1 2012-10-18 00:04:43 <Luke-Jr> maaku: "push N bytes" opcode + at least 1 byte for height
  2 2012-10-18 00:13:23 <forrestv> Luke-Jr, aren't you just retroactively making up that reason? that's only required by BIP 0034
  3 2012-10-18 00:14:08 <Luke-Jr> forrestv: so? :p
  4 2012-10-18 00:14:27 <Luke-Jr> the old 2 byte minimum is irrelevant/ignorable with BIP 34
  5 2012-10-18 00:17:44 <vazakl> http://eprint.iacr.org/2012/584.pdf    Quantitative Analysis of the Full Bitcoin Transaction Graph
  6 2012-10-18 00:24:34 <vazakl> the co-inventor of RSA is an author on that paper
  7 2012-10-18 00:28:07 <maaku> i'm curious about the historical reason, Luke-Jr
  8 2012-10-18 00:29:59 <Luke-Jr> vazakl: https://gist.github.com/3901921
  9 2012-10-18 00:30:32 <Luke-Jr> maaku: oh ok, let me go dig Satoshi out of his cave
 10 2012-10-18 00:32:02 <robbak> On another matter: gmaxwel and I found a glitch that is showing up when using testnet. When the client connects to a testnet1 peer, it adds the blockchain length to cPeerBlockCounts.
 11 2012-10-18 00:32:22 <Luke-Jr> ??? long known?
 12 2012-10-18 00:33:00 <robbak> Well, I don't know if others know about it, neither of us did.
 13 2012-10-18 00:33:32 <Luke-Jr> hmm, if gmaxwell didn't know about it, it must be something else
 14 2012-10-18 00:33:51 <robbak> If several old testnet peers are queried, the predicted length jumps.
 15 2012-10-18 00:40:55 <robbak> (I think I should have said testnet2, as we are on testnet3 now, aren't we).. It shows up as the client occasionally showing that it is behind by some 14k blocks.
 16 2012-10-18 00:41:20 <Luke-Jr> robbak: pretty sure that's well-known - and quite handy for testing <.<
 17 2012-10-18 00:43:21 <robbak> Yes. however, could it be leveraged as a DOS-type attack? many peers advertising invalid blockchain lengths, preventing a client from working?
 18 2012-10-18 00:43:41 <Luke-Jr> it doesn't prevent clients from working, just makes the download progress bar appear
 19 2012-10-18 00:44:22 <Luke-Jr> unless I'm failing to understand your description of some truly new bug
 20 2012-10-18 00:44:27 <Luke-Jr> new-discovered*
 21 2012-10-18 00:44:46 <robbak> OK. That's fine, then. No, your descriptions sound right.
 22 2012-10-18 00:46:14 <robbak> If it's known and not a problem, it's all good.
 23 2012-10-18 00:51:06 <robbak> I'm just building 0.7.1, preparing for the upcommong release. Apart from doing a few transactions on testnet, and building and running test_bitcoin, is there anything I should be doing to make sure my build is good?
 24 2012-10-18 00:51:18 <robbak> (I am building for FreeBSD
 25 2012-10-18 00:52:26 <Luke-Jr> not Mac?
 26 2012-10-18 00:52:49 <Luke-Jr> (0.7.1 release is already past, btw)
 27 2012-10-18 00:52:58 <robbak> No, Standard FreeBSD, version 9.
 28 2012-10-18 00:53:54 <robbak> Ah. I was waiting for it to appear on bitcoin.org.
 29 2012-10-18 00:54:21 <robbak> I saw it had been tagged in git, and saw the discussion here last night.
 30 2012-10-18 01:02:39 <robbak> Well, I managed to get some errors from test_bitcoin -- but only because my pwd no longer existed! All fine when I cd to somewhere valid.
 31 2012-10-18 02:56:41 <an3k> hi everybody. anyone familiar with iOS developing?
 32 2012-10-18 03:19:20 <wumpus> sipa: old school kvm, still
 33 2012-10-18 04:35:23 <sipa> wumpus: strange, mine is also in kvm
 34 2012-10-18 04:54:57 <maaku> are zero-value outputs allowed?
 35 2012-10-18 04:55:43 <jgarzik> maaku: newer versions do not relay zero-value outputs
 36 2012-10-18 04:55:58 <jgarzik> maaku: but if they appear in the blockchain, they will be validated.
 37 2012-10-18 04:59:05 <maaku> ok thx
 38 2012-10-18 06:43:14 <davout> ohai
 39 2012-10-18 06:43:37 <davout> if anyone cares i've got a response on my email to dorit ron and adi shamir
 40 2012-10-18 06:43:54 <davout> posted it here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=118947.40
 41 2012-10-18 06:48:57 <sipa> eh, where?
 42 2012-10-18 06:49:23 <sipa> that thread seems to be about mtgox and aml
 43 2012-10-18 06:56:49 <jeremias> davout: wrong link?
 44 2012-10-18 06:57:43 <davout> jeremias: yes
 45 2012-10-18 06:58:19 <davout> jeremias: here you go https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=118797.msg1280496#msg1280496
 46 2012-10-18 11:22:03 <bladezor> Hello, it seems like Bitcoin isn't letting me send a transaction without a transaction fee
 47 2012-10-18 11:22:32 <jeremias> forge transaction by hand, then?
 48 2012-10-18 11:22:45 <jeremias> that is pretty easy with brainwallet.org
 49 2012-10-18 11:22:53 <jeremias> but in general, the fees are there to protect you
 50 2012-10-18 11:23:15 <bladezor> lol
 51 2012-10-18 11:23:18 <jeremias> if you create transaction without fees, it might be not included in the block chain
 52 2012-10-18 11:23:29 <jeremias> not protect, but to help
 53 2012-10-18 11:23:41 <bladezor> Well, the reason I mention
 54 2012-10-18 11:24:59 <bladezor> Is because I'd like to send BC I have in a few accounts back to my main addy
 55 2012-10-18 11:26:16 <jeremias> so?
 56 2012-10-18 11:26:31 <bladezor> Does that mean the coins go limbo?
 57 2012-10-18 11:26:38 <jeremias> nope
 58 2012-10-18 11:26:39 <bladezor> Or the changes don't propegate
 59 2012-10-18 11:27:11 <jeremias> I would just accept the fees
 60 2012-10-18 11:27:23 <jeremias> the fees are pretty sane with the main client
 61 2012-10-18 11:27:41 <jeremias> if you want to save those, you have to research it yourself how to construct transaction
 62 2012-10-18 11:27:47 <gmaxwell> 06:26 < bladezor> Does that mean the coins go limbo?
 63 2012-10-18 11:27:50 <gmaxwell> Yes, kinda.
 64 2012-10-18 11:28:18 <gmaxwell> If the transaction won't relay then the it will be stuck and the inputs will be unspendable in your wallet.
 65 2012-10-18 11:28:49 <gmaxwell> This is recoverable, but it requires restoring your wallet from a backup or effectively hex editing it to remove the stuck transactiooon.
 66 2012-10-18 11:28:59 <bladezor> ah
 67 2012-10-18 11:29:20 <jeremias> in the main client yep, but you can always construct the transaction outside main client also
 68 2012-10-18 11:29:26 <gmaxwell> It's sort of a pointless excercise: the only time it's worth doing is when the transaction would soon become elegable to relay as a free txn.
 69 2012-10-18 11:29:27 <jeremias> export the private key etc
 70 2012-10-18 11:29:30 <Luke-Jr> bladezor: part of your confusion may lie in the fact that there aren't accounts in the first place
 71 2012-10-18 11:29:31 <jeremias> but not advisable
 72 2012-10-18 11:29:53 <Luke-Jr> jeremias: you don't even need to export the priv key
 73 2012-10-18 11:29:54 <gmaxwell> and in that case you might as well wait.
 74 2012-10-18 11:31:03 <root2> I just sent a feeless transaction with 0.7.0-beta
 75 2012-10-18 11:31:08 <bladezor> Okay
 76 2012-10-18 11:31:09 <root2> is that not supposed to be allowed?
 77 2012-10-18 11:31:10 <bladezor> Or rather
 78 2012-10-18 11:31:26 <root2> it has 4 confirmations
 79 2012-10-18 11:31:32 <Luke-Jr> bladezor: miners are currently pretty generous about letting many transactions in without a fee right now
 80 2012-10-18 11:31:38 <gmaxwell> root2: ... No, of course it is; the overwhelming majority of (non dice) transactions are feeless.
 81 2012-10-18 11:31:47 <bladezor> Is there a lower limit to the amount before fees are added?
 82 2012-10-18 11:31:59 <gmaxwell> bladezor: opposite in a way.
 83 2012-10-18 11:32:09 <gmaxwell> bladezor: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees
 84 2012-10-18 11:32:36 <gmaxwell> Any transaction with an output smaller than 0.01 btc is required to pay a fee.
 85 2012-10-18 11:33:10 <bladezor> gmaxwell: I've never had an option every transaction I've done has been hit with a fee
 86 2012-10-18 11:33:13 <bladezor> That's why I'm asking
 87 2012-10-18 11:33:27 <gmaxwell> Any transaction that rapidly reuses coins recently recieved relative to its size is required.. (In these caases these requires are soft rules imposed by common behavior)
 88 2012-10-18 11:34:28 <gmaxwell> The reasons this behavior exists is to prevent DOS attacks; without them anyone who can write a while loop could make bitcoin unusable.
 89 2012-10-18 11:35:05 <bladezor> I see
 90 2012-10-18 11:36:02 <gmaxwell> The idea is to objectively distinguish DOS attackers by reconizing high volume behavior are requiring small fees from it. Small fees add up and discourage the attacks by taking away the coins that make the attacker able to transact.
 91 2012-10-18 11:36:39 <gmaxwell> bladezor: if you're always getting them its because you're either sending tiny amounts or rapidly turning around coins you just recieved.
 92 2012-10-18 11:37:14 <gmaxwell> Letting coins sit around in your wallet helps.  Also getting paid in larger increments helps because it results in you creating smaller data-sized transactioons.
 93 2012-10-18 11:37:29 <bladezor> gmaxwell: ahh, I see
 94 2012-10-18 11:58:33 <Titanium> is this a limit of the client in creating a transaction, or is it a limit where the client will consoder a block invalid if it does not meet this fee requirement?
 95 2012-10-18 11:59:10 <Luke-Jr> neither
 96 2012-10-18 11:59:13 <Titanium> also it doesnt help that much with ddos if you mine the block yourself
 97 2012-10-18 11:59:39 <gmaxwell> Titanium: um. Yes, it does.
 98 2012-10-18 11:59:45 <Titanium> how?
 99 2012-10-18 11:59:56 <Titanium> if you mine the block yourself... you get the fees
100 2012-10-18 12:00:25 <gmaxwell> Titanium: because mining a block requires about $500 worth of computation, so your abilit to produce blocks is finite.
101 2012-10-18 12:00:41 <Luke-Jr> Titanium: accepting transactions in blocks costs quite a bit right now, unfortunately
102 2012-10-18 12:00:52 <gmaxwell> (and if you have so much investe in bitcoin that you can produce lots of blocks presumably you're better off mining it than attacking it)
103 2012-10-18 12:00:53 <Luke-Jr> plus what gmaxwell said for the future
104 2012-10-18 12:01:00 <Titanium> i made one the other day with .0000000001 fee for 1 btc sent
105 2012-10-18 12:01:23 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: any chance you could look over the solo mining code for libblkmaker?
106 2012-10-18 12:01:28 <gmaxwell> fees below 0.0001 BTC are treated as zero anyways.
107 2012-10-18 12:01:32 <Titanium> so where is the source of this limit
108 2012-10-18 12:01:38 <gmaxwell> Titanium: _most_ transactions pay no fees at all.
109 2012-10-18 12:01:44 <Luke-Jr> Titanium: miners enforce it
110 2012-10-18 12:01:55 <gmaxwell> Titanium: the source of the limit is that regular nodes and miners enforce it.
111 2012-10-18 12:02:05 <Titanium> and they will reject the block if it doesnt have the correct fee?
112 2012-10-18 12:02:12 <Luke-Jr> nobody rejects blocks due to fees
113 2012-10-18 12:02:15 <Titanium> or they just wotn include it?
114 2012-10-18 12:02:21 <Titanium> and it will take a while
115 2012-10-18 12:02:23 <Luke-Jr> miners just don't include transactions in their blocks if they look like spam
116 2012-10-18 12:02:27 <gmaxwell> They will not relay transactions that don't meet the rules, and they will not mine them.
117 2012-10-18 12:02:39 <Titanium> they wotn relay them?>
118 2012-10-18 12:02:45 <Titanium> how do I connect to pools directly?
119 2012-10-18 12:02:52 <gmaxwell> Titanium: no, because they don't get relayed they wont ever go through unless they age enough to pass as free.
120 2012-10-18 12:02:54 <Titanium> i want to make sure my transactions work
121 2012-10-18 12:02:56 <Luke-Jr> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Free_transaction_relay_policy
122 2012-10-18 12:03:12 <Titanium> that 8 conections limit is a bitch
123 2012-10-18 12:03:16 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: thats not helpful. It's not like you take free transactions that otherwise should have a fee.
124 2012-10-18 12:03:19 <Titanium> is there an alternative client?
125 2012-10-18 12:03:31 <gmaxwell> wtf. 8 connections isn't a problem.
126 2012-10-18 12:03:32 <sturles> Titanium: What 8 connection limit?
127 2012-10-18 12:03:33 <gmaxwell> You're crazy.
128 2012-10-18 12:03:48 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: it's helpful for getting transactions relayed despite relay limits
129 2012-10-18 12:03:52 <Titanium> ifyou only connect to a few nodes, and most dont accept 'spam' transactions...
130 2012-10-18 12:03:59 <gmaxwell> Titanium: pratically no nodes will relay DOS-like transactions, including most pools nodes themselves.
131 2012-10-18 12:04:11 <Titanium> connecting to more nodes increases the speed to get your tx included
132 2012-10-18 12:04:18 <gmaxwell> Titanium: No, it doesn't.
133 2012-10-18 12:04:30 <Titanium> there are some pool that include any tx
134 2012-10-18 12:04:32 <Luke-Jr> not significantly
135 2012-10-18 12:04:35 <Titanium> i want to get my tx to them
136 2012-10-18 12:04:37 <Luke-Jr> Titanium: like what?
137 2012-10-18 12:04:40 <Titanium> not sure
138 2012-10-18 12:04:48 <Titanium> i think elgiuous takes 'any' tx fee
139 2012-10-18 12:04:51 <gmaxwell> Titanium: since pratically no nodes will accept them your chances would be small even if you were connecting to a thousand nodes.
140 2012-10-18 12:04:51 <Luke-Jr> no
141 2012-10-18 12:04:52 <sturles> I got trouble with more than ~1000 incoming connection just after a restart, but I haven't seen that since version 0.4 or something.
142 2012-10-18 12:04:58 <Luke-Jr> Eligius takes any transaction *provided it has a fee*
143 2012-10-18 12:05:08 <Titanium> a few of .000001
144 2012-10-18 12:05:10 <gmaxwell> And connecting to a thousand nodes would slow you down massively and waste a ton of network resources.
145 2012-10-18 12:05:24 <sturles> Yep.
146 2012-10-18 12:05:24 <Titanium> i have servers
147 2012-10-18 12:05:29 <Titanium> im not worried
148 2012-10-18 12:05:35 <Luke-Jr> Titanium: it's not because of bandwidth
149 2012-10-18 12:05:42 <Titanium> and my router can setup nat translations real fast
150 2012-10-18 12:05:43 <Luke-Jr> it's because the p2p networking code Satoshi wrote sucks
151 2012-10-18 12:05:47 <sturles> I can sign that.  1000 connections will kill the performance of your client.
152 2012-10-18 12:05:49 <gmaxwell> Titanium: you're not worred about wasting a ton of the bitcoin's network's resources?
153 2012-10-18 12:05:59 <Titanium> im not
154 2012-10-18 12:06:04 <Titanium> cause others only connect to 8
155 2012-10-18 12:06:09 <Luke-Jr> ???
156 2012-10-18 12:06:11 <Titanium> so its not a big deal overall
157 2012-10-18 12:06:23 <Titanium> i woudl end up only connecting to custom clients
158 2012-10-18 12:06:25 <gmaxwell> sturles: you shouldn't run 1000 or greater you'll run out of FD's and corrupt your database unless you upped the ulimits. The select base code will also break.
159 2012-10-18 12:06:27 <sturles> Titanium: Not worried about killing the performance of your bitcvoin client either?
160 2012-10-18 12:06:40 <Titanium> is there a 3rd party client?
161 2012-10-18 12:06:57 <gmaxwell> Titanium: You need to get your ineffective antisocial behavior under control.
162 2012-10-18 12:07:13 <Titanium> i just want to send my 1 bitcoin to another dude that happens to have 8 sources
163 2012-10-18 12:07:16 <Titanium> and not pay fees
164 2012-10-18 12:07:20 <Luke-Jr> Titanium: there are multiple clients, but only bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt are fully verifying so far
165 2012-10-18 12:07:26 <sturles> gmaxwell: Yep, but some old version didn't throttle.  At least not early enough.  It happened every time I tried to restart the client, buit I haven't seen it in newer versions.
166 2012-10-18 12:07:37 <gmaxwell> Titanium: connecting to more nodes will not benefit you materially. It will not enable you to violate the anti-dos attack fee rules.
167 2012-10-18 12:07:41 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: no, you corrupt stuff only IF you up the ulimits
168 2012-10-18 12:07:56 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: if you don't up the ulimit, you simply CAN'T connect to more than ~1000
169 2012-10-18 12:08:03 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: well you'll corrupt the databases if you run out of file descriptors.
170 2012-10-18 12:08:05 <Titanium> 1000 is probably enough
171 2012-10-18 12:08:10 <Titanium> per node
172 2012-10-18 12:08:17 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: oh, seriously?
173 2012-10-18 12:08:22 <gmaxwell> Titanium: no, jesus, it's not.
174 2012-10-18 12:08:33 <Titanium> hwo many nodes are there, and how many nodes at 1000 each can I run?
175 2012-10-18 12:08:34 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: yea, bdb does open/close on the fly and if it can't open a new log things get bad.
176 2012-10-18 12:08:38 <Luke-Jr> ugh
177 2012-10-18 12:09:01 <gmaxwell> Titanium: trying lots doesn't do you any good, Thats like saying if you kiss a lot of frogs one may become a princess.
178 2012-10-18 12:09:01 <Titanium> also i assume any node with 8 connections will politely refuse my connection
179 2012-10-18 12:09:07 <Luke-Jr> Titanium: false
180 2012-10-18 12:09:30 <gmaxwell> Nodes have 125 inbound connections by default.
181 2012-10-18 12:09:43 <Titanium> thanks!
182 2012-10-18 12:09:54 <Titanium> then my idea wotn work :(
183 2012-10-18 12:10:04 <Titanium> il need a lot of nodes each at 1000 connections
184 2012-10-18 12:10:25 <gmaxwell> Titanium: I don't know why you won't listen to the developers of the software. Your idea won't work because nodes that will relay or mine with no fees when the txn looks like a dos attack basically don't exist.
185 2012-10-18 12:10:28 <Titanium> i only have like 20 ip addresses, are there more than 20k nodes?
186 2012-10-18 12:10:41 <gmaxwell> If they existed bitcoin would be over.
187 2012-10-18 12:10:49 <Titanium> i want to connect directly to the guy that will actually include my tx
188 2012-10-18 12:11:02 <gmaxwell> Because some shithead who didn't care about how antisocial his actions were would perform the aformentioned dos attack and tada.
189 2012-10-18 12:11:04 <Titanium> to get around the normal clients that dotn relay
190 2012-10-18 12:11:18 <gmaxwell> Titanium: what guy? there is no such guy.
191 2012-10-18 12:11:29 <Titanium> theres probably at least one
192 2012-10-18 12:11:55 <gmaxwell> Luke is one of the very few pool operators that have non standard fee rules and he wouldn't accept a transaction without a fee except for someone he has a business relationship with.
193 2012-10-18 12:12:30 <Titanium> imnot tryign to do a DOS attack (I have a way to do it anyways)
194 2012-10-18 12:12:36 <Titanium> i just want to send bitcoins for free
195 2012-10-18 12:12:49 <gmaxwell> Titanium: you realize you've wasted far more than a half cent of your own and my time talking about this, right?
196 2012-10-18 12:12:54 <Titanium> i woudl liek to actually use bitcoins for micro tx
197 2012-10-18 12:13:05 <Titanium> but its bitcoin which is a hobby
198 2012-10-18 12:13:10 <Titanium> so I dont value my time at all
199 2012-10-18 12:13:24 <gmaxwell> Titanium: or anyone elses time or resources aparently
200 2012-10-18 12:13:27 <gmaxwell> ::ploink::
201 2012-10-18 12:13:38 <Titanium> the time I have spent keeping my miners running woudl amke me more money at work
202 2012-10-18 12:13:50 <Luke-Jr> 
ACTION pokes gmaxwell

203 2012-10-18 12:14:16 <Titanium> i want to be able to send a small fraction of a US penny to someone for free
204 2012-10-18 12:14:24 <Luke-Jr> Titanium: Bitcoin isn't designed for that, kthx bai
205 2012-10-18 12:14:24 <Titanium> or a small percent fee like .1%
206 2012-10-18 12:14:43 <Titanium> i thought bitcoin was for micro tx where paypal is evil
207 2012-10-18 12:15:05 <Titanium> guess I was wrong about it
208 2012-10-18 12:15:23 <Luke-Jr> i thought bitcoin was for tonal and base 8*2
209 2012-10-18 12:15:51 <Titanium> keep workign at it and it could be
210 2012-10-18 12:15:56 <gmaxwell> Titanium: paypal is evil even at the $1 level. (or really at any price)
211 2012-10-18 12:16:54 <Titanium> for example, the ability to generate $.0001 of bitcoin and send to the recipient to verify that your email was worth reading
212 2012-10-18 12:16:55 <gmaxwell> Bitcoin is a global broadcast medium. It is not sensible to pay someone femtocoins every time you decide you like their shoes. People have widly different definitions of micropayments.
213 2012-10-18 12:17:15 <helo> Titanium: that's kind of like encouraging ford to keep working at making sedans, thinking that soon they'll release one that flies
214 2012-10-18 12:17:19 <Titanium> ya some think micropayments are $1-$10
215 2012-10-18 12:17:33 <Titanium> i think of fractions of a penny
216 2012-10-18 12:18:01 <gmaxwell> Bitcoin is reasonable for the jumbomicropayments, not the micromicro ones... though you could create _other_ systems which are _backed_ and demnominated in bitcoin which are sutiable for really tiny payments.
217 2012-10-18 12:18:11 <Titanium> amounts so small that for one person they just dont care
218 2012-10-18 12:18:16 <helo> ford isn't going to make a flying car because it doesn't make sense. it's the same for microtransactions and bitcoin.
219 2012-10-18 12:18:23 <gmaxwell> I wish witcoin still existed because it was a nice example of that.
220 2012-10-18 12:18:34 <Titanium> flying cars will be here someday, hopefully before I die
221 2012-10-18 12:18:56 <Titanium> but it will probably be personal aircraft, not cars
222 2012-10-18 12:18:57 <gmaxwell> (You can still use bitcoin the currency without using bitcoin the transaction system)
223 2012-10-18 12:19:16 <Titanium> but bitcoin provides a good trust infastructure
224 2012-10-18 12:19:21 <Luke-Jr> hmm, more Bitcoins to differentiate between
225 2012-10-18 12:19:37 <Luke-Jr> Titanium: you don't need trust for tips
226 2012-10-18 12:19:52 <Titanium> im thinking more along the lines of pay per page view for no adds
227 2012-10-18 12:20:00 <Titanium> or pay to send email to show you arent sending millions
228 2012-10-18 12:20:14 <gmaxwell> You need a _different_ kind of trust for that than bitcoin provides.
229 2012-10-18 12:21:06 <gmaxwell> You need a small amount of specialized trust that scales well. Bitcoin provides an enourmous amount of generalized trust that doesn't scale to indivigually worthless transactions, and can't scale to worthless transactions.
230 2012-10-18 12:21:06 <Titanium> i woudl just need to make my own pool to make it work
231 2012-10-18 12:21:20 <Titanium> and accept any tx
232 2012-10-18 12:21:26 <gmaxwell> Titanium: that doesn't work either.
233 2012-10-18 12:21:34 <Titanium> why not?
234 2012-10-18 12:21:42 <gmaxwell> If bitcoin let you make ~worthless transactions without bound then bitcoin would be over because someone would flood it for fun.
235 2012-10-18 12:21:59 <Titanium> you have new clients to address that
236 2012-10-18 12:22:15 <gmaxwell> Titanium: because (1) no one would use it because people don't want bitcoin to become worthless, (2) because you can still only make a small number of blocks
237 2012-10-18 12:22:18 <Titanium> and the big clients should be able to handle continuous 2 MB blocks
238 2012-10-18 12:22:36 <Titanium> and just scale the fees
239 2012-10-18 12:22:57 <gmaxwell> Titanium: um. The protocol rules limit blocks to 1MB. Changing that is technically similar to making the supply of bitcoin be 42 million instead.
240 2012-10-18 12:23:07 <Titanium> i think lots of people woudl use my pool if it was a PPS 101% payout
241 2012-10-18 12:23:18 <Titanium> ahh, I though tit was 2 MBB
242 2012-10-18 12:23:23 <Titanium> lol
243 2012-10-18 12:23:36 <gmaxwell> And making large block is buring our startup capital.
244 2012-10-18 12:23:41 <gmaxwell> er burning*
245 2012-10-18 12:23:49 <Titanium> i dont understand
246 2012-10-18 12:24:11 <Luke-Jr> ^
247 2012-10-18 12:24:23 <Titanium> real clients when you make them, will store the chain in an efficient manner
248 2012-10-18 12:24:33 <Titanium> and the thin ones will not store it all
249 2012-10-18 12:24:34 <gmaxwell> ...
250 2012-10-18 12:24:52 <gmaxwell> Titanium: We _do_ store the chain in an efficient manner now.
251 2012-10-18 12:24:56 <Titanium> so lots of data int he block chain should only impact hard disk size and iops
252 2012-10-18 12:25:10 <Titanium> a few io operations to disk per tx you want to verify
253 2012-10-18 12:25:25 <gmaxwell> And thin clients degrade security for themselves and for the system as a whole so while they are useful they are not a magical solution.
254 2012-10-18 12:25:48 <Titanium> they are useful as long as the pools dont use thin clients
255 2012-10-18 12:25:50 <gmaxwell> Titanium: And the time to start a new nodes, and the amount of banwidth neede to start a new node.
256 2012-10-18 12:25:56 <gmaxwell> No. thats incorrect.
257 2012-10-18 12:26:21 <Titanium> block chain should be downloadeable by ftp
258 2012-10-18 12:26:23 <gmaxwell> If only pools are validating then, again, bitcoin is over. Because pools would obviously just mine themselves 1000 BTC per block and no one would be the wiser.
259 2012-10-18 12:26:45 <Titanium> good point
260 2012-10-18 12:26:51 <Titanium> that actually sounds hard to workarround
261 2012-10-18 12:27:00 <Titanium> you need a whole new type of trust
262 2012-10-18 12:27:08 <Luke-Jr> ???
263 2012-10-18 12:27:14 <Luke-Jr> FTP should be banned from the internets
264 2012-10-18 12:27:20 <Titanium> scp
265 2012-10-18 12:27:23 <Titanium> sftp
266 2012-10-18 12:27:33 <Titanium> actually
267 2012-10-18 12:27:35 <gmaxwell> No, it's easy to work around. Thin clients should be for mobile devices.  Merchants and power users and infrastructure must all run full nodes.
268 2012-10-18 12:27:35 <Titanium> ftp is fine
269 2012-10-18 12:27:41 <Titanium> ftp = http
270 2012-10-18 12:27:50 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: I want a full node on my mobile devices <.<
271 2012-10-18 12:28:08 <Titanium> me too :)
272 2012-10-18 12:28:14 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: you can... with ultraprune I bet it's usuable on the nokia tablets now.
273 2012-10-18 12:28:14 <Titanium> i ahve 8 GB storage
274 2012-10-18 12:28:16 <Titanium> i can handle it
275 2012-10-18 12:28:27 <Luke-Jr> 
ACTION has 64 GB storage :P

276 2012-10-18 12:28:29 <gmaxwell> Titanium: today, 1MB blocks is 52 gbytes/yr.
277 2012-10-18 12:28:37 <Titanium> hats nothing
278 2012-10-18 12:28:50 <Titanium> you store it in disk
279 2012-10-18 12:28:52 <Titanium> not ram
280 2012-10-18 12:28:57 <gmaxwell> people scream about 4gb and switch to using totally insecure webwallet solutions.
281 2012-10-18 12:28:58 <Titanium> and have a nice SAN
282 2012-10-18 12:29:13 <Titanium> its nothign for full power user nodes
283 2012-10-18 12:29:34 <Titanium> for people that want 'just works' fuctionality they can use a thin client and be insecure with their $2 of bitcoins
284 2012-10-18 12:29:37 <gmaxwell> Okay, I appoint you to be the guy that handles complaints about blockchain size.
285 2012-10-18 12:29:47 <gmaxwell> Titanium: oh I wish it were that simple.
286 2012-10-18 12:30:11 <Titanium> well, I for one will build whatever machine is reuired to handle that size :)
287 2012-10-18 12:30:20 <gmaxwell> I helped someone with 50k btc the other day who was panicing after he saw a discussion that pointed out that a completely thin client was less secure than a full node.
288 2012-10-18 12:30:37 <gmaxwell> Titanium: in any case, it doesn't make your worthless transactions any more viable.
289 2012-10-18 12:30:39 <Titanium> anyways at work our tests generate several hundred GB of data per day
290 2012-10-18 12:31:22 <gmaxwell> Titanium: your tests are not broadcast to the whole world and do not require large numbers of people to independantly validate them in order to make them secure.
291 2012-10-18 12:31:30 <gmaxwell> It's really not the same thing at all.
292 2012-10-18 12:31:31 <Titanium> a thin client doesnt matter for 50k bitcoins
293 2012-10-18 12:31:42 <Titanium> it matters when YOU are recieving 50k bitcoins and giving someone a house
294 2012-10-18 12:32:10 <Titanium> *assuming both have equal amounts of security cove reviewing and stuff
295 2012-10-18 12:32:11 <gmaxwell> Titanium: um. how do you know you recieved those 50k bitcoins in the first place?
296 2012-10-18 12:32:24 <Titanium> he did it before we switched to thin clients
297 2012-10-18 12:32:43 <Titanium> and he can go to a block explorer web page and lok at all his wallet ids
298 2012-10-18 12:32:48 <gmaxwell> he never ran anything except a thin client because he got bored waiting for the blockchain to sync after just an hour.
299 2012-10-18 12:33:12 <Titanium> finally if he didnt have them, than whoever 'sent' them still has them
300 2012-10-18 12:33:14 <gmaxwell> and the block explorer's are centeralized services which can be broken or insecure, shall i show you the screenshot of blockchain.info saying that I was paid 21 million btc?
301 2012-10-18 12:33:28 <Titanium> your rich :)
302 2012-10-18 12:33:41 <gmaxwell> if you want people to depend on centeralized services they might as well use paypal.
303 2012-10-18 12:34:00 <Titanium> if he has 50k bitcoins he can spend 500 to build a 'safe' to hold his bitcoins
304 2012-10-18 12:34:16 <gmaxwell> In any case, this is a pointless tangent. None of this makes what you want viable in bitcoin. All miners could accept all transactions and you still can't usefully use it to do worthless transactions.
305 2012-10-18 12:34:41 <Titanium> if I invested in the pool to mine the blocks I could
306 2012-10-18 12:34:54 <Titanium> and then anyone else that mines blocks can too
307 2012-10-18 12:34:59 <Titanium> it just takes a while
308 2012-10-18 12:35:18 <gmaxwell> ...
309 2012-10-18 12:35:32 <gmaxwell> No, lets just assume all pools already did this, it still doesn't achieve what you want.
310 2012-10-18 12:35:42 <Titanium> whats 1 bitcoin divided by the number of possible tx in a block?
311 2012-10-18 12:35:50 <Titanium> thats the fee that I woudl make my minimum
312 2012-10-18 12:36:03 <Titanium> then I get guranteed 2% in fees
313 2012-10-18 12:36:26 <gmaxwell> hah. it's higher than the minimum non-free txn fee already!
314 2012-10-18 12:36:32 <Titanium> nooooooo
315 2012-10-18 12:36:37 <Titanium> then my plans are all hopeless
316 2012-10-18 12:36:42 <Titanium> thanks for killing my dreams :(
317 2012-10-18 12:36:54 <gmaxwell> Gee, i think I told you this without wasting a half hour of my time.
318 2012-10-18 12:37:20 <Titanium> i appreciate the time, got an address for tips?
319 2012-10-18 12:37:27 <gmaxwell> :P
320 2012-10-18 12:37:42 <Titanium> il send all the bitcoin in my wallet, but it wont even be minimum wage :(
321 2012-10-18 12:37:59 <gmaxwell> pshaw. Keep it. :P (or if you want to get rid of your coins, send it to the faucet)
322 2012-10-18 12:38:15 <Titanium> i just need to get off my lazy ass and fix my miners
323 2012-10-18 12:38:22 <Titanium> i ran into an interesting problem
324 2012-10-18 12:38:38 <Titanium> in ESXi 5.1, with more than 4 GB of RAM total in the gfx cards
325 2012-10-18 12:38:56 <Titanium> i have to enable that >4gb pci address space option in bios or they dotn all work
326 2012-10-18 12:39:11 <Titanium> and if I do that ESXi gives me some really wierd errors when I boot them VMs
327 2012-10-18 12:39:53 <Titanium> also it seems that theres a bug where once the LOM 10gbps ports are disbled they cant be un-disabled...
328 2012-10-18 12:40:49 <Titanium> im tryign to make a bitcoin miner that doubles as a multibox machine for a game
329 2012-10-18 12:41:36 <Titanium> also with 3x 1GB gpu it worked fine and I was mining away inside 3 VMs :D
330 2012-10-18 12:42:44 <Titanium> have fun, im waiting for sha256 to be broken and all the asic miners to become useless so I can use all the cheap GPU I have :)
331 2012-10-18 12:51:22 <_dr> Titanium: sha1 was published is 1995 and remains unbroken
332 2012-10-18 12:51:42 <_dr> there have been hints about weaknesses in 2005, but it still remains secure
333 2012-10-18 12:51:57 <_dr> what makes you think sha2 will be broken?
334 2012-10-18 12:52:47 <gmaxwell> Even using md5 for the proof of work wouln't be problematic.
335 2012-10-18 12:53:47 <sipa> gmaxwell: nice attack: generate two blocks that refer to eachother as parent
336 2012-10-18 12:55:11 <gmaxwell> made at least somewhat harder by prev being in the middle instead of at the end at least.
337 2012-10-18 13:58:30 <jgarzik> any progress on 0.7.1 release
338 2012-10-18 13:58:38 <jgarzik> 
ACTION doesn't see gavinandresen around

339 2012-10-18 13:59:19 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: it's done I think?
340 2012-10-18 14:00:24 <jgarzik> waiting for more sigs and announcement, I thought?
341 2012-10-18 15:56:12 <midnightmagic> _dr: SHA1 does NOT remain secure given the rapid progress in attacks against it. That is, nobody should expect SHA1 to remain secure for the usable future.
342 2012-10-18 16:02:03 <MC1984> i wonder if bitcoin could fork to update to sha3 and a faster EC algo at the same time
343 2012-10-18 16:02:12 <midnightmagic> MC1984: what would be the point?
344 2012-10-18 16:02:34 <MC1984> nothing is secure forever?
345 2012-10-18 16:03:02 <MC1984> i dont know if the current dev team would have the resources to do it though, in terms of testing
346 2012-10-18 16:03:36 <MC1984> i mean i would want some real deal crypto boffins to go over the changes a hundred times first
347 2012-10-18 16:06:18 <midnightmagic> MC1984: I have suggested in the past having an easy or built-in upgrade path to a new hash algorithm; the response was that dev resources are tight, this is not a priority, and would require a hardfork of the blockchain anyway. I think, personally, waiting for evidence of a break before safeguarding against it is justifiable insofar as the devs aren't being paid with money from people who want that. :)
348 2012-10-18 16:07:07 <_dr> midnightmagic: there's feasible attack yet
349 2012-10-18 16:07:11 <midnightmagic> MC1984: There are other ways of composing hashes or crypto functions which would survive a break of either one. References for this are the 100-years-crypto project @ tahoe-lafs.
350 2012-10-18 16:07:52 <maaku> a better response is: it's not a priority for me or anyone else here, but feel free to maintain a just-in-case SHA3 branch and migration pathway if that makes you feel good
351 2012-10-18 16:08:01 <MC1984> 100 years crypto you say
352 2012-10-18 16:08:13 <midnightmagic> MC1984: I do not know why Satoshi decided on a double-sha256, but it wouldn't surprise me if he was evaluating composable crypto functions to replace the second sha256 before he left..
353 2012-10-18 16:08:18 <midnightmagic> MC1984: It's just a name.
354 2012-10-18 16:08:40 <MC1984> i was looking at tahoe lafs today, wondering why the new megaupload didnt make use of it
355 2012-10-18 16:08:40 <midnightmagic> maaku: That is why I don't harp on anybody about it.
356 2012-10-18 16:09:24 <MC1984> of course the big problem with changing any part of the double sha is ASICS
357 2012-10-18 16:09:50 <MC1984> it seems that if it was ever going to be done now is the time
358 2012-10-18 16:09:58 <midnightmagic> maaku: Nor am I complaining about the dev response. It is justified: there are other more important things to be concerned with.
359 2012-10-18 16:10:31 <maaku> MC1984: there's no reason to do it now
360 2012-10-18 16:10:39 <maaku> MC1984: how do you know SHA3 is more secure than SHA2?
361 2012-10-18 16:11:05 <maaku> in absence of a published attack, there is no reason to enact a switch
362 2012-10-18 16:11:06 <MC1984> i dont
363 2012-10-18 16:11:32 <midnightmagic> maaku: Except the fact that a published break invalidates history.
364 2012-10-18 16:12:29 <midnightmagic> and wrecks history between the time the break is published, and the time a hardfork upgrade is coded.
365 2012-10-18 16:14:01 <midnightmagic> I suspect that particular upgrade path would be the fastest upgrade the network would have ever seen. :)'
366 2012-10-18 16:18:34 <MC1984> sneeze on my screen
367 2012-10-18 16:18:39 <MC1984> OOOOOH SPARKLY
368 2012-10-18 16:19:21 <midnightmagic> MC1984: Thus, I think your instincts are kind-of in the right place. There is a rumour about an ASIC doomsday scenario whereby if one asic vendor decides to be a douche (*cough* asicminer *cough*) and dominate hashrate in an evil or trust-destroying way, the idea is that the algo will change subtly so all gpu and fpga can keep mining, and then *also* all other asic vendors who have implemented their own minor tweaks to the mining
369 2012-10-18 16:19:27 <midnightmagic> algo they can switch on. So in the end, all BUT the misbehaving asic hardware keeps going. (And the network would then accept 1+(n[-1]) different block types where n is the number of all asic vendors who implemented a secret-sauce in their asic.)
370 2012-10-18 16:20:40 <midnightmagic> That would require the same kind of hardfork as "upgrading" to SHA3 or changing to use chained strong hashes to survive the break of just one.
371 2012-10-18 16:20:44 <MC1984> wait so who decides which asics get junked?
372 2012-10-18 16:20:55 <midnightmagic> MC1984: The bitcoin network of users and miners.
373 2012-10-18 16:21:03 <MC1984> how
374 2012-10-18 16:21:30 <midnightmagic> MC1984: Presumably "a" dev will offer a new binary capable of excluding the naughty asic. If everyone upgrades to it to punish the misbehaver, then success.
375 2012-10-18 16:21:40 <midnightmagic> sorry, new source.
376 2012-10-18 16:22:16 <MC1984> so asic manufactureres would have to agree to designing in a dev controlled kill switch
377 2012-10-18 16:22:22 <MC1984> or reverse kill switch
378 2012-10-18 16:22:48 <midnightmagic> MC1984: It would be in their best interests to have added the ability to mine slightly differently than the base algorithm, and in a secret way.
379 2012-10-18 16:23:06 <midnightmagic> MC1984: So really, it's a ..  yeah a reverse kill switch to murder their competitors if necessary.
380 2012-10-18 16:23:25 <MC1984> good intentions but sounds like a custerfuck
381 2012-10-18 16:23:41 <midnightmagic> MC1984: Although perhaps colluding asic manufacturers would benefit the most by secretly including their competitor's algo *as well* as their own.
382 2012-10-18 16:24:12 <MC1984> shits byzantine yo
383 2012-10-18 16:24:19 <midnightmagic> MC1984: we'll see what the asic vendors do. I suspect the potential for a long-term destruction of bitcoin value will keep them in line by itself.
384 2012-10-18 16:24:58 <MC1984> the preferred situation is no single asic producer would be able to take over if they wanted to, see: current situation with pools
385 2012-10-18 16:25:10 <MC1984> what matters is capability, not intent
386 2012-10-18 16:25:34 <midnightmagic> MC1984: p2pool and others like it are destined to eventually kill centralized pools anyway.
387 2012-10-18 16:25:59 <MC1984> yeah but not as fast as id hoped
388 2012-10-18 16:26:12 <midnightmagic> MC1984: But the ability to kill should be kept in check by competition and the fact that hobbiests are still doing this in their spare time.
389 2012-10-18 16:26:17 <MC1984> plus everyone on p2pool would make a hard fork a complete nightmare
390 2012-10-18 16:26:29 <MC1984> hard forks are the easiest they will ever be right now due to the pools
391 2012-10-18 16:26:39 <midnightmagic> MC1984: p2pool users appear to be the fastest get-on-the-edge miners I've seen.
392 2012-10-18 16:27:03 <MC1984> yes but theres no many more of them
393 2012-10-18 16:27:14 <midnightmagic> Sorry?
394 2012-10-18 16:27:20 <MC1984> than pools
395 2012-10-18 16:27:42 <midnightmagic> gavin has stated in the past he would be in favour of including a p2pool module directly in mainline.
396 2012-10-18 16:29:20 <MC1984> great, id love to see that
397 2012-10-18 16:29:40 <midnightmagic> MC1984: but it doesn't matter whether p2pool is currently small. there's a change coming which looks to me like it might make p2pool'ers' blocks more rapidly distributed to the network than anyone else's :-)
398 2012-10-18 16:29:57 <MC1984> really?
399 2012-10-18 16:30:12 <midnightmagic> MC1984: Yeah it's pretty freaky how fast forrest prototypes stuff
400 2012-10-18 16:30:33 <MC1984> yeah good stuff
401 2012-10-18 16:30:42 <MC1984> i hope people toss him a few coins
402 2012-10-18 16:30:54 <midnightmagic> MC1984: So, except for weird places like gpumax that pay extra, or puppetmaster or whatever, p2pool *might* be advantageous over the long haul to run.
403 2012-10-18 16:31:09 <gmaxwell> I think he gets about 1GH/s worth of donated mining. Kinda sad.
404 2012-10-18 16:31:15 <midnightmagic> :-/
405 2012-10-18 16:31:20 <midnightmagic> he'll get more when asic arrive.
406 2012-10-18 16:32:19 <MC1984> is there a p2pool dev thread anywhere
407 2012-10-18 16:32:43 <gmaxwell> well, I'm guilty of it. Though I've tried to make up for it by promoting p2pool (running ads, talking people into it, donating to p2pool miners, etc). It doesn't pay him directly but p2pool growing eventually brings him more donors.
408 2012-10-18 16:33:01 <gmaxwell> MC1984: forrest doess 99.9% himself; so not much use for a thread.
409 2012-10-18 16:33:50 <MC1984> anyone consider what pool ops could do to hinder forest and p2pool?
410 2012-10-18 16:33:55 <MC1984> if anything
411 2012-10-18 16:35:03 <gmaxwell> MC1984: they can do withholding attacks.
412 2012-10-18 16:35:22 <gmaxwell> make p2pool 'unlucky'
413 2012-10-18 16:35:32 <MC1984> any evidence of that going on?
414 2012-10-18 16:35:47 <MC1984> wasnt p2pool unlucky at the start
415 2012-10-18 16:36:08 <gmaxwell> No, not at the start. It's basically impossible to have evidence of it, unfortunately.
416 2012-10-18 16:36:47 <MC1984> bitcoin is full of little emergent facets of game theory and stuff like that
417 2012-10-18 16:36:54 <MC1984> quite interesting
418 2012-10-18 16:37:31 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: I try my best to promote it to other people as much as possible. That implicit support from gavin was really important, I think.
419 2012-10-18 16:37:40 <MC1984> i think theres a place for pools in the future, if only for the community aspect, but in general they gotta go
420 2012-10-18 16:41:11 <MC1984> eh this ultraprune build is still dog slow to sync on this usb stick
421 2012-10-18 16:42:15 <MC1984> i suppose i cant expect miracles, it works fine for everyone else
422 2012-10-18 16:42:38 <MC1984> i still cant get this bootstrap.at to do anything eitehr, or if it is then i cant even tell
423 2012-10-18 16:43:14 <MC1984> can you use bootstrap.dat to finish off a partial sync or does it have to go from the start?
424 2012-10-18 16:55:36 <MC1984> writing "bitcoin.org" onto every fiat note you handle
425 2012-10-18 16:55:40 <MC1984> good idea, bad idea?
426 2012-10-18 16:56:37 <copumpkin> bad idea
427 2012-10-18 16:56:47 <copumpkin> some currencies are considered void if defaced
428 2012-10-18 16:56:54 <copumpkin> so people might not take them
429 2012-10-18 16:57:35 <MC1984> i think bank of england notes are ok as long as the serial number is visible and atleast 50% of the note is intact
430 2012-10-18 16:57:52 <MC1984> oh and its trason to deface the image of the Queen or something
431 2012-10-18 16:58:25 <MC1984> depends on how fussy the shopkeep is
432 2012-10-18 17:06:54 <BlueMatt> TD[gone]: so ive got some free time in the next 3/4 days and I plan on refactoring the Stored* crap and updating some of the FullPruned storage stuff: should I base it on top of hearn/master?
433 2012-10-18 17:21:17 <jgarzik> ok
434 2012-10-18 17:21:30 <jgarzik> revised the Ron/Shamir peer review gist a bit:  https://gist.github.com/3901921
435 2012-10-18 17:23:15 <helo> is there a way for them to have scraped the html from blockexplorer without the data changing underneath them?
436 2012-10-18 17:23:33 <helo> i guess they can look at individual block contents
437 2012-10-18 17:23:55 <helo> which i suppose is what they did to build the graphs of transactions
438 2012-10-18 17:26:40 <sipa> jgarzik: you saw their answer to davout?
439 2012-10-18 17:26:45 <jgarzik> sipa: yes
440 2012-10-18 17:26:52 <gmaxwell> I missed that.
441 2012-10-18 17:26:55 <jgarzik> sipa: meni's letter was pretty good, too
442 2012-10-18 17:34:27 <jgarzik> davout's letter, and their response: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=118797.msg1280496#msg1280496
443 2012-10-18 17:34:41 <jgarzik> meni's letter: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=118797.msg1281470#msg1281470
444 2012-10-18 17:36:17 <gmaxwell> " We quoted from an official policy statement"
445 2012-10-18 17:36:38 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: everybody is wondering about that one
446 2012-10-18 17:36:40 <gmaxwell> No, if you want to be pedantic, you plagerized a random website without even bothering to attribute it.
447 2012-10-18 17:36:48 <gmaxwell> Nothing to wonder
448 2012-10-18 17:36:58 <gmaxwell> Part of that was text they copied out of the block explorer help.
449 2012-10-18 17:37:18 <gmaxwell> Had they bothered to cite their source the origin of the error would have been obvious.
450 2012-10-18 17:38:14 <gmaxwell> The answer should be, "you quoted? I don't see a citation. Was their an editorial error here?"
451 2012-10-18 17:40:19 <gmaxwell> I don't agree with mini's comment on the forum; but I also don't care much about the conclusion.
452 2012-10-18 17:40:29 <gmaxwell> the "They say 60% of coins haven't moved in 3 months; those can safely be considered some kind of savings. So the actual amount of savings would be somewhere between 60% and 78%"
453 2012-10-18 17:41:04 <gmaxwell> e.g. MTGOX's big stashes have not moved in three months. Are those coins in 'savings'? Even ones being traded daily on the exchange?
454 2012-10-18 17:42:04 <gmaxwell> mini's comments on change and coin selection and recommended practices are good and important.
455 2012-10-18 17:43:45 <jgarzik> yeah, the waters get muddy when you start talking about conclusions (outputs) rather than assumptions and data (inputs)
456 2012-10-18 17:43:56 <jgarzik> mini
457 2012-10-18 17:43:57 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: you should factor in meni's comments about recommended usage. The "if people used bitcoin as recommended 100% of coins would be in savings according to this analysis"
458 2012-10-18 17:43:57 <jgarzik> heh
459 2012-10-18 17:44:05 <gmaxwell> heh
460 2012-10-18 17:44:28 <gmaxwell> Yea, I don't really care much about them, though noting the metric they're using is ... bizarre. is worthwhile.
461 2012-10-18 17:45:27 <gmaxwell> Even in my regular wallet which I've made no special effort to keep the inputs unlinked is supprisingly only about 30% crossliked.
462 2012-10-18 17:45:34 <gmaxwell> crosslinked*
463 2012-10-18 17:45:46 <jgarzik> I'm bloody awful for self-privacy in my mainnet wallet
464 2012-10-18 17:45:58 <jgarzik> I "compress" things down to a single coin, every few months
465 2012-10-18 17:46:14 <gmaxwell> ah as noted on the gist comments, "The astonishing thing is that 22% of bitcoins are in RE-USED addresses!"
466 2012-10-18 17:47:15 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: ah, I compress things down into 10,20,50,100 btc chunks, reduces the txout set size but gives coin selection nice matches to pick from.
467 2012-10-18 18:01:07 <freewil> why do you guys mean exactly by compressing
468 2012-10-18 18:01:13 <freewil> s/why/what
469 2012-10-18 18:01:45 <gmaxwell> freewil: in what what context?
470 2012-10-18 18:01:56 <freewil> <gmaxwell> jgarzik: ah, I compress things down into 10,20,50,100 btc chunks, reduces the txout set size but gives coin selection nice matches to pick from.
471 2012-10-18 18:02:00 <edcba> how much different amounts are spent ?
472 2012-10-18 18:02:14 <gmaxwell> freewil: combine inputs.
473 2012-10-18 18:02:31 <freewil> how? by creating a new transaction?
474 2012-10-18 18:02:57 <gmaxwell> Yes.
475 2012-10-18 18:03:05 <freewil> i see
476 2012-10-18 18:04:02 <Matt_von_Mises> I got the 100 miner test blocks to successfully validate. I listed blocks I'll need to test, can anyone think of any missing ones?: http://pastebin.com/cfXyYqCa
477 2012-10-18 18:04:45 <gmaxwell> Matt_von_Mises: use gcov+lcov and make sure all the failure cases in your (/our) validation logic get hit.
478 2012-10-18 18:07:12 <Matt_von_Mises> gmaxwell: Well I tried to get all the failure cases. I should also add blocks to test some of the obscure parts of the block-chain re-organisation code too...
479 2012-10-18 18:07:32 <gmaxwell> Matt_von_Mises: where is unlocked txn?
480 2012-10-18 18:08:01 <gmaxwell> I know you're trying, I'm suggesting that if you look at the branch coverage analysis you may find some cases you're missing like a block with an unlocked txn
481 2012-10-18 18:08:27 <gmaxwell> because you'll have some if(unlocked)return fail; branch not taken.
482 2012-10-18 18:08:59 <gmaxwell> txout value <= input, txout value integer overflow.
483 2012-10-18 18:09:40 <gmaxwell> coinbase output value integer overflow
484 2012-10-18 18:10:18 <Matt_von_Mises> I already do transaction tests.
485 2012-10-18 18:10:31 <Matt_von_Mises> No need to have separate blocks for those.
486 2012-10-18 18:11:16 <gmaxwell> how do you have a test for enforcing that a transaction in a block must be locked without having it in a block??
487 2012-10-18 18:12:22 <gmaxwell> file:///home/gmaxwell/src/bcm/bax/src/coverage/home/gmaxwell/src/bcm/bax/src/main.cpp.gcov.html < e.g. in this analysis you can see first is not coinbase and later is coinbase cases are untested. (line 1763)
488 2012-10-18 18:12:45 <Matt_von_Mises> gmaxwell: I added the locktime tests to the list
489 2012-10-18 18:14:04 <gmaxwell> oops wrong url https://people.xiph.org/~greg/bitcoin_coverage/coverage/home/gmaxwell/src/bcm/bax/src/main.cpp.gcov.html
490 2012-10-18 18:15:18 <gmaxwell> * Block with timestamp 1231006505.  < which rule is this intending to test? the median based minimum?
491 2012-10-18 18:16:05 <Matt_von_Mises> gmaxwell: Yes
492 2012-10-18 18:17:28 <midnightmagic> 
ACTION suddenly wants to write a multi-tx mixer for friends that's easy to use. :-/

493 2012-10-18 18:19:37 <Matt_von_Mises> gmaxwell: 1231006505 is the genesis block time. The next block needs to be above that. I should also have another block for after the 100 blocks...
494 2012-10-18 18:20:22 <Matt_von_Mises> In fact a single test for after the 100 blocks is all that is important.
495 2012-10-18 18:28:35 <gmaxwell> Matt_von_Mises: you can't do it with just 1000 blocks but the difficulty change clamps are useful to test.
496 2012-10-18 18:32:15 <Matt_von_Mises> That would require a lot of blocks to test but you could go up to the difficulty change and try the fail-case of a block which satisfies the old target but not the new one.
497 2012-10-18 18:33:10 <Matt_von_Mises> I can hard code the blocks from the bitcoin network chain upto the first difficulty change and then create a block for that test.
498 2012-10-18 18:33:17 <Matt_von_Mises> For now I'll look at these other tests.
499 2012-10-18 18:39:10 <darkip> Hey, I was wondering if anyone could spare a dump of their historical data
500 2012-10-18 18:39:18 <darkip> (diff / hashrate etc)
501 2012-10-18 18:59:44 <BlueMatt> Matt_von_Mises: see also: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/pull-tester/files
502 2012-10-18 19:00:02 <BlueMatt> (which generates fun block test cases that any full node should be capable of responding to (it connects via p2p protocol to localhost)
503 2012-10-18 19:04:24 <Matt_von_Mises> BlueMatt: Thanks. Is there documentation anywhere for it?
504 2012-10-18 19:05:18 <BlueMatt> no, it was more of a hack to test bitcoinj before I started using it to test other clients too, so...eh
505 2012-10-18 19:05:25 <BlueMatt> having documentation is no fun ;)
506 2012-10-18 19:05:43 <BlueMatt> most, make sure local node is listening with the equivalent of that patch applied, run the jar
507 2012-10-18 19:05:51 <BlueMatt> look at the end for blocks differing in acceptance
508 2012-10-18 19:07:42 <Matt_von_Mises> Well I've not got the network side yet. I've only got most of the validation code.
509 2012-10-18 19:08:51 <BlueMatt> ah, well then you'd have to write a wrapper to feed it blocks
510 2012-10-18 19:09:11 <sipa> darkip: see bitcoin.sipa.be
511 2012-10-18 19:10:17 <BlueMatt> Matt_von_Mises: if you can write some wrapper to accept block messages, feed them in, and then compare the best height to the one the compare tool gives you, it would work...
512 2012-10-18 19:10:17 <darkip> sipa: Can I download it from there? (raw data)
513 2012-10-18 19:10:29 <darkip> sipa: your charts are ace btw :) gnuplot?
514 2012-10-18 19:10:39 <sipa> i can give the data files yes, but not right now
515 2012-10-18 19:10:43 <sipa> gnuplot indeed
516 2012-10-18 19:10:49 <Matt_von_Mises> BlueMatt: Does it contain any block data that I can take from it which satisfies any tests here: http://pastebin.com/cfXyYqCa ?
517 2012-10-18 19:12:43 <BlueMatt> Matt_von_Mises: it should hit most of those (not sure about one or two) it hits close to 100% lcov on the reference implementation for block verification rules; in terms of pulling out the block data...its effectively an altcoin just so that it can mine blocks with an impossibly low diff while running (the blocks arent static), but it shouldnt be impossible to get the block list from it and mine them to make them work on regular prodnet
518 2012-10-18 19:12:53 <sipa> btw: BlueMatt++ for pulltester :)
519 2012-10-18 19:13:25 <BlueMatt> what, did it catch something?
520 2012-10-18 19:14:53 <BlueMatt> sipa: is it working on ultraprune, btw?
521 2012-10-18 19:14:54 <sipa> no, but it gives a lot of confidence when pulling :)
522 2012-10-18 19:14:55 <sipa> i still haven't seen it succeed for ultraprune, which is a pity
523 2012-10-18 19:14:57 <Matt_von_Mises> BlueMatt: OK thanks. What I'm looking for are production network test blocks. I was thinking of disabling the PoW checks which would be easy but it's worth asking for people to generate the hashes so the tests work more nicely.
524 2012-10-18 19:14:57 <sipa> but i'm oretty confident in that myself now, after finding an actual block using it
525 2012-10-18 19:15:39 <darkip> sipa: PM?
526 2012-10-18 19:16:05 <BlueMatt> Matt_von_Mises: yea, mining those blocks at diff 1 shouldnt be hard and its on my todo list after a few things and possibly adding more tests to the list
527 2012-10-18 19:16:14 <BlueMatt> (so that it becomes a regular prodnet chain)
528 2012-10-18 19:16:23 <BlueMatt> sipa: is the patch still conflicting? :(
529 2012-10-18 19:18:19 <BlueMatt> Matt_von_Mises: yea, there are two or three tests on that list that that ~60 block chain doesnt cover, but it also does reorg/etc testing, so...
530 2012-10-18 19:18:40 <cjd> Hi guys, I was just wondering if the escrow stuff includes a do-or-die type transaction where you can kill the transaction within like 72 hours but you lose the money..
531 2012-10-18 19:18:51 <Matt_von_Mises> I'll make a topic on the forums to see if anyone would be interested in generating blocks I have listed so far or if anyone else has comments???
532 2012-10-18 19:19:19 <BlueMatt> Matt_von_Mises: meh, Ill just throw them in those tested by that tool...they'll get mined into regular blocks eventually ;)
533 2012-10-18 19:19:19 <cjd> The most efficient way I can think of is a PTSH OR PTSH where one sighash is for a tx to a known "bad" address
534 2012-10-18 19:19:39 <cjd> oh and the other has an nlocktime 72 hours in the future
535 2012-10-18 19:20:15 <Matt_von_Mises> BlueMatt: So you'll be able to generate them for the production network difficulty rules?
536 2012-10-18 19:20:37 <BlueMatt> cjd: yes, it is possible: mostly eg "if both parties agree: coins sent" with a second tx: "nlocktime in 72 hours to eff or null"
537 2012-10-18 19:20:53 <BlueMatt> Matt_von_Mises: yea, I just havent gotten around to it
538 2012-10-18 19:21:08 <cjd> ok so pretty much what I was thinking, interesting
539 2012-10-18 19:22:00 <cjd> It kind of makes sense asa chargeback without the obvious chargeback fraud risk
540 2012-10-18 19:22:11 <Matt_von_Mises> BlueMatt: I'll make a topic and perhaps you could make a post mentioning the pulltester and others could perhaps get to it first?
541 2012-10-18 19:22:17 <cjd> no really a chargeback but nobody wins
542 2012-10-18 19:22:22 <BlueMatt> Matt_von_Mises: sounds good
543 2012-10-18 19:22:22 <cjd> *not
544 2012-10-18 19:40:00 <Matt_von_Mises> BlueMatt: OK, this is the topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=119158.0 So feel free to add additional information that you want.
545 2012-10-18 19:51:27 <BlueMatt> Matt_von_Mises: responded
546 2012-10-18 19:52:49 <Matt_von_Mises> BlueMatt: Great. Hopefully some people will be interested in helping out.
547 2012-10-18 19:53:12 <Matt_von_Mises> I'm done for tonight. I'll be off. Goodnight.
548 2012-10-18 19:53:35 <BlueMatt> night
549 2012-10-18 19:56:35 <D34TH> hmm, abe doesnt seem to be recognizing the blockchain
550 2012-10-18 19:56:37 <da2ce775> ping sipa
551 2012-10-18 19:57:20 <sipa> pang da2ce775
552 2012-10-18 19:57:42 <da2ce775> ooh wow, /me feels werid being back in #bitcoin-dev land.
553 2012-10-18 20:01:01 <sipa> where've you been?
554 2012-10-18 20:01:33 <da2ce775> However we use encryption throughout our protocols, we were wondering if we could design a updated BIP 32 that binds a (optional) EC encryption key to a EC signing key.  (having one tree be only able to generate decryption keys, the other generate the encryption keysI've been in #opentransactions
555 2012-10-18 20:01:50 <da2ce775> oh, i've been in #opentransactions
556 2012-10-18 20:02:13 <da2ce775> ^^^ about BIP 32
557 2012-10-18 20:02:18 <sipa> i don't see why you'd need to change anything for that?
558 2012-10-18 20:02:31 <sipa> you can apply ECIES as-in on EC keys
559 2012-10-18 20:02:36 <sipa> *as-is
560 2012-10-18 20:03:08 <da2ce775> oh, :S I thought the key-form was slightly different... but if not, we are winning!
561 2012-10-18 20:04:43 <da2ce775> I still don't understand the EC cypto properly.
562 2012-10-18 20:07:40 <da2ce775> so would it ever be possible to 'encrypt to a bitcoin public key' ?
563 2012-10-18 20:08:08 <da2ce775> or once it has been turned into a public key, it can only be used for signing?
564 2012-10-18 20:08:30 <sipa> sure that is possible
565 2012-10-18 20:08:41 <gmaxwell> Not an address, however, of course.
566 2012-10-18 20:09:07 <da2ce775> yes, a adress can be a script or whatever,
567 2012-10-18 20:09:25 <sipa> ?
568 2012-10-18 20:09:46 <da2ce775> hmm... well a address is a hash of the public key, or a hash of a script?
569 2012-10-18 20:09:56 <sipa> yes, either is possible
570 2012-10-18 20:10:38 <sipa> but you can encrypt to a public key with EC-IES
571 2012-10-18 20:10:46 <da2ce775> wonderfull!
572 2012-10-18 20:10:53 <da2ce775> that is all that I needed to hear! :)
573 2012-10-18 20:11:13 <sipa> there's some overhead though
574 2012-10-18 20:11:48 <darkip> sipa: I'm off to bed (11 UK time), but can I catch you here tomorrow to grab that data (if you're still offering!)
575 2012-10-18 20:12:00 <da2ce775> well it shouldn't be that bad, we will only use it to negotiate symmetric keys
576 2012-10-18 20:12:01 <sipa> oh just a sec
577 2012-10-18 20:12:11 <sipa> da2ce775: that is the only thing EC-IES does
578 2012-10-18 20:12:36 <sipa> well, EC-IES is basically ECDH to negotiate a symmetric AES key, and then use that AES key to encrypt the actual data
579 2012-10-18 20:12:52 <sipa> and ECDH is really simply :)
580 2012-10-18 20:12:55 <sipa> *simple
581 2012-10-18 20:14:05 <da2ce775> this is super cool.  Since I've been thinking of moving all the cypto to bitcoin compadible cypto, so we can do super cool things with colored coins.
582 2012-10-18 20:14:30 <sipa> darkip: http://bitcoin.sipa.be/blocks.txt
583 2012-10-18 20:14:47 <da2ce775> we can have a OT contract (with OT server scripts) defiend by a coloured coin for off-server and inter-server transers and
584 2012-10-18 20:15:01 <darkip> sipa: thanks!
585 2012-10-18 20:15:06 <sipa> height, hash, timestamp, difficulty, #tx
586 2012-10-18 20:15:17 <da2ce775> the 'OT' functions come into play when you deposit the coloured coin onto a OT server.
587 2012-10-18 20:16:29 <darkip> sipa: Ahh, I see now, you can regenerate all the historical data just from the blockchain?
588 2012-10-18 20:16:33 <darkip> (other than price of course)
589 2012-10-18 20:16:48 <da2ce775> a isser ID would become a p2sh of a OT contract and network rules (such as a x of y rule), and the bitcoin network will enforce these rules.
590 2012-10-18 20:16:52 <sipa> darkip: where else?
591 2012-10-18 20:17:11 <darkip> hehe :)
592 2012-10-18 20:17:20 <da2ce775> a nym and a bitcoin address will become 1 and the same thing.
593 2012-10-18 20:17:27 <darkip> I was sitting there thinking - "How has get got data all the way from block 0"
594 2012-10-18 20:17:30 <darkip> "OHHHHHHH"
595 2012-10-18 20:18:05 <firethief> da2ce775: OT in the blockchain is an awesome idea thta may allow some cool shit to be possible, but one ofthe things about OT is that it addresses the shortcoming whereby a blockchain system can never offer instant verification, right?
596 2012-10-18 20:19:01 <Luke-Jr> firethief: the blockchain brings verification where it was formerly impossible ever
597 2012-10-18 20:19:18 <da2ce775> firethief: of course, that is why you can always depsoit your Coloured Bitcoin OT Tokens to a OT Server.  Then you can have access to all the feature that only posible by a OT server.
598 2012-10-18 20:20:11 <sipa> it's a balance... either centralized, anonymous and instantly verifiable... or decentralized, pseudonymous and exponentially-improving verification
599 2012-10-18 20:20:45 <firethief> da2ce775: well clearly it should be possible to xfer an OT asset into the blockchain; this is the main reason colored-coins are useful
600 2012-10-18 20:22:04 <da2ce775> firethief: well this is a new take of colored coins... since the OT Asset Contract is defined within the p2sh script, (along with who can issue it).
601 2012-10-18 20:22:40 <firethief> yeehi1: what do you mean by "Give cash to somebody?"? localbitcoins.com provides convenient ways to sell/buy btc in person, though it takes a 1% fee
602 2012-10-18 20:22:45 <da2ce775> and we can do some verifcation that the public key defined in the asset-contract matches the public keys defined in the script hash.
603 2012-10-18 20:24:03 <da2ce775> sipa: have the centralized and decentralized fundernetaly inter-changeable.  so people can go in-between naturaly with their changing needs :)
604 2012-10-18 20:24:08 <firethief> da2ce775: I agree that that one of the most powerful uses for CC is being able to xfer OT assets into the blockchain, if that"s what you"re referring to.
605 2012-10-18 20:25:40 <da2ce775> firethief: well it isn't really "xfer OT assets into the blockchain" rarther, a OT asset will be issued on the blockchain, and can be optionaly deposited into a OT server for more features.
606 2012-10-18 20:26:17 <da2ce775> likewise, anyone could deposit BTC into a OT server and have access to all the OT features (aka instant verification).
607 2012-10-18 20:27:27 <da2ce775> since OT server ID will just become a p2sh (with certan bitcoin-network enforced rules + hash of the OT server contract).
608 2012-10-18 20:30:57 <da2ce775> sipa: that is wonderfull news that the bitcoin keys can be used for EC-IES;  :)  and will be chating again soon... It seems that in the future our teams will be working more closely.
609 2012-10-18 20:32:22 <sipa> da2ce775: to encrypt data, generate a number x; multiply it with the receiver's public key Y; take SHA256(x*Y), and use that as symmetric key for the rest of what you're sending
610 2012-10-18 20:32:57 <sipa> da2ce775: and then send AES(key=SHA256(x*Y),data) and G*x
611 2012-10-18 20:33:35 <sipa> receiver then takes his private key y, and multiplies it by (G*x)
612 2012-10-18 20:33:46 <sipa> takes the hash, and he gets the same symmetric key
613 2012-10-18 21:00:21 <sipa> BlueMatt: can you poke pulltester to try doing ultraprune?
614 2012-10-18 21:01:18 <BlueMatt> hmm...yea, let me see...
615 2012-10-18 21:04:08 <BlueMatt> hmm...github's api is returning fewer results than I remember, even ultraprune isnt on it
616 2012-10-18 21:06:01 <sipa> too old, maybe :)
617 2012-10-18 21:07:56 <BlueMatt> yea, it only returns a small subset, and I see no docs on how to return more...
618 2012-10-18 21:08:05 <BlueMatt> https://api.github.com/repos/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls its missing a lot
619 2012-10-18 21:08:35 <Luke-Jr> Perl libwww ftw?
620 2012-10-18 21:08:38 <Diablo-D3> no
621 2012-10-18 21:08:43 <Diablo-D3> github was down like all day today
622 2012-10-18 21:08:50 <Diablo-D3> shits probably slowly coming back online due to ddos
623 2012-10-18 21:09:05 <BlueMatt> no, its always missing a ton of pulls
624 2012-10-18 21:09:05 <Diablo-D3> I imagine a lot of syncho between DCs is fubar and catching up
625 2012-10-18 21:09:12 <Diablo-D3> bluematt: huh
626 2012-10-18 21:09:18 <Diablo-D3> do the pulls exist?
627 2012-10-18 21:09:19 <BlueMatt> yea, I dont get it either...
628 2012-10-18 21:09:20 <BlueMatt> yes
629 2012-10-18 21:09:23 <Diablo-D3> I mean, is it just that api doing that
630 2012-10-18 21:09:24 <BlueMatt> well, they show up in gui
631 2012-10-18 21:09:29 <Diablo-D3> thats extra weird
632 2012-10-18 21:09:30 <BlueMatt> yea
633 2012-10-18 21:09:31 <Diablo-D3> file a bug?
634 2012-10-18 21:09:39 <BlueMatt> havent gotten around to it...
635 2012-10-18 21:09:48 <Diablo-D3> do it
636 2012-10-18 21:09:52 <BlueMatt> maybe its limited for some reason, dunno, but I dont see it in the docs
637 2012-10-18 21:09:52 <Diablo-D3> they might not know its happening
638 2012-10-18 21:09:55 <sipa> it seems to only have the most recent ones
639 2012-10-18 21:11:08 <BlueMatt> yea
640 2012-10-18 21:11:22 <Diablo-D3> Im seriously considering switching to a light vim theme
641 2012-10-18 23:21:46 <JyZyXEL> how do i get the status of PORTB bit PB2?
642 2012-10-18 23:23:02 <lianj> wrong channel?
643 2012-10-18 23:23:19 <gmaxwell> doublec: if you get into a hacking on your exchange software mood at some point, it would be nice if I could get a list of all deposits and withdraws with txnids.
644 2012-10-18 23:24:02 <lianj> JyZyXEL: if (PORTB & (1 << PB2))
645 2012-10-18 23:24:35 <JyZyXEL> wrong channel but the right answer :D
646 2012-10-18 23:33:33 <Adifex> I have a question about buyBTC.php in the html v0 api. Does anyone else use v0?
647 2012-10-18 23:40:27 <Diablo-D3> https://venturebeat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/fake-grimlock-server-on-fire.jpg?w=558&h=9999&crop=0
648 2012-10-18 23:40:27 <graingert> Adifex: it's deprecated, don't build new apps for it
649 2012-10-18 23:40:43 <graingert> Diablo-D3: https://venturebeat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/fake-grimlock-server-on-fire.jpg
650 2012-10-18 23:41:12 <Diablo-D3> yay even bigger
651 2012-10-18 23:42:42 <graingert> biggur
652 2012-10-18 23:47:08 <Adifex> Diablo-D3: k, thanks.
653 2012-10-18 23:48:26 <Diablo-D3> that was graingert
654 2012-10-18 23:49:02 <Adifex> ha whoops. looks like I should kick it for the night.
655 2012-10-18 23:49:47 <graingert> This song is not for you lovers