1 2012-06-04 00:05:47 <weex> BlueMatt: error: {"code":-5,"message":"Invalid private key"}
  2 2012-06-04 00:06:00 <weex> guess it doesn't like blockchain.info's private key format
  3 2012-06-04 00:06:11 <weex> bitaddress.org doesn't either
  4 2012-06-04 00:06:37 <weex> oh there's a selector for export
  5 2012-06-04 00:09:01 <weex> glad to see importprivkey enabled by default though in bitcoind but i wish it had an "earliest block to check" feature...so if I create a key on one machine i can tell it to skip checking
  6 2012-06-04 00:09:10 <weex> maybe that's too dangerous to let the user do though
  7 2012-06-04 00:09:49 <weex> checking history i mean
  8 2012-06-04 00:10:40 <Joric> they wrote they dont see a point in checksumming private key so it's raw base58
  9 2012-06-04 00:11:32 <BlueMatt> yes because removing a checksum is worth breaking compatibility with...everything
 10 2012-06-04 00:11:35 <BlueMatt> wtf?
 11 2012-06-04 00:12:12 <Joric> told them
 12 2012-06-04 00:12:42 <Joric> it provides all kinds of keys though but the raw base58 is on the very top
 13 2012-06-04 00:13:55 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: we dont ever send to importprivkey do we?
 14 2012-06-04 00:14:04 <BlueMatt> s/send/use for change/
 15 2012-06-04 00:14:20 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: doubt it, but it probably shows funds on it as trusted-mine
 16 2012-06-04 00:14:38 <BlueMatt> yea, no, I agree
 17 2012-06-04 00:14:41 <luke-jr> so importing a key from someone else is dangerous
 18 2012-06-04 00:15:11 <luke-jr> I made up Bitcoin gift cards to use as tips, and I found only MtGox had a reasonable interface to add them
 19 2012-06-04 00:16:11 <luke-jr> ok, admittedly I didn't check Electrum
 20 2012-06-04 00:16:22 <luke-jr> (the only other GUI client I consider to have a reasonably user-friendly interface)
 21 2012-06-04 00:39:57 <luke-jr> fwiw, talked to dooglus and he says he can split the coin selection refactor/tests out from Coincontrol\n3660737
 22 2012-06-04 00:52:19 <bayleef> BTW anyone else want that blockchain? Or should I go rm it
 23 2012-06-04 00:56:23 <luke-jr> bayleef: probably
 24 2012-06-04 00:59:51 <bayleef> luke-jr: any idea how I can get it downloading again?
 25 2012-06-04 01:00:05 <luke-jr> no, sorry
 26 2012-06-04 01:08:16 <bayleef> might deleting the blk* files and letting bitcoind recreate them do anything? Or not?
 27 2012-06-04 02:17:48 <bayleef> btw, next-test is getting OOM killed on my system while upgrading the blockchain.
 28 2012-06-04 02:32:34 <luke-jr> bayleef: latest next-test doesn't have an upgrade process&
 29 2012-06-04 02:35:06 <bayleef> as a test, I moved that blockchain out of the way, and let next-test bitcoind download the blockchain again. It threw an exception and died. So, I started my bitcoind, let it download a few thousand blocks (that worked fine), stopped it, and started next-test bitcoind. It started upgrading, and a few seconds after threw the same exception as before. The output is at http://failbox.co.cc/bitcoind-test-exception
 30 2012-06-04 02:36:39 <bayleef> luke-jr: mine does, latest commit for me is 984372a
 31 2012-06-04 02:36:56 <bayleef> do I have the wrong repo or something?
 32 2012-06-04 02:41:21 <wladston> just finished to write the paper
 33 2012-06-04 02:41:29 <wladston> luke-jr: check it out http://bitquestion.com/static/files/paper_accounts.pdf
 34 2012-06-04 02:42:15 <luke-jr> bayleef: guess so, that's ancient
 35 2012-06-04 02:42:30 <luke-jr> next-test is db7d5aa
 36 2012-06-04 02:45:01 <wladston> So, people, I'm basically proposing a new account design for bitcoind.
 37 2012-06-04 02:45:19 <wladston> Would love if you could check out the paper, and send me suggestions.
 38 2012-06-04 02:45:38 <wladston> and wether you think the method fits for bitcoind.
 39 2012-06-04 02:49:36 <wladston> maybe I should post that on the mailing list
 40 2012-06-04 02:50:08 <wladston> is the list invite-only ?
 41 2012-06-04 02:57:46 <bayleef> luke-jr: what repo are you pushing to, then? According to http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/bitcoind/luke-jr.git, latest is next-test_20120518 (984372a)
 42 2012-06-04 03:00:24 <luke-jr> bayleef: fixed
 43 2012-06-04 03:19:13 <bayleef> luke-jr: ah yay, that worked. Still won't go past block 181808, but it at least loads. Redownloading the blockchain now in hopes that'll fix whatever's broken. It'll do that, strangely enough lol
 44 2012-06-04 03:19:52 <bayleef> I'm off to bed, thanks all for your help
 45 2012-06-04 05:00:28 <kingkatari> hey all is this channel i come to if i am getting a bitcoin program error ?
 46 2012-06-04 05:01:45 <kingkatari> this is the error i am getting
 47 2012-06-04 05:01:47 <kingkatari> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/74275720/bitcoinerror.png
 48 2012-06-04 05:02:00 <kingkatari> and even a reinstall will fix it
 49 2012-06-04 05:02:07 <kingkatari> errr
 50 2012-06-04 05:02:18 <kingkatari> i mean a reinstall will not fix it
 51 2012-06-04 05:06:35 <Eliel> kingkatari: sounds like a problem with the database. Did you copy something from another bitcoin data directory?
 52 2012-06-04 05:07:42 <kingkatari> no
 53 2012-06-04 05:07:51 <kingkatari> it is the same DB i have been using
 54 2012-06-04 05:18:38 <Eliel> kingkatari: did you upgrade or downgrade bitcoin?
 55 2012-06-04 05:21:05 <Eliel> kingkatari: personally, when that happens, I'd move wallet.dat and bitcoin.conf to a safe place and then wipe the directory. Use this to make the chain redownload process go faster http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/blockchain/
 56 2012-06-04 05:22:18 <kingkatari> :-( wow another 10 hour download
 57 2012-06-04 05:22:20 <kingkatari> lol
 58 2012-06-04 05:22:28 <kingkatari> lol
 59 2012-06-04 05:22:46 <Eliel> kingkatari: it's a good idea to keep a copy of the blockchain somewhere if you expect having to do this often.
 60 2012-06-04 05:23:02 <kingkatari> i wonder if the S.B.A will give me a business loan to start an actual bitcoin mining operation
 61 2012-06-04 05:23:26 <Eliel> I doubt it, but can't hurt to try.
 62 2012-06-04 05:24:20 <kingkatari> i just wonder how to classify it for my business license
 63 2012-06-04 05:24:43 <kingkatari> i would think service
 64 2012-06-04 05:25:36 <Eliel> well, you could call it "blockchain verification service" :P
 65 2012-06-04 05:26:39 <kingkatari> Or BVS Co.
 66 2012-06-04 05:27:12 <moa7> or just BS Co.
 67 2012-06-04 05:27:17 <kingkatari> LoL
 68 2012-06-04 05:27:35 <Eliel> :D
 69 2012-06-04 07:44:39 <weex> is there a python script that generates a new address and prints it with its private key? looking at trimming down pywallet.py to do this
 70 2012-06-04 07:49:49 <Joric> i wrote a bunch of scripts along with pywallet
 71 2012-06-04 07:51:35 <Joric> sorry can't find
 72 2012-06-04 07:54:14 <Joric> http://bitaddress.org may generate a list of random addresses though it's not python
 73 2012-06-04 08:02:34 <weex> yeah i want minimal and local
 74 2012-06-04 08:03:41 <weex> minimal so it's easier to audit and local so the possibility of malicious edits is minimized
 75 2012-06-04 08:06:18 <weex> Joric: is this something you would consider creating a seperate, all-inclusive python script for to be included in the pywallet github?
 76 2012-06-04 08:10:41 <Joric> sec
 77 2012-06-04 08:11:43 <Joric> that's the smallest one http://pastebin.com/hzehdrzk
 78 2012-06-04 08:12:13 <Joric> no deps except libssl
 79 2012-06-04 08:15:01 <weex> you just did this or had it for a while?
 80 2012-06-04 08:15:08 <Joric> just did it
 81 2012-06-04 08:15:17 <Joric> well, copypasted a bit
 82 2012-06-04 08:16:07 <Joric> oh it doesn't really support compression let me fix that
 83 2012-06-04 08:16:38 <weex> cool, i'm surprised nobody ever made one...just saw a thread on someone wanting it in php and he got a lot of "you should store private keys on a server"
 84 2012-06-04 08:16:49 <weex> shouldn't*
 85 2012-06-04 08:19:11 <weex> that is awesome, it worked...gonna make it look like vanitygen's output
 86 2012-06-04 08:22:32 <Joric> updated http://pastebin.com/hzehdrzk
 87 2012-06-04 08:22:37 <Joric> needs testing!
 88 2012-06-04 08:24:02 <Joric> updated once more, seems fine
 89 2012-06-04 08:24:24 <weex> i put a while1 loop on it and got 1400 addresses/sec
 90 2012-06-04 08:25:13 <weex> if that is put up somewhere, it can make it much easier for people to generate paper wallets they can trust
 91 2012-06-04 08:26:50 <weex> i think i'm not understanding why compress the privkey
 92 2012-06-04 08:26:51 <Joric> well it's my pastebin account i'm logged in
 93 2012-06-04 08:27:30 <Joric> http://pastebin.com/u/joric there are more
 94 2012-06-04 08:29:01 <weex> that is the most extensive use of pastebin for hosting that i've seen
 95 2012-06-04 08:29:50 <Joric> weex, compressed pubkeys take 50% less place, 33 bytes vs 65
 96 2012-06-04 08:30:44 <Joric> since blockchain contains raw pubkeys it helps the network a bit
 97 2012-06-04 08:31:04 <weex> i get None printed a couple times when i run the latest
 98 2012-06-04 08:32:23 <Joric> maybe it wasn't the latest it returns tuple for printing (addr, sec)
 99 2012-06-04 08:36:29 <weex> Joric: cool, do you mind specifying a license for this?
100 2012-06-04 08:37:01 <Joric> public domain, as always
101 2012-06-04 08:37:30 <weex> ok, i just can't tell and i'd like to link to it from an ebook i'm working on
102 2012-06-04 08:39:03 <Joric> most code is taken from sam rushing's caesure under simplified bsd consider it free
103 2012-06-04 08:39:21 <Joric> there's really nothing to copywrite
104 2012-06-04 08:40:20 <weex> fair enough
105 2012-06-04 08:48:07 <Joric> oh god hang on
106 2012-06-04 08:48:18 <Joric> hash_to_address is wrong
107 2012-06-04 08:50:09 <Joric> i shouldn't add chr(0) to a compressed hash160
108 2012-06-04 08:51:15 <weex> didn't notice for the address i checked
109 2012-06-04 08:51:30 <weex> it is interesting that a privkey has two addresses though
110 2012-06-04 08:51:49 <Joric> *if compressed and len(s) == 32:
111 2012-06-04 08:51:56 <Joric> updated, sorry i'm slow
112 2012-06-04 08:52:36 <weex> out of curiosity when would that cause a problem?
113 2012-06-04 08:53:01 <Joric> yes that compressed keys feature creates a lot of ambiguities
114 2012-06-04 08:54:24 <Joric> weex, it basically performs base58check(str) compressed base58 privkey should be 1 byte londer due to sipa's specification ) but not the address
115 2012-06-04 08:55:21 <Joric> i have to move it away from this function, hang on
116 2012-06-04 08:59:23 <Joric> looks fine now http://pastebin.com/hzehdrzk
117 2012-06-04 08:59:57 <Joric> damn those naming conventions look ugly, sec
118 2012-06-04 09:00:53 <weex> heh
119 2012-06-04 09:01:04 <Joric> updated lol it's always ends like this
120 2012-06-04 09:01:59 <weex> i guess the other question is, is there anything unnecessary in there?
121 2012-06-04 09:02:52 <weex> i have to sleep (it's 4am) but i'll check it out tomorrow. very impressive Joric.
122 2012-06-04 09:04:07 <Joric> nah i wouldn't remove anything may be usefull
123 2012-06-04 09:05:09 <Joric> actually i'd even add sign/verify message which i hacked up yesterday but it looks fine as is
124 2012-06-04 09:09:49 <moa7> Joric : what is output ... 2 off pubkey,privkey pairs?
125 2012-06-04 09:11:00 <Joric> yep, base58check address + base58check privkey
126 2012-06-04 09:11:38 <moa7> strange the second pair always has privkey beginning with 'L' ?
127 2012-06-04 09:12:27 <moa7> or K ... what am I missing here?
128 2012-06-04 09:12:56 <Joric> second pair is compressed, it's supposed to be so it's 33-byte secret, either L or K
129 2012-06-04 09:13:06 <moa7> ok
130 2012-06-04 10:33:08 <BlueMatt> bayleef: ping
131 2012-06-04 10:45:37 <jrmithdobbs> does anyone actually sell or at the least quote the spyrus smartcard/readers? i don't want to have to call these bitches
132 2012-06-04 10:47:37 <gavinandresen> luke-jr : ping
133 2012-06-04 11:16:15 <BlueMatt> sipa: bayleef's chain last night was not, indeed corrupt, the issue was that he was on an old fork and SetBestChain was taking a long time to disconnect 1 block and reconnect 634 blocks (obviously) and thus it appeared to be not downloading blocks
134 2012-06-04 11:16:47 <BlueMatt> he appeared to have a huge orphan chain of size 634, which I find interesting, but it appears it was being handled correctly
135 2012-06-04 11:52:57 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: pong
136 2012-06-04 11:53:46 <gavinandresen> luke-jr : did you write the new 'decompositions' feature of gettransaction ?  is it documented somewhere?
137 2012-06-04 11:54:33 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: yes; I don't believe so - where would you suggest it be documented?
138 2012-06-04 11:54:48 <luke-jr> the inband help doesn't seem like the right place for lengthy explanations
139 2012-06-04 11:54:52 <gavinandresen> bitcoind help would be a nice start.  But I think it is way over-complicated
140 2012-06-04 11:55:35 <gavinandresen> seems to me a boolean would suffice-- "give me all the detailed info about this transaction, please, I don't care about how much bandwidth that takes."
141 2012-06-04 11:56:18 <gavinandresen> (I think that corresponds to the 'object' decomposition)
142 2012-06-04 11:56:30 <luke-jr> then there'd be no way to do other decompositions
143 2012-06-04 11:56:38 <gavinandresen> okey doke.
144 2012-06-04 11:57:55 <Diapolo> I'm happy, I managed to compile OpenSSL 1.0.1c 10 May 2012 on Windows with MinGW :).
145 2012-06-04 11:58:04 <luke-jr> I suppose we could throw the disassembly,hex,hash on the objects, but that might chew up a lot of CPU time I'd imagine
146 2012-06-04 11:58:54 <gavinandresen> how about just raw hex, and then write a little Python code that can translate the hex into disassembly.  And put the python code in contrib/
147 2012-06-04 11:59:01 <luke-jr> and using primitive parameters has proven to get a bit out of control on other JSON-RPC methods IMO when they eventually need more options
148 2012-06-04 12:00:43 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: that makes more work for everyone in the future, when new opcodes are added& now N places need to be updated instead of 1
149 2012-06-04 12:01:06 <luke-jr> (and not everyone uses Python)
150 2012-06-04 12:01:31 <gavinandresen> what is the disassembly for?  Just debugging ?
151 2012-06-04 12:02:26 <luke-jr> also seems handy for showing people how Bitcoin works in specific cases, etc
152 2012-06-04 12:03:00 <luke-jr> personally, I find it useful to replace blockchain.info with a local trusted program
153 2012-06-04 12:03:06 <gavinandresen> away for a bit-- maybe it would help if you wrote up the motivating use case(s) for the 'decompositions' feature of gettransaction.
154 2012-06-04 12:03:18 <luke-jr> and it actually works (blockchain.info does some P2SH magic that really obfuscates it)
155 2012-06-04 12:03:45 <gavinandresen> (e.g. maybe a RPC call that took a hex scriptPubKey and disassembled it into a human-readable string is the right thing to do)
156 2012-06-04 12:05:49 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: that would be very slow
157 2012-06-04 12:08:27 <Diapolo> OpenSSL uses RAND_screen() on init, which takes 2322ms (measured) and as "RAND_screen() is provided by OpenSSL only for backward compatibility with (much) older code which may call it (that was before OpenSSL used proper OS-based seed initialization)" we can maybe remove this on Win32?
158 2012-06-04 12:09:18 <luke-jr> Diapolo: you can't measure RAND_screen
159 2012-06-04 12:09:44 <Diapolo> I take the current time before and after and see the diff?
160 2012-06-04 12:10:10 <luke-jr> Diapolo: RAND_screen reads mouse movement. Move the mouse faster and it'll finish sooner
161 2012-06-04 12:10:44 <Diapolo> My question was a different one, even if you say the mearurement is inacurrate.
162 2012-06-04 12:10:59 <luke-jr> Diapolo: Windows still doesn't have any reasonable entropy sources AFAIK
163 2012-06-04 12:11:31 <luke-jr> "The RAND_screen() function is available for the convenience of Windows programmers."
164 2012-06-04 12:11:48 <Diapolo> OpenSSL now calls CryptGenRandom() on Windows.
165 2012-06-04 12:13:35 <Diapolo> I'm sure MS has an interrest in providing a good PRNG source, no?
166 2012-06-04 12:16:22 <Diapolo> The analysis I could find say on Win2K it was weak bad, but we require WinXP as minimum MS-OS and they updated their PRNGs once more with Vista and Win7 AFAIK.
167 2012-06-04 12:17:03 <BlueMatt> its much better in this case to avoid PRNGs, even if they are really secure, we are trying to protect money, so using real random sources is much, much better
168 2012-06-04 12:18:10 <luke-jr> Diapolo: PRNG is no good in general ;)
169 2012-06-04 12:19:09 <Diapolo> I'm not sure, but why is the Linux part considered random enough btw.?
170 2012-06-04 12:19:33 <helo> i'd like to see an attack on sha512(mersennetwist1 + mersennetwist2 + mersennetwist3)
171 2012-06-04 12:19:43 <helo> or something similar
172 2012-06-04 12:19:47 <Diapolo> I found that one: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10568847/generating-random-keys-data-using-openssl-libray-on-windows
173 2012-06-04 12:21:23 <Diapolo> Or: "CryptoAPI's entropy pool is similar to Linux's /dev/random - it slowly hashes in entropy based on user activity on the system."
174 2012-06-04 12:31:10 <Diapolo> Sometimes I have a feeling, that Linux is per default considered more secure and all that, so that no one ever thinks there is a need for additional entropy there :D. I just wanted to mention RAND_screen() is slow, as is the current method to access the registry to get perfmon data on Windows, which can't be considered "usefull", too IMHO.
175 2012-06-04 12:32:35 <Diablo-D3> Diapolo: no
176 2012-06-04 12:32:41 <Diablo-D3> /dev/random is full entropy
177 2012-06-04 12:32:46 <Diablo-D3> its /dev/urandom that isnt
178 2012-06-04 12:33:10 <Diablo-D3> /dev/random is very quickly depleted
179 2012-06-04 12:33:29 <Diablo-D3> on a lot of machines you cant even construct a ssh key without wiggling the mouse until its done
180 2012-06-04 12:34:21 <gmaxwell> Diapolo: rand_screen taking 2.3s surprises me, in any case the linux behavior is trivially auditable and the windows behavior is not.
181 2012-06-04 12:34:38 <Diapolo> It would just be nice to use OS-standards and be able to speed-up things a little. I really can't comment on the Linux-side.
182 2012-06-04 12:34:59 <Eliel> Diapolo: yep, Windows is a black box in many regards.
183 2012-06-04 12:35:19 <Eliel> You either trust that Microsoft engineers got it right, or you don't use it.
184 2012-06-04 12:35:21 <Diapolo> gmaxwell: If we don't want to trust MS we can't even use OpenSSL RAND_bytes() as this uses CryptGenRandom() e.g.
185 2012-06-04 12:35:30 <gmaxwell> Diapolo: there are a lot of ways to speed it up, including running the rand_screen() in parallel with the index load.
186 2012-06-04 12:36:01 <gmaxwell> Diapolo: iirc the results are mixed in with the openssl random pool.
187 2012-06-04 12:36:13 <Diapolo> right, once
188 2012-06-04 12:36:28 <Diapolo> on startup / init not afterwards
189 2012-06-04 12:38:19 <Diapolo> I even compared the current RandAddSeed(), which uses a registry key to gather entropy:
190 2012-06-04 12:38:20 <Diapolo> new (MS CryptoAPI):
191 2012-06-04 12:47:12 <wladston> sipa: did you check my little paper on the issue we were talking ?
192 2012-06-04 12:49:20 <wladston> doublec: you might find it interesting too
193 2012-06-04 12:49:48 <wladston> TD: you were also discussing this matter a few days ago with us
194 2012-06-04 12:50:13 <wladston> gmaxwell: would like you to read it too, if you can :)
195 2012-06-04 12:53:24 <gavinandresen> wladston: I skimmed it; my general reaction is "good idea" ... as long as it doesn't make performance a lot worse.
196 2012-06-04 12:54:36 <TD> wladston: sipa is busy atm
197 2012-06-04 12:54:46 <wladston> gavinandresen: I think it won't, with my proposed optimization.
198 2012-06-04 12:54:49 <gavinandresen> wladston: optimizing 'accounts' for the lots-of-accounts case should probably be done first.  And the biggest criticism of the 'accounts' feature is the mixing of coins received
199 2012-06-04 12:55:48 <wladston> gavinandresen: it won't fix the mixing of coins (I think it's impossible to address that), but if will separate confirmed from unconfirmed coins.
200 2012-06-04 12:55:55 <gavinandresen> wladston: The big conceptual argument will probably be "keep accounts, or would it make more sense to teach bitcoind to handle X separate wallets (where X might be thousands)"
201 2012-06-04 12:56:34 <gavinandresen> Your idea would obviously be applicable to the X separate wallets case, where transfers from one wallet to another don't hit the blockchain....
202 2012-06-04 12:56:37 <wladston> gavinandresen: there would still be a problem with that, because transfers between wallets would have to be broadcasted on the network & no ?
203 2012-06-04 12:56:52 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: separate wallets *need* to hit the blockchain&
204 2012-06-04 12:57:19 <wladston> hum, ok
205 2012-06-04 12:57:37 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: did you read wladson's little paper?
206 2012-06-04 12:58:01 <BlueMatt> problem with 1000 wallets is you cant spend from one wallet using coins from another, which could avoid fees and let bitcoin keep the chain smaller
207 2012-06-04 12:58:18 <BlueMatt> so I think using multi-wallets in place of the current use-cases for accounts is unreasonable
208 2012-06-04 12:58:35 <BlueMatt> (not that multi-wallets doesnt have use-cases, but 1000s of wallets isnt one of them imho)
209 2012-06-04 12:58:46 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: it has too much math symbols <.<
210 2012-06-04 12:59:20 <wladston> if we mix coins from confirmed inputs, I think that's not really a problem
211 2012-06-04 12:59:44 <BlueMatt> thats my point, you can mix coins if its not separate wallets
212 2012-06-04 12:59:52 <BlueMatt> if the wallets are separate, you cant
213 2012-06-04 12:59:54 <wladston> luke-jr: I worked to bring the math simbols to the least I could
214 2012-06-04 13:00:33 <gavinandresen> wladston: a couple of "for example"s would help with the wading-through-math problem
215 2012-06-04 13:01:22 <wladston> gavinandresen: understood. will try to add some examples of how it deals with circular dependencies and mixed confirmation transfers.
216 2012-06-04 13:02:27 <wladston> it's a good think that you could understand my solution, though.
217 2012-06-04 13:02:45 <BlueMatt> wladston: calling them wallets is very misleading, though, why not just stick with calling them accounts?
218 2012-06-04 13:03:15 <wladston> BlueMatt: you are right. Also noted this for fixing.
219 2012-06-04 13:03:33 <wladston> BlueMatt: I called then wallets because in my internal implementation I called then wallets
220 2012-06-04 13:05:11 <helo> account ~= group of owned addresses?
221 2012-06-04 13:05:50 <wladston> helo: yes. but they can also receive/send internal moves from other accounts
222 2012-06-04 13:07:02 <gavinandresen> luke-jr : RE: separate RPC for disassembling CScripts and "but that would be slow" .... if that is true (again, WHAT IS THE USE CASE WHERE SPEED MATTERS) then maybe implementing JSON-2.0 multiple-requests-at-once and/or HTTP keepalive is the right thing to do
223 2012-06-04 13:07:10 <wladston> I could try to implement that in bitcoind as my first commit, if you are interested and there is someone to mentor me& but probably someone who knows the bitcoind code already will be able to code that in a few hours...
224 2012-06-04 13:07:29 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: we have HTTP keepalive. that doesn't cut down on round-trips
225 2012-06-04 13:09:06 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: you're doing that thing that drives me nuts again, pick-pick-picking at little nits
226 2012-06-04 13:09:15 <gavinandresen> (and missing the big picture)
227 2012-06-04 13:14:11 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: not sure if it might help reduce the going nuts bit, but perhaps consider from my perspective that's what you started off doing (though I agree documentation would probably be useful) - all I'm doing is answering the rationale behind your questions&
228 2012-06-04 13:15:55 <gavinandresen> I've said before I'd like to discuss RPC changes BEFORE submitting pull requests.  And yes, I know jgarzik broke that rule with sendrawtx (and I think we're now regretting that, too)
229 2012-06-04 13:17:35 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: it's been a few months since that change was discussed, I don't recall the order of events; I'm trying to do better on that
230 2012-06-04 13:20:29 <Diablo-D3> ha ha templates
231 2012-06-04 14:02:24 <avengre> Hello, is -testnet okay to use from the same directory that the main bitcoin is running from?  Ie, it won't affect the existing wallet / blockchain?
232 2012-06-04 14:09:39 <gavinandresen> avengre: yes, testnet will create its own subdirectory in the main data directory, you can run -testnet and non-testnet at the same time.
233 2012-06-04 14:09:40 <gavinandresen> avengre: ... wait I might have just lied, I think testnet uses the same -rpcport as non-testnet....
234 2012-06-04 14:59:40 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: luke-jr opened pull request 1416 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1416>
235 2012-06-04 15:00:03 <luke-jr> ^ split the coin selection refactor/tests out from under Coin Control
236 2012-06-04 16:01:12 <avengre> so to use bitcoin-qt -tesetnet -conf=testnet/bitcoin.conf -datadir=testnet?
237 2012-06-04 16:01:12 <luke-jr> http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/security.html is looking better now
238 2012-06-04 16:01:25 <luke-jr> avengre: um, just run bitcoin-qt -testnet
239 2012-06-04 16:01:37 <luke-jr> -server -rpcport=NNNN if you want to mine on it
240 2012-06-04 16:01:53 <avengre> I did that but it started downloading the blockchain to its root dir, and I'm not sure which blockchain it is
241 2012-06-04 16:03:30 <avengre> ah nm works now for some magic reason with just -testnet
242 2012-06-04 16:03:34 <avengre> i blame you... you evil man
243 2012-06-04 16:03:59 <luke-jr> &
244 2012-06-04 16:04:23 <D34TH> someone else on testnet3? :D
245 2012-06-04 16:21:33 <avengre> whats testnet 3?
246 2012-06-04 16:21:37 <avengre> the current testnet?
247 2012-06-04 16:21:50 <BlueMatt> testnet on git master
248 2012-06-04 16:22:03 <BlueMatt> testnet is being reset with version 0.7, and git master has the pull merged
249 2012-06-04 16:24:50 <avengre> ah no i'm just using whatever bitcoin.org has
250 2012-06-04 16:25:04 <avengre> or whatever comes with bitcoin-qt 0.6.2 that is
251 2012-06-04 16:25:08 <D34TH> aww
252 2012-06-04 16:25:34 <D34TH> so bluematt me and  a friend got p2pool working on testnet3
253 2012-06-04 16:25:42 <D34TH> it has a few glitches but runs smooth
254 2012-06-04 16:26:08 <avengre> so what happens to the old chain when they reset testnet
255 2012-06-04 16:26:22 <BlueMatt> it slowly dies as people upgrade
256 2012-06-04 16:26:36 <avengre> ah but it'll still be usable if I run a miner on it
257 2012-06-04 16:26:47 <avengre> so I don't have to keep upgrading to do my testing?
258 2012-06-04 16:26:52 <D34TH> nope
259 2012-06-04 16:27:09 <avengre> ah okay
260 2012-06-04 16:27:18 <D34TH> but the new testnet is at a lower diff, testing might go quicker
261 2012-06-04 16:27:49 <BlueMatt> it will be usable, yea...but you may end up with issues finding peers
262 2012-06-04 16:28:51 <D34TH> heh -addip=liteco.in
263 2012-06-04 16:28:57 <D34TH> get all the peers
264 2012-06-04 16:29:29 <D34TH> 10 connections :D
265 2012-06-04 16:30:42 <avengre> yeah but there's no gui for 0.7 is there?
266 2012-06-04 16:30:45 <avengre> I <3 the gui
267 2012-06-04 16:30:46 <D34TH> there is
268 2012-06-04 16:30:52 <D34TH> bluematt has them compiled
269 2012-06-04 16:31:20 <D34TH> windows right?
270 2012-06-04 16:31:23 <avengre> yeap
271 2012-06-04 16:31:26 <BlueMatt> win32+linux
272 2012-06-04 16:31:35 <D34TH> http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin/ws/bitcoin-qt.exe
273 2012-06-04 16:31:40 <BlueMatt> current git master builds can (almost) always be found at http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin/ws/
274 2012-06-04 16:31:43 <D34TH> just replace your current bitcoin-qt.exe with that one
275 2012-06-04 16:35:21 <BlueMatt> s/replace//
276 2012-06-04 16:35:34 <BlueMatt> use that bitcoin-qt.exe, dont replace it, and dont use it for large amounts of money
277 2012-06-04 16:35:40 <BlueMatt> or really any amount of money
278 2012-06-04 16:36:22 <D34TH> hmm the windows one keeps reporting 1 diff
279 2012-06-04 16:36:44 <D34TH> linux is reporting current
280 2012-06-04 16:36:46 <D34TH> 16
281 2012-06-04 16:37:20 <BlueMatt> are they peered and on the same block?
282 2012-06-04 16:37:30 <avengre> so ust the bitcoin-qt.exe needs to be 'used'? what about the bitcoind
283 2012-06-04 16:37:41 <avengre> i'm confused... are they different block chains or what
284 2012-06-04 16:37:54 <avengre> (the two testnets)
285 2012-06-04 16:38:03 <D34TH> they are peered and on same block
286 2012-06-04 16:38:04 <BlueMatt> those are different blockchains than 0.6.2, yes
287 2012-06-04 16:38:12 <D34TH> i have the windows addip and addnode the linux
288 2012-06-04 16:38:22 <BlueMatt> D34TH: uhh....I have nfc why that would happen, they are the same code...
289 2012-06-04 16:38:25 <avengre> okay... so if all I want to use is the 'new' blockchain then on this machine, does it matter if I overwrite?
290 2012-06-04 16:39:13 <D34TH> there we go
291 2012-06-04 16:39:15 <D34TH> fixed it
292 2012-06-04 16:39:25 <BlueMatt> it should figure it out for you, but deleting blk0001.dat and blkindex.dat would save disk space
293 2012-06-04 16:39:31 <BlueMatt> D34TH: what was the problem?
294 2012-06-04 16:39:38 <D34TH> just needed a restart
295 2012-06-04 16:41:17 <D34TH> also my windows doesnt like irc
296 2012-06-04 16:41:33 <D34TH> because ipv6
297 2012-06-04 16:44:38 <graingert> D34TH: that's not a reason
298 2012-06-04 16:45:23 <avengre> mmm
299 2012-06-04 16:45:32 <avengre> is that newest version running?
300 2012-06-04 16:45:35 <avengre> i'm getting no connections
301 2012-06-04 16:46:01 <luke-jr> wtf
302 2012-06-04 16:46:04 <D34TH> graingert any irc connection on my pc doesnt like ipv6
303 2012-06-04 16:46:12 <graingert> wat
304 2012-06-04 16:46:12 <luke-jr> I deleted a wallet.dat and started Bitcoin-Qt and it still insists on using it
305 2012-06-04 16:46:28 <D34TH> avengre add -dns -addip=liteco.in
306 2012-06-04 16:46:56 <D34TH> bbl
307 2012-06-04 16:47:01 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: -detachdb
308 2012-06-04 16:48:31 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: trying that
309 2012-06-04 16:48:37 <luke-jr> weird thing is, all the timestamps are Feb 5
310 2012-06-04 16:49:07 <avengre> D34TH: still no dice
311 2012-06-04 16:49:17 <BlueMatt> oh, I thought you were talking about a fresh wallet, I have nfc then luke-jr
312 2012-06-04 16:49:33 <luke-jr> oh I see
313 2012-06-04 16:50:30 <avengre> bitcoin-qt.exe -testnet -conf=testnet/bitcoin.conf -server -dns -addip=liteco.in
314 2012-06-04 16:50:41 <avengre> my client feels lonely
315 2012-06-04 16:51:56 <avengre> ah didn't have the port in there
316 2012-06-04 16:53:28 <avengre> only 1 connection tho.. this is gonna take some time
317 2012-06-04 17:15:13 <D34TH> avengre try also adding -addnode=liteco.in
318 2012-06-04 17:17:10 <avengre> yeah I added that in
319 2012-06-04 17:17:20 <avengre> ooh addnode
320 2012-06-04 17:18:18 <avengre> ah definately better
321 2012-06-04 17:18:22 <D34TH> :D
322 2012-06-04 17:33:22 <topi`> has there been any in-depth discussion about the future of forks like litecoin and others? I mean, it's highly likely that BTC will be the only blockchain with "real" worth in it (i.e. the dollars of those speculators)
323 2012-06-04 17:34:05 <topi`> unless there's  a strong momentum towards a new direction (a flaw in the client or any other odd reason)
324 2012-06-04 17:36:01 <BlueMatt> topi`: because, as you point out, not many people believe altcoins will go anywhere, I dont think there is, if they arent going anywhere, who cares? ;)
325 2012-06-04 17:37:54 <topi`> BlueMatt: I'm not criticizing their existence :) it's very important that there are options
326 2012-06-04 17:38:35 <BlueMatt> nor am I
327 2012-06-04 17:39:13 <BlueMatt> and I agree, but I dont think anyone will ever give them too much serious attention unless they provide something other than just an exchange of value or there is a serious issue with bitcoin itself
328 2012-06-04 17:39:47 <BlueMatt> eg p2pool/namecoin/etc may get attention, but solidcoin wont
329 2012-06-04 17:42:13 <topi`> namecoin is a great project
330 2012-06-04 17:42:41 <BlueMatt> and thats great, but IMHO they will never get serious attention without bitcoin having a serious issue
331 2012-06-04 17:43:12 <BlueMatt> getting people to switch from one thing to another never works unless there is serious added value in the interface they see
332 2012-06-04 17:43:21 <BlueMatt> oh, namecoin, sorry I thought you said solidcoin
333 2012-06-04 17:43:29 <topi`> and I am thinking of implementing a voting system (national or whatever) that would be based on a blockchain and strong anonymity (hence a system that cannot be rigged )
334 2012-06-04 17:43:30 <BlueMatt> yea, namecoin is great
335 2012-06-04 17:44:12 <BlueMatt> alternate uses for blockchains are interesting, but they have to make progress in their own market and, Id argue, are really less bitcoin-related than some say
336 2012-06-04 17:47:31 <luke-jr> topi`: I think scamcoins hurt Bitcoin's reputation.
337 2012-06-04 17:48:15 <luke-jr> FWIW, http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/branches.html
338 2012-06-04 17:48:20 <GTRsdk> tbh, ScamCoin would have hurt the reputation of all cryptocurrencies
339 2012-06-04 17:49:55 <topi`> luke-jr: also, scammers have hurt credit card companies' reputation, but has anyone cared
340 2012-06-04 17:50:21 <luke-jr> topi`: before they had widespread adoption?
341 2012-06-04 17:51:18 <topi`> a valid point.
342 2012-06-04 18:42:25 <bayleef> So I moved the blockchain, and restarted bitcoind (next-test). Now it won't go past block 176947
343 2012-06-04 18:43:24 <BlueMatt> bayleef: did you see the message I tagged you in earlier? your chain was never corrupted, it was just taking forever on a reorg, and thus appeared frozen, even though it wasnt
344 2012-06-04 18:44:03 <bayleef> ah. How long are those generally, and can you see the status of them?
345 2012-06-04 18:44:43 <BlueMatt> generally they are very short, for some reason you had a 600+ block orphan chain that was on a separate branch, thus you cant (currently) see the status of it
346 2012-06-04 18:46:20 <bayleef> Ah. Does the client check for those every so often?
347 2012-06-04 18:46:58 <BlueMatt> it will reorg when it gets a new block that makes it realize it was on the wrong chain
348 2012-06-04 18:47:17 <BlueMatt> or, as in your case, fills in a gap in the best chain that allows it to connect the rest
349 2012-06-04 18:48:39 <bayleef> ah cool, thanks :)
350 2012-06-04 18:52:47 <Diapolo> sipa: is it intended to be able to use hostnames in the Bitcoin-Qt Proxyserver option?
351 2012-06-04 18:53:26 <bayleef> so I guess in future, grep the debug.log for REORGANIZE? Would be awesome if it'd say that in errors, instead of "you may need to upgrade"
352 2012-06-04 18:53:30 <BlueMatt> we use vectors for some stupid cases... why would one ever have a vWorkQueue, seems to me the queue in the name may indicate the data structure it should be
353 2012-06-04 18:54:15 <BlueMatt> bayleef: in your debug.log you will notice "Postponing 6XX reconnects" that indicates you will have to wait for 6XX block connects before it returns
354 2012-06-04 18:54:32 <BlueMatt> bayleef: yea, Im looking at cleaning up that output right now
355 2012-06-04 18:54:40 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: Diapolo opened pull request 1417 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1417>
356 2012-06-04 18:55:03 <bayleef> Thanks for your help :)
357 2012-06-04 18:55:34 <BlueMatt> np
358 2012-06-04 18:55:58 <GTRsdk> ;;web title https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1417
359 2012-06-04 18:55:59 <gribble> Pull Request #1417: GUI: add BitcoinGUI::hideTrayIcon() and call on exit by Diapolo ??? bitcoin/bitcoin ??? GitHub
360 2012-06-04 19:19:55 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: Diapolo opened pull request 1418 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1418>
361 2012-06-04 20:35:52 <Nachtwind> hi.. when i am still downloading.. can i use the json rpc on the server - or would that fail?
362 2012-06-04 20:36:35 <luke-jr> 5141<pubkey>51ae <-- isn't this correct?
363 2012-06-04 20:41:16 <freewil> Nachtwind, i believe it will fail with an error saying something like "busy downloading blocks..."
364 2012-06-04 20:41:35 <freewil> or you might not be able to connect to the server at all
365 2012-06-04 20:42:17 <Nachtwind> ah, sounds about right
366 2012-06-04 20:42:28 <Nachtwind> trying to connect via php and it just "fails"
367 2012-06-04 20:42:29 <gavinandresen> RPC will work, but it might take a long time to respond.  getwork/getmemorypool won't work
368 2012-06-04 20:43:02 <Nachtwind> what about getbalance()?
369 2012-06-04 20:43:31 <gavinandresen> your php json library probably has a timeout, and it isn't waiting the minute or two that it can take if bitcoind is busy processing lots of blocks
370 2012-06-04 20:43:53 <Tuxavant> I am seeking assistance in customizing a .spec file (Fedora) from openssl-1.0.0j-1.fc16.src.rpm? I can tip you Bitcoin for your help.
371 2012-06-04 20:43:55 <gavinandresen> getbalance() won't be correct until you have all blocks, anyway
372 2012-06-04 20:43:57 <Nachtwind> thanks gavin.. that sounds exactly like what i am experiences
373 2012-06-04 20:44:18 <Nachtwind> yeah, i am checking getbalance atm but get connection refused errros from the lib
374 2012-06-04 21:07:23 <freewil> anyone seen this before?
375 2012-06-04 21:07:31 <freewil> apparently by someone at the NSA from '96
376 2012-06-04 21:07:35 <freewil> http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/money/nsamint/nsamint.htm
377 2012-06-04 21:07:51 <freewil> well several people
378 2012-06-04 21:15:28 <freewil> Tatsuaki Okamoto
379 2012-06-04 21:15:41 <freewil> that is one of the authors referenced in that paper
380 2012-06-04 22:07:40 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: luke-jr opened issue 1419 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1419>
381 2012-06-04 22:29:46 <GTRsdk> ;;web title https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1419
382 2012-06-04 22:29:47 <gribble> Issue #1419: Bitcoin-Qt doesn't understand received P2SH transactions ??? bitcoin/bitcoin ??? GitHub