1 2010-12-22 00:00:13 <ArtForz> so instead of completely infeasible it's completely infeasible
2 2010-12-22 00:00:17 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: your pool impl is fucked.
3 2010-12-22 00:00:34 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: I don't know why it just submit such old task
4 2010-12-22 00:00:48 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: 41 out of 46 blocks were valid, yet I know all 46 were
5 2010-12-22 00:01:01 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: you're losing remembered headers somewhere
6 2010-12-22 00:01:04 <slush_cz1> I already will remember posted hash, even if solution you proposed; I don't think remembering is the problem
7 2010-12-22 00:01:16 <Diablo-D3> whats your databackend?
8 2010-12-22 00:01:35 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: It was working with older version of your miner, it is working with m0mchil and jgarzik
9 2010-12-22 00:01:41 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: So I don't think so
10 2010-12-22 00:01:58 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: yes, but look at my miner, nothing in it has changed like that
11 2010-12-22 00:02:05 <slush_cz1> And I see megabytes of logs for people which are doing it correctly
12 2010-12-22 00:02:30 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: Now I tried newer version and I see we both have incorrect submits
13 2010-12-22 00:03:07 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: I have another job now, but I will debug it precisely on my dev site, where is not traffic
14 2010-12-22 00:03:30 <slush_cz1> It is impossible to debug anything when it is one request from thousands
15 2010-12-22 00:04:39 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: This error means that a) job was not found b) I have different result from recounting hash with the same source data
16 2010-12-22 00:04:52 <slush_cz1> As I think about b) is true
17 2010-12-22 00:05:10 <slush_cz1> because on dev I definitely see you are asking to small amount of getworks, so this will not be an issue
18 2010-12-22 00:05:31 Myckel has quit (Quit: Ik ga weg)
19 2010-12-22 00:06:30 <slush_cz1> But I have to go into one failed request and find why the fuck hashes are different
20 2010-12-22 00:06:40 * Diablo-D3 adds an extra paranoia step to see if it fixes it
21 2010-12-22 00:06:40 <slush_cz1> But as I said, it never happen before for me
22 2010-12-22 00:07:12 StrangeCharm has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
23 2010-12-22 00:08:22 <slush_cz1> To be absolutely honest, I aften (say 1x per one or two hours) see this error in logs from the beginning. But I expect people just try to submit trash
24 2010-12-22 00:08:34 <slush_cz1> This is absolutely different rate
25 2010-12-22 00:09:41 * slush_cz1 must make detection which workers use which miner
26 2010-12-22 00:10:18 <xelister> slush_cz1: what is this allaged problem with Diablo's miner? since which version? Fixed now?
27 2010-12-22 00:10:22 <xelister> btw, Diablo-D3: so, liked vid?
28 2010-12-22 00:10:24 <newsham> Diablo-D3: oh, come on, I'm sure an exceptional idiot can come up with a mining pool that is attackable.
29 2010-12-22 00:10:32 <newsham> (with all due respect to anyone who has written a mining pool)
30 2010-12-22 00:10:49 <slush_cz1> xelister: I experienced some problems with last release, but we don't know details yet
31 2010-12-22 00:10:53 <newsham> to say that the only attack against anything remotely related to bitcoin is going to be to mine is silly.
32 2010-12-22 00:11:12 <slush_cz1> xelister: We even don't know if it is bug on miner side or pool side
33 2010-12-22 00:13:04 <Diablo-D3> xelister: url again?
34 2010-12-22 00:13:24 <Diablo-D3> xelister: basically, slush_cz1's pool remembers headers he handed out
35 2010-12-22 00:13:36 <Diablo-D3> xelister: my miner is somehow returning out of date, yet valid, headers
36 2010-12-22 00:13:44 <Diablo-D3> xelister: he remembers the last ten
37 2010-12-22 00:13:51 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: As I proposed, maybe this is not the only scenario
38 2010-12-22 00:14:01 <Diablo-D3> xelister: yet my miner, internally, only remembers 1 (technically 2, but the old one is flushed out every 1/60th of a second)
39 2010-12-22 00:14:45 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: How large nonce can be?
40 2010-12-22 00:14:55 <slush_cz1> its 32bit number, right?
41 2010-12-22 00:14:57 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: 32 bits, its the 20th int.
42 2010-12-22 00:15:03 <Diablo-D3> the other 19 I dont touch.
43 2010-12-22 00:15:19 <slush_cz1> that's same like I do
44 2010-12-22 00:15:55 * Kiba dreams about bitcoin
45 2010-12-22 00:17:13 <BoBeR> really
46 2010-12-22 00:17:21 <BoBeR> i have not had a bitcoin dream yet
47 2010-12-22 00:18:35 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: I'm busy now. Could you add a notice to your thread near download link that here may be a problem with working on the pool?
48 2010-12-22 00:18:51 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: I will do it asap, but definitely not today and yesterday
49 2010-12-22 00:18:59 <slush_cz1> oh, tomorrow :-D
50 2010-12-22 00:19:01 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: I'm still trying to verify its not my miner
51 2010-12-22 00:19:14 <Diablo-D3> if this new paranoia fix fixes it, then it was my miner
52 2010-12-22 00:19:35 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: On my side, I'm doing only re-hashing. I don't even work with nonce anyhow
53 2010-12-22 00:20:11 <newsham> so does your miner pool partition the search space amoung users to prevent duplicate work?
54 2010-12-22 00:20:19 * slush_cz1 have to definitely buy gifts tomorrow
55 2010-12-22 00:20:26 <Diablo-D3> newsham: he uses bitcoin itself to create new hashes
56 2010-12-22 00:20:33 <Diablo-D3> newsham: er, headers
57 2010-12-22 00:20:36 <Diablo-D3> and new headers are never reused
58 2010-12-22 00:20:51 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: well, obviously you need to use the nonce from the client
59 2010-12-22 00:21:14 <slush_cz1> I use, but not modify anything
60 2010-12-22 00:22:07 <slush_cz1> I still keep in mind it worked until now and still works with other miners.
61 2010-12-22 00:22:14 <newsham> diablo: hmm.. so you could in theory search way more than difficulty*2^32 hashes and still not come up with a soln.
62 2010-12-22 00:22:15 <slush_cz1> I massively tested mainly yours and m0mchils
63 2010-12-22 00:22:20 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: well, let this run for 50
64 2010-12-22 00:22:25 <Diablo-D3> newsham: yes.
65 2010-12-22 00:22:36 <Diablo-D3> newsham: I can hit nonce saturation and not hit the target
66 2010-12-22 00:22:58 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: what 'this'?
67 2010-12-22 00:23:10 <Diablo-D3> newsham: miners automatically detect this, and force a getwork update
68 2010-12-22 00:23:27 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: the paranoia fix I'm trying out
69 2010-12-22 00:23:40 <slush_cz1> binaries on site?
70 2010-12-22 00:23:44 <Diablo-D3> not yet
71 2010-12-22 00:23:46 <newsham> are the mining pools open src?
72 2010-12-22 00:23:50 <Diablo-D3> newsham: no.
73 2010-12-22 00:24:11 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: I replaced the long named pulled in getworkParser with an AtomicLong
74 2010-12-22 00:24:54 <slush_cz1> this thing was there from beginning or you modified it recently?
75 2010-12-22 00:25:01 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: its quite possible the check that does (executor's pulled != network thread's pulled) was seeing an old pulled
76 2010-12-22 00:25:11 <Diablo-D3> yes, pulled has been there forever
77 2010-12-22 00:25:19 <slush_cz1> hmm
78 2010-12-22 00:25:20 <Diablo-D3> but the network thread might be mucking it up
79 2010-12-22 00:25:24 <xelister> Diablo-D3: ok, does it have any effect on non-pooled miners? i.e. normal diablo miner with bitcoind on same box
80 2010-12-22 00:25:29 <slush_cz1> i hope so :)
81 2010-12-22 00:25:40 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: so, the executor thread is holding onto an out of date getwork
82 2010-12-22 00:25:40 <xelister> Diablo-D3: http://wikileaks.ch/Video.html?jhgjj
83 2010-12-22 00:25:45 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: by accident
84 2010-12-22 00:25:59 <Diablo-D3> xelister: the network thread is a new thing
85 2010-12-22 00:26:27 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: This sound like it may be THE problem
86 2010-12-22 00:26:28 <Diablo-D3> xelister: instead of each executor thread managing its own getwork, I moved it to a single thread
87 2010-12-22 00:26:41 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: well, if it runs through 50 and I get no rejected blocks, then thats the fix
88 2010-12-22 00:26:42 <newsham> ooh, new rapnews out?
89 2010-12-22 00:26:57 <xelister> Diablo-D3: in the miner's version last time we talked/there was fork - is there any allaged error in it that would affect normal operation, or normal operation with bitcoind on host other then 127.0.0.1 (i.e. on other computer over internet)?
90 2010-12-22 00:27:02 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: Please update binaries. I don't have building environment for java here
91 2010-12-22 00:27:09 <Diablo-D3> xelister: so, now each executor thread gets a clone of the getwork, and keeps cloning the network thread's getwork to update
92 2010-12-22 00:27:15 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: I havent pushed the fix to git.
93 2010-12-22 00:27:31 <xelister> yeah in the before-angle versions the getwork was still in the thread of worker
94 2010-12-22 00:27:34 <Diablo-D3> xelister: the network thread didnt exist in the version you forked
95 2010-12-22 00:27:40 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: oh, you are running it against pool now?
96 2010-12-22 00:27:44 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: yes
97 2010-12-22 00:27:55 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: I only commit working code to git ;)
98 2010-12-22 00:27:56 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: great. everything perfect until now
99 2010-12-22 00:27:57 <xelister> Diablo-D3: you joined pooled mining too? oh lol.
100 2010-12-22 00:28:20 <Diablo-D3> xelister: the only reason I added the network thread to the miner was because of the pool
101 2010-12-22 00:29:00 <slush_cz1> xelister: Maybe you don't like it, but it looks like only one possibility for people without large machines.
102 2010-12-22 00:29:28 <Diablo-D3> xelister: it now does 3*GPU less requests per 5 seconds
103 2010-12-22 00:29:29 <slush_cz1> xelister: to get any bitcoin from mining ever
104 2010-12-22 00:29:41 <Diablo-D3> xelister: so, anywhere from 3 to 12 times less traffic
105 2010-12-22 00:29:51 <Diablo-D3> xelister: and the miner threads no longer halt if the latency is very high
106 2010-12-22 00:30:13 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: how many blocks now?
107 2010-12-22 00:30:14 <newsham> havng a pool of workers all working on different problems seems like it would be very inefficient compared to allw orking on the same problem (assuming each member is only searching like 1% of the space or less)
108 2010-12-22 00:30:17 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: 13.
109 2010-12-22 00:30:27 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: your difficulty is 1, right?
110 2010-12-22 00:30:30 Cusipzzz has joined
111 2010-12-22 00:30:31 <slush_cz1> right
112 2010-12-22 00:30:42 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: I do 50 H==0s in 45 minutes.
113 2010-12-22 00:30:47 Cusipzzz has quit (Client Quit)
114 2010-12-22 00:30:55 Cusipzzz has joined
115 2010-12-22 00:30:56 <newsham> if you have 100 users searching 1% of the space, there's a 37% chance none of them find a soln.
116 2010-12-22 00:31:05 <Diablo-D3> newsham: this is how bitcoin itself works, either globally or with just your own miners.
117 2010-12-22 00:31:08 <newsham> where if they were all searching the same space cooperatively it would laways find a soln
118 2010-12-22 00:31:15 <Diablo-D3> newsham: remember, we're not randomly guessing sha256s
119 2010-12-22 00:31:25 <newsham> diablo: bu tyou could write a pool of cooperative miners that all trusted each other
120 2010-12-22 00:31:25 <Diablo-D3> newsham: we have a known functional header, and it gets updated periodically
121 2010-12-22 00:31:36 <Diablo-D3> its not about trust
122 2010-12-22 00:31:40 <Diablo-D3> its about atomic communication
123 2010-12-22 00:31:41 <newsham> that broke up the search space in an orderly way
124 2010-12-22 00:31:46 <Diablo-D3> currently, this actually IS the best way
125 2010-12-22 00:31:57 <Diablo-D3> the seach space is... hrm
126 2010-12-22 00:32:00 <newsham> why is that better than partitioning the nonce space amoung users?
127 2010-12-22 00:32:18 <MT`AwAy> mh
128 2010-12-22 00:32:22 <MT`AwAy> slept too much
129 2010-12-22 00:32:57 <Diablo-D3> newsham: the search space is 2**64 merkle hash, 2**32 time, and 2**32 miner nonce
130 2010-12-22 00:33:02 <Diablo-D3> plus other shit
131 2010-12-22 00:33:10 <Diablo-D3> AND plus every 10 minutes the chain changes
132 2010-12-22 00:33:28 <newsham> oh, right, you have to start again every 10min anyway.
133 2010-12-22 00:33:45 <newsham> still, for that period of 10min, you would be better off cooperating than competing with others in the pool.
134 2010-12-22 00:33:48 <Diablo-D3> newsham: the miner nonce space, at 75 mhash, is exhausted in 1 minute
135 2010-12-22 00:33:52 <MT`AwAy> in fact each time you include a new transaction, the merkle hash changes
136 2010-12-22 00:33:58 <newsham> the server should fix the parameters and then dole them out
137 2010-12-22 00:34:11 <Diablo-D3> newsham: a 5970 does 5xx mhash, Art owns 26 worth of them.
138 2010-12-22 00:34:31 <Diablo-D3> if he, alone, tried to coordinate this, he'd need a new getwork about every 3 seconds.
139 2010-12-22 00:34:44 <Diablo-D3> which would be an absolute pita to atomically coordinate
140 2010-12-22 00:34:46 <newsham> right but in a pool made up of slower users...
141 2010-12-22 00:35:00 <newsham> you could all work on the same parameters with diff nonces for 1minute, then switch to another one.
142 2010-12-22 00:35:11 <newsham> or if you need to, pick two or three sets of parameters to dole out
143 2010-12-22 00:35:22 <newsham> still, you're going ot have a higher efficiency than if you all work on separate parameters.
144 2010-12-22 00:35:24 <Diablo-D3> newsham: but you cant atomically coordinate this
145 2010-12-22 00:35:37 <Diablo-D3> network latency is far too high
146 2010-12-22 00:35:38 <newsham> it doesnt have to be atomic. it just has to be "close enough"
147 2010-12-22 00:35:43 <Diablo-D3> close enough == waste.
148 2010-12-22 00:36:04 <Diablo-D3> close enough can also cause multiple people to have the same solution
149 2010-12-22 00:36:09 <Diablo-D3> which is 100% wrong
150 2010-12-22 00:36:15 <newsham> also, whats not atomic about getwork() -> (subspace,timeout) rpc's?
151 2010-12-22 00:36:23 <Diablo-D3> newsham: but we ARE searching a subspace
152 2010-12-22 00:36:29 <Diablo-D3> every client gets a 2**32 space to check!
153 2010-12-22 00:36:38 <newsham> you said each client is working on a differen tproblem.
154 2010-12-22 00:36:50 <newsham> with different transactions
155 2010-12-22 00:36:58 <Diablo-D3> no one said different transactions
156 2010-12-22 00:37:02 <newsham> or maybe i misunderstood something
157 2010-12-22 00:37:03 <Diablo-D3> they MAY be different, as the header gets updated
158 2010-12-22 00:37:16 <Diablo-D3> if the header construction doesnt change, the only thing that changes is the time field
159 2010-12-22 00:38:04 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: whats your current mhash/s?
160 2010-12-22 00:38:08 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: 75.
161 2010-12-22 00:38:12 <Diablo-D3> Im now on block 20
162 2010-12-22 00:38:38 <slush_cz1> still no problem
163 2010-12-22 00:38:59 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: so maybe it was my miner, I needed extra paranoia
164 2010-12-22 00:40:04 <Diablo-D3> newsham: if the block chain doesnt change, and new transactions havent been added for potential new blocks, only time changes.
165 2010-12-22 00:40:09 <newsham> i wonder when someone will set up a mining pool for a charity.
166 2010-12-22 00:40:22 <newsham> ie. effbitcoin@home or wikileaksbitcoin@home
167 2010-12-22 00:40:26 <Diablo-D3> newsham: and I can find a solution with an older time, while newer times are currently being searched
168 2010-12-22 00:40:33 <Diablo-D3> newsham: its still valid
169 2010-12-22 00:40:33 <slush_cz1> newsham: I'm planning to add perpetual donations
170 2010-12-22 00:40:51 <Diablo-D3> newsham: so, subspace is split across times.
171 2010-12-22 00:40:51 <slush_cz1> newsham: as many users suggested to me
172 2010-12-22 00:41:16 <Diablo-D3> newsham: in addition, the extranonce field is incremented once every time a new fetch happens
173 2010-12-22 00:41:31 <slush_cz1> newsham: I'm running mining pool as same as I'm running tor node exit for many years or contributing to Tahoe-LAFS with 2TB storage for free
174 2010-12-22 00:41:38 <Diablo-D3> newsham: just in case you have multiple fetches during the same second
175 2010-12-22 00:41:40 <slush_cz1> newsham: Trust me or not, I enjoy it
176 2010-12-22 00:41:51 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: btw, you only have one bitcoind running, right?
177 2010-12-22 00:41:59 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: Yes
178 2010-12-22 00:42:06 noagendamarket has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.6.13/20101203075014])
179 2010-12-22 00:42:18 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: Still enough
180 2010-12-22 00:42:18 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: when that changes, you'll have to make sure you dont hand out matching combinations of (extranonce + time)
181 2010-12-22 00:43:02 <slush_cz1> well, I think it is far in the future
182 2010-12-22 00:43:28 <Diablo-D3> 25 blocks found, none rejected yet
183 2010-12-22 00:43:39 <slush_cz1> We are on 6ghash and there is still no significant processor load
184 2010-12-22 00:43:42 <newsham> as i ran some sample numbers i'm less concerned. the subspace you're search for the limited amount of time before you switch to new parameters (ie. to work for a new block, or because you've exhausted nonce space, or what not) is so small, that trying to make it slightly larger barely affects efficiency
185 2010-12-22 00:43:57 <newsham> for that same rason, even handing out occasional dup of (nonce,time) wouldnt affect efficiency much
186 2010-12-22 00:44:01 <newsham> the odds of dups are so low.
187 2010-12-22 00:44:16 <Diablo-D3> well, its a waste of time
188 2010-12-22 00:44:23 <newsham> yah, but not by much.
189 2010-12-22 00:44:24 <necrodearia> http://please.bitcoin.me/
190 2010-12-22 00:44:36 <Diablo-D3> on a pool setup, with 2 bitcoins, you could accidently half your effective hash rate
191 2010-12-22 00:44:47 <Diablo-D3> because the extra nonce only rolls over every 2**16 iirc
192 2010-12-22 00:45:03 <slush_cz1> necrodearia: haha, great url
193 2010-12-22 00:45:10 <newsham> its the diff between choice with replacement and choice without replacement. and since the odds of picking something you threw back in the box is so low, its almost negligible.
194 2010-12-22 00:45:11 <necrodearia> ^_^ thanks
195 2010-12-22 00:45:19 <Diablo-D3> so 65k * 2 grabs per second, you half your rate
196 2010-12-22 00:45:26 <newsham> you're searching way less than 1% of the search space before you switch parameters, right?
197 2010-12-22 00:45:37 <newsham> the entire pool is that is
198 2010-12-22 00:46:28 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: I really didn't think about it. I think I will test it hardly and discuss with other people before making changes like this
199 2010-12-22 00:46:43 <Asphodelia> Beware of the birthday paradox. It probably doesn't matter even still, but I don't think your math is right.
200 2010-12-22 00:47:33 <slush_cz1> I think bitcoind itself will kepp 20ghash/s without bigger problem. This limit is far in the future
201 2010-12-22 00:47:52 <slush_cz1> pool was saturated quickly, but I don't believe too many power will come
202 2010-12-22 00:48:31 <newsham> isnt the total rate something like 62thash/s now?
203 2010-12-22 00:48:39 <slush_cz1> newsham: 110ghash
204 2010-12-22 00:48:43 <slush_cz1> +-
205 2010-12-22 00:49:33 <Kiba> OMG
206 2010-12-22 00:49:35 <Kiba> OMG
207 2010-12-22 00:49:52 <Kiba> Jeri Ellsworth registered at the bitcoin forum?
208 2010-12-22 00:50:11 <necrodearia> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeri_Ellsworth
209 2010-12-22 00:51:01 <newsham> 2**32 * 14484 / (10**9) = 4.3
210 2010-12-22 00:51:16 <newsham> (dont konhw how I got 62T before :)
211 2010-12-22 00:51:22 <necrodearia> Kiba, You first mentioned here at http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=2164.msg28421#msg28421 - What makes you think she uses Bitcoin?
212 2010-12-22 00:51:24 <BoBeR> why kiba
213 2010-12-22 00:51:26 <BoBeR> you like her
214 2010-12-22 00:51:46 <BoBeR> KIBA AND JERI sitting in a tree
215 2010-12-22 00:51:55 <BoBeR> what their doing i cant see
216 2010-12-22 00:52:04 <BoBeR> starts with an s ends with a x
217 2010-12-22 00:52:09 <necrodearia> heh http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?action=profile;u=2883
218 2010-12-22 00:52:10 <BoBeR> OMG THEIR HAVING SEX
219 2010-12-22 00:52:11 <Kiba> BoBeR: She's a hardcore hardware hacker?
220 2010-12-22 00:52:34 <BoBeR> just your reaction seems very justin beiber tween
221 2010-12-22 00:52:45 <BoBeR> <Kiba> OMG
222 2010-12-22 00:52:45 <BoBeR> <Kiba> OMG
223 2010-12-22 00:52:45 <BoBeR> <Kiba> Jeri Ellsworth registered at the bitcoin forum?
224 2010-12-22 00:52:48 <Kiba> She's twice my age
225 2010-12-22 00:52:49 <BoBeR> 2 OMGs
226 2010-12-22 00:52:51 <slush_cz1> yay, first women on the forum :)
227 2010-12-22 00:52:54 <BoBeR> so
228 2010-12-22 00:53:00 <BoBeR> whats wrong with a mil
229 2010-12-22 00:53:00 <BoBeR> f
230 2010-12-22 00:53:34 <slush_cz1> LOL
231 2010-12-22 00:53:34 <slush_cz1> Someone sent me a pointer to this thread today. The majority of this thread is disparaging toward women, so its not a big surprise to me that your ratio of men to women is very low.
232 2010-12-22 00:53:35 <slush_cz1> -Jer
233 2010-12-22 00:53:45 <theymos> Sounds like a troll.
234 2010-12-22 00:54:16 <slush_cz1> isn't forum registration confirmed against email?
235 2010-12-22 00:54:39 <theymos> That user's email is hidden.
236 2010-12-22 00:54:52 <BoBeR> admins
237 2010-12-22 00:54:58 <slush_cz1> we can ask administrators if it fits
238 2010-12-22 00:55:03 <BoBeR> we need to corrupt your privacy policy
239 2010-12-22 00:55:15 <BoBeR> it seems we have a wimin on the forum
240 2010-12-22 00:55:25 <slush_cz1> :-D
241 2010-12-22 00:55:29 <necrodearia> http://www.nntpnews.info/f2004/jeri-ellsworth-vcf-east-4-0-a-2780686/index3.html#post10599950
242 2010-12-22 00:55:34 <necrodearia> references same email
243 2010-12-22 00:56:14 <slush_cz1> Still can be a joke of somebody
244 2010-12-22 00:56:32 <slush_cz1> we cannot be sure until email is hidden
245 2010-12-22 00:56:53 <Kiba> I don't think she's that interested in bitcoin
246 2010-12-22 00:57:05 <slush_cz1> of course I'm not saying it is impossible to have women on the board :)
247 2010-12-22 00:57:09 <theymos> Does the forum validate email addresses, even? That was disabled for a while, at least.
248 2010-12-22 00:57:23 <Asphodelia> Actually, that's pretty much what my impression of the thread had been before I saw her post.
249 2010-12-22 00:57:23 <necrodearia> Perhaps start a Jeri Ellsworth fund?
250 2010-12-22 00:57:40 <necrodearia> Help encourage her to represent female bitcoin users?
251 2010-12-22 00:57:45 <Kiba> We're Sorry funds?
252 2010-12-22 00:57:55 <BoBeR> really im sure there a females on the forum
253 2010-12-22 00:58:00 <BoBeR> how do we know im not a chick
254 2010-12-22 00:58:04 <BoBeR> pretending im a guy
255 2010-12-22 00:58:04 <necrodearia> More like, "you're right, I'm an asshat, help us improve" funds.
256 2010-12-22 00:58:09 <BoBeR> because its my fetish
257 2010-12-22 00:58:34 <Kiba> we like giving bitcoins to famous figure!
258 2010-12-22 00:58:47 <Kiba> especially gal and guys who took an interest in what we said
259 2010-12-22 00:59:18 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: status?
260 2010-12-22 00:59:43 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: 43 of 43
261 2010-12-22 00:59:48 <slush_cz1> great
262 2010-12-22 00:59:55 <xelister> Diablo-D3: wathced vid?
263 2010-12-22 00:59:57 <slush_cz1> I see few users already updated
264 2010-12-22 01:00:01 <slush_cz1> ;)
265 2010-12-22 01:00:17 <slush_cz1> Nevermind, I will be happy if problem will be solved with this
266 2010-12-22 01:00:30 <Diablo-D3> xelister: lemme finish this test first
267 2010-12-22 01:00:55 <Diablo-D3> xelister: what was the url again?
268 2010-12-22 01:01:21 <Asphodelia> By the way, the command line options 'getaccountaddress' and 'getaddressesbyaccount' are very confusingly named. In particular, a function with side-effects should be called 'set' or 'getnew' or some such, not 'get'.
269 2010-12-22 01:03:00 <necrodearia> btw, Kiba, it appears since you referenced her name, she eventually stumbled upon the thread and may not have heard of Bitcoin otherwise. Perhaps if you produce similar threads of interest or controversy whilst also referencing names of famous or powerful individuals, you can additionally get their attention as well. However, I recommend producing positive or rewarding commentary so as to make such individuals interested in respo
270 2010-12-22 01:03:00 <necrodearia> nding positively rather than negatively or defensively. It may help adoption and promotion of Bitcoin by such individuals.
271 2010-12-22 01:03:13 <necrodearia> disregard the controversy suggestion
272 2010-12-22 01:03:16 <midnightmagic> Asphodelia: I'm pretty sure they would merge a patch if yo sent one in.
273 2010-12-22 01:03:33 <Diablo-D3> -f 1
274 2010-12-22 01:03:49 <Asphodelia> Really? It seems like a standard use case for don't change it because you'll break things.
275 2010-12-22 01:03:57 <Diablo-D3> if you absolutely need to rape every motherfucker in the room, accept no substitutes
276 2010-12-22 01:04:44 <midnightmagic> probably. but that's just a technical hurdle. change it, and begin versioning the interface protocol.
277 2010-12-22 01:05:10 <midnightmagic> so, let me correct my prior statement: a "good" patch if you send one in. :)
278 2010-12-22 01:08:46 <BoBeR> any one know how to make firefox plugins
279 2010-12-22 01:08:59 <BoBeR> id gladly take help on making the bitcoin one
280 2010-12-22 01:10:42 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: 50 of 50!
281 2010-12-22 01:10:51 <slush_cz1> Fantastic!
282 2010-12-22 01:10:55 <slush_cz1> Problem solved!
283 2010-12-22 01:11:04 <slush_cz1> And thank you for great coop
284 2010-12-22 01:11:50 <CIA-106> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * r397defe / src/main/java/com/diablominer/DiabloMiner/DiabloMiner.java :
285 2010-12-22 01:11:50 <CIA-106> DiabloMiner: Fixed executor threads sometimes failing to update their getworkParser
286 2010-12-22 01:11:50 <CIA-106> DiabloMiner: clone - http://bit.ly/gxBBN3
287 2010-12-22 01:12:09 * Diablo-D3 is pushing new binary
288 2010-12-22 01:12:24 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: and btw you earned almost .2 btc during test :))
289 2010-12-22 01:12:37 spm_Draget has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
290 2010-12-22 01:12:54 <Diablo-D3> lol
291 2010-12-22 01:13:03 <Diablo-D3> binary pushed
292 2010-12-22 01:15:15 spm_Draget has joined
293 2010-12-22 01:15:27 spm_Draget has left ()
294 2010-12-22 01:15:49 <slush_cz1> Updated
295 2010-12-22 01:15:51 <da2ce7> G'day
296 2010-12-22 01:16:55 <da2ce7> Diablo-D3, would you be able to add revision numbers to the DiabloMiner.zip on the forum... it would make it much easer to check if there has been a update.
297 2010-12-22 01:17:16 <Diablo-D3> da2ce7: meh, just follow the github log
298 2010-12-22 01:18:13 <da2ce7> well atm, I just compare filesize, but it is somewhat annoying.
299 2010-12-22 01:18:55 <xelister> Diablo-D3: http://wikileaks.ch/Video.html?jhgjj :[
300 2010-12-22 01:21:16 <slush_cz1> da2ce7: you updated miner now, right?
301 2010-12-22 01:21:24 <da2ce7> yep
302 2010-12-22 01:21:28 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: bad news
303 2010-12-22 01:21:38 <slush_cz1> both me and da2ce7 had the same problems
304 2010-12-22 01:21:50 <slush_cz1> I solved 29 blocks and two was bad
305 2010-12-22 01:22:01 <slush_cz1> da2ce7: did not hav bad blocks before
306 2010-12-22 01:22:08 <Diablo-D3> using the newest one?
307 2010-12-22 01:22:12 <slush_cz1> yes, both
308 2010-12-22 01:22:17 <Diablo-D3> you sure of that?
309 2010-12-22 01:22:24 <slush_cz1> seems to be related to last release
310 2010-12-22 01:22:28 <slush_cz1> yes, absolutely
311 2010-12-22 01:22:31 <da2ce7> yeah, I'be had bad blocks in both Diablo's and m0's
312 2010-12-22 01:22:35 <da2ce7> Diablo-D3's still is unstable on my computer... m0's ran overnight.
313 2010-12-22 01:22:45 <slush_cz1> I'm looking at those big players carefully :-D
314 2010-12-22 01:22:51 <Diablo-D3> da2ce7: mines perfectly usable on yours, you just keep forgetting to find an acceptable -f value
315 2010-12-22 01:23:06 <slush_cz1> da2ce7: Definitely not so often
316 2010-12-22 01:23:33 <Diablo-D3> what gpus?
317 2010-12-22 01:23:39 <slush_cz1> 5970 here
318 2010-12-22 01:23:49 <da2ce7> one 5970
319 2010-12-22 01:23:59 <da2ce7> so 2 cores
320 2010-12-22 01:24:02 <slush_cz1> yes
321 2010-12-22 01:24:53 <slush_cz1> da2ce7: You probably don't see those 'bad blocks' because miner not report them in normal mode (only on debug)
322 2010-12-22 01:25:28 <slush_cz1> but I have here big fat warning that somebody is submitting bad things
323 2010-12-22 01:25:31 <da2ce7> how often do I submit a bad bock?
324 2010-12-22 01:25:49 <slush_cz1> da2ce7: Normally no one
325 2010-12-22 01:26:00 <slush_cz1> da2ce7: From update I see few
326 2010-12-22 01:26:08 <slush_cz1> This is what we solve for two hours here
327 2010-12-22 01:26:35 Granttt has quit (Disconnected by services)
328 2010-12-22 01:26:35 Grantt has joined
329 2010-12-22 01:26:44 <Diablo-D3> it could be because you're on multiple gpus and the difficulty is so low
330 2010-12-22 01:26:50 <Diablo-D3> you're solving valid blocks in parallel
331 2010-12-22 01:26:53 <slush_cz1> say two, I'm not sure. log is so fast at 6ghash
332 2010-12-22 01:27:21 <slush_cz1> da2ce7: now the next one
333 2010-12-22 01:27:34 <da2ce7> just then?
334 2010-12-22 01:27:48 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: I don't think so.
335 2010-12-22 01:28:18 Keefe has quit (Changing host)
336 2010-12-22 01:28:18 Keefe has joined
337 2010-12-22 01:28:26 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: even you submit second block from getwork() which is older than submit from previous, block will be still valid
338 2010-12-22 01:28:35 <Diablo-D3> hrm.
339 2010-12-22 01:28:45 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: because it is not real bitcoin block, nothing change in source data
340 2010-12-22 01:29:09 <Diablo-D3> what happens when you run my miner on testnet?
341 2010-12-22 01:29:36 <slush_cz1> make a try
342 2010-12-22 01:29:52 <slush_cz1> I make a try
343 2010-12-22 01:30:10 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
344 2010-12-22 01:31:05 <slush_cz1> but I think it is different because found block on testnet will make older getwork invalid
345 2010-12-22 01:31:31 <Diablo-D3> hrm.
346 2010-12-22 01:31:41 <Diablo-D3> Im running out of solutions on this.
347 2010-12-22 01:32:01 <slush_cz1> But it probably changed with threading model somehow
348 2010-12-22 01:32:08 <slush_cz1> This does not mean I have any idea
349 2010-12-22 01:32:17 <Diablo-D3> except its correctly handling this by force
350 2010-12-22 01:32:19 <Diablo-D3> and I cant reproduce it
351 2010-12-22 01:32:30 <slush_cz1> but we both on 5970 can
352 2010-12-22 01:32:37 <Diablo-D3> absolutely make sure you're on the newest zip
353 2010-12-22 01:32:51 <slush_cz1> absolutely
354 2010-12-22 01:32:55 <Diablo-D3> -rw-r--r-- 1 diablo diablo 4915248 Dec 21 20:10 DiabloMiner.zip
355 2010-12-22 01:32:55 <slush_cz1> I re-download it already
356 2010-12-22 01:33:00 <da2ce7> diablo-d3, http://pastebin.com/9sAVhfDc
357 2010-12-22 01:33:06 * Diablo-D3 uploads it again to make sure
358 2010-12-22 01:33:20 <Diablo-D3> da2ce7: you're not on 2.1
359 2010-12-22 01:33:21 <slush_cz1> yep, same binary
360 2010-12-22 01:34:04 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: it is interesting that you had problem and it is solved for you now
361 2010-12-22 01:34:06 <slush_cz1> but not for us
362 2010-12-22 01:34:14 <da2ce7> ok installing 10.12 lets see if this works.
363 2010-12-22 01:34:44 <slush_cz1> http://adterrasperaspera.com/images/DiabloMiner.zip , correct?
364 2010-12-22 01:34:45 <da2ce7> I think that this windows needs a format
365 2010-12-22 01:35:41 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: yes
366 2010-12-22 01:35:51 <da2ce7> but I'm saving up for a SSD, dang they are expencive.
367 2010-12-22 01:35:53 <da2ce7> :S
368 2010-12-22 01:36:10 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: out of 50, how many fail?
369 2010-12-22 01:36:45 <slush_cz1> I closed the window. But think ~5
370 2010-12-22 01:37:00 <Diablo-D3> xelister: oh, this is rap the news
371 2010-12-22 01:37:26 <Diablo-D3> xelister: Ive seen this
372 2010-12-22 01:38:00 <da2ce7> yeah, i've gotta format. :S this system is getting old anyway.
373 2010-12-22 01:38:06 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: hey, can affect -w 64 something?
374 2010-12-22 01:39:09 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: I had something strange on startup, approx 20 submits of incorrect work to pool
375 2010-12-22 01:39:19 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: But I don't care if it will work next
376 2010-12-22 01:39:42 <slush_cz1> even on difficulty 1 is not normal to have so many works at once
377 2010-12-22 01:40:01 <Diablo-D3> -w cant effect it
378 2010-12-22 01:40:09 <Diablo-D3> Ive now done 71 out of 71
379 2010-12-22 01:40:24 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: remember, you're still OCing
380 2010-12-22 01:40:30 <Diablo-D3> so there might be weird shit
381 2010-12-22 01:40:51 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: btw, how do you flush attempts in your pool
382 2010-12-22 01:40:58 <Diablo-D3> because if gpu 1 finds attempt, and gpu 2 finds attempt
383 2010-12-22 01:41:01 <Diablo-D3> and 1 sent it in
384 2010-12-22 01:41:05 <Diablo-D3> and your pool flushed it
385 2010-12-22 01:41:09 <Diablo-D3> 2 sends it in, and fails
386 2010-12-22 01:43:20 <slush_cz1> oh, you are splitting the work for more threads??
387 2010-12-22 01:43:24 <slush_cz1> Oh yes!
388 2010-12-22 01:43:36 <slush_cz1> Thats fucking problem
389 2010-12-22 01:43:51 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: yes, single work, split between ALL executors
390 2010-12-22 01:43:52 <slush_cz1> I HAVE TO remove job when worker send a solution of it
391 2010-12-22 01:44:01 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: dont remove the job
392 2010-12-22 01:44:02 <slush_cz1> because of doublespending
393 2010-12-22 01:44:08 <Diablo-D3> er, oh.
394 2010-12-22 01:44:09 <Diablo-D3> well
395 2010-12-22 01:44:11 <Diablo-D3> you're doomed then
396 2010-12-22 01:44:28 <slush_cz1> that's it, we are at home
397 2010-12-22 01:44:35 <da2ce7> how can you double spend?
398 2010-12-22 01:44:45 <slush_cz1> da2ce7: send same solution over and over
399 2010-12-22 01:45:09 <da2ce7> but won't they have diffent nounce's
400 2010-12-22 01:45:10 <slush_cz1> I can make ugly hack
401 2010-12-22 01:45:27 <slush_cz1> da2ce7: yes, I can register nonces and accept only different ones
402 2010-12-22 01:45:44 <slush_cz1> But I have to go now, 3am here and I'm standing up at 7
403 2010-12-22 01:45:51 <da2ce7> ok
404 2010-12-22 01:46:01 <slush_cz1> da2ce7: So please downgrade for now
405 2010-12-22 01:46:08 <da2ce7> ok
406 2010-12-22 01:46:08 <Diablo-D3> dont downgrade
407 2010-12-22 01:46:10 <slush_cz1> I will make on it tomorrow, definitely
408 2010-12-22 01:46:12 <Diablo-D3> just suffer through it
409 2010-12-22 01:46:14 <Diablo-D3> it should be rare
410 2010-12-22 01:46:23 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: Not so rare as expected :(
411 2010-12-22 01:46:27 <slush_cz1> Guys, thanks, I have to go
412 2010-12-22 01:46:35 <slush_cz1> I'll handle this sometimes
413 2010-12-22 01:46:40 <slush_cz1> ...somehow
414 2010-12-22 01:47:26 <Diablo-D3> well
415 2010-12-22 01:47:34 <Diablo-D3> keeping track of already used nonces are fine
416 2010-12-22 01:47:42 <Diablo-D3> just use a 10 depth queue for the store
417 2010-12-22 01:47:52 <Diablo-D3> of the headers I mean
418 2010-12-22 01:48:00 <Diablo-D3> so after 10 gets, you cant use old headers anymore
419 2010-12-22 01:48:29 <Diablo-D3> and allow accepting new solutions on <10 headers by keeping track of nonces (also, 10 depth)
420 2010-12-22 01:48:39 <Diablo-D3> so you only have to keep track of, at most, 100 items per miner
421 2010-12-22 01:50:08 pr0wler has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
422 2010-12-22 01:50:59 pr0wler has joined
423 2010-12-22 02:11:39 sgornick has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
424 2010-12-22 02:12:53 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
425 2010-12-22 02:13:32 sgornick has joined
426 2010-12-22 02:30:44 fabianhjr has joined
427 2010-12-22 02:30:50 <fabianhjr> Hi, sup?
428 2010-12-22 02:32:23 maximi89 has joined
429 2010-12-22 02:35:35 <Asphodelia> How bad would it be if the number of transactions on the network were to increase by a couple orders of magnitude?
430 2010-12-22 02:37:31 <Diablo-D3> no one would notice.
431 2010-12-22 02:39:51 <Asphodelia> So then my second question is: would it improve anonymity if all transactions were capped at 1BTC, and larger transfers were translated transparently by the software into many small ones?
432 2010-12-22 02:40:04 <Diablo-D3> nope
433 2010-12-22 02:40:15 <Diablo-D3> although what you really want is a bitcoin mixer
434 2010-12-22 02:40:34 <Asphodelia> Yes, that it what I want.
435 2010-12-22 02:40:37 <Asphodelia> *is
436 2010-12-22 02:40:39 <tcatm> We have mtgox ;)
437 2010-12-22 02:41:11 <Asphodelia> But what I *really* really want is the mixer to be built in to bitcoin, so that you don't have to trust a central authority to do your mixing.
438 2010-12-22 02:43:15 <Diablo-D3> Asphodelia: the centrality is what makes it mix
439 2010-12-22 02:43:23 <Diablo-D3> people keep sending to a known address
440 2010-12-22 02:43:24 <sgornick> Asphodelia: Multi-mixer, ... first stop, http://MyBitcoin.com then http://mtgox.com then http://bitcoinlaundry.com/
441 2010-12-22 02:43:35 <Diablo-D3> it gets shunted through few internal random only used once addresses
442 2010-12-22 02:43:39 <Diablo-D3> in all weird amounts
443 2010-12-22 02:43:49 <Diablo-D3> and then mixes it with coins of other peopke's
444 2010-12-22 02:43:52 <Diablo-D3> and then shunts it back to you
445 2010-12-22 02:43:57 <Asphodelia> I still feel like it should be possible to have a decentralized mixer.
446 2010-12-22 02:44:13 <Asphodelia> And that, if that's possible, that it should be built in to the protocol.
447 2010-12-22 02:44:26 <Asphodelia> Do you at least agree with the subjunctive?
448 2010-12-22 02:45:38 <Diablo-D3> its not useful.
449 2010-12-22 02:46:18 <Asphodelia> Really? Why not?
450 2010-12-22 02:46:28 <sgornick> Asphodelia: Don't know if this helps ... but if you aren't ware of this, here you go: https://github.com/FellowTraveler/Open-Transactions
451 2010-12-22 02:46:30 <Diablo-D3> because you need the central system to make it useful
452 2010-12-22 02:46:34 <Diablo-D3> you need OTHER people's coins to mix with
453 2010-12-22 02:46:37 <Diablo-D3> otherwise its not a mixer
454 2010-12-22 02:47:09 <Asphodelia> Hence the subjunctive. *If* a decentralized mixer that actually mixes turns out to be possible, *then* that should be a standard part of bitcoin.
455 2010-12-22 02:47:26 <Asphodelia> After all, it turned out to be possible to have a decentralized currency. :)
456 2010-12-22 02:55:28 <Asphodelia> And more so, what I want isn't really a mixer in the sense of passing through as many nodes as possible in the hopes that one of them will choose to keep your secret. I just... have a sense that more is possible.
457 2010-12-22 02:59:52 Lysacor has joined
458 2010-12-22 03:01:37 <Lysacor> Diablo, don't know if you are there, and I am sure you have better things to do than support winblows for your applet, but you have any idea why the java process would outright crash after about 5-10 seconds connection to the server?
459 2010-12-22 03:02:13 <Diablo-D3> its not an applet.
460 2010-12-22 03:02:23 <Diablo-D3> Lysacor: pastebin the error.
461 2010-12-22 03:02:32 <Diablo-D3> I suspect its because you didnt setup something right
462 2010-12-22 03:02:39 Cusipzzz has left ()
463 2010-12-22 03:03:18 <Lysacor> I wouldn't doubt it, yeah lemme get that pastebin for ya.
464 2010-12-22 03:03:35 <kupo> hey all long time no talk
465 2010-12-22 03:03:55 <kupo> I like how all the recent WL drama has elevated bitcoins recognition
466 2010-12-22 03:04:06 <Diablo-D3> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P7sdo_Aj0o
467 2010-12-22 03:04:18 <Diablo-D3> beatboxing shouldnt sound this good
468 2010-12-22 03:04:50 <BoBeR> kupo, what do you mean
469 2010-12-22 03:05:49 <kupo> BoBeR: bitcoin has been mentioned several times as an alternative to the visa mastercard blocks
470 2010-12-22 03:05:52 <Diablo-D3> part 2 has some epic shit too
471 2010-12-22 03:06:05 <BoBeR> where?
472 2010-12-22 03:06:07 <BoBeR> links?
473 2010-12-22 03:06:17 <Diablo-D3> [10:02:08] <Diablo-D3> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P7sdo_Aj0o
474 2010-12-22 03:06:19 <Diablo-D3> part 1
475 2010-12-22 03:06:27 <Diablo-D3> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMr2cn04wKA
476 2010-12-22 03:06:28 <Diablo-D3> part 2
477 2010-12-22 03:08:11 <kupo> BoBeR: sorry to lazy atm, google will help though
478 2010-12-22 03:08:22 <Lysacor> http://pastebin.com/BLEu5PpD
479 2010-12-22 03:08:34 <Lysacor> Might not be much to go on, sorry
480 2010-12-22 03:09:15 <anarchyx> ;;bc,stats
481 2010-12-22 03:09:18 <gribble> Current Blocks: 98838 | Current Difficulty: 14484.16236123 | Next Difficulty At Block: 100799 | Next Difficulty In: 1961 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 5 days, 8 hours, 30 minutes, and 25 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 15965.58403033
482 2010-12-22 03:09:53 <Asphodelia> If a,b,c,d are large primes, and I give you either (1) a*b and c*d or (2) a*b and b*c, can you tell whether the two numbers I gave have a common factor?
483 2010-12-22 03:09:59 <Lysacor> It is connecting to my local bitcoin GUI with the server switch active, and bitcoin.conf is defined. I use it with m0m's miner already, just wanted to shake things up a bit
484 2010-12-22 03:13:26 <Asphodelia> Oh wait, my brother just told me it's totally possible. Oh well.
485 2010-12-22 03:14:22 <Diablo-D3> Lysacor: driver bug.
486 2010-12-22 03:14:41 <Diablo-D3> Lysacor: you sure you using the newest version, btw?
487 2010-12-22 03:15:09 mahadri has joined
488 2010-12-22 03:15:57 <Lysacor> Diablo-D3: just downloaded the binaries for your program, updated the java system, and I am running stream 2.2, don't know if any of those are contributing factors.
489 2010-12-22 03:16:12 <Diablo-D3> why 2.2 instead of 2.1?
490 2010-12-22 03:18:11 <Lysacor> Good question, I can roll back, no huge deal, mmm let me check my stream version again, I am actually using stream 2.3. I can back off to 2.1. 2.3 did Bring some significant performance improvements when using m0m's client, must still be bugs in ati's implementation of OpenCL
491 2010-12-22 03:19:33 <Diablo-D3> 2.1 is faster
492 2010-12-22 03:19:43 EvanR has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
493 2010-12-22 03:19:53 <Lysacor> cool, well then 2.1 here I come!
494 2010-12-22 03:20:05 duck1123 has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
495 2010-12-22 03:28:09 EvanR has joined
496 2010-12-22 03:29:20 <Lysacor> Diablo-D3: Backing off to Stream 2.1 did seem to do the trick. Much appreciated for the support
497 2010-12-22 03:29:51 <Diablo-D3> which cat you on?
498 2010-12-22 03:30:32 <Lysacor> 10.12
499 2010-12-22 03:31:40 <Diablo-D3> ahh
500 2010-12-22 03:32:31 <Lysacor> your miner is definitely more aggressive with my 5870, without the -f switch, desktop interactivity is for shit :P
501 2010-12-22 03:32:44 <Diablo-D3> yeah, try -f 120 or -f 180
502 2010-12-22 03:32:56 <Diablo-D3> the side effect of being optimum... is being optimum.
503 2010-12-22 03:33:09 <Lysacor> pretty much, that does make a lot of sense
504 2010-12-22 03:38:01 Cdh has quit (3!~cdh@p57B4420C.dip.t-dialin.net|Read error: Operation timed out)
505 2010-12-22 03:41:52 fabianhjr has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
506 2010-12-22 03:41:59 fabianhjr has joined
507 2010-12-22 03:42:03 fabianhjr has quit (Client Quit)
508 2010-12-22 03:45:46 ciuciu has joined
509 2010-12-22 03:46:25 ciuciu has left ()
510 2010-12-22 03:47:32 Granttt has joined
511 2010-12-22 03:52:02 Grantt has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
512 2010-12-22 03:52:08 Cdh has joined
513 2010-12-22 03:58:14 da2ce7 has quit ()
514 2010-12-22 04:05:42 Granttt has quit (Disconnected by services)
515 2010-12-22 04:05:42 Grantt has joined
516 2010-12-22 04:07:52 BoBeR has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
517 2010-12-22 04:10:14 da2ce7 has joined
518 2010-12-22 04:14:18 BoBeR has joined
519 2010-12-22 04:21:55 Cusipzzz has joined
520 2010-12-22 04:38:10 Lysacor has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
521 2010-12-22 04:49:36 <ByteCoin> test
522 2010-12-22 04:51:12 Asphodelia has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
523 2010-12-22 04:51:28 Asphodelia has joined
524 2010-12-22 04:51:43 <DerrikeG1> ding
525 2010-12-22 04:52:19 <Asphodelia> Is that the sound of finding a block?
526 2010-12-22 04:52:35 <nanotube> no... that's 'caching' :)
527 2010-12-22 04:52:45 <nanotube> ;;bc,poolstats
528 2010-12-22 04:52:47 <gribble> {"active_workers": 93, "hashes_ps": 5232613300, "shares": 10564, "round_started": "2010-12-22 02:26:16"}
529 2010-12-22 04:55:53 Granttt has joined
530 2010-12-22 05:00:17 Grantt has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
531 2010-12-22 05:06:24 <da2ce7> ;;bc,mtgox
532 2010-12-22 05:06:24 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":0.267,"low":0.24,"vol":8861,"buy":0.244,"sell":0.26,"last":0.244}}
533 2010-12-22 05:07:02 <da2ce7> we are still hovering arround the 0.25c mark...
534 2010-12-22 05:07:03 <da2ce7> hmm
535 2010-12-22 05:07:38 pr0wler has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
536 2010-12-22 05:09:22 <Cusipzzz> is that poolstat like 1 block every 3 hrs ??
537 2010-12-22 05:10:26 Grantt has joined
538 2010-12-22 05:10:28 Granttt has quit (Disconnected by services)
539 2010-12-22 05:10:44 <da2ce7> ;;bc,calc 5200000
540 2010-12-22 05:10:45 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 5200000 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 3 hours, 19 minutes, and 23 seconds
541 2010-12-22 05:10:49 <da2ce7> yep
542 2010-12-22 05:11:21 <Cusipzzz> wow, impressive
543 2010-12-22 05:12:26 <nanotube> it was above 6ghps at some point earlier today
544 2010-12-22 05:13:29 acous has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
545 2010-12-22 05:13:38 <Cusipzzz> bernake would be proud of this money-printing =)
546 2010-12-22 05:13:47 <nanotube> haha
547 2010-12-22 05:18:00 <lfm> ,,bc,calc 160000
548 2010-12-22 05:18:01 <gribble> (bc,calc <an alias, 1 argument>) -- Alias for "echo The average time to generate a block at $1 Khps, given current difficulty of [bc,diff], is [time elapsed [math calc 1/((2**224-1)/[bc,diff]*$1*1000/2**256)]]".
549 2010-12-22 05:18:41 <Cusipzzz> so, if for whatever reason that pool went down for 24hrs, the ~8 blocks would be porportionally distributed among others generating ? or would just delay the 8 blocks slightly ?
550 2010-12-22 05:18:49 <lfm> ;;bc,calc 160000
551 2010-12-22 05:18:50 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 160000 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 4 days, 12 hours, and 6 seconds
552 2010-12-22 05:22:31 <nanotube> Cusipzzz: what 8 blocks?
553 2010-12-22 05:23:13 epicurus has joined
554 2010-12-22 05:23:23 FreeMoney has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
555 2010-12-22 05:24:13 <lfm> if the pool server is down youd miss out on the (probable) blocks
556 2010-12-22 05:24:41 <nanotube> yea if pool is down, there's no pool generation for that time.
557 2010-12-22 05:24:56 <Cusipzzz> that's what i meant...i'm just talking about impact on everyone else
558 2010-12-22 05:25:05 <Cusipzzz> who is still generating
559 2010-12-22 05:25:25 <nanotube> you mean everyone who's not in the pool?
560 2010-12-22 05:25:27 <lfm> people outside the pool would not be effected
561 2010-12-22 05:25:28 <Cusipzzz> yes
562 2010-12-22 05:25:34 <nanotube> they wouldn't notice...
563 2010-12-22 05:25:56 <Cusipzzz> right, theystill have same difficulty..less competition doesn't matter
564 2010-12-22 05:25:58 <nanotube> well, the avg time between blocks for the whole network would go down by about 5 percent. :)
565 2010-12-22 05:26:22 <sgornick> Total hashing would drop about ... oh ... nearly 5% ... so instead of 158 blocks in 24 hours there would be 150 blocks.
566 2010-12-22 05:26:31 <lfm> Cusipzzz: right other than a slight possible decrease in difficulty at the next change
567 2010-12-22 05:26:57 <Cusipzzz> gotcha, that's what I thought, just clarifying.
568 2010-12-22 05:27:23 <Cusipzzz> so much for the idea of DDoS'ing all the major pools and scooping up all the blocks for a given day, haha.
569 2010-12-22 05:27:37 <nanotube> heh yea... doesn't help you much.
570 2010-12-22 05:27:53 <lfm> Cusipzzz: ya that wouldnt help you really
571 2010-12-22 05:28:21 <sgornick> Is there a real-time "hashing power" number, or is that just calculated based on the same numbers as the difficulty calculation?
572 2010-12-22 05:28:58 <nanotube> sgornick: yea, the difficulty is a result of the hashing power of the previous 2016 block chunk.
573 2010-12-22 05:29:19 darrob has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
574 2010-12-22 05:29:20 <Cusipzzz> so really this arms race in pools/generating will just make the next difficulty bump that much more painful for all.
575 2010-12-22 05:29:41 darrob has joined
576 2010-12-22 05:29:44 <Cusipzzz> as far as coins/day or whatever measure
577 2010-12-22 05:30:01 <nanotube> Cusipzzz: coins per day will stay the same
578 2010-12-22 05:30:16 <nanotube> the whole point of diff adjustments is to keep difficulty such that on avg a block is created every 10 min.
579 2010-12-22 05:30:37 <Cusipzzz> but right now it's over that..until next adjustment, right?
580 2010-12-22 05:30:58 <nanotube> ;;bc,stats
581 2010-12-22 05:31:00 <gribble> Current Blocks: 98861 | Current Difficulty: 14484.16236123 | Next Difficulty At Block: 100799 | Next Difficulty In: 1938 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 4 days, 3 hours, 24 minutes, and 45 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 17495.00702667
582 2010-12-22 05:31:15 <lfm> Cusipzzz: thats the idea, but we just had one adjustment, it takes a while
583 2010-12-22 05:31:26 <nanotube> well... it seems that total hash power is still going up... based on that estimate there
584 2010-12-22 05:31:42 <nanotube> though we're only <100 blocks into the chunk so it's still not too stable of an estimate
585 2010-12-22 05:31:54 <lfm> ;;bc,estimate
586 2010-12-22 05:31:55 <gribble> 17495.00702667
587 2010-12-22 05:32:04 <nanotube> quite an estimate there
588 2010-12-22 05:32:15 <sgornick> nanotube: ya, the first one out of the shoe was an estimate of 54,000 or something like that.
589 2010-12-22 05:32:16 <nanotube> ;;math calc 17495.00702667 / 14484.16236123
590 2010-12-22 05:32:16 <gribble> 1.20787150758
591 2010-12-22 05:32:27 <nanotube> sgornick: yea, and then it dropped to like 13k
592 2010-12-22 05:32:31 <nanotube> and now it's back to 17
593 2010-12-22 05:32:32 <nanotube> heh
594 2010-12-22 05:32:45 <Cusipzzz> right, but the 191 blocks/last 24 hrs is well above target
595 2010-12-22 05:32:59 <nanotube> Cusipzzz: that's why the next diff estimate is so high. :)
596 2010-12-22 05:33:11 <lfm> with the small count since the last change the estimate will vary more
597 2010-12-22 05:33:29 <nanotube> my (totally ballparky) guess is that it'll be about 16k difficulty
598 2010-12-22 05:33:51 <Cusipzzz> so someone waited for the change, then fired up the network of Crays =), to get most bang for buck
599 2010-12-22 05:34:06 <nanotube> heh
600 2010-12-22 05:34:26 <lfm> crays would suck at this \i suspect
601 2010-12-22 05:34:29 <Cusipzzz> dating myself with the Crays, sigh
602 2010-12-22 05:34:33 <Cusipzzz> ya
603 2010-12-22 05:34:49 <Cusipzzz> PS3 farm, then
604 2010-12-22 05:35:06 <lfm> ps3 cant compete with radeons either
605 2010-12-22 05:35:53 <Cusipzzz> i wonder if the opportunity cost of keeping hashing power offline until after the adjustment is worth the blocks lost bringing it on right away.. maybe i'm overthing this.
606 2010-12-22 05:36:17 <Cusipzzz> overthinking*
607 2010-12-22 05:36:33 BCBot has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
608 2010-12-22 05:36:46 <nanotube> Cusipzzz: if all you're doing is bringing your own power on... rather than knocking out others' power... then it pays to bring it on asap, so you can take advantage of generating at a lower difficulty faster.
609 2010-12-22 05:37:01 <lfm> depends how significant your farm is maybe
610 2010-12-22 05:37:25 <Cusipzzz> ya, makes sense. but then you are contributing to a larger jump at the adjustment, reducing furute earning power
611 2010-12-22 05:38:16 <nanotube> you'll be contributing to a jump anyway
612 2010-12-22 05:38:19 <lfm> the only way to make blocks is to contribute to the hash power and thus effect the difficulty. there no real way around it
613 2010-12-22 05:38:26 <sgornick> so if 103 ghash/s mathces the 14484 estimate, then at 16K, about 10% larger, means about 114ghash/s for entire network. http://www.alloscomp.com/bitcoin/calculator.php so pool at 6 ghash/s number reported earlier is just over 5%
614 2010-12-22 05:39:22 <nanotube> yea
615 2010-12-22 05:39:29 <Cusipzzz> interesting
616 2010-12-22 05:39:37 <lfm> till the next farm starts up anyway
617 2010-12-22 05:40:30 BCBot has joined
618 2010-12-22 05:41:45 asdf58 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
619 2010-12-22 05:43:30 <sgornick> a little over a month ago, difficulty was under 5K. btc was about $0.25. Now at 14K difficulty, and BTC at $0.25 means those mining today are doing so for much less reward than those doing it in november were getting for it.
620 2010-12-22 05:44:06 <Asphodelia> Not necessarily. The cost of computation could have gone down. (Though probably not by quite that much.)
621 2010-12-22 05:44:21 <lfm> ya, the rewards are spread thinner at higher difficulties
622 2010-12-22 05:45:10 <Cusipzzz> seems to be an equilibrium, the additional 7500 coins/day of added supply offset by new demand, regardless of the amount of work required?
623 2010-12-22 05:45:23 <lfm> i suspect some people were expecting the prices to go higher with the difficulty\
624 2010-12-22 05:45:44 <nanotube> Cusipzzz: well, the demand is by those who are not generating...
625 2010-12-22 05:45:56 <nanotube> so the don't really care about the difficulty
626 2010-12-22 05:46:02 <Cusipzzz> right.
627 2010-12-22 05:46:29 <lfm> ya supposedly higher difficulty makes smaller supply tho
628 2010-12-22 05:46:48 <nanotube> lfm: why? same num of coins produced per day... so it doesn't affect supply
629 2010-12-22 05:46:51 <Cusipzzz> well, they see the difficulty, and say 'F that' and go to buy coins, thus supporting the price even with the constant supply increase.
630 2010-12-22 05:47:09 <Asphodelia> That's an increase in demand, not a decrease in supply.
631 2010-12-22 05:47:26 <nanotube> right
632 2010-12-22 05:47:30 <lfm> hmm, ok ya, i guess thats right
633 2010-12-22 05:47:36 <Cusipzzz> it's both...that 7500/day added to the market should bring prices down, but demand is increasing as well
634 2010-12-22 05:47:38 <nanotube> difficulty adjusts to keep supply relatively constant.
635 2010-12-22 05:47:57 <nanotube> or maybe... more people are mining with intent to hold on, rather than sell off immediately.
636 2010-12-22 05:49:34 <Cusipzzz> i'm sure both sides are speculating, but it is an interesting equilibrium, around this price point recently
637 2010-12-22 05:50:03 <nanotube> yea
638 2010-12-22 05:51:31 bitbot has joined
639 2010-12-22 05:51:32 bitbot has quit (Changing host)
640 2010-12-22 05:51:32 bitbot has joined
641 2010-12-22 05:59:01 Cusipzzz has quit ()
642 2010-12-22 06:02:50 AAA_awright_ has joined
643 2010-12-22 06:03:49 maximi89 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
644 2010-12-22 06:05:17 AAA_awright has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
645 2010-12-22 06:08:47 AAA_awright_ is now known as AAA_awright
646 2010-12-22 06:36:05 <da2ce7> has sombody graphed market cap vs. time?
647 2010-12-22 06:36:49 <da2ce7> I think that will show the best long term rate of growth in the bitcoin economy.
648 2010-12-22 06:36:50 <da2ce7> :D
649 2010-12-22 06:39:41 <nanotube> ask tcatm, maybe he'll do it. :)
650 2010-12-22 06:41:59 satamusic has joined
651 2010-12-22 06:43:24 RazielZ has joined
652 2010-12-22 06:45:58 epicurus has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
653 2010-12-22 07:03:09 Slix` has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
654 2010-12-22 07:08:54 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
655 2010-12-22 07:11:08 <sneak> http://sneak.datavibe.net/20101222/financing-the-revolution/
656 2010-12-22 07:11:27 <sneak> giving a talk about bitcoin and other digital currencies and systems in berlin next wednesday at berlinsides during the ccc
657 2010-12-22 07:12:08 RG has joined
658 2010-12-22 07:12:47 RichardG has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
659 2010-12-22 07:14:45 <nanotube> nice
660 2010-12-22 07:17:58 warner has joined
661 2010-12-22 07:22:54 sgornick has joined
662 2010-12-22 07:58:36 <wumpus> sneak: very nice
663 2010-12-22 08:07:33 warner has quit (Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs))
664 2010-12-22 08:21:07 Asphodelia has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
665 2010-12-22 08:22:14 darrob has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
666 2010-12-22 08:27:06 darrob has joined
667 2010-12-22 08:32:10 slush_cz1 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
668 2010-12-22 08:32:13 midnightmagic_ has joined
669 2010-12-22 08:46:16 amiga4000 is now known as Amiga4000
670 2010-12-22 08:50:07 angus has joined
671 2010-12-22 08:53:39 Sherpa has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
672 2010-12-22 09:04:22 <UukGoblin> ;;bc,stats
673 2010-12-22 09:04:25 <gribble> Current Blocks: 98881 | Current Difficulty: 14484.16236123 | Next Difficulty At Block: 100799 | Next Difficulty In: 1918 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 4 days, 18 hours, 36 minutes, and 39 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 16383.31251835
674 2010-12-22 09:04:41 Granttt has joined
675 2010-12-22 09:04:46 <UukGoblin> ;;bc,calc 1000000
676 2010-12-22 09:04:47 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 1000000 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 17 hours, 16 minutes, and 49 seconds
677 2010-12-22 09:08:26 <lfm> weird fglrx works on ubuntu but failed for me on kubuntu
678 2010-12-22 09:09:15 Grantt has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
679 2010-12-22 09:11:16 larsivi has joined
680 2010-12-22 09:13:39 Xun-meister has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
681 2010-12-22 09:14:28 noagendamarket has joined
682 2010-12-22 09:20:41 slush_cz has joined
683 2010-12-22 09:27:50 Xunie has joined
684 2010-12-22 09:27:51 Xunie has quit (Changing host)
685 2010-12-22 09:27:51 Xunie has joined
686 2010-12-22 09:30:16 Granttt has quit (Disconnected by services)
687 2010-12-22 09:30:16 Grantt has joined
688 2010-12-22 09:36:20 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
689 2010-12-22 09:45:41 ebel has joined
690 2010-12-22 09:51:46 <slush_cz> Diablo-D3: I had new miner over night and it really doesn't look like share rate drop too much.
691 2010-12-22 09:52:21 <Diablo-D3> out of my most recent run, 177 out of 188 won
692 2010-12-22 09:52:34 midnightmagic_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
693 2010-12-22 09:53:02 <slush_cz> Diablo-D3: I have probably worse ratio, but as it improves network latency, it null bad effects of those drops
694 2010-12-22 09:53:21 <slush_cz> Diablo-D3: So I hope it will run better after fixes on my side
695 2010-12-22 09:53:27 <Diablo-D3> it should
696 2010-12-22 09:53:36 <slush_cz> better than old version without invalid shares
697 2010-12-22 09:54:06 <slush_cz> well, so I think it is not necessary to warn users, because currently they have ~same rate with both versions
698 2010-12-22 09:55:02 <Diablo-D3> eh, about a 5% loss
699 2010-12-22 09:55:16 <slush_cz> 5% less valid blocks, but 5% improved speed. I think final effect is 0
700 2010-12-22 09:55:25 <Diablo-D3> depends how you define 5%
701 2010-12-22 09:55:29 <Diablo-D3> the shit didnt effect me
702 2010-12-22 09:55:42 <slush_cz> Diablo-D3: I have quite good line (40ms to server)
703 2010-12-22 09:55:51 <Diablo-D3> since latency between me and your miner server was obscured by having three execution threads
704 2010-12-22 09:57:17 <slush_cz> Diablo-D3: And I don't see any significant drop in performance overnight
705 2010-12-22 09:58:55 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz: well
706 2010-12-22 09:58:58 <Diablo-D3> once you fix your shit
707 2010-12-22 09:59:01 <Diablo-D3> that bug will go away
708 2010-12-22 09:59:09 <slush_cz> yes, I know
709 2010-12-22 09:59:39 <slush_cz> I'm talking just about 'well, so I think it is not necessary to warn users, because currently they have ~same rate with both versions' - I mean with current pool, of course
710 2010-12-22 10:00:09 <slush_cz> Once I will improve this, their share rate will go higher
711 2010-12-22 10:08:19 angus has quit (Quit: leaving)
712 2010-12-22 10:16:44 larsivi has joined
713 2010-12-22 10:57:27 Xunie has quit (Quit: "You did become a terrorist when they sent her to your town." said Ange. "So I did," I said)
714 2010-12-22 10:58:24 <Amiga4000> mkay, 300 MHashes/sec for the ATI 5870 with m0ndom miner in win7 64bit
715 2010-12-22 10:58:26 RG has left (oirc!~tingle@187.15.34.80|)
716 2010-12-22 10:58:45 <Amiga4000> ;;bc,calc 300000
717 2010-12-22 10:58:46 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 300000 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 2 days, 9 hours, 36 minutes, and 3 seconds
718 2010-12-22 10:59:39 <Amiga4000> ;;bc,calc 9000
719 2010-12-22 10:59:39 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 9000 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 11 weeks, 3 days, 0 hours, 1 minute, and 51 seconds
720 2010-12-22 11:00:56 satamusic_ has joined
721 2010-12-22 11:01:26 Necrathex has joined
722 2010-12-22 11:02:10 satamusic has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
723 2010-12-22 11:02:30 <wumpus> is it possible to change the bitcoin port? for testing I want to run multiple instances of the test network on my machine, but the second one complains about "unable to bind to IP"
724 2010-12-22 11:02:37 <Necrathex> hi, I have a question about translations, I'm using the NL-nl locale, but the nl translation has some grammar errors, is there any way i can suggest a change?
725 2010-12-22 11:02:49 <Diablo-D3> Necrathex: supply a patch
726 2010-12-22 11:03:05 <Diablo-D3> wumpus: I dont think so yet
727 2010-12-22 11:03:39 <wumpus> hm just checked the source, you are right Diablo-D3, it currently insists on the default port
728 2010-12-22 11:03:41 <Diablo-D3> wumpus: if its an option, bitcoin --help will say
729 2010-12-22 11:03:45 <Diablo-D3> heh
730 2010-12-22 11:03:48 <Diablo-D3> that works too
731 2010-12-22 11:03:50 <wumpus> monkeypatching time
732 2010-12-22 11:04:02 <Necrathex> ok, ill go grab the source then :)
733 2010-12-22 11:04:04 <Diablo-D3> the problem is
734 2010-12-22 11:04:15 <Diablo-D3> if you change the port, other bitcoin cant connect to you
735 2010-12-22 11:06:30 <wumpus> well that's true, but it should work somehow, I mean how does it handle being behind a NAT?
736 2010-12-22 11:07:02 <lfm> wumpu you could tell it to use too many threads used bitcoin setgenerate true 10
737 2010-12-22 11:07:08 <UukGoblin> wumpus, it handles NAT by simply connecting to people who are NOT behind it
738 2010-12-22 11:07:19 <Diablo-D3> yeah
739 2010-12-22 11:07:26 <Diablo-D3> the NAT has to route incoming stuff normally
740 2010-12-22 11:07:36 <Diablo-D3> outside:8333 -> inside:8333
741 2010-12-22 11:07:52 <Diablo-D3> if you want incoming connections, anyways
742 2010-12-22 11:07:52 <wumpus> UukGoblin: so having no outside port to connect to wouldn't be a problem as long as there are people who do have it?
743 2010-12-22 11:08:05 <UukGoblin> wumpus, yup
744 2010-12-22 11:08:07 <Diablo-D3> wumpus: yeah, it'll only break incoming connections
745 2010-12-22 11:08:12 Toadyonps3 has joined
746 2010-12-22 11:08:15 <Diablo-D3> it can still dial out
747 2010-12-22 11:08:37 <UukGoblin> to a premium rate number
748 2010-12-22 11:08:43 <UukGoblin> and get an IP over that
749 2010-12-22 11:08:47 <UukGoblin> and then listen on the needed port
750 2010-12-22 11:08:52 <Diablo-D3> 1-900-hot-sext
751 2010-12-22 11:08:53 <UukGoblin> oops I wasn't supposed to talk about that
752 2010-12-22 11:08:54 <wumpus> lfm: I just want to test something, I don't need generation or threads
753 2010-12-22 11:09:39 <lfm> oh ok I think most people use separate real machines for tests like that
754 2010-12-22 11:09:39 <wumpus> seems to me this should actually be a common use case for people testing ecommerce-like things
755 2010-12-22 11:10:25 <Diablo-D3> well
756 2010-12-22 11:10:31 <Diablo-D3> it should support clients on any port
757 2010-12-22 11:11:01 <Diablo-D3> the client should store a ip:port tuple instead of just the ip of peers
758 2010-12-22 11:11:14 <wumpus> Diablo-D3: indeed, would be much better
759 2010-12-22 11:11:28 <UukGoblin> yeah it was moaned about since the beginning I think ;-]
760 2010-12-22 11:11:37 <Diablo-D3> yeah it was, I bitched about it
761 2010-12-22 11:11:44 <UukGoblin> it has spare space to store the v6 address but not the port ;-]
762 2010-12-22 11:11:56 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: lol
763 2010-12-22 11:13:08 <wumpus> well with IPV6 the port is less of an issue, I guess, you could give every process its own IP adress :p
764 2010-12-22 11:13:09 <lfm> gavinanderson had a patch to run on opther ports at one time. Im not sure if he has kept it current
765 2010-12-22 11:13:26 <Diablo-D3> lol
766 2010-12-22 11:13:32 <Diablo-D3> wumpus: ports are still useful
767 2010-12-22 11:14:30 <wumpus> sure, because you still need unique source ports for TCP, otherwise each connection would need a new IPv6 address..
768 2010-12-22 11:14:58 <Diablo-D3> I meant even on top of that
769 2010-12-22 11:15:02 <Diablo-D3> it makes it more obscure
770 2010-12-22 11:15:03 <wumpus> heh, seems we'll find a way to fill up the address space
771 2010-12-22 11:15:11 <Diablo-D3> so you cant just scan a network for bitcoin clients
772 2010-12-22 11:15:22 <UukGoblin> hmm actually the last 2 bytes of a v6 address could be used as a port ;-]
773 2010-12-22 11:15:31 <wumpus> scanning in ipv6 will take a damn long time :)
774 2010-12-22 11:15:53 RichardG has joined
775 2010-12-22 11:16:05 <wumpus> but I agree the port should be changable, it should simply be a command line option, like every P2P program...
776 2010-12-22 11:16:06 <Diablo-D3> also
777 2010-12-22 11:16:11 <Diablo-D3> ISPs could just block the port
778 2010-12-22 11:16:15 <xelister> fuck ubuntu/wubi
779 2010-12-22 11:16:17 <Diablo-D3> to stop terrorism
780 2010-12-22 11:16:37 <wumpus> yes they could block the ev0l terrorism ports!
781 2010-12-22 11:16:40 <UukGoblin> or under the Data Protection Act
782 2010-12-22 11:16:46 <wumpus> oh no, you might have given them an idea :)
783 2010-12-22 11:16:53 <UukGoblin> did I mention
784 2010-12-22 11:16:56 <UukGoblin> I work for an ISP?
785 2010-12-22 11:17:01 <UukGoblin> *blocks 3 million users*
786 2010-12-22 11:17:06 <wumpus> next up: spread spectrum internet traffic
787 2010-12-22 11:17:07 <Diablo-D3> why dont they have a Penis Protection Act?
788 2010-12-22 11:17:18 <wumpus> randomize the ports for every packet :P
789 2010-12-22 11:17:23 <Diablo-D3> make it a fine for a woman not to be dedicating her life to protecting a penis
790 2010-12-22 11:17:27 <Diablo-D3> or jail time
791 2010-12-22 11:19:06 <wumpus> yeah let's bog down the law system even more with senseless laws
792 2010-12-22 11:19:18 <Diablo-D3> senseless?!
793 2010-12-22 11:19:29 <Diablo-D3> it'd be the law that a woman would have to be parked on my dick 24/7!
794 2010-12-22 11:19:31 <wumpus> they should apply an optimizer to the law books
795 2010-12-22 11:19:59 <wumpus> you're a wuss if you need the law to provide you that :p
796 2010-12-22 11:20:15 <Diablo-D3> wumpus: hey, its just as much for them as it is for me
797 2010-12-22 11:20:17 <lfm> just repeal 99.99% of them
798 2010-12-22 11:20:23 <Diablo-D3> women are always bitching "I cant get a man!"
799 2010-12-22 11:20:27 <Diablo-D3> well Im right here damnit!
800 2010-12-22 11:20:34 <Diablo-D3> Im manly as it gets!
801 2010-12-22 11:20:48 <Diablo-D3> my beard is it's own citystate!
802 2010-12-22 11:20:54 satamusic_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
803 2010-12-22 11:21:01 <Diablo-D3> my chesthair is the third largest economy in the world!
804 2010-12-22 11:21:05 <wumpus> hehe
805 2010-12-22 11:21:40 <lfm> oh, how many inhabitants in your beard?
806 2010-12-22 11:21:48 <wumpus> watch out or the US will invade you
807 2010-12-22 11:21:58 <Diablo-D3> lfm: just bin laden and a few of his crew
808 2010-12-22 11:22:27 <Diablo-D3> and arthur c clark modeled the space elevator concept off of my dick after watching a woman climb on it
809 2010-12-22 11:22:58 <xelister> lol :}
810 2010-12-22 11:23:07 <xelister> speaking of your sister though,
811 2010-12-22 11:23:14 <xelister> where does she have a free night in this week, Diablo-D3?
812 2010-12-22 11:23:22 <xelister> * when
813 2010-12-22 11:23:43 <Diablo-D3> I dont even have a sister, moron
814 2010-12-22 11:24:05 <wumpus> anyway, back to coding
815 2010-12-22 11:25:15 <wumpus> and I think we should set the default port for bitcoin to the same as DNS, go ahead, filter that :)
816 2010-12-22 11:25:25 <Diablo-D3> tcp 53? sure.
817 2010-12-22 11:25:32 <Diablo-D3> and I can get away with it too
818 2010-12-22 11:25:40 <Diablo-D3> since dns usually uses udp 53.
819 2010-12-22 11:26:01 <Diablo-D3> (yup, its valid on both tcp and udp)
820 2010-12-22 11:26:04 <wumpus> would be some effort to multiplex the protocols, then again, it'd simple be a kind of tunneling
821 2010-12-22 11:26:23 <Diablo-D3> you mean like tcp over dns?
822 2010-12-22 11:26:29 <wumpus> yes
823 2010-12-22 11:26:36 <Diablo-D3> or ip over icmp?
824 2010-12-22 11:26:43 <Diablo-D3> or any of those other horrid things I read about?
825 2010-12-22 11:26:47 <Diablo-D3> wikipedia == dangerous
826 2010-12-22 11:27:33 <wumpus> ip over icmp is pretty neat as well
827 2010-12-22 11:28:11 <Diablo-D3> or port knocking to open up ports through firewalls?
828 2010-12-22 11:28:32 <wumpus> been there, done that, got the tshirt
829 2010-12-22 11:28:33 <Diablo-D3> which I assume, such a daemon to implement that, would be called fartknockr
830 2010-12-22 11:29:01 <wumpus> nowadays I simply tunnel everything through ssh though
831 2010-12-22 11:29:11 <wumpus> I'm lazy :P
832 2010-12-22 11:30:09 Granttt has joined
833 2010-12-22 11:30:13 <wumpus> openvpn is pretty nice but still needs a lot of setup, ssh is so deliciously simple
834 2010-12-22 11:30:36 <Diablo-D3> openssh is easier
835 2010-12-22 11:30:46 <Diablo-D3> even can turn into a socks proxy
836 2010-12-22 11:30:50 <wumpus> yep
837 2010-12-22 11:33:44 Xunie has joined
838 2010-12-22 11:34:52 Grantt has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
839 2010-12-22 11:34:52 <wumpus> are there any bitcoin nodes supporting ipv6?
840 2010-12-22 11:35:42 <larsivi> the bitcoin address - does it incorporate ip address or similar?
841 2010-12-22 11:35:52 <wumpus> nope
842 2010-12-22 11:35:57 <wumpus> it's random
843 2010-12-22 11:35:58 <Diablo-D3> wumpus: software doesnt support it
844 2010-12-22 11:36:38 <larsivi> wumpus: so when I enter it into the faucet, how does the payment arrive at my computer?
845 2010-12-22 11:36:45 <wumpus> larsivi: it's possible to pay to a IP address but it's really really evil and deprecated, don't do it
846 2010-12-22 11:37:23 Toadyonps3 has quit (Quit: So if a tree falls on Bill Gates in the forest,would anyone really care?)
847 2010-12-22 11:37:23 <wumpus> Diablo-D3: right, so they only took it into account in the protcol, but didn't implement it yet
848 2010-12-22 11:37:26 <Diablo-D3> larsivi: your client contains the private key for that address
849 2010-12-22 11:37:59 <Diablo-D3> larsivi: the faucet puts into the chain of work the transaction containing the public key for that address
850 2010-12-22 11:38:05 <larsivi> Diablo-D3: sure, but somehow some message about the transaction must reach my client
851 2010-12-22 11:38:15 <wumpus> larsivi: bitcoin is basically a broadcast protocol, every node will get the transaction
852 2010-12-22 11:38:17 <Diablo-D3> yes, your client updates to the newest chain of work
853 2010-12-22 11:38:29 <wumpus> larsivi: but only your client will know what to do with it
854 2010-12-22 11:38:50 <Diablo-D3> wumpus: also, yes, ipv6 was never implemented, but it can be easily
855 2010-12-22 11:39:00 <larsivi> wumpus: yes, that is fine - I just don't like broadcast protocols :)
856 2010-12-22 11:39:18 <Diablo-D3> larsivi: in this case, you need the broadcast
857 2010-12-22 11:39:31 <Diablo-D3> otherwise clients cant mathematically prove the chain of work is valid
858 2010-12-22 11:39:41 <wumpus> yes in this case its the thing providing you security.. all the nodes check the validity and double spending
859 2010-12-22 11:39:41 <larsivi> broadcast don't normally scale very well
860 2010-12-22 11:40:00 <Diablo-D3> larsivi: a new block is produced on the chain every ten minutes
861 2010-12-22 11:40:19 <Diablo-D3> I could have a 300 baud modem for every node, and we're still fine
862 2010-12-22 11:41:20 <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, until someone DoSes the network ;-]
863 2010-12-22 11:41:23 <larsivi> so a broadcast is only sent on generation of a new block? or on each transaction?
864 2010-12-22 11:41:34 <wumpus> everything that is not broadcast would require trust
865 2010-12-22 11:41:47 <Diablo-D3> larsivi: a new transaction, but that doesnt mean the transaction is accepted
866 2010-12-22 11:41:55 <wumpus> and trust is the thing bitcoin is trying to avoid
867 2010-12-22 11:42:01 <Diablo-D3> its only considered valid when it makes it into a new block
868 2010-12-22 11:42:06 <Diablo-D3> and the new block becomes valid
869 2010-12-22 11:42:24 satamusic has joined
870 2010-12-22 11:43:26 <lfm> larsivi: it isnt reall broadcast, it is net of p2p links that distribute the messages
871 2010-12-22 11:43:51 <larsivi> lfm: ah, that is a different thing entirely
872 2010-12-22 11:43:55 <Diablo-D3> yeah
873 2010-12-22 11:43:56 <wumpus> but they deliver the messages to all nodes, so in principle it is broadcast
874 2010-12-22 11:44:20 <larsivi> broadcast refers specifically to the broadcast datagram protocols
875 2010-12-22 11:44:35 <wumpus> not really, broadcast is a general term in distributed computing
876 2010-12-22 11:44:37 <larsivi> in my question above :P
877 2010-12-22 11:44:41 <wumpus> ok
878 2010-12-22 11:44:48 <lfm> just seems like broadcast cuz it is wide fanout
879 2010-12-22 11:45:18 <larsivi> how do a client discover other clients?
880 2010-12-22 11:46:14 <lfm> larsivi: several ways. 1 nis a special irc chan, 2 is a hard coded list in client 3 is command line args
881 2010-12-22 11:46:35 <bd_> also peer list exchanges with other nodes
882 2010-12-22 11:46:41 <bd_> 1/2/3 are only needed for bootstrapping
883 2010-12-22 11:47:28 <Diablo-D3> it also saves a list of nodes to disk
884 2010-12-22 11:47:45 <larsivi> When I now have 199 confirmations of my faucet transaction, what does that number signify? Most of the clients logged in since the transaction?
885 2010-12-22 11:48:10 <Diablo-D3> number of blocks passed into the chain after the block that contained that transaction
886 2010-12-22 11:48:11 <lfm> ya once it gets on net it gets a list of nodes with freshness timestamps and saves to disk
887 2010-12-22 11:48:13 <wumpus> 4) you can specify another client to bootstrap from on the command line
888 2010-12-22 11:48:20 <wumpus> ah wayt you already had that
889 2010-12-22 11:48:22 <Diablo-D3> I have a block that has almost 20k confirmations
890 2010-12-22 11:48:37 <Diablo-D3> it just means 20k blocks have been created since then
891 2010-12-22 11:48:50 <wumpus> so that's what confirmations are, interesting
892 2010-12-22 11:48:59 <lfm> larsivi: no confirmations are not nodes, they are blocks on the block chain
893 2010-12-22 11:50:09 satamusic has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
894 2010-12-22 11:51:19 <larsivi> if a block is generated every 10 minutes, would it then be proportional with hte time passed since the transaction?
895 2010-12-22 11:51:34 <lfm> larsivi: ya
896 2010-12-22 11:52:13 <lfm> btw the 10 min firgure is an average, it varies randomly a lot
897 2010-12-22 11:52:48 <larsivi> lfm: right, as I have 200 (which would on average mean 33 hours, but only 25 has gone by)
898 2010-12-22 11:53:04 <lfm> yup
899 2010-12-22 11:53:38 <Diablo-D3> it just means we're running fast today
900 2010-12-22 11:53:56 <Diablo-D3> difficulty is adjusted every 2016 blocks
901 2010-12-22 11:54:12 <larsivi> 'k. thanks for the answers :)
902 2010-12-22 11:54:43 <lfm> larsivi: by convention 6 confirmations make the transaction "safe" but in most circumstances 2 or 3 are virtually certain.
903 2010-12-22 11:55:36 <Diablo-D3> except when its a transaction that generates new coins
904 2010-12-22 11:55:38 <Diablo-D3> then its much more
905 2010-12-22 11:56:07 <lfm> and the one time when there was a nasty bug and we had to rewind a couple hours
906 2010-12-22 12:04:57 larsivi has quit (Read error: No route to host)
907 2010-12-22 12:05:45 larsivi has joined
908 2010-12-22 12:06:40 RichardG has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
909 2010-12-22 12:12:26 satamusic has joined
910 2010-12-22 12:20:44 Zarutian has joined
911 2010-12-22 12:22:58 grondilu has joined
912 2010-12-22 12:23:10 <grondilu> ,,blocks
913 2010-12-22 12:23:11 <gribble> Error: "blocks" is not a valid command.
914 2010-12-22 12:23:14 <grondilu> ,,block
915 2010-12-22 12:23:14 <gribble> Error: "block" is not a valid command.
916 2010-12-22 12:23:17 <grondilu> ,,help
917 2010-12-22 12:23:18 <gribble> The bot responds when you start a line with the ! character. A good starting point for exploring the bot is the !facts command. You can also visit the bot's website for a list of help topics and documentation: http://gribble.sourceforge.net/
918 2010-12-22 12:24:57 <grondilu> ,,bc,blocks
919 2010-12-22 12:24:57 <gribble> 98901
920 2010-12-22 12:25:37 <grondilu> hum... my client is stuck at 98897 :(
921 2010-12-22 12:27:27 <grondilu> ,,bc,blocks
922 2010-12-22 12:27:27 <gribble> 98902
923 2010-12-22 12:28:52 <lfm> grondilu: how many connections?
924 2010-12-22 12:33:02 <lfm> ;;bc,blocks
925 2010-12-22 12:33:02 <gribble> 98903
926 2010-12-22 12:33:28 <Necrathex> so, i just corrected the nl-locale, how do i contribute it?
927 2010-12-22 12:33:35 grondilu has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
928 2010-12-22 12:34:04 <lfm> put a link to the corrected file in the forum
929 2010-12-22 12:34:23 <Necrathex> lfm: okay
930 2010-12-22 12:34:25 <lfm> or just post the file
931 2010-12-22 12:35:08 <wumpus> FUCK FUCK FUCK, I typed a complete post on the forum with a patch attached, then clicked submit, and it complained that .patch is not a valid attachment... but I still lost the entire post
932 2010-12-22 12:35:41 <lfm> thatd suck
933 2010-12-22 12:36:13 <wumpus> back in the old days, at least the back button worked :P
934 2010-12-22 12:36:20 <Necrathex> lfm: it's only the bitcoin.po file right?
935 2010-12-22 12:36:22 <Amiga4000> thats why news are better ;-)
936 2010-12-22 12:36:50 <Necrathex> wumpus: or use browser like Opera, then your back button works ;)
937 2010-12-22 12:37:11 <lfm> Necrathex: i dunno, i only use/know english
938 2010-12-22 12:38:30 <wumpus> Necrathex: anyway, they have a very good security measure against contributing patches, it seems, I suddenly feel a lot less altruistic :)
939 2010-12-22 12:39:22 <lfm> wumpus maybe want msdos file names 8.3
940 2010-12-22 12:40:03 <wumpus> well you never know the patch was a uuencoded worm trojan virus, or maybe it could contain backdoors
941 2010-12-22 12:41:01 <wumpus> lfm: yeah you never know, there might be someone in a basement somewhere with a DOS pc :)
942 2010-12-22 12:44:51 satamusic has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
943 2010-12-22 12:47:37 RichardG has joined
944 2010-12-22 12:52:22 DerrikeG1 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
945 2010-12-22 13:05:07 satamusic has joined
946 2010-12-22 13:14:10 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
947 2010-12-22 13:14:28 WonTu has joined
948 2010-12-22 13:14:42 WonTu has left ()
949 2010-12-22 13:26:04 <Necrathex> okay, i put the updated translation here: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=151.msg32479#msg32479
950 2010-12-22 13:26:06 <bitbot> Website and software translations : Necrathex: Hi there! I noticed that the NL locale for Bitcoin has some errors (quite some actually) So i made my corrections, attached is the nl locale .po file. <i>edit: correctly used poedit this time</i>
951 2010-12-22 13:29:31 Toadyonps3 has joined
952 2010-12-22 13:29:54 satamusic has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
953 2010-12-22 13:30:08 freemind[A] is now known as freemind2
954 2010-12-22 13:30:08 * freemind2 is no longer away : Gone for 15 hours 34 minutes 21 seconds
955 2010-12-22 13:30:19 <freemind2> I'm working on a webapp that may accept bitcoin for payment. Is there any way to be notified of an incoming transaction, other than polling the rpc?
956 2010-12-22 13:31:00 Toadyonps3 has quit (Client Quit)
957 2010-12-22 13:31:51 <UukGoblin> freemind2, public away is evil. And no, I can't think of any way short of modifying the upstream bitcoind source
958 2010-12-22 13:32:02 <tcatm> freemind2: a) use a SCI (like mybitcoin), b) https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/tree/monitorreceived
959 2010-12-22 13:33:09 BCBot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
960 2010-12-22 13:33:31 <freemind2> tcatm, I didn't think of mybitcoin... I'll take a look at the other too. Thanks!
961 2010-12-22 13:33:37 <freemind2> UukGoblin, evil how?
962 2010-12-22 13:34:56 <UukGoblin> ah, that SCI looks nice... but I wonder how it handles confirmations
963 2010-12-22 13:35:11 satamusic has joined
964 2010-12-22 13:36:05 <UukGoblin> freemind2, http://sackheads.org/~bnaylor/spew/away_msgs.html and the like... it basically creates fake messages that no-one really cares about but they trigger activity and waste people's time
965 2010-12-22 13:37:32 <freemind2> UukGoblin, gotcha
966 2010-12-22 13:38:56 <wumpus> seems public away messages were the predecessor of twitter :P
967 2010-12-22 13:39:27 <UukGoblin> hehe
968 2010-12-22 13:40:52 <lfm> ;;bc,estimate
969 2010-12-22 13:40:53 <gribble> 16229.46900648
970 2010-12-22 13:44:08 <UukGoblin> hrm, hard to find any docs on that mybitcoin site
971 2010-12-22 13:44:31 <UukGoblin> would I have to have a mybitcoin account in order to make a payment to a site that uses its SCI?
972 2010-12-22 13:45:34 TD_ has joined
973 2010-12-22 13:46:42 <tcatm> UukGoblin: Nope, you can also pay using a normal bitcoin address
974 2010-12-22 13:48:55 <UukGoblin> so does my payment remain unconfirmed for an ~hour?
975 2010-12-22 13:49:45 <UukGoblin> actually thinking about it it's similar to card payments... even though you check out your cart, the payment may still fail later on
976 2010-12-22 13:50:24 <tcatm> I haven't used in myself. Maybe you can email them about that.
977 2010-12-22 13:57:44 satamusic has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
978 2010-12-22 13:59:11 akem has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
979 2010-12-22 14:05:10 satamusic has joined
980 2010-12-22 14:07:44 jav_ has joined
981 2010-12-22 14:10:34 davout has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
982 2010-12-22 14:12:19 BCBot has joined
983 2010-12-22 14:12:52 <EvanR> UukGoblin: i was told that its very unlikely to fail, especially after 1 confirmation
984 2010-12-22 14:13:25 <UukGoblin> EvanR, that's true
985 2010-12-22 14:13:59 <cdecker> To fail a node must refuse the block and then generate 2 blocks before all other nodes generate 1 new block
986 2010-12-22 14:15:57 rapacity has joined
987 2010-12-22 14:17:19 satamusic has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
988 2010-12-22 14:20:40 gavinandresen has joined
989 2010-12-22 14:22:18 TD_ has quit (Quit: TD_)
990 2010-12-22 14:30:34 annodomini has quit (Quit: annodomini)
991 2010-12-22 14:30:52 annodomini has joined
992 2010-12-22 14:32:05 pr0wler has joined
993 2010-12-22 14:33:23 freemind2 has quit (Quit: Always try to be modest, and be proud about it!)
994 2010-12-22 14:34:48 slush_cz has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
995 2010-12-22 14:35:07 satamusic has joined
996 2010-12-22 14:37:02 acous has joined
997 2010-12-22 14:40:26 <xelister> too quiet? Time for offtopic story
998 2010-12-22 14:40:30 <xelister> Windows is awesome: I inserted liveusb to boot windows and execute fixmbr. The fixmbr program succeeded. It fixed the MBR in... the liveusb 'harddrive' (thus leaving the computer still unbootable, as well as now corrupting the liveusb used to attempt to fix it). :D
999 2010-12-22 14:42:06 <wumpus> windows and MBRs is a dangerous combination
1000 2010-12-22 14:42:10 Amiga4000 is now known as amiga4000
1001 2010-12-22 14:42:28 <xelister> yeah. but wubi/ubuntu sucks so much, it bricked the box. so Im fixing it all step by step
1002 2010-12-22 14:42:47 <wumpus> just like installing windows will wipe all other operating systems from the MBR, pretending it's the only OS
1003 2010-12-22 14:42:47 <cdecker> Wubi sucks because you run windows under it ^^
1004 2010-12-22 14:43:34 <wumpus> but sounds like wubi does the same ^^
1005 2010-12-22 14:44:31 <wumpus> I've never had problems with it, i've used wubi to fix some windows problems, to remove rootkits and spyware inaccessible from windows itself
1006 2010-12-22 14:44:44 <EvanR-work> wubi? chinese input method?
1007 2010-12-22 14:45:11 <wumpus> it's a linux that you can start from windows (and lives inside a file on the windows file system)
1008 2010-12-22 14:45:44 <EvanR-work> virtual?
1009 2010-12-22 14:45:55 <wumpus> nope, it reboots the machine into linux
1010 2010-12-22 14:45:58 <EvanR-work> o
1011 2010-12-22 14:46:12 <wumpus> if it was virtual you couldn't use it to fix things as windows would still be running
1012 2010-12-22 14:46:58 <EvanR-work> right
1013 2010-12-22 14:46:59 <wumpus> a drawback compared to native linux is that disk access is pretty slow (ext2 over loopback over ntfs)
1014 2010-12-22 14:47:34 <wumpus> then again, it's an excellent way to get to know ubuntu.. if it doesn't brick you box :)
1015 2010-12-22 14:48:22 anarchyx has quit (Quit: The computer fell asleep)
1016 2010-12-22 14:54:39 epicurus has joined
1017 2010-12-22 14:55:07 <xelister> wubi is windows-based ubuntu installer basically
1018 2010-12-22 14:55:28 <xelister> its problem is that it created the ubuntu partition in a file on windows filesystem - slow, hard to repair etc
1019 2010-12-22 14:56:03 <wumpus> yes but how did it mess up your windows?
1020 2010-12-22 14:58:16 <xelister> on ubuntu update, new GRUB was installed, and this grup totally fails in such setup. It can not load its files from that in-windows partition, so grub does not operate normally, so you can not boot ubuntu. Nor even windows (without external boot manager, like on liveusb)
1021 2010-12-22 14:59:24 epicurus has quit (Client Quit)
1022 2010-12-22 15:02:41 <gavinandresen> Any github gurus here?
1023 2010-12-22 15:03:14 <gavinandresen> I need to know how to get my forks in order.
1024 2010-12-22 15:03:34 davex__ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1025 2010-12-22 15:03:58 davex__ has joined
1026 2010-12-22 15:04:57 <BoBeR> hai
1027 2010-12-22 15:05:06 <BoBeR> github hmm
1028 2010-12-22 15:05:12 <BoBeR> start pulling requests
1029 2010-12-22 15:05:15 <BoBeR> ond what you want added
1030 2010-12-22 15:05:23 <BoBeR> that should join them into a big one
1031 2010-12-22 15:06:15 <gavinandresen> Pulling isn't the problem; the problem is I've got two trees-- gavinandresen/bitcoin-git and bitcoin/bitcoin. I forked bitcoin/bitcoin FROM gavinandresen.
1032 2010-12-22 15:06:27 <BoBeR> yes
1033 2010-12-22 15:06:32 <BoBeR> oh you want to switch it
1034 2010-12-22 15:06:35 <BoBeR> hmm
1035 2010-12-22 15:06:38 <gavinandresen> But now I want to invert that relationship-- I want bitcoin/bitcoin to be the parent of my personal tree
1036 2010-12-22 15:06:48 <BoBeR> thats im possible i think
1037 2010-12-22 15:06:53 <BoBeR> you can try to make new ones
1038 2010-12-22 15:07:02 <BoBeR> or ask the admins
1039 2010-12-22 15:07:02 <gavinandresen> Yeah, that's probably what I'll end up doing.
1040 2010-12-22 15:08:31 pr0wler has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1041 2010-12-22 15:10:27 <xelister> are USA discussing option to make it illegal to smoke, even in own home?
1042 2010-12-22 15:10:45 <Diablo-D3> good.
1043 2010-12-22 15:10:48 <Diablo-D3> I want such a law.
1044 2010-12-22 15:10:54 <Diablo-D3> its not about the rights of the people
1045 2010-12-22 15:10:59 <Diablo-D3> its about destroying rich companies
1046 2010-12-22 15:11:25 <lfm> ya, make tobbaco illegal and put grass in vending machines
1047 2010-12-22 15:11:47 Toadyonps3 has joined
1048 2010-12-22 15:14:27 <xelister> lfm: =)
1049 2010-12-22 15:14:29 <UukGoblin> what's the point of destroying rich companies?
1050 2010-12-22 15:14:35 <wumpus> haven't they learned from the prohibition?
1051 2010-12-22 15:14:43 <wumpus> such a law would only help the mafia
1052 2010-12-22 15:15:09 Necrathex has quit (Quit: Necrathex)
1053 2010-12-22 15:15:21 <wumpus> so it'd destroy rich companies and create rich criminals.. yeah, that's progress :/
1054 2010-12-22 15:21:44 satamusic has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1055 2010-12-22 15:22:48 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1056 2010-12-22 15:23:02 <jav_> What is your estimate on how many transactions per second the current Bitcoin infrastructure can handle? ... I'm wondering if an application that requires _lots_ of transactions of very, very tiny amounts would be feasible or if that would run into limits in terms of transactions per second?
1057 2010-12-22 15:23:30 <cdecker> It's quite limited at the moment to be honest
1058 2010-12-22 15:24:04 <jav_> and what would raise the limit? more people mining?
1059 2010-12-22 15:24:06 <cdecker> When a certain threshold is hit there'll be transaction fees to pay for increased storage needs
1060 2010-12-22 15:24:16 <cdecker> Not really
1061 2010-12-22 15:24:37 <cdecker> There are efforts to try to make it scale better
1062 2010-12-22 15:24:51 <cdecker> But until now the transaction volume is quite low
1063 2010-12-22 15:25:04 <jav_> ok, I see, thx
1064 2010-12-22 15:25:30 <cdecker> np
1065 2010-12-22 15:25:34 <lfm> jav_: if you wanna do that you can do it with something like mybiycoin.com
1066 2010-12-22 15:25:44 <wumpus> bitcoin is not very suited to large numbers of small transactions
1067 2010-12-22 15:25:47 <lfm> mybitcoin.com
1068 2010-12-22 15:25:50 cosurgi has quit (Quit: leaving)
1069 2010-12-22 15:26:51 <jav_> lfm: I assume that works as long as it's only transactions between mybitcoin addresses?
1070 2010-12-22 15:27:20 <lfm> jay ya, but its easy to make accounts anyway
1071 2010-12-22 15:27:26 <cdecker> The goal should be to aggregate transactions locally and only send them to the network once a threshold is reached.
1072 2010-12-22 15:28:42 <jav_> wumpus: that's unfortunate for a micro-payement system, isn't it? ... well, I guess Bitcoin doesn't claim to be one
1073 2010-12-22 15:29:42 <edcba> yes it isn't but it should be one
1074 2010-12-22 15:29:52 <cdecker> Well people are working on that, so maybe we can claim to be a micropayment system one day ^^
1075 2010-12-22 15:29:59 <edcba> 'working'
1076 2010-12-22 15:30:00 <jav_> good to hear =)
1077 2010-12-22 15:30:36 <gavinandresen> Seems to me micropayments on a worldwide network is a Really Hard Problem. But I hope y'all prove me wrong!
1078 2010-12-22 15:30:53 <wumpus> jav_: well, at the moment it's not a micro payment system, it's geared toward perfect double spending protection, which means the entire transaction log is sent to all the nodes to be verified
1079 2010-12-22 15:31:11 larsivi has joined
1080 2010-12-22 15:32:38 bowman1 has joined
1081 2010-12-22 15:33:00 Asphodelia has joined
1082 2010-12-22 15:33:35 <wumpus> jav_: Safety over everything. Other proposed cryptocurrency systems sacrifice double spending protection for more locality/less bandwidth and storage usage, or special 'trusted' nodes, but it's a compromise, a dangerous one at that
1083 2010-12-22 15:34:39 <da2ce7> something like this: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=847.0 backed by bitcoin would work
1084 2010-12-22 15:34:41 <bitbot> Open Transactions: untraceable digital cash
1085 2010-12-22 15:35:12 satamusic has joined
1086 2010-12-22 15:35:49 <wumpus> yep
1087 2010-12-22 15:36:28 <wumpus> but I think the choice made by bitcoin is a very valid one, to get people to have any faith in cryptocurrencies at all, double spending must be prevented at all costs
1088 2010-12-22 15:37:26 RG has joined
1089 2010-12-22 15:37:55 Granttt has quit (Disconnected by services)
1090 2010-12-22 15:37:56 Grantt has joined
1091 2010-12-22 15:38:06 RichardG has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1092 2010-12-22 15:41:13 TD_ has joined
1093 2010-12-22 15:41:46 jav_ has quit (Quit: Verlassend)
1094 2010-12-22 15:42:55 <TD_> so
1095 2010-12-22 15:43:03 TD has quit (Disconnected by services)
1096 2010-12-22 15:43:03 TD_ is now known as TD
1097 2010-12-22 15:43:05 <TD> the old wiki is deprecated
1098 2010-12-22 15:43:12 <TD> is anyone moving the technical series content to the new wiki?
1099 2010-12-22 15:52:12 larsivi has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
1100 2010-12-22 15:52:22 larsivi has joined
1101 2010-12-22 15:58:34 larsivi_ has joined
1102 2010-12-22 15:59:29 larsivi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1103 2010-12-22 15:59:44 omglolbbq has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1104 2010-12-22 16:01:57 davex__ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1105 2010-12-22 16:04:24 bowman1 has left ()
1106 2010-12-22 16:06:54 fahadsadah has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1107 2010-12-22 16:08:21 fahadsadah has joined
1108 2010-12-22 16:12:38 Granttt has joined
1109 2010-12-22 16:12:47 <wumpus> ooh shiny new wiki
1110 2010-12-22 16:14:14 <gavinandresen> She's realy purty
1111 2010-12-22 16:15:34 <wumpus> TD: seems there is already quite some technical content in there, for example "Script"
1112 2010-12-22 16:16:22 <wumpus> TD: but I'm not sure it's the same as in the old wiki
1113 2010-12-22 16:16:59 Grantt has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1114 2010-12-22 16:17:38 Granttt has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1115 2010-12-22 16:17:51 popey has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1116 2010-12-22 16:18:12 <TD> ah right
1117 2010-12-22 16:18:40 popey has joined
1118 2010-12-22 16:29:19 akem has joined
1119 2010-12-22 16:36:31 asdf30 has joined
1120 2010-12-22 16:41:14 davex__ has joined
1121 2010-12-22 16:46:26 TheAncientGoat has joined
1122 2010-12-22 16:47:08 larsivi_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1123 2010-12-22 16:53:20 slush_cz has joined
1124 2010-12-22 16:53:40 schmooo has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1125 2010-12-22 16:55:29 schmooo has joined
1126 2010-12-22 17:00:02 theymos has joined
1127 2010-12-22 17:16:41 cdecker has left ()
1128 2010-12-22 17:22:11 satamusic has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1129 2010-12-22 17:22:30 kakels has joined
1130 2010-12-22 17:27:14 <Asphodelia> Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: com/diablominer/DiabloMiner/DiabloMiner
1131 2010-12-22 17:29:32 <Asphodelia> Diablo-D3, do you have any idea what I might do to fix this? I already tried manually setting $JAVA_HOME and $CLASSPATH in the shell environment.
1132 2010-12-22 17:31:00 <Diablo-D3> did you get from git?
1133 2010-12-22 17:31:04 <Asphodelia> yes
1134 2010-12-22 17:31:07 <Diablo-D3> thats why
1135 2010-12-22 17:31:09 <Diablo-D3> you forgot to build it
1136 2010-12-22 17:31:13 <Diablo-D3> run mvn package
1137 2010-12-22 17:32:07 <Asphodelia> Thank you.
1138 2010-12-22 17:32:45 kermit has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1139 2010-12-22 17:33:20 kermit has joined
1140 2010-12-22 17:33:41 kakels has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1141 2010-12-22 17:39:44 larsivi has joined
1142 2010-12-22 17:44:10 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1143 2010-12-22 17:44:26 TD has joined
1144 2010-12-22 17:45:57 kermit has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1145 2010-12-22 17:46:11 kermit has joined
1146 2010-12-22 17:48:24 pr0wler has joined
1147 2010-12-22 17:50:45 <sgornick> Is there web access to the logs for this IRC? https://caurea.org gives a 404.
1148 2010-12-22 17:51:17 jav_ has joined
1149 2010-12-22 17:52:33 TD_ has joined
1150 2010-12-22 17:55:49 <Asphodelia> caurea.org looks up to me.
1151 2010-12-22 17:56:09 <nanotube> sgornick: http://veritas.maximilianeum.ch/bitcoin/irc/logs/
1152 2010-12-22 17:57:49 RichardG has joined
1153 2010-12-22 17:59:10 RG has quit (oirc!~tingle@187.15.34.80|Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1154 2010-12-22 18:02:42 <theymos> nanotube: http://blockexplorer.com/q/eta now never looks at blocks before the last retarget. The parameter is the maximum number of blocks to look back at.
1155 2010-12-22 18:02:47 <midnightmagic> ;;bc,estimate
1156 2010-12-22 18:02:47 <gribble> 15974.07550945
1157 2010-12-22 18:02:53 <midnightmagic> ;;bc,stats
1158 2010-12-22 18:02:55 <gribble> Current Blocks: 98938 | Current Difficulty: 14484.16236123 | Next Difficulty At Block: 100799 | Next Difficulty In: 1861 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 4 days, 17 hours, 14 minutes, and 13 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 15974.07550945
1159 2010-12-22 18:03:58 <nanotube> theymos: cool... it seems about equal to what the current time estimate is showing, now that we've had some blocks done.
1160 2010-12-22 18:04:03 <sgornick> Asphodelia: thanks, ... but they were an archive for some of #bitcoin-dev back in July / Aug e.g., http://stuff.caurea.org/irssi/.../%23bitcoin-dev/.../%23bitcoin-dev-2010-08-03.log
1161 2010-12-22 18:04:04 <sgornick> I had seen lfm's comment: "and the one time when there was a nasty bug and we had to rewind a couple hours" and did some google results to see what that was all about, came up with those Aug IRC commetns.
1162 2010-12-22 18:04:13 <nanotube> ;;time elapsed [web fetch http://blockexplorer.com/q/eta]
1163 2010-12-22 18:04:14 <gribble> 1 week, 4 days, 19 hours, 17 minutes, and 8 seconds
1164 2010-12-22 18:04:26 <sgornick> nanotube: those don't go back earler..., darn.
1165 2010-12-22 18:04:48 <nanotube> mm ya
1166 2010-12-22 18:05:09 <sgornick> lfm: Care to relive for us youngin's (well, newer to Bitcoin than August) how this "Rewind" went down?
1167 2010-12-22 18:05:40 <midnightmagic> oh thank god..
1168 2010-12-22 18:05:43 <nanotube> sgornick: yea it seems the irssi dir is down on caurea. someone may have a copy
1169 2010-12-22 18:05:57 <lfm> eh?
1170 2010-12-22 18:06:26 <sgornick> lfm: you wrote "and the one time when there was a nasty bug and we had to rewind a couple hours"
1171 2010-12-22 18:07:38 <lfm> there was a bug someone found that they created a transaction that gave them trillions of btc. There ware some guys noticed it in the block chain almost right away.
1172 2010-12-22 18:07:40 <sgornick> that's a fascinating concept that a financial system could work that way. what I gather is there was a bug 0.3.8 or something, then everyone instructed to not trust trx after a certain block until
1173 2010-12-22 18:08:08 <theymos> nanotube: It should be very close until 1000 blocks (or the specified maximum) is reached. Then mine is more accurate. 4 days before the last retarget, I recorded our estimates and compared them afterward: Mine was 1 hour off, and yours was 4 hours off.
1174 2010-12-22 18:08:11 <sgornick> ... you could run on 0.3.10
1175 2010-12-22 18:08:16 cosurgi has joined
1176 2010-12-22 18:08:57 <nanotube> theymos: well, guess i'll switch my timetonext to use your new eta. :)
1177 2010-12-22 18:09:16 <lfm> within a few hours we got Satoshi to release a new version that would reject the bad transaction. It actually took a few more hours than that to get enough people runnign the new version and producing enough new blocks to take over with a nerw block chain
1178 2010-12-22 18:09:49 TheAncientGoat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1179 2010-12-22 18:09:58 <cosurgi> slush_cz: I'm afraid I won't do that change to default client for pooled mining. not enough time, sorry.
1180 2010-12-22 18:10:39 * cosurgi did two nighties yesterday and the day before.
1181 2010-12-22 18:10:42 <slush_cz> cosurgi: Ok, don't worry
1182 2010-12-22 18:10:48 ebel has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1183 2010-12-22 18:10:52 <nanotube> ;;bc,stats
1184 2010-12-22 18:10:54 <gribble> Current Blocks: 98938 | Current Difficulty: 14484.16236123 | Next Difficulty At Block: 100799 | Next Difficulty In: 1861 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 4 days, 19 hours, 17 minutes, and 8 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 15974.07550945
1185 2010-12-22 18:11:07 <nanotube> theymos: thanks :)
1186 2010-12-22 18:11:13 <cosurgi> slept only 3h for three consecutive days
1187 2010-12-22 18:11:38 <cosurgi> slush_cz: maybe "later" can't promise :/
1188 2010-12-22 18:11:49 <slush_cz> cosurgi: eh "nevermind"
1189 2010-12-22 18:12:00 <cosurgi> :)
1190 2010-12-22 18:12:12 <cosurgi> life
1191 2010-12-22 18:12:52 <davux> any French speaker here?
1192 2010-12-22 18:12:59 <davux> i would like to invite you to #bitcoin-fr
1193 2010-12-22 18:13:02 <theymos> nanotube: Cool. I think I'll change the default lookback so it's only 50 when near a retarget. That'll be noticeably more accurate.
1194 2010-12-22 18:13:21 <davux> a couple of people came to me and have some questions about bitcoin, and they speak French
1195 2010-12-22 18:13:44 <nanotube> theymos: i think just leaving the lookback at max(500, blockssincelastretarget) would be quite accurate enough...
1196 2010-12-22 18:13:52 <slush_cz> cosurgi: It would be cool to have remote mining support, but real life at first place, of course :)
1197 2010-12-22 18:14:07 <nanotube> theymos: er... i mean, min()
1198 2010-12-22 18:14:34 jav_ has quit (Quit: Verlassend)
1199 2010-12-22 18:15:15 <cosurgi> slush_cz: :)
1200 2010-12-22 18:16:01 <lfm> davux: if you wann translate for them what are the questions?
1201 2010-12-22 18:16:27 <nanotube> lfm: google translate to the rescue :)
1202 2010-12-22 18:17:15 <theymos> nanotube: Yeah. I suppose no one needs minute-level accuracy.
1203 2010-12-22 18:18:05 <nanotube> if they do they can pass an argument to eta. :)
1204 2010-12-22 18:18:58 <EvanR-work> how much does an operator turban cost
1205 2010-12-22 18:19:34 <davux> lfm: i have to go now, i can't do the translation
1206 2010-12-22 18:19:50 darrob has quit (Disconnected by services)
1207 2010-12-22 18:19:59 darrob has joined
1208 2010-12-22 18:26:13 <sgornick> lfm: thanks for the info. When did that "rewind" occur ... back in July? I see notes about an "overflow" bug back in pre-0.3.10,
1209 2010-12-22 18:26:47 <lfm> sgornick: yes that was it
1210 2010-12-22 18:27:01 omglolbbq has joined
1211 2010-12-22 18:27:09 <lfm> not sure exactly when it was off hand
1212 2010-12-22 18:29:15 <omglolbbq> what could cause gpu miner to perform realy bad in a pool while showing high khash?
1213 2010-12-22 18:32:26 <ArtForz> lots of possiblities
1214 2010-12-22 18:32:41 Insti has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1215 2010-12-22 18:33:41 <omglolbbq> ArtForz, my one card with 70.000khash is finding about same amount as blocks as my 24.000khash card...
1216 2010-12-22 18:33:57 <omglolbbq> only since today
1217 2010-12-22 18:34:01 <ArtForz> OCed?
1218 2010-12-22 18:34:12 <omglolbbq> it was oced but crashed, not anymore
1219 2010-12-22 18:34:43 Insti has joined
1220 2010-12-22 18:35:49 <ArtForz> sounds weird
1221 2010-12-22 18:36:10 <omglolbbq> maybe its just having a bad day... just tought it was odd
1222 2010-12-22 18:36:19 <ArtForz> usually it's either too high a OC or crossfire fucking things up
1223 2010-12-22 18:37:09 <ArtForz> yeah, bad luck also happens, but usually my cards are within 10% or so of expected H==0 counts over a day or so
1224 2010-12-22 18:37:53 <omglolbbq> could slow internet connection be a problem?
1225 2010-12-22 18:37:58 <omglolbbq> (pooled mining)
1226 2010-12-22 18:38:08 Diablo-D3 has left ()
1227 2010-12-22 18:38:12 <ArtForz> I guess so
1228 2010-12-22 18:38:58 <omglolbbq> *kills torrents*
1229 2010-12-22 18:39:12 <necrodearia> sgornick, Re: Bitcoin 3.9 bug and irc log since just before discovery see http://please.bitcoin.me/irclog.txt
1230 2010-12-22 18:39:27 <ArtForz> err, 0.3.9 was already fixed
1231 2010-12-22 18:39:36 <necrodearia> And while you're at it, feel freely to pbm ^_^
1232 2010-12-22 18:39:41 <ArtForz> 0.3.8 and earlier had the overflow bug
1233 2010-12-22 18:39:47 <necrodearia> actually, more liek "pb noagendamarket"
1234 2010-12-22 18:42:06 maximi89 has joined
1235 2010-12-22 18:42:56 davout has joined
1236 2010-12-22 18:42:59 <BoBeR> im starting a service
1237 2010-12-22 18:43:04 tylergillies has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1238 2010-12-22 18:43:07 <BoBeR> will find weird rare files for anyone
1239 2010-12-22 18:43:20 <BoBeR> prices is PWYC
1240 2010-12-22 18:43:30 <BoBeR> already 1 happy customer
1241 2010-12-22 18:43:39 <BoBeR> good at finding the rarest of porn
1242 2010-12-22 18:43:49 <BoBeR> and the piratyest of warez
1243 2010-12-22 18:44:04 <BoBeR> only accept BTC
1244 2010-12-22 18:45:53 <omglolbbq> ArtForz, i heard you were planning on overtaking bitcoin power?
1245 2010-12-22 18:46:05 <ArtForz> not quite
1246 2010-12-22 18:46:51 <ArtForz> actually pretty far from it
1247 2010-12-22 18:47:06 <omglolbbq> i tought you'd have more then 50% of the networks generating power
1248 2010-12-22 18:47:24 <ArtForz> with a full 1000 chips, yes
1249 2010-12-22 18:47:45 <ArtForz> only ordered 100 for now
1250 2010-12-22 18:47:49 tylergillies has joined
1251 2010-12-22 18:47:53 <omglolbbq> good :p
1252 2010-12-22 18:48:29 <ArtForz> so it's only ~20Gh/s
1253 2010-12-22 18:48:33 <Asphodelia> Protip: don't try to get 50% of the network. You'll crash the currency.
1254 2010-12-22 18:49:27 <midnightmagic> those those fpga you were thinking about a few days ago?
1255 2010-12-22 18:49:40 <ArtForz> structured ASIC
1256 2010-12-22 18:49:45 <midnightmagic> very nice.
1257 2010-12-22 18:49:50 <ArtForz> basically a FPGA without the FP part
1258 2010-12-22 18:50:10 akem has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1259 2010-12-22 18:50:14 Xunie is now known as Xun-meister
1260 2010-12-22 18:51:34 <ArtForz> FPGAs simply cost too much up front
1261 2010-12-22 18:51:59 <BoBeR> ArtForz just let your run
1262 2010-12-22 18:52:03 <midnightmagic> i love the implication that asics don't. :)
1263 2010-12-22 18:52:04 <BoBeR> tell ppl they have a chance
1264 2010-12-22 18:52:09 <BoBeR> and they more ppl will generate
1265 2010-12-22 18:52:15 <BoBeR> trully making it p2p
1266 2010-12-22 18:52:19 <ArtForz> actually they really dont
1267 2010-12-22 18:52:33 <BoBeR> if one person has more CPU power then others
1268 2010-12-22 18:52:47 <ArtForz> structured ASIC = standard silicon, metal layer defined function
1269 2010-12-22 18:52:50 <BoBeR> ppl will be scared that if you get arrested the network will clash in difficulty
1270 2010-12-22 18:52:54 <BoBeR> and destroy everything
1271 2010-12-22 18:54:09 <ArtForz> higher per-unit cost for FPGA makes it a worse choice than ASIC even for "only" 20Ghps
1272 2010-12-22 18:54:10 <midnightmagic> oh, no, I meant i love it as in "that's really cool!"
1273 2010-12-22 18:54:32 <Asphodelia> More to the point, a party with >50% can execute various bad attacks.
1274 2010-12-22 18:55:02 <ArtForz> yes, if I wanted to grab > 50% of the network, I would've done so a long time ago
1275 2010-12-22 18:55:05 <xelister> god windows is shit
1276 2010-12-22 18:57:37 <xelister> 1 BTC for anyone that tells me how to change partition to logical; layout: 4 primary partitions (+free space). Without destroying data. Quickly, not moving 40 GB data back and forth a lot. PM me if offer is still open
1277 2010-12-22 18:58:36 <ArtForz> kinda tricky but possible if you have a few sectors space in front of your first partiton
1278 2010-12-22 18:59:37 <xelister> no space there... but 1st partition is small, I could shirng it and move + few sectors
1279 2010-12-22 18:59:42 <xelister> shrink*
1280 2010-12-22 19:00:27 <xelister> overall, in gparted or other program... is there way to to tell partition to be logical
1281 2010-12-22 19:00:35 <xelister> oh meh
1282 2010-12-22 19:01:14 <ArtForz> dunno about gparted, I usually do crap like that more-or-less manually
1283 2010-12-22 19:01:31 <midnightmagic> boot into Linux, fdisk, mark current geometry, delete partition, create primary, enter same layout, make sure type is correct, mount to verify?
1284 2010-12-22 19:02:15 <ArtForz> pretty much
1285 2010-12-22 19:02:35 <midnightmagic> 0.5 BTC please.
1286 2010-12-22 19:03:47 <midnightmagic> j/k, keep it man, your cross to bear makes me feel sympathy.. :)
1287 2010-12-22 19:03:53 <ArtForz> boot linux, find/make free sector for extended partiton table, copy primary partiton entries to extended table, replace partitions in primary table with ref to extended table, ???, profit!
1288 2010-12-22 19:05:25 <ArtForz> officially extended part table should be right in fornt of extended partitoion, real-world more crazy structures usually work just as well
1289 2010-12-22 19:12:11 zer0 has joined
1290 2010-12-22 19:12:38 zer0 is now known as Guest34676
1291 2010-12-22 19:13:09 davout has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1292 2010-12-22 19:14:05 StrangeCharm has joined
1293 2010-12-22 19:17:49 <Asphodelia> I don't understand why the supply is scheduled to level off. Isn't the value of the coin determined mostly by the cost of minting?
1294 2010-12-22 19:19:02 <EvanR-work> no?
1295 2010-12-22 19:19:02 TD_ has quit (Quit: TD_)
1296 2010-12-22 19:19:03 <Guest34676> Value is a subjective measure. Value is not determined by cost
1297 2010-12-22 19:19:19 <Asphodelia> okay, market price.
1298 2010-12-22 19:21:03 <Asphodelia> But if the cost of minting 1BTC approaches infinity, shouldn't the market price of bitcoins likewise approach infinity? That seems wrong.
1299 2010-12-22 19:21:20 <Guest34676> market price is what the last person paid in some currency/good for btc. the value of 1 btc for that person exceeded its market price - that's why he traded
1300 2010-12-22 19:21:32 <Asphodelia> yes
1301 2010-12-22 19:21:53 <Guest34676> cost of minting depends on the amount of cpu power
1302 2010-12-22 19:22:11 <Guest34676> cpu power is in flux as miners decided whether they want to mine or not
1303 2010-12-22 19:22:34 TD has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1304 2010-12-22 19:22:38 <EvanR-work> if there are more goods and services to trade for it, the value goes up
1305 2010-12-22 19:23:28 <EvanR-work> when more total money appears, the value goes down
1306 2010-12-22 19:23:36 <Asphodelia> That doesn't sound right.
1307 2010-12-22 19:24:06 <Asphodelia> How do the sellers decide how much to charge?
1308 2010-12-22 19:24:16 <Asphodelia> You have to already know the value for that.
1309 2010-12-22 19:24:23 <EvanR-work> look at this chart
1310 2010-12-22 19:24:32 <Asphodelia> It feels like the only place that price information originally "comes from" is the cost of minting.
1311 2010-12-22 19:24:48 <EvanR-work> https://mtgox.com/trade/history see depth of market
1312 2010-12-22 19:25:02 <EvanR-work> people are selling for lots of prices, in blue
1313 2010-12-22 19:25:41 <EvanR-work> so if you wanted to sell, youd choose a price somewhere in there
1314 2010-12-22 19:26:06 <EvanR-work> Asphodelia: money can have more value to it than the cost of creating it. look at dollars
1315 2010-12-22 19:26:07 <Guest34676> not really. market price is a meeting of supply and demand value scales between sellers and buyers of btc
1316 2010-12-22 19:27:14 <tcatm> What's the best algorithm to calculate total network hashrate from block timestamps?
1317 2010-12-22 19:27:51 <ArtForz> define best
1318 2010-12-22 19:28:22 <Guest34676> for miners the cost of mining does play a role in what they're willing to sell at, but buyers are likely to consider other factors (what can i get for btc, ease of transmitting btc, anonymity...)
1319 2010-12-22 19:28:24 <EvanR-work> Asphodelia: a good starting point for choosing a price is what the various markets are currently charging. too high and youll never sell it. too low and youll be missing profits
1320 2010-12-22 19:28:42 <tcatm> ArtForz: Most accurate hashrate at any given time.
1321 2010-12-22 19:28:55 <tcatm> Output will be a graph
1322 2010-12-22 19:29:14 <ArtForz> thats kinda hard
1323 2010-12-22 19:29:40 <ArtForz> to get rid of the noise you have to average over a lot of blocks
1324 2010-12-22 19:29:59 <ArtForz> but that also means you're looking at 1kblock+ averages
1325 2010-12-22 19:30:30 <tcatm> What would you suggest?
1326 2010-12-22 19:30:48 <ArtForz> not too sure, best-fit with a quadratic curve maybe?
1327 2010-12-22 19:31:01 <ArtForz> *least-squares fit
1328 2010-12-22 19:31:13 <tcatm> Could take quite long to calculate
1329 2010-12-22 19:32:00 <ArtForz> well, statistix uses simple average-of-last-X-blocks
1330 2010-12-22 19:33:14 <EvanR-work> is there a graph for total bitcoin hash per second over time?
1331 2010-12-22 19:33:22 <EvanR-work> is it like moores law?
1332 2010-12-22 19:33:23 <tcatm> i.e. calculating hashrate for every block, then average over n blocks?
1333 2010-12-22 19:33:32 <ArtForz> http://www3.telus.net/millerlf/hashes.png
1334 2010-12-22 19:33:38 <ArtForz> hashrate for block is easy
1335 2010-12-22 19:33:42 <tcatm> EvanR-work: I'm adding that to bitcoincharts
1336 2010-12-22 19:33:48 <EvanR-work> great
1337 2010-12-22 19:34:30 <ArtForz> it gives nonsensical results sometimes
1338 2010-12-22 19:35:14 <ArtForz> should be ~ 2**32 * block[X].difficulty / (block[X].time - block[X-1].time)
1339 2010-12-22 19:35:55 <ArtForz> result is HPS
1340 2010-12-22 19:36:13 <ArtForz> small problems from blocks with timestamps <= prev block
1341 2010-12-22 19:38:28 <midnightmagic> ;;bc, calc 150000
1342 2010-12-22 19:38:28 <gribble> Error: "bc," is not a valid command.
1343 2010-12-22 19:38:34 <midnightmagic> ;;bc,calc 150000
1344 2010-12-22 19:38:35 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 150000 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 4 days, 19 hours, 12 minutes, and 6 seconds
1345 2010-12-22 19:40:00 <tcatm> ArtForz: What would you suggest for dealing with negative deltas?
1346 2010-12-22 19:40:01 RazielZ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1347 2010-12-22 19:40:04 <EvanR-work> as more cpu joins the pool, my share rate will drop
1348 2010-12-22 19:40:36 <EvanR-work> eventually back to the original problem the pool was supposed to 'solve'
1349 2010-12-22 19:40:46 <ArtForz> not really
1350 2010-12-22 19:41:11 <ArtForz> with a pool you just get less coins more often
1351 2010-12-22 19:41:35 <EvanR-work> in either case, as more cpu computes bit coins, and my cpu power doesnt increase, i will see less coins
1352 2010-12-22 19:41:39 <ArtForz> averaged over "long enough" you end up with slighly less than straight mining would get you
1353 2010-12-22 19:42:24 <EvanR-work> at some point it wont be 'fun' to join the pool either
1354 2010-12-22 19:42:59 <ArtForz> well, miners will be getting milliBTC very regularly :P
1355 2010-12-22 19:43:11 <EvanR-work> not if you cant get a share
1356 2010-12-22 19:43:33 <EvanR-work> the pool gets several blocks a day now :S
1357 2010-12-22 19:43:40 <ArtForz> well, at diff 14k theres avg 14k shares per block
1358 2010-12-22 19:44:28 <ArtForz> yep
1359 2010-12-22 19:44:49 <xelister> ArtForz: got updated version?
1360 2010-12-22 19:45:17 <ArtForz> updated version of what?
1361 2010-12-22 19:45:20 <xelister> of http://www3.telus.net/millerlf/hashes.png
1362 2010-12-22 19:45:24 <ArtForz> nope
1363 2010-12-22 19:45:32 <xelister> wait, that actually is up to date it seems
1364 2010-12-22 19:45:41 <xelister> well almost
1365 2010-12-22 19:45:43 <ArtForz> not quite
1366 2010-12-22 19:45:55 <ArtForz> up to dec 1st or so it eseems
1367 2010-12-22 19:46:11 <EvanR-work> i ran my 1100M miner at lunch and got nothing :S
1368 2010-12-22 19:46:34 <EvanR-work> er
1369 2010-12-22 19:46:37 <EvanR-work> 1.1M ;)
1370 2010-12-22 19:47:09 <ArtForz> btw, getting > 550Mh/s on a stock 5970 now
1371 2010-12-22 19:47:34 <EvanR-work> how much do those go for, 600 dollars?
1372 2010-12-22 19:47:51 <ArtForz> dunno, they used to be ~500 before they went out of stock everywhere
1373 2010-12-22 19:47:56 <EvanR-work> lol
1374 2010-12-22 19:48:27 <ArtForz> probably because 6990 is supposed to come out early '11
1375 2010-12-22 19:49:12 zylche has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1376 2010-12-22 19:49:17 Phoebus has joined
1377 2010-12-22 19:49:22 darrob has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1378 2010-12-22 19:49:27 zylche has joined
1379 2010-12-22 19:50:54 <ArtForz> it should be possible to get close to 600Mh/s from a 5970
1380 2010-12-22 19:51:14 <ArtForz> *a stock 5970
1381 2010-12-22 19:52:02 <EvanR-work> can a quantum computer blow us out of the water?
1382 2010-12-22 19:52:10 <ArtForz> probably not
1383 2010-12-22 19:52:41 <midnightmagic> ;;bc,calc 105000
1384 2010-12-22 19:52:42 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 105000 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 6 days, 20 hours, 34 minutes, and 26 seconds
1385 2010-12-22 19:53:04 <EvanR-work> ;;bc.calc 1100
1386 2010-12-22 19:53:04 <gribble> Error: "bc.calc" is not a valid command.
1387 2010-12-22 19:53:09 <EvanR-work> ;;bc,calc 1100
1388 2010-12-22 19:53:10 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 1100 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 1 year, 41 weeks, 2 days, 13 hours, 20 minutes, and 39 seconds
1389 2010-12-22 19:53:31 Slix` has joined
1390 2010-12-22 19:53:35 <ArtForz> ;;bc,calc 16441609
1391 2010-12-22 19:53:36 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 16441609 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 1 hour, 3 minutes, and 3 seconds
1392 2010-12-22 19:53:38 <EvanR-work> that command needs to extrpolate for expected increases in total bitcoin cpu
1393 2010-12-22 19:53:55 darrob has joined
1394 2010-12-22 19:54:04 <ArtForz> why? it says *given current difficulty*
1395 2010-12-22 19:54:20 <EvanR-work> which is obviously useless 1 year 41 weeks out
1396 2010-12-22 19:54:24 <EvanR-work> ;;bc,calc 1000000000
1397 2010-12-22 19:54:25 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 1000000000 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 1 minute and 2 seconds
1398 2010-12-22 19:54:48 <EvanR-work> $_$
1399 2010-12-22 19:55:16 <EvanR-work> cpu is money
1400 2010-12-22 19:55:38 <ArtForz> that'd probably be < $1M of ASICs
1401 2010-12-22 19:55:57 <ArtForz> well, not probably, it is
1402 2010-12-22 19:58:08 <EvanR-work> how is difficulty determined?
1403 2010-12-22 19:58:44 <bencoder> magic
1404 2010-12-22 20:00:35 <BoBeR> its calculated so only 6 bitcoins an hour
1405 2010-12-22 20:00:44 <BoBeR> it takes the last amount and magicifys it
1406 2010-12-22 20:00:52 <bencoder> ^
1407 2010-12-22 20:00:57 <bencoder> s/bitcoins/blocks
1408 2010-12-22 20:01:10 <BoBeR> that
1409 2010-12-22 20:01:17 <EvanR-work> based on how fast blocks have been generating?
1410 2010-12-22 20:01:27 <ArtForz> yup
1411 2010-12-22 20:01:33 <EvanR-work> based on timestamps?
1412 2010-12-22 20:01:36 <ArtForz> yup
1413 2010-12-22 20:01:43 <EvanR-work> arent the timestamps up to the clients?
1414 2010-12-22 20:01:49 <ArtForz> not really
1415 2010-12-22 20:02:09 rocode has joined
1416 2010-12-22 20:02:28 <ArtForz> clients ignore blocks with timestamps in the future or < median of prev 11 blocks
1417 2010-12-22 20:03:10 <EvanR-work> so before using bitcoin, make sure you set your clock?
1418 2010-12-22 20:03:23 <EvanR-work> or your 1 minute in the future timestamp will be rejected?
1419 2010-12-22 20:03:36 <ArtForz> errr... more than 2h into the future
1420 2010-12-22 20:03:40 <EvanR-work> oh
1421 2010-12-22 20:04:11 <EvanR-work> will bitcoins work between planets?
1422 2010-12-22 20:04:26 <ArtForz> and iirc bitcoin calcs offset from local UTC clock by using median of peer time
1423 2010-12-22 20:04:59 <ArtForz> iirc thats limited to +- 1h though
1424 2010-12-22 20:05:51 <ArtForz> so if your clock is more than 2h in the future, you'll be mining blocks no other node will accept
1425 2010-12-22 20:09:43 <omglolbbq> ArtForz, reboot seems to have helped getting more blocks
1426 2010-12-22 20:10:06 <ArtForz> yeah, GPUs sometimes seem to semi-crash
1427 2010-12-22 20:10:20 <ArtForz> = appears to be working, but really isn't
1428 2010-12-22 20:10:35 <ArtForz> no clue how the fuck that is even possible
1429 2010-12-22 20:10:38 <omglolbbq> hehe
1430 2010-12-22 20:12:15 <EvanR-work> half of the system ends up in an inconsistent state xD
1431 2010-12-22 20:13:29 <wumpus> hehe, the reason that is possible is because the GPU miner kernels don't do anything in case of no match... they only write a value in case of match, so that can go on forever, even if the GPU just stops working :)
1432 2010-12-22 20:15:24 devon_hillard_ has joined
1433 2010-12-22 20:15:30 <devon_hillard_> anyone else using diablo miner?
1434 2010-12-22 20:15:53 devon_hillard_ is now known as devon_hillard
1435 2010-12-22 20:16:10 Sherpa has joined
1436 2010-12-22 20:18:49 Guest34676 has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1437 2010-12-22 20:19:58 RG has joined
1438 2010-12-22 20:20:26 RichardG has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1439 2010-12-22 20:24:55 <Sherpa> http://www.bitcoinx.info/btcx/technical-support/10-bitcoin-blocks-full-blockchain-download.html
1440 2010-12-22 20:35:48 <appamatto> Whoa
1441 2010-12-22 20:35:51 <appamatto> What is bitcoinx?
1442 2010-12-22 20:37:04 <dsg> I'm not sure I would trust that blockchain :)
1443 2010-12-22 20:37:22 akem has joined
1444 2010-12-22 20:39:30 <appamatto> ;;bc,stats
1445 2010-12-22 20:39:32 <gribble> Current Blocks: 98957 | Current Difficulty: 14484.16236123 | Next Difficulty At Block: 100799 | Next Difficulty In: 1842 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 4 days, 11 hours, 47 minutes, and 18 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 16205.83106308
1446 2010-12-22 20:39:57 <Sherpa> ... why wouldnt you trust that blockchain ?
1447 2010-12-22 20:41:11 <theymos> Blocks aren't fully checked when you replace files like that. Someone could give you invalid blocks.
1448 2010-12-22 20:41:59 <Sherpa> Would the client generate invalid blocks ?
1449 2010-12-22 20:42:45 <Sherpa> I'm the admin of BitCoinX.info
1450 2010-12-22 20:42:53 <appamatto> Is there a way to do a channel search here?
1451 2010-12-22 20:42:59 <Sherpa> /list
1452 2010-12-22 20:43:19 <appamatto> Does that include a search term?
1453 2010-12-22 20:43:21 <theymos> It could in some circumstances. But more likely the files would be specially crafted for some purpose.
1454 2010-12-22 20:43:25 <Sherpa> you can put a search term
1455 2010-12-22 20:43:28 <Sherpa> /list bitcoin
1456 2010-12-22 20:43:57 <appamatto> well that didn't work
1457 2010-12-22 20:44:01 <Sherpa> I see, Well, I'm the owner of the files there. I just did a copy of my files then compressed
1458 2010-12-22 20:44:15 <appamatto> listed a bazillion channels
1459 2010-12-22 20:44:53 <Sherpa> #bitcoinx #bitcoin-discussion #bitcoin-otc
1460 2010-12-22 20:45:04 <Sherpa> Channels of note
1461 2010-12-22 20:45:15 <donpdonp> appamatto: also try http://irc.netsplit.de/channels/?net=freenode&chat=bitcoin
1462 2010-12-22 20:45:20 <appamatto> Sherpa, what is bitcoinx?
1463 2010-12-22 20:45:28 <Sherpa> BitCoinX.info is my site
1464 2010-12-22 20:45:51 <appamatto> You don't use the bitcoin.org forums?
1465 2010-12-22 20:45:53 <Sherpa> I got bored with my cc one day and decided to start a bitcoin forum
1466 2010-12-22 20:45:55 <Sherpa> I do
1467 2010-12-22 20:46:09 Phoebus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1468 2010-12-22 20:46:35 Phoebus has joined
1469 2010-12-22 20:46:48 <appamatto> I see
1470 2010-12-22 20:46:51 <Sherpa> I run a handful of other sites, I'm hoping i can get more people to use BitCoin :)
1471 2010-12-22 20:47:22 <Sherpa> www.SceneSite.net www.TopScene.net www.WTFHost.info :)
1472 2010-12-22 20:47:55 <Sherpa> www.WTFHost.info Secure Offshore Linux Hosting accepting BitCoins btw :)
1473 2010-12-22 20:48:24 <Sherpa> [/shameless self promotions]
1474 2010-12-22 20:49:06 mndrix has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1475 2010-12-22 20:54:05 <appamatto> Heh
1476 2010-12-22 20:54:23 <appamatto> Cool :)
1477 2010-12-22 20:54:24 maximi89 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1478 2010-12-22 20:54:51 <Sherpa> Indeed
1479 2010-12-22 20:55:31 <Sherpa> I got a friend intrested in BitCoin...he's going to setup a scheduled task to run BitCoin in the off-hours at his work :)
1480 2010-12-22 21:03:27 <xelister> cool, Sherpa
1481 2010-12-22 21:04:40 <elryry> I was going to do research into bitcoin for a site i'm dev'ing
1482 2010-12-22 21:25:28 albatross has joined
1483 2010-12-22 21:26:11 <albatross> gavinandresen: you around
1484 2010-12-22 21:28:30 dwdollar has left ()
1485 2010-12-22 21:32:55 <Asphodelia> How long is the testnet blockchain, approximately?
1486 2010-12-22 21:33:41 mtgox has joined
1487 2010-12-22 21:35:16 <Asphodelia> I can't tell if I'm still downloading or if blocks are just minted that fast.
1488 2010-12-22 21:35:27 Tester has joined
1489 2010-12-22 21:36:15 <theymos> 19575
1490 2010-12-22 21:36:33 <theymos> http://blockexplorer.com/testnet
1491 2010-12-22 21:36:43 <Asphodelia> Thank you.
1492 2010-12-22 21:36:50 Tester has quit (Client Quit)
1493 2010-12-22 21:38:00 <BoBeR> whats topscene
1494 2010-12-22 21:38:02 <BoBeR> and scenesite
1495 2010-12-22 21:38:53 <BoBeR> nvm
1496 2010-12-22 21:38:55 <BoBeR> look at them
1497 2010-12-22 21:39:55 <gavinandresen> albatross: just got back, what's up
1498 2010-12-22 21:41:43 <albatross> gavinandresen: so, somewhere in the last few versions bitcoin RPC broke HTTP protocol compatibility (according to microsoft anyway).
1499 2010-12-22 21:42:12 <albatross> gavinandresen: specifically, dealing with line endings
1500 2010-12-22 21:43:05 <gavinandresen> albatross: can you be more specific? I just reviewed that code when somebody was having trouble with JayRock/.Net stuff (and that turned out to be something else)
1501 2010-12-22 21:43:54 <Asphodelia> Downloading the testnet blockchain has become ridiculously slow -- less than 1 block per second -- and bitcoind is using 83% cpu even though it's not set to generate. And the testnet blockchain is shorter than the main network. What's going on?
1502 2010-12-22 21:44:10 <albatross> gavinandresen: 'CR must be followed by LF'....this is coming from HttpWebResponse in .net. Workaround is pretty cake so don't even make it any priority, i just thought i would mention
1503 2010-12-22 21:44:17 <gavinandresen> albatross: see http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=2170.0 for details.
1504 2010-12-22 21:44:19 <bitbot> Parse Error when using JayRock
1505 2010-12-22 21:44:51 <albatross> gavinandresen: this one is not jayrock for sure
1506 2010-12-22 21:45:07 <theymos> Asphodelia: What does your debug.log say?
1507 2010-12-22 21:45:47 <dsg> Asphodelia: What block number are you at?
1508 2010-12-22 21:46:06 <Asphodelia> 11344
1509 2010-12-22 21:46:20 <gavinandresen> albatross: what response is not CRLF? all the code in rpc.cpp does \r\n
1510 2010-12-22 21:46:44 <Asphodelia> The last message in debug.log is "Bitcoin exiting".
1511 2010-12-22 21:47:03 <Asphodelia> oh wait
1512 2010-12-22 21:47:50 <Asphodelia> Testnet has its own log. The entire file is just three lines, giving version number, data dir, and port binding.
1513 2010-12-22 21:49:48 <albatross> gavinandresen: exception says offending section is responseheader. i've done listtransactions and getinfo on 3.19 with same result. haven't tested other calls. i'll try to run getinfo on a few different versions and see where it breaks.
1514 2010-12-22 21:49:51 <Asphodelia> It seems to be getting better. I just passed 14000.
1515 2010-12-22 21:53:14 sgornick has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1516 2010-12-22 21:54:02 <Asphodelia> And I'm done. I guess there's just a slow spot in the middle?
1517 2010-12-22 21:54:29 sgornick has joined
1518 2010-12-22 21:56:01 <gavinandresen> Asphodelia: if I recall, there was some transaction spam testing on the testnet a month or so ago. Those blocks will be a lot bigger and slower to verify.
1519 2010-12-22 21:56:34 <Asphodelia> That makes sense.
1520 2010-12-22 21:57:17 darrob has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1521 2010-12-22 21:58:41 <albatross> gavinandresen: version 313 was ok. versions 317 onward exhibit the error. So somewhere between 313 and 317. Sorry, i don't have any servers in between to test with right now
1522 2010-12-22 22:00:04 <gavinandresen> albatross: can you install Fiddler and send me good and bad responses?
1523 2010-12-22 22:00:09 mtgox has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1524 2010-12-22 22:00:38 Slix` has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1525 2010-12-22 22:05:33 mtgox has joined
1526 2010-12-22 22:07:22 <albatross> gavinandresen: installed fiddler. ran getinfo against a 3.17. Fiddler pops open a thing saying protocol violation. Content-length mismatch: response header claimed 311 bytes but server send 296 bytes.
1527 2010-12-22 22:07:39 <gavinandresen> Yeah, I know about that one (fixed in latest svn)
1528 2010-12-22 22:08:11 <albatross> gavinandresen: let me try latest svn to see if it solves this issue
1529 2010-12-22 22:08:14 darrob has joined
1530 2010-12-22 22:20:24 RG has quit (oirc!~tingle@187.15.34.80|Quit: One does not simply walk into this quit message)
1531 2010-12-22 22:29:53 dduane has joined
1532 2010-12-22 22:30:40 RichardG has joined
1533 2010-12-22 22:36:35 Slix` has joined
1534 2010-12-22 22:41:07 <albatross> gavinandresen: that seems to have solved all problems
1535 2010-12-22 22:44:52 Phoebus_ has joined
1536 2010-12-22 22:45:12 Phoebus has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1537 2010-12-22 22:45:24 albatross has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1538 2010-12-22 22:46:57 slush_cz is now known as slush
1539 2010-12-22 22:47:20 slush is now known as slush_cz
1540 2010-12-22 22:47:49 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1541 2010-12-22 22:49:50 <devon_hillard> ;;bc,help
1542 2010-12-22 22:49:50 <gribble> Alias bc,bcm, Alias bc,blocks, Alias bc,btcex, Alias bc,calc, Alias bc,diff, Alias bc,estimate, Alias bc,help, Alias bc,hextarget, Alias bc,markets, Alias bc,mtgox, Alias bc,nexttarget, Alias bc,poolstats, Alias bc,stats, Alias bc,timetonext, and Alias bc,totalbc
1543 2010-12-22 22:49:59 <devon_hillard> ;;bc,blocks
1544 2010-12-22 22:49:59 <gribble> 98969
1545 2010-12-22 22:50:23 <devon_hillard> ;;bc,estimate 59000
1546 2010-12-22 22:50:23 <gribble> 16009.20600722
1547 2010-12-22 22:50:28 <devon_hillard> ;;bc,estimate
1548 2010-12-22 22:50:28 <gribble> 16009.20600722
1549 2010-12-22 22:51:20 <devon_hillard> how do you calculate the expected time for a block to finish?
1550 2010-12-22 22:51:34 <[Noodles]> huh?
1551 2010-12-22 22:51:45 <[Noodles]> should be ~10minutes
1552 2010-12-22 22:51:47 <[Noodles]> ^.^
1553 2010-12-22 22:51:48 <midnightmagic> ;;bc,calc 500
1554 2010-12-22 22:51:49 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 500 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 3 years, 49 weeks, 2 days, 0 hours, 33 minutes, and 27 seconds
1555 2010-12-22 22:51:59 <[Noodles]> ah, that block
1556 2010-12-22 22:52:04 <midnightmagic> i wonder how fast my amiga would calculate blocks..
1557 2010-12-22 22:53:56 <nanotube> heh
1558 2010-12-22 22:55:31 skeledrew has joined
1559 2010-12-22 22:56:39 <devon_hillard> ;;bc,calc 59000
1560 2010-12-22 22:56:39 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 59000 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 1 week, 5 days, 4 hours, 53 minutes, and 9 seconds
1561 2010-12-22 22:57:28 <midnightmagic> that's 4 times as fast as a GeForce 9600 GT.
1562 2010-12-22 22:57:32 bertodsera has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1563 2010-12-22 22:59:13 <devon_hillard> according to a rough calculation, 54K khashes/s is the break-even point for the electricity used
1564 2010-12-22 22:59:30 <devon_hillard> assuming 200W of power are used
1565 2010-12-22 22:59:34 <midnightmagic> you have expensive power. where are you, if you don't mind me asking?
1566 2010-12-22 23:00:22 <[Noodles]> 59000khsh @ 200W is pretty bad, nvidia, isnt it?
1567 2010-12-22 23:00:22 <midnightmagic> that would be $12/month for the power here in BC Canada.
1568 2010-12-22 23:00:31 <devon_hillard> .12-.13 cents per kWh here
1569 2010-12-22 23:00:44 <devon_hillard> I calculate for the entire computer, not just the video card
1570 2010-12-22 23:00:46 <midnightmagic> ah, not as bad as some other peoples' reporting.
1571 2010-12-22 23:00:53 <[Noodles]> ~.27/kWh here
1572 2010-12-22 23:01:08 <[Noodles]> and i'm still generating in profit
1573 2010-12-22 23:02:00 <devon_hillard> I could get a 2 x 8x mobo and 2 cards, with a lower power CPU
1574 2010-12-22 23:02:17 <devon_hillard> to really be in the profit
1575 2010-12-22 23:02:49 bertodsera has joined
1576 2010-12-22 23:03:12 <[Noodles]> if you need 200W to get 59Mhahs/s, you should better get another card
1577 2010-12-22 23:03:16 TD has joined
1578 2010-12-22 23:03:40 <[Noodles]> my HD5570 gets 65Mhash and only needs ~50W
1579 2010-12-22 23:03:56 <nanotube> [Noodles]: what about the rest of your computer?
1580 2010-12-22 23:04:06 <[Noodles]> the rest is running anyways
1581 2010-12-22 23:04:22 <nanotube> so you'd keep it on 24/7 even if you weren't generating? what for?
1582 2010-12-22 23:04:28 <[Noodles]> yes
1583 2010-12-22 23:04:34 <[Noodles]> some stuff ;o)
1584 2010-12-22 23:04:38 <nanotube> hehe ic.
1585 2010-12-22 23:04:51 <[Noodles]> i'v got 2-3PC running 24/7 for years now
1586 2010-12-22 23:04:53 <devon_hillard> [Noodles] the card itself is around 65W, 200W considering the entire computer, including 2 monitors :)
1587 2010-12-22 23:04:59 <nanotube> well in that case... good for you to be getting 65mh for 50 incremental watts. :)
1588 2010-12-22 23:05:35 <nanotube> devon_hillard: well, you shouldn't count the monitors, because you'd turn them off when you're not using the comp. you only need to count the /incremental/ wattage, that you wouldn't otherwise use if you weren't mining.
1589 2010-12-22 23:06:23 <devon_hillard> if I'm not gaming, I can leave the card to mine, but if I want to use the computer purely for mining, I have to count around 200W
1590 2010-12-22 23:06:27 <[Noodles]> well, it's a bit more than just the 5570, iv got a 5850 and 5970 mining too (actually the 5570 is the only one NOT running right now, but will be again soon)
1591 2010-12-22 23:07:05 <midnightmagic> :-)
1592 2010-12-22 23:07:53 <devon_hillard> what's the most efficient mining card, powerwise?
1593 2010-12-22 23:07:59 <devon_hillard> with or without overclocking
1594 2010-12-22 23:08:02 <nanotube> one of the 5xxx series
1595 2010-12-22 23:08:06 <Asphodelia> Probably the machines they use in render farms.
1596 2010-12-22 23:08:07 <midnightmagic> probably 5970.
1597 2010-12-22 23:08:23 <[Noodles]> yeah, 5770/5850/5970, not much of a difference
1598 2010-12-22 23:08:42 <devon_hillard> considering just the power per khashes/s
1599 2010-12-22 23:08:48 <tcatm> devon_hillard: 5970 is most efficient. 5870 second
1600 2010-12-22 23:09:00 <midnightmagic> the infrastructure to support them, though, means a higher density per-motherboard is probably more power-efficient holsitically.
1601 2010-12-22 23:09:29 <[Noodles]> 5850 is cheaper and gets same results as 5870 when oc'd, so i'd always prefer 5850
1602 2010-12-22 23:09:33 <devon_hillard> 800 bucks video card :)
1603 2010-12-22 23:10:11 <[Noodles]> 2 oc'd 5850 need about the same energy as 1 5970, so there's no big difference, expect for the price to buy them
1604 2010-12-22 23:10:29 <[Noodles]> *except
1605 2010-12-22 23:10:42 <midnightmagic> 5970 was $400 for a while. open-boxed it's $500. new it's $600. CAD. check out newegg.com for cheap 5970. they're $500USD right now for the sapphire.
1606 2010-12-22 23:12:28 <midnightmagic> and the motherboard/cpu backing..?
1607 2010-12-22 23:12:43 <midnightmagic> i guess you're talking about refitting existing mb..
1608 2010-12-22 23:12:48 <[Noodles]> depends on what you already got, i guess
1609 2010-12-22 23:13:34 <[Noodles]> here's a nice Mhs/W overview of cards http://pastebin.com/AvymGnMJ
1610 2010-12-22 23:14:01 <devon_hillard> Is anyone running (hybrid) crossfire with an AMD onboard graphics card?
1611 2010-12-22 23:14:22 <devon_hillard> thinking of getting AMD for that very reason
1612 2010-12-22 23:14:35 <[Noodles]> miners don't like crossfire, so i dont think so
1613 2010-12-22 23:14:54 <midnightmagic> noodles, you are a trove. thanks for the link!
1614 2010-12-22 23:15:15 bertodsera has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
1615 2010-12-22 23:15:23 <[Noodles]> midnightmagic: credits go to ArtForz
1616 2010-12-22 23:15:36 <[Noodles]> wasnt me, i just grabbed that link ;o)
1617 2010-12-22 23:15:43 bertodsera has joined
1618 2010-12-22 23:15:47 <midnightmagic> well, still: thanks for passing it along.
1619 2010-12-22 23:15:54 <nanotube> [Noodles]: maybe this should go on the wiki :)
1620 2010-12-22 23:16:01 <nanotube> cuz the pastie will expire
1621 2010-12-22 23:16:08 <midnightmagic> ArtForz: thank you for the pastebin!
1622 2010-12-22 23:18:16 fabianhjr has joined
1623 2010-12-22 23:18:20 <fabianhjr> Hi, sup/
1624 2010-12-22 23:18:43 <nanotube> yo
1625 2010-12-22 23:23:09 <fabianhjr> nanotube: sup?
1626 2010-12-22 23:23:26 <nanotube> just hangin.
1627 2010-12-22 23:24:16 <fabianhjr> Cool, hey. I am selling some computer pranks.(0.1 BTC Bin, 1 BTC source in C++) Are you interested?
1628 2010-12-22 23:24:42 <nanotube> i saw that. :) cute, but i'm not interested. :)
1629 2010-12-22 23:25:20 <fabianhjr> :P Could you at least take a review copy from me?(Free, you must vouch for me)
1630 2010-12-22 23:25:43 <xelister> http://www.myce.com/news/major-record-labels-recruit-mastercard-to-be-copyright-cops-37982/
1631 2010-12-22 23:26:07 <nanotube> fabianhjr: i don't run windows.. so can't very well review it. :)
1632 2010-12-22 23:26:26 <fabianhjr> :/ Would you be interested in a Cross Platform version?
1633 2010-12-22 23:26:30 <nanotube> well, i could review it by reading the source... but that's way too much effort. :P
1634 2010-12-22 23:26:57 <fabianhjr> :P LoL, it is like 20 LOCs.
1635 2010-12-22 23:27:18 <fabianhjr> Source has some options you can play with. xD
1636 2010-12-22 23:27:31 <nanotube> fabianhjr: nah not really. i'm not into computer pranks. :) installing stuff on other people's computers without their ken just rubs me the wrong way.
1637 2010-12-22 23:29:18 <fabianhjr> xD, it is just a binary that must be run and does not do any disk IO. Well, everyone has their point of view over this.
1638 2010-12-22 23:29:28 <fabianhjr> Thanks anyways.
1639 2010-12-22 23:30:18 ByteCoin has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1640 2010-12-22 23:30:33 maqr has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1641 2010-12-22 23:30:38 ByteCoin has joined
1642 2010-12-22 23:31:49 maqr has joined
1643 2010-12-22 23:32:04 <nanotube> fabianhjr: not saying it's bad... just me personally, not interested. :)
1644 2010-12-22 23:32:19 <fabianhjr> :P Yes, I understand that.
1645 2010-12-22 23:32:33 <fabianhjr> Tough, I can't wait for my first sale. xD
1646 2010-12-22 23:33:20 <fabianhjr> s/Tough/Though
1647 2010-12-22 23:36:37 Shadowolf has joined
1648 2010-12-22 23:38:05 Shadowolf is now known as Abhish
1649 2010-12-22 23:38:41 <devon_hillard> <fabianhjr> what sort of pranks?
1650 2010-12-22 23:39:14 <fabianhjr> The only one I have available at the moment moves the cursor to random locations on screen.
1651 2010-12-22 23:39:36 <fabianhjr> As time passes it moves faster.
1652 2010-12-22 23:39:51 enoxice has quit (Quit: leaving)
1653 2010-12-22 23:40:17 <fabianhjr> You should really try it out. You may get the source or a binary tested on Win7.
1654 2010-12-22 23:40:31 <fabianhjr> devon_hillard: you like playing pranks on friends?
1655 2010-12-22 23:48:53 puddinpop has quit ()
1656 2010-12-22 23:49:56 <fabianhjr> ? So, yes?
1657 2010-12-22 23:53:53 <devon_hillard> <fabianhjr> need a smarter prank
1658 2010-12-22 23:54:12 <fabianhjr> devon_hillard: I am open for suggestions. ;)
1659 2010-12-22 23:54:42 <fabianhjr> I am wrting a program that beeps, each time longer, for each keystroke!
1660 2010-12-22 23:55:22 <Asphodelia> The length of beep should probably increase sublinearly.
1661 2010-12-22 23:55:30 <fabianhjr> devon_hillard: so, what do you think of the current one?
1662 2010-12-22 23:55:51 <devon_hillard> I wonder if you can get the hard disk to play a song
1663 2010-12-22 23:56:08 <fabianhjr> Asphodelia: hadn't get my hands around it. Still have to do some school stuff.(I had a cold and must pick-up before xmas)
1664 2010-12-22 23:56:29 <fabianhjr> devon_hillard: lol, watched a video bout it recently xD
1665 2010-12-22 23:56:38 <Asphodelia> devon_hillard, permanent hardware damage / data loss is probably outside the scope of fun pranks between friends.
1666 2010-12-22 23:57:12 <fabianhjr> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmfHHLfbjNQ
1667 2010-12-22 23:58:01 puddinpop has joined