1 2012-09-22 00:23:47 <Greee> ACTION New bitcoin pool server 0% fees pm for details.
2 2012-09-22 00:30:40 <bctrashcan> Ok, im wondering how to modify the bitcoin client so that i can use it for my own personal network of peers... is there a way to use bitcoin to make a seperate block chain
3 2012-09-22 00:31:11 <Luke-Jr> bctrashcan: those are called "scams"
4 2012-09-22 00:31:31 <bctrashcan> why is that a scam?
5 2012-09-22 00:32:00 <Luke-Jr> bctrashcan: 99% of cases someone is usign it to run a scam
6 2012-09-22 00:32:46 <Luke-Jr> generally, it's pretty safe to say if someone isn't going to run a scam with it, they already know what they need to do and don't ask ;)
7 2012-09-22 00:33:17 <bctrashcan> ah makes sense i guess....well my goal here is to create a decentralized currency for my friends, we arent gonna scam each other....it dosent have to be bitcoin in any case, anything secure would work ya know
8 2012-09-22 00:33:30 <Luke-Jr> bctrashcan: why?
9 2012-09-22 00:33:48 <bctrashcan> we dont wanna deal with transactions for wiring money and the like
10 2012-09-22 00:33:58 <bctrashcan> just all the damn fees
11 2012-09-22 00:34:04 <Luke-Jr> so use bitcoin
12 2012-09-22 00:34:30 <bctrashcan> haha why do you not think this is a good idea
13 2012-09-22 00:34:44 <bctrashcan> better question why is this a bad idea
14 2012-09-22 00:36:33 <gmaxwell> bctrashcan: bitcoin's not secure when you only use it among a few people, for one.
15 2012-09-22 00:37:06 <gmaxwell> one of you could simply get a bunch of hash power and rewrite the chain. And if you trust your friends not to do that, might as well just trade messages with balances; no need for the complexity of bitcoin.
16 2012-09-22 00:38:01 <bctrashcan> thats good point...i was hoping there was a way around that
17 2012-09-22 00:38:10 <bctrashcan> thank you
18 2012-09-22 04:15:50 <jgarzik> gah!
19 2012-09-22 04:16:06 <jgarzik> does anyone have a good example, code or wiki or forum post, for building a multisig transaction?
20 2012-09-22 04:16:24 <jgarzik> hopefully some RPC examples
21 2012-09-22 04:17:26 <Luke-Jr> I'm pretty sure gmaxwell had a text/plain example
22 2012-09-22 04:22:30 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: you do?
23 2012-09-22 04:23:51 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: Specifically, I am interested in an atomic swap: Alice wants 100 BTC, Bob wants a 1-satoshi colored coin. Transaction should not proceed, unless both parties are 100% satisfied.
24 2012-09-22 04:24:12 <jgarzik> Bob must send the 100 BTC, and Alice must transfer to Bob the 1-satoshi colored coin.
25 2012-09-22 04:24:32 <Luke-Jr> http://people.xiph.org/~greg/signdemo.txt <-- not multisig, but might be what I was thinking of :/
26 2012-09-22 04:27:22 <Luke-Jr> maybe there's another one in that directory that isn't in my history anymore, but it has indexes disabled
27 2012-09-22 04:35:35 <jgarzik> maybe the magic lies within SIGHASH
28 2012-09-22 04:56:19 <jgarzik> hmm, yeah, I cannot see how to require txout #0 -> pubkey A, txout #1+ -> pubkey B, requiring both A and B's signature for approval of the entire txout set
29 2012-09-22 05:18:03 <jgarzik> made a post
30 2012-09-22 05:18:11 <jgarzik> Atomic coin swapping? - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112007.0
31 2012-09-22 07:23:41 <amiller> awww yeah, i got gevent to play nicely with ipython, now i have badass interactive concurrency
32 2012-09-22 08:27:10 <Joric> hey devs
33 2012-09-22 08:27:12 <Joric> ;;bc,totalbc
34 2012-09-22 08:27:13 <gribble> 9999950.00000000
35 2012-09-22 08:27:28 <Joric> we are one block away from 10,000,000 coins
36 2012-09-22 08:27:39 <Joric> ;;bc,totalbc
37 2012-09-22 08:27:41 <gribble> 10000000.00000000
38 2012-09-22 08:27:48 <Joric> hooray!!
39 2012-09-22 08:27:57 <diki> congrats!
40 2012-09-22 10:03:46 <c_k> wow thats quite an accomplishment, congratulations for keeping the network going guys :)
41 2012-09-22 10:09:03 <Diablo-D3> what the fuck
42 2012-09-22 10:09:45 <Diablo-D3> I swear Im going to go into ##freenode and just post a link to a jpg of my erect penis.
43 2012-09-22 11:01:47 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin build #72: FAILURE in 4 hr 13 min: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin/72/
44 2012-09-22 11:38:04 <slush> jgarzik: thanks for ZeroAccess pdf.
45 2012-09-22 11:38:38 <slush> jgarzik: Actually I don't believe that any mining pool can handle 500k+ of CPU miners, so their calculations are out of reality.
46 2012-09-22 11:39:24 <slush> well, to be exact - 500k+ of getwork-based cpu miners
47 2012-09-22 11:45:53 <gmaxwell> 23:23 <@jgarzik> gmaxwell: Specifically, I am interested in an atomic swap: Alice wants 100 BTC, Bob wants a 1-satoshi colored coin. Transaction should not proceed, unless both parties are 100% satisfied.
48 2012-09-22 11:46:11 <gmaxwell> You just author a joint transaction (e.g. each party provides an input). And do the negoiation for that out of band.
49 2012-09-22 11:47:58 <gmaxwell> You could also pay into two escrows, each mediated by pubkey+secret_user1+secret_user2 (different pubkey for each user). This isn't atomic, but it means one escrow can't be redeemed without revealing the secrets required to redeem the other.
50 2012-09-22 11:48:33 <gmaxwell> on the question of escrow examples; here is an example: https://people.xiph.org/~greg/escrowexample.txt
51 2012-09-22 12:10:51 <gmaxwell> huh ... just changed one of my nodes to current git and it's only connecting to other nodes on my lan now, though it has quite a few addnoded peers
52 2012-09-22 12:10:55 <gmaxwell> e.g.
53 2012-09-22 12:10:57 <gmaxwell> 09/22/12 14:07:42 connected 69.64.34.118:8333
54 2012-09-22 12:11:00 <gmaxwell> 09/22/12 14:07:42 send version message: version 60002, blocks=200026, us=0.0.0.0:0, them=69.64.34.118:8333, peer=69.64.34.118:8333
55 2012-09-22 12:11:03 <gmaxwell> 09/22/12 14:07:42 socket closed
56 2012-09-22 12:11:17 <gmaxwell> or I should say, only staying connected to.
57 2012-09-22 12:15:30 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: I'm running next-test I made 2 days ago, and it has 39 peers. So either unrelated to code or very recent I think.
58 2012-09-22 12:15:45 <Luke-Jr> (and if very recent - something that wasn't a pullreq 2 days ago? O.o)
59 2012-09-22 12:17:11 <gmaxwell> yea, switched back to 0.7.0, no change must be something specific to this node.
60 2012-09-22 12:32:58 <slush> Is there any simple way how to check how many % of current blocks are version 2 ?
61 2012-09-22 12:34:03 <eroot> thanks BCBot, you're a good bot for telling me that
62 2012-09-22 12:34:10 <eroot> here, have a virtual bone
63 2012-09-22 12:34:32 <eroot> I'm looking for a Bitcoin implementation in Haskell that sipa told me about during the conference
64 2012-09-22 12:34:39 <eroot> does anyone know anything about that?
65 2012-09-22 12:35:31 <eroot> Haskell doesn't get the love she deserves around here
66 2012-09-22 12:39:16 <gmaxwell> eroot: purecoin
67 2012-09-22 12:39:56 <eroot> thanks gmaxwell!
68 2012-09-22 12:40:43 <eroot> can someone tell Google about purecoin?
69 2012-09-22 12:40:48 <eroot> I can't find it!
70 2012-09-22 12:41:39 <eroot> I was searching for purecoin by the way, since I kind of remembered that
71 2012-09-22 12:42:04 <gmaxwell> eroot: search the channel logs. :P
72 2012-09-22 12:42:13 <eroot> not a bad idea
73 2012-09-22 12:45:05 <eroot> I found a darcs repo around
74 2012-09-22 12:45:42 <gmaxwell> eroot: and thats all there is.
75 2012-09-22 12:47:03 <eroot> yes!
76 2012-09-22 12:47:05 <eroot> great success!
77 2012-09-22 12:47:32 <eroot> now I'm in for a treat of Bitcoin expressed with beautiful functional purity
78 2012-09-22 12:47:50 <eroot> be back
79 2012-09-22 13:36:28 <gmaxwell> sipa: ultraprune here's getting me 16.5166 minutes from 0 to 193000, 32.9 minutes from 193000 to 200032; from a node across gige. The half hour after the highest checkpoint was totally CPU limited... so the parallel signature checking should speed things up a good bit.
80 2012-09-22 14:11:32 <sharp> Hello
81 2012-09-22 14:12:34 <btcsharp> I was looking at BitcoinGUI::closeEvent(QCloseEvent *event) (in bitcoingui.cpp, around line 608)
82 2012-09-22 14:13:00 <btcsharp> why isn't the window closed if it doesn't enter the ifs?
83 2012-09-22 14:13:52 <btcsharp> wait... no problem... comprehended. Close != destroy
84 2012-09-22 14:13:54 <btcsharp> thanks
85 2012-09-22 14:16:42 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: a concrete smartcoin example, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112007.msg1212356#msg1212356
86 2012-09-22 14:17:44 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: use sighash_all.
87 2012-09-22 14:17:56 <gmaxwell> that answers all your questions, I think.
88 2012-09-22 14:18:28 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: where is that enforced in SignatureHash()? I am completely stupid here and don't see it.
89 2012-09-22 14:18:52 <jgarzik> clearly it skips both SIGHASH_NONE and SIGHASH_SINGLE branches
90 2012-09-22 14:19:57 <jgarzik> by the not-blanking out of txouts, I suppose?
91 2012-09-22 14:20:33 <gmaxwell> Correct. They're fixed before the signing begins.
92 2012-09-22 14:22:39 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: hmmm, OK, I can see how that protects the first round. but doesn't filling in the second signature break the first, then?
93 2012-09-22 14:23:34 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: the steps should be (1) agree what the txn should look like, (2) one side writes the whole txn and signs it, (3) other side signs it.
94 2012-09-22 14:24:29 <gmaxwell> so the only thing that changes after the initial drafting is the signatures, which are the only thing not included in signatures.
95 2012-09-22 14:28:51 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: yes. in that post, your "(2)" == "round 1". your "(3)" == "round 2"
96 2012-09-22 14:30:17 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: so txin 0's scriptSig should be <CK> and not null, implying that the creator of the incomplete TX requires the full pubkey for the smartcoin (CK)?
97 2012-09-22 14:31:13 <gmaxwell> You don't need the pubkey. You need to know what txin you'll be spending though.
98 2012-09-22 14:31:14 <jgarzik> thus removing the signature from scriptSig, which retaining the pubkey
99 2012-09-22 14:31:25 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: pubkey is not included in hash?
100 2012-09-22 14:31:42 <jgarzik> 100% of scriptSig is ignored in the hash?
101 2012-09-22 14:32:39 <gmaxwell> Yes.
102 2012-09-22 14:33:26 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: ok, thanks, I think I get it now
103 2012-09-22 14:33:34 <jgarzik> it sounds like SIGHASH_ALL will be the solution.
104 2012-09-22 14:33:35 <gmaxwell> Care to make a join transaction on testnet? I've done a couple of these jointly authored txn with people... you just need to know the txins you're spending and where you're paying when writing the transaction.
105 2012-09-22 14:34:31 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: making the transaction is easy... just did not understand how to prevent either party from maliciously reordering within the tx
106 2012-09-22 14:35:54 <gmaxwell> Single would also get the pinning you want, but I didn't see a need for the increase malleability of single for what you described so far.
107 2012-09-22 14:58:14 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: updated https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112007.msg1212356#msg1212356
108 2012-09-22 14:58:42 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: will use that as a reference, as it provides a concrete, realistic [hopefully] working example
109 2012-09-22 14:59:16 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: if you have time to give it a mental review, that would be most appreciated. it might form the basis of distributed bonds.
110 2012-09-22 15:08:00 <agricocb> HKyn7w1y9L
111 2012-09-22 15:08:13 <phantomcircuit> cool story bro
112 2012-09-22 15:08:24 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, ^
113 2012-09-22 15:08:46 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: ?
114 2012-09-22 15:09:12 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, seems like some strange spam
115 2012-09-22 15:09:23 <phantomcircuit> possibly it's encrypted message nobody can read?
116 2012-09-22 15:09:41 <phantomcircuit> just pinging only op i can see in case he goes wild
117 2012-09-22 15:10:49 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: has that happened more than just this once?
118 2012-09-22 15:11:11 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, i've seen stuff like that before from various people
119 2012-09-22 15:11:16 <phantomcircuit> iirc it was in this chan
120 2012-09-22 15:11:32 <Diablo-D3> okay so
121 2012-09-22 15:11:40 <Diablo-D3> I am going to find out where shuttlecock lives
122 2012-09-22 15:11:47 <Diablo-D3> break in
123 2012-09-22 15:11:53 <Diablo-D3> and take a piss on his kitchen table
124 2012-09-22 15:14:23 <jgarzik> sometimes things are so darned subtle
125 2012-09-22 15:14:47 <jgarzik> I never wrote any pynode code specifically for SIGHASH_ALL... yet it validates correctly
126 2012-09-22 15:15:08 <jgarzik> (by matching bitcoind's behavior)
127 2012-09-22 15:15:43 <Diablo-D3> lol
128 2012-09-22 15:15:50 <Diablo-D3> dont you love it when code works even when it shouldnt?
129 2012-09-22 15:16:05 <phantomcircuit> BLACK MAGIK
130 2012-09-22 15:16:12 <phantomcircuit> also i cant go on https here
131 2012-09-22 15:16:15 <phantomcircuit> stupid UK
132 2012-09-22 15:16:19 <Diablo-D3> phantomcircuit: no