1 2013-09-25 01:00:38 <cfields> denisx: still around?
2 2013-09-25 01:00:47 <denisx> yep
3 2013-09-25 01:01:15 <cfields> denisx: can you gcc -v and paste, please?
4 2013-09-25 01:01:30 <cfields> also, is there a chance your system leveldb was built with a different compiler?
5 2013-09-25 01:01:36 <denisx> gcc version 4.2.1 20070831 patched [FreeBSD]
6 2013-09-25 01:01:44 <denisx> no
7 2013-09-25 01:01:52 <cfields> denisx: i want to see the options it was configured with
8 2013-09-25 01:02:17 <cfields> in modern gcc, -v gives you that. maybe it's something else at 4.2
9 2013-09-25 02:10:20 <Luke-Jr> wtf, http://btc4you.com/ seems to be spamming 10 satoshi sendmanys every 30 mins? :/
10 2013-09-25 03:03:15 <warren> Luke-Jr: isn't everyone filtering out outputs that small?
11 2013-09-25 03:04:07 <Luke-Jr> apparently not? :/
12 2013-09-25 03:10:10 <warren> gitian 12.04 win32 build now working. testnet is failing to find any peers though.
13 2013-09-25 03:15:01 <warren> mainnet working. It got stuck and failed to try to connect to any testnet peers.
14 2013-09-25 03:16:37 <warren> exp-ip thread failed on the two websites and it just kind of sits there doing notihng.
15 2013-09-25 03:18:12 <muhoo> gmaxwell: thanks will check out electrum
16 2013-09-25 04:19:08 <muhoo> perfect, electrum is exactly what i needed. fast, light, reliable. the deterministic keys thing is cool too, and the console and ability to make unsigned or partial transactions is very nice
17 2013-09-25 04:53:52 <helo> i'm pretty sure this wallet was opened with a 5.1 libdb, but seems to have opened without issue with a db4.8 build
18 2013-09-25 05:55:51 <warren> gmaxwell: where's your external ip patch again? was it submitted for PR?
19 2013-09-25 05:58:59 <gmaxwell> warren: no, it needs more testing before it's sutiable for a PR. I was just looking for feedback on the general approach before I went to hammer out the details.
20 2013-09-25 06:01:34 <warren> gmaxwell: I'm tired of mingw, so I'll look at it now.
21 2013-09-25 06:08:08 <petertodd> gmaxwell: https://github.com/petertodd/dust-b-gone.git
22 2013-09-25 06:08:25 <petertodd> New script to clean your wallet of unwanted dust - looking for testers.
23 2013-09-25 06:09:49 <petertodd> Basically it takes every txout of (by default) value <= 0.0001 BTC, creates a ALL|ANYONECANPAY transaction, and sends that transaction to a central server. A script then merges the transactions together, shuffles the inputs, and turns them into mining fees with a single 0-value OP_RETURN output.
24 2013-09-25 06:10:32 <warren> petertodd: hm, after a restart they could accidentally combine some of that dust and create potential problems?
25 2013-09-25 06:11:06 <petertodd> warren: sure, but the merge script checks for txouts that have already been spent
26 2013-09-25 06:11:37 <petertodd> warren: Merging isn't automatic yet anyone - I'll do that by hand after double-checking everything went ok.
27 2013-09-25 06:11:54 <warren> I have no dust to contribute.
28 2013-09-25 06:12:03 <petertodd> warren: I can give you some :P
29 2013-09-25 06:12:11 <warren> I can create some if you want. =)
30 2013-09-25 06:12:30 <petertodd> lol, go for it, it'd be good to get another person testing this before I put it on the forums
31 2013-09-25 06:17:07 <warren> gmaxwell: found it on logs, is extip.patch the most current now?
32 2013-09-25 06:17:16 <gmaxwell> petertodd: \O/
33 2013-09-25 06:17:30 <gmaxwell> warren: yup, I haven't touched it since then.
34 2013-09-25 06:18:34 <gmaxwell> petertodd: "You're" -> "Your"
35 2013-09-25 06:19:14 <warren> hmm, did BlueMatt's fork detector merge the IBD exception?
36 2013-09-25 06:19:30 <warren> ACTION looks
37 2013-09-25 06:19:31 <petertodd> gmaxwell: oh, where?
38 2013-09-25 06:19:47 <petertodd> gmaxwell: oh, found it
39 2013-09-25 06:20:59 <petertodd> gmaxwell: I see you keep your wallet clean
40 2013-09-25 06:22:25 <gmaxwell> I probably have some in an offline wallet.
41 2013-09-25 06:22:30 <gmaxwell> or nearline.
42 2013-09-25 06:23:27 <petertodd> gmaxwell: god forbid, you could even make some for testing :P
43 2013-09-25 06:23:48 <gmaxwell> or I could up the limit to 0.0004.
44 2013-09-25 06:23:56 <petertodd> gmaxwell: ha, close enough
45 2013-09-25 06:24:33 <warren> petertodd: "Given that fee estimation is still going to result in users getting their transactions stuck with few ways to fix the problem I think we'd be much better off pursuing tx-replacement first rather than easily sybilled fee estimation."
46 2013-09-25 06:24:37 <warren> petertodd: I totally agree.
47 2013-09-25 06:25:30 <petertodd> warren: I've argued before *for* fee estimation, but only in the context of transaction replacement so the consequences of a bad estimate don't suck
48 2013-09-25 06:26:07 <gmaxwell> petertodd: soâ need to handle encrypted wallets. :P
49 2013-09-25 06:27:30 <gmaxwell> sort of annoying that decoderawtransaction doesn't show the sighash flags.
50 2013-09-25 06:27:49 <petertodd> gmaxwell: oh, so signrawtransaction doesn't fail?
51 2013-09-25 06:28:16 <gmaxwell> petertodd: yea the signtraw transaction throws an exception.
52 2013-09-25 06:28:23 <gmaxwell> when the wallet is encrypted.
53 2013-09-25 06:28:43 <gmaxwell> should probably prompt the user for their passphrase there.
54 2013-09-25 06:28:56 <gmaxwell> finds the daemon good for me on linux. Hurray.
55 2013-09-25 06:30:32 <gmaxwell> Wonder if this can just be turned into a self-contained executable on windows? I assume it can be because p2pool has been.
56 2013-09-25 06:34:42 <warren> I think I asked a question like this before... https://github.com/gmaxwell/bitcoin/commit/bf3a20a6e8cafdf723ef101af078df303ea06fec
57 2013-09-25 06:35:17 <warren> what happens to the tx going back to the mempool if it reorgs back to 99 (pre-maturity)?
58 2013-09-25 06:35:56 <petertodd> gmaxwell: handles encrypted wallets now
59 2013-09-25 06:38:38 <warren> oh... dumb question
60 2013-09-25 06:39:02 <warren> it won't reorg back to pre-maturity, it'll reorg post-maturity and just get mined again
61 2013-09-25 06:39:14 <petertodd> ?
62 2013-09-25 06:39:22 <warren> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2947
63 2013-09-25 06:39:40 <petertodd> ah, yeah, that's a subtle point
64 2013-09-25 06:39:41 <warren> petertodd: my brain thought for a second it's possible for orphaned block tx's to be rejected
65 2013-09-25 06:40:11 <warren> well.. hmm.. it's still possible, just very improbable
66 2013-09-25 06:42:09 <petertodd> warren: so have you tested my script yet?
67 2013-09-25 06:42:25 <warren> petertodd: I have nothing but testnet bitcoin synced
68 2013-09-25 06:42:40 <petertodd> warren: ah, too bad
69 2013-09-25 06:42:44 <warren> petertodd: I frequently delete the bitcoin blockchain to make room for <another VM to test something else>
70 2013-09-25 06:42:57 <petertodd> ACTION thinks warren needs a bigger harddrive
71 2013-09-25 06:43:01 <gmaxwell> petertodd: works great.
72 2013-09-25 06:43:06 <gmaxwell> (with encrypted wallet too.
73 2013-09-25 06:43:33 <petertodd> gmaxwell: good, have you gotten it to actually send some dust to my server?
74 2013-09-25 06:43:49 <gmaxwell> been dryrunning.
75 2013-09-25 06:44:02 <petertodd> cool
76 2013-09-25 06:44:20 <warren> petertodd: You're quite public for a centralized laundering service. =P
77 2013-09-25 06:44:40 <petertodd> warren: laundering implies you can do something with the money after :P
78 2013-09-25 06:44:54 <warren> yeah, lame joke
79 2013-09-25 06:45:00 <gmaxwell> petertodd: I wonder if you can make it try to submit using socks on localhost:9050 :P
80 2013-09-25 06:45:23 <petertodd> warren: I decided it'd be best if tx was signed ALL|ANYONECANPAY actually so it was clear where the money could go
81 2013-09-25 06:45:47 <gmaxwell> petertodd: whats the server side of this look like? just a cgi that logs them until you get around to merging them up?
82 2013-09-25 06:46:00 <petertodd> gmaxwell: I know 'eh... there are some socks libraries, but I figured anyone who cares would know to use privoxy, and I don't want to promise anything re: privacy just yet
83 2013-09-25 06:46:04 <petertodd> gmaxwell: socat
84 2013-09-25 06:46:14 <gmaxwell> hehhe yea
85 2013-09-25 06:46:35 <gmaxwell> petertodd: so running torify on it breaks access to the localhost rpc.
86 2013-09-25 06:46:44 <petertodd> gmaxwell: ah, of course...
87 2013-09-25 06:48:01 <gmaxwell> in any case.. you should have just gotten one from me.
88 2013-09-25 06:48:17 <petertodd> yeah, that just came through fine
89 2013-09-25 06:48:25 <gmaxwell> lemme try again.
90 2013-09-25 06:48:33 <gmaxwell> oh interesting.. the lock actually hides it.
91 2013-09-25 06:49:08 <gmaxwell> petertodd: did it work again?
92 2013-09-25 06:49:16 <petertodd> yup
93 2013-09-25 06:50:09 <gmaxwell> Great. Now you need to figure out how to make this work on windows. :P
94 2013-09-25 06:50:58 <gmaxwell> You might want to wrap the socket connection with some error handling so it gets a pretty error if it can't connect instead of a traceback.
95 2013-09-25 06:51:37 <warren> py2exe?
96 2013-09-25 06:51:41 <michagogo> gmaxwell: nice branch name
97 2013-09-25 06:55:22 <gmaxwell> petertodd: in any case, this is great and I think it looks ready for production useâ minus whatever it takes to make it braindead simple for windows users.
98 2013-09-25 06:55:37 <gmaxwell> I'll go bug other people to run it.
99 2013-09-25 06:55:43 <gmaxwell> Unless you have an objection.
100 2013-09-25 06:55:55 <michagogo> I'll run it, if it works on testnet
101 2013-09-25 06:56:09 <michagogo> (I don't have mainnet dust afaik)
102 2013-09-25 06:56:43 <gmaxwell> michagogo: you can ./dust-b-gone.py --dust 1.00000000 --dry-run
103 2013-09-25 06:56:44 <petertodd> michagogo: testnet is fine - the backend will just ignore your tx
104 2013-09-25 06:57:25 <michagogo> petertodd: But how do I make it talk to port 18332?
105 2013-09-25 06:57:41 <gmaxwell> sounds like it needs a testnet argument to get the right default port.
106 2013-09-25 06:58:04 <petertodd> yeah...
107 2013-09-25 06:58:23 <petertodd> though that's tricky because you can of course change that port - I make them the same actually regardless
108 2013-09-25 06:58:53 <michagogo> Do you never have mainnet and testnet nodes running at the same time? o_O
109 2013-09-25 06:58:58 <petertodd> lol, never
110 2013-09-25 07:01:26 <gmaxwell> I've asked some other folks to try it out.
111 2013-09-25 07:09:01 <michagogo> petertodd: How come the `if args.dry_run:` is where it is?
112 2013-09-25 07:09:31 <gmaxwell> michagogo: quits out before sending, but after doing everything else.
113 2013-09-25 07:09:38 <michagogo> Why not put it after the `if sum_value_discarded > 0.5*COIN:`, right before `sock = socket.create_connection(args.address)`?
114 2013-09-25 07:09:41 <gmaxwell> it could be after the sanity checks.
115 2013-09-25 07:10:37 <michagogo> Also: don't you think half a bitcoin is a little high for the sanity check threshold?
116 2013-09-25 07:13:36 <petertodd> ok, added --tor flag, moved dry-run print to after sanity checks, and lowered sanity check threshold to 0.1BTC
117 2013-09-25 07:14:09 <michagogo> (and testnet?)
118 2013-09-25 07:14:52 <petertodd> michagogo: dunno that really makes sense - I'd want to setup a testnet server, and really I should do it right and add proper testnet port finding to python-bitcoinlib - not doing all that tonight :P
119 2013-09-25 07:15:14 <michagogo> petertodd: You don't have proper mainnet port finding, do you?
120 2013-09-25 07:15:48 <petertodd> michagogo: I do
121 2013-09-25 07:15:58 <michagogo> Also, you wouldn't need a server -- just parse the network from the transaction that's sent, no?
122 2013-09-25 07:16:09 <michagogo> (or does a transaction not contain network bytes?)
123 2013-09-25 07:16:20 <petertodd> michagogo: no, tx's have no indication they're testnet
124 2013-09-25 07:16:41 <michagogo> o_O
125 2013-09-25 07:16:47 <michagogo> Why is that?
126 2013-09-25 07:17:00 <petertodd> because testnet == mainnet
127 2013-09-25 07:17:35 <petertodd> gmaxwell: yeah, go ahead and tell others
128 2013-09-25 07:18:15 <michagogo> class Proxy(RawProxy):
129 2013-09-25 07:18:15 <michagogo> def __init__(self, ...service_port=8332,...
130 2013-09-25 07:18:56 <michagogo> oh
131 2013-09-25 07:18:58 <michagogo> nvm, I see it
132 2013-09-25 07:19:38 <michagogo> conf['rpcport'] = int(conf.get('rpcport', service_port))
133 2013-09-25 07:19:38 <michagogo> service_url = ('%s://%s:%s@localhost:%d' % ('https' if conf['rpcssl'] else 'http', conf['rpcuser'], conf['rpcpassword'], conf['rpcport']))
134 2013-09-25 07:21:00 <michagogo> Wait, wtf
135 2013-09-25 07:21:10 <michagogo> btc_conf_file = os.path.join(os.environ['APPDATA'], 'Bitcoin')
136 2013-09-25 07:21:10 <michagogo> if platform.system() == 'Darwin':
137 2013-09-25 07:21:21 <michagogo> btc_conf_file = os.path.expanduser('~/Library/Application Support/Bitcoin/')
138 2013-09-25 07:21:21 <michagogo> elif platform.system() == 'Windows':
139 2013-09-25 07:21:39 <michagogo> I'm fairly certain that's not right.
140 2013-09-25 07:21:52 <petertodd> I've never tested either one myself
141 2013-09-25 07:22:07 <michagogo> Those are switched around, is what I mean
142 2013-09-25 07:22:21 <michagogo> %APPDATA%\Bitcoin is the location on Windows
143 2013-09-25 07:22:31 <michagogo> and ~/Library/Application Support/Bitcoin/ is the location on OS X.
144 2013-09-25 07:23:31 <petertodd> lol
145 2013-09-25 07:23:33 <gmaxwell> haha
146 2013-09-25 07:23:34 <gmaxwell> yea.
147 2013-09-25 07:23:53 <michagogo> ACTION wonders how in the world that happened
148 2013-09-25 07:24:34 <gmaxwell> copy and paste error
149 2013-09-25 07:25:19 <petertodd> fixed
150 2013-09-25 07:25:19 <petertodd> yup
151 2013-09-25 07:58:30 <warren> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3029 upgrade gitian win32 to precise (Ubuntu 12.04) allows more compile-time hardening flags, some compiler bug fixes that are relevant to future performance optimizations, and possibly win64 support (if there is a real performance reason later). I would be happy to clean this up more if folks have any concerns.
152 2013-09-25 08:04:47 <michagogo> warren: I'm not sure that the gitian descriptor for boost is the place to place instructions that people are required to follow
153 2013-09-25 08:04:56 <michagogo> That should be in release-process.md
154 2013-09-25 08:08:20 <warren> michagogo: you already began some of the updates that I had in mind, I have even more
155 2013-09-25 08:08:50 <michagogo> Yeah, I think that file should be overhauled
156 2013-09-25 08:08:59 <michagogo> (and maybe have the gitian instructions split off)
157 2013-09-25 08:09:31 <michagogo> Anyway, IMHO contrib/gitian-descriptors/* isn't the place for human-readable instructions
158 2013-09-25 08:09:48 <michagogo> well
159 2013-09-25 08:09:52 <michagogo> IMHO contrib/gitian-descriptors/*.yml
160 2013-09-25 08:09:57 <michagogo> s/IMHO //
161 2013-09-25 08:13:50 <warren> michagogo: I included security/integrity relevant details of the patch in there
162 2013-09-25 08:14:02 <michagogo> Sure
163 2013-09-25 08:14:29 <michagogo> But now, to build, you need boost-mingw-gas-cross-compile-2013-03-03.patch in your inputs dir
164 2013-09-25 08:15:36 <michagogo> [11:09:20] <michagogo> Anyway, IMHO contrib/gitian-descriptors/*.yml isn't the place for human-readable instructions
165 2013-09-25 08:15:55 <michagogo> s/human-readable instructions/instructions to humans that are required for the build/
166 2013-09-25 08:28:57 <warren> michagogo: if a patch is needed to build something, it needs to get in there somehow. I think we shouldn't shy away from patches, especially when distros are shipping it.
167 2013-09-25 08:29:12 <warren> michagogo: it's just another input like a tarball, except in this case its integrity is enforced
168 2013-09-25 08:29:59 <michagogo> Yes, I'm not saying we shouldn't have a patch
169 2013-09-25 08:31:37 <michagogo> What I'm saying is that users shouldn't be expected to read the gitian descriptor yml to make the build work
170 2013-09-25 08:33:06 <warren> I agree. release-process.md however is a bit of a mess and needs more extensive rewriting that is outside the scope of this PR.
171 2013-09-25 08:33:22 <warren> for example, single URL's to each input ... fail
172 2013-09-25 08:33:39 <warren> how many of you compared those tarballs to upstream and various distros?
173 2013-09-25 08:56:41 <michagogo> warren: Well, it's enough that one person does -- and then if someone's builds don't match, that can be looked into as a possibility
174 2013-09-25 08:57:01 <michagogo> But yes, I agree that it needs a rewrite
175 2013-09-25 08:57:44 <michagogo> But in the short term, for this specific PR, you should add that wget command to release-process.md in the PR
176 2013-09-25 08:58:35 <michagogo> (unless someone has a specific plan to rewrite r-p.md before the next release of master)
177 2013-09-25 08:58:58 <warren> I have a good idea of a comprehensive rewrite.
178 2013-09-25 09:00:37 <warren> michagogo: I'll consider that for the next update of this PR, I don't consider it important though given the process as documented was broken for a while and the file needs a comprehensive rewrite.
179 2013-09-25 09:01:05 <michagogo> "was broken for a while", but for the most part works as of master, afaik
180 2013-09-25 09:04:38 <warren> michagogo: for example, after this PR is accepted, I will propose upgrading ALL of the other dep versions
181 2013-09-25 09:04:50 <warren> Litecoin had already done so 15 months ago
182 2013-09-25 09:04:55 <michagogo> Sure
183 2013-09-25 09:05:21 <michagogo> But still, if you're making a change right now, I believe that that line should be added to release-process
184 2013-09-25 09:08:36 <warren> sure, I'll add the one or two lines in the next update if it makes you stop pushing hard on something that doesn't matter yet
185 2013-09-25 10:44:55 <moarr> would someone be able to embed amessage in the blockchain if i paid them?
186 2013-09-25 11:01:00 <bmcgee> hey guys, has https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2747/commits made it into a release yet?
187 2013-09-25 11:03:35 <UukGoblin> getreceivedbyaddress shows 0.00000000, validateaddress shows ismine:true, yet blockchain.info shows some money on that address, with multiple confirmations
188 2013-09-25 11:03:48 <UukGoblin> actually, it's mostly generations
189 2013-09-25 11:03:57 <UukGoblin> ah, no, it's only generations
190 2013-09-25 11:04:22 <UukGoblin> can I see what I generated on a particular address?
191 2013-09-25 11:13:35 <michagogo> bmcgee: no
192 2013-09-25 11:13:54 <michagogo> bmcgee: it will be in the next release that comes from master
193 2013-09-25 11:13:58 <bmcgee> yeah i'm building master at the moment instead
194 2013-09-25 11:14:02 <michagogo> (probably 0.9)
195 2013-09-25 11:14:09 <michagogo> bmcgee: What do you need it for?
196 2013-09-25 11:15:40 <bmcgee> i'm writing a pool server, I want to check my block/work validation when receiving submissions. Since you can't easily solve blocks for testing, I was thinking an approach would be to get blocks already in the chain, construct a template for them, tweak said template so the block violates whatever property I'm trying to test, rinse and repeat. For that I need access to the hex dumps for a block.
197 2013-09-25 11:15:53 <bmcgee> that said, if you can suggest an easier approach i'm all ears
198 2013-09-25 11:19:24 <Graet> testnet...
199 2013-09-25 11:19:33 <Graet> thats what it was designed for
200 2013-09-25 11:21:39 <sipa> bmcgee: will be in 0.9
201 2013-09-25 11:24:39 <bmcgee> Graet: the general issue I'm having is when writing tests, in general i need to have a valid block, or series of blocks that i can simulate submissions with or whatever. To construct these blocks I would need to solve them, and if I want to test with blocks that have a difficulty greater than 1 then i could be waiting a long time. That's why I'm thinking it's better to grab the hex dumps from the block chain and tweak if needed.
202 2013-09-25 11:25:33 <bmcgee> Am I making things more complicated than they need to be?
203 2013-09-25 11:25:42 <Graet> the idea of testnet is to have a low difficulty so blocks are easy to generate
204 2013-09-25 11:25:53 <nkuttler> bmcgee: have you seen testnet in a box yet?
205 2013-09-25 11:26:06 <bmcgee> even difficulty 1 can take a while based on your hardware, and if you want to run a unit test...
206 2013-09-25 11:26:24 <Graet> diff1 you can mine blocks on cpu easily
207 2013-09-25 11:26:30 <Graet> thats how btc started
208 2013-09-25 11:27:10 <sipa> bmcgee: you can run with -regtest
209 2013-09-25 11:27:18 <bmcgee> nkuttler: I have experimented with it. I notice after solving the initial diff 1 block the next block arrives with diff 121
210 2013-09-25 11:27:25 <sipa> bmcgee: which gives you a testnet-like network, but without any PoW checks
211 2013-09-25 11:27:53 <sipa> it's how pulltester validates chain reorgs
212 2013-09-25 11:28:01 <bmcgee> sipa: interesting
213 2013-09-25 11:28:34 <Graet> ;;gentime 1 121
214 2013-09-25 11:28:34 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 1.0 Mhps, given difficulty of 121.0, is 6 days, 0 hours, 21 minutes, and 38 seconds
215 2013-09-25 11:30:11 <bmcgee> nkuttler: can you explain why testnet in a box gives a diff 121 block after only 1 block is solved, i thought the difficulty should stay 1 until 2016 blocks are solved
216 2013-09-25 11:33:02 <michagogo> Would the scriptPubKey for inserting data into the blockchain be simply OP_RETURN prepended to the data to be inserted?
217 2013-09-25 11:33:24 <michagogo> And, was the limit on the length for that 240 bytes, or am I misremembering?
218 2013-09-25 11:36:35 <bmcgee> ;;gentime 26 1
219 2013-09-25 11:36:36 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 26.0 Mhps, given difficulty of 1.0, is 2 minutes and 45 seconds
220 2013-09-25 11:37:53 <zeddan81> how can i fix this? http://blockchain.info/tx-index/08c2579828cc25e577d082861e23074ed31c7219bd29def39a5e350a25ce0e3e
221 2013-09-25 11:38:21 <zeddan81> it was in que long time
222 2013-09-25 12:15:57 <michagogo> Anyone around who can help me understand raw transactions?
223 2013-09-25 12:16:23 <michagogo> I'm trying to read transaction 1a2e22a717d626fc5db363582007c46924ae6b28319f07cb1b907776bd8293fc and figure out what parts are what
224 2013-09-25 12:16:43 <michagogo> I'm using https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transactions as a guide
225 2013-09-25 12:18:08 <michagogo> The output's scriptPubKey is "OP_RETURN 215477656e74792062797465206469676573742e"
226 2013-09-25 12:18:30 <michagogo> That's in the hex as 6a14215477656e74792062797465206469676573742e
227 2013-09-25 12:18:39 <michagogo> 6a is the opcode for OP_RETURN.
228 2013-09-25 12:18:45 <michagogo> What's 14?
229 2013-09-25 12:19:53 <sipa> a 20-byte push
230 2013-09-25 12:20:06 <sipa> (the data of which is given the in the subsequent 20 bytes)
231 2013-09-25 12:20:25 <michagogo> Ah
232 2013-09-25 12:20:46 <michagogo> Ohhh