1 2013-06-27 01:37:26 <saivann> I should merge bitcoin.org pull req #212 tomorrow, unless someone want to add add a comment or ask for a delay
  2 2013-06-27 01:37:27 <saivann> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/212
  3 2013-06-27 01:38:07 <saivann> This pull requests adds the "About bitcoin.org" page, with explanations about the owners, the goals of bitcoin.org and steps to help or report a problem with bitcoin.org
  4 2013-06-27 01:39:24 <gmaxwell> It could use some english massaging, I'm just not up to it right now. The substance sounds fine to me as I think I said.
  5 2013-06-27 01:39:39 <gmaxwell> nanotube: midnightmagic: ^ care to do some english tinkering?
  6 2013-06-27 01:41:34 <saivann> Would be welcome, of course
  7 2013-06-27 01:48:11 <Luke-Jr> Bitcoin.org is not the official Bitcoin website <-- "not an official.."
  8 2013-06-27 01:49:03 <saivann> Luke-Jr, noted
  9 2013-06-27 01:49:22 <Luke-Jr> You can report any problem or help to improve bitcoin.org on github by opening an issue or a pull request in english. <-- capitalize GitHub and English
 10 2013-06-27 01:49:42 <Luke-Jr> other than that, looks good to me
 11 2013-06-27 01:49:58 <saivann> Thanks
 12 2013-06-27 01:50:16 <saivann> These were big changes :)
 13 2013-06-27 01:53:18 <Luke-Jr> http://codepad.org/1zUKf4gn <-- thoughts on portable strerror hack? :/
 14 2013-06-27 02:04:37 <gmaxwell> Gitian on LWN: http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/555761/c2ff2739171620e9/  (if you're not a LWN subscriber, you should be, it's pretty great)
 15 2013-06-27 02:05:29 <nanotube> saivann: posted comment on github
 16 2013-06-27 02:06:14 <gmaxwell> nanotube: thanks!
 17 2013-06-27 02:06:28 <saivann> nanotube : Thanks. So you would say "who controls Bitcoin.?"
 18 2013-06-27 02:06:47 <saivann> Or Then...
 19 2013-06-27 02:07:47 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: considering things that gitian can't solve, like digital signatures, I wonder if software to compare is more important than software to compile
 20 2013-06-27 02:08:00 <Luke-Jr> though with compiler optimization differences, that might be more difficult
 21 2013-06-27 02:08:55 <gmaxwell> The signature stuff can be accomplished with sutiable masking though.
 22 2013-06-27 02:09:02 <gmaxwell> which isn't exactly tricky.
 23 2013-06-27 02:09:33 <nanotube> saivann: then... :)
 24 2013-06-27 02:09:44 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: so could timestamps
 25 2013-06-27 02:09:52 <saivann> nanotube, Dumb question, but I've got to be sure, thanks
 26 2013-06-27 02:09:58 <nanotube> :)
 27 2013-06-27 02:11:36 <Luke-Jr> saivann: "then???" if you want to be unicode-correct ;)
 28 2013-06-27 02:17:43 <nanotube> Luke-Jr: hehe, the thought of you and your unicode ellipses did cross my mind when i made that suggestion :) omg goomh!
 29 2013-06-27 02:18:38 <gmaxwell> He's not the only person to use them;
 30 2013-06-27 02:18:39 <gmaxwell> ???
 31 2013-06-27 02:27:18 <Arnavion> Hipster, the lot of you!
 32 2013-06-27 02:28:09 <Arnavion> You'll have to pry my ... from my cold dead hands
 33 2013-06-27 03:33:43 <imd23> I get "Private key for address XXX is not known (code -4)"
 34 2013-06-27 03:33:55 <imd23> any idea?
 35 2013-06-27 03:39:39 <Luke-Jr> imd23: encrypted wallet
 36 2013-06-27 03:41:40 <imd23> yeah
 37 2013-06-27 03:41:45 <imd23> but already unlocked
 38 2013-06-27 03:42:15 <imd23> Luke-Jr: maybe I unlocked it wrong...
 39 2013-06-27 03:43:27 <Luke-Jr> maybe
 40 2013-06-27 03:43:48 <imd23> timeout 0 is infinite or none?
 41 2013-06-27 03:44:14 <imd23> it was none
 42 2013-06-27 03:44:21 <imd23> I got it now. it's working :)
 43 2013-06-27 03:45:28 <imd23> Luke-Jr: Thanks
 44 2013-06-27 03:46:00 <imd23> Luke-Jr: do you know how can I create a transaction wallet agnostic?
 45 2013-06-27 03:46:15 <Luke-Jr> ?
 46 2013-06-27 03:46:23 <imd23> I mean, typing everything in the command line , abstracting the wallet database
 47 2013-06-27 03:46:29 <imd23> like If I have everything printed.
 48 2013-06-27 03:47:07 <imd23> Luke-Jr: is it with sendrawtransaction ?
 49 2013-06-27 03:48:40 <Luke-Jr> probably
 50 2013-06-27 03:49:59 <imd23> Luke-Jr: I am developing a new online service. Can I implement everything in my service to get the signrawtransaction work and use bitcoind as a gateway to the bitcoin network? I am asking because of the load.
 51 2013-06-27 03:50:06 <imd23> load/performance
 52 2013-06-27 03:51:06 <imd23> I mean, may be 50 transactions / minute or more, I have no idea the load we will have
 53 2013-06-27 03:52:56 <jchp> 50 transactions per minute is quite a lot
 54 2013-06-27 03:53:43 <imd23> ok
 55 2013-06-27 03:54:02 <imd23> I have no idea I told you...
 56 2013-06-27 03:54:16 <imd23> anyway, from a technical point of view
 57 2013-06-27 03:54:19 <imd23> is 50 a lot?
 58 2013-06-27 03:54:50 <jchp> sendrawtransaction can handle that no problem, i'm just saying it's unlikely you'll be doing that
 59 2013-06-27 03:56:46 <imd23> jchp: awesome
 60 2013-06-27 03:57:09 <imd23> yeah, I hope everyone to use our new exchange idea/service
 61 2013-06-27 03:57:20 <imd23> will be awesome, but I still have to learn a lot
 62 2013-06-27 03:57:31 <imd23> so.. will take some time to get it up
 63 2013-06-27 03:59:32 <Luke-Jr> imd23: you'd have to implement the wallet yourself for what it sounds like you want
 64 2013-06-27 04:02:26 <Luke-Jr> imd23: for reference, note that the Bitcoin blockchain protocol can only sustain up to 195 transactions per minute, so if you expect to do 50/m, you'll really need to look into alternatives
 65 2013-06-27 04:03:38 <Luke-Jr> imd23: unfortunately, everything is still pretty immature :/
 66 2013-06-27 04:22:03 <imd23> Luke-Jr: I hope so, but we probably won't
 67 2013-06-27 04:22:13 <imd23> at first time I mean.
 68 2013-06-27 04:22:34 <imd23> now.. when I do a "getrawtransaction"
 69 2013-06-27 04:22:42 <imd23> does it give me the whole chain?
 70 2013-06-27 04:29:33 <imd23> oh???I've got it now. The transaction I was looking at was big because it had lot of vouts
 71 2013-06-27 04:29:34 <imd23> :)
 72 2013-06-27 08:18:17 <dansmith_btc> HI, as I understand the only use of PUBkey is to derive a btc address. Apart from that, are there any security implications in revealing one's PUBkey to the world?
 73 2013-06-27 08:29:46 <warren> dansmith_btc: they know your identity
 74 2013-06-27 08:30:12 <dansmith_btc> warren, OK, but nothing apart from that, I guess?
 75 2013-06-27 08:30:31 <warren> that I'm aware of
 76 2013-06-27 08:31:10 <gmaxwell> huh? identity?
 77 2013-06-27 08:31:25 <gmaxwell> from an identity perspective knowing a pubkey is the same as knowing an address.
 78 2013-06-27 08:31:54 <gmaxwell> dansmith_btc: knowing the public key would enable someone with some kind of attack on ECC to begin trying to crack it.  This is a highly theoretical concern.
 79 2013-06-27 08:33:56 <dansmith_btc> gmaxwell, sounds good.
 80 2013-06-27 08:40:06 <t7> i thought address was derived from priv key?
 81 2013-06-27 08:40:39 <t7> and address was pub key
 82 2013-06-27 08:42:48 <kinlo> t7: the public key is derrived from the private key, and the bitcoin address is derrived from the public key by using several hashing rounds followed by an encoding round (base58+checksum)
 83 2013-06-27 08:46:33 <melvster> in case anyone missed it: ftp://ftp.inf.ethz.ch/pub/publications/tech-reports/7xx/789.pdf
 84 2013-06-27 08:46:44 <melvster> double spend attack reported
 85 2013-06-27 08:49:56 <gmaxwell> melvster: Are you one of the authors of that? it would be polite to cite the many times that transaction pattern has been discussed on the forum.
 86 2013-06-27 08:51:40 <gmaxwell> This isn't new, the same is true for anything with respect to is IsStandard rules, and it's one of the reasons specifically cited in telling people to consider unconfirmed transactions unsafe.
 87 2013-06-27 08:52:26 <gmaxwell> Even without any IsStandard rule change any number of similar transaction patterns could be used to the same end.
 88 2013-06-27 08:53:32 <gmaxwell> (e.g. send a transaction which is non-standard but still accepted by some miners;  or simultaniously send the victim one transaction while sending many miners another, etc.
 89 2013-06-27 08:53:35 <gmaxwell> )
 90 2013-06-27 09:01:13 <melvster> gmaxwell: no im not an author, do you have a pointer to the discussions?   safe / unsafe is not a binary thing
 91 2013-06-27 09:01:55 <sipa> it's an inevitability when relay rules changes
 92 2013-06-27 09:02:03 <sipa> that some nodes will accept and other won't
 93 2013-06-27 09:02:24 <sipa> but the end result (everyone enforcing strict signatures) will be a strictly better situation for everyone
 94 2013-06-27 09:04:49 <melvster> sipa: so this attack was not 'introduced' with 0.8.3 but was always there?
 95 2013-06-27 09:05:42 <sipa> the 'attack' is that 0-conf transaction acceptable can be cheated, and any change in relay rules amplifies that
 96 2013-06-27 09:06:14 <sipa> and yes, 0.8.2 no long relaying non-canonical signatures is an example of that
 97 2013-06-27 09:06:20 <sipa> but so is the dust relay change rule
 98 2013-06-27 09:06:32 <sipa> or the non-standardness of 0-value outputs earlier
 99 2013-06-27 09:06:47 <sipa> or the enforcing of p2sh transactions before that
100 2013-06-27 09:07:06 <melvster> sipa: thanks for explaining
101 2013-06-27 09:07:48 <gmaxwell> I responded to the post on the bitcoin development list. You might be interested in that.
102 2013-06-27 09:08:18 <TD> i like how some people publish a "paper" on these things when i'd have just made a mailing list or forum post
103 2013-06-27 09:09:43 <melvster> gmaxwell: which thread is that?  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=11425;sa=showPosts
104 2013-06-27 09:10:20 <gmaxwell> melvster: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=CAAS2fgRg8B_j%3DLuf31R8-%2BvqOWQOUcUDof8wdq79_Ar9YuUm9g%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=bitcoin-development
105 2013-06-27 09:10:40 <melvster> oh thanks
106 2013-06-27 09:10:55 <gmaxwell> esp see the forum thread I linked to.
107 2013-06-27 09:11:47 <melvster> thx, strange that post didnt yet make it to my inbox
108 2013-06-27 09:11:54 <sipa> neither did it here
109 2013-06-27 09:13:24 <sipa> now it did
110 2013-06-27 09:13:34 <melvster> me too
111 2013-06-27 09:13:46 <gmaxwell> I saw it!
112 2013-06-27 09:15:58 <gmaxwell> sipa: I've been resisting linking them to http://githubredir.debian.net/ because I'm sure they'd set me on fire with some weird ranting about linux debian somethinganohter. :P
113 2013-06-27 09:16:59 <gmaxwell> (lots of debian packages pull directly from git tag urls like ours)
114 2013-06-27 09:17:03 <sipa> gmaxwell: i believe (trying to) show you (try to) understand is more helpful :)
115 2013-06-27 09:17:45 <gmaxwell> :)
116 2013-06-27 09:18:14 <gmaxwell> No real point in arguing it, its weird that we don't do freestanding source tarballs. I must just be in a contrary mood.
117 2013-06-27 09:18:24 <gmaxwell> But the demand still seems inexplicable to me.
118 2013-06-27 09:19:08 <BlueMatt> github itself will give you freestanding git tag tarballs
119 2013-06-27 09:19:16 <BlueMatt> no need to use any githubredir or such fancyness
120 2013-06-27 09:19:40 <BlueMatt> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/archive/$TAG.zip
121 2013-06-27 09:19:55 <BlueMatt> I think you can replace zip with tar.gz too
122 2013-06-27 09:21:01 <sipa> BlueMatt: they argue that the zips/tgzs there are generated on-the-fly, and don't guarantee consistency
123 2013-06-27 09:21:16 <sipa> (their checksums may change)
124 2013-06-27 09:21:24 <BlueMatt> meh
125 2013-06-27 09:21:31 <sipa> i don't know if that's true, but if it is, it's a reasonable argument why it's a problem for them
126 2013-06-27 09:21:50 <gmaxwell> I'd like to know if it's true.
127 2013-06-27 09:22:10 <gmaxwell> It would be a better argument that they're not cryptographically signed??? except none of these things check cryptographic signatures. :(
128 2013-06-27 09:23:42 <BlueMatt> they should git checkout the tag's hash
129 2013-06-27 09:45:08 <michagogo> Is there software out there to easily create blocks to your specifications?
130 2013-06-27 09:45:25 <michagogo> For example, adding certain data, or a specific non-broadcast transaction?
131 2013-06-27 09:45:50 <TD> well, there are libraries
132 2013-06-27 09:50:09 <BW^-> what's the nickname of he who develops BitcoinJ?
133 2013-06-27 09:50:23 <sipa> maybe TD knows
134 2013-06-27 09:50:24 <gmaxwell> TD: quick, hide.
135 2013-06-27 09:50:44 <SomeoneWeird> HE WHO DEVELOPS BITCOINJ SHALL NOT BE NAMED
136 2013-06-27 09:50:53 <TD> hi
137 2013-06-27 09:51:10 <BW^-> someoneweird: i had his nick.. can't remember now
138 2013-06-27 09:51:13 <BW^-> someoneweird: why do you say that anyhow?
139 2013-06-27 09:51:24 <BW^-> bitcoinj is the highest quality bitcoin librayr implementation right?
140 2013-06-27 09:51:42 <sipa> BW^-: TD is the primary author of BitcoinJ, in case that wasn't clear
141 2013-06-27 09:51:42 <TD> that's rather subjective. i don't know, i'm not really familiar with the others.
142 2013-06-27 09:51:53 <BW^-> cool :)
143 2013-06-27 09:51:54 <TD> i'd like to think it's of a decent quality, especially around documentation
144 2013-06-27 09:52:02 <TD> but it certainly has its fair share of bugs
145 2013-06-27 09:52:08 <BW^-> TD: like what bugs?
146 2013-06-27 09:52:16 <BW^-> sipa: k thx
147 2013-06-27 09:52:29 <BW^-> would there be any other bitcoin library implementation that would be more mature than bitcoinj, i wouldn't think so??
148 2013-06-27 09:52:44 <TD> assertTrue(myWallet.getTransaction(coinbase.getHash()).isCoinBase());
149 2013-06-27 09:52:44 <TD> well just look at the bug tracker :-) assertEquals(1, myWallet.getTransactions(true).size());
150 2013-06-27 09:52:45 <TD> oops
151 2013-06-27 09:52:49 <TD> stupid X keyboard
152 2013-06-27 09:52:55 <TD> the bug tracker here being - https://code.google.com/p/bitcoinj/issues/list
153 2013-06-27 09:55:23 <TD> BW^-: where are you going with this? what do you want to do?
154 2013-06-27 09:56:08 <BW^-> td: 1sec
155 2013-06-27 09:57:51 <BW^-> td: basically a general-purpose use with lots of hooks all over
156 2013-06-27 09:58:00 <BW^-> so like, it needs to work without bugs, about like that
157 2013-06-27 10:00:05 <TD> so it needs to do everything, be fully customizable, and have no bugs?
158 2013-06-27 10:00:09 <TD> good luck with that :-)
159 2013-06-27 10:00:20 <TD> i'd suggest reading the bitcoinj docs to get a feel for if it can do what you want. bugs can be fixed.
160 2013-06-27 10:00:22 <michagogo> createrawtransaction {"txid":"txid_here","vout":0} {"address_here":1}
161 2013-06-27 10:00:22 <michagogo> What's wrong with this command:
162 2013-06-27 10:00:33 <michagogo> As entered into the Console of bitcoin-qt
163 2013-06-27 10:00:34 <TD> bitcoinj IS used by quite a lot of projects, somehow they manage, so it can't be unusably buggy
164 2013-06-27 10:00:38 <michagogo> (don't worry, using testnet)
165 2013-06-27 10:01:08 <michagogo> (also, will that send a bitcoin or a satoshi?)
166 2013-06-27 10:01:31 <sipa> michagogo: what error do you get?
167 2013-06-27 10:02:03 <michagogo> Error: Error parsing JSON:{txid:address_here,vout:0}
168 2013-06-27 10:02:08 <michagogo> erm, txid_here
169 2013-06-27 10:02:22 <BW^-> td:  :))
170 2013-06-27 10:02:39 <BW^-> td: i believe the docs are fine enough, i mean basically all the transacting is in there and really works right?
171 2013-06-27 10:02:50 <sipa> michagogo: can you paste me the exact command?
172 2013-06-27 10:02:53 <sipa> michagogo: perhaps in PM
173 2013-06-27 10:03:05 <TD> BW^-: you can send money around and receive it, yes.
174 2013-06-27 10:03:15 <TD> i think your best bet is just to try it and see if it works
175 2013-06-27 10:03:59 <BW^-> so, you should just use a bitcoind as "firewall" as not to trig anything unintended in it - the bitcoind would "normalize" the input
176 2013-06-27 10:04:03 <BW^-> td: yeah sounds like that
177 2013-06-27 10:04:15 <TD> yeah
178 2013-06-27 10:04:20 <BW^-> in all cases, it is the best bitcoin library around right?
179 2013-06-27 10:04:21 <TD> that's a good way to use the library.
180 2013-06-27 10:04:22 <BW^-> in any language
181 2013-06-27 10:04:23 <TD> lol
182 2013-06-27 10:04:26 <sipa> michagogo: i think you may need some escaping
183 2013-06-27 10:04:28 <BW^-> :))
184 2013-06-27 10:04:36 <michagogo> What needs to be escaped?
185 2013-06-27 10:04:41 <sipa> don't know the exact semantics of the console
186 2013-06-27 10:04:46 <BW^-> td: ah, can i ask you some questions as i go along reading the source, about how it fits together?
187 2013-06-27 10:04:47 <sipa> but iirc it mimics a unix shell
188 2013-06-27 10:04:55 <sipa> so you can't use { directly
189 2013-06-27 10:05:07 <michagogo> so s/{/\\{/?
190 2013-06-27 10:05:08 <TD> yes, of course. bear in mind that bitcoinj was designed for small devices like mobile phones and still is driven by that need, mostly
191 2013-06-27 10:05:15 <BW^-> aha
192 2013-06-27 10:05:19 <TD> its support for things people often want on the server is not that great
193 2013-06-27 10:05:23 <BW^-> td: how does that impact it, in terms of performance or anything?
194 2013-06-27 10:05:31 <BW^-> to me spontaneously that sounds good
195 2013-06-27 10:05:31 <TD> like, some people want the ability to run bitbanks with it and it doesn't work that well for this
196 2013-06-27 10:05:32 <michagogo> That's not it
197 2013-06-27 10:05:35 <michagogo> Same error
198 2013-06-27 10:05:46 <BW^-> td: aha, by what reason?
199 2013-06-27 10:05:48 <sipa> createrawtransaction '[{"txid":"a9d4599e15b53f3eb531608ddb31f48c695c3d0b3538a6bda871e8b34f2f430c","vout":0}]' '{"mkZBYBiq6DNoQEKakpMJegyDbw2YiNQnHT":50}'
200 2013-06-27 10:05:54 <michagogo> Oh
201 2013-06-27 10:05:54 <sipa> try that style
202 2013-06-27 10:06:00 <michagogo> The [] is actually supposed to be there?
203 2013-06-27 10:06:01 <TD> they want the ability to manage millions of keys or huge wallets or load and unload wallets, other things that are best done with fully indexed databases of the block chain, etc.
204 2013-06-27 10:06:12 <BW^-> aha
205 2013-06-27 10:06:13 <michagogo> Oops.
206 2013-06-27 10:06:14 <sipa> michagogo: yes, you can have multiple inputs
207 2013-06-27 10:06:16 <TD> with bitcoinj you basically get a wallet that you can send/receive from, and if it gets too big then performance gets very poor.
208 2013-06-27 10:06:19 <sipa> oh, that's probably it then :)
209 2013-06-27 10:06:21 <BW^-> aha i'm completely with you,
210 2013-06-27 10:06:25 <TD> it's not optimised for huge deployments
211 2013-06-27 10:06:31 <BW^-> it's like features and stuff that are simply not there
212 2013-06-27 10:06:32 <BW^-> yep got you
213 2013-06-27 10:06:50 <TD> if you want to create a new blockchain.info then, well, people have done that.
214 2013-06-27 10:06:54 <TD> but it took some work from their side.
215 2013-06-27 10:06:56 <michagogo> Aha
216 2013-06-27 10:07:03 <TD> e.g. SatoshiDice is built on bitcoinj but they had to customise it quite a bit
217 2013-06-27 10:07:06 <michagogo> So yeah adding '[ and ]' fixed it
218 2013-06-27 10:07:08 <michagogo> Thanks :-D
219 2013-06-27 10:08:22 <BW^-> td: so basically the fundamentals work very well anyhow, like, getting the chain and performing the basic operations
220 2013-06-27 10:08:29 <BW^-> well gr8 :)
221 2013-06-27 10:08:46 <TD> yeah if you don't want to scale up then it works fine. if you want to build an end-user wallet app, that's what it's optimised for
222 2013-06-27 10:08:59 <TD> and we're adding features at the moment to make it easy/easier to work with contracts.
223 2013-06-27 10:09:07 <TD> but again, designed for small apps that don't handle a lot of traffic.
224 2013-06-27 10:09:13 <BW^-> aha
225 2013-06-27 10:09:15 <BW^-> td: contracts?
226 2013-06-27 10:09:16 <TD> the best place to ask questions is the mailing list
227 2013-06-27 10:09:21 <TD> https://code.google.com/p/bitcoinj/wiki/WorkingWithContracts
228 2013-06-27 10:09:29 <BW^-> td: btw, when you run it in "full block chain mode", what kind of RAM consumption characteristics does it have now?
229 2013-06-27 10:09:29 <TD> multi-signature transactions and other things
230 2013-06-27 10:09:42 <michagogo> What would I do if I wanted to mine a block and insert an unbroadcasted transaction I have?
231 2013-06-27 10:09:45 <TD> BW^-: ask BlueMatt, he manages that part of the codebase. but for a "real app" you should be using it in SPV mode connected to a bitcoind you own
232 2013-06-27 10:12:53 <BW^-> td: hm, for my thing i'd prefer fully verifying, so that really all is in bitcoinj
233 2013-06-27 10:13:21 <michagogo> (testnet)
234 2013-06-27 10:13:27 <BlueMatt> BW^-: problem is bitcoinj full verification is still "beta"
235 2013-06-27 10:13:29 <TD> yes, except that as it says on the website and documentation fully verifying mode is *experimental*. you are likely to be exposed to chain splitting bugs if you do that.
236 2013-06-27 10:13:34 <TD> it's not something i'd recommend for production usage.
237 2013-06-27 10:13:45 <BlueMatt> and there doesnt exist a full verification engine outside of bitcoind that I would trust very much...
238 2013-06-27 10:13:45 <gmaxwell> BW^-: running a SPV node behind a full verifying node that you run _is_ full verifying.
239 2013-06-27 10:14:04 <TD> there are no implementations of bitcoin other than the original that i'd trust for handling real money right now. that's why we suggest running it behind a bitcoind