1 2017-09-19 01:41:58 <cluelessperson> petertod d's bitcoinlib doesn't support segwit yet. so my bot doesn't find it
 2 2017-09-19 01:44:09 <cluelessperson> I'll do some stuff
 3 2017-09-19 14:17:29 <knaccc> gmaxwell I'm a contributor to Monero, and we were wondering if you might be willing to give us your quick thoughts on the statement you made in your CT paper: "Most importantly, this scheme is compatible with pruning and does not make the verification state for Bitcoin grow forever". We were wondering if you'd agree that it would make sense for Monero to prune all ring signatures and range proofs after a
 4 2017-09-19 14:17:31 <knaccc> period of, say, 60 days, without putting the blockchain at risk.
 5 2017-09-19 15:23:49 <nikhatzi> Hello ppl. I'm following the gitian-building guide from github, but for some reason everytime I fail to build bitcoin-qt. It says that lqwindows cannot be found and it won't build the bitcoin frontend. Any help?
 6 2017-09-19 18:03:11 <dviola> when making backups, are there any downsides/disadvantages to overwriting old backups with new ones?
 7 2017-09-19 18:04:20 <dviola> and is this even recommended?
 8 2017-09-19 18:04:36 <dviola> so I don't have to create different copies of the backup files, e.g. wallet-2017-09-19.dat, etc
 9 2017-09-19 18:06:31 <esotericnonsense> dviola: one disadvantage of overwriting is that if they're not 'of the same wallet' (e.g. you had some other wallet.dat) then you could nuke the wrong one by mistake
10 2017-09-19 18:07:10 <esotericnonsense> dviola: it shouldn't be necessary to constantly back it up if it's a HD wallet though, you will lose new labels and such but that's all
11 2017-09-19 18:11:36 <dviola> esotericnonsense: you mean that opening a wallet.dat that was created by an older version of core and overwriting that with a newer version could result in a problem?
12 2017-09-19 18:12:06 <esotericnonsense> dviola: no, i mean that you mix up actually different wallets
13 2017-09-19 18:12:37 <dviola> hrm
14 2017-09-19 18:13:02 <dviola> I don't think I'll ever do that, I'll probably be on the latest version most of the time
15 2017-09-19 18:15:49 <dviola> but yeah, I see now why it could be a good thing to have different backup copies like that
16 2017-09-19 18:16:08 <dviola> thanks
17 2017-09-19 18:40:25 <dviola> esotericnonsense: by 'different wallets' do you mean loading different wallet.dat at the same time or different versions of Core on different computers?
18 2017-09-19 18:42:54 <esotericnonsense> dviola: i mean actually different wallets with different addresses in
19 2017-09-19 18:43:24 <esotericnonsense> in the HD case, wallets which have different seeds
20 2017-09-19 18:43:47 <dviola> oh
21 2017-09-19 18:44:16 <esotericnonsense> (and also different addresses, just trying to make clear what I mean by different, no set overlap)
22 2017-09-19 18:45:12 <dviola> it makes sense now, thanks
23 2017-09-19 18:45:37 <dviola> I only have one address right now, in that case overwriting can't be a problem right?
24 2017-09-19 18:45:48 <dviola> err
25 2017-09-19 18:45:50 <dviola> one wallet
26 2017-09-19 18:50:43 <esotericnonsense> it's really up to you. one thing i would say is that testing backups could be useful here.
27 2017-09-19 18:55:49 <esotericnonsense> an amusing thing - there's been at least one airdrop that i wasn't aware of until recently. clam coin - if you had a balance in an address in may 2014 then you could get some. they actually have a value (bonkers).
28 2017-09-19 18:57:54 <esotericnonsense> missed the cutoff here but it was vaguely similar to BCH (except instead of balances carrying over 1:1, there was a fixed amount per 'live' address).
29 2017-09-19 18:58:41 <esotericnonsense> who knows, maybe you'll learn of a silly altcoin but you've already deleted an old wallet cause it was empty. unlikely but eh.
30 2017-09-19 19:06:48 <arubi> "oops I sent to one of your old addresses by mistake teehee"
31 2017-09-19 19:06:56 <arubi> "what do you mean gone?"
32 2017-09-19 19:16:18 <esotericnonsense> oh yeah, that too
33 2017-09-19 19:16:29 <esotericnonsense> *poof*
34 2017-09-19 19:31:21 <dviola> I don't see how I could lose anything if I have only 1 wallet and I overwrite the backups
35 2017-09-19 19:31:57 <arubi> you might overwrite that file one time with a corrupt wallet
36 2017-09-19 19:32:06 <arubi> then there's no going back and you need a new one
37 2017-09-19 19:32:41 <arubi> say there wasn't a lot in it, but still people have these addresses.  they're not supposed to pay to them, you're not supposed to use them, but anything can happen
38 2017-09-19 19:34:43 <dviola> I see
39 2017-09-19 19:34:46 <dviola> good point
40 2017-09-19 19:35:18 <ossifrage> dviola, storage is free, just save multiple backups (I save all my backups)
41 2017-09-19 19:35:58 <dviola> yep, thanks
42 2017-09-19 19:36:55 <ossifrage> The wallet files are tiny, you can fit a shitload of wallet.dat files in a $10 USB key, so why not just save every backup
43 2017-09-19 19:37:00 <dviola> I will
44 2017-09-19 19:46:10 <dviola> storage is not my problem, what if you add the name of the file wrong and then you have trouble finding out "what was the most recent backup I had?"
45 2017-09-19 19:46:14 <dviola> could that be an issue?
46 2017-09-19 19:46:25 <esotericnonsense> stat wallet*.dat
47 2017-09-19 19:46:36 <esotericnonsense> also you could create a script to name it
48 2017-09-19 19:48:25 <esotericnonsense> make the backup, mv -i wallet.dat{,.$(date +"%Y%m%d")}
49 2017-09-19 19:48:38 <arubi> "/path/to/bkp/wallet.dat.$(date '+%d_%m_%y_%H_%M')"
50 2017-09-19 19:49:32 <arubi> it's probably also written in the wallet.dat file itself if you dump it with bdb tools :)
51 2017-09-19 19:51:05 <esotericnonsense> yeah
52 2017-09-19 19:52:03 <esotericnonsense> i was kind of thinking that it'd be nice to have wallet.dat automatically name itself based on some characteristic like a hash of the seed (then it's harder to mix them up), but it's complicated because wallets can have all sorts in them
53 2017-09-19 19:53:44 <esotericnonsense> you do it and then someone goes and imports a privkey and suddenly 'wallet-abcde.dat' is no longer covered by an old 'wallet-abcde.dat' backup
54 2017-09-19 19:54:15 <arubi> most grief is due to a cumbersome restore method I think
55 2017-09-19 19:54:20 <dviola> thanks guys
56 2017-09-19 19:55:09 <arubi> now with HD wallets you could technically get everything back (well, keys and transactions only really)
57 2017-09-19 19:55:38 <arubi> still need a proper procedure for the metadata and scripts if you use any, that has to be done with timely backups still
58 2017-09-19 19:57:12 <arubi> really it all comes down to what the wallet is willing to consider as "yours" and for it to be able to solve that interesting "mine" script on its own so it'll tell me "these are your coins"
59 2017-09-19 19:57:52 <arubi> with bare pubkeys, canonical scripts, easy.  p2(w)sh?  doh.
60 2017-09-19 20:29:13 <privateglacier> Hi guys, I extended Glacier protocol  (a python script that uses Bitcoin Core for storing multi-sig bitcoin private key securely)  with some security improvements, but I wasn't able to find a person to review my small change so far, because none of my friends understand Bitcoin enough. Do you have some suggestions who I could ask to review it? The code change is here (only the glacierscript.py is interesting):
61 2017-09-19 20:29:15 <privateglacier> https://github.com/GlacierProtocol/GlacierProtocol/compare/master...privateglacier:master