1 2012-07-01 00:00:33 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: addnode=6hgmaxwellgpv2oe.onion
  2 2012-07-01 00:00:35 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: jgarzik opened issue 1544 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1544>
  3 2012-07-01 00:00:49 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: gonna be a bit, i don't actually have tor running on that box atm
  4 2012-07-01 00:01:11 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: but thanks, need a test node ;p
  5 2012-07-01 00:01:47 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: did you seriously bruteforce a vanity onion addr? heh
  6 2012-07-01 00:01:57 <jrmithdobbs> or can those be done more easily?
  7 2012-07-01 00:02:12 <gmaxwell> It computationally easier than bitcoin addresses.
  8 2012-07-01 00:02:29 <jrmithdobbs> doable on cpu?
  9 2012-07-01 00:02:38 <gmaxwell> that one took something like 60 cpu days.
 10 2012-07-01 00:02:40 <gmaxwell> IIRC
 11 2012-07-01 00:02:53 <jrmithdobbs> got the code up somewhere? ;p
 12 2012-07-01 00:03:05 <gmaxwell> https://github.com/katmagic/Shallot
 13 2012-07-01 00:04:07 <gmaxwell> you might want to fix a write-past-the-end-of-a-buffer bug in it. It also has some heisenbug when there are more than 24 cores or so. I wasn't easily able to track it down but running it inside gdb made it hide.
 14 2012-07-01 00:04:49 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: i'm only going for 4 chars, don't care position, and not gonna run it on that many cores ;p
 15 2012-07-01 00:06:25 <gmaxwell> yea, thats about instant.. actuall 4 chars pinned to the beginning or end is about instant.
 16 2012-07-01 00:06:46 <gmaxwell> sipa: is your hidden service node down?
 17 2012-07-01 00:07:37 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: leapsecond knock out one of your hosts?
 18 2012-07-01 00:07:47 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: is that what did it? O.o
 19 2012-07-01 00:08:10 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: one of my GPUs died, and now Linux is turning any process touchign the PCI bus into an unkillable zombie
 20 2012-07-01 00:08:27 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: some kernels have a deadlock inserting the leapsecond.
 21 2012-07-01 00:08:34 <gmaxwell> Jun 30 23:59:59 carbide80 kernel: [1168941.330709] Clock: inserting leap second 23:59:60 UTC
 22 2012-07-01 00:08:38 <luke-jr> O.o
 23 2012-07-01 00:09:01 <luke-jr> Freezing of tasks failed after 20.00 seconds (4 tasks refusing to freeze, wq_busy=0):
 24 2012-07-01 00:09:38 <gmaxwell> http://serverfault.com/questions/403732/anyone-else-experiencing-high-rates-of-linux-server-crashes-today
 25 2012-07-01 00:10:33 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: no sign of it in my system
 26 2012-07-01 00:12:32 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: is height in getpeerinfo the starting height or the current one?
 27 2012-07-01 00:12:35 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: don't need any special build options to enable onion/tor/socks?
 28 2012-07-01 00:12:54 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: nope.
 29 2012-07-01 00:13:03 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: just currentish git.
 30 2012-07-01 00:19:03 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1545
 31 2012-07-01 00:19:38 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: I'm glad you're setting up, I want to try getpeerinfo with it and the other nodes are down.
 32 2012-07-01 00:20:53 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: TheBlueMatt opened pull request 1545 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1545>
 33 2012-07-01 00:37:57 <DBordello> so, the qt client doesn't react well to ungraceful gracedown huh :/
 34 2012-07-01 00:38:44 <gmaxwell> DBordello: care to elaborate?
 35 2012-07-01 00:40:39 <DBordello> gmaxwell, http://i.imgur.com/tfkO4.png
 36 2012-07-01 00:41:52 <DBordello> (this stupid computer has a driver problem and won't suspend cleanly)
 37 2012-07-01 00:42:25 <DBordello> and this is after I deleted the entire block chain earlier today
 38 2012-07-01 00:44:06 <gmaxwell> DBordello: yea, I think that happens if the last block referenced in the blockindex is past the end of your blockfile.
 39 2012-07-01 00:44:52 <DBordello> delete 'er all and restart?
 40 2012-07-01 00:45:34 <gmaxwell> DBordello: if you're running 0.7 you can loadblock= instead, but if not... then yes.. delete the blocks file and the databases and restart. (presumably you have a recent wallet backup)
 41 2012-07-01 00:53:52 <DBordello> hmmm, we will try restarting the whole prces
 42 2012-07-01 01:14:15 <Tril> how do i access testnet on master, it tries to go to some testnet3 thing and finds no peers
 43 2012-07-01 01:15:54 <gmaxwell> Tril: Testnet has been replaced with testnet3. You should be finding peers however.
 44 2012-07-01 01:16:30 <gmaxwell> My testnet3 node has 11 peers right now.
 45 2012-07-01 01:21:02 <Tril> gmaxwell: yeah it's working now, not sure what happened. it was in a loop before, trying the same peer repeatedly.
 46 2012-07-01 01:33:43 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: nStartingHeight
 47 2012-07-01 01:34:41 <gmaxwell> yea. I went and looked eventually. I suspect this is going to cause users to spaz out thinking they have peers which are behind on the chain.
 48 2012-07-01 01:35:56 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: I don't think we track that, so the options would be (a) track it, imperfectly or (b) ditch it
 49 2012-07-01 01:36:23 <jgarzik> we just know what they report in 'version', and what they request, AFAICS
 50 2012-07-01 01:36:59 <gmaxwell> or just call it "initialheight" or "startingheight" in the output.
 51 2012-07-01 01:37:10 <gmaxwell> Which is what I thought your patch did initially.
 52 2012-07-01 01:37:57 <jgarzik> true.  I can change it back to startingheight
 53 2012-07-01 01:38:18 <jgarzik> if that will not be just as confusing to users
 54 2012-07-01 01:39:07 <gmaxwell> I think that would have less potential for confusion, and the starting height is at least somewhat useful. (though its more useful in combination with the current height)
 55 2012-07-01 02:04:39 <jgarzik> "services" : "00000000"
 56 2012-07-01 02:04:51 <jgarzik> so bitcoinj does not assert NODE_NETWORK... makes sense
 57 2012-07-01 02:48:43 <midnightmagic> I fail to see why people think underclaiming is so bad when there are thousands of bitcoins completely lost to the void. What, being able to see what happened offends you more than knowing it happened?
 58 2012-07-01 02:50:05 <midnightmagic> If I want to burn my money in my backyard, who gives a !$%@? Welcome to a deflationary currency.
 59 2012-07-01 02:50:08 <midnightmagic> Asshats.
 60 2012-07-01 02:51:08 <galambo> lol
 61 2012-07-01 02:51:17 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: 'people' ?
 62 2012-07-01 02:51:40 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: I think the asshat comment wasn't claiming you were doing wrong just that you were being silly.
 63 2012-07-01 02:52:23 <galambo> jrmithdobbs> midnightmagic: <3
 64 2012-07-01 02:52:24 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: This isn't the first time someone has called me names for underclaiming both the block reward and the tx fees, this is just the first time it's annoyed me in a while. Apologies for ranting, it's not directed at you.
 65 2012-07-01 02:53:54 <galambo> what about the guys that send bitcoins to the address from the genesis block ...
 66 2012-07-01 02:54:01 <midnightmagic> I did see the <3 but the name-calling is unnecessary and just makes me want to actually go through with all the things I've been contemplating the last year or so.
 67 2012-07-01 02:54:50 <midnightmagic> galambo: There's a whole thread on bitcointalk dedicated to verified- and claimed-destroyed bitcoins that are permanently lost.
 68 2012-07-01 02:54:55 <midnightmagic> lemme see if I can dig it up..
 69 2012-07-01 02:56:38 <midnightmagic> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=7253
 70 2012-07-01 02:56:45 <galambo> i have a confession to make i lost about 10 bitcoins forever on the testnet when i got them from the faucet and accidentally wrote over my wallet.dat
 71 2012-07-01 02:58:18 <Joric> good guy galambo
 72 2012-07-01 02:58:44 <midnightmagic> testnet's being reset again anyway
 73 2012-07-01 02:59:26 <D34TH> whats this?
 74 2012-07-01 02:59:31 <D34TH> someone needs testnet coins?
 75 2012-07-01 02:59:33 <D34TH> addr
 76 2012-07-01 03:00:06 <Joric> i usually run testnet-in-a-box for all kinds of tests
 77 2012-07-01 03:00:14 <D34TH> i use -testnet
 78 2012-07-01 03:00:15 <D34TH> D:
 79 2012-07-01 03:00:50 <D34TH> Balance: 1185.58409643
 80 2012-07-01 03:01:50 <freewil> i made this with a Makefile to try to make life easy... https://github.com/freewil/bitcoin-testnet-box
 81 2012-07-01 03:02:45 <galambo> i switched to regular bitcoin for testing because testnet3 is too hard to bootstrap for me
 82 2012-07-01 03:03:06 <galambo> once i have actual tests ill switch back :)
 83 2012-07-01 03:03:38 <galambo> for now the test is (still accepting blocks? yep.)
 84 2012-07-01 03:06:21 <Joric> lol @ http://blockexplorer.com/address/1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE
 85 2012-07-01 03:06:36 <Joric> Received BTC: 0.159
 86 2012-07-01 03:07:36 <osmosis> ya
 87 2012-07-01 03:07:37 <osmosis> ha
 88 2012-07-01 03:08:29 <midnightmagic> lol it would amuse me to NO end if someone actually had a private key for that.. somehow..
 89 2012-07-01 03:08:43 <midnightmagic> although I guess generating a keypair like that would be pretty difficult
 90 2012-07-01 03:13:05 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: certantly you can get a more improbable address if you're willing to expand your definition of improbable.. but in that one the full 160 bits is eaten up by ascii...
 91 2012-07-01 03:13:24 <gmaxwell> er. I mean english.
 92 2012-07-01 03:16:31 <midnightmagic> :-)
 93 2012-07-01 03:16:57 <midnightmagic> running pycryptopp and python-ed25519 benchmarks on my raspberry pi units. this should be fun!
 94 2012-07-01 03:17:58 <galambo> it would amuse me more if satoshi had a private key to 00000000000000000 and a transaction list that collided with the merkle root in the genesis block
 95 2012-07-01 03:18:01 <midnightmagic> i'm pretty sure bitcoind won't run on a raspberry pi anymore.
 96 2012-07-01 03:18:16 <midnightmagic> lol
 97 2012-07-01 03:18:26 <midnightmagic> that would similarly awesome.
 98 2012-07-01 03:19:00 <midnightmagic> what?
 99 2012-07-01 03:19:57 <galambo> im sorry i said that wrong
100 2012-07-01 03:20:32 <galambo> a block that hash ed to 00000000000000
101 2012-07-01 03:20:56 <galambo> and although that probably wouldnt work for some reason i cant think of right now
102 2012-07-01 03:21:15 <midnightmagic> that would tell me sha256 was broken and we should change hash algo
103 2012-07-01 03:21:39 <gmaxwell> galambo: What you're saying makes no sense it wouldn't do anything.
104 2012-07-01 03:22:42 <galambo> i know but people make a big deal about "premined" coins and i thought it was a funny idea
105 2012-07-01 03:25:04 <gmaxwell> People do? huh? in bitcoin?
106 2012-07-01 03:25:36 <galambo> whenever they talk about poorly conceived alt chains
107 2012-07-01 03:30:26 <gmaxwell> ah.
108 2012-07-01 03:31:26 <gmaxwell> I did at one point run into someone on IRC who thought there was some possibility that there existed premined coins in bitcoin, and I think I was unable to shake him from this position.  For a moment I thought you were saying it was more than one guy.
109 2012-07-01 03:45:25 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: some people incorrectly describe the early miners as "preminers", implication being they deliberately took advantage of the early difficulty and hoarded for the long-term
110 2012-07-01 03:47:23 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: which is exactly what some of them did, but..  premining? ponzi scheme? unjust enrichment? sigh. I'm not surprised at all Art never came back, for all the times he had to explain the same thing over and over again.
111 2012-07-01 03:50:21 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: The person I was speaking about wasn't especially technical and just wouldn't accept that it isn't possible for there to exist an unbounded amount of unknown coin.
112 2012-07-01 03:54:12 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: I'm a little surprised we don't get so many of those, these days given the massively growing popularity of btc.
113 2012-07-01 03:55:07 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: for python-ed25519 speed benchmarks, my rpi is slower than a >10 yr old pentium III
114 2012-07-01 03:55:11 <midnightmagic> lol
115 2012-07-01 03:55:25 <midnightmagic> how the hell is it doing full-screen 1080p if that's the case.
116 2012-07-01 08:19:30 <PK> can someone explain me the logic of this? why do I have a negative account value? http://www.pastebin.ca/2165989
117 2012-07-01 08:56:01 <doublec> PK: you sent coins from the default account, "", which put it in negative
118 2012-07-01 08:56:22 <doublec> PK: maybe you used "sendtoaddress" instead of "sendfrom"
119 2012-07-01 08:57:53 <TD> good day
120 2012-07-01 09:02:33 <PK> doublec: yes, I did.
121 2012-07-01 09:04:08 <PK> doublec: if I don't use "sendfrom" is there any way to find out where I sent it from later? I added address with the 50 BTC from "" to "Account 1" after sending the coins.
122 2012-07-01 09:09:28 <PK> doublec: it stored only the fromaccount, not the from address, either I don't understand how bitcoin works or that seems rather flaky
123 2012-07-01 09:09:52 <PK> and goodday TD, welcome to the club of twoletter nicks.
124 2012-07-01 09:38:00 <doublec> PK: I don't generally use the accounts feature
125 2012-07-01 09:38:18 <doublec> PK: it's mainly there for web sites that want to use bitcoind to manage user account balance I believe
126 2012-07-01 09:41:45 <sipa> PK: if you don't use sendfrom, it is always sent from ""; no need to find it out later
127 2012-07-01 09:42:06 <sipa> but note that that has nothing to do with the actual coins selected for transfer
128 2012-07-01 09:42:13 <PK> sipa: yes, but if I move the address into another account, then I have a negative value
129 2012-07-01 09:43:01 <sipa> you'll need to do a move to change the account balance as well
130 2012-07-01 11:50:14 <jrmithdobbs> wow, binary size significantly increased
131 2012-07-01 11:50:33 <jrmithdobbs> compared to .3-ish
132 2012-07-01 11:50:55 <jrmithdobbs> oh nm, forgot to strip and relink the debug info
133 2012-07-01 12:12:55 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: FWIW, if binary size really matters to you, you can carry the debug info in a separate file
134 2012-07-01 12:16:46 <PK> if size matters to you, you should strip.... one of those sentences you should never use out of context.
135 2012-07-01 12:30:51 <jgarzik> interesting
136 2012-07-01 12:31:19 <jgarzik> if two TX's are broadcast to a node at nearly the same time... is bitcoin smart enough to batch those together into a single 'inv', for offering to other nodes?
137 2012-07-01 12:31:28 <jgarzik> I think it might be... checking code in a bit
138 2012-07-01 13:33:40 <none_> getreceivedbyaddress only can access the amount received in a local wallet using the bitcoin api
139 2012-07-01 13:34:05 <none_> how do I get the amount received by someone else's address
140 2012-07-01 13:34:34 <none_> I am looking to do this in a command line way from a web service
141 2012-07-01 13:37:56 <gmaxwell> You can not. The reference software doesn't index other people's addresses.
142 2012-07-01 13:39:38 <luke-jr> heh
143 2012-07-01 13:39:44 <luke-jr> that use never even occurred to me XD
144 2012-07-01 13:49:01 <jine> Jikes, the leap-second really messed things up.
145 2012-07-01 13:49:19 <luke-jr> jine: ?
146 2012-07-01 13:49:23 <jine> We got 80 duplicated deposits in our system.
147 2012-07-01 13:49:36 <luke-jr> ouch
148 2012-07-01 13:49:43 <luke-jr> hopefully on honest accounts?
149 2012-07-01 13:50:04 <jine> First of all, java-applications hung - which cased poolserverj to crash/be really unstable
150 2012-07-01 13:50:07 <jine> A reboot solved that
151 2012-07-01 13:50:36 <jine> Secondly, mysql (or mariadb) hung and took 100% cpu after the leap-second (GMT) - which caused site and pool outages
152 2012-07-01 13:50:39 <jine> A reboot solved that to
153 2012-07-01 13:50:45 <luke-jr> weird
154 2012-07-01 13:50:59 <luke-jr> you'd think software could handle stuff like this, considering NTP might set the clock back occasionally
155 2012-07-01 13:51:19 <jine> Now - 17h later, i got a PM here on IRC with a question why he had such a high balance on his account - It was an old deposit that SOMEHOW got processed 3 times tonight.
156 2012-07-01 13:51:24 <jine> Which left him with 6 BTC in his account.
157 2012-07-01 13:52:08 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: other than at boot ntp will normally just slow the clock if its too fast... not step backwards.  (though the leap second isn't a jump backwards either)
158 2012-07-01 13:52:18 <jine> I have about.. 70-80 deposits tonight, which have been duplicated. Strangly enough - no-one seems to have noticed it until now, cause noone has actually "stolen" anything.
159 2012-07-01 13:52:20 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: it isn't?
160 2012-07-01 13:52:37 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I thought I read that Linux currently just sets the clock back a second at midnight
161 2012-07-01 13:53:03 <TD> leap second handling is a PITA
162 2012-07-01 13:53:16 <TD> it causes so many bugs that at google we simply lengthen seconds leading up to it
163 2012-07-01 13:53:25 <TD> so most software doesn't actually see the leap second at all
164 2012-07-01 13:53:26 <jine> The issue in linux (2.6 and 3.x) is that when ntp tells the kernel there is going to be a leap-second, it could result in a softlock
165 2012-07-01 13:53:37 <gmaxwell> jine: thats not the only issue.
166 2012-07-01 13:53:53 <luke-jr> TD: IIRC that was removed in 2.6.23 or something
167 2012-07-01 13:54:01 <jine> But, that's not the issues I've seen or heard about (except a few cases) - it's mostly... strange issues, such as java and mysql (innodb only?) hangs.
168 2012-07-01 13:54:12 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: yea, lots of debian systems out there with old kernels.
169 2012-07-01 13:54:38 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: not that old!
170 2012-07-01 13:54:41 <jine> Debian squeeze, latest stable, with latest amd64 kernel seems to be affected so
171 2012-07-01 13:54:44 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: hm, seems your right. In any case, ntp normally only steps the clock at bootup. During runtime if you get too fast it slews.
172 2012-07-01 13:54:44 <jine> It's
173 2012-07-01 13:54:46 <jine> Linux pool 2.6.32-5-amd64
174 2012-07-01 13:55:04 <gmaxwell> Debian stable = software from the mid 1920s.
175 2012-07-01 13:55:21 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: Debian stable often has newer versions than Gentoo stable, these days
176 2012-07-01 13:55:46 <jine> The diffrence with debian stable from other dists, is that it's actually IS stable.
177 2012-07-01 13:55:48 <luke-jr> at least for a few months after releases <.<
178 2012-07-01 13:55:56 <luke-jr> jine: yep
179 2012-07-01 13:56:07 <luke-jr> I'm disappointed in the next-stable plans tho
180 2012-07-01 13:56:27 <luke-jr> they're removing OpenVZ support, and apparently removing pure-amd64 (no multilib) support
181 2012-07-01 13:56:59 <jine> Wiho, no more fake, buggy vz hosting!
182 2012-07-01 13:57:04 <jine> Use kvm or xen ffs.
183 2012-07-01 13:57:10 <jine> Or actual bsd jails.
184 2012-07-01 13:57:11 <luke-jr> no, OpenVZ is far better
185 2012-07-01 13:57:21 <jine> I'm not even going to respond to that.
186 2012-07-01 13:57:23 <luke-jr> and not fake
187 2012-07-01 13:57:45 <luke-jr> just because it implements a different (more common) use case doesn't make it fake
188 2012-07-01 13:57:49 <jine> luke-jr: Fake as in companys sells it as "cloud hosting", while it is in fact just a jail.
189 2012-07-01 13:58:02 <luke-jr> jine: complain to said companies
190 2012-07-01 13:58:25 <luke-jr> besides, "cloud hosting" is just marketting speak with no real meaning anyway
191 2012-07-01 14:09:19 <phungus> HyperV really whips the llama's ass!
192 2012-07-01 14:10:12 <phungus> just kidding
193 2012-07-01 14:10:51 <sipa> I certainly hope hyperV doesn't require winamp
194 2012-07-01 14:10:57 <luke-jr> lol
195 2012-07-01 14:12:45 <MC1984> debian not so stable
196 2012-07-01 14:12:51 <MC1984> oh well time for arch
197 2012-07-01 14:24:25 <phungus> hmm
198 2012-07-01 14:24:30 <phungus> my debian squeeze was just fine
199 2012-07-01 14:24:36 <phungus> typing on it now
200 2012-07-01 14:24:47 <phungus> it's just a simple vps though
201 2012-07-01 14:25:18 <brwyatt> My server didn't have issues either.
202 2012-07-01 14:35:49 <luke-jr> so what was the verdict on 0000000000000600498a139cfff8940a434e2351c418f8fd566236535b487ddd ?
203 2012-07-01 14:35:57 <luke-jr> is it really destroying fees? :|
204 2012-07-01 14:37:31 <brwyatt> ?
205 2012-07-01 14:38:42 <luke-jr> EricLombrozo was in here saying the fees added up to more than was claimed
206 2012-07-01 14:39:30 <gmaxwell> appears to.
207 2012-07-01 14:39:43 <gmaxwell> My figuring has 0.1346 in fees.
208 2012-07-01 14:39:49 <luke-jr> hrm
209 2012-07-01 14:39:54 <gmaxwell> it pays out 50.1341.
210 2012-07-01 14:40:05 <luke-jr> is there a way to ask bitcoind? :p
211 2012-07-01 14:40:18 <luke-jr> blockchain.info seems to think 1341 is right :/
212 2012-07-01 14:40:52 <sipa> i guess you can change the fee check from >= to ==, and emit a warning for the > case
213 2012-07-01 14:42:49 <gmaxwell> gettransaction sadly doesn't easily let me see the fees anymore.
214 2012-07-01 14:43:03 <gmaxwell> Otherwise I'd give you the shell oneliner to figure it out.
215 2012-07-01 14:43:22 <luke-jr> Transaction Fees
216 2012-07-01 14:43:37 <luke-jr> http://blockchain.info/block-index/133504/0000000000004c78956f8643262f3622acf22486b120421f893c0553702ba7b5
217 2012-07-01 14:44:03 <gmaxwell> Yea, I try not to use those sites they're all crap.
218 2012-07-01 14:44:14 <luke-jr> sigh
219 2012-07-01 14:44:38 <gmaxwell> "Oh hai, I used "float" for all these bitcoin values"
220 2012-07-01 14:45:11 <luke-jr> I wonder if Inaba has that Eloipool instance running still
221 2012-07-01 14:45:16 <luke-jr> it should have the data to debug
222 2012-07-01 14:45:35 <gmaxwell> in any case, it sounds like it was exactly one fee short.
223 2012-07-01 14:57:13 <sipa> why oh why are the hashNext values written to disk in CDiskBlockIndex entries?
224 2012-07-01 14:58:00 <sipa> they can be derived from hashBestBlock, and removing it simplifies reorg code
225 2012-07-01 14:59:51 <sipa> marketing talk :)
226 2012-07-01 15:00:22 <ersi> s/marketing/idiotic bullshit/
227 2012-07-01 15:00:30 <ersi> It's not the same, dear sir.
228 2012-07-01 15:01:16 <luke-jr> ersi: what's the difference?
229 2012-07-01 15:01:55 <ersi> It's a fine line in between, but it's mostly that it's exceptionally inane
230 2012-07-01 15:03:46 <lianj> TD: well its not that easy to securely use bitcoin for non geeks
231 2012-07-01 15:04:42 <TD> securely, not yet, but they didn't say that :)
232 2012-07-01 15:05:05 <TD> i dislike iPhone users saying bitcoin is hard to use because their chosen device maker forces them to screw about with a web browser
233 2012-07-01 15:05:56 <TD> i did a trade btc for cash in person the other day
234 2012-07-01 15:06:08 <TD> (with the android bitcoin wallet). it was trivial and there were no problems.
235 2012-07-01 15:13:24 <galambo> i think phd is a metaphor for "a lot of patience"
236 2012-07-01 15:13:49 <galambo> pretending that theres no learning curve isnt helpful
237 2012-07-01 15:14:02 <ersi> PhD, also known as 'Pile it Higher and Deeper'
238 2012-07-01 15:15:11 <galambo> ahhaa yeah education is totally shit mate
239 2012-07-01 15:16:44 <TD> there is a learning curve indeed
240 2012-07-01 15:18:38 <copumpkin> I quit mine!
241 2012-07-01 15:26:01 <jgarzik> pooh, TD disappears two seconds before I try to write
242 2012-07-01 15:48:45 <gmaxwell> 09:58  * TD grimaces at the description from the coinbase CEO of "needing a PhD to transfer bitcoins"
243 2012-07-01 15:49:10 <gmaxwell> ^ this kind of half-truth is appealing to investors, so that may be a contributing factor.
244 2012-07-01 15:49:58 <copumpkin> lol
245 2012-07-01 15:50:04 <copumpkin> gmaxwell: do you have one?
246 2012-07-01 15:50:09 <copumpkin> a Ph.D., that is
247 2012-07-01 15:50:14 <sipa> i believe the fact that they got funding for a startup is more beneficial to the bitcoin economy than the fact that they are spreading a half-truth to get it
248 2012-07-01 15:50:47 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: Nope. Though I often feel left out, most of my friends do! :)
249 2012-07-01 15:50:58 <copumpkin> poor thing!
250 2012-07-01 15:51:04 <sipa> gmaxwell: you did publish papers, didn't you?
251 2012-07-01 15:51:21 <copumpkin> sipa: do you?
252 2012-07-01 15:51:21 <gmaxwell> Yes, I've published.
253 2012-07-01 15:51:37 <sipa> copumpkin: yes
254 2012-07-01 15:51:41 <copumpkin> Dr. Sipa
255 2012-07-01 15:53:11 <sipa> :)
256 2012-07-01 15:53:50 <sipa> not sure it was the best thing i did with my time, though
257 2012-07-01 15:54:04 <copumpkin> takes some patience! I wasn't able to :)
258 2012-07-01 15:54:44 <gmaxwell> cool. getpeerinfo works as expected for outbound onions.
259 2012-07-01 15:55:14 <sipa> ah, good
260 2012-07-01 15:55:47 <gmaxwell> sipa: are you running new enough code to have getpeerinfo?  I'm connected to you currently via onion, so you should have an inbound one.
261 2012-07-01 15:56:10 <gmaxwell> I expect it'll show 127.0.0.1 ... not really all that informative. :( perhaps it should also display the us/them fields from the initial handshake.
262 2012-07-01 15:56:38 <sipa> gmaxwell: my vps is running older code now, but i'm quite sure it will show 127.0.0.1
263 2012-07-01 15:57:15 <sipa> indeed stroing and showing the incoming them would be useful
264 2012-07-01 15:58:45 <gmaxwell> I should probably nag tor for mutually authenticated onion<->onion connections... thats what torchat wants, and in order to get it torchat must have access to your onion private keys.
265 2012-07-01 15:59:00 <gmaxwell> Which is kinda lame.
266 2012-07-01 16:39:33 <jgarzik> does testnet3 mint blocks on a regular basis?
267 2012-07-01 16:39:49 <luke-jr> jgarzik: I think only when someone is testing
268 2012-07-01 16:39:51 <jgarzik> testnet2 was running around ~1-2 hours per confirmation
269 2012-07-01 16:39:55 <luke-jr> I did a bunch recently to test refactor_times
270 2012-07-01 16:45:45 <gmaxwell> We should probably merge some only mine at 20minutes code.
271 2012-07-01 16:47:07 <gmaxwell> (or if you just need coins lemme know)
272 2012-07-01 16:48:10 <jgarzik> writing an app (pastecoin v2) which will need testing eventually.  trying to plan.
273 2012-07-01 16:53:04 <gmaxwell> I've been trying to encourage people running bitcoin services to run testnet versions. I don't know if that will be successful.
274 2012-07-01 17:00:15 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I was thinking something along the lines of "consider the pool dead if target isn't diff 1" for BFGMiner
275 2012-07-01 17:01:46 <ersi> jgarzik: pastecoin? that'd be a pastebin? or file host? ;o
276 2012-07-01 17:01:53 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: hm. thats kinda hacky. Also, even if the diff gets down to 1 I'd prefer the background mining only run at the 20 minute mark.
277 2012-07-01 17:02:06 <ersi> I got a testnet instance up, not mining it though.
278 2012-07-01 17:02:13 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: well, I wouldn't want to mine, if someone else is keeping it at higher diff
279 2012-07-01 17:03:02 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: right but if it gets to 1 because no one mined last cycle, you don't want to constantly mine it until 2016 blocks pass.
280 2012-07-01 17:03:28 <luke-jr> true
281 2012-07-01 17:03:34 <gmaxwell> it would be bonkers.. e.g. if I did that on my own farm everytime testnet hit diff 1 I'd spend several hours cranking it directly to diff 4.
282 2012-07-01 17:03:38 <luke-jr> "minimum time between shares"? :p
283 2012-07-01 17:04:32 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: or how about bitcoin just returning the "I'm downloading" error... and make bfgminer back off when it gets that?
284 2012-07-01 17:05:02 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: seems the wrong place to put the logic, but that would work right now
285 2012-07-01 17:05:07 <gmaxwell> e.g. a switch to bitcoind -genslow=1 which makes it only return work when >20 minutes have passed.
286 2012-07-01 17:05:18 <gmaxwell> then make the miner respond gracefully to that case.
287 2012-07-01 17:05:27 <gmaxwell> e.g. don't try to constantly get work.
288 2012-07-01 17:05:36 <jgarzik> ersi: yep, pastecoin is a file host.  you can post files, and pay yourself to host/store them... or the community can pay to a bitcoin address and "keep the file alive"
289 2012-07-01 17:06:39 <luke-jr> jgarzik: what will you do about illegal files?
290 2012-07-01 17:06:43 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: maybe even a parameter like -genslow=40 to make it wait 40 minutes before it tries mining.
291 2012-07-01 17:07:19 <jgarzik> luke-jr: if legal takedown notices are sent, we will comply
292 2012-07-01 17:07:50 <jgarzik> luke-jr: US company, complying with any applicable US laws
293 2012-07-01 17:07:56 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: one thing such a site should do is encrypt everything with the key in the URL ... so you can at least make an argument that its the URL which is the thing which needs to be taken down. (though obviously any such site should comply with applicable laws)
294 2012-07-01 17:08:20 <luke-jr> jgarzik: and hosting payments forfeit? how can someone respond to the takedown to get it back up?
295 2012-07-01 17:08:44 <jgarzik> luke-jr: there would need to be an appeals process, like a youtube etc.
296 2012-07-01 17:09:05 <luke-jr> youtube doesn't take down illegal content :/
297 2012-07-01 17:09:14 <gmaxwell> Should be pretty easy to pretty much automate notice and takedown.
298 2012-07-01 17:09:46 <jgarzik> Youtube takes down content, though they prefer to strike deals where they direct all ad revenue to the music publisher, regardless of uploading party.
299 2012-07-01 17:10:09 <gmaxwell> Youtube's takedown process is bizarre, they are hyperoverreactive to big media companies even when they make bogus claims and pretty unresponsive to claims from small entities. (e.g. they'll only comply strictly with the law, requring them to mail their designated agent)
300 2012-07-01 17:10:11 <jgarzik> That's the norm for "illegal" content on youtube: permit the upload, send money to content owner.
301 2012-07-01 17:10:33 <luke-jr> jgarzik: I didn't mean copyright infringment, I meant criminal
302 2012-07-01 17:10:37 <gmaxwell> Ah. The revenue stream. Interesting.
303 2012-07-01 17:10:57 <luke-jr> some idiots posted instructions on setting up your own botnet using Eligius
304 2012-07-01 17:11:01 <luke-jr> YouTube refuses to take it off
305 2012-07-01 17:11:05 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: like the wallet stealing malware people have promoted on youtube?
306 2012-07-01 17:11:13 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I imagine there's that too
307 2012-07-01 17:11:13 <sipa> luke-jr: why would that be illegal?
308 2012-07-01 17:11:22 <luke-jr> sipa: computer cracking is illegal most places
309 2012-07-01 17:11:29 <jgarzik> Youtube has an internal system where (a) algorithms detect that a new upload is content from artist ABC, or (b) music publishers file claims, claiming that a new upload is their property
310 2012-07-01 17:11:29 <sipa> right
311 2012-07-01 17:11:36 <luke-jr> sipa: it also violates Eligius's ToS
312 2012-07-01 17:11:45 <jgarzik> they might have more, but that's what I knew from ~12 months ago
313 2012-07-01 17:12:34 <jgarzik> luke-jr: if there is a criminal complaint (case number, whatever) from an authority, pastecoin will pursue it
314 2012-07-01 17:12:41 <jgarzik> though I really hope it doesn't come to that...
315 2012-07-01 17:12:54 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: for example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Hws-OruuqE
316 2012-07-01 17:13:08 <luke-jr> jgarzik: seems pretty inevitable for something like that IMO
317 2012-07-01 17:13:38 <jgarzik> hopefully limited in number
318 2012-07-01 17:13:50 <gmaxwell> (I'm not sure if thats the one I looked at before the one I looked at before dorked with the wallet file to give you a fake balance while simultaniously sending your wallet to some compromised hosts. Youtube wouldn't remove it, but reporting the compromised hosts got them taken offline)
319 2012-07-01 17:13:54 <jgarzik> if too much time is wasted dealing with law, there is no time left to code :)
320 2012-07-01 17:14:45 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: did you see the "Anonymous Publishing Is Dead" post on tor-talk? http://cryptome.org/2012/06/anon-pub-dead.htm
321 2012-07-01 17:15:07 <luke-jr> jgarzik: yeah, there's a bunch of vigilantes out there demanding I spend time hunting down botnets abusing Eligius
322 2012-07-01 17:15:21 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: nope. reading...
323 2012-07-01 17:15:55 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: More than just TuxBlackEdo?  (which I can't help but laugh at... considering the source)
324 2012-07-01 17:16:38 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: hosts-file.net is accusing Eligius of malware distribution unless I hunt the botnets down and somehow stop them
325 2012-07-01 17:17:19 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: MyWOT.com as well
326 2012-07-01 17:18:01 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: ... the operator of hosts-file.net is in the UK? man, thats ill advised.
327 2012-07-01 17:18:17 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: not sure where he is
328 2012-07-01 17:18:19 <jgarzik> I thought about trying to find a business model that permit the customer to pay once, and host some content forever.
329 2012-07-01 17:18:21 <gmaxwell> (In the UK you can get a successful defamation claim against someone because they looked at you funny)
330 2012-07-01 17:18:35 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: without paying a bunch to lawyers up front?
331 2012-07-01 17:18:56 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: well, I wasn't suggesting you do that... but it seems to me that someone will eventually.
332 2012-07-01 17:19:16 <luke-jr> if it wasn't expensive, I'd consider it :p
333 2012-07-01 17:19:32 <luke-jr> it's basically blackmail
334 2012-07-01 17:19:40 <gmaxwell> (In particular in the UK the truth of a defamatory claim isn't an automatic defense)
335 2012-07-01 17:19:57 <luke-jr> hah, so you don't need to even argue the facts?
336 2012-07-01 17:20:06 <luke-jr> wow
337 2012-07-01 17:21:21 <jgarzik> also thought about doing a massively distributed storage service, which would use those el-cheap web site accounts as a final backing store.  Just need a cheap layer of caching and indexing servers on top.
338 2012-07-01 17:21:43 <jgarzik> betcha could beat Amazon S3
339 2012-07-01 17:21:54 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: You should also probably talk to zooko as he's spent a lot of time thinking about that.
340 2012-07-01 17:22:11 <gmaxwell> S3 prices are pretty impressively high, but perhaps I don't have a real grasp of the true cost of that business.
341 2012-07-01 17:23:06 <jgarzik> Amazon does a lot of replication internally (so much so there is a cheaper pricing tier with lower reliability advertised), and they offer services such as "FedEx a hard drive, we load it into S3"
342 2012-07-01 17:23:30 <jgarzik> even so, IMO they need competition :)
343 2012-07-01 17:24:05 <freewil> google apparently just launched some cloud service that is supposed to be a competitor
344 2012-07-01 17:24:06 <jgarzik> needs more APIs, too.  Why not a public service that offers iSCSI or NFS or, well, anything but HTTP REST?
345 2012-07-01 17:24:08 <freewil> havnet looked at it yet
346 2012-07-01 17:24:33 <sipa> google drive?
347 2012-07-01 17:24:58 <gmaxwell> iSCSI implementations have really awesome failure modes in the face of packet loss.. but perhaps those would get fixed if things like iSCSI-s3 existed.
348 2012-07-01 17:25:19 <freewil> sipa, http://cloud.google.com/products/compute-engine.html
349 2012-07-01 17:25:30 <jgarzik> Google's EC2 competitor
350 2012-07-01 17:26:11 <gmaxwell> I filled out their request form to get info.. and not even a you're-not-good-enough-for-us autoresponder got back to me.
351 2012-07-01 17:26:49 <gmaxwell> (Mostly I just wanted to know if they had subhour billing ... but I hear from someone they did accept that they don't, and their pricing is the same as te EC2 non-spot pricing. 'meh')
352 2012-07-01 18:09:13 <xorgate> is there any plan to make bitcoin-qt support multiple wallets?
353 2012-07-01 18:09:36 <sipa> yes, but not immediately
354 2012-07-01 18:09:58 <sipa> (internally a lot of work for that is already done)
355 2012-07-01 18:30:18 <xorgate> any multibit devs around perchance?
356 2012-07-01 18:50:56 <Matt_von_Mises> Another question: Why is the protocol version, timestamps and block height in the version message signed? Also where is the version message in the source code?
357 2012-07-01 18:52:30 <sipa> signed?
358 2012-07-01 18:52:32 <gmaxwell> Matt_von_Mises: huh? nothing is _signed_. All messages have checksums, is that what you're refering to?
359 2012-07-01 18:52:58 <Matt_von_Mises> They are signed integers
360 2012-07-01 18:53:03 <sipa> ah :D
361 2012-07-01 18:53:05 <Matt_von_Mises> You know. + or -
362 2012-07-01 18:53:13 <gmaxwell> oh!
363 2012-07-01 18:53:20 <gmaxwell> hah
364 2012-07-01 18:53:25 <sipa> certainly timestamps shouldn't be
365 2012-07-01 18:53:34 <kinlo> should be fairly easy to change them to unsigned ones?
366 2012-07-01 18:53:49 <sipa> for block height and version it shouldn't matter too much
367 2012-07-01 18:53:55 <kinlo> as long as everybody upgrades before 2^31 blocks
368 2012-07-01 18:53:55 <Matt_von_Mises> I see no reason whatsoever why any of them should be signed.
369 2012-07-01 18:54:10 <sipa> Legacy.
370 2012-07-01 18:54:46 <Matt_von_Mises> I'm mainly wondering why it was chosen to be that way. I assume it was a mistake then.
371 2012-07-01 18:54:49 <sipa> satoshi didn't pay too much attention to these things, unfortunately
372 2012-07-01 18:55:00 <sipa> "int" is shorter to type than "unsigned int"
373 2012-07-01 18:55:28 <sipa> in many place where it matters the signedness has since been corrected, but certainly not everywhere
374 2012-07-01 18:56:07 <galambo> its a massive system and he was just one guy give  him a break ;)
375 2012-07-01 18:56:21 <Matt_von_Mises> The timestamps will eventually need to be 64 bits. Signed 32 bit integers help but not forever.
376 2012-07-01 18:57:10 <Matt_von_Mises> It seems Satoshi just released bitcoin a little bit early. Oh well. It still works.
377 2012-07-01 18:57:11 <galambo> based on lines of code this project would take one person 70 months to code
378 2012-07-01 18:57:38 <sipa> not really a problem; the serialized versions can remain 32 bits; it's easy enough to guess the upper 32 bits
379 2012-07-01 18:58:05 <gmaxwell> fortunately the p2p protocol isn't that big a deal to change.
380 2012-07-01 18:58:25 <sipa> right, but timestamps are in block headers
381 2012-07-01 18:58:47 <gmaxwell> sure but as you point out, it's easy to figure out the right upper bits.
382 2012-07-01 18:59:15 <gmaxwell> we can worry about that in 2030 if bitcoin is still around. ;)
383 2012-07-01 18:59:44 <Matt_von_Mises> When an overflow occurs the next block would have a lower time than the previous so when that occurs you could just add to the first 32 bits.
384 2012-07-01 18:59:45 <sipa> and there hasn't been a hard fork in that time which Fixed Everything(R)
385 2012-07-01 18:59:47 <galambo> you can change the block storage with etotheipi's proposal to map unspent CTxOut
386 2012-07-01 19:00:26 <gmaxwell> galambo: changing the block header format is a harder change that most things.
387 2012-07-01 19:00:27 <galambo> i think it provides a good method to say which storage you should check
388 2012-07-01 19:00:43 <galambo> keep the old blk.dat and the new file
389 2012-07-01 19:00:56 <sipa> galambo: we're working on changing block storage
390 2012-07-01 19:01:54 <Matt_von_Mises> Do people agree that you could just detect overflows when going through the block chain?
391 2012-07-01 19:02:23 <galambo> you can
392 2012-07-01 19:02:38 <galambo> just like they do in regular accounting systems
393 2012-07-01 19:02:47 <sipa> galambo: eto's proposal does several things: 1) changing storage 2) keeping an address-to-tx index 3) committing a hash of the open tx set tree to the block chain
394 2012-07-01 19:03:03 <galambo> add everything up and check that the balance is zero
395 2012-07-01 19:04:41 <sipa> galambo: i'm working on (1) in bitcoind; (3) will be useful one day for lighter nodes; (2) is useful for certain purposes but can nicely be done in an alt chain
396 2012-07-01 19:07:03 <galambo> well i dont think it changes storage but it would allow for changes in storage for people that don't want you refactoring their blockchain. you'd have a key-value pair for each unspent txn that identifies which store to pull the transaction from.
397 2012-07-01 19:07:56 <sipa> what i'm doing right now is store the txout set in a very compact form that doesn't even keep the transactions themselves around
398 2012-07-01 19:08:09 <sipa> which is sufficient for validating the blockchain
399 2012-07-01 19:08:13 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: i'm beating up on ipv6 and here in a few on onion stuff on my weird network setup, not found any issues yet other than ipv6 being slower to sync when encap'ed as many times as that vpn is ;p
400 2012-07-01 19:08:52 <sipa> galambo: but is not enough for rescanning, reorganising or serving blocks
401 2012-07-01 19:09:24 <sipa> galambo: but those can be limited to only recent blocks, so you keep the full blocks around as well, but only recent ones
402 2012-07-01 19:09:29 <sipa> jrmithdobbs: :)
403 2012-07-01 19:09:32 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: completed a complete block sync via v6 on a node with no ip4
404 2012-07-01 19:09:38 <jrmithdobbs> err blockchain
405 2012-07-01 19:10:50 <sipa> nice!
406 2012-07-01 19:11:10 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: btw, re: new wallet format you're working on, it's not going to have any extra files/env like bdb right so we'll be able to have it stored completely separate now?
407 2012-07-01 19:12:12 <galambo> sipa its nice to see that someones actually working on it
408 2012-07-01 19:12:31 <sipa> jrmithdobbs: that's the plan, but i'm working on other things first now
409 2012-07-01 19:13:21 <sipa> galambo: to get an idea: the full txout set serialized takes around 65 MiB in storage
410 2012-07-01 19:13:40 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: damn, would fix how slow this box syncs :( (aes128xts fde -> blockchain+wallet in aes256ctr disk image)
411 2012-07-01 19:13:43 <jrmithdobbs> ;p
412 2012-07-01 19:13:56 <galambo> yeah i remember you talking about having it to that level before etotheipi even posted his thread
413 2012-07-01 19:13:57 <sipa> in a database it will likely be close to twice as much
414 2012-07-01 19:14:17 <galambo> so i shouldnt call it "his" proposal
415 2012-07-01 19:14:38 <sipa> he wasn't aware of what i was working on at the time
416 2012-07-01 19:14:50 <sipa> but the idea of keeping an open txout set is much much older
417 2012-07-01 19:14:57 <galambo> yeah
418 2012-07-01 19:15:11 <gmaxwell> galambo: all this stuff except for the the idea of just indexing by address (which was shown to be unworkable for validation) isn't original to him, it's been discussed in varrious forms for over a year. Evidence that it's a good idea: people keep independantly inventing it.
419 2012-07-01 19:15:40 <sipa> he doesn't claim to have invented it either :)
420 2012-07-01 19:15:44 <jrmithdobbs> we talking pruning methods i'm assuming
421 2012-07-01 19:15:52 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: no, not .. quite.
422 2012-07-01 19:15:55 <sipa> it's a combination of a few ideas
423 2012-07-01 19:16:05 <gmaxwell> I mean, what sipa is doing is more like straight pruning.
424 2012-07-01 19:16:16 <galambo> someone needs to figure out a safe way to update it over the network
425 2012-07-01 19:16:23 <sipa> upgrade?
426 2012-07-01 19:16:24 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: there is now this elegant idea that it's possible to have ~all nodes be fully pruned without breaking the security model.