1 2013-04-03 00:00:00 <defunctzombie> that I haven't seen in a while
2 2013-04-03 00:00:22 <defunctzombie> and San Fran area will be a lot of fun
3 2013-04-03 00:00:44 <dtmfx> Eliel: I backed up my wallet, removed all transactions then did a rescan and it finally cleared out the bad transactions and gave me back my unspent 22.6 btc that was sitting unconfirmed
4 2013-04-03 00:02:31 <defunctzombie> jgarzik: how is that asic miner doing?
5 2013-04-03 00:03:54 <jgarzik> defunctzombie: well San Jose, but basically the same thing. :) San Jose is on the smelly side of the bay, IIRC.
6 2013-04-03 00:04:38 <defunctzombie> jgarzik: it is all very close
7 2013-04-03 00:04:39 <jgarzik> defunctzombie: Still alive and kickin' Of course nowhere near the thousands of bitcoins I had in years past sadly ;p
8 2013-04-03 00:04:49 <defunctzombie> heh
9 2013-04-03 00:05:01 <defunctzombie> jgarzik: did you put some away for your baby? :D
10 2013-04-03 00:05:44 <defunctzombie> I am really hoping bfl ships something soon, wanted to get the tiny one for my parents as a novelty
11 2013-04-03 00:06:04 <defunctzombie> couldn't do the avalon one as it is not really a "desk toy" heh
12 2013-04-03 00:06:54 <jgarzik> very loud desk toy
13 2013-04-03 00:06:54 <noah_> Question about bitcoind: Just learning to use it. I understand how to use an RPC call to query the latest block number, etc. But I would ideally like to be notified somehow when a new block is available. Sure, I could have a loop that polls every second, but that seems very wasteful. Is there an easy way to get some kind of output ore message when a block is there??
14 2013-04-03 00:07:24 <jgarzik> noah_: -blocknotify=/program/to/run
15 2013-04-03 00:07:25 <defunctzombie> noah_: iirc there is a flag when you launch it to run a script for new blocks
16 2013-04-03 00:07:33 <defunctzombie> that
17 2013-04-03 00:07:50 <defunctzombie> noah_: I will also note that polling is not such a terrible thing to start
18 2013-04-03 00:07:56 <defunctzombie> noah_: you can poll for latest blocks only
19 2013-04-03 00:08:13 <noah_> Interesting.
20 2013-04-03 00:09:05 <noah_> Still now clear on how to find the "latest" block. If I send a "getInfo" command, I get output that includes "blocks":203380 So, can I assume that is the latest block number?
21 2013-04-03 00:09:17 <CodeShark> you can also do "getblockcount"
22 2013-04-03 00:09:59 <noah_> Would those return the same number?
23 2013-04-03 00:10:15 <CodeShark> they should
24 2013-04-03 00:10:31 <sipa> yes
25 2013-04-03 00:11:01 <noah_> Just verified, that it does :)
26 2013-04-03 00:11:17 <lianj> sipa: [227238, 14749897, 30618105, 34373011], indeed the last ~30k doubled tx count ^^
27 2013-04-03 00:11:33 <noah_> Is there any kind of timestamp to know when the block hash was generated?
28 2013-04-03 00:11:44 <CodeShark> blocks have a timestamp field
29 2013-04-03 00:11:47 <noah_> IOW - was it generated 1 second ago, or 60 seconds ago
30 2013-04-03 00:11:49 <CodeShark> but it isn't absolute
31 2013-04-03 00:12:14 <sipa> it can be up to 2h wrong
32 2013-04-03 00:12:44 <noah_> Ohhh.
33 2013-04-03 00:13:03 <noah_> Thinking about some services that rely on a random number based on the "latest" block hash.
34 2013-04-03 00:13:20 <noah_> Problem is that there could be a race condition if I don't know how old the latest one is
35 2013-04-03 00:13:21 <CodeShark> ?
36 2013-04-03 00:14:03 <CodeShark> bitcoin does not rely on the latest timestamp - it relies on most difficult chain
37 2013-04-03 00:14:13 <noah_> Right.
38 2013-04-03 00:15:29 <noah_> This is *not* what I'm doing, but for the sake of illustration. Lets say we want to run a new version of dice. We use the hash of the latest block to be the "roll" of the dice. If the block came out 60 seconds ago, someone faster than us could see it and then place a bet with inside knowledge. So, we would ideally like to know a cutoff so that we won't accept those illegal bets.
39 2013-04-03 00:15:51 <CodeShark> don't use that to roll the dice :p
40 2013-04-03 00:16:13 <CodeShark> instead generate a random number and send a hash to the user before the roll, let the user submit a random number of their own
41 2013-04-03 00:16:17 <CodeShark> use both numbers to roll the dice
42 2013-04-03 00:16:25 <CodeShark> then provide the user with your random number after the roll
43 2013-04-03 00:16:34 <noah_> Clearly. Just a fictitious example
44 2013-04-03 00:16:35 <CodeShark> since you gave them the hash of your random number, it proves you didn't cheat
45 2013-04-03 00:16:38 <Diablo-D3> CodeShark: nope
46 2013-04-03 00:16:43 <CodeShark> ?
47 2013-04-03 00:16:43 <Diablo-D3> because then I can just guess your rng
48 2013-04-03 00:17:00 <noah_> RNG choice is a whole other issue!
49 2013-04-03 00:17:02 <CodeShark> guess my rng?
50 2013-04-03 00:17:04 <noah_> That's messy.
51 2013-04-03 00:17:15 <noah_> Was hoping to rely on latest hash as source of RNG
52 2013-04-03 00:17:22 <sipa> noah_: hashes are not random
53 2013-04-03 00:17:25 <sipa> noah_: or not entirely
54 2013-04-03 00:17:34 <Diablo-D3> they are not random oracles
55 2013-04-03 00:17:42 <sipa> noah_: as soon as high stakes would be involved, miners can start influencing them
56 2013-04-03 00:17:43 <noah_> But can you predict them (short of mining the whole thing.)
57 2013-04-03 00:17:53 <sipa> no, you can control them
58 2013-04-03 00:17:57 <noah_> Interesting. So not a reliable source of entropy
59 2013-04-03 00:17:59 <sipa> with enough hashpower
60 2013-04-03 00:18:14 <CodeShark> there are many other better sources of entropy, methinks
61 2013-04-03 00:18:28 <noah_> Guess we'll use the number of hummingbird wings fluttering within 0.564 KM of a randomly chosen point on the globe.
62 2013-04-03 00:18:43 <CodeShark> are you talking about finding a good entropy source/RNG? or about a protocol for proving the dice roll is fair?
63 2013-04-03 00:18:49 <sipa> ACTION releases hummingbird poison
64 2013-04-03 00:18:51 <CodeShark> these are two separate problems
65 2013-04-03 00:19:06 <CodeShark> don't kill the hummingbirds!
66 2013-04-03 00:19:11 <noah_> @sipa: :)
67 2013-04-03 00:19:14 <noah_> both
68 2013-04-03 00:19:29 <noah_> Would need good RNG and also proof
69 2013-04-03 00:19:34 <CodeShark> I think the suggestion I made works fine for the second problem assuming you have a good solution to the first
70 2013-04-03 00:20:13 <noah_> CodeShark: Your idea seems valid. Giving out the hash shouldn't compromise anyting
71 2013-04-03 00:28:28 <jgarzik> man
72 2013-04-03 00:28:44 <jgarzik> I need a picture of a roulette table's "history" display
73 2013-04-03 00:28:52 <jgarzik> it's a great illustration of a common bitcoin mining fallacy
74 2013-04-03 00:29:19 <k9quaint> there are mining fallacies?
75 2013-04-03 00:29:41 <k9quaint> or you are mining fallacies
76 2013-04-03 00:30:50 <k9quaint> noah_: if you have a random point on the globe, why do you need entropy?
77 2013-04-03 00:31:18 <noah_> Ahhh - that's part of the secret we can't share. Otherwise you'll someone will poison the hummingbirds
78 2013-04-03 00:38:01 <defunctzombie> jgarzik: do you know what env vars that blockscript gets executed with?
79 2013-04-03 00:38:27 <jgarzik> defunctzombie: same as bitcoind. bitcoind does not clear the env, IIRC
80 2013-04-03 00:38:32 <defunctzombie> gotcha
81 2013-04-03 00:47:13 <defunctzombie> what should I copy with the 0.8.x line if I just want to copy over the blockchain to bootstrap a new client?
82 2013-04-03 00:47:19 <defunctzombie> blocks folder and chainstate folder?
83 2013-04-03 00:48:56 <defunctzombie> or is blocks enough?
84 2013-04-03 00:51:11 <ActiveMember> hey
85 2013-04-03 00:51:32 <ActiveMember> can someoneone please explain to me why this transaction is taking light years to get confirmations.....
86 2013-04-03 00:51:33 <ActiveMember> <ActiveMember> hey
87 2013-04-03 00:51:34 <ActiveMember> <ActiveMember> Date: 02/04/2013 20:58
88 2013-04-03 00:51:34 <ActiveMember> <ActiveMember> i sent it like i normally do
89 2013-04-03 00:51:34 <ActiveMember> <ActiveMember> Status: 0/unconfirmed, broadcast through 8 nodes
90 2013-04-03 00:51:34 <ActiveMember> <ActiveMember> through bitcoin qt
91 2013-04-03 00:51:34 <ActiveMember> <ActiveMember> To: virtex newesst 1EoURKdW7BY2Qp3A2XSJWJRhhB3daqxqDH
92 2013-04-03 00:51:35 <ActiveMember> <ActiveMember> Debit: -4.08 BTC
93 2013-04-03 00:51:35 <ActiveMember> <ActiveMember> Net amount: -4.08 BTC
94 2013-04-03 00:53:15 <jgarzik> ActiveMember: I think blocks are full
95 2013-04-03 00:53:32 <jgarzik> ActiveMember: I have a transaction that has taken > 1 hour to confirm, too
96 2013-04-03 00:53:47 <jgarzik> to be specific, zero confirmations in 90 minutes for > 6 BTC
97 2013-04-03 00:53:51 <PRab> ActiveMember: No fee. Miners get to choose what blocks to include and right now they are favoring blocks that include a fee.
98 2013-04-03 00:54:21 <PRab> jgarzik answer is more complete.
99 2013-04-03 00:56:31 <PRab> http://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions
100 2013-04-03 01:00:03 <jgarzik> BTC Guild is clearing out the queue :)
101 2013-04-03 01:00:05 <jgarzik> 1 confirm.
102 2013-04-03 01:00:23 <ActiveMember> ok
103 2013-04-03 01:00:44 <jgarzik> Took at least 7 blocks for my 6 BTC tx to gain a single confirmation.
104 2013-04-03 01:01:01 <jgarzik> Looks like I need to stop being lazy, and add a fee :)
105 2013-04-03 01:07:32 <helo> there's a scumbag meme in there somewhere :P
106 2013-04-03 01:07:49 <defunctzombie> the fee thing is still a mystery to me
107 2013-04-03 01:08:08 <defunctzombie> as for what reasonable fees are
108 2013-04-03 01:08:14 <defunctzombie> or what pools want
109 2013-04-03 01:08:24 <jgarzik> defunctzombie: (1) transactions sorted by fee-per-KB, (2) blocks filled with highest fees first
110 2013-04-03 01:08:51 <defunctzombie> hm
111 2013-04-03 01:08:55 <defunctzombie> you know what might be useful
112 2013-04-03 01:09:03 <defunctzombie> a rest api endpoint listing the minfee
113 2013-04-03 01:09:05 <jgarzik> defunctzombie: so absent a minimum fee required to send dust (tiny bitcoin amounts), if a block is not full, fee is minimal
114 2013-04-03 01:09:20 <defunctzombie> if you want to be in this block
115 2013-04-03 01:09:20 <jgarzik> defunctzombie: ideally, the software needs to figure out a recommendation for the user
116 2013-04-03 01:09:23 <defunctzombie> or next one maybe
117 2013-04-03 01:09:25 <defunctzombie> right
118 2013-04-03 01:09:29 <jgarzik> defunctzombie: that's the big missing piece, that hurts users
119 2013-04-03 01:09:36 <defunctzombie> yea
120 2013-04-03 01:09:50 <defunctzombie> every once in a while I get emails about transactions that take a while to confirm as a result
121 2013-04-03 01:11:31 <PRab> defunctzombie: There are 2 things that need improvement. 1. Better/more obvious recommendations on transaction fees and their effect. 2. Better/more obvious way to speed up transactions that are "stuck".
122 2013-04-03 01:11:55 <PRab> Both of these have solutions at varying levels of completion.
123 2013-04-03 01:12:12 <jgarzik> where "varying" == llittle to no code :)
124 2013-04-03 01:12:26 <jgarzik> but thankfully the solutions have been talked-through
125 2013-04-03 01:12:32 <PRab> exactly.
126 2013-04-03 01:13:19 <PRab> and if I'm not mistaken there is at least 1 pool that has implemented child pays tx fee for parent.
127 2013-04-03 01:13:35 <sipa> eligius, i suppose
128 2013-04-03 01:14:55 <PRab> one of these days I'll start poking the bitcoin source code, but I haven't gotten to that point yet.
129 2013-04-03 01:15:22 <ProfMac> I type what I think is a correct > bitcoind lockunspent true [{"txid":"blah blah blah", "vout": 0}] and I get Error Parsin JSON.
130 2013-04-03 01:15:55 <sipa> put the [...] between ''
131 2013-04-03 01:16:33 <ProfMac> sipa, tested, worked, thanks.
132 2013-04-03 01:20:25 <Luke-Jr> we should make unit tests for the pulltester..
133 2013-04-03 01:20:28 <Luke-Jr> :P
134 2013-04-03 01:20:45 <Luke-Jr> (though I did seriously come to this thought as I realized I ignore it after so many false results :/)
135 2013-04-03 01:21:11 <Luke-Jr> PRab: my "eligius" bitcoind tags have that usually
136 2013-04-03 01:21:23 <Luke-Jr> ACTION should rename that branch to "mining" or "miner" now, I suppose
137 2013-04-03 01:24:15 <cryptorific> do all avalon systems show the same message on http:80 noatime,commit=60,noauto_da_alloc,journal_async_commit rootflags=data=writeback,nobh
138 2013-04-03 01:28:08 <wumpus> Luke-Jr: pong
139 2013-04-03 01:31:41 <Luke-Jr> wumpus: what did you think of CuteCoin for a name btw?
140 2013-04-03 01:32:36 <wumpus> Luke-Jr: it's very... cute
141 2013-04-03 01:32:48 <wumpus> not against it though :)
142 2013-04-03 01:33:29 <wumpus> but I' m not sure the first thing that comes to mind when they open bitcoin is, cute :P
143 2013-04-03 01:34:01 <lianj> while initial sync it should be called buttcoin
144 2013-04-03 01:34:06 <Luke-Jr> wumpus: I was thinking we could almost distort the Qt4 Dance to sound like CuteCoin! :P
145 2013-04-03 01:34:07 <wumpus> hehe
146 2013-04-03 01:34:54 <wumpus> uh oh :P
147 2013-04-03 01:35:44 <wumpus> cutecoin also sounds a bit like an altcoin, but the coins should have hearts on them and be purple
148 2013-04-03 01:39:07 <gmaxwell> cutebit
149 2013-04-03 01:47:25 <ActiveMember> yo guys, still??????????????
150 2013-04-03 01:47:26 <ActiveMember> Date: 02/04/2013 20:58
151 2013-04-03 01:47:26 <ActiveMember> Debit: -4.08 BTC
152 2013-04-03 01:47:26 <ActiveMember> Net amount: -4.08 BTC
153 2013-04-03 01:47:26 <ActiveMember> Status: 0/unconfirmed, broadcast through 8 nodes
154 2013-04-03 01:47:26 <ActiveMember> To: virtex newesst 1EoURKdW7BY2Qp3A2XSJWJRhhB3daqxqDH
155 2013-04-03 01:47:27 <ActiveMember> Transaction ID: bd174d00ada52fd57e55069bdfc3a7d378e78d4c30399681cfb8924eb1519448
156 2013-04-03 01:49:32 <jchp> People have been waiting for half a day to a full day or even more for no-fee (but still valid/broadcasting) transactions to process
157 2013-04-03 01:49:51 <jchp> ActiveMember: https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions
158 2013-04-03 01:50:06 <Luke-Jr> jchp: complain to your local mining pool that they should filter out DP spam
159 2013-04-03 01:50:34 <ActiveMember> that sucks ass
160 2013-04-03 01:50:40 <ActiveMember> :>
161 2013-04-03 01:50:51 <ActiveMember> price of btc is good though i must say
162 2013-04-03 01:50:54 <ActiveMember> :>
163 2013-04-03 01:51:03 <jchp> Luke-Jr: haha yeah, i was just replying to ActiveMember, i think it's worse today? i haven't been keeping track
164 2013-04-03 01:53:00 <lolant> God this is awfull
165 2013-04-03 01:53:10 <lolant> 40GB left untill I can try my decryption code
166 2013-04-03 01:53:19 <lolant> if it is correct I can have 160 btc
167 2013-04-03 01:53:28 <jchp> Luke-Jr: if your pool offered a 0.01 charge to guarantee a tranaction, i bet people would pay ;-) often times people are waiting for funds to receive and can't rebroadcast a transaction
168 2013-04-03 01:53:39 <jchp> guarantee a transaction in the next block i mean
169 2013-04-03 01:54:43 <Luke-Jr> jchp: I'd bet any transaction with 0.01 fee would confirm in Eligius's next block
170 2013-04-03 01:54:50 <realazthat> sipa: hey, should I use JS?
171 2013-04-03 01:54:56 <Luke-Jr> no pool can guarantee the *next* block universally
172 2013-04-03 01:54:57 <jchp> Luke-Jr: people can't adjust fees if they're receiving funds though
173 2013-04-03 01:55:08 <jchp> i meant next on your pool yeah
174 2013-04-03 01:55:16 <Luke-Jr> jchp: well, they can.. just Bitcoin-Qt doesn't support it
175 2013-04-03 01:56:23 <jchp> you can if you are the sender or can convince the sender to do it, right?
176 2013-04-03 01:58:33 <Luke-Jr> jchp: it's harder for the sender to change it
177 2013-04-03 02:00:51 <helo> anyone happen to have a listening node running in rackspace's dallas data center?
178 2013-04-03 02:00:53 <jchp> really? i thought if you were the one receiving coins, you can't just jam in a fee because standard transactions sign the entire txout?
179 2013-04-03 02:01:23 <gmaxwell> jchp: you spend the unconfirmed input with a higher fee and eligius will consider them as a group.
180 2013-04-03 02:01:36 <jchp> oh i didn't know that!
181 2013-04-03 02:01:50 <jchp> that's interesting behavior, is eligius the only one that does that?
182 2013-04-03 02:02:04 <gmaxwell> As far as I know.
183 2013-04-03 02:02:14 <jchp> that's really cool and a crazy-good solution
184 2013-04-03 02:03:07 <Luke-Jr> no, at least EclipseMC also runs the "eligius" codebase
185 2013-04-03 02:03:45 <jchp> thanks, i'll be sure to mention it whenever someone else runs across this as a problem, i've always assumed you just either had to rebroadcast or wait it out
186 2013-04-03 02:09:34 <muhoo> will clients let you spend unconfirmed inputs?
187 2013-04-03 02:10:19 <gmaxwell> In the reference client you can do so via the raw transactions api.
188 2013-04-03 02:10:22 <muhoo> bitcoinj won't. pretty sure the qt client won't either
189 2013-04-03 02:10:49 <gmaxwell> otherwise it will only spend its own unconfirmed outputs.
190 2013-04-03 02:15:09 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: you mean eligius implements a "pay for parent" policy on fees?
191 2013-04-03 02:16:03 <gmaxwell> Yes.
192 2013-04-03 02:16:26 <Luke-Jr> ThomasV: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1647
193 2013-04-03 02:16:41 <ThomasV> nice
194 2013-04-03 02:25:01 <jspilman> sipa, still thinking about pubkey validation. I was just playing with making typos when entering pubkeys using addmultisig, and definitely it will accept addresses with typos. I'm not sure if that means the EC validation isn't being done, or if it's easier than expected to mistype a valid pubkey, but naive guess would be the former
195 2013-04-03 02:25:23 <jspilman> sometimes you will get a 'invalid public key' sometimes it will take it
196 2013-04-03 02:25:45 <jspilman> seems about 50/50
197 2013-04-03 02:26:00 <CodeShark> EC validation is not necessary to check whether an address is valid
198 2013-04-03 02:26:00 <jspilman> just incrementing the hex value of one of the pubkeys
199 2013-04-03 02:26:04 <gmaxwell> jspilman: most values are valid pubkeys, at least for compressed pubkeys.
200 2013-04-03 02:26:09 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: he's not entering addresses.
201 2013-04-03 02:26:36 <jspilman> gmaxwell - that's unfortunate, for killing coins with typos anyway
202 2013-04-03 02:26:42 <CodeShark> oh, you mean it doesn't check whether the pubkey is a point on the curve?
203 2013-04-03 02:26:47 <jspilman> it does
204 2013-04-03 02:27:01 <jspilman> but apparently it's not such a strict check
205 2013-04-03 02:27:09 <CodeShark> lol - it's a very strict equation
206 2013-04-03 02:27:14 <gmaxwell> jspilman: why do you say its not a strict check??
207 2013-04-03 02:27:18 <CodeShark> y^2 = x^3 + 7
208 2013-04-03 02:27:22 <jspilman> well, then the code is bugged
209 2013-04-03 02:27:23 <CodeShark> mod p
210 2013-04-03 02:27:36 <CodeShark> there are exactly two y solutions that solve it for a given x
211 2013-04-03 02:27:39 <jspilman> this is supposed to check point on curve: if (!vchPubKey.IsValid() || !pubkeys[i].SetPubKey(vchPubKey))
212 2013-04-03 02:27:42 <gmaxwell> jspilman: MOST VALUES ARE VALID COMPRESSED PUBLIC KEYS
213 2013-04-03 02:27:48 <jspilman> rpcwallet.cpp:751
214 2013-04-03 02:27:51 <CodeShark> oh, compressed pubkeyw
215 2013-04-03 02:27:56 <CodeShark> in that case you only get one coordinate
216 2013-04-03 02:28:09 <CodeShark> then yes, there's no way to check it's correct
217 2013-04-03 02:28:16 <CodeShark> unless we add some sort of checksum
218 2013-04-03 02:28:27 <jspilman> ok then - so not such a strict check! :-)
219 2013-04-03 02:28:37 <gmaxwell> jspilman: it's quite strict, the values are valid!
220 2013-04-03 02:29:01 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: they're pubkeys not addresses. ::shrugs::
221 2013-04-03 02:29:09 <CodeShark> I know, gmaxwell
222 2013-04-03 02:29:23 <CodeShark> my point is that there's no way to validate them without more info
223 2013-04-03 02:29:27 <gmaxwell> likewise it's also easy to goof up a raw transaction.
224 2013-04-03 02:29:36 <CodeShark> for any x, y^2 = x^3 + 7 has two solutions in the field
225 2013-04-03 02:30:02 <CodeShark> by getting rid of the y, we've lost our ability to check
226 2013-04-03 02:30:40 <CodeShark> it's not a matter of strict checking - it's a matter of algebraic fact
227 2013-04-03 02:30:53 <warren> why wasn't a checksum included? not perfect but would stop most typos
228 2013-04-03 02:30:54 <jspilman> apparently sometimes validateaddress returns the compressed pubkey, and sometimes the uncompressed... gotta check the logic there
229 2013-04-03 02:31:16 <gmaxwell> jspilman: an address has exactly one pubkey.
230 2013-04-03 02:31:25 <jspilman> understood
231 2013-04-03 02:31:26 <gmaxwell> warren: because its not an address!
232 2013-04-03 02:31:38 <gmaxwell> jspilman: it returns the correct one.
233 2013-04-03 02:32:00 <warren> gmaxwell: shrug, just remove the checksum when you use it as a key
234 2013-04-03 02:32:07 <CodeShark> actually, that's not true, gmaxwell - it's a surjective map that's not injective :)
235 2013-04-03 02:32:15 <canoon> can we do multisig transactions with addresses? it seems like some kind of pubkey address is needed?
236 2013-04-03 02:32:37 <CodeShark> many valid pubkeys will hash to the same address
237 2013-04-03 02:32:45 <CodeShark> but good luck finding an example :)
238 2013-04-03 02:32:46 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, is it just me or goes the cpu miner in bitcoind not work on testnet?
239 2013-04-03 02:33:01 <phantomcircuit> it's been running for at least 6 hours now without finding a block
240 2013-04-03 02:33:06 <gmaxwell> warren: should it print out values with checksums too?
241 2013-04-03 02:33:17 <phantomcircuit> 2013-04-03 04:28:54 Running BitcoinMiner with 2 transactions in block (381 bytes)
242 2013-04-03 02:33:22 <phantomcircuit> and it's actually running
243 2013-04-03 02:34:09 <jspilman> 'correct one'? I know how point compression works. I just was using validateaddress now and it returned the uncompressed pubkey, yesterday it was gave me compressed version. both times immediately after a 'getnewaddress'. just saying, I'm curious what dictates whether 'validateaddress' gives the compressed or uncompressed version.
244 2013-04-03 02:36:46 <jspilman> think maybe validateaddress should have a way to force it to returned the uncompressed pubkey?
245 2013-04-03 02:38:28 <jspilman> I guess you could ask for the pubKey AND the address and validate that way. such a mess
246 2013-04-03 02:38:57 <gmaxwell> jspilman: No. You are confused.
247 2013-04-03 02:39:03 <jspilman> about?
248 2013-04-03 02:39:10 <gmaxwell> The uncompressed pubkey is an entirely different key as far as bitcoin is concerned.
249 2013-04-03 02:39:28 <gmaxwell> You'd have it returning a totally unrelated address.
250 2013-04-03 02:39:42 <gmaxwell> Bitcoin cannot validate something using the uncompressed key with the compressed and vice versa.
251 2013-04-03 02:40:22 <gmaxwell> That a key is compressed or not is a property that goes along with the private key, so that you generate the right public key and address from it.
252 2013-04-03 02:40:43 <gmaxwell> The reference client only generates compressed keys??? though old versions only generated uncompressed keys.
253 2013-04-03 02:40:48 <gmaxwell> Making any sense?
254 2013-04-03 02:42:17 <jspilman> I was saying, if all you can get is the compressed pubKey, if you ask the user for the address of that pubKey as well, you can use the address as a checksum on the compressed pubKey -- yes?
255 2013-04-03 02:43:44 <jaequery> anyone here know of any starter kit for creating an exchange?
256 2013-04-03 02:44:37 <jspilman> if all they can give you is the compressed pubKey, you probably don't want to generate multisig scriptPubKeys from those and tell the user to sign them with a wallet that isn't smart enough to tell the user whether or not any keys in their wallet actually can sign for the multisig (which is all of them right now?)
257 2013-04-03 02:44:43 <gmaxwell> jspilman: yes, you could generate the address from a pubkey (compressed or not isn't really relevant) and use that to double check??? but what are you doing?
258 2013-04-03 02:45:16 <jspilman> without some way to be high confident that the pubKey that they pasted over to you is actually correct
259 2013-04-03 02:45:25 <gmaxwell> you certantly don't want to use an uncompressed pubkey in creating a multisig address.
260 2013-04-03 02:47:22 <gmaxwell> I expect that before we have proper gui support for multisig what we'll do is use BIP32 extended public keys in some checksumed address form. That way you are also not forced to reuse addresses when using the escrow... should also solve questions like how the addresses are ordered in the script.
261 2013-04-03 02:48:57 <IlllIIlI> whats the max confirms to reach 6 and a fork
262 2013-04-03 02:49:21 <gmaxwell> IlllIIlI: Can you try asking another way, I'm not following your question.
263 2013-04-03 02:49:40 <IlllIIlI> waiting on a trnsaction
264 2013-04-03 02:49:48 <IlllIIlI> it already has 9 confirms
265 2013-04-03 02:50:09 <IlllIIlI> im told that it takes 6 + depending on the fork
266 2013-04-03 02:50:14 <ThomasV> gmaxwell, so bip32 is final?
267 2013-04-03 02:50:18 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: No.
268 2013-04-03 02:50:26 <ThomasV> :-/
269 2013-04-03 02:50:46 <CodeShark> IlllIIlI: I do not believe you're using the word "fork" very effectively or sensibly in this context
270 2013-04-03 02:50:46 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: in fact, we're talking about changing part of it for security reasons.
271 2013-04-03 02:51:01 <ThomasV> which part?
272 2013-04-03 02:51:35 <EPiSKiNG-> gmaxwell: gox only accepts BTC deposits when there are 6 confirms over an alternate chain, right?
273 2013-04-03 02:51:37 <EPiSKiNG-> something like that
274 2013-04-03 02:51:51 <gmaxwell> EPiSKiNG-: never heard that, but it sounds sensible.
275 2013-04-03 02:52:39 <BTCOxygen> Also did Gox implement this Litecoin scam ?
276 2013-04-03 02:52:51 <CodeShark> forks longer than one or two blocks are exceedingly rare - they have only occurred a couple times in the history of bitcoin and both were due to bugs
277 2013-04-03 02:54:23 <gdoteof> i have a bitcoin-qt running behind tor, it needs to catch up like 1k blocks, it usually gets only one connection.. i have tried opening the console and doing `addnode <ip from fallbacklist> add`
278 2013-04-03 02:54:32 <gdoteof> on a half dozen or so fallback nodes
279 2013-04-03 02:54:36 <CodeShark> BTCOxygen: Vircurex and btc-e both trade LTC
280 2013-04-03 02:54:43 <CodeShark> but gox does not
281 2013-04-03 02:54:51 <gdoteof> now it is down to zero connections
282 2013-04-03 02:54:59 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: gox does -.-
283 2013-04-03 02:55:00 <gmaxwell> gdoteof: hm? it should get 8 connections without trouble unless you've onlynet=tor-ed it
284 2013-04-03 02:55:05 <CodeShark> oh, they do?
285 2013-04-03 02:55:14 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: within the month, unless it's stopped somehow
286 2013-04-03 02:55:16 <BTCOxygen> gmaxwell: Do you mean litecoins ?
287 2013-04-03 02:55:24 <CodeShark> you mean they will :)
288 2013-04-03 02:55:24 <jspilman> gmaxwell - definitely would not put uncompressed pubkeys into a multisig -- it's just a question of what form the user input is provided in, and if you can validate the user input is extremely unlikely to have a typo
289 2013-04-03 02:55:36 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: it's just not published apparently
290 2013-04-03 02:55:51 <gdoteof> idk how to parse onlynet=tor-ed it; it is running on tails, i start bitcoinqt with -proxy=127.0.0.1:9050
291 2013-04-03 02:56:03 <CodeShark> Luke-Jr: but you can submit orders and make deposits and withdrawals via API?
292 2013-04-03 02:56:09 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: apparently
293 2013-04-03 02:56:23 <gmaxwell> jspilman: If the use expects a uncompressed key, and you were to add it as a compressed on they wouldn't be able to redeem it.
294 2013-04-03 02:56:35 <gmaxwell> BTCOxygen: do I mean litecoins what?
295 2013-04-03 02:57:05 <BTCOxygen> gmaxwell: sorry ... did not read the above messgae
296 2013-04-03 02:57:17 <BTCOxygen> I thought you was answering for LTC connections
297 2013-04-03 02:57:27 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: probably a bigger threat to bitcoin than DP is
298 2013-04-03 02:57:50 <CodeShark> your sentence is missing a noun, Luke-Jr
299 2013-04-03 02:57:52 <BTCOxygen> Luke-Jr: FYI, LTC all time high is now 0.045
300 2013-04-03 02:58:08 <CodeShark> unless you're trying to sound like Yoda
301 2013-04-03 02:58:19 <gmaxwell> gdoteof: it should eventually end up with 8 connections... it might be somewhat slow at first. Perhaps you're having problems reaching the rest of the tor network, can you browse?
302 2013-04-03 02:58:26 <jspilman> ok - that's an interesting limitation....
303 2013-04-03 02:58:26 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: parses fine for me, without yoda
304 2013-04-03 02:58:49 <CodeShark> you mean you think litecoin is a bigger threat to bitcoin than DP?
305 2013-04-03 02:58:59 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: I mean I think MtGox trading Litecoin is
306 2013-04-03 02:59:00 <Diablo-D3> http://gewt.net/pics/decserver/photo-1.jpg
307 2013-04-03 02:59:01 <Diablo-D3> hahah
308 2013-04-03 02:59:10 <Diablo-D3> see the smaller long chip?
309 2013-04-03 02:59:12 <Diablo-D3> thats a network controller.
310 2013-04-03 02:59:19 <CodeShark> Luke-Jr: why?
311 2013-04-03 02:59:25 <Diablo-D3> doesnt even have the MAU
312 2013-04-03 02:59:49 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: MtGox practically represents Bitcoin. When people see it promoting a scam, they're going to think Bitcoin is just another scam too
313 2013-04-03 03:00:12 <CodeShark> how is litecoin any more a scam than bitcoin?
314 2013-04-03 03:00:34 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: it's a classic pump and dump
315 2013-04-03 03:00:55 <jspilman> the wallet will see the compressed pubKey and just not realize that it has the right privKey - because decompression is expensive, and so the lookup will just miss?
316 2013-04-03 03:01:03 <bernard75> haha, and what happened in the last hours with btc?
317 2013-04-03 03:01:19 <gmaxwell> jspilman: no, because as far as the system is concerned they are entirely different keys.
318 2013-04-03 03:01:27 <CodeShark> Luke-Jr: only time will tell whether the same won't be said for bitcoin :)
319 2013-04-03 03:01:35 <gmaxwell> jspilman: it just has no idea that compression/decompression exist. They're just different.
320 2013-04-03 03:01:49 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: Bitcoin experts constantly correct misinformation, even when it's perceived positively
321 2013-04-03 03:02:00 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: and Bitcoin has innovative reasons for its probable success
322 2013-04-03 03:02:12 <gmaxwell> LTC debate -> elsewhere please
323 2013-04-03 03:02:22 <Luke-Jr> Litecoin has no reasons for usage, and derives its value from popularizing misinformation
324 2013-04-03 03:02:48 <CodeShark> Litecoin can still be mined on CPUs :)
325 2013-04-03 03:02:56 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: #eligius
326 2013-04-03 03:03:14 <jgarzik> seconded. this is not #ltc-dev.
327 2013-04-03 03:03:30 <Luke-Jr> #litecoin would work too
328 2013-04-03 03:04:00 <lianj> gmaxwell: doesnt hurt for a service if it watches for both though? (un/compressed address from a privkey)
329 2013-04-03 03:04:09 <Diablo-D3> the bigger long chip is a 68k
330 2013-04-03 03:04:22 <Diablo-D3> I still cant figure out what the square is
331 2013-04-03 03:04:46 <Diablo-D3> its a LSI LIA2193 whatever that is
332 2013-04-03 03:05:50 <gmaxwell> lianj: they're different keys as far as the bitcoin system itself is concerned. E.g. it's like watching for addr(pubkey(privkey)) and addr(pubkey(privkey+1)) I don't see how watching for it could hurt, unless it enables some broken software that does the wrong thing.
333 2013-04-03 03:06:20 <helo> ERROR: ProcessBlock() : already have block 137480 0000000000000582c3df7b9fdfa3d390763e2cd5c28dde438934f425a5a53fab with sequentially increasing blocks from the same ip, rating not changing (0 -> 0)
334 2013-04-03 03:06:41 <jspilman> you mentioned new version will only generate compressed -- is that a very recent change? v0.8.0 is giving me uncompressed for new addresses
335 2013-04-03 03:07:17 <gmaxwell> jspilman: it's as of 0.6 IIRC, but if your wallet version is old it will still give you uncompressed in order to be compatible with older software.
336 2013-04-03 03:07:27 <gmaxwell> well, and until you drain your keypool
337 2013-04-03 03:07:56 <lianj> gmaxwell: just thinking to migrate uncompressed pubkey addresses to use the compressed pubkey in sig scripts and also watch for incoming txs to that compressed pubkey address then in case someone sends/returns funds there
338 2013-04-03 03:08:19 <jspilman> ok, that makes sense -- I'm surprised my wallet.dat is that old, but ok
339 2013-04-03 03:08:20 <gmaxwell> you cannot do that.
340 2013-04-03 03:08:21 <lianj> oh wait, that doesnt even work
341 2013-04-03 03:08:24 <lianj> true
342 2013-04-03 03:08:27 <lianj> meh
343 2013-04-03 03:09:22 <frac> hello, I'm a bit confused about the functionality of getrawtransaction and i was hoping someone could clear that up for me
344 2013-04-03 03:09:22 <jspilman> so basically if you get a uncompressed pubkey from someone and you're trying to build a multisig -- tell them what exactly? :-)
345 2013-04-03 03:09:53 <jspilman> wait for v1
346 2013-04-03 03:09:56 <jspilman> lol
347 2013-04-03 03:10:26 <gmaxwell> jspilman: huh?
348 2013-04-03 03:10:35 <gmaxwell> frac: Whats your question?
349 2013-04-03 03:11:23 <frac> how does one go about obtaining a txid to be able to check confirmations of a transaction without importing it into the wallet. i don't know how i'd obtain the txid if I wasn't the one who initiated the payment so I'm not sure how I'd check for confirmation
350 2013-04-03 03:11:35 <gmaxwell> jspilman: you can use them, but they'll substantially increase the size of your signatures. You should probably ask the person to get you a compressed one.
351 2013-04-03 03:12:17 <gmaxwell> frac: If the transaction was destined to you, and the address is in your wallet??? you should see it under listtransactions (at a minimum once it has confirmed)
352 2013-04-03 03:12:28 <jspilman> right - which would mean just executing getnewaddress/validateaddress until you get there
353 2013-04-03 03:12:42 <gmaxwell> frac: otherwise, the only way to get a transaction id is to get it from the sender
354 2013-04-03 03:12:47 <frac> yes, im wondering how to check without having to import the private key into the wallet
355 2013-04-03 03:12:59 <frac> how does bitcoind do it, check the blockchain itself?
356 2013-04-03 03:13:29 <gmaxwell> jspilman: after upgrading the wallet version.
357 2013-04-03 03:13:44 <frac> like when bitcoind/bitcoin-qt shows incoming transactions starting with 0 and so on confirmations
358 2013-04-03 03:13:50 <gmaxwell> (I don't mean bitcoin-qt, I mean the wallet.dat version)
359 2013-04-03 03:13:57 <realazthat> is there a way to denote a satoshi value?
360 2013-04-03 03:14:07 <gmaxwell> frac: they watch the blocks as they come in and check their transactions against the list of transactions in the wallet.
361 2013-04-03 03:14:08 <frac> how would one go about repeating that functiionality without importing into the wallet
362 2013-04-03 03:14:10 <realazthat> (convention)
363 2013-04-03 03:14:18 <frac> yeah i thought so
364 2013-04-03 03:14:29 <frac> so i'd need to somehow scan the blocks myself
365 2013-04-03 03:14:33 <gmaxwell> realazthat: "0.00000001"
366 2013-04-03 03:14:42 <gmaxwell> frac: do you know the relevant address?
367 2013-04-03 03:14:43 <frac> assuming im not importing into the wallet, thank you very much gmaxwell
368 2013-04-03 03:14:51 <frac> hmm yeah
369 2013-04-03 03:14:55 <frac> like this use case is say
370 2013-04-03 03:15:07 <frac> im providing a web service and a user gets a new address to send me money
371 2013-04-03 03:15:07 <gmaxwell> frac: you could go look up the txid in a third party service... then getrawtransaction <that> 1
372 2013-04-03 03:15:18 <frac> im not sure i want to import this into a wallet
373 2013-04-03 03:15:32 <gmaxwell> frac: you want a "watch only wallet"
374 2013-04-03 03:15:37 <frac> yeah thats what ive figured so far, use an api like blockchain.info or whatever
375 2013-04-03 03:15:37 <realazthat> gmaxwell: yeah I meant like STS or somesuch abbreviation
376 2013-04-03 03:15:47 <wumpus> realazthat: I guess nBTC=0.1 satoshi comes closest, satoshi is not a SI unit
377 2013-04-03 03:15:48 <frac> oh okay
378 2013-04-03 03:16:38 <gmaxwell> frac: I don't think any local (?) implements watch-only-wallets right now, but they're certantly on the radar. Once we have multi-wallet support in bitcoind/bitcoin-qt watch only shouldn't be hard to add.
379 2013-04-03 03:16:41 <realazthat> wait
380 2013-04-03 03:16:41 <realazthat> wumpus: ah ok
381 2013-04-03 03:16:41 <realazthat> wumpus as in wumpus ?
382 2013-04-03 03:16:50 <frac> yeah see
383 2013-04-03 03:16:53 <realazthat> wumpus: lol it is you
384 2013-04-03 03:16:56 <wumpus> realazthat: lol what?
385 2013-04-03 03:17:00 <frac> thats basically what im trying to implement myself essentially
386 2013-04-03 03:17:02 <Luke-Jr> wumpus: you're famous! :P
387 2013-04-03 03:17:05 <frac> is multiple wallets but its not easy
388 2013-04-03 03:17:09 <wumpus> woooo :D
389 2013-04-03 03:17:12 <frac> im running into wall after wall
390 2013-04-03 03:17:20 <Luke-Jr> frac: the code for multiple wallets is pretty much all done (by CodeShark)
391 2013-04-03 03:17:28 <Luke-Jr> (and sipa under the hood)
392 2013-04-03 03:17:30 <realazthat> wumpus: lol, you idling in too many channels :P
393 2013-04-03 03:17:37 <gmaxwell> presumably frac is building something externally.
394 2013-04-03 03:17:47 <gmaxwell> ACTION imagines sipa with a shark handpuppet.
395 2013-04-03 03:17:54 <frac> you guys are awesome
396 2013-04-03 03:18:04 <frac> ive come in here many times and always get helped
397 2013-04-03 03:18:07 <frac> i really appreciate it
398 2013-04-03 03:18:43 <gmaxwell> ACTION makes a note to ban more newbies (they're getting too comfortable)
399 2013-04-03 03:19:18 <Diablo-D3> lol
400 2013-04-03 03:19:24 <Diablo-D3> hey gmaxwell did you look at that image?
401 2013-04-03 03:19:28 <helo> since the value has gone up 10x, it would be really nice if 2.5btc was a lifetime foundation membership instead of annual now :/
402 2013-04-03 03:19:42 <Diablo-D3> I wonder what that lsi lia2193 is
403 2013-04-03 03:19:58 <Diablo-D3> helo: yeah really
404 2013-04-03 03:20:09 <Luke-Jr> gavin must have a really nice salary now..
405 2013-04-03 03:20:13 <Diablo-D3> memberships should be done in USD
406 2013-04-03 03:20:28 <wumpus> helo: yes, the foundation membership prices are crazy now
407 2013-04-03 03:20:34 <phantomcircuit> sigh
408 2013-04-03 03:20:51 <helo> no shit... hopefully his salary bloat it helps to temper the stress of such insane growth
409 2013-04-03 03:20:52 <phantomcircuit> still cant generate a testnet block
410 2013-04-03 03:21:04 <phantomcircuit> im *pretty* sure cpu mining on testnet is broken in the clietn
411 2013-04-03 03:21:10 <phantomcircuit> can anybody confirm?
412 2013-04-03 03:21:13 <helo> phantomcircuit: it was working last week
413 2013-04-03 03:21:24 <ypSami> Which foundation?
414 2013-04-03 03:21:30 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: it was working when I last used it.
415 2013-04-03 03:21:32 <helo> if you need some tnbtc, i have some on my phone i can send you
416 2013-04-03 03:22:10 <Luke-Jr> ypSami: are there multiple already?
417 2013-04-03 03:22:17 <helo> ypSami: bitcoinfoundation.org
418 2013-04-03 03:22:25 <ypSami> helo: thanks
419 2013-04-03 03:22:42 <jspilman> I cpu mined a block on testnet yesterday, 0.8.0 tho I think
420 2013-04-03 03:22:59 <wumpus> the second bitcoin foundation?
421 2013-04-03 03:25:27 <Diablo-D3> man
422 2013-04-03 03:25:31 <Diablo-D3> I should do this
423 2013-04-03 03:25:35 <Diablo-D3> invest in DMC 2.0
424 2013-04-03 03:25:44 <Diablo-D3> and DMC will become a platinum corporate member
425 2013-04-03 03:27:16 <phantomcircuit> sigh
426 2013-04-03 03:27:49 <Diablo-D3> that'd be awesome
427 2013-04-03 03:37:15 <helo> is SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY canonical?
428 2013-04-03 03:39:20 <gmaxwell> helo: in what way?
429 2013-04-03 03:39:42 <gdoteof> 00:57 <@gmaxwell> gdoteof: it should eventually end up with 8 connections... it might be somewhat slow at first. Perhaps you're having problems reaching the rest of the tor network, can you browse?
430 2013-04-03 03:39:50 <gdoteof> ^^ yes
431 2013-04-03 03:40:07 <gdoteof> i can browse, it all seems fine
432 2013-04-03 03:40:14 <gdoteof> addnode doesn't give me any feedback when ir un it
433 2013-04-03 03:40:35 <gdoteof> no error, but still zero connections
434 2013-04-03 03:42:16 <helo> gmaxwell: i guess i'm interested in whether such a (satisfied) transaction will be relayed and mined
435 2013-04-03 03:43:08 <gmaxwell> helo: they're not non-standard.
436 2013-04-03 03:43:25 <helo> neato
437 2013-04-03 03:43:31 <gmaxwell> gdoteof: are you sure the port is right for your proxy setup?
438 2013-04-03 03:45:04 <gdoteof> i will check 100%, but i had connections before
439 2013-04-03 03:45:17 <peawormsworth> at some point in the future when the price of bitcoin is more stable... i expect some online vendors will fix their prices in bitcoin... rather then setting the bitcoin price against some fixed fiat currency.
440 2013-04-03 03:45:32 <peawormsworth> if anyone sees bitcoin as the constant, it should be you... the miners, because it requires no more work to create a fixed amount of coins over time. The price change is simply a benefit, should you choose to convert it.
441 2013-04-03 03:45:47 <peawormsworth> I mention this because someone was saying the 2.5 BTC is too much for annual membership. But maybe it should not be about the fiat cost, but the cost of processing labour... which is constant no matter what the bitcoin value is.
442 2013-04-03 03:46:19 <peawormsworth> but... i am not invested in this... so i have no real say.
443 2013-04-03 03:46:31 <gmaxwell> peawormsworth: uh? This is #bitcoin-dev not #bitcoin-mining. ... though the work required for mining is not constant at all.
444 2013-04-03 03:46:39 <peawormsworth> o.
445 2013-04-03 03:46:50 <gmaxwell> ;;bc,diff
446 2013-04-03 03:46:51 <gribble> Error: "bc,diff" is not a valid command.
447 2013-04-03 03:46:54 <gmaxwell> ;;diff
448 2013-04-03 03:46:55 <gribble> 6695826.282596251
449 2013-04-03 03:47:51 <gmaxwell> at the moment it is 13,391,652 times more difficult to generate a bitcoin than it was when bitcoin started.
450 2013-04-03 03:49:10 <peawormsworth> thanks gmaxwell... i have a lot to learn.
451 2013-04-03 03:52:02 <dust-otc_> if bitcoind hangs on startup with "Loading block index..." as the last line in debug.log, is there anything that can be done besides deleting the blockchain and redownloading?
452 2013-04-03 03:52:21 <dust-otc_> blew a circuit so the db was not shutdown cleanly..
453 2013-04-03 03:52:32 <gmaxwell> dust-otc_: what version is this?
454 2013-04-03 03:53:03 <gmaxwell> and have you tried just letting it sit for a bit? What OS too?
455 2013-04-03 03:53:20 <dust-otc_> ubuntu, i'm letting it sit now
456 2013-04-03 03:53:35 <dust-otc_> BTC actually recovered, some altchains (based on older bitcoin versions) have not
457 2013-04-03 03:53:55 <gdoteof> gmaxwell: can i trust that when i hit apply to change my proxy settings in network that the proxy changes ar ebeing made, or do i need to restart with the -prxoy= flag?
458 2013-04-03 03:54:17 <dust-otc_> but it looks like the solution is to wait..
459 2013-04-03 03:54:54 <jgarzik> sigh
460 2013-04-03 03:54:56 <jgarzik> thank you boost
461 2013-04-03 03:54:59 <gmaxwell> gdoteof: in tails it should even work without the proxy.... but as far as I know the gui setting shoudl work.
462 2013-04-03 03:55:05 <jgarzik> sometimes, exit(0) does not work
463 2013-04-03 03:55:15 <jgarzik> sometimes, the process hangs around, waiting on a futex
464 2013-04-03 03:56:27 <gmaxwell> _exit(0) :P ?
465 2013-04-03 03:56:38 <gdoteof> gmaxwell: i could not get it to work without a proxy, is et the proxy to 127.0.0.1:9050 (default tails setup)
466 2013-04-03 03:56:54 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: <grin> already rebuilding with that change, as a matter of fact
467 2013-04-03 03:56:59 <gdoteof> and then i got some connections.
468 2013-04-03 03:57:12 <gdoteof> but still only 2-3 i think at the max
469 2013-04-03 03:58:20 <dust-otc_> gmaxwell: all coins recovered with no interaction, thx
470 2013-04-03 03:58:56 <gmaxwell> gdoteof: odd. I really don't know what to suggest; I use bitcoin over tor every day and other than it being a bit slow to get up initial connections I've never seen anything like what you're describing.
471 2013-04-03 04:00:52 <jgarzik> Jelly beans: eat the licorice first, and get it over with
472 2013-04-03 04:01:25 <jgarzik> yep, _exit() fixes it ;p
473 2013-04-03 04:01:56 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: you don't like the licorice ones? I love licorice.
474 2013-04-03 04:02:25 <jgarzik> of course, just a stop-gap. real solution is to find the culprit who wants a futex. probably a statically declared class instance at module level, somewhere.
475 2013-04-03 04:03:15 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: going the crash-only-programming route?
476 2013-04-03 04:03:33 <jgarzik> ACTION ponders a v0 of this project: make the blockchain engine a thread first, and get everyone talking to the blockchain engine via pipe. then fork. makes it easier to bring things over piecemeal, and test piecemeal, rather than all-at-once.
477 2013-04-03 04:03:58 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: well for the child process, we don't really care what it is, most likely
478 2013-04-03 04:04:15 <jgarzik> so ignore + _exit is probably ok
479 2013-04-03 04:06:06 <jgarzik> ideally the fork point would be before any of that C++ crap gets initialized, but that is not realistic
480 2013-04-03 04:06:59 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: well global stuff gets inited before main.
481 2013-04-03 04:07:15 <jgarzik> precisely why it's a pain
482 2013-04-03 04:07:42 <gmaxwell> but perhaps later there is just a thin startup process that doesn't have any of that stuff and only starts the children and gets them talking.
483 2013-04-03 04:09:55 <jgarzik> INN did that for security purposes, and everybody hated it ;p
484 2013-04-03 04:10:03 <jgarzik> innd-start, IIRC
485 2013-04-03 04:13:31 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: hm. Well its also a good place to put the seccomp2 wrapper stuff. :P The security argument is getting stronger over time. :P
486 2013-04-03 04:14:31 <jgarzik> oh well. You're probably right, but that is for another night. Time to see if Monster Hunter is a silly book.
487 2013-04-03 04:16:38 <phantomcircuit> "difficulty" : 11.90472507,
488 2013-04-03 04:16:39 <phantomcircuit> wat
489 2013-04-03 04:16:45 <phantomcircuit> why is testnet difficulty not 1 :/
490 2013-04-03 04:17:17 <phantomcircuit> the wallet with all my testnet coins takes literally 6 hours to load
491 2013-04-03 04:17:21 <phantomcircuit> i'd rather not go there
492 2013-04-03 04:18:22 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: doesn't really matter what the difficulty is.
493 2013-04-03 04:18:38 <phantomcircuit> ;;genrate
494 2013-04-03 04:18:39 <gribble> (genrate <hashrate> [<difficulty>]) -- Calculate expected bitcoin generation rate using <hashrate> Mhps, at current difficulty. If optional <difficulty> argument is provided, expected generation time is for supplied difficulty.
495 2013-04-03 04:18:57 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 1.0 Mhps, given difficulty of 1.0, is 502.906516431 BTC per day and 20.9544381846 BTC per hour.
496 2013-04-03 04:18:57 <phantomcircuit> ;;genrate 1 1
497 2013-04-03 04:18:59 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: after 20 minutes without a block the network will let you produce one at diff 1
498 2013-04-03 04:19:02 <phantomcircuit> ;;genrate 1 11
499 2013-04-03 04:19:03 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 1.0 Mhps, given difficulty of 11.0, is 45.718774221 BTC per day and 1.90494892587 BTC per hour.
500 2013-04-03 04:19:12 <gmaxwell> 1MHps? 0_o
501 2013-04-03 04:19:21 <gmaxwell> are you mining on a pandaboard?
502 2013-04-03 04:19:24 <phantomcircuit> i have no idea what it really is the client doesn't say
503 2013-04-03 04:19:36 <gmaxwell> well the internal one is slow, indeed.
504 2013-04-03 04:20:11 <phantomcircuit> ok it *did* generate a block
505 2013-04-03 04:20:15 <phantomcircuit> so it is working
506 2013-04-03 04:20:28 <phantomcircuit> but ridiculously slowly
507 2013-04-03 04:20:40 <phantomcircuit> this has been running all day and it just generated a block
508 2013-04-03 04:20:45 <phantomcircuit> damn you sha256
509 2013-04-03 04:20:55 <phantomcircuit> i need better entropy
510 2013-04-03 04:20:59 <phantomcircuit> luckier entropy
511 2013-04-03 04:21:07 <lianj> phantomcircuit: testnet in a box and patch the difficulty
512 2013-04-03 04:21:36 <phantomcircuit> lianj, reasons not to do that and things
513 2013-04-03 04:21:40 <phantomcircuit> ACTION mumbles
514 2013-04-03 04:21:54 <lianj> :P
515 2013-04-03 04:22:42 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: you've tried this on testnet? (./bitcoind getrawtransaction 73e64e38faea386c88a578fd1919bcdba3d0b3af7b6302bf6ee1b423dc4e4333 ; ./bitcoind getrawtransaction d85af546147ff78dfb06e9469ddfc84adc3ce00cda54db8d65b7617ff2b7661a) | xxd -r -p | play -tul -
516 2013-04-03 04:23:13 <lianj> phantomcircuit: haveged is targeted for luckier entropy
517 2013-04-03 04:23:14 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, i think one of those is me
518 2013-04-03 04:23:28 <phantomcircuit> i mined a block with an 800kb transaction in it
519 2013-04-03 04:24:35 <phantomcircuit> i was shooting for as close to 1 MB as i could get without messing with the transaction too much
520 2013-04-03 04:24:50 <Luke-Jr> phantomcircuit: I doubt it. run it.
521 2013-04-03 04:24:51 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: that one is not you.
522 2013-04-03 04:24:58 <gmaxwell> run it run it
523 2013-04-03 04:25:01 <phantomcircuit> unfortunately the client got oom killed while trying to sign
524 2013-04-03 04:25:02 <phantomcircuit> wat
525 2013-04-03 04:25:09 <gmaxwell> sign??
526 2013-04-03 04:25:10 <phantomcircuit> ok
527 2013-04-03 04:25:10 <phantomcircuit> <-- suspicious
528 2013-04-03 04:25:39 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, i accidentally created a transaction with 1000000 inputs
529 2013-04-03 04:25:44 <phantomcircuit> and then tried to sign it
530 2013-04-03 04:25:57 <phantomcircuit> needless to say that didn't work very well
531 2013-04-03 04:26:00 <gmaxwell> I OOMed _bash_ today while using bitcoin.
532 2013-04-03 04:26:21 <phantomcircuit> lol
533 2013-04-03 04:27:19 <phantomcircuit> oh my god
534 2013-04-03 04:27:23 <phantomcircuit> rofl
535 2013-04-03 04:27:28 <gmaxwell> hahahah
536 2013-04-03 04:27:33 <phantomcircuit> ahaha
537 2013-04-03 04:29:23 <phantomcircuit> that's hilarious
538 2013-04-03 04:30:54 <gmaxwell> For fun??? (have another terminal up so you can kill the new bash subprocess this creates) run:
539 2013-04-03 04:30:57 <gmaxwell> echo `[{"txid":"0","vout":5},{"txid":"0","vout":5},{"txid":"0","vout":5},{"txid":"0","vout":5},{"txid":"0","vout":5},{"txid":"0","vout":5},{"txid":"0","vout":5},{"txid":"0","vout":5},{"txid":"0","vout":5},{"txid":"0","vout":5},{"txid":"0","vout":5},{"txid":"0","vout":5},{"txid":"0","vout":5},{"txid":"0","vout":5},{"txid":"0","vout":5},{"txid":"0","vout":5},{"txid":"0","vout":5},{"txid":"0","vout":5},{"txid":"0","vout":5},{"txid":"0","vo ...
540 2013-04-03 04:31:04 <gmaxwell> ... ut":5},{"txid":"0","vout":5},{"txid":"0","vout":5}]`
541 2013-04-03 04:31:06 <gmaxwell> oops stupid irssi splitting
542 2013-04-03 04:31:11 <gmaxwell> you can just take off the last couple
543 2013-04-03 04:31:34 <gmaxwell> I dunno wtf that makes bash do, but it tries to use ALL THE MEMORIES to do it
544 2013-04-03 04:34:36 <gdoteof> well, i got a connection again using proxy=127.0.0.1
545 2013-04-03 04:34:39 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, no thank you
546 2013-04-03 04:34:45 <gdoteof> a 2nd for a second, but back down to 1
547 2013-04-03 04:35:47 <gdoteof> can i list connected peers somehow?
548 2013-04-03 04:36:01 <gmaxwell> gdoteof: open the console, run getpeerinfo
549 2013-04-03 04:37:11 <gdoteof> 206.217.197.122 is my only friend
550 2013-04-03 04:37:15 <area> I have a (commented out) bash forkbomb in my .plan at work, with a warning to never run it, but no explanation as to why or what it does. No-one has stumbled across it yet
551 2013-04-03 04:44:28 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: {a,b,c}d expands to ad bd cd
552 2013-04-03 04:44:46 <Luke-Jr> {a,b,c}{d,e,f} to ad ae af bd be bf cd ce cf
553 2013-04-03 04:44:48 <Luke-Jr> :P
554 2013-04-03 04:44:58 <gmaxwell> ah ha!
555 2013-04-03 04:45:27 <wumpus> exponential growth! :P
556 2013-04-03 04:47:36 <gmaxwell> yea, it never gets around to telling me the command doesn't exist??? too busy enumerating 2^txn combinations. :P
557 2013-04-03 05:03:50 <EvilPete> Hmm, the bitcoind listening on a non-default port on a public IP really isn't a viable option, is it?
558 2013-04-03 05:04:01 <EvilPete> s/the//
559 2013-04-03 05:07:14 <tgs3> EvilPete: this is configurable. You can also use TOR
560 2013-04-03 05:07:42 <tgs3> What is the best way to check several old wallet.dat if any contains any (now spendable) moneys in it
561 2013-04-03 05:13:09 <tgs3> gmaxwell: it triggers bash'es built in secret litecoin miner
562 2013-04-03 05:15:21 <jl2012> https://blockchain.info/tx-index/64567969/1
563 2013-04-03 05:15:46 <jl2012> i guess this won't get confirmed?
564 2013-04-03 05:16:22 <K1773R> why should it?
565 2013-04-03 05:17:55 <jl2012> shouldn't it be considered as invalid and dropped?
566 2013-04-03 05:19:13 <K1773R> honestly, i wonder blockchain shows it ;)
567 2013-04-03 05:19:28 <EvilPete> tgs3: I'm looking at the code: ThreadOpenConnections2() which has if (addr.GetPort() != GetDefaultPort() && nTries < 50) continue;
568 2013-04-03 05:19:58 <jl2012> so that's a bug in the bitcoind of blockchain?
569 2013-04-03 05:22:30 <EvilPete> K1773R: jl2012: that was a nice try though..
570 2013-04-03 05:22:44 <K1773R> im not a blockchain dev, so i cant talk about it ;)
571 2013-04-03 05:23:02 <jl2012> i can't find it in my mempool at 0.8.1
572 2013-04-03 05:24:09 <K1773R> as i said, i wonder they accept it ;)
573 2013-04-03 05:26:16 <EvilPete> Presumably they have their own custom protocol implementation that records even the invalid stuff so people can see what went wrong
574 2013-04-03 05:28:03 <Retik> does anyone happen to know the datetime format coming from the mtgox websocket?
575 2013-04-03 05:38:31 <weex> Retik: is it an int?
576 2013-04-03 05:39:12 <Retik> 64bit int
577 2013-04-03 05:39:26 <Retik> any conversion i try to do for unix time says the value is too large
578 2013-04-03 05:39:38 <Retik> as far as I know it's stupposed to be seconds since jan 1, 1970
579 2013-04-03 05:39:51 <Retik> 1364974678549666
580 2013-04-03 05:39:52 <weex> maybe milliseconds?
581 2013-04-03 05:39:54 <ZeroIce> for unix time?
582 2013-04-03 05:39:57 <Retik> yes
583 2013-04-03 05:40:05 <Retik> still says too large even for milliseconds
584 2013-04-03 05:40:09 <weex> might be microseconds
585 2013-04-03 05:40:30 <Retik> hmm
586 2013-04-03 05:40:38 <Retik> ya cause that number in milliseconds would be 44k years
587 2013-04-03 05:40:46 <Xeno-Genesis> it looks like much more precise than milliseconds
588 2013-04-03 05:40:59 <Xeno-Genesis> where did you get that timestamp from?
589 2013-04-03 05:41:16 <RoboTeddy> it's probably milliseconds since unix epoch
590 2013-04-03 05:41:21 <RoboTeddy> errrr
591 2013-04-03 05:41:22 <Retik> the websocket for mtgox
592 2013-04-03 05:41:26 <Retik> GetDepth
593 2013-04-03 05:41:38 <Retik> i tried ticks
594 2013-04-03 05:41:46 <Xeno-Genesis> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/MtGox/API/Streaming
595 2013-04-03 05:41:47 <Retik> gave me a date of 1974
596 2013-04-03 05:42:00 <RoboTeddy> it's um unix timestamp in microseconds i believe
597 2013-04-03 05:42:30 <Xeno-Genesis> looks like microseconds, it is definitely a Unix timestamp, at least the first ten numbers
598 2013-04-03 05:44:00 <Retik> hmm maybe i'll just try dividing it by 1k
599 2013-04-03 05:44:39 <Retik> boom there we go
600 2013-04-03 05:44:49 <RoboTeddy> Retik: divide it by 1e6 to get a unix timestamp
601 2013-04-03 05:45:03 <Retik> ya i got it
602 2013-04-03 05:45:04 <Retik> thanks
603 2013-04-03 06:04:09 <sagax_> https://blockchain.info/tx/06e67bebec75096cc8072974ff944fef973cecdc5a13e3cac6d3028fc1bd6579 => weird!!
604 2013-04-03 06:04:32 <jouke> Why is that weird?
605 2013-04-03 06:05:05 <sagax_> look a bit more...
606 2013-04-03 06:05:08 <RoboTeddy> because it's a transaction for 1.6bn btc?
607 2013-04-03 06:05:13 <sagax_> 1.6 G BTC
608 2013-04-03 06:05:16 <sagax_> yep
609 2013-04-03 06:05:32 <jhbittrader3141> holy shit
610 2013-04-03 06:05:48 <sagax_> not good!!
611 2013-04-03 06:05:55 <jhbittrader3141> not good at all
612 2013-04-03 06:07:04 <sagax_> http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1bkor7/attempted_to_send_60_btc_ended_up_sending_16/
613 2013-04-03 06:08:54 <MC1984> dont trust b.i
614 2013-04-03 06:10:33 <sagax_> http://i.imgur.com/EYF9iKk.png
615 2013-04-03 06:14:03 <JyZyXEL> oh look, 1.6 billion bitcoins sent from the middle of the ocean
616 2013-04-03 06:15:52 <area> Standard
617 2013-04-03 06:18:08 <JyZyXEL> its probably not gonna get many confirmations
618 2013-04-03 06:35:51 <pjorrit_> looks like an overflow
619 2013-04-03 06:40:14 <K1773R> sagax_: same as this: https://blockchain.info/tx/06e67bebec75096cc8072974ff944fef973cecdc5a13e3cac6d3028fc1bd6579
620 2013-04-03 06:40:22 <K1773R> just ignore it ;) wont get confirmed
621 2013-04-03 06:48:31 <Yulth> Hi everyone! What '-gen' option does when bitcoind is executed as daemon?
622 2013-04-03 06:50:48 <K1773R> gen=1 means it will try to find blocks with a crappy CPU mining implementation
623 2013-04-03 06:51:10 <K1773R> just ignore it, its obsolete
624 2013-04-03 06:51:19 <Yulth> ok
625 2013-04-03 06:52:33 <Yulth> and how It could be executed to create a poll where other members share their efforts?
626 2013-04-03 07:04:44 <moeee> hey guys
627 2013-04-03 07:04:55 <moeee> what??s going on here: https://blockchain.info/tx/06e67bebec75096cc8072974ff944fef973cecdc5a13e3cac6d3028fc1bd6579 ?
628 2013-04-03 07:04:58 <ZeroIce> sagax_ jouke, may i ask why that is bad?
629 2013-04-03 07:05:12 <moeee> http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1bkor7/attempted_to_send_60_btc_ended_up_sending_16/
630 2013-04-03 07:12:42 <MC1984> ffs
631 2013-04-03 07:12:48 <MC1984> b.i is not bitcoin
632 2013-04-03 07:12:53 <MC1984> b.i says a lot of shit
633 2013-04-03 07:12:55 <MC1984> disregard
634 2013-04-03 07:39:07 <TradeFortress> there needs to be a coin doublespend service
635 2013-04-03 07:39:19 <TradeFortress> sent coins with no fees that doesnt' confirm? doublespend it with higher fee
636 2013-04-03 07:48:19 <iwilcox> Perhaps s/doublespend/respend/ to avoid confusion if it's to the same address
637 2013-04-03 07:48:57 <Cryo> really, everyone is freaking out over a bad transaction of a super high figure that can't possibly be validated?
638 2013-04-03 07:49:02 <Cryo> OMG BITCOIN IS ON FIRE
639 2013-04-03 07:50:37 <GMP> TradeFortress: any idea how to make the service "automatic"? connecting to specific IP is too complicated for regular user
640 2013-04-03 07:51:08 <TradeFortress> GMP, I was thinking more of an offline utility actually
641 2013-04-03 07:51:19 <TradeFortress> open source, you point it at the transaction, it doublespends it with higher fee.
642 2013-04-03 07:51:31 <Cryo> you made me sad saying that an IP is too hard for a regular user
643 2013-04-03 07:51:34 <moeee> so what up with that super high transactions?
644 2013-04-03 07:51:59 <EvilPete> Anyone feel like smacking a few trolls in #bitcoin?
645 2013-04-03 07:52:22 <Cryo> moeee, nothing is up. it won't be put into the blocklist
646 2013-04-03 07:52:37 <Cryo> evilpete just stay out of #bitcoin... too much noise and stupid
647 2013-04-03 07:52:45 <moeee> ah thanks. that is good to know. any idea what happened?
648 2013-04-03 07:53:44 <TradeFortress> EvilPete, I don't even browse there anymore
649 2013-04-03 07:53:48 <TradeFortress> Btw, you play epicmafia?
650 2013-04-03 07:54:06 <Cryo> moeee, nope.. could be spoofed, could be an overflow, sunspots, attention whoring trying to discredit BTC when it's all over the news and at ~$100/btc
651 2013-04-03 07:58:27 <EvilPete> mempool is growing too. :(
652 2013-04-03 08:29:11 <Cryo> miner question: if 90% of the results are Refresh work: work expired, my gpu is too slow, right?
653 2013-04-03 09:21:38 <[7]> hm, funny, I'm back down to my usual 8 connections
654 2013-04-03 09:21:48 <[7]> with almost zero trafic
655 2013-04-03 09:21:52 <[7]> traffic*
656 2013-04-03 09:22:11 <[7]> just because the USA are still asleep?
657 2013-04-03 10:18:07 <aqa> yo fellas