1 2012-04-30 00:00:20 <gmaxwell> sneak: the *OLD VERSIONS HARM THE NETWORK AND YOUR SECURITY* is generic and is not specifically referring to 0.6.0.  There are different reasons for different versions.
  2 2012-04-30 00:01:23 <gmaxwell> sneak: for example some versions prior to 3.24 randomly hang up on nodes while syncing the chain and also will show some never possibly valid transactions as valid (although always unconfirmed) in your wallet.
  3 2012-04-30 00:02:29 <gmaxwell> sneak: Versions prior to 0.6.0 (except 0.5.4, which is a backport which came after 0.6) will accept blocks which can not possibly be valid due to non-enforcement of the later added BIP16 rules.
  4 2012-04-30 00:04:27 <gmaxwell> 0.5.0 - 0.5.3 on Windows have an issue where the C++ exception handling is non-threadsafe, which could potentially lead to remote exploits (and we issued a CVE over this, though we've not been able to get it to do worse than crash under some contrived conditions)
  5 2012-04-30 00:05:27 <gmaxwell> There have been bugs where large reorgs could leave nodes stuck on stub chains, and so on.  Basically every version released includes reliablity fixes.
  6 2012-04-30 00:21:33 <luke-jr> sneak: for security, see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/CVEs
  7 2012-04-30 00:21:57 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: thanks, I didn't know we had that page.
  8 2012-04-30 00:24:26 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: http://www.cs.rhul.ac.uk/~adrian/timekeeping/galileo/pinwheel_lego.html is cool
  9 2012-04-30 01:09:47 <redhost> Any tips on bitcoin hosting?  What about  Cinfu?
 10 2012-04-30 01:20:15 <neofutur> redhost: /join #bitcoin-hosting ;)
 11 2012-04-30 01:20:37 <redhost> neofutur: thanks
 12 2012-04-30 02:18:07 <buttwere5> Hi, can anyone point me to the function responsible updating the wallet on receiving a new transaction? (in the official client)
 13 2012-04-30 02:18:50 <buttwere5> I am looking at CWallet::AddToWallet but I am not sure if I have found the right one
 14 2012-04-30 02:20:02 <andytoshi> that looks like the right one to me, but i'm really not familiar with how wallets are handled
 15 2012-04-30 02:21:09 <buttwere5> additionally the inserting/random selection of addresses is confusing me
 16 2012-04-30 02:22:47 <andytoshi> which, the insertion or random selection :P
 17 2012-04-30 02:23:23 <buttwere5> heh, both since I am not sure why they are relevant in a receive
 18 2012-04-30 02:23:42 <buttwere5> well, it's inserting the random selection, not a known (looks like) address
 19 2012-04-30 02:25:16 <andytoshi> buttwere5: when a transaction is recieved, a new address is generated for user privacy
 20 2012-04-30 02:25:19 <andytoshi> the two aren't logically related
 21 2012-04-30 02:25:33 <andytoshi> it's just to avoid the reuse of addresses
 22 2012-04-30 02:26:53 <buttwere5> oh okay, I guess I can see why that would happen
 23 2012-04-30 02:27:23 <andytoshi> if you find this stuff confusing, i encourage you to add comments and submit patches
 24 2012-04-30 02:27:33 <andytoshi> the code can certainly use more documentation
 25 2012-04-30 02:31:32 <buttwere5> one day, possibly
 26 2012-04-30 02:31:37 <buttwere5> I'd need to read a lot more of this code
 27 2012-04-30 02:38:54 <andytoshi> well, good luck :) it's mostly pretty good now
 28 2012-04-30 02:39:14 <andytoshi> a year ago, it was a nightmare, but we've got some great devs here
 29 2012-04-30 03:30:06 <ferroh> sigh
 30 2012-04-30 03:30:12 <ferroh> bitcoin-qt just segfaulted
 31 2012-04-30 03:30:18 <ferroh> in the new version of ubuntu
 32 2012-04-30 03:32:17 <ferroh> has anyone else seen that happen or is it just me
 33 2012-04-30 03:34:52 <andytoshi> we've got reports all sorts of bad shit happening to gEDA on the new ubuntu
 34 2012-04-30 03:35:02 <andytoshi> but can't reproduce in gdb
 35 2012-04-30 03:35:11 <andytoshi> also, there's GUI glitches - but we use gtk
 36 2012-04-30 03:35:23 <andytoshi> for what that's worth
 37 2012-04-30 03:43:08 <ferroh> i was using a slightly older version
 38 2012-04-30 03:43:12 <ferroh> compiling 0611 now
 39 2012-04-30 03:44:13 <ferroh> hmm
 40 2012-04-30 03:44:21 <ferroh> 0.6.1rc1 seems to work
 41 2012-04-30 03:44:22 <ferroh> so far
 42 2012-04-30 03:48:14 <andytoshi> hmm, if you're feeling like keeping a terminal open forever, you could run it in gdb
 43 2012-04-30 03:48:16 <andytoshi> just in case
 44 2012-04-30 03:48:56 <andytoshi> i'm thinking of installing ubuntu in a VM sometime
 45 2012-04-30 04:38:45 <Joric> are there any other deterministic schemes besides armory and electrum?
 46 2012-04-30 04:42:32 <Joric> probably strongcoin
 47 2012-04-30 06:39:38 <dusty__> hi all
 48 2012-04-30 06:40:14 <dusty__> is there any1 that can help me with a simple question regarding max target and difficulty?
 49 2012-04-30 06:53:41 <dusty__> ok, as stated on the topic, I ask :)
 50 2012-04-30 06:53:43 <dusty__> I'm trying to import the testnet block chain on a library I'm working on but speaking of difficulty I'm not understanding well the differences relative to the production network.
 51 2012-04-30 06:53:52 <dusty__> This is what I've understood until now about prodnet:
 52 2012-04-30 06:54:01 <dusty__> While in testnet:
 53 2012-04-30 06:54:21 <dusty__> On the wiki it's stated that "Minimum difficulty of 1.0 on testnet is equal to difficulty of 0.5 on mainnet. This means that the mainnet-equivalent of any testnet difficulty is half the testnet difficulty." so I guess I've to shift left the prodnet max target, getting 0x1FFFE00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 but I can't find any confirmation for that.
 54 2012-04-30 07:58:39 <sipa> dusty__: current minimum testnet difficulty is 0.125
 55 2012-04-30 09:01:51 <dusty__> thanks sipa for you reply, but that's not what I was asking: current minimum is lower because of recent rules change (after 20 min of no blocks the difficulty is lowered)
 56 2012-04-30 09:02:42 <dusty__> I'm trying to understand how to validate block #2016: http://blockexplorer.com/testnet/block/0000000049980FB18C07A9888A18D00D965FB3DA445770D88A1213462A02029B
 57 2012-04-30 09:02:59 <sipa> no, after 20 minutes, difficulty of 0.125 is allowed
 58 2012-04-30 09:03:02 <sipa> in testnet
 59 2012-04-30 09:03:06 <dusty__> ok
 60 2012-04-30 09:03:33 <dusty__> anyway I'm working on block #2016, that was issued well before this change
 61 2012-04-30 09:04:03 <sipa> in other cases, normal rules apply, but difficulty can go as low as 0.125 as well there
 62 2012-04-30 09:04:17 <dusty__> it has a difficulty of 0x5AD4A0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
 63 2012-04-30 09:04:58 <dusty__> while max target should be 0x1FFFE00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
 64 2012-04-30 09:05:39 <dusty__> and I suppose that's wrong, but what I don't know is what the max target should be for that block
 65 2012-04-30 09:07:33 <sipa> why is that wrong?
 66 2012-04-30 09:12:03 <dusty__> because if my calculations are right (and they certainly are not) the hash of the block is higher than the max allowed, so it should not be validated
 67 2012-04-30 09:12:36 <dusty__> I mean higher than what it's advertised (bits 1d05ad4a)
 68 2012-04-30 09:13:51 <sipa> it would beat difficulty 3.5 or something like that, i think
 69 2012-04-30 09:14:18 <sipa> its hash is even below 0x00000000FFFF0000....
 70 2012-04-30 09:14:26 <sipa> which is difficulty 1
 71 2012-04-30 09:18:30 <dusty__> mmm you're right
 72 2012-04-30 09:18:54 <dusty__> I'm doing something very wrong somewhere
 73 2012-04-30 09:18:57 <dusty__> I'll look into it
 74 2012-04-30 09:19:04 <dusty__> thanks very much for the help
 75 2012-04-30 09:21:09 <dusty__> ok, I get it, the problem is in the claimed target, different from what I recalculated (they should match perfectly)
 76 2012-04-30 09:21:32 <dusty__> block has target 0x5ad4a0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (0x1d05ad4a), when calculated is: 0x1fffe00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (0x1d1fffe0)
 77 2012-04-30 09:25:53 <dusty__> ok, problem found
 78 2012-04-30 09:26:02 <dusty__> I created a wrong genesys block :-/
 79 2012-04-30 12:24:19 <paulo_> is gmaxwell here?
 80 2012-04-30 12:26:42 <paulo_> I believe I might be able to compress lamport signatures to a best case of 64 bytes
 81 2012-04-30 12:34:22 <paulo_> nevermind, I just found a flaw to it.
 82 2012-04-30 12:43:56 <luke-jr> wumpus: 6974aff Fix critical UI performance issue (#1154)
 83 2012-04-30 12:44:09 <luke-jr> wumpus: is that a new bug in 0.6.0? the relevant code dates back to 0.5.0 O.o
 84 2012-04-30 13:00:32 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: gavinandresen opened issue 1167 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1167>
 85 2012-04-30 13:03:31 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: might be more obvious due to making the sync faster...
 86 2012-04-30 13:14:12 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: you know, whoever invented threads was a fucking cunt.
 87 2012-04-30 14:11:27 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: luke-jr opened issue 1169 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1169> || luke-jr opened issue 1168 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1168>
 88 2012-04-30 14:18:25 <genjix> etotheipi_: hey
 89 2012-04-30 14:18:58 <genjix> etotheipi_: can you give me some text for electrum to go on bitcoin.org?
 90 2012-04-30 14:19:08 <genjix> sorry armory lol
 91 2012-04-30 14:21:06 <zzzzzzzzz> Hi, I am trying to compile bitcoind on my vps but I see for some reason it requires wx even though I need it in daemon mode and not a gui - any way I can avoid this during compilation?
 92 2012-04-30 14:23:58 <luke-jr> zzzzzzzzz: wx is long gone
 93 2012-04-30 14:23:59 <sipa> zzzzzzzzz: which old version of the code are you trying to compile?
 94 2012-04-30 14:24:28 <luke-jr> I suppose he could be trying to use 0.4.6rc1 :p
 95 2012-04-30 14:24:43 <luke-jr> zzzzzzzzz: anyhow, you're using "make -f makefile.unix bitcoind &"
 96 2012-04-30 14:24:44 <luke-jr> ?
 97 2012-04-30 14:25:12 <zzzzzzzzz> 0.4.3
 98 2012-04-30 14:25:18 <sipa> why....?
 99 2012-04-30 14:25:22 <luke-jr> zzzzzzzzz: known security issues. why?
100 2012-04-30 14:25:27 <sipa> 0.6.0 is released already
101 2012-04-30 14:25:29 <luke-jr> zzzzzzzzz: at the very least, do 0.4.5
102 2012-04-30 14:25:29 <zzzzzzzzz> that's the one I had been working on, didn't realize there were updates in the meanwhile
103 2012-04-30 14:25:35 <luke-jr> &
104 2012-04-30 14:25:46 <zzzzzzzzz> whoops
105 2012-04-30 14:26:06 <sipa> 0.4.3 is 4 months old
106 2012-04-30 14:26:08 <luke-jr> zzzzzzzzz: if you need ultra-stable, go with 0.4.5 or 0.5.4; otherwise, get 0.6.0
107 2012-04-30 14:26:23 <zzzzzzzzz> which one doesn't have a gui version included?
108 2012-04-30 14:26:30 <luke-jr> zzzzzzzzz: all of them support bitcoind
109 2012-04-30 14:26:35 <zzzzzzzzz> awesome
110 2012-04-30 14:26:43 <luke-jr> all of them have a GUI alternative available too
111 2012-04-30 14:30:40 <sipa> before 0.5.0, wxwidgets
112 2012-04-30 14:30:47 <sipa> from 0.5.0 on, Qt
113 2012-04-30 14:39:11 <paulo_> i tried using 0.1.3 once
114 2012-04-30 14:39:13 <paulo_> won
115 2012-04-30 14:39:24 <paulo_> *won't even run on windows 7
116 2012-04-30 14:57:11 <Diablo-D3> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-ty8xw3axk
117 2012-04-30 15:21:34 <wumpus> luke-jr: the code was not a problem before, but the meaning of the functions changed somewhat
118 2012-04-30 15:42:19 <gavinandresen> wumpus: any critical GUI fixes that should be pulled before I tag 0.6.1rc2 ?
119 2012-04-30 15:43:38 <wumpus> nope
120 2012-04-30 15:44:41 <gavinandresen> Ok: * [new tag]         v0.6.1rc2 -> v0.6.1rc2
121 2012-04-30 15:47:57 <Diablo-D3> erm
122 2012-04-30 15:48:00 <Diablo-D3> you replaced a tag?
123 2012-04-30 15:48:01 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: genjix opened pull request 34 on bitcoin/bitcoin.org <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/34>
124 2012-04-30 15:48:03 <Diablo-D3> I wish people wouldnt do that
125 2012-04-30 15:51:25 <gjs278> isnt the point of the tagging to make one for every version
126 2012-04-30 15:51:51 <Diablo-D3> yeah
127 2012-04-30 15:51:52 <gavinandresen> yes, 0.6.1rc2 is a brand new tag
128 2012-04-30 15:52:08 <Diablo-D3> gavinandresen: that looks like you replaced an existing one
129 2012-04-30 15:52:39 <gavinandresen> the arrow means "push it up to github from my local tree" I think.  Anyway, complain to the git folks.....
130 2012-04-30 15:52:58 <wumpus> yes, it simply means it was uploaded
131 2012-04-30 15:55:14 <gavinandresen> sipa gmaxwell wumpus luke-jr : I'm gitian building 0.6.1rc2
132 2012-04-30 15:55:53 <wumpus> ok, I'll start a gitian build too
133 2012-04-30 16:01:10 <sipa> gavinandresen: ok, building
134 2012-04-30 16:09:02 <jgarzik> replacing git tags is just fine
135 2012-04-30 16:09:40 <jgarzik> I submit '$URL tag/upstream-linus' to Linus, every time kernel changes are pushed upstream.  (note tag name is static, thus implying replacement)
136 2012-04-30 16:17:24 <gavinandresen> the rc1 gitian build got confused because I replaced the rc1 tag (to fix the windows build....)
137 2012-04-30 16:17:43 <gavinandresen> ... haven't had time to figure out why yet
138 2012-04-30 16:20:40 <genjix> jgarzik: how do you replace tags? simply rewrite the history using git push foo +branch?
139 2012-04-30 16:28:06 <wumpus> isn't it that git has two types of tags, one can be easily replaced the other is wired into git history?
140 2012-04-30 16:30:38 <t7> im so fucking mad they are blocking the pirate bay
141 2012-04-30 16:30:55 <t7> i allready pay money to the pirate party but its not enough
142 2012-04-30 16:31:06 <t7> i need to do something proactive
143 2012-04-30 16:31:11 <guruvan> where are they blocking it?
144 2012-04-30 16:31:14 <t7> UK
145 2012-04-30 16:31:20 <t7> first pirate bay
146 2012-04-30 16:31:27 <t7> then everything else
147 2012-04-30 16:31:29 <guruvan> how 'bout using tor?
148 2012-04-30 16:31:32 <t7> time for riots
149 2012-04-30 16:31:45 <guruvan> burn the villages!
150 2012-04-30 16:31:57 <t7> its only a matter of time before hiding your traffic is illegal too
151 2012-04-30 16:32:40 <wumpus> it's only a matter of time before breathing is illegal too
152 2012-04-30 16:33:00 <t7> nah you cant make money for them while your dead
153 2012-04-30 16:33:33 <wumpus> you can, if the machines do all the work :-)
154 2012-04-30 16:34:23 <genjix> t7: wait what
155 2012-04-30 16:34:37 <genjix> link?
156 2012-04-30 16:34:45 <t7> bbc top news story
157 2012-04-30 16:35:35 <genjix> it's true D:
158 2012-04-30 16:35:49 <genjix> fuck this shit country. i'm leaving right now.
159 2012-04-30 16:35:54 <wumpus> a judge decided that some isps here in the netherlands should block the pirate bay too, seems to be hip these days
160 2012-04-30 16:36:16 <jgarzik> genjix: tags are simply stored data, easy to overwrite
161 2012-04-30 16:36:30 <jgarzik> genjix: in C/C++ parlance, they are pointers to data, separate from the data itself
162 2012-04-30 16:37:06 <genjix> yep i see. but what is the syntax? is it the same as for rewriting the remote?  git push --tags origin +master
163 2012-04-30 16:37:51 <jgarzik> genjix: the local syntax is the same.  'git push' _might_ require a "--force", as when overwriting a branch, but I don't think so
164 2012-04-30 16:37:52 <wumpus> seems I was confused with hg, which does embed the tags into history (and needs a full rewrite to change or remove them)
165 2012-04-30 16:38:05 <genjix> ok thanks
166 2012-04-30 16:38:19 <jgarzik> (my Linux push script always does "--force" for other reasons, so I wouldn't know personally whether it is needed to overwrite tags or not)
167 2012-04-30 16:38:35 <wumpus> ...dangerous
168 2012-04-30 16:38:58 <jgarzik> years of field experience says otherwise :)
169 2012-04-30 16:39:11 <wumpus> what if someone else pushed too?
170 2012-04-30 16:39:27 <jgarzik> wumpus: nobody but me pushes into my repos
171 2012-04-30 16:39:42 <wumpus> right, it's a personal repo, then it doesn't matter
172 2012-04-30 16:39:50 <genjix> what about if you rebase your local history, push and someone else tries to pull
173 2012-04-30 16:40:04 <wumpus> worlds of pain
174 2012-04-30 16:40:28 <wumpus> they get both versions of history merged together
175 2012-04-30 16:40:37 <wumpus> unless they pull with --rebase ofcourse
176 2012-04-30 16:40:48 <jgarzik> Linus would tell you that rebasing is evil
177 2012-04-30 16:40:55 <genjix> well the person pulling would get a messed up tree
178 2012-04-30 16:41:37 <wumpus> rebasing is evil if it's already made available to other people
179 2012-04-30 16:41:38 <genjix> linus is an iiidiot. i know git better than him! :9
180 2012-04-30 16:42:14 <jgarzik> hehe
181 2012-04-30 16:42:36 <jgarzik> multi-push to same repo, like we do with bitcoin/bitcoin.git, is also uncommon
182 2012-04-30 16:42:55 <wumpus> on github it's pretty common
183 2012-04-30 16:42:56 <jgarzik> usually you have people with their own repos, sending pull requests to a single pulling entity
184 2012-04-30 16:44:46 <genjix> well bitcoin is quite small. i imagine that if it got larger, then the same may happen.
185 2012-04-30 16:44:53 <TuxBlackEdo> 1tx miner is back?
186 2012-04-30 16:45:16 <wumpus> generally we do use pull requests, only some small/urgent commits are direct pushes
187 2012-04-30 16:46:00 <genjix> yeah ok
188 2012-04-30 17:00:11 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: jgarzik opened pull request 1170 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1170>
189 2012-04-30 17:08:22 <jgarzik> yes, bitcoin devel typically involves a single pulling entity (github.com) servicing pull requests
190 2012-04-30 17:08:35 <jgarzik> multi-[direct-]push is rare for bitcoin
191 2012-04-30 17:08:41 <Diablo-D3> http://www.spacex.com/webcast.php
192 2012-04-30 17:08:45 <Diablo-D3> live fire soon
193 2012-04-30 17:13:41 <genjix> no way
194 2012-04-30 17:13:48 <genjix> i love space
195 2012-04-30 17:14:44 <gmaxwell> I'm the best at space.
196 2012-04-30 17:16:21 <genjix> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ5sWfhkpE0
197 2012-04-30 17:17:14 <genjix> i would leave for mars right now if it meant i was only alive on the martian surface for 1 minute. there's something magical about humans walking on another planetary world.
198 2012-04-30 17:17:16 <jgarzik> Diablo-D3: still waiting...
199 2012-04-30 17:17:55 <jgarzik> genjix: I just started Dunvegan Space Systems, to build Mars hardware that mines water ice and/or cooks regolith bricks in situ.  Maybe we can fund devel with bitcoins...
200 2012-04-30 17:17:57 <jgarzik> :)
201 2012-04-30 17:18:30 <Diablo-D3> you know how this shit works
202 2012-04-30 17:18:33 <Diablo-D3> might take a bit longer
203 2012-04-30 17:18:38 <Diablo-D3> built in delays, etc
204 2012-04-30 17:19:04 <gmaxwell> genjix: you might enjoy this piece of fiction, The Martin at http://www.galactanet.com/writing.html  I think it's pretty good...
205 2012-04-30 17:19:29 <jgarzik> we need a kickstart.com for bitcoins, speaking of
206 2012-04-30 17:19:35 <genjix> tyty gmaxwell
207 2012-04-30 17:20:05 <genjix> jgarzik: someone made that a while back but i think it wasn't successful because kickstarter has that critical mass which bitcoin doesn't
208 2012-04-30 17:20:19 <genjix> and for kickstarter it's worth paying that fee to get that network effect.
209 2012-04-30 17:20:48 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: hehm I said the same thing yesterday
210 2012-04-30 17:20:48 <genjix> but like these girls on reddit, they could never do that with paypal (get shutdown) so i guess bitcoin will grow in these areas first.
211 2012-04-30 17:20:51 <Diablo-D3> and its kickstarter
212 2012-04-30 17:21:01 <Diablo-D3> like, I basically need to kickstarter DMC
213 2012-04-30 17:21:05 <Diablo-D3> but theres no way to do that
214 2012-04-30 17:21:10 <Diablo-D3> so its going to be the forveer IPO
215 2012-04-30 17:22:19 <jgarzik> yep
216 2012-04-30 17:22:50 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: btw, did you vote in the poll?
217 2012-04-30 17:23:22 <jgarzik> yep
218 2012-04-30 17:23:33 <Diablo-D3> may 2nd is coming
219 2012-04-30 17:23:42 <Diablo-D3> I hope the vote is more than like 3 people syaing yes =/
220 2012-04-30 17:40:35 <genjix> gmaxwell: the mission they describe is Mars Direct by Robert Zubrin
221 2012-04-30 17:41:50 <jgarzik> genjix: I asked SpaceX about Mars...  they emailed back that Zubrin thinks he can get it done with three Falcon Heavy missions.
222 2012-04-30 17:42:03 <jgarzik> one Falcon Heavy can lift 10 tons to Mars, they told me.
223 2012-04-30 17:42:16 <gmaxwell> genjix: I was very pleased by the detailed treatment of the many engineering challenges the character faces.
224 2012-04-30 17:42:23 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: sigh
225 2012-04-30 17:42:30 <Diablo-D3> maybe DMC should be a fucking real mining company
226 2012-04-30 17:42:46 <Diablo-D3> the Diablo Asteroid Mining Company
227 2012-04-30 17:43:01 <jgarzik> Diablo-D3: I would invest :)
228 2012-04-30 17:43:04 <genjix> jgarzik: that's strange because zubrin went to nasa and they said his estimates were too unrealistic. they added more weight and stronger boosters and it became the nasa design reference mission for mars
229 2012-04-30 17:43:26 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: yeah but invest how much
230 2012-04-30 17:43:41 <Diablo-D3> people are still like WAAAH DIABLO WONT EVER RAISE 1M BTC
231 2012-04-30 17:44:02 <Diablo-D3> which pisses me off so goddamnedmuch
232 2012-04-30 17:44:12 <genjix> Diablo-D3: fund this http://www.ironicsans.com/2011/01/idea_crowdfund_a_mission_to_pu.html
233 2012-04-30 17:44:18 <Diablo-D3> if the bitcoin community cant put 1m btc in my hands
234 2012-04-30 17:44:23 <Diablo-D3> why the fuck am I even bothering
235 2012-04-30 17:44:29 <jgarzik> Diablo-D3: I can put serious money behind a serious space effort :)  why do you think I started DunveganSpace.com after all.  Well, 5 figures.  Serious money for me, pocket change compared to cost of rocket launch.
236 2012-04-30 17:44:35 <Diablo-D3> its like Ive wasted 2 years of my life trying to get this goddamned thing uoff the ground
237 2012-04-30 17:45:06 <genjix> jgarzik: wow i was about to ask :D
238 2012-04-30 17:45:07 <jgarzik> genjix: if you can crowd-fund the launch, raising funds for spacecraft is trivial IMO
239 2012-04-30 17:45:13 <genjix> it really was you :)
240 2012-04-30 17:45:22 <genjix> that's so sick
241 2012-04-30 17:45:48 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: 5 figures of bitcoins?
242 2012-04-30 17:45:56 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: because you've obviously read my plan, right?
243 2012-04-30 17:46:06 <genjix> http://www.dunveganspace.com/
244 2012-04-30 17:46:15 <jgarzik> Diablo-D3: 5 figures in USD
245 2012-04-30 17:46:21 <jgarzik> Diablo-D3: or equivalent BTC
246 2012-04-30 17:46:26 <jgarzik> genjix: yep
247 2012-04-30 17:46:35 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: because if I start making like a million dollars a year
248 2012-04-30 17:46:43 <Diablo-D3> that can eventually pay for asteroid mining
249 2012-04-30 17:46:46 <Diablo-D3> or a perm mars colony
250 2012-04-30 17:47:07 <Diablo-D3> because making a million dollars a year quickly becomes making 10 a  year, then making 100 a year
251 2012-04-30 17:47:08 <jgarzik> Diablo-D3: $1m is pocket change still.  $128m for a single launch...
252 2012-04-30 17:47:13 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: see above.
253 2012-04-30 17:47:31 <Diablo-D3> I could _fail_ a launch once a year
254 2012-04-30 17:47:34 <Diablo-D3> and still be on top
255 2012-04-30 17:47:49 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: because, to be honest, I want to control the US energy market
256 2012-04-30 17:47:54 <Diablo-D3> I mean, I might as well just say it
257 2012-04-30 17:47:55 <jgarzik> Diablo-D3: and if wishes were bitcoins, I would have 1M BTC already
258 2012-04-30 17:48:00 <Diablo-D3> people think Im insane already
259 2012-04-30 17:48:11 <Diablo-D3> might as well give everyone their full dose of diablo.
260 2012-04-30 17:49:19 <jgarzik> genjix: due to annoying "export controls", I might need a security clearance, register as a US federal contractor (which pulls in many other regulations), and other fun stuff...
261 2012-04-30 17:49:20 <genjix> well that won't happen spamming irc and identi.ca
262 2012-04-30 17:49:52 <jgarzik> genjix: ...so if you see me give up bitcoin commit privs and take a lower bitcoin profile, you know what happened :)
263 2012-04-30 17:49:58 <genjix> jgarzik: i love your efforts
264 2012-04-30 17:50:02 <genjix> this is super cool.
265 2012-04-30 17:50:41 <jgarzik> genjix: the commercial space race is _now_.  time to get on board...
266 2012-04-30 17:50:44 <genjix> our world is incredible.
267 2012-04-30 17:51:00 <genjix> 3 biggest aspirations for humanity: space, energy and internet
268 2012-04-30 17:51:11 <Diablo-D3> genjix: no, 4
269 2012-04-30 17:51:15 <Diablo-D3> all women want to ride my dick
270 2012-04-30 17:51:22 <Diablo-D3> and all men wish they had a dick this big
271 2012-04-30 17:51:57 <genjix> my dick is small
272 2012-04-30 17:56:04 <genjix> "If you watch NASA backwards, it's about a space agency that has no spaceflight capability, then performs?? low-orbital spaceflights, then goes to the moon." :D
273 2012-04-30 17:56:33 <paulo_> lol
274 2012-04-30 17:57:24 <jgarzik> genjix: If one can mine water ice for liquid oxygen and hydrogen, definitely realistic and easily accomplished with electrolysis, then you have a fuel source.  With Mars gravity and atmosphere, it burns much less fuel to get a spacecraft into orbit than from Earth.  Now ponder adding a fleet of tiny gas tanks in orbit (you don't want one big gas station in orbit), essentially a massively distributed and redundant gas station
275 2012-04-30 17:57:28 <jgarzik> genjix: heh
276 2012-04-30 17:57:55 <Diablo-D3> gascoin.
277 2012-04-30 17:57:57 <Diablo-D3> bitgas.
278 2012-04-30 17:58:02 <Diablo-D3> something that makes this funny.
279 2012-04-30 17:58:06 <jgarzik> Diablo-D3: reserve your Internet domains now!
280 2012-04-30 17:58:14 <jgarzik> Diablo-D3: "eat here, get gas"
281 2012-04-30 17:59:35 <jgarzik> genjix: there is also a serious business case for simply planting a flag.  That follows the US model of 1800's homesteading, and creates private property rights.  Once you "own" property on Mars, you have a whole new market that can fund space launches to develop said property.
282 2012-04-30 18:00:01 <Diablo-D3> countdown sequences resumed!
283 2012-04-30 18:00:14 <Diablo-D3> minus 15 minutes and not going fast enough!
284 2012-04-30 18:00:29 <genjix> jgarzik: some mars propaganda: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd4yVwK1NkA
285 2012-04-30 18:00:39 <t7> how much area does one own around said flag?
286 2012-04-30 18:00:42 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: man, I should just launch the fucking company
287 2012-04-30 18:00:42 <jgarzik> genjix: A Rebuttal To Jim Dunstan On Space Property Rights - http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=41935
288 2012-04-30 18:00:47 <Diablo-D3> and be like
289 2012-04-30 18:00:48 <jgarzik> Diablo-D3: yes, you should :)
290 2012-04-30 18:00:51 <Diablo-D3> DEAR BITCOIN COMMUNITY
291 2012-04-30 18:00:57 <Diablo-D3> JUST GIVE ME ALL YOUR FUCKING BITCOINS
292 2012-04-30 18:00:59 <Diablo-D3> SIGNED
293 2012-04-30 18:00:59 <genjix> t7: well in europe you can squat houses and they become yours
294 2012-04-30 18:01:04 <genjix> technically the queen is a squatter
295 2012-04-30 18:01:05 <Diablo-D3> SOMEONE WITH BIGGER BALLS THAN ALL OF YOU COMBINED
296 2012-04-30 18:01:13 <t7> genjix: i know, squatters rights... :|
297 2012-04-30 18:01:18 <jgarzik> t7: one would use international guidelines presumably.  e.g. the US owns 3 miles of ocean
298 2012-04-30 18:01:19 <genjix> yeah :)
299 2012-04-30 18:01:38 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: because all I want to do
300 2012-04-30 18:01:43 <Diablo-D3> is make my 2 years of effort
301 2012-04-30 18:01:45 <Diablo-D3> worth it
302 2012-04-30 18:01:49 <Diablo-D3> so I can just stand up and say
303 2012-04-30 18:02:08 <Diablo-D3> SEE HOW AFRICA STOPPED STARVING TO DEATH AND BECAME AN ECONOMIC PARADISE? I DID THAT WHILE NONE OF YOU COULDNT
304 2012-04-30 18:02:23 <Diablo-D3> and do some fucking end zone dance while accepting the nobel peace prize for the next decade
305 2012-04-30 18:02:33 <jgarzik> You use Caps Lock while talking?  Impressive :)
306 2012-04-30 18:02:40 <Diablo-D3> infact, they'll quit handing them out because no one can top me
307 2012-04-30 18:03:00 <Diablo-D3> you will look up humanitarian in the fucking dictionary and see me mooning you
308 2012-04-30 18:03:09 <Diablo-D3> thats right, a mass publication of my ass
309 2012-04-30 18:03:12 <t7> africans still live in mud huts, dont they?
310 2012-04-30 18:03:20 <jgarzik> I didn't think humanitarians were permitted to curse
311 2012-04-30 18:03:34 <Diablo-D3> maybe people wouldnt be starving to death if they did
312 2012-04-30 18:03:40 <genjix> jgarzik: iirc some guy tried to claim an asteroid off mars
313 2012-04-30 18:03:44 <Diablo-D3> fuck the rules, people like me get shit done
314 2012-04-30 18:03:57 <jgarzik> genjix: that will get nowhere without a physical presence
315 2012-04-30 18:03:58 <genjix> he want to court over it and the judge insta threw it out and denied further appeal
316 2012-04-30 18:04:02 <genjix> aha ic
317 2012-04-30 18:04:14 <Diablo-D3> I dunno.
318 2012-04-30 18:04:23 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: do you think DMC will manage to do it?
319 2012-04-30 18:04:42 <jgarzik> Diablo-D3: no :)
320 2012-04-30 18:05:14 <Diablo-D3> what? my balls are studied by scientists due to their shear mass.
321 2012-04-30 18:05:36 <jgarzik> Diablo-D3: that's because they are full of cancern
322 2012-04-30 18:05:38 <jgarzik> Diablo-D3: that's because they are full of cancer
323 2012-04-30 18:05:49 <Diablo-D3> nope, just baby batter.
324 2012-04-30 18:06:00 <gjs278> mining asteroids values your company at 3 billion dollars. facebook is valued at 100 billion dollars.
325 2012-04-30 18:06:10 <Diablo-D3> gjs278: 3 trillion
326 2012-04-30 18:06:29 <Diablo-D3> one nicely loaded asteroid is worth almost as much as the federal fucking budget.
327 2012-04-30 18:07:29 <Diablo-D3> 8 minutes till test fire
328 2012-04-30 18:09:21 <Diablo-D3> 6
329 2012-04-30 18:10:20 <Diablo-D3> 5
330 2012-04-30 18:11:15 <Diablo-D3> 4
331 2012-04-30 18:12:20 <Diablo-D3> 3
332 2012-04-30 18:13:20 <Diablo-D3> 2
333 2012-04-30 18:14:19 <Diablo-D3> 1
334 2012-04-30 18:14:32 <Diablo-D3> 50
335 2012-04-30 18:14:39 <Diablo-D3> 40
336 2012-04-30 18:14:49 <Diablo-D3> 30
337 2012-04-30 18:14:57 <helo> Error! Launch aborted due to error.
338 2012-04-30 18:14:57 <t7> ?
339 2012-04-30 18:15:11 <Diablo-D3> 10
340 2012-04-30 18:16:00 <Diablo-D3> did it fire correctly?
341 2012-04-30 18:16:30 <BlueMatt> its kinda disturbing when you find out that several local drug dealers are simply sourcing from silk road...
342 2012-04-30 18:18:30 <gjs278> what launched
343 2012-04-30 18:25:32 <Diablo-D3> gjs278: nothing
344 2012-04-30 18:25:41 <Diablo-D3> it was a space x test fire
345 2012-04-30 18:25:49 <Diablo-D3> it fired successfully from what I can tell
346 2012-04-30 18:30:15 <etotheipi_> genjix: how long of a description are you looking for?
347 2012-04-30 18:30:30 <gavinandresen> wumpus: gitian build successful?  I pushed my build's gitian sigs
348 2012-04-30 18:31:00 <genjix> etotheipi_: make one that can fit the vertical layout (since that's looking more likely) but can be shortened to the grid layout if neccessary: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=78640.0
349 2012-04-30 18:36:38 <dusty__> hi, I'm trying to validate this testnet transaction: http://blockexplorer.com/testnet/tx/a17b21f52859ed326d1395d8a56d5c7389f5fc83c17b9140a71d7cb86fdf0f5f#i584828
350 2012-04-30 18:36:48 <dusty__> but the engine I'm using fails
351 2012-04-30 18:36:57 <dusty__> so I'm trying to understand but I'm a bit stuck
352 2012-04-30 18:37:29 <dusty__> can any1 confirm me that op_verify exits the scripts if false is on the top of the stack?
353 2012-04-30 18:38:07 <dusty__> I've tried to check libbitcoin but op_verify is not defined nor implemented in script.{ch}pp
354 2012-04-30 18:46:59 <gavinandresen> dusty__: the Satoshi script code is pretty easy to read:  https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/script.cpp#L360
355 2012-04-30 18:50:45 <dusty__> thanks gavin for the link, I didn't think to check it (my C/C++ skills are very noobs)
356 2012-04-30 19:15:06 <paulo_> why use a custom microcode?
357 2012-04-30 19:16:09 <gmaxwell> paulo_: because its very important that the computation be strictly bounded in time and memory because all nodes must execute it.
358 2012-04-30 19:17:36 <gmaxwell> (and it's also desirable that the bounded complexity be linear in data size, so that you can measure the complexity without executing it, and also assess complexiy related fees simply)
359 2012-04-30 19:21:17 <paulo_> gmaxwell: why not just list the inputs, output, and signatures?
360 2012-04-30 19:22:16 <paulo_> as far as my undestanding goes, I see it as an overcomplication.
361 2012-04-30 19:22:22 <gmaxwell> Because bitcoin is much more powerful than that if thats all it had then part of the decenteralized value of bitcoin would be degraded by two forces
362 2012-04-30 19:22:58 <gmaxwell> (1) because the need to constantly rev the software in backwards incompatible ways would leave people dependant on a single source of software for the long term
363 2012-04-30 19:23:52 <gmaxwell> (2) because without script it's impossible to provide just about any service without depending on a single fully trusted party.
364 2012-04-30 19:23:54 <genjix> dusty__: check op_checksig
365 2012-04-30 19:24:11 <BlueMatt> god, Ive missed bitcoin...
366 2012-04-30 19:24:24 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: where have you been?
367 2012-04-30 19:24:26 <genjix> oh
368 2012-04-30 19:24:32 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: working, mostly
369 2012-04-30 19:24:50 <genjix> dusty__: yeah it exits if false
370 2012-04-30 19:24:57 <genjix> continues if true
371 2012-04-30 19:26:15 <gmaxwell> paulo_: With script we can make fully backwards compatible protocol additions all the old nodes keep on running and knowing that the chain is trustworthy.  .. and we can create things like escrows which allow quorum trust, and things like hash locked transactions which facilitate oracle mediated transactions, zero knoweldge proofs, and other things.
372 2012-04-30 19:26:52 <gmaxwell> paulo_: so its a fairly 'mild' complication compared to both the space of additional things it enables and the essential foward compatiblity it makes possible.
373 2012-04-30 19:49:33 <paulo_> so what you actually sign is the script, and the script must return true?
374 2012-04-30 19:54:52 <genjix> jgarzik: you do know that libbitcoin is BIP 16 compliant and handles reorgs fine (see my python unit tests: http://gitorious.org/libbitcoin/python-bitcoin )
375 2012-04-30 19:55:03 <genjix> and that electrum uses that as a backend, and that armory uses bitcoind
376 2012-04-30 19:55:39 <genjix> so that comment is a little bit FUD :)
377 2012-04-30 19:56:38 <[Tycho]> Wow, someone tried to request payments from deepbit to P2SH :)
378 2012-04-30 19:56:40 <[Tycho]> Twice.
379 2012-04-30 19:57:40 <BlueMatt> so why didnt you accept them?
380 2012-04-30 19:58:48 <BlueMatt> on that note, are there any sites which actively accept p2sh payout addresses, or is that becoming common(ish)
381 2012-04-30 20:04:14 <etotheipi_> genjix, what is the libbitcoin license?  and how mature is the networking aspect:  i.e. peer discovery, and the various extent to which bitcoind validates blocks, maintains peer diversity and cutoff?
382 2012-04-30 20:12:16 <jgarzik> genjix: no, it's prudence
383 2012-04-30 20:12:33 <jgarzik> genjix: just respond "yes, these clients can do those things" and then it is public knowledge, and everyone is happy
384 2012-04-30 20:12:53 <etotheipi_> what do we mean by BIP 16 support?  You can create them?  or you just don't choke on BIP 16 scripts when they show up in the blockchain?
385 2012-04-30 20:13:11 <jgarzik> etotheipi_: proper validation, not the decreased validation that old clients perform
386 2012-04-30 20:13:34 <etotheipi_> duh, that makes sense
387 2012-04-30 20:14:02 <etotheipi_> except, should full-validation be a requirement of alternative clients?
388 2012-04-30 20:14:03 <[Tycho]> BlueMatt: one was paid successfully, one was invalid.
389 2012-04-30 20:14:14 <paulo_> in standard transactions, OP_CHECKSIG's inputs are the signature and public key of the sender, am I right?
390 2012-04-30 20:14:18 <jgarzik> etotheipi_: since we actually have P2SH transactions on mainnet already... yes IMO
391 2012-04-30 20:14:24 <[Tycho]> By the way, my bitcoind always fails validateaddress for P2SH.
392 2012-04-30 20:14:33 <BlueMatt> [Tycho]: oh, you do pay out to p2sh...nice!
393 2012-04-30 20:14:44 <[Tycho]> BlueMatt: yes, it works.
394 2012-04-30 20:14:47 <jgarzik> etotheipi_: otherwise, people running an alt client may not be able to accept newer P2SH payments
395 2012-04-30 20:14:55 <etotheipi_> jgarzik: I mean... what if a client doesn't validate any blocks:  a lite-client that relies on depth in the blockchain ?
396 2012-04-30 20:14:58 <[Tycho]> Not sure if someone can redeem it :)
397 2012-04-30 20:15:02 <jgarzik> etotheipi_: we should not point people to clients that do not support all transactions on mainnet
398 2012-04-30 20:15:10 <BlueMatt> [Tycho]: well...thats p2sh for you...
399 2012-04-30 20:15:17 <[Tycho]> But I tried manually redeeming P2SH on my test setup.
400 2012-04-30 20:15:25 <jgarzik> etotheipi_: that's fine, as long as redeeming P2SH works
401 2012-04-30 20:15:38 <etotheipi_> jgarzik: but that's a really fuzzy metric
402 2012-04-30 20:16:08 <jgarzik> etotheipi_: it's not fuzzy to users who may have a P2SH payment waiting :)
403 2012-04-30 20:17:02 <etotheipi_> so the client must be able to maintain P2SH script pool and identify P2SH scripts relevant to them in the blockchain?  and then the client must also know how to redeem them?
404 2012-04-30 20:17:16 <jgarzik> etotheipi_: if the client does not validate regular blocks, it makes sense that it would not validate P2SH blocks.  HOWEVER...  it should not be listed on bitcoin.org as a bitcoin client if said client cannot redeem all types of transactions found on mainnet
405 2012-04-30 20:17:37 <jgarzik> etotheipi_: the short version -- P2SH transactions work just as well as old-style transactions
406 2012-04-30 20:18:17 <etotheipi_> does Bitcoin-Qt even do that?  Is there a way to do it atm without the user manually constructing transactions from collected sigs?
407 2012-04-30 20:18:32 <jgarzik> we don't need users confused about "Bob paid me BTC.  Which client do I need to redeem the payment?"
408 2012-04-30 20:18:57 <jgarzik> etotheipi_: you can receive P2SH payments
409 2012-04-30 20:19:08 <etotheipi_> I think it's a little early to be demanding anything other than don't-choke-on-P2SH scripts... they're still a very advanced-user feature and such users would know what it takes to use them
410 2012-04-30 20:19:45 <[Tycho]> jgarzik: I can assume that if she provided her address to Bob, her client can redeem it (as it generated the address)
411 2012-04-30 20:19:47 <etotheipi_> or are we talking about simply single-address P2SH?
412 2012-04-30 20:20:03 <paulo_> satoshi is a genius, btw.
413 2012-04-30 20:20:07 <etotheipi_> I have been talking about arbitrary multi-sig
414 2012-04-30 20:21:50 <etotheipi_> so the client must be able to identify non-multi-sig P2SH scripts and be able to redeem them?
415 2012-04-30 20:22:20 <jgarzik> yes
416 2012-04-30 20:22:36 <etotheipi_> so was multi-sig ever part of your argument?
417 2012-04-30 20:23:02 <genjix> etotheipi_: you can send bip16 and they validate properly
418 2012-04-30 20:23:09 <genjix> and networking works well
419 2012-04-30 20:23:32 <genjix> peer diversity is not complex. just connect to hosts and maintain x connections
420 2012-04-30 20:23:36 <genjix> it uses bootstrap nodes
421 2012-04-30 20:23:49 <genjix> bip16 and p2sh is supported
422 2012-04-30 20:24:42 <genjix> http://gitorious.org/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/blobs/master/include/bitcoin/address.hpp
423 2012-04-30 20:25:11 <paulo_> I'm confused. The pubkey is being duplicated, hashed, then compared against the hash of the receiving address. but the pubkey (the one before duplication) is also used to verify if the signature is correct, which implies that it must be the public key of the sender.
424 2012-04-30 20:25:35 <genjix> the only issue is that it doesnt compile with gcc 4.7 yet because of a bug in that unstable compiler (which arch has as default). i need to sit down one day with gcc 4.7 and fix that.
425 2012-04-30 20:26:26 <gavinandresen> paulo_ : see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_CHECKSIG
426 2012-04-30 20:26:52 <etotheipi_> so then we have moved non-multi-sig P2SH to isStandard()? Is it encouraged to switch all single-recip tx to P2SH?
427 2012-04-30 20:27:11 <etotheipi_> err... I guess you can't really identify if it's non-multi-sig
428 2012-04-30 20:27:38 <gavinandresen> etotheipi_: not until redemption, no.  And the standard client still uses DUP HASH160.... for single-sig transactions.
429 2012-04-30 20:28:02 <gavinandresen> It'll continue to use DUP HASH160... for a long time, to support old clients....
430 2012-04-30 20:28:36 <etotheipi_> so, we need a long period of supporting both before the default would be switched
431 2012-04-30 20:28:56 <gavinandresen> yup
432 2012-04-30 20:29:11 <etotheipi_> and also, I would be best NOT to use single-recip P2SH if I want users with pre-0.6.0 clients to see the tx
433 2012-04-30 20:29:17 <gavinandresen> yup
434 2012-04-30 20:29:20 <etotheipi_> gotcha
435 2012-04-30 20:29:23 <BlueMatt> whats new in bitcoin in the last...3 months?
436 2012-04-30 20:29:25 <etotheipi_> thanks
437 2012-04-30 20:30:44 <luke-jr> etotheipi_: note 0.4.5 and 0.5.4 support P2SH
438 2012-04-30 20:30:53 <luke-jr> verification anyhow
439 2012-04-30 20:31:39 <luke-jr> and ones without wallet support can't generate P2SH addresses in the first place
440 2012-04-30 21:13:56 <zzzzzzzzzzzzzz> Hi, I've been trying to compile 0.6.0 but my build keeps failing: http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=0tNC0iYB
441 2012-04-30 21:14:23 <zzzzzzzzzzzzzz> Looks like an error with openssl headers not being loaded properly but I don't know... I reinstalled the headers twice just to make sure
442 2012-04-30 21:18:42 <luke-jr> zzzzzzzzzzzzzz: looks like you're using something lame like Fedora
443 2012-04-30 21:19:42 <luke-jr> I think gmaxwell has EC-enabled OpenSSL bins for Fedora somewhere, but I lost the link
444 2012-04-30 21:21:49 <zzzzzzzzzzzzzz> I am using centos. I know certain versions of fedora/otherdistros remove certain bits of openssl, but I am not using my distro's version of openssl
445 2012-04-30 21:22:02 <luke-jr> well, that's what it looks like here.
446 2012-04-30 21:22:24 <zzzzzzzzzzzzzz> lame. thanks though, I will search for those binaries
447 2012-04-30 21:24:11 <luke-jr> zzzzzzzzzzzzzz: strictly speaking, it's a header you're missing
448 2012-04-30 21:25:01 <zzzzzzzzzzzzzz> ecdsa related?
449 2012-04-30 21:27:23 <luke-jr> yes
450 2012-04-30 21:28:16 <zzzzzzzzzzzzzz> should I be okay if I just paste it in from an outside source? I found a copy of ecdsa.h in a filezilla repo...
451 2012-04-30 21:28:41 <luke-jr> unlikely
452 2012-04-30 21:33:38 <zzzzzzzzzzzzzz> odd, I see ecdsa.h in the source that I've been compiling
453 2012-04-30 21:39:01 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: nothing much...
454 2012-04-30 21:46:36 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: thats...exciting
455 2012-04-30 21:52:20 <freewil> can someone tell me what is contained in database/log.0000000001
456 2012-04-30 21:56:31 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: We've been waiting for you to return and implement something exciting!  :)
457 2012-04-30 21:57:10 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: Diapolo opened pull request 1171 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1171>
458 2012-04-30 21:57:25 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: heh...
459 2012-04-30 22:02:13 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: Diapolo opened pull request 1173 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1173> || Diapolo opened pull request 1172 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1172>
460 2012-04-30 22:06:38 <sipa> jgarzik: it's quite simple to set up, really
461 2012-04-30 22:07:53 <jgarzik> sipa: url?
462 2012-04-30 22:08:13 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: out of random curiosity, are you in a Chapel Hill dorm or apartment?
463 2012-04-30 22:08:31 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: dorm
464 2012-04-30 22:11:49 <Diapolo> hi there
465 2012-04-30 22:12:04 <luke-jr> hey Diapolo
466 2012-04-30 22:13:15 <Diapolo> The lesson in howto do pull-requests is hard, but I guess I got it ^^.
467 2012-04-30 22:16:30 <jgarzik> Diapolo: heh
468 2012-04-30 22:19:16 <Diapolo> jgarzik: Your comment was clear and easy to understand and I'll keep this practise.
469 2012-04-30 22:24:04 <sipa> jgarzik: http://github.com/sipa/bitcoin-seeder iirc
470 2012-04-30 22:28:10 <jgarzik> Diapolo: the main thing is to split up logical changes into separate commits.  It is OK to then roll all those into a single git branch, e.g.:  1) create branch 'hacks', 2) commit each change to branch 'hacks', 3) click on 'hacks' branch in github, to create a pull request.  That pull req will automatically include all non-upstream changes in that branch, in that one pull request.
471 2012-04-30 22:28:17 <jgarzik> (apologies if this is stating the obvious)
472 2012-04-30 22:33:00 <Diapolo> No I'm fine as it makes my and your live easier as pull-requests will get merged faster and we can move on to other things :).
473 2012-04-30 22:37:22 <luke-jr> Diapolo: it's important for fixing bugs later
474 2012-04-30 22:39:26 <sipa> jgarzik: compile, run, look atthe command line options, run again :)
475 2012-04-30 22:47:21 <jgarzik> sipa: amused: -march=nocona
476 2012-04-30 22:54:01 <sipa> right, old habit
477 2012-04-30 23:03:03 <sipa> why?
478 2012-04-30 23:03:34 <jgarzik> sipa: because dnspark does a better job, and already has a better infrastructure than I ever will
479 2012-04-30 23:04:23 <jgarzik> sipa: just need a robot that gets fresh addresses.  I might go back and hack in my 'getpeers' JSON-RPC call into bitcoind
480 2012-04-30 23:04:41 <sipa> ic
481 2012-04-30 23:07:47 <sipa> feel free to submit a pull request if needed
482 2012-04-30 23:09:46 <luke-jr> jgarzik: sipa's makes nice statistics tho ;)
483 2012-04-30 23:10:39 <sipa> jgarzik: advantage of an own dns servers is that you can give a different reply for each and every request
484 2012-04-30 23:16:46 <sipa> jgarzik: my node serves around one request per 3-4 seconds
485 2012-04-30 23:17:26 <[Tycho]> Was that "bitcoin-seed" useragent yours ?
486 2012-04-30 23:17:44 <sipa> yes
487 2012-04-30 23:18:54 <sipa> /bitcoin-seeder:0.01/
488 2012-04-30 23:26:01 <jgarzik> sipa: dnspark has a ton of servers, anycast'd across the world, over 5 redundant IP addresses.  I'm not going to beat that :)
489 2012-04-30 23:26:11 <jgarzik> sipa: if someone ever decides to DDoS the bitcoin seeds, that will matter
490 2012-04-30 23:26:18 <sipa> sure
491 2012-04-30 23:26:22 <sipa> 
492 2012-04-30 23:26:54 <sipa> how quickly can you submit updates?
493 2012-04-30 23:27:22 <jgarzik> sipa: that's the downside...  probably not too fast
494 2012-04-30 23:27:47 <gmaxwell> In any case, it's good to have diversity. Only one honest DNSseed needs to be working for bitcoin to function.
495 2012-04-30 23:29:31 <jgarzik> sipa: but it will be faster than my seed updates now, which is once every few months :)
496 2012-04-30 23:49:16 <sipa> you can run my code without dns.server, and it dumps its statistics in a few files every 100s
497 2012-04-30 23:56:16 <copumpkin> mndrix: thanks!
498 2012-04-30 23:56:21 <copumpkin> :D