1 2013-06-01 02:05:03 <owowodopolous> what would I use to set my dust variable in bitcoin.conf isdust=x
2 2013-06-01 02:05:05 <owowodopolous> P
3 2013-06-01 02:05:07 <owowodopolous> ?
4 2013-06-01 02:06:36 <owowodopolous> it's not in the wiki...
5 2013-06-01 02:07:32 <Luke-Jr> hmm
6 2013-06-01 02:07:52 <owowodopolous> and what is the default dust?
7 2013-06-01 02:07:54 <Luke-Jr> can anyone who got Kaspersky's contact info ask him if there's anything I can do to make my software resistant to being embedded in malware/botnets?
8 2013-06-01 02:08:07 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: ^
9 2013-06-01 02:09:05 <sethotterstad> have you guys seen this eMula alt-coin? The dev is arguing in the thread that calculating merkel-roots is superior to SHA256 for proof-of-work.
10 2013-06-01 02:09:28 <Luke-Jr> sethotterstad: link?
11 2013-06-01 02:09:56 <sethotterstad> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=220530.280
12 2013-06-01 02:34:48 <TradeFortress> I'd like to call listtransactions without specifying an account, but also make use of count and from. How do I do that with php jsonrpcclient?
13 2013-06-01 02:35:04 <TradeFortress> $rpc->listtransactions(30, $from) gives me an error.
14 2013-06-01 02:35:18 <TradeFortress> $rpc->listransactions("", 30, $from) fetches from the account ""
15 2013-06-01 02:36:08 <Luke-Jr> null?
16 2013-06-01 02:36:15 <Luke-Jr> surely PHP has some null type..
17 2013-06-01 02:37:26 <TradeFortress> NULL gives me an error.
18 2013-06-01 02:41:57 <TradeFortress> "*" works
19 2013-06-01 02:42:31 <TradeFortress> Regarding -blocknotify: If it's downloading the blockchain, could it overload my PHP script that checks incoming transactions?
20 2013-06-01 03:26:32 <ryan-c> TradeFortress: yes
21 2013-06-01 04:25:49 <TradeFortress> Help: I can't connect via jsonrpc after upgrading to v0.8.2. curl works.
22 2013-06-01 04:26:06 <TradeFortress> Has there being any changes since v0.7.x?
23 2013-06-01 04:27:23 <Luke-Jr> probably
24 2013-06-01 04:27:33 <Luke-Jr> if curl works, your code is probably buggy
25 2013-06-01 04:30:09 <TradeFortress> I'm just calling getinfo. Do you know any rpc changes?
26 2013-06-01 06:29:55 <Goonie_> BlueMatt: ping
27 2013-06-01 07:33:11 <jouke> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I&hd=1
28 2013-06-01 07:33:12 <jouke> srsly
29 2013-06-01 09:52:50 <bitanarchy> How can I see my peers in bitcoin-qt?
30 2013-06-01 09:57:15 <Goonie_> bitanarchy: there is a command in the console
31 2013-06-01 10:25:02 <setkeh> Hey guys How does one use jsonrpc in python to call bitcoind rpc i have tried https://gist.github.com/setkeh/5690203 but it throws a traceback i dont quite understand (im new to python :D) the taceback is included in that gist
32 2013-06-01 10:29:17 <lianj> setkeh: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/API_reference_(JSON-RPC)#Python
33 2013-06-01 10:31:15 <setkeh> lianj: yes thats how i got that far though that just outputs the JSON so i canged it according to the jsonrpc docs
34 2013-06-01 10:31:36 <setkeh> that is sipposed to output the value not the JSON
35 2013-06-01 10:31:42 <setkeh> Supposed*
36 2013-06-01 10:32:53 <shesek> How are public keys validated?
37 2013-06-01 10:34:10 <shesek> I would like to create a dummy public key, based on some data, to be used in a multisig transaction, but bitcoind rejects it as invalid
38 2013-06-01 10:34:28 <shesek> I thought padding it to 65 bytes should work, but it seems like it doesn't
39 2013-06-01 10:39:55 <sipa> shesek: there are only around 2^256 valid private keys, so just as much public keys
40 2013-06-01 10:40:29 <sipa> and how they are validated... there's no way better wqy create a random public key than creating a real one from a secret key
41 2013-06-01 10:42:28 <shesek> yeah, I could do that, but I don't actually want the pubkey to work
42 2013-06-01 10:43:14 <sipa> why not?
43 2013-06-01 10:43:20 <shesek> I'm creating a 2-of-4 multisig for escrow. 3 of the keys are the buyer/seller/escrow public key, and the forth one is the buyer-seller terms
44 2013-06-01 10:43:23 <sipa> and what do you mean by work?
45 2013-06-01 10:43:41 <shesek> the hash of the buyer-seller terms, that is
46 2013-06-01 10:43:50 <sipa> so you're just using it to attach data to the transactions?
47 2013-06-01 10:43:57 <sipa> please don't do that
48 2013-06-01 10:44:00 <shesek> pretty much, yes
49 2013-06-01 10:44:20 <shesek> why not?
50 2013-06-01 10:44:34 <shesek> its a p2sh address anyway
51 2013-06-01 10:44:48 <shesek> its only an extra few bytes in the spending transaction
52 2013-06-01 10:45:00 <sipa> yeah, it's better than adding an extra output for it
53 2013-06-01 10:45:07 <sipa> as this doesn't impact the utxo set
54 2013-06-01 10:45:16 <sipa> but it's not necessary still
55 2013-06-01 10:45:38 <sipa> you can probably do something like derive one of pubkey from the hash multiplied by a know pubkey
56 2013-06-01 10:45:40 <shesek> Its a way to prove to the escrow the terms were agreed upon by both parties
57 2013-06-01 10:45:42 <warren> sipa: back home?
58 2013-06-01 10:45:52 <sipa> that also proves the commitment
59 2013-06-01 10:46:17 <sipa> and if you really want to do what you're doing: use a compressed pubkey
60 2013-06-01 10:46:28 <shesek> is attaching data like that considered a bad thing?
61 2013-06-01 10:46:29 <sipa> 0x02 + 32 bytes
62 2013-06-01 10:46:39 <sipa> imho it's abuse
63 2013-06-01 10:47:01 <sipa> anything that isn't necessary for the world to validate your transactions doesn't belong in it
64 2013-06-01 10:47:05 <shesek> it doesn't effect the UTXO, and barely takes any storage in the blocks
65 2013-06-01 10:47:30 <sipa> it's 65 extra bytes in your case to the blockchain
66 2013-06-01 10:47:47 <sipa> i don't care whether it's much or not, if it's possible with 0 as well
67 2013-06-01 10:48:37 <safra> hi
68 2013-06-01 10:48:43 <sipa> warren: yes
69 2013-06-01 10:48:46 <sipa> almost
70 2013-06-01 10:48:51 <safra> anyone know how to upgrate bitcoin-qt on ubunt 13.04?
71 2013-06-01 10:48:58 <safra> ubuntu*
72 2013-06-01 10:49:08 <shesek> I guess I could have the buyer/seller sign the terms with the their pubkey and give it to each other
73 2013-06-01 10:49:30 <shesek> instead of storing the hash as part of the p2sh
74 2013-06-01 10:50:30 <sipa> also, N-of-4 multisig is nonstandard (for now)
75 2013-06-01 10:50:52 <shesek> yeah, I read something about it being limited to 3 pubkeys somewhere
76 2013-06-01 10:50:54 <shesek> but I wasn't sure
77 2013-06-01 10:50:56 <sipa> which can be changed easily, but right now, it would make your scheme hard in oractice
78 2013-06-01 10:51:03 <shesek> so I guess its not really an option?
79 2013-06-01 10:51:04 <sipa> practice
80 2013-06-01 10:51:26 <sipa> well if you have a convincing use case to extend it to 4, it can easily be changed
81 2013-06-01 10:51:44 <sipa> but storing extra data in the chain is imho more a reason not to allow it.
82 2013-06-01 10:52:05 <TradeFortress> Hey guys, can someone with a miner point it at the testnet for a minute or so. I'd like to test something.
83 2013-06-01 10:52:08 <TradeFortress> Thanks <3
84 2013-06-01 10:52:58 <shesek> I dunno. I think that things like that, or trusted timestamping, or colored coins, add a lot of value to Bitcoin
85 2013-06-01 10:53:48 <shesek> I don't like the general attitude against that stuff
86 2013-06-01 10:55:11 <shesek> its easy to say to everyone "start your own blockchain", but its not that simple in reality. Bitcoin gives incentive for people to mine, that won't exists on a new blockchain
87 2013-06-01 10:58:17 <sipa> shesek: well, all depends on what we want bitcoin to be
88 2013-06-01 10:59:35 <sipa> shesek: things that actually add value, and require some overhead may be acceptable (but timestamping can be done in max-constant-space per block like chronobit does, and colored coins afaik don't require extra data in transaction, just color-specific tracking in the client)
89 2013-06-01 10:59:37 <shesek> yeah, I guess it is a matter of opinion. I think the trustless model created in Bitcoin should be used for other purposes
90 2013-06-01 11:00:16 <shesek> yeah, but the 0.8.2 dust handling makes it harder/more expensive to use colored coins
91 2013-06-01 11:00:36 <shesek> instead of representing "things" with a satoshi, which costs almost nothing
92 2013-06-01 11:00:42 <sipa> it
93 2013-06-01 11:00:44 <shesek> you'd have to use multiplies of the new limit
94 2013-06-01 11:00:53 <sipa> it's not like you lose something by assigning meaning to a coin
95 2013-06-01 11:02:39 <setkeh> Hey guys How does one use jsonrpc in python to call bitcoind rpc i have tried https://gist.github.com/setkeh/5690203 but it throws a traceback i dont quite understand (im new to python :D) the taceback is included in that gist
96 2013-06-01 11:02:39 <sipa> sure, dust limiting means less potential total independent coins in circulation
97 2013-06-01 11:02:43 <shesek> If I wanted to distribute 100,000 shares, it'll cost me 5.43 BTC (100,000*0.0000543)
98 2013-06-01 11:03:00 <shesek> if I could use 1 satoshi for each share, it'll be 0.001 BTC
99 2013-06-01 11:03:03 <sipa> but that's the same whether they have only bitcoin value or extra value
100 2013-06-01 11:03:21 <sipa> it needs 5.43 BTC, but it's not like you lose them
101 2013-06-01 11:03:35 <shesek> well, I assign them a different meaning
102 2013-06-01 11:03:42 <sipa> well, no
103 2013-06-01 11:03:45 <shesek> I can't longer use them as regular money
104 2013-06-01 11:03:46 <TradeFortress> YES YES YES
105 2013-06-01 11:03:51 <sipa> shesek: yes you can
106 2013-06-01 11:03:54 <TradeFortress> Thank you to whoever mined the block on testnet! I love you
107 2013-06-01 11:04:04 <nsh> TradeFortress, what you testing?
108 2013-06-01 11:04:10 <TradeFortress> nsh, blocknotify
109 2013-06-01 11:04:18 <shesek> well, I technically could, eventually, when I don't need them to be colored anymore
110 2013-06-01 11:04:19 <nsh> right
111 2013-06-01 11:04:39 <sipa> shesek: they are coins that are worth 54.3 uBTC + whatever you assign to it
112 2013-06-01 11:05:04 <sipa> like buying a house to rent it our doesn't mean you can't sell the house anymore afterwards
113 2013-06-01 11:05:23 <nsh> ACTION wonders how far back in the buffer is required to read for this discussion to make sense
114 2013-06-01 11:05:38 <shesek> if whatever you assign to them is worth more than 54.3 uBTC, there's no point in anyone ever using them as regular bitcoins
115 2013-06-01 11:05:57 <sipa> they
116 2013-06-01 11:06:02 <sipa> they're still both
117 2013-06-01 11:06:07 <shesek> and even if so, its still more costly to create the shares
118 2013-06-01 11:06:29 <Tykling> can someone think of a better rpc call to use here, the goal is to get the number of confirmations for a given bitcoind account: https://ezcrypt.it/dx6n#s7XAaJEDCHROL52DBrvQUa9M - looping through them all is terribly ineffective
119 2013-06-01 11:06:43 <Tykling> this is with bitcoinrpc for python
120 2013-06-01 11:06:55 <sipa> accounts don't have confirmations
121 2013-06-01 11:06:55 <warren> "Only alerts that are signed by a specific ECDSA public key are considered valid. A copy of the private key is held by at least Satoshi, Gavin, and theymos." First sentence should probably s/public// ?
122 2013-06-01 11:07:59 <Tykling> sipa: no I know but they have addresses which have transactions which have confirmations, it is summarized nicely when calling listreceivedbyaccount, I'd like to get the same info without returning all accounts
123 2013-06-01 11:30:13 <shesek> I'm trying to derive keys from a master public/private key and some hash
124 2013-06-01 11:30:32 <shesek> can someone validate I did it correctly? https://gist.github.com/anonymous/ca039247a17228ed67b6
125 2013-06-01 11:31:35 <shesek> (its with the bitcoinjs library)
126 2013-06-01 11:43:40 <nsh> ;;google browser crypto doubleplusgood
127 2013-06-01 11:43:42 <gribble> Mozilla Adds H.264 Support To Android Firefox - Slashdot: <http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/08/15/1537237/mozilla-adds-h264-support-to-android-firefox>; IBM Seeks Patent On Digital Witch Hunts - Slashdot: <http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/24/2243209/ibm-seeks-patent-on-digital-witch-hunts>; Financial Cryptography: Meta-FC Archives: (1 more message)
128 2013-06-01 13:11:05 <shesek> lets say I want to split my private key in N pieces and distribute it to different parties. is there a way those parties could verify their pieces produce a private key that corresponds to a specific public key, without revealing the private key to each other?
129 2013-06-01 13:24:37 <boonies4u> Which block will contain the final coinbase transaction?
130 2013-06-01 13:24:41 <iddo> shesek: you could use ZK proof for that, not sure if there's something less generic for this particular case
131 2013-06-01 13:25:01 <Luke-Jr> boonies4u: there is always a coinbase transaction
132 2013-06-01 13:26:17 <boonies4u> Luke-Jr: At what blockheight will coinbase transctions be entirely made up from transaction fees?
133 2013-06-01 13:27:41 <iddo> shesek: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRcPReUpkcU
134 2013-06-01 13:28:02 <boonies4u> Luke-Jr: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1f7e8l/at_this_rate_the_last_new_btc_will_be_issued_15/ca9j9ee
135 2013-06-01 13:30:02 <shesek> iddo, thanks, I'll watch it
136 2013-06-01 13:30:52 <boonies4u> thanks luke
137 2013-06-01 13:30:53 <BlueMatt> Goonie_: pong
138 2013-06-01 13:31:05 <Goonie_> hi matt
139 2013-06-01 13:31:07 <boonies4u> there can be only one oonie
140 2013-06-01 13:32:02 <BlueMatt> whats up?
141 2013-06-01 13:32:09 <Goonie_> BlueMatt: did you get my mail about sensible defaults for fee config?
142 2013-06-01 13:32:48 <Goonie_> Luke-Jr: I wonder if you could add sub-versions to your graph. So we can see the relation of 0.8.1 vs. 0.8.2
143 2013-06-01 13:33:26 <Vinnie_win> sup fools
144 2013-06-01 13:33:54 <BlueMatt> Goonie_: yea, sorry havent had a chance to respond
145 2013-06-01 13:33:58 <BlueMatt> Goonie_: also, Im not sure how to respond...
146 2013-06-01 13:34:35 <BlueMatt> Goonie_: even the reference client does a bad job with fees
147 2013-06-01 13:34:38 <shesek> iddo, I'm thinking of a case where a service provider would surrender his private to multiple parties in case he can't continue to provide services. for example, an escrow service could provide a guarantee that someone else could release the money if they disappear
148 2013-06-01 13:35:28 <Goonie_> hmmm
149 2013-06-01 13:35:41 <BlueMatt> Goonie_: I think sane default is: if it has a <0.01 output, min_fee, if it has a lot of ouputs min_fee, otherwise, let it be 0 and let the competeTx add if neccessary
150 2013-06-01 13:35:57 <iddo> shesek: couldn't you just transfer the coins to a new multisig address?
151 2013-06-01 13:36:10 <BlueMatt> min_fee being feePerKb = fee = Transaction.REFERENCE_MIN_TX_FEE or whatever I called it
152 2013-06-01 13:36:39 <shesek> iddo, only if both parties of the dispute wish to resolve it
153 2013-06-01 13:36:59 <BlueMatt> though, really, because the min_fee is 0.0001 BTC, you can probably add that to all transactions without anyone caring...
154 2013-06-01 13:37:20 <shesek> both of them would have to agree to send it to a new address
155 2013-06-01 13:37:27 <Goonie_> BlueMatt: I hoped that the gritty details are encapsulated into bitcoinj now.
156 2013-06-01 13:38:06 <BlueMatt> well maybe sane defaults are just min_fee on everything
157 2013-06-01 13:38:16 <iddo> shesek: why not agree from the beginning to send the multisig addr that lets either the escrow or some backup parties release the coins?
158 2013-06-01 13:38:22 <Goonie_> BlueMatt: Ok, so I set fee to 0.0001, do not touch feePerKb and pass true to the boolean ?
159 2013-06-01 13:38:32 <iddo> s/the multisig/to multisig
160 2013-06-01 13:38:49 <BlueMatt> no, set both fee and feePerKb to Transaction.Whatever (0.0001) and pass true to the boolean
161 2013-06-01 13:39:06 <Goonie_> ok
162 2013-06-01 13:39:55 <shesek> iddo, how would that work with m-of-n transactions?
163 2013-06-01 13:40:35 <shesek> you can't do a 2-of-4 (buyer, seller, escrow, backup escrow) because than the two escrows together could control the money
164 2013-06-01 13:40:48 <shesek> or you're thinking of some more complicated script that allows it?
165 2013-06-01 13:41:23 <Goonie_> BlueMatt: Done. I think I'll roll a preview today.
166 2013-06-01 13:42:16 <BlueMatt> Goonie_: ok, thanks (and I think let users specify down to 0 for fee = feePerKb and then let the checkbox in the options set the boolean to false if users are really crazy)
167 2013-06-01 13:43:09 <Goonie_> BlueMatt: for now, I remove fee control by the user completely
168 2013-06-01 13:43:19 <BlueMatt> ok
169 2013-06-01 13:43:19 <iddo> yes i was thinking about a script that says that either the escrow can release the coins, and e.g. 2-of-3 for backup, so (A or (2 of B,C,D))
170 2013-06-01 13:43:37 <BlueMatt> Goonie_: though somehow I like the option to specify 0 fee as long as it fits with the min-relay-fee-rules
171 2013-06-01 13:44:34 <Goonie_> BlueMatt: I'm open to adding something like that again, but maybe its reallly more like a slider or sth like that.
172 2013-06-01 13:44:54 <BlueMatt> or even a "please confirm now"/"I can wait a day" checkbox
173 2013-06-01 13:45:10 <Goonie_> BlueMatt: yeah
174 2013-06-01 13:46:14 <shesek> iddo, is it possible to do something like (2 of (buyer, seller, (A or (2 of B,C,D))))?
175 2013-06-01 13:46:28 <BlueMatt> shesek: yes
176 2013-06-01 13:47:02 <BlueMatt> well, it may get complicated, but it should be possible
177 2013-06-01 13:47:28 <shesek> oh, cool. I didn't know the scripting system can handle such complicated cases
178 2013-06-01 13:47:31 <Goonie_> does anyone have a guess on how many miners have adopted 0.8.2 already?
179 2013-06-01 13:47:51 <BlueMatt> the scripting system can handle all kinds of crazy shit
180 2013-06-01 13:48:09 <BlueMatt> you could do multisig without even using OP_CHECKMULTISIG
181 2013-06-01 13:48:23 <shesek> wouldn't it be better tho to handle it with regular cryptography if possible?
182 2013-06-01 13:48:38 <BlueMatt> no, using a ton of IFs and OP_CHECKSIGs
183 2013-06-01 13:49:03 <shesek> I was talking in the more general sense
184 2013-06-01 13:49:29 <shesek> if something like (2 of (buyer, seller, (A or (2 of B,C,D)))) can be done with off-the-blockchain cryptography, wouldn't it be better to handle it like that?
185 2013-06-01 13:49:55 <iddo> shesek: why would it be better?
186 2013-06-01 13:52:27 <shesek> well, to simplify things, which can make verifying transactions more efficient
187 2013-06-01 13:54:46 <shesek> and because you can use regular cryptography for some things that might be less trivial to implement using bitcoin scripting, if at all possible
188 2013-06-01 13:55:19 <iddo> shesek: it's a tradeoff, less work to verify by the bitcoin nodes, but the ZK-CIP compiler will produce a much longer proof, but not sure why you need it, if you trust the escrow then you can also trust that the escrow delegated his power to backup parties
189 2013-06-01 13:55:19 <shesek> I mean... why take something that already exists on works well, and re-implement it with a limited scripting language?
190 2013-06-01 13:56:21 <iddo> s/power/privkey
191 2013-06-01 13:56:44 <shesek> right. but I'm thinking of a case where the escrow himself wants to do an "m-of-n power delegation", where no single party can take over his private key
192 2013-06-01 13:57:13 <iddo> shesek: yes you can use Shamir's secret sharing etc.
193 2013-06-01 13:58:20 <iddo> shesek: tht would be quite efficient, the inefficient part is if you want the ZK proof that the escrow delegated his privkey to the backup parties
194 2013-06-01 14:00:30 <shesek> does it really require a zero proof knowledge? I know its possible to split a private key to N piece with "regular" cryptography. couldn't there be a simpler way for them to verify it?
195 2013-06-01 14:01:04 <shesek> and that SCIP talks looks really interesting
196 2013-06-01 14:02:19 <shesek> its amazing what you can do with ZK proofs
197 2013-06-01 14:03:07 <iddo> shesek: not sure, the feature of secret sharing is that if a group of parties that shouldn't be allowed to re-create the secret colludes, then they cannot deduce anything about the secret from their data
198 2013-06-01 14:08:05 <shesek> I should've Googled some more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verifiable_secret_sharing
199 2013-06-01 14:08:13 <shesek> and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicly_Verifiable_Secret_Sharing
200 2013-06-01 14:10:24 <iddo> interesting
201 2013-06-01 14:14:30 <dansmith_btc> Hello, does createrawtransaction's vout has to be owned by me in order for signrawtransaction to suceed?
202 2013-06-01 14:26:15 <hpprinter100> Hi my friends web hosting now accepts bitcoins, Please can someone with a wiki account at it to the Trade page?
203 2013-06-01 14:32:00 <The_Fly> this SCIP talk is good.
204 2013-06-01 14:36:16 <iddo> The_Fly: if you can think of interesting use cases then please let me know and i'll forward it to the CIP people
205 2013-06-01 14:38:37 <iddo> one idea mentioned there is that instead of downloading and verifying the chain from the genesis block, the node could verify instead a (non-ZK) CI proof that another node already did this computation, but the output of the computation wouldn't be boolean, probably the output should be the entire UTXO set
206 2013-06-01 14:40:24 <iddo> this might be much more useful if the PoW hash was scrypt with intensive params (which would takes e.g. months to verify)
207 2013-06-01 14:41:28 <kuzetsa> iddo: "CI proof" <-- computationally intensive? or did I guess wrong on the shorthand acronym
208 2013-06-01 14:42:23 <iddo> kuzetsa: CI = computation integrity, i.e. proof that you ran some computation
209 2013-06-01 14:42:23 <kuzetsa> and yeah, I really like that
210 2013-06-01 14:43:19 <iddo> kuzetsa: sorry about the weird acronym, it's in the title of the slides of that talk etc.
211 2013-06-01 14:43:21 <kuzetsa> proof that UTXO state is consistent would be a likely canidate. just seems to makes sense
212 2013-06-01 14:43:30 <kuzetsa> slides?
213 2013-06-01 14:43:44 <kuzetsa> like film slides / projector =o.O=
214 2013-06-01 14:44:03 <iddo> hmm should i say presentation
215 2013-06-01 14:44:05 <kuzetsa> or digital version of the same? (libre/open office impress or powerpoint)
216 2013-06-01 14:44:26 <iddo> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRcPReUpkcU
217 2013-06-01 14:44:41 <kuzetsa> I can't youtube right now
218 2013-06-01 14:44:59 <iddo> i can send the slides file, it's powerpoint
219 2013-06-01 14:45:14 <kuzetsa> CPU / GPU are completely lagging me out while I do some non-bitcoin GPGPU processing for something vague
220 2013-06-01 14:45:29 <kuzetsa> huh
221 2013-06-01 14:46:14 <kuzetsa> "sorry about the weird acronym" <-- so the slide doesn't say what "CI proof" even is?
222 2013-06-01 14:46:36 <kuzetsa> based on the context, is it possible that they meant computationally intensive? that would seem plausible
223 2013-06-01 14:46:48 <iddo> it does, CIP = computation integrity and privacy
224 2013-06-01 14:46:56 <kuzetsa> ah
225 2013-06-01 14:47:20 <iddo> you want the slides?
226 2013-06-01 14:47:20 <kuzetsa> CI + P is a different "I" and a different conjugation of computation(ally)
227 2013-06-01 14:47:27 <kuzetsa> no, not really
228 2013-06-01 14:47:36 <kuzetsa> I prefer whitepapers to infographics and videos
229 2013-06-01 14:49:29 <kuzetsa> hell, even a forum or blog post would be acceptable. "formal whitepaper" is not required. I just have some disabilities which make visually presented information difficult for my brain to deal with :(
230 2013-06-01 14:49:51 <kuzetsa> like non-text I meant (I can read just fine... agnosia is funny like that)
231 2013-06-01 14:52:35 <iddo> kuzetsa: it's a series of theory papers like http://eccc.hpi-web.de/report/2012/045/
232 2013-06-01 15:14:45 <moarrr> ok this is beyond a joke
233 2013-06-01 15:14:49 <moarrr> bitcoin needs to startup much quicker
234 2013-06-01 15:14:53 <moarrr> or have a status bar or something
235 2013-06-01 15:16:21 <moarrr> oi anyone active?
236 2013-06-01 15:25:42 <MC1984_> loww attention span m8?
237 2013-06-01 15:26:30 <moarrr> urgh
238 2013-06-01 15:38:37 <Goonie_> BlueMatt: uploaded preview to http://code.google.com/p/bitcoin-wallet/downloads/list
239 2013-06-01 15:41:01 <BlueMatt> Goonie_: nice, installing...
240 2013-06-01 17:18:42 <wallet43> this is gun: https://github.com/search?p=3&q=extension%3Aphp+mysql_query+%24_GET&ref=searchresults&type=Code
241 2013-06-01 17:18:50 <wallet43> s/gun/fun/
242 2013-06-01 17:26:00 <rumpler> wallet43: All the unsanitized queries that people are using?
243 2013-06-01 18:04:04 <Natanael_L> Where's the Armory IRC channel?
244 2013-06-01 18:17:36 <chsados> Hey, would anyone mind lending me probably a mere 10 minutes of your time adding a few lines to a linux build script (ubuntu privacy remix) to include installation of the Armory client? http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1fh6di/need_help_adding_armory_install_to_a_linux_build/
245 2013-06-01 18:37:18 <ptote> the first person to send 0.03906 BTC to 1PB2M6UaimqaacrcyN9h81yWXKUrhPRbWw shall get a year of Password Totes top tier account, the rest would apparently just lose out on their BTC :P
246 2013-06-01 18:37:47 <ptote> but really, does anyone wanna help me out and kick that BTC over for a year of password management at a severely reduced price?
247 2013-06-01 18:38:37 <ptote> i want to both a) get some btc in my wallet, im new and b) help a brother out
248 2013-06-01 18:45:34 <ptote> azizLIGHTS: I like your name
249 2013-06-01 18:50:59 <Luke-Jr> ptote: off-topic here, try #bitcoin-otc
250 2013-06-01 18:51:40 <Luke-Jr> Natanael_L: I don't think Armory has a user channel
251 2013-06-01 18:51:52 <Luke-Jr> Natanael_L: #Bitcoin might make sense for user questions
252 2013-06-01 19:07:39 <shesek> didn't blockchain.info's api used to allow cross domain requests?
253 2013-06-01 19:16:30 <ptote> Luke-Jr: but this is for dev purposes because i am trying to make RPC calls to my bitcoind instance and see some transactions and more :)
254 2013-06-01 19:16:43 <ptote> i've got no BTC
255 2013-06-01 19:16:52 <Luke-Jr> ptote: try testnet
256 2013-06-01 19:17:07 <ptote> ugh, probably should, was sorta trying to avoid it
257 2013-06-01 19:17:20 <ptote> does it mean i have to DL a whole different block chain to utilize it?
258 2013-06-01 19:17:26 <ptote> i want to code today, not tomorrow
259 2013-06-01 19:17:44 <ptote> actually, would btc you sent me even reach me today?
260 2013-06-01 19:17:50 <ptote> whats the delay in these trans?
261 2013-06-01 19:17:58 <Luke-Jr> blockchain download is quick in 0.8
262 2013-06-01 19:18:06 <ptote> ty
263 2013-06-01 19:19:03 <shesek> the testnet chain is much smaller, too
264 2013-06-01 19:19:11 <ptote> really?
265 2013-06-01 19:19:18 <ptote> thats almost odd at first
266 2013-06-01 19:19:26 <ptote> but i guess it could be and says good things about BTC
267 2013-06-01 19:19:27 <shesek> why? it has much less activity
268 2013-06-01 19:20:19 <ptote> yeah, i hear ya, im so new to BTC in general
269 2013-06-01 19:20:27 <ptote> but makes sense, even given the architecture
270 2013-06-01 19:20:38 <ptote> i would assume you have to treat the testnet the same as production as well
271 2013-06-01 19:20:47 <ptote> and no one would really be blasting production
272 2013-06-01 19:21:02 <ptote> ive seen some test environments get large under vigorous testing
273 2013-06-01 19:21:36 <ptote> especially where bulk import features are available :P
274 2013-06-01 19:22:05 <ptote> thanks for the info guys
275 2013-06-01 19:23:11 <Luke-Jr> ptote: testnet gets reset occasionally
276 2013-06-01 19:23:44 <Luke-Jr> and someone testing with a lot of data would be encouraged to run a testnet fork and not the public instance
277 2013-06-01 19:31:18 <ptote> the burdens of software development
278 2013-06-01 19:31:20 <ptote> gotta love em
279 2013-06-01 19:34:23 <ptote> wow, upon further reading, it appears that i may need to beg for testnet btc too?
280 2013-06-01 19:34:27 <ptote> heh
281 2013-06-01 19:34:47 <ptote> did anyone even go check out password tote, its the stuff
282 2013-06-01 19:35:47 <Luke-Jr> ptote: people will gladly gift you tnbtc
283 2013-06-01 19:37:09 <berndj> eh? how can i make blockchain download "quick"? i'm only at block 130k or so
284 2013-06-01 19:40:09 <ptote> does anyone know if an account is based of a hardware ID of the machine the wallet was installed on? or if accounts are newed up on each installation of the wallet?
285 2013-06-01 19:40:41 <ptote> ... based off...
286 2013-06-01 19:44:28 <gonffen> ptote: addresses are randomly generated and there are a few testnet faucets
287 2013-06-01 19:44:33 <aXs___> ptote: there is not such thing as "account" .. your wallet is a collection of public/private keys... it's not related to the hardware you run the wallet software (bitcoin-qt) on
288 2013-06-01 19:44:55 <ptote> so my private key is the "account"
289 2013-06-01 19:44:58 <ptote> ?
290 2013-06-01 19:45:19 <aXs___> ptote: there is no account
291 2013-06-01 19:45:26 <ptote> conceptually of course
292 2013-06-01 19:45:27 <aXs___> ptote: please read the bitcoin wiki a bit
293 2013-06-01 19:45:35 <ptote> well wtf, ill go back to banking
294 2013-06-01 19:45:39 <ptote> just playin...
295 2013-06-01 19:45:41 <ptote> heh
296 2013-06-01 19:45:49 <ptote> ok ok
297 2013-06-01 19:45:56 <ptote> tough crowd
298 2013-06-01 19:56:25 <Luke-Jr> ptote: no
299 2013-06-01 19:56:40 <Luke-Jr> ptote: accounts are a client-side abstraction within your wallet
300 2013-06-01 19:56:53 <Luke-Jr> your wallet is a file; if you lose the file, everything is gone forever
301 2013-06-01 19:58:05 <ryan-c> ptote: I'd be happy to send you some testnet btc if the faucet is empty
302 2013-06-01 20:13:15 <diki> ugh, someone is spamming with the battery staple address again
303 2013-06-01 20:16:05 <petertodd> diki: new spam or just rebroadcasting the old tx's?
304 2013-06-01 20:16:32 <diki> I wouldn't know. Saw them on blockchain.info just now, from 1st of June
305 2013-06-01 20:16:37 <diki> so it could be either
306 2013-06-01 20:16:45 <petertodd> tx hash?
307 2013-06-01 20:17:34 <diki> http://blockchain.info/tx/f46034089d11b8390e292c809a1df79a648c2823249a54dad919900834b2979e
308 2013-06-01 20:18:05 <petertodd> that's an old tx I think
309 2013-06-01 20:18:15 <diki> and then http://blockchain.info/tx/b83e87702115b149a0f10348b46861a7715d591df77fbe39ae12d7873677049f
310 2013-06-01 20:18:20 <diki> and a couple of more
311 2013-06-01 20:18:37 <petertodd> yeah, that's just people trying to spend it, not create more
312 2013-06-01 20:27:50 <oleganza> hey guys. i'm digging Bitcoin-QT code.
313 2013-06-01 20:28:00 <oleganza> why do we need CPrivKey when CSecret is enough?
314 2013-06-01 20:28:13 <oleganza> i see CPrivKey is used in wallet.cpp
315 2013-06-01 20:29:14 <oleganza> Does CPrivKey contain all curve parameters, so you can use it without knowing which curve is used? But Bitcoin uses only one curve, so we don't really need it? I'm probably mistaken somewhere.
316 2013-06-01 20:48:01 <newy6> just getting started w/ bitcoin. i setup bitcoind on a linux box - its been about 48 hours but getinfo is still showing its on block 233272. goes up by a couple blocks every few seconds when i check. should it take this long?
317 2013-06-01 20:48:52 <IanCormac> Yes
318 2013-06-01 20:49:39 <newy6> i see. what is it doing exactly? just downloading blockchain info?
319 2013-06-01 20:50:01 <newy6> is it on the order of 8 gb now?
320 2013-06-01 21:04:32 <shesek> I'm trying to derive keys from a master public/private key and some hash. can someone validate I'm doing it correctly? https://gist.github.com/anonymous/ca039247a17228ed67b6
321 2013-06-01 21:04:39 <shesek> (bitcoinjs)
322 2013-06-01 21:11:27 <diki> newy6:over 15 gigs for me