1 2012-11-07 03:06:19 <amiller> mmmm it would be interesting if blocks had to be signed by same address that can spend them
  2 2012-11-07 03:06:33 <amiller> it's a bit like proof-of-stake but backwards
  3 2012-11-07 03:08:39 <amiller> let me back up and describe the problem i'm trying to solve right now though
  4 2012-11-07 03:10:24 <amiller> as bitcoin grows in scale, it becomes more credible that the mining participants reflect a diverse representative economy, that the price should be stable
  5 2012-11-07 03:11:47 <amiller> basically the goal is to make it very difficult to coordinate a parallel double-spend effort in secret because the temptation to defect and leak out parts of it grows too quickly as well
  6 2012-11-07 03:13:33 <amiller> i was thinking earlier about how the proof-of-work hash makes it not only easy to outsource mining, but you can do it without any risk of the miner taking it from you
  7 2012-11-07 03:14:01 <amiller> er, not taking it from you but suppressing it
  8 2012-11-07 03:16:22 <amiller> "if one cpu one vote" is at all meaningful, then it should be difficult to sell your vote
  9 2012-11-07 03:28:35 <kjj_> I think the era of mercenary mining is drawing to an end
 10 2012-11-07 03:28:51 <amiller> really?
 11 2012-11-07 03:28:55 <amiller> i would think it's just starting
 12 2012-11-07 03:28:58 <amiller> there's a market for vanity mining
 13 2012-11-07 03:29:49 <kjj_> a GPU farm needs a ton of infrastructure.  ASICs don't seem to
 14 2012-11-07 03:30:33 <amiller> then competition will increase but you can still cram more asics into a cheap datacenter and lease it out to people
 15 2012-11-07 03:31:12 <kjj_> I'm saying that $5000 worth of GPUs won't work in your bedroom, but $5000 worth of ASICs will
 16 2012-11-07 03:31:18 <amiller> it's easy to let a datacenter manage your miner for you, but you wouldn't let them hold your wallet
 17 2012-11-07 03:31:35 <kjj_> so there will be less benefit to scale
 18 2012-11-07 03:34:38 <amiller> if parallelizing your mining were like doing a shared secret, then it would be very risky to let a service with a bunch of customers do your mining for you
 19 2012-11-07 03:35:37 <kjj_> how about we back up.  what problem are you trying to solve?  a mining service witholding valid blocks, but returning shares?
 20 2012-11-07 03:36:32 <amiller> it's kind of the other way
 21 2012-11-07 03:36:50 <amiller> that's not currently a problem, but i would like to make it a problem, because doing so would be a benefit to decentralization
 22 2012-11-07 03:37:09 <kjj_> describe the problem again
 23 2012-11-07 03:37:22 <amiller> there's little barrier to outsourcing your mining
 24 2012-11-07 03:38:07 <kjj_> what's the problem part of that?
 25 2012-11-07 03:38:17 <kjj_> how or why is outsourcing a problem?
 26 2012-11-07 03:39:08 <amiller> well, given that there are economies of scale, if there's no barrier to outsourcing then there could easily be large data centers with aggregated mining power
 27 2012-11-07 03:39:37 <amiller> it's safest if administration over the mining power is distributed as widely as possible
 28 2012-11-07 03:41:20 <kjj_> ok, so you want to make it harder for outsource hashing power by making the miner sign the block before hashing?
 29 2012-11-07 03:41:48 <amiller> after hashing
 30 2012-11-07 03:43:57 <kjj_> then you haven't solved anything
 31 2012-11-07 03:44:02 <amiller> actually they don't need to sign it, it's more like the spending key would be constructed while hashing it
 32 2012-11-07 03:45:12 <kjj_> if the generate address is derived from the block, then you have to spend it right away, or everyone will have it when you push the block
 33 2012-11-07 03:46:31 <amiller> it would not be derived from the block, but it would depend on the nonce
 34 2012-11-07 03:46:52 <amiller> it would be like select nonce, generate key, take hash of nonce+pubkeyhash+blockheader
 35 2012-11-07 03:47:11 <amiller> if after taking the hash, you are a winner, then great! that key can now be used to spend coinbase
 36 2012-11-07 03:47:57 <kjj_> uh...  circular dependancy
 37 2012-11-07 03:47:59 <amiller> but key generation is sandwiched inside the nonce-select, which is your fanout point, and your compare-and-broadcast, which is your fan in point
 38 2012-11-07 03:48:20 <kjj_> the header depends on the transaction tree, and that tree depends on the generate transaction
 39 2012-11-07 03:48:38 <amiller> this would just be for coinbase
 40 2012-11-07 03:48:53 <amiller> you'd have to spend it in the next block
 41 2012-11-07 03:48:54 <kjj_> so, you are talking about a huge, huge, huge change.  you'd better come up with a damn good reason for it.  :)
 42 2012-11-07 03:49:25 <kjj_> you can't spend the generate transaction until 100 blocks have passed, and the generate transaction is the first transaction in the block (and thus included in the merkle tree)
 43 2012-11-07 03:49:35 <amiller> sure
 44 2012-11-07 03:49:52 <amiller> so instead of the key generation occurring before constructing coinbase
 45 2012-11-07 03:49:58 <amiller> it would occur during mining
 46 2012-11-07 03:50:01 <kjj_> and sure, it doesn't HAVE to be that way.  I'm just trying to make sure you understand the scale of what you are proposing
 47 2012-11-07 03:50:28 <amiller> yeah
 48 2012-11-07 03:51:33 <amiller> i'm sorry i should have put a [disclaimer] the following a theoretical discussion about proof-of-work puzzles and their impact on decentralization
 49 2012-11-07 03:51:55 <kjj_> ok, that's fine
 50 2012-11-07 03:52:43 <kjj_> just so that everyone is clear that we are talking about not-bitcoin
 51 2012-11-07 03:53:35 <amiller> we're looking out at different horizons i suppose :p
 52 2012-11-07 03:54:20 <kjj_> to make that big of a change to bitcoin at this late date is, I suspect, totally impossible unless you are solving a problem that everyone already knows about
 53 2012-11-07 03:55:13 <amiller> "late" is quite subjective
 54 2012-11-07 03:55:15 <kjj_> something that you and a couple of other people think could be slightly bad isn't going to cut it
 55 2012-11-07 03:56:44 <amiller> i'm not trying to persuade you it's something that to change, but i also don't want to say it's "not about bitcoin"
 56 2012-11-07 03:56:57 <amiller> s/to/should
 57 2012-11-07 03:57:42 <amiller> 
ACTION really should remember that disclaimer

 58 2012-11-07 03:59:08 <kjj_> this will vastly reduce mining speed, by the way, and probably make botnets useful again
 59 2012-11-07 04:00:46 <kjj_> er, hang on.  what stops people from making blocks with unspendable generations?
 60 2012-11-07 04:01:08 <amiller> self interest? same thing that stops them now?
 61 2012-11-07 04:01:20 <kjj_> people attempting to do so would have the huge advantage of not needing to do the ECDSA multiplication for each nonce
 62 2012-11-07 04:03:17 <kjj_> what stops them now is that it takes exactly as much effort either way.  if they have to derive a pubkey after incrementing the nonce, people doing it for real have to do several thousand times as much work
 63 2012-11-07 04:03:46 <amiller> hm, that's a good point, it would make attack-blocks much cheaper than a correct block
 64 2012-11-07 04:04:09 <amiller> you could do it with a single more hah
 65 2012-11-07 04:04:10 <amiller> hash
 66 2012-11-07 04:04:37 <kjj_> and I could see an ugly arms race start, where people try to orphan blocks from other people while their mining farms keep working
 67 2012-11-07 04:04:57 <amiller> yeah you're right that has to be a condition that it's not substantially more expensive to do it the normal way
 68 2012-11-07 04:05:11 <amiller> maybe there's a way to commit to some randomness and reveal the key later
 69 2012-11-07 04:05:37 <kjj_> that's going to be hard to do.  unless you have a strict schedule for "later", that could be "never".
 70 2012-11-07 04:05:46 <amiller> only if you win the block
 71 2012-11-07 04:06:18 <kjj_> and if you do have a strict schedule, everyone would learn about orphans when they are already somewhat deep
 72 2012-11-07 04:08:42 <kjj_> LOL.  guy on TV trying to explain that the electoral college's job is to magnify decisions.
 73 2012-11-07 04:12:58 <amiller> hm, okay i think this could be done using a lamport signature
 74 2012-11-07 04:28:40 <amiller> whoa hot damn, it's not so much the lamport signature that would kick ass for this, but the guy fawkes signatures
 75 2012-11-07 04:30:14 <maaku> kjj_: magnify decisions??? like how romney is currently winning the popular vote?
 76 2012-11-07 04:32:06 <amiller> 1) S <- random(), nonce <- random      2) commitment <- H(random | pubkey)     3) pow <- H(nonce | commitment | header)
 77 2012-11-07 04:32:25 <amiller> now after 100 blocks go by like normal, in order to spend the coinbase you would need to reveal S
 78 2012-11-07 04:32:56 <amiller> and the signature must match the pubkey in the original commitment
 79 2012-11-07 04:34:24 <amiller> this would mean you would need to commit to a secret, publish the block committing to that secret ... hm
 80 2012-11-07 04:36:41 <amiller> okay slight modification
 81 2012-11-07 04:37:09 <kjj_> maaku: heh, yeah, I was thinking that it was multiplying by a negative
 82 2012-11-07 04:37:10 <amiller> 1) S <- random(), nonce <- random()      2) commitment <- H(S ^ pubkey)       3) pow <- H(nonce | commitment | header)
 83 2012-11-07 04:37:49 <amiller> if you know S, then the pubkey is malleble
 84 2012-11-07 04:42:35 <amiller> you could make an attack-block (unspendable coinbase) by performing one fewer hash, by publishing a garbage commitment
 85 2012-11-07 04:52:44 <amiller> basically the point is to prove you can keep a secret for 100 blocks, while also proving that the secret was 'hot' during mining
 86 2012-11-07 05:47:55 <amiller> 1) [block B0] nonce <- random(); S <- random(); commit <- H(nonce | S); pow <- H(nonce | commit | header);        2)  [next block]  publish H(pubkey|S)    3) [100 blocks later] reveal S
 87 2012-11-07 05:48:01 <amiller> so there are three phases
 88 2012-11-07 05:49:22 <amiller> only the first phase involves mining, the other two are for proving you can keep a secret and daring members of your party to defect
 89 2012-11-07 05:50:48 <amiller> the first phase involves computing a hash over both the secret and the nonce, so if you parallelize it the secret must be 'hot' everywhere
 90 2012-11-07 05:51:53 <amiller> afterwards, the secret can be used to make a commitment, which is finally revealed after some delay
 91 2012-11-07 05:52:59 <amiller> after the secret is revealed, any commitment made before the delay is considered valid
 92 2012-11-07 05:54:49 <amiller> if there is more than one adequate commitment, then only the first to be spent afterwards wins
 93 2012-11-07 05:56:10 <amiller> so it's either a) spendable, in which case there are necessarily two hashes per attempt, and anyone knowing the secret has ample time to steal the reward b) an attack-block attempt, in which case the commit can be garbage and there's a 50% speedup
 94 2012-11-07 06:30:41 <forsetifox> Any developers up? Just opened up my bitcoin client to sync and I'm getting a lot of :ERROR: FetchInputs() : aa85e510a0 mempool Tx prev not found e9e1bff128".
 95 2012-11-07 06:33:33 <lianj> thats normal, wait until you are in sync again
 96 2012-11-07 06:34:48 <forsetifox> There it goes. Don't usually go past 15 connections I'm at 18 now.
 97 2012-11-07 06:35:51 <forsetifox> Weird. It looks like it's being reported for 0.7.1 and I'm using 0.7.0.
 98 2012-11-07 10:48:46 <alalo> Hi! I can't understand, when we are mining, we are changing only nonce value which is 4 bytes?
 99 2012-11-07 10:52:43 <_dr> and if it overflows the extra nonce
100 2012-11-07 11:48:23 <alalo> Hi there again! _dr you said that it overflows to extra nonce, but I can't find what's that extra nonce and where is it in header. And what's it size?
101 2012-11-07 11:49:04 <kjj_> it isn't in the header, it is in the coinbase of the generate transaction
102 2012-11-07 11:49:32 <kjj_> since it is in a transaction, changing it changes the merkle root, which changes the header
103 2012-11-07 11:49:54 <alalo> kjj_: coinbase leads me to https://coinbase.com/ that is some kind of software...
104 2012-11-07 11:50:17 <kjj_> coinbase is just the arbitrary data in the generate transaction
105 2012-11-07 11:50:43 <kjj_> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/File:TxBinaryMap.png
106 2012-11-07 11:53:17 <alalo> kjj_: But how can we generate transactions? Isn't it when someone is sending money to someone?
107 2012-11-07 11:53:31 <kjj_> no, those are normal spend transactions
108 2012-11-07 11:54:11 <kjj_> the generate transaction is the first transaction in the block, it creates the subsidy out of nothing, and has one or more outputs that add up to (subsidy + fees)
109 2012-11-07 11:55:00 <alalo> so, generally, we are brute forcing such a transaction that will give us money?
110 2012-11-07 11:55:00 <_dr> maybe i'd better ask here: can i sighup bitcoin-qt (to make it reread bitcoin.conf)?
111 2012-11-07 11:55:46 <kjj_> _dr: no, the conf is done early in the startup process
112 2012-11-07 11:56:05 <kjj_> alalo: well, not really, no.
113 2012-11-07 11:56:46 <kjj_> if you add a new transaction to your block candidate, you'll want to update the generate transaction to account for any additional fees that the block could potentially collect
114 2012-11-07 11:57:09 <_dr> kjj_: ok. i'm currently running headless... can i shut down bitcoin-qt gracefully with sigterm?
115 2012-11-07 11:57:41 <_dr> i'll switch to bitcoind, however, when i set up bitcoin(-qt) the machine still had a monitor so i just left it running :)
116 2012-11-07 11:57:42 <kjj_> and if you are handing out work at a high rate, you'll need to put a variable integer (commonly known as extraNonce) in there so you can tell them apart
117 2012-11-07 11:57:49 <kjj_> _dr: yes
118 2012-11-07 11:57:54 <_dr> kjj_: okay, thanks
119 2012-11-07 11:58:22 <kjj_> or, if you RPC available, you can use the stop rpc command to tell it to shut down, but SIGTERM works too
120 2012-11-07 12:00:41 <_dr> it says it cannot connect to the server, i assume a vanilla bitcoin-qt wouldn't start the server
121 2012-11-07 12:01:22 <kjj_> yeah, I think you need to specify server=1 to get that to go
122 2012-11-07 12:02:01 <_dr> thanks for the help, seems like pkill -TERM worked, i'll switch to bitcoind i guess
123 2012-11-07 12:02:50 <alalo> kjj_: Does the mining process depend on general transactions in system?
124 2012-11-07 12:03:02 <kjj_> I'm not sure what you mean
125 2012-11-07 12:03:39 <alalo> For example, you are mining with current block, and then A sends to B money and now current block is a little bit different, so you have to mine with a new block?
126 2012-11-07 12:03:40 <kjj_> there is a clear division of labor, so far, where one thing creates the block candidate, then passes it to a mining system to check all of the possible nonce vales hoping to get lucky
127 2012-11-07 12:03:50 <kjj_> ahh
128 2012-11-07 12:04:13 <kjj_> you don't HAVE to update your work when a new transaction is seen on the network, no
129 2012-11-07 12:04:38 <kjj_> but generally, you'll want to, at least when the new transaction has a fee that you can try to collect
130 2012-11-07 12:05:17 <kjj_> basically, each node has a list of transactions in memory.  when new transactions come in over the network, they are added to the memory pool
131 2012-11-07 12:05:53 <kjj_> now and then, the node will recheck that list and rebuild the list of transactions that it is trying to include in the next block based on whatever your local criteria are
132 2012-11-07 12:06:50 <kjj_> but no one forces any particular set of transactions to be in the block, so work that you've already handed out for hashing is still valid
133 2012-11-07 12:07:07 <alalo> kjj_: and what these fees are for? Why would I overpay for transfering money?
134 2012-11-07 12:07:23 <alalo> Why would I pay to miners*
135 2012-11-07 12:08:00 <kjj_> the miners still need to verify your transaction before adding it to their work, which isn't free.
136 2012-11-07 12:08:56 <kjj_> and most miners give higher priority to higher fee transactions, so including a fee, even when not strictly needed for the network, will make it more likely for your transaction to be included quickly
137 2012-11-07 12:09:57 <alalo> kjj_: And what will happen if I send to A 50 BTC without fee? It will probably not be verified?
138 2012-11-07 12:10:35 <kjj_> the way most nodes work, including the standard satoshi client, they care about the size and complexity of the transaction, not the amount
139 2012-11-07 12:11:06 <kjj_> so, if that 50 BTC is a single txout redemption that is old, it will still go in pretty quickly
140 2012-11-07 12:11:37 <kjj_> but if it is a huge transaction gathering dozens of previous txouts that aren't very old, most people won't touch it for a long time
141 2012-11-07 12:13:03 <kjj_> we are moving towards a free floating transaction fee market, but we aren't there yet.  right now, most of what the fee system is used for in practice is actually anti-DOS measures, keeping people from spamming tiny transactions over and over again
142 2012-11-07 12:29:53 <StuckGut> PING!
143 2012-11-07 15:29:17 <[MOFO]> 
PING 302353206

144 2012-11-07 15:29:26 <[MOFO]> 
PING 302361755

145 2012-11-07 15:29:31 <[MOFO]> 
PING 302366701

146 2012-11-07 15:29:35 <[MOFO]> 
PING 302370757

147 2012-11-07 15:29:40 <[MOFO]> 
PING 302375702

148 2012-11-07 15:29:44 <[MOFO]> 
PING 302379758

149 2012-11-07 15:29:49 <[MOFO]> 
PING 302384703

150 2012-11-07 15:29:53 <[MOFO]> 
PING 302388759

151 2012-11-07 15:29:58 <[MOFO]> 
PING 302393704

152 2012-11-07 15:30:02 <[MOFO]> 
PING 302397760

153 2012-11-07 15:30:04 <MC-Eeepc> Received a CTCP PING 302366701 from [MOFO] (to #bitcoin-dev)
154 2012-11-07 15:30:07 <[MOFO]> 
PING 302402706

155 2012-11-07 15:30:11 <MC-Eeepc> ban plox
156 2012-11-07 15:30:11 <[MOFO]> 
PING 302406762

157 2012-11-07 15:30:16 <[MOFO]> 
PING 302411707

158 2012-11-07 15:30:51 <MC-Eeepc> thx
159 2012-11-07 15:38:08 <helo> if a wallet is encrypted but online, any transactions that it sees to its addresses will be appended to it, right?
160 2012-11-07 15:41:36 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303091887

161 2012-11-07 15:41:39 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303094773

162 2012-11-07 15:41:40 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303094773

163 2012-11-07 15:41:41 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303094773

164 2012-11-07 15:41:42 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303097472

165 2012-11-07 15:41:46 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303101216

166 2012-11-07 15:41:47 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303102432

167 2012-11-07 15:41:48 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303102978

168 2012-11-07 15:41:49 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303103634

169 2012-11-07 15:41:54 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303109889

170 2012-11-07 15:41:55 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303110825

171 2012-11-07 15:41:56 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303111340

172 2012-11-07 15:41:57 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303112401

173 2012-11-07 15:41:58 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303112619

174 2012-11-07 15:42:03 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303118891

175 2012-11-07 15:42:04 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303119827

176 2012-11-07 15:42:05 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303120591

177 2012-11-07 15:42:07 <helo> is there any way to get the an offline machine to send using unconfirmed inputs without createrawtransaction?
178 2012-11-07 15:42:15 <helo> gmaxwell: help!
179 2012-11-07 15:42:22 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303136893

180 2012-11-07 15:42:23 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303138281

181 2012-11-07 15:42:24 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303139077

182 2012-11-07 15:42:26 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303139093

183 2012-11-07 15:42:27 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303140621

184 2012-11-07 15:42:33 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303145926

185 2012-11-07 15:42:34 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303146908

186 2012-11-07 15:42:35 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303147220

187 2012-11-07 15:42:36 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303147579

188 2012-11-07 15:42:37 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303147798

189 2012-11-07 15:42:38 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303148094

190 2012-11-07 15:42:40 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303148609

191 2012-11-07 15:43:05 <kinlo> gmaxwell: still here?
192 2012-11-07 15:43:28 <MC-Eeepc> hell is this guy doing
193 2012-11-07 15:43:52 <kinlo> or jeff :)
194 2012-11-07 15:43:54 <kinlo> that works too
195 2012-11-07 15:53:20 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303795389

196 2012-11-07 15:53:21 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303796075

197 2012-11-07 15:53:22 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303796528

198 2012-11-07 15:53:23 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303797448

199 2012-11-07 15:53:24 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303798025

200 2012-11-07 15:53:25 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303798446

201 2012-11-07 15:53:26 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303798946

202 2012-11-07 15:54:11 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303846230

203 2012-11-07 15:54:12 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303847727

204 2012-11-07 15:54:13 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303848476

205 2012-11-07 15:54:14 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303849256

206 2012-11-07 15:54:15 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303849646

207 2012-11-07 15:54:16 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303850598

208 2012-11-07 15:54:17 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303851955

209 2012-11-07 15:54:20 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303855231

210 2012-11-07 15:54:21 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303856494

211 2012-11-07 15:54:22 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303856838

212 2012-11-07 15:54:23 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303857852

213 2012-11-07 15:54:24 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303859068

214 2012-11-07 15:54:25 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303859536

215 2012-11-07 15:54:26 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303859911

216 2012-11-07 15:54:27 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303860332

217 2012-11-07 15:54:28 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303860816

218 2012-11-07 15:54:29 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303864357

219 2012-11-07 15:54:30 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303865636

220 2012-11-07 15:54:31 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303865730

221 2012-11-07 15:54:32 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303866853

222 2012-11-07 15:54:33 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303867290

223 2012-11-07 15:54:34 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303868538

224 2012-11-07 15:54:47 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303882235

225 2012-11-07 15:54:48 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303883498

226 2012-11-07 15:54:49 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303884309

227 2012-11-07 15:54:50 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303885261

228 2012-11-07 15:54:51 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303885651

229 2012-11-07 15:54:52 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303886540

230 2012-11-07 15:54:53 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303887336

231 2012-11-07 15:54:56 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303891236

232 2012-11-07 15:54:57 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303892499

233 2012-11-07 15:54:58 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303893311

234 2012-11-07 15:54:59 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303893919

235 2012-11-07 15:55:00 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303894652

236 2012-11-07 15:55:01 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303895620

237 2012-11-07 15:55:02 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303896821

238 2012-11-07 15:55:06 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303900565

239 2012-11-07 15:55:07 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303901860

240 2012-11-07 15:55:08 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303902359

241 2012-11-07 15:55:09 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303903326

242 2012-11-07 15:55:23 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303918552

243 2012-11-07 15:55:24 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303919815

244 2012-11-07 15:55:25 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303919815

245 2012-11-07 15:55:26 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303921204

246 2012-11-07 15:55:27 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303921687

247 2012-11-07 15:55:28 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303922842

248 2012-11-07 15:55:29 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303923356

249 2012-11-07 15:55:32 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303927475

250 2012-11-07 15:55:33 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303928863

251 2012-11-07 15:55:34 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303928863

252 2012-11-07 15:55:35 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303929862

253 2012-11-07 15:55:37 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303931827

254 2012-11-07 15:55:43 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303938785

255 2012-11-07 15:55:44 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303938785

256 2012-11-07 15:55:46 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303940875

257 2012-11-07 15:55:47 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303940875

258 2012-11-07 15:55:52 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303947287

259 2012-11-07 15:55:52 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303947303

260 2012-11-07 15:56:06 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303960578

261 2012-11-07 15:56:08 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303963230

262 2012-11-07 15:56:09 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303964525

263 2012-11-07 15:56:10 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303964728

264 2012-11-07 15:56:11 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303965305

265 2012-11-07 15:56:12 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303966725

266 2012-11-07 15:56:13 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303967536

267 2012-11-07 15:56:14 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303968815

268 2012-11-07 15:56:17 <kinlo> jgarzik: ?
269 2012-11-07 15:56:17 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303972247

270 2012-11-07 15:56:18 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303973495

271 2012-11-07 15:56:19 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303974353

272 2012-11-07 15:56:20 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303975367

273 2012-11-07 15:56:21 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303975866

274 2012-11-07 15:56:22 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303976912

275 2012-11-07 15:56:35 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303990297

276 2012-11-07 15:56:36 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303991498

277 2012-11-07 15:56:37 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303992309

278 2012-11-07 15:56:38 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303992855

279 2012-11-07 15:56:39 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303993651

280 2012-11-07 15:56:40 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303994914

281 2012-11-07 15:56:41 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303995819

282 2012-11-07 15:56:44 <[MOFO]> 
PING 303999267

283 2012-11-07 15:56:45 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304000499

284 2012-11-07 15:56:46 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304000733

285 2012-11-07 15:56:47 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304001903

286 2012-11-07 15:56:48 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304002652

287 2012-11-07 15:56:49 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304003603

288 2012-11-07 15:56:49 <sipa> helo: if a wallet is encrypted but online, any transactions that it sees to its addresses will be appended to it, right?   <-  yes
289 2012-11-07 15:56:50 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304004914

290 2012-11-07 15:56:53 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304008237

291 2012-11-07 15:56:54 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304009516

292 2012-11-07 15:56:55 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304009984

293 2012-11-07 15:56:56 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304010577

294 2012-11-07 15:56:57 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304010857

295 2012-11-07 15:56:58 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304011263

296 2012-11-07 15:56:59 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304012542

297 2012-11-07 15:57:11 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304022823

298 2012-11-07 15:57:12 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304026239

299 2012-11-07 15:57:15 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304027503

300 2012-11-07 15:57:16 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304027737

301 2012-11-07 15:57:17 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304028314

302 2012-11-07 15:57:18 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304028922

303 2012-11-07 15:57:19 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304030092

304 2012-11-07 15:57:20 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304030794

305 2012-11-07 15:57:21 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304031340

306 2012-11-07 15:57:22 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304032011

307 2012-11-07 15:57:23 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304035240

308 2012-11-07 15:57:26 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304036504

309 2012-11-07 15:57:27 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304037378

310 2012-11-07 15:57:28 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304037861

311 2012-11-07 15:57:29 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304038657

312 2012-11-07 15:57:30 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304039796

313 2012-11-07 15:57:31 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304040342

314 2012-11-07 15:57:32 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304040825

315 2012-11-07 15:57:33 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304044242

316 2012-11-07 15:57:35 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304045505

317 2012-11-07 15:57:37 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304045911

318 2012-11-07 15:57:38 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304046722

319 2012-11-07 15:57:39 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304047346

320 2012-11-07 15:57:40 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304047814

321 2012-11-07 15:57:41 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304048953

322 2012-11-07 15:57:42 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304050201

323 2012-11-07 15:57:43 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304053290

324 2012-11-07 15:57:47 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304054694

325 2012-11-07 15:57:48 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304055333

326 2012-11-07 15:57:49 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304055864

327 2012-11-07 15:57:50 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304056457

328 2012-11-07 15:58:26 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304101057

329 2012-11-07 15:58:27 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304101775

330 2012-11-07 15:58:28 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304102820

331 2012-11-07 15:58:32 <helo> sipa: lol thanks for answering through the maelstrom
332 2012-11-07 15:58:35 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304110058

333 2012-11-07 15:58:36 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304110776

334 2012-11-07 15:58:37 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304111884

335 2012-11-07 15:58:44 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304119075

336 2012-11-07 15:58:45 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304119481

337 2012-11-07 15:58:46 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304119777

338 2012-11-07 15:58:47 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304120604

339 2012-11-07 15:58:48 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304120823

340 2012-11-07 15:58:53 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304128061

341 2012-11-07 15:58:54 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304128779

342 2012-11-07 15:58:55 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304129824

343 2012-11-07 15:59:02 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304137062

344 2012-11-07 15:59:03 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304137780

345 2012-11-07 15:59:04 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304138825

346 2012-11-07 15:59:10 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304146064

347 2012-11-07 15:59:17 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304146563

348 2012-11-07 15:59:17 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304146906

349 2012-11-07 15:59:21 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304155065

350 2012-11-07 15:59:22 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304156188

351 2012-11-07 15:59:23 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304156204

352 2012-11-07 15:59:24 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304157030

353 2012-11-07 15:59:29 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304164721

354 2012-11-07 15:59:30 <[MOFO]> 
PING 304164721

355 2012-11-07 15:59:36 <helo> ok... time to set channel mode +r and ban his nick?
356 2012-11-07 16:03:24 <jgarzik> helo: how to do?
357 2012-11-07 16:04:12 <kinlo> jgarzik: I'd recommend +C instead of +r, that will block ctcp's to the channel
358 2012-11-07 16:04:20 <kinlo> +r requires everybody to register in order to join
359 2012-11-07 16:04:40 <jgarzik> kinlo: so...   "/mode +C" while in #bitcoin-dev?
360 2012-11-07 16:04:42 <kinlo> type /mode #bitcoin-dev +C
361 2012-11-07 16:04:48 <jgarzik> this spamming has got to stop
362 2012-11-07 16:05:35 <kinlo> thanks :)
363 2012-11-07 16:05:41 <jgarzik> I wouldn't mind +r
364 2012-11-07 16:05:58 <jgarzik> but would need some consensus from other channel denizens and devs
365 2012-11-07 16:06:02 <kinlo> probably
366 2012-11-07 16:06:09 <kinlo> but +C will help for now I guess
367 2012-11-07 16:06:34 <jgarzik> jbroome: let me know if you need scrollback, or pointer to the ban list entries in question
368 2012-11-07 16:07:33 <jbroome> Wow, all of silenceisdefeat.com?  Harsh. :)
369 2012-11-07 16:12:49 <amiller> anyone who's interested in hash based authentication/signatures may be interested to read this paper about the "guy fawkes" protocol http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/Papers/fawkes.pdf
370 2012-11-07 16:18:50 <jgarzik> jbroome: You have to really be a jerk to get banned too...  But we have so much trouble with people switching nicks and hosts and such that the bans are typically pretty broad, like *!*@a.b.c.*
371 2012-11-07 16:19:39 <jbroome> understood
372 2012-11-07 16:39:33 <gavinandresen> 
ACTION wonders why academic papers never have publication dates somewhere on their title pages....

373 2012-11-07 16:42:39 <jbroome> Guest85110: i thought they usually did.  odd.
374 2012-11-07 16:51:43 <phantomcircuit> gavinandresen, because their research is timeless of course!
375 2012-11-07 16:51:45 <phantomcircuit> ;)
376 2012-11-07 16:52:23 <sipa> gavinandresen: well the publication date is when it is published... what you get to see is often the publication submission only
377 2012-11-07 16:52:37 <sipa> still, why?
378 2012-11-07 16:53:49 <helo> ad cronos
379 2012-11-07 18:31:29 <maaku> gavinandresen: they do have publication dates if you actually retrieve them from the journal ;)
380 2012-11-07 18:32:05 <gavinandresen> maaku: in this age of Google, when do you ever do that?  And actually, I really want 'last revision' date.
381 2012-11-07 18:32:23 <gavinandresen> (does the PDF file contain that metadata?  Maybe what I really want is my pdf viewer to show it to me....)
382 2012-11-07 18:39:05 <maaku> they don't have the pub date because they don't know what issue it will be in until it is actually accepted; there is a CreationDate meta field however
383 2012-11-07 18:48:43 <BlueMatt> anyone know of a block that spends a tx created in that block?
384 2012-11-07 18:49:09 <BlueMatt> 
ACTION is lazy and doesnt wanna have to create blocks for test cases...

385 2012-11-07 18:50:15 <sipa> BlueMatt: random 1Vaynert output?
386 2012-11-07 18:50:34 <BlueMatt> ahh, yea maybe
387 2012-11-07 18:57:10 <lianj> BlueMatt: 57e566535496e903cddcd00526774d785ef15760c2d935fb7ef5367bc39b7506 spends e0ef1bc2b4a10eec1f06574d4a7fcb5e4b2b1bcf65c67e63c64d60db596b73ad in the same block
388 2012-11-07 18:59:53 <lianj> BlueMatt: b592f4b12e5e4366c01a9159420af887d0cdbc87cdc6613b757c18ebcdd1fd52 spends 185e5fdfc9cbacfc5178c4362ca7cea9c2c905b3838316b476ac0cc644825a7e in the same block
389 2012-11-07 18:59:59 <lianj> and so on??? :D
390 2012-11-07 19:04:27 <sipa> BlueMatt: any idea when #1980 would get pulltested?
391 2012-11-07 19:05:37 <BlueMatt> lianj: nice, thanks
392 2012-11-07 19:10:06 <BlueMatt> sipa: its on #1986 now, so Id think soon(ish)
393 2012-11-07 19:10:13 <sipa> ok
394 2012-11-07 19:10:39 <BlueMatt> (assuming it was updated/created before the current test run started)
395 2012-11-07 19:20:18 <BlueMatt> lianj: is there a page you got those from (that shows one in a smaller block?) otherwise Ill just use that...
396 2012-11-07 19:21:27 <lianj> no, got them from a db
397 2012-11-07 19:21:39 <BlueMatt> mmm
398 2012-11-07 19:22:03 <lianj> i guess ever of the 'last' blocks are quite big though
399 2012-11-07 19:22:08 <lianj> *every
400 2012-11-07 19:22:15 <BlueMatt> yea
401 2012-11-07 20:28:11 <sipa> BlueMatt: i wonder, did you ever consider creating a realnet test chain for pulltester?
402 2012-11-07 20:28:47 <sipa> with a day of 1GH/s, you could create a chain with several thousand blocks, some difficulty changes, some forks/reorgs, ...
403 2012-11-07 20:30:16 <gmaxwell> 'several thousand' is inhibited by the checkpoints. But I'm sure people would happily provide hash power to do whatever you like.
404 2012-11-07 20:30:52 <sipa> the first checkpoint is at 11111
405 2012-11-07 20:31:31 <gmaxwell> huh! for some reason I was thinking it was at 5000.
406 2012-11-07 20:35:02 <sipa> ;;bc,blocks
407 2012-11-07 20:35:08 <gribble> timed out
408 2012-11-07 22:02:49 <BlueMatt> sipa: yep, eventually the pulltester chain will be a full (mainnet, not testnet) chain, I a) havent had the time b) am not going to bother till it gets more blocks
409 2012-11-07 22:52:32 <Hasimir> 
ACTION cunt

410 2012-11-07 22:53:26 <Hasimir> 
ACTION CUNT

411 2012-11-07 22:55:33 <Hasimir> apologies all something broke
412 2012-11-07 23:08:19 <graingert> BlueMatt, ah, I didn't notice
413 2012-11-07 23:08:35 <graingert> re: bloom filter