1 2010-12-09 00:04:54 <Diablo-D3> theymos: orly?
2 2010-12-09 00:05:57 <theymos> Theoretically if you remove the restrictions, you will collect more fees from non-standard transactions that would otherwise be rejected. Probably not many are being produced right now, but they will probably increase.
3 2010-12-09 00:07:12 kiba has joined
4 2010-12-09 00:11:13 <kiba> yo
5 2010-12-09 00:12:20 <ArtForz> imo the current isStandard is possibly a bad idea
6 2010-12-09 00:12:45 <ArtForz> normal nodes dont pass on nonstandard transactions
7 2010-12-09 00:12:52 <Diablo-D3> theymos: well
8 2010-12-09 00:12:56 <Diablo-D3> we should be able to take the fee
9 2010-12-09 00:13:01 <Diablo-D3> and then reject the transaction anyhow
10 2010-12-09 00:13:02 <ArtForz> miners want nonstandard transactions (they have fees)
11 2010-12-09 00:13:03 <Diablo-D3> I mean
12 2010-12-09 00:13:07 <Diablo-D3> banks do it
13 2010-12-09 00:13:09 <Diablo-D3> so why cant we?
14 2010-12-09 00:13:17 <ArtForz> = miners want to connect to as many nodes as possible
15 2010-12-09 00:13:46 <ArtForz> I kinda don't think THAT is gonna help network topology very much
16 2010-12-09 00:13:47 <theymos> ArtForz: So are you going to run without IsStandard?
17 2010-12-09 00:13:58 <ArtForz> I never ran with it
18 2010-12-09 00:14:18 <theymos> But you're not going to implement it in your code?
19 2010-12-09 00:14:37 <ArtForz> probably not
20 2010-12-09 00:14:58 <ArtForz> my miner is still based on r188
21 2010-12-09 00:15:06 <theymos> That's excelent. I will post about that on the forums, and then other miners will be encouraged to do the same.
22 2010-12-09 00:15:29 <tcatm> I won't upgrade either.
23 2010-12-09 00:15:40 <doublec> I also have no plans to
24 2010-12-09 00:15:47 <nanotube> encouraging. :)
25 2010-12-09 00:16:43 <theymos> tcatm: How much mining power do you have?
26 2010-12-09 00:17:00 <tcatm> 2Ghash/s
27 2010-12-09 00:17:34 <doublec> What are the reasons for IsStandard?
28 2010-12-09 00:17:43 <theymos> Satoshi is paranoid.
29 2010-12-09 00:18:20 <doublec> Are there exploits that could be done using non standard transactions?
30 2010-12-09 00:18:36 <theymos> No.
31 2010-12-09 00:18:36 <ArtForz> increasing TX size
32 2010-12-09 00:18:44 <theymos> Yes; that's it. But regular fees apply.
33 2010-12-09 00:18:47 <ArtForz> yep
34 2010-12-09 00:19:43 <davux> what happens if i can afford attaching 500MB to a transaction?
35 2010-12-09 00:19:50 <ArtForz> you can't
36 2010-12-09 00:19:53 <davux> will everyone have to carry it forever?
37 2010-12-09 00:19:55 <theymos> Max size is 10MB, right?
38 2010-12-09 00:19:59 <ArtForz> check the fee tables
39 2010-12-09 00:20:12 <nanotube> davux: see ,,txfee
40 2010-12-09 00:20:12 <gribble> http://www.bitcoin.org/wiki/doku.php?id=transaction_fee
41 2010-12-09 00:20:23 <theymos> Or 10kB, rather, for arbitrary data in a transaction.
42 2010-12-09 00:20:42 theymos has left ("Bye.")
43 2010-12-09 00:20:44 theymos has joined
44 2010-12-09 00:20:57 <nanotube> according to the fee schedule, max block size is 500kb?
45 2010-12-09 00:21:01 <ArtForz> yep
46 2010-12-09 00:21:37 <ArtForz> so... a 400kB TX in a otherwise empty block already requires a 20BTC fee
47 2010-12-09 00:22:10 <davux> ok
48 2010-12-09 00:22:21 <nanotube> yea... so it seems that it's a solution in search of a problem, the 'isStandard' bit.
49 2010-12-09 00:22:29 <davux> so there's no risk that people start overloading the blockchain with crap?
50 2010-12-09 00:22:46 <ArtForz> well, miners can
51 2010-12-09 00:22:56 <ArtForz> max accepted block size is 5MB I think
52 2010-12-09 00:23:05 <davux> that's a lot isn't it?
53 2010-12-09 00:23:09 <ArtForz> yep
54 2010-12-09 00:23:19 <davux> the blockchain could grow really fast in size
55 2010-12-09 00:23:22 <ArtForz> considering standard miners wont produce blocks >500kB
56 2010-12-09 00:23:42 <davux> yeah but what about anyone willing to sabotage the network?
57 2010-12-09 00:23:48 <tcatm> Does that mean someone with a few GPUs could overload the blockchain with 5MB blocks?
58 2010-12-09 00:23:53 <ArtForz> yep
59 2010-12-09 00:24:52 <tcatm> Can we compact those blocks somehow?
60 2010-12-09 00:25:05 <ArtForz> wait... it's 1MB
61 2010-12-09 00:25:27 <ArtForz> MAX_BLOCK_SIZE
62 2010-12-09 00:26:22 <ArtForz> so if all miners started padding blocks with "junk" TX, you're looking at 144MB/day
63 2010-12-09 00:26:39 <theymos> Stock Bitcoin uses MAX_BLOCK_SIZE_GEN (500 kb) for creating blocks, but 1mb for accepting them.
64 2010-12-09 00:26:45 <ArtForz> yep
65 2010-12-09 00:27:33 <ArtForz> miners are also not bound by the fee reqs, so they could for example put 1000s of 0.00000001 TX in blocks
66 2010-12-09 00:28:43 mtgox has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
67 2010-12-09 00:31:26 <theymos> I'm so glad that so many people are not using IsStandard. I was worried that I was going to have to appeal to miners individually, create non-standard transactions with large fees as bounties, etc.
68 2010-12-09 00:33:18 <tcatm> Even 0.05 BTC fees for each block would make a lot of miners switch.
69 2010-12-09 00:35:33 <nanotube> wow, the isStandard war is on!
70 2010-12-09 00:37:13 <ArtForz> imo the main problem is, nonstandard TX with fees are not propagated by nodes, so miners are encouraged to connect to as many nodes as possible to maximize profit
71 2010-12-09 00:37:25 <ArtForz> which kinda sounds like a bad idea
72 2010-12-09 00:38:04 <jgarzik> indeed
73 2010-12-09 00:38:07 <theymos> Maybe such miners could broadcast a new services descriptor, and publishers of non-standard transactions can find them.
74 2010-12-09 00:38:25 <jgarzik> or maybe we shouldn't fork the network like this
75 2010-12-09 00:39:09 <tcatm> Is there any demand for non-standard transactions?
76 2010-12-09 00:39:24 <ArtForz> well... it's a good way to "notarize" pretty much anything
77 2010-12-09 00:40:05 <kiba> so that's our intristic value
78 2010-12-09 00:40:07 <jgarzik> tcatm: that's being debated right now. bitdns would be one such non-standard transaction.
79 2010-12-09 00:40:22 <kiba> it's DomainChain
80 2010-12-09 00:40:46 <ArtForz> put a sha256 in a txout, get that tx into a block, you can prove that you are the "owner" of that tx by signing something with the private key belonging to that txout
81 2010-12-09 00:40:50 <jgarzik> I think bitcoin transactions will get larded down with non-currency data, incentivizing people to use pure-currency chains
82 2010-12-09 00:41:09 <jgarzik> thus bitcoin becomes GenCoin, and someone else will run the run bitcoin
83 2010-12-09 00:41:12 <jgarzik> run the real bitcoin
84 2010-12-09 00:41:16 <ArtForz> = you can prove that you had that sha256 at block X
85 2010-12-09 00:41:35 <kiba> miners could charge for long bytes
86 2010-12-09 00:42:27 <jgarzik> You don't need to put data in the block chain, to sign it with bitcoin keypairs
87 2010-12-09 00:42:52 <ArtForz> I think you do
88 2010-12-09 00:43:28 <kiba> well, if we can find a way of not spliting network resource as well as not fattening up the domain chain, that would be nice.
89 2010-12-09 00:44:30 <theymos> ArtForz: How much data is allowed for a single value in the stack without any sort of concatenation? I was thinking 520 bytes, but I think that's just the limit *after* concatenation.
90 2010-12-09 00:44:35 <tcatm> What's the domainchain thing about?
91 2010-12-09 00:44:47 <jgarzik> tcatm: bitcoin proof of work, applied to DNS
92 2010-12-09 00:45:00 <ArtForz> 520 per push
93 2010-12-09 00:45:09 <altamic> and mixed into bitcoin's one
94 2010-12-09 00:45:23 <tcatm> jgarzik: Looks like a bad idea to me.
95 2010-12-09 00:45:32 <theymos> ArtForz: I notice, though, that a comment in key.h says, "script supports up to 75 for single byte push".
96 2010-12-09 00:45:48 <theymos> ArtForz: I don't know whether that's in bytes or what, though.
97 2010-12-09 00:45:49 <ArtForz> yeah, for >75 push op is 2 bytes
98 2010-12-09 00:46:01 <jgarzik> tcatm: well theymos is on the forum saying you support it
99 2010-12-09 00:46:10 <ArtForz> push with 0-75 bytes data is just a single-byte opcode
100 2010-12-09 00:46:15 <theymos> ArtForz: Oh; that makes sense. Thanks.
101 2010-12-09 00:46:27 <jgarzik> tcatm: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=2162.msg28317#msg28317
102 2010-12-09 00:46:48 <ArtForz> above that it's push_1B (byte datalen) (data) or push_2B (word datalen) (data)
103 2010-12-09 00:46:55 <tcatm> jgarzik: that was about isStandard()
104 2010-12-09 00:47:10 <jgarzik> tcatm: which is fundamentally about theymos' current OP_DROP proposals
105 2010-12-09 00:47:19 <jgarzik> tcatm: see the isSTandard thread
106 2010-12-09 00:47:37 <ArtForz> I was thinking of a very simple application, being able to prove that you had data X at block Y
107 2010-12-09 00:47:44 <jgarzik> tcatm: satoshi got gavin to add isStandard in reponse to OP_DROP, and theymos is now trying to split the network
108 2010-12-09 00:47:50 <jgarzik> classic temper tantrum
109 2010-12-09 00:48:20 <theymos> The market is deciding on the best possible policies. I have nothing to do with it. I don't even run a miner.
110 2010-12-09 00:48:35 <kiba> blah, let the market run its course.
111 2010-12-09 00:48:36 <ArtForz> by putting sha256(X) you can prove that you had the *data*, by signing somethign with the txouts privkey later you can prove that *you* had the data
112 2010-12-09 00:48:39 <bd_> what's this OP_DROP stuff?
113 2010-12-09 00:48:51 <midnightmagic> i do. 1Ghash. I vote for... inertia!
114 2010-12-09 00:48:57 <jgarzik> bd_: a method of larding up to 500 bytes of data per transaction into the block chain
115 2010-12-09 00:49:19 <bd_> ah.
116 2010-12-09 00:49:21 <kiba> if you're going to lard something in the block chain, you should....
117 2010-12-09 00:49:25 <kiba> pay for it, no?
118 2010-12-09 00:49:34 <jgarzik> kiba: one would hope so
119 2010-12-09 00:49:34 <bd_> Surely simply requiring fees for large txns would be enough
120 2010-12-09 00:49:40 <ArtForz> yep
121 2010-12-09 00:49:57 <jgarzik> bd_: yes. that means all these DNS transactions will gain higher priority over normal bitcoin currency transactions.
122 2010-12-09 00:50:02 <ArtForz> requiring *more* fees for nonstandard tx sounds like a good idea, too
123 2010-12-09 00:50:06 <jgarzik> -> sucks for normal bitcoin users
124 2010-12-09 00:50:18 <theymos> jgarzik: There is no fee-based priority, though, until you get to 250kb.
125 2010-12-09 00:50:30 <bd_> jgarzik: You mean to say that these DNS txns are smaller than regular TXNs?
126 2010-12-09 00:50:57 <jgarzik> bd_: no, they are larger. paying a fee increases priority of your transaction over others.
127 2010-12-09 00:51:08 * kiba ponders the trade off
128 2010-12-09 00:51:08 <bd_> Ah. Well, if someone's willing to pay, let them take their priority
129 2010-12-09 00:51:27 <jgarzik> theymos: ...and we will reach 256k rather quickly, if we are passing not only TLD updates _but also_ DNS record updates through the block chain.
130 2010-12-09 00:51:39 <jgarzik> -> bitcoin users lose again
131 2010-12-09 00:51:44 <jgarzik> well, non-DNS bitcoin users.
132 2010-12-09 00:51:45 <kiba> if we start a block chain for DNS, then we effectively spilt up
133 2010-12-09 00:51:53 <kiba> CPU
134 2010-12-09 00:52:08 <kiba> some will be devoted to DNS, others will be devoted to bitcoin
135 2010-12-09 00:52:16 <jgarzik> kiba: yes. and that's a good thing. a healthy universe includes multiple competing chains and technologies.
136 2010-12-09 00:52:22 <bd_> It seems to me that a kademlia system would be better for DNS - there's no need for a full audit chain
137 2010-12-09 00:52:28 <tcatm> I think DNS is such a huge project that a seperate chain would work better.
138 2010-12-09 00:52:36 <jgarzik> tcatm: yes
139 2010-12-09 00:53:08 <kiba> one would hope
140 2010-12-09 00:53:17 <jgarzik> tcatm: but DNS is a non-standard transaction, so avoiding IsStandard() implies endorsing the use of DNS in primary chain
141 2010-12-09 00:53:42 <ArtForz> the use of anything nonstandard
142 2010-12-09 00:53:46 <tcatm> DNS isn't the only non-standard usage
143 2010-12-09 00:54:02 <theymos> Why have two weak chains when you can have one strong one, though? One or the other would win out, I think. "Why generate for this chain when generating for the other one is more profitable?" Maybe the offshoot chain would win and bitcoins would lose value.
144 2010-12-09 00:54:12 <ArtForz> like I said, it would also be useful for notarizing any kind of document
145 2010-12-09 00:54:16 <kiba> theymos: and that's a good thing.
146 2010-12-09 00:54:27 <kiba> currency competition
147 2010-12-09 00:54:57 <theymos> kiba: This chain already supports the necessary features, so it would be a waste of resources to start a new one and have this one fail.
148 2010-12-09 00:55:00 <tcatm> Maybe we should first figure out how to handle thousands of bitcoin TXs per block and then think about adding DNS.
149 2010-12-09 00:55:24 <kiba> waiting too long could kill the DomainChain project
150 2010-12-09 00:56:06 <kiba> now, isn't there a way to use the bitcoin chain without bloating it with data?
151 2010-12-09 00:56:20 <kiba> a seperate chain that's dependent on the main chain.
152 2010-12-09 00:57:14 <bd_> sure. Just post a single transaction with a single hash in that. That hash signs whatever data you want, where that data is transferred on a seperate network
153 2010-12-09 00:57:56 <bd_> Of course, the question is how you decide what data to include...
154 2010-12-09 00:58:23 <tcatm> Such a linked chain could run as a seperate process on miners.
155 2010-12-09 00:58:46 <kiba> hashing the data against a block?
156 2010-12-09 00:58:53 <bd_> Sure. You could even embed it in the key program for the block generation fee transaction
157 2010-12-09 00:58:56 <theymos> Are there distributed storage systems that would allow you to store data for a few weeks, associated with a hash? (Kademlia?)
158 2010-12-09 00:59:16 <bd_> theymos: Kademlia cann, depending on how you set the redundancy
159 2010-12-09 00:59:23 <tcatm> theymos: Doesn't freenet work like that?
160 2010-12-09 00:59:42 <theymos> Not really. Freenet is too heavyweight and slow, too.
161 2010-12-09 00:59:45 <bd_> If you add in active replication you can probably improve persistence
162 2010-12-09 00:59:59 <bd_> I'm not sure how flood-resistant it is though
163 2010-12-09 01:00:19 <theymos> I know that I2P originally used a DHT, but switched to a centralized model because it wasn't working properly. I don't know the details.
164 2010-12-09 01:01:25 redMBA has joined
165 2010-12-09 01:02:14 <jgarzik> Right now the current chain has a monopoly on the entire mindshare of timestamped proof-of-work (distributed notary) service. There are many reasons why we should /not/ assume bitcoin is a one-size-fits-all solution. Yes mainline bitcoin has a strong block chain, but there are plenty of parties who would likely want to invest in a solid DNS chain.
166 2010-12-09 01:02:15 <jgarzik> The existence of one chain does not imply there should never be another.
167 2010-12-09 01:02:17 <tcatm> Can we remove OP_DROP from script?
168 2010-12-09 01:03:05 <ArtForz> we should be able to
169 2010-12-09 01:03:30 <tcatm> Or does satoshi have any ideas of where it might be useful for transactions?
170 2010-12-09 01:03:36 altamic has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
171 2010-12-09 01:03:56 <ArtForz> we used to have other useful opcodes, too
172 2010-12-09 01:04:15 <ArtForz> notice how much of the math opcodes are disabled
173 2010-12-09 01:04:29 <jgarzik> script was a neat idea, but it's basically too easy to craft algorithmic attacks with arbitrary bytecode
174 2010-12-09 01:04:55 <MT`AwAy> jgarzik: well, you can't do any loop, it limits the risks
175 2010-12-09 01:05:00 <ArtForz> okay, whats the possible attack scenario of OP_AND ?
176 2010-12-09 01:05:13 <kiba> what a scripting system?
177 2010-12-09 01:05:34 <jgarzik> ArtForz: just wasting a bit of cpu
178 2010-12-09 01:05:42 <jgarzik> not huge without loops
179 2010-12-09 01:06:06 <ArtForz> I can understand disabling string ops, shifts, multiply, ...
180 2010-12-09 01:06:31 <ArtForz> because those make it pretty easy to create large values with a few opcodes
181 2010-12-09 01:06:34 <tcatm> Where in the source can I find isStandard() (does github have a search function?)?
182 2010-12-09 01:06:42 <ArtForz> but basic boolean ops?
183 2010-12-09 01:06:58 altamic has joined
184 2010-12-09 01:07:14 <MT`AwAy> I don't think anything can use more cpu than checksig
185 2010-12-09 01:07:18 <gavinandresen> tcatm: one sec, I need to update my git for latest svn...
186 2010-12-09 01:07:25 <jgarzik> tcatm: main.h
187 2010-12-09 01:07:30 <kiba> I wonder
188 2010-12-09 01:07:34 <jgarzik> tcatm: latest SVN
189 2010-12-09 01:07:36 <kiba> should bitcoin have unit tests?
190 2010-12-09 01:07:48 <ArtForz> yeah, but for example op_lshift allowed creating BIG bigints
191 2010-12-09 01:07:50 <gavinandresen> tcatm: ok, updated
192 2010-12-09 01:08:08 <tcatm> gavinandresen: thanks
193 2010-12-09 01:08:14 <jgarzik> script.cpp has another update, for OP_PUBKEY:
194 2010-12-09 01:08:14 <jgarzik> - if (vch1.size() < 33)
195 2010-12-09 01:08:14 <jgarzik> + if (vch1.size() < 33 || vch1.size() > 120)
196 2010-12-09 01:08:49 <jgarzik> ditto script.h
197 2010-12-09 01:09:57 <gavinandresen> Commit in question is: https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/commit/a206a23980c15cacf39d267c509bd70c23c94bfa
198 2010-12-09 01:10:44 * kiba should start work on his art project soon
199 2010-12-09 01:11:38 <lolcat> Could agorism work?
200 2010-12-09 01:11:48 <gavinandresen> So... I still like the idea of allowing a small amount of data into the transaction data to leverage bitcoin as a general distributed timestamping service.
201 2010-12-09 01:12:20 <kiba> lolcat: I would have to create a new identity
202 2010-12-09 01:12:53 <tcatm> Would it be possible to add a special field for a hash to the block? That hash could be the hash of a linked Chain block.
203 2010-12-09 01:12:57 <gavinandresen> I dunno what Satoshi thinks, but I'd be OK with allowing a third "standard" transaction type that included, oh, say, up to 32 bytes (256 bits) of data at the end of a TxOut followed by an OP_DROP.
204 2010-12-09 01:13:30 <lolcat> kiba: I just don't get how roads would work. How collective trasport would work, or how we would protect law and order. And to protect the abuse of massive companies
205 2010-12-09 01:13:52 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: yeah. I was calling that OP_MEMO :) 32 bytes seems reasonable.
206 2010-12-09 01:15:09 <jgarzik> people will still want to fill the block chain with transactions only tangentially related to currency, as a generic distributed notary service. Which is an interesting idea, but could overwhelm the block chain if popular.
207 2010-12-09 01:15:38 dreews has joined
208 2010-12-09 01:15:51 <jgarzik> If the block chain ever consists of >50% non-currency transactions, people will move to a new currency. bitcoin is not and should not be a generic messaging service.
209 2010-12-09 01:15:57 <redMBA> jgarzik, just charge a transaction fee per byte of OP_MEMO
210 2010-12-09 01:16:23 <gavinandresen> I'm not crazy about special-casing transaction types.
211 2010-12-09 01:16:37 <jgarzik> redMBA: have to rewrite transaction priority rules then...
212 2010-12-09 01:16:40 CarlFK has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
213 2010-12-09 01:16:41 CarlFK1 has joined
214 2010-12-09 01:16:47 <jgarzik> if you pay TX fees, you prioritize non-standard TXs over standard TXs.
215 2010-12-09 01:16:49 <gavinandresen> Seems like that's just an invitation to try to game the other transactions....
216 2010-12-09 01:17:27 <ArtForz> it's already possible to (ab)use general TX for generalized timestamping
217 2010-12-09 01:17:28 <gavinandresen> (stuffing extra data into a <publickey> CHECKSIG transaction public key, for example)
218 2010-12-09 01:18:48 <ArtForz> not to mention actually stuffing data into the signature algo itself
219 2010-12-09 01:19:15 <theymos> ArtForz: ByteCoin mentioned that before. How much data can be stored in that way?
220 2010-12-09 01:19:51 <ArtForz> depends on what curve we're using
221 2010-12-09 01:20:16 <theymos> We're using secp256k1.
222 2010-12-09 01:21:06 <ArtForz> 256 bits then
223 2010-12-09 01:21:55 <theymos> That still keeps the key usable? You're not just sending to a junk address? ByteCoin said there was some "memo"-type area in the ECDSA spec.
224 2010-12-09 01:22:59 <ArtForz> no, you're sending to non-junk address where it's private key is generated from hash(data_to_timestamp)
225 2010-12-09 01:23:06 <ArtForz> well, it's priv/pub keypair
226 2010-12-09 01:23:19 <theymos> I see.
227 2010-12-09 01:24:20 <ArtForz> kinda insecure on its own, as you reveal the secret "random" input neccessary to recreate that keypair later
228 2010-12-09 01:24:43 <ArtForz> so what you do is create 2 transactions
229 2010-12-09 01:24:55 <bd_> Not really, you're just paying a small (0.01BTC) fee for your timestamping
230 2010-12-09 01:25:14 <ArtForz> first is signed with the special keypair, output of second is your secret
231 2010-12-09 01:25:39 <theymos> You could also use OP_CHECKMULTISIG. Satoshi's not going to disable *that* one.
232 2010-12-09 01:26:02 <ArtForz> now you can prove ownership by revealing the 256 bits used to create the first txs txout, and signing something with the pubkey in the 2nd txs txout
233 2010-12-09 01:26:55 xelister has joined
234 2010-12-09 01:27:27 <ArtForz> actually I dont think you can use op_checkmultisig now
235 2010-12-09 01:27:34 xelister_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
236 2010-12-09 01:27:52 <theymos> Well, it's disabled with IsStandard.
237 2010-12-09 01:27:57 <ArtForz> yep
238 2010-12-09 01:28:43 <ArtForz> using my method you can timestamp arbitrary data using nothing but 2 100% standard TX
239 2010-12-09 01:29:20 <ArtForz> of course it wastes MORE space than just allowing 32 bytes of extra data in a txout
240 2010-12-09 01:30:30 <theymos> Yeah. Trying to impede the market between sellers of services (miners) and buyers = more problems.
241 2010-12-09 01:33:51 <gavinandresen> If I did my bits-to-bytes conversion correctly (and I usually don't), the two standard txout types take 24 bytes (for the DUP HASH160...etc one) and 66 bytes (for <pubkey> CHECKSIG). Most TxOuts in the chain are the 24-byte variety.
242 2010-12-09 01:33:55 DemeGeek has joined
243 2010-12-09 01:34:34 <ArtForz> soudns a bit low
244 2010-12-09 01:34:57 <jgarzik> all these ugly hacks create problems too. rather than trying to force every feature you dream up with into the existing TX and script structure, it's much more elegant and efficient to have a network and block chain with the rules you prefer.
245 2010-12-09 01:35:19 <altamic> +1 jgarzik
246 2010-12-09 01:35:38 akem has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
247 2010-12-09 01:35:41 <kiba> September 8th
248 2010-12-09 01:35:53 <gavinandresen> ArtForz: check my math: OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <160 bit address> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG is 20 bytes for the address plus 4 for opcodes...
249 2010-12-09 01:35:53 <jgarzik> too, IMO, bitcoins being currency + DNS entries ties the currency value too closely to DNS market. I just think a "pure" currency is best long term solution.
250 2010-12-09 01:35:55 <kiba> 389 posts
251 2010-12-09 01:36:00 <kiba> largest number of post in one day
252 2010-12-09 01:36:15 <jgarzik> appamatto's BitX is interesting: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1790.msg28343#msg28343
253 2010-12-09 01:36:37 <kiba> December 8th
254 2010-12-09 01:36:39 <kiba> err I mean
255 2010-12-09 01:36:40 <ArtForz> you forget the OP_PUSH_20 for the address
256 2010-12-09 01:37:07 <gavinandresen> ArtForz: that's in the TxIn...
257 2010-12-09 01:37:51 <ArtForz> txout is OP_DUP OP_HASH160 OP_PUSH20 (20 bytes addr) OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG
258 2010-12-09 01:38:14 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: just add 'unsigned char memo[32]' to CTransaction. We already use versioned IMPLEMENT_SERIALIZE to implement optional, new binary fields at end of structures.
259 2010-12-09 01:38:16 <jgarzik> simpler.
260 2010-12-09 01:38:45 <ArtForz> jgarzik: eww
261 2010-12-09 01:39:06 <jgarzik> xmit variable length, obviously
262 2010-12-09 01:39:26 <ArtForz> so a normal txout is 25 bytes
263 2010-12-09 01:40:11 <gavinandresen> 24 bytes
264 2010-12-09 01:40:37 <ArtForz> the push/length byte in front of the 160 bits addr is a byte, too
265 2010-12-09 01:40:58 <gavinandresen> Ah, right, so sorry
266 2010-12-09 01:41:50 <ArtForz> to-pubkey seems to be 67 bytes
267 2010-12-09 01:42:19 <ArtForz> OP_PUSH_65 (65 bytes data) OP_CHECKSIG
268 2010-12-09 01:42:32 <ArtForz> txins are quite a bit larger
269 2010-12-09 01:44:11 pr0wler has joined
270 2010-12-09 01:44:23 <Xunie> I wonder, is bitcoin a run by a single project leader or developer? I mean, Satoshi is the developer, but other develop too.
271 2010-12-09 01:44:37 <Xunie> Is Satoshi the project leader?
272 2010-12-09 01:44:43 <gavinandresen> Yes
273 2010-12-09 01:44:48 <ArtForz> 140 bytes for a addr txin
274 2010-12-09 01:44:54 <kiba> benevolent dictator for life
275 2010-12-09 01:45:12 <kiba> of course, we have the right to reject/fork his project
276 2010-12-09 01:45:45 <Xunie> gavinandresen, well, it's also possible that Bitcoin is "run by a larger core group".
277 2010-12-09 01:46:10 <kiba> people with a good reputation can exert influence
278 2010-12-09 01:46:29 <ArtForz> 73 bytes ofr a pubkey txin
279 2010-12-09 01:46:30 <Xunie> Thus, we have a "honorary system" of the core group.
280 2010-12-09 01:47:31 DoomDumas has joined
281 2010-12-09 01:47:51 <kiba> though, I don't exert much influence in technical matters
282 2010-12-09 01:47:57 <jgarzik> I don't like how bitDNS ties a single "blessed" market -- distributed data publishing -- so closely with the underlying currency.
283 2010-12-09 01:48:08 <kiba> but I seem to be the guy who get the ground running for other type of effort
284 2010-12-09 01:50:15 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: So thinking it through... if people did start generating a lot of transactions to timestamp arbitrary stuff (DNS transfer requests... whatever)... you think that'd eventually lead to a currency-only variation of bitcoin?
285 2010-12-09 01:51:08 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: What's the scenario that would drive that-- free transactions would be all used up, so people would look for another currency where they could get in a chain for free?
286 2010-12-09 01:51:17 <Diablo-D3> hrm
287 2010-12-09 01:51:25 <Diablo-D3> I wonder if anyone is using geforce seriously
288 2010-12-09 01:52:17 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: or is it "all those extra 32 byte transactions will make bitcoin more expensive (compute/disk) than a competing currency that doesn't have that overhead" ?
289 2010-12-09 01:52:50 <Diablo-D3> theres a competing currency?
290 2010-12-09 01:52:52 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: when currency and non-currency uses both grow, people will see value in a currency-only network, without all that other traffic.
291 2010-12-09 01:53:18 <jgarzik> I think we need "GenCoin" (or appamatto's BitX) separate block chain, for data publishing
292 2010-12-09 01:53:35 <theymos> Miners are happy to have as much data as possible: they can charge for it.
293 2010-12-09 01:53:39 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: I'm not sure I see it, if the "other traffic" is generating transaction fees, encouraging more miners, .....
294 2010-12-09 01:53:46 <jgarzik> we need a release valve, an outlet, for all these proof-of-work ideas.
295 2010-12-09 01:53:49 <echelon> what do you guys make of ripple?
296 2010-12-09 01:54:41 <jgarzik> shoving everyone onto the mainline chain will just create network-rules tension. bitcoin just wasn't built for generalized data publishing... but it can be hacked to do it. sure.
297 2010-12-09 01:55:24 <altamic> competition of interest in the same territory (read proof of work) could possibly corrupt the motivation and lead to conflicts
298 2010-12-09 01:55:49 <jgarzik> bitcoin was built to be a currency, let it be a currency. Get over the fear of forking, and embrace multiple competing block chains, with competing rulesets.
299 2010-12-09 01:56:16 <jgarzik> Yes, having One Chain To Rule Them All concentrates GPU/CPU power. so what? a free market means other chains will as well.
300 2010-12-09 01:57:37 <jgarzik> we need more chain maintainers, and more chains. Let satoshi be benevolent dictator of main chain. Start an even-more-privacy-focused chain of your own. We need more competition.
301 2010-12-09 01:57:48 <jgarzik> One chains means shoehorning all ideas into bitcoin. The result will not be pretty.
302 2010-12-09 01:58:03 <gavinandresen> Right.... I guess I'm trying to think through whether allowing OP_PUSH32 OP_DROP would make the 'main chain' stronger or weaker with respect to other, competing chains.
303 2010-12-09 01:58:04 xelister has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
304 2010-12-09 01:59:40 <jgarzik> software-fiat currency is mind blowing stuff. I am only beginning to think through the economic implications of holding a currency, while that currency is directly tied to a certain market (distributed data publishing).
305 2010-12-09 02:00:00 <jgarzik> bitcoin __itself__ (the distributed network) becomes a competitor in a certain market. as well as being a currency.
306 2010-12-09 02:00:11 <ArtForz> yep
307 2010-12-09 02:00:34 <theymos> That can only be good, though. If Bitcoin sucks at DNS, no harm done to the currency aspect.
308 2010-12-09 02:01:06 <jgarzik> customers pay The Entity to publish data. as well as hold the currency as value, and use it in other markets -- include paying for others for distributed storage.
309 2010-12-09 02:01:12 dreews has left ()
310 2010-12-09 02:01:54 <theymos> Miners want to sell disk space and verification services. People sending transactions (standard and non-standard) want to buy these services. Why should the mass of clients work together to prevent these voluntary trades?
311 2010-12-09 02:02:13 <gavinandresen> I don't think Bitcoin's strength is publishing/storing data. It's "core competency" is reliable, secure timestamping.....
312 2010-12-09 02:02:23 <jgarzik> it just seems wrong for a currency to be a currency _and_ a competitor in a niche market. :)
313 2010-12-09 02:02:31 <jgarzik> distributed notarized data publishing.
314 2010-12-09 02:03:21 <ArtForz> yep, secure timestamping would give something like bitcoin a "inherent value"
315 2010-12-09 02:03:33 <gavinandresen> "data publishing" implies to me you could ask any Bitcoin node "hey, get me the latest Lady Gaga video that somebody put in the chain..."
316 2010-12-09 02:04:05 <ArtForz> that sounds weird
317 2010-12-09 02:04:13 <gavinandresen> (and that's not what we're talking about... right?)
318 2010-12-09 02:04:19 <ArtForz> nope
319 2010-12-09 02:04:22 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: no
320 2010-12-09 02:04:44 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: DNS records would be large streams of small TX's.
321 2010-12-09 02:04:47 <ArtForz> distributed notary timestamping service = timestamping a sha256 of... something
322 2010-12-09 02:05:07 <gavinandresen> yup
323 2010-12-09 02:05:29 <theymos> Bitcoin is not a good way to transfer data, but if publishers want to pay miners, and miners decide to accept, I see no problem with it.
324 2010-12-09 02:05:30 * jgarzik hasn't seen anyone propose more than 512 bytes per TX
325 2010-12-09 02:06:39 <ArtForz> it would basically give the currency another use other than being a convenient currency
326 2010-12-09 02:06:53 <jgarzik> yep
327 2010-12-09 02:08:13 altamic has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
328 2010-12-09 02:08:27 altamic has joined
329 2010-12-09 02:08:34 <jgarzik> which, IMO, is the problem. It just feels wrong to use the world's first software-fiat currency for non-currency uses in a sideband channel.
330 2010-12-09 02:09:06 <jgarzik> Probably makes it harder for economists to study it. Who knows? I think GenCoin needs to happen, to let bitcoin be a currency.
331 2010-12-09 02:09:45 <jgarzik> will bitDNS be the death of bitcoin? no. bitcoin will survive as a distributed, timestamped notary service for small data, regardless.
332 2010-12-09 02:11:05 <jgarzik> as with my position on wikileaks, I'm trying to be the ultimate pragmatist, by asking myself the question... what choice makes it __most likely__ that bitcoin will survive and flourish?
333 2010-12-09 02:11:23 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: so do you like the idea of allowing an extra 32 arbitrary bytes in transactions?
334 2010-12-09 02:11:48 redMBA has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
335 2010-12-09 02:11:51 <gavinandresen> ... cause without that I don't think bitcoin is a distributed timestamped notary service for small data
336 2010-12-09 02:11:54 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: grudgingly yes
337 2010-12-09 02:12:03 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: preferably no
338 2010-12-09 02:12:14 <tcatm> Anyone using bitcoincharts regularly here? I've just added a caching framework. Does it feel more responsive?
339 2010-12-09 02:12:30 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: I think GenCoin (a new block chain like testnet) would allow 64k per TX
340 2010-12-09 02:13:12 <jgarzik> add OP_MEMO (limit 64k), create new genesis block, copy all the testnet stuff (n8333, n8332 ports, etc.)
341 2010-12-09 02:13:42 <DemeGeek> Do Miners compete to nuild blocks>
342 2010-12-09 02:13:45 <jgarzik> there will be plenty of people interested in mining GenCoins, IMO
343 2010-12-09 02:14:18 <DemeGeek> *build blocks?
344 2010-12-09 02:14:19 <theymos> What stops every Bitcoin user from moving to the superior GenCoins system?
345 2010-12-09 02:14:28 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: that seems like a bad idea; I have a niggling feeling in the back of my head that the optimal bitcoin-like system would have even smaller blocks/transactions than current bitcoin....
346 2010-12-09 02:14:39 <jgarzik> theymos: nothing. that's what's great about competition.
347 2010-12-09 02:15:55 <jgarzik> start using GenCoins with DNS records, and let it grow organically as different ideas go into different block chains.
348 2010-12-09 02:16:11 <jgarzik> let each block chain value stand on its own
349 2010-12-09 02:17:56 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: I agree. My "ultimate bitcoin", the currency, wouldn't even have scripts or escrow transactions or any of that flexibility. Just signed in's and out's. As small as possible, tightly focused on being a currency and nothing else.
350 2010-12-09 02:19:10 * jgarzik thinks bitcoin-the-currency and a generalized data notary service should be kept separate
351 2010-12-09 02:20:34 altamic has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
352 2010-12-09 02:20:42 <gavinandresen> ... but a 'generalized data notary service' doesn't have the incentives to keep it going. Half the genius of bitcoin is that Satoshi really thought about incentives (the other half was solving the distributed timestamping problem)
353 2010-12-09 02:20:46 altamic has joined
354 2010-12-09 02:21:06 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: you need the generated credits to publish
355 2010-12-09 02:21:19 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: the value of the credits generated is in the various services publishing, such as DNS TLD
356 2010-12-09 02:21:19 <gavinandresen> ... which turns it into a de-facto currency.
357 2010-12-09 02:21:21 <DemeGeek> Would a coin flip bitcoin game be allowed?
358 2010-12-09 02:21:24 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: yes
359 2010-12-09 02:21:33 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: every block chain is a new currency
360 2010-12-09 02:21:46 <gavinandresen> DemeGeek: "allowed" ???
361 2010-12-09 02:22:03 <theymos> I wish Satoshi would post about why he is against arbitrary data. He clearly thought the incentives through very well, but this seems like a major mistake to me. Arbitrary data gives more incentive to mine.
362 2010-12-09 02:22:30 <DemeGeek> I knew of a older online currency that didn't allow games like coin flip to be created for it.
363 2010-12-09 02:22:46 <theymos> It's decentralized. Everything is allowed.
364 2010-12-09 02:22:53 <gavinandresen> DemeGeek: there's nobody in charge here!
365 2010-12-09 02:23:10 <DemeGeek> Cool.
366 2010-12-09 02:23:15 <jgarzik> :)
367 2010-12-09 02:23:19 <gavinandresen> afk for a while....
368 2010-12-09 02:23:33 <ArtForz> yeah, it's a decentralized p2p currency, you can do whatever you want with it :)
369 2010-12-09 02:24:00 <DemeGeek> Is there a publicly chossen coin art for BTC?
370 2010-12-09 02:24:59 <jgarzik> hmmm
371 2010-12-09 02:25:01 <jgarzik> "DataCoins"
372 2010-12-09 02:25:23 <theymos> DemeGeek: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1756.0
373 2010-12-09 02:28:25 <DemeGeek> Is it ฿ on both sides?
374 2010-12-09 02:29:19 <theymos> Both sides of what? On the value it's ฿50.
375 2010-12-09 02:29:53 <theymos> I think most people prefer that you just say 50 BTC, though.
376 2010-12-09 02:29:58 <DemeGeek> The virtual coins
377 2010-12-09 02:30:37 <DemeGeek> If I make a Coin Flip game for it I would have liked to use a ฿TC coin
378 2010-12-09 02:30:38 <tcatm> No one designed a 3D coin yet.
379 2010-12-09 02:31:15 <tcatm> So there's no picture of the back of bitcoins.
380 2010-12-09 02:31:56 <altamic> see you later folks, 3:30 AM here ;)
381 2010-12-09 02:32:00 <DemeGeek> Wekk is there a picutre that you guys think would be good?
382 2010-12-09 02:32:01 <DemeGeek> night al
383 2010-12-09 02:32:05 <DemeGeek> *Well
384 2010-12-09 02:32:11 altamic has quit (Quit: altamic)
385 2010-12-09 02:32:12 <tcatm> night altamic
386 2010-12-09 02:32:17 <kiba> theymos: incentive to mine versus regular users having to wait until a transaction is complete
387 2010-12-09 02:32:49 <tcatm> I like the idea of the inner part of the coin being translucent (like a crystal) and the border + B being gold
388 2010-12-09 02:33:07 <theymos> kiba: It's a free trade between the transaction-creator and the miner. They will choose an appropriate price.
389 2010-12-09 02:33:16 <theymos> Maybe the other side can be http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=687.0
390 2010-12-09 02:33:20 <kiba> of course, that's what I mean
391 2010-12-09 02:33:58 <kiba> regular user, who didn't ask for DNS record are gettingl ower prority compared to DNS user who get larger prority simply because they pay more
392 2010-12-09 02:34:27 <theymos> Do you find that undesirable? The DNS user is paying for more space.
393 2010-12-09 02:34:36 <DemeGeek> tcatm I can try making one
394 2010-12-09 02:34:39 <kiba> it slows down currency user, theymos
395 2010-12-09 02:34:48 <kiba> s/user/use
396 2010-12-09 02:36:24 <jgarzik> or imposes additional costs on currency user, to avoid slowdown
397 2010-12-09 02:37:44 <jgarzik> Note this is a DEMONSTRATION patch, with a cheesy genesis block hack, not meant for real use: http://yyz.us/bitcoin/patch.bitcoin-datanet-fork
398 2010-12-09 02:38:28 <jgarzik> I think satoshi has to sign all new genesis blocks or something like that
399 2010-12-09 02:39:03 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
400 2010-12-09 02:39:57 <doublec> I thought you were against forking?
401 2010-12-09 02:40:04 <ArtForz> shouldnt datanet... you know... allow data?
402 2010-12-09 02:41:06 <jgarzik> ArtForz: fixed
403 2010-12-09 02:41:55 <theymos> kiba: Miners are the ones who deal with the block data. Why should clients be able to prevent them from selling their share of the data? Why should some data be said to be less important than other data? That's for the market to decide.
404 2010-12-09 02:41:59 <jgarzik> doublec: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=2129.msg27884#msg27884
405 2010-12-09 02:42:02 <ArtForz> now your client allows data Txes on standard net ...
406 2010-12-09 02:43:03 <jgarzik> ArtForz: fixed. I didn't figure anyone would run the patch, but not want to run datanet.
407 2010-12-09 02:43:56 <tcatm> Btw, is the statusbar supposed to be broken?
408 2010-12-09 02:44:23 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: anybody can create a hacked client with their own genesis block...
409 2010-12-09 02:44:48 redMBA has joined
410 2010-12-09 02:45:25 <jgarzik> doublec: basically I think a fight over shared TX-validation rules will be counterproductive to bitcoin-the-currency
411 2010-12-09 02:47:42 <ArtForz> but not propagating those TXes is a bad solution
412 2010-12-09 02:48:44 Lysacor has joined
413 2010-12-09 02:48:50 <ArtForz> "hey, just -addnode me and I'll get your nonstandard TX into a block for X min fee"
414 2010-12-09 02:50:21 <Lysacor> I am trying to understand, as a miner, how the changes would affect me... I assume it has something with the potential of transactions being shunned for arbitrary reasons?
415 2010-12-09 02:50:27 <Lysacor> in the new patch
416 2010-12-09 02:50:44 <jgarzik> Lysacor: yes, shunning [basically] non-currency transactions
417 2010-12-09 02:51:08 <theymos> Lysacor: You'll ignore transactions that don't meet the two transaction types currently produced by Bitcoin, even if they contain fees.
418 2010-12-09 02:52:15 <Lysacor> so essentially it is meant to prevent excessive "noise" in the transactional data received and/or acknowledged by the client?
419 2010-12-09 02:52:37 <Lysacor> hmmm I don't know whether to like or dislike it
420 2010-12-09 02:52:46 <jgarzik> Lysacor: it's not noise, if you're bitDNS or some other useful non-currency application.
421 2010-12-09 02:52:48 <Lysacor> not enough experience to know the difference at the moment
422 2010-12-09 02:53:14 <jgarzik> Lysacor: it's app-specific data
423 2010-12-09 02:53:44 <Lysacor> jgarzik: maybe noise is a bad description, but it essentially causes the client to not process the two common types of data, right?
424 2010-12-09 02:54:44 <MT`AwAy> [11:51:58] <jgarzik> Lysacor: it's not noise, if you're bitDNS or some other useful non-currency application. <- bitDNS should use an alternative chain, I'd say
425 2010-12-09 02:54:48 <theymos> You might ignore currency transactions if there are a ton of non-standard transactions. It shouldn't happen often, and you'll get lots of fees if it ever does.
426 2010-12-09 02:55:13 <jgarzik> which is great for the miners, but not so great for the currency.
427 2010-12-09 02:55:39 <theymos> It adds inherent value to the currency, so I think it is good for everyone.
428 2010-12-09 02:56:11 <jgarzik> It's a tough sell to new bitcoin users who aren't interested in DNS free-riding on their savings account :)
429 2010-12-09 02:56:30 <theymos> They're not really free-riding, since they're paying large fees...
430 2010-12-09 02:56:32 <Lysacor> so, is it an optionally activated function, or always active?
431 2010-12-09 02:56:43 <jgarzik> Lysacor: always active, if you use 0.3.18
432 2010-12-09 02:56:46 <MT`AwAy> Lysacor: if it's in the main chain, everyone will have the data
433 2010-12-09 02:56:59 <MT`AwAy> oh, the isStandard thing~
434 2010-12-09 02:57:22 <MT`AwAy> anyway as I said, non-bitcoin transactions should have their own chain, would make things better
435 2010-12-09 02:58:07 <MT`AwAy> (anyway there's none of those for now)
436 2010-12-09 02:58:37 <Lysacor> what about the background processing time of bitDNS for example, in theory would it use the processing power of the network as a whole to return DNS queries?
437 2010-12-09 02:58:55 Toadyonps3 has quit (Quit: moveing be back on asap tc all happy holidays I LOVE YOU XUNIE 4EVER!)
438 2010-12-09 02:58:56 <theymos> No. Just storage.
439 2010-12-09 02:58:59 <MT`AwAy> Lysacor: no
440 2010-12-09 02:59:00 <Lysacor> or, is it just a recorded entry in the chain that everyone gets
441 2010-12-09 02:59:03 <Lysacor> ok
442 2010-12-09 02:59:12 <Lysacor> that makes sense
443 2010-12-09 02:59:15 <MT`AwAy> however each time someone wants to update their dns info, it's going to store some data in /all/ clients
444 2010-12-09 02:59:36 Toadyonps3 has joined
445 2010-12-09 02:59:38 <Lysacor> yes, potentiallty that could be problematic, and cause the chain to bloat
446 2010-12-09 02:59:51 <jgarzik> yes
447 2010-12-09 03:00:00 <theymos> Transactions can be forgotten after they have been spent, so you won't have to store the data forever.
448 2010-12-09 03:00:06 <MT`AwAy> and anyway clients shouldn't inherit transactions they have no interest into
449 2010-12-09 03:00:13 <MT`AwAy> theymos: you still have to keep the whole chain
450 2010-12-09 03:00:22 Toadyonps3 has quit (Client Quit)
451 2010-12-09 03:00:34 <theymos> MT`AwAy: Spent parts of the chain can be forgotten forever, as they are no longer needed.
452 2010-12-09 03:00:37 <MT`AwAy> theymos: if a new client starts from zero it'll need the whole chain to make sure it wasn't modified by a client
453 2010-12-09 03:00:46 <ArtForz> not really
454 2010-12-09 03:00:56 <theymos> Nope. You just need the hash tree and unspent transactions.
455 2010-12-09 03:00:58 <ArtForz> it just needs the block headers, unspent TX and mekle hashes for the spent TX
456 2010-12-09 03:01:12 Toadyonps3 has joined
457 2010-12-09 03:01:41 <theymos> The version of BitDNS that me and Nanotube made was specifically designed to become spent very quickly, to allow old records to be deleted.
458 2010-12-09 03:03:01 <Lysacor> I guess I need to read more about BitDNS, and try to understand the benefits and implications of the changes in 0.3.18
459 2010-12-09 03:03:11 Toadyonps3 has quit (Client Quit)
460 2010-12-09 03:03:11 <Lysacor> BitDNS being an example app of course
461 2010-12-09 03:03:32 <Lysacor> it is nice to see civil disagreement though
462 2010-12-09 03:03:41 Toadyonps3 has joined
463 2010-12-09 03:03:50 <kiba> so, why are not deleting spent transaction?
464 2010-12-09 03:03:55 <MT`AwAy> I still believe bitDNS should have its own chain, since it'll be fully unrelated to bitcoins
465 2010-12-09 03:04:34 <theymos> kiba: Not implemented yet.
466 2010-12-09 03:04:49 <kiba> that will delete transaction history, won't it?
467 2010-12-09 03:05:04 <theymos> Only the part that is unnecessary for verification.
468 2010-12-09 03:05:40 <kiba> I see
469 2010-12-09 03:06:02 <kiba> it will force people who want to trace an account back to an identity to do more work
470 2010-12-09 03:06:25 <MT`AwAy> or to go on blockexplorer which is likely to keep transactions anyway
471 2010-12-09 03:06:38 tg has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
472 2010-12-09 03:07:13 <theymos> Yeah; I'll keep transactions forever. One of the reasons I created BBE was to record these transactions before "forgetfulness" is implemented.
473 2010-12-09 03:07:43 <kiba> if they no longer have block explorer, they will create their own
474 2010-12-09 03:07:54 tg has joined
475 2010-12-09 03:08:53 <kiba> for better anonymity, people will generate a new address, right?
476 2010-12-09 03:09:56 <theymos> It's better for anonymity to generate a new address for every transaction. It makes the transaction history harder to understand.
477 2010-12-09 03:10:38 <MT`AwAy> for donation addresses, since they are fixed you can know how much a given organization (say, EFF) has received :)
478 2010-12-09 03:11:09 <kiba> so it's pesudonoymous
479 2010-12-09 03:11:13 <kiba> rather than anonymous
480 2010-12-09 03:11:21 <ArtForz> yep
481 2010-12-09 03:11:41 <jgarzik> and publicly traceable transactions are subject to statistical analysis
482 2010-12-09 03:12:46 * kiba notes that bitcoin.org doesn't say anonymous
483 2010-12-09 03:12:50 <kiba> did it ever say that?
484 2010-12-09 03:13:05 <MT`AwAy> don't think so
485 2010-12-09 03:13:46 <ArtForz> nope
486 2010-12-09 03:13:47 <kiba> I wonder if IRS people could hire smart people
487 2010-12-09 03:14:41 <MT`AwAy> kiba: if that can annoy you, they will
488 2010-12-09 03:14:43 gvsteve has joined
489 2010-12-09 03:15:19 <kiba> a guy told me today that taxes are used to fund stuff
490 2010-12-09 03:15:28 <kiba> and that sending people to jail does not equal killing
491 2010-12-09 03:15:49 StrangeCharm has joined
492 2010-12-09 03:16:07 <kiba> blah
493 2010-12-09 03:16:16 <kiba> their mind is compartmenized
494 2010-12-09 03:16:48 <jgarzik> http://www.bitcoin.org/wiki/doku.php?id=anonymity
495 2010-12-09 03:16:56 xelister has joined
496 2010-12-09 03:16:59 <redMBA> jail kills people?
497 2010-12-09 03:17:37 <kiba> jail make stronger the criminal minds
498 2010-12-09 03:17:44 <kiba> and people sometime get killed in prison
499 2010-12-09 03:18:06 <kiba> so yeah, it's just evil. NOt evil as sending people to their death, but still evil.
500 2010-12-09 03:18:23 <redMBA> whats your alternative?
501 2010-12-09 03:18:47 <MT`AwAy> kiba: anyway when you get out of prison you know everything you need to know to do more harm to society
502 2010-12-09 03:19:08 <kiba> I don't know
503 2010-12-09 03:19:17 <kiba> but jails are defintely breeding ground for even more criminality
504 2010-12-09 03:19:21 <MT`AwAy> I spent 2 days in pre-prison (waiting for judgment, where they found I was not in fault), I learned where to buy a passport and many other useful tips :D
505 2010-12-09 03:19:31 <MT`AwAy> s/prison/jail/g
506 2010-12-09 03:20:14 <jgarzik> French Guiana :)
507 2010-12-09 03:20:14 <redMBA> maybe they were plants to entrap you! :P
508 2010-12-09 03:20:43 <MT`AwAy> redMBA: I also saw how they gave money to the guards to get tobacco and various advantages
509 2010-12-09 03:20:53 <MT`AwAy> and how they hid stuff in their clothes
510 2010-12-09 03:23:34 <MT`AwAy> anyway I think if I stayed longer in this kind of place I'd become a member of some criminal group before the end, and have a new "job" when finally getting out
511 2010-12-09 03:23:35 <AAA_awright> Can yuo imagine how much the value of Bitcoins would skyrocket if that was the currency used to auction off DNS addresses?
512 2010-12-09 03:23:59 <AAA_awright> kiba: My idea is anonymous!
513 2010-12-09 03:25:47 <MT`AwAy> http://www.bitcoin.org/wiki/doku.php?id=anonymity <- should list mtgox too, not only mybitcoin
514 2010-12-09 03:26:45 xelister_ has joined
515 2010-12-09 03:29:04 <CIA-84> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * r942e4c7 / (2 files in 2 dirs):
516 2010-12-09 03:29:04 <CIA-84> DiabloMiner: Removed vector code, removed any use of -D foo="bar" because Nvidia and
517 2010-12-09 03:29:04 <CIA-84> DiabloMiner: Apple can't follow the fucking OpenCL specification (but AMD does) - http://bit.ly/hMSIgQ
518 2010-12-09 03:30:09 xelister has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
519 2010-12-09 03:30:42 Toadyonps3 has quit (Quit: moveing be back on asap tc all happy holidays I LOVE YOU XUNIE 4EVER!)
520 2010-12-09 03:51:00 <xelister_> Diablo-D3: I run bunch of tests
521 2010-12-09 03:51:09 <xelister_> Diablo-D3: oh.. I started forking already
522 2010-12-09 03:51:21 <xelister_> Diablo-D3: is any of above changes by you important for the problems wioth multigpu?
523 2010-12-09 03:53:30 <Diablo-D3> xelister_: your card is overheating.
524 2010-12-09 03:53:34 <Diablo-D3> both me and art think this.
525 2010-12-09 03:54:58 <ArtForz> iirc ATIs sdk has a sample app to test shaders and memory
526 2010-12-09 03:55:01 <xelister_> Diablo-D3: no
527 2010-12-09 03:55:14 <xelister_> it happens even when card is at 70 sec
528 2010-12-09 03:55:24 <xelister_> it happens after like 3 minutes of using miner (on testnet)
529 2010-12-09 03:55:41 <xelister_> are you sure your miner is not broken for multigpu
530 2010-12-09 03:55:48 <ArtForz> we'll soon know
531 2010-12-09 03:55:49 <xelister_> *at 70 C
532 2010-12-09 03:55:59 <xelister_> ArtForz: oh, would you run Diablo-D3's miner?
533 2010-12-09 03:56:00 <Diablo-D3> xelister_: too many people have it working.
534 2010-12-09 03:56:10 <Diablo-D3> xelister_: also, I think I fixed the fucking geforce bug
535 2010-12-09 03:56:11 <xelister_> anyone have your miner at 5970?
536 2010-12-09 03:56:15 <anarchyx> ;;bc,stats
537 2010-12-09 03:56:17 <gribble> Current Blocks: 96601 | Current Difficulty: 8078.19525793 | Next Difficulty At Block: 96767 | Next Difficulty In: 166 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 18 hours, 12 minutes, and 24 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 12275.42674875
538 2010-12-09 03:56:30 <ArtForz> yep
539 2010-12-09 03:56:43 <xelister_> Diablo-D3: what many people? anyone uses it? ;)
540 2010-12-09 03:56:47 <xelister_> n 5970
541 2010-12-09 03:57:06 <Diablo-D3> who knows
542 2010-12-09 03:57:09 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: did you try it?
543 2010-12-09 03:57:16 <ArtForz> working on it
544 2010-12-09 03:57:26 <ArtForz> does your miner now work with mainline getwork?
545 2010-12-09 03:58:08 <Diablo-D3> yes
546 2010-12-09 03:58:13 <Diablo-D3> also, see -mining
547 2010-12-09 04:01:32 <xelister_> thanks ArtForz
548 2010-12-09 04:03:51 <kiba> hmm
549 2010-12-09 04:04:56 <xelister_> [2010-12-09_05:02:52] [score][good] Cypress-nr-2: found a valid-looking solution: nonce=58065792 G=116965661 H=0
550 2010-12-09 04:04:57 <xelister_> [2010-12-09_05:02:52] Found work to send, nonce=58065792!
551 2010-12-09 04:04:59 <xelister_> [2010-12-09_05:02:53] 434 Mhash/sec (cycle=28)
552 2010-12-09 04:05:00 <xelister_> [2010-12-09_05:02:54] Got status from sendWork JSON: YES
553 2010-12-09 04:05:02 <xelister_> [2010-12-09_05:02:54] [score][good] Cypress-nr-2: SOLUTION SENT :-) Block found (4 blocks so far) and sent to server.
554 2010-12-09 04:05:03 <xelister_> [2010-12-09_05:02:54] Got status from sendWork JSON: error
555 2010-12-09 04:05:05 <xelister_> [2010-12-09_05:02:54] error: [score][bad] Cypress-nr-2: COULD NOT REPORT THE BLOCK to server! Block found, but server was unreachable!!!
556 2010-12-09 04:05:06 <xelister_> [2010-12-09_05:02:54] 428 Mhash/sec (cycle=29)
557 2010-12-09 04:05:08 <xelister_> [2010-12-09_05:02:54] error: [calc] Cypress-nr-2: INVALID BLOCK found. nonce=16777215 G=834017835 H=4090256894
558 2010-12-09 04:05:09 <xelister_> [2010-12-09_05:02:59] 426 Mhash/sec (cycle=34)
559 2010-12-09 04:05:11 <xelister_> [2010-12-09_05:03:00] error: [calc] Cypress-nr-2: INVALID BLOCK found. nonce=16777215 G=1012042089 H=3833344440
560 2010-12-09 04:05:12 <xelister_> [2010-12-09_05:03:00] error: [calc] Cypress-nr-2: INVALID BLOCK found. nonce=16777215 G=593929000 H=757277839
561 2010-12-09 04:05:14 <xelister_> [2010-12-09_05:03:00] error: [calc] Cypress-nr-2: INVALID BLOCK found. nonce=16777215 G=1158339762 H=3046433046
562 2010-12-09 04:05:15 <xelister_> [2010-12-09_05:03:05] 431 Mhash/sec (cycle=40)
563 2010-12-09 04:05:17 <xelister_> [2010-12-09_05:03:06] error: [calc] Cypress-nr-2: INVALID BLOCK found. nonce=16777215 G=306698303 H=1323093664
564 2010-12-09 04:05:18 <xelister_> [2010-12-09_05:03:10] 427 Mhash/sec (cycle=45)
565 2010-12-09 04:05:20 <xelister_> [2010-12-09_05:03:11] error: [calc] Cypress-nr-2: INVALID BLOCK found. nonce=16777215 G=995527429 H=425049250
566 2010-12-09 04:05:21 <xelister_> [2010-12-09_05:03:13] 431 Mhash/sec (cycle=48)
567 2010-12-09 04:05:23 <xelister_> [2010-12-09_05:03:13] [score][good] Cypress-nr-1: found a valid-looking solution: nonce=213756168 G=377074981 H=0
568 2010-12-09 04:05:24 <xelister_> [2010-12-09_05:03:13] Found work to send, nonce=213756168!
569 2010-12-09 04:05:26 <xelister_> [2010-12-09_05:03:15] 447 Mhash/sec (cycle=50)
570 2010-12-09 04:05:27 <xelister_> [2010-12-09_05:03:16] Got status from sendWork JSON: YES
571 2010-12-09 04:05:29 <xelister_> [2010-12-09_05:03:16] [score][good] Cypress-nr-1: SOLUTION SENT :-) Block found (6 blocks so far) and sent to server.
572 2010-12-09 04:05:37 <xelister_> Diablo-D3: the invalid blocks are (almost?) always with nonce=16777215
573 2010-12-09 04:05:56 <doublec> I think you should paste more random log data to the channel. that was fun.
574 2010-12-09 04:06:11 <kiba> no, use
575 2010-12-09 04:06:19 <kiba> paste sites
576 2010-12-09 04:06:40 <kiba> what a day
577 2010-12-09 04:06:59 <Diablo-D3> xelister_: your fork sucks.
578 2010-12-09 04:07:08 <kiba> Diablo-D3: NO YOU SUCKS!
579 2010-12-09 04:07:12 <xelister_> ArtForz: http://pastebin.ca/2014458 its the miner but with large amount of logging in case of errors (replace the one .java file)
580 2010-12-09 04:07:15 <xelister_> Diablo-D3: why?
581 2010-12-09 04:07:25 <xelister_> Diablo-D3: btw I found a bug in yours
582 2010-12-09 04:07:37 <xelister_> you do not reset the work it seems after finding invalid block
583 2010-12-09 04:07:51 <Diablo-D3> yes I do.
584 2010-12-09 04:07:51 <xelister_> s/reset/at least set the pull time thing
585 2010-12-09 04:08:03 <xelister_> btw, learn to use { .. } in multilevel if's ;)
586 2010-12-09 04:08:04 <Diablo-D3> you mean currentWork?
587 2010-12-09 04:08:14 <Diablo-D3> that shouldnt be reset, it isnt bad yet.
588 2010-12-09 04:08:22 <xelister_> I mean H==0 does not reset work
589 2010-12-09 04:08:28 <kiba> hmm
590 2010-12-09 04:08:30 * kiba is lazy
591 2010-12-09 04:08:52 <kiba> wanna build a bot that carry sutff to the kitchen and load it to the kitchen sink
592 2010-12-09 04:08:57 <xelister_> * H!=0
593 2010-12-09 04:09:04 <Diablo-D3> xelister_: H==0 shouldnt
594 2010-12-09 04:09:12 <xelister_> <xelister_> * H!=0
595 2010-12-09 04:09:13 <Diablo-D3> it can produce tons of H==0 in 5 seconds
596 2010-12-09 04:09:21 <xelister_> <xelister_> <xelister_> * H!=0
597 2010-12-09 04:09:21 <Diablo-D3> and look closely
598 2010-12-09 04:09:31 <Diablo-D3> line 466 through 499
599 2010-12-09 04:09:49 <Diablo-D3> especially 482 and 487 and look what scope they are
600 2010-12-09 04:10:13 <Diablo-D3> it resets if a solution has been found
601 2010-12-09 04:10:24 <xelister_> lines 610÷612 of mine http://pastebin.ca/2014458 where not exected in your version for invalid block (H!=0). shouldnt they?
602 2010-12-09 04:10:26 <Diablo-D3> and ONLY then
603 2010-12-09 04:10:32 <Diablo-D3> xelister_: no
604 2010-12-09 04:10:37 <Diablo-D3> otherwise it resets constantly
605 2010-12-09 04:10:47 <Diablo-D3> it resets under two conditions only
606 2010-12-09 04:10:47 <xelister_> but that is executed only for invalid block
607 2010-12-09 04:11:01 <Diablo-D3> 5 seconds have passed or it found a valid solution
608 2010-12-09 04:11:01 <xelister_> for G==0 && H!=0
609 2010-12-09 04:11:16 <Diablo-D3> it should NOT reset under G>=target && H!=0
610 2010-12-09 04:11:23 <Diablo-D3> er <=
611 2010-12-09 04:11:32 <Diablo-D3> a valid solution has NOT been found
612 2010-12-09 04:11:44 <xelister_> but it means invalid was doung
613 2010-12-09 04:11:45 <xelister_> found
614 2010-12-09 04:11:48 <ArtForz> hrrrm
615 2010-12-09 04:11:59 <xelister_> anyway. why all the invalid solutions are for same nounce
616 2010-12-09 04:12:11 <Diablo-D3> xelister_: because your hardware is shit.
617 2010-12-09 04:12:24 <ArtForz> tries to load 32 bit liblwjgl.so
618 2010-12-09 04:12:44 Lysacor has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
619 2010-12-09 04:13:09 <xelister_> GPU#2 all the time produces nonce=1677721 with G<target and H>0
620 2010-12-09 04:13:21 <xelister_> and sometimes it does still produce a good result. what the fuck
621 2010-12-09 04:13:41 <xelister_> Diablo-D3: ^-- perhaps above nonce=1677721 can be some hint to debug it. Im still betting on programming error in miner since all apps work fine
622 2010-12-09 04:13:44 <ArtForz> thats nonce 0x199999 .. weird
623 2010-12-09 04:13:57 <xelister_> yeah that is too weird to be just overheating with random bitflips or shit
624 2010-12-09 04:14:01 <xelister_> look into it Diablo-D3 :)
625 2010-12-09 04:14:03 <xelister_> I g2g
626 2010-12-09 04:14:12 * xelister_ *poof* thanks Diablo-D3 / ArtForz
627 2010-12-09 04:14:54 <Diablo-D3> xelister_: that cannot be my app since I don't produce numbers like that
628 2010-12-09 04:29:36 <MT`AwAy> nonce=16777215 <- with the final 5 it's 0xffffff
629 2010-12-09 04:29:54 <MT`AwAy> (and not 0x199999, ArtForz :p )
630 2010-12-09 04:30:04 <ArtForz> right
631 2010-12-09 04:30:20 <MT`AwAy> doesn't change anything to the weird part however
632 2010-12-09 04:30:35 <ArtForz> well... seems to work fine here so far
633 2010-12-09 04:30:52 <Diablo-D3> yeah, if his hardware is just utterly fucked
634 2010-12-09 04:30:56 <Diablo-D3> then thats just what it is
635 2010-12-09 04:31:07 <Diablo-D3> if ArtForz cant reproduce it, then the bug doesnt exist
636 2010-12-09 04:31:33 <MT`AwAy> the nice thing when you code closer to the hardware is you have to adapt to weird bugs here and there
637 2010-12-09 04:31:51 <MT`AwAy> I wrote an OS for fun, and had indeed a lot of fun with some weird behaviour of some pci devices and stuff
638 2010-12-09 04:33:50 <xelister_> ArtForz: can you run it on testnet?
639 2010-12-09 04:33:54 <xelister_> it happens a LOT more on testnet
640 2010-12-09 04:33:58 <xelister_> more/faster
641 2010-12-09 04:34:22 <xelister_> ArtForz: in case of any problems use my pastebinned version, its same just prints more and with timestamps
642 2010-12-09 04:34:40 <Diablo-D3> xelister_: why the fuck arent you in -mining?
643 2010-12-09 04:35:03 <xelister_> Diablo-D3: I am... glasses? ;)
644 2010-12-09 04:40:39 <appamatto> What other bitcoin channels are around?
645 2010-12-09 04:41:02 <Diablo-D3> appamatto: -dev -otc -mining -talk -discussion
646 2010-12-09 04:41:04 <Diablo-D3> and probably others
647 2010-12-09 04:41:06 <jgarzik> appamatto: a bunch. -dns, -otc, -talk. maybe others.
648 2010-12-09 04:41:19 <appamatto> jgarzik, greetings :)
649 2010-12-09 04:41:57 <nanotube> appamatto: /msg alis list *bitcoin*
650 2010-12-09 04:44:36 <appamatto> nanotube, thanks
651 2010-12-09 04:47:25 <appamatto> I wonder if anyone has solved the problem of forum threads getting to be too off-topic before
652 2010-12-09 04:47:44 <appamatto> stackoverflow seems to do a good job
653 2010-12-09 04:52:13 <DemeGeek> 0.257538 BTC worth of mining help at the moment!
654 2010-12-09 04:52:51 <kiba> I wonder how long the bitcoin community will stay libertarian
655 2010-12-09 04:53:19 <appamatto> It will always be libertarian, but libertarian will eventually mean statist
656 2010-12-09 04:53:25 <appamatto> That's what happened with 'liberal'
657 2010-12-09 04:53:26 <appamatto> :p
658 2010-12-09 04:54:11 <appamatto> Next we'll have libertyarians
659 2010-12-09 04:54:34 <theymos> Even most anarchists seem to support some sort of government.
660 2010-12-09 04:54:44 <appamatto> None of the anarchists I've met!
661 2010-12-09 04:54:56 <DemeGeek> IS there an online store that deals with BitCoins?
662 2010-12-09 04:55:13 <DemeGeek> A store as in a place to shop for normal stuff?
663 2010-12-09 04:55:22 <appamatto> Even the left-anarchists think they can organize in solidarity without a state
664 2010-12-09 04:55:28 <appamatto> I think they're delusional :p
665 2010-12-09 04:55:31 <theymos> Anarcho-syndicalists, for example, seem to want to replace governments with unions or some such.
666 2010-12-09 04:55:32 <bd_> The thing about anarchy is if you destroy the government, a new one pops up whether you like it or not
667 2010-12-09 04:55:50 <appamatto> theymos, yeah, but they aren't really exact about whether those unions use force or not
668 2010-12-09 04:56:10 <jgarzik> DemeGeek: you can buy stuff at amazon.com with bitcoins
669 2010-12-09 04:56:21 <theymos> Well, you're not allowed to do certain things, so there has to be violence if you want to stop it...
670 2010-12-09 04:57:11 <jgarzik> kiba: the more popular bitcoin becomes, the more the original libertarians and anarchists will dislike it :)
671 2010-12-09 04:57:22 <appamatto> theymos, yeah. I feel the same way. They think that the free market is contrary to their social ends, when I think it actually furthers them
672 2010-12-09 04:57:59 * kiba shrugs
673 2010-12-09 04:58:20 <kiba> same thing happen to bitcoin
674 2010-12-09 04:58:22 <kiba> err
675 2010-12-09 04:58:23 <kiba> paypal
676 2010-12-09 04:59:00 <appamatto> I dunno, if bitcoin goes astray it will be easy to replace since the ideas are already out there now
677 2010-12-09 04:59:03 <kiba> if we can destroy the hold on monentary monopoly, that will be an improtant acheviement for libertarians in general
678 2010-12-09 05:00:29 <jgarzik> appamatto: that's my prediction. if bitcoin becomes more about data than currency, someone will just start a currency block chain.
679 2010-12-09 05:01:21 <kiba> bitcoin was waiting to be born
680 2010-12-09 05:01:26 <appamatto> jgarzik, I kind of think the same thing, except with the replacement coming from a near-zero overhead multi-app block chain
681 2010-12-09 05:01:35 <kiba> a great number of hackers
682 2010-12-09 05:01:36 remmy_ has joined
683 2010-12-09 05:01:42 <kiba> a great number of libertarians who are hackers
684 2010-12-09 05:01:49 <appamatto> since it will allow many different stakeholders to cooperate on one block chain
685 2010-12-09 05:02:16 <appamatto> but the design I have in mind causes there to be almost zero overhead imposed by other apps
686 2010-12-09 05:02:45 <nanotube> appamatto: see my post on the forum... i'd like to know if you have an actual implementation framework, or just a blue-sky idea
687 2010-12-09 05:03:14 <appamatto> nanotube, I have the protocol designed and am working on the implementation
688 2010-12-09 05:03:19 <appamatto> the protocol is very simple
689 2010-12-09 05:03:31 <theymos> appamatto: Why would anyone generate on BitX?
690 2010-12-09 05:03:35 <appamatto> because it doesn't have to know about transactions or public/private keys or anything else
691 2010-12-09 05:03:50 <appamatto> theymos, because they can generate both bitcoin and bitdns
692 2010-12-09 05:03:59 <appamatto> Otherwise they could only do one at a time
693 2010-12-09 05:04:44 <appamatto> And the protocol allows for any block to generate a new app genesis block
694 2010-12-09 05:05:15 <theymos> The BitDNS spec nanotube and I made relies on Bitcoin's authentication backend. Removing that makes more work for upper-level protocols.
695 2010-12-09 05:05:29 FreeMoney has joined
696 2010-12-09 05:06:13 <theymos> Will your implementation include some sort of DHT to deliver the data associated with a BitX transaction?
697 2010-12-09 05:06:20 <appamatto> Well, BitX should have libraries that make those features easy, but it shouldn't mandate that app protocols have authentication
698 2010-12-09 05:06:37 AAA_awright_ has joined
699 2010-12-09 05:06:38 <appamatto> theymos, no, data delivery is not required by the protocol :p
700 2010-12-09 05:06:39 <kiba> what's the disadvantage of making a dependent chain on the existing bitcoin chain anyway?
701 2010-12-09 05:07:31 <nanotube> kiba: how would it be 'dependent'? if it's data is not in the existing block chain... it's independent. if it's in the blockchain... then you have extra data in the main blockchain.
702 2010-12-09 05:07:40 <appamatto> basically, the BitX blocks and app blocks delivery method isn't dictated, although there will be a completely orthogonal DHT that is BitX-compatible
703 2010-12-09 05:09:11 <appamatto> I don't think that kind of thing is really supposed to be in the protocol
704 2010-12-09 05:09:17 <theymos> It should work (and probably replace Bitcoin) if the incentive structure works out.
705 2010-12-09 05:09:21 AAA_awright has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
706 2010-12-09 05:09:33 <kiba> wee!
707 2010-12-09 05:09:36 <kiba> designing markets
708 2010-12-09 05:09:39 <kiba> the irony of that
709 2010-12-09 05:10:21 <appamatto> There is another use for BitX that specifically relies on not distributing app blocks: imagine the need to record a will that you don't want to reveal but you want to prove happened on a certain date
710 2010-12-09 05:10:39 <kiba> legal documents
711 2010-12-09 05:11:14 <theymos> Actually, it can't replace Bitcoin because things don't get verified before they get into blocks. So every client has to download the entire chain.
712 2010-12-09 05:11:18 AAA_awright_ is now known as AAA_awright
713 2010-12-09 05:11:26 <appamatto> Later on you can reveal your bitwill block and prove it supercedes the previous ones, etc.
714 2010-12-09 05:12:00 <appamatto> theymos, they get validated because each app chain has a backward pointer to the previous valid app chain
715 2010-12-09 05:12:06 <appamatto> it should work exactly as in bitcoin
716 2010-12-09 05:12:26 <theymos> I have not downloaded the entire chain. How do I get number of confirmations for a transaction?
717 2010-12-09 05:12:52 nelisky has quit (Quit: nelisky)
718 2010-12-09 05:13:06 <appamatto> Oh right, you can't get the exact number easily
719 2010-12-09 05:13:47 <appamatto> Don't you have to download the entire chain for bitcoin?
720 2010-12-09 05:13:59 <theymos> So I don't think it will work for applications that require full histories. All money transfer applications would, so you won't ever get good incentives.
721 2010-12-09 05:14:09 <theymos> No. Just the headers and hash trees.
722 2010-12-09 05:14:36 <appamatto> theymos, the bitx block is a header
723 2010-12-09 05:15:00 <appamatto> I mean, it just has a backward pointer for each app the miner cared about, and you can personally dump the ones you don't care about
724 2010-12-09 05:15:30 <appamatto> there is no content in the bitx block itself other than one hash and backward pointer per app, and a timestamp
725 2010-12-09 05:15:36 <appamatto> The rest of the data is contained in app blocks
726 2010-12-09 05:16:59 <appamatto> So I guess theoretically it does better than bitcoin because you don't even need to download the bitcoin data itself to determine the number of confirmations
727 2010-12-09 05:17:29 <appamatto> Unless you want to perform validations on the app chain (which is a good idea)
728 2010-12-09 05:18:42 pr0wler has quit (Quit: z)
729 2010-12-09 05:19:28 Toadyonps3 has joined
730 2010-12-09 05:20:14 <theymos> Bitcoin can work even with blocks so large that even just the hashes take up a lot of room. With Bitcoin you don't need to download any hashes except those relevant to you, since they are part of a hash tree that is connected to a block header. I wonder if this could be replicated for BitX.
731 2010-12-09 05:20:24 DoomDumas has left ()
732 2010-12-09 05:21:18 <theymos> It would be better than Bitcoin for the next 20 years, though, probably.
733 2010-12-09 05:21:24 Toadyonps3 has quit (Client Quit)
734 2010-12-09 05:21:25 <appamatto> theymos, I see what you're saying
735 2010-12-09 05:21:42 <appamatto> In BitX the number of hashes is proportional to the number of apps
736 2010-12-09 05:22:15 <appamatto> So it seems very unlikely that kind of optimization would pay off
737 2010-12-09 05:22:48 <appamatto> But I'm sure all of the bitcoin awesomeness will be present within bitcoin's app chain on bitx
738 2010-12-09 05:23:33 <theymos> So a BitX block contains multiple app block hashes, and each app block contains the individual tx hashes, and the txns themselves are distributed through some DHT or something?
739 2010-12-09 05:24:04 <jgarzik> hmmmm. can a TX have zero outs?
740 2010-12-09 05:24:09 <theymos> no.
741 2010-12-09 05:24:32 <appamatto> well, what an app block contains is up to each app, but yeah I expect the bitcoin app blocks will contain either the hashes or the txs themselves
742 2010-12-09 05:25:24 <appamatto> The app blocks would be distributed through a DHT, yet
743 2010-12-09 05:25:35 <theymos> The app block DHT is part of the spec?
744 2010-12-09 05:25:52 <appamatto> no, I don't want it to be at least
745 2010-12-09 05:26:11 <appamatto> Same for the distribution method of bitx blocks themselves
746 2010-12-09 05:26:14 <bd_> appamatto: So what encourages people to generate POWs in your system?
747 2010-12-09 05:26:45 <appamatto> bd_, the ability to generate new apps, along with the incentives to generate blocks in each app
748 2010-12-09 05:27:10 <appamatto> So, if you generate a BitX block you could generate a new bit-app as well as get 50 bitcoins and get 5 new domain names from bitdns, for example
749 2010-12-09 05:27:17 <bd_> ah.
750 2010-12-09 05:27:24 <bd_> what do you mean by generating a new bit-app?
751 2010-12-09 05:27:28 <theymos> BitDNS doesn't have generators. It just needs storage. Why would anyone generate for this app?
752 2010-12-09 05:27:41 <appamatto> My conception of bitdns has generators
753 2010-12-09 05:27:49 <appamatto> Why would it not?
754 2010-12-09 05:28:31 <theymos> Ignore that example, then. I want to insert the hash of a document and use the system as a timestamp server. This also doesn't do anything for the generators.
755 2010-12-09 05:28:35 <appamatto> bd_, basically bitdns and bitcoin are not bundled with bitx. Someone has to generate a first block for these systems, and whenever you generate a bitx block you have the ability to create a genesis block for a new app of your choice
756 2010-12-09 05:28:41 <bd_> appamatto: ah, I see.
757 2010-12-09 05:29:10 <bd_> with the DNS example, doesn't that mean it becomes very difficult to use BitDNS as the generating power of the system increases?
758 2010-12-09 05:29:22 <bd_> eg, say a currency app becomes very popular, and a lot of people generate for it
759 2010-12-09 05:29:23 <appamatto> theymos, you could do that in a variety of ways. You could simply create a one-block app called "theymos-document" and then insert your document as the app block
760 2010-12-09 05:29:40 <theymos> That would require me to be a generator.
761 2010-12-09 05:29:42 <bd_> now someone wants to insert a new domain, but with their level of CPU power, they won't be able to succeed for a century or two
762 2010-12-09 05:30:29 <appamatto> theymos, then you need to use bitdocument or some other system. It's just like bitcoin, you can't make transactions without the cooperation of miners
763 2010-12-09 05:30:53 <theymos> Your system has no mechanism to pay fees, though, so no one has any incentive to include bitdocument blocks.
764 2010-12-09 05:31:47 <appamatto> bd_, what happens is that there is a bitcoin/bitdns exchange market, basically a third party escrow. Miners of bitcoin will always generate bitdns names since it is extra profit for them, and they will check the escrows to see which ones are in demand. If you bid high enough, they'll create yours for you and you can buy it from them using the escrow.
765 2010-12-09 05:32:02 <bd_> I see.
766 2010-12-09 05:32:07 <appamatto> theymos, fees are third-party using escrows
767 2010-12-09 05:32:12 <appamatto> Which I think is the way to do it
768 2010-12-09 05:32:21 <appamatto> No reason to complicate the protocol
769 2010-12-09 05:32:45 <appamatto> people will always generate bitdocument blocks because they are essentially free and they can be sold on the market
770 2010-12-09 05:33:47 <appamatto> bitcoin has a tough time because it exists in a bit-vacuum. :p There is no similarly-secure system for it to interface with so it has to design fees into the system itself
771 2010-12-09 05:34:49 <theymos> The first version *needs* to include a system for being an escrow servers and automatically interfacing with such servers, then. Incentives are the most important part of a block chain.
772 2010-12-09 05:34:51 <kiba> WTF is wrong with Nanaimogold?
773 2010-12-09 05:35:02 <DemeGeek> Does the B in BTC have 1 or 2 lines through it?
774 2010-12-09 05:35:33 <kiba> it's highly insulting
775 2010-12-09 05:35:50 <theymos> DemeGeek: The B has 2 lines in images, but there is no character with 2.
776 2010-12-09 05:36:03 <appamatto> theymos, well, you can build up capital and then cash it in later. For instance, stockpile dns names before the escrows pop into place. There certainly was no $$ incentive to generate btc at first, but mtgox moved in to fill that gap after the fact, although the early adopters predicted the emergence of something mtgox-like
777 2010-12-09 05:36:16 <DemeGeek> I am creating a 3D coin and wanted it accurate
778 2010-12-09 05:36:51 <theymos> DemeGeek: Use 2 lines, then.
779 2010-12-09 05:37:01 <appamatto> When the market isn't providing clear incentives entrepreneurs have to step in and produce skillful predictions :p
780 2010-12-09 05:37:33 Toadyonps3 has joined
781 2010-12-09 05:37:34 <theymos> Domains should not be tied to a proof-of-work because the market might need higher supply than what the proof-of-work allows, and prices will get out of control.
782 2010-12-09 05:38:26 <Diablo-D3> what, every 10 minutes?
783 2010-12-09 05:38:48 <appamatto> theymos, yeah, there is something in that. I think if there is super-high demand it will be met by people reselling their domains as TLDs
784 2010-12-09 05:39:06 <appamatto> All-in-all I think price is the great rationer
785 2010-12-09 05:39:14 <bd_> Or perhaps they should be tied to the proof-of-work, but seperate - that is, for example, use the currency POW as a benchmark for how much work is needed to produce a domain name, but don't increase the work threshold when more domains are created
786 2010-12-09 05:39:18 Toadyonps3 has left ()
787 2010-12-09 05:40:44 <bd_> In other words, you'd have one proof of work for the timestamping/block chain. Generators get an out-of-band reward for timestamping domain claims. Domain claims _also_ require a seperate proof of work, proportional to the current block chain work threshold, but not contributing to work threshold increases
788 2010-12-09 05:41:29 <appamatto> bd_, I think thought that splitting the CPU pool is dangerous for the system
789 2010-12-09 05:41:34 <theymos> nanotube and I suggest just showing proof that you have paid a fee that you can't get back. Then clients can consider certain fee levels to be the appropriate fee that they will recognize, depending on market conditions.
790 2010-12-09 05:41:53 <bd_> Well, the idea I have here is that tying the proof of work directly sets a hard limit on how many domains you can create in a given amount of time
791 2010-12-09 05:42:14 <bd_> On the other hand, using a fixed POW threshold means you'll be in trouble when CPUs get faster
792 2010-12-09 05:42:31 <bd_> what you really want to do is limit how many domains any one entity can create
793 2010-12-09 05:42:36 <appamatto> bd_, hmm, well BitX already has difficulty adjustment like bitcoin
794 2010-12-09 05:42:46 <appamatto> Oh I see what you mean
795 2010-12-09 05:42:58 <appamatto> Hmm
796 2010-12-09 05:43:17 <appamatto> I think there are other big problems like people buying domains just to piss other people off
797 2010-12-09 05:43:23 <bd_> that happens anyway )
798 2010-12-09 05:43:24 <bd_> :)
799 2010-12-09 05:43:28 <appamatto> Hehe
800 2010-12-09 05:43:35 <bd_> you'd probably want an expiration system just like in the "real" domain name system
801 2010-12-09 05:43:39 <appamatto> but it's usually enforceable if it violates trademarks
802 2010-12-09 05:43:56 <appamatto> in this system, you can basically just screw people over indefinitely
803 2010-12-09 05:44:13 <appamatto> even if it expires you can program your computer to auto-renew
804 2010-12-09 05:44:14 <nanotube> appamatto: no, our system has domain expiration
805 2010-12-09 05:44:27 <bd_> you wanted an un-censorable domain name system, now you're complaining it can't be censored? :)
806 2010-12-09 05:44:31 <nanotube> and also, there's nothing stopping $entity from trying to locate and sue the registrant
807 2010-12-09 05:44:43 <nanotube> their success may be variable... but they can try.
808 2010-12-09 05:45:01 <appamatto> bd_, I'm not complaining, I'm just saying that these are problems that would keep the established players from joining up
809 2010-12-09 05:45:06 <nanotube> since a domain record, if used, will be pointing to some ip addresses... it can be eventually tracked.
810 2010-12-09 05:45:19 <nanotube> of course, an unused domain (no ns record) will be untraceable.
811 2010-12-09 05:45:25 <appamatto> nanotube, true, although I guess you could claim you lost your private key
812 2010-12-09 05:45:26 <bd_> whoever said it had to contain a domain name entry?
813 2010-12-09 05:45:28 <appamatto> That would be pretty funny :P
814 2010-12-09 05:45:46 <bd_> Also, another question: If the app data blocks are stored in a DHT, what reward is there for participating in the DHT?
815 2010-12-09 05:45:57 <nanotube> appamatto: then domain would expire in $expirytime, and $entity can claim it.
816 2010-12-09 05:46:21 <theymos> DHT participation is cheap compared to block chain participation. Using volunteers isn't as much of a problem there.
817 2010-12-09 05:46:22 <appamatto> bd_, well as a miner you have to get your blocks out somehow before someone else does, so miners are interested in supporting the DHT
818 2010-12-09 05:47:00 <bd_> DHTs are all about the app blocks, which other miners can't necessarily validate, though
819 2010-12-09 05:47:07 <bd_> Sure, you want to get the primary chain out
820 2010-12-09 05:47:26 <bd_> And you want your blocks out initially
821 2010-12-09 05:47:35 <bd_> But what encourages you to _keep_ those blocks out?
822 2010-12-09 05:47:52 <appamatto> Probably nothing for miners
823 2010-12-09 05:47:55 <bd_> and anyway, with a DHT, the DHT node might not be you
824 2010-12-09 05:48:15 <appamatto> If your transaction is in the node then you want to get it out
825 2010-12-09 05:48:22 <appamatto> I think it's similar to packet-switching
826 2010-12-09 05:48:35 <bd_> Sure, my point is, three years later when the collected app blocks have reached a few GBs
827 2010-12-09 05:48:40 <bd_> what's keeping those blocks in circulation?
828 2010-12-09 05:48:52 <appamatto> People in general want to keep these things going. If a client can't find your block it's likely to reject it
829 2010-12-09 05:49:11 <appamatto> bd_, hopefully nothing is keeping them in, and we can drop them
830 2010-12-09 05:49:21 <appamatto> careful app design will be the key there
831 2010-12-09 05:49:27 <bd_> appamatto: Which sucks for you if $app1 takes up 98% of the block insertions :)
832 2010-12-09 05:49:29 <appamatto> I'm not sure if bitcoin has really solved that problem yet
833 2010-12-09 05:49:41 <bd_> then $app2's blocks have a nice long interval to disappear from the internet
834 2010-12-09 05:50:02 <appamatto> bd_, DHT nodes don't have to accept all app blocks
835 2010-12-09 05:50:16 <bd_> Why should they even bother accepting any?
836 2010-12-09 05:50:22 <appamatto> In fact part of my design goals for this system is for you to never end up holding dangerous information
837 2010-12-09 05:50:41 <appamatto> that's why everything in the BitX block is a hash, so it's impossible to store porn there
838 2010-12-09 05:51:23 <theymos> A hash is some binary data. You can replace it with any data you want, if you can break it into enough pieces.
839 2010-12-09 05:51:54 <appamatto> theymos, true, but it's only 512 bits, and it still has to be validated
840 2010-12-09 05:52:23 <bd_> Validated how?
841 2010-12-09 05:52:36 <theymos> Fixing app generation to proof-of-work is too rigid, too. Using proof-of-work for everything is not the answer.
842 2010-12-09 05:53:05 <appamatto> theymos, you think someone would want to generate more than one app every 10 minutes?
843 2010-12-09 05:53:26 <bd_> Perhaps a better way to think about things would be to create a timestamping protocol first, then build other things on top of that?
844 2010-12-09 05:53:28 <theymos> Could be. We can't say what the market will want to do.
845 2010-12-09 05:53:38 <bd_> Don't worry too much about incentives - that's up to higher level protocols
846 2010-12-09 05:54:23 <appamatto> theymos, I think more than that is pretty clearly abuse
847 2010-12-09 05:54:42 <theymos> You just said that to insert a document I might just make an app for it...
848 2010-12-09 05:55:01 <appamatto> I said you _could_ do it that way. A better way would be to have bitdocument
849 2010-12-09 05:55:22 <appamatto> You could in fact just clone bitx as a bitx app but change the generation rules to some huge number of apps per block
850 2010-12-09 05:55:58 <appamatto> bd_, I'm not sure bitx has anything but a timestamping protocol
851 2010-12-09 05:56:29 <appamatto> bd_, with the app chains existing as the API for that protocol
852 2010-12-09 05:56:31 <kiba> bitcoin is made of like two part right? Hashcash, and a timestamping server
853 2010-12-09 05:57:26 <theymos> The proof-of-work is used to create a distributed timestamp server.
854 2010-12-09 05:58:43 <theymos> I wouldn't say they're two separate parts. Bitcoin also verifies transactions for double-spending before including them in blocks, which allows you to verify transactions without downloading the whole chain. The timestamp server and confirmations are the main innovations of Bitcoin.
855 2010-12-09 06:00:03 <bd_> appamatto: does bitx have a wallclock time stamp tacked onto that, though?
856 2010-12-09 06:00:19 <bd_> and can that wallclock timestamp be trusted?
857 2010-12-09 06:01:38 <appamatto> bd_, I'm just mimicing bitcoin, where the timestamp isn't really related to realtime
858 2010-12-09 06:01:55 <appamatto> Ideally it is, but it's not necessarily
859 2010-12-09 06:02:15 <bd_> Well, it could be... :)
860 2010-12-09 06:02:31 <bd_> anyway, as I've said before, the thing I'm concerned about is what exactly pays for the upkeep of app blocks
861 2010-12-09 06:02:34 <appamatto> If you can figure that out, you're pretty awesome :p
862 2010-12-09 06:02:37 <bd_> although I guess you could leave that up to the apps
863 2010-12-09 06:03:06 <appamatto> bd_, yeah, apps can do something better for distribution if they want
864 2010-12-09 06:03:43 <theymos> Bitcoin has a much better chance of lasting 100 years. BitX is too complicated.
865 2010-12-09 06:03:56 <appamatto> Umm
866 2010-12-09 06:04:01 <appamatto> BitX seems much more simple to me
867 2010-12-09 06:04:34 <bd_> appamatto: well, one possibility (not very well thought out, admittedly) is to have each generator check the time of newly received blocks; if they get a block whose timestamp is slightly out of range, they ignore it (but accept blocks based on it); if it's WAY out of range, they blacklist it (and refuse to accept it unless several valid blocks are received based on it)
868 2010-12-09 06:04:40 <theymos> There are too many indepdentent elements, I mean.
869 2010-12-09 06:05:01 redMBA has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
870 2010-12-09 06:05:05 <appamatto> theymos, yes, but I think that's what is going to allow innovation
871 2010-12-09 06:05:43 <appamatto> It's basically the smallest possible block chain kernel that can still support bitcoin
872 2010-12-09 06:05:56 kiba` has joined
873 2010-12-09 06:05:59 <bd_> appamatto: it certainly sounds worth a try
874 2010-12-09 06:06:15 <appamatto> bd_, yeah, it's simple enough that I can just hack it out I think
875 2010-12-09 06:06:34 <appamatto> and start thinking of bit-apps :p
876 2010-12-09 06:06:44 <appamatto> I'll let someone else port bitcoin
877 2010-12-09 06:07:21 <kiba`> how will integration of bitcoin into bitapp will work?
878 2010-12-09 06:07:28 <kiba`> err
879 2010-12-09 06:07:28 <appamatto> It can be done in such a way that the genesis block contains the entire old-world bitcoin
880 2010-12-09 06:07:29 <kiba`> BitX
881 2010-12-09 06:08:08 <appamatto> I don't really know :p
882 2010-12-09 06:08:39 kiba has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
883 2010-12-09 06:08:45 <appamatto> All I know is that I think it can be done, and even done maintaining the current history. If no one does it I might give it a try
884 2010-12-09 06:09:11 <appamatto> I'm interested in other apps though, since I think bitcoin already has its experts
885 2010-12-09 06:10:41 <appamatto> a lot of the apps require addresses and the surrounding cryptosystem that is in bitcoin
886 2010-12-09 06:10:50 <OneFixt> ;;bc,stats
887 2010-12-09 06:10:52 <gribble> Current Blocks: 96623 | Current Difficulty: 8078.19525793 | Next Difficulty At Block: 96767 | Next Difficulty In: 144 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 15 hours, 48 minutes, and 33 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 12263.54448813
888 2010-12-09 06:10:54 <appamatto> So that would probably be a library that can be built to support several apps
889 2010-12-09 06:11:17 <bd_> a webservice(+daemon) might eve be a better idea *shrug*
890 2010-12-09 06:11:20 <kiba`> hmm..
891 2010-12-09 06:11:33 <theymos> I might yet win my bet on BitcoinSportsBook that the difficulty will be over 15,000.
892 2010-12-09 06:11:39 <kiba`> satoshi should go back in time and implement BitX from the start
893 2010-12-09 06:11:47 <kiba`> theymos: how much bitcoins are you going to earn?
894 2010-12-09 06:12:09 <appamatto> kiba, who knows, maybe BitX is not the right system :p
895 2010-12-09 06:12:30 <appamatto> It'd be interesting to see what Satoshi would say, though
896 2010-12-09 06:12:48 <kiba`> Satoshi rarely say much of anything except code
897 2010-12-09 06:12:58 <appamatto> The bad thing about pseudonymity is that no one finds out when you die
898 2010-12-09 06:13:36 <kiba`> maybe there should be a death switch
899 2010-12-09 06:15:13 <kiba`> user so-and-so had passed away in an asteroid mining accident. HIs real name is BlahBlahBlah. He was 131 years ago.
900 2010-12-09 06:15:13 <theymos> kiba`: Looks like I would win ~180 BTC if all of my bets are true (which they will be if difficulty is over 15,000 but below 25,000).
901 2010-12-09 06:15:31 <appamatto> Isn't that a pretty big difficulty jump?
902 2010-12-09 06:15:56 <appamatto> the estimated one, I mean
903 2010-12-09 06:16:01 <kiba`> users will start to aggregate themselves into pools...
904 2010-12-09 06:16:14 <appamatto> Honestly I thought that the price would be higher than it is now
905 2010-12-09 06:16:30 <kiba`> welcome to the world of...markets
906 2010-12-09 06:16:39 <appamatto> hehe
907 2010-12-09 06:16:40 <theymos> The jump from current difficulty to estimate is pretty huge. I think someone put a bunch of GPUs online.
908 2010-12-09 06:16:53 * appamatto looks at ArtForz
909 2010-12-09 06:17:12 <theymos> He said he's still awaiting shipment of his additional GPUs, IIRC.
910 2010-12-09 06:17:21 <appamatto> I need to acquire more btc at some point :p
911 2010-12-09 06:17:27 * bd_ wonders if amazon's GPU instances would be worth it
912 2010-12-09 06:17:30 <kiba`> I am making money off my artwork
913 2010-12-09 06:17:35 <kiba`> but download is pretty low
914 2010-12-09 06:17:36 <bd_> what's the going price for 25 BTC? >.>
915 2010-12-09 06:17:44 <appamatto> bd_, someone calculated that
916 2010-12-09 06:17:49 <appamatto> I think they weren't worth it at all
917 2010-12-09 06:17:56 <kiba`> currently it's .18
918 2010-12-09 06:18:36 <kiba`> just jumpted back to .233
919 2010-12-09 06:18:44 <kiba`> very volatle market
920 2010-12-09 06:18:55 <theymos> I wonder if I could get a reasonable price in BTC for an ounce of gold.
921 2010-12-09 06:22:09 <bd_> appamatto: Did they calculate the price of electricity to run all those GPUs? :)
922 2010-12-09 06:22:22 <nanotube> bd_: see ,,bc,mtgox
923 2010-12-09 06:22:23 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":0.2399,"low":0.1701,"vol":18137,"buy":0.17,"sell":0.233,"last":0.1701}}
924 2010-12-09 06:22:32 <nanotube> theymos: you selling or buying gold?
925 2010-12-09 06:25:13 <kiba`> the price dropped to 0.17
926 2010-12-09 06:25:39 <nanotube> kiba`: there's a large bid-ask spread... so some buys some sells happening, and price jumps around.
927 2010-12-09 06:25:40 <ne0futur> wow paypal undropped wikileaks
928 2010-12-09 06:25:54 <Ry4an> really? impressive
929 2010-12-09 06:26:39 <kiba`> I say we continue to close down our paypal accounts, if possible
930 2010-12-09 06:26:49 <kiba`> I hate paypal.
931 2010-12-09 06:27:23 <nanotube> not undropped
932 2010-12-09 06:27:32 <nanotube> they released existing funds, but still won't accept any new inflows.
933 2010-12-09 06:27:55 <nanotube> In a minor reversal, PayPal said this afternoon that it is releasing money in the WikiLeaks account to the organization but would still restrict the account from receiving any new donations. The company published a blog post seeking to clarify that the company restricted WikiLeaks' account because its Acceptable Use Policy does not allow any group to use the service, if it encourages others to engage in illegal activity.
934 2010-12-09 06:27:59 * kiba` typed in wikileak undrop bitcoin instead of paypal undrop bitcoin
935 2010-12-09 06:28:01 <kiba`> err
936 2010-12-09 06:28:05 <kiba`> paypal undrop wikileak
937 2010-12-09 06:28:08 <kiba`> lol
938 2010-12-09 06:28:33 <ArtForz> aka paypal SOP
939 2010-12-09 06:28:55 <nanotube> sop?
940 2010-12-09 06:29:02 <kiba`> standard operating procedure
941 2010-12-09 06:29:02 <ArtForz> standard operating procedure
942 2010-12-09 06:29:12 <kiba`> JINX
943 2010-12-09 06:29:21 <ArtForz> freeze account, release funds when account holder threatens lawsuit
944 2010-12-09 06:29:36 <kiba`> or when they got DDOS
945 2010-12-09 06:29:42 <theymos> nanotube: I have gold, but I probably wouldn't sell. Gold seems better that BTC right now.
946 2010-12-09 06:29:45 <ArtForz> or the whole thing turns into a PR disaster
947 2010-12-09 06:30:03 <nanotube> ArtForz: ah heh yea
948 2010-12-09 06:30:05 <kiba`> going to sleep
949 2010-12-09 06:30:07 <kiba`> nightie night
950 2010-12-09 06:30:36 <nanotube> theymos: heh ic
951 2010-12-09 06:32:58 <OneFixt> ;;bc,mtgox
952 2010-12-09 06:32:59 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":0.2399,"low":0.1701,"vol":18147,"buy":0.1711,"sell":0.23,"last":0.23}}
953 2010-12-09 06:41:39 DemeGeek has quit (Quit: Page closed)
954 2010-12-09 06:54:01 kisom_dev has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
955 2010-12-09 06:54:49 kisom_dev has joined
956 2010-12-09 06:58:10 redMBA has joined
957 2010-12-09 07:05:54 <davux> is there a quick way to know how many bitcoins were received on a given address?
958 2010-12-09 07:06:08 <theymos> http://blockexplorer.com
959 2010-12-09 07:06:10 <nanotube> davux: on blockexplorer you can
960 2010-12-09 07:06:28 <nanotube> ;;learn bbe as http://blockexplorer.com
961 2010-12-09 07:06:28 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
962 2010-12-09 07:07:28 <davux> is the "balance" thing equivalent to getbalance jsonrpc method, or is it the total received?
963 2010-12-09 07:09:49 <theymos> "Balance" is the running balance, taking into account sends and receives. Don't use it for determining how many bitcoins a person actually owns.
964 2010-12-09 07:10:29 <theymos> "Total received BTC" is one of the values at the top. That's probably the most useful value.
965 2010-12-09 07:13:47 <davux> Since one can't control from which address they send money, how relevant is the "send" part?
966 2010-12-09 07:14:39 <theymos> If you click the transaction, you can see how much they actually spent, and you might also get a list of other addresses controlled by that person.
967 2010-12-09 07:15:21 <theymos> The number on the address page is not very useful for most cases, I would imagine.
968 2010-12-09 07:15:31 <davux> is it really possible to list all addresses of a same wallet?
969 2010-12-09 07:16:37 <theymos> Not from the block chain. You can get a lot of addresses with investigation, though.
970 2010-12-09 07:20:24 <davux> ah, thanks to the "change" mecanism, right?
971 2010-12-09 07:20:58 <davux> like I send you 10 BTC from a 1000 BTC unit, bitcoin will send you 10 and send 990 to one of my own addresses
972 2010-12-09 07:21:40 <theymos> Some addresses just might never have been linked. It could happen that never in the history of address A were coins ever pulled from address B. Then, when you investigate address A, there is no way you'll find address B.
973 2010-12-09 07:21:50 <theymos> Change does make things more confusing, though.
974 2010-12-09 07:22:52 <davux> ok
975 2010-12-09 07:24:45 <davux> theymos: btw, i saw something weird, maybe you'll know: i made a transaction (44fda78ccccf28abeb93d782eb987fe159b79063536ba1b9a6887341b07401e8) on TESTNET. With listtransactions I see it with an amount of 4500, but gettransactions says it's 0. How's that possible?
976 2010-12-09 07:25:07 <davux> gettransaction* sorry
977 2010-12-09 07:25:37 <theymos> Well, it exists: http://blockexplorer.com/testnet/t/3cdzJyHSHd
978 2010-12-09 07:25:52 <davux> yes
979 2010-12-09 07:26:08 <davux> but gettransaction says it exists, only with an amount of 0
980 2010-12-09 07:26:20 <davux> listtransactions show it alright though
981 2010-12-09 07:26:23 <davux> shows*
982 2010-12-09 07:26:51 <theymos> Gettransaction is wrong. Maybe a bug when it's used with the testnet. Tell gavin about it.
983 2010-12-09 07:27:02 <davux> gavinandresen: ping!
984 2010-12-09 07:27:04 <davux> :)
985 2010-12-09 07:29:22 <davux> if it can help, it was a payment to one of my own addresses
986 2010-12-09 07:29:42 <davux> so the *net* amount is indeed 0
987 2010-12-09 07:30:15 <davux> there's a design issue here i think
988 2010-12-09 07:30:50 <theymos> That's probably it. I see that you're actually sending from one address to another, which is likely to trigger bugs.
989 2010-12-09 07:30:50 <davux> maybe the amount should be split into receivedamount and sentamount
990 2010-12-09 07:31:37 <davux> most of the time, only one will be non-zero, but not always
991 2010-12-09 07:32:48 <davux> but in any case the output of gettransaction and listtransactions should be consistent
992 2010-12-09 07:33:47 <davux> an argument against what i just said, would be that listtransactions is about an account, so the amount is actually non-zero if the transaction was between two different accounts
993 2010-12-09 07:34:23 <davux> i wonder if it's still non-zero with a transaction between two addresses of the same account
994 2010-12-09 07:36:07 <davux> theymos: btw, do you use a cache on generated pages?
995 2010-12-09 07:36:50 <davux> last time i was watching a tx page of a transaction not yet confirmed, so it said "invalid txid" or something like that... and it stayed this way even after the transaction really appeared
996 2010-12-09 07:36:58 <davux> i suspect a cache problem
997 2010-12-09 07:37:09 redMBA has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
998 2010-12-09 07:37:16 <theymos> No. I have it set up so that everything should be completely fresh. However, BBE runs at a delay of 1 minute, and test BBE runs at a delay of 2 minutes.
999 2010-12-09 07:37:28 <theymos> And I don't see transactions with 0 confirmations.
1000 2010-12-09 07:37:53 <davux> i tried like 30 minutes after the transaction was confirmed and still nothing
1001 2010-12-09 07:37:57 <davux> on the TESTNET
1002 2010-12-09 07:38:44 <theymos> I do send Expires headers on certain pages that aren't supposed to change. Maybe something's wrong with those.
1003 2010-12-09 07:39:21 <theymos> Actually, there should be no Expires headers on testnet BBE.
1004 2010-12-09 07:41:20 darrob has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1005 2010-12-09 07:41:24 <davux> it shows up now... nevermind, i'll come back to you in case it happens again
1006 2010-12-09 07:43:27 <davux> ok, no bug on the gettransaction/listtransactions thing, although it's easy to get confused
1007 2010-12-09 07:44:04 <davux> now I made a transaction between 2 addreses of the same account, and it shows twice in the listtransactions output
1008 2010-12-09 07:44:19 <davux> once as "send", once as "receive"
1009 2010-12-09 07:44:35 <davux> with the same txid, of course
1010 2010-12-09 07:44:59 <davux> and gettransaction on that txid says the amount is 0, which is true from my wallet's point of view
1011 2010-12-09 07:45:57 <theymos> I'd appreciate any bug reports, especially with those hard-to-track caching problems.
1012 2010-12-09 07:46:11 <davux> ok, noted
1013 2010-12-09 07:46:35 <davux> is your code free btw?
1014 2010-12-09 07:47:07 <davux> not that i know enough of bitcoins internals for the moment, i'm just asking out of curiosity
1015 2010-12-09 07:47:36 <theymos> No.
1016 2010-12-09 07:48:13 andy has joined
1017 2010-12-09 07:48:22 <davux> making it open would probably help your app *and* the whole bitcoin network to improve
1018 2010-12-09 07:49:02 <theymos> It's just an interface for getblock. You can get all of the necessary data without my code.
1019 2010-12-09 07:49:13 <davux> of course
1020 2010-12-09 07:50:08 <davux> but it's higher level, in a non-trivial way
1021 2010-12-09 07:52:53 <theymos> I would lose my competative advantage. Listing every Bitcoin address is great for Google rankings -- I can probably get some reasonable ad revenue at some point.
1022 2010-12-09 07:54:14 <theymos> Maybe at some point I'll release my script that updates my block database from getblock. But that's only a small part of BBE 369 lines vs 1294 lines.
1023 2010-12-09 07:54:20 darrob has joined
1024 2010-12-09 07:56:38 <davux> ok
1025 2010-12-09 07:56:41 <davux> i see
1026 2010-12-09 07:57:04 genjix has joined
1027 2010-12-09 07:57:08 <genjix> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_E2WB53GLn2I/TPqeXku3D7I/AAAAAAAAAPk/hrmXtWPtLgY/s1600/julian_assange_vs_obama.jpg
1028 2010-12-09 07:57:11 <genjix> :D
1029 2010-12-09 07:59:26 <davux> obama really looks like Gus in Breaking Bad
1030 2010-12-09 08:01:43 <genjix> jgarzik: I'm using the SVN. How can I remove those changes to bitcoin you're talking about?
1031 2010-12-09 08:02:07 <genjix> in the new .18
1032 2010-12-09 08:03:29 <davux> http://cdn.complex.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/BB_Gus_Fring1.jpg
1033 2010-12-09 08:04:14 <genjix> oops have go go
1034 2010-12-09 08:04:16 genjix has left ()
1035 2010-12-09 08:11:05 darrob has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1036 2010-12-09 08:13:09 kisom_dev has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1037 2010-12-09 08:16:48 darrob has joined
1038 2010-12-09 08:23:48 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1039 2010-12-09 08:27:53 andy has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1040 2010-12-09 09:04:34 lfm has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1041 2010-12-09 09:07:55 brian has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1042 2010-12-09 09:09:38 lfm has joined
1043 2010-12-09 09:16:33 altamic has joined
1044 2010-12-09 09:30:29 brian has joined
1045 2010-12-09 09:43:36 genjix has joined
1046 2010-12-09 09:43:43 <genjix> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=2167.msg28468#msg28468
1047 2010-12-09 09:46:33 <lfm> is there any real possibility of identifying and punishing such people you think
1048 2010-12-09 09:47:21 <genjix> there's sadly just too many 100's of people that it's unlikely
1049 2010-12-09 09:48:34 <lfm> well I think its pretty sad the way they take a guys money away from his legal defence fund.
1050 2010-12-09 09:49:07 <genjix> paypal has given in and released the funds because of the actions of these criminal hackers
1051 2010-12-09 09:49:11 <genjix> http://www.neowin.net/news/paypal-releases-wikileaks-funds
1052 2010-12-09 09:51:22 <lfm> Iv never used paypal but the people on this chat seem to think paypal is pretty evil anyway
1053 2010-12-09 09:52:00 genjix has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1054 2010-12-09 10:01:46 TheAncientGoat has joined
1055 2010-12-09 10:09:40 remmy_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1056 2010-12-09 10:11:26 lfm has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1057 2010-12-09 10:23:29 RazielZ has joined
1058 2010-12-09 10:23:40 Toadyonps3 has joined
1059 2010-12-09 10:24:06 Toadyonps3 has quit (Client Quit)
1060 2010-12-09 10:32:49 <altamic> is it correct to say that any transaction has one or more inputs and either one or two outputs?
1061 2010-12-09 10:35:38 remmy_ has joined
1062 2010-12-09 10:49:14 <edcba> i think it's 1..* input and 1..* output
1063 2010-12-09 10:49:28 <ArtForz> yep
1064 2010-12-09 10:49:47 <edcba> also official client will always 2..* output i think
1065 2010-12-09 10:50:05 <ArtForz> official always 1..2 output
1066 2010-12-09 10:50:11 <edcba> hmm
1067 2010-12-09 10:50:20 <edcba> 1 is by IP tx ?
1068 2010-12-09 10:50:47 <ArtForz> no, 1 if no change
1069 2010-12-09 10:53:10 <kabo69> Hi
1070 2010-12-09 10:53:30 <kabo69> is the historical difficulty data stored anywhere?
1071 2010-12-09 10:53:38 <kabo69> perhaps with a nice graph?
1072 2010-12-09 10:55:07 <edcba> it is stored in the block chain :)
1073 2010-12-09 10:55:18 <edcba> but time isn't accurate :p
1074 2010-12-09 10:58:34 <kabo69> ok
1075 2010-12-09 11:04:32 <edcba> now i think some ppl made one
1076 2010-12-09 11:04:44 <edcba> don't remember who nor the url
1077 2010-12-09 11:05:39 <kabo69> hmm... helpful... ;)
1078 2010-12-09 11:06:55 <edcba> lol
1079 2010-12-09 11:07:03 <altamic> kabo69: http://nullvoid.org/bitcoin/statistix.php
1080 2010-12-09 11:07:41 <edcba> doesn't seem to load here :(
1081 2010-12-09 11:08:04 <altamic> heh it's no more
1082 2010-12-09 11:09:10 <kabo69> doesn't work here either
1083 2010-12-09 11:09:10 remmy_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1084 2010-12-09 11:09:36 <kabo69> oh, it's passed on so to speak
1085 2010-12-09 11:09:47 <kabo69> ceased to be
1086 2010-12-09 11:09:58 <kabo69> it's an ex-site
1087 2010-12-09 11:10:11 <altamic> such is life
1088 2010-12-09 11:10:51 <kabo69> no no, it's not dead, it's reasting
1089 2010-12-09 11:11:17 <kabo69> or maybe it's pining for the fjords...
1090 2010-12-09 11:12:33 <kabo69> hehe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE
1091 2010-12-09 11:32:43 <Keefe> kabo69: i occasionally update my own chart of total network processing power, which is related to difficulty. want that?
1092 2010-12-09 11:36:07 <kabo69> sure, that'd be interesting :)
1093 2010-12-09 11:36:27 <Keefe> 5min...
1094 2010-12-09 11:36:31 <kabo69> how do you figure out the total network processing power?
1095 2010-12-09 11:37:42 <Keefe> it's estimated based on how quickly blocks are generated, accounting for difficulty
1096 2010-12-09 11:38:31 <Keefe> because of randomness, it's not precise, but it gives a good idea if the sample size is large enough
1097 2010-12-09 11:38:48 <Keefe> i use 48 block sample size (approx 8 hours)
1098 2010-12-09 11:39:50 genjix has joined
1099 2010-12-09 11:39:54 <genjix> hey jgarzik
1100 2010-12-09 11:40:10 <genjix> I support your views on the forums
1101 2010-12-09 11:40:32 <genjix> would you do a write up of what you think people should do? i.e not upgrade .etc
1102 2010-12-09 11:40:33 <Keefe> i think ArtForz prefers something like 144 blocks (approx 24 hrs) for a sample size
1103 2010-12-09 11:42:20 <doublec> genjix, jgarzik wants people to upgrade I believe so that not standard blocks get ignored.
1104 2010-12-09 11:42:56 <genjix> i thought jgarzik was against the new changes?
1105 2010-12-09 11:43:19 <genjix> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=2163.0
1106 2010-12-09 11:43:30 davex___ has joined
1107 2010-12-09 11:43:36 davex__ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1108 2010-12-09 11:43:39 <genjix> I got into bitcoin because I want to offer a service using an online currency.
1109 2010-12-09 11:44:10 <doublec> my understanding is jgarzik wants bitcoins to remain currency only
1110 2010-12-09 11:44:10 redengin has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1111 2010-12-09 11:44:17 <genjix> yep me too
1112 2010-12-09 11:44:27 <genjix> imagine I'm investing my own time/money into bitcoin projects
1113 2010-12-09 11:44:28 <doublec> therefore the accepting of only standard transactions in the new client is what he wants
1114 2010-12-09 11:44:33 <doublec> so you should upgrade to it
1115 2010-12-09 11:44:42 <genjix> and people are dicking around with BitDNS
1116 2010-12-09 11:44:44 <doublec> or are you meaning 'upgrade' as in something else
1117 2010-12-09 11:45:00 <genjix> nope, just wanted to know what he thinks I should do.
1118 2010-12-09 11:45:44 <genjix> doublec: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=2162.0
1119 2010-12-09 11:45:54 <doublec> I am interested in bitcoin as a currency too - not really interested in bitdns
1120 2010-12-09 11:46:40 <doublec> but what interested me is that different transaction types could be done and it was extensible in that manner.
1121 2010-12-09 11:47:10 <altamic> mmm https://e-forexgold.com/efx2/affiliates
1122 2010-12-09 11:47:11 <doublec> I was also interested that it was difficult for someone to make changes to the way the currency worked due to the network
1123 2010-12-09 11:47:33 <doublec> however by issuing a client with a change that disabled different transaction types shows that both things that interested me are not actually the case
1124 2010-12-09 11:47:35 jackmcbarn has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1125 2010-12-09 11:47:38 <genjix> having non-financial data in the bitcoin chain is a major turn off for adopters
1126 2010-12-09 11:48:32 <doublec> and in fact at any time its likely that a decree from high could result in a major change in bitcoin
1127 2010-12-09 11:49:13 <doublec> the people arguing 'no data' are saying don't change bitcoin to be not a currency
1128 2010-12-09 11:49:23 <doublec> when in fact they are the ones changing bitcoin from what it currently is
1129 2010-12-09 11:50:13 <genjix> why would you want to add extra junk to the blocks?
1130 2010-12-09 11:50:35 <genjix> just start another network for generalised services
1131 2010-12-09 11:51:08 <doublec> I don't want to add extra 'junk' to blocks. But the ability to extend bitcoin via different transactions (for escrow, or other interesting ideas that have been thrown around) is interesting to me and was, to me, a unique aspect of bitcoin.
1132 2010-12-09 11:51:13 jackmcbarn has joined
1133 2010-12-09 11:52:25 akem has joined
1134 2010-12-09 11:53:00 <doublec> I don't know if disabling non-standard transactions is the right approach or not. Maybe it is. But it is a change from what bitcoin was and therefore shows that changes can be made to the currency taking it away from what it was when people were originally contributing to it.
1135 2010-12-09 11:53:12 <doublec> Which is disturbing for the future.
1136 2010-12-09 11:53:41 <genjix> maybe. it's a difficult subject.
1137 2010-12-09 11:54:07 <doublec> So now when people say "Bitcoin is controlled just like government currency" I can't say, no its not.
1138 2010-12-09 11:54:56 <genjix> yes you can. Anyone can make a fork
1139 2010-12-09 11:55:13 <Keefe> kabo69: http://oi55.tinypic.com/dvg8rp.jpg estimated total bitcoin network processing power in mhps, since about Jul 16, displayed with a logarithmic vertical scale. 144-block-average estimates 10.3 ghps total currently
1140 2010-12-09 11:55:20 <doublec> Right, so fork bitcoin-that-only-takes-standard-transactions and have fun
1141 2010-12-09 11:55:45 <doublec> I'll continue on original-bitcoin
1142 2010-12-09 11:56:04 andrew12 has joined
1143 2010-12-09 11:56:17 <Keefe> correction: 103 ghps
1144 2010-12-09 11:59:11 <doublec> The other point of view of course is that bitcoin is explicitly 'beta' and can change at any time to fix issues, like that of adding arbitary data.
1145 2010-12-09 11:59:18 <doublec> which is certainly a valid view too.
1146 2010-12-09 12:00:04 <doublec> But then I'm less secure in the idea of it as a currency that I can rely on since it can change at any time
1147 2010-12-09 12:00:58 darrob has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1148 2010-12-09 12:01:22 mtgox has joined
1149 2010-12-09 12:04:51 darrob has joined
1150 2010-12-09 12:17:27 redengin has joined
1151 2010-12-09 12:18:47 genjix has left ()
1152 2010-12-09 12:27:54 <kabo69> Keefe: thanks, thats great :)
1153 2010-12-09 12:45:09 <TheAncientGoat> ;;bc,calc 4500
1154 2010-12-09 12:45:10 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 4500 Khps, given current difficulty of 8078.19525793 , is 12 weeks, 5 days, 5 hours, 42 minutes, and 9 seconds
1155 2010-12-09 12:45:23 <TheAncientGoat> Heeh
1156 2010-12-09 12:45:45 <doublec> if you think that's a lot, wait 2 days
1157 2010-12-09 12:45:48 <doublec> ;;bc,stat
1158 2010-12-09 12:45:48 <gribble> Error: "bc,stat" is not a valid command.
1159 2010-12-09 12:45:51 <doublec> ;;bc,stats
1160 2010-12-09 12:45:54 <gribble> Current Blocks: 96682 | Current Difficulty: 8078.19525793 | Next Difficulty At Block: 96767 | Next Difficulty In: 85 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 9 hours, 20 minutes, and 0 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 12261.37381915
1161 2010-12-09 12:46:01 <doublec> ok, 10 hours not 2 days
1162 2010-12-09 12:47:22 <TheAncientGoat> Have to get my GPU in on the game :P
1163 2010-12-09 12:47:44 <Diablo-D3> heh
1164 2010-12-09 12:47:46 <kabo69> how often will the difficulty change?
1165 2010-12-09 12:48:06 <doublec> approx 2 weeks
1166 2010-12-09 12:48:58 <kabo69> and it's plaussible that it will increase by 50% every time it changes?
1167 2010-12-09 12:49:20 <Diablo-D3> kabo69: no
1168 2010-12-09 12:49:50 <Diablo-D3> I expect its going to start increasing faster than that
1169 2010-12-09 12:50:21 <kabo69> ok
1170 2010-12-09 12:50:46 <kabo69> 70% ? 100% ?
1171 2010-12-09 12:50:47 akem has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1172 2010-12-09 12:50:52 anon__ has joined
1173 2010-12-09 12:51:08 <Diablo-D3> dunno
1174 2010-12-09 12:51:45 <kabo69> of course, nobody knows, but why do you say that you expect it to increase more than 50% every two weeks?
1175 2010-12-09 12:51:57 <Diablo-D3> because its been doing that every 2012 blocks now
1176 2010-12-09 12:52:15 <Diablo-D3> the network is probably going to start growing faster now than it has
1177 2010-12-09 12:52:30 <kabo69> what has it been until now then?
1178 2010-12-09 12:52:36 <Diablo-D3> about 50%
1179 2010-12-09 12:52:39 <kabo69> ok
1180 2010-12-09 12:52:55 <kabo69> any reason it should start growing faster now?
1181 2010-12-09 12:54:02 <doublec> more people using gpu's - more people getting interested in bitcoin
1182 2010-12-09 12:54:22 <kabo69> true
1183 2010-12-09 12:54:53 <doublec> if the current network capacity is 100 gpu's then it doesn't take many new gpu users to bump it up
1184 2010-12-09 12:55:57 redengin has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1185 2010-12-09 13:02:28 anon__ has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1186 2010-12-09 13:05:55 <LobsterMan> http://www.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_petition/?vl
1187 2010-12-09 13:09:56 redengin has joined
1188 2010-12-09 13:15:11 redengin has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1189 2010-12-09 13:20:48 <Keefe> if the network were to stop growing (in terms of total processing power), the difficulty adjustment after this upcoming one would be to about 14500
1190 2010-12-09 13:21:26 <Keefe> when the network is growing, the difficulty factor lags behind the total power
1191 2010-12-09 13:22:49 <Keefe> 103 ghps can be done by about 170 radeon overclocked 5970's
1192 2010-12-09 13:23:16 <Keefe> which are going on ebay for around $400 now
1193 2010-12-09 13:26:39 <Keefe> including support hardware (motherboards, etc), it would take about $90K to setup that much
1194 2010-12-09 13:27:12 redengin has joined
1195 2010-12-09 13:27:17 <Keefe> to have more power than everyone else combined, and have the potential to cause trouble
1196 2010-12-09 13:28:15 <Keefe> s/radeon overclocked 5970/overclocked radeon 5970/
1197 2010-12-09 13:29:44 <Keefe> would cost about $5000/mo in electricity to run that much, at 12c/kwh
1198 2010-12-09 13:31:24 <[Noodles]> i wish my electricity would be that cheap ^.^
1199 2010-12-09 13:37:59 xelister_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1200 2010-12-09 13:38:33 xelister has joined
1201 2010-12-09 13:41:42 xelister has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1202 2010-12-09 13:42:03 xelister has joined
1203 2010-12-09 13:42:52 xelister has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1204 2010-12-09 13:44:02 xelister has joined
1205 2010-12-09 13:45:06 akem has joined
1206 2010-12-09 13:45:13 akem has quit (Changing host)
1207 2010-12-09 13:45:13 akem has joined
1208 2010-12-09 13:46:00 darksk1ez has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1209 2010-12-09 13:49:15 darkskiez has joined
1210 2010-12-09 13:52:32 xelister has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1211 2010-12-09 14:00:51 <Diablo-D3> [08:21:57] <Keefe> 103 ghps can be done by about 170 radeon overclocked 5970's
1212 2010-12-09 14:00:52 <Diablo-D3> see
1213 2010-12-09 14:01:02 <Diablo-D3> the hard part isnt buying 170 radeons
1214 2010-12-09 14:01:08 <Diablo-D3> its buying boxes to go with them
1215 2010-12-09 14:03:02 bitanarchy has joined
1216 2010-12-09 14:04:18 FreeMoney has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1217 2010-12-09 14:05:36 <tcatm> Diablo-D3: Use any mainboard with AMD chipset and many PCI-E slots. The annoying part it setting cheap mainboards to boot from ethernet as that requires keyboard + monitor.
1218 2010-12-09 14:07:29 <Diablo-D3> tcatm: that isnt it
1219 2010-12-09 14:07:39 <Diablo-D3> who the fuck wants to assemble like 50 boxen
1220 2010-12-09 14:09:49 <tcatm> I'd do it. Doesn't take long.
1221 2010-12-09 14:12:36 dwdollar1 has left ()
1222 2010-12-09 14:15:03 xelister has joined
1223 2010-12-09 14:15:47 <xelister> eclipse[2169] trap divide error ip:7f96ab8689c0 sp:7fffe2f1e0a0 error:0 in libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0.2200.0[7f96ab743000+412000]
1224 2010-12-09 14:15:54 <xelister> should I blame ATI or Eclipse?
1225 2010-12-09 14:16:08 <Diablo-D3> eclipse
1226 2010-12-09 14:16:09 <xelister> also entire X crashed
1227 2010-12-09 14:16:14 <Diablo-D3> ...
1228 2010-12-09 14:16:17 <Diablo-D3> maaaaaaybe ati
1229 2010-12-09 14:16:20 <xelister> one program shouold not crash X server restart
1230 2010-12-09 14:16:24 <tcatm> maybe gtk?
1231 2010-12-09 14:16:30 <Diablo-D3> tcatm: doubt it
1232 2010-12-09 14:16:35 <Diablo-D3> gtk doesnt really do any insane shit anymore
1233 2010-12-09 14:17:01 <tcatm> Sure, but the error happened there.
1234 2010-12-09 14:17:12 <Diablo-D3> yes, which leads me to believe xelister's video card is broken
1235 2010-12-09 14:17:16 <xelister> [300547.297] 0: /usr/bin/X (xorg_backtrace+0x28) [0x45c448]
1236 2010-12-09 14:17:18 <xelister> [300547.297] 1: /usr/bin/X (0x400000+0x5a71d) [0x45a71d]
1237 2010-12-09 14:17:19 <xelister> [300547.297] 2: /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0x7f571c632000+0xfb40) [0x7f571c641b40]
1238 2010-12-09 14:17:21 <xelister> [300547.297] 3: /usr/lib/xorg/modules/libfb.so (fbCopyNtoN+0x6e) [0x7f57185e822e]
1239 2010-12-09 14:17:22 <xelister> [300547.297] 4: /usr/lib/xorg/extra-modules/modules/glesx.so (0x7f5716502000+0x367c9) [0x7f57165387c9]
1240 2010-12-09 14:17:27 <Diablo-D3> xelister: dont post the fucking backtrace.
1241 2010-12-09 14:17:35 <xelister> it's just a part of it
1242 2010-12-09 14:17:38 <xelister> but since you ask nicelly
1243 2010-12-09 14:17:44 <xelister> [300547.297] 5: /usr/lib/xorg/extra-modules/modules/glesx.so (0x7f5716502000+0x37f35) [0x7f5716539f35]
1244 2010-12-09 14:17:46 <xelister> [300547.297] 6: /usr/bin/X (0x400000+0xdc2b0) [0x4dc2b0]
1245 2010-12-09 14:17:47 <xelister> [300547.297] 7: /usr/bin/X (0x400000+0xd0a29) [0x4d0a29]
1246 2010-12-09 14:17:49 <xelister> [300547.297] 8: /usr/bin/X (0x400000+0x3f949) [0x43f949]
1247 2010-12-09 14:17:50 <xelister> [300547.297] 9: /usr/bin/X (0x400000+0x2184b) [0x42184b]
1248 2010-12-09 14:17:52 <xelister> [300547.297] 10: /lib/libc.so.6 (__libc_start_main+0xfe) [0x7f571b59dd8e]
1249 2010-12-09 14:17:52 <Diablo-D3> its not a debug build, and we're not X devs
1250 2010-12-09 14:17:53 <xelister> [300547.297] 11: /usr/bin/X (0x400000+0x213d9) [0x4213d9]
1251 2010-12-09 14:17:55 <xelister> [300547.297] Segmentation fault at address 0x18
1252 2010-12-09 14:17:56 <xelister> <_<
1253 2010-12-09 14:18:16 <xelister> yeah I dont know, I like this card less and less
1254 2010-12-09 14:19:08 <xelister> btw, I wonder if this could be related to GPU bugs (invalid hashes from GPU#2) --> fglrx(0): ADL handler failure: Could not find adapter at Bus ID 0:0:0
1255 2010-12-09 14:19:18 <Diablo-D3> nope.
1256 2010-12-09 14:19:20 <xelister> Xorg.log is spammed with this around 50 occur
1257 2010-12-09 14:19:40 <Diablo-D3> because I get those too
1258 2010-12-09 14:20:10 <Diablo-D3> thats a rather old bug
1259 2010-12-09 14:20:48 <xelister> Diablo-D3: whats your exact system?
1260 2010-12-09 14:21:02 <xelister> Diablo-D3: debian version, catalyst from amd's site, SDK used
1261 2010-12-09 14:21:11 <xelister> and is it 64 bit?
1262 2010-12-09 14:21:19 <Diablo-D3> sid, 10.11, 2.1, and yes
1263 2010-12-09 14:21:34 <xelister> so only the operating system differs
1264 2010-12-09 14:21:46 <xelister> must be broken card or debian<->ubuntu bug
1265 2010-12-09 14:21:56 <Diablo-D3> RMA the card
1266 2010-12-09 14:22:10 <Diablo-D3> if the new card also does it, then its clearly ubuntu
1267 2010-12-09 14:22:12 <xelister> I can return it "just because" since it was bought very recently
1268 2010-12-09 14:22:26 <Diablo-D3> returning broken shit is a dick thing to do
1269 2010-12-09 14:22:30 <Diablo-D3> they rewrap it and someone else gets it
1270 2010-12-09 14:22:34 <Diablo-D3> just RMA the fucking thing
1271 2010-12-09 14:22:49 <xelister> what the fuck is RMA, not everone is under the aggressors law system
1272 2010-12-09 14:23:25 <xelister> A Return Merchandise Authorization (RMA) is a transaction whereby the recipient of a product arranges to return goods to the supplier to have the product repaired or replaced or in order to receive a refund or credit for another product from the same retailer or corporation within the product's warranty period.
1273 2010-12-09 14:23:37 <Diablo-D3> xelister: you send it back to the manufacturer for warrenty replacement
1274 2010-12-09 14:24:04 <xelister> yeah and I will be dicking with them for a month
1275 2010-12-09 14:24:23 <xelister> in the end they will probably just send me same card. There are like 2 such cards in poland I think lol >_>
1276 2010-12-09 14:24:41 <xelister> no thanks I prefer my money, and try other card, perhaps 5790
1277 2010-12-09 14:24:45 nelisky has joined
1278 2010-12-09 14:24:58 * Diablo-D3 shrugs
1279 2010-12-09 14:25:00 <Diablo-D3> whatever dude
1280 2010-12-09 14:25:07 <Diablo-D3> xelister: but Im pretty sure its the card
1281 2010-12-09 14:25:16 <Diablo-D3> it doesnt happen the _absolute second_ you turn the miner on
1282 2010-12-09 14:25:21 <Diablo-D3> it takes 10 seconds
1283 2010-12-09 14:25:28 <xelister> well it happens instantly, on testnet
1284 2010-12-09 14:25:33 <Diablo-D3> hrm
1285 2010-12-09 14:25:34 <Diablo-D3> well
1286 2010-12-09 14:25:38 <Diablo-D3> art tested it
1287 2010-12-09 14:25:39 <Diablo-D3> it works
1288 2010-12-09 14:25:43 <Diablo-D3> its within 2% of his miner
1289 2010-12-09 14:25:44 <xelister> while temp is still like 75 C
1290 2010-12-09 14:25:51 <Diablo-D3> xelister: yeah but
1291 2010-12-09 14:25:57 <Diablo-D3> if the fucker has insufficient VRM cooling
1292 2010-12-09 14:26:03 <Diablo-D3> because the manuf is a bunch of fags
1293 2010-12-09 14:26:17 <Diablo-D3> then the VRMs are waaaaaay past the safe temp if the gpu is at 75
1294 2010-12-09 14:26:26 * xelister goes to check if manufacturer has flash on homesite, to determinate their faggotness level
1295 2010-12-09 14:26:37 <Diablo-D3> and I'm assuming, btw, your 12 volt stays sane
1296 2010-12-09 14:26:45 <xelister> yeah, they are fags allright
1297 2010-12-09 14:26:50 <Diablo-D3> what manuf?
1298 2010-12-09 14:27:22 <xelister> but works without flash, so just 20% ;)
1299 2010-12-09 14:27:32 <xelister> http://www.hisdigital.com/
1300 2010-12-09 14:27:46 <Diablo-D3> his usually doesnt make shit
1301 2010-12-09 14:27:58 <xelister> how to check V12 level
1302 2010-12-09 14:28:12 <Diablo-D3> well, on single rail psus, you just ask your mobo
1303 2010-12-09 14:28:19 <xelister> its single rail
1304 2010-12-09 14:28:35 <xelister> in bios? cant do it while system is running? like some acpi shit?
1305 2010-12-09 14:28:38 <Diablo-D3> use lm-sensors
1306 2010-12-09 14:28:47 <Diablo-D3> [diablo@infinity ~]$ sensors
1307 2010-12-09 14:28:53 <Diablo-D3> +12 Voltage: +12.15 V (min = +10.20 V, max = +13.80 V)
1308 2010-12-09 14:29:13 <xelister> mine "sensors" shows only temperatures
1309 2010-12-09 14:29:35 <Diablo-D3> meh
1310 2010-12-09 14:29:41 <Diablo-D3> if its 11.5 to 12.5 its within sanity
1311 2010-12-09 14:30:43 <xelister> min / max is lifetime detected, or the specified levels?
1312 2010-12-09 14:32:35 <tcatm> specified levels
1313 2010-12-09 14:33:08 <tcatm> don't rely on them, though. Sometimes lm-sensors reports them wrong.
1314 2010-12-09 14:36:11 albatross has joined
1315 2010-12-09 14:36:15 14WAAGKQF has joined
1316 2010-12-09 14:36:43 14WAAGKQF is now known as dwdollar
1317 2010-12-09 14:37:40 <albatross> tcatm: there seems to be an error in USD computation on ask prices
1318 2010-12-09 14:38:09 <tcatm> albatross: where?
1319 2010-12-09 14:38:30 <albatross> tcatm: mtgoxusd
1320 2010-12-09 14:38:32 <albatross> 0.1940 112.00 112 3113
1321 2010-12-09 14:38:39 <tcatm> Oh I see.
1322 2010-12-09 14:38:39 <albatross> thats the innermost ask line right now
1323 2010-12-09 14:39:39 <tcatm> fixed.
1324 2010-12-09 14:39:45 <xelister> Diablo-D3: which docs for OpenCL contain information about stuff like CL_DEVICE_TYPE_ACCELERATOR flags
1325 2010-12-09 14:40:10 <albatross> tcatm: damn...that was fast. :)
1326 2010-12-09 14:40:34 <tcatm> Yep, and it even went through testing on my dev server, then rsyncing to production.
1327 2010-12-09 14:41:21 <albatross> all automated...very nice
1328 2010-12-09 14:48:06 <tcatm> Are you using the site regularly?
1329 2010-12-09 14:50:39 <albatross> me? yea
1330 2010-12-09 14:50:40 spacemagic has joined
1331 2010-12-09 14:51:16 spacemagic is now known as planetPlosion
1332 2010-12-09 14:51:38 <planetPlosion> Is there a way to limit upload rate?
1333 2010-12-09 14:51:40 <tcatm> Did you notice a difference in load time?
1334 2010-12-09 14:52:41 <albatross> hmmm...not really. then again, it was never slow for me
1335 2010-12-09 14:53:09 <tcatm> Okay.
1336 2010-12-09 14:59:38 CarlFK1 is now known as CarlFK
1337 2010-12-09 15:00:30 <xelister> Diablo-D3: asleep? ;) are you on -mining. Is it ok to some devices in your miner to be build with different -D force bit align and worksize flags? in example using GPUs and CPUs at once
1338 2010-12-09 15:02:55 <LobsterMan> ;;bc,stats
1339 2010-12-09 15:02:57 <gribble> Current Blocks: 96699 | Current Difficulty: 8078.19525793 | Next Difficulty At Block: 96767 | Next Difficulty In: 68 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 7 hours, 27 minutes, and 59 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 12261.58385031
1340 2010-12-09 15:03:06 <LobsterMan> Next Difficulty In: 68 blocks
1341 2010-12-09 15:03:07 <LobsterMan> :O
1342 2010-12-09 15:03:09 <albatross> fuu
1343 2010-12-09 15:04:05 <xelister> :[
1344 2010-12-09 15:04:30 <Diablo-D3> [09:38:53] <xelister> Diablo-D3: which docs for OpenCL contain information about stuff like CL_DEVICE_TYPE_ACCELERATOR flags
1345 2010-12-09 15:04:32 <Diablo-D3> the opencl spec
1346 2010-12-09 15:04:40 <Diablo-D3> xelister: dont use cpus
1347 2010-12-09 15:04:55 <Diablo-D3> it slows down other devices
1348 2010-12-09 15:05:13 <xelister> Diablo-D3: yeah, 480 -> 400 if using -C flag
1349 2010-12-09 15:05:28 <Diablo-D3> this is why I never added it
1350 2010-12-09 15:05:32 <xelister> but this is only for testing (e.g. does the program run at all on windows, and I dont have windows box with good gpu)
1351 2010-12-09 15:05:33 <Diablo-D3> someone would be stupid enough to use it
1352 2010-12-09 15:05:52 <xelister> this is why it was needed and I added it, since some people would not realize that need ;)
1353 2010-12-09 15:05:54 <albatross> Diablo-D3: let them be stupid. this is invaluable for testing
1354 2010-12-09 15:06:08 <xelister> otherwise I can't at all test on windows
1355 2010-12-09 15:07:06 <Diablo-D3> albatross: its too slow to be useful for testing
1356 2010-12-09 15:07:07 <xelister> but the -D devicenumer flag will be more interesting. Does separate-processes fix or not fix my faulty GPU#2 hardware/firmware/driver/kernel/os
1357 2010-12-09 15:07:14 <Diablo-D3> also, it only works on the stream sdk
1358 2010-12-09 15:07:35 <Diablo-D3> nvidia's cant do cpu, and intel doesnt have a opencl impl for x86 thats public
1359 2010-12-09 15:07:54 <Diablo-D3> and also, fuck you nvidia
1360 2010-12-09 15:08:05 <Diablo-D3> I could fix the fucking nvidia problem if you'd have a impl that wasnt total shit
1361 2010-12-09 15:08:06 <Diablo-D3> then again
1362 2010-12-09 15:08:17 <Diablo-D3> if you didnt have an impl that wasnt total shit THERED BE NO FUCKING BUG
1363 2010-12-09 15:09:34 <albatross> Diablo-D3: my test machine does 400Khash...i run it on testnet. slow is fine
1364 2010-12-09 15:11:21 <Diablo-D3> albatross: it would take me like an hour just to get one testnet block
1365 2010-12-09 15:13:18 <Diablo-D3> xelister: well, we already proved its your system
1366 2010-12-09 15:13:29 <Diablo-D3> xelister: either ubuntu has royally fucked up, or your card is boned
1367 2010-12-09 15:15:44 <Diablo-D3> xelister: btw, nvidia is possibly or possibly not broken, but OSX works
1368 2010-12-09 15:16:18 <Diablo-D3> and nvidia, if it is broken, its failing further into the build process
1369 2010-12-09 15:16:23 lolcat has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1370 2010-12-09 15:17:47 tailr is now known as mrozba
1371 2010-12-09 15:18:03 remmy is now known as Remmy
1372 2010-12-09 15:19:29 <xelister> Diablo-D3: well, or, it is boned when using your miner, and then it's not certain yet "who's fault it is". Just saying :)
1373 2010-12-09 15:19:47 <Diablo-D3> well, a man with 24 5970s says it works for him
1374 2010-12-09 15:19:55 <Diablo-D3> so meh
1375 2010-12-09 15:20:38 <Diablo-D3> okay Im going to bed
1376 2010-12-09 15:20:39 <Diablo-D3> night all
1377 2010-12-09 15:21:33 mrozba is now known as tailr
1378 2010-12-09 15:21:35 * kiba` is auctioning character space for his next art project
1379 2010-12-09 15:24:58 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1380 2010-12-09 15:27:43 <gavinandresen> Good morning everybody.
1381 2010-12-09 15:27:51 <tcatm> hi gavin
1382 2010-12-09 15:29:40 * kiba` works on artwork
1383 2010-12-09 15:29:48 kiba` is now known as kiba
1384 2010-12-09 15:31:01 * xelister runs in separate processess
1385 2010-12-09 15:31:06 <LobsterMan> â¥â¥
1386 2010-12-09 15:31:08 <xelister> lets mine, like its 1800's \o/
1387 2010-12-09 15:31:20 * LobsterMan slaps xelister around with a heavy metal pole
1388 2010-12-09 15:31:28 <xelister> faaaaaaaaaaaaail \o/
1389 2010-12-09 15:32:11 <xelister> error: [calc] 1-Cypress-core2: INVALID BLOCK found. nonce=2080358271 G=937555761 H=4215556005
1390 2010-12-09 15:32:22 <LobsterMan> lol wut
1391 2010-12-09 15:32:31 <LobsterMan> |¯¯¯ /\ ¯|¯ |  Â
1392 2010-12-09 15:32:32 <LobsterMan> | / \ | |Â Â Â
1393 2010-12-09 15:32:32 <LobsterMan> |¯¯ /----\ | |  Â
1394 2010-12-09 15:32:32 <LobsterMan> | / \ _|_ |___
1395 2010-12-09 15:32:34 <xelister> yeah well its officiall, this GPU#2 fails even when running in single process, even if only it is used
1396 2010-12-09 15:32:45 <LobsterMan> bad ahrdware?
1397 2010-12-09 15:32:47 <LobsterMan> hardware*
1398 2010-12-09 15:33:32 <xelister> possibly
1399 2010-12-09 15:33:43 <xelister> ArtForz: can you patste me exact output of
1400 2010-12-09 15:34:47 <xelister> aticonfig --lscs ; aticonfig --lscc ; aticonfig --lsch
1401 2010-12-09 15:35:24 akem has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1402 2010-12-09 15:37:14 <albatross> you should have crossfire shut off xelister...also, no connector attached if you have one
1403 2010-12-09 15:40:25 <xelister> of course, Albatross I disabled crossfire with aticonfig --cf=off (and restarted X)
1404 2010-12-09 15:40:42 <xelister> so is this correct? http://pastebin.ca/2014809
1405 2010-12-09 15:41:26 <davex___> with the ATI cards do you basically have to get a proprietary driver to run on Linux the way you do with NVidia cards?
1406 2010-12-09 15:42:25 altamic has quit (Quit: altamic)
1407 2010-12-09 15:45:25 <albatross> xelister: i'm checking...will get back to you in a moment
1408 2010-12-09 15:46:29 <tcatm> davex___: for OpenCL, yes
1409 2010-12-09 15:47:35 brian has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1410 2010-12-09 15:48:24 brian_ has joined
1411 2010-12-09 15:52:54 bonsaikitten has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
1412 2010-12-09 15:52:59 bonsaikitten has joined
1413 2010-12-09 15:59:16 akem has joined
1414 2010-12-09 16:12:51 <xelister> davex___: yes
1415 2010-12-09 16:13:06 <xelister> davex___: but afair for non-OpenCL stuff, ATI is a bit more open nowdays. ask ##linux
1416 2010-12-09 16:16:25 <xelister> albatross: so, can you paste your's ? :)
1417 2010-12-09 16:16:36 genjix has joined
1418 2010-12-09 16:16:45 genjix has left ()
1419 2010-12-09 16:19:43 <albatross> xelister: sorry, machine is not here and i'm having vpn problems... :( will send it when i have it...
1420 2010-12-09 16:21:01 <xelister> k
1421 2010-12-09 16:21:42 <xelister> albatross: you're on 5970 right?
1422 2010-12-09 16:21:52 <albatross> yep
1423 2010-12-09 16:24:08 <kiba> I kinda hate Judson
1424 2010-12-09 16:24:36 <appamatto> kiba, why?
1425 2010-12-09 16:25:49 <kiba> he's dumb
1426 2010-12-09 16:26:15 <kiba> but he's not a troll or anything
1427 2010-12-09 16:27:09 <appamatto> copyfree sounds cool, first I've really heard of it
1428 2010-12-09 16:27:27 <appamatto> Although I have stumbled upon plenty of public domain software
1429 2010-12-09 16:28:09 <appamatto> I have this fantasy of infiltrating the FSF from within and releasing everything under a permissive license
1430 2010-12-09 16:28:17 brian_ is now known as brian
1431 2010-12-09 16:28:26 brian has quit (Changing host)
1432 2010-12-09 16:28:26 brian has joined
1433 2010-12-09 16:30:41 <appamatto> maybe RMS will have a deathbed conversion
1434 2010-12-09 16:33:46 planetPlosion has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.6.10/20100914125854])
1435 2010-12-09 16:36:14 <nanotube> appamatto: only if the copywrite-mongers of the world have theirs. :P
1436 2010-12-09 16:43:09 <appamatto> nanotube, oh no, not you too!
1437 2010-12-09 16:43:41 <kiba> humans are resistant to change
1438 2010-12-09 16:44:03 <kiba> if human accept more and more accurate statement without much difficulty, the world would be a different place
1439 2010-12-09 16:47:48 <appamatto> Actually I went through a big-time socialist phase
1440 2010-12-09 16:48:05 <appamatto> And a phase where I thought the GPL rocked
1441 2010-12-09 16:48:48 <kiba> I became an anarchist by 16
1442 2010-12-09 16:49:06 <kiba> blah, if linux and the internet were humans
1443 2010-12-09 16:49:07 <appamatto> How old are you now?
1444 2010-12-09 16:49:12 <kiba> 19
1445 2010-12-09 16:49:38 <kiba> I am about as old as the web and linux
1446 2010-12-09 16:49:51 <appamatto> I think a lot of people became libertarians around that time
1447 2010-12-09 16:50:50 <kiba> we reject conventional social theory
1448 2010-12-09 16:50:58 <kiba> and subsitute our own!
1449 2010-12-09 16:51:07 <kiba> bitcoin is a result of that subsitution
1450 2010-12-09 16:51:15 <kiba> we are questioning the assumption of...money
1451 2010-12-09 16:51:28 <appamatto> I wonder what took me so long to settle on my present views.
1452 2010-12-09 16:51:40 <appamatto> Probably a deep respect for my parents' views
1453 2010-12-09 16:51:52 <kiba> before I became an anarchist
1454 2010-12-09 16:51:55 <kiba> I read a book
1455 2010-12-09 16:52:04 <kiba> that deeply change how I view copyright and patent
1456 2010-12-09 16:52:07 <appamatto> Now I realize that very smart people can be very, very wrong about politics
1457 2010-12-09 16:52:38 <kiba> forever
1458 2010-12-09 16:52:47 <appamatto> What was the book?
1459 2010-12-09 16:52:52 <kiba> so I was essentially an IP abolisionist long before I become an anarchist
1460 2010-12-09 16:52:59 <kiba> appamatto: against intellectual monopoly
1461 2010-12-09 16:53:14 <kiba> before the book was even published
1462 2010-12-09 16:53:14 <appamatto> I think I was against IP as well, but I viewed the GPL as being against IP
1463 2010-12-09 16:53:38 <appamatto> actually the GPL to me now seems more perverted than proprietary software
1464 2010-12-09 16:53:45 <kiba> the book's free market tones probably pushed me to anarchism
1465 2010-12-09 16:53:46 <nanotube> appamatto: what do you mean "not me too"? i'm in favor of abolishing IP. I just think that unilaterally giving up IP is counterproductive to that goal.
1466 2010-12-09 16:54:16 <appamatto> nanotube, what is productive to the goal?
1467 2010-12-09 16:55:13 <appamatto> I think I'm mostly a pacifist
1468 2010-12-09 16:55:18 <nanotube> essentually, gpl is fighting fire with fire. :)
1469 2010-12-09 16:55:45 <appamatto> nanotube, but it's also limiting your rights to silence
1470 2010-12-09 16:55:58 <nanotube> it is carving out a territory where source is required to be open.
1471 2010-12-09 16:56:02 <kiba> nanotube: if I can make money off copyfree, others can too
1472 2010-12-09 16:56:16 <appamatto> nanotube, in the absence of IP, source is not required to be open
1473 2010-12-09 16:56:58 <nanotube> appamatto: yes it is... but when most of the world takes away your right to non-silence, it's an effective counterbalance.
1474 2010-12-09 16:57:18 <kiba> OpenBSD didn't die
1475 2010-12-09 16:57:21 <appamatto> proprietary software takes away your right to speech, the GPL takes away your right to silence
1476 2010-12-09 16:57:31 <kiba> because someone decide to fork it into a software project
1477 2010-12-09 16:57:40 <nanotube> appamatto: exactly, yes, a nice counterbalance
1478 2010-12-09 16:57:50 <kiba> into a proprietary software project
1479 2010-12-09 16:57:52 <appamatto> ugh, what about not taking away people's rights?
1480 2010-12-09 16:58:06 <appamatto> I prefer that way
1481 2010-12-09 16:58:29 <kiba> tell me, did any BSD project ever die to proprietary competition using the source code?
1482 2010-12-09 16:58:44 <appamatto> Also there would be things like proprietary software in the absence of IP, simply people withholding source code
1483 2010-12-09 16:58:51 <appamatto> There would not be anything like the GPL
1484 2010-12-09 16:59:07 <appamatto> That's why I think the GPL is more perverted than proprietary software in some ways
1485 2010-12-09 16:59:37 <kiba> proprietary software don't like you from reverse engineering
1486 2010-12-09 16:59:37 <nanotube> when you have trying to kill you... what's more productive, fighting back, or standing there and saying hey, i'm against violence
1487 2010-12-09 16:59:49 <appamatto> I dunno, ask Ghandi
1488 2010-12-09 16:59:51 <kiba> they have contracts, which really are not, that say you can't reverse engineer
1489 2010-12-09 17:00:01 <xelister> do you think Jimmy Wales is a totall fag?
1490 2010-12-09 17:00:15 <kiba> nanotube: my views is that proprietary cometption aren't a big deal for bsd projects
1491 2010-12-09 17:00:18 <kiba> or copyfree project
1492 2010-12-09 17:00:19 <appamatto> kiba, yes, there are things like that. But they can do the same job for the most part by simply withholding their code
1493 2010-12-09 17:00:38 <nanotube> appamatto: also ask 6 million jews in germany in 1940. also ask a million armenians in the early 1900s. also ask millions in sudan
1494 2010-12-09 17:00:42 <kiba> appamatto: if you're going to say that in your "contract", sign it with bitdocument or something
1495 2010-12-09 17:00:43 <xelister> In 2010, he criticized whistleblower website Wikileaks and its editor in chief Julian Assange, saying that their publication of Afghan war documents "could be enough to get someone killed,"
1496 2010-12-09 17:00:52 <xelister> maybe we should have petition to not donate to wikipedia?
1497 2010-12-09 17:01:05 <kiba> xelister: it is his honest opinion.
1498 2010-12-09 17:01:16 <xelister> yeap, so he is honest about being totall fag
1499 2010-12-09 17:01:19 <kiba> he didn't called for shutdown or censorship
1500 2010-12-09 17:01:22 <xelister> I say lets boycot him
1501 2010-12-09 17:01:26 <kiba> unlike...
1502 2010-12-09 17:01:32 <kiba> that trash congressman
1503 2010-12-09 17:01:40 <xelister> ok, lets boycot him a bit
1504 2010-12-09 17:01:42 <appamatto> nanotube, I know that people get hurt, and I'm not faulting people who fight back under bad conditions. However I don't think harming people is the right answer
1505 2010-12-09 17:01:49 <xelister> like, why donate to wikipedia when you can donate to wikileaks
1506 2010-12-09 17:02:04 <kiba> wikipedia already got lot of donors
1507 2010-12-09 17:02:07 <kiba> and volunteers
1508 2010-12-09 17:02:12 mtgox has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1509 2010-12-09 17:02:23 <kiba> their breaucracy also sucks sometime
1510 2010-12-09 17:02:40 <nanotube> appamatto: non-violence only works if you're fighting a 'moral' opponent. like ghandi was fighting the british occupation. when you are fighting an immoral opponent, nonviolence is simply tantamount to giving in.
1511 2010-12-09 17:02:47 <nanotube> appamatto: and corporations are anything but moral.
1512 2010-12-09 17:03:00 <appamatto> I am not being harmed by proprietary software that I feel my only recourse is to harm others via the GPL
1513 2010-12-09 17:03:00 <kiba> nanotube: well, I don't think we need to worry about "immoral" opponent
1514 2010-12-09 17:03:10 <kiba> they can't fight against the efficency of open source production
1515 2010-12-09 17:03:26 <nanotube> kiba: they can, by buying laws
1516 2010-12-09 17:03:30 <xelister> http://www.bryanhealey.com/m/
1517 2010-12-09 17:03:39 <xelister> * commence an attack against Amazon for their revocation of the WikiLeaks EC2 account.
1518 2010-12-09 17:03:41 <appamatto> sorry, I meant I am not being harmed to the point where I feel my only recourse ...
1519 2010-12-09 17:03:46 <xelister> woo attacking amazon ;)
1520 2010-12-09 17:03:52 <xelister> anyway this are the fags that use nvidias
1521 2010-12-09 17:04:01 <appamatto> Dude, Amazon can dump wikileaks if they want
1522 2010-12-09 17:04:04 <kiba> Anonymous is just a mob.
1523 2010-12-09 17:04:05 <appamatto> It's their system
1524 2010-12-09 17:04:14 <kiba> and I condemn mobs.
1525 2010-12-09 17:04:39 <appamatto> nanotube, as far as I can tell open source has for the most part won the battle
1526 2010-12-09 17:04:47 <nanotube> appamatto: people are willing to tolerate a lot, while gradually they're being squeezed.
1527 2010-12-09 17:04:49 <xelister> appamatto: well, then what?
1528 2010-12-09 17:05:03 <xelister> amazon appears to support some censorship
1529 2010-12-09 17:05:14 <nanotube> appamatto: no, there are still copyrights. and their terms have only gotten longer
1530 2010-12-09 17:05:15 <appamatto> And we see more and more BSD-like licenses now, because people are realizing that the level of violence the GPL entails is not necessary
1531 2010-12-09 17:05:24 <kiba> xelister: we called Amazon a pussy company
1532 2010-12-09 17:05:29 <kiba> scared of the government
1533 2010-12-09 17:05:29 <nanotube> we also see more gpl-licensed software. :)
1534 2010-12-09 17:05:46 <appamatto> For instance, gcc is being replaced by llvm
1535 2010-12-09 17:05:49 <kiba> GPL is losing sway to BSD and other licenses
1536 2010-12-09 17:05:54 <appamatto> That's the cornerstone of GPL
1537 2010-12-09 17:06:19 bitanarchy has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1538 2010-12-09 17:06:24 <kiba> the problem with the GPL is that it is very complicated piece of shit
1539 2010-12-09 17:06:50 mtgox has joined
1540 2010-12-09 17:06:54 <appamatto> I think the problem with it is that it's a license
1541 2010-12-09 17:07:05 <kiba> and also because it's complicated shit
1542 2010-12-09 17:08:12 <appamatto> nanotube, I'm more worried now about people that use GPL with a commercial dual-license
1543 2010-12-09 17:08:25 <appamatto> That amounts to a pure legal monopoly on software sales
1544 2010-12-09 17:08:39 <appamatto> i.e. it doesn't involve natural methods like withholding source at all
1545 2010-12-09 17:10:14 <kiba> wehn I complete bitpredict and other website
1546 2010-12-09 17:10:27 <kiba> I am going to be raising money to fund my next project: open source exchange markets
1547 2010-12-09 17:10:45 <kiba> right now, mtgox is the only viable site in the world
1548 2010-12-09 17:10:52 <kiba> viable exchange market
1549 2010-12-09 17:11:05 <kiba> essnetially outcompeted bitcoinexchange
1550 2010-12-09 17:11:48 <appamatto> My guess is that the USD will give you problems
1551 2010-12-09 17:12:29 <kiba> well, the Japanese would need to develop an exchange site from stratch
1552 2010-12-09 17:12:44 <kiba> the Korean will also, if the Japanese didn't release the source code
1553 2010-12-09 17:12:57 <appamatto> kiba, do you have a site for your software?
1554 2010-12-09 17:12:59 <kiba> it's a waste of programming talent
1555 2010-12-09 17:13:03 <appamatto> like a blog or something?
1556 2010-12-09 17:13:04 <kiba> appamatto: for what software?
1557 2010-12-09 17:13:12 <kiba> I have, but they aren't updated
1558 2010-12-09 17:13:15 <appamatto> your copyfree software
1559 2010-12-09 17:13:27 <kiba> no major piece of copyfree software
1560 2010-12-09 17:13:33 <kiba> bitpredict is licensed under MIT or will be
1561 2010-12-09 17:15:29 altamic has joined
1562 2010-12-09 17:15:31 <appamatto> kiba, about copyfree, I think public domain is viable
1563 2010-12-09 17:16:44 <kiba> if it weren't for the underlying framework
1564 2010-12-09 17:16:47 <kiba> MIT is the best I can do
1565 2010-12-09 17:16:49 <appamatto> given the situation with sqlite
1566 2010-12-09 17:17:16 <appamatto> hmm, you can't release your modifications into the public domain?
1567 2010-12-09 17:17:43 <kiba> I believed I can't
1568 2010-12-09 17:22:48 <kiba> ;;bc,blocks
1569 2010-12-09 17:22:48 <gribble> 96726
1570 2010-12-09 17:25:18 StrangeCharm has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1571 2010-12-09 17:29:14 <kiba> ROFL
1572 2010-12-09 17:29:22 <kiba> an 8 inch bot cemented got blown up
1573 2010-12-09 17:29:30 <kiba> because the police fear that iwas a bomb
1574 2010-12-09 17:29:40 <kiba> http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16752786
1575 2010-12-09 17:30:57 <TheAncientGoat> Yay http://opengameart.org/content/donate-bitcoins is accepting bitcoin donations :)
1576 2010-12-09 17:31:11 <kiba> oh man
1577 2010-12-09 17:31:15 <kiba> they close down a road
1578 2010-12-09 17:31:19 <kiba> and blew up a toy
1579 2010-12-09 17:31:30 <kiba> because they weren't sure if it was a bomb
1580 2010-12-09 17:32:21 <LobsterMan> ;;bc,stats
1581 2010-12-09 17:32:23 <gribble> Current Blocks: 96729 | Current Difficulty: 8078.19525793 | Next Difficulty At Block: 96767 | Next Difficulty In: 38 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 4 hours, 9 minutes, and 58 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 12279.88414614
1582 2010-12-09 17:32:35 <LobsterMan> Next Difficulty In: 38 blocks
1583 2010-12-09 17:32:36 <LobsterMan> :3
1584 2010-12-09 17:33:04 <xelister> 750 W, one rail 12V, should be ok for quadcore i7 + 5970 ?
1585 2010-12-09 17:40:36 [Noodles] has quit (Quit: have a nice day!)
1586 2010-12-09 17:40:55 <nanotube> ;;topic change 2 s/17/18/
1587 2010-12-09 17:47:51 <LobsterMan> what's new in .18?
1588 2010-12-09 17:48:42 <LobsterMan> mmm
1589 2010-12-09 17:48:42 <LobsterMan> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=2162.0
1590 2010-12-09 17:49:06 redengin has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1591 2010-12-09 17:56:50 <altamic> ZOMG scala on https://www.bitcoingateway.com ?
1592 2010-12-09 17:56:56 <altamic> heh
1593 2010-12-09 17:58:09 johnyh has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1594 2010-12-09 17:58:09 <MT`AwAy> We will purchase your bitcoins (in amounts of up to 500 coins) <- only 500 :(
1595 2010-12-09 17:58:21 <MT`AwAy> (and I'm too lazy to call some number anyway)
1596 2010-12-09 17:58:27 StrangeCharm has joined
1597 2010-12-09 17:59:26 redengin has joined
1598 2010-12-09 18:12:57 <kiba> this peter guy on the forum have no understanding of economic
1599 2010-12-09 18:13:09 redengin has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1600 2010-12-09 18:14:09 <albatross> xelister: yes on 750W
1601 2010-12-09 18:18:46 redengin has joined
1602 2010-12-09 18:19:03 StrangeCharm has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1603 2010-12-09 18:20:15 <xelister> albatross: got the aticonfig thing?
1604 2010-12-09 18:21:48 <albatross> xelister: sorry, can't get the vpn going. will send tonight if you're still around
1605 2010-12-09 18:22:17 <xelister> ok
1606 2010-12-09 18:27:02 redengin has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1607 2010-12-09 18:31:26 StrangeCharm has joined
1608 2010-12-09 18:33:10 redengin has joined
1609 2010-12-09 18:36:10 [Noodles] has joined
1610 2010-12-09 18:39:09 xelister_ has joined
1611 2010-12-09 18:41:19 xelister has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1612 2010-12-09 18:42:23 StrangeCharm has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1613 2010-12-09 18:52:06 altamic has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1614 2010-12-09 18:54:54 <midnightmagic> ;;bc,calc 1000
1615 2010-12-09 18:54:55 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 1000 Khps, given current difficulty of 8078.19525793 , is 1 year, 5 weeks, 1 day, 13 hours, 39 minutes, and 44 seconds
1616 2010-12-09 18:55:31 <MT`AwAy> in a few hours it'll be much more
1617 2010-12-09 18:55:35 <MT`AwAy> difficulty 8k => 12k
1618 2010-12-09 18:55:55 <MT`AwAy> maybe less
1619 2010-12-09 18:56:21 <MT`AwAy> 29 blocks remaining
1620 2010-12-09 18:57:39 StrangeCharm has joined
1621 2010-12-09 18:58:08 altamic has joined
1622 2010-12-09 18:59:34 redengin has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1623 2010-12-09 19:04:07 GrantBitCoin has joined
1624 2010-12-09 19:07:00 <kiba> Hmm
1625 2010-12-09 19:07:01 <kiba> new users
1626 2010-12-09 19:10:32 xelister_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1627 2010-12-09 19:10:54 xelister has joined
1628 2010-12-09 19:11:30 <[Noodles]> ;;bc,stats
1629 2010-12-09 19:11:32 <gribble> Current Blocks: 96738 | Current Difficulty: 8078.19525793 | Next Difficulty At Block: 96767 | Next Difficulty In: 29 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 3 hours, 10 minutes, and 52 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 12273.67275553
1630 2010-12-09 19:11:43 <nanotube> 29 blocks to go!
1631 2010-12-09 19:11:55 <[Noodles]> yay!
1632 2010-12-09 19:12:42 <[Noodles]> glad my 5570 found its first blocks (2!!) tonight ^.^
1633 2010-12-09 19:12:53 <nanotube> hehe good for you :)
1634 2010-12-09 19:13:18 <[Noodles]> oh, what's up with the pool-server, seems offline?
1635 2010-12-09 19:13:33 <kabo69> Hi
1636 2010-12-09 19:13:42 <kabo69> I can't connect to the pool server either :/
1637 2010-12-09 19:14:06 <kabo69> I've been doing some counting btw...
1638 2010-12-09 19:15:13 <kabo69> if the current difficulty increase (50% every 2 weeks) is maintained for a year it will a difficulty of over 300 000 000 one year from now
1639 2010-12-09 19:15:27 <[Noodles]> hehe
1640 2010-12-09 19:15:55 <[Noodles]> well, it won't, although it'll rise for sure
1641 2010-12-09 19:16:45 <kabo69> Diablo thought it would rise faster now
1642 2010-12-09 19:16:56 <kabo69> more GPUs, more people
1643 2010-12-09 19:17:24 <kabo69> the difficulty should settle somewhere though i guess
1644 2010-12-09 19:17:30 <kabo69> I wonder where
1645 2010-12-09 19:18:04 <[Noodles]> the higher it goes, the more secure your coins are
1646 2010-12-09 19:18:24 <[Noodles]> it's all for the good
1647 2010-12-09 19:18:33 <kabo69> given a difficulty of 300 000 000 it would take a hashrate of 1.8MHashes/sec almost 2 years to get 50 coins...
1648 2010-12-09 19:20:01 <xelister> kabo69: thats what I ment saying cpu mining, evne in pool, is waste of time ;) (although the numbers are not /that/ horrifying, I belive pool will get 2 or 4 blocks.. so 200 BTC)... so 1 BTC per person
1649 2010-12-09 19:20:11 <xelister> 1 BTC per person is around half dolar or less
1650 2010-12-09 19:20:29 <xelister> so better just each person pay 10 usd and get x10 more coins ;) and save like 300 USD on energy bill
1651 2010-12-09 19:20:36 <xelister> instead pay 300 USD to get 0.5 USD
1652 2010-12-09 19:20:46 <xelister> *over the year
1653 2010-12-09 19:20:47 <[Noodles]> it's not about to get you 50coins anyway, it's about transaction-handling, if you do it for the profits, think BIG, or dont think about generating at all
1654 2010-12-09 19:21:34 <kabo69> I liked the charm about a bunch of geeks generating coins on their computers
1655 2010-12-09 19:21:37 <nanotube> doublec: what's up with the pool, people say it's down. :)
1656 2010-12-09 19:21:47 <xelister> kabo69: it is good, just use gpu
1657 2010-12-09 19:21:56 <kabo69> if you need a rack full of GPUs to get anywhere, its not the same charm
1658 2010-12-09 19:22:08 <xelister> nanotube: too bad, it looked sooo promising :P
1659 2010-12-09 19:22:20 <nanotube> xelister: heh
1660 2010-12-09 19:22:25 <xelister> kabo69: with 1 GPU I got 800 BTC in last month only
1661 2010-12-09 19:22:58 <nanotube> speaking of gpu... how's your project coming along, xelister
1662 2010-12-09 19:23:04 <xelister> with a 150 USD worth radeon5770 you will get like 150..300 USD in first 2-3 months
1663 2010-12-09 19:23:04 <[Noodles]> xelister: if you dont like the pool, dont use it, no reason to blame people for joining
1664 2010-12-09 19:23:31 <[Noodles]> "you will get"??
1665 2010-12-09 19:23:37 <kabo69> xelister: that's what you got in the last 2-3 months
1666 2010-12-09 19:23:38 <xelister> nanotube: my / my friend's miner is some modifications to diablo's, it has same results. works :)
1667 2010-12-09 19:23:48 <xelister> kabo69: I got 800 BTC in 1 month
1668 2010-12-09 19:24:03 <[Noodles]> how do you know, that "i will get"? you have no idea what i have to pay for electricity
1669 2010-12-09 19:24:04 <kabo69> not so much if the difficulty keeps rising with 50% every other week
1670 2010-12-09 19:24:12 <xelister> kabo69: with a card that costs from 150 USD (used) you will generate around 100-400 BTC or so
1671 2010-12-09 19:24:19 <[Noodles]> and no idea OF WHERE THE DIFFICULTY GOES NEXT STEP
1672 2010-12-09 19:24:26 <[Noodles]> oops
1673 2010-12-09 19:24:30 <nanotube> ;;bc,stats
1674 2010-12-09 19:24:31 <xelister> [Noodles]: sure sure, this is the best estimation though
1675 2010-12-09 19:24:32 <gribble> Current Blocks: 96740 | Current Difficulty: 8078.19525793 | Next Difficulty At Block: 96767 | Next Difficulty In: 27 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 2 hours, 58 minutes, and 9 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 12242.50043469
1676 2010-12-09 19:24:35 <kabo69> just looking at the trend...
1677 2010-12-09 19:24:43 <nanotube> 27 blocks
1678 2010-12-09 19:24:51 <xelister> 27 BLOCKS !!!
1679 2010-12-09 19:24:57 <xelister> quick, someoen distract ArtForz
1680 2010-12-09 19:25:02 <[Noodles]> it's clear that generating on CPUs is not profitable to anyone
1681 2010-12-09 19:25:19 <[Noodles]> unlikely that it will ever bee again
1682 2010-12-09 19:25:29 <[Noodles]> except u get energy for free
1683 2010-12-09 19:25:44 <nanotube> well, maybe to someone who can borg a bunch of computers and generate on free electricity. :)
1684 2010-12-09 19:25:50 <nanotube> right
1685 2010-12-09 19:25:56 <nanotube> free \o/
1686 2010-12-09 19:26:00 <[Noodles]> yay!
1687 2010-12-09 19:26:16 <[Noodles]> would be nice, mine is quite expensive
1688 2010-12-09 19:27:04 <kabo69> are there any betting pools on where the difficulty is going to be 1 month from now?
1689 2010-12-09 19:27:10 <kabo69> and 6, 12 months?
1690 2010-12-09 19:27:11 <xelister> quick, genjix, have your sis show boobs to ArtForz before its too late \o
1691 2010-12-09 19:27:17 <[Noodles]> but i still run CPUs on the pool, cuz i LOVE bitcoin
1692 2010-12-09 19:27:31 * xelister calls power plant in ArtForz's vicinity
1693 2010-12-09 19:28:01 <davux> the forum should mention the 0.3.18 release
1694 2010-12-09 19:28:08 <kabo69> who is artforz, and why does he need to look at boobs?
1695 2010-12-09 19:28:18 <kabo69> then again, who doesn't need to look at boobs..
1696 2010-12-09 19:28:24 <xelister> kabo69: he runs around 20% of totall Ghash power behind bitcoin
1697 2010-12-09 19:28:34 <kabo69> oh, nice
1698 2010-12-09 19:28:45 <kabo69> some 20 Ghashes per second then...
1699 2010-12-09 19:28:58 <xelister> kabo69: uhm, fags, relligious leaders.. uh, so yea, fags basically
1700 2010-12-09 19:29:00 <kabo69> do you know how he does it?
1701 2010-12-09 19:29:24 <xelister> he bought hardware for 10000 USD
1702 2010-12-09 19:29:24 <[Noodles]> he's got his own little power plant
1703 2010-12-09 19:29:37 Lysacor has joined
1704 2010-12-09 19:29:45 <kabo69> hehe, cool
1705 2010-12-09 19:29:53 Lysacor has left ()
1706 2010-12-09 19:39:28 StrangeCharm has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1707 2010-12-09 19:40:27 <xelister> [Noodles]: hm? ;)
1708 2010-12-09 19:42:10 <appamatto> He should blog about his bitcoin farming experience
1709 2010-12-09 19:42:21 <appamatto> That would be an interesting read
1710 2010-12-09 19:44:10 StrangeCharm has joined
1711 2010-12-09 19:47:22 <[Noodles]> just read this channels log, it's close to that ^.^
1712 2010-12-09 19:53:23 <davux> what's the difference between comment and comment-to?
1713 2010-12-09 19:58:33 <gavinandresen> davux: three letters.
1714 2010-12-09 19:58:58 <gavinandresen> Ok, no, two letters and one punctuation mark.
1715 2010-12-09 19:59:02 <gavinandresen> No, no, really....
1716 2010-12-09 19:59:15 <gavinandresen> comment-to is meant as a place to say who you're paying.
1717 2010-12-09 19:59:32 <gavinandresen> comment is meant to be a place to say what you're paying, or otherwise... comment.
1718 2010-12-09 20:00:56 <altamic> gavin are you hacking from osx?
1719 2010-12-09 20:01:11 <gavinandresen> My main dev machine is osx, yeah
1720 2010-12-09 20:02:16 <altamic> I guess you did manage somehow to get rid of missing PyBSDDB bindings
1721 2010-12-09 20:02:32 <altamic> for bitcointools
1722 2010-12-09 20:02:45 <altamic> or you had no problems?
1723 2010-12-09 20:03:55 <davux> gavinandresen: thanks
1724 2010-12-09 20:04:05 <gavinandresen> hmmm... its been so long I don't remember where I got the python berkely db stuff from...
1725 2010-12-09 20:04:24 <gavinandresen> I don't remember it being a problem!
1726 2010-12-09 20:05:23 <altamic> ok
1727 2010-12-09 20:05:27 <altamic> thank you
1728 2010-12-09 20:16:10 <davux> gavinandresen: why "*" and not just ""?
1729 2010-12-09 20:16:31 <davux> would seem consistent with the already special role of ""
1730 2010-12-09 20:16:36 <gavinandresen> davux: '' already has a meaning in the accounts api
1731 2010-12-09 20:16:54 <gavinandresen> ... and listtransactions '' already works
1732 2010-12-09 20:16:57 <davux> gavinandresen: yes, it means "any account", which is the purpose here
1733 2010-12-09 20:17:06 <gavinandresen> '' does NOT mean any account
1734 2010-12-09 20:17:12 <gavinandresen> '' means 'the default account'
1735 2010-12-09 20:17:37 <davux> it does, for example when used with sendfrom
1736 2010-12-09 20:17:58 <gavinandresen> sendfrom '' debits the '' account. doesn't affect any other account's balance....
1737 2010-12-09 20:18:24 <davux> didn't you say it does if it doesn't have enough coins?
1738 2010-12-09 20:18:27 <gavinandresen> getbalance '' gets the balance for that account, not the balance for all accounts...
1739 2010-12-09 20:18:34 RazielZ has quit ()
1740 2010-12-09 20:19:05 <albatross> is there a command to list all the accounts?
1741 2010-12-09 20:19:12 <gavinandresen> '' is special because it is allowed to go negative when sending. Satoshi and I talked about letting any account do that...
1742 2010-12-09 20:19:21 <gavinandresen> albatross: no. There aught to be, though.
1743 2010-12-09 20:20:25 <davux> albatross: you can infer that list from listreceivedbyaccount
1744 2010-12-09 20:20:40 <davux> gavinandresen: ok
1745 2010-12-09 20:20:58 <gavinandresen> davux: that'll skip any accounts that haven't received coins, though.
1746 2010-12-09 20:21:00 <davux> gavinandresen: i hope it won't be the default behaviour though
1747 2010-12-09 20:21:16 <gavinandresen> davux: you hope what won't be the default behavior?
1748 2010-12-09 20:21:23 <davux> listreceivedbyaccount 1 true
1749 2010-12-09 20:21:58 <davux> gavinandresen: letting any account go negative. I mean, at least I hope it will be possible to rely on a check on the user's balance
1750 2010-12-09 20:22:34 altamic has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1751 2010-12-09 20:22:40 <davux> even if via an option
1752 2010-12-09 20:22:55 <gavinandresen> davux: ah, right. Yes, the default for all accounts besides '' is to fail if the account doesn't have enough funds, and I think it will stay that way.
1753 2010-12-09 20:23:13 <gavinandresen> (except for transaction fees, which throws a monkey wrench into things...)
1754 2010-12-09 20:23:39 <albatross> what is the purpose of accounts? help facilitate sites like mtgox and such?
1755 2010-12-09 20:23:46 <gavinandresen> albatross: yes
1756 2010-12-09 20:24:08 <davux> gavinandresen: great
1757 2010-12-09 20:24:30 <albatross> cool, so mtgox could have one bitcoind running for all of his users.
1758 2010-12-09 20:24:31 <davux> I'm loving accounts with http://gitorious.org/bitcoim
1759 2010-12-09 20:26:30 <gavinandresen> albatross: https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/issues/issue/18
1760 2010-12-09 20:28:57 <albatross> gavinandresen: cool...noticed another cool thing. will 'portoption' allow me to run multiple bitcoind on same machine?
1761 2010-12-09 20:29:09 <gavinandresen> albatross: yes
1762 2010-12-09 20:29:25 <gavinandresen> albatross: you'll have to give them each a different -datadir, of course
1763 2010-12-09 20:34:02 <albatross> gavinandresen: yep...port was the missing link though. one more question: i want to set up my own testnet. Using the '-connect' option is key it seems. However, what does the first node connect to? itself?
1764 2010-12-09 20:35:44 <gavinandresen> albatross: the first node doesn't connect to anything, it just sits and waits for peers to connect to it.
1765 2010-12-09 20:36:49 <albatross> gavinandresen: wouldn't it try to connect to IRC to get nodes by default? i thought the '-connect' switch disables this behavior
1766 2010-12-09 20:37:10 <gavinandresen> Run -noirc
1767 2010-12-09 20:37:35 <albatross> ahhh...excellent. gavin, you're the best.
1768 2010-12-09 20:37:45 <gavinandresen> Which genesis block will you use? -testnet ?
1769 2010-12-09 20:38:04 <gavinandresen> (if you use production, there are also the hard-coded nodes to connect to compiled in....)
1770 2010-12-09 20:38:27 darrob has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1771 2010-12-09 20:38:53 <gavinandresen> Anyway, -testnet -noirc should do what you want for the first node, then -testnet -noirc -connect= for the second and third and....
1772 2010-12-09 20:38:55 <albatross> i want a totally separate network. so i would have to change genesis block?
1773 2010-12-09 20:39:37 <gavinandresen> You don't HAVE to, as long as you're always careful not to connect to another -testnet node that isn't part of your net.
1774 2010-12-09 20:40:24 <gavinandresen> If you're planning on ever letting other people use your chain, then you'll need to have your own genesis block.
1775 2010-12-09 20:40:28 <albatross> so, essentially, just make sure that i use the above arguments every time
1776 2010-12-09 20:40:57 <gavinandresen> yup. You'll be able to tell if you screw up-- you'll immediately start downloading a ton of testnet blocks.
1777 2010-12-09 20:41:32 <davux> gavinandresen: there's a strange behaviour with getbalance <account> if I change the account associated with a given address
1778 2010-12-09 20:41:47 <albatross> hmmm...what if i generate 20000 blocks and then i accidentaly connect to the real testnet. would my proof of work clobber existing testnet?
1779 2010-12-09 20:41:54 <gavinandresen> ... the balance changes. yup.
1780 2010-12-09 20:42:14 <gavinandresen> albatross: if your chain had more difficulty, yes it would.
1781 2010-12-09 20:42:29 <davux> it seems like the received coins are not counted anymore, but the sent ones still are
1782 2010-12-09 20:42:39 <albatross> gavinandresen: awesome...thanks for all the answers
1783 2010-12-09 20:42:44 <davux> which means the balance can go negative
1784 2010-12-09 20:42:51 <gavinandresen> davux: yup. Don't do that.
1785 2010-12-09 20:43:34 <davux> would it be possible to not count payments from that address as well?
1786 2010-12-09 20:43:48 <davux> so that if account foo has no address, its balance is 0
1787 2010-12-09 20:43:59 <appamatto> Okay, EconTalk isn't libertarian enough for me so I'm back for more podcast suggestions.
1788 2010-12-09 20:44:17 albatross has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1789 2010-12-09 20:44:23 <davux> right now, if account foo has had an address in the past, even if it doesn't exist anymore, its balance may be non-zero
1790 2010-12-09 20:44:40 <davux> which is odd
1791 2010-12-09 20:45:03 <gavinandresen> davux: huh? what are you trying to do when you call setaccount to change the account associated with an address?
1792 2010-12-09 20:45:27 <davux> gavinandresen: for example, a user unregisters from my webapp
1793 2010-12-09 20:45:50 <davux> i want to make the username free to use again
1794 2010-12-09 20:46:38 <gavinandresen> davux: ah, I see. And you want payments to the old addresses to NOT go to the new user-with-the-same-name.
1795 2010-12-09 20:47:08 <davux> i want the new user to not start with a negative balance
1796 2010-12-09 20:47:14 Ry4an has left ()
1797 2010-12-09 20:47:23 <davux> when they register on the webapp
1798 2010-12-09 20:47:34 <davux> or a positive balance
1799 2010-12-09 20:47:39 <gavinandresen> You can use move to adjust the balance. listtransactions will look strange to the new user, though.
1800 2010-12-09 20:48:38 <davux> you mean i don't change the account, i just set its balance to 0?
1801 2010-12-09 20:49:51 <davux> would it be a way to just not count past payments made from the corresponding address, so that the balance is 0 when the account is not associated to any address anymore?
1802 2010-12-09 20:50:02 <davux> s/it/there/
1803 2010-12-09 20:50:20 <gavinandresen> You want a renameaccount function.... no, there's no such thing right now.
1804 2010-12-09 20:50:46 <nanotube> davux: seems the best thing for the moment is to just not reuse usernames
1805 2010-12-09 20:51:12 <davux> nanotube: i can't prevent jabber users from doing that
1806 2010-12-09 20:51:41 <gavinandresen> jabber doesn't have a globally unique userid/name space? (like email)
1807 2010-12-09 20:52:12 <davux> it does, but you can unregister your address, and later on someone can register it
1808 2010-12-09 20:52:21 <davux> just like domain names
1809 2010-12-09 20:53:45 <gavinandresen> Weird. So if that happens, the person who registered my name is suddenly on all my friends' friends list?
1810 2010-12-09 20:54:22 <davux> no because your jabber server will have sent unsubscriptions to them when you unregister
1811 2010-12-09 20:57:25 <gavinandresen> Hmm. So what information about a user does bitcoim store? If it stores any, then you could map username --> unique_account_id, instead of using the username as the bitcoin account name directly.
1812 2010-12-09 20:58:26 <gavinandresen> I gotta go for a while, back later....
1813 2010-12-09 20:58:47 <davux> at the moment the account = the JID
1814 2010-12-09 20:59:05 <davux> and i'm trying to store as few information as possible in the DB
1815 2010-12-09 20:59:22 <davux> but yes, I could use versionning on JID's
1816 2010-12-09 20:59:51 <nanotube> mm interesting. :)
1817 2010-12-09 21:00:10 <davux> like "foo@bar.com 0", and when they unregister and register again, they have foo@bar.com 1
1818 2010-12-09 21:01:15 <nanotube> yea... or registration timestamp instead
1819 2010-12-09 21:01:35 <nanotube> just so you don't have to keep track of previous registrations under that nick
1820 2010-12-09 21:02:33 <davux> good idea
1821 2010-12-09 21:03:27 <davux> i will have to keep the timestamp somewhere though, since jsonrpc methods need the exact account name
1822 2010-12-09 21:04:18 <davux> wildcards would be great, and that would generalize the "*" idea for listtransactions
1823 2010-12-09 21:04:47 <davux> bitcoind listtransactions "*bob*"
1824 2010-12-09 21:04:59 <kiba> Satoshi, in a rare apperance, made a proposal on how to solve the CPU fragmentation!
1825 2010-12-09 21:08:12 <nanotube> kiba: you are talking about the .18 thread?
1826 2010-12-09 21:08:19 <kiba> zno
1827 2010-12-09 21:08:20 <kiba> no
1828 2010-12-09 21:08:27 <kiba> the BitDNS thread
1829 2010-12-09 21:08:57 <xelister> -> #bitdns
1830 2010-12-09 21:09:27 <kiba> :P
1831 2010-12-09 21:10:19 <nanotube> kiba: link? maybe i'm not lookin gat the right htread...
1832 2010-12-09 21:11:32 <[Noodles]> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1790.msg28696#msg28696 this one?
1833 2010-12-09 21:11:41 <[Noodles]> sounds interesting
1834 2010-12-09 21:11:44 Joshoph has joined
1835 2010-12-09 21:11:48 <xelister> FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
1836 2010-12-09 21:11:49 <nanotube> kiba: ah i had to refresh the page heh
1837 2010-12-09 21:11:53 <xelister> UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
1838 2010-12-09 21:11:54 <xelister> UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
1839 2010-12-09 21:11:56 <xelister> UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
1840 2010-12-09 21:12:09 <xelister> CK. ATI provides fucked up tool that has problems disabling fucking crossfire shit
1841 2010-12-09 21:12:14 <xelister> making 5970 x2 slower
1842 2010-12-09 21:14:04 <xelister> jesus christ
1843 2010-12-09 21:14:13 <xelister> I hope AMD will make Ati get its shit togeather
1844 2010-12-09 21:15:46 <nanotube> [Noodles]: yea interesting, but i don't understand how a miner can "scan SHA such that if they get a hit, they potentially solve both at once."
1845 2010-12-09 21:15:52 xelister has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1846 2010-12-09 21:22:11 <[Noodles]> as far as i understand it, you're looking for one target right now and just get a second target to aim at with 2 networks, you can hit them both with, ok, proibably not with one shot, but with 2, even though its very unlikely to happen at the same time
1847 2010-12-09 21:22:56 <[Noodles]> but i'm not into the coding-stuff, so i'v actually no idea ^.^
1848 2010-12-09 21:22:57 <nanotube> [Noodles]: i don't understand how that would work. the sha hash for bitcoin data would be completely different from the sha hash for the bitdns data
1849 2010-12-09 21:23:14 <nanotube> there's no way to avoid doing double-work, if you need to hit a target with two separate pieces of data.
1850 2010-12-09 21:23:53 <nanotube> 9 blocks to go until next difficulty! ,,bc,stats
1851 2010-12-09 21:23:55 <gribble> Current Blocks: 96758 | Current Difficulty: 8078.19525793 | Next Difficulty At Block: 96767 | Next Difficulty In: 9 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 59 minutes and 21 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 12248.01663144
1852 2010-12-09 21:23:55 <ArtForz> unless you move to a kind of meta-hash system
1853 2010-12-09 21:25:57 <nanotube> what would be a miner's incentive to meta-hash, if you are doing just fine mining stock bitcoin, and there's no extra reward from mining the side-chains?
1854 2010-12-09 21:26:13 <ArtForz> the idea would be that mining the side chains is pretty much free for the miner
1855 2010-12-09 21:26:58 <nanotube> if it's free, that means it's not costly to create records in the sidechain?
1856 2010-12-09 21:27:15 <nanotube> which in turn means it can be spammed to bits?
1857 2010-12-09 21:27:17 <ArtForz> as in, it doesnt take more work to look for a solution for 2+ chains sumltaneously than a single chain
1858 2010-12-09 21:28:00 <nanotube> ah... well so bitcoin itself would have to be modified...
1859 2010-12-09 21:28:04 <ArtForz> yep
1860 2010-12-09 21:28:16 <ArtForz> it would basically mean changing how POW works for block headers
1861 2010-12-09 21:28:31 <nanotube> right... rather drastic.
1862 2010-12-09 21:28:38 <ArtForz> yep
1863 2010-12-09 21:28:50 <ArtForz> but unless I missed something it should work
1864 2010-12-09 21:29:28 StrangeCharm has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1865 2010-12-09 21:29:52 <nanotube> yea... but that means that bitcoin code would have to be modified with every new 'sidechain' that is 'blessed' by the devs?
1866 2010-12-09 21:29:56 <ArtForz> no
1867 2010-12-09 21:30:00 <nanotube> so they can check the validity of the sidechain blocks?
1868 2010-12-09 21:30:06 <ArtForz> they wouldnt have to
1869 2010-12-09 21:30:15 <nanotube> who would check the sidechain block validity?
1870 2010-12-09 21:30:25 <ArtForz> clients interested in that sidechain
1871 2010-12-09 21:30:35 <ArtForz> and miners mining for that sidechain of course
1872 2010-12-09 21:30:36 <nanotube> but how would a miner know whether a block has been checked?
1873 2010-12-09 21:31:03 redengin has joined
1874 2010-12-09 21:31:35 <nanotube> (and in addition - how would the meta-miners know what sidechains to accept?)
1875 2010-12-09 21:31:40 StrangeCharm has joined
1876 2010-12-09 21:31:47 <nanotube> (seems like there would have to be some kind of 'blessing' of sidechains)
1877 2010-12-09 21:31:57 <ArtForz> well... by the miners, yeah
1878 2010-12-09 21:32:00 StrangeCharm has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1879 2010-12-09 21:32:12 <ArtForz> miner would have to know how to validate blocks for a given side chain
1880 2010-12-09 21:32:48 <nanotube> so... every time a new sidechain starts, you have to somehow convince a population of miners to accept it and add extra overhead of validating the blocks
1881 2010-12-09 21:32:58 <nanotube> seems... difficult. :)
1882 2010-12-09 21:33:01 <ArtForz> yep
1883 2010-12-09 21:33:25 <nanotube> a bitdns-style protocol do not require that... :)
1884 2010-12-09 21:33:27 <ArtForz> a lot less difficult than convincing miners to work on your chain INSTEAD of bitcoin
1885 2010-12-09 21:33:43 <nanotube> but more difficult than just encoding some data in the existing chain.
1886 2010-12-09 21:33:59 <nanotube> which the miners would be more than happy to include, for a fee.
1887 2010-12-09 21:34:14 <ArtForz> yep
1888 2010-12-09 21:34:22 <ArtForz> I kinda like this concept though
1889 2010-12-09 21:35:10 <nanotube> indeed, theoretically the concept seems 'clean', with the separate chains and all.
1890 2010-12-09 21:35:15 <ArtForz> yep
1891 2010-12-09 21:36:10 <nanotube> but i think there has to be some kind of incentive for a miner to do the extra work.
1892 2010-12-09 21:36:43 <ArtForz> yes
1893 2010-12-09 21:37:06 <nanotube> otherwise, it's like, "hey mr miner, would you please run this extra code to validate my neato side chain along with the existing stuff you're doing" "what's in it for me?" "warm fuzzies?" "no thanks" :)
1894 2010-12-09 21:37:46 <ArtForz> I think it would look something like a meta-block containing nonce + merkle tree of block headers, each block header still has it's own target, a POW solution is when hash(meta-header) < target for one or more block headers
1895 2010-12-09 21:41:00 <ArtForz> and I think each block headers prevblockhash would point to a meta-hash
1896 2010-12-09 21:42:38 <ArtForz> a client only interested in one chain doesnt need to know anything about the other block headers except for their merkle hash
1897 2010-12-09 21:42:45 <kiba> mr miner could sell his domain coins to registary
1898 2010-12-09 21:46:03 <ArtForz> just thinking out loud, each side chain would also be a bitcoin-like currency
1899 2010-12-09 21:46:44 <ArtForz> and setting up markets where people can trade chain X <-> chain Y coins is not hard
1900 2010-12-09 21:46:45 <kiba> one could send domain coins around as currency
1901 2010-12-09 21:47:32 <kiba> but then it would be overruled in prority compared to domain registration
1902 2010-12-09 21:49:27 <ArtForz> not sure, like I said, I'm just trying to figure out how the technical concept could work
1903 2010-12-09 21:57:20 <appamatto> nanotube, I think we're having a miscommunication about the nature of the app chains
1904 2010-12-09 21:57:46 <appamatto> You can spam the app chains, just like you can spam bitcoin
1905 2010-12-09 21:58:01 <appamatto> except that bitcoin can reject the spam. How is it any different for app chains?
1906 2010-12-09 21:59:06 <appamatto> Imagine that numbers are the meta-chain and letters are the app chain. You could have 1 a 2 spam 3 spam 4 spam 5 b = child(a) 6 c = child(a) 7 spam ... 10 d = child(c)
1907 2010-12-09 22:00:31 <appamatto> see how the forking occurs inside of the bitx chain?
1908 2010-12-09 22:01:51 <appamatto> It's just like bitcoin: if someone comes to you and says lolz my chain is 1,000,000 blocks long!! then you have to start validating
1909 2010-12-09 22:03:50 <gavinandresen> All: I'm still not seeing the big picture; ASSUMING bitcoin lets you PUSH(hash) OP_DROP (or the equivalent) to do secure, distributed timestamping of arbitrary data, is there any need for another chain?
1910 2010-12-09 22:04:10 <appamatto> Why polute bitcoin?
1911 2010-12-09 22:05:24 <gavinandresen> "Pollute" ? I can think of lots of interesting uses for tagging a transaction with a hash, starting with storing an encryption key that lets my customer send me a message about the transaction....
1912 2010-12-09 22:05:58 <appamatto> I would be in favor of changing bitcoin so that extra info can never be stored in the chain
1913 2010-12-09 22:06:09 <gavinandresen> Ummm, yeah, good luck with that.
1914 2010-12-09 22:06:13 <appamatto> and in general simplifying it
1915 2010-12-09 22:06:42 <kiba> we broke record again!
1916 2010-12-09 22:06:42 <ArtForz> one can store info right in the pubkey
1917 2010-12-09 22:06:56 <kiba> I think we're going to have more than 400 posts in one day
1918 2010-12-09 22:07:02 <kiba> that's...insanity!
1919 2010-12-09 22:07:52 <appamatto> Again, there has to be a way to innovate without disturbing bitcoin
1920 2010-12-09 22:08:34 <kiba> what about Satoshi's proposal?
1921 2010-12-09 22:08:41 <appamatto> What is that?
1922 2010-12-09 22:08:46 <gavinandresen> appamatto: if there's not a well-defined place to put "extra stuff", chance are people will start messing with the bits in timestamps, or the public key, or all the low bits in the transaction amount........
1923 2010-12-09 22:10:53 <appamatto> I think bitcoin is tasked with providing a very primitive interface
1924 2010-12-09 22:11:06 <appamatto> The more elements there are the more ways for clients to disagree
1925 2010-12-09 22:12:12 <gavinandresen> appamatto: I agree. At its core, the bitcoin chain is a distributed timestamping service. And yet, right now there is no way to use it as a timestamping service.
1926 2010-12-09 22:12:18 <gavinandresen> (no CLEAN way)
1927 2010-12-09 22:12:55 slush_cz1 has joined
1928 2010-12-09 22:12:59 <appamatto> yes, don't you think that's because bitcoin should be the client of a timestamping service rather than its provider?
1929 2010-12-09 22:13:32 <gavinandresen> appamatto: no, because without the currency bit you can't get the incentives right.
1930 2010-12-09 22:14:51 <appamatto> I dunno, I think if anything the incentive structure is too complicated
1931 2010-12-09 22:14:58 xelister has joined
1932 2010-12-09 22:15:09 <appamatto> with tx fees, changes in bitcoin block values, etc.
1933 2010-12-09 22:15:26 <appamatto> They're unnatural
1934 2010-12-09 22:16:45 <appamatto> The first rule of bitcoin club should be that everything that can stay out of bitcoin club should stay out and be provided by a third party
1935 2010-12-09 22:17:00 <appamatto> That way we aren't making arbitrary choices instead of relying on innovation
1936 2010-12-09 22:18:45 <kiba> , but relying on innovation
1937 2010-12-09 22:19:10 <gavinandresen> appamatto: I'm still confused by your proposal. I could understand a minimal chain that did nothing but timestamp hashes.
1938 2010-12-09 22:19:40 <gavinandresen> I don't understand one meta chain and multiple app-chains. What are the app chains FOR?
1939 2010-12-09 22:19:47 <xelister> Ati stole my bitcoins
1940 2010-12-09 22:20:17 <xelister> their fucking aticonfig shit tool works other then it says in own help-page. --crossfire=off do NOT turn off Xfire. omg fuck them
1941 2010-12-09 22:20:21 <xelister> (*$(@$(*!@(*$!@($&!@(&$!$!
1942 2010-12-09 22:20:44 <appamatto> gavinandresen, the minimal app chain is the metachain. The app chains are things like bitcoin, bitdns, etc.
1943 2010-12-09 22:20:44 <xelister> god I hope Amd will kick some quality into them
1944 2010-12-09 22:21:03 <kiba> what the diff between amd and ati?
1945 2010-12-09 22:21:11 <ArtForz> 2 letters
1946 2010-12-09 22:21:50 <gavinandresen> appamatto: how are they "chains"Â ? E.g. for bitdns, I generate a bunch of DNS records. I hash them, then submit the hash to the chain, to prove I registered those domains first.
1947 2010-12-09 22:21:56 <xelister> kiba: Amd processors do not hang each few hours since like 2005 (first Ati on windows) till nowdays with best card in the world (speed)
1948 2010-12-09 22:22:21 <ArtForz> btw, looks like ati 69xx will be total suckage
1949 2010-12-09 22:23:04 <xelister> :[[[[
1950 2010-12-09 22:23:05 <gavinandresen> For bitcoin: I generate a coin at a given proof-of-work and block height. I hash it and submit it to the metachain to prove that I generate it first. Or spend a coin, submit the transaction hash to prove it is the first spend. All one chain.....
1951 2010-12-09 22:23:09 <appamatto> gavinandresen, bitdns block 100 has a backlink to block 99
1952 2010-12-09 22:23:16 <appamatto> therefore it is a chain
1953 2010-12-09 22:23:26 <gavinandresen> appamatto: why? what's the backlink FOR?
1954 2010-12-09 22:23:50 jeremydei has joined
1955 2010-12-09 22:23:51 <xelister> gavinandresen: btw, you said you work on mac, right?
1956 2010-12-09 22:23:58 <gavinandresen> xelister: yup
1957 2010-12-09 22:24:11 <appamatto> The backlink is for the same thing as in bitcoin. It is the current block's "vote of validity" for the previous block chain
1958 2010-12-09 22:24:30 <xelister> this is offtopic, but, my collegue, Mike, recently dumped his boyfriend, and he is also into software development... perhaps you want eachother email if you are also alone now
1959 2010-12-09 22:24:38 <appamatto> block 100 says that chain-up-to-99 is "bitdns-valid"
1960 2010-12-09 22:24:39 <xelister> >_>
1961 2010-12-09 22:25:11 <gavinandresen> appamatto: the previous thingie doesn't need a vote for validity-- it is timestamped. If there's another thingie that says it came before... check the master chain to see which is right.
1962 2010-12-09 22:25:33 <appamatto> gavinandresen, it's not just about time but also validity
1963 2010-12-09 22:25:44 mtgox has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1964 2010-12-09 22:26:23 <appamatto> I think you're missing that the meta-chain is never rejected for app-validity reasons
1965 2010-12-09 22:26:41 <appamatto> So being in the meta-chain is no sign of app-validity
1966 2010-12-09 22:26:55 <appamatto> each app maintains its own notion of validity, if the app requires it
1967 2010-12-09 22:27:01 <appamatto> That's why each app has a backlink
1968 2010-12-09 22:27:17 <gavinandresen> appamatto: So what prevents somebody from spamming the metachain?
1969 2010-12-09 22:27:32 <appamatto> It would be like spamming the internet to mess with bitcoin
1970 2010-12-09 22:27:49 <appamatto> It won't change that bitcoin clients have precise requirements for block acceptance
1971 2010-12-09 22:28:01 <appamatto> it just means that there are extra ignored packets flying around
1972 2010-12-09 22:28:35 <gavinandresen> appamatto: so... what stops a griefer from injecting gigabytes of useless stuff in the metachain that everybody has to wade through and reject?
1973 2010-12-09 22:28:58 <appamatto> gavinandresen the meta protocol is very specific and emphasizes small data size
1974 2010-12-09 22:29:20 <appamatto> There is only the app-name, the hash of the app's data block, and the backlink for each app
1975 2010-12-09 22:29:29 <appamatto> And a miner can only create one new app per block
1976 2010-12-09 22:29:48 <gavinandresen> appamatto: ok, so what stops a griefer injecting millions of tiny name/hash/backlinks into the metachain?
1977 2010-12-09 22:29:49 <appamatto> also apps you aren't concerned with are completely forgettable
1978 2010-12-09 22:30:02 <appamatto> andresen, again, you can only create one app per block
1979 2010-12-09 22:30:10 <appamatto> so you'd have to mine a million blocks to do that
1980 2010-12-09 22:30:16 <gavinandresen> ok, so what stops a griefer from creating millions of apps?
1981 2010-12-09 22:30:45 <appamatto> I don't know, why don't you just generate a million bitcoin blocks and tell me what's stopping you?
1982 2010-12-09 22:31:04 <appamatto> How about: the lifetime of human civilization?
1983 2010-12-09 22:31:47 <gavinandresen> appamatto: ok, now I'm completely confused. What's in a metachain block? And how many are created per hour?
1984 2010-12-09 22:32:03 <appamatto> this can be tweaked, but let's say it's once every ten minutes
1985 2010-12-09 22:32:15 mtgox has joined
1986 2010-12-09 22:32:33 <appamatto> the content of a bitx block is a backlink to the previous block, and (app-name, app-data-hash, app-backlink) for each app
1987 2010-12-09 22:32:51 <gavinandresen> "for each app" -- how many apps are there?
1988 2010-12-09 22:32:57 <appamatto> 0
1989 2010-12-09 22:33:03 <appamatto> at the beginning
1990 2010-12-09 22:33:12 <appamatto> Miners can "mine" a new app each block
1991 2010-12-09 22:33:24 <appamatto> This can be modified to once every thousand blocks or whatever
1992 2010-12-09 22:34:49 <gavinandresen> Ok, so there are a limited number of apps. And miners don't HAVE to include any particular app in their blocks?
1993 2010-12-09 22:34:54 <appamatto> yes
1994 2010-12-09 22:35:27 GrantBitCoin has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1995 2010-12-09 22:35:28 <appamatto> but they probably will because it's free and general comes with rewards for each app
1996 2010-12-09 22:35:39 <appamatto> in* general
1997 2010-12-09 22:36:33 <nanotube> appamatto: but who verifies the integrity of the app chains themselves?
1998 2010-12-09 22:37:06 <appamatto> miners that care about that app
1999 2010-12-09 22:37:12 <midnightmagic> is there some kind of transaction list somewhere that I can spelunk? At this point I have no idea what's in my wallet, what's mature, what isn't, and even whether someone has sent me any bitcoins.. how do I get a summary? it looks like bitcoind rotated debug.log or something..
2000 2010-12-09 22:37:49 <appamatto> nanotube, the app chains do not have to be coherent to be included in the bitx meta-chain
2001 2010-12-09 22:38:05 <nanotube> yes... which means they are useless, if they are not coherent.
2002 2010-12-09 22:38:15 <nanotube> e.g., say one of the apps running on bitx is... bitcoin itself.
2003 2010-12-09 22:38:31 <appamatto> nanotube again, each app chain has its own idea of validity
2004 2010-12-09 22:38:39 <appamatto> and these are expressed in the app chain backlinks
2005 2010-12-09 22:38:44 <gavinandresen> appamatto: thanks, I'm starting to understand. By the way, you don't need (app-name, app-data-hash, app-backlink) -- just a list of hashes should do, since hashes can easily be unique across apps....
2006 2010-12-09 22:38:49 <kiba> I am auctioning character space
2007 2010-12-09 22:39:06 <gavinandresen> (gotta go, talk to y'all later)
2008 2010-12-09 22:39:14 <nanotube> gavinandresen: o/ :)
2009 2010-12-09 22:39:17 <appamatto> later!
2010 2010-12-09 22:39:18 <appamatto> thanks!
2011 2010-12-09 22:39:39 <kiba> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1929.msg28537#msg28537
2012 2010-12-09 22:40:19 <appamatto> nanotube, there is a method of rejection for bitcoin-on-bitx that is distinct from the rejection of a bitx block itself
2013 2010-12-09 22:40:39 GrantBitCoin has joined
2014 2010-12-09 22:40:47 <kiba> who want to be in the picture?
2015 2010-12-09 22:41:29 <appamatto> nanotube, let me ask you this: what happens when I'm a bitcoin client and I come to you with the claim that I have the 1,000,000th block?
2016 2010-12-09 22:46:25 Zarutian has joined
2017 2010-12-09 22:47:18 <xelister> appamatto: we beat you up with metal clubs
2018 2010-12-09 22:48:04 <davux> :D
2019 2010-12-09 22:48:40 <davux> appamatto: same as with any claim-to-have: show it!
2020 2010-12-09 22:49:42 <davux> moreover, any client that doesn't have block #999,999 won't accept it, I guess
2021 2010-12-09 22:50:16 <davux> so what will happen is that you'll just feel very lonely
2022 2010-12-09 22:51:49 <appamatto> davux, I can give you 999,999 as well :p
2023 2010-12-09 22:52:09 <appamatto> Actually I just thought of an attack; let me know if you've thought of this before
2024 2010-12-09 22:52:25 <davux> appamatto: same thing, until you give me last block I know + 1
2025 2010-12-09 22:52:44 <davux> and then, if it's working mathematically, you won
2026 2010-12-09 22:52:51 <davux> otherwise, i won't accept it either
2027 2010-12-09 22:53:25 <appamatto> Basically I fork from the genesis block. I generate on my farm, producing a block every minute, but I fudge the timestamps so that the difficulty never rises
2028 2010-12-09 22:53:52 <davux> appamatto: there's the value of several known blocks embedded in bitcoin client
2029 2010-12-09 22:54:12 <appamatto> davux, checkpoints or something?
2030 2010-12-09 22:54:13 <midnightmagic> the chain would be invalid without any confirmations wouldn'tit?
2031 2010-12-09 22:54:18 <davux> exactly
2032 2010-12-09 22:54:25 <appamatto> ohh nice
2033 2010-12-09 22:54:30 <ArtForz> appamatto: yes, dozens of people thought of that
2034 2010-12-09 22:54:33 <appamatto> hehe
2035 2010-12-09 22:54:59 <appamatto> so the best you could do is do that from the last checkpoint
2036 2010-12-09 22:55:06 <ArtForz> best chain is highets sum(difficulty) not highest #blocks
2037 2010-12-09 22:55:22 <appamatto> oo, very nice
2038 2010-12-09 22:55:37 <appamatto> thanks
2039 2010-12-09 22:56:03 <xelister> guys?
2040 2010-12-09 22:56:09 <xelister> what would happened if someone would do like
2041 2010-12-09 22:56:11 <xelister> ab -c 2 -v 2 -n 100 http://mastercard.com/
2042 2010-12-09 22:56:14 <xelister> or something
2043 2010-12-09 22:56:43 <xelister> btw police arrested 16 year old guy that is allagedly (co)responsible for organizing attack on mastercard
2044 2010-12-09 22:59:21 darrob has joined
2045 2010-12-09 23:02:16 <kiba> blah
2046 2010-12-09 23:02:18 gavinandresen has left ()
2047 2010-12-09 23:02:20 <kiba> I have no sympathy for anonymous
2048 2010-12-09 23:02:22 <kiba> they are a mob
2049 2010-12-09 23:02:30 <ArtForz> 1. pull stupid stunt 2. get caught 3. ??? 4. profit
2050 2010-12-09 23:04:07 <xelister> 3. become gay
2051 2010-12-09 23:08:14 <midnightmagic> okay.. let me rephrase.. is it possible to retrieve the list of prior transactions in my bitcoin installation without using the GUI?
2052 2010-12-09 23:14:43 <donpdonp> midnightmagic: check the json api docs
2053 2010-12-09 23:15:06 bertodsera_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2054 2010-12-09 23:16:34 <midnightmagic> ah, perfect. thank you.. i will readjust my assumptions about the bitcoind cli interface.
2055 2010-12-09 23:19:23 <appamatto> ArtForz, is checkpointing necessary if the chain is based on sum(difficulty)?
2056 2010-12-09 23:19:32 <ArtForz> no
2057 2010-12-09 23:21:18 <ArtForz> afaict checkpointing is a solution in search of a problem
2058 2010-12-09 23:21:26 OneFixt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2059 2010-12-09 23:21:31 <appamatto> I thought about how DNS would work with a block chain
2060 2010-12-09 23:21:41 <appamatto> I don't think mining and permanent ownership makes sense for names
2061 2010-12-09 23:21:57 OneFixt has joined
2062 2010-12-09 23:21:57 OneFixt has quit (Changing host)
2063 2010-12-09 23:21:57 OneFixt has joined
2064 2010-12-09 23:22:03 <appamatto> I think you mine claims to a name, and whoever has the most claims "wins"
2065 2010-12-09 23:22:23 <appamatto> So that way you can retake lost names, overrule squatters, etc.
2066 2010-12-09 23:22:53 <midnightmagic> wow that would suck..
2067 2010-12-09 23:23:32 <appamatto> It also smooths domain acquisition: instead of 1 block = 50 names or some other, 1 block would be 50 claims and these could be applied to names and sold
2068 2010-12-09 23:23:38 <appamatto> midnightmagic, which part?
2069 2010-12-09 23:23:55 <midnightmagic> the part where someone with a datacentre could overrule my claim to a domain name.
2070 2010-12-09 23:24:42 <appamatto> Hmm, it seems better than permanent ownership
2071 2010-12-09 23:25:13 <appamatto> I always thought that the name market was ridiculous
2072 2010-12-09 23:26:33 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2073 2010-12-09 23:26:53 <kiba> that sound bad, appamatto
2074 2010-12-09 23:26:57 <midnightmagic> the problem can probably be better-solved by simply replacing the antiquated centralized name system with something that allows a network as a whole to overlay authority overtop the old one (so you can still lookup the old system while gradually supplanting it--wherever conflict, take the new system as authoritative.
2075 2010-12-09 23:27:28 <kiba> I don't want somebody overruling the domain name I purchased
2076 2010-12-09 23:28:10 <midnightmagic> i would love to overrule your domain names so my overlay doesn't have to see them. *(pretending to be talking to all the domain-squatters and speculators out there.)
2077 2010-12-09 23:28:42 <ArtForz> domain squatting is a problem because the rules are fucked
2078 2010-12-09 23:28:44 <appamatto> Think about how we use names in real life. That guy John you met in elementary school doesn't own "John" forever. Eventually you meet a more relevant John
2079 2010-12-09 23:29:07 <kiba> appamatto: certainity have value in the world
2080 2010-12-09 23:29:14 <appamatto> I think a name system should be engaged in applying names to the most appropriate owners
2081 2010-12-09 23:29:26 * kiba thinks it's a bad idea
2082 2010-12-09 23:29:49 OneFixt has joined
2083 2010-12-09 23:29:49 OneFixt has quit (Changing host)
2084 2010-12-09 23:29:49 OneFixt has joined
2085 2010-12-09 23:29:54 <appamatto> Squatting would be much, much worse in an absolute system
2086 2010-12-09 23:29:57 <midnightmagic> domain squatting is a problem because domain names are inexpensive. but then I guess I'm including domain-spamming-speculators in the mix of dns undesirables with my comments.
2087 2010-12-09 23:30:22 <kiba> an absolute system is more predictable
2088 2010-12-09 23:30:45 <appamatto> The owner of genesis+1 of bitdns would snag like google, microsoft, sex, xxx, and 46 others
2089 2010-12-09 23:31:00 <appamatto> It just doesn't make sense
2090 2010-12-09 23:31:25 <kiba> make sense to me
2091 2010-12-09 23:31:55 scibotic has joined
2092 2010-12-09 23:31:55 scibotic has quit (Changing host)
2093 2010-12-09 23:31:55 scibotic has joined
2094 2010-12-09 23:31:57 <kiba> as long as I don't have to have to deal with a fucktard human judge.
2095 2010-12-09 23:32:26 <kiba> and I know how the rule work
2096 2010-12-09 23:32:31 <scibotic> With the MyBitcoin button, what is baggage data?
2097 2010-12-09 23:32:45 <kiba> what is a baggage data?
2098 2010-12-09 23:33:58 <kiba> I will have none of this nonsense
2099 2010-12-09 23:34:23 <appamatto> It basically makes any name purchaseable for the right price
2100 2010-12-09 23:34:58 <kiba> no, I will not play with a system that can take my domain name just because some asshole pay for it
2101 2010-12-09 23:35:01 <kiba> higher
2102 2010-12-09 23:35:07 <midnightmagic> ;;bc,calc 14900
2103 2010-12-09 23:35:08 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 14900 Khps, given current difficulty of 12252.03471156 , is 5 weeks, 5 days, 21 hours, 1 minute, and 23 seconds
2104 2010-12-09 23:35:12 <appamatto> You could even mine claims for "google" and then sell them to google for additional security
2105 2010-12-09 23:35:15 <kiba> I gottach be able to predict
2106 2010-12-09 23:35:20 <kiba> when my domain are going to expire
2107 2010-12-09 23:35:20 <ArtForz> "nice name you got there, shame if somebody were to grab it from you"
2108 2010-12-09 23:35:27 <appamatto> ArtForz hehe
2109 2010-12-09 23:36:01 <scibotic> What do you earn from generating a block again?
2110 2010-12-09 23:36:03 <kiba> it's most fucktard idea
2111 2010-12-09 23:36:09 <kiba> domain coins
2112 2010-12-09 23:36:28 <ArtForz> imo each name should have a initial and a ongoing cost
2113 2010-12-09 23:36:32 <appamatto> Wow, no one likes this one
2114 2010-12-09 23:36:36 <kiba> which can be spent on registering a new domain or change details, or pay for rent
2115 2010-12-09 23:36:42 <doublec> ;bc,calc 150000
2116 2010-12-09 23:36:48 <doublec> ;;bc,calc 150000
2117 2010-12-09 23:36:48 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 150000 Khps, given current difficulty of 12252.03471156 , is 4 days, 1 hour, 26 minutes, and 53 seconds
2118 2010-12-09 23:36:53 <kiba> appamatto: yes, it's called violating the certainity principle
2119 2010-12-09 23:37:21 <appamatto> I think "kiba" would be very easy to protect
2120 2010-12-09 23:37:26 <midnightmagic> appamatto: and by "no one" it is of course four people in an IRC chat room.. so keep that part in mind too.
2121 2010-12-09 23:38:04 <kiba> what if some rich fucktard decide to say "I want this one!"
2122 2010-12-09 23:38:10 theymos has joined
2123 2010-12-09 23:39:05 <kiba> humans. I hate humans. their judgement are consistently poor, clouded by emotional baggage, idealogical baggage.
2124 2010-12-09 23:40:05 <midnightmagic> i love humans as a race. i just think there are a lot of people who need help.
2125 2010-12-09 23:40:22 <slush_cz1> ;;bc,calc 560000
2126 2010-12-09 23:40:22 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 560000 Khps, given current difficulty of 12252.03471156 , is 1 day, 2 hours, 6 minutes, and 8 seconds
2127 2010-12-09 23:40:46 <midnightmagic> Norman Borlaug, in my opinion, redeemed every killer, every despot, and pretty much every war, ever.
2128 2010-12-09 23:40:48 <theymos> It is my greatest hope that super-intelligent AIs will take over soon.
2129 2010-12-09 23:41:15 <ArtForz> ahh, singularity ;)
2130 2010-12-09 23:41:44 <kiba> let b ecome super-intelligent human beings!
2131 2010-12-09 23:42:26 <midnightmagic> we can't even define what consciousness is, and we're finding quantum-level structures in the brain that are a complete mystery. a thinking machine in the human sense is a long, long ways off.
2132 2010-12-09 23:43:06 <ArtForz> might be a long long ways off
2133 2010-12-09 23:43:23 <ArtForz> or might be discovered tomorrow, because we still simply don't know what it takes
2134 2010-12-09 23:44:36 <slush_cz1> Hey, is there somebody who can help me with little endian and big endian stuff? I spent a lot of time on that and still don't undestand that well.
2135 2010-12-09 23:45:28 <slush_cz1> Is that all about reversing bit order?
2136 2010-12-09 23:45:37 <slush_cz1> 11111100 00001111 => 11110000 00111111
2137 2010-12-09 23:45:37 <ArtForz> byte order
2138 2010-12-09 23:45:37 <slush_cz1> ?
2139 2010-12-09 23:46:01 <ArtForz> 11111100 00001111 -> 00001111 11111100
2140 2010-12-09 23:46:19 <slush_cz1> Oh, well! So bytes are the same, but swapped?
2141 2010-12-09 23:46:25 <ArtForz> yep
2142 2010-12-09 23:46:26 <ArtForz> for 4 bytes 1 2 3 4 -> 4 3 2 1
2143 2010-12-09 23:46:49 <ArtForz> unless you have some REALLY weird old arch
2144 2010-12-09 23:46:55 <slush_cz1> wow, that is such easy :) I read different C examples how to switch that and it looked much more complicated ;)
2145 2010-12-09 23:47:01 <kiba> weeee!
2146 2010-12-09 23:47:04 <kiba> we broke record
2147 2010-12-09 23:47:10 <ArtForz> little endian = least significant byte first, big endian = most significant byte first
2148 2010-12-09 23:47:12 <kiba> 415 posts in just ONE DAY
2149 2010-12-09 23:47:41 <slush_cz1> kiba: I'm glad I helped to this record with my stupid question ;)
2150 2010-12-09 23:47:46 <slush_cz1> ArtForz: Thanks a lot
2151 2010-12-09 23:48:08 <ArtForz> and yes, byteswapping a 32-bit value in C usually looks ugly
2152 2010-12-09 23:48:16 <kiba> yesterday, we also broke record, slush_cz1
2153 2010-12-09 23:49:04 <ArtForz> hehehe
2154 2010-12-09 23:50:10 <slush_cz1> ArtForz: But when I have 256bit value (say...umm... sha256 hash? ;) I should go byte by byte and swap that as you described above, right?
2155 2010-12-09 23:51:03 <ArtForz> for sha256 each dword is swapped seperatley
2156 2010-12-09 23:51:52 <midnightmagic> ;;bc,calc 1200
2157 2010-12-09 23:51:52 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 1200 Khps, given current difficulty of 12252.03471156 , is 1 year, 20 weeks, 2 days, 13 hours, 2 minutes, and 20 seconds
2158 2010-12-09 23:52:01 <ArtForz> dword = 4 bytes
2159 2010-12-09 23:52:45 <AAA_awright> kiba: We're working on a decentralized DNS naming mechanism in ##dns-p2p... dot-p2p wants to use a centralized service but a p2p resolver, we are looking to implement a name allocation procedure that doesn't use any central services
2160 2010-12-09 23:52:48 <slush_cz1> oh, pretty logic; cannot be easier, right? :)
2161 2010-12-09 23:52:58 <ArtForz> yep
2162 2010-12-09 23:53:03 <midnightmagic> ;;bc,calc 14752
2163 2010-12-09 23:53:04 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 14752 Khps, given current difficulty of 12252.03471156 , is 5 weeks, 6 days, 6 hours, 51 minutes, and 55 seconds
2164 2010-12-09 23:53:13 <slush_cz1> ArtForz: Thanks, I will try to implement somehow
2165 2010-12-09 23:53:31 <ArtForz> ;;bc,calc 15800000
2166 2010-12-09 23:53:32 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 15800000 Khps, given current difficulty of 12252.03471156 , is 55 minutes and 30 seconds
2167 2010-12-09 23:53:45 <kiba> AAA_awright: go away, n00b!
2168 2010-12-09 23:54:00 <AAA_awright> o.o
2169 2010-12-09 23:54:30 <kiba> blah, they didn't listen to bitcoiner the first time
2170 2010-12-09 23:54:37 <kiba> why would they listen to us now?
2171 2010-12-09 23:54:42 <theymos> The Bitcoin DNS designs will probably have a decentralized allocation structure and centralized resolvers.
2172 2010-12-09 23:55:07 pr0wler has joined
2173 2010-12-09 23:55:09 <AAA_awright> Which is the exact opposite (and a good match for) dot-p2p
2174 2010-12-09 23:55:48 <kiba> I would like to act as my own resolver
2175 2010-12-09 23:56:05 <AAA_awright> http://dnsp2p.gp5st.com/w/index.php?title=Allocation_problem
2176 2010-12-09 23:56:05 GrantBitCoin has quit ()
2177 2010-12-09 23:56:33 <theymos> kiba: Do you resolve your own DNS queries now?
2178 2010-12-09 23:57:40 <appamatto> theymos, did you hear teh claims idea?
2179 2010-12-09 23:57:44 <kiba> no, but I would like to
2180 2010-12-09 23:57:55 <kiba> if I can put my lentency next to zero, it owuld be awesome
2181 2010-12-09 23:58:19 <kiba> but ya know, I tried dns caching before, and it always get deleted when I boot up again
2182 2010-12-09 23:58:54 <theymos> appamatto: No. What is the idea?
2183 2010-12-09 23:59:30 <slush_cz1> ArtForz: How much mhash/s does one of your 5970, please?
2184 2010-12-09 23:59:47 <ArtForz> average about 625