1 2010-11-26 00:00:22 Akiraa has quit (Quit: Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer, do...)
2 2010-11-26 00:06:40 <nanotube> ;;bc,blocks
3 2010-11-26 00:06:40 <gribble> 93844
4 2010-11-26 00:06:49 <nanotube> see also ,,(bc,stats)
5 2010-11-26 00:06:51 <gribble> Current Blocks: 93844 | Current Difficulty: 6866.89864897 | Next Difficulty At Block: 94752 | Next Difficulty In: 908 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 5 days, 21 hours, 54 minutes, and 56 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 7322.58484247
6 2010-11-26 00:06:58 <nanotube> wereHamster: --^
7 2010-11-26 00:15:02 AAA_awright has joined
8 2010-11-26 00:16:55 AAA_awright_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
9 2010-11-26 00:18:13 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
10 2010-11-26 00:28:14 sgornick has joined
11 2010-11-26 01:02:01 jgarzik has joined
12 2010-11-26 01:13:31 AAA_awright has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
13 2010-11-26 01:14:33 AAA_awright has joined
14 2010-11-26 01:18:28 BostX has joined
15 2010-11-26 01:18:34 <BostX> hi
16 2010-11-26 01:18:51 AAA_awright has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
17 2010-11-26 01:19:22 <BostX> does anyone know where I can find the info who sent me a bc?
18 2010-11-26 01:23:57 <OneFixt> BostX: you can't, that's the part what is anonymous
19 2010-11-26 01:24:05 <OneFixt> that is*
20 2010-11-26 01:24:30 <OneFixt> ;;bc, stats
21 2010-11-26 01:24:30 <gribble> Error: "bc," is not a valid command.
22 2010-11-26 01:24:34 <OneFixt> ;;bc,stats
23 2010-11-26 01:24:36 <gribble> Current Blocks: 93851 | Current Difficulty: 6866.89864897 | Next Difficulty At Block: 94752 | Next Difficulty In: 901 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 5 days, 20 hours, 55 minutes, and 42 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 7317.04556505
24 2010-11-26 01:24:37 <BostX> OneFixt, hmm :(
25 2010-11-26 01:24:54 <OneFixt> you might want to ask around if you have an idea of who it might have been
26 2010-11-26 01:25:02 AAA_awright has joined
27 2010-11-26 01:26:01 <BostX> OneFixt, well, it was me... im getting to know what bc is and how it works. I sent 0.01 from one comp to another
28 2010-11-26 01:26:18 <BostX> OneFixt, and now I want to send it back but...
29 2010-11-26 01:26:43 <OneFixt> did it show up on the other computer?
30 2010-11-26 01:26:46 <BostX> OneFixt, it's an insane to type the whole address on a command line ...
31 2010-11-26 01:26:57 <OneFixt> oh, copy paste if you can
32 2010-11-26 01:26:59 <BostX> OneFixt, yea that part works
33 2010-11-26 01:27:30 <OneFixt> there's no option to "return" coins to whoever sent it
34 2010-11-26 01:27:34 <BostX> OneFixt, well it took several hours to catch all the 90 000 blocks but finally it arrived
35 2010-11-26 01:27:42 <OneFixt> =) welcome
36 2010-11-26 01:27:55 <BostX> OneFixt, :) yea :)
37 2010-11-26 01:28:16 <BostX> OneFixt, but the addresses is a pain...
38 2010-11-26 01:28:21 <ByteCoin> OneFixt: In principle, all the information is there to allow you to return coins if you wish..
39 2010-11-26 01:28:38 <BostX> ByteCoin, ? where?
40 2010-11-26 01:28:56 <ByteCoin> BostX: Tell me the address that was credited with the coins and I'll tell you where they came from.
41 2010-11-26 01:29:06 <ByteCoin> Then I'll tell you how to find out yourself
42 2010-11-26 01:29:31 <BostX> and another thing - everytime I reboot or reconnect to inet I get yet another address...
43 2010-11-26 01:31:09 <BostX> ByteCoin, ? do u wanna know the receiver's or sender's address
44 2010-11-26 01:31:34 * BostX don't talk OZUMLKU to me
45 2010-11-26 01:31:51 <ByteCoin> BostX: I thought you wanted to return them. Presumably the sender's address is what you're trying to find out?
46 2010-11-26 01:32:02 <BostX> ByteCoin, right :)
47 2010-11-26 01:32:09 <ByteCoin> I presume the receiver's address is you...
48 2010-11-26 01:32:18 <ByteCoin> One of your addresses
49 2010-11-26 01:32:51 <ByteCoin> Funnily enough, the information that you must tell me is the information you have rather than the stuff you don't know.
50 2010-11-26 01:34:04 <BostX> well I sent the coin to ..... grrr, i cannot copy&paste it :(
51 2010-11-26 01:34:12 <OneFixt> ByteCoin: true, technically
52 2010-11-26 01:34:21 <ByteCoin> Best kind of true
53 2010-11-26 01:34:25 <OneFixt> =)
54 2010-11-26 01:34:41 <OneFixt> just not guaranteed that the person will still have the address etc.
55 2010-11-26 01:34:45 <OneFixt> but in this case it should be fine
56 2010-11-26 01:34:53 <ByteCoin> I only need six or so characters from the middle
57 2010-11-26 01:35:00 <ByteCoin> No need to type the whole thing...
58 2010-11-26 01:35:04 <ByteCoin> Of your address
59 2010-11-26 01:35:12 * BostX was smart and stored every bc address in his email
60 2010-11-26 01:35:52 <ByteCoin> You might as well tell me the amount transferred so I can check that the info is consistent
61 2010-11-26 01:36:05 <ByteCoin> What's the delay?
62 2010-11-26 01:36:43 <BostX> ok, the receiver was 1PyDFXTSBxHE8Tu7BBRpzVoVmhvob8xzdZ
63 2010-11-26 01:36:51 <BostX> 0.01
64 2010-11-26 01:36:58 <ByteCoin> ok. wait a bit
65 2010-11-26 01:37:10 <BostX> ByteCoin, how u gonna do it?
66 2010-11-26 01:38:06 <BostX> OneFixt, no no I still keep the 0.01
67 2010-11-26 01:38:08 <ByteCoin> Sent from 1EqZYt8zortMyMj2DLDA9r46xUVButWdWP
68 2010-11-26 01:38:21 <BostX> ByteCoin, RIGHT!
69 2010-11-26 01:38:32 <BostX> ByteCoin, how did you find it?
70 2010-11-26 01:38:48 <ByteCoin> Go to https://blockexplorer.com/ and type part of the address in the search box
71 2010-11-26 01:40:10 <BostX> ByteCoin, thx! but is it possible to get this info somehow on my local comp?
72 2010-11-26 01:40:51 <BostX> ByteCoin, u know blockexplorer.com might get hacked
73 2010-11-26 01:40:59 <ByteCoin> The raw info is on your local computer in blk0001.dat. The trick is to interpret it.
74 2010-11-26 01:41:10 <ByteCoin> Oh, that is if you're running bitcoin
75 2010-11-26 01:41:29 <BostX> ByteCoin, yea I do... leme c it
76 2010-11-26 01:42:03 <ByteCoin> I could do it using my own software but it's not set up for it. blk0001.dat is a data file.
77 2010-11-26 01:42:17 <ByteCoin> You can't open it in notepad etc..
78 2010-11-26 01:42:40 <ByteCoin> blockexplorer will be fine.
79 2010-11-26 01:43:01 <BostX> ByteCoin, well I tried 'head blk0001.dat'...
80 2010-11-26 01:43:09 * BostX ����
81 2010-11-26 01:43:28 <ByteCoin> Unless you're a programmer, don't get involvedf
82 2010-11-26 01:43:47 <BostX> that's the concent of my blk0001.dat
83 2010-11-26 01:43:52 <BostX> yea Im
84 2010-11-26 01:49:23 <BostX> btw what mean the '?' if I take look at the transactions on the blockexplorer?
85 2010-11-26 01:49:49 <ByteCoin> It's a bit pants... It just facilitates mouseover information.
86 2010-11-26 01:52:47 <BostX> oh that works really miserable... leme check it how it works in fireforx
87 2010-11-26 01:52:53 <BostX> i use chrome
88 2010-11-26 01:53:57 <BostX> firefox shows it better but it still has some potential for improvement
89 2010-11-26 01:54:33 <ByteCoin> forum post theymos with improvements. Search bitcoin block explorer thread
90 2010-11-26 01:55:58 <OneFixt> ByteCoin: could you help me solve something?
91 2010-11-26 01:56:02 <OneFixt> http://www.blockexplorer.com/address/18LC8TVQ9EokM5i4aKH1DdJzSTB729AkAD
92 2010-11-26 01:56:09 <BostX> uhm... I gotta go to bed now... c u later and thx!
93 2010-11-26 01:56:34 <OneFixt> ByteCoin: I had 100 coins at this address - sent 50 and 50 one right after the other, and I ended up only receiving 50 instead of the 100.
94 2010-11-26 01:56:37 <ByteCoin> I see it
95 2010-11-26 01:56:47 <OneFixt> My bitcoind says balance is 0, so I can't re-send.
96 2010-11-26 01:56:53 <OneFixt> Block explorer still says balance is 50.
97 2010-11-26 01:57:17 BostX has quit (Quit: Leaving)
98 2010-11-26 01:57:49 <ByteCoin> Try closing bitcoind and restarting it.
99 2010-11-26 01:57:58 <OneFixt> Ok, I'll try.
100 2010-11-26 01:58:46 <OneFixt> Didn't help.
101 2010-11-26 01:59:02 <ByteCoin> Hmm...
102 2010-11-26 01:59:06 <OneFixt> My hunch is that I may have to re-download the blocks... but that's a pain.
103 2010-11-26 01:59:24 <ByteCoin> It's worth a forum post perhaps...
104 2010-11-26 01:59:26 <OneFixt> Or can bitcoind re-scan them to calculate the balance?
105 2010-11-26 01:59:35 <ByteCoin> Put where and when you sent them
106 2010-11-26 01:59:55 <ByteCoin> I'm not a great expert on the current software
107 2010-11-26 02:00:35 <OneFixt> ok, thanks
108 2010-11-26 02:01:00 <OneFixt> I am going to try one thing first - copying the wallet to a different location and re-downloading the blocks to see if it finds the coins.
109 2010-11-26 02:02:03 <ByteCoin> That's a good first step.
110 2010-11-26 02:02:35 <ByteCoin> Might be worth shutting down the bitcoind that sent the coins while the other new client is running
111 2010-11-26 02:02:45 <ByteCoin> The old might contaminate the new
112 2010-11-26 02:03:20 <OneFixt> I was thinking of doing it on another machine.
113 2010-11-26 02:03:38 <ByteCoin> I know. Nevertheless, shut down the other bitcoind
114 2010-11-26 02:04:06 <ByteCoin> It might get contaminated over the network.
115 2010-11-26 02:04:23 <ByteCoin> It's somewhat unlikely but better to rule it out.
116 2010-11-26 02:05:31 <OneFixt> hm... satoshi wrote something like this on the forum:
117 2010-11-26 02:05:31 <OneFixt> There's some kind of rescan in the block loading code that was made to repair the case where someone copied their wallet.dat. I would need to check that the rescan handles the case of rediscovering received payments in blocks that were already received, but are forgotten because the wallet was restored.
118 2010-11-26 02:46:54 <tcatm> Kiba: ping?
119 2010-11-26 02:48:32 <Kiba> bing
120 2010-11-26 02:49:15 <tcatm> I can send you the xcf file
121 2010-11-26 02:49:53 <Kiba> tcatm: thanks.
122 2010-11-26 02:51:12 <Kiba> tcatm: hackerkiba@gmail.com
123 2010-11-26 02:52:19 <tcatm> on the way
124 2010-11-26 02:57:23 <Kiba> thanks
125 2010-11-26 03:10:53 <OneFixt> ByteCoin: Re-downloading the blocks didn't get the coins back =/
126 2010-11-26 03:14:46 <OneFixt> yikes, I think I had 2 bitcoin instances, on different computers, start out with the same empty wallets
127 2010-11-26 03:14:55 <OneFixt> but those wallets had keys...
128 2010-11-26 03:15:20 <OneFixt> and now when I send from one wallet, coins disappear in the other, or something like that
129 2010-11-26 03:19:26 <ByteCoin> OneFixt: I can't help you. Write everything in a forum post and they'll sort it out.
130 2010-11-26 03:20:10 <ByteCoin> The good news is that the block chain thinks you still have the coins.
131 2010-11-26 03:21:09 <OneFixt> I had another strange disappearance just happen
132 2010-11-26 03:21:10 * OneFixt shruts
133 2010-11-26 03:21:13 * OneFixt shrugs
134 2010-11-26 03:21:29 <ByteCoin> Ooops. I tell a lie. The block chain says you've sent both to 1EWbkLgfzpqqYW1dd2dhbPrwQJYFTioUpK
135 2010-11-26 03:22:28 <ByteCoin> The last block of 50 was only incorporated into the chain about 10 minutes ago
136 2010-11-26 03:23:04 <ByteCoin> I wonder if this is because of the current spam flood.
137 2010-11-26 03:23:54 <OneFixt> Now that's interesting.. because I sent it from a different bitcoind, on a different machine.
138 2010-11-26 03:24:15 <OneFixt> oh.. let me see if it could be spam
139 2010-11-26 03:24:46 <OneFixt> there doesn't seem to be spam currently (but there was a 50k transaction)
140 2010-11-26 03:25:16 <ByteCoin> I assure you, there's spam currenty
141 2010-11-26 03:25:30 <ByteCoin> currenty spam! yum!
142 2010-11-26 03:26:03 <OneFixt> What seems to have happened, is that I messed up my bitcoind installation by cloning it
143 2010-11-26 03:26:07 <OneFixt> and now things are strange
144 2010-11-26 03:30:56 xulrunner42 has joined
145 2010-11-26 03:38:20 <OneFixt> Looks like several computers had the same addresses, and all thought they had coins when in fact it was just one batch of coins that they had, and then when I sent from one, the others either tried to double-send or noticed that they had nothing left and updated the balance.
146 2010-11-26 03:38:27 <OneFixt> Looks like I won't lose coins, but will have to do some cleaning.
147 2010-11-26 03:38:50 <xulrunner42> Oh, you copied your wallet :x
148 2010-11-26 03:38:52 <xulrunner42> Mistake
149 2010-11-26 03:39:44 <OneFixt> yeah, it was empty, but it had pre-generated keys
150 2010-11-26 03:40:59 <OneFixt> I didn't copy any coins, but when one bitcoind received coins, the other thought that it also had those coins (as far as I can tell).
151 2010-11-26 03:41:48 <OneFixt> every time that you generate a block, does it get generated to one address, or to a new one?
152 2010-11-26 03:45:36 <xulrunner42> I think they come to Your Address
153 2010-11-26 03:45:40 <xulrunner42> But that's a totally uninformed guess
154 2010-11-26 03:46:00 <xulrunner42> Do you have a netbook?
155 2010-11-26 03:48:23 <xulrunner42> Are there any bitcoin droid apps yet
156 2010-11-26 03:48:33 <xulrunner42> http://martyfunkhouser.csh.rit.edu/~yebyen/
157 2010-11-26 03:54:41 <joe_1> i dont undesrstand that site
158 2010-11-26 03:56:53 <joe_1> files are .img (what is that), font is incredibly small, some things are crossed out, the setences make no sense
159 2010-11-26 03:59:00 <joe_1> ok i goggled img and now i knwo what it is. but i dont see any bitcoin apps
160 2010-11-26 03:59:06 <xulrunner42> Well, not yet
161 2010-11-26 03:59:15 <xulrunner42> I just read the forum post to get a bitcoin app going though
162 2010-11-26 03:59:23 <xulrunner42> They are disk images
163 2010-11-26 03:59:29 <xulrunner42> I had to build 20 just to get this far
164 2010-11-26 03:59:34 <xulrunner42> You can run android on your netbook :D
165 2010-11-26 03:59:44 <xulrunner42> That's why all of the cross-outs
166 2010-11-26 03:59:47 <xulrunner42> And small print
167 2010-11-26 03:59:59 <joe_1> wow
168 2010-11-26 04:00:29 <xulrunner42> I think the source tree is in a pretty good state now
169 2010-11-26 04:00:53 <xulrunner42> If you get the one with a star, it works pretty good... today's build actually brings the wifi up on boot, if you uncheck ethernet first
170 2010-11-26 04:01:13 <xulrunner42> I think that all of this is very hardware dependent
171 2010-11-26 04:01:43 <xulrunner42> There is a generic_x86 target as well, but I don't have any hardware that can run it
172 2010-11-26 04:01:56 Xunie has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
173 2010-11-26 04:02:22 <joe_1> yeah, i dont have a net book
174 2010-11-26 04:02:28 <xulrunner42> Bummar
175 2010-11-26 04:03:00 <xulrunner42> It might work on any i915 hardware
176 2010-11-26 04:03:06 <xulrunner42> I have yet to try it on my PowerEdge SC420
177 2010-11-26 04:03:50 noagendamarket has joined
178 2010-11-26 04:03:58 <nanotube> OneFixt: every block generation comes to a new address.
179 2010-11-26 04:04:02 Xunie has joined
180 2010-11-26 04:04:02 Xunie has quit (Changing host)
181 2010-11-26 04:04:02 Xunie has joined
182 2010-11-26 04:04:12 noagendamarket has quit (Changing host)
183 2010-11-26 04:04:12 noagendamarket has joined
184 2010-11-26 04:05:09 <nanotube> OneFixt: but if you have several clients trying to gen with a cloned wallet... they could be working on the same address. because the key for generation is chosen from the keypool.
185 2010-11-26 04:05:23 <nanotube> so you really shouldn't run the same wallet from different places. :)
186 2010-11-26 04:10:51 xulrunner42 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
187 2010-11-26 04:11:00 <jgarzik> indeed
188 2010-11-26 04:11:14 * Kiba grumbles about his lack of knowledge about drawing hands
189 2010-11-26 04:11:52 <nanotube> Kiba: i bet you can find some handy (hah!) tutorials on the internet for that
190 2010-11-26 04:12:08 <Kiba> the tutorial doesn't help that much
191 2010-11-26 04:15:35 edcba_ has joined
192 2010-11-26 04:16:34 edcba has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
193 2010-11-26 04:20:48 * nameless !~root@weowntheinter.net|grumbles about his lack of artistic ability
194 2010-11-26 04:26:41 <MT`AwAy> nameless|: I would too but I got tired of grumbling, now I just make lazy ugly websites
195 2010-11-26 04:26:56 <MT`AwAy> (like https://smsz.net/ which works nicely, but which has no design)
196 2010-11-26 04:27:20 <nanotube> anyone know what the new fee schedule is like in version .17? the announcement forum post said something about 'different free transaction limits'...
197 2010-11-26 04:28:20 <MT`AwAy> nanotube: http://www.bitcoin.org/wiki/doku.php?id=transaction_fee ?
198 2010-11-26 04:28:26 <ArtForz> doesnt look like it changed from r186
199 2010-11-26 04:28:41 <ArtForz> err r187
200 2010-11-26 04:28:52 <MT`AwAy> mh, nothing written there in fact :(
201 2010-11-26 04:30:39 <nanotube> ArtForz: the .17 announcement, http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1946.0 has one of the items as "free transaction limits" ... so what gives?
202 2010-11-26 04:30:56 <nanotube> also, the transaction_fee wiki mentions 0.3.16 - and that version never existed, it seems.
203 2010-11-26 04:31:37 <ArtForz> we reduced fee-free size to 27kB
204 2010-11-26 04:32:04 <nanotube> ah ic
205 2010-11-26 04:32:06 <MT`AwAy> "The UI transaction fee setting was easy since it was still there from 0.1.5 and all I had to do was re-enable it"
206 2010-11-26 04:32:11 <nanotube> it used to be 50kb or so?
207 2010-11-26 04:32:16 <ArtForz> also, only allow a few k of fee-less 0-confirm based TX
208 2010-11-26 04:32:35 <nanotube> any idea what happened with .16, ArtForz ? :)
209 2010-11-26 04:32:41 <ArtForz> never released I think
210 2010-11-26 04:33:03 <ArtForz> r188 was .16
211 2010-11-26 04:33:29 <nanotube> mmm
212 2010-11-26 04:34:01 <nanotube> so it seems that satoshi decided not to go for "all tx have fee at least 0.001 (or something to that effect)" ?
213 2010-11-26 04:34:09 <ArtForz> for now, no
214 2010-11-26 04:34:13 <ArtForz> looks like gavin is still working out the kinks in the account handling RPC stuff
215 2010-11-26 04:34:25 <nanotube> mm
216 2010-11-26 04:42:28 * Kiba put out some new art form
217 2010-11-26 04:43:11 <Kiba> err
218 2010-11-26 04:43:13 <Kiba> new sketch
219 2010-11-26 04:45:23 <Kiba> I think I did a great job in revising the right hand
220 2010-11-26 04:49:29 theymos has joined
221 2010-11-26 04:49:50 <Kiba> Am I a pioneer or what?
222 2010-11-26 04:50:19 zylche has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
223 2010-11-26 04:50:39 <Kiba> The first to short sell bitcoins, the first to sell art for bitcoins...
224 2010-11-26 04:51:03 zylche has joined
225 2010-11-26 05:00:21 <noagendamarket> I wish there was a way to tell if youve already downloaded a file
226 2010-11-26 05:00:49 <noagendamarket> I paid an extra .02 only to get the same one lol
227 2010-11-26 05:01:35 <Kiba> I am delighted that you single handely help me break even on my investment
228 2010-11-26 05:02:30 <MT`AwAy> 9 hosts updated to 0.3.17
229 2010-11-26 05:02:45 hippich has joined
230 2010-11-26 05:05:18 <theymos> Did we skip 0.3.16 or did I just forget to send out a mailing list message for that one?
231 2010-11-26 05:05:37 davex__ has joined
232 2010-11-26 05:06:21 <MT`AwAy> theymos: skipped it seems
233 2010-11-26 05:06:37 <MT`AwAy> anyway the good thing is I could remove getwork patch from my ebuild :D
234 2010-11-26 05:14:08 lazarus has joined
235 2010-11-26 05:14:15 <lazarus> ;;bc,stats
236 2010-11-26 05:14:18 <gribble> Current Blocks: 93879 | Current Difficulty: 6866.89864897 | Next Difficulty At Block: 94752 | Next Difficulty In: 873 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 5 days, 16 hours, 18 minutes, and 6 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 7330.30780793
237 2010-11-26 05:16:07 lazarus has left ()
238 2010-11-26 05:30:34 <nanotube> MT`AwAy: /me goes to update to .17... make that 10 hosts pretty soon. :)
239 2010-11-26 05:31:03 <ArtForz> btw, satoshis getwork seems incompatible with m0s
240 2010-11-26 05:32:05 <nanotube> ArtForz: in the .17 announcement he says "thanks m0mchil for the getwork"... i'd have thought it would be compatible :)
241 2010-11-26 05:32:54 <ArtForz> I think Diablo-D3 said the endianness is different
242 2010-11-26 05:33:43 <doublec> satoshi went through the differences here iirc http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1901.msg24149;
243 2010-11-26 05:34:16 <nanotube> mmm
244 2010-11-26 05:34:33 <theymos> ArtForz: You said something that made me believe that the SVN r184 "efficiently sort transaction dependencies in one pass" change only really makes a difference for people mining with lots of GPUs. Is that right?
245 2010-11-26 05:34:51 <ArtForz> not quite
246 2010-11-26 05:35:06 <ArtForz> with enough queued transactions it will affect CPU miners as well
247 2010-11-26 05:35:38 <theymos> Every miner multiplies it?
248 2010-11-26 05:35:52 <ArtForz> yep
249 2010-11-26 05:36:00 <theymos> Thanks.
250 2010-11-26 05:36:35 <ArtForz> CPU overhead basically scaled as num_miners * (num_transactions ^ 2)
251 2010-11-26 05:37:26 <ByteCoin> Why squared in the number of txns?
252 2010-11-26 05:38:09 <ArtForz> I think because it scanned all other cached transactions for each transaction
253 2010-11-26 05:38:23 <ByteCoin> *shudders*
254 2010-11-26 05:38:35 <ArtForz> = a twice nested loop over cached txes = O(n^2)
255 2010-11-26 05:39:53 <ArtForz> the changed algo should scale O(n)
256 2010-11-26 05:40:26 <ArtForz> and with satoshis getwork changes number of miners shouldnt affect it at all
257 2010-11-26 05:48:51 <LobsterMan> http://imgur.com/Yl6k9.jpg
258 2010-11-26 05:51:45 <nanotube> LobsterMan: lol where did you dig that up
259 2010-11-26 05:52:05 <LobsterMan> reddit :P
260 2010-11-26 05:52:26 <nanotube> ic.
261 2010-11-26 06:08:34 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
262 2010-11-26 06:14:10 davex__ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
263 2010-11-26 06:23:58 davux has joined
264 2010-11-26 06:24:00 <davux> hi!
265 2010-11-26 06:24:44 <davux> is it true that the transaction history of any address can be deduced from the block chain?
266 2010-11-26 06:24:58 <ByteCoin> yes
267 2010-11-26 06:25:54 <davux> how hard would it be to program an interface that takes an address as input, and outputs a list of transactions?
268 2010-11-26 06:26:03 <davux> like a web page for example
269 2010-11-26 06:26:11 <davux> it could be pretty useful
270 2010-11-26 06:26:17 <ArtForz> http://blockexplorer.com/
271 2010-11-26 06:26:19 <ByteCoin> like https://blockexplorer.com/
272 2010-11-26 06:27:01 <davux> oh :)
273 2010-11-26 06:27:28 <ByteCoin> Roll your own. His doesn't display transaction and block sizes...
274 2010-11-26 06:27:31 <davux> how comes the "from" appears, but doesn't in the official client?
275 2010-11-26 06:28:28 <ByteCoin> Probably because the from address can only be calculated if the coins you're using are from standard transactions
276 2010-11-26 06:28:53 <ByteCoin> The bitcoin client is probably interested in handling the general case
277 2010-11-26 06:29:15 <ArtForz> not to mention it's useless for general use
278 2010-11-26 06:29:29 <ByteCoin> yeah? explain...
279 2010-11-26 06:30:25 <ArtForz> well, whats the use case?
280 2010-11-26 06:31:00 <ByteCoin> Uhh.. all the transactions in the block chain
281 2010-11-26 06:31:17 <ArtForz> okay, whats the use case of DISPLAYING that?
282 2010-11-26 06:31:20 <ByteCoin> AFAIK they are all transactions from one address to another
283 2010-11-26 06:31:25 <ArtForz> you received 50 btc from xyz, which got those from a generation in block 123. hooray.
284 2010-11-26 06:32:15 <ByteCoin> I see your point.... but it does enable refunds!
285 2010-11-26 06:32:50 <ByteCoin> I don't know whether people would like to track transactions by having their payments have come from a certain address
286 2010-11-26 06:33:36 <ByteCoin> Suppose you have coins in 1Artforz12345... You might publish it as yours and have payments made to and from it
287 2010-11-26 06:34:06 <ByteCoin> Does any of this persuade you?
288 2010-11-26 06:34:17 <theymos> You can't send coins from a specific address currently. It would be nice if you could.
289 2010-11-26 06:34:42 <ByteCoin> Well you can by running multiple clients but I take your point
290 2010-11-26 06:35:03 <ByteCoin> The spammer seems to have some control over addresses in this fashion
291 2010-11-26 06:35:20 <ArtForz> as far as I can tell he's running 2 clients
292 2010-11-26 06:35:42 dwdollar has left ()
293 2010-11-26 06:35:44 <ByteCoin> I'm writing a wallet handler and transaction generator. This will certainly be included functionality
294 2010-11-26 06:36:30 <ByteCoin> Is the spammer's IP discernable or is he using TOR or suchlike?
295 2010-11-26 06:37:38 <ArtForz> dunno, but if I were the spammer I'd use TOR or simialr to connect to a bunch of nodes
296 2010-11-26 06:38:21 <ByteCoin> Artforz: Have I made a good case for displaying where the coins in your payment come from? I am curious.
297 2010-11-26 06:38:27 <ArtForz> nope
298 2010-11-26 06:39:01 <theymos> It should be displayed when you double-click it. It's not really useful, but it's interesting.
299 2010-11-26 06:39:06 <ArtForz> yep
300 2010-11-26 06:39:07 <ByteCoin> Ok... perhaps the time isn't ripe for my wallet manager
301 2010-11-26 06:39:11 <davux> what spammer?
302 2010-11-26 06:39:12 <ArtForz> stuff it in a debug window
303 2010-11-26 06:39:56 * jgarzik wonders how to figure out block size for an arbitrary block (and/or TX), from within bitcoin
304 2010-11-26 06:40:09 * jgarzik wants to modify getblockbycount (formerly 'getblock') to spit out sizes
305 2010-11-26 06:40:29 <jgarzik> I suppose I could serialize, then get length of that
306 2010-11-26 06:40:29 <ArtForz> wast it something like getserializedsize or something?
307 2010-11-26 06:40:31 <ByteCoin> jgarzik: I would be tempted to issue the relevant getblock command over the TCP interface
308 2010-11-26 06:40:48 <ByteCoin> Then count the number of bytes coming back
309 2010-11-26 06:41:07 <ByteCoin> Seriously guys, I don't know why you like json-rpc so much
310 2010-11-26 06:41:18 <ArtForz> me neither
311 2010-11-26 06:41:21 <jgarzik> ByteCoin: "from within bitcoin"
312 2010-11-26 06:41:25 <ByteCoin> You get good info by pretending to be a client
313 2010-11-26 06:41:40 <ArtForz> ByteCoin: guess why I wrote that half-a-client?
314 2010-11-26 06:42:05 <ByteCoin> ArtForz:Hmm..... I wonder.....
315 2010-11-26 06:42:23 <ByteCoin> Could it be that you're not at the whim of someone else's software?
316 2010-11-26 06:42:37 <ByteCoin> Could it be that nobody can stop you doing what you want?
317 2010-11-26 06:42:58 <ByteCoin> Could it be that you can't really be lied to?
318 2010-11-26 06:43:20 <ArtForz> hint: try writing something to monitor txes and blocks as your node gets them
319 2010-11-26 06:43:21 <ByteCoin> Could it be that you're immune to a lot of versioning problems?
320 2010-11-26 06:44:07 <ArtForz> not to metnion it serves as a nice documention of the network protocol
321 2010-11-26 06:44:14 <tylergillies> will entering a fee into client make it any faster? or will that only affect speed later on?
322 2010-11-26 06:44:22 <nanotube> ArtForz: is your half-a-client code posted somewhere?
323 2010-11-26 06:44:31 <ArtForz> yep
324 2010-11-26 06:44:35 <ByteCoin> ArtForz: Yeah. I'm in the process. Didn't quite get the opoint of the hint
325 2010-11-26 06:44:49 <theymos> tylergillies: It makes your transactions faster when someone is spamming the network.
326 2010-11-26 06:44:53 <ByteCoin> I have monitored the txes and blocks
327 2010-11-26 06:45:04 <tylergillies> theymos: does that happen often?
328 2010-11-26 06:45:17 <ByteCoin> There wasn't anything THAT surprising.
329 2010-11-26 06:45:25 <ArtForz> http://pastebin.com/ZSM7iHZw
330 2010-11-26 06:46:00 <ByteCoin> I think I was a bit shocked that new blocks are relayed wholesale when all the clients have most of the transactions already
331 2010-11-26 06:46:21 <theymos> tylergillies: It's been happening more frequently lately. Personally, I would never pay a fee -- the worst that can happen is a 1-3 hour delay of your transactions.
332 2010-11-26 06:46:32 <ByteCoin> tylergillies: It's happening now but it's a low impact at the moment
333 2010-11-26 06:46:36 <ArtForz> and with the tx priritization even that's kidna unlikely
334 2010-11-26 06:46:57 <ArtForz> normal TXes now get priority over "spammy" looking ones
335 2010-11-26 06:47:24 <ByteCoin> Would you guys be surprised to find out that occasionally you get blocks >200k bytes?
336 2010-11-26 06:47:29 <ArtForz> nope
337 2010-11-26 06:47:31 <jgarzik> no
338 2010-11-26 06:47:38 <ArtForz> thats blocks from old miners
339 2010-11-26 06:47:54 <ByteCoin> Fair enough...
340 2010-11-26 06:48:22 <jgarzik> spam is up to 5 BTC in value, and now uses different to/from addresses
341 2010-11-26 06:48:30 <ByteCoin> Do you guys want to hear briefly about my "shunning" solution to spam?
342 2010-11-26 06:48:35 <jgarzik> spammer is playing with the priority system
343 2010-11-26 06:48:45 <ArtForz> except it wont help him much
344 2010-11-26 06:49:01 <ArtForz> priority = value * age of inputs
345 2010-11-26 06:49:59 <theymos> ByteCoin: Satoshi has already talked about "discouraged blocks" -- the network doesn't on blocks that don't follow your fee rules closely enough, but it will accept them if they get one block deep. Is that what you're thinking of?
346 2010-11-26 06:50:08 <theymos> doesn't build on*
347 2010-11-26 06:50:51 <ByteCoin> Hmm.. that sounds somewhat worrying.. I would have encouraged a free market for miners when it comes to fees
348 2010-11-26 06:50:58 <ByteCoin> No that's not it.
349 2010-11-26 06:51:29 <ByteCoin> theymos: Can you get a reference for that?
350 2010-11-26 06:51:36 <ByteCoin> Wait
351 2010-11-26 06:51:48 <ByteCoin> I'm douing a search for "discouraged blocks"
352 2010-11-26 06:52:19 <theymos> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=165.msg1595#msg1595
353 2010-11-26 06:52:26 <theymos> I was worried about it, too, at first. But it only works if a large portion of the network hates your rules.
354 2010-11-26 06:52:40 <theymos> And generators won't enforce rules that are bad for generators.
355 2010-11-26 06:53:16 <ByteCoin> Oh no. In the context he was talking about I approve
356 2010-11-26 06:53:52 <ByteCoin> I was going to post about the problem he mentions.
357 2010-11-26 06:54:39 <ByteCoin> It's possible to simplify miner software and minimise GPU downtime by just hashing blocks with your coinbase transaction in and NO other transactions.
358 2010-11-26 06:54:54 <ByteCoin> You get the 50BTC but don't take any trasnactions out of the pool.
359 2010-11-26 06:55:06 <ByteCoin> Not good for the network
360 2010-11-26 06:55:32 <ByteCoin> You wouldn't even need to run a full network node
361 2010-11-26 06:55:55 <ByteCoin> satoshi's method is the only real way to discourage this
362 2010-11-26 06:56:23 <theymos> The concept of discouraged blocks can be used for other issues. Spam transactions, odd fees, large blocks, etc. A good solution to the block size thing would be to set 1MB as "preferred" and up to 20MB as "discouraged", with sizes above that being refused as now.
363 2010-11-26 06:57:32 <ByteCoin> As I mention in my most recent post. If there's 20MB of transactions in your pool in memory, better that they be in a 20MB block and then hit the disk.
364 2010-11-26 06:57:43 <ByteCoin> Then your memory is clear
365 2010-11-26 06:57:54 <theymos> Just drop transactions and let the sender rebroadcast.
366 2010-11-26 06:57:57 <ByteCoin> I don't see any justification for pure block limits
367 2010-11-26 06:58:20 <ByteCoin> Theymos: What if they're not spam
368 2010-11-26 06:58:30 <ByteCoin> How does dropping them help things?
369 2010-11-26 06:58:31 <theymos> Then they'll be rebroadcast...
370 2010-11-26 06:58:41 <ByteCoin> That makes it better?
371 2010-11-26 06:59:06 <theymos> Yes. Spammers won't rebroadcast -- real people will.
372 2010-11-26 06:59:14 <ByteCoin> If they're legit transactions then forcing rebroadcasts would be a massive performance hit
373 2010-11-26 06:59:27 <ByteCoin> So why won't spammers rebroadcast?
374 2010-11-26 06:59:39 <theymos> They'd have to store every transaction, which is expensive.
375 2010-11-26 07:00:04 <ByteCoin> They're SPAMMERS. Do you think spamming is really free?
376 2010-11-26 07:00:34 <ArtForz> if your time and bandwith costs nothing... then yes
377 2010-11-26 07:00:42 <ByteCoin> Precisely
378 2010-11-26 07:00:44 <theymos> The rate of rebroadcast can be increased. 3 hours (current) is too long, I think.
379 2010-11-26 07:00:55 <ArtForz> 3 hours?
380 2010-11-26 07:01:03 <ArtForz> afair it's 1 block + 30-60 min
381 2010-11-26 07:01:19 <theymos> I thought it waited 3 hours for the first rebroadcast.
382 2010-11-26 07:01:36 <ByteCoin> Spammers will patch their software so that, if they suspect their transactions are being dropped they will connect to different clients and rebroadcast.
383 2010-11-26 07:02:23 <jgarzik> nNextTime = GetTime() + GetRand(30 * 60);
384 2010-11-26 07:02:46 <theymos> I guess that's not too bad, then.
385 2010-11-26 07:02:55 <ArtForz> okay... so it checks randomly every 0-30 min
386 2010-11-26 07:03:14 <jgarzik> it waits one iteration, first time through
387 2010-11-26 07:03:20 <ArtForz> if there's a new block, and the tx is older than 5 min, rebroadcast
388 2010-11-26 07:04:01 <theymos> The lowest-fee transactions would be the first ones dropped from memory. If everyone is rebroadcasting, the effect is essentially the same as including in blocks (but a bit slower).
389 2010-11-26 07:04:31 <theymos> Just the responsibility for storage is moved from the network to the senders.
390 2010-11-26 07:04:53 <ByteCoin> And the bandwidth for new transaction propagation is massively reduced.
391 2010-11-26 07:05:00 <ArtForz> yep, one could use a similar scoring system for dropping tx to what we have now for selecting tx for a block
392 2010-11-26 07:05:03 <ByteCoin> Sounds like a really bad "solution"
393 2010-11-26 07:05:17 <jgarzik> tx cache pruning?
394 2010-11-26 07:05:23 <ArtForz> yep
395 2010-11-26 07:05:46 <jgarzik> would be nice to have spam be the most likely cache entries to be pruned
396 2010-11-26 07:05:51 <ByteCoin> I bet that this "transaction dropping" will be the source of major bitcoin brownouts if it gets popular
397 2010-11-26 07:06:04 <ArtForz> why?
398 2010-11-26 07:06:10 <theymos> Generators will be powerful in the future. Network and disk space is unimportant.
399 2010-11-26 07:06:20 <ArtForz> upping the cache sizes is a simple change
400 2010-11-26 07:06:28 <ByteCoin> Because the bandwidth for propagating new transactions is massively reduced as I said
401 2010-11-26 07:06:43 <ArtForz> huh?
402 2010-11-26 07:07:07 <ByteCoin> New transactions have to compete with retransmitting old transactions to get across the net
403 2010-11-26 07:07:35 <ByteCoin> This means that new transactions are dropped... and so on ad infinitum
404 2010-11-26 07:07:39 * jgarzik wonders how large will be the P2P network node count, at Paypal levels of bitcoin popularity
405 2010-11-26 07:07:44 <ArtForz> if that new transaction has a decent value it weill get propagated just fine
406 2010-11-26 07:07:49 <ArtForz> if it looks psammy... not so much
407 2010-11-26 07:08:12 <ByteCoin> Ok.. there is that
408 2010-11-26 07:08:28 <ArtForz> if actual legit transaction rate gets close to the cache size limits, up the cache size
409 2010-11-26 07:09:00 <ByteCoin> Artforz: In that case, not much will help you
410 2010-11-26 07:09:11 <ArtForz> huh?
411 2010-11-26 07:09:47 <ByteCoin> Well if the transaction rate increases over the ability to store them in blocks then BOOM
412 2010-11-26 07:10:12 <ArtForz> BOOM "tx will take a bit longer until enough clients increased cache sizes"
413 2010-11-26 07:10:28 <davux> how will transactions be confirmed when block generation stops?
414 2010-11-26 07:10:35 <davux> or gets really slow?
415 2010-11-26 07:10:35 <ByteCoin> There's a problem of bandwidth where there are lots of nodes generating trasnsactions and not so many miners.
416 2010-11-26 07:10:56 <theymos> jgarzik: My wild guess is 10 "backbone" companies, plus a few hundred hobbyist generators. Everyone else will be connected to one or two of the backbone nodes.
417 2010-11-26 07:11:02 <ByteCoin> Block generation is designed to happen every 10 mins on average
418 2010-11-26 07:11:13 <theymos> davux: It never stops. When it gets slow, you have to wait.
419 2010-11-26 07:11:27 <davux> but it will stop eventually, won't it?
420 2010-11-26 07:11:31 <ArtForz> nope
421 2010-11-26 07:11:39 <davux> since the total number of bitcoins is limited to 21 million
422 2010-11-26 07:11:46 <ArtForz> the amount of minted coins per block will get lower and lower
423 2010-11-26 07:11:52 <jgarzik> tx fees
424 2010-11-26 07:11:59 <ArtForz> blocks will still get generated at 10 min/block
425 2010-11-26 07:12:16 <ArtForz> at what difficulty... who knows
426 2010-11-26 07:12:40 <ArtForz> incentive for miners then will be a) tx fees and b) maintaining the network
427 2010-11-26 07:13:03 <davux> so even when there's no bitcoin left (or nearly) to be generated, blocks will continue to be generated?
428 2010-11-26 07:13:07 <davux> i thought blocks and bitcoins were nearly the same thing
429 2010-11-26 07:13:08 <ArtForz> yep
430 2010-11-26 07:13:15 <ArtForz> not really
431 2010-11-26 07:13:17 edcba_ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
432 2010-11-26 07:13:20 <nanotube> my wild guess is, there will be a 'pooled generator' running, so all the plebes can contribute. :)
433 2010-11-26 07:13:37 <ArtForz> yep
434 2010-11-26 07:13:58 <ArtForz> I expect a hub-leaf config is the only option if bitcoin gets really big
435 2010-11-26 07:14:19 <ByteCoin> My guess is that GPU generation will be seen to be a bad thing and will be made to cease
436 2010-11-26 07:14:26 <ArtForz> lol
437 2010-11-26 07:14:27 * ByteCoin ducks and runs away
438 2010-11-26 07:14:41 <nanotube> ByteCoin: that's not possible... how would you detect what source cpu power comes from? :P
439 2010-11-26 07:14:59 <ByteCoin> You'd have to change the proof of work...
440 2010-11-26 07:15:00 <jgarzik> my guess is that we'll have way too way zeroes in a hash
441 2010-11-26 07:15:07 <ArtForz> nah
442 2010-11-26 07:15:07 <davux> :)
443 2010-11-26 07:15:08 <theymos> Electricity cost competition will at some point make even pooled mining unprofitable.
444 2010-11-26 07:15:50 <ByteCoin> The problem with the current proof of work is that specialized hardware has better performance/cost characteristics
445 2010-11-26 07:15:53 <davux> i stopped generating, because my client was running at 400 khashes/s, and it seemed like it would take 2+ years
446 2010-11-26 07:15:57 <davux> so there was no point
447 2010-11-26 07:16:06 <nanotube> theymos: it's not about profit. people compute for the various @home profit at a clear cost to them.
448 2010-11-26 07:16:15 <nanotube> s/not about/not all about/ :)
449 2010-11-26 07:16:16 <davux> i think many people are in the same situation
450 2010-11-26 07:16:20 <ArtForz> ByteCoin: and thats true in the general case
451 2010-11-26 07:16:37 <ArtForz> theres really not many algorithms dedicated hardware can't speed up
452 2010-11-26 07:16:37 <ByteCoin> Artforz: Not so much...
453 2010-11-26 07:17:05 <ByteCoin> Hard to make specialized hardware if your proof of work requires a slab of memory too
454 2010-11-26 07:17:08 <jgarzik> surely there is a business model for pooled mining, even at higher TX rates
455 2010-11-26 07:17:22 <ByteCoin> A pretty big slab
456 2010-11-26 07:17:31 edcba has joined
457 2010-11-26 07:17:38 <AAA_awright> What if there's a maths breakthrough that renders blocks no longer necessary?
458 2010-11-26 07:17:46 <ByteCoin> Don't forget that an average computer has at least 1 GIGABYTE of memory
459 2010-11-26 07:17:50 <ArtForz> so?
460 2010-11-26 07:18:06 <theymos> nanotube: You'll need an enterprise-level Internet connection to generate at some point. Maybe some organizations will run donation nodes, but @home will be impossible.
461 2010-11-26 07:18:13 <ArtForz> nope
462 2010-11-26 07:18:13 <AAA_awright> Point is, I don't see the protocol staying the same
463 2010-11-26 07:18:24 <ArtForz> theymos: for pooled egenration the miners only need the block header
464 2010-11-26 07:18:27 <ByteCoin> So how would your gpu cope if each proof of work required processing several MB of information
465 2010-11-26 07:18:29 <jgarzik> indeed
466 2010-11-26 07:18:35 <nanotube> theymos: why, the server just distributes the work to the nodes
467 2010-11-26 07:19:05 <ByteCoin> Your GPU would be memory througput bound really soon
468 2010-11-26 07:19:06 <theymos> Forgot about that...
469 2010-11-26 07:19:10 <ArtForz> lol
470 2010-11-26 07:19:59 <jgarzik> it's such a pain manually manage external memory and CPU (read: GPU)
471 2010-11-26 07:20:11 * jgarzik waits for the first GPU OS
472 2010-11-26 07:20:29 <ArtForz> compare the memory bandwidth of a CPU to a mid-range GPU
473 2010-11-26 07:20:53 <bd_> Actually, it'd probably be sufficient to make the proof of work require a lot of branch operations
474 2010-11-26 07:21:01 <ByteCoin> I presume that the GPU has better bandwidth but by how many times?
475 2010-11-26 07:21:02 <bd_> Memory bandwidth alone isn't that much of a problem for a GPU
476 2010-11-26 07:21:05 <jgarzik> oh sure. doesn't decrease the programmer's annoyance level any :)
477 2010-11-26 07:21:31 * jgarzik poked a bit at Cell a while ago. Interesting to see what does and doesn't translate to R700
478 2010-11-26 07:22:31 <ArtForz> about a factor of 4
479 2010-11-26 07:22:48 <ByteCoin> Put it this way. A memory-irrelevant POW like sha256 is much faster on a GPU than something memory bandwidth bound
480 2010-11-26 07:22:56 <ArtForz> yep
481 2010-11-26 07:23:26 <ByteCoin> So if your GPU only got you a factor of 4 improvement then it wouldn't be so compelling
482 2010-11-26 07:24:14 <ArtForz> so.. you want to make generation easiest on general-purpose CPUs
483 2010-11-26 07:24:26 <ByteCoin> You'd have to choose your POW so that it's something that CPUs do BEST of all hardware
484 2010-11-26 07:24:38 <ArtForz> congratulations, you just made it easier to break bitcoin with a botnet. you win one internets.
485 2010-11-26 07:25:19 <jgarzik> as tech moves forward everybody will have a useful GPU
486 2010-11-26 07:25:20 <ByteCoin> GPU miners are invulnurable from botnetting? Artforz - lose one internet
487 2010-11-26 07:25:31 <ArtForz> a lot less vulnerable
488 2010-11-26 07:25:45 <ByteCoin> Just because you have the knowhow?
489 2010-11-26 07:25:57 <ArtForz> your average rooted windows box doesn't have a very powerful GPU
490 2010-11-26 07:26:10 <ByteCoin> OK. I take your point
491 2010-11-26 07:26:36 <ArtForz> though it probably has a C2D at least
492 2010-11-26 07:26:52 <ByteCoin> Still, the current situation makes it more likely that bitcoin will be broken by a motivated attacker with specialized hardware
493 2010-11-26 07:27:07 <ArtForz> yep
494 2010-11-26 07:27:13 <ByteCoin> so ASIC on one side, botnet on the other
495 2010-11-26 07:27:26 <ArtForz> specialized hardware = major initial investment
496 2010-11-26 07:27:47 <theymos> The person with specialized hardware is competent and actually cares.
497 2010-11-26 07:27:50 <ByteCoin> I actually had an idea that you should have two proofs of work and take it in turns. The difficulties of both would vary independently//
498 2010-11-26 07:28:03 <ArtForz> and I mean MAJOR, you'd pretty much have to go ASIC to get a decent edge over GPUs
499 2010-11-26 07:28:26 <ByteCoin> One should be GPU based one CPU. Yes we're talking ASIC to get better than GPU
500 2010-11-26 07:28:34 <ArtForz> = FPGA wont cut it
501 2010-11-26 07:28:42 <ByteCoin> FPGA slow
502 2010-11-26 07:28:47 <ArtForz> slow and expensive
503 2010-11-26 07:28:57 <ByteCoin> for what it does
504 2010-11-26 07:29:12 <ArtForz> and beats GPUs 'only' by about 1.3-5 on Mhash/W
505 2010-11-26 07:29:19 <ArtForz> *1.3-1.5
506 2010-11-26 07:29:51 <ByteCoin> What do you think about two proofs of work?
507 2010-11-26 07:30:10 <ByteCoin> One would be suitable for GPUs and the other for CPUs
508 2010-11-26 07:30:32 <ArtForz> that could work
509 2010-11-26 07:31:08 <jgarzik> what is "suitable" for CPU yet not GPU?
510 2010-11-26 07:31:26 <ArtForz> anything with lots of branching and random memory access patterns
511 2010-11-26 07:31:29 <ByteCoin> jgarzik: Something memory bandwidth bound - or at least more so
512 2010-11-26 07:31:45 <ByteCoin> What artforz said
513 2010-11-26 07:31:55 <jgarzik> branching will get better as GPGPU catches on
514 2010-11-26 07:32:06 <jgarzik> it's a clear need already
515 2010-11-26 07:32:08 <ByteCoin> There are some fundamental limitations
516 2010-11-26 07:32:23 <jgarzik> such as?
517 2010-11-26 07:32:25 <ArtForz> I doubt it, as you make the SIMD vectors smaller your size/speed advantage over CPUs diminishes
518 2010-11-26 07:32:45 <ByteCoin> What artforz said
519 2010-11-26 07:33:01 <ArtForz> in the end you end up with something like larrabee
520 2010-11-26 07:33:10 <ArtForz> dozens of cpu-ish cores on a chip
521 2010-11-26 07:33:14 <jgarzik> nod, to Larrabee
522 2010-11-26 07:33:38 <ByteCoin> Memory bandwidth is a bottleneck. Why are supercomputers so expensive? Is it the processor?
523 2010-11-26 07:33:48 <ArtForz> nope, the interconnect
524 2010-11-26 07:33:54 <ByteCoin> A nice whizzy processor makes a supercomputer?
525 2010-11-26 07:34:06 <ByteCoin> Artforz wins back his internets
526 2010-11-26 07:34:58 <ArtForz> of course a decent ASIC implementation can hit TB/s
527 2010-11-26 07:35:20 <ByteCoin> ASIC implementation of what?
528 2010-11-26 07:35:30 <ByteCoin> SHA256?
529 2010-11-26 07:35:36 <ArtForz> of a memory controller
530 2010-11-26 07:35:52 <ArtForz> = getting a shitload of bandwidth isn't much of a problem, just add channels
531 2010-11-26 07:36:03 <ByteCoin> If that's the case why isn't it more common?
532 2010-11-26 07:36:24 <ArtForz> because nothing needs that much bandwidth
533 2010-11-26 07:36:52 <ArtForz> well, except for stuff like large crossbar switches
534 2010-11-26 07:36:59 <ByteCoin> Hmmm..... But some systems are running on 8 cores... I think memory is still a problem there mainly due to the lack of bandwidth
535 2010-11-26 07:37:34 <ByteCoin> Ok I won't argue
536 2010-11-26 07:37:35 <ArtForz> the problem with CPUs is that making a high-speed bus work with CPU and memory socketed is not easy
537 2010-11-26 07:37:40 <theymos> With the new tx fee changes, generators will always pay no fee on transactions under 10kB, even though they know the actual blocksize. That sucks.
538 2010-11-26 07:38:19 <ArtForz> you sure?
539 2010-11-26 07:38:20 <ByteCoin> theymos: I don't understand. What has the actual blocksize got to do with anything?
540 2010-11-26 07:38:30 <theymos> ByteCoin: Changes the fee.
541 2010-11-26 07:38:39 <ByteCoin> And whgy would generators pay a fee?
542 2010-11-26 07:38:54 <jgarzik> ByteCoin: generators receive the fee :)
543 2010-11-26 07:39:01 <ArtForz> hmmm., you'Re right
544 2010-11-26 07:39:19 <theymos> ArtForz: You think it's a bug, or intentional?
545 2010-11-26 07:39:28 <ByteCoin> Oh no.. Do I have to read that bit of source AGAIN....
546 2010-11-26 07:39:31 <ArtForz> I think thats a bug
547 2010-11-26 07:40:47 <theymos> I'll email Satoshi about it.
548 2010-11-26 07:41:22 <ArtForz> or maybe because miners will set fallowFree if a tx scores high enough?
549 2010-11-26 07:41:58 <ArtForz> hmmm... nope... they'll still hit the 27k limit
550 2010-11-26 07:42:27 <ArtForz> so yeah, I'd say bug
551 2010-11-26 07:42:49 <jgarzik> ? nBlockSize>1 appears to be passed to GetMinFee in CreateNewBlock()?
552 2010-11-26 07:43:05 <ArtForz> yep
553 2010-11-26 07:43:29 <theymos> jgarzik: It's called without parameter when sending bitcoins, though, which causes you to ignore the blocksize and always pay no fees on transactions below 10 kB.
554 2010-11-26 07:43:56 <ByteCoin> Ugh....
555 2010-11-26 07:44:19 <LobsterMan> does anyone know what svn revision bitcoin 0.3.17 is based on?
556 2010-11-26 07:44:27 <jgarzik> theymos: apologies... I'm a bit confused. How does one know the block size when creating a TX?
557 2010-11-26 07:44:46 <theymos> jgarzik: Generators can look at the size of their own temporary block, which is likely to be accurate.
558 2010-11-26 07:45:10 <ArtForz> r191
559 2010-11-26 07:45:33 <ByteCoin> I think the whole fees thing needs to be overhauled. You only know how much fee you SHOULD have sent too late.
560 2010-11-26 07:45:38 <ByteCoin> There has to be a better way
561 2010-11-26 07:45:46 <jgarzik> theymos: and? at that point, the TX (and any associated fee) has already been sent. I thought fee was bundled with each TX at creation time, by having input>output?
562 2010-11-26 07:45:48 <LobsterMan> thanks ArtForz
563 2010-11-26 07:46:23 <ByteCoin> The way that code leverages default arguments to essentially be two different functions depending on where it's called from is ugly
564 2010-11-26 07:47:19 <theymos> jgarzik: Before creating the transaction, generators can know the approximate blocksize and therefore guess a more-likely-to-be-correct fee amount to send.
565 2010-11-26 07:47:46 <ByteCoin> I'm sure non-generators know this also from their transaction cache
566 2010-11-26 07:47:57 <jgarzik> theymos: it looks at recent history of block sizes?
567 2010-11-26 07:48:52 <theymos> jgarzik: No. Generators look at their own temporary block that they're hashing.
568 2010-11-26 07:50:57 <jgarzik> theymos: just to be clear, "generator" == creator of TX, or creator of block?
569 2010-11-26 07:51:13 <theymos> jgarzik: Anyone who has "generate coins" turned on.
570 2010-11-26 07:51:37 <theymos> People who don't attempt to create blocks don't collect transactions and can't guess at the block size.
571 2010-11-26 07:52:01 <ByteCoin> Can't they guess the size just by looking at their trasnaction pool?
572 2010-11-26 07:52:11 <theymos> Non-generators don't have a transaction pool.
573 2010-11-26 07:52:36 <ByteCoin> They receive them. They don't store them?
574 2010-11-26 07:52:48 <jgarzik> OK, then I don't understand "Before creating the transaction, generators can know[...]" -- because generators don't create transactions, nor do they "send fees" anywhere except their own wallet....
575 2010-11-26 07:52:53 <theymos> I don't think they even request them after getting the inv (or they shouldn't).
576 2010-11-26 07:53:16 <ByteCoin> I thought they didn't relay what they've already seen so they have to store (at least the hash) of what they've seen
577 2010-11-26 07:53:18 <jgarzik> creator of TX pays TX fees, and is the one who needs to know how much to send
578 2010-11-26 07:53:38 <theymos> jgarzik: I have "generate coins" turned on. I also send transactions from time to time. Those transactions that I send can use correct fees because I know which transactions will be in the next block.
579 2010-11-26 07:54:08 <ByteCoin> How do clients relay transactions correctly if they don't have a transaction pool?
580 2010-11-26 07:54:14 <LobsterMan> is changing the getwork interval from 5s to anything else likely to change anything significant?
581 2010-11-26 07:54:15 <theymos> ByteCoin: Yeah; maybe they store the hashes for relay purposes.
582 2010-11-26 07:54:18 <ByteCoin> Non-generating clientss
583 2010-11-26 07:54:24 <jgarzik> theymos: ahhh. ok, understand. an increasingly-uncommon case, IMO.
584 2010-11-26 07:54:26 <jgarzik> tnx
585 2010-11-26 07:54:46 <theymos> This benefit is actually the only reason that I do generate.
586 2010-11-26 07:55:36 <jgarzik> How many follow the same practice, and are likely to do so into the future?
587 2010-11-26 07:55:46 <theymos> Probably no one.
588 2010-11-26 07:56:02 <ByteCoin> theymos: How do you use this knowledge to calculate fees. I presume your client is non-standard
589 2010-11-26 07:56:21 <ByteCoin> It's something you've set up.
590 2010-11-26 07:56:29 <theymos> ByteCoin: No. The client does it automatically if you're a generator.
591 2010-11-26 07:57:01 <ByteCoin> How is are you made aware of it? Where is the "you should include this fee" information displayed?
592 2010-11-26 07:57:39 <theymos> GetMinFee is used for both generation and transaction creation. It looks at the blocksize.
593 2010-11-26 07:58:37 <ByteCoin> But as a user how do you tell. Is it displayed somewhere?
594 2010-11-26 07:59:08 <tylergillies> wooho just got docs.google.com to throw a 500 error
595 2010-11-26 07:59:11 <ByteCoin> Or are your outgoing transactions fee'd at the discretion of your generating client?
596 2010-11-26 07:59:12 <tylergillies> first time ive seen that
597 2010-11-26 07:59:33 <theymos> ByteCoin: Right. It's the fee that will show up in the "you must pay this fee" dialog.
598 2010-11-26 07:59:47 <ByteCoin> Ok. I understand.
599 2010-11-26 08:04:17 * jgarzik wonders why everybody is dumping their Pecunix :)
600 2010-11-26 08:08:23 <jgarzik> shoot, not many bitcoins at all living at bitcoinmarket anymore
601 2010-11-26 08:09:14 <jgarzik> no one wants MoneyBookers USD at all [for bitcoins] apparently, and I'm the only one selling BTC for PGAU
602 2010-11-26 08:12:19 <LobsterMan> it's interesting to look at the heat trends of my cards between different bitcoin and miner versions
603 2010-11-26 08:16:24 <LobsterMan> LOL
604 2010-11-26 08:16:27 <LobsterMan> oh dear
605 2010-11-26 08:18:02 <LobsterMan> http://imgur.com/FwSsr.png
606 2010-11-26 08:18:11 <LobsterMan> and then it crashes
607 2010-11-26 08:18:50 <LobsterMan> if i use -v
608 2010-11-26 08:19:13 <LobsterMan> http://pastebin.com/R4TBuvBK
609 2010-11-26 08:21:27 altamic has joined
610 2010-11-26 08:32:00 <OneFixt> LobsterMan: is that a bug or are you actually getting 3.8Gh/s?
611 2010-11-26 08:37:55 <OneFixt> oh, that's Terahash, lol; bug it is
612 2010-11-26 08:40:35 <OneFixt> ;;bc,estimate
613 2010-11-26 08:40:35 <gribble> 7341.58529730
614 2010-11-26 08:40:40 <OneFixt> ;;bc,stats
615 2010-11-26 08:40:42 <gribble> Current Blocks: 93902 | Current Difficulty: 6866.89864897 | Next Difficulty At Block: 94752 | Next Difficulty In: 850 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 5 days, 12 hours, 30 minutes, and 24 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 7341.58529730
616 2010-11-26 08:45:24 Kiba has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
617 2010-11-26 08:55:28 <LobsterMan> i think it's a bug
618 2010-11-26 08:55:28 <LobsterMan> lol
619 2010-11-26 09:00:05 <LobsterMan> it looks like it was counting total hashes
620 2010-11-26 09:00:06 <LobsterMan> not the rate
621 2010-11-26 09:02:28 <jrabbit> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/11/26/0238248/UK-Police-To-Get-Major-New-Powers-To-Seize-Domains
622 2010-11-26 09:04:09 int0x27h has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
623 2010-11-26 09:05:09 rlifchitz has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
624 2010-11-26 09:05:34 <LobsterMan> is my gfc card fan more likely to burn out running at 100% for long periods of time as opposed to like 80%?
625 2010-11-26 09:05:37 <LobsterMan> gfx*
626 2010-11-26 09:12:29 davux has left ()
627 2010-11-26 09:16:43 rlifchitz has joined
628 2010-11-26 09:16:43 rlifchitz has quit (Changing host)
629 2010-11-26 09:16:43 rlifchitz has joined
630 2010-11-26 09:39:26 <tylergillies> I work at readwriteweb.com and im good friends with the co-editor, im gonna try to get him to write a story about bitcoin for our wikipedia efforts, gonna make that part of the story
631 2010-11-26 09:52:46 <theymos> Cool. I should buy some more BTC before your story is released. ;)
632 2010-11-26 09:52:52 <tylergillies> heh
633 2010-11-26 10:05:19 <jgarzik> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1958.0
634 2010-11-26 10:05:19 <jgarzik> Bitcoin press hits, notable sources
635 2010-11-26 10:05:34 <jgarzik> contributions (URLs) requested.
636 2010-11-26 10:23:16 jrabbit has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
637 2010-11-26 10:25:23 jrabbit has joined
638 2010-11-26 10:35:44 <LobsterMan> i added a new link to that thread
639 2010-11-26 10:36:20 <LobsterMan> i don't know if it's "legit" or whatnot but it has people commenting on it
640 2010-11-26 10:36:21 <LobsterMan> http://www.bitcoinblogger.com/2010/11/bitcoin-gains-legal-protection-through.html
641 2010-11-26 10:50:36 <LobsterMan> everyone should send the EFF like 10 btc :]
642 2010-11-26 10:50:36 <LobsterMan> https://www.eff.org/helpout
643 2010-11-26 10:50:45 <LobsterMan> if you live in the US
644 2010-11-26 10:53:12 <joe_1> why does it matter if u live in the us
645 2010-11-26 10:55:00 <LobsterMan> or anyone who supports them :]
646 2010-11-26 10:55:15 <joe_1> o
647 2010-11-26 10:56:11 <LobsterMan> they're a us based organization
648 2010-11-26 10:56:12 <LobsterMan> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation
649 2010-11-26 10:56:43 <altamic> LobsterMan: done
650 2010-11-26 10:56:58 <LobsterMan> nice
651 2010-11-26 10:57:02 <LobsterMan> i sent them 10 heh
652 2010-11-26 10:57:09 <LobsterMan> maybe will send more in the future
653 2010-11-26 10:57:20 <altamic> idem
654 2010-11-26 10:57:48 <LobsterMan> i sent some to m0mchil for his miner too lol
655 2010-11-26 10:57:53 * LobsterMan is feeling generous today
656 2010-11-26 11:02:55 <joe_1> 1NFVpieFXFj8iiYMbckUsuVaizFhSjXjQQ
657 2010-11-26 11:05:30 <LobsterMan> :P
658 2010-11-26 11:05:56 <joe_1> thanks
659 2010-11-26 11:06:28 <joe_1> have u tried my bitcoin site yet
660 2010-11-26 11:06:32 <LobsterMan> no
661 2010-11-26 11:06:45 <joe_1> it's at cashcow.no-ip.org
662 2010-11-26 11:10:34 <joe_1> i'll start you off with 20 coins if you let me know the username
663 2010-11-26 11:14:54 <joe_1> im starting a financial website as well in the near future
664 2010-11-26 11:15:59 <joe_1> a forex type site to allow people to buy dollars / sell dollars / short sell / etc
665 2010-11-26 11:22:06 <LobsterMan> ahh hmm
666 2010-11-26 11:28:43 <theymos> I just enabled compression on BBE. For those who've used it before: does it seem faster now? (It seems slower to me, but it's on my LAN.) http://blockexplorer.com/
667 2010-11-26 11:28:46 <altamic> joe_1: I will code for BTC :)
668 2010-11-26 11:29:59 <LobsterMan> seems about the same to me
669 2010-11-26 11:30:01 <LobsterMan> maybe a bit faster?
670 2010-11-26 11:30:12 <LobsterMan> i never really noticed it was especially slow before
671 2010-11-26 11:30:32 <altamic> fast as usual here
672 2010-11-26 11:32:18 <theymos> Thanks. I'll leave it compressed for now.
673 2010-11-26 11:38:38 MacRohard has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
674 2010-11-26 11:39:41 MacRohard has joined
675 2010-11-26 11:51:32 Diablo-D3 has joined
676 2010-11-26 11:52:47 utyut has joined
677 2010-11-26 12:14:47 <tylergillies> its kinda lonely in #bitcoin on i2p
678 2010-11-26 12:14:51 <tylergillies> its just me and myself
679 2010-11-26 12:16:23 Antagonist has joined
680 2010-11-26 12:38:34 cdecker has joined
681 2010-11-26 12:41:00 cdecker has left ()
682 2010-11-26 13:00:10 <MacRohard> you might as well leave since you just blew your cover ;)
683 2010-11-26 13:10:01 dwdollar has joined
684 2010-11-26 13:14:29 <LobsterMan> http://english.aljazeera.net/video/americas/2010/11/201011269019909253.html
685 2010-11-26 13:15:01 <doublec> what's with all the 0.004 mtgox trades?
686 2010-11-26 13:15:35 <doublec> #bitcoin-market is showing a ton of them
687 2010-11-26 13:15:51 <LobsterMan> not sure, likely a spammer
688 2010-11-26 13:16:01 <LobsterMan> it stopped for a few hours last night
689 2010-11-26 13:16:05 <LobsterMan> but it's started up again
690 2010-11-26 13:23:08 <doublec> weird trade amounts going on
691 2010-11-26 13:23:23 <doublec> maybe they're trying to find or exploit some rounding bug
692 2010-11-26 13:24:08 <doublec> or someone's trading bot went crazy and they're going to be disappointed when they check on it later...
693 2010-11-26 13:24:11 <LobsterMan> lots of small trades recently
694 2010-11-26 13:25:11 <doublec> lots of 9.744 @ $0.282
695 2010-11-26 13:25:22 <doublec> followed by 10 @ $0.2764
696 2010-11-26 13:25:39 <doublec> interesting how the price is always the same for the given number of btc
697 2010-11-26 13:26:33 <LobsterMan> yeah mtgox has some shit to sort out
698 2010-11-26 13:26:33 <LobsterMan> lol
699 2010-11-26 13:27:29 <remmy> The transaction values of the two are almost the same too
700 2010-11-26 13:27:37 <doublec> might just be two trading bots competing
701 2010-11-26 13:28:24 <remmy> It does make MTG look like a busy place :)
702 2010-11-26 13:38:10 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
703 2010-11-26 13:40:24 <tylergillies> is gpu built into main client now? whats this getwork people are talking about?
704 2010-11-26 13:45:44 slush_cz has joined
705 2010-11-26 14:00:19 <ByteCoin> test
706 2010-11-26 14:01:19 HarryS has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
707 2010-11-26 14:01:38 HarryS has joined
708 2010-11-26 14:08:10 jackmcbarn has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
709 2010-11-26 14:14:27 jackmcbarn has joined
710 2010-11-26 14:20:39 jackmcbarn has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
711 2010-11-26 14:24:50 jackmcbarn has joined
712 2010-11-26 14:29:53 <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, I mvn package'd your miner, and now when I try to start it on a 64-bit ubuntu lucid I get: Exception in thread "main" java.lang.UnsatisfiedLinkError: /home/bitcoin/DiabloMiner/target/libs/natives/linux/liblwjgl.so: /home/bitcoin/DiabloMiner/target/libs/natives/linux/liblwjgl.so: wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS32 (Possible cause: architecture word width mismatch)
713 2010-11-26 14:30:15 <UukGoblin> (dunno why it uses a wrong lib)
714 2010-11-26 14:30:24 <UukGoblin> (it should use liblwjgl64.so
715 2010-11-26 14:30:32 <UukGoblin> (which is there)
716 2010-11-26 14:31:11 <UukGoblin> ahrm, the *64.so tries to link to jawt.so which /isn't/ there I think
717 2010-11-26 14:31:17 <UukGoblin> libjawt.so I mean
718 2010-11-26 14:35:34 <UukGoblin> question 2: is there a way to further overclock a HD 5770 - ati's drivers only allow up to 960MHz, and my card is still only 61 deg C warm
719 2010-11-26 14:40:16 jackmcbarn has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
720 2010-11-26 14:44:03 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
721 2010-11-26 14:48:45 <Diablo-D3> back
722 2010-11-26 14:48:51 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: because you're on ubuntu 64
723 2010-11-26 14:48:52 <Diablo-D3> right?
724 2010-11-26 14:48:54 <Diablo-D3> riiiiight?
725 2010-11-26 14:49:04 <Diablo-D3> riiiiiiiiiiiight?
726 2010-11-26 14:51:47 sgornick has joined
727 2010-11-26 14:52:44 <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, right
728 2010-11-26 14:52:53 <UukGoblin> I am on ubuntu 64
729 2010-11-26 14:53:01 <UukGoblin> is ubuntu wrong or is 64 wrong? ;-P
730 2010-11-26 14:53:17 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: the combination of both
731 2010-11-26 14:53:21 <Diablo-D3> ubuntu 32 works, debian 64 works
732 2010-11-26 14:53:25 <Diablo-D3> but not ubuntu 64
733 2010-11-26 14:53:28 <Diablo-D3> and I cant figure out why
734 2010-11-26 14:53:37 jackmcbarn has joined
735 2010-11-26 14:53:37 <UukGoblin> hm.
736 2010-11-26 14:53:40 <UukGoblin> sucks.
737 2010-11-26 14:53:41 <Diablo-D3> and it effects, theoretically, any lwjgl using opencl app (but not opengl apps)
738 2010-11-26 14:53:44 <Diablo-D3> yes it does
739 2010-11-26 14:53:53 <Diablo-D3> because now three of you ubuntu faggots have reported that bug
740 2010-11-26 14:53:59 <UukGoblin> I'm happy to fiddle with it
741 2010-11-26 14:54:01 <Diablo-D3> the only cure is to quit using ubuntu altogether
742 2010-11-26 14:54:11 <Diablo-D3> because its clearly an ubuntu bug
743 2010-11-26 14:54:20 <UukGoblin> firstly, when I ldd that liblwjgl64.so, I get a not found on libjawt.so
744 2010-11-26 14:54:38 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: ubuntu does package sun java
745 2010-11-26 14:54:41 <Diablo-D3> try using it
746 2010-11-26 14:54:45 <UukGoblin> I am using it
747 2010-11-26 14:55:00 <UukGoblin> one from "deb http://archive.canonical.com/ lucid partner"
748 2010-11-26 14:55:03 <Diablo-D3> orly?
749 2010-11-26 14:55:06 <Diablo-D3> not openjdk?
750 2010-11-26 14:55:19 <Diablo-D3> java -version should agree with you
751 2010-11-26 14:55:21 <UukGoblin> I had openjdk first, but maven was bitching about javac, so I got the sun one
752 2010-11-26 14:55:32 <UukGoblin> java version "1.6.0_22"
753 2010-11-26 14:55:41 <UukGoblin> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_22-b04)
754 2010-11-26 14:55:41 <UukGoblin> Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 17.1-b03, mixed mode)
755 2010-11-26 14:55:46 <Diablo-D3> yeah thats the right one
756 2010-11-26 14:55:50 <Diablo-D3> I wonder what the hell ubuntu did
757 2010-11-26 14:56:24 <UukGoblin> so - any clue as to what libjawt is?
758 2010-11-26 14:56:29 <Diablo-D3> yes, its part of java.
759 2010-11-26 14:56:29 <UukGoblin> I don't see it in apt
760 2010-11-26 14:56:56 <Diablo-D3> both sun and openjdk ship it
761 2010-11-26 14:57:04 <Diablo-D3> as does gcj
762 2010-11-26 14:57:08 <Diablo-D3> without it, no awt
763 2010-11-26 14:57:47 <UukGoblin> ah, OK, I have it in /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun-1.6.0.22/jre/lib/amd64/libjawt.so
764 2010-11-26 14:58:24 <UukGoblin> which is not in ld.so.conf
765 2010-11-26 14:58:36 <Diablo-D3> it shouldnt be
766 2010-11-26 14:58:37 <UukGoblin> which is fine - java probably knows where to look for it
767 2010-11-26 14:58:44 <Diablo-D3> yes
768 2010-11-26 14:58:51 <Diablo-D3> I suspect this isnt a java problem at all
769 2010-11-26 14:58:53 <UukGoblin> ok
770 2010-11-26 14:59:00 <Diablo-D3> but its a problem with their broken security shot no one else uses
771 2010-11-26 14:59:10 <Diablo-D3> since only ubuntu 64 suffers from it
772 2010-11-26 14:59:23 <UukGoblin> I'll make liblwjgl.so point at liblwjgl64.so
773 2010-11-26 14:59:35 <Diablo-D3> doesnt fix it
774 2010-11-26 14:59:43 <Diablo-D3> thats already been tried
775 2010-11-26 15:00:02 <Diablo-D3> lwjgl works by trying to link liblwjgl.so first, then the 64 bit one
776 2010-11-26 15:00:28 <Diablo-D3> problem is, there something very broken in ubuntu thats making attempting to link the 32 bit one fail
777 2010-11-26 15:00:58 <UukGoblin> indeed, but now it gives a different error: Exception in thread "main" java.lang.UnsatisfiedLinkError: /home/bitcoin/DiabloMiner/target/libs/natives/linux/liblwjgl.so: /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun-1.6.0.22/jre/lib/amd64/libjawt.so: symbol awt_FreeDrawingSurface, version SUNWprivate_1.1 not defined in file libmawt.so with link time reference
778 2010-11-26 15:01:39 <UukGoblin> libmawt.so?
779 2010-11-26 15:02:14 <Diablo-D3> yes even more awesome javary
780 2010-11-26 15:03:21 <UukGoblin> so libmawt.so is in headless, xawt and motif21
781 2010-11-26 15:03:52 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: now heres the really fun part
782 2010-11-26 15:03:58 <Diablo-D3> someone tried downloading sun's from sun
783 2010-11-26 15:04:05 <Diablo-D3> it STILL happens
784 2010-11-26 15:04:11 <Diablo-D3> so whatever it is, its not in java
785 2010-11-26 15:04:24 <Diablo-D3> and its not in ubuntu's packaging of java
786 2010-11-26 15:04:30 <Diablo-D3> its in ubuntu somewhere else
787 2010-11-26 15:04:35 <Diablo-D3> this bug makes no sense
788 2010-11-26 15:04:59 slush_cz has left ()
789 2010-11-26 15:05:03 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: I bet if you install the 32 bit java package (I think ubuntu has one), it'll work
790 2010-11-26 15:05:09 <Diablo-D3> which is absolutely nuts
791 2010-11-26 15:05:28 <UukGoblin> so what's awt?
792 2010-11-26 15:06:10 <Diablo-D3> windowing toolkit shit
793 2010-11-26 15:06:43 <Diablo-D3> lwjgl uses it for opengl apps to open the window, but for nothing else (unless you use lwjgl as a widget in awt/swing apps)
794 2010-11-26 15:06:45 <UukGoblin> could you do: nm /path/to/jre/lib/amd64/libjawt.so | grep awt_FreeDrawing
795 2010-11-26 15:06:45 <UukGoblin> ?
796 2010-11-26 15:07:45 <Diablo-D3> U awt_FreeDrawingSurface@@SUNWprivate_1.1
797 2010-11-26 15:07:53 <UukGoblin> same as here
798 2010-11-26 15:08:05 <UukGoblin> so it must be defined somewhere with that weird version
799 2010-11-26 15:08:11 <Diablo-D3> yes because ubuntu screwed with shit
800 2010-11-26 15:08:39 <UukGoblin> yes
801 2010-11-26 15:08:44 <UukGoblin> question is, which shit that is
802 2010-11-26 15:08:44 <Diablo-D3> and like I said
803 2010-11-26 15:08:50 <Diablo-D3> download the .bin from sun
804 2010-11-26 15:08:52 <Diablo-D3> and it still fails
805 2010-11-26 15:09:05 <Diablo-D3> ubuntu uses really retarded security shit in the kernel
806 2010-11-26 15:09:14 <Diablo-D3> it'll probably break cleverly written code
807 2010-11-26 15:09:24 <Diablo-D3> this is why linus has rejected it upstream everytime its come up
808 2010-11-26 15:09:51 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: btw
809 2010-11-26 15:09:54 <Diablo-D3> everyone else whos had this bug
810 2010-11-26 15:09:57 <Diablo-D3> had to use a 32 bit jvm
811 2010-11-26 15:10:06 <Diablo-D3> like, people not even using lwjgl have had this bug
812 2010-11-26 15:10:53 <UukGoblin> shiit.
813 2010-11-26 15:10:57 <UukGoblin> that sounds deep.
814 2010-11-26 15:11:05 <UukGoblin> as in, that the bug is deep
815 2010-11-26 15:11:07 <Diablo-D3> I wonder if awt/swt is subtly broken somewhere on 64bit linux
816 2010-11-26 15:11:23 Antagonist has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
817 2010-11-26 15:11:30 <Diablo-D3> because almost all the natural occurrences of the ELFCLASS32 bug are in awt/swt shit
818 2010-11-26 15:11:56 Antagonist has joined
819 2010-11-26 15:13:47 <UukGoblin> so which lib or deb defines awt_FreeDrawingSurface@@SUNWprivate_1.1 ?
820 2010-11-26 15:13:58 <Diablo-D3> its internal to java
821 2010-11-26 15:18:04 <UukGoblin> so awt_FreeDrawingSurface (however, without the @@SUNWprivate_1.1 shit) is deifned in xawt/libmawt.so and motif21/libmawt.so but not headless/libmawt.so
822 2010-11-26 15:18:22 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: yeah but
823 2010-11-26 15:18:25 <Diablo-D3> java does shit
824 2010-11-26 15:21:17 <UukGoblin> heh
825 2010-11-26 15:21:31 <UukGoblin> added DISPLAY=:0 and it almost works :-]
826 2010-11-26 15:22:31 <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, http://pastebin.com/dnsBcnnW
827 2010-11-26 15:23:05 <UukGoblin> was /that/ reported too?
828 2010-11-26 15:23:56 <UukGoblin> (does running m0's miner in background hurt? where do I set which device I want to use with your miner?)
829 2010-11-26 15:26:05 <UukGoblin> now, that is crazy
830 2010-11-26 15:26:11 <UukGoblin> I added -w 1000
831 2010-11-26 15:26:18 <UukGoblin> it added two Junipers
832 2010-11-26 15:26:26 <UukGoblin> and I'm now getting 165428000 khash/sec
833 2010-11-26 15:26:33 <UukGoblin> even 183778571 khash/sec
834 2010-11-26 15:27:06 <UukGoblin> with m0's running in background and getting a tiny penalty (175Mhash -> 170Mhash on OC'ed card and 155Mhash -> 150Mhash on non-OC'ed)
835 2010-11-26 15:27:32 <UukGoblin> (also, I do prefer seeing separate hashrates for different cards as I want to know the effects of overclocking)
836 2010-11-26 15:28:08 <UukGoblin> (I'm guessing your khash is wrongly calculated when -w is specified)
837 2010-11-26 15:29:17 <UukGoblin> (and I definitely like the option of choosing which devices I want to run shit on)
838 2010-11-26 15:43:38 <Diablo-D3> b9acj
839 2010-11-26 15:43:50 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: -w cannot exceed the max hardware size
840 2010-11-26 15:43:55 <Diablo-D3> and it has to be a power of 2
841 2010-11-26 15:44:33 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: it should be catching that exception and dying properly
842 2010-11-26 15:45:54 <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, it's not then
843 2010-11-26 15:46:12 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: wait
844 2010-11-26 15:46:12 <UukGoblin> and it also dies when it tries to determine it on its own
845 2010-11-26 15:46:16 <Diablo-D3> how did you fix the bug?
846 2010-11-26 15:47:35 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: well the default should work fine.
847 2010-11-26 15:47:53 <UukGoblin> the ubuntu thing? 1. I copied all 3 64-bit libs in target/libs/natives/linux as the non-64 ones, 2. I added DISPLAY=:0 (with running X)
848 2010-11-26 15:48:06 <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, the default gives http://pastebin.com/dnsBcnnW
849 2010-11-26 15:51:22 redengin has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
850 2010-11-26 16:13:22 xelister has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
851 2010-11-26 16:20:50 LobsterMan has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
852 2010-11-26 16:21:09 LobsterMan has joined
853 2010-11-26 16:21:09 LobsterMan has quit (Changing host)
854 2010-11-26 16:21:09 LobsterMan has joined
855 2010-11-26 16:24:37 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: hrm
856 2010-11-26 16:24:47 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: something sint right on your machine them
857 2010-11-26 16:25:01 <Diablo-D3> that method cannot segfault unless your shit is screwed
858 2010-11-26 16:26:05 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: again, give me your java -version
859 2010-11-26 16:26:18 <Diablo-D3> your hack cant work
860 2010-11-26 16:33:06 redengin has joined
861 2010-11-26 16:45:54 xelister has joined
862 2010-11-26 16:50:40 <nanotube> ;;bc,stats
863 2010-11-26 16:50:42 <gribble> Error: invalid syntax (<string>, line 1)
864 2010-11-26 16:50:47 <nanotube> ooh
865 2010-11-26 16:50:56 <nanotube> whatsup with that...
866 2010-11-26 16:52:54 <nanotube> looks like bbe is down...
867 2010-11-26 16:53:21 <nanotube> http://blockexplorer.com/q/estimate is, anyway
868 2010-11-26 16:53:36 <nanotube> ;;later tell theymos http://blockexplorer.com/q/estimate is down.
869 2010-11-26 16:53:36 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
870 2010-11-26 16:54:14 <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, java version "1.6.0_22"
871 2010-11-26 16:54:14 <UukGoblin> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_22-b04)
872 2010-11-26 16:54:14 <UukGoblin> Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 17.1-b03, mixed mode)
873 2010-11-26 16:54:30 <UukGoblin> it's not a hack it's a workaround. ;-P
874 2010-11-26 16:56:08 rlifchitz has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
875 2010-11-26 16:56:25 rlifchitz has joined
876 2010-11-26 16:56:25 rlifchitz has quit (Changing host)
877 2010-11-26 16:56:25 rlifchitz has joined
878 2010-11-26 17:00:55 <altamic> any macos user around?
879 2010-11-26 17:17:30 Kiba has joined
880 2010-11-26 17:18:13 <Kiba> hello
881 2010-11-26 17:18:37 <tcatm> hi Kiba
882 2010-11-26 17:19:22 <Kiba> hi
883 2010-11-26 17:19:28 <zc00gii> wonder if any miners are around that work better on my machine then the 4way miner
884 2010-11-26 17:19:44 <tcatm> zc00gii: what hardware do you have?
885 2010-11-26 17:20:55 <zc00gii> tcatm: crappy hardware
886 2010-11-26 17:21:00 <zc00gii> uh, no GPU mining
887 2010-11-26 17:21:03 <zc00gii> a
888 2010-11-26 17:21:09 <zc00gii> {System info for kamino} {CPU} [Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6300 @ 1.86GHz] {Cores} [2] {Usage} [22%] {Memory} [783MB/2005MB] {Swap} [13MB/7632MB] {Running} [Gentoo GNU/Linux with kernel version 2.6.35.1-gotta-go-get-that-GTA+ on a x86_64 processor] {Storage} [/dev/sda4 mounted at / 5.4G out of 265G used] [/dev/sdb1 mounted at /home 56G out of 932G used] {Uptime} [12:12:59 up 6 days, 1:08, 1 user] {Load average} [2.25, 2.21, 2.18]
889 2010-11-26 17:21:15 <zc00gii> there's everything else
890 2010-11-26 17:21:46 <tcatm> normal miner might work better than 4way
891 2010-11-26 17:22:24 Antagonist has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
892 2010-11-26 17:22:47 <zc00gii> tcatm: hmm
893 2010-11-26 17:23:07 <zc00gii> tcatm: thing is, I'm waiting for a confirmation
894 2010-11-26 17:23:32 <zc00gii> tcatm: if I stop it and start the normal miner, will I lose the transaction confirmation?
895 2010-11-26 17:23:45 <tcatm> does it already have one confirmation?
896 2010-11-26 17:25:11 <zc00gii> no
897 2010-11-26 17:25:33 * Kiba is a bit disappointed that his art sketch from yesterday recevied only like 2 btc
898 2010-11-26 17:25:40 <Kiba> or not
899 2010-11-26 17:25:58 <tcatm> Kiba: that's like 200 downloads?
900 2010-11-26 17:26:21 <Kiba> .02 excuse me
901 2010-11-26 17:26:28 <Diablo-D3> back
902 2010-11-26 17:26:31 <Kiba> hmm, I am sooo obscure
903 2010-11-26 17:26:32 <Kiba> haha
904 2010-11-26 17:26:47 <Kiba> my work ain't worth pirating anyway
905 2010-11-26 17:26:50 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: huh.
906 2010-11-26 17:26:52 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: strange.
907 2010-11-26 17:26:55 <tcatm> zc00gii: well, you can always restart bitcoin but you should try to keep it running until it has at least one confirmation. it doesn't matter wheter you're computer is mining or not.
908 2010-11-26 17:27:10 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: and you're not getting an error it cant find the opencl libs?
909 2010-11-26 17:28:00 <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, oh, for that, you need to set the environment right I think... ATISTREAMSDKROOT... er.... actually, it's set wrong...
910 2010-11-26 17:28:29 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/path/to/ati-stream-sdk-v2.2-lnx64/lib/x86_64/:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH
911 2010-11-26 17:28:30 <UukGoblin> that means it worked on ati stream 2.1
912 2010-11-26 17:28:30 <Diablo-D3> or whatnot
913 2010-11-26 17:28:36 <UukGoblin> yeah, I have it
914 2010-11-26 17:28:40 <Diablo-D3> it works on 2.1 too
915 2010-11-26 17:30:36 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: how are you running my miner? just with -u -p and -w?
916 2010-11-26 17:30:47 <UukGoblin> via DiabloMiner.sh
917 2010-11-26 17:30:56 <UukGoblin> and yes, exactly the parameters you mentioned
918 2010-11-26 17:30:59 <Diablo-D3> hrm
919 2010-11-26 17:31:04 <Diablo-D3> something isnt right on your box.
920 2010-11-26 17:31:06 <UukGoblin> and DISPLAY=:0
921 2010-11-26 17:31:13 <Diablo-D3> you shouldnt need DISPLAY=:0
922 2010-11-26 17:31:17 <UukGoblin> and the lib*64 swapped
923 2010-11-26 17:31:18 <Diablo-D3> the default already should be :0
924 2010-11-26 17:31:46 <UukGoblin> with DISPLAY="" I get this linking thing (Exception in thread "main" java.lang.UnsatisfiedLinkError: /home/bitcoin/DiabloMiner/target/libs/natives/linux/liblwjgl.so: /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun-1.6.0.22/jre/lib/amd64/libjawt.so: symbol awt_FreeDrawingSurface, version SUNWprivate_1.1 not defined in file libmawt.so with link time reference)
925 2010-11-26 17:31:55 <Diablo-D3> no
926 2010-11-26 17:31:57 <Diablo-D3> you cant blank it out
927 2010-11-26 17:32:08 <Diablo-D3> the default already should be :0
928 2010-11-26 17:32:08 <UukGoblin> it's blank by default man ;-]
929 2010-11-26 17:32:15 <UukGoblin> m0's miner works with DISPLAY=""
930 2010-11-26 17:33:02 <Diablo-D3> no it doesnt.
931 2010-11-26 17:33:06 <Diablo-D3> at least it shouldnt
932 2010-11-26 17:33:06 <Diablo-D3> and no
933 2010-11-26 17:33:08 <UukGoblin> but I set it to :0 for your miner because the headless/libmawt.so doesn't link to that weird awt_FreeDrawingSurface symbol (and it tries to use it)
934 2010-11-26 17:33:09 <Diablo-D3> its not blank by default
935 2010-11-26 17:33:18 <UukGoblin> it's blank when you run it via ssh.
936 2010-11-26 17:33:39 <Diablo-D3> any term opened in X is set to DISPLAY=:n where n is the nth X server running
937 2010-11-26 17:33:39 <UukGoblin> it's a headless and diskless system that I have.
938 2010-11-26 17:33:41 <zc00gii> it's been like, 20 minutes and still no confirmation
939 2010-11-26 17:33:47 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: ahh
940 2010-11-26 17:33:47 <UukGoblin> I don't have any terms open in X
941 2010-11-26 17:33:52 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: then yes, you need to set :0
942 2010-11-26 17:33:58 <UukGoblin> with m0's, I don't.
943 2010-11-26 17:34:05 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: its an lwjgl thing
944 2010-11-26 17:34:09 <UukGoblin> (but I do need X running)
945 2010-11-26 17:34:13 <Diablo-D3> lwjgl starts GL no matter if I use it or not
946 2010-11-26 17:34:26 <UukGoblin> I think it needs it for the awt shit
947 2010-11-26 17:34:48 <UukGoblin> ask the people who reported this bug (and tried swapping the 64-bit libs) on ubuntu 64, if they had DISPLAY=:0
948 2010-11-26 17:34:54 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: no, it uses awt for the opengl shit
949 2010-11-26 17:35:05 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: most people dont run headless miners
950 2010-11-26 17:35:12 <Diablo-D3> and anyone who does, thats their own problem
951 2010-11-26 17:35:34 <Diablo-D3> and Im actually surprised m0's works without DISPLAY set
952 2010-11-26 17:35:50 <Diablo-D3> because it respects :0.x notation
953 2010-11-26 17:36:00 <Diablo-D3> (it being the ati sdk)
954 2010-11-26 17:36:27 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: so, did you get it working right?
955 2010-11-26 17:36:33 bitanarchy has joined
956 2010-11-26 17:37:26 <bitanarchy> Is there a possiblity to check the ballance my bitcoin address without exposing my wallet to a computer that is connected to the internet?
957 2010-11-26 17:37:46 <Diablo-D3> bitanarchy: no, not without knowing every address you've ever used
958 2010-11-26 17:38:31 <zc00gii> yay, it's confirmed
959 2010-11-26 17:38:39 <Diablo-D3> bitanarchy: the information in the chain can tell you the current balance of a specific address... which is meaningless
960 2010-11-26 17:38:52 <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, well it seems to work with -w, but reports crazily large khash (hundreds of millions of khash)
961 2010-11-26 17:39:01 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: yeah, thats called "fail mode"
962 2010-11-26 17:39:06 <UukGoblin> and I can't set which device I want to use / I don't see the per-device khash rate
963 2010-11-26 17:39:06 <Diablo-D3> the kernel isnt being ran
964 2010-11-26 17:39:15 <UukGoblin> aaah.
965 2010-11-26 17:39:18 <Diablo-D3> there is no per device usage
966 2010-11-26 17:39:25 <Diablo-D3> it selects all available devices and uses them
967 2010-11-26 17:39:39 <Diablo-D3> something that has been improved over m0's
968 2010-11-26 17:39:41 <UukGoblin> yeah, which is what is fine for most purposes, but for OC and debug it isn't
969 2010-11-26 17:39:54 <Diablo-D3> well, for debug it still is useful BUT
970 2010-11-26 17:40:00 <UukGoblin> at least the ability to limit which cards it uses would be cool
971 2010-11-26 17:40:02 <Diablo-D3> ati names all the cards the same fucking thing
972 2010-11-26 17:40:14 <Diablo-D3> thx ati
973 2010-11-26 17:40:22 <UukGoblin> doesn't matter, I can map ATI's name directly to physical devices using PCI IDs (and aticonfig --lsa)
974 2010-11-26 17:40:27 <bitanarchy> Diablo-D3: why do you say the the information of the amount of bitcoins a certain address owns is meaningless? People may want to know how much bitcoins they own without having to expose their wallet to potential thiefs.
975 2010-11-26 17:40:37 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: how? all it says is, say, Juniper 4 times.
976 2010-11-26 17:40:44 <UukGoblin> (and by checking the temperature on them using a pistol thermometer)
977 2010-11-26 17:40:50 <UukGoblin> aticonfig --lsa
978 2010-11-26 17:40:55 <Diablo-D3> I mean the name opencl gives to me
979 2010-11-26 17:41:05 <Diablo-D3> Added ATI RV770 (10 CU, 1x vector, local work size of 64)
980 2010-11-26 17:41:11 <Diablo-D3> as such
981 2010-11-26 17:41:12 <UukGoblin> run aticonfig --lsa
982 2010-11-26 17:41:19 <UukGoblin> you'll see bus IDs
983 2010-11-26 17:41:25 <UukGoblin> or PCI whatever it's called
984 2010-11-26 17:41:26 <Diablo-D3> you're missing the point, UukGoblin
985 2010-11-26 17:41:34 <Diablo-D3> OpenCL doesnt give me that.
986 2010-11-26 17:41:44 <UukGoblin> ah, but with opencl you should have order of devices
987 2010-11-26 17:41:52 <UukGoblin> m0's has -d <number>
988 2010-11-26 17:41:58 <Diablo-D3> his is kind of random
989 2010-11-26 17:42:07 <UukGoblin> and the number is the same as the aticonfig --lsa + 1
990 2010-11-26 17:42:08 <Diablo-D3> its _still_ whatever the sdk returns to him
991 2010-11-26 17:42:19 <Diablo-D3> if the sdk suddenly decided to reverse the order
992 2010-11-26 17:42:26 <UukGoblin> I'm pretty sure the sdk always returns them in the same order
993 2010-11-26 17:42:37 <Diablo-D3> it does as long as the sdk doesnt change
994 2010-11-26 17:42:40 <UukGoblin> (and I can physically check by temperature)
995 2010-11-26 17:42:49 <Diablo-D3> the only thing I can do is check if multiple devices are named the same
996 2010-11-26 17:42:53 <Diablo-D3> which is absurd
997 2010-11-26 17:43:25 <Diablo-D3> I'll fix that later, but not right now]
998 2010-11-26 17:43:41 <bitanarchy> Let's say you want to but a $1000 in bitcoins (not me), then you want to set up a seperate computer that stores the wallet. But you do want to check whether to bitcoins were received, right? What is the best way to do that?
999 2010-11-26 17:43:53 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: the problem right now is
1000 2010-11-26 17:43:59 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: a method that cannot fail is failing
1001 2010-11-26 17:44:55 <Diablo-D3> oh and btw
1002 2010-11-26 17:44:56 genjix has joined
1003 2010-11-26 17:44:59 <genjix> hey
1004 2010-11-26 17:45:08 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: lwjgl may have fixed the bug upstream
1005 2010-11-26 17:45:18 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: it tries to link 64 bit libs first before 32
1006 2010-11-26 17:45:18 <genjix> everyone!
1007 2010-11-26 17:45:23 <genjix> 7 dec bank run
1008 2010-11-26 17:45:33 <genjix> lets do it! bring down the mother fuking banks
1009 2010-11-26 17:45:35 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: which SHOULD fix it without actually ... fixing it.
1010 2010-11-26 17:45:45 <Diablo-D3> genjix: so is that with or without the FDIC?
1011 2010-11-26 17:46:01 <genjix> Not sure what that is?
1012 2010-11-26 17:46:20 <Diablo-D3> Wikipedia is your friend.
1013 2010-11-26 17:47:22 <genjix> ok, a US organisation
1014 2010-11-26 17:47:38 <Kiba> genjix: it's an insurance in case of a bank run
1015 2010-11-26 17:47:38 <genjix> still this requires minimal effort and has potential to cause harm
1016 2010-11-26 17:47:52 <Kiba> BUT it's more of a bandaid
1017 2010-11-26 17:48:00 <Diablo-D3> Kiba: its not a bandaid
1018 2010-11-26 17:48:04 <Kiba> best way to fix bank run is to have 100% reserve banking
1019 2010-11-26 17:48:18 <Diablo-D3> it just uses the full force of the Department of the Treasury to get rid of bank runs.
1020 2010-11-26 17:48:26 <MacRohard> Kiba, then it wouldn't be profitable to be a bank ;)
1021 2010-11-26 17:48:29 <genjix> google 7 dec bank run
1022 2010-11-26 17:48:29 <Diablo-D3> Since money, itself, belongs to the people and to the US Government.
1023 2010-11-26 17:48:34 <genjix> it was on bbc already
1024 2010-11-26 17:48:39 <genjix> so its not just a small thing
1025 2010-11-26 17:48:39 <Kiba> you believe that crap?
1026 2010-11-26 17:48:42 <Diablo-D3> who the fuck cares about the bbc
1027 2010-11-26 17:48:44 <Diablo-D3> or the UK
1028 2010-11-26 17:48:47 <Kiba> anyway
1029 2010-11-26 17:48:51 <Kiba> gottach run
1030 2010-11-26 17:48:51 <Diablo-D3> its a small shitty little country thats falling apart
1031 2010-11-26 17:49:18 <genjix> well im in the uk (agree its shitty)
1032 2010-11-26 17:49:25 <genjix> but thats the 'national' news here
1033 2010-11-26 17:49:38 <OneFixt> ;;bc,stats
1034 2010-11-26 17:49:39 <gribble> Error: invalid syntax (<string>, line 1)
1035 2010-11-26 17:49:48 <Diablo-D3> genjix: lol
1036 2010-11-26 17:49:49 <OneFixt> ;;bc,estimate
1037 2010-11-26 17:49:53 <Diablo-D3> they'd just close the banks on the 7th then
1038 2010-11-26 17:49:55 <gribble> HTTP Error 404: Not Found
1039 2010-11-26 17:50:02 <Diablo-D3> you know whats national news here?
1040 2010-11-26 17:50:18 <Diablo-D3> your fucking police attacking peaceful student protesters
1041 2010-11-26 17:50:34 <Diablo-D3> because your government is in fucking shambles
1042 2010-11-26 17:50:38 <genjix> yep i was there dude
1043 2010-11-26 17:50:52 <bitanarchy> Sorry for repeating the question once more... If I know I ordered 1000BTC on address X. How can I check that the bitcoins were received on X without exposing the wallet to the internet?
1044 2010-11-26 17:51:24 <genjix> Diablo-D3: and even if they just close banks on 7th... it's still causing chaos/trouble which is a good thing
1045 2010-11-26 17:51:31 <genjix> bitanarchy: sry I don't know myself
1046 2010-11-26 17:51:37 <Diablo-D3> genjix: how is it causing chaos/
1047 2010-11-26 17:51:42 <Diablo-D3> its just pissing idiots off
1048 2010-11-26 17:51:49 <Diablo-D3> as long as you have money, you need banks
1049 2010-11-26 17:51:57 <MacRohard> bitanarchy, you can see that it was payed to the hash without talking to the wallet
1050 2010-11-26 17:52:14 <genjix> whats the problem with withdrawing on the 7th even if it just pisses off the banks?
1051 2010-11-26 17:52:17 <genjix> im all for that
1052 2010-11-26 17:52:47 <MacRohard> bitanarchy, oh. if you mean how to do it technically? i dunno. the main client doesn't support it.. there might be some analysis tools that would do the job but i have no idea
1053 2010-11-26 17:52:53 <Diablo-D3> it doesnt piss off the banks, genjix
1054 2010-11-26 17:52:59 <Diablo-D3> it pisses off people who try to withdrawl cash and cant
1055 2010-11-26 17:53:03 <Diablo-D3> it doesnt cause a bank run
1056 2010-11-26 17:53:09 <Diablo-D3> it just pisses off average people
1057 2010-11-26 17:53:22 <bitanarchy> MacRohard: I we want people to invest in bitcoin, this issue mut be solved!!
1058 2010-11-26 17:53:41 <altamic> bitanarchy: http://blockexplorer.com/block/000000000011b41e68266c7d03d41fe7f89c02c83245d3d86da503ece3bc675e
1059 2010-11-26 17:54:32 <altamic> http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf section 10
1060 2010-11-26 17:55:20 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: anyhow, if its still broken, keep trying to wiggle it
1061 2010-11-26 17:55:31 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: there is no reason why it should be if you've gotten this far
1062 2010-11-26 17:56:54 <bitanarchy> altamic: The transaction info is in the block chain. It just must be requestable in the bitcoin client by providing a bitcoin address, even without the wallet present on the computer.
1063 2010-11-26 17:58:58 <altamic> *must* ?
1064 2010-11-26 17:59:10 <Diablo-D3> he meant "can"
1065 2010-11-26 17:59:17 <Diablo-D3> but that only means the address recieved it
1066 2010-11-26 17:59:23 <Diablo-D3> it doesnt mean the wallet contains it.
1067 2010-11-26 17:59:25 <altamic> one may not want not bother about others
1068 2010-11-26 18:00:16 <bitanarchy> I see, that blockexplorer gives the information, like for example http://blockexplorer.com/address/XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
1069 2010-11-26 18:00:58 <bitanarchy> But a request to blockexplorer will link an ip address to a bitcoin adress...
1070 2010-11-26 18:01:20 <altamic> it can be cloaked I think
1071 2010-11-26 18:02:28 <bitanarchy> But anyway.... blockexplorer may be gone in a while... this functionality must be integrated in the client.... otherwise people will never invest greatly in bitcoin...
1072 2010-11-26 18:02:53 int0x27h has joined
1073 2010-11-26 18:03:25 <altamic> bitanarchy: provide arguments
1074 2010-11-26 18:05:32 <bitanarchy> altamic: First of all people generally do not trust their computer... especially when it is windows. So they know that the wallet cannot be on their computer... THey have to create it in a safe place. Then they want to buy the coins with an adress they copied to some usb stick. And then they want to check their ballance.... right now we know how to do that, but what about the average user of bitcoin?
1075 2010-11-26 18:06:02 <Diablo-D3> bitanarchy: that is pretty dumb logic, to be honest
1076 2010-11-26 18:06:17 <Diablo-D3> if windows users didnt trust their machines, WHY THE FUCK ARE THEY USING WINDOWS
1077 2010-11-26 18:07:09 <bitanarchy> Diablo-D3: because they do not know how to setup a linux machine..... and second of all, an average user does not understand why linux is more safe...
1078 2010-11-26 18:07:25 <Diablo-D3> they can buy a fucking mac
1079 2010-11-26 18:07:37 <Diablo-D3> and jesus fucking double chirst
1080 2010-11-26 18:07:43 <Diablo-D3> they dont know how to download ubuntu
1081 2010-11-26 18:07:46 <Diablo-D3> burn it to a cd
1082 2010-11-26 18:07:59 <Diablo-D3> and then follow the simple fucking instructions?
1083 2010-11-26 18:08:10 <bitanarchy> Diablo-D3: clearly you do not want to masses to invest in bitcoin....
1084 2010-11-26 18:08:19 <Diablo-D3> windows install requires more interaction than ubuntu install does
1085 2010-11-26 18:08:28 <Diablo-D3> and fucking idiots have to reinstall windows like once a week
1086 2010-11-26 18:08:37 <nanotube> bitanarchy: problem is... windows users don't know that they shouldn't trust their machines.
1087 2010-11-26 18:08:38 <altamic> bitanarchy: the responsibility of your crispy banknotes is yours once an ATM eject them to you
1088 2010-11-26 18:08:48 <edcba> http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/4697943
1089 2010-11-26 18:08:50 <nanotube> bitanarchy: so your argument is quite a moot point.
1090 2010-11-26 18:09:15 <Diablo-D3> I agree with nanotube
1091 2010-11-26 18:09:43 <nanotube> bitanarchy: "people generally do not trust their computer" is patently false. in fact, "people generally" are not informed enough to know about that.
1092 2010-11-26 18:10:19 <nanotube> bitanarchy: that said... it would be quite nice to have a 'block explorer style' gui inside the bitcoin client. :)
1093 2010-11-26 18:11:06 <nanotube> it would be nice for people who /are/ informed enough to try to keep the wallet secure and offline (namely, us geeks :) ).
1094 2010-11-26 18:11:43 <altamic> nanotube: I contend this is not appropriate for the average joe, since it does not fit the wallet metaphor
1095 2010-11-26 18:12:20 <nanotube> altamic: yes, not appropriate for the average joe. but the current bitcoin user is not an average joe.
1096 2010-11-26 18:12:49 <altamic> nanotube: this is why I am right
1097 2010-11-26 18:13:07 <nanotube> i suspect eventually there will be either a separate "advanced" gui in the client, or separate clients completely, one for 'joe user' and one for 'clueful user'
1098 2010-11-26 18:13:37 <altamic> I agree
1099 2010-11-26 18:13:40 <nanotube> altamic: you're right that we should keep the bitcoin client as dumb as possible?
1100 2010-11-26 18:13:56 <altamic> at least initiaally
1101 2010-11-26 18:14:11 <altamic> this is my opinion
1102 2010-11-26 18:14:33 <bitanarchy> can someone provide me with the code for the blockexplorer?... then I can run it on my computer.
1103 2010-11-26 18:14:35 <nanotube> well maybe. there's not enough dev effort to go around, best to focus the main client on security and protocol definition
1104 2010-11-26 18:14:50 <nanotube> bitanarchy: theymos runs blockexplorer... you can ask him
1105 2010-11-26 18:14:56 <altamic> I am looking into it
1106 2010-11-26 18:14:58 <nanotube> afaik, he hasn't made the code publicly available
1107 2010-11-26 18:16:02 tcatm has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1108 2010-11-26 18:16:51 tcatm has joined
1109 2010-11-26 18:17:02 <altamic> btw I've wrote this https://gist.github.com/717030
1110 2010-11-26 18:17:17 <altamic> I am trying to automatize the build on the mac
1111 2010-11-26 18:17:57 <altamic> s/wrote/written/
1112 2010-11-26 18:18:24 <altamic> if some mac user would like to try it
1113 2010-11-26 18:18:30 <altamic> just let me know
1114 2010-11-26 18:19:37 <altamic> c++ is too heavy for my taste
1115 2010-11-26 18:20:03 <altamic> but I am struggling a bit
1116 2010-11-26 18:24:57 <MacRohard> it would actually be nice if the bitcoin client could track your known hashes even when the wallet is not connected - say stored on a smartcard
1117 2010-11-26 18:26:41 <bitanarchy> MacRohard: I don know much about smartcards, but can you run software on them?
1118 2010-11-26 18:27:52 <MacRohard> some
1119 2010-11-26 18:29:34 <bitanarchy> Computers with smartcard readers are not common jet. But it would be cool to connect a smartcard to a computer and then make it generate some hashes...
1120 2010-11-26 18:29:57 <MacRohard> that would be fairly pointless
1121 2010-11-26 18:30:32 <MacRohard> the smartcard prevents the key from being copied off the card
1122 2010-11-26 18:30:40 <MacRohard> you could only make transactions through the card
1123 2010-11-26 18:30:44 <MacRohard> while it's connected
1124 2010-11-26 18:31:44 <MacRohard> guarantees that your wallet can't be cloned and you know that if the wallet is disconencted and the money is in your hash then it's still there
1125 2010-11-26 18:31:52 <MacRohard> and can't be withdrawn until you reconenct the card
1126 2010-11-26 18:32:26 <bitanarchy> MacRohard: I was not talking about making pauments... just generate more hashes... that would require the private key right.
1127 2010-11-26 18:32:35 <MacRohard> yes
1128 2010-11-26 18:32:37 <bitanarchy> =payments
1129 2010-11-26 18:32:46 <MacRohard> but smartcards are extremely underpowered and nto at all suited to generating blocks
1130 2010-11-26 18:33:18 <bitanarchy> I thought hash=bitcoin adress...
1131 2010-11-26 18:33:28 <bitanarchy> you mean block hash
1132 2010-11-26 18:33:34 <MacRohard> well what do you mean?
1133 2010-11-26 18:33:52 <bitanarchy> People want to generate more adresses right.
1134 2010-11-26 18:34:10 <MacRohard> i dunno? do they?
1135 2010-11-26 18:34:42 <bitanarchy> I read some advice: use a new bitcoin address for every transaction.
1136 2010-11-26 18:35:00 <bitanarchy> receiving transaction
1137 2010-11-26 18:35:05 <MacRohard> yea.. so you just press the get new address button and it gives you one
1138 2010-11-26 18:35:20 <bitanarchy> that requires the private key in the wallet
1139 2010-11-26 18:35:25 <MacRohard> true
1140 2010-11-26 18:36:17 <MacRohard> you could pre-generate a bunch of addresses
1141 2010-11-26 18:36:27 <MacRohard> so that they could be given out without having to conenct the card
1142 2010-11-26 18:36:54 <bitanarchy> Can the bitcoin client verify whether a bitcoin address belongs to the wallet? Or can it only track down hashes that it knows were generated from the wallet?
1143 2010-11-26 18:37:56 <MacRohard> i guess the hash is of the public key or something.. you could get a list of valid hashes from the card and cache them for later use
1144 2010-11-26 18:37:59 <bitanarchy> hashes->addresses
1145 2010-11-26 18:40:48 <bitanarchy> Anyway... I wouldn even trust my ubuntu machine... it is downloading from god knows what repositories... that is not a place for a large wallet either.
1146 2010-11-26 18:42:31 <nanotube> bitanarchy: it only downloads from repositories that you tell it to use ...
1147 2010-11-26 18:42:54 <bitanarchy> yeah... I do not spend much time checking that... when I add one
1148 2010-11-26 18:43:09 <MacRohard> probably wouldn't be hard to get malicious code into something that everyone updates anyway
1149 2010-11-26 18:43:50 <bitanarchy> but i feel infinitely more secure than on my windows partition :-)
1150 2010-11-26 18:44:57 <altamic> a smartcard could be useful to store a simmetrical key to de/encrypt a wallet.dat file buring the client operations preventing unauthorized duplication of a wallet files regardless of the os. It will make sense as more capital flows into bitcoin
1151 2010-11-26 18:45:13 <altamic> s/buring/during/
1152 2010-11-26 18:50:03 <bitanarchy> what is the simplest way to get a gpu miner installed on linux?
1153 2010-11-26 19:06:43 RazielZ has joined
1154 2010-11-26 19:12:18 <nanotube> bitanarchy: get either Diablo-D3 or m0mchil miner... install some dependencies... and off you go :)
1155 2010-11-26 19:13:43 <bitanarchy> I read the forum that m0mchil is the faster one. But it is a lot of hacking...
1156 2010-11-26 19:14:25 <bitanarchy> Anyway, does it work behind a firewall that I do not control?
1157 2010-11-26 19:17:26 <tcatm> it's better to run bitcoind and the miner on the same physical network
1158 2010-11-26 19:18:52 <bitanarchy> I mean, does it matter that port (what is it) 8333 is something, is blocked from the outside?
1159 2010-11-26 19:19:56 <tcatm> yes
1160 2010-11-26 19:20:10 <tcatm> it will still work, but not as good as with port 8333 open
1161 2010-11-26 19:20:27 <bitanarchy> is there a workaround?
1162 2010-11-26 19:20:36 <tcatm> open port 8333 :)
1163 2010-11-26 19:21:59 altamic has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1164 2010-11-26 19:22:06 <bitanarchy> How much time does it take with the gpu miner to earn back your 5770?
1165 2010-11-26 19:22:49 <tcatm> 2 to 3 months
1166 2010-11-26 19:23:25 <bitanarchy> Since after a few months of 24hour work of the 5770 it will be worn out, right? :-)
1167 2010-11-26 19:23:57 <tcatm> if you keep it cool, it should last much longer
1168 2010-11-26 19:24:57 <bitanarchy> What temperature? <23C
1169 2010-11-26 19:25:09 <bitanarchy> room temperature
1170 2010-11-26 19:25:26 <tcatm> < 80 °C GPU temperature
1171 2010-11-26 19:25:42 <bitanarchy> how do you measure or request the temp of the gpu?
1172 2010-11-26 19:25:57 <brocktice> aticonfig --odgt
1173 2010-11-26 19:26:01 <brocktice> on linux anyway
1174 2010-11-26 19:28:20 <bitanarchy> im now running ub 10.4, with the fglrx driver that came with the distro. It is working fine now. I see that my xorg.conf is still empty... why would i need to run aticonfig --inital anyway?
1175 2010-11-26 19:28:42 <brocktice> if it's working fine, no
1176 2010-11-26 19:29:37 <bitanarchy> brocktice: your command gives: No layout section was found in the file: '/etc/X11/xorg.conf'.
1177 2010-11-26 19:31:28 <tcatm> run aticonfig --adapter=all --initial --force
1178 2010-11-26 19:31:43 <tcatm> then start X with X :0 -ac
1179 2010-11-26 19:36:03 bitanarchy has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1180 2010-11-26 19:36:04 <brocktice> wow newegg is so slow today
1181 2010-11-26 19:38:22 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1182 2010-11-26 19:38:37 bitanarchy has joined
1183 2010-11-26 19:39:35 <bitanarchy> it's 37 C
1184 2010-11-26 19:40:15 <brocktice> bitanarchy, is it mining?
1185 2010-11-26 19:40:42 <bitanarchy> how do i make it mine?
1186 2010-11-26 19:40:44 <brocktice> my 5770s are at 71 and 73.5
1187 2010-11-26 19:40:52 <bitanarchy> wow
1188 2010-11-26 19:41:09 <brocktice> but, they are at 99 and 97% utilization
1189 2010-11-26 19:41:19 <brocktice> would be higher but this is the machine I actually use to do things :)
1190 2010-11-26 19:41:23 <brocktice> don't want the desktop lagging
1191 2010-11-26 19:41:28 <brocktice> my 5970s are cooler
1192 2010-11-26 19:41:47 <brocktice> 44-50.5C
1193 2010-11-26 19:41:49 <brocktice> yay water cooling
1194 2010-11-26 19:41:59 <brocktice> they're all at 99%
1195 2010-11-26 19:42:01 <tcatm> windows software is annoying
1196 2010-11-26 19:42:07 <UukGoblin> my 5770s are at 61.50 and 72
1197 2010-11-26 19:42:07 <brocktice> s/software//
1198 2010-11-26 19:42:09 <UukGoblin> deg C
1199 2010-11-26 19:42:23 <UukGoblin> of which the lower one is overclocked to 960MHz - any idea how to overclock further?
1200 2010-11-26 19:42:39 <brocktice> UukGoblin, flash bios
1201 2010-11-26 19:42:48 RazielZ has joined
1202 2010-11-26 19:42:54 <tcatm> i want a command line :/
1203 2010-11-26 19:42:54 <UukGoblin> brocktice, computer's BIOS?
1204 2010-11-26 19:42:54 <brocktice> miner are at 900 and 870
1205 2010-11-26 19:43:01 <brocktice> UukGoblin, no, card bios
1206 2010-11-26 19:43:14 <brocktice> I'm afraid to screw with the one because it's an Eyefinity 5 and has a non-standard bios
1207 2010-11-26 19:43:15 <UukGoblin> brocktice, it looks like the limit is in the driver though... but I might be wrong...
1208 2010-11-26 19:43:34 <ArtForz> my slowest 5770 does 1010
1209 2010-11-26 19:43:34 <brocktice> http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=57750
1210 2010-11-26 19:43:54 <UukGoblin> ArtForz, did you fiddle with its BIOS?
1211 2010-11-26 19:43:59 <ArtForz> yep
1212 2010-11-26 19:44:07 <ArtForz> RBE = fun
1213 2010-11-26 19:44:24 <UukGoblin> ah, cool
1214 2010-11-26 19:45:04 <UukGoblin> and after that the drivers will automagically allow for more MHzs?
1215 2010-11-26 19:45:08 <ArtForz> yep
1216 2010-11-26 19:45:22 <ArtForz> I increased OD core limit on mine from 960 to 1200
1217 2010-11-26 19:45:49 <brocktice> ArtForz, you're cooling those with the ultra-kaze tunnels, right?
1218 2010-11-26 19:45:54 <ArtForz> yep
1219 2010-11-26 19:45:59 <bitanarchy> I suppose this is how to get the m0mchil miner up: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1334.msg22412;topicseen#msg22412
1220 2010-11-26 19:46:35 <ArtForz> btw, small trick for getting 5970 OCs more stable: set all core voltages == highest core voltage
1221 2010-11-26 19:48:17 <brocktice> Oh?
1222 2010-11-26 19:48:18 <brocktice> hm
1223 2010-11-26 19:48:20 <brocktice> thanks
1224 2010-11-26 19:48:28 <brocktice> you used 'method 2' on the 5770s?
1225 2010-11-26 19:48:44 <ArtForz> the non-signature based one
1226 2010-11-26 19:48:51 <brocktice> yeah
1227 2010-11-26 19:49:13 <ArtForz> yep
1228 2010-11-26 19:49:13 <brocktice> did you have to bump vcore at all?
1229 2010-11-26 19:49:19 <ArtForz> on the 5770s?
1230 2010-11-26 19:49:21 <brocktice> yeah
1231 2010-11-26 19:49:33 <ArtForz> nope, mine dont have a programmable VRM
1232 2010-11-26 19:49:45 <brocktice> oh, yeah I guess mine don't either.
1233 2010-11-26 19:51:23 RazielZ has quit ()
1234 2010-11-26 19:51:27 <brocktice> so on the 5970s you set the same voltage for all 4 registers?
1235 2010-11-26 19:51:54 <ArtForz> yep
1236 2010-11-26 19:51:56 <brocktice> why would that help? that's kind of strange
1237 2010-11-26 19:52:30 <ArtForz> no clue, but a card that would consistently cause lockups after a few hours @ 910 now happily runs @ 920 at the same voltage
1238 2010-11-26 19:52:35 <brocktice> huh
1239 2010-11-26 19:52:44 <brocktice> must periodically cycle into a different level or something
1240 2010-11-26 19:52:48 <ArtForz> yep
1241 2010-11-26 19:54:03 <ArtForz> I suspect it's either onset of throttling or random system events causing short term lower usage
1242 2010-11-26 19:54:09 <brocktice> well, thanks for the tip
1243 2010-11-26 19:54:19 <brocktice> I've updated my roms, will flash next time I take the machine down
1244 2010-11-26 19:54:35 <ArtForz> it's not that weird when you think about it, you see the same thing with CPUs
1245 2010-11-26 19:55:05 <ArtForz> not to mention we're really stressing those VRMs
1246 2010-11-26 19:55:49 <brocktice> ;;bc,estimate
1247 2010-11-26 19:55:49 <gribble> HTTP Error 404: Not Found
1248 2010-11-26 19:55:52 <brocktice> oh right
1249 2010-11-26 19:56:18 <nanotube> i've left theymos a msg...
1250 2010-11-26 19:56:20 <brocktice> this whole black friday thing is kind of annoying
1251 2010-11-26 19:56:33 <nanotube> hehe you don't have to buy anything, you know.
1252 2010-11-26 19:56:45 <brocktice> nanotube, I know, I'm just trying to check things on newegg
1253 2010-11-26 19:56:49 <brocktice> and it's monumentally slow
1254 2010-11-26 19:56:56 <nanotube> ah heh ic
1255 2010-11-26 19:57:03 <brocktice> Are they not fabbing cypress chips anymore?
1256 2010-11-26 19:57:10 <brocktice> all the 5970s are going out of stock
1257 2010-11-26 19:57:15 <ArtForz> probably not
1258 2010-11-26 19:57:15 <nanotube> well, you can blame newegg for not upping their capacity today
1259 2010-11-26 19:57:19 <brocktice> There appear to be a few sapphire models left
1260 2010-11-26 19:57:25 <brocktice> and an HIS
1261 2010-11-26 19:57:49 <ArtForz> I suspect the latest 5970 price reductions == getting rid of remaining stock
1262 2010-11-26 19:58:53 <ArtForz> the last cypresses were probably made well over 6 months ago
1263 2010-11-26 19:59:18 <brocktice> ArtForz, what did you say it was, 40mm or so for two slot spacing?
1264 2010-11-26 19:59:28 <ArtForz> 1.6"
1265 2010-11-26 19:59:37 <ArtForz> one slot = 0.8"
1266 2010-11-26 19:59:51 <brocktice> yeah 40.64 then
1267 2010-11-26 20:01:04 <bitanarchy> why do i need the kernel development kit to make the bitcoin miner?
1268 2010-11-26 20:01:56 <ArtForz> whu?
1269 2010-11-26 20:02:00 <bitanarchy> i see: (because the ATI GPU driver is installed by compiling a kernel module.
1270 2010-11-26 20:13:50 <Kiba> so...we
1271 2010-11-26 20:13:54 <Kiba> have huge volume today
1272 2010-11-26 20:14:37 <brocktice> that's what she said
1273 2010-11-26 20:15:52 <brocktice> there has been a lot of coverage on twitter lately
1274 2010-11-26 20:16:24 <brocktice> if bitcoincharts is up to date the volume is not especially large
1275 2010-11-26 20:17:22 * Kiba got an idea
1276 2010-11-26 20:17:26 <Kiba> email marketing for my art
1277 2010-11-26 20:17:45 <Kiba> I'll build a subscrib er list of all my fan
1278 2010-11-26 20:18:05 <jgarzik> brocktice: link or hashtag for twitter coverage?
1279 2010-11-26 20:18:06 <edcba> so how will we scale up to 7000 tx/s ?
1280 2010-11-26 20:18:34 <UukGoblin> ah, and I also wonder if the memory leak has been fixed...
1281 2010-11-26 20:18:51 <UukGoblin> (with either m0's getwork patch or stock bitcoind, I suspect the former)
1282 2010-11-26 20:19:29 <brocktice> check out #bc-news
1283 2010-11-26 20:19:35 <brocktice> or just search for bitcoin on twitter
1284 2010-11-26 20:19:58 <brocktice> http://twitter.com/search?q=bitcoin
1285 2010-11-26 20:44:51 <Diablo-D3> [02:05:34] <bitanarchy> I read the forum that m0mchil is the faster one. But it is a lot of hacking...
1286 2010-11-26 20:44:53 <Diablo-D3> lolfail
1287 2010-11-26 20:45:35 <Diablo-D3> [02:27:55] <brocktice> wow newegg is so slow today
1288 2010-11-26 20:45:45 <Diablo-D3> brocktice: black friday deal surfing
1289 2010-11-26 20:46:01 <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, any ideas why it might go into that crazy mode then?
1290 2010-11-26 20:46:13 <UukGoblin> I mean, you said it's not running the kernel or something
1291 2010-11-26 20:46:22 redengin has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1292 2010-11-26 20:46:58 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: its not because of that exception
1293 2010-11-26 20:47:04 altamic has joined
1294 2010-11-26 20:47:04 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: the state never becomes valid
1295 2010-11-26 20:47:06 <Diablo-D3> problem is
1296 2010-11-26 20:47:09 <Diablo-D3> that method cannot fail
1297 2010-11-26 20:47:24 <Diablo-D3> there is no logical way for that method to fail after having not failed previous methods
1298 2010-11-26 20:47:25 <UukGoblin> what, the enqueue_nd_kernel thing?
1299 2010-11-26 20:47:32 <Diablo-D3> no
1300 2010-11-26 20:47:34 <Diablo-D3> before that
1301 2010-11-26 20:48:59 <Diablo-D3> err = CL10.clGetKernelWorkGroupInfo(kernel1, device, CL10.CL_KERNEL_WORK_GROUP_SIZE, rkwgs, null);
1302 2010-11-26 20:49:07 <Diablo-D3> that is the line thats segfaulting for you
1303 2010-11-26 20:49:11 <Diablo-D3> er, exceptioning
1304 2010-11-26 20:49:16 <Diablo-D3> there is no way that can do so
1305 2010-11-26 20:49:36 <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, well I can get past that exception with a fixed -w
1306 2010-11-26 20:49:48 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: yes, but you dont need a -w at all
1307 2010-11-26 20:49:52 <Diablo-D3> you're on a radeon 5xxx
1308 2010-11-26 20:49:57 <Diablo-D3> the default automatically is correct
1309 2010-11-26 20:50:16 <UukGoblin> well I do, to get past that exception :-]
1310 2010-11-26 20:50:29 <Diablo-D3> yes, which leads me to believe something on your machine is very broken
1311 2010-11-26 20:51:30 <UukGoblin> I wouldn't call it 'very' and I wouldn't call it 'machine' - more like, "the new ati driver or java shit" and "system"
1312 2010-11-26 20:51:36 <Kiba> another problem with Diablo-D3 's miner?
1313 2010-11-26 20:51:47 <Diablo-D3> Kiba: nope, just UukGoblin's machine
1314 2010-11-26 20:52:15 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: for that method to fail, then either the kernel, the device, or the thing I'm asking for has to be wrong
1315 2010-11-26 20:52:18 <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, first of all, is it possible to detect if the kernel was ran at all and display an error message if it hasn't?
1316 2010-11-26 20:52:28 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: it is
1317 2010-11-26 20:52:32 <Diablo-D3> you wont like the result
1318 2010-11-26 20:52:56 <UukGoblin> what do you mean? I just get a crazy number of khash
1319 2010-11-26 20:53:09 <UukGoblin> oh, it is /possible/
1320 2010-11-26 20:53:10 <Diablo-D3> well, the only thing I can do is stop the miner
1321 2010-11-26 20:55:51 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: and btw
1322 2010-11-26 20:56:07 <Diablo-D3> the hash meter is done by adding to a hash counter every loop
1323 2010-11-26 20:56:13 <UukGoblin> oh ffs java is annoying.. erroring the build because of an unreachable statement...
1324 2010-11-26 20:56:25 <Diablo-D3> thats not annoying
1325 2010-11-26 20:56:29 <Diablo-D3> I wish gcc did that
1326 2010-11-26 20:56:38 <UukGoblin> it can with -Werror
1327 2010-11-26 20:56:55 <Diablo-D3> I wasnt aware they had that as a warning yet
1328 2010-11-26 20:56:58 <Diablo-D3> which is what Im saying
1329 2010-11-26 20:57:03 <Diablo-D3> I already use -Werror habitually
1330 2010-11-26 20:57:13 <UukGoblin> -Wall or -Wextra perhaps
1331 2010-11-26 20:58:06 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: anyhow
1332 2010-11-26 20:58:11 <Diablo-D3> that exception makes no sense
1333 2010-11-26 20:58:28 <Diablo-D3> because if the device didnt exist... it simply wouldnt exist, we would have never gotten here on that device
1334 2010-11-26 20:58:48 <Diablo-D3> if the kernel was wrong, you would have gotten a failed to build error message or an exception or something relevant to that
1335 2010-11-26 21:00:30 <UukGoblin> lol I googled something and it found my pastie ;-]
1336 2010-11-26 21:00:39 <Diablo-D3> Hrm.
1337 2010-11-26 21:00:43 <Diablo-D3> check the thread
1338 2010-11-26 21:00:48 <Diablo-D3> someone else reported this
1339 2010-11-26 21:00:53 <Diablo-D3> something isnt right somewhere
1340 2010-11-26 21:03:23 <UukGoblin> kernel1 is null.
1341 2010-11-26 21:03:38 xelister has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1342 2010-11-26 21:03:56 <Diablo-D3> yes, which the only way you can get that is after already having quit the program with an error that the kernel didnt build.
1343 2010-11-26 21:04:50 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: wait, kernel _1_ is null
1344 2010-11-26 21:04:55 <Diablo-D3> it should be
1345 2010-11-26 21:05:14 <Diablo-D3> 1 and 2 are only created if split is enabled
1346 2010-11-26 21:05:17 <UukGoblin> forceSplit is false
1347 2010-11-26 21:05:26 <Diablo-D3> 0 is created if split isnt
1348 2010-11-26 21:05:42 <UukGoblin> I guess clGetKernelWorkGroupInfo doesn't like the kernel to be null?
1349 2010-11-26 21:06:02 <UukGoblin> so kernel1 is set to null indeed
1350 2010-11-26 21:06:04 <Diablo-D3> oh shit.
1351 2010-11-26 21:06:18 <Diablo-D3> I think I forgot to update some code when I added the split shit
1352 2010-11-26 21:06:20 <Diablo-D3> oops
1353 2010-11-26 21:07:42 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: then I just discovered a different bug
1354 2010-11-26 21:07:45 <UukGoblin> see? it's NOT my machine :-]
1355 2010-11-26 21:07:49 <Diablo-D3> that DOESNT fail on radeon 4xxx.
1356 2010-11-26 21:07:55 <Diablo-D3> and it must
1357 2010-11-26 21:07:59 <Diablo-D3> thx ati
1358 2010-11-26 21:08:03 <UukGoblin> :->
1359 2010-11-26 21:08:13 <Diablo-D3> so yes, it still is your fault
1360 2010-11-26 21:08:20 <UukGoblin> lol
1361 2010-11-26 21:08:26 <Diablo-D3> you dont own ancient hardware like I do >_>
1362 2010-11-26 21:08:44 <UukGoblin> I do own some ancient stuff, but not ancient radeons
1363 2010-11-26 21:08:53 <brocktice> ArtForz: I didn't have much luck with overclocking the 5770s
1364 2010-11-26 21:08:53 <UukGoblin> in ancient times, I preferred nvidia
1365 2010-11-26 21:09:01 <brocktice> it freezes up if I try for 950
1366 2010-11-26 21:09:08 <brocktice> they didn't seem especially hot either
1367 2010-11-26 21:09:12 <UukGoblin> brocktice, what's the temp?
1368 2010-11-26 21:09:18 <Diablo-D3> brocktice: voltage fail, thats why
1369 2010-11-26 21:10:25 <brocktice> ArtForz had success without changing the voltage
1370 2010-11-26 21:10:28 <brocktice> could just be my model
1371 2010-11-26 21:10:32 <brocktice> temp is around 70c
1372 2010-11-26 21:10:33 <Diablo-D3> its not even per model
1373 2010-11-26 21:10:35 <Diablo-D3> its per chip
1374 2010-11-26 21:10:44 <Diablo-D3> every single chip is slightly different
1375 2010-11-26 21:10:54 <UukGoblin> unique.
1376 2010-11-26 21:11:01 <UukGoblin> that's what makes them special
1377 2010-11-26 21:11:04 <Diablo-D3> mhz/pipe bins and model voltages are chosen based on statistics
1378 2010-11-26 21:11:52 <Diablo-D3> so, once you go outside of that, you have to take into account this uniqueness.
1379 2010-11-26 21:13:40 <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, are you fixing that?
1380 2010-11-26 21:13:46 <brocktice> Hm
1381 2010-11-26 21:13:56 <brocktice> I wonder too if the one driving four displays is more finicky
1382 2010-11-26 21:14:03 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: yeah just wait a sec
1383 2010-11-26 21:14:05 <brocktice> I should try just pushing the one with no displays
1384 2010-11-26 21:19:49 <CIA-106> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * ra6a5b27 / src/main/java/com/diablominer/DiabloMiner/DiabloMiner.java : Fixed obscure bug, thanks UukGoblin - http://bit.ly/gqhkb0
1385 2010-11-26 21:26:07 <altamic> how did you get that?
1386 2010-11-26 21:26:22 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: so, there, fixed.
1387 2010-11-26 21:26:30 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: and I added the queue fail detection
1388 2010-11-26 21:30:05 <UukGoblin> awesome
1389 2010-11-26 21:30:09 <UukGoblin> mvn'ing
1390 2010-11-26 21:30:22 <UukGoblin> (this maven looks cool btw - autopulls deps and shit)
1391 2010-11-26 21:31:07 <UukGoblin> ah, it uses work size of 256, so my 1000 was too high
1392 2010-11-26 21:32:16 <UukGoblin> so, it's supposed to use all available devices, right?
1393 2010-11-26 21:32:27 <UukGoblin> I mean it shows it's adding 2 Junipers which is what I have
1394 2010-11-26 21:33:31 <UukGoblin> but I'm getting like 164Mhash which is either wrong or crap
1395 2010-11-26 21:33:59 <UukGoblin> using m0's, my one card does ~175Mhash, the other ~155Mhash
1396 2010-11-26 21:34:45 <UukGoblin> (good news is that it works)
1397 2010-11-26 21:35:20 <UukGoblin> (and properly shows an error message now when I do -w 1000)
1398 2010-11-26 21:36:28 <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, am I supposed to run multiple instances of your miner?
1399 2010-11-26 21:37:49 theymos has joined
1400 2010-11-26 21:38:41 <UukGoblin> 1 instance didn't actually heat up any of the cards properly
1401 2010-11-26 21:39:07 <OneFixt> ;;bc,estimate
1402 2010-11-26 21:39:07 <gribble> 7530.97016751
1403 2010-11-26 21:39:09 <OneFixt> ;;bc,stats
1404 2010-11-26 21:39:11 <gribble> Current Blocks: 94018 | Current Difficulty: 6866.89864897 | Next Difficulty At Block: 94752 | Next Difficulty In: 734 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 4 days, 15 hours, 32 minutes, and 46 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 7530.97016751
1405 2010-11-26 21:39:33 altamic has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1406 2010-11-26 21:39:36 <UukGoblin> and 2 instances don't seem to have a higher combined khash/sec rate - at least not much (100M on first process, 80Mhash on second)
1407 2010-11-26 21:39:38 <tcatm> theymos: I have an idea for your blockexplorer. Can you show transactions that are pending to be included into the next block?
1408 2010-11-26 21:40:51 <UukGoblin> hrm, the drivers now fucked up my card numbers... odd
1409 2010-11-26 21:41:15 <theymos> tcatm: There's no JSON-RPC interface to do that. Maybe i'll write one at some point.
1410 2010-11-26 21:42:27 <UukGoblin> uh... one of my cards stopped working now? wtf...
1411 2010-11-26 21:44:08 <UukGoblin> does like 1-2Mhash/sec and doesn't heat up - which smells more like CPU mining
1412 2010-11-26 21:46:32 <UukGoblin> right, went back to normal after restarting X...
1413 2010-11-26 21:46:39 <UukGoblin> I'll try the java miner again
1414 2010-11-26 21:48:16 <UukGoblin> and it now gets ~158Mhash
1415 2010-11-26 21:48:38 <UukGoblin> with both cards moderately heated
1416 2010-11-26 21:48:46 <UukGoblin> so it uses 2, but not fully
1417 2010-11-26 21:49:32 <UukGoblin> also takes up the whole CPU and 164M of ram (the java process does)
1418 2010-11-26 21:49:53 <UukGoblin> yeah both GPUs are loaded in ~50%
1419 2010-11-26 21:50:00 <UukGoblin> probably due to CPU choking
1420 2010-11-26 21:50:49 <UukGoblin> I prefer 99% of m0's and a usable CPU :-]
1421 2010-11-26 21:51:29 <bitanarchy> If I understand it well it is possible to generate bitcoin addresses from the public key: https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcointools
1422 2010-11-26 21:52:20 <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, concluding, your miner in the current version sucks on my system.
1423 2010-11-26 21:52:36 <theymos> bitanarchy: If you want to play with doing that, you can use http://blockexplorer.com/q/hashpubkey and http://blockexplorer.com/q/hashtoaddress
1424 2010-11-26 21:54:45 <jgarzik> looking for testers on MS Windows for this CPU miner: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1925.msg24709#msg24709
1425 2010-11-26 21:56:06 bitanarchy has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1426 2010-11-26 21:56:10 <jgarzik> UukGoblin: 164M RAM is called the Java tax :)
1427 2010-11-26 21:56:39 <jgarzik> seems pointless to use Java anymore, with Python and other modern script languages
1428 2010-11-26 21:57:55 dwdollar has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1429 2010-11-26 21:58:07 <UukGoblin> jgarzik, tell that to Diablo-D3 ;-)
1430 2010-11-26 22:02:17 dwdollar has joined
1431 2010-11-26 22:06:11 FAMULUS has joined
1432 2010-11-26 22:06:35 <FAMULUS> Hello bitcoin world
1433 2010-11-26 22:08:05 <FAMULUS> I'm looking to purchase bitcoins with USD via paypal
1434 2010-11-26 22:08:10 <FAMULUS> anyone game?
1435 2010-11-26 22:08:39 <UukGoblin> FAMULUS, there's #bitcoin-otc
1436 2010-11-26 22:08:54 <FAMULUS> thanks!
1437 2010-11-26 22:10:03 Toadyonps3 has quit (Quit: "If a tree falls in a forest, and it lands on Bill Gates, who wouldn't celebrate?)
1438 2010-11-26 22:10:36 Toadyonps3 has joined
1439 2010-11-26 22:20:22 rlifchitz has quit (Quit: "I never worry about action, but only about inaction" (W. Churchill))
1440 2010-11-26 22:31:09 rlifchitz has joined
1441 2010-11-26 22:31:09 rlifchitz has quit (Changing host)
1442 2010-11-26 22:31:09 rlifchitz has joined
1443 2010-11-26 22:59:32 bitanarchy has joined
1444 2010-11-26 23:03:01 sgornick has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1445 2010-11-26 23:09:18 <Diablo-D3> back
1446 2010-11-26 23:09:25 <Diablo-D3> [04:44:10] <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, concluding, your miner in the current version sucks on my system.
1447 2010-11-26 23:09:34 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: you forgot to run with -a didnt you?
1448 2010-11-26 23:09:55 <Diablo-D3> [04:28:18] <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, am I supposed to run multiple instances of your miner?
1449 2010-11-26 23:09:57 <Diablo-D3> no
1450 2010-11-26 23:10:31 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: on radeon 5xxx, you must use -a if you're on stream sdk 2.1
1451 2010-11-26 23:10:40 <Diablo-D3> 2.2 automatically works right, but fucks you over on cpu usage
1452 2010-11-26 23:12:16 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: python is rather shit though
1453 2010-11-26 23:12:31 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: also, you're a complete moron, memory usage is not "the java tax"
1454 2010-11-26 23:15:00 sgornick has joined
1455 2010-11-26 23:15:55 <Diablo-D3> [04:41:22] <UukGoblin> also takes up the whole CPU and 164M of ram (the java process does)
1456 2010-11-26 23:15:59 <Diablo-D3> you're not on 2.1
1457 2010-11-26 23:16:04 <Diablo-D3> dont bother mining on 2.2
1458 2010-11-26 23:16:05 <Diablo-D3> at all
1459 2010-11-26 23:16:09 <Diablo-D3> even with m0's
1460 2010-11-26 23:16:40 <jgarzik> Let's try that Windows build again... this time with a proper installer and all required DLLs. Download http://yyz.us/bitcoin/cpuminer-installer.zip I'd be interested to see how well this works on Vista, XP, 7, ...
1461 2010-11-26 23:17:07 <bitanarchy> In python I try to import Crypto.Hash.MD2, which works fine, but Crypto.Hash.RIPEMD fails... but both python files exist in /usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/Crypto/Hash
1462 2010-11-26 23:18:04 <Diablo-D3> bitanarchy: because python sucks and you should feel bad for using it
1463 2010-11-26 23:18:43 <bitanarchy> so you wont help me...
1464 2010-11-26 23:19:31 <Diablo-D3> other than inform you you're using the wrong language? probably nbot
1465 2010-11-26 23:21:41 noagendamarket has joined
1466 2010-11-26 23:23:32 <theymos> bitanarchy: (Re: your comments from a while ago.) You can get transaction data on your own: Run a loop to output every getblock block to a single file. Search this file for the hash160 of the address you're interested in (the address->hash160 code is public). The transactions and their amounts are easily gotten from this, though figuring out current balances takes a bit more hassle (still possible, though). This is what I did before I made BBE.
1467 2010-11-26 23:24:08 FAMULUS has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1468 2010-11-26 23:24:08 edcba has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1469 2010-11-26 23:34:05 zee_ has joined
1470 2010-11-26 23:37:30 noagendamarket has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1471 2010-11-26 23:44:56 zee_ has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1472 2010-11-26 23:50:10 <bitanarchy> theymos: I used gavins python code to find the block.
1473 2010-11-26 23:53:00 <Kiba> so, more shoping carts that accept...bitcoins
1474 2010-11-26 23:54:27 <MT`AwAy> for merchants the big problem with bitcoins is to convert bitcoins back to real money
1475 2010-11-26 23:54:38 <Kiba> real money?
1476 2010-11-26 23:54:43 bertodsera has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1477 2010-11-26 23:54:50 <tcatm> mtgox works fine
1478 2010-11-26 23:55:01 <Diablo-D3> real money?
1479 2010-11-26 23:55:02 <Diablo-D3> whats that?
1480 2010-11-26 23:55:05 <MT`AwAy> ie. for example I sell domains. I pay my domains in EUR/USD, getting those currencies from bitcoins is a pain
1481 2010-11-26 23:55:12 <Diablo-D3> I dont think Ive ever seen real money
1482 2010-11-26 23:55:20 <MT`AwAy> tcatm, mtgox delivers LRUSD, which is a pain to convert to USD
1483 2010-11-26 23:55:20 <Diablo-D3> sounds like a myth
1484 2010-11-26 23:55:29 <Diablo-D3> MT`AwAy: no it isnt.
1485 2010-11-26 23:55:36 <MT`AwAy> Diablo-D3, you know what I mean, stop trolling :p
1486 2010-11-26 23:55:44 <tcatm> it's just a few clicks to convert LRUSD to EUR. what makes it so hard for USD?
1487 2010-11-26 23:55:57 <Diablo-D3> MT`AwAy: you mean its a pain to not get fee'ed to death
1488 2010-11-26 23:56:05 <MT`AwAy> Diablo-D3, yep
1489 2010-11-26 23:56:12 <MT`AwAy> I mean the contrary
1490 2010-11-26 23:56:16 <Diablo-D3> so do it in massive bulk like art does
1491 2010-11-26 23:56:26 <MT`AwAy> in the end, I get more fees from bitcoins
1492 2010-11-26 23:56:27 <Diablo-D3> he pays the fee
1493 2010-11-26 23:56:34 <Kiba> how about The Madhatter?
1494 2010-11-26 23:56:35 <Diablo-D3> and then goes and buys 20 more video cards
1495 2010-11-26 23:56:45 <Diablo-D3> bastard, he is >_>
1496 2010-11-26 23:56:56 <Kiba> I thought he's going to stop expanding
1497 2010-11-26 23:56:58 <Diablo-D3> MT`AwAy: well, only because btc has not become the global standard
1498 2010-11-26 23:57:01 bertodsera has joined
1499 2010-11-26 23:57:08 <MT`AwAy> Diablo-D3, yep, still a pain :D
1500 2010-11-26 23:57:10 <Kiba> it's a global currency
1501 2010-11-26 23:57:16 <Diablo-D3> Kiba: no, hes just going to save up to hire an electritian to put in more power sockets
1502 2010-11-26 23:57:17 <Kiba> at least in the Western world
1503 2010-11-26 23:57:24 <Diablo-D3> Kiba: hes only TELLING us that hes stopping
1504 2010-11-26 23:57:24 <Kiba> the Asians are going to be a bit..harder than that
1505 2010-11-26 23:57:25 <MT`AwAy> Kiba, I'm in Japan
1506 2010-11-26 23:57:42 <Diablo-D3> Kiba: but he cant stop
1507 2010-11-26 23:57:44 <Diablo-D3> Kiba: its like a drug
1508 2010-11-26 23:57:51 <Diablo-D3> he is crushing up btc and snorting them
1509 2010-11-26 23:58:04 <Kiba> MT`AwAy: maybe you could set up a yen bitcoin exchange
1510 2010-11-26 23:58:35 <MT`AwAy> Kiba, not many other japanese people around yet
1511 2010-11-26 23:58:40 <MT`AwAy> except Satoshi maybe
1512 2010-11-26 23:58:46 <Diablo-D3> satoshi isnt really japanese though
1513 2010-11-26 23:58:48 <Diablo-D3> hes in the US iirc
1514 2010-11-26 23:59:02 <MT`AwAy> I was expecting something like that :p
1515 2010-11-26 23:59:05 <Kiba> his profile said he's from Japan...
1516 2010-11-26 23:59:13 <Diablo-D3> Kiba: hes on loan
1517 2010-11-26 23:59:42 <MT`AwAy> Diablo-D3, he's running away from yakuza? :p
1518 2010-11-26 23:59:46 <Diablo-D3> so until we ship him back to the land of the rising sun, hes not japanese
1519 2010-11-26 23:59:54 <Diablo-D3> MT`AwAy: DURFA HURF YAKUZA
1520 2010-11-26 23:59:54 * Kiba is trying damn hard to make Mystery of Satoshi a meme