1 2012-09-27 00:02:34 <maaku> gmaxwell: UukGoblin p2pool implementation? link?
2 2012-09-27 00:05:26 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: what do you mean by "not in bitcoin coinbase, use a merged mining node"?
3 2012-09-27 00:06:29 <gmaxwell> maaku: https://github.com/goblin/chronobit
4 2012-09-27 00:06:30 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: the merged mining data in the coinbase is a merkle root of a "auxillery data" merkle tree
5 2012-09-27 00:06:38 <maaku> thx
6 2012-09-27 00:07:02 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: so, the timestamping data could just as well be an element in that tree
7 2012-09-27 00:07:46 <Luke-Jr> which means it wouldn't make the bitcoin coinbase any bigger than it already is (for merged mining), and all the existing software on the pool end can be used
8 2012-09-27 00:08:03 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: ok, thanks for the explanation. agreed.
9 2012-09-27 00:08:29 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: you would need to be able to have a full merkle branch for the data chain
10 2012-09-27 00:08:52 <jgarzik> (not in the chain, but, _somewhere_)
11 2012-09-27 00:09:05 <Luke-Jr> sure
12 2012-09-27 00:09:47 <Luke-Jr> you need that for the data anyway, I think?
13 2012-09-27 00:11:20 <gmaxwell> you need at least the timestamping tree, so this would only add a level or two to it.
14 2012-09-27 00:12:27 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: is there some existing pool op standard for storing merged mining merkle root in the coinbase?
15 2012-09-27 00:12:39 <jgarzik> something software may automatically recognize, regardless of position?
16 2012-09-27 00:13:44 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: 0_o yes, thats how standardize merged mining works. On supported pool servers you just have to point them at the merged chain daemon, and they don't need any modification to the poolserver.
17 2012-09-27 00:13:46 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Merged_mining_specification is what namecoin (and a bunch of scamcoins) use
18 2012-09-27 00:14:19 <Luke-Jr> notably there is one exception: p2pool uses an extra 0-value output for its merged mining
19 2012-09-27 00:14:41 <jgarzik> ok, so there is a magic https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Merged_mining_specification#Merged_mining_coinbase
20 2012-09-27 00:14:43 <Luke-Jr> which allows saving some space in the (merged) blockchains
21 2012-09-27 00:17:07 <Luke-Jr> it might be worth considering standardizing p2pool's merged mining in some way, but for timestamping I don't think there's any gain to it
22 2012-09-27 00:19:40 <jgarzik> a bit disappointing that the data timestamping service might have to search in two places
23 2012-09-27 00:19:49 <jgarzik> but at least it is only two
24 2012-09-27 00:30:00 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: p2pool's merge mining thing is only used for p2pool. It's not used for merging altcoins.
25 2012-09-27 00:30:53 <forrestv> it could be, though. if there's interest, i'll write up a spec
26 2012-09-27 00:33:24 <jgarzik> forrestv: cool. post a URL here, if you don't mind
27 2012-09-27 00:33:26 <gmaxwell> bleh. :P
28 2012-09-27 00:34:54 <jgarzik> isn't a spend-by-anyone output more prunable than embedded in coinbase for eternity?
29 2012-09-27 00:35:05 <Luke-Jr> ACTION isn't sure namecoin has enough relevance to switch MM algo at this point
30 2012-09-27 00:35:20 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: it's not either or
31 2012-09-27 00:35:40 <Luke-Jr> deterministically-impossible-to-spend > spend-by-anyone > random
32 2012-09-27 00:35:56 <Luke-Jr> if it can be proven unspendable, it can be pruned immediately
33 2012-09-27 00:36:17 <jgarzik> true but requires extra code to recognize etc.
34 2012-09-27 00:37:23 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: scriptPubKey[0] == OP_RETURN is easy to check and guaranteed to be unspendable
35 2012-09-27 00:38:15 <jgarzik> "I won at first, and then I lost it all to SatoshiDICE" https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113343.0
36 2012-09-27 00:38:57 <Luke-Jr> this is one of those cases where I wish BitcoinTalk had a "like" button <.<
37 2012-09-27 00:39:19 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: sure... but extra code to detect guaranteed-unspendable is required, whereas anyone-can-spend works now
38 2012-09-27 00:39:20 <Luke-Jr> or maybe a "LOL" would be more accurate
39 2012-09-27 00:39:35 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: we don't have any pruning now ._.
40 2012-09-27 00:41:12 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: irrelevant. you would still need special case code, for when pruning comes about, to detect guaranteed-unspendable transactions, versus code you already must write to process standard spend transactions.
41 2012-09-27 00:42:33 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: I think saving space in the blockchain is worth that.
42 2012-09-27 00:42:43 <Luke-Jr> (that is, space one would need to use to make it an input)
43 2012-09-27 00:46:33 <jgarzik> another topic
44 2012-09-27 00:46:39 <jgarzik> I need to work on a "credstick"
45 2012-09-27 00:47:27 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: a what now
46 2012-09-27 00:47:28 <jgarzik> Specify a USB stick protocol (FAT32 filesystem format layout) that permits key exchange
47 2012-09-27 00:47:43 <jgarzik> slot your credstick, receive money
48 2012-09-27 00:47:53 <jgarzik> or, slot your credstick and transfer money
49 2012-09-27 00:48:13 <Luke-Jr> O.o
50 2012-09-27 00:48:26 <Luke-Jr> sounds like a security nightmare
51 2012-09-27 00:48:27 <jrmithdobbs> giving POS-type systems r/w access to fs seems inherently a Bad Thing(tm)
52 2012-09-27 00:49:09 <jrmithdobbs> i've seen too many magstripe things shimmed/etc to ever consider using something like that
53 2012-09-27 00:49:14 <jgarzik> quite useful for several situations
54 2012-09-27 00:49:29 <jrmithdobbs> a few corner cases maybe, but highly risky for the vast majority
55 2012-09-27 00:49:39 <jgarzik> <shrug> no more so than NFC
56 2012-09-27 00:49:47 <jrmithdobbs> much more so
57 2012-09-27 00:49:58 <jrmithdobbs> because you could destroy people's keys
58 2012-09-27 00:50:31 <jrmithdobbs> steal keys, destroy originals, make machine display "please wait" or similar and force enough wear-leveling writes to make it hard to find again
59 2012-09-27 00:50:36 <jgarzik> you could skrog the stick, but not necessarily the keys
60 2012-09-27 00:51:08 <jrmithdobbs> esp considering you don't need to shim the port directly the way the bus works
61 2012-09-27 00:55:53 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: i think for receiving payment it could be ok, but for sending you'd want to split it out to two usb keys and get things much more complicated than i'd be comfortable with
62 2012-09-27 01:29:15 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: I would just enable key exchange, not actually store keys
63 2012-09-27 01:30:25 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: identity tokens is one method. slot the credstick, read identity token, use that to query key over net. unlock key with PIN pad at POS, just like debit card today.
64 2012-09-27 01:30:29 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: maybe an example use case would help me understand what you're getting at?
65 2012-09-27 01:30:55 <jgarzik> for receiving it's even easier
66 2012-09-27 01:31:40 <jrmithdobbs> ah, so the key isn't the only comms channel
67 2012-09-27 01:32:04 <jrmithdobbs> ya that's a lot easier and a lot less scary than what I thought you meant
68 2012-09-27 01:32:26 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: you can store keys and transactions on a stick, but those can be stomped, as you point out
69 2012-09-27 01:33:44 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: though I think transmitting the stored key *AND* the pin (to be combined somehow on the remote service) instead of using a pin to en/decrypt anything on the key would be a better approach than that specific example
70 2012-09-27 01:38:08 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: most POS around here already have a PIN pad, and customers trained to use it ;p
71 2012-09-27 01:38:55 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: ya but doesn't mean you should use it as the base for key material if you're already relying on another external service anyways
72 2012-09-27 01:38:59 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: with a stick things will be passive on the customer end, so you probably would not have a secure channel, from the customer perspective
73 2012-09-27 01:38:59 <kjj_> heh. I still can't figure out why anyone uses debit cards
74 2012-09-27 01:39:23 <jgarzik> kjj_: if you are poor and need a card
75 2012-09-27 01:39:32 <jgarzik> or s/card/CC number/
76 2012-09-27 01:40:02 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: thus the merchant would get an encrypted key, and need additional factor from customer to decrypt and spend to themselves
77 2012-09-27 01:40:08 <kjj_> a secured credit card is just as easy to get. hell, even easier in some cases
78 2012-09-27 01:40:30 <jgarzik> kjj_: that involves applications and waiting periods and requires permanent addresses, though, right?
79 2012-09-27 01:40:54 <kjj_> heh. been a while since you got a checking account?
80 2012-09-27 01:41:09 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: well, you could also store, for instance, the service url and a user id/name on the stick, then use the 'key' material you mention as one factor and the pin as the second factor for auth and the remote service could spit back that info
81 2012-09-27 01:41:52 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: that way harming the usb stick doesn't hurt anything at all except cause annoyance
82 2012-09-27 01:42:33 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: yep. that is largely what I was thinking of as "identity token"
83 2012-09-27 01:42:56 <jgarzik> just a way to locate the user's account, and proceed further
84 2012-09-27 01:44:21 <jgarzik> The main goal for me is user experience: slot a credstick, receive money. slot a credstick, enter additional authentication factor on vendor's POS, send money to vendor.
85 2012-09-27 01:45:54 <jgarzik> No [visible] bitcoin addresses or QR codes required.
86 2012-09-27 01:46:35 <jgarzik> Put as few or as many "monetary identities" on there as you like.
87 2012-09-27 01:47:02 <jrmithdobbs> i think the auth should still be required to receive
88 2012-09-27 01:47:41 <jrmithdobbs> otherwise, malicious "readers" have the oppurtunity to overwrite the identities and possibly trick you into having someone transfer them money instead of you
89 2012-09-27 01:51:37 <jgarzik> what is the point of reception, though?
90 2012-09-27 01:51:46 <jgarzik> * a skimmer could send money to third party, rather than the vendor
91 2012-09-27 01:52:05 <jgarzik> * skimmer could add their own id tokens, corrupt id tokens, or delete id tokens
92 2012-09-27 01:57:01 <jrmithdobbs> well, deletion isn't very useful outside of annoyance so putting that scenario aside ... with replacing/corrupting/adding ids the benefit to not immediately hijacking the current transaction is useful in obscuring the source of the attack
93 2012-09-27 01:57:25 <jrmithdobbs> s/useful in/that it/
94 2012-09-27 01:59:15 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: eg, it enables cases like in the debit card system where beige boxing the POTS line can go unnoticed much longer than directly modifying the transactions (even though having access to do one almost always gives you access to do the other)
95 2012-09-27 02:00:30 <jgarzik> ahhh. I think I was misunderstanding you. You are suggesting an auth factor to receive _money_, right? I mistakenly thought you meant an auth factor to receive data onto the stick, which seemed untenable.
96 2012-09-27 02:00:32 <jgarzik> nvm
97 2012-09-27 02:00:33 <jrmithdobbs> a local resturaunt here had their line beige boxed for ~3-6 months before they (LEO/CC companies) were able to identify the source of the issue
98 2012-09-27 02:00:47 <jgarzik> yeah, requiring an auth factor to receive money makes sense
99 2012-09-27 02:01:00 <jrmithdobbs> oh, ya, sorry, I'm probably not communicating too well. Way too much sinus meds :(
100 2012-09-27 02:01:46 <jrmithdobbs> (that's a true, sad, story btw :( )
101 2012-09-27 02:02:52 <jgarzik> does not seem possible to avoid skimmers stealing vendor (not customer) money, at POS
102 2012-09-27 02:03:20 <jgarzik> well, call it MITM money :) at the point of transfer
103 2012-09-27 02:11:40 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: not sure i'm willing to go as far as not possible, but it's definitely a hard problem
104 2012-09-27 05:18:01 <jgarzik> CP-ABE software, GPL'd: http://acsc.cs.utexas.edu/cpabe/
105 2012-09-27 05:18:23 <Diablo-D3> whats it do?
106 2012-09-27 05:23:08 <jgarzik> Diablo-D3: makes possible pay-to-policy outputs, according to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=92421.0
107 2012-09-27 05:23:24 <Diablo-D3> ahh
108 2012-09-27 08:16:13 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: hey, can you think of anything that requires an alignment of more than 8 bytes?
109 2012-09-27 08:19:42 <OneEyed> gmaxwell: some SSE2/3 instructions?
110 2012-09-27 08:20:01 <OneEyed> Oops, meant Diablo-D3 :)
111 2012-09-27 08:20:18 <Diablo-D3> I thought sse only needed 8
112 2012-09-27 08:20:21 <Diablo-D3> not 16
113 2012-09-27 08:20:53 <OneEyed> http://bmagic.sourceforge.net/bmsse2opt.html
114 2012-09-27 08:21:02 <OneEyed> "In SSE2 mode all bitwise block pointers must be 16-byte aligned to avoid crashes."
115 2012-09-27 08:21:12 <Diablo-D3> well fuck.
116 2012-09-27 08:21:13 <OneEyed> (just one answer from Google, I haven't read nor endorse this page)
117 2012-09-27 08:21:24 <OneEyed> (just rang a bell when you asked)
118 2012-09-27 08:25:34 <gavinandresen> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400 is the big September announcement
119 2012-09-27 08:26:39 <Diablo-D3> nice
120 2012-09-27 08:29:45 <stamit> next thing you know, we'll have bitcoin install-fests
121 2012-09-27 08:42:05 <epscy> finally
122 2012-09-27 08:42:33 <epscy> i was having trouble sleeping at night due to the anticipation
123 2012-09-27 08:42:43 <gavinandresen> me too!
124 2012-09-27 08:43:47 <epscy> uh
125 2012-09-27 08:44:09 <epscy> are these numbers correct? https://www.bitcoinfoundation.org/support
126 2012-09-27 08:44:32 <Joric> what was that major septembers announcement? sorry i'm late
127 2012-09-27 08:45:02 <epscy> gavin announced that he is revoking everyones bitcoins
128 2012-09-27 08:45:14 <gavinandresen> U CAN HAZ NO MORE!
129 2012-09-27 08:45:59 <sturles> All new bitcoins will be colored pink!
130 2012-09-27 08:47:07 <Diablo-D3> how can you tell if they're invisible?
131 2012-09-27 08:47:45 <Joric> found it https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400
132 2012-09-27 08:49:08 <Joric> https://www.bitcoinfoundation.com says ssl error in chrome
133 2012-09-27 08:50:13 <Joric> 'server's certificate does not match the url'
134 2012-09-27 08:50:24 <gavinandresen> try .org
135 2012-09-27 08:50:39 <Joric> yeah i noticed it was issued to org
136 2012-09-27 08:51:11 <Joric> but that forum post is linked to .com
137 2012-09-27 08:52:02 <gavinandresen> bah, fixed....
138 2012-09-27 09:24:22 <kjj_> You should make Theymos link forum titles to the foundation roster
139 2012-09-27 09:45:18 <robocoin> Thanks Gavin and the others*, this is only professional
140 2012-09-27 09:55:25 <freewil> Gavin for central bank chairman!
141 2012-09-27 09:55:34 <freewil> i only kid
142 2012-09-27 09:56:41 <Joric> Bitcoin CEO to cease all operations from this day to forever
143 2012-09-27 09:57:19 <Joric> "the company just wasn't profitable", said Gavin Andresen
144 2012-09-27 10:21:12 <_dr> resp. sse2, 16-bit aligned (because sse is 128bit)
145 2012-09-27 10:21:38 <_dr> but since nehalem there's almost all sse instructions come in an 'unaligned' flavor with almost no performance issues
146 2012-09-27 10:23:08 <slush1> gavinandresen: thank you for the effort with foundation, I appreciate some covering organisation like this, so Bitcoin project doesn't act as a group of psychopath individuals.
147 2012-09-27 10:24:48 <slush1> gavinandresen: on other hand, I think that membership prices are simply out of scale. I can understand Premier membership, but even SIlver membership is simply too high for most of bitcoin business.
148 2012-09-27 10:27:05 <doublec> how do foundation members communicate? Is there a mailing list? How do they vote? I guess there's lots more information coming so people paying for membership know what they're getting?
149 2012-09-27 10:27:53 <epscy> can anyone propose something to be voted on?
150 2012-09-27 10:28:09 <slush1> Bitcoin is still pretty small and there are only few serious bitcoin businesses who can afford such prices. Except that you're asking for support by HYIP scams and drug dealers.
151 2012-09-27 10:28:14 <epscy> I have always though we should change the name to BitCredits
152 2012-09-27 10:28:25 <doublec> slush1: what do you think would be a better price for silver?
153 2012-09-27 10:29:06 <doublec> also, for those not US based, what is "fall 2012". Autumn? Is that 4th quarter?
154 2012-09-27 10:29:44 <freewil> 3rd quarter
155 2012-09-27 10:29:44 <slush1> doublec: not sure if I need "silver membership", but I can imagine some "industry membership" category for 100 BTC annually.
156 2012-09-27 10:30:00 <freewil> fall = autumn
157 2012-09-27 10:30:05 <gavinandresen> slush1: I don't know nuthin about setting corporate membership prices for foundations...
158 2012-09-27 10:30:22 <gavinandresen> doublec: how would you like to communicate?
159 2012-09-27 10:30:44 <gavinandresen> I was serious when I said I want the Foundation to be member-driven...
160 2012-09-27 10:31:00 <doublec> gavinandresen: I'd start with a mailing list for members
161 2012-09-27 10:31:13 <epscy> we should all congregate in a mansion, like in eyes wide shut
162 2012-09-27 10:31:27 <doublec> freewil: thanks
163 2012-09-27 10:32:29 <doublec> preferably one with a public archive but I'm sure that'd be a member thing to decide
164 2012-09-27 10:33:26 <gavinandresen> and RE: how will voting be done: I dunno, that will have to be figured out (maybe a web page with an email loop to authenticate)
165 2012-09-27 10:35:50 <_dr> i certainly hope premium members get double votes :)
166 2012-09-27 10:35:51 <doublec> membership dues are re-evaluated on dec 31, presumably by some form of decision by the board, so gavinandresen you get to learn about setting prices :)
167 2012-09-27 10:35:55 <_dr> way to delegate voting to people with $$$
168 2012-09-27 10:36:46 <epscy> doublec: or they just use the current prices and adjust for any significant change in the price of BTC
169 2012-09-27 10:36:51 <slush1> Well, I just paid individual membership for myself, but I really cannot afford 500 BTC for adding my pool into the game. And foundation is losing something like 97.5 BTC annually just because it don't offer some reasonable prices for small business.
170 2012-09-27 10:37:13 <gavinandresen> the board will re-evaluate pricing based on how successful sign-ups are, etc etc
171 2012-09-27 10:37:35 <gavinandresen> I mostly nodded off during the "how should we price memberships" discussions.
172 2012-09-27 10:38:15 <epscy> 10,000 btc isn't cool, you know what's cool?
173 2012-09-27 10:38:15 <gavinandresen> slush1: how many employees do you have? Or are you basically a single-person company?
174 2012-09-27 10:38:26 <gavinandresen> 11,000 btc
175 2012-09-27 10:38:53 <slush1> gavinandresen: I'm single person
176 2012-09-27 10:39:58 <gavinandresen> ... so an individual membership makes sense, right?
177 2012-09-27 10:40:24 <doublec> that would depend on what voting power is between the differnet membership levels
178 2012-09-27 10:40:53 <doublec> as a pool that contributes and is reliant on the bitcoin economy slush1 might want a different type of voting level
179 2012-09-27 10:40:54 <epscy> 1 btc = 1 vote
180 2012-09-27 10:40:56 <slush1> gavinandresen: still, I wanted to represent my business, not me personally
181 2012-09-27 10:41:42 <gmaxwell> slush1: it's /only/ what, a months income for you? :P
182 2012-09-27 10:42:27 <phantomcircuit> gavinandresen, come up with various rules and have people pledge funds if those rules are accepted as the foundation voting guidelines
183 2012-09-27 10:42:34 <phantomcircuit> whichever rules gets the most funds wins
184 2012-09-27 10:42:36 <phantomcircuit> simple enough
185 2012-09-27 10:42:43 <gavinandresen> slush1: ok. Nothing is set in stone (and the Linux Foundation has a much more complicated corporate membership fee structure, so there is precedent)
186 2012-09-27 10:42:54 <slush1> gmaxwell: well, I'm not going to pay 10% of my income just for membership in organisation.
187 2012-09-27 10:43:10 <slush1> gmaxwell: and to answer your question, I'm still in loss for this year, because of Linode hack
188 2012-09-27 10:43:47 <phantomcircuit> slush1, did you get a credit from linode?
189 2012-09-27 10:43:58 <gavinandresen> they gave us a free year of hosting! wheee!
190 2012-09-27 10:44:05 <slush1> I get "5 months of free linode", something like 500$
191 2012-09-27 10:44:17 <phantomcircuit> same with bitcoinica
192 2012-09-27 10:44:22 <slush1> or maybe a year, I don't remember. Not enough for my loss
193 2012-09-27 10:44:24 <phantomcircuit> should have told them no and sued :|
194 2012-09-27 10:44:36 <gavinandresen> TOS makes that a non-starter
195 2012-09-27 10:44:50 <phantomcircuit> gavinandresen, no but it would make them settle for more than $400
196 2012-09-27 10:44:57 <slush1> phantomcircuit: it's not so easy, I'm based in EU, they're in USA. The cost for the court is many times higher than the money lost
197 2012-09-27 10:44:59 <phantomcircuit> that's like an hour of decent attorney time
198 2012-09-27 10:45:52 <phantomcircuit> also distributed exchange == byzantine fault tolerance problem
199 2012-09-27 10:46:03 <gmaxwell> slush1: crazy that they didn't go all out and give you a full year at least.
200 2012-09-27 10:46:09 <phantomcircuit> only realized that after i started writting it
201 2012-09-27 11:19:25 <freewil> whos setting up the BitcoinPAC?
202 2012-09-27 11:33:13 <Graet> <slush1> gavinandresen: still, I wanted to represent my business, not me personally <, this was also my thought when i posted in the thread
203 2012-09-27 11:33:14 <Graet> :)
204 2012-09-27 11:33:29 <slush1> :)
205 2012-09-27 11:34:04 <Graet> i love that a foundation is being set up :) much needed
206 2012-09-27 11:37:20 <gavinandresen> RE: cost of membership: see http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/bylaws (scroll to the bottom) for Linux foundation costs (their lowest corporate level: $5,000)
207 2012-09-27 11:44:02 <Graet> 500BTC = $6000
208 2012-09-27 11:44:28 <Graet> an most bitcoinh businesses are starups. not established like a lot of linux foundation supporters
209 2012-09-27 11:45:11 <slush1> exactly, you cannot compare bitcoin and linux at this stage
210 2012-09-27 11:46:39 <gmaxwell> How many linux foundation corporate members are one person companies?
211 2012-09-27 11:47:12 <slush1> how many bitcoin businesses are multi-person companies?
212 2012-09-27 11:47:34 <phantomcircuit> about 5
213 2012-09-27 11:47:35 <gmaxwell> How many bitcoin business are pure scams? :P
214 2012-09-27 11:47:48 <phantomcircuit> about a lot
215 2012-09-27 11:48:06 <edcba> a lot of ppl says bitcoin is ponzi scheme but capitalism looks like ponzi scheme too
216 2012-09-27 11:48:14 <slush1> well, better question: How many bitcoin businesses are *real* companies? ;)
217 2012-09-27 11:48:24 <Graet> mine is
218 2012-09-27 11:48:26 <edcba> (the more money you have the more money you get)
219 2012-09-27 11:48:26 <Graet> :)
220 2012-09-27 11:48:36 <phantomcircuit> slush1, that's a good question actually
221 2012-09-27 11:48:38 <Graet> doesnt mean it is making huge profits though
222 2012-09-27 11:48:46 <jeremias> to me it seems like there is a strong demand for ponzi schemes, therefore it is natural for market ro produce them
223 2012-09-27 11:48:56 <Graet> its one i raised in the pools fourm an got pooh-poohed for....
224 2012-09-27 11:48:59 <jeremias> ro=to
225 2012-09-27 11:49:04 <gavinandresen> I think we'll see a lot more well-funded companies appear over the next year.
226 2012-09-27 11:49:13 <gmaxwell> slush1: I don't disagree that some small business option might make sense. But we are talking about a 'guy with a webserver' level of business at that point; which I think is probably better fit by indivigual membership.
227 2012-09-27 11:49:13 <phantomcircuit> jeremias, there is
228 2012-09-27 11:49:16 <phantomcircuit> it's ridiculous
229 2012-09-27 11:49:30 <Graet> thats great, but why exclude the ones that have supported bitcoin so far?
230 2012-09-27 11:49:48 <Graet> re well funded companies
231 2012-09-27 11:49:48 <phantomcircuit> gavinandresen, there just isn't enough money to be made for strong financing to appear
232 2012-09-27 11:49:53 <gmaxwell> Otherwise if the barrier is excessivel low you'll just see people creating bitcoin businesses-in-name-only for the sake of inflating the voting influence.
233 2012-09-27 11:49:58 <phantomcircuit> although maybe the massive tech bubble in sv wont care
234 2012-09-27 11:50:51 <Graet> are you allowing "any bitcoin buiness" or only bitcoin businesses that are properly registered in thier jurisdiction?
235 2012-09-27 11:51:15 <helo> there will be money to be made as bitcoin's reputation matures
236 2012-09-27 11:51:45 <jeremias> gmaxwell: what prevents people from voting multiple times anyway?
237 2012-09-27 11:51:52 <jeremias> or registering with several identities
238 2012-09-27 11:52:07 <gavinandresen> Graet: I don't think the foundation will want to get into figuring out what "properly registered" means for businesses all over the world... but the bylaws state that members can be removed by a vote of the board
239 2012-09-27 11:52:49 <gavinandresen> (the plan was to have the bylaws up on the website at launch, that fell through the cracks... we'll be making a TO FIX list)
240 2012-09-27 11:53:51 <gmaxwell> jeremias: the cost of a membership combined with the grouping of seats by member class.
241 2012-09-27 11:53:55 <gavinandresen> jeremias: plugging into an identity-checking service is on the short-term TODO
242 2012-09-27 11:54:06 <gmaxwell> ^ and that, apparently! :P
243 2012-09-27 11:56:04 <phantomcircuit> gavinandresen, i've yet to find one that isn't trivially fooled
244 2012-09-27 11:57:32 <gavinandresen> phantomcircuit: ok. I think the combination of costing 2.5 BTC per identity plus best-effort identity checking will work, but we'll see
245 2012-09-27 11:58:38 <SomeoneWeird> yeah
246 2012-09-27 12:02:23 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: keep in mind, someone trying to create trouble has to create a lot of identities.. not just two or three. As you create more your chances of being discovered and losing all your effort increases.
247 2012-09-27 12:05:21 <gavinandresen> the payoff isn't very good, either-- worst case, you manage to single-handedly elect two board members. Who must be real people, and who can be outvoted or even removed by the other 3 board members if they're psychotic or something.
248 2012-09-27 12:09:29 <gmaxwell> Right, thats was my point wrt "grouping of seats by member class", but it's also why it's important that the business seats be protected either by higher fees, greater validation, or both.. So they can't be attached in the same way.
249 2012-09-27 12:09:34 <gmaxwell> er attacked.
250 2012-09-27 12:17:14 <Joric> i just spent a hour trying to compile '[8:15:54 PM] Kirill Kyalundzyuga (Shaman): unsinged int
251 2012-09-27 12:17:36 <Joric> lol
252 2012-09-27 12:18:02 <Joric> sorry
253 2012-09-27 12:49:30 <TD> hey
254 2012-09-27 12:49:40 <TD> gavinandresen: congrats on the launch. superb execution, feeling really positive about that
255 2012-09-27 12:50:06 <gavinandresen> TD: thanks! the other Board members did most of the work
256 2012-09-27 12:58:46 <TD> sipa: poke
257 2012-09-27 13:15:15 <TD> gavinandresen: will the foundation also have a process for handling press enquiries ?
258 2012-09-27 13:15:22 <TD> i guess press@bitcoin.org should forward there now?
259 2012-09-27 14:28:31 <jgarzik> yay, bitcoin foundation is out
260 2012-09-27 14:28:41 <jgarzik> ACTION reads scrollback
261 2012-09-27 14:31:33 <sebicas> Not sure if you already know, but wiki is down https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/
262 2012-09-27 14:35:17 <amiller> whoa, the bitcoin foundation is really cool
263 2012-09-27 14:41:55 <Diapolo> I'm currently trying to setup a Gitian VM from Gavins notes ... hope I get all sorted out :D.
264 2012-09-27 15:03:10 <Diapolo> Do I need to run make-base-vm for i386 AND amd64 while seting up gitian?
265 2012-09-27 15:08:52 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: whats the status of getting pull-tester to use github's pull status api? Does it have to use oauth?
266 2012-09-27 15:09:13 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: no idea, I didn't dig in to figure it out
267 2012-09-27 15:09:26 <BlueMatt> oh, darn, I thought you did
268 2012-09-27 15:09:44 <gavinandresen> Diapolo: if you want to build Linux binaries, then yes you need both -32 and -64 vms
269 2012-09-27 15:10:05 <gavinandresen> Diapolo: I don't remember which VM the windows build uses
270 2012-09-27 15:10:11 <TD> BlueMatt: i just realized that when you rebase/re-push your fullverif branch it'll blow away all the M: notes i made :( could you maybe push the new version to a new branch instead so i can see the old notes?
271 2012-09-27 15:10:44 <BlueMatt> TD: ack, also, sorry I havent really started redoing the stuff I said I would yet...at least I have no class on fridays :)
272 2012-09-27 15:13:23 <sipa> TD: currently on the road to Switzerland :)
273 2012-09-27 15:13:59 <TD> sipa: sweet!
274 2012-09-27 15:14:05 <TD> we'll have to grab a drink next week
275 2012-09-27 15:14:28 <Diapolo> gavinandresen: thanks, I'll try it further
276 2012-09-27 15:14:47 <sipa> i should be there in a few hours
277 2012-09-27 15:14:59 <Diapolo> I added --lxc to the make-base-vm as I got errors before ...
278 2012-09-27 15:15:07 <gavinandresen> Diapolo: I think my notes left out one step that is mentioned in the gitian-builder github README (setting up networking on the VM...)
279 2012-09-27 15:15:21 <sipa> TD: yes, definitely
280 2012-09-27 15:17:55 <Diapolo> gavinandresen: Where can I find that part with network setup? It's not in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/contrib/gitian-descriptors/README
281 2012-09-27 15:18:35 <gavinandresen> Diapolo: https://github.com/devrandom/gitian-builder
282 2012-09-27 15:18:45 <gavinandresen> "The machine configuration requires access to br0 and assumes that the host address is 10.0.2.2:"
283 2012-09-27 15:19:03 <Diapolo> yeah that is currently not fulfilled
284 2012-09-27 15:21:00 <Diapolo> When I execute:
285 2012-09-27 15:21:42 <Diapolo> and sudo ifconfig br0 10.0.2.2/24 up the nat to use normal internet in the Ubuntu VM is still working?
286 2012-09-27 15:23:26 <Diapolo> yes it does ^^
287 2012-09-27 15:27:49 <Diapolo> fatal: ambiguous argument 'HEAD': unknown revision or path not in the working tree.
288 2012-09-27 15:27:51 <Diapolo> :-/
289 2012-09-27 15:28:13 <Diapolo> ./bin/gbuild:204: error looking up commit for tag HEAD (RuntimeError)
290 2012-09-27 15:28:14 <Diapolo> \tfrom ./bin/gbuild:191
291 2012-09-27 15:28:59 <gavinandresen> try v0.7.0 instead of HEAD
292 2012-09-27 15:29:57 <Diapolo> says making a new image copy let's see
293 2012-09-27 15:30:57 <Diapolo> nv20
294 2012-09-27 15:34:01 <Diapolo> Are these non-persistent? I had to re enter these after a VM reboot:
295 2012-09-27 15:34:32 <gavinandresen> i don't know nuthin about network configuration in a VM....
296 2012-09-27 15:35:11 <Diapolo> and I know nothing about Linux internals ^^ I'll fiddle around, thanks for now Gavin
297 2012-09-27 15:38:34 <Diapolo> it seems it started building now :D
298 2012-09-27 15:39:54 <BlueMatt> ifconfig/brctl is never persistent
299 2012-09-27 15:40:08 <BlueMatt> (if (debian) see /etc/network/interfaces)
300 2012-09-27 15:41:06 <Diapolo> I now have build/out/bin/32/bitcoind and bitcoin-qt
301 2012-09-27 15:47:53 <Diapolo> how cool is that, bitcoin-qt x64 is running under Ubuntu :-D
302 2012-09-27 15:53:45 <jgarzik> 09/27/12 17:51:59 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
303 2012-09-27 15:53:45 <jgarzik> 09/27/12 17:51:59 SetBestChain: new best=0000000000000285f407 height=200781 work=503090397358087352328 date=09/27/12 17:51:17
304 2012-09-27 15:53:47 <jgarzik> 09/27/12 17:52:00 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500
305 2012-09-27 15:53:49 <jgarzik> 09/27/12 17:52:04 getblocks -1 to 00000000000000000000 limit 500
306 2012-09-27 15:53:53 <jgarzik> such weird behavior
307 2012-09-27 15:53:59 <jgarzik> nodes behave as if they are stuck at block 0
308 2012-09-27 15:54:14 <jgarzik> (unless there's another condition I'm missing that creates -1/0 getblocks)
309 2012-09-27 15:54:34 <jgarzik> ACTION sees this consistently on every node, public or private
310 2012-09-27 15:58:34 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: iirc thats the "give me your current head" request
311 2012-09-27 15:58:39 <BlueMatt> or something like that..
312 2012-09-27 16:00:30 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: it returns the genesis block AFAICS
313 2012-09-27 16:01:13 <jgarzik> // Find the last block the caller has in the main chain
314 2012-09-27 16:01:30 <BlueMatt> give me a sec, it does something fun...
315 2012-09-27 16:01:33 <jgarzik> GetBlockIndex() returns pindexGenesisBlock, if hash search fails
316 2012-09-27 16:02:02 <BlueMatt> (or it uselessly is requested on every new connection and someone thought it did something fun)
317 2012-09-27 16:12:47 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: hmm...maybe I was dreaming, I dont see where it was, but I have seen it all the time...
318 2012-09-27 16:14:19 <BlueMatt> ACTION just remembered using it in the block acceptance tester...(but it checks if you have blocks first, so...)
319 2012-09-27 16:27:34 <BlueMatt> ;;later tell TD should ChainSplitTest.testForking3 and ChainSplitTest.testDoubleSpendOnForkPending be broken on master?
320 2012-09-27 16:27:35 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
321 2012-09-27 16:43:49 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: is there a way to get-top-hash via P2P, without requesting the entire chain?
322 2012-09-27 16:43:53 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: I'd love to know
323 2012-09-27 16:44:12 <jgarzik> gettophash seems like a reasonable P2P addition. Makes reverse-header-sync easier.
324 2012-09-27 16:46:38 <BlueMatt> oh, hey, wikis down
325 2012-09-27 16:46:40 <BlueMatt> MagicalTux: ^
326 2012-09-27 16:47:01 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: cant recall one off the top of my head...and yea, would be nice
327 2012-09-27 16:53:39 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: reverse-header-sync will ultimately need something that can pipeline, having to do one call per header would be pretty poor for performance. Though, yes, getting the top would be useful. And I don't believe we have a way to do that (beyond waiting for a new block)
328 2012-09-27 16:54:19 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: sure there are expensive ways to get-top: getheaders stream
329 2012-09-27 16:54:28 <jgarzik> forward walk is better than waiting
330 2012-09-27 16:59:52 <gmaxwell> holy really fast blocks batman.
331 2012-09-27 17:00:40 <gmaxwell> for a bit there every time I ran getinfo it was a new best block 0_o
332 2012-09-27 17:01:20 <TD> jgarzik: 00000 is the stop hash
333 2012-09-27 17:01:25 <TD> jgarzik: it just means "don't stop"
334 2012-09-27 17:01:45 <jgarzik> TD: nod
335 2012-09-27 17:01:52 <jgarzik> TD: and -1 means 'start at genesis'
336 2012-09-27 17:02:08 <jgarzik> TD: thus, these nodes are requesting the first 500 blocks of the chain... each time a new network block appears
337 2012-09-27 17:03:08 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: oh maybe those are freeking altocoin nodes that use the same protocol version.
338 2012-09-27 17:03:17 <TD> can't you use getpeerinfo to find out what they are?
339 2012-09-27 17:03:21 <gmaxwell> and they're rejecting block 1
340 2012-09-27 17:06:40 <jgarzik> TD: they appear to be satoshi clients all
341 2012-09-27 17:06:50 <TD> that's weird indeed
342 2012-09-27 17:06:51 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: ^
343 2012-09-27 17:06:54 <jgarzik> at least reporting such
344 2012-09-27 17:07:02 <TD> i was wondering if there was another bcj bug
345 2012-09-27 17:07:12 <TD> guess not. assuming you mean the subver is set
346 2012-09-27 17:07:21 <jgarzik> in some cases
347 2012-09-27 17:07:31 <jgarzik> others too old 4 subver
348 2012-09-27 17:07:59 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: are these the 'your feed got truncated, keep going' prods?
349 2012-09-27 17:08:21 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: no, local, behind fw
350 2012-09-27 17:08:54 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: though not sure what you mean by "feed got truncated" exmulti's public nodes are always vanilla bitcoin.git material