1 2012-03-02 01:02:58 <upb> so i heard someone running a bank on a VPS got hacked
  2 2012-03-02 01:12:32 <lianj> upb: a couple
  3 2012-03-02 01:12:33 <ageis> upb: running a pool
  4 2012-03-02 01:12:41 <Joric> zhou is not here
  5 2012-03-02 01:13:48 <Joric> upb, Linode hacked:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=66916.0
  6 2012-03-02 01:14:51 <Joric> i'm wondering do i still have money there on bitcoinica or it's just a record in the database
  7 2012-03-02 01:14:55 <graingert> upb: this is bitcoin-dev
  8 2012-03-02 01:15:39 <upb> oh sorry, i didnt mean anything related to bitcoin really, so it was OT
  9 2012-03-02 01:24:31 <FaktioNN> bnProofOfWorkLimit = CBigNum(~uint256(0) >> 28);. Can someone explain what the purpose behind bnProofOfWorkLimit is?
 10 2012-03-02 01:24:45 <FaktioNN> I have seen different values for it passed around as well. 32 and 28 in particular.
 11 2012-03-02 01:28:51 <Diablo-D3> >bnPron
 12 2012-03-02 01:28:52 <Diablo-D3> :3
 13 2012-03-02 01:39:14 <sipa> facthe lowest realnet difficulty corresponds to app. 2^32 hashes
 14 2012-03-02 01:39:27 <sipa> for testnet, 2^28
 15 2012-03-02 01:40:34 <sipa> bnProofOfWorkLimit is the hkghest acceptable target at the lowest difficulty
 16 2012-03-02 01:40:50 <sipa> FaktioNN: ^^
 17 2012-03-02 01:41:12 <FaktioNN> Ah I see.
 18 2012-03-02 01:41:18 <FaktioNN> So it is like a bottom floor, so to speak?
 19 2012-03-02 01:42:09 <FaktioNN> I guess my question is.....what would be the net result of say...reducing the proofofwork limit to 2^8?
 20 2012-03-02 01:42:45 <Diablo-D3> on your own alt chain? nothing.
 21 2012-03-02 01:43:03 <sipa> it would mean the difficulty could drop to 0.00000006
 22 2012-03-02 01:44:50 <FaktioNN> Yeah. I am really more interested in reducing all calculated difficulty as a whole. Currently, I have it setup to divide bnNew by a constant.
 23 2012-03-02 01:45:02 <FaktioNN> (which is the spot where the retargeting occurs)
 24 2012-03-02 01:49:50 <FaktioNN> (sorry, I didn't say that correctly. I would need to increase the target to decrease the difficulty, I always get those two mixed up).
 25 2012-03-02 02:14:15 <phantomcircuit> lol where is gavin
 26 2012-03-02 02:16:09 <graingert> phantomcircuit: he's often out - I don't think he idles
 27 2012-03-02 02:16:45 <phantomcircuit> was going to offer him a secure host for the faucet lol
 28 2012-03-02 02:17:14 <graingert> phantomcircuit: what's the bank you switched to?
 29 2012-03-02 02:17:43 <phantomcircuit> graingert, metro
 30 2012-03-02 02:17:59 <graingert> ooh
 31 2012-03-02 02:18:01 <graingert> a new one
 32 2012-03-02 02:18:08 <graingert> god the website is bad
 33 2012-03-02 02:18:40 <phantomcircuit> graingert, yeah their website is terrible but i can script it so i dont really care
 34 2012-03-02 02:18:51 <phantomcircuit> also they have unique transaction id's
 35 2012-03-02 02:19:03 <phantomcircuit> something that appears to be a foreign concept for everybody else
 36 2012-03-02 02:19:24 <graingert> and pro bitcoin?
 37 2012-03-02 02:19:44 <graingert> 200 FREE  transactions per month
 38 2012-03-02 02:19:48 <phantomcircuit> graingert, as far as we can tell :)
 39 2012-03-02 02:20:50 <graingert> cool
 40 2012-03-02 02:20:54 <graingert> well enjoy
 41 2012-03-02 02:20:58 <graingert> shame about the fee
 42 2012-03-02 02:21:36 <phantomcircuit> we're eating the fee for transfers above 100 GBP
 43 2012-03-02 06:18:50 <Diablo-D3> before the anti-bitcoin crowd on HN downvote me, everyone needs to upvote this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3655711
 44 2012-03-02 06:20:48 <JFK911> whats HN
 45 2012-03-02 06:21:01 <JFK911> diablo i came across your blog searching for freenode stuff i think
 46 2012-03-02 06:24:14 <Diablo-D3> JFK911: hacker news, its a big site frequented by silicon valley startup people, pg owns it
 47 2012-03-02 06:27:20 <JFK911> ah
 48 2012-03-02 06:27:50 <Diablo-D3> pitching bitcoin at them is hilarious and sad at the same time
 49 2012-03-02 06:28:00 <Diablo-D3> something good happens to bitcoin, story is posted, no one upvotes
 50 2012-03-02 06:28:08 <Diablo-D3> something bad? goes straight to the top story list
 51 2012-03-02 06:28:27 <Diablo-D3> any positive comments? downvoted. negative? upvoted to hell and back
 52 2012-03-02 06:29:27 <ThomasV> the slashdotting will hurt linode
 53 2012-03-02 06:29:49 <Diablo-D3> the HNing will hurt linode
 54 2012-03-02 06:30:12 <Diablo-D3> people who make the business decisions on shit like "what vps company do we go with" read HN
 55 2012-03-02 06:30:58 <ThomasV> too
 56 2012-03-02 06:32:30 <JFK911> this made slashdot? cool
 57 2012-03-02 07:17:23 <_W_> Diablo-D3, downvoted, sorry.
 58 2012-03-02 07:17:56 <Joric> upvoted, keep up
 59 2012-03-02 09:26:54 <edcba> ;;bc,mtgox
 60 2012-03-02 09:26:55 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":4.98888,"low":4.52,"avg":4.753394121,"vwap":4.757481615,"vol":104251,"last_all":4.65,"last_local":4.65,"last":4.65,"buy":4.65,"sell":4.65096}}
 61 2012-03-02 09:33:13 <ageis> can i downgrade to 0.5.2 from .6rc without corruption
 62 2012-03-02 09:34:57 <Diablo-D3> probably
 63 2012-03-02 10:43:36 <wumpus> bitcoin services should seriously make a point of owning their own hardware
 64 2012-03-02 10:44:51 <wumpus> ageis: I suppose so, they are linked against the same bdb version
 65 2012-03-02 10:45:34 <ulhepaphlo> why did linode have a root backdoor into every customer's machine
 66 2012-03-02 10:47:30 <wumpus> convenience :/
 67 2012-03-02 10:47:49 <wumpus> you can reset your root password from the web management interface.. their customer support can do that too
 68 2012-03-02 10:48:33 <wumpus> might even have been social engineering -- we don't know
 69 2012-03-02 10:50:35 <wumpus> my vps with linode was not compromised btw
 70 2012-03-02 10:52:04 <wumpus> not that I have any wallets on it (in case anyone gets ideas )
 71 2012-03-02 10:52:31 <Graet> heh
 72 2012-03-02 10:54:07 <epscyl> it's a difficult problem to solve
 73 2012-03-02 10:54:26 <epscyl> you have to make your ip public to participate in the bitcoin network
 74 2012-03-02 10:54:38 <epscyl> of course savings should be kept offline
 75 2012-03-02 10:55:13 <epscyl> but services that need large amounts of bitcoin to be instantly acessable will always have this kind of problem
 76 2012-03-02 11:00:17 <wumpus> yes it's a difficult problem
 77 2012-03-02 11:01:40 <sipa> ageis: no
 78 2012-03-02 11:02:27 <sipa> 0.6 introduced compressed pubkeys
 79 2012-03-02 11:02:41 <sipa> 0.5.x doesn't understand them
 80 2012-03-02 12:21:12 <ageis> sipa: worked fine
 81 2012-03-02 12:22:15 <justmoon> ageis: was the wallet originally created by the older version? maybe it never contained any compress pubkeys
 82 2012-03-02 12:22:19 <justmoon> compressed*
 83 2012-03-02 12:23:30 <ageis> ya
 84 2012-03-02 15:55:09 <luke-jr> wumpus: ping
 85 2012-03-02 16:06:54 <Joric> what are the last 4 bytes of the block?
 86 2012-03-02 16:09:49 <Joric> gavinandresen, what's in the last 4 bytes of the each block?
 87 2012-03-02 16:10:15 <gavinandresen> Joric: no idea, I'd have to look
 88 2012-03-02 16:10:47 <Joric> always the same number d9b4bef9
 89 2012-03-02 16:11:13 <luke-jr> unlikely :/
 90 2012-03-02 16:11:18 <luke-jr> pretty sure it's a locktime or such
 91 2012-03-02 16:11:45 <Joric> well maybe not the same i'm parsing first blocks
 92 2012-03-02 16:12:41 <Joric> blockchain starts from it as well
 93 2012-03-02 16:12:43 <luke-jr> hmm
 94 2012-03-02 16:12:54 <luke-jr> I don't know, maybe there was some experimenting done in the first blocks?
 95 2012-03-02 16:12:56 <Joric> maybe it's really first bytes )
 96 2012-03-02 16:16:11 <Joric> moved it to the beginning
 97 2012-03-02 16:16:46 <gavinandresen> d9b4... is the "between blocks" byte marker I think
 98 2012-03-02 16:17:08 <gavinandresen> (but again, I'd have to look, it just sounds familiar)
 99 2012-03-02 16:17:28 <Joric> it's d9b4bef9 + block1 + d9b4bef9 + block2 + ...
100 2012-03-02 16:17:36 <gavinandresen> yup
101 2012-03-02 16:18:12 <luke-jr> ah, in the bd?
102 2012-03-02 16:18:14 <luke-jr> db*
103 2012-03-02 16:18:49 <Joric> in the blk0001.dat
104 2012-03-02 16:19:00 <gavinandresen> testnet block database/protocol will be the same patter with one added to every byte
105 2012-03-02 16:25:39 <egecko> sorry to hear about the thefts :(  that's not good news to wake up to
106 2012-03-02 16:26:32 <helo> at least the victims were bitcoin-wealthy, so ostensibly nobody suffers
107 2012-03-02 16:28:23 <gavinandresen> It will happen again; there is still a lot of infrastructure and experience needed to get past the Wild West stagecoach robbery phase of bitcoin's development
108 2012-03-02 16:28:56 <egecko> *nod* there is nothing that is hackproof
109 2012-03-02 16:29:01 <luke-jr> helo: huh?
110 2012-03-02 16:29:08 <Graet> egecko, ++
111 2012-03-02 16:29:08 <luke-jr> rich losing all their money still means they're broke&
112 2012-03-02 16:29:44 <egecko> seems like the best work around for now is to bounce your coins around and have them end up in a wallet that you keep on a thumb drive
113 2012-03-02 16:30:07 <helo> luke-jr: i am assuming that wasn't nearly all of their money
114 2012-03-02 16:31:22 <helo> i would be astounded to find that they kept all of their money in hot wallets on a vps
115 2012-03-02 16:35:19 <jrmithdobbs> egecko: that's basically what slush does and why it was only a subset of coins for him
116 2012-03-02 16:35:36 <jrmithdobbs> i don't know details of the bitcoinica clusterfuck but i see another mybitcoin rising
117 2012-03-02 16:36:02 <sipa> Joric: there's a foir byte marker between each two blocks in blk0001.dat
118 2012-03-02 16:56:40 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: ping
119 2012-03-02 16:57:07 <gribble> gavinandresen: on-topic ping from luke-jr
120 2012-03-02 16:57:07 <luke-jr> ;;echo gavinandresen: on-topic ping from luke-jr
121 2012-03-02 16:57:20 <gavinandresen> pong
122 2012-03-02 16:57:30 <luke-jr> 142e604 DoS fix for mapOrphanTransactions <-- is this a bugfix-bugfix, or more like the "disconnect bad peers" DoS stuff?
123 2012-03-02 16:57:54 <gavinandresen> bug-fix bug-fix.  Fixes an exploitable DoS
124 2012-03-02 16:58:45 <luke-jr> any potential negative effects?
125 2012-03-02 16:59:12 <gavinandresen> Should be safe, but any code change has potential negative effects
126 2012-03-02 16:59:37 <luke-jr> right, but I mean it won't possibly by-design cause legit transactions to be ignored in some cases?
127 2012-03-02 16:59:44 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: no
128 2012-03-02 16:59:53 <luke-jr> k ty
129 2012-03-02 17:10:05 <sytse> http://bitcoinmedia.com/compromised-linode-coins-stolen-from-slush-faucet-and-others/ <-- this gives me an idea.. wouldn't it be an excellent idea to implement cancellations, that can be sent for unconfirmed transactions?
130 2012-03-02 17:10:09 <sytse> 'This morning I received an emergency SMS notification that my pools bitcoin balance was low. I started investigating and the chain of events turned up strange anomalies. I then noticed 3094 BTC moving out of the pool wallet. I could only sit helpless as the money got confirmed by the network.'
131 2012-03-02 17:11:44 <sytse> possibly with a lock bit, that can be set to lock bitcoins in place for say, a week, so that an arbitrator can get involved to resolve the ownership question
132 2012-03-02 17:14:17 <helo> sytse: sounds like a good way to help someone pull off a double spend
133 2012-03-02 17:14:40 <sytse> although now that I think about it, some explicit way of facilitating arbitration of ownership of bitcoins with multiple people holding private keys would be needed, with the network being capable of confirming concurrent claims of the same bitcoins and associate them with a different keypair each, which would possibly enable a longer period of arbitration than a week
134 2012-03-02 17:15:03 <sytse> helo: no, the lock request would have to get confirmed as well
135 2012-03-02 17:15:42 <gavinandresen> sytse: multisig with one key held by a service that did all that is simpler.
136 2012-03-02 17:16:26 <sytse> helo: so when the owner puts a lock on some bitcoins after say, 5 confirmations, 6 additional blocks would be needed to confirm the lock, and in the intervening time nothing could happen with those bitcoins
137 2012-03-02 17:17:01 <sytse> helo: the risk is more in the human factor; people assuming '5 confirmations is secure enough for me' or even putting less confirmations than 6 into the code
138 2012-03-02 17:17:12 <sytse> +of some bitcoin client
139 2012-03-02 17:17:51 <denisx> I would like to have bitcoind two passwords, one for access and the other more secure for sending money
140 2012-03-02 17:18:27 <sytse> gavinandresen: well, you'd still need a system where only possession of the original private key would enable someone to claim the bitcoins
141 2012-03-02 17:18:37 <gavinandresen> denisx: encrypt your wallet and you have that
142 2012-03-02 17:18:38 <sytse> vetted by the network, not by a third party
143 2012-03-02 17:19:43 <gavinandresen> sytse: why?  The service could send you a paper copy of the master key that they use to counter-sign your transactions.
144 2012-03-02 17:20:25 <gavinandresen> (more likely, paper copy of the "root" key used to generate a deterministic set of keys.....)
145 2012-03-02 17:21:10 <gavinandresen> sytse: it is all about key management, who has what keys, how long are they good for, and how hard is it to hack into (whatever) to get them.
146 2012-03-02 17:23:48 <sytse> gavinandresen: that is true, but still, people are going to make security mistakes
147 2012-03-02 17:24:10 <sytse> gavinandresen: (such as hosting any amount of bitcoins on a third-party hosting provider instead of keeping them all securely in-house)
148 2012-03-02 17:25:32 <gavinandresen> sytse: you're still thinking of bitcoins as a monolithic thing.  It is all about what keys are required to spend them, who has access to those keys when, etc....
149 2012-03-02 17:25:52 <sytse> a way to at least prevent theft of those bitcoins if you're quick enough wouldn't do any harm and be quite beneficial to the bitcoin community as a whole imho, and could even potentially reduce attempted theft on hosted bitcoins a little when it becomes clear that doesn't work anymore in the majority of cases
150 2012-03-02 17:27:08 <gavinandresen> sytse: again, multisig is a simpler way of getting all of those properties.
151 2012-03-02 17:27:37 <sytse> gavinandresen: yes, I'm aware of that. I'm talking about blocking transactions, which would put the bitcoins in that transaction into limbo until the dispute is resolved (or until nobody or just one person submits the key required to spend the bitcoins to the network with a new key to identify the true owner/spender in the limited amount of time they're given to do so])
152 2012-03-02 17:28:02 <sytse> true, multisig would be simpler
153 2012-03-02 17:28:18 <sytse> although that in turn exposes you to additional risk
154 2012-03-02 17:28:54 <sytse> if that third party holding the second key explodes in a hail of fire
155 2012-03-02 17:29:03 <sytse> suddenly all of those bitcoins are lost forever
156 2012-03-02 17:29:33 <sytse> the only difference with the current situation when you simply *give* the bitcoins to a third party to keep, would be that there's no financial gain in doing so
157 2012-03-02 17:29:40 <sytse> which is an advantage
158 2012-03-02 17:29:51 <helo> sytse: see the paper copy comment above by gavin
159 2012-03-02 17:30:09 <sytse> but we've seen that it's possible (and probably will happen again) that simple human error will result in a lost wallet
160 2012-03-02 17:30:34 <sytse> helo: hm, good point
161 2012-03-02 17:30:44 <sytse> but less flexible
162 2012-03-02 17:30:55 <sytse> and it costs money
163 2012-03-02 17:32:03 <helo> a bargain in many cases :)
164 2012-03-02 17:32:23 <sytse> compared to risk
165 2012-03-02 17:32:40 <sytse> but still, not everyone is going to go for that
166 2012-03-02 17:34:19 <sytse> and a hot wallet would get way more complex if you'd want to create a truly secure way to interface with a third party holding the second keys, which wouldn't be accessible to an attacker gaining root access on the machine hosting the hot wallet
167 2012-03-02 17:34:31 <mndrix> i'm working on a patch to facilitate debug.log rotation. will this function leak memory or do other bad things I should avoid? https://gist.github.com/1960246
168 2012-03-02 17:34:36 <sytse> I don't see a trivial way to do so
169 2012-03-02 17:34:37 <mndrix> my C++ knowledge is paltry
170 2012-03-02 17:35:19 <sytse> although what you'd probably do is host two hot wallets on different hosting services
171 2012-03-02 17:35:29 <sytse> and not rely on a third party
172 2012-03-02 17:35:52 <sytse> but still, twice as expensive and a lot more complex
173 2012-03-02 17:36:21 <sytse> am I rambling now or do I have a point? :P
174 2012-03-02 17:37:37 <sytse> (my point being that assuming fallibility of any security and implementing a measure which could help mitigate full security compromise which has already happened, would probably be a good thing if done correctly)
175 2012-03-02 17:38:31 <gavinandresen> mndrix: debug.log rotation is much harder than it looks; I shot myself in the foot trying to implement it 18 months or so ago
176 2012-03-02 17:38:56 <gavinandresen> mndrix: the hard bit is it has to be thread-safe, and has to work during shutdown
177 2012-03-02 17:39:30 <gavinandresen> mndrix: it is very easy to run into race conditions with threads using already-closed file pointers.
178 2012-03-02 17:40:05 <mndrix> gavinandresen: it's certainly my C++ ignorance making me think freopen() would do the job then
179 2012-03-02 17:40:23 <gavinandresen> mndrix: ... and you can't use CRITICAL_SECTION because writes are done to debug.log during startup/shutdown, when the CRITICAL_SECTION machinery either hasn't fully initialized or has already shutdown
180 2012-03-02 17:41:20 <gavinandresen> freopen isn't suffcient, you'll get random once-in-a-blue-moon crashes as threads get interrupted at exactly the wrong time and try to use a freopene'd FILE*
181 2012-03-02 17:42:00 <mndrix> does flock interact poorly with freopen?
182 2012-03-02 17:43:06 <gavinandresen> mndrix: dunno.   The workaround for all that is to use logrotate(8) to rotate your logs
183 2012-03-02 17:43:37 <gavinandresen> mndrix: ... with the copytruncate option
184 2012-03-02 17:44:16 <mndrix> gavinandresen: thanks for the tip
185 2012-03-02 17:45:06 <mndrix> i may play with the flock approach and see how it fares on my test machines
186 2012-03-02 17:45:14 <mndrix> for personal education, as much as anything
187 2012-03-02 18:18:34 <copumpkin> sounds like someone should use the duplicate txn attack to destroy the coins that were stolen :)
188 2012-03-02 18:19:09 <luke-jr> copumpkin: &
189 2012-03-02 18:20:03 <luke-jr> on that topic, it's very important Linode reimburses at least Bitcoinica
190 2012-03-02 18:20:11 <copumpkin> not going to happen
191 2012-03-02 18:20:14 <copumpkin> 200 grand?
192 2012-03-02 18:20:16 <luke-jr> that much volume can crash the market
193 2012-03-02 18:20:29 <copumpkin> ;;market sell 44000
194 2012-03-02 18:20:31 <gribble> A market order to sell 44000 bitcoins right now would net 196490.8098 USD and would take the last price down to 4.2120 USD.
195 2012-03-02 18:20:47 <luke-jr> O.O
196 2012-03-02 18:20:51 <luke-jr> we're doing that well?
197 2012-03-02 18:20:52 <luke-jr> nice
198 2012-03-02 18:21:02 <Joric> ;;market sell 200000
199 2012-03-02 18:21:03 <gribble> A market order to sell 200000 bitcoins right now would net 724775.4649 USD and would take the last price down to 2.1100 USD.
200 2012-03-02 18:23:56 <ulyedalplo> the pumpkin has landed
201 2012-03-02 18:34:18 <copumpkin> luke-jr: what worries me is that the address the stolen coins got sent to has way more coins in it than have been reported stolen
202 2012-03-02 18:34:40 <copumpkin> 150k or so when someone linked to it yesterday
203 2012-03-02 18:34:56 <luke-jr> copumpkin: Linode said 8 clients
204 2012-03-02 18:35:03 <luke-jr> I only heard of 3 that are public
205 2012-03-02 18:35:05 <copumpkin> yeah
206 2012-03-02 18:35:14 <luke-jr> so that's 5 unknowns
207 2012-03-02 18:35:16 <copumpkin> makes me wonder who else has loads of coins and hosts on linode
208 2012-03-02 18:35:27 <ulyedalplo> holy crap copumpkin
209 2012-03-02 18:35:37 <ulyedalplo> the biggest heist in bitcoin history?
210 2012-03-02 18:36:24 <copumpkin> well, nobody knows :) it could be the coins made their way into an SR (or other shady underground site) common account and that's why they're piled up with a bunch more coins that are unrelated to the heist
211 2012-03-02 18:36:28 <Joric> linode said 8 clients all bitcoin-related, sounds like crap
212 2012-03-02 18:36:31 <copumpkin> or the other 5 accounts had huge losses, too
213 2012-03-02 18:36:35 <copumpkin> who can say
214 2012-03-02 18:37:30 <ThomasV_> negative fees: http://www.blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees?showDataPoints=false&show_header=true&daysAverageString=1&timespan=&scale=0&address=
215 2012-03-02 18:38:06 <ulyedalplo> theyre calling it the biggest heist in bitcoin history
216 2012-03-02 18:39:00 <Joric> saying all those accounts were bitcoin-related is just the easier way to cop out
217 2012-03-02 18:41:08 <nanotube> ThomasV_: bet blockchain.info is just borked...
218 2012-03-02 18:41:24 <ThomasV_> borked..
219 2012-03-02 18:41:27 <ulyedalplo> http://blockchain.info/tx-index/2893660/d9804de366aa4c2a01565c3a3c8aa2ea20baafc276dc875f80b9044841205333
220 2012-03-02 18:41:33 <nanotube> ulyedalplo: ok well, mybitcoin was definitely a much bigger heist :P
221 2012-03-02 18:41:36 <ulyedalplo> the hacker is taunting bitcoin - the transaction is 1337 bytes
222 2012-03-02 18:41:57 <nanotube> could be just a coincidence
223 2012-03-02 18:42:09 <graingert> nanotube: can you tell if extra data was included on purpose?
224 2012-03-02 18:42:47 <ThomasV_> it looks standard
225 2012-03-02 18:42:51 <nanotube> graingert: at first glance, looks like a standard tx without any extra data
226 2012-03-02 18:43:01 <graingert> nanotube: got a raw block?
227 2012-03-02 18:43:05 <graingert> tx*
228 2012-03-02 18:43:29 <nanotube> graingert: no, i just clicked the 'show scripts and coinbase' link on the right
229 2012-03-02 18:43:33 <graingert> ash
230 2012-03-02 18:43:38 <graingert> ah*
231 2012-03-02 18:43:44 <nanotube> not sure if bc.info shows the whole raw block in json like bbe does...
232 2012-03-02 18:43:57 <ulyedalplo> look at the fee
233 2012-03-02 18:43:59 <ulyedalplo> 0.08896600
234 2012-03-02 18:44:35 <ThomasV_> it's not the fee
235 2012-03-02 18:44:41 <ThomasV_> fee is zero
236 2012-03-02 18:45:44 <ulyedalplo> yes not the fee
237 2012-03-02 18:45:53 <ulyedalplo> it was an added tx whose only purpose was to hit 1337 bytes
238 2012-03-02 18:46:34 <graingert> no it just makes 25,000 BTC round
239 2012-03-02 18:46:47 <ThomasV_> it's the change
240 2012-03-02 18:46:49 <graingert> and sends 0.088966 BTC to change
241 2012-03-02 18:47:09 <ulyedalplo> change for who?
242 2012-03-02 18:47:17 <graingert> his own wallet
243 2012-03-02 18:47:19 <sytse> for whom
244 2012-03-02 18:47:36 <sytse> ;p
245 2012-03-02 18:47:46 <ulyedalplo> theres no need to make change if he's the only recipient
246 2012-03-02 18:47:50 <luke-jr> ulyedalplo: if someone sends you 5 BTC, you can't just send 3 BTC of it
247 2012-03-02 18:48:01 <graingert> ulyedalplo: yes but it makes 25,000 round
248 2012-03-02 18:48:06 <luke-jr> ulyedalplo: you have to send the whole 5 BTC, with 2 BTC going back to yourself
249 2012-03-02 18:48:17 <ulyedalplo> why does he care if its round or not?
250 2012-03-02 18:48:26 <graingert> which is more liekly?
251 2012-03-02 18:48:29 <graingert> likely*
252 2012-03-02 18:48:43 <graingert> he wanted 1337 and it happened to round to 25k
253 2012-03-02 18:48:57 <graingert> or he wanted 25k and it happened to round to 1337
254 2012-03-02 18:49:00 <ulyedalplo> obviously he intended both
255 2012-03-02 18:49:26 <graingert> but he only took money from stolen wallets
256 2012-03-02 18:49:47 <graingert> buh
257 2012-03-02 18:49:51 <graingert> hang on
258 2012-03-02 18:49:55 <graingert> 131FBNVNsbzNwdh6uem9S9UBME3oiyiKT7 (1.947251 BTC - Output)
259 2012-03-02 18:49:58 <sytse> ulyedalplo: uh
260 2012-03-02 18:49:59 <graingert> maybe?
261 2012-03-02 18:50:01 <sytse> ulyedalplo: yes, there is
262 2012-03-02 18:50:14 <graingert> I'm now unsure
263 2012-03-02 18:50:23 <ulyedalplo> whats that graingert
264 2012-03-02 18:50:24 <sytse> ulyedalplo: if you send 25 round BTC to yourself or somebody else
265 2012-03-02 18:50:41 <ulyedalplo> sytse: he's the thief. hes just consolidating his coins
266 2012-03-02 18:50:45 <sytse> ulyedalplo: and you don't have transactions totalling exactly 25 BTC
267 2012-03-02 18:50:48 <graingert> ulyedalplo: I think it's more likely that he wanted 25k and it happned to be 1337
268 2012-03-02 18:50:50 <sytse> ulyedalplo: you'll need to send some change to yourself
269 2012-03-02 18:50:59 <graingert> but it could be the other way around
270 2012-03-02 18:51:03 <graingert> or both
271 2012-03-02 18:51:10 <sytse> um, 25kBTC
272 2012-03-02 18:51:17 <graingert> but the simpler explanation is 25kBTC
273 2012-03-02 18:51:33 <graingert> was chosen
274 2012-03-02 18:51:43 <graingert> and the other values were as a result of that choice
275 2012-03-02 18:51:55 <graingert> but you can't know for sure
276 2012-03-02 18:51:57 <sytse> 25kBTC is a pretty 'elite' amount of bitcoins to be sending around anyway though :)
277 2012-03-02 18:52:05 <nanotube> sytse: lol indeed
278 2012-03-02 18:52:28 <graingert> I'd put 2bitcoin on it
279 2012-03-02 18:52:46 <nanotube> graingert: haha if we ever catch the guy, we can put the question to him eh?
280 2012-03-02 18:52:48 <graingert> but even if the guy comes out and says - you can't tell it isn't just a lie
281 2012-03-02 18:52:57 <nanotube> yea that too
282 2012-03-02 18:53:25 <ulyedalplo> well if you look at one the inputs
283 2012-03-02 18:53:26 <ulyedalplo> http://blockexplorer.com/address/1NRy8GbX56MymBhDYMyqsNKwW9VupqKVG7
284 2012-03-02 18:53:41 <ulyedalplo> he just took 28 btc out of a wallet with 2109.2 btc. an odd amount
285 2012-03-02 18:54:13 <graingert> sent using a telephone from Portugal
286 2012-03-02 18:54:43 <graingert> oh they do fixed internet too at that host
287 2012-03-02 18:55:23 <ulyedalplo> i think he knew he needed 7 inputs to get close to 1337 bytes, so he took odd amounts from the input addresses (28 btc from a 2109.2 btc wallet etc) to make a nice round number
288 2012-03-02 18:55:36 <ulyedalplo> and the fractional part just went to change
289 2012-03-02 18:56:19 <luke-jr> &
290 2012-03-02 18:56:55 <ulyedalplo> the 1337 is intentional. otherwise he wouldve emptied out the inputs. why take 28 btc from one address?
291 2012-03-02 18:58:04 <ulyedalplo> http://blockexplorer.com/tx/d9804de366aa4c2a01565c3a3c8aa2ea20baafc276dc875f80b9044841205333
292 2012-03-02 18:58:14 <ulyedalplo> the same input address is listed twice. 3094 and 28
293 2012-03-02 18:58:28 <ulyedalplo> afaik no client does that... it would just combine them into 3122
294 2012-03-02 18:59:00 <graingert> those are two previous outputs for the same address
295 2012-03-02 18:59:01 <sytse> ulyedalplo: or it could be an artifact of an automated system that routinely moves large amounts of money around for customers like mtgox
296 2012-03-02 18:59:35 <graingert> Previous output (index) does not merge into one from address
297 2012-03-02 19:00:14 <sytse> ulyedalplo: seems likely given the timing of the transactions
298 2012-03-02 19:00:31 <sytse> (erratic but quite a few over less than a day)
299 2012-03-02 19:02:02 <luke-jr> ulyedalplo: you clearly don't understand how Bitcoin works
300 2012-03-02 19:02:09 <ulyedalplo> clearly i do
301 2012-03-02 19:02:16 <luke-jr> you can't list inputs twice
302 2012-03-02 19:02:22 <sytse> ulyedalplo: could be someone decided to withdraw exactly 25kBTC and told mtgox to use a 'green' address, so it had to collect money from several accounts
303 2012-03-02 19:02:24 <luke-jr> and Bitcoin doesn't work with addresses and balances
304 2012-03-02 19:02:45 <ulyedalplo> its true you cant list inputs twice
305 2012-03-02 19:02:53 <ulyedalplo> but bitcoin does work with "addresses"
306 2012-03-02 19:02:56 <ulyedalplo> dont be ridiculous
307 2012-03-02 19:03:28 <luke-jr> addresses are a high-level abstraction
308 2012-03-02 19:03:36 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: ltnc
309 2012-03-02 19:03:44 <ulyedalplo> they are part of the protocol
310 2012-03-02 19:03:49 <[Tycho]> What ?
311 2012-03-02 19:03:52 <sytse> hmmm
312 2012-03-02 19:03:53 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: long time no chat
313 2012-03-02 19:03:57 <sytse> what's weird though
314 2012-03-02 19:04:01 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: are you going to deploy BIP 16, or give 17 more time?
315 2012-03-02 19:04:12 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: more importantly, what about the security issue?
316 2012-03-02 19:04:17 <ulyedalplo> luke-jr: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address
317 2012-03-02 19:04:20 <ulyedalplo> read up son
318 2012-03-02 19:04:22 <[Tycho]> I don't see BIP17 support increasing.
319 2012-03-02 19:04:25 <sytse> is how every source address sends exactly 0.088966 BTC to 113ym88TLsNUgQomGpVP97K1kwVLGk5r7V as well
320 2012-03-02 19:04:34 <[Tycho]> Actually BIP16 support stopped growing too.
321 2012-03-02 19:04:37 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: have you looked?
322 2012-03-02 19:04:45 <[Tycho]> Looked at what ?
323 2012-03-02 19:04:48 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: BIP support
324 2012-03-02 19:04:51 <sytse> this looks like software that has a fetish for 0.088966 BTC :D
325 2012-03-02 19:04:54 <luke-jr> 17
326 2012-03-02 19:05:04 <[Tycho]> I just remember looking at the pie chart some days ago.
327 2012-03-02 19:05:13 <luke-jr> piuk's pie chart sucks, and doesn't show BIP 17 at all
328 2012-03-02 19:05:18 <[Tycho]> Are you talking about Linode or the double coinbase issue ?
329 2012-03-02 19:05:18 <ulyedalplo> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/protocol.h
330 2012-03-02 19:05:22 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: doublecoinbase
331 2012-03-02 19:05:24 <sytse> oh wait
332 2012-03-02 19:05:25 <sytse> no
333 2012-03-02 19:05:26 <lianj> ulyedalplo: "A bitcoin address is in fact the hash of a ECDSA public key" read up better
334 2012-03-02 19:05:33 <[Tycho]> Yes.
335 2012-03-02 19:05:44 <ulyedalplo> lianj: that doesn't contradict anything i said. lmao. but keep cut&pasting
336 2012-03-02 19:06:08 <ulyedalplo> lianj: the question is whether addresses are used in the protocol. THAT IS WHAT AN ADDRESS IS YOU JACKASS
337 2012-03-02 19:06:10 <lianj> ulyedalplo: on the wire protocol, an "address" is never transmitted
338 2012-03-02 19:06:28 <sytse> this does look like a 'green address' mtgox withdraw, plain and simple
339 2012-03-02 19:06:31 <ulyedalplo> yes it is you buffoon. THATS THE DESTINATION IN A STANDARD TX
340 2012-03-02 19:06:35 <ulyedalplo> just stfu lianj
341 2012-03-02 19:06:48 <helo> at least it's not getting personal
342 2012-03-02 19:06:48 <lianj> wow, youre friendly
343 2012-03-02 19:07:01 <ageis> ulyedalplo: luke-jr says you clearly don't understand how Bitcoin works. I trust luke-jr.
344 2012-03-02 19:07:07 <graingert> ulyedalplo: bitcoin works on previous outpoints
345 2012-03-02 19:07:17 <graingert> outputs*
346 2012-03-02 19:07:34 <ulyedalplo> oh yeah?
347 2012-03-02 19:07:43 <ulyedalplo> your moms friendly too
348 2012-03-02 19:08:11 <ulyedalplo> graingert: theres an output too, which refs an address in a std tx
349 2012-03-02 19:08:29 <ulyedalplo> otherwise no one would be able to redeem their fucking coins
350 2012-03-02 19:08:30 <ulyedalplo> jeezus
351 2012-03-02 19:09:18 <graingert> but inputs can't be merged without a transaction
352 2012-03-02 19:09:46 <ulyedalplo> yes
353 2012-03-02 19:11:28 <luke-jr> ulyedalplo: it's impossible to say "I am spending 5 BTC from address 1ibjrt&"
354 2012-03-02 19:11:29 <ulyedalplo> can you find another tx that's 1337 bytes?
355 2012-03-02 19:11:39 <luke-jr> I bet there's a lot.
356 2012-03-02 19:12:20 <ulyedalplo> luke-jr: actually you can. all that means, obviously, is that you are redeeming a std tx sent to address 1ibjrt.
357 2012-03-02 19:12:40 <midnightmagic> ulyedalplo: did you know that your nickname is an anagram for "loudly plea"?
358 2012-03-02 19:12:46 <ulyedalplo> i did
359 2012-03-02 19:13:26 <midnightmagic> also palely loud..
360 2012-03-02 19:13:38 <luke-jr> ulyedalplo: no, you can't.
361 2012-03-02 19:13:45 <ulyedalplo> luke-jr: yes you can. learn 2 english
362 2012-03-02 19:14:13 <luke-jr> ulyedalplo: you can only say "I am spending a specific 5 BTC output at ffabc01234567:0, using key abdbdbce"
363 2012-03-02 19:14:21 <lianj> luke-jr: quit nitpicking, just leave him with that thought ;)
364 2012-03-02 19:14:43 <graingert> lianj: no it's important as he made a mistake on how a tx was constructed
365 2012-03-02 19:14:46 <ulyedalplo> luke-jr: thats saying something different
366 2012-03-02 19:14:52 <luke-jr> ulyedalplo: my point exactly.
367 2012-03-02 19:14:53 <graingert> ulyedalplo: it is indeed
368 2012-03-02 19:15:02 <graingert> ulyedalplo: and the only thing that can be said
369 2012-03-02 19:15:26 <ulyedalplo> graingert: completely false. the first statement is semantically valid and completely understandable
370 2012-03-02 19:15:28 <ulyedalplo> theres no ambiguity
371 2012-03-02 19:15:43 <graingert> ulyedalplo: yes but the bitcoin protocol does not allow it
372 2012-03-02 19:15:52 <ulyedalplo> graingert: the bitcoin protocol doesn't understand english
373 2012-03-02 19:16:07 <graingert> buh
374 2012-03-02 19:16:25 <graingert> Poe
375 2012-03-02 19:16:27 <ulyedalplo> saying "these coins are from address xyz" has an obvious and distinct meaning.
376 2012-03-02 19:16:41 <graingert> yes, but it cannot be formulated in bitcoin language
377 2012-03-02 19:16:50 <ulyedalplo> saying "these coins are from input xyz" has an obvious and distinct meaning, separate from the first
378 2012-03-02 19:16:52 <graingert> you can only specify a previous output
379 2012-03-02 19:17:09 <graingert> not a previous address
380 2012-03-02 19:17:12 <ulyedalplo> graingert: of course it can be translated into a formal statement. its a mathematical observation about the relationship between properties of transactions
381 2012-03-02 19:17:30 <graingert> sure formal, but not bitcoin
382 2012-03-02 19:17:37 <ulyedalplo> graingert: you are confusing logical implications (which address) with the format of the tx packet
383 2012-03-02 19:17:51 <graingert> we are talking about the format of the tx packet
384 2012-03-02 19:18:05 <ulyedalplo> maybe you are. bitcoin is a lot more than the syntax of one command
385 2012-03-02 19:18:17 <sytse> simply because you brought that format up ulyedalplo
386 2012-03-02 19:18:20 <sytse> 21:06:08 < ulyedalplo> lianj: the question is whether addresses are used in the protocol. THAT IS WHAT AN ADDRESS IS YOU JACKASS
387 2012-03-02 19:18:22 <ulyedalplo> if you meant that, you should've qualified your statement
388 2012-03-02 19:18:35 <ulyedalplo> sytse: which is correct.
389 2012-03-02 19:18:41 <graingert> and why you can have two identical addresses listed on the input side
390 2012-03-02 19:18:42 <ulyedalplo> addresses are used in std tx's
391 2012-03-02 19:18:59 <lianj> "i have the private key, with which i make an into script, to evaluate this previous transaction output script to true"
392 2012-03-02 19:18:59 <ulyedalplo> you are confusing the output with the input
393 2012-03-02 19:19:02 <graingert> and that the bitcoin client does not merge them
394 2012-03-02 19:19:09 <lianj> s/into/input/
395 2012-03-02 19:19:21 <sytse> if I read this discussion and the source code correctly, the addresses are -derived- from std tx's, not used in them?
396 2012-03-02 19:19:50 <graingert> systse: yes, addresses have checksums and chain ID's
397 2012-03-02 19:20:01 <graingert> std tx does not
398 2012-03-02 19:21:46 <sytse> doesn't really make a difference functionally though, as long as the constraints are kept valid by the network cryptographically
399 2012-03-02 19:22:05 <sytse> so I must say I fail to see the point in the whole discussion
400 2012-03-02 19:22:07 <ulyedalplo> yes i was wrong about the 2 inputs merging
401 2012-03-02 19:22:51 <ulyedalplo> im just pointing out that he picked the tx's deliberately to make 1337 bytes
402 2012-03-02 19:23:08 <sytse> (except if it is to prove that ulyedalplo doesn't understand how bitcoin works, which appears to be working)
403 2012-03-02 19:23:16 <graingert> no because those were the only outputs available to him
404 2012-03-02 19:23:30 <ulyedalplo> sytse: you didnt even know how a tx is formed
405 2012-03-02 19:23:38 <sytse> ulyedalplo: you could take any random result and pick something and say it's deliberate
406 2012-03-02 19:23:39 <ulyedalplo> lol
407 2012-03-02 19:23:41 <sytse> that doesn't make it so
408 2012-03-02 19:23:56 <ulyedalplo> sytse: sizes arent random
409 2012-03-02 19:24:16 <sytse> they are if you factor in the human factor
410 2012-03-02 19:24:23 <ulyedalplo> are you insane?
411 2012-03-02 19:24:40 <sytse> in any given transaction, obviously sizes aren't random
412 2012-03-02 19:24:44 <ulyedalplo> jsut stfu
413 2012-03-02 19:25:06 <sytse> but they are distributed according to some statistical distribution, simply because many transactions are happening all the time for many different reasons and with many different amounts
414 2012-03-02 19:25:17 <ulyedalplo> nothing you are saying is relevant
415 2012-03-02 19:25:47 <sytse> same to you, so how about we just end this pointless discussion, it isn't going anywhere anyway
416 2012-03-02 19:28:31 <ulyedalplo> "<luke-jr> and Bitcoin doesn't work with addresses "
417 2012-03-02 19:28:38 <ulyedalplo> classssic
418 2012-03-02 19:29:02 <sytse> very good work alienating everybody in this channel btw :-)
419 2012-03-02 19:36:15 <ulyedalplo> dammit chin gig
420 2012-03-02 19:36:16 <[Tycho]> luke-jr: is there any discussed deadline for this ?
421 2012-03-02 19:38:32 <ulyedalplo> ahh it's a wonderful day
422 2012-03-02 20:23:34 <diki> terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::bad_cast' what():  std::bad_cast
423 2012-03-02 20:23:40 <diki> and this means...?
424 2012-03-02 20:24:09 <denisx> is possible to remove the encryption from a wallet?
425 2012-03-02 20:24:11 <BlueMatt-mobile> You made a bad casr
426 2012-03-02 20:24:16 <BlueMatt-mobile> Cast*
427 2012-03-02 20:24:18 <diki> BlueMatt-mobile:I did not
428 2012-03-02 20:24:22 <diki> Cause I use stock bitcoind
429 2012-03-02 20:24:25 <BlueMatt-mobile> denisx no
430 2012-03-02 20:24:36 <denisx> BlueMatt-mobile: not even with the password?
431 2012-03-02 20:24:39 <BlueMatt-mobile> diki ok, bitcoin made a baf cast...
432 2012-03-02 20:24:44 <BlueMatt-mobile> denisx nope
433 2012-03-02 20:24:49 <denisx> ok
434 2012-03-02 20:25:06 <diki> PSJ is somehow causing the crash
435 2012-03-02 20:25:12 <BlueMatt-mobile> diki any chance you can attach gdb?
436 2012-03-02 20:25:20 <BlueMatt-mobile> Psj?
437 2012-03-02 20:25:23 <diki> poolserverj
438 2012-03-02 20:25:32 <diki> When I use it, it crashes it
439 2012-03-02 20:25:37 <BlueMatt-mobile> Does that rpc into bitcoind?
440 2012-03-02 20:25:41 <diki> I am assuming its from the spam of rpc commands
441 2012-03-02 20:25:55 <BlueMatt-mobile> Hmmmm... are you on win32?
442 2012-03-02 20:26:02 <diki> well yeah
443 2012-03-02 20:26:06 <diki> but I do have gdb
444 2012-03-02 20:26:13 <BlueMatt-mobile> Damn these windows rpc bugs...
445 2012-03-02 20:26:24 <BlueMatt-mobile> diki what version?
446 2012-03-02 20:26:40 <BlueMatt-mobile> Also hang on let me get you a debugable copy...
447 2012-03-02 20:26:41 <diki> not extremely the latest, but I doubt the new one will fix this: 0.5.1
448 2012-03-02 20:27:10 <BlueMatt-mobile> Hmm, doubt it too (though you should try to use the latest version)
449 2012-03-02 20:28:26 <BlueMatt-mobile> diki can you try with the bitcoin-qt from http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29653426/bitcoin-qt.zip
450 2012-03-02 20:28:43 <diki> why is it so big?
451 2012-03-02 20:28:48 <BlueMatt-mobile> Diki (in gdb), oh actually were you using bitcoind or qt?
452 2012-03-02 20:29:02 <BlueMatt-mobile> diki mind leaving answers with gribble via later tell t
453 2012-03-02 20:29:19 <BlueMatt-mobile> Im about to get on an airplane for like 10 hours
454 2012-03-02 20:29:24 <diki> ok then
455 2012-03-02 20:29:35 <BlueMatt-mobile> Its huge because of all the debug symbols
456 2012-03-02 20:30:59 <diki> and I was using bitcoind, yes
457 2012-03-02 20:37:04 <Joric> just started https://github.com/joric/pyblockchain
458 2012-03-02 20:38:01 <diki> why in python?
459 2012-03-02 20:38:46 <jrmithdobbs> diki: not all of us are uncomplaint c code copy/paste experts ok
460 2012-03-02 20:38:56 <Joric> i have enough cpp at work
461 2012-03-02 20:39:38 <diki> jrmithdobbs:why hello there jrmith
462 2012-03-02 20:39:42 <diki> fancy seeing you here
463 2012-03-02 20:40:01 <jrmithdobbs> you do?
464 2012-03-02 20:40:10 <diki> no
465 2012-03-02 20:40:14 <diki> it was sarcasm
466 2012-03-02 20:40:15 <jrmithdobbs> all due respect, i don't swing that way
467 2012-03-02 20:40:21 <jrmithdobbs> pitiful save
468 2012-03-02 20:40:33 <diki> it's called, typing faster
469 2012-03-02 20:40:42 <diki> but before that, thinking!!!
470 2012-03-02 20:41:34 <diki> not that I expect you to understand, though
471 2012-03-02 20:41:41 <diki> You seem to be lacking in that quality
472 2012-03-02 20:42:17 <diki> oh well, time to debug
473 2012-03-02 22:21:04 <RedEmerald> hey thomasv: http://ecdsa.org/bitcoin-alias/ is broke :(
474 2012-03-02 23:13:24 <midnightmagic> does anyone know if allinvain got his coins back?
475 2012-03-02 23:14:51 <sipa> i never heard of such a thing
476 2012-03-02 23:46:25 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: why was lpdaskain banned? O.o
477 2012-03-02 23:47:58 <gmaxwell> because he's that troll with a zillion names that operates mostly by feeding back technical arguments amongst us.
478 2012-03-02 23:48:03 <luke-jr> o
479 2012-03-02 23:48:33 <gmaxwell> (and go look in #bitcoin-otc if you have any doubt about my detection ... :-/ )
480 2012-03-02 23:50:01 <hyderu> i have seen gmaxwell say one thing adamantly, then the next day he changes his tune completely, without acknowledging the switch. it's odd
481 2012-03-02 23:52:30 <hyderu> its almost like his opinion is totally unreliable. heh
482 2012-03-02 23:54:46 <luke-jr> &