1 2012-04-06 00:06:49 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: graingert opened issue 1050 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1050>
  2 2012-04-06 00:09:19 <graingert> luke-jr: simple pull https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1051
  3 2012-04-06 00:09:59 <luke-jr> graingert: sorry, I only pull things someone else has already pulled.
  4 2012-04-06 00:10:16 <graingert> ah who is the pull myster?
  5 2012-04-06 00:10:48 <luke-jr> sipa, gmaxwell, gavin, jgarzik
  6 2012-04-06 00:11:08 <graingert> awesome
  7 2012-04-06 00:11:12 <luke-jr> I only do the stable branches, and I have a policy of only pulling fixes already in master
  8 2012-04-06 00:11:47 <graingert> has sign message been backporteD?
  9 2012-04-06 00:12:18 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: graingert opened pull request 1051 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1051>
 10 2012-04-06 00:13:01 <luke-jr> graingert: signmessage was introduced to Bitcoin-Qt in 0.6.0
 11 2012-04-06 00:13:10 <graingert> yes
 12 2012-04-06 00:13:30 <graingert> I presume you only backport fixes to stable
 13 2012-04-06 00:13:48 <graingert> I guess if you backported features - it would just be dev >.>
 14 2012-04-06 00:13:56 <luke-jr> right, just fixes
 15 2012-04-06 00:14:00 <graingert> It's too early in the AM
 16 2012-04-06 00:14:02 <luke-jr> and mandatory protocol changes
 17 2012-04-06 00:14:08 <luke-jr> ie, BIP 30 and 16
 18 2012-04-06 00:14:25 <graingert> I could practically feel prickle when you said that
 19 2012-04-06 00:14:34 <luke-jr> ?
 20 2012-04-06 00:14:37 <graingert> I could practically feel you *prickle when you said that
 21 2012-04-06 00:15:00 <luke-jr> &
 22 2012-04-06 00:15:06 <luke-jr> doesn't make any more sense :P
 23 2012-04-06 00:15:10 <graingert> oh well
 24 2012-04-06 00:15:17 <graingert> I was never any good at pointers
 25 2012-04-06 00:21:10 <gmaxwell> graingert: pulled.
 26 2012-04-06 00:21:14 <graingert> woo
 27 2012-04-06 00:21:51 <graingert> should probably have hijacked the example address...
 28 2012-04-06 00:22:01 <graingert> oh well
 29 2012-04-06 00:22:46 <gmaxwell> I wouldn't have pulled that. :)
 30 2012-04-06 00:22:59 <gmaxwell> (well not without asking about it first.)
 31 2012-04-06 00:23:11 <graingert> is there official policy of what the example addresses are?
 32 2012-04-06 00:25:06 <luke-jr> graingert: pulled
 33 2012-04-06 00:25:08 <graingert> hang on
 34 2012-04-06 00:25:13 <graingert> why is http://blockchain.info/tx-index/3618498/4005d6bea3a93fb72f006d23e2685b85069d270cb57d15f0c057ef2d5e3f78d2
 35 2012-04-06 00:25:15 <graingert> confirmed?
 36 2012-04-06 00:25:44 <luke-jr> graingert: in some orphan chain
 37 2012-04-06 00:25:53 <graingert> 9 blocks deep?
 38 2012-04-06 00:25:58 <luke-jr> probably
 39 2012-04-06 00:26:01 <graingert> wat
 40 2012-04-06 00:26:13 <graingert> is that a 9 block fork?
 41 2012-04-06 00:26:54 <luke-jr> dunno
 42 2012-04-06 00:27:19 <graingert> gmaxwell: can you shed any light?
 43 2012-04-06 00:27:25 <graingert> I thought this would never hit 9 blocks?
 44 2012-04-06 00:27:31 <gmaxwell> graingert: its an invalid address, used uniformly in the software I dunno where it comes from .. its like the sha1 of "bitcoin" or something I think.
 45 2012-04-06 00:27:47 <graingert> oh
 46 2012-04-06 00:27:51 <forsetifox> Longest fork has been like 5 blocks.
 47 2012-04-06 00:27:52 <graingert> fair enough
 48 2012-04-06 00:27:56 <gmaxwell> The confirmation number on that txn has showed all kinds of random values.
 49 2012-04-06 00:28:00 <graingert> ah
 50 2012-04-06 00:28:04 <graingert> okay
 51 2012-04-06 00:28:15 <graingert> blockchain.info is being mad
 52 2012-04-06 00:28:35 <gmaxwell> I'm going to pay off the blockchain.info people to put even more crazy stuff in the output, since y'all will apparently believe anything it says.
 53 2012-04-06 00:28:39 <gmaxwell> :)
 54 2012-04-06 00:28:48 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: we should probably make the example invalid or some real donation address IMO
 55 2012-04-06 00:29:08 <graingert> make it the signing address for alerts
 56 2012-04-06 00:29:26 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: it _is_ invalid.
 57 2012-04-06 00:29:32 <graingert> as that's the "official" satoshi client address
 58 2012-04-06 00:29:35 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: oh, ok
 59 2012-04-06 00:29:36 <gmaxwell> $ ~/src/bitcoin/src/bitcoind validateaddress 1NS17iag9jJgTHD1VXjvLCEnZuQ3rJDE9L
 60 2012-04-06 00:29:40 <gmaxwell> { "isvalid" : false
 61 2012-04-06 00:29:42 <gmaxwell> }
 62 2012-04-06 00:33:20 <gmaxwell> The longest fork I can find recently is 4, 173928-173931
 63 2012-04-06 00:33:38 <graingert> how do you locate forks?
 64 2012-04-06 00:34:04 <gmaxwell> They're in the kitchen, to the right of the sink.
 65 2012-04-06 00:34:33 <graingert> no that's where they are
 66 2012-04-06 00:34:36 <graingert> how do you locate them
 67 2012-04-06 00:34:41 <gmaxwell> Metaldetector.
 68 2012-04-06 00:34:55 <graingert> yes but that also detects pans
 69 2012-04-06 00:34:57 <gmaxwell> (looking at both my logs, and at blockchain.info)
 70 2012-04-06 00:35:22 <graingert> also it doesn't really locate, it detects
 71 2012-04-06 00:36:03 <forsetifox> http://blockexplorer.com/q/reorglog
 72 2012-04-06 00:36:31 <gmaxwell> graingert: you use an simple mark and sweep algorithim with the metal detector in the inner loop. :)
 73 2012-04-06 00:36:50 <graingert> is there an OS blockexplorer yet?
 74 2012-04-06 00:36:52 <forsetifox> Snarky devs. =P
 75 2012-04-06 00:36:57 <gmaxwell> graingert: then a secondary test to classify pans vs forks vs gold nuggets
 76 2012-04-06 00:37:18 <gmaxwell> http://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks?offset=50 is also handy
 77 2012-04-06 00:37:18 <graingert> what about plastic forks?
 78 2012-04-06 00:37:28 <gmaxwell> graingert: imposters
 79 2012-04-06 00:37:36 <gmaxwell> next you'll be asking about sporks&
 80 2012-04-06 00:37:44 <graingert> good point
 81 2012-04-06 00:39:04 <graingert> actually that's well defined: https://imgur.com/Qgc3K
 82 2012-04-06 00:39:08 <graingert> a spork is a fork
 83 2012-04-06 00:39:22 <graingert> and a SPALYD instanceof fork also
 84 2012-04-06 01:22:09 <finway> Seems mtgox slows down tx confirmation, because of poison BIP16 tx.
 85 2012-04-06 01:56:15 <gmaxwell> finway: Good morning, chicken little.
 86 2012-04-06 05:28:25 <paulo_> Hello
 87 2012-04-06 05:28:45 <blinkbat> hji
 88 2012-04-06 05:28:47 <blinkbat> hi
 89 2012-04-06 05:29:34 <paulo_> was supposed to ask if DOSing the network was possible, just realized it's not
 90 2012-04-06 05:29:42 <paulo_> oh wait
 91 2012-04-06 05:30:01 <paulo_> what if I keep sending payments to myself? back and forth?
 92 2012-04-06 05:30:06 <_W_> sure it's possible - it's just very big and distributed
 93 2012-04-06 05:30:17 <paulo_> wouldn't that flood the network?
 94 2012-04-06 05:30:29 <_W_> paulo_, there are lots of anti-spam features - once your transactions gets a low enough priority, and doesn't include a fee, they will not be relayed
 95 2012-04-06 05:30:52 <_W_> I'm sure the wiki has something
 96 2012-04-06 05:32:31 <_W_> (or not be relayed fast, not sure exactly how it works)
 97 2012-04-06 08:02:37 <pjorrit> you have more options of you mine your own transactions though
 98 2012-04-06 10:18:36 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin-Test build #245: FAILURE in 25 min: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin-Test/245/
 99 2012-04-06 10:18:37 <BlueMattBot> * pieter.wuille: Locking system overhaul, add condition variables
100 2012-04-06 10:19:30 <sipa> oh my
101 2012-04-06 10:19:50 <kinlo> you didn't just break it did you :p
102 2012-04-06 10:21:49 <sipa> just an over-eager unit test
103 2012-04-06 10:28:10 <da2ce7> sipa: how is you BIP comming along?
104 2012-04-06 10:29:10 <sipa> da2ce7: the HD Cloud Enterprise wallets?
105 2012-04-06 10:29:28 <sipa> da2ce7: or BIP30?
106 2012-04-06 10:29:45 <da2ce7> :)  the Buzzword HD Bitcoin "Gold Standard 2.0" Wallets?
107 2012-04-06 10:30:02 <sipa> yeah, i should finish it and get it implemented
108 2012-04-06 10:30:24 <da2ce7> he he
109 2012-04-06 10:30:56 <da2ce7> sipa: http://torrentfreak.com/the-fight-against-copyright-enforcement-the-fight-for-civil-liberties-are-the-same-120404/  <- may like this article.
110 2012-04-06 10:34:54 <sipa> da2ce7: have you read lawrence lessig's "free culture" ?
111 2012-04-06 10:35:14 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: please ping me whenever you're ready for rc3
112 2012-04-06 10:35:21 <da2ce7> not yet.
113 2012-04-06 10:42:29 <TD> hmm
114 2012-04-06 10:46:11 <TD> ah, we kicked CIA out of bitcoin-dev
115 2012-04-06 10:46:20 <TD> i was just wondering why my commit notifications broke
116 2012-04-06 10:46:23 <TD> but i guess they just moved
117 2012-04-06 10:47:24 <luke-jr> TD: #bticoin-commits
118 2012-04-06 10:47:34 <TD> yes, isaw
119 2012-04-06 10:48:43 <TuxBlackEdo> damn
120 2012-04-06 10:48:50 <TuxBlackEdo> you guys are still up
121 2012-04-06 10:49:24 <TuxBlackEdo> yo quieres dormir
122 2012-04-06 10:49:27 <coingenuity> no u
123 2012-04-06 10:49:44 <coingenuity> yo tambien TuxBlackEdo
124 2012-04-06 10:50:06 <TuxBlackEdo> pero yo quiero veo pauly d project
125 2012-04-06 10:50:27 <coingenuity> XD
126 2012-04-06 10:50:41 <coingenuity> i have no idea bro
127 2012-04-06 10:50:55 <coingenuity> i will watch "swamp people" instead :P
128 2012-04-06 10:50:58 <TuxBlackEdo> hehe
129 2012-04-06 10:51:00 <TuxBlackEdo> i almost never talk in here
130 2012-04-06 10:51:10 <TuxBlackEdo> because i always think theres something important going on
131 2012-04-06 10:51:30 <coingenuity> there usually is, i just lurk mainly ;)
132 2012-04-06 10:51:49 <TuxBlackEdo> coingenuity, have you read gavin's blog about the vulnurability they recently fixed?
133 2012-04-06 10:51:52 <coingenuity> that, and these channel logs encourage less off-topic discussion :)
134 2012-04-06 10:52:06 <coingenuity> nope, i have not
135 2012-04-06 10:52:33 <TuxBlackEdo> good read: http://gavintech.blogspot.com/ <- that page, you dont have to click anything
136 2012-04-06 10:52:58 <coingenuity> lmfao
137 2012-04-06 10:53:01 <coingenuity> you know me well
138 2012-04-06 10:54:08 <TuxBlackEdo> also read the one about the bitcoin faucet getting hacked
139 2012-04-06 10:54:27 <TuxBlackEdo> he had his stuff hosted with linode as well
140 2012-04-06 10:54:29 <TuxBlackEdo> anyways
141 2012-04-06 10:54:39 <TuxBlackEdo> off to watch some tv shows before passing out
142 2012-04-06 10:54:42 <TuxBlackEdo> later coingenuity
143 2012-04-06 10:54:43 <sipa> still up? it's 3pm here...
144 2012-04-06 10:54:56 <coingenuity> kk nn TuxBlackEdo
145 2012-04-06 10:54:56 <TuxBlackEdo> it's 6am here
146 2012-04-06 10:55:02 <TuxBlackEdo> lates
147 2012-04-06 10:55:08 <coingenuity> yer, imma zz im a minute too
148 2012-04-06 10:55:09 <coingenuity> paes
149 2012-04-06 10:55:13 <TuxBlackEdo> paes
150 2012-04-06 11:27:23 <etotheipi_> anyone have a link to Gavin's multi-sig proposal?
151 2012-04-06 11:29:17 <luke-jr> BIP 12?
152 2012-04-06 11:29:35 <etotheipi_> luke-jr, no.  gavin had put up a multi-sig escrow proposal
153 2012-04-06 11:30:23 <etotheipi_> it was describing a way that two parties could execute an online purchase using multi-sig escrow
154 2012-04-06 11:37:17 <riush_> https://gist.github.com/830ca16758fb9ad496d7 ?
155 2012-04-06 11:58:00 <etotheipi_> ahhh thanks riush!
156 2012-04-06 11:58:39 <etotheipi_> why doesn't that show up on Gavin's gist list?
157 2012-04-06 11:59:27 <riush_> seems to be a 'private' gist
158 2012-04-06 12:15:06 <luke-jr> yay for mod_rewrite providing transparent URI-compatibility
159 2012-04-06 12:16:45 <freewil> cant tell if thats sarcasm or not
160 2012-04-06 12:17:02 <freewil> not sure what transparent URI-compatibility means
161 2012-04-06 12:20:32 <luke-jr> freewil: eg http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/0.3.22-eligius_sendonly.patch
162 2012-04-06 12:36:49 <freewil> luke-jr, what does that have to do with mod_rewrite
163 2012-04-06 12:52:41 <luke-jr> freewil: that link is obsolete. notice you're redirected :P
164 2012-04-06 12:53:10 <freewil> oh nice
165 2012-04-06 12:53:26 <freewil> i didnt even notice
166 2012-04-06 12:53:31 <freewil> thats how transparent it is
167 2012-04-06 12:54:24 <luke-jr> :p
168 2012-04-06 13:07:40 <paulo_> why should I wait for confirmation?
169 2012-04-06 13:08:10 <luke-jr> paulo_: if you don't mind the risk of someone scamming you, don't.
170 2012-04-06 13:08:45 <luke-jr> paulo_: any fewer than 6 confirmations is subject to reversal (exponentially harder to do)
171 2012-04-06 13:13:33 <paulo_> transactions with fees are prioritized, right?
172 2012-04-06 13:17:50 <luke-jr> paulo_: depends on the fee
173 2012-04-06 13:25:17 <helo> it's more like transactions without insufficient fees may be ignored
174 2012-04-06 13:25:26 <helo> err with insufficient
175 2012-04-06 13:25:54 <helo> once you get over the threshold of "sufficient" fees, a higher fee is unlikely to help
176 2012-04-06 13:37:44 <luke-jr> helo: except there are multiple thesholds
177 2012-04-06 13:39:14 <helo> i guess that's true... is there any way to know what the different thresholds are?
178 2012-04-06 13:39:45 <luke-jr> Eligius charges 4096 Satoshi per 512 bytes
179 2012-04-06 13:40:08 <luke-jr> stock bitcoind charges 50000 Satoshi per 1000 bytes, but has a "free area" for lower fees
180 2012-04-06 13:40:42 <luke-jr> older bitcoind charges 1000000 Satoshi per 1000 bytes, but has a free area
181 2012-04-06 13:41:03 <luke-jr> Deepbit charges 1000000 Satoshi per 1000 bytes, but has a larger-than-usual free area
182 2012-04-06 13:41:30 <helo> so as long as the free area is not full, any transaction may be accepted there?
183 2012-04-06 13:42:49 <helo> does the free area often fill up?
184 2012-04-06 13:45:06 <luke-jr> Deepbit likes to spam, so yes
185 2012-04-06 14:25:27 <Blitzboom> devs, what have you done http://bitcoin.sipa.be/speed-lin-ever.png
186 2012-04-06 14:27:27 <TD> what's the issue?
187 2012-04-06 14:28:11 <Blitzboom> not really anything, i just hope it wont drop too much
188 2012-04-06 14:28:40 <sipa> it won't
189 2012-04-06 14:29:08 <luke-jr> TD: BIP 16
190 2012-04-06 14:30:14 <TD> i know
191 2012-04-06 14:30:23 <TD> i meant, the recent drop doesn't look like anything we haven't seen before
192 2012-04-06 14:30:26 <TD> so what's the issue?
193 2012-04-06 14:30:53 <Rebroad> hi... I've found the cause of the blockchain taking weeks to download...  even in version 6.0.0... I can raise an issue for it..
194 2012-04-06 14:31:12 <terry> rg: To be fair, it's been ~5 months into Litecoin's inception, and 10,000 litecoins are already worth more than several pizzas, while 10,000 bitcoins bought only two pizzas over one year into Bitcoin.
195 2012-04-06 14:31:13 <Rebroad> it's due to the way it handles recv error 10054
196 2012-04-06 14:31:15 <sipa> weeks....?
197 2012-04-06 14:31:19 <Rebroad> yes, weeks
198 2012-04-06 14:31:26 <terry> Goes to show just how much ahead of Bitcoin's growth curve Litecoin is.
199 2012-04-06 14:31:28 <sipa> what is error 10054?
200 2012-04-06 14:31:35 <Rebroad> you might remember me mentioning it some weeks ago
201 2012-04-06 14:31:43 <Rebroad> "socket recv error 10054"
202 2012-04-06 14:31:55 <terry> Wrong channel, sorry.
203 2012-04-06 14:31:58 <Rebroad> it's due to my ISP's bandwidth throttling
204 2012-04-06 14:32:05 <sipa> Rebroad: connection reset by peer
205 2012-04-06 14:32:11 <sipa> what wrong with how it's handled?
206 2012-04-06 14:32:13 <Rebroad> and the client doesn't notice how to deal with it
207 2012-04-06 14:32:24 <Rebroad> well, it does the getdata for blocks
208 2012-04-06 14:32:42 <Rebroad> and then while it's receiving them, the connection is RSTed... and the node doesn't re-getdata it
209 2012-04-06 14:32:55 <sipa> of course not, the connection is gone
210 2012-04-06 14:33:12 <TD> i think he means
211 2012-04-06 14:33:15 <TD> it doesn't getdata from any peer
212 2012-04-06 14:33:22 <TD> at least not until the next block
213 2012-04-06 14:33:31 <TD> Rebroad: why do you see so many more RSTs than normal? are you in china or something?
214 2012-04-06 14:33:32 <Rebroad> TD, correct
215 2012-04-06 14:33:32 <sipa> actually, i think it is, but not immediately
216 2012-04-06 14:33:40 <sipa> ah right, yes, there are several improvements possible
217 2012-04-06 14:33:49 <sipa> but i hope we can combine them with initial headers-only mode
218 2012-04-06 14:33:50 <Rebroad> TD, it's becoming more standard with UK ISPs these days
219 2012-04-06 14:34:17 <sipa> i really doubt your ISP has anything to do with it
220 2012-04-06 14:34:30 <TD> Rebroad: "more standard" ?
221 2012-04-06 14:34:31 <Rebroad> I thinnk the node should re-getdata it when the connection ends before it got what it asked for
222 2012-04-06 14:34:44 <TD> Rebroad: if your ISP is frequently resetting connections for no reason that's a really serious issue with that ISP
223 2012-04-06 14:34:49 <TD> have you talked to them about that?
224 2012-04-06 14:34:51 <Rebroad> sipa, I'm pretty sure it's my ISP.. it's why I often keep disconnecting from IRC also
225 2012-04-06 14:34:59 <TD> it may also be your wifi router, etc
226 2012-04-06 14:35:08 <TD> Rebroad: you could try MultiBit
227 2012-04-06 14:35:12 <Rebroad> TD, yes.. my bundle includes webbrowsing only, so anything else they try to block
228 2012-04-06 14:35:15 <TD> Rebroad: bitcoinj has some handling for this type of thing
229 2012-04-06 14:35:24 <helo> what isp?
230 2012-04-06 14:35:29 <Rebroad> T-Mobile
231 2012-04-06 14:35:30 <TD> Rebroad: oh wow. "web browsing only" internet? then there's no bug with bitcoin
232 2012-04-06 14:35:36 <TD> Rebroad: just get a better ISP. problem solved.
233 2012-04-06 14:35:41 <Rebroad> TD... not a bug per se..
234 2012-04-06 14:35:50 <helo> can you set up a ssh tunnel over port 80?
235 2012-04-06 14:35:52 <Rebroad> but a non-consideration
236 2012-04-06 14:35:58 <Rebroad> ssh is also RSTed
237 2012-04-06 14:36:06 <Rebroad> ah.. port 80
238 2012-04-06 14:36:11 <Rebroad> possibly...
239 2012-04-06 14:36:27 <luke-jr> sipa: can you pull #987 plz? :p
240 2012-04-06 14:36:38 <Rebroad> but I think it would be worthwhile having the node re-get for whatever reason when the block download terminates prematurely
241 2012-04-06 14:37:03 <helo> they may rst everything, as http doesn't generally require persistent connections for long periods of time
242 2012-04-06 14:37:14 <sipa> luke-jr: meh
243 2012-04-06 14:37:33 <TD> Rebroad: sure. like i said, some clients do that already.
244 2012-04-06 14:37:39 <TD> Rebroad: but it doesn't sound like a critical issue
245 2012-04-06 14:37:55 <TD> Rebroad: basically you're violating the ToS on your internet connection and then wondering why you have a poor experience. bitcoin isn't intended to work in such circumstances.
246 2012-04-06 14:38:55 <helo> Rebroad: download the blockchain from sourceforge over http
247 2012-04-06 14:38:59 <gmaxwell> Rebroad: can you update that patch as sipa requested (rebase/collapse to one commit)
248 2012-04-06 14:39:27 <Rebroad> gmaxwell, I noticed sipa's comment. Unfortately I'm not quite familiar with git enough to remember how to :-s
249 2012-04-06 14:39:37 <Rebroad> I'm trying to get up to speed on git more...
250 2012-04-06 14:39:38 <luke-jr> Rebroad: "web browsing only" isn't internet service.
251 2012-04-06 14:40:16 <sipa> Rebroad: checkout the branch with those patches in
252 2012-04-06 14:40:38 <Rebroad> well.. luke-jr, I think T-Mobiles definition of internet is rather wonky... they talk about web browsing being different to "downloadng"
253 2012-04-06 14:41:47 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: what's the status of #1023?
254 2012-04-06 14:41:55 <luke-jr> Rebroad: false advertising is illegal
255 2012-04-06 14:41:57 <Rebroad> I suspect that this RST thing can affect the nodes I connect to just as much though, e.g. when I'm sending blocks
256 2012-04-06 14:41:58 <gmaxwell> Rebroad: okay, well after you figure it out and do that, I'll test your commit and pull it.  If you can't figure it out, let me know and I'll give you a hand.  (though at worse you could just reset back and redo the diff)
257 2012-04-06 14:42:27 <TD> Rebroad: what is the issue with you just buying a regular full internet connection, exactly?
258 2012-04-06 14:42:29 <gmaxwell> Rebroad: if you run bitcoin over tor or stunnel you should be fine. :(
259 2012-04-06 14:42:50 <Rebroad> TD, money
260 2012-04-06 14:43:32 <TD> are the savings really that big? i mean, slow internet isn't _that_ expensive.
261 2012-04-06 14:43:43 <TD> unless you live in the middle of nowhere and are using a mobile connection i guess
262 2012-04-06 14:43:48 <Rebroad> TD - I'm moving house soon, and the contracts are min 18months usually
263 2012-04-06 14:44:42 <etotheipi_> TD: I have had a terrible experience with "slow internet"
264 2012-04-06 14:44:57 <etotheipi_> both comcast and verizon refuse to give me *anything* less than $70/mo
265 2012-04-06 14:45:14 <etotheipi_> I asked for no phone, no cable, and the literally the slowest internet they had that wasn't dialup
266 2012-04-06 14:45:21 <etotheipi_> they said they had a promotion for $65
267 2012-04-06 14:46:05 <etotheipi_> and then continued to push their internet+cable+phone option for like $75/mo
268 2012-04-06 14:49:03 <etotheipi_> so my opinion is that there is no "cheap" internet option
269 2012-04-06 14:50:36 <blinkbat> move to where theres cheaper broadband?
270 2012-04-06 14:51:12 <etotheipi_> I live in a pretty "dense" area... I think it's just anti-competitiveness
271 2012-04-06 14:54:14 <luke-jr> sipa: oops, sorry, I forgot to push my rebased branch&
272 2012-04-06 14:54:35 <etotheipi_> has there really only been 2 blocks on the testnet in the last week?
273 2012-04-06 14:54:35 <luke-jr> should merge cleanly now XD
274 2012-04-06 14:55:31 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: nah, sounds like you're stuck on the pre-0.6 fork of testnet.
275 2012-04-06 14:55:49 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: ahhhh thanks
276 2012-04-06 14:56:14 <etotheipi_> well, my testnet wallet says it's 0.6.0.6
277 2012-04-06 14:56:18 <gmaxwell> (testnet got new rules that let blocks with min difficulty happen when there are 'long' gaps)
278 2012-04-06 14:56:28 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: right ... but all your peers might be old nodes. :(
279 2012-04-06 14:56:48 <etotheipi_> oh well, luckily I don't need to send anything...
280 2012-04-06 14:59:10 <gavinandresen> of course, we deploy the new rule and it becomes uninteresting for people to drive up testnet difficulty so the rule isn't really needed....
281 2012-04-06 14:59:49 <Rebroad> may I ask why the bitcoin amounts rewarded per block jump from 50 BTC to 25 BTC rather than decrease smoothly per block?
282 2012-04-06 15:00:12 <Rebroad> the sudden jump may have an impact on the bitcoin market/price, etc, which might not happen were it smooth
283 2012-04-06 15:00:14 <gavinandresen> just because.
284 2012-04-06 15:00:30 <Rebroad> not so much a -dev question, given it can't be changed now...
285 2012-04-06 15:00:54 <etotheipi_> gavinandresen: I have some other priorities to figure out with Armory right now, but you're beginning to sway me on the escrow thing...
286 2012-04-06 15:01:25 <Rebroad> well.. it could.. but I guess the software would need to be changed to allow both systems to co-exist....
287 2012-04-06 15:01:29 <gavinandresen> etotheipi_: cool.  My main concern is that lots of escrows doesn't turn into lots of "lost" coins
288 2012-04-06 15:01:49 <etotheipi_> the only thing I don't like is the non-trivial need-to-find-a-miner-and-have-him-help-me-out step
289 2012-04-06 15:02:12 <etotheipi_> but if that is an exception instead of the standard... I'd go for it
290 2012-04-06 15:02:20 <sipa> etotheipi_: the obvious solution to that is re-enabling transaction replacement
291 2012-04-06 15:02:21 <gavinandresen> etotheipi_: if both parties are honest and don't hack their clients to broadcast transactions when they're not supposed to, then that step shouldn't be necessary
292 2012-04-06 15:02:57 <etotheipi_> sipa: I agree with you... but do you think that escrow tx should just not happen until then?
293 2012-04-06 15:03:33 <etotheipi_> maybe I'm just impatient :)
294 2012-04-06 15:03:38 <sipa> no, escrow is useful without it, imho
295 2012-04-06 15:04:00 <gavinandresen> etotheipi_: I updated the gist this morning, by the way
296 2012-04-06 15:04:07 <sipa> and even if 0.6.1 would enable transaction replacement, without incentive it would take ages for the network and especially miners to incorporate it
297 2012-04-06 15:04:10 <etotheipi_> gavinandresen: yeah I already started looking at it
298 2012-04-06 15:04:20 <gmaxwell> I think it's foolish to only focus on two party escrows. Three(+) party are much easier to do well.
299 2012-04-06 15:04:43 <gavinandresen> sipa: I think the only transaction replacement rule that makes sense is "a transaction with a higher fee replaces one with a lower fee."
300 2012-04-06 15:05:03 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: that's vulnerable to double-spending attacks
301 2012-04-06 15:05:04 <gavinandresen> sipa: because any other rule miners have an incentive to break.
302 2012-04-06 15:05:09 <gmaxwell> And in most cases you can find someone to act as a party to arbritrate disputes.
303 2012-04-06 15:05:14 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: doesn't change outputs.
304 2012-04-06 15:05:24 <sipa> gavinandresen: true
305 2012-04-06 15:05:31 <gmaxwell> (or at least contrain the outputs it changes)
306 2012-04-06 15:05:33 <luke-jr> "no output changes" would be safe, but not as flexible.
307 2012-04-06 15:05:46 <luke-jr> "only increases on outputs" would be better
308 2012-04-06 15:05:52 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: you could say " only ... ha yes.
309 2012-04-06 15:06:03 <sipa> the current rule is "the same prevouts"
310 2012-04-06 15:06:09 <sipa> and higher nSequence
311 2012-04-06 15:06:10 <etotheipi_> gavinandresen: btw, Armory RAM-reduction is complete: so you can now try it out pretty easily on any system http://bitcoinarmory.com/index.php/building-armory-from-source
312 2012-04-06 15:06:18 <gavinandresen> If I'm a miner, I don't care about double-spends, I want the version of the transaction with the highest fee (or highest fee per kb or whatever the right measure is)
313 2012-04-06 15:06:45 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: If you don't care about the security of the network in general, yes.
314 2012-04-06 15:06:50 <etotheipi_> err.. easiest on Linux... just make sure (on any platform) that the Satoshi client is open and sync'd
315 2012-04-06 15:06:54 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: but nodes are also relayers, and most of them don't care about the fee.
316 2012-04-06 15:07:11 <gavinandresen> I don't think nodes should relay non-final transactions at all.
317 2012-04-06 15:07:27 <luke-jr> I'm assuming nobody knows what is final and what isn't.
318 2012-04-06 15:07:33 <sipa> TD probably has some thoughts about this?
319 2012-04-06 15:07:43 <etotheipi_> I don't think miners should just allow arbitrary replacement of tx that would otherwise make it into the next block, even with fees
320 2012-04-06 15:07:48 <luke-jr> ie, send without a fee and hope it gets in normally; if not, resend in 12 hours with a fee
321 2012-04-06 15:07:52 <gavinandresen> (I was going to go grab lunch but this is an interesting conversation....)
322 2012-04-06 15:08:06 <Diablo-D3> [12:41:47] <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: what's the status of #1023?
323 2012-04-06 15:08:10 <Diablo-D3> why are you asking me?
324 2012-04-06 15:08:18 <luke-jr> because you tab-completed Dia<tab>
325 2012-04-06 15:08:20 <luke-jr> sorry
326 2012-04-06 15:08:25 <gavinandresen> etotheipi_: what you think doesn't really matter, eventually the incentives will make miners maximimze their profits
327 2012-04-06 15:08:43 <sipa> miners do have an incentive to keep the network usable
328 2012-04-06 15:08:51 <sipa> not all may realize this
329 2012-04-06 15:09:16 <etotheipi_> gavinandresen: I'm concerned about the extreme case:
330 2012-04-06 15:09:24 <sipa> but if you implement any rule that only in miner's direct advantage, we'll end up with a very spammy blockchain, i'm afraid
331 2012-04-06 15:09:38 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: don't underestimate the power of default.
332 2012-04-06 15:09:45 <etotheipi_> I send someone 10000 BTC.... it's confirmed, then I create a conflicting tx with 200 BTC fee, and greedy miners go back a couple blocks and start double-spending for me
333 2012-04-06 15:10:08 <gmaxwell> Sure someone might change the code to accept any replacement that changes fees. but it's farly unlikely at least for a while.
334 2012-04-06 15:10:10 <luke-jr> o.o
335 2012-04-06 15:10:13 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: true for now, but I expect there to be a lot more diversity in a year or three, and to see "Miner Special!" versions of the code....
336 2012-04-06 15:10:19 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: you can do way better than that.
337 2012-04-06 15:10:40 <sipa> gtg
338 2012-04-06 15:10:45 <luke-jr> etotheipi_: except a miner would need over 50% to do that
339 2012-04-06 15:10:48 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: use nlock time to make a sequence of depedant transactions which must be mined one block after another.. each giving 50 btc fee..
340 2012-04-06 15:11:01 <etotheipi_> luke-jr: not if it's the norm for miners to be greedy
341 2012-04-06 15:11:14 <etotheipi_> if most miners are following rules that take the greediest path, then ...
342 2012-04-06 15:11:35 <luke-jr> etotheipi_: after the first miner, other miners have no incentive to build on his fork
343 2012-04-06 15:11:53 <luke-jr> so that first miner has nothing to gain by trying, since he will fail
344 2012-04-06 15:11:55 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: under your logic none of them are mining right now because shooting banktellers in the head and taking their money has better short term payoffs.
345 2012-04-06 15:12:08 <etotheipi_> yeah yeah it's extreme, nm
346 2012-04-06 15:12:11 <gavinandresen> yes, nothing stops miners from behaving that way right now.
347 2012-04-06 15:12:52 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2095#comic
348 2012-04-06 15:12:59 <gavinandresen> (well, nothing except if they're a pool op and their users found out they'd soon find themselves with no hashing power)
349 2012-04-06 15:13:29 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: if the fee is high enough, they might not care :p
350 2012-04-06 15:14:01 <etotheipi_> anyways... the point was, I don't like the idea that any final-tx not in the blockchain yet will just be arbitrarily replaced by submitting a new one with a higher fee
351 2012-04-06 15:14:06 <gavinandresen> away for a while, my stomach is being noisy
352 2012-04-06 15:16:54 <etotheipi_> it would make 0-conf tx 100% useless, instead of just 90% useless
353 2012-04-06 15:23:38 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: more like 80% rather than 70% useless in my opinion.. They're still perfectly fine for people who you can go punch in the face if the rip you off.
354 2012-04-06 15:24:04 <MasterChief> hey, the wallet crypto is AES right
355 2012-04-06 15:24:22 <gmaxwell> (where 'punch in the face' is a stand-in for 'consequences they'll care about')
356 2012-04-06 15:24:37 <gmaxwell> MasterChief: Yes.
357 2012-04-06 15:24:52 <MasterChief> is it salted
358 2012-04-06 15:24:58 <MasterChief> or is that a dumb question
359 2012-04-06 15:26:37 <gmaxwell> MasterChief: It is.
360 2012-04-06 15:26:59 <gmaxwell> And strenghtened with >=25,000 rounds of iterated hashing.
361 2012-04-06 15:27:11 <gmaxwell> (usually much greater, depends on how fast your machine is)
362 2012-04-06 15:27:26 <MasterChief> what is the salt based on
363 2012-04-06 15:27:57 <helo> final-tx cannot be replaced, right?
364 2012-04-06 15:28:14 <helo> either before or after it is in the blockchain
365 2012-04-06 15:28:27 <gmaxwell> MasterChief: data stored in the file, as is always the case with salted passwords.
366 2012-04-06 15:33:02 <luke-jr> crap, master is broken? :/
367 2012-04-06 15:40:51 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: the thing is that *anyone*, even dumb people can figure out how to swap a zero-conf tx if all they have to do is put a higher fee on it
368 2012-04-06 15:41:55 <luke-jr> 712fd182b72b0f5a1bcf843f171c29ec0a49b50f is the first bad commit
369 2012-04-06 15:42:00 <luke-jr> sipa: your fault! :P
370 2012-04-06 15:45:40 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: whats it not do?  (yea.. that locking change scared me. :) )
371 2012-04-06 15:46:20 <gmaxwell> so, people in #bitcoin are saying that windows7 gives them a "this application is not responding, click here to punch yourself in the face (kill it even though its really working fine" during bitcoin startup.
372 2012-04-06 15:47:08 <pierre`> natural selection
373 2012-04-06 15:49:21 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: test suite fails
374 2012-04-06 15:50:06 <luke-jr> test_bitcoin: test/util_tests.cpp:18: void util_tests::util_criticalsection::test_method(): Assertion `("break caught by CRITICAL_BLOCK!" && !fcriticalblockonce)' failed.
375 2012-04-06 15:50:07 <luke-jr> unknown location(0): fatal error in "util_criticalsection": signal: SIGABRT (application abort requested)
376 2012-04-06 15:51:25 <gavinandresen> nice, unit tests doing their job...
377 2012-04-06 15:51:39 <luke-jr> ;)
378 2012-04-06 15:52:19 <luke-jr> my GNUmakefile automatically runs unit tests after every build
379 2012-04-06 15:53:28 <paulo_> what are the disadvantages if bitcoin used RSA?
380 2012-04-06 15:53:49 <luke-jr> paulo_: large signatures.
381 2012-04-06 15:53:58 <luke-jr> in terms of data-size
382 2012-04-06 15:54:51 <gmaxwell> paulo_: blockchain being something like 10x larger.
383 2012-04-06 15:55:45 <gmaxwell> Also wallets being 10x larger.. also new addresses being slow to generate (though not that big a deal because that can happen in the background)
384 2012-04-06 16:08:12 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: any interest in merging #987 ? :p
385 2012-04-06 16:15:30 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: are you aware of any pending pulls that it will prevent from cleanly merging?
386 2012-04-06 16:20:51 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I'm aware of plenty of failed IPC-bug workarounds, but not aware of any that actually work sanely (Gavin NACK'd the last one IIRC)
387 2012-04-06 16:21:04 <gmaxwell> Okay.
388 2012-04-06 16:21:21 <luke-jr> that is, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1023
389 2012-04-06 16:21:46 <luke-jr> no actual "NACK" there, but that's how I interpreted it
390 2012-04-06 16:23:38 <Samuel> Hello
391 2012-04-06 16:23:57 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: Okay, Pulled.
392 2012-04-06 16:24:03 <gmaxwell> Happy good friday. ;)
393 2012-04-06 16:24:11 <luke-jr> thanks; you too :p
394 2012-04-06 16:29:36 <paulo_> is it possible to generate custom addresses ?
395 2012-04-06 16:29:47 <paulo_> or atleast something that makes sense
396 2012-04-06 16:30:19 <blinkbat> there are vanity address generators
397 2012-04-06 16:30:31 <paulo_> blinkbat: where?
398 2012-04-06 16:32:50 <paulo_> found it.
399 2012-04-06 16:42:08 <Diablo-D3> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3808343
400 2012-04-06 16:42:14 <Diablo-D3> everyone please upvote this comment
401 2012-04-06 16:45:10 <Joric> how many upboats so far?
402 2012-04-06 16:47:34 <Diablo-D3> none.
403 2012-04-06 16:47:39 <Diablo-D3> either that, or Im being massively downvoted
404 2012-04-06 16:47:42 <Diablo-D3> which happens
405 2012-04-06 16:47:59 <Diablo-D3> sometimes I feel like Im the only high karma user on HN that likes bitcoin
406 2012-04-06 17:05:01 <upb> how many joricoats?
407 2012-04-06 17:11:24 <joehallofame> sipa: hey dude this is joehallofame, the dude who still has coins I cant get to.  Any new ideas, and  is anyone else having this problem but me and the other guy gmax sent me a link to read about?
408 2012-04-06 17:11:49 <paulo_> since the address is essentially a hash of the public key, how will we find the public key given the hash?
409 2012-04-06 17:13:57 <luke-jr> paulo_: you won't.
410 2012-04-06 17:14:09 <helo> paulo_: we don't. the public key is sent as part of the transaction that sends the coin
411 2012-04-06 17:14:14 <gmaxwell> joehallofame: We found the bug.
412 2012-04-06 17:14:17 <gmaxwell> (and fixed)
413 2012-04-06 17:14:17 <luke-jr> joehallofame: sipa stepped out, but if you hang around he might be back
414 2012-04-06 17:14:21 <gmaxwell> But you won't be happy.
415 2012-04-06 17:14:21 <joehallofame> noh way
416 2012-04-06 17:14:34 <helo> how much coin was lost?
417 2012-04-06 17:14:39 <gmaxwell> helo: zero.
418 2012-04-06 17:14:42 <joehallofame> 61 are still in there
419 2012-04-06 17:14:57 <gmaxwell> joehallofame: the bug is that 1/256 invalid passphrases cause the crash. You've got the wrong passphrase.
420 2012-04-06 17:14:58 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: which bug is this?
421 2012-04-06 17:15:08 <helo> in that case i expect him to be happy :)
422 2012-04-06 17:15:08 <luke-jr> o lol
423 2012-04-06 17:15:31 <helo> so he will need to use pywallet to extract the key and put it into another wallet?
424 2012-04-06 17:15:43 <luke-jr> helo: if he doesn't have the passphrase, he's screwed.
425 2012-04-06 17:15:47 <gmaxwell> helo: What are you talking about??
426 2012-04-06 17:15:57 <helo> sorry, i must have misunderstood... disregard :)
427 2012-04-06 17:16:33 <joehallofame> hmmm. well it bumped me out when I typed the correct one I thought.  The same thing happened to that other guy.
428 2012-04-06 17:16:56 <joehallofame> But it could be I guess that I don't have the correct one.
429 2012-04-06 17:17:04 <gmaxwell> Exactly.
430 2012-04-06 17:17:13 <gmaxwell> Thats why I said you won't be happy.
431 2012-04-06 17:17:38 <joehallofame> don't worry I'm never happy, lol
432 2012-04-06 17:17:53 <gmaxwell> Basically 1 in 256 incorrect keys was believed to be correct by the software (but then caused a crash). So people who were trying multiple keys _thought_ they had it right but it was crashing.
433 2012-04-06 17:18:47 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: do you know off-hand which commit fixed that?
434 2012-04-06 17:18:50 <gmaxwell> joehallofame: someone else showed up with it, and after telling him I really thought he had the incorrect key he figured out the correct one, emptied his wallet then gave it to Sipa and I.. and sipa was able to use it to track down and fix the bug.
435 2012-04-06 17:19:25 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: e5c027b49b72d8245ebec26cb92d918377fd81e0
436 2012-04-06 17:19:41 <luke-jr> ahhh
437 2012-04-06 17:19:51 <luke-jr> I saw that, but didn't quite figure out what it was for :P
438 2012-04-06 17:20:50 <joehallofame> hmm...is a key a complete try, or is it just part of one attempt (a letter or number) because there is no way I tried 256 times.  Is that what you mean?
439 2012-04-06 17:21:13 <luke-jr> joehallofame: he means there's a 1 in 256 chance you'll get a crash instead of an error
440 2012-04-06 17:21:19 <luke-jr> for any given wrong passphrae
441 2012-04-06 17:21:23 <gmaxwell> joehallofame: It's like playing russian roulette. 1:256 chance.. but you could hit it on your first try.
442 2012-04-06 17:21:27 <joehallofame> gotcha
443 2012-04-06 17:21:43 <gmaxwell> and any crashing wrong passphrase will always crash.
444 2012-04-06 17:21:55 <gmaxwell> (for that particular wallet)
445 2012-04-06 17:22:02 <paulo_> i just figured out how the bitcoin address works, genious.
446 2012-04-06 17:22:18 <joehallofame> so it'll work if I can figure out the correct one, is there any other way though?
447 2012-04-06 17:22:34 <luke-jr> paulo_: keep reading. we're in the middle of making it more complicated! :P
448 2012-04-06 17:22:51 <luke-jr> joehallofame: if there were any other way, it'd defeat the purpose of encryption :p
449 2012-04-06 17:22:57 <gmaxwell> joehallofame: No, sadly. As luke says.
450 2012-04-06 17:23:14 <gmaxwell> Someone could potentially make a tool to try faster.
451 2012-04-06 17:23:17 <joehallofame> right that makes sense.
452 2012-04-06 17:23:29 <luke-jr> (though I don't think it would be a bad idea to support 10-of-10 master keys, enabled by users when encrypting their wallet..)
453 2012-04-06 17:23:43 <t7> i have an encryption function which takes an integer from 0 to p (where p is HUGE). Whats an safe and efficient way to encrypt a [Word8]? at the moment i convert the [Word8] into a [Integer (Base p)] encrypt and convert back but this takes ages
454 2012-04-06 17:24:06 <paulo_> the vanity keygen bruteforces at about 2.8Mkeys/s. :)
455 2012-04-06 17:24:13 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, what's the encryption mechanism used
456 2012-04-06 17:24:24 <phantomcircuit> or rather
457 2012-04-06 17:24:33 <phantomcircuit> that's the password verification mechanism used
458 2012-04-06 17:24:42 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: AES.. but the important point is that the passphrase is first salted and strenghtened by iterated hashing.
459 2012-04-06 17:25:12 <ab37> \n3292517
460 2012-04-06 17:25:15 <gmaxwell> The verification is ... well, it was supposted to be checking a private key matches its public key.. but the AES block mode adds padding so you can check that.
461 2012-04-06 17:25:31 <joehallofame> well Im glad you guys figured out what was making the software crash.
462 2012-04-06 17:26:13 <luke-jr> what do you guys think of a checkbox at the Encrypt Wallet dialog, "Allow consensus of 8 developers to decrypt wallet, in case I lose my passphrase", and a special alert "This client's wallet has been requested for recovery. If you did not request this, contact security@bitcoin.org NOW" ?
463 2012-04-06 17:26:14 <gmaxwell> joehallofame: Me too, but I'm sorry to hear you don't (yet) know your passphrase.. if you're unable to get it after some concerted trying, let me know and I'll make a fast cracking tool for you that might help.
464 2012-04-06 17:26:16 <joehallofame> thanks for helpin' and I am sorry I was wastin your time.
465 2012-04-06 17:26:29 <joehallofame> what a guy
466 2012-04-06 17:26:38 <joehallofame> thanks I will take you up on that.
467 2012-04-06 17:26:42 <gmaxwell> joehallofame: well, it wasn't a waste.
468 2012-04-06 17:26:47 <joehallofame> good
469 2012-04-06 17:27:16 <gmaxwell> joehallofame: hearing your sequence of events helped me become more confident of the cause and insist the next guy keep trying even though from just looking at the code it didn't look like it could be due to a wrong password.
470 2012-04-06 17:27:16 <joehallofame> see ya gmax.
471 2012-04-06 17:27:21 <gmaxwell> Later.
472 2012-04-06 17:28:22 <luke-jr> &
473 2012-04-06 17:28:30 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: Thats not what I'd do for recovery... but I wouldn't be totally opposed to some kind of recovery. I'd prefer to have some option to print out some recovery code or something.
474 2012-04-06 17:28:40 <joehallofame> ok good, ill try some more, I just have no clue what it could be, but I can try again, I could have sworn that that was the correct one finally, but who knows.  See ya later and thanks again.
475 2012-04-06 17:28:52 <gmaxwell> The problem with any recovery though is that users won't use it because "that won't happen to me!"
476 2012-04-06 17:28:53 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: someone could write down their passphrase just as easily? :P
477 2012-04-06 17:28:59 <phantomcircuit> typedef std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, secure_allocator<char> > SecureString;
478 2012-04-06 17:29:09 <phantomcircuit> strictly speaking that leaks passphrase length
479 2012-04-06 17:29:11 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: dunno, I'd use it if I ever encrypted my wallet
480 2012-04-06 17:29:22 <phantomcircuit> but probably in a sea of gibberish
481 2012-04-06 17:29:28 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: yes, but they've been trained to not do that.
482 2012-04-06 17:29:47 <luke-jr> sigh
483 2012-04-06 17:31:58 <ab37> Is there any open source irc controlled bitcoin miner out there?
484 2012-04-06 17:32:03 <gmaxwell> plus a printout could also save all the important backup data once we have determinstic wallets, so its double good.
485 2012-04-06 17:32:14 <gmaxwell> ab37: what ... would you do with irc control?
486 2012-04-06 17:32:28 <paulo_> feature suggestions: a direct way to input private keys
487 2012-04-06 17:32:45 <ab37> control multi computers
488 2012-04-06 17:33:33 <gmaxwell> ab37: control them how?
489 2012-04-06 17:33:34 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin-Test build #246: STILL FAILING in 25 min: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin-Test/246/
490 2012-04-06 17:33:35 <BlueMattBot> luke-jr+git: Bugfix: Replace "URL" with "URI" where we aren't actually working with URLs
491 2012-04-06 17:34:03 <gmaxwell> paulo_: we have that, though its not exposed in the GUI right now. Why do you want it?
492 2012-04-06 17:34:33 <paulo_> gmaxwell: for vanity addresses.
493 2012-04-06 17:34:47 <gmaxwell> (and actually, if we get the anticipated console-in-gui perhaps it'll never be directly in the gui.. you'd just use the console)
494 2012-04-06 17:35:04 <gmaxwell> paulo_: in any case, you can do it if you use the CLI.
495 2012-04-06 17:35:12 <paulo_> ok, thanks
496 2012-04-06 17:35:30 <paulo_> also, a wallet import in the GUI
497 2012-04-06 17:36:14 <paulo_> are backuped wallets encrypted?
498 2012-04-06 17:36:25 <luke-jr> jenkins could be more clear :/
499 2012-04-06 17:36:46 <luke-jr> paulo_: no
500 2012-04-06 17:40:21 <graingert> in a multi user system is there any way to share the storage costs of the blockchain?
501 2012-04-06 17:40:49 <graingert> each user maintains a hash of each file it has checked
502 2012-04-06 17:40:56 <graingert> and add their file to shared storage
503 2012-04-06 17:41:37 <graingert> each file would be diffs of the blockchain
504 2012-04-06 17:41:51 <graingert> that way the actual tx data would be stored once
505 2012-04-06 17:52:07 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, so it seems to me that a fairly simple mixing protocol would be sufficient if not optimal for bitcoin
506 2012-04-06 17:52:28 <phantomcircuit> mixers broadcast the other mixers they push to
507 2012-04-06 17:52:49 <phantomcircuit> people intending to mix onion route to their final destination mixer
508 2012-04-06 17:53:16 <phantomcircuit> mixers simply send a specific sized packet every second regardless of whats in it
509 2012-04-06 17:55:44 <luke-jr> is there a legitimate use for mixing?
510 2012-04-06 17:56:00 <copumpkin> >_>
511 2012-04-06 17:56:23 <copumpkin> keeping other people's noses out of your business, regardless of who those people are
512 2012-04-06 17:57:02 <graingert> purchasing pork in muslim owned territories
513 2012-04-06 17:57:19 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: yes, You're in Saudi Arabia  and want to donate to the Catholic church with the minimum risk of getting executed and thus leaving your children to starve.
514 2012-04-06 17:57:24 <copumpkin> the whole "if you have nothing to hide" style of argument is kind of annoying
515 2012-04-06 17:57:30 <copumpkin> lol
516 2012-04-06 17:58:00 <graingert> I should say sharia not muslim owned
517 2012-04-06 17:58:35 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: In any case, it's not something that should be part of bitcoin proper. I agree with that. The bitcoin proper part of it would simply be a feature that says "relay this txn only to [HERE]", which is generally a reasonable feature.  For the mixer [here] would just be a mixer gateway address.
518 2012-04-06 18:00:22 <joehallofame> where the fuck are you gmax and where can I send you some money to?????
519 2012-04-06 18:00:48 <gmaxwell> joehallofame: hahaha
520 2012-04-06 18:00:50 <joehallofame> Im not takin no for an answer
521 2012-04-06 18:01:04 <joehallofame> you went above and beyond helpin my dumb ass out'
522 2012-04-06 18:01:08 <gmaxwell> joehallofame: I'm glad to hear you found you passphrase.
523 2012-04-06 18:01:13 <joehallofame> that's a lot of cash to me.
524 2012-04-06 18:01:31 <joehallofame> thank you so much I got 10 coins for you and 10 for mr sipa
525 2012-04-06 18:01:42 <joehallofame> How can I get em to ya?
526 2012-04-06 18:01:45 <graingert> that's a lot of coin
527 2012-04-06 18:01:52 <joehallofame> Im rollin in it
528 2012-04-06 18:02:13 <luke-jr> hmm, #bitcoin-watch is still running on 0.3.21.ljr2 :|
529 2012-04-06 18:02:27 <graingert> make sure nobody man in the middles your addresses
530 2012-04-06 18:03:22 <Joric_> looks like there's an error in bitcoinjs
531 2012-04-06 18:03:28 <luke-jr> joehallofame: 1KwDYMJMS4xq3ZEWYfdBRwYG2fHwhZsipa is sipa's address
532 2012-04-06 18:03:32 <luke-jr> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2786
533 2012-04-06 18:03:56 <joehallofame> promise
534 2012-04-06 18:04:08 <Joric> https://github.com/bitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-lib/blob/master/src/ecdsa.js <- check out lines 27-29, prefixes are messed up should be 0x03 and 0x02 accordingly
535 2012-04-06 18:04:13 <paulo_> do you see a world where everyone uses BTC ?
536 2012-04-06 18:04:18 <Joric> please confirm
537 2012-04-06 18:04:24 <graingert> paulo_: #bitcoin
538 2012-04-06 18:04:42 <luke-jr> paulo_: honestly, no. it would kill local economies.
539 2012-04-06 18:04:47 <paulo_> oh, sorry.
540 2012-04-06 18:04:48 <Samuel> Any updates on the Bitcoin app design?
541 2012-04-06 18:04:58 <Joric> y.testBit(0) true means prefix 0x03
542 2012-04-06 18:05:20 <luke-jr> paulo_: just look at online work-bidding sites. India outbids first-world programmers all the time
543 2012-04-06 18:07:24 <gmaxwell> joehallofame: the address for sipa on bitcointalk.org should certantly be correct.
544 2012-04-06 18:07:51 <joehallofame> its sent
545 2012-04-06 18:07:55 <joehallofame> you got one?
546 2012-04-06 18:08:11 <gmaxwell> joehallofame: see private messages.
547 2012-04-06 18:08:13 <graingert> but you get terrible code back
548 2012-04-06 18:08:18 <joehallofame> You helped first but sipa wrote that big patch.
549 2012-04-06 18:09:32 <gmaxwell> joehallofame: how many tries did it take you?
550 2012-04-06 18:09:55 <joehallofame> like 12
551 2012-04-06 18:10:25 <gmaxwell> You're very generous, thanks.
552 2012-04-06 18:10:37 <joehallofame> It was written down as two passwords, that I use for different stuff but I put a new prefix on it, you are so welcome.
553 2012-04-06 18:11:20 <joehallofame> its just nice to see people who really try hard at what they do, I try to do that everyday too, so this is the least I could do.
554 2012-04-06 18:11:50 <joehallofame> See you later and tell sipa thanks.
555 2012-04-06 18:11:53 <BlueMatt> sipa: did you break build?
556 2012-04-06 18:11:57 <BlueMatt> http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin-Test/245/
557 2012-04-06 18:12:34 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: yes, welcome to being luke a few hours ago. :)
558 2012-04-06 18:13:10 <luke-jr> XD
559 2012-04-06 18:13:13 <joehallofame> You never know maybe someday I could use a code cracker like you mentioned ;)
560 2012-04-06 18:13:18 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: time for 0.5.4rc3?
561 2012-04-06 18:13:20 <joehallofame> peace
562 2012-04-06 18:23:07 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: ah, sorry...
563 2012-04-06 18:43:22 <luke-jr> * [new tag]         v0.4.5rc3 -> v0.4.5rc3
564 2012-04-06 18:43:24 <luke-jr> * [new tag]         v0.5.0.6rc3 -> v0.5.0.6rc3
565 2012-04-06 18:43:25 <luke-jr> * [new tag]         v0.5.4rc3 -> v0.5.4rc3
566 2012-04-06 18:45:56 <Diapolo> hi
567 2012-04-06 18:46:27 <luke-jr> Diapolo: hey, you should hang out here more :p
568 2012-04-06 18:47:16 <Diapolo> if I hang here I can't code ^^ and have less freetime ;)
569 2012-04-06 18:47:27 <Diapolo> I'm fine with URI btw. ^^
570 2012-04-06 18:47:31 <luke-jr> XD
571 2012-04-06 18:48:51 <Diapolo> could there be a problem with GetDataDir() and thread safety?
572 2012-04-06 19:03:42 <luke-jr> well that's confusing. now we have 2 testnets?
573 2012-04-06 19:08:25 <Joric> someone ACK https://github.com/bitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-lib/issues/6
574 2012-04-06 19:17:07 <Diapolo> We have 2 testnets?
575 2012-04-06 19:17:09 <Diapolo> fork?
576 2012-04-06 19:17:24 <luke-jr> Diapolo: freenode testnet
577 2012-04-06 19:20:15 <paulo_> how do I import a private key through CLI?
578 2012-04-06 19:20:54 <BlueMatt> you can in 0.6
579 2012-04-06 19:21:09 <paulo_> what's the command?
580 2012-04-06 19:21:21 <paulo_> i don't think it's in /?
581 2012-04-06 19:22:54 <BlueMatt> you have to do rpc
582 2012-04-06 19:23:01 <BlueMatt> you cant do it via cli arguments
583 2012-04-06 19:23:27 <paulo_> how do I do that?
584 2012-04-06 19:24:51 <BlueMatt> launch bitcoin-qt or bitcoind with -rpcuser=user -rpcpassword=pass -server and then call bitcoind -rpcuser=user -rpcpassword=pass importprivkey ...
585 2012-04-06 19:27:28 <sipa> BlueMatt: yes, i broke an over-eager unit testr
586 2012-04-06 19:27:40 <sipa> but i'm doing a further refactor of locking code
587 2012-04-06 19:27:50 <BlueMatt> ah, nice
588 2012-04-06 19:27:53 <sipa> so i'll fix it afterwards
589 2012-04-06 19:31:00 <luke-jr> sipa: 0.5.4rc3 is ready for building
590 2012-04-06 19:34:21 <Joric> why 0.5.4 when 0.6.0 is a current release?
591 2012-04-06 19:34:34 <luke-jr> Joric: 0.5 is more tested/stable
592 2012-04-06 19:35:02 <luke-jr> Joric: there's also a bitcoind 0.4.5rc3 just tagged, but it's even less mentioned :P
593 2012-04-06 19:35:53 <luke-jr> for production services, you don't necessarily want to take on the risk of an upgrade with features you don't need
594 2012-04-06 19:36:12 <luke-jr> (and if you use any custom patches, doing so would involve work to port them too)
595 2012-04-06 19:41:05 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: sipa opened pull request 1052 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1052>
596 2012-04-06 19:41:16 <luke-jr> hmm, crap
597 2012-04-06 19:41:23 <luke-jr> 0.5.4rc3 isn't building for win32 :|
598 2012-04-06 19:41:31 <graingert> onoes
599 2012-04-06 19:44:15 <sipa> don't worry, nobody will notice
600 2012-04-06 19:45:36 <luke-jr> :x
601 2012-04-06 19:45:50 <luke-jr> 473dce9..eb34b17  v0.5.0.6rc3 -> v0.5.0.6rc3
602 2012-04-06 19:45:51 <luke-jr> 2363932..5207267  v0.5.4rc3 -> v0.5.4rc3
603 2012-04-06 19:46:26 <Diapolo> luke-jr: what's wrong with the Win32 build?
604 2012-04-06 19:46:59 <luke-jr> Diapolo: I used sleep() in a backport, and apparently Win32 is lacking&
605 2012-04-06 19:47:01 <sipa> nickname3243: can you ask here?
606 2012-04-06 19:47:09 <luke-jr> shouldn't affect master
607 2012-04-06 19:47:24 <nickname3243> okay
608 2012-04-06 19:49:39 <nickname3243> on bitcoin.it it says something about using ps3
609 2012-04-06 19:49:42 <nickname3243> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison
610 2012-04-06 19:50:00 <nickname3243> Sony Playstation 3 (FAT): Needs custom firmware. source source Running with 7th spu enabled and both ppe cores.
611 2012-04-06 19:50:08 <luke-jr> nickname3243: it also says it's at a loss, not profit
612 2012-04-06 19:50:32 <nickname3243> okay,
613 2012-04-06 19:51:28 <nickname3243> i was wondering how they got it working with all 7 spus instead of 6
614 2012-04-06 19:58:35 <luke-jr> sipa: fwiw, BlueMatt had to use 'git fetch --tags stable' explicitly to get the update
615 2012-04-06 19:59:05 <sipa> luke-jr: does it build now?
616 2012-04-06 19:59:37 <luke-jr> sipa: well, I fixed the issue it had. my gitian seems slower than everyone else's, so it might be a while to know for sure
617 2012-04-06 20:00:12 <luke-jr> (this was my incentive behind win32-deps gitian ;)
618 2012-04-06 20:07:17 <sipa> luke-jr: building
619 2012-04-06 20:18:16 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: damnit, let me troll them
620 2012-04-06 20:26:49 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: rebroad opened issue 1053 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1053>
621 2012-04-06 20:29:40 <sipa> i'd like to use git describe to generate a "build info" string, that's shown in the about box and a --version perhaps
622 2012-04-06 20:30:24 <sipa> one way to do so is having a build.h as part of the repository, with a static version number in it
623 2012-04-06 20:30:44 <sipa> but run a script at build time that checks whether .git is present, and if so, calls git describe to regenerate it
624 2012-04-06 20:31:08 <sipa> this would only work on non-windows systems though
625 2012-04-06 20:31:17 <Diablo-D3> sipa: thats what I considered
626 2012-04-06 20:31:21 <Diablo-D3> but it should check if git exists too
627 2012-04-06 20:31:26 <sipa> agree
628 2012-04-06 20:31:37 <Diablo-D3> you could do it all inside of ./configure too
629 2012-04-06 20:31:45 <sipa> not that we have a configure
630 2012-04-06 20:31:48 <Diablo-D3> just make sure your build.h is added ti .gitignore
631 2012-04-06 20:31:54 <sipa> yeah
632 2012-04-06 20:32:20 <luke-jr> sipa: make should be able to do it, I think
633 2012-04-06 20:32:39 <Diablo-D3> make could do it too, but you'd be making rather gnuey makefiles
634 2012-04-06 20:32:39 <luke-jr> use a phony target
635 2012-04-06 20:32:47 <gmaxwell> I have autoconf rules for this in other projects...
636 2012-04-06 20:33:20 <gmaxwell> what would be really slick is figuring out a way of making it work for builds from the github zip files of the source.
637 2012-04-06 20:33:59 <Diablo-D3> easy
638 2012-04-06 20:34:03 <Diablo-D3> dont use github zip files; )
639 2012-04-06 20:34:55 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I suppose you could check the root dir name
640 2012-04-06 20:35:10 <luke-jr> github annoyingly names it with a commit id
641 2012-04-06 20:36:08 <sipa> luke-jr: it's not a problem whether it's doable - i know how to do it in a makefile and in qmake
642 2012-04-06 20:36:24 <sipa> but whether there is a better solution that is more cross platform
643 2012-04-06 20:37:13 <sipa> gmaxwell: well you can just have a static build.h in the repository
644 2012-04-06 20:37:44 <gmaxwell> sipa: well, the dirname will actually have the commit hash in it.
645 2012-04-06 20:38:10 <sipa> you could indeed test whether the directory name matches a certain pattern
646 2012-04-06 20:38:15 <luke-jr> it's a shame the DVCS got rid of Svn's keywords stuff
647 2012-04-06 20:39:06 <luke-jr> that would have worked nicely
648 2012-04-06 20:40:41 <gmaxwell> I assume git has checkout hooks that could be used, but I likewise assume that github won't run them for those zips.
649 2012-04-06 20:41:02 <sipa> what's a platform-independent way for getting the current directory name?
650 2012-04-06 20:41:13 <luke-jr> git hooks have to be installed in every local git clone too
651 2012-04-06 20:41:20 <sipa> $PWD sounds not entirely safe
652 2012-04-06 20:41:50 <luke-jr> sipa: in what environment? :P
653 2012-04-06 20:42:10 <sipa> unix-like
654 2012-04-06 20:42:20 <luke-jr> sh? make? qmake?
655 2012-04-06 20:42:20 <sipa> i suppose that's the best you can ask for
656 2012-04-06 20:42:25 <sipa> sh
657 2012-04-06 20:42:35 <luke-jr> I think $PWD works in any sh
658 2012-04-06 20:43:07 <luke-jr> yes, POSIX specifies PWD as required for sh
659 2012-04-06 20:46:34 <sipa> now, the github tarballs use a dirname of <projname>-<reponame>-<commitid>
660 2012-04-06 20:46:43 <sipa> which doesn't give the latest tag
661 2012-04-06 20:46:54 <luke-jr> 2b174289491deef839907f1812ddafa55f1b539763bd3e344f7506d8393872a6  bitcoin-0.5.4rc3-win32-setup.exe
662 2012-04-06 20:47:17 <gmaxwell> sipa: at least we can manually resolve that.
663 2012-04-06 20:47:37 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: only with an active network connection
664 2012-04-06 20:47:44 <sipa> luke-jr: matches
665 2012-04-06 20:48:43 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I don't mean in the softare.. I mean when a user gives us their about info and it says "<projname>-<reponame>-<commitid>" we can still figure that out.
666 2012-04-06 20:48:53 <sipa> or
667 2012-04-06 20:49:06 <sipa> so i propose: move CLIENT_VERSION to a version.h, have a static build.h that just includes version.h, and a script that based on either git-describe or dirname+version.h that generates build.h
668 2012-04-06 20:49:41 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: sure
669 2012-04-06 20:50:15 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: we could also do something evil like embed the sha256 of every .cpp file :P
670 2012-04-06 20:50:45 <gmaxwell> we can have a series of ifndef that builds CLIENT_VERSION out of a git-describe define, or failing that a dirname+existing_version.h or failing that just the static CLIENT_VERSION.
671 2012-04-06 20:50:59 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: which would mostly just confirm that we don't know what they're running. :)
672 2012-04-06 20:51:30 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: or use sha1 so we can look it up in git :p
673 2012-04-06 20:57:37 <sipa> how are the four digits of the version number called?
674 2012-04-06 20:57:43 <sipa> major, minor, revision, build?
675 2012-04-06 20:58:18 <luke-jr> major/minor/bugfix :p
676 2012-04-06 20:58:22 <luke-jr> nanotube: ping
677 2012-04-06 21:02:37 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: when you're done... please confirm:
678 2012-04-06 21:02:39 <luke-jr> e9a842018d3ce39b49db0e554969d82ae17284585b044a1cd391e79005cd226a  bitcoin-0.5.4rc3-linux/bin/32/bitcoin-qt
679 2012-04-06 21:02:40 <luke-jr> 2fdd1a158369272d8fc8be5bdce137f0cb5e54de80ee23174cd8be92ca5776a5  bitcoin-0.5.4rc3-linux/bin/32/bitcoind
680 2012-04-06 21:02:42 <luke-jr> cf67be7f71c02155854abc96570f8f87fa477e378ea1320fc62630316d52ce37  bitcoin-0.5.4rc3-win32/bitcoin-qt.exe
681 2012-04-06 21:02:43 <luke-jr> 7af8fb1968360064f0250e88145a900f958f61623d73b868435732614d6031f4  bitcoin-0.5.4rc3-win32/daemon/bitcoind.exe
682 2012-04-06 21:02:45 <luke-jr> 2b174289491deef839907f1812ddafa55f1b539763bd3e344f7506d8393872a6  bitcoin-0.5.4rc3-win32-setup.exe
683 2012-04-06 21:02:46 <nanotube> luke-jr: pong
684 2012-04-06 21:03:06 <luke-jr> nanotube: looks like we'll have 0.5.4rc3 ready for SF tonight, as soon as BlueMatt can confirm the SHA256s
685 2012-04-06 21:03:14 <luke-jr> nanotube: http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/bitcoind/0.5.4/test/rc3/
686 2012-04-06 21:04:58 <nanotube> luke-jr: ah ic. well i gtg soon, so i'll take a look when i'm back tonight/tomorrow.
687 2012-04-06 21:05:22 <luke-jr> k
688 2012-04-06 21:06:51 <sipa> luke-jr: http://bitcoin.sipa.be/builds/0.5.4rc3/
689 2012-04-06 21:07:14 <luke-jr> sipa: thanks
690 2012-04-06 21:08:14 <luke-jr> although, my upload shouldn't be too bad anymore&
691 2012-04-06 21:14:24 <luke-jr> "Since key length and key structure vary and since the encryption engine does not use any mathematical algorithms, reverse engineering is impossible and guessing is not an option."
692 2012-04-06 21:14:26 <luke-jr> lolwut?
693 2012-04-06 21:17:11 <lianj> awesome :)
694 2012-04-06 21:17:19 <_W_> haha quality
695 2012-04-06 21:17:36 <copumpkin> I hate things that use mathematical algorithms
696 2012-04-06 21:17:53 <Joric_> since pre-school
697 2012-04-06 21:18:54 <sipa> luke-jr: ?
698 2012-04-06 21:22:09 <Joric_> http://www.engr.mun.ca/~howard/crypto2012/crypto_snake_oil.pdf must be it
699 2012-04-06 21:22:18 <Joric_> listed in 'Ridiculous Statements to
700 2012-04-06 21:23:47 <luke-jr> http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-9902.html#snakeoil
701 2012-04-06 21:24:35 <Joric_> original letter http://www.shmoo.com/mail/cypherpunks/feb99/msg00268.html
702 2012-04-06 21:25:08 <Joric> site seems exprired
703 2012-04-06 21:25:08 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: also
704 2012-04-06 21:25:09 <luke-jr> 9efd080b0d726b396c7e5a0a9197f5f145716a83b57ce57ef72bcaa510a0fa9b  bitcoin-0.5.4rc3-linux/bin/64/bitcoin-qt
705 2012-04-06 21:25:11 <luke-jr> 7a09656ff8ba3163a9e4c9be186f937b91e1aafb87253b2f703db53606146ec1  bitcoin-0.5.4rc3-linux/bin/64/bitcoind
706 2012-04-06 21:25:33 <Diapolo> I'm asking again, is GetDataDir() thread safe? I get some weird results, that seem to come from that function. Replacing it with a hard-coded path fixes it.
707 2012-04-06 21:25:36 <Joric> 'Each record is SEPARATELY encrypted without
708 2012-04-06 21:25:57 <Joric> without ALGORITHMS!
709 2012-04-06 21:26:26 <BlueMatt> luke-jr:     2b174289491deef839907f1812ddafa55f1b539763bd3e344f7506d8393872a6  bitcoin-0.5.4-win32-setup.exe
710 2012-04-06 21:26:32 <BlueMatt> e9a842018d3ce39b49db0e554969d82ae17284585b044a1cd391e79005cd226a  bin/32/bitcoin-qt
711 2012-04-06 21:26:33 <BlueMatt> 2fdd1a158369272d8fc8be5bdce137f0cb5e54de80ee23174cd8be92ca5776a5  bin/32/bitcoind
712 2012-04-06 21:26:55 <luke-jr> Diapolo: it is not.
713 2012-04-06 21:27:43 <Diapolo> Any idea for a quick fix to test?
714 2012-04-06 21:27:57 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: looks good, thanks
715 2012-04-06 21:28:00 <Diapolo> guess I'll got to bed first ^^ it's late
716 2012-04-06 21:28:07 <luke-jr> Diapolo: get rid of the static bits
717 2012-04-06 21:28:27 <luke-jr> nanotube: whenever you're ready, we have 3 confirmations on 0.5.4rc3 now
718 2012-04-06 21:28:32 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: do you want sigs too, or is that good?
719 2012-04-06 21:28:32 <Diapolo> will try that tomorrow, thanks
720 2012-04-06 21:28:41 <Diapolo> good night
721 2012-04-06 21:28:45 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: sigs can go to the repo as usual
722 2012-04-06 21:29:05 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: you mean https://github.com/bitcoin/gitian.sigs ?
723 2012-04-06 21:29:09 <luke-jr> yeah
724 2012-04-06 21:29:15 <BlueMatt> will do
725 2012-04-06 21:29:22 <luke-jr> looks like sipa didn't push his yet
726 2012-04-06 21:30:35 <sipa> oh right
727 2012-04-06 21:30:52 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: did someone finally merge your key to contrib/gitian-downloader/
728 2012-04-06 21:33:01 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: done
729 2012-04-06 21:33:37 <luke-jr> ok, now I need to figure out *how*  :P
730 2012-04-06 21:33:50 <luke-jr> hopefully it doesn't mean rebuilding & O.o
731 2012-04-06 21:34:04 <BlueMatt> did you not gsign after building?
732 2012-04-06 21:35:17 <luke-jr> I guess not
733 2012-04-06 21:35:58 <luke-jr> if I recreate the build/out dir as it was, will that be enough to do so?
734 2012-04-06 21:36:09 <sipa> i have a script for doing checkout+build+sign+package+checksum+sign, but if i specify a commit instead of a tag, it does not do gitian sigs
735 2012-04-06 21:36:15 <sipa> i'll need to re-run it i guess
736 2012-04-06 21:37:46 <BlueMatt> I think you /have/ to rebuild, just build/out isnt enough iirc
737 2012-04-06 21:38:10 <BlueMatt> I forget where it stores the package list
738 2012-04-06 21:38:19 <BlueMatt> and if result/ is generated on gsign or gbuild
739 2012-04-06 21:38:42 <luke-jr> bleh, fine
740 2012-04-06 21:38:47 <luke-jr> when 0.4.5rc3 finishes&
741 2012-04-06 21:40:50 <gmaxwell> TD: http://mintchipchallenge.com/forum_topics/759  < bottom post here brutalizes mintchip
742 2012-04-06 21:41:19 <TD> "While we appreciate your interest in the physical chip's trusted hardware, public-key infrastructure and encryption methods, we are not in a position to release that information at this time."
743 2012-04-06 21:41:22 <TD> not surprised
744 2012-04-06 21:42:06 <gmaxwell> well interesting to see the the last of detailed information wasn't just oversight.
745 2012-04-06 21:42:11 <gmaxwell> s/last/lack/
746 2012-04-06 21:42:22 <TD> i wasn't expecting them to publish details of the hardware chips
747 2012-04-06 21:42:29 <TD> argh
748 2012-04-06 21:42:37 <TD> compiling gcc on darwin is an exercise in frustration
749 2012-04-06 21:43:24 <Joric> special, canadian math
750 2012-04-06 21:43:34 <sipa> neomath
751 2012-04-06 21:43:54 <luke-jr> TD: I'd be more interested in compiling Darwin GCC on Linux ;)
752 2012-04-06 21:44:14 <Rebroad> hi. quick question. regarding re-orgs.. do they re-org to the heighest chain or the chain that required the most work to date?
753 2012-04-06 21:44:18 <Rebroad> or neither?
754 2012-04-06 21:44:22 <TD> Rebroad: most work
755 2012-04-06 21:44:54 <Rebroad> oh.. as I read somewhere it was the "longest"...
756 2012-04-06 21:44:55 <gmaxwell> Rebroad: the greatest sum work. You can't mine a chain of a million diff 1 blocks and get nodes to switch to it.
757 2012-04-06 21:44:58 <Rebroad> but maybe I misread
758 2012-04-06 21:45:07 <gmaxwell> Rebroad: longest in terms of work applied. :)
759 2012-04-06 21:45:11 <Rebroad> gmaxwell, glad to hear that!
760 2012-04-06 21:45:30 <gmaxwell> Also, the checkpoints and blockflooding anti-dos prevent you from running nodes out of diskspace by giving them such a chain.
761 2012-04-06 21:47:48 <Rebroad> my 0.6.0.6-beta windows bitcoin-qt is behaving strange. it's always saying last block received 1 hour ago (even though it's had them more recently)
762 2012-04-06 21:48:58 <Rebroad> also, I'm wondering, why does the debug show "askfor" - wouldn't something like "inv" be less misleading? "askfor" sounds like my node is asking for something
763 2012-04-06 21:49:57 <sipa> Rebroad: askfor means it received an askfor request, afaik
764 2012-04-06 21:50:15 <sipa> a getdata request, i mean
765 2012-04-06 21:50:35 <Rebroad> regarding the checkpointing you mentioned, gmaxwell, wouldn't this mean that perhaps some pruning of old data, e.g. spent whatsits, can be prunced from the blk files?
766 2012-04-06 21:51:10 <Rebroad> sipa, I thought askfor meant it received an "inv" message, which is the node saying what it has, and the "getdata" means it asks for it
767 2012-04-06 21:53:10 <gmaxwell> Rebroad: I don't see why you think that has anything to do with checkpoints.
768 2012-04-06 21:53:19 <gmaxwell> You can prune independantly of that.
769 2012-04-06 21:53:39 <Rebroad> gmaxwell, ah, i guess I don't understand what checkpoints are then
770 2012-04-06 21:53:58 <luke-jr> Rebroad: optimizations for known history at time of release
771 2012-04-06 21:54:18 <Rebroad> luke-jr, that's what I understood them to be
772 2012-04-06 21:54:24 <gmaxwell> Rebroad: mostly they keep a isolated node which can't hear the real chain from being fed a totally fake one... so the security is no worse than your ability to fake the download site.
773 2012-04-06 21:54:43 <gmaxwell> They also prevent people from filling up your disk with large junk chains.
774 2012-04-06 21:56:29 <gmaxwell> They don't replace the need to download and validate the chain history because bitcoin is zero trust.. you don't trust that the other nodes have correctly processed the history, you audit it.  (and you don't have to trust that the software works right, as you can audit it too) Of course the fact that any badness would be detected means no one tries any..
775 2012-04-06 21:57:04 <Rebroad> so, the first checkpoint is at 11111, right? does that mean someone could fill my disk with a junk chain from block 1 to 11110?
776 2012-04-06 21:57:17 <Rebroad> and another from 11112 to 33332?
777 2012-04-06 21:57:33 <Rebroad> (although presumeably a more difficult to generate one)
778 2012-04-06 21:58:43 <Rebroad> I'm a bit baffled by how the number of zeros increases (i.e. less data) with each successive checkpoint..
779 2012-04-06 21:58:58 <gmaxwell> Rebroad: nah, we have more protection than that.. e.g. see ComputeMinWork
780 2012-04-06 21:59:21 <luke-jr> &
781 2012-04-06 21:59:37 <luke-jr> Rebroad: read up on difficulty
782 2012-04-06 21:59:39 <gmaxwell> Rebroad: this baffles you?
783 2012-04-06 21:59:49 <luke-jr> Rebroad: the number of zeros increases because more are demanded for mining
784 2012-04-06 22:00:09 <Rebroad> ah... ok.
785 2012-04-06 22:00:37 <gmaxwell> the last checkpoint isnt a lower number than the prior one.
786 2012-04-06 22:02:06 <Rebroad> how do you determine how many checkpoints to have? I was also wondering if there was any explanation anywhere about the 4 block long fork that happened on 1st April.. I was curious to know if that was a rare anomoly or if it was intentionally caused by something
787 2012-04-06 22:02:31 <luke-jr> Rebroad: it was caused by BIP 16
788 2012-04-06 22:02:45 <luke-jr> checkpoints are pretty much chosen around rc1s
789 2012-04-06 22:03:08 <Rebroad> was surprised it reached 4 blocks though.. and it seemed my node was following the wrong fork as it reorged back 4 blocks later
790 2012-04-06 22:03:28 <luke-jr> Rebroad: that means your node is not BIP16-compliant.
791 2012-04-06 22:03:34 <luke-jr> BIP16 nodes will reject the forkds
792 2012-04-06 22:03:35 <luke-jr> forks*
793 2012-04-06 22:03:43 <luke-jr> and any non-BIP16 miners will extend them
794 2012-04-06 22:05:49 <Rebroad> ah... I know what it is....
795 2012-04-06 22:06:02 <Rebroad> it's because I ran it before 1st April and kept it running beyond 1st April
796 2012-04-06 22:06:17 <Rebroad> maybe...?
797 2012-04-06 22:06:22 <gmaxwell> No.... it's because you were running bitcoin prior to 0.6.
798 2012-04-06 22:06:32 <gmaxwell> No restart was required.
799 2012-04-06 22:06:38 <Rebroad> I'm using 0.6.0rc4 AFAIK
800 2012-04-06 22:06:42 <luke-jr> Rebroad: you need 0.4.5, 0.5.4, or 0.6.0
801 2012-04-06 22:06:51 <gmaxwell> If you were on the losing side of that fork, you were not on 0.6.0rc4.
802 2012-04-06 22:06:52 <Rebroad> SoftSetArg("-paytoscripthashtime", "1333238400"); // April 1 2012
803 2012-04-06 22:07:07 <gmaxwell> perhaps you upgraded your binary but didn't restart?
804 2012-04-06 22:07:27 <luke-jr> Rebroad: maybe you were seeing reorg failures, not actual reorgs?
805 2012-04-06 22:07:36 <Rebroad> I compiled it myself, long before 1st April...
806 2012-04-06 22:07:39 <luke-jr> BIP16 clients will *attempt* to reorg to the bad chains, but will fail
807 2012-04-06 22:07:49 <gribble> Error: "," is not a valid command.
808 2012-04-06 22:07:49 <Rebroad> ah,,, maybe, luke-jr
809 2012-04-06 22:08:04 <Rebroad> pardon, gribble?
810 2012-04-06 22:08:16 <Rebroad> ah...
811 2012-04-06 22:08:17 <luke-jr> gribble thinks anything with ,, is a command
812 2012-04-06 22:08:25 <gribble> (echo <text>) -- Returns the arguments given it. Uses our standard substitute on the string(s) given to it; $nick (or $who), $randomNick, $randomInt, $botnick, $channel, $user, $host, $today, $now, and $randomDate are all handled appropriately.
813 2012-04-06 22:08:25 <luke-jr> isn't that right, gribble? ,,echo yep
814 2012-04-06 22:08:29 <gribble> (echo <text>) -- Returns the arguments given it. Uses our standard substitute on the string(s) given to it; $nick (or $who), $randomNick, $randomInt, $botnick, $channel, $user, $host, $today, $now, and $randomDate are all handled appropriately.
815 2012-04-06 22:08:29 <luke-jr> isn't that right, gribble? (,,echo yep)
816 2012-04-06 22:08:31 <gmaxwell> 04/01/12 14:58:54  152.7.31.134:8333 received block 000000000000053ff545
817 2012-04-06 22:08:31 <luke-jr> -.-
818 2012-04-06 22:08:34 <gmaxwell> 04/01/12 14:58:54 InvalidChainFound: invalid block=000000000000053ff545  height=173886  work=281279353963778393363
819 2012-04-06 22:08:37 <gmaxwell> 04/01/12 14:58:54 InvalidChainFound:  current best=0000000000000173f7d9  height=173885  work=281272367863171455078