1 2012-09-08 00:00:23 <jrmithdobbs> stupid think find the right bdb goddamn it, w/e, i need to step away from this i'm missing something stupid at this point, everything's built just not linked ;p
2 2012-09-08 00:03:10 <Luke-Jr> I think it still does link some things statically?
3 2012-09-08 00:04:33 <gmaxwell> I dunno about qt but I don't think anything is on my systems for bitcoind.
4 2012-09-08 00:08:52 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: not for bitcoind at least it doesnt
5 2012-09-08 00:09:16 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: there's still an option to (STATIC=1 enables old behaviour, STATIC=all tries to do everything statically)
6 2012-09-08 00:09:48 <jrmithdobbs> well, if STATIC is defined and isn't all it enables old behaviour
7 2012-09-08 00:12:00 <jrmithdobbs> aha! it's because the openbsd db4 port installs the libs directly in /usr/local/lib even though the headers are /usr/local/include/db4 ... so it's finding the wrong bdb since boost is also in /usr/local/lib, I think re-ordering the -L's for boost/bdb will fix
8 2012-09-08 00:13:14 <jrmithdobbs> hmmmm nope
9 2012-09-08 00:36:28 <jrmithdobbs> fine, i'll give in and build 5.x because apparently even not specifying -L/usr/local/lib (boost link path) until after the -l db_cxx doesn't change gcc's behaviour
10 2012-09-08 00:36:44 <jrmithdobbs> that is annoying.
11 2012-09-08 00:43:20 <jrmithdobbs> oh christ, it's more stupid than i thought, apparently ./configure --prefix= isn't enough to get bdb to build the c++ bindings, lol
12 2012-09-08 00:53:16 <jrmithdobbs> tests building nw
13 2012-09-08 00:53:17 <jrmithdobbs> now
14 2012-09-08 01:00:18 <jrmithdobbs> ok, bitcoind and test_bitcoin are building now, lets see if test_bitcoin succeeds
15 2012-09-08 01:01:21 <jrmithdobbs> hrm, bitcoind -printtoconsole; will run (with bitcoin.conf setup right with the password and standard stuff) but ./test_bitcoin thows this:
16 2012-09-08 01:01:24 <jrmithdobbs> LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/opt/OpenBSD/5.1/amd64/db4-4.8.30/lib ./test_bitcoin
17 2012-09-08 01:01:27 <jrmithdobbs> Test setup error: system_error produced by: ::sigaltstack( &sigstk, 0 ) != -1: Invalid argument
18 2012-09-08 01:09:31 <jrmithdobbs> does rpc not start listening until after IBD now?
19 2012-09-08 01:09:40 <jrmithdobbs> cause it's downloading the block chain but can't getinfo
20 2012-09-08 01:09:52 <jrmithdobbs> and netstat doesn't think the normal ports be open
21 2012-09-08 01:10:32 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: rpc should respond, ... sounds like some thread is wedged.
22 2012-09-08 01:12:18 <jrmithdobbs> i'll see where it's at once i can actually read the log after the IBD, it *looks* like it's kinda working sans rpc atm though
23 2012-09-08 01:12:53 <jrmithdobbs> and it's already halfway through 2011 on IBD (e3 2650 ;p)
24 2012-09-08 01:14:20 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: bitcoind doesn't need an explicit rpcbind= right? it defaults to 127.0.0.1 that's just the gui isn't it?
25 2012-09-08 01:16:00 <jrmithdobbs> oh i think I know, just found a regression
26 2012-09-08 01:16:03 <jrmithdobbs> i think
27 2012-09-08 01:16:52 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: I think enabling ipv6 changed behaviour of default value of rpcbind ... looking at my debian host it's only binding to 8332 on :: not v4 any more and I don't have an explicit rpcbind= on commandline *or* in bitcoin.conf
28 2012-09-08 01:17:24 <jrmithdobbs> (and this openbsd box doesn't have v6 configured but the stack isn't disabled)
29 2012-09-08 01:19:18 <jrmithdobbs> also, nice, i think this box is going to hit the satoshidice hellpoint in <30 minutes over the internet
30 2012-09-08 01:19:24 <jrmithdobbs> heh
31 2012-09-08 01:19:55 <jrmithdobbs> (.7 node <-> .7 node)
32 2012-09-08 01:22:31 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: I don't think the thread naming is working on openbsd
33 2012-09-08 01:23:10 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: will know more after IBD
34 2012-09-08 01:23:10 <Luke-Jr> [23:10:15] <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: as long as that string is null terminated it'll work
35 2012-09-08 01:23:16 <Luke-Jr> :p
36 2012-09-08 01:23:29 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: ya, i'm not sure cause, from what I can tell there's only one thread running ;p
37 2012-09-08 01:23:37 <Luke-Jr> O.o
38 2012-09-08 01:24:07 <jrmithdobbs> it's almost to the first satoshidice block of death
39 2012-09-08 01:24:51 <jrmithdobbs> ~height=165085
40 2012-09-08 01:29:13 <jrmithdobbs> weird, it got to height=171000 and then paused for like 10 min
41 2012-09-08 01:30:03 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: lost the connection?
42 2012-09-08 01:30:44 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: it changed peers it was seeding from it seems ya, not sure why it disconnected though it was seeding off my own node
43 2012-09-08 01:30:51 <jrmithdobbs> restarted and picked back up
44 2012-09-08 01:31:04 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: anything helpful in the logs of your node?
45 2012-09-08 01:31:08 <jrmithdobbs> but ya, with a *good* seeding peer IBD is millions times faster now
46 2012-09-08 01:31:10 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: i'm looking
47 2012-09-08 01:31:26 <jrmithdobbs> i think it's also on a slightly-pre-rc1 build
48 2012-09-08 01:32:32 <jrmithdobbs> ya there's a disconnecting node, weird
49 2012-09-08 01:33:24 <gmaxwell> thats .. not good.
50 2012-09-08 01:33:47 <jrmithdobbs> also, i think i just found another ipv6 problem
51 2012-09-08 01:34:00 <jrmithdobbs> we're propigating link-local addresses
52 2012-09-08 01:34:29 <jrmithdobbs> 2012-09-08_03:30:08.05046 accepted connection MYHOMEIP:55685
53 2012-09-08 01:34:32 <jrmithdobbs> 2012-09-08_03:30:08.05048 receive version message: version 60002, blocks=171192, us=69.41.162.72:8333, them=[fe80:1::92e2:baff:fe0c:419c]:8333, peer=MYHOMEIP:55685
54 2012-09-08 01:34:35 <jrmithdobbs> 2012-09-08_03:30:08.05049 received getdata for: tx 4873458733393e71e3c7
55 2012-09-08 01:43:27 <tcatm> I'm going to shut down the blockchain mirror soon.
56 2012-09-08 01:45:48 <jrmithdobbs> tcatm: ?
57 2012-09-08 01:46:14 <tcatm> http://eu1.bitcoincharts.com/blockchain/
58 2012-09-08 01:46:42 <jrmithdobbs> tcatm: why?
59 2012-09-08 01:47:09 <tcatm> The whole server will be shut down and I have to plans to migrate that service.
60 2012-09-08 01:47:41 <tcatm> Also, recent clients seem fast enough to download the chain on their own.
61 2012-09-08 01:48:20 <jrmithdobbs> tcatm: only if you get lucky and hit a good upgraded peer for the initial download
62 2012-09-08 01:48:23 <jrmithdobbs> very lucky
63 2012-09-08 01:48:42 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: so lets fix that. :P
64 2012-09-08 01:48:59 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: i agree, but how do you make people upgrade? ;p
65 2012-09-08 01:49:38 <tcatm> People who don't upgrade probably have the chain already ;)
66 2012-09-08 01:49:48 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: so, so far what i can tell is on openbsd it's never binding to anything at all and it's broadcast it's address an ipv6 ll one to the peers it connects to
67 2012-09-08 01:49:51 <jrmithdobbs> heh
68 2012-09-08 01:49:56 <jrmithdobbs> that should be interesting to track down
69 2012-09-08 01:50:44 <jrmithdobbs> even with -bind= and -rpcbind=
70 2012-09-08 01:51:05 <jrmithdobbs> also, damn, fuck satoshi dice
71 2012-09-08 01:51:21 <jrmithdobbs> that starts crawling the moment it gets to june this year
72 2012-09-08 01:51:54 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: fortunately ultraprune + leveldb make a big improvement.
73 2012-09-08 01:52:15 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: leveldb is slotted for .8 right?
74 2012-09-08 01:52:43 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: and is everything getting taken out of bdb or just some? (because if bdb is gone .8 can have an openbsd port ;p)
75 2012-09-08 01:53:06 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: we'll need it for wallet compatiblity.
76 2012-09-08 01:53:30 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: well, downgrading isn't possible anyway, right?
77 2012-09-08 01:53:48 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: could be a build time option to not have though, couldn't it? for completely new clients that don't need old wallet compat
78 2012-09-08 01:53:49 <Luke-Jr> maybe just an extra binary that does the upgrade once..
79 2012-09-08 01:54:07 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: not a bad idea
80 2012-09-08 01:54:11 <Luke-Jr> or does LevelDB require -upgradewallet?
81 2012-09-08 01:54:33 <gmaxwell> walletconverter.exe enh? Well we also don't have the new wallet yet. Using the existing wallet code with leveldb is probably not a path we really should go down.
82 2012-09-08 01:54:49 <Luke-Jr> speaking of wallet, that's slated to use an append-only custom format that isn't done yet..
83 2012-09-08 01:55:08 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: fair enough, openbsd port may just have to wait for .9/.10/1.0 ;p
84 2012-09-08 01:55:52 <Luke-Jr> why not .11? <.<
85 2012-09-08 01:56:01 <Luke-Jr> ACTION wonders if we're really that close to 1.0 yet
86 2012-09-08 01:56:10 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: i just meant whatever comes after .9 by that, heh
87 2012-09-08 01:56:38 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: you saw that coverage report? ... we're not close to 1.0 :P
88 2012-09-08 01:57:37 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: well, 1.0 doesn't usually mean bug-free; just complete basic features
89 2012-09-08 01:58:26 <jrmithdobbs> i definitely think new wallet rework should happen before anything gets called 1.0
90 2012-09-08 01:58:28 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: testing coverage doesn't mean bug free either??? I think 1.0 also implies a basic level of stability, every change doesn't break something else.
91 2012-09-08 01:58:33 <Luke-Jr> jrmithdobbs: I'm sure it will
92 2012-09-08 01:58:44 <gmaxwell> And it's awful hard to actually have that if you can't even easily run through all the code.
93 2012-09-08 01:59:05 <jrmithdobbs> i need to start taking notes about these issues so i don't forget
94 2012-09-08 01:59:22 <Luke-Jr> ACTION is just idly pondering, nothing noteworthy :p
95 2012-09-08 02:00:19 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: oh hey, while I remember, were you going to do anything about the nextorder being left uninitilized?
96 2012-09-08 02:00:31 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: oh right <.<
97 2012-09-08 02:00:50 <Luke-Jr> I have to actually look at it and figure out what it does again, been so long since I did anything but rebase that
98 2012-09-08 02:00:55 <jrmithdobbs> seriously, fuck satoshi dice, the last 3 months take longer than the entirety of the rest of the chain, haha
99 2012-09-08 02:00:59 <gmaxwell> I didn't push the patch I have it because I thought you might have made other mistakes in that class that I missed, and that you should probably look too.
100 2012-09-08 02:03:38 <Luke-Jr> walletdb.cpp:135,136 <-- wtf was I thinking? >_<
101 2012-09-08 02:03:46 <Luke-Jr> int64& nOrderPosNext = pwallet->nOrderPosNext;
102 2012-09-08 02:03:48 <Luke-Jr> nOrderPosNext = 0;
103 2012-09-08 02:03:49 <Luke-Jr> oh
104 2012-09-08 02:03:52 <Luke-Jr> I see, nm
105 2012-09-08 02:04:08 <Luke-Jr> ACTION ponders if he can make his editor bold the & or something
106 2012-09-08 02:05:18 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: I concur just initializing it to 0 sounds good
107 2012-09-08 02:05:34 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: want me to cook up the pullreq?
108 2012-09-08 02:06:04 <jgarzik> to satoshi, I think 1.0 included SPV
109 2012-09-08 02:06:41 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: aha, that makes good sense
110 2012-09-08 02:07:13 <Luke-Jr> actually, do C++ member variables really not get implicitly initialized when created?
111 2012-09-08 02:07:22 <Luke-Jr> there's a lot of those on CWallet already
112 2012-09-08 02:08:33 <Luke-Jr> but I suppose those are objects - seems odd to treat them differently by type though
113 2012-09-08 02:08:39 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: sure, just make sure you check that you don't need to do the same for the timestamps, etc.
114 2012-09-08 02:10:02 <jrmithdobbs> weee up to 192300
115 2012-09-08 02:10:11 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: (also, now I forget if that variable had/needed seralization; sorry, I looked at this while on the plane and didn't take notes beyond what I /msged you)
116 2012-09-08 02:11:05 <jrmithdobbs> i will never understand how people can actually be productive on planes
117 2012-09-08 02:11:20 <jrmithdobbs> although, i learned some interesting stuff watching a dell vp's laptop on the last flight, lol
118 2012-09-08 02:11:26 <jrmithdobbs> (he should be fired)
119 2012-09-08 02:12:16 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: the most awesome time I had on a flight was where I was sitting next to someone who worked for the competition??? though I'm pretty sure he didn't know I knew??? and he kept gawking and gawking.
120 2012-09-08 02:12:28 <gmaxwell> So I fired up impress and started making slides for fantastic imaginary products.
121 2012-09-08 02:12:28 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: crap, I think you're right on that too
122 2012-09-08 02:12:36 <jgarzik> hehehe
123 2012-09-08 02:12:37 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: lol
124 2012-09-08 02:12:58 <gmaxwell> I never got validation that he reported back with them... but I like to think he did. :)
125 2012-09-08 02:13:01 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: this dude was not only writing up emails (no wifi on flight either) but had a stack of printed emails
126 2012-09-08 02:13:21 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: if by competition you mean who I think you do, he did
127 2012-09-08 02:13:26 <jrmithdobbs> that company is evil internally
128 2012-09-08 02:13:41 <jgarzik> that's always a facepalm moment. the wife and I always talk about how many US legislators correspond via email using a printer + dictation to a secretary
129 2012-09-08 02:13:46 <jgarzik> sad
130 2012-09-08 02:14:19 <jgarzik> a lot of US judges are still stuck in the "print out my email" era of Internet
131 2012-09-08 02:14:47 <jrmithdobbs> ya, until i actually started taking flights in the last couple years i thought that era was a myth
132 2012-09-08 02:15:10 <jrmithdobbs> and when i realized it not only wasn't a myth, but still occurring ..... i just have no words
133 2012-09-08 02:15:59 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: yes.
134 2012-09-08 02:16:24 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: ya, you can be sure he did
135 2012-09-08 02:17:06 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: especially if the flight was from or to RTP
136 2012-09-08 02:19:17 <gmaxwell> It was probably a CLT / SJC flight, but it was a long time back so I really don't know.
137 2012-09-08 02:20:33 <jrmithdobbs> this gets really really really slow around height=194000
138 2012-09-08 02:20:39 <jrmithdobbs> using -connect=
139 2012-09-08 02:21:33 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: well the highest checkpoint is at 193000
140 2012-09-08 02:22:06 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: that explains it
141 2012-09-08 02:26:02 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: ok, I suck. why does it seem like CWalletDB is not allowed to access CWallet? :/
142 2012-09-08 02:27:03 <stamit> hello. i just came so that i can get banned from this channel too
143 2012-09-08 02:27:10 <Luke-Jr> ???
144 2012-09-08 02:27:17 <stamit> what i'd like to say is that gmaxwell is a prick
145 2012-09-08 02:27:30 <jrmithdobbs> well aren't you cute
146 2012-09-08 02:27:53 <stamit> and that paypal people deserve to be mugged
147 2012-09-08 02:28:37 <stamit> perhaps gmaxwell should also be castrated, because of his helping with the internet tradition that says i am to be treated like shit
148 2012-09-08 02:28:51 <stamit> which has been happening for a lot of time now
149 2012-09-08 02:29:06 <Luke-Jr> stamit: adults are trying to get things done, so stfu k?
150 2012-09-08 02:29:22 <Luke-Jr> ;)
151 2012-09-08 02:29:28 <stamit> i'm a total adult, like 10 years over the age of 18
152 2012-09-08 02:29:53 <stamit> but i decide to act like a kid, because i don't feel like being an adult with some people
153 2012-09-08 02:30:24 <stamit> such as gmaxwell
154 2012-09-08 02:30:34 <Luke-Jr> that's your problem
155 2012-09-08 02:30:51 <stamit> oh no, it's gmaxwells
156 2012-09-08 02:31:06 <stamit> sorry, "actually, it's yours"
157 2012-09-08 02:31:38 <LolcustBackup> just say no to drugs, stamit
158 2012-09-08 02:31:54 <stamit> i think people like gmaxwell should visit some kind of mental health professional, or just anyone who will be in the position of putting them in their place
159 2012-09-08 02:32:05 <stamit> gmaxwell should get some drugs
160 2012-09-08 02:32:46 <LolcustBackup> did he gently caress your gf, stamit ?
161 2012-09-08 02:32:49 <jrmithdobbs> LolcustBackup: we don't just say no, we're too busy saying YA to drinkin straight out the eight bottle ... do I look like a motherfuckin role model? To any kids looking up to me: life aint nothin but bitches and money
162 2012-09-08 02:32:57 <jrmithdobbs> i have got to stop listening to that album on repeat
163 2012-09-08 02:33:06 <LolcustBackup> =))
164 2012-09-08 02:33:21 <stamit> he didn't gently caress my gf, since i have no gf
165 2012-09-08 02:33:35 <stamit> he just went with the people who make sure i have no gf
166 2012-09-08 02:34:07 <jrmithdobbs> also, adding punctionation to nwa lyrics makes me feel dirty for some reason
167 2012-09-08 02:34:17 <jrmithdobbs> discuss.
168 2012-09-08 02:34:45 <LolcustBackup> I think that stamit's extended loneliness is a more viable topic
169 2012-09-08 02:35:06 <stamit> discuss gmaxwells prickness. why isn't he banned a few times, so he can see how it is?
170 2012-09-08 02:35:21 <stamit> like a total "no please please don't!" situation
171 2012-09-08 02:35:39 <stamit> the problem is he'd be fine with it. like laughing and seeing it as fun
172 2012-09-08 02:36:43 <stamit> any women in -dev, btw?
173 2012-09-08 02:37:09 <stamit> i bet here it's not 95%, but more like 99.9%
174 2012-09-08 02:38:12 <LolcustBackup> I didn't know a person could get that butthurt over a ban
175 2012-09-08 02:38:40 <stamit> some people are watching
176 2012-09-08 02:38:50 <stamit> and smiling at this, and at me
177 2012-09-08 02:39:12 <stamit> it's my career as a "troll". this is how trolls work
178 2012-09-08 02:39:28 <copumpkin> stamit: this is crazy
179 2012-09-08 02:39:29 <copumpkin> oh good
180 2012-09-08 02:40:15 <stamit> github.com/stamit/food
181 2012-09-08 02:40:29 <jrmithdobbs> stamit: that was for disgracing the troll label
182 2012-09-08 02:40:32 <jgarzik> stamit: this channel is for bitcoin development discussion
183 2012-09-08 02:41:40 <stamit> jrmithdobbs: "disgracing the troll label"? you are saying i am not fit to be called a troll?
184 2012-09-08 02:41:46 <jrmithdobbs> indeed
185 2012-09-08 02:41:57 <copumpkin> trolling is a art, you know
186 2012-09-08 02:42:08 <stamit> oh my, how disenfranchising
187 2012-09-08 02:42:17 <copumpkin> this is the channel for development, and that form of art is not appreciated in here
188 2012-09-08 02:42:36 <stamit> speaking of development, anyone doing any PHP?
189 2012-09-08 02:42:45 <copumpkin> nah, I only do haskell :(
190 2012-09-08 02:42:54 <stamit> haskell isn't bad
191 2012-09-08 02:42:59 <copumpkin> oh I love it
192 2012-09-08 02:43:48 <stamit> i used to like it too, but i haven't done much with it
193 2012-09-08 02:44:03 <stamit> very nice language, but maybe not super-fast like C++
194 2012-09-08 02:44:16 <copumpkin> you should pick it up again :) it'll give you something to do other than harass gmaxwell in unrelated channels :P
195 2012-09-08 02:44:16 <stamit> i downloaded the GHC but haven't used it much
196 2012-09-08 02:44:22 <copumpkin> it can be pretty fast
197 2012-09-08 02:44:35 <copumpkin> and there's a bitcoin implementation in development by roconnor in haskell
198 2012-09-08 02:44:39 <copumpkin> pure haskell from scratch!
199 2012-09-08 02:44:49 <copumpkin> I have one too, but mine is in way worse shape than his
200 2012-09-08 02:45:48 <Luke-Jr> copumpkin: is roconnor's public anywhere?
201 2012-09-08 02:45:52 <copumpkin> yeah
202 2012-09-08 02:45:57 <copumpkin> darcs get r6.ca/Purecoin
203 2012-09-08 02:46:02 <copumpkin> oh wait, maybe uppercase C
204 2012-09-08 02:46:10 <copumpkin> nah, I guess lowercase
205 2012-09-08 02:46:16 <copumpkin> but you need darcs to get it
206 2012-09-08 02:46:30 <copumpkin> I can put a copy of the repo up somewhere if you don't want to bother with darcs
207 2012-09-08 02:47:22 <copumpkin> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/361503/Purecoin.zip
208 2012-09-08 02:47:42 <Luke-Jr> I have darcs
209 2012-09-08 02:47:47 <copumpkin> ok :)
210 2012-09-08 02:48:02 <copumpkin> well, my zip file is for everyone else's benefit then!
211 2012-09-08 02:48:22 <Luke-Jr> I asked because someone PM'd me on Gitorious about starting a Haskell impl
212 2012-09-08 02:48:29 <Luke-Jr> so I wanted to tell them about roconnor's
213 2012-09-08 02:48:34 <copumpkin> aha
214 2012-09-08 02:58:55 <sipa> jrmithdobbs: you running ultraprune?
215 2012-09-08 02:59:16 <jrmithdobbs> huh? not afaik
216 2012-09-08 02:59:37 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: why?
217 2012-09-08 02:59:58 <sipa> because you said it's so much faster
218 2012-09-08 03:00:02 <jrmithdobbs> no i think it was donated by woz
219 2012-09-08 03:00:11 <sipa> ?
220 2012-09-08 03:00:12 <jrmithdobbs> errr wrong chan
221 2012-09-08 03:01:44 <jrmithdobbs> welp, just had a full successful from scratch blockchain download on openbsd
222 2012-09-08 03:01:47 <jrmithdobbs> progress
223 2012-09-08 03:02:00 <jrmithdobbs> now to figure out why it's not bind()ing to anything
224 2012-09-08 03:02:14 <jrmithdobbs> and transmitting an ipv6 ll address as it's peer addr
225 2012-09-08 03:02:25 <jrmithdobbs> (machine doesn't even have working v6)
226 2012-09-08 03:03:38 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: did you see those two things about v6 btw? the one i just mentioned and the fact that it seems on dual stack hosts it changes the default value of rpcbind= when it's not specified?
227 2012-09-08 03:03:58 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: it binds to :: but not v4 at all
228 2012-09-08 03:04:58 <Dagger2> jrmithdobbs: on Linux with net.ipv6.bindv6only = 0, binding only to :: is enough to accept connections on v4 too
229 2012-09-08 03:05:06 <Dagger2> (not sure what the situation on FBSD is)
230 2012-09-08 03:05:32 <sipa> jrmithdobbs: i never touched the RPC code
231 2012-09-08 03:05:35 <jrmithdobbs> Dagger2: openbsd, and i think it's causing this problem i'm seeing
232 2012-09-08 03:05:43 <sipa> someone else did; and it uses boost magic
233 2012-09-08 03:05:46 <jrmithdobbs> but i'll sort it
234 2012-09-08 03:06:01 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: you know who did?
235 2012-09-08 03:06:08 <jrmithdobbs> (I'll look if you don't remember)
236 2012-09-08 03:06:10 <sipa> 'muggenhor'
237 2012-09-08 03:06:48 <Dagger2> uh, whoop. well, the statement wasn't wrong :)
238 2012-09-08 03:08:29 <jrmithdobbs> i'm going to rebuild removing the thread naming stuff that i was originally trying to test for luke and see if that thread acts correctly
239 2012-09-08 03:08:40 <jrmithdobbs> now that I can actually see the damned logs since the blockchain downloaded successfully
240 2012-09-08 03:11:07 <jrmithdobbs> am I missing something to run the test suite? it's build and ./test_bitcoin right?
241 2012-09-08 03:11:17 <sipa> yes
242 2012-09-08 03:11:44 <sipa> make -f makefile.unix test_bitcoin && ./test_bitcoin
243 2012-09-08 03:11:52 <jrmithdobbs> $ LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/opt/OpenBSD/5.1/amd64/db4-4.8.30/lib route -nT1 exec ./test_bitcoin
244 2012-09-08 03:11:55 <jrmithdobbs> Test setup error: system_error produced by: ::sigaltstack( &sigstk, 0 ) != -1: Invalid argument
245 2012-09-08 03:12:06 <sipa> ieuw
246 2012-09-08 03:12:10 <jrmithdobbs> (the route bit puts it in the right rdomain so it has internet access if needed)
247 2012-09-08 03:12:43 <sipa> nah, unit tests don't need internet
248 2012-09-08 03:13:00 <jrmithdobbs> k well even taking the route exec off it throws that same error
249 2012-09-08 03:13:17 <jrmithdobbs> (needs LD_LIBRARY_PATH or it dynamically links against the wrong libdb_cxx)
250 2012-09-08 03:13:54 <jrmithdobbs> i'm not familiar with the test code at all and am a little scared to look
251 2012-09-08 03:23:05 <jrmithdobbs> ok, um, how do i get any useful debugging info out of the test suite?
252 2012-09-08 03:24:05 <sipa> do the tests succeed?
253 2012-09-08 03:24:13 <jrmithdobbs> no it gives that error and never runs them
254 2012-09-08 03:24:30 <jrmithdobbs> Test setup error: system_error produced by: ::sigaltstack( &sigstk, 0 ) != -1: Invalid argument
255 2012-09-08 03:25:19 <jrmithdobbs> gdb isn't useful because i can't figure out where to set the breakpoint since there's no main ;p
256 2012-09-08 03:26:08 <jrmithdobbs> oh, lol
257 2012-09-08 03:26:10 <jrmithdobbs> http://redmine.furax.org/issues/202
258 2012-09-08 03:26:20 <jrmithdobbs> so fuck, no test suite for me
259 2012-09-08 03:27:56 <jrmithdobbs> ok there's a workaround but i need to rebuild boost, haha
260 2012-09-08 03:27:59 <jrmithdobbs> http://old.nabble.com/Boost-unit-test-framework-%2B-sigaltstack-td32369962.html
261 2012-09-08 03:30:08 <jrmithdobbs> i'll mess with it more tomorrow maybe, i've got it able to work as a client and blockchain downloader/validator (rpc isn't binding so isn't usable yet, ha)
262 2012-09-08 03:36:58 <jrmithdobbs> oh snap
263 2012-09-08 03:36:59 <jrmithdobbs> working
264 2012-09-08 03:38:00 <jrmithdobbs> rpc thing was a red herring, i forget because of crazy rdomain stuff the firewall doesn't just pass everything on localhost, lol
265 2012-09-08 03:38:34 <jrmithdobbs> i'll get a patched version of boost up and going tomorrow to make sure the tests pass though
266 2012-09-08 03:38:52 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: as far as the thread naming thing? doesn't do anything useful at all on openbsd
267 2012-09-08 03:39:32 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: it doesn't hurt anything, but I don't think ps/top fully show threads / thread details correctly yet ;p
268 2012-09-08 03:41:42 <jrmithdobbs> http://pastebin.com/uwK6d2np
269 2012-09-08 06:26:08 <firelegend> Most peculiar thing...I base58 decode a wif private key, chop off last 4 bytes as well as the first and then turn it into an integer
270 2012-09-08 06:26:35 <firelegend> Then do ec multiplication in java..and somewhere it fails
271 2012-09-08 06:29:19 <firelegend> And because my Android rom is broken, any failure means total OS freeze and I have to reboot the phone
272 2012-09-08 07:12:25 <extor> __ __| |__ ___ ____ ||
273 2012-09-08 07:12:25 <extor> \\ \\ /\\ / /| '_ \\ / _ \\ / _` | ||
274 2012-09-08 07:12:26 <extor> : : o : $250,000,000 WORTH OF BITCOINS IN MY POCKET
275 2012-09-08 07:12:28 <extor> _..-: o : :-.._ / 1,000 FOR YOU
276 2012-09-08 07:12:30 <extor> .-'' ' `---' `---' " ``-. 10,000 FOR YOU
277 2012-09-08 07:12:32 <extor> .' " ' " . " . ' " `. MOST OF THE REST FOR ME!
278 2012-09-08 07:12:34 <extor> : '.---.,,.,...,.,.,.,..---. ' ; THANKS BITFLOOR.COM!
279 2012-09-08 07:12:36 <extor> `. " `. .' " .'
280 2012-09-08 07:12:38 <extor> `. '`. .' ' .'
281 2012-09-08 07:12:40 <extor> `. `-._ _.-' " .' .----.
282 2012-09-08 07:12:42 <extor> `. " '"--...--"' . ' .' .' o `.
283 2012-09-08 07:12:46 <extor> .'`-._' " . " _.-'`. : o :
284 2012-09-08 07:12:48 <extor> .' ```--.....--''' ' `:_ o :
285 2012-09-08 07:12:50 <extor> . ' " ' " " ; `.;";";";'
286 2012-09-08 07:12:52 <extor> ; ' " ' . ; .' ; ; ;
287 2012-09-08 07:12:54 <extor> ; ' ' ' " .' .-'
288 2012-09-08 07:12:56 <extor> ' " " ' " " _.-'
289 2012-09-08 07:22:38 <edcba> $250,000 no ?
290 2012-09-08 07:26:34 <Phoebus> yeah
291 2012-09-08 07:26:46 <Phoebus> He can't math.
292 2012-09-08 07:27:06 <lianj> does not compute
293 2012-09-08 07:27:06 <Phoebus> Need to write him a perl script for that too.. >.>
294 2012-09-08 07:28:50 <stamit> sure there isn't anyone into PHP around here?
295 2012-09-08 07:32:57 <stamit> someone should be willing to play with me
296 2012-09-08 07:33:06 <stamit> <-- lonely
297 2012-09-08 07:40:23 <Phoebus> Aww stamit...
298 2012-09-08 07:40:41 <Phoebus> No I wouldn't say I PHP, I use it but I am definitely not a PHP dev.
299 2012-09-08 07:41:09 <stamit> i haven't been one for a long time now
300 2012-09-08 07:41:32 <stamit> i'd just want to have some kind of project going on
301 2012-09-08 07:42:10 <stamit> someone interested in something from me
302 2012-09-08 07:42:56 <stamit> like try the thing, make suggestions, or whatever
303 2012-09-08 07:44:01 <stamit> for a few bitcoins maybe
304 2012-09-08 07:50:23 <stamit> i had another, c++ project, which i was thinking i'd release, but only if someone appreciates it
305 2012-09-08 08:25:05 <firelegend> stamit: what is it about?
306 2012-09-08 08:25:20 <stamit> food
307 2012-09-08 08:25:30 <stamit> github.com/stamit/food
308 2012-09-08 08:27:15 <firelegend> I believe the project is in php.
309 2012-09-08 08:27:29 <stamit> you were talking about the c++ thing?
310 2012-09-08 08:27:35 <stamit> that was for bitcoin trading
311 2012-09-08 08:27:57 <stamit> mainly on mtgox
312 2012-09-08 08:28:40 <amiller> okay i think i got it. this is a new idea that combines proof-of-stake, p2pool, and is parameter-free.
313 2012-09-08 08:29:25 <amiller> transactions indicate a "minimum stake" in order to be committed in a block
314 2012-09-08 08:31:27 <amiller> the 'stake' for a block is the sum of the proof-of-work difficulty, and a "fork bet," in bitcoins, that the miner himself places in the block
315 2012-09-08 08:32:16 <amiller> if the block makes it into the main chain, then the fork bets are still available to spend
316 2012-09-08 08:33:40 <amiller> however, if there are stale blocks, and those get 'eaten' by a later block in the main chain, then the "fork bet" is added to a pot that pays out to winning miners later on
317 2012-09-08 08:35:25 <amiller> notice that this is the first proposal that should actually be called "proof of stake", because it's the first one that actually involves miners putting something at stake
318 2012-09-08 08:35:46 <amiller> it makes attacks more expensive, but unlike the other proof-of-nonstake proposals, a failed attack costs nothing
319 2012-09-08 08:36:11 <amiller> er, costs something rather than nothing
320 2012-09-08 08:43:33 <amiller> i still have to come up with an explanation for how the quantities of work and bitcoins are related, so i can explain how that "sum" works, and how the pot pays out
321 2012-09-08 08:45:29 <amiller> but the idea is that miners should be afraid to work at a low difficulty because they have a much greater chance of losing their own bitcoins
322 2012-09-08 08:46:21 <amiller> okay here's the justification for this:
323 2012-09-08 08:48:26 <amiller> if actual cost of work is stable (commoditized mining), and the price of a bitcoin is stable, then there's a stable conversion between bitcoins and work
324 2012-09-08 08:49:15 <amiller> boom, bitcoin theorem.
325 2012-09-08 09:24:26 <amiller> okay so the miner knows his 'upside' when he works on the block, since he can see all the fees and bonuses etc he's going to get
326 2012-09-08 09:24:56 <amiller> he also knows his downside, since that's the amount of bitcoins he put in
327 2012-09-08 09:25:21 <amiller> the ratio of his upside to downside is used as a multiplier against his hash difficulty
328 2012-09-08 09:25:59 <amiller> for the purposes of meeting the fee requirements
329 2012-09-08 09:26:08 <amiller> er the minimum difficulty threshold
330 2012-09-08 10:40:23 <sipa> amiller: interesting
331 2012-09-08 10:41:13 <sipa> amiller: so you get a block-DAG, with only coinbases/transactions in the main chain being valid, but stakes from the non-main-chain also being counted?
332 2012-09-08 10:41:29 <amiller> right
333 2012-09-08 10:41:44 <sipa> no matter what, do do need a conversion factor between work and coins though, and that sounds hard to avoid
334 2012-09-08 10:41:52 <sipa> without a magic constant
335 2012-09-08 10:42:15 <amiller> the "market" is the only acceptable parameter oracle
336 2012-09-08 10:42:25 <sipa> indeed
337 2012-09-08 10:42:37 <amiller> so the conversion factor between work and coins needs to be set by the users in their transactions somehow
338 2012-09-08 10:43:34 <amiller> first of all let me just declare an assumption flat out: no matter what, if you have a bitcoin, then there's a way for miners to eventually take it from you
339 2012-09-08 10:43:56 <amiller> if you die, then you eventually no longer have an influence in the economy
340 2012-09-08 10:44:25 <amiller> so the way this works is that every utxo is associated with 1) a bitcoin value, and 2) a work value
341 2012-09-08 10:45:03 <amiller> miners nibble at UTXOs either by using their bitcoins (stake) to bet against them, or by performing a lot of work
342 2012-09-08 11:36:00 <denisx> is it ok that bitcoind{bitcoin-msghand} needs 90% cpu while downloading the last 2000 blocks?
343 2012-09-08 11:36:19 <sipa> no, it should use 100%
344 2012-09-08 11:36:32 <sipa> if it's not, it should be made faster
345 2012-09-08 11:36:47 <sipa> oh, message handler?
346 2012-09-08 11:37:00 <sipa> yes, that's the thread that receives and processes blocks
347 2012-09-08 11:37:02 <sipa> sounds right
348 2012-09-08 11:37:38 <denisx> ok
349 2012-09-08 11:46:26 <sipa> ;;bc,blocks
350 2012-09-08 11:46:28 <gribble> 197855
351 2012-09-08 12:24:37 <sipa> gmaxwell: some of the recent non-armory non-DER signatures I found, look very strange
352 2012-09-08 12:24:49 <sipa> they have an extremely low R value
353 2012-09-08 12:25:30 <sipa> like they're brute-forced to have many zeroes
354 2012-09-08 12:26:27 <sipa> like the second input of http://blockchain.info/tx-index/9ce2dd7a13f9183128a410d777341ff09b407c0e09c46cc5986c05546c893d49
355 2012-09-08 12:30:04 <sipa> it'd take several million tries to create such a signature :S
356 2012-09-08 12:34:07 <shamoon> still trying to figure out how i can know the bounty size of a transaction?
357 2012-09-08 12:34:11 <shamoon> i know that it IS a bounty
358 2012-09-08 12:34:14 <shamoon> becuase the vin is coinbase
359 2012-09-08 12:38:32 <sipa> txfee = sum(txout values) - sum(txin values)
360 2012-09-08 12:38:43 <shamoon> and the rest is a bounty?
361 2012-09-08 12:38:54 <shamoon> for a coinbase transaction?
362 2012-09-08 12:38:59 <sipa> i have no idea what you mean by bounty, if it not fee
363 2012-09-08 12:39:05 <shamoon> the block reward
364 2012-09-08 12:39:06 <shamoon> sorry
365 2012-09-08 12:39:09 <kjj_> subsidy
366 2012-09-08 12:39:12 <sipa> 50 BTC
367 2012-09-08 12:39:16 <sipa> constant
368 2012-09-08 12:39:19 <sipa> the first 210000 blocks
369 2012-09-08 12:39:28 <sipa> then 25 BTC the second 210000 blocks
370 2012-09-08 12:39:32 <shamoon> so i just need to calculate based on mod 21000?
371 2012-09-08 12:39:36 <shamoon> 210000
372 2012-09-08 12:39:42 <sipa> not mod
373 2012-09-08 12:39:43 <shamoon> well, not mod, but divisibility
374 2012-09-08 12:39:44 <shamoon> i suppose
375 2012-09-08 12:40:01 <sipa> it's 50*100000000 >> (height / 210000)
376 2012-09-08 12:40:10 <shamoon> awesome
377 2012-09-08 12:40:11 <shamoon> thanks!
378 2012-09-08 13:42:09 <da2ce7_d> sipa about: BIP 32, maybe there should be a feild to contain the block-hight of the first transaction that is related to wallet. This would speedup re-scans.
379 2012-09-08 13:42:59 <OneEyed> Strange, all electrum servers seem to lag behind, none of them shows me tx 382fa9c9e214bf4bacf9903d3c9950b56ecef9c088ad2b82bdaba62e53e6211a as confirmed while it got 3 confirmations according to blockchain.info
380 2012-09-08 13:43:23 <sipa> da2ce7_d: that'd be a layer violation in my opinion; a secret key has no business knowing it's being used for transactions that belong in some block chain
381 2012-09-08 13:43:40 <sipa> da2ce7_d: doesn't mean wallets can't contain that info as metadata of course
382 2012-09-08 13:48:38 <da2ce7_d> maybe it would be possible to encode the block-high at time created into a derived random password. So people only need to copy their 'wallet code,' and the re-scans can be faster.
383 2012-09-08 13:49:46 <da2ce7_d> with those 8 word random passwords, it may be nice to not keep any-info on your pc, and recan every time you use your wallet.
384 2012-09-08 13:50:40 <sipa> i'm not a fan of the the-blockchain-is-your-wallet ideas
385 2012-09-08 13:52:43 <sipa> sure, it's nice as a safeguard against losing money, but rescanning gigabytes of data just to have your wallet - which, imho, will contain more private information over time than what just can (or should) be encoded inside transactions - is not scalable
386 2012-09-08 13:53:51 <da2ce7_d> hmm to me it seems awfully tempting to go to any computer, type my 8 (or so) words in, wait 2min, then hey-presto, you have everything to spend coins. close bitcoin -> everthing from ram is deleted.
387 2012-09-08 13:54:56 <sipa> it's certainly a tempting idea, but i just don't believe it scales
388 2012-09-08 13:56:01 <sipa> it becomes viable when people commit to a merkle tree of address-indexed utxo's
389 2012-09-08 13:56:12 <sipa> (like eto's idea)
390 2012-09-08 13:57:18 <da2ce7_d> :) well that sounds very nice.
391 2012-09-08 13:57:55 <da2ce7_d> 6.3 I had took about 3min to do rescan (when changing wallets) today, so it wasn't so bad.
392 2012-09-08 14:07:11 <da2ce7_d> well OT is comming along nicely, :) It is hard to beleve that less than 1 year ago I didn't even know how to program any langurage, now I'm coing C++
393 2012-09-08 14:09:27 <sipa> haha
394 2012-09-08 14:13:37 <da2ce7_d> oh where is the link to gmaxwell's 'state of things' post?
395 2012-09-08 14:13:54 <sipa> ?
396 2012-09-08 14:17:49 <da2ce7_d> oh reading the scrollback sombody said that there was a post about the 'progress to 1.0'
397 2012-09-08 14:18:43 <da2ce7_d> [13:56:35] <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: you saw that coverage report? ... we're not close to 1.0 :P
398 2012-09-08 14:24:25 <sipa> da2ce7_d: coverage report != state of things
399 2012-09-08 14:24:43 <sipa> it's just a report on the % of code covered by unit tests
400 2012-09-08 15:51:30 <sipa> just implemented parallel signature checking in ultraprune
401 2012-09-08 15:51:36 <sipa> %CPU = 561
402 2012-09-08 15:55:13 <denisx> nice
403 2012-09-08 15:57:14 <amiller> sipa, awesome
404 2012-09-08 16:02:22 <denisx> sipa: so the speedup is depending on the number of cores?
405 2012-09-08 16:03:37 <sipa> denisx: more or less; benchmarking now
406 2012-09-08 16:04:00 <sipa> only after the last checkpoint, obviously, as before that, sig checks were disabled alltogether
407 2012-09-08 16:04:29 <sipa> hmm, is there no limit on the number of sigops in a transaction?
408 2012-09-08 16:07:47 <jgarzik> sipa: each script is limited...
409 2012-09-08 16:09:01 <jgarzik> block and script, but not tx
410 2012-09-08 16:09:06 <sipa> right
411 2012-09-08 16:31:37 <denisx> sipa: is libmemav really needed?
412 2012-09-08 16:31:43 <denisx> for leveldb
413 2012-09-08 16:31:57 <sipa> for tests
414 2012-09-08 16:32:06 <denisx> because there is a leveldb for freebsd, but not libmemav
415 2012-09-08 16:32:15 <sipa> libmemenv you mean
416 2012-09-08 16:32:33 <denisx> yes
417 2012-09-08 16:32:35 <sipa> and it's in the bitcoin source tree
418 2012-09-08 16:32:45 <sipa> i don't think it has many dependencies
419 2012-09-08 16:33:00 <denisx> I know, but it does not build easily
420 2012-09-08 16:33:40 <sipa> what goes wrong?
421 2012-09-08 16:34:09 <denisx> problems with little/big-endian detection
422 2012-09-08 16:34:14 <sipa> anyway, you can disable it for now
423 2012-09-08 16:34:58 <sipa> and comment out the section in leveldb.cpp which calls leveldb::NewMemEnv
424 2012-09-08 16:37:04 <jgarzik> sipa, denisx: this may be helpful: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/trunk/main/sal/inc/osl/endian.h
425 2012-09-08 16:37:26 <jgarzik> each OS has its own place for [__]BYTE_ORDER
426 2012-09-08 16:38:05 <gmaxwell> sipa: does your parallel sig checking also make the checking async with other processing?
427 2012-09-08 16:39:13 <sipa> gmaxwell: yes
428 2012-09-08 16:39:23 <sipa> though i just ran into a deadlock :(
429 2012-09-08 16:40:48 <sipa> gmaxwell: only for blocks though; not yet for mempool transactions
430 2012-09-08 16:58:57 <denisx> sipa: simply commting out "penv = leveldb::NewMemEnv(leveldb::Env::Default());" ?
431 2012-09-08 16:59:31 <sipa> yes
432 2012-09-08 17:00:52 <denisx> ok, it compiled
433 2012-09-08 17:00:58 <denisx> using the freebsd leveldb package
434 2012-09-08 17:01:57 <denisx> sipa: can I run it with the normal .bitcoin directory or do I need to move stuff away?
435 2012-09-08 17:02:15 <sipa> better run with an empty datadir
436 2012-09-08 17:02:31 <sipa> except for wallet.dat and peers.dat, there isn't anything shared anyway
437 2012-09-08 17:03:49 <denisx> core dumped
438 2012-09-08 17:04:24 <sipa> ow :)
439 2012-09-08 17:05:20 <D34TH> im getting errors in my debug.log, give me a sec and ill grab it and pastebin
440 2012-09-08 17:06:21 <D34TH> http://pastebin.com/wewerkHQ
441 2012-09-08 17:06:28 <D34TH> omg
442 2012-09-08 17:06:34 <D34TH> we werk HQ
443 2012-09-08 17:06:37 <D34TH> loled
444 2012-09-08 17:32:33 <denisx> sipa: ok, the core dumped because I didnt move the old stuff away ;)
445 2012-09-08 17:32:44 <denisx> now with a fresh start it runs very smooth
446 2012-09-08 17:32:46 <sipa> still shouldn't happen...
447 2012-09-08 17:32:54 <denisx> it is already at 130k blocks
448 2012-09-08 17:33:56 <denisx> 20-30 blocks/s
449 2012-09-08 17:34:09 <denisx> and this is only a small atom
450 2012-09-08 17:34:56 <Luke-Jr> 09/06/12 00:22:16 InvalidChainFound: invalid block=0000000000000307872e height=197438 work=463673661699243878724
451 2012-09-08 17:34:58 <Luke-Jr> 09/06/12 00:22:16 InvalidChainFound: current best=000000000000008cb385 height=197437 work=463663179059113555912
452 2012-09-08 17:34:59 <Luke-Jr> 09/06/12 00:22:16 ERROR: SetBestChain() : SetBestChainInner failed
453 2012-09-08 17:35:01 <Luke-Jr> 09/06/12 00:22:16 ERROR: AcceptBlock() : AddToBlockIndex failed
454 2012-09-08 17:35:02 <Luke-Jr> 09/06/12 00:22:16 ERROR: ProcessBlock() : AcceptBlock FAILED
455 2012-09-08 17:35:06 <Luke-Jr> would be nice if bitcoind explained why it thought the block was invalid
456 2012-09-08 17:38:24 <midnightmagic> I agree.
457 2012-09-08 17:38:32 <denisx> me too strongly!
458 2012-09-08 17:38:46 <sipa> indeed, i thought it did
459 2012-09-08 17:40:18 <kjj_> well, mostly it does. but a few of the calls return false instead of giving detailed error messages
460 2012-09-08 17:42:18 <md2k7> does "testnet restarted in 0.7" mean that I have to compile my own bitcoin to use funds from testnet faucet, as the newest release is 0.6.3? (block height on my 0.6.3 testnet client is 81185, block height on blockexplorer is 23571)
461 2012-09-08 17:42:49 <sipa> it's just separate testnets
462 2012-09-08 17:42:56 <sipa> blockexplorer is already on the new one
463 2012-09-08 17:43:07 <sipa> but the old one still exists and runs (... well, a bit)
464 2012-09-08 17:43:08 <md2k7> but the testnet faucet too, apparently
465 2012-09-08 17:43:21 <md2k7> so the only way to get coins there is to mine them, right?
466 2012-09-08 17:43:53 <sipa> i wouldn't use the old testnet anyway, but if you do, you'll probably have to mine them yes
467 2012-09-08 17:47:05 <BlueMatt> sipa: patch to make bitcoind run the altcoin that the block-chain-acceptance tester thinggy uses
468 2012-09-08 17:47:40 <sipa> ah, i see
469 2012-09-08 17:48:01 <Luke-Jr> btw, we've had about 5+ orphans thanks to whatever this problem is
470 2012-09-08 17:48:02 <sipa> ACTION wonders whether that isn't better integrated in mainline
471 2012-09-08 17:50:33 <BlueMatt> sipa: na, the chain the tester tool should just be mined and have real nonces
472 2012-09-08 17:50:59 <BlueMatt> we dont need a -secondtestnetfortesting option
473 2012-09-08 17:51:06 <sipa> riight
474 2012-09-08 17:51:55 <Luke-Jr> found 3 cases that don't print errors:
475 2012-09-08 17:51:57 <Luke-Jr> + return error("ConnectBlock() : contains overwriting transaction, forbidden by BIP 30");
476 2012-09-08 17:51:59 <Luke-Jr> + return error("ConnectBlock() : coinbase pays itself too much (actual=%lld vs limit=%lld)", (long long)vtx[0].GetValueOut(), (long long)GetBlockValue(pindex->nHeight, nFees));
477 2012-09-08 17:52:00 <Luke-Jr> + error("SetBestChain() : WriteHashBestChain failed");
478 2012-09-08 17:52:11 <Luke-Jr> somehow, I'm suspicious of the 2nd
479 2012-09-08 18:11:54 <denisx> what is the last checkpoint?
480 2012-09-08 18:13:21 <sipa> 168k in 0.6.3, 193k in 0.7.0
481 2012-09-08 18:13:45 <denisx> ok, I'm behind that
482 2012-09-08 18:13:58 <denisx> now the cpu is at more than 100% sometimes
483 2012-09-08 18:14:54 <denisx> its still very fast
484 2012-09-08 18:30:57 <Luke-Jr> http://pastebin.com/0srU8pNA
485 2012-09-08 18:32:48 <sipa> what's that?
486 2012-09-08 18:36:33 <eian> that's his number, so call him maybe
487 2012-09-08 18:40:19 <denisx> sipa: looks like a block
488 2012-09-08 18:41:01 <Luke-Jr> sipa: the invalid block
489 2012-09-08 18:41:27 <sipa> and what's invalid about it?
490 2012-09-08 18:41:32 <Luke-Jr> that's the question
491 2012-09-08 18:41:48 <sipa> run a node patched with your checks, and submitblock() it?
492 2012-09-08 18:42:05 <Luke-Jr> it's no longer on the prevblock
493 2012-09-08 18:42:21 <sipa> ah
494 2012-09-08 18:42:26 <denisx> skip that check ;)
495 2012-09-08 18:43:32 <sipa> add an RPC call switchtochain() that takes a block hash, searches it in mapBlockIndex, and then SetBestChain's to it
496 2012-09-08 18:43:35 <Luke-Jr> total coinbase output: 50.01
497 2012-09-08 18:46:28 <Luke-Jr> no fees
498 2012-09-08 18:46:41 <Luke-Jr> wtf
499 2012-09-08 18:47:10 <gmaxwell> did cut off some fee paying transactions but not update the total?
500 2012-09-08 18:47:25 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: it shouldn't have :/
501 2012-09-08 18:47:26 <gmaxwell> thats a bit tricky for blocktemplate miners...
502 2012-09-08 18:48:15 <Luke-Jr> the only scenario it should have made such a small block would be if there were no fees really
503 2012-09-08 18:49:21 <Luke-Jr> wish I had the input parameters now to try to reproduce this
504 2012-09-08 18:53:37 <Luke-Jr> sipa: since I know you hate using the term orphaned blocks, did you ever come up with an alternate term? :p
505 2012-09-08 18:53:43 <sipa> stale blocks
506 2012-09-08 18:53:48 <Luke-Jr> ok
507 2012-09-08 18:54:37 <OneEyed> alternate block? lost block? superseded block (because that's what it is)?
508 2012-09-08 18:55:18 <sipa> Luke-Jr: in main.cpp there's a line "BitcoinMiner : generated block is stale", authored by satoshi
509 2012-09-08 18:55:23 <sipa> so i figure that's the term he used
510 2012-09-08 18:55:47 <OneEyed> sipa: I have the feeling that it applies to a block before it is broadcasted, right?
511 2012-09-08 18:55:59 <sipa> hmm, perhaps
512 2012-09-08 18:56:06 <OneEyed> sipa: for me (but English is not my native language), stale means more "moot, out of date"
513 2012-09-08 18:56:13 <OneEyed> Meaning it should not be published
514 2012-09-08 18:56:23 <sipa> well, i'm not native english either
515 2012-09-08 18:57:04 <Luke-Jr> stale makes sense to me, in the context of stale shares
516 2012-09-08 18:57:26 <sipa> it's stale in the sense that the effects of that block are no longer active
517 2012-09-08 18:58:55 <jrmithdobbs> so ya, this is working on openbsd, rebuilding boost with some patches so the unit tests work (unrelated to bitcoin) to verify it really is working like it seems to be
518 2012-09-08 18:59:06 <jrmithdobbs> but it's been running overnight and still goin strong
519 2012-09-08 18:59:16 <jrmithdobbs> (bitcoind that is))
520 2012-09-08 18:59:36 <eian> do nodes relay transactions without fees?
521 2012-09-08 18:59:45 <kuzetsa> sipa: serriously? --- http://pastebin.com/93qS2Kpd
522 2012-09-08 19:00:32 <denisx> jrmithdobbs: today I built bitcoind with ultraprune on freebsd! ;)
523 2012-09-08 19:01:16 <sipa> kuzetsa: stale blocks are perfectly valid, but simply not considered active
524 2012-09-08 19:01:24 <jrmithdobbs> denisx: with or without your makefile? ;p
525 2012-09-08 19:01:33 <sipa> and since they are part of the block tree, they do have parents
526 2012-09-08 19:01:34 <denisx> jrmithdobbs: with
527 2012-09-08 19:01:53 <jrmithdobbs> denisx: i've got it building with makefile.unix with some very minor changes (and fixed some things being missed by the clean target as a bonus)
528 2012-09-08 19:02:31 <jrmithdobbs> once i get unit tests working and write up a 'how to build on openbsd' i'll setup a pull req
529 2012-09-08 19:02:36 <kuzetsa> "not considered active" so like... abandoned?
530 2012-09-08 19:02:43 <kuzetsa> orphaned perhaps? :P
531 2012-09-08 19:02:46 <denisx> deadtreeblocks
532 2012-09-08 19:02:49 <kuzetsa> heh
533 2012-09-08 19:02:54 <sipa> kuzetsa: they're abandoned, but not by their parents :)
534 2012-09-08 19:03:08 <kuzetsa> "dead" or "abandoned" sure doesn't sound any more valid than orphan
535 2012-09-08 19:03:20 <kuzetsa> the parents are dead
536 2012-09-08 19:03:31 <sipa> yes, and that's not true for stale blocks
537 2012-09-08 19:03:33 <kuzetsa> rejected / shunned by the network in favor of the other fork
538 2012-09-08 19:03:40 <kuzetsa> hmm?
539 2012-09-08 19:03:48 <kuzetsa> is this something different than when the blockchain forks?
540 2012-09-08 19:03:53 <sipa> no
541 2012-09-08 19:04:09 <kuzetsa> I don't understand why you're saying "stale"
542 2012-09-08 19:04:12 <sipa> a blockchain fork is when two different chains are active according to different nodes
543 2012-09-08 19:04:15 <kuzetsa> it seems less accurate than "orphan"
544 2012-09-08 19:04:32 <kuzetsa> sipa: yeah. that sounds correct.
545 2012-09-08 19:04:33 <sipa> because an orpahn block already has a meaning, and one that makes much more sense: a block whose parents are not known
546 2012-09-08 19:04:49 <kuzetsa> huh?
547 2012-09-08 19:04:51 <sipa> and that is a term that has forever been used in the source code
548 2012-09-08 19:04:52 <kuzetsa> what does that mean
549 2012-09-08 19:04:58 <kuzetsa> I don't understand the explaination you just gave
550 2012-09-08 19:05:04 <sipa> if i send you a block
551 2012-09-08 19:05:09 <sipa> and you don't know its parent yet
552 2012-09-08 19:05:26 <sipa> then you'll ask me for the parents leading back to the genesis block (or until some point you already know)
553 2012-09-08 19:05:39 <kuzetsa> uhm
554 2012-09-08 19:05:44 <gmaxwell> the word you might want is extinct: it will have no more descendants.
555 2012-09-08 19:05:45 <sipa> but as long as you did not get all parents, your node considered that block an orpahn
556 2012-09-08 19:06:01 <kuzetsa> can't the parent block be resolved / identified in a deterministic way?
557 2012-09-08 19:06:10 <kuzetsa> or am I misunderstanding the way the blockchain works
558 2012-09-08 19:06:17 <sipa> a block contains the hash of its parent
559 2012-09-08 19:06:24 <kuzetsa> uh huh
560 2012-09-08 19:06:33 <kuzetsa> so if you send a block, I don'have to ask
561 2012-09-08 19:06:37 <kuzetsa> it's in the block
562 2012-09-08 19:06:47 <sipa> that parent may or may not be known to you
563 2012-09-08 19:06:55 <midnightmagic> extinct. Ooh I like that one. :)
564 2012-09-08 19:06:58 <kuzetsa> oh nevermind this. I have new DR WHO on my DVR / gonna watch it.
565 2012-09-08 19:06:58 <midnightmagic> extinct fork.
566 2012-09-08 19:07:05 <sipa> have fun
567 2012-09-08 19:07:10 <kuzetsa> likewise.
568 2012-09-08 19:07:18 <sipa> gmaxwell: hmmm nice one, but not entirely accurate (there's always a chance of reorganising back to it)
569 2012-09-08 19:07:19 <kuzetsa> I'll just have to learn whatever change in jargon happens
570 2012-09-08 19:07:33 <kuzetsa> either consensus will accept or reject your new suggested wording
571 2012-09-08 19:07:40 <sipa> well i'm suppose i'm the only one being pedantic
572 2012-09-08 19:07:41 <midnightmagic> orphan block truly has an unknown parent. stale block is one for an old, obsoleted fork, and a better name for those are extinct forks.
573 2012-09-08 19:08:07 <sipa> but if people want to call stale blocks orphan, i'd rather have a different word for orphan to avoid ambuigity
574 2012-09-08 19:08:09 <jrmithdobbs> i thought new dr who wasn't until later today
575 2012-09-08 19:08:19 <midnightmagic> ah, yeah I think sipa is right. :)
576 2012-09-08 19:08:21 <jrmithdobbs> that is much more important than any of the above
577 2012-09-08 19:08:32 <midnightmagic> orphan shouldn't be applied to a stale block.
578 2012-09-08 19:09:24 <jrmithdobbs> he must be in the uk, it's not on my dvr yet :(
579 2012-09-08 19:23:50 <Luke-Jr> hmm
580 2012-09-08 19:24:10 <Luke-Jr> if there were 2 txns, the 2nd of which had a fee, I can see Eloipool possibly making a block with just the 1st feeless one
581 2012-09-08 19:24:18 <Luke-Jr> but it *should* adjust the coinbasevalue for the fee
582 2012-09-08 19:25:19 <md2k7> how do I turn a bitcoin address (public key) into a CKeyID?
583 2012-09-08 19:26:35 <sipa> CBitcoinAddress(string).GetKeyID()
584 2012-09-08 19:26:50 <md2k7> sipa: thanks, I knew it had to be sth simple :)
585 2012-09-08 19:27:02 <sipa> but beware there are bitcoin addresses that do not correspond to a key
586 2012-09-08 19:29:18 <Luke-Jr> hey, it's md2k7 :p
587 2012-09-08 19:29:42 <Luke-Jr> the guy who made me add a new non-standard license to the license list :p
588 2012-09-08 19:31:50 <Luke-Jr> hmm, this is very odd
589 2012-09-08 19:31:54 <Luke-Jr> all our blocks seem to be 2 txn lately
590 2012-09-08 19:33:03 <Luke-Jr> ACTION scratches his head
591 2012-09-08 19:35:15 <denisx> Luke-Jr: sounds like off-by-one error ;)
592 2012-09-08 19:35:23 <denisx> did you start at zero? ;)
593 2012-09-08 19:35:54 <helo> hah
594 2012-09-08 19:37:03 <Luke-Jr> ?
595 2012-09-08 19:38:04 <gribble> 197904
596 2012-09-08 19:38:04 <sipa> ;;bc,blocks
597 2012-09-08 19:42:39 <sipa> 6.3 blocks/s after the last checkpoint
598 2012-09-08 19:45:00 <md2k7> Luke-Jr: :D should I say beer-ware license next time, so there is less clutter?
599 2012-09-08 19:46:58 <Luke-Jr> md2k7: MIT would be ideal I think since that's what everything else is
600 2012-09-08 19:47:17 <Luke-Jr> BEER-WARE is indeed already a license tho
601 2012-09-08 19:47:49 <Luke-Jr> but it implies assigning copyright to some phk@login.dkuug.dk
602 2012-09-08 19:48:14 <md2k7> feel free to make it MIT if you like
603 2012-09-08 19:49:17 <OneEyed> Luke-Jr: what do you mean? You can change the name of the copyright holder in the beerware license, phk is not the one who invented it
604 2012-09-08 19:49:51 <OneEyed> (according to Wikipedia, John Bristor used in in 1987, before PHK did his revision 42)
605 2012-09-08 19:50:52 <OneEyed> (I remember phk saying something like "I am probably the free software developer who has benefited the most of the license put on the software I wrote, at least in terms of beers")
606 2012-09-08 19:53:51 <Luke-Jr> md2k7: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1803
607 2012-09-08 19:59:56 <md2k7> Luke-Jr: your devotion of time to have precise license attribution is impressive ;)
608 2012-09-08 20:21:06 <md2k7> is there any more docs on OP_CHECKMULTISIG than in https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0011?
609 2012-09-08 20:21:35 <md2k7> "if it's implemented, someone somehow must have tested it", right?
610 2012-09-08 20:24:35 <gmaxwell> md2k7: um, BIP_0011 didn't create OP_CHECKMULTISIG.
611 2012-09-08 20:24:40 <gmaxwell> It's been there since the start.
612 2012-09-08 20:25:55 <md2k7> oh, fun. so Satoshi's the one to explain it
613 2012-09-08 20:26:17 <md2k7> he obviously didn't like creating docs for his stuff, well who does?
614 2012-09-08 20:26:44 <md2k7> I've just fooled around with createrawtransaction
615 2012-09-08 20:27:22 <md2k7> but I can't get my "custom" OP_CHECKMULTISIG transaction signed with signrawtransaction, it doesn't do anything. Should it?
616 2012-09-08 20:27:46 <md2k7> (returns me the same hex I fed into it)
617 2012-09-08 20:28:25 <sipa> it will only sign inputs to outputs it recognizes
618 2012-09-08 20:28:46 <sipa> unsure of it will work for non-P2SH multisigs
619 2012-09-08 21:10:13 <nanotube> nice work on the in-client console, btw. :)
620 2012-09-08 21:12:56 <sipa> ls
621 2012-09-08 21:13:10 <snapattack> ls
622 2012-09-08 21:13:11 <snapattack> lol
623 2012-09-08 21:13:35 <snapattack> nano, what are you referring to?
624 2012-09-08 21:14:36 <nanotube> snapattack: 0.7rc2 bitcoin client
625 2012-09-08 21:14:38 <gribble> What do you think I am, a shell?
626 2012-09-08 21:14:38 <nanotube> ;;ls
627 2012-09-08 21:14:40 <nanotube> :)
628 2012-09-08 21:17:19 <snapattack> nanotube: awesome
629 2012-09-08 21:35:38 <sipa> nanotube: haha
630 2012-09-08 21:35:48 <sipa> i started typing on thr wrong keyboard :)
631 2012-09-08 21:36:19 <nanotube> heh
632 2012-09-08 21:54:04 <MC-Eeepc> Luke-Jr
633 2012-09-08 21:54:29 <MC-Eeepc> you did a big paste
634 2012-09-08 21:54:34 <MC-Eeepc> thats naughty
635 2012-09-08 21:56:02 <Eliel> MC-Eeepc: o.O
636 2012-09-08 21:57:14 <Eliel> 5 lines is about the limit of what's acceptable to paste directly to an IRC channel.
637 2012-09-08 21:57:27 <Eliel> more than that, pastebin or similar it is.
638 2012-09-08 22:20:11 <denisx> hmm, I have the feeling that the 100% cpu usage in bitcoind{bitcoin-msghand} is this old bug again
639 2012-09-08 22:20:44 <denisx> because now it is 1 block/s at 100% were it was 80% for 20 blocks/s before
640 2012-09-08 22:21:17 <gribble> hello
641 2012-09-08 22:21:17 <stamit> ;;echo hello
642 2012-09-08 22:22:55 <Eliel> denisx: blocks are getting bigger, so takes more time and effort per block.
643 2012-09-08 22:28:47 <sipa> denisx: which block are you at now, and which block were you at before?
644 2012-09-08 22:30:46 <denisx> sipa: 196233
645 2012-09-08 22:31:19 <sipa> 100% cpu usage is completely expected there; it's doing signature verification
646 2012-09-08 22:31:46 <denisx> sipa: I thought this is now multithreaded?
647 2012-09-08 22:31:56 <denisx> or is this not in git right now?
648 2012-09-08 22:33:40 <sipa> right now it is in my branch
649 2012-09-08 22:33:49 <sipa> which commit/version are you using?
650 2012-09-08 22:34:18 <denisx> I did a pull some hours ago
651 2012-09-08 22:35:07 <denisx> pulling now
652 2012-09-08 22:35:17 <sipa> bitcoin reports it commit/build id in debug.log at startup
653 2012-09-08 22:41:02 <denisx> Bitcoin version v0.7.0.0-unk-beta (Sep 8 2012, 20:08:05)
654 2012-09-08 22:41:27 <theymos> Can anyone tell me the accurate PGP public key fingerprint of Stefan Thomas (justmoon)?
655 2012-09-08 22:41:38 <justmoon> theymos: one second :)
656 2012-09-08 22:42:07 <justmoon> D16E 7B04 42B9 F02E 0660 C094 C947 3700 A4B0 8BF3
657 2012-09-08 22:43:20 <theymos> Thanks. I'd like someone else to confirm, though, just in case your account has been compromised.
658 2012-09-08 22:44:04 <denisx> is it not signed?
659 2012-09-08 22:44:26 <theymos> No.
660 2012-09-08 22:46:28 <denisx> sipa: getblocks 196411 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500
661 2012-09-08 22:46:30 <denisx> whats that?
662 2012-09-08 22:48:56 <justmoon> theymos: the only people who come to mind who can confirm my PGP key are the Ogrr.com staff, I've been communicating with PGP with them
663 2012-09-08 22:49:15 <justmoon> I can prove access to weusecoins.com, bitcoinjs.org and ownership of the respective bitcoin addresses if that helps?
664 2012-09-08 22:51:29 <sipa> denisx: some node requesting a block list from you
665 2012-09-08 22:52:22 <sipa> justmoon: seems your leveldb port to mingw required C++0x
666 2012-09-08 22:52:38 <sipa> justmoon: i had to change few things to make it compile with the ancient gcc used in gitian
667 2012-09-08 22:53:12 <justmoon> sipa: cool, thanks - the native win32 port I'm working on won't require C++0x
668 2012-09-08 22:53:18 <sipa> oh, good!
669 2012-09-08 22:53:22 <justmoon> don't think I'll get it done before the conf though :/
670 2012-09-08 22:53:29 <sipa> no worries
671 2012-09-08 22:53:41 <sipa> by the way... chrome uses leveldb, no?
672 2012-09-08 22:53:50 <sipa> so the code must already exist?
673 2012-09-08 22:57:48 <justmoon> yes, there's an env_chromium.cc and chromium has a platform_file_win.cc
674 2012-09-08 22:58:37 <sipa> ic
675 2012-09-08 23:00:00 <justmoon> it's mostly done, the test suite passes save for some random bug that happens sometimes, I wanna take my time testing it before I start proclaiming success
676 2012-09-08 23:04:34 <sipa> great, thanks