1 2010-12-27 00:09:02 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
   2 2010-12-27 00:10:34 sgornick has joined
   3 2010-12-27 00:13:13 ApertureScience has quit (Quit: So if a tree falls on Bill Gates in the forest,would anyone really care?)
   4 2010-12-27 00:24:05 devon_hillard has joined
   5 2010-12-27 00:24:26 <devon_hillard> how can I check that my DiabloMiner is actually working from the console?
   6 2010-12-27 00:24:38 <devon_hillard> i.e. if it's connected to the bitcoin network and doing work
   7 2010-12-27 00:25:09 <devon_hillard> the GPU is being pounded, so it's working on hashes
   8 2010-12-27 00:25:21 <devon_hillard> but not sure if it's doing actual work on the network
   9 2010-12-27 00:25:55 <devon_hillard> I am running it on a windows machine, intermitently, about 12 hours a day
  10 2010-12-27 00:27:23 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
  11 2010-12-27 00:28:29 <DjeZAeL> dunno with windows :/
  12 2010-12-27 00:54:30 Abhish has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  13 2010-12-27 00:56:44 <Diablo-D3> devon_hillard: you could run it with -d
  14 2010-12-27 00:56:47 <Diablo-D3> it'll output stuff periodically
  15 2010-12-27 00:57:06 <devon_hillard> Diablo-D3: the server or the miner?
  16 2010-12-27 00:57:11 <Diablo-D3> the miner
  17 2010-12-27 00:57:37 blakkino has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  18 2010-12-27 00:58:32 <Diablo-D3> devon_hillard: but unless you're part of a pool, you wont see it saying it found a block often
  19 2010-12-27 00:58:52 <devon_hillard> [12/27/10 2:55:12 AM] Started
  20 2010-12-27 00:58:53 <devon_hillard> [12/27/10 2:55:15 AM] Added Redwood
  21 2010-12-27 00:58:53 <devon_hillard>             (#1) (5 CU, local work size of 256)
  22 2010-12-27 00:59:01 <devon_hillard> what does the third line mean? ^^
  23 2010-12-27 01:01:09 <Diablo-D3> thats actually ONE line
  24 2010-12-27 01:01:36 <Diablo-D3> wow, you have a redwood?
  25 2010-12-27 01:01:39 <Diablo-D3> thats pretty slow
  26 2010-12-27 01:01:45 <devon_hillard> what's that?
  27 2010-12-27 01:02:07 <Diablo-D3> your video card
  28 2010-12-27 01:02:23 <devon_hillard> ah, I got it for gaming, not serious mining
  29 2010-12-27 01:02:27 <Diablo-D3> its either a 5550, a 5570, or a 5670
  30 2010-12-27 01:02:33 <devon_hillard> I want to get a block for once
  31 2010-12-27 01:02:35 <Diablo-D3> its not even good at gaming, really
  32 2010-12-27 01:02:37 <devon_hillard> 5570
  33 2010-12-27 01:02:57 <devon_hillard> 65K khashes/s
  34 2010-12-27 01:03:11 <Diablo-D3> my 4850 does 75 khash/sec
  35 2010-12-27 01:03:24 <Diablo-D3> and that has extremely poor mining performance =P
  36 2010-12-27 01:03:28 <Diablo-D3> but yeah, that line
  37 2010-12-27 01:03:31 AAA_awright has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  38 2010-12-27 01:03:32 <Diablo-D3> it just tells you what you have
  39 2010-12-27 01:03:35 <Diablo-D3> its purely informative
  40 2010-12-27 01:04:01 <devon_hillard> so the miner software is weak on my setup?
  41 2010-12-27 01:04:06 <devon_hillard> software-wise
  42 2010-12-27 01:04:20 <devon_hillard> because a 5570 should have better performance than a 4850
  43 2010-12-27 01:04:43 <Diablo-D3> it shouldnt
  44 2010-12-27 01:05:03 <Diablo-D3> 3D wise, a 4850 lines up with a 5750
  45 2010-12-27 01:05:15 <Diablo-D3> give or take, anyways
  46 2010-12-27 01:05:34 <Diablo-D3> and that does almost 120 mhash
  47 2010-12-27 01:05:51 <devon_hillard> ah, your card should be 30% more powerful overall
  48 2010-12-27 01:06:29 <Diablo-D3> here
  49 2010-12-27 01:06:34 <Diablo-D3> http://pastebin.com/AvymGnMJ
  50 2010-12-27 01:06:41 AAA_awright has joined
  51 2010-12-27 01:07:56 <devon_hillard> yeah, uses 30% of the power of a 4850
  52 2010-12-27 01:08:12 <devon_hillard> watt-wise
  53 2010-12-27 01:08:36 <Diablo-D3> yeah, and does a fair bit more mash
  54 2010-12-27 01:08:39 <devon_hillard> well, I can probably overclock it a bit
  55 2010-12-27 01:08:45 <Diablo-D3> 5xxx is a huge boost for mhash/watt over 4xxx
  56 2010-12-27 01:08:58 <Diablo-D3> you probably should just join the mining pool
  57 2010-12-27 01:09:07 <Diablo-D3> http://mining.bitcoin.cz/
  58 2010-12-27 01:09:21 <devon_hillard> a waterblock for this card is around $100 and I could up the frequency by another 50% I believe
  59 2010-12-27 01:09:51 <devon_hillard> Diablo-D3: what is a mining pool?
  60 2010-12-27 01:10:02 <devon_hillard> ah, reading now
  61 2010-12-27 01:10:15 <Diablo-D3> its not worth overclocking that card
  62 2010-12-27 01:10:28 <Diablo-D3> and you'd probably still require significant cooling for the vrms
  63 2010-12-27 01:10:36 <devon_hillard> vrms?
  64 2010-12-27 01:10:47 <Diablo-D3> voltage regulators
  65 2010-12-27 01:10:51 <devon_hillard> ah
  66 2010-12-27 01:11:06 <Diablo-D3> they tend to warm up faster than your gpu does when overclocking
  67 2010-12-27 01:11:13 <Diablo-D3> $100 could buy you a better card.
  68 2010-12-27 01:11:30 <devon_hillard> I'd have to get a better PSU while I'm at it
  69 2010-12-27 01:11:37 <devon_hillard> since still running off an old 400W
  70 2010-12-27 01:11:44 <Diablo-D3> heh, thats pretty low
  71 2010-12-27 01:11:55 <devon_hillard> so why I didn't bother getting a power-hungry card
  72 2010-12-27 01:14:59 <Diablo-D3> yeah, but you would have been better off updating your psu
  73 2010-12-27 01:17:13 chuck251 has joined
  74 2010-12-27 01:17:23 INEEDMONEY has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  75 2010-12-27 01:18:32 slush_cz has joined
  76 2010-12-27 01:18:32 <ArtForz> neato: http://www.techpowerup.com/137140/AMD-Radeon-HD-6950-can-be-unlocked-to-HD-6970.html
  77 2010-12-27 01:18:56 slush_cz has quit (Client Quit)
  78 2010-12-27 01:19:13 slush has joined
  79 2010-12-27 01:20:16 <devon_hillard> Diablo-D3: so what do I have to do to join a pool?
  80 2010-12-27 01:20:35 <Diablo-D3> follow the directions
  81 2010-12-27 01:20:43 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: thats a VERY BAD IDEA
  82 2010-12-27 01:20:55 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: same shit when all those fuckers unlocked _very broken_ 3 core phenoms into 4 core
  83 2010-12-27 01:21:08 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: AMD _doesnt_ disable cores/pipes/shit just to fill orders.
  84 2010-12-27 01:21:26 <ArtForz> actually, they do
  85 2010-12-27 01:21:47 <Diablo-D3> not the way Intel does
  86 2010-12-27 01:22:00 <Diablo-D3> AMD would rather make a bunch of working quad cores just to drive the price down further
  87 2010-12-27 01:23:32 <Diablo-D3> driving the price down of a single product by selling more of it == more people buy AMD
  88 2010-12-27 01:23:59 <devon_hillard> Diablo-D3: ok, so with bitcoin.cz, I don't need to run bitcoind, just the miner script?
  89 2010-12-27 01:24:04 <ArtForz> well, lots of people have tested it, looks like about 70% got more-or-less working shaders
  90 2010-12-27 01:24:19 <Diablo-D3> devon_hillard: yes.
  91 2010-12-27 01:24:36 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: unless they hit fab quality out of the park, that sounds wrong
  92 2010-12-27 01:25:03 <Diablo-D3> that also means they should have dropped the 6850 and just sold 6870s at 6850 prices
  93 2010-12-27 01:25:07 <Diablo-D3> just to destroy nvidia
  94 2010-12-27 01:25:24 <ArtForz> well, I guess they got higher yields than expected
  95 2010-12-27 01:25:29 <Diablo-D3> "I have an xfx 6950 on the way, hope it can unlock as well...."
  96 2010-12-27 01:25:42 <Diablo-D3> lol
  97 2010-12-27 01:25:51 <Diablo-D3> watch his xfx card blow up
  98 2010-12-27 01:25:54 <ArtForz> remember, they cut 6950 allocation and increased 6970 allocation 2 weeks before launch
  99 2010-12-27 01:26:31 <devon_hillard> Diablo-D3: what is the switch to select a server by address rather than bitcoind?
 100 2010-12-27 01:26:32 <ArtForz> = "whoops, too many full chips"
 101 2010-12-27 01:27:15 <devon_hillard> "D:\Program Files\Java\jdk1.6.0_23\bin\java" -cp target\libs\*;target\DiabloMiner-0.0.1-SNAPSHOT.jar -Djava.library.path=target\libs\natives\windows com.diablominer.DiabloMiner.DiabloMiner -u USERNAME -p PASS -d
 102 2010-12-27 01:28:18 lfm has joined
 103 2010-12-27 01:28:52 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: hrrrrm
 104 2010-12-27 01:29:10 <ArtForz> not to mention 6950s could also be "hot" 6970s
 105 2010-12-27 01:29:21 <Diablo-D3> devon_hillard: -o and -r
 106 2010-12-27 01:29:29 <Diablo-D3> devon_hillard: so you want -o mining.bitcoin.cz -r 8332
 107 2010-12-27 01:29:49 <ArtForz> low Vt/high leakage chip = drop Vcore and clock a bunch
 108 2010-12-27 01:29:50 <Diablo-D3> devon_hillard: and your username is PoolUsername.MachineName
 109 2010-12-27 01:30:04 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: yeah, thats what Im worried about
 110 2010-12-27 01:30:14 <ArtForz> well, those also tend to be very good overclockers as long as you can cool em
 111 2010-12-27 01:30:15 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: AMD _does_ fail "working" chips because they overheat
 112 2010-12-27 01:30:35 <Diablo-D3> quite a few triple cores fell into that
 113 2010-12-27 01:30:39 <ArtForz> yep
 114 2010-12-27 01:30:43 <Diablo-D3> they far exceeded TDP but still "worked"
 115 2010-12-27 01:30:57 <devon_hillard> Diablo-D3: ok, it works, thanks
 116 2010-12-27 01:32:09 <ArtForz> power supply shouldnt be much of an issue, 5950 and 5970 have the same VRMs
 117 2010-12-27 01:33:05 <ArtForz> 6950 only has 2 6-pin power connectors, but that shouldnt be an issue, even a single 6-pin can handle >200W
 118 2010-12-27 01:33:36 <ArtForz> PCIe spec says 75W, actual connector spec says 7A/pin
 119 2010-12-27 01:33:47 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: pci-e spec is too fucking safe, too
 120 2010-12-27 01:33:58 Toadyonps3 has joined
 121 2010-12-27 01:34:15 <Diablo-D3> every PSU manufacturer that isnt cheap chinese shit is overengineering their shit for safety reasons
 122 2010-12-27 01:34:30 Toadyonps3 has quit (Client Quit)
 123 2010-12-27 01:34:30 <ArtForz> 6-pin has 3 power/gnd pairs, so connector can handle 21A @ 12V = 252W
 124 2010-12-27 01:34:48 <devon_hillard> I saw a really cheap 700W PSU, but it turns out it turns hot and blows up
 125 2010-12-27 01:35:00 <Diablo-D3> devon_hillard: Im _very_ picky with PSUs
 126 2010-12-27 01:35:02 <devon_hillard> "serioux", chinese stuff
 127 2010-12-27 01:35:05 <ArtForz> 8-pin uses the exact same connector pins and also only 3*12V, magically now capable of 150W
 128 2010-12-27 01:35:26 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: yeah, its just fucking grounds to signal extra thick wires
 129 2010-12-27 01:35:31 <ArtForz> yep
 130 2010-12-27 01:35:37 <Diablo-D3> and Ive seen the connector prongs on pci-e
 131 2010-12-27 01:35:39 <Diablo-D3> they're HUEG
 132 2010-12-27 01:36:08 <ArtForz> well, I have the spec sheet for the pins, standard is 7A, high power is 13A
 133 2010-12-27 01:36:08 <Diablo-D3> Im surprised I dont have to solder copper wire coat hangers in there or some shit
 134 2010-12-27 01:38:34 <devon_hillard> Diablo-D3: do you use modular PSUs?
 135 2010-12-27 01:38:46 <sipa> Sapphire AMD 6970 2GB DDR5: 359.95 eur; can that be real?
 136 2010-12-27 01:38:58 <ArtForz> yes
 137 2010-12-27 01:39:06 <ArtForz> 6970 is barely faster than 5870 for mining
 138 2010-12-27 01:39:21 <sipa> anything else is?
 139 2010-12-27 01:39:43 <ArtForz> single GPU? nope
 140 2010-12-27 01:40:05 <Diablo-D3> devon_hillard: I dont really care if a psu is modular or not as long as the connectors are good
 141 2010-12-27 01:40:16 <sipa> ArtForz: how many Mhash/s does a 6970 do?
 142 2010-12-27 01:40:30 <ArtForz> my calc says ~310
 143 2010-12-27 01:40:51 <devon_hillard> [12/27/10 3:36:19 AM] DEBUG: Block found, but rejected by Bitcoin, on Redwood
 144 2010-12-27 01:40:59 <sipa> and the 5970 are dual-gpu?
 145 2010-12-27 01:41:04 <ArtForz> yup
 146 2010-12-27 01:41:10 <Diablo-D3> devon_hillard: you sure you're using absolute newest version of my miner?
 147 2010-12-27 01:41:25 <sipa> and those do over 500Mhash/s?
 148 2010-12-27 01:41:29 <ArtForz> might be a few % higher because we should be able to get better VLIW usage out of VLIW4
 149 2010-12-27 01:41:38 <slush> devon_hillard: Are you using latest diablo miner?
 150 2010-12-27 01:41:40 <ArtForz> 5970 ~530Mh/s stock using diablominer
 151 2010-12-27 01:41:58 <Diablo-D3> devon_hillard: btw, the only PSUs that dont seem to be absolute shit are Corsair's AX and HX serues
 152 2010-12-27 01:42:01 <devon_hillard> Diablo-D3: Diablo-D3: I downloaded it 3-4 days ago
 153 2010-12-27 01:42:07 <Diablo-D3> devon_hillard: its been updated since then
 154 2010-12-27 01:42:16 <slush> devon_hillard: this is the reason
 155 2010-12-27 01:42:18 <Diablo-D3> devon_hillard: I recently did a lot of fixes to deal with pool behavior
 156 2010-12-27 01:42:28 <devon_hillard> ok, thanks for the tip
 157 2010-12-27 01:42:50 <slush> Diablo-D3: I was scared it is here again, because I see this failure in log again :-D
 158 2010-12-27 01:42:53 <ArtForz> ~556Mh/s stock with my custom miner
 159 2010-12-27 01:43:50 <devon_hillard> Diablo-D3: ok, so you added the windows dlls, I had to hunt them down individually :)
 160 2010-12-27 01:44:07 <Diablo-D3> devon_hillard: erm, my thing has ALWAYS had all the relevant windows dlls that arent apart of the driver
 161 2010-12-27 01:44:17 <Diablo-D3> they ship with lwjgl, and I dont take lwjgl apart
 162 2010-12-27 01:44:28 <ArtForz> >600Mh/s on 5970 should be possible with CAL + hand-optimized shader ASM
 163 2010-12-27 01:44:40 <devon_hillard> Diablo-D3: ok, now running from the latest binary
 164 2010-12-27 01:46:46 <ArtForz> >750Mh/s overvolted and OCd on water
 165 2010-12-27 01:47:19 <devon_hillard> ArtForz: are you based in Europe?
 166 2010-12-27 01:47:39 <devon_hillard> I have a water cooling kit for the CPU, considering expanding to cover a GPU as well
 167 2010-12-27 01:47:54 <ArtForz> yep, .de
 168 2010-12-27 01:48:05 <devon_hillard> where do you get your waterblocks?
 169 2010-12-27 01:49:19 <ArtForz> usually whoever sells em cheapest
 170 2010-12-27 01:52:55 <sipa> ArtForz: how many W does a 5970 require?
 171 2010-12-27 01:53:38 <OneFixt> 300W
 172 2010-12-27 01:54:04 <sipa> so you really need a decent PSU if you want more than one in the same system
 173 2010-12-27 01:54:10 <OneFixt> yep
 174 2010-12-27 01:55:23 <devon_hillard> looking at hashes/W, 5570 is quite efficient
 175 2010-12-27 01:56:50 <devon_hillard> I think 2x5570 beats anything below 1000 EUR cards
 176 2010-12-27 01:57:16 <devon_hillard> from a power efficiency standpoint
 177 2010-12-27 01:57:19 <ArtForz> ?
 178 2010-12-27 01:57:45 <devon_hillard> or below 500EUR, rather
 179 2010-12-27 01:57:56 <ArtForz> 5850,5870,5970 have better Mh/W
 180 2010-12-27 01:58:13 <devon_hillard> but are 5 times the price
 181 2010-12-27 01:58:21 <OneFixt> i think 5770 is close to 5970 at Mh/W
 182 2010-12-27 01:58:36 <OneFixt> but not if you count the cost and power consumption of the entire system
 183 2010-12-27 01:59:10 <Diablo-D3> OneFixt: well
 184 2010-12-27 01:59:13 <Diablo-D3> its sorta like
 185 2010-12-27 01:59:17 <devon_hillard> true, although I only mine when I'm using the computer
 186 2010-12-27 01:59:23 <devon_hillard> or not gaming
 187 2010-12-27 01:59:25 <ArtForz> and 5 times the speed
 188 2010-12-27 01:59:32 <ArtForz> 5570 = 60Mh/s @ 40W, 5870 = 313Mh/s @ 190W, 5970 = 535Mh/s @ 300W
 189 2010-12-27 01:59:34 <Diablo-D3> performance per dollar+watt combined, 5970, 5770, 5870
 190 2010-12-27 01:59:58 <Diablo-D3> and then the 69xx cards, and then the 68xx cards
 191 2010-12-27 02:00:28 <devon_hillard> I need a spreadsheet to calculate amortization times
 192 2010-12-27 02:01:16 <ArtForz> have fun guessing future difficulty and price
 193 2010-12-27 02:01:18 <Diablo-D3> devon_hillard: thats a three way moving target
 194 2010-12-27 02:01:46 <Diablo-D3> difficulty can go up unpredictably, value of btc can go up OR down as well
 195 2010-12-27 02:01:59 <Diablo-D3> (and the pushes for btc going up and down are independant)
 196 2010-12-27 02:02:15 <ArtForz> yep
 197 2010-12-27 02:02:24 <sipa> 1.1Ghash/s = 425 eur/month (at current difficulty and 0.24 dollar/BTC)
 198 2010-12-27 02:02:44 <devon_hillard> nice
 199 2010-12-27 02:03:08 <devon_hillard> and you also have to consider electricity costs
 200 2010-12-27 02:03:17 <sipa> yes, those not included
 201 2010-12-27 02:03:33 <devon_hillard> which are around 13 $cents per kWh where I live
 202 2010-12-27 02:06:43 <sipa> buying a 2-5970 system would take 3.5 month to repay itself now
 203 2010-12-27 02:07:03 <sipa> if difficulty wouldn't go up, and power costs is neglected
 204 2010-12-27 02:08:30 <devon_hillard> so 10 eurocents per kWh, considering 2x300W top cards (for 1k MHashes/s) + 150W for the rest of the sistem == 0.750kW x 0.1 EUR x 730.4 (hours in a month) =  54.78 EUR for running this setup for a month
 205 2010-12-27 02:09:01 <devon_hillard> is that right?
 206 2010-12-27 02:09:24 lfm has quit (Quit: bye)
 207 2010-12-27 02:09:30 <sipa> looks right to me
 208 2010-12-27 02:09:50 <ArtForz> looks about right
 209 2010-12-27 02:11:14 <ArtForz> it's even a bit lower, box with 4*5970 on 2*1kW 80+ gold PSUs = 1280W
 210 2010-12-27 02:11:46 <ArtForz> 1360W with the 5970s @ 820Mhz core
 211 2010-12-27 02:11:51 <devon_hillard> there are motherboards with more than 2 full width PCI-express?
 212 2010-12-27 02:12:03 <sipa> but 4 months to have it paid back... the network computation speed could have gone up *100
 213 2010-12-27 02:12:18 <ArtForz> 1640W at 1.15Vcore and 900MHz
 214 2010-12-27 02:12:40 <sipa> when did you buy those, ArtForz?
 215 2010-12-27 02:12:57 <ArtForz> what? the 5970s?
 216 2010-12-27 02:13:03 <sipa> yes
 217 2010-12-27 02:13:38 <ArtForz> first 12 > 3 months ago, another 12 when they were on sale @ 380EUR
 218 2010-12-27 02:14:50 <sipa> i think it's a bit late to join in on the making-real-profit-through-mining thing
 219 2010-12-27 02:14:54 <ArtForz> and 1760W at 1.1625Vcore and 930MHz
 220 2010-12-27 02:14:56 <ArtForz> yep
 221 2010-12-27 02:15:20 <ArtForz> I dont think I'll be adding more GPUs
 222 2010-12-27 02:17:17 <ArtForz> 1.1625V on air is pretty much the limit
 223 2010-12-27 02:18:08 dwdollar1 has left ()
 224 2010-12-27 02:18:21 <ArtForz> even with card fans @ 100% and 25W 120mm fans VRM temps are >110°C
 225 2010-12-27 02:18:52 <slush> Diablo-D3: hey, not good news for you
 226 2010-12-27 02:19:08 <devon_hillard> Diablo-D3: so you're the diablo miner author? paste your receiving address so I can send you my first BTC :)
 227 2010-12-27 02:19:21 <slush> I just tested my relative speed against other miners in pool with old diablo miner and new one
 228 2010-12-27 02:19:35 <slush> Diablo-D3: new one is much slower in real shares count
 229 2010-12-27 02:19:49 <Diablo-D3> slush: that hasnt changed.
 230 2010-12-27 02:20:03 <Diablo-D3> devon_hillard: its in my forum sig =P
 231 2010-12-27 02:20:19 <slush> Say I have ratio 1.4 against m0mchil with new one an 1.54 (and still rising) with old one
 232 2010-12-27 02:20:39 <slush> Diablo-D3: I know _teoretically_ it hasnt changed
 233 2010-12-27 02:20:40 <Diablo-D3> slush: I get a H==0 50 times in 45 minutes, this hasnt changed.
 234 2010-12-27 02:20:46 <Diablo-D3> and yes, I actually measured it
 235 2010-12-27 02:20:56 <sipa> is there that much difference between m0mchil's and Diablo-D3's miners?
 236 2010-12-27 02:21:08 <Diablo-D3> slush: and if you arent doing it at least 50 times, your statistics will be wildly off
 237 2010-12-27 02:21:09 <slush> Diablo-D3: But I was surprised that my reward from pool per block was lower for last two days. So I did this little investigation
 238 2010-12-27 02:21:32 <Diablo-D3> sipa: mines more efficient
 239 2010-12-27 02:22:00 <slush> Diablo-D3: i'm talking about another possibility - two executors are not working on different tasks. Say, it is even possible?
 240 2010-12-27 02:22:08 <sipa> Diablo-D3: yes, i would expect that
 241 2010-12-27 02:22:14 <sipa> but is it a few % or more
 242 2010-12-27 02:22:27 <Diablo-D3> slush: they're not directly working on different tasks anymore
 243 2010-12-27 02:22:29 <sipa> because i tuned m0mchil's, and got a few % extra by doing so as well
 244 2010-12-27 02:22:46 <Diablo-D3> slush: just subchunks of the same task
 245 2010-12-27 02:23:00 <Diablo-D3> sipa: try it.
 246 2010-12-27 02:23:16 <slush> Diablo-D3: yes, I'm talking about this change. Is  there _any_ possibility that executors are working even on the same nonces?
 247 2010-12-27 02:23:18 <sipa> yeah, i should :)
 248 2010-12-27 02:23:42 <Diablo-D3> slush: no, not after the christmas day update
 249 2010-12-27 02:24:17 <slush> Diablo-D3: I'm talking about it because mhash/s indicator still show correct value for me, but _real_ share ratio is lower than before
 250 2010-12-27 02:25:00 <slush> I cannot attack you in any case, I'm just investigating what is behind it
 251 2010-12-27 02:25:49 <Diablo-D3> slush: you're using the absolutely newest one?
 252 2010-12-27 02:26:13 <slush> Diablo-D3: I updated today
 253 2010-12-27 02:26:23 <Diablo-D3> slush: btw, the shares will come out much more chunky than usual
 254 2010-12-27 02:26:25 <Diablo-D3> very random
 255 2010-12-27 02:26:43 <Diablo-D3> with the old 1 getwork per executor, it was smoother
 256 2010-12-27 02:26:48 <slush> From my (not exact) stat I'm talking about ~45 mhash lost between those versions
 257 2010-12-27 02:27:05 <slush> measured on 1990 shares
 258 2010-12-27 02:28:10 <da2ce7> @ stock voltage, what clock speed do you find the 5970 can reach and still be stable? Mine only get up to 800mhz.
 259 2010-12-27 02:28:43 <ArtForz> varies
 260 2010-12-27 02:28:55 <ArtForz> my worst card only gets 780/810
 261 2010-12-27 02:28:57 <slush> Diablo-D3: I will wait for bigger data sample, but it looks weird
 262 2010-12-27 02:29:09 <ArtForz> my best card does 880/900
 263 2010-12-27 02:29:31 <Diablo-D3> slush: btw, if this ever ran the same nonce block twice at the same time, you'd see dupes.
 264 2010-12-27 02:29:51 <slush> Diablo-D3: Even after your anti-dupes fix?
 265 2010-12-27 02:30:04 <Diablo-D3> slush: I have no anti-dupes fix that fixes dupes
 266 2010-12-27 02:30:16 <Diablo-D3> it only fixes atomic getwork state cloning.
 267 2010-12-27 02:30:43 <slush> well, I will make one-day sample with old version and new version.
 268 2010-12-27 02:30:55 <slush> On those two samples, share counts should be the same
 269 2010-12-27 02:31:08 <Diablo-D3> and the mhash meter hasnt changed?
 270 2010-12-27 02:31:16 <slush> no, meter is OK
 271 2010-12-27 02:31:48 <Keefe> my 5970's OC to: 840/885, 870/870, 870/860
 272 2010-12-27 02:33:02 <ArtForz> yeah, 5970 cypresses are mainly binned for low wattage, not high clocks
 273 2010-12-27 02:33:26 <LobsterMan> mining.bitcoin.cz
 274 2010-12-27 02:33:29 <LobsterMan> i can't get that to load
 275 2010-12-27 02:33:45 <LobsterMan> is your site down slush?
 276 2010-12-27 02:34:10 <slush> LobsterMan: no, it is in good condition now
 277 2010-12-27 02:34:23 <LobsterMan> hmm
 278 2010-12-27 02:34:35 <slush> LobsterMan: probably network issue
 279 2010-12-27 02:34:50 <LobsterMan> http://mining.bitcoin.cz/ does not work for me
 280 2010-12-27 02:34:52 <slush> LobsterMan: see counting shares in log every second...
 281 2010-12-27 02:34:59 <LobsterMan> im getting some sort of dns error...
 282 2010-12-27 02:35:36 <slush> LobsterMan: Thats probably government starting to block all bitcoin related sites :))
 283 2010-12-27 02:35:44 <LobsterMan> i use opendns though
 284 2010-12-27 02:35:47 <LobsterMan> maybe they just fail
 285 2010-12-27 02:35:48 <slush> me too
 286 2010-12-27 02:35:52 <sipa> Diablo-D3: i get 78900 with your miner, 79700 with m0mchil's after my own tweaking
 287 2010-12-27 02:36:06 <LobsterMan> i can get to the site through www.hidemyass.com
 288 2010-12-27 02:36:10 <Diablo-D3> sipa: remember, mine does -w as well
 289 2010-12-27 02:36:17 <LobsterMan> but i can't get to it from my normal connection
 290 2010-12-27 02:36:17 <sipa> yes, both worksize 64
 291 2010-12-27 02:36:30 <Diablo-D3> sipa: you have looping in your tweak?
 292 2010-12-27 02:36:40 <slush> what worksize do you use on 5970? 64?
 293 2010-12-27 02:36:41 <da2ce7> slush, I that your 5BTC to the winner idea is great!
 294 2010-12-27 02:36:46 <da2ce7> *thin
 295 2010-12-27 02:36:53 <Cusipzzz> site works for me
 296 2010-12-27 02:36:54 <Diablo-D3> 64 seems to be the most efficient on all 4xxx and 5xxx
 297 2010-12-27 02:37:01 <LobsterMan> http://guide.opendns.com/main?url=mining.bitcoin.cz&servfail=
 298 2010-12-27 02:37:04 <sipa> Diablo-D3: i did a loop that runs 5x inside the opencl part
 299 2010-12-27 02:37:09 <da2ce7> *think... boy I need sleep.
 300 2010-12-27 02:37:12 <slush> da2ce7: Unfortunately it turns pooled mining to another lottery
 301 2010-12-27 02:37:32 <Diablo-D3> sipa: yes, mine doesnt do that yet, although it seems to be a performance win
 302 2010-12-27 02:38:05 <sipa> well, i sent my code to m0mchil, and none of my modifications helped for his own setup
 303 2010-12-27 02:38:14 <da2ce7> yeah, but the entire bitcoin generation is a lottery, :P that is it's fundamentals... there is only so much that you can abstract that part away.
 304 2010-12-27 02:38:38 <da2ce7> might as well have fun while doing it!
 305 2010-12-27 02:40:04 <slush> da2ce7: well, after thinking about it and talking with others, I want  to make pooled mining 'as fair as possible'; everybody can enjoy lottery with standalone mining :))
 306 2010-12-27 02:41:10 <slush> da2ce7: Although some miners in pool have lower reward than their teoretical reward for mining standalone, it is only kind of luck. In middle term, those differences will be smaller
 307 2010-12-27 02:41:19 <sipa> Diablo-D3: if i disable looping, yours is faster
 308 2010-12-27 02:42:07 <slush> what? looping? faster? What are you talking about, guys? :)
 309 2010-12-27 02:42:32 <LobsterMan> slush now i can get to your site no problem
 310 2010-12-27 02:42:37 <LobsterMan> odd opendns hiccup.....
 311 2010-12-27 02:42:46 <slush> LobsterMan: great
 312 2010-12-27 02:43:05 <sipa> slush: it's a tweak in GPU miners, by letting each thread not try one nonce but multiple
 313 2010-12-27 02:43:07 <slush> LobsterMan:  but bad for you, of course :)
 314 2010-12-27 02:43:19 <sipa> no idea why it helps, but it effectively gains a few % speed
 315 2010-12-27 02:43:45 <slush> sipa: thanks
 316 2010-12-27 02:46:51 <slush> LobsterMan: if you have those problems often, try using IP instead of domain in your miner
 317 2010-12-27 02:47:29 <LobsterMan> that's the first time it's ever given me a problem
 318 2010-12-27 02:56:51 <Diablo-D3> sipa: hee
 319 2010-12-27 02:57:07 <Diablo-D3> sipa: yeah, looping is the only tweak I dont have
 320 2010-12-27 02:57:15 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 321 2010-12-27 02:57:16 theymos has joined
 322 2010-12-27 02:57:21 <Diablo-D3> looping is only effective on 5xxx, btw
 323 2010-12-27 02:57:26 <Diablo-D3> 4xxx and nvidia doesnt gain from it
 324 2010-12-27 02:58:13 <sipa> i have a 4870
 325 2010-12-27 02:59:16 <Diablo-D3> huh, and you're gaining from it?
 326 2010-12-27 02:59:29 <sipa> yes
 327 2010-12-27 03:00:22 <Diablo-D3> I will have to revisit this.
 328 2010-12-27 03:03:05 devon_hillard has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 329 2010-12-27 03:03:36 <sipa> Diablo-D3: it's very delicate
 330 2010-12-27 03:03:57 <sipa> i have gains for loop sizes 4-5-6-7, with a optimal of 5
 331 2010-12-27 03:04:10 <sipa> lower than 4 or higher than 7 it slows down
 332 2010-12-27 03:04:25 <Diablo-D3> probably because the ALU instruction cache is filling up after 7
 333 2010-12-27 03:06:16 <sipa> but m0mchil had a 5% slowdown if he enabled my looping on his system
 334 2010-12-27 03:19:19 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 335 2010-12-27 03:20:05 skull23 has joined
 336 2010-12-27 03:20:44 chuck251 has quit ()
 337 2010-12-27 03:27:06 skull23 has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.6.13/20101203075014])
 338 2010-12-27 03:33:40 meatpopsicle has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 339 2010-12-27 03:35:50 ThomasV has joined
 340 2010-12-27 03:39:18 noagendamarket has joined
 341 2010-12-27 03:39:29 noagendamarket has quit (Changing host)
 342 2010-12-27 03:39:29 noagendamarket has joined
 343 2010-12-27 03:48:21 darrob has quit (Disconnected by services)
 344 2010-12-27 03:48:27 darrob has joined
 345 2010-12-27 03:49:28 afed has joined
 346 2010-12-27 03:49:30 <afed> yes hello
 347 2010-12-27 03:49:59 <afed> any mining tips
 348 2010-12-27 03:50:08 <afed> currently using 2x radeon 5770 and a 5550
 349 2010-12-27 03:52:37 warner has quit (Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs))
 350 2010-12-27 03:56:24 <eureka^> ;b 30
 351 2010-12-27 03:56:27 <eureka^> oops
 352 2010-12-27 04:00:19 acoos has joined
 353 2010-12-27 04:00:59 acous has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 354 2010-12-27 04:02:39 sgornick has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 355 2010-12-27 04:03:11 Toadyonps3 has joined
 356 2010-12-27 04:03:44 sgornick has joined
 357 2010-12-27 04:04:42 Toadyonps3 has quit (Client Quit)
 358 2010-12-27 04:05:38 ApertureScience has joined
 359 2010-12-27 04:27:30 ApertureScience has quit (Quit: So if a tree falls on Bill Gates in the forest,would anyone really care?)
 360 2010-12-27 04:40:14 AAA_awright_ has joined
 361 2010-12-27 04:42:33 AAA_awright has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
 362 2010-12-27 04:59:27 sec^nd has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 363 2010-12-27 05:01:30 Bossbear has joined
 364 2010-12-27 05:09:30 sec^nd has joined
 365 2010-12-27 05:11:53 Bossbear has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.6.13/20101203075014])
 366 2010-12-27 05:12:36 Bossbear has joined
 367 2010-12-27 05:20:54 warner has joined
 368 2010-12-27 05:27:32 Cusipzzz has quit ()
 369 2010-12-27 05:34:26 satamusic has joined
 370 2010-12-27 05:39:20 ApertureScience has joined
 371 2010-12-27 05:39:54 Bossbear has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.6.13/20101203075014])
 372 2010-12-27 05:43:08 <EvanR> block 100000 coming up
 373 2010-12-27 05:43:51 <noagendamarket> *waits for the y2k bug
 374 2010-12-27 05:44:18 <EvanR> oh, of course the end is on 100012
 375 2010-12-27 05:44:44 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 376 2010-12-27 05:44:52 <nanotube> ;;bc,stats
 377 2010-12-27 05:44:54 <gribble> Current Blocks: 99610 | Current Difficulty: 14484.16236123 | Next Difficulty At Block: 100799 | Next Difficulty In: 1189 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 0 days, 19 hours, 55 minutes, and 41 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 15279.29105313
 378 2010-12-27 05:47:07 <jgarzik> cpuminer version 0.3.3 is out there: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1925.0;all
 379 2010-12-27 05:47:09 <bitbot> New demonstration CPU miner available
 380 2010-12-27 05:49:11 <nanotube> jgarzik: mm looks like if i run 0.3.1 with the c algo, no upgrade necessary?
 381 2010-12-27 05:49:27 <jgarzik> nanotube: correct
 382 2010-12-27 05:49:46 <nanotube> btw, cryptopp_asm doesn't even show up in my available algos... sup with that?
 383 2010-12-27 05:50:14 <nanotube> cryptopp yes, but no cryptopp_asm
 384 2010-12-27 05:50:22 <nanotube> is that 32bit only maybe?
 385 2010-12-27 05:50:23 <jgarzik> nanotube: only appears for 32-bit builds.  On a 64-bit box, you can add "-m32" to CFLAGS, and build a 32-bit binary.
 386 2010-12-27 05:50:40 <nanotube> ah cool. would that be any faster that the c alg?
 387 2010-12-27 05:50:48 <nanotube> on a 64bit box
 388 2010-12-27 05:51:08 <jgarzik> nanotube: anything's possible, in the weird wild world of CPUs
 389 2010-12-27 05:51:24 <nanotube> hehe ic
 390 2010-12-27 05:52:07 * jgarzik should make a "perf" mode, that simply runs 16M iterations of each hash, on bogus data, to compute timings
 391 2010-12-27 05:52:35 <nanotube> nice idea :)
 392 2010-12-27 05:54:36 <theymos> HTTPS access to http://blockexplorer.com/q and the rest of BBE will be offline for 2-5 days starting a few days from now. If anyone here uses the tools over HTTPS, change it ASAP. (I'm making some changes that require me to move BBE to a different computer temporarily, and I don't want to move the private key for security reasons.)
 393 2010-12-27 06:03:19 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 394 2010-12-27 06:11:24 CyanDynamo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 395 2010-12-27 06:24:10 AAA_awright_ is now known as AAA_awright
 396 2010-12-27 06:41:46 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 397 2010-12-27 07:11:12 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
 398 2010-12-27 07:31:16 devon_hillard has joined
 399 2010-12-27 07:31:21 <devon_hillard> So can people exploit browser-side javascript to perform small but measurable computational tasks for servers?
 400 2010-12-27 07:31:57 <devon_hillard> like, if you have a high trafficked site, you may have a JS routine cracking a couple of hashes
 401 2010-12-27 07:33:33 <Keefe> how much processing time do you think you could get from each page hit? and how many hits per day?
 402 2010-12-27 07:33:45 <Keefe> maybe 1 second?
 403 2010-12-27 07:34:11 <Keefe> without being obvious to some people
 404 2010-12-27 07:35:28 <Keefe> how much do traditional web ads pay per view, on some site you own?
 405 2010-12-27 07:36:29 <bd_> Keefe: you can do quite a lot of work with a popular site, I'd expect
 406 2010-12-27 07:36:36 <bd_> just try not to use more than 10% of the CPU or so
 407 2010-12-27 07:41:48 <devon_hillard> or you could have a transient sort of botnet, sending spam from within porn surfer's JS
 408 2010-12-27 07:44:14 Ecu-Truin has joined
 409 2010-12-27 07:44:47 Ecu-Truin has left ()
 410 2010-12-27 07:49:17 <bd_> devon_hillard: No, that's prevented by the JS security model
 411 2010-12-27 07:51:18 Slix` has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 412 2010-12-27 08:00:11 h4ck3rk1ng has joined
 413 2010-12-27 08:00:13 <h4ck3rk1ng> hey guys
 414 2010-12-27 08:00:49 <h4ck3rk1ng> hey anyone here?
 415 2010-12-27 08:01:17 <h4ck3rk1ng> i want to know how to start my own bitcoin exchange site?
 416 2010-12-27 08:02:05 <MT`AwAy> h4ck3rk1ng: code it?
 417 2010-12-27 08:02:13 <h4ck3rk1ng> i know
 418 2010-12-27 08:02:16 <h4ck3rk1ng> but in what?
 419 2010-12-27 08:02:20 <h4ck3rk1ng> and what API do i use?
 420 2010-12-27 08:02:34 <h4ck3rk1ng> there is no documentation...
 421 2010-12-27 08:08:19 ThomasV has joined
 422 2010-12-27 08:11:19 RazielZ has joined
 423 2010-12-27 08:15:24 lfm has joined
 424 2010-12-27 08:18:30 <lfm> whats the range of reasonable values for -worksize on the m0mochil gpu miner?
 425 2010-12-27 08:20:47 <jgarzik> h4ck3rk1ng: there are two "APIs":  the JSON-RPC API detailed via the 'help' command, and the P2P network protocol itself.  most likely you want the JSON-RPC API, an HTTP server on port 8332.
 426 2010-12-27 08:24:07 <h4ck3rk1ng> ok, so i could code a exchange script on the JSON-RPC api
 427 2010-12-27 08:24:16 <h4ck3rk1ng> is there like a demo script i could expand on?
 428 2010-12-27 08:30:45 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 429 2010-12-27 08:31:08 <h4ck3rk1ng> ...
 430 2010-12-27 08:37:26 <devon_hillard> ok, bitcoind is smart enough not to send duplicate search spaces to different clients, right?
 431 2010-12-27 08:45:19 <lfm> davon_hillard yes it is that smart
 432 2010-12-27 08:49:34 grondilu has joined
 433 2010-12-27 08:50:07 <grondilu> Is it ok if two users run bitcoin on the same time on the same machine ?
 434 2010-12-27 08:52:06 syl_ has joined
 435 2010-12-27 08:52:22 ThomasV has joined
 436 2010-12-27 09:08:48 <grondilu> Anyone here ?
 437 2010-12-27 09:11:14 <h4ck3rk1ng> i am
 438 2010-12-27 09:11:21 <h4ck3rk1ng> but masturbating to SAW
 439 2010-12-27 09:11:50 <AAA_awright> grondilu: Don't ask meta-questions "Can I ask a question" "Is anyone here"
 440 2010-12-27 09:11:50 <AAA_awright> h4ck3rk1ng: gtfo
 441 2010-12-27 09:12:04 <h4ck3rk1ng> lmao
 442 2010-12-27 09:12:09 <h4ck3rk1ng> i was kidding
 443 2010-12-27 09:12:17 <h4ck3rk1ng> how do i interface WHMCS to bitcoins?
 444 2010-12-27 09:12:24 <h4ck3rk1ng> i want to be able to sell hosting with bitcoins
 445 2010-12-27 09:12:37 <h4ck3rk1ng> do i make bitcoins access the WHMCS API?
 446 2010-12-27 09:12:45 <h4ck3rk1ng> or do i make whmcs access bitcoin api?
 447 2010-12-27 09:16:13 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 448 2010-12-27 09:24:35 <grondilu> Is it ok if two users run bitcoin on the same time on the same machine ?
 449 2010-12-27 09:24:46 h4ck3rk1ng has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
 450 2010-12-27 09:28:31 <devon_hillard> how robust is bitcoin if the central IRC server is attacked, wikileaks-style?
 451 2010-12-27 09:28:58 <devon_hillard> either by a DDoS or legal takedown of DNS
 452 2010-12-27 09:31:14 <AAA_awright> You can still connect to a peer directly
 453 2010-12-27 09:32:07 <devon_hillard> it would be nice to have the client keep a running list of active peers, then attempt to connect to some of those peers at login (if the IRC is down)
 454 2010-12-27 09:32:24 <AAA_awright> grondilu: Should be, what conflicts could there be?
 455 2010-12-27 09:32:29 <devon_hillard> most peers would be ephemeral, but there are always some peers on the network
 456 2010-12-27 09:32:52 <AAA_awright> You can't have two programs listen on the same port, and I don't think you can have two programs writing to the same database if they are even using the same database
 457 2010-12-27 09:40:15 devon_hillard has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 458 2010-12-27 10:00:07 devon_hillard has joined
 459 2010-12-27 10:00:50 ThomasV has joined
 460 2010-12-27 10:01:40 <grondilu> AAA_awright: indeed that's what I thought.  Clients can't listen to the same port, can they ?
 461 2010-12-27 10:02:28 noagendamarket has joined
 462 2010-12-27 10:02:43 noagendamarket has quit (Changing host)
 463 2010-12-27 10:02:43 noagendamarket has joined
 464 2010-12-27 10:03:49 <devon_hillard> if a fraudster wanted to forge bitcoins, given the network speed of X Mhashes/s, what sort of speed should a bad guy attain? I understand it's an exponential function of X
 465 2010-12-27 10:04:05 <devon_hillard> with the exponent larger than 1
 466 2010-12-27 10:06:36 <grondilu> forging has nothing to do with hashes/s.  Forging would require breaking SHA256
 467 2010-12-27 10:07:03 <grondilu> hum... sorry.  I meant stealing.
 468 2010-12-27 10:07:14 <grondilu> I don't know what you mean by "forging".
 469 2010-12-27 10:07:50 <grondilu> devon_hillard: what do you mean by "forging" ?
 470 2010-12-27 10:10:44 <devon_hillard> grondilu: being able to present a longer proof-of-work hash chain to other bitcoin peers
 471 2010-12-27 10:10:58 <devon_hillard> a forged one
 472 2010-12-27 10:13:21 <arcatan> if i understand correctly, that'd require breaking SHA256, too
 473 2010-12-27 10:13:29 <devon_hillard> or being able to create a hash collision with the current chain, I think
 474 2010-12-27 10:14:00 <devon_hillard> i.e. to present an alternative work tree to peers, if I understand it correctly
 475 2010-12-27 10:14:28 <devon_hillard> or work history
 476 2010-12-27 10:21:07 <Keefe> if you have more computing power than everyone else combined, you can build your own chain in parallel starting with the main chain's current block, keep your chain private while it grows faster than the main one, spend bitcoins (generated before your fork) on the main chain, obtain goods/services/money in exchange, then merge your private (now-longer) chain with the main network and wipe out every transaction after the fork including your spend
 477 2010-12-27 10:21:17 <Keefe> no hacking/cracking needed
 478 2010-12-27 10:21:25 <Keefe> just more computing power than everyone else combined
 479 2010-12-27 10:22:03 <Keefe> then spend the bitcoins a second time
 480 2010-12-27 10:23:23 <Keefe> the longer you build your own chain and keep it to yourself, the more havoc you can cause when you merge
 481 2010-12-27 10:24:14 <devon_hillard> Keefe: but even then, the upside would be that a new villain would have to one-up both the network and this old villain
 482 2010-12-27 10:24:48 <Keefe> unless you repeat the process
 483 2010-12-27 10:24:51 <Keefe> fork again
 484 2010-12-27 10:25:18 <devon_hillard> a big, powerful node would be visible in the network, right?
 485 2010-12-27 10:25:19 <Keefe> then a new villain has to only one-up you (assuming you're still more than the main chain)
 486 2010-12-27 10:25:21 <devon_hillard> at least after the merger
 487 2010-12-27 10:26:46 <Keefe> if you merge your chain one block at a time from multiple ips thru tor, it could just look like a major internet netsplit being resolved
 488 2010-12-27 10:26:58 <LobsterMan> http://www.techpowerup.com/137140/AMD-Radeon-HD-6950-can-be-unlocked-to-HD-6970.html
 489 2010-12-27 10:26:59 <LobsterMan> anyone see this yet?
 490 2010-12-27 10:27:59 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 491 2010-12-27 10:28:02 <Keefe> it will still raise suspicion and then it will be up to the community to decide whether to intervene and declare the fork to be invalid
 492 2010-12-27 10:28:29 <Keefe> you could probably get away with a short fork
 493 2010-12-27 10:28:56 <Keefe> like say 10 blocks
 494 2010-12-27 10:29:26 <Keefe> dunno really. we all hope to not have to deal with such disruption, but we also must be aware it can and probably will eventually happen
 495 2010-12-27 10:30:00 <Keefe> especially if a government decides to try to disrupt bitcoin
 496 2010-12-27 10:32:26 <Keefe> LobsterMan: i saw someone discussing it in one of the chans
 497 2010-12-27 10:46:46 scibotic has joined
 498 2010-12-27 10:46:50 Myckel has joined
 499 2010-12-27 10:48:36 <devon_hillard> Keefe: there is also the possibility that some bitcoins get lost
 500 2010-12-27 10:48:48 <devon_hillard> if their owner loses his private credentials
 501 2010-12-27 10:49:11 <devon_hillard> they would be money that never return to circulation
 502 2010-12-27 10:49:50 genjix has joined
 503 2010-12-27 10:53:07 <Keefe> that would be not related in any way to someone causing trouble by forking the block chain with more processing power than everyone else combined
 504 2010-12-27 10:56:48 <zygf> hmm, curious fact, the world's GDP is ~$58e12, that's 58e14 US cents, bitcoins are similarly divisible, there's a cap of 21e14 bitcoin fractions
 505 2010-12-27 11:00:03 <larsivi> zygf: it says somewhere that bitcoins are infinitely divisable, it is just restricted to 8 decimals in the current implementation
 506 2010-12-27 11:06:32 satamusic has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 507 2010-12-27 11:13:17 <genjix> zygf: awesome! heh
 508 2010-12-27 11:20:40 MacRohard has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 509 2010-12-27 11:24:08 grondilu has quit (Quit: leaving)
 510 2010-12-27 11:26:11 <bonsaikitten> the power of inflation!
 511 2010-12-27 11:26:19 <bonsaikitten> soon everyone will be a billionaire ...
 512 2010-12-27 11:26:25 <genjix> sweet
 513 2010-12-27 11:26:50 <genjix> how will you spend your billion?
 514 2010-12-27 11:27:17 <bonsaikitten> I think I'll buy some bread
 515 2010-12-27 11:27:26 <bonsaikitten> and the remaining millions will be good toilet paper
 516 2010-12-27 11:32:27 <larsivi> bonsaikitten: in terms of bitcoin, it would be more correct to say "power of deflation" :)
 517 2010-12-27 11:33:46 <bonsaikitten> larsivi: stop trying to break my mind!
 518 2010-12-27 11:33:58 <bonsaikitten> it came pre-broken with bad factory defaults, so it won't work
 519 2010-12-27 11:38:44 * Myckel mumbles something about crap ISPs that require you to use a relay host for your mail... and their relay host is sloooooow.
 520 2010-12-27 11:40:21 RichardG_ has joined
 521 2010-12-27 11:41:42 RichardG has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 522 2010-12-27 12:15:35 m0mchil has joined
 523 2010-12-27 12:16:39 srb123 has joined
 524 2010-12-27 12:19:42 RichardG has joined
 525 2010-12-27 12:19:42 RichardG has quit (Changing host)
 526 2010-12-27 12:19:42 RichardG has joined
 527 2010-12-27 12:19:56 RichardG_ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 528 2010-12-27 12:23:16 srb123 has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 529 2010-12-27 12:34:32 ThomasV has joined
 530 2010-12-27 12:48:50 darkskiez has joined
 531 2010-12-27 12:52:06 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 532 2010-12-27 12:57:32 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 533 2010-12-27 12:57:43 mtgox has joined
 534 2010-12-27 13:03:19 mahound has joined
 535 2010-12-27 13:04:03 ThomasV has joined
 536 2010-12-27 13:09:31 m0mchil has quit ()
 537 2010-12-27 13:11:08 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 538 2010-12-27 13:17:33 ThomasV has joined
 539 2010-12-27 13:19:37 cdecker has joined
 540 2010-12-27 13:28:18 MacRohard has joined
 541 2010-12-27 13:36:57 <lfm> can anyone give any clue what is the range of reasonable values for -worksize on the m0mochil gpu miner?
 542 2010-12-27 13:38:32 darsk1ez has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 543 2010-12-27 13:38:41 <sipa> i use 64
 544 2010-12-27 13:39:09 ArtForz has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 545 2010-12-27 13:39:30 <lfm> did you try others? what vid card is it?
 546 2010-12-27 13:40:48 <sipa> ati 4870
 547 2010-12-27 13:40:56 <sipa> yes, i tried others
 548 2010-12-27 13:42:00 darsk1ez has joined
 549 2010-12-27 13:43:41 [Noodles] has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 550 2010-12-27 13:47:31 tcatm has quit (Quit: .)
 551 2010-12-27 13:54:59 ArtForz has joined
 552 2010-12-27 13:55:00 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 553 2010-12-27 13:58:36 ThomasV has joined
 554 2010-12-27 14:03:31 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 555 2010-12-27 14:10:10 darkskiez has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 556 2010-12-27 14:10:38 darkskiez has joined
 557 2010-12-27 14:18:08 darkskiez has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 558 2010-12-27 14:35:34 Zarutian has joined
 559 2010-12-27 14:36:45 DjeZAeL has quit (Quit: Gruiiik !)
 560 2010-12-27 14:40:02 DjeZAeL has joined
 561 2010-12-27 14:44:33 cdecker has left ()
 562 2010-12-27 14:54:48 xelister has joined
 563 2010-12-27 14:56:14 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 564 2010-12-27 15:01:09 genjix has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 565 2010-12-27 15:06:58 TheAncientGoat has joined
 566 2010-12-27 15:14:31 RichardG has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 567 2010-12-27 15:14:32 dwdollar1 has joined
 568 2010-12-27 15:15:16 RichardG has joined
 569 2010-12-27 15:33:51 jyaworski has joined
 570 2010-12-27 15:44:02 scibotic has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 571 2010-12-27 15:55:26 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 572 2010-12-27 15:56:06 warner has quit (Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs))
 573 2010-12-27 16:01:53 achristianson has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 574 2010-12-27 16:06:53 ThomasV has joined
 575 2010-12-27 16:12:37 Azetab has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 576 2010-12-27 16:42:12 darrob has quit (Disconnected by services)
 577 2010-12-27 16:42:21 darrob has joined
 578 2010-12-27 17:23:39 Cusipzzz has joined
 579 2010-12-27 17:30:15 spm_Draget has joined
 580 2010-12-27 17:30:42 <spm_Draget> Anyone of you holding a lightningtalk about bitcoin?
 581 2010-12-27 17:31:29 <Cusipzzz> is that like an elevator speech?
 582 2010-12-27 17:31:34 <ThomasV> hehe
 583 2010-12-27 17:33:13 <ThomasV> spm_Draget, better just ask your question if you have one
 584 2010-12-27 17:33:38 <spm_Draget> I am talking about 27c3, ThomasV =)
 585 2010-12-27 17:35:38 <ThomasV> oh that must be like a spotlight then
 586 2010-12-27 17:36:02 <spm_Draget> ThomasV: It is a talk any participant of the congress can hold for 4 minutes
 587 2010-12-27 17:36:08 <ThomasV> yeah
 588 2010-12-27 17:36:27 <spm_Draget> Introducing your project to a few thousand viewers at place and a for tenthousands or hundretthounds workdwilde on streams =)
 589 2010-12-27 17:36:39 <ThomasV> oh it's right now, I see
 590 2010-12-27 17:36:42 <spm_Draget> Sorry, for the missunderstanding :P
 591 2010-12-27 17:38:02 <ThomasV> they surely will try to break it at ccc
 592 2010-12-27 17:38:27 WonTu has joined
 593 2010-12-27 17:38:39 <ThomasV> it'll be like a bank stress test :-D
 594 2010-12-27 17:38:41 WonTu has left ()
 595 2010-12-27 17:46:04 <ThomasV> spm_Draget : are you attending it, btw ?
 596 2010-12-27 17:46:22 <spm_Draget> Nope, sitting at home, watching the streams
 597 2010-12-27 17:51:04 TD has joined
 598 2010-12-27 18:31:52 TD has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 599 2010-12-27 18:31:59 TD has joined
 600 2010-12-27 18:37:12 mahound has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 601 2010-12-27 18:38:59 mahound has joined
 602 2010-12-27 18:45:31 lolcat^ has joined
 603 2010-12-27 18:47:07 asdf30 has joined
 604 2010-12-27 18:53:11 TD_ has joined
 605 2010-12-27 18:56:09 TD has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 606 2010-12-27 18:56:09 TD_ is now known as TD
 607 2010-12-27 19:07:53 larsivi has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 608 2010-12-27 19:17:15 TheAncientGoat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 609 2010-12-27 19:19:27 grondilu has joined
 610 2010-12-27 19:19:36 <grondilu> ;;book USD
 611 2010-12-27 19:19:36 <gribble> #233 Mon Dec 27 08:21:09 2010 grondilu@unaffiliated/grondilu BUY 400.0 BTC @ 100.0 USD (One VISA USD gift card)
 612 2010-12-27 19:21:01 <grondilu> ;;help
 613 2010-12-27 19:21:02 <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/
 614 2010-12-27 19:23:27 <wumpus> http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/12/27/0820203/AMD-Radeon-HD-6950-Can-Be-Unlocked-To-HD-6970
 615 2010-12-27 19:23:29 <wumpus> interesting
 616 2010-12-27 19:24:00 <ArtForz> posted that yesterday
 617 2010-12-27 19:24:55 xelister_ has joined
 618 2010-12-27 19:25:09 xelister has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 619 2010-12-27 19:25:11 grondilu has quit (Quit: leaving)
 620 2010-12-27 19:26:04 <wumpus> ok
 621 2010-12-27 19:26:24 <ArtForz> and it's still not a full 6970
 622 2010-12-27 19:27:00 <ArtForz> 6970 has 6GHz ram chips, 6950 has 5GHz, good luck getting those to run @ 5.5 (stock 6970 mem clk)
 623 2010-12-27 19:27:09 <wumpus> so it makes little sense to buy a 6950 for that reason
 624 2010-12-27 19:27:28 <ArtForz> well, assuming all shaders work it should be == 6970 for mining
 625 2010-12-27 19:27:40 <wumpus> true, ram isn't important for that
 626 2010-12-27 19:28:17 <ArtForz> but 69xx is kinda ram BW limited already, so those 128 extra shaders wont really help much for 3D
 627 2010-12-27 19:30:27 joe_1 has joined
 628 2010-12-27 19:31:18 larsivi has joined
 629 2010-12-27 20:09:47 <jgarzik> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=2362.msg33465#msg33465
 630 2010-12-27 20:09:50 <bitbot> An estimate of fpga performance : mike_la_jolla: mike_la_jolla checking in here to clarify some FPGA questions.  - DNDPB_S327:  http://www.dinigroup.com/new/DNDPB_S327.html List price is $19,680 for quantity 1.  - This is probably a much better choice:  DNBFC_S12_PCIe: http://www.dinigroup.com/new/DNBFC_S12_PCIe.html List price for quantity 1 is $8,950.  We sell thousands...
 631 2010-12-27 20:10:51 CyanDynamo has joined
 632 2010-12-27 20:12:24 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
 633 2010-12-27 20:13:15 sgtstein has joined
 634 2010-12-27 20:13:21 sgtstein has left ()
 635 2010-12-27 20:25:25 buck has joined
 636 2010-12-27 20:27:22 joe_1 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 637 2010-12-27 20:29:45 buck has quit (Quit: KVIrc Insomnia 4.0.1, revision: 4541, sources date: 20100627, built on: 2010-08-03 16:04:47 UTC http://www.kvirc.net/)
 638 2010-12-27 20:41:15 RazielZ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 639 2010-12-27 20:48:21 <Keefe> from the wikipedia article on bitcoin: "the value of bitcoins will begin to deflate due to the lack of new introduction"
 640 2010-12-27 20:49:48 <Keefe> is that the correct way to say it? won't there tend to be an upward force on the value of bitcoins, as less is created?
 641 2010-12-27 20:49:56 <Cusipzzz> that article is shite
 642 2010-12-27 20:50:07 <Keefe> actually i think it's pretty nice
 643 2010-12-27 20:50:16 <Cusipzzz> still call it scrip?
 644 2010-12-27 20:50:28 <Cusipzzz> haven't check it recently
 645 2010-12-27 20:50:45 <Keefe> no mention of scrip
 646 2010-12-27 20:50:57 <Cusipzzz> it's not freekin scrip
 647 2010-12-27 20:51:02 <Cusipzzz> oh really? was in first sentence
 648 2010-12-27 20:54:03 <nanotube> Keefe: deflation == value of currency goes up. inflation == value of currency goes down.
 649 2010-12-27 20:54:17 <nanotube> it's a little counterintuitive... but it is what it is. :)
 650 2010-12-27 20:54:35 <Cusipzzz> yes, deflation =prices comes down, which means currency is stronger
 651 2010-12-27 20:54:47 <Keefe> but "value of bitcoins will deflate"?
 652 2010-12-27 20:55:43 <nanotube> Keefe: yea, that's probably bad phraseology
 653 2010-12-27 20:56:15 Diablo-D3 has joined
 654 2010-12-27 20:56:33 mahound has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 655 2010-12-27 20:57:11 <Keefe> i suppose i should edit the article if i can think of a better phrase, but i've never edited a wiki before
 656 2010-12-27 20:57:55 <Cusipzzz> some editor nazi will just change it back...
 657 2010-12-27 20:58:07 <Cusipzzz> unless you have 4/5 people do the same edit or et an editor to do it.
 658 2010-12-27 21:03:09 genjix has joined
 659 2010-12-27 21:09:51 Slix` has joined
 660 2010-12-27 21:11:43 INEEDMONEY has joined
 661 2010-12-27 21:12:50 Slix` has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
 662 2010-12-27 21:13:47 Slix` has joined
 663 2010-12-27 21:51:40 xelister_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 664 2010-12-27 21:55:58 genjix has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 665 2010-12-27 21:57:58 noagendamarket has joined
 666 2010-12-27 21:58:10 noagendamarket has quit (Changing host)
 667 2010-12-27 21:58:10 noagendamarket has joined
 668 2010-12-27 21:59:29 jyaworski has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 669 2010-12-27 22:06:38 tcatm has joined
 670 2010-12-27 22:18:47 <nanotube> Keefe: there's always a first time. :)
 671 2010-12-27 22:26:49 slush has joined
 672 2010-12-27 22:28:59 RichardG has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 673 2010-12-27 22:29:43 Motoma has joined
 674 2010-12-27 22:30:50 <wumpus> if you're just reformulating something so it's more clear I'm pretty sure no edit nazi will change it back, only if you significantly change the meaning and 'they' don't agree with it
 675 2010-12-27 22:31:18 <Diablo-D3> hrm, wheres slush
 676 2010-12-27 22:31:26 <slush> Diablo-D3: hi
 677 2010-12-27 22:31:30 <Diablo-D3> oh hau
 678 2010-12-27 22:31:38 <Diablo-D3> slush: I think Ive noticed a tiny little flaw in my plan
 679 2010-12-27 22:31:51 <slush> Diablo-D3: in miner performance?
 680 2010-12-27 22:32:11 <Diablo-D3> slush: due to how locking functions in such a setup, its basically fucking over multiple kernel runs
 681 2010-12-27 22:32:53 <slush> Diablo-D3: from my stats, it looks newest miner has -20% performance from previous one
 682 2010-12-27 22:32:56 <Diablo-D3> Im going to have to switch to thread+getwork per gpu, and do single threaded executor rotating
 683 2010-12-27 22:32:59 <slush> Diablo-D3: when counting shares
 684 2010-12-27 22:33:00 <Diablo-D3> slush: thats about right
 685 2010-12-27 22:33:06 <Diablo-D3> its in the right ballpark anyways
 686 2010-12-27 22:33:15 <Diablo-D3> the performance is the same if I just ran one executor
 687 2010-12-27 22:34:33 <slush> Diablo-D3: don't fully understand. Are you going to revert last 'optimizations'?
 688 2010-12-27 22:37:37 <slush> I mean changes related to getwork improvements
 689 2010-12-27 22:38:31 jgarzik has quit (Quit: werk)
 690 2010-12-27 22:39:17 <Motoma> Hi there. I've been spellunking through the wiki, but I can't find an answer: Is there a way to launch the standard bitcoin client to connect to an existing bitcoin server via RPC?
 691 2010-12-27 22:39:46 <nanotube> Motoma: nope
 692 2010-12-27 22:40:03 <nanotube> you can launch bitcoind to connect to a bitcoin running with -server... but not the other way around.
 693 2010-12-27 22:40:44 <Motoma> nanotube: Oh, and how would I do that?
 694 2010-12-27 22:41:24 <nanotube> well, you run "bitcoin -server" to start the gui with the server... then you can run 'bitcoind getinfo' (e.g.) to interact with it.
 695 2010-12-27 22:42:29 <Motoma> nanotube: I guess more clarification is necessary: I'm trying to run a number of my home computers against a single bitcoin -server instance.
 696 2010-12-27 22:43:16 <Diablo-D3> slush: not revert, keep going
 697 2010-12-27 22:43:18 <Motoma> I can't seem to find a way to instruct bitcoind to connect to a remote server.
 698 2010-12-27 22:43:24 <nanotube> Motoma: for what purpose?
 699 2010-12-27 22:43:36 <Diablo-D3> slush: if I get rid of the locking altogether and move executors all into the same thread (and just run it as a queue)
 700 2010-12-27 22:43:40 <Diablo-D3> slush: it should be fine
 701 2010-12-27 22:43:52 <Diablo-D3> slush: but Im stuck using a getwork per gpu
 702 2010-12-27 22:43:59 <slush> Diablo-D3: So it should solve my performance issue, right?
 703 2010-12-27 22:44:03 <Diablo-D3> yes
 704 2010-12-27 22:44:09 <slush> Diablo-D3: great
 705 2010-12-27 22:44:12 <nanotube> Motoma: it seems like you're trying to do something that shouldn't be done. ;)
 706 2010-12-27 22:44:18 <Diablo-D3> slush: it'll solve EVERYONE's
 707 2010-12-27 22:44:38 <Motoma> nanotube: Oh, I see. Perhaps I'll have to set up a private pooled mining system then, eh?
 708 2010-12-27 22:45:13 <nanotube> Motoma: yes, the 'remote miners' are a separate breed, not the same as the stock bitcoind.
 709 2010-12-27 22:45:17 <Cusipzzz> Motoma: that would work
 710 2010-12-27 22:45:28 <slush> Diablo-D3: Btw I worked on some statistical things about mining today. Looks like getwork rate (how often miner ask for new getwork) affect real miner performance a lot.
 711 2010-12-27 22:45:30 <nanotube> also, consider joining the existing ,,pool
 712 2010-12-27 22:45:31 <gribble> No fancy GPU farm, and don't want to wait for months for a block gen? Join the mining pool! http://mining.bitcoin.cz/
 713 2010-12-27 22:45:55 <Motoma> Are there any miners that don't require GPU libraries?
 714 2010-12-27 22:45:57 <slush> Diablo-D3: It is much better to take one getwork, solve it as fast as possible by all available gpus and then ask for another THAN ask for more getwork
 715 2010-12-27 22:46:16 <nanotube> Motoma: yes, the cpuminer. :)
 716 2010-12-27 22:46:21 <slush> Diablo-D3: statistically, it make huge difference in real mining success
 717 2010-12-27 22:46:53 <Motoma> nanotube: Is that listed on the wiki?
 718 2010-12-27 22:47:20 <OneFixt> slush: could you explain how more getwork affects the performance?
 719 2010-12-27 22:47:23 <nanotube> Motoma: yes the wiki lists the available miners.
 720 2010-12-27 22:48:02 <nanotube> ;;bc,wiki category miners
 721 2010-12-27 22:48:03 <gribble> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Category:Bitcoin_miners | Dec 17, 2010 ... Bitcoin miners are those that generate blocks for the blockchain. Pages in category "Bitcoin miners". The following 2 pages are in this ...
 722 2010-12-27 22:48:07 <slush> OneFixt: If you work on invalid block (because there is another block in block chain in network), you are wasting gpu cycles for nothing
 723 2010-12-27 22:48:27 <nanotube> Motoma: mm i see that the cpuminer page doesn't actually link to the cpuminer... time to remedy that. :)
 724 2010-12-27 22:48:27 <Motoma> nanotube: I guess I'm blind then. Do you happen to have a link to download cpuminer?
 725 2010-12-27 22:48:39 <slush> OneFixt: When you have one or two getworks, you lost (say) 5 seconds of hash crunching
 726 2010-12-27 22:48:50 <nanotube> https://github.com/jgarzik/cpuminer
 727 2010-12-27 22:48:53 <nanotube> Motoma: --^
 728 2010-12-27 22:49:03 <slush> OneFixt: When you have >100 workers, you lost much more of performance
 729 2010-12-27 22:49:06 <Motoma> nanotube: Thanks a million!
 730 2010-12-27 22:49:13 <OneFixt> slush: couldn't you have 10 getworks which give you the a block that is currently valid?
 731 2010-12-27 22:50:02 <OneFixt> slush: or are you referring to a particular implementation (perhaps a pooled miner)?
 732 2010-12-27 22:50:05 <slush> OneFixt: 1. ask for getwork 2. network announce new block 3. miners submitted potentially valid block 4. block is invalid, because 2)
 733 2010-12-27 22:50:19 <slush> OneFixt: It is not directly related to pool
 734 2010-12-27 22:50:21 <Diablo-D3> [05:43:28] <slush> Diablo-D3: It is much better to take one getwork, solve it as fast as possible by all available gpus and then ask for another THAN ask for more getwork
 735 2010-12-27 22:50:26 <Diablo-D3> [05:43:52] <slush> Diablo-D3: statistically, it make huge difference in real mining success
 736 2010-12-27 22:50:28 <Diablo-D3> slush: no it doesnt.
 737 2010-12-27 22:50:59 <slush> Diablo-D3: Yes, it does. If you are asking for getwork asap, you minimize time when you are working on invalid job
 738 2010-12-27 22:51:11 <OneFixt> slush: technically you don't have to finish the entire getwork before getting another one, so it's not getwork itself which affects performance, but how long you spend before checking for new work
 739 2010-12-27 22:51:30 <Diablo-D3> slush: yes, but using threaded design, I can, say, run 4 getworks simultaniously
 740 2010-12-27 22:51:54 <Diablo-D3> slush: there is no difference between my miner on 4 gpus, 4 m0's, or 4 different machines
 741 2010-12-27 22:52:06 <Diablo-D3> slush: they all have the same exact chances of finding a valid block
 742 2010-12-27 22:52:06 <slush> OneFixt: Of course, you are right. It is fully on miner implementation, how often he ask for new miner
 743 2010-12-27 22:52:40 <Diablo-D3> slush: even when I ran 3 getworks per gpu, and on that 4 gpu example, they STILL have the same exact chances of finding it
 744 2010-12-27 22:52:50 <slush> OneFixt: Diablo's in doing it very good; I see very small latencies between getwork and submitting shares in my pool. Unfortunately m0mchil's miner can crunch one task for more than 30 seconds. I think it can be an issue
 745 2010-12-27 22:53:18 <Diablo-D3> no, m0's runs exactly like my old design, but only a single executor.
 746 2010-12-27 22:53:28 <Diablo-D3> it flushes when either a) it submits a block, b) 5 seconds are up
 747 2010-12-27 22:53:31 syl_ has left ("Quitte")
 748 2010-12-27 22:53:39 <slush> Diablo-D3: No, it is not the same if you run one GPU crunching 1ghash/s and 1000 gpus crunching 1mhash
 749 2010-12-27 22:53:48 <Diablo-D3> slush: yup, its exactly the same.
 750 2010-12-27 22:54:10 <slush> Diablo-D3: No, I see m0mchil is submitting jobs which are sometimes older than 20, 30 seconds
 751 2010-12-27 22:54:25 <Diablo-D3> slush: you're assuming there IS a valid network difficulty block in a job AND they're not evenly distributed
 752 2010-12-27 22:54:31 <slush> Diablo-D3: I don't know how it does, but it does.
 753 2010-12-27 22:54:37 <Diablo-D3> valid network blocks have a distribution bias of around 0%
 754 2010-12-27 22:54:43 <Diablo-D3> slush: weird
 755 2010-12-27 22:54:45 <Diablo-D3> that indicates a bug
 756 2010-12-27 22:54:51 <Diablo-D3> but thats not a design error
 757 2010-12-27 22:54:54 <Diablo-D3> just a bug
 758 2010-12-27 22:55:06 <slush> Share found by m0mchil.sirius,       checkwork 0.013 sec, job 14.083 sec, 83f50b92
 759 2010-12-27 22:55:09 <Diablo-D3> m0's intent is pretty clear in his design
 760 2010-12-27 22:55:18 <slush> Diablo-D3: it is few seconds old line from log
 761 2010-12-27 22:55:22 <Diablo-D3> hmm
 762 2010-12-27 22:55:23 <slush> 14 second old job
 763 2010-12-27 22:55:27 <Diablo-D3> wonder if m0 has it cranked up
 764 2010-12-27 22:55:34 <Diablo-D3> even mine can do that if you tell it to
 765 2010-12-27 22:55:36 <ArtForz> *shrug* imo the whole getwork approach is bass-ackwards
 766 2010-12-27 22:55:55 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: yeah, but push back through forwards connection is a tad ass backards too
 767 2010-12-27 22:56:10 <ArtForz> huh?
 768 2010-12-27 22:56:12 <Diablo-D3> I would mine a parallel protocol to send events
 769 2010-12-27 22:56:23 <nanotube> Motoma: np :)
 770 2010-12-27 22:56:25 <Diablo-D3> just to tell miners to force change
 771 2010-12-27 22:56:35 <ArtForz> hmmm... no need for another protocol
 772 2010-12-27 22:56:39 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: client a connects to server b, b tells a everything
 773 2010-12-27 22:56:41 <ArtForz> just use the normal bitcoin protocol
 774 2010-12-27 22:56:45 <slush> > Diablo-D3: slush: yup, its exactly the same.
 775 2010-12-27 22:56:45 <slush> No, it is not the same
 776 2010-12-27 22:56:52 <Diablo-D3> slush: its exactly the same.
 777 2010-12-27 22:56:56 <INEEDMONEY> http://www.stickam.com/aranna
 778 2010-12-27 22:57:06 <Diablo-D3> valid network difficulty blocks are fully randomly distributed
 779 2010-12-27 22:57:27 <slush> Because they asked for 1000 getworks and are crunching it for (say)  5 seconds. And THEN they observe their work is outdated
 780 2010-12-27 22:57:28 <Diablo-D3> the chances of finding one, throughout the entire valid search space, is the same for every single chance
 781 2010-12-27 22:57:29 <ArtForz> if miner also connects to node as a client, it geta inv msgs for new blocks ...
 782 2010-12-27 22:57:35 <slush> So you spend 5000 second for nothing
 783 2010-12-27 22:57:42 <Diablo-D3> slush: not 5000 seconds.]
 784 2010-12-27 22:57:59 <slush> Diablo-D3: When you have one GPU with 1ghash, it is asking for job much more often
 785 2010-12-27 22:58:02 <Diablo-D3> slush: 5 seconds of 1000 getworks @ 1 mhash is the same wasted effort as 5 seconds of 1 getwork @ 1 ghash
 786 2010-12-27 22:58:03 <slush> Diablo-D3: why not?
 787 2010-12-27 22:58:38 <slush> Diablo-D3: But you will end with nonces before 5 second timeout!
 788 2010-12-27 22:58:52 <slush> Diablo-D3: So 1ghash gpu will ask for getwork say every 2.5 second
 789 2010-12-27 22:58:54 <slush> or less
 790 2010-12-27 22:59:00 <Diablo-D3> thats only because I run out of nonce room
 791 2010-12-27 22:59:20 <Diablo-D3> thats a side effect only
 792 2010-12-27 22:59:31 <slush> Diablo-D3: Yes, exactly. But 1mhash miners will NOT end up with nonces
 793 2010-12-27 22:59:49 <Diablo-D3> not only that, having to pull getwork sooner than 5 seconds _will_ halt the threads sooner
 794 2010-12-27 22:59:56 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
 795 2010-12-27 22:59:57 <Diablo-D3> which means you're losing out on hash time
 796 2010-12-27 22:59:57 <slush> Of course it is side effect. But it means we cannot count 1000*1 as 1000*1
 797 2010-12-27 23:00:09 <Diablo-D3> so you're STILL leaking performance
 798 2010-12-27 23:01:09 <slush> Yes, still, but statistically it is much more when doing parallel stuff with 100 workers
 799 2010-12-27 23:01:14 <Diablo-D3> lets say the 1000 getworks make 1000 sharesa
 800 2010-12-27 23:01:26 <Diablo-D3> the 1 ghash getwork will make 1001 shares.
 801 2010-12-27 23:01:28 <Diablo-D3> give or take
 802 2010-12-27 23:01:47 <slush> Diablo-D3: It is absolutely NOT about shares
 803 2010-12-27 23:01:52 <slush> It is about working on outdated job
 804 2010-12-27 23:01:54 <Diablo-D3> slush: as long as you have parallel archs, work in applications like that can be wasted
 805 2010-12-27 23:02:12 <Diablo-D3> what happens if you have 1000 pipes on a gpu, and the first pipe makes a winner?
 806 2010-12-27 23:02:16 <Diablo-D3> the 999 after are wasted.
 807 2010-12-27 23:02:32 <Diablo-D3> but they're not really wasted, because you cant know what a winner is before you try it
 808 2010-12-27 23:02:39 <Diablo-D3> the same also applies to distributing across computers.
 809 2010-12-27 23:02:41 <Diablo-D3> there IS latency
 810 2010-12-27 23:02:57 <Diablo-D3> slush: I mean, hell, I effectively buffer 3 kernel executions
 811 2010-12-27 23:03:03 <Diablo-D3> the first 1 can win, the next 2 can be wasted
 812 2010-12-27 23:03:18 <slush> Diablo-D3: I'm definitely not talking about your implementation
 813 2010-12-27 23:03:21 <Diablo-D3> when you have any sort of optimized parallel work arch, time will be efficiently wasted.
 814 2010-12-27 23:03:32 <slush> Diablo-D3: I'm talking about buffering getwork for 30 seconds. It is definitely bad
 815 2010-12-27 23:03:32 <Diablo-D3> slush: no, but you fail to understand how stuff like this works
 816 2010-12-27 23:03:42 <Diablo-D3> no one buffers getwork for 30 seconds
 817 2010-12-27 23:03:55 <slush> Diablo-D3: My logs are talking something different
 818 2010-12-27 23:04:10 <slush> I cannot imagine I made an error with time.time() - job.timestamp
 819 2010-12-27 23:04:13 <Diablo-D3> I can do that with mine too
 820 2010-12-27 23:04:37 <Diablo-D3> use -g with values above 5
 821 2010-12-27 23:05:10 <slush> Diablo-D3: of course it _is_ possible. But all crunching which is after new block announcement is simply lost work
 822 2010-12-27 23:05:17 <Diablo-D3> yes, it is lost work
 823 2010-12-27 23:05:23 <slush> Diablo-D3: If you increate this timeout, you will lose more work
 824 2010-12-27 23:05:24 <Diablo-D3> but its a side effect of having an efficient parallel system
 825 2010-12-27 23:05:30 <slush> Diablo-D3: great. This is what I'm talking about
 826 2010-12-27 23:05:40 <Diablo-D3> yes, and Im saying its unavoidable
 827 2010-12-27 23:05:44 <Diablo-D3> the system IS designed correctly.
 828 2010-12-27 23:05:51 <slush> Diablo-D3: If there is 5ghash in pool, but all of those guys have -g 20, there is plenty of lost work
 829 2010-12-27 23:05:56 <Diablo-D3> every level loses a little bit of work at every level
 830 2010-12-27 23:06:03 <slush> It does not mean pool have _effective_ 5ghash
 831 2010-12-27 23:06:10 <Diablo-D3> slush: btw
 832 2010-12-27 23:06:13 <Diablo-D3> theres also another problem
 833 2010-12-27 23:06:22 <slush> But it is definitely not related to pool architecture itself, it is related to miner settings
 834 2010-12-27 23:06:47 <Diablo-D3> you're talking about a tenth of a percent of lost actual hases.
 835 2010-12-27 23:06:50 <Diablo-D3> *hashes
 836 2010-12-27 23:07:04 <nanotube> slush: how is that per-block-reward-history thing going? :)
 837 2010-12-27 23:07:10 <Diablo-D3> you can only intelligently optimize it
 838 2010-12-27 23:07:37 <Diablo-D3> such as having a p2p event network when miners say "I found a block!"
 839 2010-12-27 23:07:41 <slush> nanotube: I'm not on my own computer yet; Working in eclipse on netbook is horrible :)
 840 2010-12-27 23:07:44 <Diablo-D3> everyone else will cut and flush
 841 2010-12-27 23:07:53 <nanotube> slush: heh ic
 842 2010-12-27 23:08:07 <slush> nanotube: So I'm just doing some stats stuff inside, no large project
 843 2010-12-27 23:08:07 <Diablo-D3> heh eclipse :D
 844 2010-12-27 23:08:43 <INEEDMONEY> eclipse isn't bad for java/android
 845 2010-12-27 23:08:47 <slush> Diablo-D3: Not a problem on my 2x24", but it is strange on 800x480 :))
 846 2010-12-27 23:09:13 <EvanR-work> JSON key 'midstate' not found
 847 2010-12-27 23:09:13 <EvanR-work> JSON inval midstate
 848 2010-12-27 23:09:14 <EvanR-work> work decode failed
 849 2010-12-27 23:09:18 <EvanR-work> cpuminer
 850 2010-12-27 23:09:23 <EvanR-work> 0.2.2
 851 2010-12-27 23:09:32 <Diablo-D3> its nice on a single 1920x1200 =P
 852 2010-12-27 23:09:48 <Diablo-D3> EvanR-work: sounds like you're using it with an incompatible version of bitcoin
 853 2010-12-27 23:10:03 <Diablo-D3> or cpuminer isnt dealing with failure states right
 854 2010-12-27 23:10:20 <slush> Diablo-D3: Well, we are finally talking about same thing :)
 855 2010-12-27 23:10:21 <nanotube> EvanR-work: latest cpuminer is 0.3.3. try the latest version, maybe
 856 2010-12-27 23:10:39 <EvanR-work> alright
 857 2010-12-27 23:10:54 <EvanR-work> 'not handling failure states right' sounds familiar
 858 2010-12-27 23:11:02 <slush> Diablo-D3: it would be great to optimize this overhead a little. I think it is really significant number
 859 2010-12-27 23:11:04 <nanotube> no guarantees... but just saying before you go reporting any bugs, it's good to get the latest code.
 860 2010-12-27 23:11:27 <EvanR-work> first time this happened in a week of testing
 861 2010-12-27 23:11:29 <EvanR-work> but yeah
 862 2010-12-27 23:12:01 <slush> Diablo-D3: Mainly, I will talk with m0mchil about it. Looks like his miner is working on job for longer time by default (diablominers have smaller difference between getwork and submit)
 863 2010-12-27 23:12:35 <Diablo-D3> slush: getwork and submit cant realistically exceed 5 seconds, minus round trip time to gpu and to server
 864 2010-12-27 23:12:56 <Diablo-D3> so -f 1 could, say, be 5 + 3 +, eh, 1
 865 2010-12-27 23:13:08 <slush> Diablo-D3: My stats for ~6000 shares are talking about average almost 7 seconds
 866 2010-12-27 23:13:12 <Diablo-D3> doesnt mean it was working on it for 9 seconds
 867 2010-12-27 23:13:20 <Diablo-D3> it just took 9 seconds to get to the server
 868 2010-12-27 23:13:27 <Diablo-D3> and not even 9
 869 2010-12-27 23:13:33 <slush> Diablo-D3: I expect that some users are manually changing this value to 'improve' their latency
 870 2010-12-27 23:13:37 <Diablo-D3> the job was issued at the end of the 5th second
 871 2010-12-27 23:13:44 <Diablo-D3> slush: probably
 872 2010-12-27 23:13:49 <Diablo-D3> thats why I added it on mine
 873 2010-12-27 23:14:07 <Diablo-D3> you increase the chances of lost work to decrease the chances of your miner halting
 874 2010-12-27 23:14:14 <Diablo-D3> slush: oh, and btw
 875 2010-12-27 23:14:21 <Diablo-D3> lost work can only happen every 10 minutes
 876 2010-12-27 23:14:35 <slush> Diablo-D3: of course; but for all miners at the same time
 877 2010-12-27 23:14:46 <Diablo-D3> since these are fake getworks, the rotating of getworks on share producting is meaningless
 878 2010-12-27 23:15:01 <Diablo-D3> it only happens during that little bit of time after a new block
 879 2010-12-27 23:15:47 <Diablo-D3> so you're having this huge argument about 5 seconds every 10 minutes.
 880 2010-12-27 23:16:08 <nanotube> ;;math calc 5/600
 881 2010-12-27 23:16:08 <gribble> 0.00833333333333
 882 2010-12-27 23:16:11 <slush> Today I implemented algorithm to count also 'effective' shares; it is for internal statistics. We will see if difference will be significant
 883 2010-12-27 23:16:23 <nanotube> Diablo-D3: approx 1% loss...
 884 2010-12-27 23:16:45 <Diablo-D3> nanotube: yes, which is really nothing
 885 2010-12-27 23:16:50 <slush> Diablo-D3: Teoretically; we will see
 886 2010-12-27 23:17:06 <slush> Diablo-D3: I will post exact numbers in few days
 887 2010-12-27 23:17:06 <Diablo-D3> I mean, my new miner is accidently losing up to 20% of performance
 888 2010-12-27 23:17:11 <da2ce7> slush, what dose this  'effective' shares thing do?
 889 2010-12-27 23:17:39 <slush> da2ce7: check, if from time of getwork is there new bitcoin bloc
 890 2010-12-27 23:18:02 <slush> block; means possible submit will never be valid
 891 2010-12-27 23:18:26 <slush> Diablo-D3: your 20% perf lost is another issue ;)
 892 2010-12-27 23:18:34 <Diablo-D3> yes, a much larger one
 893 2010-12-27 23:19:04 <da2ce7> so If I submit work after a new block is released, that work gets ignored.
 894 2010-12-27 23:19:24 <slush> Diablo-D3: yes, but this one does not affect pool stats itself; it only looks like pool is slower
 895 2010-12-27 23:19:32 <Diablo-D3> slush: I dont particularly want to step back on single global getwork, but it'll have to be done
 896 2010-12-27 23:19:49 <Diablo-D3> slush: at least, for now]
 897 2010-12-27 23:20:07 <Diablo-D3> slush: my original getwork spam design was more optimal overall
 898 2010-12-27 23:20:09 <slush> da2ce7: not now, I implemented it for statistical purposes
 899 2010-12-27 23:20:17 <Diablo-D3> nothing could stop anything else except the driver and hardware itself
 900 2010-12-27 23:20:53 <slush> da2ce7: I will see how much those 'invalid shares' affect whole cluster stats; then I decide
 901 2010-12-27 23:21:06 <Diablo-D3> slush: you'll probably get about 1% failure
 902 2010-12-27 23:21:07 <Diablo-D3> give or take
 903 2010-12-27 23:21:26 <Diablo-D3> around the same rate of 5 seconds every 10 minutes, approx
 904 2010-12-27 23:21:36 <slush> Diablo-D3: You are probably right and I hope there will not be bigger difference
 905 2010-12-27 23:21:45 <Diablo-D3> if its bigger, there may be other issues
 906 2010-12-27 23:21:55 <Sherpa> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/12/27/148258/After-IPv4-How-Will-the-Internet-Function
 907 2010-12-27 23:22:06 <slush> Diablo-D3: maybe; this is reason why I'm working on those stats
 908 2010-12-27 23:22:12 <INEEDMONEY> I need to talk to Satoshi...
 909 2010-12-27 23:22:16 <INEEDMONEY> about capitalism
 910 2010-12-27 23:22:28 <Diablo-D3> INEEDMONEY: I dont think satoshi understans capitalism
 911 2010-12-27 23:22:31 <INEEDMONEY> you guys want your programs to make money, right?
 912 2010-12-27 23:22:34 ApertureScience has quit (Quit: This a triumph,I'm making a note here HUHE SUCCESS!)
 913 2010-12-27 23:22:42 <Diablo-D3> Im not particularly doing it for the money
 914 2010-12-27 23:22:43 <INEEDMONEY> Diablo-D3: I know, and I do not understand bitcoin, he and I can help each other
 915 2010-12-27 23:22:52 <ArtForz> /ignore troll
 916 2010-12-27 23:22:57 <INEEDMONEY> Diablo-D3: do it for tips, man
 917 2010-12-27 23:23:01 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: but they're so much fun =/
 918 2010-12-27 23:23:04 <slush> da2ce7: if the difference will be only  1-2% I will let it be; it difference will be bigger for some reason, maybe changing share counting to only valid block should be more fair
 919 2010-12-27 23:23:08 <INEEDMONEY> I only work for tips
 920 2010-12-27 23:23:10 <INEEDMONEY> on every job I do
 921 2010-12-27 23:23:10 <slush> da2ce7: we will see
 922 2010-12-27 23:23:12 <INEEDMONEY> and I run a bank...
 923 2010-12-27 23:23:26 <Diablo-D3> slush: btw, your statistics granularity will be chunky for a few days
 924 2010-12-27 23:24:22 <Diablo-D3> well, maybe a day
 925 2010-12-27 23:24:27 <da2ce7> :D
 926 2010-12-27 23:24:45 <Diablo-D3> you should have like a million shares worth before you look
 927 2010-12-27 23:25:07 <slush> Diablo-D3: I'm not gathering stats data yet; I need system upgrade and don't want to do it from Asus EEE
 928 2010-12-27 23:25:18 <Diablo-D3> hee
 929 2010-12-27 23:25:34 <Diablo-D3> actually
 930 2010-12-27 23:25:40 <Diablo-D3> lets see if I can roll this all down into a single thread
 931 2010-12-27 23:25:57 <slush> fingers crossed :)
 932 2010-12-27 23:26:13 <Diablo-D3> it'll basically turn into art's though
 933 2010-12-27 23:26:23 <Diablo-D3> and Im not really losing out here
 934 2010-12-27 23:26:40 <Diablo-D3> you'd have to produce H==0s at a rate faster than a single core can process
 935 2010-12-27 23:26:58 <Diablo-D3> ArtFarm couldn't do that even if he plugged it all into the same machine
 936 2010-12-27 23:27:10 <ArtForz> kinda hard to do
 937 2010-12-27 23:27:25 <ArtForz> even a slow core can do at least a few 100kH/s
 938 2010-12-27 23:27:29 <Diablo-D3> yeah
 939 2010-12-27 23:27:50 <Diablo-D3> assuming full check is half the speed, I can still do a million a second
 940 2010-12-27 23:27:59 <Diablo-D3> er half a million
 941 2010-12-27 23:28:41 <ArtForz> half a Ph/s ... shouldnt be a problem in the near fuiture
 942 2010-12-27 23:29:06 <slush> nanotube: Try to update your miner to newest miner with asm32 algo
 943 2010-12-27 23:29:33 <nanotube> slush: i'm on a 64bit box... i guess i can try to compile for 32bit arch...
 944 2010-12-27 23:29:40 <nanotube> slush: why you think it's much faster?
 945 2010-12-27 23:30:25 <slush> nanotube: I don't think 64bit is an issue. afaik cryptopp_asm32 is the fastest implementation in jgarzik miner
 946 2010-12-27 23:30:37 <INEEDMONEY> my game design startup is sitting on 3000USD and needs some better Java or C# developers who are interested in Bitcoin.
 947 2010-12-27 23:30:39 <slush> nanotube: maybe you reach magical 1000khash/s :)
 948 2010-12-27 23:30:44 <nanotube> slush: hehe
 949 2010-12-27 23:32:14 <EvanR-work> is 3000 enough to make c# or java produce a working program
 950 2010-12-27 23:32:27 ApertureScience has joined
 951 2010-12-27 23:32:55 <INEEDMONEY> you're hired, buddy
 952 2010-12-27 23:33:13 <EvanR-work> wouldnt touch those systems with a 10 ft pole
 953 2010-12-27 23:33:30 <INEEDMONEY> EvanR it is for me
 954 2010-12-27 23:33:38 <INEEDMONEY> since I just do it in my spare time
 955 2010-12-27 23:33:41 <INEEDMONEY> and I know a fair bit of programming
 956 2010-12-27 23:33:55 <INEEDMONEY> willing to tutor/help anyone with programming
 957 2010-12-27 23:37:29 <slush> Diablo-D3: how much time needs current performance fix?
 958 2010-12-27 23:37:41 <slush> Diablo-D3: I have no idea how hard is to fix it
 959 2010-12-27 23:38:57 <Diablo-D3> slush: probably a day or two
 960 2010-12-27 23:39:10 <Diablo-D3> [06:27:56] <slush> nanotube: I don't think 64bit is an issue. afaik cryptopp_asm32 is the fastest implementation in jgarzik miner
 961 2010-12-27 23:39:15 <Diablo-D3> but it produces shit
 962 2010-12-27 23:39:24 <Diablo-D3> he should really disable it until he fixes it
 963 2010-12-27 23:39:33 <slush> Diablo-D3: he is fixed it already
 964 2010-12-27 23:39:35 <slush> Diablo-D3: today
 965 2010-12-27 23:39:38 <Diablo-D3> [06:29:45] <EvanR-work> is 3000 enough to make c# or java produce a working program
 966 2010-12-27 23:39:47 <Diablo-D3> EvanR-work: at my rates? no.
 967 2010-12-27 23:39:53 <Diablo-D3> slush: yay
 968 2010-12-27 23:40:46 <EvanR-work> was a rhetorical question
 969 2010-12-27 23:43:12 <slush> I have question related to bitcoin wallet.dat. AFAIK it is mainly database of private keys of my wallets, right?
 970 2010-12-27 23:43:28 <Diablo-D3> slush: yeah basically
 971 2010-12-27 23:43:33 <Diablo-D3> its got a little bit more in it iirc
 972 2010-12-27 23:44:28 <slush> So when I backup those my private keys, I can recover my current balance any time, because all transfers _to_ and _from_ my wallets are public, right?
 973 2010-12-27 23:44:40 <slush> I'm not talking about current implementation, just about possibility to that
 974 2010-12-27 23:45:32 <Diablo-D3> slush: yes
 975 2010-12-27 23:45:34 <Cusipzzz> yes, you should be whole again one all blocks are downloaded ?
 976 2010-12-27 23:46:05 <Diablo-D3> slush: wallet.dat also includes iirc the stuff for addresses that are you
 977 2010-12-27 23:46:20 <slush> That's pretty cool; I think current implementation (backup  wallet after every transaction) is insane
 978 2010-12-27 23:47:17 <Diablo-D3> it doesnt really need it
 979 2010-12-27 23:47:18 <slush> Diablo-D3: Yes, but I can generate few addresses and use only them; of course it is not safe (privacy), but I dont care about it
 980 2010-12-27 23:47:36 <Diablo-D3> if your hardware is sane, you should backup regularly onto external media monthly or whatever
 981 2010-12-27 23:47:43 <Diablo-D3> when you backup everything else
 982 2010-12-27 23:47:44 ApertureScience has quit (Quit: This a triumph,I'm making a note here HUHE SUCCESS!)
 983 2010-12-27 23:48:02 <slush> Diablo-D3: But it is impossible to make backup to some persistent media and lock it into safe
 984 2010-12-27 23:48:47 <Diablo-D3> slush: in what way?
 985 2010-12-27 23:48:53 <Diablo-D3> I can drop my external hd into a safe easily.
 986 2010-12-27 23:49:09 <slush> With some recover tool like  that (exporting wallets and then rebuilding balances for them from block chain) should be my more safe
 987 2010-12-27 23:49:33 <slush> Diablo-D3: I'm talking about physical safe, say, room in some building with  security guard
 988 2010-12-27 23:49:59 <INEEDMONEY> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=2486.0
 989 2010-12-27 23:50:00 <bitbot> In the interests of capitalism and programming...
 990 2010-12-27 23:50:00 <INEEDMONEY> discuss
 991 2010-12-27 23:50:12 <INEEDMONEY> I want my client to do 0.00999999999999
 992 2010-12-27 23:50:22 <slush> Diablo-D3: But I read in all FAQ that users should backup after every transaction and AFAIK there is no recovery tool I'm talking about
 993 2010-12-27 23:50:34 <Diablo-D3> slush: thats over-paranoia really
 994 2010-12-27 23:50:53 <slush> Diablo-D3: Really? Even if I have 10.000 $ in my bitcoin wallet?
 995 2010-12-27 23:51:08 <Diablo-D3> you should treat it like any mission critical data.
 996 2010-12-27 23:51:11 <Cusipzzz> once you've had a hd crash, you will backup after every transaction
 997 2010-12-27 23:51:20 <slush> Diablo-D3: I don't think anything is enough paranoic when we are talking about money :)
 998 2010-12-27 23:51:35 theymos has joined
 999 2010-12-27 23:51:42 <Cusipzzz> i lost some coins in a hd crash, learned my lesson fairly cheap - could have been worse
1000 2010-12-27 23:51:54 <Diablo-D3> I have raid for the drives in the workstation, an external drive thats never plugged in, a series mode surge protector, and a double converting UPS
1001 2010-12-27 23:52:05 <Diablo-D3> an hd crash alone does nothing.
1002 2010-12-27 23:52:07 <slush> Cusipzzz: Yes, and I'm talking about your lose is not necessary
1003 2010-12-27 23:52:28 <Cusipzzz> I agree, but now i backup religiously after every transaction, to 2 places, 1 online and 1 off
1004 2010-12-27 23:52:28 <INEEDMONEY> Cusipzzz: yeah, thanks, I just backed everything up 3 times
1005 2010-12-27 23:52:48 <slush> Diablo-D3: And you make wallet backup after each transaction, right? (Shut down bitcoin and make physical copy)
1006 2010-12-27 23:53:00 <ArtForz> why?
1007 2010-12-27 23:53:09 <ArtForz> backupwallet is your friend
1008 2010-12-27 23:53:24 <theymos> You don't need to back up after every transaction. Just after the key pool has been used.
1009 2010-12-27 23:53:30 <slush> ArtForz: Well, say it to my mom
1010 2010-12-27 23:53:51 <ArtForz> I just use keypool size 1000 and back up once a week or so
1011 2010-12-27 23:53:54 <nanotube> slush: there's a default key pool of 100 keys... so you don't need to back up after /every/ send.
1012 2010-12-27 23:54:01 <nanotube> ;;bc,wiki securing your wallet
1013 2010-12-27 23:54:01 <gribble> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Securing_your_wallet | Dec 20, 2010 ... Your Bitcoin wallet contains all of the private keys necessary for spending your received transactions. If you delete your wallet without a ...
1014 2010-12-27 23:54:05 <nanotube> slush: --^
1015 2010-12-27 23:54:20 <slush> nanotube: I read it before few weeks
1016 2010-12-27 23:54:47 <slush> But when I backup wallet, then receive money and THEN lost wallet, how I can rebuild my balance?
1017 2010-12-27 23:55:11 <theymos> Delete your block database and restore the wallet...
1018 2010-12-27 23:55:14 <ArtForz> put saved wallet.dat in empty datadir, start client, let it DL blockchain
1019 2010-12-27 23:55:21 <nanotube> slush: you just restore the wallet. nothing to it.
1020 2010-12-27 23:55:29 <nanotube> yea what everyone else said. :)
1021 2010-12-27 23:55:44 <nanotube> as long as your backup is recent enough that you haven't exhausted your key pool... you should have all your coins.
1022 2010-12-27 23:55:45 <slush> ah, so balance itself is not stored in wallet.dat?
1023 2010-12-27 23:55:51 <slush> that's pretty new info for me :)
1024 2010-12-27 23:56:01 <nanotube> balance is stored... but it is derived data, derived from block chain.
1025 2010-12-27 23:56:01 ApertureScience has joined
1026 2010-12-27 23:56:01 <ArtForz> nanotube: you have to delete blkindex, client isnt smart enough to rescan the saved block chain :/
1027 2010-12-27 23:56:19 <nanotube> ArtForz: aha ic. well... still, not bad. :)
1028 2010-12-27 23:56:42 <slush> that's pretty cool.thank you guys
1029 2010-12-27 23:57:41 <theymos> Are transaction fees rounded by current generators? I think I heard someone say they're rounded down to an even cent, but I can't find where this is done in the source.
1030 2010-12-27 23:57:59 acoos is now known as acous
1031 2010-12-27 23:58:14 acous has quit (Changing host)
1032 2010-12-27 23:58:14 acous has joined
1033 2010-12-27 23:58:48 acous has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1034 2010-12-27 23:59:26 acous has joined
1035 2010-12-27 23:59:26 acous has quit (Changing host)
1036 2010-12-27 23:59:26 acous has joined