1 2013-02-09 00:26:04 <Luke-Jr> ACTION wonders if his bugfix_leveldb branch fixes the gitian problem gavin mentioned..
2 2013-02-09 00:29:46 <Luke-Jr> looks like half-a-fix
3 2013-02-09 05:08:12 <Skav> hello
4 2013-02-09 05:08:58 <Skav> can someone look at this please
5 2013-02-09 05:09:01 <Skav> http://pastebin.chiznillen.net//view.php?id=78
6 2013-02-09 06:15:20 <petertodd> Has anyone started work on Gavin's request for a input-mixing service?
7 2013-02-09 06:28:15 <weex> petertodd: is there a link on that?
8 2013-02-09 06:29:17 <petertodd> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=141865.0 is the request for a Bitcoin Foundation grant proposal
9 2013-02-09 06:30:58 <benkay> dear bitcoin-dev
10 2013-02-09 06:31:45 <benkay> all bit coin clients work better on linux than they do on os 10.?
11 2013-02-09 06:32:03 <benkay> please communicate this to hackers coming up to speed on the protocol
12 2013-02-09 06:32:27 <benkay> in the meantime, imma figure out how to bring merchants online with a minimum of hassle
13 2013-02-09 06:32:31 <benkay> yours twoooly
14 2013-02-09 06:32:34 <benkay> benkay/ikbrunel
15 2013-02-09 06:52:03 <CodeShark> benkay: given the fact that both linux and OS X are unix-like, it is generally not too difficult to port C++ code from linux to OS X (only a few libraries require special #ifdefs for OS X).
16 2013-02-09 06:52:47 <CodeShark> having said that, I think most hardcore hackers working on bitcoin-related projects use linux as their main build/deployment platform
17 2013-02-09 10:07:38 <dada> ciao
18 2013-02-09 10:07:49 <dada> !list
19 2013-02-09 10:07:50 <gribble> Admin, Alias, Anonymous, AutoMode, BitcoinData, Channel, ChannelLogger, ChannelStats, Conditional, Config, Debug, Dict, Dunno, Factoids, Filter, Format, GPG, GPGExt, Games, Gatekeeper, Google, Herald, Internet, Later, Market, Math, MessageParser, Misc, Network, OTCOrderBook, Owner, Plugin, RSS, RatingSystem, Relay, Reply, Scheduler, Seen, Services, Status, String, Time, Topic, URL, Unix, User, (1 more message)
20 2013-02-09 10:59:47 <sipa> ;;later tell gavinandresen i got a gitian match for v0.8.0rc1 linux
21 2013-02-09 10:59:48 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
22 2013-02-09 12:21:30 <astro9> hey people, I'm having trouble with double spends.. I'd like to at least make sure that the transaction I've received is propagaded asap.. I'd do that by connecting to well connected nodes I guess.. but how do I find them? does blockchain.info accept connections and run a daemon that would propagade my data?
23 2013-02-09 12:22:36 <astro9> its connected to 2000+ nodes so I'm guessing that it might be a good place to connect to first..
24 2013-02-09 12:24:38 <astro9> ok, found http://blockchain.info/hub-nodes
25 2013-02-09 13:00:33 <MC1984> i wonder how hat guy was having such a problem with double spends
26 2013-02-09 13:01:43 <sipa> ACTION guesses: satoshidice
27 2013-02-09 13:04:11 <pere> hi. Anyone able to help more with the strange build failure of bitcoin in Debian? is stillfail to build on i386 archs. Now with more debug information. See "buildd logs" linked to from <URL: http://packages.qa.debian.org/b/bitcoin.html >. The test files are present, so the json parser failing seem to be the most likely cause.
28 2013-02-09 13:05:54 <MC1984> so does that mean hes having trouble trying to DS lol
29 2013-02-09 14:53:44 <gavinandresen> rc1 announced on bitcoin-development and bitcointalk
30 2013-02-09 14:57:25 <pere> gavinandresen: would any of the Debian patches available from <URL: http://patch-tracker.debian.org/package/bitcoin/0.7.2-3 > be interesting for the next release?
31 2013-02-09 14:58:01 <gavinandresen> pere : maybe???. lemme look
32 2013-02-09 14:58:35 <pere> the 1XXX patches are believed to be useful for upstream.
33 2013-02-09 14:59:13 <gavinandresen> pere: 1002_libdb-squeeze.patch : different versions of BDB are a royal pain in our asses; what version of BDB is in squeeze?
34 2013-02-09 14:59:41 <gavinandresen> 1003_qmake_cleanup.patch : Good Idea
35 2013-02-09 15:00:01 <pere> gavinandresen: libdb_cxx-4.6.so
36 2013-02-09 15:00:07 <gavinandresen> 1004_conservative_qt-dbus.patch : no idea, ask wumpus
37 2013-02-09 15:00:35 <gavinandresen> pere: 4.6 ? sigh???. we try to stick with 4.8
38 2013-02-09 15:01:24 <gavinandresen> 2001_stupify_header_script.patch : ask sipa
39 2013-02-09 15:01:24 <pere> gavinandresen: well, only a very small change was needed to get it to build with 4.6, as you can see. :)
40 2013-02-09 15:02:06 <pere> gavinandresen: it was just a suggestion to look at the patches in case you are interested. I do not plan to spend much time tracking down the right people. :)
41 2013-02-09 15:02:08 <gavinandresen> pere: yes, but the issue is users getting really upset if they switch bitcoin executables and suddenly their wallet cannot be read
42 2013-02-09 15:02:44 <sipa> gavinandresen: nit for rc2/final: gettxout gettxoutsetinfo p
43 2013-02-09 15:02:59 <sipa> rpcs
44 2013-02-09 15:03:00 <gavinandresen> pere: wumpus and sipa are easy to track down; their email addresse are on the bitcoin.org homepage (wumpus is Wladimir, sipa is Pieter)
45 2013-02-09 15:04:08 <pere> gavinandresen: I am sure they are. It is beside my point. which is I spend the little time I can sink on bitcoin to try to figure out the build failure, not pushing patches upstream. my suggestion was an suggestion, not an offer to spend time pushing the patches.
46 2013-02-09 15:04:09 <gavinandresen> sipa: new rpcs ? I think they'll have to wait for 0.8.1 (or whatever next release is)
47 2013-02-09 15:04:58 <pere> but the build failure is so strange I suspect I never will have enough time to sink on it. :(
48 2013-02-09 15:05:18 <gavinandresen> pere: okey dokey. I personally don't think bitcoin should be Officially Packaged until we hit version 1.0
49 2013-02-09 15:05:24 <sipa> gavinandresen: how do you mean? they exist in 0.8rc1, just not mentioned in the release note
50 2013-02-09 15:05:40 <gavinandresen> sipa: oh, good. ACK on release note fixes for final
51 2013-02-09 15:06:53 <pere> if anyone got any idea why the json parser fail on i386 architectures, I am very interested.
52 2013-02-09 15:07:11 <moore_> pere, gavinandresen, also is it a good idea to have people ship builds that don't have the same hash as the "official" version?
53 2013-02-09 15:07:16 <sipa> pere: NAK on 2001; maybe a different solution is needed for distribution binaries (and i'm happy to look at that), but just removing git versioning from the script would break our own official builds right now
54 2013-02-09 15:09:02 <moore_> who would want a vendor patched bitcoin?
55 2013-02-09 15:09:47 <sipa> i'm sure people would like the convenience of distribution-packaged binaries
56 2013-02-09 15:11:14 <moore_> hmm, I see that there are two use cases, do I want a bitcoin I can really trust, or do I just want a lower value wallet.
57 2013-02-09 15:11:28 <sipa> not all users are equal
58 2013-02-09 15:11:40 <moore_> I guess the second is the case you are referring to .
59 2013-02-09 15:11:59 <sipa> it's good to point out the varying trade-offs are ivolved when choosing software, imho
60 2013-02-09 15:12:50 <gavinandresen> I want Bitcoin-Qt to support multi-device wallets. And if you get more than N bitcoin in a single-device wallet, I want it to nag you to create a multi-device wallet and move your funds there
61 2013-02-09 15:13:04 <moore_> I feel like I should spend some time making a matrix of bitcoin features one might like and where they can be found
62 2013-02-09 15:14:59 <moore_> I guess as long as vendor patches don't make a real difference, as you have to trust you vendor not to just ptrace and fuck with your programs no matter how sure you know they are correct
63 2013-02-09 15:15:13 <moore_> s/ as log as //
64 2013-02-09 15:16:27 <moore_> in the end I guess repeatable builds are more a testing feature
65 2013-02-09 15:16:46 <moore_> I have convinced my self, bring on the vendor patches
66 2013-02-09 15:17:39 <sipa> somehow vereion numbers like 0.8 and 0.9 feel almost mature, but 0.10 or 0.11 do not at all
67 2013-02-09 15:17:59 <moore_> sipa, size matters
68 2013-02-09 15:19:57 <Eliel> sipa: how about 0.A, 0.B? :)
69 2013-02-09 15:20:01 <sipa> haha
70 2013-02-09 15:35:50 <HM> base58 version numbers
71 2013-02-09 15:40:05 <gavinandresen> Luke-Jr: can you rebase pull #2243 and see if that makes pulltester happy ?
72 2013-02-09 15:52:35 <jgarzik> ACTION waits patiently for a solo mined block
73 2013-02-09 15:55:18 <sipa> jgarzik: how does it feel, owning a device that harnesses the power of 3 ArtForz's?
74 2013-02-09 15:59:01 <jgarzik> hehehe
75 2013-02-09 16:02:22 <jgarzik> let's see if bitcoind has shutdown-freeze problems with eloipool's more moderate getblocktemplate usage
76 2013-02-09 16:05:14 <MC1984> you guys ever get scared about how many people have how much money in code youre looking after
77 2013-02-09 16:06:53 <jgarzik> What scares me is that there are only a few like us that are indeed scared ;p
78 2013-02-09 16:07:56 <jgarzik> Sometimes I think we treat the code and responsibilities with far more seriousness than is demonstrated on the forums/IRC/reddit/slashdot/media
79 2013-02-09 16:09:05 <MC1984> ive never doubted that the core devs are quite seriousface about the whole thing
80 2013-02-09 16:09:59 <MC1984> just wonder if its kind of limiting coding on an experemental project with a $250m on your back
81 2013-02-09 16:10:10 <MC1984> economy*
82 2013-02-09 16:10:56 <jgarzik> [random tangent] I'm always at the amount of getblocks activity on my non-listening nodes
83 2013-02-09 16:11:20 <jgarzik> someone is IBD'ing from my firewalled node right now
84 2013-02-09 16:11:39 <MC1984> how can you tell
85 2013-02-09 16:12:03 <jgarzik> logs show ever increasing
86 2013-02-09 16:12:05 <jgarzik> 2013-02-09 17:10:48 getblocks stopping at 136275 000000000000032872b5461173f25698afbac96412ce3516a5ffaa6134cc5cd2
87 2013-02-09 16:12:37 <MC1984> oh
88 2013-02-09 16:12:51 <MC1984> i didnt know block sends were logged
89 2013-02-09 16:13:26 <jgarzik> Bitcoin is a biological entity now. With all the alternate implementations and old clients in the wild, you would be surprised how little ability we have to change things sometimes. Several DNA strains in the wild, well outside our control (which is IMO a good thing).
90 2013-02-09 16:14:27 <MC1984> yeah you have not much direct control
91 2013-02-09 16:14:31 <jgarzik> a heterogenous collection should ultimately be more healthy than a homogeneous one
92 2013-02-09 16:14:39 <MC1984> over the current network
93 2013-02-09 16:14:46 <MC1984> you have rather more control over its future though
94 2013-02-09 16:15:12 <TD> jgarzik: how do they manage that if they can't connect to your node?
95 2013-02-09 16:15:16 <MC1984> i think only armoury and maybe multibit are the only serious contenders
96 2013-02-09 16:15:19 <TD> you connected to them and they were behind?
97 2013-02-09 16:15:24 <jgarzik> TD: apparently
98 2013-02-09 16:15:44 <jgarzik> TD: or they are simply pretending to be an IBD'ing node, for measurement/observation purposes
99 2013-02-09 16:15:44 <TD> MC1984: btw yes, it scares the crap out of me
100 2013-02-09 16:15:56 <TD> the thing that re-assures me is that actually destroying private keys is really, really hard
101 2013-02-09 16:16:24 <MC1984> lol lots of people would disagree with that
102 2013-02-09 16:16:26 <TD> almost all serious bugs, at least in my code, result in getting out of sync with the network or creating spends that don't confirm. actually losing large sums of money is hard.
103 2013-02-09 16:16:34 <TD> well, i meant, via bugs in my code
104 2013-02-09 16:16:55 <MC1984> what do you code
105 2013-02-09 16:17:12 <TD> bitcoinj
106 2013-02-09 16:17:25 <MC1984> oh cool
107 2013-02-09 16:18:10 <MC1984> id like to see someone else take a shot at a full node
108 2013-02-09 16:19:01 <jgarzik> MC1984: Do we have control over bitcoin's future? Yes and no. As it becomes harder and harder to run a full node, I think the more centralizing elements -- big pools, or users using a web wallet rather than decentralized client -- will tend to have more power than us devs
109 2013-02-09 16:19:23 <jgarzik> So far we've largely tightened existing Satoshi restrictions, IMNSHO
110 2013-02-09 16:19:43 <MC1984> thats what i mean
111 2013-02-09 16:19:55 <MC1984> maybe you can only take what satoshi did and make it better
112 2013-02-09 16:20:13 <MC1984> but radical change is now out of the question
113 2013-02-09 16:20:20 <jgarzik> for better or worse
114 2013-02-09 16:20:34 <MC1984> well see
115 2013-02-09 16:20:47 <sipa> hings like bloom filtering, ipv6/tor support, dns seeding, ... were improvements beyond that
116 2013-02-09 16:21:13 <MC1984> with the asics out, people might have an incentive to use them to restart a better bitcoin if need be, as long as you use the same hash function
117 2013-02-09 16:21:59 <MC1984> sipa yes thats all good stuff, i do not mean to belittle your work
118 2013-02-09 16:22:01 <sipa> few changes to the actual consensus rules were made (bip16 and bip30), but i but those are far more fragile
119 2013-02-09 16:22:57 <sipa> MC1984: no offence takn
120 2013-02-09 16:24:05 <MC1984> just goddamn if theres some fatal flaw in satoshis model its gonna hurt the whole concept for a long time
121 2013-02-09 16:24:14 <MC1984> like the first cold fusion guy
122 2013-02-09 16:25:19 <MC1984> theres actual VC money riding on bitoin now though and one would hope some ort of due dilligence would be done there
123 2013-02-09 16:25:41 <MC1984> i wonder if VCs might hire coders to go over it
124 2013-02-09 16:26:12 <MC1984> or maybe they just threw a million at it just in case, sot of like everyone else really......
125 2013-02-09 16:26:37 <jgarzik> woah!
126 2013-02-09 16:26:43 <jgarzik> we pulled 'addnode' RPC?
127 2013-02-09 16:26:45 <jgarzik> hooray!
128 2013-02-09 16:27:03 <jgarzik> ACTION missed that due to baby-induced fog
129 2013-02-09 16:27:34 <sipa> jgarzik: too bad we didn't pull your netmessage sruff
130 2013-02-09 16:28:24 <jgarzik> sipa: <shrug> no urgent rush
131 2013-02-09 16:28:50 <jgarzik> ACTION looks forward to coding again, maybe late Feb or early March <sigh>
132 2013-02-09 16:36:58 <Eliel> MC1984: well, you know how the dot.com boom went :)
133 2013-02-09 16:40:20 <MC1984> yep
134 2013-02-09 17:23:52 <benkay> CodeShark: I just don't think it's ready for primetime is all.
135 2013-02-09 17:24:09 <CodeShark> benkay: you don't think what is ready for primetime?
136 2013-02-09 17:24:17 <benkay> please read my comment last night as an expression of frustration
137 2013-02-09 17:24:40 <benkay> not honest evaluation
138 2013-02-09 17:25:11 <benkay> it was faster and less painful to install linux in a virtual box and then run armory from the vb
139 2013-02-09 17:26:39 <CodeShark> it's no secret that linux builds are the most tested
140 2013-02-09 17:28:15 <benkay> I know this now :(
141 2013-02-09 17:30:36 <CodeShark> but it's not really a matter of it being intrinsically more complicated to build on OS X - just fewer people doing it
142 2013-02-09 17:32:25 <benkay> yeah, and while I learned a lot trying to do it, i don't have the chops to make it happen
143 2013-02-09 17:36:31 <CodeShark> the issue with armory is more that etotheipi simply hasn't focused on it
144 2013-02-09 17:36:38 <CodeShark> focused on OS X, that is
145 2013-02-09 17:37:07 <CodeShark> but armory is just one of many bitcoin applications
146 2013-02-09 17:37:32 <CodeShark> so yeah, if you want to run armory, clearly OS X support will be far more limited than linux
147 2013-02-09 17:38:16 <CodeShark> unless you want to hack away at it and package it yourself
148 2013-02-09 17:38:56 <Eliel> yep, every platform tends to need one coder who takes it on him/herself to keep everything working on the platform.
149 2013-02-09 17:40:23 <CodeShark> even bitcoind only has a handful of developers who regularly build and test on OS X
150 2013-02-09 17:40:31 <gavinandresen> speaking of which??? we need somebody to make Bitcoin-Qt work nicely out-of-the-tree with Visual Studio
151 2013-02-09 17:40:38 <CodeShark> but that's almost infinitely more than the number of OS X developers working on armory :)
152 2013-02-09 17:41:38 <CodeShark> I haven't used Visual Studio in nearly 10 years :p
153 2013-02-09 17:42:01 <gavinandresen> me neither
154 2013-02-09 17:42:29 <gavinandresen> wait??? no, I think it's been 15 years for me
155 2013-02-09 17:42:34 <sipa> I think I used Visual Basic 3.0 at some point
156 2013-02-09 17:43:08 <CodeShark> welcome back, sipa :)
157 2013-02-09 17:43:13 <gavinandresen> wonder how long it is before we get somebody in here with "I'm reimplementing bitcoin in Visual Basic, and....."
158 2013-02-09 17:43:19 <kinlo> eh, visualbasic 1.0, 3 DD disks :)
159 2013-02-09 17:44:13 <CodeShark> lol
160 2013-02-09 17:44:43 <gavinandresen> ACTION puts his boots on to finish shovelling 2 feet of snow off his front walk.....
161 2013-02-09 17:44:59 <benkay> well, the rails devs are arriving ;)
162 2013-02-09 17:46:12 <kinlo> gavinandresen: btw, a quick note in the readme for gitian that you need to save the output of the dependencies for the win32 build into the inputs/ dir would have saved me a lot of time :)
163 2013-02-09 17:46:33 <gavinandresen> kinlo: can you submit a patch to the readme?
164 2013-02-09 17:46:46 <kinlo> gavinandresen: do you need win32 sigs btw, or is the process random and therefore the resulting sigs worthless?
165 2013-02-09 17:46:58 <kinlo> gavinandresen: I'll create a pull request later
166 2013-02-09 17:47:01 <gavinandresen> kinlo: don't bother with win32 sigs yet.
167 2013-02-09 17:52:50 <sipa> CodeShark: still on a train...
168 2013-02-09 18:09:33 <Luke-Jr> gavinandresen: ok, 1 sec
169 2013-02-09 18:10:41 <Luke-Jr> pushed
170 2013-02-09 18:17:39 <benkay> gavinandresen; I'm looking at your 2 of 3 gist and don't understand the purpose of completing the 2 of 3 signatures with a public key; doesn't the transaction need to be signed by another private key to be valid?
171 2013-02-09 18:49:45 <rocoo> hi, Luke-Jr, how are you?
172 2013-02-09 18:49:59 <Luke-Jr> ???
173 2013-02-09 18:50:06 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: hrm
174 2013-02-09 18:50:08 <jgarzik> 2013-02-09 14:45:07,750\tblockSubmission\tDEBUG\tUpstream 'primary' accepted block
175 2013-02-09 18:50:08 <jgarzik> 2013-02-09 14:45:07,848\tredflag\tCRITICAL\tUpstream 'primary' block submission failed: rejected
176 2013-02-09 18:50:17 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: normal
177 2013-02-09 18:50:35 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: it tries to submit twice to the bitcoind that made the template
178 2013-02-09 18:50:39 <rocoo> hey, it's jgarzik! you've you been?
179 2013-02-09 18:50:53 <rocoo> how've you been?
180 2013-02-09 18:51:06 <sipa> he has been jgarzik
181 2013-02-09 18:51:15 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: ok
182 2013-02-09 18:51:31 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: well, it does appear to be on the network... 00000000000001528a3fa72b86032459e1fb6ab38720e19a26e3a1f4a64e461a
183 2013-02-09 18:51:38 <jgarzik> so, whee :) first solo mined block
184 2013-02-09 18:51:53 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: any idea why sync would hang and be unkillable and be doing no IO?
185 2013-02-09 18:52:21 <sipa> network fs, and server not responding
186 2013-02-09 18:52:43 <sipa> or some device/driver problem?
187 2013-02-09 18:52:45 <Luke-Jr> no network fs mounted
188 2013-02-09 18:52:59 <sipa> anything in dmesg?
189 2013-02-09 18:53:00 <gjs278> when my raid controller dies, sync is unkillable and does no IO
190 2013-02-09 18:53:00 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: could be any number of reasons inside the kernel. there are often periods of uninterruptibility
191 2013-02-09 18:53:09 <Luke-Jr> 4 bitcoind-alikes running, but I presume it'd catch up eventually
192 2013-02-09 18:53:14 <Luke-Jr> sipa: nope
193 2013-02-09 18:53:15 <jgarzik> 1087 transactions in "my block"
194 2013-02-09 18:53:17 <jgarzik> 413 kb
195 2013-02-09 18:53:19 <jgarzik> whee
196 2013-02-09 18:53:33 <jgarzik> ACTION boosted the max size and priority area size numbers
197 2013-02-09 18:53:59 <sipa> first time you solo mine a block?
198 2013-02-09 18:54:04 <Luke-Jr> Deleted inode 5416863 has zero dtime. <-- normal if mounted?
199 2013-02-09 18:54:23 <jgarzik> sipa: I'm not a solo mining virgin, no
200 2013-02-09 18:54:38 <CodeShark> I've solo mined on testnet :)
201 2013-02-09 18:54:44 <jgarzik> sipa: first time with this ASIC ;p The ASIC miner previously mined some blocks for slush and btcguild
202 2013-02-09 18:55:12 <sipa> neither am i, but i don't plan on solo mining again for the time being
203 2013-02-09 18:55:18 <CodeShark> jgarzik, have you already paid off your investment in the ASIC?
204 2013-02-09 18:55:47 <jgarzik> CodeShark: https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/300138033590718464
205 2013-02-09 18:55:58 <gjs278> I don't plan on solo mining until avalon sends out at least batch 1 to everyone and then I'll buy it... right now I still can't be sure
206 2013-02-09 18:56:01 <CodeShark> sweet
207 2013-02-09 18:56:43 <CodeShark> it's nice to be an early adopter, jgarzik :)
208 2013-02-09 18:56:47 <dserrano5> now on to recover the basic fiasco
209 2013-02-09 18:57:55 <dserrano5> (if you preordered with btc, that is)
210 2013-02-09 19:00:12 <jgarzik> dserrano5: I preordered one from each vendor. Still waiting on the (unlikely, it seems) BTC refund for bASIC.
211 2013-02-09 19:01:26 <dserrano5> that's precisely why I said that, implying there won't be any btc refund
212 2013-02-09 19:02:05 <sipa> jgarzik: i guess that means you can only declare victory whem you've mined enoufh to repay electricity + all hardware (excluding already refunded.stuff)
213 2013-02-09 19:02:28 <petertodd> jgarzik:
214 2013-02-09 19:02:42 <petertodd> jgarzik: Given the huge returns, it maddens me that I didn't think of your strategy myself...
215 2013-02-09 19:02:59 <sipa> haha
216 2013-02-09 19:03:01 <CodeShark> jgarzik's strategy wasn't without risk
217 2013-02-09 19:03:03 <gjs278> uhh well he's so far the only one to get one I think...
218 2013-02-09 19:03:07 <sipa> it was still a gamble
219 2013-02-09 19:03:08 <CodeShark> hindsight doesn't count :)
220 2013-02-09 19:03:10 <gjs278> who else even has an avalon
221 2013-02-09 19:03:31 <sipa> the foundation :)
222 2013-02-09 19:04:03 <petertodd> CodeShark: Yes, but if I had thought to do it, I think I would have concluded the risk was low enough. I remember thinking a good chunk of the risk was picking the wrong vendor... Brain fart right there.
223 2013-02-09 19:04:09 <dserrano5> diversifying investments is always good advide
224 2013-02-09 19:04:14 <dserrano5> advice*
225 2013-02-09 19:04:49 <CodeShark> it was obvious that ASICs would outperform anything else in existence and could be made viable in principle. what was not obvious was whether the vendors were legitimate and competent
226 2013-02-09 19:04:49 <jgarzik> sipa: true :) I need to figure out how much money is still outstanding, for !Avalon vendors
227 2013-02-09 19:05:49 <petertodd> Of course, being a dev lowers your pre-order risk in itself due to PR...
228 2013-02-09 19:06:00 <dserrano5> or not, you can be quite sure you'll recover it all nevertheless :)
229 2013-02-09 19:06:12 <gjs278> indeed petertodd
230 2013-02-09 19:06:37 <CodeShark> it might not be too late to get in on the strategy, petertodd - but the longer you wait the less the payoff, obviously :)
231 2013-02-09 19:06:44 <sipa> petertodd: i don't think jgarzik knew in advance he'd basically get an early review sample
232 2013-02-09 19:07:10 <jgarzik> nope
233 2013-02-09 19:07:21 <petertodd> sipa: Of course not, but he certainely had a higher chance than Joe-random.
234 2013-02-09 19:07:44 <petertodd> sipa: Yet another reason I need to make more stuff. :P
235 2013-02-09 19:07:49 <jgarzik> petertodd: well most ASIC vendors are/were making a show of being _extremely_ fair in how their distribute things
236 2013-02-09 19:07:59 <jgarzik> not that I'm complaining about being bumped to the head of the line
237 2013-02-09 19:08:08 <sipa> true, but that 'higher' was hard to quantifu
238 2013-02-09 19:08:35 <petertodd> jgarzik: That aspect did surprise me. But, look at it this way, it was unlikely they'd push the devs to the *back* of the line.
239 2013-02-09 19:08:44 <jgarzik> true
240 2013-02-09 19:08:52 <gjs278> I didn't realize they did batch 2 on feb 2nd, but I'll definitely join batch 3 as long as everyone gets shipped for batch 1
241 2013-02-09 19:09:14 <jgarzik> gjs278: based on forum posts, it sounds like batch 2 is still incomplete, and might re-open
242 2013-02-09 19:09:20 <gjs278> hmm
243 2013-02-09 19:09:20 <petertodd> Oh well, I have a BFL order coming... my coffee will be warm at least.
244 2013-02-09 19:09:55 <dserrano5> I understand batch 2 is filled. Took some time but it has eventually sold out
245 2013-02-09 19:10:06 <dserrano5> but I may be worng
246 2013-02-09 19:10:28 <gjs278> there were issues where they gave the wrong price to people and then they didn't fill the rest of the coins
247 2013-02-09 19:10:44 <jgarzik> dserrano5: ah. well I don't have any inside info, just reading the forum
248 2013-02-09 19:10:46 <dserrano5> as for batch 3, I expect another disaster
249 2013-02-09 19:10:50 <jgarzik> hehe
250 2013-02-09 19:10:56 <dserrano5> (let's invoke murphy's law by publicly stating that :))
251 2013-02-09 19:11:01 <jgarzik> gjs278: yah, I was charged $2
252 2013-02-09 19:11:06 <jgarzik> but failed to actually get into batch #2
253 2013-02-09 19:11:59 <dserrano5> I think they offered those items a second time, without notifying anyone
254 2013-02-09 19:13:36 <Luke-Jr> FWIW, OOM killer taking out bitcoind seems to have recovered sync
255 2013-02-09 19:13:37 <Luke-Jr> O.o
256 2013-02-09 19:13:57 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: I presume OOM killer nonsense is outside your area? :p
257 2013-02-09 19:33:11 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: yes. I'm a device drivers and filesystems guys largely
258 2013-02-09 19:33:25 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: oh and networking, though more in the 10/100 era
259 2013-02-09 19:56:39 <sipa> gavinandresen: perhaps it's worth mentioning that you can delete the old blk0001.dat and blk0002.dat files after upgrading, if you don't plan on returning to 0.7.x or earlier versions
260 2013-02-09 19:57:50 <gavinandresen> sipa: meh. they'll be hardlinked, so deleting them won't actually save space. Deleting blkindex.dat will, though
261 2013-02-09 19:58:58 <sipa> right - it won't save space in most cases, but i except "can we delete the old files now?" to become a frequent question
262 2013-02-09 19:59:03 <sipa> *expect
263 2013-02-09 20:00:15 <petertodd> gavinandresen: Has anyone done a "trust-free mixer" proposal yet? I was thinking of submitting a proposal; it would be good practice for the much more complex trustbits stuff I'm working on.
264 2013-02-09 20:00:31 <gavinandresen> petertodd: nope, nobody has.
265 2013-02-09 20:00:55 <gavinandresen> petertodd: (well, at least not last I glanced at the proposals that have come in)
266 2013-02-09 20:02:28 <petertodd> gavinandresen: Alright, I'll come up with something.
267 2013-02-09 20:03:25 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: might talk to coingenuity; I think he had some ideas for how to do it nicely
268 2013-02-09 20:03:33 <Luke-Jr> (p2p, without a service)
269 2013-02-09 20:04:03 <gavinandresen> sipa: a contrib/tidy-datadir.sh script that removed the old addr.dat, blk*.dat, and the post-0.7.2-pre-0.8.0rc1 ultraprune directories would be spiffy
270 2013-02-09 20:04:29 <sipa> gavinandresen: ACK
271 2013-02-09 20:04:47 <petertodd> gavinandresen: Beyond that, for core changes, A: does that include stuff like fidelity bonds and bonded bank things like I'm working on, and B: for funding, what sort of requirements would they be looking at? (IE, only from universities under profs or similar)
272 2013-02-09 20:06:10 <gavinandresen> petertodd: A) maybe B) no fixed requirements, you have to convince the Foundation Board that you're likely to actually complete the work.
273 2013-02-09 20:07:13 <petertodd> gavinandresen: Alright, sounds like a long-shot, but learning how to explain this stuff is valuable in itself...
274 2013-02-09 20:07:16 <gavinandresen> petertodd: ??? and keep in mind the Foundation isn't rich yet, so 2,000 BTC grants to pay a postdoc's salary are unlikely
275 2013-02-09 20:09:05 <petertodd> gavinandresen: Yeah, Google Summer of Code rates at best.
276 2013-02-09 20:10:01 <gavinandresen> yes, at this point grants that are "I'll do the work for free, but need a grant to pay for THESE expenses (hardware or software or whatever)" are more likely to be funded.
277 2013-02-09 20:11:25 <sipa> "due to geothermomagnetic disturbances, this research ideally takes place on The Bahamas."
278 2013-02-09 20:16:20 <petertodd> gavinandresen: Actually, what I'll do is ask for tentative funding for one of the IBM crypto-processors gmaxwell and I were disussing using to back up the fidelity bonds. They're expensive, and equally, funds only need to be released when I'm at that stage a few months down the line. (at least)
279 2013-02-09 20:16:52 <petertodd> (and, assuming I don't find a cheaper way to do remote attestation)
280 2013-02-09 20:17:13 <gavinandresen> petertodd: sounds like a really good use of Foundation funds (assuming your work will be open source / shared / documented)
281 2013-02-09 20:17:50 <petertodd> gavinandresen: I'm thinking AGPL actually, because the whole point of remote attestation is to have the soruce code...
282 2013-02-09 20:18:39 <gavinandresen> petertodd: which one is AGPL? What is the A ?
283 2013-02-09 20:19:01 <sipa> gavinandresen: code running server must be copyleft too
284 2013-02-09 20:19:24 <petertodd> gavinandresen: GPL + you must provide code to remote clients
285 2013-02-09 20:20:14 <gavinandresen> petertodd: any GPL variation ought to be fine (personally, I don't care about copyrights, and wish everything was public domain)
286 2013-02-09 20:21:32 <petertodd> gavinandresen: Yeah, I'd stick to MIT like satoshi, but it'd be good to have a way, however weak, to encourage operators to do the right thing given the technical requirements demand it.
287 2013-02-09 20:25:20 <Luke-Jr> gavinandresen: sadly, public domain means people can't use it at all in some countries (which do not hold PD as legally valid)
288 2013-02-09 20:25:47 <gavinandresen> I can still wish. I WANT PONIES!
289 2013-02-09 20:26:27 <petertodd> I can get you that... spelled with a w...
290 2013-02-09 20:26:40 <Luke-Jr> ACTION backs away slowly
291 2013-02-09 20:27:58 <sipa> ACTION envisions the gate to the Source Of The Ponies being opened, and all of them populating the Public Domains surrounding it
292 2013-02-09 20:30:48 <petertodd> I didn't realize I wasn't the only one with a fine arts degree...
293 2013-02-09 20:31:29 <sipa> ag
294 2013-02-09 20:31:31 <sipa> ah
295 2013-02-09 20:31:48 <sipa> i'll let you write the novel then
296 2013-02-09 20:33:23 <petertodd> nah, I'll help write the grant proposal for the novel
297 2013-02-09 20:33:33 <sipa> :)
298 2013-02-09 20:35:20 <petertodd> Ripple is wonderfully confusing: seems that someone who has extended credit to you creating a trade offer, like "I want 1BTC for 350XRP", is equivalent to you creating that trade offer yourself...
299 2013-02-09 20:54:43 <gavinandresen> I uploaded the VirtualBox 'base' VMs that I'll be using for gitian builds: https://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/GitianVBox/
300 2013-02-09 20:54:59 <gavinandresen> goal: 'gitian-in-a-VirtualBox' that makes gitian building really easy
301 2013-02-09 20:57:28 <petertodd> goal: sneak code into the gitian virtualbox VM to hack the qemu box inside
302 2013-02-09 20:58:36 <gavinandresen> ??? longer term goal: get VBoxManage to build the VMs from signed .iso's or something???.
303 2013-02-09 20:59:32 <petertodd> ...foiling my evil plans
304 2013-02-09 21:00:07 <gavinandresen> the latest struggles with gitian made me seriously start to doubt whether it is worth all the bother and fuss. We're implicitly trusting a pretty darn big software stack not to Be Evil.
305 2013-02-09 21:00:30 <gavinandresen> ??? which is why I keep pushing for multi-device wallets...
306 2013-02-09 21:01:06 <CodeShark> what do you mean by multi-device wallets?
307 2013-02-09 21:01:21 <petertodd> well, even with the payment protocol, multi-device wallets will protect against the evil that gitian prevents
308 2013-02-09 21:01:24 <CodeShark> wallets that require two or more devices to sign?
309 2013-02-09 21:01:28 <petertodd> (most of the evil)
310 2013-02-09 21:01:36 <gavinandresen> CodeShark: yes
311 2013-02-09 21:01:36 <petertodd> CodeShark: exactly
312 2013-02-09 21:01:58 <petertodd> CodeShark: using P2SH addresses + multisig transactions is the most obvious way to do it
313 2013-02-09 21:02:22 <gmaxwell> Big but infrequently updated at least. And there is some bake time for evil detection.
314 2013-02-09 21:02:57 <petertodd> CodeShark: and it can be done mostly automatically by having the second device just check that the change address is correct, and display the to address to the user for a quick verification.
315 2013-02-09 21:03:37 <petertodd> CodeShark: A payment protocol would tie that verification of the to address to an actual signature, so it couldn't be defeated by a virus that causes bitcoin addresses displayed on your computer to be redirected.
316 2013-02-09 21:06:00 <CodeShark> I'm also somewhat of a fan of implementing key storage/signing in hardware
317 2013-02-09 21:06:42 <CodeShark> for the really secure stuff
318 2013-02-09 21:06:59 <CodeShark> or at least use dedicated devices with very restricted interfaces
319 2013-02-09 21:07:44 <petertodd> That's a good thing too, but multi-device support gets you pretty close to that level of security by itself.
320 2013-02-09 21:08:27 <petertodd> FWIW I use manual P2SH multisig myself for my savings... although I probably actually have a higher risk of losing funds due to screwing that up than anythign else.
321 2013-02-09 21:09:10 <CodeShark> yeah, when you introduce greater complexity to the scheme you also allow more chances to accidentally mess something up
322 2013-02-09 21:09:54 <petertodd> Yeah, but also remember that you can do 2-of-3 multisig, which I think would overall reduce the chances by giving people a way to recover their funds if they forget a password.
323 2013-02-09 21:10:20 <CodeShark> yeah, there's also the fundamental tradeoff between security and convenience
324 2013-02-09 21:10:46 <petertodd> Yup, but Bitcoin needs a hell of a lot more security to keep your wallet safe than I think most people realize.
325 2013-02-09 21:11:40 <CodeShark> wallet management in bitcoin is currently a horrific mess
326 2013-02-09 21:11:58 <CodeShark> it takes a lot of effort and discipline on the part of the wallet owner to do things right
327 2013-02-09 21:12:05 <petertodd> Heh, the satoshi client is a horrific mess...
328 2013-02-09 21:12:17 <CodeShark> other wallet solutions aren't exactly much better
329 2013-02-09 21:12:24 <CodeShark> they all have their problems
330 2013-02-09 21:12:44 <petertodd> It really bugs me how unreliable Armory is, the idea is quite nice.
331 2013-02-09 21:14:28 <petertodd> But I gotta duck out for a bit, later.
332 2013-02-09 21:14:35 <CodeShark> later
333 2013-02-09 21:20:00 <rocoo> you, gmaxwell, were in #bitcoin-otc for no other reason than to be a PRICK
334 2013-02-09 21:20:24 <rocoo> therefore, stamit comes to -dev for no other reason than to tell people what a prick you've been
335 2013-02-09 21:21:13 <rocoo> there's basically now way you are getting removed from stamit's list any time this year
336 2013-02-09 21:21:17 <rocoo> *no way
337 2013-02-09 21:21:32 <rocoo> absolutely no way
338 2013-02-09 21:23:58 <rocoo> and it's a well deserved listing
339 2013-02-09 21:24:24 <rocoo> and people joined in to do it to you too
340 2013-02-09 21:28:42 <CodeShark> rocoo, please die
341 2013-02-09 21:29:45 <rocoo> what's with the "please die"? is this like a standard wish for people?
342 2013-02-09 21:29:55 <CodeShark> no, just for you
343 2013-02-09 21:30:18 <rocoo> sorry, but i'd prefer to live
344 2013-02-09 21:30:42 <rocoo> and not just live, but live properly too
345 2013-02-09 23:10:11 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: eloipool pukes big tracebacks, if bitcoind is restarted
346 2013-02-09 23:10:50 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: yes
347 2013-02-09 23:11:02 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: if all of them are down
348 2013-02-09 23:11:30 <jgarzik> tee hee hee
349 2013-02-09 23:11:33 <jgarzik> 2013-02-10 00:11:06 ERROR: CTransaction::IsStandard : ignoring transaction with 1e-8 value output
350 2013-02-09 23:11:50 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: you could run my block_dice branch ;)
351 2013-02-09 23:13:22 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: it blacklists transactions with outputs to 1dice* while retaining them in the memory pool structures so it can block also ones using them as inputs
352 2013-02-09 23:14:02 <Luke-Jr> actually, I suppose it doesn't need to retain them just for that, but it does <.<
353 2013-02-09 23:21:41 <Guest22025> how many of u are mining with asic?
354 2013-02-09 23:21:55 <Guest22025> 1? 3, 5?
355 2013-02-09 23:21:59 <Guest22025> just curious
356 2013-02-09 23:22:32 <Guest22025> [besides jeff]
357 2013-02-09 23:23:35 <denisx> Guest22025: 0, until you tell me otherwise
358 2013-02-09 23:24:08 <Guest22025> jeff definitely has one
359 2013-02-09 23:24:36 <denisx> Guest22025: you said 'beside'
360 2013-02-09 23:24:45 <Guest22025> my bad...
361 2013-02-09 23:24:55 <Guest22025> right u are
362 2013-02-09 23:25:00 <sipa> how large is a 'normal' blkindex.dat on 0.7.x code these days?
363 2013-02-09 23:25:27 <denisx> sipa: 1748369408
364 2013-02-09 23:25:50 <gribble> 1628295898.44
365 2013-02-09 23:25:50 <sipa> ;;calc 1748369408/1.073741824
366 2013-02-09 23:26:04 <gribble> 1667.375
367 2013-02-09 23:26:04 <sipa> ;;calc 1748369408/1048576
368 2013-02-09 23:26:13 <Luke-Jr> sipa: Eligius's is 1.7 GB
369 2013-02-09 23:26:46 <gmaxwell> I suspect we're moving off it just in time to advoid finding out if it has largefile support issues.
370 2013-02-09 23:39:13 <JWU42> ACTION wonders how soon for 0.8 to be safe enough to use on his solo pool
371 2013-02-09 23:40:13 <sipa> Luke-Jr: i thought you used a pruned one?
372 2013-02-09 23:40:30 <gmaxwell> JWU42: a fair number of people have been mining on it for some time now. How closely do you pay attention to your daemon?
373 2013-02-09 23:40:57 <Luke-Jr> sipa: I don't *think* we do on Eligius
374 2013-02-09 23:40:59 <JWU42> gmaxwell: I could pay closer sttention I suppose
375 2013-02-09 23:41:09 <Luke-Jr> JWU42: FWIW, Eloipool supports multiple bitcoinds
376 2013-02-09 23:41:26 <Luke-Jr> JWU42: with block proposal support, it can only use templates that all of them consider valid
377 2013-02-09 23:41:36 <JWU42> ACTION is using a fork of slush's stratum
378 2013-02-09 23:41:38 <JWU42> pool
379 2013-02-09 23:41:47 <JWU42> ;)
380 2013-02-09 23:41:54 <gmaxwell> JWU42: I think it's fine so long as you pay attention. E.g. watch this channel and check the daemon for getting stranded ever day/couple of days. We don't know of any issues why you shouldn't, or otherwise we'd fix them.
381 2013-02-09 23:42:29 <JWU42> gmaxwell: once I find my next block i may switch
382 2013-02-09 23:42:32 <gmaxwell> I think it's _unlikely_ to have problems but I wouldn't want to hear you lost a week of mining becase you weren't watching it and it got stuck.
383 2013-02-09 23:42:47 <JWU42> heh - yeah - I would check it more often than that
384 2013-02-09 23:42:56 <JWU42> 3-4 times a day min.
385 2013-02-09 23:42:57 <gmaxwell> Ideally you'd have monitoring.
386 2013-02-09 23:43:10 <JWU42> ACTION is n00bish
387 2013-02-09 23:43:19 <sipa> JWU42: you understand that switching now or switching later won't make any difference for your chances/expected time to see a block?
388 2013-02-09 23:43:24 <JWU42> know just enough toi get myself into trouble
389 2013-02-09 23:43:26 <gmaxwell> yea, if you're checking it that often it should be totally fine. keep a copy of an old 0.7 directory arond so you can switch back if anything goes wrong.
390 2013-02-09 23:43:55 <JWU42> sipa: yes - understand that won't impact things (short of a fear the new bitcoind might crash)
391 2013-02-09 23:44:32 <JWU42> thanks for the info huys - appreciate your work as always!
392 2013-02-09 23:44:34 <gmaxwell> JWU42: you could also startup the new bitcoind in parallel (just on another port)
393 2013-02-09 23:44:36 <JWU42> *guys
394 2013-02-09 23:44:36 <sipa> JWU42: not that i want to push you to switch - far from it - but it sounded to me like you had the common misconception that there was progress during block mining
395 2013-02-09 23:45:12 <JWU42> sipa: understood - and yes - I can see why you would say that based on my comment above
396 2013-02-09 23:46:04 <JWU42> gmaxwell: I have found "issues" running two bitcoinds -- namely the bitcoind on a non standard port really struggles to get past 9-10 connections
397 2013-02-09 23:46:13 <JWU42> yes - ports are forwarded...
398 2013-02-09 23:46:38 <Luke-Jr> JWU42: 8 connections is plenty O.o
399 2013-02-09 23:46:41 <JWU42> so I could run 0.7.2 on a non-standard and run 0.8 on 8333
400 2013-02-09 23:47:06 <JWU42> Luke-Jr: so the bitcoind for eligius only has 8 connections
401 2013-02-09 23:47:08 <JWU42> ?
402 2013-02-09 23:47:28 <gmaxwell> JWU42: yes, nodes will not connect inbound to non-standard ports by defalt. But thats irrelevant so long as your two nodes are connected to each other.
403 2013-02-09 23:47:30 <Luke-Jr> JWU42: 9 on 0.8, 4 on 0.6.0
404 2013-02-09 23:47:40 <JWU42> well - perhaps - it is more the quality and not quanityt of the nodes you connect ?!?
405 2013-02-09 23:47:42 <Luke-Jr> JWU42: 536 on our dedicated relay node :P
406 2013-02-09 23:47:51 <Luke-Jr> JWU42: yes
407 2013-02-09 23:48:03 <gmaxwell> It's also somewhat inadvisable to mine directly on a node with a large number of connections, because the node will block on realying blocks to its hundred peers and not issue out work.
408 2013-02-09 23:48:48 <JWU42> gmaxwell: so run the non standard port bitcoind with connect=
409 2013-02-09 23:49:03 <gmaxwell> In my setup I had one public node with lots of connections (the normal compliment) and multiple backend nodes with only 3-4 connections or so.
410 2013-02-09 23:49:19 <Luke-Jr> JWU42: I'd do -connect=localhost -addnode=bigpools
411 2013-02-09 23:49:20 <JWU42> gmaxwell: hrm
412 2013-02-09 23:49:27 <Luke-Jr> that's what Eligius's main 0.6.0 does
413 2013-02-09 23:49:33 <gmaxwell> JWU42: or at least an addnode to your standard port node, and perhaps some known good nodes like Jeff's public nodes and luke's public node.
414 2013-02-09 23:50:11 <JWU42> yeah - I have been tweaking the nodes I used and perhaps have been wrong in using the higher traffic nodes per blockchain.info
415 2013-02-09 23:50:31 <JWU42> you all know FAR more about this than I
416 2013-02-09 23:50:58 <JWU42> again - appreciate the comments!
417 2013-02-09 23:56:42 <JWU42> gmaxwell: quick googling didn't get me anywhere with finding Jeff and Luke's node IP
418 2013-02-09 23:58:04 <gmaxwell> Jeff's are 62.75.216.13 and 69.64.34.118 (pick whatever is lower latency)