1 2012-04-01 00:08:19 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: when GitHub screws up, it's best not to try to fix it FWIW
  2 2012-04-01 00:08:29 <BlueMatt> yea, Im not gonna bother
  3 2012-04-01 00:08:32 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: last time I tried, it closed the pull irrevokably
  4 2012-04-01 00:11:10 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: got a link for eulogy yet?
  5 2012-04-01 01:25:47 <luke-jr> someone who doesn't run a pool needs to do the honours :P
  6 2012-04-01 01:25:55 <luke-jr> of breaking non-BIP16 pools
  7 2012-04-01 01:33:52 <forsetifox> Will they disappear from the pie chart?
  8 2012-04-01 01:35:38 <splatster> Tonight will be a fun night to see which pools neglected to support BIP16.
  9 2012-04-01 01:36:23 <splatster> luke-jr: Could this cause a fork?
 10 2012-04-01 01:36:27 <Graet> ars just got a block
 11 2012-04-01 01:36:33 <luke-jr> splatster: it will.
 12 2012-04-01 01:36:34 <gmaxwell> splatster: define fork?
 13 2012-04-01 01:36:55 <Graet> not on blockchain.info
 14 2012-04-01 01:37:20 <gmaxwell> splatster: So normally I'd reserver 'fork' for an irreconcilable difference. In this case, it will just cause non-bip16 nodes to get orphaned
 15 2012-04-01 01:37:31 <gmaxwell> (but they won't build an alternative chain of any length)
 16 2012-04-01 01:37:41 <splatster> i.e. One pool starts a split in the chain.
 17 2012-04-01 01:38:03 <gmaxwell> splatster: well those kind of forks happen every day.
 18 2012-04-01 01:38:57 <gmaxwell> Graet: I wonder if blockchain.info runs bip16 nodes and thus aren't displaying bip16 invalid blocks.
 19 2012-04-01 01:39:32 <Graet> unsure gmaxwell , just noticed ars announced a block and looked at blockchain.info
 20 2012-04-01 01:39:48 <gmaxwell> any idea what height that block is?
 21 2012-04-01 01:39:53 <splatster> Shouldn't BIP16 support already be active? (I don't know what time zone bitcoind uses)
 22 2012-04-01 01:40:13 <gmaxwell> splatster: yes. I don't understand why you ask?
 23 2012-04-01 01:40:13 <MC1984> unix
 24 2012-04-01 01:40:28 <forsetifox> 173818
 25 2012-04-01 01:40:28 <Graet> <ArsBlock> >>>> New Block Number 173818 is Ars!
 26 2012-04-01 01:40:35 <splatster> http://blockchain.info/block-index/201844/00000000000008a5097526239afca1d59e6e112aca135ab7dd5189b5fe9f0696
 27 2012-04-01 01:40:46 <Graet> hmm it is there, older than i thought
 28 2012-04-01 01:41:27 <gmaxwell> hey, neat I have a node that is behind.
 29 2012-04-01 01:41:38 <splatster> Where is the p2sh TX? (if I am to understand that there is such a TX in there)
 30 2012-04-01 01:42:01 <gmaxwell> ah.
 31 2012-04-01 01:42:10 <gmaxwell> splatster: huh?
 32 2012-04-01 01:42:19 <splatster> ah nvm
 33 2012-04-01 01:42:23 <gmaxwell> P2SH tx are completely compatible with old nodes.
 34 2012-04-01 01:43:26 <gmaxwell> hm. I had a node crash.
 35 2012-04-01 01:43:47 <gmaxwell> 04/01/12 01:43:19 trying connection 188.40.93.82:8333 lastseen=-342567.9hrs
 36 2012-04-01 01:44:50 <gmaxwell> oh nevermind.. ran out of space.
 37 2012-04-01 01:45:18 <gmaxwell> 3.2gbytes of DB logs. sweet.
 38 2012-04-01 01:49:30 <gmaxwell> and it can't recover from that either.. pretty sweet.
 39 2012-04-01 01:50:53 <luke-jr> so Ars's last was invalid or not?
 40 2012-04-01 01:51:16 <forsetifox> It was a long block, I think?
 41 2012-04-01 01:52:24 <[Tycho]> What 173694 is doing here ? https://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks
 42 2012-04-01 01:53:12 <TuxBlackEdo> who runs blockchain.info?
 43 2012-04-01 01:53:25 <[Tycho]> puik
 44 2012-04-01 01:54:08 <TuxBlackEdo> piuk
 45 2012-04-01 01:54:21 <[Tycho]> Yes, something like that
 46 2012-04-01 01:54:22 <luke-jr> puke
 47 2012-04-01 01:54:42 <splatster> Look at the orphans at 170059 on that page
 48 2012-04-01 01:55:23 <[Tycho]> Yes, it was first BIP16 show
 49 2012-04-01 01:56:39 <splatster> Ah, so that set of orphans was caused by adoption, or lack thereof, of BIP16?
 50 2012-04-01 01:56:53 <[Tycho]> Yes
 51 2012-04-01 01:57:36 <MC1984> fuck 1700062 was 3 orphans at once
 52 2012-04-01 01:57:52 <luke-jr> 1700060 looks suspicious
 53 2012-04-01 01:58:08 <luke-jr> why is Donate@Home's a whole 5 days later?
 54 2012-04-01 01:58:22 <splatster> Weird...
 55 2012-04-01 01:58:33 <luke-jr> &wt
 56 2012-04-01 01:58:35 <luke-jr> f
 57 2012-04-01 01:58:39 <luke-jr> 170061&
 58 2012-04-01 01:58:40 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: because it was stuck on a fork.
 59 2012-04-01 01:58:48 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: how?
 60 2012-04-01 01:59:08 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: old miners should accept the new blocks
 61 2012-04-01 01:59:24 <gmaxwell> chain screwed up from running 0.6.0rc1 at the time of the early broken p2sh txn.
 62 2012-04-01 01:59:29 <luke-jr> also, why did Donate@Home's 170061 build on EclipseMC's 170060, and vice-versa?
 63 2012-04-01 01:59:54 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: there were nodes running old git code that switch on p2sh at the original date. They formed a fork.
 64 2012-04-01 02:00:09 <gmaxwell> (and the p2sh enforcing side can't reorg onto the longer 'invalid' chain)
 65 2012-04-01 02:00:17 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: yes, ok. but why would PoolA and PoolB build on competitors' forks?:
 66 2012-04-01 02:00:43 <gmaxwell> I don't understand your confusion.
 67 2012-04-01 02:01:06 <gmaxwell> There was a fork created by nodes that enforced p2sh too early when someone mined an invalid p2sh txn (I assumed it was you, actually!)
 68 2012-04-01 02:01:06 <luke-jr> Donate@Home built on EclipseMC's fork, and EclipseMC built on Donate@Home's fork&
 69 2012-04-01 02:01:26 <luke-jr> no, that wasn't me
 70 2012-04-01 02:01:42 <gmaxwell> oh, multiple nodes?
 71 2012-04-01 02:01:54 <luke-jr> i c, maybe
 72 2012-04-01 02:01:56 <splatster> 7 orphans between 170060, 170061, and 170062.
 73 2012-04-01 02:01:58 <luke-jr> still a weird thing
 74 2012-04-01 02:02:20 <gmaxwell> splatster: sure, it grew for a while.
 75 2012-04-01 02:04:25 <k9quaint> clearly, it was a nefarious plot to take over the world
 76 2012-04-01 02:04:27 <MC1984> wait so single orphan blocks happen quite regularly
 77 2012-04-01 02:04:34 <gmaxwell> MC1984: sure.
 78 2012-04-01 02:04:37 <luke-jr> yes
 79 2012-04-01 02:04:41 <MC1984> isnt that bad
 80 2012-04-01 02:04:42 <splatster> MC1984: yup
 81 2012-04-01 02:04:47 <splatster> no
 82 2012-04-01 02:04:48 <gmaxwell> it's about 1% of all blocks generated or so.
 83 2012-04-01 02:05:25 <luke-jr> MC1984: the 10 minute avg was chosen to balance orphan rate with convenience
 84 2012-04-01 02:05:33 <gmaxwell> MC1984: unless you've gone and invented faster than light communication while we were gabbing, there is no preventing of it.
 85 2012-04-01 02:05:33 <MC1984> is it to do with block propagation times
 86 2012-04-01 02:06:09 <MC1984> ok so if block time was cut to 5 mins, would orphans increase linerarly or more
 87 2012-04-01 02:06:25 <gmaxwell> More.
 88 2012-04-01 02:06:25 <MC1984> i think more?
 89 2012-04-01 02:06:53 <MC1984> hm i wonder what the true optimal block time is
 90 2012-04-01 02:07:06 <luke-jr> 10 mins :P
 91 2012-04-01 02:07:17 <gmaxwell> Orphan rate is related to 1-e^(-1/block_time*propagation_delay).
 92 2012-04-01 02:07:43 <MC1984> yeah didnt satoshi just decide on 10 mins though
 93 2012-04-01 02:07:46 <luke-jr> or rather, de timtons (about 11 mins 15 secs)
 94 2012-04-01 02:07:52 <MC1984> not like he ran simulations
 95 2012-04-01 02:08:00 <gmaxwell> He almost certantly did.
 96 2012-04-01 02:08:03 <gmaxwell> (run simulations)
 97 2012-04-01 02:08:05 <MC1984> wat
 98 2012-04-01 02:08:11 <luke-jr> MC1984: don't need to simulate when you can calculate
 99 2012-04-01 02:08:17 <gmaxwell> Considering there is simulation code in the bitcoin paper for block race probabilities!
100 2012-04-01 02:08:29 <gmaxwell> (well, right)
101 2012-04-01 02:08:46 <luke-jr> heh, otoh sometimes simulation is actually easier too :p
102 2012-04-01 02:09:25 <MC1984> so 10 mins even really is mathematically optimal
103 2012-04-01 02:09:46 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I like to solve things both via numerical methods/simulation and analytically, and then see if they agree. :)
104 2012-04-01 02:09:50 <luke-jr> I still think 11m15s would be better, but 10m is close enough <.<
105 2012-04-01 02:09:58 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: smart!
106 2012-04-01 02:11:09 <gmaxwell> MC1984: it's a tradeoff. There isn't really any single optimal value unless you first assume some preference for first confirmation speed vs orphaned blocks.
107 2012-04-01 02:12:12 <gmaxwell> and propation time will go up as bitcoin grows.
108 2012-04-01 02:12:49 <gmaxwell> (because to propagate you must validate, and as traffic increases it will take more work to validate... and the speed of light isn't getting any faster to offset that :))
109 2012-04-01 02:12:51 <MC1984> propagation is pretty dumb right
110 2012-04-01 02:12:54 <luke-jr> not so long as I know Deepbit's node IPs
111 2012-04-01 02:13:11 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: well, even there they validate on ingress.
112 2012-04-01 02:13:14 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: & not including txns will offset that
113 2012-04-01 02:13:20 <MC1984> they all just blab every block they see to every other node they know about
114 2012-04-01 02:13:46 <gmaxwell> MC1984: it's smarter than just that.
115 2012-04-01 02:14:20 <gmaxwell> It tells them about it, but it only gives them the hash. Then nodes pull blocks by hash from the first neighbor to tell them about them.
116 2012-04-01 02:14:28 <gmaxwell> So the flooding takes fairly little bandwidth.
117 2012-04-01 02:15:05 <MC1984> well thats rather more efficient
118 2012-04-01 02:15:23 <MC1984> but propagation is still basically a cascade right
119 2012-04-01 02:15:54 <splatster> Why doesn't someone create a node to which all the pools connect so as to increase propagation among the mining pools?
120 2012-04-01 02:16:20 <gmaxwell> splatster: because mining pool operators mostly don't care.
121 2012-04-01 02:16:30 <gmaxwell> (otherwise they could just share IPs and peer directly with each other)
122 2012-04-01 02:16:55 <splatster> But wouldn't they want to prevent creating orphan blocks themselves?
123 2012-04-01 02:16:58 <MC1984> yeah id rather not have a cabal of pool ops
124 2012-04-01 02:17:42 <gmaxwell> splatster: there still will be orphan blocks.
125 2012-04-01 02:17:55 <splatster> But there would be less, no?
126 2012-04-01 02:18:02 <gmaxwell> Probably not measurably so.
127 2012-04-01 02:18:09 <splatster> hmm, okay
128 2012-04-01 02:18:39 <gmaxwell> Speed of light/networks is more of a factor.. keep in mind.. the bitcoin network nodes are order 8 plus.
129 2012-04-01 02:18:48 <splatster> I'm sure deepbit could care less about orphans seeing as how many blocks they mine a day.
130 2012-04-01 02:19:08 <gmaxwell> average path-length in a order 8 randomly wired network..
131 2012-04-01 02:21:10 <MC1984> is it randomly wired?
132 2012-04-01 02:21:23 <MC1984> early internet was moreso i think
133 2012-04-01 02:21:53 <MC1984> but theres only a handful of tier 1 carriers now and it goes from there
134 2012-04-01 02:22:03 <splatster> Couldn't someone effectively flush out a pool by filling up all it's connections with malicious nodes? (i.e nodes that give it false information)
135 2012-04-01 02:22:21 <MC1984> pools closed.jpg
136 2012-04-01 02:23:11 <gmaxwell> splatster: no.
137 2012-04-01 02:23:27 <gmaxwell> splatster: input and output are seperate and nodes always connect out too.
138 2012-04-01 02:23:43 <gmaxwell> also, a sane pool will operate multiple nodes, and the ones that actually mine only connect out.
139 2012-04-01 02:24:29 <gmaxwell> Heck my p2pool operation involves four nodes.  (two mining nodes which only connect to my own nodes and a couple carefully vetted known pulls, and two public nodes)
140 2012-04-01 02:25:19 <MC1984> why you vet nodes
141 2012-04-01 02:25:26 <MC1984> isnt it spose to be zero trust
142 2012-04-01 02:25:27 <MC1984> thats the point
143 2012-04-01 02:26:14 <gmaxwell> MC1984: because I don't want them DOS attacking my performance sensitive nodes.
144 2012-04-01 02:27:35 <MC1984> why would someone dos a bitcoain dev
145 2012-04-01 02:27:38 <MC1984> haters gonna hate
146 2012-04-01 02:28:10 <gmaxwell> MC1984: there is a lot of freaky stuff out there.
147 2012-04-01 02:28:41 <MC1984> saying that why arnt exchanges and pools constantly dossing each other out of existence
148 2012-04-01 02:30:26 <gmaxwell> Why would that? Most acctacky things I've seen mostly just seem to be idiots screwing around... e.g. trying to build nodes to spy on the network and connecting to me a zillion times and such.
149 2012-04-01 02:30:57 <MC1984> take out the competition
150 2012-04-01 02:31:06 <forsetifox> BTCE is charging 1 US cent to post a message in chat now. LOLz
151 2012-04-01 02:31:17 <MC1984> its like asking why does one company lobby the govt to kill a competitor
152 2012-04-01 02:31:19 <[Tycho]> What chat ?
153 2012-04-01 02:31:27 <forsetifox> BTCE's chat.
154 2012-04-01 02:31:30 <forsetifox> "ATTENTION: 1 message in chat = 0.01$"
155 2012-04-01 02:31:33 <gmaxwell> hahah
156 2012-04-01 02:31:38 <forsetifox> Good for them.
157 2012-04-01 02:31:38 <[Tycho]> Never hear about it.
158 2012-04-01 02:31:40 <[Tycho]> *d
159 2012-04-01 02:31:50 <MC1984> wat?
160 2012-04-01 02:31:59 <gmaxwell> BTCE chat is like youtube comments most of the time.
161 2012-04-01 02:32:03 <forsetifox> Yeah.
162 2012-04-01 02:32:13 <forsetifox> Trolls or just people chatting about whatever.
163 2012-04-01 02:32:55 <[Tycho]> Also I wonder why btcex exchange is still used after all that story.
164 2012-04-01 02:34:19 <forsetifox> What story?
165 2012-04-01 02:34:40 <[Tycho]> The owner of btcex stole all his user's bitcoins.
166 2012-04-01 02:34:49 <gmaxwell> wha?
167 2012-04-01 02:35:20 <forsetifox> I think dev is screwing around with the chatters. =P
168 2012-04-01 02:35:23 <[Tycho]> It's a russian exchange, so that may be the cause why people don't know about it.
169 2012-04-01 02:35:38 <[Tycho]> About the story, I mean.
170 2012-04-01 02:35:49 <gmaxwell> crazy!
171 2012-04-01 02:36:06 <gmaxwell> well, it's is (was?) the biggest exchange for litecoin.
172 2012-04-01 02:36:12 <jgarzik> btcex owner was crazy in a number of ways
173 2012-04-01 02:37:04 <[Tycho]> Popular opinion is that before the bubble peak he exchanged all the BTCs for USD, expecting BTC rate to crash soon, but instead the bubble happened and he wasn't able to exchange everything back.
174 2012-04-01 02:37:55 <[Tycho]> He also locked all the real-money accounts, but that was mostly solved later.
175 2012-04-01 02:42:00 <[Tycho]> May be it's because they allow LRUSD withdraws, but I'm not sure about that.
176 2012-04-01 03:10:54 <nanotube> gmaxwell: it's true, it's all on the russian-side bitcoin talk forums. he basically defaulted on his depositors.
177 2012-04-01 03:11:07 <nanotube> back in the pre-price spike days.
178 2012-04-01 03:11:27 <gmaxwell> Hm. It's funny, I think I knew this at one point and then assumed it was someone else.
179 2012-04-01 03:11:30 <gmaxwell> Crazy.
180 2012-04-01 03:18:15 <gmaxwell> oh god, someone in #p2pool though p2sh meant a new blockchain or something and was busily trying to sell all his non-p2sh bitcoins.
181 2012-04-01 03:19:52 <forsetifox> Heh.
182 2012-04-01 03:24:20 <nanotube> hopefully he didn't have much ;)
183 2012-04-01 03:29:49 <[Tycho]> p2pool just got orphaned. I wonder why...
184 2012-04-01 03:30:20 <gmaxwell> because it was late.
185 2012-04-01 03:30:33 <[Tycho]> And 50BTC block is not p2sh
186 2012-04-01 03:30:44 <[Tycho]> Why no one is sending funny p2sh TXes ?
187 2012-04-01 03:31:00 <gmaxwell> Yes sure, the p2pool block hit my nodes a good 30 seconds or so after the tying block.
188 2012-04-01 03:31:31 <[Tycho]> p2sh block is 1tx one somehow :)
189 2012-04-01 03:31:34 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: because that wouldn't make enough trouble.. better to wait a few days before doing it then the people that get hit won't make the connection as to why their blocks are being orphaned.
190 2012-04-01 03:32:34 <[Tycho]> Do you think so ?
191 2012-04-01 03:32:36 <forsetifox> Heh.
192 2012-04-01 03:32:52 <[Tycho]> May be it's better when they don't have a clue yet
193 2012-04-01 03:33:52 <gmaxwell> well, if I was sure of that I'd make the non-p2sh spoiler txn myself.
194 2012-04-01 03:34:33 <forsetifox> Forrest is in here. Doesn't he basically control that?
195 2012-04-01 03:38:45 <forrestv> control what?
196 2012-04-01 03:39:23 <gmaxwell> The orphaning of blocks.
197 2012-04-01 03:48:47 <forrestv> forsetifox, all i control is p2pool's implementation, and p2pool does close to the best it can to not get blocks orphaned (which really just means sending them to bitcoind as soon as they are received from the miner)
198 2012-04-01 03:51:43 <forsetifox> So who changes P2Pool to accept BIP30 stuff then?
199 2012-04-01 03:56:38 <gmaxwell> forsetifox: ... there is no change to p2pool for BIP30.
200 2012-04-01 03:57:45 <forsetifox> Could've sworn someone in here said BIP30 was going to kill p2pool.
201 2012-04-01 03:59:01 <gmaxwell> People say things ... they're not always right.
202 2012-04-01 04:14:56 <conman> oh noes someone on the internet is wrong
203 2012-04-01 04:18:15 <kingkatari> ok maybe someone can help me is anyone awake
204 2012-04-01 04:19:26 <kingkatari> I am trying to set up my linux ubuntu system to run bitcoin as a server so i can solo mine
205 2012-04-01 04:19:41 <kingkatari> and i need a lil help with a few of the conf settings
206 2012-04-01 04:21:26 <kingkatari> for solo mining do i set gen=0 or gen=1
207 2012-04-01 04:32:58 <forsetifox> rpcallowip=your IP range rpcconnect=127.0.0.1 rpcport=8332 rpcuser=username rpcpassword=password server=1
208 2012-04-01 04:33:07 <forsetifox> That's for you king.
209 2012-04-01 04:34:02 <forsetifox> That's so the server can mine. If you want the others to mine just have them connect to the IP of the server computer.
210 2012-04-01 06:18:54 <kish> "version" : 60006,
211 2012-04-01 06:18:55 <kish> "balance" : 0.00000000,
212 2012-04-01 06:19:12 <kish> i am screwed: THAT is the latest git build
213 2012-04-01 06:19:21 <kish> but the blocks are STILL STUCK
214 2012-04-01 06:20:27 <Cory> How much of the netword supports BIP16?
215 2012-04-01 06:23:15 <Cory> (How much of the network accepts invalid spends of BIP16 transactions?)
216 2012-04-01 06:24:18 <sturles> 74% support BIP16.
217 2012-04-01 06:24:20 <sturles> http://blockchain.info/p2sh
218 2012-04-01 06:35:42 <Cory> sturles: 74% vote in favor. Does that mean the rest accept invalid spends of BIP16 transactions?
219 2012-04-01 06:54:42 <sturles> Yes, but when they do their blocks will not be accepted by the other nodes.
220 2012-04-01 07:00:50 <Cory> Could the mining power of those who don't support BIP16 be easily removed from the network, then?
221 2012-04-01 07:04:04 <sturles> Don't know if it is easy.  Would require more knowledge than I have..
222 2012-04-01 07:27:37 <SomeoneWeird> Cory, I don't see why not.
223 2012-04-01 07:53:01 <midnightmagic> correction: 74% *report* supporting p2sh via the little string. there are more that support it but don't report it.
224 2012-04-01 07:53:51 <midnightmagic> removing them from the network would require that all participating nodes reject connectivity with the others.
225 2012-04-01 07:54:51 <Cory> Just broadcast invalid spends of BIP16 and they won't be able to contribute.
226 2012-04-01 07:55:09 <midnightmagic> that is actively destructive, and a disproportionate response.
227 2012-04-01 07:55:19 <midnightmagic> why douby screw them?
228 2012-04-01 07:55:25 <midnightmagic> er..  doubly..
229 2012-04-01 07:55:49 <Cory> Heh, I'm not advocating it. Just making sure it would be as easy as I thought.
230 2012-04-01 07:56:18 <doublec> someone will do it I'm sure
231 2012-04-01 07:56:44 <Cory> Can we estimate the percentage that actually support BIP16 (not necessarily report their support)?
232 2012-04-01 07:57:09 <midnightmagic> (my answer presupposes your premise)
233 2012-04-01 07:57:32 <midnightmagic> not by my understanding.
234 2012-04-01 07:58:27 <midnightmagic> perhaps detect complaints and estimate complaints:no complaints ratio?
235 2012-04-01 07:58:44 <sipa> kish: just delete and redownload the chain
236 2012-04-01 07:59:08 <sipa> kish: blkindex.dat and blk0001.dat
237 2012-04-01 07:59:27 <sipa> it should not take long in 0.6
238 2012-04-01 08:00:00 <midnightmagic> sipa: kish: my fix for that also involved downloading a bootstrap block chain, so I didn't even have to download the whole of it.   check the sourceforge bitcoin project downloads.
239 2012-04-01 08:03:26 <sipa> 0.7 will probably have an option to load a blockchain from a local blk0001.dat file, and rebuild the index from there
240 2012-04-01 08:03:39 <sipa> takes around half an hour for me
241 2012-04-01 08:04:02 <lh77> :
242 2012-04-01 08:04:04 <lh77> :/
243 2012-04-01 08:44:27 <kish> i got slow pc and slow internet sipa
244 2012-04-01 08:46:15 <kish> i will die it over night
245 2012-04-01 09:22:02 <sipa> gmaxwell: prioritize nodes it has connected to?
246 2012-04-01 09:29:32 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: Diapolo opened pull request 1022 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1022>
247 2012-04-01 10:04:54 <t7> 0.6 was an april fools
248 2012-04-01 10:46:17 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: Diapolo opened pull request 1023 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1023>
249 2012-04-01 11:17:12 <Blitzboom> can someone tell me a website that lists bitcoin nodes and their country?
250 2012-04-01 11:17:23 <Blitzboom> there was one  &
251 2012-04-01 11:17:50 <Blitzboom> i want to look for an increase in syrian nodes
252 2012-04-01 11:20:18 <[Tycho]> You can check TX sources at blockchain.info
253 2012-04-01 11:21:13 <genjix> Blitzboom: google bitcoin rowit stats
254 2012-04-01 11:21:16 <Blitzboom> the website i meant was some graph with the nodes
255 2012-04-01 11:21:37 <Blitzboom> http://bitcoinstatus.rowit.co.uk/
256 2012-04-01 11:21:43 <Blitzboom> thanks
257 2012-04-01 11:22:14 <Blitzboom> too bad, not a single syrian node
258 2012-04-01 11:22:42 <Blitzboom> context: apparently the syrian central banks website was defaced: http://i.imgur.com/I9ao7.jpg
259 2012-04-01 11:22:49 <Blitzboom> with a bitcoin ad
260 2012-04-01 11:23:54 <SomeoneWeird> ha
261 2012-04-01 11:26:10 <upb> 'death squads'?
262 2012-04-01 11:26:17 <upb> is this defacement by the CIA or something
263 2012-04-01 11:26:37 <upb> fucking idiots
264 2012-04-01 12:06:06 <kinlo> poison?
265 2012-04-01 12:06:27 <kinlo> you mean a bip17 one, to see if the blockchain splits?
266 2012-04-01 12:06:35 <sipa> bip16
267 2012-04-01 12:08:21 <kinlo> right
268 2012-04-01 12:08:29 <kinlo> still need to upgrade one wallet :/
269 2012-04-01 12:08:44 <sipa> one wallet, or one installation?
270 2012-04-01 12:09:04 <kinlo> one binary, which operates on one wallet
271 2012-04-01 12:09:25 <kinlo> but it isn't used for mining so I still have some time
272 2012-04-01 12:28:05 <lh77> lolz
273 2012-04-01 12:38:32 <gmaxwell> kish: did you get yourself fixed yet?
274 2012-04-01 12:39:04 <gmaxwell> sipa: kish appears to be saying above that they're stuck on the "blocks" : 170059, fork even with latest git
275 2012-04-01 12:50:06 <sipa> gmaxwell: i noticee
276 2012-04-01 12:50:09 <sipa> d
277 2012-04-01 15:24:44 <Samuel> Hello!
278 2012-04-01 15:25:03 <sipa> wb Samuel
279 2012-04-01 15:25:19 <Samuel> yeah, I haven't checked in here in a while
280 2012-04-01 15:25:42 <Samuel> How is the design of the app coming along?
281 2012-04-01 15:26:03 <sipa> haven't seen many updates from tcatm anymore
282 2012-04-01 15:26:14 <Samuel> Oh... hmm
283 2012-04-01 15:26:18 <sipa> 0.6 has been released in the mean time
284 2012-04-01 15:26:56 <Samuel> Oh really? Any design changes?
285 2012-04-01 15:27:53 <sipa> No, we were already doing 0.6 release candidates when you and tcatm starting redesigning.
286 2012-04-01 15:28:02 <user_> sipa: what do you think of my last commeent here: https://gist.github.com/830ca16758fb9ad496d7#comments
287 2012-04-01 15:28:43 <Cryo> ooh, I missed that 0.6.0 was released
288 2012-04-01 15:29:07 <sipa> user_: i should read the rest of the document first :)
289 2012-04-01 15:29:38 <Cryo> client should compel people to upgrade
290 2012-04-01 15:30:26 <user_> sipa: ok
291 2012-04-01 15:31:00 <sipa> Cryo: how would the client now?
292 2012-04-01 15:31:12 <sipa> *know
293 2012-04-01 15:31:29 <Cryo> sparkle is a good way, on the mac
294 2012-04-01 15:31:38 <Samuel> Question: Why is the delete button even there if  you can't delete receiving addresses?
295 2012-04-01 15:31:39 <Cryo> checks a url on start up and compares version #
296 2012-04-01 15:32:59 <sipa> Cryo: checking a url implies a central authority
297 2012-04-01 15:33:11 <sipa> which can be hacked, ...
298 2012-04-01 15:33:34 <sipa> Samuel: there's recently been a pull request for fixing that
299 2012-04-01 15:33:37 <Cryo> no more than bitcoin.org is an authority
300 2012-04-01 15:34:05 <Cryo> I mean if you're gonna use that, might as well go all the way up the authority chain :)
301 2012-04-01 15:34:16 <tcatm> Samuel: http://188.138.99.157/stuff/qtvert17.png
302 2012-04-01 15:34:47 <sipa> Cryo: true, but if bitcoin.org got hacked, and we would notice after an hour, probably not too many people will have the bad version
303 2012-04-01 15:35:05 <Samuel> Ahh, cool. But shouldn't the icon be white when the tab is selected?
304 2012-04-01 15:35:39 <sipa> Cryo: if an autoupdate system was infected, a very significant percentage of network nodes may be affected
305 2012-04-01 15:36:24 <Cryo> still sounds strawman
306 2012-04-01 15:36:26 <user_> tcatm: samuel: i think the btc numbers should be green
307 2012-04-01 15:36:36 <sipa> Cryo: there is talk about a system where updates would be signed by several developers, and the autoupdate system would check those
308 2012-04-01 15:36:49 <Samuel> user_ I don't think that would look good
309 2012-04-01 15:37:02 <t7> who has 44k BTC :3
310 2012-04-01 15:37:26 <sipa> t7: testnet
311 2012-04-01 15:37:38 <sipa> not real BTC
312 2012-04-01 15:38:22 <user_> tcatm: samuel: and what about a orange bitcoin icon near my balance. orange when is synchronized, and gray when not
313 2012-04-01 15:38:40 <Samuel> hmm
314 2012-04-01 15:38:41 <Samuel> maybe
315 2012-04-01 15:42:03 <gmaxwell> tcatm: are you also an xmonad user?
316 2012-04-01 15:42:38 <sipa> looks like it
317 2012-04-01 15:48:42 <Samuel> I just came up with this splash screen design http://cl.ly/0F231k2L0B3H0X0R220P
318 2012-04-01 15:50:48 <Samuel> Anyone here?
319 2012-04-01 15:52:14 <sipa> sure
320 2012-04-01 15:52:22 <sipa> looks nice to me
321 2012-04-01 15:52:46 <Samuel> better than what we have now... that brown wallet is really ugly
322 2012-04-01 15:53:55 <paulo_> Hello
323 2012-04-01 15:54:11 <paulo_> does everyone in the network have a local copy of each and every transaction?
324 2012-04-01 15:55:37 <sipa> paulo_: all full nodes, yes
325 2012-04-01 15:55:40 <twmz_> paulo_: yes
326 2012-04-01 15:56:30 <paulo_> won't that take up too much space? (or in the future)
327 2012-04-01 15:57:12 <twmz_> disk is cheap
328 2012-04-01 15:57:58 <twmz_> in the future non-full nodes may be more common
329 2012-04-01 15:58:12 <joehallofame> Please help me.  I just put about 300 into my wallet, tried to send and when I type my password in it crashes.
330 2012-04-01 15:59:14 <joehallofame> I have no back up before it started doing this, I have uploaded 6.0 and it still does it.  The old version I was using was 5.0
331 2012-04-01 16:00:06 <gmaxwell> Losing 30 wasn't enough so you added another 270? :-/
332 2012-04-01 16:01:09 <joehallofame> Three hundred bucks not coins, and I just said 30 because I didn't want to seem like easy prey to a hacker.
333 2012-04-01 16:01:23 <sipa> ok
334 2012-04-01 16:01:25 <joehallofame> No gmax I have not added any since last night 61 bitcoins
335 2012-04-01 16:02:09 <gmaxwell> Unfortunately I'm not sure what to suggest now. You've tried the old version and the current version. Can you actually see the balance before you try to send?
336 2012-04-01 16:02:35 <joehallofame> Thanks for the help guys I know your tryin', yes I can see the balance of 61 coins.
337 2012-04-01 16:02:38 <sipa> joehallofame: which OS are you using?
338 2012-04-01 16:03:08 <joehallofame> I was using 5.0 when it happened, then I tried 6.0, then I tried 5.3.1
339 2012-04-01 16:03:26 <sipa> no, which operating system?
340 2012-04-01 16:03:39 <joehallofame> Oh shit sorry windows xp
341 2012-04-01 16:04:20 <gmaxwell> You wouldn't happen to have a Linux system handy would you? (this might be a windows specific bug)
342 2012-04-01 16:04:40 <joehallofame> No sir, I don't have the old penguin on standby.
343 2012-04-01 16:05:23 <joehallofame> That's a good point though, and if worse comes to worse, then I guess it will just sit there and hopefully you all can come up with something.
344 2012-04-01 16:06:06 <sipa> chances exist that you have a part of the wallet corrupted somehow
345 2012-04-01 16:06:21 <sipa> but this doesn't necessarily mean that the key corresponding to the funded address is bad
346 2012-04-01 16:06:43 <gmaxwell> The fact that it can distinguish a good and bad password indicates that the master key is fine.
347 2012-04-01 16:06:51 <gmaxwell> And that the wallet isn't totally unreadable.
348 2012-04-01 16:07:18 <sipa> indeed
349 2012-04-01 16:07:27 <joehallofame> I don't know what that means, but if you guys can fix it then you guys can have 10 coins a piece.
350 2012-04-01 16:07:42 <joehallofame> Thats about all I could afford as a reward.
351 2012-04-01 16:07:43 <gmaxwell> ha, well, I want the software fixed not your coins. :)
352 2012-04-01 16:07:57 <joehallofame> :) that makes sense.
353 2012-04-01 16:08:24 <gmaxwell> can you run bitcoin from the command prompt and see if it prints anything when it crashes?
354 2012-04-01 16:08:45 <joehallofame> Ill try.
355 2012-04-01 16:08:48 <sipa> i'm afraid we're too late for fixing the software (or at least for detecting what caused it)
356 2012-04-01 16:09:07 <sipa> but maybe a recovery mode is possible to is more tolerant to wallet errors
357 2012-04-01 16:09:37 <joehallofame> Nos erit adepto eos, altera tempore.  My family motto in latin.
358 2012-04-01 16:10:09 <joehallofame> what do I type in the command prompt?
359 2012-04-01 16:10:44 <gmaxwell> joehallofame: change to the directory where bitcoin is located and type bitcoin-qt.exe  (sorry, I'm not much help I am a complete idiot about windows)
360 2012-04-01 16:12:04 <joehallofame> This is what windows said.  "Runtime Error Program:  C:Program FilesBitcoinitcoin-qt.exe  This application has requested the Runtime to terminate it in an unusual way. Please contact the applications support team for more information."
361 2012-04-01 16:12:17 <gmaxwell> hey, an assert?
362 2012-04-01 16:13:19 <gmaxwell> maybe it's just the keypool is corrupted.
363 2012-04-01 16:14:13 <sipa> gmaxwell: if it's the same as that other issue, it's the assert for checking CSecret's length
364 2012-04-01 16:14:31 <gmaxwell> oh. :(
365 2012-04-01 16:14:52 <gmaxwell> joehallofame: in the appdata directory for bitcoin there should be a file called debug.log can you paste the last few lines from it (assuming you haven't restarted since the crash)
366 2012-04-01 16:14:53 <joehallofame> Wow im in dos and I feel like im in a time warp to 1990, Im goin to see if saved by the bell is on.
367 2012-04-01 16:15:32 <gmaxwell> Wheres screeach when you need him? I bet he could fix this. ;)
368 2012-04-01 16:16:08 <sipa> who?
369 2012-04-01 16:16:11 <joehallofame> Well it's running in windows now that i started it in dos.
370 2012-04-01 16:16:23 <joehallofame> what do i type in dos to try to send?
371 2012-04-01 16:16:58 <gmaxwell> sipa: geeky character from the 1990s tv show joehallofame mentioned.
372 2012-04-01 16:17:05 <joehallofame> lol
373 2012-04-01 16:17:20 <tcatm> gmaxwell: Yes, that's a (heavily customized) xmonad :)
374 2012-04-01 16:17:58 <gmaxwell> joehallofame: Running with the gui was the expected behavior I just had you start it from the commandprompt so we could see that message.
375 2012-04-01 16:18:19 <gmaxwell> joehallofame: make it crash again then open up the debug.log with wordpad and get the last few lines out
376 2012-04-01 16:21:14 <joehallofame> ok the last few lines are:
377 2012-04-01 16:22:20 <joehallofame> 0x000519a0:  01000000 10000300 01000010 68002000 ............. h
378 2012-04-01 16:22:31 <joehallofame> is that what you mean stuff like this?
379 2012-04-01 16:22:55 <sipa> that's unexpected
380 2012-04-01 16:23:06 <sipa> can you copy-paste the last few pages on a site like pastebit.com?
381 2012-04-01 16:23:24 <joehallofame> 0x000519b0:  01000004 00202000 20000100 0010a800 .....  .... ....
382 2012-04-01 16:24:03 <joehallofame> Yea dude, i can try but I cant copy it maybe ill take a screen shot.
383 2012-04-01 16:24:18 <sipa> are you sure you're in wordpad?
384 2012-04-01 16:24:32 <sipa> and that you opened debug.log?
385 2012-04-01 16:24:51 <sipa> in the bitcoin data directory?
386 2012-04-01 16:25:10 <joehallofame> no Im not I just clicked see error report, and then clicked seetechnical information about the error report.
387 2012-04-01 16:25:36 <joehallofame> can you walk me through that. I still have the command prompt up after i started it there, what should I type?
388 2012-04-01 16:27:27 <sipa> close the command prompt
389 2012-04-01 16:27:33 <joehallofame> done
390 2012-04-01 16:27:47 <sipa> go to start -> run
391 2012-04-01 16:27:56 <sipa> type this:
392 2012-04-01 16:27:58 <sipa> explorer %APPDATA%Bitcoin
393 2012-04-01 16:28:09 <sipa> click run
394 2012-04-01 16:28:32 <joehallofame> done popped up window with debug in it.
395 2012-04-01 16:29:22 <t7> pro-tip: you dont need to type explorer
396 2012-04-01 16:29:23 <sipa> ok, open that debug.log file
397 2012-04-01 16:29:35 <sipa> t7: right; feel free to update https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Data_directory
398 2012-04-01 16:30:19 <joehallofame> sending getdata: tx 5270984d5e84de821025 sending getdata: tx 08f41749688a3dbcca61 IRC got join IRC got join
399 2012-04-01 16:30:27 <joehallofame> should it say something like that.
400 2012-04-01 16:30:33 <sipa> yes, that's it
401 2012-04-01 16:30:47 <sipa> now scroll down to the bottom, and copy-paste the last few pages to pastebin.com
402 2012-04-01 16:31:02 <joehallofame> you got it comin right up
403 2012-04-01 16:31:13 <sipa> joehallofame: i've just implemented a very quick "wallet recovery mode" patch for bitcoin; if i make you a windows build of it, would you consider trying it? (it's hardly tested, but it may save your wallet)
404 2012-04-01 16:32:11 <joehallofame> yea dude Ill give it a shot if you think there's a chance.
405 2012-04-01 16:33:18 <joehallofame> it's pasted, now what should I do to run the patch?
406 2012-04-01 16:33:49 <sipa> i'm building it, but that will take half an hour or so
407 2012-04-01 16:34:02 <sipa> what's the link to the debug.log paste?
408 2012-04-01 16:34:27 <joehallofame> im goin outside to smoke, wonderful, Ill check back in 45 min. Cool?
409 2012-04-01 16:34:43 <joehallofame> let me look for that debug link.
410 2012-04-01 16:35:08 <sipa> just copy the url of the page your browser has open
411 2012-04-01 16:35:11 <joehallofame> http://pastebin.com/2LQfs8zd
412 2012-04-01 16:36:33 <joehallofame> have fun ill check in here in five min to see if you need anything before I go study for a bit.
413 2012-04-01 16:38:45 <sipa> ok, that's expected indeed
414 2012-04-01 16:52:20 <joehallofame> Ok see you in about a half hour, and thank you so much for tryin to help, just really cool.  I know you want the software to work, but the reward is still in effect.  Thanks again sipa. See ya later.
415 2012-04-01 16:55:00 <user_> etotheipi_: you there?
416 2012-04-01 16:55:10 <etotheipi_> user_, yes I am
417 2012-04-01 16:56:01 <user_> what do you think of my last comment here: https://gist.github.com/830ca16758fb9ad496d7
418 2012-04-01 16:57:51 <etotheipi_> user_, you just made me realize that I need to respond to both you and gavin in that thread...
419 2012-04-01 16:58:03 <etotheipi_> user_, but that is the general idea I was aiming for
420 2012-04-01 16:58:30 <etotheipi_> the difference is that the amount that goes in will be determined by the two parties as level of "risk", put more "deposit" in if there's more risk
421 2012-04-01 16:58:34 <user_> please, i would like your comment thhere
422 2012-04-01 16:58:49 <etotheipi_> third party would get involved that risk level has at least 15% "deposit" from both users
423 2012-04-01 16:59:27 <etotheipi_> user_, I believe bitdispute should get both deposits
424 2012-04-01 16:59:35 <etotheipi_> that way it is equally funded by both parties
425 2012-04-01 17:00:51 <user_> hum
426 2012-04-01 17:01:50 <etotheipi_> user_, 20 BTC is the price... they agree on 20% "risk deposit", so Alice puts in 24 BTC, Bob puts in 4 BTC... they both get the 4 BTC back if it goes smoothly
427 2012-04-01 17:02:05 <etotheipi_> otherwise the third-party gets the 8 BTC for resolving the dispute
428 2012-04-01 17:02:20 <etotheipi_> and thus the dispute fee is paid for by both parties
429 2012-04-01 17:02:27 <user_> eetotheipi_: my english is not good, so i wouuld like you respond as a comment on gist page
430 2012-04-01 17:02:33 <etotheipi_> user_, okay
431 2012-04-01 17:12:13 <user_> etotheipei_: as you can see i made a mistake on percentage. 2% of 20= 0.4
432 2012-04-01 17:14:52 <user_> etotheipi_: i don't uderstand why you think the charge fee should be paid by both parties
433 2012-04-01 17:26:47 <sipa> joehallofame: http://bitcoin.sipa.be/builds/0.6.0-1-gc8bd77b/
434 2012-04-01 17:30:56 <joehallofame> hey sipa Im back
435 2012-04-01 17:31:15 <sipa> joehallofame: install that
436 2012-04-01 17:31:23 <joehallofame> you got it.
437 2012-04-01 17:31:29 <sipa> and when you're done, run it using "bitcoin-qt.exe -recover"
438 2012-04-01 17:31:37 <sipa> on the command prompt, without the ""
439 2012-04-01 17:33:51 <sipa> joehallofame: that will not fix your wallet in any way, though; it will just ignore errors it encounters
440 2012-04-01 17:34:07 <sipa> so things maybe be inconsistent afterwards, or weird errors may show up
441 2012-04-01 17:34:17 <sipa> but it may be enough for you to send your funds elsewhere
442 2012-04-01 17:36:08 <joehallofame> ok its installed, Ill report back.
443 2012-04-01 17:36:12 <scottj_> is there a python client?
444 2012-04-01 17:43:34 <joehallofame> no dice, now it says that my correct password is incorrect.  But on the bright side its not crashing anymore.
445 2012-04-01 17:45:04 <joehallofame> sipa:  would it help if i ran debug again?
446 2012-04-01 17:45:05 <etotheipi_> scottj_, Armory is built mostly in python:  http://bitcoinarmory.com/  (the underlying blockchain engine is C++ but 80% of the overall functionality is in Python)
447 2012-04-01 17:46:27 <sipa> joehallofame: sure you used the right password?
448 2012-04-01 17:46:56 <t7> formally verified bitcoin client written in coq or go home
449 2012-04-01 17:47:12 <sipa> t7: talk to roconnor :)
450 2012-04-01 17:48:00 <user_> etotheipi_: we disagree in anything?
451 2012-04-01 17:48:38 <user_> etotheipi_: maybe my english is bad
452 2012-04-01 17:49:41 <user_> etotheipi_: both parties deposit, but who win the dispute is refunded. right?
453 2012-04-01 17:50:52 <etotheipi_> user_, you bring up an interesting point, but I don't have time to ponder it right now
454 2012-04-01 17:51:02 <user_> ok
455 2012-04-01 17:51:08 <etotheipi_> I'll be back on, later, we can talk then
456 2012-04-01 17:51:24 <joehallofame> sipa: no I am not sure.  but last night I used every password I had and when I got the right one it booted me out.  This is the exact same thing that happened to the other dude too ( the one that gmax sent me a link to read about), therefore I am pretty sure it was the correct one.
457 2012-04-01 17:52:19 <joehallofame> let me try again ill report back in a few.
458 2012-04-01 17:58:16 <sipa> joehallofame: oh, my mistake; it's supposed to be -recovery, not -recover
459 2012-04-01 17:58:51 <joehallofame> ok hmmm. it opened and now it wasn't booting me, but Ill open it that way
460 2012-04-01 18:09:25 <joehallofame> sipa: hey, we're gettin somewhere maybe, now it says "error: transaction creation failed"
461 2012-04-01 18:09:49 <joehallofame> but no matter what password I type it says that.
462 2012-04-01 18:10:04 <sipa> if you use the wrong password, it will certainly say that
463 2012-04-01 18:10:22 <sipa> (since all wallet keys will look invalid, so it'll throw them all away)
464 2012-04-01 18:10:57 <joehallofame> it used to say, incorrect password ( a different error message ).  Hmmmm.
465 2012-04-01 18:12:03 <joehallofame> and instead of bringing me back to the password box, it just brings me all the way out to the send coins page.
466 2012-04-01 18:12:26 <joehallofame> Im goin to eat a burrito but Ill be back in about 20 or so.
467 2012-04-01 18:58:39 <paulo_> so transaction fees "destroy" coins and allows them to be recreated through mining?
468 2012-04-01 18:59:30 <splatster> Transactions fees are added to the block reward of the blocks they are contained in.
469 2012-04-01 18:59:38 <sipa> paulo_: that's one way to put it
470 2012-04-01 19:00:01 <sipa> but if you follow that reasoning, every transactions destroys its input coins, and recreates them in the form of outputs
471 2012-04-01 19:00:52 <splatster> The only way to truly destroy coins is to send them to an unredeemable output.
472 2012-04-01 19:01:25 <gmaxwell> splatster: what would you call it then when you make a block that takes less than the permitted subsidy?
473 2012-04-01 19:01:58 <splatster> gmaxwell: A miner being less than smart.
474 2012-04-01 19:02:33 <splatster> Would those coins be redeemable, gmaxwell?
475 2012-04-01 19:10:30 <sipa> splatster: yes
476 2012-04-01 19:10:47 <sipa> a miner can create a coinbase with a lower value than the permitted maximum
477 2012-04-01 19:13:16 <paulo_> what was the first target?
478 2012-04-01 19:15:15 <paulo_> wait, just found it
479 2012-04-01 19:38:49 <joehallofame> sipa:  well I give, I have 61 in there.  Thanks for tryin that new code, is there anything else you think I should try before I sign out?
480 2012-04-01 19:38:54 <paulo_> how does bitcoin find other nodes?
481 2012-04-01 19:39:58 <sipa> joehallofame: i'll make a more complete recovery patch later; for now, just keep a backup of your broken wallet.dat
482 2012-04-01 19:41:48 <joehallofame> You got it, Ill check in later, and it's nice to see people who are really trying to help out.  Worst case scenario is I just don't use a wallet and work straight from the place I use to transform cash anyway.  Thanks again Im out.
483 2012-04-01 19:45:04 <gmaxwell> paulo_: it learns about them from nodes it has connected to.
484 2012-04-01 20:05:48 <gmaxwell> 15:03 < makomk> http://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks - curious.
485 2012-04-01 20:06:29 <gmaxwell> Looks like the orphaning has begun.
486 2012-04-01 20:08:02 <forsetifox> Pools that have implimented BIP30 are orphaning?
487 2012-04-01 20:08:11 <gmaxwell> forsetifox: What are you talking about?
488 2012-04-01 20:08:19 <paulo_> what does it mean?
489 2012-04-01 20:08:35 <forsetifox> The red X above the pool name doesn't mean that pool got an orphan?
490 2012-04-01 20:08:39 <gmaxwell> And I'm incorrect, these all look normal as far as I can tell.
491 2012-04-01 20:08:48 <gmaxwell> forsetifox: Yes, but why did you mention BIP30?
492 2012-04-01 20:09:05 <forsetifox> That's why the orphans are happening?
493 2012-04-01 20:09:16 <gmaxwell> Bip30 only makes a difference in the presence of an overwriting attack, which will never happen now that it will be futile.
494 2012-04-01 20:09:31 <forsetifox> Alrighty then. Then why is the orphaning happening?
495 2012-04-01 20:09:44 <k9quaint> because the parents never wanted children
496 2012-04-01 20:09:52 <sipa> a 4-block long split is quite unheard of
497 2012-04-01 20:10:14 <gmaxwell> I can't see why it happened in this case though.
498 2012-04-01 20:10:21 <forsetifox> Heh.
499 2012-04-01 20:10:34 <sipa> might MM be involved?
500 2012-04-01 20:12:52 <gmaxwell> oh it's four now. It was three before.
501 2012-04-01 20:13:22 <makomk> When I looked before, I'm pretty sure the other side was winning too.
502 2012-04-01 20:14:34 <k9quaint> a statistical cluster? or does the fork really have that much hash power behind it?
503 2012-04-01 20:15:11 <gmaxwell> I notice that the fork is all "50btc" according to blockchain.info and all 1txn blocks
504 2012-04-01 20:15:53 <Diablo-D3> what happened?
505 2012-04-01 20:15:58 <Diablo-D3> whats bip30?
506 2012-04-01 20:16:18 <sipa> Diablo-D3: disallow duplicate transactions
507 2012-04-01 20:17:04 <gmaxwell> Based on the fork topology I'd expect it to be ozcoin mined an invalid block and them MM (labled 50BTC here) extended it.
508 2012-04-01 20:17:15 <sipa> gmaxwell: so, there was a block from ozcoin where kept MM building on, while the rest of the network accepted slush's alternative
509 2012-04-01 20:17:23 <gmaxwell> but I don't see anything invalid in ozcoin's block.
510 2012-04-01 20:18:04 <gmaxwell> And blockchain.info recieved slush's much later but that may just be because blockchain.info's peers had mostly accepted ozcoin's and only propagated slush's once that side won.
511 2012-04-01 20:18:32 <Diablo-D3> so is anything wrong or not?
512 2012-04-01 20:18:36 <sipa> gmaxwell: also, blockchain.info says about the blocks on the left that they are orphaned
513 2012-04-01 20:18:49 <sipa> gmaxwell: while those on the right are claimed to be in the main chain
514 2012-04-01 20:18:55 <sipa> the icons say differently
515 2012-04-01 20:18:59 <makomk> blockchain.info seems to get that wrong on the actual block pages.
516 2012-04-01 20:19:12 <gmaxwell> The output on the blockchain.info page isn't stable.
517 2012-04-01 20:19:21 <gmaxwell> it just swapped left and right for me (again)
518 2012-04-01 20:19:32 <gmaxwell> (but shows the MM side as losing still, which is right)
519 2012-04-01 20:20:04 <k9quaint> deepbit will crush these uppity rebels!
520 2012-04-01 20:20:07 <gmaxwell> I wonder if there were enough transactions in the real chain now that MM can't reorg back.
521 2012-04-01 20:22:24 <makomk> I seem to recall MM was winning according to blockchain.info until Deepbit mined their own 173931, so who knows?
522 2012-04-01 20:22:50 <gmaxwell> well the network is up to 173934
523 2012-04-01 20:23:01 <gmaxwell> It'll be interesting to see if MM keeps extending that fork.
524 2012-04-01 20:23:04 <makomk> Yeah.
525 2012-04-01 20:24:19 <[Tycho]> Wow, I see the fork !
526 2012-04-01 20:24:53 <[Tycho]> But it's not p2sh-related ?
527 2012-04-01 20:25:11 <gmaxwell> I don't see how it could be.
528 2012-04-01 20:25:18 <gmaxwell> It could also be the result of people attacking the MM.
529 2012-04-01 20:25:38 <gmaxwell> for it to be p2sh related there would have to be an invalid p2sh transaction in https://blockchain.info/block-index/202136/000000000000023df73ac98923e2de321db3e3396102ad5dcfe3b25f01a81f64
530 2012-04-01 20:25:40 <[Tycho]> Or MM attacking people
531 2012-04-01 20:26:31 <gmaxwell> (which would be surprising since the coinbase indicates p2sh support)
532 2012-04-01 20:27:03 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: I can't see to what end.
533 2012-04-01 20:27:17 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: (since his blocks have no txn)
534 2012-04-01 20:27:39 <gmaxwell> I suppose he could intentionally split the chain and then try to get ahead in an effort to find blocks without driving the difficulty up.
535 2012-04-01 20:28:04 <gmaxwell> but he doesn't have enough hash power to make that net profitable.
536 2012-04-01 20:28:31 <[Tycho]> depth 4 is a bit disturbing.
537 2012-04-01 20:29:23 <graingert> [Tycho]: ?
538 2012-04-01 20:30:05 <[Tycho]> Length of orphaned branch.
539 2012-04-01 20:30:09 <graingert> they are all 1tx
540 2012-04-01 20:30:12 <graingert> how odd
541 2012-04-01 20:30:20 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: the fact that it's all one node extending it makes it a little less so.
542 2012-04-01 20:30:31 <[Tycho]> OzCoin's one is not.
543 2012-04-01 20:30:45 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: e.g. his network connection going down before the slush/ozcoin split would create that.
544 2012-04-01 20:30:47 <graingert> how do they know which is orphaned?
545 2012-04-01 20:31:07 <graingert> !bc,stats
546 2012-04-01 20:31:08 <gribble> Current Blocks: 173934 | Current Difficulty: 1626553.4813289 | Next Difficulty At Block: 175391 | Next Difficulty In: 1457 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 2 days, 14 hours, 41 minutes, and 30 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1716268.57045631 | Estimated Percent Change: 5.51565565823
547 2012-04-01 20:31:09 <gmaxwell> er before the slush/ozcoin split was resolved.
548 2012-04-01 20:32:24 <gmaxwell> I note that there have not been any '50btc' credited blocks since this fork.
549 2012-04-01 20:33:12 <graingert> ah there are higher blocks
550 2012-04-01 20:33:31 <gmaxwell> graingert: sure. the fork looks resolved.
551 2012-04-01 20:34:19 <graingert> slush/ozcoin?
552 2012-04-01 20:34:39 <graingert> what are '50btc' credited blocks since
553 2012-04-01 20:34:43 <graingert> what are '50btc' credited blocks
554 2012-04-01 20:34:46 <graingert> are they not all of them
555 2012-04-01 20:35:03 <gmaxwell> graingert: 50btc is the name of a pool.
556 2012-04-01 20:35:19 <gmaxwell> But the MM's blocks are currently being called 50btc by blockchain.info (most likely)
557 2012-04-01 20:35:31 <gmaxwell> Don't blame me for the confusing pool name.
558 2012-04-01 20:35:56 <graingert> MM blocks?
559 2012-04-01 20:38:51 <upb> MM = mossad miners
560 2012-04-01 20:39:03 <upb> who mine with a zionist botnet
561 2012-04-01 20:39:35 <graingert> zionist?
562 2012-04-01 20:39:35 <makomk> gmaxwell: interestingly blockchain.info claims to have heard about the 1 tx version of block 173929 20 minutes before Donate@Home's, of 173930 25 minutes before Deepbit's, and of 173931 again 25 minutes before Deepbit's. That'd require unusually selective network failure on the part of the MM.
563 2012-04-01 20:47:08 <DBordello> I am getting the following error now when I try to start bitcoind:
564 2012-04-01 20:47:11 <DBordello> http://pastebin.com/fP4CreZK
565 2012-04-01 20:47:19 <DBordello> Thoughts?  Could it be due to a package update?
566 2012-04-01 20:47:51 <SomeoneWeird> DBordello, you have permission to bind to ports?
567 2012-04-01 20:48:25 <DBordello> SomeoneWeird, I assume so.... I did before.
568 2012-04-01 20:48:35 <DBordello> but that error seems to indicate otherwise
569 2012-04-01 20:49:53 <DBordello> Hmmm, I see what is wrong.  :)
570 2012-04-01 20:50:36 <DBordello> I accidentally changed the rpc port to something too low, which I can't bind to :)
571 2012-04-01 20:56:02 <SomeoneWeird> ah
572 2012-04-01 20:56:04 <SomeoneWeird> :)
573 2012-04-01 20:56:25 <DBordello> Thank you for pointing out the obvious
574 2012-04-01 20:56:25 <graingert> upb: zionist?
575 2012-04-01 20:56:52 <upb> are you asking what zionist means?
576 2012-04-01 20:57:04 <graingert> no just why you can have a zionist miner
577 2012-04-01 20:57:09 <graingert> how*
578 2012-04-01 20:57:11 <graingert> !google zionist
579 2012-04-01 20:57:12 <gribble> Zionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism>; A Definition of Zionism: <http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/zionism.html>; Zionist Organization of America.: <http://www.zoa.org/>
580 2012-04-01 20:57:13 <TiggrBot> [zionist] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ExKg8RgUS9gJ:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism+zionisthl=ct=clnk (Cached)
581 2012-04-01 20:57:35 <graingert> a Jewish miner?
582 2012-04-01 20:57:43 <upb> it is a botnet
583 2012-04-01 20:57:53 <graingert> why would a jewish miner be a botnet?
584 2012-04-01 20:58:04 <graingert> I can understand a botnet miner
585 2012-04-01 20:58:15 <graingert> and I can understand a jewish miner (ish)
586 2012-04-01 20:58:19 <graingert> but not both
587 2012-04-01 20:58:21 <upb> haha
588 2012-04-01 21:22:42 <Slix`> Zoinist takeover of bitcoin?
589 2012-04-01 21:22:47 <Slix`> Zionist*
590 2012-04-01 21:23:32 <sipa> that's a pointer to a zionist?
591 2012-04-01 21:28:59 <kinlo> did anything change to the fee logic in 0.6?
592 2012-04-01 21:29:45 <gmaxwell> No.
593 2012-04-01 21:30:18 <kinlo> can't seem to create a transaction for 0.01 btc without fee on the testnet
594 2012-04-01 21:44:40 <user_> reuters.com/article/2012/04/01/traders-bitcoin-idUSL6E8ET5K620120401
595 2012-04-01 21:48:35 <sipa> interesting
596 2012-04-01 21:56:38 <nanotube> heh nice article
597 2012-04-01 21:57:04 <sipa> i have not seen many articles that gave so many viewpoints
598 2012-04-01 21:58:34 <Blitzboom> "Bitcoin is not going to fly because there is no central bank or power base. It's doomed to fail."
599 2012-04-01 21:58:38 <Blitzboom> typical banker
600 2012-04-01 22:03:13 <Blitzboom> To be "Zhou Tonged" is to be wiped out financially.
601 2012-04-01 22:03:15 <Blitzboom> i love it
602 2012-04-01 22:04:43 <nanotube> yea they even added a space and capitalization.
603 2012-04-01 22:05:40 <sipa> glad they did at least keep the latin character transliterations
604 2012-04-01 22:05:42 <sipa> -s
605 2012-04-01 22:08:24 <gmaxwell> Blitzboom: that criticism does us a great service.
606 2012-04-01 22:09:50 <Blitzboom> yeah
607 2012-04-01 22:09:58 <Blitzboom> its an awesome article
608 2012-04-01 22:41:24 <k9quaint> so whats the word on that fork?
609 2012-04-01 22:44:21 <Cory> Fork? :O
610 2012-04-01 22:45:32 <k9quaint> there was a 4 block fork a while back
611 2012-04-01 22:49:46 <Cory> Wow. Were 3 of them probably mined by the mystery miner?
612 2012-04-01 22:56:49 <Graet> no
613 2012-04-01 22:57:06 <Graet> ozcoin and slush had blocks, both were built on
614 2012-04-01 22:57:18 <Graet> a non bip16 pool screwed up one fork
615 2012-04-01 22:57:20 <Cory> Did MM build three blocks on ozcoin's?
616 2012-04-01 22:57:41 <Graet> http://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks
617 2012-04-01 22:57:43 <Graet> no
618 2012-04-01 22:57:50 <Cory> I guess I'm reading it wrong.
619 2012-04-01 22:58:25 <Graet> from wehat i read ^^^^^^^^ up there blockchain.ingo was reporting incorrectly