1 2013-12-18 00:00:26 <Luke-Jr> if someone adds a fee or more outputs, I want my spend of the prior iteration to be valid still
2 2013-12-18 00:00:37 <sipa> Luke-Jr: i could modify a transaction completely apart from its first input (even in an invalid way), and i could still "prove" to you (an SPV node) that transaction was included in a block
3 2013-12-18 00:01:22 <Luke-Jr> sipa: ok, so we'd want two distinct txids
4 2013-12-18 00:01:36 <Luke-Jr> one for OutPoints, and one for txn merkle tree :P
5 2013-12-18 00:01:48 <sipa> what advantage does that have?
6 2013-12-18 00:02:08 <sipa> apart from just comparing those outpoints, without calling it "some sort of txid"
7 2013-12-18 00:02:14 <BlueMatt> a modern bitcoin wallet should already be indexing txn by something other than txid
8 2013-12-18 00:02:27 <sipa> ACTION whistles
9 2013-12-18 00:02:31 <BlueMatt> (to solve the mutability issue)
10 2013-12-18 00:02:56 <sipa> malleability can't really be solved apart from outlawing it
11 2013-12-18 00:03:00 <Luke-Jr> sipa: 0-confirmation spends are safer
12 2013-12-18 00:03:18 <BlueMatt> sipa: true, but smarter wallets address the issue
13 2013-12-18 00:03:22 <jrmithdobbs> Luke-Jr: at the expense of every other txn being less safe
14 2013-12-18 00:03:25 <sipa> BlueMatt: not entirely
15 2013-12-18 00:03:39 <Luke-Jr> jrmithdobbs: not less, if done carefully
16 2013-12-18 00:03:43 <sipa> they're overlapping issues, and we need to fix both
17 2013-12-18 00:03:53 <BlueMatt> sipa: well, for non-contract stuff it does
18 2013-12-18 00:03:55 <sipa> but you can't solve malleability impact by just making wallets smarter
19 2013-12-18 00:04:03 <BlueMatt> for contract stuff, yes, we need to solve the issue
20 2013-12-18 00:04:46 <TheLordOfTime> ;;op
21 2013-12-18 00:34:14 <PRab>
22 2013-12-18 00:34:51 <PRab> I realize there will be 2 versions of the transaction floating around until one gets mined, but only one should ever be able to get mined.
23 2013-12-18 00:36:02 <sipa> the original wallet may be confused by it
24 2013-12-18 00:36:25 <sipa> with seeing a different transaction mined, which conflicts with one of its own, but still credits it
25 2013-12-18 00:36:50 <PRab> Ah.
26 2013-12-18 00:38:43 <andytoshi> speaking of confusing the client..
27 2013-12-18 00:39:05 <andytoshi> i commented out lines 785-790 of rpcrawtransaction.cpp so that i could do a double-spend
28 2013-12-18 00:39:10 <andytoshi> and i think i wrecked mine
29 2013-12-18 00:39:11 <PRab> I'm sure this has already been discussed, but to me it sounds like the way forward is to release a version of all known clients that handle this properly. Once they have been in the wild, change the mining rules.
30 2013-12-18 00:39:18 <andytoshi> bitcoind: key.cpp:134: {anonymous}::CECKey::CECKey(): Assertion `pkey != __null' failed.
31 2013-12-18 00:39:36 <gmaxwell> PRab: well that will never happen.
32 2013-12-18 00:39:57 <gmaxwell> PRab: there are plenty of pieces of bitcoin software that are hardly being maintained.
33 2013-12-18 00:40:03 <gmaxwell> (or not at all)
34 2013-12-18 00:40:06 <PRab> gmaxwell: Darn the real world not bending to my every whim.
35 2013-12-18 00:43:33 <andytoshi> nothing interesting in the debug.log, it just halts: http://pastebin.com/mT1MVbie
36 2013-12-18 00:44:49 <andytoshi> here is a backtrace: http://pastebin.com/5yfMRErz
37 2013-12-18 00:44:52 <andytoshi> also i'm looking into it..
38 2013-12-18 01:06:37 <andytoshi> forget that backtrace, i got a cleaner one : http://pastebin.com/BGrkeG5F
39 2013-12-18 01:08:11 <andytoshi> but i'm gonna run it in valgrind anyway, no way there is an actual crash in that constructor..
40 2013-12-18 01:09:00 <the8thbit> Is the structure of a tx different before and after its accepted into a block?
41 2013-12-18 01:18:55 <sipa> no
42 2013-12-18 01:20:33 <the8thbit> sipa: Thanks! Any reason why this page specifies that its discussing tx inside a block?: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transactions
43 2013-12-18 01:20:59 <the8thbit> Also, any detriment to having a coin where the tx inside a block and the tx sent to a block are different?
44 2013-12-18 01:21:45 <the8thbit> in otherwords, I want to send extra information in a transaction that will then be chopped off and put in a different part of the block.
45 2013-12-18 01:22:03 <sipa> that is not possible
46 2013-12-18 01:22:10 <the8thbit> why not?
47 2013-12-18 01:22:51 <sipa> well because transactions are included as-is into blocks
48 2013-12-18 01:23:02 <the8thbit> sipa: I mean for a new coin, not for bitcoin
49 2013-12-18 01:23:15 <sipa> ah
50 2013-12-18 01:23:28 <andytoshi> here is a pastbin of my crash in valgrind: http://pastebin.com/hG8mE7Qs
51 2013-12-18 01:23:37 <the8thbit> Still impossible, or do I have a sliver of hope? lol
52 2013-12-18 01:25:03 <andytoshi> the8thbit: there is nothing impossible about it, the extra stuff just wouldn't really be "part of the transaction"
53 2013-12-18 01:27:24 <the8thbit> andytoshi: All right, thanks. The reason I'm interested in doing this is because I'd like to be able to both prune and quickly search the extra junk, and I'm afraid that keeping it included in the transactions list rather than in a different segment of the block could make this difficult. Is this fear unfounded?
54 2013-12-18 01:30:37 <dundysf> need a programmer familiar with php and bitcoind (probably most people here heh). :) Willing to pay for script
55 2013-12-18 01:32:44 <amincd> The Frostwire lead developer is looking to integrate Bitcoin into the Bittorrent client: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=373745.0
56 2013-12-18 01:35:22 <BlueMatt> amincd: see-also: https://groups.google.com/a/bittorrent.com/forum/#!topic/bt-developers/f8HL_Nu9P7g
57 2013-12-18 01:35:30 <BlueMatt> well, the whole thread
58 2013-12-18 01:36:35 <amincd> I
59 2013-12-18 01:36:38 <amincd> l'll check it out
60 2013-12-18 01:46:30 <andytoshi> guys, i have a corrupted wallet.dat
61 2013-12-18 01:48:09 <typex> :-(
62 2013-12-18 01:57:50 <Cryo> good thing you have a backup!
63 2013-12-18 01:58:53 <andytoshi> Cryo: hmm, maybe i do..
64 2013-12-18 01:58:59 <andytoshi> i forgot about those :}
65 2013-12-18 02:01:54 <andytoshi> hey, the crash happens with or without wallet.dat in place ... i think it is not the wallet after all
66 2013-12-18 02:02:04 <andytoshi> the first valgrind error is in reading the wallet, i just assumed..
67 2013-12-18 02:04:33 <Cryo> full moon error
68 2013-12-18 02:06:55 <andytoshi> without the wallet, i still get bitcoind: key.cpp:134: {anonymous}::CECKey::CECKey(): Assertion `pkey != __null' failed.
69 2013-12-18 02:07:01 <andytoshi> but valgrind gives it a clean bill of health
70 2013-12-18 02:09:29 <andytoshi> devs, any advice on things to try moving out of the way?
71 2013-12-18 02:10:02 <andytoshi> the backtraces shows the crash in CCoinsViewCache::GetCoins ... there used to be a directory called "coins"
72 2013-12-18 02:10:25 <andytoshi> i think this is chainstate now? i'll try that
73 2013-12-18 02:11:22 <andytoshi> "Error: Incorrect or no genesis block found. Wrong datadir for network?
74 2013-12-18 02:11:26 <andytoshi> damn these sanity checks
75 2013-12-18 02:12:48 <Cryo> so corrupt chain? 0.8.6?
76 2013-12-18 02:14:12 <andytoshi> no, git HE-da
77 2013-12-18 02:14:14 <andytoshi> HEAD*
78 2013-12-18 02:16:10 <andytoshi> ok, well, i'm going home to canada tomorrow.. i have another node there
79 2013-12-18 02:16:15 <andytoshi> i'll just copy the blockchain over
80 2013-12-18 02:17:46 <andytoshi> it's because all those devs were talking about double-spends messing with bitcoin-qt's head
81 2013-12-18 02:17:49 <andytoshi> they jinxed me
82 2013-12-18 02:19:24 <dundysf> pm me if you have a minute and can help me integrate a bitcoind api with the poker mavens api (i'm a total noob). paying for script.
83 2013-12-18 02:44:15 <abishek> hey guys, i have been trying to figure out when to use walletnotify and blocknotify, could someone advice. I am trying to track incoming transactions and confirmations for the transactions. which one should I be using? when i use walletnotify, i get notified by receiving a transaction id, but am not sure if this notification is for confirmation or a transaction received. appreciate if someone could help me understand this, have been spending 2 days
84 2013-12-18 02:44:15 <abishek> just on this
85 2013-12-18 02:45:00 <Luke-Jr> abishek: use RPC gettransaction when your walletnotify is called
86 2013-12-18 02:45:44 <abishek> Luke-Jr, yes I am doing that, but the how can i track confirmations?
87 2013-12-18 02:45:55 <abishek> confirmations recd?
88 2013-12-18 02:45:59 <Luke-Jr> abishek: gettransaction has 'confirmations'
89 2013-12-18 02:47:18 <abishek> Luke-Jr, the problem that I have is, I have recd only 3 notifications from walletnotify, but the confirmations on the transaction is 47, so am wondering why i did not receive as many notifications as the number of confirmations
90 2013-12-18 02:48:25 <abishek> Luke-Jr, is it possible that a walletnotify notication can contain 10 confirmations at one go?
91 2013-12-18 02:48:51 <Luke-Jr> sure
92 2013-12-18 02:48:53 <abishek> Luke-Jr, or should i receive a notification for every confirmation on the transaction?
93 2013-12-18 03:03:32 <abishek> Luke-Jr, when to use blocknotify and alertnotify?
94 2013-12-18 03:05:55 <andytoshi> is there a way i can delete the last few hundred blocks?
95 2013-12-18 03:06:04 <andytoshi> i think the tip of my chain is corrupted
96 2013-12-18 03:08:21 <andytoshi> hmm, no, it's happening with testnet too
97 2013-12-18 03:08:24 <andytoshi> wtf is going on
98 2013-12-18 03:21:03 <andytoshi> ;;bc,blocks
99 2013-12-18 03:21:04 <gribble> 275543
100 2013-12-18 03:32:16 <andytoshi> so, if i delete my .bitcoin entirely, i still get this bug
101 2013-12-18 03:32:18 <andytoshi> bitcoind: key.cpp:134: {anonymous}::CECKey::CECKey(): Assertion `pkey != __null' failed.
102 2013-12-18 03:32:25 <andytoshi> does anyone else see this?
103 2013-12-18 03:34:49 <andytoshi> oh, fsck me, it's using the fedora openssl instead of my own
104 2013-12-18 04:07:04 <rgenito> i don't know what it's called, but i'm basically trying to "re-broadcast" a payment i made to someone
105 2013-12-18 04:07:18 <rgenito> my bitcoin-qt client crashed when i clicked "send" to send the payment @.@
106 2013-12-18 04:09:16 <rgenito> needless to say, the transaction is not on the block chain -.-
107 2013-12-18 04:13:05 <rgenito> heh
108 2013-12-18 04:20:20 <andytoshi> cool
109 2013-12-18 04:20:24 <andytoshi> do you know how to use gdb?
110 2013-12-18 04:21:49 <andytoshi> fwiw, bitcoin periodically rebroadcasts transactions automatically while it's running
111 2013-12-18 04:21:59 <andytoshi> so if something didn't get mined, it's still being put out there
112 2013-12-18 04:26:14 <abishek> what do the fields blocktime, receivedtime and time indicate on a transaction?
113 2013-12-18 04:27:14 <Luke-Jr> abishek: transactions don't have timestamps, so they're various guesses
114 2013-12-18 04:27:26 <Luke-Jr> abishek: blocktime is the timestamp on the block that mined it
115 2013-12-18 04:27:34 <Luke-Jr> abishek: receivedtime is the time your client first saw it
116 2013-12-18 04:27:47 <Luke-Jr> time is a "smart" guess based on those and your wallet
117 2013-12-18 04:28:11 <Luke-Jr> except in extreme cases, time should always be >= the time of the previous transaction in your wallet
118 2013-12-18 04:29:24 <abishek> Luke-Jr, what are the extreme cases that you are refering to?
119 2013-12-18 04:29:43 <Luke-Jr> abishek: clock changes
120 2013-12-18 04:29:45 <Luke-Jr> on your PC
121 2013-12-18 04:29:48 <abishek> ok
122 2013-12-18 04:30:15 <abishek> thats not gonna change on prod servers, so I can keep that case away
123 2013-12-18 04:32:13 <abishek> Luke-Jr, do the 3 time fields set only once when the transaction is recd to the wallet or do they change for the confirmations?
124 2013-12-18 04:32:43 <Luke-Jr> only when received, unless the block is removed from the main chain
125 2013-12-18 04:32:46 <Luke-Jr> then blocktime will change
126 2013-12-18 04:35:01 <abishek> so none of the time fields change for confirmations except for blocktime if the transaction is removed from the main chain?
127 2013-12-18 04:35:24 <abishek> confirmations received*
128 2013-12-18 04:38:21 <Luke-Jr> abishek: right
129 2013-12-18 04:39:59 <abishek> Luke-Jr, thnx
130 2013-12-18 04:59:25 <abishek> Luke-Jr, I receive the following response (http://take.ms/nzIz0) on the testnet when calling gettransactions. got a few clarifications on it. 1. how do i find which was the sending address and which is the receiving address?
131 2013-12-18 05:00:07 <Luke-Jr> abishek: there is no sending address, ever.
132 2013-12-18 05:00:18 <Luke-Jr> abishek: addresses are only ever on the receiving end.
133 2013-12-18 05:00:37 <Luke-Jr> abishek: if the transaction is "send", you sent it *to* the address
134 2013-12-18 05:00:46 <Luke-Jr> abishek: if the transaction is "receive", you received it *with* the address
135 2013-12-18 05:01:29 <abishek> the response that I have attached is an internal transaction, meaning I sent it to an address that is within my wallet
136 2013-12-18 05:01:49 <Luke-Jr> yes, I see that.
137 2013-12-18 05:03:03 <abishek> Luke-Jr, can a account name repeat on a wallet?
138 2013-12-18 05:03:41 <abishek> wrong question
139 2013-12-18 05:03:44 <abishek> forget it
140 2013-12-18 05:04:29 <Luke-Jr> andytoshi: where's that FAQ you have? probably helpful for abishek :D
141 2013-12-18 05:18:01 <andytoshi> hey, one sec..
142 2013-12-18 05:18:20 <andytoshi> http://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/bitcoin-faq.pdf
143 2013-12-18 05:19:19 <abishek> andytoshi, thnx
144 2013-12-18 06:14:18 <the8thbit> If you just want to have a coin node network relay information, but not add it to the blockchain, how will this effect the network's transactions per second?
145 2013-12-18 06:15:00 <sunspot> the8thbit: I think in order to relay you have to add it to the local blockchain but I could be wrong
146 2013-12-18 06:15:25 <the8thbit> hmm
147 2013-12-18 06:15:47 <sunspot> ok, so I've spent a few days playing with an idea to do a raspberry pi hardware wallet and decided to start with linux from scratch
148 2013-12-18 06:16:00 <Luke-Jr> sunspot: you're wrong :P
149 2013-12-18 06:16:12 <sunspot> and discovered to my horror that most of the toochain is impossible to verify with public sigs
150 2013-12-18 06:16:15 <sunspot> Luke-Jr: perhaps
151 2013-12-18 06:16:16 <Luke-Jr> the8thbit: nobody's tried it afaik
152 2013-12-18 06:16:42 <sunspot> so now I have an idea that I should try to convince the authors of the core toolchain and linux itself to verify using the blockchain
153 2013-12-18 06:16:56 <sunspot> I know bitcoin's not really supposed to be for other than money transactions
154 2013-12-18 06:17:02 <sunspot> but this gets to the core of the technology we're using
155 2013-12-18 06:17:09 <Luke-Jr> sunspot: what? the blockchain doesn't verify stuff like that
156 2013-12-18 06:17:18 <justusranvier> Are not most of the core toochain sources in Git repositories?
157 2013-12-18 06:17:30 <sunspot> justusranvier: many are still in subversion
158 2013-12-18 06:17:33 <Luke-Jr> justusranvier: probably; I'm not sure sunspot knows what he's talking about.
159 2013-12-18 06:17:46 <Luke-Jr> GLIBC moved to the git SCM in May/June 2009.
160 2013-12-18 06:17:46 <the8thbit> Luke-Jr: That's odd. Would it be difficult to do?
161 2013-12-18 06:18:02 <Luke-Jr> the8thbit: probably not, Bitcoin has a restricted variant in the 'alert' functionality.
162 2013-12-18 06:18:05 <sunspot> most of the downloads are http not https
163 2013-12-18 06:18:06 <Luke-Jr> the8thbit: DoS will be a problem
164 2013-12-18 06:18:17 <Luke-Jr> sunspot: https does nothing to improve security of downloads..
165 2013-12-18 06:18:35 <Luke-Jr> justusranvier: GCC is Svn, but has an official git mirror
166 2013-12-18 06:18:37 <sunspot> Luke-Jr: nothing is a slight overstatement
167 2013-12-18 06:18:41 <the8thbit> all right, well, I think I have a work around
168 2013-12-18 06:18:48 <Luke-Jr> sunspot: nothing is exactly how much safer it is
169 2013-12-18 06:19:22 <sunspot> Luke-Jr: ok, then perhaps I'm asking the wrong question
170 2013-12-18 06:19:46 <sunspot> Luke-Jr: how do you verify that when you're installing an OS you have a verified starting point?
171 2013-12-18 06:19:59 <Luke-Jr> sunspot: you don't.
172 2013-12-18 06:20:09 <Luke-Jr> it is impossible to detect a well-hidden rootkit.
173 2013-12-18 06:21:01 <sunspot> Luke-Jr: I'm mostly concerned about network attacks
174 2013-12-18 06:21:57 <abishek> does bitcoin notify about failed transactions?
175 2013-12-18 06:22:38 <Luke-Jr> abishek: define failed
176 2013-12-18 06:22:49 <Luke-Jr> abishek: transactions never fail really
177 2013-12-18 06:23:04 <abishek> say, a transaction does not revceive any confirmations in 48 hours, what happens?
178 2013-12-18 06:23:10 <Luke-Jr> abishek: nothing happens.
179 2013-12-18 06:23:44 <abishek> so how should one treat if a transaction never receive confirmations?
180 2013-12-18 06:25:12 <Luke-Jr> abishek: however you want to treat it.
181 2013-12-18 06:25:50 <sunspot> Luke-Jr: http://www.proofofexistence.com/ <- assume you've seen that?
182 2013-12-18 06:26:05 <Ekki> is there any bitcoin script I can use to handle payments in bitcoins on a website isntead of paypal?
183 2013-12-18 06:26:12 <Ekki> *are there
184 2013-12-18 06:26:13 <abishek> Luke-Jr, is it possible for a transaction to receive a confirmation after 48 hours, Is there a time limit for a transaction to receive n confirmations to be a valid one?
185 2013-12-18 06:26:13 <Ekki> -__-
186 2013-12-18 06:26:21 <sunspot> Luke-Jr: that was the inspiration behind the idea to verify releases in the blockchain
187 2013-12-18 06:26:23 <Luke-Jr> sunspot: yes
188 2013-12-18 06:26:30 <Luke-Jr> sunspot: it doesn't verify releases.
189 2013-12-18 06:26:34 <BlueMatt> ACTION goes to write a rootkit, shoves it in the blockchain and tells sunspot about it so that he installs the rootkit...
190 2013-12-18 06:26:37 <Luke-Jr> sunspot: it's just a timestamp that proves the file *existed*
191 2013-12-18 06:26:37 <sunspot> Luke-Jr: I know, but it's halfway there
192 2013-12-18 06:26:41 <Luke-Jr> nothing about the file content at all
193 2013-12-18 06:26:47 <sunspot> Luke-Jr: needs identity bit added
194 2013-12-18 06:26:53 <sunspot> Luke-Jr: which I agree is tricky
195 2013-12-18 06:26:58 <Luke-Jr> the identity bit is done.
196 2013-12-18 06:27:02 <Luke-Jr> it doesn't need a blockchain.
197 2013-12-18 06:27:14 <Luke-Jr> abishek: no time limit.
198 2013-12-18 06:27:19 <sunspot> Luke-Jr: distribution of the identity bit hasn't been done
199 2013-12-18 06:27:24 <Luke-Jr> sunspot: yes it has
200 2013-12-18 06:27:30 <Luke-Jr> there are lots of PGP keyservers
201 2013-12-18 06:27:44 <abishek> Luke-Jr, so there is no possibility of a transaction failing and the money returning back to the sender?
202 2013-12-18 06:27:44 <sunspot> but if my network is compromised they all give me the wrong keys
203 2013-12-18 06:27:59 <sunspot> whereas the blockchain can't be compromised
204 2013-12-18 06:28:08 <Luke-Jr> abishek: not unless the sender does something, right now.
205 2013-12-18 06:28:21 <Luke-Jr> abishek: where "something" probably involves writing code.
206 2013-12-18 06:28:33 <Luke-Jr> sunspot: the blockchain doesn't verify anything either.
207 2013-12-18 06:28:52 <Luke-Jr> sunspot: the *only* thing the blockchain does, is sort things in a defined order.
208 2013-12-18 06:29:10 <Luke-Jr> sorting identities is useless.
209 2013-12-18 06:32:29 <abishek> Luke-Jr, can bitcoin remove a transaction from a block?
210 2013-12-18 06:33:04 <Emcy> nope
211 2013-12-18 06:33:18 <Emcy> well not a deep block
212 2013-12-18 06:33:23 <Emcy> thats why 6 is recommended
213 2013-12-18 06:33:26 <Luke-Jr> abishek: no.
214 2013-12-18 06:34:33 <abishek> Luke-Jr, so bitcoin never removes a transaction from the network?
215 2013-12-18 06:34:53 <Emcy> bitcoin is not an entity
216 2013-12-18 06:34:54 <BlueMatt> Emcy: no, bitcoin can never remove a transaction in a block
217 2013-12-18 06:35:05 <BlueMatt> blocks can, however, no longer be in the longest chain
218 2013-12-18 06:35:09 <abishek> Luke-Jr, it always stays even if there are no confirmations on a transaction even for a week
219 2013-12-18 06:35:47 <Emcy> if its not confirmed into not in a block. in that case it could gradually be forgotten by the network
220 2013-12-18 06:36:18 <abishek> Emcy, forgotten meaning removed?
221 2013-12-18 06:36:23 <sunspot> Luke-Jr: I appreciate you explaining why my idea sucks :)
222 2013-12-18 06:36:34 <Emcy> not expressely removed, just forgotten
223 2013-12-18 06:37:09 <Emcy> its non deterministic atm. there are changes about cleaning out unconfirmed tx happening
224 2013-12-18 06:37:41 <abishek> so, does bitcoin daemon gets notified of forgotten transactions? I am implementing the walletnotify and am trying to figure out declined or failed transactions
225 2013-12-18 06:37:55 <Emcy> its sort of analogous to short term and long term memory. short term stuff thats not important just fades away
226 2013-12-18 06:38:00 <Luke-Jr> abishek: you never forget your own
227 2013-12-18 06:38:14 <Luke-Jr> abishek: it does not detect double spends, which would prevent yours from confirming, note
228 2013-12-18 06:39:47 <abishek> Luke-Jr, if I receive a payment and that never gets confirmed and if the transaction goes to a state of forgotten, how does my wallet know about it?
229 2013-12-18 06:40:02 <Luke-Jr> abishek: your wallet never forgets it
230 2013-12-18 06:40:09 <Luke-Jr> forgotten isn't really a state
231 2013-12-18 06:40:30 <abishek> meaning, it just hangs in there as a dummy transaction
232 2013-12-18 06:40:34 <Luke-Jr> yes
233 2013-12-18 06:41:50 <abishek> how many number of confirmations make a transaction a valid one?
234 2013-12-18 06:43:23 <wumpus> not a dummy transaction, it's rebroadcasted by your wallet
235 2013-12-18 06:43:31 <wumpus> until it is in a block again
236 2013-12-18 06:44:19 <wumpus> and if it never goes into a block, it will be retransmitted forever ...
237 2013-12-18 06:44:25 <abishek> ok
238 2013-12-18 06:44:32 <abishek> that makes more sense
239 2013-12-18 06:47:23 <abishek> wumpus. Luke-Jr, take a look at this forum post and blockchain notifies about a failed transaction https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=225062.0 , is this something that blockchain.info does based on the time taken to process?
240 2013-12-18 06:48:22 <wumpus> I don't use or provide support for web wallets, sorry
241 2013-12-18 06:48:56 <Luke-Jr> ditto
242 2013-12-18 06:49:23 <Luke-Jr> abishek: in general, blockchain.info is totally broken and misinformative
243 2013-12-18 06:49:36 <Luke-Jr> I'd recommend avoiding it.
244 2013-12-18 06:50:03 <Alina-malina> Luke-Jr, broken?
245 2013-12-18 06:50:10 <Alina-malina> Luke-Jr, please tell me more about it?
246 2013-12-18 06:50:15 <Alina-malina> examples?
247 2013-12-18 06:50:26 <Luke-Jr> Alina-malina: I'll give one example: it reuses addresses
248 2013-12-18 06:50:37 <Alina-malina> hmm
249 2013-12-18 06:50:42 <abishek> wumpus, Luke-Jr, the question was not about supporting blockchain.info but about the functionality. I am developing using the bitcoind daemon and was wondering what they meant my failed transaction. Is this a misconception by blockchain.info?
250 2013-12-18 06:51:03 <the8thbit> Luke-Jr: How?
251 2013-12-18 06:51:11 <Luke-Jr> abishek: in theory, you could have a transaction which cannot confirm; I don't know what bc.i is referring to though
252 2013-12-18 06:51:36 <BlueMatt> Alina-malina: it layers a number of things on top of bitcoin in the form of interpretations of things that are just plain wrong
253 2013-12-18 06:53:34 <BlueMatt> (like time-to-confirm for transactions, the transaction ordering, etc)
254 2013-12-18 06:54:10 <Alina-malina> BlueMatt, it adds additional information to each tx?
255 2013-12-18 06:54:23 <BlueMatt> not really
256 2013-12-18 06:54:34 <BlueMatt> it interprets things in broken ways
257 2013-12-18 06:54:45 <BlueMatt> (and then provides those interpretations via its api)
258 2013-12-18 07:01:22 <Alina-malina> is there a php script to extract private key of whole wallet.dat file?
259 2013-12-18 07:01:48 <BlueMatt> bitcointools is python
260 2013-12-18 07:03:01 <Alina-malina> does this bitcontools in python allow to exctact private key from each created address separately and see how much exactly amount is sitting on that particular address?
261 2013-12-18 07:03:07 <Alina-malina> *extract
262 2013-12-18 07:03:26 <BlueMatt> addresses do not have a balance
263 2013-12-18 07:03:35 <BlueMatt> nor is there some amount "sitting" in an address
264 2013-12-18 07:04:00 <Alina-malina> so as much addresses i create they are connected to 1 wallet right?
265 2013-12-18 07:04:04 <BlueMatt> yet another fundamental misunderstanding of how bitcoin works thanks to blockchain.info's interpretation
266 2013-12-18 07:04:22 <Alina-malina> yes i agree
267 2013-12-18 07:04:44 <BlueMatt> addresses are just hashes of public keys
268 2013-12-18 07:05:13 <BlueMatt> they dont belong to anything
269 2013-12-18 07:05:18 <Alina-malina> so the bitcoins are stored in wallet.dat file anything comes to any of generated address it is stored in wallet dat right?
270 2013-12-18 07:05:33 <BlueMatt> what?
271 2013-12-18 07:05:37 <BlueMatt> bitcoins are not stored anywhere
272 2013-12-18 07:05:47 <BlueMatt> Alina-malina: #bitcoin , please
273 2013-12-18 07:05:50 <Alina-malina> :)
274 2013-12-18 07:05:55 <Alina-malina> loool
275 2013-12-18 07:05:55 <Alina-malina> ok
276 2013-12-18 07:06:01 <BlueMatt> you'll find more people there
277 2013-12-18 07:06:35 <Alina-malina> i just confused from addresses, private keys and accessing bitcoin wallet partly with private key of addresses
278 2013-12-18 07:16:55 <sunspot> Luke-Jr: out of curiosity, when I originally posted about my idea for a rasp/pi hardware wallet you fired back 'you're wrong' ... could you elaborate?
279 2013-12-18 07:17:30 <Luke-Jr> re [06:14:51] <sunspot> the8thbit: I think in order to relay you have to add it to the local blockchain but I could be wrong
280 2013-12-18 07:17:45 <sunspot> ahh
281 2013-12-18 07:17:57 <sunspot> yea, sloppy of me I should have verified that
282 2013-12-18 07:18:21 <sunspot> I just started running a node about a week ago
283 2013-12-18 08:35:11 <mtbomb> Anyone know about a Big Endian build error for MacOS ?
284 2013-12-18 08:35:29 <mtbomb> I am on 10.7.5 with intel i5 CPU
285 2013-12-18 09:42:20 <BW^-> is there any way that i can make bitcoind rescan the entire local bitcoin database,
286 2013-12-18 09:42:21 <BW^-> blockchain
287 2013-12-18 09:42:33 <BW^-> and for instance rebuild a new copy from scratch that is guaranteedly 100% correct?
288 2013-12-18 09:42:51 <BW^-> it crashed once with "broken blockchain database" and i just want to be sure it will not have any other problem at any other point
289 2013-12-18 09:43:12 <BW^-> i see the "-reindex" feature but i guess that's only a partial rebuild
290 2013-12-18 09:43:23 <sipa> it rebuilds completely
291 2013-12-18 09:43:36 <sipa> only blocks are kept
292 2013-12-18 09:43:47 <sipa> and everything else is recreated from that
293 2013-12-18 09:45:45 <Krellan> Thanks sipa
294 2013-12-18 09:45:45 <sipa> except wallet
295 2013-12-18 09:46:07 <Apocalyptic> for the wallet balance you have to -rescan
296 2013-12-18 09:46:09 <Krellan> Interestingly, I restarted bitcoind and it complained about corruption, so I'm doing -reindex = I wanted to anyway, because wanted to enable -txindex
297 2013-12-18 09:46:27 <sipa> what os?
298 2013-12-18 09:47:01 <Krellan> Linux - I'm running 0.8.6 now
299 2013-12-18 09:48:06 <Krellan> will go back to running git (0.8.99) but wanted to try out 0.8.6 just to be consistent
300 2013-12-18 09:52:52 <michagogo> cloud|Hmm, I wonder if there have been non-backwards-compatible changes to the indices since 0.8.2
301 2013-12-18 09:59:04 <lclc> sipa: is this the test-tool you told me yesterday: https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/test-scripts ? Will it just try to connect to a running bitcoin-node on localhost?
302 2013-12-18 10:02:02 <sipa> lclc: you should run it against a node running in regtest mode
303 2013-12-18 10:02:13 <sipa> exclusively
304 2013-12-18 10:04:32 <BlueMatt> lclc: sipa you guys realize those scripts are really out-of-date
305 2013-12-18 10:04:41 <BlueMatt> you should just run ./configure --with...something
306 2013-12-18 10:04:50 <BlueMatt> and point it to the magic jar you can find there
307 2013-12-18 10:04:59 <BlueMatt> well, assuming that jar isnt out of date (hint: probably is)
308 2013-12-18 10:10:40 <lclc> hm ok, thanks. Going to try later
309 2013-12-18 10:13:03 <sipa> BlueMatt: right, that's what i do
310 2013-12-18 10:13:13 <sipa> dodn't actually check the link :)
311 2013-12-18 10:23:26 <BW^-> sipa: aha, so -reindex means a *complete* reconstruction of the blocks db (i.e. wallet not included), so, any errors in the old blockchain files are guaranteedly cleaned out that way?
312 2013-12-18 10:23:49 <BW^-> super, so just, close bitcoind and start with "bitcoind -index" and wait a day or so
313 2013-12-18 10:23:57 <BW^-> "bitcoind -reindex"
314 2013-12-18 10:24:10 <BW^-> and ensure there's +100% space during the process.
315 2013-12-18 10:25:12 <wumpus> right, for the wallet there is -rescan
316 2013-12-18 10:27:06 <ThomasZ> the first time I ran bitcoin-qt, it downloaded about 8gb of blocks and I shut it down, which took forever because it was using all 4Gb or my ram and 2Gb of swap.
317 2013-12-18 10:27:27 <ThomasZ> using your -reindex, curious what the memory consumption is there.
318 2013-12-18 10:27:30 <ntio> if blockchain becomes pruned, does it mean that scripts will stop working?
319 2013-12-18 10:28:27 <sipa> ntio: depends what those scripts do