1 2014-07-25 08:00:26 <tjopper1> !morgen
 2 2014-07-25 08:00:27 <gribble> Error: "morgen" is not a valid command.
 3 2014-07-25 08:00:30 <tjopper1> !koffiemet
 4 2014-07-25 08:00:31 <gribble> Error: "koffiemet" is not a valid command.
 5 2014-07-25 09:55:25 <sipa> ;;nethash
 6 2014-07-25 09:55:26 <gribble> 127254983.391
 7 2014-07-25 10:07:35 <gmaxwell> -ETOOMANYDIGITS
 8 2014-07-25 10:18:11 <midnightmagic> dhill: https://code.google.com/p/leveldb/issues/detail?id=31
 9 2014-07-25 10:35:41 <cdecker> Good morning :-)
10 2014-07-25 14:14:47 <kruug> Hi, I'm trying to get gitian to work with an altcoin...what's the altcoin devs channel name?
11 2014-07-25 14:59:40 <dgenr8> cdecker: how well in your research do tx propagation times fit exponential distribution?
12 2014-07-25 15:15:26 <christophe> dgenr8: http://bitcoinstats.com/network/propagation/ probably have the raw data to help answer your question. Ping them?
13 2014-07-25 18:14:13 <ronkrt> Idea's on how to create and maintain a crypto currencie without giving miners a 'profit' this is not for a typical crypto
14 2014-07-25 18:17:41 <buZz> ronkrt: premine all
15 2014-07-25 18:20:06 <justanotheruser> ronkrt: ##altcoin-dev
16 2014-07-25 18:25:00 <skinnkavaj> If we see a similar growth in transaction volume, we would reach the block limit in a matter of four-five months (it's currently at 240 KB, meaning it can grow 4 fold before hitting the limit). And then what happens? The uncertainty hangs over future Bitcoin development.
17 2014-07-25 18:25:00 <skinnkavaj> Some might argue that we should wait until we are closer to the 1 MB block limit before discussing it, but consider that from May 2012 to May 2013, Bitcoin's transaction volume increased almost 10 fold.
18 2014-07-25 18:25:16 <skinnkavaj> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=709999.0
19 2014-07-25 19:24:48 <Hobdont134> Hi All
20 2014-07-25 19:24:56 <Hobdont134> are there any C++ devs in here??
21 2014-07-25 19:25:09 <Hobdont134> not in here more available
22 2014-07-25 19:25:40 <Hobdont134> im sure there a load of C++ Devs
23 2014-07-25 19:25:42 <Luke-Jr> this channel is not for soliciting devs
24 2014-07-25 19:31:50 <Einewton> Hobdont134: The question would be, who isn't a C++ dev in here?
25 2014-07-25 21:30:29 <andytoshi> gmaxwell: my utxoset code is at https://github.com/apoelstra/bitcoin-rs/blob/master/src/blockdata/utxoset.rs if you are curious... the public functions are update() and rewind() which play and unplay a single block, respectively
26 2014-07-25 21:31:59 <andytoshi> so when i'm sync'ing, i get a "reorg iterator" from my blockchain structure which gives me all the blocks from a certain hash backward to the main chain (this is empty if no reorg has happened).. then i get a forward iterator from the blockchain which yields all the blockheaders from my current hash to the best tip
27 2014-07-25 21:32:23 <andytoshi> i batch those up in blocks of 500, `getdata` them, sort the `block` replies, then update the utxo set with them
28 2014-07-25 21:40:38 <nullbyte> If I'm signing a multisig input by hand, is it safe to say the hash of the script (1 pubkey pubkey 2 checkmultisig) is what I'll be signing?
29 2014-07-25 21:43:38 <kazcw> a typical signature covers essentally the whole transaction. if you didn't sign the outputs, anyone could use their signature to claim your money
30 2014-07-25 21:44:20 <kazcw> *use your signature
31 2014-07-25 21:51:14 <nullbyte> thats fine, right now I'm attempting to sign a 1-of-n multisig and the script verification fails, maybe I've hashed the scriptPubKey incorrectly?
32 2014-07-25 21:51:54 <nullbyte> I'm taking the bytes of scriptPubKey, hashing, signing, and verification fails- added some printf's to try to see where/why
33 2014-07-25 21:53:33 <kazcw> you should not be signing the hash of a script
34 2014-07-25 21:53:53 <gmaxwell> kazcw: the scriptpubkey is included in the signaturehash.
35 2014-07-25 21:54:02 <gmaxwell> it's just not the only thing included.
36 2014-07-25 21:54:32 <kazcw> yes. a typical signature covers essentially the whole transaction. if you're taking the scriptPubKey, hashing it, and signing that, you're doing something wrong
37 2014-07-25 22:02:25 <nullbyte> sorry, its not the scriptPubKey, its the whole multisignature script
38 2014-07-25 22:03:22 <nullbyte> the signatures I produce appear valid (ie. they visually resemble ones on the blockchain) but I believe I'm providing the wrong part of the transaction to the hashing function
39 2014-07-25 22:04:49 <kazcw> nullbyte: look at what SignatureHash does in script.cpp (if you go back to version v0.8.6 or so it's simpler to read than the current code).
40 2014-07-25 22:06:04 <nullbyte> yeah, the (multisig) tests have been helpful in that regard also. thanks, I'll pull that thread some
41 2014-07-25 22:25:53 <nullbyte> yeah, I was hashing the transaction incorrectly. Adding some printfs around SignSignature() helped me locate my bug, thank you