1 2014-05-15 02:45:17 <dcousens> does a 0 of N multisig scriptpubkey validate with no signatures?
2 2014-05-15 02:45:38 <dcousens> (assuming we ignore the OP_0 bug)
3 2014-05-15 02:53:36 <Luke-Jr> dcousens: what OP_0 bug?
4 2014-05-15 02:53:50 <dcousens> Luke-Jr: OP_0 SIG SIG
5 2014-05-15 02:54:01 <Luke-Jr> I don't see what that bug is relevant for
6 2014-05-15 02:56:07 <dcousens> Luke-Jr: well, if I had no data on the stack, 0 2 OP_CHECKMULTISIG would fail I assume, but if I had 0 0 2 OP_CHECKMULTISIG, does it validate?
7 2014-05-15 02:56:22 <Luke-Jr> you need pubkeys..
8 2014-05-15 02:57:11 <dcousens> Fine. Would 0 0 {Pubkey1} {Pubkey2} 2 OP_CHECKMULTSIG validate
9 2014-05-15 02:58:28 <Luke-Jr> I believe so.
10 2014-05-15 02:58:43 <Luke-Jr> ⦠why?
11 2014-05-15 02:59:00 <dcousens> Curiousity?
12 2014-05-15 02:59:14 <dcousens> Also, would (OP_1 -1) be used or OP_0 in that case
13 2014-05-15 02:59:37 <dcousens> (for M)
14 2014-05-15 03:01:35 <Luke-Jr> not sure what that question is
15 2014-05-15 03:01:52 <Luke-Jr> but in the meantime, I think I may have stumbled upon a fix for malleability
16 2014-05-15 03:02:18 <Luke-Jr> any experts on right now, who can confirm for me that there is no security risk to an idea?
17 2014-05-15 03:03:15 <phantomcircuit> Luke-Jr, dont ask to ask, just ask
18 2014-05-15 03:03:19 <phantomcircuit> ACTION flees the scene
19 2014-05-15 03:03:49 <Luke-Jr> phantomcircuit: you'd exploit it! :P
20 2014-05-15 03:03:59 <phantomcircuit> who meeee? never
21 2014-05-15 03:08:35 <dcousens> Luke-Jr: it would appear you use OP_0, as it does a pre-parse in EvalScript...
22 2014-05-15 03:09:36 <Luke-Jr> dcousens: it's an optional preparse
23 2014-05-15 03:11:07 <dcousens> Luke-Jr: not sure what you mean by that
24 2014-05-15 03:11:26 <Luke-Jr> dcousens: preparse failure just means it counts as 20 sigops
25 2014-05-15 03:11:32 <Luke-Jr> it doesn't make it invalid
26 2014-05-15 03:12:10 <justanotheruser> Is m of 21 invalid or nonstandard?
27 2014-05-15 03:12:37 <dcousens> Luke-Jr: nKeysCount > 20 : return false
28 2014-05-15 03:13:06 <Luke-Jr> justanotheruser: invalid
29 2014-05-15 03:13:54 <justanotheruser> If I hypothetically had a reason to use 21 keys, is there a way around that?
30 2014-05-15 03:14:40 <Luke-Jr> justanotheruser: in short, no. but you could use multiple OP_CHECKMULTISIG ;)
31 2014-05-15 03:14:59 <Luke-Jr> or low-sigop multisig..
32 2014-05-15 03:15:19 <Luke-Jr> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0019.mediawiki
33 2014-05-15 03:15:21 <dcousens> aren't we limited to 15 pubkeys anyway due to the byte limit?
34 2014-05-15 03:15:37 <Luke-Jr> dcousens: only for P2SH
35 2014-05-15 03:15:45 <justanotheruser> Or a bunch of opchecksigs and a bunch of opadds then an opgreaterthan?
36 2014-05-15 03:16:54 <Luke-Jr> justanotheruser: that's (mostly) BIP 19
37 2014-05-15 04:21:26 <is_a_cat> hey
38 2014-05-15 04:22:12 <is_a_cat> i made something that i think is cool. anyone interested in giving constructive criticism?
39 2014-05-15 04:28:12 <is_a_cat> http://jsfiddle.net/is_a_cat/UPtVA/2/embedded/result/
40 2014-05-15 04:33:36 <flound1129> is there a way to make listtransactions only return generate transactions?
41 2014-05-15 04:38:55 <nanotube> flound1129: just grep for "category" : "generate"
42 2014-05-15 04:40:43 <nanotube> (i guess also category immature, to catch non-matured gen transactions)
43 2014-05-15 04:41:55 <flound1129> yes I know
44 2014-05-15 04:42:04 <flound1129> what I'm asking is if there's a way to only have it return immature or generate
45 2014-05-15 04:42:09 <flound1129> rather than having to parse the whole thing
46 2014-05-15 04:42:40 <flound1129> seems like the answer is no
47 2014-05-15 07:37:00 <robonerd> when putting out a new web site, do you use "www." subdomain still?
48 2014-05-15 09:10:58 <warren> michagogo|cloud: ping
49 2014-05-15 09:11:21 <warren> anyone else available to do gitian builds?
50 2014-05-15 09:11:31 <warren> important for 0.9.2
51 2014-05-15 09:21:03 <aschildbach> petertodd: ping
52 2014-05-15 09:23:18 <tjopper> I saw pertertodd last night presenting on a dutch meet-up i guess thay are preparing for bitcoin2014 atm
53 2014-05-15 09:26:32 <aschildbach> Thanks. I think I'll mail him. His DNS seed is down.
54 2014-05-15 09:46:46 <Pan0ram1x> tjopper: is there any video of that presentation?
55 2014-05-15 09:47:17 <diabl0z> hello
56 2014-05-15 09:48:35 <diabl0z> anyone know how to get the balance of a P2SH address from bitcoind after adding it with addmultisig ... ?
57 2014-05-15 09:59:48 <diabl0z> sa sa
58 2014-05-15 10:01:20 <diabl0z> anyone know how to get the balance of an account with a P2SH address from bitcoind after adding it with addmultisig ... ?
59 2014-05-15 10:01:24 <michagogo> cloud|wumpus: pong
60 2014-05-15 10:01:35 <michagogo> cloud|erm
61 2014-05-15 10:01:37 <michagogo> cloud|warren*
62 2014-05-15 10:01:38 <diabl0z> ping
63 2014-05-15 10:02:28 <warren> michagogo|cloud: https://github.com/wtogami/bitcoin/tree/gitianwithqt521
64 2014-05-15 10:03:39 <warren> michagogo|cloud: could you please build gitian-osx-qt.yml and send me your var/build.log?
65 2014-05-15 10:04:00 <michagogo> cloud|warren: I'm not at my computer atm
66 2014-05-15 10:04:03 <diabl0z> ?
67 2014-05-15 10:05:54 <michagogo> cloud|warren: so that's coryfields's branch, but with the change to 5.2.1?
68 2014-05-15 10:06:23 <michagogo> cloud|if we're going to 5.2.1, we should go back down to r1
69 2014-05-15 10:06:38 <tjopper> Pan0ram1x normally there is, but didn spot it online yet
70 2014-05-15 10:14:12 <warren> anyone with mac can test a binary?
71 2014-05-15 10:14:21 <warren> michagogo|cloud: his branch broke
72 2014-05-15 10:14:29 <warren> michagogo|cloud: he references 5.2.0 in one place and 5.2.1 in another
73 2014-05-15 10:14:46 <warren> and the binary is behaving weird
74 2014-05-15 10:14:47 <warren> http://193.28.235.60/~warren/temp/bitcoin-gitian-osx-weird-character.png
75 2014-05-15 10:15:13 <michagogo> cloud|warren: that's with 5.2.0? or .1?
76 2014-05-15 10:15:24 <warren> that's 5.2.0
77 2014-05-15 10:15:59 <michagogo> cloud|When I get to my computer (may or may not be today...) I'll fetch your branch and rebuild qt
78 2014-05-15 10:16:10 <michagogo> cloud|And the BC
79 2014-05-15 10:16:20 <warren> there's a bunch of errors during the qt build
80 2014-05-15 10:16:25 <warren> that doesn't kill the build
81 2014-05-15 10:16:30 <michagogo> cloud|Do you want the build.log from the qt 5.2.0 too? I think I still have it
82 2014-05-15 10:16:52 <michagogo> cloud|(it was the last build I did last night before going to bed)
83 2014-05-15 10:16:57 <warren> actually his earlier version was 5.2.1
84 2014-05-15 10:17:06 <warren> he backed it down to 5.2.0 then left for Amsterdam
85 2014-05-15 10:17:10 <michagogo> cloud|warren: Eh?
86 2014-05-15 10:17:19 <warren> but it broke
87 2014-05-15 10:17:25 <warren> don't know if he tested hte commit
88 2014-05-15 10:17:32 <michagogo> cloud|I guess when I looked he'd already taken it down to 5.2.0
89 2014-05-15 10:17:51 <warren> his current PR doesn't build
90 2014-05-15 10:18:18 <michagogo> cloud|:-/
91 2014-05-15 10:21:28 <warren> the PR yesterday built but was non-deterministic
92 2014-05-15 10:36:03 <warren> michagogo|cloud: the qt-5.2.1 binary fixed that weird character glitch
93 2014-05-15 10:38:21 <michagogo> cloud|Did you test 5.2.1-win?
94 2014-05-15 10:40:14 <warren> yes
95 2014-05-15 10:40:25 <warren> I'm posting all hashes when I post this as a PR
96 2014-05-15 10:58:21 <warren> michagogo|cloud: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/4189
97 2014-05-15 10:58:33 <warren> It turns out the errors during qt build are normal, it's testing for features before build.
98 2014-05-15 11:12:21 <warren> michagogo|cloud: crap, it seems the windows build isn't determinstic
99 2014-05-15 11:12:29 <warren> mac is though
100 2014-05-15 11:50:04 <warren> michagogo|cloud: nevermind, i was looking at the wrong build, it seems good
101 2014-05-15 12:07:14 <michagogo> cloud|warren: so where do we stand now?
102 2014-05-15 12:07:50 <michagogo> cloud|So, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/4189 is the same as Cory
103 2014-05-15 12:07:59 <michagogo> cloud|So, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/4189 is the same as Cory's but with 5.2.1 on win and mac?
104 2014-05-15 12:08:22 <michagogo> cloud|Also, what are the hashes you posted?
105 2014-05-15 12:08:33 <michagogo> cloud|(what did you give gbuild in --commit?)
106 2014-05-15 12:09:11 <michagogo> cloud|And why didn't you reset the qt deps to r1?
107 2014-05-15 12:09:58 <michagogo> cloud|(and if you're taking over the PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/4185#issuecomment-43119798 )
108 2014-05-15 12:21:14 <jmintuck> Hello room
109 2014-05-15 12:22:10 <jmintuck> hello, anyone here?
110 2014-05-15 14:47:41 <Guest84351> Hello. What is the difference between 'getnewaddress' and 'getrawchangeaddress' in the client API? Thanks.
111 2014-05-15 16:06:36 <Guest23231> Hello. How does 'getrawchangeaddress' differ from 'getnewaddress'. Thanks
112 2014-05-15 16:09:02 <gmaxwell> The keys it returns are treated as change addresses by the software.
113 2014-05-15 16:09:18 <gmaxwell> (e.g. payments to them are hidden in the transaction list)
114 2014-05-15 16:09:51 <Guest23231> Makes sense. thanks
115 2014-05-15 16:29:52 <Skirmant> hi
116 2014-05-15 16:29:53 <Skirmant> is this the right place to ask about compiling the android wallet?
117 2014-05-15 16:31:26 <pigeons> hmm try #bitcoinj maybe
118 2014-05-15 16:39:39 <loove> my bitcoind is crashing anyone can help me
119 2014-05-15 16:39:49 <loove> I tried to copy all the bitcoindata folder in my new machine
120 2014-05-15 16:39:55 <loove> and now I get an error
121 2014-05-15 16:41:00 <dhill> what error
122 2014-05-15 16:41:24 <loove> [Error: Failed to read block : Failed to connect best block
123 2014-05-15 16:45:04 <loove> why nobody helps me :@
124 2014-05-15 17:08:47 <Ry4an> loove: because you're impatient. Just wait. IRC is an asynchronous medium.
125 2014-05-15 17:18:04 <softwaremechanic> What do folks think about builda hardware wallet interface, which would allow hardware wallet vendors to develop a plugin for their product.
126 2014-05-15 17:18:15 <softwaremechanic> This way client's don't have to support each one individually
127 2014-05-15 17:21:26 <Ry4an> http://xkcd.com/927/ ;)
128 2014-05-15 17:25:19 <softwaremechanic> lol
129 2014-05-15 17:26:13 <softwaremechanic> I'd like to make a hardware wallet, but who's gonna support it?
130 2014-05-15 17:28:51 <Ry4an> yeah, it's a chicken and egg thing for sure. Unfortunately the coordination costs of both the wallet and the device building to a compromise standard are greater than supporting any one or two wallets, so it's (totally my opinion) not somthing you're going to be able to get people on board w/ unless there's alreadys a lot of competing hardware wallets -- enough that the software side says "ugh, agree on a standard!"
131 2014-05-15 17:29:29 <Ry4an> if possible co-opting the trezor interface is probably your quickest route to software interop.
132 2014-05-15 17:29:29 <softwaremechanic> ya, that's probably true
133 2014-05-15 17:30:16 <softwaremechanic> that was my thought as well.
134 2014-05-15 17:30:41 <softwaremechanic> Still, the software designer aspect of my brain reels at the concept
135 2014-05-15 17:30:48 <robonerd> trezor?
136 2014-05-15 17:31:16 <softwaremechanic> The main issue really is the lgpl for that.
137 2014-05-15 17:32:36 <Ry4an> robonerd: google it
138 2014-05-15 17:32:44 <softwaremechanic> Which is fine for most projects, but does limit it's adoption
139 2014-05-15 17:33:10 <robonerd> yea i'll pass on your wild goose chase, 'thanks'
140 2014-05-15 17:33:25 <softwaremechanic> trezor is a wild goose chase?
141 2014-05-15 17:38:40 <Ry4an> trezor: http://bit.ly/1valz0u
142 2014-05-15 17:39:05 <softwaremechanic> for realz
143 2014-05-15 17:40:26 <CoinHeavy> Does anyone have a good forumla for bitcoin issuance? (given a block number, a forumla to calculate the current coins in existence) I canât seem to find one on the wiki.
144 2014-05-15 17:42:22 <dexX7> Ry4an: can you post the link unshorted please?
145 2014-05-15 17:43:17 <Ry4an> naw, google it yourself if you don't trust my shortned URL
146 2014-05-15 17:44:15 <robonerd> that's why i didn't click the link. Ry4an seems like a jerk
147 2014-05-15 17:48:34 <mappum_> CoinHeavy: reward per block would be 50 * 0.5^floor(blocks / 2.1e5)
148 2014-05-15 17:49:34 <CoinHeavy> mappum_: Thank you â could you please help me understand what you mean by floor?
149 2014-05-15 17:50:17 <mappum_> basically, just drop the fractional part. floor(5.5) = 5, floor(1) = 1
150 2014-05-15 17:51:55 <CoinHeavy> oh sorry, I see
151 2014-05-15 17:52:15 <CoinHeavy> I understand that the reward halves ever 210,000 blocks and that it started at 50
152 2014-05-15 17:52:21 <CoinHeavy> but given a certain block height
153 2014-05-15 17:52:36 <CoinHeavy> what does the forumla to calculate current coins in existence look like?
154 2014-05-15 17:54:00 <gmaxwell> CoinHeavy: he gave you the formula.
155 2014-05-15 17:54:34 <mappum_> that's for the reward per block, idk how to give the total in one expression, i'll just write it in code
156 2014-05-15 17:54:47 <hammond> hi does bitcoin core use SSL or encryptation when proxying so it doesn't leak or whatever?
157 2014-05-15 17:55:15 <pigeons> what do you mean by when proxying? and leak what?
158 2014-05-15 17:55:33 <justanotheruser> pigeons: I think he's concerned about MiTM
159 2014-05-15 17:55:59 <justanotheruser> Leak is just a bad description
160 2014-05-15 17:56:12 <hammond> well when using software like TOR, can somone sniff there while you are using bitcoin. when using the core, does it have SSL layer?
161 2014-05-15 17:56:23 <pigeons> no
162 2014-05-15 17:57:13 <hammond> hmm so for example somone can sniff which address I'm sending to. for example?
163 2014-05-15 17:57:34 <gmaxwell> hammond: If you're using tor then _tor_ provides the transport security.
164 2014-05-15 17:57:35 <pigeons> yes the idea is to broadcast to everyone what address you are sending to
165 2014-05-15 17:58:08 <gmaxwell> there is no need to also use SSL nor any advantage.
166 2014-05-15 17:59:34 <justanotheruser> Wasn't there some research paper on finding out what IP broadcasted a tx?
167 2014-05-15 18:00:48 <kjj> the only way to be sure that transaction X originated with node Y is to control all connections to Y
168 2014-05-15 18:02:01 <justanotheruser> kjj: but can you make a pretty good guess based on timing?
169 2014-05-15 18:02:49 <kjj> timing of what?
170 2014-05-15 18:03:17 <pigeons> i guess you could ask other nodes if they got it yet, and with bloom filter see they didnt so if you have it it might be you
171 2014-05-15 18:04:33 <kjj> one thing that I find appalling about most of the academic "research" into bitcoin is their inability to limit their own knowledge to that of the node they are looking at
172 2014-05-15 18:04:58 <justanotheruser> kjj: timing of when their node sent it and when other nodes tried to send it to you
173 2014-05-15 18:05:54 <gmaxwell> justanotheruser: thus why using tor is advisable, you'll know that the user asked about using tor.
174 2014-05-15 18:06:23 <kjj> hang on, I thought we were talking about finding "the origin node", not "some random node in that origin's direction"
175 2014-05-15 18:06:37 <justanotheruser> What do you mean the user asked about using Tor?
176 2014-05-15 18:07:09 <gmaxwell> < pigeons> what do you mean by when proxying? < hammond> well when using software like TOR, can somone sniff
177 2014-05-15 18:07:55 <justanotheruser> gmaxwell: oh, I was just going on a tangent and asking if there was any legitimacy to that paper.
178 2014-05-15 18:08:21 <justanotheruser> Or if someone knew of the paper I was referring to because I can't find it
179 2014-05-15 18:19:45 <CoinHeavy> mappum_: thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Here is example code in ruby for: Forumla -- Total Extant Bitcoins at a Given Block https://gist.github.com/dlio/69238ba37cae489a3650
180 2014-05-15 18:20:44 <mappum_> i think there's a way to do it in one mathematical expression
181 2014-05-15 18:21:54 <Ry4an> discrete step functions make that hard, but it'd be cool to see
182 2014-05-15 18:22:59 <mappum_> well is there a way to do 0.5^0 + 0.5^1 + ... + 0.5^n ?
183 2014-05-15 18:26:04 <mappum_> it would be 50 * ((0.5^0 + ... + 0.5^(n-1)) * 2.1e5 * (n-1) + blocks % 2.1e5 * 0.5^n)
184 2014-05-15 18:26:19 <mappum_> i think that can be reduced a bit
185 2014-05-15 18:28:48 <michagogo> cloud|If you want another overly complex way, you can do this: if blockcount <= 210000; total = blockcount * 50; else; total = 0.0; blockcount/210000.times do; |n| total += 210000.0*50/n; end; total += 50/blockcount/210000*(blockcount%210000); end
186 2014-05-15 18:29:35 <michagogo> cloud|(I *think* that's valid in Ruby, but I'm on my phone atm)
187 2014-05-15 18:39:18 <Guest23231> Curiosity: is anyone using locktime in transactions?
188 2014-05-15 18:39:41 <mappum_> Guest23231: yes, in things like micropayment channels
189 2014-05-15 18:40:00 <Guest23231> how large can it be? days?
190 2014-05-15 18:40:23 <dzan> hi, seems like bitcoin depends on berkeley db 5.1, anyone knows how to get that version in debian sid? sid has 5.3 and 6.0 but then I can't compile ( configure fails )
191 2014-05-15 18:40:27 <mappum_> i don't think there is a limit, just any number of blocks
192 2014-05-15 18:42:29 <arubi> dzan, use : `./configure --with-incompatible-bdb`
193 2014-05-15 18:42:52 <arubi> also use --enable-hardening while you're at it I guess
194 2014-05-15 18:45:17 <dzan> arubi: so its not an issue to have 'incompatible db's'?
195 2014-05-15 18:46:20 <dzan> hmm cool, why would one harden the binary? protection against runtime patching?
196 2014-05-15 18:46:23 <arubi> I've never had any issues
197 2014-05-15 18:47:18 <arubi> dzan, I woun't wanna provide a bad answer to that question, so I'd prefer to say I'm not sure :)
198 2014-05-15 18:47:42 <arubi> s/woun't/wouldn't
199 2014-05-15 18:48:42 <dzan> arubi: ok :)
200 2014-05-15 18:49:22 <dzan> normally you'd harden binaries which have copy protection or drm stuff, so probably it's for live patching in order to sent btc or something
201 2014-05-15 18:52:42 <arubi> build-unix.md describes pretty well what hardening does to the bitcoin binary. in the Security section
202 2014-05-15 19:06:01 <helo> dzan: using a newer libdb will work, but it might break backwards-compatibility with your wallets, if you were to try to load them in a bitcoin with an older libdb
203 2014-05-15 19:06:40 <helo> it should be possible to downgrade the wallet file to work with older libdb if the need arose
204 2014-05-15 19:11:51 <dzan> helo: ok thanks i'll just try
205 2014-05-15 19:12:05 <dzan> hmm linker acts up
206 2014-05-15 19:12:14 <dzan> /usr/bin/ld: ../src/leveldb/libleveldb.a(db_impl.o): relocation R_X86_64_32S against `_ZTVN7leveldb2DBE' can not be used when making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC
207 2014-05-15 19:12:17 <dzan> ../src/leveldb/libleveldb.a: error adding symbols: Bad value
208 2014-05-15 19:12:57 <dzan> seems like that has something to do with the hardening
209 2014-05-15 19:14:51 <helo> i know nothing of hardening
210 2014-05-15 19:15:20 <helo> i am surprised it isn't enabled by default if it is a good idea
211 2014-05-15 19:15:31 <dzan> helo: the doc's say it is
212 2014-05-15 19:15:49 <helo> so that's without --enable-hardening?
213 2014-05-15 19:15:50 <dzan> helo: and you'd be surprised on (security wise) how poorly most unix binaries are compiled
214 2014-05-15 19:16:00 <dzan> helo: yes, i'm now trying with --disable-hardening
215 2014-05-15 19:16:13 <gmaxwell> dzan: you need to make clean when disabling the configuration. The depsolving isn't perfect.
216 2014-05-15 19:16:31 <helo> well, a little more scrutiny and consideration has gone into bitcoind's build system than most, at least i like to hope
217 2014-05-15 19:17:31 <hammond> gmaxwell, I have talked to the TOR people and they said there is no SSL from the exit nodes to your PC, the only encryptation is within the network. so from my PC to the exit nodepeople can see, and if that can be avoided, it's better. Even sniffing the addresses that you are sending to can lead to troubles no?
218 2014-05-15 19:17:56 <gmaxwell> hammond: They managed to confuse you.
219 2014-05-15 19:18:04 <realazthat> he is right but it doesn't matter
220 2014-05-15 19:18:12 <realazthat> all the data you send to the node is stored in the chain ...
221 2014-05-15 19:18:17 <realazthat> so it is public information
222 2014-05-15 19:18:25 <hammond> gmaxwell, no.
223 2014-05-15 19:18:38 <helo> ACTION popcorns
224 2014-05-15 19:18:41 <realazthat> Tor encrypts everything until the exit node
225 2014-05-15 19:18:42 <gmaxwell> the traffic between you (the tor user) and the exit node is encrypted. The traffic between the exit node and the outside world is not. But thats not connected to you (if tor worked).
226 2014-05-15 19:18:55 <gmaxwell> (Bitcoin also uses tor hidden services, which are encrypted end to end in any case)
227 2014-05-15 19:19:17 <gmaxwell> This is also offtopic for this channel.
228 2014-05-15 19:19:40 <dzan> helo: yes it has :) it's one of the few compiled with -pie enabled
229 2014-05-15 19:19:57 <dzan> gmaxwell: thx i'll clean to make sure than
230 2014-05-15 19:20:28 <gmaxwell> Not that the executable hardening makes a huge difference, sadly- but its a cheap improvement.
231 2014-05-15 19:20:45 <hammond> gmaxwell, and I wasn't going to pull this up but I am, and because you are averridding an important part in the anonimity "World" here, is that last time you said MTGOX had coins, and now MTGox is no more, so ofcourse you can brush the SSL part of bitcoin-core to the side, but yeah well, you don't know what you are talking about regarding bitcoin, since you said MTGOX was fine.
232 2014-05-15 19:20:57 <dzan> gmaxwell: yes but it's a step forward
233 2014-05-15 19:21:22 <dzan> lol
234 2014-05-15 19:21:57 <dzan> gmaxwell: so the hardening is in there to try prevent live patching of the binary right?
235 2014-05-15 19:22:03 <gmaxwell> (and I never said any such thing; I assume thats some fucked up troll, but figuring out what flavor fucked up troll that is not on topic hereâ and I already warned him)
236 2014-05-15 19:22:35 <gmaxwell> dzan: if there were a remote code execution vulnerability it may make it more difficult to exploit.
237 2014-05-15 19:23:28 <dzan> yes that's wath I meant :)
238 2014-05-15 19:24:16 <dzan> heh I work on this link time rewriter that does obfuscation and such, good idea to pull bitcoin through before deploying it :-)
239 2014-05-15 19:32:37 <reipr> couple quick questions. 1. When spending back to a change address, if the change amount is very small will that incur a fee?
240 2014-05-15 19:33:07 <reipr> well, I guess only 1 question :)
241 2014-05-15 19:33:18 <Buyer> reipr
242 2014-05-15 19:35:25 <gmaxwell> reipr: It's not entirely clear to me what you're asking.
243 2014-05-15 19:35:43 <helo> reipr: more of a #bitcoin question, but the answer is that the change sending is a part of the transaction.
244 2014-05-15 19:35:53 <gmaxwell> reipr: The transaction itself pays the fee. The return of the change isn't seperate.
245 2014-05-15 19:36:17 <reipr> ok thats what I thought.
246 2014-05-15 19:36:20 <reipr> thanks
247 2014-05-15 19:36:54 <MaxSan> does anyone know where i can find an example of what a coloured coin transaction looks like on the blockchain?
248 2014-05-15 19:44:06 <pigeons> MaxSan: try #bitcoinx it depends on the specific "colored coin" implementation, search the bitcoinx google group archive and some people post examples they have done on testnet and mainnet, also see https://github.com/bitcoinx/colored-coin-tools/wiki/colored_coins_intro
249 2014-05-15 20:41:17 <Guest23231> gmaxwell: nice boat!