1 2016-01-29 00:22:08 <moa> http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/01/high-severity-bug-in-openssl-allows-attackers-to-decrypt-https-traffic/
  2 2016-01-29 00:53:58 <priidu> sorry for asking this over and over :P
  3 2016-01-29 00:54:08 <priidu> but any thoughts on this?
  4 2016-01-29 00:54:10 <priidu> http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2016/01/28#l1453988677.0
  5 2016-01-29 01:12:29 <tobyirc> gijensen I updated my PR to support zero AND non-zero value OP_RETURNs https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7376
  6 2016-01-29 01:12:32 <tobyirc> thanks again for the feedback
  7 2016-01-29 01:17:05 <Luke-Jr> tobyirc: is there any possibility of you giving up this [stupid] idea, or should I just assign you a BIP number now and get it over with?
  8 2016-01-29 01:17:51 <Luke-Jr> every new BIP that shouldn't be implemented, makes me want to write a BIP for some way people can publicly denounce them..
  9 2016-01-29 01:18:53 <tobyirc> Luke-Jr, I don't plan on giving up :)
 10 2016-01-29 01:19:21 <Luke-Jr> tobyirc: even if you have a BIP, it doesn't help your case to get Core (or anyone else) to implement it
 11 2016-01-29 01:19:26 <gijensen> tobyirc, I'll be sure to read and respond when I get a sec
 12 2016-01-29 01:20:08 <tobyirc> Luke-Jr I know, I still have more advocating to do :)
 13 2016-01-29 01:20:25 <tobyirc> I do wish you didn't think it was "stupid", it really isn't even if you don't agree
 14 2016-01-29 01:20:38 <tobyirc> gijensen, thanks!
 15 2016-01-29 01:20:40 <Luke-Jr> tobyirc: hopefully people will ignore such advocating and reject it.
 16 2016-01-29 01:20:48 <Luke-Jr> anyhow, you can use BIP 74
 17 2016-01-29 01:21:23 <tobyirc> ok, do I do a PR on the BIP repo?
 18 2016-01-29 01:21:28 <Luke-Jr> tobyirc: yes
 19 2016-01-29 01:21:33 <tobyirc> ok, thanks
 20 2016-01-29 01:21:52 <tobyirc> and I don't mind if people reject it, but I want a reason other than "all use of OP_RETURN is evil" :P
 21 2016-01-29 01:27:54 <priidu> what about my question? :(
 22 2016-01-29 01:28:33 <Luke-Jr> priidu: JSON only has one Number type.
 23 2016-01-29 01:29:13 <priidu> Luke-Jr: true that, but isn't there some sort of internal representation for the value?
 24 2016-01-29 01:31:53 <phantomcircuit> tobyirc, can you explain what value you perceive from storing bittorrent infohashes in the bitcoin blockchain?
 25 2016-01-29 01:33:26 <tobyirc> well I happened to pick bittorrent hashes because they happen to be 40 bytes long and I wanted a rev 1 that did *something*
 26 2016-01-29 01:33:53 <tobyirc> but the bigger idea is around using bitcoin to promote content
 27 2016-01-29 01:34:28 <tobyirc> so I create "channels" that are bitcoin addresses and the more bitcoin you send to that address with a particular hash in the OP_RETURN, the higher that hash will be rated on that "channel"
 28 2016-01-29 01:34:54 <tobyirc> the idea is to create something that allows you to vote with money but is fully decentralized and uncensorable
 29 2016-01-29 01:35:34 <tobyirc> as far as the bittorrent side goes, I was planning on integrating a bittorrent server so you could say write a markdown post, it would get hosted on bittorrent (via the key.run server) then you could promote it on one of these namespace channels by spending bitcoin
 30 2016-01-29 01:35:42 <tobyirc> as could others that found it interesting
 31 2016-01-29 01:35:55 <tobyirc> that's really a pretty specific use case, that I'm not sure anyone wants :)
 32 2016-01-29 01:36:16 <Luke-Jr> priidu: sure, why not just read the code?
 33 2016-01-29 01:36:16 <tobyirc> but the idea is that you can, with my proposed BIP, make sophisticated transactions like that without sitting on bitcoin
 34 2016-01-29 01:36:38 <tobyirc> since the users wallet will actually submit the transaction, you just serialize it and send it over https
 35 2016-01-29 01:38:09 <priidu> Luke-Jr: yes, you're absolutely correct, I checked for a sec before but couldn't find the right place right off the bat
 36 2016-01-29 01:38:16 <priidu> so just posted here
 37 2016-01-29 01:38:21 <Luke-Jr> priidu: it is currently calculated as floats, but cast to int64 before returning for some reason
 38 2016-01-29 01:38:30 <priidu> either way, it was more of a passing thought
 39 2016-01-29 01:38:42 <priidu> and something I thought I'd bring light to just in case
 40 2016-01-29 01:38:45 <priidu> in this chat
 41 2016-01-29 01:38:52 <Luke-Jr> priidu: simple to fix, in rpcmining.cpp at the top
 42 2016-01-29 01:38:57 <Luke-Jr> just remove the cast should work
 43 2016-01-29 01:39:07 <Luke-Jr> priidu: your first PR? :P
 44 2016-01-29 01:40:40 <priidu> yes, I don't consider myself proficient in C++ so I tend to stay away from submitting PRs to core :P
 45 2016-01-29 01:41:09 <priidu> obviously I can read the code but never programmed C++ professionally so I don't know the specific and caveats
 46 2016-01-29 01:42:07 <priidu> specifics*
 47 2016-01-29 01:42:34 <Luke-Jr> priidu: just remove the cast and test it, in this case
 48 2016-01-29 01:42:56 <Luke-Jr> it's hard to go wrong, but feel free to PM me if you have trouble
 49 2016-01-29 01:45:06 <tobyirc> Luke-Jr done with PR let me know if you need anything else, I think I did it right
 50 2016-01-29 01:45:25 <tobyirc> I didn't give it a status or date since I think you do that
 51 2016-01-29 01:46:48 <Luke-Jr> tobyirc: you need a Copyright section (see BIP 1) and update the index (README)
 52 2016-01-29 01:47:00 <tobyirc> ah, ok@
 53 2016-01-29 01:49:27 <phantomcircuit> tobyirc, nothing that you just described requires the data be in the blockchain
 54 2016-01-29 01:50:39 <tobyirc> phantomcircuit where would you put it?
 55 2016-01-29 01:51:02 <phantomcircuit> tobyirc, any peer-to-peer network would work
 56 2016-01-29 01:51:21 <tobyirc> no, you still need a centralized repo of torrents to discover
 57 2016-01-29 01:51:25 <Luke-Jr> phantomcircuit: I already told him this fwiw
 58 2016-01-29 01:51:27 <tobyirc> ala piratebay/kat.ph
 59 2016-01-29 01:52:09 <tobyirc> then I'd still have to generate bitcoin addresses for each piece of content, store that info on a db somewhere then watch for those addresses to receive coin
 60 2016-01-29 01:52:15 <tobyirc> very centralized sounding
 61 2016-01-29 01:53:26 <phantomcircuit> tobyirc, no...
 62 2016-01-29 01:54:00 <phantomcircuit> tobyirc, before building a tool to fill the blockchain with garabge
 63 2016-01-29 01:54:09 <phantomcircuit> please take another month to think of better solutions
 64 2016-01-29 01:54:23 <tobyirc> it won't fill the blockchain with garbage
 65 2016-01-29 01:54:54 <tobyirc> the thing with payment requests is they only go through if people submit them
 66 2016-01-29 01:55:06 <tobyirc> so this is only a "problem" if it gets popular
 67 2016-01-29 01:55:19 <tobyirc> which is a nice problem to have, bitcoin could use some popular consumer apps
 68 2016-01-29 01:55:25 <tobyirc> beside, this is a very narrow use case
 69 2016-01-29 01:55:31 <tobyirc> I need this mechanism for other things I want to do
 70 2016-01-29 01:55:40 <tobyirc> I have a user account system like one name in mind that could use this
 71 2016-01-29 01:58:20 <tobyirc> luke-jr added copywrite and updated index, rebased and squashed
 72 2016-01-29 01:58:45 <tobyirc> lol, yeah I only slack off in irc :P
 73 2016-01-29 01:59:06 <Luke-Jr> tobyirc: k, merged
 74 2016-01-29 01:59:10 <tobyirc> thank you!
 75 2016-01-29 01:59:49 <tobyirc> phantomcircuit and Luke-Jr was there ever an incident where OP_RETURN got abused? It seems like everyone is super jumpy about it but I have to admit to not having been around long enough to see it used nefariously
 76 2016-01-29 02:00:03 <tobyirc> I would like to learn more about why it's so hated though
 77 2016-01-29 02:00:04 <Luke-Jr> tobyirc: lots
 78 2016-01-29 02:00:14 <Luke-Jr> tobyirc: your plan will be one such example soon
 79 2016-01-29 02:00:18 <tobyirc> LOL
 80 2016-01-29 02:00:30 <tobyirc> by "abuse" I mean substantial growth of the blockchain
 81 2016-01-29 02:01:17 <belcher> the only reason OP_RETURN exists is to stop abusers polluting the UTXO set, the blockchain cannot be a cheap data storage server
 82 2016-01-29 02:01:32 <phantomcircuit> tobyirc, literally the only thing i've ever heard of that was a reasonable use for OP_RETURN was stealth addresses
 83 2016-01-29 02:01:50 <phantomcircuit> it's pretty clear to me that you want to store data that is unrelated to executing the payment
 84 2016-01-29 02:01:51 <tobyirc> correct, I don't believe in serializing data to the blockchain, but attaching 40 bytes of metadata to a transaction seems infinitely useful
 85 2016-01-29 02:01:55 <phantomcircuit> so it's be definition garabge
 86 2016-01-29 02:02:18 <tobyirc> no, in my plan the payment and data are intimately tied
 87 2016-01-29 02:02:26 <tobyirc> I wouldn't use bitcoin otherwise :)
 88 2016-01-29 02:15:22 <jimtendo_> OP_RETURN  exists, in large part, to accomodate Lightning Network, no?
 89 2016-01-29 02:16:09 <phantomcircuit> jimtendo_, ??? no it exists to stop people from using bare multisig
 90 2016-01-29 02:16:10 <maaku> jimtendo_: no
 91 2016-01-29 02:16:25 <maaku> RETURN has no applicaiton to lightning whatsoever
 92 2016-01-29 02:16:28 <phantomcircuit> afaik no lighting implementation even uses op_return
 93 2016-01-29 02:16:51 <jimtendo_> Hhhmmm... I'll have to go do some more reading.
 94 2016-01-29 02:17:01 <maaku> in fact, it has no applications at all ... it is supported as standard only because people insist on doing stupid things and would do something more harmful otherwise
 95 2016-01-29 02:17:22 <phantomcircuit> jimtendo_, i'd suggest https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning/raw/master/doc/deployable-lightning.pdf
 96 2016-01-29 02:17:45 <phantomcircuit> rusty did a good job of writing up the basic structure
 97 2016-01-29 02:17:48 <jimtendo_> phantomcircuit: Thanks, giving it a read now.
 98 2016-01-29 02:27:35 <Luke-Jr> jimtendo_: the only pseudo-legitimate use is Counterparty
 99 2016-01-29 02:27:57 <Luke-Jr> which I think tobyirc's proposal breaks as well
100 2016-01-29 02:29:12 <tobyirc> luke-jr it should still work with my bip
101 2016-01-29 02:29:35 <Luke-Jr> tobyirc: nah, someone will just write a payment request that quietly sends your assets to them :P
102 2016-01-29 02:30:17 <tobyirc> luke-jr what do you think of proof of existence?
103 2016-01-29 02:30:33 <Luke-Jr> tobyirc: I plan to add it to Core in 0.13 or 0.14
104 2016-01-29 02:30:39 <Luke-Jr> 100% spam-free
105 2016-01-29 02:30:51 <tobyirc> ah, via the mechanism you alluded to earlier
106 2016-01-29 02:30:56 <tobyirc> yes it should work for that
107 2016-01-29 02:36:40 <tobyirc> luke-jr do you have a good starting point for me to look at where I can learn more about your vision for bitcoin? I'm curious how you plan to keep the blockchain small but keep bitcoin growing since those two things seem incompatible in my mind.
108 2016-01-29 02:38:27 <Luke-Jr> tobyirc: it happens to be the same as Satoshi's vision, if that helps.
109 2016-01-29 02:40:58 <tobyirc> a bit, but I still don't understand why a large blockchain is a bad thing since things like OP_RETURN don't make it orders of magnitude larger, just slightly
110 2016-01-29 02:41:13 <tobyirc> like it seems if there was scaling problems, it won't be from OP_RETURN it will be from the number of transactions
111 2016-01-29 02:41:23 <tobyirc> worrying about OP_RETURN strikes me as a premature optimization
112 2016-01-29 02:42:16 <tobyirc> and I supposed I'd be in the camp of addressing those scaling issues at the cost of a small block chain, super low end hardware compatibility
113 2016-01-29 02:42:18 <Luke-Jr> that's like saying "my botnet is okay because I only use idle CPU time!"
114 2016-01-29 02:42:45 <tobyirc> if there were no transaction fees I'd totally agree with you, but miners get paid to mine op_return
115 2016-01-29 02:42:53 <Luke-Jr> miners don't bear the cost
116 2016-01-29 02:43:07 <Luke-Jr> the fees are there to discourage the spam, not to justify it
117 2016-01-29 02:43:09 <tobyirc> the cost for OP_RETURN data seems insignificant
118 2016-01-29 02:43:32 <Luke-Jr> [02:42:17] <Luke-Jr> that's like saying "my botnet is okay because I only use idle CPU time!"
119 2016-01-29 02:45:09 <tobyirc> so you see people running full nodes as having an agreement as to the usage of bitcoin, and OP_RETURN is not part of that agreement, therefore people using OP_RETURNs are taking advantage of their system?
120 2016-01-29 02:45:22 <Luke-Jr> precisely.
121 2016-01-29 02:45:33 <tobyirc> at least I'm honing in on what you think! :P
122 2016-01-29 02:46:21 <tobyirc> not that you care, but my philosophy is if it's available in the API, it's free to use without judgement
123 2016-01-29 02:46:29 <tobyirc> it's not good to shame people against using technology
124 2016-01-29 02:46:35 <tobyirc> better to change the technology so they can't do what they want
125 2016-01-29 02:46:49 <Luke-Jr> tobyirc: well, sounds like Bitcoin (and probably most of the real world) is incompatible with your philosophy
126 2016-01-29 02:46:55 <Luke-Jr> after all, there is an API for murder IRL
127 2016-01-29 02:47:12 <Luke-Jr> unfortunately, there is no way to change Bitcoin to be impossible to spam
128 2016-01-29 02:47:19 <tobyirc> there's an API for the prison too :)
129 2016-01-29 02:47:34 <tobyirc> it sounds like a good time to embrace it then :)
130 2016-01-29 02:47:39 <Luke-Jr> not to mention I am resisting you adding an API to spam
131 2016-01-29 02:47:46 <tobyirc> indeed
132 2016-01-29 02:48:12 <Luke-Jr> you can't say "APIs justify abuse!" and at the same time "I'm going to add an API for abuse!"
133 2016-01-29 02:48:35 <tobyirc> I can say, APIs let me do this thing, I want to do more things, let's make more APIs
134 2016-01-29 02:49:09 <Luke-Jr> how about you make those APIs in your *own* system, rather than pissing all over one we've been working on for years?
135 2016-01-29 02:49:23 <tobyirc> you'll have to embrace newcomers eventually
136 2016-01-29 02:49:29 <tobyirc> I'm seriously not the enemy of bitcoin
137 2016-01-29 02:49:48 <Luke-Jr> newcomers who don't attack the system, sure
138 2016-01-29 02:50:02 <tobyirc> newcomers will assume the APIs that exist are ok to use
139 2016-01-29 02:50:11 <tobyirc> there are countless blog posts extolling the virtues of OP_RETURN
140 2016-01-29 02:50:18 <tobyirc> that's how I found out about it :)
141 2016-01-29 02:50:25 <Luke-Jr> written by people who don't know what they're talking about
142 2016-01-29 02:50:58 <tobyirc> I still contend it's a premature optimization to worry about this since it's never caused any problems (aside from the moral issue you see)
143 2016-01-29 02:51:08 <Luke-Jr> it has
144 2016-01-29 02:51:15 <Luke-Jr> about half of the blockchain (so 30 GB) is spam
145 2016-01-29 02:51:31 <tobyirc> see that doesn't sound bad at all
146 2016-01-29 02:51:34 <tobyirc> 30 GB is not a lot of data
147 2016-01-29 02:51:35 <Luke-Jr> …
148 2016-01-29 02:51:52 <Luke-Jr> 30 GB is 6 months of typical cellular service
149 2016-01-29 02:52:38 <tobyirc> so all of bitcoin's transactions should be able to go down a edge connection?
150 2016-01-29 02:52:43 <tobyirc> that doesn't sound sustainable
151 2016-01-29 02:52:48 <Luke-Jr> yes, that is how Bitcoin works
152 2016-01-29 02:52:58 <Luke-Jr> it's not sustainable with spam
153 2016-01-29 02:53:08 <tobyirc> it's not sustainable without spam!
154 2016-01-29 02:53:26 <Luke-Jr> we'll see
155 2016-01-29 02:54:20 <tobyirc> I'll be watching for sure, but now I have to run. Thank you for taking the time to give some background.
156 2016-01-29 03:02:06 <moa> BIP 70 for magnet links, why bother?
157 2016-01-29 04:19:31 <cluelessperson> hi
158 2016-01-29 04:19:33 <cluelessperson> :))
159 2016-01-29 04:19:40 <cluelessperson> wrong channel, sorry
160 2016-01-29 07:59:45 <cluelessperson> Question, I'm attempting to help someone recover his bitcoin from a corrupted wallet.  I   How can I generate a key to decrypt his wallet from his passphrase?
161 2016-01-29 08:00:03 <cluelessperson> According to this.
162 2016-01-29 08:00:04 <cluelessperson> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/6b8a5ab622e5c9386c872036646bf94da983b190/doc/README
163 2016-01-29 08:01:21 <cluelessperson> the key is dynamically generated.  I'm wondering, are there existing tools to do this?
164 2016-01-29 13:34:10 <wumpus> there's a master key in the wallet database, which is randomly generated. This key is encrypted using the passphrase. The master key is used to encrypt the private keys.
165 2016-01-29 13:35:54 <wumpus> the code that handles wallet encryption and passphrases is here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/wallet/crypter.cpp
166 2016-01-29 15:44:16 <jtimon> maaku btcdrak morcos, to me it was useful to review 7184 on top of 6312 (which I had reviewed already, although that review of 7184 wasn't deep and is probably obsolete), but I tend to agree with morcos that is more a matter of review preferences. btdrak I really don't understand your point about a version on top of 6312 slowing things down...
167 2016-01-29 15:49:07 <jtimon> btcdrak: re "what concerns me more for delay is if consensus refactoring requires more rebasing" that woulnd't be a concern if we merge bip68 once and for all as policy rule (something that I regret so much didn't happen for 0.12, more than 6 months after its initial development...)
168 2016-01-29 19:12:07 <raad_> hi
169 2016-01-29 19:13:13 <raad_> anyone can help me?
170 2016-01-29 19:16:03 <raad_> no one?
171 2016-01-29 19:20:18 <instagibbs> raad_, just ask the q
172 2016-01-29 19:21:12 <raad_> Is it possible that my public key of ECDSA will be reveal on signature transaction? (scripsig) if yes how?
173 2016-01-29 19:30:00 <chjj> raad_: public keys can be recovered from signatures. it's just the way signatures are.
174 2016-01-29 19:34:43 <raad_> how it can be ?
175 2016-01-29 19:35:29 <maaku> raad_: math
176 2016-01-29 19:38:06 <raad_> yes but i heard that signature was encode DEr
177 2016-01-29 19:44:39 <maaku> so?
178 2016-01-29 19:46:17 <Eliel_> raad_: DER is encoding, not encryption. Encoding is made to be decodable by anyone. Encryption is meant to keep information hidden.
179 2016-01-29 21:51:16 <Luke-Jr> blah! that marker+flag happens to match what Eloipool is doing internally :<
180 2016-01-29 23:42:04 <xabbix> If orphan transactions are not relayed to other nodes, is it safe to assume that when my node sees an orphan transaction, it is more than likely that the relaying node is the actual owner of the transaction? (Let's ignore for a second the existence of web wallets and similar services).