1 2015-10-04 09:46:18 <manishsahni2000> hi
 2 2015-10-04 10:06:24 <manishsahni2000> hello
 3 2015-10-04 10:59:52 <an0n> hello, my bitcoin core is showing outgoing transactions with -1 confirmations
 4 2015-10-04 11:00:11 <an0n> then they get resent with another tx and they get confirmed
 5 2015-10-04 11:00:31 <an0n> any idea why is it happening?
 6 2015-10-04 11:02:33 <btcdrak> an0n transaction malleability attack
 7 2015-10-04 11:03:33 <an0n> it's bitcoins I'm sending, not receiving
 8 2015-10-04 11:05:59 <an0n> not sure what malleability attack is tbh
 9 2015-10-04 11:08:26 <btcdrak> an0n: someone is taking unconfirmed transactions and malleating the signatures (which changes the txid)
10 2015-10-04 11:08:42 <btcdrak> an0n: check this link out blog.coinkite.com/post/130318407326/ongoing-bitcoin-malleability-attack-low-s-high
11 2015-10-04 11:09:13 <btcdrak> also, probably should continue in #bitcoin
12 2015-10-04 11:10:12 <an0n> so it's a network issue, not my wallet/client?
13 2015-10-04 18:46:45 <arne> need node to get verify
14 2015-10-04 18:59:36 <bitcoin247> EXCEPTION: N5boost10filesystem16filesystem_errorE        boost::filesystem::create_directory: Input/output error: "/media/eds/4456D33E56D32F82/bitcoin/database"        bitcoin in Runaway exception
15 2015-10-04 18:59:48 <bitcoin247> anyone know a reason for this?
16 2015-10-04 19:02:28 <develCuy> Is there any plans on implementing an index for addresses and balances? similar to txindex?
17 2015-10-04 19:05:51 <jcorgan> no, addresses don't have balances
18 2015-10-04 19:12:48 <develCuy> jcorgan: AFAIK there is a way to calculate balance from the public blockchain
19 2015-10-04 19:15:02 <Apocalyptic> develCuy, there is already an addrindex patch from sipa for 0.9 something, it's not maintained though
20 2015-10-04 19:19:48 <jcorgan> the addrindex patch will keep a database of txouts associated with addresses, but it has nothing to do with "balances"
21 2015-10-04 19:20:39 <jgarzik> You can calculate the total value of all unspent tx outputs available for hash(public key X) to spend.
22 2015-10-04 19:54:53 <develCuy> jcorgan: do you mean this? https://counterparty.io/docs/bitcoin_core/
23 2015-10-04 19:56:32 <jcorgan> that is the patch as maintained by them, yes.  fyi, using that will approximately double the storage requirements of the blockchain database.
24 2015-10-04 20:36:49 <taylorhamcheese> Can anybody see this? New to IRC...
25 2015-10-04 20:36:58 <taylorhamcheese> 2
26 2015-10-04 20:39:59 <Anduck_> sure.
27 2015-10-04 20:41:08 <taylorhamcheese> anyone have any books or websites to recommend to help learn about and understand ECDSA?
28 2015-10-04 22:05:04 <Luke-Jr> btcdrak: did you fix the addrindex bugs gmaxwell had mentioned a while back?
29 2015-10-04 22:05:52 <btcdrak> Luke-Jr: Havent replicated it yet, but also considering a different approach
30 2015-10-04 22:06:04 <Luke-Jr> hmm, maybe I should wait for that then?
31 2015-10-04 22:07:06 <btcdrak> Luke-Jr: Maybe, but it is used by a few services in production already.
32 2015-10-04 22:20:20 <btcdrak> Luke-Jr: how could address reused be prevented?
33 2015-10-04 22:20:53 <Luke-Jr> btcdrak: your wallet would simply refuse to acknowledge more than one tx to an address
34 2015-10-04 22:21:30 <btcdrak> but someone could still send funds there. It would really need to be at a consensus level to be effective
35 2015-10-04 22:21:54 <Luke-Jr> btcdrak: if someone sends funds to an invalid address, they burn them
36 2015-10-04 22:22:39 <btcdrak> seems like it would be a pretty nasty DOS attack though. Send some dust to an address then when the real payment comes in, *fizzle*
37 2015-10-04 22:24:29 <Luke-Jr> btcdrak: well, you could have the wallet display them both unconfirmed, then only show the larger payment confirmed
38 2015-10-04 22:26:32 <jcorgan> i really do wish that wallets would display their contents as a list of UTXOs, not receiving addresses
39 2015-10-04 22:27:17 <jcorgan> "these are the things you can spend with the keys that you have"
40 2015-10-04 22:28:00 <alpalp> much better to not ever display an address that has received funds than to block you from spending it.  terminology needs to change if its not too late, address the worst possible word
41 2015-10-04 22:28:11 <Luke-Jr> jcorgan: not much reason to expose UTXOs to users at all
42 2015-10-04 22:28:28 <Luke-Jr> alpalp: context of this discussion is fixing malleability.
43 2015-10-04 22:28:48 <Luke-Jr> alpalp: to do so, address reuse becomes completely insecure
44 2015-10-04 22:29:01 <jcorgan> well, not in their detailed form, but rather have UTXOs be the list item granularity, instead of addresses
45 2015-10-04 22:29:08 <alpalp> ah, then needs to be protocol level fix, right?
46 2015-10-04 22:29:30 <jcorgan> yeah, it would need to be a consensus change
47 2015-10-04 22:30:01 <Luke-Jr> jcorgan: either UTXOs shown individually, or the entire wallet balance; I agree
48 2015-10-04 22:30:12 <Luke-Jr> alpalp: yes, probably a sighash type
49 2015-10-04 22:30:15 <jcorgan> yeah, i think we agree
50 2015-10-04 22:30:49 <Luke-Jr> jcorgan: since 2011, I have often imagined a wallet that displayed each UTXO as a physical coin you could drag and drop to a transaction you were sending :P
51 2015-10-04 22:31:21 <jcorgan> indeed, a single UTXO is the closest analogy bitcoin has to an actual "coin"
52 2015-10-04 22:31:24 <alpalp> luke-jr: that's a nice design.  And even show change being formed.  Coins go to be melted and recast
53 2015-10-04 22:31:50 <alpalp> thats exactly how we spend cash - we provide a set of UTXO's (bills and coins) and receive change.
54 2015-10-04 22:32:24 <Luke-Jr> alpalp: yeah
55 2015-10-04 22:32:32 <btcdrak> Luke-Jr: that would be a great UI.
56 2015-10-04 22:32:56 <jcorgan> but the mis-terminology of "accounts" and "balances" has been perpetuated so long by block explorers that people would think it was a new thing
57 2015-10-04 22:33:07 <jcorgan> i don't think a single block explorer gets it right
58 2015-10-04 22:33:41 <Luke-Jr> jcorgan: none do AFAIK
59 2015-10-04 22:35:38 <Luke-Jr> btcdrak: so where is the official addrindex fork? :P
60 2015-10-04 22:38:21 <btcdrak> https://github.com/btcdrak/bitcoin/tree/addrindex-0.11
61 2015-10-04 22:39:07 <belcher_> in wallets where used addresses are not visible, how would someone check they've been paid after they write "please pay me on address 1XXXX" to their counterparty
62 2015-10-04 22:39:32 <Luke-Jr> belcher_: look at their tx log? :P
63 2015-10-04 22:39:49 <belcher_> so their tx log says which address of theirs is being paid to
64 2015-10-04 22:40:18 <Luke-Jr> belcher_: it displays the label for the address, of course
65 2015-10-04 22:40:30 <belcher_> okay
66 2015-10-04 22:40:36 <Luke-Jr> how else would you know what you're being paid for? :P
67 2015-10-04 22:41:33 <jcorgan> 'generate address' would include a label for what the future receive transaction is for, which would get displayed when the TX arrives on P2P and then gets confirmed in blocks
68 2015-10-04 22:43:09 <alpalp> luke-jr: that UI breaks down a bit with a large number of UTXO you hold, but I like that idea
69 2015-10-04 22:43:10 <jcorgan> so your list of UTXOs would actually be a list of payments with those labels
70 2015-10-04 22:43:58 <belcher_> generate address would ideally be generate addresses, so payment amounts are harder to correlate for privacy
71 2015-10-04 22:45:37 <Luke-Jr> alpalp: UI could have safes and purses and stuff to put coins in? :P
72 2015-10-04 22:45:50 <Luke-Jr> jcorgan: already does
73 2015-10-04 22:46:02 <Luke-Jr> jcorgan: no reason to tie them to UTXOs though
74 2015-10-04 22:47:02 <belcher_> the utxos as coins GUI might encourage people to merge inputs more than otherwise
75 2015-10-04 22:47:06 <belcher_> to remove their visual clutter
76 2015-10-04 22:50:00 <Luke-Jr> hm
77 2015-10-04 22:51:12 <Luke-Jr> btcdrak: is that the last 0.11 revision? I don't really have a way to deploy updates/fixes for patchsets..
78 2015-10-04 22:51:17 <Luke-Jr> 0.11.0*
79 2015-10-04 22:54:02 <btcdrak> hrm, maybe let's start from the next 0.11.1, and I'll start using merge rather than rebase to sync with Core.
80 2015-10-04 22:54:29 <Luke-Jr> btcdrak: merge vs rebase doesn't matter to me
81 2015-10-04 22:55:22 <btcdrak> that branch is up to date with the current Core 0.11 branch
82 2015-10-04 22:58:10 <btcdrak> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/bitcoin:0.11...btcdrak:addrindex-0.11
83 2015-10-04 23:15:25 <Luke-Jr> btcdrak: any reason to make this available to more than bitcoind?
84 2015-10-04 23:19:01 <Luke-Jr> btcdrak: https://gitlab.com/bitcoin/gentoo/commit/e887c7a9bf14f9d2b9cb2de0720e5b7686f7bb71 look okay?