1 2013-03-27 00:00:34 <doublec> sipa: -salvagewallet fixed the issue for me
2 2013-03-27 00:01:43 <warren> ACTION adds db quieting to TODO list ...
3 2013-03-27 00:03:40 <gmaxwell> warren: how do you deal with users that quiet the db and forget to unquiet it? Disable mining, processing blocks, and accepting new P2P connections while the db is quiet?
4 2013-03-27 00:04:21 <sipa> what is db quieting?
5 2013-03-27 00:04:26 <warren> gmaxwell: too bad for them. I just want a way to safely copy the index.
6 2013-03-27 00:04:36 <gmaxwell> sipa: flushing it and putting it in a state that you can back it up from.
7 2013-03-27 00:04:41 <sipa> oh, righ
8 2013-03-27 00:04:57 <gmaxwell> warren: we don't want people creating broken nodes that way, it harms more than just the person who does it.
9 2013-03-27 00:04:57 <warren> gmaxwell: set a time limit? you don't need much time to copy it.
10 2013-03-27 00:05:07 <gmaxwell> thats one possiblity.
11 2013-03-27 00:06:50 <warren> FWIW I've copied the live bdb many times and haven't had it in a corrupted state. Yet. =)
12 2013-03-27 00:06:55 <warren> For local test nodes
13 2013-03-27 00:07:47 <gmaxwell> warren: that you know is corrupted, it's not like there is a consistency check!
14 2013-03-27 00:08:05 <warren> I would blow away those nodes within hours anyway
15 2013-03-27 00:08:23 <gmaxwell> are you talking about 0.7.x nodes?
16 2013-03-27 00:08:27 <gmaxwell> oh litecoin
17 2013-03-27 00:08:31 <warren> both
18 2013-03-27 00:08:58 <gmaxwell> In any case, it does corrupt it if you copy it out from under it at the wrong time. Just depends on where in its rollback log application it is.
19 2013-03-27 00:09:09 <gmaxwell> If you're lucky it will crash it instead of sending it off on a fork.
20 2013-03-27 00:09:31 <warren> yeah, I got lucky. I didn't care if it was corrupted. I was using -connect and not doing any tx's
21 2013-03-27 00:09:40 <sipa> warren: how about an explicit "copy database" RPC?
22 2013-03-27 00:09:43 <sipa> like backupwallet
23 2013-03-27 00:09:55 <warren> sipa: that would actually write a copy itself?
24 2013-03-27 00:10:01 <sipa> yes
25 2013-03-27 00:10:06 <warren> sipa: that'd be great.
26 2013-03-27 00:11:11 <warren> I might disappear at any moment, power might die again
27 2013-03-27 00:11:16 <warren> bbl
28 2013-03-27 00:47:00 <BlueMatt> sipa: ping
29 2013-03-27 01:15:39 <sipa> BlueMatt: pong
30 2013-03-27 01:16:17 <BlueMatt> sipa: actually, nvm I think I did it
31 2013-03-27 01:16:44 <sipa> eh, good!
32 2013-03-27 01:16:47 <sipa> ACTION zZzZ
33 2013-03-27 01:16:57 <BlueMatt> heh, have fun
34 2013-03-27 03:38:58 <Optimus-Prime> hi
35 2013-03-27 03:39:53 <Optimus-Prime> what's up
36 2013-03-27 03:40:44 <Belxjander> Optimus-Prime: the BTC exchange rate?
37 2013-03-27 03:42:48 <Luke-Jr> anyone awake?
38 2013-03-27 03:43:10 <Optimus-Prime> yes hi
39 2013-03-27 03:43:10 <zoinky> o_o
40 2013-03-27 03:43:31 <Belxjander> I'm awake
41 2013-03-27 03:46:21 <Belxjander> Luke-Jr: do you know anyone with a working FPGA program including sources?
42 2013-03-27 03:47:20 <Luke-Jr> Belxjander: BFGMiner..
43 2013-03-27 03:47:41 <Belxjander> Luke-Jr: includes the FPGA sources?
44 2013-03-27 03:47:52 <Belxjander> compilable into a bitstream?
45 2013-03-27 03:47:59 <Luke-Jr> I believe I linked you to the repo with the bitstream sources
46 2013-03-27 03:48:41 <Belxjander> was that yesterday or the day before...
47 2013-03-27 03:48:53 <Belxjander> if it was 2 days ago then I would not really remember
48 2013-03-27 03:49:07 <Belxjander> if it was yesterday then I have a chance I will remember something
49 2013-03-27 03:50:23 <Belxjander> Luke-Jr: the bfgminer source tree appears to only have the software sources, not the fpga hardware bitstream sources
50 2013-03-27 03:50:45 <Luke-Jr> search for fpgaminer on github
51 2013-03-27 03:51:14 <Belxjander> that one includes Verilog or VHDL?
52 2013-03-27 03:57:43 <Luke-Jr> whatever .v is
53 2013-03-27 04:47:58 <Blaster_> hi guys
54 2013-03-27 04:48:35 <Blaster_> can anyone tell me, once I follow the steps here, and I have the recovered-wallet.dat, how I continue? do I just copy it into the data dir? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=25091.0
55 2013-03-27 04:48:49 <Blaster_> it says to run rescan, but I am not sure why I would need to.
56 2013-03-27 04:49:13 <gmaxwell> because the recovered wallet.dat will know no transactions??? but it should autorescan in any case.
57 2013-03-27 04:49:53 <gmaxwell> Blaster_: with bitcoin shut down, backup your encrypted wallet.dat that is in your appdata directory now and then put the recovered on in the same place. (make a copy of it too, just to be sure)
58 2013-03-27 04:50:06 <gmaxwell> then start bitcoin it should rescan which may make the startup take longer than usual.
59 2013-03-27 04:50:21 <Blaster_> I am doing it on a different pc with a freshly downloaded bitcoin client and up to date blockchain
60 2013-03-27 04:50:25 <gmaxwell> it won't show the txn until its down rescanning (and until your node is synced up, if its not already)
61 2013-03-27 04:50:35 <gmaxwell> okay. same deal.
62 2013-03-27 04:51:03 <Blaster_> so just place the recovered wallet.dat in place of the wallet.dat
63 2013-03-27 04:51:08 <Blaster_> and then just run bitcoin-qt?
64 2013-03-27 04:51:21 <Blaster_> how will I know if it worked and I recovered my coins?
65 2013-03-27 04:51:51 <Blaster_> will by balance be displayed appropriately right away, or after some time, or other?
66 2013-03-27 04:51:56 <Blaster_> my balance*
67 2013-03-27 04:52:37 <weex> as soon as the rescan is done it should
68 2013-03-27 04:52:48 <Blaster_> about how long does a rescan take?
69 2013-03-27 04:53:04 <weex> depends on your hardware but maybe 30-60 mins?
70 2013-03-27 04:53:05 <Blaster_> i am very nervous... I have a lot of coin riding on this recovery :|
71 2013-03-27 04:53:29 <Blaster_> ok
72 2013-03-27 04:53:31 <weex> if you have backups of your wallet and a rescan can't really do any damage
73 2013-03-27 04:53:43 <Blaster_> I am recovering my wallet using https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=25091.0
74 2013-03-27 04:53:53 <Blaster_> I got locked out because the passphrase I used didnt get saved properly in keepass
75 2013-03-27 04:54:34 <Blaster_> I think the recovered-wallet is going to contain key pairs from 2 different wallets, is that going to pose an issue?
76 2013-03-27 04:56:00 <weex> i wouldn't imagine so
77 2013-03-27 04:56:50 <Blaster_> k thanks so much
78 2013-03-27 04:56:53 <weex> i don't really understand how a tool can help with an encrypted wallet but maybe you're trying with a version from before?
79 2013-03-27 04:57:14 <Blaster_> well I only encrypted the wallet a couple days ago
80 2013-03-27 04:57:17 <Blaster_> before that it was unencrypted
81 2013-03-27 04:57:31 <Blaster_> so this tool hopefully can pull the private keys from the unencrypted version out of my HDD somehow
82 2013-03-27 04:57:47 <Guest74366> Hmmm. my bitcoin-qt is rebroadcasting transactions in ResendWalletTransactions() that were included in a block almost a year ago!
83 2013-03-27 04:58:09 <Blaster_> it has found 200 keys so that is promising I hope *cross fingers*
84 2013-03-27 04:58:22 <Blaster_> but I have to wait for it to finish so I dont get a half baked wallet file
85 2013-03-27 04:58:47 <sivu> patience is good
86 2013-03-27 04:59:07 <Blaster_> about 100 keypairs for wallet I have been told?
87 2013-03-27 04:59:11 <Blaster_> per wallet*
88 2013-03-27 04:59:18 <rebroad_> I shall raise an issue for this...
89 2013-03-27 04:59:55 <Blaster_> lets hear it
90 2013-03-27 05:43:20 <bonks> When creating a raw transaction (I'm using brainwallet.org), is it required to include transaction history?
91 2013-03-27 05:43:41 <bonks> I am trying to transfer coins from an address containing inputs, offline
92 2013-03-27 06:00:26 <bonks> Ok so I was able to use blockchain.info/unspent?address= and copy over the input to my offline machine via a usb stick and that worked
93 2013-03-27 06:00:55 <bonks> What is the syntax for bitcoind? listunspent "address" displays all unspent items
94 2013-03-27 06:22:47 <Aziz_> Hey guys, I am trying to integrate btc into my rails app. Any pointer/guider where i can get started?
95 2013-03-27 06:22:54 <Aziz_> guides*
96 2013-03-27 06:43:14 <Blaster_> hey I tried opening my bitcoin wallet and I got wallet corrupted. So I run dbdump.py from bitcointools and I got "ERROR parsing wallet.dat, type bestblock key data in hex: .... value data in hex: 0000000" any help please?
97 2013-03-27 06:43:22 <doublec> Aziz_: find a jsonrpc client for ruby and use the bitcoin rpc api
98 2013-03-27 06:44:03 <doublec> Aziz_:
99 2013-03-27 06:47:35 <Blaster_> can I save time downloading the block chain if I already have it on one PC on my LAN?
100 2013-03-27 06:47:42 <Blaster_> just copy the blockchain over ?
101 2013-03-27 07:15:58 <naxxatoe> the walls, they are coming closer
102 2013-03-27 07:19:33 <Blaster_> hey I lost my encrypted wallet of 16.25 btc, but I recovered my public and private keys from before I encrypted it. I was able to use those private keys in a new wallet.dat, but my balance is only 0.5. Why is that?
103 2013-03-27 07:20:03 <hmmmstrange> you may be missing change addresses.....
104 2013-03-27 07:20:34 <Blaster_> so would a change address result in new priv/pub keys?
105 2013-03-27 07:20:57 <hmmmstrange> yes, if you had gone through your pre generated addresses
106 2013-03-27 07:21:11 <Blaster_> what do you mean?
107 2013-03-27 07:23:52 <hmmmstrange> i'm probably not the best to answer....
108 2013-03-27 07:24:31 <hmmmstrange> bitcoind pre generates addresses for use as the change address when you send coins
109 2013-03-27 07:25:43 <Blaster_> at the same time that you send them?
110 2013-03-27 07:26:10 <Blaster_> when you say addresses do you mean key value pairs ?
111 2013-03-27 07:26:11 <hmmmstrange> this is where i'm not the best guy to answer it
112 2013-03-27 07:26:17 <Blaster_> pub priv keys
113 2013-03-27 07:26:21 <Blaster_> ok
114 2013-03-27 07:27:05 <hmmmstrange> i'm not sure if it will reuse addresses or generate new ones if you use up them
115 2013-03-27 07:28:39 <hmmmstrange> did you try -rescan?
116 2013-03-27 07:31:49 <Blaster_> yes
117 2013-03-27 07:32:03 <Blaster_> damn it sucks losing 16 btc :(
118 2013-03-27 07:32:13 <hmmmstrange> how did you lose it?
119 2013-03-27 07:32:30 <Blaster_> keepass generated a password to use as the passphrase of my wallet
120 2013-03-27 07:32:38 <Blaster_> and so I encrypted with that passphrase
121 2013-03-27 07:32:52 <Blaster_> and then it didnt save the passphrase into keepass properly.
122 2013-03-27 07:33:02 <Blaster_> so now I am locked out of the encrypted wallet
123 2013-03-27 07:33:20 <Blaster_> but It's time to move on and get over it I suppose
124 2013-03-27 07:33:39 <hmmmstrange> how long ago?
125 2013-03-27 07:33:48 <Blaster_> a few days
126 2013-03-27 07:34:02 <Blaster_> i recovered a copy of the wallet.dat from before I encrypted it
127 2013-03-27 07:34:10 <Blaster_> but like I said, it doesnt have my coins
128 2013-03-27 07:34:13 <hmmmstrange> i was thinking of mem dump
129 2013-03-27 07:34:19 <Blaster_> they were sent to a change address
130 2013-03-27 07:34:32 <Blaster_> what would I find in a memdump?
131 2013-03-27 07:34:39 <hmmmstrange> it's too late
132 2013-03-27 07:34:55 <Blaster_> ahh
133 2013-03-27 08:46:52 <Silox> |Can you mine litecoins with scrypt without GPU?
134 2013-03-27 08:47:00 <Silox> |cgminer tells me that I need opencl to enable scrypt ><
135 2013-03-27 08:47:57 <n1c> You can, not sure if you can with cgminer though?
136 2013-03-27 08:48:31 <Silox> |I'll try cpuminer then :3
137 2013-03-27 08:48:53 <n1c> It seems like cgminer does have a "--enable-cpu" flag
138 2013-03-27 08:49:03 <n1c> "CPU only options (deprecated, not included in binaries!):"
139 2013-03-27 08:49:36 <n1c> Q: What happened to CPU mining?
140 2013-03-27 08:49:37 <n1c> A: Being increasingly irrelevant for most users, and a maintenance issue, it is
141 2013-03-27 08:49:37 <n1c> no longer under active development and will not be supported unless someone
142 2013-03-27 08:49:37 <n1c> released but CPU mining can be built into cgminer when it is compiled.
143 2013-03-27 08:49:37 <n1c> steps up to help maintain it. No binary builds supporting CPU mining will be
144 2013-03-27 08:50:51 <Silox> |Yeah, I'm compiling it, but even with --enable-cpumining, I can't enable scrypt
145 2013-03-27 08:51:00 <n1c> :x
146 2013-03-27 11:00:57 <Fanquake> Anyone having frequent db corruption using QT on OSX? Installed 0.8.1 a few days after it came out, never had a corruption/issue before then. Since install I've had a corrupted wallet/db at least twice, maybe a third time. Although both times the wallet has recovered fine.
147 2013-03-27 11:01:41 <TD> which db is corrupted? the chain state db or the wallet?
148 2013-03-27 11:02:17 <Fanquake> Pretty sure chain state. I can't remember exactly what came up.
149 2013-03-27 11:02:29 <Fanquake> Just checking the log
150 2013-03-27 11:11:23 <TD> Fanquake: yeah, we get more reports of corruption since the change to leveldb. we think it's not actually a bug but rather, that leveldb is better at detecting flaky hardware than bdb was
151 2013-03-27 11:11:37 <TD> Fanquake: so it may be that there's an issue with your hdd
152 2013-03-27 11:11:43 <TD> (or flash storage)
153 2013-03-27 11:14:09 <Fanquake> TD: I'm using one of the mac fusion drives, essentially a 120GB SSD, and a 3TB HDD
154 2013-03-27 11:14:19 <TD> ok
155 2013-03-27 11:14:22 <Fanquake> Purchased this year
156 2013-03-27 11:14:39 <TD> do you have more details on the nature of the corruption?
157 2013-03-27 11:15:26 <Fanquake> Looking through debug.log backups to find something for ya
158 2013-03-27 11:23:05 <flyingkiwiguy> wallet tx bloat seems to be a real issue for bitcoind
159 2013-03-27 11:24:49 <flyingkiwiguy> $ ls -s wallet.dat*
160 2013-03-27 11:24:53 <flyingkiwiguy> 184720 wallet.dat
161 2013-03-27 11:25:35 <flyingkiwiguy> is it fine to overwrite the bloated wallet with the original wallet periodically?
162 2013-03-27 11:26:24 <rdponticelli> flyingkiwiguy: You can create a new wallet and send your balance there
163 2013-03-27 11:27:20 <rdponticelli> Overwriting it is a horrible idea, and won't work
164 2013-03-27 11:34:44 <kermit_> jgarzik are you here?
165 2013-03-27 11:35:11 <kermit_> I forked picocoin but an include file is missing: #include "picocoin-config.h"
166 2013-03-27 11:46:42 <flyingkiwiguy> rdponticelli: yes, I understand the wallet shuffle approach
167 2013-03-27 11:47:08 <flyingkiwiguy> why wouldn;t overwriting work? I thought the tx log in wallet.dat is a (poor) replica of the blockchain?
168 2013-03-27 11:47:34 <flyingkiwiguy> hence Satoshi's dislike of listtransactions
169 2013-03-27 11:49:24 <sipa> a poor replica?
170 2013-03-27 11:49:41 <sipa> it doesn't contain the same information
171 2013-03-27 11:50:02 <flyingkiwiguy> is there anything in it concerning tx that can't be rebuilt from the blockchain?
172 2013-03-27 11:50:13 <sipa> time
173 2013-03-27 11:50:15 <flyingkiwiguy> (other than keys, of course)
174 2013-03-27 11:50:17 <sipa> account info
175 2013-03-27 11:50:21 <sipa> comments
176 2013-03-27 11:50:33 <sipa> unconfirmed transactions
177 2013-03-27 11:51:02 <sipa> the blockchain is a last-resort way tonlrevent loss of coins in a wallet
178 2013-03-27 11:51:12 <sipa> to prevent
179 2013-03-27 11:52:56 <flyingkiwiguy> so essentially the wallet recycling requires at least two bitcoind instances for 24x7 operation, including a lot of juggling of keys
180 2013-03-27 11:53:13 <sipa> heh?
181 2013-03-27 11:53:30 <sipa> wallet recyclung?
182 2013-03-27 11:53:51 <flyingkiwiguy> sending bitcoins to a new wallet when an old wallet is bloated
183 2013-03-27 11:54:09 <sipa> define bloated?
184 2013-03-27 11:54:13 <kjj> wait, what?
185 2013-03-27 11:54:25 <flyingkiwiguy> 189MB, 6 second to sync to disk
186 2013-03-27 11:54:32 <sipa> ow
187 2013-03-27 11:54:39 <flyingkiwiguy> yeah
188 2013-03-27 11:54:46 <kjj> I condense my small transactions without a second wallet or second node running
189 2013-03-27 11:55:05 <flyingkiwiguy> I want to keep my bitcoind running 99.99%
190 2013-03-27 11:55:15 <sipa> i assume it's more a problem of too many keys?
191 2013-03-27 11:55:26 <rdponticelli> flyingkiwiguy: No, you can start your node after moving your wallet
192 2013-03-27 11:55:33 <flyingkiwiguy> so simply shutting it down, swapping the bloated wallet with the virgin copy (same set of keys), and starting up seems the quickest
193 2013-03-27 11:55:43 <rdponticelli> That will create a new wallet
194 2013-03-27 11:56:22 <flyingkiwiguy> I understand
195 2013-03-27 11:56:33 <rdponticelli> flyingkiwiguy: If you use the same set of keys, you're almost equal
196 2013-03-27 11:57:13 <sipa> what is causing the wallet to grow so large?
197 2013-03-27 11:57:25 <flyingkiwiguy> testing on testnet, don't worry
198 2013-03-27 11:57:31 <sipa> many keys or many transactions?
199 2013-03-27 11:57:35 <flyingkiwiguy> both
200 2013-03-27 11:57:43 <flyingkiwiguy> 2K keys, 2K+ tx
201 2013-03-27 11:58:01 <sipa> 2000?
202 2013-03-27 11:58:05 <flyingkiwiguy> yeah
203 2013-03-27 11:58:14 <sipa> that's all?
204 2013-03-27 11:58:26 <flyingkiwiguy> lots of small inputs, perhaps?
205 2013-03-27 11:59:02 <sipa> how many incoming transactions?
206 2013-03-27 11:59:25 <flyingkiwiguy> I've lost count, but rather a lot
207 2013-03-27 11:59:48 <flyingkiwiguy> I'm just playing with bitcoind, trying to understand how to manage it in Production 24x7
208 2013-03-27 12:00:02 <rdponticelli> flyingkiwiguy: if you use the same set of keys, you'll have to rescan to see your balance, and all the transactions will end in the wallet again
209 2013-03-27 12:00:16 <flyingkiwiguy> ty rdponticelli, I'll look into that
210 2013-03-27 12:00:42 <sipa> well every outgoing transaction creates a new key for change
211 2013-03-27 12:00:57 <flyingkiwiguy> then I likely have 5K+ keys
212 2013-03-27 12:01:13 <flyingkiwiguy> thanks for your all help, got to run...
213 2013-03-27 12:01:22 <sipa> if you restore a backup that is older than 100 (keypoolsize) new keys, you will lose coins
214 2013-03-27 12:01:48 <flyingkiwiguy> good to know! laterz
215 2013-03-27 12:09:57 <Happzz> how long do you think it'll take a tx with 0 fee to be confirmed?
216 2013-03-27 12:12:46 <denisx> Happzz: that depends on alot of factors
217 2013-03-27 12:15:14 <SomeoneWeird> Happzz, a while
218 2013-03-27 12:36:23 <abadr> Using the standard client, how do I get unconfirmed transactions to me? Would `listunspent 0 0` work?
219 2013-03-27 12:39:52 <rdponticelli> abadr: listtransactions should work
220 2013-03-27 12:43:15 <abadr> yes, but kind of a blunt tool. i don't know in advance how many txns to specify.
221 2013-03-27 12:44:04 <rdponticelli> abadr: What are you trying to do?
222 2013-03-27 12:45:32 <abadr> from a web interface, display transactions-to-me sorted by block. the unconfirmed ones will be in a column on their own.
223 2013-03-27 12:46:23 <rdponticelli> Have you seen -walletnotify to receive a notification when there's a change on your wallet transactions?
224 2013-03-27 12:46:44 <abadr> no! that will be very useful. thanks.
225 2013-03-27 13:10:00 <jgarzik> kermit_: here
226 2013-03-27 13:21:57 <abadr> will the standard client accept transactions with multiple outputs to the same address?
227 2013-03-27 13:22:26 <lianj> not testen but why not
228 2013-03-27 13:22:33 <lianj> *tested
229 2013-03-27 13:24:43 <sipa> abadr: yes
230 2013-03-27 13:25:07 <sipa> iirc there was a bug at some point about listtransactions not showing all
231 2013-03-27 13:27:03 <abadr> now it will show multiple entries, right?
232 2013-03-27 13:31:59 <abadr> What's the easiest way to get the amount of transaction `txid`'s output `n`?
233 2013-03-27 13:32:10 <skinnkavaj> Looking for some help with blockchain.info API and bitcoin in general, anyone up for the challenge? will pay you 0.5 BTC if you come up with a solution for me
234 2013-03-27 13:33:17 <kinlo> skinnkavaj: shoot :)
235 2013-03-27 13:34:27 <gavinandresen> abadr: getrawtransaction <txid> 1 <-- after running bitcoind with the -txindex -reindex flags once so you have a complete transaction index
236 2013-03-27 13:35:21 <abadr> thanks, gavinandresen!
237 2013-03-27 13:35:21 <gavinandresen> abadr: ??? or if the transaction is in your wallet and unspent, 'listunspent' might be better
238 2013-03-27 13:35:48 <Scrat> skinnkavaj: wut
239 2013-03-27 13:39:50 <alexwaters> is the "time" included in a block referenced by other blocks?
240 2013-03-27 13:40:26 <alexwaters> or included in the hash or mrkl_root?
241 2013-03-27 13:41:31 <lianj> alexwaters: the hash is the hash over the block header. the time is inside, so yes
242 2013-03-27 13:41:40 <petey1> is this the right channel to help me understand some "problems" in my blockchain?
243 2013-03-27 13:42:41 <rdponticelli> petey1: Just ask
244 2013-03-27 13:43:46 <petey1> I'm having trouble follwing the blockchain. i have a couple of addresses and i'm basically confused now.
245 2013-03-27 13:43:48 <petey1> http://blockchain.info/address/18SZ6C4oJSgkaJhQ1QE3bVp2ANuStejkzH
246 2013-03-27 13:44:18 <petey1> take a look at the latest entry, why is it sending to two addresses there?
247 2013-03-27 13:44:30 <petey1> in my bitcoin client, i'm only sending 101.24 and that's it
248 2013-03-27 13:44:47 <zoinky> its change
249 2013-03-27 13:44:53 <petey1> here's my other address: http://blockchain.info/address/1MqYGHQHpzcGzYfqFcpxMdpEQkby2qH5Zq
250 2013-03-27 13:44:53 <Scrat> petey1: 2nd is a change address
251 2013-03-27 13:44:58 <sipa> ;;google host:bitcoin.it change
252 2013-03-27 13:45:00 <gribble> Trade - Bitcoin: <https://bitcoin.it/wiki/trade>; Network - Bitcoin: <https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Network>; Virtual private server - Bitcoin: <https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Virtual_private_server>
253 2013-03-27 13:45:03 <sipa> nah
254 2013-03-27 13:45:13 <sipa> petey1: read this: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Change
255 2013-03-27 13:45:29 <rdponticelli> Useless gribble :)
256 2013-03-27 13:45:59 <sipa> petey1: or in short: the wallet you see is an abstraction by the client; internally it doesn't deal with balances of addresses, but with individual coins that always have to be spent entirely
257 2013-03-27 13:46:06 <rdponticelli> Or useless google
258 2013-03-27 13:46:16 <sipa> petey1: if a coin is too large for a payment, it is a split, and change is sent back to yourself, under a new address
259 2013-03-27 13:46:32 <fdasgewag> http://redd.it/1b416y bitcoin lowest price last day
260 2013-03-27 13:46:33 <fdasgewag> http://redd.it/1b416y bitcoin lowest price last day
261 2013-03-27 13:46:34 <fdasgewag> http://redd.it/1b416y bitcoin lowest price last day
262 2013-03-27 13:46:35 <fdasgewag> http://redd.it/1b416y bitcoin lowest price last day
263 2013-03-27 13:46:35 <fdasgewag> http://redd.it/1b416y bitcoin lowest price last dayhttp://redd.it/1b416y bitcoin lowest price last day
264 2013-03-27 13:46:36 <fdasgewag> http://redd.it/1b416y bitcoin lowest price last day
265 2013-03-27 13:46:44 <fdasgewag> free 2 bitcoin http://redd.it/1b416y bitcoin lowest price last day
266 2013-03-27 13:46:45 <petey1> i see.
267 2013-03-27 13:46:56 <fdasgewag> free 2 bitcoin http://redd.it/1b416y bitcoin lowest price last day
268 2013-03-27 13:46:57 <fdasgewag> free 2 bitcoin http://redd.it/1b416y bitcoin lowest price last day
269 2013-03-27 13:46:57 <skinnkavaj> ban this fucker
270 2013-03-27 13:47:15 <Guest5039> wow
271 2013-03-27 13:47:19 <Guest5039> 2 free bitcoins
272 2013-03-27 13:47:30 <skinnkavaj> sipa can u ban him
273 2013-03-27 13:48:08 <petey1> so what's in my wallet is accurate then?
274 2013-03-27 13:48:24 <sipa> petey1: they're different levels of abstractions
275 2013-03-27 13:48:46 <sipa> petey1: the blockchain site will show you the low-level bitcoin transactions, the client shows you a ledger & balance
276 2013-03-27 13:49:08 <sipa> no reason to assume they don't match
277 2013-03-27 13:49:31 <petey1> ok. so next I see this address showing up... but it's not in my wallet.
278 2013-03-27 13:49:42 <petey1> is this a "change" address as well?
279 2013-03-27 13:49:43 <petey1> http://blockchain.info/address/13GgRUUHhvgnBRhNsbi89u2Do1DeixRmK5
280 2013-03-27 13:50:23 <sipa> petey1: typically, almost every transaction you create will result in change
281 2013-03-27 13:50:48 <petey1> sipa, i guess this transaction in particular is confing me badly.
282 2013-03-27 13:50:48 <sipa> that one doesn't look like change to me
283 2013-03-27 13:50:49 <petey1> http://blockchain.info/tx/4672b59ab978e1e5de705c695a212c651197a604602e1a787b03c4ea2370be28
284 2013-03-27 13:51:14 <petey1> my one address is in there and I did send that 3BTC... but i am confused about it
285 2013-03-27 13:51:31 <petey1> what are those other sender addresses?
286 2013-03-27 13:51:32 <sipa> all 4 addresses on the left are probably yours
287 2013-03-27 13:51:42 <sipa> many of them are probably change
288 2013-03-27 13:52:27 <tockitj> can someone fix ticker on #bitcoin-market ?
289 2013-03-27 13:53:31 <petey1> sipa, so if I dump my wallet file, should i see those addresses?
290 2013-03-27 13:53:45 <sipa> yes
291 2013-03-27 13:53:55 <petey1> and if I do not?
292 2013-03-27 13:54:06 <sipa> if you don't do what?
293 2013-03-27 13:54:14 <petey1> i don't see those addresses
294 2013-03-27 13:54:19 <sipa> you will
295 2013-03-27 13:54:53 <petey1> is there something other than pywallet I should be using?
296 2013-03-27 13:54:54 <sipa> try going to the debug console (assuming you're using bitcoin-qt), and type "validateaddress <addr>" without the "" or <>
297 2013-03-27 13:55:03 <sipa> and with addr one of those addresses
298 2013-03-27 13:55:21 <sipa> it should tell you ismine : true
299 2013-03-27 13:57:18 <peawormsworth> anybody know whether the mtgox conversion to coinlab will effect their merchant apis?
300 2013-03-27 13:58:07 <rdponticelli> peawormsworth: Ask in #mtgox
301 2013-03-27 13:58:16 <petey1> sipa, thanks! i feel better now
302 2013-03-27 13:59:11 <petey1> sipa, should all my addresses show up in the "Receive Coins" tab?
303 2013-03-27 13:59:17 <sipa> no
304 2013-03-27 13:59:21 <sipa> only public ones
305 2013-03-27 13:59:32 <sipa> change addresses are internal and not supposed to be given out
306 2013-03-27 14:00:20 <petey1> ok. yeah i didn't even know they were mine. you can see why i'd be confused that coins were coming from/going to some address other than the one i was expecting
307 2013-03-27 14:01:22 <sipa> the wallet client typically does a good job of hiding the complexity behind the scenes
308 2013-03-27 14:01:34 <sipa> but this also causes people to make incorrect assumptions about how it works
309 2013-03-27 14:01:50 <petey1> i incorrectly assumed
310 2013-03-27 14:02:43 <petey1> i guess as long as i have my wallet and know who i'm sending to, i shouldn't be worried about anyone "hacking" my addresses unless somehow they got a hold of my wallet file
311 2013-03-27 14:07:16 <abadr> I've noticed that the raw-transaction 'vin' field doesn't say which address signed for the input. In the multisig case, how can I tell which address it was?
312 2013-03-27 14:08:58 <rdponticelli> abadr: There's no "from" addresses in bitcoin
313 2013-03-27 14:10:44 <sipa> well, that's the typical answer for people who want to know where a transaction came from
314 2013-03-27 14:11:14 <sipa> but it is true that given that you know a prevout was a certain script type, it makes sense to ask what signed it
315 2013-03-27 14:12:38 <[Tycho]> Sadly at this moment there are no other ways of securely send funds :(
316 2013-03-27 14:12:39 <rdponticelli> Well, you can allways get the previous raw transaction
317 2013-03-27 14:13:06 <Billdr> haha
318 2013-03-27 14:13:23 <Billdr> sorry, reacting to that quit in the wrong channel.
319 2013-03-27 14:13:41 <abadr> rdponticelli: yes, but if the corresponding output of the previous raw transaction has multiple 'addresses' in 'scriptPubKey', it could have been any of them, right?
320 2013-03-27 14:13:46 <Luke-Jr> [Tycho]: ?
321 2013-03-27 14:14:16 <abadr> sipa: can you expand on "certain script type"?
322 2013-03-27 14:14:20 <[Tycho]> Luke-Jr: i'm talking about strange transactions.
323 2013-03-27 14:18:11 <sipa> abadr: imagine someone writes an own cryptographic signing inside the bitcoin script language (that's probably impossible right now, but just assume)
324 2013-03-27 14:18:32 <sipa> abadr: and he creates a transaction using that
325 2013-03-27 14:19:41 <sipa> abadr: and then sends it to you
326 2013-03-27 14:20:09 <sipa> abadr: if you then ask 'what address did this transaction come from', there is no answer, as whatever he used, it doesn't fit in the notion of address we have
327 2013-03-27 14:20:37 <sipa> abadr: however, if you're talking about a transaction that you already know is multisig of a specific structure, you can indeed ask that question
328 2013-03-27 14:21:14 <sipa> as you're not talking about 'where does this random transaction come from', but 'what key signed this, out of the N possibilities'
329 2013-03-27 14:23:46 <abadr> ok. more to learn.
330 2013-03-27 14:24:01 <abadr> thanks :)
331 2013-03-27 14:24:55 <sipa> abadr: anyway, i'm just saying that your question makes sense (compared to the frequently-occurring question "how do i find the 'from' address of a transaction"), but unfortunately the only way is to decode it manually
332 2013-03-27 14:25:34 <gmaxwell> ACTION wakes up to a present
333 2013-03-27 14:25:36 <gmaxwell> ProcessMessages (pfrom=0x7fffb0007140) at main.cpp:3747
334 2013-03-27 14:25:36 <gmaxwell> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
335 2013-03-27 14:25:36 <gmaxwell> [Switching to Thread 0x7fffbf7fe700 (LWP 6324)]
336 2013-03-27 14:25:37 <gmaxwell> 3747 if (!msg.complete())
337 2013-03-27 14:25:46 <iwilcox> Oh, that kind of present.
338 2013-03-27 14:26:11 <gmaxwell> oh not that much of one.. I'd forgotten to do an unoptimized build
339 2013-03-27 14:26:18 <Luke-Jr> I'm not the only one who runs bitcoin in gdb all the time? :o
340 2013-03-27 14:27:50 <helo> i just started :)
341 2013-03-27 14:27:58 <BlueMatt> Luke-Jr: nope, here too
342 2013-03-27 14:28:20 <gmaxwell> $4 = std::deque with 0 elements
343 2013-03-27 14:28:20 <gmaxwell> ah
344 2013-03-27 14:28:20 <gmaxwell> (gdb) p pfrom->vRecvMsg
345 2013-03-27 14:32:17 <sipa> gmaxwell: yeah, my assumption is that somehow vRecvMsg is modified while ProcessMessages is still iterating over it
346 2013-03-27 14:32:45 <sipa> but i don't see how that can happen
347 2013-03-27 14:34:00 <denisx> big article in germanies biggest online newssite: http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/virtuelle-waehrung-bitcoin-auf-rekordhoch-a-891169.html
348 2013-03-27 14:35:23 <gmaxwell> sipa: the iterator is ending up with a null pointer, unfortunately because I was compiled with optimizations its hard to tell more.
349 2013-03-27 14:36:32 <skinnkavaj> i forgot to include transaction fee, can anyone help me?
350 2013-03-27 14:36:50 <TD> there seems to be quite a few peers that are under a lot of load at the moment
351 2013-03-27 14:37:01 <TD> it's taking forever to get 4 peers connected when selecting from the dns seeds
352 2013-03-27 14:37:10 <Luke-Jr> skinnkavaj: elaborate?
353 2013-03-27 14:37:41 <skinnkavaj> Luke-Jr: ahh nevermind apperently i got some confirmations now
354 2013-03-27 14:37:44 <sipa> gmaxwell: won't help much, i think- it's clearly a corruption isue
355 2013-03-27 14:38:00 <sipa> gmaxwell: and the code there is valid, absent any concurrent modifications
356 2013-03-27 14:38:31 <Luke-Jr> FWIW, seems a 6-deep max-txid reorg test consumes 3 GB of space with a real on-disk db
357 2013-03-27 14:38:48 <Luke-Jr> so I'm guessing I should just keep it as an isolated branch, and not try to merge it to the main test
358 2013-03-27 14:39:02 <sipa> 3 GB, wtf?
359 2013-03-27 14:39:10 <sipa> measured how?
360 2013-03-27 14:39:31 <Luke-Jr> -rw-r--r-- 1 luke-jr luke-jr 810M Mar 27 05:17 blk0001.dat
361 2013-03-27 14:39:33 <Luke-Jr> -rw-r----- 1 luke-jr luke-jr 2.1G Mar 27 05:27 blkindex.dat
362 2013-03-27 14:39:34 <Luke-Jr> du
363 2013-03-27 14:39:42 <Diablo-D3> OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAND
364 2013-03-27 14:39:49 <sipa> oh, ok
365 2013-03-27 14:39:59 <sipa> i thought you were talking about memory usage during the reorg
366 2013-03-27 14:40:05 <Luke-Jr> ah, no
367 2013-03-27 14:40:16 <Luke-Jr> I probably should measure that though
368 2013-03-27 14:40:32 <Luke-Jr> what's a good way to get <max memory needed at any point of a process's lifetime>?
369 2013-03-27 14:44:47 <kermit_> jgarzik hi, are you there?
370 2013-03-27 14:47:31 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: massif will record that... though perhaps there is a cheaper way.
371 2013-03-27 14:49:17 <Optimus-Prime> Can someone briefly explain to me simply why satoshi can't use a lower # of confirmations
372 2013-03-27 14:49:20 <Optimus-Prime> is it due to double spending?
373 2013-03-27 14:50:12 <gmaxwell> Optimus-Prime: This really should be asked in #bitcoin. If you'd like to ask there I'd be happy to answer.
374 2013-03-27 14:50:28 <Luke-Jr> Optimus-Prime: until 6 confirms, it's possible someone might double-spend
375 2013-03-27 14:50:32 <Optimus-Prime> alright thanks, one more question I have sort of dumb
376 2013-03-27 14:50:37 <Optimus-Prime> how do you reply like that so the name is bold
377 2013-03-27 14:50:47 <Optimus-Prime> new to irc'
378 2013-03-27 14:50:48 <Luke-Jr> Optimus-Prime: that's waaaaaay off-topic ;)
379 2013-03-27 14:50:57 <kermit_> jgarzik, i pm-ed you
380 2013-03-27 14:51:02 <gmaxwell> Optimus-Prime: it's just bold because I began with your name.
381 2013-03-27 14:51:13 <Optimus-Prime> oh lol =0
382 2013-03-27 14:51:14 <Optimus-Prime> thanks
383 2013-03-27 14:51:58 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: even at 6 confirms it's "possible" just unlikely. But, for example, someone who has commendeered 40% hashpower can produce six confirm long reversals with 50% success rate.
384 2013-03-27 14:52:30 <Luke-Jr> wait, it's that easy? :O
385 2013-03-27 14:53:13 <Optimus-Prime> appreciate the help, thanks
386 2013-03-27 14:55:45 <SomeoneWeird> god
387 2013-03-27 15:02:11 <gribble> 228264
388 2013-03-27 15:02:11 <TD> ;;blocks
389 2013-03-27 15:02:57 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: Yes. with 40% hashpower it is... https://people.xiph.org/~greg/attack.c $ gcc -O2 -Wall -o attack ./attack.c -lm ; ./attack .4 6 AttackerSuccessProbability(0.4,6)=0.50398
390 2013-03-27 15:03:18 <Luke-Jr> that's kinda scaryu
391 2013-03-27 15:04:57 <SomeoneWeird> god
392 2013-03-27 15:05:24 <gdbz> yo
393 2013-03-27 15:05:33 <SomeoneWeird> :P
394 2013-03-27 15:05:33 <SomeoneWeird> that maths is weird so i'm just going to trust you
395 2013-03-27 15:05:36 <gmaxwell> this is why I bludgeon people who keep using the number 51 as though it were completely magical. A majority is only magical because thats where the probablity becomes 1 if the attack runs forever.
396 2013-03-27 15:06:36 <SomeoneWeird> ahh yeah
397 2013-03-27 15:06:54 <gmaxwell> But really, moderate length attacks that take two hours and have high success are at lot more interesting than large attacks that take forever. :P
398 2013-03-27 15:07:41 <Scrat> how easily can a big pool operator initiate such an attack?
399 2013-03-27 15:09:11 <helo> so beware assuming six confirms is sufficient when receiving huge amounts from anyone with ties to a huge miner?
400 2013-03-27 15:09:28 <SomeoneWeird> helo, probably slightly moreso
401 2013-03-27 15:09:30 <gmaxwell> s/operator/hacker/ an operator is probably not going to do that, it would compromise their nice 3% of 40% hashpower revenue stream ($103k/month at current market price) and perhaps get them lynched.
402 2013-03-27 15:10:47 <helo> ConfirmsRequiredForConfidence(desiredconfidence = 0.999, hashproportion = 0.40) ftw
403 2013-03-27 15:12:19 <rdponticelli> Well, a hacker story can bring some plausible deniality to a weak pool operator...
404 2013-03-27 15:12:29 <helo> (i.e. iterating AttackerSuccessProbability ftw)
405 2013-03-27 15:13:16 <gmaxwell> Scrat: but someone who compromised such a pool could perform such an attack by making a transaction and once it confirms making a for or so line patch to bitcoind. to reject the block in question (1 line), and not announce their chain until they were ahead. Then they'd reindex their node and give it a conflicting transaction with a nice fee. The difficulty comes mostly from getting the access in the first place, ??? also in finding a ...
406 2013-03-27 15:13:23 <gmaxwell> ... good victim.
407 2013-03-27 15:13:46 <gmaxwell> s/s for/a four/
408 2013-03-27 15:14:26 <Scrat> gmaxwell: you made my head hurt
409 2013-03-27 15:15:58 <rdponticelli> Sorry guys, i didn't want to spend all your money twice, I just got hacked...
410 2013-03-27 15:23:27 <v3ry3l33t3> no new blocks in 45 minutes, is that ok?
411 2013-03-27 15:23:39 <sipa> ;;bc,tblb
412 2013-03-27 15:23:40 <gribble> Error: There's really no reason why you should have underscores or brackets in your mathematical expression. Please remove them.
413 2013-03-27 15:23:43 <sipa> ;;bc,tblb 45m
414 2013-03-27 15:23:44 <gribble> 16 hours, 57 minutes, and 10 seconds
415 2013-03-27 15:23:55 <sipa> yup, happens more than once a day
416 2013-03-27 15:24:40 <Diablo-D3> http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/27/bitcoin-expensify/
417 2013-03-27 15:27:14 <deego> I have two transactions that haven't picked up (0 confirmations) in 12+ hours while newer ones have gone through. Is that normal, or should I be concerned about db corruption, etc.? 0.7.2
418 2013-03-27 15:27:25 <deego> Each had a fee as well.
419 2013-03-27 15:28:28 <TD> well, it's not a great idea to be on 0.7.2 at this point, you need to upgrade. but that is probably not the cause of the non confirming tx
420 2013-03-27 15:29:01 <Luke-Jr> TD: well, there is no 0.7.x upgrade path yet either :p
421 2013-03-27 15:29:21 <Luke-Jr> hopefully I'll get that finished before BFL pings me
422 2013-03-27 15:29:44 <TD> deego, if it's any consolation, there seems to be ~2mb of unconfirmed txns right now :(
423 2013-03-27 15:29:50 <TD> Luke-Jr: upgrade path to what?
424 2013-03-27 15:29:51 <v3ry3l33t3> deego throw a hash or two, just to see how it looks :P
425 2013-03-27 15:30:03 <Luke-Jr> TD: across the hardfork
426 2013-03-27 15:30:16 <jouke> deego: do you know if other nodes has seen them?
427 2013-03-27 15:30:16 <TD> i meant he should upgrade to 0.8.1
428 2013-03-27 15:30:33 <jouke> bc.info for example
429 2013-03-27 15:31:34 <bitnumus> who can be bothered to explain quickly the reason some blocks take 3minutes and others 60 ?
430 2013-03-27 15:32:00 <sipa> bitnumus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_distribution :)
431 2013-03-27 15:32:07 <v3ry3l33t3> bitnumus, someone's asic cluster has hung :))
432 2013-03-27 15:32:21 <v3ry3l33t3> j/k
433 2013-03-27 15:32:49 <denisx> blockchain.info lists 101 total fees for all unconfirmed transactions right now
434 2013-03-27 15:32:50 <bitnumus> sipa, without confusing myself further :) whats the maximum block time ?
435 2013-03-27 15:33:04 <bitnumus> wow.
436 2013-03-27 15:33:17 <Luke-Jr> bitnumus: nodes won't accept block times more than 2 hours into the future
437 2013-03-27 15:33:27 <Luke-Jr> denisx: 101 BTC?
438 2013-03-27 15:33:31 <denisx> yes
439 2013-03-27 15:33:33 <Scrat> bitnumus: there is a (small) chance that no block will ever be mined in the next 10 years
440 2013-03-27 15:33:37 <TD> bitnumus: it's to do with probability theory
441 2013-03-27 15:33:59 <Luke-Jr> lol, I totally interpreted bitnumus's question wrong XD
442 2013-03-27 15:34:20 <bitnumus> jesus, is that not worrying? (Scrat)
443 2013-03-27 15:34:47 <Luke-Jr> bitnumus: it's more likely that the Sun explodes and kills us all
444 2013-03-27 15:34:49 <Scrat> as worrying as someone generating the same private key as yours - not very probable
445 2013-03-27 15:34:56 <bitnumus> Luke-Jr, it could happen though.
446 2013-03-27 15:34:59 <bitnumus> :P
447 2013-03-27 15:35:12 <Luke-Jr> bitnumus: my point is we have more immediate scary things to worry about
448 2013-03-27 15:35:26 <Luke-Jr> plus, bitcoin breaks if it takes more than a few days
449 2013-03-27 15:35:33 <Luke-Jr> so if that happened, we'd need to fix the clients
450 2013-03-27 15:35:37 <bitnumus> lol
451 2013-03-27 15:35:49 <bitnumus> something that isnt worth thinking about until it happens then ?
452 2013-03-27 15:36:00 <bitnumus> being that the probability is so low
453 2013-03-27 15:36:01 <sipa> bitnumus: it's astronomically unlikely
454 2013-03-27 15:36:03 <Scrat> ;;bc,tblb 10y
455 2013-03-27 15:36:04 <gribble> Error: float division
456 2013-03-27 15:36:16 <Scrat> ;;bc,tblb 10d
457 2013-03-27 15:36:17 <gribble> Error: float division
458 2013-03-27 15:36:17 <Luke-Jr> ;;bc,tblb
459 2013-03-27 15:36:18 <gribble> Error: There's really no reason why you should have underscores or brackets in your mathematical expression. Please remove them.
460 2013-03-27 15:36:25 <Luke-Jr> ???
461 2013-03-27 15:36:28 <gribble> (bc,tblb <an alias, 0 arguments>) -- Alias for "time elapsed [calc (([bc,diff] * 2**48 / 65535) / ([bc,nethash] * 1000000000) / (1 - [bc,prob [calc [bc,nethash]*1000000] $*]))]".
462 2013-03-27 15:36:28 <Luke-Jr> ;;help bc,tblb
463 2013-03-27 15:36:31 <sipa> ;;bc,tblb 10h
464 2013-03-27 15:36:33 <gribble> Error: float division
465 2013-03-27 15:36:34 <bitnumus> quickstat on the longest ever block?
466 2013-03-27 15:36:37 <Luke-Jr> ;;bc,tblb 1
467 2013-03-27 15:36:37 <sipa> ;;bc,tblb 5h
468 2013-03-27 15:36:38 <gribble> Error: There's really no reason why you should have underscores or brackets in your mathematical expression. Please remove them.
469 2013-03-27 15:36:40 <gribble> Error: float division
470 2013-03-27 15:36:44 <Luke-Jr> it's b0rked
471 2013-03-27 15:36:45 <sipa> ;;bc,tblb 2h
472 2013-03-27 15:36:47 <gribble> 4 years, 28 weeks, 1 day, 7 hours, and 2 seconds
473 2013-03-27 15:36:49 <bitnumus> totally borked
474 2013-03-27 15:36:50 <sipa> ;;bc,tblb 3h
475 2013-03-27 15:36:51 <gribble> 2256 years, 20 weeks, 4 days, 16 hours, 29 minutes, and 35 seconds
476 2013-03-27 15:37:08 <bitnumus> ;;bc,tblb 1h
477 2013-03-27 15:37:09 <gribble> 3 days, 8 hours, 2 minutes, and 30 seconds
478 2013-03-27 15:37:15 <sipa> no, it just can't deal with astronomicality :p
479 2013-03-27 15:37:24 <Scrat> 64 bit float precision too low
480 2013-03-27 15:37:30 <bitnumus> well i got unlikely then if its once every 3 days
481 2013-03-27 15:37:56 <Luke-Jr> ;;bc,tblb 24h
482 2013-03-27 15:37:57 <gribble> Error: float division
483 2013-03-27 15:38:08 <Luke-Jr> ;;bc,tblb 4h
484 2013-03-27 15:38:08 <v3ry3l33t3> so if it's longer than 3 hours, we should start to worry? :D
485 2013-03-27 15:38:09 <gribble> 1149212 years, 20 weeks, 4 days, 23 hours, 38 minutes, and 20 seconds
486 2013-03-27 15:38:35 <bitnumus> v3ry3l33t3, i think we can worry @ 2.5hours :)
487 2013-03-27 15:39:07 <bitnumus> im worrying right now actually
488 2013-03-27 15:39:43 <Luke-Jr> ;;bc,tblb 2.5h
489 2013-03-27 15:39:44 <gribble> Error: '2.5h' is not a valid argument.
490 2013-03-27 15:39:55 <Luke-Jr> ;;bc,tblb 180m
491 2013-03-27 15:39:56 <gribble> 2256 years, 20 weeks, 4 days, 16 hours, 29 minutes, and 35 seconds
492 2013-03-27 15:40:06 <Luke-Jr> ;;bc,tblb 150m
493 2013-03-27 15:40:07 <gribble> 101 years, 11 weeks, 2 days, 4 hours, 27 minutes, and 41 seconds
494 2013-03-27 15:40:10 <v3ry3l33t3> ;;bc,tblb 62m
495 2013-03-27 15:40:11 <gribble> 4 days, 2 hours, 26 minutes, and 41 seconds
496 2013-03-27 15:40:35 <bitnumus> lol
497 2013-03-27 15:40:47 <bitnumus> there was a 74 the other week i think
498 2013-03-27 15:40:55 <bitnumus> does anyone know the longest block time by chance?
499 2013-03-27 15:40:59 <v3ry3l33t3> ;;bc,tblb 74m
500 2013-03-27 15:41:00 <gribble> 2 weeks, 0 days, 4 hours, 45 minutes, and 45 seconds
501 2013-03-27 15:41:13 <sipa> note that tblb uses the current hashrate and difficulty
502 2013-03-27 15:41:17 <v3ry3l33t3> so you're probably right about the other week lol
503 2013-03-27 15:41:24 <sipa> on different times, it will have different results
504 2013-03-27 15:41:32 <bitnumus> im just an unlucky person then
505 2013-03-27 15:41:34 <TD> yay, new block
506 2013-03-27 15:41:37 <bitnumus> or i use bitcoin too much :)
507 2013-03-27 15:41:41 <TD> 1 hour == 1364 transactions
508 2013-03-27 15:41:42 <bitnumus> YAY
509 2013-03-27 15:41:45 <TD> found by btcguild
510 2013-03-27 15:41:48 <v3ry3l33t3> ttl sent $ 4,144,190.50
511 2013-03-27 15:41:51 <v3ry3l33t3> not bad
512 2013-03-27 15:41:52 <bitnumus> do they keep fees?
513 2013-03-27 15:41:54 <TD> just like the last 3 ???.
514 2013-03-27 15:42:11 <TD> yeah about $100 in fees
515 2013-03-27 15:42:30 <v3ry3l33t3> TD how about 1000
516 2013-03-27 15:42:48 <denisx> block is 462KB in size, BTCGuild likes to mine on the edge
517 2013-03-27 15:42:51 <TD> 1000 what?
518 2013-03-27 15:43:09 <v3ry3l33t3> ah, no, you're right, TD
519 2013-03-27 15:43:13 <v3ry3l33t3> sry
520 2013-03-27 15:43:19 <TD> and another!
521 2013-03-27 15:43:22 <TD> ACTION cheers
522 2013-03-27 15:43:30 <sipa> go go ASICs
523 2013-03-27 15:43:30 <TD> 251 txns that time
524 2013-03-27 15:44:32 <TD> hmm, some node is advertising a chain height of 288267
525 2013-03-27 15:44:37 <sipa> ;;bc,blocks
526 2013-03-27 15:44:38 <gribble> 228266
527 2013-03-27 15:45:02 <TD> actually, n/m, i bet i know what that is. and it'd be an issue in my code.
528 2013-03-27 15:45:07 <TD> ignore me
529 2013-03-27 15:45:20 <abadr> \\/ignore TD
530 2013-03-27 15:45:20 <v3ry3l33t3> i wonder if it breaks those merchant sites that require payment in 'next 20 minutes'
531 2013-03-27 15:45:28 <bitnumus> ;;bc,tblb 5m
532 2013-03-27 15:45:29 <gribble> 16 minutes and 14 seconds
533 2013-03-27 15:45:41 <sipa> v3ry3l33t3: they should receive the transaction immediately in any case
534 2013-03-27 15:45:55 <sipa> if they depend on the transaction to confirm within that time, things will break
535 2013-03-27 15:46:58 <deego> TD: Thanks. jouke: let me go check.
536 2013-03-27 15:48:21 <bitnumus> probability of two 65min blocks? :P
537 2013-03-27 15:48:31 <bitnumus> just multiply them ?
538 2013-03-27 15:49:13 <tcatm> saivann: ping
539 2013-03-27 15:49:22 <sipa> the chance that two given consequetive blocks both take at least 65min each, is the square of the chance that one of them does, yes
540 2013-03-27 15:50:22 <bitnumus> ;;calc [bc,tblb 65m * bc,tblb 65m]
541 2013-03-27 15:50:23 <gribble> Error: There's really no reason why you should have underscores or brackets in your mathematical expression. Please remove them.
542 2013-03-27 15:50:39 <bitnumus> err
543 2013-03-27 15:51:16 <TD> when the megablock came in my memory usage jumped by 40 megs
544 2013-03-27 15:51:23 <kjj> sipa: yes, but...
545 2013-03-27 15:51:31 <TD> then about 10 minutes later it dropped by about 70 megs
546 2013-03-27 15:51:32 <TD> hm, odd
547 2013-03-27 15:51:44 <TD> i'd expect receiving a block to make memory usage go down, not up as the mempool shrinks
548 2013-03-27 15:51:45 <deego> jouke: Ah, looks like bc has seen it, but with 0 confirmations there as well.
549 2013-03-27 15:51:45 <yebyen> the megablock?
550 2013-03-27 15:51:49 <TD> possibly some leveldb thing
551 2013-03-27 15:51:50 <deego> them*
552 2013-03-27 15:52:08 <TD> had to wait to be compacted out or something
553 2013-03-27 15:53:02 <sipa> TD: just the temporary memory needed to keep the block may cause extra allocations to happen, and afaik those don't get removed from RES until they are paged out
554 2013-03-27 15:53:15 <TD> ok
555 2013-03-27 15:53:16 <sipa> even though they were only used for a very short time
556 2013-03-27 15:53:56 <saivann> tcatm : pong
557 2013-03-27 15:54:21 <tcatm> saivann: Is there any magic necessary to make jekyll work without the .html suffix?
558 2013-03-27 15:55:05 <saivann> tcatm : I didn't find any way to do that with the webrick server (jekyll --server) that does not imply patching the server itself.. :/
559 2013-03-27 15:55:41 <tcatm> saivann: So how do you test the site locally?
560 2013-03-27 15:56:16 <saivann> tcatm : I simply jekyll && rsync -> to a simple apache server
561 2013-03-27 15:56:20 <tcatm> ah
562 2013-03-27 15:56:51 <saivann> tcatm : I know its cumbersome, I would wish jekyll would allow more flexibility with url redirection..
563 2013-03-27 15:57:14 <TD> jekyll is not very good, imho
564 2013-03-27 15:57:30 <tcatm> It's easy to extent using plugins :)
565 2013-03-27 15:57:47 <saivann> tcatm : You said you were working on CSS bootstrap? I stopped touching the CSS in case that it compliate things for you.
566 2013-03-27 15:57:55 <tcatm> saivann: yep
567 2013-03-27 15:58:15 <saivann> tcatm : great
568 2013-03-27 15:58:59 <saivann> TD : For static content, I like jekyll pretty much.
569 2013-03-27 15:59:16 <tcatm> saivann: WIP http://eu1.bitcoincharts.com/stuff/btcwip2.png
570 2013-03-27 15:59:42 <tcatm> works well on my nexus 4, too
571 2013-03-27 16:01:39 <saivann> tcatm : Interesting!
572 2013-03-27 16:01:59 <tcatm> still pretty early work
573 2013-03-27 16:02:10 <Luke-Jr> IMO, the only point to jekyll is that GitHub will automatically run it and stuff; but that hasn't worked for us in a long time
574 2013-03-27 16:02:42 <tcatm> Yep. Github screwed up their hook API
575 2013-03-27 16:02:47 <saivann> tcatm : Sure, but I link the "Bitcoin - how it works - vocabulary.." menu. And it solves the problem of the buttons getting out of the page.
576 2013-03-27 16:02:57 <saivann> like*
577 2013-03-27 16:02:59 <tcatm> Now jekyll just runs every 15 minutes.
578 2013-03-27 16:03:22 <Luke-Jr> tcatm: well, the hook API would let us do basically anything with it.. I meant the internal jekyll integration github has, but doesn't support plugins
579 2013-03-27 16:03:28 <saivann> Ha! That is what happened!
580 2013-03-27 16:04:06 <tcatm> Luke-Jr: Ah, That's why I set up a VM to render it and push the finished site back to github.
581 2013-03-27 16:04:19 <Luke-Jr> right
582 2013-03-27 16:05:09 <Luke-Jr> if it were me (which I'm glad it isn't), I'd be porting it to Perl :p
583 2013-03-27 16:05:17 <saivann> :)
584 2013-03-27 16:05:46 <tcatm> I'm fine with anything that takes a git repo and outputs a static site.
585 2013-03-27 16:06:24 <tcatm> A translation plugin would be nice.
586 2013-03-27 16:07:38 <saivann> tcatm : Yeah I tried to make things as much simple as I could while keeping this enough flexible, but maybe there is room for improvements.
587 2013-03-27 16:12:58 <saivann> tcatm : I see that "community" and "resources" are missing on your layout. Do you intend to put them back on the home page? jgerzik was disappointed that they ended up in seperate pages. And I think that overall, a lot of people think the home page needs improvements.
588 2013-03-27 16:13:22 <tcatm> saivann: Yes. They'll be on the frontpage.
589 2013-03-27 16:13:41 <saivann> Good!
590 2013-03-27 16:14:04 <holorga_> eefffkill
591 2013-03-27 16:15:09 <saivann> I'm going back to work, just ping me for anything.
592 2013-03-27 16:20:11 <v3ry3l33t3> ;;bc,tblb 29m
593 2013-03-27 16:20:13 <gribble> 3 hours, 13 minutes, and 14 seconds
594 2013-03-27 16:20:29 <v3ry3l33t3> ;;bc,tblb 30m
595 2013-03-27 16:20:31 <gribble> 3 hours, 34 minutes, and 15 seconds
596 2013-03-27 16:23:05 <sipa> ;;calc [bc,nethash / 2**48 * 65535 / bc,diff]
597 2013-03-27 16:23:06 <gribble> 49465.6854201
598 2013-03-27 16:23:55 <sipa> ;;calc [bc,nethash * 10**9 / 2**48 * 65535 / bc,diff]
599 2013-03-27 16:23:56 <gribble> 49465.6854201
600 2013-03-27 16:26:18 <gavinandresen> TD (and anybody else interested): I'm thinking of tweaking the payment request format, to include "how to hash the Payment message to compute the signature" in the pkiType string
601 2013-03-27 16:26:56 <sipa> gavinandresen: hmm, use case?
602 2013-03-27 16:27:07 <gavinandresen> TD: don't tell anybody, but I've been writing PHP code implementing payment requests???. and old versions of PHP don't support openssl_sign with SHA256 hashing
603 2013-03-27 16:27:43 <gavinandresen> sipa: so use case is I'm using an old version of PHP and want to use x509+sha1 instead of x509+sha256
604 2013-03-27 16:28:08 <gavinandresen> (I'm actually not using an old version, but it will be an issue for some people)
605 2013-03-27 16:28:22 <tcatm> Which PHP versions are affected?
606 2013-03-27 16:28:23 <sipa> seems that the decision about how to hash the document should be part of the PKI system anyway
607 2013-03-27 16:28:43 <sipa> doesn't the certificate specify which signature schemes are valid?
608 2013-03-27 16:29:02 <gavinandresen> sipa: sure???. the change would be "pkiType = x509" becomes "pkiType = x509+<hashtype>"
609 2013-03-27 16:29:27 <TD> gavinandresen: can't we just tell them to upgrade php?
610 2013-03-27 16:29:38 <TD> i thought sha1 is already obsolete
611 2013-03-27 16:30:27 <sipa> gavinandresen: no, i mean, why does the payment request get to specify which signatures are valid?
612 2013-03-27 16:30:33 <gavinandresen> TD: if we want it to be painless to support the payment protocol, and support other hashing schemes in the future, it makes sense to do it now.
613 2013-03-27 16:30:56 <sipa> anything the PKI system permits, should be fine, i'd think
614 2013-03-27 16:31:01 <gavinandresen> sipa: because the certificate just contains a public key, it doesn't contain what signature or hashing algorithms you can use with it
615 2013-03-27 16:31:21 <sipa> ok
616 2013-03-27 16:33:02 <EPiSKiNG-> ;;tslb
617 2013-03-27 16:33:05 <gribble> Time since last block: 42 minutes and 59 seconds
618 2013-03-27 16:33:11 <gavinandresen> TD: "just upgrade" doesn't work if you don't control what version of PHP is running, and based on my experience working at a small local web development shop, that is pretty common.
619 2013-03-27 16:33:55 <TD> yeah, i know that used to be pretty common, i thought the era of cheap VPSs had ended that problem though
620 2013-03-27 16:33:59 <gavinandresen> TD: e.g. department at a Big Organization where there is One Officially Blessed version of PHP....
621 2013-03-27 16:34:39 <sipa> gavinandresen: i'm not sure about that crappy-PHP use case, but i generally don't see a problem with being more flexible in the support hash type
622 2013-03-27 16:34:44 <TD> oh well, whatever. i suppose it's only a minor extra piece of complexity as long as the spec constrains what hash algos are in use
623 2013-03-27 16:35:27 <gavinandresen> TD: yes-- I'd propose just SHA1 and SHA256, with SHA256 being recommended.
624 2013-03-27 16:35:36 <v3ry3l33t3> ;;bc,tblb 45m
625 2013-03-27 16:35:37 <gribble> 16 hours, 47 minutes, and 28 seconds
626 2013-03-27 16:35:37 <Scrat> doesn't the cert specify which hashing algo is used?
627 2013-03-27 16:35:39 <TD> strange. today, memory usage on my node is low and stable
628 2013-03-27 16:35:53 <TD> whereas i haven't changed anything since last time when it wasn't ....
629 2013-03-27 16:36:01 <TD> Scrat: it does _for the certs themselves_
630 2013-03-27 16:36:07 <TD> Scrat: not for the thing being signed
631 2013-03-27 16:36:12 <gavinandresen> Scrat: I'll double check, but I don't think so. It specifies what hashing/signing algorithm to use to check the parent certificate's signature
632 2013-03-27 16:37:39 <bitnumus> v3ry3l33t3, so thats a 65min block, 2 quick ones then a 45min so far?
633 2013-03-27 16:37:45 <Scrat> ah, the hash of the payment request? (or page)
634 2013-03-27 16:38:23 <v3ry3l33t3> bitnumus, yup, pretty slow....
635 2013-03-27 16:39:37 <HM> why are blocks taking so long
636 2013-03-27 16:40:03 <qdii> to be found?
637 2013-03-27 16:40:09 <kermit_> MtGox cant handle the load
638 2013-03-27 16:40:10 <v3ry3l33t3> 127 bucks in fees
639 2013-03-27 16:40:22 <HM> qdii: yes
640 2013-03-27 16:40:28 <HM> the odds of a 50 minute block must be small
641 2013-03-27 16:40:37 <gribble> Error: "tblb" is not a valid command.
642 2013-03-27 16:40:37 <sipa> ;;tblb 50m
643 2013-03-27 16:40:42 <gribble> Error: "bcmtblb" is not a valid command.
644 2013-03-27 16:40:42 <sipa> ;;bcmtblb 50m
645 2013-03-27 16:40:45 <sipa> ;;bc,tblb 50m
646 2013-03-27 16:40:47 <gribble> 1 day, 4 hours, 7 minutes, and 51 seconds