1 2013-12-23 02:11:33 <alex_fun> hey folks where I can see code responsible for number of confirms? is  it in main.cpp?
  2 2013-12-23 02:47:21 <andytoshi> alex_fun: you can usually trace backward from the functions in rpc*.cpp
  3 2013-12-23 02:48:31 <alex_fun> andytoshi ty
  4 2013-12-23 02:48:44 <alex_fun> u won sandwich :D
  5 2013-12-23 02:49:09 <alex_fun> btw what are all those FUD about scrypt asics? :)
  6 2013-12-23 02:51:47 <nsh> alex_fun, your question contains answer!
  7 2013-12-23 02:51:56 <nsh> much efficient
  8 2013-12-23 02:51:56 <nsh> wow
  9 2013-12-23 02:53:45 <alex_fun> nsh: lol I am sleepy much
 10 2013-12-23 02:53:54 <alex_fun> going to eat and look at main.cpp again
 11 2013-12-23 02:54:05 <alex_fun> well not sleepy lets say many ideas
 12 2013-12-23 02:54:20 <alex_fun> doge diff still 300
 13 2013-12-23 02:54:22 <nsh> in my experience, many ideas is quite often coextensive with sleepy :)
 14 2013-12-23 02:54:26 <alex_fun> its like reddit kid :)
 15 2013-12-23 02:54:43 <copumpkin> man, I just noticed bitcoin-qt is kinda fuzzy on this retina display
 16 2013-12-23 02:54:57 <copumpkin> this is unacceptable!
 17 2013-12-23 02:55:01 <alex_fun> lol
 18 2013-12-23 02:55:12 <copumpkin> Luke-Jr: pfft, what happened to my mac builds that I paid good coin for?! :P
 19 2013-12-23 02:56:04 <alex_fun> // notify wallets about a new best chainvoid static SetBestChain(const CBlockLocator& loc){    BOOST_FOREACH(CWallet* pwallet, setpwalletRegistered)        pwallet->SetBestChain(loc);
 20 2013-12-23 02:56:04 <alex_fun> thats important function
 21 2013-12-23 02:56:12 <alex_fun> is there some graph of forks?
 22 2013-12-23 02:56:18 <alex_fun> as they happen in real time?
 23 2013-12-23 03:02:41 <Luke-Jr> …
 24 2013-12-23 03:03:19 <alex_fun> Luke did u buy some dogecoin? :D
 25 2013-12-23 03:04:33 <warren> alex_fun: doge and scrypt are off-topic here
 26 2013-12-23 03:05:25 <alex_fun> :)
 27 2013-12-23 03:05:30 <Luke-Jr> 
ACTION should start counting how many times alex_fun ignores the topic

 28 2013-12-23 03:05:40 <alex_fun> warren no wonder LTC is slow
 29 2013-12-23 03:07:53 <alex_fun> guys and girls whatever really , u feel rigid its u choise
 30 2013-12-23 03:10:46 <justanotheruser> What is the limit on M of N transactions?
 31 2013-12-23 03:12:41 <Luke-Jr> justanotheruser: 20
 32 2013-12-23 03:13:08 <justanotheruser> Luke-Jr: Is there any way around this using control flow?
 33 2013-12-23 03:22:15 <alex_fun> who here wants to organise online classes for newbie crypto coders? can be good $$ and fun
 34 2013-12-23 03:25:32 <Luke-Jr> alex_fun: I wish I had time.
 35 2013-12-23 03:28:05 <alex_fun> Luke yes seems many people busy coding improvements. I saw one site that uses nice gamification approach to teach newbies varied languages :) I decided to start learning more myself and reading code now :)
 36 2013-12-23 08:12:42 <ThomasV> http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1tin7f/warning_a_fake_electrum_website_with_malware_is/
 37 2013-12-23 09:40:31 <ThomasV> electrum problem is solvd: I called the registrar, and the malware clone was taken down
 38 2013-12-23 09:42:37 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: fantastic.
 39 2013-12-23 09:43:22 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: no now I have a reddit account :P
 40 2013-12-23 09:44:41 <gmaxwell> oh dear. I'm sorry.
 41 2013-12-23 09:44:47 <ThomasV> hehe
 42 2013-12-23 13:46:14 <alphaw0lf> anyone know if there is any good c# / php code out there that combines api results (exchange rates/market data) from multiple exchanges into a single output?
 43 2013-12-23 13:46:35 <edcba> for free of course ? :)
 44 2013-12-23 13:46:54 <alphaw0lf> preferrably :/
 45 2013-12-23 13:47:41 <edcba> i doubt people having coded that would be those wanting to give that for free :)
 46 2013-12-23 13:47:46 <alphaw0lf> i would consider developing together with someone as well
 47 2013-12-23 13:47:59 <alphaw0lf> im making the app for myself but it would have market value
 48 2013-12-23 13:48:03 <alphaw0lf> and be useful to alot
 49 2013-12-23 13:49:03 <edcba> anyway i don't really think you can do arbitrage between exchanges
 50 2013-12-23 13:49:55 <alphaw0lf> the code just needs to return the rates from each exchange for each coin...
 51 2013-12-23 13:50:12 <alphaw0lf> and then the app (my end of code) would compare the rates
 52 2013-12-23 13:50:32 <alphaw0lf> display the highest value for a particular coin if sold or lowest price if bought
 53 2013-12-23 13:50:58 <alphaw0lf> tellin u which exchange one could sell it
 54 2013-12-23 13:51:07 <alphaw0lf> if theres an app that does this plz save me some time
 55 2013-12-23 13:51:11 <alphaw0lf> and tell me what it is haha
 56 2013-12-23 13:51:54 <alphaw0lf> i want to be able to put the different balances of each coin into it... or wallet address if a block explorer is avail (or if one can get that info another way)...
 57 2013-12-23 13:52:21 <alphaw0lf> like a wallet manager sorta
 58 2013-12-23 13:52:22 <edcba> i think there is some job board on the forum :)
 59 2013-12-23 13:52:36 <edcba> i guess a lot of ppl accept bitcoins there too
 60 2013-12-23 13:52:59 <edcba> drop your spec and your price and you may have some answers :)
 61 2013-12-23 13:53:27 <alphaw0lf> ah im just lazy and trying to save some time... no point in reinventing the wheel
 62 2013-12-23 13:53:41 <alphaw0lf> im sure ppl have written this code
 63 2013-12-23 13:53:47 <alphaw0lf> :P
 64 2013-12-23 13:54:55 <edcba> want to save time : use money :)
 65 2013-12-23 13:57:03 <alphaw0lf> ah guess ill just write the code
 66 2013-12-23 13:57:10 <alphaw0lf> too broke for that
 67 2013-12-23 13:57:26 <upb> wow, what a business idea!
 68 2013-12-23 13:57:29 <alphaw0lf> can barely afford to buy my dog a bone for christmas
 69 2013-12-23 13:57:40 <alphaw0lf> upb thx
 70 2013-12-23 13:57:45 <upb> get some code for free, copy/paste it into an app and then sell the app
 71 2013-12-23 13:57:48 <upb> :)
 72 2013-12-23 13:57:51 <michagogo> cloud|alphaw0lf: probably just a series of requests to the various exchanges' APIs
 73 2013-12-23 13:58:23 <michagogo> cloud|You may even be able to get multiple currencies per request
 74 2013-12-23 13:59:30 <michagogo> cloud|Could anyone take a quick look at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381162.msg4104227#msg4104227 and make sure I'm not misleading a user affected by the BDB 5.1 problem?
 75 2013-12-23 13:59:36 <alphaw0lf> upb that wasnt my intention... not only that but i wasnt planning on marketting unless it turns out good... and i would be happy to team up with someone on that
 76 2013-12-23 13:59:47 <alphaw0lf> for now its just a helper tool for myself ;)
 77 2013-12-23 14:00:00 <alphaw0lf> to better manage my coin collecting
 78 2013-12-23 14:16:33 <edcba> alphaw0lf: if you can code i wonder why you are broke...
 79 2013-12-23 14:17:04 <edcba> any stupid guy knowing how to put html & php together is paid a fortune to do it
 80 2013-12-23 14:21:35 <Belxjander> edcba: just because someone can program doesn't mean they program well... there is also a skill level involved for each language dealt with
 81 2013-12-23 14:21:56 <Belxjander> 
ACTION can program in the majority of languages... but not well... with a few select languages where I code extremely well

 82 2013-12-23 14:25:33 <sipa> and being able to code is quite different from convincing someone with money that you can do something useful for them :)
 83 2013-12-23 14:26:53 <edcba> bar is low
 84 2013-12-23 14:55:33 <michagogo> cloud|Could anyone take a quick look at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381162.msg4104227#msg4104227 and make sure I'm not misleading a user affected by the BDB 5.1 problem?
 85 2013-12-23 15:20:00 <sipa> michagogo|cloud: looks correct
 86 2013-12-23 15:20:24 <michagogo> cloud|sipa: Great, thanks
 87 2013-12-23 15:20:43 <michagogo> cloud|(also, am I remembering correctly with https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381162.msg4105239#msg4105239 ?)
 88 2013-12-23 15:26:15 <jgarzik_> mornin'
 89 2013-12-23 15:27:08 <michagogo> cloud|jgarzik_: o/
 90 2013-12-23 15:27:56 <Sealy> does anybody have a link to more information about how the mtgox socket works. specifically I want to know what the 1::, 2::, 4:: messages refer to
 91 2013-12-23 15:31:48 <dooglus> all the old transactions in my wallet have the same date.  can I fix somehow?  http://i.imgur.com/1assz3y.png
 92 2013-12-23 15:35:44 <michagogo> cloud|dooglus: Does it matter?
 93 2013-12-23 15:37:00 <flatfly> dooglus: do you have imported addresses in that wallet?
 94 2013-12-23 15:37:23 <flatfly> if so, could be the date of import that you're seeing
 95 2013-12-23 15:38:49 <dooglus> michagogo|cloud: not often.  but I'd rather it was right.  those dates are almost a year off
 96 2013-12-23 15:39:19 <dooglus> flatfly: I don't remember what I did.  I have used importprivkey before though
 97 2013-12-23 15:39:22 <wumpus> dooglus: not sure if it would work, and be sure to make a backup, but you could try salvagewallet w/ only restore keys and then rescan for transactions
 98 2013-12-23 15:39:34 <michagogo> cloud|dooglus: Have you done a salvagewallet or something at some point?
 99 2013-12-23 15:39:38 <michagogo> cloud|wumpus: nah, wouldn't help
100 2013-12-23 15:39:48 <michagogo> cloud|All the transactions would be timestamped today
101 2013-12-23 15:39:53 <dooglus> I've never heard of salvagewallet, no.  I've usd pywallet in the past to delete 'stuck' txs
102 2013-12-23 15:39:54 <wumpus> michagogo|cloud: even with master?
103 2013-12-23 15:39:55 <michagogo> cloud|dooglus: You'd need to edit the wallet db
104 2013-12-23 15:40:04 <michagogo> cloud|wumpus: Oh, I don't actually know
105 2013-12-23 15:40:12 <jgarzik_> dooglus, odd. transaction date should be confirmation date.
106 2013-12-23 15:40:14 <michagogo> cloud|Has rescanning there changed?
107 2013-12-23 15:40:27 <jgarzik_> indeed, -rescan would be the first thing.
108 2013-12-23 15:40:30 <wumpus> michagogo|cloud: I have a vague memory that that problem was solved, but not sure
109 2013-12-23 15:40:45 <michagogo> cloud|Well, I don't know if it could be considered a problem
110 2013-12-23 15:41:11 <dooglus> jgarzik_: last tx in list: Date: 11-11-18 21:38
111 2013-12-23 15:41:12 <dooglus> Credit: 0.02 BTC
112 2013-12-23 15:41:12 <dooglus> Transaction ID: 3e78861d7bcfc6ed888cd4adea89b2c0f3c285e94dd6b33c3e05d41070e832b8
113 2013-12-23 15:41:17 <wumpus> yes, it was a problem, as jgarzik_says the transaction date should be the confirmation date if unknown
114 2013-12-23 15:41:21 <michagogo> cloud|brb, running `git log v0.8.6..HEAD | grep -B3 -C10 rescan`
115 2013-12-23 15:41:49 <dooglus> "Included In Blocks102237 (2011-01-12 07:02:00 +0 minutes) "
116 2013-12-23 15:42:58 <dooglus> bitcoin version "v0.8.0-dirty-beta"
117 2013-12-23 15:44:30 <michagogo> cloud|hmm
118 2013-12-23 15:44:39 <michagogo> cloud|wumpus: How would I grep the git log?
119 2013-12-23 15:44:56 <michagogo> cloud|Nothing searching for scan nor alvage
120 2013-12-23 15:46:47 <wumpus> michagogo|cloud: there are various ways to grep git logs, but the fastest way to find out may be to simply try it out; create a new wallet, import a private key w/ rescan
121 2013-12-23 15:47:01 <michagogo> cloud|wumpus: I don't mean "how do I grep"
122 2013-12-23 15:47:08 <michagogo> cloud|I mean, what should I be grepping for
123 2013-12-23 15:47:20 <wumpus> eh, no idea
124 2013-12-23 15:47:40 <dooglus> I'm running a -rescan now - will report back
125 2013-12-23 15:47:45 <michagogo> cloud|git log v0.8.6..HEAD | grep -B6 -C10 scan | less
126 2013-12-23 15:47:49 <michagogo> cloud|no relevant results
127 2013-12-23 15:47:58 <michagogo> cloud|also tried alvage
128 2013-12-23 15:48:14 <dooglus> debug.log is showing lots of "AddToWallet f2d87701e1
129 2013-12-23 15:48:17 <dooglus> " etc.
130 2013-12-23 15:48:27 <michagogo> cloud|dooglus: expected
131 2013-12-23 15:48:38 <michagogo> cloud|(I think)
132 2013-12-23 15:50:08 <wumpus> but a rescan will only find new transactions normally isn't it? or did you remove the (misdated) transactions from the wallet first?
133 2013-12-23 15:54:55 <jgarzik_> wumpus, rescan:  for each block { if mine { if not exists in wallet { add to wallet } } } }
134 2013-12-23 15:55:03 <jgarzik_> dooglus, ^
135 2013-12-23 15:55:25 <jgarzik_> AddToWalletIfInvolvingMe()
136 2013-12-23 15:55:35 <jgarzik_> Uber Studly Caps Long Name
137 2013-12-23 15:55:48 <dooglus> SoItWontHelp, I guess
138 2013-12-23 15:55:50 <wumpus> hah
139 2013-12-23 15:56:04 <wumpus> that's why I suggested salvagewallet with keys only
140 2013-12-23 15:56:14 <dooglus> yeah, rescan finished.  no visible change
141 2013-12-23 15:58:11 <dooglus> is salvagewallet going to lose my addressbook?
142 2013-12-23 15:59:19 <wumpus> yes, it's going to lose everything
143 2013-12-23 16:00:00 <wumpus> you can do something more precise by removing only the tx records from the wallet
144 2013-12-23 16:01:04 <wumpus> eh a normal salvagewallet will probably restore all database records including txes, you'd really need a key-only salvage (don't know by heart how to trigger that)
145 2013-12-23 16:01:45 <wumpus> that would be enough to see if the idea would work in the first place, but sure, losing all the address book data and such may not be worth it
146 2013-12-23 16:03:59 <berndj> jgarzik_, i was just reading gizmodo's story on the nanosats. apparently you're a crazy hacker!
147 2013-12-23 16:04:24 <berndj> jgarzik_, i was wondering how a nanosat would not be subject to the very sort of attack that is its purpose to defend against
148 2013-12-23 16:05:13 <berndj> or how do you propose to get block data *to* the satellite reliably? (i accept that interfering with the sat's *transmissions* is infeasible)
149 2013-12-23 16:05:51 <michagogo> cloud|
ACTION grumbles https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381930.msg4105252#msg4105252

150 2013-12-23 16:06:43 <waxwing> can i verify sigs with btc addresses rather than pubkeys? (i'm using python and pybitcointools for btc stuff)
151 2013-12-23 16:06:45 <michagogo> cloud|wumpus: I thought salvagewallet was "create a new wallet and copy only the keys over"?
152 2013-12-23 16:07:01 <michagogo> cloud|Or is that also changed since 0.8.x?
153 2013-12-23 16:07:09 <wumpus> michagogo|cloud: people on the forum can be so tiring
154 2013-12-23 16:07:14 <michagogo> cloud|ikr
155 2013-12-23 16:08:09 <Luke-Jr> michagogo|cloud: he's a Sr.Member!
156 2013-12-23 16:08:15 <michagogo> cloud|First he tells the OP "you only ever need one backup"
157 2013-12-23 16:08:43 <jgarzik_> berndj, link?
158 2013-12-23 16:08:53 <jgarzik_> berndj, missed that one...
159 2013-12-23 16:08:59 <michagogo> cloud|then he calls me an idiot and tells me that me meant "you need to back up after every single address you generate, but you don't generate addresses when you send transactions"
160 2013-12-23 16:09:05 <michagogo> cloud|Anyway, g2g for now
161 2013-12-23 16:09:06 <michagogo> cloud|bbl
162 2013-12-23 16:09:11 <berndj> jgarzik_: http://gizmodo.com/crazy-hacker-wants-to-save-bitcoin-by-blasting-a-cubesa-1487464486# <-- you're in the title :)
163 2013-12-23 16:09:25 <wumpus> michagogo|cloud: you're right, -salvagewallet calls Recover in fOnlyKeys mode
164 2013-12-23 16:10:28 <wumpus> so that should be enough to get rid of all transaction records
165 2013-12-23 16:14:18 <jgarzik_> berndj, cute, thanks :)
166 2013-12-23 16:16:28 <waxwing> any thoughts on my q? or am i asking in the wrong place?
167 2013-12-23 16:17:27 <Luke-Jr> waxwing: bitcoin signatures only verify with addresses already..
168 2013-12-23 16:17:48 <Luke-Jr> unless you mean transaction signatures instead of signed messages
169 2013-12-23 16:17:59 <Luke-Jr> but that's a low-level thing, and addresses don't exist at a low level
170 2013-12-23 16:18:07 <waxwing> hmm i must have misunderstood
171 2013-12-23 16:18:13 <waxwing> ahh i did mean messages
172 2013-12-23 16:18:18 <waxwing> but perhaps that was my confusion
173 2013-12-23 16:18:24 <Luke-Jr> signed messages already use an address to verify
174 2013-12-23 16:18:37 <waxwing> i see. but in pybitcointools i have a function ecdsa_verify
175 2013-12-23 16:18:41 <ThomasV> petertodd: ping
176 2013-12-23 16:19:32 <ThomasV> petertodd: my real name is Thomas Voegtlin, and it's fine to link it to my bitcoin activities
177 2013-12-23 16:23:12 <dooglus> fwiw, I was able to delete all transactions from my wallet using "./pywallet.py --multidelete=/tmp/x" where /tmp/x has "tx\nall\n" in it
178 2013-12-23 16:24:15 <waxwing> yes pybitcointools definitely is using pubkeys rather than addresses for verification of signed messages
179 2013-12-23 16:25:33 <dooglus> waxwing: signing a message with your address reveals your pubkey
180 2013-12-23 16:25:52 <waxwing> right; is it easy to extract the pubkey from the signature?
181 2013-12-23 16:25:57 <waxwing> i saw a thread about it
182 2013-12-23 16:26:57 <Luke-Jr> waxwing: use bitcoind then
183 2013-12-23 16:27:34 <waxwing> i want to be wallet-neutral if poss.
184 2013-12-23 16:28:11 <waxwing> is this the idea dooglus? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6430.0 ..
185 2013-12-23 16:28:29 <Luke-Jr> waxwing: bitcoind can verify signed messages even without a wallet (or blockchain)
186 2013-12-23 16:28:41 <waxwing> that is true
187 2013-12-23 16:28:58 <waxwing> it seems like i can do everything else without bitcoind though. dependencies etc etc
188 2013-12-23 16:29:23 <Luke-Jr> waxwing: I wonder what you're using signed messages for, btw?
189 2013-12-23 16:29:30 <waxwing> signing contracts
190 2013-12-23 16:29:47 <waxwing> then using multisig deposit to enforce them
191 2013-12-23 16:30:00 <Luke-Jr> O.o
192 2013-12-23 16:30:09 <wumpus> waxwing: yes, you can do it without bitcoind, you just need to do the public key recovery yourself then, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/key.cpp#L267
193 2013-12-23 16:31:14 <waxwing> ah thanks wumpus. it looks like what was in that thread was implemented.
194 2013-12-23 16:33:45 <petertodd> ThomasV: pong
195 2013-12-23 16:34:14 <ThomasV> pang
196 2013-12-23 16:34:28 <ThomasV> petertodd: writing an email to you
197 2013-12-23 16:35:01 <petertodd> ThomasV: cool, yeah, if you're public, then I'd do up a video'd public PGP statement like myself, and kyle drake have done among others
198 2013-12-23 16:35:58 <petertodd> ThomasV: trick is to recite a block header, then immediately timestamp the video file in the blockchain, which creates a small time window for any crazy compromise scenario, (IE fake the video)
199 2013-12-23 16:36:16 <petertodd> ThomasV: of course, that's more useful when you've given public interviews and the like, but all the more reason to do that now
200 2013-12-23 16:39:11 <ThomasV> petertodd: email sent
201 2013-12-23 16:40:26 <ThomasV> petertodd: I will soon distribute Electrum through my company; that's one of the reasons I create it
202 2013-12-23 16:40:53 <dataangel> did any devs end up commenting on the accelerating bitcoin transaction processing? (the GHOST paper) there was a lot of hubub about it on reddit and I haven't heard anything since
203 2013-12-23 16:43:40 <petertodd> ThomasV: replied, congrats on the company!
204 2013-12-23 16:44:53 <petertodd> dataangel: yeah, it's got some big problems
205 2013-12-23 16:45:35 <petertodd> dataangel: IMO it doesn't actually solve the real issues around scalability anyway; it makes the bandwidth problems even worse
206 2013-12-23 16:50:15 <dataangel> petertodd: damn, sounded promising :P
207 2013-12-23 16:50:57 <ThomasV> petertodd: what's the point of the video? isn't bitcoin-otc is already good enough?
208 2013-12-23 16:51:39 <petertodd> dataangel: yeah, having said, that, it's good *research* - often solving a problem thoroughly and carefully in a flawed way gives people insight into how it can be solved right
209 2013-12-23 16:52:41 <dataangel> good point
210 2013-12-23 16:52:52 <petertodd> ThomasV: basically the video makes the assumption that the attacker is unable to convincingly fake a video of a human being in a short period of time in the past - if I know what you look and act like from another source I can use such videos to verify your pgp key
211 2013-12-23 16:53:33 <ThomasV> I see
212 2013-12-23 16:53:59 <petertodd> ThomasV: bitcoin-otc is good too, but remember you're trusting that site. mainly pgp verification is about cross-checking enough things that the attacker gets caught, and pgp wot is about *outsourcing* that verification to other people in a better position to do it for you. IE, I've met Amir in person, so I'm in a better position to verify his fingerprint than someone who hasn't.
213 2013-12-23 16:54:41 <ThomasV> ok, I'll send a video link to amir
214 2013-12-23 16:55:12 <petertodd> ThomasV: well, remember what I said: you do it best by creating a file that has been timestamped, because then you can re-use it in the future
215 2013-12-23 16:55:30 <petertodd> ThomasV: for instance kyle drake did a youtube link, which is nice, but not ideal for re-usability
216 2013-12-23 16:55:45 <petertodd> (I really need to write all this down in a HOWTO)
217 2013-12-23 16:56:30 <petertodd> ThomasV: easy timestamp tool FWIW: http://vog.github.io/bitcoinproof/
218 2013-12-23 16:56:54 <petertodd> or create a op_return if you want to be pedantic about UTXO set bloat
219 2013-12-23 16:57:01 <ThomasV> I will timestamp it by reading a title of a common newspaper. "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks
220 2013-12-23 16:57:25 <petertodd> ThomasV: lol, nah, I strongly recommend block headers for ease of verification
221 2013-12-23 16:57:30 <ThomasV> :)
222 2013-12-23 16:57:47 <petertodd> ThomasV: and remember, that's not actually a timestamp, it's a "prove it was made after a certain time"
223 2013-12-23 16:57:55 <ThomasV> sure
224 2013-12-23 16:58:23 <petertodd> (I'm sure you realized that, but others are reading this too!)
225 2013-12-23 16:58:41 <ThomasV> yes, satoshi might read this too
226 2013-12-23 16:58:54 <petertodd> oh I know he is
227 2013-12-23 16:59:52 <dooglus> jgarzik_: re. "transaction date should be confirmation date", I deleted all the tx from my wallet using pywallet, ran bitcoin -rescan, and now all transaction dates are "13-12-21 22:05".  no idea why it picked dec 21st - that's 2 days ago!
228 2013-12-23 17:00:34 <waxwing> I guess there must be something in the Electrum source corresponding to this: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/key.cpp#L267 right?
229 2013-12-23 17:01:16 <ThomasV> waxwing: yes there is. there's also a dedicated channel for #electrum
230 2013-12-23 17:01:22 <dooglus> before: http://i.imgur.com/1assz3y.png ; after: http://i.imgur.com/aN5hLIl.png
231 2013-12-23 17:02:19 <waxwing> apologies, it was following on from something not Electrum related
232 2013-12-23 17:03:51 <ThomasV> petertodd: who signed your pgp key?
233 2013-12-23 17:04:34 <petertodd> ThomasV: a whole bunch of people have; warren did on the basis of the video fingerprint statement and some other verification
234 2013-12-23 17:05:28 <ThomasV> petertodd: whoever did it on the basis of the video should be banned forever from the wot. they failed to detect your attack :)
235 2013-12-23 17:05:52 <ThomasV> indeed, the guy on this video is not reading the correct timestamp
236 2013-12-23 17:06:05 <petertodd> ThomasV: ?
237 2013-12-23 17:06:19 <ThomasV> at one point you say "677" but it is 617
238 2013-12-23 17:06:26 <petertodd> ThomasV: oh, yeah, lol
239 2013-12-23 17:06:47 <petertodd> ThomasV: heh, I forget how many digits of it I recited - each one does make an attack 256 times harder after all :P
240 2013-12-23 17:06:58 <petertodd> ThomasV: er, 16 times
241 2013-12-23 17:07:13 <ThomasV> I propose that whoever signed your key shall be burned in public
242 2013-12-23 17:07:40 <ThomasV> and you too :)
243 2013-12-23 17:07:52 <petertodd> ThomasV: lol, is that the only mistake? makes for a convenient sentinal value to gage how careful people are
244 2013-12-23 17:08:27 <ThomasV> oh I'm sure I will do mistakes too if I get filmed
245 2013-12-23 17:08:54 <Luke-Jr> 
ACTION notes PGP signatures have an indicator for level of certainty..

246 2013-12-23 17:09:00 <petertodd> ThomasV: heh, I should put that in the howto: "Make one small mistake to check on your partners to see how careful they are"
247 2013-12-23 17:09:06 <Luke-Jr> there is a "I have only checked casually" option
248 2013-12-23 17:09:24 <ThomasV> petertodd: btw, someone made a film of my talk at calafou. I'd be curious to see it
249 2013-12-23 17:10:05 <petertodd> ThomasV: oh cool! me too
250 2013-12-23 17:10:15 <ThomasV> ask amir
251 2013-12-23 17:10:41 <ThomasV> they even zoomed on the keyboard when I was typing my password
252 2013-12-23 17:10:48 <petertodd> ThomasV: lol!
253 2013-12-23 17:10:56 <petertodd> ThomasV: yoru brainwallet right? :P
254 2013-12-23 17:11:06 <ThomasV> yeah, my life savings :)
255 2013-12-23 17:11:56 <petertodd> ThomasV: this is why when I was at the bitcoin conference, and the hackathon, I temporarily changed the passwords on my laptop...
256 2013-12-23 17:12:03 <ThomasV> fortunately I noticed it, so I asked them to stop filming when I was typing the password
257 2013-12-23 17:12:15 <ThomasV> hehe
258 2013-12-23 17:12:37 <Luke-Jr> ThomasV: did you fix Electrum yet?
259 2013-12-23 17:13:08 <ThomasV> Luke-Jr: Electrum is fine. I think "send from" is acceptable
260 2013-12-23 17:13:15 <Luke-Jr> ThomasV: it isn't. it's a bug.
261 2013-12-23 17:13:31 <Luke-Jr> 
ACTION proposes removing Electrum from bitcoin.org

262 2013-12-23 17:13:51 <ThomasV> oh well..
263 2013-12-23 17:14:02 <ThomasV> Luke-Jr: why is that so important to you?
264 2013-12-23 17:14:15 <Luke-Jr> ThomasV: because I have to deal with the idiots you confuse and set them straight.
265 2013-12-23 17:14:38 <Luke-Jr> "There is no 'from address'. Electrum is confusing you. 'Send from' essentially does nothing really, just ignore it."
266 2013-12-23 17:14:51 <petertodd> ThomasV: yeah I'm going to have to second that. Either do a coin-control thing, or none at all. 'send from' sends the wrong message
267 2013-12-23 17:15:10 <petertodd> ThomasV: it's fine to in reality have that functionality through a coin-control feature, but don't present it as a send-from
268 2013-12-23 17:15:57 <petertodd> ThomasV: like, right now you can select multiple addresses, and collectively send-from, which is basically coin-control, but there needs to be a better way to present the idea
269 2013-12-23 17:16:01 <ThomasV> petertodd: what would be the difference? add the ability to pick only some utxos from a given address?
270 2013-12-23 17:16:59 <Luke-Jr> ThomasV: utxos aren't from an address, they *were to* an address
271 2013-12-23 17:16:59 <petertodd> ThomasV: basically just put it in a separate tab or something, I believe bitcoin-qt is doing that these days
272 2013-12-23 17:17:09 <petertodd> ThomasV: and yeah, per UTXO is a good way
273 2013-12-23 17:17:20 <petertodd> ThomasV: the main value of coin-control features is user education IMKO
274 2013-12-23 17:17:24 <petertodd> *IMO
275 2013-12-23 17:17:27 <Luke-Jr> ThomasV: the address which received the UTXO is unrelated to the transaction being created
276 2013-12-23 17:17:48 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: though keep in mind that electrum *does* discourge address re-use reasonably well
277 2013-12-23 17:18:10 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: the hidden "Used" folder for all your used addresses is a great UI
278 2013-12-23 17:19:38 <ThomasV> I don't think that adding the capability to select only some utxos corresponding to a given address, instead of all of them, would add much usability
279 2013-12-23 17:19:39 <petertodd> ThomasV, Luke-Jr: Heck, can we compromise right now and have a checkbox saying "Enable Coin-Control" in the options, off by default, that turns on "Send From"? That'd keep the users who don't know any better from stumbling onto it.
280 2013-12-23 17:20:27 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: There's future options like stealth addresses (soemthing I'm working on) that make a lot of these problems go away anyway, and I think Electrum has important stuff like coinjoin and better privacy to implement right now.
281 2013-12-23 17:20:28 <wumpus> it's not the feature that is wrong, but "send from" is the wrong naming for it
282 2013-12-23 17:21:13 <Luke-Jr> ThomasV: the address is unrelated to the transaction you're creating
283 2013-12-23 17:21:30 <Luke-Jr> there is no reason to select UTXOs based on address at all
284 2013-12-23 17:22:17 <Luke-Jr> I gotta run.. bbiab
285 2013-12-23 17:22:30 <ThomasV> petertodd: coinjoin is not really planned for the moment. my priority is the radix tree of utxos, server side, to have a proof of completeness
286 2013-12-23 17:22:31 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: without better privacy features there often is
287 2013-12-23 17:23:09 <petertodd> ThomasV: that sounds like perfectly good priorities
288 2013-12-23 17:23:19 <ThomasV> petertodd: but someone can write a coinjoin plugin
289 2013-12-23 17:23:38 <petertodd> ThomasV: for sure, I see someone wrote a plugin to use bc.i's send shared for instance
290 2013-12-23 17:23:43 <maaku> Well to be fair, if you're doing coin conttrol that's probably how you're going to look for and select outputs - by size, age, and address - but 'send from' totally sends the wrong signal
291 2013-12-23 17:24:06 <petertodd> maaku: yeah, it's not that it's a bad feature per say, it's that it sends a bad message to newbies
292 2013-12-23 17:24:39 <ThomasV> I fail to see why it sends a bad message
293 2013-12-23 17:25:04 <Luke-Jr> I've never selected coins by address. ever.
294 2013-12-23 17:25:08 <maaku> ThomasV: people think they are wiring money between accounts
295 2013-12-23 17:25:10 <Luke-Jr> and I coincontrol almost every transaction.
296 2013-12-23 17:25:14 <maaku> like a bank transfer
297 2013-12-23 17:25:19 <petertodd> ThomasV: the idea that the "from address" matters encourages people to see addresses like accounts
298 2013-12-23 17:25:47 <Luke-Jr> ThomasV: it also makes people think the address which received the UTXO is somehow related to the current transaction (it isn't, at all)
299 2013-12-23 17:26:11 <Luke-Jr> the person/account who received the UTXO may be entirely unrelated to the person/account sending the current transaction
300 2013-12-23 17:26:11 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: well it is from an information leakage point of view, but that's a subtle concept...
301 2013-12-23 17:26:13 <ThomasV> Luke-Jr: it is
302 2013-12-23 17:26:17 <Luke-Jr> ThomasV: it isn't
303 2013-12-23 17:26:48 <Luke-Jr> there is zero relationship between the address which received the UTXO, and the transaction being created now
304 2013-12-23 17:26:49 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: they may be, they may not be; it's an infomation leak that is useful to control, but bad to encourage
305 2013-12-23 17:27:23 <ThomasV> I have the feeling that we are arguing on wording here
306 2013-12-23 17:27:35 <Luke-Jr> usually when I coincontrol, I look at priority and amount; sometimes label.
307 2013-12-23 17:27:46 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: that's the subtlety here: coin control by address is useful for advanced users, but we don't want to get the newbies to get the wrong idea about the significance of it.
308 2013-12-23 17:28:08 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: you're not using coin-control for why most people do for the sounds of it - I use it to restrict information leakages
309 2013-12-23 17:28:27 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: information leakage is a matter for labels/groupings
310 2013-12-23 17:28:30 <Luke-Jr> not addresses
311 2013-12-23 17:28:40 <ThomasV> petertodd: I believe most people use it for that: restrict info leakage
312 2013-12-23 17:29:14 <maaku> ThomasV: for that they should have multiple wallets...
313 2013-12-23 17:29:18 <ThomasV> but if we did agree on everything, there would be just one bitcoin client :)
314 2013-12-23 17:29:25 <petertodd> ThomasV: lol
315 2013-12-23 17:29:27 <ThomasV> maaku: right
316 2013-12-23 17:30:01 <maaku> ThomasV: we are arguing about wording, but it's not a trivial issue
317 2013-12-23 17:30:02 <ThomasV> maaku: or different bip32 accounts
318 2013-12-23 17:30:07 <maaku> yeah
319 2013-12-23 17:30:14 <Luke-Jr> ThomasV: presenting it as a relationship, is inherently broken by design
320 2013-12-23 17:30:23 <ThomasV> electrum 2.0 will have bip32 accounts
321 2013-12-23 17:30:30 <petertodd> ThomasV: cool!
322 2013-12-23 17:30:50 <maaku> because one of the most important user-education things is to get people accustomed to how bitcoin accounting works, and subtletes like shared transactions
323 2013-12-23 17:31:22 <ThomasV> shared tx, as in coinjoin?
324 2013-12-23 17:31:31 <maaku> that's one example
325 2013-12-23 17:31:32 <petertodd> maaku: agreed - a nice graphic display of the amounts going into and out of a transaction would be a really nice feature for a wallet to have...
326 2013-12-23 17:31:56 <swulf--> petertodd: btw, I put up some bounty for code review of my javascript bip32 stuff.. no takers :(
327 2013-12-23 17:32:00 <maaku> "send from", even if correct in a narrow meaning, re-enforces a naive view of how transactions work that just isn't correct
328 2013-12-23 17:32:08 <maaku> so a different wording might be better
329 2013-12-23 17:32:18 <ThomasV> maaku: what would you suggest?
330 2013-12-23 17:32:19 <Luke-Jr> "send from" isn't correct in any meaning IMO
331 2013-12-23 17:32:23 <petertodd> maaku: oh, and with coinjoin, make that display show the other user's inputs and outputs clearly (IE two party mix) with a checkbox that turns on and off the per-user coloring: "What I know/What the rest of the world sees"
332 2013-12-23 17:33:05 <petertodd> swulf--: pity that few people are familiar with javacsript in this crowd; I'd review it but it wouldn't be as good a review
333 2013-12-23 17:33:32 <petertodd> ThomasV: "send using" ?
334 2013-12-23 17:33:35 <Luke-Jr> swulf--: link? maybe I can find time
335 2013-12-23 17:33:39 <swulf--> peter: tbh, I'm part of that crowd..  which only reinforces the need for a good review of it.
336 2013-12-23 17:33:49 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: but it isn't using (or any other verb) the address.
337 2013-12-23 17:33:50 <maaku> both of petertodd's suggestions are good
338 2013-12-23 17:34:01 <swulf--> Luke-Jr: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=325468.msg3985936#msg3985936
339 2013-12-23 17:34:04 <maaku> Luke-Jr: "from" is the issue
340 2013-12-23 17:34:09 <Luke-Jr> part of it
341 2013-12-23 17:34:23 <Luke-Jr> but there is no relationship whatsoever between the address and the trasnsaction being created
342 2013-12-23 17:34:41 <petertodd> "using" isn't perfect, but at least it doesn't imply an origin, which is the main thing that users misunderstand
343 2013-12-23 17:34:58 <Luke-Jr> "Select coins received with"
344 2013-12-23 17:35:25 <Luke-Jr> "Select coin received with" since plural is bad practice ;)
345 2013-12-23 17:35:40 <Luke-Jr> "Resend coin received with" if there's no way to add others..
346 2013-12-23 17:36:16 <petertodd> Actually... just call it "Send", which implies nothing more than your sending some funds you selected.
347 2013-12-23 17:36:16 <wumpus> "Send with coin control"?
348 2013-12-23 17:36:24 <petertodd> wumpus: even better
349 2013-12-23 17:37:06 <petertodd> and ideally an advanced "receive" display would show every individual UTXO, which is easy to do with another layer
350 2013-12-23 17:37:14 <ThomasV> Luke-Jr: can you give me one practical example of something wrong miseducated users do because of "send from" wording?
351 2013-12-23 17:37:27 <petertodd> and that we can do with a master "Enable coin-control" checkbox
352 2013-12-23 17:37:41 <Luke-Jr> ThomasV: ask for a signed message from the "sending address" to prove you sent it
353 2013-12-23 17:38:04 <petertodd> Luke-Jr
354 2013-12-23 17:38:09 <Luke-Jr> "Resend coin received with" works against the misconception, since it reiterates that the address was used to receive
355 2013-12-23 17:38:56 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: FWIW I have a "stealth addresses" proposal that as a side-effect can be used to let you prove you sent a specific transaction, without being able to prove what UTXO was the soruce of the funds.
356 2013-12-23 17:39:33 <ThomasV> Luke-Jr: but that is reasonable, if you assume the transaction was created by a single person
357 2013-12-23 17:39:40 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: that sounds handy
358 2013-12-23 17:40:13 <Luke-Jr> ThomasV: that isn't a reasonable assumption
359 2013-12-23 17:40:28 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: yeah, it's a bit more blockchain data if I do it that way (the alternative method is zero-bloat) but I'm starting to think it's worth it
360 2013-12-23 17:40:29 <Luke-Jr> even if your coin is the only output, maybe I withdrew from MtGox
361 2013-12-23 17:40:30 <ThomasV> Luke-Jr: I agree that it is not always the case
362 2013-12-23 17:40:47 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: alternative?
363 2013-12-23 17:41:09 <Luke-Jr> ThomasV: it is often the case that *someone else* can sign a message with that address
364 2013-12-23 17:41:21 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: come to think of it the mechanism could also let you securely send coins from a third party who is *not* able to determine where you sent them, and they can't later claim to have sent them
365 2013-12-23 17:41:56 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: alternative is to re-use a pubkey from a scriptSig for the ECDH that stealth addresses depend on
366 2013-12-23 17:42:40 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: do these work without mastercoin?
367 2013-12-23 17:43:07 <ThomasV> Luke-Jr: if you withdrew from mtgox, then you cannot prove it was you who sent it, because it was not you...
368 2013-12-23 17:43:12 <Luke-Jr> ThomasV: it was me
369 2013-12-23 17:43:16 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: none of this has anything to do with mastercoin, although stealth addresses could be used in a msc tx too
370 2013-12-23 17:43:22 <ThomasV> no it was mtgox
371 2013-12-23 17:43:36 <Luke-Jr> ThomasV: it was my money, and I was the one who ordered the funds sent.
372 2013-12-23 17:43:40 <Luke-Jr> ThomasV: that is all that matters.
373 2013-12-23 17:43:40 <petertodd> ThomasV: technically mtgox, legally luke-jr
374 2013-12-23 17:44:15 <petertodd> ThomasV: read my "cut-thru-payments" proposal sometime too - the "originator" of the funds could very well be a mtgox *customer*
375 2013-12-23 17:44:30 <petertodd> ThomasV: or indeed, the customer of a mtgox customer...
376 2013-12-23 17:45:37 <ThomasV> ok, I understand, but I do not think that renaming a menu in electrum will magically simplify the way Bitcoin works.
377 2013-12-23 17:45:46 <Luke-Jr> ThomasV: if I cannot send my payment from my MtGox account to you and have it treated the same as if I used any other wallet, then you are not bitcoin-compatible ;)
378 2013-12-23 17:46:03 <petertodd> ThomasV: no it won't, but it may help us guide how new users think the system works
379 2013-12-23 17:46:40 <Luke-Jr> it avoids the users getting confused
380 2013-12-23 17:46:43 <ThomasV> petertodd: I always tried to make a client that is easier to use than bitcoin-qt. this involves some simplifications
381 2013-12-23 17:46:56 <Luke-Jr> "Resend coin received with" doesn't infer any relationship between the address and the transaction
382 2013-12-23 17:47:11 <Luke-Jr> ThomasV: "Send from" isn't simplification, it's just wrong
383 2013-12-23 17:47:54 <Luke-Jr> anyhow, really gtg now..
384 2013-12-23 17:47:59 <petertodd> same
385 2013-12-23 17:47:59 <ThomasV> Luke-Jr: it is not wrong. your mtgox example does not invalidate it, because it shows a scenario that is very different
386 2013-12-23 17:48:03 <petertodd> later
387 2013-12-23 17:48:13 <Luke-Jr> ThomasV: it's not very different. it's a bitcoin transaction.
388 2013-12-23 17:48:27 <ThomasV> ok, ttyl
389 2013-12-23 18:37:17 <deanclkclk> question re json-rpc bitcoind ..do I set the username and password in the header?
390 2013-12-23 18:37:24 <deanclkclk> the header request?
391 2013-12-23 18:39:37 <wumpus> deanclkclk: http basic authorization
392 2013-12-23 18:39:51 <upb> authentication* :)
393 2013-12-23 18:39:56 <upb> very different things
394 2013-12-23 18:40:15 <deanclkclk> how does that work wumpus upb ?
395 2013-12-23 18:40:19 <deanclkclk> is there any doc?
396 2013-12-23 18:40:33 <deanclkclk> is that as simple as setting the username and password in the header request?
397 2013-12-23 18:40:45 <upb> http://bit.ly/11klN88
398 2013-12-23 18:40:59 <wumpus> upb: the header is called Authorization, but sure, they're different things
399 2013-12-23 18:41:24 <wumpus> deanclkclk: it's documented in many places over the net, nothing bitcoin specific to it
400 2013-12-23 19:02:13 <gribble> Basic access authentication - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_access_authentication>; RFC 2617 - HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access ...: <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2617>; Authentication and Authorization - Apache HTTP Server: <http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/howto/auth.html>
401 2013-12-23 19:02:13 <michagogo> cloud|;;google http basic authentication
402 2013-12-23 19:02:19 <michagogo> cloud|deanclkclk: ^
403 2013-12-23 19:02:35 <deanclkclk> yeah thx folks. I found something
404 2013-12-23 19:42:14 <Anduckling> is this a valid transaction that should get included in any block? https://blockchain.info/tx/b9fea767f85bb60fe22b9ff961a0733d8a8fe895ea44b96c741eb80dfb8bef97
405 2013-12-23 19:43:15 <kaptah> too small fee, might not get included
406 2013-12-23 19:44:27 <tommygunner> wait for a lucky streak and it will
407 2013-12-23 19:46:59 <Apocalyptic> kaptah, it's not really about the fee
408 2013-12-23 19:47:02 <deanclkclk> what command can I run to test if bitcoind is running from my web app?
409 2013-12-23 19:47:21 <Apocalyptic> the size > 10k, not sure if it even passes the IsStandard() check
410 2013-12-23 19:48:24 <kaptah> Apocalyptic: if it wouldn't there wouldn't be network propagation
411 2013-12-23 19:48:29 <Matt_von_Mises> The satoshi client is sending an addr message which is 30003 bytes long. That message is reporting 1000 addresses. 1000 addresses wont fit in 30003 bytes. What is going on?
412 2013-12-23 20:25:45 <deanclkclk> folks..where is the datadir found again?..I am getting this error
413 2013-12-23 20:25:48 <deanclkclk> Error: Specified directory does not exist
414 2013-12-23 20:25:50 <deanclkclk> : Error initializing block database.
415 2013-12-23 20:25:51 <deanclkclk> Do you want to rebuild the block database now?
416 2013-12-23 20:50:15 <warren> ThomasV: to be clear, I signed petertodd after multiple methods, the video was not a major consideration