1 2010-09-29 00:01:04 <Keefe> anyone have a webpage listing all the diff adjusts so far? or should i just dig thru my logs?
  2 2010-09-29 00:01:40 <gavinandresen> I saw a graph of difficulty over time somewhere, but can't remember where.
  3 2010-09-29 00:03:10 <gavinandresen> Keefe: http://nullvoid.org/bitcoin/difficultiez.php
  4 2010-09-29 00:04:14 <necrodearia> gavinandresen, nice graph ^_^
  5 2010-09-29 00:04:59 <gavinandresen> Gotta love ASCII graphics :)
  6 2010-09-29 00:05:03 <Keefe> perfect!
  7 2010-09-29 00:05:30 <gavinandresen> (makes me pine for the good old days back in May when the difficulty was 11 and I first heard about bitcoin....)
  8 2010-09-29 00:29:04 <echelon> ok, let me ask again
  9 2010-09-29 00:29:20 <echelon> if i want to remain anonymous and run bitcoin behind tor, i shouldn't open a port for bitcoin, right?
 10 2010-09-29 00:37:57 <echelon> a_meteorite, AAA_awright?
 11 2010-09-29 00:38:24 <AAA_awright> Why would you want to do that?
 12 2010-09-29 00:38:35 <AAA_awright> Why are you pinging me?
 13 2010-09-29 00:38:38 <AAA_awright> As if I would know?
 14 2010-09-29 00:38:43 <AAA_awright> echelon: Bitcoin is anonymous
 15 2010-09-29 00:38:52 <echelon> no it isn't!
 16 2010-09-29 00:38:55 <AAA_awright> It doesn't serve any data, it just propagates it
 17 2010-09-29 00:39:19 <echelon> all transactions can be tracked back to its origin
 18 2010-09-29 00:39:33 <AAA_awright> Tor isn't going to fix that
 19 2010-09-29 00:42:27 <echelon> why
 20 2010-09-29 00:42:43 <AAA_awright> It's not going to change your Bitcoin address...?
 21 2010-09-29 00:46:34 <doublec> echelon, have you read the page on the bitcoin site about anonymity?
 22 2010-09-29 00:48:11 <doublec> echelon, this covers it: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=241.0
 23 2010-09-29 00:48:12 <bitbot> Anonymity
 24 2010-09-29 00:52:11 <a_meteorite> echelon
 25 2010-09-29 00:52:21 <echelon> yeah
 26 2010-09-29 00:54:06 <a_meteorite> you pinged me, so back at ya
 27 2010-09-29 00:54:31 <echelon> oh, sorry :)
 28 2010-09-29 01:01:27 <Keefe> generation rate since the last diff adjust doesn't look so unusual now that more time has gone by
 29 2010-09-29 01:02:35 <Keefe> i'm putting together a chart for total power averaged over 48-block (8 hrs at target rate) ranges
 30 2010-09-29 01:02:59 <Keefe> will give you guys a link when done
 31 2010-09-29 01:40:08 <kaja> hello. i want to translate the bitcoin and bitcoind do esperanto. How do I do that?
 32 2010-09-29 01:40:33 <nanotube> kaja: mmm... grab the source, and start translating...? :)
 33 2010-09-29 01:40:53 <kaja> but that's stupid because then there would be binaries for every language..?
 34 2010-09-29 01:41:18 <kaja> also i'm just running the command 'bitcoind' and i'm not generating any coins.. is that because i need the -gen flag?
 35 2010-09-29 01:41:55 <nanotube> kaja: indeed... i'm not sure whether any work has been done for bitcoin internationalization... ideally it would use some nice library and pull translated strings out of .po files or something...
 36 2010-09-29 01:42:04 <nanotube> yes if you don't add the -gen, it won't generate
 37 2010-09-29 01:42:17 <kaja> no wonder! damnit
 38 2010-09-29 01:42:25 <kaja> i could have had probably 2 coins by now :(
 39 2010-09-29 01:42:37 <Keefe> how long have you been trying?
 40 2010-09-29 01:42:43 <kaja> a day and a half
 41 2010-09-29 01:42:52 <nanotube> kaja: and what's your generation rate?
 42 2010-09-29 01:43:03 <kaja> how do I find that out?
 43 2010-09-29 01:43:12 <Keefe> do you have an average cpu?
 44 2010-09-29 01:43:15 <nanotube> there's a bitcoind command to do that... but i forget what it is.
 45 2010-09-29 01:43:33 <Keefe> even the best cpu's don't generate more than about a block a month now
 46 2010-09-29 01:43:51 <Keefe> bitcoind getinfo
 47 2010-09-29 01:43:56 <Keefe> nevermind
 48 2010-09-29 01:44:01 <kaja> what's a block a month mean? How many coins is that?
 49 2010-09-29 01:44:07 <Keefe> 50
 50 2010-09-29 01:44:23 <nanotube> aha, command is gethashespersec
 51 2010-09-29 01:44:25 <Keefe> you can't generate just 1 btc
 52 2010-09-29 01:44:41 <kaja> ah
 53 2010-09-29 01:44:51 <nanotube> try running bitcoind gethashespersec and see what it says
 54 2010-09-29 01:44:53 <kaja> so after a couple of months i'll suddenly get 50btc?
 55 2010-09-29 01:45:02 <Keefe> maybe
 56 2010-09-29 01:45:10 <Keefe> maybe today, maybe next year
 57 2010-09-29 01:45:12 <kaja> kiah ~ > bitcoind gethashespersec
 58 2010-09-29 01:45:26 <nanotube> kaja: are you running a bitcoind -daemon ?
 59 2010-09-29 01:45:29 <kaja> ah
 60 2010-09-29 01:45:50 <kaja> kiah ~ > bitcoind -daemon gethashespersec
 61 2010-09-29 01:45:51 <kaja> 0
 62 2010-09-29 01:45:52 <kaja> hehe
 63 2010-09-29 01:46:08 <kaja> kiah ~ > bitcoind -daemon gethashespersec
 64 2010-09-29 01:46:09 <kaja> there
 65 2010-09-29 01:46:19 <Keefe> ;khash 421
 66 2010-09-29 01:46:20 <bitbot> Keefe: ProbabilityPerSecond(0.00000007433373562316530531567205) Chances: Avg(155d 16:54:01) 25%(44d 19:02:21) 50%(107d 22:13:19) 75%(215d 20:26:38) 95%(466d 10:45:12) 99%(717d 1:03:46)
 67 2010-09-29 01:46:20 <nanotube> ah... so 421khs...
 68 2010-09-29 01:46:34 <kaja> i didn't understand that at all
 69 2010-09-29 01:46:36 <nanotube> so... prepare to wait on average ~107 days to generate a block...
 70 2010-09-29 01:46:37 <Keefe> run it for a year and you probably will get a couple blocks
 71 2010-09-29 01:46:47 <kaja> yay
 72 2010-09-29 01:46:53 <nanotube> Keefe: (assuming difficulty doesn't go up... which it will....)
 73 2010-09-29 01:47:02 <Keefe> was about to say
 74 2010-09-29 01:47:04 <nanotube> heh
 75 2010-09-29 01:47:19 <Keefe> i wouldn't be surprised if diff is 10 times higher in a few months
 76 2010-09-29 01:48:03 <Keefe> it's quite unfortunate for the little guys hoping to get a few coins with just processing power
 77 2010-09-29 01:48:13 <kaja> i've seen a couple of people uploading .po files
 78 2010-09-29 01:48:19 <kaja> for french, spanish and portuguese
 79 2010-09-29 01:48:19 <Keefe> but it's good for the system
 80 2010-09-29 01:48:25 <kaja> but you guys say i must edit the source code...?
 81 2010-09-29 01:48:38 <Keefe> i know nothing about that stuff myself
 82 2010-09-29 01:48:55 <kaja> well i sent emails to every online esperanto shop i could think of
 83 2010-09-29 01:49:04 <nanotube> kaja: i haven't really looked at the bitcoin source myself... it's possible that it already does use the .po files
 84 2010-09-29 01:49:59 <kaja> so now i am trying to get everything translated in esperanto very quickly
 85 2010-09-29 01:50:19 <kaja> well  i don't know where to get the english.po so that i can translate it
 86 2010-09-29 01:52:51 <Keefe> stick around here. i'm sure there are a few that do know what you need to do
 87 2010-09-29 01:53:45 <kaja> ok
 88 2010-09-29 02:08:33 <echelon> bitcoin exists at startup when i add -server parameter
 89 2010-09-29 02:09:24 <echelon> ooh.. sorry nvm
 90 2010-09-29 02:14:50 <echelon> weird.. port scanning bitcoin on 8332 with nmap makes bitcoin quit
 91 2010-09-29 02:15:16 <nanotube> echelon: hrm... could be a possible dos vector?
 92 2010-09-29 02:15:20 <nanotube> maybe you should report that
 93 2010-09-29 02:15:59 <echelon> hrm.. it's not happening anymore
 94 2010-09-29 02:16:27 <nanotube> mmm
 95 2010-09-29 02:18:15 <kaja> how do i find the exchange rate of bitcoin to AUD
 96 2010-09-29 02:18:22 <kaja> australian dollar
 97 2010-09-29 02:18:30 <kaja> i'm selling an item on biddingpond :)
 98 2010-09-29 02:19:31 <Keefe> anyone know the exact block count right when that slashdot story was posted?
 99 2010-09-29 02:20:01 <Keefe> http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/07/11/1747245/
100 2010-09-29 02:20:04 <nanotube> kaja: well, you can look up the exchange rate between bitcoin and usd, on say... mtgox or bitcoinmarket... and then convert to AUD using the current usd-aud exchange rate
101 2010-09-29 02:20:21 <Keefe> on my pc it says it was posted July 11, @05:09PM
102 2010-09-29 02:20:44 <Keefe> not sure whether it uses my time zone (us pacific) or not
103 2010-09-29 02:21:48 <kaja> why does 0.05 in bitcoin actually mean i have 5BTC?
104 2010-09-29 02:21:58 <kaja> what's with the decimal point
105 2010-09-29 02:22:07 <Keefe> 0.05 is not 5
106 2010-09-29 02:22:10 <kaja> ah
107 2010-09-29 02:22:13 <kaja> hm
108 2010-09-29 02:22:30 <Keefe> i'm guessing you got the 0.05 from the "faucet"?
109 2010-09-29 02:23:15 <Keefe> i think they used to give out 5btc each
110 2010-09-29 02:23:17 <Keefe> now just 0.05
111 2010-09-29 02:23:20 <doublec> 5 btc is 5 bitcoins. 0.05 bitcoins is 0.05 btc
112 2010-09-29 02:23:40 <doublec> they give out 0.05 if their balance is below $500 otherwise it's 0.50
113 2010-09-29 02:26:15 <kaja> Keefe: ah
114 2010-09-29 02:26:39 <kaja> http://www.biddingpond.com/item.php?id=75 my first listing :)
115 2010-09-29 02:40:43 <Keefe> http://oi55.tinypic.com/34iqmc7.jpg
116 2010-09-29 02:41:04 <Keefe> ^ chart of total bitcoin processing power since about a week before /.
117 2010-09-29 02:41:14 <Keefe> 48-block averages
118 2010-09-29 02:41:26 <Keefe> measured in estimated mhps
119 2010-09-29 02:42:14 <Keefe> the tiny ticks below the x axis represent diff adjusts
120 2010-09-29 02:42:23 <nanotube> Keefe: wow, nice. looks like the /.ing really helped as far as generating a critical mass of public interest.
121 2010-09-29 02:43:33 <Keefe> so that chart covers about the last 3 months
122 2010-09-29 02:48:19 <smop> is there a bitcoin converter?
123 2010-09-29 02:48:33 <Keefe> exchange?
124 2010-09-29 02:49:11 <Keefe> mtgox.com and bitcoinmarket.com are popular ones for exchanging btc <-> usd
125 2010-09-29 03:20:54 <kaja> the esperanto community will bring bitcoin to critical mass! just you wait
126 2010-09-29 03:21:02 <kaja> i'm gonna embark on some super heavy campaigning
127 2010-09-29 03:29:48 <LobsterMan> esperanto.....
128 2010-09-29 03:29:55 <LobsterMan> welcome to 1971?
129 2010-09-29 03:31:22 <smop> kaja: lol
130 2010-09-29 03:32:54 <LobsterMan> so im trying to build bitcoin on windows...ive already built wxwidgets/openssl/db/boost.....where do i want to put the static libraries and stuff that it generated with respect to the makefiles so that i can try to compile bitcoin?
131 2010-09-29 03:39:56 <LobsterMan> ...anyone?
132 2010-09-29 03:39:57 <LobsterMan> <_<
133 2010-09-29 03:56:04 <kaja> LobsterMan: 1971? What has that got to do with anything?
134 2010-09-29 04:04:11 <LobsterMan> ^_^
135 2010-09-29 04:04:45 <kaja> LobsterMan: heh, sorry that i can't answer your question
136 2010-09-29 04:04:50 <LobsterMan> :P
137 2010-09-29 04:05:08 <kaja> anyway so i was just kind of kidding that esperanto will bring bitcoins to critical mass
138 2010-09-29 04:05:18 <LobsterMan> i know
139 2010-09-29 04:05:20 <LobsterMan> lol
140 2010-09-29 04:05:25 <kaja> hehe
141 2010-09-29 04:05:45 <kaja> but it can't hurt to send emails to a bunch of online esperanto shops asking them to accept bitcoins as payment and translate the documentation to esperanto
142 2010-09-29 04:05:49 <kaja> every little bit helps
143 2010-09-29 04:05:55 <LobsterMan> ..go for it
144 2010-09-29 04:05:56 <LobsterMan> :P
145 2010-09-29 04:06:11 <kaja> i already am!
146 2010-09-29 04:09:08 <LobsterMan> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368667/
147 2010-09-29 04:09:11 <LobsterMan> err
148 2010-09-29 04:09:12 <LobsterMan> wrong chan
149 2010-09-29 04:47:47 <thrashaholic> is there no seperate source for wxGTK-2.9? does it come bundled with regular wxWidgets--2.9.1 now or something?
150 2010-09-29 04:49:20 <thrashaholic> i'm trying to build gavin's github master, it's trying to link wxgtkud-2.9 and all i can find/have is 2.8 :/
151 2010-09-29 04:53:50 <thrashaholic> n/m i see, that'd be a yes =)
152 2010-09-29 04:54:19 <echelon> is there a way to remove individual transactions?
153 2010-09-29 05:28:23 <lfm> echelon, what you mean remove transactions?
154 2010-09-29 05:39:47 <lfm> some fool is donating 5 bitcents at a time to the faucet for like 100s of transactions!
155 2010-09-29 05:44:41 <kaja> lfm: hahaha
156 2010-09-29 06:01:50 <echelon> lfm, remove old transactions that you've already spent
157 2010-09-29 06:03:13 <Tritonio> how do you remove transactions from the list?
158 2010-09-29 06:03:42 <echelon> that's what i'm asking
159 2010-09-29 06:04:03 <Tritonio> and btw is there a way to remove receiving addresses? not remove them, that would be dangerous. just hide them. is it possible?
160 2010-09-29 06:04:10 <lfm> I dont think they ever go away
161 2010-09-29 06:04:36 <echelon> so if you're at 0.00 balance, just delete wallet.dat?
162 2010-09-29 06:04:56 <lfm> ya, start a new wallet and send everything to it
163 2010-09-29 06:05:05 <echelon> ok
164 2010-09-29 06:05:18 <eureka^> i know this is off topic, just asking everywhere i can. has anybody seen this before? http://s11.info/~solar/intense_excitement.jpg
165 2010-09-29 06:06:01 <lfm> eureka^, what is it, just an uglly jpeg
166 2010-09-29 06:06:11 <eureka^> a fridge magnet i'm trying to find the source of
167 2010-09-29 06:07:03 <Diablo-D3> huh, dunno
168 2010-09-29 06:07:10 <echelon> wait, how do you send bitcoins from your old wallet to a new wallet?
169 2010-09-29 06:07:53 <lfm> create the new wallet, note the address for the new wallet, go back to the old one and send coins to the address
170 2010-09-29 06:09:27 <lfm> no problem!
171 2010-09-29 06:10:49 <lfm> if you screw up you lose all your coins of course
172 2010-09-29 06:11:07 <lfm> delete the wrong wallet or copy the wrong direction
173 2010-09-29 06:11:37 <doublec> another approach is sign up to something like mybitcoin.com and send all your money there. Then at least you won't delete the wrong wallet.
174 2010-09-29 06:11:48 <echelon> ah cool
175 2010-09-29 06:12:14 <lfm> why would people use http://bitcoin2cash.com/ their prices are terrible!
176 2010-09-29 06:13:51 <doublec> 25 bitcoins for $1 usd sounds ok
177 2010-09-29 06:13:55 <echelon> well.. $1 ~ 16btc
178 2010-09-29 06:13:58 <echelon> yeah
179 2010-09-29 06:14:06 <doublec> it's the other way that sucks
180 2010-09-29 06:14:07 <echelon> but that's with postage
181 2010-09-29 06:14:25 <lfm> 200BTC for $1?
182 2010-09-29 06:14:30 <echelon> so.. $1.44 for 25 btc
183 2010-09-29 06:15:06 <lfm> is $0.005 per BTC the market pays 0.06 I thot
184 2010-09-29 06:16:27 <lfm> do you see a different rate than me?
185 2010-09-29 06:17:14 <lfm> ok I had a stale page. I see now
186 2010-09-29 06:17:29 <lfm> still the 200BTC for $1 is poor
187 2010-09-29 06:21:01 <lfm> like theyre charging 400% service charge or something
188 2010-09-29 07:23:47 <Tritonio> lfm: it's just that the page is the same as when it got online. They haven't changed their rates ever i think.
189 2010-09-29 07:32:17 <kermit> well at least the hostname parts have been removed from the public logs
190 2010-09-29 07:44:21 <Tritonio> where are the logs btw? kermit?
191 2010-09-29 07:45:34 <kermit> i cant find them now, the forum about them just said the hostnames were removed, but it looks like maybe they all have been
192 2010-09-29 07:46:13 <kermit> oh i found them http://stuff.caurea.org/irssi/freenode/%23bitcoin-dev/2010/09/
193 2010-09-29 07:51:58 <Tritonio> btw anybody knows what is going on with bitbet.org?
194 2010-09-29 07:52:05 <Tritonio> it's down for days...
195 2010-09-29 07:59:09 <kermit> i seem to have broken my wallet, nothing i send ever gets confirmed now
196 2010-09-29 08:36:15 <FreeMoney> up and then down again for me joe
197 2010-09-29 08:37:15 <joe_1> right now?
198 2010-09-29 08:40:19 <joe_1> The IP address changed again about 15 minutes ago because I restarted the site and installed new software to automatically redirect the URL to the correct IP address. If you have it bookmarked to an IP address it is best to change the bookmark to point to the cashcow.no-ip.org instead, so that it always takes you to the site.
199 2010-09-29 08:41:46 <FreeMoney> that works sorry
200 2010-09-29 08:45:57 <kermit> is there a way to set the port so i can run more than 1 on one machine?
201 2010-09-29 08:49:31 <joe_1> on cashcow?
202 2010-09-29 08:49:54 <joe_1> or bitcoin
203 2010-09-29 08:50:27 <joe_1> i'd also like to know if that's possible
204 2010-09-29 08:50:53 <kermit> bitcoin
205 2010-09-29 08:51:31 <joe_1> if its randomly assigned then you can probably get away with it
206 2010-09-29 08:51:44 <kermit> joe_1: did you know this http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1300.0
207 2010-09-29 08:51:46 <bitbot> Wallet.dat backups may lose transactions prior to backup (and this is not a bug)
208 2010-09-29 08:52:05 <kermit> randomly assigned ports make p2p less reliable
209 2010-09-29 08:52:13 <joe_1> I read it this morning
210 2010-09-29 08:52:13 <kermit> but you should still have the option
211 2010-09-29 08:52:28 <kermit> i could see you running two so you have the 'svaings' wallet that rarely sends
212 2010-09-29 08:52:31 <kermit> so its backpus stay valid
213 2010-09-29 08:55:13 <joe_1> yeah
214 2010-09-29 08:57:18 <joe_1> where do you normally back yours up to
215 2010-09-29 08:57:30 <joe_1> email or a disk
216 2010-09-29 08:57:56 <kermit> my fileserver
217 2010-09-29 08:58:41 <kermit> i dont have much in it though..encrypting it and mailing it to yourself is a good idea.
218 2010-09-29 09:01:20 <joe_1> when bitcoin exchange rate goes up to 50$, I'll back it on to a disk and have a million dollar floppy disk like on that movie hackers.
219 2010-09-29 09:08:20 <joe_1> i think it was brought up on the forum a while ago that the software should provide greater control on exactly which previous transactions are used / broken up to satisfy a send.
220 2010-09-29 09:08:48 <joe_1> so when I receive 1 BTC from person A, then 1 BTC from person B, and want to send 1 BTC to person C, i can choose whether it's the one from A or B.
221 2010-09-29 09:09:19 <joe_1> this also makes it clearer to understand why the bakup of wallet.dat can lose prior transactions
222 2010-09-29 09:17:37 <Tritonio> joe_1: no you can't. and i agree you should have complete control over which wallet identity the money comes from.
223 2010-09-29 09:20:16 <joe_1> Then a dialog should appear, with "XX bitcoins were taken from your last wallet backup to satisfy this send. Would you like to back up again now?"
224 2010-09-29 09:20:23 <kermit> joe_1: as long as it uses some good logic, as in to send the most confirmed things first
225 2010-09-29 09:20:56 <kermit> joe_1: now that would be good
226 2010-09-29 09:21:25 <joe_1> Actually it should use the least confirmed things first, because those are most likely not in your last backup, so you're only losing money that you have gained since your backup.
227 2010-09-29 09:21:33 <kermit> joe_1: even something like 'execute .. backup command after each send'
228 2010-09-29 09:22:04 <kermit> joe_1: oh, yeah but that has its own problem.. it propogates possibly fraudulent coins faster
229 2010-09-29 09:24:37 <joe_1> true, but as a bitcoin recipient we should always assume it is fraudulent until we get a couple confirmations anyway. just because it passed through a bunch of people really fast before it got to us doesn't mean we have to wait longer.
230 2010-09-29 09:32:00 <joe_1> but that's a good point, if we always send the least confirmed, I may send a 0/unconfirmed to my friend, then it will get pulled back if the network rejects the original send to me.
231 2010-09-29 09:32:00 <kermit> joe_1: someone added something to the thread that i guess will help.. i dont understand enoguh to know if it would work.. but it said in the future new addresses will be generated in blocks so backups would be valid longer.
232 2010-09-29 09:33:29 <joe_1> Yeah that would work well
233 2010-09-29 09:34:15 <kermit> does that also mean then that if you dont use a newer address, your old backup will still work?
234 2010-09-29 09:35:14 <doublec> kermit, instead of changing the port can
235 2010-09-29 09:35:21 <doublec> 't you run one instance and connect the others to it
236 2010-09-29 09:35:26 <doublec> using the -connect switch?
237 2010-09-29 09:36:25 <doublec> or is the json-rpc port your talking about?
238 2010-09-29 09:36:58 <kermit> doublec: -connect doest make it not still want port 8333 for itself too
239 2010-09-29 09:37:40 <doublec> ok, I thought it did
240 2010-09-29 09:37:50 <kermit> hmm is bitcoind just bitcoin -daemon ?
241 2010-09-29 09:38:13 <kermit> doublec: but thanks for the suggestion, it was worth a try
242 2010-09-29 09:38:29 <doublec> yes it is (bitcoin -daemon)
243 2010-09-29 09:39:39 <kermit> oh hm so i dont need to keep compiling two binaries :)
244 2010-09-29 09:40:54 <doublec> yeah I just build bitcoind
245 2010-09-29 09:41:09 <doublec> as it doesn't link in the wx libraries
246 2010-09-29 09:56:40 <UukGoblin> ;estimate
247 2010-09-29 09:56:43 <bitbot> UukGoblin: LastDiff(0d 15:55:44 ago)  ExpBlocks(95)  ActualBlocks(118)  TrgNewDiffDate(2010/10/12 19:58:28 GMT)  EstNewDiffDate(2010/10/10 04:06:55 GMT)  EstNewDiff(1637.92751256)
248 2010-09-29 09:56:50 <UukGoblin> yesus.
249 2010-09-29 09:57:54 <UukGoblin> OMG! IT'S ALIVE!
250 2010-09-29 10:15:23 <Tritonio> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1307.0
251 2010-09-29 10:15:24 <bitbot> BTConvert
252 2010-09-29 11:59:34 <Tritonio> sooo....
253 2010-09-29 11:59:40 <Tritonio> how many transactions fit in a block?
254 2010-09-29 11:59:43 <Tritonio> more or less?
255 2010-09-29 12:09:24 <kermit> Tritonio:  i wastn able to gleen a yes/no out of your answer to nanotube's question  "so the question is, if i send stuff, will it include those bitcoins in my sends, thus propagating the invalid chain? what is to be done here?"
256 2010-09-29 12:13:51 <Tritonio> you mean you didn't understand if I answered yes or no?
257 2010-09-29 12:14:07 <kermit> Tritonio: yes
258 2010-09-29 12:14:35 <idev> Hello i wonder if someone can help me, how would i install btc on a mac
259 2010-09-29 12:14:58 <idev> also please note im really clued up on commands and such !
260 2010-09-29 12:15:05 <idev> not*
261 2010-09-29 12:15:09 <Tritonio> kermit: AFAIK there will be no invalid chain. You will propagate those "invalid" coins that will eventually get into the chain. Until the get into the chain it will be dangerous to use them since you don't know if they have been double spent.
262 2010-09-29 12:15:47 <kermit> Tritonio: the client will send out unconfirmed recieved coin?
263 2010-09-29 12:17:57 <Tritonio> i think yes. do you want to try it? Make a new wallet somewhere
264 2010-09-29 12:18:05 <kermit> if so, and it combines it with other coins, then the change from that send will also remain unconfirmed, so your wallet will soon end up incapable of sending transactions that will be confirmed.
265 2010-09-29 12:18:18 <Tritonio> I will send you 0.1BTC and then you will send it back immediatelly.
266 2010-09-29 12:18:34 <kermit> send me .001
267 2010-09-29 12:18:39 <kermit> 14gKWVDXVTbGgNpdWmpqtpXwJtHuPeRJgH
268 2010-09-29 12:18:44 <Tritonio> have you got a completelly empty wallet?
269 2010-09-29 12:18:49 <kermit> yes
270 2010-09-29 12:18:52 <kermit> never used
271 2010-09-29 12:19:05 <Tritonio> btw i can't send you 0.001. I will send you 0.05.
272 2010-09-29 12:19:13 <kermit> that wont test what we've been talking about
273 2010-09-29 12:19:41 <Tritonio> it will. even if i send you 0.05 it wount get confirmed for about 10minutes.
274 2010-09-29 12:19:44 <kermit> well i guess if i do it reall y fast
275 2010-09-29 12:19:45 <kermit> ok
276 2010-09-29 12:19:46 <kermit> sure
277 2010-09-29 12:19:46 <Tritonio> so you can send it right back.
278 2010-09-29 12:20:10 <Tritonio> sent
279 2010-09-29 12:20:16 <Tritonio> send them back as soon as you get them
280 2010-09-29 12:20:18 <Tritonio> 1ACakd85b9pNh4a9a5w9cY8n7TDVVw5tSV
281 2010-09-29 12:20:38 <kermit> wow
282 2010-09-29 12:20:45 <Tritonio> got them
283 2010-09-29 12:21:02 <kermit> so i can break everyone's wallet by sending them .001btc ??
284 2010-09-29 12:21:10 <kermit> with no txfee
285 2010-09-29 12:21:25 <Tritonio> see? it sends them even if they are unconfirmed. so if this chain of transactions has a ad beggining (like a transaction without a fee) it will be unconfirmed for a long time.
286 2010-09-29 12:22:12 <Tritonio> kermit: yes. kind of. They will be able to send money, but until your transactions get confirmed, which will take some time if you don't include the fee, they won't be able to use them.
287 2010-09-29 12:22:25 <Tritonio> I just hope the clients give priority to long confirmed coins when sending out money...
288 2010-09-29 12:22:30 <kermit> but we just showed they can use them before they're confirmed
289 2010-09-29 12:22:34 <kermit> i hope so too
290 2010-09-29 12:22:48 <Tritonio> yes they can use them but their transactions will be unconfirmed too... :-)
291 2010-09-29 12:23:15 <kermit> and it'll infect other coin because it will get combined with it in a payment, and their remaining change will be part of the chain
292 2010-09-29 12:23:28 <Tritonio> I made a mistake when saying "the won't be able to use them". I meant they won't get confirmed transactions too.
293 2010-09-29 12:23:31 <kermit> so, if i wanted to, i could pretty much take down bitcoin right now
294 2010-09-29 12:23:42 <Tritonio> Yes.
295 2010-09-29 12:23:48 <Tritonio> :-D
296 2010-09-29 12:23:58 <kermit> thath wasnt made clear in your thread comment..
297 2010-09-29 12:24:03 <kermit> someone should be made aware
298 2010-09-29 12:24:18 <Tritonio> I still think the best solution would be to flood the netowork with 1BTC transactions going back and forth between two wallets (but different addresses)
299 2010-09-29 12:24:41 <kermit> but i could break it bi accident
300 2010-09-29 12:24:45 <Tritonio> those transactions will not need a fee and everybody will try to process them so the blocks will get full.
301 2010-09-29 12:24:46 <kermit> i sent nanotube some .0001 without fees
302 2010-09-29 12:24:59 <Tritonio> hehe good for him. :-D
303 2010-09-29 12:25:01 <kermit> and if he uses that wallet to send, and it gets combined.. and then the same thing hahppens to someoe else
304 2010-09-29 12:25:04 <kermit> that might spread
305 2010-09-29 12:25:06 <kermit> like a 'virus'
306 2010-09-29 12:25:17 <kermit> until nohting is being confirmed
307 2010-09-29 12:25:44 <kermit> becuase itll combine, then split as change, etc etc
308 2010-09-29 12:25:50 <MacRohard> kermit, only if they used the received unconfirmed money in a new transaction which probably they wouldn't?
309 2010-09-29 12:25:56 <Tritonio> we've already concluded that the protocol kinda sucks... :-) I wish I find some time to read the bitcoin code and try to fix some things...
310 2010-09-29 12:26:00 <kermit> MacRohard: why wouldn they?
311 2010-09-29 12:26:07 <MacRohard> kermit, 'cause it's unconfirmed?
312 2010-09-29 12:26:15 <kermit> MacRohard: i just used unconfirmed coin
313 2010-09-29 12:26:25 <Tritonio> MacRohard: they can't control which coins they use. We just hope the client gives priority to confirmed ones.
314 2010-09-29 12:26:33 <kermit> MacRohard: are you saying it prefers confirmed coin first and he'll only use it if its all he has to use?
315 2010-09-29 12:26:42 <MacRohard> Tritonio, right that's what i'm assuming.
316 2010-09-29 12:26:53 <MacRohard> i don't know
317 2010-09-29 12:27:03 <MacRohard> but that is my asumption
318 2010-09-29 12:27:16 <kermit> i'd like to think so too
319 2010-09-29 12:27:20 <Tritonio> MacRohard: If it does then it's almost OK. It won't "spread". Still the flooding attack can work I think.
320 2010-09-29 12:27:46 <kermit> Tritonio: why wouldnt it spread? if it got combined with some other payment, then the both the payment and the payrment's change would never confirm
321 2010-09-29 12:27:57 <kermit> so it would turn into 2 unconfirmed lots
322 2010-09-29 12:27:57 <MacRohard> Tritonio, i tried to flood a while ago.. just using a script. it didn't work - the bitcoin client just starts slowing down. I don't know why though as I didn't delve into it deeply.
323 2010-09-29 12:28:55 <Tritonio> well if it's just a client precaution you can edit te code. If it is the netowork that slows you down, you just need more nodes.
324 2010-09-29 12:29:08 <kermit> i could send .001btc with no fee to everyone connectend and find out, but that'd be kind of evil, it'd be better to get someone who knows more to consider the posisbility.
325 2010-09-29 12:29:50 <Tritonio> kermit: btw our tx just got confirmed.
326 2010-09-29 12:36:55 <Tritonio> kermit: it wouln'd spreat since if I have 50BTC and you send me 0.001, I won't have to spend them anywhere. If it prioritizes the 50BTC I would be carefull not to use more than my confirmed money.
327 2010-09-29 12:36:59 <Tritonio> spread*
328 2010-09-29 12:37:46 <kermit> if it prioritizes the 50BTC.. maybe it prioritizes consolidating the smallest lots first, to reduce overhead?
329 2010-09-29 12:38:02 <kermit> but ok even if it does prioritized the 50BTC, doesnt that simply delay the matter?
330 2010-09-29 12:38:09 <MacRohard> not really
331 2010-09-29 12:38:24 <MacRohard> it just means you can't send money if you don't have any
332 2010-09-29 12:38:51 <kermit> MacRohard: the client does unconfirmed coin by default
333 2010-09-29 12:39:08 <MacRohard> yes but that doesn't matter
334 2010-09-29 12:39:25 <MacRohard> you can send unconfirmed money, but it will be unconfirmed when the receiver gets it
335 2010-09-29 12:39:39 <kermit> and the reciver can send that too
336 2010-09-29 12:39:42 <MacRohard> sure
337 2010-09-29 12:39:48 <kermit> and have change from sending it, which also remains unconfirmed
338 2010-09-29 12:40:01 <kermit> so it multiplies
339 2010-09-29 12:40:04 <MacRohard> yeah.. so you've found a way to spam wallets
340 2010-09-29 12:40:08 <MacRohard> it doesn't realy change anything
341 2010-09-29 12:40:20 <MacRohard> the person who receives the unconfirmed moneys will go back and demand real moneys
342 2010-09-29 12:40:38 <kermit> how will they fix their wallet?
343 2010-09-29 12:40:54 <MacRohard> dunno. that might be a real problem, but it should be fixable in theroy.
344 2010-09-29 12:41:21 <kermit> if their wallet is al change from unconfirmed sends because their components were unconfirmed..
345 2010-09-29 12:41:29 <kermit> im thinking clients shouldnt let you send unconfirmed coin, heh
346 2010-09-29 12:41:56 <MacRohard> as long as it prioritizes confirmed then there's no real problem other than you'll have a bunch of crap transactions in your wallet
347 2010-09-29 12:42:14 <kermit> i think prioritization would make the consequneces slower, but still untilmately contageous
348 2010-09-29 12:42:25 <MacRohard> it isn't contageous
349 2010-09-29 12:42:35 <MacRohard> each person has to willingly send unconfirmed coins
350 2010-09-29 12:42:46 <MacRohard> which is a pointless thing to do since the receiver will figure it out pretty soon
351 2010-09-29 12:42:50 <kermit> my GUI didnt make that clear that i was doing that
352 2010-09-29 12:44:02 <Tritonio> Kermit you lost your chance for a quick fix. You should have told us. You should have messed every address up. :-D
353 2010-09-29 12:44:26 <Tritonio> You shouldn't have told us I mean...
354 2010-09-29 12:44:27 <kermit> Tritonio: i still could :P
355 2010-09-29 13:02:22 <keith4> did anyone publish GPU-generating code yet?
356 2010-09-29 13:02:29 <Tritonio> bye bye
357 2010-09-29 13:10:18 <UukGoblin> someone should stick info about GPU in the topic
358 2010-09-29 13:10:37 <UukGoblin> oh, I'm an op
359 2010-09-29 13:10:41 <UukGoblin> shame I don't know the answer ;-]
360 2010-09-29 13:20:56 <nanotube> keith4: UukGoblin: iirc puddinpop's code was posted on the forums
361 2010-09-29 13:21:08 <UukGoblin> as an attachment or something?
362 2010-09-29 13:21:15 <UukGoblin> could someone please make a github of it? ;-]
363 2010-09-29 13:21:25 <kermit> i saw an http link to the source, i didnt see any binary
364 2010-09-29 13:21:29 <nanotube> yes it was an attachment i think
365 2010-09-29 13:21:32 <kermit> its in the big GPU thread somewhere
366 2010-09-29 13:22:14 <keith4> this one? http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1009.0;all
367 2010-09-29 13:22:15 <bitbot> A slightly more open approach to bitcoin on the GPU
368 2010-09-29 13:23:23 <UukGoblin> that one was an alternative version imho
369 2010-09-29 13:24:15 <UukGoblin> hmm, is there a freebsd 64-bit binary of bitcoind somewhere? :-]
370 2010-09-29 13:25:59 <kermit> UukGoblin: freebsd can run linux binaries, but youll still need the libraries or a static binary
371 2010-09-29 13:26:21 <UukGoblin> # ./bitcoind
372 2010-09-29 13:26:51 <kermit> UukGoblin: theres a 'module' or whatever bsd calls them to run linux binaries
373 2010-09-29 13:26:57 <keith4> ah, this one. http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=133.40
374 2010-09-29 13:26:58 <bitbot> Generating Bitcoins with your video card (OpenCL/CUDA)
375 2010-09-29 13:29:54 <idev> How can i install Bitcoain on my home mac or my linux webserver please anyone?
376 2010-09-29 13:31:30 <nanotube> idev: just grab the released binaries from bitcoin.org, and run them
377 2010-09-29 13:31:36 <nanotube> nothing special to be done
378 2010-09-29 13:34:07 <idev> @ nanotube, im not sure how to run it
379 2010-09-29 13:34:53 <idev> as in the binary i downloaded there was just a buch of files and an exe, but im on a mac?
380 2010-09-29 13:36:19 <necrodearia> idev, You downloaded http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.3.11/bitcoin-0.3.11-macosx.zip/download ?
381 2010-09-29 13:36:22 <gavinandresen> idev: you should have got a .zip file for your Mac, with a Bitcoin.app inside that you can drag to Applications
382 2010-09-29 13:37:31 <gavinandresen> idev: on linux, you should download the .tar.gz, then tar -xzf it and run "bitcoin" or "bitcoind" (depending on whether you want graphics or not)
383 2010-09-29 13:38:19 <nanotube> UukGoblin: for the cuda client... the better page to link to would be http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=133.140 where the source to puddinpop's client is posted
384 2010-09-29 13:38:21 <bitbot> Generating Bitcoins with your video card (OpenCL/CUDA)
385 2010-09-29 13:39:14 <UukGoblin> nanotube, that's what I linked :-]
386 2010-09-29 13:39:21 <UukGoblin> only made it shorter with bit.ly
387 2010-09-29 13:39:44 <necrodearia> UukGoblin, huugeurl.com
388 2010-09-29 13:39:56 <necrodearia> s/uu/u/
389 2010-09-29 13:40:10 <UukGoblin> lol ;-]
390 2010-09-29 13:40:48 <nanotube> UukGoblin: er... no it isn't.
391 2010-09-29 13:41:04 <nanotube> UukGoblin: you linked page3 of the thread, i linked page 8
392 2010-09-29 13:41:09 <UukGoblin> oic
393 2010-09-29 13:42:09 <idev> thank nanotube, do i just place the whole bitcoin dir in my apps folder ?
394 2010-09-29 13:42:34 <UukGoblin> yeah I missed a 1 or something
395 2010-09-29 13:43:02 <nanotube> idev: see what gavinandresen said a few lines above. you should get the zip specifically for the mac, and extract stuff from the zip.
396 2010-09-29 13:43:55 <nanotube> idev: i know little about how present-day macs deal with their apps... so beyond that, you're on your own :)
397 2010-09-29 13:47:05 <idev> Hmm, i moved bitcoin.aap to my appliaction folder but my mac is saying " you cannot open the application "Bitcoin" it is not supported on this architecture" ?
398 2010-09-29 13:47:36 <idev> does this mean i can not run btc on my mac?
399 2010-09-29 13:50:21 <UukGoblin> idev, you can surely run bitcoin on your mac
400 2010-09-29 13:50:38 <UukGoblin> not sure what the problem is, but I'm guessing if you compiled it from source it might work
401 2010-09-29 13:50:53 <gavinandresen> Are you running on an older mac?  (non-intel)?
402 2010-09-29 13:51:22 <idev> no its not
403 2010-09-29 13:51:35 <idev> yea non intel
404 2010-09-29 13:51:56 <gavinandresen> PowerPC macs aren't supported... sorry!  Compling from source won't work on them, either.
405 2010-09-29 13:52:51 <idev> ok then, please can you tell me how i can install on my webserver please?
406 2010-09-29 13:53:40 <gavinandresen> Can you ssh into your web server and get a command prompt?
407 2010-09-29 13:53:49 <idev> i don't really know about ssh commands so please go easy
408 2010-09-29 13:53:51 <idev> yes
409 2010-09-29 13:54:54 <gavinandresen> Right, I'd probably download the linux .tar.gz file on my mac, and then copy just the bitcoin  executable up to the server (using scp )
410 2010-09-29 13:55:34 <idev> where do i have to place bitcoin on the server?
411 2010-09-29 13:56:06 <gavinandresen> it can live anywhere-- your home directory would be fine.  If you have root access, /usr/local/bin/ would be a better place.
412 2010-09-29 13:56:31 <gavinandresen> And I'd suggest copying up   bitcoind    -- with a "d" on the end.  It is the no-graphics bitcoin.
413 2010-09-29 13:56:46 <gavinandresen> (unless you're running a X-windows server on your mac)
414 2010-09-29 13:57:42 <idev> can i use use the gui version on the webserver?
415 2010-09-29 13:58:20 <gavinandresen> Once you've copied bitcoind  up to the server, ssh there and run these commands:
416 2010-09-29 13:58:26 <gavinandresen> mkdir .bitcoin
417 2010-09-29 13:58:50 <gavinandresen> echo "rpcpassword=foo" > .bitcoin/bitcoin.conf
418 2010-09-29 13:58:57 <gavinandresen> ./bitcoind
419 2010-09-29 13:59:15 <idev> thank you very much Gavin, gonna have a try now
420 2010-09-29 13:59:19 <gavinandresen> Then wait a little while for bitcoind to start up; I think it puts itself in the background on linux.
421 2010-09-29 13:59:29 <idev> ok
422 2010-09-29 13:59:36 <gavinandresen> You can see it's progress by:    tail -f .bitcoin/debug.log
423 2010-09-29 13:59:55 <gavinandresen> ... and you can send it commands by running   ./bitcoind help
424 2010-09-29 14:00:31 <idev> ok thank you Gavin
425 2010-09-29 14:00:35 <gavinandresen> good luck
426 2010-09-29 14:01:15 <idev> Thanks im gonna need it lol
427 2010-09-29 14:01:38 <gavinandresen> idev: re: can you run the GUI version on the webserver:  sure, bitcoin on linux/unix is an X11 application, it'll display to any X-capable device.
428 2010-09-29 14:02:15 <nanotube> gavinandresen: would you have any thoughts on this: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1306.0
429 2010-09-29 14:02:16 <bitbot> I broke my wallet, sends never confirm now.
430 2010-09-29 14:03:34 <gavinandresen> nanotube: my first thought is "if you play with fire, don't get upset if you get burned..."  (a little unfair, since kermit isn't actually very upset about this)
431 2010-09-29 14:04:29 <nanotube> gavinandresen: well... but i am - he sent me those transactions, and now they're in my wallet.
432 2010-09-29 14:04:56 <gavinandresen> nanotube: very good point
433 2010-09-29 14:04:59 <nanotube> gavinandresen: and i wonder if the client prioritizes sending the most-confirmed coins first, or not? because if not, it's possible that my next outgoing transaction will include them, and will never be confirmed.
434 2010-09-29 14:05:22 <nanotube> gavinandresen: and if that's the case, that means /someone/ can screw over the network by sending no-fee 0.0001 to all the addresses he finds on the net.
435 2010-09-29 14:05:51 <nanotube> so a bunch of wallets get 'contaminated' with these never-to-be-confirmed transactions, which will propagate if client doesn't prioritize by confirmations.
436 2010-09-29 14:06:58 <gavinandresen> nanotube:  the client trys to do a "best fit" when selecting coins; I don't think it cares about number of confirmations, so, yeah, that's a very valid worry.  I'll ping Satoshi about it.
437 2010-09-29 14:07:40 <gavinandresen> Easy fix would be to have the client NOT select 0-confirmation coins unless it absolutely has to.   And maybe have 0-confirmation coins expire after a reasonable amount of time.
438 2010-09-29 14:08:32 <kermit> gavinandresen: i'd think sending 0 conf coins at all is dangerous
439 2010-09-29 14:09:01 <kermit> at least not without a user who needs really fast turn around selecting some option, maybe
440 2010-09-29 14:12:07 <nanotube> gavinandresen: thanks - please keep me posted. guess i should avoid sending from my wallet until the next version of bitcoin is released which avoids sending unconfirmed bitcoins unless absolutely necessary.
441 2010-09-29 14:12:11 <nanotube> ?
442 2010-09-29 14:12:59 <kermit> well, i think i sent some of these to bitcoinmarket
443 2010-09-29 14:13:28 <kermit> so if this is contageous, im not sure how much damage your wallet will do
444 2010-09-29 14:13:30 <theymos> Can't Bitcoin just ask peers for the transaction to see if they have it before sending it?
445 2010-09-29 14:15:54 <MacRohard> it already knows there are no confirmations
446 2010-09-29 14:17:17 <UukGoblin> huh, betco.in just didn't register my flush
447 2010-09-29 14:17:22 <theymos> MacRohard: That just means it hasn't appeared in a block. Peers can still have it in their memory pools.
448 2010-09-29 14:17:23 <UukGoblin> I had a bloody flush!
449 2010-09-29 14:17:29 <UukGoblin> and my opponent won with 2 pair
450 2010-09-29 14:18:51 <gavinandresen> nanotube: unless you send ALL the coins in your wallet, the micro-coins will most likely stay in your wallet.  (I'm staring at the SelectCoins code in another window, and it trys pretty hard to find the smallest set (number) of coins that satisfy the payment)
451 2010-09-29 14:19:23 <nanotube> well, the client also doesn't show the sigdigits of the microtransactions, they all look like 0.00
452 2010-09-29 14:20:06 <nanotube> but i guess i should be able to calculate and see how much of by balance is due to confirmed transactions and how much is from micros
453 2010-09-29 14:20:19 <nanotube> (though i have some confirmed micros as well...)
454 2010-09-29 14:21:38 <kermit> gavinandresen: it tries to find the smallest set?  but isnt  there something about trying to consolidate as much as possibel to?
455 2010-09-29 14:22:25 <kermit> or, if you have 6,1,1,1, and send 3, does it brake the 6 or take the 3?
456 2010-09-29 14:22:51 <gavinandresen> It'll take the 1,1,1
457 2010-09-29 14:23:24 <theymos> It always chooses the smallest coins, right?
458 2010-09-29 14:24:58 <gavinandresen> No, it doesn't always choose the smallest.
459 2010-09-29 14:25:56 <theymos> How does it choose?
460 2010-09-29 14:26:02 <gavinandresen> It:  shuffles all your coins.  Then adds up the first ones until they add up to the payment or greater.
461 2010-09-29 14:26:59 <gavinandresen> ...wait, hang on, that's not quite right...
462 2010-09-29 14:28:36 <gavinandresen> Shuffles coins.... looks for the smallest coin that is bigger than the payment amount....  OR for a coin that is equal to the payment amount...
463 2010-09-29 14:31:33 <gavinandresen> Ok, if I'm reading the code correctly (I'd say there's a 25% chance I am not):   if there is a coin in your wallet that matches the payment amount, it is used.
464 2010-09-29 14:32:38 <gavinandresen> If there is a set of small coins in your wallet that add up to more than the payment amount, then the "best" subset of them is chosen.
465 2010-09-29 14:33:23 <gavinandresen> Otherwise, all of the small coins in your wallet PLUS the smallest-coin-that-is-less-than-the-payment are chosen.
466 2010-09-29 14:34:05 <idev> Hello gavin
467 2010-09-29 14:34:16 <idev> im seem to be a but stuck
468 2010-09-29 14:34:24 <gavinandresen> Howdy idev, what's up?
469 2010-09-29 14:34:45 <theymos> Thanks. It's a very confusing section of code; I can't make heads or tails of it.
470 2010-09-29 14:35:15 <idev> i have uploaded bitcoin to my server and have run the cmds, mkdir .bitcoin  and echo "rpcpassword=foo" > .bitcoin/bitcoin.conf
471 2010-09-29 14:35:46 <idev> but when i try to run ./bitcoind it says file or dir is unknown
472 2010-09-29 14:36:13 <idev> wonder where im going wrong
473 2010-09-29 14:36:35 <gavinandresen> idev: if you "ls -l" do you see bitcoind ?
474 2010-09-29 14:37:27 <idev> ah my bad i forgot to untar the file
475 2010-09-29 14:37:41 <idev> what is the cmd to untar please?
476 2010-09-29 14:37:57 <gavinandresen> tar -xzvf *.tar.gz  aught to work
477 2010-09-29 14:38:33 <gavinandresen> I don't remember if it untars into a subdirectory
478 2010-09-29 14:39:21 <idev> although i have not untared the file yet i have another dir called .bitcoin with bitcoind init?
479 2010-09-29 14:41:08 <gavinandresen> idev: yep.
480 2010-09-29 14:41:35 <gavinandresen> idev: wait, hang on, you already have a ./bitcoin/bitcoind   ?
481 2010-09-29 14:41:48 <gavinandresen> idev:  errr... .bitcoin/bitcoind ?
482 2010-09-29 14:42:13 <idev> it has bitcoin.conf
483 2010-09-29 14:42:21 <idev> in it
484 2010-09-29 14:42:40 <gavinandresen> ls -l .bitcoin    should have the bitcoin.conf file in it with the rpcpassword set.
485 2010-09-29 14:42:59 <gavinandresen> That'll let you control the running bitcoind from the command-line after you get it running.
486 2010-09-29 14:43:55 <gavinandresen> (oh, and if you share your webserver machine, you should set the permissions on the .bitcoin folder so other users can't steal your wallet:   chmod go-rwx .bitcoin  )
487 2010-09-29 14:44:34 <idev> ok, im goona untar now and see how it goes
488 2010-09-29 14:44:37 <idev> thansk gavin
489 2010-09-29 14:44:41 <idev> thanks*
490 2010-09-29 14:45:04 <kermit> who wants a free .05btc that will never confirm?
491 2010-09-29 14:46:17 <edcba> what satoshi wanted to 'solve' with coin selection ???
492 2010-09-29 14:48:26 <gavinandresen> edcba: hmm?   the second part of the coin selection code is a stochastic approximation to solve the 'knapsack problem'....
493 2010-09-29 14:49:29 <edcba> why use that ?
494 2010-09-29 14:49:44 <gavinandresen> .. so if you have coins of value   1,2,3,4,9  and you want to make a 10 bitcoin payment, it'll pick the set [1,2,3,4]   or [1,9]  instead of [9,4] with change left over
495 2010-09-29 14:52:19 <edcba> isn't it less anonymous ?
496 2010-09-29 14:53:34 <gavinandresen> edcba: less anonymous than what?  Picking a random set of coins that adds up to more than the payment amount?
497 2010-09-29 14:53:44 <edcba> yes
498 2010-09-29 14:54:38 <gavinandresen> edcba: I dunno, you'd have to ask a cryptographer who studies that sort of thing.  Personally, I think if you're worried about getting tracked via the coins flowing through your wallet you're probably NOT worrying about some much bigger threat to your anonymity.
499 2010-09-29 14:55:13 <theymos> I don't see any point in reducing change. It should reduce number of inputs so that you have less fees.
500 2010-09-29 14:55:57 <edcba> yes i still don't see what satoshi aims
501 2010-09-29 14:56:38 <necrodearia> theymos, Hiya.  Can you verify/confirm http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1303.msg14566#msg14566 ?
502 2010-09-29 14:56:40 <bitbot> Selling 50,000+ BTC at $0.04/BTC : bitcoin2cash: If that's the case then you should already be able to see the number of bitcoins sent to my address which is 1CRZpkKKAt7G5uiK4JPBjBJGnozgiatFAs.
503 2010-09-29 14:57:14 <gavinandresen> Well, my 'refundtransaction' git branch refactored that code a little bit which would make it easier to experiment with custom clients that have alternative coin-selection policies.
504 2010-09-29 14:57:39 <gavinandresen> (refundtransaction trys to refund the coins it got from transaction being refunded....)
505 2010-09-29 15:08:18 <kermit> bitcoinmarket doesnt seem to credit me until a transaction is confirmed.  do they have special code or is there some way to do that with bitcoind ?
506 2010-09-29 15:08:41 <theymos> necrodearia: The address has at least 25,000 (I'm using old data; he could have more), though there's no proof that he owns that address. He should make a new address and send all of the coins to that one, and publish the block number when he does it.
507 2010-09-29 15:08:49 <echelon> they just use the rpc to check the confirmation
508 2010-09-29 15:09:14 <echelon> kermit, i don't think anyone sane would process transactions until they reach a confirmation threshold :/
509 2010-09-29 15:09:49 <necrodearia> theymos, That is true, however, a google search does indicate that it is only publicized by them.
510 2010-09-29 15:10:03 <kermit> echelon: how do i 'use the rpc' ?
511 2010-09-29 15:10:19 <kermit> echelon: oh i fonud it
512 2010-09-29 15:10:20 <echelon> kermit, have to pass -server as an argument to bitcoin
513 2010-09-29 15:10:23 <echelon> or run bitcoind
514 2010-09-29 15:10:28 <theymos> necrodearia: He could have easily parsed the block chain himself and found an address that has a suitable balance.
515 2010-09-29 15:10:31 <necrodearia> Additionally
516 2010-09-29 15:10:36 <necrodearia> One of the sites is in russian
517 2010-09-29 15:10:43 <necrodearia> So it could be yet another Russian scam ^_^
518 2010-09-29 15:10:45 <kermit> echelon: getreceivedby..
519 2010-09-29 15:10:51 <necrodearia> That is true also
520 2010-09-29 15:11:06 <echelon> kermit, http://www.bitcoin.org/wiki/doku.php?id=api
521 2010-09-29 15:11:34 <echelon> the json-rpc runs on port 8332, once you've added the login/pass to bitcoin.conf
522 2010-09-29 15:11:55 <grondilu> THE MORE I THINK ABOUT THIS THE MORE I GET CONVINCED THAT BITCOIN ARE ABOUT TO CHANGE THE WORLD !!!!!
523 2010-09-29 15:12:07 <echelon> :)
524 2010-09-29 15:12:33 <echelon> the more it changes the world, the more it will come under attack by feds unfortunately -__-
525 2010-09-29 15:13:21 <idev> Sorry Gavin to keep troubling you, but i can't seem to get BTC going, ive uploaded the .gz, ran the cmds mkdir .bitcoin  echo "rpcpassword=foo" > .bitcoin/bitcoin.conf, but when i run ./bitcoin it says it file or dir unknow
526 2010-09-29 15:13:26 <grondilu> they can very few.  THey'll do what they did with gold :  they'll try to corner it.  But this will only increase its value.
527 2010-09-29 15:14:19 <echelon> perhaps
528 2010-09-29 15:15:32 <kermit> idev: ldd bitcoin
529 2010-09-29 15:15:51 <kermit> grondilu: i agree with what yuo said in CAPS
530 2010-09-29 15:16:11 <grondilu> And with gold, they can steal it to honnest citizens, as they did in USA during the 30s.  With bitcoins, unless they start torturing people to obtain their passphrases, they will not be able to steal.
531 2010-09-29 15:16:25 <idev> @ Kermit sorry i dont understand?
532 2010-09-29 15:16:53 <kermit> echelon: thast why i'd like to see it be 100% distrubuted, not 99% .. it needs an easy way to add IP addresses on start in case the irc server isnt avalailble
533 2010-09-29 15:17:01 <kermit> idev: type: ldd bitcoin
534 2010-09-29 15:17:19 <echelon> kermit, what it needs is dht -_-
535 2010-09-29 15:17:38 <echelon> not hard-coded nodes
536 2010-09-29 15:17:38 <theymos> kermit: You can use -addnode, and there are built-in seednodes used as a backup bootstrap source.
537 2010-09-29 15:17:56 <idev> @ Kermin ./bitcoin: No such file or directory
538 2010-09-29 15:18:06 <idev> kermit*
539 2010-09-29 15:18:34 <grondilu> kermit: getting new connection is not that difficult.  Worst case scenario, some websites would act like trackers.
540 2010-09-29 15:18:45 <echelon> idev, uhm.. do you know where bitcoin is?
541 2010-09-29 15:19:03 <idev> 1 sec, @ echelon
542 2010-09-29 15:19:04 <echelon> enter this.. find . -name bitcoin
543 2010-09-29 15:19:10 <kermit> theymos: i was told there are built in seednodes, but it didnt seem to work without access to the irc server
544 2010-09-29 15:19:47 <theymos> kermit: It waits a long time before it contacts them. It's also possible they're all down; they're not very reliable.
545 2010-09-29 15:20:09 <idev> its loacted @ /googserv.co.cc/bitcoin-0.3.12/bin
546 2010-09-29 15:20:19 <idev> but theres a 32 and 64 dir
547 2010-09-29 15:20:23 <echelon> ok so, run..
548 2010-09-29 15:20:26 <kermit> a few dynamicly updated hostnames in various TLDs would be really nice :)
549 2010-09-29 15:20:45 <echelon> are you on a 32bit or 64bit cpu?
550 2010-09-29 15:21:07 <idev> im not sure, but more than likly its 32
551 2010-09-29 15:21:15 <idev> how do i run it please?
552 2010-09-29 15:21:26 <idev> what do i nned to type
553 2010-09-29 15:21:27 <echelon> ok so, run.. /googserv.co.cc/bitcoin-0.3.12/bin/32/bitcoin
554 2010-09-29 15:22:15 <echelon> that ^
555 2010-09-29 15:22:21 <theymos> kermit: There's a list of always-up peers: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=59.msg that you can use.
556 2010-09-29 15:22:23 <bitbot> Post your static IP
557 2010-09-29 15:22:25 <echelon> with the paths
558 2010-09-29 15:23:08 <idev> Ok now its prompting me to download bitcoin from that path
559 2010-09-29 15:23:11 <echelon> theymos, why did you add a dns in that thread?
560 2010-09-29 15:23:34 <echelon> idev, what exactly does it say?
561 2010-09-29 15:23:41 <kermit> is anyone using CUDA in linux for bitcoin?
562 2010-09-29 15:23:56 <echelon> i wish :/
563 2010-09-29 15:24:04 <echelon> that'd be cool
564 2010-09-29 15:24:04 <idev> you have chossen to open bit coin with .....
565 2010-09-29 15:24:11 <necrodearia> Isn't CUDA proprietary?
566 2010-09-29 15:24:20 <theymos> echelon: It's a DynDNS hostname. I have a dynamic IP (though my IP rarely actually changes).
567 2010-09-29 15:24:36 <echelon> theymos, bitcoin only handles static ip's unfortunately :/
568 2010-09-29 15:25:08 <echelon> wait
569 2010-09-29 15:25:29 <echelon> is it the same case if you manually add them?
570 2010-09-29 15:25:47 <idev> @ echelon, its says you have chossen to open bit coin with ..... from googserv.co.cc
571 2010-09-29 15:25:50 <necrodearia> http://is.gd/fAtaT
572 2010-09-29 15:26:07 <echelon> i don't know what that means
573 2010-09-29 15:32:47 <theymos> echelon: You can resolve my hostname and then use the IP.
574 2010-09-29 15:32:54 <echelon> oh ok
575 2010-09-29 15:34:56 <echelon> if bitcoin only uses socks4, will adding a tor hidden service address work?
576 2010-09-29 15:35:31 <theymos> echelon: No.
577 2010-09-29 15:35:50 <echelon> so why did people add them to the thread? -_-
578 2010-09-29 15:35:53 <theymos> echelon: You might be able to use Tor's MapAddress option to make it work, though.
579 2010-09-29 15:36:07 <echelon> hmm
580 2010-09-29 15:47:47 <necrodearia> hmm, when I `svn co https://bitcoin.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/bitcoin bitcoin` I see "Error validating server certificate for 'https://bitcoin.svn.sourceforge.net:443':"
581 2010-09-29 15:48:12 <necrodearia> http://pastebin.com/hfu8D8R6
582 2010-09-29 15:48:36 <necrodearia> I haven't noticed this previously.
583 2010-09-29 15:49:06 <theymos> Equifax is a pretty common CA. Do you have your CAs set up correctly?
584 2010-09-29 15:49:13 <necrodearia> I imagine not.
585 2010-09-29 16:06:38 <idev> when i run i get ./bitcoind: Permission denied, and way to fix this and make it work
586 2010-09-29 16:06:56 <kermit> idev: chmod +x bitcoind
587 2010-09-29 16:07:05 <kermit> though it comes +x, where'd the +x do?
588 2010-09-29 16:08:17 <jgarzik> kermit: +x: "+" == add permission of type <blah>, "x" == the execute permission.  "+x" == mark bitcoind executable.
589 2010-09-29 16:08:24 <jgarzik> kermit: man chmod :)
590 2010-09-29 16:08:47 <idev> ok now i get ./bitcoind: error while loading shared libraries: libgthread-2.0.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
591 2010-09-29 16:08:51 <kermit> jgarzik: you mean idev:
592 2010-09-29 16:09:26 <jgarzik> kermit: "where'd the +x do?" was strange English, interpreted as asking what "+x" does
593 2010-09-29 16:09:32 <jgarzik> kermit: so it was directed at you :)
594 2010-09-29 16:09:38 <kermit> oh, typo, i meant go not do
595 2010-09-29 16:10:07 <kermit> idev: what system is this?
596 2010-09-29 16:11:01 <idev> Debian Linux
597 2010-09-29 16:12:06 <kermit> idev: apt-get install libgthread   or gthread
598 2010-09-29 16:12:36 <idev> whats the cmd for that please Kermit?
599 2010-09-29 16:13:48 <jgarzik> gthread is inside glib 2.0
600 2010-09-29 16:14:03 <jgarzik> surely debian doesn't split out gthread into a separate deb?
601 2010-09-29 16:14:44 <idev> i don't have a clue about most of this tech stuff to be honest
602 2010-09-29 16:23:03 <kermit> so bitcoinmarket  doestn credit you for btc until its confirmed, but how do they send out btc without using the unconfirmed btc?
603 2010-09-29 16:23:18 <kermit> i dont see any way in the bitcoind i have that gives you the option to specify
604 2010-09-29 16:23:44 <jgarzik> kermit: which confirmations do you speak of -- bitcoin network confirmations, or bitcoinmarket trade confirmations?
605 2010-09-29 16:24:42 <kermit> jgarzik: bitcoin network
606 2010-09-29 16:24:58 <jgarzik> kermit: BCM appears to wait for a confirmation or two, on incoming bitcoin transactions.  Therefore, any bitcoins you withdraw (outgoing bitcoin transactions, from BCM's perspective) are highly likely to be network-confirmed and safe.
607 2010-09-29 16:25:29 <kermit> is it using a seperate wallet for everyone?
608 2010-09-29 16:25:49 <jgarzik> kermit: unlikely, but I cannot say for sure.
609 2010-09-29 16:26:40 <kermit> jgarzik: so how are the unconfirmed lots not being sent out with the confirmed ones?
610 2010-09-29 16:28:16 <jgarzik> kermit: it pretty much follows the standard bitcoin algorithm for coin selection
611 2010-09-29 16:29:44 <jgarzik> kermit: main.cpp, SelectCoins
612 2010-09-29 16:30:59 <kermit> jgarzik: right.. are you suggesting that has a preference for confirmed coins?
613 2010-09-29 16:31:55 <jgarzik> kermit: it's quite complicated, a random shuffle among other things (see gavin's explaination above).  no suggestion or implication.  it appears that SelectCoins() does not check confirmations, but I could be missing something.
614 2010-09-29 16:32:46 <kermit> then what do you base this claim on "n incoming bitcoin transactions.  Therefore, any bitcoins you withdraw (outgoing bitcoin transactions, from BCM's perspective) are highly likely to be network-confirmed and safe."
615 2010-09-29 16:33:36 <kermit> just odds?
616 2010-09-29 16:34:20 <jgarzik> kermit: it doesn't make bitcoins available to any user, on the website, until incoming confirmations have been received.  considering that a large number of bitcoins are sitting at BCM at any given time, there is a high likelihood you will get confirmed coins on outgoing tx's.  it's only a tiny percentage of BCM's total coins that are unconfirmed, at any given moment.
617 2010-09-29 16:35:36 <jgarzik> kermit: to get unconfirmed coins, it takes an unlikely scenario such as:  a large bitcoin deposit, swamping the entire market, occuring at the same time as a large number (size-wise) of withdrawals
618 2010-09-29 16:36:10 <bonsaikitten> an intriguing challenge
619 2010-09-29 16:41:23 <echelon> is there a way to add nodes in bitcoin.conf?
620 2010-09-29 16:41:50 <theymos> echelon: You can use addnode=x. All of the command-line options work in bitcoin.conf
621 2010-09-29 16:42:06 <echelon> oh cool, thanks :)
622 2010-09-29 16:42:21 <echelon> so if i want to run the server, i just add a line with "server"?
623 2010-09-29 16:43:03 <theymos> I don't know. Maybe server=1.
624 2010-09-29 16:43:08 <echelon> and addnode values aren't delimited by commas?
625 2010-09-29 16:43:29 <theymos> echelon: do multiple addnodes.
626 2010-09-29 16:43:35 <echelon> ok
627 2010-09-29 17:07:36 <echelon> so.. all dns need to be resolved to an ip before adding them with addnode?
628 2010-09-29 17:27:05 <echelon> cool.. lfnet allows tor
629 2010-09-29 17:29:42 <xelister> Im convincing author of freenet ( #freenet ) to accept donations in BTCs
630 2010-09-29 17:29:53 <xelister> anyone wanna help to explain how this works on #freenet ? ;)
631 2010-09-29 17:30:14 <echelon> heh
632 2010-09-29 17:30:53 <nanotube> xelister: well... the freenet guys should be quite educated on the various ideas of cryptography. maybe you should just send them to read the bitcoin pdf whitepaper (and also the site and wiki)
633 2010-09-29 17:30:57 <echelon> you can say that he doesn't have to replace the existing payment system
634 2010-09-29 17:31:15 <echelon> just add the option
635 2010-09-29 17:31:27 <echelon> maybe don't think as many people would be willing to donate
636 2010-09-29 17:31:33 <echelon> *maybe they don't
637 2010-09-29 17:31:58 <nanotube> true, the "just an option" bit is a pretty good thing to point out.
638 2010-09-29 17:32:08 <xelister> nanotube: the developer have now milion things to do so not very much time for BTC... but it would be cool if they accepeted it
639 2010-09-29 17:32:23 <nanotube> as in, they'd not be losing any other donations, but only gaining btc donations.
640 2010-09-29 17:32:54 <xelister> time, effort
641 2010-09-29 17:33:06 <nanotube> mmm
642 2010-09-29 17:37:51 <xelister> "xelister: given that our experience of alternative currencies is that nobody ever uses anything except paypal, it might happen if you were to promise some actual money"
643 2010-09-29 17:38:00 <xelister> huhm.. we indeed need to promote BTC :)
644 2010-09-29 17:38:17 <xelister> we may start by typing /j #freenet perhaps
645 2010-09-29 17:38:39 <kermit> i think bitcoin is good enough that it doesnt need promotion
646 2010-09-29 17:38:57 <kermit> well, still tell your friends of course
647 2010-09-29 17:40:07 <nanotube> xelister: you can point out that btc can be exchanged for usd
648 2010-09-29 17:40:27 <xelister> yeah I did, but the question is, what is the effort
649 2010-09-29 17:43:33 <nanotube> xelister: well... tbh... unless you can convince him that there /will be a lot of people donating btc/, it is indeed not worth the effort.
650 2010-09-29 17:45:03 <echelon> ok, if i'm using the socks proxy setting with bitcoin.. shouldn't the `netstat -natp | grep bitcoin` show only connections to the socks proxy?
651 2010-09-29 17:45:10 <echelon> does the socks proxy setting even work?
652 2010-09-29 17:52:09 <echelon> the only way to force it is to torify it
653 2010-09-29 17:54:15 <kermit> bitcoin should use UDP packets with made up source addresses to send payments
654 2010-09-29 17:54:22 <kermit> most ISPs dont filter that
655 2010-09-29 17:55:08 <kermit> ..maybe one day it will
656 2010-09-29 17:56:07 <echelon> oh weird.. it was off for some reason
657 2010-09-29 17:59:46 <xelister> it seems 20-30% are lost when using bitcoins in    eur -> btc -> eur ?
658 2010-09-29 17:59:56 <xelister> are there markets with better preserving?
659 2010-09-29 18:00:53 <grondilu> just do :  eur -> btc ------very long time------>  eur   :-)
660 2010-09-29 18:01:13 <nanotube> well, the markets are pretty thin at the moment, so the bid-ask spreads are fairly large. but the mkt in usd seems to be more active and with smaller spreads
661 2010-09-29 18:01:15 <xelister> ; markets
662 2010-09-29 18:08:09 <nanotube> hey, trying to compile bitcoind... at the last step i'm getting "/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lgthread-2.0" ... anyone know what library that lives in?
663 2010-09-29 18:08:56 <kermit> intstall liblogthread-dev ?
664 2010-09-29 18:09:02 <kermit> er n/m no
665 2010-09-29 18:09:46 <nanotube> heh yea that came up in apt-cache search for me too, but doesn't look like a relevant lib.
666 2010-09-29 18:10:04 <soultcer> Install glib
667 2010-09-29 18:10:46 <soultcer> (libglib2.0-dev)
668 2010-09-29 18:11:25 <nanotube> soultcer: heh yea thanks - just found some refs to that on the web, trying now. :)
669 2010-09-29 18:11:54 <nanotube> soultcer: yay, worked! thanks :)
670 2010-09-29 18:12:40 <xelister> <toad_> xelister: i don't get it, if every node has to have a full history how can that scale?
671 2010-09-29 18:12:42 <xelister> how?
672 2010-09-29 18:13:25 <nanotube> xelister: i've heard something about in the future storing abbreviated/condensed histories...
673 2010-09-29 18:13:30 <nanotube> but no idea of the details.
674 2010-09-29 18:14:45 <echelon> does mybitcoin.com have a clearnet address?
675 2010-09-29 18:20:49 <warner> xelister: my thought is that the nodes that store a full history could offer verification services to those who don't
676 2010-09-29 18:21:24 <xelister> thanks
677 2010-09-29 18:21:25 <xelister> bbl
678 2010-09-29 18:22:01 <warner> as a client of such a service, you'd want to subscribe to several different (hopefully independent) providers, so that any single one couldn't trick you by themselves
679 2010-09-29 18:23:33 <toad_> fyi i have no issue with archiving my comments, we used to do the same thing on #freenet
680 2010-09-29 18:24:32 <glavkos> no problem with the creation of an archive
681 2010-09-29 18:26:01 <toad_> is there a technical faq? i have some technical questions ... 1) do all bitcoin peers have to receive all transactions, or at least a fixed proportion of all transactions? 2) how good is privacy - i haven't read the full paper, it suggests there may be some linkability? 3) will bitcoin drive ever increasing CPU energy usage? :)
682 2010-09-29 18:26:35 <warner> toad_: I can try to answer some of them from what I've gleaned from the code
683 2010-09-29 18:26:49 <toad_> 1 equates to "how do bandwidth requirements for a peer scale with the total number of transactions going on globally"
684 2010-09-29 18:27:14 <warner> 1) to verify that any given transaction hasn't been double-spent, you need to have received all transactions. You might be able to delegate that job to somebody else.
685 2010-09-29 18:27:40 <warner> you don't have to store all transactions, but you do have to receive them. (you only store a list of the unspent ones)
686 2010-09-29 18:27:46 <toad_> as i see it, bitcoin basically replicates the spend-tracker across all nodes, and then eliminates the need for a trusted mint as well by creating time/cpu-based scarcity
687 2010-09-29 18:27:54 <warner> yeah, that's a good summary
688 2010-09-29 18:28:11 <toad_> okay, so if it was ever to get big, the nodes would all have to have huge bandwidth?
689 2010-09-29 18:28:39 <toad_> on the other hand, if you disconnect and reconnect you don't need the full history, you can get away with a short hash chain
690 2010-09-29 18:28:45 <warner> the hashcash aspect serves two purposes: a nominally-fair way to distribute the initial currency, and a way to ensure the immutability of the spend record
691 2010-09-29 18:28:54 <kermit> hrm i just got a shell on a 16 core 3GHz xeon system, but bitcoin didnt run:  ./bitcoin: /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.9' not found (required by ./bitcoin)
692 2010-09-29 18:28:54 <smop> i've always wondered what the hashes are gowing towards
693 2010-09-29 18:29:02 <toad_> so it has no real issues with unreliable peer to peer as long as bandwidth isn't a big deal
694 2010-09-29 18:29:08 <warner> toad_: yeah
695 2010-09-29 18:29:21 <kermit> toad_: there's a pdf that is very technical
696 2010-09-29 18:29:27 <warner> it's currently flooding the unbound transactions and completed blocks to everyone
697 2010-09-29 18:29:30 <toad_> yeah, i haven't read the whole thing yet
698 2010-09-29 18:29:43 <toad_> any ideas on questions #2 and #3?
699 2010-09-29 18:29:55 <warner> but nodes only ask for the blocks/txns that they want
700 2010-09-29 18:30:00 <warner> 2) privacy is meh
701 2010-09-29 18:30:09 <warner> from what I can tell, it's not a primary design goal
702 2010-09-29 18:30:27 <warner> the transaction record means that each txn is easily linked to its predecessors
703 2010-09-29 18:30:32 <toad_> well, the first level is keeping public keys anonymous; this is pointless
704 2010-09-29 18:30:50 <toad_> in that you can link stuff easily once you id the key, you can likely id the key from the linkages
705 2010-09-29 18:31:24 <warner> each "coin" (i.e. an unspent output of a transaction [which can have multiple inputs and multiple outputs]) can have a distinct single-use pubkey
706 2010-09-29 18:31:26 <toad_> it also says "a new key pair should be used for each transaction ... some linking is still unavoidable with multi-input transactions, which necessarily reveal that their inputs were owned by the same owner" ...
707 2010-09-29 18:31:49 <warner> but the (current) most common use case is the donation button, which has a publically-known pubkey
708 2010-09-29 18:31:59 <toad_> okay ...
709 2010-09-29 18:32:16 <warner> so you can grep the transaction log for all txns that have that pubkey in the output, and see how much $ they've been given and which keys it came from
710 2010-09-29 18:32:47 <toad_> but if you wanted it to be private, you could effectively maintain thousands of separate accounts, and then send a bunch of them to the person who wants to send you the money?
711 2010-09-29 18:33:44 <warner> toad_: each transaction can transfer BTC to a new pubkey, and yeah, you can make those very cheaply (they're just ECDSA keypairs)
712 2010-09-29 18:33:45 <toad_> so then the obvious way to link the transactions is by time ...
713 2010-09-29 18:34:09 <warner> you just need to give someone the pubkeys in secret, so an observer can't link them
714 2010-09-29 18:34:29 <warner> and obviously you have to publish the resulting transactions to the world in such a way that an observer can't link them to e.g. your IP address
715 2010-09-29 18:34:54 <toad_> the paper says "some linking is still unavoidable with multi-input transactions, which necessarily reveal that their inputs were owned by the same owner" ... I guess that's a reference to a timing attack
716 2010-09-29 18:35:12 <echelon> so you're supposed to send cash in the mail to bitcoin2cash.com?
717 2010-09-29 18:35:19 <necrodearia> Yay, update from Michael Chisari of The Appleseed Project
718 2010-09-29 18:35:24 <warner> to get serious unlinkability, I suspect that you'd need to have some sort of remixer-like service, in which you pay them BTC at some fixed rate, and they pay it back to you later (to new keys) in some unrelatedly-looking rate
719 2010-09-29 18:35:28 <echelon> folded inside paper i'm guessing?
720 2010-09-29 18:35:40 <necrodearia> Tis kind of sad that still Appleseed community is tiny at 6 users
721 2010-09-29 18:35:42 <echelon> so that it can't be seen from the outside?
722 2010-09-29 18:35:47 <warner> toad_: no, I don't think the paper considers timing attacks
723 2010-09-29 18:35:59 <necrodearia> and a day prior to diaspora launch, diaspora chan had about 10 users.
724 2010-09-29 18:35:59 <toad_> warner: then how are transactions linkable?
725 2010-09-29 18:36:01 <warner> toad_: each "transaction" contains some number of inputs and some number of outputs
726 2010-09-29 18:36:04 <necrodearia> Now 90-100 users.
727 2010-09-29 18:36:19 <warner> toad_: each output is a single-use amount of BTC
728 2010-09-29 18:36:25 <necrodearia> The media attention seems to be what attracts community rather than the better or first implemented project/community
729 2010-09-29 18:36:28 <toad_> warner: well to keep them separate you'd need to do a separate transaction, from the network's point of view, for each private account
730 2010-09-29 18:36:36 <necrodearia> This applies to Bitcoin also
731 2010-09-29 18:36:38 <warner> more specifically, each output is a ($BTC, pubkey) pair
732 2010-09-29 18:36:53 <warner> toad_: the input is a reference to some earlier output
733 2010-09-29 18:37:14 <toad_> okay ...
734 2010-09-29 18:37:18 <necrodearia> e.g. Bitcoin may be best implementation of its kind, however, another implementation that has better media support will definitely garnish more attention
735 2010-09-29 18:37:24 <warner> and the whole transaction is signed by all the keys from all of the linked earlier outputs
736 2010-09-29 18:37:35 <necrodearia> It will be rather saddening when such an event related to Bitcoin does occur =\n4770
737 2010-09-29 18:38:14 <necrodearia> However
738 2010-09-29 18:38:26 <warner> toad_: so the "linkability" concern mentioned in the paper is that, if you see a txn that says "inputs A, B, and C shall be consumed and their value granted to keys D and E", then you can safely assume that A,B, and C are all controlled by the same entity
739 2010-09-29 18:38:35 <necrodearia> Bitcoin community is definitely a much larger community than The Appleseed Project has established
740 2010-09-29 18:38:35 <toad_> warner: okay
741 2010-09-29 18:39:01 <toad_> warner: so you can avoid that simply by using separate network-level transactions for a single high-level transaction (e.g. purchase)
742 2010-09-29 18:39:12 <toad_> but then you get into timing attacks
743 2010-09-29 18:39:38 <necrodearia> My apologies toad_, echelon and warner if my topic is seemingly interruptive of your conversation
744 2010-09-29 18:39:41 <toad_> plus, it uses more bandwidth
745 2010-09-29 18:39:58 <toad_> necrodearia: not a problem for me
746 2010-09-29 18:40:18 <warner> toad_: the bitcoin client maintains a "wallet", with a list of (output_reference, value, privkey), which I think of as "coins". When you spend e.g. 50BTC to Bob's pubkey D, the client will find enough "coins" to total to >=50, create a new keypair, then publish a txn that has all those coins as inputs, and has two outputs: one to D for 50BTC, and one to the new keypair with the leftover change
747 2010-09-29 18:40:19 <echelon> hey, how'd you get toad_ in here? :D
748 2010-09-29 18:40:40 <warner> toad_: so the observer gets to see that the change is associated with those keys too
749 2010-09-29 18:40:49 <warner> necrodearia: no worries :)
750 2010-09-29 18:41:22 <warner> toad_: yeah, you'd want to send each "coin" in a separate transaction, and spread them out over time
751 2010-09-29 18:41:24 <necrodearia> 5btc to third person to provide a response to the topic I mentioned just a couple minutes ago. ^_^
752 2010-09-29 18:41:38 <warner> which makes commerce more challenging too, when you don't get atomic payments
753 2010-09-29 18:41:44 <toad_> echelon: xelister
754 2010-09-29 18:41:51 <echelon> :)
755 2010-09-29 18:42:20 <toad_> echelon: suggesting that FPI take donations in bitcoin form, /me is skeptical for several reasons but when he told me about the architecture i thought it was fascinating...
756 2010-09-29 18:42:23 <necrodearia> echelon, That response doesn't cunt ^_^
757 2010-09-29 18:42:24 <necrodearia> count*
758 2010-09-29 18:42:44 <warner> toad_: it doesn't get invoked much now, but the client has rules to discourage lots of tiny transactions (in the form of fees that must be paid when the txn value is too small)
759 2010-09-29 18:43:24 <warner> toad_: me too, I've spent the last few weeks being captivated by this system. it appears to be very carefully thought out.
760 2010-09-29 18:43:33 <toad_> warner: so generally there is no privacy at the moment; very good privacy is possible but would likely be very expensive and require many trusted-but-verifiable mixer intermediaries
761 2010-09-29 18:43:42 <warner> (I keep thinking of ways to tie it into Tahoe, of course, but haven't gotten there yet)
762 2010-09-29 18:43:54 <toad_> given intermediaries, it could in fact be reasonably cheap
763 2010-09-29 18:43:55 <warner> yeah, that sounds about right
764 2010-09-29 18:44:12 <warner> it's not completely impossible, as some schemes would make it
765 2010-09-29 18:44:13 <toad_> but it will always cost noticeably more than no-privacy operation
766 2010-09-29 18:44:22 <toad_> okay
767 2010-09-29 18:44:36 <warner> but it's not specifically designed for privacy (unlike a lot of digital cash schemes)
768 2010-09-29 18:44:48 <warner> it's much more focussed on decentralization and predictable economic behavior
769 2010-09-29 18:45:10 <toad_> and the answer to question 1 was that bandwidth is indeed proportional to the number of transactions going on, so if it was ever to become widely used, we would need really big nodes or several separate maybe interacting networks
770 2010-09-29 18:45:13 <warner> my big privacy concern would be retroactive linkability
771 2010-09-29 18:45:22 <warner> yeah
772 2010-09-29 18:45:35 <toad_> is several separate interacting networks feasible?
773 2010-09-29 18:45:43 <warner> not really
774 2010-09-29 18:45:58 <warner> there exists a single global append-only (-ish) transaction record
775 2010-09-29 18:46:11 <warner> not everybody needs to follow it, but at least somebody does
776 2010-09-29 18:46:35 <warner> and if you don't follow it yourself, then your double-spend protection is dependent upon whoever does
777 2010-09-29 18:46:44 <toad_> so long term we will need nodes with truckloads of bandwidth?
778 2010-09-29 18:47:05 <warner> but there's room there for some specialization and delegation
779 2010-09-29 18:47:09 <toad_> well yeah
780 2010-09-29 18:47:17 <warner> some, yeah
781 2010-09-29 18:47:30 <toad_> and even given that it will be a far more decentralised and transparent system than the standard banking model
782 2010-09-29 18:47:40 <warner> yup
783 2010-09-29 18:47:50 <warner> I especially like the predictable rate of inflation
784 2010-09-29 18:48:01 <toad_> there is built-in inflation, so it's a medium of exchange, not of accumulation ...
785 2010-09-29 18:48:17 <toad_> you buy an investment, or you even put money into a "bank account" ... later on you get more out
786 2010-09-29 18:48:24 <toad_> okay
787 2010-09-29 18:48:28 <toad_> what about question 3?
788 2010-09-29 18:48:33 <warner> the number of BTC in existence is predictable far in advance
789 2010-09-29 18:48:39 <warner> until the end of time, really
790 2010-09-29 18:49:07 <warner> yeah, so yes, the popularity of the system tends to increase the demand for CPU time, but I think it's limited
791 2010-09-29 18:49:16 <toad_> that is, will BTC cause competition between money printers to use more and more CPU time?
792 2010-09-29 18:49:21 <toad_> what is it limited by?
793 2010-09-29 18:49:38 <edcba> electricity price
794 2010-09-29 18:49:38 <warner> people who run "mining"/generation nodes burn CPU time to increase the fraction of the fixed BTC/hour that they capture
795 2010-09-29 18:49:38 <xelister> "<warner> you just need to give someone the pubkeys in secret, so an observer can't link them"
796 2010-09-29 18:49:40 <xelister> ^--- like, over Freenet, woo o/
797 2010-09-29 18:50:07 <echelon> toad_, i've heard people are already sending their wallets over freenet
798 2010-09-29 18:50:16 <echelon> bitcoin wallets*
799 2010-09-29 18:50:22 <warner> but if the market value of BTC is less than the cost of the CPU you're burning, you lose the incentive to run the generating node
800 2010-09-29 18:50:42 <toad_> well, people run generator nodes, can we be confident that the return from a generator node is always going to be low enough that it's not going to add up to a large fraction of total global electricity demand?
801 2010-09-29 18:50:44 <warner> so you stop
802 2010-09-29 18:50:59 <edcba> toad_: it should stabilise
803 2010-09-29 18:50:59 <warner> hm, I don't know
804 2010-09-29 18:51:01 <toad_> you get to print money, but the rate at which you can do so is severely limited ...
805 2010-09-29 18:51:10 <warner> 50BTC every 10 minutes
806 2010-09-29 18:51:14 <xelister> echelon: are ther cli commands to expor X btc into other walletfile? and import?
807 2010-09-29 18:51:23 <edcba> if ppl stops, difficulty is lower, so it becomes affordable again...
808 2010-09-29 18:51:31 <echelon> i dunno, i haven't tried it myself
809 2010-09-29 18:51:34 <warner> the system overall adjusts the difficulty level to achieve one block every 10 minutes
810 2010-09-29 18:51:56 <toad_> edcba: right, but do we have any reason to think that the total cost will remain below some reasonable level?
811 2010-09-29 18:52:05 <echelon> xelister, i don't think there is.. you would have to send X btc into another wallet
812 2010-09-29 18:52:18 <echelon> that's what was explained to me
813 2010-09-29 18:52:23 <warner> hm. I'm not even sure how to model it.
814 2010-09-29 18:52:26 <edcba> toad_: there will always be someone to generate bitcoins
815 2010-09-29 18:52:42 <edcba> even if he loses 'money' in the process
816 2010-09-29 18:52:49 <warner> each user is willing to spend A cycles just because it's cool, and then they'll spend B cycles because they think they can make money off of it
817 2010-09-29 18:53:06 <toad_> hmmm
818 2010-09-29 18:53:12 <toad_> this is something that needs a proper economist to model it
819 2010-09-29 18:53:18 <warner> and maybe C cycles because they feel they're contributing a public service (helping maintain the immutability/append-only-ability of the txn log)
820 2010-09-29 18:53:25 <xelister> and then, hopefully, spend C cycles to buy a domain, or donate to freenet ;)
821 2010-09-29 18:53:32 <warner> running a generator at all costs some amount, of hassle or setup time
822 2010-09-29 18:53:45 <edcba> toad_: if you want to spend your bitcoins you need to continue generating bloks ;)
823 2010-09-29 18:54:12 <toad_> right, so you have the value of the generated blocks versus the cost of electricity to generate them
824 2010-09-29 18:54:15 <edcba> same for receiving them
825 2010-09-29 18:54:23 <xelister> you can limit the cpu usage however and then it will be nice in background
826 2010-09-29 18:54:25 <warner> and different participants have hardware that can generate at various hashes-per-second and dollar/watts-per-hash
827 2010-09-29 18:54:31 <toad_> the cost of electricity determines the minimum price you can sell them for, and competition drives it down to roughly that level
828 2010-09-29 18:54:37 <warner> right
829 2010-09-29 18:54:58 <edcba> yes almost
830 2010-09-29 18:55:02 <xelister> or.. you can run bitcoin at full speed/cores, and 2 freenet nodes... and watch the PC burn its CPU and then HDDs :D
831 2010-09-29 18:55:09 <toad_> however generators buying more hardware to get a larger slice of the output increases difficulty for other competitors
832 2010-09-29 18:55:15 <edcba> hmm yes *roughly* sorry
833 2010-09-29 18:55:27 <warner> so if everyone jumped in and ran generators just because they thought it was cool, the difficulty factor would rise very high, and the 6-blocks-per-hour would be spread very thin
834 2010-09-29 18:55:39 <toad_> so you have the risk of an exponential arms race eventually becoming a top line item on global power/carbon budgets?
835 2010-09-29 18:55:55 <warner> so all of the rational participants, who could no longer justify the $ of running those CPUs, would drop out
836 2010-09-29 18:56:20 <edcba> toad_: also reward for block generation is divide by 2 each 2 years iirc
837 2010-09-29 18:56:29 <toad_> well, the question is does rational participants buying new hardware drive up cpu prices? it would seem that it does ...
838 2010-09-29 18:56:59 <warner> if the total CPU of the irrational participants were great enough to keep the expected return lower than the cost of CPU, then the rational participants would never get back into the game
839 2010-09-29 18:57:16 <xelister> warner: by the game you mean being generators
840 2010-09-29 18:57:25 <warner> xelister: right
841 2010-09-29 18:57:29 <toad_> warner: is there a bound on what the rational generators' are prepared to put in?
842 2010-09-29 18:57:40 <xelister> warner: they can easly just be regular users, running noed in background at low resources, and using real money to buy BTCs or sell real services for BTCs
843 2010-09-29 18:57:46 <edcba> toad_: also ppl may just generate bitcoins to have some cpu heaters ;)
844 2010-09-29 18:57:47 <toad_> warner: as i see it, every time your competitor buys more hardware, that increases the bound, no?
845 2010-09-29 18:57:50 <xelister> and at that point BTC is becoming a real value
846 2010-09-29 18:57:51 <kermit> does anyone have a binary that works on RedHat???EL???5 ?
847 2010-09-29 18:58:19 <edcba> toad_: difficulty increase with total cpu power to match the 1 block every 10 minutes target
848 2010-09-29 18:58:25 <toad_> exactly
849 2010-09-29 18:58:38 <warner> xelister: well, even running it in the background costs electricity, and a rational player would measure that. But yeah, the value of BTC is influenced both by the cost to generate it and the current market price.
850 2010-09-29 18:59:05 <toad_> so if generator A buys more hardware, generator B's slower hardware becomes less valuable, and by buying more hardware generator B could increase his income
851 2010-09-29 18:59:19 <warner> true
852 2010-09-29 18:59:30 <warner> but eventually they'll bottom out
853 2010-09-29 18:59:41 <warner> er, the cost of that hardware will exceed the expected return
854 2010-09-29 18:59:46 <edcba> anyway what you forgot is BTC will be more easily acquired than generated at some point...
855 2010-09-29 19:00:13 <toad_> well, there is an upper bound on the expected return
856 2010-09-29 19:00:18 <warner> as more people participate, (rather, as the $/BTC exchange rate goes down), the bound actually goes down
857 2010-09-29 19:00:20 <nanotube> warner: what's the cost of running folding@home vs the benefit (to the individual). :)
858 2010-09-29 19:00:21 <xelister> warner: I think it cost really negligably amount of electricity, esp. if the CPU remains at low frequency (does not take niced proccessed in account for cpu freq governor)
859 2010-09-29 19:00:22 <toad_> dependant on the size of the economy
860 2010-09-29 19:00:29 <toad_> i.e. the $/BTC rate
861 2010-09-29 19:00:46 <toad_> so there *is* an upper bound; whether it is acceptable is not clear
862 2010-09-29 19:00:50 <nanotube> warner: so... people who think the concept of bitcoin is valuable will continue to support the network with cpu cycles, even if it's not a profitable proposition in itself.
863 2010-09-29 19:00:55 <warner> nanotube: right, that's why I said *rational* participant :). I'm running a generator node just because it's cool, not because I expect to make money off of it
864 2010-09-29 19:01:06 <warner> I'm not rational :)
865 2010-09-29 19:01:12 <toad_> i gotta go, thanks folks
866 2010-09-29 19:01:17 <toad_> will lurk
867 2010-09-29 19:01:27 <nanotube> warner: well, there is rationality in supporting a system you want to succeed.
868 2010-09-29 19:01:31 <edcba> you may also want to keep it running for your bitcoins to earn value...
869 2010-09-29 19:01:40 <warner> toad_: yeah
870 2010-09-29 19:01:43 <warner> toad_: see you later
871 2010-09-29 19:02:05 <warner> nanotube: yeah, I meant the strict economic defintion of rational
872 2010-09-29 19:02:54 <warner> there's lots of indirect value to supporting a system that will benefit you in the future, but it's hard to capture in a model
873 2010-09-29 19:03:26 <edcba> it's just speculation :)
874 2010-09-29 19:16:29 <GuestofHonor> Although Bitcoin is not a game, perhaps it needs a kind of bribe to entice reviewers to review Bitcoin? http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/09/29/148242
875 2010-09-29 19:17:10 <GuestofHonor> Additionally, perhaps the bribe will still allow the reviewer to review as they please and therefore not be a kind of typical bribe which is used to encourage a 'positive' review.
876 2010-09-29 19:17:41 <edcba> we can give them bitcoins...
877 2010-09-29 19:18:28 <edcba> but yes seriously it could be a good way to promote bitcoin
878 2010-09-29 19:18:40 <edcba> 'good' = efficient :)
879 2010-09-29 19:19:17 <kermit> from my 20 hours of reviewing, i'm more worried about it getting popular faster than it can be maintained
880 2010-09-29 19:20:06 <edcba> lol
881 2010-09-29 19:20:27 <edcba> yes official bitcoin client is hard to understand
882 2010-09-29 19:21:37 <kermit> its far more important that its robust than easy to use, if its robust, it'll get used, others might even write their own UIs
883 2010-09-29 19:22:23 <kermit> there's extreemly large demand for this niche, it does everythin gold does, *and* its anonymous *and* you can backup your "gold".. it sells itself.
884 2010-09-29 19:22:29 <theymos> Bitcoin is certainly far from 1.0. Probably tons of security flaws yet to be discovered. Satoshi has been very fast with fixing them, though.
885 2010-09-29 19:23:14 <nanotube> yea, it's probably best to let the adoption curve run its course, until we get to some 'stability'
886 2010-09-29 19:23:55 <nanotube> kermit: hehe, 'reviewing' as in... sending me a bunch of no-fee microtransactions and almost borking my wallet? :)
887 2010-09-29 19:25:19 <kermit> nanotube: yeah
888 2010-09-29 19:25:58 <nanotube> heh
889 2010-09-29 19:28:26 <kermit> nanotube: i had to know if everyone was serious or if its just an acedemic project for someones PhD
890 2010-09-29 19:29:03 <nanotube> kermit: heh yea... well when you have an exchange rate to real currencies... you can be pretty sure it's serious.
891 2010-09-29 19:29:24 <kermit> nanotube: well, or really stupid ;) hehe
892 2010-09-29 19:29:24 <theymos> kermit: If you look at the initial public announcement of Bitcoin, it sounds like it's just some experiment that was never meant to get big.
893 2010-09-29 19:29:50 <kermit> theymos: i think thast why wikipedia deleted it
894 2010-09-29 19:30:23 <nanotube> kermit: hehe or that :)
895 2010-09-29 19:41:36 <grondilu> Should I worry if one of my received btc keeps in '0/unconfirmed' status ?
896 2010-09-29 19:43:02 <theymos> grondilu: If it stays for more than 30 minutes or so, there's probably something wrong with it and it won't ever clear. (Maybe someone is abusing the microtransaction bug?)
897 2010-09-29 19:43:09 <grondilu> I had 82839 blocks though
898 2010-09-29 19:44:06 <grondilu> oh I'm in '3/unconfirmed' now.  I guess it's my connection being poor.
899 2010-09-29 19:56:10 <kermit> is there a command line too to look at these berkeley db files?   like sqlite3 for sqlite3 files
900 2010-09-29 19:56:28 <kermit> i'm very curious to see in what denominations my coins are
901 2010-09-29 19:56:54 <theymos> No. You can use bitcointools to get that info, though.
902 2010-09-29 19:58:56 <kermit> theymos: oh, thanks
903 2010-09-29 19:59:22 <nanotube> where does bitcointools live?
904 2010-09-29 19:59:35 <theymos> nanotube: http://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcointools
905 2010-09-29 20:13:17 <puddinpop> Does anyonw know what khash/s ArtForz was getting on 5770s?
906 2010-09-29 20:16:00 <kermit> puddinpop: (2010-09-28 17:24:11) ArtForz: 5770s are a bit worse for power/hash, about 1.3Mhps/W
907 2010-09-29 20:16:17 <kermit> you'll have to look up ho many watts they are
908 2010-09-29 20:16:32 <Keefe> which varies
909 2010-09-29 20:16:32 <kermit> puddinpop: you'd know.. has anyone got any CUDA working in linux?
910 2010-09-29 20:17:55 <puddinpop> I haven't heard of anyone at all using the CUDA code that was released
911 2010-09-29 20:18:00 <puddinpop> Are you trying to get it working
912 2010-09-29 20:18:31 <kermit> puddinpop: i'm still trying to get any idea if i could even begin to try to get it working..
913 2010-09-29 20:19:02 <kermit> considering i havent heard of CUDA until yesterday, and i dont own an nvidia card or a desktop PC, i have a ways to go.  but i know C!
914 2010-09-29 20:19:41 <kermit> if it can be done in linux, i can do it, i can do anyhting in linux.
915 2010-09-29 20:20:33 <puddinpop> Without a CUDA enabled device, it's not going to work
916 2010-09-29 20:20:50 <puddinpop> But you could probably compile it, but it would do you no good.
917 2010-09-29 20:21:36 <kermit> if i could compile it, i'd find a card to try it
918 2010-09-29 20:22:01 <kermit> has it been done though?
919 2010-09-29 20:22:04 <puddinpop> Well can you compile the vanilla client?
920 2010-09-29 20:22:09 <kermit> yes