1 2013-11-21 00:02:21 <gdoteof> can someone help me figure out why my satoshi client isn't syncing?
  2 2013-11-21 00:02:24 <gdoteof> i just put on 8.5
  3 2013-11-21 00:02:27 <gdoteof> i have 8 connections
  4 2013-11-21 00:02:47 <gdoteof> its stuck at 0 indexed blocks
  5 2013-11-21 00:03:13 <warren> 
ACTION wonders if there area large number of bad nodes.

  6 2013-11-21 00:04:12 <gmaxwell> gdoteof: are you running bitcoind or bitcoin-qt?
  7 2013-11-21 00:04:49 <gdoteof> gmaxwell: qt
  8 2013-11-21 00:05:09 <gmaxwell> gdoteof: open up the debug console, and run getpeerinfo and pastebin the result
  9 2013-11-21 00:06:11 <gmaxwell> warren: do we know if any of the people reporting bitcoin corruption on OSX were running a 64 bit build?
 10 2013-11-21 00:06:38 <sipa> that would be interesting to try
 11 2013-11-21 00:06:49 <sipa> iirc leveldb uses more mmap on 64-bit
 12 2013-11-21 00:06:55 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: my corruptions were compiled clang 64-bit
 13 2013-11-21 00:06:59 <gdoteof> gmaxwell: http://lpaste.net/95954
 14 2013-11-21 00:07:33 <sipa> gdoteof: anything appearing in debug.log ?
 15 2013-11-21 00:08:21 <gdoteof> sipa: yeah it's cranking
 16 2013-11-21 00:08:43 <gdoteof> lots of 'stored orphan tx'
 17 2013-11-21 00:08:50 <sipa> ignore those
 18 2013-11-21 00:09:00 <gdoteof> ERROR: ProcessBlock() : already have block 270576 00000000000000029d1446ea7b59a99e5c5c755c34d1c3b591cc1c8083d37c83
 19 2013-11-21 00:09:02 <sipa> anything with the word 'block' in it is interesting
 20 2013-11-21 00:09:07 <gmaxwell> gdoteof: what blocks count does your getinfo report?
 21 2013-11-21 00:09:07 <sipa> um
 22 2013-11-21 00:09:29 <gmaxwell> gdoteof: in the debug console run getinfo
 23 2013-11-21 00:09:30 <gdoteof> gmaxwell: 0
 24 2013-11-21 00:09:42 <gdoteof> i think though as i say this i know what the likely issue is
 25 2013-11-21 00:09:44 <sipa> are you running with -datadir ?
 26 2013-11-21 00:09:46 <gdoteof> this is an old bitcoin folder
 27 2013-11-21 00:09:56 <gdoteof> probably some broken blocks cached in there
 28 2013-11-21 00:10:03 <sipa> that shouldn't matter
 29 2013-11-21 00:10:37 <gmaxwell> gdoteof: how did you end up with 0?  Please tell us all of what you did.
 30 2013-11-21 00:11:08 <gdoteof> gmaxwell: okay it's working now.
 31 2013-11-21 00:11:19 <gdoteof> to fix it, i moved my existing .bitcoin folder to a temp dir
 32 2013-11-21 00:11:23 <gdoteof> made a new .bitcoin folder
 33 2013-11-21 00:11:26 <gdoteof> put my wallet in there
 34 2013-11-21 00:11:28 <gdoteof> and started up
 35 2013-11-21 00:11:47 <gdoteof> the original folder was really old probably .6 or something
 36 2013-11-21 00:12:28 <gdoteof> i suspect i had corrupted/incompatible block db
 37 2013-11-21 00:12:41 <gdoteof> i'm happy to tell you anything about that old folder
 38 2013-11-21 00:44:00 <gdoteof> can i crank up the number of connections i have?  this block indexing is barely touching my cpu or network thoroughput
 39 2013-11-21 00:45:05 <pankkake> change maxconnections= in bitcoin.conf
 40 2013-11-21 00:46:55 <gmaxwell> gdoteof: Won't change anything.
 41 2013-11-21 00:47:11 <AnonSyn> hello
 42 2013-11-21 00:47:11 <sipa> more connections will only slow you down
 43 2013-11-21 00:47:28 <sipa> if you want fast syncing, use -connect=ip, with ip the ip address of a known fast peer
 44 2013-11-21 00:55:54 <pankkake> oh if it's about initial sync, download the blockchain torrent https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=145386.0
 45 2013-11-21 00:56:50 <sipa> for getting up to 250k, that's the fastest way indeed
 46 2013-11-21 01:00:49 <gdoteof> sipa: recommendations on a fast peer?
 47 2013-11-21 01:01:52 <gdoteof> oh nm i will dl the torrent
 48 2013-11-21 02:04:28 <justusranvier> What would cause bitcoind to report "connection refused" errors when accessing a Tor proxy that Firefox on the same machine is able to access without any problems at all?
 49 2013-11-21 02:04:59 <Vinnie_win> Can a c++ design whiz help me polish my template-based discrete time peer to peer network simulator?
 50 2013-11-21 02:38:15 <cocaine> ok
 51 2013-11-21 02:38:24 <cocaine> are there any msft pinnochio altcoins?
 52 2013-11-21 02:49:26 <Vinnie_win> ok to me?
 53 2013-11-21 03:47:01 <lachesis> hey, i made a txn with 0 fee that hasn't been confirmed. what are my options if it never gets confirmed? does the network forget about unconfirmeds after some time?
 54 2013-11-21 03:52:50 <amiller> cocaine, you mean, based on this short workshop paper? http://www0.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/G.Danezis/papers/DanezisFournetKohlweissParno13.pdf
 55 2013-11-21 04:05:29 <Emcy> lachesis yes it forgets
 56 2013-11-21 04:05:37 <Emcy> there are no good options for this yet
 57 2013-11-21 04:06:06 <lachesis> Emcy, code reference and/or documentation on this?
 58 2013-11-21 04:07:44 <Emcy> it forgets when the tx drops out of enough mempools
 59 2013-11-21 04:07:59 <Emcy> i dont know of docu for it
 60 2013-11-21 05:32:44 <toffoo> hey, do any of the bitcoin-qt versions have a webcam QR code reader built in?
 61 2013-11-21 05:37:27 <BlueMatt> no
 62 2013-11-21 07:30:58 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin build #469: FAILURE in 11 min: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin/469/
 63 2013-11-21 08:36:12 <zcopley> shit, I need to move my sell orders
 64 2013-11-21 08:37:19 <aoeu> what is down?
 65 2013-11-21 09:21:24 <warren> huh.... really 30 minutes since last block?
 66 2013-11-21 09:22:43 <gmaxwell> ;;tblb 300 seconds
 67 2013-11-21 09:22:44 <gribble> (tblb <interval>) -- Calculate the expected time between blocks which take at least <interval> seconds to create. To provide the <interval> argument, a nested 'seconds' command may be helpful.
 68 2013-11-21 09:22:47 <gmaxwell> ;;tblb 300
 69 2013-11-21 09:22:48 <gribble> The expected time between blocks taking 5 minutes and 0 seconds to generate is 15 minutes and 37 seconds
 70 2013-11-21 09:23:01 <gmaxwell> ;;tblb 1800
 71 2013-11-21 09:23:03 <gribble> The expected time between blocks taking 30 minutes and 0 seconds to generate is 4 hours, 17 minutes, and 55 seconds
 72 2013-11-21 10:21:16 <TD> warren: yep
 73 2013-11-21 10:58:02 <stonecoldpat0> guys, in the bitcoin program, ParseHex() just converts the hex to an integer?
 74 2013-11-21 10:58:59 <stonecoldpat0> or is it just changing its format from a string to a vector of characters ?
 75 2013-11-21 10:59:02 <gavinandresen> stonecoldpat0: You mean vector<unsigned char> ParseHex(const char* psz);   ?  Converts hex to binary vector of chars
 76 2013-11-21 10:59:03 <stonecoldpat0> (i feel a bit silly asking!)
 77 2013-11-21 10:59:10 <stonecoldpat0> ahh ok thank you
 78 2013-11-21 10:59:21 <TD> good evening gavin
 79 2013-11-21 10:59:27 <gavinandresen> Hey TD
 80 2013-11-21 10:59:40 <TD> how's life down under?
 81 2013-11-21 10:59:47 <gavinandresen> getting hot
 82 2013-11-21 11:00:19 <stonecoldpat0> im jealous, aussie will be nice right now - constant rain in england :/
 83 2013-11-21 11:00:33 <gavinandresen> mmm.  hot and rainy here in the tropics
 84 2013-11-21 11:00:53 <gavinandresen> TD: how's life in Europe?
 85 2013-11-21 11:01:05 <TD> getting cold
 86 2013-11-21 11:01:19 <TD> but not cold enough yet to be nice and wintery :)
 87 2013-11-21 11:01:25 <fanquake> stonecoldpat0 I've almost had enough of 50 degree days.. wanna trade?
 88 2013-11-21 11:01:29 <TD> it's that unfortunately inbetween stage where there's no sun and no snow
 89 2013-11-21 11:01:31 <gavinandresen> that's good programming weather
 90 2013-11-21 11:01:41 <TD> tell me about it!  been doing too much lately.
 91 2013-11-21 11:02:09 <gavinandresen> I need to get into a groove, been constant interruptions recently, both bitcoin-related and personal
 92 2013-11-21 11:02:13 <stonecoldpat0> i would happily trade, i've almost had enough of these 4 degree days and the sponteous rain spurts when i want to cycle home
 93 2013-11-21 11:02:40 <TD> i've spent a fair bit of time lately talking to the press. the bad news: less time for coding. the good news: they're really starting to pick up on the whole programmable money/contracts idea
 94 2013-11-21 11:03:01 <TD> that meme is finally making the leap from IRC and forums to the wider world
 95 2013-11-21 11:04:14 <fanquake> gavinandresen Going to watch cricket while it's on in Brisbane?
 96 2013-11-21 11:04:38 <gavinandresen> fanquake: maybe if I get insomnia… wait, Brisbane… so it'll be on during the day....
 97 2013-11-21 11:04:38 <stonecoldpat0> my worry is that its catching on too quick atm - too much spotlight, stops people from using it as a currency
 98 2013-11-21 11:05:20 <gavinandresen> stonecoldpat0: don't worry, be happy. More attention means more resources dedicated to making it all work, which is all good
 99 2013-11-21 11:06:01 <fanquake> gavinandresen Cricket could fix your insomnia… it's not for everyone.
100 2013-11-21 11:06:31 <gavinandresen> cricket HAS fixed my insomnia, I watched some of the first Ashes test
101 2013-11-21 11:07:29 <fanquake> haha Don't watch the test matches. Try and find a 20/20 to watch, they don't last 5 days...
102 2013-11-21 11:08:43 <gavinandresen> 
ACTION mumbles about that not being REAL cricket…..

103 2013-11-21 11:10:20 <fanquake> You can't have it both ways :p
104 2013-11-21 11:15:37 <cocaine> loool
105 2013-11-21 11:15:53 <cocaine> coinlab has alydin ad on the front page
106 2013-11-21 11:16:01 <cocaine> and i just saw an article it went bk
107 2013-11-21 11:18:22 <bitnumus> sipa, or anyone else, i'm still not able to run bitcoind on ARM, and these are the latest logs (various boards and a week later)   >    http://pastebin.com/SX3vwr63
108 2013-11-21 11:21:05 <CodeShark> bitnumus: by "not able to run" do you mean the program fails to even load? or do you mean "loads but behaves incorrectly"?
109 2013-11-21 11:21:46 <bitnumus> CodeShark, i hoped the log would show, the problem has been with the chain i believe
110 2013-11-21 11:22:01 <CodeShark> have you tried clearing the datadir?
111 2013-11-21 11:22:18 <sipa> CodeShark: he's copying the datadir from another instance
112 2013-11-21 11:22:23 <bitnumus> CodeShark, i'm copying fresh chain from elsewhere
113 2013-11-21 11:22:25 <sipa> as the RPi is too slow to build it itself
114 2013-11-21 11:22:28 <bitnumus> sipa, i'm nearly done here now
115 2013-11-21 11:22:40 <bitnumus> i've read about levelDB bugs on MAC, maybe its related?
116 2013-11-21 11:22:46 <sipa> i doubt that
117 2013-11-21 11:22:54 <bitnumus> what can you tell me from the log above ?
118 2013-11-21 11:22:54 <CodeShark> the mac problem seems unrelated
119 2013-11-21 11:23:03 <bitnumus> "errors" : "Warning: Displayed transactions may not be correct! You may need to upgrade, or other nodes may need to upgrade."
120 2013-11-21 11:23:15 <CodeShark> that usually means db corruption of some sort
121 2013-11-21 11:23:15 <sipa> bitnumus: that the chain database seems to miss a transaction output that a new block is trying to spend
122 2013-11-21 11:23:18 <bitnumus> i've tried this about 10 times, different builds from myself, others, unstable repos etc
123 2013-11-21 11:23:18 <sipa> which makes no sense
124 2013-11-21 11:23:23 <bitnumus> RPI, beaglebone, cubieboard
125 2013-11-21 11:23:36 <bitnumus> it has to be a bug...
126 2013-11-21 11:23:47 <bitnumus> also a friend has tried exactly the same things, same problem
127 2013-11-21 11:23:48 <sipa> the only thing i can come up with is a bug in leveldb
128 2013-11-21 11:23:55 <sipa> that there is some issue with ARM builds
129 2013-11-21 11:24:02 <bitnumus> i've come this far, can i debug it anyhow ?
130 2013-11-21 11:24:15 <sipa> if you understand the leveldb code, sure
131 2013-11-21 11:24:16 <CodeShark> I'd insert tracers to display the datastructures in a human-readable format
132 2013-11-21 11:24:26 <gmaxwell> unfortunately my arm systems here only have 1.5GB free...
133 2013-11-21 11:24:32 <bitnumus> that would be a no then, so the answer for now is nobody cares about ARM enough
134 2013-11-21 11:24:33 <bitnumus> ?
135 2013-11-21 11:24:37 <gmaxwell> guess I should fix that.
136 2013-11-21 11:24:54 <bitnumus> i've spent 100s trying to get it working :)
137 2013-11-21 11:25:10 <sipa> 100s as in 1m40s?
138 2013-11-21 11:25:14 <gmaxwell> bitnumus: other people have had bitcoin running fine on arm.
139 2013-11-21 11:25:17 <bitnumus> lol
140 2013-11-21 11:25:21 <bitnumus> gmaxwell, who?
141 2013-11-21 11:25:26 <sipa> 100s of BTC? :p
142 2013-11-21 11:25:43 <bitnumus> and, maybe the only way it can be done is downloading the chain directly
143 2013-11-21 11:25:43 <gmaxwell> bluematt for one, but there are several threads on the forum.
144 2013-11-21 11:25:55 <bitnumus> gmaxwell, i've been trying for over a week, i've read every resource
145 2013-11-21 11:26:01 <bitnumus> even spoke to him :P
146 2013-11-21 11:26:36 <gmaxwell> bitnumus: well, it sounds like your database is corrupted in some odd way. have you tried running a reindex on that system?
147 2013-11-21 11:26:55 <sipa> my guess is that it will somehow work when he does
148 2013-11-21 11:27:11 <sipa> that there is some weird incompatibility between leveldb on different systems
149 2013-11-21 11:27:15 <CodeShark> save the reindexed db so you can do a diff :)
150 2013-11-21 11:27:24 <sipa> hmm, your system is little-endian, right?
151 2013-11-21 11:27:43 <gmaxwell> he wouldn't have made it that far if it wasn't. IIRC all current linux on arm is LE.
152 2013-11-21 11:28:02 <gmaxwell> (debian used to have a BE arm build but I don't think that is supported anymore)
153 2013-11-21 11:28:32 <bitnumus> the weird thing, is i took from the logs above that it loaded the DB fine
154 2013-11-21 11:28:39 <bitnumus> 270,000+blocks, and it rescanned the wallet
155 2013-11-21 11:28:39 <sipa> indeed
156 2013-11-21 11:28:56 <bitnumus> but yes, i've tried fresh chains from different distros etc etc
157 2013-11-21 11:29:04 <bitnumus> it wasnt corrupt when i copied it
158 2013-11-21 11:29:04 <CodeShark> have you tried tracers and breakpoints?
159 2013-11-21 11:29:17 <gmaxwell> bitnumus: have you tried running a reindex on that system?
160 2013-11-21 11:29:27 <bitnumus> gmaxwell, we have, but its been 5 days and still going
161 2013-11-21 11:29:34 <bitnumus> and this just isnt an option
162 2013-11-21 11:29:45 <bitnumus> for testing yes, but not useful after that
163 2013-11-21 11:29:51 <gmaxwell> bitnumus: then get a system thats fast enough to be a viable host.
164 2013-11-21 11:30:05 <bitnumus> gmaxwell, soon the answer will be scrap bitcoind for sure
165 2013-11-21 11:30:17 <bitnumus> we cannot move away from these boards
166 2013-11-21 11:30:22 <sipa> what are you trying to do in the first place?
167 2013-11-21 11:30:24 <bitnumus> specs arent THAT bad
168 2013-11-21 11:30:28 <gmaxwell> bitnumus: I am sorry for your bad decision.
169 2013-11-21 11:30:45 <bitnumus> gmaxwell, we tried electrum prior to this, but at the time the master wasnt stable enough
170 2013-11-21 11:30:49 <bitnumus> and 1.8 didnt have features we needed
171 2013-11-21 11:30:50 <gmaxwell> The Rpi? They're rubbish, they're about 1/32nd the speed of an odroid, plus they're unreliable.
172 2013-11-21 11:30:55 <bitnumus> looking at bitcoinj today
173 2013-11-21 11:31:03 <bitnumus> i have beaglebone
174 2013-11-21 11:31:05 <bitnumus> its not too bad
175 2013-11-21 11:31:05 <sipa> bitnumus: well what are you trying to do?
176 2013-11-21 11:31:12 <bitnumus> sipa, accept payments!
177 2013-11-21 11:31:32 <gmaxwell> on a beaglebone by running a full node on it?
178 2013-11-21 11:31:45 <bitnumus> gmaxwell, what other option is there on a bealgebone ?
179 2013-11-21 11:32:00 <CodeShark> headers-only
180 2013-11-21 11:32:01 <bitnumus> i know its not the best idea, but i had to give it a shot, there arent other options
181 2013-11-21 11:32:37 <gmaxwell> in any case, the reindex is a one time operation. I'm not sure why you think copying from some x86 system is okay but a one time reindex is unaccetable. Regardless, I'd be worried about the long term survivablity of such a setup.
182 2013-11-21 11:32:41 <gmaxwell> bitnumus: bitcoinj
183 2013-11-21 11:32:51 <bitnumus> <bitnumus> looking at bitcoinj today
184 2013-11-21 11:33:00 <sipa> (if you want to trust accepting payments without validating transactions...)
185 2013-11-21 11:33:09 <bitnumus> about copying from other architectures, others here said it should be fine
186 2013-11-21 11:33:28 <sipa> "should be" isn't "is"
187 2013-11-21 11:33:40 <sipa> i'
188 2013-11-21 11:33:42 <bitnumus> ok, seems this is the end of the road then
189 2013-11-21 11:33:48 <gmaxwell> You are using hardware substantially less powerful than a modern smartphone, and expecting it to be a full equal in a distributed cryptocurrency is probably expecting too much.
190 2013-11-21 11:33:48 <sipa> i've heard about strange things on ARM before
191 2013-11-21 11:33:53 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin build #470: FIXED in 44 min: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin/470/
192 2013-11-21 11:33:53 <BlueMattBot> Yippie, build fixed!
193 2013-11-21 11:33:54 <bitnumus> will see how bitcoinj pans out, doesnt it support sendtomany ?
194 2013-11-21 11:33:57 <CodeShark> I wouldn't waste any more time on trying to run bitcoind on this processor - seems quixotic
195 2013-11-21 11:34:15 <bitnumus> does*
196 2013-11-21 11:34:33 <CodeShark> that's sending payments, not accepting them :)
197 2013-11-21 11:34:39 <gmaxwell> sipa: :P 11:35 < gmaxwell> sipa: I wasn't of the belief that leveldb files were very portable between systems, I thought they didn't work between x86_64 and x86, for example, though someone was recently telling me it did.
198 2013-11-21 11:34:42 <bitnumus> CodeShark, ok i need to do both! :D
199 2013-11-21 11:34:48 <CodeShark> sending payments requires far less computational resources
200 2013-11-21 11:35:05 <bitnumus> gmaxwell, you were both debating, i don't know who would be right its over my head if i'm honest ;)
201 2013-11-21 11:35:17 <bitnumus> i remember you saying this and its been in the back of my mind
202 2013-11-21 11:35:40 <gmaxwell> bitnumus: I still don't quite understand why copying from another system is acceptable but a one time reindex on arm is not.
203 2013-11-21 11:35:55 <gmaxwell> (though I think that running bitcoind on that hardware is inadvisable regardless)
204 2013-11-21 11:35:58 <bitnumus> it just wouldnt be a one time index
205 2013-11-21 11:36:04 <bitnumus> so dont worry, its not possible and we'll move on
206 2013-11-21 11:36:16 <bitnumus> thanks!
207 2013-11-21 11:36:23 <gmaxwell> bitnumus: why wouldn't it be? why is it different to copy it from another arm system than it is to copy it from an x86 system?
208 2013-11-21 11:36:41 <bitnumus> various reasons i dont feel the point of going into
209 2013-11-21 11:38:23 <gmaxwell> bitnumus: I hope SPV security is appropriate for whatever you're doing.
210 2013-11-21 11:38:51 <bitnumus> gmaxwell, yet again there isnt another choice at this point in time, hopefully things will evolve fast
211 2013-11-21 11:39:28 <gmaxwell> bitnumus: there will never be a way to sustainably run a full security node on such limited hardware.
212 2013-11-21 11:39:56 <TD> bitnumus: run a full node on a server you own, and connect your limited hardware to it with an spv client
213 2013-11-21 11:40:19 <CodeShark> unfortunately, the bitcoin protocol as it exists requires either complex client logic/computational resources, trusting others' servers, or running your own servers
214 2013-11-21 11:40:33 <bitnumus> TD yes thats fine, lets hope bitcoinj does what i need!
215 2013-11-21 11:40:42 <bitnumus> electrum didnt
216 2013-11-21 11:41:00 <gmaxwell> bitcoinj is more of a meta client, with enought thrust it can do anything.
217 2013-11-21 11:41:11 <stonecoldpat0> i dont get why you would want to run a full secure node on v limited hardware... would take forever to validate your own transactions never mind other peoples
218 2013-11-21 11:41:30 <gmaxwell> bitnumus: what was electrum missing?
219 2013-11-21 11:41:33 <TD> bitnumus: ok. an spv client connected only to a trusted node, has equivalent security to that trusted node.
220 2013-11-21 11:41:44 <bitnumus> gmaxwell, sendtomany, this was implemented in 1.9 but 1.9 wasnt stable at all
221 2013-11-21 11:41:46 <TD> bitnumus: but then i wonder why you need the limited hardware :)
222 2013-11-21 11:41:50 <CodeShark> spv client connected to a trusted node is my current enterprise model
223 2013-11-21 11:43:53 <bitnumus> thanks all, very valuable stuff
224 2013-11-21 11:44:25 <gmaxwell> 
ACTION adds adding storage to his pandaboards to his todo

225 2013-11-21 11:45:32 <CodeShark> if it were as easy to prove absence of spends using SPV as it is to prove presence of spends, SPV would be at least a tad bit more secure
226 2013-11-21 11:54:22 <UukGoblin> hi, any ECDSA gurus around here? I'm wondering what vanitygen does to avoid doing an EC point multiplication in each iteration... What's this make_affine stuff about? where could I read up about it?
227 2013-11-21 11:55:58 <CodeShark> you can continue adding the generator over and over again to produce a new public key each time, it's equivalent to incrementing the private key by one
228 2013-11-21 11:56:13 <CodeShark> or you can add multiples of the generator
229 2013-11-21 11:56:58 <UukGoblin> ah...
230 2013-11-21 11:57:31 <UukGoblin> the generator is a well-known number, right? some constant set for the entire ECDSA algorithm
231 2013-11-21 11:57:36 <CodeShark> indeed
232 2013-11-21 11:57:50 <UukGoblin> cool, that makes sense, many thanks! :-)
233 2013-11-21 11:57:56 <CodeShark> to be precise, it's a point, not a number
234 2013-11-21 11:58:07 <UukGoblin> cool
235 2013-11-21 11:58:35 <CodeShark> to be very precise, not a scalar (although perhaps a number by some definition)
236 2013-11-21 11:58:41 <CodeShark> :p
237 2013-11-21 11:59:02 <UukGoblin> ;-)
238 2013-11-21 11:59:30 <UukGoblin> I'm guessing a point on a linear curve... can probably be represented by just one number... somehow
239 2013-11-21 11:59:42 <UukGoblin> two numbers would definitely be sufficient
240 2013-11-21 12:00:07 <CodeShark> in a cantor sense the two sets have the same cardinality
241 2013-11-21 12:00:15 <CodeShark> at least in the case of real curves
242 2013-11-21 12:00:46 <CodeShark> and in the case of finite sets, there's always a map between a subset of the integers and the set
243 2013-11-21 12:01:41 <UukGoblin> yes... I meant something like that :-)
244 2013-11-21 12:02:01 <UukGoblin> well, it's not a finite set
245 2013-11-21 12:02:14 <CodeShark> it is in the case of ECDSA
246 2013-11-21 12:02:14 <UukGoblin> but I think a map can still be devised... if not to integers then to reals
247 2013-11-21 12:02:21 <UukGoblin> oh
248 2013-11-21 12:02:28 <UukGoblin> ah, because ECDSA operates on ints... fair enough
249 2013-11-21 12:02:46 <CodeShark> yes, it's over a prime field
250 2013-11-21 12:03:54 <CodeShark> or at least secp256k1 is over a prime field
251 2013-11-21 12:04:02 <CodeShark> ECDSA over binary fields is also used
252 2013-11-21 12:04:27 <CodeShark> but not by bitcoin :)
253 2013-11-21 12:05:01 <UukGoblin> aha, secp256k1 is a useful google keyword :-)
254 2013-11-21 12:05:13 <UukGoblin> all the constants are here! :-) thanks
255 2013-11-21 12:40:13 <Bituser123> 
ACTION hello

256 2013-11-21 14:03:16 <TD> there is now a #bitcoinj IRC channel
257 2013-11-21 14:05:05 <stonecoldpat0> this will sound v silly - but how is openssl compiled into the bitcoin sourcecode?
258 2013-11-21 14:05:17 <stonecoldpat0> i notice references to it #include <openssl> but i cant seem to find it
259 2013-11-21 14:05:51 <sipa> it's a system library
260 2013-11-21 14:05:57 <sipa> it uses whatever exists on your system
261 2013-11-21 14:06:41 <stonecoldpat0> I see, so is openssl included with windows as default?
262 2013-11-21 14:06:55 <sipa> windows is always strange
263 2013-11-21 14:07:08 <sipa> i think there we statically link an openssl build
264 2013-11-21 14:07:25 <sipa> check the build scripts in gitian-descriptors
265 2013-11-21 14:08:36 <stonecoldpat0> from the comments - it seems to wget openssl so it must download the latest version then
266 2013-11-21 14:11:37 <michagogo> cloud|16:07:00 <sipa> i think there we statically link an openssl build
267 2013-11-21 14:11:44 <michagogo> cloud|That's correct, I believe.
268 2013-11-21 14:12:41 <sipa> stonecoldpat0: the correct conclusion from that code is that it uses whatever openssl exists in your build environment, and one must be present
269 2013-11-21 14:15:54 <stonecoldpat0> thanks :)
270 2013-11-21 14:18:19 <rebroad> how do I find out a complete list of commands that gribble knows please?
271 2013-11-21 14:18:30 <sipa> ;;help
272 2013-11-21 14:18:31 <gribble> The bot responds when you start a line with the ! character. A good starting point for exploring the bot is the !facts command. You can also visit the bot's website for a list of help topics and documentation: http://gribble.sourceforge.net/
273 2013-11-21 14:22:00 <Emcy> issnt not packing in a known openssl on every platform rather dangerous
274 2013-11-21 14:24:13 <helo> potentially
275 2013-11-21 14:25:31 <Emcy> also i thought deterministic builds were the new hotness
276 2013-11-21 14:25:43 <helo> the issue has received some attention, so it is probably safe enough in a practical sense
277 2013-11-21 14:26:09 <sipa> there are argument for and against
278 2013-11-21 14:26:25 <sipa> for is that openssl is rather security critical, and you may want to get uatomatic bugfixes provided by your OS
279 2013-11-21 14:26:59 <Emcy> but we need the bugs......
280 2013-11-21 14:27:08 <sipa> depends for what
281 2013-11-21 14:27:20 <sipa> for consensus-critical code, we may
282 2013-11-21 14:27:44 <Emcy> is it used for walley crypto too
283 2013-11-21 14:27:49 <gmaxwell> "CVE-2014-0666: OpenSSL accepting invalid DER encodings"
284 2013-11-21 14:28:16 <sipa> hopefully we don't rely on openssl for consensus-critical paths by then anymore...
285 2013-11-21 14:28:44 <Emcy> what else is there?
286 2013-11-21 14:29:07 <gmaxwell> SSL.
287 2013-11-21 14:29:17 <sipa> we use openssl for hashing, wallet encryption, wallet signing, rpc ssl, ... and blockchain validation
288 2013-11-21 14:29:27 <sipa> for that last thing, we may want to retain bugs in some cases
289 2013-11-21 14:29:28 <gmaxwell> We have ssl support in two places, for the RPC and for the payment protocol.
290 2013-11-21 14:29:30 <Emcy> is SSL. another lib?
291 2013-11-21 14:31:13 <Emcy> sorry maybe im derpin
292 2013-11-21 14:33:02 <Emcy> thats what i get for playing planetside 2 all night instad of sleep
293 2013-11-21 14:39:09 <michagogo> cloud|rebroad:
294 2013-11-21 14:39:13 <gribble> Admin, Alias, Anonymous, AutoMode, BadWords, BitcoinData, Channel, ChannelLogger, ChannelStats, Conditional, Config, Debug, Dict, Dunno, Factoids, Filter, Format, GPG, Games, Gatekeeper, Google, Internet, Later, Market, Math, MessageParser, Misc, Network, OTCOrderBook, Owner, Plugin, RSS, RatingSystem, Reply, Scheduler, Seen, Services, Status, String, Time, Topic, URL, Unix, User, (1 more message)
295 2013-11-21 14:39:13 <michagogo> cloud|;;list
296 2013-11-21 14:39:19 <gribble> Utilities, and Web
297 2013-11-21 14:39:19 <michagogo> cloud|;;more
298 2013-11-21 14:40:00 <michagogo> cloud|Those are subsections (not sure what they're actually called -- modules maybe?)
299 2013-11-21 14:40:30 <michagogo> cloud|From there, you can ,,(list gpg)
300 2013-11-21 14:40:31 <gribble> auth, bcauth, bcregister, bcverify, changeaddress, changekey, eauth, echangekey, eregister, everify, ident, info, register, stats, unauth, and verify
301 2013-11-21 14:41:57 <TD> this looks totally wrong to me: http://getaddr.bitnodes.io/chart/nodes/
302 2013-11-21 14:42:18 <TD> oh, it's measuring all nodes that broadcast their IP, not reachable nodes
303 2013-11-21 14:42:35 <TD> i guess that could be possible. especially if it does a single run every day and is looking at "all nodes seen in last 3 months"
304 2013-11-21 14:43:06 <sipa> i see 5.3k well-reachable nodes now
305 2013-11-21 14:43:12 <TD> wow. france gets its ass kicked by germany
306 2013-11-21 14:43:28 <TD> the map of europe is basically a map of "high population tech savvy countries"
307 2013-11-21 14:44:16 <TD> nice map though
308 2013-11-21 14:44:18 <TD> http://getaddr.bitnodes.io/
309 2013-11-21 14:44:42 <TD> sipa: yeah their site more or less agrees with you. "seed nodes" 4531
310 2013-11-21 14:45:06 <TD> though it says "nodes acknowledged with version message" 11,666
311 2013-11-21 14:45:11 <TD> not sure what that means.
312 2013-11-21 14:45:55 <TD> their graph is shooting upwards though. not sure if that reflects a real increase in users or whether that's some kind of academic experiment
313 2013-11-21 14:46:25 <sipa> TD: had to say hi to you from cdecker, who was also at the zurich meetup yesterday :)
314 2013-11-21 14:46:36 <TD> oh cool. i forgot about the meetup, damn
315 2013-11-21 14:46:41 <TD> i could have gone last night. oh well.
316 2013-11-21 14:46:42 <TD> next time
317 2013-11-21 14:48:45 <TD> the massive disparity between seed nodes and total nodes announced makes me think there are still lots of users running bitcoin-qt to be a standalone wallet, behind NATs
318 2013-11-21 14:50:45 <michagogo> cloud|How hard would it be to detect a change of external IP address and trigger rediscovery?
319 2013-11-21 14:53:05 <wumpus> I guess you could detect it when peers you connect to suddenly consistently start reporting a different IP for you
320 2013-11-21 14:53:44 <gmaxwell> michagogo|cloud: we rediscover if you use upnp.
321 2013-11-21 14:54:20 <gmaxwell> I also note that the patch I have that changes how announcements work also largely moots the need to rediscover.
322 2013-11-21 14:54:30 <wumpus> right, #3088?
323 2013-11-21 14:57:50 <gmaxwell> TD: if the numbers are right, we're out of sockets.
324 2013-11-21 14:58:05 <rebroad> so.. as more as more people are using bitcoin for payments (e.g. cafes, bars, etc), surely we're reaching a point where the block size isn't large enough to accommodate them all. e.g. just the other day I was asked by a cafe how they can receive bitcoins payments from their customers... what is the best advice/recommendation to give these days, allowing for the future likeliness that they won't be able to receive bitcoin directly for services?
325 2013-11-21 14:58:28 <gmaxwell> 200000 * 8 > 12000 * 125
326 2013-11-21 14:58:30 <TD> it'd be good if nodes could report some more stats about themselves, so they could be crawled and gathered
327 2013-11-21 14:58:45 <TD> gmaxwell: yeah but it's not 200,000 simultaneously.
328 2013-11-21 14:58:55 <TD> gmaxwell: these stats are gathered from addr broadcasts which hang around long after the nodes have gone
329 2013-11-21 14:59:03 <gmaxwell> I know.
330 2013-11-21 14:59:09 <TD> rebroad: they will be able to receive bitcoins directly.
331 2013-11-21 15:00:06 <sipa> (^ controversial opinion)
332 2013-11-21 15:00:11 <rebroad> TD,  eventually not though, right? because there will be too much competition for transactions to go into blocks, so not everyone will get in. how many transactions can a block hold? it's a finite number isn't it? therefore, eventually it will be exceeded if bitcoin becomes popular enough.
333 2013-11-21 15:00:50 <TD> er
334 2013-11-21 15:00:53 <TD> logic failure
335 2013-11-21 15:01:02 <TD> "if bitcoin becomes popular" != "infinite demand"
336 2013-11-21 15:01:16 <TD> basically fees will reflect the competition for block space
337 2013-11-21 15:01:20 <sipa> demand depends on price, and price will depend on available space
338 2013-11-21 15:01:52 <TD> a block is just a data structure. there's no particular reason its size has to be finite, other than computers can't hold or transmit infinite data.
339 2013-11-21 15:02:07 <sipa> well there is a current hard rule that limits their size
340 2013-11-21 15:02:09 <TD> at the moment bitcoin is kind of broken because gavin is determined to sit on his hands and do nothing, but miners don't realise that
341 2013-11-21 15:02:19 <TD> so they aren't learning about the defaults or system management
342 2013-11-21 15:02:44 <TD> and there's no documentation for them anyway
343 2013-11-21 15:02:49 <sipa> and yes, the current limit is set by miners not changing defaults
344 2013-11-21 15:03:58 <rebroad> no one is saying anything about infinite demand
345 2013-11-21 15:04:17 <rebroad> at some point demand will/might become greater than the amount of transactions that can fit in a block
346 2013-11-21 15:04:34 <TD> define "fit". the only limits on block sizes are ones we choose to impose upon ourselves today.
347 2013-11-21 15:04:41 <TD> if the blocks need to get bigger, they'll be made bigger
348 2013-11-21 15:04:42 <rebroad> when that happens it will cease to be an option to accept bitcoin for some merchants. the price of a transaction is irrelevant
349 2013-11-21 15:05:01 <rebroad> TD, no, the limit of a blocksize is part of the protocol that defines bitcoin
350 2013-11-21 15:05:21 <TD> yes, and that protocol can and will be changed.
351 2013-11-21 15:05:32 <rebroad> TD, no, it cannot. it will not be bitcoin then, it will be an alt coin
352 2013-11-21 15:05:33 <TD> believe me. i know how the protocol works. we've been around this debate a million times.
353 2013-11-21 15:05:44 <TD> you realize that the rules have been changed many times throughout bitcoin's history, right?
354 2013-11-21 15:05:57 <TD> satoshi himself changed the rules in hard forking ways quite a few times in the early days. it was still bitcoin.
355 2013-11-21 15:06:03 <sipa> not afaik
356 2013-11-21 15:06:07 <sipa> only soft forks :)
357 2013-11-21 15:06:18 <gmaxwell> They've never been hardforking changed, unless you count the database inconsistency thing. (its debatable if that counts, since there are still running 0.7 nodes)
358 2013-11-21 15:06:18 <TD> they were hard forks.
359 2013-11-21 15:06:39 <TD> heck the imposition of the 1mb limit at the start was a hard forking change, as was disabling many of the script opcodes
360 2013-11-21 15:06:46 <sipa> eh, no
361 2013-11-21 15:06:51 <sipa> those were all soft forks
362 2013-11-21 15:06:52 <gmaxwell> TD: you can happily start a 0.3.10 node and get it onto the network, with an addnode.  I had one running until a few months ago.
363 2013-11-21 15:07:00 <TD> i'm going way back before 0.3.10
364 2013-11-21 15:07:28 <sipa> maybe very very early on there were hard forks, and i'm sure satoshi was of the opinion that they were fine
365 2013-11-21 15:07:30 <TD> sipa: no they weren't. satoshi had no concept of a "soft fork" (and neither do i, i think this concept is nonsense). there were only rule changes, and nodes that would reject blocks if they didn't follow the rules.
366 2013-11-21 15:07:39 <sipa> but none of the big changes that i know of actually were
367 2013-11-21 15:07:40 <gmaxwell> even going back to the start, you could bring up the very first versions with just a protocol bridge for the version hash.
368 2013-11-21 15:07:41 <TD> like disabling script opcodes. that was a hard fork.
369 2013-11-21 15:07:58 <sipa> ... no
370 2013-11-21 15:08:01 <gmaxwell> TD: it wasn't. Enabling them would have been.
371 2013-11-21 15:08:16 <rebroad> so, my question is, what was bitcoin designed for, because it certainly doesn't seem like it was designed for merchants to accept payments for services...
372 2013-11-21 15:08:25 <TD> .....
373 2013-11-21 15:08:32 <TD> was the definition of hard fork changed behind my back?
374 2013-11-21 15:08:48 <sipa> a soft fork is a change that only requires miner consensus
375 2013-11-21 15:08:50 <rebroad> TD, maybe the definition of hard fork was hard forked...
376 2013-11-21 15:08:55 <TD> if you didn't upgrade, and someone used a disabled opcode, you'd be forked onto a shorter chain and fall behind the rest of the consensus
377 2013-11-21 15:09:14 <gmaxwell> No, that isn't the case. :(
378 2013-11-21 15:09:20 <sipa> no, not as long as the majority chain didn't accept your old data
379 2013-11-21 15:09:49 <sipa> disabling things that were previously allowed is by definition a soft fork, as old nodes just keep working
380 2013-11-21 15:09:55 <gmaxwell> A soft fork only denies things that the old nodes accepted. So long as a majority of hashpower is applying the soft fork, all node— pre and post update— are happy.
381 2013-11-21 15:10:00 <sipa> (with, admittedly, a lower security level)
382 2013-11-21 15:10:24 <TD> i think this whole notion of different kinds of forks is not useful. you can't claim something "works" if it's no longer providing the security guarantees the user expects it to.
383 2013-11-21 15:10:33 <sipa> fair enough
384 2013-11-21 15:10:34 <gmaxwell> A hard fork permits something existing nodes rejected. It doesn't matter how much hashpower is on a hard fork, your unupdated node will reject it.
385 2013-11-21 15:11:02 <sipa> but it's how we've always used these terms; you can argue whether they're a good or a bad thing, but the distinction is clear
386 2013-11-21 15:11:37 <michagogo> cloud|17:09:46 <gmaxwell> A soft fork only denies things that the old nodes accepted. So long as a majority of hashpower is applying the soft fork, all node— pre and post update— are happy.
387 2013-11-21 15:11:39 <gmaxwell> TD: A feature added in soft-fork is at worst SPV security. In practice it becomes the same security as nodes update to enforce the new rule.
388 2013-11-21 15:11:43 <michagogo> cloud|FSVO happy
389 2013-11-21 15:12:01 <rebroad> my other question is, when will it happen that we'll see merchants struggling to receive their transactions in a timely fashion. I'm already noticing that it's taking 2 hours or so to receive bitcoins of 17 btc from mtgox, and 30 minutes to receive 200 BTC from mtgox...
390 2013-11-21 15:12:18 <TD> alright, then when satoshi added the second meaning of nLockTime , i guess that was a hard fork
391 2013-11-21 15:12:19 <michagogo> cloud|The network may reject transactions created by the old nodes, for example
392 2013-11-21 15:12:40 <TD> anyway, my point is, the rules have been changed in the past. they can be changed and bitcoin would not suddenly have to be renamed.
393 2013-11-21 15:13:11 <sipa> agree, as long as there is extremely wide consensus and there are no known reasons why people would object to the change
394 2013-11-21 15:13:13 <rebroad> TD, well, you're right.. in a way the blocksize was already changed back in March and changed back when the hard fork was noticed..
395 2013-11-21 15:13:27 <rebroad> TD, but it was changed back because many main players hadn't moved over to the new fork.
396 2013-11-21 15:13:28 <gmaxwell> rebroad: thats a misunderstanding.
397 2013-11-21 15:13:32 <TD> the integer overflow bug was also one
398 2013-11-21 15:13:43 <gmaxwell> TD: another soft forking change.
399 2013-11-21 15:13:49 <sipa> what was the previous nlocktime behaviour?
400 2013-11-21 15:13:58 <rebroad> gmaxwell, what is a misunderstanding?
401 2013-11-21 15:14:07 <TD> you could only specify in terms of height (or time, i forget which). the second meaning was added after 0.1
402 2013-11-21 15:14:30 <sipa> depending on which, that may have been a hard fork indeed then
403 2013-11-21 15:14:40 <gmaxwell> rebroad: that the block size limit was changed, it wasn't. pre 0.8 nodes were unreliable with blocks that modified many transactions (which also had to be large)
404 2013-11-21 15:15:07 <gmaxwell> TD: IIRC it was added so that the new values were all in the far past and so were valid.
405 2013-11-21 15:15:07 <sipa> in any case, i agree satoshi probably didn't care about the distinction, and considered hard forks (as what we call them now) fine
406 2013-11-21 15:15:18 <rebroad> gmaxwell, ok, but it was a hard fork though, nevertheless?
407 2013-11-21 15:15:40 <TD> well, regardless, this is a rather irrelevant question. there's no reason we can't hard fork. and we obviously will. the limit won't stay 1mb forever.
408 2013-11-21 15:15:42 <gmaxwell> rebroad: quasi-hardfork. As I said before, there are still unmodified 0.7 nodes running that happened to have survived.
409 2013-11-21 15:15:51 <sipa> rebroad: the only hardfork ever was the rule to drop support for 0.7 without changes
410 2013-11-21 15:15:57 <sipa> (in recent history)
411 2013-11-21 15:16:59 <jaakkos> are there reputable hardware cryptomodules that can sign bitcoin transactions?
412 2013-11-21 15:17:00 <rebroad> hmmm.. so, it's basically agreeed upon and decided by the main bitcoin players that there will at some point be a hard fork to allow for greater block sizes?
413 2013-11-21 15:17:08 <sipa> rebroad: maybe
414 2013-11-21 15:17:11 <jaakkos> preferably from a company that has "nothing" to do with bitcoin
415 2013-11-21 15:17:29 <gmaxwell> rebroad: at some point is a pretty broad question.
416 2013-11-21 15:17:40 <TD> rebroad: gavin is planning to write up a white paper on all of this and tackle it at some point next year
417 2013-11-21 15:18:21 <rebroad> I was reading about the history of money in the UK.. apparently the first note ever produced was a 5 pound note... but back then that was the average annual salary and it was only used to transfer money between banks, not people... perhaps bitcoin was designed for this, transferring money between banks rather than people, and instead people will use promisary notes backed by bitcions..?
418 2013-11-21 15:18:42 <TD> bitcoin was not designed to be like that, no. satoshi said so himself.
419 2013-11-21 15:18:50 <gmaxwell> rebroad: there isn't a need to do anything as kludgy as promisary notes in any case.
420 2013-11-21 15:19:39 <gmaxwell> rebroad: there are many ways to have payments in bitcoin without all the transactions directly ending up on the chain, but without outright trusting single parties.
421 2013-11-21 15:19:57 <rebroad> or maybe there is a way to reduce transactions overall, e.g. mtgox tokens (or whatever their called).. i.e. exchanges/banks can issue something of value equivalent to bitcoin which are transacted instead of the bitcoins..
422 2013-11-21 15:20:15 <rebroad> gmaxwell, ah.. yes, this I'm interested in understanding better.
423 2013-11-21 15:20:45 <rebroad> gmaxwell, and I'd like to better understand what to recommend to merchants so that they are future-proofed.
424 2013-11-21 15:21:47 <gmaxwell> E.g. micropayment channels can drastically reduce transaction counts.  Things like https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=321085.0 for _offline_ _instant_ _anonymous_ value exchange, more traditional payment systems but distributed signing authority and cryptographic fraud proofing, etc.  But these things are mostly technology parts. Today the demand doesn't exist to build and mature them, or its just starting to.
425 2013-11-21 15:21:53 <rebroad> I would prefer to see bitcoin sustainable rather than it become devalued by an alt coin taking over.
426 2013-11-21 15:22:21 <TD> just tell merchants to accept bitcoin as normal
427 2013-11-21 15:23:02 <rebroad> there's a normal?
428 2013-11-21 15:23:04 <gmaxwell> as TD says there is nothing special to tell merchants today. Though none of them will actually handle bitcoin themselves already. They'll just use some crazy centeralized service, I've seen it over and over again.
429 2013-11-21 15:23:16 <TD> rebroad: depends on what kind of merchant they are
430 2013-11-21 15:23:26 <TD> bitpay for web sites, for local shops i'd suggest they use an android phone or tablet
431 2013-11-21 15:23:29 <rebroad> no, I'm not recommending that. I'm recommending they handle the bitcoins themselves.
432 2013-11-21 15:23:53 <TD> at the moment there's no good documentation for how to accept bitcoins over the web with a local bitcoind (i mean, there might be a few wiki pages but they're hard to find)
433 2013-11-21 15:23:55 <rebroad> with payments going directly to cold wallets
434 2013-11-21 15:24:03 <TD> oh, well, that makes it even harder.
435 2013-11-21 15:24:31 <rebroad> it seems electrum is the best way to create offline wallet and online watch-only wallets from my reading on the subject
436 2013-11-21 15:25:38 <TD> there's a ton of work needed to reduce the communities dependence on bitpay and other payment processors, unfortunately
437 2013-11-21 15:25:47 <sipa> yup
438 2013-11-21 15:26:07 <rebroad> yes... well.. just some documentation would help in this respect..
439 2013-11-21 15:26:13 <gmaxwell> There is a major skills set mismatch. The web developers creating infrastructure for merchants are familar with a services model that things like bitpay or coinbase provide.
440 2013-11-21 15:26:19 <TD> we need docs, tools, example sites ....
441 2013-11-21 15:26:22 <rebroad> and perhaps some minor changes to existing clients, like multibit, etc
442 2013-11-21 15:26:26 <kjj> so, is "invalid signature" kinda the go-to error message on blockchain.info's pushtx tool?
443 2013-11-21 15:26:49 <TD> gmaxwell: yeah. i'd be tempted to make a standalone web server that provides a "redirect there and back again" type API, even if it's all within the context of a single website
444 2013-11-21 15:27:07 <rebroad> easier ways to take coins from offline wallets to online wallets, etc. maybe an OS image that can be put into a memory stick to use for the offline wallet.
445 2013-11-21 15:27:13 <rebroad> (so that a dedicated PC isn't required)
446 2013-11-21 15:27:15 <TD> though a big part of bitpays value add is automatic sales and bank wires
447 2013-11-21 15:27:30 <TD> can't replace that, no matter how good the tools or docs are
448 2013-11-21 15:28:21 <gmaxwell> well, you can but only by still relying on a centeralized site. E.g. you could drop the funds on $exchange and api trade. :P only an advantage in terms of a choice of more providers.
449 2013-11-21 15:28:21 <rebroad> do any of these 3rd parties, like bitpay, make gaurantees against loss of bitcoins? or are they like intersango where the only gaurantee they make is to not intentionally lie?
450 2013-11-21 15:29:33 <damethos> hello people
451 2013-11-21 15:29:58 <rebroad> on an aside note (off topic), I wish mtgox would warn users when doing a "market sell" that they may destabilize the market doing such an action by causing a drop in price which can encourage panic selling... often when people market sell, they are not selling ALL of their bitcoins, so it generally isn't in their interest to lower the bitcoin price or cause a crash...
452 2013-11-21 15:30:36 <gmaxwell> rebroad: the orderbook is normally so large that it doesn't matter.
453 2013-11-21 15:30:58 <gmaxwell> rebroad: and if you're selling a million dollars worth and don't understand how the market works, uhhh.. hire someone to trade for you?
454 2013-11-21 15:30:59 <rebroad> gmaxwell, on the 18th it obviously wasn't large enough, according to gribble on #bitcoin-prices
455 2013-11-21 15:31:15 <gmaxwell> ;;market sell 1000
456 2013-11-21 15:31:17 <gribble> A market order to sell 1000 bitcoins right now would net 702891.4872 USD and would take the last price down to 687.0000 USD, resulting in an average price of 702.8915 USD/BTC. | Data vintage: 0.0051 seconds
457 2013-11-21 15:31:24 <rebroad> gmaxwell, there are more and more people around selling a million dollars worth who don't understand how the market works IMHO!
458 2013-11-21 15:31:44 <sipa> rebroad: then they'll learn quickly
459 2013-11-21 15:31:48 <Emcy> rebroad: we dont have the technology yet to do what youre describing
460 2013-11-21 15:32:00 <gmaxwell> so a move of about 3% on a market order of nearly a million bucks in coins, ::yawn::
461 2013-11-21 15:32:30 <Wegot> Why'd jeff get removed as admin from the sourceforge? did he do something shady?
462 2013-11-21 15:33:19 <rebroad> can I get gribble to quote a market sell in GBP?
463 2013-11-21 15:33:39 <wumpus> Wegot: no, he didn't, he was temporarily removed on his own request
464 2013-11-21 15:34:42 <Emcy> i get the feeling more than even for 2009 bitcoin is ahead of its time somewhat
465 2013-11-21 15:35:04 <Emcy> and it would be a shame to let it get bent out of shape to accomodate that when all we had to do was wait for technology to catch up
466 2013-11-21 15:36:10 <Wegot> Not really, I think bitcoin being made in 2009 was way too late.
467 2013-11-21 15:36:26 <Wegot> It's crazy that nobody implemented it before then.
468 2013-11-21 15:36:51 <sipa> given that how long it take to even consider a small percentage of smart people that it was even a viable idea, i doubt that
469 2013-11-21 15:37:04 <sipa> my grammar makes no sense
470 2013-11-21 15:37:24 <sipa> given that how long it took for even a small percentage of smart people to consider it a viable idea, i doubt that
471 2013-11-21 15:37:36 <rebroad> if I want someone to write an automatic stoploss for me... best place is bitcointalk.org?
472 2013-11-21 15:37:51 <Emcy> its easy to say oh that was so obvious after a breakthrough is made
473 2013-11-21 15:37:54 <rebroad> (sorry, off-topic possibly)
474 2013-11-21 15:37:58 <stonecoldpat0> i think 2009 is probably around the right now
475 2013-11-21 15:38:08 <stonecoldpat0> right time*
476 2013-11-21 15:38:33 <Wegot> Wei Dai practically described it a long ass time ago.
477 2013-11-21 15:38:54 <rebroad> who is Wei Dai?
478 2013-11-21 15:39:34 <jakov> a short time after it became well known what happened in 2007
479 2013-11-21 15:39:39 <jakov> he was working on it since 2008
480 2013-11-21 15:40:00 <Wegot> http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt
481 2013-11-21 15:40:32 <jakov> well steam power was known since roman times, it took specific economic conditions for good steam engines to be made
482 2013-11-21 15:40:33 <Emcy> well theres a differnce between theory and application
483 2013-11-21 15:40:37 <Emcy> satoshi was the first
484 2013-11-21 15:40:43 <jakov> its not just about technology and knowledge, also economic reasons
485 2013-11-21 15:41:30 <Emcy> no one responsible for any breakthrough can claim sole glory
486 2013-11-21 15:43:54 <gmaxwell> Wegot: the bmoney writeup is pretty unlike bitcoin, in particular it lacks any of the features that made bitcoin technically novel (though this point is tautological)
487 2013-11-21 15:43:59 <Emcy> is bitnodes actually legit now
488 2013-11-21 15:45:16 <otoburb> any armory devs or site maintainers here?
489 2013-11-21 15:45:24 <Emcy> they claim like six figure nodes, i think their definition is a bit different than ours
490 2013-11-21 15:47:29 <TD> they provide several stats
491 2013-11-21 15:47:32 <TD> it's important to know what they mean
492 2013-11-21 15:49:14 <Emcy> they seem to be imcluding all the churn
493 2013-11-21 15:49:45 <Emcy> and the natted ones
494 2013-11-21 15:50:01 <Emcy> well its not liket hey dont count or somthing
495 2013-11-21 15:50:52 <Emcy> only 2500 will reply with any peers
496 2013-11-21 15:50:58 <Emcy> not great
497 2013-11-21 15:56:21 <Wegot> Is Wumpus that wladimir guy?
498 2013-11-21 15:57:56 <wumpus> lol yes
499 2013-11-21 16:00:13 <Wegot> I bet you'll be the lead core dev soon, when gavin gets stressed out.
500 2013-11-21 16:00:47 <Emcy> why say that
501 2013-11-21 16:01:12 <Wegot> We all know it...
502 2013-11-21 16:01:34 <Emcy> eh
503 2013-11-21 16:02:49 <Emcy> gavin is paid in coin to do what he does now. with the way the price goes im sure thats a great de stressor
504 2013-11-21 16:10:40 <helo> iirc they recalculate every quarter
505 2013-11-21 16:11:01 <gavinandresen> every month
506 2013-11-21 16:11:32 <TD> gives a whole new meaning to the term pay rise
507 2013-11-21 16:11:38 <Wegot> LOL
508 2013-11-21 16:12:37 <Wegot> Why doesn't bitcoin.org have HTTPS?
509 2013-11-21 16:12:43 <TD> github doesn't support it
510 2013-11-21 16:13:07 <Wegot> -.-
511 2013-11-21 16:13:36 <damethos> hey TD-man
512 2013-11-21 16:13:41 <damethos> hey TD-man
513 2013-11-21 16:13:47 <damethos> oups double enter
514 2013-11-21 16:13:47 <TD> hey
515 2013-11-21 16:13:57 <Wegot> Can't someone donate servers or something. Seems weird to have no https when that's the place I go to download the software.
516 2013-11-21 16:14:16 <damethos> TD, testnet is comin ;)
517 2013-11-21 16:14:25 <TD> cool
518 2013-11-21 16:15:40 <damethos> Wegot is there a point to have https to a site like that?
519 2013-11-21 16:15:49 <damethos> its just info
520 2013-11-21 16:15:57 <TD> the more the better
521 2013-11-21 16:16:34 <michagogo> cloud|gavinandresen: what number do they recalculate by?
522 2013-11-21 16:16:41 <Ellipsis> Hello. I sent 0.2 bitcoins (from an address with 1.0) and it's now been almost 30 minutes without any confirmations. Default settings were used in bitcoin-qt (so no transaction fee?). Is this normal? It's taking excessively long and my transactions since then haven't processed either (and I used a transaction fee of 0.0002 per 1kB in the settings).
523 2013-11-21 16:16:52 <gavinandresen> michagogo|cloud: eleven, of course
524 2013-11-21 16:17:09 <michagogo> cloud|Wegot: the place is actually sourceforge, not bitcoin.org
525 2013-11-21 16:17:11 <gmaxwell> ;;tslb
526 2013-11-21 16:17:15 <gribble> Time since last block: 21 minutes and 11 seconds
527 2013-11-21 16:17:15 <michagogo> cloud|gavinandresen: uh, what?
528 2013-11-21 16:17:43 <gmaxwell> Ellipsis: there hasn't even been a block for 21 minutes. If you'd care to share the txid I can check if my nodes have it.
529 2013-11-21 16:17:46 <gavinandresen> TD: RE: block size / transaction confirmation time issue: I'll send an email to the poolowners mailing list tomorrow about it.
530 2013-11-21 16:17:54 <wumpus> github does support https for release downloads, just not for hosted sites,hence there is an issue about doing the next release on github instead
531 2013-11-21 16:17:59 <TD> cool
532 2013-11-21 16:18:32 <michagogo> cloud|gavinandresen: I mean, which value source is used to recalculate?
533 2013-11-21 16:19:09 <gavinandresen> michagogo|cloud: my salary is set in US dollars
534 2013-11-21 16:19:25 <michagogo> cloud|...I realize that
535 2013-11-21 16:19:35 <gavinandresen> oh, you mean which exchange rate?
536 2013-11-21 16:19:40 <gavinandresen> I dunno.
537 2013-11-21 16:19:44 <michagogo> cloud|Yes, that
538 2013-11-21 16:19:46 <Ellipsis> gmaxwell, Upon checking again I made the transaction at 12:51(16:19 now). Here's the one: https://blockchain.info/address/1HAPPZzvf2SuKXbpcF7T2WVRHrDnWE3BXD
539 2013-11-21 16:20:30 <Ellipsis> Are blocks going slower than every 10 minutes at the moment because of all the new miners lately? (to sort of compensate?)
540 2013-11-21 16:20:30 <michagogo> cloud|Ellipsis: no-fee transactions can take a while to confirm c
541 2013-11-21 16:20:42 <michagogo> cloud|Ellipsis: no, not on average
542 2013-11-21 16:20:49 <michagogo> cloud|But it's random
543 2013-11-21 16:20:56 <michagogo> cloud|;;tblb 3600
544 2013-11-21 16:20:57 <gribble> The expected time between blocks taking 1 hour and 0 seconds to generate is 4 days, 22 hours, 38 minutes, and 44 seconds
545 2013-11-21 16:21:06 <michagogo> cloud|;;tblb 1800
546 2013-11-21 16:21:07 <gribble> The expected time between blocks taking 30 minutes and 0 seconds to generate is 4 hours, 12 minutes, and 58 seconds
547 2013-11-21 16:21:37 <gmaxwell> Ellipsis: my nodes have it but aren't quite trying to mine it yet.
548 2013-11-21 16:22:02 <Ellipsis> OK. Is this long of a wait normal? Is the first one without a fee blocking my later ones? (because the 1.0 is all stored in a single address).
549 2013-11-21 16:22:04 <michagogo> cloud|gmaxwell: solo? P2pool? Other pool with gbt?
550 2013-11-21 16:23:01 <gmaxwell> michagogo|cloud: I checked gbt on my laptop and my p2pool node, and also checked eligius gbt.
551 2013-11-21 16:23:25 <michagogo> cloud|I see
552 2013-11-21 16:23:39 <gmaxwell> Ellipsis: 30 minutes? yes thats not abnormal, as mentioned there hasn't been been a block at all in 20.
553 2013-11-21 16:24:34 <Ellipsis> From 12:51 until now (16:19). So it's been 3 hours(ish)
554 2013-11-21 16:28:33 <stonecoldpat> im building bitcoin locally - im wondering is https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5851.msg86700#msg86700 still the best guide to follow?
555 2013-11-21 16:29:24 <sipa> that's over 2 years old
556 2013-11-21 16:29:31 <sipa> i doubt it's still useful
557 2013-11-21 16:29:59 <TD> lol. someone just tried to buy drugs by emailing the tor-talk list
558 2013-11-21 16:31:43 <wizkid057> gotta love those tor users
559 2013-11-21 16:33:41 <michagogo> cloud|stonecoldpat: what system are you on?
560 2013-11-21 16:33:50 <stonecoldpat> windows 7
561 2013-11-21 16:33:56 <michagogo> cloud|Ah.
562 2013-11-21 16:34:03 <michagogo> cloud|Good luck :-P
563 2013-11-21 16:34:07 <stonecoldpat> lolo
564 2013-11-21 16:34:15 <stonecoldpat> is it easier on linux?
565 2013-11-21 16:34:26 <michagogo> cloud|Very much so
566 2013-11-21 16:34:50 <sipa> even the windows release binaries are built on linux
567 2013-11-21 16:35:45 <stonecoldpat> ah
568 2013-11-21 16:36:00 <stonecoldpat> ill get my hands on a linux machine then
569 2013-11-21 16:36:04 <stonecoldpat> is there a good guide for linux?
570 2013-11-21 16:36:06 <stonecoldpat> lol
571 2013-11-21 16:36:09 <michagogo> cloud|stonecoldpat: just use a VM
572 2013-11-21 16:36:25 <michagogo> cloud|There's the doc folder in the source tree
573 2013-11-21 16:36:34 <michagogo> cloud|I think there's build stuff there
574 2013-11-21 16:37:10 <michagogo> cloud|(Though I'm not sure whether or not there's something there about cross-compilation)
575 2013-11-21 16:37:35 <stonecoldpat> ill have a look into it
576 2013-11-21 16:37:37 <stonecoldpat> see what it says
577 2013-11-21 16:38:17 <sipa> building for windows on linux is certainly harder than native builds
578 2013-11-21 16:39:33 <michagogo> cloud|But it *is* still scriptable
579 2013-11-21 16:40:05 <michagogo> cloud|I'd imagine you could do it by reading the gitian descriptors to see what packages you need and what steps to take
580 2013-11-21 16:40:37 <wumpus> yes, it's harder, especially cross-compiling the dependencies.. though indeed you can simply follow the gitian descriptors (or better, use gitian)
581 2013-11-21 16:41:45 <michagogo> cloud|wumpus: well, not in a VM easily
582 2013-11-21 16:42:28 <michagogo> cloud|(Though it's easier now, since I tried it and found all kinds of problems that devrandom fixed)
583 2013-11-21 16:44:53 <wumpus> not with qemu, sure, but also not with LXC?
584 2013-11-21 16:45:06 <Ellipsis> Ah, my 3 transactions have all cleared now. Phew. (2 confirmations already almost at once!). Hopefully paying a fee of 0.0002 per kB will stop transactions taking more than half an hour or so in future. Thanks everyone for your help.
585 2013-11-21 16:50:11 <michagogo> cloud|wumpus: with lxc, yeah
586 2013-11-21 16:50:37 <michagogo> cloud|(That being where there were all kinds of problems when I tried it)
587 2013-11-21 16:51:15 <michagogo> cloud|But it *might* be working now that devrandom fixed a bunch of problems
588 2013-11-21 17:07:08 <Belxjander> michagogo|cloud: bitcoin-qt sources?
589 2013-11-21 17:20:48 <michagogo> cloud|Belxjander: ?
590 2013-11-21 17:22:26 <Belxjander> michagogo|cloud: I'm wondering about getting hold of a snapshot of the bitcoin-qt and bitcoind sources and then writing a C wrapper around the C++ to use it on AmigaOS as a native program there
591 2013-11-21 17:23:42 <michagogo> cloud|Um
592 2013-11-21 17:23:55 <michagogo> cloud|github/bitcoin
593 2013-11-21 17:24:06 <michagogo> cloud|(Why were you asking me?)
594 2013-11-21 17:25:12 <iz> i recall some discussion about storing other things of value on the blockchain.. like vehicle title or things like that.. was that idea called something in particular i could search for?