1 2014-03-24 00:06:30 <zone117x> hey guys - I know this is off topic but is there any channel with altcoin dev discussion?
2 2014-03-24 00:06:44 <zone117x> I'd like to be able to detect if a coin support transaction messages.
3 2014-03-24 00:07:13 <zone117x> actually - this is kinda related to bitcoin. does anyone here know of a RPC call that will reveal whether transaction messages is supported?
4 2014-03-24 00:11:46 <Luke-Jr> zone117x: there is no such thing as transaction messages
5 2014-03-24 00:13:05 <dexX7> https://blockchain.info/tx/62c70bd98ef4e4cf5027b0dcfeccc522db296365c54ff3e1d8039900d303e784 what's wrong here with the input script? ;)
6 2014-03-24 00:14:00 <amstertran> what does the syntax look like for specifying a custom scriptPubKey ?
7 2014-03-24 00:17:12 <Luke-Jr> dexX7: is that mastercoin?
8 2014-03-24 00:17:21 <Luke-Jr> amstertran: uh, context?
9 2014-03-24 00:17:54 <dexX7> no, that's replacing the op_0 with data within a multisig tx
10 2014-03-24 00:18:16 <amstertran> any custom scriptpubkey. how can i just change the opcodes?
11 2014-03-24 00:22:00 <dexX7> "Due to a bug, one extra unused value is removed from the stack."
12 2014-03-24 00:38:45 <maaku> amstertran: what syntax? there is no json-rpc commands that allow you to specify the script directly
13 2014-03-24 00:39:35 <amstertran> so i can't call createrawtransaction and specify scriptpubkey somwhere with a set of opcodes?
14 2014-03-24 00:40:30 <amstertran> i thought .9 even allows you to do this with op_return now
15 2014-03-24 00:40:54 <maaku> amstertran: no, and please don't use op_return!
16 2014-03-24 00:41:00 <maaku> you can construct the transaction manually
17 2014-03-24 00:41:20 <amstertran> im not lol, but i thought you could specify your own opcodes
18 2014-03-24 00:41:25 <amstertran> is that wrong?
19 2014-03-24 00:41:40 <petertodd> amstertran: it is, you might find this helpful: https://github.com/petertodd/python-bitcoinlib
20 2014-03-24 00:41:56 <amstertran> ya i've been messing around with it
21 2014-03-24 00:42:05 <maaku> amstertran: no, they just take addresses as input
22 2014-03-24 00:42:08 <amstertran> but i had an issue serializing json
23 2014-03-24 00:42:17 <maaku> you'd have to construct the transaction yourself
24 2014-03-24 00:42:34 <maaku> why serialize json? you need hex
25 2014-03-24 00:42:42 <petertodd> amstertran: serializing json? that should be all done for you by the bitcoin.rpc module
26 2014-03-24 00:43:07 <amstertran> i think the serialize call takes json and spits out hex
27 2014-03-24 00:43:23 <amstertran> the deserialize function takes hex and spits out json
28 2014-03-24 00:43:31 <petertodd> amstertran: you mean CTransaction.serialize()? that spits out bytes
29 2014-03-24 00:43:33 <amstertran> that worked fine for me. but the other way broke
30 2014-03-24 00:44:01 <petertodd> amstertran: you atually don't need to serialize at all - you can just use proxy.sendrawtransaction(tx), where proxy = bitcoin.rpc.Proxy()
31 2014-03-24 00:44:07 <amstertran> oh crap. this isn't bitcoin pytools
32 2014-03-24 00:44:21 <petertodd> amstertran: lol, yeah, I mean python-bitcoinlib specifically
33 2014-03-24 00:44:25 <petertodd> amstertran: dunno about other libraries
34 2014-03-24 00:45:21 <amstertran> ok so then did i misunderstand what i kept reading about with .9 and op return?
35 2014-03-24 00:45:44 <amstertran> createraw doesn't actually do it for you?
36 2014-03-24 00:45:56 <maaku> amstertran: do what?
37 2014-03-24 00:46:01 <petertodd> amstertran: correct, createrawtransaction is a very specific tool that can only take addresses
38 2014-03-24 00:46:06 <petertodd> amstertran: you need something more low level than that
39 2014-03-24 00:46:12 <amstertran> allow you to specify op_return and then create a valid transaction
40 2014-03-24 00:46:51 <amstertran> ok so if i want to specify my own op codes i have to edit the json my self
41 2014-03-24 00:47:03 <petertodd> amstertran: no, not the json
42 2014-03-24 00:47:21 <petertodd> amstertran: there's no way in the RPC code to go from json -> a transaction
43 2014-03-24 00:47:41 <maaku> no json involved. use your favorite python lib to create the transaction and serialize as *bytes*
44 2014-03-24 00:48:02 <maaku> then pass those (hex encoded) bytes to signrawtransaction / sendrawtransaction
45 2014-03-24 00:48:02 <petertodd> amstertran: my advice is that you look at examples/spend-pay-to-script-hash-txout.py in python-bitcoinlib
46 2014-03-24 00:48:51 <petertodd> amstertran: or also, my dust-b-gone utility uses op_return: https://github.com/petertodd/dust-b-gone
47 2014-03-24 00:52:11 <amstertran> ok thanks. i'll take a look at the libs
48 2014-03-24 00:52:13 <dexX7> amstertran: if it's about creating op_return transactions this could help https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=453086.msg5302717#msg5302717
49 2014-03-24 00:53:30 <petertodd> dexX7: lol! yeah, I used to be good at hand-editing tx's in hex, but then I fixed up python-bitcoinlib :P
50 2014-03-24 00:55:18 <amstertran> dexX7: iteresting
51 2014-03-24 00:55:26 <amstertran> interesting*
52 2014-03-24 00:56:58 <Guest5337> hello
53 2014-03-24 00:58:44 <dexX7> hehe ty petertodd, using this tool probably saves a lot of time :)
54 2014-03-24 01:00:18 <petertodd> dexX7: thanks! still lots left to do, but I'm especially happy with how easy low-level tx creation is with it
55 2014-03-24 01:32:41 <Neozonz> Disc|is there anyway to match a txid/address against rpc listtransactions?
56 2014-03-24 02:11:38 <zveda> hi
57 2014-03-24 02:11:52 <zveda> when running bitcoin-qt with trickle -u30 I get this error:
58 2014-03-24 02:11:53 <zveda> bitcoin-qt: net.cpp:721: void SocketSendData(CNode*): Assertion `data.size() > pnode->nSendOffset' failed.
59 2014-03-24 02:11:54 <zveda> Aborted
60 2014-03-24 02:31:50 <Luke-Jr> zveda: what is "trickle -u30"?
61 2014-03-24 02:36:17 <zveda> thats a badnwidth limiting program in linux
62 2014-03-24 02:36:24 <zveda> limit upload speed to 30 Kb/s
63 2014-03-24 02:37:18 <zveda> Luke-Jr: I saw in some old posts on bitcointalk people recommending its use with bitcoin-qt
64 2014-03-24 02:38:55 <zveda> even if I turn off the uPnP option, bitcoin-qt is maxing out my upload speed
65 2014-03-24 02:39:16 <Apocalyptic> uPnP has nothing to do with upload speed
66 2014-03-24 02:40:16 <xdotcommer> "do not shut down the computer until this window dissapears"
67 2014-03-24 02:41:15 <xdotcommer> been stuck for 30 min
68 2014-03-24 02:41:24 <xdotcommer> mac os
69 2014-03-24 02:45:18 <zveda> Apocalyptic: but I only have 8 connections if I turn off upnp
70 2014-03-24 02:45:47 <Apocalyptic> zveda, that's because of your firewall
71 2014-03-24 02:46:07 <Apocalyptic> uPnP enables it to open the ports for incoming connections
72 2014-03-24 02:46:31 <kaptah> and thus allows more peers -> more bandwith usage
73 2014-03-24 02:49:36 <Luke-Jr> kaptah: not really
74 2014-03-24 02:49:50 <Luke-Jr> 1 peer is enough to max out bandwidth usage, just depends on *who* your peers are
75 2014-03-24 02:50:00 <Apocalyptic> ^
76 2014-03-24 02:50:23 <Luke-Jr> trickle sounds like a good idea, not sure why we break with it
77 2014-03-24 02:50:42 <zveda> even my voip won't work when bitcoin-qt is running :(
78 2014-03-24 02:51:18 <uiop> xdotcommer: "sudo halt" will sort you out (or just hold down power button)
79 2014-03-24 02:51:45 <Luke-Jr> zveda: decent routers will let you set QoS
80 2014-03-24 02:51:48 <uiop> xdotcommer: any more than a few minutes means it will likely never complete
81 2014-03-24 02:52:02 <Luke-Jr> QoS > speed limiting
82 2014-03-24 02:52:03 <uiop> xdotcommer: unless you have special knowledge that it will
83 2014-03-24 02:52:06 <kaptah> Luke-Jr: yes. but over time there seems to be correlation with more peers and constant higher bandwith usage :)
84 2014-03-24 02:52:10 <Apocalyptic> that's what you get for using mac
85 2014-03-24 02:52:20 <Luke-Jr> kaptah: higher bandwidth use is not a problem anyway
86 2014-03-24 02:52:32 <Luke-Jr> unless your ISP charges you per GB
87 2014-03-24 02:52:52 <uiop> xdotcommer: (i'm talking in general, i don't know what particular prog is deadlocked on your box)
88 2014-03-24 02:53:10 <zveda> Luke-Jr: ok will look into it thx
89 2014-03-24 02:53:27 <Ghaleon> how does one set the mining fee in bitcoinD ? can u set a default in the conf? can you set the mining fee for each transaction in 0.9.0 ?
90 2014-03-24 02:53:49 <zveda> kinda annoying tho. I only DL at 15 Kb/s but upload is maxed at 110 Kb/s
91 2014-03-24 02:53:55 <sipa> Ghaleon: for creation, relaying or mining?
92 2014-03-24 02:54:11 <sipa> zveda: disable incoming connections
93 2014-03-24 02:54:21 <Ghaleon> for sending folks bit coin from your bitcoind... so relaying i guess
94 2014-03-24 02:54:28 <zveda> sipa: how to do that?
95 2014-03-24 02:54:33 <Ghaleon> or do you mean transaction creation?
96 2014-03-24 02:54:37 <sipa> Ghaleon: that's creation
97 2014-03-24 02:54:45 <sipa> zveda: -nolisten
98 2014-03-24 02:54:55 <Ghaleon> ok, for creation please
99 2014-03-24 02:55:05 <zveda> sipa: thx
100 2014-03-24 02:56:22 <zveda> wth. even with -nolisten upload still maxed
101 2014-03-24 02:56:36 <zveda> o wait nvm
102 2014-03-24 02:58:09 <sipa> Ghaleon: start with -help; there is a settimg for that
103 2014-03-24 02:58:52 <sipa> Ghaleon: note that the default is 0 per kilobyte, but bitcoind will not allow creation of transactions that it would not relay itself
104 2014-03-24 03:03:45 <Ghaleon> yes thank you... is it possible to send 0.0001 BTC without any fee's ?
105 2014-03-24 03:04:26 <sipa> depends
106 2014-03-24 03:04:31 <xdotcommer> uiop: thanks
107 2014-03-24 03:04:47 <sipa> Ghaleon: depends on the size and age of the coins used
108 2014-03-24 04:12:48 <sipa> phantomcircuit: i have a branch that replaces all openssl ec crypto with libsecp256k1
109 2014-03-24 04:12:53 <phantomcircuit> sipa, is the serialization stuff for CPrivKey in key.h?
110 2014-03-24 04:12:56 <jgarzik> the annoying thing about dropping openssl (or any crypto lib) is that a bignum implementation remains a requirement, of script and ecdsa both
111 2014-03-24 04:12:58 <jgarzik> drop that, but still need gmp or whatnot
112 2014-03-24 04:13:07 <sipa> yeah
113 2014-03-24 04:13:23 <sipa> script can do withoit bignum
114 2014-03-24 04:13:25 <sipa> easily
115 2014-03-24 04:13:37 <sipa> but ec math and difficulty computations cant
116 2014-03-24 04:13:41 <phantomcircuit> typedef std::vector<unsigned char, secure_allocator<unsigned char> > CPrivKey;
117 2014-03-24 04:13:42 <jgarzik> really? I could have sworn there was a hard requirement buried somewhere.
118 2014-03-24 04:13:49 <jgarzik> ACTION reviews
119 2014-03-24 04:13:53 <phantomcircuit> wat
120 2014-03-24 04:13:59 <phantomcircuit> how could that possibly be so slow
121 2014-03-24 04:14:00 <sipa> jgarzik: it only does 32-bit arithmetic anymore
122 2014-03-24 04:14:18 <sipa> phantomcircuit: that makes no sense
123 2014-03-24 04:14:36 <phantomcircuit> ACTION double checks performance counters
124 2014-03-24 04:16:05 <phantomcircuit> i'll make this more granular
125 2014-03-24 04:16:46 <jgarzik> sipa, OP_ADD, OP_1ADD etc. appear to support it in theory?
126 2014-03-24 04:17:32 <jgarzik> sipa, they appear to be value neutral, and perform operations purely in bignum
127 2014-03-24 04:17:40 <jgarzik> value-size-neutral
128 2014-03-24 04:17:47 <phantomcircuit> blargh why cant performance tools operate on a line of code basis
129 2014-03-24 04:17:48 <phantomcircuit> :/
130 2014-03-24 04:18:07 <sipa> jgarzik: arithmetic operators do not on >4 byte values
131 2014-03-24 04:18:20 <sipa> *operate
132 2014-03-24 04:18:58 <jgarzik> sipa, where is that enforced/implied?
133 2014-03-24 04:19:08 <sipa> can't remember
134 2014-03-24 04:19:48 <sipa> jgarzik: CastToBignum
135 2014-03-24 04:20:40 <phantomcircuit> sipa, i stand corrected
136 2014-03-24 04:20:45 <phantomcircuit> it's the CKey constructor
137 2014-03-24 04:21:10 <sipa> phantomcircuit: oh lol
138 2014-03-24 04:21:21 <phantomcircuit> i had them in the same block
139 2014-03-24 04:21:35 <phantomcircuit> i assumed incorrectly they wouldn't matter...
140 2014-03-24 04:21:44 <jgarzik> sipa, hah! I implemented that code twice, but do not recall ever knowing that fact.
141 2014-03-24 04:22:06 <phantomcircuit> }
142 2014-03-24 04:22:06 <phantomcircuit> CKey() : fValid(false) {
143 2014-03-24 04:22:06 <phantomcircuit> LockObject(vch);
144 2014-03-24 04:22:06 <phantomcircuit> sipa, // Construct an invalid private key.
145 2014-03-24 04:22:10 <phantomcircuit> wat
146 2014-03-24 04:22:30 <sipa> jgarzik: another reasoin why reimplementing consensus critical code is a bad idea :)
147 2014-03-24 04:22:55 <sipa> phantomcircuit: LockObject prevents it from being swapped out
148 2014-03-24 04:23:15 <phantomcircuit> sipa, it calls mlock or whatever?
149 2014-03-24 04:23:20 <sipa> yes
150 2014-03-24 04:24:21 <jgarzik> sipa, interesting that CastToBigNum() does not exist in v0.1.5
151 2014-03-24 04:24:43 <sipa> jgarzik: that 32-bit arith restriction was added later
152 2014-03-24 04:24:59 <sipa> dos protection, i guess
153 2014-03-24 04:25:12 <sipa> together with disabling some more expensive operators
154 2014-03-24 04:25:25 <phantomcircuit> sipa, CKey key nsec=47780176
155 2014-03-24 04:25:34 <sipa> cool
156 2014-03-24 04:25:45 <phantomcircuit> 0.47780176 ms per CKey constructor
157 2014-03-24 04:25:49 <phantomcircuit> that seems a big much
158 2014-03-24 04:26:02 <phantomcircuit> i wonder if the boost::call_once implementation is horribly broken or something
159 2014-03-24 04:26:13 <sipa> eh?
160 2014-03-24 04:26:18 <sipa> where is that used
161 2014-03-24 04:26:34 <phantomcircuit> sipa, LockOject in allocators.h
162 2014-03-24 04:26:39 <sipa> also, 47M nsec = 47ms
163 2014-03-24 04:26:53 <phantomcircuit> sipa, it's per 100 iterations :P
164 2014-03-24 04:27:00 <sipa> ok
165 2014-03-24 04:27:04 <sipa> oof
166 2014-03-24 04:27:35 <jgarzik> CastToBigNum() is in 0.3.24. Too lazy to bisect further. "added by satoshi in early days"
167 2014-03-24 04:27:48 <sipa> i don't really care about private key performance
168 2014-03-24 04:27:58 <sipa> you only need it for signing anyway
169 2014-03-24 04:28:24 <sipa> and if you don't want to load them in memory all at once on startup you need encryption anyway
170 2014-03-24 04:29:24 <sipa> jgarzik: yeah, at this point, arithmetic is essentially restricted to 32-bit inputs
171 2014-03-24 04:29:28 <jgarzik> It would be interesting to rip out CBigNum() from script then :)
172 2014-03-24 04:29:35 <sipa> absolutrly
173 2014-03-24 04:29:45 <sipa> i've wanted to do so for a long time
174 2014-03-24 04:30:04 <sipa> note: you can have >32 bit outputs
175 2014-03-24 04:30:44 <sipa> ACTION hates biological clocks
176 2014-03-24 04:31:05 <sipa> it's 5:30am, been awake for a few hours now
177 2014-03-24 04:31:12 <jgarzik> sipa, seems to nicely fit within a 64-bit integer, which is far better than a bignum
178 2014-03-24 04:31:33 <sipa> jgarzik: does OP_MUL still exist?
179 2014-03-24 04:32:10 <jgarzik> sipa, no
180 2014-03-24 04:32:57 <sipa> good
181 2014-03-24 04:33:16 <sipa> yeah, int64 can perfwectly replace cbignum
182 2014-03-24 04:33:36 <sipa> it has some weird encoding though (explicit sign bit!)
183 2014-03-24 04:34:12 <sipa> 0x80000001 = -1
184 2014-03-24 04:37:19 <petertodd> sipa: what's the issue with OP_MUL? (I mean, is we decide to bring it back, how should it be designed?)
185 2014-03-24 04:38:42 <sipa> petertodd: oh, i know of no use case for it; perhaps a restricted version can be in a script 2.0
186 2014-03-24 04:39:14 <sipa> petertodd: the reason i bring it up is because it might push us over other 32-bit arithmertic restrictions
187 2014-03-24 04:39:38 <petertodd> sipa: seems the most likely use-cases would be relatively small integers; i suspect overflow would be the most likely source of consensus bugs
188 2014-03-24 04:40:03 <sipa> well, roght now opmul just does not exist
189 2014-03-24 04:40:24 <sipa> if we bring it back, it can be very well defijed (and i agree, limited in size)
190 2014-03-24 04:40:30 <petertodd> sipa: yup
191 2014-03-24 04:41:21 <jgarzik> sipa, seems like the problem wants a ScriptBigNum, which is wraps int64_t with all the encoding helper
192 2014-03-24 04:41:26 <jgarzik> *which wraps
193 2014-03-24 04:41:35 <jgarzik> *helpers. Gah, should sleep.
194 2014-03-24 04:42:39 <phantomcircuit> sipa, something tells me this page locking memory manage is not exactly performance sensitive
195 2014-03-24 04:43:00 <phantomcircuit> or rather it is but it is slow
196 2014-03-24 04:54:09 <sipa> phantomcircuit: if we need it for somethimg performance critical, somethimg is wrong :)
197 2014-03-24 04:59:28 <Luke-Jr> draft 0.8.7rc1 release notes http://codepad.org/imXcdbYn (commit list: http://codepad.org/5WdDVKbz )
198 2014-03-24 05:00:29 <jgarzik> sipa, heh, sorely tempted to make this code endian-neutral at the same time
199 2014-03-24 05:01:15 <jgarzik> ACTION wants to one day build bitcoind on big endian and have it Just Work
200 2014-03-24 05:01:47 <phantomcircuit> does anybody know if --enable-debug enabled gprof?
201 2014-03-24 05:01:53 <phantomcircuit> im guessing no
202 2014-03-24 05:05:20 <sipa> jgarzik: yes, please!
203 2014-03-24 05:05:45 <sipa> jgarzik: though there is architecture dependency all over the place
204 2014-03-24 05:05:55 <jgarzik> sipa, yes
205 2014-03-24 05:06:01 <phantomcircuit> hah tried to run bitcoin-qt in valgrind with callgraph tool
206 2014-03-24 05:06:03 <jgarzik> sipa, one step at a time...
207 2014-03-24 05:06:09 <phantomcircuit> ten years later...
208 2014-03-24 05:06:11 <jgarzik> sipa, serialization, networking, ...
209 2014-03-24 05:06:24 <sipa> jgarzik: minimg
210 2014-03-24 05:07:49 <phantomcircuit> oh god the mining protocols
211 2014-03-24 05:08:02 <phantomcircuit> why the fuck is the prev block hash in midstate format in strtum
212 2014-03-24 05:08:04 <phantomcircuit> WHY
213 2014-03-24 05:09:01 <phantomcircuit> sipa, still loading leveldb
214 2014-03-24 05:09:03 <phantomcircuit> :(
215 2014-03-24 05:10:46 <sipa> ha:
216 2014-03-24 05:10:48 <sipa> 06:06:02 < jgarzik> sipa, one step at a time...
217 2014-03-24 05:10:49 <sipa> 06:06:08 < phantomcircuit> ten years later...
218 2014-03-24 05:11:46 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit, because stupid is enshrined by popularity, then copied
219 2014-03-24 05:13:44 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, :(
220 2014-03-24 05:23:55 <phantomcircuit> hmm
221 2014-03-24 06:03:34 <phantomcircuit> this is much better
222 2014-03-24 06:03:37 <phantomcircuit> cpu perf counters
223 2014-03-24 06:03:38 <phantomcircuit> <3
224 2014-03-24 06:16:30 <michagogo> cloud|Luke-Jr: hm, does 0.8.7 still use wine in the dependency build process?
225 2014-03-24 06:16:46 <Luke-Jr> michagogo|cloud: if 0.8.6 did
226 2014-03-24 06:17:11 <michagogo> cloud|Luke-Jr: I don't remember :-/
227 2014-03-24 06:17:54 <Luke-Jr> michagogo|cloud: I see wine in the gitian deps, but I don't see anything actually using it O.o
228 2014-03-24 06:18:26 <michagogo> cloud|Luke-Jr: I don't remember exactly whatit was
229 2014-03-24 06:18:52 <michagogo> cloud|There was something that was replaced by, er, maybe a few `sed`s or something?
230 2014-03-24 06:19:17 <michagogo> cloud|Something having to do with UPNP maybe? It's been a whole
231 2014-03-24 06:19:20 <michagogo> cloud|While*
232 2014-03-24 06:19:22 <Luke-Jr> michagogo|cloud: miniupnpc, to generate OS info..
233 2014-03-24 06:19:29 <Luke-Jr> it was totally stupid
234 2014-03-24 06:19:38 <michagogo> cloud|The annoying thing is that lxc can't build that
235 2014-03-24 06:19:42 <Luke-Jr> O.o
236 2014-03-24 06:20:00 <michagogo> cloud|Because it's a kernel something-or-other
237 2014-03-24 06:20:10 <michagogo> cloud|And lxc doesn't have it's own
238 2014-03-24 06:39:31 <phantomcircuit> sipa, hmm right i remember this
239 2014-03-24 06:39:53 <phantomcircuit> the better solution is to create a new "key" type that stores the raw byte array
240 2014-03-24 06:40:03 <phantomcircuit> but that sounded like actual work so i didn't do it
241 2014-03-24 07:08:43 <Luke-Jr> michagogo|cloud: WINE doesn't do anything special at the kernel
242 2014-03-24 07:28:32 <michagogo> cloud|Luke-Jr: hm, I found the change at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3042/files
243 2014-03-24 07:28:58 <michagogo> cloud|I don't know where the discussion and troubleshooting that lead to that was
244 2014-03-24 07:37:56 <phantomcircuit> sipa, ha... this is calling mlock thousands of times in a tight loop
245 2014-03-24 07:37:58 <dexX7> i was wondering about the ratio of all multisig outputs related to xcp and msc -> http://i.imgur.com/bBSYBwh.png data is about one hour old
246 2014-03-24 07:39:03 <phantomcircuit> dexX7, lol that is hilarious
247 2014-03-24 07:40:32 <dexX7> the more interesting question now is: what are those 99 %+ other multisig outputs used for? if you have any idea how to evaluate this please tell
248 2014-03-24 07:50:36 <phantomcircuit> sipa, 10k keys -> 50k calls to LockedPageManagerBase::LockRange, 20k calls to MemoryPageLocker::Lock -> 20k calls to mlock
249 2014-03-24 08:19:36 <michagogo> cloud|Luke-Jr: I just looked up the logs from September
250 2014-03-24 08:21:31 <michagogo> cloud|Luke-Jr: Wine wouldn't install or work or something in lxc, because it requires binfmt-support, which couldn't install because it uses a kernel module
251 2014-03-24 08:28:05 <jouke> michagogo|cloud: I am struggling with the gitian howto, I am unsure what the choices are and when it is just a next step
252 2014-03-24 08:31:54 <jouke> michagogo|cloud: so I made two base-vms, but the next step is "setup". I don't know what to do to manualy create those steps.
253 2014-03-24 08:33:20 <Luke-Jr> michagogo|cloud: aha, lol.
254 2014-03-24 08:33:33 <Luke-Jr> michagogo|cloud: anyhow, the WINE approach produced totally wrong information XD
255 2014-03-24 08:41:19 <michagogo> cloud|jouke: when you say "the gitian howto",
256 2014-03-24 08:41:28 <michagogo> cloud|Which document exactly do you mean?
257 2014-03-24 08:46:55 <michagogo> cloud|jouke: do you mean https://github.com/devrandom/gitian-builder/blob/master/README.md?
258 2014-03-24 08:47:08 <michagogo> cloud|Setup there is a sub-heading of virtualbox
259 2014-03-24 08:47:56 <michagogo> cloud|After the make-base-vm steps (and exporting the variable if you're using lxc), go to the sanity testing stage
260 2014-03-24 08:48:15 <michagogo> cloud|If the sanity test passes, move on to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/release-process.md
261 2014-03-24 09:08:35 <fanquake> ;;blocks
262 2014-03-24 09:08:35 <gribble> 292194
263 2014-03-24 09:27:00 <AmThatsMe> hi everyone !
264 2014-03-24 09:29:09 <AmThatsMe> did anyone encountered a problem when running listtransactions.py tests (without the cache directory previously created) that after initialisation it cannot start the tests because the bitcoind daemon has not yet shutdown ?
265 2014-03-24 09:29:18 <AmThatsMe> "Unable to bind to 0.0.0.0:11000 on this computer. Bitcoin Core Daemon is probably already running."
266 2014-03-24 09:33:18 <wumpus> AmThatsMe: yes, can you test with https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3863 ?
267 2014-03-24 09:33:39 <wumpus> it has a change to avoid bitcoind shutdown being stuck on open RPC connections
268 2014-03-24 09:37:44 <AmThatsMe> wumpus: thanks ! i will use gavin's fix
269 2014-03-24 09:44:41 <wumpus> AmThatsMe: please ACK it if it works :)
270 2014-03-24 10:16:39 <AmThatsMe> wumpus: sure, no problem :)
271 2014-03-24 10:27:21 <runeks> sipa: Just came across this blog post about implementing an ECDSA signature system that is impervious to timing attacks: http://blog.cr.yp.to/20140323-ecdsa.html I remember you talking about doing this was the hard part about writing the secp256k1 library, so I thought you might find the article interesting.
272 2014-03-24 10:35:08 <sipa> phantomcircuit: if you are loading thousands of keys in a tight loop, then yes, you'll needs thousands of mlocks... use an encrypted wallet if you don't want that
273 2014-03-24 10:49:25 <darsie> morgen
274 2014-03-24 10:52:01 <sipa> phantomcircuit: so don't load 10k keys :)
275 2014-03-24 11:13:07 <wumpus> phantomcircuit: yes the current setup is not ideal, it would be better to use an 'mlocked pool' instead of locking pages returned from the OS allocator, overall locked memory usage would likely also go down by tighter packing
276 2014-03-24 11:16:29 <wumpus> phantomcircuit: but back in the day I looked at that, none of the immediately available pool implementations (such as boost pool) were aquedate as they assume fixed-size objects (and we need <char> arrays for SecureString), and I didn't feel good about using a hand-rolled memory allocation solution
277 2014-03-24 11:51:29 <sipa> wumpus: IF the only thing being mlocked is private keys, they could be turned into static objects?
278 2014-03-24 11:51:42 <sipa> without own dynamic allocation, i mean
279 2014-03-24 12:13:32 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
280 2014-03-24 12:13:32 <michagogo> cloud|;;later tell BlueMatt Was raring intentionally omitted?
281 2014-03-24 12:35:50 <epscy> michagogo|cloud: i'm on raring too
282 2014-03-24 12:35:59 <epscy> michagogo|cloud: and don't have 0.9 yet
283 2014-03-24 12:36:01 <michagogo> cloud|epscy: Hm?
284 2014-03-24 12:36:15 <michagogo> cloud|It's not that I'm on raring, I just saw the ppa page on LP
285 2014-03-24 12:36:21 <epscy> oh right
286 2014-03-24 12:36:46 <epscy> maybe i should dist-upgrade, something always breaks though...
287 2014-03-24 12:37:38 <wumpus> sipa: I'm not sure what you mean, there are various things being mlocked, see usage of secure_allocator
288 2014-03-24 12:39:28 <wumpus> allocating keys as static objects would effectively be a limited-size pool
289 2014-03-24 12:39:43 <sipa> wumpus: ok
290 2014-03-24 12:39:56 <wumpus> SecureString for example for passphrases
291 2014-03-24 12:40:17 <wumpus> in any case if the pool has a static size, it will outgrow it after a certain number of keys, which is not nice
292 2014-03-24 12:43:22 <sipa> vlist allocation, maybe?
293 2014-03-24 12:43:53 <sipa> (liked list of exponentially-increasing size vectors)
294 2014-03-24 12:44:29 <wumpus> yes, something like that would be useful (but it goes into the "hand-rolled memory allocation solution" which I'm a bit wary about)
295 2014-03-24 12:45:39 <wumpus> but if carefully tested that would be a good approach
296 2014-03-24 12:53:55 <gavinandresen> sipa: thanks for comments on https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/9603614 . I still think it might be a good approach, if the set of known transaction ids can be synchronized. I'm thinking good use of the 'reject' message would help (e.g. evict txn from mempool, send 'reject' to all your peers)
297 2014-03-24 13:09:03 <sipa> gavinandresen: there's always going to be some lag (the reject message being in flight in way one, a block in flight the other way), which will cause an extra round trip still
298 2014-03-24 13:09:38 <gavinandresen> sipa: right, but if we can get a 90+% "hit rate" then we should win (because of exponential block propagation)
299 2014-03-24 13:09:53 <gavinandresen> ⦠where "hit" == does not require a round-trip
300 2014-03-24 13:10:43 <sipa> gavinandresen: perhaps yes, but i don't like focusing on average case without improving the worst case (just in general, perhaps not here)
301 2014-03-24 13:11:57 <gavinandresen> hearn: I've been busy working on your transaction fee estimate code; I like the RPC interface much better, but it is taking a LONG time to get reasonable estimates out of it. I'm going to try a variation to see if I can get faster convergenceâ¦.
302 2014-03-24 13:12:03 <hearn> heya
303 2014-03-24 13:12:04 <hearn> hmm
304 2014-03-24 13:12:27 <hearn> ok. i found it stabilised fairly quickly and even after weeks the estimates didn't change much - but since then the network may have changed (in particular mt gox vanished)
305 2014-03-24 13:12:40 <sipa> gavinandresen: i think it's easier to just get a 2-phase protocol possible at some point and optimized, and use it in case you detect a high-latency link (we have automated ping!)
306 2014-03-24 13:12:50 <gavinandresen> hearn: what was "fairly quickly" ? An hour? day?
307 2014-03-24 13:12:57 <sipa> sorry, low latency link
308 2014-03-24 13:12:59 <hearn> i'm trying to remember. i feel like it was hours.
309 2014-03-24 13:13:17 <hearn> because i was testing it at home on my laptop and remember feeling happy with the outputs after a while and then thinking more data didn't seem to change things much
310 2014-03-24 13:13:20 <gavinandresen> hearn: ok, that's not too far off from what I'm seeing.
311 2014-03-24 13:13:38 <hearn> partly because the buckets ended up very sparse. most transactions confirm immediately so the first few buckets filled up really fast and then the medians didn't change much
312 2014-03-24 13:13:45 <hearn> ah ok. so we have different definitions of long time :)
313 2014-03-24 13:13:51 <hearn> how fast do you want it to converge?
314 2014-03-24 13:14:25 <gavinandresen> hearn: ideally you'd get rough estimates in just two or three blocks
315 2014-03-24 13:14:28 <hearn> gavinandresen: isn't there already a setKnown? mapAlreadySeen or something?
316 2014-03-24 13:14:39 <gavinandresen> hearn: yes....
317 2014-03-24 13:14:40 <sipa> yes
318 2014-03-24 13:15:10 <hearn> ok
319 2014-03-24 13:15:34 <hearn> i was thinking a node could just rely on polling its peers for an average like SPV clients will, until it's got enough data to rely on itself
320 2014-03-24 13:15:38 <gavinandresen> By the way: results of running estimate code over the weekend, priority and then fees: http://0bin.net/paste/Qfrd8lqVu+2+41bq#WWIWkXv1qv+ZNwCNVrwNyMs4RHFzz41elQZkWYnBvp0=
321 2014-03-24 13:16:32 <hearn> what does the blockcount-less version of estimatefee estimate again?
322 2014-03-24 13:16:33 <hearn> i forgot
323 2014-03-24 13:16:42 <gavinandresen> 0.00044248 BTC per kilobyte corresponds to our default 0.0001 per transaction (average transaction size is about 250 bytes)
324 2014-03-24 13:17:37 <gavinandresen> ⦠so we're definitely seeing transaction confirmation times on the rise. And default for "high" priority is way off, too
325 2014-03-24 13:18:08 <hearn> how do you mean, we're seeing them rise?
326 2014-03-24 13:18:19 <hearn> seems like the data is saying if you pay the default fee, you get confirmed pretty fst
327 2014-03-24 13:18:21 <hearn> *fast
328 2014-03-24 13:18:42 <gavinandresen> hearn: ⦠if by pretty fast you mean within the net eight blocks
329 2014-03-24 13:19:46 <gavinandresen> err, next eight blocks. almost 90 minutes for first confirm is pretty slow in my head
330 2014-03-24 13:19:48 <hearn> can you dump the size of the buckets as well? because all it says is that right now, confirmation times vary but mostly people pay the same fee
331 2014-03-24 13:20:06 <hearn> i mean, if there were 10 transactions that took a while to confirm because they relied on a free tx, for instance, then it'd show that sort of pattern too
332 2014-03-24 13:20:06 <sipa> gavinandresen: better than 90 days (for credit cards) :)
333 2014-03-24 13:20:22 <hearn> and the only giveaway would be that there's fewer samples for longer periods, which is what i was seeing
334 2014-03-24 13:20:50 <gavinandresen> hearn: lemme see if I can attach a debugger and dump the bucket sizes....
335 2014-03-24 13:20:55 <hearn> i think the logging code does it
336 2014-03-24 13:21:10 <hearn> or at least it did in my branch. that's how i produced the output in my threads. but a debugger should work too.
337 2014-03-24 13:21:37 <gavinandresen> hearn: mmm⦠I forgot to run with debug=estimatefee ...
338 2014-03-24 13:22:16 <hearn> google binaries have the ability to flip command line flags at runtime. it'd be good to have a "changeflag" rpc
339 2014-03-24 13:22:37 <sipa> using a decent command-line flag library in the first place would be a good idea :)
340 2014-03-24 13:23:07 <gavinandresen> hearn: yes, I've come THIS close to adding changeflag/getflag RPC commands a few times....
341 2014-03-24 13:23:19 <sipa> so we'd have a "warning: flag X not recognized" at least...
342 2014-03-24 13:23:26 <hearn> sipa: googleflags is open source, right? :)
343 2014-03-24 13:23:35 <sipa> hearn: hmm, it is? :)
344 2014-03-24 13:23:44 <hearn> https://code.google.com/p/gflags/
345 2014-03-24 13:24:19 <hearn> https://gflags.googlecode.com/git-history/master/doc/gflags.html
346 2014-03-24 13:24:32 <hearn> not that i'd welcome the return of --flags_with_underscores
347 2014-03-24 13:24:42 <hearn> that never stopped being ugly even after 7 years
348 2014-03-24 13:25:37 <hearn> everything else rocks though. especially running --help, watching cpu hit 100% for a few seconds and then discovering the first set of flags has disappeared from your scrollback buffer :) it makes defining flags almost too easy ....
349 2014-03-24 13:31:19 <hearn> gavinandresen: i was thinking, if/when we do sipas tx malleability tx version=3 change, we should include the "output value in input slot when signing" change proposed by alan. because if we had that, SPV clients could estimate tx fees themselves without needing to just ask their peers and hope for the best
350 2014-03-24 13:32:06 <hearn> because we could extend the p2p protocol with a new getdata mode that returns tx + utxo data. by verifying the signatures the utxo data can be verified as correct and the fee calculated. then SPV clients can keep around their bloom filter false positives, instead of throwing them away as today
351 2014-03-24 13:32:13 <gavinandresen> hearn: is output value in input slot written up formally anywhere?
352 2014-03-24 13:32:59 <hearn> by grabbing some false positives that are broadcast across the network and storing them to disk, they can then include them in their filters when syncing with the chain and discover how long they took to confirm
353 2014-03-24 13:33:20 <hearn> hmmm. don't recall. it's a pretty simple change. it's on the forum at least. but yeah it should be a draft BIP i guess
354 2014-03-24 13:34:02 <hearn> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181734.0
355 2014-03-24 13:34:16 <hearn> i don't think we need a new SIGHASH mode though. it can just be the default for v3 txns
356 2014-03-24 13:34:25 <hearn> it also helps trezor, etc
357 2014-03-24 13:36:08 <gavinandresen> hearn: "be the default" : you mean signatures for v3 transactions would include the total amount in? That's a hard-forking change...
358 2014-03-24 13:37:56 <hearn> yes, <insert usual hard/soft fork debate here>
359 2014-03-24 13:38:14 <michagogo> cloud|gavinandresen: did you see the pgp thing?
360 2014-03-24 13:38:17 <michagogo> cloud|Was that you?
361 2014-03-24 13:38:19 <hearn> (the one in which i argue that soft forks are bugs etc etc)
362 2014-03-24 13:38:54 <gavinandresen> michagogo|cloud: no, somebody else submitted a bunch of bogus PGP keys. Which is great, meant I didn't have to bother doing it.
363 2014-03-24 13:39:13 <michagogo> cloud|o_O
364 2014-03-24 13:39:16 <hearn> haha
365 2014-03-24 13:39:25 <hearn> one more item ticked off the to-do list :)
366 2014-03-24 13:39:33 <michagogo> cloud|I guess that makes more sense... wouldn't have thought you'd sign your real key with the bogus ones
367 2014-03-24 13:52:27 <gavinandresen> frickin frackinâ¦. I want both to compile with both debugging and -DDEBUG_LOCKORDER : --enable-debug and CXXFLAGS=-DDEBUG_LOCKORDER doesn't do the right thing. What is the best way to tell configure I want -g and -DDEBUG_LOCKORDER ?
368 2014-03-24 13:54:06 <hearn> CXXFLAGS='-g -DDEBUG_LOCKORDER' probably
369 2014-03-24 13:56:59 <gavinandresen> hearn: that what I assumed, but thought there might be an EXTRA_SPECIAL_REALLY_WORKS_CXXFLAGS that combines nicely with --enable-debug ....
370 2014-03-24 13:57:49 <hearn> i recall looking into this some time ago and failing to find such a thing. it seems such a basic need though ...
371 2014-03-24 13:58:07 <gavinandresen> cfields : any way to add flags to --enable-debug ?
372 2014-03-24 13:59:41 <jgarzik> gavinandresen, easily
373 2014-03-24 13:59:56 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: it is always easy when you know how!
374 2014-03-24 13:59:56 <jgarzik> gavinandresen, just change "if test "x$enable_debug" = xyes; then" e.g. to parse the values in shell script
375 2014-03-24 14:00:38 <jgarzik> gavinandresen, though parsing something like "--enable-debug=foo+bar+baz" to enable flags foo, bar and baz can be slightly annoying in shell script
376 2014-03-24 14:01:02 <gavinandresen> â¦. mmm. I'm going to avoid --enable-debug for now and just use CXXFLAGS
377 2014-03-24 14:01:38 <jgarzik> gavinandresen, if CXXFLAGS is overriden _and_ --enable-debug is absent, it should take what you provide verbatim and not mess with it
378 2014-03-24 14:03:37 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: yes, that is what it does. I'm just grumpy because I spent 20 minutes trying to figure out why I couldn't get lldb to show me anything besides assembly when I CLEARLY said --enable-debug ....
379 2014-03-24 14:04:45 <gavinandresen> And it is Monday, and my daughter is home with a fever and I'm scheduled to drive to New Jersey in a blizzard tomorrow nightâ¦. (grump grump grump)
380 2014-03-24 14:05:32 <jgarzik> gavinandresen, people drive, in the north-east? :)
381 2014-03-24 14:16:32 <hearn> gavinandresen: if it's any consolation, i'm currently filling out my tax return (in german)
382 2014-03-24 14:16:41 <hearn> so life could be worse ;)
383 2014-03-24 14:19:40 <Ry4an_> we're getting a blizzard?!
384 2014-03-24 14:42:53 <anddam> hello
385 2014-03-24 14:46:14 <hearn> ACTION stabs Congress
386 2014-03-24 14:46:23 <hearn> i hate how america isn't content with complexifying their own tax returns, and has to dick with mine too
387 2014-03-24 14:46:27 <hearn> grr
388 2014-03-24 14:47:35 <anddam> hearn: are you not in USA?
389 2014-03-24 14:47:58 <hearn> i am not
390 2014-03-24 14:48:35 <hearn> (and never have been)
391 2014-03-24 14:49:30 <anddam> how does Congress affects your tax return?
392 2014-03-24 14:49:35 <anddam> affect*
393 2014-03-24 14:52:29 <hearn> part of my tax return is filling out forms asserting i'm not a US citizen, in order to reclaim withholding taxes. and i have to list out the various investments/assets and whether US withholding tax applies to each one, etc. all part of FATCA i guess. most of it's just copying from bank provided documentation but it's still annoying.
394 2014-03-24 14:53:54 <BCB> gmaxwell,
395 2014-03-24 14:56:14 <nezZario> You guys should sponsor gsoc next year..
396 2014-03-24 15:02:04 <anddam> nezZario: isn't it the opposite?
397 2014-03-24 15:30:29 <nezZario> anddam: what's the opposite?
398 2014-03-24 15:30:41 <sipa> nezZario: google sponsoring a bitcoin gsoc project
399 2014-03-24 15:30:47 <nezZario> i thought the projects paid part of it
400 2014-03-24 15:30:56 <nezZario> i'm pretty sure the netbsd guys paid part of it last year?
401 2014-03-24 15:31:06 <nezZario> maybe i'm very wrong,.. if so, my bad
402 2014-03-24 15:31:08 <sipa> google pays the project and the student
403 2014-03-24 15:44:12 <anddam> nezZario: not that I know
404 2014-03-24 15:44:58 <anddam> it's a win-win-win situation
405 2014-03-24 15:45:19 <anddam> the student gets paid, the project gets paid, Google haz a little more of you
406 2014-03-24 15:46:03 <anddam> I'm building 0.9.0 for the third time, I could run target all fine, when I added "all appbundle" it returned an error
407 2014-03-24 15:50:51 <gavinandresen> anddam : using macports or brew or home-built dependencies ?
408 2014-03-24 15:51:54 <anddam> gavinandresen: macports
409 2014-03-24 15:52:10 <gavinandresen> anddam : I'm using brew, have the coreutils installed and first in my path, and this is what make appbundle says for me: http://0bin.net/paste/cQzVNalcwrnkIt3A#7yqIlcJTRJzhwmBjpOS+iAFyy2msh+I85p6WstWiMD4=
410 2014-03-24 15:52:13 <anddam> gavinandresen: I read you were doing the builds and signed dmgs for OSX target
411 2014-03-24 15:52:20 <anddam> I was going to query you eventually :-)
412 2014-03-24 15:52:59 <anddam> I built all fine, then manually ran "make appbundle" and it built the bundle
413 2014-03-24 15:53:25 <anddam> then I edited the Portfile to do all at once and got an error, now I cleaned so I don't have the error
414 2014-03-24 15:53:41 <anddam> but give me a couple minutes and I'll bake a fresh new error for you
415 2014-03-24 15:53:43 <gavinandresen> oh, but 'make all appbundle' doesn't work? Dependency problem, I think I've run into that before. File an issue at github.
416 2014-03-24 15:54:04 <anddam> seems so, but I want to already reproduce once
417 2014-03-24 15:54:04 <gavinandresen> workaround would be make all; make appbundle as two separate steps, of course
418 2014-03-24 15:54:12 <anddam> oh the build just broke
419 2014-03-24 15:54:23 <anddam> I'm curious about why that happens tho'
420 2014-03-24 15:54:37 <anddam> damn it built fine
421 2014-03-24 15:54:46 <gavinandresen> race condition during build, probably
422 2014-03-24 15:55:03 <anddam> I'll force build jobs to 1
423 2014-03-24 15:55:49 <anddam> every make race condition enjoys a single-runner condition
424 2014-03-24 15:56:50 <anddam> here, the error was a missing include for paymentrequest.pb.h
425 2014-03-24 15:56:59 <anddam> doesn't seems a race condition but a missing -I
426 2014-03-24 15:57:03 <anddam> seem*
427 2014-03-24 15:57:29 <anddam> ofc that doesn't make sense with the other builds that went just fine without changing the flags
428 2014-03-24 16:09:37 <anddam> gavinandresen: I'd add two chmod -x for Info.plist and bitcoin.icns, there's no need for the to be marked as executable
429 2014-03-24 16:10:06 <gavinandresen> anddam: "patches welcome"
430 2014-03-24 16:10:14 <anddam> k
431 2014-03-24 16:10:36 <anddam> seemed so small to not be worth a PR
432 2014-03-24 16:13:29 <anddam> does 0.9.0 contain the address transaction index that spawned in 2802?
433 2014-03-24 16:13:50 <anddam> maybe it's "did 0.9.0 merge"
434 2014-03-24 16:14:18 <gribble> Estimated time of bitcoin block reward halving: Sat Aug 27 17:04:10 2016 UTC | Time remaining: 2 years, 22 weeks, 3 days, 0 hours, 50 minutes, and 0 seconds.
435 2014-03-24 16:14:18 <roidster> ;;halfreward
436 2014-03-24 16:14:50 <roidster> ;;interval
437 2014-03-24 16:14:51 <gribble> 440.81632653061223
438 2014-03-24 16:19:00 <chichov> how come I get an error in util.h line 102 when I try to use it in another class?
439 2014-03-24 16:19:15 <chichov> exact error line: #error missing boost sleep implementation
440 2014-03-24 16:19:44 <anddam> gavinandresen: can you check https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3950 ?
441 2014-03-24 16:20:27 <jgarzik> anddam, seems correct, to my quick review. Does it solve the problem? i.e. testing
442 2014-03-24 16:21:57 <anddam> lol, yes
443 2014-03-24 16:22:16 <anddam> INSTALL_DATA is defined as $(INSTALL) -m 644
444 2014-03-24 16:22:29 <anddam> my and I re-run the target to check
445 2014-03-24 16:22:35 <anddam> s/my//
446 2014-03-24 16:22:46 <gavinandresen> anddam: commit message should say something like "Tested by doing BLAH on OSX FOO"
447 2014-03-24 16:23:03 <gavinandresen> (where BLAH is 'make clean; make appbundle and then running Bitcoin-Qt.app" maybe)
448 2014-03-24 16:23:10 <anddam> gavinandresen: didn't know that
449 2014-03-24 16:23:58 <anddam> I moved the application bundle and re-run only appbundle target, then I checked the ls -lr output of both bundles
450 2014-03-24 16:24:23 <anddam> I didn't run the program since such a change doesn't alter the actual executables
451 2014-03-24 16:24:41 <gavinandresen> you assume such a change doesn't alterâ¦â¦ that is what testing catches.
452 2014-03-24 16:56:39 <Alina-malina> hmmm now to bind this bootstrap.dat file to bitcoin client i have the 13 GB file
453 2014-03-24 17:05:43 <chichov> any possibility to import the bitcoin source as a project into Eclipse or similar?
454 2014-03-24 17:06:16 <maaku> chichov: no one is stopping you
455 2014-03-24 17:06:34 <chichov> maaku: there are many dependencies and configurations necessary
456 2014-03-24 17:06:48 <chichov> is there any quick, pre-existing solution?
457 2014-03-24 17:06:54 <Alina-malina> hmmm how ti importt this bootstrap.dat file into bitcoin how to connect it eer?
458 2014-03-24 17:06:55 <maaku> chichov: it's probably not going to make it into core if that's your question
459 2014-03-24 17:07:25 <chichov> my question is rather how I can quickly import the bitcoin code into an IDE
460 2014-03-24 17:12:07 <pichop2> Join hello
461 2014-03-24 17:21:14 <anddam> I drop it, my git-fu is unable to fix the commit message
462 2014-03-24 17:21:17 <anddam> but I tested the app
463 2014-03-24 17:25:03 <anddam> is it ok to just edit hate comment in PR?
464 2014-03-24 17:25:15 <anddam> s/hate/the/
465 2014-03-24 17:25:26 <Tril> Alina-malina: move bootstrap.dat to your data directory. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Data_directory
466 2014-03-24 17:25:45 <Alina-malina> and thats it?
467 2014-03-24 17:26:02 <Alina-malina> oh hmmmm let me try this
468 2014-03-24 17:27:50 <maaku> anddam: git commit --amend?
469 2014-03-24 17:30:26 <Alina-malina> Tril, what next?
470 2014-03-24 17:51:11 <phantomcircuit> gavinandresen, do you know if using mlock() was ever an actual issue, re overlapping pages?
471 2014-03-24 17:52:11 <gavinandresen> phantomcircuit: I don't know. BlueMatt might know.
472 2014-03-24 17:52:22 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, ping
473 2014-03-24 17:53:31 <phantomcircuit> hmm i guess i should ask laanwj
474 2014-03-24 17:53:54 <phantomcircuit> he's the one that wrote the histogram lock manager
475 2014-03-24 17:55:31 <phoenix52> ?
476 2014-03-24 17:55:36 <anddam> maaku: that's what i tried, but git complained the repository was 2 commits ahead
477 2014-03-24 17:57:13 <dwdadadad> someone good with creating coins?
478 2014-03-24 18:00:03 <anddam> here's the message " ! [rejected] master -> master (non-fast-forward)"
479 2014-03-24 18:00:14 <anddam> probably I should have committed in a different branch
480 2014-03-24 18:00:57 <dwdadadad> need help with a coin dev
481 2014-03-24 18:06:26 <anddam> dwdadadad: best advice you'll get today http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
482 2014-03-24 18:07:18 <LarsLarsen> You do not need a coin dev, nor do you need a new coin.
483 2014-03-24 18:07:33 <LarsLarsen> how convenient is that?!?!?
484 2014-03-24 18:07:46 <flound1129> you need a new coin
485 2014-03-24 18:07:48 <flound1129> and a coin dev
486 2014-03-24 18:07:49 <flound1129> imo
487 2014-03-24 18:07:58 <flound1129> need moar coins
488 2014-03-24 18:08:06 <anddam> ohhh now I see, he meant a new alt-coin
489 2014-03-24 18:08:16 <anddam> I thought he was referring to mining
490 2014-03-24 18:08:20 <LarsLarsen> dwdadadad: if someone could make a coin, why would they need you?
491 2014-03-24 18:11:31 <LarsLarsen> dude I'm gonna go in #scam and ask for a scammer
492 2014-03-24 18:14:22 <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: I have no idea what you're talking about here?
493 2014-03-24 18:14:42 <sipa> phantomcircuit: what is your question?
494 2014-03-24 18:14:50 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, allocators.h LockedPageManagerBase
495 2014-03-24 18:14:57 <sipa> phantomcircuit: wumpus wrote that
496 2014-03-24 18:15:18 <sipa> phantomcircuit: but can you be more specific with your question? ("wrt x" is a bit vague)
497 2014-03-24 18:15:20 <phantomcircuit> sipa, git says laanwj wrote it
498 2014-03-24 18:15:27 <phantomcircuit> is git wrong?
499 2014-03-24 18:15:30 <sipa> phantomcircuit: laanwj == wumpus
500 2014-03-24 18:15:35 <phantomcircuit> oh right
501 2014-03-24 18:15:41 <phantomcircuit> brain doesn't translate sometimes
502 2014-03-24 18:15:46 <phantomcircuit> (like a lot of the time)
503 2014-03-24 18:16:01 <phantomcircuit> is LockedPageManagerBase really necessary?
504 2014-03-24 18:16:12 <sipa> compared to what?
505 2014-03-24 18:16:51 <phantomcircuit> hmm i guess there isn't much choice actually
506 2014-03-24 18:17:15 <sipa> compared to not having mlock()... sure, if we want that
507 2014-03-24 18:17:38 <sipa> the alternative is having actually a pool of mlocked pages used for a separate allocator
508 2014-03-24 18:17:50 <sipa> eh, complex
509 2014-03-24 18:17:50 <sipa> which is better, but much more wasteful
510 2014-03-24 18:21:17 <Alina-malina> i cant make this bootstrap.dat file to work with windows xp bitcoind
511 2014-03-24 18:21:21 <Alina-malina> how to do this?
512 2014-03-24 18:24:50 <sipa> Alina-malina: doing that kind of stuff is pretty hard on windows, missing many more lowlevel tools
513 2014-03-24 18:25:00 <Alina-malina> hmmm
514 2014-03-24 18:25:07 <sipa> at least i wouldn't know how to
515 2014-03-24 18:25:20 <Alina-malina> is it ok at least running this from virtualbox?
516 2014-03-24 18:25:21 <sipa> there's a linearize.py tool in the contrib dir
517 2014-03-24 18:25:25 <sipa> sure
518 2014-03-24 18:25:37 <hearn> sipa: is there a rule that says you can only have one OP_RETURN per tx?
519 2014-03-24 18:25:43 <sipa> hearn: yes
520 2014-03-24 18:25:50 <sipa> hearn: (for it being standard)