1 2013-05-08 00:00:12 <nsh> perhaps if you post to that thread requesting a debug/replacement for the rosettacode example someone will assist
2 2013-05-08 00:00:13 <jspilman> pertertodd: ack on that address. there are only 51 unspent outputs greater than 1 satoshi
3 2013-05-08 00:00:30 <gmaxwell> crap. someone uncovered that sipa is a lolcat.
4 2013-05-08 00:00:30 <Luke-Jr> sainth: bitcoin-pl has a base58 module, but I think somewhere is non-native C code
5 2013-05-08 00:00:39 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: ???
6 2013-05-08 00:01:22 <nsh> first they came for the lolcat bitcoin developers, but i did not speakout because i was a lolrus
7 2013-05-08 00:01:44 <nsh> ACTION wonders how speak out became one word...
8 2013-05-08 00:01:57 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: https://github.com/wyager/bitcoin/commit/5fdd1251a87a0938f48e88970ae976e360c6e09f
9 2013-05-08 00:03:45 <Luke-Jr> weird, isn't unsigned int 16-bit?
10 2013-05-08 00:04:12 <gmaxwell> 0_o
11 2013-05-08 00:04:14 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: no.
12 2013-05-08 00:04:29 <gmaxwell> (I mean, it is in dos... :P )
13 2013-05-08 00:04:41 <Luke-Jr> hmm
14 2013-05-08 00:04:44 <nsh> DOS was peak-software.
15 2013-05-08 00:04:54 <gmaxwell> (or on PDP11)
16 2013-05-08 00:04:54 <Luke-Jr> if the standard only requires 16-bit, that's why I write assuming <.<
17 2013-05-08 00:05:00 <gmaxwell> Right.
18 2013-05-08 00:05:09 <Luke-Jr> I'd be tempted to use uintmax_t there???
19 2013-05-08 00:05:29 <Luke-Jr> probably speedup on 64-bit CPUs
20 2013-05-08 00:05:52 <gmaxwell> Nope. At least not x86_64.
21 2013-05-08 00:06:19 <gmaxwell> Cray ... yes. :P
22 2013-05-08 00:07:14 <Luke-Jr> ACTION goes back to his world of theory <.<
23 2013-05-08 01:29:28 <hctib> Hello, I would like to read about the new 0.8.2 client. Is there a github forum where this is discussed. I'm looking for Gavin's comments as well as others. Thanks.
24 2013-05-08 01:30:54 <gmaxwell> hctib: I'm not sure what you're asking about. There isn't a 0.8.2 yet, the code working in that direction is in git.
25 2013-05-08 01:31:12 <gmaxwell> Discussions about development largely happen on github along with the commits that make changes to the code.
26 2013-05-08 01:31:33 <gmaxwell> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls?direction=desc&page=1&sort=created&state=closed
27 2013-05-08 01:31:34 <hctib> gmaxwell, where is that discussion? Thank you
28 2013-05-08 01:31:40 <hctib> nevermind thanks
29 2013-05-08 01:32:12 <gmaxwell> Usually release notes will be written around the time the software becomes a release candidate.
30 2013-05-08 01:32:15 <hctib> That's exactly what I was looking for, thanks
31 2013-05-08 01:32:46 <gmaxwell> You can see the list of changes directly at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master
32 2013-05-08 01:55:22 <[269]gbg_> How exactly do I set rescan=false on importprivkey?
33 2013-05-08 01:58:08 <gbg> nm, I got it
34 2013-05-08 01:58:23 <gbg> just 'false', not 'rescan=false'
35 2013-05-08 01:58:34 <gbg> also, has to be the third param
36 2013-05-08 01:59:28 <nsh> parameter ordering: it's what's for breakfast!
37 2013-05-08 02:01:47 <gbg> so if I want no rescan then I must have a label
38 2013-05-08 02:01:55 <gbg> and that's arbitrary
39 2013-05-08 02:02:44 <nsh> ACTION gesticulates ignorance
40 2013-05-08 02:04:45 <Luke-Jr> sipa: ping
41 2013-05-08 02:18:18 <Tril_> gbg try "" ?
42 2013-05-08 03:55:00 <h2odysee> is there a place to download a fairly recent snapshot of the blockchain?
43 2013-05-08 03:55:26 <cjd> google: bootstrap.dat
44 2013-05-08 03:55:38 <cjd> not that recent but less than like a year old
45 2013-05-08 03:55:49 <h2odysee> thx
46 2013-05-08 03:57:44 <Luke-Jr> h2odysee: magnet:?xt=urn:btih:6fe493ba606847eac163baf35aae9db319735482&dn=bootstrap.dat&tr=udp://tracker.openbittorrent.com:80&tr=udp://tracker.publicbt.com:80&tr=udp://tracker.ccc.de:80&tr=udp://tracker.istole.it:80
47 2013-05-08 03:58:34 <cjd> you can also get it from archive.org
48 2013-05-08 04:02:52 <halcy0n3> does blockchain.info have an irc channel? they are a long way behind blockexplorer
49 2013-05-08 04:09:39 <nsh> halcy0n3, no irc channel that i'm aware of, also i suspect the administrators have been informed
50 2013-05-08 04:09:52 <halcy0n3> no problems.
51 2013-05-08 04:12:09 <halcy0n3> yep. they just lost connection to all nodes.
52 2013-05-08 04:12:39 <gmaxwell> wumpus: sometimes I don't know when it's my weird curmudgeonly CLI preferences showing or when something is actually broken. :)
53 2013-05-08 07:13:52 <sipa> Luke-Jr: uintmax_t is 64-bit on both x86_64 and x86, afaik
54 2013-05-08 07:14:02 <sipa> Luke-Jr: pong
55 2013-05-08 07:14:24 <Luke-Jr> sipa: that was what I expected - wouldn't it be faster to use 64-bit instead of 32-bit like we do now? :p
56 2013-05-08 07:15:04 <Luke-Jr> sipa: did you have SF upload access? backport rc3s have 3 sigs on Linux builds now (win32 soon)
57 2013-05-08 07:16:08 <sipa> Luke-Jr: oh, yes
58 2013-05-08 07:16:24 <sipa> Luke-Jr: i assumed that was impossible because we needed multiplications
59 2013-05-08 07:17:00 <Luke-Jr> sipa: hmm, maybe. I thought x86_64 at least did have a 128-bit type just for multiplication results, though
60 2013-05-08 07:17:24 <sipa> Luke-Jr: it does, but it's not standard and bla bla
61 2013-05-08 07:17:41 <Luke-Jr> ???
62 2013-05-08 07:30:26 <Dom__> does anyone know where in the bitcoin source a public key is converted to a wallet address?
63 2013-05-08 07:32:02 <sipa> CPubKey (key.h) -> CKeyId (key.h) -> CTxDestination (script.h) -> CBitcoinAddress (base58.h)
64 2013-05-08 07:32:14 <nsh> sipa++
65 2013-05-08 07:37:59 <Dom__> thanks:)
66 2013-05-08 07:51:48 <jaromil> Guys, I'd love to have bitcoin bills stamped with Charles Ramsey's face. hope someone brings his ascii portrait in the blockchain.
67 2013-05-08 07:54:35 <Dom__> I maybe missing something here, but does anywhere in the code actually make use of the checksum included in the address? Only address checks I can find is to see if it's valid base58.
68 2013-05-08 07:55:44 <Dom__> ignore that: I'm guessing it's done in ExtractDestination (e.g. if that fails, then it's invalid)
69 2013-05-08 08:20:25 <sipa> Dom__: no, the checksum only exists in the base58 representation
70 2013-05-08 08:20:36 <sipa> Dom__: see base58.h and DecodeBase58Check
71 2013-05-08 08:21:48 <Dom__> aah, I see it now, thanks:)
72 2013-05-08 08:47:43 <Dom__> What sort of range is the number of processing units on a mining ASIC within? Is it considerably more than a GPU, or do ASICs get their speed from just being faster rather than more of them?
73 2013-05-08 08:59:31 <Luke-Jr> Dom__: depends on the device
74 2013-05-08 08:59:54 <Luke-Jr> Dom__: Avalon/ASICMiner chips are like 300 Mh/s each, whereas BFL's are more like 4 Gh/s each
75 2013-05-08 09:02:22 <Dom__> I understand the difference in hashrate, but is what I'm wondering is that hashrate achieved by parallelisation (if that's even a word) or just by faster processing?
76 2013-05-08 09:06:23 <nsh> Dom__, it's a combination of streamlined architecture (you can pretty much tailor the arrangement of logic gates to the mining operation) and parallelisation
77 2013-05-08 09:06:58 <Dom__> okay, thanks:)
78 2013-05-08 09:46:29 <hctib> hello I'm researching a for blog post. I just read the github forum about pull request 2577. What is the discussion about fees for 0.8.2. Is there discussion about the fee required for transactions with outputs less than .01 BTC?
79 2013-05-08 09:48:46 <hctib> 2577 talks about dynamic adjusting of fees. Is this in a separate pull request.
80 2013-05-08 09:51:53 <hctib> found it 2582
81 2013-05-08 09:53:04 <kinlo> that's for the optional fee
82 2013-05-08 09:53:28 <kinlo> and 2577 is about how high the fee's should be, not when to require fee's
83 2013-05-08 09:53:37 <kinlo> so it doesn't touch the 0.01 yet
84 2013-05-08 09:54:26 <kinlo> also, I don't think it should be changed yet - we're talking about 1 dollar... you shouldn't send someone a value below a dollar :)
85 2013-05-08 09:54:46 <hctib> so as of now the .01 is not addressed in 0.8.2? Also is the .0005 going away in 0.8.2? I just want to have the facts for my blog post.
86 2013-05-08 09:55:01 <kinlo> no and no
87 2013-05-08 09:55:05 <kinlo> eh
88 2013-05-08 09:55:23 <kinlo> yes and no, the 0.01 isn't going to be changed afaik, and the 0.005 is not going away
89 2013-05-08 09:55:47 <kinlo> the whole idea is that the miners will be able to configure more about what to put into a block and what not
90 2013-05-08 09:56:11 <kinlo> and other users about what to propagate trough the network and what not
91 2013-05-08 09:56:36 <kinlo> but afaik there isn't going to change anything about the fee's just yet
92 2013-05-08 09:57:13 <hctib> OK, so the rules to relay aren't changing. That makes a blog entry easy. I just need to discuss 2577.
93 2013-05-08 09:59:09 <hctib> the fee relay rules that is. Thanks kinlo
94 2013-05-08 09:59:27 <kinlo> fee relay rules, not sure I get that :)
95 2013-05-08 10:00:00 <kinlo> but besides of adding a new relay rule - nothing to do with fees
96 2013-05-08 10:00:30 <kinlo> there are no changes described in those 2 pull request, they just change how to configure those options, they are not changing the options
97 2013-05-08 10:00:59 <kinlo> you'd better discuss the fact that there are new rules on your blog :)
98 2013-05-08 10:02:37 <Matt_boyd> Hey
99 2013-05-08 10:02:50 <hctib> fee relay rules: 1) .0005 required if output of less than .01. and 2) fee of .0005*floor(kb) for high priority transactions. and 3) fee of .0005*cieling(kb) for low priority transactions.
100 2013-05-08 10:03:17 <Matt_boyd> I have a question about testnet, can anyone answer?
101 2013-05-08 10:03:32 <hctib> hey matt_boyd
102 2013-05-08 10:03:38 <Matt_boyd> hey
103 2013-05-08 10:03:53 <hctib> I don't know about the test net.
104 2013-05-08 10:04:17 <Matt_boyd> Alright, I just wanted to know about the -testnet on the bitcoind server
105 2013-05-08 10:08:10 <volante> is there a way i can build bitcoin-qt on mac from cli, without needing to use qt creator?
106 2013-05-08 10:08:33 <sivu> qmake && make ?
107 2013-05-08 10:09:28 <volante> that gives me a whole lot of warnings and errors
108 2013-05-08 10:10:56 <volante> http://pastebin.com/kkN0wExU
109 2013-05-08 10:18:35 <volante> i did a make clean and tried again, and now the error is this:
110 2013-05-08 10:18:37 <volante> make: *** No rule to make target `/git/bitcoin/src/leveldb/libleveldb.a', needed by `bitcoin-qt'.
111 2013-05-08 10:32:11 <volante> anyone here able to build on osx?
112 2013-05-08 10:36:20 <hctib> thank you for all your help bye
113 2013-05-08 11:32:43 <btcls> hi
114 2013-05-08 11:33:02 <btcls> any techies around i can ask a question to ?
115 2013-05-08 11:33:23 <lianj> Dont ask to ask, just ask
116 2013-05-08 11:33:52 <btcls> I want to put a unique QR code on a product that brings the person to a unique url
117 2013-05-08 11:34:20 <btcls> at that unique url is a new bitcoin address that has never been used and contains some btc
118 2013-05-08 11:34:56 <btcls> from my understanding they can check the balance of that address ACCURATELY only if it has never been used ?? is that correctg ?
119 2013-05-08 11:36:03 <lianj> no. in fact, if it has never been used it can't have any balance on it
120 2013-05-08 11:36:24 <btcls> lianj: well i guess used once because i put some btc on it
121 2013-05-08 11:36:38 <Dom__> if you lookup the balance of an address that hasn't ever been used and has no balance,nothing will be returned (or it will return something suggesting not found)
122 2013-05-08 11:37:06 <Dom__> but if that address has had coins sent to it in the past, you would be able to lookup the balance of that address
123 2013-05-08 11:37:34 <cjd> assuming "never been used" == "never paid anyone" (the only reading which makes the question sane) there is no difference
124 2013-05-08 11:37:54 <cjd> whether it has paid someone or not, checking balance is equally accurate
125 2013-05-08 11:38:07 <Dom__> there is. if it's been used to receive coins in the past, the balance will show.
126 2013-05-08 11:38:38 <Dom__> unless it gets pruned maybe....? I'm out of my depth already:/
127 2013-05-08 11:39:42 <sipa> wallets are independent from the block chain
128 2013-05-08 11:39:51 <sipa> wallets track whatever addresses they own
129 2013-05-08 11:40:45 <btcls> okay so i send out an invoice with the unique url/QR code ... that person enters my unique invoice number ...and the btc address is revealed ... he checks the address and it has money on it ...pays my invoice ...and solidifies my contract by removing the btc at that address
130 2013-05-08 11:41:09 <sipa> what address is revealed?
131 2013-05-08 11:41:17 <NxTitle> wait what? are you exchanging bitcoins for bitcoins?
132 2013-05-08 11:41:17 <sipa> all you care about is that they pay you
133 2013-05-08 11:41:27 <btcls> the public btc address ...
134 2013-05-08 11:41:30 <sipa> you don't need to track what address it comes from (hint: no such thing exists)
135 2013-05-08 11:41:35 <NxTitle> ^
136 2013-05-08 11:41:45 <btcls> after paying my invoice ... i send him the private key to access those funds
137 2013-05-08 11:41:46 <TD> what are you actually trying to do? accept payment?
138 2013-05-08 11:41:54 <TD> why are you sending private keys around?
139 2013-05-08 11:42:26 <btcls> TD: that is a good question ...why would i do it that way .... gotta think some more ...ty ty
140 2013-05-08 11:42:52 <NxTitle> btcls: so you are trying to accept payment?
141 2013-05-08 11:43:01 <cjd> Added 1 addresses from fcf4:e309:14b5:5498:cafd:4f59:4b9c:7f84: 78 tried, 15032 new
142 2013-05-08 11:43:03 <ali1234> he's trying to sell bitcoins
143 2013-05-08 11:43:04 <cjd> =)
144 2013-05-08 11:43:22 <NxTitle> ali1234: for bitcoins?
145 2013-05-08 11:43:30 <sipa> cjd: cjdns?
146 2013-05-08 11:43:34 <cjd> yeah
147 2013-05-08 11:43:36 <ali1234> no in return for payment of an invoice... payment currency not specified
148 2013-05-08 11:43:39 <cjd> and I didn't do anything
149 2013-05-08 11:43:42 <btcls> NxTitle: yes payment for a physical product that has some btc as a bonous sooo to speak
150 2013-05-08 11:43:53 <cjd> I just happened to be watching debug.log and it scrolled by
151 2013-05-08 11:43:58 <sipa> btcls: just ask for a refund address and send coins there
152 2013-05-08 11:44:11 <sipa> don't send private keys
153 2013-05-08 11:44:51 <btcls> okay ... i guess what i am trying to prove to the customer is that there is actually bitcoin waiting for him
154 2013-05-08 11:45:19 <btcls> and he can check an address to see that it is there
155 2013-05-08 11:45:23 <TD> but that proof is not very useful. after the purchaser checks, you could just move the money
156 2013-05-08 11:45:28 <NxTitle> that doesn't really prove much
157 2013-05-08 11:45:28 <NxTitle> yeah
158 2013-05-08 11:45:52 <btcls> yeah i suppose i could
159 2013-05-08 11:46:01 <cjd> never underestimate the power of security theater
160 2013-05-08 11:46:03 <NxTitle> you could easily show the address of the guy who has like 100k BTC - it doesn't necessarily prove you have access to it or that it's waiting for them
161 2013-05-08 11:46:29 <btcls> NxTitle: you are right
162 2013-05-08 11:46:41 <ali1234> this is why escrow services exist
163 2013-05-08 11:46:54 <cjd> there's no security in satoshidice's little send-dust-transactions scheme but for some reason people think it proves honesty of the system
164 2013-05-08 11:47:04 <ali1234> there's no other general way to solve the problem
165 2013-05-08 11:47:12 <Dom__> from the wiki: "Only the headers are necessary for verifying received transactions -- full blocks are needed only by generators" what information regarding transactions is stored in the block header? I thought at least one other transaction and a few hashes from the merkle tree were required to verify a transaction is in a block...
166 2013-05-08 11:47:40 <NxTitle> cjd: I think the reason they do that is not for security, but to show you lost a bet (not agreeing with it, but yeah)
167 2013-05-08 11:47:44 <jaakkos> cjd: satoshidice is actually provably fair
168 2013-05-08 11:47:48 <NxTitle> and using the blockchain to do so
169 2013-05-08 11:48:29 <sipa> btcls: you can send a messaged signed by the private key
170 2013-05-08 11:48:58 <NxTitle> that would prove you own it, but doesn't necessarily prove you'll move it - for that you'll need a trusted escrow
171 2013-05-08 11:49:06 <Scrat> can't you also send dust to prove that you own an address? if you can't sign that is
172 2013-05-08 11:49:09 <btcls> sipa: i have not read up on using messages and private keys yet
173 2013-05-08 11:49:19 <NxTitle> Scrat: yes, but that pollutes the blockchain
174 2013-05-08 11:49:20 <Scrat> inb4 from :p
175 2013-05-08 11:49:47 <NxTitle> and if you have a private key, you can sign with it
176 2013-05-08 11:50:02 <Scrat> NxTitle: of course, and I'm against that
177 2013-05-08 11:50:35 <cjd> 09:46 < jaakkos> cjd: satoshidice is actually provably fair <-- QED
178 2013-05-08 11:50:50 <NxTitle> well, it's provably fair after the fact
179 2013-05-08 11:51:00 <NxTitle> once a day passes and they release the secret
180 2013-05-08 11:51:43 <jaakkos> cjd: each day they choose a secret, whose hash they have published in advance. the dice number is derived from the secret and the txhash you create. when the day is over, they publish the secret.
181 2013-05-08 11:51:54 <NxTitle> yes
182 2013-05-08 11:51:58 <cjd> ahh
183 2013-05-08 11:52:02 <jaakkos> (and the derivation function is a cryptographic hash function)
184 2013-05-08 11:52:04 <gaantr2> Are there any tools for checking a bitcoinj wallet?
185 2013-05-08 11:52:10 <NxTitle> and at that point you can go do the math yourself against the blockchain and verify it
186 2013-05-08 11:52:16 <cjd> now what I don't understand is how this cjdns node found me
187 2013-05-08 11:52:31 <NxTitle> for the current day however, you cannot prove it
188 2013-05-08 11:52:44 <cjd> I did not do *anything* I am natted except for cjdns and I have 9 connections
189 2013-05-08 11:53:08 <sipa> cjd: bitcoind probably broadcasted your public cjdns address?
190 2013-05-08 11:53:24 <sipa> and some other node was also running cjdns and picked it up?
191 2013-05-08 11:53:31 <cjd> I guess so
192 2013-05-08 11:53:41 <sipa> though... that IP range should be considered unroutable aaik
193 2013-05-08 11:53:54 <cjd> I have a cjdns ipv6 address, a normal ipv6 address (tunneled over cjdns) and ofc an ipv4 (natted)
194 2013-05-08 11:54:21 <cjd> so it must detect and broadcast them all...
195 2013-05-08 11:55:02 <cjd> or perhaps it bcasts my cjdns ipv6 but not my normal one if the code did not make provision for multiple ipv6 addresses
196 2013-05-08 11:55:20 <jouke> gaantr2: depends what you want to do.
197 2013-05-08 11:55:21 <cjd> which would make sense as well since I have no incoming ipv6 connections
198 2013-05-08 11:57:41 <gaantr2> my program isn't receiving a transaction and I'm trying to find out why.
199 2013-05-08 11:58:07 <sipa> what's the txid?
200 2013-05-08 11:58:35 <gaantr2> \\
201 2013-05-08 11:58:35 <gaantr2> c56053c4fc54390770702e1ebe80424b71828a07c4b2c8aee04fd63426dc251c
202 2013-05-08 11:59:09 <jouke> gaantr2: there is a wallettool in the bitcoinj repo
203 2013-05-08 11:59:45 <gaantr2> okay I'll try that jouke, thanks
204 2013-05-08 12:09:10 <cjd> ERROR: CTxMemPool::accept() : inputs already spent
205 2013-05-08 12:09:13 <cjd> badnode :P
206 2013-05-08 12:15:14 <cjd> Committing 3387 changed transactions to coin database...
207 2013-05-08 12:15:14 <cjd> CTxMemPool::accept() : accepted d9d3fdef79fcc0c9c340fd0a9bfa0c8ed9ec793027ae4a2b8f2d59ac15842a9c (poolsz 1839)
208 2013-05-08 12:15:14 <cjd> received block 00000000000000ac99e5dc770d986bb7479e7cf6f86d9471a06e9ed0b44bacd4
209 2013-05-08 12:15:25 <cjd> CTxMemPool::accept() : accepted e50d26f5393e86a060cfe9b0922b346259ad5ced48a85bf4845a3a757d79758a (poolsz 1032)
210 2013-05-08 12:15:36 <cjd> does this imply poor saturation?
211 2013-05-08 12:16:01 <cjd> poolsz dropping by 800 when 3387 transactions are committed
212 2013-05-08 12:16:23 <cjd> oh right
213 2013-05-08 12:16:31 <cjd> my node filters dust :]
214 2013-05-08 12:19:07 <sipa> cjd: changed transactions is typically much higher than the number of transactions in the block