1 2010-10-13 07:37:25 <Tritonio> idea to fight the transaction spamming potential problem: probabilisticaly prioritize transactions of bigger ammounts to get into the blocks. that way someone cannot break up a large ammount into tiny transactions and spam the blocks with them. It isn't a perfect solution, but it makes it more expensive to start an attack.
  2 2010-10-13 07:43:42 <bd_> Tritonio: There's already a workaround, in a way - when the block size exceeds a certain limit, only transactions which pay a fee are allowed in. So by paying transaction fees, one can avoid being affected by spamming
  3 2010-10-13 07:44:14 <ArtForz> yep
  4 2010-10-13 07:44:20 <bd_> Trying to double-spend will result in the transaction being rejected, fyi
  5 2010-10-13 07:44:35 <bd_> without being propagated through the network that is
  6 2010-10-13 07:44:40 <Tritonio> yes but if there is way to avoid spam without having to pay for transactions why not implement it?
  7 2010-10-13 07:45:15 <Tritonio> bd_: not double spend. jsut spend back and forth between two wallets reaaaly fast
  8 2010-10-13 07:45:37 <ArtForz> #2 wont help at all
  9 2010-10-13 07:45:57 <Tritonio> why not?
 10 2010-10-13 07:46:55 <ArtForz> split 5 BTC input into 500 * 0.01 outputs, takes all of 9 blocks using binary splits
 11 2010-10-13 07:47:26 <ArtForz> start sending 0.01 -> 0.01 TXes
 12 2010-10-13 07:48:46 <ArtForz> = you're occupying all fee-less space in every block
 13 2010-10-13 07:48:59 <Tritonio> yes
 14 2010-10-13 07:49:21 <edcba> yes i also think solution will involve rejecting tx randomly
 15 2010-10-13 07:49:30 <ArtForz> once one of your 0.01->0.01 gets into a block, base another 0.01->0.01 off it
 16 2010-10-13 07:49:49 <Tritonio> randomly but with a lower probability the higher the amount transacted is.
 17 2010-10-13 07:50:13 <edcba> no i would just do it based on how many tx i have stored
 18 2010-10-13 07:50:31 <edcba> so i would limit tx spreading
 19 2010-10-13 07:50:50 <Tritonio> but it's more probably that a low amount transaction is spam than a bigger one. so why not drop them first?
 20 2010-10-13 07:51:01 <edcba> based on what ?
 21 2010-10-13 07:51:18 <Tritonio> based on how many bitcoins are transacted (i don't even know if this verb exists)
 22 2010-10-13 07:51:29 <bd_> Tritonio: Personally I'd just suggest inserting txns in a block randomly, but assigning higher priority based on the txn fee on it
 23 2010-10-13 07:51:35 <bd_> This is naturally hard to game :)
 24 2010-10-13 07:52:09 <edcba> yes of course it should be prioritized on fees :)
 25 2010-10-13 07:52:22 <Tritonio> bd_: I totaly agree with that, but in case the tx fee is equal to another one, prioritize the higher amount. That way people that don't want to pay a fee will have some chances against spam
 26 2010-10-13 07:52:27 <ArtForz> prioritise on fee first, then the rest randomly weighed by tx amount
 27 2010-10-13 07:52:32 <edcba> but i think fees shouldn't exist
 28 2010-10-13 07:52:55 <bd_> edcba: Why else would people run generators once the stipend reduces to almost nothing?
 29 2010-10-13 07:53:31 <Tritonio> bd_: they won't. and will result in fewer people generating, and that will result to higher profit for those generating. it will balance somewhere.
 30 2010-10-13 07:53:53 <edcba> because if i had a greedy client i will just keep all tx with fees for myself
 31 2010-10-13 07:53:56 <Tritonio> (there is a problem with that too though. if it is going to balance on a low number of people the netowrk will not be trustworthy)
 32 2010-10-13 07:54:34 <Tritonio> edcba: i don't think you could keep fees for yourself somehow.
 33 2010-10-13 07:54:49 <edcba> i just mean i wouldn't forward the transaction
 34 2010-10-13 07:55:04 <edcba> then i have more time to get the fee
 35 2010-10-13 07:55:17 <ArtForz> edcba: isn't that kinda hopeless? non-generating clients will pass the TX on
 36 2010-10-13 07:55:24 <edcba> yes i know
 37 2010-10-13 07:55:44 <Tritonio> well if I have 8 neightbours, 8 of them will have to be greedy for the transaction not to propagate...
 38 2010-10-13 07:55:46 <edcba> anyway transport in bitcoins is fucked up
 39 2010-10-13 07:55:51 <ArtForz> yep
 40 2010-10-13 07:55:55 <Tritonio> sure. :-D
 41 2010-10-13 07:55:57 <edcba> there is no incentive in cooperating
 42 2010-10-13 07:56:12 <ArtForz> well, the incentive is keeping the system working
 43 2010-10-13 07:56:18 <edcba> yes of course
 44 2010-10-13 07:57:05 <Tritonio> ArtForz: that's not much of an incentive. Else societies would live without police and laws. :-D
 45 2010-10-13 07:57:16 <ArtForz> actually it somewhat is in this case
 46 2010-10-13 07:57:20 <ArtForz> people generating tend to have bitcoins, so they also tend to try to increase the value of bitcoins
 47 2010-10-13 07:57:51 <bd_> Well... generation is valuable because you get all the fees for transactions in your block. And, temporarily, the stipends as well.
 48 2010-10-13 07:58:00 <bd_> so that's the incentive.
 49 2010-10-13 07:58:16 <edcba> i meant incentive for forwarding transactions bd_
 50 2010-10-13 07:58:22 <Tritonio> aah...
 51 2010-10-13 07:58:24 <bd_> edcba: Oh. Not much.
 52 2010-10-13 07:58:32 <edcba> official client will hapilly cooperate with uncooperative clients
 53 2010-10-13 07:59:07 <bd_> Hmm.
 54 2010-10-13 07:59:21 <bd_> I wonder if there's a cryptographically secure way to share fees with forwarders?
 55 2010-10-13 07:59:28 <ArtForz> well, with 8+ connections per node you'd have to have a vast majority of uncooperative nodes to really make a difference
 56 2010-10-13 07:59:47 <edcba> you don't need crypto for that you may just have some reputation system
 57 2010-10-13 08:00:11 <edcba> ArtForz: you just need a lot of IPs :)
 58 2010-10-13 08:00:17 <bd_> Well, remember that although relays have little incentive as-is, generators have an incentive to receive transactions, and users have an incentive tosend them
 59 2010-10-13 08:00:30 <bd_> so if it's a problem, both parties could pay a neutral third party to act as a relay
 60 2010-10-13 08:01:00 <edcba> bd_: you just need to have a client counting useful info got from a node vs info sent
 61 2010-10-13 08:01:23 <edcba> if ratio getting too low just drop/ignore that node
 62 2010-10-13 08:01:38 <Tritonio> what if you forward transactions to those that forward valid transactions to you?
 63 2010-10-13 08:01:47 <bd_> edcba: heh, how do you get that information reliably?
 64 2010-10-13 08:01:48 <ArtForz> not to mention it'd be pretty easy for other nodes to figure out who's cheating
 65 2010-10-13 08:01:48 <Tritonio> oops
 66 2010-10-13 08:02:00 <bd_> What if a node simply chooses to only connect to one other node?
 67 2010-10-13 08:02:15 <ArtForz> why would it do that?
 68 2010-10-13 08:02:35 <bd_> ArtForz: Maybe it's a client-only node. Maybe it's a generator-only node.
 69 2010-10-13 08:02:52 <ArtForz> well, can't stop nodes from hurting themselves
 70 2010-10-13 08:02:52 <bd_> Maybe it actually has eight connections, but pretends to be eight seperate clients
 71 2010-10-13 08:03:08 <bd_> in any of those cases, the client won't be doing any relaying
 72 2010-10-13 08:03:37 <bd_> But we don't want to just disconnect it
 73 2010-10-13 08:04:02 <bd_> And rejecting blocks won't help either - you can just pay off a participating (ie, good) client to insert your block into the stream
 74 2010-10-13 08:04:32 <edcba> bd_: if the node just connects and do nothing it's fine
 75 2010-10-13 08:04:42 <ArtForz> well, there's nothing right now stopping a generating node from not accepting any transactions at all
 76 2010-10-13 08:04:46 <bd_> edcba: So what's the problem with not relaying then? :)
 77 2010-10-13 08:04:46 <edcba> it may even send transaction : that's useful info
 78 2010-10-13 08:04:53 <ArtForz> except it'd be completely pointless
 79 2010-10-13 08:05:11 <bd_> ArtForz: It's not pointless - you can generate even if you refuse to relay, which I _think_ was edcba's point
 80 2010-10-13 08:05:17 <bd_> although I might be wrong there
 81 2010-10-13 08:05:20 <ArtForz> yes
 82 2010-10-13 08:05:31 <bd_> And my point is there's no easy way to stop this
 83 2010-10-13 08:05:42 <ArtForz> and if enough people start doing that, the network will get slower
 84 2010-10-13 08:05:43 <edcba> bd_: the problem is when a node just ask me for info without giving me some
 85 2010-10-13 08:06:09 <bd_> edcba: Maybe they just have a slow connection, and by the time they offer you the information it's already reached you via another route
 86 2010-10-13 08:06:22 <edcba> anyway you just need to look at bittorrent etc to see what you want for bitcoin
 87 2010-10-13 08:06:26 <ArtForz> which in turn reduces BC usefulness as currency, which lowers the value
 88 2010-10-13 08:06:26 <bd_> My point is, there's plenty of legitimate clients we don't want to deny access
 89 2010-10-13 08:06:34 <bd_> But which may not be able to relay
 90 2010-10-13 08:06:50 <edcba> bd_: they still can send me outdated info, that's not a problem
 91 2010-10-13 08:07:05 <Tritonio> what if whenever you broadcast a transaction to
 92 2010-10-13 08:07:29 <edcba> but in fact the best way would to do some shared generation
 93 2010-10-13 08:07:32 <ArtForz> so any node owner holding a significant amount of BC has an indirect incentive to cooperate
 94 2010-10-13 08:07:59 <Tritonio> your neighbours you record who they are so that if the TX doesn't get into the block while it should, you punish them somehow? like not sending them future tx or dropping the connection?
 95 2010-10-13 08:08:27 <edcba> you don't know if you neighbour did generate some block :)
 96 2010-10-13 08:08:39 <Tritonio> he doesn't have to.
 97 2010-10-13 08:09:07 <Tritonio> the tx not being into the block means that it probably wasn't forwarded by all your neighbours
 98 2010-10-13 08:10:01 <edcba> ok i understand why satoshi implemented IP payments now
 99 2010-10-13 08:10:08 <Tritonio> if at least one of them forwards it it will reach some part of the netowork. if they all kept it for themselves then it will be really improbable to get into the next block.
100 2010-10-13 08:10:21 <edcba> because we'll need it if we want our tx to be transported
101 2010-10-13 08:11:02 <Tritonio> edcba: IP payments would just notify the receiver. the tx would still have to reach the network in order to get into a block.
102 2010-10-13 08:11:58 <edcba> if you include in a tx your neighbours they'll have incentive to forward it :)
103 2010-10-13 08:12:27 <Tritonio> to get a good reputation?
104 2010-10-13 08:12:36 <edcba> no to get their transport fee
105 2010-10-13 08:12:46 <Tritonio> aaah. right.
106 2010-10-13 08:13:12 <Tritonio> but what about the neighbours' neighbours?
107 2010-10-13 08:13:28 <edcba> now that's where you need reputation...
108 2010-10-13 08:14:28 <edcba> bitcoin is really a complex system
109 2010-10-13 08:16:00 <Tritonio> what if for each of our neighbours we keep a ratio of fee-less/fee-ed TXs for each neightbour and drop connections that deviate a lot form the average?
110 2010-10-13 08:16:22 <edcba> hmm
111 2010-10-13 08:16:37 <Tritonio> that way we don't drop connections of those that don't generaly want to relay
112 2010-10-13 08:16:52 <Tritonio> but we drop those that rellay only what they don't want.
113 2010-10-13 08:21:23 <Tritonio> but it would stop working if it we all start using fees. which will eventually happen.
114 2010-10-13 08:57:21 <UukGoblin> if anyone else wants to buy some bitcoins I'm happy to sell about 3k
115 2010-10-13 09:04:10 <FreeMoney> price goblin?
116 2010-10-13 09:04:48 <UukGoblin> $0.08
117 2010-10-13 09:05:34 <FreeMoney> take paypal?
118 2010-10-13 09:05:40 <UukGoblin> yup, paypal
119 2010-10-13 09:06:00 <FreeMoney> let me check my balance
120 2010-10-13 09:06:38 <RazielZ> FREE MONEY OH MY GOD
121 2010-10-13 09:06:42 <FreeMoney> I'll take 2k
122 2010-10-13 09:06:54 <UukGoblin> at $0.08?
123 2010-10-13 09:06:58 <FreeMoney> yeah
124 2010-10-13 09:07:03 <UukGoblin> cool :-]
125 2010-10-13 09:08:28 <RazielZ> I'll take 1k for free pl0x
126 2010-10-13 09:08:29 <RazielZ> <.>
127 2010-10-13 09:08:45 <RazielZ> I need money to invest money... hmmm.... where can I code for money?
128 2010-10-13 09:08:53 <RazielZ> Aren't there webistes with, like, requests and rewards for coding
129 2010-10-13 09:08:54 <RazielZ> ._.
130 2010-10-13 09:09:31 <UukGoblin> there are
131 2010-10-13 09:09:36 <UukGoblin> rentacoder.com is one I remember
132 2010-10-13 09:09:56 <RazielZ> Do I have to not suck?
133 2010-10-13 09:10:00 <RazielZ> Not that I SUCK but still
134 2010-10-13 09:10:14 <doublec> a rentacoder for bitcoins would be interesting. Or something that offers bitcoin bounties for opensource bug fixes and enhancements.
135 2010-10-13 09:10:14 <UukGoblin> dunno
136 2010-10-13 09:12:27 <UukGoblin> FreeMoney, thanks for the trade, moneys received :-)
137 2010-10-13 09:12:36 <FreeMoney> thank you too
138 2010-10-13 09:12:48 <MacRohard> now charge them back ;)
139 2010-10-13 09:13:19 <edcba> 0.08 ?
140 2010-10-13 09:13:22 <UukGoblin> don't even say that
141 2010-10-13 09:13:31 <edcba> bitcoins value does augment ?
142 2010-10-13 09:13:37 <ArtForz> http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/14/university-of-antwerp-stuffs-13-gpus-into-fastra-ii-supercompute/
143 2010-10-13 09:14:25 <RazielZ> >games that use 11 gpus
144 2010-10-13 09:14:37 <RazielZ> >gtx295
145 2010-10-13 09:14:42 <MacRohard> nice
146 2010-10-13 09:14:50 <MacRohard> i bet that could generate some bitcoins
147 2010-10-13 09:14:51 <ArtForz> do that with 7 5970s and you have 3.75Ghash/s in a box :P
148 2010-10-13 09:15:07 <RazielZ> ^ this
149 2010-10-13 09:16:00 <ArtForz> with 7 GTX295s it'd be only ~0.65Gh/s
150 2010-10-13 09:16:41 <RazielZ> so wait
151 2010-10-13 09:16:47 <RazielZ> I can get one o thos with, like, 6000$?
152 2010-10-13 09:16:53 <RazielZ> INTERESTING
153 2010-10-13 09:17:03 <ArtForz> pretty much, yup
154 2010-10-13 09:17:10 <ArtForz> a 5970 is like $600
155 2010-10-13 09:17:37 <RazielZ> Yeah
156 2010-10-13 09:17:42 <RazielZ> Video Card: ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2
157 2010-10-13 09:17:50 <RazielZ> not gonna upgrade yet tho >.>
158 2010-10-13 09:18:00 <MacRohard> hmm would certainly pay for itself at these prices
159 2010-10-13 09:18:02 <ArtForz> though a 1500W PSU would be too small for that, you'd need at least 2*1200W or so
160 2010-10-13 09:18:18 <edcba> heater in a box !
161 2010-10-13 09:18:31 <ArtForz> 7 5970s = 2100W
162 2010-10-13 09:19:22 <ArtForz> OC em to 5870x2 levels and you're looking at > 2.5kW
163 2010-10-13 09:19:37 <ArtForz> ... and ~4.4Gh/s
164 2010-10-13 09:19:42 <MacRohard> just illegally tap the power grid
165 2010-10-13 09:20:14 <MacRohard> or maybe run it under the desk at work heh
166 2010-10-13 09:20:40 <ArtForz> I think I'm gonna get 2 PCIe risers and try 4x5970 again
167 2010-10-13 09:21:28 <ArtForz> 4 5970s in 2-slot spacing = cooking cards in the middle
168 2010-10-13 09:23:15 <ArtForz> get 2 3" high PCIe extender cards and and you don't block fan intake
169 2010-10-13 09:23:55 <ArtForz> actually I think I'm gonna try with 2*5970 and 2*5770 first, 5770s are short enough to not block the fan intake of a 5970
170 2010-10-13 09:26:53 <MacRohard> just get more motherboards?
171 2010-10-13 09:28:25 <ArtForz> 2x 2*x8 mobo + cpu + ram is about $200 more than 1x 4*x8 mobo + cpu + ram + 2 PCIe risers
172 2010-10-13 09:29:15 <MacRohard> so basically nothing to a bitcoin barron such as yourself ;)
173 2010-10-13 09:29:55 <ArtForz> also might give slight increase in hashes/kWh
174 2010-10-13 09:30:16 <MacRohard> perhaps
175 2010-10-13 09:30:17 <edcba> do you maintain a graph with earning/time ?
176 2010-10-13 09:31:14 <ArtForz> I keep spreadsheets
177 2010-10-13 09:39:26 <LobsterMan> ;nr
178 2010-10-13 09:39:28 <LobsterMan> ;estimate
179 2010-10-13 09:39:36 <LobsterMan> bitbot is missing?
180 2010-10-13 09:40:53 <doublec> bitbot has been missing for a while now
181 2010-10-13 09:40:58 <LobsterMan> <_<
182 2010-10-13 09:44:09 <Tritonio> any news about my.gox?
183 2010-10-13 09:48:15 <doublec> no news that I'm aware of about a new payment processor
184 2010-10-13 11:17:23 <Xunie> I'm planning the first IRC meeting. (since no one picked a date, I guess I let the thread die.)
185 2010-10-13 11:17:40 <bd_> but will satoshi come?
186 2010-10-13 11:17:44 <Xunie> Should I hold the meeting in #bitcoin-meeting or something?
187 2010-10-13 11:17:56 <Xunie> bd_, I don't know, I hope so!
188 2010-10-13 11:17:58 <bd_> probably holding it in the regular channel will have more participants
189 2010-10-13 11:18:02 <Xunie> Yeah.
190 2010-10-13 11:21:01 <nanotube> yay meeting
191 2010-10-13 11:21:19 <UukGoblin> s/^y/g/
192 2010-10-13 11:21:40 <UukGoblin> ;-]
193 2010-10-13 11:21:55 <nanotube> heh
194 2010-10-13 11:22:16 <UukGoblin> where's mizerydearia anyway?
195 2010-10-13 11:22:32 <UukGoblin> the nullvoid.org/bitcoin thingy doesn't work either :-[
196 2010-10-13 11:22:33 <nanotube> moved... to a place with no net or electricity
197 2010-10-13 11:22:44 <UukGoblin> what's the purpose of that?
198 2010-10-13 11:22:50 <nanotube> lack of money
199 2010-10-13 11:22:56 <UukGoblin> oh
200 2010-10-13 11:23:05 <UukGoblin> but he got so much bitcoins from donations!
201 2010-10-13 11:23:30 <nanotube> yea, all of 50 bucks heh
202 2010-10-13 11:25:36 <Xunie> Hmm, should I pick next week Saturday or Sunday?
203 2010-10-13 11:25:55 <Xunie> Saturday everyone might have a hangover. :P
204 2010-10-13 11:26:26 <nanotube> make it sunday night EST or something. :)
205 2010-10-13 11:27:36 <Xunie> Well I was thinking noon 1:00 - 2:00 GMT to be honest.
206 2010-10-13 11:27:55 <Xunie> It will be not that late in Japan, It will be midnight in Sydney.
207 2010-10-13 11:28:17 <Xunie> The Russians will be up, The Europeans and Brits are awake.
208 2010-10-13 11:28:23 <Xunie> Only the Americans need to wake up early! :P
209 2010-10-13 11:28:36 <nanotube> haha mmm
210 2010-10-13 11:29:14 <UukGoblin> The Russians might be drunk by then
211 2010-10-13 11:29:17 <Xunie> The meeting would start at 7 o clock east coast time, 8 o clock CST, 9 o clock East coast.
212 2010-10-13 11:29:26 <Xunie> UukGoblin, aren't the Russians *always* drunk?
213 2010-10-13 11:29:38 <edcba> they sleep sometimes i guess
214 2010-10-13 11:29:38 <UukGoblin> true, true
215 2010-10-13 11:29:44 <nanotube> eheh i was gonna say the same thing
216 2010-10-13 11:29:55 <nanotube> edcba: it's possible to go to sleepe while drunk...
217 2010-10-13 11:29:58 <UukGoblin> doesn't mean they're sober! ;-]
218 2010-10-13 11:30:08 <edcba> nanotube: i know...
219 2010-10-13 11:30:15 <nanotube> heh
220 2010-10-13 11:30:27 <UukGoblin> in fact, it's much easier to fall asleep while drunk ;-]
221 2010-10-13 11:30:29 <Xunie> So eh, Saturday or Sunday? I can't pick! :'(
222 2010-10-13 11:30:33 <UukGoblin> sunday.
223 2010-10-13 11:30:40 <UukGoblin> you're right about the hangover
224 2010-10-13 11:30:43 <edcba> yes sunday
225 2010-10-13 11:31:05 <nanotube> guess i vote for sunday too
226 2010-10-13 11:31:27 <nanotube> Xunie: you should make a wiki page with the meeting agenda
227 2010-10-13 11:31:53 <UukGoblin> are sweets & drinks provided?
228 2010-10-13 11:31:55 <nanotube> otherwise the 'meeting' will be just another day on the IRC channel. :)
229 2010-10-13 11:32:04 <nanotube> byos&d
230 2010-10-13 11:32:08 <nanotube> UukGoblin: --^ :)
231 2010-10-13 11:34:39 <nathan7> Sweets and drinks, where?
232 2010-10-13 11:34:55 <Xunie> nanotube, thanks, I'll get cracking on it.
233 2010-10-13 11:37:23 <Diablo-D3> why am I beatboxing smooth criminal
234 2010-10-13 11:38:32 <Xunie> Should I do a sort of "speaker" thing where there will be a speaker on the channel during the meeting?
235 2010-10-13 11:39:30 <Xunie> And I silence everyone during that or something while afterwards active discussion will take place.
236 2010-10-13 11:42:40 <nanotube> Xunie: well... only if you set up a separate -meeting channel.
237 2010-10-13 11:43:24 <nanotube> (which you probably should - just announce the fact of it here in -dev, then anyone who's here and wants to be in can be)
238 2010-10-13 11:43:35 <nanotube> would make it more official and meeting-like
239 2010-10-13 12:23:26 <UukGoblin> imho forced silencing is bad, the whole idea of irc is that people can't shout over each other, and questions can be asked without trouble as soon as they're thought of
240 2010-10-13 12:24:10 <UukGoblin> it's a bit of forcing other media's restrictions to a medium in which they don't apply
241 2010-10-13 12:24:23 <UukGoblin> depends on the nature of the meeting too, perhaps
242 2010-10-13 12:27:11 <redengin> yes, public ridicule is always more fun
243 2010-10-13 12:50:16 <Xunie> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1451.0
244 2010-10-13 12:50:22 <Xunie> ^ First planned IRC meeting.
245 2010-10-13 12:52:34 <UukGoblin> o/
246 2010-10-13 12:53:34 <UukGoblin> Xunie, UK summer time is called BST
247 2010-10-13 12:56:00 <lfm> ecept in the uk they call it GMT all year round
248 2010-10-13 12:56:10 <UukGoblin> they're wrong
249 2010-10-13 12:56:34 <lfm> well of course they're wrong but thats why we need UTC
250 2010-10-13 12:57:01 <UukGoblin> heh, not exactly ;-]
251 2010-10-13 12:57:23 <lfm> well why dont we still use GMT then?
252 2010-10-13 12:57:41 <UukGoblin> I think it's got to do with leap seconds
253 2010-10-13 12:57:50 <lfm> I think not
254 2010-10-13 13:06:57 <Xunie> We should all just start using Zulu time dang it!
255 2010-10-13 13:07:04 <Xunie> It's all too confusing! :(
256 2010-10-13 13:08:01 <bonsaikitten> UTC
257 2010-10-13 13:08:07 <bonsaikitten> the only relevant time
258 2010-10-13 13:08:27 <Xunie> UTC = Zulu.
259 2010-10-13 13:11:19 <nathan7> :o
260 2010-10-13 13:11:31 <Xunie> :O
261 2010-10-13 13:11:50 <Xunie> What's wrong!? :O
262 2010-10-13 13:11:59 <Diablo-D3> Xunie: no
263 2010-10-13 13:12:12 <Diablo-D3> GMT = Zulu
264 2010-10-13 13:12:14 <Diablo-D3> GMT != UTC
265 2010-10-13 13:12:48 <Diablo-D3> a somewhat incorrect way of describing what UTC is, its GMT without daylight savings time
266 2010-10-13 13:12:54 <Xunie> "The UTC time zone is sometimes denoted by the letter Z???a reference to the equivalent nautical time zone (GMT), which has been denoted by a Z since about 1950. The letter also refers to the "zone description" of zero hours, which has been used since 1920 (see time zone history). Since the NATO phonetic alphabet and amateur radio word for Z is "Zulu", UTC is sometimes known as Zulu time."
267 2010-10-13 13:13:15 <Diablo-D3> Xunie: I have a fair bit of family in the military