1 2013-11-09 00:01:35 <sipa> BCB: if you have a transaction index, yes
  2 2013-11-09 00:01:46 <sipa> getblockhash to finda block at a given height
  3 2013-11-09 00:02:02 <sipa> getblock to find the txids in a block with a given hash
  4 2013-11-09 00:02:28 <sipa> and getrawtransaction to find the transaction with a given hash
  5 2013-11-09 00:07:21 <BCB> sipa: I have the coinbase I'm trying to get the ASCII-translation
  6 2013-11-09 00:07:59 <gmaxwell> BCB: like this? echo Gygw | base64 -d
  7 2013-11-09 00:09:26 <BCB> gmaxwell: Gygw ??
  8 2013-11-09 00:10:02 <gmaxwell> BCB: run it and you'll learn about decoding messages from the network.
  9 2013-11-09 00:11:25 <BCB> gmaxwell: ran it
 10 2013-11-09 00:11:38 <gmaxwell> Are you enlighened?
 11 2013-11-09 00:11:52 <BCB> no
 12 2013-11-09 00:11:54 <gmaxwell> Aww.
 13 2013-11-09 00:12:36 <BCB> gmaxwell:  getblock returns  value "coinbase"
 14 2013-11-09 00:13:19 <BCB> gmaxwell: which looks like a txid
 15 2013-11-09 00:13:24 <BCB> is there a way to decode that
 16 2013-11-09 00:13:49 <gmaxwell> In any case, you can just feed the hex to some hex to ascii converter... just be cautious, the input could be malicious and some display mechenisms can do unwelcome things.
 17 2013-11-09 00:17:03 <BCB> gmaxwell: thx.  (i'm trying to read luke-jr's prayers)
 18 2013-11-09 00:21:20 <Kireji> why is bitcoin using sourceforge? http://bitcoin.org/en/download
 19 2013-11-09 00:21:52 <Kireji> I've now read multiple times on various projects that SF force ad- and spy-ware- laden installers onto projects now?
 20 2013-11-09 00:22:57 <gmaxwell> Kireji: thats incorrect.
 21 2013-11-09 00:23:40 <gmaxwell> Kireji: SF has some program where projects can opt into adding adglop in exchange for some revenue sharing thing.
 22 2013-11-09 01:07:15 <diki> It sucks when you point out a flaw in a dice game that allows the operator to do selective hashes while still being "provably fair" and I get muted by the sockpuppets of that dice game..
 23 2013-11-09 01:08:42 <diki> What do you guys think I should do?
 24 2013-11-09 01:08:55 <diki> I've pointed out the problem to the operator, he just refuses to fix it.
 25 2013-11-09 01:10:13 <Kireji> gmaxwell: thanks
 26 2013-11-09 01:10:14 <dizko> play a different game?
 27 2013-11-09 01:10:47 <diki> dizko:True, but I can't just let innocent people be scammed(I cant verify for certain that the dice operator is scamming, but it's not impossible)
 28 2013-11-09 01:11:02 <dizko> gmaxwell: i maintain a few lightweight relays to get the best connectivity for my main node.  they all ran out of memory and dropped the connections which I really needed,
 29 2013-11-09 01:11:26 <dizko> gmaxwell: aside from having more memory or accepting less connections, is there any way i can set bitcoind to prefer certain ip's ?
 30 2013-11-09 01:11:50 <dizko> diki: just out of curiosity, which game?
 31 2013-11-09 01:11:58 <diki> dizko:primedice.com
 32 2013-11-09 01:12:07 <gmaxwell> dizko: ran out of memory?
 33 2013-11-09 01:12:13 <gmaxwell> What version are you running?
 34 2013-11-09 01:12:24 <gmaxwell> Bitcoin doesn't neatly close connections when it runs out of memory, it crashes.
 35 2013-11-09 01:12:37 <dizko> gmaxwell: MAYBE, though actually this happened yesterday and i added a bunch of swap just in case
 36 2013-11-09 01:12:46 <dizko> gmaxwell: ah so perhaps something else is happening
 37 2013-11-09 01:12:57 <gmaxwell> What version are you running?
 38 2013-11-09 01:13:15 <dizko> i was in a rush when i woke upt o fix it so i may have lost any useful state about the daemons (restarted)
 39 2013-11-09 01:13:17 <dizko> let me get the ver string
 40 2013-11-09 01:13:53 <dizko> Bitcoin version v0.8.5-beta
 41 2013-11-09 01:14:03 <gmaxwell> Hm okay.
 42 2013-11-09 01:14:23 <dizko> it was getting some 104 connection error last time
 43 2013-11-09 01:14:28 <gmaxwell> (prior to 0.8.4 nodes could be trivially crashed by anyone who connected to them)
 44 2013-11-09 01:14:48 <dizko> they didnt actually crash, the processes were still running and seemed to have connections
 45 2013-11-09 01:17:04 <Apocalyptic> then they didn't run out of memory
 46 2013-11-09 01:17:30 <Fistful_of_LTC> could ia transaction possibly never be confirmed if it was made with no fees?
 47 2013-11-09 01:18:03 <Apocalyptic> i'm having a similar issue...
 48 2013-11-09 01:19:04 <diki> Fistful_of_LTC:Yes.
 49 2013-11-09 01:19:22 <diki> If no miner likes it, he may choose not to include in a block
 50 2013-11-09 01:19:36 <Kireji> gmaxwell: what prompted my comment was gimp announcement they were dropping SF becuase of ads, citing this http://www.gluster.org/2013/08/how-far-the-once-mighty-sourceforge-has-fallen - as long as it's not causing a problem for people trying to use/install bitcoin
 51 2013-11-09 01:19:42 <diki> So far eligius has been very very generous
 52 2013-11-09 01:20:03 <Fistful_of_LTC> diki: how likely is this?
 53 2013-11-09 01:20:06 <Kireji> original source for the discussion was on http://www.gimp.org/
 54 2013-11-09 01:20:21 <Fistful_of_LTC> diki: is there a way to cancel such a transaction, or repeat it with fee?
 55 2013-11-09 01:20:41 <diki> Fistful_of_LTC:I believe in the future it might be possible, as for today...no idea.
 56 2013-11-09 01:21:13 <Fistful_of_LTC> is there a way to mine it myself?
 57 2013-11-09 01:21:15 <Apocalyptic> Fistful_of_LTC, i think you could, but it's not recommended,
 58 2013-11-09 01:21:32 <Fistful_of_LTC> Apocalyptic: how?
 59 2013-11-09 01:21:45 <Apocalyptic> (make a new TX that spends the same inputs that is)
 60 2013-11-09 01:21:47 <diki> Fistful_of_LTC:Of course
 61 2013-11-09 01:22:07 <diki> Fistful_of_LTC:But it's unlikely you can do it without at least 1000th/s or more at current difficulty.
 62 2013-11-09 01:22:13 <diki> Unless you are talking about Litecoin
 63 2013-11-09 01:22:25 <gmaxwell> Kireji: yea, no worries, if they do anything evil it will be detected and shut down right away.
 64 2013-11-09 01:22:35 <Fistful_of_LTC> no, bitcoin, so my bitcoins are basically gone for the time being huh
 65 2013-11-09 01:22:53 <Apocalyptic> diki, talking about eligius I messaged Luke-Jr earlier if he could include a tx, no answer so far
 66 2013-11-09 01:22:54 <diki> Fistful_of_LTC:After a while, the nodes will forget about it
 67 2013-11-09 01:23:00 <Fistful_of_LTC> this is weird, first time i have a transaction take more than 1h and it's taking 7..
 68 2013-11-09 01:23:11 <Fistful_of_LTC> diki: how long is a while?
 69 2013-11-09 01:23:15 <diki> Fistful_of_LTC:And you can remove the tx from your wallet, and they will be back
 70 2013-11-09 01:23:21 <diki> Fistful_of_LTC:Only the devs can tell you.
 71 2013-11-09 01:23:32 <Fistful_of_LTC> ah i can remove the tx from my wllet huh
 72 2013-11-09 01:24:51 <Fistful_of_LTC> any dev's in #bitcoin-dev ?
 73 2013-11-09 01:25:45 <Apocalyptic> Fistful_of_LTC, what's your tx ?
 74 2013-11-09 01:25:46 <diki> Fistful_of_LTC:A lot.
 75 2013-11-09 01:26:15 <gmaxwell> Fistful_of_LTC: #bitcoin-dev is not really for tech support.
 76 2013-11-09 01:26:37 <Fistful_of_LTC>  Register to talk | http://bitcoin.org/ https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/ | Version: 0.8.5 | #bitcoin-dev: Development of the Bitcoin | This channel is logged: http://bitcoin
 77 2013-11-09 01:26:40 <Fistful_of_LTC> 20:11 < diki> dizko:primedice.com
 78 2013-11-09 01:26:43 <Fistful_of_LTC> 20:12 < gmaxwell> dizko: ran out of memory?
 79 2013-11-09 01:26:45 <Fistful_of_LTC> 20:12 < gmaxwell> What version are you running?
 80 2013-11-09 01:26:48 <Fistful_of_LTC> 20:12 < gmaxwell> Bitcoin doesn't neatly close connections when it runs out of memory, it crashes.
 81 2013-11-09 01:26:51 <Fistful_of_LTC> 20:12 < dizko> gmaxwell: MAYBE, though actually this happened yesterday and i added a bunch of swap just in case
 82 2013-11-09 01:27:29 <Fistful_of_LTC> i'm very sory about that! i mistakenly clicked my mouse wrong
 83 2013-11-09 01:28:14 <Fistful_of_LTC> this is my tx: https://blockchain.info/tx/b147250165e0a7a726a88ab0cacff08305a84263f61db7d554bc22056c4be83f
 84 2013-11-09 01:29:45 <Fistful_of_LTC> Apocalyptic: i see a thread on the forum about adding expiry time to unconfirmed tx or adding rebroadcast features
 85 2013-11-09 01:29:47 <diki> Fistful_of_LTC:Interesting, it's not small
 86 2013-11-09 01:29:59 <diki> it's new, but not as small as I expected it to be
 87 2013-11-09 01:30:04 <Fistful_of_LTC> diki: what do you mean?
 88 2013-11-09 01:30:16 <Fistful_of_LTC> smaller is more likely to go unconfirmed?
 89 2013-11-09 01:30:25 <Apocalyptic> Fistful_of_LTC, i'm in a similar case, waiting for 16 hours now
 90 2013-11-09 01:30:54 <Fistful_of_LTC> Apocalyptic: you think it's due to the network right now?
 91 2013-11-09 01:31:10 <Fistful_of_LTC> *devs in here, any idea if it could be a problem with the network?
 92 2013-11-09 01:31:24 <dizko> gmaxwell: socket recv error 104
 93 2013-11-09 01:31:35 <Apocalyptic> it's not an network issue, just that there are lot of txs  lately
 94 2013-11-09 01:31:38 <Fistful_of_LTC> a fork or something
 95 2013-11-09 01:32:01 <Apocalyptic> and miners seems to have a very small pool for 0-fee tx, whatever the priority...
 96 2013-11-09 01:32:05 <Fistful_of_LTC> so it should get through eventually?
 97 2013-11-09 01:32:14 <Apocalyptic> I trusted bitcoind to get the fees right
 98 2013-11-09 01:32:35 <Apocalyptic> I have no idea, hope so
 99 2013-11-09 01:33:45 <gmaxwell> nothing weird is going on, the network is just busy.
100 2013-11-09 01:33:46 <dizko> gmaxwell: oh well, i just dug up the log from the relay node, it banned my address.
101 2013-11-09 01:34:15 <gmaxwell> dizko: ah, can you paste to me the ban entry and the one before it showing the complaint?
102 2013-11-09 01:34:24 <gmaxwell> (obviously feel free to hide the IP...)
103 2013-11-09 01:35:47 <dizko> the previous line seems unrelated
104 2013-11-09 01:36:12 <dizko> Added 1 addresses from 87.236.211.15: 3584 tried, 12904 new
105 2013-11-09 01:36:12 <dizko> connection from XX.XX.XX.XX:35711 dropped (banned)
106 2013-11-09 01:36:16 <Apocalyptic> gmaxwell, the problem is I don't see the network activity decrease anytime soon
107 2013-11-09 01:36:38 <gmaxwell> dizko: go back to where it logged misbehaving for your node. That entry is too late, it's hanging up on connection.
108 2013-11-09 01:39:32 <dizko> gmaxwell: its basically lots of those same ban messages, one send/recieve pair of version messages that seem to be fine
109 2013-11-09 01:39:40 <dizko> only one that's different is
110 2013-11-09 01:39:45 <dizko> Misbehaving: XX.XX.XX.XX:37319 (0 -> 10)
111 2013-11-09 01:40:23 <dizko> they're running the same exact binary
112 2013-11-09 01:40:39 <gmaxwell> dizko: yes, I need the message _above_ that one.
113 2013-11-09 01:41:20 <dizko> ERROR: CTransaction::CheckTransaction() : vin empty
114 2013-11-09 01:41:20 <dizko> ERROR: CTxMemPool::accept() : CheckTransaction failed
115 2013-11-09 01:41:24 <gmaxwell> (you should find more of those, e.g. 10 -> 20 etc.. it bans at 100 unless you've changed that option)
116 2013-11-09 01:41:38 <dizko> that's the only one for that ip address
117 2013-11-09 01:41:50 <dizko> havent changed anything
118 2013-11-09 01:42:43 <dizko> the only thing i have set in there different from standard are a timeout and maxconnections
119 2013-11-09 01:43:04 <dizko> and it was not even close to what maxconn was set to
120 2013-11-09 01:43:38 <ryan-c> are the transaction fees on testnet the same as mainnet?
121 2013-11-09 01:44:38 <ryan-c> also, does eligius still include non-standard transactions in blocks?
122 2013-11-09 01:45:08 <dizko> gmaxwell: looking at the log on another node its virtually identical
123 2013-11-09 01:45:49 <gmaxwell> dizko: Your node is emitting invalid transactions, it's a wallet bug we're aware of but haven't tracked down the cause yet.
124 2013-11-09 01:46:16 <dizko> gmaxwell: its probably my fault right?  im using rawtx
125 2013-11-09 01:46:57 <dizko> gmaxwell: but i guess if i create a bad input it shouldnt relay it
126 2013-11-09 01:47:38 <dizko> so i guess i have to write a script to tail the log and notice when im banned and restart it =/
127 2013-11-09 01:47:39 <gmaxwell> dizko: are you using the wallet on that node at all?
128 2013-11-09 01:48:21 <dizko> gmaxwell: no i have a ring of open relays, and then on the main server it run's bitcoind and is set to connect only to the relay nodes
129 2013-11-09 01:48:43 <dizko> so the rpc connection is to the one local on the main server
130 2013-11-09 01:48:44 <gmaxwell> dizko: I understand that. I'm asking if you use the wallet on the main server.
131 2013-11-09 01:48:47 <dizko> yes
132 2013-11-09 01:50:10 <dizko> is there anything i could look for on that box to help with debug?
133 2013-11-09 01:50:21 <dizko> also, you'd think when i restart the relays it would just happen again
134 2013-11-09 01:51:20 <dizko> though i suppose if its not throwing an error locally when i send the tx, it would not reprocess that one
135 2013-11-09 01:52:17 <gmaxwell> dizko: it will just happen again, eventually.
136 2013-11-09 01:53:00 <gmaxwell> dizko: it's happing as a result of periodic rebroadcasts of bad data in your wallet. Your raw txn usage is unrelated, unless its how you triggered the bad behavior.
137 2013-11-09 01:53:11 <dizko> ahh
138 2013-11-09 01:53:48 <dizko> well it isnt happening more than one a day or so, which is bad but not horrible.   i can script up something to restart them when it happens for now
139 2013-11-09 01:53:56 <gmaxwell> dizko: any idea if any txn to or from you have ever been double spent? (e.g. any txn stuck at 0 confirms in list transactions?)
140 2013-11-09 01:54:02 <dizko> is there a place i can subscribe to this bug so i know if its fixed?
141 2013-11-09 01:54:13 <dizko> ill check
142 2013-11-09 01:54:32 <dizko> actually no it looks clean
143 2013-11-09 01:54:43 <gmaxwell> if you make sure I have your email, I'll contact you to test a fix when we have one.
144 2013-11-09 01:54:56 <gmaxwell> I'm looking to see if there is an open issue.
145 2013-11-09 01:55:04 <dizko> thank you
146 2013-11-09 01:57:16 <dizko> id rather not do this because i already recently spent a good bit of tx fees cleaning up dust, but if I had to I could send all the value to another wallet, and recreate the wallet from the original keys.  we have fixed addresses so i have a finite number of keys that i actually need
147 2013-11-09 01:57:27 <dizko> but i guess that wont help much in finding the bug
148 2013-11-09 01:57:53 <gmaxwell> dizko: I couldn't find an issue, but I opened one. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3225
149 2013-11-09 01:57:59 <dizko> great thanks!
150 2013-11-09 01:58:51 <Delerium> is there an extended error message for TX Rejected -22 to give a bit more insight why it was rejected when sending rawtransactions?
151 2013-11-09 01:59:04 <Delerium> or is it simply a case of trawling through the debug.log?
152 2013-11-09 02:00:30 <gmaxwell> trawling through the debug.log it is.
153 2013-11-09 02:01:27 <Delerium> yey \o/ :(
154 2013-11-09 02:01:36 <maaku> is the compact signature format covered by a BIP?
155 2013-11-09 02:02:24 <gmaxwell> I don't believe so, I believe it predates the BIP process.
156 2013-11-09 02:02:34 <maaku> k thx
157 2013-11-09 02:28:14 <imton> guys, in the console debug mode, when syncing, what does this means "progress=0.333761"
158 2013-11-09 02:28:32 <imton> how should I interprete that number
159 2013-11-09 02:28:47 <gmaxwell> it's roughtly 1/3rd of the way done.
160 2013-11-09 02:29:15 <imton> gmaxwell: thanks! is there any way to get that from an RPC call?
161 2013-11-09 02:29:16 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: it counts just blocks doesn't it?
162 2013-11-09 02:29:31 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: no.
163 2013-11-09 02:29:36 <gmaxwell> imton: no.
164 2013-11-09 02:30:16 <imton> gmaxwell: is there any other way to get any syncing info from RPC ?
165 2013-11-09 02:30:22 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: what does it count?
166 2013-11-09 02:30:35 <midnightmagic> 
ACTION stops being lazy and goes and looks for his own damn self

167 2013-11-09 02:31:02 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: transactions.
168 2013-11-09 02:31:15 <gmaxwell> imton: getinfo gives the height in blocks.
169 2013-11-09 02:31:58 <imton> yeah, right know i get "blocks" => 234645
170 2013-11-09 02:32:15 <imton> how can I get the current height?
171 2013-11-09 02:32:21 <imton> (to calc the diff)
172 2013-11-09 02:33:08 <midnightmagic> hah
173 2013-11-09 02:33:15 <midnightmagic> fSigcheckVerificationFactor = 5.0, that's interesting.
174 2013-11-09 02:33:25 <midnightmagic> it's a guess based on past transaction volume
175 2013-11-09 02:34:26 <gmaxwell> imton: you can't the node never knows when it's "synced" it's always syncing.
176 2013-11-09 02:34:43 <gmaxwell> the progress indicator thing is just a guess and is halariously inaccurage when its near 100%.
177 2013-11-09 02:35:13 <midnightmagic> it's pretty awesome.
178 2013-11-09 02:35:14 <imton> gmaxwell: thanks, that 2nd answer answers my next question
179 2013-11-09 02:35:24 <imton> :)
180 2013-11-09 02:45:34 <imton> gmaxwell: I don't get why progress is around 0.35, get info block height reports 234645 and current block height is about 268,609
181 2013-11-09 02:47:57 <gmaxwell> imton: because most of the early blocks had very few transactions and validate very quickly.
182 2013-11-09 02:48:36 <imton> gmaxwell: oh! thanks
183 2013-11-09 03:10:29 <Zarutian> 
ACTION is on the opinon that bitcoin-qt needs a "spy" feature to display others' transactions when syncing

184 2013-11-09 04:10:26 <Fistful_of_LTC> wow, now 11hours and my transaction not confirmed, not even once, even later tx i've made are already fully ocnfirmed
185 2013-11-09 04:22:59 <Fistful_of_LTC> have you devs seen this: https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-confirmation-time
186 2013-11-09 04:23:13 <Fistful_of_LTC> Apocalyptic and i aren't the only ones with confirmation latency
187 2013-11-09 04:23:25 <Fistful_of_LTC> there must be a problem with the blockchain
188 2013-11-09 04:23:43 <Fistful_of_LTC> are pools being DDoSed ?
189 2013-11-09 04:23:58 <warren> Fistful_of_LTC: they really need a chart of fee/KB for unconfirmed tx's
190 2013-11-09 04:26:12 <dizko> without sending rawtx, is there a way to tell bitcoin-qt to include a fee and override it's calculation?
191 2013-11-09 04:35:32 <maaku> or overlay that chart with bitcoin price
192 2013-11-09 04:35:48 <maaku> no suprise that the network is clogged with people moving in and out of exchanges
193 2013-11-09 04:39:17 <Apocalyptic> maaku, right, the network is clogged, it still doesn't justify why some dust tx with a 0.0001 are prioritized
194 2013-11-09 04:39:53 <dizko> reference client calculated my  tx fee at 0, and its been almost a day
195 2013-11-09 04:39:57 <dizko> and its not dust =(
196 2013-11-09 04:40:04 <Apocalyptic> same here dizko !
197 2013-11-09 04:40:23 <maaku> Apocalyptic: sure it does. lookinto the priority algorithm
198 2013-11-09 04:40:24 <dizko> i mean, first of all i wouldnt have not included a fee, i know they're working on fees....but..mrr
199 2013-11-09 04:41:01 <Apocalyptic> maaku, greedy miners...
200 2013-11-09 04:41:22 <dizko> the only way to include a fee when sending with bitcoind would be to use rawtx, correct?
201 2013-11-09 04:41:29 <Apocalyptic> shouldn't the coin age / input amounts matter most  ?
202 2013-11-09 04:41:35 <maaku> i'm not sure what bitcoin has to do with it
203 2013-11-09 04:41:52 <maaku> non-fee transactions are priotized by input age, size and such
204 2013-11-09 04:41:58 <Apocalyptic> i know
205 2013-11-09 04:42:22 <maaku> fee transactions are totally different. if you want it acted on quickly, tack on a fee
206 2013-11-09 04:42:38 <Apocalyptic> well i never had issues with it until today
207 2013-11-09 04:42:38 <maaku> if you let it be free.. be happy if ever gets confirmed
208 2013-11-09 04:42:42 <dizko> maaku: how do you specify the fee from bitcoind command line?  only by using rawtx right?
209 2013-11-09 04:42:54 <maaku> setminfee i think
210 2013-11-09 04:42:56 <Apocalyptic> if bitcoind decided the fee is 0 tx, i got it confirmed in the next blocks, always
211 2013-11-09 04:43:15 <Apocalyptic> dizko settxfee
212 2013-11-09 04:43:33 <dizko> thx
213 2013-11-09 04:43:36 <Apocalyptic> np
214 2013-11-09 04:43:59 <dizko> at least now i know for next time
215 2013-11-09 04:44:07 <dizko> now to get my 50btc mined =(
216 2013-11-09 04:44:17 <warren> OK interesting, toffoo has block files from 0.7.2 that he synced since 0.3.x.  They work with the 0.7.2 client.  After import into 0.8.x and clean shutdown, 0.8.x thinks it is corrupted the next time he runs it.
217 2013-11-09 04:44:18 <Apocalyptic> i always rely on bitcoind to set the correct fee
218 2013-11-09 04:44:29 <warren> I asked him to compress his 0.7.2 block files and upload for analysis.
219 2013-11-09 04:46:19 <maaku> Apocalyptic: bitcoind will still set the correct fee
220 2013-11-09 04:46:31 <maaku> settxfee just puts a floor in place
221 2013-11-09 04:46:34 <maaku> iirc
222 2013-11-09 04:46:57 <Apocalyptic> by "correct" i mean that it will get confirmed in a reasonable amount of time in any situation
223 2013-11-09 04:46:58 <dizko> maaku: i think my tx conformed (either that or it has a bug in fee calculation) but it set it to 0
224 2013-11-09 04:47:06 <Apocalyptic> this is clearly not the case here
225 2013-11-09 04:47:10 <dizko> at least if i added -something- it'd have a better chance of getting mined this decade
226 2013-11-09 04:47:24 <Apocalyptic> maaku, i know what settxfee does, thanks
227 2013-11-09 04:48:11 <dizko> i normally dont send manually like that, the inputs.io thing made me reconsider how much i was keeping in hot wallet and i moved a bit out
228 2013-11-09 04:48:46 <dizko> but in the past it had always calculated a fee that got confirmed reasonably fast
229 2013-11-09 04:49:06 <Apocalyptic> same for me
230 2013-11-09 04:49:29 <Apocalyptic> but due to this tx amount increase, it's no longer true...
231 2013-11-09 04:50:00 <Apocalyptic> that's what I don't get, miners shouldn't prioritize by fee first
232 2013-11-09 04:50:12 <dizko> i think it would be a nice service to set up a little marketplace for people to bid on having miners mine tx's that either didnt conform or you dont want to wait for
233 2013-11-09 04:50:37 <Apocalyptic> yeah, would offer a very generous fee just to get it through now
234 2013-11-09 04:50:38 <dizko> id gladly pay 0.01 or even a little more to get it done
235 2013-11-09 04:51:01 <maaku> Apocalyptic: I'm just saying that if you allow 0-fee txns, then it is incorrect to   \
236 2013-11-09 04:51:06 <dizko> i have enough shit to do besides trying to doublespend my own tx
237 2013-11-09 04:51:22 <Apocalyptic> plus it won't let you dizko
238 2013-11-09 04:51:29 <Apocalyptic> as long as it's in the mempool of the nodes
239 2013-11-09 04:51:37 <Apocalyptic> maaku, ?
240 2013-11-09 04:51:41 <dizko> maaku:  ive been told repeatedly that 0 fee tx's are perfectly legit, and the wiki says as much
241 2013-11-09 04:51:47 <maaku> Apocalyptic: n/m
242 2013-11-09 04:51:56 <maaku> dizko: 0-fees are legit
243 2013-11-09 04:52:05 <maaku> just don't expect any timeframe, whatsoever for confirmation
244 2013-11-09 04:52:14 <maaku> they basically end up on the bottom of the pile
245 2013-11-09 04:52:16 <Apocalyptic> that's just wrong
246 2013-11-09 04:52:26 <maaku> wrong? you get what you pay for
247 2013-11-09 04:52:35 <maaku> if you want a tx confirmed rapidly, use settxfee
248 2013-11-09 04:52:51 <maaku> set it to something rediculously low even
249 2013-11-09 04:52:58 <dizko> maaku: just to confirm, if settxfee is lower than would conform, it will include a larger fee yes?
250 2013-11-09 04:53:13 <maaku> dizko: i believe so, yes
251 2013-11-09 04:53:25 <Apocalyptic> dizko, yes
252 2013-11-09 04:53:26 <maaku> in the GUI it will ask you, just like it normally would when it needs an extra fee
253 2013-11-09 04:53:31 <maaku> i don't know about JSON-RPC
254 2013-11-09 04:53:36 <maaku> that's a different code path
255 2013-11-09 04:53:59 <Apocalyptic> if you don't have enough it will even refuse to relay the tx
256 2013-11-09 04:54:03 <dizko> i dont actually need this immediately, fortunately.  it was headed for my offline wallet
257 2013-11-09 04:54:59 <dizko> Apocalyptic: hrm not sure about that.   my app uses rawtx and before i learned to correctly calculate fees I sent lots of nasty ones out there that did get relayed but shouldnt have
258 2013-11-09 04:55:24 <dizko> they usually went away fairly quickly when i get them out of my wallet
259 2013-11-09 04:55:43 <maaku> dizko: if the tx is large enough (plus some other considerations), there is a limit where you do need a minimum fee to be relayed
260 2013-11-09 04:55:54 <dizko> maaku: yea larger than 10k
261 2013-11-09 04:55:56 <maaku> at least by the default client
262 2013-11-09 04:56:20 <Apocalyptic> dizko, with rawtx maybe
263 2013-11-09 04:56:25 <dizko> maaku: in any case i guess i know what to do differently next time, thanks
264 2013-11-09 04:56:37 <Apocalyptic> i was talking about the behaviour when using sendfrom/sendtoaddress RPC
265 2013-11-09 04:56:55 <dizko> hopefully this eventually confirms, if not ill have to find a miner willing to let me reward them for doing it
266 2013-11-09 04:57:01 <dizko> or buy a mining rig hahah
267 2013-11-09 05:37:13 <shesek> anybody using bitcoinjs-lib?
268 2013-11-09 05:43:54 <warren> are block dates UTC?
269 2013-11-09 05:44:50 <gmaxwell> they're whatever miners want to put in the headers... though they are constrained to not be more than 2 hr in the future relative to bitcoin network time.
270 2013-11-09 05:45:18 <saizai> howdy all. I need an example of a CoinJoin transaction on blockchain.info that I can use as a reference for a comment on the pending FEC advisory opinion request. Could one of you please point me to one?
271 2013-11-09 05:46:11 <petertodd> saizai: what's the comment?
272 2013-11-09 05:46:22 <saizai> petertodd: see header @ https://makeyourlaws.org
273 2013-11-09 05:46:42 <petertodd> saizai: I mean, what's being said about coinjoin?
274 2013-11-09 05:47:07 <saizai> petertodd: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1laZxfuna-AXsW9WC4b53s_Eb1YAg7pY-YQAGKcUE9iw/edit# page 13
275 2013-11-09 05:47:24 <saizai> the paragraph using footnote 23
276 2013-11-09 05:48:05 <saizai> am editing it now, considering whether to recommend that multi-origin transactions must never be refunded given coinjoin etc would make that a possible mixing loophole
277 2013-11-09 05:49:03 <petertodd> saizai: even single-origin transactions should never be refunded to the originating address - get a refund address when the donation is made. (e.g. by interactive form on a website)
278 2013-11-09 05:49:30 <petertodd> saizai: you have no way of knowing if the person controls the address the funds came from
279 2013-11-09 05:49:45 <saizai> yes, but you prevent refund to a third party
280 2013-11-09 05:50:00 <saizai> in the simple case of single in/out address transaction
281 2013-11-09 05:50:03 <petertodd> saizai: don't bother mentioning mixing or anything, just make it clear that Bitcoin doesn't have a refund mechanism built in
282 2013-11-09 05:50:15 <saizai> giving it back to the origin is the only reasonable method
283 2013-11-09 05:50:18 <petertodd> saizai: no you don't, the third party might be the one that sent the funds on behalf of someone else
284 2013-11-09 05:50:24 <saizai> of course
285 2013-11-09 05:50:31 <saizai> but then you would be giving it back to that same third party
286 2013-11-09 05:50:35 <saizai> which is fine
287 2013-11-09 05:50:37 <petertodd> saizai: legally no
288 2013-11-09 05:50:48 <saizai> howso
289 2013-11-09 05:51:10 <saizai> in the case of multi in, I'm not sure if it's *ever* okay to refund it
290 2013-11-09 05:51:15 <petertodd> saizai: because the person who *legally* made the payment, and asked for funds to be sent, != the address
291 2013-11-09 05:51:28 <saizai> actually no
292 2013-11-09 05:51:31 <Apocalyptic> as in for exemple a withdrawal from an exchange
293 2013-11-09 05:51:34 <petertodd> saizai: it's really simple: you refund by asking for a refund address. The payment protocol will do this for you.
294 2013-11-09 05:51:37 <Luke-Jr> saizai: there is no from address
295 2013-11-09 05:51:46 <saizai> whoever actually sent the money is the one who sent it :p
296 2013-11-09 05:51:47 <Luke-Jr> saizai: addresses are only valid *destinations* to use *once*
297 2013-11-09 05:51:54 <saizai> someone merely claiming to have sent it could be lying
298 2013-11-09 05:52:13 <petertodd> saizai: well, since you don't have a refund address that just means you can't refund. that's all there is too it
299 2013-11-09 05:52:35 <saizai> petertodd: supposing that it's 1 in 1 out
300 2013-11-09 05:52:46 <petertodd> saizai: that has nothing to do with it.
301 2013-11-09 05:52:46 <saizai> I get 1 btc to a linked address
302 2013-11-09 05:52:57 <saizai> I give it back to the origin
303 2013-11-09 05:53:00 <Luke-Jr> saizai: short of collecting a return address (as the payment protocol does), it is impossible to return/refund a bitcoin transaction
304 2013-11-09 05:53:00 <saizai> how have I enabled a transfer of any sort?
305 2013-11-09 05:53:03 <petertodd> saizai: you do not know anything about the origin
306 2013-11-09 05:53:16 <Luke-Jr> saizai: the origin is NOT an address
307 2013-11-09 05:53:16 <saizai> I don't know whose it is, true
308 2013-11-09 05:53:21 <saizai> 
ACTION tilts head

309 2013-11-09 05:53:23 <Luke-Jr> there is no address in the origin
310 2013-11-09 05:53:26 <midnightmagic> saizai: Additionally, there are types of addresses that *might not be possible to spend from ever again* and so paying back to those destroys the bitcoin
311 2013-11-09 05:53:31 <petertodd> saizai: where origin is the *legal* meaning of the *person* who sent the funds, not some ultra-low-level technical thing that's meaningless
312 2013-11-09 05:53:51 <saizai> midnightmagic: yeah, I'm aware of that. that is okay
313 2013-11-09 05:53:56 <saizai> legally at least
314 2013-11-09 05:54:04 <Luke-Jr> saizai: the bitcoin payment protocol *does* support refunds/returns, but the address mechanism does not at all
315 2013-11-09 05:54:21 <saizai> the problems I have to prevent are that a PAC can't in any way enable mixing or transfer from one party to another
316 2013-11-09 05:54:22 <petertodd> saizai: any lawyer who actually understood Bitcoin would tell you that legally that's unacceptable.
317 2013-11-09 05:54:28 <Luke-Jr> as long as you use the payment protocol only, you can do refunds
318 2013-11-09 05:55:13 <petertodd> saizai: Exactly! And by returning funds to an address when you *do not* know if the will end up with the *person* who sent them enables transfer from one party to another.
319 2013-11-09 05:55:18 <midnightmagic> theymos?  you listening?  tell your datacentre to stop resetting incoming TCP from Apple devices!
320 2013-11-09 05:55:36 <saizai> petertodd: it'll end up with whoever gave them to me
321 2013-11-09 05:55:37 <midnightmagic> (on port 443)
322 2013-11-09 05:55:48 <saizai> 'cause it's giving them back to the same address I got it from
323 2013-11-09 05:56:01 <petertodd> saizai: Look, if you want to ignore me, I'm not going to waste my time. Bye
324 2013-11-09 05:56:02 <Luke-Jr> saizai: you DID NOT get it from any address
325 2013-11-09 05:56:08 <petertodd>  /ignore saizai
326 2013-11-09 05:56:11 <Luke-Jr> saizai: transactions do NOT come from addresses
327 2013-11-09 05:56:20 <saizai> Luke-Jr: then I'm misunderstanding something
328 2013-11-09 05:56:24 <Luke-Jr> saizai: yes, obviously
329 2013-11-09 05:56:33 <saizai> please explain what I'm missing.
330 2013-11-09 05:56:43 <Luke-Jr> and it's not entirely your fault, given the number of popular websites full of misinfo
331 2013-11-09 05:57:00 <Luke-Jr> saizai: Bitcoin transactions are sent *to* an address, but it is impossible to know who they came from
332 2013-11-09 05:57:15 <saizai> also I should note that if it's "this is only okay under some super technical method", it's not okay 'cause the FEC won't have a fucking clue what that means
333 2013-11-09 05:57:32 <saizai> I have to be able to explain it to the lawyers, and trust me when I say they've already told me to dumb stuff down a lot ;)
334 2013-11-09 05:58:02 <saizai> Luke-Jr: don't they come *from* an address also, supposing the simple 1 in / 1 out case?
335 2013-11-09 05:58:05 <Luke-Jr> saizai: No, they don't.
336 2013-11-09 05:58:06 <midnightmagic> "Even though it appears that funds come from somewhere, it's impossible to pay back whoever sent the money by paying that somewhere back."
337 2013-11-09 05:58:09 <midnightmagic> there.
338 2013-11-09 05:58:12 <saizai> where do they come from?
339 2013-11-09 05:58:17 <midnightmagic> "Accept my assertion, otherwise we have to get technical."
340 2013-11-09 05:58:40 <saizai> midnightmagic: yeah, I have to give at least a bit more explanation than that. I don't get to merely assert :-P
341 2013-11-09 05:58:41 <Luke-Jr> saizai: from an account in another wallet, which you cannot identify a return address for
342 2013-11-09 05:59:02 <saizai> 
ACTION tilts head

343 2013-11-09 05:59:05 <midnightmagic> "And these guys on IRC get cranky when they talk about this because nobody but they understand it."
344 2013-11-09 05:59:12 <Luke-Jr> midnightmagic: lol
345 2013-11-09 05:59:33 <saizai> Luke-Jr: you said I get BTC *to* an address
346 2013-11-09 05:59:41 <saizai> suppose I then send something using that BTC
347 2013-11-09 05:59:43 <Luke-Jr> you *send* Bitcoins *to* an address.
348 2013-11-09 05:59:50 <saizai> is it not originating *from* the address it was sent to?
349 2013-11-09 05:59:53 <saizai> if not, from what?
350 2013-11-09 05:59:54 <Luke-Jr> nope
351 2013-11-09 06:00:04 <Luke-Jr> once it's received, the address has no more relevance
352 2013-11-09 06:00:11 <saizai> again, (supposing the simplest possible case scenario)
353 2013-11-09 06:00:38 <midnightmagic> saizai: You are granting the authority to spend that amount onwards. You are not asserting any origin when you create a transaction.
354 2013-11-09 06:00:55 <midnightmagic> Like, perhaps the universe has no beginning.
355 2013-11-09 06:01:09 <Luke-Jr> saizai: when you spend the funds, you never make any reference to that address
356 2013-11-09 06:01:18 <saizai> eg https://blockchain.info/tx/538872d054d318364d50ce0e62ba476a136d59e4e430def447379e76c9d357a6
357 2013-11-09 06:01:31 <Luke-Jr> ignore blockchain.info
358 2013-11-09 06:01:34 <Luke-Jr> it is a hive of misinformation
359 2013-11-09 06:01:42 <midnightmagic> saizai: Don't ever use that site as reference material, that place is horrible, and often completely incorrect in human-harming ways.
360 2013-11-09 06:01:57 <saizai> ><
361 2013-11-09 06:02:34 <midnightmagic> Just because it represents something visually does not mean it is doing so with any correctness.
362 2013-11-09 06:03:03 <saizai> am I incorrect in understanding that in the above tx, address …ME has received .002 BTC?
363 2013-11-09 06:03:10 <Luke-Jr> 
ACTION thinks with as much time as we waste telling people to ignore bc.i, we could maybe have written a sane replacement O.o

364 2013-11-09 06:03:17 <saizai> and that address …Qar sent them?
365 2013-11-09 06:03:30 <Luke-Jr> addresses don't send transactions.
366 2013-11-09 06:03:54 <midnightmagic> Luke-Jr: there may be no way to accurately represent the data in a way humans can immediately grasp. Some concepts have no analogue in the real world.
367 2013-11-09 06:04:00 <Luke-Jr> Here is that transaction, with no added misinformation: http://codepad.org/Nntmw7fz
368 2013-11-09 06:04:51 <Luke-Jr> correction: blockhash, confirmations, time, and blocktime are NOT part of the transaction
369 2013-11-09 06:04:59 <saizai> also FWIW, I'd appreciate feedback on any of the rest of that comment
370 2013-11-09 06:05:27 <saizai> 
ACTION peers at coinpad link

371 2013-11-09 06:05:59 <saizai> okay
372 2013-11-09 06:06:17 <saizai> so the tx originates from a tx but goes *to* an address?
373 2013-11-09 06:06:32 <Luke-Jr> at a low-level
374 2013-11-09 06:06:47 <Luke-Jr> at a high-level (ie, legal/personal), it originates from an account in a wallet
375 2013-11-09 06:07:01 <Luke-Jr> which may be entirely unrelated to that low-level tx origin
376 2013-11-09 06:07:14 <Apocalyptic> Luke-Jr, did you get my pm ?
377 2013-11-09 06:07:19 <midnightmagic> saizai: After the Tide detergent comment, add in antique chairs, Pokemon, and truckloads of gravel. :-)
378 2013-11-09 06:07:21 <Luke-Jr> Apocalyptic: I often don't see PMs.
379 2013-11-09 06:07:34 <saizai> midnightmagic: that was a quote. I don't get to rewrite it :P
380 2013-11-09 06:07:39 <CodeShark> saizal: bitcoin addresses are merely hashes for signing keys - each transaction can have multiple inputs, each using a different signing key
381 2013-11-09 06:08:05 <midnightmagic> saizai: Yeah but you can add to it for explanatory purposes. Because you could put anything in there, and the more absurd the better.
382 2013-11-09 06:08:25 <saizai> Luke-Jr: in the simplest case scenario, is there no way for me to determine an address that I can send btc to that necessarily belongs to (at most) the same entity that sent me the btc in the first place, regardless of who tells me what on the website?
383 2013-11-09 06:08:33 <Luke-Jr> saizai: correct
384 2013-11-09 06:08:36 <saizai> (and I'm okay with that address being unusable)
385 2013-11-09 06:09:01 <saizai> midnightmagic: I already added 'oranges
386 2013-11-09 06:09:07 <saizai> in the body text
387 2013-11-09 06:09:21 <saizai> I think it'd be better for us to leave the silliness to our dear quotee ;)
388 2013-11-09 06:09:36 <Apocalyptic> Luke-Jr, I just wanted to ask if you can include a tx of mine in eligius so it gets mined... I'm waiting for 20 hours
389 2013-11-09 06:09:59 <saizai> CodeShark: right, I was asking about the simplest possible case, eg if there's only one input
390 2013-11-09 06:10:09 <midnightmagic> saizai: Are you a lawyer?
391 2013-11-09 06:10:10 <Luke-Jr> Apocalyptic: what's the rush?
392 2013-11-09 06:10:14 <saizai> midnightmagic: nope
393 2013-11-09 06:10:21 <midnightmagic> saizai: Did you write this comment?
394 2013-11-09 06:10:25 <saizai> yes
395 2013-11-09 06:10:28 <saizai> in its entirety
396 2013-11-09 06:10:34 <Luke-Jr> saizai: even if there's only one input, it is not necessarily related to the account sending the transaction
397 2013-11-09 06:10:35 <Apocalyptic> Luke-Jr, it's for a deal
398 2013-11-09 06:10:49 <Luke-Jr> Apocalyptic: tx fees are for this kind of thing
399 2013-11-09 06:10:51 <saizai> a friend pointed out a couple things (labeled with comments as 'added') that I should cover
400 2013-11-09 06:10:52 <CodeShark> saizal: consider the case of someone sending bitcoins from an exchange account
401 2013-11-09 06:10:59 <midnightmagic> saizai: Taking the position of the court with whom you disagreed, who are you to say that the SEC v. Shavers Magistrate erred?
402 2013-11-09 06:11:07 <Apocalyptic> Luke-Jr, I know, i forgot and bitcoind thought it's ok
403 2013-11-09 06:11:10 <CodeShark> the "sending address" would belong to the exchange, not the account holder
404 2013-11-09 06:11:12 <saizai> midnightmagic: I said no such thing
405 2013-11-09 06:11:19 <Luke-Jr> Apocalyptic: PM me a raw transaction of it?
406 2013-11-09 06:11:30 <CodeShark> *saizai, not saizal :p
407 2013-11-09 06:11:32 <Luke-Jr> saizai: you didn't?
408 2013-11-09 06:11:32 <saizai> midnightmagic: I said that CAF erred in their interpretation of Shavers
409 2013-11-09 06:11:39 <midnightmagic> "Neither the WJ Howey nor Shavers sought to define "money", "cash", or "currency" in the narrow senses used by the FECA and the BSA."
410 2013-11-09 06:11:46 <saizai> correct.
411 2013-11-09 06:11:51 <saizai> they didn't
412 2013-11-09 06:11:54 <Apocalyptic> Luke-Jr, it's already in eligius pool i believe
413 2013-11-09 06:11:57 <saizai> they defined it in the sense of the Securities Act
414 2013-11-09 06:12:06 <Apocalyptic> should I send the raw tx anyway or just the hash ?
415 2013-11-09 06:12:16 <Luke-Jr> Apocalyptic: txid, in #eligius
416 2013-11-09 06:12:16 <saizai> note that the FEC had the same analysis in its draft ao
417 2013-11-09 06:12:22 <midnightmagic> saizai: Then, who are you to disagree with their interpretation of the SEC v. Shavers Magistrate?
418 2013-11-09 06:12:25 <saizai> (which I saw only after writing the entire first section)
419 2013-11-09 06:12:40 <saizai> midnightmagic: the same analysis as I did.
420 2013-11-09 06:13:01 <saizai> go read their ao ;)
421 2013-11-09 06:13:04 <saizai> or the draft rather
422 2013-11-09 06:13:22 <midnightmagic> saizai: I find it tremendously amusing that the greed for additional money is being used as a massive lever to declare bitcoin not-money.
423 2013-11-09 06:13:35 <saizai> 
ACTION tilts head

424 2013-11-09 06:13:37 <saizai> howso?
425 2013-11-09 06:14:08 <midnightmagic> saizai: I personally think the Magistrate had his head up his arse; I'm just curious to know whether your analysis is going to have reputational weight behind it to bat them soundly about the head.
426 2013-11-09 06:14:32 <saizai> midnightmagic: I'm not commenting one way or another on whether the Shavers court was right or wrong
427 2013-11-09 06:14:38 <saizai> I'm saying that it's inapplicable to this context
428 2013-11-09 06:14:41 <midnightmagic> saizai: Why not? It clearly was.
429 2013-11-09 06:14:56 <midnightmagic> Ah, you mean in the comment document. Not in here.
430 2013-11-09 06:15:00 <saizai> because it's not necessary for me to reach that question
431 2013-11-09 06:15:18 <saizai> all I have to do here is say "they're full of shit in claiming that this says what they say it does"
432 2013-11-09 06:15:50 <saizai> i.e. I'm just saying that Shavers, whether or not you agree with that court, is irrelevant here
433 2013-11-09 06:16:10 <midnightmagic> It's good you are taking a negative stance. It leaves open the question as to whether the Magistrate was smoking crack in his other affirmations. (Which he was.)
434 2013-11-09 06:16:36 <saizai> I don't even know what other affirmations he made that you object to :p
435 2013-11-09 06:16:55 <saizai> I was just examining the opinion for its analysis on the point quoted
436 2013-11-09 06:17:17 <midnightmagic> saizai: Do you have any legal training?
437 2013-11-09 06:17:33 <saizai> midnightmagic: yes and no
438 2013-11-09 06:17:39 <midnightmagic> What does that mean?
439 2013-11-09 06:17:39 <saizai> I have audited law school classes
440 2013-11-09 06:17:47 <midnightmagic> Ah.
441 2013-11-09 06:17:51 <saizai> I have read law texts
442 2013-11-09 06:18:05 <saizai> my lawyers have reviewed other filings I've written and said they're good
443 2013-11-09 06:18:26 <saizai> eg we're about to submit an AOR ourselves on some totally unrelated questions
444 2013-11-09 06:18:47 <midnightmagic> saizai: Are you trying to get comment on all 17 pages?
445 2013-11-09 06:18:50 <saizai> I wrote the AOR entirely, our lawyers reviewed it, they had some touchups and strategic input but said I was mostly dead on
446 2013-11-09 06:19:05 <saizai> midnightmagic: on any of it you feel like reading
447 2013-11-09 06:19:10 <saizai> we're submitting it on the 12th.
448 2013-11-09 06:19:15 <saizai> I'd like it to be good
449 2013-11-09 06:20:02 <Luke-Jr> saizai: are you correcting the part about refunds/returns? if so, maybe it's worth looking at
450 2013-11-09 06:20:20 <saizai> Luke-Jr: I am
451 2013-11-09 06:20:31 <saizai> hence looking at coinjoin etc
452 2013-11-09 06:20:42 <saizai> and reconsidering whether any refunds should be allowed at all even in the simplest case scenario
453 2013-11-09 06:20:43 <Luke-Jr> CoinJoin isn't really relevant to that topic
454 2013-11-09 06:20:51 <Luke-Jr> it's not a matter of being allowed
455 2013-11-09 06:21:01 <Luke-Jr> it's a matter of it just isn't possible with address usage
456 2013-11-09 06:21:30 <saizai> (allowed as a matter of FEC legal policy, given the technical considerations under conditions of possible malice)
457 2013-11-09 06:22:13 <saizai> I was trying to find some refund condition that *would* be acceptable
458 2013-11-09 06:22:15 <CodeShark> refunds could be allowed as part of a higher level protocol - but not at the level of the current p2p protocol
459 2013-11-09 06:22:29 <CodeShark> for instance, the payment protocol
460 2013-11-09 06:22:32 <saizai> i.e. a simplest possible scenario where you could give the btc back to whoever sent it to you
461 2013-11-09 06:22:36 <midnightmagic> saizai: This line is incorrect: "In Bitcoin, by contrast, transactions can be made securely and completely anonymous."
462 2013-11-09 06:22:47 <saizai> but if that doesn't exist, I have to explain why
463 2013-11-09 06:23:08 <saizai> and if I can't understand and explain it, the commission sure has hell won't be able to
464 2013-11-09 06:23:26 <CodeShark> saizai: the "sending addresses" will belong to whomever signs the transaction, which might or might not be the same entity that owns those coins
465 2013-11-09 06:23:38 <Luke-Jr> saizai: why it doesn't exist? why would anyone assume it *does* exist?
466 2013-11-09 06:24:13 <saizai> hmm
467 2013-11-09 06:24:34 <Luke-Jr> if I shove cash in your mailbox when you're not there, that's the same scenario
468 2013-11-09 06:24:35 <saizai> Luke-Jr: because that's the current law, in normal non-cryptofuckery scenarios ;)
469 2013-11-09 06:24:46 <saizai> yeah, that's different
470 2013-11-09 06:24:49 <Luke-Jr> no, it isn't.
471 2013-11-09 06:24:51 <saizai> but if I get something from you
472 2013-11-09 06:24:54 <Luke-Jr> that's *exactly* how bitcoin transactions are
473 2013-11-09 06:24:56 <midnightmagic> saizai: "In Bitcoin, by contrast, transactions can be made securely and semi-anonymously."  <-- better
474 2013-11-09 06:24:59 <saizai> like someone walks up to me and gives me cash
475 2013-11-09 06:25:00 <CodeShark> saizai: imagine sending money from your bank to someone but the transaction only says what bank it's from, not who owns the account at the bank
476 2013-11-09 06:25:05 <saizai> I could give it back to them
477 2013-11-09 06:25:12 <midnightmagic> cryptofuckery. :-)
478 2013-11-09 06:25:21 <Luke-Jr> saizai: but that's not what it is. if all you have is a transaction, then whoever sent it effectively shoved cash in your mailbox and ran
479 2013-11-09 06:25:25 <saizai> midnightmagic: not a legal term ;)
480 2013-11-09 06:25:27 <Apocalyptic> saizai, ... you don't listen to what Luke-Jr is saying
481 2013-11-09 06:25:34 <Luke-Jr> sure, if someone sends you bitcoins face-to-face, you know who they are
482 2013-11-09 06:25:56 <CodeShark> saizai: did you read the example I gave earlier of someone sending bitcoins from either an online exchange or an online wallet?
483 2013-11-09 06:25:57 <Luke-Jr> but otherwise, it's the same scenario
484 2013-11-09 06:26:01 <saizai> Luke-Jr: I was explaining why the Commission believes that returns are possible
485 2013-11-09 06:26:02 <midnightmagic> He has a mental idea of what a transaction is and the link is what he's using to understand what Luke is saying. If he breaks the link there's a void and nothing makes sense anymore.
486 2013-11-09 06:26:11 <saizai> i.e. in the context of non-bitcoin contributions of things
487 2013-11-09 06:26:19 <pigeons> you can allow refunds, just can't assume that refunding to the address that signed the transaction will get the funds where they need to go. you may have to contact the customer out of band or use another method
488 2013-11-09 06:26:38 <saizai> CodeShark: yeah, that one (eg https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Green_address) is a better example
489 2013-11-09 06:26:39 <Luke-Jr> saizai: how do they handle cash drops from unknown donors in your mailbox?
490 2013-11-09 06:26:51 <saizai> Luke-Jr: that is ambiguous
491 2013-11-09 06:26:58 <saizai> technically, up to $50 cash is allowed
492 2013-11-09 06:27:00 <Luke-Jr> …
493 2013-11-09 06:27:08 <saizai> but it's up to $50 per year per contributor per recipient
494 2013-11-09 06:27:15 <saizai> and well you see the loophole I hope
495 2013-11-09 06:27:18 <Luke-Jr> if I go shove $50k cash in whoever's mailbox, how do you deal with it?
496 2013-11-09 06:27:19 <midnightmagic> Apocalyptic: Most people have trouble with the notion. I did. (I still think in the very rare, single-input, single-output base case there is a from *address* even though it has nothing to do with people.)
497 2013-11-09 06:27:36 <saizai> Luke-Jr: I have to give it to a permitted recipient, i.e. a 501(c)3 or 501(c)4
498 2013-11-09 06:27:43 <saizai> the amount over $50.
499 2013-11-09 06:27:45 <Apocalyptic> midnightmagic, I did as well at first, mainly because the way bc.i showsit
500 2013-11-09 06:27:46 <Luke-Jr> saizai: there's your answer.
501 2013-11-09 06:28:00 <saizai> Luke-Jr: I already have that as the alternate case :)
502 2013-11-09 06:28:15 <saizai> but I think that https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Green_address type origins is the clincher for 'no refunds ever'
503 2013-11-09 06:28:20 <Luke-Jr> saizai: that's the only possible case, in the scenario where someone just sends a bitcoin transaction without any meeting or notification
504 2013-11-09 06:28:35 <Luke-Jr> saizai: Green addresses aren't real.
505 2013-11-09 06:28:41 <midnightmagic> Cool, charity donations.
506 2013-11-09 06:28:44 <saizai> because while that sent it to me, sending it back sends it to mtgox not the person
507 2013-11-09 06:29:01 <saizai> since they can't tell who to attribute to
508 2013-11-09 06:29:03 <Luke-Jr> someone should go fix that wiki page
509 2013-11-09 06:29:14 <midnightmagic> s/someone/Luke-Jr/
510 2013-11-09 06:29:21 <midnightmagic> 
ACTION hides

511 2013-11-09 06:29:23 <Luke-Jr> midnightmagic: :<
512 2013-11-09 06:29:40 <midnightmagic> I'm kidding! Not the face!
513 2013-11-09 06:29:41 <saizai> midnightmagic: c4s aren't charities :)
514 2013-11-09 06:29:47 <CodeShark> Luke-Jr: the Green address page is somewhat irrelevant - other than as a very specific example of the "sender address" not belonging to whomever is sending
515 2013-11-09 06:29:49 <Apocalyptic> Luke-Jr, btw BTC-Guild just mined it, but thanks anyway for looking into it
516 2013-11-09 06:29:50 <saizai> they're "social welfare organizations"
517 2013-11-09 06:30:09 <saizai> but a c3 is usually a charity and you can give it to them
518 2013-11-09 06:30:16 <dizko> Apocalyptic: congrats ;)
519 2013-11-09 06:30:22 <saizai> CodeShark: that's kinda what I need
520 2013-11-09 06:30:26 <Apocalyptic> heh, was about time :)
521 2013-11-09 06:30:45 <CodeShark> saizai: in general, if you send bitcoins from a Mt. Gox account (whether you use a green address or not) the "sending address" will not belong to the coin owner but to Mt. Gox
522 2013-11-09 06:30:48 <saizai> a clear and simple to explain / understand explanation of why there's no way to refund bitcoin to the originator
523 2013-11-09 06:30:56 <saizai> right
524 2013-11-09 06:31:00 <Luke-Jr> "sender address" nonsense is really like dusting cash for fingerprints
525 2013-11-09 06:31:02 <saizai> and that scenario is one I failed to consider
526 2013-11-09 06:31:16 <midnightmagic> saizai: NetBSD Foundation is a 501(c)3 to whom I have been trying to donate for years now.
527 2013-11-09 06:31:28 <saizai> I think it's one that basically forces a "no refunds ever" policy
528 2013-11-09 06:31:42 <CodeShark> refunds can be negotiated at a higher level
529 2013-11-09 06:31:51 <CodeShark> i.e. payment protocol
530 2013-11-09 06:32:03 <Luke-Jr> saizai: it might be an option for them to regulate the requirement of the payment protocol for restricted donations. maybe.
531 2013-11-09 06:32:10 <Luke-Jr> it'd be annoying right now though.
532 2013-11-09 06:32:11 <CodeShark> but the p2p protocol as it stands right now has no concept of "refund address"
533 2013-11-09 06:32:13 <saizai> CodeShark: in a way that doesn't permit me to be used as an intermediary for mixing?
534 2013-11-09 06:32:52 <CodeShark> saizai: not sure I understand your question
535 2013-11-09 06:33:07 <Luke-Jr> saizai: not really.
536 2013-11-09 06:33:07 <saizai> mind that the refund scenarios are either (a) my code notices 'well shit they gave us too much, gotta do something with the extra automatically' or (b) the user says 'gimme back mah monay'
537 2013-11-09 06:33:39 <saizai> CodeShark: you mention that the higher level protocol allows for refunds
538 2013-11-09 06:33:40 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: he's concerned about liability if Joe gives Fred's address as the refund address
539 2013-11-09 06:33:49 <saizai> exactly
540 2013-11-09 06:33:50 <Luke-Jr> which IMO is paranoia, but meh
541 2013-11-09 06:34:07 <saizai> Luke-Jr: it's called legal liability ;)
542 2013-11-09 06:34:19 <CodeShark> not sure I understand the use case here
543 2013-11-09 06:34:20 <dizko> shouldnt you be able to pay back the change address from the original tx?
544 2013-11-09 06:34:26 <Luke-Jr> dizko: no
545 2013-11-09 06:34:28 <saizai> the rules have to preclude the usage of PACs as launderers
546 2013-11-09 06:34:34 <Luke-Jr> saizai: I see no reason you would be liable for such abuse.
547 2013-11-09 06:34:49 <Luke-Jr> saizai: you're not laundering - someone else is trying to
548 2013-11-09 06:35:00 <saizai> Luke-Jr: I'm liable if I am not reasonable in my actions to prevent abuse
549 2013-11-09 06:35:06 <Luke-Jr> saizai: as long as you keep records (easy with bitcoin), you can point detectives in the right direction
550 2013-11-09 06:35:25 <saizai> e.g. if I know or should have known that I was setting something up that was easy to abuse
551 2013-11-09 06:35:34 <Luke-Jr> saizai: your actions (refusing to process refunds over a protocol that supports it) in this case are not reasonable
552 2013-11-09 06:35:36 <saizai> or if I know that someone was doing something naughty and I helped
553 2013-11-09 06:35:37 <CodeShark> saizai: are you trying to develop a specific application/service? or are you just considering hypotheticals?
554 2013-11-09 06:36:19 <warren> top
555 2013-11-09 06:36:21 <saizai> CodeShark: I am developing software for democratized campaign finance. Bitcoin is something we intended to address at a later date
556 2013-11-09 06:36:24 <warren> grr
557 2013-11-09 06:36:32 <Luke-Jr> it's pretty reasonable to give a refund when the regulators require you too; the ability for it to be abused is irrelevant to it being reasonable here
558 2013-11-09 06:36:34 <saizai> but our hand's forced 'cause this has to be responded to now
559 2013-11-09 06:36:37 <CodeShark> wrong window, warren :p
560 2013-11-09 06:36:53 <Luke-Jr> warren: top - 06:36:51 up 22:55, 34 users,  load average: 2.99, 2.84, 2.90
561 2013-11-09 06:36:59 <Luke-Jr> warren: Tasks: 305 total,   5 running, 299 sleeping,   1 stopped,   0 zombie
562 2013-11-09 06:37:19 <warren> CodeShark: I apparently wanted a random system top
563 2013-11-09 06:37:23 <Luke-Jr> 
ACTION wonders wtf his load is so high for

564 2013-11-09 06:38:01 <dizko> luke-jr: how many cpus?   run queue of 2-4 x numprocs is healthy for a busy system
565 2013-11-09 06:38:06 <saizai> also Luke-Jr, please keep in mind that the Commission is not exactly super technical
566 2013-11-09 06:38:10 <saizai> and lawyers ain't either
567 2013-11-09 06:38:22 <Luke-Jr> saizai: my point exactly
568 2013-11-09 06:38:24 <saizai> so whatever the rule is, it can't depend on something that I can't explain to a 50 year old
569 2013-11-09 06:38:30 <warren> Luke-Jr: I totally don't care, but your bfgminer --scrypt on windows mines scrypt for a few minutes then goes haywire with displaying hundreds of Mh of something with no apparent errors and no actual hashing.
570 2013-11-09 06:38:40 <warren> (I don't care.)
571 2013-11-09 06:38:48 <Luke-Jr> warren: me either
572 2013-11-09 06:38:54 <saizai> therefore I think my argument is going to be flatly "no refunds ever"
573 2013-11-09 06:39:17 <saizai> because it's just too damn hard to know you're sending it back to whoever sent it to you
574 2013-11-09 06:39:29 <saizai> compared to the legal standards that apply to e.g. returning real life goods
575 2013-11-09 06:39:30 <pigeons> you can give refunds, just not automatically to the address that signed the transaction that sent it to you
576 2013-11-09 06:39:36 <dizko> Luke-Jr: what are your thoughts on a marketplace service that allows people to get tx mined faster by offering a reward to miners?
577 2013-11-09 06:39:40 <saizai> or checks or whatnot
578 2013-11-09 06:39:47 <CodeShark> saizai: the payment protocol attempts to address some of these issues using x509 certificates
579 2013-11-09 06:39:47 <Luke-Jr> pigeons: read backlog
580 2013-11-09 06:39:53 <pigeons> ok
581 2013-11-09 06:39:59 <Luke-Jr> dizko: you mean transaction fees? we've had that since 2009
582 2013-11-09 06:40:09 <saizai> pigeons: the problem is I have to preclude the refund actually going to a third party
583 2013-11-09 06:40:17 <saizai> that'd be illegal for me to do
584 2013-11-09 06:40:25 <CodeShark> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0070
585 2013-11-09 06:40:31 <saizai> (see links @ top of https://makeyourlaws.org for context)
586 2013-11-09 06:40:52 <dizko> i didnt have a min tx size set and i sent a tx and bitcoind decided it was ok with 0 fee.  my mistake, but id like to get it mined.   it seems to be a not that unusual problem
587 2013-11-09 06:40:53 <pigeons> i didnt know donations gave refunds anyway
588 2013-11-09 06:40:58 <CodeShark> if you use something like BIP_0070 in requesting donations you CAN give refunds
589 2013-11-09 06:41:07 <saizai> CodeShark: is that implemented?
590 2013-11-09 06:41:50 <CodeShark> I haven't tested it out but it has been added to the master branch of bitcoind
591 2013-11-09 06:41:53 <saizai> as in, standard usage etc not as in usage by you guys
592 2013-11-09 06:42:18 <CodeShark> the merchant also needs to implement his side, though
593 2013-11-09 06:42:26 <dizko> Luke-Jr: Apocalyptic just had the same thing happen basically
594 2013-11-09 06:42:52 <dizko> Luke-Jr: it seems like a bit of a gap currently, its easy to make a mistake and get a transaction stuck in limbo
595 2013-11-09 06:42:53 <CodeShark> is it in widespread use? I don't think so - not yet - but it attempts to address precisely this type of issue, saizai
596 2013-11-09 06:43:11 <saizai> CodeShark: then I can refer to it as a possible future thing to be revisited
597 2013-11-09 06:43:19 <saizai> but the AOR has to be decided based on current facts
598 2013-11-09 06:43:29 <Luke-Jr> dizko: it's not limbo, it's just a short delay for confirmation
599 2013-11-09 06:43:37 <saizai> if you read the draft AO, it has a clause at the end about 'this might change if facts do'
600 2013-11-09 06:43:51 <dizko> Luke-Jr: 24 hours isnt short for 50 bitcoins, imho
601 2013-11-09 06:44:04 <midnightmagic> Luke-Jr: > 36 hours here.  :-(
602 2013-11-09 06:44:06 <dizko> Luke-Jr: admittedly its my mistake, i should have had the min fee param set
603 2013-11-09 06:44:18 <saizai> so I can say basically 'right now, there's no way to reliably refund bitcoin to the originator. So, no refunds ever. However, this thing might happen in the future which the FEC can revisit if/when that happens'
604 2013-11-09 06:44:20 <Luke-Jr> dizko: it's just confirmation, the transaction is still valid immediately
605 2013-11-09 06:44:39 <Luke-Jr> saizai: payment protocol is as reliable as it will ever be
606 2013-11-09 06:44:59 <dizko> Luke-Jr: just for peace of mind id gladly pay $5 to confirm a $15000 transaction, seems like there would be a marketplace opportunity here
607 2013-11-09 06:45:01 <CodeShark> saizai: more accurate would be to say that there's no way within the bitcoin p2p protocol itself to give refunds…but it's always possible to negotiate that at a higher level
608 2013-11-09 06:45:08 <saizai> Luke-Jr: in the sense of giving it back to the sender, not in the sense of giving it to *someone* :P
609 2013-11-09 06:45:24 <CodeShark> and ALL merchant sites need to negotiate transactions at a higher level anyhow, even if only to provide the customer with a sending address
610 2013-11-09 06:45:33 <Luke-Jr> dizko: PM me txid, pastebin of raw tx
611 2013-11-09 06:45:45 <saizai> CodeShark: sure, I discuss 'linked address' usage
612 2013-11-09 06:46:04 <saizai> as the only OK way to accept bitcoins in the first place
613 2013-11-09 06:46:20 <CodeShark> you can identify the sender based the fact they sent it to an address you gave them
614 2013-11-09 06:46:33 <dizko> thank you.   im also interested in this refund issue conversation, have a recently experience with a user who's action resulted in a payment being sent to coinbase's fee payment address.  over a week and no reply to them
615 2013-11-09 06:46:36 <saizai> CodeShark: nope, I could tell you what address I was told to send it to
616 2013-11-09 06:46:42 <warren> I need to stop sync part way at a particular height to debug something, where is the best place to add a stop?
617 2013-11-09 06:46:50 <saizai> then I tell the pac to send it to me
618 2013-11-09 06:47:00 <saizai> thus the pac becomes a mixer between you and me
619 2013-11-09 06:47:09 <saizai> and that's illegal
620 2013-11-09 06:47:31 <saizai> (under the FECA)
621 2013-11-09 06:47:50 <saizai> (under FinCEN it's fine so long as there's no exchange into currency)
622 2013-11-09 06:47:55 <CodeShark> saizai: you could ID the person before giving them a sending address
623 2013-11-09 06:48:13 <saizai> CodeShark: yes
624 2013-11-09 06:48:15 <saizai> and I say that in part 5
625 2013-11-09 06:48:19 <saizai> of section 1
626 2013-11-09 06:48:28 <gmaxwell> saizai: you need to get it through your head that bitcoin transactions do not specify a "from", if it's unlawful to be paid without a "from" under FECA then bitcoin can't be lawfully used there.
627 2013-11-09 06:48:40 <saizai> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1laZxfuna-AXsW9WC4b53s_Eb1YAg7pY-YQAGKcUE9iw/edit# B
628 2013-11-09 06:48:46 <saizai> page 9
629 2013-11-09 06:48:57 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: he's past that now
630 2013-11-09 06:49:06 <gmaxwell> saizai: To know who is paying you in bitcoin you do so by collecting that information before giving them an address to pay.
631 2013-11-09 06:49:23 <saizai> gmaxwell: it's lawful to for me to take your money if you say it's from you
632 2013-11-09 06:49:39 <saizai> even thought you might've gotten it from your buddy 10 minutes ago
633 2013-11-09 06:49:47 <saizai> however it's not lawful for me to give it back to anyone but you
634 2013-11-09 06:49:58 <saizai> and if there's no way for me to do that, then no refunds for you
635 2013-11-09 06:50:27 <Luke-Jr> saizai: there is a way. you're just being paranoid about maybe it being received by someone else.
636 2013-11-09 06:50:32 <saizai> (if you do get it from your buddy, you'll have committed a crime, but I won't have so long as you told me you didn't and I don't know otherwise)
637 2013-11-09 06:50:37 <saizai> Luke-Jr: yup, I am
638 2013-11-09 06:50:46 <saizai> gotta be
639 2013-11-09 06:51:04 <dizko> saizai: why not have the sender confirm their identity by sending you a payment of a random tiny size that you specify ?
640 2013-11-09 06:51:05 <saizai> because that part has a more stringent requirement
641 2013-11-09 06:51:08 <gmaxwell> saizai: there is no way to do that anywhere. I can give you an envelope of money and say that refunds go to bank account for Bob Whomever acct@12345.
642 2013-11-09 06:51:17 <dizko> saizai: kind of like how banks confirm ach
643 2013-11-09 06:51:25 <saizai> dizko: that only confirms that the sender communicates with and/or is the person sending the payment
644 2013-11-09 06:51:30 <gmaxwell> dizko: that doesn't make any sense.
645 2013-11-09 06:51:35 <saizai> which is no different than just taking payment to a linked address in the first place
646 2013-11-09 06:52:04 <saizai> gmaxwell: yeah, if you do that with cash money, it's probably illegal
647 2013-11-09 06:52:07 <saizai> because it's too fishy
648 2013-11-09 06:52:21 <saizai> and I'd be liable for participating
649 2013-11-09 06:52:32 <dizko> gmaxwell: well it makes sense in the sense that if someone sent me an email saying 'hey i paid you this' , how else would i confirm they really own that address?
650 2013-11-09 06:52:37 <saizai> whereas if you do that with a check, I can refund it
651 2013-11-09 06:52:41 <gmaxwell> saizai: even if you had a 'from' in bitcoin, you couldn't refund to it without a risk that the control of the funds was transfering to another person.
652 2013-11-09 06:52:47 <saizai> back to the account designated on the check
653 2013-11-09 06:52:53 <Luke-Jr> dizko: you only gave the address they paid to that one person
654 2013-11-09 06:53:03 <saizai> hence why the FECA limits non-check transactions.
655 2013-11-09 06:53:06 <gmaxwell> dizko: what luke said  (but failing that, — signmessage)
656 2013-11-09 06:53:18 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: signmessage does NOT work in that case!
657 2013-11-09 06:53:38 <midnightmagic> strange to be clamping down so hard on this sort of thing when obvious largesses elsewhere go unexamined and unpunished.
658 2013-11-09 06:53:41 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: not reliably, for sure.
659 2013-11-09 06:53:54 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: it proves nothing about the transaction he sent
660 2013-11-09 06:54:01 <saizai> gmaxwell: right, and that's why I think I'm going to rewrite my recommendation to be 'no refunds period'
661 2013-11-09 06:54:06 <dizko> midnightmagic: nothing sane about legalities
662 2013-11-09 06:54:11 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: I could "prove" I sent a transaction I had nothing to do with that way
663 2013-11-09 06:54:12 <saizai> midnightmagic: we oppose other things too
664 2013-11-09 06:54:21 <saizai> fwiw, this is part of the reason for part 6
665 2013-11-09 06:54:25 <midnightmagic> dizko: Most of the legalities I've encountered up here in Canada make sense to me.
666 2013-11-09 06:54:34 <midnightmagic> 
ACTION reads part 6.

667 2013-11-09 06:54:36 <saizai> it gives an opening to start closing the c4->superpac loophole
668 2013-11-09 06:54:51 <saizai> by letting them say a superpac can't take bitcoin-derived money from a c4
669 2013-11-09 06:55:09 <dizko> midnightmagic: ive only lived in the us and japan, and there is a lot of WTF!%@$!
670 2013-11-09 06:55:16 <saizai> whereas right now c4->superpac contributions are a giant fucking loophole in campaign finance reporting law
671 2013-11-09 06:55:17 <midnightmagic> saizai: The comments about anonymity are incorrect. I pointed one out earlier, but the intro to part 6 is also incorrect in like fashion.
672 2013-11-09 06:55:54 <saizai> midnightmagic: in the sense of foonote 17?
673 2013-11-09 06:56:18 <saizai> and remember that FEC auditors are not high end cryptogeeks
674 2013-11-09 06:56:42 <dizko> so, what if you have a shared bank account.   you send money, ask for a refund, how do you prove that it's one party or the other in the shared account?
675 2013-11-09 06:56:45 <CodeShark> remaining securely anonymous requires considerable effort
676 2013-11-09 06:56:53 <CodeShark> it's not the default
677 2013-11-09 06:57:16 <midnightmagic> Footnote #17 is incorrect, insofar as the only people who could conceivably operate anonymously while using bitcoin can probably be counted by hand.
678 2013-11-09 06:57:38 <midnightmagic> saizai: Realistically, nobody can use bitcoin anonymously.
679 2013-11-09 06:58:08 <midnightmagic> saizai: And it will stay that way until the core client has undergone fairly drastic changes.
680 2013-11-09 06:58:21 <CodeShark> true anonymity would require coin mixing
681 2013-11-09 06:59:00 <CodeShark> otherwise, at best bitcoin is pseudonymous and it's merely a matter of associating a few "identities" with an individual to track most of their funds
682 2013-11-09 07:00:05 <midnightmagic> CodeShark: Not just coin mixing. It requires perfect opsec outside of Bitcoin, in relationships, in computer usage..
683 2013-11-09 07:00:25 <CodeShark> necessary but not sufficient
684 2013-11-09 07:01:40 <CodeShark> having said that, bitcoin does offer at least some level of plausible deniability as to ownership of funds
685 2013-11-09 07:01:52 <dizko> saizai: if you can accept bitcoin for political donations, dont you have to record the information of the person donating?   if someone donated with a credit card, but were really a proxy for another person, you couldnt prove that either.
686 2013-11-09 07:02:11 <midnightmagic> CodeShark: I suppose Ulbricht's private wallet is still a mystery.
687 2013-11-09 07:03:39 <saizai> ok, I edited page 9 to reflect the proposal and the origin problem
688 2013-11-09 07:03:56 <saizai> and page 10 (F) to say no refunds period
689 2013-11-09 07:04:11 <saizai> dizko: I don't need to, it goes back to the origin account
690 2013-11-09 07:04:49 <saizai> midnightmagic: people who can reliably trace bitcoin in the presence of bitlaundry can also be counted by hand :P
691 2013-11-09 07:04:50 <midnightmagic> saizai: In essence, what I'm trying to convey is that saying bitcoin is anonymous is a bit like saying every person could live completely off-grid, or could be a spy. Virtually nobody currently is, and the effort to do so is herculean and beyond the willpower of normal humans.
692 2013-11-09 07:05:30 <saizai> dizko: correct. so long as I give any money back only to the payment method used, and I rely on your attestation that the money was yours, I'm ok. the FEC ruled on that before.
693 2013-11-09 07:05:39 <dizko> midnightmagic: grandmas and children are probably not terrorists but they still get anal probed at us airports.  applying logic to a legal situation is pointless
694 2013-11-09 07:05:41 <midnightmagic> saizai: Most normal people couldn't trail a spy either.
695 2013-11-09 07:05:58 <saizai> midnightmagic: and FEC auditors are normal people
696 2013-11-09 07:06:12 <saizai> whereas tracing a bank transfer is easy
697 2013-11-09 07:06:17 <saizai> and the bank had to do KYC
698 2013-11-09 07:06:23 <saizai> so there's a good audit trail
699 2013-11-09 07:06:33 <midnightmagic> saizai: In that case, FEC auditors are well outside the realm of people, and likely out of contact with, people who can use bitcoin anonymously.
700 2013-11-09 07:06:37 <dizko> saizai: so the onus is on the person donating / receiving the refund to attest to them being the party who made the payment?
701 2013-11-09 07:06:39 <saizai> with mixers in play and so forth? not likely
702 2013-11-09 07:06:46 <saizai> dizko: correct
703 2013-11-09 07:06:51 <saizai> or no
704 2013-11-09 07:06:52 <saizai> hm.
705 2013-11-09 07:06:54 <midnightmagic> saizai: mixers are mostly irrelevant, depending on what they're doing.
706 2013-11-09 07:06:57 <saizai> for donating, yes
707 2013-11-09 07:07:00 <saizai> for refunding, no
708 2013-11-09 07:07:04 <saizai> for refunding the onus is on me
709 2013-11-09 07:07:13 <saizai> for me taking your money, if you say it's yours, I can rely on that
710 2013-11-09 07:07:17 <dizko> saizai: so why cant you just say "give me [whatever proof is acceptable]" and allow refund by whatever means they attest to being one they own and control?
711 2013-11-09 07:07:26 <saizai> but if I give it back I have to give it back the way I got it
712 2013-11-09 07:07:32 <dizko> ahh
713 2013-11-09 07:07:50 <saizai> though for non bitcoin I'm allowed to give you back the cash value
714 2013-11-09 07:07:53 <dizko> so really its just a matter of the law not being up to the current state of the art in technology
715 2013-11-09 07:08:01 <saizai> because that wouldn't violate FinCEN regs
716 2013-11-09 07:08:16 <midnightmagic> saizai: Mixers are already pointed out to be useless by researchers who presented at 28c3.
717 2013-11-09 07:08:20 <saizai> but eg if you pay me with paypal, I refund you only with paypal
718 2013-11-09 07:08:24 <dizko> you should go lobby at the senate hearings ;)
719 2013-11-09 07:08:28 <saizai> I dont' refund you with cash
720 2013-11-09 07:09:02 <saizai> dizko: when is the law ever up to the state of the art in tech?
721 2013-11-09 07:09:18 <midnightmagic> saizai: So, bitcoin is not anonymous. Also, I reject the notion that researchers would not make their efforts available to law enforcement.
722 2013-11-09 07:09:33 <saizai> I'm trying to at least argue for a sane interpretation here that preserves the policy objectives of campaign finance law
723 2013-11-09 07:09:43 <saizai> and precludes illegal and/or slimy activity
724 2013-11-09 07:09:49 <saizai> à la SuperPAC
725 2013-11-09 07:10:07 <saizai> midnightmagic: I didn't claim they wouldn't
726 2013-11-09 07:10:20 <midnightmagic> saizai: Including FEC auditors.
727 2013-11-09 07:10:20 <phantomcircuit> midnightmagic, mixers are pointless?
728 2013-11-09 07:10:32 <saizai> (though I definitely know cypherpunks who sure as fuck would not cooperate with any government agent)
729 2013-11-09 07:10:35 <midnightmagic> phantomcircuit: Most of them.
730 2013-11-09 07:10:43 <midnightmagic> phantomcircuit: Or should I say, most of the attempts.
731 2013-11-09 07:10:56 <saizai> midnightmagic: you think bitlaundry will keep records and give them to the FEC?
732 2013-11-09 07:11:02 <saizai> somehow I doubt it
733 2013-11-09 07:11:05 <dizko> midnightmagic: what's the gist of the basic flaw, not enough participants in a given timeframe?
734 2013-11-09 07:11:20 <phantomcircuit> midnightmagic, lots of random weird sized inputs -> equal sized outputs of various sizes probably powers of 2
735 2013-11-09 07:11:28 <phantomcircuit> gl following that
736 2013-11-09 07:11:58 <midnightmagic> phantomcircuit: Where did the inputs come from, and who is smart enough to keep the outputs separate? :-)
737 2013-11-09 07:12:21 <phantomcircuit> midnightmagic, well at somepoint wallets will be able to do auotmated coinjoin transactions
738 2013-11-09 07:12:25 <midnightmagic> phantomcircuit: People in this room. Strip out all the douches who mix their inputs back into spends, and who's left? People who should've coinjoined.
739 2013-11-09 07:12:28 <phantomcircuit> and if you do that with your entire wallet
740 2013-11-09 07:12:35 <phantomcircuit> then you dont need to keep the outputs separate
741 2013-11-09 07:13:04 <phantomcircuit> or are we making a distinction between coinjoin and mixers
742 2013-11-09 07:13:12 <midnightmagic> Yes.
743 2013-11-09 07:13:20 <phantomcircuit> (the only real difference is that the mixer could keep records but promises not to)
744 2013-11-09 07:14:20 <midnightmagic> I agree with everything you've said. I just don't think it reasonably applies to five-nines of bitcoin users out there.
745 2013-11-09 07:14:34 <saizai> midnightmagic: there are two problems with that
746 2013-11-09 07:14:35 <phantomcircuit> that's probably true
747 2013-11-09 07:14:42 <saizai> 1. normal people can use bitlaundry. it's trivial.
748 2013-11-09 07:14:45 <saizai> 2. China
749 2013-11-09 07:15:10 <saizai> there can't be a loophole that allows a sophisticated attacker to game the system
750 2013-11-09 07:15:16 <saizai> because there will be sophisticated attackers
751 2013-11-09 07:15:17 <midnightmagic> saizai: Unless bitlaundry is doing something different, or isn't what I think it is, it is the service which was apparently trivially de-anonymized by researchers in their 28c3 presentation.
752 2013-11-09 07:15:21 <saizai> and the system sure as fuck is getting gamed
753 2013-11-09 07:15:36 <saizai> cf. citizens united etc
754 2013-11-09 07:15:40 <midnightmagic> I don't know what you mean with China. You mean to imply it's a black box?
755 2013-11-09 07:15:58 <maaku> saizai: what does a political group do if it finds 50,000 in cash in an unmarked envelope on its doorstep?
756 2013-11-09 07:16:01 <saizai> midnightmagic: s/bitlaundry/whatever new thing needs to be done/
757 2013-11-09 07:16:18 <midnightmagic> maaku: He answered that earlier. I think they have to give it to 501(c)(3|4)
758 2013-11-09 07:16:18 <saizai> maaku: keep $50, give the rest to a 501(c)3 or a 501(c)4 within 10 days
759 2013-11-09 07:17:01 <maaku> ok it was long logs sorry i missed it, but that's what you do with unclaimed refunds
760 2013-11-09 07:17:11 <midnightmagic> saizai: Same thing. We're talking vast improbabilities. And even the good people of China are vulnerable to a quality graph-search.
761 2013-11-09 07:19:01 <saizai> maaku: yes, and that's what I am recommending
762 2013-11-09 07:19:10 <saizai> see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1laZxfuna-AXsW9WC4b53s_Eb1YAg7pY-YQAGKcUE9iw/edit# page 10
763 2013-11-09 07:19:11 <maaku> ok
764 2013-11-09 07:19:33 <saizai> for a PAC, any situation in which you can refund money is one in which you can instead give it to a c3/c4
765 2013-11-09 07:19:49 <saizai> you never *have* to give it back to the contributor. they gave it to you, it's yours
766 2013-11-09 07:20:01 <saizai> it's only a courtesy to make a refund
767 2013-11-09 07:20:23 <saizai> (if it's an earmark, you have to give it as earmarked, but that's close enough)
768 2013-11-09 07:20:49 <maaku> saizai: what about a c6?
769 2013-11-09 07:21:43 <saizai> maaku: lemme check, it hasn't come up before
770 2013-11-09 07:21:55 <maaku> btw, page 5, are you aware of the terminology of 'convertible currency'?
771 2013-11-09 07:22:16 <maaku> not really critical to this - i run a c6 so i am curious
772 2013-11-09 07:22:16 <saizai> I don't think I'm allowed to give anything whatsoever to a c6
773 2013-11-09 07:22:25 <saizai> but I'm not 100% sure
774 2013-11-09 07:22:32 <saizai> I've never seen it come up
775 2013-11-09 07:22:47 <midnightmagic> saizai: The message you are passing on about anonymity is equally as incorrect as the from-address misconception. It's a mistake to make them think it's possible.
776 2013-11-09 07:22:52 <maaku> CAF's statement that "Bitcoins can be converted to U.S. Dollars", while true, argues directly against their claim that Bitcoins are "monetary" or "currency" <--- not really
777 2013-11-09 07:23:09 <saizai> explain?
778 2013-11-09 07:23:42 <saizai> midnightmagic: like all security questions, it's a matter of attacker vs defender sophistication
779 2013-11-09 07:23:43 <maaku> if i take monopoly money and put a stamp on it, and say any monopoly money with stamps I will convert 1:1 for dollars, then that is "convertible currency"
780 2013-11-09 07:23:59 <maaku> it's 1:1 convertible
781 2013-11-09 07:23:59 <saizai> midnightmagic: could the NSA crack my attempts to obscure my identity? probably
782 2013-11-09 07:24:05 <saizai> could an FEC auditor? probably not
783 2013-11-09 07:24:12 <maaku> that's my understanding of FinCEN terminology
784 2013-11-09 07:24:23 <saizai> hence my caveats of 'reliably' etc
785 2013-11-09 07:24:39 <midnightmagic> saizai: No. This one isn't a question of attacker sophistication. There are literally only a handful of people in the world who could use it anonymously. And of the ones I know, none of them think they could pull it off without drastically changing how they live their lives, permanently.
786 2013-11-09 07:24:50 <saizai> maaku: I don't know whether I'm allowed to touch that
787 2013-11-09 07:24:54 <maaku> I think you're right, bitcoin is a commodity not convertible currency, but you're explanation is wrong.
788 2013-11-09 07:25:16 <saizai> maaku: how would you suggest changing it to be right?
789 2013-11-09 07:25:27 <saizai> please note I'm not saying it's not a "convertible currency" in that sense
790 2013-11-09 07:25:41 <saizai> but rather, that because it needs to be converted to currency to have value, it's not a currency at all
791 2013-11-09 07:25:52 <saizai> that's not the same as, say, a check
792 2013-11-09 07:25:58 <saizai> checks aren't "converted" to cash
793 2013-11-09 07:26:03 <maaku> maybe point out that bitcoin fluctuates against the dollar like other commodities
794 2013-11-09 07:26:07 <midnightmagic> saizai: And by "using it anonymously" I mean "using it in a way that isn't nearly-instantly, trivially de-anonymizable using semi-automatic tools which have already been developed for the job."
795 2013-11-09 07:26:17 <maaku> and is not directly convertible (like community currencies are, for example)
796 2013-11-09 07:26:24 <saizai> they're just honored at face value; checks *are* monetary instruments, money, currency, etc for FEC purposes
797 2013-11-09 07:26:28 <maaku> it's floated not pegged
798 2013-11-09 07:26:38 <maaku> but i'd rather get a lawyer's input on this
799 2013-11-09 07:26:57 <saizai> maaku: FWIW, try reading the draft AO linked there
800 2013-11-09 07:26:59 <maaku> i'm just a startup guy that's muddled through these same laws to see if my startup is legal
801 2013-11-09 07:27:05 <saizai> I wrote section 1 before it was published
802 2013-11-09 07:27:21 <saizai> its analysis is substantially parallel to mine
803 2013-11-09 07:27:32 <saizai> which hopefully gives some credibility to my legal ability.
804 2013-11-09 07:28:07 <saizai> midnightmagic: the problem is that it has to defend against the most sophisticated attacker
805 2013-11-09 07:28:22 <midnightmagic> saizai: I'm saying a FEC auditor could email any of those de-anonymizing researchers and ask them for help, and likely get it. The analysis tools and the "already-known" dataset is growing, monolithic, requires virtually no effort to query, and has been demonstrated in public.
806 2013-11-09 07:28:22 <saizai> I would agree that in many or even most cases, yes it could be traced
807 2013-11-09 07:28:23 <maaku> btw are you the same saizai from berekely conlangs?
808 2013-11-09 07:28:44 <saizai> but it can't be traced in the same ease as, say, checks
809 2013-11-09 07:28:46 <saizai> maaku: I am.
810 2013-11-09 07:28:50 <saizai> http://s.ai
811 2013-11-09 07:28:51 <maaku> small world
812 2013-11-09 07:28:56 <saizai> 
ACTION curtsies

813 2013-11-09 07:29:11 <maaku> we took philosophy classes together at de anza many years ago
814 2013-11-09 07:29:13 <saizai> midnightmagic: they could, hypothetically
815 2013-11-09 07:29:17 <saizai> woah
816 2013-11-09 07:29:20 <saizai> srsly?
817 2013-11-09 07:29:26 <midnightmagic> saizai: I would argue most txn could be traced with greater ease and in certainly a shorter period of time than normal bank cheques.
818 2013-11-09 07:29:27 <saizai> 
ACTION moves to pm

819 2013-11-09 07:30:36 <saizai> midnightmagic: most, maybe so
820 2013-11-09 07:30:57 <dizko> midnightmagic: i still struggle getting my head around that.   i get that its all just outputs being sent to a public key address, but there is an address associated with where they came from no?   do you know of a good reference that can help me internalize the "no from address" concept?
821 2013-11-09 07:30:58 <saizai> but I suggest you reframe your threat model
822 2013-11-09 07:31:04 <saizai> think about the whole SuperPAC thing
823 2013-11-09 07:31:07 <saizai> that was subtle
824 2013-11-09 07:31:16 <saizai> it took several combined legal maneuvers
825 2013-11-09 07:31:21 <saizai> but now it's a thing, and it's easy to do
826 2013-11-09 07:31:29 <saizai> and it's fucking with our election law
827 2013-11-09 07:31:45 <saizai> I don't want this to open up any similar loophole
828 2013-11-09 07:33:15 <saizai> hence urging major caution
829 2013-11-09 07:33:18 <midnightmagic> saizai: Nearly all. But this is going around in circles. You aren't interested in pursuing the 28c3 talks I mentioned, so..  meh. Good luck. I'm sad I'll probably have to be one of the people who deal with the influx of additional misinformed headspace you are likely creating.
830 2013-11-09 07:33:20 <adam3us> is there some ref we're talking about re no sender addr?
831 2013-11-09 07:33:25 <saizai> in principle, personally? I'm pro bitcoin
832 2013-11-09 07:33:40 <midnightmagic> dizko: Let's take our discussion to #bitcoin
833 2013-11-09 07:33:41 <saizai> but I know FEC rules better than most bitcoin folk
834 2013-11-09 07:33:48 <saizai> and I've seen how people fuck with 'em
835 2013-11-09 07:34:19 <adam3us> maaku: no sender addr?
836 2013-11-09 07:34:34 <saizai> midnightmagic: how would you suggest revising what I wrote in a way that does not alter the policy arguments?
837 2013-11-09 07:34:41 <saizai> but is more accurate
838 2013-11-09 07:34:56 <saizai> I am always interested in being precise
839 2013-11-09 07:35:48 <saizai> but just understand, what I'm articulating here is not "this is provably impossible to trace" but rather "with a moderately sophisticated opponent, this is extremely hard to trace"
840 2013-11-09 07:36:44 <midnightmagic> saizai: I gave you examples which do not materially alter your arguments but are more accurate. Substitute "semi-anonymous" for "anonymous" and don't make claims about strong anonymity. Strip comments about "can remain securely anonymous" and "large number of anonymizing methods". <-- because almost none of them work.
841 2013-11-09 07:37:42 <saizai> how would you suggest explaining that mixers are a thing in the broad sense, then?
842 2013-11-09 07:38:11 <saizai> also fwiw "anonymous" has a legal meaning in this context
843 2013-11-09 07:38:25 <saizai> namely, either not attributed or attributed to the wrong party
844 2013-11-09 07:38:42 <pigeons> so just leave that word out
845 2013-11-09 07:38:52 <saizai> "strong" I can remove
846 2013-11-09 07:39:11 <saizai> but "anonymous" per se, I can't; it's a legal reference
847 2013-11-09 07:39:26 <saizai> 11 CFR 110.4
848 2013-11-09 07:42:29 <saizai> midnightmagic: okay, I've removed the 'completely' type adjectives on anonymous
849 2013-11-09 07:42:47 <gavinandresen> saizai: you seem to be pretty hung up on the little details.  Isn't there a loophole big enough to drive a truck through with ALL forms of online donations?  You're relying on people to tell the truth about their identity/citizenship/etc, right?  There is no "go to the campaign office and present photo id"
850 2013-11-09 07:44:43 <gavinandresen> Or to put it another way:  a 'moderately sophisticated opponent' can hijack PayPal accounts if they want to criminally fund a campaign.  It doesn't seem to be a problem in actual practice.