1 2013-02-03 00:01:22 <HM> I'd say 2 GiB was average in 2006
2 2013-02-03 00:01:27 <HM> maybe a bit later
3 2013-02-03 00:01:33 <HM> for a midrange desktop
4 2013-02-03 00:02:03 <Luke-Jr> 5 years ago = 2008 ;)
5 2013-02-03 00:04:21 <HM> my laptop came with 4 in 2011 and i'd consider it above midrange
6 2013-02-03 00:04:48 <HM> i think the lack of mainstream Win64 held a lot of vendors back at 4GiB
7 2013-02-03 00:09:12 <Luke-Jr> HM: Windows didn't support PAE?
8 2013-02-03 00:14:17 <HM> Luke-Jr: Windows suffers a plight when you use PAE
9 2013-02-03 00:14:25 <HM> many drivers just die or act strangely
10 2013-02-03 00:14:42 <SomeoneWeird> they do...?
11 2013-02-03 00:14:44 <HM> it's obviously not a problem on x64 because the drivers have to be recompiled and patched up anyway
12 2013-02-03 00:15:46 <HM> or maybe i'm thinking of /3GB
13 2013-02-03 00:15:52 <HM> it's been a long time since i had to care
14 2013-02-03 00:42:23 <phma> The progress bar disappeared.
15 2013-02-03 00:42:42 <phma> Current total number of blocks 211427
16 2013-02-03 00:42:56 <phma> Estimated total blocks 210000
17 2013-02-03 00:42:59 <phma> Huh?
18 2013-02-03 00:50:35 <phma> okay, estimated total is now 211984
19 2013-02-03 00:58:17 <a5m0> i can't seem to properly check the transaction for this address since the blockexplorers report it as too large and electrum also errors, it appears this address has too many transactions to process? 1QBTLZm6r3abiUp69XTLz6YiCyopBjx51F
20 2013-02-03 00:59:02 <a5m0> i'm trying to help a noobie in -otc, blockchain.info reports a balance but won't let them send, all other blockexplorers say it's too long to display
21 2013-02-03 00:59:38 <a5m0> transaction log at brainwallet reports 0.00075047 balance
22 2013-02-03 01:00:08 <HM> blockchain.info says 2.52210262
23 2013-02-03 01:06:38 <a5m0> HM, blockchain.info says insuffecient balance when trying to send though, and brainwallet shows near 0 balance, all other blockexplorers says transaction length is too long to process
24 2013-02-03 01:06:57 <a5m0> so i'm thinking that blockchain.info is truncating the transaction log and claiming there are coins there that aren't
25 2013-02-03 01:07:04 <a5m0> but i can't seem to check it on any other clients...
26 2013-02-03 01:09:41 <HM> hmm
27 2013-02-03 01:10:20 <HM> hang out here until a sage turns up
28 2013-02-03 01:14:38 <BCB> ;;rate weenfan 3 multiple Bank Of American to Bitcoin Transactions. Always smooth.
29 2013-02-03 01:14:39 <gribble> Rating entry successful. Your rating for user weenfan has changed from 2 to 3.
30 2013-02-03 01:37:47 <Luke-Jr> anyone have a magic cure for libtool? :/
31 2013-02-03 01:39:16 <BCB> Luke-Jr, what seems to ail it
32 2013-02-03 01:39:35 <Luke-Jr> BCB: its stupid .la files
33 2013-02-03 01:48:21 <HM> you need to go to cmake.org and download a fix
34 2013-02-03 01:49:17 <gmaxwell> HM: why is abandoning portablity, cross-compling, etc better than just not building/using static libraries?
35 2013-02-03 01:51:37 <Luke-Jr> HM: then it wouldn't cross-compile at all?
36 2013-02-03 01:51:51 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: I'm not even trying to use static libraries :<
37 2013-02-03 01:52:16 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: libblkmaker installs two shared libraries, and libtool is being stupid about it
38 2013-02-03 01:53:14 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: are you using nested autotools?
39 2013-02-03 01:55:22 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: yes, though I'm pretty sure I'd have this problem without that
40 2013-02-03 02:21:07 <benkay> bitcoin charts down. owner notified?
41 2013-02-03 09:22:18 <Pucilowski> When a block is orphaned does the reference client still save the block? Or does it discard it as soon as its invalid?
42 2013-02-03 10:27:54 <bitnumus> Hi, anyone here got the time for a side project? I need a web app coding please pm me
43 2013-02-03 11:21:53 <rdponticelli> Pucilowski: The reference client stores orphaned blocks
44 2013-02-03 11:22:07 <Pucilowski> i see thanks
45 2013-02-03 11:22:43 <bitnumus> Any European coders here with the time to take on a web app I need coding?
46 2013-02-03 17:41:21 <HM> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21280943
47 2013-02-03 17:45:37 <moore_> HM the year 2038 bug should start showing up soon
48 2013-02-03 17:45:58 <HM> Sudden urge to learn COBOL
49 2013-02-03 17:46:04 <moore_> as banks to things like work out loans out 25 years in to the future
50 2013-02-03 17:46:17 <HM> Why hasn't anyone ported Bitcoin to COBOL? That's what it needs for world dominations :P
51 2013-02-03 17:46:25 <moore_> :)
52 2013-02-03 17:47:08 <bitnumus> nice article
53 2013-02-03 17:47:30 <moore_> so I realized that blocking SD transactions actually makes it easer to preform double spending agintst any one who trusts transactions not in a block
54 2013-02-03 17:47:46 <Nabbo> Hi all, i'm trying to follow this https://people.xiph.org/~greg/signdemo.txt to understand well how transaction work, but I have some problem here is what I'm doing http://www.bitbin.it/wh0V8Q6I
55 2013-02-03 17:48:13 <moore_> also there is a funny silk road artical hear: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/police-crack-down-on-silk-road-following-first-drug-dealer-conviction/
56 2013-02-03 17:48:29 <moore_> where the cops are all look we caught some one!
57 2013-02-03 17:52:52 <HM> moore_: who trusts transactions outside of a block?
58 2013-02-03 17:53:17 <moore_> well ya it is not the best idea
59 2013-02-03 17:54:14 <moore_> but if you trust the paying party or if the trasaction is low value it is useful
60 2013-02-03 17:54:47 <moore_> having to wait five to ten more minutes to get your bear is anoying
61 2013-02-03 17:55:06 <moore_> ( being some one who has sold bear for bitcoin in the past )
62 2013-02-03 17:55:49 <HM> you sold a bear? :S
63 2013-02-03 17:56:03 <moore_> sory beer
64 2013-02-03 17:56:07 <moore_> gay
65 2013-02-03 17:56:14 <HM> Sure sure
66 2013-02-03 17:56:14 <moore_> dam
67 2013-02-03 17:56:17 <moore_> I ment gah
68 2013-02-03 17:56:28 <moore_> I am not the best at spelling or typing
69 2013-02-03 17:57:29 <gavinandresen> Nabbo: that looks like a bug
70 2013-02-03 17:57:40 <moore_> the point is that blocking SD transactions have be used to play tricks on any one simply by having some small output to SD in a trasaction
71 2013-02-03 17:57:43 <Eliel> brick & mortar stores basically need to accept unconfirmed transactions to accept bitcoin payments.
72 2013-02-03 17:58:17 <moore_> one of my side projects is to build payment termenals for some stores in San Francisco
73 2013-02-03 17:58:23 <Eliel> moore_: you mean output from SD?
74 2013-02-03 17:58:36 <moore_> output to SD
75 2013-02-03 17:58:54 <moore_> if there is a output to SD many miners will ignore the trasaction
76 2013-02-03 17:59:18 <moore_> Eliel did you see the post I wrote about cheeting at SD?
77 2013-02-03 17:59:42 <Eliel> I've seen some posts like that, not sure if one of them was yours :)
78 2013-02-03 18:00:30 <moore_> this is mine: https://plus.google.com/u/0/106313804833283549032/posts/Ccg2VreMTXw
79 2013-02-03 18:00:54 <Nabbo> gavinandresen, my bug or bitcoin bug? I tried it several time with different transactions(all by generation) but won't work I can't understand where I fail
80 2013-02-03 18:01:48 <HM> You get offline transactions with traditional plastic as well don't you?
81 2013-02-03 18:02:21 <HM> there's a value on your Chip and Pin card that says you can spend X without network auth
82 2013-02-03 18:02:48 <Eliel> moore_: I hadn't seen that before... interesting.
83 2013-02-03 18:04:30 <moore_> Eliel, I think you can attack bitpay with this too
84 2013-02-03 18:04:56 <moore_> they clear tranactios with reatilers before they are in the chain as far as I can tell
85 2013-02-03 18:05:22 <Ferroh> Why is this balance negative? http://blockchain.info/address/1dice97ECuByXAvqXpaYzSaQuPVvrtmz6
86 2013-02-03 18:05:23 <Eliel> moore_: that depends on the customer's settings.
87 2013-02-03 18:05:30 <gavinandresen> Nabbo: bitcoin bug; looks like it is broken with coin-generation transactions
88 2013-02-03 18:05:38 <gavinandresen> ("it" being signrawtransaction)
89 2013-02-03 18:05:48 <Ferroh> Just a blockchain.info bug, or is it due to unconfirmed transactions?
90 2013-02-03 18:05:54 <moore_> well if they want fast transactions, which I bet they do, they can be attacked
91 2013-02-03 18:06:05 <Eliel> Ferroh: I expect that's due to unconfirmed transactions and double spends... maybe.
92 2013-02-03 18:06:39 <Eliel> moore_: yes, I wonder how much can be done about that.
93 2013-02-03 18:06:39 <HM> Meh, presumably as long as double spends are at a managable level you can just cover it through fees
94 2013-02-03 18:06:39 <moore_> and the blocking of the SD trasactions opens up the attack not just for SD but also for bitpay and anyone else doing the same thing
95 2013-02-03 18:07:13 <moore_> well bitpay should refuse tx with a output to SD
96 2013-02-03 18:07:38 <moore_> and I think if you are a miner and want to block someone you need to be trasparent about what tx you are blocking
97 2013-02-03 18:07:58 <moore_> so that others can look for people trying to do this attack
98 2013-02-03 18:08:54 <gavinandresen> moore_ : high on my TODO list is to relay the "first double spend" so they are easier to detect.
99 2013-02-03 18:09:44 <Eliel> Yes, I agree, there needs to be some kind of algorithms developed for estimating the risk level on a unconfirmed tx.
100 2013-02-03 18:11:15 <moore_> I think the biggest thing to do is just to know if it contains a output for a blocked address
101 2013-02-03 18:11:33 <moore_> it is the blocked addresses that make doubble spending easy
102 2013-02-03 18:11:59 <MC1984> gavinandresen nice!
103 2013-02-03 18:12:07 <Eliel> there's also some need to pay attention to how many other unconfirmed txs it depends on.
104 2013-02-03 18:12:18 <Eliel> as well as how likely those are to get confirmed
105 2013-02-03 18:12:31 <moore_> Eliel, good point
106 2013-02-03 18:12:50 <Eliel> gavinandresen: that's a great thing to have :)
107 2013-02-03 18:13:00 <moore_> I could chain a TX though one with a output to SD so you could not even see it directly
108 2013-02-03 18:13:41 <Eliel> this is not just a problem with satoshidice txs
109 2013-02-03 18:14:02 <moore_> are there other addresses that are blocked?
110 2013-02-03 18:14:03 <Eliel> there was a coinbase tx recently that was over 1kb but with only 0.0005 txfee.
111 2013-02-03 18:14:18 <moore_> O ya
112 2013-02-03 18:14:29 <Eliel> so, the fee was enough that it propagated but not enough for most pools to include it in blocks
113 2013-02-03 18:14:29 <moore_> there are lots of edge cases hear
114 2013-02-03 18:14:37 <moore_> but
115 2013-02-03 18:14:42 <moore_> the SD makes it worse
116 2013-02-03 18:15:09 <moore_> as I think pools that drop thous TX would not count a conflicting TX as a doubble spend
117 2013-02-03 18:15:28 <moore_> but you make a really good point
118 2013-02-03 18:15:44 <moore_> there are other ways to make TX that will be rejected
119 2013-02-03 18:16:09 <moore_> it seems like if a miner rejects a TX they should share that information
120 2013-02-03 18:16:17 <Eliel> the most dangerous cases are txs that will get propagated but not included in blocks.
121 2013-02-03 18:16:36 <moore_> agree
122 2013-02-03 18:17:30 <moore_> as always this was a interesting conversation.
123 2013-02-03 18:17:38 <moore_> I am off to ride my bike for a bit
124 2013-02-03 18:18:23 <Eliel> gavinandresen: are there any fixes going in to 0.8 that will synchronize the tx propagation and block inclusion rules more closely?
125 2013-02-03 18:20:10 <gavinandresen> Eliel: in-the-future-lockTime transactions won't get relayed by 0.8
126 2013-02-03 18:46:46 <jgarzik> ACTION needs to debug why Avalon sees so many 'get failures' when getwork'ing directly to bitcoind
127 2013-02-03 18:46:51 <jgarzik> no other pool behaves that way
128 2013-02-03 18:50:50 <jgarzik> this transaction paid over 17 BTC in fees: http://blockexplorer.com/tx/180b7d0dac4c945744ff708d4840a86558b1e0d4850181df8a32fdfaa7aefcc4
129 2013-02-03 18:51:14 <jgarzik> and this one 7 BTC, in same block: http://blockexplorer.com/tx/2db7e39d1c742278b512b3c70464823062e760d31eca519c6e22fb12f255265b
130 2013-02-03 18:52:12 <MC1984> damn
131 2013-02-03 18:53:41 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: thinking about that...doesnt not relaying nLockTime txn provide a false sense of security while also breaking legitimate uses of nLockTime?
132 2013-02-03 19:01:48 <MC1984> did anyone ever audit the way bitcoin handles wallet encryption
133 2013-02-03 19:02:07 <muhoo> holy sheep shit
134 2013-02-03 19:02:31 <MC1984> or is the function from an external program that is well reviewed like openssl or whatever?
135 2013-02-03 19:02:42 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: wallet encryption doesn't protect against much anyway
136 2013-02-03 19:02:53 <Luke-Jr> even if it works, it really only keeps your brother out
137 2013-02-03 19:03:31 <MC1984> um it stps your coins being txn'ed without your express consent
138 2013-02-03 19:03:46 <muhoo> i wouldn't keep any serious money anywhere except a paper wallet
139 2013-02-03 19:03:48 <MC1984> assuming good non phished password
140 2013-02-03 19:03:52 <kjj> no it doesn't
141 2013-02-03 19:04:16 <kjj> it saves you if you lose your backup, but that's about all
142 2013-02-03 19:04:56 <MC1984> anyone gonna explain what they mean?
143 2013-02-03 19:05:35 <MC1984> i said encryption not deterministic wallet
144 2013-02-03 19:05:37 <muhoo> a friend got hzxx0red and a large chunk of his coins stolen, a few months ago. all in his winbloze laptop on a non-tor-connectted bitcoind wallet
145 2013-02-03 19:05:44 <MC1984> the only bitcoin qt has in it
146 2013-02-03 19:06:17 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: you coins can't be txn'd without your consent, even without wallet encryption
147 2013-02-03 19:06:20 <MC1984> how?
148 2013-02-03 19:07:09 <Luke-Jr> but yeah, I guess it helps with backups
149 2013-02-03 19:07:24 <Luke-Jr> but backups are best encrypted as a whole anyway
150 2013-02-03 19:07:36 <kjj> if your computer is pwn3d, the attacker will just wait until you enter the passphrase and then empty your wallet
151 2013-02-03 19:08:01 <Luke-Jr> ^
152 2013-02-03 19:08:19 <MC1984> yeah were talking about how bitcoin does it not if the user gives away the password
153 2013-02-03 19:08:35 <kjj> if, however, they merely get a copy of your wallet file, they can't do anything with it
154 2013-02-03 19:08:41 <MC1984> muhoo how did your friend get hacked?
155 2013-02-03 19:08:48 <MC1984> real hacked or phised?
156 2013-02-03 19:09:15 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: there isn't many circumstances where someone can copy your wallet.dat, but can't get your passphrase too
157 2013-02-03 19:09:22 <muhoo> MC1984: i don't know. he doesn't either. he just called me in a panic.
158 2013-02-03 19:09:56 <MC1984> muhoo and he just left a connectable bitcoin open all the time?
159 2013-02-03 19:10:02 <muhoo> MC1984: yes
160 2013-02-03 19:10:08 <valparaiso> muhoo: "non-tor-connected" why do you mention that ? (Curious)
161 2013-02-03 19:10:18 <muhoo> eh wasn't running bitcoind through tor
162 2013-02-03 19:10:25 <Luke-Jr> muhoo: that's not relevant
163 2013-02-03 19:10:26 <MC1984> see thats what i mean, what if theres an implementation flaw in bitcoin or its encryption that allows that
164 2013-02-03 19:10:29 <valparaiso> Yes, and ?
165 2013-02-03 19:10:37 <MC1984> muhoo did he have wallet encryption?
166 2013-02-03 19:10:49 <muhoo> MC1984: indeed.
167 2013-02-03 19:11:10 <HM> this is why webwallets are probably safer for your average joe
168 2013-02-03 19:11:11 <muhoo> Luke-Jr: it may not be. but he was trying to figure out how attackers knew he had a lot of coins sitting on a node at that ip address.
169 2013-02-03 19:11:14 <HM> people suck at personal security
170 2013-02-03 19:11:19 <valparaiso> If your laptop is trojaned, that's it. Ht wallet gone
171 2013-02-03 19:11:24 <MC1984> ^so i ask again, has it ever been audited (if its bespoke code)?
172 2013-02-03 19:11:31 <Luke-Jr> muhoo: they probably didn't
173 2013-02-03 19:11:40 <muhoo> Luke-Jr: random chance?
174 2013-02-03 19:11:40 <Scrat> MC1984: you type in your password, trojan logs it along with the process name
175 2013-02-03 19:11:44 <Luke-Jr> muhoo: or rather, they probably had their botnet run a "look for big wallets"
176 2013-02-03 19:11:53 <muhoo> Luke-Jr: aye
177 2013-02-03 19:12:08 <Luke-Jr> or perhaps just robbed every wallet they had
178 2013-02-03 19:12:13 <MC1984> im not and have never been talking about trojans hw many times........
179 2013-02-03 19:12:16 <jgarzik> note that the wallet is not encrypted wholesale
180 2013-02-03 19:12:19 <jgarzik> just the private keys
181 2013-02-03 19:12:20 <jgarzik> iirc
182 2013-02-03 19:12:37 <muhoo> who knows. like i said, he didn't do any methodical forensics. just wiped the laptop, and got what he had into cold storage ASAP
183 2013-02-03 19:13:25 <muhoo> then he called me to help him set up a clean-install linux laptop, with tor, and disk encryption, just to lock the barn dooor
184 2013-02-03 19:14:14 <muhoo> no more windows for him. and, cold storage for all large denominations of coins.
185 2013-02-03 19:14:47 <MC1984> was there ever any bug that let someone get into the filesystem (or otherwise take wallet.dat) directly through bitcoind?
186 2013-02-03 19:14:51 <valparaiso> Imo your bitcoin nodes should run on a dedicated, console only, highly firewalled box, with bitcoind running on a shell-less -*nix account
187 2013-02-03 19:15:05 <MC1984> i think there was a bug that make the first version of wallet encryption worthless right
188 2013-02-03 19:16:02 <kjj> meh. not entirely worthless.
189 2013-02-03 19:16:12 <muhoo> valparaiso: access only through json-rpc?
190 2013-02-03 19:16:15 <kjj> it just didn't invalidate the existing keypool
191 2013-02-03 19:16:51 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: no, wallet encryption was mostly just to deal with bad press IMO
192 2013-02-03 19:17:12 <valparaiso> yes, and no privileges for the process. No root access, ssh with key auth only on a very limited user account, nothing else on the box
193 2013-02-03 19:17:52 <muhoo> my understanding is that the real "password" is the pk's. you have those, you have the coins. you don't, then you don't.
194 2013-02-03 19:18:09 <HM> if you're running on Linux you should consider a sandboxing implementation
195 2013-02-03 19:18:17 <HM> IPC, PID, Filesystem namespaces etc
196 2013-02-03 19:18:55 <Scrat> or run bitcoind in a VM
197 2013-02-03 19:19:14 <Luke-Jr> no amount of sandboxing bitcoind is going to keep a vulnerability away from your wallet..
198 2013-02-03 19:19:21 <HM> yeah great unless the host is compromised Scrat
199 2013-02-03 19:19:56 <muhoo> yeah, if someone has rooted you, they can get to mmap and all kinds of stuff, install keyloggers, etc
200 2013-02-03 19:20:32 <valparaiso> Even having apache runing on 80 is already too much of a risk. Dedicated lowend box, no secondhand hardware, minimal linux/bsd
201 2013-02-03 19:20:33 <Scrat> if the host is compromised and it has rpc access to another machine it's almost the same deal
202 2013-02-03 19:21:05 <HM> there are lots of interesting things people have tried
203 2013-02-03 19:21:16 <Scrat> which is why I like freebsd for this. each public facing daemon in its own jail
204 2013-02-03 19:21:25 <Scrat> very low overhead
205 2013-02-03 19:21:39 <HM> the only safe way is to not rely on a reusable wallet
206 2013-02-03 19:21:50 <Scrat> true that. dont keep everything in your hot wallet
207 2013-02-03 19:22:17 <muhoo> if you had US$400k, would you walk around with it in your pocket?
208 2013-02-03 19:22:21 <HM> OS level isolation only helps until your kernel is compromised...
209 2013-02-03 19:22:27 <HM> which happens often
210 2013-02-03 19:22:49 <muhoo> i treat hot wallets like physical wallets. i only keep in there what i'll need to spend immediately
211 2013-02-03 19:23:46 <muhoo> that seems to be best practices in bitcoin land, AFAICT so far
212 2013-02-03 19:28:54 <HM> Bitcoins in a bit of a bind
213 2013-02-03 19:29:48 <HM> The people with the experience in coding up sensitive financial platforms are outweighed greatly by someone with a cool idea who just learned about the currency
214 2013-02-03 19:30:18 <HM> nobody should want to use a service who learns the craft through making expensive cockups
215 2013-02-03 19:30:47 <Luke-Jr> valparaiso: an idea I had a while ago, but ruined by Intel.. a bootable Linux USB key that runs your ordinary OS in a VM with all the hardware passthru'd
216 2013-02-03 19:31:20 <Luke-Jr> valparaiso: then when Bitcoin-Qt or whatever wants to sign a transaction, it disconnects the video card, mouse, and keyboard, and prompts you securely outside the VM
217 2013-02-03 19:31:28 <Luke-Jr> and signs it there
218 2013-02-03 19:32:19 <Luke-Jr> then, a cracker looking to get your keys would need to do something insane like hack a firewire device to DMA the host system <.<
219 2013-02-03 19:32:28 <valparaiso> Yes, exactly.
220 2013-02-03 19:32:40 <valparaiso> This is very sound.
221 2013-02-03 19:32:41 <HM> Luke-Jr: wouldn't a Bitcoin dongle make more sense?
222 2013-02-03 19:32:55 <Luke-Jr> HM: yes, that's another option, but not something practical for a software guy like me :P
223 2013-02-03 19:33:14 <Luke-Jr> and much less interesting IMO
224 2013-02-03 19:33:20 <valparaiso> Depends who makes it i guess. I'd trust the cryptokey guys
225 2013-02-03 19:33:31 <Luke-Jr> who?
226 2013-02-03 19:33:37 <valparaiso> Sec
227 2013-02-03 19:33:44 <HM> if you had software that generated the transaction but didn't provide the signiture then you could have a hardware dongle that generated the sig for you to transcribe
228 2013-02-03 19:33:49 <Luke-Jr> valparaiso: did you see the Bitcoin wallet wireless device someone made? ;)
229 2013-02-03 19:33:53 <kjj> you need a hardware device with a VERY limited connection to the computer. serial would work, as would screen+camera (QR, etc)
230 2013-02-03 19:33:55 <HM> private key never leaves the dongle
231 2013-02-03 19:34:09 <HM> dongle has no network capacity
232 2013-02-03 19:34:50 <Luke-Jr> HM: someone made one, actually, more or less
233 2013-02-03 19:35:01 <Luke-Jr> HM: but they forgot to get a high-quality RNG for it
234 2013-02-03 19:35:06 <valparaiso> Luke-Jr: Nope. Link ? (Looking for my own link in the meantime)
235 2013-02-03 19:35:08 <Luke-Jr> so the private keys turned out to be vulnerable
236 2013-02-03 19:35:18 <HM> it'd be tedious i think because you'd have to type a long ass hash and then transcribe a long ass sig
237 2013-02-03 19:35:22 <Luke-Jr> valparaiso: I forget the link XD
238 2013-02-03 19:35:40 <Luke-Jr> HM: obviously you'd not type it
239 2013-02-03 19:35:50 <valparaiso> Yes same here, googling like a madman right now. Guys are german
240 2013-02-03 19:35:52 <HM> what then?
241 2013-02-03 19:35:54 <Luke-Jr> HM: PC sends the transaction, inputs over USB
242 2013-02-03 19:36:09 <Luke-Jr> HM: device decodes and displays the info, you press button and it sends the PC back a signature
243 2013-02-03 19:36:20 <HM> that's no good, as soon as you have a general purpose interface you're potentially vulnerable
244 2013-02-03 19:36:23 <HM> USB is a complex protocol
245 2013-02-03 19:36:25 <Luke-Jr> ???
246 2013-02-03 19:36:30 <Luke-Jr> too bad
247 2013-02-03 19:36:41 <Luke-Jr> even if you typed it manually, you're still potentially vulnerable
248 2013-02-03 19:36:56 <Luke-Jr> now the attacker will just focus on giving you a phony address for some purchase you really want to make
249 2013-02-03 19:36:58 <valparaiso> Ok, that's them: http://www.privacyfoundation.de/crypto_stick/crypto_stick_english/
250 2013-02-03 19:37:17 <HM> Luke-Jr: that's phishing
251 2013-02-03 19:37:52 <HM> it's not really VISAs job to prevent you using your card to pay for things from a conartist
252 2013-02-03 19:38:05 <valparaiso> USB is scary, yes
253 2013-02-03 19:38:36 <valparaiso> Like this : http://events.ccc.de/congress/2012/Fahrplan/events/5327.en.html
254 2013-02-03 19:38:59 <HM> hah i watched that
255 2013-02-03 19:39:06 <HM> I was going to go to CCC this year but something came up
256 2013-02-03 19:39:58 <HM> last year*
257 2013-02-03 19:40:19 <valparaiso> This year was a good milesime. Couldn't make it either. The anonymouth girls talk was pretty interesting too
258 2013-02-03 19:40:25 <HM> I don't know why they have to have it between xmas and new year
259 2013-02-03 19:40:27 <Aranjedeath> I'm getting a crash on startup with bitcoind on freebsd
260 2013-02-03 19:41:16 <Aranjedeath> http://pastie.org/private/hl7k6oe10czliimy4ja0g
261 2013-02-03 19:41:36 <HM> that should be easy to debug
262 2013-02-03 19:41:51 <Aranjedeath> well, internet says it's due to boost libs
263 2013-02-03 19:42:03 <Aranjedeath> a bug which was supposedly fixed some versions ago
264 2013-02-03 19:42:09 <HM> that's possible
265 2013-02-03 19:42:18 <HM> what version of boost is your installation carrying?
266 2013-02-03 19:42:35 <Aranjedeath> boost-libs-1.52.0
267 2013-02-03 19:42:46 <HM> hmm that's the latest
268 2013-02-03 19:43:21 <HM> what code in bitcoin would be setting the locale for something...
269 2013-02-03 19:43:51 <Aranjedeath> I didn't even build the gui, so I have no idea
270 2013-02-03 19:43:55 <Aranjedeath> headless box and all
271 2013-02-03 19:44:56 <HM> do you have access to gdb?
272 2013-02-03 19:45:02 <Aranjedeath> I don't know?
273 2013-02-03 19:45:10 <Aranjedeath> how would I ascertain that
274 2013-02-03 19:45:19 <HM> it's the GNU debugger
275 2013-02-03 19:45:25 <Aranjedeath> If it's something that needs compiled up, I've got root as well
276 2013-02-03 19:45:55 <Aranjedeath> it's installed
277 2013-02-03 19:46:09 <Aranjedeath> GNU gdb 6.1.1 [FreeBSD]
278 2013-02-03 19:46:23 <Aranjedeath> do I... gdb bitcoind ?
279 2013-02-03 19:46:38 <HM> try this
280 2013-02-03 19:46:43 <HM> LC_ALL=C bitcoind
281 2013-02-03 19:47:13 <Aranjedeath> It didn't crash
282 2013-02-03 19:47:25 <Aranjedeath> oh I didn't -daemon, so it's running in console
283 2013-02-03 19:47:26 <Aranjedeath> haha
284 2013-02-03 19:47:43 <HM> <-- wizard
285 2013-02-03 19:47:59 <Aranjedeath> okay, so what does that do? I recognize that as locale related
286 2013-02-03 19:48:07 <Aranjedeath> or, what's a more permanant hack
287 2013-02-03 19:48:09 <Aranjedeath> :D
288 2013-02-03 19:48:16 <HM> LC_ALL env variable controls locales for all the things
289 2013-02-03 19:48:44 <Aranjedeath> what does C mean?
290 2013-02-03 19:48:44 <HM> your system local is probably utf-8_something
291 2013-02-03 19:48:48 <Aranjedeath> yeah
292 2013-02-03 19:48:56 <Aranjedeath> en_US.utf8 or something funny
293 2013-02-03 19:48:58 <HM> it's the "C" programming language default locale
294 2013-02-03 19:49:03 <Aranjedeath> ahh, alright
295 2013-02-03 19:49:49 <HM> the bitcoind should maybe setlocale(LC_ALL, "C") when it starts up
296 2013-02-03 19:49:51 <HM> i don't know
297 2013-02-03 19:50:00 <Aranjedeath> ACTION nods
298 2013-02-03 19:50:24 <HM> if you run "locale" you'll see your current locale settings
299 2013-02-03 19:50:49 <Aranjedeath> en_US.UTF-8
300 2013-02-03 19:50:59 <Aranjedeath> LC_ALL is not set though
301 2013-02-03 19:50:59 <HM> yeah that's interesting
302 2013-02-03 19:51:01 <Aranjedeath> all the rest are
303 2013-02-03 19:51:05 <HM> yeah same here
304 2013-02-03 19:51:12 <HM> but mine is en_GB.UTF-8
305 2013-02-03 19:51:30 <Aranjedeath> british english :)
306 2013-02-03 19:51:33 <HM> what's uncommented in /etc/locale.gen
307 2013-02-03 19:52:03 <Aranjedeath> I don't know where that file is
308 2013-02-03 19:52:15 <HM> it might be GNU libc specific actually
309 2013-02-03 19:52:20 <HM> I haven't use FreeBSD in a while
310 2013-02-03 19:52:22 <HM> *used
311 2013-02-03 19:53:14 <Aranjedeath> seems gnu specific, but I'm assuming there's an analogue somewhere
312 2013-02-03 19:53:32 <HM> yeah i guess the bug is probably in boost
313 2013-02-03 20:00:19 <Aranjedeath> I can't figure out where to set that to get it to stick
314 2013-02-03 20:02:15 <HM> Aranjedeath: you really don't want to
315 2013-02-03 20:02:31 <HM> setting LC_ALL=C system wide would be a bad thing
316 2013-02-03 20:02:51 <Aranjedeath> I'm trying to set it for my user
317 2013-02-03 20:02:53 <HM> setup a shell alias for bitcoind
318 2013-02-03 20:03:15 <Aranjedeath> so I don't have to type LC_ALL=C before every getinfo or so
319 2013-02-03 20:03:23 <Aranjedeath> mm, alright
320 2013-02-03 20:21:53 <Nabbo> createrawtransaction [{"txid":txid,"vout":n},...] {address:amount,...} how can I include fee when try to create a raw transaction?
321 2013-02-03 20:23:27 <Luke-Jr> Nabbo: fee is just the amount of inputs you don't spend
322 2013-02-03 20:27:56 <Aranjedeath> so this is neat... my blockchain is arranged in a really weird way
323 2013-02-03 20:28:12 <Aranjedeath> wiki says all the blk*.dat should be in .bitcoin (given defaults)
324 2013-02-03 20:28:46 <Aranjedeath> but they're in .bitcoin/blocks/ along with rev*.dat
325 2013-02-03 20:29:11 <Aranjedeath> and there's also a coins dir with stuff in it
326 2013-02-03 20:29:28 <Aranjedeath> and a blktree dir
327 2013-02-03 20:29:49 <Aranjedeath> did I generate coins or something on accident previously? (I'm restoring from a backup, haha)
328 2013-02-03 20:30:30 <MC1984> the wiki needs updating
329 2013-02-03 20:30:38 <MC1984> you have the ned database format
330 2013-02-03 20:30:42 <MC1984> new
331 2013-02-03 20:30:53 <Aranjedeath> oh
332 2013-02-03 20:30:58 <Aranjedeath> haha I see the problem then
333 2013-02-03 20:31:21 <Aranjedeath> I'm running stable bitcoind on this new box, whereas I bet I was running a git compiled version or something on the old computer
334 2013-02-03 20:31:38 <Aranjedeath> 080 build
335 2013-02-03 20:32:26 <MC1984> 0.8 isnt out yet
336 2013-02-03 20:32:42 <MC1984> close though
337 2013-02-03 20:32:50 <Aranjedeath> yeah, but I'm dumb enough to run alpha code
338 2013-02-03 20:32:59 <Aranjedeath> that's probably what happened
339 2013-02-03 20:33:10 <MC1984> sounds like it
340 2013-02-03 20:33:15 <MC1984> its quite a lot faster
341 2013-02-03 20:33:17 <Aranjedeath> this blockchain is from... early december I think
342 2013-02-03 20:33:29 <valparaiso> Yes i was surprised last time i built from trunk. (New db)
343 2013-02-03 20:33:48 <HM> will 0.8/git convert from current format?
344 2013-02-03 20:34:01 <Aranjedeath> heh, well maybe I can just build up 080 again
345 2013-02-03 20:34:01 <HM> clearly it has to because not everyone can bootstrap :P
346 2013-02-03 20:34:01 <MC1984> i dont know when they formally merged the leveldb into the mainline
347 2013-02-03 20:34:08 <MC1984> i beleive that is the parlance
348 2013-02-03 20:34:22 <Aranjedeath> yeah, bunch of sst files
349 2013-02-03 20:34:30 <Aranjedeath> ACTION balks
350 2013-02-03 20:34:52 <MC1984> HM i thin so
351 2013-02-03 20:35:20 <MC1984> tho last time i heard it would leave the old blocks intact too? doubling storage requirement :/
352 2013-02-03 20:36:05 <Aranjedeath> I should figure you'd rm the old ones, assuming a perfectly successful import
353 2013-02-03 20:36:28 <Aranjedeath> but that is also deleting data on customer hd's... which sounds like a really dangerous idea too
354 2013-02-03 20:36:47 <MC1984> normal people arnt going to have a clue about doing that
355 2013-02-03 20:37:11 <MC1984> they probably dont want to risk accidentally slagging the chain for lots of people at once
356 2013-02-03 20:38:46 <HM> indeed
357 2013-02-03 20:40:47 <Luke-Jr> HM: 0.8/git will import the current blocks with a hardlink IIRC, and then reindexes it
358 2013-02-03 20:41:21 <HM> and new blocks?
359 2013-02-03 20:41:27 <Luke-Jr> hardlink also means it doesn't use any more space
360 2013-02-03 20:41:55 <Luke-Jr> HM: after the first run, old and new versions download independently
361 2013-02-03 20:42:15 <Aranjedeath> whew, that blew up spectacularly
362 2013-02-03 20:42:38 <Aranjedeath> nice error
363 2013-02-03 20:42:44 <Luke-Jr> Aranjedeath: oh, and dont try moving the old blk* files to the old place..
364 2013-02-03 20:42:59 <Aranjedeath> /bitcoin/src/makefile.unix", line 19: Need an operator
365 2013-02-03 20:43:01 <Aranjedeath> lots of those
366 2013-02-03 20:43:09 <Aranjedeath> I'm not, I'm trying to compile out of git
367 2013-02-03 20:43:24 <Luke-Jr> Aranjedeath: GNU?
368 2013-02-03 20:43:44 <Aranjedeath> I don't know how to answer a three letter question
369 2013-02-03 20:43:51 <Aranjedeath> ACTION smiles
370 2013-02-03 20:43:55 <HM> lol
371 2013-02-03 20:44:00 <Luke-Jr> Aranjedeath: what OS? :p
372 2013-02-03 20:44:07 <Aranjedeath> Ah! freebsd.
373 2013-02-03 20:44:11 <HM> GNU is short for "GNU is Not Unix"
374 2013-02-03 20:44:17 <Luke-Jr> yeah, FreeBSD is in the "not supported" zone still
375 2013-02-03 20:44:24 <Aranjedeath> damn
376 2013-02-03 20:44:47 <Aranjedeath> and yet the file is makefile.unix
377 2013-02-03 20:44:49 <Aranjedeath> :|
378 2013-02-03 20:45:00 <Aranjedeath> ACTION giggles
379 2013-02-03 20:45:11 <Luke-Jr> Aranjedeath: you could try with gmake
380 2013-02-03 20:45:23 <Aranjedeath> is that a change in the makefile?
381 2013-02-03 20:45:27 <Luke-Jr> I'm certain you'll hit more problems, but meh
382 2013-02-03 20:45:38 <Luke-Jr> Aranjedeath: no, it's the name of GNU Make on FreeBSD
383 2013-02-03 20:45:54 <Luke-Jr> in most systems, GNU Make is 'make'
384 2013-02-03 20:46:09 <Aranjedeath> ACTION knows very little about compiling software except how to use make config and make install clean :D
385 2013-02-03 20:46:26 <Luke-Jr> why are you using BSD? :P
386 2013-02-03 20:46:39 <Aranjedeath> because it's very easy to manage
387 2013-02-03 20:46:47 <Luke-Jr> apparently not
388 2013-02-03 20:46:59 <Aranjedeath> and I can forget about it for 6 months and everything just keeps running
389 2013-02-03 20:47:52 <Aranjedeath> I was recently confused why it was 5 versions behind on mariadb, as it turns out I'd never restarted mariadb to get the new binary. That one had been running for over a year.
390 2013-02-03 20:48:10 <Aranjedeath> ACTION laughs
391 2013-02-03 20:48:48 <HM> Debian Linux can be like that
392 2013-02-03 20:48:58 <Luke-Jr> HM: so can Debian FreeBSD
393 2013-02-03 20:49:01 <Aranjedeath> oh! gmake made it farther than make
394 2013-02-03 20:49:01 <Luke-Jr> :P
395 2013-02-03 20:49:04 <HM> i once bought a VPS and then forgot i'd bought it
396 2013-02-03 20:49:22 <Aranjedeath> yeah debian stable will kinda just keep running
397 2013-02-03 20:49:40 <Luke-Jr> HM: one time, I got a free trial dedi, and it had some problem so I emailed support and forgot about it
398 2013-02-03 20:49:45 <Luke-Jr> HM: a month later, I get a bill..
399 2013-02-03 20:49:50 <HM> i keep thinking debian is broken because they never seem to update the kernel :S
400 2013-02-03 20:49:58 <Aranjedeath> haha
401 2013-02-03 20:50:19 <Aranjedeath> gmake raged at the source code
402 2013-02-03 20:50:22 <Luke-Jr> HM: sure they do
403 2013-02-03 20:50:27 <Aranjedeath> and crashed eventually
404 2013-02-03 20:50:27 <Aranjedeath> :D
405 2013-02-03 20:55:13 <HM> Luke-Jr: afaict they haven't touched the debian stable kernel in months
406 2013-02-03 20:57:10 <Luke-Jr> HM: changelog says they last updated it Jan 12
407 2013-02-03 20:57:23 <Luke-Jr> 2011
408 2013-02-03 20:58:07 <HM> nawww
409 2013-02-03 20:58:07 <Luke-Jr> jk ;)
410 2013-02-03 20:58:13 <Luke-Jr> Sep 23, 2012 really
411 2013-02-03 20:58:17 <HM> 23 Sep 2012
412 2013-02-03 20:58:19 <Luke-Jr> probably no need to update since then
413 2013-02-03 20:59:13 <HM> i may as well try out git
414 2013-02-03 20:59:38 <HM> wtf my vps is odwn
415 2013-02-03 21:00:39 <HM> nope i'm just lagging like hell
416 2013-02-03 21:27:26 <HM> hmm
417 2013-02-03 21:27:32 <HM> bitcoind compiles for me but doesn't link
418 2013-02-03 21:34:55 <Aranjedeath> mine makes it to gmake: *** [obj/alert.o] Error 1
419 2013-02-03 21:43:53 <HM> fixed mine by disabling UPNP
420 2013-02-03 21:45:47 <Aranjedeath> huh
421 2013-02-03 21:45:54 <Aranjedeath> upnp is disabled already in mine
422 2013-02-03 21:46:04 <HM> nah UPNP=0 isn't disabled
423 2013-02-03 21:46:10 <Aranjedeath> upnp=-
424 2013-02-03 21:46:14 <HM> oh
425 2013-02-03 21:46:17 <Aranjedeath> I read the docs
426 2013-02-03 21:46:18 <Aranjedeath> :P
427 2013-02-03 21:46:31 <HM> and yet I have a binary and you don't :P
428 2013-02-03 21:46:39 <Aranjedeath> 1 is on, 0 is off but compiled in, and dash is disabled
429 2013-02-03 21:46:46 <Aranjedeath> well yes
430 2013-02-03 21:46:50 <Aranjedeath> you have a supported OS :P
431 2013-02-03 21:47:03 <HM> Who says?
432 2013-02-03 21:47:16 <HM> I compiled it on Haiku
433 2013-02-03 21:47:20 <Aranjedeath> you were talking about debian before
434 2013-02-03 21:47:20 <HM> I swear
435 2013-02-03 21:48:09 <Aranjedeath> well apparently haiku is closer to linux than bsd is
436 2013-02-03 21:48:10 <Aranjedeath> :P
437 2013-02-03 21:49:13 <Aranjedeath> but eh, I get a good 100 lines of error before it fails
438 2013-02-03 21:52:09 <HM> hmm current blockchain dir is 7 GB
439 2013-02-03 21:52:41 <HM> i take it ~/.bitcoin is movable between machines without issue
440 2013-02-03 21:54:19 <HM> lol "
441 2013-02-03 21:54:21 <HM> To help make your bitcoin installation more secure by making certain attacks impossible to
442 2013-02-03 21:54:22 <HM> exploit even if a vulnerability is found, you can take the following measures
443 2013-02-03 21:54:25 <HM> IMPOSSIBLE
444 2013-02-03 21:58:09 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: ping, can you comment on eeea340b17302c3b82d29a7d2f50238cd1b24af4 ?
445 2013-02-03 21:59:08 <Luke-Jr> HM: it does say *certain* attacks
446 2013-02-03 21:59:23 <Luke-Jr> HM: a remote crash is a lot nicer than a remote code execution
447 2013-02-03 22:00:39 <HM> i read an article the other week about a guy exploiting an integer overflow to bypass NX, PIE and W^X memory policy
448 2013-02-03 22:00:50 <HM> it was amazing
449 2013-02-03 22:03:59 <pjorrit> so link?
450 2013-02-03 22:11:31 <HM> my connection is too laggy atm to go on a blog hunt
451 2013-02-03 22:28:23 <DBordello> How long does -rescan take? (I have a large wallet.dat)
452 2013-02-03 22:40:12 <kuzetsa> DBordello: dunno... I'm testing how effective -salvagewallet works on a backup though
453 2013-02-03 22:40:33 <DBordello> kuzetsa, just a few minutes on a 27M wallet.dat. Not bad
454 2013-02-03 22:40:42 <kuzetsa> which currently says "rescanning..."
455 2013-02-03 22:41:01 <kuzetsa> DBordello: I'm certain it varies with processor speed
456 2013-02-03 22:41:53 <kuzetsa> on my ULP (ultra low power) mobile core i3 laptop (mobile version... nicer than atom, but still only 1.2ghz) it might take longer
457 2013-02-03 23:29:05 <Aranjedeath> any guidance on what part of libboost we need?
458 2013-02-03 23:29:27 <Aranjedeath> 271mb of shit is a lot to install just to make bitcoin work :D
459 2013-02-03 23:30:33 <HM2> what :S
460 2013-02-03 23:31:19 <Aranjedeath> libboost1.48-all-dev pulls in 271mb of packages
461 2013-02-03 23:31:30 <HM2> yeah
462 2013-02-03 23:31:42 <HM2> if you're building bitcoind you'll need the huge dev package
463 2013-02-03 23:31:48 <Aranjedeath> damn
464 2013-02-03 23:31:51 <HM2> the boost-libraries themselves are <10MiB though
465 2013-02-03 23:34:07 <HM2> bitcoind makes quite a lot of use of boost
466 2013-02-03 23:34:36 <Aranjedeath> yeah
467 2013-02-03 23:35:37 <HM2> check this out
468 2013-02-03 23:36:32 <Aranjedeath> wat
469 2013-02-03 23:36:42 <Aranjedeath> db.h:14:20: fatal error: db_cxx.h: No such file or directory
470 2013-02-03 23:36:42 <Aranjedeath> In file included from db.cpp:6:0:
471 2013-02-03 23:36:49 <HM2> http://pastebin.com/DtaPrB5z
472 2013-02-03 23:36:59 <HM2> all the boost includes in the bitcoin source tree
473 2013-02-03 23:37:13 <Aranjedeath> yeah
474 2013-02-03 23:37:25 <HM2> i had no idea it used asio
475 2013-02-03 23:37:36 <Aranjedeath> hmm
476 2013-02-03 23:37:43 <Aranjedeath> so why does db_cxx.h not exist
477 2013-02-03 23:37:51 <Aranjedeath> ACTION grumbles
478 2013-02-03 23:37:55 <HM2> hold on
479 2013-02-03 23:38:26 <HM2> that's part of the berkley db package on my system
480 2013-02-03 23:38:55 <Aranjedeath> I pulled in... libdb4.8
481 2013-02-03 23:38:58 <Aranjedeath> and the dev package
482 2013-02-03 23:39:03 <Aranjedeath> does that cover me?
483 2013-02-03 23:39:06 <HM2> it's possible freebsd packages the c++ headers in a separate package
484 2013-02-03 23:39:07 <Luke-Jr> Aranjedeath: make ??? BDB_INCLUDE_PATH=/usr/include/db4.8
485 2013-02-03 23:39:17 <Luke-Jr> after installing the ++ pkg
486 2013-02-03 23:39:22 <Aranjedeath> ++ package?
487 2013-02-03 23:39:30 <Aranjedeath> they don't have ++'s in my repo
488 2013-02-03 23:41:52 <D34TH> Aranjedeath: what distro
489 2013-02-03 23:42:05 <Aranjedeath> ubuntu
490 2013-02-03 23:42:08 <Aranjedeath> 12.04
491 2013-02-03 23:42:18 <Aranjedeath> precise iirc
492 2013-02-03 23:42:46 <Aranjedeath> huh, I had debs lying around from the last time I tried this
493 2013-02-03 23:42:55 <Aranjedeath> why isn't it noted in the docs that you can't get them from the repo
494 2013-02-03 23:43:38 <Aranjedeath> or is there a mysterious wiki page I should be reading :D
495 2013-02-03 23:46:25 <D34TH> 64bit or 32
496 2013-02-03 23:47:17 <Aranjedeath> 64bit
497 2013-02-03 23:47:45 <Aranjedeath> I've got a set of really ugly-named debs that have libdb4.8++ and -dev
498 2013-02-03 23:48:00 <Aranjedeath> seems to have fixed my issue
499 2013-02-03 23:48:03 <D34TH> oh
500 2013-02-03 23:48:19 <Aranjedeath> hence `huh, I had debs lying around from the last time I tried this`
501 2013-02-03 23:48:37 <Aranjedeath> but the fact that you need libdb4.8++ is not noted in the makefile docs
502 2013-02-03 23:49:05 <Aranjedeath> vs libdb4.8, which will come up in apt-cache search (even with the ++ on the name) and doesn't have what you need
503 2013-02-03 23:49:06 <Aranjedeath> :P
504 2013-02-03 23:49:44 <D34TH> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/build-unix.txt#L67
505 2013-02-03 23:49:55 <D34TH> read that through line 72
506 2013-02-03 23:50:48 <Aranjedeath> yep, but it breaks compatibility
507 2013-02-03 23:50:56 <Aranjedeath> thaaats not cool :P
508 2013-02-03 23:51:40 <D34TH> breaks compat with releases
509 2013-02-03 23:51:50 <D34TH> just stay with master
510 2013-02-03 23:51:52 <D34TH> :D
511 2013-02-03 23:52:08 <Aranjedeath> lmao yeah
512 2013-02-03 23:52:17 <Aranjedeath> I'm just trying to get a big one up and running :>
513 2013-02-03 23:52:27 <Aranjedeath> I did it earlier but my node had to be taken down cause the box moved
514 2013-02-03 23:52:44 <Aranjedeath> I had sustained over 145 connections
515 2013-02-03 23:53:34 <Luke-Jr> Aranjedeath: why are you trying to compile at all? :P
516 2013-02-03 23:54:31 <Luke-Jr> D34TH: breaks compat with 0.8 release too
517 2013-02-03 23:54:42 <Aranjedeath> my blockchain is 080
518 2013-02-03 23:57:50 <Aranjedeath> wiiiith any luck