1 2013-07-24 00:00:01 <nsh> 
ACTION nods

  2 2013-07-24 00:00:07 <jrmithdobbs> and implied that's who he was anyways
  3 2013-07-24 00:00:09 <gmaxwell> as phantomcircuit notes, this is surprisingly dangerous for bitcoin compared to most other stuff.
  4 2013-07-24 00:00:32 <MC1984> why do they do that, what do they say when you explain how bitcoin needs perfect global consensus
  5 2013-07-24 00:00:40 <jrmithdobbs> MC1984: it's policy
  6 2013-07-24 00:00:42 <nsh> sounds like it probably won't even result in a prolonged and vitriolic flamewar
  7 2013-07-24 00:00:46 <jrmithdobbs> (god I wish that was a joke)
  8 2013-07-24 00:00:48 <nsh> 
ACTION is disappointed :)

  9 2013-07-24 00:01:01 <gmaxwell> MC1984: They're also armored against sanity because _lots_ of packages try to insist you use their bundled libraries.
 10 2013-07-24 00:01:21 <jrmithdobbs> MC1984: if you go dig through the debian packaging policies they do not like statically linked anything or software that includes it's own versions of system providesd libs
 11 2013-07-24 00:01:22 <nsh> 
ACTION scribbles "armored against sanity" in his phrases-to-use notebook

 12 2013-07-24 00:01:24 <gmaxwell> MC1984: so they may be having a hard time believing that we're not just another set of obsessive developers.
 13 2013-07-24 00:01:42 <jrmithdobbs> (and in the case of debian since they package pratically everything, EVERYTHING counts as a system lib, effectively)
 14 2013-07-24 00:01:48 <MC1984> are they not open to reason on the technical details
 15 2013-07-24 00:02:02 <Luke-Jr> http://bitcoinmagazine.com/linux-distribution-packaging-and-bitcoin/ look good?
 16 2013-07-24 00:02:04 <gmaxwell> MC1984: the point of the letter is to make sure we have the discussion.
 17 2013-07-24 00:02:15 <MC1984> letter?
 18 2013-07-24 00:02:19 <gmaxwell> MC1984: there have been attempts in the past which didn't communicate things well.
 19 2013-07-24 00:02:33 <jrmithdobbs> ya, i seriously rolled my eyes at it until i started reading the responses and understood why it was necessary. :(
 20 2013-07-24 00:02:34 <MC1984> if their policy cannot bend, then they probably shouldnt package bitcoin at all
 21 2013-07-24 00:02:50 <gmaxwell> MC1984: yes, thats a position we've offered too. Not the end of the world if they don't.
 22 2013-07-24 00:03:11 <jrmithdobbs> not packaging bitcoi is better than packaging it poorly, definitely
 23 2013-07-24 00:03:16 <MC1984> its on the repos and stuff anyway i assume
 24 2013-07-24 00:04:11 <nsh> 
ACTION wonders if distro-packaged bitcoin could be wrapped in an installer script that checks for basic network sanity compliance somehow

 25 2013-07-24 00:04:15 <gmaxwell> In any case, no big drama. Communication is good.
 26 2013-07-24 00:04:32 <nsh> something like BlueMatt's pull-tester
 27 2013-07-24 00:04:36 <gmaxwell> nsh: good tests are probably too slow for people to tolerate.
 28 2013-07-24 00:04:41 <nsh> right, true
 29 2013-07-24 00:04:54 <Luke-Jr> nsh: there isn't a complete sanity tester yet :<
 30 2013-07-24 00:05:02 <nsh> 
ACTION nods

 31 2013-07-24 00:05:04 <jrmithdobbs> ya the reqs for a real set of tests outscale what debian's build stuff will accomadate anyways
 32 2013-07-24 00:06:17 <gmaxwell> Complete is really hard.  There are, for example, code paths in level DB that you'll only hit if the last update added more than 10 mbytes and the database is between 900 and 1000 MBytes in size (approximate numbers to give you an idea) and only if some but not all of the data is in cache.
 33 2013-07-24 00:06:41 <nsh> hmm
 34 2013-07-24 00:07:08 <gmaxwell> some of these paths might actually be unreachable from bitcoin, but proving that to yourself might take days of work per possibly unreachable path.
 35 2013-07-24 00:08:15 <MC1984> sounds like were flying blind lol
 36 2013-07-24 00:08:17 <gmaxwell> this is why in my ML post I talked about this not just being a challenge for bitcoin's QA but also more generally a problem in advancing the art in software validation for large systems.
 37 2013-07-24 00:08:23 <nsh> i wonder what the tradeoff is. leveldb has a certain complexity that's (possibly) problematic
 38 2013-07-24 00:08:39 <nsh> what's being gained in exchange for that? performance, dev eyeball hours?
 39 2013-07-24 00:09:14 <nsh> if you had a mathematically bare persistence layer, how would you be paying for that simplicity/assurance?
 40 2013-07-24 00:09:17 <gmaxwell> in some cases switching to internal bitcoin specific code is a win... where we can be confidence that the code really is completely tested for our needs.
 41 2013-07-24 00:09:48 <nsh> 
ACTION wonders if there is a simplex method for these kinds of inequalities

 42 2013-07-24 00:09:53 <gmaxwell> nsh: sadly an enormous amount. And it still wouldn't be simple! storing data with atomic updates that survives crashes is actually a real PITA even if you don't care about performance!
 43 2013-07-24 00:10:06 <gmaxwell> And we actually desperately need performance too!
 44 2013-07-24 00:10:08 <nsh> right
 45 2013-07-24 00:10:25 <nsh> maths is hard, let's give up shopping
 46 2013-07-24 00:10:26 <nsh> :)
 47 2013-07-24 00:10:28 <gmaxwell> (1) If block processing is too slow the network will stop converging and we'll start getting larger reorgs
 48 2013-07-24 00:10:38 <nsh> 
ACTION nods

 49 2013-07-24 00:10:46 <gmaxwell> (2) if bitcoin is too slow and burdensom to run people will stop and that will make things become increasingly more centeralized.
 50 2013-07-24 00:11:08 <gmaxwell> so even if "replace it with something safe and simple" could be done, we still need the performance. :(
 51 2013-07-24 00:11:08 <nsh> hmmm
 52 2013-07-24 00:11:12 <nsh> right
 53 2013-07-24 00:11:34 <nsh> i wonder if there's a some general conservation law at play wrt [de]centralization and the burden of complexity
 54 2013-07-24 00:11:37 <gmaxwell> leveldb has very few features that we don't use  (unlike bdb) too.
 55 2013-07-24 00:12:01 <nsh> like when you try to push away the bulge of centralization, something is raised elsewhere and what exactly that represents
 56 2013-07-24 00:12:23 <gmaxwell> nsh: I've said a little flippantly, that bitcoin is basically on the edge of what our engineering technology allows.  Certantly its on the edge of what you can get away with without enormous persistant funding.
 57 2013-07-24 00:12:39 <nsh> right, i appreciate that more through idling here a while now
 58 2013-07-24 00:12:53 <gmaxwell> nsh: decenteralized makes it hard. Every protocol decision, even accidental ones, is a suicide pact.
 59 2013-07-24 00:13:13 <nsh> heh, indeed
 60 2013-07-24 00:13:46 <gmaxwell> In any case, it's also resillant too because people want it to work.
 61 2013-07-24 00:13:53 <gmaxwell> If no one cared about bitcoin it would be doomed.
 62 2013-07-24 00:14:03 <gmaxwell> But because people care it can take some abuse and we'll fix it.
 63 2013-07-24 00:14:26 <nsh> yup, it's interesting sociologically in that respect
 64 2013-07-24 00:14:35 <nsh> a kind of inverse tragedy of the commons
 65 2013-07-24 00:14:55 <MC1984> there is a byzantin paradigm that is applicable
 66 2013-07-24 00:15:28 <MC1984> not everyone cares about bitcoin itself, but if enough people care it might survive
 67 2013-07-24 00:15:56 <nsh> i don't think i follow how that's byzantine...
 68 2013-07-24 00:16:06 <MC1984> id say most people who actually use it dont car about the systm right now
 69 2013-07-24 00:16:35 <nsh> well, the degree of vestment doesn't need to be evenly distributed
 70 2013-07-24 00:16:43 <nsh> in fact that's probably highly suboptimal
 71 2013-07-24 00:17:03 <MC1984> suboptimal for adoption
 72 2013-07-24 00:17:50 <gmaxwell> well people care but don't quite know what caring should mean.
 73 2013-07-24 00:17:53 <gmaxwell> or how they can help.
 74 2013-07-24 00:18:09 <gmaxwell> or that it needs their help. Sometimes it works too well. :)
 75 2013-07-24 00:18:47 <MC1984> i dunno man
 76 2013-07-24 00:19:06 <MC1984> things get awful quit when the price isnt doing gymnastics
 77 2013-07-24 00:19:41 <MC1984> youre probably right about many people not realising they need to help actually
 78 2013-07-24 00:19:57 <MC1984> when was the last time the bank asked for their help
 79 2013-07-24 00:20:24 <nsh> i'd say the ladder of participation could do with a few more rungs towards the bottom
 80 2013-07-24 00:20:30 <gmaxwell> Right. In fact, you'd be rather mad if the bank did, and rightfully so.
 81 2013-07-24 00:20:37 <MC1984> we hav the blurb on bitcoin.org i suppose
 82 2013-07-24 00:21:36 <MC1984> how would you simply explain conceptually what bitcoin is and thus why it must call upon you, without blinding people with science
 83 2013-07-24 00:21:53 <MC1984> one perfect sentence could go a long way
 84 2013-07-24 00:24:28 <gmaxwell> MC1984: it's just simply difficult for me to do that because the way I appreciate bitcoin depends greatly on the complexity of it.  ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSZNsIFID28 if you will)
 85 2013-07-24 00:24:43 <MC1984> "Bitcoin uses the power of regular home computers, just like yours, to ensure order and safety in the money system. The more computers, the more order and the safer your money is."
 86 2013-07-24 00:24:54 <MC1984> people like law and order dont they
 87 2013-07-24 00:26:41 <MC1984> you could spin it as running full fat bitcoin is akin to deputising your PC to maintain the rules of the community
 88 2013-07-24 00:26:51 <MC1984> which is not actually spin at all
 89 2013-07-24 00:27:15 <gmaxwell> it's true???  and part of the challenge is expressing the point in a way that isn't purely about money.
 90 2013-07-24 00:27:29 <MC1984> people like communities, they like rules, they like being offerd a bit of authority but not too much
 91 2013-07-24 00:27:52 <gmaxwell> Bitcoin isn't just money, its a question about people's ability to self organize and self govern without??? in a very strong sense??? trusted authorities who can abuse their position.
 92 2013-07-24 00:27:55 <MC1984> it is purly about money though
 93 2013-07-24 00:28:20 <MC1984> i honestly dont think people give a shit about the lack of central authority thing
 94 2013-07-24 00:28:24 <MC1984> people love authorities
 95 2013-07-24 00:29:03 <MC1984> they might get the gist of that if you paint it as akin to a small town community where the mayor is whoever
 96 2013-07-24 00:30:02 <gmaxwell> but not _against_ other kinds of organization, bitcoin isn't opposed to authortarian rule, it's an alternative to it in a space where previously we could only use authority and trust to solve our problems.
 97 2013-07-24 00:31:05 <MC1984> see now im just a bloke and now im spacking out over what you just said :)
 98 2013-07-24 00:31:22 <MC1984> "But i thought this was about internet money?"
 99 2013-07-24 00:32:02 <sipa> no, it's about being able to create unlimited amounts of money with just your computer!!!
100 2013-07-24 00:32:28 <jrmithdobbs> i thought it was about free money for illicit drug trafficking?
101 2013-07-24 00:32:37 <MC1984> now were sliding too far down the dunce scale to reasonably cater to
102 2013-07-24 00:32:39 <jrmithdobbs> ;p
103 2013-07-24 00:33:14 <MC1984> gmaxwell isnt bitcoin opposed to authoritarian rule by definition of simply being an alternative to it
104 2013-07-24 00:33:45 <MC1984> that is, the animosity comes from the authority side and not the bitcoin side
105 2013-07-24 00:36:55 <gmaxwell> no way, there is plenty of anti-authority animosity in bitcoin land.
106 2013-07-24 00:37:23 <gmaxwell> we supress some of the most agressive of it on #bitcoin-* and on the forums, but there is still a lot.
107 2013-07-24 00:37:26 <MC1984> well im not talking about preaching to th choir
108 2013-07-24 00:38:40 <jrmithdobbs> it does tend to attract the worst of the worst whining lolbertarians, yes ;p
109 2013-07-24 00:38:53 <gmaxwell> MC1984: RE your "i honestly dont think people give a shit about the lack of central authority" ... well if so then they probably shouldn't be using bitcoin.
110 2013-07-24 00:39:00 <MC1984> im pretty anti authoity in many ways, but only becaus they tend to act so badly when it matters
111 2013-07-24 00:39:09 <MC1984> i recognise them as a fact of life
112 2013-07-24 00:39:16 <gmaxwell> MC1984: because the whole no-centeral-authority thing really creates limitations for bitcoin.
113 2013-07-24 00:39:29 <gmaxwell> And if you're willing to have one, you can build something that works better.
114 2013-07-24 00:39:32 <jrmithdobbs> major limitations
115 2013-07-24 00:39:55 <jrmithdobbs> ya, you could drop the 10 min txn acceptance time, and all sorts of the other things that confuse users
116 2013-07-24 00:40:16 <MC1984> thats the thing, this is the rub here..............i dont think enough people give enough of a shit about the downsides of authoity systems
117 2013-07-24 00:40:26 <MC1984> for bitcoin to take ove or whateve
118 2013-07-24 00:40:33 <gmaxwell> But I like to think that we can have a big tent that include anti-authority people, maybe-authority people, and people who love authority-based things but just want alternatives.
119 2013-07-24 00:40:46 <MC1984> most people would probably have to be sold on it via other means
120 2013-07-24 00:41:18 <gmaxwell> there are some other arguments, but a lot of them are pretty weak.
121 2013-07-24 00:41:31 <jrmithdobbs> MC1984: lets see how this current round of financial screwups/corruption actually finishes playing out. At least some of the smarter people are starting to realize why it's bad for the global economy
122 2013-07-24 00:42:09 <jrmithdobbs> problem is, the people realizing it have no authoritity and those with authoritity don't care because they made the <pick your mess of choice> with no consequences and bilions in profits
123 2013-07-24 00:42:17 <MC1984> i dont know man. Occupy happened but that petered out
124 2013-07-24 00:43:06 <gmaxwell> There is power in building something vs complaining about something.
125 2013-07-24 00:43:17 <MC1984> how many times in history was comprehensive freedom specifically and conciously architected
126 2013-07-24 00:43:37 <MC1984> i cant think of only the founding of the states, and that looks to have lasted barely 250 years
127 2013-07-24 00:43:38 <gmaxwell> Occupy had problems figuring out what the question was, we have an answer. Maybe not the exact answer you were looking for, but its something concrete.
128 2013-07-24 00:44:13 <gmaxwell> One thing is that it's very hard to sell freedom:  If I go up to you and say "hey, man??? you're being opressed" "uh wtf. If I were being opressed I'd bloddy well know it!"
129 2013-07-24 00:44:43 <MC1984> true
130 2013-07-24 00:45:04 <jrmithdobbs> damn you, i don't have any monty python with me on this plane, not cool!
131 2013-07-24 00:45:27 <MC1984> tell that to the dutchman who had a wire for cuban cigars seized by the US because his bank converted it into USD for a fraction of a second, or something
132 2013-07-24 00:45:58 <nsh> should have flown spanish inq.
133 2013-07-24 00:46:04 <gmaxwell> yea, so certantly you can have your own personal RMS-printer-moment and realize that there is a problem.  But "religious expirence" is not really a great advocacy strategy, or at least not one that scales.
134 2013-07-24 00:46:31 <MC1984> rms printer?
135 2013-07-24 00:46:33 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: did i miss rms drama/hilarity?
136 2013-07-24 00:46:47 <jrmithdobbs> or was a printer what started his crazy "I wont use modern hardware" crap?
137 2013-07-24 00:47:28 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: His biography uses the story as a crystalizing example of why he decided that software freedom was was important.
138 2013-07-24 00:47:56 <jrmithdobbs> someone wrote a biography on stallman?
139 2013-07-24 00:48:00 <nsh> es to the new printer was a major inconvenience, as the printer was on a different floor from most of the users. This experience convinced Stallman of people's need to be free to modify the software they use." -WP
140 2013-07-24 00:48:00 <nsh> "In 1980, Stallman and some other hackers at the AI Lab were refused access to the source code for the software of a newly installed laser printer, the Xerox 9700. Stallman had modified the software for the Lab's previous laser printer (the XGP, Xerographic Printer), so it electronically messaged a user when the person's job was printed, and would message all logged-in users waiting for print jobs if the printer was jammed. Not being able to add these featur
141 2013-07-24 00:48:38 <MC1984> PC LOAD LETTER
142 2013-07-24 00:48:39 <gmaxwell> Yea, the story has a bunch of fun byzantine politics that he bounced off of along the way.
143 2013-07-24 00:49:16 <MC1984> rms isnt anti authorith though
144 2013-07-24 00:49:23 <gmaxwell> Like people who _HAD THE SOURCE_ but were under NDAs that didn't yet them give it to the lab... and the lab just wanted the damn thing to alert them to jams, something they'd hacked their old printer to do.
145 2013-07-24 00:49:31 <MC1984> when asked about the financial lolapalooza he seemed quit the statist
146 2013-07-24 00:50:09 <jrmithdobbs> MC1984: i think that's more of a "that's not my area" type of issue
147 2013-07-24 00:50:37 <MC1984> na h had some good ideas about how to tackle monopolies and general corporatism
148 2013-07-24 00:50:43 <gmaxwell> my point there was that some people will have quasi religious expirences where the importance of bitcoin is suddenly crystal clear to them. People who get their bank accounts frozen for no good reason or whatever.
149 2013-07-24 00:50:47 <gmaxwell> etc.
150 2013-07-24 00:50:51 <jrmithdobbs> i'll poke fun at rms all day but his expertise and contributions are pretty well relegated to software, fainances and large market-based systems really aren't his area
151 2013-07-24 00:51:03 <jrmithdobbs> and he tends not to blurt out stuff about things he doesn't know about
152 2013-07-24 00:51:12 <gmaxwell> Like RMS decided free software was a higher calling because he got burned by dipshit politics and a printer driver.
153 2013-07-24 00:51:28 <gmaxwell> But that kind of thing doesn't scale well. Most people won't have enlightening expirences.
154 2013-07-24 00:51:46 <MC1984> when you have the power of logic, you are instantly knowledgable about a great many things
155 2013-07-24 00:52:26 <gmaxwell> so how do you convince people that whatever freedom you are peddling is valuable when they haven't had whatever magical expirence that made it crystal clear to you?
156 2013-07-24 00:52:34 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: it doesn't scale at all. as a species we seem to have a horrible inability to empathize with *groups* of people we don't know
157 2013-07-24 00:52:39 <nsh> i'd say that ideology provides the direction, but utility provides the thrust
158 2013-07-24 00:52:47 <jrmithdobbs> at least when it comes to moral outrage type scenarios
159 2013-07-24 00:53:58 <gmaxwell> I mean, mostly I think decenteralized systems are sexy, but .... years ago, long before bitcoin, paypal froze my account for _NO REASON_ ... if that hadn't happened maybe I never would have got bitcoin, in spite of my proclivities for cryptography and decenteralization?
160 2013-07-24 00:54:40 <jrmithdobbs> same, actually
161 2013-07-24 00:54:43 <MC1984> thats a good point
162 2013-07-24 00:54:49 <MC1984> thats what snowden tried to change for eg
163 2013-07-24 00:55:46 <gmaxwell> but if bitcoin's global userbase is limited to people paypal has screwed over.
164 2013-07-24 00:55:58 <gmaxwell> hm. well if thats the case perhaps we're slated for world domination after all!
165 2013-07-24 00:56:12 <MC1984> those young dumb british tourists who were turned back at the border after tweeting that the were going to "destroy america :D". They had their epiphany moment long before snowden
166 2013-07-24 00:56:44 <MC1984> i hope everyone doesnt need something like that before they realise the value of something like bitcoin
167 2013-07-24 00:57:03 <MC1984> it depends on whether you think people are generally capable of a bit of abtract thought
168 2013-07-24 00:57:09 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: ya i was going to say, is there anyone paypal *hasn't* screwed at this point?
169 2013-07-24 00:57:18 <jrmithdobbs> heh
170 2013-07-24 00:57:40 <MC1984> paypal set debt collection on my m8
171 2013-07-24 00:57:44 <gmaxwell> Well, it's also subtle. Part of the gain from things like bitcoin is that the threat of it makes everything that isn't bitcoin behave a little better.
172 2013-07-24 00:57:48 <MC1984> after a buyer fucked him over
173 2013-07-24 00:58:12 <MC1984> dbt collection and the credit score system is something that really rustles my jimmies
174 2013-07-24 00:58:30 <gmaxwell> So if you want paypal to not suck, you should want bitcoin to be super successful even if you don't want to use bitcoin yourself.
175 2013-07-24 00:58:53 <MC1984> yes
176 2013-07-24 00:58:56 <MC1984> competition
177 2013-07-24 00:59:06 <MC1984> paypal is SORELY in need of it
178 2013-07-24 00:59:18 <jrmithdobbs> dwella is doing a pretty good job
179 2013-07-24 00:59:22 <MC1984> again, its a bit of abstract thought
180 2013-07-24 00:59:23 <jrmithdobbs> dwolla*
181 2013-07-24 00:59:38 <MC1984> dwolla is a non entity lol
182 2013-07-24 00:59:45 <jrmithdobbs> (for a centralized system, i mean)
183 2013-07-24 01:00:20 <gmaxwell> some of the ways that paypal sucks aren't really their fault.  The fraud rules in credit cards are crap and cause a creeping suckage everywhere that touches USD.
184 2013-07-24 01:00:37 <MC1984> anyone remember the square thing? looked like it mite b cool. heared they ran into a bit of regulatory trouble though
185 2013-07-24 01:00:42 <jrmithdobbs> MC1984: they're growing organically/naturally in an existing market instead of that huge thrust paypal got out of nowhere thanks to being the only people in the market
186 2013-07-24 01:00:48 <gmaxwell> e.g. dwolla payments are reversable too. (lol, and were even when their documentation said they weren't)
187 2013-07-24 01:01:16 <jrmithdobbs> yup
188 2013-07-24 01:01:33 <jrmithdobbs> but dwolla isn't straight up dicks to their customers and answers the phone ;p
189 2013-07-24 01:01:59 <MC1984> the thing about bitcoin being ireversible and thus lower merchant overheads and prices etc
190 2013-07-24 01:02:18 <MC1984> isnt that a bit too trickle down lolcenomics for most people
191 2013-07-24 01:02:35 <jrmithdobbs> it's not though?
192 2013-07-24 01:02:49 <jrmithdobbs> there's zero need for the transfer mechanism to support the reversing
193 2013-07-24 01:02:54 <jrmithdobbs> courts can still demand repayment
194 2013-07-24 01:02:56 <MC1984> i like how i knew i could get paypal to fuck the guy who sold me a broken piece of shit ps3 on ebay recently
195 2013-07-24 01:03:12 <jrmithdobbs> petty ;p
196 2013-07-24 01:03:22 <MC1984> no i just wanted my refund
197 2013-07-24 01:03:58 <jrmithdobbs> ya but is your one refund worth getting the dude's account frozen and keeping his children from eating? even if he is a scammer?
198 2013-07-24 01:04:09 <jrmithdobbs> (hyperbole++)
199 2013-07-24 01:04:09 <MC1984> didnt hear anything off him for 3 weeks
200 2013-07-24 01:04:32 <MC1984> by fuck i mean id have to file a paypal claim if he forced me to. was very patient
201 2013-07-24 01:04:52 <jrmithdobbs> right and that gets the account frozen usually
202 2013-07-24 01:05:03 <MC1984> not my problem
203 2013-07-24 01:05:10 <jrmithdobbs> and the number of people willing to use paypal as their primary checking/debit account is terrifying
204 2013-07-24 01:05:21 <MC1984> i wanted a ps3 and bought a box of problems instead
205 2013-07-24 01:05:51 <jrmithdobbs> so you like the convencience of being able to ruin someone's life (shortterm, usually) when it's convenient for you? shocking. ;p
206 2013-07-24 01:06:10 <jrmithdobbs> (it's not, this is a common phenomenon)
207 2013-07-24 01:06:31 <MC1984> if you whole business dies bcause someone files a paypal claim on you youre doing it wrong any way
208 2013-07-24 01:06:42 <MC1984> im not just throwing away 95 quid
209 2013-07-24 01:06:48 <jrmithdobbs> well
210 2013-07-24 01:07:02 <jrmithdobbs> paypal has done that erroneously on numerous occassions based off a single fraud complaint
211 2013-07-24 01:07:17 <MC1984> i know
212 2013-07-24 01:07:19 <jrmithdobbs> so i'm not talking far out never happening scenarios or anything
213 2013-07-24 01:09:10 <MC1984> fuck i could have filed paypal saying he sent me a box of bricks and probably won
214 2013-07-24 01:09:13 <MC1984> but i didnt
215 2013-07-24 01:09:30 <MC1984> and saved on the return postage for 5 fucking kilos
216 2013-07-24 01:09:41 <MC1984> selling on ebay is a nightmare now
217 2013-07-24 01:09:46 <jrmithdobbs> actually you know what, the desire for that ability (on the merchant OR the consumer side) is pretty much the exactl"logical" argument behind statements like "the government MUST be able to conduct investigations in secret" (false!) or "The telecoms industry MUST provide backdoors for those we approve of doing so for but noone else"
218 2013-07-24 01:10:31 <MC1984> if there was a way to do the sort of dispute mediation i did with no quthority then im all for it
219 2013-07-24 01:10:37 <MC1984> but i dont se how
220 2013-07-24 01:10:47 <jrmithdobbs> well
221 2013-07-24 01:11:02 <jrmithdobbs> if you think for a minute, you'll realize that with any other company you wouldn't have done it with the money transmitter at all
222 2013-07-24 01:11:15 <MC1984> thinking that businesses will fly straight and narrow purely due to the threat of word of mouth seems like a libertarian fantasy to me
223 2013-07-24 01:11:18 <jrmithdobbs> you would have gone to LEOs/courts
224 2013-07-24 01:11:21 <jrmithdobbs> because it's fraud
225 2013-07-24 01:11:24 <jrmithdobbs> not a civil matter.
226 2013-07-24 01:12:34 <MC1984> small claims court os pretty good
227 2013-07-24 01:12:35 <jrmithdobbs> it's insane to me that paypal even gets involved in that shit.
228 2013-07-24 01:12:44 <jrmithdobbs> but they've set the precident now, no going back
229 2013-07-24 01:12:51 <MC1984> i think its 15 quid to file and they usually dont even turn up
230 2013-07-24 01:13:21 <MC1984> in fact they usually dont respond at all and then its baliff tiem :>
231 2013-07-24 01:13:49 <MC1984> probably not out of malice on the part of say, curries or pc world, but just becuase theyre useless
232 2013-07-24 01:14:55 <MC1984> jrmithdobbs paypal are outrageously nosey
233 2013-07-24 01:15:24 <MC1984> they demanded a private API for filehosters who take paypal, to check for copyright shit
234 2013-07-24 01:15:41 <MC1984> this is the best argument for bitcoin
235 2013-07-24 01:15:59 <jrmithdobbs> ya they're a fucking horrible company.
236 2013-07-24 01:16:06 <jrmithdobbs> anyways later, landing time. ;p
237 2013-07-24 01:16:21 <MC1984> safe dude
238 2013-07-24 01:36:24 <Luke-Jr> jrmithdobbs: maintainers *don't* deal with these kinds of things all the time, that's the point
239 2013-07-24 01:55:33 <gjs278> I submitted a patch to upstream leveldb for dragonfly bsd support
240 2013-07-24 01:55:44 <gjs278> only a matter of time before they accept it
241 2013-07-24 01:59:21 <gmaxwell> gjs278: what did you need to change?
242 2013-07-24 01:59:50 <gjs278> they had a definition for freebsd that just needed to be extended for dragonfly as well
243 2013-07-24 02:00:29 <gjs278> porting dragonfly software, that is generally the case, anything __FreeBSD__ needs __DragonFly__ as well
244 2013-07-24 02:00:45 <Luke-Jr> gjs278: that's annoying
245 2013-07-24 02:00:58 <Luke-Jr> DragonFly should just define __FreeBSD__ *and* __DragonFly__
246 2013-07-24 02:01:01 <gjs278> if they had tested for features this of course wouldn't be an issue
247 2013-07-24 02:01:10 <gjs278> yes it should
248 2013-07-24 02:01:12 <Luke-Jr> true
249 2013-07-24 02:01:45 <gjs278> openrc runs perfectly on dfly by just adding 3 __DragonFly__'s
250 2013-07-24 02:02:22 <gjs278> it doesn't actually look like that big of an undertaking to boot with openrc on bsds, they've kept compatbility really well even though basically no one has been using it aside from gentoo/alt people
251 2013-07-24 02:02:39 <Luke-Jr> gjs278: why not fix DragonFly? :P
252 2013-07-24 02:03:05 <gjs278> unfortunately it was another __FreeBSD__ defined where dfly needed to be too
253 2013-07-24 02:12:03 <MC1984> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinit_(technology) nice bit of advanced p2p tech
254 2013-07-24 04:37:54 <gmaxwell> freewil: there isn't a handy way to do that.
255 2013-07-24 04:51:34 <freewil> hmm
256 2013-07-24 04:52:11 <freewil> i was trying to do some testing to see how (and if) the address is relayed for a node configured to only `-connect` to a single node
257 2013-07-24 05:00:14 <freewil> well i guess i could use `-connect`, listen=1 and see if anyone else connects to the node
258 2013-07-24 05:01:02 <gmaxwell> freewil: listen=0 supresses announcement.
259 2013-07-24 05:01:15 <gmaxwell> so does an inability to discover a public looking ip.
260 2013-07-24 05:02:04 <freewil> so if a node has listen=0, but connects to a node using -connect, how does it's peer know not to announce the ip to it's peers
261 2013-07-24 05:02:42 <gmaxwell> freewil: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L3987
262 2013-07-24 05:02:52 <gmaxwell> freewil: its peer never does that! thats not now bitcoin works.
263 2013-07-24 05:03:01 <gmaxwell> freewil: nodes announce _themselves_
264 2013-07-24 05:03:15 <freewil> i see
265 2013-07-24 05:03:53 <freewil> so the listen=0 node (node A) would have to announce itself to it's peer (node b) for node b to subsequently announce node a to other peers?
266 2013-07-24 05:04:01 <gmaxwell> Correct.
267 2013-07-24 05:04:13 <gmaxwell> unless node b is some kind of weird/broken/evil node.
268 2013-07-24 05:05:13 <freewil> in which case it wouldnt make much sense to have node a `-connect` to node b
269 2013-07-24 05:05:29 <gmaxwell> you'd hope. :P
270 2013-07-24 05:06:27 <freewil> ha
271 2013-07-24 05:06:29 <freewil> thanks gmaxwell
272 2013-07-24 06:14:48 <Belkaar> Hello, if have found somthing strange: I'm running latest release (compiled myself, no code changes, just removed UPNP via switch). Two nodes on the same machine. One connects to the network and one only connects to the other. The open node kicks off the single connection one after a few days for misbehaving. How can the reference client misbehave?
273 2013-07-24 06:19:51 <freewil> gmaxwell, http://blog.inbitbox.com/post/56318538664/saturday-downtime
274 2013-07-24 06:21:10 <freewil> Belkaar, did the two nodes get out of sync somehow before you configured the one to only talk to the other?
275 2013-07-24 06:21:30 <gmaxwell> freewil: ah, thanks.  We've talked before about being able to listen on a seperate port to reserved connections... sounds like thats an example of why that would be helpful.
276 2013-07-24 06:21:42 <freewil> gmaxwell, yes ;)
277 2013-07-24 06:22:31 <Belkaar> freewil: no. they are running fine for two days or so, then it happens again. After restarting the open node its all good again. I have set the ban timeout to two minutes as a workaround
278 2013-07-24 06:22:50 <Belkaar> freewil: last release version did not show that behaviour
279 2013-07-24 06:22:52 <freewil> gmaxwell, or if you could just setup reserved spots for certain ips so they can always connect
280 2013-07-24 06:23:24 <midnightmagic> Belkaar: For some things my p2pool was triggering the anti-DoS stuff in my bitcoind, so I patched it so that RFC1942 addresses are exempt from DoS scoring.
281 2013-07-24 06:24:03 <midnightmagic> Belkaar: So that's another option, if you feel brave.
282 2013-07-24 06:26:53 <Belkaar> midnightmagic: I'm not usig p2pool
283 2013-07-24 06:28:09 <midnightmagic> I know. I'm just saying you could exempt your other bitcoind from DoS measures
284 2013-07-24 06:28:48 <Krellan> i would love reserved spots for certain IP's - i tried limiting my number of connections and my miner couldn't get in :)
285 2013-07-24 06:31:59 <Belkaar> Krellan: yes me too :-)
286 2013-07-24 06:47:53 <sipa> Belkaar: mind sharing the debug.log files? i'd like to know which dos protection rule is triggeref.
287 2013-07-24 06:52:08 <Belkaar> sipa: not at all. one moment, need to compress and upload it
288 2013-07-24 06:56:57 <Belkaar> sipa: did you get it?
289 2013-07-24 09:13:43 <GMP> http://forum.ovh.com/showthread.php?t=89533
290 2013-07-24 12:30:37 <randy-waterhouse> anybody played around with using cryptodev for linux to accelerate bitcoin operations?
291 2013-07-24 12:30:41 <randy-waterhouse> http://cryptodev-linux.org/
292 2013-07-24 12:30:59 <randy-waterhouse> specifically ssl stuff i'm thinking of
293 2013-07-24 12:32:09 <randy-waterhouse> block verification for example
294 2013-07-24 12:32:26 <BlueMatt> I kind of doubt many people have a secp256k1-ecdsa crypto accelerator
295 2013-07-24 12:32:27 <Scrat> randy-waterhouse: bitcoin doesn't use SSL/TLS in any context that requires acceleration
296 2013-07-24 12:32:37 <BlueMatt> or that there are even kernel-level drivers to support that
297 2013-07-24 12:32:43 <BlueMatt> s/kind of doubt/highly doubt/
298 2013-07-24 12:32:43 <randy-waterhouse> Scrat: ok thanks ...
299 2013-07-24 12:33:13 <randy-waterhouse> just checking as I was looking into it for something else and occurred to me
300 2013-07-24 12:36:07 <Scrat> sipa has written his own lib that does faster verification but something as significant as that will require months of testing
301 2013-07-24 12:36:25 <Scrat> I don't know how many months, maybe BlueMatt can comment
302 2013-07-24 12:37:08 <Vinnie_win> months, really?
303 2013-07-24 12:37:21 <Vinnie_win> Wouldn't it be a trivial matter to just run it against the blockchain and make sure it passes?
304 2013-07-24 12:37:33 <sipa> Vinnie_win: that's a trivial matter and of course already done
305 2013-07-24 12:37:53 <sipa> Vinnie_win: but it's much more important that it also doesn't allow anything that isn't allowed in the blockchain :)
306 2013-07-24 12:37:56 <Scrat> testing/confidence/whatever
307 2013-07-24 12:38:03 <sipa> it's not so much testing that requires time
308 2013-07-24 12:38:09 <sipa> just needs more unit tests
309 2013-07-24 12:38:12 <sipa> and review
310 2013-07-24 12:38:18 <Vinnie_win> sipa: Lol yeah....... bool checkSignature (Sig const& sig) { return true; }
311 2013-07-24 12:39:06 <randy-waterhouse> all i read was these two pieces "Support for all major cipher algorithms Support for all major hash algorithms" .... and the up to 100x speed up ... sounded good
312 2013-07-24 12:39:06 <Vinnie_win> sipa: Use both algorithms for a while and report when they differ in opinion
313 2013-07-24 12:39:07 <t7> just test against every possible 256bit m
314 2013-07-24 12:39:22 <t7> make sure the output matched openssl :)
315 2013-07-24 12:39:46 <t7> they NSA might lend you their quantum super computer
316 2013-07-24 12:40:28 <t7> that wont actually speed up a classical algorithm tho...
317 2013-07-24 12:41:06 <t7> maybe those new parallelas cant brute force the entire space
318 2013-07-24 12:42:49 <jgarzik> mornin'
319 2013-07-24 12:42:59 <sipa> Vinnie_win: it's much more likely that an error in the code won't ever trigger accidentally
320 2013-07-24 12:43:21 <sipa> Vinnie_win: but only on crafted input
321 2013-07-24 12:43:30 <Vinnie_win> sipa: Yeah that makes sense. How on earth can one verify the correctness of the thing then?
322 2013-07-24 12:44:58 <sipa> Vinnie_win: by having some very smart people look at it :)
323 2013-07-24 12:45:08 <Vinnie_win> sipa: Well, that rules me out
324 2013-07-24 12:45:34 <Vinnie_win> Not sure if you guys know this but I'm working for OpenCoin now
325 2013-07-24 12:45:41 <Scrat> 99.99999% of the earth's population ruled out
326 2013-07-24 12:45:46 <Scrat> such elitist jerks
327 2013-07-24 12:46:39 <Vinnie_win> I've developed my own new cross platform library which aims to replace boost and eventually openssl, specifically designed for p2p applications that do crypto: https://github.com/vinniefalco/Beast
328 2013-07-24 12:47:39 <jgarzik> You've mentioned ripple on github several times
329 2013-07-24 12:47:54 <jgarzik> The power of NIH is strong, I agree :)
330 2013-07-24 12:48:03 <Vinnie_win> jgarzik: Well, that was before I was an employee.
331 2013-07-24 12:48:27 <jgarzik> Trying to replace boost is a high bar, when boost is basically "C+++" and a very widely adopted standard
332 2013-07-24 12:48:32 <Vinnie_win> jgarzik: Oh, I'm not pretending I wrote all of beast. A lot of it was pulled from other permissively licensed projects
333 2013-07-24 12:49:52 <Vinnie_win> jgarzik: I'm also not pretending to replace all the functionality of boost. Just key classes. And in almost all cases, they are by design restricted in their functionality. For example, no try() on synchronization objects, all mutexes are non-recursive, threads may not be forcibly killed, etc
334 2013-07-24 12:50:12 <Vinnie_win> Just something to keep an eye on as it evolves!
335 2013-07-24 12:50:16 <jgarzik> heh, well
336 2013-07-24 12:50:21 <jgarzik> that matches OS/hardware
337 2013-07-24 12:50:30 <Vinnie_win> jgarzik: Not sure what you mean
338 2013-07-24 12:50:35 <jgarzik> you run into trouble when deviating from the underlying platform
339 2013-07-24 12:50:56 <Vinnie_win> jgarzik: Who deviated
340 2013-07-24 12:51:28 <jgarzik> try{} on synchronization objects quickly becomes a fight between the C++ exception handling, CPU LOCK prefixed code, and other low level sync primitives
341 2013-07-24 12:52:05 <Vinnie_win> jgarzik: Oh, that's good to know. Well I don't like try() because it makes code that uses it more difficult to understand
342 2013-07-24 12:52:06 <jgarzik> killing a thread is quite an OS-specific thing
343 2013-07-24 12:52:38 <jgarzik> i.e. there is a real reason why pthread did not originally include a thread-kill, just a thread-join
344 2013-07-24 12:53:04 <Vinnie_win> jgarzik: Let me point out that beast works on POSIX systems, windows, ios, and android
345 2013-07-24 12:53:12 <Vinnie_win> jgarzik: and also FreeBSD unfortunately >.<
346 2013-07-24 12:53:53 <jgarzik> That changes nothing of what I said ;p
347 2013-07-24 12:54:00 <Vinnie_win> jgarzik: Agreed!
348 2013-07-24 17:50:38 <jgarzik> No testnet coins generated by my laptop in 4 days.  I wonder if internal mining is indeed broken.
349 2013-07-24 17:50:58 <petertodd> expected time to gen?
350 2013-07-24 18:13:18 <petertodd> jgarzik: p2pool luck has been getting very bad lately, possibly related
351 2013-07-24 18:14:00 <petertodd> Won't know for a few more weeks with certainty though. :(
352 2013-07-24 18:40:20 <[Tycho]> Who is the owner of BBE ?
353 2013-07-24 18:40:38 <petertodd> BBE=?
354 2013-07-24 18:40:41 <petertodd> block explorer?
355 2013-07-24 18:43:02 <sipa> originally theymos afaik, but i think he sold it or something
356 2013-07-24 19:35:44 <Krellan> petertodd: p2pool luck is strange indeed, nothing for days, then 3 blocks last night :)
357 2013-07-24 19:36:49 <gmaxwell> thats what life is like when you're <1% of the hashpower
358 2013-07-24 19:38:24 <CodeShark> it should be possible to calculate the exact variance and expected frequency of such events and see whether it really is improbable before drawing any conclusions
359 2013-07-24 19:38:44 <[Tycho]> I asked because BBE is stuck for at least a couple of days.
360 2013-07-24 19:43:09 <gmaxwell> stuck at 247902
361 2013-07-24 19:43:22 <gmaxwell> 2013-07-22.
362 2013-07-24 19:43:31 <gmaxwell> petertodd: you are a bad bad man.
363 2013-07-24 19:48:48 <gmaxwell> hm. no petertodd's buster transaction was in 247939.
364 2013-07-24 19:51:42 <CodeShark> lol, petertodd broke BBE?
365 2013-07-24 19:51:47 <CodeShark> what transaction?
366 2013-07-24 19:56:10 <gmaxwell> he broke a lot of stuff
367 2013-07-24 19:56:30 <gmaxwell> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260595.0
368 2013-07-24 19:58:23 <[Tycho]> "re-implementations are dangerous because they invariably have bugs and don't duplicate bitcoin-qt behavior exactly" - not good
369 2013-07-24 19:59:26 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: he's referring to the normative blockchain validation rules, where thre is no room for ambiguity or differences between versions.
370 2013-07-24 20:00:31 <nsh> "I was auditing litecoin this weekend, and in the process found a half-dozen obscure edge cases in Bitcoin's scripting code that I didn't know about it, and I'm already an expert on how Bitcoin works. Frankly the science of software engineering just isn't at the point where we know how to re-implement bitcoin and get it right. This is a problem at least as hard as writing safety-critical flight avionics software; in my opinion it's probably harder."
371 2013-07-24 20:00:32 <nsh> heh...
372 2013-07-24 20:03:09 <MC1984> welp
373 2013-07-24 20:03:21 <CodeShark> there's also the problem that a "bug" becomes a feature if the reference implementation has it
374 2013-07-24 20:03:59 <sipa> s/reference/deployed/
375 2013-07-24 20:04:36 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: The whole idea of a bug is such an egocentric thing to being with.  What is a 'bug' is not all code equal in the eyes of the universe?
376 2013-07-24 20:04:40 <gmaxwell> :P
377 2013-07-24 20:05:07 <CodeShark> I would define "bug" to be anything which causes a program to behave differently than what its author intended
378 2013-07-24 20:05:47 <gmaxwell> "Author" implies a privleged position. :P
379 2013-07-24 20:06:05 <sipa> as i said before... in the march 2013 fork, 0.7 was buggy because it didn't do what was intended, but 0.8 was at fault for not copying the bug :)
380 2013-07-24 20:06:13 <gmaxwell> In any case, I like to say that in bitcoin consistency is often more important than correctness.
381 2013-07-24 20:06:42 <gmaxwell> In bitcoin if an 'author' is competent they'll always intend consistency. :)
382 2013-07-24 20:08:06 <sipa> the question now becomes what if we had known about the bdb limitation ahead of time
383 2013-07-24 20:08:25 <sipa> i guess we would have hard forked away from it just as well
384 2013-07-24 20:08:48 <CodeShark> sipa: while lack of knowledge of the bdb limitation surely factors in, the program could still be designed to better handle such circumstances
385 2013-07-24 20:08:54 <CodeShark> like dying rather than rejecting the block
386 2013-07-24 20:08:54 <gmaxwell> on that subject. There are apparently hundreds of altcoin forks now, including ones with 20 second blocks. (0_o)
387 2013-07-24 20:09:10 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: we do now.. but not all failures are sure to return errors.
388 2013-07-24 20:10:05 <sipa> good point, if we had had that behaviour in 0.7 already, this would not have been a fork
389 2013-07-24 20:10:09 <sipa> but a DoS attack
390 2013-07-24 20:10:10 <MC1984> what about the 2 or 3 alternative full implementations people are doing
391 2013-07-24 20:10:19 <MC1984> ar you saying they are doomed
392 2013-07-24 20:10:23 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: for example there is a leveldb bug which during compaction can may deleted keys return: http://code.google.com/p/leveldb/issues/detail?id=178
393 2013-07-24 20:11:02 <sipa> btw, a fully header-synced bitcoind running for 24h: 152 MiB RES
394 2013-07-24 20:11:06 <CodeShark> I think you flipped some words around in that sentence, gmaxwell
395 2013-07-24 20:11:08 <sipa> (0 blocks synced)
396 2013-07-24 20:11:17 <sipa> CodeShark: s/may/make/
397 2013-07-24 20:11:19 <gmaxwell> er may make deleted keys return.
398 2013-07-24 20:11:43 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: with that kind of error you'd never hit an error condition that you'd never hit a condition that you could detect and shut down.
399 2013-07-24 20:12:03 <gmaxwell> In any case, what I was saying about these alt things is that a lot of them are actually getting killed by attacks.
400 2013-07-24 20:12:11 <gmaxwell> And we're not learning anything from them.
401 2013-07-24 20:12:32 <gmaxwell> The bummer is that most of them are based on forks of the litecoin code, which is really old... so it's not clear if there is anything to learn.
402 2013-07-24 20:13:56 <MC1984> isnt th rise and fall of these coins being reasonable documented in the respective altcoin forum threads and git pages
403 2013-07-24 20:13:57 <gmaxwell> warren: is the ltc code updated yet?  all these moron forks being on new code would be more useful to us.
404 2013-07-24 20:14:19 <gmaxwell> MC1984: no, because no one is doing analysis on why they are failing.
405 2013-07-24 20:14:51 <gmaxwell> MC1984: a lot of them are being put out by people who are less technical than you are.
406 2013-07-24 20:15:33 <MC1984> not sure if insult lol
407 2013-07-24 20:15:46 <gmaxwell> I did say less, I didn't specify how much!
408 2013-07-24 20:16:10 <CodeShark> if the protocol itself (as in the message types) is reused by all of them, then really, if we were to make the validation portion pluggable then at least we could make it easy to update the rest
409 2013-07-24 20:16:51 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: they're search-and-replaces on litecoin. There is no update difficulty wrt that.
410 2013-07-24 20:17:19 <gmaxwell> Litecoin went through a long period of zero technical involvement. They could have kept up with bitcoin without too much trouble but didn't.
411 2013-07-24 20:18:16 <CodeShark> on the other hand, I think sipa might have at least somewhat of a point in claiming that any altcoin that can reuse substantial portions of bitcoind's code is probably not innovating sufficiently to be interesting
412 2013-07-24 20:18:25 <gmaxwell> It took bitcoin mining software emitting header version 2 blocks slopply applied to litecoin causing all litecoin nodes to display a "YOUR SOFTWARE IS OUT OF DATE" alert before they started up updating anything. :P
413 2013-07-24 20:19:03 <gmaxwell> oh absolutely, these altcoin things being parasitic on our technical work is lame and demotivating too.
414 2013-07-24 20:19:25 <gmaxwell> They do basically no interesting technical development.  But that doesn't mean we can't get something useful out of them.
415 2013-07-24 20:19:41 <gmaxwell> They're frequently attacked, so we could potentially learn about attacks that people aren't bothering to perform on bitcoin.
416 2013-07-24 20:20:18 <gmaxwell> they also randomly change parameters without much though, which might be exposing interesting corner cases.
417 2013-07-24 20:20:27 <MC1984> interesting attacks though? or just 51% steamroller
418 2013-07-24 20:21:23 <gmaxwell> some are not reorg attacks, no. there has been a fair amount of DOS attacks.
419 2013-07-24 20:22:14 <gmaxwell> I believe one of them has more blocks than bitcoin does now.
420 2013-07-24 20:22:29 <gmaxwell> (due to 20 second blocks)
421 2013-07-24 20:24:36 <warren> gmaxwell: ltc code has been ready for a while now, waiting on our code auditor to finish before official release
422 2013-07-24 20:24:55 <warren> gmaxwell: "more useful to us" in what way though?  don't you want them to collapse from their unfixed bugs? =P
423 2013-07-24 20:25:50 <gmaxwell> warren: http://www.despair.com/mistakes.html
424 2013-07-24 20:26:47 <sipa> gmaxwell: also called 'canaries' :P
425 2013-07-24 20:27:41 <gmaxwell> But they're not if no one is paying attention or uh. if they're all old and sick birds that you expect to die anyways. :P
426 2013-07-24 20:28:05 <warren> gmaxwell: the FTC difficulty "fix" made a very-difficult-to-exploit pool software DoS into very easy to exploit, so they were in effect a canary
427 2013-07-24 20:28:20 <sipa> the FTC has an altcoin :o
428 2013-07-24 20:28:27 <gmaxwell> "feathercoin"
429 2013-07-24 20:28:30 <sipa> Oh.
430 2013-07-24 20:28:49 <jchp> (fartcoin)
431 2013-07-24 20:28:51 <gmaxwell> yea, a lot of these things have introduced loltastic errors. We don't learn much from that, at least not that we didn't already know.
432 2013-07-24 20:29:13 <warren> gmaxwell: of something like 30 litecoin clones, only two changed the alert key, so somehow the "Upgrade your Litecoin now!" alert got onto all their networks.  Morons.
433 2013-07-24 20:29:42 <CodeShark> also, a good number of them didn't even bother to change the datadir name nor the config file name - and at least one that I know of didn't even change the magic bytes :p
434 2013-07-24 20:29:44 <sipa> ... 30
435 2013-07-24 20:29:58 <warren> gmaxwell: and in their infinite wisdom, they "fixed" it by issuing a client update that just turned off alerts instead of changing the alert key.
436 2013-07-24 20:30:07 <gmaxwell> sipa: there are something like 300 known ones in total or something insane like that
437 2013-07-24 20:30:08 <jchp> i remember a couple didn't bother changing ports and IRC channels too
438 2013-07-24 20:30:13 <sipa> lolwut?
439 2013-07-24 20:30:40 <sipa> where is this vast piece of internet i'm unfamiliar with?
440 2013-07-24 20:30:41 <gmaxwell> I was joking the other day that we should have an IRC event where everyone makes their own altcoin.
441 2013-07-24 20:31:01 <CodeShark> to make an altcoin nowadays it seems all it takes is to change the readme file :p
442 2013-07-24 20:31:02 <jchp> still waiting for someone to make a automated altcoin service heh
443 2013-07-24 20:31:08 <sipa> gmaxwell: i've suggested a metacoin before... you mine a block by starting a succesful altcoin
444 2013-07-24 20:31:10 <warren> The exchanges allow trading of tiny coins with almost no hashrate.  They protect themselves by requiring hundreds of confirmations for deposits.
445 2013-07-24 20:31:16 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: do I get credit for TBC, or do I need to make a new one?
446 2013-07-24 20:31:16 <warren> Incredible failboat.
447 2013-07-24 20:31:19 <jchp> prepackaged binaries/websites/etc.
448 2013-07-24 20:31:29 <gmaxwell> I'd say we could compete on who could add the funniest bugs but the real altcoins would be serious competition.
449 2013-07-24 20:31:30 <sipa> Luke-Jr: that's just a different unit...
450 2013-07-24 20:31:39 <CodeShark> actually, at least one or two altcoins I looked at didn't even change the readme file
451 2013-07-24 20:31:42 <Luke-Jr> sipa: which is all most altcoins should be
452 2013-07-24 20:31:43 <gmaxwell> sipa: more different than some altcoins!
453 2013-07-24 20:31:55 <sipa> ... I can't argue with that.
454 2013-07-24 20:31:58 <Luke-Jr> :P
455 2013-07-24 20:32:23 <gmaxwell> warren: they're fools in any case. Will they adopt BufferoverflowCoin?
456 2013-07-24 20:32:34 <warren> gmaxwell: several bitcoin devs I hear are in favor of making a "altcoin generating" app.  Does all the renaming, changing ports and whatever, generates a new git tree and homepage.  Would be wonderful to have thousands of new clones flood the Alt coin forum.
457 2013-07-24 20:32:43 <warren> gmaxwell: sure!  they don't care about security
458 2013-07-24 20:32:54 <gmaxwell> Well I believe that was actually my suggestion.
459 2013-07-24 20:33:01 <warren> heh
460 2013-07-24 20:33:09 <sipa> warren: it should also ramdomly delete one line of code (in such a way that it still compiles)
461 2013-07-24 20:33:13 <CodeShark> lol
462 2013-07-24 20:33:16 <warren> sipa: sure!  diversity!
463 2013-07-24 20:33:19 <Graet> lol
464 2013-07-24 20:33:22 <gmaxwell> ALTCOIN EVOLUTION
465 2013-07-24 20:33:25 <CodeShark> let's just change one return value somewhere, sipa
466 2013-07-24 20:33:27 <warren> random mutation
467 2013-07-24 20:33:31 <gmaxwell> "Your coin is evolving"
468 2013-07-24 20:33:33 <sipa> gmaxwell: now we need crossover
469 2013-07-24 20:33:35 <gmaxwell> "aww. Didn't compile"
470 2013-07-24 20:33:40 <warren> hahah
471 2013-07-24 20:33:52 <sipa> gmaxwell: oh, i know... if the magic bytes are equal, they send code patches to eachother
472 2013-07-24 20:33:59 <sipa> binary mutations
473 2013-07-24 20:34:03 <gmaxwell> you laugh, but mutation testing is a totally valid form of software testing which has saved my bacon multiple times. :P
474 2013-07-24 20:34:03 <Luke-Jr> lol
475 2013-07-24 20:34:15 <Scrat> oh lawd GA bitcoind creator.. DO IT
476 2013-07-24 20:34:15 <sipa> you have mutated bacon?
477 2013-07-24 20:34:17 <gmaxwell> sipa: oh little ringlets of code like bacteria.
478 2013-07-24 20:34:24 <jchp> that sure sounds like a justification for programming drunk
479 2013-07-24 20:34:39 <Luke-Jr> hmm
480 2013-07-24 20:34:43 <CodeShark> it's cheaper to just genetically engineer the pigs nowadays
481 2013-07-24 20:34:54 <Luke-Jr> I wonder if the altcoin "community" *could* be used for guided evolution
482 2013-07-24 20:35:07 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: no, because they're a crappy objective function.
483 2013-07-24 20:35:16 <gmaxwell> I bet the primary fittness criteria is your name.
484 2013-07-24 20:35:16 <Luke-Jr> if the number of active nodes is high, it has a higher chance of being integrated in the next generation code
485 2013-07-24 20:35:27 <Luke-Jr> lol
486 2013-07-24 20:35:37 <gmaxwell> It's like cryptocurrency idiocracy.
487 2013-07-24 20:36:12 <gmaxwell> Well the name of the creator seems to have some power now too.
488 2013-07-24 20:36:22 <gmaxwell> (and I wonder which one of you is Sunny King)
489 2013-07-24 20:36:23 <sipa> WuilleCoin
490 2013-07-24 20:36:27 <sipa> Nah.
491 2013-07-24 20:36:41 <gmaxwell> SIPA sounds enough like SEPA
492 2013-07-24 20:36:42 <warren> Luke-Jr: survival of the fittest is hard to measure for altcoins
493 2013-07-24 20:36:53 <CodeShark> genetic algorithms will produce crappy results when those performing the selection are idiots
494 2013-07-24 20:37:02 <warren> Luke-Jr: many survive from the power of shills instead of competent dev and a stable network
495 2013-07-24 20:37:10 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: also when you can't try millions of variations.
496 2013-07-24 20:37:34 <CodeShark> millions of variations could, in principle, be tried in simulation
497 2013-07-24 20:37:38 <jchp> it was pretty surprising how much shilling and disinfo PR campaign went on with feathercoin
498 2013-07-24 20:37:55 <sipa> CodeShark: can you accurately model the internet trolls that run them?
499 2013-07-24 20:38:26 <gmaxwell> A NEW KIND OF TROLLING.
500 2013-07-24 20:38:26 <warren> FTC had a major pool exploit that shutdown mining of the largest pools, allowing a very cheap reorg attack.  The attacker managed to do a 72 block reorg.  Exchange value didn't drop.  FTC users are used to world breaking attacks, and they have confidence in their dev to issue another emergency update with another poorly design "fix".
501 2013-07-24 20:38:27 <CodeShark> sipa: if I could I'd probably be working on that project instead of this one :p
502 2013-07-24 20:39:04 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: did you hear about the altcoin with 2 blocks per second?
503 2013-07-24 20:39:09 <gmaxwell> warren: yea, they make heavy use of checkpoints for those fixes, which is partially viable because there is almost no real economic activity, so just some guy picking a winner actually works.
504 2013-07-24 20:39:26 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: haha no.
505 2013-07-24 20:39:31 <gmaxwell> Non-convergence-coin?
506 2013-07-24 20:39:36 <warren> gmaxwell: after that last attack a few days ago, they're now talking about centralized checkpoints
507 2013-07-24 20:39:38 <Luke-Jr> I think they called it Awesomecoin
508 2013-07-24 20:39:41 <sipa> Luke-Jr: i would be interested to know in their actual block rate
509 2013-07-24 20:39:46 <gmaxwell> LiquidCoin was like that and failed on the first (second?) day.
510 2013-07-24 20:40:01 <gmaxwell> (they just fixed their difficulty)
511 2013-07-24 20:41:02 <petertodd> sipa: you realize that your block blacklist patch is in effect an alt-coin generator?
512 2013-07-24 20:41:14 <petertodd> sipa: Don't even have to recompile...
513 2013-07-24 20:41:19 <sipa> petertodd: ?
514 2013-07-24 20:41:30 <sipa> you do!
515 2013-07-24 20:41:36 <sipa> with -DENABLE_BLOCK_BLACKLISTING
516 2013-07-24 20:41:40 <gmaxwell> petertodd: yea, it's not exposed normally.
517 2013-07-24 20:41:49 <gmaxwell> Sipa is not a madman.
518 2013-07-24 20:42:06 <sipa> That's what they want you to think.
519 2013-07-24 20:42:25 <petertodd> sipa: -DENABLE_BLOCK_BLACKLISTING ruined my joke :(
520 2013-07-24 20:42:33 <gmaxwell> it should be -DENABLE_DANGEROUS_BLOCK_BLACKLISTING  lest some disto build with it on. :(
521 2013-07-24 20:42:39 <petertodd> 
ACTION is going to start -DENABLE_BLOCK_BLACKLISTING's gitian builds

522 2013-07-24 20:43:03 <warren> the blacklisting patch was merged?
523 2013-07-24 20:43:10 <gmaxwell> -DKILL_PUPPIES_AND_KITTENS
524 2013-07-24 20:43:10 <sipa> no
525 2013-07-24 20:43:15 <warren> gmaxwell: win
526 2013-07-24 20:43:29 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Oh, does that help me win on SatoshiDice?
527 2013-07-24 20:44:06 <warren> wouldn't a permafork within an existing coin continue storage bloat on both sides of the fork?
528 2013-07-24 20:44:25 <petertodd> warren: yes
529 2013-07-24 20:44:31 <gmaxwell> In Opus I had to make one of these not-for-mortals defines -DNONTHREADSAFE_PSEUDOSTACK  because even though the docs explain that it's not threadsafe people were finding it in the code and enabling it and complaining that it wasn't threadsafe.
530 2013-07-24 20:44:34 <petertodd> warren: better yet is an n-way fork
531 2013-07-24 20:44:56 <warren> win
532 2013-07-24 20:45:14 <gmaxwell> (it's a switch for low memory embeded devices without an MMU to use a global chunk of heap as 'stack' to share memory between encoders and decoders)
533 2013-07-24 20:47:22 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: I'll shorten that to USE=embedded
534 2013-07-24 20:47:33 <gmaxwell> GAH.
535 2013-07-24 20:47:36 <Luke-Jr> lol
536 2013-07-24 20:48:50 <petertodd> heh, sergio extended by sighash_single rediscovery: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=261139.msg2797350#msg2797350
537 2013-07-24 20:49:23 <petertodd> sipa: I was so close to figuring that out at the conf...
538 2013-07-24 20:49:54 <sipa> petertodd: sorry that i didn't just randomly started telling you about it :)
539 2013-07-24 20:50:42 <petertodd> sipa: heh, probably all the best, glad to see we can reproduce finding it :)
540 2013-07-24 20:51:18 <gmaxwell> yea, actually it's a good indicator for your latest review work.
541 2013-07-24 20:51:22 <warren> gmaxwell: regarding the fork warning patch, what better way than "overloading checkpoints" would there be to avoid unnecessary scary warnings in logs during -reindex?
542 2013-07-24 20:51:49 <petertodd> gmaxwell: indeed, so don't tell me about how you bugged the privkey RNG
543 2013-07-24 20:52:20 <Luke-Jr> warren: the one I commented
544 2013-07-24 20:52:31 <warren> oh, missed mail
545 2013-07-24 20:52:35 <gmaxwell> warren: "don't warn" this isn't hard in any fundimental way. I mean the longer chain is your own chain you haven't processed yet.
546 2013-07-24 20:54:19 <petertodd> re: code_separator, I was thinking it'd help if I write a signaturehash or createsignature RPC call so that signing oddball transactions isn't a huge pain in the ass - probably part of why we have so few signature related tests
547 2013-07-24 20:54:59 <gmaxwell> meh, if its only useful for testing it should probably be external.. esp if it could easily be a footgun with those sighash singles.
548 2013-07-24 20:55:16 <gmaxwell> we've lacked tests that were perfectly reachable from the rpc before.
549 2013-07-24 20:55:55 <sipa> 
ACTION suggests: softfork that replaces OP_CODESEPARATOR by OP_RETURN

550 2013-07-24 20:56:25 <petertodd> gmaxwell: I don't think it'd be a footgun if you implement it such that all it gives you is a bare hex signature.
551 2013-07-24 20:56:52 <gmaxwell> if thats all you're doing, it's a small python script to achieve that.
552 2013-07-24 20:56:53 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Make it sufficiently hard to use/low-level that only footgun certified users use it.
553 2013-07-24 20:57:04 <gmaxwell> which could just be dropped in contrib.
554 2013-07-24 20:57:37 <petertodd> gmaxwell: But the python script isn't with the bitcoin codebase, so you can't use it to try to compare implementations or do other interesting stuff - also thinking of a "validatetransaction" RPC to get access to validation machinery.
555 2013-07-24 20:57:50 <petertodd> (and split up mempool.accept() into validation vs. policy)
556 2013-07-24 20:58:31 <petertodd> sipa: you see my post on how codeseparator could have been used?
557 2013-07-24 20:58:36 <gmaxwell> petertodd: just make decoderawtransaction tell you about validity.
558 2013-07-24 20:58:37 <sipa> petertodd: no
559 2013-07-24 20:59:24 <petertodd> gmaxwell: validity is most useful if you can set a coins state to compare against, IE, validatetransaction should have a means of validating more than one at a time
560 2013-07-24 20:59:50 <sipa> i feel this is something that we need a bitcoin library for
561 2013-07-24 20:59:57 <sipa> rather than an RPC API
562 2013-07-24 21:00:18 <gmaxwell> petertodd: ::sigh:: we already have a lot of underused rpc features. :(
563 2013-07-24 21:00:19 <petertodd> sipa: forums down, but point being if satoshi hadn't done scriptSig + OP_CODESEPARATOR + scriptPubKey in v0.1, you could have used OP_CODESEPARATOR to change the scriptPubKey after the fact
564 2013-07-24 21:00:32 <petertodd> sipa: sure, but that's a long way off
565 2013-07-24 21:01:16 <petertodd> sipa: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=255145.msg2773654#msg2773654
566 2013-07-24 21:01:18 <MC1984> DO NOT WRITE FULL-NODE RE-IMPLEMENTATIONS OF BITCOIN
567 2013-07-24 21:01:18 <MC1984> YOU ARE NOT SMART ENOUGH TO MAKE THEM SECURE, NOBODY IS
568 2013-07-24 21:01:24 <MC1984> gosh thats a bol statement
569 2013-07-24 21:01:37 <sipa> i'm sure there are many people smart enough to do so
570 2013-07-24 21:01:53 <sipa> most of them are however smart enough to realize how much work it is, to never bother starting :)
571 2013-07-24 21:01:58 <petertodd> MC1984: it may be a wrong statement, but no-one has *proven* it wrong yet
572 2013-07-24 21:02:11 <petertodd> MC1984: not even with a probabalistic proof :)
573 2013-07-24 21:02:25 <MC1984> its scary because if even somewhat tru it means bitcoin cant be forked
574 2013-07-24 21:02:43 <MC1984> de facto not OSS
575 2013-07-24 21:02:54 <petertodd> MC1984: Currently that's correct: bitcoin can't be forked (statement applies only to core validation machinery, but we're not quite sure what that is)
576 2013-07-24 21:03:13 <petertodd> MC1984: OSS only means you're allowed to make changes, it doesn't mean that making correct changes is easy
577 2013-07-24 21:03:42 <MC1984> it means you cant try but will probably fail and get bumped off the network
578 2013-07-24 21:03:46 <petertodd> MC1984: The whole point of statements like that is to tell people who don't really understand the problem "HOLY FUCKING CRAP IS THIS HARD!" because when you're just re-implementing a library, it doesn't *look* hard.
579 2013-07-24 21:04:22 <MC1984> thats means the current dev team and the repo they control are far more valuable and/or vulnerable, depending on your point of view, than anyone has surmised
580 2013-07-24 21:04:29 <petertodd> IMO how simple Bitcoin is is a footgun in of itself.
581 2013-07-24 21:04:53 <nsh> make a low-level virtual machine for bitcoin logic
582 2013-07-24 21:05:03 <petertodd> MC1984: define "control"
583 2013-07-24 21:05:13 <sipa> you can still *fork* it, very easily
584 2013-07-24 21:05:16 <sipa> and it's quite safe
585 2013-07-24 21:05:24 <sipa> you just have to be careful with modifications
586 2013-07-24 21:05:32 <sipa> not more or less so than we are
587 2013-07-24 21:05:46 <sipa> (well... perhaps we're not careful enough even)
588 2013-07-24 21:06:08 <sipa> i don't think there is any privileged position here
589 2013-07-24 21:06:09 <petertodd> sipa: Anyway, the stuff that is consensus critical tends to be relatively uninteresting to change...
590 2013-07-24 21:06:28 <petertodd> sipa: Exceptions like UTXO database, but who wants to piss around with EvalScript() all that much really?
591 2013-07-24 21:07:06 <sipa> the problem is that the consensus-critical stuff isn't nicely separated from the rest
592 2013-07-24 21:07:39 <petertodd> and that's a problem mainly because it gives people excuses to reimplement everything
593 2013-07-24 21:08:01 <gmaxwell> MC1984: it has jack shit to do with the current dev team, none of us are competent to do it either.
594 2013-07-24 21:08:53 <MC1984> you dont think the apparent extreme dificulties with global consensus software changes the traditional OSS dynamic somewhat?
595 2013-07-24 21:09:07 <MC1984> this is basically brand new area of CS right
596 2013-07-24 21:09:33 <petertodd> MC1984: Yes, but remember what I said about how what's actually consensus critical is small.
597 2013-07-24 21:09:36 <sipa> i'd say it's mostly a brand new area of software development
598 2013-07-24 21:09:43 <MC1984> im not trying to make an argument that "you guys" are lords and masters or anything. No one wants you to be less than yourselves
599 2013-07-24 21:09:49 <sipa> critically-correct software and many stuff around isn't new
600 2013-07-24 21:09:53 <gmaxwell> These are mostly engineering problems, not science ones.
601 2013-07-24 21:10:16 <MC1984> yes engineering
602 2013-07-24 21:10:50 <gmaxwell> I am not aware of any other moderately large correctness critical decenteralized systems.  The reason: it's really bad engineering to create one when you can avoid it.
603 2013-07-24 21:11:12 <MC1984> taken
604 2013-07-24 21:11:13 <MC1984> but t
605 2013-07-24 21:11:15 <gmaxwell> E.g. you can draw parallels to interdomain internet routing, but all that is very loosely coupled for good reasons (and still has had some scarry failure events)
606 2013-07-24 21:11:23 <MC1984> its the only way to do bitcoin as far as anyone knows
607 2013-07-24 21:11:27 <MC1984> so here it is
608 2013-07-24 21:11:41 <gmaxwell> The internet still works even if different routers get different routing tables, so long as they aren't different in particular bad ways.
609 2013-07-24 21:12:34 <MC1984> well yes and BGP is eventually self healing i those circumstances afaik
610 2013-07-24 21:12:42 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Also critical is how the internet routing layer is maintained by domain experts, or at least people with access to domain experts. We expect end-users to be able to run Bitcoin nodes with a high probability of success and without expertise in what to do if it all craps out.
611 2013-07-24 21:12:49 <MC1984> bitcoin need a divine intervension to fix a chain split
612 2013-07-24 21:13:07 <Luke-Jr> anyone familiar with OpenOCD?
613 2013-07-24 21:13:56 <gmaxwell> petertodd: yes, it's not exposed to totally untrusted anonymous input either. (and to the extent that it is, this is considered problematic and there is work in progress to cryptographically sign route updates)
614 2013-07-24 21:15:38 <petertodd> gmaxwell: SIGHASH_SINGLE is an interesting case there, as coinbase was apparently affected, but because they do have domain experts, seems that they were able to fix the issue. (be interesting to know the full story)
615 2013-07-24 21:16:32 <gmaxwell> petertodd: even easily fixed big internet @#$@#ups often take hours to fix.
616 2013-07-24 21:16:50 <gmaxwell> Look at how long it took to fix when pakastan blackholed youtube globally.
617 2013-07-24 21:17:21 <petertodd> For sure, it actually kinda worried me how fast coinbase got apparently fixed...
618 2013-07-24 21:18:05 <sipa> petertodd: is there a double OP_ELSE in testnet?
619 2013-07-24 21:18:12 <petertodd> sipa: there is now
620 2013-07-24 21:18:26 <petertodd> sipa: I don't even think we have OP_IF at all on mainnet.
621 2013-07-24 21:18:35 <sipa> h
622 2013-07-24 21:18:37 <sipa> ha
623 2013-07-24 21:19:39 <petertodd> sipa: IIRC the only opcodes used on mainnet are OP_NOP, OP_NOP1, OP_HASH256 and OP_RETURN in addition to the obvious ones. (er, plus the P2SH garbage ones, whatever they were)
624 2013-07-24 21:23:42 <turboroot> gmaxwell: could you take a look at these: https://i2.minus.com/irSjj8p0frNDG.png, https://i5.minus.com/ib0VOaFk4aueRj.png
625 2013-07-24 21:23:44 <petertodd> gmaxwell: I was looking at adding a merklized abstract syntax tree opcode btw, surprisingly little code is needed.
626 2013-07-24 21:24:29 <turboroot> gmaxwell: i personally think it provides better presentation of available projects than mozilla's asknot.
627 2013-07-24 21:25:09 <petertodd> turboroot: you gotta admit though, asknot clever way of engaging the user though
628 2013-07-24 21:25:41 <gmaxwell> The idea in asknot is to funnel people directly and not trigger TLDR. I dunno if its actually better than doing it another way.
629 2013-07-24 21:25:58 <turboroot> petertodd: i guess so
630 2013-07-24 21:26:52 <petertodd> turboroot: how about you put the full list in an "about" thing off to the side and keep the asknot mechanism front and center?
631 2013-07-24 21:27:06 <petertodd> turboroot: look at pageviews and see what people actually do
632 2013-07-24 21:27:15 <turboroot> petertodd: that was my second thought
633 2013-07-24 21:27:24 <turboroot> :)
634 2013-07-24 21:29:39 <Luke-Jr> turboroot: Satoshi is the node codebase. Bitcoin-Qt (pending rename) is the client
635 2013-07-24 21:30:35 <Luke-Jr> turboroot: also note that PoolserverJ and pushpool are defunct/dead projects
636 2013-07-24 21:30:44 <Luke-Jr> and most people wouldn't be running a poolserver..
637 2013-07-24 21:31:00 <turboroot> Luke-Jr: the former is dead?
638 2013-07-24 21:31:15 <Luke-Jr> turboroot: yes, PSJ will not function on the Bitcoin network period for months now
639 2013-07-24 21:31:37 <Luke-Jr> turboroot: there is no official client - or official anything. official = centralized
640 2013-07-24 21:31:48 <turboroot> times move fast
641 2013-07-24 21:32:22 <Graet> 18months since poolserverj developer lost interest
642 2013-07-24 21:32:27 <Luke-Jr> turboroot: I'd suggest adding mining software, like BFGMiner and MPBM
643 2013-07-24 21:32:53 <Luke-Jr> and merchant stuff, but I'm not familiar with that
644 2013-07-24 21:33:03 <turboroot> ah, I was looking for 'original', not 'official'.
645 2013-07-24 21:33:14 <Luke-Jr> turboroot: Bitcoin-Qt isn't original either - that was wxBitcoin
646 2013-07-24 21:33:26 <Luke-Jr> which nobody cares about anymore
647 2013-07-24 21:33:43 <sipa> at the time actually just called 'bitcoin'
648 2013-07-24 21:34:23 <turboroot> ok then, the official site uses some of these terms, so I got confused; i'll fix them.
649 2013-07-24 21:34:34 <Luke-Jr> Bitcoin Wallet for Android is now the oldest end-user wallet O.o
650 2013-07-24 21:34:57 <Luke-Jr> turboroot: you might mine https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Clients for info
651 2013-07-24 21:35:06 <petertodd> turboroot: s/official/reference/ IMO
652 2013-07-24 21:35:14 <sipa> reference client sounds correct
653 2013-07-24 21:35:38 <Luke-Jr> "Bitcoin-Qt is based on the reference "Satoshi" codebase, inherited from the original client" ?
654 2013-07-24 21:36:16 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: reference as in what the majority of mining hashing power is using is really the way to talk about it
655 2013-07-24 21:36:38 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: majority of mining isn't relevant here simply
656 2013-07-24 21:36:46 <Luke-Jr> economic majority comes into play too
657 2013-07-24 21:36:47 <gmaxwell> "Economic and mining majority"
658 2013-07-24 21:37:03 <gmaxwell> and perhaps p2p majority, until we get some better transport diversity.
659 2013-07-24 21:37:21 <sipa> p2p majority may well be bitcoin wallet for android :p
660 2013-07-24 21:37:27 <Luke-Jr> "Bitcoin-Qt is based on the original "Satoshi" codebase, which is currently the reference node implementation" ?
661 2013-07-24 21:37:34 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: short-term, majority of mining hashing power is relevant for what code you should be working on :)
662 2013-07-24 21:37:37 <gmaxwell> sipa: not really p2p there.... :P
663 2013-07-24 21:37:54 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: miners should not be using a single node implementation anyway
664 2013-07-24 21:38:06 <sipa> gmaxwell: needs fraud proofs :)
665 2013-07-24 21:38:15 <gmaxwell> indeed.
666 2013-07-24 21:38:28 <petertodd> sipa: needs an order of magnitude more consensus critical code you mean :)
667 2013-07-24 21:38:38 <gmaxwell> indeed :(
668 2013-07-24 21:38:48 <gmaxwell> it's not necessarily THAT bad.
669 2013-07-24 21:38:49 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: they should be using a single node implementation to validate blocks, how they create blocks is up to them
670 2013-07-24 21:39:08 <turboroot> petertodd: were you referring to my usage of 'official site' to be misleading too?
671 2013-07-24 21:39:14 <gmaxwell> petertodd: if you make your normal consensus criticial code always deal in terms of fraud proofs.