1 2012-11-30 00:00:47 <jgarzik> rofl
2 2012-11-30 00:00:49 <jgarzik> \tchar filemame[strlen(dataDir) + 6];
3 2012-11-30 00:00:59 <jgarzik> more CBitcoin greatness
4 2012-11-30 00:01:36 <jgarzik> #define NOT !
5 2012-11-30 00:01:38 <jgarzik> love it
6 2012-11-30 00:01:58 <D34TH> new qt released
7 2012-11-30 00:02:31 <sipa> jgarzik: what's a mame? :p
8 2012-11-30 00:03:05 <jgarzik> probably meant "filemaim" ;p
9 2012-11-30 00:08:46 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: looking at that code mad be dangerous to your health.
10 2012-11-30 00:11:01 <gmaxwell> oh, sweet. CBitcoin appears to be missing the maximum blocksize rule.
11 2012-11-30 00:12:09 <jgarzik> A single function, CBBlockChainStorageCommitData() has 22 copies of the following error handling code:
12 2012-11-30 00:12:10 <jgarzik> \tself->logError("Failed to overwrite a key in the index.");
13 2012-11-30 00:12:38 <jgarzik> because 10 copies, in a single function, would just not be enough
14 2012-11-30 00:14:43 <gmaxwell> And "bits of proof" appears to be lacking the script size limit.
15 2012-11-30 00:16:40 <jgarzik> picocoin needs difficulty checks it seems
16 2012-11-30 00:16:42 <jgarzik> we all suck :)
17 2012-11-30 00:16:43 <xIsalty> does one need a gui for gitian cross compiling ?
18 2012-11-30 00:16:51 <xIsalty> or is it doable by cli ?
19 2012-11-30 00:18:28 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: all the must-not-be-permitted stuff is scarry. The must permitted crap eventually makes it into a chain and you find it if you like it or not.
20 2012-11-30 00:18:44 <jgarzik> indeed
21 2012-11-30 00:18:59 <jgarzik> more generally, if there's no test for it, it won't be tested
22 2012-11-30 00:21:00 <gmaxwell> We're not even talking about subtle or surprising things. I just looked at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_rules and then observed neither of those were mentioned, so I went and checked two alt implementations and found gaps. :(
23 2012-11-30 00:22:41 <sipa> ACTION wonders how many get the sigops rule right, including counting coinbase and p2sh inputs
24 2012-11-30 00:28:17 <jgarzik> picocoin todo: check block sigops total, not just count them. difficulty. subsidy. coinbase maturity. median time. reorg. compare input/output nValue total.
25 2012-11-30 00:29:23 <jgarzik> took an hour to to check -all- scripts, from block 0 through 170060
26 2012-11-30 00:29:32 <jgarzik> as well as all other checks
27 2012-11-30 00:30:13 <gmaxwell> stuff like the difficulty and time limits is important even for a spv node. :P
28 2012-11-30 00:31:15 <sipa> depends on how far you stretch SPV... in the strictest sense i suppose that you only need to validate PoW and difficulty
29 2012-11-30 00:31:38 <sipa> but there's no reason not to do every type of validation you can with just the headers
30 2012-11-30 00:32:00 <jgarzik> difficulty and median time require a history, so they got de-prioritized below getting script working ;p
31 2012-11-30 00:33:09 <gmaxwell> well only a very small amount of history! :P
32 2012-11-30 00:36:09 <sipa> ACTION tries -reindex -checkpoints=0 -dbcache=900
33 2012-11-30 00:36:24 <sipa> 1.5 minute for 90k blocks
34 2012-11-30 00:36:58 <sipa> (mental note: do not assume jgarzik has the same CPU)
35 2012-11-30 00:37:11 <jgarzik> first 120k blocks are very quick here too
36 2012-11-30 00:40:10 <sipa> 6 minutes here for 120k blocks
37 2012-11-30 00:41:17 <jgarzik> 82.61user 0.17system 1:23.98elapsed 98PU (0avgtext+0avgdata 54852maxresident)k
38 2012-11-30 00:41:37 <jgarzik> that's 90k blocks. just shy of 1.5 minutes.
39 2012-11-30 00:42:49 <sipa> etotheipi_: what fee policy does armory use when creating transactions?
40 2012-11-30 00:48:51 <sipa> jgarzik: why is that use of memcpy unsafe? he appends a zero-terminated string afterwards
41 2012-11-30 00:56:27 <jgarzik> 120k blocks:
42 2012-11-30 00:56:29 <jgarzik> 354.21user 0.23system 5:57.17elapsed 99PU (0avgtext+0avgdata 92148maxresident)k
43 2012-11-30 00:57:40 <jgarzik> sipa: yes. I corrected myself.
44 2012-11-30 00:57:52 <jgarzik> sipa: that code is just so odd it crosses my brain :)
45 2012-11-30 01:18:07 <jgarzik> woo!
46 2012-11-30 01:18:18 <jgarzik> script verf works on testnet3, if P2SH verf is disabled
47 2012-11-30 01:30:08 <D34TH> http://pastebin.com/egyyjyfF
48 2012-11-30 01:30:11 <D34TH> any ideas?
49 2012-11-30 01:38:36 <jgarzik> D34TH: crashes immediately at startup?
50 2012-11-30 01:38:43 <D34TH> yerp
51 2012-11-30 01:40:02 <jgarzik> D34TH: current git HEAD, 0.7.1, or other? Looks like problems before it even gets to bitcoin. Maybe a module was compiled with threads, and another compiled without -pthread
52 2012-11-30 01:40:10 <D34TH> git head
53 2012-11-30 01:40:17 <D34TH> ill check
54 2012-11-30 01:40:48 <D34TH> imo its probably boost
55 2012-11-30 01:40:52 <D34TH> boost always hates me
56 2012-11-30 01:44:52 <D34TH> everything seems legit
57 2012-11-30 01:50:36 <etotheipi_> sipa: Armory first checks isFree (no dust, no zero-conf, sufficient priority, <3.5kB)... if one of those is violated, it picks 0.0005 up to 3.5 kB, and 0.0005/kB above it
58 2012-11-30 01:51:07 <etotheipi_> there is no dynamic block-fill component (since Armory doesnt know how full the blocks are
59 2012-11-30 01:54:58 <xIsalty> ACTION is back (gone 00:01:29)
60 2012-11-30 01:55:23 <xIsalty> ACTION is away: I'm busy
61 2012-11-30 01:55:30 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: it shouldn't anyways, the reference _wallet_ has no 'dynamic block-fill component'. You don't know what the blocks will be like when the txn is confirmed in any case.
62 2012-11-30 01:55:39 <xIsalty> ACTION is back (gone 00:00:01)
63 2012-11-30 01:57:21 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: good point
64 2012-11-30 01:57:48 <etotheipi_> I always assumed I should observe the current blockfill and accommodate, but I was lazy and happy with "it'll get in there, eventually"
65 2012-11-30 03:00:56 <stamit> ACTION alleges false debts
66 2012-11-30 04:29:10 <jgarzik> oh, nice
67 2012-11-30 04:29:22 <jgarzik> Fedora 17 has mingw64, in addition to mingw32
68 2012-11-30 05:23:03 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: did you ever, perchance, build the mingw-openssl rpm w/ ec?
69 2012-11-30 05:23:30 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: running into inscrutable build errors here, missing gosteay32.dll
70 2012-11-30 05:23:56 <jgarzik> chain-verf: 210041 records validated
71 2012-11-30 05:24:04 <jgarzik> 13398.69user 3.38system 3:44:34elapsed 99PU (0avgtext+0avgdata 796488maxresident)k
72 2012-11-30 05:24:32 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: hm. no, never had cause to!
73 2012-11-30 05:24:39 <jgarzik> 3.75 hours to verify (including script) full chain
74 2012-11-30 05:24:49 <jgarzik> well, including script, excluding minor things + P2SH
75 2012-11-30 05:25:52 <gmaxwell> hm. seems slow.. but I don't rember what the no checkpoint time was last I ran them.
76 2012-11-30 05:36:37 <jgarzik> http://www.openssl.org/docs/apps/ec.html
77 2012-11-30 05:36:40 <jgarzik> "Note Due to patent issues the compressed option is disabled by default for binary curves and can be enabled by defining the preprocessor macro OPENSSL_EC_BIN_PT_COMP at compile time."
78 2012-11-30 05:36:48 <jgarzik> is our curve binary?
79 2012-11-30 05:38:42 <asoltys> hi, i'm trying to build bitcoin on ubunt 12.04 on a vps running openVZ and getting: virtual memory exhausted: Cannot allocate memory. I tried setting ulimit -v 60000 as recommended by google but no luck. Anyone have suggestions?
80 2012-11-30 05:41:54 <jgarzik> ACTION finds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECC_patents
81 2012-11-30 05:41:58 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: no. our field is prime. sec_p_256k1
82 2012-11-30 05:42:50 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: DJB has a nice page on the subject too.
83 2012-11-30 05:42:58 <gmaxwell> There is also a rather remarkable IETF draft.
84 2012-11-30 05:43:16 <gmaxwell> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6090
85 2012-11-30 05:43:39 <jgarzik> http://cr.yp.to/ecdh/patents.html
86 2012-11-30 06:04:51 <jgarzik> success!
87 2012-11-30 06:04:58 <jgarzik> mingw32-openssl w/ EC
88 2012-11-30 06:37:38 <zveda> so I was out of town for a couple months.. i come back, try to open bitcoin-qt, says .bitcoin folder is invalid, to backup, copy wallet.dat and start again
89 2012-11-30 06:42:15 <abrkn> zveda: that's bad news. downloading chain takes 3 days now
90 2012-11-30 06:42:29 <zveda> is there a new bootstrap.dat
91 2012-11-30 06:42:34 <zveda> my one seems old
92 2012-11-30 06:42:38 <abrkn> i believe so, you need to check forum
93 2012-11-30 06:42:39 <zveda> it says height 193,000
94 2012-11-30 06:42:43 <zveda> ok
95 2012-11-30 06:43:38 <abrkn> it's around 210k now
96 2012-11-30 06:49:57 <NewLiberty> I just had a troubling thought. Could somebody confirm my logic? I'm trying to maintain an alternate block chain that diverges from the bitcoin block chain at block 210,000. I want to filter out sent transactions after that point so that the wallet can be converted. Well it occurred to me that if bitcoins are sent after the divergence, then although the sender could refrain from sending the bitcoins, the receiver would be able to rebroadcast
97 2012-11-30 06:51:58 <NewLiberty> #$%&!
98 2012-11-30 06:52:47 <NewLiberty> Oh well, better luck next time.
99 2012-11-30 06:55:38 <NewLiberty> Although I guess I could have scammed some poor folks by buying their bitcoins on the alternate chain and then stealing those same bitcoins on the main block chain. Unfortunately I'm not interested in scamming folks.
100 2012-11-30 07:46:49 <NewLiberty> Well at least now I don't have to write a wallet conversion utility nor ASIC hardware which the manufactures probably "test" for a few months before sending them to customers.
101 2012-11-30 07:47:14 <NewLiberty> nor buy*
102 2012-11-30 07:48:33 <sipa> NewLiberty: if you create a new chain that tries to be compatible with bitcoin, please start a new genesis block
103 2012-11-30 07:48:55 <sipa> NewLiberty: forking at some point off is asking for a disaster to happen
104 2012-11-30 07:50:15 <NewLiberty> The fork was the whole point because lots of folks would already be vested in it.
105 2012-11-30 07:50:50 <NewLiberty> And it was not at just some random point, it was at block 210,000.
106 2012-11-30 07:51:19 <sipa> what does forking gain you?
107 2012-11-30 07:51:50 <sipa> you have to clear the utxo set anyway
108 2012-11-30 07:52:02 <sipa> and it cannot be merged mined
109 2012-11-30 07:52:03 <NewLiberty> Every person with bitcoins at block 209,999, would have an equal amount of the new currency.
110 2012-11-30 07:52:21 <sipa> #@&*!@#
111 2012-11-30 07:53:11 <sipa> right, as long as you don't claim it's bitcoin it is not necessarily terrible
112 2012-11-30 07:53:46 <NewLiberty> It is completely renamed, but it's got a double receiving problem described above.
113 2012-11-30 07:54:36 <NewLiberty> Unless there some kind of salt that I could change at block 210,000, I suppose something like that maybe could save it.
114 2012-11-30 07:55:12 <sipa> you did change the network magic as well, i hope?
115 2012-11-30 07:55:42 <NewLiberty> Yes, but I haven't actually used it yet because it's pointless until there's ASIC hardware available.
116 2012-11-30 07:56:08 <sipa> well change something in the transactions or so
117 2012-11-30 07:56:24 <NewLiberty> I mean, I tested the concepts new block chain, but I haven't started mining yet.
118 2012-11-30 07:56:36 <sipa> some bit that has to be set in the tx version maybe
119 2012-11-30 07:56:47 <sipa> oh, no, bad idea
120 2012-11-30 07:56:58 <sipa> that won't invalidate them for bitcoin
121 2012-11-30 07:56:59 <NewLiberty> What does tx stand for anyway? I keep seeing et.
122 2012-11-30 07:57:06 <sipa> transaction
123 2012-11-30 08:01:55 <NewLiberty> What I need to do is switch encryption algorithms. It would be a good practice in case bitcoin was ever close to being compromised. Anybody up for it?
124 2012-11-30 08:02:29 <_dr> i wonder why everybody is that concerned with the crypto...
125 2012-11-30 08:03:02 <_dr> banks have been using ECC for years, so there's been (much more) incentive to break thins before
126 2012-11-30 08:03:33 <_dr> but then, it's never a bad idea to be careful and plan ahead
127 2012-11-30 08:30:53 <NewLiberty> How many mythical man hours would it take to implement a new layer of encryption starting at a divergent block 210,000?
128 2012-11-30 08:36:26 <sipa> there is no encryption in bitcoin
129 2012-11-30 08:38:42 <NewLiberty> Public private addresses.
130 2012-11-30 08:41:26 <_dr> i don't think it'll require a lot of change in the code
131 2012-11-30 08:41:38 <_dr> you just change openssl's ecdsa to whatever
132 2012-11-30 08:41:46 <_dr> rot13
133 2012-11-30 08:42:32 <weex> highly recommend rot but 13 may be a bit weak, i'd go 14 at least
134 2012-11-30 08:42:50 <_dr> weex: now that i think of it, i agree
135 2012-11-30 08:43:17 <_dr> we need rotX, X being the public key, and of course you have to keep Y = 26 - X private
136 2012-11-30 08:43:28 <NewLiberty> I think when a Treazant client opens a Bitcoin wallet, it will need to generate a new public/private key pair for each existing public/private key pair and then submit them all to be confirmed.
137 2012-11-30 08:43:51 <weex> there you go again _dr, inventing new awesome encryption schemes...
138 2012-11-30 08:44:30 <_dr> to think that they didn't come up with them until the 70s... what a bunch of useless mathamaticians
139 2012-11-30 08:45:19 <weex> my altchain will send all coins to me for inspection and approval
140 2012-11-30 08:45:23 <NewLiberty> I'm not way familiar with encryption, but I figure we could use SHA-3 since it was designed as a backup in case current encryption gets compromised.
141 2012-11-30 08:46:13 <NewLiberty> One reference makes it sound like Bitcoin currently uses SHA-256 and ECDSA.
142 2012-11-30 08:46:22 <_dr> NewLiberty: that is correct
143 2012-11-30 08:46:40 <_dr> i find the idea of switching to sha-3 ridiculous
144 2012-11-30 08:47:16 <NewLiberty> So are they used in combination for public/private key pairs, or are they used for public/private key pairs and something else as well?
145 2012-11-30 08:48:07 <weex> ecdsa is used to make the keypairs
146 2012-11-30 08:48:18 <weex> sha-256 is used for hashing
147 2012-11-30 08:48:22 <NewLiberty> Ah
148 2012-11-30 08:48:40 <weex> is it rip-160 that's used to create addresses from pubkeys?
149 2012-11-30 08:48:45 <NewLiberty> Well I don't want to change the hashing.
150 2012-11-30 08:49:01 <NewLiberty> Because I'd like to still be compatible with ASIC hardware.
151 2012-11-30 08:52:32 <_dr> imho the security of the system doesn't rely on the signature algorithm that much
152 2012-11-30 08:52:58 <_dr> imaginge there really is a flow, so you could infer the private key from the public key
153 2012-11-30 08:53:16 <_dr> how would that benefit an attacker? you never get to see any public keys
154 2012-11-30 08:53:33 <_dr> that is, until it is too late, and the coins pertaining to that certain key are spent
155 2012-11-30 08:53:38 <weex> if people reuse addresses they do
156 2012-11-30 08:53:51 <weex> still i think the risk is minimal
157 2012-11-30 08:54:00 <_dr> weex: true
158 2012-11-30 08:54:07 <_dr> which is why they shouldn't be allowed to :)
159 2012-11-30 09:05:04 <jgarzik> sigh
160 2012-11-30 09:05:16 <jgarzik> SHA-256 and ECDSA are not encryption
161 2012-11-30 09:06:37 <_dr> no way! it says right there: elliptic curve digital signa... d'uh :)
162 2012-11-30 09:10:18 <NewLiberty> What was the last message I sent?
163 2012-11-30 09:10:56 <t7> not encryption, cryptography
164 2012-11-30 09:12:37 <NewLiberty> Hm, I'll just resend the last three which I'm not sure got through.
165 2012-11-30 09:12:53 <NewLiberty> Well I don't want to change the hashing.
166 2012-11-30 09:13:03 <NewLiberty> Because I'd like to still be compatible with ASIC hardware.
167 2012-11-30 09:13:10 <NewLiberty> Public addresses should also be the same length for compatibility.
168 2012-11-30 09:16:58 <t7> anyone started work on splitting bitcoind into multiple parts? (core, datastore, tx exchange protocol ...)
169 2012-11-30 09:18:22 <sipa> t7: libcoin by michael gronager, but i'm not sure how maintained it is now
170 2012-11-30 10:04:15 <jeremias> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4852687 upvotes plz :)
171 2012-11-30 10:07:20 <jgarzik> jeremias: no
172 2012-11-30 10:07:22 <ThomasV_> jeremias: what is the volume of btc exchanged in iran over your site?
173 2012-11-30 10:07:29 <jgarzik> jeremias: That is precisely what does NOT need upvotes
174 2012-11-30 10:08:12 <jeremias> ThomasV_: zero
175 2012-11-30 10:08:17 <jeremias> only contacts
176 2012-11-30 10:08:32 <jgarzik> jeremias: If you want bitcoin to survive in the long term, don't do stupid stuff like this that waves a red flag in front of big governments
177 2012-11-30 10:08:35 <ThomasV_> jgarzik: you think btc will be illegal first in us or in iran ?
178 2012-11-30 10:09:02 <jgarzik> I don't want it to be illegal anywhere
179 2012-11-30 10:09:07 <ThomasV_> it can't be illegal in both, you know
180 2012-11-30 10:09:23 <jeremias> well, my company is registered in Finland
181 2012-11-30 10:09:24 <ThomasV_> these countries don't want to look like they copy eachother
182 2012-11-30 10:09:38 <jgarzik> But in particular, it is the height of stupidity to encourage bitcoin use in (a) countries under sanction by the US and Europe
183 2012-11-30 10:09:41 <jeremias> although Finland is pretty socialist country, I think that they will tolerate bitcoin here
184 2012-11-30 10:09:41 <jgarzik> and yes, even Finland
185 2012-11-30 10:09:53 <jeremias> but we'll see
186 2012-11-30 10:10:08 <jeremias> and no, I won't listen to your advice, but thanks anyway
187 2012-11-30 10:10:11 <ThomasV_> jeremias: I am not concerned at all, unlike jgarzik
188 2012-11-30 10:10:24 <jgarzik> jeremias: The creator of bitcoins would disagree with you two: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1735.msg26999#msg26999
189 2012-11-30 10:11:22 <jeremias> well, maybe you should start a bitcoin goverment and regulate us young and foolish people
190 2012-11-30 10:11:35 <jgarzik> It's also an embarrassing article, hyping a single idiot on the forums as a representative sample
191 2012-11-30 10:11:39 <ThomasV_> omg.. the Creator?
192 2012-11-30 10:12:59 <ThomasV_> what would the Creator say today? it's like monks interpreting the messiah's words
193 2012-11-30 10:13:05 <jeremias> lol
194 2012-11-30 10:14:10 <ThomasV_> imo bitcoin can be made illegal in iran. but in democratic countries, it might be too late
195 2012-11-30 10:14:32 <ThomasV_> it will need a public debate
196 2012-11-30 10:14:46 <ThomasV_> and such a debate can only make it stronger
197 2012-11-30 10:15:19 <jeremias> in Finland officials have stated couple of times that bitcoin is legal
198 2012-11-30 10:15:26 <jeremias> or that it is legal to use bitcoin
199 2012-11-30 10:15:31 <jeremias> so I'm not too concerned
200 2012-11-30 10:15:38 <ThomasV_> of course it is legal. but it could be made illegal
201 2012-11-30 10:15:48 <jeremias> yep, true
202 2012-11-30 10:15:48 <ThomasV_> laws do change sometimes
203 2012-11-30 10:16:00 <ThomasV_> I guess that's jgarzik 's concern
204 2012-11-30 10:16:13 <ThomasV_> it was my concern to, 2 years ago
205 2012-11-30 10:16:22 <ThomasV_> but much less today
206 2012-11-30 10:16:28 <jeremias> the same
207 2012-11-30 10:16:38 <ThomasV_> *too*
208 2012-11-30 10:17:05 <jgarzik> If you market bitcoin directly to people who are _already_ being targeted -- Taliban, Iran -- you put bitcoin right into the crosshairs
209 2012-11-30 10:17:21 <ThomasV_> I don't market bitcoin to anyone
210 2012-11-30 10:17:33 <jeremias> I market it to Iran, Venezuela, Argentina
211 2012-11-30 10:17:37 <jeremias> great tarket market
212 2012-11-30 10:17:37 <ThomasV_> it does not need to be marketed
213 2012-11-30 10:17:41 <jeremias> target
214 2012-11-30 10:18:09 <jeremias> people are in favor of inviduals in those countries
215 2012-11-30 10:18:10 <jgarzik> jeremias: well go market somewhere else
216 2012-11-30 10:18:43 <ThomasV_> jgarzik: I don't think it's fair to kick a user for that
217 2012-11-30 10:19:04 <ThomasV_> this channel is not #btcst, I hope
218 2012-11-30 10:19:21 <jgarzik> ThomasV: it is offtopic and potentially legally endangering. /ban is close.
219 2012-11-30 10:19:58 <ThomasV_> jgarzik: you were not doing this because it is offtopic. you were just as offtopic, sorry
220 2012-11-30 10:20:11 <ThomasV_> anyway
221 2012-11-30 10:20:15 <jgarzik> This channel is not for encouraging illegal activity, and sanctions busting is illegal, even in Finland.
222 2012-11-30 10:20:20 <jgarzik> You have been warned.
223 2012-11-30 10:20:26 <jeremias> it's offtopic I agree and I will shut up, but it doesn't put anyone else in legal danger than me, that is way overstatement
224 2012-11-30 10:20:57 <jeremias> and I were not encouraging illegal activity
225 2012-11-30 10:21:16 <jeremias> I'm pretty sure that there isn't anywhere laws against bitcoin yet
226 2012-11-30 10:22:00 <ThomasV_> ACTION popcorn
227 2012-11-30 10:22:37 <jgarzik> On topic or /ban.
228 2012-11-30 10:23:03 <ThomasV_> jeremias: let us discuss how to translate bitcoin-qt in farsi
229 2012-11-30 10:23:08 <Joric> ACTION votes for topic
230 2012-11-30 10:23:41 <jeremias> ThomasV_: yes, I've got couple of guys who would be probably willing to do it
231 2012-11-30 10:23:52 <jeremias> multibit is probably already translated to Farsi, any other clients?
232 2012-11-30 10:48:41 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, why are people stupid?
233 2012-11-30 10:48:45 <phantomcircuit> it hurts my brain
234 2012-11-30 10:52:17 <ThomasV_> does a bloom filter client need to trust the nodes it gets filtered blocks from?
235 2012-11-30 10:56:18 <ThomasV_> I mean, about including all the transactions that match the filter
236 2012-11-30 11:17:22 <sipa> ThomasV_: yes, the server can hide transactions
237 2012-11-30 11:17:43 <sipa> unfortunately... we need a merkle utxo tree root commitment to solve that
238 2012-11-30 11:18:30 <ThomasV_> sipa: you mean the ethotheipi proposal?
239 2012-11-30 11:18:42 <ThomasV_> hm, etotheipi
240 2012-11-30 11:21:04 <ThomasV_> somehow I was under the impression that the bloom filter allowed the client to verify integrity
241 2012-11-30 11:22:11 <ThomasV_> if it doesnt I don't see why it would be interesting to use it in electrum
242 2012-11-30 11:46:25 <sipa> ThomasV_: etotheipi didn't come up with that; he did combine a number of useful things
243 2012-11-30 11:46:43 <ThomasV_> ok
244 2012-11-30 11:46:54 <ThomasV_> but at least he explained it clearly
245 2012-11-30 11:47:34 <sipa> in particular, his proposal is about an address-based index; that won't help for verification
246 2012-11-30 11:48:37 <ThomasV_> well, he proposed that the root hash of that tree be merge-mined in a complementary chain
247 2012-11-30 11:49:37 <sipa> yes, that's the part that was known already
248 2012-11-30 11:49:54 <ThomasV_> ok :)
249 2012-11-30 11:50:08 <sipa> oh wait, i'm confused; his proposal is indeed exactly what isbuseful here
250 2012-11-30 11:50:10 <ThomasV_> well, sorry if I wrongly attribute to him
251 2012-11-30 11:50:19 <sipa> i forgot what we were talking about
252 2012-11-30 11:54:16 <sipa> ThomasV_: point is that a root hash of a utxo set is useful for several things, and some require it to be txid based, and the other needs it to be address based
253 2012-11-30 11:54:54 <ThomasV_> heh, how about hashing both together?
254 2012-11-30 11:55:13 <ThomasV_> it's like data structure sex
255 2012-11-30 11:55:15 <sipa> sure
256 2012-11-30 11:55:23 <sipa> you again put them in a merkle tree
257 2012-11-30 11:55:32 <sipa> like you always do in merged mining
258 2012-11-30 11:55:48 <Eliel> I think it would be possible to change bitcoin protocol so that only the address tree is required.
259 2012-11-30 12:01:01 <sipa> Eliel: p2sh only, you mean? :)
260 2012-11-30 12:01:20 <sipa> that would be possible, yes
261 2012-11-30 12:04:13 <ThomasV_> Eliel: how would that work?
262 2012-11-30 12:05:06 <sipa> if you can know the address from the txin
263 2012-11-30 12:05:32 <ThomasV_> oh right
264 2012-11-30 12:05:43 <sipa> you can for typical spend-to-pubkeyhash or spend-to-scripthash, but not in general
265 2012-11-30 12:06:01 <Eliel> sipa: yes
266 2012-11-30 12:06:19 <Eliel> sipa: you can calculate a p2sh hash even for regular transactions so it works.
267 2012-11-30 12:13:30 <sipa> Eliel: but the fact that other outouts are allowed means you can't judge from the input whether it is really a p2sh input, or just something that looks like it
268 2012-11-30 12:14:51 <Eliel> umm, why would you need to? just index by scripthash whether it is P2SH or not.
269 2012-11-30 12:18:05 <Eliel> if you're changing the protocol, you can make all references by scripthash too. You could even combine all separate transactions to the same scripthash into one record rather than several.
270 2012-11-30 12:19:07 <sipa> Eliel: well if you change the algorithm, everything is possible, but that's a hardfork
271 2012-11-30 12:20:05 <Eliel> adding the utxo hash to the headers is a hardfork anyway
272 2012-11-30 12:21:06 <Eliel> but it probably makes more sense to launch an experimental separate chain first to test the system.
273 2012-11-30 12:23:01 <Luke-Jr> -testnet*
274 2012-11-30 12:23:15 <Luke-Jr> and even if it did work, I don't know the benefit would warrant a hardfork
275 2012-11-30 12:26:10 <Eliel> Luke-Jr: yes, for that reason, it's likely that an altcoin will be trying this out first.
276 2012-11-30 12:27:02 <ThomasV_> coin wars
277 2012-11-30 12:40:49 <sipa> Eliel: you can put a utxo hash in coinbases right niw
278 2012-11-30 12:41:04 <sipa> requiring that can be done with a soft fork
279 2012-11-30 12:54:10 <Luke-Jr> sipa: well, except that coinbases are already full basically :P
280 2012-11-30 12:54:15 <Luke-Jr> could merged-mine it ofc
281 2012-11-30 13:03:38 <sipa> Luke-Jr: sure, merge mining is probably the best way to deal with trying to add multiple pieces of information
282 2012-11-30 13:39:24 <gmaxwell> you could, in theory, make use of address based for validation without a hardfork. You'd implement a new p2p network version where your peer had to provide the indexes along side transactions they forwarded. A UTXO node could only peer with other UTXO nodes and UTXO+Full-enough-to-generate-the-index.
283 2012-11-30 13:41:00 <gmaxwell> I'd previously suggested doing something kinda like this for UTXO in any case??? because once you have a normative UTXO structure you can have peers provide the exact offset, allowing O(1) lookups for every hop (except perhaps the first).
284 2012-11-30 14:15:24 <sipa> Luke-Jr: you did see my gitian sigs for rc2?
285 2012-11-30 14:24:08 <helo> (network IBD finished in 5 hours 23 minutes, loadblock in 3 hours flat)
286 2012-11-30 14:25:54 <helo> seems to be about 50% slower than a few weeks ago
287 2012-11-30 14:27:10 <helo> previously, network took about 2 hours longer than loadblock, which is about the same for this run
288 2012-11-30 14:28:09 <sipa> helo: can you check how long it took to get to 193k ?
289 2012-11-30 14:32:18 <helo> 22:55:41 to 23:12:24... just shy of 17 minutes
290 2012-11-30 14:37:52 <helo> doing another network loadblock so i can see how much it is getting stuck...
291 2012-11-30 14:38:22 <helo> would it be bad if the payment protocol was used to pay nodes to send blocks?
292 2012-11-30 14:39:37 <helo> i guess it would be akin to a micropayment... and it without trust it wouldn't really be reliable
293 2012-11-30 14:40:38 <helo> (i would feel a little better about hitting the network if i could pay the nodes helping me)
294 2012-11-30 14:42:16 <helo> i guess fostering a voluntary tipping culture wouldn't be too bad
295 2012-11-30 14:42:28 <sipa> helo: then we'll just push IBD to use bittorrent & co
296 2012-11-30 14:48:59 <TD_> helo: yeah i think having nodes vend keys that can be used to reward the operators is a good idea, i was thinking about it a fair bit lately.
297 2012-11-30 14:49:06 <TD_> not necessarily requirement to pay at first
298 2012-11-30 14:49:14 <TD_> just an ability to subsidize node operators by people who care
299 2012-11-30 14:49:15 <helo> i was thinking of a way to get nodes to keep around unnecessary transactions after pruning becomes more commonplace
300 2012-11-30 14:50:28 <gmaxwell> helo: if their desire to keep bitcoin from failing completely isn't sufficient then you're screwed.
301 2012-11-30 14:50:42 <helo> yeah.
302 2012-11-30 14:51:34 <gmaxwell> helo: since if it becomes a norm to _charge_ for access to historical data the natural response will be for no one to validate it with the hope that $someone_else will do it and once ~everyone is doing that it won't be secure at all anymore.
303 2012-11-30 14:52:14 <gmaxwell> But I don't think it's concerning. Without a hard fork it cannot grow at a rate high enough to make it seriously problematic to eventually sync it all.
304 2012-11-30 14:52:59 <TD_> yeah, i was thinking for after removal of the hard block size limit :)
305 2012-11-30 14:53:53 <TD_> did jeremias really get kickbanned?
306 2012-11-30 14:53:57 <helo> culture of dependence ftfail
307 2012-11-30 14:55:18 <gmaxwell> TD: Well in that case you can just use the adjustment of the coin supply from 21m to 42m to give coins to people who run full nodes. Win win.
308 2012-11-30 14:55:42 <TD> strawman alert
309 2012-11-30 14:56:10 <helo> TD: yeah. Afghan Persian language may have been less controversial...
310 2012-11-30 14:56:25 <TD> can we please unban jeremias? he is a bitcoin developer who has done a lot for the community
311 2012-11-30 14:57:36 <sipa> i don't really understand what he did wrong, but i didn't follow the link either
312 2012-11-30 14:58:07 <TD> apparently just discussing iran
313 2012-11-30 14:59:19 <TD> if someone doesn't want to take part in such discussions, that's one thing. banning a developer from a developer channel for taking part in those discussions is too far
314 2012-11-30 14:59:52 <gmaxwell> TD: It's not a strawman. You're if you're free to assume that we'd hardfork to remove the growth constraint that keeps decenteralization viable, why am I not free to assume that you'd also create a bunch of inflation in order to pay to keep bitcoin worth having at the same time? :P
315 2012-11-30 15:00:37 <TD> gmaxwell: because you're arguing against something i didn't propose, which is the definition of a strawman. when i propose changing the inflation schedule, you can argue about that. removing artificial scalability bottlenecks, as satoshi always planned to do, is nothing to do with that
316 2012-11-30 15:01:04 <sipa> jgarzik: i don't understand, he simply linked to an article on some website? how can that be encouraing illegal behaviour in any way?
317 2012-11-30 15:02:10 <TD> http://pastebin.com/taMsQLBN
318 2012-11-30 15:02:12 <TD> apparently
319 2012-11-30 15:02:40 <TD> jgarzik: i agree that was not called for. please unban him.
320 2012-11-30 15:02:52 <TD> or are you going to ban me if I start talking about going to cuba?
321 2012-11-30 15:06:01 <gmaxwell> TD[gone]: I didn't argue about it at all.
322 2012-11-30 15:06:26 <ThomasV_> I can't believe this spawned a 5 pages thread
323 2012-11-30 15:08:18 <gmaxwell> sipa: the article was apparently encouraging people to use bitcoin to violate currency transfer sanctions.
324 2012-11-30 15:08:41 <sipa> hmm
325 2012-11-30 15:09:02 <gmaxwell> and then they had a nice discussion about it apparently. (I'm just looking at the logs now)
326 2012-11-30 15:15:43 <ThomasV_> I bet we'll have 20 pages of that thread by tomorrow, if he does not unban him
327 2012-11-30 15:16:29 <ThomasV_> it is not good for the developers image
328 2012-11-30 15:17:50 <ThomasV_> one of the comments: "Censoring people leads to 5 page long threads discussing the very topic you wanted people to be silent about."
329 2012-11-30 15:21:56 <helo> is it acceptable to make changes specifically to increase usage in iran?
330 2012-11-30 15:22:47 <gavinandresen> helo: I'd say it's not acceptable to make changes specific to ANY country for the reference implementation.
331 2012-11-30 15:23:26 <gavinandresen> e.g. no "calculate VAT" functionality for people in Europe...
332 2012-11-30 15:26:02 <helo> aren't language translations doing just that?
333 2012-11-30 15:26:35 <gavinandresen> no... I'm sure there are Farsi speakers all over the world.
334 2012-11-30 15:26:51 <epscy> bitcoin should be written in esperanto and allow the users to translate locally
335 2012-11-30 15:27:07 <drizztbsd> epscy: why?
336 2012-11-30 15:27:12 <drizztbsd> esperanto is unused
337 2012-11-30 15:27:18 <sipa> how about english or chinese?
338 2012-11-30 15:27:19 <gavinandresen> And a new translation isn't a new feature-- we already have the infrastructure to support an arbitrary number of langauges
339 2012-11-30 15:27:24 <drizztbsd> why not using latin :P
340 2012-11-30 15:27:28 <ThomasV_> hmm, reading the businessweek article now; the jon matonis could too be considered as encouraging illegal activity, much more than what jeremias said in this channel... is Matonis going to get banned from the Bitcoin Foundation for that?
341 2012-11-30 15:27:31 <drizztbsd> or old greek
342 2012-11-30 15:27:50 <epscy> ascii character codes
343 2012-11-30 15:27:57 <ThomasV_> I mean, the jon matonis quote
344 2012-11-30 15:28:34 <gavinandresen> Did Jon say something controversial? I read the article, and I thought he just said something that was factually correct (the software doesn't know or care where you are)
345 2012-11-30 15:28:59 <helo> so jermias was banned for saying "lets do this for iran", rather than just "lets translate to farsi"?
346 2012-11-30 15:29:51 <ThomasV_> helo: I think he was banned for asking the article to be upvoted
347 2012-11-30 15:30:51 <gavinandresen> I think jermias was banned because jgarzik was grumpy (I'd guess too little sleep, he has a little one) and jeremias tried to workaround jgarzik's request to take political discussion out of here.
348 2012-11-30 15:31:34 <ThomasV_> he sure was grumpy :)
349 2012-11-30 15:31:53 <gavinandresen> speaking of which... #bitcoin would be a better place to talk about this.
350 2012-11-30 15:31:58 <gavinandresen> ACTION goes to listen in on #bitcoin
351 2012-11-30 15:35:08 <sipa> ;;bc,tblb 1.5h
352 2012-11-30 15:35:12 <gribble> Error: '1.5h' is not a valid argument.
353 2012-11-30 15:35:16 <sipa> ;;bc,tblb 3600
354 2012-11-30 15:35:18 <gribble> Error: There's really no reason why you should have underscores or brackets in your mathematical expression. Please remove them.
355 2012-11-30 15:36:35 <ThomasV_> gribble has sight problems
356 2012-11-30 15:37:04 <sipa> ;;bc,tblb 3600 5
357 2012-11-30 15:37:06 <gribble> Error: There's really no reason why you should have underscores or brackets in your mathematical expression. Please remove them.
358 2012-11-30 15:44:22 <ThomasV_> hmm, as we speak, the jgarzik thread just reached 7 pages
359 2012-11-30 15:50:36 <epscy> ban this filth!
360 2012-11-30 15:51:26 <helo> to 20!
361 2012-11-30 16:02:41 <NewLiberty> I've posted a proposed solution to my divergent block chain problem. I don't have time to discuss it at the moment, but I'd appreciate any constructive feedback. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=128370.msg1369396#msg1369396
362 2012-11-30 16:02:54 <NewLiberty> Thanks!
363 2012-11-30 16:11:16 <helo> NewLiberty: an extra layer of encryption just incase ecdsa is broken?
364 2012-11-30 16:11:52 <sipa> helo: he wants an altcoin that 'forks off' bitcoin, i.e. have an initial distribution of coins exactly how bitcoin was at block 210000
365 2012-11-30 16:12:41 <Lefont> the 0th block in testnet has one tx, "4a5e1e4baab89f3a32518a88c31bc87f618f76673e2cc77ab2127b7afdeda33b"
366 2012-11-30 16:12:45 <helo> oh right... with 50 coin block reward
367 2012-11-30 16:12:49 <Lefont> ./bitcoind getrawtransaction 4a5e1e4baab89f3a32518a88c31bc87f618f76673e2cc77ab2127b7afdeda33b
368 2012-11-30 16:12:53 <Lefont> that's what i get
369 2012-11-30 16:12:56 <Lefont> what's going on??
370 2012-11-30 16:13:15 <Luke-Jr> sipa: yep
371 2012-11-30 16:13:37 <sipa> Lefont: the genesis block is not indexed
372 2012-11-30 16:14:22 <Lefont> sipa How does block exploer have transaction info for it
373 2012-11-30 16:14:33 <sipa> because they do index it :)
374 2012-11-30 16:15:17 <Lefont> how did they get that information then O_o
375 2012-11-30 16:15:20 <sipa> in bitcoin it's not indexed, because the index is primarily used for verifying transactions and blocks, and it would be a forking change to change whether the genesis block is indexed for that purpose
376 2012-11-30 16:15:36 <sipa> bitcoin has that block and the transaction just fine; everyone has- it's even hardcoded in the client
377 2012-11-30 16:15:42 <sipa> it's just not included in the index
378 2012-11-30 16:17:15 <Lefont> awesome thanks for the explination! ...wasnt expecting such a qucik answer =D
379 2012-11-30 16:41:30 <fanthomas> is there some good resource which describes the beginnig of the bitcoin network? I mean when there were 0 BTC or such?
380 2012-11-30 16:46:03 <MC-Eeepc> in the beginning, there was satoshi
381 2012-11-30 16:46:10 <MC-Eeepc> in the formless void
382 2012-11-30 16:46:27 <MC-Eeepc> and he said "let there be coins" and there were coins
383 2012-11-30 16:46:31 <MC-Eeepc> he saw that it was good
384 2012-11-30 16:47:00 <fanthomas> :-)
385 2012-11-30 16:49:25 <Detritus> I find it amazing that who ever he was he hasn't come forward by now, or someone put together an air tight proof on who he is.
386 2012-11-30 16:50:12 <MC-Eeepc> celebrity only distracts from the task at hand
387 2012-11-30 16:50:48 <MC-Eeepc> also its probably more than one guy
388 2012-11-30 16:51:24 <Detritus> true
389 2012-11-30 17:38:06 <killerstorm_> hi. is there a windows build of 0.8?
390 2012-11-30 17:38:26 <helo> yes
391 2012-11-30 17:38:26 <sipa> no, 0.8 doesn't exist
392 2012-11-30 17:38:33 <helo> well, that ^
393 2012-11-30 17:38:35 <sipa> there a pre-release binaries though
394 2012-11-30 17:38:44 <sipa> if you want to test
395 2012-11-30 17:40:29 <D34TH> ^ that
396 2012-11-30 17:40:54 <sipa> though the windows version does seem to have some problems, still
397 2012-11-30 17:41:46 <D34TH> sipa: was the leak issue ever figured out?
398 2012-11-30 17:41:49 <killerstorm_> yep I'm interested in pre-release windows binaries. what kind of problems?
399 2012-11-30 17:41:57 <sipa> D34TH: no
400 2012-11-30 17:42:05 <D34TH> do you know what caused it?
401 2012-11-30 17:42:23 <sipa> no
402 2012-11-30 17:42:28 <D34TH> damn
403 2012-11-30 17:42:34 <D34TH> i was hoping i could help
404 2012-11-30 17:43:14 <sipa> killerstorm_: look for Luke-Jr's next-test binaries on the forum
405 2012-11-30 17:47:53 <D34TH> well i figured out how to make it eat my cpu
406 2012-11-30 17:59:42 <maaku> fanthomas: google "285 bytes that changed the world"
407 2012-11-30 18:04:00 <D34TH> sipa: i found something neat, mem usage isn't going down when running through gdb
408 2012-11-30 18:04:08 <D34TH> it seems like its just holding it
409 2012-11-30 18:04:52 <D34TH> but gdb isnt holding it, bitcoin is
410 2012-11-30 18:05:05 <D34TH> im up to 512 mb
411 2012-11-30 18:07:37 <sipa> D34TH: in windows?
412 2012-11-30 18:07:40 <D34TH> yerp
413 2012-11-30 18:09:23 <D34TH> time to see if it does it in testnet
414 2012-11-30 18:10:52 <D34TH> nope nowhere near the same usage in testnet
415 2012-11-30 18:11:04 <D34TH> maybe it has to deal with blocks?
416 2012-11-30 18:17:48 <maaku> somebody ban Quix0te
417 2012-11-30 18:19:37 <amiller> i'd like to take this moment to post a picture of one of my favorite windmills, it's the one made by an african kid who taught himself electronics http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/46390000/jpg/_46390598_william_on_windmill.jpg
418 2012-11-30 18:22:04 <fanthomas> maaku: thanx
419 2012-11-30 18:22:42 <maaku> not really sure if that's what you're looking for
420 2012-11-30 18:23:02 <jgarzik> D34TH: I pushed some Windows changes out to picocoin.git
421 2012-11-30 18:23:28 <maaku> fanthomas: here's the original announcement too: http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg10142.html
422 2012-11-30 18:25:32 <D34TH> my cpu is getting destroyed by bitcoin right now, ill check it in a second
423 2012-11-30 18:25:38 <mikebtc> Hi all. I am having an interesting problem. Whenever I do ./bitcoind move "Account1" "Account2" 1 the call just hangs and never returns. All the other commands work (listaccounts, listtransaction, getinfo) but move hangs.
424 2012-11-30 18:26:05 <mikebtc> I've never had this issue before, usually works fine
425 2012-11-30 18:27:42 <mikebtc> its been quite a few minutes and the command just hangs
426 2012-11-30 18:28:53 <Detritus> Ick. I'm never writing code for a living again EVER.
427 2012-11-30 18:29:04 <Detritus> oops, wrong chan
428 2012-11-30 18:29:33 <Luke-Jr> mikebtc: known bug in 0.7.1, fixed in 0.7.2rc1+
429 2012-11-30 18:30:07 <mikebtc> oo, cool, thanks a lot Is there anything I can do about it in 0.7.1?
430 2012-11-30 18:30:15 <Luke-Jr> no
431 2012-11-30 18:30:17 <mikebtc> something triggered it because move has worked
432 2012-11-30 18:30:21 <mikebtc> Ok
433 2012-11-30 18:30:30 <Luke-Jr> it did work in 0.7.1? O.o
434 2012-11-30 18:30:43 <mikebtc> oo yes, it worked this morning
435 2012-11-30 18:30:50 <Luke-Jr> odd
436 2012-11-30 18:31:06 <mikebtc> actually has worked for days, it was just today that it started hanging every time
437 2012-11-30 18:31:12 <mikebtc> but that's ok, I understand it's fixed now, thanks
438 2012-11-30 18:34:11 <D34TH> jgarzik, http://pastebin.com/BnwS95ip
439 2012-11-30 18:35:19 <jgarzik> D34TH: yeap
440 2012-11-30 18:35:59 <D34TH> any idea on what i dont have?
441 2012-11-30 18:36:02 <D34TH> besides linux
442 2012-11-30 18:36:12 <jgarzik> D34TH: I got a local mingw build going here. Got lib/ cleaned up, but src/ is another matter. Main tasks, if you want to tackle them (I don't have time right now): 1) convert poll() use to libevent, 2) #ifdef WIN32 createthread() #else fork() #endif
443 2012-11-30 18:36:24 <jgarzik> D34TH: it will continue to poop itself loudly, until those two items are fixed
444 2012-11-30 18:36:36 <jgarzik> D34TH: net.c will be complicated, not just some header fixes
445 2012-11-30 18:45:12 <D34TH> jgarzik, waitpid substitute ? http://pastebin.com/Us85cChD
446 2012-11-30 18:47:46 <jgarzik> D34TH: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms686724%28v=vs.85%29.aspx seems to indicate it's complicated... waiting for a thread to end in Windows appears to require CreateEvent() and WaitForSingleObject()
447 2012-11-30 18:48:10 <jgarzik> D34TH: not sure if Windows less-documented "_" API (_commit, _read, ...) which is more Unix-friendly has a better solution
448 2012-11-30 18:49:17 <D34TH> oh durr
449 2012-11-30 18:49:20 <D34TH> i feel stupid
450 2012-11-30 18:49:28 <D34TH> its in mingw.h
451 2012-11-30 18:49:53 <jgarzik> D34TH: if waitpid can be used with windows threads, that's handy
452 2012-11-30 18:50:11 <D34TH> http://opensource.apple.com/source/Git/Git-19/src/git/compat/mingw.h
453 2012-11-30 18:51:22 <D34TH> you dont even have to include the other 2 .h just mingw.h
454 2012-11-30 18:53:06 <jgarzik> D34TH: nice
455 2012-11-30 18:53:31 <jgarzik> D34TH: feel free to delete code from include/ccoin/compat.h. Looks like I recreated some of that.
456 2012-11-30 19:07:51 <D34TH> yeay
457 2012-11-30 19:08:00 <D34TH> now i can 1080i with my screan
458 2012-11-30 19:08:03 <D34TH> **screen
459 2012-11-30 19:08:04 <D34TH> :/
460 2012-11-30 19:08:20 <sipa> i accidentally the verb?
461 2012-11-30 19:08:37 <D34TH> probably
462 2012-11-30 19:08:45 <D34TH> i wish i had a better screen
463 2012-11-30 19:13:57 <owowo> hello <3
464 2012-11-30 19:18:11 <andrew12-> howdy
465 2012-11-30 19:20:01 <D34TH> oh god i can see combing just from moving my mouse
466 2012-11-30 19:35:57 <helo> barber shop webcam?
467 2012-11-30 19:38:30 <D34TH> helo, interlaced
468 2012-11-30 19:39:37 <helo> ahh right
469 2012-11-30 19:55:17 <ThomasV_> it's official, the jgarzik thread on bitcointalk reached 10 pages
470 2012-11-30 19:55:45 <jgarzik> hehehe, and mentioned Nazis too!
471 2012-11-30 19:55:58 <ThomasV_> yes, reaching Godwin's point
472 2012-11-30 19:56:17 <Cusipzzz> congrats 0.o
473 2012-11-30 19:56:32 <gmaxwell> which thread?
474 2012-11-30 19:56:48 <ThomasV_> I am not sure if it has enough momentum to go to 20 pages as I predicted, though
475 2012-11-30 19:56:58 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=128532.0
476 2012-11-30 19:57:16 <gmaxwell> oh god.
477 2012-11-30 19:58:32 <gmaxwell> sorry I poked my eyes out after seeing the first post by hazek. The forums are such an embarassment.
478 2012-11-30 19:58:40 <ThomasV_> the Iran discovers Bitcoin has much less success
479 2012-11-30 19:58:58 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: pretty much
480 2012-11-30 19:59:04 <ThomasV_> (less trolling there)
481 2012-11-30 20:00:41 <jgarzik> Month or more ago, the S.E.C. attorney talking to folks about Pirate was, according to one forum post, surprised at how young everybody was. I'm not.
482 2012-11-30 20:01:14 <jgarzik> It's clear a lot of the forum is just 4chan teenagers.
483 2012-11-30 20:01:15 <ThomasV_> was that SEC attorney story real?
484 2012-11-30 20:01:30 <ThomasV_> I always presumed it was fake
485 2012-11-30 20:01:43 <Cusipzzz> it's very real
486 2012-11-30 20:01:51 <jgarzik> ThomasV_: Was the SEC talking to multiple parties about Pirate? Yes, that's very real.
487 2012-11-30 20:02:23 <ThomasV_> what evidence is there?
488 2012-11-30 20:03:14 <Cusipzzz> i know someone who spoke to him, in person, in NY. there is an open case
489 2012-11-30 20:18:14 <D34TH> heh jgarzik banned all isps identifying as *.fi