1 2012-03-22 00:38:39 <egecko> ;;bc,blocks
  2 2012-03-22 00:38:40 <gribble> 172267
  3 2012-03-22 00:38:44 <egecko> W00T!
  4 2012-03-22 00:38:46 <egecko> all caught up!
  5 2012-03-22 00:43:48 <gmaxwell> might be prudent to run the new scanning code against the chain at http://us1.bitvps.com/blockchain/
  6 2012-03-22 00:44:17 <luke-jr> How does Windows System Restore (and Mac's equivalent) affect wallet.dat?
  7 2012-03-22 00:44:31 <gmaxwell> probably reverts it to an older state.
  8 2012-03-22 00:44:41 <luke-jr> :x
  9 2012-03-22 00:45:35 <BlueMatt> CBlockStore, as it turns out, does little for download speed due to wallet checking, but the stuff I wrote last night does: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29653426/times.pdf
 10 2012-03-22 00:48:11 <sipa> wth? i import a block file using loadblocks and checkblocks reproducible finds an error
 11 2012-03-22 00:48:42 <sipa> in block 91721
 12 2012-03-22 00:48:50 <BlueMatt> ...?
 13 2012-03-22 00:49:07 <sipa> wait
 14 2012-03-22 00:49:12 <sipa> duplicate transaction!
 15 2012-03-22 00:49:20 <sipa> that explains
 16 2012-03-22 00:49:37 <luke-jr> O.o
 17 2012-03-22 00:49:46 <SomeoneWeird> huh
 18 2012-03-22 00:49:50 <luke-jr> BIP30 time isn't working?
 19 2012-03-22 00:49:50 <sipa> it's just my checker that is too strict
 20 2012-03-22 00:50:02 <BlueMatt> dup txes used to be allowed
 21 2012-03-22 00:50:05 <gmaxwell> Well the check needs a height gate.
 22 2012-03-22 00:50:19 <sipa> luke-jr: no, it's my checker, see pullreq 972
 23 2012-03-22 00:50:35 <luke-jr> sipa: your checker doesn't use the same code for checking? :/
 24 2012-03-22 00:50:43 <sipa> it cannot
 25 2012-03-22 00:50:57 <sipa> bitcoin has only code for connecting blocks
 26 2012-03-22 00:51:07 <sipa> no code for checking whether connecting was done correctly
 27 2012-03-22 01:10:29 <etotheipi_> splatster, torusjkl just posted some updated Armory compile-on-OSX instructions... please try it out
 28 2012-03-22 01:23:32 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: mind telling me why this is stupid so I dont keep thinking its not: https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bitcoin/commit/fbe074fbd599cad2467709f4f53ec2a93ad595b7
 29 2012-03-22 01:24:40 <BlueMatt> (aside from making it easy for an attacker to eat 20mb ram instead of 10)
 30 2012-03-22 01:26:08 <BlueMatt> sipa: ^
 31 2012-03-22 01:28:04 <sipa> BlueMatt: i don't think that's stupid; it's pretty idiotic to disconnect someone because *you* are sending him too much
 32 2012-03-22 01:29:19 <BlueMatt> damn, I was hoping I missed something...
 33 2012-03-22 01:29:21 <luke-jr> lol
 34 2012-03-22 01:29:40 <sipa> BlueMatt: maybe you did; what happens the send buffer does become to large?
 35 2012-03-22 01:29:55 <sipa> just not send? how will that ever get resolved?
 36 2012-03-22 01:29:57 <BlueMatt> afaict it cant...
 37 2012-03-22 01:30:09 <BlueMatt> just not send until it times out and disconnects
 38 2012-03-22 01:30:26 <BlueMatt> or send until it shrinks and keep processing
 39 2012-03-22 01:30:54 <sipa> don't send if send buffer too full, is what i read from the code; right?
 40 2012-03-22 01:31:06 <BlueMatt> dont add to send buffer if its too full
 41 2012-03-22 01:31:09 <sipa> ah
 42 2012-03-22 01:31:47 <BlueMatt> actually, dont process messages at all from that node until send buffer shrinks
 43 2012-03-22 01:33:38 <splatster> etotheipi_: Okay, I'll give it a shot.
 44 2012-03-22 01:33:44 <sipa> BlueMatt: the name of the commit is very confusing
 45 2012-03-22 01:34:08 <sipa> i'd call it "stop processing received messages while send buffer is full"
 46 2012-03-22 01:34:36 <BlueMatt> I usually write useful commitmsgs then remove words until it fits, so they sometimes get confusing...Ill reword, fix and pull request...
 47 2012-03-22 01:34:57 <splatster> etotheipi_: FYI, I'm on OS X 10.7, but I'll give it a shot.
 48 2012-03-22 01:34:59 <sipa> apart from that, not really an objection (though i'd need to look at it while awake)
 49 2012-03-22 01:35:21 <BlueMatt> heh, alright, well its based on cblockstore and since I dont feel like redoing it for master, it will wait for 0.7 anyway
 50 2012-03-22 01:39:47 <BlueMatt> well, damn: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/973
 51 2012-03-22 01:42:37 <luke-jr> 8b7d066
 52 2012-03-22 01:43:03 <BlueMatt> thats because its in cblockstore, after that it will get removed
 53 2012-03-22 01:43:11 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: TheBlueMatt opened pull request 973 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/973>
 54 2012-03-22 01:43:14 <BlueMatt> well, maybe I should go ahead and pull that from cblockstore now...
 55 2012-03-22 01:43:38 <luke-jr> This regression also doesn't belong in it: e966607
 56 2012-03-22 01:43:47 <BlueMatt> how is that a regression?
 57 2012-03-22 01:43:54 <luke-jr> removes currentblocktx
 58 2012-03-22 01:43:57 <BlueMatt> it doesnt change the rpc-facing stuff
 59 2012-03-22 01:43:59 <BlueMatt> no it doesnt
 60 2012-03-22 01:44:10 <luke-jr> oh, I see it inside the CRITBLK
 61 2012-03-22 01:44:17 <BlueMatt> changes the order, yea
 62 2012-03-22 01:44:18 <luke-jr> nm
 63 2012-03-22 01:44:22 <luke-jr> still, not part of CBS
 64 2012-03-22 01:44:27 <BlueMatt> yes it is
 65 2012-03-22 01:44:30 <luke-jr> ?
 66 2012-03-22 01:44:43 <BlueMatt> the goal of cblockstore is to clean up apis to blockstore, that is a part of that
 67 2012-03-22 01:44:48 <luke-jr> o
 68 2012-03-22 01:46:03 <BlueMatt> alright remove "REMOVE BEFORE MERGE" from a few branches
 69 2012-03-22 01:46:43 <luke-jr> is anyone working on the IPC bug?
 70 2012-03-22 01:46:47 <BlueMatt> s/remove/removed/
 71 2012-03-22 01:46:50 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: not afaik
 72 2012-03-22 01:46:54 <luke-jr> XD
 73 2012-03-22 01:48:40 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: have you ever reproduced it?
 74 2012-03-22 01:48:47 <luke-jr> no, isn't it Windows only?
 75 2012-03-22 01:48:50 <BlueMatt> yea
 76 2012-03-22 01:48:57 <BlueMatt> were you about to go work on it?
 77 2012-03-22 01:49:05 <BlueMatt> I thought you didnt do dev work on win64?
 78 2012-03-22 01:49:10 <luke-jr> I don't.
 79 2012-03-22 01:49:26 <BlueMatt> ah,well then Ill go see if I can reproduce it...
 80 2012-03-22 01:49:35 <luke-jr> it's semi-annoying, but it's not connected to tonal in any way, so I can't really justify spending time on it <.<
 81 2012-03-22 01:49:43 <BlueMatt> heh
 82 2012-03-22 01:49:55 <BlueMatt> well it does block 0.6, so...
 83 2012-03-22 01:50:05 <BlueMatt> maybe Ill just replace boost with qt ipc
 84 2012-03-22 01:50:10 <luke-jr> <.<
 85 2012-03-22 01:50:26 <luke-jr> it would be ironic if you did, and then found out Qt wraps boost&
 86 2012-03-22 01:50:36 <BlueMatt> heh, I wouldnt be surprised
 87 2012-03-22 01:50:43 <BlueMatt> but hey, if they work around boost bugs for us, why not?
 88 2012-03-22 01:50:58 <luke-jr> well, you'd only find out if it had the same bug :p
 89 2012-03-22 01:51:05 <BlueMatt> heh, well ok
 90 2012-03-22 01:51:18 <BlueMatt> may not be
 91 2012-03-22 01:52:02 <splatster> etotheipi_: Unfortunately, it didn't work :/ I can put some time into making it work in Lion (and maybe make a binary), but right now my upcoming GLBSE venture is my top priority.
 92 2012-03-22 01:55:13 <BlueMatt> why the hell is oom-killer getting invoked with 3g of memory dedicated to cache???
 93 2012-03-22 01:55:19 <BlueMatt> s/3g/4g/
 94 2012-03-22 01:57:54 <BlueMatt> goddamit kernel, stop killing chrome...
 95 2012-03-22 01:58:27 <SomeoneWeird> lol
 96 2012-03-22 01:58:34 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: something mmap()ed?
 97 2012-03-22 01:58:57 <jrmithdobbs> shows up as cache on linux even if actually mapped to real mem iirc
 98 2012-03-22 01:59:10 <BlueMatt> maybe virtualbox is doing that...I dunno whatever
 99 2012-03-22 02:11:52 <finway> ping gmaxwell
100 2012-03-22 02:11:59 <finway> ;;ping gmaxwell
101 2012-03-22 02:11:59 <gribble> pong
102 2012-03-22 02:13:44 <gmaxwell> Yes?
103 2012-03-22 02:15:56 <finway> gmaxwell, i am restarting downloading the blockchain using 0.6.0rc4
104 2012-03-22 02:16:37 <finway> What are the client doing if the CPU usage is 1%, and not downloading the blocks, and the hardisk did not work too.
105 2012-03-22 02:16:50 <finway> no cpu, no network, no harddisk
106 2012-03-22 02:17:21 <gmaxwell> finway: It's busying doing synchronous writes. It actually is IO, but it's not always (or obviously) reported as such.
107 2012-03-22 02:17:28 <finway> every 500 blocks, there's a stop with no cpu working, no network working, no harddisk working.
108 2012-03-22 02:17:31 <gmaxwell> (mostly spending time for the disk to cycle around)
109 2012-03-22 02:17:39 <gmaxwell> finway: thats the database sync.
110 2012-03-22 02:18:33 <gmaxwell> finway: take this pull and it will sync fairly fast: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/964
111 2012-03-22 02:18:35 <finway> gmaxwell, so that's why blk0001.dat in ramdisk much faster ?
112 2012-03-22 02:19:00 <luke-jr> #964 is part of next-test, if you need Windows build
113 2012-03-22 02:19:14 <luke-jr> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=70580.0
114 2012-03-22 02:19:39 <finway> gmaxwell, luke-jr, hah, that's awesome, thanks.
115 2012-03-22 02:21:33 <finway> I did a full block load (from a local file, using the loadblocks patch) on my laptop with these settings in 33 minutes.  -- really? in 33min ? that's super fast.
116 2012-03-22 02:24:48 <gmaxwell> finway: it's the same kind of performance we've long been getting on ramdisks.
117 2012-03-22 02:25:16 <finway> Oh, never tried ramdisk
118 2012-03-22 02:25:52 <finway> luke-jr, seems your site has been blocked by Chinese Great FireWall.
119 2012-03-22 02:25:58 <luke-jr> finway: lol?
120 2012-03-22 02:26:10 <finway> yeah
121 2012-03-22 02:26:46 <luke-jr> why are you in China?
122 2012-03-22 02:27:44 <finway> luke-jr :(
123 2012-03-22 02:28:15 <luke-jr> finway: you live in China?
124 2012-03-22 02:28:50 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: ... no. Nevada but china provides his internet filtering.
125 2012-03-22 02:29:17 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: how does that work?
126 2012-03-22 02:29:36 <luke-jr> actually, maybe it's just because I block China from my VPS
127 2012-03-22 02:29:48 <JFK911> i knew he was a racist!!
128 2012-03-22 02:29:48 <luke-jr> too many botnets there like to DDoS me
129 2012-03-22 02:30:58 <luke-jr> finway: what IP, and I can let you through it
130 2012-03-22 02:31:13 <finway> luke-jr, nvm, i got it.
131 2012-03-22 02:31:16 <luke-jr> k
132 2012-03-22 02:31:30 <luke-jr> 1131K  149M DROP       all  --  *      *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           set HongKong src
133 2012-03-22 02:31:31 <luke-jr> 20M 2199M DROP       all  --  *      *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           set China src
134 2012-03-22 02:32:45 <finway> OK, there's less sotp time every 500 blocks.
135 2012-03-22 02:34:08 <finway> And the cpu usage are always high, efficient
136 2012-03-22 02:36:02 <sipa> BlueMatt: small bug; if a key entry comes before the minversion entry in a wallet file, and you downgrade to 0.5 with compressed pubkeys, it will give a wallet corrupt error rather than a upgrade required error
137 2012-03-22 02:36:10 <sipa> minversion should be checked first
138 2012-03-22 02:36:14 <sipa> and ignored in the main loop
139 2012-03-22 02:37:07 <BlueMatt> sipa: how did you get a minversion entry after a key?
140 2012-03-22 02:37:29 <sipa> BlueMatt: i doubt you get them in order they are written
141 2012-03-22 02:37:30 <BlueMatt> sipa: Im asuming in any reasonable encryption process doesnt do that? (or we would have seen it more often?
142 2012-03-22 02:37:56 <BlueMatt> hmm, odd
143 2012-03-22 02:38:25 <sipa> BlueMatt: it's because luke backported my key checking to 0.5
144 2012-03-22 02:39:42 <BlueMatt> oh
145 2012-03-22 02:40:02 <BlueMatt> does the same occur in 0.6?
146 2012-03-22 02:40:24 <sipa> no, because 0.6 supports compressed pubkeys
147 2012-03-22 02:40:33 <BlueMatt> (for 0.7-min wallets
148 2012-03-22 02:41:03 <luke-jr> did I oops?
149 2012-03-22 02:41:09 <sipa> luke-jr: no, not your fault
150 2012-03-22 02:41:19 <BlueMatt> wait, why does this not work?
151 2012-03-22 02:41:26 <BlueMatt> it should return DB_TOO_NEW fine...?
152 2012-03-22 02:41:42 <sipa> BlueMatt: make a wallet in 0.6; it writes compressed pubkeys and puts minversion 59900
153 2012-03-22 02:41:46 <finway> I don't think i'll download the full blockchain in 30 minutes...
154 2012-03-22 02:41:46 <sipa> downgrade to 0.5
155 2012-03-22 02:41:58 <luke-jr> finway: he didn't say download
156 2012-03-22 02:42:01 <luke-jr> finway: he said load
157 2012-03-22 02:42:07 <sipa> if the compressed key is loaded first (which is invalid according to 0.5.3.x) it will return corrupt db
158 2012-03-22 02:42:19 <sipa> if the minversion entry is loaded first it will return db too new
159 2012-03-22 02:42:28 <finway> luke-jr, what's the previous score ?
160 2012-03-22 02:42:41 <BlueMatt> ahh, ok ofc
161 2012-03-22 02:43:09 <sipa> i'd fix this in 0.6, except the problem cannot occur in 0.6 (but maybe useful for future upgrades)
162 2012-03-22 02:43:31 <sipa> for the backports it's necessary though
163 2012-03-22 02:43:32 <luke-jr> >_<
164 2012-03-22 02:43:46 <BlueMatt> ahh
165 2012-03-22 02:44:17 <sipa> so with the policy that only mainline patches end up in backports, we're forced to fix it in a version where the problem doesn't exist
166 2012-03-22 02:44:34 <sipa> (though it's a code improvement anyway(
167 2012-03-22 02:45:45 <finway> luke-jr, network is not the bottleneck of blockchain downloading ,right ?
168 2012-03-22 02:45:53 <luke-jr> finway: it might be now?
169 2012-03-22 02:46:10 <gmaxwell> finway: usually not, but with the fixes in it can be if your have a slow network or unlucky peers.
170 2012-03-22 02:46:36 <sipa> unlocky first connections, mostly
171 2012-03-22 02:46:39 <sipa> lucky
172 2012-03-22 02:46:44 <finway> luke-jr, gmaxwell, got it, i'll report my full blockchain downloading time.
173 2012-03-22 02:54:54 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: sipa opened pull request 974 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/974>
174 2012-03-22 03:02:27 <splatster> What is the best way to run a "company" wallet separate from my personal wallet?
175 2012-03-22 03:02:41 <luke-jr> another user?
176 2012-03-22 03:03:50 <splatster> luke-jr: Logging in and out might become tedious but that's better than nothing.
177 2012-03-22 03:04:15 <luke-jr> splatster: ssh?
178 2012-03-22 03:04:32 <luke-jr> there's a -datadir cmdline option too I think
179 2012-03-22 03:05:08 <splatster> ok
180 2012-03-22 03:09:01 <egecko> The news is out!  BitDozer is almost here! http://bit.ly/GIHz7r #bitcoin #ows #anonymous #occupywallstreet
181 2012-03-22 03:09:08 <splatster> wait, couldn't I set the data directory to a mounted volume?
182 2012-03-22 03:09:43 <splatster> luke-jr: ^
183 2012-03-22 03:09:51 <luke-jr> egecko: who uses Windows Phone
184 2012-03-22 03:09:55 <luke-jr> splatster: maybe
185 2012-03-22 03:10:05 <splatster> luke-jr: No one uses windows phone.
186 2012-03-22 03:10:06 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: sipa opened pull request 975 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/975>
187 2012-03-22 03:11:23 <splatster> luke-jr: And I could have (for example) an encrypted volume on a USB drive and then I could use it on any of my comps as long as I had -qt on it.
188 2012-03-22 03:11:51 <luke-jr> splatster: if it were the same version
189 2012-03-22 03:11:56 <splatster> yup
190 2012-03-22 03:11:57 <luke-jr> splatster: could probably put the client on the USB too
191 2012-03-22 03:12:43 <splatster> And as long as I had appropriate builds for each OS, I could use it on any computer I know is secure.
192 2012-03-22 03:13:19 <splatster> Thanks, luke-jr! Now I have a way to keep the fund's capital safe and separate from my shit.
193 2012-03-22 03:14:06 <luke-jr> np
194 2012-03-22 03:15:03 <splatster> of course, I would make a backup or two of the wallet, God forbid I lose the USB.
195 2012-03-22 03:33:29 <finway> now, the bottleneck is networking.
196 2012-03-22 03:34:25 <finway> i've been stuck at 117965 for 2 min
197 2012-03-22 03:35:39 <finway> i restart the client, and it pass
198 2012-03-22 03:41:14 <finway> One hour passed, and i've got 120k blocks
199 2012-03-22 03:41:47 <finway> restarted 2 times.
200 2012-03-22 03:42:21 <gmaxwell> You should probably stop restarting.
201 2012-03-22 03:43:53 <finway> gmaxwell, why ?
202 2012-03-22 03:44:27 <finway> close&restar the client helps
203 2012-03-22 03:44:39 <captain^k> it shouldn't
204 2012-03-22 03:44:51 <captain^k> maybe you are low on resources?
205 2012-03-22 03:45:07 <captain^k> *system
206 2012-03-22 03:45:15 <finway> captain^k  , yes , i am behind LAN,   only 8 connections.
207 2012-03-22 03:46:59 <finway> I'm exicted about this patch. :)
208 2012-03-22 04:02:54 <nanotube> he did?
209 2012-03-22 04:14:14 <sipa> he
210 2012-03-22 04:18:10 <BlueMatt> he posted a couple of acks
211 2012-03-22 04:18:14 <BlueMatt> not on irc...
212 2012-03-22 04:48:34 <nanotube> ah ic
213 2012-03-22 06:41:58 <bitcoinspot> any people from the netherlands here ?
214 2012-03-22 06:45:25 <neofutur> if its to buy bitcoins better ask on #bitcoin-otc
215 2012-03-22 06:50:26 <Graet> sturles, is if he's awake bitcoinspot
216 2012-03-22 06:58:57 <Habbie> bitcoinspot, sure
217 2012-03-22 06:59:03 <Habbie> bitcoinspot, why?
218 2012-03-22 07:01:46 <bitcoinspot> @Habbie - i am running a dutch bitcoin site http://www.bitcoinspot.nl and am curious to find other bitcoin enthousiasts in holland, they seem a little scarce
219 2012-03-22 07:02:32 <Habbie> looking good
220 2012-03-22 07:08:01 <bitcoinspot> habbie: yeah, a ashame that the dutch-speaking audience is a little small :)
221 2012-03-22 08:08:55 <sturles> Graet: I'm from .no, not .nl. :-)
222 2012-03-22 08:15:06 <vegard> sipa I think is, though?
223 2012-03-22 08:56:37 <Graet> oh, my bad, sorry sturles
224 2012-03-22 09:01:43 <rebroad> sipa, did you say your checker (pull 972) is too strict...?
225 2012-03-22 09:02:51 <rebroad> is it possible to have two log files? one for more verbose debugging and one for the non-looping stuff?
226 2012-03-22 09:39:22 <chloa> I need to know how to sort out a stuck transaction to my bitcoin waller
227 2012-03-22 09:39:50 <chloa> Your client is stuck.
228 2012-03-22 09:40:10 <chloa> how do i get my client unstuck?
229 2012-03-22 09:40:40 <chloa> i transfered bitcoins from intersango to my bitcoin wallet and it appears it has got stuck and i have to start again. can anyone help?
230 2012-03-22 09:43:45 <chloa> Can somebody help me which a question?
231 2012-03-22 09:43:46 <freewil> chloa, what do you mean stuck
232 2012-03-22 09:44:07 <chloa> The guy who is providing help has said my client is stuck
233 2012-03-22 09:44:29 <chloa> the transaction never reached my bitcoin wallet as it normally does and this was 1 month ago
234 2012-03-22 09:44:35 <freewil> stuck downloading blocks?
235 2012-03-22 09:44:40 <freewil> what version are you running?
236 2012-03-22 09:44:54 <freewil> you should be using 0.5.3
237 2012-03-22 09:44:58 <chloa> You'll probably want to erase your current blockchain and start from the beginning. - the guy said this
238 2012-03-22 09:44:58 <freewil> or 0.5.3.1 on windows
239 2012-03-22 09:45:10 <chloa> im not too sure, i will need to check later...
240 2012-03-22 09:45:32 <chloa> yes i assume stuck downloading blocks
241 2012-03-22 09:46:05 <freewil> yeah you should downloaded the latest version of the bitcoin client first
242 2012-03-22 09:46:16 <freewil> then you can restart the blockchain download if you need to
243 2012-03-22 09:46:49 <chloa> will it still remember my transaction if i download the new one?
244 2012-03-22 09:47:01 <chloa> what is the latest version and how do i get it?
245 2012-03-22 09:47:17 <freewil> id make sure bitcoin is closed
246 2012-03-22 09:47:26 <freewil> make a backup of your wallet.dat just to be safe
247 2012-03-22 09:47:41 <freewil> http://bitcoin.org/
248 2012-03-22 09:48:01 <chloa> how do i do this?
249 2012-03-22 09:48:14 <freewil> are you on windows?
250 2012-03-22 09:48:18 <chloa> yep
251 2012-03-22 09:49:01 <chloa> how would i make a back up of my wallet? will i have to de install bitcoin then reinstall?
252 2012-03-22 09:49:28 <freewil> just close bitcoin for now
253 2012-03-22 09:49:39 <freewil> then you need to figure out where your wallet.dat file is stored
254 2012-03-22 09:49:46 <freewil> C:Documents and SettingsYourUserNameApplication dataBitcoin (XP)
255 2012-03-22 09:49:51 <freewil> C:UsersYourUserNameAppdataRoamingBitcoin (Vista and 7)
256 2012-03-22 09:49:58 <freewil> make a copy of that once you find it
257 2012-03-22 09:50:51 <chloa> ok, copy it to another folder?
258 2012-03-22 09:51:07 <freewil> yeah stick it in your my documents or somethin
259 2012-03-22 09:51:11 <chloa> so once i have the new bitcoin downloaded it should start working again
260 2012-03-22 09:51:21 <freewil> yeah it should
261 2012-03-22 09:51:23 <chloa> thanks for helping
262 2012-03-22 09:51:28 <freewil> this is just a precaution
263 2012-03-22 09:51:49 <chloa> so blockchain will update and the 14 bitcoins should flow thru? they are just currently stuck at moment right?
264 2012-03-22 09:52:47 <freewil> yeah hopefully
265 2012-03-22 09:53:05 <freewil> if not you can close bitcoin
266 2012-03-22 09:53:15 <freewil> and delete the blk*.dat files
267 2012-03-22 09:53:26 <freewil> and reopen and it should restart the download
268 2012-03-22 09:53:44 <chloa> many thankssss
269 2012-03-22 09:54:12 <freewil> no problem
270 2012-03-22 09:54:57 <chloa> i hope it works,
271 2012-03-22 09:55:26 <chloa> so guessing bitcoin needs to be downloaded frequently?
272 2012-03-22 09:55:50 <freewil> the longer you go between block downloads the longer it'll take to update
273 2012-03-22 09:56:23 <chloa> i see.
274 2012-03-22 09:56:39 <chloa> where do you buy bitcoins and do u transfer them to bitcoin walet?
275 2012-03-22 09:57:15 <freewil> well you can buy them off someone
276 2012-03-22 09:57:23 <freewil> looks like you already found where to buy them
277 2012-03-22 09:57:32 <freewil> i mine them
278 2012-03-22 09:58:13 <chloa> whats mine? sorry im new to this and eager to learn
279 2012-03-22 09:58:50 <freewil> thats where you use most commonly a gpu to try to find the hash to solve a block
280 2012-03-22 09:58:57 <freewil> if you solve a block you get bitcoins
281 2012-03-22 09:59:14 <chloa> ahh ok.
282 2012-03-22 09:59:21 <freewil> the chances of solving a block is like playing the lottery though
283 2012-03-22 09:59:30 <chloa> where can i find a list of legitimate people selling bitcoins?
284 2012-03-22 09:59:46 <freewil> so you can join a pool and get fractions of coins for contributing gpu power
285 2012-03-22 09:59:48 <chloa> so people pay you to solve their blocks?
286 2012-03-22 09:59:58 <freewil> yeah pretty much
287 2012-03-22 10:00:08 <freewil> chloa, try #bitcoin-otc
288 2012-03-22 10:00:45 <t7> mtgox
289 2012-03-22 10:01:07 <freewil> thats another exchange like intersango
290 2012-03-22 10:02:35 <chloa> cool, thanks
291 2012-03-22 10:02:49 <chloa> intersango was free now its charging
292 2012-03-22 10:04:43 <freewil> if you want to learn more there is a lot of useful info on the wiki https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page
293 2012-03-22 10:31:59 <sipa> vegard: it's.fixed now
294 2012-03-22 10:44:18 <rebroad> is it possible to make bitcoin report on what it's waiting for when the best block is still way behind the latest block? e.g. whether it's still calculating, or whether it's waiting to see a block on the network as a certain specification?
295 2012-03-22 10:44:31 <rebroad> *of
296 2012-03-22 10:48:03 <sturles> rebroad: tail -f ~/.bitcoin/debug.log
297 2012-03-22 10:52:54 <rebroad> sturles, I always do that.. but it's certainly not clear from the log, at least to me anyway
298 2012-03-22 10:53:24 <rebroad> Do these mean anything? :- ERROR: FetchInputs() : 110f7bfcb2 mapTransactions prev not found a54b61c111
299 2012-03-22 10:54:08 <sturles> It is never waiting to see a block.  It either has it, downloads the block from someone announcing it, or it don't know about it.
300 2012-03-22 10:54:17 <rebroad> and I'm also getting "ProcessMessage(alert, 192 bytes) FAILED"
301 2012-03-22 10:54:39 <rebroad> sturles, can it request this block from other nodes?
302 2012-03-22 10:55:09 <sipa> yes it can, and it does
303 2012-03-22 10:55:09 <sturles> This is a transaction where the inputs are unknown.  Your client is probably still downloading blocks or stuck.  What is your current block?
304 2012-03-22 10:55:28 <rebroad> 134299
305 2012-03-22 10:55:32 <sipa> actually, blocks are never sent without one requesting them
306 2012-03-22 10:55:59 <gribble> Error: "bc,block" is not a valid command.
307 2012-03-22 10:55:59 <sturles> ;;bc,block
308 2012-03-22 10:56:01 <sturles> ;;bc,blocks
309 2012-03-22 10:56:03 <gribble> 172340
310 2012-03-22 10:56:25 <sturles> ^ this is the current block.  Your client is either downloading blocks or stuck.
311 2012-03-22 10:56:32 <sipa> rebroad: you'll see "askfor block" in the log
312 2012-03-22 10:56:38 <sipa> when it requests blocks
313 2012-03-22 10:57:10 <rebroad> sipa, why isn't it requesting blocks then?
314 2012-03-22 10:57:31 <rebroad> there are no "askfor block"s since the last best block
315 2012-03-22 10:57:40 <sturles> Does it say "REORGANIZE" anywhere?
316 2012-03-22 10:57:50 <rebroad> sturles, no
317 2012-03-22 10:59:10 <sturles> Still at 134299
318 2012-03-22 10:59:12 <sturles> ?
319 2012-03-22 10:59:52 <rebroad> sturles, I've currently quit bitcoin-qt, but my main question was - what is it waiting for...? it's clearly not waiting for a block as it's not asked for it, so how do I tell what it is doing?
320 2012-03-22 11:00:31 <sturles> By reading debug.log or checking the status messages.
321 2012-03-22 11:00:59 <sturles> Since you qiut, it isn't doing anything right now. :-)
322 2012-03-22 11:01:22 <sipa> rebroad: it is not "waiting"; the bitcoin protocol is asynchronous, it just exchanges messags under specific conditions
323 2012-03-22 11:01:28 <rebroad> can it be made more user friendly by actually having a message somewhere to say "I'm now waiting for ....."
324 2012-03-22 11:01:55 <sipa> rebroad: does quitting and reopening work?
325 2012-03-22 11:01:57 <sturles> As sipa just wrote -- it isn't waiting.
326 2012-03-22 11:01:58 <rebroad> sipa, maybe a better quesiton I can ask is: what does it need to do before it asks for a block?
327 2012-03-22 11:02:07 <sipa> it needs to know it exists
328 2012-03-22 11:02:22 <sipa> and for that, it needs to be told so
329 2012-03-22 11:02:32 <sipa> it can however ask from another node which blocks it does know about
330 2012-03-22 11:02:37 <rebroad> ah.. ok.. now I'm geting somewhere... (with my understanding)... how does it find out it exists?
331 2012-03-22 11:02:55 <sipa> every new blocks' announcement is forwarded
332 2012-03-22 11:03:00 <sturles> It's peers tells it about it.
333 2012-03-22 11:03:15 <sturles> It should be connected to at least 8 other nodes.
334 2012-03-22 11:03:30 <rebroad> ok, but assuming I'm at block 134299, which is quite old... surely I should be able to ask "which block comes after block 143299"? no?
335 2012-03-22 11:03:38 <sipa> it did
336 2012-03-22 11:04:06 <sipa> but again: does quit/reopen help?
337 2012-03-22 11:04:35 <rebroad> ok, so shall I assume no node has answered?.. ah.. I can restart it, but I'm mostly wanting to understand how it works rather than troubleshoot it
338 2012-03-22 11:05:39 <rebroad> having seen it take close to 1 week so far to download the block chain, I am naturally keen to see this improved, and so am wanting to find the causes for the delays in getting up to date
339 2012-03-22 11:05:43 <sipa> it will eventually re-request blocks, but if the normal process gets disturbed it may taker some time
340 2012-03-22 11:08:38 <sipa> there are several improvements possible here
341 2012-03-22 11:09:11 <sipa> and now that we've managed to speed up the indexing/verifying part of chain downloading, the network will likely become the bottleneck on many systems
342 2012-03-22 11:14:52 <rebroad> sipa, hmmm... so what are the possible explanations? 1) a bug? 2) there are no nodes connected that know the next block after 134299 (unlikely?)  3) network bandwidth saturated (no, I think not), 4) cpu saturated (no also)... 5) ?
343 2012-03-22 11:15:14 <rebroad> I think it must be 1 or 5... right?
344 2012-03-22 11:18:56 <sturles> I/O is usually the bottleneck when you have come that far in downloading the blockchain.  Is your disk very slow?
345 2012-03-22 11:19:01 <rebroad> is it possible to view the current things askedfor, and when they were last requested?
346 2012-03-22 11:19:19 <sturles> Yes, in debug.log.
347 2012-03-22 11:19:22 <rebroad> sturles, what sort of disk I/O would it be doing?
348 2012-03-22 11:19:31 <sturles> Check db.log as well for database errors.
349 2012-03-22 11:19:38 <rebroad> sturles, how do i see the time they were askedfor?
350 2012-03-22 11:19:57 <rebroad> db.log is zero bytes in size
351 2012-03-22 11:20:07 <sturles> You can't unless you tail it through a script which adds timestamps.
352 2012-03-22 11:20:26 <rebroad> sturles, ah... that would be useful..
353 2012-03-22 11:20:56 <sturles> It reads and writes the blockchain, sorting out transactions to make sure it has got everythin right.
354 2012-03-22 11:21:39 <rebroad> what would be great would be a little window showing activity, like top, with a timestamp next to each thing
355 2012-03-22 11:22:04 <rebroad> so i can see what has been askedfor and when, and what it's currently doing.. e.g. calculations, etc
356 2012-03-22 11:25:07 <rebroad> I'm looking at util.cpp, it has one line that says "static FILE* fileout = NULL;", and then the next line says "if (!fileout)"!!! Why would it not be NULL?
357 2012-03-22 11:28:11 <rebroad> sturles, no need for a script.. ./bitcoin-qt -logtimestamps
358 2012-03-22 11:30:26 <rebroad> it would be nice if bitcoin could query environment variables instead of needing command line flags. e.g having BITCOIN_LOGTIMESTAMPS=TRUE would work also..
359 2012-03-22 11:30:56 <sturles> It has a configuration file.
360 2012-03-22 11:31:01 <rebroad> or a .bitcoinrc file, etc..
361 2012-03-22 11:31:16 <sturles> .bitcoin/bitcoin.conf
362 2012-03-22 11:32:34 <rebroad> ah... yes.. thanks, sturles
363 2012-03-22 11:37:53 <rebroad> this is weird... why is it that when bitcoin-qt exit, my chrome window restores?!
364 2012-03-22 11:41:51 <sipa> did anyone ever know about the existance of -loadblockindextest ?
365 2012-03-22 11:42:07 <sipa> it seems pointless, as -printblockindex does the same
366 2012-03-22 11:43:00 <rebroad> sipa, I don't think those flags are mentioned when doing a bitcoin-qt -help
367 2012-03-22 11:47:33 <rebroad> is it possible for an ISP, armed with the private key of a bitcoin wallet, to make the nodes of their ISP customers see a transaction from that wallet when the rest of the internet doesn't?
368 2012-03-22 11:49:42 <sipa> everyone sees all transactions
369 2012-03-22 11:50:57 <rebroad> sipa, in my example, the ISP has isolated their customers from the rest of the internet, so..
370 2012-03-22 11:51:23 <rebroad> sipa, or perhaps in a limited way... so that they can attack their customers who use bitcoin..
371 2012-03-22 11:51:26 <riush> in theory the isp could intercept the data and forward it only to its own customers
372 2012-03-22 11:52:21 <rebroad> could they generate blocks that only their customers would see? or would the difficulty still be as difficult as if their customers' nodes were connected to the rest of the internet?
373 2012-03-22 11:53:44 <riush> basically you mean 'can an isp own its bitcoin users'? - afais yes.
374 2012-03-22 11:54:10 <riush> at first, they would have to generate block just as hard as everyone else.. but if they isolated you from the network for the time it takes difficulty to go down, it becomes easier
375 2012-03-22 11:54:37 <riush> but likely people would notice quickly and i doubt an isp would do that
376 2012-03-22 11:56:04 <riush> and all it takes you to evade that is one encrypted tunnel
377 2012-03-22 11:57:42 <rebroad> so if the ISP mined a block, but with a much lower difficulty, the node would recognise that the difficulty was wrong, right?
378 2012-03-22 11:57:59 <riush> yes
379 2012-03-22 11:58:21 <rebroad> how does a node tell what difficulty the blocks should be? could the ISP fiddle with this so that they can wait until the difficulty goes down and then mine them?
380 2012-03-22 11:58:42 <rebroad> (forgetting for a moment, the possibility of an encrypted tunnel)
381 2012-03-22 11:59:00 <rebroad> (assuming that their customers use the standard protocol that the ISP can sniff)
382 2012-03-22 11:59:07 <gmaxwell> Can the bitcoin 101 be moved to #bitcoin? It's sort of flodding off the actual development talk here.
383 2012-03-22 11:59:36 <rebroad> gmaxwell, ok
384 2012-03-22 12:00:17 <riush> not sure i can explain that well.. basically there is a difficulty target which defines how much work has to be done for a block. now the nodes look at how many block are generated over time, and if there are more than 10 blocks per minute difficulty is raised, if tehre are less, it is lowered
385 2012-03-22 12:09:24 <sipa> I've made a list of all undocumented options in bitcoin:
386 2012-03-22 12:10:47 <sipa> genproclimit, disablesafemode, checkblocks, flushwallet, loadblockindextest, printblocktree, printblockindex, printblock, testsafemode, drop,essagetest
387 2012-03-22 12:11:08 <gmaxwell> logtimestamps is documented?
388 2012-03-22 12:13:20 <sipa> yes
389 2012-03-22 12:38:33 <gmaxwell> coblee: Any reports on addrman? Has it been working out okay for litecoin?
390 2012-03-22 12:39:35 <sipa> gmaxwell: i commented on github on the commit
391 2012-03-22 12:59:17 <gmaxwell> 03/22/12 13:57:56 Added 45311 addresses from 0.0.0.0: 0 tried, 1984 new
392 2012-03-22 12:59:18 <gmaxwell> 03/22/12 13:57:56 Loaded 1984 addresses
393 2012-03-22 12:59:30 <gmaxwell> ^ that looks a bit odd on a first startup of a node switching to addrman.
394 2012-03-22 13:02:49 <sipa> Suggestions?
395 2012-03-22 13:44:42 <gmaxwell> sipa: I'd be a little concerned with enabling all the new tests by default what if they start rejecting valid chains?  But enabling them in a warn only capacity would still be useful for troubleshooting and testing the tests.
396 2012-03-22 13:45:48 <sipa> gmaxwell: technically, they will reject valid chains (i.e. chains that will not cause any problems), but i'm quite sure they will not reject any chains that are created by the software
397 2012-03-22 13:46:40 <gmaxwell> Then perhaps I'm paranoid because I haven't even read the patch yet. :)
398 2012-03-22 13:47:16 <sipa> (when spending an output, the location of the spending transaction is written; this information is not used for anything but debugging, but it allows for some extra consistency checks)
399 2012-03-22 14:14:07 <luke-jr> "Due to the non-disclosure of security patch information from Oracle, we are forced to ship this upstream version update of MySQL 5.1 into all releases that carry MySQL 5.1. There are several known incompatible changes, which are listed below, taken from dev.mysql.com's changelogs, available here:http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/news-5-1-x.html"
400 2012-03-22 14:14:08 <luke-jr> ouch
401 2012-03-22 14:17:03 <kinlo> luke-jr: where do you read that?
402 2012-03-22 14:17:10 <luke-jr> kinlo: Debian updates
403 2012-03-22 14:17:15 <kinlo> oracle really does not like open source, or itselves
404 2012-03-22 14:17:17 <kinlo> ic
405 2012-03-22 14:17:35 <kinlo> well, let's hope debian switches far far away from oracle
406 2012-03-22 14:17:41 <[Tycho]> I don't like SQL :)
407 2012-03-22 14:18:18 <luke-jr> kinlo: I don't think Debian can stop offering MySQL that easily :P
408 2012-03-22 14:18:30 <sipa> I do, but only for certain purposes (and prefer Postgresql)
409 2012-03-22 14:18:37 <kinlo> luke-jr: why not?
410 2012-03-22 14:18:43 <luke-jr> kinlo: lots of people use MySQL
411 2012-03-22 14:19:04 <kinlo> luke-jr: there are plenty of forks of mysql, with proper support and with companies that understand open source
412 2012-03-22 14:19:23 <kinlo> luke-jr: they are drop-in replacements so I don't see the problem
413 2012-03-22 14:19:38 <kinlo> [Tycho]: you're using flat files for everything?
414 2012-03-22 14:20:18 <kinlo> luke-jr: in the end they will be using the same mysql database, just with new features developed by someone else...
415 2012-03-22 14:20:22 <luke-jr> kinlo: and those have this security fix?
416 2012-03-22 14:20:39 <kinlo> those have all the known security fixes fixed
417 2012-03-22 14:21:10 <kinlo> luke-jr: you cannot arm yourself against zero-day exploits, and as long as oracle doesn't disclose the info, you can treat it as a zero-day exploit
418 2012-03-22 14:21:33 <kinlo> it will only be a matter of time until someone figures out what the actual bug is and will write patches
419 2012-03-22 14:22:07 <kinlo> perhaps something debian should have done, but it's oracle who's to blame here
420 2012-03-22 14:22:24 <kinlo> sipa: postgresql is just too complex
421 2012-03-22 14:22:32 <jrmithdobbs> kinlo: but how many smarter people will find the bug and sell it to govs/etc before someone nicely fixes it for the community? (see: forbes article on vupen this morning)
422 2012-03-22 14:22:51 <kinlo> I've been advocating postgresql for ages, been using it since version 7.0 or so, but most people just get scared away
423 2012-03-22 14:23:03 <sipa> kinlo: could be; i never used mysql really
424 2012-03-22 14:23:13 <jrmithdobbs> if postgres is too complex you don't need an rdbms in the first place.
425 2012-03-22 14:23:15 <jrmithdobbs> simple as that.
426 2012-03-22 14:23:36 <sipa> that was back when mysql didn't provide real transaction isolation afaik
427 2012-03-22 14:23:41 <kinlo> jrmithdobbs: well, I agree, but never ever underestimate the dangers of large amounts of stupid people
428 2012-03-22 14:24:03 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: it still doesn't in all cases, heh
429 2012-03-22 14:24:14 <jrmithdobbs> mysql is such a clusterfuck
430 2012-03-22 14:25:01 <sipa> jrmithdobbs: i heard things improved over time, but never looked into it
431 2012-03-22 14:36:28 <egecko> http://www.tagelmoust.com/bitdozer/pressrelease
432 2012-03-22 14:38:17 <phantomcircuit> kinlo, postgresql isn't complex
433 2012-03-22 14:38:21 <phantomcircuit> it works
434 2012-03-22 14:38:26 <kinlo> phantomcircuit: I agree
435 2012-03-22 14:38:26 <phantomcircuit> there is a difference
436 2012-03-22 14:38:34 <kinlo> phantomcircuit: you don't have to convince me
437 2012-03-22 14:38:35 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: our DBAs bitch endlessly about the few mysql dbs we have ;p
438 2012-03-22 14:38:52 <kinlo> phantomcircuit: it's just some people just refuse to use it
439 2012-03-22 14:39:05 <phantomcircuit> sipa, mysql is what you get when you take shit and throw millions of dollars at it
440 2012-03-22 14:39:10 <phantomcircuit> ie it's still shit
441 2012-03-22 14:39:21 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: but these days, outside of replication and active/active stuff mysql isn't absolutely horrible, but almost all of the code written to use it is ;p
442 2012-03-22 14:40:06 <jrmithdobbs> select * from ...; WHY IS THIS SO SLOW *rolleyes*
443 2012-03-22 14:40:53 <phantomcircuit> any non trivial query in mysql will need to be screwed with to trick mysql into using the proper indexes
444 2012-03-22 14:40:58 <phantomcircuit> it's retarded
445 2012-03-22 14:42:52 <phantomcircuit> although to be fair i do have one query that is slow as fuck in postgresql
446 2012-03-22 14:42:58 <phantomcircuit> but i doubt it would be any better in mysql
447 2012-03-22 14:43:12 <phantomcircuit> (it's mostly my fault honestly)
448 2012-03-22 14:43:40 <copumpkin> I love postgresql
449 2012-03-22 14:43:51 <t7> me2
450 2012-03-22 14:44:00 <t7> but i still think sql is retarded
451 2012-03-22 14:44:14 <t7> i shouldnt have to write a search query as text in this day and age
452 2012-03-22 14:44:33 <t7> haskell should have introspection and reflection and stuff
453 2012-03-22 14:45:59 <sipa> t7: it #bitcoin-dev here, not #haskell :)
454 2012-03-22 14:46:24 <t7> yeah but everyone in here seems to be in haskell too
455 2012-03-22 14:47:12 <sipa> and writing your query as text: i'm quite sure that parsing the query takes much less time than building a query plan (which would be done dynamically anyway), and both are outweighed by the actual execution
456 2012-03-22 14:47:24 <gavinandresen> sipa:  your -walletupgrade patch scares me.... is a simpler patch possible?
457 2012-03-22 14:48:00 <phantomcircuit> sipa, actually for even reasonably sophisticated queries the time to plan can be significant
458 2012-03-22 14:48:12 <phantomcircuit> that's actually a very common mistake :)
459 2012-03-22 14:48:15 <sipa> gavinandresen: worst case: it upgrades more than it should, i.e. the current behaviour :)
460 2012-03-22 14:48:59 <sipa> gavinandresen: but now you can do something like start first time with -walletformat=40000 and be sure the created wallet will be readable by 0.4.0
461 2012-03-22 14:49:29 <gavinandresen> I like that feature.  It is the "maximum implicit version" that scares me
462 2012-03-22 14:49:29 <sipa> anyway, yes, it can be easier probably, not sure if it will be cleaner
463 2012-03-22 14:49:56 <gavinandresen> Seems like a simple:  -walletformat applies only when you create a new wallet should work
464 2012-03-22 14:50:50 <sipa> that's changing one line of code, but it may be useful, if you want to upgrade to one feature but not the very latest yet, for example
465 2012-03-22 14:51:14 <sipa> -walletupgrade is the same as -walletversion=$CLIENT_VERSION
466 2012-03-22 14:51:38 <gavinandresen> cool.  I don't understand what wallet.nWalletMaxVersion is for
467 2012-03-22 14:51:50 <sipa> it's the maximum version the wallet is allowed to upgrade to
468 2012-03-22 14:52:09 <gavinandresen> That seems overly complicated
469 2012-03-22 14:52:09 <sipa> the actual upgrade only happens when a particular feature is used (for example, generate a compressed pubkey)
470 2012-03-22 14:52:40 <gavinandresen> Why not just "a wallet has a version, it sticks to that version until you call -walletupgrade"
471 2012-03-22 14:52:57 <sipa> that's the case
472 2012-03-22 14:53:13 <gavinandresen> ... then why is nWalletMaxVersion persistent?
473 2012-03-22 14:53:13 <sipa> (or use -walletformat)
474 2012-03-22 14:53:17 <sipa> it's not
475 2012-03-22 14:53:35 <sipa> may it needs a "memory only" comment
476 2012-03-22 14:53:57 <sipa> *maybe
477 2012-03-22 14:54:43 <sipa> one question: if i have a 0.3.19 wallet, load it into 0.6.0, and encrypt it, should it switch to using compressed pubkeys (which are an even more recent feature) as well?
478 2012-03-22 14:54:45 <gavinandresen> OK-- I got scared because I had trouble following where nWalletVersion/nWalletMaxVersion and db.walletminversion (or whatever it is) all get set
479 2012-03-22 14:54:57 <sipa> i'll try to add some comments
480 2012-03-22 14:55:14 <gavinandresen> ...and it wasn't at all clear how the interacted.  Could the version be passed to the wallet constructor?
481 2012-03-22 14:55:23 <gavinandresen> (the non-read-from-file one)
482 2012-03-22 14:55:47 <gavinandresen> RE: 0.3.19 encrypted:  yes, I think it should always use the latest&greatest
483 2012-03-22 14:55:55 <sipa> ok, that's the case now
484 2012-03-22 14:56:38 <gavinandresen> RE: -walletupgrade == -walletversion=$CLIENT_VERSION:  maybe it should just be -walletupgrade with an optional version argument
485 2012-03-22 14:57:35 <gavinandresen> ... and error if you're trying to downgrade past db.minversion
486 2012-03-22 14:57:35 <sipa> ok, that's possible
487 2012-03-22 15:10:51 <sipa> gavinandresen: so if you start at first run with -walletupgrade=40000, you'll get a wallet that does not use compressed pubkeys
488 2012-03-22 15:11:12 <gavinandresen> sounds good
489 2012-03-22 15:11:41 <luke-jr> might make sense to parse v?d.d.d format
490 2012-03-22 15:11:43 <gavinandresen> (will be VERY handy for testing, I'm sure....)
491 2012-03-22 15:12:14 <sipa> luke-jr: in the GUI, sure
492 2012-03-22 15:12:31 <gavinandresen> yeah, not worth the coding effort for command-line usage
493 2012-03-22 15:12:51 <gavinandresen> (and RPC getinfo will return the integer form)
494 2012-03-22 15:18:53 <sipa> new version pushed
495 2012-03-22 15:19:20 <luke-jr> Can anyone build native Win32 besides wumpus?
496 2012-03-22 15:19:29 <gavinandresen> great, I'll take a look.  I pulled addrman and check-minversion-first
497 2012-03-22 15:23:22 <sipa> is anyone up to coding a "Your wallet does not use the latest supported format. Do you want to upgrade? You will not be able to open your wallet in versions below X afterwards. [ Yes, upgrade] [ No, continue ]" ?
498 2012-03-22 15:23:30 <sipa> dialog in qt?
499 2012-03-22 15:25:10 <luke-jr> sipa: that should probably wait for 0.7, since it requires all the translators
500 2012-03-22 15:25:51 <sipa> Ah, hmm.
501 2012-03-22 15:25:54 <gavinandresen> yes, definitely 0.7
502 2012-03-22 15:25:58 <sipa> Ok.
503 2012-03-22 15:26:39 <gavinandresen> sipa:  I think -walletupgrade should write a version to the wallet if !firstRun.  Otherwise, I have to generate a new key to get the new version number written to my old wallet, right?
504 2012-03-22 15:28:35 <sipa> Yes, that's probably more intuitive (though you may end up with wallets that are able to be loaded in older versions, but fail to do so)
505 2012-03-22 15:30:31 <gavinandresen> I think a common case will be somebody with a version 0 wallet wanting compressed keys, running -walletupgrade once, and then being really confused when the run again and still don't get compressed keys.
506 2012-03-22 15:30:52 <gavinandresen> (well, not common, but common enough to worry about)
507 2012-03-22 15:31:39 <sipa> Agree; i'll only do that for -walletupgrade and not for -walletupgrade=X, though (so you don't write -walletupgrade=50000, and it will fail to load in 0.4.1, even though no features were added in between)
508 2012-03-22 15:31:53 <gavinandresen> sipa: ACK
509 2012-03-22 15:32:24 <gavinandresen> (I'm 100% ok with =X being an undocumented "for testing only" feature)
510 2012-03-22 15:43:37 <sipa> gavinandresen: new version pushed; i'll do some tests later
511 2012-03-22 15:44:02 <gavinandresen> sipa: great, thanks.  I'm testing -checkblocks now
512 2012-03-22 15:53:54 <rebroad> my bitcoin-qt last got a best block over 30 minutes ago.. and last asked for one 8 minutes ago... last best block was 142418...
513 2012-03-22 15:54:21 <rebroad> running a strace on it, it seems to be spending most of it's time dealing with EAGAIN results from reads...
514 2012-03-22 15:55:33 <rebroad> ah.. it just asked for more blocks, 10 minutes later..
515 2012-03-22 15:55:50 <rebroad> 10 minutes seems rather long to wait..
516 2012-03-22 15:56:08 <sipa> rebroad: if there's a new block, that's a queue for downloading its dependencies
517 2012-03-22 15:56:16 <sipa> ;;bc,tslb
518 2012-03-22 15:56:17 <gribble> Time since last block: 25 seconds
519 2012-03-22 15:56:37 <rebroad> block 142419 is hardly "new"...
520 2012-03-22 15:57:14 <sipa> but are you still stuck?
521 2012-03-22 15:57:24 <sipa> or is it downloading now?
522 2012-03-22 15:57:29 <rebroad> no, it's moved on..
523 2012-03-22 15:57:33 <rebroad> it's at 142541 now
524 2012-03-22 15:57:43 <rebroad> but I'm trying to work out why it's so slow..
525 2012-03-22 15:57:49 <rebroad> can anything be done to speed it up?
526 2012-03-22 15:57:58 <sipa> rebroad: which code version are you running?
527 2012-03-22 15:58:07 <rebroad> perhaps making is ask more often than 10 minutes?
528 2012-03-22 15:58:17 <sipa> it is NOT asking every 10 minutes
529 2012-03-22 15:58:27 <sipa> if there's an announcement for a new block, and your client doesn't have its dependencies, it will request those
530 2012-03-22 15:58:31 <rebroad> according to debug.log it was 10 minutes
531 2012-03-22 15:58:53 <rebroad> ah...
532 2012-03-22 15:59:33 <rebroad> but surely it should already have seen announcements for blocks more recent than block 142418
533 2012-03-22 15:59:39 <rebroad> (from previous runs)
534 2012-03-22 16:00:03 <rebroad> doesn't it remember those announcements between instances of the process?
535 2012-03-22 16:00:08 <sipa> no
536 2012-03-22 16:00:16 <rebroad> oh.. why not?
537 2012-03-22 16:00:35 <rebroad> that could save up to a 40 minute wait right there
538 2012-03-22 16:00:35 <sipa> there's no point in it; it doesn't even remember them for more than some minutes, afaik
539 2012-03-22 16:01:01 <sipa> it still needs to download them, and it's not not getting new announcements that causes your delay
540 2012-03-22 16:01:03 <rebroad> avoiding 40 minutes of waiting seems like a point to me
541 2012-03-22 16:01:57 <sipa> did the previous block take 40 minutes?
542 2012-03-22 16:02:37 <sipa> rebroad: the problem is that the downloading process is not parallellized, and that it doesn't manage it particularly well
543 2012-03-22 16:02:55 <sipa> there are many improvements possible, but trust me, saving the announcements will not help
544 2012-03-22 16:03:28 <rebroad> it would just be nice if upon running bitcoin-qt, it started downloading the blocks straight away, rather than waiting for the announcement of a new one
545 2012-03-22 16:03:44 <rebroad> parallellized or not
546 2012-03-22 16:04:58 <sipa> rebroad: in almost every case that is what will happen, you probably just had bad luck trying a peer which went offline or didn't respond or is very slow
547 2012-03-22 16:05:29 <sipa> rebroad: the clients requests blocks at startup, so it will get new announcements for all blocks it doesn't have
548 2012-03-22 16:05:43 <sipa> but it's always possible that the other doesn't respond
549 2012-03-22 16:05:54 <rebroad> sipa, well, bad luck or not.. it's enough that it's causing days to download the current blockchain... I just want to make it more friendly for people with similar net connections as me
550 2012-03-22 16:06:35 <sipa> rebroad: yes, and i agree there are several improvements possible (btw, latest git has a patch that should make it a lot faster already)
551 2012-03-22 16:06:51 <sipa> it is known that it is not optimal, but what you're suggesting will not fix that
552 2012-03-22 16:08:38 <BlueMatt> headers first, download from multiple peers, handle evil peers so it doesnt take days to get chain if the first peer doesnt like us
553 2012-03-22 16:08:41 <BlueMatt> etc, etc
554 2012-03-22 16:08:54 <rebroad> also.. curious to know why nRequestTime is multiplied by 600000000.. seems like a lot of zeros in the debug.log for no apparent reason
555 2012-03-22 16:09:54 <rebroad> BlueMatt, are you saying it's not using multiple peers currently?
556 2012-03-22 16:10:14 <sipa> not really, no
557 2012-03-22 16:10:18 <sipa> not for downloading blocks
558 2012-03-22 16:10:36 <rebroad> erm..... ok....
559 2012-03-22 16:10:59 <rebroad> and that's still trustworthy then?
560 2012-03-22 16:11:06 <sipa> yes
561 2012-03-22 16:11:19 <sipa> the problem is that downloading and verification and indexing and connecting happen at the same time, so you can't do more than one at the same time
562 2012-03-22 16:11:25 <BlueMatt> its sane when it hears about new blocks, but  initial download almost entirely happens from one peer
563 2012-03-22 16:11:43 <sipa> rebroad: it's simple: you always download a block from the peer that told you about it
564 2012-03-22 16:12:07 <rebroad> what sort of trouble could evil peers cause?
565 2012-03-22 16:12:07 <sipa> if you don't know a block's dependencies, you request those from the one who told you about the block
566 2012-03-22 16:12:12 <sipa> none
567 2012-03-22 16:12:23 <sipa> since you'll hear from the real blocks from other peers
568 2012-03-22 16:12:24 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: FourthDr opened issue 977 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/977> || Diapolo opened pull request 976 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/976>
569 2012-03-22 16:12:25 <BlueMatt> only delay your download
570 2012-03-22 16:12:31 <rebroad> so, there's no such thing as an evil peer then?
571 2012-03-22 16:12:34 <rebroad> ah, ok
572 2012-03-22 16:12:35 <sipa> yes there is
573 2012-03-22 16:12:41 <sipa> but their influence is limited
574 2012-03-22 16:13:01 <sipa> if an attacker can surround you with bad peers, it becomes more dangerous
575 2012-03-22 16:13:02 <rebroad> limited, but not negligible?
576 2012-03-22 16:13:04 <BlueMatt> it could slow your download significantly if they are the first peer you connect to, and are well connected themselves (ie usually are the first to give you notice of new blocks)
577 2012-03-22 16:13:24 <sipa> but as long as you are connected to at least one good peer, you will always get the real chain
578 2012-03-22 16:13:26 <rebroad> dangerous? what can happen if a node gets surrounded?
579 2012-03-22 16:13:27 <BlueMatt> but even then one block from someone else first, and their hold on your download speed is gone
580 2012-03-22 16:13:50 <sipa> rebroad: slow you down, put you an in invalid chain, ... (but they can't give you invalid transactions)
581 2012-03-22 16:14:25 <rebroad> ah, but if I'm in an invalid chain, I could be the victim of a double-spend, right?
582 2012-03-22 16:14:39 <sipa> yes
583 2012-03-22 16:14:44 <rebroad> that's pretty serious..
584 2012-03-22 16:14:52 <sipa> it is, but very hard to pull off
585 2012-03-22 16:15:15 <rebroad> maybe this is another good reason why I ought to be able to have more than 8 connections..
586 2012-03-22 16:15:51 <sipa> rebroad: your 8 outgoing connections are to peers you choose
587 2012-03-22 16:15:53 <sipa> not your attacker
588 2012-03-22 16:16:00 <sipa> the chance that they are all bad is very small
589 2012-03-22 16:16:12 <rebroad> ah...  so an attacker can't influence the outgoing connections?
590 2012-03-22 16:16:17 <sipa> a bit
591 2012-03-22 16:16:20 <sipa> but not enough
592 2012-03-22 16:16:57 <rebroad> i see... so is a node any more vulnerable by being able to receive incoming connections? I'd have thought not given they will stil have those 8 outgoing connections..
593 2012-03-22 16:20:29 <BlueMatt> no, but you have to assume that all incomming connections are from your attacker
594 2012-03-22 16:20:46 <BlueMatt> thus you still have to have enough outgoing no matter how many incoming connections you have
595 2012-03-22 16:23:18 <rebroad> is bitcoin properly catering for the large number of people using internet connections that disallow incoming connections?
596 2012-03-22 16:23:53 <rebroad> I'm getting the impression that incoming connections can make quite a difference, but it may be a false impression
597 2012-03-22 16:24:08 <BlueMatt> they make no difference to the local user - just more bw used
598 2012-03-22 16:24:19 <BlueMatt> but to the network - they make a world of difference
599 2012-03-22 16:24:27 <BlueMatt> the more nodes that accept incoming connections, the beter
600 2012-03-22 16:24:42 <BlueMatt> also, if your isp blocks ALL incoming connections, you arent on an isp
601 2012-03-22 16:24:55 <BlueMatt> you are on...I dunno, but its not the internet
602 2012-03-22 16:24:57 <luke-jr> rebroad: where is this large number?
603 2012-03-22 16:25:20 <rebroad> luke-jr, well, firstly, all people using T-Mobile..
604 2012-03-22 16:25:22 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: yeah, I think people who have NSPs should start a class action suit for false advertising if they claim Internet service
605 2012-03-22 16:25:28 <luke-jr> rebroad: nonsense, I have T-Mobile
606 2012-03-22 16:25:32 <helo> many routers from isps use nat, which prevents incoming connections
607 2012-03-22 16:25:39 <luke-jr> rebroad: the problem there is that Bitcoin-Qt is IPv4 only
608 2012-03-22 16:25:41 <rebroad> luke-jr, mobile T-Mobile?
609 2012-03-22 16:25:43 <luke-jr> rebroad: yes
610 2012-03-22 16:25:57 <luke-jr> rebroad: I can accept incoming IPv6 connections just fine
611 2012-03-22 16:25:59 <rebroad> luke-jr, how do you enable incoming connections?
612 2012-03-22 16:26:05 <sipa> rebroad: the limitation of 8 outgoing connections is exactly because many people don't support incoming connections
613 2012-03-22 16:26:24 <BlueMatt> rebroad: ok, if you are on a cell modem that doesnt allow incoming connections (fair enough, most dont) I would argue you arent on the internet
614 2012-03-22 16:26:28 <sipa> (and also because it's not necessary)
615 2012-03-22 16:26:32 <BlueMatt> you are on...
616 2012-03-22 16:27:28 <luke-jr> rebroad: I don't. I just connect.
617 2012-03-22 16:27:43 <rebroad> luke-jr, using a dongle, or tethering?
618 2012-03-22 16:27:52 <luke-jr> rebroad: netiher
619 2012-03-22 16:28:06 <rebroad> luke-jr, how then?
620 2012-03-22 16:28:11 <luke-jr> it's builtin to my laptop
621 2012-03-22 16:28:13 <freewil> anyone know how many nodes mt gox has and whether they accept incoming connections
622 2012-03-22 16:28:34 <luke-jr> freewil: #mtgox
623 2012-03-22 16:29:20 <helo> is there a reason why i've received four mailing list digests today, two of which contain only one message?
624 2012-03-22 16:29:48 <BlueMatt> sf sucks?
625 2012-03-22 16:29:52 <luke-jr> helo: some messages were over 40k and required moderator to send them
626 2012-03-22 16:30:17 <luke-jr> Gavin already complained at them
627 2012-03-22 16:30:19 <helo> ahh right, they've quoted the entire thread
628 2012-03-22 16:30:35 <helo> fair enough, thanks
629 2012-03-22 16:44:55 <rebroad> erm.... why does chrome unminimise when bitcoin-qt exits? almost every time it does it
630 2012-03-22 16:47:48 <luke-jr> rebroad: what OS?
631 2012-03-22 16:49:08 <rebroad> luke-jr, ubuntu 11.10
632 2012-03-22 16:49:34 <helo> rebroad: are you using unity?
633 2012-03-22 16:49:37 <rebroad> I thought when -connect was specified on the command line, that any addnodes in the bitcoin.conf would be ignored...
634 2012-03-22 16:49:39 <rebroad> helo, yes
635 2012-03-22 16:50:11 <helo> rebroad: and chrome from deb http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/ stable main?
636 2012-03-22 16:50:28 <rebroad> helo, I think so, yes, the default ubuntu chrome
637 2012-03-22 16:50:45 <helo> that's what i'm using at home, haven't noticed that before...
638 2012-03-22 16:51:14 <rebroad> hmmm. I just quit it again, and it didn't do it this time..
639 2012-03-22 16:51:40 <luke-jr> >_<
640 2012-03-22 16:53:23 <rebroad> hmmmm..  bitcoin-qt -connect=moorlane.no-ip.com doesn't seem to work... looking at the debug.log, it's not even trying to connect...
641 2012-03-22 16:54:29 <sipa> rebroad: add -dns
642 2012-03-22 16:54:40 <sipa> by default it does not perform dns lookups
643 2012-03-22 16:55:00 <gavinandresen> (on purpose, dns lookups are a potential privacy leak)
644 2012-03-22 16:55:17 <rebroad> ah... thanks...
645 2012-03-22 16:56:03 <rebroad> hmmm.. it's connected (twice, according to debug.log), but the last update in debug.log is about ThreadDNSAddressSeed exiting, and it seems to be doing nothing now.
646 2012-03-22 16:56:41 <rebroad> I guess it's waiting for the announcment of a new block...
647 2012-03-22 16:56:53 <sipa> are you fully synced now?
648 2012-03-22 16:56:56 <rebroad> ho hum.. I love waiting..
649 2012-03-22 16:57:04 <rebroad> sipa, no
650 2012-03-22 16:57:21 <sipa> then it should continue sycning; which version are you running?
651 2012-03-22 16:57:49 <rebroad> 0.6.0.4-beta
652 2012-03-22 16:58:03 <sipa> luke-jr: -addnode -connect -proxy afaik
653 2012-03-22 16:58:40 <luke-jr> sipa: all of which the user specifies& so why an extra option? XD
654 2012-03-22 16:59:02 <sipa> unsure; some people didn't want dns lookups even for those
655 2012-03-22 16:59:11 <luke-jr> then they shouldn't provide a hostname?
656 2012-03-22 16:59:44 <andytoshi> maybe dns lookups do not necessarily go through tor
657 2012-03-22 16:59:49 <andytoshi> so to avoid mistakes
658 2012-03-22 16:59:55 <BlueMatt> sipa: did you figure out what the addrman crashes were before merge, or were they too rarely reproduceable?
659 2012-03-22 17:00:00 <luke-jr> on that note, I've been using addnode=relay.eligius.st for a while and never noticed it failed
660 2012-03-22 17:00:17 <luke-jr> andytoshi: well, then maybe it should be a Tor-specific default :P
661 2012-03-22 17:00:18 <andytoshi> or if they're letting people remotely set -addnode parameters?
662 2012-03-22 17:00:19 <sipa> BlueMatt: i've been running my p2pool miner for 3 days on addrman in valgrind; not a single error
663 2012-03-22 17:00:27 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: too rare I guess
664 2012-03-22 17:00:41 <BlueMatt> there were changes made to addrman after the most recent crashes?
665 2012-03-22 17:00:42 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I also ran addrman again locally, but didn't get a crash before Gavin merged it
666 2012-03-22 17:00:44 <luke-jr> no
667 2012-03-22 17:00:48 <BlueMatt> :(
668 2012-03-22 17:01:00 <BlueMatt> well it looks like 0.6rc5 is gonna be a big one...
669 2012-03-22 17:01:03 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: there's also a slight possibility something in next-test has bad interaction with it
670 2012-03-22 17:01:08 <luke-jr> but I have no idea what that would be
671 2012-03-22 17:01:31 <BlueMatt> I thought sipa said he saw a crash as well at one point or another?
672 2012-03-22 17:01:33 <luke-jr> addrman is pretty distinct from everything else
673 2012-03-22 17:02:13 <sipa> BlueMatt: reported by luke-jr
674 2012-03-22 17:02:16 <sipa> that's the only one
675 2012-03-22 17:02:25 <luke-jr> in any case, it seems rare enough that it shouldn't be a blocker for 0.6.0 IMO
676 2012-03-22 17:02:25 <rebroad> luke-jr, that node disconnected me almost straight away...
677 2012-03-22 17:02:26 <BlueMatt> mmm, ok well then I guess I feel fine about it...
678 2012-03-22 17:02:30 <sipa> gavin had one before the lastest change
679 2012-03-22 17:02:37 <luke-jr> rebroad: which one?
680 2012-03-22 17:02:40 <BlueMatt> ok, well whatever
681 2012-03-22 17:02:46 <rebroad> relay.eligius.st
682 2012-03-22 17:03:11 <rebroad> 22/03/12 18:01:36 trying connection 173.242.112.53:8333 lastseen=-342344.2hrs lasttry=-370122.0hrs
683 2012-03-22 17:03:12 <luke-jr> rebroad: there's 2 IPs there
684 2012-03-22 17:03:18 <luke-jr> try the other one :p
685 2012-03-22 17:03:25 <rebroad> lol
686 2012-03-22 17:03:48 <rebroad> oh.. so the dns resolving isn't very.. erm.. complete....
687 2012-03-22 17:05:05 <rebroad> hmmm. connection to just one node...  it's sending getdatas.. but seemingly not getting any
688 2012-03-22 17:05:33 <rebroad> ah.. it just unminimised chrome again!
689 2012-03-22 17:05:33 <sipa> can you run -debug and paste your log somewhere?
690 2012-03-22 17:06:53 <rebroad> oooh. it like the eligius.st node :)
691 2012-03-22 17:07:10 <rebroad> sipa, this was when i was connecting to moorlane.no-ip.com node only...
692 2012-03-22 17:07:22 <rebroad> sipa that it didn't seem to get any ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
693 2012-03-22 17:08:09 <sipa> rebroad: doesn't matter; if it's really not catching up from anywhere, there may be a problem with your blockchain or some other bug
694 2012-03-22 17:08:14 <sipa> i'd like to see the full log
695 2012-03-22 17:08:20 <rebroad> sipa, ok
696 2012-03-22 17:08:52 <rebroad> the unminimising of chome is both amusing and annoying :)
697 2012-03-22 17:10:02 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: #946 looks good
698 2012-03-22 17:15:31 <rebroad> sipa, shall I email it to you?
699 2012-03-22 17:16:00 <sipa> rebroad: see pm
700 2012-03-22 17:17:15 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: RE: addrman:  I think the DoS prevention benefit is worth the late-in-the-cycle risk.  I couldn't reproduce a crash, either (and I tried pretty hard)
701 2012-03-22 17:17:48 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: had a chance to look at the boost::interprocess problem yet?  That and testing sipa's -walletupgrade are the only things left on my 0.6 list
702 2012-03-22 17:23:23 <sipa> gavinandresen: i don't get it; i pass -walletupgrade and GetBoolArg("-walletupgrade", false) returns false
703 2012-03-22 17:24:52 <gavinandresen> sipa: I'm staring at the GetBoolArg code and I don't get it either....
704 2012-03-22 17:25:02 <gavinandresen> sure one of those l's isn't a 1 ?
705 2012-03-22 17:25:46 <sipa> -walletupgrade vs -upgradewallet
706 2012-03-22 17:25:49 <sipa> preference?
707 2012-03-22 17:25:55 <gavinandresen> that'd do it....
708 2012-03-22 17:26:25 <sipa> -walletupgrade it is
709 2012-03-22 17:26:27 <gavinandresen> we've got other verb-noun options, I think
710 2012-03-22 17:26:36 <gavinandresen> -logtimestamps
711 2012-03-22 17:26:42 <gavinandresen> -checkblocks
712 2012-03-22 17:26:50 <gavinandresen> ... so I think -upgradewallet
713 2012-03-22 17:27:10 <sipa> ok
714 2012-03-22 17:27:51 <gavinandresen> (and then there's the oddball "-blocknotify" ....)
715 2012-03-22 17:28:39 <luke-jr> it's not notifying the blocks though ;)
716 2012-03-22 17:28:46 <gavinandresen> true
717 2012-03-22 17:29:09 <gavinandresen> AFK for a while-- I'm packing to leave for a long weekend, but I'll bring along my gitian-capable laptop
718 2012-03-22 18:07:04 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: don't merge my PGP key, I'm about to replace it
719 2012-03-22 18:07:18 <luke-jr> 1kbit is apparently insufficient nowadays, so making a 16kbit one
720 2012-03-22 18:26:35 <andytoshi> has anyone tried compiling with clang?
721 2012-03-22 18:26:50 <andytoshi> i'm trying to run the analyzer, and it's bombing out in the c++ headers :P
722 2012-03-22 18:35:07 <sipa> luke-jr: a 3072 bit key has +- the same security level as bitcoin's signatures
723 2012-03-22 18:35:39 <luke-jr> sipa: o.o
724 2012-03-22 18:35:53 <luke-jr> sipa: but I can change my Bitcoin keys easily
725 2012-03-22 18:35:55 <luke-jr> :p
726 2012-03-22 18:35:56 <andytoshi> oh, ECC
727 2012-03-22 18:36:00 <luke-jr> sipa: I'll use 4096 for my subkeys
728 2012-03-22 18:36:10 <jrmithdobbs> andytoshi: it doesn't build with clang
729 2012-03-22 18:36:25 <jrmithdobbs> andytoshi: i futzed with it some and gave up
730 2012-03-22 18:37:51 <sipa> luke-jr: i have a permanent 4k main key, and separate smaller subkeys for signing and encrypting
731 2012-03-22 18:38:24 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: havent yet, I may take a look today, if not tomorrow
732 2012-03-22 18:38:33 <sipa> i wish gpg supported ECC
733 2012-03-22 18:38:34 <BlueMatt> damn tests to study for...
734 2012-03-22 18:38:52 <andytoshi> jrmithdobbs: alright thanks, it's looking pretty thorny
735 2012-03-22 18:39:10 <andytoshi> default c++ lib has c++0x crap that llvm doesn't understand, and the alternate one makes clang segfault
736 2012-03-22 18:39:18 <andytoshi> so i'll just stay happy with cppcheck
737 2012-03-22 18:39:25 <andytoshi> which gives 3 errors, none of them actual bugs
738 2012-03-22 18:40:09 <luke-jr> sipa: apparnetly it has since 2010&
739 2012-03-22 18:40:27 <luke-jr> but only 256,384,521 bit
740 2012-03-22 18:40:43 <BlueMatt> 521?
741 2012-03-22 18:40:55 <sipa> 521 bit ECC = 15kbut RSA
742 2012-03-22 18:40:59 <sipa> kbit
743 2012-03-22 18:41:04 <sipa> yes, 521
744 2012-03-22 18:41:08 <BlueMatt> oh...
745 2012-03-22 18:41:24 <luke-jr> but ECDSA can't do encryption&
746 2012-03-22 18:41:41 <sipa> ECIES can
747 2012-03-22 18:42:24 <sipa> (which is ECDH+AES)
748 2012-03-22 18:43:19 <andytoshi> what does ECDH stand for?
749 2012-03-22 18:43:48 <BlueMatt> elliptic curve diffie hellman
750 2012-03-22 18:43:56 <BlueMatt> iirc
751 2012-03-22 18:43:58 <andytoshi> thx
752 2012-03-22 18:44:06 <luke-jr> "The ECC support accomplished in this project was successfully merged into mainline GnuPG v.2 source tree in Feb 2011."
753 2012-03-22 18:44:16 <luke-jr> so where is it? -.-
754 2012-03-22 18:45:20 <phantomcircuit> probably in libgcrypt
755 2012-03-22 18:46:26 <luke-jr> if I build gnupg from git and use ECC, will my keys/sigs work with older versions? <.<
756 2012-03-22 18:46:39 <sipa> probably not
757 2012-03-22 18:47:02 <andytoshi> ECC occurs exactly once in gcrypt.h (and never in gcrypt-module.h) fwiw
758 2012-03-22 18:47:02 <BlueMatt> I would hope non-ecc keys would
759 2012-03-22 18:47:19 <andytoshi> 1044 /* Return an S-expression with the parameters of the named ECC curve
760 2012-03-22 18:47:22 <andytoshi> 1045    NAME.  ALGO must be set to an ECC algorithm.  */
761 2012-03-22 18:47:24 <andytoshi> 1046 gcry_sexp_t gcry_pk_get_param (int algo, const char *name);
762 2012-03-22 18:47:57 <andytoshi> oh, i see.. it has a ton of stuff
763 2012-03-22 18:48:09 <andytoshi> if you set algo to EC_DSA, all the *_pk_* functions will use ECC
764 2012-03-22 18:48:19 <andytoshi> so phantomcircuit is correct
765 2012-03-22 18:48:38 <phantomcircuit> yeah
766 2012-03-22 18:48:49 <phantomcircuit> there is a *ton* of stuff in libgcrypt that nobody ever uses
767 2012-03-22 18:48:50 <phantomcircuit> lol
768 2012-03-22 18:49:02 <andytoshi> i wonder if a bitcoin client could use gcrypt instead of openssl, and get around the licencing problems?
769 2012-03-22 18:50:04 <luke-jr> probably
770 2012-03-22 18:50:18 <BlueMatt> is gcrypt gpl or lgpl?
771 2012-03-22 18:50:20 <andytoshi> actually, what is the point of libgcrypt when openssl already exists?
772 2012-03-22 18:50:27 <andytoshi> lgpl
773 2012-03-22 18:50:53 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: LGPL
774 2012-03-22 18:50:54 <andytoshi> just gnu trying to fight the evil MIT and BSD licenses?
775 2012-03-22 18:51:01 <BlueMatt> probably
776 2012-03-22 18:51:06 <luke-jr> andytoshi: OpenSSL has licensing issues, it's not normal MIT/BSD
777 2012-03-22 18:52:44 <luke-jr> bleh, I need to replace BIP17 with BIP16 in #bitcoin-watch
778 2012-03-22 18:59:13 <luke-jr> anyone care to test a BIP16 txn on mainnet? <.<
779 2012-03-22 18:59:22 <luke-jr> and/or review my code?
780 2012-03-22 19:03:08 <luke-jr> https://gitorious.org/~Luke-Jr/bitcoin/luke-jrs-supybot-btcmonitor/commit/bf45ee2e0f7e6ef8bb731b9192cc7ee2a76c6de4
781 2012-03-22 19:04:39 <luke-jr> oops https://gitorious.org/~Luke-Jr/bitcoin/luke-jrs-supybot-btcmonitor/commit/eabd3eb
782 2012-03-22 19:10:31 <luke-jr> sipa: any opinion on whether 'a1a0469 More debug output for failed reorganizations' should be merged to stable?
783 2012-03-22 19:15:29 <sipa> luke-jr: technically not a bug fix, but probably useful; go ahead
784 2012-03-22 19:15:33 <Mr-saya1> hello ! i want something to be added into bitcoin charts website if its possible , can i request or what can i do ?
785 2012-03-22 19:15:50 <sipa> tcatm: you operate bitcoincharts, no?
786 2012-03-22 19:18:10 <Mr-saya1> i am a technical analyst and id really appreciate some thing added ,
787 2012-03-22 19:19:08 <luke-jr> sipa: #948 depends on #930, right? any reason to rush them into stable before 0.6.0?
788 2012-03-22 19:21:54 <sipa> luke-jr: they are independent, but i wouldn't put 948 in stable yet
789 2012-03-22 19:27:34 <andytoshi> grr, stupid library making me re-enter my card number every few hours
790 2012-03-22 19:27:41 <andytoshi> i have to disable tor and noscript to do it, too
791 2012-03-22 19:35:15 <MaxSan1> anyone about please
792 2012-03-22 19:35:36 <MaxSan1> having a freak out here
793 2012-03-22 19:35:44 <MaxSan1> think client has corrupted a few hundread of my coins
794 2012-03-22 19:36:03 <sipa> what do you see?
795 2012-03-22 19:36:35 <andytoshi> the coins, i assure you, are safe -- the only thing that could be corrupted is your privkeys
796 2012-03-22 19:36:42 <andytoshi> please back up wallet.dat before doing anything else
797 2012-03-22 19:37:00 <MaxSan1> ok
798 2012-03-22 19:37:11 <MaxSan1> I am using a USB secure drive as my cold storage
799 2012-03-22 19:37:17 <MaxSan1> only check it very infrequently
800 2012-03-22 19:37:28 <MaxSan1> its runnign multibit
801 2012-03-22 19:37:34 <andytoshi> hmm
802 2012-03-22 19:37:49 <MaxSan1> i sent 413 coins to to this a while ago
803 2012-03-22 19:38:00 <andytoshi> to what address?
804 2012-03-22 19:38:03 <MaxSan1> now it says only 389.99 came
805 2012-03-22 19:38:16 <MaxSan1> but the remaing split of to a different address
806 2012-03-22 19:38:22 <MaxSan1> that my ORIGINAL client owns
807 2012-03-22 19:38:36 <sipa> that's very normal
808 2012-03-22 19:38:41 <andytoshi> do you have a blockexplorer link?
809 2012-03-22 19:38:50 <MaxSan1> one moment
810 2012-03-22 19:40:39 <MaxSan1> http://blockexplorer.com/block/000000000000059457f9ce90b930967909d636f787c08bb5294a14bfb61433f0
811 2012-03-22 19:40:45 <MaxSan1> second from the top
812 2012-03-22 19:41:24 <andytoshi> yep, i see it
813 2012-03-22 19:41:41 <andytoshi> your concern is the 1DYcK1CH address is not in your new wallet?
814 2012-03-22 19:42:05 <helo> that address is a DYcK...
815 2012-03-22 19:42:18 <MaxSan1> 1DYcK1CHpNCM542gZRHb5gumqeDRSmcfUu: 25.9786
816 2012-03-22 19:42:46 <MaxSan1> that 389.99 came through but is marked as "not spendable"
817 2012-03-22 19:42:56 <andytoshi> yes, the 25.9786 amount is change, which was sent back to the original wallet that you sent from
818 2012-03-22 19:42:57 <andytoshi> marked by who?
819 2012-03-22 19:43:03 <MaxSan1> multibit
820 2012-03-22 19:43:04 <andytoshi> ;bc,blocks
821 2012-03-22 19:43:10 <andytoshi> ;;bc,blocks
822 2012-03-22 19:43:10 <gribble> 172395
823 2012-03-22 19:43:12 <MaxSan1> its got balance
824 2012-03-22 19:43:15 <MaxSan1> and available to spend
825 2012-03-22 19:43:30 <luke-jr> sipa: look good? http://tinyurl.com/83lr2pk
826 2012-03-22 19:44:19 <andytoshi> hmm, this may have to do with the BIP16 clusterfuck
827 2012-03-22 19:44:27 <MaxSan1> well
828 2012-03-22 19:44:30 <MaxSan1> look at this also
829 2012-03-22 19:44:32 <andytoshi> so your coins are fine, your client just isn't sure of the blockchain status
830 2012-03-22 19:44:49 <MaxSan1> Status: 6015 confirmations
831 2012-03-22 19:44:50 <MaxSan1> Generated coins must wait 120 blocks before they can be spent. When you generated this block, it was broadcast to the network to be added to the block chain. If it fails to get into the chain, it will change to "not accepted" and not be spendable. This may occasionally happen if another node generates a block within a few seconds of yours.
832 2012-03-22 19:45:02 <MaxSan1> wtf is that? lol