1 2012-12-29 00:40:41 <Dev007> Hey do you guys know a way to 'observe' specif addresses on the server without having access to them for security reasons?
2 2012-12-29 00:53:35 <andytoshi> i don't think there is such a way, though it's a fairly common request
3 2012-12-29 00:53:53 <andytoshi> i looked into it and it seemed (at the time) to be quite a PITA to add this feature
4 2012-12-29 00:54:06 <andytoshi> but i'm not really a dev..maybe it's easy for someone who understands the code
5 2012-12-29 00:55:24 <sipa> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2121
6 2012-12-29 00:55:32 <Luke-Jr> Dev007: the only current way to do that is to use an encrypted wallet
7 2012-12-29 00:55:38 <gmaxwell> the simple way to accomplish this right now with the reference software is just put the addresses in an encrypted wallet, and never ever let the decryption key touch the server.
8 2012-12-29 00:55:54 <Luke-Jr> Dev007: in theory, the encrypted data is indistinguishable from garbage without the passphrase - so just encrypt it with some hugely long keyu
9 2012-12-29 00:55:56 <Luke-Jr> key8
10 2012-12-29 00:55:58 <Luke-Jr> key*
11 2012-12-29 00:56:06 <Dev007> If its encrypted, I can't generate new addresses right?
12 2012-12-29 00:56:13 <Luke-Jr> correct
13 2012-12-29 00:57:18 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: forrestv: does this look right? http://codepad.org/bBajFuiD
14 2012-12-29 00:58:04 <Dev007> If I fill the pool with 10 million addresses for example, I would be alright correct?
15 2012-12-29 00:59:17 <Luke-Jr> I suppose
16 2012-12-29 00:59:46 <forrestv> Luke-Jr, i think so
17 2012-12-29 01:02:06 <gmaxwell> ;;bc,blocks
18 2012-12-29 01:02:07 <gribble> 214103
19 2012-12-29 01:02:48 <gmaxwell> darnit, why has my GBT latency gone from 0.02s to 0.1s
20 2012-12-29 01:03:14 <Dev007> You guys are going to change the world, thx for the help!
21 2012-12-29 01:06:57 <helo> src/net.cpp:18:32: fatal error: miniupnpc/miniwget.h: No such file or directory
22 2012-12-29 01:07:14 <gmaxwell> helo: Read the fine build docs.
23 2012-12-29 01:09:05 <helo> :q
24 2012-12-29 01:09:08 <helo> oops lag :/
25 2012-12-29 01:09:46 <sipa> gmaxwell: long chain of transactions in mempool?
26 2012-12-29 01:10:56 <gmaxwell> 751 in it now. Normally I don't see ones that are that bad on this node as it blocks all the dice, so their dependencies are orphans.
27 2012-12-29 01:11:59 <gmaxwell> yea, must be it??? the last block cleared out a bunch and it dropped.
28 2012-12-29 01:12:00 <helo> kind of surprised that the build process has changed
29 2012-12-29 01:12:19 <gmaxwell> helo: ... it hasn't.
30 2012-12-29 01:12:46 <sipa> i don't think that was touched since 0.4 or so
31 2012-12-29 01:12:53 <sipa> the miniupnp thing
32 2012-12-29 01:13:11 <helo> i built on this machine previously without any problems
33 2012-12-29 01:13:32 <gmaxwell> helo: Sounds like you need a memory upgrade. ... (as in the organic kind. :P)
34 2012-12-29 01:13:53 <gmaxwell> helo: most likely you did the USE_UPNP= thing, and don't recall?
35 2012-12-29 01:14:02 <andytoshi> helo, i've always gotten that error on new systems
36 2012-12-29 01:14:12 <andytoshi> "yum provides */miniupnpc/miniwget.h"
37 2012-12-29 01:14:29 <sipa> or previously built on ssystems that had miniupnpc installed
38 2012-12-29 01:14:59 <helo> hmmm... as far as i remember i've not used USE_UPNP before
39 2012-12-29 01:15:05 <sipa> ACTION should hide his parseltongue better
40 2012-12-29 01:15:08 <helo> oh well
41 2012-12-29 01:16:26 <helo> ACTION looks into that memory upgrade
42 2012-12-29 01:20:52 <gmaxwell> peak mempool transactions in my recently logs 1978 on a non-dice blocking node, and 1602 on a blockin one.
43 2012-12-29 01:30:07 <MC1984> thats not so bad
44 2012-12-29 01:46:59 <jgarzik> current mempool sizes: 711 / 3170 / 723
45 2012-12-29 01:47:26 <jgarzik> that's versions 0.8-head-2-weeks / 0.7.1 / 0.8-head-2-weeks
46 2012-12-29 01:48:19 <jgarzik> all current at ~214107
47 2012-12-29 01:49:40 <gmaxwell> I assume the difference there is kick-conflicts (cd7fb7d1deece9da15d7750b3e05f729555a2cbe)
48 2012-12-29 02:50:31 <RBecker> ACTION is selling iTunes, Server Admin work, and some free bitcoins (if you qualify) - see http://thetechgeek.org/otc
49 2012-12-29 02:50:37 <RBecker> whoops
50 2012-12-29 03:34:33 <Dev007> Hey I have one last quick question. If I generate 1 million address on the keypool and leave an excrypted copy on the server ( used to listen for payments), another on the desktop ( used for making payments ).
51 2012-12-29 03:35:28 <Dev007> If I call the getnewaddress function on the server, will this change be reflected on the desktop?
52 2012-12-29 03:37:50 <gmaxwell> Clarify what you mean by 'this change'
53 2012-12-29 03:38:31 <Dev007> Will the new address or balance be updated on bitcoin-qt?
54 2012-12-29 03:38:59 <Dev007> that is on the desktop
55 2012-12-29 03:39:06 <gmaxwell> Sure.
56 2012-12-29 03:39:52 <gmaxwell> What won't be updated is that if you do getnewaddress on each of them before using the address, you can get the same address out of both.
57 2012-12-29 03:41:18 <Dev007> Oh ok, so if 5 new addresses are created on the server, I call the getnewaddress 5 times on the desktop machine. Since they are in order on the keypool, I should get the same 5 new addresses correct?
58 2012-12-29 03:43:40 <gmaxwell> uh. what I expect would happen there is that would happen unless funds were sent to one before you did it on the desktop, and if they were it would be skipped. Would probably be good for you to test this all with testnet before depending on my expectations. (well, the whole??? having the same balanace will work find, but details of using getnewaddress in both places is another matter)
59 2012-12-29 03:46:07 <Dev007> Yes, I presume its safe since one of them would be totally encrypted so if they would happen that the getnewaddress to be an overlaped, that would be a security issue I would point out.
60 2012-12-29 03:46:42 <Dev007> But thanks for pointing me out in the right direction. I will test this out in a deeper matter.
61 2012-12-29 03:47:42 <gmaxwell> The getnewaddresses should be overlapped. The addresses are not encrypted??? just the private keys.
62 2012-12-29 03:49:25 <Dev007> Ok, I will check if the same address pops out from both ends and if they dont complict in any way
63 2012-12-29 03:50:09 <Dev007> conflict*
64 2012-12-29 04:54:00 <stealth2_> shouldn't bitcoind only decrypt the keys necessary to perform the operation?
65 2012-12-29 04:54:13 <stealth2_> I guess once the master key is provided it doesn't matter much
66 2012-12-29 05:33:18 <B0g4r7> Wow, Eligius solved two consecutive blocks today. Not super rare, but this time both were solved by the same user.
67 2012-12-29 05:33:54 <B0g4r7> With only a 4m12s interval.
68 2012-12-29 05:34:34 <gmaxwell> B0g4r7: yea, thats because all of us early asic users are just sniping high fees right now instead of mining constantly.
69 2012-12-29 05:36:56 <B0g4r7> Hm, I wouldn't say those two blocks had especially high fees.
70 2012-12-29 05:37:05 <gmaxwell> I was kidding.
71 2012-12-29 05:37:11 <B0g4r7> heh
72 2012-12-29 05:37:27 <B0g4r7> made me look
73 2012-12-29 05:38:31 <B0g4r7> Is there a place with a graph of the fees per block?
74 2012-12-29 05:39:15 <Luke-Jr> B0g4r7: just draw a shaky line slightly above 0, and you've got it
75 2012-12-29 05:39:49 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: coming back to Eligius for ASICs? :D
76 2012-12-29 05:41:24 <gmaxwell> B0g4r7: trivial to generate.
77 2012-12-29 05:42:38 <gmaxwell> B0g4r7: this will get you the last 100 coinbase values:
78 2012-12-29 05:42:39 <gmaxwell> (for n in {0..100} ; do i=$[`bd getblockcount`-$n] h=`bd getblockhash $i` ; echo -n $n $h\\ ; bd getrawtransaction `bd getblock $h | grep '^ "' | cut -d'"' -f2 | head -1` 1 | grep value | cut -d':' -f2 | awk '{aa+=$0} END {print aa}' ; done)
79 2012-12-29 05:42:43 <gmaxwell> (bd is bitcoind)
80 2012-12-29 05:43:01 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: not if they're spent :/
81 2012-12-29 05:43:29 <gmaxwell> will on 0.7.1
82 2012-12-29 05:43:36 <gmaxwell> and I used 100 for a reason. :P
83 2012-12-29 05:44:02 <Luke-Jr> aha true
84 2012-12-29 05:45:07 <maaku> BIP 22 - is it possible to specify required outputs for the coinbase, while letting the miner fill in the rest?
85 2012-12-29 05:47:51 <gmaxwell> Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
86 2012-12-29 05:48:08 <gmaxwell> (fees in the last 4096 blocks)
87 2012-12-29 05:50:12 <gmaxwell> 1.46% with no fees.
88 2012-12-29 05:54:17 <stealth222> single tx blocks?
89 2012-12-29 05:54:30 <gmaxwell> about the right amount.
90 2012-12-29 05:56:04 <stealth222> btw, we really should optimize the locking code - that script takes forever to run :p
91 2012-12-29 05:56:21 <Luke-Jr> maaku: what exactly would you omit for the miner to fill in?
92 2012-12-29 05:57:15 <gmaxwell> stealth222: huh? goes pretty fast for me.
93 2012-12-29 05:57:25 <gmaxwell> I mean, as totally horrible shell hacks go.
94 2012-12-29 05:58:24 <maaku> The miner's payment. Some outputs would be required, the others the miner would be allowed to fill in.
95 2012-12-29 05:58:31 <maaku> This is for Freicoin (required foundation outputs), but it would apply to a p2pool-like setup as well.
96 2012-12-29 05:58:56 <maaku> Where the miner can fill in their 0.5% bonus, for example.
97 2012-12-29 06:00:39 <Luke-Jr> maaku: there is no way to do that right now, except for miners that support adding their own transactions perhaps; but if you want, it's not too late to add something like that to BIP 23 perhaps
98 2012-12-29 06:11:14 <stealth222> gmaxwell: it took 15 seconds to do 10 blocks
99 2012-12-29 06:11:31 <stealth222> oh, hmm
100 2012-12-29 06:11:40 <stealth222> it might be my version of bitcoind
101 2012-12-29 06:11:56 <stealth222> added extra locks
102 2012-12-29 06:13:01 <gmaxwell> stealth222: yea, uh, haha. it takes about 2 seconds here to do 100. (and probably a good chunk is because it stupidly gets the current height in every iteration, plus getblock is a linear scan, etc.. but even with all that .. it's still 50/sec or so)
103 2012-12-29 06:13:44 <stealth222> is it safe to lock on a critical section owned by an object that gets deleted inside the lock clause?
104 2012-12-29 06:14:02 <stealth222> still getting familiarized with the sync.h macros
105 2012-12-29 06:14:52 <stealth222> in other words, what happens if you delete a critical section inside itself? :)
106 2012-12-29 06:15:20 <stealth222> trying to figure out how to optimize this
107 2012-12-29 06:20:38 <stealth222> hmm, I just commented out the lock and I'm not getting better performance
108 2012-12-29 06:25:19 <stealth222> it's not the RPC locking that's slowing it down
109 2012-12-29 06:43:02 <stealth222> it's the grep, cut, head sequence
110 2012-12-29 06:43:05 <stealth222> (s=$((`date +%s` * 1000 + `date +%N` / 1000000)); b=`bitcoind getblock 00000000000002cf7bd4b285af2bac5243b610e16fa2157e290d1efa7058117f | grep '^ "' | cut -d'"' -f2 | head -1`; echo $((`date +%s` * 1000 + `date +%N` / 1000000-$s)))
111 2012-12-29 06:43:09 <stealth222> output 539
112 2012-12-29 06:43:26 <stealth222> (s=$((`date +%s` * 1000 + `date +%N` / 1000000)); b=`bitcoind getblock 00000000000002cf7bd4b285af2bac5243b610e16fa2157e290d1efa7058117f`; echo $((`date +%s` * 1000 + `date +%N` / 1000000-$s)))
113 2012-12-29 06:43:29 <stealth222> output 68
114 2012-12-29 06:51:24 <gmaxwell> https://people.xiph.org/~greg/gbt-wtf2.png 0_o
115 2012-12-29 06:52:38 <stealth222> gmaxwell: grep | cut | head is taking almost half a second
116 2012-12-29 06:52:41 <stealth222> lol
117 2012-12-29 06:53:19 <stealth222> getblock is actually not too terrible
118 2012-12-29 06:53:58 <gmaxwell> stealth222: hah crazy.
119 2012-12-29 06:54:12 <gmaxwell> some unusual locale setting?
120 2012-12-29 06:54:27 <stealth222> I don't think so
121 2012-12-29 07:15:12 <stealth222> actually, that was pretty messy. this is cleaner
122 2012-12-29 07:15:13 <stealth222> (s=`date +%s%N`; b=`bitcoind getblock 00000000000002cf7bd4b285af2bac5243b610e16fa2157e290d1efa7058117f`; echo $(((`date +%s%N`-$s)/1000000)))
123 2012-12-29 07:19:27 <stealth222> around 60 ms
124 2012-12-29 09:30:39 <Luke-Jr> miner.c:6475:5: warning: passing argument 2 of 'mmev->callback' from incompatible pointer type
125 2012-12-29 09:30:40 <Luke-Jr> miner.c:6475:5: note: expected 'struct mm_event *' but argument is of type 'struct mm_event *'
126 2012-12-29 09:30:42 <Luke-Jr> wtf? :/
127 2012-12-29 09:31:36 <Arnavion> Does it go away if you cast it to a struct mm_event * ?
128 2012-12-29 09:32:07 <Luke-Jr> no
129 2012-12-29 09:32:31 <Arnavion> Not completely insane, then.
130 2012-12-29 09:36:05 <Luke-Jr> ok, I got it.
131 2012-12-29 09:36:21 <Luke-Jr> I declared the function type for callback before declaring struct mm_event
132 2012-12-29 09:36:32 <Luke-Jr> so I ended up with two struct types on the same name, in compiler land
133 2012-12-29 10:36:26 <Nachtwind> hi, i have a question about "validateaddress". Is an address that is stored in the wallet automatically valid? Or can it happen that a key in the wallet is invalid?
134 2012-12-29 11:22:17 <SomeoneWeird> Nachtwind, probably impossible unless you add it manually
135 2012-12-29 11:22:51 <Nachtwind> ok
136 2012-12-29 11:22:58 <Nachtwind> thought so, but wanted to make sure
137 2012-12-29 12:50:09 <abrkn> what's a quick way to backup a wallet.dat from an ubuntu box? password protect it and e-mail to myself would be fine. i'm not very linux savvy...
138 2012-12-29 12:53:04 <Luke-Jr> abrkn: Bitcoin-Qt has a Backup Wallet option on the File menu
139 2012-12-29 12:55:22 <abrkn> Luke-Jr: i dont have bitcoin-qt, just bitcoind
140 2012-12-29 12:55:31 <Luke-Jr> abrkn: there's a RPC to backup too
141 2012-12-29 12:56:07 <Luke-Jr> backupwallet("/path/to/where/you/want/the/file/on/server/with/bitcoind/backupfilename")
142 2012-12-29 12:56:33 <abrkn> got it
143 2012-12-29 12:56:47 <abrkn> what's a good way to crypt it? (it is not normally encrypted)
144 2012-12-29 12:57:09 <abrkn> on my windows machine i usually just use truecrypt
145 2012-12-29 12:57:58 <Luke-Jr> GnuPG can, but be sure to backup your private key (passphrase-protected) too
146 2012-12-29 13:24:32 <leotreasure> hello
147 2012-12-29 13:24:57 <leotreasure> is there a way to add a mtgox ticker into a cell of a spreadsheet (using openoffice on mac)
148 2012-12-29 13:54:01 <sturles> Probably, if you write a OpenOffice plugin which query the MtGox API, but it is offtopic here.
149 2012-12-29 15:07:44 <SomeoneWeird> sturles, not really
150 2012-12-29 15:09:14 <etotheipi_> sipa: gmaxwell: would you be up for a "rebranding" of the names of various Bitcoin things? I want to make a forum post to get some consensus on sexy names for things ... I don't like "Watching-Only Wallet", I don't know what to call "Tx Distribution Proposals", etc
151 2012-12-29 15:10:29 <etotheipi_> "Hollow Wallets"? "Skeleton Wallets"? "Gray wallets"?
152 2012-12-29 15:10:58 <sipa> etotheipi_: Neutered Wallets?
153 2012-12-29 15:11:02 <etotheipi_> sipa: lol
154 2012-12-29 15:11:26 <SomeoneWeird> lolll
155 2012-12-29 15:12:00 <sipa> what's the problem with watch-only wallet, tough?
156 2012-12-29 15:12:06 <etotheipi_> Especially with Bitcoin-Qt soon to have "Deterministic" (?) wallets, and potentially Neutered wallets
157 2012-12-29 15:12:07 <sipa> it says exactly what it can do
158 2012-12-29 15:12:40 <etotheipi_> sipa: "watch-only" isn't terrible, but it's an engineering description and a lot of syllables
159 2012-12-29 15:13:04 <sipa> Skeleton is as many syllables as watch-only :)
160 2012-12-29 15:13:07 <etotheipi_> and maybe it is fine... I just want to get people to chime in on it, and get some ideas... but I also don't want to do it if no one (who matters) cares
161 2012-12-29 15:13:55 <Eliel_> how about observer wallet? should be quite clear it can't actually do anything?
162 2012-12-29 15:13:56 <etotheipi_> I suffer the most, because I've already built my app around these things...
163 2012-12-29 15:14:10 <etotheipi_> Eliel_: I actually like that better
164 2012-12-29 15:14:22 <sipa> observer wallet is fine for me
165 2012-12-29 15:14:34 <SomeoneWeird> yeah, i like observer
166 2012-12-29 15:14:35 <etotheipi_> sipa: I'm just saying less-enginerd-speak, and less syllables
167 2012-12-29 15:14:41 <etotheipi_> is preferred
168 2012-12-29 15:14:51 <sipa> but different good names is probably worse than one half-bad one :)
169 2012-12-29 15:15:11 <ThomasV_> etotheipi_: how about "deseeded wallet" (that's electrum naming)
170 2012-12-29 15:15:29 <etotheipi_> right... I would love to standardize it
171 2012-12-29 15:15:56 <sipa> deseeded doesn't sound very clear to me
172 2012-12-29 15:16:19 <etotheipi_> we can even have a separate "engineering name", such as "Hierarchical Deterministic wallets", but I think there needs to be something better for casual users to distinguish, learn once, and see it used everywhere
173 2012-12-29 15:17:16 <sipa> well one name for the concept and one for the technology, i guess
174 2012-12-29 15:18:40 <nick8346> hi
175 2012-12-29 15:18:49 <nick8346> any bitcoin developers here>
176 2012-12-29 15:18:55 <nick8346> ??????????????
177 2012-12-29 15:20:15 <etotheipi_> I like how no one responds, in the bitcoin-*dev*eloper channel
178 2012-12-29 15:20:19 <etotheipi_> :)
179 2012-12-29 15:20:35 <sipa> several
180 2012-12-29 15:20:36 <etotheipi_> nick8346: specific to Bitcoin-Qt? or generally Bitcoin-related?
181 2012-12-29 15:20:51 <nick8346> bitcoin-related
182 2012-12-29 15:20:55 <nick8346> question
183 2012-12-29 15:21:38 <nick8346> Is it possible to SOLO merge-mine namecoins while mining bitcoins at a pool ?
184 2012-12-29 15:21:39 <nick8346> ?????????????????????????
185 2012-12-29 15:21:49 <etotheipi_> sipa: Eliel_: ThomasV: so would you be willing to (with further review), pick new terminology for things? there will be a little turbulence when applications using old terminology switch, but I'm okay with that
186 2012-12-29 15:22:25 <etotheipi_> perhaps it's worht an RFC on the forums, then take the top X of them for each concept and finish the debate on the mailing list
187 2012-12-29 15:23:20 <etotheipi_> I think it will be smooth... I just don't want to bother if the various client developers don't want to change
188 2012-12-29 15:24:27 <sipa> well Bitcoin-Qt doesn't have Deterministic Wallet or Watch-Only Wallet as concepts right now... i suppose when we add those, they'll get whatever name is common for it
189 2012-12-29 15:24:39 <nick8346> Is it possible to SOLO merge-mine namecoins while mining bitcoins at a pool ?
190 2012-12-29 15:24:41 <nick8346> ?????????????????????????
191 2012-12-29 15:24:59 <etotheipi_> nick8346: I'm not ignoring you, I just don't know the answer
192 2012-12-29 15:25:14 <etotheipi_> nick8346: however it is unnecessary to use separete messages full of question marks
193 2012-12-29 15:27:10 <sipa> nick8346: on a traditional pool that is certainly impossible, as you're not the one constructing the actual block
194 2012-12-29 15:27:55 <nick8346> on a stratum pool???
195 2012-12-29 15:28:00 <nick8346> on a GBT pool???
196 2012-12-29 15:41:46 <nick8346> ?
197 2012-12-29 15:54:13 <sturles> nick8346: Please teach yourself how question marks work. You are annoying.
198 2012-12-29 15:54:33 <sturles> And I know the answer.
199 2012-12-29 15:56:33 <nick8346> <sturles> And I know the answer.
200 2012-12-29 15:56:41 <nick8346> Tell me.
201 2012-12-29 15:57:23 <upb> ?!?!?!?!?!?!
202 2012-12-29 15:58:16 <sturles> nick8346: Try to show better manners in #bitcoin-mining, and I may answer. This channel is for development, not mining.
203 2012-12-29 16:00:20 <nick8346> Ok sorry
204 2012-12-29 16:01:27 <nick8346> sturles, i have asked in #bitcoin-mining
205 2012-12-29 21:34:45 <stealth222> what happened to BitcoinPullTester?