1 2014-08-17 00:24:16 <BlueMatt> ayansh: sorry, I'm (slowly) recovery from catastrophic fs failure...but yea, it should be 8336
 2 2014-08-17 00:34:47 <agorist000> petertodd, are you available? I have a question about python-bitcoinlib.
 3 2014-08-17 01:00:55 <gmaxwell> Anyone know what Mike's plan for lighthouse and getutxo is?  I feel like the network was pressured for a overly hasty rollout of bloom filters on the basis of wanting it for bitcoinj, and I'm concern the same will happen for 0.10 and getutxo.
 4 2014-08-17 01:35:30 <jgarzik> gmaxwell, the getutxo PR thread seemed to cover that.  He was going to sample multiple nodes exporting getutxos.
 5 2014-08-17 01:37:04 <jgarzik> gmaxwell, I am definitely not ACK'ing that PR, as it exports the info untrusted (even if block height/etc. included).
 6 2014-08-17 01:37:09 <jgarzik> but reluctant to NAK
 7 2014-08-17 01:37:23 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: I mean right now there are no nodes exporting getutxos. I don't want to deal with an emergency "0.10 must be released now!" and "everyone must upgrade now!"
 8 2014-08-17 01:37:25 <jgarzik> getutxos is easy to use insecurely
 9 2014-08-17 01:37:32 <jgarzik> and difficult to use securely
10 2014-08-17 01:38:09 <gmaxwell> yea, I'm on the fence between non-ack and nak. For two reasons, one is additional untrusted data, the other is that btcd said they are disinclined to implement. If we're also looking at an upgrade firedrill then that pushes me towards NAK.
11 2014-08-17 01:38:30 <jgarzik> gmaxwell, I haven't seen anything RE upgrade firedrill
12 2014-08-17 01:39:02 <gmaxwell> well thats why I was trying to ask. This could be avoided by the initial version of litehouse having a configurable server list.
13 2014-08-17 01:39:02 <jgarzik> so I don't have that worry
14 2014-08-17 01:39:21 <jgarzik> gmaxwell, NODE_UTXOS means you don't have to worry about that?
15 2014-08-17 01:39:31 <jgarzik> it gets advertised
16 2014-08-17 01:40:12 <gmaxwell> I know it does, but if only a few nodes on the network have it you may not learn about any of them.
17 2014-08-17 01:40:51 <gmaxwell> and we'll get pressured to deploy 0.10 prematurely and the network will be pressured to widely deploy it prematurely, and we'll end up with yet another remote crasher bug as a result.
18 2014-08-17 01:41:06 <jgarzik> I think anybody rolling out new NODE_xxx services has to deal with that
19 2014-08-17 01:41:13 <jgarzik> nah, I haven't seen any pressure like that
20 2014-08-17 01:42:44 <jgarzik> My worries are more about (a) untrusted data; even with "mempool" the users are full nodes expected to verify the data, (b) implementing services in bitcoind that ought to be in other layers (we are duplicating Insight), (c) easy to use securely, requires complexity to use securely,
21 2014-08-17 01:42:57 <jgarzik> and notably (d) this P2P command was implemented long before services to use it
22 2014-08-17 01:43:06 <jgarzik> thus somewhat speculative
23 2014-08-17 01:43:24 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: we absolutely did suffer it with 0.8, not just the pressure to release but things like: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=145349.0
24 2014-08-17 01:43:44 <jgarzik> gmaxwell, I was referring to getutxos specifically.
25 2014-08-17 01:45:48 <jgarzik> Honestly, the only reason why I don't NAK is because I think it is a bit of a special case.  We already index utxos, and will for the forseeable future.  The main danger in exporting that via P2P is IMO lazy "just check one node for an answer" implementations.
26 2014-08-17 01:46:45 <gmaxwell> yes, its narrow enough that I think its safe wrt tying out hands wrt pruning or data structures, plus the service bit can go away.
27 2014-08-17 01:47:01 <gmaxwell> It's wrong with respect to the security model. And btcd doesn't want to implement either.
28 2014-08-17 01:47:22 <gmaxwell> But it's also very narrow and that means a lot. I also know what mike originally wanted and he did accomidate the design substantially.
29 2014-08-17 01:47:31 <gmaxwell> (he wanted an arbritary free transaction lookup)
30 2014-08-17 01:51:39 <moa> "Actually running old versions can cause problems even if you don't think  you need any of the new features. Old versions just generally cause  problems for the network. It's best to stay up to date if you can." Mike Hearn, March 03 2013
31 2014-08-17 01:52:03 <moa> On 12 March 2013, a Bitcoin miner running version 0.8.0 of the Bitcoin  software created a large block that was incompatible with earlier  versions of the Bitcoin software because of its size.
32 2014-08-17 01:52:34 <moa> ... due to leveldb implementation
33 2014-08-17 01:52:48 <BlueMatt> ehhh, whether that made sense depends entirely on context
34 2014-08-17 01:53:25 <BlueMatt> and, iirc, the bloom stuff was before 0.8, so this is irrelevant to the discussion
35 2014-08-17 01:53:51 <moa> ok
36 2014-08-17 01:54:09 <jgarzik> BlueMatt, adding a feature + pushing to upgrade is relevant
37 2014-08-17 01:54:13 <jgarzik> but also to be expected
38 2014-08-17 01:54:23 <BlueMatt> yes, but I dont think that quote was relevant
39 2014-08-17 01:54:27 <jgarzik> people are cheerleaders for their features
40 2014-08-17 01:54:28 <BlueMatt> but, yea, sure I get the issue here
41 2014-08-17 01:56:50 <jgarzik> At some point it's a philosophical question (though, again, getutxos is a special case as mentioned).   Do we implement extra indices and services in bitcoind?  NODE_QUERY_ADDRESS is ok, if optional?  NODE_TRADE_STOCKS?
42 2014-08-17 01:57:21 <jgarzik> I prefer the "bitcoin == IP, in a HTTP/TCP/IP analogy" model, which pushes services up.  Others disagree.
43 2014-08-17 01:58:07 <jgarzik> What is mainnet:  relaying transactions and blocks, or a bootstrap into myriad bitcoin-related services?
44 2014-08-17 01:58:11 <BlueMatt> I prefer none of this be tied to bitcoind
45 2014-08-17 01:58:20 <BlueMatt> no NODE_I_HAVE_OTHER_SERVICES_ON_OTHER_PORTS
46 2014-08-17 01:58:30 <BlueMatt> etc
47 2014-08-17 01:58:30 <BlueMatt> no NODE_I_WILL_LET_YOU_LOOKUP_TXN
48 2014-08-17 01:58:50 <jgarzik> original Satoshi design was much broader
49 2014-08-17 01:58:58 <BlueMatt> true, but...oh well
50 2014-08-17 01:59:05 <jgarzik> included ebay-ish stuff, pubsub, trading, ...
51 2014-08-17 01:59:24 <BlueMatt> yes, but bitcoin today is a bit different from the (early) satoshi days ;)
52 2014-08-17 02:00:05 <BlueMatt> and I think keeping bitcoin core/the p2p network as minimal as possible is better
53 2014-08-17 02:03:42 <moa> yes minimal is good
54 2014-08-17 02:05:13 <moa> where are the TCP HTTP inventors for btc is the question?
55 2014-08-17 02:05:46 <BlueMatt> ?????????
56 2014-08-17 02:07:00 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: the reason I brought up the bloom filter stuff was because mike applied a lot of pressure to ship 0.8 and when it was out he applied a lot of pressure for people to deploy it. (and separately, he pressured mining pools to increase their block sizes).  I don't want a replay of that with getutxo. Fortunately we're doing a lot better with the service bit for it, so at least it can be disabled.
57 2014-08-17 02:07:28 <BlueMatt> it was 0.8? for some reason I thought 0.7
58 2014-08-17 02:07:34 <BlueMatt> ohh, no that was just the protocol version
59 2014-08-17 02:10:31 <petertodd> agorist000: best to email me
60 2014-08-17 02:12:55 <TheRelic> is it possible using a command in bitcoind to give a address coins in a -testnet ?
61 2014-08-17 02:12:56 <ayansh> hi #bitcoin-dev, i am using RelayNodeClient.jar, *.relay.mattcorallo.com 8336 connection refused, it worked fine earlier. service is down?
62 2014-08-17 02:13:07 <BlueMatt> probably, I'll look later
63 2014-08-17 02:13:28 <TheRelic> or is there a way to find out how many confirmations a block has?
64 2014-08-17 02:15:16 <dsnrk> blocks don't have confirmations really, they have a depth.
65 2014-08-17 02:15:30 <BlueMatt> ayansh: fixed, though I'll look a bit later into the cause
66 2014-08-17 02:16:36 <ayansh> BlueMatt:Thanks, it's working now.
67 2014-08-17 02:19:20 <TheRelic> right now, for a miner it requires 120 confirmations to get paid out, how do i change this in the src?
68 2014-08-17 02:19:36 <dsnrk> altcoin development is off topic.
69 2014-08-17 02:19:57 <dsnrk> if you can't find a simple variable, please don't try to make a currency.
70 2014-08-17 02:20:00 <gmaxwell> TheRelic: the fact that newly generated coins can't be spent immediately is a requirement of the bitcoin protocol it cannot be changed.
71 2014-08-17 02:20:13 <TheRelic> gmaxwell i'm working on a clone,
72 2014-08-17 02:20:32 <TheRelic> i need to change the block confirmations for block generators to get paid out for testing purposes
73 2014-08-17 02:20:36 <BlueMatt> in which case, see dsnrk's reply
74 2014-08-17 02:20:41 <gmaxwell> TheRelic: please read http://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/alts.pdf
75 2014-08-17 02:21:03 <agorist000> petertodd, thanks, and where might I find your email address?
76 2014-08-17 02:21:08 <gmaxwell> TheRelic: creating a cryptosystem (which a cryptocurrency is one) is a serious responsibility... you're asking the most basic possible parameter question.
77 2014-08-17 02:42:29 <ayansh> BlueMatt: I think issue is reproducible, connection is refused after telnet *.relay.mattcorallo.com 8336. i was sending standard error and standard output to /dev/null to avoid disk io.. couldn't corelate both.
78 2014-08-17 02:45:26 <ahmed_> anyone here know why bitcoind could keep crashing/
79 2014-08-17 02:52:45 <eberline> I need some help purchasing a coin and mining it. I am willing to pay bitcoin for this service. Someone message me please
80 2014-08-17 02:54:28 <jgarzik> eberline, way way off topic for this channel
81 2014-08-17 02:57:11 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, supreme NACK for utxo polling
82 2014-08-17 03:12:25 <gmaxwell> oh my. did this actually emit the txouts themselves before?