1 2012-04-16 00:02:21 <[Tycho]> Last one was 5 hours ago. http://blockchain.info/tx-index/3618498/4005d6bea3a93fb72f006d23e2685b85069d270cb57d15f0c057ef2d5e3f78d2
  2 2012-04-16 00:03:16 <[Tycho]> Hm, no.
  3 2012-04-16 00:04:02 <copumpkin> did the empty block miner disappear/stop mining empty blocks?
  4 2012-04-16 00:04:10 <copumpkin> I haven't heard anyone talking about him for a while
  5 2012-04-16 00:04:11 <[Tycho]> Long time ago.
  6 2012-04-16 00:04:23 <copumpkin> cool, thanks
  7 2012-04-16 00:04:52 <[Tycho]> May be MM expected this would save him from BIP16.
  8 2012-04-16 00:05:22 <luke-jr> lol
  9 2012-04-16 00:05:31 <luke-jr> probably
 10 2012-04-16 00:05:57 <[Tycho]> And when it didn't, he switched back to normal.
 11 2012-04-16 01:11:24 <phantomcircuit> hmm
 12 2012-04-16 01:11:26 <phantomcircuit> just a thought
 13 2012-04-16 01:11:34 <phantomcircuit> some of the fee rules actually encourage spam
 14 2012-04-16 01:11:51 <phantomcircuit> a single transaction with a lot of inputs will go over the size threshold
 15 2012-04-16 01:12:10 <phantomcircuit> so you can avoid the fees by sending them as a few transactions which are below the threshold
 16 2012-04-16 01:12:16 <phantomcircuit> this is however worse not better
 17 2012-04-16 01:12:27 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, ^ ping
 18 2012-04-16 01:36:37 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: not my fee rules
 19 2012-04-16 01:36:58 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, :)
 20 2012-04-16 01:41:41 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: "size threshold", no such beast exists.
 21 2012-04-16 01:41:56 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, the total size of the transaction in bytes
 22 2012-04-16 01:42:10 <phantomcircuit> there is a certain size under which there is no fee iirc
 23 2012-04-16 01:42:16 <gmaxwell> Thats not a part of the fee rules.  Nope.
 24 2012-04-16 01:43:33 <gmaxwell> The allowed to be free calculation is sum(input_value*confirms)/data_size > threshold && min(outputs)>0.01
 25 2012-04-16 01:44:56 <gmaxwell> (now, the limits on block inclusion are a little different, but those are dynamic and only come into effect as blocks get closer to the free limit and don't change the fees the software applies)
 26 2012-04-16 01:46:58 <gmaxwell> er, should have said min(outputs)>=0.01 :)
 27 2012-04-16 03:20:21 <wumpus> splatster: see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1032
 28 2012-04-16 03:20:55 <wumpus> splatster: the only problem is that the html is in a translation message, so we can't merge that without breaking 'wallet' in every translation
 29 2012-04-16 03:21:47 <splatster> It realy isn't -that- important.
 30 2012-04-16 03:21:48 <wumpus> for some obscure message that wouldn't be a problem, but heh...
 31 2012-04-16 03:21:51 <splatster> really*
 32 2012-04-16 03:22:08 <wumpus> I'll merge it after 0.6.1 is released to give translators some time
 33 2012-04-16 03:22:48 <splatster> cool
 34 2012-04-16 03:26:48 <wumpus> luke-jr: yes you got that the wrong way around, I *fixed* the casts
 35 2012-04-16 09:16:12 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: andrasfuchs opened issue 1110 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1110>
 36 2012-04-16 09:36:36 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: andrasfuchs opened issue 1111 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1111>
 37 2012-04-16 09:56:06 <t7> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1111 :S
 38 2012-04-16 10:03:17 <t7> can i show issues without a pull peq?
 39 2012-04-16 10:03:39 <sipa> ?
 40 2012-04-16 10:03:56 <t7> request*
 41 2012-04-16 10:04:00 <sipa> yes
 42 2012-04-16 10:04:03 <sipa> go to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues
 43 2012-04-16 10:04:10 <sipa> click "new issue"
 44 2012-04-16 10:04:26 <t7> i dont need to make one...
 45 2012-04-16 10:07:04 <t7> i wanna fix a bug but you guys are too quick
 46 2012-04-16 10:09:21 <sipa> which is?
 47 2012-04-16 10:09:26 <t7> any
 48 2012-04-16 10:09:35 <t7> wanna contribute
 49 2012-04-16 10:09:47 <t7> give something back and all that
 50 2012-04-16 10:09:48 <sipa> :)
 51 2012-04-16 10:18:08 <Cryo> help others :)
 52 2012-04-16 11:02:06 <Joric> damn electrum uses 100000 rounds for generation, too slow for javascript :)
 53 2012-04-16 11:02:35 <Joric> no matter what it's always 100000 rounds
 54 2012-04-16 11:03:01 <gmaxwell> 100,000 is miserably low.
 55 2012-04-16 11:03:49 <gmaxwell> (well, it's fine for electrum because the keys are actually random)
 56 2012-04-16 11:04:28 <Joric> takes ~20 seconds in chrome
 57 2012-04-16 11:04:44 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: sipa opened pull request 1112 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1112>
 58 2012-04-16 11:05:39 <gmaxwell> Joric: yes, but this is just one one reason that you cannot make a secure password based crypto scheme in JS.
 59 2012-04-16 11:06:11 <gmaxwell> ...an attacker on a GPU gets a 10,000x+ speedup over an honest user.
 60 2012-04-16 11:06:27 <gmaxwell> actually, with those numbers, more like 100,000x.
 61 2012-04-16 11:41:57 <Joric_> lol @ electrum : https://gitorious.org/electrum/electrum/blobs/master/client/electrum line 129 - seed.decode('hex') the result is not used anywhere
 62 2012-04-16 11:42:06 <Joric_> seed remains as text
 63 2012-04-16 11:42:30 <Joric_> i just checked, it uses text seed, idk maybe it's planned
 64 2012-04-16 11:43:15 <gmaxwell> hah
 65 2012-04-16 11:43:24 <gmaxwell> I don't think that was intended.
 66 2012-04-16 11:43:28 <user__> www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17680904
 67 2012-04-16 11:45:31 <Joric> mnemonic.mn_decode returns hex-encoded string too
 68 2012-04-16 11:45:49 <Joric> either way, it's a feature now
 69 2012-04-16 11:46:27 <Joric> it looks rather strange idk why it was done
 70 2012-04-16 11:47:22 <ThomasV> Joric: perhaps to test if the provided seed is a hex string?
 71 2012-04-16 11:48:12 <ThomasV> Joric: you'll get better chances to get your questions noticed if you join #electrum
 72 2012-04-16 11:48:58 <Joric> ThomasV, i tried 123456 it goes right to the stretch_key as '123456'
 73 2012-04-16 11:49:32 <Joric> it checks for a hex string but it doesn't decode
 74 2012-04-16 11:50:26 <ThomasV> oh, you mean that
 75 2012-04-16 11:50:33 <Joric> yes
 76 2012-04-16 11:50:42 <ThomasV> it does not have to
 77 2012-04-16 11:52:43 <ThomasV> it does not really matter how the seed is encoded
 78 2012-04-16 11:53:03 <Joric> i don't know it looks rather funny, why check for hex without decoding
 79 2012-04-16 11:53:18 <sipa> it doesn't really matter, indeed
 80 2012-04-16 11:57:12 <Joric> did anyone see limerick or haiku encoding? might be more memorizable than rfc1751 )
 81 2012-04-16 11:57:23 <sipa> i made a joke about those
 82 2012-04-16 11:58:15 <ThomasV> Joric: I check for hex in order to know if the user provided a mnemonic or not, that's all
 83 2012-04-16 12:02:42 <t7> do any of you guys declare bitcoin income ?
 84 2012-04-16 12:03:14 <ThomasV> t7: this channel is about software development
 85 2012-04-16 12:03:46 <sipa> and software developers obviously don't have an income!
 86 2012-04-16 12:03:55 <luke-jr> t7: maybe if I did taxes :p
 87 2012-04-16 12:04:13 <t7> maybe i asked because i was brainstorming a feature?
 88 2012-04-16 12:04:41 <sipa> t7: which is?
 89 2012-04-16 12:04:41 <t7> I didnt mean to put that question mark
 90 2012-04-16 12:05:15 <luke-jr> sipa: yearly reports?
 91 2012-04-16 12:05:41 <sipa> luke-jr: i just wondered which feature he would be brainstorming about
 92 2012-04-16 12:14:40 <UukGoblin> hrm, merged mining only uses single sha256 when merkle-merging aux chains
 93 2012-04-16 12:14:50 <UukGoblin> but I guess it's not bitcoin's problem ;-]
 94 2012-04-16 12:15:01 <UukGoblin> likely not a problem at all, too
 95 2012-04-16 12:15:25 <UukGoblin> is sha256(sha256(x)) really any more secure than just sha256(x)?
 96 2012-04-16 12:16:41 <Joric> maybe more, maybe less
 97 2012-04-16 12:17:26 <sipa> double-sha256 is actually only a 255-bit hash function anymore :)
 98 2012-04-16 12:17:40 <sipa> because of extra collisions generated by the second hash function
 99 2012-04-16 12:18:45 <luke-jr> double-sha256 is stronger against some theoretical attacks, and weaker against others :P
100 2012-04-16 12:19:35 <copumpkin> someone needs to find a fixed point of sha256
101 2012-04-16 12:19:40 <copumpkin> that'd be fun
102 2012-04-16 12:20:50 <UukGoblin> hm, fun :-)
103 2012-04-16 12:20:53 <copumpkin> apparently there's about a 63% chance of there being one!
104 2012-04-16 12:20:55 <Joric> or of md5
105 2012-04-16 12:21:24 <copumpkin> ;;calc 0.63 * 2^256
106 2012-04-16 12:21:24 <gribble> Error: Something in there wasn't a valid number.
107 2012-04-16 12:21:58 <UukGoblin> well, according to Dan Boneh's lectures, if H(x) is a secure hash function, then H(H(x)) is also a secure hash function
108 2012-04-16 12:22:06 <gribble> 72949016219509203631069894718350270120987959888525588151963235935478978969600
109 2012-04-16 12:22:06 <sipa> ;;calc 0.63 * 2**256
110 2012-04-16 12:22:19 <UukGoblin> actually... s/secure/collision-resistant/
111 2012-04-16 12:22:33 <copumpkin> sipa: I'll set my mining rig to work to find it :D
112 2012-04-16 12:22:38 <copumpkin> >_>
113 2012-04-16 12:22:40 <sipa> UukGoblin: it is
114 2012-04-16 12:22:41 <copumpkin> <_<
115 2012-04-16 12:22:56 <sipa> but "secure" has a rather informal definition, if you remember
116 2012-04-16 12:23:03 <UukGoblin> yeah
117 2012-04-16 12:23:29 <UukGoblin> well, he formalized it quite well
118 2012-04-16 12:23:31 <sipa> if you'd do something like H^(2^1000)(x), it wouldn't be secure anymore
119 2012-04-16 12:23:38 <UukGoblin> but it's not necessarily always 'common sense' secure ;-)
120 2012-04-16 12:23:58 <UukGoblin> hm
121 2012-04-16 12:24:12 <UukGoblin> now that's interesting ;-)
122 2012-04-16 12:24:13 <copumpkin> sipa: omg pbkdf2-like schemes are not secure!
123 2012-04-16 12:24:14 <copumpkin> oh wait
124 2012-04-16 12:24:35 <copumpkin> :)
125 2012-04-16 12:24:48 <copumpkin> but is mtgox's famous repeated sha512 scheme secure? ;)
126 2012-04-16 12:25:15 <sipa> UukGoblin: i didn t do the math for that, just gut feeling that after a number of iterations comparable to the size of the keyspace, it becomes insecure
127 2012-04-16 12:25:22 <UukGoblin> copumpkin, only as long as their admin doesn't type the root password in some cheap internet cafe
128 2012-04-16 12:25:39 <copumpkin> yeah, as you do more of them, you cover more and more of the space, which makes it a lot more likely to hit the fixed point
129 2012-04-16 12:25:43 <copumpkin> (if one exists)
130 2012-04-16 12:27:48 <UukGoblin> hmm, I wonder if with all that bitcoin mining will we be able to find some weaknesses in sha :-)
131 2012-04-16 12:30:20 <copumpkin> even if we did (which I doubt), would anyone notice?
132 2012-04-16 12:30:42 <UukGoblin> copumpkin, well, if we found 2 transactions or 2 blocks with the same hash, then sure
133 2012-04-16 12:31:12 <UukGoblin> but well, yeah, most of the power is lost because most nonces aren't advertised
134 2012-04-16 12:31:20 <copumpkin> yeah
135 2012-04-16 12:31:40 <copumpkin> a minute percentage of all the hashing power is retained
136 2012-04-16 12:31:50 <copumpkin> or its output, I should say
137 2012-04-16 12:31:57 <UukGoblin> mhm
138 2012-04-16 12:33:23 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: PBKDF2 isn't just H^foo().
139 2012-04-16 12:33:28 <copumpkin> I know :)
140 2012-04-16 12:34:20 <copumpkin> but schemes that attempt to replicate the idea (misunderstanding it) by just iterated hashing might be
141 2012-04-16 12:34:29 <jgarzik_> sipa: ACK on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1081 ?
142 2012-04-16 12:34:57 <sipa> jgarzik_: still don't know his real name? :)
143 2012-04-16 12:35:01 <copumpkin> lol
144 2012-04-16 12:35:12 <copumpkin> ;;seen gavinandresen
145 2012-04-16 12:35:13 <gribble> gavinandresen was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 2 days, 20 hours, 6 minutes, and 14 seconds ago: <gavinandresen> hmm?  just a simple drop-from-memory-pool-after-24-hours should be good enough, right?  If you're rebroadcasting, then it either gets ignored (if it is the node's memory pool) or relayed.  Stop rebroadcasting and 24 hours later the transaction should be clear from all nodes that (1 more message)
146 2012-04-16 12:35:32 <jgarzik_> I never get those names right :)
147 2012-04-16 12:36:15 <sipa> gmaxwell: actually, it is, but H is x -> HMAC-SHA1(K, x)
148 2012-04-16 12:36:30 <copumpkin> sipa: yeah, which confounds it
149 2012-04-16 12:37:49 <UukGoblin> SHA1? that... has issues, apparently
150 2012-04-16 12:38:06 <sipa> UukGoblin: not when used in HMAC
151 2012-04-16 12:38:17 <UukGoblin> ah
152 2012-04-16 12:38:29 <sipa> UukGoblin: Dan even said that some weeks ago in his courses, iirc
153 2012-04-16 12:38:57 <UukGoblin> hmm, don't recall him talking about SHA1 weaknesses at all...
154 2012-04-16 12:39:12 <UukGoblin> I mean, I do recall HMACs built from SHA
155 2012-04-16 12:40:19 <banshee12> im just wondering
156 2012-04-16 12:40:37 <banshee12> has anyone done any statistical analysis on the kind of hashes that typical result in having leading 0s in to look for patterns?
157 2012-04-16 12:40:41 <copumpkin> HMAC is a higher-order function :D
158 2012-04-16 12:40:42 <UukGoblin> well, originally, I meant that NIST said stuff having a way to "break" SHA-1, so SHA-2 should be used instead
159 2012-04-16 12:41:25 <UukGoblin> banshee12, that'd be interesting to see results of, yeah
160 2012-04-16 12:43:37 <jgarzik_> bah
161 2012-04-16 12:43:47 <jgarzik_> sure is expensive to go BTC->credit card: http://bitcoin-debit.com/fees.php
162 2012-04-16 12:44:00 <jgarzik_> (well, "a card with a credit card network number", I mean)
163 2012-04-16 12:44:56 <UukGoblin> whoah, neat
164 2012-04-16 12:45:25 <UukGoblin> will it get accepted though?
165 2012-04-16 12:45:54 <UukGoblin> "where MasterCard is accepted" :-O
166 2012-04-16 12:48:09 <UukGoblin> jgarzik_, note that all charges except loading have fixed fees
167 2012-04-16 12:48:21 <UukGoblin> well, mtgox + 4% is quite high I guess
168 2012-04-16 12:48:39 <jgarzik_> UukGoblin: all the fees are high.  each purchase is US$3
169 2012-04-16 12:49:05 <jgarzik_> UukGoblin: I was looking for a generic card, but $3 per purchase is quite high, if I am doing a lot of small purchases (which I am)
170 2012-04-16 12:49:30 <UukGoblin> yes, it's only good for larger purchases
171 2012-04-16 12:49:32 <jgarzik_> a wal-mart VISA debit card, purchased with cash, has no such per-purchase charges
172 2012-04-16 12:49:57 <UukGoblin> mhm
173 2012-04-16 12:50:04 <sipa> debit cards here don't have per-purchase costs either
174 2012-04-16 12:50:15 <UukGoblin> well yeah, they normally don't.
175 2012-04-16 12:50:30 <sipa> actually, they don't have any costs at all here
176 2012-04-16 12:50:35 <banshee12> that card is outrageous
177 2012-04-16 12:50:36 <banshee12> stay clear lol
178 2012-04-16 12:50:40 <banshee12> 3 USD per purchase?
179 2012-04-16 12:50:49 <jgarzik_> I understand charging a fee when you load BTC->USD.  That's fine and expected.
180 2012-04-16 12:51:17 <UukGoblin> well, I guess if you can purchase a credit card for cash, then this one sucks
181 2012-04-16 12:51:27 <UukGoblin> I'm not sure where I could do that in UK though
182 2012-04-16 12:51:31 <jgarzik_> sipa: well... visible costs :)  card fees continue to apply at each purchase, on the merchant's side.  that is just hidden inside each price.
183 2012-04-16 12:51:42 <jgarzik_> all cards incur a per-purchase charge
184 2012-04-16 12:52:07 <banshee12> whats wrong with bitcoindebit.net?
185 2012-04-16 12:52:09 <sipa> jgarzik_: of course, and the card is included in the bank account typically, but the bank account has costs as well
186 2012-04-16 12:52:18 <jgarzik_> bitcoin-debit.com, OTOH, incurs _two_ per-purchase charges.  The usual merchant one, and a new one apparently
187 2012-04-16 12:53:39 <jgarzik_> banshee12: zero info on fees or management
188 2012-04-16 12:58:07 <banshee12> it cant be as bad as the other one
189 2012-04-16 13:00:15 <jgarzik_> banshee12: with zero info, who knows
190 2012-04-16 13:02:37 <banshee12> there seems to be a bit of market gap for people to spend their btcs easily and convieniently?
191 2012-04-16 13:02:52 <banshee12> isnt it possible to get reloadable visa prepaid cards with no spending feeS?
192 2012-04-16 13:27:14 <jgarzik_> banshee12: one would hope so.  maybe aurumexchange...
193 2012-04-16 13:44:26 <banshee12> meh jgarzik_
194 2012-04-16 13:44:32 <banshee12> i bought some bitcoin hoping i could actually use them
195 2012-04-16 13:44:42 <banshee12> but even teh act of ordering a pizza is like a monumental challenge lol
196 2012-04-16 13:45:02 <luke-jr> it is? O.o
197 2012-04-16 13:45:21 <banshee12> yeh
198 2012-04-16 13:45:26 <banshee12> and i have a complaint about the price
199 2012-04-16 13:45:35 <banshee12> for the entire time ive looked at bitcoin there has been volatility
200 2012-04-16 13:45:39 <banshee12> the minute i buy some... theres none
201 2012-04-16 13:45:41 <banshee12> :P
202 2012-04-16 13:45:42 <banshee12> grr
203 2012-04-16 13:45:46 <luke-jr> http://bitpizza.net
204 2012-04-16 13:46:11 <banshee12> not everyone is from teh usa luke-jr
205 2012-04-16 13:46:51 <Diablo-D3> newegg canada is in there too
206 2012-04-16 13:47:35 <Diablo-D3> woah, bitcoin cards
207 2012-04-16 13:49:44 <t7> this is really cool
208 2012-04-16 13:49:52 <t7> money never has to go through a bank account
209 2012-04-16 13:51:32 <banshee12> t7: technically it never had to before... you could get paid cash in hand and just use cash
210 2012-04-16 13:51:37 <banshee12> to buy what you need
211 2012-04-16 13:51:58 <t7> you cant get paid salary in cash here in the UK
212 2012-04-16 13:52:08 <t7> well no real job will
213 2012-04-16 13:52:10 <luke-jr> o.o'
214 2012-04-16 13:52:38 <banshee12> haha funny t7
215 2012-04-16 13:52:51 <banshee12> what about plumbers, tradesman, tutors, babysitters
216 2012-04-16 13:53:00 <t7> i said real job
217 2012-04-16 13:53:39 <banshee12> whats a real job?
218 2012-04-16 13:54:17 <luke-jr> sorry, plumbing at least is a real job.
219 2012-04-16 13:55:02 <Diablo-D3> plumbers here in the US can make $100k+ a year
220 2012-04-16 13:55:06 <Diablo-D3> thats pretty fucking real to me
221 2012-04-16 13:55:29 <t7> a job where i can sit at my desk all day and talk on irc
222 2012-04-16 13:55:40 <banshee12> oh right
223 2012-04-16 13:55:55 <banshee12> thats not a job, thats called being a wage slave doing precious little for an oversized company
224 2012-04-16 13:56:02 <banshee12> and your right, you probably wont get paid cash in hand for that
225 2012-04-16 13:56:15 <banshee12> company and/or government
226 2012-04-16 13:56:19 <banshee12> that is
227 2012-04-16 13:57:21 <t7> its 5 o clock :D
228 2012-04-16 13:57:29 <t7> wage slave going home
229 2012-04-16 13:57:36 <banshee12> lol
230 2012-04-16 14:05:47 <jgarzik_> heh
231 2012-04-16 14:05:51 <jgarzik_> poor genjix
232 2012-04-16 14:05:55 <jgarzik_> libbitcoin is already an outdated fork
233 2012-04-16 14:06:41 <wumpus> genjix never forked, he made his own from scratch right?
234 2012-04-16 14:07:00 <gmaxwell> libcoin != libbitcoin
235 2012-04-16 14:07:21 <gmaxwell> Only one is a fork, though I think both are outdated at the moment.
236 2012-04-16 14:07:45 <jgarzik_> ah
237 2012-04-16 14:07:51 <jgarzik_> correction: libbitcoin is already outdated
238 2012-04-16 14:08:48 <banshee12> why doesnt someone update it?
239 2012-04-16 14:08:49 <ThomasV> why is libbitcoin outdated?
240 2012-04-16 14:09:39 <jgarzik_> this "brand new" post is full of outdated info: http://bitcoinmedia.com/the-irc-bootstrap-method-is-flawed/
241 2012-04-16 14:09:56 <jgarzik_> my response is awaiting moderation... we'll see if it passes the filter
242 2012-04-16 14:10:11 <wumpus> https://gitorious.org/libbitcoin/libbitcoin  last commit is from today, so they're not completely standing still
243 2012-04-16 14:10:20 <gmaxwell> jgarzik_: You shouldn't bother loading bitcoinmedia, most everytthing published there is junk.
244 2012-04-16 14:10:38 <jgarzik_> gmaxwell: yeah, beginning to see that...  seems like a genjix rant site
245 2012-04-16 14:11:08 <jgarzik_> wumpus: the point is to keep up to date with network changes, not simply that the codebase receives commits
246 2012-04-16 14:11:29 <wumpus> jgarzik_: sure, but keeping up with a moving target is hard
247 2012-04-16 14:11:30 <gmaxwell> jgarzik_: which woudln't be so bad, except he has a terrible factual hitrate with his rants.
248 2012-04-16 14:11:32 <gavinandresen> I'm really surprised genjix isn't keeping more careful track of all the core code changes
249 2012-04-16 14:11:52 <luke-jr> well, you did "hide" the IRC defautl change in a refactor&
250 2012-04-16 14:12:01 <wumpus> it's being actively developed so I'm sure they'll catch up with network changes ... eventually
251 2012-04-16 14:12:03 <luke-jr> he probably figured "meh, nothing interesting here"
252 2012-04-16 14:12:13 <gavinandresen> reading final release release notes wouldn't be a huge burden....
253 2012-04-16 14:12:19 <luke-jr> jgarzik_: bootstrapping isn't part of the Bitcoin protocol
254 2012-04-16 14:12:25 <luke-jr> so not of interest to libbitcoin
255 2012-04-16 14:12:50 <jgarzik_> luke-jr: that's true only in some theoretical world in your brain :)
256 2012-04-16 14:13:17 <gmaxwell> He's also helpfully misrepresented bitcoin's degree of sybil vulnerability. ugh. why did I load this page.
257 2012-04-16 14:13:20 <jgarzik_> gavinandresen: ACK for BIP 31 for 0.6.1?
258 2012-04-16 14:13:33 <jgarzik_> gmaxwell: indeed
259 2012-04-16 14:13:37 <gavinandresen> BIP 31 is pong?
260 2012-04-16 14:13:51 <jgarzik_> gavinandresen: yes.  pull req #1081
261 2012-04-16 14:14:21 <wumpus> lol, of course the expected DHT reply on that article
262 2012-04-16 14:14:32 <gmaxwell> wumpus: heheh.
263 2012-04-16 14:14:37 <jgarzik_> chuckle
264 2012-04-16 14:15:12 <MC1984> genjix is cool :(
265 2012-04-16 14:15:17 <gmaxwell> Someday I'm going to get myself invited to some conference with the president, and while he's talking about some middle east conflict thing I'm going to ask if they've considered using a DHT.
266 2012-04-16 14:15:18 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: implicitly that also means ACK to bump PROTOCOL_VERSION
267 2012-04-16 14:15:27 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: even though that change is not in #1081
268 2012-04-16 14:15:28 <wumpus> hahahahah
269 2012-04-16 14:15:29 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: lol
270 2012-04-16 14:15:42 <jgarzik> :)
271 2012-04-16 14:16:38 <jgarzik> bbiab
272 2012-04-16 14:16:52 <gavinandresen> ... still reading all the fence-painting comments about naming things....
273 2012-04-16 14:19:22 <banshee12> gavinandresen, gmaxwell: why do you guys allow the kinda retartedness that goes on #bitcoin ?
274 2012-04-16 14:20:26 <gmaxwell> banshee12: as you may have noticed, I was just prodding again
275 2012-04-16 14:20:49 <gavinandresen> banshee12: I hardly ever visit #bitcoin, have no idea what you're talking about.  And in general have an "if you don't like it, use ignore" attitude ttowards retardedness
276 2012-04-16 14:21:19 <wumpus> I thought #bitcoin solely existed as a filter to keep the retardedness out of here
277 2012-04-16 14:21:26 <banshee12> lol wumpus
278 2012-04-16 14:21:28 <luke-jr> lol
279 2012-04-16 14:21:32 <gavinandresen> (scolding trolls for trolling or idiots for being idiots is a waste of time, in my experience)
280 2012-04-16 14:21:48 <gmaxwell> wumpus: sssh.
281 2012-04-16 14:22:26 <gavinandresen> yeah, what I meant to say was "what do you mean, #bitcoin is fantastic, just because people have different ideas from you doesn't mean they're WRONG!"
282 2012-04-16 14:23:05 <banshee12> different ideas? some people are just being plain offensive
283 2012-04-16 14:23:12 <wumpus> yes, that's the diplomatic way to say it
284 2012-04-16 14:23:38 <gavinandresen> "Just because they have different ideas and different ways of EXPRESSING those ideas......"
285 2012-04-16 14:23:56 <gavinandresen> (ok, done trolling now, away for a while to finish doing taxes... grump grump grump....)
286 2012-04-16 14:32:43 <MC1984> You have been invited to #eligius by luke-jr (kornbluth.freenode.net)
287 2012-04-16 14:32:45 <MC1984> what
288 2012-04-16 14:33:25 <MC1984> how do you do irc invites
289 2012-04-16 14:33:35 <sturles> Just /invite
290 2012-04-16 14:34:02 <luke-jr> MC1984: it only works in +g channels tho
291 2012-04-16 14:37:38 <sipa> or if you're op
292 2012-04-16 14:38:53 <sipa> from?
293 2012-04-16 14:39:20 <luke-jr> he's an op here I guess
294 2012-04-16 14:39:24 <jgarzik> the fact I'm an op
295 2012-04-16 14:39:44 <sipa> ssssh
296 2012-04-16 14:44:53 <MC1984> just had a luxurious wet shave
297 2012-04-16 14:44:58 <MC1984> feeld good man
298 2012-04-16 14:45:52 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: you ruined it :<
299 2012-04-16 14:46:55 <t7> MC1984: fucking hipster
300 2012-04-16 14:47:09 <MC1984> what?
301 2012-04-16 14:47:47 <MC1984> shaving is for hipsters now?
302 2012-04-16 14:47:48 <luke-jr> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=53650.0
303 2012-04-16 14:48:01 <farfi> yes?
304 2012-04-16 14:48:31 <luke-jr> farfi: what language is your Bitcoin-Qt using?
305 2012-04-16 14:48:45 <farfi> hebrew :)
306 2012-04-16 14:48:53 <luke-jr> any idea why it would think you know Hebrew?
307 2012-04-16 14:49:07 <farfi> the windows is in english but i have hebrew locale because of dates and stuff
308 2012-04-16 14:49:21 <farfi> i know hebrew.. im in israel
309 2012-04-16 14:49:22 <luke-jr> hmm
310 2012-04-16 14:49:53 <farfi> i added the  " -lang=en_US" to the command line and it works fine like that
311 2012-04-16 14:50:18 <farfi> but it installed according to the loacale and not the display language
312 2012-04-16 14:51:52 <luke-jr> but locale *is* display language& O.o
313 2012-04-16 14:52:00 <farfi> nope
314 2012-04-16 14:52:21 <farfi> My windows is english  but date/time is Hebrew( Israel)
315 2012-04-16 14:52:35 <luke-jr> can you open a command prompt, and run "set" ?
316 2012-04-16 14:52:39 <luke-jr> and pastebin its output
317 2012-04-16 14:52:41 <farfi> yeah
318 2012-04-16 14:54:56 <farfi> http://pastebin.com/fTjRTK5D
319 2012-04-16 14:55:51 <luke-jr> O.ol
320 2012-04-16 14:55:57 <luke-jr> don't see any locale settings in that
321 2012-04-16 14:56:10 <t7> i dont have any in mine :|
322 2012-04-16 14:57:57 <farfi> If I look in regional setting its says locale hebrew(Israel)
323 2012-04-16 14:58:31 <farfi> back in a sec
324 2012-04-16 15:01:28 <luke-jr> in any case, this is a Qt bug.
325 2012-04-16 15:02:03 <luke-jr> farfi: https://bugreports.qt-project.org
326 2012-04-16 15:21:39 <farfi> luke-jr: reported it best I can on bugreports    thnx for taking the time
327 2012-04-16 15:40:11 <wumpus> I think that Qt bug is known, System::locale makes a guess about the locale, which is sometimes off if you have configured different locales for different things
328 2012-04-16 15:40:36 <luke-jr> wumpus: well, they should fix it :P
329 2012-04-16 15:40:55 <wumpus> yes there's nothing we can do about it
330 2012-04-16 15:41:25 <luke-jr> s/can/should/
331 2012-04-16 15:41:30 <wumpus> it's also because locales is still a mess, with different OSes having different types of settings
332 2012-04-16 15:41:36 <gmaxwell> wumpus: is there any way we can make it easier for users to swap their locale?
333 2012-04-16 15:41:52 <wumpus> we could add an option
334 2012-04-16 15:42:41 <wumpus> then again, -lang already works pretty well
335 2012-04-16 15:43:36 <luke-jr> "Bitcoin-Qt has detected you may use a language other than English. Which language do you want to use?<br>(same thing in other language)" <English> <PPW??W
336 2012-04-16 15:43:49 <gmaxwell> maybe that can all be improved with some docs?
337 2012-04-16 15:44:18 <wumpus> I'm pretty sure using a language other than english should not be a warning condition
338 2012-04-16 15:44:46 <wumpus> could just add a dropdown box to options where people can select their favorite language
339 2012-04-16 15:45:15 <luke-jr> wumpus: well, I mean on first-run
340 2012-04-16 15:45:31 <luke-jr> and remember it across restarts
341 2012-04-16 15:46:04 <luke-jr> ie, setting lang="en_US"/other_locale/"ENV"
342 2012-04-16 15:46:21 <luke-jr> (and using ENV if they click <other language>)
343 2012-04-16 15:46:49 <wumpus> yes, I meant an option in the QSettings
344 2012-04-16 15:47:06 <luke-jr> same here
345 2012-04-16 15:47:08 <luke-jr> :p
346 2012-04-16 15:47:32 <luke-jr> just that it should ask at first-run, and that ENV should be an option (to hide the question)
347 2012-04-16 15:47:35 <wumpus> it's not high-priority though, the locale autodetection works pretty well, this is the first time I've heard it go wrong in ages
348 2012-04-16 15:47:57 <luke-jr> true, and afaik in both cases, the person *did* know the language
349 2012-04-16 15:48:05 <wumpus> yep
350 2012-04-16 16:22:23 <farfi> just a word- it didnt happen to me in previous versions because there was no hebrew until this version
351 2012-04-16 16:56:21 <sem_perfume> Hey can anyone help me out with some questions?
352 2012-04-16 17:34:30 <sipa> sem_perfume: ask, don't ask to ask
353 2012-04-16 17:43:26 <sem_perfume> I want to know how the system prevents double-spending. Afaik, all honest nodes will try to create a honest block and add it to the chain of blocks.
354 2012-04-16 17:43:47 <sem_perfume> The honest block in question has all transaction that the node received before creating it.
355 2012-04-16 17:44:15 <sem_perfume> An attacker then would have to branch the chain as soon as the honest block is appended, and work for it to get higher than the old chain.
356 2012-04-16 17:44:41 <sem_perfume> And as soon as the "fraudulent" chain gets higher, he can double spend.
357 2012-04-16 17:45:05 <sem_perfume> The block that he adds during the branching won't have his transactions, I suppose.
358 2012-04-16 17:45:07 <sem_perfume> Is that right?
359 2012-04-16 17:49:17 <seco> nope, confirmation will only be done if miner who solved a new block decides to confirm this transaction on his way; i will try to find some documentation for you: this is a common myth with Bitcoin :)
360 2012-04-16 17:50:14 <seco> have a read on  https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths#Point_of_sale_with_bitcoins_isn.27t_possible_because_of_the_10_minute_wait_for_confirmation   for the beginning
361 2012-04-16 17:51:12 <sem_perfume> Thanks
362 2012-04-16 17:51:34 <seco> to get the fraudulent chain higher, the attacker would need to solve the next block as well, and so on, to "win" the game
363 2012-04-16 17:52:56 <seco> which -how i understood protocol so far- would only be possible if you constantly own more then 50% of the hashing power of the network: you could get the network to stand still, but validation of the transaction will be still done on EVERY client on his own: you would have to "fake" a transaction from valid sources, to get also clients to accept it
364 2012-04-16 17:53:41 <seco> and here my comprehension ends: im not sure what you would need to do next to get the network rolling on your fake transactions
365 2012-04-16 17:54:39 <seco> i stopped investigating after i understood you need to solve the next chains next by next to confirm get your transaction confirmed :)
366 2012-04-16 17:54:59 <helo> as soon as you've mined the highest block with your double-spend in it (re-mining the first-spend out of the blockchain), you could turn off your mining hardware and the network would build ontop of your work
367 2012-04-16 17:55:15 <sem_perfume> Umm.. but as soon as your fake branch gets higher, won't all nodes start working on it too?
368 2012-04-16 17:55:38 <sem_perfume> Yeah, that's what I thought, helo.
369 2012-04-16 17:56:12 <sem_perfume> You only need to get the fake branch one block higher than the old one, then everybody will be building on the top of it by themselves.
370 2012-04-16 17:58:05 <midnightmagic> this is why you should wait for enough confirmations to satisfy yourself that a double spend is not feasible
371 2012-04-16 17:58:49 <seco> hmm and what about the need of all private gpg-keys to sign the incoming amount of money to your fake-btc-address; if incoming amount is not signed, no client node would validate your transaction as legit!
372 2012-04-16 17:59:46 <midnightmagic> .. signed? is this some kind of fairytale hypothetical that includes gpg in the mix?
373 2012-04-16 18:00:25 <seco> uhm no :p
374 2012-04-16 18:00:37 <sem_perfume> But double spending means the lack of a transaction, not a fake one, afaik.
375 2012-04-16 18:01:12 <seco> ah sorry, yes
376 2012-04-16 18:01:41 <helo> seco: creating the double-spend transaction will be done in the same way that the original spend was created. same inputs, different output(s).
377 2012-04-16 18:02:36 <helo> i suspect that you have to create a conflicting transaction sending the coin elsewhere to really do a double spend
378 2012-04-16 18:03:01 <midnightmagic> yah so basically it doesn't matter what other people think, only what they see as the highest work. NOTE: the other blocks are still there to be examined. the existence of a successful doublespend would be seen by everybody on the network, hurting trust in bitcoin
379 2012-04-16 18:03:19 <seco> so its all about waiting for the luck to get some new blocks in line to confirm ones own double-spended coins if i also understood midnightmagic right? But then doesnt become the double-spended coins reality for the network and the 1st spent coins would be canceled due to lack of confirmations?
380 2012-04-16 18:03:23 <helo> otherwise the original send transaction could still be mined
381 2012-04-16 18:03:59 <midnightmagic> correct
382 2012-04-16 18:04:08 <midnightmagic> sort of.
383 2012-04-16 18:04:36 <midnightmagic> the terminology you are using would tweak pedantic people who would be correcting you right now, but that's the gist of it
384 2012-04-16 18:04:53 <seco> haha cool the more you find out about bitcoin the more intersting it is: i know about networktheory, but im always too lazy to think deep enough into it lol
385 2012-04-16 18:05:17 <seco> yes i know...but we arent in a scientific paper here *smile'
386 2012-04-16 18:05:37 <MC1984> pedants in my IRC?
387 2012-04-16 18:05:40 <MC1984> its more likely than you think
388 2012-04-16 18:06:03 <sem_perfume> oh jeez i'm doing a presentation about bitcoin and stuff tomorrow, hope i won't speak too much trash
389 2012-04-16 18:06:07 <midnightmagic> some people believe all incorrect ideas should be stamped out as early as possible. i'm not really one of those people. :) just warning you for when you talk to othe people
390 2012-04-16 18:06:26 <MC1984> sensible guy
391 2012-04-16 18:07:46 <seco> oh cool sem_perfume, what technical background does your audience has? there are already some sildes flying around on internet, incl. gavins one for cia i think :)
392 2012-04-16 18:08:04 <seco> slides*
393 2012-04-16 18:09:22 <seco> but better move conversation to #bitcoin, or /query: i think that would no longer be stuff for developers-chan: they want to work here ;)
394 2012-04-16 18:10:33 <sem_perfume> well, they're mostly graduation students of computer engineering. i'm confident about the protocol talk and stuff, just gotta read more about the chain of blocks
395 2012-04-16 18:12:33 <midnightmagic> technical discussion of bitcoin is on topic here in my opinion
396 2012-04-16 18:13:04 <MC1984> irc police
397 2012-04-16 18:14:54 <seco> i guess you already fount http://en.bitcoin.it, i would start with https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_chain_browser dangleing down to abstraction level you need, but add some facts to your slides and hand them over to me if you explain aspects of blockchain :D - blockexplorer.com always gave me good examples to the pictures on https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction :)
398 2012-04-16 18:15:30 <seco> and i think im just to lazy to put all parts together for me on my own :p
399 2012-04-16 18:16:07 <MC1984> problem with bitcoin is there are no intuitive analogies
400 2012-04-16 18:16:12 <MC1984> for how it works
401 2012-04-16 18:16:18 <luke-jr> there kindof is
402 2012-04-16 18:16:22 <luke-jr> gold
403 2012-04-16 18:16:40 <midnightmagic> some people learn better theough discussion
404 2012-04-16 18:16:52 <MC1984> no how it actually work
405 2012-04-16 18:18:18 <seco> true, but you cant hide from diving into literature if your audience is a bunch of computer engineering guys ;)
406 2012-04-16 18:20:16 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic> the terminology you are using would tweak pedantic people who would be correcting you right now  < at the point in reading the backscroll I was indeed twitching to correct sem_perfume.
407 2012-04-16 18:20:22 <gmaxwell> And you guys all suck.
408 2012-04-16 18:21:00 <gmaxwell> sem_perfume: _double spending_ is the same money being spent twice, creating the inflation. It's the fundimental problem that digital currency has, without which digital money would be trivial.
409 2012-04-16 18:21:26 <gmaxwell> Bitcoin provides absolute protection against double spending by only allowing one spend of a transaction in the chain.
410 2012-04-16 18:21:49 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=74581.msg853910#msg853910
411 2012-04-16 18:22:31 <gmaxwell> The thing you're talking about isn't double spending so much as it's a reversal of a transaction, presumably followed by a conflicting spend to prevent the revsersal from being undone (because it doesn't allow double spending)
412 2012-04-16 18:27:51 <Joric> electrum-gen http://brainwallet.org/#chains
413 2012-04-16 18:29:03 <sem_perfume> i believe fake branches have been created several times by now, right?
414 2012-04-16 18:29:04 <ThomasV> Joric: phishing?
415 2012-04-16 18:29:18 <sem_perfume> the "paper" i read talked about the existance of 41% pools nowadays
416 2012-04-16 18:29:37 <Joric> ThomasV, opensource
417 2012-04-16 18:29:58 <seco> what i meant with the double-spended tx B turning into reality if you manage to get it confirmed during next blocks: but what if next 3 blocks confirm B (mined by devil workers). Is it possible the that wellminded angel workers just dont confirm that transaction from 4th block into the future or is this case not possible, and its already to late for the network that new blocks confirm the 1st transaction A after 1st block on which tx B was confirmed?
418 2012-04-16 18:30:01 <sem_perfume> that is around 16% chance of creating a fake branch
419 2012-04-16 18:31:01 <ThomasV> Joric: sure, but you could covertly change the javascript to sniff passphrases
420 2012-04-16 18:31:40 <ThomasV> I would never type a wallet seed in a webpage
421 2012-04-16 18:31:53 <Joric> it's hosted live on github
422 2012-04-16 18:34:59 <seco> i always fount the most complicated examples in parallel computing - sorry if i confused, i just wanted to be sure its decided by the next block
423 2012-04-16 18:36:10 <gmaxwell> sem_perfume: "fake branches" is nonsense.
424 2012-04-16 18:36:37 <gmaxwell> The system naturally forms little forks here and there... this can't be prevented because the speed of light is finite.
425 2012-04-16 18:36:51 <gmaxwell> They're not fake - they just lost and didn't become part of the longest chain.
426 2012-04-16 18:36:56 <ThomasV> Joric: anyway, it's a nice piece of work
427 2012-04-16 18:39:08 <seco> i think sem_perfume meant the branch i described with B as fake-branch: From network point of view its reality, and the first tx "lost the race" :)
428 2012-04-16 18:41:22 <sem_perfume> by fake branch i meant a chain that was generated by an attacker
429 2012-04-16 18:41:27 <sem_perfume> in order to reverse a transaction
430 2012-04-16 18:42:12 <sem_perfume> i don't have a better name for it because satoshi uses the term "honest blocks" but doesn't present one that means the opposite
431 2012-04-16 18:44:39 <gmaxwell> sem_perfume: okay. Yes, the paper gives figures for how likely someone is to be able to overtake a chain of certian depth, giving a certian hash power for the attacker.. in order to reverse a transaction which, if it's their transaction they can make sure their fork mines a conflicting one thus making the reversal permanent (since the system won't allow two spends of the funds).
432 2012-04-16 18:45:11 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: thanks for the forum reply :)
433 2012-04-16 18:45:42 <gmaxwell> Normal convention in the bitcoin world is to wait at least six blocks before considering an otherwise untrusted transaction irreversable.
434 2012-04-16 18:46:07 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: Think that was adequate?
435 2012-04-16 18:46:28 <ThomasV> very much
436 2012-04-16 18:46:35 <sem_perfume> oh, i'll have sure to add that to my presentation. thanks gmaxwell
437 2012-04-16 18:46:56 <helo> sem_perfume: one thing i've found many people have trouble understanding is how bitcoin can have any value at all, without anything physical "backing" it
438 2012-04-16 18:47:14 <sem_perfume> six blocks means that a pool with 41% power only has 4% chance to revert a transaction
439 2012-04-16 18:47:35 <sem_perfume> thats more safe than our current banking system, as far as it goes lol
440 2012-04-16 18:47:49 <gmaxwell> sem_perfume: well credit cards aren't irreversable for several months.
441 2012-04-16 18:48:07 <gmaxwell> sem_perfume: do the math again for 72 blocks. ;) (~12 hours) 0_o
442 2012-04-16 18:49:22 <gmaxwell> And the 96% of the time they fail to overtake.... they lose all the coin they generated when the gave up... at least 3000 BTC for 6 blocks right now.
443 2012-04-16 18:49:52 <helo> *300?
444 2012-04-16 18:50:38 <gmaxwell> Yea... repeated 0 there. ;)
445 2012-04-16 18:51:00 <sem_perfume> oh jeez, my network security professor is going to get nuts with those numbers
446 2012-04-16 18:51:27 <sem_perfume> afaik he doesn't believe stuff like freenet or bitcoins can be safe
447 2012-04-16 18:51:54 <gmaxwell> Well, none of it can be completely safe.. But it's also the case that you might get struck by a meteor. :)
448 2012-04-16 18:52:50 <seco> mhmm 0.41^6=0.004, so its actually 0.4%, isnt it?
449 2012-04-16 18:53:31 <sem_perfume> thats right seco
450 2012-04-16 18:53:53 <sem_perfume> even safer
451 2012-04-16 18:55:06 <seco> so the only reason to wait is to ensure no "hidden solved parallel chain" pops up from another branch telling you the past is wrong?
452 2012-04-16 18:57:04 <seco> id still like to connect that to validation on local nodes, but i guess the reason why nobody talks about them is, that double spended tx would be positively validated by every node as long as the "line of blocks" fulfills the assumption of a valid source
453 2012-04-16 18:57:12 <sem_perfume> the more you wait, the harder it is for the attacker to make the alternative chain higher
454 2012-04-16 18:57:52 <sem_perfume> thats why satoshi tells people to make new wallets for every transaction
455 2012-04-16 18:58:39 <sem_perfume> a pool can keep on trying to make an alternative chain without risk until they're lucky enough to get one that is high enough (all without announcing its blocks)
456 2012-04-16 18:59:16 <sem_perfume> and right after they manage to, they broadcast a transaction to you, wait for it to get accepted and announce all the hidden parallel chain
457 2012-04-16 18:59:39 <seco> oh well, that i fully understand how how fully careless most Bitcoin users are atm: Most transactions which are being done person-to-person are considered "finished" after they got carried to receiver through network (after some seconds, if both nodes are connected to network, and are sitting on a branch derived from the same blockchain (e.g. not in a darknet))
458 2012-04-16 18:59:59 <helo> sem_perfume: i'm not sure if that's why satoshi tells people to make a new wallet for every transaction
459 2012-04-16 19:01:24 <helo> sem_perfume: i think using a new address for every transaction just helps obfuscate ownership of funds
460 2012-04-16 19:01:58 <sem_perfume> i'm trying to find that part in http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf but cant find it atm
461 2012-04-16 19:02:11 <sem_perfume> but yeah it also helps anonimity
462 2012-04-16 19:02:21 <sem_perfume> anonymity*
463 2012-04-16 19:03:18 <sem_perfume> "The receiver generates a new key pair and gives the public key to the sender shortly before
464 2012-04-16 19:03:23 <helo> seco: new "address" for each transaction. i.e. every time you give an address to a customer, it is a new address that only they see.
465 2012-04-16 19:04:05 <helo> sem_perfume: ahh!
466 2012-04-16 19:04:44 <seco> yes, he meant a new address; but all addresses (with their private keys) are stored in the "wallet"!
467 2012-04-16 19:09:07 <t7> wallet is just a satoshi client thing, right?
468 2012-04-16 19:10:00 <seco> its name of container which stored the keypairs of to the users bitcoin-addresses :)
469 2012-04-16 19:10:32 <seco> but i think for the sake of reusability all call it wallets in their clients :p
470 2012-04-16 19:10:44 <seco> stores*
471 2012-04-16 19:10:46 <t7> my client throws away private keys
472 2012-04-16 19:11:14 <t7> save disk space... in the future it will use quantum computers to solve the private key
473 2012-04-16 19:11:40 <seco> so i would be confused if you name that kind of struct a wallet :p
474 2012-04-16 19:13:19 <helo> sem_perfume: while that is true, i don't think it is relied upon heavily
475 2012-04-16 19:14:16 <seco> im sorry: just knowing from general topics a bit: like calculating for you some RSA by pen and paper, but nothing deep
476 2012-04-16 19:14:54 <sipa> t7: your client throws away private keys? heh?
477 2012-04-16 19:14:57 <t7> i don't suppose then you have heard of lattice based ciphers...?
478 2012-04-16 19:15:00 <seco> you know...finding some prime and such haha
479 2012-04-16 19:17:45 <t7> ECDSA still seems the best signing algo in terms of key length / strength
480 2012-04-16 19:18:00 <t7> but quantum comperders will break it
481 2012-04-16 19:18:26 <sipa> t7: Ed25519
482 2012-04-16 19:18:57 <Joric> ed209
483 2012-04-16 19:19:01 <sipa> 32 byte secret keys, 32 byte public keys, 64 byte deterministic signatures, and 128-bit security
484 2012-04-16 19:19:39 <sipa> (and far faster than ECDSA on secp256k1)
485 2012-04-16 19:20:49 <t7> ooo
486 2012-04-16 19:20:50 <seco> t7: if you mean something like cs.tau.ac.il/~odedr/papers/pqc.pdf im afraid i will have to give up if it comes to the maths like they start talking about on Preliminaries :-( - so i would be still confused if you write in your documentation not to store any private key data in your wallet :p
487 2012-04-16 19:21:19 <t7> haha i was just joking
488 2012-04-16 19:22:24 <seco> but i remember most terms from maths lectures *g*
489 2012-04-16 19:24:26 <seco> mhm i keep it at Lattices...i prefer playing around with something else then going on with q-ary ones lol
490 2012-04-16 19:24:43 <seco> im not here at work :p
491 2012-04-16 19:30:36 <seco> sem_perfume: would be great if you put your presentation somewhere to public domain, so interested ppl can zap through and learn something :))
492 2012-04-16 19:31:47 <sem_perfume> i'll make sure to do that
493 2012-04-16 21:57:29 <diki> question
494 2012-04-16 21:57:43 <diki> is the data field in a getwork supposed to be different on every request?
495 2012-04-16 21:58:12 <Diablo-D3> uh, yes?
496 2012-04-16 21:58:16 <Diablo-D3> how else would it work?
497 2012-04-16 21:58:19 <diki> what does it mean if it's not?
498 2012-04-16 21:58:32 <ageis> stalez
499 2012-04-16 21:58:38 <Diablo-D3> it means you need to stop taking drugs
500 2012-04-16 21:58:38 <diki> CAUSE I'VE BEEN MINING LITECOIN ALL THIS TIME, and all of a sudden stopped getting anything
501 2012-04-16 21:58:50 <diki> as I typed getwork
502 2012-04-16 21:59:02 <diki> I noticed...every data field had the same hash
503 2012-04-16 21:59:48 <guruvan> running through a caching proxy?
504 2012-04-16 22:00:16 <diki> nothing like that
505 2012-04-16 22:00:32 <diki> I have wasted more than 15-17 hours of electricity on the same work over and over
506 2012-04-16 22:02:14 <diki> Just to confirm -> http://pastebin.com/ym4gNixT
507 2012-04-16 22:02:58 <sipa> diki: i see nothing wrong
508 2012-04-16 22:03:02 <diki> really?
509 2012-04-16 22:03:46 <sipa> you get different work each time
510 2012-04-16 22:04:02 <diki> well you see, I've already beaten the avg time...
511 2012-04-16 22:04:11 <diki> I was getting blocks steadily, all of a sudden stopped
512 2012-04-16 22:04:24 <sipa> what is the avg time?
513 2012-04-16 22:04:30 <diki> 3 and a half hours
514 2012-04-16 22:04:39 <sipa> and how long has is been?
515 2012-04-16 22:04:43 <diki> days?
516 2012-04-16 22:05:01 <sipa> that's unexpected
517 2012-04-16 22:05:13 <diki> Well, I haven't gotten anything in 5 days...however total miner running time is still less than 24 hours
518 2012-04-16 22:05:35 <sipa> 6 times above average time is extremele unlikely