1 2015-07-18 00:22:29 <dgenr8> reproducible whenever a non-minimal wallet is present. bitcoind -salvagewallet -regtest --> AssertLockHeldInternal() at sync.cpp:144 <-- CWallet::LoadKeyMetadata() at wallet.cpp:145
  2 2015-07-18 04:03:17 <midnightmagic> Well. Look, could we put a custom header in the message instead of overriding the Reply-To:? Like X-From-Stripped: or something?
  3 2015-07-18 04:08:08 <Luke-Jr> midnightmagic: how is that any better? O.o
  4 2015-07-18 04:10:06 <midnightmagic> Luke-Jr: It's not destroying a field users might have wanted to use themselves. If I'm not going to convince anyone to ignore DMARC origin users because DMARC breaks mailing lists, then assisting people in dealing with it by either giving them an option to *not* have the munging applied, or giving them the information to undo it themselves makes the impact transparent and reversible.
  5 2015-07-18 04:10:56 <midnightmagic> My MX ignores DMARC hints entirely, because the people who designed it are apparently idiots.
  6 2015-07-18 08:10:38 <rnicoll> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6201 - the discussion in there has long since failed to be useful, correct?
  7 2015-07-18 08:11:22 <rnicoll> Only just tried getting involved, and sort of realising everyone backed out of the thread earlier
  8 2015-07-18 08:16:41 <gmaxwell> No one wants to waste their time arguing with the confused or crazy.
  9 2015-07-18 08:17:24 <rnicoll> I was mostly wanting to check general conclusion was confused/crazy
 10 2015-07-18 08:18:01 <wumpus> good point, going to close again, the dynamic proposals are much better anyway
 11 2015-07-18 08:18:43 <gmaxwell> rnicoll: also, your comment there is just over thinking it; I think. If the network will relay transactions that don't get mined then its a trivial vector to waste bandwidth (and perhaps memory, though thats addressable in other ways).
 12 2015-07-18 08:19:34 <gmaxwell> yea, I think it's hopeless.
 13 2015-07-18 08:20:40 <rnicoll> no idea what they have against side chains
 14 2015-07-18 08:34:28 <wumpus> and indeed I wouldn't join that discussion. It's too far off topic, and you'll not convince the guy anyway.
 15 2015-07-18 08:34:58 <Luke-Jr> +1
 16 2015-07-18 18:16:00 <jonny1000> does anyone have recommendations as to what hardware to buy to cheaply run three nodes, my RPi nodes are out of memory
 17 2015-07-18 19:02:23 <petertodd> jonny1000: as in RAM? probably just need to increase the min relay fee, set minrelayfee=0.0001 or higher in bitcoin.conf
 18 2015-07-18 19:16:27 <jonny1000> RAM and now memory too, it only has 64 GB (is that the max) and the blockchain is approaching that now
 19 2015-07-18 19:17:48 <jonny1000> I am trying to compile core on my old samsung galaxy S4, but a new cheap piece of hardware would be good
 20 2015-07-18 19:25:49 <sturles> jonny1000: Odroid-U3 or some other variant, perhaps?
 21 2015-07-18 19:28:09 <sturles> U2 has 4 ARM cores and 2 GiB RAM.  SD slot and some other storage I can't remember the name of.  And USB.
 22 2015-07-18 19:40:48 <jonny1000> thanks
 23 2015-07-18 20:12:14 <jcorgan> jonny1000: you may want to look at the bitnodes hardware project, they sell a plug-it-in, turn-it-on full bitcoin node based on an odriod xu3, with a nice case
 24 2015-07-18 20:22:02 <hexafraction> Is there an FPGA-friendly way of performing point addition on Bitcoin's elliptic curve? I'm not very familiar with EC, but I just need to hack together an EC private key to public key conversion, which means I'd need to use a bunch of additions using something like Montgomery's ladder or another process. My concern is the inversion operation that's part of each addition operation as it doesn't seem like it has an efficient FPGA imple
 25 2015-07-18 20:22:44 <sipa> there is a trivial inversion implementation using a fixed addition chain
 26 2015-07-18 20:23:07 <sipa> you can have a look at the code in libsecp256k1 (github.com/bitcoin/secp256k1, and irc channel #secp256k1)
 27 2015-07-18 20:24:15 <hexafraction> sipa: Thanks, I haven't even thought to look at it due to my own stupidity. I'll take a look right now.
 28 2015-07-18 20:25:49 <phantomcircuit> midnightmagic, amusingly linus posted something about this yesterday on g+https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds/posts/DiG9qANf5PA
 29 2015-07-18 20:25:50 <phantomcircuit> https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds/posts/DiG9qANf5PA
 30 2015-07-18 20:40:33 <jcorgan> n
 31 2015-07-18 20:41:49 <bonks> Hello, I see listunspent was disabled. How do I get unspent outputs now?
 32 2015-07-18 20:42:16 <sipa> it was not disabled...
 33 2015-07-18 20:42:25 <sipa> not sure where you get that
 34 2015-07-18 20:43:20 <bonks> sipa: Running 0.11.0 : error: {"code":-32601,"message":"Method not found (disabled)"}
 35 2015-07-18 20:43:35 <bonks> 'bitcoin-cli listunspent'
 36 2015-07-18 20:45:24 <sipa> means the wallet is disabled
 37 2015-07-18 20:45:32 <sipa> don't run with -disablewallet
 38 2015-07-18 20:47:06 <bonks> sipa: I only have rpcuser, rpcpassword, server, daemon, maxconnection, and prune in my config. Nothing passed to bitcoind
 39 2015-07-18 20:47:14 <sipa> ah
 40 2015-07-18 20:47:21 <sipa> pruning automatically disables the wallet
 41 2015-07-18 20:47:51 <bonks> Can I enable it with prune?
 42 2015-07-18 20:48:08 <sipa> no
 43 2015-07-18 20:48:11 <sipa> not in 0.11
 44 2015-07-18 20:48:20 <sipa> the wallet does not support pruning yet
 45 2015-07-18 20:49:00 <bonks> Okay np. Thanks for the info
 46 2015-07-18 20:49:33 <gmaxwell> sipa: don't help people building brainwallet crackers. :(
 47 2015-07-18 20:51:03 <bonks> gmaxwell: Me, a cracker?
 48 2015-07-18 20:57:12 <gmaxwell> bonks: no. earlier.
 49 2015-07-18 21:14:25 <midnightmagic> phantomcircuit: holy crap, why is Linus using google for his email?!
 50 2015-07-18 21:56:25 <Luke-Jr> midnightmagic: speculative: because all desktop email software sucks :<
 51 2015-07-18 22:05:36 <_W_> it really really does, but personally I prefer to live with thunderbird than give up my mail server
 52 2015-07-18 22:06:54 <Apocalyptic> <Luke-Jr> midnightmagic: speculative: because all desktop email software sucks :< // couldn't agree more
 53 2015-07-18 22:10:29 <jcorgan> was on tbird and evolution for years but so much dbase corruption.  gave in and sold my soul, happy since.
 54 2015-07-18 22:13:38 <midnightmagic> Luke-Jr: kmail was alright while it wasn't infected with akonadi
 55 2015-07-18 22:13:54 <Luke-Jr> midnightmagic: yeah, that's why "from KDE 4.4" :P
 56 2015-07-18 22:16:04 <midnightmagic> jcorgan: tbird corrupts..?
 57 2015-07-18 22:16:44 <sipa> what is akonadi?
 58 2015-07-18 22:18:29 <midnightmagic> sipa: A miserable.. (* counts to ten *)  A database engine meant to be the ultimate storage location for mail, pim, contacts, etc, supposed to be searchable, quick, universal. Instead because of its crappy design anyone who tries to convert to it gets their email eaten; anyone who uses it for more than a few thousand messages gets to wait forever to do anything, and I'm pretty sure it's part of
 59 2015-07-18 22:18:35 <midnightmagic> some kind of malicious plan to destroy desktop mail clients.
 60 2015-07-18 22:19:03 <jcorgan> midnightmagic: lots of problems with imap and large (many thousands) of emails
 61 2015-07-18 22:21:04 <sipa> before that, he used mutt
 62 2015-07-18 22:28:05 <Apocalyptic> I'm tempted to switch to mutt from tbird actually
 63 2015-07-18 22:37:56 <midnightmagic> putting email on someone else's server means you have less of an idea when the vans drive up and steal all your data. The only reason Google makes a show of defending ioerror is because the alternative is the complete elimination of all high-value users from their network.
 64 2015-07-18 22:38:21 <sipa> what's ioerror?
 65 2015-07-18 22:38:31 <Diablo-D3> Apocalyptic: ugh no
 66 2015-07-18 22:38:34 <Diablo-D3> tbird is fucking shit
 67 2015-07-18 22:38:45 <Diablo-D3> and mozilla has largely killed it without officially doing so
 68 2015-07-18 22:38:48 <Apocalyptic> I'm not saying it's not
 69 2015-07-18 22:39:00 <Diablo-D3> you know what finally got me off mutt?
 70 2015-07-18 22:39:01 <Diablo-D3> gmail.
 71 2015-07-18 22:39:13 <Diablo-D3> and the route gmail has gone makes me consider going back
 72 2015-07-18 22:40:00 <Luke-Jr> FWIW, that KMail-from-KDE-4.4 is still supported officially by Gentoo's KDE team ;p
 73 2015-07-18 22:40:46 <midnightmagic> sipa: ioerror is Jacob Applebaum; one of the Tor developers, the guy who helped Snowden release the NSA docs by helping analyze them; was also a wikileaks "collaborator" and thus the subject of that massive Virginia witchunt-I-Mean-grandjury investigation, suspected of being the one to turn Snowden by the strength of his talks and character, and victim of significant USG harrassment when travell
 74 2015-07-18 22:40:52 <midnightmagic> ing.
 75 2015-07-18 22:41:58 <sipa> oh, wasn't aware of his username
 76 2015-07-18 22:42:29 <sipa> my impression while at google was that they do care about protecting user rights, in fact
 77 2015-07-18 22:42:54 <sipa> but i was just a lowly site reliability engineer :)
 78 2015-07-18 22:43:51 <Luke-Jr> speaking of Google, does anyone happen to know the technical details behind their "only the Nexus 6 works with the Fi SIMs"? maybe PM (or another channel if others share this interest) since /way/ off-topic here..
 79 2015-07-18 22:44:28 <midnightmagic> It is in their best interests to protect user rights. The error in my opinion is my inference that people think Google's defence team is a better solution than making it harder for USG to serve illegal warrants thanks to massive email decentralization. :(
 80 2015-07-18 22:45:07 <midnightmagic> It's a pretty juicy target.
 81 2015-07-18 22:45:13 <sipa> midnightmagic: i think that when usg comes after you specifically, google's legal team is in fact better than myself
 82 2015-07-18 22:45:46 <sipa> midnightmagic: but the difference is that if the usg comes after google with a secret warrant, i won't know, while if i control it myself, i obviously do
 83 2015-07-18 22:45:58 <midnightmagic> sipa: Yes, unfortunately that is true, which is why everyone trusts Google. Even when Google is a direct competitor, or could leverage the data competitively as in a customer/vendor arrangement.
 84 2015-07-18 22:47:16 <midnightmagic> If Google could use information in user emails to save themselves a few million dollars in support or renewal licensing for example.. vs. a free service they provide, who is going to believe Google isn't using this information?
 85 2015-07-18 22:47:37 <nibor> FYI... think Mike Hearn used to work in Gmail security.
 86 2015-07-18 22:48:42 <sipa> nibor: s/security/abuse/, but indeed
 87 2015-07-18 22:59:26 <Luke-Jr> Gmail has an abuse dept? They don't respond to abuse reports..
 88 2015-07-18 23:01:43 <sipa> Luke-Jr: abuse dept does not imply user support, it can also be development of anti-abuse protection or analysis :)
 89 2015-07-18 23:18:32 <gmaxwell> sipa: In the US at least there is a _very_ different legal standard for email you have hosted vs host yourself. Basically when you allow a third party to store your email you have no "expectation of privacy" for that information (after all you gave it to a third party) and so the normal warrant requirements don't exist. The information can be obtained with an administrative subpoena where an official
 90 2015-07-18 23:18:38 <gmaxwell> basically makes a unreviewed signed statement that they need the information (but not why). The email host has limited to no legal ground to resist the subpoena (not their information).
 91 2015-07-18 23:24:38 <belcher> what happened with the spv miner forking
 92 2015-07-18 23:24:51 <belcher> the sticky from /r/bitcoin is gone, i assume its been somehow fixed?
 93 2015-07-18 23:29:05 <petertodd> gmaxwell: does amazon ec2 count as "host myself"?
 94 2015-07-18 23:29:06 <Luke-Jr> belcher: not really
 95 2015-07-18 23:29:57 <belcher> so its just being swept under the carpet?
 96 2015-07-18 23:30:09 <_W_> ultimately, legal guarantees mean only so much. Especially when you dabble in hostile technologies like encryption
 97 2015-07-18 23:30:43 <Luke-Jr> belcher: as opposed to?
 98 2015-07-18 23:30:44 <petertodd> belcher: full node users are unaffected; pure SPV is inherently not very secure with low #'s of confirmations
 99 2015-07-18 23:31:31 <belcher> full nodes below version 0.9 something are affected iirc
100 2015-07-18 23:31:46 <Luke-Jr> belcher: <0.9.5 is not supported in the first place
101 2015-07-18 23:31:51 <belcher> okay
102 2015-07-18 23:31:54 <petertodd> belcher: those full nodes are loudly telling their owners that they need to upgrade...
103 2015-07-18 23:32:09 <belcher> ok so should be alright
104 2015-07-18 23:32:50 <sipa> petertodd: hmm, if a large portion of the hashrate is using spv mining, wouldn't that lead to lower convergence in some configurations?
105 2015-07-18 23:32:56 <sipa> s/lower/slower/
106 2015-07-18 23:33:13 <petertodd> sipa: what configurations do you mean?
107 2015-07-18 23:33:18 <sipa> (note: had some alcohol, brain functions are at 37%)
108 2015-07-18 23:33:20 <petertodd> sipa: it can lead to faster convergence in others of course
109 2015-07-18 23:33:34 <petertodd> sipa: is working on a weekend, brain functions are at 50% :)
110 2015-07-18 23:35:00 <gmaxwell> petertodd: by a straighforward reading of the statute (18 usc 2703), no; but it's more complicated because 2703 is only a lawful law under a contrived theory, and the way constutional decisions work is that if a court can adopt a narrower reading of the law in order to preserves the law's constutionality then thats what they're obligated to do.
111 2015-07-18 23:35:23 <gmaxwell> petertodd: because most of these orders go on in secret, and the reciever of the order has no grounds to challenge, there hasn't been a ton of caselaw.
112 2015-07-18 23:35:32 <petertodd> gmaxwell: so it won't hurt, and might help basically
113 2015-07-18 23:35:43 <petertodd> gmaxwell: and govts. do illegal shit so...
114 2015-07-18 23:35:55 <petertodd> gmaxwell: plus, I'm canadian so i'm fucked anyway :)
115 2015-07-18 23:36:09 <sipa> petertodd: also, are you in canadia/
116 2015-07-18 23:36:16 <petertodd> sipa: toronto!
117 2015-07-18 23:36:30 <sipa> i'm in montreal until tuesday
118 2015-07-18 23:36:52 <petertodd> sipa: ah cool - that's actually pretty close buy all in all
119 2015-07-18 23:37:01 <gmaxwell> petertodd: yes. the more private the better. Obviously the gold standard is to put it in your home, as that has the highest level of protection-- plus you also get the sipa-cited protection of it just being hard to get the data without you knowing (which helps when you're not protected by the law, like you foreign folks) or when the attacker doesn't care about obeying it..
120 2015-07-18 23:37:51 <petertodd> gmaxwell: yeah, I keep meaning to setup a co-located server on canadian soil to replace my ec2 vps's
121 2015-07-18 23:38:16 <petertodd> gmaxwell: unfortunately at home my internet is too unreliable for travel
122 2015-07-18 23:39:27 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: eh, what does "host myself" actually include then? :/
123 2015-07-18 23:39:40 <Luke-Jr> is colo or dedi any better than VPS?
124 2015-07-18 23:39:58 <sipa> i should get one of those self-owned server-located-in-a-former-military-faciity-hosting-facility-located-in-an-alp
125 2015-07-18 23:40:11 <petertodd> colo certainely upps the anti a *lot* for search
126 2015-07-18 23:40:47 <petertodd> sipa: I should put a server with a cell connection and solar power in the forest next to my apartment
127 2015-07-18 23:41:05 <sipa> is it a merkle forest?
128 2015-07-18 23:41:20 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: It's not clearly eastablished where the boundary is. Hopefully whatever case finally answers that question kills 18.usc.2703 completely.
129 2015-07-18 23:41:21 <petertodd> sipa: nah, deciduous
130 2015-07-18 23:42:28 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: I think you could say that if the provider would have to do something that would be otherwise unlawful to do on their own in order to facilate the access then thats out of scope for a 2703 order.
131 2015-07-18 23:43:44 <petertodd> gmaxwell: can these orders encompass not just searching a server, but actively subverting it? e.g. can i set it up to self-encrypt every email to a key not kept on the server?
132 2015-07-18 23:44:24 <petertodd> gmaxwell: (assuming SSL smtp here of course, with forward secrecy)
133 2015-07-18 23:44:55 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: the other thing that is problematic for dedi/colo/vps whatever is that often the contracts of places will outright say "we'll do whatever some 'law enforcement' says".
134 2015-07-18 23:45:41 <gmaxwell> petertodd: under 2703, I think not-- and it wouldn't fit the principle. Not that getting an actual order is that much harder (but at least its subject to some due process).
135 2015-07-18 23:46:10 <petertodd> gmaxwell: hmm, wouldn't help against the NSA, but again, sounds like it wouldn't hurt - relatively easy to add as an extension to IMAP
136 2015-07-18 23:46:49 <petertodd> gmaxwell: hell, just enccrypting the imap FS w/ encfs is probably somewhat helpful
137 2015-07-18 23:48:27 <gmaxwell> petertodd: an obvious thing to do w/ your travel problems is have a mailserver at home and on your laptop, and a dumb bent pipe tcp proxy on the VPS. if your mailserver at home goes down when you're on the road, just spin up a copy on your laptop and redirect the bent pipe.
138 2015-07-18 23:48:43 <gmaxwell> mail you at least have a few days to recover things before it bounces.
139 2015-07-18 23:49:02 <petertodd> gmaxwell: yeah, OTOH, I get people sending me really time sensitive mail constantly :(
140 2015-07-18 23:49:21 <petertodd> gmaxwell: but for sure, with a standard primary/secondary setup that'd be fine
141 2015-07-18 23:51:46 <petertodd> gmaxwell: well, granted, not being able to get email because I didn't get it prior to the home server goin down is a big problem :(
142 2015-07-18 23:52:58 <petertodd> gmaxwell: !@#$ dsl modem I have from my ISP doesn't restart reliably, and I have no choice but to use it
143 2015-07-18 23:54:20 <gmaxwell> petertodd: perhaps in your past life of working on analog electronics for the (mineral) mining industry you heard of this fantastic component called a relay?  You could assemble a serial attached watchdog in about an hour or two of work. :)
144 2015-07-18 23:54:46 <Luke-Jr> bigger problem is when your server is up to receive it, then down for IMAP :P
145 2015-07-18 23:55:13 <petertodd> gmaxwell: heh, touche, although sounds like a days work by the time I'm done testing it :)