1 2014-02-18 02:38:19 <davvblack> Is there a list of low-priority things missing from the reference implementation that might be nice to have, but the core developers haven't had time to work on?
 2 2014-02-18 02:39:13 <CodeShark> what's the status on nonmalleable txid?
 3 2014-02-18 02:42:21 <jcorgan> davvblack: i'm not sure there is, but a good place to start is: what annoys *you* about bitcoind/qt?
 4 2014-02-18 02:42:49 <jcorgan> chances are if it annoys you, it annoys others, so that is fertile ground for low hanging fruit
 5 2014-02-18 02:43:39 <CodeShark> have we decided on a standard for nonmalleable tx hash?
 6 2014-02-18 02:45:13 <CodeShark> how do we deal with SIGHASH type?
 7 2014-02-18 02:46:09 <jcorgan> sipa has published a bip proposal for a long term evolution of the client to improve things
 8 2014-02-18 02:46:52 <Phoebus> ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool ? this is flooding, any ideas?
 9 2014-02-18 02:47:13 <jcorgan> https://gist.github.com/sipa/8907691
10 2014-02-18 02:48:07 <CodeShark> thanks
11 2014-02-18 02:49:03 <CodeShark> oh, that's to make transactions themselves immalleable - that's all good stuff, too - I was wondering about the possibility of an immalleable tx hash for the short term
12 2014-02-18 02:50:20 <jcorgan> i'm not sure what you are talking about to be honest
13 2014-02-18 02:52:16 <CodeShark> stripping transactions of scriptsigs
14 2014-02-18 02:52:18 <CodeShark> essentially
15 2014-02-18 02:52:21 <CodeShark> before hashing
16 2014-02-18 02:52:56 <davvblack> yeah, that makes so much more sense to me.
17 2014-02-18 02:52:57 <CodeShark> having two hashes per transaction - one used in the merkle trees for blocks, the other used as a fingerprint that is immalleable
18 2014-02-18 02:55:30 <CodeShark> basically, I'm working on an enterprise wallet and want to make sure that we have the maximal amount of interoperability
19 2014-02-18 03:01:01 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: the only non-malleable tx hash is a sPK hash
20 2014-02-18 03:01:21 <Luke-Jr> that is, a hash of the specific scriptPubKey for the output you want to track
21 2014-02-18 03:02:08 <CodeShark> right, it is unfortunate that we don't reference outpoints by such a hash
22 2014-02-18 03:05:04 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: we could
23 2014-02-18 03:05:19 <rusty78> Hey am looking to hire a JSON-RPC proficient programmer for a unique back-end implementation of a web wallet. If you're interested, PM me for more details.
24 2014-02-18 03:05:51 <CodeShark> Luke-Jr: you mean at the protocol level?
25 2014-02-18 03:06:07 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: no, that'd be a hardfork :<
26 2014-02-18 03:07:53 <CodeShark> outputs by themselves are not necessarily unique, though
27 2014-02-18 03:08:11 <gjs278> can't you just keep a transaction and reduce it from the wallet balance until the confirmations are done
28 2014-02-18 03:08:19 <gjs278> like store it in a wallet that may or may not be good to go
29 2014-02-18 03:08:22 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: unfortunately
30 2014-02-18 03:08:48 <CodeShark> we'd have to introduce either a nonce to the output or require all outputs to be unique
31 2014-02-18 03:11:05 <davvblack> Eh, that sounds awkward.
32 2014-02-18 03:12:47 <andytoshi> davvblack: nah, every tx i receive has a unique output
33 2014-02-18 03:14:24 <CodeShark> the requirement of unique outputs does place greater state tracking requirements on validation nodes
34 2014-02-18 03:14:45 <CodeShark> and might also break things like donation addresses
35 2014-02-18 03:15:24 <maaku> CodeShark: in theory solveable (steath addresses)
36 2014-02-18 03:15:36 <maaku> but it's a long way between here and there (and not particularly worth it imho)
37 2014-02-18 03:15:57 <CodeShark> right, the second issue is theoretically solvable…but in any case, we're talking about additional validation overhead
38 2014-02-18 03:16:13 <andytoshi> i should come up with a patch to make reused addresses nonstandard, i bet luke would use it
39 2014-02-18 03:19:32 <maaku> well if there's a address index that wouldn't be a bad thing
40 2014-02-18 03:19:54 <maaku> although it would break things like the sha256 bounties
41 2014-02-18 03:20:27 <CodeShark> we should stop thinking of transactions as state and instead think of them as state transitions - the utxo set, along with the block header tree, is the state
42 2014-02-18 03:21:56 <maaku> *stealth addresses are worth it, making key reuse non-standard or invalid, not so much
43 2014-02-18 03:31:30 <ajoul> paying someone 0.3BTC to set up a pool.
44 2014-02-18 03:31:52 <Luke-Jr> ajoul: stop spamming
45 2014-02-18 03:32:16 <ajoul> <Luke-Jr> I am not spamming I am spreading the word :)
46 2014-02-18 03:43:59 <maaku> ajoul: this is the wrong channel for that