1 2012-06-11 00:01:26 <bayleef> It's still trying to connect those two, same message
  2 2012-06-11 00:03:05 <bayleef> Yuck. Is this all because of that one block? Postponing 5669 reconnects
  3 2012-06-11 00:03:30 <BlueMatt> wtf? seems like you are having the same, or a similar problem as you had last time
  4 2012-06-11 00:03:32 <BlueMatt> wtf?
  5 2012-06-11 00:03:47 <BlueMatt> you sure you are on 0.6.2, matching the published, signed checksums?
  6 2012-06-11 00:05:47 <bayleef> This is built from bitcoin master, before I was using 0.6.2 but that was also built, so probably wouldn't match
  7 2012-06-11 00:06:58 <bayleef> I can try with the one from bitcoin.org though if you want
  8 2012-06-11 00:07:22 <BlueMatt> I dunno, it looks like you are getting essentially the same issue as last time
  9 2012-06-11 00:07:35 <BlueMatt> which is really weird, since afaik no one else has seen it
 10 2012-06-11 00:07:54 <BlueMatt> have you run a full checkblocks of all your blocks with full depth?
 11 2012-06-11 00:08:19 <bayleef> This is on the bitcoin stackexchange site actually, block 176947. Unfortunately it went away automagically for him/her
 12 2012-06-11 00:08:57 <BlueMatt> I dont remember, does debug.log have the versions of the nodes you are connecting to?
 13 2012-06-11 00:09:28 <bayleef> Also I tried googling for that transaction, and found an IRC transcript from a couple weeks ago, but noone answered that time :(
 14 2012-06-11 00:11:41 <bayleef> Most of them are 60001 or 40000, there's also a 32400, all reporting blocks=183983
 15 2012-06-11 00:11:58 <BlueMatt> ;;bc,blocks
 16 2012-06-11 00:11:59 <gribble> 183984
 17 2012-06-11 00:12:30 <BlueMatt> have you tried a full checkblocks?
 18 2012-06-11 00:12:55 <bayleef> a -checkblocks=0? Yeah
 19 2012-06-11 00:13:06 <BlueMatt> no...
 20 2012-06-11 00:13:46 <BlueMatt> -checkblocks=200000 -checklevel=5
 21 2012-06-11 00:13:51 <BlueMatt> should take some serious time...
 22 2012-06-11 00:15:35 <bayleef> mmmm. Well, off it goes
 23 2012-06-11 00:35:54 <BlueMatt> bayleef: Im gonna go to bed, if you dont mind, can you just send the results when you finish checkblocks, Ill pick it up from the logs in the morning
 24 2012-06-11 00:58:26 <bayleef> BlueMatt: When you get back... The verification finished, same results as before though. It's now got 5955 reconnects to do, and still can't verify that signature. Good night btw
 25 2012-06-11 01:28:54 <luke-jr> http://bash.org/?950581
 26 2012-06-11 01:31:12 <nanotube> heh
 27 2012-06-11 01:40:34 <luke-jr> http://bash.org/?947444
 28 2012-06-11 03:21:17 <wump> BlueMatt: sending a quit to the the qt event loop *does* trigger a Shutdown... it's th eonly way out of the qt event loop
 29 2012-06-11 03:22:02 <wump> it calls shutdown() after the ui has been wound down, on purpose, to prevent issues
 30 2012-06-11 03:27:49 <wump> christ
 31 2012-06-11 03:51:07 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: Diapolo opened pull request 1439 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1439>
 32 2012-06-11 10:36:04 <BlueMatt> wump: yep, figured that out about a minute after I pinged you ;)
 33 2012-06-11 11:58:20 <wump> ok :)\n3710780
 34 2012-06-11 12:57:41 <lukys> Hi, can anyone help me with this error message when starting bitcoin-qt?
 35 2012-06-11 14:03:02 <osxorgate> other than bitcoind, what are my options for analyzing the blockchain? there are several limitations and i wonder how others would work around these
 36 2012-06-11 16:53:26 <Karmaon> Hi, would it be reasonable to use Ruby's BigDecimal class to deal with satoshi arithmic instead of integers?
 37 2012-06-11 16:53:59 <Diablo-D3> no.
 38 2012-06-11 16:55:21 <Karmaon> why
 39 2012-06-11 16:59:04 <BlueMatt> because Diablo-D3 hates everything ruby
 40 2012-06-11 16:59:48 <Karmaon> lol
 41 2012-06-11 17:00:10 <Diablo-D3> Karmaon: because it really is just an integer.
 42 2012-06-11 17:00:13 <Diablo-D3> well, a long long
 43 2012-06-11 17:00:17 <Diablo-D3> but I dont know what the ruby type is for that.
 44 2012-06-11 17:01:41 <Karmaon> its converted into a bignum if it can't fit into a fixnum
 45 2012-06-11 17:04:03 <Diablo-D3> the maximum number is 21 million * 100000000
 46 2012-06-11 17:50:50 <lukys> http://bit.ly/iPFi3X Does anyone know what this means?
 47 2012-06-11 17:52:37 <sipa> what what means?
 48 2012-06-11 17:54:11 <lukys> Oops, I've coped the link from the description.
 49 2012-06-11 17:54:16 <lukys> One moment.
 50 2012-06-11 17:54:27 <lukys> http://pastebin.com/T6bDydH0
 51 2012-06-11 17:54:46 <lukys> That's the one.
 52 2012-06-11 17:56:00 <BlueMatt> means something in your .bitcoin is corrupted
 53 2012-06-11 17:56:41 <lukys> This is a fresh install, by the way.
 54 2012-06-11 17:57:04 <BlueMatt> something in your datadir is corrupted
 55 2012-06-11 17:57:15 <BlueMatt> try moving the database folder (after backing up the whole thing)
 56 2012-06-11 17:57:35 <BlueMatt> if that doesnt work, try doing the same with addr.dat, then blk*
 57 2012-06-11 17:59:01 <lukys> Ah. Moving the directory worked.
 58 2012-06-11 17:59:17 <lukys> I suppose I can safely delete it now and Bitcoin will create a new one?
 59 2012-06-11 17:59:28 <BlueMatt> yea, as long as you didnt lose anything important
 60 2012-06-11 18:00:26 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: sipa: is there a problem with the BIP22 subset supported by bitcoind gmp_bip?
 61 2012-06-11 18:01:32 <luke-jr> while I appreciate the helpful ideas on improving it and welcome further discussion, I don't feel things out of scope to bitcoind need to have any bearing on that pullreq
 62 2012-06-11 18:05:22 <lukys> BlueMatt: There was nothing to lose. I'm a new user of Bitcoin.
 63 2012-06-11 18:05:27 <lukys> Thanks.
 64 2012-06-11 18:24:23 <Cory> I'm running 0.6.2, and as it was updating it briefly reported a balance of 123.456 BTC. Any idea why that happened?
 65 2012-06-11 18:24:41 <kiba> Cory: what do you expect?
 66 2012-06-11 18:27:16 <Cory> It's possible that at one point I had 123.456 BTC in the wallet, but I doubt it. I'm just wondering if it ever reports that amount for any other reason. :)
 67 2012-06-11 18:27:44 <luke-jr> Cory: I think that's the "form design" example, which should be replaced by the real code before it's shown&
 68 2012-06-11 18:29:28 <Cory> Ah, that makes sense. Thanks
 69 2012-06-11 18:34:32 <luke-jr> sipa: dnsseed is using a lot of CPU time
 70 2012-06-11 18:41:50 <Diapolo> Cory: I opened a small pull to change the initial value to 0 BTC, to not confuse users anymore ;).
 71 2012-06-11 18:43:06 <Blitzboom> i have a question
 72 2012-06-11 18:43:26 <Blitzboom> what is a good standard transaction fee?
 73 2012-06-11 18:43:48 <BlueMatt> 100BTC
 74 2012-06-11 18:43:51 <Blitzboom> i mean, up from 0, what is a significant step
 75 2012-06-11 18:44:10 <Blitzboom> that will make it likelier for my coins to go through without bleeding money
 76 2012-06-11 18:44:48 <Blitzboom> BlueMatt: lol, im serious
 77 2012-06-11 18:44:49 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: Diapolo opened pull request 1440 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1440>
 78 2012-06-11 18:45:02 <Blitzboom> i see lots of 0.00050000 and 0.01
 79 2012-06-11 18:45:05 <Diapolo> There seem to be little testnet-nodes online these days!?
 80 2012-06-11 18:45:20 <Blitzboom> does the former make a significant difference compared to 0?
 81 2012-06-11 18:45:31 <BlueMatt> its up to miners ;)
 82 2012-06-11 18:45:46 <Blitzboom> well, im asking for experiences
 83 2012-06-11 18:45:55 <sipa> Blitzboom: some old versions regard anything belong 0.01 as no fee at all; for others it's 0.0005
 84 2012-06-11 18:46:16 <sipa> luke-jr: hmm, no time to hunt the bug right now
 85 2012-06-11 18:46:28 <BlueMatt> aside from the satoshi's minfee to be considered non-free, I dont know that anyone can tell you more
 86 2012-06-11 18:46:38 <sipa> here it's around 25% with 64 crawler threads
 87 2012-06-11 18:48:04 <Blitzboom> then let me ask this way: what do you personally use?
 88 2012-06-11 18:49:45 <Diapolo> Blitzboom: I use what the client suggests ... never thought to raise it.
 89 2012-06-11 18:49:54 <Blitzboom> my client suggests 0
 90 2012-06-11 18:50:00 <Blitzboom> i mean, that was default
 91 2012-06-11 18:50:08 <Blitzboom> do you mean 0.01?
 92 2012-06-11 18:50:10 <TD> which client?
 93 2012-06-11 18:50:11 <sipa> the client will suggest you to use a fee under certain conditions
 94 2012-06-11 18:50:17 <Blitzboom> TD: bitcoin qt 6.2
 95 2012-06-11 18:50:26 <Blitzboom> 0.6.2
 96 2012-06-11 18:50:57 <Cory> Diapolo: I think the client would show 0.00 BTC, not 0 BTC (for your pull).
 97 2012-06-11 18:51:06 <Blitzboom> well, i have a ~1 BTC transaction that hasnt gone through for 4 blocks or so now. i guess the coins are too young (1-2 days)
 98 2012-06-11 18:51:18 <Blitzboom> its a rare occurence
 99 2012-06-11 18:52:40 <Diapolo> Cory: Yes, but the defaults for the other 2 are 0 BTC, too. Doesn't matter, but at least no one thinks hey where are my 123.456 BTC ^^.
100 2012-06-11 18:52:44 <luke-jr> sipa: is there a problem with the BIP22 subset supported by bitcoind gmp_bip?
101 2012-06-11 18:53:19 <Diapolo> Blitzboom: I mean if a transaction is over size I use what it suggests, I don't use a default fee.
102 2012-06-11 18:53:40 <Blitzboom> ok
103 2012-06-11 18:54:06 <sipa> luke-jr: i have no problem with the code changes, but my complaint about BIP22 remains that it is too complex (not necessarily for clients or servers to implement, but even just to understand all interactions and options to know what has to be implemented), and i'd like to see that cleared up before anything is merged
104 2012-06-11 18:54:29 <sipa> luke-jr: some of your remarks are very right though; you can't do without sigop counting
105 2012-06-11 19:02:25 <Blitzboom> well, i dont like coins in limbo
106 2012-06-11 19:02:42 <Blitzboom> hopefully in the future there will be better advice on how to handle it :P
107 2012-06-11 19:02:57 <Blitzboom> could scare away newcomers after all
108 2012-06-11 19:03:03 <Diapolo> there is no THE answer I guess ^^
109 2012-06-11 19:03:07 <luke-jr> sipa: I just don't think it's necessary to hold up bitcoind BIP22 support just because bitcoind maintainers dislike parts they have no relationship with :p
110 2012-06-11 19:03:14 <Diapolo> if he knew he was in the dec channel
111 2012-06-11 19:03:17 <Diapolo> dev
112 2012-06-11 19:03:18 <luke-jr> sipa: (though I still appreciate the reviews and plan to address the parts that need it)
113 2012-06-11 20:00:40 <lukys> How long does "synchronizing with the network" usually take?
114 2012-06-11 20:01:24 <lukys> It was fairly fast at first, now it's been stuck at around 70% for a long time. My internet has been shakey, but it should have made some progress.
115 2012-06-11 20:01:39 <lukys> Second question, will a restart begin the whole thing again?
116 2012-06-11 20:01:48 <BlueMatt> it always does that, and its usually not limited to your internet connection
117 2012-06-11 20:02:00 <Prattler> no, it will continue. If it's stuck, a restart could help
118 2012-06-11 20:02:24 <lukys> Oh right. What are the reasons?
119 2012-06-11 20:02:57 <lukys> Oh, it has moved a fraction of a percent again.
120 2012-06-11 20:03:10 <BlueMatt> you could be downloading from a slow node, restarting could pick a faster node
121 2012-06-11 20:03:26 <dub> its going to take a few days htough
122 2012-06-11 20:03:31 <Prattler> just let it run overnight, don't stare at it :)
123 2012-06-11 20:03:32 <dub> under ideal circumstances
124 2012-06-11 20:03:40 <dub> unlesss you have fast disks
125 2012-06-11 20:03:44 <BlueMatt> download to a tmpfs
126 2012-06-11 20:04:15 <BlueMatt> (assuming you have at least 2g memory+what you need to run your computer)
127 2012-06-11 20:04:19 <lukys> Is this necessary before I make a transaction?
128 2012-06-11 20:04:39 <BlueMatt> yes
129 2012-06-11 20:05:23 <lukys> Ah, and will transactions made before this point wait and still be carried out?
130 2012-06-11 20:05:30 <Prattler> you could use an web wallet service or a lightweight client, but if you're running the official bitcoin client, you need the full download first
131 2012-06-11 20:05:32 <lukys> (sorry for the rapid-fire questions)
132 2012-06-11 20:06:22 <Prattler> clarify the question.. made by whom?
133 2012-06-11 20:07:29 <lukys> I just collected a few millibitcoins from that faucet website.
134 2012-06-11 20:07:36 <lukys> Nothing consequential.
135 2012-06-11 20:07:51 <lukys> They have been sent to my address.
136 2012-06-11 20:08:09 <dub> yes, you will see it when you catch up to the time the transaction was made
137 2012-06-11 20:08:38 <lukys> Ah, excellent. Thank you.
138 2012-06-11 20:08:44 <Prattler> yeah, the transactions are (have been) carried out by the network, you are just not seeing them on your bitcoin client yet
139 2012-06-11 20:08:49 <BlueMatt> you wont see any of your transactions, which you need to send anything, until the chain has synced
140 2012-06-11 20:09:05 <dub> you can technically spend inputs recieved up to the point you have synced to befroe being fully 'caught up' too, if there were any
141 2012-06-11 20:09:45 <Prattler> you can also check your address on http://blockchain.info/ to see if you received the coins
142 2012-06-11 20:09:51 <BlueMatt> you can, but the satoshi client wont right now
143 2012-06-11 20:10:05 <dub> BlueMatt: ? sure it will
144 2012-06-11 20:10:25 <BlueMatt> oh, sorry, misread what you said
145 2012-06-11 20:11:07 <BlueMatt> thought you said you can spend inputs received before having the chain
146 2012-06-11 20:11:32 <BlueMatt> (any of the chain)
147 2012-06-11 21:02:25 <xorgate> suppose i wish to write a program to analyze the blockchain, what options are there besides using bitcoind rpc?
148 2012-06-11 21:05:57 <TuxBlackEdo> berkley database reader, no?
149 2012-06-11 21:07:18 <BlueMatt> bitcointools
150 2012-06-11 21:08:59 <xorgate> thanks i'll give that a try
151 2012-06-11 21:22:59 <xorgate> are we sure that gavin isnt satoshi?
152 2012-06-11 21:27:14 <luke-jr> xorgate: Satoshi is actually Gavin's wife.
153 2012-06-11 21:27:19 <luke-jr> but we try to keep that quiet
154 2012-06-11 21:31:20 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: shhhhhhhh
155 2012-06-11 21:31:20 <Ukto> debating if thats a compliment or not
156 2012-06-11 21:32:48 <xorgate> so im using https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcointools , could it be that it's outdated? getting error trying to access the blockchain but no other process is accessing it
157 2012-06-11 21:35:26 <BlueMatt> its always worked for me...
158 2012-06-11 21:53:11 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: TheBlueMatt opened pull request 1441 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1441>
159 2012-06-11 22:10:26 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: wtf is up with gitian sigs for 0.6.2win32?
160 2012-06-11 22:10:31 <BlueMatt> its only you?
161 2012-06-11 22:17:11 <xorgate> i think this line in the log has something to do with it maybe "Program version 4.8 doesn't match environment version 4.7"... deleting stuff and grabbing new blockchain et al
162 2012-06-11 22:18:11 <BlueMatt> did you recently upgrade bitcoin from 0.3.X?
163 2012-06-11 22:18:36 <xorgate> i don't think it was 0.3.x but it was i think maybe a month ago since i installed, then upgraded a few days ago
164 2012-06-11 22:18:54 <xorgate> didn't use it in the meantime
165 2012-06-11 22:18:59 <BlueMatt> odd...bitcoin hasnt shipped with 4.7 since 0.3.X
166 2012-06-11 22:20:28 <xorgate> was reading https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=81818.0 where someone warns about 'proper' upgrade. Should be safe imo
167 2012-06-11 22:21:27 <BlueMatt> there is no such thing
168 2012-06-11 22:21:27 <xorgate> i do notice that bitcoind.exe always crashes when i kill it
169 2012-06-11 22:29:13 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: nfc, all I know is I built and pushed it
170 2012-06-11 22:29:29 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I presume others at least verified the SHASUM even if they didn't push
171 2012-06-11 22:29:37 <luke-jr> I know I sure didn't upload them to SF
172 2012-06-11 22:30:12 <luke-jr> xorgate: run the old version and shut it down cleanly, then try
173 2012-06-11 22:30:42 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: well that...sucks
174 2012-06-11 22:30:42 <xorgate> luke-jr you mean the version i had before 0.6.2 ?
175 2012-06-11 22:30:54 <luke-jr> xorgate: yes
176 2012-06-11 22:31:06 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: yeah, seems like sometimes our 3-sig policy breaks down :/
177 2012-06-11 22:31:07 <xorgate> it's a nonissue now.. i tossed out the db and redownloading it
178 2012-06-11 22:31:41 <luke-jr> xorgate: you didn't have any bitcoins?
179 2012-06-11 22:31:46 <xorgate> no :)
180 2012-06-11 22:32:02 <xorgate> i'm still figuring things out
181 2012-06-11 22:32:11 <luke-jr> i c
182 2012-06-11 22:32:12 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: well, if I ever get fucking python zipfile on win32 to work right, we will need it to work to get auto-update to work
183 2012-06-11 22:32:34 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: what does python have to do with anything?
184 2012-06-11 22:32:43 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I don't think we should add a dependency on Python just to autoupdate
185 2012-06-11 22:32:45 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: gitian-updater is written in python
186 2012-06-11 22:32:59 <luke-jr> well, maybe someone needs to port it to C++
187 2012-06-11 22:33:01 <BlueMatt> we dont need to
188 2012-06-11 22:33:27 <BlueMatt> you can py2exe and package it up nicely(ish)
189 2012-06-11 22:33:41 <BlueMatt> you do also need gpg though
190 2012-06-11 22:33:44 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: that's just cat python.exe script.py
191 2012-06-11 22:34:00 <luke-jr> GPG is much lighter than Python
192 2012-06-11 22:34:13 <luke-jr> and I'm sure there must be a library version
193 2012-06-11 22:34:28 <BlueMatt> everything on windows is a mess...
194 2012-06-11 22:34:55 <luke-jr> well, at least we can use QHttp
195 2012-06-11 22:34:59 <luke-jr> bitcoind doesn't need it
196 2012-06-11 22:37:53 <BlueMatt> need an unzip library, gpg library, QHttp (or equiv), sha256 library, yaml library, and probably more
197 2012-06-11 22:38:23 <BlueMatt> but since python's zip library is broken, its probably easier to do it that way anyway...
198 2012-06-11 22:39:24 <luke-jr> Bitcoin-Qt has SHA256 already at least
199 2012-06-11 22:39:40 <BlueMatt> yea...
200 2012-06-11 22:40:28 <BlueMatt> come to think of it also already have zlib
201 2012-06-11 22:40:49 <luke-jr> we could use a special binary for autoupgrade I bet
202 2012-06-11 22:41:10 <BlueMatt> then you might as well just py2exe...
203 2012-06-11 22:41:22 <luke-jr> that doesn't follow at all
204 2012-06-11 22:41:39 <BlueMatt> its easier and gets you the same result..
205 2012-06-11 22:41:43 <luke-jr> not at all
206 2012-06-11 22:41:52 <luke-jr> bundling Python makes the actual program bigger
207 2012-06-11 22:42:20 <BlueMatt> by about 3mb...
208 2012-06-11 22:42:22 <luke-jr> also, custom binaries can make it smaller
209 2012-06-11 22:42:36 <BlueMatt> which is small enough that its entirely irrelevant
210 2012-06-11 22:42:58 <luke-jr> um no
211 2012-06-11 22:43:01 <luke-jr> Python is 16 MB
212 2012-06-11 22:43:37 <BlueMatt> and the py2exe of gitian-downloader is 1.4MB with python27.dll 2.3MB
213 2012-06-11 22:43:48 <BlueMatt> + a few other files and you get a zip of 2.9MB
214 2012-06-11 22:45:28 <sipa> and what is the problem with it?
215 2012-06-11 22:45:56 <BlueMatt> the python on win32 unzip library refuses to read files properly
216 2012-06-11 22:46:03 <sipa> ok
217 2012-06-11 23:24:42 <D34TH> whats going on with python?
218 2012-06-11 23:42:06 <D34TH> bluematt why not use zipfile to extract instead of unzip
219 2012-06-11 23:43:19 <D34TH> and now back into seclusion
220 2012-06-11 23:56:05 <BlueMatt> D34TH: because zipfile wasnt working at the time
221 2012-06-11 23:56:15 <BlueMatt> though I got it to work now