1 2012-03-20 00:00:00 <bitcoinbuyer_> i've tried it on the command line and jsonrpc and neither calls move coins
  2 2012-03-20 00:00:14 <bitcoinbuyer_> Anythoughts on troubleshooting?
  3 2012-03-20 00:00:55 <sipa> bitcoinbuyer_: you know what move is supposed to do?
  4 2012-03-20 00:01:08 <bitcoinbuyer_> move from one user to another??
  5 2012-03-20 00:01:17 <bitcoinbuyer_> in the same wallet
  6 2012-03-20 00:01:21 <sipa> well, move from one accounts to another account
  7 2012-03-20 00:01:28 <sipa> but it does not perform a transaction
  8 2012-03-20 00:01:34 <bitcoinbuyer_> correct.
  9 2012-03-20 00:01:56 <sipa> but getaccountbalance doesn't reflect the move you're doing?
 10 2012-03-20 00:02:07 <bitcoinbuyer_> nope
 11 2012-03-20 00:02:27 <bitcoinbuyer_> I get a TRUE response when I make the call from a command line
 12 2012-03-20 00:02:31 <bitcoinbuyer_> but the coins dont' move
 13 2012-03-20 00:02:48 <luke-jr> listaccounts
 14 2012-03-20 00:02:59 <sipa> ok, tell me exactly which calls you're doing, and i can try to reproduce?
 15 2012-03-20 00:03:28 <bitcoinbuyer_> >./bitcoind user1, user2, 1, 1
 16 2012-03-20 00:03:34 <bitcoinbuyer_> this returns TRUE
 17 2012-03-20 00:03:42 <gmaxwell> 0_o
 18 2012-03-20 00:03:48 <sipa> no comma's
 19 2012-03-20 00:04:01 <gmaxwell> presumably there is a "move" in there somewhere?
 20 2012-03-20 00:04:03 <bitcoinbuyer_> sorry that was the json rpc call with MOVE
 21 2012-03-20 00:04:17 <bitcoinbuyer_> no comma from the command line
 22 2012-03-20 00:04:19 <gmaxwell> and how are you determining that they aren't moving? what call are you doing?
 23 2012-03-20 00:04:30 <sipa> i asked for the exact call you're doing :)
 24 2012-03-20 00:05:09 <bitcoinbuyer_> sorry AGAIN ./bitcoind move user1 user2 1 1
 25 2012-03-20 00:05:41 <bitcoinbuyer_> i get 'true' as a response.  is that correct
 26 2012-03-20 00:05:45 <gmaxwell> bitcoinbuyer_: and you determine that it hasn't moved by?
 27 2012-03-20 00:05:50 <sipa> looks right so far
 28 2012-03-20 00:06:13 <bitcoinbuyer_> getaccountbalance
 29 2012-03-20 00:06:15 <loktite> where the bitcoins at bro
 30 2012-03-20 00:06:16 <gmaxwell> (what the second "1" for?)
 31 2012-03-20 00:06:24 <bitcoinbuyer_> 1 confirmation
 32 2012-03-20 00:07:05 <sipa> since move allows creating negative balances, that fourth argument is meaningless
 33 2012-03-20 00:07:45 <gmaxwell> yea, I'm confused by what that could possibly mean.
 34 2012-03-20 00:07:59 <gmaxwell> I see the minconf in the help but it makes no sense to me.
 35 2012-03-20 00:10:14 <sipa> gmaxwell: move used to check that enough credit was left in the sending account
 36 2012-03-20 00:10:58 <sipa> gmaxwell: and for that calculation, minconf selected transactions with how many confirmations to take into account
 37 2012-03-20 00:11:23 <gmaxwell> ah
 38 2012-03-20 00:12:04 <gmaxwell> that.. is still not quite sensible.
 39 2012-03-20 00:12:10 <bitcoinbuyer_> so I checked balances on the command line and I now see movement.  must be a error my use of the json rpc
 40 2012-03-20 00:12:28 <finway> Is there something wrong with sourceforge ?
 41 2012-03-20 00:12:29 <bitcoinbuyer_> now I see negative balances.  How is that bossible
 42 2012-03-20 00:12:46 <sipa> luke-jr: where? inside blocks?
 43 2012-03-20 00:12:51 <sipa> or just in accepttomemorypool?
 44 2012-03-20 00:12:53 <luke-jr> sipa: into blocks
 45 2012-03-20 00:12:55 <luke-jr> right
 46 2012-03-20 00:13:08 <finway> Can't access http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/
 47 2012-03-20 00:13:08 <luke-jr> bitcoinbuyer_: b = 0; a += 5; b -= 5;
 48 2012-03-20 00:13:17 <luke-jr> finway: we just blocked you
 49 2012-03-20 00:13:21 <gmaxwell> say a txn has a balance of 10. A txn comes in with 5 btc. you minconf=2 move 6.  Then.. you minconf=2 move 6 again. Does it fail?
 50 2012-03-20 00:13:40 <finway> luke-jr : but  http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.5.3/bitcoin-0.5.3.1-win32-setup.exe/download is fine
 51 2012-03-20 00:13:54 <luke-jr> &
 52 2012-03-20 00:14:02 <sipa> gmaxwell: since 0.3.x something accounts can freely go negative, so minconf has no meaning anymore
 53 2012-03-20 00:14:09 <luke-jr> finway: that was sarcasm
 54 2012-03-20 00:14:23 <gmaxwell> sipa: ::nods:: I just don't see how it could ever have made sense.
 55 2012-03-20 00:14:40 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: it's nice to record debts.
 56 2012-03-20 00:14:51 <sipa> gmaxwell: spent coins are never counted
 57 2012-03-20 00:14:52 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: 0_o
 58 2012-03-20 00:14:55 <luke-jr> lol
 59 2012-03-20 00:15:02 <finway> luke-jr:  http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.5.3/  says: We are unable to display the page you requested.
 60 2012-03-20 00:15:05 <finway> Weird
 61 2012-03-20 00:15:07 <sipa> gmaxwell: the question is just how many confirmation unspent ones must have before they are counted
 62 2012-03-20 00:15:14 <gmaxwell> sipa: there is not spent coin. Two moves.
 63 2012-03-20 00:15:29 <finway> Is sourceforge compromised ?
 64 2012-03-20 00:15:39 <sipa> gmaxwell: ah, moves have no confirmations, so they are counted always
 65 2012-03-20 00:15:48 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I'm not saying that debts don't make sense, I'm saying minconf + move makes no sense.
 66 2012-03-20 00:15:59 <sipa> gmaxwell: so the second move would fail, imho
 67 2012-03-20 00:16:11 <finway> http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.5.3/   This link was from bitcointalk.org  "Update Now"
 68 2012-03-20 00:16:13 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: ok
 69 2012-03-20 00:18:18 <BlueMatt> we should move to gitian-downloader ;)
 70 2012-03-20 00:18:40 <sipa> gmaxwell: just confirmations and moves do make sense imho; what doesn't make sense in the picture is the fact that transaction can be reverted
 71 2012-03-20 00:18:56 <sipa> gmaxwell: so there cannot be a guarantee they never go negative
 72 2012-03-20 00:18:58 <bitcoinbuyer_> what is the difference in getbalance and "amount" returned by listreceivedbyaddress  they don't match now
 73 2012-03-20 00:19:15 <finway> I got my 0.5.3.1 stuck again...
 74 2012-03-20 00:19:19 <finway> windows 7
 75 2012-03-20 00:19:29 <finway> darn
 76 2012-03-20 00:19:30 <sipa> bitcoinbuyer_: the sum of all listreceivedbyaddress's doesn't match getbalance?
 77 2012-03-20 00:19:43 <BlueMatt> finway: reproduceable?
 78 2012-03-20 00:19:49 <bitcoinbuyer_> not for the individual accounts
 79 2012-03-20 00:19:50 <finway> Yes
 80 2012-03-20 00:19:55 <BlueMatt> how>
 81 2012-03-20 00:19:56 <BlueMatt> ?
 82 2012-03-20 00:20:00 <sipa> bitcoinbuyer_: of course not, you moved coins between them
 83 2012-03-20 00:20:16 <finway> BlueMatt:   No,   i don't how, but it keep getting stuck on this computer...
 84 2012-03-20 00:20:41 <finway> maybe some logs would help ?
 85 2012-03-20 00:20:47 <BlueMatt> finway: on a particular chain, or even after clearing .bitcoin?
 86 2012-03-20 00:20:52 <BlueMatt> or I guess AppData/Bitcoin
 87 2012-03-20 00:21:02 <gmaxwell> sipa: I guess what I'm objecting to is that because the coins don't move just the balance, what happens when you do a bunch of small moves that would add up to the amount you have confirmed at a particular level.. how would it know to no longer allow you to move more?
 88 2012-03-20 00:21:49 <finway> BlueMatt: Where's the newest debug info , top or bottom ?
 89 2012-03-20 00:21:53 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: you can move arbitrary values
 90 2012-03-20 00:22:01 <BlueMatt> bottom
 91 2012-03-20 00:22:01 <luke-jr> finway: bottom
 92 2012-03-20 00:22:06 <bitcoinbuyer_> is it possible to delete unused addressed
 93 2012-03-20 00:22:11 <sipa> bitcoinbuyer_: no
 94 2012-03-20 00:22:45 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: yes, I know this. I'm going to give up now the behavior is gone (though we should remove the minconf stuff from the help then..) I'm obviously failing to communicate tonight. :)
 95 2012-03-20 00:23:02 <sipa> gmaxwell: i don't see your problem :)
 96 2012-03-20 00:23:19 <sipa> maybe my brain is failing today
 97 2012-03-20 00:23:53 <bitcoinbuyer_> what am i moving with the move call??
 98 2012-03-20 00:23:57 <sipa> bitcoinbuyer_: bits
 99 2012-03-20 00:24:00 <luke-jr> bitcoinbuyer_: nothing.
100 2012-03-20 00:24:06 <gmaxwell> I you have 1 old btc with many confirms. I add 100 btc in one confirm transactions.  I move 1 btc with minconf=10 out.  Passes. Then I do it again. Does it pass? If not, how did it know?  If so, I just violated the requirement.
101 2012-03-20 00:24:08 <sipa> bitcoinbuyer_: you subtract something from one account and add it to another
102 2012-03-20 00:24:12 <sipa> bitcoinbuyer_: that is everything
103 2012-03-20 00:24:25 <gmaxwell> bitcoinbuyer_: accounts are just bookkeeping.
104 2012-03-20 00:25:02 <bitcoinbuyer_> so currently in my wallet I have 2 btc
105 2012-03-20 00:25:19 <sipa> yes, and those 2 BTC are not touched in any way by the move command
106 2012-03-20 00:25:30 <bitcoinbuyer_> so what am i moving again??
107 2012-03-20 00:25:34 <sipa> numbers
108 2012-03-20 00:25:48 <sipa> as gmaxwell says: accounts are just bookkeeping
109 2012-03-20 00:26:00 <sipa> if you don't need bookkeeping, don't use the feature; it will confuse you
110 2012-03-20 00:26:18 <bitcoinbuyer_> yes very confusing
111 2012-03-20 00:26:30 <bitcoinbuyer_> is this written about anywhere.
112 2012-03-20 00:26:33 <gmaxwell> bitcoinbuyer_: it's like a checkbook where you are doing itemized account.. next to your balances you have names ... "food" "gas" so you can track your spending. You realize you screwed up so you move some funds from the food to gas column.  No money actually moved, only your accounting.
113 2012-03-20 00:26:46 <gmaxwell> s/itemized account/itemized accounting/
114 2012-03-20 00:26:48 <sipa> bitcoinbuyer_: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Accounts_explained
115 2012-03-20 00:26:58 <bitcoinbuyer_> excellent.  thx
116 2012-03-20 00:27:02 <finway> luke-jr, BlueMatt, My mistake, it's 0.6 got stuck, not 0.5.3.1
117 2012-03-20 00:27:10 <sipa> finway: 0.6.0rc4?
118 2012-03-20 00:27:29 <finway> sipa: not rc4, rc1
119 2012-03-20 00:27:36 <finway> I'll try rc4
120 2012-03-20 00:27:36 <luke-jr> &
121 2012-03-20 00:27:40 <BlueMatt> still shouldnt get stuck...
122 2012-03-20 00:27:52 <BlueMatt> crash maybe, stuck not so much
123 2012-03-20 00:27:58 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I presume if he's trying ot use rc1 now, he probably neglected the mandatory p2sh time changes
124 2012-03-20 00:28:01 <finway> BlueMatt: it's the old problem
125 2012-03-20 00:28:11 <bitcoinbuyer_> so just to wrap up if I want to move my btc to on address to another I have to SEND it not move it.  correct.
126 2012-03-20 00:28:14 <BlueMatt> chain stuck, or gui frozen?
127 2012-03-20 00:28:24 <finway> BlueMatt: gui frozen
128 2012-03-20 00:28:25 <sipa> finway: rc1 is known to get stuck
129 2012-03-20 00:28:32 <sipa> oh, gui frozen; that's different
130 2012-03-20 00:28:35 <finway> sipa: yeah, i konw
131 2012-03-20 00:28:43 <luke-jr> bitcoinbuyer_: yes
132 2012-03-20 00:28:48 <BlueMatt> that shouldnt happen, but Ive seen it a few places...
133 2012-03-20 00:28:51 <bitcoinbuyer_> Thanks for the insight!
134 2012-03-20 00:29:20 <luke-jr> weird. a transaction just showed up at my client with 23 confirmations off the bat
135 2012-03-20 00:29:57 <gmaxwell> er, unless there was just one helluva reorg that shouldn't be possible.
136 2012-03-20 00:30:26 <BlueMatt> or if someone is just sending crap for the hell of it
137 2012-03-20 00:30:52 <gmaxwell> No big reorgs in my logs.
138 2012-03-20 00:31:00 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: crap? Explain.
139 2012-03-20 00:31:14 <finway> BlueMatt, gui frozen on 0.6rc4 too
140 2012-03-20 00:31:17 <BlueMatt> sipa: bitcoin-qt: src/main.cpp:1462: bool CBlock::SetBestChainInner(CTxDB&, CBlockIndex*): Assertion `pindexNew->pprev == pindexBest' failed.
141 2012-03-20 00:31:24 <finway> Maybe it's not solved.
142 2012-03-20 00:31:37 <sipa> BlueMatt: you had that now?
143 2012-03-20 00:31:40 <BlueMatt> sipa: yes
144 2012-03-20 00:31:53 <sipa> great
145 2012-03-20 00:31:58 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: whats wrong with me sending you a tx that is already deep in the chain, or does bitcoin actually check thoroughly if it has a tx yet in txindex?
146 2012-03-20 00:31:59 <gmaxwell> stupendous.
147 2012-03-20 00:32:03 <BlueMatt> sipa: on a chain forwarded to me from jm9000
148 2012-03-20 00:32:06 <sipa> same problem imsaguy2 had, but he disappeared
149 2012-03-20 00:32:12 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt:  ... if it was deep in the chain you would _already_ have it.
150 2012-03-20 00:32:23 <sipa> BlueMatt: can you paste some debug.log?
151 2012-03-20 00:32:37 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I assumed that luke meant that it just showed up in his txn list.
152 2012-03-20 00:32:41 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: does bitcoin bother to check?
153 2012-03-20 00:32:50 <BlueMatt> actually, no a node can send you a tx even if you dont request it
154 2012-03-20 00:32:54 <BlueMatt> ie even if its deep in the chain
155 2012-03-20 00:32:57 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: it won't show up in your txn list again.
156 2012-03-20 00:33:15 <BlueMatt> no, but it will in debug.log, which may be wher eluke saw it
157 2012-03-20 00:33:23 <gmaxwell> Fair enough.
158 2012-03-20 00:33:54 <BlueMatt> sipa: http://pastebin.com/m3RWDqWg
159 2012-03-20 00:34:01 <BlueMatt> sipa: you want the chain?
160 2012-03-20 00:34:12 <luke-jr> no recent reorg
161 2012-03-20 00:34:22 <luke-jr> my debug.log shows receiving the txn at 0-confirms
162 2012-03-20 00:34:28 <luke-jr> I suspect it may be just the GUI
163 2012-03-20 00:34:46 <luke-jr> ad5726f94d595f416c929134262ca8ec9cf7b6ca1a757fa82c060ca44868285c fwiw
164 2012-03-20 00:35:02 <luke-jr> it's also strange in the sense that this is an obsolete bounty address
165 2012-03-20 00:35:37 <finway> Ok, i think i can't get out, i'll paste the debug.log
166 2012-03-20 00:36:09 <BlueMatt> finway: you dont happen to be able to build bitcoin with DEBUG_LOCKORDER, do you?
167 2012-03-20 00:36:36 <finway> BlueMatt: I don't build bitcoin, i download the binaries.
168 2012-03-20 00:36:41 <BlueMatt> :(
169 2012-03-20 00:36:50 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: finway-china opened issue 956 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/956>
170 2012-03-20 00:37:24 <finway> I'll try on WindowsXP later this day.
171 2012-03-20 00:38:10 <finway> 0.5.3.1 are fine both on windozXP & windoz7
172 2012-03-20 00:38:24 <BlueMatt> let me get you a debug_lockorder build...one sec
173 2012-03-20 00:38:36 <sipa> BlueMatt: not necessary; found it
174 2012-03-20 00:38:44 <BlueMatt> sipa: nice, good to hear
175 2012-03-20 00:38:58 <sipa> the assertion is just too strong
176 2012-03-20 00:39:08 <BlueMatt> ah, well thats easy then
177 2012-03-20 00:39:14 <sipa> (i.e., it's not always satisfied, but it's also not necessary)
178 2012-03-20 00:40:16 <sipa> BlueMatt: can you just remove the asserting, and see if it works?
179 2012-03-20 00:40:19 <sipa> i believe it will
180 2012-03-20 00:41:10 <luke-jr> sigh
181 2012-03-20 00:41:13 <luke-jr> so much for 0.6.0 final
182 2012-03-20 00:41:33 <sipa> luke-jr: that's what we have rc's for, right?
183 2012-03-20 00:41:52 <finway> Great
184 2012-03-20 00:42:26 <luke-jr> sipa: yeah, I guess
185 2012-03-20 00:42:28 <luke-jr> :p
186 2012-03-20 00:42:57 <BlueMatt> finway: mind trying http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29653426/bitcoin-qt.exe
187 2012-03-20 00:42:57 <finway> maybe diff 0.5.3.1 and 0.6.0rc4  gui part ? :P
188 2012-03-20 00:43:07 <BlueMatt> and see if you get LOCKORDER messages in debug.log
189 2012-03-20 00:43:30 <finway> BlueMatt: ok
190 2012-03-20 00:44:32 <finway> I hate the GFW
191 2012-03-20 00:44:41 <sipa> GFW?
192 2012-03-20 00:44:51 <BlueMatt> sipa: seems to work fine...
193 2012-03-20 00:44:57 <finway> GreatFireWall
194 2012-03-20 00:45:12 <BlueMatt> yea, its going up just fine, REORGANIZE seemed to work fine too
195 2012-03-20 00:45:12 <sipa> ah
196 2012-03-20 00:45:22 <BlueMatt> they block dropbox?
197 2012-03-20 00:45:35 <finway> BlueMatt, proxying.
198 2012-03-20 00:45:48 <finway> BlueMatt, yeah, they blocked.
199 2012-03-20 00:45:58 <sipa> host for?
200 2012-03-20 00:46:06 <BlueMatt> s/host/server somewhere so I can ran vms, etc/
201 2012-03-20 00:46:32 <sipa> ah
202 2012-03-20 00:46:35 <BlueMatt> sipa: tell me you couldnt find a use for a virtual host sitting in a datacenter somewhere
203 2012-03-20 00:46:57 <gmaxwell> sipa: you know, that thing where I say Tiananmen Square Massacre and he gets his TCP connection killed .. or perhaps Falun Gong.
204 2012-03-20 00:47:01 <BlueMatt> s/a use/a hundred uses/
205 2012-03-20 00:47:23 <sipa> gmaxwell: yes, sure
206 2012-03-20 00:47:46 <sipa> BlueMatt: heh, probably i could yes
207 2012-03-20 00:48:01 <finway> BlueMatt, seems i got the 'ORDER' word.
208 2012-03-20 00:48:17 <gmaxwell> Or perhaps it takes m?? (June 4), )????????????
209 2012-03-20 00:48:23 <sipa> finway: can you paste some lines around it?
210 2012-03-20 00:48:24 <BlueMatt> finway: well at least we have an issue, mind pasting the lines around it?
211 2012-03-20 00:48:53 <finway> yes, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/956
212 2012-03-20 00:50:02 <finway> gmaxwell, 4/6 is no longer so sensitive
213 2012-03-20 00:50:15 <finway> gmawell, things are changing.
214 2012-03-20 00:50:22 <sipa> finway: is there another instance?
215 2012-03-20 00:50:26 <sipa> this is a false positive
216 2012-03-20 00:50:37 <BlueMatt> yea, those are all TRY_...
217 2012-03-20 00:50:56 <BlueMatt> (we should really not mark TRY_CRITICAL... in DEBUG_LOCKORDER)
218 2012-03-20 00:51:03 <BlueMatt> finway: did that build freeze as well?
219 2012-03-20 00:51:30 <finway> sipa, BlueMatt, i've paste the newer debug.log,   yes, it freeze .
220 2012-03-20 00:51:49 <sipa> BlueMatt: it should add TRY'ed CS'es to its stack, but not check them for conflicts
221 2012-03-20 00:52:03 <BlueMatt> yea
222 2012-03-20 00:52:05 <sipa> if you do a normal critical within a try, it counts
223 2012-03-20 00:52:46 <BlueMatt> yep, well I guess its not a CRITICAL_BLOCK deadlock...
224 2012-03-20 00:53:49 <sipa> my miner+p2pool has now been running for several hours on a valgrinded addrman bitcoind; not a single error (except some spurious bdb ones at startup)
225 2012-03-20 00:54:11 <finway> sipa, p2pool are growing again.
226 2012-03-20 00:54:29 <sipa> well, i only contribue 0.2 GH/s :)
227 2012-03-20 01:07:27 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: dooglus opened issue 957 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/957>
228 2012-03-20 04:04:30 <copumpkin> if anyone remembers my question about getting notified about address activity: http://blockchain.info/api has it all
229 2012-03-20 04:04:44 <copumpkin> a nice websocket interface to subscribe to specific addresses
230 2012-03-20 04:08:15 <deoxxa> ooh need
231 2012-03-20 04:08:17 <deoxxa> erm
232 2012-03-20 04:08:18 <deoxxa> neat
233 2012-03-20 04:18:52 <tomoj> sweet, if you can rely on them..
234 2012-03-20 06:15:04 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: xHire opened issue 958 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/958>
235 2012-03-20 06:33:13 <da2ce7> If you want to Buy or Sell Fish and other Seafood, Join #bitcoin-fishmonger :)
236 2012-03-20 08:06:13 <t7> what makes the difficulty change?
237 2012-03-20 08:09:11 <Diablo-D3> magic.
238 2012-03-20 08:10:52 <t7> ive had 'magic' and 'magnets' ....
239 2012-03-20 08:12:20 <tomoj> see the 5th paragraph at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block
240 2012-03-20 08:37:05 <t7> does a client download the blockchain from the newest to oldest?
241 2012-03-20 08:38:38 <tomoj> no
242 2012-03-20 08:38:42 <t7> is the difficulty calculated from the timestamp of every block before it?
243 2012-03-20 08:38:49 <t7> and the time now
244 2012-03-20 08:40:26 <tomoj> see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Target too
245 2012-03-20 08:40:33 <tomoj> 3rd paragraph esp.
246 2012-03-20 09:09:37 <rebroad> hi... I was just looking at LoadBlockIndex, and logging the height as it went through, and noticed that on my bitcoin-qt, there are 6 blocks it encounters twice...
247 2012-03-20 09:22:25 <etotheipi_> rebroad, those are probably invalid blocks
248 2012-03-20 09:23:07 <etotheipi_> they don't get removed from the blockchain file on your system, even if they are ultimately determined to be invalid
249 2012-03-20 09:24:31 <rebroad> etotheipi_, ah I see..  thanks... it is an interesting order in which they're all encoutered during LoadBlockIndex... seems random..
250 2012-03-20 09:27:52 <rebroad> hmmm. I don't like how it takes over 3 minutes to LoadBlockIndex, and yet during that time the only way to kill bitcoin-qt is will a SIGKILL, uncleanly
251 2012-03-20 09:28:02 <rebroad> *with
252 2012-03-20 10:14:48 <rebroad> I've made some changes to db.cpp and init.cpp that allow the bitcoin-qt to be exited while loading the block index... simple changes really.. what's the best way to offer them as patches...?
253 2012-03-20 10:15:39 <rebroad> (sorry for the noob question... I'm new to github, etc)
254 2012-03-20 10:16:29 <freewil> rebroad, if you have a github account, you can go to the bitcoin project page and fork it
255 2012-03-20 10:16:50 <freewil> then you can make a branch on your fork with your changes
256 2012-03-20 10:16:58 <freewil> and then submit a pull request back to the main project
257 2012-03-20 10:17:10 <rebroad> ah.. ok. thanks, freewil, so every developer has a fork.. ah I see. and then they are incorporated back into a main fork...
258 2012-03-20 10:17:22 <freewil> right
259 2012-03-20 10:17:34 <freewil> http://help.github.com/fork-a-repo/
260 2012-03-20 10:17:43 <rebroad> thanks. I'll give it a go.. and read that link. thanks!
261 2012-03-20 10:42:18 <graingert> BlueMatt: would it be possible to get this working for bitcoin? https://secure.travis-ci.org/
262 2012-03-20 10:44:18 <rebroad> freewil, hmmm. I'm having trouble git cloning.. it says "Permission denied (publickey).
263 2012-03-20 10:44:37 <graingert> you probably have denied permission, due to your publickey
264 2012-03-20 10:45:05 <rebroad> graingert, what do I need to do to get permission please?
265 2012-03-20 10:45:35 <graingert> you probably need to update your keys due to githubs security, issue
266 2012-03-20 10:45:45 <tomoj> maybe this is just google being creepy, but when _I_ google "Permission denied (publickey)", a github help page is the third result
267 2012-03-20 10:46:01 <rebroad> ok.. i would if I knew how to..
268 2012-03-20 10:46:15 <rebroad> ah, will try googling then!
269 2012-03-20 10:46:18 <graingert> tomoj: that's because github is the thing that brings people to use SSH the most now
270 2012-03-20 10:46:29 <tomoj> admittedly it isn't the right help page
271 2012-03-20 10:46:32 <graingert> lawl
272 2012-03-20 10:46:52 <rebroad> anyone know how I can update my keys please?
273 2012-03-20 10:47:10 <freewil> rebroad, https://github.com/settings/ssh
274 2012-03-20 10:47:17 <rebroad> thanks, freewil
275 2012-03-20 10:47:52 <tomoj> the setup guide should explain in more detail http://help.github.com/set-up-git-redirect
276 2012-03-20 10:49:34 <rebroad> fixed. brilliant. thanks!
277 2012-03-20 10:50:39 <rebroad> is there much difference to using rsa or dss?
278 2012-03-20 10:59:11 <graingert> !later tell BlueMatt would it be possible to get this working for bitcoin? https://secure.travis-ci.org/
279 2012-03-20 10:59:11 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
280 2012-03-20 11:05:34 <max7890__> Hi! Im looking for small scripts/buttons/widgets for BTC purposes i.e. quick checking the balance of an address or donating - anybody knows?
281 2012-03-20 11:07:11 <graingert> try #bitcoin
282 2012-03-20 11:07:17 <graingert> max7890__: ^
283 2012-03-20 11:07:37 <max7890__> ok
284 2012-03-20 11:08:16 <ternit> Is backing up wallet.dat on usb stick enough to recover the wallet in case it gets lost?
285 2012-03-20 11:09:12 <rebroad> hmmm, I notice that CWalletDB::LoadWallet isn't using key.IsValid anymore before returning DB_CORRUPT....
286 2012-03-20 11:14:18 <[Tycho]> ternit: yes.
287 2012-03-20 11:14:57 <ternit> cheers
288 2012-03-20 11:15:25 <[Tycho]> ternit: usually if your keypool is 100 keys then it will be enough for 100 send operations.
289 2012-03-20 11:17:36 <rebroad> ah... sorry, ignore my last comment.. I missed it had moved...
290 2012-03-20 11:34:52 <coingenuity> sort of off-topic mildly
291 2012-03-20 11:35:02 <coingenuity> anyone know why the dwolla API throws 500 errors at you?
292 2012-03-20 11:35:22 <coingenuity> im following the docs https://www.dwolla.com/developers/authentication <<here
293 2012-03-20 11:35:24 <coingenuity> to no avail
294 2012-03-20 11:38:12 <Diablo-D3> coingenuity: read the http spec on that one
295 2012-03-20 11:38:24 <Diablo-D3> errors in the 500s are reserved, generally, for backend fuckery
296 2012-03-20 11:38:33 <Diablo-D3> ie, its nothing you can fix, something horrible has happened
297 2012-03-20 11:39:01 <coingenuity> Diablo-D3: yeah, i'm pretty familiar with 500's actually :P
298 2012-03-20 11:39:11 <coingenuity> SOMETIMES a server will 'throw up' at you
299 2012-03-20 11:39:21 <coingenuity> just depending on the http headers you're sending
300 2012-03-20 11:39:28 <coingenuity> i.e. cryptox 'throws up'
301 2012-03-20 11:39:37 <coingenuity> so i hoped maybe it was something i had broken :/
302 2012-03-20 11:39:42 <Diablo-D3> I doubt it
303 2012-03-20 11:40:06 <Diablo-D3> dwolla surprisingly is pretty well done behind the scenes despite the fact they're all valley faggots
304 2012-03-20 11:40:17 <coingenuity> thats what my gut is saying as well, thanks for the opinion :)
305 2012-03-20 11:40:23 <Diablo-D3> (seriously, whoever invented ruby needs to be beaten with a potato in a sock)
306 2012-03-20 11:40:24 <coingenuity> i also do not mind dwolla,
307 2012-03-20 11:40:32 <coingenuity> EXCEPTING the fucking api, pardon my french
308 2012-03-20 11:40:42 <Diablo-D3> heh, API design is a fucking art
309 2012-03-20 11:40:47 <Diablo-D3> 99.9% of public apis are fucking shit
310 2012-03-20 11:40:50 <coingenuity> i've torn my hair out over that stupid API and the bajillion changes they make every day for the last ywo years
311 2012-03-20 11:40:52 <coingenuity> two*
312 2012-03-20 11:40:53 <Diablo-D3> because they basically let some fucking tool do it
313 2012-03-20 11:41:00 <freewil> wait what? valley faggots? ruby?
314 2012-03-20 11:41:01 <Diablo-D3> (literally or figuratively)
315 2012-03-20 11:41:08 <freewil> dwolla is based in des moines, iowa
316 2012-03-20 11:41:12 <freewil> and i think it uses C#
317 2012-03-20 11:41:29 <coingenuity> Diablo-D3: ill have to have you review my api one day
318 2012-03-20 11:41:34 <Diablo-D3> freewil: that doesnt stop them from being valley faggots, however
319 2012-03-20 11:41:40 <Diablo-D3> they're spreading everywhere like a disease
320 2012-03-20 11:42:24 <Diablo-D3> coingenuity: and yeah, making changes frequently is bad
321 2012-03-20 11:42:36 <coingenuity> drives me batty
322 2012-03-20 11:42:41 <Diablo-D3> not that Im saying changes are bad, but they should be with reason and infrequently
323 2012-03-20 11:42:48 <coingenuity> their api documentation changed as well, for the worse... X_X
324 2012-03-20 11:42:55 <coingenuity> whaevah, /me is done griping
325 2012-03-20 11:42:57 <Diablo-D3> freewil: and no one uses c#
326 2012-03-20 11:43:00 <Diablo-D3> its largely a myth
327 2012-03-20 11:43:09 <freewil> thats what i heard too
328 2012-03-20 11:43:20 <Diablo-D3> infact, I dont think c# actually exists
329 2012-03-20 11:43:45 <Diablo-D3> I think in reality they're seeing swap gas or nazi ufos from the moon
330 2012-03-20 11:43:58 <freewil> Diablo-D3, do you ever sleep
331 2012-03-20 11:44:09 <Diablo-D3> funny you ask that, Im going to bed soon
332 2012-03-20 11:44:13 <freewil> what timezone are you
333 2012-03-20 11:44:15 <freewil> in
334 2012-03-20 11:44:33 <Diablo-D3> Tue Mar 20 08:44:32 EDT 2012
335 2012-03-20 11:44:34 <Diablo-D3> that one
336 2012-03-20 11:44:53 <freewil> lol me too, i was on at like 3 am and you were still on then
337 2012-03-20 11:44:56 <freewil> and you're still on now
338 2012-03-20 11:45:16 <freewil> to be fair my sleeping pattern has been like that too lately
339 2012-03-20 12:27:57 <t7> how does the qt client know how many block are in the blockchain before they are downloaded?
340 2012-03-20 12:29:41 <gmaxwell> The peers tell it in their version messages and it takes a median.
341 2012-03-20 12:31:01 <Eliel> "hupsista" http://www.mtv3.fi/uutiset/kotimaa.shtml/2012/03/1515299
342 2012-03-20 12:31:13 <Eliel> (sorry, wrong channel, although, the picture tells it all)
343 2012-03-20 12:35:36 <t7> sexy
344 2012-03-20 12:38:37 <rebroad> gmaxwell, i guess a load of mischievous nodes/peers could cause that number to be inaccurate...
345 2012-03-20 12:39:19 <rebroad> why not just get the number from blockexplorer or some official(ish) website?
346 2012-03-20 12:39:28 <gmaxwell> rebroad: Yes, though it wouldn't cause any particular harm.
347 2012-03-20 12:39:41 <rebroad> or a combination of the two..
348 2012-03-20 12:39:46 <rebroad> as a sanity check
349 2012-03-20 12:39:50 <gmaxwell> rebroad: so you want to make bitcoin clients connect to and depend on some centeralized service&  Do you not see a problem with that?
350 2012-03-20 12:39:55 <rebroad> so it could report if it's wildly different..
351 2012-03-20 12:41:39 <rebroad> to be honest, I struggle to understand what centralized means..
352 2012-03-20 12:41:50 <rebroad> is it specific to geographics?
353 2012-03-20 12:41:54 <gmaxwell> ...
354 2012-03-20 12:42:03 <rebroad> i.e. physical location?
355 2012-03-20 12:42:25 <rebroad> or maybe i mean e.g.
356 2012-03-20 12:42:30 <gmaxwell> rebroad: What you're suggesting would make it possible for the operator of the website to make a complete list of all bitcoin users. It would put them in a privleged position of manipulating the behavior of the clients.
357 2012-03-20 12:43:05 <rebroad> gmaxwell, it would? you mean by logging IP addresses?
358 2012-03-20 12:43:35 <gmaxwell> rebroad: Yes.
359 2012-03-20 12:43:37 <rebroad> i think the client should always treat with skepticism any information gained from a centralized source..
360 2012-03-20 12:44:06 <rebroad> (if it ever accesses it, i mean... )
361 2012-03-20 12:44:36 <gmaxwell> No matter how skptical it is, it's better than the information leak. I'd rather just simply take back out the knows-the-height-in-advance feature, we did okay without it before.
362 2012-03-20 12:44:45 <rebroad> plus, it would only be the bitcoin users of that particilar client, so the site that client was downloaded from would already have that info of IP addresses also, wouldn't it?
363 2012-03-20 12:45:24 <rebroad> well... it can eastimate the height based on the 10 mins per block, right?
364 2012-03-20 12:45:38 <rebroad> based on the best block so far and its timestamp
365 2012-03-20 12:45:43 <gmaxwell> rebroad: no because no one is forced to download it from any particular site especially since the distribution is cryptographically signed.
366 2012-03-20 12:46:08 <gmaxwell> rebroad: yes, it could or it could just not estimate it at all. Which is what it did before.
367 2012-03-20 12:46:30 <rebroad> what is the advantage in not estimating?
368 2012-03-20 12:47:04 <gmaxwell> rebroad: not being incorrect. This isn't essential functionality.
369 2012-03-20 12:49:56 <rebroad> i thought an estimate was usually intrinsically not accurate
370 2012-03-20 12:50:18 <rebroad> or do I mean precise
371 2012-03-20 12:50:22 <rebroad> I think I mean precise
372 2012-03-20 12:50:55 <rebroad> they still have value otherwise why would estimates have been invented
373 2012-03-20 12:51:49 <rebroad> anyway, probably not worth getting into a philosophical debate about what things in life are essential or not..
374 2012-03-20 12:52:54 <rebroad> for me, bitcoins aren't essential... so therefore nothing to do with it is either..
375 2012-03-20 13:54:07 <sipa> luke-jr: not a single error yet in addrman
376 2012-03-20 13:59:04 <sipa> running for 21 hours now
377 2012-03-20 14:08:26 <michaelmclees> http://blockexplorer.com/address/14yNrNcWAoyX4k9vdwYL2A6U424bK6THUN
378 2012-03-20 14:08:37 <michaelmclees> hey guys, i was wondering if someone could look at this for me
379 2012-03-20 14:09:13 <michaelmclees> this is an address for my bitcoin wallet on my android phone
380 2012-03-20 14:09:36 <michaelmclees> the first transaction is me funding it from my desktop client, looks normal
381 2012-03-20 14:09:59 <michaelmclees> the following day, i spent 3.5 on something and sent it, bringing the balance to 1.233
382 2012-03-20 14:10:19 <michaelmclees> that transaction though, seems to be doing something strange
383 2012-03-20 14:10:43 <sipa> you did a send-to-self?
384 2012-03-20 14:11:02 <michaelmclees> not that i was aware of
385 2012-03-20 14:11:08 <sipa> and blockexplorer first shows the receive and then the send
386 2012-03-20 14:11:16 <michaelmclees> correct
387 2012-03-20 14:11:17 <sipa> while they're actually simultaneous
388 2012-03-20 14:12:06 <michaelmclees> is this not strange though, because my balance reads 5.96 and this address has never had that much in it
389 2012-03-20 14:12:40 <michaelmclees> i guess the question is, is this common?
390 2012-03-20 14:12:53 <michaelmclees> or is it just how bitcoin wallet on android works
391 2012-03-20 14:16:06 <Graet> michaelmclees, http://blockchain.info/address/14yNrNcWAoyX4k9vdwYL2A6U424bK6THUN  looks better?
392 2012-03-20 14:16:42 <michaelmclees> ahh, yes, that appears much better
393 2012-03-20 14:16:43 <michaelmclees> thanks
394 2012-03-20 14:17:21 <michaelmclees> also, quick question, i sent the last 1.233 to another address i have with no transaction fee just to see how long it would take to get confirmed
395 2012-03-20 14:17:36 <michaelmclees> its been a day, how long do people usually wait for that kind of thing?
396 2012-03-20 14:17:51 <[Tycho]> 10+ mins
397 2012-03-20 14:18:08 <[Tycho]> Depends on the age and size of your coin
398 2012-03-20 14:18:50 <michaelmclees> hmm, well it has certainly been longer than that, guess ill just keep waiting
399 2012-03-20 14:20:33 <rebroad> Tycho, how does age of the coin affect how long it takes please?
400 2012-03-20 14:21:14 <sipa> rebroad: it can
401 2012-03-20 14:21:25 <sipa> age of input coins determines the priority
402 2012-03-20 14:21:48 <freewil> older = higher priority?
403 2012-03-20 14:21:52 <sipa> yes
404 2012-03-20 14:21:58 <[Tycho]> michaelmclees: can you show us your TX ?
405 2012-03-20 14:22:04 <rebroad> is the age of a coin based on how since it last was moved?
406 2012-03-20 14:22:14 <michaelmclees> it doesn't show in the block explorer
407 2012-03-20 14:22:14 <sipa> michaelmclees: blockchain.info does not know about your final transaction
408 2012-03-20 14:22:28 <sipa> blockexplorer only shows confirmed transactions
409 2012-03-20 14:22:45 <michaelmclees> the block explorers won't know about it until a miner confirms it, no?
410 2012-03-20 14:23:06 <sipa> no, blockexplorer just doesn't show the memory pool
411 2012-03-20 14:23:11 <sipa> blockchain.info does
412 2012-03-20 14:23:39 <michaelmclees> so was the last transaction never really sent?
413 2012-03-20 14:24:05 <sipa> it certainly wasn't relayed
414 2012-03-20 14:24:08 <sipa> what software created it?
415 2012-03-20 14:24:19 <rebroad> what is the "memory pool"? something different to the block chain?
416 2012-03-20 14:24:39 <sipa> the memory pool is the list of transaction a node considers valid, but have not yet been mined
417 2012-03-20 14:24:41 <michaelmclees> android bitcoin wallet sent to bitcoin spinner, another android wallet
418 2012-03-20 14:24:48 <sipa> miners use this pool to create new blocks
419 2012-03-20 14:25:36 <rebroad> ah, thanks, sipa
420 2012-03-20 14:27:39 <michaelmclees> http://blockchain.info/address/147TSsuai8N2L74MvapobH7spo7vs1xamA  this is the bitcoin spinner address that was supposed to receive the coins
421 2012-03-20 14:28:28 <rebroad> just was looking at http://blockchain.info/ ... interesting... some miners are mining blocks with just 1 tx, whereas others have 30 or more... is Deepbit and Eligius, for example, chosing to mine only 1 tx blocks these days?
422 2012-03-20 14:29:09 <michaelmclees> i think there is some talk on the forum of a large unknown miner who is mining empty blocks
423 2012-03-20 14:29:14 <rebroad> and we seem to have had almost twice as many blocks created in the last hour as are supposed to be created...
424 2012-03-20 14:29:20 <michaelmclees> no one can quite figure out why
425 2012-03-20 14:29:26 <sipa> rebroad: that's far from uncommon
426 2012-03-20 14:30:09 <rebroad> from the looks of it, Deepbit and Eligius are chosing to not include many txs in the blocks..... is this giving them any advantage?
427 2012-03-20 14:30:18 <sipa> no
428 2012-03-20 14:30:29 <sipa> also, why do you think that?
429 2012-03-20 14:30:32 <[Tycho]> Actually we are the opposite
430 2012-03-20 14:30:41 <sipa> "Relayed by" is not "Created by"
431 2012-03-20 14:30:46 <[Tycho]> Eligius doesn't include any free TXes at all.
432 2012-03-20 14:30:47 <rebroad> because they have only 1 tx whereas the surrounding blocks have 30 or more
433 2012-03-20 14:31:12 <[Tycho]> Deepbit mines more free TXes than anyone else
434 2012-03-20 14:31:32 <jrmithdobbs> and also produces 25% of the spam in the blockchain to make up for it
435 2012-03-20 14:31:33 <[Tycho]> (unless there is no time to process TXes, that happens sometimes)
436 2012-03-20 14:31:35 <jrmithdobbs> ;p
437 2012-03-20 14:31:49 <gavinandresen> You still consider any fee under 0.01 "Free", right Tycho?
438 2012-03-20 14:31:55 <[Tycho]> Yes.
439 2012-03-20 14:32:01 <michaelmclees> so is my free transaction lost to the ether?
440 2012-03-20 14:32:11 <[Tycho]> A couple of days ago I posted my fee policy
441 2012-03-20 14:32:27 <jrmithdobbs> michaelmclees: it'll get picked up eventually
442 2012-03-20 14:32:27 <sipa> michaelmclees: it would seem so; i don't know how your android application works, but it should retransmit the transaction occassionality
443 2012-03-20 14:32:30 <[Tycho]> gavinandresen: https://deepbit.net/help/6#6
444 2012-03-20 14:32:33 <rebroad> Tycho = deepbit?
445 2012-03-20 14:32:36 <sipa> rebroad: yes
446 2012-03-20 14:32:37 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: great, thanks!
447 2012-03-20 14:32:39 <jrmithdobbs> rebroad: yes
448 2012-03-20 14:32:40 <[Tycho]> gavinandresen: are you Ok with it ?
449 2012-03-20 14:32:55 <michaelmclees> haha, one guy says yes, another says no
450 2012-03-20 14:33:08 <rebroad> so, if I join a mining pool, am I better off mining with a pool who mines free txs or one that mines only txs with fees?
451 2012-03-20 14:33:19 <jrmithdobbs> you're better off using p2pool
452 2012-03-20 14:33:29 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: yes, absolutely OK with it.
453 2012-03-20 14:33:34 <jrmithdobbs> pools break the bitcoin threat model
454 2012-03-20 14:33:43 <jrmithdobbs> but w/e, not gonna start that argument
455 2012-03-20 14:34:25 <[Tycho]> gavinandresen: 0.0005 may be good against flood (not sure about that), but it's really like "0" to me in terms of priority.
456 2012-03-20 14:34:32 <rebroad> w/e?
457 2012-03-20 14:34:38 <jrmithdobbs> whatever
458 2012-03-20 14:34:54 <gavinandresen> [Tycho]: 0.0005 was set when bitcoins were more than $20 each and it looked like they might go to $100 or more
459 2012-03-20 14:35:27 <sipa> gavinandresen: 22h already on miner+p2pool on valgrind addrman bitcoind; no errors yet
460 2012-03-20 14:35:30 <gavinandresen> ... which shows the problem with hard-coding fees into the client....
461 2012-03-20 14:35:33 <tomoj> how is block 172044's timestamp smaller than block 172045's?
462 2012-03-20 14:35:40 <sipa> tomoj: because it is?
463 2012-03-20 14:35:43 <tomoj> s/smaller/bigger/
464 2012-03-20 14:35:51 <rebroad> it would be good if there was a way for wallets to ascertain the fee system and report it to the user rather than people have to search about who the miners are, locate their website, and then read about it manually...
465 2012-03-20 14:35:54 <gavinandresen> sipa: no errors for me with AddrMan either, running for almost 24 hours
466 2012-03-20 14:35:55 <sipa> tomoj: (it's allowed, within certain bounds)
467 2012-03-20 14:36:01 <[Tycho]> I remember how fee amount skyrocketed when the first client with "forced" fees was released :)
468 2012-03-20 14:36:12 <gavinandresen> sipa:  I think AddrMan should go into 0.6rc4
469 2012-03-20 14:36:17 <sipa> rc5 you mean
470 2012-03-20 14:36:29 <gavinandresen> Right! 5
471 2012-03-20 14:36:44 <[Tycho]> What AddrMan ?
472 2012-03-20 14:36:46 <sipa> gavinandresen: i also identified imsaguy's bug: it seems the assertion is too strong
473 2012-03-20 14:36:57 <luke-jr> I think AddrMan this late is asking for new crashes. And I'm scared of crashes a bit more after that last one. :|
474 2012-03-20 14:37:00 <rebroad> what version of bitcoin-qt is it I have when I use the git version please?
475 2012-03-20 14:37:00 <sipa> [Tycho]: my rewrite of bitcoin's ip address management
476 2012-03-20 14:37:05 <tomoj> hmm. block 172045 doesn't depend on block 172044?
477 2012-03-20 14:37:10 <imsaguy2> yay
478 2012-03-20 14:37:12 <luke-jr> otoh, if AddrMan solves a DoS concern, maybe it's worth it
479 2012-03-20 14:37:14 <[Tycho]> Also I was wrong about making fees affect TX priority.
480 2012-03-20 14:37:20 <tomoj> or people's clocks are just way out of sync..?
481 2012-03-20 14:37:22 <imsaguy2> so it wasn't a problem with my chain?
482 2012-03-20 14:37:30 <rebroad> what do you mean Tycho?
483 2012-03-20 14:37:38 <sipa> imsaguy2: well, there certainly is a problem with the chain you sent me
484 2012-03-20 14:37:47 <sipa> imsaguy2: what OS are you using?
485 2012-03-20 14:38:05 <imsaguy2> Longhorn x64
486 2012-03-20 14:38:14 <rebroad> huh.. Longhorn?!
487 2012-03-20 14:38:14 <sipa> you use precompiled binaries?
488 2012-03-20 14:38:19 <imsaguy2> yes
489 2012-03-20 14:38:25 <imsaguy2> rebroad: 2k8
490 2012-03-20 14:38:38 <sipa> imsaguy2: i'll build you one that should fix the problem
491 2012-03-20 14:38:42 <imsaguy2> kk
492 2012-03-20 14:38:44 <[Tycho]> rebroad: I was wondering why fee amount is not used in priority calculation.
493 2012-03-20 14:38:49 <rebroad> never heard of 2k8...
494 2012-03-20 14:38:54 <sipa> rebroad: 2008
495 2012-03-20 14:39:01 <imsaguy2> rebroad: Windows Server 2008
496 2012-03-20 14:39:03 <rebroad> nor 2008
497 2012-03-20 14:39:05 <rebroad> oh..
498 2012-03-20 14:40:47 <rebroad> I was wondering if someone could help.. I've created a fork of bitcoin and made some changes (to allow it to be killed during loading of block index)... I'm new to git though, so not quite sure how to do about submiting it back, etc.. is there a good web page detailing how to do this please?
499 2012-03-20 14:41:24 <gavinandresen> rebroad: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4571.0
500 2012-03-20 14:41:31 <rebroad> gavinandresen, thank you
501 2012-03-20 14:43:32 <rebroad> gavinandresen, in your post you have it as bitcoin-git.git, whereas I think mine is bitcoin.git, how did you add the -git to it please? I'm pretty sure when I clicked "fork" it stayed named as bitcoin.git
502 2012-03-20 14:44:19 <luke-jr> rebroad: the name isn't important
503 2012-03-20 14:50:14 <gavinandresen> I'd like to get all the High Priority issues resolved in the next day or two and into a rc5
504 2012-03-20 14:50:52 <gavinandresen> sipa:  with all the issues we've had with wallet.dat compatibility, I'm thinking that auto-upgrading wallets is a bad idea
505 2012-03-20 14:52:17 <sipa> gavinandresen: you mean something like "Hey, it seems you wallet is still in the 0.3.24 format, would you like to upgrade it? You will not be able to open it using version below 0.6.0? [ Yes, Upgrade ] [ No, Quit ]"
506 2012-03-20 14:52:34 <imsaguy2> +1
507 2012-03-20 14:53:10 <rebroad> ok... I've managed to push a branch to github... (https://github.com/rebroad/bitcoin/compare/LoadBlockIndexKillable) - i'm guessing it's probably not ok to quit as quickly as it does, but it's surely better than the alternative, which was kill -9ing it...
508 2012-03-20 14:53:21 <gavinandresen> sipa:  Yes.  Or, for 0.6, a command-line -upgradewallet that, first thing, rewrites a wallet to use compressed keys, non-padded keys
509 2012-03-20 14:54:02 <gavinandresen> sipa:  Otherwise, have CWallet know what version it is and let the user continue using non-compressed, padded forever (until they decide to upgrade)
510 2012-03-20 14:54:20 <gavinandresen> New wallets would be latest version, of course
511 2012-03-20 14:55:25 <rebroad> a small change for my first dabble..... I would welcome any feedback.. would it be ok to do a pull request? (I think that's what it's called) for such a small change?
512 2012-03-20 14:56:56 <gavinandresen> rebroad: see doc/coding.txt, in particular "4 space indenting, no tabs"
513 2012-03-20 14:57:24 <sipa> gavinandresen: compressed keys does not need rewriting, but a boolean to enable them or not is not a problem
514 2012-03-20 14:57:30 <sipa> (it's only for new keys anyway)
515 2012-03-20 14:58:13 <gavinandresen> writing a compressed key to wallet.dat means bumping it's version-required number.  That's what I want to avoid, unless the user asks for it
516 2012-03-20 15:00:33 <sipa> gavinandresen: you want that -upgradewallet mechanism still for 0.6.0 (for compressed keys it's trivial, for padded keys a bit less)
517 2012-03-20 15:01:12 <gavinandresen> sipa: I think unpadded keys can wait
518 2012-03-20 15:01:15 <sipa> ok
519 2012-03-20 15:02:14 <gavinandresen> We should have a wallet versioning policy....
520 2012-03-20 15:02:18 <sipa> i think in that case a GUI pop-up question box would be nice as well (with the same effect as -upgradewallet)
521 2012-03-20 15:03:00 <gavinandresen> Thinking out loud:  should we give new users a way of creating old-format wallets?
522 2012-03-20 15:03:39 <sipa> imsaguy2: sorry for the delay; i'm building now
523 2012-03-20 15:03:41 <jrmithdobbs> gavinandresen: yes
524 2012-03-20 15:03:45 <gavinandresen> I'm just thinking that tools like PyWallet might take a while to support  changes we want make
525 2012-03-20 15:04:05 <jrmithdobbs> gavinandresen: for that and for instances where people run luke's stable backports
526 2012-03-20 15:04:10 <jrmithdobbs> in "production"
527 2012-03-20 15:04:19 <gavinandresen> I hate the word "stable
528 2012-03-20 15:04:40 <jrmithdobbs> well, ya, it's not really a great name, but you know what i mean
529 2012-03-20 15:04:48 <imsaguy2> sipa: there's no rush, this node is only for redundancy purposes
530 2012-03-20 15:04:51 <jrmithdobbs> stable should have had "s as well, sorry, heh
531 2012-03-20 15:05:07 <sipa> ok, so maybe a -walletformat=<NMUMBER> option; the default is the special value "keep", and there is another special value "upgrade", which is identical to $CLIENT_VERSION
532 2012-03-20 15:05:11 <gavinandresen> I do know what you mean, and the whole issue of "we're beta software so you should expect change" versus "we're trying to establish a currency so lets not change" is tough
533 2012-03-20 15:05:36 <imsaguy2> perpetual beta really isn't beta
534 2012-03-20 15:05:45 <sipa> imsaguy2: tell that to google!
535 2012-03-20 15:05:59 <imsaguy2> just because google does/did it, does not make it ok ;)
536 2012-03-20 15:06:02 <sipa> gavinandresen: and it means that the wallet will not be upgraded beyond that version (it will never be downgraded though)
537 2012-03-20 15:06:20 <gavinandresen> I've given my criteria for out-of-beta:  we're past the 50->25 transition, and I feel confident that my mom can run bitcoin and not lose coins accidently or to a virus
538 2012-03-20 15:06:52 <imsaguy2> there will always be a chance for a virus
539 2012-03-20 15:07:15 <sipa> imsaguy2: yes, but not necessarily a chance for losing coins to a virus
540 2012-03-20 15:07:39 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: IMO, "we're beta software so you should expect change" for master, and "we're trying to establish a currency so lets not change" for stable :P
541 2012-03-20 15:08:05 <sipa> luke-jr: for purely client-side issues, that policy is possible
542 2012-03-20 15:08:13 <sipa> but there's more to it than that
543 2012-03-20 15:08:18 <luke-jr> sipa: not *much* more
544 2012-03-20 15:08:26 <imsaguy2> one could argue that as bitcoin becomes more 'mainstream', the chance for virus based bitcoin theft increases
545 2012-03-20 15:08:36 <gavinandresen> speaking of which... I still need to review the BIP16 backport
546 2012-03-20 15:08:39 <jrmithdobbs> imsaguy2: hence wallet crypto and such
547 2012-03-20 15:09:03 <imsaguy2> jrmithdobbs: so long as there are end users, there's a risk of virus attacks.
548 2012-03-20 15:09:07 <luke-jr> https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin/commit/b2f0b7bf64ab82cf4f8fc3cca2e3bc208e153fb0 <-- BIP16 backport, in case the link got lost
549 2012-03-20 15:09:17 <sipa> gavinandresen: ok, so except for wallet upgrading; any other pressing issues remaining?
550 2012-03-20 15:09:28 <sipa> for rc5
551 2012-03-20 15:09:32 <luke-jr> sipa: #946 if we don't want to see revival of the link exploit
552 2012-03-20 15:10:43 <gavinandresen> sipa: afk for lunch for a bit, but I'm looking at all of the Priority High issues in the tracker
553 2012-03-20 15:10:51 <sipa> #946 seems the right thing to do now the bug is disclosed, but BlueMatt probably knows the implications better
554 2012-03-20 15:11:00 <rebroad> gavinandresen, I made the changes you mentioned, and others based on coding doc...  I'll do the pull then shall I?
555 2012-03-20 15:11:21 <rebroad> hope it's ok to do such low pri changes..
556 2012-03-20 15:11:24 <sipa> rebroad: where's your git repo? i can have a look before you pull req
557 2012-03-20 15:11:32 <jrmithdobbs> imsaguy2: noone said gavin's requirements were easy to meet. I think they're valid, though.
558 2012-03-20 15:11:37 <rebroad> sipa: https://github.com/rebroad/bitcoin/compare/master...LoadBlockIndexKillable
559 2012-03-20 15:11:52 <luke-jr> #954 looks like rc5 material too, but less urgent
560 2012-03-20 15:11:55 <rebroad> I wasn't sure how disruptive a pull request was, so thought it better to check first..
561 2012-03-20 15:12:11 <gavinandresen> rebroad: sure.  Be sure to say how you tested, and if anybody else has tested, in the pull request
562 2012-03-20 15:12:21 <luke-jr> rebroad: not at all, and you can revise it until someone pulls it
563 2012-03-20 15:12:58 <luke-jr> rebroad: it also makes a forum for discussing the pull and people can comment on specific lines, etc
564 2012-03-20 15:12:58 <rebroad> luke-jr, gavinandresen, thanks for the info
565 2012-03-20 15:13:37 <sipa> rebroad: there are some internal changes in the commits; can you remove those, or merge the two commits?
566 2012-03-20 15:14:06 <rebroad> sipa, sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by internal changes
567 2012-03-20 15:14:55 <rebroad> ah.. i see what you mean.. i need to merge by two commits..
568 2012-03-20 15:15:00 <sipa> rebroad: in your first commit you do some things like adding comments and add code that doesn't match the style, and you fix it in the second
569 2012-03-20 15:15:07 <rebroad> erm... will do as soon as I figure out how to.. :-s
570 2012-03-20 15:15:09 <sipa> the overall change looks fine to me
571 2012-03-20 15:15:28 <rebroad> wow.. cool. I wasn't expecting it to look fine already :)
572 2012-03-20 15:15:58 <sipa> rebroad: i prefer using "git rebase -i upstream/master" for that, you'll get an editor in which you can select commits; make the second one a "fixup" for the second, and you're done
573 2012-03-20 15:17:06 <sipa> you'll need to push -f to github afterwards, since you're overwriting history
574 2012-03-20 15:17:14 <jrmithdobbs> rebroad: diff it to the previous commit, reset, nm sipas got you
575 2012-03-20 15:19:08 <rebroad> hmmm. I did the rebase, but github looks unchanged... (also did a commit and a push again)
576 2012-03-20 15:19:19 <jrmithdobbs> have to push -f
577 2012-03-20 15:19:28 <jrmithdobbs> to force history overwrite
578 2012-03-20 15:20:21 <rebroad> done a push -f but still looks the same in github :-s
579 2012-03-20 15:20:41 <sipa> rebroad: what does git log show you
580 2012-03-20 15:20:46 <sipa> what are the two top commits?
581 2012-03-20 15:21:44 <rebroad> sipa, the same two that show in github..
582 2012-03-20 15:22:04 <sipa> ok, what did you see in the editor?
583 2012-03-20 15:22:07 <sipa> also those two?
584 2012-03-20 15:22:23 <luke-jr> fwiw, I'd do it this way: git reset --hard 28d0c4a4^; git diff 28d0c4a4^..5be86192 | patch -p1; git commit -c 28d0c4a4; git push -f
585 2012-03-20 15:22:59 <rebroad> (but the merge was the one before those two...)
586 2012-03-20 15:23:05 <rebroad> oh.. no.. someone else's merge
587 2012-03-20 15:23:35 <rebroad> ah.. i didn't do a reset..
588 2012-03-20 15:23:44 <sipa> rebroad: no need to reset
589 2012-03-20 15:23:50 <sipa> (if you use rebase)
590 2012-03-20 15:24:05 <sipa> which commits do you see?
591 2012-03-20 15:24:52 <rebroad> ok, so I'm in rebase now, I see 28d0c4a and 5be8619
592 2012-03-20 15:25:24 <sipa> what names do these have?
593 2012-03-20 15:25:34 <luke-jr> wumpus: fwiw, my intent wasn't to bash minimize-to-tray :p
594 2012-03-20 15:25:42 <rebroad> pick 28d0c4a Added ability to respond to signals during Block Loading stage.
595 2012-03-20 15:25:55 <rebroad> first time I rebased, I changed the desc of the 2nd to "fixup" or similar
596 2012-03-20 15:26:11 <sipa> that's correct
597 2012-03-20 15:26:17 <sipa> try it again, and save/exit editor?
598 2012-03-20 15:26:32 <rebroad> ok, done..
599 2012-03-20 15:26:58 <rebroad> I mean, the rebase is done, but how do I check it worked...?
600 2012-03-20 15:27:03 <sipa> git log
601 2012-03-20 15:27:12 <rebroad> ok, did that, it doesn't show though
602 2012-03-20 15:27:21 <sipa> you should only see one commit now
603 2012-03-20 15:27:42 <rebroad> I still see the two
604 2012-03-20 15:28:21 <luke-jr> git reset --hard 28d0c4a4^; git diff 28d0c4a4^..5be86192 | patch -p1; git commit -ac 28d0c4a4; git push -f
605 2012-03-20 15:28:32 <luke-jr> sipa: is it ok if he tries mine? :P
606 2012-03-20 15:28:34 <rebroad> luke-jr, using that exact line?
607 2012-03-20 15:28:45 <luke-jr> rebroad: yeah
608 2012-03-20 15:30:16 <sipa> rebroad: did you change the description to fixup, or the action in front of it?
609 2012-03-20 15:30:43 <sipa> (it's the "pick" that should be changed to "fixup")
610 2012-03-20 15:30:56 <BlueMatt> sipa, gavinandresen 946 is fine by me, Id rather see qt-win32's gitian script get its output zip's version number incremented (since it is really fixing a qt but), but either way doesnt matter too much...
611 2012-03-20 15:31:33 <sipa> BlueMatt: explain?
612 2012-03-20 15:31:42 <gavinandresen> yes, I don't understand the issue
613 2012-03-20 15:31:58 <sipa> imsaguy2: http://bitcoin.sipa.be/builds/0.6.0rc4-11-g9aa459b/
614 2012-03-20 15:32:18 <rebroad> luke-jr, that's worked....
615 2012-03-20 15:32:56 <BlueMatt> right now contrib/gitian-descriptors/qt-win32.yml outputs qt-win32-4.7.4gitian.zip, Id rather see it gets its version number incremented (to distinguish between versions prior to last friday and new, fixed, versions) because the fact that qt links mingw32 is, IMO, a qt bug
616 2012-03-20 15:33:10 <BlueMatt> ie output qt-win32-4.7.4-gitian-2.zip or smth
617 2012-03-20 15:33:17 <BlueMatt> but doing it in bitcoin-qt.pro is fine by me
618 2012-03-20 15:33:31 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: you did test the -= in bitcoin-qt.pro in #946, right?
619 2012-03-20 15:33:37 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: yeah
620 2012-03-20 15:33:51 <luke-jr> I don't think we need to worry about trying to fix Qt's bugs IMO. Let Nokia handle that :p
621 2012-03-20 15:33:58 <BlueMatt> though Id also like to see all the bug fixes surrounding this issue be an optional thing
622 2012-03-20 15:33:59 <luke-jr> so long as Bitcoin-Qt builds fine
623 2012-03-20 15:34:07 <BlueMatt> (since it apparently isnt required when building on win32)
624 2012-03-20 15:34:44 <gavinandresen> Why would or does linking matter with qt-win32-*.zip ?  Don't we just get qt libraries from there?
625 2012-03-20 15:35:01 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: qt-win32-*.zip provides the default value
626 2012-03-20 15:35:14 <rebroad> My first ever git pull...  I'm so proud :) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/959
627 2012-03-20 15:35:16 <BlueMatt> we also get qmake from there, which sets the default LFLAGS
628 2012-03-20 15:35:16 <gavinandresen> So if it is broken, why would we use the default value?
629 2012-03-20 15:35:31 <BlueMatt> on win32 its not broken, xcompiling for win32 it is
630 2012-03-20 15:35:39 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: git master hacks the default in Qt; #946 changes it in .pro
631 2012-03-20 15:35:49 <BlueMatt> we can override it in bitcoin-qt.pro, or modify it in the qt build
632 2012-03-20 15:36:06 <gavinandresen> Ok, now I understand, thank you.  I agree changing the .pro is better.
633 2012-03-20 15:36:10 <BlueMatt> doesnt matter much to me which, makes some sense to put it in the pro for people who dont use gitian, but I dont think thats more than one or two
634 2012-03-20 15:36:52 <gavinandresen> Has anybody filed a bug against Qt about this yet?
635 2012-03-20 15:36:52 <luke-jr> nice thing about qmake's -= operator is, if the bug isn't there, it does nothing ;P
636 2012-03-20 15:36:52 <rebroad> I'm not sure if the patch -p1 did anything, but the rest did the trick.
637 2012-03-20 15:36:59 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: afaik, no
638 2012-03-20 15:37:07 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: i don't think anyone but you guys uses gitian
639 2012-03-20 15:37:12 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: upstream Qt doesn't support it in the first place, but perhaps we could try
640 2012-03-20 15:37:19 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: I think linking -lmingw32 may be required in some cases
641 2012-03-20 15:37:36 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: yea, nor do I think many people set up a xcompiling environment without it...
642 2012-03-20 15:37:52 <BlueMatt> (-lmingw32 may be required building on win32, I dont know)
643 2012-03-20 15:37:57 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: isn't -lmingwthrd the same library, but with threading support?
644 2012-03-20 15:38:03 <BlueMatt> nfc
645 2012-03-20 15:38:09 <gavinandresen> for the record, using a feature that's not supported by upstream Qt makes me very nervous. But I understand we need it to do the gitian thing....
646 2012-03-20 15:38:19 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: just saying i think it should be in the pro
647 2012-03-20 15:38:21 <sipa> which feaure?
648 2012-03-20 15:38:28 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: makes sense to me too
649 2012-03-20 15:38:28 <luke-jr> sipa: cross-compiling MingW
650 2012-03-20 15:38:36 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: its half-supported...
651 2012-03-20 15:38:36 <sipa> ah
652 2012-03-20 15:38:47 <gavinandresen> ok, for the record, using a feature that is half supported.....
653 2012-03-20 15:38:52 <devrandom> (BlueMatt: agreed about versioning of the output)
654 2012-03-20 15:38:52 <luke-jr> >_<
655 2012-03-20 15:39:06 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: and I would prefer to xcompile it than keep going with one person building all the libs on one machine, even if it is aws...
656 2012-03-20 15:39:15 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: rebroad opened pull request 959 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/959>
657 2012-03-20 15:39:35 <BlueMatt> give me a sec, let me make a patch that makes me more happy...
658 2012-03-20 15:39:50 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: ?
659 2012-03-20 15:39:57 <BlueMatt> make it all optional...
660 2012-03-20 15:40:26 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I'd leave it enabled by default, since there's not likely a scenario where it hurts
661 2012-03-20 15:40:40 <BlueMatt> is wumpus around?
662 2012-03-20 15:42:25 <sipa> BlueMatt: do you happen to know what the earliest bitcoin version is that can deal with a 0.4.0-constructed wallet that doesn't use encryption?
663 2012-03-20 15:42:43 <sipa> probably very old
664 2012-03-20 15:42:55 <BlueMatt> if its encrypted, none, if its not encrypted...in theory 0.1
665 2012-03-20 15:43:51 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: OK, pushed another commit onto #946 - is that OK?
666 2012-03-20 15:44:48 <BlueMatt> oops, I was just gonna do that, but ok yea thats good, just check with wumpus if it breaks anything when built in qt creator on windows first though...
667 2012-03-20 15:44:55 <luke-jr> this way, qmake MINGW_THREAD_BUGFIX=0 will disable the fix; otherwise, it's enabled
668 2012-03-20 15:46:32 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: how about a nice long comment explaining what all the weird hackery is about in the .pro and gitian files?
669 2012-03-20 15:47:01 <gavinandresen> ... because I know I'm going to forget what the issue is/was in two weeks.
670 2012-03-20 15:47:44 <gavinandresen> (and I still don't understand why I might want to qmake MINGW_THREAD_BUGFIX=0)
671 2012-03-20 15:48:25 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: BlueMatt is concerned that native Win32 builds might possibly not "need" the fixup for some reason
672 2012-03-20 15:48:29 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: you may never not, Im not sure, but the bug never occured if you built in mingw on windows
673 2012-03-20 15:48:37 <BlueMatt> and if you dont need it , enabling it may break something
674 2012-03-20 15:49:28 <gavinandresen> okey doke.  That should go in the comment.
675 2012-03-20 15:49:55 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: #bitcoin-private please
676 2012-03-20 15:52:26 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: was there a reason to -D/-l ourselves rather than using -mthreads?
677 2012-03-20 15:53:00 <BlueMatt> -mthreads forces dynamic linking of mingwthrd, so then you have to distribute mingwm10.dll as well...
678 2012-03-20 15:53:09 <luke-jr> i c
679 2012-03-20 15:53:17 <sipa> ok, i prefer to avoid windows' dll hell :)
680 2012-03-20 15:54:36 <sipa> gavinandresen: if -walletupgrade or whatever equivalent is not given, should encryptwallet be disabled?
681 2012-03-20 15:54:55 <sipa> or does the use of that command imply an upgrade to at least 40000?
682 2012-03-20 15:55:25 <gavinandresen> Encrypting implies a wallet upgrade
683 2012-03-20 15:55:27 <loktight> http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2012/03/full-disclosure-bitcoin-qt-on-windows.html  good nfos
684 2012-03-20 15:55:47 <gavinandresen> (I think the policy aught to be: don't upgrade wallet version unless the user does something explicit that would make them expect an upgrade)
685 2012-03-20 15:55:58 <sipa> sounds very reasonable
686 2012-03-20 15:56:00 <gavinandresen> (or, eventually, we'll tell them they have to and ask them to OK)
687 2012-03-20 15:56:23 <gavinandresen> loktight: thanks
688 2012-03-20 15:57:46 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: how's that comment?
689 2012-03-20 15:57:59 <gavinandresen> RE: getting a rc5 out:  I'm going to work a couple of high-priority issues this afternoon (Mac Growl -- cherrypicking/testing p2k's fix   and  Excess inventory during download)
690 2012-03-20 15:58:20 <BlueMatt> anyone able to reproduce the gui freeze on win32?
691 2012-03-20 15:58:29 <BlueMatt> apparently happens on anything 0.6rc1+
692 2012-03-20 15:58:40 <sipa> can we first find out whether the qt mingwthread patching is necessary on windows?
693 2012-03-20 15:58:50 <BlueMatt> rebroad: "Is there any documentation on PROTOCOL_VERSION I can refer to please? How is this decided and how does it cope with branches?" <--other than https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0014 not really
694 2012-03-20 15:59:06 <BlueMatt> sipa: afaik only wumpus can answer that question
695 2012-03-20 15:59:56 <sipa> ok
696 2012-03-20 16:03:09 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: woops, forgot to push to github& https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/946/files has it now
697 2012-03-20 16:06:22 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: good, thanks.
698 2012-03-20 16:40:02 <imsaguy2> sipa: now it just errors out
699 2012-03-20 16:40:07 <imsaguy2> no warning, no anything
700 2012-03-20 16:40:19 <sipa> anything in debug.log?
701 2012-03-20 16:40:36 <imsaguy2> "loading addresses" then "loading blockchain"
702 2012-03-20 16:40:40 <imsaguy2> hold on, lemme look
703 2012-03-20 16:40:48 <imsaguy2> haha
704 2012-03-20 16:40:51 <imsaguy2> I just restarted it
705 2012-03-20 16:40:54 <imsaguy2> and it seems to be working
706 2012-03-20 16:41:07 <imsaguy2> 5 active connections and growing
707 2012-03-20 16:41:11 <sipa> o/
708 2012-03-20 16:41:16 <imsaguy2> I'll still grab debug.log
709 2012-03-20 16:42:51 <imsaguy2> on that chain I sent you, do you remember its block height?
710 2012-03-20 16:43:45 <sipa> 170665 iirc
711 2012-03-20 16:43:49 <sipa> ;;bc,blocks
712 2012-03-20 16:43:50 <gribble> 172058
713 2012-03-20 16:44:52 <imsaguy2> I figured it out
714 2012-03-20 16:44:59 <imsaguy2> it was 171565
715 2012-03-20 16:45:18 <sipa> i only remembered the last two decimals it seems
716 2012-03-20 16:46:31 <imsaguy2> no, I think you are right
717 2012-03-20 16:46:54 <imsaguy2> wouldn't it be helpful to have the time/date be part of debug.log
718 2012-03-20 16:47:07 <imsaguy2> "Started on:"
719 2012-03-20 16:47:33 <sipa> -logtimestamps
720 2012-03-20 16:47:38 <imsaguy2> hah
721 2012-03-20 16:47:39 <imsaguy2> ok
722 2012-03-20 16:47:44 <imsaguy2> well, its too late for this one
723 2012-03-20 16:47:51 <imsaguy2> the last load didn't dump an error
724 2012-03-20 16:48:00 <imsaguy2> although a couple times ago there was one
725 2012-03-20 16:48:09 <imsaguy2> but I don't know if it was from 2 weeks ago or from yesterday
726 2012-03-20 16:51:49 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: gavinandresen opened pull request 960 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/960>
727 2012-03-20 17:02:18 <wumpus> sipa: no, it's not neccesary on windows
728 2012-03-20 17:03:21 <sipa> wumpus: but does it harm on windows?
729 2012-03-20 17:04:08 <wumpus> I don't know, it will probably work, but it's really a hack for cross-compiling
730 2012-03-20 17:10:57 <tcatm> http://188.138.99.157/stuff/qtvert17.png
731 2012-03-20 17:12:03 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: laanwj opened pull request 961 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/961>
732 2012-03-20 17:12:41 <matze> hi
733 2012-03-20 17:14:36 <wumpus> fixing it in the .pro should be a temporary solution only
734 2012-03-20 17:15:20 <luke-jr> wumpus: you mean, until Qt upstream has long-since fixed their mkspec?
735 2012-03-20 17:15:44 <wumpus> we can patch the mkspec in the gitian build
736 2012-03-20 17:16:17 <wumpus> ...evenually
737 2012-03-20 17:16:19 <luke-jr> then it's broken for people who don't use gitian, and forces people to rebuild qt :p
738 2012-03-20 17:16:22 <wumpus> it works this way so it's ok with me
739 2012-03-20 17:16:45 <wumpus> well, people that don't use gitian generally don't cross-compile
740 2012-03-20 17:17:11 <wumpus> if you use qt creator in windows there is no problem at all with threads or exceptions or anything like that
741 2012-03-20 17:17:14 <luke-jr> why not?
742 2012-03-20 17:17:19 <luke-jr> I cross-compile Qt stuff all the time
743 2012-03-20 17:17:26 <wumpus> well then also patch qt
744 2012-03-20 17:17:35 <wumpus> you're here so you know what you can do
745 2012-03-20 17:17:40 <BlueMatt> tcatm: nice!
746 2012-03-20 17:17:42 <luke-jr> and I know of at least one fork that doesn't use gitian to build Bitcoin-Qt
747 2012-03-20 17:17:56 <luke-jr> it's just an unnecessary risk IMO
748 2012-03-20 17:17:57 <BlueMatt> tcatm: I really like the left sidebar
749 2012-03-20 17:19:12 <wumpus> another option would be to make a build option for it and make it optional in the .pro, WORK_AROUND_BROKEN_QT_CROSS_COMPILE or so
750 2012-03-20 17:19:45 <luke-jr> wumpus: the current pullreq has it optional
751 2012-03-20 17:19:51 <wumpus> ok
752 2012-03-20 17:19:56 <tcatm> BlueMatt: I think it takes too much space :/
753 2012-03-20 17:20:22 <BlueMatt> tcatm: smaller fonts/icons would work too, but I likt it that big, personally
754 2012-03-20 17:20:29 <wumpus> I think it's nice
755 2012-03-20 17:20:37 <BlueMatt> the recent txes could still be a bit smaller, but...
756 2012-03-20 17:20:40 <wumpus> only thing I don't like is the scroll bar on the right on the recent transactions
757 2012-03-20 17:21:19 <wumpus> it's supposed to only show the last N transactions, not everything, there's the transactions tab for that
758 2012-03-20 17:21:43 <sipa> I think the transaction list there is too large.
759 2012-03-20 17:21:55 <sipa> (as in: the space occupied by a single item is too large)
760 2012-03-20 17:22:03 <tcatm> My idea was to show all transactions that occured since the wallet was last opened.
761 2012-03-20 17:22:12 <wumpus> there should not be a scroll bar at least
762 2012-03-20 17:22:29 <wumpus> it's confusing, as if you can scroll the entire window
763 2012-03-20 17:23:17 <tcatm> It's not the entire window; just the box on the right.
764 2012-03-20 17:23:26 <wumpus> yes I know that, but it looks that way
765 2012-03-20 17:23:52 <wumpus> I think people that want to see older transactions should simply go to the transactions tab
766 2012-03-20 17:24:08 <luke-jr> https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-24889
767 2012-03-20 17:24:30 <wumpus> nice luke-jr
768 2012-03-20 17:24:53 <BlueMatt> thanks luke-jr
769 2012-03-20 17:25:05 <wumpus> though you make it sound like a gcc issue
770 2012-03-20 17:25:08 <luke-jr> feel free to vote it up ;)
771 2012-03-20 17:25:16 <wumpus> doing that
772 2012-03-20 17:25:17 <luke-jr> wumpus: I do?
773 2012-03-20 17:26:31 <wumpus> well there's two problems as I understand 1) qt is broken 2) gcc is broken
774 2012-03-20 17:27:11 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: Diapolo opened pull request 962 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/962>
775 2012-03-20 17:28:23 <wumpus> problem with qt is that they don't pass mthreads, problem with gcc is that mthread doesn't work with static compilation
776 2012-03-20 17:29:13 <luke-jr> right
777 2012-03-20 17:29:28 <wumpus> I've voted it up
778 2012-03-20 17:35:18 <sipa> ProcessMessage(verack, 0 bytes) : CHECKSUM ERROR nChecksum=e2e0f65d hdr.nChecksum=d9b4bef9
779 2012-03-20 17:35:27 <sipa> i see this occasionally
780 2012-03-20 17:36:37 <BlueMatt> :(
781 2012-03-20 17:36:51 <BlueMatt> I wish it said what the message was that failed...
782 2012-03-20 17:37:37 <sipa> verack
783 2012-03-20 17:37:45 <BlueMatt> oh...
784 2012-03-20 17:39:35 <matze> its hard time making software
785 2012-03-20 17:55:37 <wumpus> well, nothing worth doing is easy is it :)
786 2012-03-20 18:14:57 <graingert> wumpus: not always true
787 2012-03-20 18:15:12 <graingert> for example, snarky comments
788 2012-03-20 18:15:50 <graingert> and humorously self-referential comments
789 2012-03-20 18:25:43 <matze> what does snarky mean ?
790 2012-03-20 18:27:20 <usergff> tcatm: could you send again the link of last screenshot?
791 2012-03-20 18:27:23 <matze> sarcastic k..
792 2012-03-20 18:28:03 <nanotube> ;;ud snarky
793 2012-03-20 18:28:04 <gribble> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=snarky | A word that should be googled to find the definition as per direction from Dane Cook. It means short tempered or irritable.
794 2012-03-20 18:30:05 <matze> k.. unbeherscht,reizbar.. thx
795 2012-03-20 18:31:53 <nanotube> heh dunno what those are. :) but if they have something to do with sarcasm, cynicism, and wit, then yes. :)
796 2012-03-20 18:38:16 <BlueMatt> sipa: or someone, can you mark https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/956 as 0.6.0, Ive seen it several times, so it should be considered "confirmed" and really should be fixed before release
797 2012-03-20 18:39:43 <usergff> anyone here have the link of last tcatm screenshot qtvert17
798 2012-03-20 18:39:59 <BlueMatt> http://188.138.99.157/stuff/qtvert17.png