:45 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: there is ~nothing out there that will forward dust txn without a fee.
 85 2012-02-15 04:31:15 <midnightmagic> 23mhash on a 7970?
 86 2012-02-15 04:31:23 <Diablo-D3> Graet: per 7970.
 87 2012-02-15 04:31:38 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell, thanks
 88 2012-02-15 04:31:43 <unicron_> diablo: i'm getting about 30 MH/s each but they're overclocked.  LOL
 89 2012-02-15 04:31:47 <midnightmagic> ..  like as in..  about as fast as my 6-core 1090T?
 90 2012-02-15 04:31:50 <Diablo-D3> goddamnit
 91 2012-02-15 04:31:52 <Diablo-D3> he wasant wrong
 92 2012-02-15 04:32:09 <Diablo-D3> unicron_: you're on linux right?
 93 2012-02-15 04:32:19 <unicron_> win 7 ult 64
 94 2012-02-15 04:32:23 <Diablo-D3> goddamnit
 95 2012-02-15 04:32:31 <Diablo-D3> now I need to find someone on linux with a gcn
 96 2012-02-15 04:32:35 <Diablo-D3> because I want the damned isa file
 97 2012-02-15 04:32:40 <midnightmagic> what's a gcn?
 98 2012-02-15 04:32:46 <Diablo-D3> midnightmagic: 79xx
 99 2012-02-15 04:32:48 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: get yourself one, fool.
100 2012-02-15 04:33:06 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: its not going to fit in the damned case.
101 2012-02-15 04:33:08 <midnightmagic> Diablo-D3: Not enough in the "buy D3 a 7xxx card fund" yet?
102 2012-02-15 04:34:12 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: and that isnt it
103 2012-02-15 04:34:15 <Diablo-D3> once it goes in
104 2012-02-15 04:34:15 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: go find someone with some old p3 in a gigantic tower case.. and convince them to throw it out, then raid their trash
105 2012-02-15 04:34:16 <Diablo-D3> thats it
106 2012-02-15 04:34:28 <Diablo-D3> dude, Im not replacing my p180
107 2012-02-15 04:37:56 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: why the fuck is AMD doing that anyhow
108 2012-02-15 04:38:01 <Diablo-D3> its useless shit to make them that long
109 2012-02-15 04:38:28 <midnightmagic> You could cut a rectangular hole in the other end of your case and cram it in there.
110 2012-02-15 04:38:43 <unicron_> ditch the case!
111 2012-02-15 04:38:47 <Diablo-D3> midnightmagic: yes, Im going to cut a hole in a silent case.
112 2012-02-15 04:38:48 <Diablo-D3> you moron.
113 2012-02-15 04:39:00 <Diablo-D3> for those who dont know: antec p180s are especially designed to be silent
114 2012-02-15 04:39:41 <Diablo-D3> you do not cut holes in them, and you couldnt even if you tried.
115 2012-02-15 04:39:55 <Diablo-D3> midnightmagic: and where the fuck am I cutting this hole?
116 2012-02-15 04:39:57 <midnightmagic> You could..  use a riser and scotch tape the card to one of the inside walls.
117 2012-02-15 04:41:00 <Diablo-D3> midnightmagic: thats retarded.
118 2012-02-15 04:41:07 <Diablo-D3> why the fuck does this channel keep suggesting retarded shit.
119 2012-02-15 04:41:17 <Diablo-D3> I dunno about you, but Im not in the business of breaking expensive shit.
120 2012-02-15 04:41:41 <midnightmagic> lol just jerking your chain man. :)
121 2012-02-15 04:42:09 <Diablo-D3> I wonder if the 7950s will be shorter
122 2012-02-15 04:42:25 <midnightmagic> scotch tape's no good, you have to use flour paste.
123 2012-02-15 04:43:44 <unicron_> 7950 = same length, worse fan
124 2012-02-15 04:44:10 <Diablo-D3> fuck.
125 2012-02-15 04:44:33 <Diablo-D3> maybe I should just make the bitcoin community give me another $500 or something
126 2012-02-15 04:45:44 <Diablo-D3> I can swap my 2x400gb for two 2.5" drives
127 2012-02-15 04:45:50 <Diablo-D3> then mount those elsewhere
128 2012-02-15 04:47:05 <k9quaint> Diablo-D3: you should cut a hole in your case
129 2012-02-15 04:47:12 <Diablo-D3> shuddup k9
130 2012-02-15 04:47:20 <k9quaint> you shaddupa yo face!
131 2012-02-15 04:47:37 <k9quaint> p.s. I hate OAuth
132 2012-02-15 04:52:15 <midnightmagic> it'sa not so bad..  it'sa nice-a place..
133 2012-02-15 04:52:45 <Diablo-D3> goddamnit
134 2012-02-15 04:52:52 <Diablo-D3> why the fuck wont the price go back up so I can sell my btc
135 2012-02-15 04:53:20 <midnightmagic> because some holders decided they wanted to pluck the ripe apple
136 2012-02-15 04:53:40 <k9quaint> the price has been going up
137 2012-02-15 04:54:02 <Diablo-D3> well who wants to buy my btc for $6
138 2012-02-15 04:54:53 <k9quaint> as long as you have 1.5BTC, I'll take that deal
139 2012-02-15 04:55:05 <Diablo-D3> heh.
140 2012-02-15 04:56:59 <Diablo-D3> welp, Im just going to have to wait for the price to go back up before I buy the 5970.
141 2012-02-15 04:59:02 <Diablo-D3> er, 7970
142 2012-02-15 05:00:00 <JFK911> why?
143 2012-02-15 05:00:06 <JFK911> by the time you get it, it will be in the tank again
144 2012-02-15 05:00:10 <JFK911> and the btc you make will be worth less
145 2012-02-15 05:00:18 <Diablo-D3> because I need to sell almost 17 BTC.
146 2012-02-15 05:00:36 <JFK911> just use your credit card
147 2012-02-15 05:00:56 <Diablo-D3> I dont believe in credit cards, JFK911
148 2012-02-15 05:01:03 <Diablo-D3> its just another scam by the bank to steal my money
149 2012-02-15 05:03:35 <Diablo-D3> also, this is interesting
150 2012-02-15 05:03:39 <Diablo-D3> I thought I was 4 mhash short
151 2012-02-15 05:03:48 <Diablo-D3> but if I go back to 765/1000
152 2012-02-15 05:03:51 <Diablo-D3> both get 303
153 2012-02-15 05:04:12 <Diablo-D3> sorry, mine gets 303, original gets 304
154 2012-02-15 05:04:28 <Diablo-D3> thats not so bad at all
155 2012-02-15 05:06:18 <Diablo-D3> so fuck it
156 2012-02-15 05:06:22 <Diablo-D3> AMD can go fuck themselves
157 2012-02-15 05:06:26 <Diablo-D3> 2 weeks of work down the drain
158 2012-02-15 05:06:31 <Diablo-D3> I dont even care anymore
159 2012-02-15 05:19:24 <da2ce7> if anyone is intersted in helping out with the Open Transactions development... make sure you hang out in #opentransactions
160 2012-02-15 05:45:20 <Joric> SourceForge features Bitcoin project on front page! expect a ton of new users
161 2012-02-15 05:46:01 <Joric_> SourceForge http://sf.net features Bitcoin project on front page! expect a ton of new users
162 2012-02-15 05:46:59 <Joric_> sure thing that will drive some attention
163 2012-02-15 05:56:38 <Graet> is front page like a status symbol?
164 2012-02-15 05:57:54 <JFK911> well like
165 2012-02-15 05:58:00 <JFK911> who goes to sf and doesnt know about bitcoin already
166 2012-02-15 05:58:05 <JFK911> that's like talking about btc on slashdot
167 2012-02-15 05:58:13 <Graet> :)
168 2012-02-15 05:58:18 <BlueMatt> "Project of the Month"
169 2012-02-15 05:58:28 <Graet> ahh cool :)
170 2012-02-15 05:58:35 <Graet> good work guys :D
171 2012-02-15 05:58:42 <JFK911> and they picked the shortest month
172 2012-02-15 05:58:58 <BlueMatt> I wonder what that means, downloads/staff picks/etc?
173 2012-02-15 05:59:41 <splatster> Quick! Everyone go to http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/latest/download to help boost bitcoin to the top of the list!
174 2012-02-15 05:59:51 <JFK911> while true do wget
175 2012-02-15 06:00:02 <BlueMatt> (on botnet)
176 2012-02-15 06:00:11 <splatster> YES!
177 2012-02-15 06:00:16 <splatster> Lets do that
178 2012-02-15 06:00:25 <JFK911> any OP_HTTP_GET
179 2012-02-15 06:00:47 <BlueMatt> OP_PYTHON_EXEC :)
180 2012-02-15 06:00:55 <BlueMatt> (make it easier to extend on in the future)
181 2012-02-15 06:01:15 <splatster> OP_DR_OCTOGONAPUS_BWAAAAAH
182 2012-02-15 06:02:15 <cjd> OP_UPGRADE
183 2012-02-15 06:02:18 <splatster> For those of you who don't get the reference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSVNbxjdvv8
184 2012-02-15 06:02:45 <BlueMatt> cjd: now that would be useful
185 2012-02-15 06:03:19 <cjd> as long as you kept the keys in a bank vault
186 2012-02-15 06:24:18 <Diablo-D3> hey
187 2012-02-15 06:24:22 <Diablo-D3> who was bitching about oauth
188 2012-02-15 06:24:46 <Diablo-D3> k9quaint: was it you
189 2012-02-15 06:25:09 <BlueMatt> a lot of people bitch about oauth
190 2012-02-15 06:25:29 <Diablo-D3> http://allinthehead.com/retro/359/a-favicon-broke-my-app
191 2012-02-15 07:06:37 <phantomcircuit> Diablo-D3, he doesn't know how to use varnish
192 2012-02-15 07:06:39 <phantomcircuit> amazing
193 2012-02-15 07:09:08 <jine> Sucky code I'd say.
194 2012-02-15 07:09:20 <jine> 404 (or well, generated 404 pages) shouldn't load and modify sessions.
195 2012-02-15 07:09:38 <Diablo-D3> jine: yes, but thats not the problem
196 2012-02-15 07:09:51 <Diablo-D3> its because php is a fucking pile of shit and chrome is doing something exceedingly dumb
197 2012-02-15 07:10:10 <phantomcircuit> no i'd say the problem is 100% with his servers
198 2012-02-15 07:10:20 <Diablo-D3> phantomcircuit: "yes"
199 2012-02-15 07:10:22 <Diablo-D3> he has a 404.
200 2012-02-15 07:10:30 <Diablo-D3> clever 404s are for fags
201 2012-02-15 07:10:34 <Diablo-D3> except for github, they're cool
202 2012-02-15 07:10:45 <phantomcircuit> you can put content into a 404 no problem
203 2012-02-15 07:10:51 <phantomcircuit> his problem is it doesn't 404
204 2012-02-15 07:10:57 <phantomcircuit> it 200's his index.php
205 2012-02-15 07:10:58 <jine> Diablo-D3: Eh, yeah, blame the language for a programmers mistake.
206 2012-02-15 07:11:01 <jine> Makes sense.
207 2012-02-15 07:11:14 <Diablo-D3> jine: i do, because then I can blame the programmer for using that language
208 2012-02-15 07:11:16 <Diablo-D3> it makes sense in context.
209 2012-02-15 07:11:24 <jine> Also, chrome (AND FIREFOX/WHATEVER) is always requesting favicons if not cache
210 2012-02-15 07:11:27 <jine> +d
211 2012-02-15 07:11:34 <Diablo-D3> firefox caches the fail for favicon though
212 2012-02-15 07:11:52 <jine> In either way, every now and then it refreshes that cache
213 2012-02-15 07:11:56 <jine> So it would be harder to spot
214 2012-02-15 07:12:00 <Diablo-D3> phantomcircuit: but yes, thats a weird thing to do
215 2012-02-15 07:12:03 <jine> But the issue would still exist.
216 2012-02-15 07:12:20 <Diablo-D3> jine: /me shrugs
217 2012-02-15 07:12:24 <Diablo-D3> its still terminal behavior on chrome only
218 2012-02-15 07:12:32 <jine> phantomcircuit: As he redirects everything to index.php, his CODE should do the magic.
219 2012-02-15 07:12:46 <Diablo-D3> btw, thats still a php problem
220 2012-02-15 07:12:48 <jine> It's a stupid developer, not language, varnish fault, apache or any other server-issue.
221 2012-02-15 07:12:50 <Diablo-D3> php doesnt support proper rest paths
222 2012-02-15 07:12:57 <phantomcircuit> no that's a bad developer problem
223 2012-02-15 07:13:00 <jine> Ofc it does?
224 2012-02-15 07:13:01 <Diablo-D3> its all done with rewrite rule magic
225 2012-02-15 07:13:05 <Diablo-D3> inside the httpd
226 2012-02-15 07:13:05 <jine> phantomcircuit: Exactly.
227 2012-02-15 07:13:07 <Diablo-D3> which is fucktarded
228 2012-02-15 07:13:13 <jine> Diablo-D3: Eeh, no?
229 2012-02-15 07:13:13 <phantomcircuit> Diablo-D3, php doesn't do anything with paths
230 2012-02-15 07:13:20 <Diablo-D3> phantomcircuit: BINGO
231 2012-02-15 07:13:20 <jine> Diablo-D3: Are you stupid or what?
232 2012-02-15 07:13:37 <Diablo-D3> jine: you're kidding me right? you must have never had to deal with php
233 2012-02-15 07:13:39 <phantomcircuit> you have to setup your httpd to run the right php file
234 2012-02-15 07:13:40 <Diablo-D3> its a nightmare to worth with
235 2012-02-15 07:13:46 <Diablo-D3> I dont know why anyone would code in it
236 2012-02-15 07:13:46 <jine> What's wrong with checking in PHP (or any other lang) what the user wants - and then giving it to him?
237 2012-02-15 07:14:03 <Diablo-D3> phantomcircuit: thats a rewrite rule.
238 2012-02-15 07:14:06 <jine> Diablo-D3: I'm a fulltime php-developer. Responsible for everything from bitlc.net to a shitload more.
239 2012-02-15 07:14:16 <Diablo-D3> jine: learn a real language.
240 2012-02-15 07:14:18 <phantomcircuit> Diablo-D3, depends on the httpd
241 2012-02-15 07:14:29 <Diablo-D3> phantomcircuit: yes, not all of them are cherokee.
242 2012-02-15 07:14:37 <jine> Diablo-D3: /(.*) to index.php
243 2012-02-15 07:14:41 <jine> And to the magic in code.
244 2012-02-15 07:14:49 <Diablo-D3> thats a rewrite rule, jine.
245 2012-02-15 07:14:49 <jine> No issue What.So.Ever.
246 2012-02-15 07:14:57 <Diablo-D3> rewrite rules are bad (tm)
247 2012-02-15 07:15:22 <jine> Diablo-D3: So, how do you do a similar thing in.. say python? ruby? asp? perl?
248 2012-02-15 07:15:50 <Diablo-D3> lolpython, lolruby, lolasp, perl is the only real language out of those three
249 2012-02-15 07:16:06 <jine> Somewhere you gotta have something that checks the url against a controller/something.
250 2012-02-15 07:16:13 <jine> You can't deny that.
251 2012-02-15 07:16:16 <Diablo-D3> yes, but in a real language theres no "index.php"
252 2012-02-15 07:16:28 <gjs278> he shouldn't rewrite his 404s
253 2012-02-15 07:16:30 <jine> SOMEWHERE you're routing the traffic to a file/function/pagerouter/SOMETHING
254 2012-02-15 07:16:37 <jine> gjs278: Ofc he should, are you stupid or what?
255 2012-02-15 07:16:43 <Diablo-D3> gjs278: he shouldnt rewrite ANY of it
256 2012-02-15 07:16:43 <gjs278> just set an ErrorDocument 404
257 2012-02-15 07:16:46 <gjs278> you stupid fucknut
258 2012-02-15 07:16:47 <gjs278> jine
259 2012-02-15 07:16:50 <jine> gjs278: Stop using apache you fucknut.
260 2012-02-15 07:16:53 <gjs278> jine
261 2012-02-15 07:16:55 <gjs278> jine
262 2012-02-15 07:16:55 <jine> gjs278:
263 2012-02-15 07:16:56 <gjs278> you are
264 2012-02-15 07:16:57 <jine> gjs278
265 2012-02-15 07:16:58 <gjs278> a fucking
266 2012-02-15 07:16:59 <gjs278> retard
267 2012-02-15 07:17:01 <gjs278> do you know that
268 2012-02-15 07:17:12 <gjs278> why would you (.*) to index.php and then ruin all of your 404s
269 2012-02-15 07:17:17 <jine> I do not, actually... You use apache, be quiet.
270 2012-02-15 07:17:27 <Diablo-D3> lol
271 2012-02-15 07:17:28 <jine> gjs278: Cause i can handle, log, manage errors then
272 2012-02-15 07:17:34 <Diablo-D3> someone ban jine and make him troll elsewhere
273 2012-02-15 07:17:36 <jine> It's called error-handling.
274 2012-02-15 07:17:39 <jine> Diablo-D3: I'm not trolling dude.
275 2012-02-15 07:17:42 <gjs278> error handling by returning 200?
276 2012-02-15 07:17:45 <Diablo-D3> then go learn a real language.
277 2012-02-15 07:18:06 <gjs278> if they 404 they need to see 404
278 2012-02-15 07:18:11 <jine> gjs278: That's a developer mistake, not something to blame the "way" for.
279 2012-02-15 07:18:15 <jine> Just return a correct header.
280 2012-02-15 07:18:31 <jine> gjs278: Custom error-page: https://www.bitlc.net/yousuck
281 2012-02-15 07:18:41 <gjs278> so you have exceptions in your index.php that detects when a page was requested that does not exist, and then you manually set the header to 404 in your index.php instead of letting your webserver do it
282 2012-02-15 07:19:00 <jine> The full request is logged in mysql, incl. header and active session, and displays a custom page.
283 2012-02-15 07:19:20 <jine> gjs278: Not really, i use MVC - if the controllers isen't found, redirect to error handler and let it do it's magic
284 2012-02-15 07:19:33 <Diablo-D3> lol mvc in php
285 2012-02-15 07:19:33 <gjs278> >mfw when jine doesn't realize nginx can set errordocument 404 as well
286 2012-02-15 07:19:34 <mod6> lol
287 2012-02-15 07:19:37 <jine> Same goes with http 500/501/502/503
288 2012-02-15 07:19:47 <Diablo-D3> >mfw gjs278 uses nginx instead of cherokee
289 2012-02-15 07:19:48 <jine> gjs278: Ofc it can, but WHY should i!?
290 2012-02-15 07:19:54 <gjs278> nah man he's using nginx
291 2012-02-15 07:19:57 <jine> gjs278: rewrite /(.*) index.php
292 2012-02-15 07:19:59 <jine> And you're done
293 2012-02-15 07:20:02 <gjs278> you are so dumb
294 2012-02-15 07:20:06 <Diablo-D3> BUT REWRITES ARE BAD (TM)
295 2012-02-15 07:20:08 <Diablo-D3> USE A REAL LANGUAGE
296 2012-02-15 07:20:33 <jine> Diablo-D3: I bet you'd never worked as a webdev. :)
297 2012-02-15 07:20:56 <Diablo-D3> not only did I work as one, I quit while you were still in diapers.
298 2012-02-15 07:21:25 <jine> So you don't have any experience of the web as it is on the 2000-centry? Then be quiet.
299 2012-02-15 07:21:40 <jine> I can agree on the apache-way of rewriting every.single.fucking.url is BAD
300 2012-02-15 07:21:42 <mod6> omg. kline.
301 2012-02-15 07:22:00 <Diablo-D3> jine: who said that?
302 2012-02-15 07:22:09 <cjd> i wwebsite as on internet...
303 2012-02-15 07:22:14 <Diablo-D3> I said I quit WORKING as one
304 2012-02-15 07:22:24 <Diablo-D3> I do it purely for fun now
305 2012-02-15 07:22:42 <jine> Diablo-D3: :)
306 2012-02-15 07:22:54 <gjs278> (.*) to index.php in nginx and apache are going to get you the same results, which will both be equally retarded
307 2012-02-15 07:23:01 <Diablo-D3> and Im sure as hell not going to touch some dumbfuck language like php
308 2012-02-15 07:23:11 <Diablo-D3> php still cannot parse urls without it being rewritten using that hack
309 2012-02-15 07:23:13 <Diablo-D3> thats insane
310 2012-02-15 07:23:18 <Diablo-D3> no other language has never done that
311 2012-02-15 07:23:26 <jine> Diablo-D3: Ofc it can?
312 2012-02-15 07:23:36 <Diablo-D3> [03:19:57] <jine> gjs278: rewrite /(.*) index.php
313 2012-02-15 07:23:37 <Diablo-D3> [03:19:57] <jine> gjs278: rewrite /(.*) index.php
314 2012-02-15 07:23:38 <Diablo-D3> [03:19:57] <jine> gjs278: rewrite /(.*) index.php
315 2012-02-15 07:23:51 <gjs278> yeah I do that in all of my mod_perl setups
316 2012-02-15 07:23:53 <gjs278> right
317 2012-02-15 07:24:10 <Diablo-D3> s/mod_perl/fastcgi, because catalyst is one sexy bitch/
318 2012-02-15 07:24:27 <nhodges> that parsing ability is built into whatever http utility you're using in python or whatever comparable language ...
319 2012-02-15 07:24:28 <jine> Diablo-D3: Somewhere you gotta have a pagerouter, can we agree on that? What does that pagerouter do, exactly? :)
320 2012-02-15 07:24:41 <nhodges> otherwise apache or lighty or whatever is serving directories or files
321 2012-02-15 07:24:51 <Diablo-D3> yes, but you dont fucking use your fucking httpd to do it
322 2012-02-15 07:24:58 <Diablo-D3> your httpd exists to proxy requests blindly
323 2012-02-15 07:25:02 <Diablo-D3> and serve static files
324 2012-02-15 07:25:07 <Backburn> and serve cake
325 2012-02-15 07:25:13 <Diablo-D3> but the cake is a lie
326 2012-02-15 07:25:13 <jine> cake is a lie
327 2012-02-15 07:25:40 <nhodges> lol
328 2012-02-15 07:25:45 <Diablo-D3> I mean fuck, some languages I dont even need the httpd
329 2012-02-15 07:25:51 <Diablo-D3> the app instance IS the httpd
330 2012-02-15 07:26:23 <gjs278> you should proxy the app instance behind cherokee but then ruin it by rewriting all of the urls
331 2012-02-15 07:26:47 <Diablo-D3> no, I should proxy it behind varnish and then make it over 9000 times faster through magic and handwavium
332 2012-02-15 07:27:47 <Diablo-D3> gjs278: btw, guess what I saw the other day
333 2012-02-15 07:27:59 <Diablo-D3> someone ported node.js to c++
334 2012-02-15 07:28:22 <gjs278> the circle is complete in that case
335 2012-02-15 07:28:34 <Diablo-D3> I couldnt stop laughing
336 2012-02-15 07:29:41 <cjd> what exactly did they port?
337 2012-02-15 07:29:52 <cjd> the js scripts which are included in node?
338 2012-02-15 07:30:06 <Diablo-D3> they copied the node.js api and connected it to libwhateveritisthatnodejsuses like normal
339 2012-02-15 07:30:15 <Diablo-D3> its incredibly fucktarded
340 2012-02-15 07:30:20 <Diablo-D3> lemme see if I can find it
341 2012-02-15 07:30:46 <cjd> I mean v8 is already c++ and that's not going to get any faster
342 2012-02-15 07:31:01 <gjs278> "This technology, called Node.js, is being hailed as ?the new Ruby on Rails? by some in the developer community"
343 2012-02-15 07:31:02 <Diablo-D3> cjd: erm
344 2012-02-15 07:31:05 <Diablo-D3> it doesnt use javascript
345 2012-02-15 07:31:36 <cjd> there are some .js files in node, not a whole lot though
346 2012-02-15 07:31:45 <Diablo-D3> https://github.com/d5/node.native
347 2012-02-15 07:31:46 <Diablo-D3> heeeeee
348 2012-02-15 07:31:49 <Diablo-D3> cjd: thats the thing
349 2012-02-15 07:31:57 <josephcp> wat
350 2012-02-15 07:32:07 <Diablo-D3> its the node.js api, but in c++, but still uses libuv
351 2012-02-15 07:32:18 <gjs278> res.set_header("Content-Type", "text/plain");
352 2012-02-15 07:32:19 <gjs278> res.end("C++ FTW\n");
353 2012-02-15 07:32:23 <josephcp> so you write c++ and it's interpreted using nodejs libraries?
354 2012-02-15 07:32:27 <Diablo-D3> libuv == the actual code behind node.js, the thing that makes it work
355 2012-02-15 07:32:28 <josephcp> wat
356 2012-02-15 07:32:50 <cjd> oh ic
357 2012-02-15 07:32:53 <Diablo-D3> node.js quite literally is libuv plus v8 and some tiny smidgen of glue code
358 2012-02-15 07:32:54 <josephcp> someone REALLY likes c++ lol
359 2012-02-15 07:33:10 <cjd> write your scripts in C++
360 2012-02-15 07:33:15 <Diablo-D3> so all they did was close the node.js api in c++ and they're STILL using libuv
361 2012-02-15 07:33:24 <Diablo-D3> er clone
362 2012-02-15 07:33:54 <cjd> like php with buffer overflows :D
363 2012-02-15 07:34:02 <Diablo-D3> no no no
364 2012-02-15 07:34:13 <Diablo-D3> like java with buffer overflows and multiple class inheritance
365 2012-02-15 07:34:22 <cjd> heh
366 2012-02-15 07:34:22 <Diablo-D3> (and friend classes, and templates, and boost...)
367 2012-02-15 07:34:29 <cjd> hehehe
368 2012-02-15 07:34:33 <josephcp> and don't forget typing (with C++ templates WHOO)
369 2012-02-15 07:34:46 <Diablo-D3> (and a language specification committee...)
370 2012-02-15 07:34:47 <josephcp> lol
371 2012-02-15 07:35:02 <cjd> but like given the way a lot of web devs write their stuff ...
372 2012-02-15 07:35:06 <cjd> gawd
373 2012-02-15 07:35:20 <Diablo-D3> I dont know how the net exists, really
374 2012-02-15 07:35:38 <josephcp> seriously though, maybe this is a squeeze a very specific performance of a very specific webservice, i could see it being justified in that 0.00001% edge case -_-
375 2012-02-15 07:35:49 <Diablo-D3> smaller
376 2012-02-15 07:36:17 <Diablo-D3> one persatoshi.
377 2012-02-15 07:36:44 <cjd> if you're google, you write everything in house so you can just drop to asm any you need to
378 2012-02-15 07:36:59 <Diablo-D3> except now that google is like TEEHEE ARM BLADES
379 2012-02-15 07:37:14 <cjd> and because then you have total control over threads and locks and all that ceap
380 2012-02-15 07:37:17 <cjd> *crap
381 2012-02-15 07:37:24 <Diablo-D3> >locks
382 2012-02-15 07:37:30 <Diablo-D3> =|
383 2012-02-15 07:37:55 <cjd> thread pools of event bases
384 2012-02-15 07:38:07 <cjd> magik
385 2012-02-15 07:38:16 <Diablo-D3> Im pretty sure you just wrote busses
386 2012-02-15 07:39:20 <Diablo-D3> I "wouldnt"
387 2012-02-15 07:39:31 <Diablo-D3> but having a basic async messaging system would be nice
388 2012-02-15 07:39:57 <cjd> for every 1 person who has the knowlege to use them, a bazillion people think "spawn a thread dude" is the way to solve everything
389 2012-02-15 09:35:33 <jeremias> http://code.google.com/p/zxing/wiki/ScanningFromWebPages
390 2012-02-15 09:35:59 <jeremias> haven't thought about that, you can apparently scan QR codes from web apps
391 2012-02-15 09:36:25 <jeremias> so you could make web based wallets for iPhone and Android pretty easily
392 2012-02-15 09:38:25 <Eliel> there's already code for a complete web based wallet out there I think it was called bitcoin-js-remote
393 2012-02-15 09:39:29 <jeremias> http://tcatm.github.com/bitcoin-js-remote/
394 2012-02-15 09:39:36 <jeremias> not very product-oriented
395 2012-02-15 09:39:52 <jeremias> I mean, no average Joe is going to run his own stuff on apache
396 2012-02-15 09:44:02 <jeremias> I just think that QR-code integration is pretty awesome, web based bitcoin mobile clients are so much easier to write that I think we will see plenty of them
397 2012-02-15 09:51:41 <Eliel> jeremias: yeah,  it's not packaged and ready, but there is not much work left to do to get it there
398 2012-02-15 11:29:14 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: sje397 opened pull request 837 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/837>
399 2012-02-15 11:46:30 <sipa> forrestv: the people who have reported deadlock issues with 0.6.0rc1, have they tried 0.5.3rc2 ?
400 2012-02-15 11:48:01 <sipa> gmaxwell: currently accessible on the network i see a 0.3.0, a 0.3.2, a 0.3.14 and a 0.3.15 as pre-0.3.17 clients
401 2012-02-15 11:59:27 <sje> bip16 won't be enabled until a majority have upgraded, right?
402 2012-02-15 12:01:22 <Eliel> naturally. although that only means majority of miners. not all bitcoin users
403 2012-02-15 12:01:35 <Diablo-D3> yeah, but pools shouldnt have a vote here
404 2012-02-15 12:04:21 <marf_away> lol?
405 2012-02-15 12:04:33 <marf_away> who should?
406 2012-02-15 12:04:36 <Diablo-D3> actual miners
407 2012-02-15 12:04:46 <marf_away> if they are so stubid...
408 2012-02-15 12:04:47 <Diablo-D3> like, deepbit can vote because they're actually voting on what to do
409 2012-02-15 12:05:13 <Diablo-D3> although I dont know how legit that vote is, I dont know if they have a "neither 16 or 17" option
410 2012-02-15 12:05:13 <marf_away> its like voting for voters
411 2012-02-15 12:08:39 <sipa> of course, if they don't implement either, they don't vote for either
412 2012-02-15 12:08:58 <sipa> and it's not a vote, it's a measurement
413 2012-02-15 12:09:40 <Diablo-D3> then the whole process is flawed and both 16 and 17 should be closed.
414 2012-02-15 12:09:52 <sipa> huh?
415 2012-02-15 12:10:11 <Diablo-D3> neither are technically sufficient solutions
416 2012-02-15 12:10:42 <sipa> possibly, but in which way has that anything to do with the process?
417 2012-02-15 12:11:45 <Diablo-D3> this isnt the presidential election
418 2012-02-15 12:11:57 <Diablo-D3> you dont get to run canidates that dont work
419 2012-02-15 12:12:25 <Graet> hmm some would disagree :P
420 2012-02-15 12:13:54 <sipa> Diablo-D3: you still haven't answered my question
421 2012-02-15 12:15:01 <Diablo-D3> if neither 16 or 17 are sufficient solutions, then neither should ever be adopted
422 2012-02-15 12:15:08 <Diablo-D3> and probably any blocks that use them should be rejected
423 2012-02-15 12:15:55 <sipa> why would they not be sufficient solutions, or who gets to decide over that?
424 2012-02-15 12:16:26 <Diablo-D3> if 16 was sufficient, there wouldnt be a 17, and vice cersa.
425 2012-02-15 12:16:27 <sipa> and any BIP16 of BIP17-verified block is immediately also a valid block under the old rules, by definition, so there is no way to verify whether they are
426 2012-02-15 12:16:29 <Diablo-D3> *versa
427 2012-02-15 12:16:57 <Diablo-D3> and the only people who get to decide over that are people who understand the long term effects of it
428 2012-02-15 12:17:02 <sipa> in my opinion, both a sufficient, and the only reason both exist is because of philosophical arguments
429 2012-02-15 12:17:06 <Diablo-D3> which is pretty much like 3 people
430 2012-02-15 12:17:19 <Diablo-D3> sipa: yes, which by definition means neither are sufficient
431 2012-02-15 12:18:06 <sipa> applied to the US presidential voting, your definition of "sufficient" implies 100% of voters support one?
432 2012-02-15 12:18:36 <Diablo-D3> no, my definition of sufficient means they can do the job
433 2012-02-15 12:18:48 <sipa> they can
434 2012-02-15 12:18:50 <sipa> both of them
435 2012-02-15 12:18:55 <Diablo-D3> so unless we're digging up roosevelt and have him serve a fifth term, I dont see it happening
436 2012-02-15 12:19:30 <sipa> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2SH_Votes
437 2012-02-15 12:23:14 <sipa> (i was talking about p2sh, by the way, not US candidates)
438 2012-02-15 12:40:41 <sje> lianj: ?
439 2012-02-15 12:41:03 <lianj> ?
440 2012-02-15 12:41:31 <sje> do you know how the dialog behaves on a mac?
441 2012-02-15 12:42:06 <lianj> no, im not on mac
442 2012-02-15 12:42:22 <sje> :/ dumb gnome ;)
443 2012-02-15 12:43:04 <lianj> not on gnome either :P
444 2012-02-15 12:43:32 <lianj> what dialog anw?
445 2012-02-15 12:43:59 <sje> oh you're not laanwj? oops sorry
446 2012-02-15 12:44:11 <lianj> hehe, np
447 2012-02-15 12:45:54 <sipa> sje: laanwj is wumpus here
448 2012-02-15 12:46:07 <sje> ah thanks sipa
449 2012-02-15 12:46:11 <wumpus> hey
450 2012-02-15 12:46:57 <sje> hi wumpus - was wondering if you know how the dialog behaves on a mac, and if you get a 'native' dialog if you do the wrapper thing?
451 2012-02-15 12:47:21 <sje> sounded like not from the stackoverflow post you linked...but i haven't tried
452 2012-02-15 12:47:30 <sje> and....dumb gnome :)
453 2012-02-15 12:48:36 <wumpus> I don't know about mac
454 2012-02-15 12:49:56 <wumpus> see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/838
455 2012-02-15 12:50:28 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: luke-jr opened issue 839 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/839>
456 2012-02-15 12:50:29 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: laanwj opened pull request 838 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/838>
457 2012-02-15 12:57:51 <sipa> gmaxwell: one regression i notice now that addrman is running for a while here: if you get enough "known" addresses, those get favored when starting up, but they are far far less reliable than e.g. dns seeds
458 2012-02-15 13:00:54 <Nicksasa> hmm upgraded to ubuntu 11.10 and now i can't apt-get libdb4.8++-dev
459 2012-02-15 13:01:07 <sipa> use 5.1
460 2012-02-15 13:01:27 <Nicksasa> oh, thanks
461 2012-02-15 13:02:01 <gmaxwell> sipa: Thats ... good news, I mean, it shows we were overly likely to use dnsseeds before and the dnsseeds probably have full control of a nodes initial connections.
462 2012-02-15 13:02:10 <graingert> Nicksasa: yep
463 2012-02-15 13:02:20 <graingert> Nicksasa: that's because it's deprecated
464 2012-02-15 13:02:30 <graingert> Nicksasa: it should be included in the bitcoin ppa
465 2012-02-15 13:02:35 <gmaxwell> sipa: though, perhaps there should be some special casing where it prefers dnsseeds until it has 1/2 connections?
466 2012-02-15 13:03:24 <sipa> gmaxwell: addrman was written somehow with the assumption that nodes you tried yourself are more reliable than others
467 2012-02-15 13:03:42 <sipa> gmaxwell: but that isn't the case in that particular situation (just starting up, dnsseeds vs old tried nodes)
468 2012-02-15 13:04:17 <sipa> but yes, we were relying very strongly on IRC/dnsseeds at startup
469 2012-02-15 13:04:50 <gmaxwell> (IRC not just at startup too, the just seen promotion in IRC has always made me very uneasy)
470 2012-02-15 13:07:55 <gmaxwell> sipa: right, so in the case the assumption isn't so good. Perhaps there should be a small seperate quickstart table which is filled with the nodes you were connected to when you shut down, and refilled with DNSseed when it runs and that table is used before known until its empty or you have one (or two?) connections.
471 2012-02-15 13:08:47 <sipa> i guess i can just tweak the biases a bit
472 2012-02-15 13:08:53 <gmaxwell> That amount of preference wouldn't have the security concerns that letting them take all slots would, and it's really only important to get one connection fast.
473 2012-02-15 13:10:59 <sje> wumpus - grr open braces on newline :(
474 2012-02-15 13:11:09 <sje> i'm outnumbered again...just like with tabs
475 2012-02-15 13:12:51 <wumpus> heh
476 2012-02-15 13:13:01 <wumpus> I'm not too fussy about it but please try to keep it consistent at least :)
477 2012-02-15 13:13:09 <sje> yes fair enough
478 2012-02-15 13:14:29 <sje> was it always that way in the bitcoin code? i didn't think it was a while back...my memory sux tho
479 2012-02-15 13:14:57 <wumpus> the gui code and core code is somewhat different
480 2012-02-15 13:16:22 <wumpus> though not in that regard, it seems, there  {} are also on new lines
481 2012-02-15 13:16:26 <sipa> a few days ago i was wondering why vnThreadsRunning[1] wasn't checked at shutdown
482 2012-02-15 13:16:33 <sipa> now i notice that it sometimes reaches -1
483 2012-02-15 13:16:52 <sipa> ... maybe satoshi noticed this as well, didn't know why, so simply stopped checking it? :p
484 2012-02-15 13:17:13 <wumpus> hehehe
485 2012-02-15 13:17:16 <wumpus> that'd be kind of ugly
486 2012-02-15 13:17:33 <wumpus> hey, a bug, let's change the code to ignore it :-)
487 2012-02-15 13:17:45 <sipa> that variable was effectively never read anywhere
488 2012-02-15 13:18:24 <sipa> anyway, this makes #806 a bugfix
489 2012-02-15 13:18:36 <wumpus> status: 1 anti-threads running
490 2012-02-15 13:19:12 <sipa> the nice thing is if you have 2 threads, and 1 anti-thread, you can never get a deadlock
491 2012-02-15 13:19:29 <sipa> but beware of 2 anti-threads at the same time
492 2012-02-15 13:19:43 <wumpus> wouldn't they annihilate each other?
493 2012-02-15 13:19:50 <wumpus> and crash your process
494 2012-02-15 13:20:04 <sipa> it's an unsolved problem in theoretical computer science
495 2012-02-15 13:20:22 <sje> haha
496 2012-02-15 13:20:48 <wumpus> heh
497 2012-02-15 13:38:17 <sje> i have a bit of a technical question...say you create a 0 fee transaction and send it out...and say sombody stores it away but you wait for ages and there are enough fee-paying transactions to keep the miners busy for days...
498 2012-02-15 13:38:50 <sje> and so you do another transaction with a fee, to make it work, and that goes through
499 2012-02-15 13:39:11 <sje> it's possible that your first transaction will pop up again unexpectedly in future, yes?
500 2012-02-15 13:40:04 <sje> there's no way to cancel it? it doesn't matter that it's older than the one that went through?
501 2012-02-15 13:40:31 <sipa> both can be accepted into a chain independently
502 2012-02-15 13:40:35 <sipa> unless one depends on the other
503 2012-02-15 13:40:44 <sje> could you effectively cancel it, by generating a transaction with the same input sequences and a very small output?
504 2012-02-15 13:41:00 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 12500 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 7, is 40 minutes and 5 seconds
505 2012-02-15 13:41:00 <sipa> ;;bc,calcd 12500 7
506 2012-02-15 13:42:51 <sipa> anyone see a block with invalid proof of work limit in testnet chain now?
507 2012-02-15 13:42:58 <sipa> maybe related to gavin's recent reset
508 2012-02-15 13:46:57 <gmaxwell> sje: if any txn is confirmed with even a single overlapping input that old one will be invalid.
509 2012-02-15 13:47:18 <sipa> i only get to 46722 blocks
510 2012-02-15 13:47:19 <sje> cool gmaxwell, thanks
511 2012-02-15 13:47:25 <sipa> while my peers claim to have 46726 blocks
512 2012-02-15 13:47:58 <sipa> ERROR: AcceptBlock() : incorrect proof of work
513 2012-02-15 13:49:15 <gmaxwell> sipa: new testnet rules?
514 2012-02-15 13:49:35 <sipa> yes, i suppose
515 2012-02-15 13:49:42 <sipa> ha, i forked testnet
516 2012-02-15 13:58:41 <sipa> sje: i applied your patch, and generated 2 blocks, but i don't see any immature in the gui
517 2012-02-15 13:59:31 <sipa> "number of transactions: 3"
518 2012-02-15 13:59:35 <sipa> but only two are shown
519 2012-02-15 13:59:44 <sje> sipa: they need to be 2 blocks deep
520 2012-02-15 13:59:47 <sje> hm
521 2012-02-15 13:59:56 <sipa> listtransactions shows them
522 2012-02-15 14:00:01 <sipa> well, one of them
523 2012-02-15 14:00:26 <sje> you got the 'new' patch?
524 2012-02-15 14:00:41 <sje> that fixes that signal problem you mentioned
525 2012-02-15 14:01:25 <sje> sipa: "if (pcoin.IsCoinBase() && pcoin.GetBlocksToMaturity() > 0 && pcoin.GetDepthInMainChain() >= 2)"
526 2012-02-15 14:02:06 <sje> i assume you're on testnet? any of those not hold?
527 2012-02-15 14:03:12 <sipa> #837, right?
528 2012-02-15 14:05:37 <sje> sipa: yes
529 2012-02-15 14:06:02 <sipa> yes, same problem
530 2012-02-15 14:06:20 <sipa> i compiled your ShowImmatureBalance branch directly now
531 2012-02-15 14:07:56 <sje> i have no idea...i have watched 2 transactions mature tonight and it's updated correctly...but unfortunately no new ones incomming
532 2012-02-15 14:08:35 <sje> i'm going to miss the burst of luck turning this thing off :(
533 2012-02-15 14:09:07 <sipa> i think it's just an off-by-one
534 2012-02-15 14:13:00 <sipa> sje: listtransactions shows them immediately
535 2012-02-15 14:13:08 <sipa> (with depth 1)
536 2012-02-15 14:15:31 <gmaxwell> sipa: Yes, you're discribing the intentional behavior. The GUI delays showing immature blocks. There is a big comment about this in qt/ someplace.
537 2012-02-15 14:16:00 <gmaxwell> sipa: my recommend to sje was that he duplicate the gui behavior
538 2012-02-15 14:16:10 <sipa> gmaxwell: i know, but it shouldn't say 3 transactions if only 2 are shown
539 2012-02-15 14:16:32 <sipa> the wx gui also delayed showing them
540 2012-02-15 14:16:45 <sje> i didn't modify the transaction count
541 2012-02-15 14:20:42 <sje> when they say 'longest block chain based on difficulty'...that's a different difficulty than the one that is adjusted bi-weekly, yes?
542 2012-02-15 14:20:48 <sje> relating to block size?
543 2012-02-15 14:21:20 <sipa> what they mean is sum of difficulties of the blocks in it, but the same notion of difficulty
544 2012-02-15 14:22:29 <sipa> in realitty, it is sum of expected hashes (which is proportional to difficulty)
545 2012-02-15 14:22:47 <sje> hm ok, thanks
546 2012-02-15 14:23:03 <sipa> but difficulty is a floating point number that's only used in UI and RPC
547 2012-02-15 14:23:17 <sje> i thought maybe block size would make hashing slightly more difficult, and incent inclusion of 0 fee transactions...nm
548 2012-02-15 14:23:22 <sipa> no
549 2012-02-15 14:23:34 <sipa> hashing speed is not influenced by size of block
550 2012-02-15 14:23:56 <sipa> (as it is only the block header that is being hashed for proof of work)
551 2012-02-15 14:24:20 <sje> ah, that's the merkle tree bit?
552 2012-02-15 14:24:43 <sje> enough with the q's - thanks - i'm off to bed ;)
553 2012-02-15 14:24:44 <sipa> yes and no
554 2012-02-15 14:24:58 <sipa> the block header contains only the merkle root hash of the transaction id's
555 2012-02-15 14:25:20 <sje> yes - so a new transaction can eb added just by hashing it and previous root
556 2012-02-15 14:25:23 <sipa> but even without merkle root, if the block header just contained the hash of the transactions in it, hashing speed wouldn't depend on it
557 2012-02-15 14:25:24 <sje> yeah?
558 2012-02-15 14:25:38 <sipa> no, you need to rehash its path to the root
559 2012-02-15 14:26:02 <sje> hm...can't you just make a really unbalanced tree? :)
560 2012-02-15 14:26:08 <sipa> no
561 2012-02-15 14:26:16 <sipa> the merkle tree is balanced by definition
562 2012-02-15 14:26:17 <sje> no nevermind - i'll do more research later
563 2012-02-15 14:26:21 <sje> ok
564 2012-02-15 14:26:35 <sje> i must sleep - thanks for answering
565 2012-02-15 14:26:37 <sipa> for a given number of transactions, its shape is fixed
566 2012-02-15 14:27:34 <sje> ok last one :) why is that better than a merkle list?
567 2012-02-15 14:28:11 <sje> like a chain - hash each transaction with previous one in the list
568 2012-02-15 14:28:33 <sje> oh - cause it means less rehashing with a new transaction - got it
569 2012-02-15 14:28:40 <sje> ok ty and gn
570 2012-02-15 14:29:18 <sje> hm no it doesn't ...but I MUST SLEEP :)
571 2012-02-15 14:51:24 <helo> are there any plans to add user-facing (GUI) p2sh features?
572 2012-02-15 14:59:47 <helo> i guess it would make sense to just use external tool that can yeild the script-hash to send to... if it offered a URI to launch the bitcoin client, it would be usable enough
573 2012-02-15 15:12:13 <wumpus> yes there will be bip16 support in the gui eventually, until then you can use external tools
574 2012-02-15 15:48:14 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: qubez opened issue 840 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/840>
575 2012-02-15 16:00:05 <xorrbit> can somoene point me to some documentation on the 'why' regarding adding the checksum to version/verack and the switching that will be taking place
576 2012-02-15 16:00:59 <BlueMatt> highly, highly doubt there is any
577 2012-02-15 16:01:10 <BlueMatt> but its the same reason we have checksums on every other message
578 2012-02-15 16:01:49 <BlueMatt> corrupt data gets through tcp, so we need to checksum it ourselfs as well so that we dont get corrupt data
579 2012-02-15 16:02:31 <sipa> the reason is this: protocol v<209 didn't have checksums; satoshi noticed that there was corruption sometimes (i suppose mostly because of coding bugs...)
580 2012-02-15 16:02:44 <xorrbit> is there going to be an alert going out on like the 19th?
581 2012-02-15 16:02:50 <BlueMatt> yes
582 2012-02-15 16:03:04 <sipa> version 209 added those checksums, but because of backward compatibility, there was an exception in place for version and verack
583 2012-02-15 16:03:12 <xorrbit> ah okay
584 2012-02-15 16:03:26 <sipa> on febrari 20th, that exception is removed
585 2012-02-15 16:03:36 <[Tycho]> Hello.
586 2012-02-15 16:03:44 <sipa> Hello, [Tycho]
587 2012-02-15 16:04:08 <sipa> int64 nFee = (wtx.IsFromMe() ? wtx.GetValueOut() - nDebit : 0);
588 2012-02-15 16:04:15 <sipa> this calculation makes no sense
589 2012-02-15 16:04:29 <xorrbit> has the alert system ever been used in the past?
590 2012-02-15 16:04:34 <sipa> in a mixed-from transactions, this will count the share of the other inputs as fee
591 2012-02-15 16:04:37 <sipa> xorrbit: yes
592 2012-02-15 16:04:42 <xorrbit> for what?
593 2012-02-15 16:04:58 <sipa> for 0.4.0's encrypted wallet flaw, iirc
594 2012-02-15 16:05:30 <BlueMatt> [Tycho]: were you on 0.4.0?
595 2012-02-15 16:05:53 <[Tycho]> I don't think so.
596 2012-02-15 16:06:09 <BlueMatt> well thats why
597 2012-02-15 16:06:20 <[Tycho]> Actually sometimes I use 0.4.0 for mac.
598 2012-02-15 16:06:36 <[Tycho]> But it was after the flaw.
599 2012-02-15 16:07:06 <BlueMatt> sipa: was it decided yesterday that we want to roll a 0.5.2.1?
600 2012-02-15 16:07:16 <BlueMatt> (with just addrMe stuff)
601 2012-02-15 16:07:26 <xorrbit> thanks for the info everyone
602 2012-02-15 16:07:59 <sipa> BlueMatt: that was my preference, and i believe gmaxwell agreed
603 2012-02-15 16:08:12 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: do you want to do that, or do you want me to?
604 2012-02-15 16:15:50 <sipa> is there any reason to calculate fee as "sum(outputs) - debit" instead of "sum(outputs) - sum(inputs)" ?
605 2012-02-15 16:15:58 <xorrbit> so am I right to assume that after the 20th, nodes won't care what version I send, they will expect a checksum on version messages and send back a checksum with verack, even if my version says 0.4.0 or even something lower?
606 2012-02-15 16:16:38 <sipa> xorrbit: they will initiate the connection at version 209, and then continue negotiation
607 2012-02-15 16:16:44 <sipa> so, yes
608 2012-02-15 16:20:15 <xorrbit> k cool
609 2012-02-15 16:21:39 <BlueMatt> quick poll: who finds it poor that deepbit has been creating ~25% of recent transactions in the chain?
610 2012-02-15 16:21:44 <BlueMatt> (deepbit payouts)
611 2012-02-15 16:23:31 <BlueMatt> or: who doesnt care?
612 2012-02-15 16:25:01 <Graet> i find it poor
613 2012-02-15 16:26:41 <Graet> was talking to gmaxwell about it other nite with some others too
614 2012-02-15 16:26:44 <helo> the near-majority-mining-pool not acting in bitcoin's best interest is kind of spooky
615 2012-02-15 16:27:59 <sipa> [Tycho]: do you remember the reason for not using sendmany() already?
616 2012-02-15 16:28:12 <helo> but the long-term impact of +25% transactions is probably not really very relevant on timescales that matter
617 2012-02-15 16:28:39 <helo> assuming it is fixed some time soonish
618 2012-02-15 16:28:59 <[Tycho]> sipa: not yet.
619 2012-02-15 16:29:21 <sipa> [Tycho]: if someone would help you implement it, would you mind reconsidering?
620 2012-02-15 16:29:22 <BlueMatt> helo: I agree if either a. its fixed soon or b. we move to thin clients tomorrow.  since b. is clearly not gonna happen, I argue a. need to
621 2012-02-15 16:29:31 <[Tycho]> helo: why do you think that I'm not acting in bitcoin's best interest ?
622 2012-02-15 16:30:00 <[eval]> are you avoiding sendmany to make it easier to prune the transactions later?
623 2012-02-15 16:30:09 <helo> it seems to be the consensus that blockchain bloat is one of the more important things to prevent
624 2012-02-15 16:30:32 <[Tycho]> sipa: no. I don't see any way someone can help with this. But I'm still thinking about it.
625 2012-02-15 16:30:35 <[eval]> that's one reason i can think of, depending on how pruning is implemented eventually?
626 2012-02-15 16:30:53 <helo> so as far as not using sendmany leads to blockchain bloat, it appears to not be in bitcoin's best interest
627 2012-02-15 16:30:56 <JFK911> When Tycho changes, there will be some new baddie responsible for the most traffic.
628 2012-02-15 16:31:26 <sipa> [Tycho]: also, it seems that ignoring deepbit, approximately half of the miner power is behind BIP16 now
629 2012-02-15 16:32:05 <[Tycho]> [eval]: there are some other reasons. One of them is force the people to work with big amount of TXes before the real adoption strikes.
630 2012-02-15 16:32:22 <[Tycho]> sipa: why blockchaininfo shows other info then ?
631 2012-02-15 16:32:40 <sipa> [Tycho]: just looking at the past few hundred blocks, that is
632 2012-02-15 16:32:57 <[Tycho]> According to the pie chart it's 26.3% support now.
633 2012-02-15 16:33:30 <BlueMatt> where is the blockchain.info graph?
634 2012-02-15 16:33:38 <BlueMatt> nvm, found it
635 2012-02-15 16:33:43 <sipa> [Tycho]: no offence, but that sounds like the worst possible argument to me; you're basically saying something like "yes we keep polluting the earth's air to speed up research into making humans live of nitrogen"
636 2012-02-15 16:34:34 <[Tycho]> I'll repeat - we don't make any intentional flood or spam. All TXes are legitimate and we even limit autopayments to just one per 24h.
637 2012-02-15 16:34:56 <sipa> Nobody is accusing you of doing otherwise.
638 2012-02-15 16:35:27 <sipa> But that doesn't mean there is no room for improvement, and since you are such a big player, small improvements on your part reflect strongly.
639 2012-02-15 16:35:59 <BlueMatt> nanotube: is there a gribble command for slush's pool's hashrate?
640 2012-02-15 16:36:02 <BlueMatt> a bc,slush?
641 2012-02-15 16:36:06 <sipa> ;;bc,slush
642 2012-02-15 16:36:07 <gribble> Error: "bc,slush" is not a valid command.
643 2012-02-15 16:37:28 <[Tycho]> Currently I'll have to work on removing all the OP_EVAL changes from my bitcoind...
644 2012-02-15 16:37:56 <BlueMatt> dont you keep your bitcoind changes in git so you can git revert?
645 2012-02-15 16:38:21 <[Tycho]> I did some serious changes after it.
646 2012-02-15 16:38:38 <BlueMatt> mmm...
647 2012-02-15 16:39:02 <[Tycho]> May be some branching can help, but I'm not sure if it will break something or not.
648 2012-02-15 16:39:38 <BlueMatt> you can always git revert and see if it has conflicts...
649 2012-02-15 16:45:27 <helo> without broad unit tests ftw
650 2012-02-15 16:48:18 <BlueMatt> (unless someone beats me to it)
651 2012-02-15 16:48:58 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: sipa opened pull request 841 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/841>
652 2012-02-15 16:50:10 <sipa> remarkable: the genesis block's txout is not in the txindex
653 2012-02-15 16:50:25 <sipa> which means that the satoshi client will consider spending it as illegal :D
654 2012-02-15 16:50:30 <BlueMatt> oh, wow...
655 2012-02-15 16:50:38 <BlueMatt> so satoshi can never spend his first 50 BTC...
656 2012-02-15 17:16:27 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I don't see a need for a 0.5.2.1; if you want to do it, let me know what your name is on Gitorious and I'll give you push access to the stable repo
657 2012-02-15 17:16:45 <luke-jr> it seems silly to make a release with known bugs
658 2012-02-15 17:16:47 <luke-jr> IMO
659 2012-02-15 17:16:48 <BlueMatt> can I just give you a branch to copy?
660 2012-02-15 17:16:53 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: sure
661 2012-02-15 17:17:01 <BlueMatt> ok, Ill whip that up later today
662 2012-02-15 17:17:13 <BlueMatt> I agree, but if we want to rush the release without much testing, it is reasonable
663 2012-02-15 17:17:27 <luke-jr> I see no reason to skip the testing either :p
664 2012-02-15 17:17:43 <BlueMatt> then we can get 0.5.3 out sometime in the middle of the month (once we track down the deadlocks in 0.6)
665 2012-02-15 17:17:45 <luke-jr> we have 5 days left, and rc2 already
666 2012-02-15 17:17:49 <BlueMatt> and then 0.6 will probably hit on march 15
667 2012-02-15 17:18:06 <BlueMatt> I see gmaxwell's point that the deadlocks in 0.6 are scary though...
668 2012-02-15 17:18:21 <luke-jr> yeah, but there's basically zero chance they're in 0.5.3
669 2012-02-15 17:18:48 <luke-jr> the diff isn't very big, and the only thing that could remotely-possibly cause something like that is the UPnP changes
670 2012-02-15 17:18:54 <sipa> we should get some of the p2pool people that reported the deadlocks in the first place to try 0.5.3
671 2012-02-15 17:19:09 <BlueMatt> well theres also the upup unchecked thing
672 2012-02-15 17:19:09 <luke-jr> good idez
673 2012-02-15 17:19:11 <luke-jr> idea*
674 2012-02-15 17:19:18 <sipa> if we can get reasonable certainty that the issue doesn't occur there, i'm fine with a 0.5.3 instead of 0.5.2.1
675 2012-02-15 17:19:44 <luke-jr> fwiw
676 2012-02-15 17:20:24 <luke-jr> (so it at least doesn't affect 100% of people)
677 2012-02-15 17:23:41 <sipa> remarkable: 34% in last 500 blocks, 32% in last 300, 30% in last 200, 29% in last 100
678 2012-02-15 17:25:07 <BlueMatt> for some reason it seems to really only be prevalent on windows p2pool users...
679 2012-02-15 17:25:53 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: the p2pool crash isn't a regression, it's been around for a while.
680 2012-02-15 17:26:00 <BlueMatt> oh, yea
681 2012-02-15 17:26:10 <BlueMatt> what # are the deadlocks?
682 2012-02-15 17:27:10 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: Im done with 0.5.3rc2-win32 builds, Ill have linux in a minute
683 2012-02-15 17:28:14 <BlueMatt> (because for some reason building packages requires that the most recent name in the changelog be the same as a local pgp key, which in this case has to be mine)
684 2012-02-15 17:28:15 <BlueMatt> (for ppa)
685 2012-02-15 17:29:19 <BlueMatt> (which is the only place where the debian folder is even used atm, so...)
686 2012-02-15 17:29:48 <[Tycho]> Did BBE lost its connectivity ?
687 2012-02-15 17:30:11 <BlueMatt> ;;seen theymos
688 2012-02-15 17:30:12 <gribble> theymos was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 20 hours, 34 minutes, and 13 seconds ago: <theymos> Why is discouraging necessary? Can't they just be rejected outright after 95% of miners are doing it?
689 2012-02-15 17:32:04 <[Tycho]> Don't shows any new blocks.
690 2012-02-15 17:32:15 <BlueMatt> nfc
691 2012-02-15 17:33:15 <Zarutian> "Last blocks recived was generated 18 minutes ago"
692 2012-02-15 17:33:18 <Zarutian> eh?
693 2012-02-15 17:33:47 <BlueMatt> was qrcode added in 0.6, or before 0.5.2?
694 2012-02-15 17:33:53 <gmaxwell> Zarutian: so?
695 2012-02-15 17:34:01 <[Tycho]> Zarutian: where is it ?
696 2012-02-15 17:34:20 <Zarutian> gmaxwell: usually the longest interval I have seen has been about 12 minutes.
697 2012-02-15 17:34:42 <gmaxwell> Zarutian: ha. You're just not watching much.
698 2012-02-15 17:34:43 <[Tycho]> Last block is 166941 or more and BBE shows up to 166899 only.
699 2012-02-15 17:34:43 <Zarutian> 166941
700 2012-02-15 17:35:19 <gmaxwell> Zarutian: we had something like an hour gap last week. It's expected.
701 2012-02-15 17:36:19 <BlueMatt> wumpus: ^
702 2012-02-15 17:36:23 <sipa> BlueMatt: can you put the windows build online?
703 2012-02-15 17:36:38 <BlueMatt> sipa: working on it...
704 2012-02-15 17:37:01 <sipa> wait, this issue also existed in 0.5.2?
705 2012-02-15 17:37:12 <gmaxwell> Yes.
706 2012-02-15 17:37:14 <BlueMatt> the win32 p2pool crashes? yes
707 2012-02-15 17:37:15 <gmaxwell> Absolutely.
708 2012-02-15 17:37:19 <sipa> then there is little reason to do a 0.5.2.1, imho
709 2012-02-15 17:37:48 <gmaxwell> Wires are crossed here.
710 2012-02-15 17:37:57 <sipa> ?
711 2012-02-15 17:38:02 <gmaxwell> We have _other_ deadlocks reported on 0.6rc1 that are not p2pool related.
712 2012-02-15 17:38:09 <sipa> ah
713 2012-02-15 17:38:14 <gmaxwell> (and deadlocks, not crashes, the p2pool thing is a crash IIRC)
714 2012-02-15 17:38:25 <BlueMatt> (because otherwise the upnp fix isnt worth much...)
715 2012-02-15 17:38:43 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: the 0000 part of it is but sure.
716 2012-02-15 17:39:06 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: well, yea
717 2012-02-15 17:39:17 <gavinandresen> @)*%&#)@)(*#$ deadlocks....
718 2012-02-15 17:39:27 <BlueMatt> /nod
719 2012-02-15 17:39:46 <gmaxwell> well, at least the one reported was a livelock. 100% cpu usage, last thing in the log was dnsseed.
720 2012-02-15 17:39:59 <gmaxwell> On MacOS lion
721 2012-02-15 17:40:07 <gmaxwell> (I think lion? it was OSX at least)
722 2012-02-15 17:40:18 <gavinandresen> sipa: running git head overnight I see this in my console this morning:  Assertion failed: (addr.sin_family == AF_INET), function CService, file netbase.cpp, line 612.
723 2012-02-15 17:42:26 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: lion sounds right
724 2012-02-15 17:42:30 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: Bitcoin-Qt always uses 100% of one cpu on my mac.  It's on my list to debug....
725 2012-02-15 17:42:40 <sipa> gavinandresen: that means somehow a CNetAddr is constructed from an invalid struct sockaddr_in