1 2012-12-01 00:16:44 <Pucilowski> Can anyone point me to some resources that talk about the theory on writing services that handle bitcoins?
  2 2012-12-01 00:18:24 <stamit> he's still talking here and i still haven't gotten my money
  3 2012-12-01 00:19:00 <gmaxwell> sipa: 'liccoin'  ... Did you just give Jeff a name for his library? lick coin? hah
  4 2012-12-01 00:20:03 <sipa> how about libjablic?
  5 2012-12-01 00:20:07 <zveda> my bitcoin is all broken..
  6 2012-12-01 00:20:12 <zveda> after every restart I get: Error initializing database environment
  7 2012-12-01 00:20:21 <zveda> and asking me to delete everything
  8 2012-12-01 00:20:22 <sipa> jeff's awesome bitcoin library in C
  9 2012-12-01 00:20:37 <stamit> better things to do than bicker, but i should be getting paid eventually
 10 2012-12-01 00:20:50 <zveda> even though I only just synced everything
 11 2012-12-01 00:21:33 <gmaxwell> zveda: did you copy around any files or move any directories?
 12 2012-12-01 00:21:40 <zveda> nope
 13 2012-12-01 00:21:43 <zveda> just restarted
 14 2012-12-01 00:21:47 <zveda> second time this happens
 15 2012-12-01 00:21:51 <sipa> with bitcoin running?
 16 2012-12-01 00:21:55 <zveda> yeah
 17 2012-12-01 00:22:01 <sipa> while syncing?
 18 2012-12-01 00:22:03 <zveda> no
 19 2012-12-01 00:22:06 <zveda> it was fully synced
 20 2012-12-01 00:22:12 <sipa> hmm, shouldn't happen
 21 2012-12-01 00:22:31 <sipa> (even if it was syncing... but that's harder)
 22 2012-12-01 00:22:50 <zveda> well just happened twice in a row
 23 2012-12-01 00:22:54 <zveda> do i have to sync all over again
 24 2012-12-01 00:23:11 <zveda> i think it will just break again.. something really wrong
 25 2012-12-01 00:23:15 <zveda> it's a new hdd too
 26 2012-12-01 00:23:37 <sipa> well, i really hope these issues will be gone in 0.8
 27 2012-12-01 00:24:34 <gmaxwell> zveda: can you put up links to your debug.log and db.log?
 28 2012-12-01 00:24:55 <zveda> ok 1 min
 29 2012-12-01 00:27:22 <zveda> https://spideroak.com/browse/share/Ilia_Zved/Ilia_share_kbadfb2
 30 2012-12-01 00:27:52 <zveda> o wait
 31 2012-12-01 00:27:54 <zveda> it hasnt sycned yet
 32 2012-12-01 00:28:41 <zveda> ok synced now
 33 2012-12-01 00:30:21 <gmaxwell> uhh
 34 2012-12-01 00:30:22 <gmaxwell> ************************
 35 2012-12-01 00:30:23 <gmaxwell> EXCEPTION: N5boost11filesystem316filesystem_errorE
 36 2012-12-01 00:30:26 <gmaxwell> bitcoin in ThreadMessageHandler()
 37 2012-12-01 00:30:31 <gmaxwell> Did you delete /home/ilia/.bitcoin/database ?
 38 2012-12-01 00:31:08 <zveda> no
 39 2012-12-01 00:31:18 <zveda> its there
 40 2012-12-01 00:31:23 <gmaxwell> Unacceptable log file /home/ilia/.bitcoin/database/log.0000000801: unsupported log version 16
 41 2012-12-01 00:31:27 <gmaxwell> Invalid log file: log.0000000801: Invalid argument
 42 2012-12-01 00:31:29 <gmaxwell> PANIC: Invalid argument
 43 2012-12-01 00:31:31 <gmaxwell> process-private: unable to find environment
 44 2012-12-01 00:31:32 <zveda> database dir is 21mb
 45 2012-12-01 00:31:45 <gmaxwell> Have you downloaded a bitcoin database from someone else or updated bitcoin versions?
 46 2012-12-01 00:32:06 <zveda> well i used the bootstrap.dat
 47 2012-12-01 00:32:08 <zveda> but it worked fine
 48 2012-12-01 00:32:13 <zveda> it's not bootstrat.dat.old
 49 2012-12-01 00:32:21 <zveda> bootstrap
 50 2012-12-01 00:32:27 <zveda> and it was all well synced and everything
 51 2012-12-01 00:32:29 <zveda> then i restarted
 52 2012-12-01 00:32:31 <zveda> then I get this error
 53 2012-12-01 00:32:42 <zveda> r/not/now
 54 2012-12-01 00:33:05 <gmaxwell> Where did you get the version of bitcoin you're running?
 55 2012-12-01 00:34:56 <zveda> from the official site
 56 2012-12-01 00:35:09 <gmaxwell> Did you previously run a version from someplace else?
 57 2012-12-01 00:35:10 <zveda> I think
 58 2012-12-01 00:35:14 <zveda> no
 59 2012-12-01 00:35:18 <zveda> always ran the official one
 60 2012-12-01 00:35:27 <zveda> should i go reinstall ?
 61 2012-12-01 00:35:37 <zveda> I also run armory
 62 2012-12-01 00:35:56 <gmaxwell> But you ran prior versions of the official one?
 63 2012-12-01 00:36:08 <zveda> yeah
 64 2012-12-01 00:36:18 <gmaxwell> Do you have any funds in that wallet?
 65 2012-12-01 00:36:24 <zveda> yes
 66 2012-12-01 00:36:37 <zveda> oh you mean older versions concurrently - then no
 67 2012-12-01 00:36:45 <gmaxwell> No, just previously.
 68 2012-12-01 00:36:45 <zveda> I used to run an older version.. then update came out so updated
 69 2012-12-01 00:37:03 <gmaxwell> You have database log files which are the wrong version, which means you upgraded at some point while not cleanly shut down??? I think.
 70 2012-12-01 00:37:53 <sipa> there should always be one log file left, unless you run with -detachdb
 71 2012-12-01 00:37:54 <gmaxwell> I'd suggest backing up the whole directory. Then deleting everything there, including the database subdirectory, except bootstrap.dat and wallet.dat.. and starting again. And hopefully that should fix you up.
 72 2012-12-01 00:38:11 <sipa> but different versions of the official binaries should use exactly the same bdb
 73 2012-12-01 00:38:11 <zveda> thats exactly what I did
 74 2012-12-01 00:38:12 <zveda> last night
 75 2012-12-01 00:38:13 <zveda> and it worked
 76 2012-12-01 00:38:16 <zveda> now I get the same error
 77 2012-12-01 00:38:35 <gmaxwell> sipa: he might have had the ppa version, I'm not sure if we can figure that out.
 78 2012-12-01 00:38:49 <gmaxwell> zveda: how exactly? you deleted the database directory too?
 79 2012-12-01 00:38:55 <zveda> yes
 80 2012-12-01 00:39:01 <zveda> I deleted everything except bootstrap and wallet.dat
 81 2012-12-01 00:39:24 <zveda> oh hm
 82 2012-12-01 00:39:26 <zveda> it seems I am using
 83 2012-12-01 00:39:34 <zveda> the ppa maintained by Jonas Smedegaard
 84 2012-12-01 00:39:38 <gmaxwell> 0_o
 85 2012-12-01 00:39:38 <zveda> instead of matt corrallo
 86 2012-12-01 00:39:46 <gmaxwell> who the @#$@ is "Jonas Smedegaard"?
 87 2012-12-01 00:39:52 <zveda> hmm forgot
 88 2012-12-01 00:39:55 <zveda> I did this a while ago
 89 2012-12-01 00:40:14 <zveda> http://packages.qa.debian.org/b/bitcoin.html
 90 2012-12-01 00:40:17 <zveda> maybe this
 91 2012-12-01 00:41:26 <zveda> ok anyway I will reinstall the proper version and do what you said.. thanks
 92 2012-12-01 00:42:09 <sipa> that will likely still fail, if the last binary you succesfully used wasn't running with -detachdb
 93 2012-12-01 00:42:42 <gmaxwell> sipa: detatchdb is irrelevent with the "delete everything" step.
 94 2012-12-01 00:43:04 <sipa> right, sure
 95 2012-12-01 00:43:12 <sipa> if he's doing that again, it doesn't matter
 96 2012-12-01 00:43:23 <sipa> afk
 97 2012-12-01 00:52:51 <zveda> woot i installed the proper bitcoin adn it just started up.. didnt even have to delete anything
 98 2012-12-01 00:53:01 <sipa> oh, good
 99 2012-12-01 01:00:03 <gmaxwell> thats ... interesting.
100 2012-12-01 01:00:16 <gmaxwell> zveda: can you find wherever you got the broken one and ask them to take it down?
101 2012-12-01 01:00:39 <zveda> ok will do
102 2012-12-01 01:13:41 <jgarzik> sipa: yah, in order to fully prove the software, libccoin will do SPV validation or full validation.  That enables the test suite to test full validation, which in turn proves a lot of the code... that would otherwise be unproven in an SPV situation.
103 2012-12-01 01:14:15 <jgarzik> sipa: picocoin will just be a command line SPV client
104 2012-12-01 01:14:30 <jgarzik> though I am tempted to write a small full-node for gmaxwell
105 2012-12-01 01:15:05 <jgarzik> fbrd, Fast Block Relay Daemon
106 2012-12-01 01:38:28 <stamit> you know, i had never heard anything about our gmaxwell until he banned me from -otc
107 2012-12-01 01:41:36 <stamit> everybody on the forum as i see, likes to say that "nobody owns bitcoin", but apparently some people do
108 2012-12-01 01:41:45 <Luke-Jr> I own bitcoins.
109 2012-12-01 01:44:17 <liori> i like how just knowing few numbers with peculiar properties means owning something???
110 2012-12-01 01:45:58 <stamit> you couldn't own those numbers on paper. you have to have a computer
111 2012-12-01 02:00:03 <MC-Eeepc> people print paper wallets all the time
112 2012-12-01 02:00:28 <MC-Eeepc> when greg bans you from the bitcoin netowrk then you can complain
113 2012-12-01 02:00:53 <Luke-Jr> please, don't let stamit complain no matter what greg does :/
114 2012-12-01 02:11:38 <stamit> it wouldn't be a peer-to-peer network in that case
115 2012-12-01 02:13:02 <stamit> at some point i noticed gribble not giving me voice on -otc, even though i had >1 rating
116 2012-12-01 02:14:51 <stamit> maybe it was because of the "the extremely high-rated people can do that" rule
117 2012-12-01 02:17:05 <stamit> maybe the next version of the "official" bitcoin will not accept money from stamit's addresses
118 2012-12-01 05:53:07 <greenfox> Hi
119 2012-12-01 05:54:48 <greenfox> I'm getting "PROOF OF WORK RESULT: false (booooo)" and when I look at my statistics at the mining pool there are these "H-not-zero" errors
120 2012-12-01 05:54:59 <greenfox> is there somethiong going wrong?
121 2012-12-01 05:58:26 <D34TH> which pool
122 2012-12-01 05:58:42 <greenfox> hhtt.1209k.com
123 2012-12-01 05:59:14 <D34TH> mailto:fireduck@gmail.com
124 2012-12-01 06:00:30 <greenfox> I changed the pool a view day ago, because I didn't earn anything at the other pool
125 2012-12-01 06:01:30 <greenfox> I changed the pool a few days ago...
126 2012-12-01 06:05:15 <greenfox> How can I test if cpuminer is working correct for my setup?
127 2012-12-01 06:18:03 <denisx> greenfox: cpuminer? really?
128 2012-12-01 06:18:13 <greenfox> yes
129 2012-12-01 06:20:26 <denisx> greenfox: for testing or for real?
130 2012-12-01 06:20:37 <denisx> btw, you should ask that in bitcoin-mining
131 2012-12-01 06:27:03 <greenfox> I hoped for real
132 2012-12-01 06:27:22 <Graet> litecoin or bitcoin?
133 2012-12-01 06:27:45 <Graet> oh nm
134 2012-12-01 06:30:02 <greenfox> what is litecoin?
135 2012-12-01 06:48:09 <jgarzik> Project idea for someone:  create a webpage, that accepts an IP address.  Visitors enter an IP address, and the webpage will test that IP, and verify that it is an accessible bitcoin P2P node.
136 2012-12-01 06:48:22 <jgarzik> Or maybe an IP address or onion address.
137 2012-12-01 07:15:49 <greenfox> as far as i understand tor, an onion address does not have an ip
138 2012-12-01 07:18:39 <greenfox> jgarzik, may i query you?
139 2012-12-01 07:18:55 <jgarzik> greenfox: sure
140 2012-12-01 07:19:19 <jgarzik> greenfox: and that is correct, an onion address is not an IP address.  they are two different things.
141 2012-12-01 07:19:36 <jgarzik> greenfox: you need to be connected to the tor network to access an onion address.
142 2012-12-01 09:40:03 <Dotevo> hi :-) I need some coins for testnet. Is it possible to get those easily?
143 2012-12-01 14:21:07 <Luke-Jr> greenfox: CPU mining hasn't been practical for years
144 2012-12-01 14:57:18 <sipa> Luke-Jr: do you have a blockchain datafile lying around with many reorgs?
145 2012-12-01 14:57:21 <sipa> (or someone else)
146 2012-12-01 14:57:38 <sipa> eu1.bitcoincharts.com/blockchain now links to bootstrap.dat only
147 2012-12-01 14:58:44 <sipa> your blk00000.dat.xz had some, i'll download that again
148 2012-12-01 15:13:21 <abrkn> what is the risk of crediting transactions with minconf 0, like i assume SA does?
149 2012-12-01 15:13:30 <abrkn> SD*
150 2012-12-01 15:14:04 <sipa> they have a relatively high chance of being reverted (making you a victim of a double-spend attack)
151 2012-12-01 15:14:22 <abrkn> sipa: how does sd handle that?
152 2012-12-01 15:14:26 <sipa> for SD this is not really a problem as they use your incoming transaction to pay you back
153 2012-12-01 15:14:38 <sipa> so if you do revert the transaction, so will the payout
154 2012-12-01 15:18:09 <Luke-Jr> abrkn: SD doesn't care, since it's a DDoS and doesn't care what happens to the money :p
155 2012-12-01 15:18:10 <abrkn> on a double spend, i send out two different transactions from the same adress but to different recipients so that only one can be included in the chain?
156 2012-12-01 15:18:25 <Luke-Jr> sipa: = revert it when you lose
157 2012-12-01 15:18:52 <sipa> Luke-Jr: yes, i don't say this is perfect, but it makes it risk-free *for them*
158 2012-12-01 15:19:08 <Luke-Jr> abrkn: there is no "from the same address"; Bitcoin doesn't work with addresses at that level, it works with coins
159 2012-12-01 15:19:16 <Luke-Jr> abrkn: so it's like giving two people the same quarter
160 2012-12-01 15:20:20 <sipa> also, please stop calling it a DDoS - i don't like their mechanism, but it's far from a deliberate attempt to break the system
161 2012-12-01 15:20:50 <Luke-Jr> sipa: when they won't stop after it's proven to be a problem, it becomes deliberate.
162 2012-12-01 15:21:21 <abrkn> Luke-Jr: because when you send a transaction, the inputs are always entirely sent, but you can make an output that you keep?
163 2012-12-01 15:22:05 <sipa> Luke-Jr: not seeing the damage they cause (assuming that's a fact) doesn't make it a deliberate attack
164 2012-12-01 15:23:10 <abrkn> i dont understand what's meant by reverting a transaction?
165 2012-12-01 15:23:27 <Luke-Jr> sipa: I personally explained to him how it is causing damage. He continues to operate it. That's deliberate attacking.
166 2012-12-01 15:25:11 <sipa> Luke-Jr: i disagree completely; you make it sound like their intent is breaking the system
167 2012-12-01 15:25:24 <Luke-Jr> if it wasn't, they wouldn't be doing it.
168 2012-12-01 15:25:39 <sipa> come on please; their intent is making money
169 2012-12-01 15:25:50 <Luke-Jr> they could do that without DDoSing the system
170 2012-12-01 15:25:58 <sipa> i have never claimed otherwise
171 2012-12-01 15:26:10 <abrkn> i keep seeing people play sd, wtf is up with that
172 2012-12-01 15:26:11 <sipa> but that still doesn't make it their intent to break the system
173 2012-12-01 15:26:16 <abrkn> who are these degen gamblers
174 2012-12-01 15:27:00 <sipa> abrkn: i have no clue; i completely fail to see why people do that
175 2012-12-01 15:27:21 <abrkn> sipa: i'm all for gambling, it can be a lot of fun, but just sending to an address and maybe getting back? how uninvolving
176 2012-12-01 15:27:54 <sipa> abrkn: reverting a transaction: making a merchant accept a transaction that spends a coin X, but getting another transaction that spends X in the block chain
177 2012-12-01 15:28:12 <sipa> abrkn: so from the merchant's point of view, their transaction is reverted, as it conflicts with the block chain
178 2012-12-01 15:28:19 <abrkn> how are they doing that?
179 2012-12-01 15:29:12 <sipa> abrkn: by doing a double spend, make the merchant see one transactions and the rest of the network another
180 2012-12-01 15:29:22 <sipa> (not saying this is easy or even happening at all)
181 2012-12-01 15:29:24 <Luke-Jr> abrkn: pick your fees wisely
182 2012-12-01 15:29:27 <sipa> but it is a risk
183 2012-12-01 15:29:52 <Luke-Jr> abrkn: send to 1dice??? using no fee, with inputs that most miners will demand a fee to mine
184 2012-12-01 15:30:14 <Luke-Jr> abrkn: if you win, just be patient for it to get mined; if you lose, use the same inputs with a fee to send to yourself
185 2012-12-01 15:30:34 <abrkn> hah :)
186 2012-12-01 15:30:43 <abrkn> im making a game, but its such a pain if you need to wait 10 min to get credited... how dull
187 2012-12-01 15:30:55 <abrkn> at what minconf am i unlikely to get killed by double spends?
188 2012-12-01 15:31:12 <Luke-Jr> abrkn: 6 confirms is basicalyl impossible to beat
189 2012-12-01 15:31:20 <Luke-Jr> abrkn: 1 confirm is good enough for low value
190 2012-12-01 15:31:24 <TD> abrkn: i'd say 1, but realistically, you can operate with zero until you see yourself being ripped off
191 2012-12-01 15:31:35 <sipa> that doesn't mean you need to wait for confirmation
192 2012-12-01 15:31:53 <Luke-Jr> abrkn: either way, you'll want to monitor new block rate; you might want to wait for 6 within 2 hours
193 2012-12-01 15:31:57 <sipa> if you can make things in a way that a player loses his service when he tries to double spend, risk is a lot lower
194 2012-12-01 15:32:00 <TD> abrkn: start optimistic and degrade the user experience as necessary until your fraud rates drop to an acceptable level, same with any anti-abuse system. quite likely, you can avoid ever requiring confirmations if you are careful to limit your exposure
195 2012-12-01 15:32:18 <abrkn> ok
196 2012-12-01 15:32:42 <abrkn> what minconf do the major exchanges operate wiht?
197 2012-12-01 15:32:54 <Luke-Jr> 6
198 2012-12-01 15:32:56 <TD> oh, 6
199 2012-12-01 15:32:59 <abrkn> i guess one should use different values for different transactions sizes
200 2012-12-01 15:33:00 <TD> but that's an exchange. prime targets
201 2012-12-01 15:33:02 <TD> yeah
202 2012-12-01 15:33:03 <Luke-Jr> exchanges are always high-risk
203 2012-12-01 15:33:16 <TD> i mean exchanges move potentially thousands of bitcoins around in single transactions
204 2012-12-01 15:33:21 <abrkn> right
205 2012-12-01 15:33:24 <TD> so they need as much security as they can get
206 2012-12-01 15:33:31 <abrkn> but why not do it in tiers? 0.1 btc, zero minconf
207 2012-12-01 15:33:33 <abrkn> 1000? 6
208 2012-12-01 15:33:49 <Luke-Jr> abrkn: so I spam you with 10000x 0.1 BTC txns, and double-spend them all?
209 2012-12-01 15:33:58 <abrkn> true
210 2012-12-01 15:38:07 <TD> well, they can have controls in place for that too
211 2012-12-01 15:38:31 <TD> abrkn: i think the real reason is just that bank wires are so much slower than bitcoin, it doesn't really make sense to optimize the bitcoin side of things. or at least it's not a high priority.
212 2012-12-01 15:38:44 <TD> they probably could do risk analysis and maybe in future they will, but for now, it's simpler not to
213 2012-12-01 15:45:44 <diki> why is the bitcoin.conf file not moved where the binary is?
214 2012-12-01 15:46:09 <diki> this would allow me and everybody else to specify in the conf file where the datadir to be.
215 2012-12-01 15:46:18 <sipa> you can do that
216 2012-12-01 15:46:33 <sipa> ./bitcoind -conf=bitcoin.conf
217 2012-12-01 15:47:19 <diki> datadir path in the conf file?
218 2012-12-01 15:49:41 <sipa> yes
219 2012-12-01 15:50:21 <sipa> it should work, but i doubt many people use it
220 2012-12-01 15:51:55 <etotheipi_> Luke-Jr: I think making $200k in "cash" is plenty incentive enough to not care that you're increasing transaction volume on a system that should be able to handle the volume anyway
221 2012-12-01 15:52:25 <Luke-Jr> etotheipi_: there is no reason to think Bitcoin can handle volume that not even VISA does.
222 2012-12-01 15:52:55 <sipa> what makes you think SD causes as many transactions as VISA does? :S
223 2012-12-01 15:53:03 <phantomcircuit> Luke-Jr, i'd like to see someway to detect if a transaction gets rolled back
224 2012-12-01 15:53:17 <phantomcircuit> i'd probably start accepting 0 confirmations for some things with that
225 2012-12-01 15:53:44 <Luke-Jr> sipa: SD causes 2 transactions per action. Try having WalMart do 2 VISA transactions for every item you take off the shelf
226 2012-12-01 15:54:39 <sipa> Luke-Jr: that's comparing apples and oranges; i fully agree SD should use a different mechanism, but with current volumes, it works fine
227 2012-12-01 15:54:54 <sipa> whether it will keep working fine is something else
228 2012-12-01 15:55:27 <Luke-Jr> it only works fine to the extent that Bitcoin miners are gradually blocking it
229 2012-12-01 15:55:52 <sipa> maybe, but it does
230 2012-12-01 15:56:33 <sipa> look, i'm not arguing that SD is using a bad mechanism here; but claiming "they DDoS the system" makes you completely unbelievable
231 2012-12-01 15:57:22 <Luke-Jr> well, it's true
232 2012-12-01 15:57:48 <sipa> DDoS implies it's an attack; they are not attacking; they are at most blind to the damage they cause
233 2012-12-01 15:58:09 <sipa> now i will stop arguing, because i know i won't agree with you
234 2012-12-01 15:58:29 <Luke-Jr> can't be blind when they're aware.
235 2012-12-01 15:59:16 <sipa> of course they can, by simply not believing you (and whether they are right not to believe you is completely irrelevant)
236 2012-12-01 16:00:13 <Luke-Jr> I don't recall a response of disbelief, more like "that's your problem. fix it"
237 2012-12-01 16:01:00 <sipa> yes, that's something i don't like either, but that still doesn't mean they are actively trying to damage the system
238 2012-12-01 16:01:19 <etotheipi_> it's a global transaction system... you can't create a global transaction system and not expect people to use it... you can't blame a company for using a business model that is completely within the limits of the system and then tell them they can't... it's like fighting for democracy in another country and then telling them they can't elect certain people
239 2012-12-01 16:01:37 <sipa> etotheipi_: agree
240 2012-12-01 16:01:49 <sipa> except for one thing
241 2012-12-01 16:02:06 <sipa> the bitcoin economy and system are young, and scaling it will take time
242 2012-12-01 16:02:27 <sipa> if they require it to scale faster than it can, they may cause damage
243 2012-12-01 16:02:48 <sipa> saying "it should deal with this" is not the same as "it should deal with this one day"
244 2012-12-01 16:03:00 <etotheipi_> sipa: I must agree with you -- SD burnt Armory pretty hard
245 2012-12-01 16:03:16 <etotheipi_> I was not expecting to have to deal with 3 years of blockchain size doubling in like 2 months
246 2012-12-01 16:03:42 <abrkn> every time i look at the chain, over half is sd
247 2012-12-01 16:03:50 <abrkn> polution...
248 2012-12-01 16:04:20 <etotheipi_> since SD started ,they have been 55% of all transactions
249 2012-12-01 16:07:44 <Luke-Jr> abrkn: that's an understatement
250 2012-12-01 16:09:30 <jgarzik> and
251 2012-12-01 16:09:39 <jgarzik> saying "it should deal with this" is not the same as "it can deal with this"
252 2012-12-01 16:09:40 <jgarzik> ;p
253 2012-12-01 16:11:07 <jgarzik> sipa: http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/blk0001.dat.bz2 should be the eu1 blockchain w/ reorgs
254 2012-12-01 16:11:51 <sipa> jgarzik: good to know; tested with luke's chain already
255 2012-12-01 16:27:30 <gmaxwell> Real growth brings its own rewards: a biggern economy means more tolerance to the cost of the system, and more people to help work on reducing the costs. Growth from attacks or inefficiency.. not so much. I assumed the desire to limit artificial growth is why the size nodes mine was artificially limited below the network rule size.
256 2012-12-01 16:33:47 <TD> etotheipi_: yeah, but that's because you required the block chain to be held in RAM
257 2012-12-01 16:34:04 <TD> SD hasn't really had a big  impact on the Android wallet app because it has taken steps to optimize, and more steps are being taken
258 2012-12-01 16:34:33 <etotheipi_> TD: yes... it was an unoptimized implementation, because it was a pet project before it became a public project
259 2012-12-01 16:35:16 <etotheipi_> hindsight is 20/20
260 2012-12-01 16:35:57 <etotheipi_> I knew it wasn't sustainable in the long run and I was going to have to upgrade, I just didn't realize the "long run" was only a couple months away at the time
261 2012-12-01 16:36:05 <sipa> i've been adding some microsecond-level benchmarking to the code
262 2012-12-01 16:36:43 <sipa> quite expected, but at least in the 170k first blocks, the time to write the undo data to disk far outweighs the rest
263 2012-12-01 17:02:43 <sipa> on my CPU: transaction verification costs around 600us/txin
264 2012-12-01 17:03:02 <sipa> without script verification: around 10us/txin
265 2012-12-01 17:03:57 <sipa> but there are other things (like reading/writing block data) that outweight tx verification without script
266 2012-12-01 17:05:39 <sipa> s/transaction verification/transaction processing/
267 2012-12-01 18:32:18 <jgarzik> sipa: I like -benchmark ;p
268 2012-12-01 18:37:31 <sipa> example output:
269 2012-12-01 18:37:32 <sipa> 12/01/12 19:09:35 - Connect 240 transactions: 357344us (1488us/tx, 625us/txin)
270 2012-12-01 18:37:35 <sipa> 12/01/12 19:09:35 - Connect: 363026us
271 2012-12-01 18:37:38 <sipa> 12/01/12 19:09:35 - Flush 653 transactions: 1311us (2us/tx)
272 2012-12-01 18:44:32 <freewil> microseconds?
273 2012-12-01 18:44:38 <sipa> yes
274 2012-12-01 18:44:47 <freewil> nice
275 2012-12-01 18:45:11 <sipa> fractional milliseconds is probably more readable, though
276 2012-12-01 18:45:53 <freewil> or commas
277 2012-12-01 18:46:31 <freewil> (thousand separator)
278 2012-12-01 19:02:04 <gmaxwell> no commas please. just complicates writing code that parses stuff. :P
279 2012-12-01 19:08:41 <sipa> 12/01/12 20:08:16 - Connect 804 transactions: 1214.690ms (1.5108ms/tx, 0.6169ms/txin)
280 2012-12-01 19:08:44 <sipa> 12/01/12 20:08:16 - Connect: 1233.559ms
281 2012-12-01 19:08:46 <sipa> 12/01/12 20:08:16 - Flush 2116 transactions: 3.508ms (0.00166ms/tx)
282 2012-12-01 19:21:04 <Jude> Hai.
283 2012-12-01 19:45:43 <Luke-Jr> I feel sorry for rebroad. He submitted -benchmark (slightly different) months ago and was told off.
284 2012-12-01 19:47:59 <sipa> well, i think this is more useful (it's not information that is conveyed by -logtimestamps), and optional
285 2012-12-01 19:48:55 <sipa> then again, i don't mind this not ending up in mainstream - it's mostly useful for development
286 2012-12-01 19:49:52 <sipa> s/mainstream/upstream/
287 2012-12-01 19:58:55 <gmaxwell> [OT] I recommended someone use Java for a project and he's asking me for a good java primer. Not being terribly java clueful myself, I don't have any to suggest... Any recommendations?
288 2012-12-01 20:03:35 <epscy> how long does it take to sync from testnet?
289 2012-12-01 20:03:53 <D34TH> epscy, depends on node your connected to
290 2012-12-01 20:04:22 <epscy> is it a similar timeframe to the real blockchain?
291 2012-12-01 20:04:26 <D34TH> no
292 2012-12-01 20:05:00 <D34TH> booting up my node
293 2012-12-01 20:05:05 <D34TH> maybe you'll connect
294 2012-12-01 20:05:37 <D34TH> try -addnode=skynets.kicks-ass.org
295 2012-12-01 20:06:14 <epscy> i seem to be getting a lot of blocks anyway
296 2012-12-01 20:06:31 <epscy> what is the current height of the testnet?
297 2012-12-01 20:06:46 <D34TH> "blocks" : 39176,
298 2012-12-01 20:06:58 <epscy> oh i am synced then :)
299 2012-12-01 20:07:02 <epscy> that was quick
300 2012-12-01 20:07:20 <D34TH> time to mine
301 2012-12-01 20:07:34 <epscy> you can mine with a cpu on testnet?
302 2012-12-01 20:07:43 <D34TH> "difficulty" : 1.00000000,
303 2012-12-01 20:07:44 <D34TH> yerp
304 2012-12-01 20:08:08 <gmaxwell> enmaku: no, much faster.
305 2012-12-01 20:08:15 <gmaxwell> yea...
306 2012-12-01 20:08:47 <D34TH> gmaxwell, you even highlighted the wrong person
307 2012-12-01 20:09:01 <D34TH> woohoo found a block
308 2012-12-01 20:09:06 <D34TH> im fake bitcoin rich
309 2012-12-01 20:09:21 <sipa> there?? nothing fake about testnet
310 2012-12-01 20:09:31 <sipa> they were even traded for bitcoins once upon a time :)
311 2012-12-01 20:09:40 <D34TH> yea, thats why it got reset
312 2012-12-01 20:10:20 <sipa> i can't remember the reason for the switch to testnet2, but i really doubt it being valuable was one
313 2012-12-01 20:10:26 <epscy> "hashespersec" : 472772,
314 2012-12-01 20:10:39 <epscy> how long is it going to take me to find a block
315 2012-12-01 20:10:58 <D34TH> is there a up to date testnet blockexplorer
316 2012-12-01 20:11:03 <sipa> ;;calc **48/65535/600/472772
317 2012-12-01 20:11:04 <gribble> Error: invalid syntax (<string>, line 1)
318 2012-12-01 20:11:09 <gribble> 15.1413113615
319 2012-12-01 20:11:09 <sipa> ;;calc 2**48/65535/600/472772
320 2012-12-01 20:11:11 <D34TH> epscy: depends, your competeing against me
321 2012-12-01 20:11:14 <sipa> 15.1s
322 2012-12-01 20:11:37 <sipa> ehhh
323 2012-12-01 20:11:50 <D34TH> ;;calc 2**48/65535/600/173800000
324 2012-12-01 20:11:50 <gribble> 0.0411875031933
325 2012-12-01 20:11:57 <D34TH> im not finding blocks that quick
326 2012-12-01 20:11:57 <epscy> D34TH: it's not really competing is it?
327 2012-12-01 20:12:03 <epscy> if its diff 1
328 2012-12-01 20:12:03 <gribble> Error: Missing "]".  You may want to quote your arguments with double quotes in order to prevent extra brackets from being evaluated as nested commands.
329 2012-12-01 20:12:03 <sipa> ;;calc 2**48/65535/600/472772[B[B[B[B[Bdrop the /600
330 2012-12-01 20:12:10 <sipa> drop the 600
331 2012-12-01 20:12:20 <D34TH> ;;calc 2**48/65535/173800000
332 2012-12-01 20:12:20 <gribble> 24.712501916
333 2012-12-01 20:12:41 <D34TH> theoretically i should be finding blocks that quick
334 2012-12-01 20:12:45 <D34TH> but it doesnt seem that way
335 2012-12-01 20:13:11 <sipa> sure you're not being hit by the special testnet difficulty rule?
336 2012-12-01 20:13:19 <D34TH> hmm?
337 2012-12-01 20:13:20 <epscy> sipa: ?
338 2012-12-01 20:13:27 <D34TH> still says diff1
339 2012-12-01 20:13:27 <sipa> that the actual difficulty is higher, but it allows a diff-1 block if there hasn't been a block for 20 min
340 2012-12-01 20:13:58 <epscy> so whats the actual diff
341 2012-12-01 20:14:17 <D34TH> probably like 100
342 2012-12-01 20:15:15 <D34TH> wow there isnt a up to date testnet explorer
343 2012-12-01 20:18:19 <gmaxwell> D34TH: bitcoind itself is pretty much a block explorer now.
344 2012-12-01 20:18:42 <D34TH> gmaxwell, it doesnt tell me the correct diff
345 2012-12-01 20:18:44 <D34TH> D:
346 2012-12-01 20:18:47 <gmaxwell> other than index by address it does everything block explorer does pretty much.
347 2012-12-01 20:19:28 <gmaxwell> It tells you the diff of the last block, or the current attempted diff if you call getblocktemplate.
348 2012-12-01 20:19:41 <gmaxwell> Also, http://blockexplorer.com/testnet is upto date.
349 2012-12-01 20:20:10 <D34TH> no it isnt
350 2012-12-01 20:20:16 <D34TH> height is 39178
351 2012-12-01 20:20:35 <epscy> hmm, i think i need to give this vm more memory
352 2012-12-01 20:20:47 <epscy> g++: internal compiler error: Killed (program cc1plus)
353 2012-12-01 20:21:18 <D34TH> epscy, that'll do it
354 2012-12-01 20:21:32 <gmaxwell> hm. isn't testnet enforcing height in coinbase?
355 2012-12-01 20:21:43 <Jude> Needs at least 256MB if I recall correctly.
356 2012-12-01 20:21:57 <epscy> this vm has 512
357 2012-12-01 20:22:09 <epscy> and 512 swap
358 2012-12-01 20:23:21 <gmaxwell> Jude: to compile bitcoin? more like a gig. If you don't compile in parallel that helps.
359 2012-12-01 20:23:22 <Jude> Do you have X running?
360 2012-12-01 20:23:33 <epscy> nope, it's headless
361 2012-12-01 20:23:39 <Jude> Oh really?
362 2012-12-01 20:23:42 <epscy> just a couple of tmux windows
363 2012-12-01 20:23:47 <Jude> I am stuck in LTC world, lol.
364 2012-12-01 20:39:18 <riush> sipa: i think there's a typo in the comment for your new varints.. 65535: [0x82 0xFD 0x7F] should be [0x82 0xFE 0x7F], right?
365 2012-12-01 20:42:11 <sipa> riush: you're absolutely right
366 2012-12-01 20:42:32 <sipa> i love it that someone actually bothers checking that :)
367 2012-12-01 20:43:08 <Luke-Jr> lol
368 2012-12-01 20:43:17 <riush> good. thoght i'm going mad, 16511 broken but 65535 works again :p
369 2012-12-01 22:03:40 <freewil> nearly killed my server trying to stream debug.log through logstash
370 2012-12-01 22:03:42 <freewil> nearly killed my server trying to stream debug.log through logstash
371 2012-12-01 22:38:12 <diki> So...whatever happened to ArtForZ? He was pretty popular last year, and he had a few FPGAs, but I have not seen him username in a long long time.
372 2012-12-01 22:38:24 <Diablo-D3> he quit irc
373 2012-12-01 22:38:36 <diki> and the forums?
374 2012-12-01 22:42:11 <gmaxwell> ohoh.
375 2012-12-01 22:42:25 <gmaxwell> I just noticed my public ultraprune node is stuck at
376 2012-12-01 22:43:07 <sipa> which error?
377 2012-12-01 22:43:10 <gmaxwell> looking now
378 2012-12-01 22:43:16 <gmaxwell> it's on moderately old code...
379 2012-12-01 22:43:46 <denisx> my nodes code is only some days old and latest block is 210516
380 2012-12-01 22:43:55 <sipa> ;;bc,blocks
381 2012-12-01 22:43:56 <gribble> 210516
382 2012-12-01 22:44:39 <denisx> last commit i have is 5c37be2db6
383 2012-12-01 22:45:05 <gmaxwell> 11/28/12 18:42:15 ERROR: ConnectBlock() : inputs missing/spent
384 2012-12-01 22:45:06 <gmaxwell> 11/28/12 18:42:15 InvalidChainFound: invalid block=00000000000004b1002c  height=210023  work=43555608048625014060  date=11/28/12 18:43:50
385 2012-12-01 22:45:08 <gmaxwell> 11/28/12 18:42:15 InvalidChainFound:  current best=00000000000003b3b9d6  height=210022  work=43540837821731432620  date=11/28/12 18:18:26
386 2012-12-01 22:45:11 <gmaxwell> 11/28/12 18:42:15 InvalidChainFound: invalid block=00000000000004b1002c  height=210023  work=43555608048625014060  date=11/28/12 18:43:50
387 2012-12-01 22:45:14 <gmaxwell> 11/28/12 18:42:15 InvalidChainFound:  current best=00000000000003b3b9d6  height=210022  work=43540837821731432620  date=11/28/12 18:18:26
388 2012-12-01 22:45:17 <gmaxwell> 11/28/12 18:42:15 ERROR: SetBestBlock() : ConnectBlock 00000000000004b1002c failed
389 2012-12-01 22:45:22 <gmaxwell> denisx: yes, I know that??? thats why I said it was stuck.
390 2012-12-01 22:45:56 <denisx> gmaxwell: I know you know
391 2012-12-01 22:46:24 <sipa> gmaxwell: that sounds bad
392 2012-12-01 22:46:31 <sipa> gmaxwell: any failed reorganisation before that?
393 2012-12-01 22:50:44 <gmaxwell> I don't see any.
394 2012-12-01 22:51:59 <gmaxwell> what do we log when a recieved txn has missing inputs? I'm trying to see if I also rejected whatever txn that is when it hit me outside of a block
395 2012-12-01 22:55:45 <gmaxwell> This node is running 578fc800039a99f07c0eb9e256519598a1c9dd27 plus the reindex patch of some vintage.
396 2012-12-01 22:59:47 <sipa> eh
397 2012-12-01 23:01:01 <sipa> CTxMemPool::accept() : inputs already spent
398 2012-12-01 23:01:17 <sipa> in case the inputs are found (their tx's are not entirely spent yet)
399 2012-12-01 23:01:58 <sipa> otherwise they may be regarded as orphans
400 2012-12-01 23:14:22 <sipa> gmaxwell: my public HEAD node didn't fail, and 210022 is already out of the debug.log
401 2012-12-01 23:14:42 <gmaxwell> so, it looks like the failure was at the first block after a restart
402 2012-12-01 23:15:04 <gmaxwell> and I don't have the debug log before the restart but I doubt it was failed then as the block was fresh at the time.
403 2012-12-01 23:15:26 <sipa> that's less worrysome, but still a problem to be fixed
404 2012-12-01 23:17:06 <gmaxwell> I guess I should list all the txn in 210023 and see which it doesn't think is unspent.
405 2012-12-01 23:17:18 <gmaxwell> er txn inputs.
406 2012-12-01 23:20:19 <gmaxwell> well crap, I can't use an ultraprune node for this debugging because some of the txn in that block are spent.
407 2012-12-01 23:28:01 <gmaxwell> 13fbb84d3aec7643a5a29031347359fffef6409269b556fb468e181e78d76eaa 1168
408 2012-12-01 23:28:05 <gmaxwell> crazy vout index
409 2012-12-01 23:28:28 <gmaxwell> 2040  0_o
410 2012-12-01 23:28:45 <sipa> 2040 what?
411 2012-12-01 23:33:16 <gmaxwell> I'm just surprised to see that people are using that many outputs.
412 2012-12-01 23:33:17 <gmaxwell> I'm just surprised to see that people are using that many outputs.
413 2012-12-01 23:34:54 <sipa> 
ACTION thinks he has parallel script checking working

414 2012-12-01 23:36:00 <sipa> (most simple semantics: block verification pushes sigchecks on a queue, and waits for that queue to become empty)
415 2012-12-01 23:37:30 <sipa> 600us/txin -> 200us/txin
416 2012-12-01 23:38:34 <sipa> with between 300% and 360% cpu usage
417 2012-12-01 23:40:08 <gmaxwell> I'm missing 241 out of 655 txins consumed in that block.
418 2012-12-01 23:40:26 <sipa> ungood :S
419 2012-12-01 23:40:53 <gmaxwell> well it probably means I'm missing the block right before it or something.
420 2012-12-01 23:42:55 <gmaxwell> damnit I can't getblock on the brokennode!
421 2012-12-01 23:42:56 <gmaxwell> ~/bitcoin/src/bitcoind getblock 00000000000002810ead24a2f1f6aca1ec538557fd787841e3082af7fd20fa7c
422 2012-12-01 23:42:59 <gmaxwell> error: {"code":-2,"message":"Safe mode: Warning: Displayed transactions may not be correct! You may need to upgrade, or other nodes may need to upgrade."}
423 2012-12-01 23:43:49 <gmaxwell> okay, so scratch the theory that it's just the immediately prior block.
424 2012-12-01 23:43:57 <gmaxwell> txout index must be totally busted then.
425 2012-12-01 23:44:20 <sipa> meh :S
426 2012-12-01 23:45:38 <gmaxwell> (at least one of the missing txouts is hundreds of blocks back)
427 2012-12-01 23:48:01 <gmaxwell> hm. they're not equally distributed.
428 2012-12-01 23:48:58 <gmaxwell> 94 of 197 the problem txn IDs were block 00000000000004b1002c627c407119b521e3a2d44f2f3f22b2a6c07a986ed8de
429 2012-12-01 23:49:10 <gmaxwell> which _was_ the immediately prior block.
430 2012-12-01 23:50:22 <sipa> that smells like a reorganised block on top of ...4b1002c627, which was not undone
431 2012-12-01 23:51:24 <gmaxwell> yea, so perhaps I was on 210023-prime, restarted and it didn't undo it, but instead attempted to apply 210023?
432 2012-12-01 23:52:16 <gmaxwell> blockchain.info doesn't appear to know of any alternative 210023s.
433 2012-12-01 23:52:42 <sipa> that 210023-prime should be in your block files
434 2012-12-01 23:52:51 <sipa> so a reindex should at least catch it
435 2012-12-01 23:53:12 <gmaxwell> they have a 210025 and 210026 however.
436 2012-12-01 23:55:09 <sipa> meh, i'll just assume this was caused by that reorg bug i just pullreq'ed a fix for, and not worry about it unless it happens again...
437 2012-12-01 23:55:30 <gmaxwell> sipa: hm. which one?
438 2012-12-01 23:55:40 <sipa> #2058
439 2012-12-01 23:56:22 <sipa> i don't understand how that bug could cause wrong data to be _written_ though
440 2012-12-01 23:56:38 <sipa> but the implications of an inconsistent state are probably hard to see
441 2012-12-01 23:56:39 <sipa> but the implications of an inconsistent state are probably hard to see
442 2012-12-01 23:56:53 <gmaxwell> well, if there isn't anything more were going to try to get out of it, I'll restart it and see if it recovers.
443 2012-12-01 23:57:05 <gmaxwell> And if it doesn't, I'll see if it fails on reindex.
444 2012-12-01 23:58:01 <sipa> restarting won't help
445 2012-12-01 23:58:08 <sipa> it has marked that entire chain as invalid