1 2013-04-05 00:25:08 <GlitchNZ> Afternnon peeps
2 2013-04-05 00:27:35 <GlitchNZ> I've just been looking at decoderawtransaction, and I can see that a transaction is composed of 1 or more 'vout' elements - each being an output of the transaction - what doesn't make sense to me, is that each of these vout's can have an array of addresses - surely one output can only have one address right?
3 2013-04-05 00:29:18 <gmaxwell> GlitchNZ: no, for example??? a multisignature output (one that requires multiple keys to sign it) has more than one.
4 2013-04-05 00:31:40 <GlitchNZ> hmmm, that does make things tricky - I dont really know about multisignature transactions, presumably if someone sent coins to me without any prior arrangement, it would not be a multisignature transaction as I would not be able to access the funds without knowing the signatures for the other outputs correct?
5 2013-04-05 00:32:53 <gmaxwell> right. listtransaction will never show such a transaction.
6 2013-04-05 00:32:58 <gmaxwell> (at least right now)
7 2013-04-05 00:33:20 <gmaxwell> GlitchNZ: ??? in general if someone sends you a payment without arrangement they shouldn't actually expect you to get it.
8 2013-04-05 00:33:23 <GlitchNZ> ok cool - i guess if someone sent such a transaction they can only blame themselves that their money has dissapeared
9 2013-04-05 00:34:07 <Belxjander> heya GlitchNZ
10 2013-04-05 00:34:17 <GlitchNZ> gmaxwell - sorry, I meant to say that someone wouldn't send a multisignature tx without prior arrangement
11 2013-04-05 00:34:28 <GlitchNZ> Hi Belxjander :P
12 2013-04-05 00:34:41 <Belxjander> GlitchNZ: actually in NZ? or outside?
13 2013-04-05 00:34:49 <GlitchNZ> actually in NZ
14 2013-04-05 00:36:07 <GlitchNZ> tracing back the source of a transaction is proving to be a bit more of a job than I thought it would be
15 2013-04-05 00:36:48 <c_k> heh, welcome fellow kiwi :)
16 2013-04-05 00:36:57 <GlitchNZ> thanks :)
17 2013-04-05 00:37:01 <Belxjander> ahhh
18 2013-04-05 00:37:08 <Belxjander> another one of us?
19 2013-04-05 00:37:16 <Belxjander> ACTION is also an NZ'er but exported to Japan :P
20 2013-04-05 00:37:24 <c_k> GlitchNZ: it gets worse when it comes from a mixed wallet like MtGox
21 2013-04-05 00:38:12 <GlitchNZ> so, ruling out multisig transactions, any given vout should only ever have one address?
22 2013-04-05 00:38:45 <stretchwarren> Fellow Traveller from #opentransactions is Satoshi Nakamoto. When he quit Bitcoin to "work on other projects" he meant OT.
23 2013-04-05 00:40:02 <stretchwarren> It allows off-blockchain transactions, micro payments, true anonymity with chaumian blinding, and instant finality of settlement, while everything is decentralized and low-trust
24 2013-04-05 00:47:11 <gmaxwell> stretchwarren: OT's stuff is distributed, but not really decentralized??? at least not in the sense we use it in bitcoin... (I don't mean this to knock it, I think that technology may eventually be an important part of the ecosystem)
25 2013-04-05 00:48:07 <gmaxwell> But FT is not at all like Satoshi. Though I wish he were: Satoshi built a real _usable_ _practical_ system with all the parts needed to make it go. "Batteries included". OT _still_ after all this time is more of a library than something actually useful.
26 2013-04-05 00:48:32 <gmaxwell> and god. I thought this was #bitcoin ... this conversation doesn't belong here.
27 2013-04-05 00:49:48 <stretchwarren> gmaxwell true, but OT has been rapidly developing lately, and it could have a huge impact on bitcoin and financial crypto as a whole.
28 2013-04-05 00:52:51 <stretchwarren> gmaxwell what is the plan for off-blockchain transactions, and instant finality of settlement?
29 2013-04-05 00:53:22 <gmaxwell> stretchwarren: why are you asking _me_ this?
30 2013-04-05 00:53:37 <stretchwarren> I'm just curious what your thoughts are
31 2013-04-05 00:53:45 <gmaxwell> People should build useful things.
32 2013-04-05 00:54:29 <stretchwarren> is there anything in the works that you know of?
33 2013-04-05 00:54:33 <gmaxwell> I think these things need to exist. There does not need to be only one solution, and??? in fact??? there shouldn't only be one solution. Let the best solution become the most popular.
34 2013-04-05 00:54:45 <stretchwarren> of course
35 2013-04-05 00:55:05 <gmaxwell> stretchwarren: people toy with varrious things. FT keeps claiming that its easy and he'll make tools but has not yet delievered AFAIK.
36 2013-04-05 00:55:31 <Retik> anyone know of a bit instant api wrapper?
37 2013-04-05 00:55:53 <Belxjander> are there any reliable "ticker widget"s for android I can use?
38 2013-04-05 00:56:02 <gmaxwell> stretchwarren: the most interesting and powerful ideas I've sen lately have come out of petertodd??? but they've been ideas, not implementations. We need implementations to advance the art.
39 2013-04-05 00:57:39 <stretchwarren> gmaxwell I think FT is getting close to having something useful. the next couple of years will be exciting! What ideas does petertodd have?
40 2013-04-05 00:58:18 <stretchwarren> i mean the next couple of years for crypto finance will be exciting**
41 2013-04-05 00:59:54 <gmaxwell> stretchwarren: The core is the idea of a fidelity bond. A bank service can provably give away some amount of bitcoin to miners (supporting the security of bitcoin), and payment acts as a bond which automatically loses its value if someone publishes a cryptographic proof that the bank misbehaved. The value is the bond is that depositors will not deposit funds in excess of the bond's amount.
42 2013-04-05 01:00:18 <gmaxwell> This could be combined with all the stuff OT does, of course.
43 2013-04-05 01:01:40 <stretchwarren> interesting, do you have any links to more information?
44 2013-04-05 01:02:05 <gmaxwell> And it's additionally proposed that the core of these banks would run inside trusted computing with remote attestation. So you'd get a three way security system: an economic disincentive to cheating in the form of the bond, a structural one in the form of federated control (multisignature, etc), and a technological one from remote attestation that makes hacks and casual meddling harder.
45 2013-04-05 01:02:24 <gmaxwell> stretchwarren: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134827.0
46 2013-04-05 01:03:52 <Belxjander> gmaxwell: so what happens to "at home" miners who go solo or join a pool run FPGA/GPU/ASIC operations just to provide hashing?
47 2013-04-05 01:04:46 <gmaxwell> Belxjander: I'm missing the context?
48 2013-04-05 01:05:13 <Belxjander> sorry... it all seems setup towards rebuilding centralized banking using cryptocurrencies as the basis
49 2013-04-05 01:05:25 <Belxjander> I was more thinking the BitCoin network itself IS the bank
50 2013-04-05 01:06:35 <gmaxwell> Belxjander: Bitcoin itself is good at some things, less good at other things. So alternative can be complementary.
51 2013-04-05 01:06:48 <Belxjander> ahhh
52 2013-04-05 01:07:14 <Belxjander> I've had too many late nights trying to learn about this and I am starting somewhat at the beginning...
53 2013-04-05 01:07:14 <gmaxwell> Belxjander: For example, bitcoin's zero trust means the whole world has to know about every transaction... not very efficient if you want to pay a penny every time you hear a song you like.
54 2013-04-05 01:07:44 <Belxjander> I read the basic bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf... and would like to work out some of the more technical side of things with step by step "for dummies" material at the moment
55 2013-04-05 01:08:13 <gmaxwell> So you can build external to bitcoin services denominated in bitcoin??? which use all kinds of cryptographic techniques to prove their honesty and security??? and use them for low value transactions... and they'd be more anonymous and more efficient.
56 2013-04-05 01:08:32 <stretchwarren> which OT does
57 2013-04-05 01:09:04 <gmaxwell> stretchwarren: plans to do, it doesn't actually _do_ this today.
58 2013-04-05 01:09:28 <stretchwarren> gmaxwell so why not help them do it?
59 2013-04-05 01:10:11 <gmaxwell> because I don't think its as interesting as bitcoin itself. If I had unlimited time I would.
60 2013-04-05 01:10:40 <stretchwarren> fair enough
61 2013-04-05 01:10:43 <gmaxwell> it's also something that lots of people can work on??? especially someone who thinks they are going to run such a thing as a money making business should work on it??? and I have no interest in doing that.
62 2013-04-05 01:13:22 <stretchwarren> for sure.. when they get close to the point of being able to run services for a profit then we'll probably see an explosion in development??? incentive is everything
63 2013-04-05 02:15:45 <Luke-Jr> hmm, any tips on tracking down fd leaks?
64 2013-04-05 02:16:42 <gmaxwell> lsof.
65 2013-04-05 02:16:53 <gmaxwell> is this on 0.8.x based code?
66 2013-04-05 02:17:07 <gmaxwell> Leveldb can use something like 500+ FDs with txindex=1 enabled.
67 2013-04-05 02:18:16 <gmaxwell> (in theory I think it can use 1024 per leveldb database, but I've only been able to trigger about 500)
68 2013-04-05 02:22:52 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: it's not bitcoind-based at all
69 2013-04-05 02:23:10 <Luke-Jr> couldn't figure anything from lsof :/
70 2013-04-05 02:23:24 <Luke-Jr> a ton of this: bfgminer 7868 luke-jr 638u sock 0,6 0t0 579636 can't identify protocol
71 2013-04-05 02:24:59 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: I'd assume that something the opencl is doing?
72 2013-04-05 02:25:09 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: I don't have OpenCL ???
73 2013-04-05 02:25:13 <Luke-Jr> and it's a new regression
74 2013-04-05 02:26:11 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: breakpoint the open call/bind.
75 2013-04-05 02:26:30 <Luke-Jr> >_<
76 2013-04-05 03:15:17 <jrmithdobbs> oh c'mon assholes
77 2013-04-05 03:15:23 <jrmithdobbs> http://www.cnbc.com/id/100615508
78 2013-04-05 03:15:40 <jrmithdobbs> what
79 2013-04-05 03:16:19 <Arnavion> lol that article
80 2013-04-05 03:16:50 <jrmithdobbs> also lol at anyone still trusting MagicalTux with anything
81 2013-04-05 03:17:18 <BlueMatt> lol cnbc...
82 2013-04-05 03:17:20 <jrmithdobbs> oh was it just a dos
83 2013-04-05 03:17:33 <jrmithdobbs> that article sucks what actually happened lol
84 2013-04-05 03:18:04 <jrmithdobbs> wait, he's calling "completely legal trading tactics" a hack?
85 2013-04-05 03:18:06 <jrmithdobbs> what
86 2013-04-05 03:18:15 <Luke-Jr> lol
87 2013-04-05 03:18:18 <Luke-Jr> jrmithdobbs: just noticed that?
88 2013-04-05 03:18:29 <Luke-Jr> that article was ridiculous
89 2013-04-05 03:18:40 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: super busy week at work ya
90 2013-04-05 03:18:41 <Cryo> mmm FUD
91 2013-04-05 03:18:52 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: so what actually happened
92 2013-04-05 03:18:54 <MagicalTux> cnbc loosk misinformed
93 2013-04-05 03:18:58 <Habbie> jrmithdobbs, a DDoS is completely legal when it's part of a trading tactic?
94 2013-04-05 03:19:03 <Luke-Jr> jrmithdobbs: just a DDoS afaik
95 2013-04-05 03:19:24 <Luke-Jr> MagicalTux: that's an understatement!
96 2013-04-05 03:19:33 <jrmithdobbs> oh "destabilize the exchange" is cnbc-ism for "packet"
97 2013-04-05 03:19:42 <jrmithdobbs> that one definition makes the article actually make sense
98 2013-04-05 03:19:45 <Habbie> not cnbc-ism
99 2013-04-05 03:19:49 <EvilPete> huh. unconfirmed tx with spent outputs? https://blockchain.info/tx/578a562743458c128144097996fc6a62e65bf6f8a7803bf5ca29325274429ad3
100 2013-04-05 03:19:49 <Habbie> mtgox actually put it that way
101 2013-04-05 03:20:01 <Habbie> EvilPete, nothing special about that
102 2013-04-05 03:20:01 <Luke-Jr> EvilPete: yes, so?
103 2013-04-05 03:20:02 <jrmithdobbs> well his english sucks, that's well known
104 2013-04-05 03:20:07 <Habbie> EvilPete, satoshidice does it all the itme
105 2013-04-05 03:20:08 <Habbie> *time
106 2013-04-05 03:20:13 <jrmithdobbs> a mjor news outlet on the other hand
107 2013-04-05 03:20:15 <jrmithdobbs> ;p
108 2013-04-05 03:20:35 <Luke-Jr> jrmithdobbs: btw, why *wouldn't* you trust MT?
109 2013-04-05 03:20:41 <MagicalTux> Luke-Jr: https://twitter.com/MagicalTux/status/320043013420249088
110 2013-04-05 03:21:03 <jrmithdobbs> Habbie: anyways, actually yes i'd say it's a valid trading tactic, it's been done in real markets before we call them "protests" and "political action" and other such things
111 2013-04-05 03:21:15 <Habbie> jrmithdobbs, protests are legal
112 2013-04-05 03:21:20 <Habbie> jrmithdobbs, DDoSes are not, in most countries
113 2013-04-05 03:21:33 <jrmithdobbs> Habbie: and only civil disobedience will change that
114 2013-04-05 03:21:38 <Luke-Jr> ???
115 2013-04-05 03:21:40 <jrmithdobbs> because they're only illegal because of broken unjust laws
116 2013-04-05 03:21:41 <Habbie> jrmithdobbs, you think DDoS should be legal?
117 2013-04-05 03:21:42 <EvilPete> Luke-Jr: I just hadn't seen bitcoind complaining about fees.. ERROR: CTxMemPool::accept() : not enough fees 578a562743458c128144097996fc6a62e65bf6f8a7803bf5ca29325274429ad3, 0 < 10000.. all over the place
118 2013-04-05 03:21:47 <Luke-Jr> jrmithdobbs: wtf?
119 2013-04-05 03:22:04 <Habbie> Luke-Jr, we have politicians who think DDoS should be a legal form of protest. it's not unheard of, sadly :(
120 2013-04-05 03:22:05 <jrmithdobbs> i think the terms under which they are currently illegal are incorrect, yes
121 2013-04-05 03:22:20 <Habbie> jrmithdobbs, but do you think they should be legal? or just illegal under other terms?
122 2013-04-05 03:22:21 <jrmithdobbs> but we can't talk about the problem until we remove the brokenness and talk about what to replace it with
123 2013-04-05 03:22:29 <EvilPete> 517 rejections because of fees so far
124 2013-04-05 03:22:33 <sydna> seeing as most DDoS are executed using botnets, they're illegal no matter what
125 2013-04-05 03:22:44 <Luke-Jr> infecting thousands-millions of OTHER PEOPLE's computers, so you can flood a site .. why should that be legal?
126 2013-04-05 03:23:19 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: the actual act of DDOS shouldn't be, if machines are compromised to do it? sure you have a much stronger case
127 2013-04-05 03:23:24 <jrmithdobbs> but the ddos isn't the illegal part
128 2013-04-05 03:23:39 <sydna> you can't DDoS without a botnet or badly configured DNS
129 2013-04-05 03:23:48 <Habbie> sydna, sure you can, it just costs more money
130 2013-04-05 03:23:55 <jrmithdobbs> if i pay for the bandwidth and pump the amplification attack through the root why shouldn't it be legal?
131 2013-04-05 03:24:04 <Habbie> the root?
132 2013-04-05 03:24:07 <jrmithdobbs> dns
133 2013-04-05 03:24:16 <sydna> you'd be abusing other peoples servers, if nothing else
134 2013-04-05 03:24:22 <Luke-Jr> ^
135 2013-04-05 03:24:26 <jrmithdobbs> eg, publically accessible public services that are responding to my requests
136 2013-04-05 03:24:33 <Cryo> you're using the spammer's defense. I dispute that.
137 2013-04-05 03:24:40 <jrmithdobbs> sydna: no, i'd be requesting a response from public servers to invalid destinations
138 2013-04-05 03:24:54 <sydna> so using an open mail relay to spam is alright too?
139 2013-04-05 03:25:04 <jrmithdobbs> sydna: what's illegal about that? should GET /FUCKINGSHITDOESN'TEXIST HTTP/1.0 be a crime too?
140 2013-04-05 03:25:14 <jrmithdobbs> sydna: indeed
141 2013-04-05 03:25:20 <sydna> what about using a compromised list of email accounts? you didn't hack them, so it's not your problem
142 2013-04-05 03:25:27 <jrmithdobbs> orrect
143 2013-04-05 03:25:30 <jrmithdobbs> correct
144 2013-04-05 03:25:32 <sydna> just DBAA.
145 2013-04-05 03:25:41 <jrmithdobbs> not your problem
146 2013-04-05 03:25:42 <sydna> don't be an asshole.
147 2013-04-05 03:26:01 <OneMiner> Crazy people are crazy, next topic.
148 2013-04-05 03:26:08 <Cryo> that's how you invalidate your whole discussion.
149 2013-04-05 03:26:28 <jrmithdobbs> the culpbable party in that situation are the providers who caused the breach which leaked the auth data
150 2013-04-05 03:26:29 <Luke-Jr> ACTION writes jrmithdobbs off as a crazy libertarian :P
151 2013-04-05 03:26:49 <sydna> if you log into someone elses account using breached accounts, that's still illegal
152 2013-04-05 03:26:59 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: no, i'm an advocate for the end of criminalization of computer use by private individuals while absolving companies of all liability
153 2013-04-05 03:27:03 <sydna> in australia at least, that's a 100-200k fine and jail time.
154 2013-04-05 03:27:15 <K1773R> anyone in here pls gimme jrmithdobbs privkey, i take the BTC. according to him this is legal!
155 2013-04-05 03:27:19 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: that is in fact quite anti-libertarian
156 2013-04-05 03:27:32 <jrmithdobbs> K1773R: sure is
157 2013-04-05 03:27:42 <jrmithdobbs> if someone were dumb enough to give you the keys
158 2013-04-05 03:27:45 <jrmithdobbs> in response to that
159 2013-04-05 03:27:56 <Arnavion> jrmithdobbs: If you leave your house unlocked, is it legal for me to walk in and take your stuff?
160 2013-04-05 03:27:59 <Cryo> can you click this zip file I'm sending you?
161 2013-04-05 03:28:03 <K1773R> in this case, pls dont risk ur PCs security and directly deliver the privkeys over. thank you for this sweet service!
162 2013-04-05 03:28:41 <Luke-Jr> jrmithdobbs: ok, so say a law forbidding "intentionally disrupting others doing legal business" - how is that unjust?
163 2013-04-05 03:28:46 <jrmithdobbs> Arnavion: because we have millenia of legal history that sets those boundries and the boundries are fairly enforced (for the most part, not always)
164 2013-04-05 03:28:54 <jrmithdobbs> Arnavion: that is a completely different situation.
165 2013-04-05 03:29:15 <K1773R> this is -dev, isnt it? i cant see how this is related...
166 2013-04-05 03:29:23 <OneMiner> One time I unlocked another persons car of the same type with my keys. Got in and was instantly confused. If I hotwired it and drove away I could have had a backup car. :(
167 2013-04-05 03:29:28 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: it dissalows labor disputes to end in strikes, for starters, you're going to have to do better than that
168 2013-04-05 03:30:05 <jrmithdobbs> OneMiner: and the manufacturer should be liable for that
169 2013-04-05 03:30:15 <Luke-Jr> I don't see strikes as being of any value.
170 2013-04-05 03:30:19 <jrmithdobbs> OneMiner: and by 'that' i mean their completely broken crypto on all the shitty door locks
171 2013-04-05 03:30:54 <Cryo> punch out the locks
172 2013-04-05 03:30:58 <EvilPete> So, back to https://blockchain.info/tx/578a562743458c128144097996fc6a62e65bf6f8a7803bf5ca29325274429ad3 again.. unconfirmed after 54 hours, 0.8 says "not enough fees 0 < 10000" even though its tiny. Is this because its non-standard or something? output address is the same as the input?
173 2013-04-05 03:31:03 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: it also disallows all sorts of public speech
174 2013-04-05 03:31:13 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: including religious protests/boycotts
175 2013-04-05 03:31:16 <OneMiner> That's nuts. I'm free from responsability and all blame falls on another party. I get a car as windfall. Crazy world would be crazy.
176 2013-04-05 03:32:20 <sydna> ^
177 2013-04-05 03:32:21 <Arnavion> In an ideal world, the car maker would invent crypto keys
178 2013-04-05 03:32:28 <jrmithdobbs> OneMiner: why? the manufacturer sold a faulty product. They should hold at least the majority blame.
179 2013-04-05 03:32:33 <Arnavion> In the real world, the car maker will move its sales to saner countries
180 2013-04-05 03:33:01 <jrmithdobbs> well maybe they should stop ripping off their customers if they want to do business here?
181 2013-04-05 03:33:37 <sydna> ...
182 2013-04-05 03:33:40 <sydna> you're an idiot.
183 2013-04-05 03:33:45 <Cryo> at least the focus of the articles have moved away from omg everyone who is using bitcoin is buying drugs on silk road
184 2013-04-05 03:34:48 <Luke-Jr> Cryo: true
185 2013-04-05 03:35:02 <jrmithdobbs> sydna: you think it's fair that we send people to live in a 8x10 room for 5+ years for the equivilent of what OneMiner just described while the people continuing to sell the same broken shit aren't held liable at all
186 2013-04-05 03:35:12 <fiatbubble> i am autist
187 2013-04-05 03:35:14 <jrmithdobbs> sydna: so only poor people who do bad things should be punished, not corporations. I see.
188 2013-04-05 03:35:20 <fiatbubble> pls send me bitcoins
189 2013-04-05 03:35:24 <OneMiner> jrmithdobbs Because the locks were not made out of unobtanium that never wears out? I see perfectly breakable windows all over the place. Lawn furnature. Hell! Mailboxes that don't lock! I'll be rich!
190 2013-04-05 03:35:39 <Arnavion> Biometric keys!
191 2013-04-05 03:35:42 <Arnavion> Biometric keys on all the things!
192 2013-04-05 03:35:53 <EvilPete> ACTION . o O (Did I just end up in reddit?)
193 2013-04-05 03:35:54 <sydna> biometric crap doesn't work
194 2013-04-05 03:35:58 <jrmithdobbs> OneMiner: no, because they've continued selling products using known-to-be-flawed (completely broken, in most cases) security "features"
195 2013-04-05 03:36:06 <jrmithdobbs> OneMiner: and they *charge a premium* for said features
196 2013-04-05 03:36:10 <jrmithdobbs> *that don't work*
197 2013-04-05 03:36:20 <OneMiner> I don't know what you are refering to now.
198 2013-04-05 03:36:21 <sydna> I like all the "biometric" USB drives that are just hidden partitions
199 2013-04-05 03:36:31 <Arnavion> Lucky for you falsehood in advertising is already a law
200 2013-04-05 03:36:37 <jrmithdobbs> but the kid who probably makes maybe 80k/yr stealing cars gets 5 yrs, fond? tax incentives.
201 2013-04-05 03:36:46 <jrmithdobbs> ford*
202 2013-04-05 03:37:10 <sydna> Arnavion: not in australia. to sell a pharmaceutical product you don't need to provide proof. you just need to say that you *might own* proof.
203 2013-04-05 03:37:12 <fiatbubble> I steal poop
204 2013-04-05 03:37:14 <jrmithdobbs> in what world *is that* fair.
205 2013-04-05 03:37:33 <Arnavion> sydna: Do you have the equivalent of an FDA certification?
206 2013-04-05 03:37:52 <fiatbubble> I'm an expert on every subject
207 2013-04-05 03:37:53 <jrmithdobbs> maybe we need to find resolutions to some of these issues that don't involve throwing niggers in 8x10 cells indefinitely to protect large corporate interests?
208 2013-04-05 03:37:56 <jrmithdobbs> free weev
209 2013-04-05 03:37:56 <sydna> Arnavion: that's it. you just need to say you have proof, and you're in. they don't actually verify it.
210 2013-04-05 03:37:58 <jrmithdobbs> ;p
211 2013-04-05 03:38:18 <Arnavion> sydna: Then how do you separate the knock-offs from the real deals?
212 2013-04-05 03:38:48 <sydna> ACTION shrugs
213 2013-04-05 03:38:54 <Arnavion> Scary
214 2013-04-05 03:38:58 <fiatbubble> free anal sex, food, and shelter
215 2013-04-05 03:39:02 <fiatbubble> brb prison
216 2013-04-05 03:39:07 <sydna> a lot of pharmaceutical products here are bullshit
217 2013-04-05 03:39:20 <jrmithdobbs> the fact that that's an acceptable joke in our society is absolutely disgusting.
218 2013-04-05 03:39:24 <jrmithdobbs> just sayin.
219 2013-04-05 03:39:29 <sydna> if they do get taken off the market, they just come back in a different brand
220 2013-04-05 03:40:01 <Arnavion> Well when I said certification, I was talking about some sort of marking on the item itself
221 2013-04-05 03:40:34 <sydna> not as far as I know
222 2013-04-05 03:41:04 <OneMiner> jrmithdobbs The prison thing I'll agree with. The "corrections" system is a poorly named joke.
223 2013-04-05 03:41:20 <BlueMatt> #bitcoin-dev?
224 2013-04-05 03:41:40 <jrmithdobbs> OneMiner: I'm just proposing we start swaying the balance the other direction, you don't get little things by asking for little things you know ;p
225 2013-04-05 03:41:49 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: noone was talking any way, meh
226 2013-04-05 03:42:16 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: meh, Im going to bed (midterm tomorrow) feel free to continue discussing anal sex and pharma...
227 2013-04-05 03:42:25 <BlueMatt> someone is gonna be mad when they read scrollback though...
228 2013-04-05 03:42:31 <Habbie> and confused
229 2013-04-05 03:42:46 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: i didn't bring either of those up.
230 2013-04-05 03:42:48 <jrmithdobbs> :)
231 2013-04-05 03:42:57 <OneMiner> I agree with that as well #bitcoin-offtopic would be a good place for this. I'm going to bed too.
232 2013-04-05 03:43:10 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: not my fault the bitcoin community is full of disgusting lolbertarians
233 2013-04-05 03:43:13 <jrmithdobbs> ;p
234 2013-04-05 03:48:34 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: dude, ! don't crap on this channel with banter on newslinks
235 2013-04-05 03:53:36 <fiatbubble> ACTION farts
236 2013-04-05 04:27:31 <gmaxwell> EvilPete: RE: https://blockchain.info/tx/578a562743458c128144097996fc6a62e65bf6f8a7803bf5ca29325274429ad3
237 2013-04-05 04:27:40 <gmaxwell> it has an output less than 0.01
238 2013-04-05 04:28:00 <gmaxwell> This _disqualifies_ it from being acceptable to the reference software as a free transaction.
239 2013-04-05 04:28:12 <gmaxwell> Please see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees
240 2013-04-05 04:28:27 <gmaxwell> These rules have been in place for many years and have not change in recent software.
241 2013-04-05 04:29:12 <EvilPete> gmaxwell: not my transaction, but I'm getting a lot of log spam about it.. it'll come in several hundred at a time, presumably from older peers.
242 2013-04-05 04:29:34 <gmaxwell> no, not older peers.. there is nothing old on the network that would think that was okay.
243 2013-04-05 04:30:01 <gmaxwell> I think blockchain.info agressively floods out unconfirmed txns or something.
244 2013-04-05 04:30:16 <gmaxwell> (I'm speculating there)
245 2013-04-05 04:30:37 <gmaxwell> It's at least a somewhat new behavior??? I wasn't notcing it a few months ago, but now after every block I get slammed with a zillion txn
246 2013-04-05 04:30:48 <EvilPete> They seem to be doing something special because they show transactions that the rest of the network won't accept
247 2013-04-05 04:31:11 <gmaxwell> they show all kinds of things, including??? in the past??? totally invalid txn
248 2013-04-05 04:31:16 <EvilPete> I got that txn 547 times in the last hour or so..
249 2013-04-05 04:31:27 <gmaxwell> That one txn? :-/
250 2013-04-05 04:31:30 <EvilPete> yes
251 2013-04-05 04:31:39 <EvilPete> from multiple different peers.
252 2013-04-05 04:31:51 <EvilPete> if I'm reading the log right.
253 2013-04-05 04:31:56 <gmaxwell> (for amusement, I was fooling around and someone made this screenshot of my anctics: https://people.xiph.org/~greg/21mbtc.png )
254 2013-04-05 04:32:15 <Habbie> lol
255 2013-04-05 04:32:20 <gmaxwell> it doesn't log what peer it got messages from.
256 2013-04-05 04:32:39 <Habbie> blockchain sometimes does
257 2013-04-05 04:32:59 <gmaxwell> Habbie: thats not what EvilPete is talking about.
258 2013-04-05 04:33:06 <Habbie> ok
259 2013-04-05 04:33:32 <Retik> anyone done anything with the bitinstant api?
260 2013-04-05 04:33:52 <EvilPete> Sadly I didn't even have timestamps on for that node, I'm getting the "about an hour" because I rotated the logs and restarted it about 1.5 hours ago.
261 2013-04-05 04:35:15 <gmaxwell> honestly, looking at the transactions here, https://blockchain.info/address/1NNLSreQ376112pYtLzZXTcymYc9MkYsGQ
262 2013-04-05 04:35:22 <gmaxwell> I think this is some kind of network profiling attack.
263 2013-04-05 04:35:53 <EvilPete> yeah, the change-to-self is special.
264 2013-04-05 04:37:18 <EvilPete> Is that something blockchain.info does as a matter of routine?
265 2013-04-05 04:38:30 <gmaxwell> dunno, its a bad practice however... but I doubt these are blockchain.info originated txn??? it should be smart enough to not produce feeless sub 0.01 btc outputs
266 2013-04-05 04:42:38 <EvilPete> gmaxwell: I wonder if the originator of the transaction will turn up..
267 2013-04-05 04:51:28 <EvilPete> gmaxwell: so, general summary.. that tx isn't acceptable to any nodes, and you don't think I'm getting it from multiple nodes, but perhaps just one that is aggressively resending it?
268 2013-04-05 04:51:42 <EvilPete> any mainline nodes
269 2013-04-05 04:53:12 <gmaxwell> EvilPete: I think thats likely, I'm not sure so I'm trying to observe it myself, but I haven't yet.
270 2013-04-05 04:53:24 <upstream> :-(
271 2013-04-05 05:11:25 <EvilPete> gmaxwell: if you dig through 3-4 levels deep of transactions related to those addresses.. bitcoin-24.com has turned up a few times.
272 2013-04-05 05:16:05 <sydna> who is in control of the bitcoin.it wiki?
273 2013-04-05 05:16:21 <sydna> there's uh, a bit of an impending spam problem ??? https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&limit=500
274 2013-04-05 05:16:23 <wumpus> mtgox afaik
275 2013-04-05 05:17:14 <sydna> eek
276 2013-04-05 05:18:30 <wumpus> at least hosted on their servers, I don't know about 'controlled', I think people are complaining mostly about a lack of moderators and control instead of overeager ones
277 2013-04-05 05:19:05 <sydna> they certainly need some form of captcha, a new user every few minutes is bad
278 2013-04-05 05:19:12 <gmaxwell> sydna: no impending spam problem.
279 2013-04-05 05:19:18 <gmaxwell> sydna: those users can't do anything
280 2013-04-05 05:19:53 <sydna> new users can't do anything, or just those bots?
281 2013-04-05 05:19:57 <gmaxwell> We completely solved the spam problem using a sopicated distributed network of tens of thousands of nodes along with custom cryptographic asics and megawatts of power....
282 2013-04-05 05:20:09 <gmaxwell> (you must pay 0.01 btc per account in order to edit)
283 2013-04-05 05:20:14 <sydna> ah!
284 2013-04-05 05:20:45 <gmaxwell> So someone in #bitcoin is reporting that his nodes on his lan are banning each other: http://pastebin.com/zw7drrZu
285 2013-04-05 05:20:46 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Nifty! Are those anti-spam credits transferable in some way? Maybe they're worth something...
286 2013-04-05 05:20:48 <EvilPete> gmaxwell: " Relaying
287 2013-04-05 05:20:50 <EvilPete> The reference implementation's rules for relaying transactions across the peer-to-peer network are very similar to the rules for sending transactions, but a smaller value of 0.0001 BTC is used to determine whether or not a transaction is considered "Free"."
288 2013-04-05 05:21:15 <gmaxwell> EvilPete: yes that value refers to the fee required, not the output size.
289 2013-04-05 05:21:57 <EvilPete> The writeup doesn't say if its the fee or the smallest output
290 2013-04-05 05:22:20 <gmaxwell> It's the fee.
291 2013-04-05 05:22:24 <gmaxwell> CTxMemPool::accept() : accepted f5a74ae217 (poolsz 158)
292 2013-04-05 05:22:24 <gmaxwell> ERROR: CTransaction::CheckTransaction() : vin empty
293 2013-04-05 05:22:24 <gmaxwell> received getdata for: tx f5a74ae217
294 2013-04-05 05:22:25 <gmaxwell> ERROR: CTxMemPool::accept() : CheckTransaction failed
295 2013-04-05 05:22:29 <gmaxwell> The ordering here confuses me.
296 2013-04-05 05:22:36 <gmaxwell> why is getdata after accepted?
297 2013-04-05 05:22:42 <EvilPete> Yep, I was getting those a lot.
298 2013-04-05 05:22:46 <EvilPete> I asked about it
299 2013-04-05 05:23:25 <EvilPete> gmaxwell: one of my 0.8's banned my other 0.8 over that
300 2013-04-05 05:23:45 <gmaxwell> EvilPete: yea, I've now got a second report.
301 2013-04-05 05:23:56 <EvilPete> Misbehaving: X.X.X.X:8333 (90 -> 100) DISCONNECTING
302 2013-04-05 05:24:10 <gmaxwell> Both of you have the same property of running multiple nodes yourself.. Are you on windows?
303 2013-04-05 05:24:26 <sipa> gmaxwell: sure it is about the same transaction?
304 2013-04-05 05:24:27 <EvilPete> every single "ResendWalletTransactions()" caused a +10.
305 2013-04-05 05:25:04 <gmaxwell> sipa: can't be sure... but if it's not someone searched for something that collided the first 32 bits.
306 2013-04-05 05:25:07 <EvilPete> gmaxwell: unix (BSD) build from git v0.8.0 tagged source. I've since switched to v0.8.1 tag
307 2013-04-05 05:25:20 <gmaxwell> EvilPete: still stting the behavior?
308 2013-04-05 05:25:33 <EvilPete> gmaxwell: a "-salvagewallet" made it go away, but that probably just purged a weird tx
309 2013-04-05 05:26:10 <EvilPete> I have the wallet backup, but it is unencrypted and was used to gather mining outputs
310 2013-04-05 05:26:28 <sipa> gmaxwell: it doesn't make sense that it accept and relayed, before checking, as the check itself is called from CTxMempool::accept...
311 2013-04-05 05:27:14 <EvilPete> http://pastebin.com/zkGyn0NA was a 3rd party peer sending tx's to me
312 2013-04-05 05:27:59 <EvilPete> I am still seeing it. eg:
313 2013-04-05 05:28:01 <EvilPete> ERROR: CTransaction::CheckTransaction() : vin empty
314 2013-04-05 05:28:01 <EvilPete> ERROR: CTxMemPool::accept() : CheckTransaction failed
315 2013-04-05 05:28:01 <EvilPete> Misbehaving: 122.107.53.18:8333 (10 -> 20)
316 2013-04-05 05:28:38 <gmaxwell> EvilPete: can you paste more complete logs around one of these events?
317 2013-04-05 05:30:19 <EvilPete> Yes, give me a moment
318 2013-04-05 05:31:48 <gmaxwell> 00:17 < inglebert> gmaxwell: sorry didn't tag you last time, they're all installed off the same windows installer, except for .0.13 which is on ubuntu, updated via synaptic. all 0.8
319 2013-04-05 05:31:51 <EvilPete> http://pastebin.com/hYurQnNi - any help?
320 2013-04-05 05:31:55 <gmaxwell> is the other fellow hitting this
321 2013-04-05 05:32:57 <EvilPete> it'll have logtimestamps at the next restart
322 2013-04-05 05:38:57 <EvilPete> gmaxwell: re the ordering.. isn't that logging the case where we approve a message and add it to mempool then inform peers, and some of them do a getdata for it? Meanwhile the CheckTransaction failed is for a different one entirely that never even makes it to mempool and doesn't even have an id listed
323 2013-04-05 05:40:59 <gmaxwell> yea, I was having a blonde moment as sipa pointed out
324 2013-04-05 06:46:06 <yulu> test
325 2013-04-05 06:58:58 <lupine> is there functionality for a bunch of bitcoin instances to share a single blockchain copy?
326 2013-04-05 06:59:32 <lupine> if I've got several running in the same house, there seems to be little point to them keeping track of it independently - might as well let one do the gruntwork, and have the others consult it
327 2013-04-05 07:00:16 <Scrat> lupine: no
328 2013-04-05 07:00:25 <lupine> patches welcome? ;)
329 2013-04-05 07:01:14 <lupine> slapping the blockchain onto an nfs mount is trivial, but I guess there'd be synchronisation issues
330 2013-04-05 07:01:18 <Scrat> how would locking be done over the network?
331 2013-04-05 07:01:25 <Scrat> not an easy task
332 2013-04-05 07:01:29 <lupine> the same way any other database does locking
333 2013-04-05 07:02:07 <wumpus> lupine: the solution would be to split bitcoind into a block chain and wallet daemons
334 2013-04-05 07:02:38 <lupine> aye, that'd be a way to do it
335 2013-04-05 07:02:44 <Scrat> lupine: not aware of any database that will support multiple daemons accessing the same db over a network, even embedded ones
336 2013-04-05 07:02:51 <wumpus> I think there are some other implementations that can do this (based on bitcoinj), but I don't know specifics
337 2013-04-05 07:02:53 <lupine> seems bdb supports concurrent access, by the way, just not over nfs
338 2013-04-05 07:03:09 <lupine> Scrat, it is the raison d'etre of basically every database system in the world
339 2013-04-05 07:03:09 <wumpus> but it doesn't work with the current software, please do not try any nfs hacks
340 2013-04-05 07:03:29 <lupine> mm, it's obviously going to need client changes to work :)
341 2013-04-05 07:03:29 <wumpus> current bitcoind software, that is
342 2013-04-05 07:03:50 <sipa> wumpus: i'm actually beginning to think that splitting into a blockchain/verify daemon, and an SPV+wallet client would be nice
343 2013-04-05 07:03:51 <Eliel> separation into blockchain and wallet daemons sounds good to me
344 2013-04-05 07:04:13 <wumpus> sipa: yes, it would be
345 2013-04-05 07:04:19 <sipa> wumpus: that way, it'd work evenbwithout the blockchain being lresent on the same code
346 2013-04-05 07:04:25 <lupine> http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E17076_02/html/programmer_reference/lock.html
347 2013-04-05 07:04:35 <sipa> bah, typing on a phone :)
348 2013-04-05 07:04:38 <wumpus> it also means that the wallet is not in the P2P process, which can increase security... I think there are only advantages
349 2013-04-05 07:04:50 <sipa> indeed
350 2013-04-05 07:05:25 <Eliel> you could get by with having an option to disable the blockchain download initially.
351 2013-04-05 07:05:48 <Eliel> rather than complete separation
352 2013-04-05 07:05:51 <sipa> that'd mean you still need a block header database
353 2013-04-05 07:05:53 <lupine> the plan is to rip bdb out anyway, isn't it?
354 2013-04-05 07:05:58 <wumpus> lupine: but it may be that multiwallet support (which is coming) will already solve your problem of multiple wallets with one blockchain
355 2013-04-05 07:06:01 <sipa> which is the hardest part
356 2013-04-05 07:06:07 <wumpus> lupine: yes
357 2013-04-05 07:06:26 <lupine> wumpus, eh, the different wallets run on different computers, although trust is not an issue between them since I control them all
358 2013-04-05 07:06:30 <wumpus> well, it needs to be kept indefinitely for backwards compatibility, but the idea is to stop relying on it for the wallet, yes
359 2013-04-05 07:06:57 <lupine> the ideal for me would be a postgres-stored block chain, of course ^^
360 2013-04-05 07:06:57 <sipa> wumpus: conversion can be done by a separate to
361 2013-04-05 07:07:09 <wumpus> there was a guy doing that
362 2013-04-05 07:07:34 <sipa> lupine: no, it isn't... you don't actually need a blockchain to run a wallet at all
363 2013-04-05 07:07:39 <Scrat> wallet needs to be on sqlite :p
364 2013-04-05 07:07:45 <wumpus> sipa: I wonder what to use for communication between the spv wallet and the blockchain daemon, I'd hate to invent another protocol :P
365 2013-04-05 07:07:46 <sipa> the blockchain is just needed for verification
366 2013-04-05 07:08:00 <sipa> wumpus: heh, the p2p protocol of course
367 2013-04-05 07:08:08 <wumpus> that'd work? ok, cool
368 2013-04-05 07:08:21 <sipa> it works now for multibit and android wallet
369 2013-04-05 07:08:34 <sipa> why wouldn't it work, it was what it was designed for
370 2013-04-05 07:08:45 <gmaxwell> lupine: why are you linking to BDB stuff??
371 2013-04-05 07:09:00 <Scrat> lupine: blockchain isnt on BDB
372 2013-04-05 07:09:06 <wumpus> sipa: the difference is that this SPV client should only connect to one, configured, blockchain daemon
373 2013-04-05 07:09:17 <wumpus> not "let's pick one!"
374 2013-04-05 07:09:25 <sipa> wumpus: so connect to only one?
375 2013-04-05 07:09:40 <sipa> thag would be the mostntrivial code change imaginable, i guess
376 2013-04-05 07:09:42 <gmaxwell> wumpus: yea, not connecting to more things only simplifies the software. :P
377 2013-04-05 07:09:59 <wumpus> right
378 2013-04-05 07:10:30 <lupine> hmm, is it not? well, good :), I guess I just assumed it was since the wallet was
379 2013-04-05 07:10:39 <sipa> wumpus: also, SPV does imply you locally maintain block headers, which is techbjcally duplication, but it would greatly minimize the number of different protocols/configurations
380 2013-04-05 07:10:44 <gmaxwell> Though if we're to do that we'll need to add an authenticated p2p protocol at some point... otherwise many genuises will start hooking up $really valueable stuff$ across public networks with bad results. :P
381 2013-04-05 07:10:53 <sipa> lupine: it used to be, until 0.7
382 2013-04-05 07:11:08 <lupine> ah, so I'm just out of date, rather than completely wrong
383 2013-04-05 07:11:54 <gmaxwell> lupine: I was just confused that you mentioned it several times and no one seemed to be correcting you. :P
384 2013-04-05 07:11:56 <wumpus> sipa: yes, agreed
385 2013-04-05 07:12:03 <gmaxwell> (wondered if I was missing something!)
386 2013-04-05 07:12:55 <wumpus> gmaxwell: well, for his nfs sharing trick to fail, it arguably doesn't matter whether the database is using bdb or leveldb :p
387 2013-04-05 07:13:53 <Scrat> sipa: even before 0.7, wasnt it stored on a custom raw format?
388 2013-04-05 07:13:56 <gmaxwell> well sharing the db wouldn't work in any case.. because there is a lot of important state in the daemon too.
389 2013-04-05 07:14:05 <wumpus> exactly
390 2013-04-05 07:14:23 <sipa> Scrat: blocks were and still are stored in network format on disk
391 2013-04-05 07:14:25 <wumpus> Scrat: yes the raw blocks were stored too, database was an index
392 2013-04-05 07:14:43 <sipa> Scrat: but the block chain database was bdb and isnleveldb now
393 2013-04-05 07:16:18 <Scrat> always thought blockchain meant blocks and blocks alone
394 2013-04-05 07:16:23 <lupine> and leveldb is single-process-access, bless it
395 2013-04-05 07:16:40 <Scrat> even if you call it a database
396 2013-04-05 07:16:57 <sipa> it's a key-value store with batch updates :)
397 2013-04-05 07:17:11 <gmaxwell> lupine: multiple process access wouldn't have helped you in any case.
398 2013-04-05 07:17:46 <lupine> well, if it doesn't need the block chain to run, that's even better, obviously
399 2013-04-05 07:18:36 <gmaxwell> lupine: the idea is you would run one blockchain daemon and many wallets.
400 2013-04-05 07:18:43 <sipa> lupine: you can right now use multibit for example as a wallet client, and connect it to your single bitcoind running in your network (though it seems to be a bit lagging in features)
401 2013-04-05 07:19:29 <lupine> mm, I do prefer to stay with the stock client, for reasons I can't explain
402 2013-04-05 07:20:08 <sipa> right, so we should move to support that model :)
403 2013-04-05 07:20:30 <Scrat> I wonder if its easy for bitcoind to be more "passive" ie. accept transactions of addresses in its wallet as if they were made by it
404 2013-04-05 07:21:00 <sipa> Scrat: as a fully verifying node, no
405 2013-04-05 07:21:11 <sipa> you need to process all blocks
406 2013-04-05 07:21:38 <sipa> if you don't want the security of that verification, well then technically you don't need it at all
407 2013-04-05 07:23:19 <Scrat> not from a verifying perspective. ie. I want to send a raw transaction from elsewhere (or even use b.i) but I my understanding is that it will cock up if it doesn't make the transaction itself
408 2013-04-05 07:28:51 <sipa> i don't understand
409 2013-04-05 07:29:08 <sipa> creating a raw transaction should be perfectly possible for a wallet-only client
410 2013-04-05 07:29:36 <sipa> actually, that is what every wallet client out there does...
411 2013-04-05 07:29:44 <Habbie> Scrat, my understanding is that that will Just Work
412 2013-04-05 07:31:58 <Scrat> sipa: ok how about this: you dump a privkey, then use it on b.i to send to somewhere (it will use the same address as change), then your change is unspendable on your vanilla client
413 2013-04-05 07:32:22 <sipa> Scrat: that's purely because of incompatibilities between how those wallets work
414 2013-04-05 07:32:26 <gmaxwell> Scrat: having private keys is multiple wallets ??? or even using dump in general is inadvisable.
415 2013-04-05 07:32:31 <sipa> not inherent to having a blockchain present or not
416 2013-04-05 07:32:44 <Scrat> gmaxwell: of course it is
417 2013-04-05 07:41:38 <Scrat> I also wonder if bitcoind should handle rpc timeouts, since it departs from the usual daemon model (of not locking the RPC for seconds). if you let the client handle timeouts there is a possibility that as your client abandons the request it gets fulfilled by the server, which would be bad especially for sending
418 2013-04-05 07:57:36 <Wayno> hey guys quick question, in bitcoind getinfo it shows as "balance" : 0.00000000,
419 2013-04-05 07:57:48 <Wayno> but in the php wallet shows it has coin
420 2013-04-05 07:57:53 <Wayno> is the getinfo bugged?
421 2013-04-05 07:58:04 <fiatbubble> check blockchain
422 2013-04-05 07:58:34 <sipa> "the php wallet" ?
423 2013-04-05 07:58:48 <Wayno> php wallet sorry is php script to show the data
424 2013-04-05 07:59:04 <Wayno> blockchain shows the same
425 2013-04-05 07:59:06 <Wayno> correct amount
426 2013-04-05 07:59:53 <sydna> just reiterating. coinbase.com is exposing your personal details.
427 2013-04-05 08:00:07 <sydna> anyone can google search and find completed transactions
428 2013-04-05 08:00:13 <Wayno> yes i know
429 2013-04-05 08:00:40 <Scrat> sydna: sauce?
430 2013-04-05 08:00:43 <sydna> https://coinbase.com/checkouts/82115b5058f48bfd96a55686a777692f
431 2013-04-05 08:00:52 <sydna> google DORK for "site:https://coinbase.com/checkouts/"
432 2013-04-05 08:00:57 <Scrat> oh lol
433 2013-04-05 08:01:23 <sipa> Wayno: and why would the php wallet show the same as your local bitcoind?
434 2013-04-05 08:01:32 <sipa> what wallet does it connect to?
435 2013-04-05 08:02:02 <Wayno> it should show the same ammount as getinfo
436 2013-04-05 08:02:05 <Wayno> but it does not
437 2013-04-05 08:02:08 <Wayno> thats why i am asking
438 2013-04-05 08:02:13 <sydna> unconfirmed coins?
439 2013-04-05 08:02:16 <Wayno> nope
440 2013-04-05 08:02:24 <Wayno> they are confirmed
441 2013-04-05 08:02:31 <sipa> does that php wallet script connect to the same bitcoind?
442 2013-04-05 08:02:36 <Wayno> yes
443 2013-04-05 08:06:08 <sydna> how much are you off by?
444 2013-04-05 08:06:49 <Wayno> 213btc in wallet
445 2013-04-05 08:06:57 <Wayno> shows as 0 >.>
446 2013-04-05 08:07:26 <sydna> now that's scary
447 2013-04-05 08:07:37 <sydna> I sincerely hope you have those private keys backed up
448 2013-04-05 08:08:38 <sydna> if you don't, now is the time to do it
449 2013-04-05 08:09:24 <Wayno> yeah
450 2013-04-05 08:09:42 <lupine> ... again ?
451 2013-04-05 08:25:00 <Wayno> hmm do a -rescan
452 2013-04-05 08:25:04 <Wayno> balace 25 >.>
453 2013-04-05 08:25:10 <Wayno> wat other commands are there
454 2013-04-05 08:25:41 <sydna> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Original_Bitcoin_client/API_Calls_list
455 2013-04-05 08:26:22 <Wayno> funny enough thats the api list
456 2013-04-05 08:26:29 <Wayno> and -rescan isnt on there
457 2013-04-05 08:27:44 <sipa> it's not an API call
458 2013-04-05 08:27:48 <sipa> it's a command-line flag
459 2013-04-05 08:28:01 <sydna> ACTION slinks away
460 2013-04-05 09:34:34 <testnet> how is it possible to send with json rpc more transaktions at one time to save fees?
461 2013-04-05 09:35:28 <a_meteorite> testnet: sendmany?
462 2013-04-05 09:36:18 <testnet> thy
463 2013-04-05 09:43:39 <thedrs1> good morning good people - a small Q if you have the time ... I am using the qt bitcoin client - i wanted to try to use testnet to see if i can mine and manage to solve a block ... i saw in the help->debug a check box for 'on testnet'. If i check this box will it affect my real block chain ? or is the client buit to work dual mode ?
464 2013-04-05 09:44:32 <abrkn\\> i'm struggling with performance issues in my wallet implementation. i have a database of all my deposit addresses (theyre cold, so not in my wallet) and i go through every block and every tx to see if any of my addresses received anything. however, i'm struggling with performance issues from doing so many getblock, getrawtx, decoderawtx calls. is there another way to do this?
465 2013-04-05 09:46:11 <abrkn\\> i could use listsinceblock, but then i'd need to have the addresses in my wallet and as i understand bitcoind does not support having an address without a private key
466 2013-04-05 09:46:40 <InsuDra> abrkn look at armory, they parse the block chain files to do this in a timely fashion
467 2013-04-05 09:47:11 <sydna> abrkn\\: you could probably use a callback service, blockchain.info will ping a URL if they see a TX on an address
468 2013-04-05 09:47:24 <abrkn\\> InsuDra: switching to armory at this point would force me to change -a lot- :|
469 2013-04-05 09:47:48 <abrkn\\> i wanted to use blockchain.info, but the rpc compat api is buggy
470 2013-04-05 09:48:01 <sydna> abrkn\\: alternativly, a listening script like bitcoin-sniffer will let you parse unconfirmed TX as they are broadcast
471 2013-04-05 09:48:08 <abrkn\\> not even valid json and they wont respond to my tickets
472 2013-04-05 09:48:48 <sydna> I've modified bitcoin-sniffer to do things in the past, just set it up to respond to certain outputs
473 2013-04-05 09:49:00 <sydna> probably not optimal though
474 2013-04-05 09:49:23 <CodeShark> I have a better solution - feel free to use it: https://github.com/CodeShark/CoinClasses/blob/master/examples/listener2/listener2.cpp
475 2013-04-05 09:49:38 <abrkn\\> would be so much nicer if i could use blockchain.info and not have to use txindex=1
476 2013-04-05 09:50:13 <sydna> CodeShark: that's almost identical to bitcoin-sniffer ;)
477 2013-04-05 09:50:37 <sydna> https://github.com/sebicas/bitcoin-sniffer/blob/master/sniffer.py
478 2013-04-05 09:50:44 <abrkn\\> right now im stuck 3000 blocks behind and all these api calls have slowed me down to one block per minute
479 2013-04-05 09:51:31 <sydna> abrkn\\: just try bitcoin-sniffer, it's probably all you need. it's all /I/ needed.
480 2013-04-05 09:51:40 <CodeShark> bitcoin-sniffer is just a modified version of jgarzik's thing
481 2013-04-05 09:51:53 <sydna> ACTION shrugs
482 2013-04-05 09:51:56 <abrkn\\> but how's it help if you stop your program and need to catch up?
483 2013-04-05 09:52:13 <sydna> I suppose then you need to go back to grinding it slowly
484 2013-04-05 09:52:28 <abrkn\\> aye, that's what im doing now :(
485 2013-04-05 09:52:30 <CodeShark> keep track of the last seen block
486 2013-04-05 09:52:38 <sydna> I don't design fallbacks, it's a zen sort of thing
487 2013-04-05 09:52:40 <CodeShark> then when you start again, see if there's a more recent block
488 2013-04-05 09:52:41 <abrkn\\> two days at this speed, disgusting.. :(
489 2013-04-05 09:52:45 <CodeShark> and ask for all the more recent blocks
490 2013-04-05 09:53:09 <sydna> abrkn\\: if you have 35GB of disk space free, Abe will parse the entire thing into a Postgres / MySQL database
491 2013-04-05 09:53:19 <CodeShark> you can also ask for a peer's mempool
492 2013-04-05 09:53:26 <CodeShark> no need to store the whole thing in an SQL database
493 2013-04-05 09:53:35 <abrkn\\> sysdna: i promised myself i would not store the entire chain in sql, but at this point i regret it
494 2013-04-05 09:53:43 <CodeShark> I've done it both ways
495 2013-04-05 09:53:50 <InsuDra> again look at armory code, might be faster to just parse the files your self (or setup a service that does it on request)
496 2013-04-05 09:54:00 <sydna> with Abe at least there's a lot of indexs to rely on
497 2013-04-05 09:54:05 <CodeShark> the SQL database is nice for historical queries and analysis tools - but totally unnecessary for processing received transactions
498 2013-04-05 09:54:16 <sydna> of course
499 2013-04-05 09:54:22 <sydna> sledgehammer to kill a fly
500 2013-04-05 09:54:34 <abrkn\\> again, if blockchain would fix their shit... anyone care to try their getblock?
501 2013-04-05 09:54:34 <CodeShark> parsing the block chain files is the worst solution of all :p
502 2013-04-05 09:55:10 <CodeShark> relying on blockchain.info for this stuff is silly if you intend to run a real business
503 2013-04-05 09:55:18 <sydna> ^
504 2013-04-05 09:55:21 <CodeShark> if you're just a hobbyist, I suppose it's ok
505 2013-04-05 09:55:31 <sydna> not even for that, have you seen their downtime?
506 2013-04-05 09:56:00 <alaricsp> It would be nice if bitcoind exposed whatever you need via its API
507 2013-04-05 09:56:08 <sydna> http://status.blockchain.info/500250/2013/03
508 2013-04-05 09:56:17 <CodeShark> just use a p2p listener, store the last seen block, and ask for mempool + all more recent blocks on startup
509 2013-04-05 09:56:25 <sydna> 97% uptime is atrocious
510 2013-04-05 09:56:36 <CodeShark> and only use getrawtransaction for confirmation counts
511 2013-04-05 09:56:50 <alaricsp> Some kind of "find transactions involving addresses (X,Y,Z) since BLOCK" would be ideal here
512 2013-04-05 09:56:51 <CodeShark> simple solution that works wonderfully for me
513 2013-04-05 09:57:14 <CodeShark> I mean store the last seen block hash + height, of course
514 2013-04-05 09:57:27 <CodeShark> not the whole thing
515 2013-04-05 09:57:31 <alaricsp> Yeah, my "BLOCK" in my query is meant to be a hash+height
516 2013-04-05 09:57:45 <alaricsp> ACTION ponders how it would handle chain forks
517 2013-04-05 09:58:06 <CodeShark> you don't really need to maintain your own block tree if you use bitcoind for confirmation counts
518 2013-04-05 09:58:39 <CodeShark> you only need to ask for confirmation counts for transactions you've already filtered, of course
519 2013-04-05 09:59:10 <alaricsp> I suppose queries involving "since" a given block that turns out to be on a dead fork would be spotted when the chain since that block is followed and the tip of it is not the current best block, so the API would need to return "Here's your transactions, oh and that chain is dead, start again with this BLOCK which is the divergence point between that and the best chain"
520 2013-04-05 09:59:16 <alaricsp> Hrm, fiddly edge cases...
521 2013-04-05 09:59:39 <CodeShark> if the confirmation count has changed, you can receive a notification of that
522 2013-04-05 09:59:51 <CodeShark> you don't really care as a merchant if there was a fork but the confirmation count remains the same
523 2013-04-05 09:59:57 <CodeShark> regardless of fork
524 2013-04-05 10:00:03 <CodeShark> I mean, regardless of branch
525 2013-04-05 10:00:09 <alaricsp> Yes
526 2013-04-05 10:00:25 <alaricsp> I was just thinking about a transaction that only ever exists on some fork
527 2013-04-05 10:00:47 <CodeShark> then if it ends up on an abandoned branch, the confirmation count goes to zero
528 2013-04-05 10:00:55 <CodeShark> and you can receive a notificatino
529 2013-04-05 10:00:59 <CodeShark> *notification
530 2013-04-05 10:01:18 <CodeShark> set it to notify you until it receives, say, 12 confirmations
531 2013-04-05 10:01:33 <CodeShark> each time the confirmation count changes
532 2013-04-05 10:01:34 <alaricsp> Hmmm, good point
533 2013-04-05 10:02:45 <CodeShark> this is what I do and it works wonderfully for me
534 2013-04-05 10:02:53 <CodeShark> using that listener that I put on github
535 2013-04-05 10:03:21 <CodeShark> I attach a filter to that listener and, say, a websocket server
536 2013-04-05 10:03:30 <CodeShark> so then I can connect another process and subscribe to alerts
537 2013-04-05 10:04:56 <CodeShark> or just feed alerts directly to a web browser
538 2013-04-05 10:05:51 <CodeShark> super easy on network and CPU :)
539 2013-04-05 10:06:21 <CodeShark> and each time the process is restarted, it asks for any more recent blocks as well as current mempool
540 2013-04-05 10:06:44 <CodeShark> and updates the confirmation count on all the transactions it is tracking
541 2013-04-05 10:47:10 <unas> i try to build bitcoin-qt on mac. Build bitcoind from the commandlike works (make makefile.osx), but i QT studio i get: 'QMenu' file not found.. any ideas?
542 2013-04-05 10:47:20 <sydna> unas: use Homebrew
543 2013-04-05 10:47:30 <sydna> it has a working bitcoind recipe
544 2013-04-05 10:47:31 <unas> sydna im on port.
545 2013-04-05 10:47:40 <unas> i'd like to say with port. :)
546 2013-04-05 10:47:52 <sydna> ah, someone else will be able to help then I guess
547 2013-04-05 10:48:02 <sydna> ACTION pats homebrew
548 2013-04-05 10:48:08 <fanquake> I'm actually trying the same thing right now
549 2013-04-05 10:48:11 <unas> sydna, i have bitcoin client. I just want to build from the sources to do some changes
550 2013-04-05 10:48:15 <fanquake> getting the same issue
551 2013-04-05 10:49:26 <unas> strange...
552 2013-04-05 10:50:27 <fanquake> Are you getting the error in macdockiconhandler?
553 2013-04-05 10:57:25 <unas> fanquake no? just the QMenu issue
554 2013-04-05 10:57:32 <unas> it's probably because i installed QT5
555 2013-04-05 10:57:39 <unas> maybe have to use QT4.8
556 2013-04-05 10:57:54 <unas> i'll try now
557 2013-04-05 11:06:22 <ashod> hello everyone
558 2013-04-05 11:07:44 <alnkpa2> hey guys, im using armory and transferred 4 h ago from one wallet to another one with tx fees. still, i dont have any confirmations yet
559 2013-04-05 11:08:00 <sydna> can you see the TX on blockchain.info?
560 2013-04-05 11:08:05 <alnkpa2> nope
561 2013-04-05 11:08:16 <sydna> then chances are it never got broadcast
562 2013-04-05 11:08:30 <alnkpa2> hmm, and now?
563 2013-04-05 11:08:37 <sydna> ACTION shrugs
564 2013-04-05 11:08:48 <sydna> someone else here is better equipped to answer
565 2013-04-05 11:09:25 <alnkpa2> alright
566 2013-04-05 11:12:24 <skinnkavaj> http://i.imgur.com/83W3Q2U.png
567 2013-04-05 11:12:27 <skinnkavaj> STOP BTC GUILD!
568 2013-04-05 11:12:28 <skinnkavaj> Omg
569 2013-04-05 11:29:18 <alnkpa2> hey guys, im using armory and transferred 4 h ago from one wallet to another one with tx fees. still, i dont have any confirmations yet
570 2013-04-05 11:34:32 <petertodd> alnkpa2: Try restarting armory. For me at least it has a bug where confirmations don't show up within armory itself.
571 2013-04-05 11:35:34 <alnkpa2> petertodd: already restarted armory and bitcoin-qt
572 2013-04-05 11:36:16 <petertodd> alnkpa2: Probably just needed a higher fee to begin with to me faster. Not much you can do now.
573 2013-04-05 11:36:32 <petertodd> We really do need tx replacement so you can adjust fees after the fact...
574 2013-04-05 11:37:05 <alnkpa2> well, i thought the standard fee was ... well standard
575 2013-04-05 11:37:53 <petertodd> Fees are a bidding process pretty much. You're trying to buy a limited resource.
576 2013-04-05 11:38:10 <alnkpa2> confirmations?
577 2013-04-05 11:38:37 <petertodd> No, blockchain space.
578 2013-04-05 11:39:37 <alnkpa2> ok, so the tx can only be confirmed if already incorporated in a block?
579 2013-04-05 11:40:27 <petertodd> No, confirmation means putting it in a block. But anyway this is a #bitcoin topic, not #bitcoin-dev
580 2013-04-05 11:40:44 <alnkpa2> ok
581 2013-04-05 11:40:48 <alnkpa2> sry
582 2013-04-05 11:41:42 <alnkpa2> a last question: what fee should I've used
583 2013-04-05 11:42:48 <sydna> 0.0005
584 2013-04-05 11:42:56 <sydna> 0.001 if you feel generous
585 2013-04-05 11:42:59 <alnkpa2> well, i did
586 2013-04-05 11:43:03 <sydna> 13.37 if you feel ridiculous
587 2013-04-05 11:43:07 <alnkpa2> xD
588 2013-04-05 11:43:23 <sydna> highest fee recorded was like 200BTC
589 2013-04-05 11:43:31 <sydna> they must have been hitting the bath salts
590 2013-04-05 11:43:40 <alnkpa2> :D
591 2013-04-05 11:45:14 <alnkpa2> so petertodd, i actually used the right fee and still haven't gotten any confirmation and the tx isn't on blockchain.info
592 2013-04-05 11:45:52 <petertodd> hmm... that could be something else then
593 2013-04-05 11:45:55 <petertodd> msg me the tx hash
594 2013-04-05 12:02:49 <kermit_> http://www.mail-archive.com/security-discuss@mail.opensolaris.org/msg01848.html
595 2013-04-05 12:03:06 <kermit_> sh256 assembler re-write (13 march) no significant improvements
596 2013-04-05 12:03:11 <kermit_> openssl
597 2013-04-05 12:05:22 <kermit_> sha256 is an exteemly serial algorithem, no parallelisation possible like AES
598 2013-04-05 12:09:48 <sydna> can be implemented well in hardware though, which is nice
599 2013-04-05 12:11:15 <_kermit> wow
600 2013-04-05 12:11:19 <_kermit> node reset
601 2013-04-05 12:52:12 <cads> Hey guys, I was wondering if it would be very difficult to create a bitcoin-like currency compiler. This would be a program that takes a hash algorithm and a public key encryption algo, and then outputs a fully working BTC-like client
602 2013-04-05 12:52:39 <cads> full with mining capabilities and ready to form its own currency
603 2013-04-05 12:54:01 <iwilcox> Heh, your questions tickle me, cads :)
604 2013-04-05 12:58:59 <cads> iwilcox: I did frame that a bit poorly, neh?
605 2013-04-05 13:01:07 <cads> iwilcox: I'm so glad that I should tickle you, but suddenly I'm not expecting any kind of constructive response without dragging it out of you so for today, I will do something different.
606 2013-04-05 13:01:42 <iwilcox> I'm tickled by why you'd want to in the first place.
607 2013-04-05 13:02:01 <iwilcox> But yeah, sorry, I'm chatting in several places at once and not good at multi-tasking.
608 2013-04-05 13:03:21 <gonffen> why would it be hard cads ? as long as you've written the coind and minerd in a modular fashion :P
609 2013-04-05 13:03:43 <cads> iwilcox: mostly to do it. It would be the first cryptocurrency compiler.
610 2013-04-05 13:03:52 <cads> And not the last, I think.
611 2013-04-05 13:04:26 <iwilcox> I can't imagine many people having the time to do that for fun.
612 2013-04-05 13:06:07 <[7]> ACTION fails to wrap his head around all the endianness mess involved with getwork and stratum
613 2013-04-05 13:07:40 <cads> iwilcox: I'll rephrase the question.
614 2013-04-05 13:08:52 <cads> Can you guys help me brainstorm quick paths to a fully parameterized btc-like currency compiler?
615 2013-04-05 13:09:50 <[7]> ACTION is totally confused now
616 2013-04-05 13:10:22 <cads> Where by "currency compiler", I mean a program that takes at its input a suitable hash and public key crypto, along with some relatively simple configurations, and puts out a (possibly mathematically verified) implementation of a cryptocurrency based in the chosen algorithms.
617 2013-04-05 13:11:16 <[7]> is the prevhash really stored in word-reversed big-endian bit order in the block header?
618 2013-04-05 13:11:43 <cads> iwilcox: lets table the possibility of mathematically verified code.
619 2013-04-05 13:12:05 <[7]> that seems totally backwards, both from a sanity ("everything is big endian on network") and implementation ("all cpus are little endian") point of view
620 2013-04-05 13:12:36 <pjorrit_> best way to test for bugs
621 2013-04-05 13:12:39 <iwilcox> cads: Because it wasn't hard enough already :)
622 2013-04-05 13:13:02 <lianj> [7]: :P
623 2013-04-05 13:13:28 <cads> iwilcox: yeah, lets ignore the verification
624 2013-04-05 13:13:42 <cads> that's magical expensive faerie dust
625 2013-04-05 13:14:35 <cads> iwilcox: I'll leave you be till you're less occupied
626 2013-04-05 13:15:09 <cads> if you want to give a neutral assessment in public or PM, I'd be happy to hear it.
627 2013-04-05 13:15:29 <iwilcox> I think your bigger problem is that I'm not qualified and not worth waiting for, but I'm sure a real dev will pick up your question.
628 2013-04-05 13:16:01 <sipa> what is the question?
629 2013-04-05 13:16:44 <cads> sipa: the idea of a parameterized bitcoin-like client/miner generator came up in -blah.
630 2013-04-05 13:17:00 <sipa> parametrized over what?
631 2013-04-05 13:17:28 <cads> sipa: we were talking about formally verifying bitcoin code, and it seemed like we may as well parameterize over has and public key crypto techs.
632 2013-04-05 13:17:58 <cads> So long as they were themselves verified implementations and were suitable for the blockchain algorithm
633 2013-04-05 13:18:53 <cads> s/over has/over hash
634 2013-04-05 13:19:32 <cads> sipa: it's an interesting application of a futamura-like transform. We'd be making the first currency compiler.
635 2013-04-05 13:19:48 <sipa> ha!
636 2013-04-05 13:20:03 <cads> I know, right!
637 2013-04-05 13:20:19 <cads> It made me laugh just at how simple it was.
638 2013-04-05 13:20:54 <cads> At least conceptually!
639 2013-04-05 13:21:12 <cads> It's the kind of think my inner haskell nerd _loves_ to see.
640 2013-04-05 13:22:34 <iwilcox> ACTION slaps cads' inner haskell nerd
641 2013-04-05 13:30:51 <_kermit> gcc
642 2013-04-05 13:30:57 <_kermit> hnu coin compiler
643 2013-04-05 13:31:00 <_kermit> gnu*
644 2013-04-05 13:31:01 <_kermit> lol
645 2013-04-05 13:36:31 <jouke> Is there a limit on how many addresses I can use with sendmany?
646 2013-04-05 13:37:33 <jouke> I am trying to make a transaction with 36 outputs, but it fails silently.
647 2013-04-05 13:37:51 <jouke> Can it be because I set a fixed txfee?