1 2013-11-14 00:26:52 <B0g4r7> Are there any plans currently to implement source address selection in the Bitcoin-QT client?
2 2013-11-14 00:28:14 <gmaxwell> B0g4r7: we haven't had much reason to override the operating system's decisions. It would be a pretty modest change to do so, but whats the application?
3 2013-11-14 00:30:40 <B0g4r7> At the moment, privacy concerns.
4 2013-11-14 00:31:35 <B0g4r7> I don't mean an IP address. I mean the inputs that are selected when spending.
5 2013-11-14 00:35:42 <sipa> B0g4r7: it's more accurately called input coin selection
6 2013-11-14 00:36:04 <sipa> as you don.t choose an address to send from; you choose which coins to send
7 2013-11-14 00:36:17 <gmaxwell> B0g4r7: oh I thought you were asking about source addresses when connecting out.
8 2013-11-14 00:36:21 <gmaxwell> But what sipa said.
9 2013-11-14 00:38:17 <B0g4r7> My mistake. But anyway, are there any plans currently to implement such a feature?
10 2013-11-14 00:39:23 <B0g4r7> Or can you recommend an alternate client that supports this?
11 2013-11-14 00:39:42 <hno> B0g4r7, there is patches floating around for that feature.
12 2013-11-14 00:40:25 <gmaxwell> B0g4r7: yes, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2343
13 2013-11-14 00:40:57 <B0g4r7> Cool. Thank you.
14 2013-11-14 00:41:10 <gmaxwell> B0g4r7: if you'd like to help out you could run that and perform some systematic testing (not just casual use, but a structured effort to expose bugs and limitations)
15 2013-11-14 00:42:12 <B0g4r7> I'll try to do that some, with testnet.
16 2013-11-14 00:44:14 <gmaxwell> yep testnet is the way to go. :P Cool.
17 2013-11-14 01:05:38 <melvster> is there a way to run bitcoind in daemon mode, but without it pulling in new blocks?
18 2013-11-14 01:07:37 <melvster> maxconnections=0?
19 2013-11-14 01:07:42 <gmaxwell> melvster: sure, don't connect to the network -nolisten -connect=0.0.0.0
20 2013-11-14 01:09:51 <melvster> gmaxwell: thanks!
21 2013-11-14 02:24:57 <pierce> why is it that dumpprivkey gives a different key format than keydump.py from bitcointools?
22 2013-11-14 02:48:22 <BlueMatt> peer: "version" : 32400,
23 2013-11-14 02:48:25 <BlueMatt> wtf?
24 2013-11-14 02:48:26 <BlueMatt> really?
25 2013-11-14 02:52:28 <MC1984> thats not possible
26 2013-11-14 02:53:09 <MC1984> well i suppose it is, buts its lulsy
27 2013-11-14 03:18:30 <darsie> hey
28 2013-11-14 03:19:27 <darsie> If there are 30 btc on an address, 5 from a transfer and 25 coinbase with 50 confirmations, can the 5 btc be spent?
29 2013-11-14 03:21:04 <lianj> the 5 yes.
30 2013-11-14 03:21:57 <darsie> k
31 2013-11-14 03:23:12 <darsie> Then I'm not sure if this mtgox withdrawal tx is valid: https://blockchain.info/tx/27dd8e99484c2449b91ab45c3d005bfea4699b9ef791959b52df36469cea4b2f , using this input address: https://blockchain.info/address/1DSD3qNBjtn6hGWtLsDcBFkDaGhmKasHN2 .
32 2013-11-14 03:23:23 <darsie> But that's actually off topic here. sry.
33 2013-11-14 03:27:40 <darsie> So, what would the tx look like? out: 5 and if the tx is not included in a block until the coinbase matures the 25 btc are fee?
34 2013-11-14 03:28:43 <darsie> Or out: 5, 25, but the 25 are ignored and not transferred, unless the tx is delayed until the 25 mature?
35 2013-11-14 03:29:35 <Luke-Jr> darsie: there aren't "btc on an address"
36 2013-11-14 03:29:42 <Luke-Jr> darsie: there is no input address
37 2013-11-14 03:29:57 <Luke-Jr> low-level bitcoin has no addresses
38 2013-11-14 03:30:19 <Luke-Jr> also, addresses are supposed to only be used once
39 2013-11-14 03:30:28 <darsie> I heard something like that, but I don't understand it. But ok, the 5 can be spent.
40 2013-11-14 03:30:35 <Luke-Jr> the 5 are unrelated to the 25
41 2013-11-14 03:30:44 <Luke-Jr> there is no relationship at all
42 2013-11-14 03:31:34 <Luke-Jr> an address only determines the account and wallet the transaction is being sent to
43 2013-11-14 03:31:51 <Luke-Jr> once it's received, it is no longer relevant
44 2013-11-14 03:32:13 <Luke-Jr> the wallet in question has a new coin, and the account in question has a higher balance
45 2013-11-14 03:32:26 <darsie> If things go as intended. But I can create a standalone address/key and send btc there.
46 2013-11-14 03:32:46 <darsie> e.g. with vanitygen
47 2013-11-14 03:32:57 <darsie> That does work, right?
48 2013-11-14 03:33:07 <Luke-Jr> darsie: once you import the private EC key to a wallet
49 2013-11-14 03:33:24 <darsie> Then I can spend it.
50 2013-11-14 03:33:32 <darsie> Or if I craft a tx by other means.
51 2013-11-14 03:33:41 <Luke-Jr> then the address is considered to point at an account in that wallet
52 2013-11-14 03:35:04 <Luke-Jr> darsie: you can work with bitcoin at a low-level or at a high-level. at the low-level, there are no addresses at all; at the high-level, you don't mess with raw transactions
53 2013-11-14 03:47:55 <darsie> In a tx there are output addresses: http://paste.debian.net/65744/ . The input seems to be referenced by a tx id, which is confusing. You don't need to explain, I should check the format myself. I just believe you that there are no addresses at the low level, although it doesn't seem so.
54 2013-11-14 04:40:15 <oneman> jgarzik: libccoin looks pretty cool, on the forum back in june you said its pretty much good to go, has time also agreed with that? And how come I don't see more noise about people using it? Is everyone a node.js hipster these days?!
55 2013-11-14 05:34:50 <ebfull> can blocks include a transaction which uses a prevout confirmed in the same block or do the transactions have to be confirmed separately?
56 2013-11-14 05:36:40 <gmaxwell> edcba: yes, no.
57 2013-11-14 05:37:07 <gmaxwell> edcba: they have to be in the right order in the block though.
58 2013-11-14 05:37:49 <ebfull> awesome
59 2013-11-14 05:41:41 <gmaxwell> too many people with e names.
60 2013-11-14 06:27:35 <swulf--> p2sh addresses on testnet use version 196 (addr starts wtih a '2'), correct?
61 2013-11-14 07:24:48 <Luke-Jr> sipa: is your address-index patch still usable? ie, no known bugs or major rebase issues?
62 2013-11-14 08:46:59 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin build #456: FIXED in 42 min: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin/456/
63 2013-11-14 08:46:59 <BlueMattBot> Yippie, build fixed!
64 2013-11-14 09:21:26 <aoeu> I have a question about brain wallet and cryptography.
65 2013-11-14 09:21:49 <Luke-Jr> "don't do it"
66 2013-11-14 09:23:57 <imton> Is it possible to get bitcoind RPC responses values in satoshis ?
67 2013-11-14 09:25:27 <Luke-Jr> imton: generally, I think everyone agrees that would be best, but it hasn't been done for lack of motivation to break compatibility
68 2013-11-14 09:25:56 <imton> wouldn't be great if there were a setting to change that?
69 2013-11-14 09:26:04 <imton> that wouldn't break compatibility
70 2013-11-14 09:26:18 <Luke-Jr> maybe.
71 2013-11-14 09:26:31 <Luke-Jr> it would still kinda
72 2013-11-14 09:26:48 <imton> why
73 2013-11-14 09:26:48 <Luke-Jr> keep in mind bitcoind is a RPC server, not a CLI client\
74 2013-11-14 09:27:04 <Luke-Jr> having both options would mean RPC clients would need to support both
75 2013-11-14 09:28:15 <imton> well, but that's the only way to keep improving
76 2013-11-14 09:29:19 <imton> adding an 'option' means exactly that. i don't says that by all default in RPC should be in satoshis, but it'd be a nice option.
77 2013-11-14 09:34:19 <Luke-Jr> imton: a hard break in compatibility is more likely, I think
78 2013-11-14 10:12:27 <sipa> pierce: i suppose the keydump tool doesn't support compressed public keys?
79 2013-11-14 10:14:21 <sipa> Luke-Jr: i haven't updated it in a long time; i don't know
80 2013-11-14 10:16:13 <Luke-Jr> sipa: would you be willing to, for me to write a patch on top of that filters address reuse for miners?
81 2013-11-14 10:18:02 <sipa> there should be easier solutions for that
82 2013-11-14 10:18:31 <sipa> as the addr index is pretty expensive, i'd rather not have mining depend on it
83 2013-11-14 10:19:15 <sipa> just an LRU list of output scripts seen in blocks seems better?
84 2013-11-14 11:09:26 <Luke-Jr> sipa: I'm thinking of putting together multiple solutions
85 2013-11-14 11:14:42 <stonecoldpat0> In bitcoind when you use getrawmempool - that just refers to transactions that have not been confirmed yet?
86 2013-11-14 11:22:54 <imton> stonecoldpa0 If I am not wrong it refers to txs that are not in a block yet
87 2013-11-14 11:23:05 <imton> but would love to know what exactly means
88 2013-11-14 11:24:28 <CodeShark> stonecoldpat0: it refers to the transactions that are valid that the node has received but haven't made it into the block chain
89 2013-11-14 11:24:50 <stonecoldpat0> ahh thank you :)
90 2013-11-14 11:24:55 <CodeShark> a full validating node must maintain a memory structure of these things
91 2013-11-14 11:25:05 <TD> good afternoon
92 2013-11-14 11:25:17 <CodeShark> hence, "mempool"
93 2013-11-14 11:38:05 <arioBarzan> could you guys tell sites like mtgox to decrease their tx fee? If they pay 0.0001 instead of 0.0005 the tx still would get confirmed.
94 2013-11-14 11:38:42 <sturles> Depends on the size of the transaction, among other things.
95 2013-11-14 11:39:14 <stonecoldpat0> im sure the higher the transaction fee, the faster itll be confirmed
96 2013-11-14 11:39:22 <null> takes his phone... "hello... is this mtgox? yeah, arioBarzan said it'd be great to lower your tx fees! kthxbyte!"
97 2013-11-14 11:39:26 <null> arioBarzan: try #mtgox
98 2013-11-14 11:45:27 <sturles> Problem is that their transaction generator doesn't attempt to calculate a correct fee. It should be rewritten for several reasons. Multiple outputs in one tx, canonical signing of inputs, don't use unconfirmed coinbase tx, etc. And it would make their life a lot simpler if they just calculated a standard txfee and paid it out of their own pocket.
99 2013-11-14 11:50:51 <bitnumus> hey, can anyone elaborate on > Error: Failed to connect best block
100 2013-11-14 11:52:04 <TD> sturles: the problem is that bitcoind doesn't scale to huge wallets, so people have to write their own that do, and then a lot of the subtle details get lost
101 2013-11-14 11:52:19 <sturles> Yep.
102 2013-11-14 11:52:28 <TD> sturles: bitcoind could really use an RPC where you give it a bunch of unspent outputs and it crafts a transaction appropriately.
103 2013-11-14 11:52:38 <TD> (after doing coin selection itself)
104 2013-11-14 11:52:54 <gmaxwell> except thats one of the things that doesn't scale
105 2013-11-14 11:53:08 <gmaxwell> (esp in the face of unconfirmed transactions or enormous amounts of dust inputs)
106 2013-11-14 11:53:30 <TD> well, my thinking was that they could cut down the list to "something reasonable" on their side
107 2013-11-14 11:53:36 <TD> and then let bitcoind do coin selection over the smaller subset
108 2013-11-14 11:54:41 <arioBarzan> Bitstamp and Bitcoin.de removed btc withdrawal fee. They pay a standard tx for couple of withdrawal out of their own pocket and it is much better.
109 2013-11-14 11:54:44 <sipa> bitnumus: at startup, if your blocks database contains more blocks than the chainstate, the software tries to process them immediately at startup
110 2013-11-14 11:54:53 <sipa> bitnumus: that errors means that for some reason, it couldn't
111 2013-11-14 11:55:05 <sipa> bitnumus: you probably have to look in debug.log to see what actually went wrong
112 2013-11-14 11:55:40 <bitnumus> yea i'm there, running again and waiting for it to happen again
113 2013-11-14 11:55:55 <bitnumus> InvalidChainFound: invalid block=00000000000000046ecff1fada9be8c94eb6e040463686eb647700d56692de73 height=269451 log2_work=73.845876 date=2013-11-13 19:40:34
114 2013-11-14 11:56:16 <sipa> and above that?
115 2013-11-14 11:56:29 <bitnumus> its doing a bunch of other stuff it didn't do before now
116 2013-11-14 11:56:46 <bitnumus> InvalidChainFound: Warning: Displayed transactions may not be correct! You may need to upgrade, or other nodes may need to upgrade
117 2013-11-14 11:57:01 <bitnumus> let me pastebin sec
118 2013-11-14 11:57:01 <sipa> yes, that most likely means a corrupted database
119 2013-11-14 11:57:15 <sipa> but i'd like to see what exactly went wrong
120 2013-11-14 11:57:20 <bitnumus> http://pastebin.com/K0SRPMgr
121 2013-11-14 11:57:57 <sipa> oh, you never got past the genesis block
122 2013-11-14 11:58:40 <bitnumus> and now its just doing this > http://pastebin.com/0nYYjBcK
123 2013-11-14 11:58:53 <sipa> it won't do anything
124 2013-11-14 11:59:05 <sipa> it considers every block invalid for some reason
125 2013-11-14 11:59:09 <bitnumus> hmm
126 2013-11-14 11:59:12 <sipa> do you have earlier logs?
127 2013-11-14 11:59:23 <bitnumus> so, delete blocks/chainstate and copy it over again ?
128 2013-11-14 11:59:28 <sipa> run with -reindex
129 2013-11-14 11:59:33 <sipa> no need to delete anything
130 2013-11-14 11:59:34 <bitnumus> not on a pi i cant
131 2013-11-14 11:59:39 <sipa> ?
132 2013-11-14 11:59:46 <sipa> why not
133 2013-11-14 11:59:48 <bitnumus> friend tried to do this i think and took 3days
134 2013-11-14 11:59:53 <bitnumus> lol
135 2013-11-14 11:59:56 <sipa> that seems reasonable
136 2013-11-14 12:00:10 <sipa> i'd expect it to take much longer
137 2013-11-14 12:00:11 <bitnumus> not for me :P
138 2013-11-14 12:00:19 <bitnumus> i'll recopy and see
139 2013-11-14 12:00:28 <sipa> what are you copying?
140 2013-11-14 12:00:33 <bitnumus> maybe i copied chainstate ahead of blocks
141 2013-11-14 12:00:38 <bitnumus> blocks/ chainstate/
142 2013-11-14 12:00:51 <sipa> ok
143 2013-11-14 12:01:02 <sipa> not from a running node, i hope?
144 2013-11-14 12:01:15 <bitnumus> no, but i may have run it after copying blocks but before chainstate
145 2013-11-14 12:01:20 <bitnumus> really can't remember so i'll do it again to be safe
146 2013-11-14 12:01:37 <bitnumus> if i'm doing this, should i remove anything else except blocks/ chainstate/ ?
147 2013-11-14 12:01:37 <sipa> if you do that, first copy chainstate
148 2013-11-14 12:01:50 <sipa> no
149 2013-11-14 12:02:28 <bitnumus> ok thanks, i'm sure i'll be back :D
150 2013-11-14 13:10:44 <bitnumus> sipa, getting this now, > ERROR: DisconnectBlock() : undo data overwriting existing transaction
151 2013-11-14 13:49:53 <stonecoldpat0> i was going to ask - is there a way to identify pools across the network? or is it necessary to use external information
152 2013-11-14 14:08:26 <Thepok> some pools write there names in the blocks they created
153 2013-11-14 14:17:25 <sayd> how does brainwallet further secure the wallet address generated from a passphrase besides sha256?
154 2013-11-14 14:17:50 <sayd> ie, couldnt it be guessed pretty easily if thats all its doing.. since passphrases are common words
155 2013-11-14 14:17:58 <phantomcircuit> sayd, there are a number of specifications but as far as i know the most common one is just a single sha256 round
156 2013-11-14 14:18:55 <sayd> i see the secret exponent is just that, the sum. i am just learning about it so im sure there is more to it
157 2013-11-14 14:27:54 <danneu> sayd: you could pass it through a slow hashing function and then sha256 it
158 2013-11-14 14:28:46 <kjj> I don't like being the wet blanket, but brain wallets are a stupid idea and people should stop wasting time on them
159 2013-11-14 14:30:18 <sayd> danneu: thanks i will look into that. kjj what should i look into then for generating more secure addresses
160 2013-11-14 14:30:48 <kjj> quality entropy
161 2013-11-14 14:31:31 <stonecoldpat0> does anyone know where abouts in the code for bitcoind/qt that deals with hashing a transaction?
162 2013-11-14 14:32:42 <kjj> like for signing, or for the txid?
163 2013-11-14 14:33:00 <stonecoldpat0> both i guess
164 2013-11-14 14:33:04 <stonecoldpat0> probably txid
165 2013-11-14 14:33:13 <stonecoldpat0> where it prepares the tx to be sent to the network
166 2013-11-14 14:33:27 <danneu> sayd: a more secure alternative i would think is to generate random private keys until it dicewares into a mnemonic that you want to remember
167 2013-11-14 14:34:04 <danneu> particularly the mnemonic of a seed of a deterministic wallet
168 2013-11-14 14:35:27 <kjj> stonecoldpad0: main.h, CTransaction::GetHash
169 2013-11-14 14:35:37 <jgarzik> mornin'
170 2013-11-14 14:35:58 <stonecoldpat0> thank u :)
171 2013-11-14 14:36:15 <bitnumus> can anyone estimate how long Rescanning last 269544 blocks (from block 0).. will take on a Pi ?
172 2013-11-14 14:36:40 <kjj> I'm sure you'll be able to once you are done
173 2013-11-14 14:37:00 <sipa> bitnumus: is it cpu bound?
174 2013-11-14 14:37:05 <sipa> (using 100% cpu)
175 2013-11-14 14:37:06 <bitnumus> yes
176 2013-11-14 14:37:10 <sipa> then i have no idea
177 2013-11-14 14:37:13 <bitnumus> lol
178 2013-11-14 14:37:23 <sipa> if it wasn't, you could estimate it based on disk speed
179 2013-11-14 14:37:27 <bitnumus> well its only taken 7days to get to this point
180 2013-11-14 14:37:32 <bitnumus> whats another 2
181 2013-11-14 14:37:39 <sipa> rescanning has taken 7 days already? :o
182 2013-11-14 14:37:42 <kjj> I don't think anyone keeps track of the cumulative sighash ops embedded in the chain, which is what you'd really need for CPU-bound estimation
183 2013-11-14 14:37:47 <bitnumus> to get to where i am :)
184 2013-11-14 14:37:54 <danneu> bitnumus: curious, what are ya doing on the pi with bitcoin?
185 2013-11-14 14:37:57 <sipa> kjj: rescanning is not reindexing
186 2013-11-14 14:37:58 <bitnumus> and all this time i bet you have a binary for Pi dont you
187 2013-11-14 14:38:14 <sipa> kjj: rescanning is just reading all transactions from disk, and matching them against the wallet
188 2013-11-14 14:38:18 <kjj> sipa: oh, right. wrong operation
189 2013-11-14 14:38:35 <bitnumus> danneu, playing around :D
190 2013-11-14 14:38:39 <kjj> wait, how the hell is that CPU bound?
191 2013-11-14 14:38:54 <sipa> bitnumus: ?
192 2013-11-14 14:39:02 <phantomcircuit> bitnumus, so rescan or reindex
193 2013-11-14 14:41:45 <bitnumus> Rescanning last 269544 blocks (from block 0)..
194 2013-11-14 14:42:09 <sipa> bitnumus: do you have a wallet on that device?
195 2013-11-14 14:42:23 <bitnumus> one that was just generated yes
196 2013-11-14 14:42:28 <sipa> ah
197 2013-11-14 14:42:37 <sipa> then you're wating time
198 2013-11-14 14:42:40 <sipa> *wasting
199 2013-11-14 14:43:02 <sipa> better copy an empty wallet file from another installation
200 2013-11-14 14:43:19 <sipa> now it's just scanning the old chain for transactions relevant to that wallet you just generated
201 2013-11-14 14:43:50 <bitnumus> when i said generated, i mean it was created on first run because isn't that what happens when there is no wallet file ?
202 2013-11-14 14:43:59 <bitnumus> its empty, in that the addresses have no balance
203 2013-11-14 14:45:24 <kjj> did you trigger the rescan manually?
204 2013-11-14 14:55:30 <imton> have anyone experimented storing/handling a fully indexed blockchain in RAM? (with redis/memcached , etc)
205 2013-11-14 14:55:56 <danneu> imton: in my own db though
206 2013-11-14 14:58:25 <kjj> I run diskless nodes. does that count?
207 2013-11-14 14:59:11 <bitnumus> kjj no i didn't
208 2013-11-14 15:00:02 <bitnumus> once its rescanned, where is this info stored that its been scanned already?
209 2013-11-14 15:00:19 <kjj> the wallet stores an index to the last block it has seen
210 2013-11-14 15:00:39 <stonecoldpat0> on the topic of scanning - i assume to verify a transaction you need to scan the blockchain looking for it?
211 2013-11-14 15:00:57 <sipa> no
212 2013-11-14 15:00:59 <kjj> but I'm still having a hard time figuring out where your rescan came from. generating a new wallet doesn't cause a rescan, nor does refreshing the keypool
213 2013-11-14 15:02:22 <danneu> are there any obvious nice-to-have tools that bitcoin is missing? i'm starting to sculpt/deliberate my bitcoin implementation into helpful tools.
214 2013-11-14 15:03:08 <danneu> for instance, today i was thinking of making a blockchain downloader that builds the blkXXXXX.dat from getheads->parallel download
215 2013-11-14 15:03:19 <danneu> i'm not sure if there's already a tool for that
216 2013-11-14 15:03:57 <theorbtwo> danneu: Given these two accounts, find all links between them, and attempt to classify their distance as a simple number.
217 2013-11-14 15:07:47 <danneu> theorbtwo: cool idea. i googled for existing blockchain taint analysis and found http://blockchain.info/taint/1JArS6jzE3AJ9sZ3aFij1BmTcpFGgN86hA
218 2013-11-14 15:30:55 <alexwaters> does anyone have a link to that example Gavin had for sending Bitcoins to email addresses? I'm having trouble finding that. I forget precisely what it was, but I think it was the ability to either send a bitcoin to and email address, or to tie an email address to a bitcoin address
219 2013-11-14 15:33:05 <helo> sounds... impossible
220 2013-11-14 15:34:19 <alexwaters> it was a while ago if I remember correctly
221 2013-11-14 15:35:27 <Ry4an> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=300809.msg3225143#msg3225143
222 2013-11-14 15:35:33 <jgarzik> You could always digitally sign a message "I am jgarzik@bitpay.com" with an ECDSA key.
223 2013-11-14 15:35:55 <sipa> alexwaters: are you talking about the payment protocol?
224 2013-11-14 15:36:01 <sipa> if not, that would totally replace that
225 2013-11-14 15:38:10 <alexwaters> i know, this was a while ago. I'm just looking for it as I had forgotten how it worked. I know the new payment protocol is awesome, and would totally replace that.
226 2013-11-14 15:38:47 <alexwaters> there was a reference example Gavin had done though showing how you could use an email address to receive bitcoin in some capacity
227 2013-11-14 15:39:26 <TD> i don't recall anything like that
228 2013-11-14 15:51:51 <alexwaters> I could be totally wrong, but someone did reference code for it at one point
229 2013-11-14 15:52:50 <wumpus> I don't remember it either
230 2013-11-14 15:53:48 <wumpus> might have been one of his initial experiments with the payment protocol
231 2013-11-14 15:55:24 <Zaatar> is i have a question about the bitcoin-qt app, would this be the place to discuss it?
232 2013-11-14 15:55:41 <kjj> depends on the question, but most likely yes
233 2013-11-14 16:05:53 <BlueMatt> alexwaters: there were several suggestions, never from gavin, some with implementations, but none of them ever received much (if really any) buy-in
234 2013-11-14 16:09:26 <bitnumus> i take it this isn't normal behaviour? > http://pastebin.com/3zdkQtkD
235 2013-11-14 16:09:54 <bitnumus> "errors" : "Warning: Displayed transactions may not be correct! You may need to upgrade, or other nodes may need to upgrade."
236 2013-11-14 16:10:17 <bitnumus> this is from 'getinfo'
237 2013-11-14 16:14:59 <stonecoldpat0> have you tried reconnecting to new peers ?
238 2013-11-14 16:17:07 <BlueMatt> bitnumus: what version are you running?
239 2013-11-14 16:17:18 <bitnumus> 0.8.5
240 2013-11-14 16:17:20 <BlueMatt> bitnumus: (and what does getpeerinfo show?)
241 2013-11-14 16:17:55 <bitnumus> > http://pastebin.com/Yvh0aAz0
242 2013-11-14 16:19:07 <stonecoldpat0> 1 person your connected too has a starting height of 201516 - maybe that could be it?
243 2013-11-14 16:19:13 <stonecoldpat0> they tried to send you out of date data?
244 2013-11-14 16:19:59 <BlueMatt> hmm, I need to go read that code, but that probably needs tweaked and you probably shouldnt see that (unless you're block count is behind?)
245 2013-11-14 16:20:01 <bitnumus> Error: Couldn't open socket for incoming connections (socket returned error 97)
246 2013-11-14 16:20:03 <bitnumus> that related at all ?
247 2013-11-14 16:20:34 <BlueMatt> no
248 2013-11-14 16:21:16 <bitnumus> tons of connections timing out, that normal ? :S
249 2013-11-14 16:21:36 <stonecoldpat0> i imagine that means your pi is suffering a bit?
250 2013-11-14 16:22:02 <bitnumus> one more paste, this could help > http://pastebin.com/phiYntcA
251 2013-11-14 16:22:10 <bitnumus> "InvalidChainFound"
252 2013-11-14 16:22:21 <bitnumus> "blocks" : 269544,
253 2013-11-14 16:22:49 <BlueMatt> ahh, yes, that could effect it
254 2013-11-14 16:23:18 <bitnumus> i've lowered both 'checkblocks' and 'checklevel' to 20 and 0 respectively
255 2013-11-14 16:23:39 <BlueMatt> bitnumus: yea, so its warning you legitimately because you're rejecting blocks that your peers are accepting
256 2013-11-14 16:23:49 <BlueMatt> so your chainstate appears broken somehow?
257 2013-11-14 16:23:58 <BlueMatt> set your checklevel and checkblocks high and restart
258 2013-11-14 16:24:01 <BlueMatt> see if you get any errors
259 2013-11-14 16:24:07 <bitnumus> what errors am i looking for ?
260 2013-11-14 16:24:16 <bitnumus> i've literally copied this from a local machine, twice now
261 2013-11-14 16:24:29 <bitnumus> no GUI errors on local machine for the chain
262 2013-11-14 16:26:35 <bitnumus> ERROR: DisconnectBlock() : undo data overwriting existing transaction
263 2013-11-14 16:26:47 <bitnumus> get quite a few of these
264 2013-11-14 16:26:53 <BlueMatt> that sounds bad
265 2013-11-14 16:27:00 <BlueMatt> is this on your local machine or the pi?
266 2013-11-14 16:27:05 <bitnumus> pi
267 2013-11-14 16:27:17 <BlueMatt> (and I'm assuming you're closing the local machine's bitcoind before copying, and running the same version on both)
268 2013-11-14 16:27:24 <BlueMatt> strange...
269 2013-11-14 16:27:30 <bitnumus> well, shutdown before copying yes
270 2013-11-14 16:27:42 <bitnumus> i compiled the one on Pi myself, as there isn't any binaries for it
271 2013-11-14 16:27:56 <BlueMatt> well, you compiled the same version, no?
272 2013-11-14 16:28:00 <bitnumus> yes
273 2013-11-14 16:28:18 <bitnumus> and i'm copying blocks/ and chainstate/
274 2013-11-14 16:28:24 <BlueMatt> hmm, well it seems strange, jack up the checkblocks and copy and see what happens on the pi
275 2013-11-14 16:31:03 <imton> is there any reason why getrawmempool doesn't have the option to show the txs directly instead only reporting the hashes?
276 2013-11-14 16:32:00 <stonecoldpat0> you can use getrawtransaction <id> 1 to get the json for it
277 2013-11-14 16:32:25 <stonecoldpat0> getrawmempool can probably become very big so might not be a good idea to spam out the tx directly
278 2013-11-14 16:32:28 <imton> stonecoldpat0 yes, but it's slow
279 2013-11-14 16:33:46 <stonecoldpat0> it might be faster than downloading all getrawmempool transactions
280 2013-11-14 16:33:57 <stonecoldpat0> if there are a few v large transactions, then two rpc calls would be faster than 1
281 2013-11-14 16:35:09 <imton> stonecoldpat0 sorry, I don't get what you mean :(
282 2013-11-14 16:36:09 <imton> I think if there was an option to get the fulltxs directly with 1 call only from getrawmempool, not by default
283 2013-11-14 16:39:02 <jgarzik> on whitelisting
284 2013-11-14 16:39:10 <jgarzik> has anybody produced a "whitelist node from being banned" RPC?
285 2013-11-14 16:39:14 <jgarzik> If not, gonna code it.
286 2013-11-14 16:39:28 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: thanks!
287 2013-11-14 16:39:59 <TD> jgarzik: could you code up a blacklist node immediately rpc too?
288 2013-11-14 16:40:01 <stonecoldpat0> im not an expert, but the way i was thinking about ti was... if you call getrawmempool -fulltxscript for example, you would download the transaction id, and the transaction itself... but some can be quite large (i downloaded one earlier that was 50+ lines) and jsut say there are 40 transactions that are in the pool and very large... then that could be quite a large file compared to just
289 2013-11-14 16:40:01 <stonecoldpat0> querying for the id's and then querying for the id's information
290 2013-11-14 16:40:10 <stonecoldpat0> imton: ^
291 2013-11-14 16:40:18 <jgarzik> TD, OK
292 2013-11-14 16:40:23 <jgarzik> TD, seems like a worthwhile addition
293 2013-11-14 16:40:40 <stonecoldpat0> imton: so would increase the bandwidth requirements potentially
294 2013-11-14 16:40:41 <jgarzik> sadly, this stuff should be stateful
295 2013-11-14 16:40:51 <jgarzik> but temporal is better than nothing
296 2013-11-14 16:41:49 <imton> stonecoldpat0: but if I need them all, its the same.and RPC is slow,
297 2013-11-14 16:42:04 <stonecoldpat0> ah ok
298 2013-11-14 16:42:14 <stonecoldpat0> i thought u were only interested in 1 of them
299 2013-11-14 16:42:18 <stonecoldpat0> lol
300 2013-11-14 16:43:05 <imton> stonecoldpat0: well, I need to index addresses involved in all mempool txs, so I need to scan them all.. don't I?
301 2013-11-14 16:45:44 <stonecoldpat0> what do you mean by index addresses, do you mean into a new block? or into a database? if your doing it on a continous basis - then would it not be easier to get the hash id's and then find out which ones you dont have? and request them. though thinking about it there should be a method that exists already (miners need to get as many transaction ids as possible dont they?)
302 2013-11-14 16:47:14 <imton> stonecoldpat0: I need to check for a given address if it has received any transaction yet, in realtime
303 2013-11-14 16:48:57 <stonecoldpat0> would you not do that at the block level?
304 2013-11-14 16:49:04 <stonecoldpat0> to make sure its been confirmed first
305 2013-11-14 16:49:34 <stonecoldpat0> and not have to worry about validating it yourself?
306 2013-11-14 16:50:41 <imton> stonecoldpat0: well, yes, that's a different use of case. In my service I'd like to inform in realtime (ASAP) when the tx was received, it does not mean that I will take that as confirmed.
307 2013-11-14 16:56:17 <stonecoldpat0> i had a look at the api and i cant seem to find another way to do it :(
308 2013-11-14 16:57:25 <imton> yeah
309 2013-11-14 16:58:10 <stonecoldpat0> although using the two calls you should only need to do it every 10 seconds maybe anyway
310 2013-11-14 16:58:27 <stonecoldpat0> as far as im aware it takes about 10 seconds for new transactions to get across the network
311 2013-11-14 17:07:27 <bitnumus> is peers.dat ok to be copied to different installs?
312 2013-11-14 17:08:16 <Apocalyptic> are there any signed builds of bitcoind for freebsd ?
313 2013-11-14 17:38:47 <helo> is 0.9.0 likely to be able to function as a SPV node?
314 2013-11-14 17:39:28 <TD> no
315 2013-11-14 17:40:42 <wumpus> no, that won't be in 0.9.0
316 2013-11-14 17:41:09 <wumpus> there will be a disablewallet mode though
317 2013-11-14 17:41:53 <wumpus> so if you only use a SPV client with it, you can disable the wallet in bitcoind/-qt
318 2013-11-14 17:42:52 <BlueMatt> ACTION thinks disablewallet should be default if no wallet.dat exists
319 2013-11-14 17:43:01 <BlueMatt> for bitcoind, at least
320 2013-11-14 17:44:41 <K1773R> did something happen? my 0.8.5 is stuck and dosnt accept new blocks. its the only bitcoind i have access atm so i cant check if its only a local problem
321 2013-11-14 17:45:54 <wumpus> BlueMatt: and add a manual "create wallet" command?
322 2013-11-14 17:46:14 <BlueMatt> -disablewallet=0
323 2013-11-14 17:46:16 <BlueMatt> or -enablewallet
324 2013-11-14 17:46:16 <wumpus> well with multiwallet that'd be easy, disablewallet mode would simply be the state with 0 wallets loaded
325 2013-11-14 17:46:29 <TD> K1773R: mine seems ok
326 2013-11-14 17:47:13 <wumpus> as long as you create or load no wallets, you would effectively be in disablewallet mode
327 2013-11-14 17:47:15 <BlueMatt> wumpus: ideally bitcoind wouldnt do anything with wallets
328 2013-11-14 17:47:31 <BlueMatt> and let things connect either via p2p and be spv nodes or connect via some ipc interface that lets them run wallets
329 2013-11-14 17:47:40 <wumpus> ideally, yeah.... if we could change the past
330 2013-11-14 17:48:09 <wumpus> yes would be nice if the wallet was a seperate process
331 2013-11-14 17:48:30 <BlueMatt> well, I dunno how far jgarzik got with the fork() work
332 2013-11-14 17:48:48 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: needs to make jg_home go away so tab complete works, though
333 2013-11-14 17:48:55 <jgarzik> home_jg :)
334 2013-11-14 17:49:03 <BlueMatt> is better
335 2013-11-14 17:49:03 <K1773R> TD: ok, soll il have to resync :S
336 2013-11-14 17:49:19 <Plarkplark_> anything we can do to stop coin validation crap?
337 2013-11-14 17:49:23 <Plarkplark_> *address
338 2013-11-14 17:49:26 <jgarzik> I worked out how the pipe communication would work on windows + unix
339 2013-11-14 17:49:51 <BlueMatt> I thought you had implemented some very basic disconnect of one service (which one?)
340 2013-11-14 17:50:00 <jgarzik> got faux-fork working on windows with fake pipes, plus real fork() plus real pipes for other platforms
341 2013-11-14 17:50:19 <jgarzik> on windows, you basically have to exec()
342 2013-11-14 17:50:33 <BlueMatt> and then the work died?
343 2013-11-14 17:50:46 <jgarzik> yes :) one of my 1,0001 incomplete projects ;p
344 2013-11-14 17:50:53 <BlueMatt> damn
345 2013-11-14 17:50:56 <jgarzik> but the research knowledge was the important bit
346 2013-11-14 17:51:24 <jgarzik> basically windows requires you to exec with some special file handles as command line arguments, so that enforces other design choices
347 2013-11-14 17:51:27 <jgarzik> for process separation
348 2013-11-14 17:51:44 <TD> you can share memory between processes on windows
349 2013-11-14 17:51:50 <TD> you just don't do it using fork
350 2013-11-14 17:52:01 <TD> (which is kind of a weird api anyway, it's not a big deal win32 doesn't have it)
351 2013-11-14 17:52:03 <jgarzik> I also built it as "everything else process" + "smaller, blockchain engine-only process" model
352 2013-11-14 17:52:17 <jgarzik> where "everything" started the BCE process as a subordinate
353 2013-11-14 17:52:32 <jgarzik> sharing memory is possible but pointless
354 2013-11-14 17:52:47 <jgarzik> very little info needs to go between BCE process and 'everything else' process
355 2013-11-14 17:52:58 <jgarzik> so you just send it through your custom RPC interface
356 2013-11-14 17:53:13 <jgarzik> anyway, bbiah, family lunchtime
357 2013-11-14 17:56:32 <helo> K1773R: what block?
358 2013-11-14 17:56:51 <helo> my hidden service node is stuck ~4 weeks ago
359 2013-11-14 17:56:59 <K1773R> helo: 19 hours ago
360 2013-11-14 17:57:07 <helo> haven't had the chance to look more closely at what is going on
361 2013-11-14 17:57:13 <K1773R> helo: il just resync, donst take long if you resync with a tmpfs
362 2013-11-14 17:57:31 <K1773R> unfortunately it dosnt spit out anything usefull at start in debug.log :S
363 2013-11-14 17:57:32 <helo> it went offline for ~3 weeks, and when it started back up hasn't synched at all
364 2013-11-14 18:05:09 <BlueMatt> helo: no peers/no outside peers working?
365 2013-11-14 18:05:34 <helo> 55 peers :/
366 2013-11-14 18:05:55 <BlueMatt> hmm...fun
367 2013-11-14 18:05:58 <BlueMatt> how many outgoing?
368 2013-11-14 18:06:01 <helo> i need to look into it... been too busy when i'm near it to really look into it
369 2013-11-14 18:06:10 <BlueMatt> ahh
370 2013-11-14 18:06:58 <bitnumus> BlueMatt, tried all from scratch and this is the result > http://pastebin.com/HEHZW3g8
371 2013-11-14 18:07:08 <bitnumus> is this purely the fact the hardware can't handle it ?
372 2013-11-14 18:07:25 <midnightmagic> Could someone tell me what the magic package names are for Fedora build prerequisites (for bitcoin)?
373 2013-11-14 18:07:31 <BlueMatt> possible your disk is giving crap (crappy sd card seems likely?)
374 2013-11-14 18:07:43 <BlueMatt> midnightmagic: you need a custom openssl that supports ec
375 2013-11-14 18:07:56 <BlueMatt> bitnumus: otherwise, leveldb bug probably
376 2013-11-14 18:08:14 <bitnumus> hmm its a class10 sandisk card
377 2013-11-14 18:08:17 <midnightmagic> BlueMatt: gah, that's right I forgot about that from the last time I built on CentOS.
378 2013-11-14 18:08:38 <bitnumus> argh
379 2013-11-14 18:08:52 <BlueMatt> bitnumus: is there a reason you're running bitcoind on a rpi?
380 2013-11-14 18:09:29 <bitnumus> yes, electrum didn't have the features i needed in 1.8 and 1.9 is a little unstable at the moment
381 2013-11-14 18:09:56 <Zaatar> kjj: thanks. (sorry for delay - got stuck in mtg)
382 2013-11-14 18:10:03 <BlueMatt> ugh, its a shame we dont have better spv nodes
383 2013-11-14 18:10:12 <Zaatar> i am wondering... when i run bitcoin-qt on my mac and it takes about a day to start up...is there some way i can figure out how much HD space it's taking up and where it's storing it? thanks!
384 2013-11-14 18:10:37 <BlueMatt> Zaatar: iirc ~/Application Data/Bitcoin
385 2013-11-14 18:10:44 <BlueMatt> or, was that windows?
386 2013-11-14 18:10:54 <BlueMatt> ~/Libraries or something
387 2013-11-14 18:11:21 <BlueMatt> ~/Library/Application Support/Bitcoin/
388 2013-11-14 18:13:50 <bitnumus> BlueMatt, does this essentially mean the chain is borked? > InvalidChainFound: current best=0000000000000000bfcfd59d6c804cd29b5cf5ae4100ac8c39b26ff6ed47f444 height=269602 log2_work=73.873766 date=2013-11-1
389 2013-11-14 18:14:05 <BlueMatt> it means your chainstate is broked
390 2013-11-14 18:14:14 <BlueMatt> or your build is rejecting something, or something
391 2013-11-14 18:14:22 <bitnumus> can bitcoind break it ?
392 2013-11-14 18:14:26 <imton> could someone help me addend rpcblockchain.cpp getrawmempool the fulltx info ?
393 2013-11-14 18:14:40 <bitnumus> ERROR: SetBestBlock() : ConnectBlock 0000000000000005545ee9a2eab851c22a0be5caa7e5430bb7710377b5e30f7f failed
394 2013-11-14 18:14:46 <midnightmagic> BlueMatt: I don't suppose you know what the diff is between openssl and openssl-fips?
395 2013-11-14 18:14:55 <imton> could someone help me *add in* rpcblockchain.cpp getrawmempool the fulltx info ?
396 2013-11-14 18:14:57 <bitnumus> sorry for pasting tons of error messages on you, just thought they might be familiar
397 2013-11-14 18:15:08 <BlueMatt> midnightmagic: openssl with ec is not distributed on redhat-based distros for patent reasons
398 2013-11-14 18:15:15 <BlueMatt> midnightmagic: you have to build your own/find a third-party
399 2013-11-14 18:15:29 <helo> bitnumus: could be a problem with running on arm
400 2013-11-14 18:15:34 <BlueMatt> bitnumus: either your disk is bad, or your build is bad...those blocks are valid
401 2013-11-14 18:15:49 <bitnumus> hehe ok
402 2013-11-14 18:15:51 <BlueMatt> bitnumus: or your cpu is bad, or memory, or bitcoind is hosed on arm
403 2013-11-14 18:15:58 <BlueMatt> though last I ran it bitcoind ~worked on arm
404 2013-11-14 18:16:09 <bitnumus> got a copy? :P
405 2013-11-14 18:16:18 <helo> bitnumus: this is armhf?
406 2013-11-14 18:16:22 <bitnumus> yes
407 2013-11-14 18:16:37 <Zaatar> thanks BlueMatt
408 2013-11-14 18:17:00 <Zaatar> if i keep the app open, how much bandwidth should i expect it to take up once it's fully downloaded?
409 2013-11-14 18:17:07 <imton> guys, I'm trying to get the full tx data in the "getrawmempool" rpc call. But my c++ skills are failing. :(
410 2013-11-14 18:17:29 <Zaatar> aka, this is my laptop which is on a lot but not 24x7... maybe not a good machine for doing this?
411 2013-11-14 18:18:14 <midnightmagic> BlueMatt: That part I knew. I'm using the 1.0.1e.tar.gz tarball. But there are new openssl source distributions I don't recognise, v2.x, but with the -fips name in the tarball filename and I don't see an immediate explanation on the site. See here: http://www.openssl.org/source/
412 2013-11-14 18:19:02 <BlueMatt> that would be built in fips-compliant mode, some extra checks, some optimizations disabled, some things changed, required for some contracts/standards, but generally not what you want unless you know you want it
413 2013-11-14 18:19:04 <BlueMatt> afaiu
414 2013-11-14 18:21:48 <midnightmagic> BlueMatt: Interesting. Thanks.
415 2013-11-14 18:25:31 <phantomcircuit> midnightmagic, a number of the things changed in the fips build actually remove algorithms which are more secure but not certified
416 2013-11-14 18:25:47 <phantomcircuit> i would generally advise against the fips builds unless you really need to be certified
417 2013-11-14 18:31:27 <midnightmagic> phantomcircuit: I trust NetBSD people, and they certainly haven't moved to the fips version yet, so I was defaulting to the other one. Thanks.
418 2013-11-14 18:36:46 <imton> I just coded my first patch for bitcoind in c++, super happy time.
419 2013-11-14 18:39:13 <imton> could someone tell me could this be coded better? https://gist.github.com/imton/cc1db0f79c5d7099039d
420 2013-11-14 18:39:32 <imton> *could someone tell me how this could be coded better
421 2013-11-14 18:40:38 <graingert> imton: send it as a PR to the bitoin repo
422 2013-11-14 18:41:04 <graingert> imton: maybe add some commends
423 2013-11-14 18:41:54 <Arnavion> Including a .cpp ?!
424 2013-11-14 18:42:20 <imton> yeah, that including is horrible
425 2013-11-14 18:42:38 <imton> I don't know why I did it..
426 2013-11-14 18:42:58 <imton> told you it's my first time in c++ , sorry
427 2013-11-14 18:43:03 <Arnavion> I'm surprised you didn't get linker errors when you built and tested it
428 2013-11-14 18:43:10 <Arnavion> You did build and test it, didn't you?
429 2013-11-14 18:43:15 <imton> yes, it's working :)
430 2013-11-14 18:43:34 <imton> I am surprised too
431 2013-11-14 18:43:51 <imton> my questions is, how to code that better
432 2013-11-14 18:44:20 <imton> because most of what I wrote there was taken from "getrawtransaction"
433 2013-11-14 18:44:45 <imton> couldn't I reuse it? how?
434 2013-11-14 18:55:59 <phantomcircuit> imton, you're changing it such that getrawmempool returns the decoded transactions?
435 2013-11-14 18:56:16 <imton> phantomcircuit: yes
436 2013-11-14 18:56:19 <graingert> imton: you could refactor the code out of getrawtransaction and put it into a utility method
437 2013-11-14 18:56:50 <phantomcircuit> imton, two things, fix the include to be the headers, add a flag to getrawmempool such that the behavior isn't changed for existing clients
438 2013-11-14 18:57:04 <phantomcircuit> also yes
439 2013-11-14 18:57:13 <imton> roger both
440 2013-11-14 18:58:36 <graingert> imton: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/194aa6cfdfae471bf074962e65ccb79324862b0b/src/bitcoinrpc.h#L215
441 2013-11-14 18:58:57 <graingert> imton: you'll need to use the json_spirit namespace
442 2013-11-14 19:00:05 <imton> ok! no idea what it is, but will look into that
443 2013-11-14 19:01:38 <imton> thanks
444 2013-11-14 19:01:54 <graingert> imton: also make the diffs as a pull request onto the repo
445 2013-11-14 19:02:01 <graingert> not a patch
446 2013-11-14 19:02:22 <imton> I will
447 2013-11-14 19:02:47 <graingert> imton: you might as well add an issue to the issue tracker with what you're trying to do
448 2013-11-14 19:09:14 <imton> graingert: done https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3256
449 2013-11-14 19:47:34 <phantomcircuit> imton, https://help.github.com/articles/creating-a-pull-request
450 2013-11-14 19:48:22 <imton> phantomcircuit: will do it when I code that properly, need to understand may things before, sorry
451 2013-11-14 21:28:49 <imton> CDataStream::read() : end of data
452 2013-11-14 21:28:55 <imton> someone know what does that mean?
453 2013-11-14 21:29:32 <imton> how do I refactor this "iter->GetKey(key)" using the new leveldb
454 2013-11-14 21:31:06 <sipa> what are you trying to do?
455 2013-11-14 21:39:42 <imton> I am trying to merge your AddrIndex which uses CLevelDBIterator
456 2013-11-14 21:39:57 <imton> and with my little understanding in c++ I think this changed
457 2013-11-14 21:40:08 <imton> sipa ^
458 2013-11-14 21:41:15 <sipa> that is in the same pull request
459 2013-11-14 21:41:24 <imton> updated?
460 2013-11-14 21:41:32 <sipa> no, i haven't touched it in months
461 2013-11-14 21:41:45 <sipa> but CLevelDBIterator was introduced in the same pull request as addrindex itself
462 2013-11-14 21:41:47 <imton> yeah, I am trying to merge it with master :)
463 2013-11-14 21:41:54 <imton> oh
464 2013-11-14 21:52:42 <imton> sipa: there is no leveldb.cpp at all
465 2013-11-14 22:01:00 <sipa> imton: in head it's moved to leveldbwrapper.cpp
466 2013-11-14 22:03:14 <imton> sipa: saw it
467 2013-11-14 22:14:14 <rhinux> Hi! I use the linux client, want to install it multiuser. can I share the ~/.bitcoin/blocks on a public /data/bitcoin/blocks directory with links from each home dir to that, without loosing privacy? other files like wallet.dat leaves in own homedir of user with restricted file access. just wanna save space and time for next users to download this data
468 2013-11-14 22:14:37 <sipa> yes, you can, but don't run multiple clients at the same time
469 2013-11-14 22:15:13 <rhinux> and /chainstate ?
470 2013-11-14 22:15:17 <sipa> same
471 2013-11-14 22:15:34 <sipa> it needs to be writable by all, though
472 2013-11-14 22:15:41 <imton> sipa: error: âint64â was not declared in this scope
473 2013-11-14 22:15:53 <sipa> imton: it's int64_t now
474 2013-11-14 22:15:59 <rhinux> but multiple users with same client at same time willl work?
475 2013-11-14 22:16:04 <sipa> recent refactor
476 2013-11-14 22:16:08 <sipa> no
477 2013-11-14 22:16:16 <imton> sipa: and uint16?
478 2013-11-14 22:16:21 <imton> 64 sorry
479 2013-11-14 22:16:24 <sipa> uint16_t
480 2013-11-14 22:16:26 <sipa> uint64_t
481 2013-11-14 22:16:28 <rhinux> hmm :(. ok I C.