1 2010-11-19 00:01:30 <ArtForz> yes
2 2010-11-19 00:02:08 <ArtForz> http://pastebin.com/nvSUtXm9
3 2010-11-19 00:03:09 <bulbasaur> any problems with X? dual 5970 works great for me (all 4 gpu humming nice). However, i plug in the third or fourth and i can't start X. aticonfig at the prompt shows the right amount of adapters and aticonfig configures the xorg.conf ok...
4 2010-11-19 00:03:16 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
5 2010-11-19 00:03:26 <ArtForz> what driver version?
6 2010-11-19 00:03:49 <bulbasaur> 10.10...sdk 2.1....ubuntu 10.04
7 2010-11-19 00:03:54 <ArtForz> that should work
8 2010-11-19 00:04:17 <bulbasaur> does 32 bit OS vs 64 make any difference?
9 2010-11-19 00:04:33 <ArtForz> donn, never tried on 32
10 2010-11-19 00:04:37 <ArtForz> *dunno
11 2010-11-19 00:05:02 <ArtForz> here's my xorg.conf: http://pastebin.com/5Bm4QCGW
12 2010-11-19 00:05:24 <ArtForz> 32 bit might be a problem
13 2010-11-19 00:06:44 <ArtForz> each GPU wants 512MB of PCI mapping space
14 2010-11-19 00:07:21 <bulbasaur> hmmm...you generated this off 'aticonfig --initial --adapter=all -f' right? the only difference i can see is the xinerama setting...don't remember seeing that in my xorg
15 2010-11-19 00:07:28 <ArtForz> yeah
16 2010-11-19 00:07:33 <ArtForz> I dont know why I did that
17 2010-11-19 00:07:47 <ArtForz> it works fine without it
18 2010-11-19 00:07:59 <ArtForz> 512MB per GPU ... 2 5970 is already 2GB
19 2010-11-19 00:08:03 <Diablo-D3> hrm
20 2010-11-19 00:08:19 <ArtForz> I think you'll run out of address space with 32 bit
21 2010-11-19 00:09:00 <Diablo-D3> http://pastebin.com/HJVmYaF4
22 2010-11-19 00:09:07 <Diablo-D3> this is with G test off
23 2010-11-19 00:10:10 <ArtForz> looks good
24 2010-11-19 00:11:41 <ArtForz> 4446s for 65 blocks ... 68.4s/block
25 2010-11-19 00:12:32 <ArtForz> but something looks off here
26 2010-11-19 00:12:48 <ArtForz> http://theymos.ath.cx:64150/testnet/bbe/ <- where are they?
27 2010-11-19 00:13:46 <bulbasaur> well, i'll try 64-bit and see where i end up. thanks for pointers
28 2010-11-19 00:14:45 <ArtForz> or was that at 1.0 diff ?
29 2010-11-19 00:15:27 <ArtForz> if so, you got effective 62.8Mh/s
30 2010-11-19 00:20:34 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: that was doing H == 0 only diff.
31 2010-11-19 00:20:48 <ArtForz> so 1.0
32 2010-11-19 00:20:56 <ArtForz> 62.8Mh/s it is
33 2010-11-19 00:24:03 * Diablo-D3 enables absolute fuck you mode
34 2010-11-19 00:26:49 bulbasaur has quit (Quit: Page closed)
35 2010-11-19 00:33:07 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: I wonder why its lower than 75
36 2010-11-19 00:33:38 <ArtForz> bad luck? you miscounting somewhere? who knows.
37 2010-11-19 00:37:13 <Kiba> ArtForz: how about generously donate some of your saving to bounty projects?
38 2010-11-19 00:48:23 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: well, now every call blocks, and I clFinish after enqueue kernel
39 2010-11-19 00:48:37 <Diablo-D3> lets see if this sucks any of the fuck you out
40 2010-11-19 00:50:22 Akiraa has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
41 2010-11-19 01:16:34 Edogaa has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
42 2010-11-19 01:16:59 Edogaa has joined
43 2010-11-19 01:17:34 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: http://pastebin.com/nHedqsT5
44 2010-11-19 01:20:47 <gavinandresen> ArtForz: I think I'm running into the same problem with sends taking a long time that you ran into (more than 10 seconds to send). My guess is SendCoins taking a very long time to decide what coins to use; I'll debug more tomorrow when I'm less tired.
45 2010-11-19 01:21:23 <gavinandresen> (didn't/don't run into it with the Faucet because it doesn't send more than 0.50BTC at a time, only ran into it sending a few thousand BTC at once on testnet)
46 2010-11-19 01:21:32 FreeMoney has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
47 2010-11-19 01:33:30 <Diablo-D3> art needs to write some sort of javascript calculator
48 2010-11-19 01:33:48 <Diablo-D3> so I can just plug in seconds and blocks at diff 1 and get approx mhash
49 2010-11-19 01:34:54 <Kiba> RESISTANCE IS FUTILE
50 2010-11-19 01:35:22 * Diablo-D3 runs with G checking on testnet, goes takes a shower
51 2010-11-19 01:37:05 <LobsterMan> so when diff increases do i get a new block to work on
52 2010-11-19 01:37:06 <LobsterMan> ?
53 2010-11-19 01:54:36 <xelister_> hmm anyone here would like to help me with either m0's or Diablos or other miner
54 2010-11-19 01:55:23 <xelister_> to make it easly installable on both windows and linux(not just ubuntu)
55 2010-11-19 01:55:49 <xelister_> and to auto-report and auto-send all generated to given address... and to show somewhere the miner's hashrate and number of successes
56 2010-11-19 01:56:22 <xelister_> I could take m0m's in python, but python is not so trivially installable (problem to get pyopencl and such libs)
57 2010-11-19 01:56:40 <xelister_> I was thinking of Diablos since java probably is easier to install, but then it doesnt work on nvidias
58 2010-11-19 01:57:11 <xelister_> Diablo-D3: is your mine working perfectly for radeons at least? i.e. no problems with some cards like 5970 etc? someone mentioned problems yesteday
59 2010-11-19 02:21:13 <nanotube> ;;bc,stats
60 2010-11-19 02:21:15 <gribble> Current Blocks: 92784 | Current Difficulty: 6866.89864897 | Next Difficulty At Block: 94752 | Next Difficulty In: 1968 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 5 days, 22 hours, 7 minutes, and 38 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 7262.63832936
61 2010-11-19 02:21:22 <nanotube> ooh, next diff is going down
62 2010-11-19 02:23:33 <jgarzik> nanotube: ?
63 2010-11-19 02:23:36 <Diablo-D3> xelister_: no, it works
64 2010-11-19 02:23:56 <Diablo-D3> xelister_: but you have the use the build that isnt official yet
65 2010-11-19 02:24:12 <Diablo-D3> WARGH WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THIS PILE OF SHIT
66 2010-11-19 02:24:20 <Diablo-D3> xelister_: oh, and mine works on nvidias now
67 2010-11-19 02:31:08 <LobsterMan> Diablo-D3 it does?
68 2010-11-19 02:31:22 <Diablo-D3> yes.
69 2010-11-19 02:31:24 <LobsterMan> is the latest link available from your forum post? i want to give it a try
70 2010-11-19 02:31:56 <Diablo-D3> no.
71 2010-11-19 02:32:15 <LobsterMan> where can i find it?
72 2010-11-19 02:32:23 <LobsterMan> or have you not released it yet?
73 2010-11-19 02:32:32 <Diablo-D3> I haven't verified if it actually fucking works.
74 2010-11-19 02:32:37 <LobsterMan> lol :\
75 2010-11-19 02:33:33 <Diablo-D3> take the url in the forum post, add -test before .zip
76 2010-11-19 02:33:42 <Diablo-D3> its not the newest version I'm working with
77 2010-11-19 02:34:05 <Diablo-D3> but it works on 2.1 and saturates 2x 5970 with no effort
78 2010-11-19 02:34:19 <LobsterMan> i suppose i'll wait until you release something public <_<
79 2010-11-19 02:34:25 <Diablo-D3> LobsterMan: oh, and, uh, THAT particular build may not totally function on anything but 5xxx
80 2010-11-19 02:34:50 <Diablo-D3> LobsterMan: it does "work"
81 2010-11-19 02:34:58 <Diablo-D3> but I think the G check code is fucked
82 2010-11-19 02:34:58 <LobsterMan> lol
83 2010-11-19 02:35:17 <Diablo-D3> so the actual mining shit works
84 2010-11-19 02:43:40 <Diablo-D3> ...
85 2010-11-19 02:43:45 <Diablo-D3> how the fuck does m0's miner even works
86 2010-11-19 02:44:06 <LobsterMan> lol
87 2010-11-19 02:44:09 <LobsterMan> what's interesting
88 2010-11-19 02:44:16 <LobsterMan> ive been running his on testnet
89 2010-11-19 02:44:24 <LobsterMan> and it seems that it generates 2 blocks
90 2010-11-19 02:44:28 <Diablo-D3> it never does a write.
91 2010-11-19 02:45:29 <LobsterMan> but it apparently does work
92 2010-11-19 02:45:30 <LobsterMan> :3
93 2010-11-19 02:50:40 <LobsterMan> hm
94 2010-11-19 02:50:44 <LobsterMan> maybe m0's doesnt work
95 2010-11-19 02:51:07 <LobsterMan> one of the miners indicated a solution was found but bitcoin.exe didn't update with a new transaction
96 2010-11-19 02:51:36 <LobsterMan> http://adterrasperaspera.com/images/DiabloMiner-test.zip ?
97 2010-11-19 02:52:28 <Diablo-D3> yes
98 2010-11-19 02:52:43 <yebyen> blarg!
99 2010-11-19 02:53:15 <Diablo-D3> LobsterMan: if you're not on radeon 5xxx, edit the cl file in the jar at the obvious place at the top
100 2010-11-19 02:53:31 <Diablo-D3> so, his code
101 2010-11-19 02:53:34 <Diablo-D3> aalocates host ptr
102 2010-11-19 02:53:41 <Diablo-D3> enques kernel
103 2010-11-19 02:53:48 <Diablo-D3> enqueues read
104 2010-11-19 02:54:02 <Diablo-D3> and never does clfinish
105 2010-11-19 02:55:19 <ArtForz> he doesnt use async, and he waits on enqueue_read_buffer
106 2010-11-19 02:55:20 <LobsterMan> Diablo-D3 change to:
107 2010-11-19 02:55:20 <LobsterMan> #pragma OPENCL EXTENSION cl_amd_media_ops : disable
108 2010-11-19 02:55:23 <LobsterMan> ?
109 2010-11-19 02:55:34 <Diablo-D3> LobsterMan: no comment out those two lines, uncomment the original
110 2010-11-19 02:55:55 <LobsterMan> uncomment line1, then comment 2 and 3?
111 2010-11-19 02:56:00 <Diablo-D3> LobsterMan: yes
112 2010-11-19 02:56:04 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: is wait magic or something?
113 2010-11-19 02:56:44 <ArtForz> pyopencl returns a event for enqueue_whatever and kernel execution
114 2010-11-19 02:56:58 <Diablo-D3> ahh
115 2010-11-19 02:57:30 <Diablo-D3> I shouldnt need that if I set blocking to true
116 2010-11-19 02:57:39 <ArtForz> blocking?
117 2010-11-19 02:57:53 <Diablo-D3> third arg of enqueue read buffer
118 2010-11-19 02:58:24 <ArtForz> yea, that should work, too
119 2010-11-19 02:58:42 <ArtForz> but I dont think pyopencl supports that
120 2010-11-19 02:58:47 <Diablo-D3> but he never does a write
121 2010-11-19 02:59:15 <ArtForz> notice he doesn't pass a buffer as input
122 2010-11-19 02:59:42 <ArtForz> he passes input in kernel args
123 2010-11-19 03:00:04 <Diablo-D3> I pass the output buf as kernel args as well
124 2010-11-19 03:00:19 <ArtForz> you apss a pointer to the buffer
125 2010-11-19 03:00:30 <Diablo-D3> so does he
126 2010-11-19 03:00:35 <ArtForz> check the kernel again
127 2010-11-19 03:00:45 <Diablo-D3> output_buf is the last arg
128 2010-11-19 03:00:48 <ArtForz> yes
129 2010-11-19 03:00:52 <ArtForz> and he reads output buf
130 2010-11-19 03:00:54 <Diablo-D3> output_buf = cl.Buffer(context, cl.mem_flags.WRITE_ONLY | cl.mem_flags.USE_HOST_PTR, hostbuf=output)
131 2010-11-19 03:01:03 <Diablo-D3> which looks almost identical to what Im trying
132 2010-11-19 03:01:06 <ArtForz> so?
133 2010-11-19 03:01:39 <Diablo-D3> yeah, but how is he turning off H == 0?
134 2010-11-19 03:01:48 <ArtForz> huH?
135 2010-11-19 03:01:53 <Diablo-D3> merely doing buffer[0] == something that isnt 0 doesnt work.
136 2010-11-19 03:02:04 <ArtForz> what? where?
137 2010-11-19 03:02:12 <Diablo-D3> thats what Im saying
138 2010-11-19 03:02:17 <Diablo-D3> where is he resetting the buffer after a hit
139 2010-11-19 03:03:24 <ArtForz> now thats a good question
140 2010-11-19 03:03:39 <Diablo-D3> if he doesnt do it, it'll repeatedly keep saying H == 0
141 2010-11-19 03:03:46 <LobsterMan> this is weird, m0m's keeps getting hits on the testnet but it is NOT being indicated in my bitcoin.exe window
142 2010-11-19 03:04:12 <LobsterMan> well, only some of them are
143 2010-11-19 03:04:17 <LobsterMan> usually they appear right away
144 2010-11-19 03:04:24 <LobsterMan> but it will get 2 hits, and only one of them shows up
145 2010-11-19 03:05:04 <ArtForz> yeah, doesnt look like he resets output...
146 2010-11-19 03:05:22 <ArtForz> wait
147 2010-11-19 03:05:30 <ArtForz> if output[0]: ... break
148 2010-11-19 03:05:46 <ArtForz> and the outer loop resets it
149 2010-11-19 03:06:15 <Diablo-D3> https://github.com/m0mchil/poclbm/blob/master/poclbm.py
150 2010-11-19 03:06:17 <Diablo-D3> what line?
151 2010-11-19 03:06:21 <ArtForz> 125
152 2010-11-19 03:06:31 <Diablo-D3> uhhh but it sets it to 0!
153 2010-11-19 03:06:40 <ArtForz> so?
154 2010-11-19 03:07:00 <Diablo-D3> oh.
155 2010-11-19 03:07:04 <Diablo-D3> hes just returning the nonce
156 2010-11-19 03:07:13 <ArtForz> yep
157 2010-11-19 03:07:20 <LobsterMan> here what do you make of this?
158 2010-11-19 03:07:21 <LobsterMan> http://imgur.com/2RLbM.png
159 2010-11-19 03:07:21 <LobsterMan> look at the time the blocks are generated in the miner and the time of the transactions in bitcoin
160 2010-11-19 03:08:03 <ArtForz> that looks... wrong
161 2010-11-19 03:08:06 <LobsterMan> yeah...
162 2010-11-19 03:08:13 <LobsterMan> i'm gonna post in in m0m's thread
163 2010-11-19 03:08:13 <LobsterMan> lol
164 2010-11-19 03:08:18 <ArtForz> I suspect getwork might have a problem with testnet
165 2010-11-19 03:08:26 <LobsterMan> hm
166 2010-11-19 03:09:13 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: yeah but if I set output[0] to 1 (where I output 0 to indicate a hit)
167 2010-11-19 03:09:15 <xelister_> LobsterMan: m0's miner do work, I use it
168 2010-11-19 03:09:18 <Diablo-D3> it just gets forever stuck on that
169 2010-11-19 03:09:34 <LobsterMan> xelister_ did you see the screenshot i just posted?
170 2010-11-19 03:09:38 <ArtForz> Diablo-D3: err... wha?
171 2010-11-19 03:09:48 <LobsterMan> i've been running it for over a week on the real network and it's only generated a single block
172 2010-11-19 03:09:50 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: I output two things, 0, and nonce
173 2010-11-19 03:09:59 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: in the code, I check for output[0] == 0
174 2010-11-19 03:10:05 <Diablo-D3> if it is, I set it to 1
175 2010-11-19 03:10:11 <Diablo-D3> yet it never sees that I set it
176 2010-11-19 03:10:18 <Diablo-D3> and Im using a host_ptr'ed buffer like he is
177 2010-11-19 03:10:27 <ArtForz> *blank stare*
178 2010-11-19 03:10:39 <Diablo-D3> what?
179 2010-11-19 03:11:00 <ArtForz> so your kernel does if (H == 0 && output[0] == 0) {output[0] = 1; output[1] = nonce) or what?
180 2010-11-19 03:11:08 <Diablo-D3> no
181 2010-11-19 03:11:18 <xelister_> LobsterMan: wait 20 hours from miner hit to fully have usable coin
182 2010-11-19 03:11:33 <Diablo-D3> my kernel does if(H == 0) { output[0] = 0; output[1] = nonce; }
183 2010-11-19 03:11:46 <ArtForz> okay
184 2010-11-19 03:12:00 <LobsterMan> xelister_ what i'm saying is it's only generated one block for me so far, when according to the calculator and my hashrate i should have generated more than 1
185 2010-11-19 03:12:08 <LobsterMan> i suppose it's possible i am just very unlucky
186 2010-11-19 03:12:21 <xelister_> LobsterMan: single block per week sounds about right form medium nvidia
187 2010-11-19 03:12:40 <xelister_> whats the rate again? 30M ?
188 2010-11-19 03:13:06 <xelister_> 30M -> avg. time 11 days
189 2010-11-19 03:13:07 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: so, in host code, I, like his, try output[0] = 1
190 2010-11-19 03:13:16 <xelister_> was 6 before today (diff inc)
191 2010-11-19 03:13:17 <LobsterMan> 50 per card, plus 4 from my cpu = 104mhash total
192 2010-11-19 03:13:41 <xelister_> well then you may be simply unlucky
193 2010-11-19 03:14:22 <Diablo-D3> argh!
194 2010-11-19 03:14:25 <Diablo-D3> fucking him
195 2010-11-19 03:14:27 <ArtForz> but he doesnt check == 1; he checks != 0
196 2010-11-19 03:14:30 <Diablo-D3> all he does is create a new buffer!
197 2010-11-19 03:14:38 <Diablo-D3> output[0] = base = 0
198 2010-11-19 03:14:38 <Diablo-D3> output_buf = cl.Buffer(context, cl.mem_flags.WRITE_ONLY | cl.mem_flags.USE_HOST_PTR, hostbuf=output)
199 2010-11-19 03:14:43 <LobsterMan> Diablo-D3 what is it i need to change $@ to again? -user= and -pass= ??
200 2010-11-19 03:14:57 <Diablo-D3> LobsterMan: why are you changing that?
201 2010-11-19 03:15:00 <Diablo-D3> LobsterMan: just pass it to the script
202 2010-11-19 03:15:12 <xelister_> yeah I told to m0m's recently
203 2010-11-19 03:15:18 <xelister_> his code is unreadable ;)
204 2010-11-19 03:15:24 <LobsterMan> i thought i need to change the launch parameters for use in windows?
205 2010-11-19 03:15:36 <Diablo-D3> LobsterMan: no, you have to use whats in the op post of the thread
206 2010-11-19 03:15:39 <Diablo-D3> because windows sucks dick
207 2010-11-19 03:15:45 <xelister_> donkey's
208 2010-11-19 03:15:47 * LobsterMan goes to look....
209 2010-11-19 03:15:59 <xelister_> LobsterMan: want donkey vid? what price >_<
210 2010-11-19 03:16:07 <xelister_> that reminds me last time I was in a bar in mexico
211 2010-11-19 03:16:19 <ArtForz> fuck this, I'll never be able to make this fit in 6HE
212 2010-11-19 03:16:25 redengin has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
213 2010-11-19 03:16:36 <Diablo-D3> 6he?
214 2010-11-19 03:16:45 <ArtForz> 6U
215 2010-11-19 03:17:01 <ArtForz> my rackmount 8*5970 design
216 2010-11-19 03:17:04 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: so, question
217 2010-11-19 03:17:07 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: you've seen my code right?
218 2010-11-19 03:17:26 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: it does the full sha256(sha256) using java's own engine
219 2010-11-19 03:17:39 <Diablo-D3> should H == 0?
220 2010-11-19 03:17:41 <LobsterMan> Diablo-D3 it seems to be working now
221 2010-11-19 03:17:56 <Diablo-D3> LobsterMan: yes it is.
222 2010-11-19 03:18:01 <LobsterMan> how do i change the work size with yours?
223 2010-11-19 03:18:11 <LobsterMan> it's using 512 but i seem to do better with 256
224 2010-11-19 03:18:22 <Diablo-D3> LobsterMan: --help
225 2010-11-19 03:18:26 <ArtForz> so I guess 7U it is
226 2010-11-19 03:18:33 <xelister_> LobsterMan: you have working gpu miner on windows, that works with nv then?
227 2010-11-19 03:18:54 <Diablo-D3> long H = ((long)((0x000000FF & ((int)digestFirst.get(31))) << 24 |
228 2010-11-19 03:18:54 <Diablo-D3> (0x000000FF & ((int)digestFirst.get(30))) << 16 |
229 2010-11-19 03:18:54 <Diablo-D3> (0x000000FF & ((int)digestFirst.get(29))) << 8 |
230 2010-11-19 03:18:54 <Diablo-D3> (0x000000FF & ((int)digestFirst.get(28))))) & 0xFFFFFFFFL;
231 2010-11-19 03:18:54 <LobsterMan> yes both m0mchil's and Diablo-D3's work for me
232 2010-11-19 03:19:03 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: ^ shouldnt that output 0?
233 2010-11-19 03:19:21 <ArtForz> hrrrmm... not sure
234 2010-11-19 03:19:24 <ArtForz> wait a sec
235 2010-11-19 03:19:33 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: I mean, if it does for the miner, shouldnt it for the host code?
236 2010-11-19 03:19:39 <xelister_> LobsterMan: can you describe how to get m0m's running on windows?
237 2010-11-19 03:19:44 <ArtForz> H is the LAST 4 bytes output by sha256
238 2010-11-19 03:19:53 <Diablo-D3> that is the last 4.
239 2010-11-19 03:19:53 <ArtForz> you flip it
240 2010-11-19 03:20:01 <xelister_> LobsterMan: assuming I will provide modified code of the miner - the .py file (other output format and so other things)
241 2010-11-19 03:20:11 <LobsterMan> xelister_ see first post on this page
242 2010-11-19 03:20:11 <LobsterMan> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1334.240
243 2010-11-19 03:20:18 <ArtForz> doesnt that reverse the whole thnig?
244 2010-11-19 03:20:38 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: thats bytes, and it endian flips the last int.
245 2010-11-19 03:20:49 <ArtForz> huH?
246 2010-11-19 03:20:52 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: aaaand if H == 0, then the four bytes of H also all == 0
247 2010-11-19 03:21:02 <ArtForz> yea
248 2010-11-19 03:21:03 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: java's sha256 routine outputs bytes not ints
249 2010-11-19 03:21:11 <brocktice> So, what'd I miss?
250 2010-11-19 03:21:17 <ArtForz> yes
251 2010-11-19 03:21:24 <ArtForz> so what does .flip() do?
252 2010-11-19 03:21:31 <Diablo-D3> oh, thats for buffer shit
253 2010-11-19 03:21:48 <Diablo-D3> flip resets position and marker to 0
254 2010-11-19 03:21:55 <Diablo-D3> and sets length to your former position
255 2010-11-19 03:22:10 <brocktice> I read back a little
256 2010-11-19 03:22:13 <brocktice> seems pretty heated
257 2010-11-19 03:22:32 <ArtForz> hrrrm
258 2010-11-19 03:23:00 <ArtForz> can't you just dump when whole thing when the kernel says H==0 and see which bytes if any actually *are* 0 ?
259 2010-11-19 03:23:19 <brocktice> ;;bc,estimate
260 2010-11-19 03:23:19 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: why would I do that?
261 2010-11-19 03:23:19 <gribble> 7223.01518554
262 2010-11-19 03:23:22 <brocktice> hmm
263 2010-11-19 03:23:33 <LobsterMan> Diablo-D3 how long does it take to get the actual hashrate?
264 2010-11-19 03:23:43 <xelister_> brocktice: what that, next diff? how come "just" 7200
265 2010-11-19 03:23:44 <Diablo-D3> LobsterMan: anywhere from ten seconds to never.
266 2010-11-19 03:23:48 <brocktice> ;;bc,stats
267 2010-11-19 03:23:50 <LobsterMan> heh
268 2010-11-19 03:23:50 <gribble> Current Blocks: 92790 | Current Difficulty: 6866.89864897 | Next Difficulty At Block: 94752 | Next Difficulty In: 1962 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 5 days, 22 hours, 52 minutes, and 40 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 7223.01518554
269 2010-11-19 03:23:59 <Diablo-D3> LobsterMan: its an average.
270 2010-11-19 03:24:01 <brocktice> I'm guessing people are getting discouraged from the new diff rate
271 2010-11-19 03:24:06 <LobsterMan> yeah i know
272 2010-11-19 03:24:10 <brocktice> s/rate/factor/
273 2010-11-19 03:24:19 <ArtForz> that and we're having a TX flood again
274 2010-11-19 03:24:21 <LobsterMan> mine is hanging at around 98.5mhash right now
275 2010-11-19 03:24:23 <brocktice> oh, that
276 2010-11-19 03:24:26 <brocktice> m0 fixed getwork though
277 2010-11-19 03:24:28 <LobsterMan> which is actually slightly slower than the total of m0m's
278 2010-11-19 03:24:32 <brocktice> but maybe people didn't update
279 2010-11-19 03:24:37 <ArtForz> = people still running old vers of getwork get near-0 hashrate
280 2010-11-19 03:24:40 <Diablo-D3> LobsterMan: m0's is inaccurate
281 2010-11-19 03:24:54 <LobsterMan> significantly inaccurate?
282 2010-11-19 03:24:55 <xelister_> brocktice: hm? what he fixed?
283 2010-11-19 03:25:09 <Diablo-D3> LobsterMan: what does m0's say?
284 2010-11-19 03:25:17 <ArtForz> getwork rebuilt the block everytime a TX got added
285 2010-11-19 03:25:20 <brocktice> xelister_: it didn't deal well with TX flooding
286 2010-11-19 03:25:25 <ArtForz> stock limits it to once every 60 sec
287 2010-11-19 03:25:28 <LobsterMan> m0's averages from 47-51mhash per card
288 2010-11-19 03:25:29 <brocktice> now it only updates... yeah
289 2010-11-19 03:25:33 <LobsterMan> yours is giving me 98.5 for both
290 2010-11-19 03:25:47 <yebyen> ;blocks
291 2010-11-19 03:25:51 <yebyen> ;numblocks
292 2010-11-19 03:25:54 <brocktice> Diablo-D3: is yours making more than one block now?
293 2010-11-19 03:25:58 <yebyen> does anyone know?
294 2010-11-19 03:25:58 <brocktice> yebyen: bitbot is dead again
295 2010-11-19 03:25:59 <ArtForz> so if there's Txes trickling in constantly sec it rebuilt the block every fucking call
296 2010-11-19 03:26:00 <Diablo-D3> LobsterMan: 94 to 102
297 2010-11-19 03:26:08 <Diablo-D3> brocktice: Im still debugging that
298 2010-11-19 03:26:16 <Diablo-D3> LobsterMan: so mine says 98.5, so thats almost 102.
299 2010-11-19 03:26:16 <yebyen> i'm at 92164
300 2010-11-19 03:26:24 <ArtForz> and the whole thing is in a global lock, so miners were queueing up
301 2010-11-19 03:26:31 <LobsterMan> yeah Diablo-D3 it looks like they both give me about similar rates
302 2010-11-19 03:26:36 <brocktice> 92790
303 2010-11-19 03:26:42 <ArtForz> 92790
304 2010-11-19 03:26:53 <yebyen> ^_^ thumbs up
305 2010-11-19 03:26:55 <brocktice> yebyen: you can also talk to gribble
306 2010-11-19 03:26:59 <brocktice> ;;bc,stats
307 2010-11-19 03:27:01 <gribble> Current Blocks: 92790 | Current Difficulty: 6866.89864897 | Next Difficulty At Block: 94752 | Next Difficulty In: 1962 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 5 days, 22 hours, 52 minutes, and 40 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 7223.01518554
308 2010-11-19 03:27:13 <yebyen> brocktice: thanks :)
309 2010-11-19 03:27:35 <brocktice> np, thank nanotube
310 2010-11-19 03:27:44 redengin has joined
311 2010-11-19 03:27:48 <LobsterMan> Diablo-D3 i'm gonna test yours on testnet now and see what happens ;]
312 2010-11-19 03:27:55 <xelister_> ArtForz: what are the symptoms of using old get-work without that correct Tx thing?
313 2010-11-19 03:28:03 <Diablo-D3> LobsterMan: it'll run, but not make any valid attempts
314 2010-11-19 03:28:13 <Diablo-D3> Attempt 92 27 -125 22 -114 4 32 -14 125 -75 29 50 85 36 104 -115 35 6 45 116 126 12 -5 -18 -16 43 -12 -19 -63 22 -28 -14
315 2010-11-19 03:28:15 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: ^
316 2010-11-19 03:28:16 <LobsterMan> so it won't generate any blocks at all on testnet?
317 2010-11-19 03:28:19 <ArtForz> welöl, that and near 100% of one core used
318 2010-11-19 03:28:22 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: none of that looks like an H == 0
319 2010-11-19 03:28:26 <ArtForz> nope
320 2010-11-19 03:28:31 <Diablo-D3> LobsterMan: it wont generate on any net
321 2010-11-19 03:28:38 <Diablo-D3> LobsterMan: trying to debug that
322 2010-11-19 03:28:41 <LobsterMan> oh :\
323 2010-11-19 03:28:41 <LobsterMan> lol
324 2010-11-19 03:28:51 <ArtForz> diablo: hrrrm.. are you properly flipping the nonce for input to your java sha?
325 2010-11-19 03:28:53 <xelister_> your miner does not generate anything on any net?
326 2010-11-19 03:28:54 <xelister_> good job ;)
327 2010-11-19 03:29:04 <brocktice> yebyen: ;;botsnack
328 2010-11-19 03:29:05 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: shouldn't have to
329 2010-11-19 03:29:09 <brocktice> ;;botsnack
330 2010-11-19 03:29:09 <gribble> Why not send me some bitcoins instead, to this address: 1MgD6rah5zUgEGYZnNmdpnXMaDR3itKYzU :)
331 2010-11-19 03:29:11 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: I dont flip it feeding it to opencl
332 2010-11-19 03:29:13 <LobsterMan> well Diablo-D3 at least you know it works on windows now :)
333 2010-11-19 03:29:16 <yebyen> ;;botsnack
334 2010-11-19 03:29:17 <gribble> Why not send me some bitcoins instead, to this address: 1MgD6rah5zUgEGYZnNmdpnXMaDR3itKYzU :)
335 2010-11-19 03:29:23 <yebyen> hey that's opportunistic
336 2010-11-19 03:29:24 <xelister_> gribble: instead of what?
337 2010-11-19 03:29:25 <ArtForz> but isnt opencl LE?
338 2010-11-19 03:29:31 <Diablo-D3> LobsterMan: not only that, it works on nvidia and stream sdk 2.1
339 2010-11-19 03:29:32 <yebyen> how about a drink instead
340 2010-11-19 03:29:36 <brocktice> nanotube puts in the effort to run it
341 2010-11-19 03:29:42 <brocktice> It's not my address :)
342 2010-11-19 03:29:49 <xelister_> gribble: are you 18 girl with a webcam
343 2010-11-19 03:30:01 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: no, its BE, with automatic flipping for LE host/client
344 2010-11-19 03:30:09 <ArtForz> okay
345 2010-11-19 03:30:12 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: and Java runs this sha256 shit in BE
346 2010-11-19 03:30:14 <Diablo-D3> magically
347 2010-11-19 03:30:19 <ArtForz> well, sha256 is BE
348 2010-11-19 03:30:27 <ArtForz> well, kinda
349 2010-11-19 03:30:28 <Diablo-D3> sha256 is whatever the fuck the person coded it to be
350 2010-11-19 03:30:38 <ArtForz> it's u32s all throughout
351 2010-11-19 03:30:43 <ArtForz> but in/out is defined to be BE
352 2010-11-19 03:30:48 <Diablo-D3> yeah
353 2010-11-19 03:30:49 <Diablo-D3> but like
354 2010-11-19 03:30:50 <Diablo-D3> you have getwork
355 2010-11-19 03:30:57 <Diablo-D3> which outputs an invalid sha256 state
356 2010-11-19 03:30:59 <Diablo-D3> because its LE
357 2010-11-19 03:31:18 <Diablo-D3> which I fixup
358 2010-11-19 03:31:26 <ArtForz> well, with a LE host the LE state makes perfect sense
359 2010-11-19 03:31:32 <Diablo-D3> yup
360 2010-11-19 03:31:38 <Diablo-D3> but I have to swap it to bE
361 2010-11-19 03:31:41 <Diablo-D3> well no
362 2010-11-19 03:31:41 <ArtForz> yep
363 2010-11-19 03:31:45 <Diablo-D3> I have to swap it FROM be
364 2010-11-19 03:31:51 <ArtForz> isn't it fun?
365 2010-11-19 03:31:55 <Diablo-D3> since java's parse shit ONLY reads be
366 2010-11-19 03:31:59 <Diablo-D3> no matter what your host is
367 2010-11-19 03:32:05 <ArtForz> yeah
368 2010-11-19 03:32:10 <Diablo-D3> because it assumes text is always BE since thats the way SHIT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK
369 2010-11-19 03:32:20 * Diablo-D3 STABS M0
370 2010-11-19 03:32:26 <ArtForz> node sends it LE, java decodes it as BE, so you have to byteswap it
371 2010-11-19 03:32:35 <Diablo-D3> yup
372 2010-11-19 03:32:44 <Diablo-D3> and Im fucked if anyone gets BE hosts
373 2010-11-19 03:32:47 <brocktice> Diablo-D3: do you need a drink man?
374 2010-11-19 03:32:55 <brocktice> Or, like, a blunt?
375 2010-11-19 03:32:59 <Diablo-D3> this app is 100% endian fuck you.
376 2010-11-19 03:33:10 <Diablo-D3> its not merely unsafe, it'll rape your female relatives.
377 2010-11-19 03:33:12 <xelister_> lets make a bothendian app
378 2010-11-19 03:33:22 <brocktice> xelister_: middleendian?
379 2010-11-19 03:33:28 <xelister_> no, it would use HH notation
380 2010-11-19 03:33:31 <brocktice> msb is in the midle
381 2010-11-19 03:33:36 <ArtForz> NUXI endian ?
382 2010-11-19 03:33:37 <brocktice> then it alternates sides after that
383 2010-11-19 03:33:46 <ArtForz> wasnt that PDP/11?
384 2010-11-19 03:33:49 <brocktice> lol
385 2010-11-19 03:34:03 <brocktice> I've read papers that say the've used PDP/11s
386 2010-11-19 03:34:04 <Diablo-D3> middle endian: swap the bytes AND the bits
387 2010-11-19 03:34:06 <brocktice> and I've seen them
388 2010-11-19 03:34:12 <ArtForz> Diable-D3: nope
389 2010-11-19 03:34:14 <brocktice> but I've never actually seen one plugged in and operating
390 2010-11-19 03:34:22 <Diablo-D3> brocktice: neither has anyone else
391 2010-11-19 03:34:23 <Diablo-D3> dohohohoho
392 2010-11-19 03:34:37 <brocktice> Not anyone from my generation, probably
393 2010-11-19 03:34:44 <ArtForz> BE: 4321, LE: 1234, ME: 3412
394 2010-11-19 03:34:49 <brocktice> unless some poor coder got hired for an arcane maintenance job
395 2010-11-19 03:34:59 <ArtForz> or 2143, but I think no one actually did that
396 2010-11-19 03:34:59 <xelister_> bothendian: 3434
397 2010-11-19 03:35:01 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: eww
398 2010-11-19 03:35:05 <brocktice> "Here, this PDP/11 is mission-critical, keep it working"
399 2010-11-19 03:35:12 <xelister_> bothendian is what real people use
400 2010-11-19 03:35:37 <brocktice> "what, your graphing calculator could replace it?"
401 2010-11-19 03:35:41 <ArtForz> what network protocol was bothendian again?
402 2010-11-19 03:36:06 <ArtForz> 1234 was sent as 12344321
403 2010-11-19 03:36:28 <xelister_> now, I just made it up
404 2010-11-19 03:36:48 <xelister_> real man use 3434 and they dont care about 1 and 2 octets =)
405 2010-11-19 03:37:18 <ArtForz> I prefer 4-banger endian, 1-3-4-2
406 2010-11-19 03:38:25 * Diablo-D3 shits pants
407 2010-11-19 03:39:46 warner has quit (Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs))
408 2010-11-19 03:40:59 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: I suspect I figured out the problem
409 2010-11-19 03:41:25 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: I'm not flipping the whole block when feeding it to the java engine
410 2010-11-19 03:41:30 <Diablo-D3> since it expects big endian
411 2010-11-19 03:43:31 <ArtForz> just byteflip dwords until it works
412 2010-11-19 03:43:38 <Diablo-D3> yup
413 2010-11-19 03:44:05 <xelister_> this is one problem with testing bitcoin applications
414 2010-11-19 03:44:23 <xelister_> it takes forever to get block if testing small miners
415 2010-11-19 03:44:24 <xelister_> on real net
416 2010-11-19 03:44:47 <ArtForz> esue esttent
417 2010-11-19 03:44:53 <ArtForz> err
418 2010-11-19 03:44:58 <ArtForz> use -testnet
419 2010-11-19 03:45:07 <Diablo-D3> fail
420 2010-11-19 03:45:18 <xelister_> its not fully the same to test real application
421 2010-11-19 03:45:30 <Diablo-D3> xelister_: yes it is
422 2010-11-19 03:45:31 <xelister_> other port number, someone said getwork may ahve problem with that and so on and so on
423 2010-11-19 03:45:32 <ArtForz> it's same enough for me
424 2010-11-19 03:45:51 <xelister_> hm but yeah I suppose this is not that bad...
425 2010-11-19 03:46:05 <xelister_> so there is one testnet? and its diff also rises?
426 2010-11-19 03:46:09 <xelister_> but slower?
427 2010-11-19 03:46:22 <LobsterMan> Diablo-D3 one thing i noticed about yours.....yours seemed to run a bit cooler on my cards than m0m's does
428 2010-11-19 03:46:34 <Diablo-D3> superior card is superior
429 2010-11-19 03:46:36 <Diablo-D3> er
430 2010-11-19 03:46:38 <Diablo-D3> superior miner
431 2010-11-19 03:46:41 * Diablo-D3 blames art
432 2010-11-19 03:46:43 <LobsterMan> m0m's makes me max out around 83-84°, but yours was only like 80
433 2010-11-19 03:46:48 <ArtForz> testnet diff started lower and works the same way main diff does
434 2010-11-19 03:47:03 <xelister_> so in some time also on testnet it will be hard
435 2010-11-19 03:47:07 <ArtForz> no
436 2010-11-19 03:47:15 <ArtForz> because nearly no one is really generating on testnet
437 2010-11-19 03:47:20 <ArtForz> it's at 5.33 as I threw a 5770 at it for a bit to get diff above 1.0
438 2010-11-19 03:47:32 <Diablo-D3> Attempt 1 0 0 0 -7 28 30 110 25 -126 111 -48 -17 -32 52 24 120 52 -113 82 54 -26 -101 -128 0 29 109 62 86 83 -53 45
439 2010-11-19 03:47:34 <Diablo-D3> hrm
440 2010-11-19 03:47:49 <Diablo-D3> ttempt 1 0 0 0 -7 28 30 110 25 -126 111 -48 -17 -32 52 24 120 52 -113 82 54 -26 -101 -128 0 29 109 62 86 83 -53 45
441 2010-11-19 03:47:55 <ArtForz> 0 0 0 -7 ? looks nearly right
442 2010-11-19 03:47:57 <Diablo-D3> wait, what?
443 2010-11-19 03:48:04 <Diablo-D3> the same attempt twice?
444 2010-11-19 03:48:14 <ArtForz> löl
445 2010-11-19 03:49:11 <Diablo-D3> oh duh
446 2010-11-19 03:49:16 <Diablo-D3> Im not printing the right thing now
447 2010-11-19 03:49:22 * Diablo-D3 had to insert a digestThird
448 2010-11-19 03:50:58 <LobsterMan> löl
449 2010-11-19 03:50:59 <LobsterMan> lol
450 2010-11-19 03:51:00 <LobsterMan> :P
451 2010-11-19 03:51:25 * xelister_ is now affraid ot use Diablo-D3's generator :o
452 2010-11-19 03:52:49 <LobsterMan> he's said it doesn't work yet
453 2010-11-19 03:52:50 <LobsterMan> :P
454 2010-11-19 03:54:15 <xelister_> is this cause that you got so far 1 block after a week ?
455 2010-11-19 03:55:08 <xelister_> hm miner seems to hang flash videos
456 2010-11-19 03:55:21 <Diablo-D3> xelister_: flash sucks
457 2010-11-19 03:55:22 <ArtForz> sash flucks
458 2010-11-19 03:55:28 <xelister_> actually, this may be considered advantage :) if not only the stupid firefox hangs with it
459 2010-11-19 03:55:31 <Diablo-D3> lol
460 2010-11-19 03:55:37 <xelister_> yes, we all know, flash is shit
461 2010-11-19 03:55:40 <Diablo-D3> xelister_: erm, use a newer firefox
462 2010-11-19 03:55:40 * xelister_ hates it
463 2010-11-19 03:55:56 <Diablo-D3> xelister_: firefox 3.6.x has out of process plugin execution now
464 2010-11-19 03:56:05 <xelister_> Diablo-D3: thats comming from a Debian guy? ;) Im using the one from 10.10 ubuntu
465 2010-11-19 03:56:29 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: Im on drugs, how many bytes is a sha256 output? 32?
466 2010-11-19 03:56:39 <ArtForz> ya
467 2010-11-19 03:57:16 <xelister_> there should be medical-gajna-2-bitcoin trader
468 2010-11-19 04:00:07 <Kiba> medical-nin?
469 2010-11-19 04:00:22 <Kiba> strange combo
470 2010-11-19 04:00:53 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: this is entirely fucked
471 2010-11-19 04:01:24 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: how many bytes is the block header? 128?
472 2010-11-19 04:11:45 <nanotube> jgarzik: i meant it went down from earlier today. the estimate was as high as 13k earlier, a few blocks after the diff went up to 6k
473 2010-11-19 04:12:37 <jgarzik> ahh
474 2010-11-19 04:33:29 <LobsterMan> diff is higher now than what was estimated a few days back
475 2010-11-19 04:33:35 <LobsterMan> it was estimated to be like 6400
476 2010-11-19 04:41:06 hftrader has joined
477 2010-11-19 05:05:29 <Diablo-D3> AHAAA
478 2010-11-19 05:05:31 <Diablo-D3> AAHh
479 2010-11-19 05:05:32 <Diablo-D3> MOTHERFUCKING
480 2010-11-19 05:05:33 <Diablo-D3> HAAA
481 2010-11-19 05:05:40 <Diablo-D3> -61 -50 123 -69 19 -43 51 34 91 -106 9 33 -42 -97 -8 125 -108 -122 -123 -61 64 99 17 91 91 -41 1 114 0 0 0 0
482 2010-11-19 05:07:22 <Diablo-D3> I figured out the bug
483 2010-11-19 05:07:30 <Diablo-D3> I was feeding it the whole block header
484 2010-11-19 05:07:38 <Diablo-D3> all 128 bytes of the 80 byte header
485 2010-11-19 05:50:55 <ByteCoin> theymos: You at keyboard?
486 2010-11-19 05:51:03 <ByteCoin> Calling theymos!!!
487 2010-11-19 05:51:19 <ByteCoin> How do you make it beep?
488 2010-11-19 05:51:29 <ByteCoin> :call theymos
489 2010-11-19 05:51:45 <ByteCoin> ::help
490 2010-11-19 05:51:49 <ByteCoin> :help
491 2010-11-19 05:51:58 <ByteCoin> IRC not my strong poiny
492 2010-11-19 05:54:38 <nanotube> ByteCoin: haha you don't make it beep.
493 2010-11-19 05:54:54 <nameless> !~root@weowntheinter.net|nanotube: sure you do
494 2010-11-19 05:55:04 <nameless> !~root@weowntheinter.net|You just have to know how
495 2010-11-19 05:55:08 <nanotube> nameless|: not if he doesn't have the client set to beep :P
496 2010-11-19 05:55:17 <ByteCoin> I think it beeps if you send a private message.
497 2010-11-19 05:55:19 <nanotube> nameless|: enlighten me, in that case. please. :)
498 2010-11-19 05:55:41 <nanotube> nameless|: (note that i use xchat, and i have turned off all visual notifications to nick highlights :) )
499 2010-11-19 05:55:42 <ByteCoin> It doesn't matter now. I've mailed him instead
500 2010-11-19 05:56:00 <ByteCoin> nameless: Make me beep
501 2010-11-19 05:56:31 <ByteCoin> I'm not getting it.....
502 2010-11-19 05:56:39 <ByteCoin> Do it!
503 2010-11-19 05:56:43 <ByteCoin> Do it now!
504 2010-11-19 05:56:50 <nanotube> haha
505 2010-11-19 05:57:15 <ByteCoin> *sulks*
506 2010-11-19 05:57:19 <nameless> !~root@weowntheinter.net|I love it when people bel flood and everyone gets pissed off.
507 2010-11-19 05:57:35 <nameless> !~root@weowntheinter.net|Me, I have irssi and screen set up to ignore bel
508 2010-11-19 05:58:20 <ne0futur> same here
509 2010-11-19 05:59:24 <nameless> !~root@weowntheinter.net|on that note
510 2010-11-19 05:59:32 <nameless> !~root@weowntheinter.net|I have trolled channels with bel
511 2010-11-19 05:59:42 <nameless> !~root@weowntheinter.net|But I was trolling them with lots of stuff before
512 2010-11-19 06:01:15 <nanotube> so there are irc clients that actually beep on ^g?
513 2010-11-19 06:01:36 <nameless> !~root@weowntheinter.net|irssi does if you configure it too
514 2010-11-19 06:01:40 <nameless> !~root@weowntheinter.net|and yes, there are
515 2010-11-19 06:01:49 <nameless> !~root@weowntheinter.net|lots of them
516 2010-11-19 06:02:06 <nanotube> hmm
517 2010-11-19 06:02:09 <nameless> !~root@weowntheinter.net|On one network I'm on, the server kicks you if you use bel
518 2010-11-19 06:02:12 <nanotube> hehe
519 2010-11-19 06:02:22 <nameless> !~root@weowntheinter.net|rather, a bot spawned by the server
520 2010-11-19 06:02:28 <nameless> !~root@weowntheinter.net|but the bot is U:Lined
521 2010-11-19 06:11:54 FreeMoney has joined
522 2010-11-19 06:12:10 <ByteCoin> Hi freemoney.
523 2010-11-19 06:12:18 <FreeMoney> hi
524 2010-11-19 06:12:20 <ByteCoin> I;ve just replied to your porst
525 2010-11-19 06:12:38 <ByteCoin> Bt you can tell me who the flooder is here if you want
526 2010-11-19 06:12:49 <ByteCoin> How did they get you to give them coins?
527 2010-11-19 06:12:58 <ByteCoin> Did they have a pretext
528 2010-11-19 06:13:00 <ByteCoin> ?
529 2010-11-19 06:13:04 <FreeMoney> MrBurns
530 2010-11-19 06:13:23 <FreeMoney> he just said he wanted to see how it worked and how long it took etc
531 2010-11-19 06:13:34 <ByteCoin> Is that his name on the forum?
532 2010-11-19 06:13:39 <FreeMoney> and that he couldn't use the faucet because he was on TOR
533 2010-11-19 06:13:41 <FreeMoney> yes
534 2010-11-19 06:13:52 <FreeMoney> he has only the one post
535 2010-11-19 06:14:14 <ByteCoin> I'm just trying to look it up...
536 2010-11-19 06:14:50 <FreeMoney> in bitcoin discussion
537 2010-11-19 06:14:56 <FreeMoney> "new to bitcoins....
538 2010-11-19 06:15:05 <ByteCoin> Got it thx
539 2010-11-19 06:16:07 <Kiba> new forum section..for all the bounty that has been poping up..
540 2010-11-19 06:18:08 <ByteCoin> I wonder what the fallout of the flooding will be....
541 2010-11-19 06:18:21 <ByteCoin> It doesn't seem to be stopping!
542 2010-11-19 06:19:10 <ByteCoin> Also, it seems likely to me that MrBurns is an alias of someone fairly technically adept probably already posting on the forum.
543 2010-11-19 06:23:09 <Diablo-D3> Yesssss
544 2010-11-19 06:23:46 <ByteCoin> Did you just get a block Diablo?
545 2010-11-19 06:23:52 <OneFixt> ;;bc,stats
546 2010-11-19 06:23:55 <gribble> Current Blocks: 92816 | Current Difficulty: 6866.89864897 | Next Difficulty At Block: 94752 | Next Difficulty In: 1936 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 4 days, 14 hours, 33 minutes, and 44 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 7954.12623257
547 2010-11-19 06:28:31 <Diablo-D3> ByteCoin: no
548 2010-11-19 06:28:51 <ByteCoin> Someone's generating quite fast.....
549 2010-11-19 06:29:35 <nanotube> probably ArtForz :)
550 2010-11-19 06:29:48 <ByteCoin> about 1 minute since the last block.. I know about the probabiltiies yes it could just be chance
551 2010-11-19 06:29:49 <nanotube> well... the whole network overall, really. :)
552 2010-11-19 06:30:11 <ByteCoin> the next difficulty seems to indicate that there's not been a step change in processing power
553 2010-11-19 06:31:45 * Kiba busy working his web app
554 2010-11-19 06:34:35 a_meteorite has quit (Quit: a_meteorite)
555 2010-11-19 06:36:05 <Diablo-D3> ByteCoin: wait until it gets there first
556 2010-11-19 06:36:41 <ByteCoin> Perhaps I should have said - not been a large step change
557 2010-11-19 06:37:06 <Diablo-D3> yeah, but it can change in the next week
558 2010-11-19 06:37:13 <Diablo-D3> should be closer to over 9000
559 2010-11-19 06:37:44 <nanotube> heh yea... someone buys 4 5970s, and boom, a bunch of extra ghps
560 2010-11-19 06:37:50 <Diablo-D3> or 10
561 2010-11-19 06:40:17 <nanotube> ;;bc,mtgox
562 2010-11-19 06:40:17 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":0.283,"low":0.2362,"vol":37480,"buy":0.2683,"sell":0.28,"last":0.28}}
563 2010-11-19 06:45:23 Zenchess has joined
564 2010-11-19 06:52:14 <ByteCoin> I can hardly believe that one of the recent blocks was generated four seconds!! after it's predecessor!
565 2010-11-19 06:52:35 <ByteCoin> Even allowing for some clock skew
566 2010-11-19 06:53:12 <nanotube> hm yea that does seem awful fast
567 2010-11-19 06:53:15 <lfm> the net is quite efficient at distributing those blocks. you shouldnt be surprized
568 2010-11-19 06:53:58 <nanotube> it's just 'improbable' :) for any given block, that is. over the whole block chain, probably not so much. :)
569 2010-11-19 06:54:51 <ByteCoin> I'm not looking at the whole block chain! Another recent one was generated 20 seconds after the previous one!
570 2010-11-19 06:55:21 <OneFixt> ;;bc,stats
571 2010-11-19 06:55:23 <gribble> Current Blocks: 92822 | Current Difficulty: 6866.89864897 | Next Difficulty At Block: 94752 | Next Difficulty In: 1930 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 4 days, 8 hours, 31 minutes, and 45 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 8105.00858039
572 2010-11-19 06:55:37 <nanotube> mm, the estimate is growing
573 2010-11-19 06:58:49 <lfm> so 10k difficulty in 4 weeks
574 2010-11-19 06:58:57 <lfm> ?
575 2010-11-19 06:59:59 <nanotube> mm, well, the difficulty estimate has actually been growing... so it may get to ~10k even within this block chunk.
576 2010-11-19 07:00:09 lfm has quit (Quit: brb)
577 2010-11-19 07:04:30 lfm has joined
578 2010-11-19 07:10:30 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
579 2010-11-19 07:22:27 kisom_dev has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
580 2010-11-19 07:25:31 kisom_dev has joined
581 2010-11-19 07:35:52 remmy_ has joined
582 2010-11-19 07:41:17 jgarzik has quit (Quit: Client exiting)
583 2010-11-19 07:55:22 <OneFixt> ;;bc,stats
584 2010-11-19 07:55:24 <gribble> Current Blocks: 92831 | Current Difficulty: 6866.89864897 | Next Difficulty At Block: 94752 | Next Difficulty In: 1921 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 4 days, 1 hour, 25 minutes, and 37 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 8283.07426245
585 2010-11-19 08:20:54 Akiraa has joined
586 2010-11-19 08:25:26 kisom_dev has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
587 2010-11-19 08:25:29 Zenchess has quit ()
588 2010-11-19 08:26:00 FreeMoney has quit (Quit: Page closed)
589 2010-11-19 08:40:51 Edogaa has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
590 2010-11-19 08:54:37 jgarzik has joined
591 2010-11-19 08:55:11 joe_1 has joined
592 2010-11-19 09:09:40 remmy_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
593 2010-11-19 09:22:38 m0mchil has joined
594 2010-11-19 09:23:08 Kiba has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
595 2010-11-19 09:30:09 remmy_ has joined
596 2010-11-19 09:35:37 <Akiraa> Is there a GPU bitcoin binary available?
597 2010-11-19 09:43:51 <LobsterMan> several
598 2010-11-19 09:43:57 <LobsterMan> check the forums
599 2010-11-19 09:47:31 kisom_dev has joined
600 2010-11-19 09:52:56 kisom_dev has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
601 2010-11-19 10:03:43 kisom_dev has joined
602 2010-11-19 10:08:43 kisom_dev has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
603 2010-11-19 10:08:50 remmy_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
604 2010-11-19 10:10:15 kisom_dev has joined
605 2010-11-19 10:23:13 remmy_ has joined
606 2010-11-19 10:54:38 Akiraa has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
607 2010-11-19 11:26:14 darsk1ez has joined
608 2010-11-19 12:32:42 <anarchyx> ;estimate
609 2010-11-19 12:32:48 <anarchyx> ;;estimate
610 2010-11-19 12:32:48 <gribble> Error: "estimate" is not a valid command.
611 2010-11-19 12:33:04 <anarchyx> ;;bc,stats
612 2010-11-19 12:33:10 <gribble> Current Blocks: 92858 | Current Difficulty: 6866.89864897 | Next Difficulty At Block: 94752 | Next Difficulty In: 1894 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 4 days, 11 hours, 47 minutes, and 36 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 7859.69044161
613 2010-11-19 12:33:14 <anarchyx> ;;help
614 2010-11-19 12:33:14 <gribble> The bot responds when you start a line with the ! character. A good starting point for exploring the bot is the !facts command. You can also visit the bot's website for a list of help topics and documentation: http://gribble.sourceforge.net/
615 2010-11-19 12:33:29 <anarchyx> ;;facts
616 2010-11-19 12:33:30 <gribble> To see a nice sortable web view of all factoids, click here: http://gribble.dreamhosters.com/viewfactoids.php?db=%23bitcoin-dev || To see a list of the most popular factoids, run !rank || To search factoids, run !factoids search <yoursearchterm>
617 2010-11-19 12:49:37 <nanotube> anarchyx: yea there are no factoids for this channel... :)
618 2010-11-19 12:52:09 remmy_ has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
619 2010-11-19 13:27:32 altamic has joined
620 2010-11-19 13:29:05 <xelister_> LobsterMan: on which forum thread you based your installation? is all there actuall, or did something needs work arounds
621 2010-11-19 13:37:15 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
622 2010-11-19 13:56:50 <joe_1> artforz please turn on some more radeons, i need confirmations fast
623 2010-11-19 14:12:55 dwdollar1 has left ()
624 2010-11-19 14:21:53 <xelister_> joe_1: ;)
625 2010-11-19 14:28:32 XxMalouinxX has quit ()
626 2010-11-19 14:31:10 Kiba has joined
627 2010-11-19 14:33:40 altamic has quit (Quit: altamic)
628 2010-11-19 14:33:49 <brocktice> the difficulty estimate is oscillating
629 2010-11-19 14:33:58 <brocktice> There's too much noise
630 2010-11-19 14:34:04 <brocktice> We don't have a long history at this difficulty
631 2010-11-19 14:34:26 <brocktice> Quick PSU question, if a PSU is rated for '1kW', is that internally, or at the plug?
632 2010-11-19 14:41:44 <brocktice> looks like it's internally
633 2010-11-19 14:41:49 <brocktice> with caveats
634 2010-11-19 14:46:25 hippich_ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
635 2010-11-19 14:49:02 * Kiba works on the BMAA
636 2010-11-19 14:49:49 astaroth has joined
637 2010-11-19 14:50:37 <anarchyx> ;;bc,stats
638 2010-11-19 14:50:40 <gribble> Current Blocks: 92874 | Current Difficulty: 6866.89864897 | Next Difficulty At Block: 94752 | Next Difficulty In: 1878 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 4 days, 6 hours, 30 minutes, and 44 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 7945.43968873
639 2010-11-19 14:51:29 <anarchyx> i hope the difficulty will start levelling off
640 2010-11-19 14:51:33 <anarchyx> its getting crazy
641 2010-11-19 14:51:51 <brocktice> It must be
642 2010-11-19 14:52:01 <brocktice> because we're at about 7-8 blocks per hour
643 2010-11-19 14:52:04 <brocktice> instead of 10 or 11
644 2010-11-19 15:00:49 * Kiba have yet to earn btc from his web app
645 2010-11-19 15:04:05 <Kiba> so
646 2010-11-19 15:04:20 <Kiba> does anybody have any experience with mybitcoin SGI merchant API or whatever?
647 2010-11-19 15:07:13 duck1123 has joined
648 2010-11-19 15:12:32 AAA_awright_ has joined
649 2010-11-19 15:14:14 AAA_awright has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
650 2010-11-19 15:14:43 <brocktice> woohoo, after bumping core voltage back up to 1.175 I'm at 1450 mhash/s
651 2010-11-19 15:14:56 <brocktice> maybe if Diablo's fixed his miner problems I can even exced that.
652 2010-11-19 15:16:33 black_ru has joined
653 2010-11-19 15:24:23 dwdollar has joined
654 2010-11-19 15:24:44 Akiraa has joined
655 2010-11-19 15:25:17 Maccer has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
656 2010-11-19 15:51:48 darsk1ez has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
657 2010-11-19 15:53:13 gavinandresen has joined
658 2010-11-19 16:26:24 <ByteCoin> Hi gavin
659 2010-11-19 16:29:30 <ByteCoin> It looks like the flood has taken a turn for the worse
660 2010-11-19 16:30:09 <ByteCoin> As of 92879 the blocks all have about 220 transactions in them.
661 2010-11-19 16:31:25 <ByteCoin> If the transactions are 227 bytes long this corresponds with filling up the 50k fee free portion of the block...
662 2010-11-19 16:31:59 <m0mchil> they are low priority
663 2010-11-19 16:32:35 <m0mchil> but anyway, still bad... too much disk space
664 2010-11-19 16:34:17 altamic has joined
665 2010-11-19 16:35:49 <m0mchil> spam fee, proportional to the lowest officially spendable ammount would solve this
666 2010-11-19 16:35:58 bertodsera has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
667 2010-11-19 16:36:16 <edcba> what do you mean ?
668 2010-11-19 16:37:44 <brocktice> edcba: He means making it cost a few bitcoins to TX spam
669 2010-11-19 16:37:56 <edcba> how do you define spam ?
670 2010-11-19 16:37:58 <m0mchil> say, for now officially lowest spendable amount is 0.01... placing mandatory 0.001 for example will solve the problem with countless meaningless transactions filling the block chain
671 2010-11-19 16:38:27 <edcba> ok you want a tx fee being fraction of a COIN
672 2010-11-19 16:38:34 <jgarzik> m0mchil: FWIW satoshi said he wanted some tranche of transactions to be free
673 2010-11-19 16:38:45 <jgarzik> m0mchil: you know I agree with you, of course :)
674 2010-11-19 16:38:51 altamic has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
675 2010-11-19 16:39:36 <m0mchil> yup... this can only get worse...
676 2010-11-19 16:40:35 <edcba> i don't really like having tx fees like that
677 2010-11-19 16:40:47 <edcba> i would do it some other way
678 2010-11-19 16:41:04 <m0mchil> thats why we are discussing it
679 2010-11-19 16:41:31 <edcba> just reserve like some 1000 TX buffer
680 2010-11-19 16:41:43 <edcba> TX with most fees gets in
681 2010-11-19 16:41:51 <edcba> others are discarded
682 2010-11-19 16:42:07 X0nic has joined
683 2010-11-19 16:43:43 hippich_ has joined
684 2010-11-19 16:45:48 X0nic has quit (Client Quit)
685 2010-11-19 16:46:55 <edcba> then tx spam will remain local to neighbour spammer when buffer filled
686 2010-11-19 16:47:17 <edcba> or he will have to pay fee
687 2010-11-19 16:47:21 <jgarzik> free TX sits around until some miner who does not require fees builds a block including that TX
688 2010-11-19 16:47:37 <jgarzik> each block only permits certain amount of free TX
689 2010-11-19 16:48:01 <ArtForz> isnt that what we already have?
690 2010-11-19 16:48:10 <jgarzik> yes, just stating the current situation
691 2010-11-19 16:48:48 * m0mchil is still reading http://www.bitcoin.org/wiki/doku.php?id=transaction_fee trying to figure it out
692 2010-11-19 16:49:15 <brocktice> ArtForz: My PSU is rated 1kW, now drawing about 1.005 kW at the plug, should be OK because rating is for output, not input, right?
693 2010-11-19 16:49:24 <jgarzik> in theory, spam transactions linger around, wasting everybody's resources, until they reach a block
694 2010-11-19 16:49:44 <ArtForz> brocktice: yeah, but make sure your PSU has plenty of airflow
695 2010-11-19 16:49:45 <jgarzik> but maybe too-much spam implies spam TXs will disappear due to age, if they are so large in number?
696 2010-11-19 16:50:01 <m0mchil> see this '0.01 BTC fee if sending any transaction less than 0.01 BTC. This is to help prevent DoS attacks against the network.'
697 2010-11-19 16:50:11 <brocktice> ArtForz: It gets a decent amount, but I worry that the incoming air (out of the radiator) is not cool enough to start with :(
698 2010-11-19 16:50:32 <edcba> m0mchil: definitely flawed :)
699 2010-11-19 16:50:45 <jgarzik> m0mchil: that prevents small-transaction spam, but clearly does not prevent me sending 0.01 BTC to myself over and over again
700 2010-11-19 16:50:48 <brocktice> Can't you flood the network with transactions to yourself?
701 2010-11-19 16:50:49 <brocktice> yeah
702 2010-11-19 16:50:51 <jgarzik> yes
703 2010-11-19 16:51:05 <m0mchil> not taking in account sending to yourself
704 2010-11-19 16:51:29 <ArtForz> stupid idea: min fee-free value rises with block size
705 2010-11-19 16:51:33 <m0mchil> and because there is no way to detect someone sending to himself - I can't see any other solution
706 2010-11-19 16:52:06 <brocktice> m0mchil: the client detects it somehow
707 2010-11-19 16:52:13 <brocktice> although I guess one could just rewrite it
708 2010-11-19 16:52:27 <jgarzik> fundamentally, I think all TX's should incur a cost. that's the best way to deter spam, IMO.
709 2010-11-19 16:52:45 <m0mchil> your client detects you sending to yourself... it's trivial
710 2010-11-19 16:52:58 <m0mchil> but can't for others
711 2010-11-19 16:53:37 <edcba> tx fee should be dynamic
712 2010-11-19 16:53:48 <edcba> ie allow free tx
713 2010-11-19 16:54:03 <ArtForz> errr... tx fee is dynamic
714 2010-11-19 16:54:12 <edcba> and superior tx fee first
715 2010-11-19 16:54:23 <m0mchil> also, generators can't pose arbitrary fee... they decide whether to include or reject a TX based on the fee it provides
716 2010-11-19 16:54:27 <ArtForz> the current spammer just fills up the fee-less part of the block
717 2010-11-19 16:54:52 <edcba> ArtForz: the problem is bandwidth
718 2010-11-19 16:55:30 <ArtForz> currently... not really
719 2010-11-19 16:55:55 <ArtForz> but yeah, it could become a problem if someone bothers to optimize his spamming
720 2010-11-19 16:56:26 <ByteCoin> Problem definitely not bandwidth at the moment!
721 2010-11-19 16:56:49 bertodsera has joined
722 2010-11-19 16:57:06 <edcba> prioritize tx fees and limit propagation of free TX
723 2010-11-19 16:57:09 <jgarzik> spammer fills up fee-less part of the block, yes. but doesn't the software also hold other spam TX's in memory, waiting for another block?
724 2010-11-19 16:57:14 <edcba> that's all
725 2010-11-19 16:57:14 <ArtForz> yes
726 2010-11-19 16:57:26 <ArtForz> btw, we should limit tx cache size
727 2010-11-19 16:57:30 <brocktice> Question, if everyone or most people mining start charging a 0.001BTC fee or whatever, will that help mitigate the issue?
728 2010-11-19 16:57:31 <jgarzik> ie. say I send out 1 million TX's, and don't care if they reach a block or not. I'm using resources
729 2010-11-19 16:57:32 AAA_awright has joined
730 2010-11-19 16:57:51 <ArtForz> otherwise a fast spam will cause a shitload of nodes to run out of memory
731 2010-11-19 16:57:57 <jgarzik> exactly
732 2010-11-19 16:58:09 <jgarzik> plus I'm forcing nodes to relay
733 2010-11-19 16:58:28 <ArtForz> btw, dont nodes also keep "orphan" transactions around?
734 2010-11-19 16:58:36 <edcba> that's why i said 1000 tx queue
735 2010-11-19 16:58:45 <m0mchil> ArtForz, do you plan making changes in your code about this?
736 2010-11-19 16:58:53 <edcba> and discard the rest
737 2010-11-19 16:58:59 <ArtForz> yeah
738 2010-11-19 16:59:01 <jgarzik> ArtForz: I think yes, periodically trying to get them into a block
739 2010-11-19 16:59:05 <m0mchil> or better wait for official solution?
740 2010-11-19 16:59:19 <ArtForz> and prioritise the tx cache similar to what we do for the miner now
741 2010-11-19 16:59:39 AAA_awright_ has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
742 2010-11-19 16:59:59 <ArtForz> = fee Tx first, then the rest prioritised by age of inputs and value
743 2010-11-19 17:00:14 <ArtForz> m0mchil: I'll wait for the official fix
744 2010-11-19 17:01:27 <ArtForz> hurrrm
745 2010-11-19 17:01:45 <ArtForz> at least we dont relay orphan TX
746 2010-11-19 17:02:22 <ArtForz> but the way it currently is, orphan TX cache means you can pretty much kill any node by IP if you have decent bandwidth
747 2010-11-19 17:03:00 <ArtForz> the txin/txout of a orphan TX dont have to refer to anything real
748 2010-11-19 17:03:36 <ArtForz> so a attacker can create completely bogus TX and flood a single node with em
749 2010-11-19 17:06:40 <MacRohard> they could just ping flood too
750 2010-11-19 17:06:44 <ArtForz> no
751 2010-11-19 17:06:51 <ArtForz> a ping flood just consumes bandwidth
752 2010-11-19 17:07:02 <ArtForz> a orphan tx flood consumes memory
753 2010-11-19 17:07:06 <MacRohard> hmm ok
754 2010-11-19 17:07:37 <ArtForz> with the current code if they just send enough of em long enough the victim node will run out of memory
755 2010-11-19 17:07:52 <jgarzik> ArtForz: will orphan TX's get relayed, I wonder?
756 2010-11-19 17:07:55 <ArtForz> no
757 2010-11-19 17:08:08 <MacRohard> i guess some kind of firewall or banlist might be an idea
758 2010-11-19 17:08:17 <ArtForz> thats why I said it's a targeted attack
759 2010-11-19 17:08:23 <MacRohard> like if someone feeds you too many bad TXs just cut them off
760 2010-11-19 17:08:41 <ArtForz> yeah, we'll have to implement rate limiting some day
761 2010-11-19 17:09:16 <brocktice> ArtForz: do you know whether Diablo-D3 ever figured out his stop-at-one-block problem?
762 2010-11-19 17:10:00 <ArtForz> nope
763 2010-11-19 17:10:07 <ArtForz> I think he's still working on it
764 2010-11-19 17:10:34 <brocktice> hm, ok, thanks
765 2010-11-19 17:15:06 m0mchil has left ()
766 2010-11-19 17:16:58 <gavinandresen> Hey y'all, sorry I wasn't paying attention, just caught up on the txn flood discussion.
767 2010-11-19 17:19:46 <ByteCoin> It's cool.
768 2010-11-19 17:19:53 <gavinandresen> I still like the idea of requiring some proof-of-work to put a free transaction on the network. If you don't want to pay a txn fee, then you gotta pay up with some useless CPU time.
769 2010-11-19 17:20:06 black_ru has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.3.1.1)
770 2010-11-19 17:20:09 <ByteCoin> Good idea
771 2010-11-19 17:20:12 <ArtForz> thats actually a pretty good idea
772 2010-11-19 17:20:17 <ArtForz> hashcash for TX :P
773 2010-11-19 17:20:31 <gavinandresen> Spammers then need to decide: should I waste CPU time spamming transactions that I COULD be using to try to generate?
774 2010-11-19 17:21:02 <ArtForz> *and* it should be pretty easy to implement
775 2010-11-19 17:21:10 <MacRohard> you're talking about a proof-of-work that's easier than the block generation proofofwork?
776 2010-11-19 17:21:14 <ArtForz> yep
777 2010-11-19 17:21:26 <gavinandresen> Nodes could sort by transaction proof-of-work (more proof == higher priority)....
778 2010-11-19 17:21:31 <MacRohard> hmm.. why not just adjust the block proof of works so that they're easier?
779 2010-11-19 17:21:37 <ByteCoin> Yeah. I presume the hash of the transaction could be calculated by the client
780 2010-11-19 17:21:37 <gavinandresen> And yeah, much easier proof of work than block generation
781 2010-11-19 17:21:38 <MacRohard> and happen more frequently
782 2010-11-19 17:21:53 <ArtForz> MacRohard: because that'll solve exactly nothing
783 2010-11-19 17:22:08 <MacRohard> ARtForz, hmmm
784 2010-11-19 17:22:30 <xelister_> gavinandresen: you think spam would slow down gpu miners noticibly?
785 2010-11-19 17:22:35 <ArtForz> no
786 2010-11-19 17:22:49 <ArtForz> at least not m0mchils and mine
787 2010-11-19 17:23:06 <ByteCoin> Different nodes could refuse to accept and relay transactions unless the transaction hash started with a certain number of zeros
788 2010-11-19 17:23:13 <ArtForz> yep
789 2010-11-19 17:23:21 <ByteCoin> The number of zeros required could be specified bythe node
790 2010-11-19 17:23:22 <gavinandresen> yep
791 2010-11-19 17:23:26 <xelister_> what does it do again? sends invalid transactions stuff to node so that bitcoind spends time calculating stuff with it?
792 2010-11-19 17:23:46 <MacRohard> xelister_, yeah
793 2010-11-19 17:24:02 <ArtForz> the transactions are valid
794 2010-11-19 17:24:21 <MacRohard> well yae. or just shitloads of valid transactions to yourself or connected parties
795 2010-11-19 17:24:26 <ArtForz> yep
796 2010-11-19 17:24:37 <ArtForz> the latest spams seem to be of the x->x kind
797 2010-11-19 17:24:58 <ByteCoin> Of course, you could sidestep the bulk of the problem by transitioning to a "balance sheet" method.....
798 2010-11-19 17:25:13 <gavinandresen> (anybody else have the Laurie Anderson song "Let X == X" in their head right now?)
799 2010-11-19 17:25:13 <ArtForz> yes, lets just rewrite everyfuckingthing
800 2010-11-19 17:25:19 <ByteCoin> Over time you might find that simpler....
801 2010-11-19 17:25:26 <gavinandresen> ArtForz: I've been really tempted....
802 2010-11-19 17:25:47 <gavinandresen> (but not by balance sheets)
803 2010-11-19 17:26:03 <ByteCoin> The reason for not rewriting everything is that there's lots to be learnt from the current system still.
804 2010-11-19 17:26:49 <MacRohard> it might be cool if nodes could do net settlement and then peopel could arbitrage fees
805 2010-11-19 17:26:56 <ByteCoin> gavinandresen: Ok briefly what's your main objection to balance sheets?
806 2010-11-19 17:27:23 <gavinandresen> I haven't thought about them enough to have a main objection.
807 2010-11-19 17:27:35 <MacRohard> like a node that has generated a block could discount pending transactions where tehy partially cancel each other out.. maybe.
808 2010-11-19 17:27:45 <ByteCoin> Fair enough...
809 2010-11-19 17:28:21 <gavinandresen> (but if I did, my main objection would probably be that they're not enough-better than the current scheme to justify a switch. Technology isn't Bitcoin's problem right now, trust and acceptance and marketing and usability are)
810 2010-11-19 17:28:26 <MacRohard> it would be nice for anonymity even if it did nothing for anything else
811 2010-11-19 17:28:39 <ByteCoin> Agreed.
812 2010-11-19 17:29:13 <ArtForz> hrrrm... proritising TX by their hash looks like it should be quite easy
813 2010-11-19 17:29:29 <gavinandresen> Satoshi has ignored all of my suggestions that nodes drop "bad" transactions... I bet he has a good reason for it.
814 2010-11-19 17:29:41 <ArtForz> define "bad"
815 2010-11-19 17:29:46 <ByteCoin> Bad defined as malformed?
816 2010-11-19 17:29:53 <ByteCoin> Or bad as undesirable
817 2010-11-19 17:30:04 <ByteCoin> I can understand not censoring the latter
818 2010-11-19 17:30:09 <ArtForz> nonstandard script != bad
819 2010-11-19 17:30:25 <gavinandresen> Bad as in orphan, or is a 0.01-value transaction whos great-great-great grandparents are not yet part of any block....
820 2010-11-19 17:30:31 <ByteCoin> Yes Artforz otherwise it defeats the object of the script
821 2010-11-19 17:30:55 <gavinandresen> Bad as in "smells like spam"
822 2010-11-19 17:31:11 <ArtForz> the current orphan TX handling is pretty bad as it is
823 2010-11-19 17:31:18 <ByteCoin> gavin: Just to clarify, I presume you can't tell if the great-great grandparents are missing or just the parents...
824 2010-11-19 17:31:49 <ByteCoin> Otherwise I'm seriously misunderstanding something
825 2010-11-19 17:31:52 <gavinandresen> ByteCoin: I'm talking about the case where you get several transactions between blocks, all of which are descendants....
826 2010-11-19 17:32:11 <gavinandresen> (the simple way of spamming: just shave of 0.01 bitcoins from a larger coin, and send them all out...)
827 2010-11-19 17:32:18 <ByteCoin> Oh I see...
828 2010-11-19 17:32:19 <ArtForz> imo its a bit of a misfeature
829 2010-11-19 17:33:01 <ByteCoin> Requiring valid transactions to have a parent in a block would merely slow down the spam.
830 2010-11-19 17:33:09 <gavinandresen> yep
831 2010-11-19 17:33:23 <ByteCoin> You'd just have to divide a larger balance into small coins etc...
832 2010-11-19 17:33:35 <ArtForz> yes, but it would make orphan tx pretty much impossible
833 2010-11-19 17:34:10 <ByteCoin> Orphan tx can arise naturally if different transactions take different routes across the network
834 2010-11-19 17:34:18 <ArtForz> currently, yes
835 2010-11-19 17:34:21 <edcba> it slows down tx too..
836 2010-11-19 17:34:48 <ArtForz> yep
837 2010-11-19 17:34:49 <ByteCoin> You could avoid retransmitting orphan tx until you have the parent...
838 2010-11-19 17:35:00 <ByteCoin> Get's hard to test this stuff though...
839 2010-11-19 17:35:01 <ArtForz> no node transmits orphan TX
840 2010-11-19 17:35:15 <ArtForz> err... forwards
841 2010-11-19 17:35:21 <ByteCoin> Oh ok....
842 2010-11-19 17:36:55 <ArtForz> the original creator resends them periodically, hoping to reach a generating node that has the parent/grandparent/...
843 2010-11-19 17:37:08 <gavinandresen> So the question I'm thinking about is: if transactions DID have proof-of-work (maybe just a nonce, and you do as much work as you like to make the transaction hash small)... would that fix anything?
844 2010-11-19 17:37:23 <ByteCoin> I think it would...
845 2010-11-19 17:37:38 <Kiba> transaction as proof of work?
846 2010-11-19 17:37:38 <gavinandresen> Spammers could still spam zero-proof-of-work transactions. If they were just ignored... would bad things happen?
847 2010-11-19 17:37:52 <gavinandresen> I mean, ignored by SOME of the network nodes but not others.
848 2010-11-19 17:37:55 <ByteCoin> Don't give them enough room for a nonce. Make them keep resigning their txins!
849 2010-11-19 17:38:06 <ArtForz> they'd accumulate in the tx or orphan caches
850 2010-11-19 17:38:48 <ArtForz> so, limit those in size and prioritise by hash there, too
851 2010-11-19 17:38:57 <gavinandresen> So lets say one of them ends up in a block.... how do the nodes that were ignoring them get them? I haven't looked at or thought about how trasnactions percolate across the net enough
852 2010-11-19 17:39:06 <ByteCoin> I'm thinking about adverse side effects.. It's complicated.
853 2010-11-19 17:39:26 <ArtForz> a Tx can only get in a block if all it's ancestors are also in that or previous blocks
854 2010-11-19 17:39:41 <ArtForz> = we can never have a orphan TX in a block
855 2010-11-19 17:39:57 <gavinandresen> YEah, these wouldn't be orphans, just transactions with low or no proof-of-work.
856 2010-11-19 17:40:04 <ArtForz> well, the block is broadcast as usual
857 2010-11-19 17:40:10 <ArtForz> why would a nod ignore a TX in a block?
858 2010-11-19 17:40:17 <ArtForz> that makes 0 sense
859 2010-11-19 17:40:21 <ByteCoin> yeah what artforz says
860 2010-11-19 17:40:39 <gavinandresen> ah, all transactions are rebroadcast when the block is announced?
861 2010-11-19 17:40:47 <gavinandresen> I thought it was just the block header and merkle root...
862 2010-11-19 17:41:02 <ArtForz> all tx that made it into that block are part of the block, and the whoel block is broadcast
863 2010-11-19 17:41:04 <gavinandresen> (like I said, I haven't look carefully at the net stuff...)
864 2010-11-19 17:41:19 <gavinandresen> cool.
865 2010-11-19 17:42:07 <ByteCoin> Anyway, if that were not the case and just the block header were broadcast then clients would have to inquire what the individual transactions were if they hadn't got them already
866 2010-11-19 17:42:41 <ByteCoin> Otherwise it'd be "Hmm... Here's a new block but we don't have a clue what's in it"
867 2010-11-19 17:42:48 <ArtForz> yep
868 2010-11-19 17:43:18 <ByteCoin> Artforz are you sure all the transactions in the block are transmitted with the block. It sounds sub-optimal
869 2010-11-19 17:43:22 <ArtForz> yes
870 2010-11-19 17:43:26 <gavinandresen> But this isn't gnutella -- there's no "hey network, find me transaction XYZ and return it to me, please" recursive-search-doohickey...
871 2010-11-19 17:44:10 <ArtForz> I wrote a python half-a-node thats capable of parsing tx and block messages, all tx contained in a block are included in the block message
872 2010-11-19 17:44:16 <ByteCoin> Artforz, the thing is that most nodes already know about all the block transactions and can match them up with stuff in their memory by the hashes.
873 2010-11-19 17:44:30 <ArtForz> erm, so?
874 2010-11-19 17:44:37 <ByteCoin> No need to send all the transactions again.
875 2010-11-19 17:44:48 <ArtForz> well, thats how it currently is
876 2010-11-19 17:44:55 <ByteCoin> Fair enough...
877 2010-11-19 17:45:40 <ArtForz> so thats not really a problem
878 2010-11-19 17:46:18 <ArtForz> adding a explicit nonce field to tx is imo a bad idea and breaks compatibility
879 2010-11-19 17:46:34 <gavinandresen> Next possible problem that comes to mind with proof-of-work transactions: could somebody decide to be annoying and pre-compute a bunch of high-proof-of-work transactions, then flood the net with them all at once?
880 2010-11-19 17:46:42 <ArtForz> yes
881 2010-11-19 17:46:50 <ByteCoin> As just hinted. Explicit nonce not required.
882 2010-11-19 17:46:58 <ArtForz> and he'll have expended a significant amount of CPU time on it
883 2010-11-19 17:47:30 <ByteCoin> Gavinandresen: Yes possible.. Can't think of an obvious workaround
884 2010-11-19 17:47:36 <gavinandresen> If I recall, transactions don't include any notion of time; it'd be nice if old transactions were not allowed.
885 2010-11-19 17:47:49 <ByteCoin> Problem for offline clients..
886 2010-11-19 17:48:00 <ByteCoin> One way data transmission
887 2010-11-19 17:48:16 <gavinandresen> They'll have to go online SOME time to submit their transactions. Proof of work could happen then.
888 2010-11-19 17:48:28 <gavinandresen> (or they pay a fee)
889 2010-11-19 17:48:40 <ByteCoin> They can send the transactuions without needing data back.
890 2010-11-19 17:48:58 <ByteCoin> If you introduce "time" they need to get data before sending tx
891 2010-11-19 17:49:22 <ArtForz> okay, so... offline nodes that dont know the current time?
892 2010-11-19 17:49:45 <gavinandresen> That seems unlikely. EVERYTHING has a clock in it these days.
893 2010-11-19 17:49:46 <ByteCoin> I think that "the time" is not the issue as you can precompute the time in the future easily!
894 2010-11-19 17:49:55 <gavinandresen> ByteCoin: good point!
895 2010-11-19 17:50:07 <ByteCoin> You'd need some data keyed to the latest block.
896 2010-11-19 17:50:11 <gavinandresen> Better would be... block number and hash
897 2010-11-19 17:50:21 <gavinandresen> (for a recent block)
898 2010-11-19 17:50:29 <ArtForz> imo adding block#s is a bad idea
899 2010-11-19 17:50:38 <ByteCoin> Do you REALLY want to go down this route gavin?
900 2010-11-19 17:50:48 <gavinandresen> No
901 2010-11-19 17:50:53 <gavinandresen> Just thinking out loud
902 2010-11-19 17:51:07 <ByteCoin> Cool. as long as you have not closed your mind
903 2010-11-19 17:51:09 <brocktice> hey, maybe you guys ignored me because it was a dumb idea earlier, but what if the many people in here who mine just started charging very small tx fees?
904 2010-11-19 17:51:18 <brocktice> I'm probably missing something though, right?
905 2010-11-19 17:51:23 <edcba> lol
906 2010-11-19 17:51:34 <ByteCoin> No you're not missing anything brocktice
907 2010-11-19 17:51:47 <brocktice> Would that help?
908 2010-11-19 17:51:49 <ArtForz> yes
909 2010-11-19 17:52:00 <ByteCoin> I think we all like the idea of discouraging things without actually having a "fine" for doing it.
910 2010-11-19 17:52:11 <ArtForz> and it still means we have ever-growing tx and orphan caches
911 2010-11-19 17:52:17 <brocktice> Ah right, there's still that
912 2010-11-19 17:52:22 <brocktice> I don't see any reason not to limit that.
913 2010-11-19 17:52:34 Diablo-D3 has joined
914 2010-11-19 17:52:37 <ArtForz> just randomly dropping tx from the caches is imo a bad idea
915 2010-11-19 17:52:47 <edcba> why ?
916 2010-11-19 17:53:00 <brocktice> Is there a non-random way that makes sense and is not difficult to implement?
917 2010-11-19 17:53:11 <ArtForz> because of our current forwarding scheme
918 2010-11-19 17:53:16 <ByteCoin> We;'re thinking about it....
919 2010-11-19 17:53:25 sec^nd has joined
920 2010-11-19 17:53:35 <sec^nd> hello
921 2010-11-19 17:53:45 <brocktice> Also, do we have an IP or IPs that we can find where this is originating?
922 2010-11-19 17:54:00 <edcba> no
923 2010-11-19 17:54:08 <ByteCoin> To a certain extent it's not relevant
924 2010-11-19 17:54:22 <ByteCoin> What do we do with the info when we have it?
925 2010-11-19 17:54:27 <edcba> but you can do stats by node
926 2010-11-19 17:54:28 <brocktice> Well, there are grey hat methods for countering such people.
927 2010-11-19 17:54:31 <gavinandresen> I agree with ByteCoin
928 2010-11-19 17:54:53 <gavinandresen> The bad guys have no problem getting as may IPs as they want.
929 2010-11-19 17:55:04 <ByteCoin> The attack is just rubbing our noses in the fact that there's a problem
930 2010-11-19 17:55:10 <edcba> the more spam tx fees a node send the more you drop
931 2010-11-19 17:55:45 <edcba> so it won't propagate
932 2010-11-19 17:55:53 <ArtForz> how about this: re-enable the ability to replace a TX with one with identical in/outputs, limit cache sizes, prioritise tx in caches and mining by fee + tx hash "lowness" + age of tx inputs + value of tx
933 2010-11-19 17:56:46 <ArtForz> we need #1 so a node that sent a TX with a high hash can replace it with one with a lower hash if it wants to
934 2010-11-19 17:56:47 <ByteCoin> Thinking....
935 2010-11-19 17:56:51 <Diablo-D3> http://www.avtimer.com/images/Humor/Stealth%20F-22%20First%20Photo.jpg
936 2010-11-19 17:56:53 <Diablo-D3> ehehehh
937 2010-11-19 17:57:07 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: so the java engine is now spitting out h == 0
938 2010-11-19 17:57:15 <ArtForz> Diablo-D3: cool
939 2010-11-19 17:57:32 <brocktice> Diablo-D3: clocks are bumped and I dropped in a 5770
940 2010-11-19 17:57:36 <gavinandresen> ArtForz: sounds good to me. But network design isn't something I know anything about...
941 2010-11-19 17:57:38 <ByteCoin> I quite like the idea that hash quality could be used in place of a fee....
942 2010-11-19 17:57:41 <brocktice> currently drawing 1015W at the plug
943 2010-11-19 17:57:47 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: so, 75 should get me a testnet block every 6 minutes?
944 2010-11-19 17:57:54 <brocktice> Diablo-D3: so whenever you've got a miner that'll find more than one block I can fire it up
945 2010-11-19 17:57:54 <ArtForz> I'm still trying to figure out if dropping tx from caches would cause a problem
946 2010-11-19 17:58:32 <ArtForz> but I dont really think so
947 2010-11-19 17:58:44 <ArtForz> restarting a node has roughly the same effect
948 2010-11-19 17:58:50 <gavinandresen> ArtForz: I can't see why it would be a problem.
949 2010-11-19 17:59:13 <edcba> as long origin/dest keep them it's ok
950 2010-11-19 17:59:16 <brocktice> I just had a brilliant idea
951 2010-11-19 17:59:19 <Diablo-D3> brocktice: I still gotta test that
952 2010-11-19 17:59:34 <brocktice> My miner puts out a lot of hot air, warming the room, but it moves upward and my toes are still cold.
953 2010-11-19 17:59:42 <gavinandresen> I'm away for lunch for a while....
954 2010-11-19 17:59:43 davout has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
955 2010-11-19 17:59:43 <brocktice> So I'll route some ducts from the back end and have them blow out at my feet
956 2010-11-19 17:59:51 <brocktice> = footwarmer
957 2010-11-19 17:59:57 <Diablo-D3> brocktice: ....
958 2010-11-19 17:59:59 * Diablo-D3 facepalms
959 2010-11-19 18:00:06 <ByteCoin> gavin: are you going to make a forum post about this? or should I?
960 2010-11-19 18:00:08 <Diablo-D3> Attempt 1:58:30 AM 252 14 232 169 240 211 120 99 124 212 174 94 170 156 20 125 170 200 251 63 223 38 180 202 137 173 37 250 0 0 0 0
961 2010-11-19 18:00:10 <Diablo-D3> so, fuck yeah
962 2010-11-19 18:00:19 <brocktice> Diablo-D3: What, it's a great idea
963 2010-11-19 18:00:25 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: btw, you know what I screwed up?
964 2010-11-19 18:00:32 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: I sent all 128 bytes of that 80 byte header.
965 2010-11-19 18:00:38 <ByteCoin> Diablo: Tell us.
966 2010-11-19 18:00:46 <ArtForz> oh. oops.
967 2010-11-19 18:00:53 <ByteCoin> You foind that out ages ago
968 2010-11-19 18:01:01 <Diablo-D3> ByteCoin: I found that out yesterday you moron
969 2010-11-19 18:01:03 <ArtForz> brocktice: next episode "how to heat your house with $10k of GPUs"
970 2010-11-19 18:01:11 <Diablo-D3> art wasnt here to hear it
971 2010-11-19 18:01:19 <brocktice> ArtForz: That'd be great, post it on youtube
972 2010-11-19 18:01:21 <ByteCoin> yesterday= ages.
973 2010-11-19 18:01:43 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: so I should find one roughly every 6 minutes?
974 2010-11-19 18:02:21 <ArtForz> Diablo-D3: secperblock = difficulty * 2**32 / hashpersec
975 2010-11-19 18:02:30 <ArtForz> testnet is currently diff 5.33
976 2010-11-19 18:03:25 <ArtForz> so 305 sec at 75Mh/s
977 2010-11-19 18:04:02 <ArtForz> = about 5 min/block
978 2010-11-19 18:05:00 <ArtForz> grat
979 2010-11-19 18:05:15 theymos has joined
980 2010-11-19 18:05:46 <ArtForz> the spammer now does a->b->a
981 2010-11-19 18:06:06 <ByteCoin> I wonder why they changed....
982 2010-11-19 18:06:08 <brocktice> Heh, I wonder if they're lurcking
983 2010-11-19 18:06:10 <brocktice> *lurking
984 2010-11-19 18:06:17 <brocktice> occurred to me before
985 2010-11-19 18:06:22 <ArtForz> yeah
986 2010-11-19 18:06:33 <ArtForz> hmmmm
987 2010-11-19 18:06:54 <ArtForz> actually it should be pretty trivial to locate the spammers IP using my python not-quite-a-node
988 2010-11-19 18:07:12 <edcba> indeed
989 2010-11-19 18:07:12 <Kiba> transaction fee as minicule as 0.0001 BTC will eventually cause them to run out of money
990 2010-11-19 18:07:15 <ByteCoin> not seeing it Artforz : I'm seeing a->a->a and b->b->b
991 2010-11-19 18:07:38 <ArtForz> whoops, you're right
992 2010-11-19 18:07:45 <ArtForz> nodes delay forwards by about 0.2s
993 2010-11-19 18:08:41 <ByteCoin> They started using 0.01 instead of 0.06 last night. I presume they're running multiple computers to stop the client slowing down
994 2010-11-19 18:08:47 <ArtForz> yeah
995 2010-11-19 18:08:55 <ArtForz> they lagged the hell out of their client :P
996 2010-11-19 18:09:10 <ByteCoin> Thank god for super slow code
997 2010-11-19 18:09:20 <theymos> They could just send their balance to a new client to get a fresh wallet.
998 2010-11-19 18:09:35 <ByteCoin> I think that's what they must do periodically.
999 2010-11-19 18:09:43 <ArtForz> yep
1000 2010-11-19 18:10:02 <ByteCoin> You realize that technically there's no barrier to sending out millions of valid transactions a second
1001 2010-11-19 18:10:03 <Kiba> somebody stresstesting the network?
1002 2010-11-19 18:10:10 <ByteCoin> It's not CPU bound
1003 2010-11-19 18:10:25 <brocktice> It must be at some point
1004 2010-11-19 18:10:28 <ArtForz> oh, it is
1005 2010-11-19 18:10:31 <brocktice> but that point is probably very, very high
1006 2010-11-19 18:10:39 <ByteCoin> Yes kiba. I think all the blocks are full to 50k
1007 2010-11-19 18:10:43 <ArtForz> ECDSA signing isn't exactly very fast
1008 2010-11-19 18:11:04 <ByteCoin> Depends what you mean by fast
1009 2010-11-19 18:11:13 baxter has joined
1010 2010-11-19 18:11:15 <ArtForz> > a few kTX/s
1011 2010-11-19 18:11:16 <ByteCoin> Not as fast as a hash
1012 2010-11-19 18:12:16 <ByteCoin> I won't commit to it but I think it's probably in the hundreds of kTX/s if you want
1013 2010-11-19 18:12:31 <Kiba> price is on...the rise
1014 2010-11-19 18:12:35 <ByteCoin> Especially if you cyt some corners...
1015 2010-11-19 18:12:52 <Kiba> btcex have extremely low volume
1016 2010-11-19 18:12:57 <Kiba> must be not many Russians
1017 2010-11-19 18:13:04 <Kiba> or maybe their money is worthless
1018 2010-11-19 18:13:12 <ArtForz> well, all it does is consume bandwidth and disk space
1019 2010-11-19 18:13:23 Toadyonps3 has joined
1020 2010-11-19 18:13:24 <theymos> ArtForz: Could you drop all transactions based on coins from the spammer? That'd clear up some blocks for real use.
1021 2010-11-19 18:13:59 <ArtForz> kinda pointless
1022 2010-11-19 18:14:10 <ByteCoin> Artforz; I've been poring over wireshark dumps to try to make a compatible client. Is your half client code available?
1023 2010-11-19 18:14:16 <ArtForz> all that'd accomplish is 1-in-5 blocks nearly empty
1024 2010-11-19 18:14:24 <ArtForz> ByteCoin: sec
1025 2010-11-19 18:14:28 <Kiba> is it possible that we move this channel to #bitcoin?
1026 2010-11-19 18:14:30 <ByteCoin> cheeres!
1027 2010-11-19 18:15:01 <Kiba> I heard that we don't need IRC to connect to the bitcoin network anymore
1028 2010-11-19 18:15:20 <ByteCoin> Still think it's heavily used though...
1029 2010-11-19 18:16:20 <theymos> Kiba: Bitcoin hasn't used that channel since (long) before 0.3.10. It uses a channel on irc.lfnet.org now.
1030 2010-11-19 18:21:18 <ByteCoin> I could see from wireshark that there was plenty of IRC activity. It seems like #bitcoin on this server is quite quiet though.
1031 2010-11-19 18:21:47 sec^nd has left ("goodbye")
1032 2010-11-19 18:24:08 <ByteCoin> Artforz: From wireshark I was getting the impression that there might be some important variation in network data format based on client version. Is that what you've seen?
1033 2010-11-19 18:25:11 <ArtForz> yes
1034 2010-11-19 18:25:12 <ArtForz> sec
1035 2010-11-19 18:27:09 <Kiba> I see random username
1036 2010-11-19 18:27:13 <Kiba> must be old clients
1037 2010-11-19 18:28:10 <theymos> Kiba: The usernames are encoded IP addresses.
1038 2010-11-19 18:28:13 <ArtForz> http://pastebin.com/ZSM7iHZw
1039 2010-11-19 18:28:47 <ByteCoin> Thx. Looking at it now
1040 2010-11-19 18:28:54 <ArtForz> all it does currently is connect to a node and receive TX and blocks as they come by
1041 2010-11-19 18:30:12 <ByteCoin> Oooh. There's quite a bit of it!
1042 2010-11-19 18:30:35 <ArtForz> yeah, it can parse/build all curerently used network messages
1043 2010-11-19 18:30:48 <ArtForz> I'm just not using most of it in this example
1044 2010-11-19 18:31:59 <brocktice> I was thinking of building a python client
1045 2010-11-19 18:32:11 <brocktice> Maybe with PyQT
1046 2010-11-19 18:32:24 <ArtForz> I have another one that actually has the script engine, keeps a block chain, verifies transactions, has a tx cache, ...
1047 2010-11-19 18:33:21 <ByteCoin> Whoa! That's a lot
1048 2010-11-19 18:33:32 <ArtForz> and yes, the code is about as horrible as the rest
1049 2010-11-19 18:33:44 <ArtForz> I wrote most of this as I was reverse engineering the protocol
1050 2010-11-19 18:34:00 <ByteCoin> Code doesn't look bad.
1051 2010-11-19 18:35:06 <brocktice> Diablo-D3: How's it going on testnet?
1052 2010-11-19 18:35:36 <Diablo-D3> not sure
1053 2010-11-19 18:35:50 <Diablo-D3> though Ive discovered a small problem
1054 2010-11-19 18:36:24 <Diablo-D3> http://pastebin.com/jvCBrRAk
1055 2010-11-19 18:36:51 <Diablo-D3> and I suspect those three valid attempts is one for each executor
1056 2010-11-19 18:36:58 <ArtForz> "whoops"
1057 2010-11-19 18:37:17 <Diablo-D3> not "whoops" as much as "wtf"
1058 2010-11-19 18:37:25 <Diablo-D3> Im not sure what Im looking at
1059 2010-11-19 18:38:28 <jgarzik> Kiba: IRC is used for network address seeding. It's never been a requirement, but absent the IPv4 addresses compiled into the bitcoin binary, or manually specifying addresses on the command line, IRC is all you have for bootstrapping.
1060 2010-11-19 18:41:08 <jgarzik> theymos: does BBE show block size anywhere?
1061 2010-11-19 18:41:14 <theymos> jgarzik: No.
1062 2010-11-19 18:41:36 <nanotube> hmm... well at least, it's a good thing we are forced to deal with the tx spam problem now.
1063 2010-11-19 18:42:01 <ByteCoin> I would have been happier waiting
1064 2010-11-19 18:42:11 <nanotube> theymos: btw, i notice you have not included the tx spam problem in the weaknesses pages :)
1065 2010-11-19 18:42:13 <nanotube> page
1066 2010-11-19 18:43:04 <theymos> nanotube: It's not really a problem. No one is being prevented from sending transactions.
1067 2010-11-19 18:43:32 <nanotube> theymos: well, it would be a problem if they spam up to the max block size.
1068 2010-11-19 18:43:44 <theymos> They'd have to pay fees before that.
1069 2010-11-19 18:43:50 <nanotube> theymos: artforz doesn't require fees
1070 2010-11-19 18:43:54 <nanotube> so they can spam up to the max
1071 2010-11-19 18:43:57 <ArtForz> nope
1072 2010-11-19 18:44:22 <ArtForz> I only dont require the 0.01 fee for < 0.01 output TX
1073 2010-11-19 18:44:25 <nanotube> and otherwise, they can just spam up to the no-fee limit, and then force everyone /else/ to pay the fees.
1074 2010-11-19 18:44:30 <ArtForz> and I think I can stop doing that now
1075 2010-11-19 18:44:30 <nanotube> ArtForz: ah ok
1076 2010-11-19 18:44:37 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: any ideas?
1077 2010-11-19 18:44:51 <ArtForz> Diablo-D3: for what?
1078 2010-11-19 18:44:58 <nanotube> and yes, i think you can, since the viral-nature of the minitx has been fixed in .13
1079 2010-11-19 18:44:59 <Diablo-D3> why this has its head up its ass
1080 2010-11-19 18:45:17 <ArtForz> yep
1081 2010-11-19 18:45:55 <jgarzik> is 219 transactions per block the maximum one can achieve without paying tx fees?
1082 2010-11-19 18:46:20 <ByteCoin> Looks like it. Makes sense at around 220 bytes per transaction
1083 2010-11-19 18:47:22 * jgarzik wonders if we will ever ban certain public keys
1084 2010-11-19 18:47:38 <jgarzik> blacklist abusive coins :)
1085 2010-11-19 18:47:42 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: not particularly a good idea
1086 2010-11-19 18:47:55 <Diablo-D3> everyones should just up their transaction costs
1087 2010-11-19 18:48:01 <ByteCoin> Diablo: Agreed
1088 2010-11-19 18:48:15 <ByteCoin> Not agreed about increasing tx costs
1089 2010-11-19 18:48:15 <theymos> jgarzik: Then we'd have to ban everyone who uses the system illegally, probably.
1090 2010-11-19 18:48:24 <brocktice> Diablo-D3: that's what I said, at least in the short term
1091 2010-11-19 18:49:04 <Diablo-D3> it'd take away their coin.
1092 2010-11-19 18:49:19 <brocktice> They may not have any to begin with
1093 2010-11-19 18:49:22 <brocktice> then it would just stop them
1094 2010-11-19 18:49:47 <jgarzik> theymos: that outcome never arose from standard anti-spam fighting... it tends to be network operations and engineers who wind up fighting this sort of network abuse.
1095 2010-11-19 18:50:00 <Diablo-D3> brocktice: how are they continually sending a coin to themselves without one?
1096 2010-11-19 18:50:07 <brocktice> Diablo-D3: let me test
1097 2010-11-19 18:50:22 <brocktice> oh yeah
1098 2010-11-19 18:50:29 <brocktice> ok so they have at least some fraction of a bitcoin
1099 2010-11-19 18:50:33 <Diablo-D3> exactly
1100 2010-11-19 18:50:36 <Diablo-D3> and we could theft it
1101 2010-11-19 18:50:41 <brocktice> well, it's not theft
1102 2010-11-19 18:50:46 <Diablo-D3> I wonder what the maximum tx cost is
1103 2010-11-19 18:51:26 <Kiba> people will use bitcoin banks as a way to avoid transaction cost
1104 2010-11-19 18:51:30 <ByteCoin> I will calc it for you... sec
1105 2010-11-19 18:51:54 <jgarzik> Kiba: which is a perfectly fine way to do things
1106 2010-11-19 18:52:15 <Diablo-D3> yes until the banks collapse
1107 2010-11-19 18:52:21 <brocktice> Kiba: are people really going to care so much about a 0.001 or 0.0001 BTC fee?
1108 2010-11-19 18:52:22 <Diablo-D3> because the CEO gets paid million btc bonuses
1109 2010-11-19 18:52:24 * jgarzik watches debug.log fill up with tx's
1110 2010-11-19 18:52:29 <Kiba> that only happens when you have fractional reserve banking?
1111 2010-11-19 18:52:41 <Diablo-D3> Kiba: it happens because we, the people, allow
1112 2010-11-19 18:52:44 <Diablo-D3> *allow it
1113 2010-11-19 18:52:46 <brocktice> Kiba: there's nothing to prevent fractional reserve bitcoin banking
1114 2010-11-19 18:52:56 <Diablo-D3> if a CEO ended up, say, dead
1115 2010-11-19 18:52:58 * jgarzik thinks the minimum fee should be 0.001
1116 2010-11-19 18:52:59 <Diablo-D3> after getting a bonus
1117 2010-11-19 18:53:02 <brocktice> One of the attractions of bitcoin is that you don't need to put them in a bank.
1118 2010-11-19 18:53:07 <Diablo-D3> CEOs would be afraid of stealing from the shareholders again
1119 2010-11-19 18:53:13 <brocktice> so you don't have to trust someone else to hold your balance.
1120 2010-11-19 18:53:40 <jgarzik> and FWIW, this TX spam need not be 0.01 BTC. You can send 10000 BTC to yourself all day long, once acquired.
1121 2010-11-19 18:53:42 <nanotube> jgarzik: that min fee would have to be adjusted over time, to account for value of bitcoins changing
1122 2010-11-19 18:53:42 <Kiba> someone could check externally how many bitcoins does the bank have
1123 2010-11-19 18:54:30 <ByteCoin> I think the max fee is 4.99*500000=2495000
1124 2010-11-19 18:54:32 <jgarzik> nanotube: yes. bitcoin is currently hardcoded to complain about <0.01BTC transactions, so it can change whatever that hardcoded logic changes
1125 2010-11-19 18:54:46 <ByteCoin> That's if you send a 499999 byte transaction
1126 2010-11-19 18:54:46 <nanotube> Kiba: well, here's the thing. it's customer choice. do you put your money in a safe deposit box (100% reserve), but get no interest (if anything, negative interest, because you pay for safekeeping of the money), or do you put it in for fractional reserve, but get interest?
1127 2010-11-19 18:54:53 <duck1123> People would care about a 0.0001 fee if that was worth $5
1128 2010-11-19 18:55:09 <ByteCoin> Actually I'm a bit off as the coinbase takes some room
1129 2010-11-19 18:55:16 <nanotube> jgarzik: true... can change at the same pace as the .01 cutoff.
1130 2010-11-19 18:55:19 <ArtForz> lets see if this works...
1131 2010-11-19 18:55:30 <Kiba> but what if it become 0.000005 in the future?
1132 2010-11-19 18:55:51 <Kiba> then you would need something like 0.0000000000004 in transaction fee?
1133 2010-11-19 18:56:11 <theymos> Precision can be expanded later if needed.
1134 2010-11-19 18:56:27 <ArtForz> yeah, smallest possible unit is 1 microcent
1135 2010-11-19 18:56:48 <ArtForz> should be good enough for a while
1136 2010-11-19 18:57:12 * Kiba imagines a history book that marvels at btc price
1137 2010-11-19 18:57:42 <Kiba> "It used to be that you can buy pizza for 1 BTC. But now, if you have 1 BTC, it is worth a fortune."
1138 2010-11-19 18:58:14 <duck1123> bring it on... I have ~300 BTC. I want to retire. :)
1139 2010-11-19 18:58:31 <Kiba> duck1123: well, it requires you to invest and grow the economy
1140 2010-11-19 19:11:18 <jgarzik> hrm
1141 2010-11-19 19:11:25 <jgarzik> is everybody still on block 92899?
1142 2010-11-19 19:11:34 <ArtForz> yes
1143 2010-11-19 19:11:34 <jgarzik> how long have we been working on the next block?
1144 2010-11-19 19:11:47 <ArtForz> not even 30 min
1145 2010-11-19 19:12:28 <ArtForz> >30min for a block isnt that rare
1146 2010-11-19 19:13:49 <jgarzik> yeah. it's... interesting to observe, given that TX's continue to pile up
1147 2010-11-19 19:14:12 * jgarzik wonders how big the TX backlog will get, and how long it will take to work through
1148 2010-11-19 19:14:27 <ArtForz> big, and a while
1149 2010-11-19 19:15:01 <ByteCoin> No sign of it going away... Might be a constant feature of blocks from now on
1150 2010-11-19 19:15:36 <ArtForz> well, you should now be able to easily recognize blocks from my miner
1151 2010-11-19 19:15:43 <jgarzik> it will be, until all TX's have a cost
1152 2010-11-19 19:16:09 <jgarzik> one can probably create at a rate that guarantees each block is full of free TX's, ad infinitum
1153 2010-11-19 19:16:28 <theymos> Are you putting "ArtForz" in your generation transactions?
1154 2010-11-19 19:16:35 <ArtForz> nope
1155 2010-11-19 19:16:53 * jgarzik wonders how long it would take one box to generate a year's worth of buffered transactions (transactions sitting around, waiting for a block)
1156 2010-11-19 19:17:16 <ByteCoin> That is actually the problem. I think they sit in memory...
1157 2010-11-19 19:17:30 <theymos> The network would forget about the transactions long before a year. Maybe a week.
1158 2010-11-19 19:17:31 <ArtForz> I use sum of outputs vs. existng block size for min amount that requires a 0.01 fee
1159 2010-11-19 19:18:17 <ByteCoin> theymos: You're happy with this "forgetting" being non-deterministic
1160 2010-11-19 19:18:27 <theymos> Yes.
1161 2010-11-19 19:18:39 <Kiba> is there an API that I don't know of for mybitcoin?
1162 2010-11-19 19:18:54 <anarchyx> ;;bc,stats
1163 2010-11-19 19:18:57 <gribble> Current Blocks: 92899 | Current Difficulty: 6866.89864897 | Next Difficulty At Block: 94752 | Next Difficulty In: 1853 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 4 days, 8 hours, 48 minutes, and 43 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 7773.57922596
1164 2010-11-19 19:20:07 <nanotube> i agree with jgarzik, i think it would be quite sensible to set minimum tx fee to be 1/100ths or 1/10th or some such, of the minimum fee-free tx size.
1165 2010-11-19 19:20:37 <Kiba> minimum fee-free tx size won't prevent somebody from spamming the network
1166 2010-11-19 19:20:55 <nanotube> so say, currently the minimum fee-free tx size is 0.01, so the min required tx fee would be, with 1/100th, 0.0001
1167 2010-11-19 19:20:55 MacRohard has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1168 2010-11-19 19:21:01 <ByteCoin> If any of the major miners disagree then interesting stuff starts to happen....
1169 2010-11-19 19:21:12 <nanotube> Kiba: yes it won't - as we are clearly witnessing right now. (min fee-free tx size is 0.01)
1170 2010-11-19 19:21:28 <Kiba> some miners might think they make more money by processing as many transaction as possible
1171 2010-11-19 19:21:35 <Kiba> others prefer bigger ones
1172 2010-11-19 19:21:41 <nanotube> ByteCoin: well, satoshi has to push out a new version... then most of the network would agree.
1173 2010-11-19 19:21:58 <ArtForz> make min fee-free size depend on output value of TX?
1174 2010-11-19 19:22:22 <ByteCoin> This happpens and happens and happens but all of a sudden at some point it stops
1175 2010-11-19 19:22:23 <Kiba> nanotube: it's entirely voluntary as long as someone wishes to accept transaction with no fee attached
1176 2010-11-19 19:22:40 <Kiba> well
1177 2010-11-19 19:22:53 <Kiba> it will continue as long as someone wishes to accept transaction with no fee attached
1178 2010-11-19 19:22:57 <ByteCoin> Miners and the network will persue their own self interest at the network's expense at some point
1179 2010-11-19 19:23:32 <ArtForz> every tx will have to have a cost, be it btc or cpu cycles
1180 2010-11-19 19:23:33 <ByteCoin> Exactly what ecosystem this results in is hard to predict
1181 2010-11-19 19:23:37 <jgarzik> perhaps spam will de facto force TX fees upon normal users, just to get their TX's confirmed.
1182 2010-11-19 19:23:45 <brocktice> ArtForz: Where would I have to hack up m0's miner to do the same?
1183 2010-11-19 19:23:52 <brocktice> Is it in the client or the miner?
1184 2010-11-19 19:23:57 <brocktice> I'm thinking client?
1185 2010-11-19 19:23:59 <ArtForz> client
1186 2010-11-19 19:24:04 <brocktice> ahh okay
1187 2010-11-19 19:24:12 <ArtForz> right now I'm testing a very simple and small change
1188 2010-11-19 19:24:14 <brocktice> because I really didn't see anything in the miner code where that would come into play
1189 2010-11-19 19:24:20 <ByteCoin> jgarzik; We're not there yet as the spam has lowest priority
1190 2010-11-19 19:24:27 <ArtForz> if ((nMinFee < CENT) && (GetValueOut() / 100000 < nBlockSize))
1191 2010-11-19 19:24:27 <ArtForz> nMinFee = CENT;
1192 2010-11-19 19:25:09 <jgarzik> ByteCoin: only spam of low value. once could easily flood with 10000 BTC transactions to self
1193 2010-11-19 19:25:21 <jgarzik> s/once/one/
1194 2010-11-19 19:25:23 <ArtForz> jgarzik: if one is willing to essentially lose them forever ...
1195 2010-11-19 19:25:35 <ByteCoin> True and I pointed this out.
1196 2010-11-19 19:26:06 <ByteCoin> Artforz: How lose them forerver?
1197 2010-11-19 19:26:43 <nanotube> ArtForz: what do you mean by "depend on output value of tx" ? what's the output value?
1198 2010-11-19 19:26:54 <ArtForz> output value = sum of outputs
1199 2010-11-19 19:27:36 <nanotube> ArtForz: doesn't it already depend on it? if i send <0.01 it charges a fee?
1200 2010-11-19 19:27:46 <ArtForz> no, thats for *smallest* output
1201 2010-11-19 19:28:02 <ArtForz> 50 btc -> 0.05 + 49.95 = 50 value, 50 btc -> 0.0005 + 49.9995 = 50 value
1202 2010-11-19 19:28:35 <nanotube> ah... so why would that help at all?
1203 2010-11-19 19:29:05 <ArtForz> you can't just send 0.x->0.x around
1204 2010-11-19 19:29:44 <nanotube> why not... or in other words, what would be your fee schedule?
1205 2010-11-19 19:30:20 <nanotube> ;;bc,stats
1206 2010-11-19 19:30:22 <gribble> Current Blocks: 92900 | Current Difficulty: 6866.89864897 | Next Difficulty At Block: 94752 | Next Difficulty In: 1852 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 4 days, 8 hours, 39 minutes, and 53 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 7773.57922596
1207 2010-11-19 19:30:38 <theymos> The required total output value increases as the block size increases?
1208 2010-11-19 19:30:51 <ArtForz> yep
1209 2010-11-19 19:31:11 <theymos> I guess that make attacks a bit harder.
1210 2010-11-19 19:31:32 <ArtForz> when the block is empty output value that requires a 0.01 fee is well < 0.01
1211 2010-11-19 19:31:46 <nanotube> so why couldn't you start with say, 100 btc, and send it out in 0.01 pieces... total tx output would still be >50, even after 5000 tx
1212 2010-11-19 19:32:03 <ArtForz> you could
1213 2010-11-19 19:32:10 <ByteCoin> Make it depend heavily on transaction age sa I might want to do some testing with small transactions that are not spam
1214 2010-11-19 19:32:15 <theymos> Why not just sort transactions in a block by fee/KB? Is it too expensive to reorganize the queued transactions?
1215 2010-11-19 19:32:21 <ArtForz> but then you have 100btc tied up in your spamming operation and waiting to get into a block for a long time
1216 2010-11-19 19:32:27 <ArtForz> we already do that
1217 2010-11-19 19:32:41 * jgarzik wonders if it is normal to see 'ping' messages on a regular basis? I'm seeing a 'ping' every 10-20 seconds, and am not used to seeing pings that often.
1218 2010-11-19 19:32:46 * jgarzik wonders if that is a hacked client
1219 2010-11-19 19:32:51 AAA_awright_ has joined
1220 2010-11-19 19:32:55 <ArtForz> I think thats mine
1221 2010-11-19 19:33:22 <ArtForz> is that test or main?
1222 2010-11-19 19:33:25 <jgarzik> main
1223 2010-11-19 19:33:31 <ArtForz> weird
1224 2010-11-19 19:33:39 <ByteCoin> What I meant was that small transactions can still get into a spammed block without a fee if they have good priority
1225 2010-11-19 19:33:56 * jgarzik has two publicly accessible (ie. not behind a NAT) non-generating nodes
1226 2010-11-19 19:34:00 <theymos> ArtForz: The fee schedule doesn't sort transactions neatly. If a block can be filled with fee transactions, it should contain no free transactions.
1227 2010-11-19 19:34:08 <jgarzik> seeing a lot of pings on both
1228 2010-11-19 19:34:11 <ArtForz> it shouldnt send pings at all currently
1229 2010-11-19 19:34:31 <ArtForz> my node sends a ping to a random connected node if it hasnt received anything at all for 10 seconds
1230 2010-11-19 19:34:37 * jgarzik wishes IP address was logged with each msg
1231 2010-11-19 19:34:45 <ArtForz> sec
1232 2010-11-19 19:35:01 AAA_awright has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1233 2010-11-19 19:35:04 <ArtForz> still seeing it?
1234 2010-11-19 19:35:36 * jgarzik waits
1235 2010-11-19 19:35:54 <jgarzik> no more pings, so far
1236 2010-11-19 19:36:03 <ArtForz> okay, I think I have a bug somewhere
1237 2010-11-19 19:36:35 <ArtForz> ahh, I think I see it
1238 2010-11-19 19:37:06 <jgarzik> yay, finally got a new block
1239 2010-11-19 19:37:22 <jgarzik> this one, with fees in it!
1240 2010-11-19 19:38:38 <ArtForz> someone sent 0.05 and paid a 0.01 fee?
1241 2010-11-19 19:39:35 <jgarzik> probably testing related to the flood
1242 2010-11-19 19:40:58 <jgarzik> ArtForz: just got another ping
1243 2010-11-19 19:41:18 <gavinandresen> ArtForz: the Faucet did
1244 2010-11-19 19:41:28 <jgarzik> ArtForz: ~25 more pings, according to logs
1245 2010-11-19 19:41:34 <gavinandresen> (I turned on -paytxfee=0.01 so newbies get their coins quicker)
1246 2010-11-19 19:41:45 <ArtForz> yeah, sec
1247 2010-11-19 19:47:11 <ArtForz> still seeing pings?
1248 2010-11-19 19:47:18 <xelister_> what pings?
1249 2010-11-19 19:48:27 <ArtForz> from my node
1250 2010-11-19 19:49:39 <brocktice> ArtForz: that code you pasted earlier
1251 2010-11-19 19:49:50 <brocktice> Is in GetMinFree in main.h?
1252 2010-11-19 19:50:13 <ArtForz> yeah, it's just a random idea
1253 2010-11-19 19:50:30 <brocktice> there's some other stuff in between about foreach txout
1254 2010-11-19 19:50:33 <brocktice> should that be cut?
1255 2010-11-19 19:51:17 <ArtForz> huh?
1256 2010-11-19 19:51:34 <brocktice> if ((nMinFee < CENT) && (GetValueOut() / 100000 < nBlockSize))
1257 2010-11-19 19:51:37 <brocktice> foreach(const CTxOut& txout, vout)
1258 2010-11-19 19:51:40 <brocktice> if (txout.nValue < CENT)
1259 2010-11-19 19:51:43 <brocktice> nMinFee = CENT;
1260 2010-11-19 19:51:46 <brocktice> (after I modified the if conditions)
1261 2010-11-19 19:51:56 <ArtForz> nah, I just put it after the normal < 0.01 check
1262 2010-11-19 19:52:14 <ArtForz> if (nMinFee < CENT)
1263 2010-11-19 19:52:14 <ArtForz> foreach(const CTxOut& txout, vout)
1264 2010-11-19 19:52:15 <ArtForz> if (txout.nValue < CENT)
1265 2010-11-19 19:52:15 <ArtForz> nMinFee = CENT;
1266 2010-11-19 19:52:15 <ArtForz> if ((nMinFee < CENT) && (GetValueOut() / 100000 < nBlockSize))
1267 2010-11-19 19:52:15 <ArtForz> nMinFee = CENT;
1268 2010-11-19 19:52:24 <brocktice> aha, ok thanks
1269 2010-11-19 19:52:36 <brocktice> maybe we can get m0 to add it to the getwork patch
1270 2010-11-19 19:52:40 <brocktice> I can fork and send him a pull request
1271 2010-11-19 19:52:54 <ArtForz> I'd wait for a proper fix
1272 2010-11-19 19:53:02 <ArtForz> all it accomplishes is TXs piling up in cache
1273 2010-11-19 19:56:07 <jgarzik> ArtForz: any chance you have visibility into TX cache size?
1274 2010-11-19 19:57:05 <ArtForz> hrrrm
1275 2010-11-19 19:57:25 <nanotube> gavinandresen: you could probably save some faucetcoins if you set paytxfee=0.001 instead. still >0, so priority over free tx...
1276 2010-11-19 19:58:15 <gavinandresen> nanotube: I'd have to hack the client. And I think the standard miners consider any fee less than CENT to be "free"
1277 2010-11-19 19:58:37 <Diablo-D3> okay so
1278 2010-11-19 19:58:39 <Diablo-D3> Im looking at this code
1279 2010-11-19 19:58:44 <Diablo-D3> Im looking straight at it
1280 2010-11-19 19:58:48 <theymos> Yeah. It's not real prioritization - just tiers.
1281 2010-11-19 19:58:51 <Diablo-D3> Ive been looking straight at it for an hour
1282 2010-11-19 19:58:57 <Diablo-D3> straight at it
1283 2010-11-19 19:59:02 <Diablo-D3> and I still dont see the bug
1284 2010-11-19 19:59:18 <nanotube> gavinandresen: ah... well, the latter should be remedied as well
1285 2010-11-19 19:59:45 <nanotube> gavinandresen: as should the former, while we are at it. there really isn't any reason why the client should force .01 rounding on things.
1286 2010-11-19 19:59:50 <gavinandresen> nanotube: that's part of the reason I started the "is it time to move the decimal points" thread on the forum.
1287 2010-11-19 19:59:53 <nanotube> it could /suggest/ it... but not force.
1288 2010-11-19 20:00:46 <theymos> Adding another decimal of precision would be great, but I don't like the idea of "moving the decimal". That's confusing.
1289 2010-11-19 20:00:46 <nanotube> gavinandresen: heh yea saw that one. will post my thoughts on it (that it's not about moving, but about not rounding).
1290 2010-11-19 20:00:49 <Diablo-D3> its not time yet
1291 2010-11-19 20:00:56 <Diablo-D3> I think once we have generated all the coins
1292 2010-11-19 20:00:58 <ArtForz> yeah, current client only understands fees of >= CENT
1293 2010-11-19 20:01:04 <Diablo-D3> then we can move it over four
1294 2010-11-19 20:01:21 <nanotube> gavinandresen: have a link to your thread handy? :)
1295 2010-11-19 20:01:33 <Diablo-D3> not more than four, because we'd still want two places of precision below a cent
1296 2010-11-19 20:01:39 <nanotube> theymos: ++ on that. at least until things get really down in the .0001 = $1
1297 2010-11-19 20:02:07 <gavinandresen> Ah, there it is: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1833.0
1298 2010-11-19 20:02:15 <Diablo-D3> either that
1299 2010-11-19 20:02:16 <Diablo-D3> or move it over 8
1300 2010-11-19 20:02:25 <Diablo-D3> and get rid of precisions below a single coin
1301 2010-11-19 20:02:31 <Diablo-D3> but I dont like that
1302 2010-11-19 20:03:39 <ArtForz> okay, the annoying pinging should be fixed
1303 2010-11-19 20:04:16 <ArtForz> had a < instead of a > in my find-last-communication code
1304 2010-11-19 20:04:51 <ArtForz> so instead of sending a ping if it hasnt heard from anyone or sent to anyone in 10 seconds, it sent a ping every 10 seconds
1305 2010-11-19 20:05:21 AAA_awright_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1306 2010-11-19 20:05:29 * gavinandresen is away for a while
1307 2010-11-19 20:06:23 <jgarzik> yep, pings seem to have quieted again
1308 2010-11-19 20:06:53 AAA_awright has joined
1309 2010-11-19 20:06:53 <ArtForz> why the select-random-node code always selected your node... no clue
1310 2010-11-19 20:07:48 <jgarzik> hehe
1311 2010-11-19 20:08:21 <jgarzik> ArtForz: I wonder what percentage of the network is accepting incoming connections? Plenty are behind NATs and offer only outgoing.
1312 2010-11-19 20:08:29 <nanotube> gavinandresen: posted my thoughts on your thread. :)
1313 2010-11-19 20:08:35 <ArtForz> quite a few I think
1314 2010-11-19 20:08:54 <nanotube> jgarzik: count mine as being behind nat. :)
1315 2010-11-19 20:08:57 * jgarzik would bet that the majority of the network is outgoing-only
1316 2010-11-19 20:09:49 * nanotube would agree
1317 2010-11-19 20:10:37 <ArtForz> I had my python not-a-node run for 24h trying to connect to every addr it saw flying by, mark pass/fail and disconnect again, succeeded for ~200 nodes
1318 2010-11-19 20:10:51 <ArtForz> but that was a few weeks ago
1319 2010-11-19 20:11:35 <theymos> I wonder if I am the only Bitcoin seednode that accepts connections on both the regular network and the testnet.
1320 2010-11-19 20:11:53 <nanotube> ArtForz: 200 out of how many?
1321 2010-11-19 20:12:32 <ArtForz> ...checks
1322 2010-11-19 20:12:51 <ArtForz> 1740
1323 2010-11-19 20:13:06 <nanotube> mmm so... majority it is. :)
1324 2010-11-19 20:13:58 <ArtForz> we should probably add uPnP support to bitcoin
1325 2010-11-19 20:14:14 <jgarzik> satoshi has a weird fascination with port 8333 specifically
1326 2010-11-19 20:14:19 <ArtForz> yeah :/
1327 2010-11-19 20:14:27 <jgarzik> bitcoin could have easily been done without a hardcoded port at all
1328 2010-11-19 20:14:49 <ArtForz> well, a default port is a good idea
1329 2010-11-19 20:14:59 <ArtForz> and limiting to ports >1024 is too
1330 2010-11-19 20:15:40 <ArtForz> but yeah, hardcoding 8333 is imo not too great
1331 2010-11-19 20:15:46 <jgarzik> if you manage to advertise your IPv4 address somewhere on a P2P network, you can advertise a port as well, IMO. agreed about >1024, that's standard practice these days.
1332 2010-11-19 20:16:11 <ArtForz> the fun part is we already broadcast ports
1333 2010-11-19 20:16:17 <jgarzik> yeah :/
1334 2010-11-19 20:16:32 <jgarzik> making 8333 "specialness" even more pointless
1335 2010-11-19 20:16:38 <ArtForz> yep
1336 2010-11-19 20:17:18 <ArtForz> btw, uPnP is a fucking mess
1337 2010-11-19 20:17:23 * jgarzik wonders how many P2P nodes are non-generating
1338 2010-11-19 20:18:18 <Diablo-D3> huh
1339 2010-11-19 20:18:21 <Diablo-D3> I wonder if 2.1 has a boog
1340 2010-11-19 20:18:46 <ArtForz> I doubt it
1341 2010-11-19 20:18:58 <Diablo-D3> how would you know?
1342 2010-11-19 20:19:27 * Diablo-D3 runs the broken miner on 2.2
1343 2010-11-19 20:19:33 <ArtForz> random bug causing you to get each result thrice when you have 3 kernels queued?
1344 2010-11-19 20:19:35 sative has joined
1345 2010-11-19 20:19:40 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: thrice? no
1346 2010-11-19 20:19:46 <sative> hello together =)
1347 2010-11-19 20:19:48 <Diablo-D3> the first results of each kernel is correct
1348 2010-11-19 20:19:52 anomnom has joined
1349 2010-11-19 20:19:58 <Diablo-D3> all further results are the same broken output
1350 2010-11-19 20:20:16 <sative> hi anomnom
1351 2010-11-19 20:20:28 <anomnom> hi
1352 2010-11-19 20:20:32 <ArtForz> hrrrm
1353 2010-11-19 20:20:43 <ArtForz> are you properly mapping/unmapping the output buffer?
1354 2010-11-19 20:21:00 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: not mapping, using enqueue read/write
1355 2010-11-19 20:21:20 <ArtForz> hrrrm
1356 2010-11-19 20:21:38 <ArtForz> so you run the same kernel several times with the same input and get different outputs?
1357 2010-11-19 20:22:12 <Diablo-D3> no
1358 2010-11-19 20:22:39 <Diablo-D3> with different inputs and get same (completely invalid) outputs that repeat the same output
1359 2010-11-19 20:22:49 <ArtForz> ahhh
1360 2010-11-19 20:22:59 <Diablo-D3> after the first one, anyways
1361 2010-11-19 20:24:01 <Diablo-D3> which also explains the stop gen bug
1362 2010-11-19 20:26:40 * Diablo-D3 does more safety checks
1363 2010-11-19 20:27:11 <OneFixt> does m0m's generator have a memory leak? or is it getwork?
1364 2010-11-19 20:27:29 <Diablo-D3> its probably not a memory leak
1365 2010-11-19 20:27:49 <OneFixt> memory filled up, so I assumed it's a memory leak
1366 2010-11-19 20:27:59 <Diablo-D3> oh eww
1367 2010-11-19 20:28:19 <OneFixt> bitcoind ate the memory
1368 2010-11-19 20:28:38 <Diablo-D3> probably a getwork fuckup
1369 2010-11-19 20:28:53 <OneFixt> has there been a fix for that, or any idea why it's going on?
1370 2010-11-19 20:29:17 <Diablo-D3> my bitcoind is using only 8 megs
1371 2010-11-19 20:29:21 <Diablo-D3> and Im using newest svn
1372 2010-11-19 20:29:47 <jgarzik> ERROR: ConnectInputs() : a4ff9fdf29 mapTransactions prev not found be6e8ac9d7
1373 2010-11-19 20:29:47 <jgarzik> ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool() : ConnectInputs failed a4ff9fdf29
1374 2010-11-19 20:29:54 <OneFixt> hmm ok, thanks
1375 2010-11-19 20:29:54 <jgarzik> is that the overflow TX from way back when?
1376 2010-11-19 20:30:00 <brocktice> It's been a problem in bitcoind
1377 2010-11-19 20:30:10 <brocktice> Others have said they see it starting with 0.3.13
1378 2010-11-19 20:30:12 <brocktice> And without getwork
1379 2010-11-19 20:30:25 <brocktice> I have a cron job on my miner that restarts bitcoind periodically
1380 2010-11-19 20:30:58 <OneFixt> Thanks, I'll do that for now
1381 2010-11-19 20:33:34 <jgarzik> block 92902 had an impressive 332 transactions in it, and no fees: http://theymos.ath.cx:64150/bbe/block/0000000000046098704d86a73a27f681aeb2285e24753a8aac9369ecb5ca496f
1382 2010-11-19 20:34:01 <theymos> jgarzik: I don't know if that's one of the overflow transactions, but that also happens in spam situations because transactions don't propagate as well as they need to.
1383 2010-11-19 20:35:56 <ArtForz> 92902 was 74kB
1384 2010-11-19 20:37:55 <xelister_> bitcoin net is spamed?
1385 2010-11-19 20:38:01 <ArtForz> yes
1386 2010-11-19 20:39:12 <nanotube> now here's a question... why is a tx with from and to addresses the same even allowed?
1387 2010-11-19 20:39:16 <nanotube> it doesn't /do/ anything...
1388 2010-11-19 20:39:37 <nanotube> (of course, it doesn't help spam, since a person can tx between two separate addresses both belonging to self... but still)
1389 2010-11-19 20:39:48 <theymos> It's useful for splitting or merging coins.
1390 2010-11-19 20:40:41 <ArtForz> I think "prioritise by fee and hashcash" is a neat idea
1391 2010-11-19 20:41:45 <Kiba> hmm
1392 2010-11-19 20:42:17 <xelister_> ArtForz: what is effect of this spam on mining, btc value, etc?
1393 2010-11-19 20:42:36 <ArtForz> it doesnt affect my miners hashrate in the slightest
1394 2010-11-19 20:42:59 <ByteCoin> Well, if the effect is that legit transactions pay fees it's a net +ve to miners
1395 2010-11-19 20:43:16 <ArtForz> except it doesnt
1396 2010-11-19 20:43:23 <ByteCoin> yet
1397 2010-11-19 20:43:29 <ArtForz> legit TX with decent value get priority anyways
1398 2010-11-19 20:44:20 <ByteCoin> My basic point is that miners are incentivized to force people to pay fees
1399 2010-11-19 20:45:08 <ArtForz> yes
1400 2010-11-19 20:45:14 <jgarzik> sure. and de-incentivized by competition to get the block.
1401 2010-11-19 20:45:18 <ByteCoin> I think that's somethig xelister would like to know...
1402 2010-11-19 20:45:38 <ArtForz> at the same time it's a stupid move as fees discourage further growth
1403 2010-11-19 20:45:44 <ByteCoin> jgarzik: Explain? I think you're wrong#
1404 2010-11-19 20:46:13 <ArtForz> we usually have well < 10 legit TX/block
1405 2010-11-19 20:46:17 <ByteCoin> True but that's like saying banking fraud is stupid as it harms the national economy.
1406 2010-11-19 20:46:18 * Kiba have problems with mybitcoin's featureless system
1407 2010-11-19 20:46:29 <ArtForz> so the "incentive" is 50 vs 50.1 BTC
1408 2010-11-19 20:46:41 <jgarzik> until TX fees exceed per-block reward, you might as well crank out blocks as fast as possible
1409 2010-11-19 20:46:52 <ArtForz> = a whopping 0.2%
1410 2010-11-19 20:47:19 <ByteCoin> Yes. Artforz. It's more of a theoretical incentive at the moment but I think you'd concede that it's actually correct
1411 2010-11-19 20:47:41 <jgarzik> theymos: would be interesting if BBE front page showed total fees per block
1412 2010-11-19 20:48:00 <ArtForz> it's still WAY off in the future though
1413 2010-11-19 20:48:09 <Kiba> there's no way to set price from the formbuilder
1414 2010-11-19 20:48:12 <jgarzik> in a network where all miners are colluding, rather than competing, sure they'd love high TX fees
1415 2010-11-19 20:48:21 <Kiba> from mybitcoin merchant builder...
1416 2010-11-19 20:48:37 <ArtForz> and thats not really likely
1417 2010-11-19 20:48:50 <ByteCoin> I agree in theory Artforz but then I might have imagined that any sort of spam would be way in future
1418 2010-11-19 20:49:01 <ArtForz> nah, not really
1419 2010-11-19 20:49:17 <ArtForz> spam is *always* a problem in a broadcast network
1420 2010-11-19 20:49:17 <ByteCoin> jgarzik there is an incentive for miners to collude as you can see
1421 2010-11-19 20:50:00 <ByteCoin> It's always a problem but there's no financial incentive at the moment.... so why does it happen?
1422 2010-11-19 20:50:11 <xelister_> collude?
1423 2010-11-19 20:50:53 <theymos> jgarzik: Maybe in a later version. I'd have to put it in the blocks table, since I currently loop through all transactions to get the fee, and this is too slow for the main page.
1424 2010-11-19 20:51:07 <ByteCoin> It's complex to explain xelister.
1425 2010-11-19 20:51:54 <Kiba> ByteCoin: there are incentives for miners to break their collusion
1426 2010-11-19 20:52:12 <ByteCoin> Kiba: Cool! Hit me with it
1427 2010-11-19 20:52:37 <Kiba> a miner could gain more at the expense of other miners if he set the price lower and collect moar and moar
1428 2010-11-19 20:52:58 <Kiba> this is what happen to the oil cartel
1429 2010-11-19 20:53:21 <Kiba> "Ok, I will set my fee juuuuuuuuust a little bit lower"
1430 2010-11-19 20:53:26 * jgarzik certainly agrees that collusion is a theoretical possibility, incentives do exist. Natural in all similar human-based systems.
1431 2010-11-19 20:53:50 <ByteCoin> Kiba: Obviously unfeed transactions would be excluded.
1432 2010-11-19 20:53:54 <Kiba> incentive to deflect
1433 2010-11-19 20:54:12 <ArtForz> deflect?
1434 2010-11-19 20:55:01 <jgarzik> counter-incentives exist as well: with the chaotic nature of open source, the cost of market entry for new players is low at present. the community would react strongly, I think. the income from TX fees is low enough -at present- as to be negligible.
1435 2010-11-19 20:55:30 <ByteCoin> Kiba: Couldn't the majority of the miners in collusion punish the undercutting miner by refusing to accept the block?
1436 2010-11-19 20:55:42 <jgarzik> eventually we'll all be paying TX fees, sooner or later. and competition to get -some- fee (at lower prices) versus no fee kicks in.
1437 2010-11-19 20:55:59 <Kiba> ByteCoin: an interesting idea.
1438 2010-11-19 20:56:04 <brocktice> defect
1439 2010-11-19 20:56:07 <Kiba> but then people could set up their own
1440 2010-11-19 20:56:12 <jgarzik> ByteCoin: the tyranny of the majority exists no matter what :)
1441 2010-11-19 20:56:18 <ArtForz> yep
1442 2010-11-19 20:56:20 <ByteCoin> The colluding miners make a longer chain and the undercutting miner loses the coinbase. A high price to pay
1443 2010-11-19 20:56:30 <jgarzik> ByteCoin: if >50% of network want nuclear war, you got nuclear war.
1444 2010-11-19 20:56:45 <ByteCoin> That's why you need to engineer incentives that can't be scammed.
1445 2010-11-19 20:56:58 <ByteCoin> I don't think that throwing up our hands is the right idea
1446 2010-11-19 20:57:07 <Kiba> incentives may matters, but nothing is going to be perfect.
1447 2010-11-19 20:57:43 <ByteCoin> Bitcoin has perfect accounting. How can we have that then?
1448 2010-11-19 20:57:53 <ByteCoin> At least perfect in theory
1449 2010-11-19 20:59:53 <jgarzik> at >50%, you can double-spend and money itself is worthless
1450 2010-11-19 21:00:00 <Kiba> The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they know about what they imagine they can design.
1451 2010-11-19 21:00:12 <brocktice> Alright, Hayek
1452 2010-11-19 21:00:15 <ByteCoin> Kiba: Nice!
1453 2010-11-19 21:01:06 <Kiba> at least here, we are not dumb lawyers with little understanding of economics
1454 2010-11-19 21:01:14 <ByteCoin> jgarzik: Double spending is detectable by anyone really and hence it would be unpopular...
1455 2010-11-19 21:01:24 <ByteCoin> I won't say it won't happen though...
1456 2010-11-19 21:01:35 <Kiba> there are people who want to destroy bitcoins.
1457 2010-11-19 21:01:44 <jgarzik> users will observe behavior of TX fees quite closely
1458 2010-11-19 21:01:48 <Kiba> mainly the government, and the other payment company. IE, paypal.
1459 2010-11-19 21:01:53 <jgarzik> also detectable and unpopular :)
1460 2010-11-19 21:02:35 <ByteCoin> Miner collusion enforcement is probably deniable...
1461 2010-11-19 21:02:50 <ByteCoin> It also apparently only hurts the punished miner
1462 2010-11-19 21:02:56 <Kiba> The principle of voluntarism is not only pervasive throughout the design of the bitcoin network, but it is the reality of bitcoin.
1463 2010-11-19 21:03:10 <ByteCoin> So less likely than double spending to cause outcry
1464 2010-11-19 21:03:29 <ByteCoin> Kiba: True but only at the moment
1465 2010-11-19 21:03:58 <Kiba> well, government would co-adopt bitcoins?
1466 2010-11-19 21:04:13 <ByteCoin> I think you'll agree that the design is based on as little trust as possible
1467 2010-11-19 21:05:34 <ByteCoin> Kiba: Far too early to worry about what a govenment might try to do when the current implementation is having trouble from a spotty teenager spamming from a couple of rubbish PCs
1468 2010-11-19 21:06:20 <Kiba> lol.
1469 2010-11-19 21:06:20 <gavinandresen> ByteCoin: why do you say the current implementation is "having trouble" ? I agree resources are being wasted, but is the spam really having a tangible effect on anybody?
1470 2010-11-19 21:06:33 <ArtForz> nope
1471 2010-11-19 21:07:00 <ByteCoin> gavin: You're mostly right..
1472 2010-11-19 21:07:31 <ArtForz> I think limiting size of tx and orphan cache is a good idea
1473 2010-11-19 21:07:35 <ByteCoin> But if it ramped up then memory usage would go high
1474 2010-11-19 21:07:40 <ArtForz> yep
1475 2010-11-19 21:08:02 <ByteCoin> I think people are sensitive to how big the block chain gets.
1476 2010-11-19 21:08:15 <Kiba> speedier internet and bigger drives...no problem
1477 2010-11-19 21:08:36 <ArtForz> 50kB every 10 min
1478 2010-11-19 21:09:03 <ByteCoin> Perhaps I'm worried that it shows that there's someone motivated to throw a spanner in the works even at this early stage
1479 2010-11-19 21:09:15 <ArtForz> ever heard of griefers?
1480 2010-11-19 21:09:15 <theymos> I'm surprised it took so long.
1481 2010-11-19 21:09:17 <ArtForz> so.. ~ 7MB/day
1482 2010-11-19 21:09:33 <gavinandresen> griefers are a fact of life.
1483 2010-11-19 21:09:54 <ByteCoin> Bitcoin was not designed to cope elegantly with griefers
1484 2010-11-19 21:10:00 <xelister_> ArtForz: why someone would gried bitcoin project?
1485 2010-11-19 21:10:02 <ArtForz> I think I can live with 2.5GB/year or so
1486 2010-11-19 21:10:18 <ArtForz> xelister: for the lolz?
1487 2010-11-19 21:10:33 <Kiba> griefing allows us to check the integrity of the network
1488 2010-11-19 21:10:36 <xelister_> they should btc buy themselves some weed instead
1489 2010-11-19 21:10:40 <gavinandresen> xelister: because they can
1490 2010-11-19 21:10:43 <ArtForz> yep
1491 2010-11-19 21:10:48 <Kiba> and work it out so the bitcoin economy doesn't crash
1492 2010-11-19 21:10:57 * jgarzik hopes this episode encourages effort on ancient-transaction garbage collection
1493 2010-11-19 21:10:57 <ByteCoin> So gavin, to put my mind at rest are you saying that if the current level of grief continued with a modest rise indefinitely it would not harm Bitcoin at all?
1494 2010-11-19 21:11:10 <xelister_> jgarzik: indeed
1495 2010-11-19 21:11:34 <xelister_> we should say each 3 months release next version that will hardcode some block from 3 months ago as new root, and all before can be forgotten, right?
1496 2010-11-19 21:11:35 <jgarzik> seems manageable, if cache sizes are limited
1497 2010-11-19 21:11:43 <Kiba> it would really help if there are more coders who can help review the scaiblity and the security of the bitcoin network
1498 2010-11-19 21:11:53 <gavinandresen> ByteCoin: I don't know, I'd have to think about it harder than I'm willing to think this late on a Friday afternoon....
1499 2010-11-19 21:11:54 <ArtForz> with the current limits, free transactions in the block chain are limited to ~2.5GB/year
1500 2010-11-19 21:12:11 <xelister_> although.. if someone creates 100000 accounts and distribute 0.01 BTc to each we would have to hold finall status of this transactions (info about such accounts)
1501 2010-11-19 21:12:14 <ByteCoin> Gavin: Thanks for the honest answer.
1502 2010-11-19 21:12:16 <xelister_> well but cost is fine here
1503 2010-11-19 21:12:24 <gavinandresen> ByteCoin: But in general the best way to deal with griefers is to just quietly fix whatever chinks in your system they've decided to try to bang at.
1504 2010-11-19 21:12:24 <wumpus> transaction garbage collection would be great indeed, it makes no sense to keep storing everything from time 0 forever
1505 2010-11-19 21:13:04 <jgarzik> everything spent && height < 74000
1506 2010-11-19 21:13:15 <ByteCoin> As long as the fixing doesn't introduce more holes ..,. you can see where I'm going with this
1507 2010-11-19 21:13:28 <ByteCoin> You have to fix it the right way to avoid problems down the line
1508 2010-11-19 21:13:37 <ByteCoin> When you're in a rush it's not easy
1509 2010-11-19 21:13:46 <theymos> If spent transaction removal is ever implemented, there should be an option to keep them (for historical interest).
1510 2010-11-19 21:14:07 <wumpus> indeed, it should be an option to keep them
1511 2010-11-19 21:14:14 <wumpus> but new clients shouldn't be forced to download everything imo
1512 2010-11-19 21:14:43 <jgarzik> option yes... but what happens if there is nothing to remember? ie. you connect, and only find compacted nodes
1513 2010-11-19 21:15:08 <xelister_> btw
1514 2010-11-19 21:15:13 <ByteCoin> jgarzik: That means all the coins have disappeared into thin air.
1515 2010-11-19 21:15:14 <xelister_> what happens with small changes
1516 2010-11-19 21:15:25 <wumpus> in the current system that would indeed be a problem
1517 2010-11-19 21:15:28 <xelister_> i.e. now the RULE change, taht we say 0.02 BTC for each transaction say < 1.5 BTC now
1518 2010-11-19 21:15:38 <xelister_> what then? new version of bitcoind comes out
1519 2010-11-19 21:15:44 <xelister_> some people update, some do not. what now?
1520 2010-11-19 21:16:00 <ArtForz> easy
1521 2010-11-19 21:16:05 <wumpus> that would come scarily close to centralized monetary policy
1522 2010-11-19 21:16:10 <jgarzik> xelister_: satoshi sez, http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366
1523 2010-11-19 21:16:20 <ByteCoin> xelister: Software versioning tends to be a complex issue with subtle problems
1524 2010-11-19 21:16:20 <xelister_> i.e. in Freenet changes is protocol are handling by noting what is latest-good-version for given date
1525 2010-11-19 21:16:28 <xelister_> indeed
1526 2010-11-19 21:16:32 <xelister_> decentralized bitcoin
1527 2010-11-19 21:16:37 <xelister_> and decentralized freenet btw
1528 2010-11-19 21:16:48 <xelister_> have still 1 central point - the developer setting protocol
1529 2010-11-19 21:16:51 <jgarzik> rule changes are easy... as long as the majority agrees and continues to upgrade
1530 2010-11-19 21:17:07 <xelister_> even if we would decentralize seed nodes and write own implementation
1531 2010-11-19 21:17:14 <xelister_> sounds good jgarzik
1532 2010-11-19 21:17:24 <xelister_> otherwise bitcoind would split to two incompatible "bitcoin" projects
1533 2010-11-19 21:17:27 <ArtForz> just roll it out slowly
1534 2010-11-19 21:17:33 <jgarzik> and well in advance
1535 2010-11-19 21:17:36 <wumpus> indeed, the developer should set protocol, not policy on fees
1536 2010-11-19 21:17:37 <xelister_> with othe reules, then resulting in other tree of transactions perhaps
1537 2010-11-19 21:17:47 <wumpus> otherwise we can call mr satoshi dear leader :P
1538 2010-11-19 21:18:30 <jgarzik> satoshi came up with magic numbers out of thin air, and we collectively support that leadership :)
1539 2010-11-19 21:18:57 <wumpus> true
1540 2010-11-19 21:19:29 <ArtForz> but then, so far those magic numbers made sense
1541 2010-11-19 21:20:14 <jgarzik> sure. the minute satoshi does something crazy and not supported by the community, is the moment the protocol/codebase is truly forked.
1542 2010-11-19 21:20:18 <ByteCoin> Flood stopped as of 15 minutes ago?
1543 2010-11-19 21:20:40 <ArtForz> no, still going on
1544 2010-11-19 21:20:40 <jgarzik> ByteCoin: I'm still seeing incoming
1545 2010-11-19 21:20:53 <ByteCoin> Slowed then for some reason.
1546 2010-11-19 21:21:21 <ByteCoin> They're not packing out the blocks...
1547 2010-11-19 21:21:32 <ByteCoin> Have you guys made changes?
1548 2010-11-19 21:21:44 <jgarzik> sometimes a miner just solves a block very quickly, with zero TXs
1549 2010-11-19 21:21:54 <jgarzik> that doesn't mean the TX cache is empty necessarily
1550 2010-11-19 21:22:09 <ArtForz> we have a few miners not including any TX ever
1551 2010-11-19 21:22:36 <ByteCoin> Yeah, ok 3 blocks in about 2 minutes
1552 2010-11-19 21:22:46 <ArtForz> not to mention restarting a miner right now means pretty much 0 of the spam TX will get in a block it finds
1553 2010-11-19 21:23:10 <ArtForz> rmemeber the originating node waits 30-60 min before resedning a TX that didnt make it into a lbock
1554 2010-11-19 21:23:30 <ArtForz> and they've building a huge chain of tx not-yet-in-a-block
1555 2010-11-19 21:23:38 <ByteCoin> Artforz that can be "fixed" from the point of view of the spammer
1556 2010-11-19 21:23:45 <ArtForz> no it cant
1557 2010-11-19 21:24:03 <ArtForz> nodes wont forward a TX they already have in cache
1558 2010-11-19 21:24:16 <ByteCoin> Spammer connects directly?
1559 2010-11-19 21:24:27 <ArtForz> to who?
1560 2010-11-19 21:24:37 <ByteCoin> To everyone. at least all the miners.
1561 2010-11-19 21:24:50 <ByteCoin> I imagine miners can be identified over a period of time
1562 2010-11-19 21:25:06 <ArtForz> yeah, but it wont be easy
1563 2010-11-19 21:25:11 <sative> is there a console based version of bitcoin ?
1564 2010-11-19 21:25:20 <ArtForz> bitcoind
1565 2010-11-19 21:25:36 <jgarzik> you'd have to connect to lots of nodes, and monitor timings very closely, to deduce probably origins of TX's or blocks
1566 2010-11-19 21:25:37 <ByteCoin> Ok artforz. I take your point.
1567 2010-11-19 21:25:55 <ArtForz> jgarzik: yep
1568 2010-11-19 21:26:11 <ByteCoin> I initially wondered if the spam might be a tactic to identify miners
1569 2010-11-19 21:26:16 <ArtForz> nah
1570 2010-11-19 21:26:16 <ByteCoin> I had a post half written
1571 2010-11-19 21:26:31 <ArtForz> spam used to slow down miners before m0 fixed getwork
1572 2010-11-19 21:26:50 <Diablo-D3> maybe it was intentionally used for that purpose?
1573 2010-11-19 21:27:12 <ArtForz> I'd say... yeah
1574 2010-11-19 21:28:12 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: btw, Ive tracked down the bug
1575 2010-11-19 21:28:14 <ArtForz> I'm pretty sure we have plenty of ex large-scale cpu miners pissed off at the gpuists
1576 2010-11-19 21:28:15 <Diablo-D3> its not in the opencl host code
1577 2010-11-19 21:28:46 <ByteCoin> What's the incentive for miners to incorporate transactions into the block I wonder. They could essentially refuse incoming connections and still hash away.
1578 2010-11-19 21:28:54 <Diablo-D3> Attempt 38179114 4:18:14 PM 93 246 224 226 118 19 89 211 10 130 117 5 142 41 159 204 3 129 83 69 69 245 92 244 62 65 152 63 93 76 148 86
1579 2010-11-19 21:28:54 <Diablo-D3> Attempt 40226929 4:20:03 PM 93 246 224 226 118 19 89 211 10 130 117 5 142 41 159 204 3 129 83 69 69 245 92 244 62 65 152 63 93 76 148 86
1580 2010-11-19 21:28:54 <Diablo-D3> Attempt 57609215 4:20:58 PM 93 246 224 226 118 19 89 211 10 130 117 5 142 41 159 204 3 129 83 69 69 245 92 244 62 65 152 63 93 76 148 86
1581 2010-11-19 21:29:04 <Diablo-D3> that first number before the time is the output from the miner
1582 2010-11-19 21:29:18 <ArtForz> erm, ok?
1583 2010-11-19 21:29:37 <Diablo-D3> it has to be in the host sha code
1584 2010-11-19 21:29:52 * brocktice does the block dance
1585 2010-11-19 21:29:58 <Diablo-D3> otherwise how can the miner keep outputting different outputs, yet I get the same output from host sha?
1586 2010-11-19 21:30:00 <gavinandresen> sative: the no-graphics console Bitcoin is called 'bitcoind'
1587 2010-11-19 21:30:04 <brocktice> The 5770 still hasn't lost its cherry though
1588 2010-11-19 21:30:41 <ArtForz> Diablo-D3: sounds like a good theory
1589 2010-11-19 21:31:38 xelister_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1590 2010-11-19 21:31:59 xelister has joined
1591 2010-11-19 21:33:11 <Diablo-D3> I bet I'm not resetting it properly somewhere
1592 2010-11-19 21:33:35 <ArtForz> probably
1593 2010-11-19 21:34:14 <ArtForz> looks like my min-fee-requirement code is slightly buggy
1594 2010-11-19 21:34:54 <ArtForz> it should at least allow one 0.01 TX in
1595 2010-11-19 21:37:23 <xelister> who gets the fee?
1596 2010-11-19 21:37:44 <ArtForz> me
1597 2010-11-19 21:38:18 <ArtForz> it's just a experiment to see what happens when a miner ignores a majority of the spam
1598 2010-11-19 21:38:40 <ArtForz> any "normal" TX shouldnt get caught by it
1599 2010-11-19 21:41:06 <Kiba> the nice thing about emacs is that I can do search incremental in my emacs' irc client
1600 2010-11-19 21:42:29 <LobsterMan> ArtForz did you see this?
1601 2010-11-19 21:42:29 <LobsterMan> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1334.260
1602 2010-11-19 21:42:29 <LobsterMan> apparently lost blocks are "normal" and that shit that was happening with me on testnet testerday is not uncommon
1603 2010-11-19 21:43:05 <ArtForz> ver yunliekly on TEST
1604 2010-11-19 21:43:16 <ArtForz> you were the only decent generator at that time
1605 2010-11-19 21:43:29 <LobsterMan> one dude said
1606 2010-11-19 21:43:29 <LobsterMan> "that's just one of those ~10% "lost blocks",
1607 2010-11-19 21:43:29 <LobsterMan> your miner finds one, your client checks the network, network tells your client it's to late.
1608 2010-11-19 21:43:29 <LobsterMan> within the last weeks i'v been able to "find" 50hashes, only 45 of them have been accepted/shown up in the client-gui/generating coins.
1609 2010-11-19 21:43:29 <LobsterMan> get used to it."
1610 2010-11-19 21:43:46 <ArtForz> without a GPU miner active TEST only has ~2.5Mh/s
1611 2010-11-19 21:44:10 <ArtForz> 10% is WAY high for test
1612 2010-11-19 21:44:12 <ByteCoin> I've already posted about this! For 10% of blocks to be lost the propagation time would have to be about 1 minute!
1613 2010-11-19 21:44:33 <ByteCoin> Shurely shome mishtake
1614 2010-11-19 21:44:34 <ArtForz> I think currently test only finds a block every hour or so
1615 2010-11-19 21:44:44 <Diablo-D3> dont call me Shurley!
1616 2010-11-19 21:44:53 <LobsterMan> on testnet i was finding a block every few minutes
1617 2010-11-19 21:45:02 <ArtForz> http://theymos.ath.cx:64150/testnet/bbe/
1618 2010-11-19 21:45:10 <LobsterMan> sometimes they would show up in bitcoin immediately, sometimes they would after some delay, and sometimes not at all
1619 2010-11-19 21:45:17 <ArtForz> check out the block times, guess when a GPU miner was active
1620 2010-11-19 21:45:52 <LobsterMan> when thee are high numbers of transactions?
1621 2010-11-19 21:45:56 <ArtForz> nope
1622 2010-11-19 21:46:07 <ByteCoin> There's something strange going on. No way should 10% of blocks get lost
1623 2010-11-19 21:46:09 <ArtForz> single GPU miner = block every few minutes
1624 2010-11-19 21:46:22 * Diablo-D3 thinks hes fixed his code
1625 2010-11-19 21:46:23 <ArtForz> it sounds WAy too high
1626 2010-11-19 21:46:28 <LobsterMan> ByteCoin....i'm inclined to agree
1627 2010-11-19 21:46:38 <ArtForz> latency for getwork is 5 sec
1628 2010-11-19 21:46:48 <ArtForz> 5/600 = 0.8%
1629 2010-11-19 21:46:51 <ByteCoin> What's that measuring
1630 2010-11-19 21:47:04 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: its really 5 seconds?!
1631 2010-11-19 21:47:06 <ByteCoin> latency from where to where?
1632 2010-11-19 21:47:16 <Diablo-D3> Started at Nov 19, 2010 4:36:42 PM
1633 2010-11-19 21:47:16 <Diablo-D3> Attempt 29140640 4:37:42 PM 182 70 12 27 228 16 91 0 183 251 105 138 93 117 165 26 163 188 69 114 31 87 12 91 65 109 166 89 0 0 0 0
1634 2010-11-19 21:47:16 <Diablo-D3> Attempt 97211695 4:38:29 PM 61 169 169 229 24 121 218 72 224 245 142 237 37 253 254 186 182 48 40 31 85 11 162 89 30 4 186 19 0 0 0 0
1635 2010-11-19 21:47:16 <Diablo-D3> Block 1 found on ATI RV770 at 4:38:29 PM
1636 2010-11-19 21:47:17 <Diablo-D3> Attempt 81429413 4:38:38 PM 220 84 253 94 65 60 78 124 188 18 198 70 73 216 6 215 5 218 82 185 29 149 175 188 226 224 163 69 0 0 0 0
1637 2010-11-19 21:47:20 <ArtForz> roughly the probability of finding a block while the network haws already found one
1638 2010-11-19 21:47:20 <Diablo-D3> Attempt 15544213 4:39:29 PM 248 165 218 173 215 56 216 119 217 97 13 239 18 0 112 6 59 37 119 250 132 46 113 44 121 155 87 25 0 0 0 0
1639 2010-11-19 21:47:23 <Diablo-D3> Block 2 found on ATI RV770 at 4:39:29 PM
1640 2010-11-19 21:47:25 <Diablo-D3> WHAHAH!
1641 2010-11-19 21:47:34 <ArtForz> looks fixed
1642 2010-11-19 21:47:51 <Diablo-D3> well in theory its fixed
1643 2010-11-19 21:47:59 <ArtForz> m0s grabs a new chunk of work every 10 sec
1644 2010-11-19 21:48:08 <ByteCoin> You miners need to have a direct connection to each other to stop treading on each other's toes!
1645 2010-11-19 21:48:13 <Diablo-D3> are you SURE m0 grabs every 10 seconds?
1646 2010-11-19 21:48:26 <Diablo-D3> ByteCoin: no, getwork manages that
1647 2010-11-19 21:49:03 <ArtForz> 5 seconds
1648 2010-11-19 21:49:18 <ArtForz> askrate defaults to 5 sec
1649 2010-11-19 21:49:38 <brocktice> yeah it's 5
1650 2010-11-19 21:50:00 <ArtForz> still unlikely as hell
1651 2010-11-19 21:50:02 <brocktice> and my prediction about price vs. difficulty is so far correct
1652 2010-11-19 21:50:09 <ArtForz> so it's 2.5 sec
1653 2010-11-19 21:50:13 <brocktice> though I don't know whether it's deue to difficulty or not
1654 2010-11-19 21:50:16 <brocktice> *due
1655 2010-11-19 21:50:17 <ArtForz> = < 0.5% probability on main
1656 2010-11-19 21:50:17 <Kiba> trading is rather slow...today
1657 2010-11-19 21:50:31 <brocktice> Kiba: I dunno, I've seen a steady stream of trades in -market
1658 2010-11-19 21:50:34 <ArtForz> and pretty damn close to 0 if you're running a GPU on TEST
1659 2010-11-19 21:50:39 <brocktice> Not large, but trades
1660 2010-11-19 21:50:48 <Kiba> brocktice: 29 trades
1661 2010-11-19 21:50:52 <Kiba> for mtgox
1662 2010-11-19 21:50:55 <Kiba> that's half of ysterday
1663 2010-11-19 21:51:07 <ArtForz> volume of 2158
1664 2010-11-19 21:51:08 <brocktice> It's friday
1665 2010-11-19 21:51:15 <brocktice> people are out drinking beers at happy hour instead of trading
1666 2010-11-19 21:51:26 <ByteCoin> I think there must be some sort of bug that prevents new blocks propagating properly.
1667 2010-11-19 21:51:27 <brocktice> Well, it's friday here anyway
1668 2010-11-19 21:51:33 <brocktice> Elsewhere it's already Saturday
1669 2010-11-19 21:51:38 <LobsterMan> ByteCoin:
1670 2010-11-19 21:51:41 <LobsterMan> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1851.msg
1671 2010-11-19 21:51:43 <LobsterMan> :P
1672 2010-11-19 21:51:50 <LobsterMan> feel free to comment
1673 2010-11-19 21:52:22 <ArtForz> and yes, new block doersnt show up in UI until it gets at least 1 confirmation (= it's at 2/unconf)
1674 2010-11-19 21:52:35 <LobsterMan> ArtForz i've had blocks show up right away
1675 2010-11-19 21:52:41 <LobsterMan> as 0/unconf
1676 2010-11-19 21:52:55 <ArtForz> a coinbase can never be 0/unconf
1677 2010-11-19 21:53:02 <ByteCoin> Artforz: That's papering over the cracks... I don't approve
1678 2010-11-19 21:53:06 <ArtForz> it's own block is the 1st conf
1679 2010-11-19 21:53:15 <LobsterMan> do i need to take more screenshots?
1680 2010-11-19 21:53:16 <LobsterMan> :P
1681 2010-11-19 21:53:37 <ArtForz> nah, I *know* the UI transaction log is buggy
1682 2010-11-19 21:54:09 <LobsterMan> but that still doesn't really account for blocks being "lost" does it?
1683 2010-11-19 21:54:13 <ArtForz> nope
1684 2010-11-19 21:54:14 <ByteCoin> Lobsterman: I won't comment first on your post. I already have a lot of posts on the board which I'm the last contributor
1685 2010-11-19 21:54:21 <LobsterMan> :P
1686 2010-11-19 21:54:30 <ArtForz> ByteCoin: my best guess is something in getwork
1687 2010-11-19 21:54:34 <ByteCoin> I'll chip in in a bit
1688 2010-11-19 21:54:51 <ArtForz> I log found blocks in the miner, too
1689 2010-11-19 21:54:51 <ByteCoin> Artforz; Getwork is not in the main client yes?
1690 2010-11-19 21:54:55 <ArtForz> yep
1691 2010-11-19 21:55:03 <ByteCoin> It's something special for you GPU guys
1692 2010-11-19 21:55:13 <ArtForz> and I *know* I'm losing way < 1% of generations
1693 2010-11-19 21:55:34 <LobsterMan> interesting........
1694 2010-11-19 21:55:44 <ArtForz> so it's not a problem in the general client
1695 2010-11-19 21:55:48 <ByteCoin> So you're losing LESS than 1%...
1696 2010-11-19 21:55:53 <ArtForz> yes
1697 2010-11-19 21:56:05 <ArtForz> about 1 in 500
1698 2010-11-19 21:56:13 <ByteCoin> But you're not using the general client.. so how do you exclude the general client
1699 2010-11-19 21:56:39 <LobsterMan> are lost blocks due to high frequency generation or just an overall problem?
1700 2010-11-19 21:56:43 <ByteCoin> How many nodes do you connect to?
1701 2010-11-19 21:56:47 <ArtForz> because my code is pretty much 100% original client with the core of miner replaced with a network server
1702 2010-11-19 21:57:06 <ByteCoin> Artforz but you use getwork?
1703 2010-11-19 21:57:10 <ArtForz> no
1704 2010-11-19 21:57:13 <ByteCoin> Ok
1705 2010-11-19 21:57:17 <ArtForz> I use my own custom miner
1706 2010-11-19 21:57:28 <ByteCoin> How many nodes? I bet it's lots...
1707 2010-11-19 21:57:37 <ArtForz> my best guess is getwork is doing something different-from-mainline for add-new-block-to-wallet-and-kick-the-broadcast
1708 2010-11-19 21:57:47 <ArtForz> currently... 17
1709 2010-11-19 21:57:55 <ByteCoin> hmmm...
1710 2010-11-19 21:58:23 <ByteCoin> Satoshi gave me the impression that mainline code block loss of 10% was "normal"
1711 2010-11-19 21:58:31 <ByteCoin> I find this surprising.
1712 2010-11-19 21:58:33 <ArtForz> no
1713 2010-11-19 21:58:55 <ArtForz> 10% would mean block propagation times of >60s avg
1714 2010-11-19 21:59:06 <ByteCoin> I can quote the section in the client code if you don't believe me Artforz
1715 2010-11-19 21:59:43 <theymos> The comment might have been meant for the future, larger network.
1716 2010-11-19 22:00:13 <ByteCoin> It's ui.cpp. Search for 10%
1717 2010-11-19 22:00:37 <ByteCoin> Theymos: No reason to think that the comment doesn't apply now.
1718 2010-11-19 22:01:03 <ArtForz> *changes comment to say 100%* *hey, why are people still finding blocks*
1719 2010-11-19 22:01:10 <theymos> There is a reason. It's clearly not true.
1720 2010-11-19 22:01:23 <ArtForz> "..., like 10% or more, ..."
1721 2010-11-19 22:01:35 <ByteCoin> If clearly then you should be able to convince me easily
1722 2010-11-19 22:01:40 <ArtForz> so, like, it's, like, if we have, like, one minute latency
1723 2010-11-19 22:02:00 <ArtForz> it's fucking glaring obvious
1724 2010-11-19 22:02:06 Teppy has left ()
1725 2010-11-19 22:02:09 <ByteCoin> Well the fact that it's poisson distributed changes the figures somewhat
1726 2010-11-19 22:02:13 <ArtForz> if reality doesn't agree with your theory, your theory is flawed
1727 2010-11-19 22:02:27 <ArtForz> and 8/4000 != 400/4000
1728 2010-11-19 22:02:46 astaroth has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1729 2010-11-19 22:02:49 <ByteCoin> But as a first approximation your figure is what I assumed
1730 2010-11-19 22:02:53 Teppy has joined
1731 2010-11-19 22:04:07 <ArtForz> 8/4000 = 0.2% = 1.2/600
1732 2010-11-19 22:04:15 <Kiba> is there a way to calculate on-the-fly the bitcoin price equalivent to a fixed dollar?
1733 2010-11-19 22:04:22 <ByteCoin> theymos; You have quoted that section with the 10% figure as a justification for not increasing the block rate. You said that the limiting factor is the rate of lost blocks
1734 2010-11-19 22:04:29 <ArtForz> it is
1735 2010-11-19 22:04:41 <ByteCoin> This implied you agreed with satoshi's figure
1736 2010-11-19 22:04:47 <ArtForz> no
1737 2010-11-19 22:05:26 <ArtForz> when the network grows latency will increase
1738 2010-11-19 22:05:56 <ByteCoin> It only has to increase with the log of the number of nodes
1739 2010-11-19 22:06:25 <ByteCoin> That's a very slow increase
1740 2010-11-19 22:06:26 <ArtForz> afair the freenet devs have some papers on avg hops in a randomly connected graph
1741 2010-11-19 22:06:52 <ArtForz> it's not strictly log(#nodes)
1742 2010-11-19 22:07:08 <ByteCoin> well consider that each node is in a binary tree so it has 3 connections.
1743 2010-11-19 22:07:28 <ArtForz> except it's not a binary tree
1744 2010-11-19 22:07:31 <ByteCoin> The max hops is proportional to the log of the numer of nodes
1745 2010-11-19 22:07:54 <ByteCoin> As you have more connections, the number of hops decreases
1746 2010-11-19 22:08:00 <ArtForz> yes
1747 2010-11-19 22:09:25 <ArtForz> decrease block times by some factor and you increase % of lost blocks by a similar factor
1748 2010-11-19 22:09:45 <ArtForz> increase latency by some factor, you increase % of lost blocks by a similar factor
1749 2010-11-19 22:10:46 <ArtForz> one hop should roughly add 50ms + os/network/... latency
1750 2010-11-19 22:10:48 <ByteCoin> "we will show that for certain families of random graphs with given expected degrees, the average distance is almost surely of the order log n / log d where d is the weighted average of the sum of the squares of the expected degrees"
1751 2010-11-19 22:11:24 <ArtForz> sounds right
1752 2010-11-19 22:12:35 <ByteCoin> Anyway, as the network grows, unless we have nodes on the moon or mars the latency will not increase significantly
1753 2010-11-19 22:14:00 <ArtForz> yes
1754 2010-11-19 22:14:09 <ArtForz> well, for large values of significantly
1755 2010-11-19 22:15:38 <ByteCoin> Of course if you see a higher proportion of your blocks being wasted, it does suggest that the other miners are perhaps colluding against you.
1756 2010-11-19 22:15:47 <ArtForz> a factor of 1.5 or so increase wouldnt be too unlikely
1757 2010-11-19 22:16:04 <ByteCoin> Granted
1758 2010-11-19 22:16:11 <ArtForz> now, if there were other miners on testnet...
1759 2010-11-19 22:16:50 <ByteCoin> Then we'd see whether lots of blocks were lost
1760 2010-11-19 22:16:52 <ArtForz> most of the time testnet runs at ~ 2.5Mh/s, spiking to >50 whenever a GPU miner jumps on for testing
1761 2010-11-19 22:17:01 <ByteCoin> The proof of the pudding is in the eating!
1762 2010-11-19 22:17:19 <ByteCoin> What's the block rate for a GPU
1763 2010-11-19 22:17:24 <ArtForz> well, have fun proving it, meanwhile I trust my stats
1764 2010-11-19 22:17:34 <brocktice> ByteCoin: that's like asking "What's the speed for a car?"
1765 2010-11-19 22:18:07 <ByteCoin> True: Speeds for a car < 700mph
1766 2010-11-19 22:18:19 <ByteCoin> What's the block rate for a gpu on the test network
1767 2010-11-19 22:18:26 <ArtForz> what about a car in orbit?
1768 2010-11-19 22:18:26 * brocktice headdesks
1769 2010-11-19 22:19:00 <brocktice> ByteCoin: can you be more specific?
1770 2010-11-19 22:19:09 <ArtForz> right now? roughly 1 block every 229s at 100Mhps.
1771 2010-11-19 22:19:19 <ByteCoin> Cheers!
1772 2010-11-19 22:19:20 <brocktice> roughly eh?
1773 2010-11-19 22:19:25 <brocktice> Couldn't bother with the decimals?
1774 2010-11-19 22:19:48 <brocktice> that'd be testnet, yes?
1775 2010-11-19 22:19:52 <ArtForz> yep
1776 2010-11-19 22:19:56 <brocktice> way too fast for regular
1777 2010-11-19 22:20:16 <ArtForz> roughly 1 block every 23s at 1Ghps.
1778 2010-11-19 22:20:22 <brocktice> "What is the air speed velocity of an unladen GPU?"
1779 2010-11-19 22:20:33 <ByteCoin> If you could be bothered, it'd be interesting to see the results of running two GPUs in competition on the test network to see what porportion are lost...
1780 2010-11-19 22:20:39 <ArtForz> afr... amd or nvidia?
1781 2010-11-19 22:20:46 <brocktice> lol
1782 2010-11-19 22:20:52 <brocktice> "What, I don't know that!"
1783 2010-11-19 22:20:57 <ByteCoin> *POOF*
1784 2010-11-19 22:21:09 <ArtForz> hehehe
1785 2010-11-19 22:22:24 <ArtForz> so anyways, with a decent GPU the single CPU miner on testnet shouldnt cause a noticeable % of lost blocks
1786 2010-11-19 22:23:04 <ArtForz> testnet is also very close to a fully connected graph
1787 2010-11-19 22:23:13 <ArtForz> looks like there's only 5 nodes on there
1788 2010-11-19 22:23:40 <ByteCoin> Agreed. But it would give some bounds for block loss... might suggest some causes
1789 2010-11-19 22:24:13 <ArtForz> my guess is getwork is doing something different from mainline when adding a found bock to the wallet and kicking the broadcast
1790 2010-11-19 22:25:04 <ByteCoin> Satoshi's comment must predate GPU generation so the problem must be elsewhere
1791 2010-11-19 22:25:45 <ByteCoin> My guess is satoshi saw it and then rationalised it away instead of fixing the bug
1792 2010-11-19 22:25:50 <ByteCoin> Whatever it is
1793 2010-11-19 22:26:28 <ArtForz> bet that like 10% figure is like pure speculation
1794 2010-11-19 22:26:41 Zenchess has joined
1795 2010-11-19 22:26:50 <ByteCoin> Can't be, otherwise he wouldn't have changed the gui to not show them
1796 2010-11-19 22:27:02 <ArtForz> 0.2% > 0%
1797 2010-11-19 22:27:14 <ByteCoin> He saw them going missing and then changed the ui to hide the problem. Y
1798 2010-11-19 22:27:21 <ArtForz> yep
1799 2010-11-19 22:27:24 <ByteCoin> You're saying he misoversestimated it
1800 2010-11-19 22:27:37 <ByteCoin> so real rate 0.2% he wrote 10%
1801 2010-11-19 22:28:36 <ArtForz> thats imo most likely
1802 2010-11-19 22:29:06 <ByteCoin> Fair enough.... well someone else will have to investigate. I don't think I can.
1803 2010-11-19 22:30:07 <Diablo-D3> okay NOW
1804 2010-11-19 22:30:13 <Diablo-D3> Ive let this gen 9 blocks
1805 2010-11-19 22:30:18 <Diablo-D3> after like two dozen attempts
1806 2010-11-19 22:30:25 <Diablo-D3> which all say 0000 and have unique signatures
1807 2010-11-19 22:32:01 <ArtForz> thats without checking G, right?
1808 2010-11-19 22:33:16 <ArtForz> 24 / 5.33 = 4.5, 9 is pretty good luck
1809 2010-11-19 22:35:52 <Diablo-D3> thats with checking G
1810 2010-11-19 22:36:00 <Diablo-D3> and I said LIKE two dozen
1811 2010-11-19 22:36:02 <ArtForz> that sounds like a bug
1812 2010-11-19 22:36:05 <Diablo-D3> it was enough to scroll off the screen
1813 2010-11-19 22:36:35 <Diablo-D3> http://pastebin.com/gwSaYCDT
1814 2010-11-19 22:36:39 <Diablo-D3> significantly more than two dozen.
1815 2010-11-19 22:36:43 <jgarzik> what's a good ATI card to search for, on ebay? 5770?
1816 2010-11-19 22:37:01 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: wait about two months, and grab up all the 5970s
1817 2010-11-19 22:37:40 <ArtForz> Diablo-D3: does it check G<target before printing Attempt ...
1818 2010-11-19 22:38:02 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: no, the attempt is an H was found
1819 2010-11-19 22:38:06 Maccer has joined
1820 2010-11-19 22:38:09 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: Found block is when a G is found
1821 2010-11-19 22:38:36 <ArtForz> so you got 37 H==0, and of those 9 with diff 5.33
1822 2010-11-19 22:38:51 <Diablo-D3> Attempt nonce output from shader, time, sha256(sha256) java output
1823 2010-11-19 22:39:31 <ArtForz> sounds ok, at diff 5.33 1 in 5.33 H==0 should result in a hash < target match
1824 2010-11-19 22:39:57 <ArtForz> 37 or so / 5.33 = 7 or so
1825 2010-11-19 22:40:07 <Diablo-D3> yeah and 9 is within the realm of reason
1826 2010-11-19 22:40:11 <ArtForz> lets see if hash rate looks ok
1827 2010-11-19 22:40:14 <Diablo-D3> the real question, however, is my shit working
1828 2010-11-19 22:40:28 <Diablo-D3> 4:36 = 16:36
1829 2010-11-19 22:40:47 <Diablo-D3> 16:38 16:39 16:50 16:52 16:58 17:00 17:04 17:12 17:15
1830 2010-11-19 22:40:51 <Diablo-D3> thats what bitcoin ui says
1831 2010-11-19 22:40:58 <Diablo-D3> that matches my log doesnt it?
1832 2010-11-19 22:41:04 <ArtForz> yep
1833 2010-11-19 22:41:04 <Diablo-D3> Block 1 found on ATI RV770 at 4:38:29 PM
1834 2010-11-19 22:41:09 <Diablo-D3> Block 2 found on ATI RV770 at 4:39:29 PM
1835 2010-11-19 22:41:17 <Diablo-D3> lol
1836 2010-11-19 22:41:20 <Diablo-D3> exactly a minute apart
1837 2010-11-19 22:41:22 <Diablo-D3> but yeah
1838 2010-11-19 22:41:23 <Diablo-D3> so
1839 2010-11-19 22:41:26 <LobsterMan> http://www.galacticchannelings.com/english/mike19-11-10.html
1840 2010-11-19 22:41:26 <Diablo-D3> this means
1841 2010-11-19 22:41:29 <Diablo-D3> my shit works
1842 2010-11-19 22:41:46 <ArtForz> so ~ 45 min for 37 H==0 ...
1843 2010-11-19 22:42:07 <ArtForz> that comes out to ~60Mh/s
1844 2010-11-19 22:43:13 <Diablo-D3> 38
1845 2010-11-19 22:43:15 <ArtForz> with that small a sample size and with the randomness of it all it sounds fine
1846 2010-11-19 22:43:36 <Diablo-D3> 49 - khash - 9 blocks - 2 at the top
1847 2010-11-19 22:43:48 <Diablo-D3> er whoops it is 37
1848 2010-11-19 22:44:34 <Diablo-D3> so
1849 2010-11-19 22:44:36 <Diablo-D3> holy fucking shit
1850 2010-11-19 22:44:38 <ArtForz> so did all of those show up in the client?
1851 2010-11-19 22:44:41 <Diablo-D3> I've verified my miner as working
1852 2010-11-19 22:44:42 <Diablo-D3> yeah
1853 2010-11-19 22:44:45 <Diablo-D3> theres 9 in the client
1854 2010-11-19 22:44:47 Akiraa has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1855 2010-11-19 22:44:48 <Diablo-D3> [05:33:13] <Diablo-D3> 16:38 16:39 16:50 16:52 16:58 17:00 17:04 17:12 17:15
1856 2010-11-19 22:45:24 <ArtForz> yep
1857 2010-11-19 22:45:28 <jgarzik> SVN r184: "efficiently sort transaction dependencies in one pass"
1858 2010-11-19 22:45:35 <ArtForz> they also show up on TEST BBE
1859 2010-11-19 22:46:41 <Diablo-D3> I should commit all of this then
1860 2010-11-19 22:48:57 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: do you think I should do any more testing on the hash-o-meter?
1861 2010-11-19 22:50:31 * jgarzik wonders what happens if you flood 'addr' containing bogus, routable addresses
1862 2010-11-19 22:50:51 <Diablo-D3> because Im pretty sure that a) the hash accounting is extra awesome, b) Im not accidently losing results
1863 2010-11-19 22:50:56 <ArtForz> jgarzik: shhh
1864 2010-11-19 22:51:41 <ByteCoin> Yeah jgarzik! Whose side are you on? '-)
1865 2010-11-19 22:52:35 <ByteCoin> Looks like you could dos someone with the bitcoin network perhaps...
1866 2010-11-19 22:52:51 <ByteCoin> Make a forum post on it so we don't forget
1867 2010-11-19 22:53:44 <theymos> The IPs wouldn't get that many connections. Mostly it would just slow down peer discovery.
1868 2010-11-19 22:54:48 <ArtForz> and make a really nice and big addr.dat
1869 2010-11-19 22:54:49 <jgarzik> and waste P2P client resources
1870 2010-11-19 22:56:05 * Diablo-D3 cuts down on his attempt spam and makes it count
1871 2010-11-19 22:56:20 <jgarzik> AddAddress() seems to add all new addresses to mapAddress as well as db... is mapAddress pruned periodically?
1872 2010-11-19 22:56:32 <ArtForz> I think so
1873 2010-11-19 22:57:21 <ArtForz> isnt it something like once every 24h?
1874 2010-11-19 22:57:23 <LobsterMan> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UAeSsvHhTg
1875 2010-11-19 22:58:44 * Diablo-D3 tries -f 2 super fuck you test
1876 2010-11-19 22:59:27 <theymos> Idea: make a BitcoinNetwork-compatible seednode server that returns only tested-good addresses in response to getaddr.
1877 2010-11-19 22:59:47 <Diablo-D3> X is using 0% cpu, java is using 1%
1878 2010-11-19 22:59:51 <Diablo-D3> bwahahhaha
1879 2010-11-19 23:00:00 <ArtForz> isn't 2.1 awesome?
1880 2010-11-19 23:00:18 <Diablo-D3> and Im doing around 74.6
1881 2010-11-19 23:00:26 <Diablo-D3> which kind of sucks because I was getting 75.0 yesterday :<
1882 2010-11-19 23:02:34 duck1123 has quit (Quit: duck1123)
1883 2010-11-19 23:05:02 <Diablo-D3> Ill have to reinstall 10.9 and see if I get a speed win on 2.1
1884 2010-11-19 23:06:36 <ArtForz> also make sure you have cpu freq throttling disabled
1885 2010-11-19 23:06:46 <Diablo-D3> I do
1886 2010-11-19 23:06:56 <Diablo-D3> my miner makes the cpufreq kernel threads go batshit
1887 2010-11-19 23:06:57 warner has joined
1888 2010-11-19 23:07:06 <ArtForz> ditto
1889 2010-11-19 23:07:14 <ArtForz> it was switching freqs like crazy
1890 2010-11-19 23:07:20 <Diablo-D3> yeah
1891 2010-11-19 23:08:01 <Diablo-D3> 10 attempts in 8 minutes
1892 2010-11-19 23:16:38 <Diablo-D3> 20 attempts + 3 found in 17 minutes
1893 2010-11-19 23:17:07 <ArtForz> yeah, sounds like it's working
1894 2010-11-19 23:17:22 <Diablo-D3> well lets see what the approx is in 50 =P
1895 2010-11-19 23:18:17 hippich_ has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1896 2010-11-19 23:20:56 * jgarzik discovers fClient. That's useful.
1897 2010-11-19 23:24:43 <Diablo-D3> 30 attempts + 5 found in 25 minutes
1898 2010-11-19 23:25:16 <ByteCoin> jgarzik What does fClient do? I've not worked it out...
1899 2010-11-19 23:25:34 <ByteCoin> It changes the network "services" bits somewhat
1900 2010-11-19 23:26:00 <jgarzik> ByteCoin: among other things, it enables a block-header-only mode
1901 2010-11-19 23:26:32 <ByteCoin> Hmm... Did you work this out by reading source only?
1902 2010-11-19 23:26:39 <jgarzik> ByteCoin: yes
1903 2010-11-19 23:27:39 <jgarzik> ByteCoin: CBlock's IMPLEMENT_SERIALIZE does not serialize vtx at all, if SER_GETHASH|SER_BLOCKHEADERONLY
1904 2010-11-19 23:28:34 <ByteCoin> Uhhh,... I should look at it but I don't have time... thanks for the explanation anyway.
1905 2010-11-19 23:30:49 <Diablo-D3> 40 + 7 found in
1906 2010-11-19 23:30:51 <Diablo-D3> er
1907 2010-11-19 23:31:15 <Diablo-D3> 40 attemps + 7 found in 32 minutes
1908 2010-11-19 23:31:31 <Diablo-D3> 40 attempts + 7 found in 32 minutes
1909 2010-11-19 23:31:40 <Diablo-D3> hello keyboard.
1910 2010-11-19 23:38:45 * Diablo-D3 hums the ode to joy
1911 2010-11-19 23:38:50 <ByteCoin> Hmm... flood stopped apparently
1912 2010-11-19 23:39:00 <Diablo-D3> DING!
1913 2010-11-19 23:39:14 <Diablo-D3> 50 attempts + 10 found in 40 minutes
1914 2010-11-19 23:39:17 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: MATH PLZ
1915 2010-11-19 23:45:20 <anarchyx> ;;bc,stats
1916 2010-11-19 23:45:23 <gribble> Current Blocks: 92927 | Current Difficulty: 6866.89864897 | Next Difficulty At Block: 94752 | Next Difficulty In: 1825 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 4 days, 12 hours, 59 minutes, and 13 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 7540.71954284
1917 2010-11-19 23:49:56 <Diablo-D3> damnit art! this could be my moment of glory!
1918 2010-11-19 23:52:45 hippich_ has joined
1919 2010-11-19 23:55:19 <jgarzik> ArtForz: what's the license on that python code? mit? gpl? public domain? I was thinking it might make a nice base for demo'ing alternate client scenarios
1920 2010-11-19 23:57:01 <Diablo-D3> hmm
1921 2010-11-19 23:57:13 <Diablo-D3> I think -f in my client could be broken
1922 2010-11-19 23:57:15 <Diablo-D3> I have it set to -f 1
1923 2010-11-19 23:57:19 <Diablo-D3> and x is fluid