1 2011-01-10 00:00:00 <nanotube> sipa: so... you will not be getting txs "only slightly above .01". you'll be getting multiples of .01
2 2011-01-10 00:00:05 <gavinandresen> one final thought: before making it easy to produce 1.0015634120238-value transactions, it might make sense to allow arbitrary data with transactions. Because people might decide it is a good idea to use the microbitcents to encode data....
3 2011-01-10 00:00:23 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: :D
4 2011-01-10 00:00:25 <nanotube> gavinandresen: they can already do that with modified code...
5 2011-01-10 00:00:38 <nanotube> and it was one of the ideas considered for bitdns :) hehe
6 2011-01-10 00:00:45 <sipa> nanotube: i mean, if the precision was increased, without dropping the min=0.01 requirement, that may become the norm
7 2011-01-10 00:00:53 <nanotube> ah
8 2011-01-10 00:01:01 <luke-jr> 2 byte per tx
9 2011-01-10 00:01:02 <sipa> and this would be a very bad thing
10 2011-01-10 00:01:03 <lolcat> Would bitcoin survice even a million users making 10 transactions a day?
11 2011-01-10 00:01:15 <ArtForz> I'd say yes
12 2011-01-10 00:01:22 <lolcat> 10 millions?
13 2011-01-10 00:01:30 <fabianhjr> O question davout, bitcoin-central works with onsite credits right? IOU 1 BTC, 1 USd, etc. Right?
14 2011-01-10 00:01:31 <luke-jr> 10 billion*
15 2011-01-10 00:01:37 <ArtForz> thats gonna get tricky on home DSL
16 2011-01-10 00:01:58 <luke-jr> ArtForz: considering DSL being 100 mbit?
17 2011-01-10 00:02:03 <marioxcc> so every transaction have to be boarcasted to the whole network?
18 2011-01-10 00:02:12 <ArtForz> yep
19 2011-01-10 00:02:16 <Cusipzzz> marioxcc: for now
20 2011-01-10 00:02:23 <ArtForz> transactions average < 300 byte iirc
21 2011-01-10 00:02:30 <ArtForz> or was it 500?
22 2011-01-10 00:02:32 <marioxcc> what's the possible alternative?
23 2011-01-10 00:02:32 <ArtForz> ...checks
24 2011-01-10 00:02:47 <lolcat> 300 byte * 1000000 * 10 =?
25 2011-01-10 00:02:50 <sipa> ok, wild suggestion: take the sum of the logarithms of the outputs, minus the sum of the logarithms of the inputs; we call this value the "badness" of the transactions; miners can choose a fee/badness setting, and a minimal badness (they won't require any fee below that badness)
26 2011-01-10 00:02:52 <luke-jr> tx always have to be broadcast to the entire network, inevitably
27 2011-01-10 00:02:53 <luke-jr> as blocks
28 2011-01-10 00:03:01 <fabianhjr> luke-jr: here in mexico my ISP promotes their package as being 5 MeagBytes per second. I get speedtests and it is really 5 mbits/sec. Can I safely sue?
29 2011-01-10 00:03:02 <Cusipzzz> marioxcc: supernodes or something
30 2011-01-10 00:03:05 <ArtForz> 3GB a day
31 2011-01-10 00:03:10 <ArtForz> which is... not much
32 2011-01-10 00:03:25 <luke-jr> sipa: don't screw up my TBCs
33 2011-01-10 00:03:34 <fabianhjr> Also, this is the biggest bandwidth of the biggest ISP.
34 2011-01-10 00:03:37 <luke-jr> fabianhjr: not 'up to'?
35 2011-01-10 00:03:39 omglolbbq has joined
36 2011-01-10 00:03:51 freetx has joined
37 2011-01-10 00:03:51 <sipa> luke-jr: ?
38 2011-01-10 00:04:07 <lolcat> That is 2,7 gigabytes a day, it seams unlikley to be able to store that much
39 2011-01-10 00:04:14 <ArtForz> who is it?
40 2011-01-10 00:04:18 <fabianhjr> luke-jr: They say I get up to 5 MegaBytes while on the Modem it shows my connection as being up to 5000 kbps
41 2011-01-10 00:04:22 <marioxcc> Cusipzzz: ok
42 2011-01-10 00:04:34 <fabianhjr> So they cap the bandwidth on 5mbit/sec
43 2011-01-10 00:04:34 <luke-jr> fabianhjr: maybe.
44 2011-01-10 00:04:42 <luke-jr> fabianhjr: but they'll just terminate your service
45 2011-01-10 00:05:00 <fabianhjr> luke-jr: you know what is the best part?
46 2011-01-10 00:05:02 <marioxcc> fabianhjr: just call PROFECO
47 2011-01-10 00:05:14 <fabianhjr> marioxcc: maldito monopolio que tienen xD
48 2011-01-10 00:05:17 <ArtForz> a 2T hd is like what? $100?
49 2011-01-10 00:05:28 <luke-jr> sipa: TBC = 0.00065536 BTC
50 2011-01-10 00:05:32 * fabianhjr translates Shitty monoply of theirs.
51 2011-01-10 00:05:44 <ArtForz> yep, ISP monopoly = fun
52 2011-01-10 00:05:49 <luke-jr> ArtForz: less I think
53 2011-01-10 00:05:52 <sipa> luke-jr: yes, use any unit you like, i don't see the relevance w.r.t. my suggestion
54 2011-01-10 00:06:08 <luke-jr> sipa: doesn't your suggestion call 0.00065536 "bad"?
55 2011-01-10 00:06:13 <lolcat> Ok, 10 million users, making 10 transactions a day, equals about a terrabyte a day...
56 2011-01-10 00:06:17 <sipa> as an output, yes
57 2011-01-10 00:06:20 <ArtForz> errrr... no
58 2011-01-10 00:06:32 <luke-jr> sipa: don't do that
59 2011-01-10 00:06:39 <lolcat> err, a terrabyte a year
60 2011-01-10 00:06:42 <ArtForz> yea
61 2011-01-10 00:06:51 <sipa> luke-jr: currently everything below 0.01 is bad
62 2011-01-10 00:06:52 <lolcat> Who will buy a new terrabyte disk every year to cope with the transfers?
63 2011-01-10 00:07:00 <sipa> this has nothing to do with what unit you use
64 2011-01-10 00:07:11 <luke-jr> sipa: fine, 0.16777216
65 2011-01-10 00:07:11 <ArtForz> and iirc only miners and "other keepers of the chain" really ned to keep the whole chain
66 2011-01-10 00:07:19 <sipa> luke-jr: you don't get it
67 2011-01-10 00:07:37 <sipa> the point is i do not choose any particular limit
68 2011-01-10 00:07:40 <luke-jr> â¦
69 2011-01-10 00:07:48 <sipa> i just try to calculate how bad something is for the network
70 2011-01-10 00:07:56 <sipa> and charge based on that
71 2011-01-10 00:08:01 <luke-jr> so 0.16777216 is OK?
72 2011-01-10 00:08:01 <ArtForz> lolcat: considering with that # of users 1 BTC has to be worth like $100, I sure would
73 2011-01-10 00:08:09 <sipa> everything is ok
74 2011-01-10 00:08:23 <sipa> but many small outputs is worse then some big ones
75 2011-01-10 00:08:45 <lolcat> ArtForz: How does the value of bitcoins relate to how practical it is too use?
76 2011-01-10 00:08:48 <sipa> it all depends on how strongly a transaction "splits" or "recombines" money
77 2011-01-10 00:08:53 <luke-jr> sipa: right now, there's a limit of 2 outputs total
78 2011-01-10 00:09:02 <sipa> is there?
79 2011-01-10 00:09:09 <luke-jr> yes
80 2011-01-10 00:09:16 <Cusipzzz> lolcat: 10 mil users chasing 21m coins?
81 2011-01-10 00:09:18 <ArtForz> erm... thats imo the main value of bitcoin
82 2011-01-10 00:09:20 <sipa> the default client doesn't generate transactions with more than 2 outputs
83 2011-01-10 00:09:30 <sipa> but are they forbidden?
84 2011-01-10 00:09:36 <ArtForz> nope
85 2011-01-10 00:09:51 <ArtForz> sipa: see the coinbases generated by the old pool
86 2011-01-10 00:09:58 <sipa> ArtForz: i know
87 2011-01-10 00:10:07 <sipa> but maybe generation transactions are special
88 2011-01-10 00:10:29 <ArtForz> just try to create one, wait until it's been in the chain for a while and THEN ask if that's ok :P
89 2011-01-10 00:10:44 <sipa> haha
90 2011-01-10 00:11:00 <sipa> ;;bc,stats
91 2011-01-10 00:11:02 <gribble> Current Blocks: 101855 | Current Difficulty: 16307.48285682 | Next Difficulty At Block: 102815 | Next Difficulty In: 960 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 6 days, 5 hours, 36 minutes, and 0 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 17619.38693797
92 2011-01-10 00:11:44 <ArtForz> thats... not really that bad
93 2011-01-10 00:12:04 <sipa> what isn't?
94 2011-01-10 00:12:10 <lolcat> I want to generate blocks with my new computer :D
95 2011-01-10 00:12:11 <ArtForz> nextdiff
96 2011-01-10 00:12:39 <nanotube> ArtForz: yea seems the rate of growth is slowing.
97 2011-01-10 00:12:50 <sipa> my estimate for combined hashing speed is arond 133GH/s
98 2011-01-10 00:13:08 <sipa> current nextdiff corresponds to 126GH/s
99 2011-01-10 00:13:09 <ArtForz> extrapolating to nextdiff... 16%
100 2011-01-10 00:13:22 <ArtForz> *extrapolating nextdiff growth no actual next diff
101 2011-01-10 00:13:27 <ArtForz> **to
102 2011-01-10 00:13:47 <sipa> ArtForz: how?
103 2011-01-10 00:14:00 <lolcat> 5080 how much mhash did it have?
104 2011-01-10 00:14:12 <ArtForz> basically ((estnextdiff/curdiff)**(1/blockssinclelastdiff))**2016
105 2011-01-10 00:14:39 <ArtForz> = assuming constant rate of growth
106 2011-01-10 00:15:08 <luke-jr> sipa: I don't think block generators accept > 2 outputs either
107 2011-01-10 00:15:14 <jgarzik> tcatm: you need a merchant reference number. a merchant needs to display a QR-code that says on phone "Confirm: pay 1234.00 BTC to Starhucks, Inc. Yes / no?" Therefore, the QR code must communicate what the merchant needs to distinguish that transaction from others
108 2011-01-10 00:15:24 <ArtForz> and that calc comes out to ~1.16 currently
109 2011-01-10 00:15:43 <jgarzik> tcatm: QR-code either needs all that data, or a unique id pointer used with a merchant processor URL
110 2011-01-10 00:15:45 <ArtForz> which really isnt much considering we used to do > +30% per difficulty
111 2011-01-10 00:16:37 <sipa> my algorithm (based on a maximum likelyhood estimator for the growth) estimates 1.074% growth per day currently
112 2011-01-10 00:16:43 <tcatm> jgarzik: how should the client pass a reference number to the merchant?
113 2011-01-10 00:16:55 <lolcat> 5850 how much does it generate?
114 2011-01-10 00:17:08 <luke-jr> tcatm: generally, people make addresses for each client
115 2011-01-10 00:17:22 <luke-jr> and recipient ties address to "ref number"
116 2011-01-10 00:17:29 <ArtForz> 5850 is 240 Mhash
117 2011-01-10 00:17:39 <nanotube> ;;bc,wiki mining hardware comparison
118 2011-01-10 00:17:39 <gribble> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_Hardware_Comparison | Jan 3, 2011 ... Mining Hardware Comparison. From Bitcoin. Jump to: navigation, search. This page is a stub, you can help by expanding it. ...
119 2011-01-10 00:17:42 <nanotube> lolcat: --^
120 2011-01-10 00:17:53 <nanotube> ArtForz: feel free to update that page with any extra info :)
121 2011-01-10 00:18:24 <ArtForz> yeah, I will as soon as I get my miner to cooperate with getwork
122 2011-01-10 00:18:27 <lolcat> ;;bc,calc 240000
123 2011-01-10 00:18:28 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 240000 Khps, given current difficulty of 16307.48285682 , is 3 days, 9 hours, 3 minutes, and 53 seconds
124 2011-01-10 00:18:52 <lolcat> 3 days and 9 houres isn't that bad
125 2011-01-10 00:19:20 <lolcat> 50 bitcoins = 12,5USD. 12,5*100 = 1250, far more than the gpu costs...
126 2011-01-10 00:19:31 <Cusipzzz> ;;bc,calc 1800
127 2011-01-10 00:19:32 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 1800 Khps, given current difficulty of 16307.48285682 , is 1 year, 12 weeks, 1 day, 8 hours, 39 minutes, and 29 seconds
128 2011-01-10 00:19:36 <luke-jr> slush: can the pool's block generator be modified to accept no-fee tx from active members? :D
129 2011-01-10 00:19:36 * Cusipzzz cries
130 2011-01-10 00:19:52 <ArtForz> ;;bc,calc 1
131 2011-01-10 00:19:52 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 1 Khps, given current difficulty of 16307.48285682 , is 2220 years, 49 weeks, 6 days, 8 hours, 52 minutes, and 30 seconds
132 2011-01-10 00:20:04 <sipa> ArtForz: that's with an exponential window with tau=1 week, if i look at the past month, i get 2.033% growth per day
133 2011-01-10 00:20:16 <ArtForz> weird
134 2011-01-10 00:20:57 <ArtForz> well, getting anything resembling good data out of time/block is really difficult
135 2011-01-10 00:21:12 <lolcat> sipa: In mining or transactions? if there is more transactions that would mean people are using bitcoins
136 2011-01-10 00:21:37 <sipa> lolcat: it's about blocks, so it gives the growth is combined hashing speed
137 2011-01-10 00:21:43 <newsham> seems like people findmining more fun than transactions
138 2011-01-10 00:22:02 <Cusipzzz> need more vendors before we get more transactions
139 2011-01-10 00:22:38 <alowm> ;;bc,calc 15000
140 2011-01-10 00:22:39 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 15000 Khps, given current difficulty of 16307.48285682 , is 7 weeks, 5 days, 1 hour, 2 minutes, and 20 seconds
141 2011-01-10 00:22:51 <alowm> hmm, increased a bit in the last few months :)
142 2011-01-10 00:23:10 <luke-jr> fwiw, those changes I made are in lp:~luke-jr/+junk/bitcoin-tonal
143 2011-01-10 00:23:12 <newsham> cusipzzzz: all btc users are vendors for micropayments.
144 2011-01-10 00:23:40 <jgarzik> tcatm: that's a key question, isn't it? :) with processor API, it's easy. it is possible to use a unique bitcoin address of course, and that should be an option... but I wonder if vendor POS systems will be able to easily communicate with such systems, which tend to based most of their systems on having a unique id for each purchase at checkout, and passing around that unique id to various connected systems for da
145 2011-01-10 00:23:41 <jgarzik> ta processing.
146 2011-01-10 00:23:49 <luke-jr> newsham: not *all*â¦
147 2011-01-10 00:25:00 <newsham> luke: true, i wouldnt send you any btc. :)
148 2011-01-10 00:25:31 <ArtForz> vendor POS systems cant easily communicate with pretty much anything
149 2011-01-10 00:25:39 <tcatm> jgarzik: would something like bitcoin://starbucks@mybitcoin.com?amount=50&id=1234#Coffee work?
150 2011-01-10 00:26:06 <newsham> tcatm: where does the #comment go?
151 2011-01-10 00:26:40 <nameless> !~root@weowntheinter.net|what about starbucks?
152 2011-01-10 00:26:40 <tcatm> newsham: It's displayed to the user
153 2011-01-10 00:26:48 <newsham> how does it get xmitted?
154 2011-01-10 00:26:53 <newsham> in the TX?
155 2011-01-10 00:27:11 <newsham> oh, tis is specific for mybitcoin.com?
156 2011-01-10 00:27:39 <jgarzik> newsham: this is a string in a QR code. The code is displayed to a customer, who snaps a picture with a mobile phone, and runs a bitcoin app to process that picture.
157 2011-01-10 00:27:46 <tcatm> newsham: It doesn't. It's just shown after scanning QR like "Pay 50 BTC to starbucks: Coffee. [yes]/[no]"
158 2011-01-10 00:27:49 <newsham> ahh, gotcha
159 2011-01-10 00:28:29 <newsham> i would like short msgs in TXs (allowed by protocol, but not accepted by clients)
160 2011-01-10 00:28:37 <jgarzik> tcatm: yes, that string seems logical and fills minimum POS needs
161 2011-01-10 00:28:42 <tcatm> The starbucks@mybitcoin.com would then query mybitcoin.com for a address to send those ocins to.
162 2011-01-10 00:29:06 <newsham> would there be a diff uri format for direct payment to bitcoin addr?
163 2011-01-10 00:29:36 <tcatm> newsham: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=2705.msg36764#msg36764
164 2011-01-10 00:29:39 <bitbot> Bitcoin-Address to QR-Code [support for URI-Schemes] : tcatm: I propose a scheme like this: () means optional, $* are placeholders <div class="codeheader">Code:</div><div class="code">bitcoin://($label@)$address(?amount=$amount)(#$message) </div> label: Label for that address (e.g. name of receiver) address: bitcoin address amount: amount of BTC message: optiona...
165 2011-01-10 00:29:53 <luke-jr> wtf is QR-Code?
166 2011-01-10 00:30:10 <sipa> ;;wp QR code
167 2011-01-10 00:30:10 <gribble> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QR_Code | A QR Code is a specific matrix barcode (or two-dimensional code), readable by dedicated QR Barcode reader and camera phones. The code consists of black ...
168 2011-01-10 00:30:10 <jgarzik> luke-jr: wtf is google? :)
169 2011-01-10 00:30:14 <tcatm> luke-jr: 2D barcode
170 2011-01-10 00:30:19 <luke-jr> also, that URI scheme is illegal I think
171 2011-01-10 00:30:30 <luke-jr> specifically the $label@ part
172 2011-01-10 00:30:39 <tcatm> luke-jr: huh?
173 2011-01-10 00:30:53 <tcatm> as long as my regex matches it's perfectly legal
174 2011-01-10 00:31:00 <newsham> ugh, "amount=..." why not just have amount after a divider?
175 2011-01-10 00:31:00 <luke-jr> um, no
176 2011-01-10 00:31:02 <jgarzik> tcatm: it's legal
177 2011-01-10 00:31:48 * luke-jr also notes transfers should be POSTs
178 2011-01-10 00:31:48 <sipa> that part is reserved for a user name / authentication info in normal URLs
179 2011-01-10 00:32:17 <luke-jr> and #$message is definitely illegal :P
180 2011-01-10 00:32:18 <tcatm> luke-jr: those aren't HTTP URIs
181 2011-01-10 00:32:22 <jgarzik> newsham: a direct BTC payment would look slightly different, yes. in place of a payment processor would be a bitcoin address. but... how many people will have full bitcoin clients on their phone, versus an account with a website such as mtgox or mybitcoin? the latter is much /less/ network+memory+CPU intensive.
182 2011-01-10 00:32:31 <luke-jr> tcatm: I'm aware.
183 2011-01-10 00:32:34 <newsham> sipa: not after the divider. auth is in the address portion.
184 2011-01-10 00:33:05 <luke-jr> in fact, bitcoin addresses shouldn't be URLs at all
185 2011-01-10 00:33:09 <luke-jr> they should be URNs
186 2011-01-10 00:33:16 <marioxcc> no
187 2011-01-10 00:34:04 * sipa agrees with luke-jr on this
188 2011-01-10 00:34:19 <tcatm> so bitcoin:address instead of bitcoin://address?
189 2011-01-10 00:34:38 <luke-jr> bitcoin:$address?amount=$size$unit
190 2011-01-10 00:34:51 <luke-jr> maybe &message=$message&label=$label
191 2011-01-10 00:35:04 <sipa> wasn't this already extensively discussed somewhere on the forum?
192 2011-01-10 00:35:06 <newsham> you want to require parsing out arbitrary attributes?
193 2011-01-10 00:35:07 <jgarzik> yes
194 2011-01-10 00:35:17 <luke-jr> newsham: yes, that's how it's supposed to be
195 2011-01-10 00:35:21 <AAA_awright> Or bitcoin://host/address?amount=...
196 2011-01-10 00:35:21 <newsham> and performing a attribute lookup to find amount?
197 2011-01-10 00:35:24 <sipa> there was a very elaborate scheme somewhere
198 2011-01-10 00:35:32 <luke-jr> AAA_awright: what host?
199 2011-01-10 00:35:35 <jgarzik> discussed endlessly, with N different opinions from N different people, none of whom wrote any code.
200 2011-01-10 00:35:35 <tcatm> sipa: x-btc?
201 2011-01-10 00:35:41 <AAA_awright> luke-jr: For a transaction over the network
202 2011-01-10 00:35:41 <luke-jr> newsham: and don't forget to lookup units!
203 2011-01-10 00:35:51 <Cusipzzz> jgarzik: lol
204 2011-01-10 00:35:55 <AAA_awright> local network
205 2011-01-10 00:36:01 <luke-jr> AAA_awright: o
206 2011-01-10 00:36:06 <luke-jr> then maybe URL is ok
207 2011-01-10 00:36:17 <luke-jr> but use bitcoin:///$address?â¦
208 2011-01-10 00:36:18 <jgarzik> x-btc proposed URI spec: http://pastebin.com/VsBbmXQx
209 2011-01-10 00:36:22 <AAA_awright> No
210 2011-01-10 00:36:30 <AAA_awright> luke-jr: // means a network path
211 2011-01-10 00:36:32 <luke-jr> with $host inserted between // and /
212 2011-01-10 00:36:33 <fabianhjr> Why not btc:address(label):quantity:message. Ex btc:1AmhnuaWas012o...(A's store):10.5:Your+new+t-shirt ?
213 2011-01-10 00:36:35 <AAA_awright> Bitcoin isn't a network
214 2011-01-10 00:36:38 <AAA_awright> well it is
215 2011-01-10 00:36:40 <luke-jr> AAA_awright: /// doesn't
216 2011-01-10 00:36:43 * fabianhjr is only messing around. xD
217 2011-01-10 00:36:47 <AAA_awright> Is that in the RFC?
218 2011-01-10 00:36:56 <AAA_awright> file: isn't a valid URI
219 2011-01-10 00:37:00 <tcatm> fabianhjr: not very easy to add new information later
220 2011-01-10 00:37:01 <luke-jr> AAA_awright: since when?
221 2011-01-10 00:37:11 <AAA_awright> And I know that uses the /// syntax
222 2011-01-10 00:37:18 <sipa> // signifies the start of a hierarchical part
223 2011-01-10 00:37:26 <kartofeln> that URN proposal needs to get out of pastebin and into a wiki page before it disappears.
224 2011-01-10 00:37:32 <tcatm> ok, we leave out the //
225 2011-01-10 00:37:33 <luke-jr> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1738
226 2011-01-10 00:37:49 <luke-jr> file Host-specific file names
227 2011-01-10 00:38:14 <jgarzik> tcatm: don't worry too much about the syntax, really. having -an- implementation means it can finally get some real world use, at which time you'll want to change the syntax anyway...
228 2011-01-10 00:38:26 <fabianhjr> tcatm: I am only messing with you guys. it isn't a real suggestion. :P
229 2011-01-10 00:38:29 <AAA_awright> fileurl = "file://" [ host | "localhost" ] "/" fpath
230 2011-01-10 00:38:38 <AAA_awright> There has to be a host, otherwise it must be "localhost"
231 2011-01-10 00:38:45 <luke-jr> As a special case, <host> can be the string "localhost" or the empty
232 2011-01-10 00:38:46 <luke-jr> string; this is interpreted as `the machine from which the URL is
233 2011-01-10 00:38:48 <luke-jr> being interpreted'.
234 2011-01-10 00:38:51 <AAA_awright> host = hostname | hostnumber
235 2011-01-10 00:39:30 <AAA_awright> luke-jr: file:/// isn't a valid URI, file://host/ is
236 2011-01-10 00:39:37 <tcatm> jgarzik: sure, but I want to write the parser this week so having something that *should* work well would be great
237 2011-01-10 00:39:43 <luke-jr> AAA_awright: the RFC says it's valid
238 2011-01-10 00:39:54 <AAA_awright> ...what page?
239 2011-01-10 00:40:12 <AAA_awright> I can't find anything on "///"
240 2011-01-10 00:40:25 <luke-jr> 3.10 on page 15
241 2011-01-10 00:41:20 <luke-jr> bitcoin would just define the empty string to be the p2p network
242 2011-01-10 00:41:56 <luke-jr> so bitcoin:///1KczVqwopWXQdFLe5sNQbpCq7yGSmXx2oo?amount=1000000 would send me 1 BTCent
243 2011-01-10 00:42:15 omglolbbq has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
244 2011-01-10 00:42:16 <luke-jr> or bitcoin://192.168.1.2/1KczVqwopWXQdFLe5sNQbpCq7yGSmXx2oo?amount=1000000 the same via LAN
245 2011-01-10 00:42:36 <sipa> ArtForz: anyway, seems you are right that hash speed growth rate is decreasing
246 2011-01-10 00:42:41 <sipa> i updated http://sipa.be/static/bitcoin/speed.pdf
247 2011-01-10 00:43:08 <luke-jr> (I'm working under the assumption that specifying an IP is the same as connecting to only that peer and basically doing the same stuff)
248 2011-01-10 00:43:41 <jgarzik> tcatm: the main thing is communicating all necessary information, and any name=value format should work (bitcoin:a=b&c=d or bitcoin://address?a=b&c=d)
249 2011-01-10 00:45:31 <marioxcc> what're transactions IP for?
250 2011-01-10 00:45:41 <luke-jr> marioxcc: nfc âº
251 2011-01-10 00:45:55 <sipa> nfc?
252 2011-01-10 00:46:04 <tcatm> jgarzik: ok, what information is needed?
253 2011-01-10 00:46:10 <sipa> near field communication?
254 2011-01-10 00:46:11 <luke-jr> genjix: why github? if you want to move to something more free-software friendly, shouldn't you use a host that is free software?
255 2011-01-10 00:46:42 * marioxcc suggest GNU Savannah, where the GNU roam :)
256 2011-01-10 00:46:56 <marioxcc> we also host free software in general
257 2011-01-10 00:46:57 * luke-jr suggests Gitorious, which isn't quite as retarded :P
258 2011-01-10 00:47:09 <marioxcc> luke-jr: ?
259 2011-01-10 00:47:19 * ne0futur likes github
260 2011-01-10 00:47:29 <luke-jr> github is proprietary
261 2011-01-10 00:47:34 <marioxcc> i dislike github model very much
262 2011-01-10 00:47:34 <jgarzik> many bitcoiners seem to use github
263 2011-01-10 00:47:41 <ne0futur> and free for free software
264 2011-01-10 00:47:46 <marioxcc> personal branch, what's that?
265 2011-01-10 00:47:47 <luke-jr> ne0futur: NO
266 2011-01-10 00:47:50 <luke-jr> it is NOT free
267 2011-01-10 00:47:52 <marioxcc> when the maintainer dies, the branch dies
268 2011-01-10 00:48:01 <marioxcc> ne0futur: free software he means
269 2011-01-10 00:48:05 <marioxcc> free as in freedom
270 2011-01-10 00:48:05 <sipa> luke-jr: it is free as in free beer, not as in freedom :)
271 2011-01-10 00:48:15 <luke-jr> that's not free, merely free of charge
272 2011-01-10 00:48:17 <luke-jr> which is irrelevant
273 2011-01-10 00:48:21 <luke-jr> it's gratis
274 2011-01-10 00:48:23 <luke-jr> not free
275 2011-01-10 00:48:33 <sipa> free has different meanings in english
276 2011-01-10 00:48:53 <luke-jr> sipa: free beer is a hijacking
277 2011-01-10 00:49:00 <tcatm> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin-scheme
278 2011-01-10 00:49:01 <luke-jr> it only gets that ambiguous meaning if we accept it
279 2011-01-10 00:49:14 <sipa> of course, that's called a language
280 2011-01-10 00:49:20 <sipa> and languages are ambiguous
281 2011-01-10 00:49:23 <luke-jr> "gratis" is unambiguous
282 2011-01-10 00:49:24 <sipa> unfortunately
283 2011-01-10 00:49:33 <luke-jr> "free" remains unambiguous if we refuse to let it gain another meaning
284 2011-01-10 00:49:36 riX2000_ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
285 2011-01-10 00:50:05 <sipa> that's true - but don't tell ne0futur that his meaning of free is wrong
286 2011-01-10 00:50:21 <sipa> just promote the use of a less unambiguous word
287 2011-01-10 00:50:22 <marioxcc> it is, in this context
288 2011-01-10 00:50:45 <jgarzik> tcatm: well, what was just discussed? :) merchant POS system must be able to communicate to customer: amount, unique transaction id (possibly bitcoin address, but see notes above), vendor name. merchant's payment processor (URL?) is required, if bitcoin address not supplied.
289 2011-01-10 00:50:45 <ne0futur> soon you will tell me the bsd license is not free :p
290 2011-01-10 00:51:05 <marioxcc> there is no BSD license ne0futur
291 2011-01-10 00:51:07 <jgarzik> tcatm: the minimum to display "Pay 5 BTC to Starbucks?"
292 2011-01-10 00:51:17 <marioxcc> severl has been used as "BSD", hece it is meaningless
293 2011-01-10 00:51:18 <marioxcc> brb
294 2011-01-10 00:51:21 marioxcc is now known as marioxcc-AFK
295 2011-01-10 00:51:53 <ne0futur> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
296 2011-01-10 00:52:01 omglolbbq has joined
297 2011-01-10 00:52:19 <ne0futur> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/BSD_licenses
298 2011-01-10 00:53:14 <kartofeln> opensource.org is not free - only GPLv3 and above is free - all hail the hypnotoad
299 2011-01-10 00:53:49 * luke-jr fixes https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin-scheme
300 2011-01-10 00:53:56 <jgarzik> the only discussions that last longer than license comparisons are emacs-vs-vi discussions
301 2011-01-10 00:54:23 <ne0futur> yes there are guys who can say what is free and what is not
302 2011-01-10 00:54:31 <ne0futur> probably only them are free
303 2011-01-10 00:54:36 <ne0futur> those saying only gpl is free
304 2011-01-10 00:54:58 <ne0futur> removing me my freedom so say a bsd licence is free
305 2011-01-10 00:56:07 <jgarzik> tcatm: well, maybe URL is not required, if the phone app knows a set of base URLs (mtgox/paymentAPI, sci.mybitcoin.com, etc.) and can key off a simple string such as "mybitcoin".
306 2011-01-10 00:56:40 <jgarzik> but obviously there must be -some- method of obtaining bitcoin address, if it is not given (likely a common case, IMO)
307 2011-01-10 00:57:49 <tcatm> luke-jr: I'll revert your changes as you didn't even discuss them with me and they aren't exactly minor
308 2011-01-10 00:57:55 <luke-jr> tcatm: don't.
309 2011-01-10 00:58:10 <luke-jr> mine is URI-compliant and correct
310 2011-01-10 00:58:12 <luke-jr> yours is bogus crap
311 2011-01-10 00:58:34 <kartofeln> well, I'm sold.
312 2011-01-10 00:58:36 <luke-jr> and you don't own bitcoin. I don't have to discuss things.
313 2011-01-10 00:59:01 <kartofeln> but seriously.. someone should put http://pastebin.com/VsBbmXQx somewhere on a wiki before it goes away.
314 2011-01-10 00:59:33 <tcatm> kartofeln: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/X-btc it's already there
315 2011-01-10 00:59:40 <kartofeln> oh sweet
316 2011-01-10 01:00:22 <tcatm> luke-jr: what's the $host part for?
317 2011-01-10 01:00:27 <luke-jr> tcatm: IP transfers
318 2011-01-10 01:00:42 <kartofeln> I thought IP transfers didn't require a BTC address
319 2011-01-10 01:00:56 <tcatm> luke-jr: IP transfer will disappear
320 2011-01-10 01:01:08 <luke-jr> tcatm: why?
321 2011-01-10 01:01:21 <luke-jr> kartofeln: no idea tbh
322 2011-01-10 01:01:51 <kartofeln> whatever URI format gets picked, I humbly suggest we put a version number somewhere in it.
323 2011-01-10 01:02:18 <tcatm> luke-jr: they aren't included in RPC
324 2011-01-10 01:02:41 <luke-jr> tcatm: a lot of functionality is missing from RPC
325 2011-01-10 01:02:54 nelisky has quit (Quit: nelisky)
326 2011-01-10 01:03:03 marioxcc-AFK is now known as marioxcc
327 2011-01-10 01:04:23 <sipa> do we need two different wiki pages discussing possible uri schemes?
328 2011-01-10 01:04:37 <kartofeln> as opposed to an edit war over one page, you mean? ;)
329 2011-01-10 01:04:47 <tcatm> we need one scheme that's approved so I can write the parser
330 2011-01-10 01:04:54 nelisky has joined
331 2011-01-10 01:05:55 <kartofeln> there should be 2 steps to putting together together a bitcoin uri scheme:
332 2011-01-10 01:06:07 <kartofeln> 1: what kind of data and capabilities should be encoded in the URI
333 2011-01-10 01:06:10 <kartofeln> 2: how should it look like
334 2011-01-10 01:06:19 nelisky has left ()
335 2011-01-10 01:07:23 <kartofeln> 2. is a little tricky as esthetical sensibilities will push toward diverging formats.. 1. however should be fairly consensual if done right.
336 2011-01-10 01:09:07 <tcatm> data needed ([] means optional): (address | (label & host)) [label] [amount] [id] [msg]
337 2011-01-10 01:09:28 <fabianhjr> Damn CPanel, I hadn't been able to start an app. >_<
338 2011-01-10 01:09:39 <jgarzik> IP transfers are disabled by default in bitcoin, with good reason.
339 2011-01-10 01:09:43 <jgarzik> they should not be in any spec.
340 2011-01-10 01:10:13 <tcatm> host means payment processor
341 2011-01-10 01:10:38 <kartofeln> does the host mean anything to bitcoin, or it just human readable fluff?
342 2011-01-10 01:10:52 <luke-jr> jgarzik: so go back to URN?
343 2011-01-10 01:10:56 <jgarzik> yeah, IP is fine for HTTP. just not for bitcoin P2P.
344 2011-01-10 01:11:56 <luke-jr> sigh, hold on
345 2011-01-10 01:12:06 <AAA_awright> luke-jr: No, file:///(path) is not a valid URI
346 2011-01-10 01:12:17 <AAA_awright> luke-jr: What /line/ says it is?
347 2011-01-10 01:12:17 <luke-jr> AAA_awright: the RFC disagrees
348 2011-01-10 01:12:29 <luke-jr> AAA_awright: the part about empty string for host
349 2011-01-10 01:12:30 <AAA_awright> The RFC requires a host or "localhost"
350 2011-01-10 01:13:23 <luke-jr> line 14-15 not counting blank lines, starting with 0 = "3.10 FILES"
351 2011-01-10 01:13:26 <AAA_awright> Hmm, the grammar section disagrees
352 2011-01-10 01:13:29 <jgarzik> tcatm: regarding "data needed"... looks good
353 2011-01-10 01:13:34 <luke-jr> the grammar section uses [] for optional
354 2011-01-10 01:13:36 <AAA_awright> luke-jr: Copying and pasting would help
355 2011-01-10 01:13:45 <luke-jr> AAA_awright: I did that earlier, scroll up
356 2011-01-10 01:14:28 <kartofeln> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1738 : fileurl = "file://" [ host | "localhost" ] "/" fpath
357 2011-01-10 01:14:43 <AAA_awright> Ah nvm
358 2011-01-10 01:14:58 <AAA_awright> That's really poor, but yeah, it's inside brackets
359 2011-01-10 01:15:13 <jgarzik> tcatm: I wonder about 'msg', but no huge objection. vendors might like a fully customized 'msg', but an arbitrary message that says 'spend 50 BTC?' (amount=100 BTC) illustrates a potential for abuse by evil vendors?
360 2011-01-10 01:15:29 devon_hillard has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
361 2011-01-10 01:15:31 <AAA_awright> The w3c uses that to mean a selection of host OR "localhost" but not neither
362 2011-01-10 01:15:42 <tcatm> jgarzik: ?
363 2011-01-10 01:15:46 omglolbbq has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
364 2011-01-10 01:15:48 <kartofeln> note that if we somehow had a DNS extension that could resolve an hostname to a bitcoin address, it would make sense to have hostname in there.
365 2011-01-10 01:15:50 <jgarzik> tcatm: I was thinking of requiring phone app to construct "Pay $vendor $amount? Yes / no" message would be more secure, from customer point of view.
366 2011-01-10 01:16:02 <fabianhjr> why not btc:[host]:[port]:addr:[label]:[ammount]:[desc] ? It is the most simple and we could reserve 2 more slots for future or unofficial use. xD
367 2011-01-10 01:16:04 omglolbbq has joined
368 2011-01-10 01:16:15 <AAA_awright> Ugh why haven't the RFCs moved to HTML
369 2011-01-10 01:16:27 <AAA_awright> Seriously who is printing these things out anymore
370 2011-01-10 01:16:29 <luke-jr> fabianhjr: because it's invalid
371 2011-01-10 01:16:33 <jgarzik> any scheme that does not permit arbitrary name=value future expansion is broken at birth.
372 2011-01-10 01:16:34 <kartofeln> because RFCs are written by terminal junkies?
373 2011-01-10 01:16:37 <jgarzik> broken.
374 2011-01-10 01:16:42 <AAA_awright> On your rotart printer terminal things
375 2011-01-10 01:16:44 <fabianhjr> xD damnit.
376 2011-01-10 01:16:58 <AAA_awright> I mean, it even includes the page break character for geek's sake
377 2011-01-10 01:17:20 <AAA_awright> geeks sake's?
378 2011-01-10 01:17:36 <jgarzik> tcatm: I was responding to the "[msg]" part, assuming that "[msg]" is an arbitrary message passed from merchant to customer via QR-code?
379 2011-01-10 01:17:52 <luke-jr> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin-scheme#BNF_Syntax
380 2011-01-10 01:18:07 <tcatm> jgarzik: I included the message part to allow display of what the user is supposed to pay for
381 2011-01-10 01:18:16 <luke-jr> AAA_awright: geeks' sakes
382 2011-01-10 01:18:34 <jgarzik> tcatm: so, phone displays "Pay $vendor $amount for $msg?" ?
383 2011-01-10 01:18:47 <jgarzik> tcatm: so, phone displays "Pay $label $amount for $msg?" ?
384 2011-01-10 01:18:48 tg has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
385 2011-01-10 01:19:10 <AAA_awright> jgarzik: No, show the address
386 2011-01-10 01:19:21 tg has joined
387 2011-01-10 01:19:27 <AAA_awright> And have the phone replace it with a user-defined string
388 2011-01-10 01:19:31 <jgarzik> AAA_awright: see the "|" in tcatm's "data needed"
389 2011-01-10 01:19:34 <AAA_awright> But not a 3rd-party defined one
390 2011-01-10 01:19:37 <tcatm> jgarzik: Haven't decided yet... Maybe something like "<italic>$msg<italic>\n\nPay <bold>$amount</bold> to <bold>$label</bold>?"
391 2011-01-10 01:19:39 <jgarzik> AAA_awright: scroll up
392 2011-01-10 01:19:59 <jgarzik> tcatm: that works
393 2011-01-10 01:20:00 <kartofeln> lol@tonal bitcoin units in the BNF syntax.
394 2011-01-10 01:20:11 <AAA_awright> jgarzik: I did, what line are you referring to?
395 2011-01-10 01:20:20 <jgarzik> tcatm: remember the phone software will want to internationalize that string
396 2011-01-10 01:20:32 <marioxcc> so people still uses SVN...
397 2011-01-10 01:20:33 <tcatm> jgarzik: did you see my js-remote?
398 2011-01-10 01:20:34 <marioxcc> and CVS...
399 2011-01-10 01:20:43 <jgarzik> tcatm: no
400 2011-01-10 01:20:51 <luke-jr> marioxcc: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin-scheme
401 2011-01-10 01:20:54 <tcatm> jgarzik: http://tcatm.github.com/bitcoin-js-remote
402 2011-01-10 01:21:04 <marioxcc> luke-jr: ok
403 2011-01-10 01:21:07 <jgarzik> AAA_awright: "(address | (label & host))"
404 2011-01-10 01:21:08 <tcatm> jgarzik: basic scanning of QR codes with raw address already works on android
405 2011-01-10 01:21:14 <jgarzik> tcatm: looking...
406 2011-01-10 01:21:24 <luke-jr> jgarzik: are IP tx deprecated or not?
407 2011-01-10 01:21:51 <marioxcc> luke-jr: so unit could be áµTBC?
408 2011-01-10 01:21:57 <luke-jr> marioxcc: right
409 2011-01-10 01:22:05 <AAA_awright> jgarzik: No, read _only_ the address and replace that address with a name in the user's address book, if the address is in there... Having a 3rd-party-provided "pay to" string could lead to misleading hacks
410 2011-01-10 01:22:07 * luke-jr wonders if normal lowercase letters should be allowed
411 2011-01-10 01:22:11 <jgarzik> luke-jr: they have been disabled in the mainline bitcoin client for several versions now. it is unlikely that feature will be removed. but IP TX use is /discouraged/.
412 2011-01-10 01:22:31 <marioxcc> luke-jr: why to require unicode?
413 2011-01-10 01:22:37 <luke-jr> jgarzik: if it won't be removed, why shouldn't the URI support it?
414 2011-01-10 01:22:51 <marioxcc> please spell the name instead song-TBC, if you absolutely have to
415 2011-01-10 01:23:03 <jgarzik> AAA_awright: the customer first walking into $Store will not have $Store in their address book
416 2011-01-10 01:23:07 <luke-jr> song-TBC has no abbreviation
417 2011-01-10 01:23:18 <marioxcc> just always spell then I mean
418 2011-01-10 01:23:21 <AAA_awright> jgarzik: Which is fine, if they see the raw address
419 2011-01-10 01:23:41 <kartofeln> can't wait for a bitcoin URL with version=î§.î§ in it..
420 2011-01-10 01:23:55 <AAA_awright> It's no different than a credit card number or anything else, people understand it
421 2011-01-10 01:23:55 <jgarzik> AAA_awright: a raw address can be just as malicious as any other string
422 2011-01-10 01:24:15 <marioxcc> lol, malicious address?
423 2011-01-10 01:24:19 <AAA_awright> ^
424 2011-01-10 01:24:19 <marioxcc> are you kidding?
425 2011-01-10 01:24:26 <jgarzik> it is completely pointless to ever show a bitcoin address to a customer
426 2011-01-10 01:24:36 <marioxcc> why so?
427 2011-01-10 01:24:51 <jgarzik> marioxcc: a customer will never know if a bitcoin address is Starbuck Inc. or Evildoers Criminal Syndicate Skimmer, LLC.
428 2011-01-10 01:25:09 <AAA_awright> Yes they will, if they've been there before
429 2011-01-10 01:25:14 <marioxcc> of course...
430 2011-01-10 01:25:24 <AAA_awright> That's the whole point of the mentioned address book or whatever
431 2011-01-10 01:25:26 <kartofeln> jgarzik: which would be why a DNS extension that'd resolve an host to a bitcoin address would be useful to help users know what's what.
432 2011-01-10 01:25:30 <marioxcc> is like saying showing URL in browsers is useless
433 2011-01-10 01:25:38 <marioxcc> that's what human memory and digital signatures are for
434 2011-01-10 01:25:46 <jgarzik> AAA_awright: not in the common case scenarios of (a) using a new bitcoin address for every transaction, and/or (b) using a new bitcoin address as a unique transaction id
435 2011-01-10 01:26:03 <kartofeln> going on a limb here, but I suspect people have an easier time recognizing "google.com" than "1agNxzuDoVioQgdE4BeLWbNWR7wEkttGy"
436 2011-01-10 01:26:03 <jgarzik> kartofeln: strongly agreed. I have proposed this on the forums.
437 2011-01-10 01:26:10 <jgarzik> kartofeln: yup
438 2011-01-10 01:26:11 <AAA_awright> Now there's a good idea
439 2011-01-10 01:26:58 <jgarzik> doesn't work well for single-use bitcoin addresses, which is what most major stores will likely use.
440 2011-01-10 01:27:04 <marioxcc> then you will have to do something like DNS for bitcoin
441 2011-01-10 01:27:21 <jgarzik> works great for vanity donation bitcoin addresses
442 2011-01-10 01:27:22 <marioxcc> along with the classical DNS problems but greater
443 2011-01-10 01:27:26 <jgarzik> jgarzik.bitcoin.com
444 2011-01-10 01:27:26 CyanDynamo has joined
445 2011-01-10 01:27:38 <jgarzik> could even use your OpenID ID (which is a URL) as a bitcoin address
446 2011-01-10 01:27:43 <jgarzik> return a TXT record
447 2011-01-10 01:27:45 <kartofeln> well yeah. the bitcoin dns extensions would greatly benefit from dnssec, I suppose.
448 2011-01-10 01:28:56 <luke-jr> since you can never tell *who* sent a tx, you almost always *need* a unique address at least per person
449 2011-01-10 01:29:05 <jgarzik> so, at point of sale time, with single use bitcoin addresses, you have no idea whose bitcoin address that is. it's just a random, ever-changing number for each Starbucks Inc. visit.
450 2011-01-10 01:29:09 <jgarzik> luke-jr: correct
451 2011-01-10 01:29:19 <luke-jr> so it is useless to have a DNS resolving to address
452 2011-01-10 01:29:30 <luke-jr> a RDNS address-to-person makes sense, but can lie
453 2011-01-10 01:29:47 <luke-jr> just be sure you don't use any bitcoin addresses on non-SSL sites :P
454 2011-01-10 01:29:54 <luke-jr> other than donation perhaps
455 2011-01-10 01:30:06 <jgarzik> Yes, the phone should log the bitcoin address. But at Starbucks Inc? There is no REAL WORLD person who is going to have any use whatsoever for the bitcoin address used in that transaction.
456 2011-01-10 01:30:11 <luke-jr> tcatm: anyhow, how do you like the current page iteration? https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin-scheme
457 2011-01-10 01:30:27 <jgarzik> the bitcoin address would likely be printed in their monthly statement, just like transaction id's are reported now.
458 2011-01-10 01:31:01 <jgarzik> thus, bitcoin address is utterly useless in a simple mobile phone UI.
459 2011-01-10 01:31:01 * luke-jr wants his electric bill to come with a bitcoin address :P
460 2011-01-10 01:31:29 <luke-jr> if phones last much longer, they would need a way to scan a bitcoin URI in or smth
461 2011-01-10 01:31:36 <luke-jr> is that what the barcode thing is for?
462 2011-01-10 01:32:12 <jgarzik> who is -ever- going to type in, hand-transcribe a bitcoin address? only the truly dedicated, or desperate. sane people will obtain, and publish, bitcoin addresses via electronic means: cut-n-paste, email, HTTP, QR-code, bluetooth, ...
463 2011-01-10 01:32:12 <tcatm> luke-jr: why all those BTC units?!
464 2011-01-10 01:32:32 <luke-jr> tcatm: why not?
465 2011-01-10 01:32:48 <tcatm> luke-jr: bitcoin doesn't understand them
466 2011-01-10 01:32:59 <luke-jr> I suppose if it poses a problem for implementors, we could reduce it to just BTC, TBC, and null
467 2011-01-10 01:33:09 <jgarzik> luke-jr: "what is this barcode thing for?" Well, at a high level, QR-code is needed so that mobile phone user points their phone at a code on a cash register, hits a button, and initiates a bitcoin payment.
468 2011-01-10 01:33:21 <kartofeln> luke-kr: Because the idea of force-fitting an ancient rejected precursor to hexadecimal into bitcoin is, at best, silly.
469 2011-01-10 01:33:39 <jgarzik> though, NFC looms large
470 2011-01-10 01:33:40 <luke-jr> kartofeln: if BitCoin won't support Tonal, I won't support BitCoin
471 2011-01-10 01:33:53 <jgarzik> NFC might overtake QR-codes as bitcoin payment method on mobile phones.
472 2011-01-10 01:33:57 <luke-jr> kartofeln: BitCoin should remain neutral in the number system war
473 2011-01-10 01:34:03 <tcatm> could such a bitcoin-scheme be transferred with NFC?
474 2011-01-10 01:34:09 <kartofeln> are you sure there's a number system war?
475 2011-01-10 01:34:16 <luke-jr> kartofeln: I'm starting one. :P
476 2011-01-10 01:34:19 <kartofeln> right
477 2011-01-10 01:34:21 <luke-jr> if there isn't already
478 2011-01-10 01:34:36 <jgarzik> tcatm: sure
479 2011-01-10 01:34:38 <jgarzik> tcatm: http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/javame/nfc/
480 2011-01-10 01:34:42 <jgarzik> intro
481 2011-01-10 01:35:30 <tcatm> great
482 2011-01-10 01:36:00 <jgarzik> tcatm: of course NFC is 100x more complex, but $Big Corps are working to put NFC in the field everywhere
483 2011-01-10 01:36:30 <tcatm> I think QR codes will work great for now.
484 2011-01-10 01:36:34 <jgarzik> tcatm: agreed
485 2011-01-10 01:36:51 <luke-jr> tcatm: if you need to interface with the old/existing bitcoind, convert TBC to 0.00065536 and round up to the next 0.01 BTC (telling the user you're doing so first)
486 2011-01-10 01:37:17 <tcatm> The NFC thing is only needed as those $Big Corps want more complex data tranfers + encryption.
487 2011-01-10 01:37:35 <tcatm> luke-jr: can you remove the unit stuff from the scheme?
488 2011-01-10 01:37:48 <luke-jr> tcatm: you mean only work in base units?
489 2011-01-10 01:38:02 <luke-jr> eg, 50 BTC would be amount=5000000000
490 2011-01-10 01:38:02 <tcatm> only work in decimals
491 2011-01-10 01:38:04 <luke-jr> no
492 2011-01-10 01:38:06 <luke-jr> decimal sucks
493 2011-01-10 01:38:40 <tcatm> they work great as long as you don't cast them to floats :P
494 2011-01-10 01:38:48 <luke-jr> no, they don't.
495 2011-01-10 01:39:01 <luke-jr> it's a poor choice for numeric base
496 2011-01-10 01:39:20 <jgarzik> tcatm: agreed, though the basic point is that NFC is already planned to be widely deployed in mobile phones and, more importantly, in merchants worldwide. It is easier to (a) upgrade existing NFC-supporting POS software to support bitcoin than (b) buy new hardware that displays a QR-code to customers.
497 2011-01-10 01:39:36 <jgarzik> from merchant's PoV
498 2011-01-10 01:40:49 <luke-jr> tcatm: put simply, I don't *want* decimal bitcoins to succeed; I want tonal bitcoins to. For a unitless URI, I insist it either be base units or tonal units âº
499 2011-01-10 01:41:17 <luke-jr> if it makes it easier to reduce it to "BTC" | "TBC" | "", then that's ok
500 2011-01-10 01:41:26 <marioxcc> this channel is 70% total offtopic, 23% bitcoin-related and 7% bitcoin-dev-related
501 2011-01-10 01:41:43 <tcatm> marioxcc: can you graph that vs. time?
502 2011-01-10 01:41:55 <marioxcc> lol
503 2011-01-10 01:42:01 <kartofeln> that 70% offtopic number seem high.
504 2011-01-10 01:42:27 <luke-jr> tcatm: of course, there's the *technical* option to display "units not supported" for anything other than "BTC" | "", but I won't encourage that :P
505 2011-01-10 01:42:29 <kartofeln> although, so does the 7% number.
506 2011-01-10 01:42:42 <marioxcc> kartofeln: from recent history most is jgarzik offtopic
507 2011-01-10 01:42:48 <tcatm> luke-jr: make a patch for bitcoin to support units.
508 2011-01-10 01:42:51 <jgarzik> luke-jr: "(address | (label & host))"
509 2011-01-10 01:43:05 <marioxcc> (and tcatm)
510 2011-01-10 01:43:06 <luke-jr> tcatm: the old codebase is probably going away.
511 2011-01-10 01:43:12 <luke-jr> jgarzik: â?
512 2011-01-10 01:43:27 <kartofeln> I'd count all the mobile phone NFC stuff as bitcoin related since it's in the context of using bitcoin on phones.
513 2011-01-10 01:43:32 <luke-jr> tcatm: the new one, if properly designed, will use only base units in core
514 2011-01-10 01:43:51 <luke-jr> leaving BTC/TBC conversions to UI
515 2011-01-10 01:43:53 <tcatm> luke-jr: which new one?
516 2011-01-10 01:44:06 <jgarzik> luke-jr: your bitcoin URI scheme requires a bitcoin address, which won't work for a key QR-code use case on mobile phones.
517 2011-01-10 01:44:23 <luke-jr> tcatm: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/QBitcoin
518 2011-01-10 01:46:14 <luke-jr> jgarzik: why wouldn't an address work?
519 2011-01-10 01:48:08 <tcatm> luke-jr: looks like the RPC api will be compatible
520 2011-01-10 01:48:41 <jgarzik> luke-jr: you might not always have an address at the initial point of QR-code scan. given a transaction-specific merchant reference number, the phone can call out to a mtgox/mybitcoin/etc. web API to receive the address.
521 2011-01-10 01:48:45 <luke-jr> tcatm: yes, never heard of backward compatible?
522 2011-01-10 01:49:23 <jgarzik> luke-jr: this makes it -loads- easier to implement using legacy (ie. all existing today) POS systems, that generate their own, unique transaction numbers for each cash register transaction.
523 2011-01-10 01:50:01 <luke-jr> jgarzik: so you're forcing everyone to use some public web service?
524 2011-01-10 01:50:28 <luke-jr> whatever displays the barcode needs to be a computer anyway. it can generate an address
525 2011-01-10 01:50:36 <jgarzik> luke-jr: the logic is (address | call out to a payment processor URL)
526 2011-01-10 01:50:51 <luke-jr> oh
527 2011-01-10 01:51:04 <luke-jr> I get it
528 2011-01-10 01:51:56 <luke-jr> so instead of a bitcoin URI, give them a HTTP URI that redirects to a bitcoin URI?
529 2011-01-10 01:52:59 <luke-jr> any reason that wouldn't work?
530 2011-01-10 01:53:32 <tcatm> complicated to code
531 2011-01-10 01:53:39 <jgarzik> seems pointless when information could be stored directly in bitcoin URI
532 2011-01-10 01:53:53 <jgarzik> bitcoin URI needs 2 mods: (1) don't require address, (2) optionally specify PP URL
533 2011-01-10 01:54:31 <marioxcc> bitcoin URI without address?
534 2011-01-10 01:55:00 <luke-jr> jgarzik: no sensible way to do that IMO
535 2011-01-10 01:55:03 * jgarzik will not repeat the discussion a third time ;-)
536 2011-01-10 01:55:08 <luke-jr> bitcoin requires an address
537 2011-01-10 01:55:12 <luke-jr> and URIs dont' contain URIs
538 2011-01-10 01:55:37 <jgarzik> the URL will give your phone the bitcoin address it needs
539 2011-01-10 01:55:48 <luke-jr> exactly
540 2011-01-10 01:55:58 <jgarzik> and it is pointless to insert an additional HTTP query on the phone, just to specify specification cleanliness
541 2011-01-10 01:56:05 <jgarzik> that wastes power and network
542 2011-01-10 01:56:08 <luke-jr> http://my.site.net/payment.php?txcode=4
543 2011-01-10 01:56:18 <luke-jr> â¦
544 2011-01-10 01:56:23 <luke-jr> it's not additional
545 2011-01-10 01:56:26 <luke-jr> you're saying it's required anyway
546 2011-01-10 01:56:45 <luke-jr> encoding the HTTP URI into a bitcoin URI doesn't make that go away
547 2011-01-10 01:57:00 <tcatm> we won't encode a HTTP URI
548 2011-01-10 01:57:04 <tcatm> just a domain
549 2011-01-10 01:57:21 <luke-jr> so even less useful
550 2011-01-10 01:57:29 <jgarzik> whatever
551 2011-01-10 01:57:37 <luke-jr> just put a HTTP URI in the QR-code
552 2011-01-10 01:57:43 <luke-jr> works the same, and makes better sense
553 2011-01-10 01:58:06 <luke-jr> also lets the phone possibly include a header indicating preferred currency or system
554 2011-01-10 01:58:22 <luke-jr> thus useful for non-bitcoin systems even if one comes about
555 2011-01-10 01:58:59 <tcatm> anyway, I'll implemented my scheme this week so we have something that actually works
556 2011-01-10 01:59:08 <tcatm> s/ed//
557 2011-01-10 01:59:29 <luke-jr> tcatm: let me know if you need help with TBC stuff
558 2011-01-10 01:59:30 <luke-jr> :p
559 2011-01-10 02:00:03 <tcatm> luke-jr: the amount will be passed to RPC sendfrom after checking it's a valid decimal
560 2011-01-10 02:00:24 <tcatm> jgarzik: did you take a look at js-remote?
561 2011-01-10 02:00:47 <luke-jr> tcatm: that won't work
562 2011-01-10 02:00:52 <luke-jr> also, sendfrom is broken
563 2011-01-10 02:01:23 <tcatm> why is it broken?
564 2011-01-10 02:01:33 <luke-jr> it doesn't care what account it takes the moneys out of
565 2011-01-10 02:01:52 <tcatm> that can be fixed easily
566 2011-01-10 02:02:10 <luke-jr> and if you don't check the unit at all, you'll end up sending 400000000 BTC when you should only send 4 :p
567 2011-01-10 02:02:10 <tcatm> an that's not a problem for endusers
568 2011-01-10 02:02:46 <luke-jr> for a simple implementation, just check that it matchs ^(\d+)BTC$ and reject anything else for now
569 2011-01-10 02:03:13 <luke-jr> (or do the trivial math to support ^(\d+)(BTC|TBC)?$ )
570 2011-01-10 02:03:41 <luke-jr> actually, that wouldn't be trivial for TBC, just for ^(\d+)(BTC)?$
571 2011-01-10 02:04:04 <luke-jr> (the math would be trivial for TBC, but not necessarily parsing the number)
572 2011-01-10 02:04:09 <tcatm> you're making the whole thing way to complicated
573 2011-01-10 02:14:19 james has joined
574 2011-01-10 02:14:46 james is now known as Guest63289
575 2011-01-10 02:15:07 Guest23420 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
576 2011-01-10 02:15:32 kermit has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
577 2011-01-10 02:19:53 <jgarzik> indeed
578 2011-01-10 02:20:14 <jgarzik> tcatm: just cloned it, but SIGDINNER and SIGBABY have both fired
579 2011-01-10 02:21:01 <tcatm> fork() :D
580 2011-01-10 02:22:44 <tcatm> you need a git bitcoin with accounts feature
581 2011-01-10 02:22:58 <tcatm> (I should add that to the website...)
582 2011-01-10 02:31:47 <luke-jr> tcatm: â¦
583 2011-01-10 02:48:10 <fabianhjr> Good night :)
584 2011-01-10 02:48:14 fabianhjr has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.6.13/20101203075014])
585 2011-01-10 02:49:26 Guest63289 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
586 2011-01-10 02:49:40 james_ has joined
587 2011-01-10 02:52:55 akem has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
588 2011-01-10 03:03:32 <newsham> can you create a transaction record completely offline?
589 2011-01-10 03:04:03 <newsham> if so, wouldnt it be useful to have a transaction file format? so i could make a transaction, and give it to someone who has bitcoin client, and they could post it ot the bitcoin net if they so choose?
590 2011-01-10 03:04:22 <newsham> ie. i wouldnt need to be on the bitcoin network to make a transaction and email it to someone who is on the bitcoin network
591 2011-01-10 03:04:49 <tcatm> newsham: yes, that's (in theory) possible
592 2011-01-10 03:05:10 <newsham> and it would be trivial to have a website to post such files to in the case where you arent running bitcoin yourself and you recieve such a file.
593 2011-01-10 03:06:09 <newsham> ok, next q, would such a transaction file fit in a QR?
594 2011-01-10 03:06:33 <luke-jr> tcatm: I'm not sure it is
595 2011-01-10 03:06:36 <newsham> if so, really easy way to xfer bitcoin to and from phone (and phone-to-phone)
596 2011-01-10 03:06:46 <luke-jr> don't transactions have the last-block referenced in them?
597 2011-01-10 03:06:51 <tcatm> newsham: in almost all cases it should fit
598 2011-01-10 03:06:58 <tcatm> luke-jr: nope
599 2011-01-10 03:07:05 <newsham> luke: thats the block.
600 2011-01-10 03:07:17 <luke-jr> then what's stopping me from copying your transaction over and over?
601 2011-01-10 03:07:26 <tcatm> http://blockexplorer.com/rawtx/280b37efa96c139073557e073179882f382167829197551d9ce759e8614334ec sample TX
602 2011-01-10 03:07:31 <newsham> luke: the net would only accept the transaction once (at most)
603 2011-01-10 03:07:42 <luke-jr> oh, because the inputs would be invalid later
604 2011-01-10 03:07:51 <tcatm> luke-jr: exact
605 2011-01-10 03:07:56 <newsham> by "transaction" i mean the inert request to perform a transaction.
606 2011-01-10 03:08:07 <newsham> its the net that makes a transaction official by writing it into its log
607 2011-01-10 03:08:15 <luke-jr> but there would be no way to verify the tx until it was on the net
608 2011-01-10 03:08:20 <newsham> right.
609 2011-01-10 03:08:27 <newsham> like a check.
610 2011-01-10 03:08:37 <newsham> and like a check, you could rip it up an dnot use it
611 2011-01-10 03:09:00 <luke-jr> but unlike a check, you might not know who to go after if it's no good
612 2011-01-10 03:09:11 <Cusipzzz> lol
613 2011-01-10 03:09:11 <newsham> i guess you'd have to keep track of which coins you've already given out that havent been spent.
614 2011-01-10 03:09:31 <newsham> luke: nah, thats outside of the check/tx scheme.
615 2011-01-10 03:10:12 <newsham> if someone mails you a random bad check,you have no idea who to go after if its bogus.
616 2011-01-10 03:10:26 james_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
617 2011-01-10 03:10:31 <newsham> but if someone at the store gives the cashier a check, they will ask for id and compare with addr and what not
618 2011-01-10 03:10:37 <newsham> ie. its outside the check protocol..
619 2011-01-10 03:10:59 <newsham> i think a TX file would be very handy to email around, to QR, etc.
620 2011-01-10 03:11:18 <newsham> and you dont even need a bank to cash it.. you can cash it with your own distributed bitcoin net client
621 2011-01-10 03:11:43 james has joined
622 2011-01-10 03:11:54 <newsham> could be put into URI form, too, if desired.
623 2011-01-10 03:12:01 <luke-jr> >_<
624 2011-01-10 03:12:08 <newsham> maybe one URI to request payment, and another URI that promises payment (a check)?
625 2011-01-10 03:12:11 james is now known as Guest12856
626 2011-01-10 03:12:15 <luke-jr> data:application/x-bitcoin-tx,base64data ? :p
627 2011-01-10 03:12:18 asdf30 has joined
628 2011-01-10 03:12:39 <newsham> luke: ascii encoding binary data alreayd happens.. see also bitcoin addresses
629 2011-01-10 03:12:47 <newsham> and ip addresses
630 2011-01-10 03:13:01 <luke-jr> much shorter
631 2011-01-10 03:13:08 <luke-jr> anyhow, data URI would work for that fine
632 2011-01-10 03:14:12 <newsham> ps: why does bitcoin use a captive portal for forum instead of a mailing list or something more open?
633 2011-01-10 03:14:27 <newsham> thats a huge turnoff
634 2011-01-10 03:15:05 <newsham> what forum channel do people discuss proposals in?
635 2011-01-10 03:15:13 <newsham> dev&tech discussion?
636 2011-01-10 03:15:19 <tcatm> yep
637 2011-01-10 03:21:00 mtgox has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
638 2011-01-10 03:25:27 <luke-jr> marioxcc: I added hex support in the URI bit :P
639 2011-01-10 03:25:56 <luke-jr> marioxcc: minor TBC extension just for you: xA TBC can be used for hex symbols
640 2011-01-10 03:28:51 Guest12856 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
641 2011-01-10 03:30:08 james_ has joined
642 2011-01-10 03:30:36 <gavinandresen> newsham: RE: your "bitcoin check" proposal: is the idea that the transaction is spendable by whoever holds the check? Or only somebody with a particular bitcoin address?
643 2011-01-10 03:30:39 marioxcc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
644 2011-01-10 03:31:14 <newsham> its spendable only by the person you write the check to, though anybody can make the transaction happen ('cash it')
645 2011-01-10 03:31:49 <luke-jr> newsham: same with real checks
646 2011-01-10 03:31:59 <luke-jr> and not cash it, deposit it :p
647 2011-01-10 03:32:46 <newsham> its the authorization for a transaction.
648 2011-01-10 03:33:03 <gavinandresen> newsham: so just a standard format for a bitcoin transaction, in case you can't connect to the bitcoin network directly to send it.
649 2011-01-10 03:33:10 <newsham> right.
650 2011-01-10 03:33:28 <newsham> and you could easily make an online service that accepts such files, for those who dont want to run bitcoin locally
651 2011-01-10 03:33:50 <newsham> and you dont have to trust them.
652 2011-01-10 03:33:59 <newsham> if they fail to post it, you can just try to get someone else to post it
653 2011-01-10 03:34:27 <newsham> you could print em out on christmas cards, even :)
654 2011-01-10 03:35:08 <newsham> it could even be as simple as the exact same encoding as the bitcoin protocol currently uses for transactions
655 2011-01-10 03:35:12 <newsham> just as its own stand-alone entity
656 2011-01-10 03:36:05 <gavinandresen> newsham: implementing a service that takes signed transactions and either says "NOPE, INVALID" or posts them onto the network is a good idea. I don't know that we need to agree on a standardized format for transactions first, though.
657 2011-01-10 03:36:22 <gavinandresen> Just go implement such a thing and you'll set the standard....
658 2011-01-10 03:37:04 <luke-jr> ad-hoc standards ftl
659 2011-01-10 03:37:54 <newsham> i agree, but having a defined format would be useful for several reasons. 1) std client could generate and consume the file, making it more widely useful, 2) different wallet/checkbook apps could interop with each other and with web apps
660 2011-01-10 03:38:39 <newsham> anyway, the online service is the trivial part.. i think a good android btc checkbook would be a good proof.
661 2011-01-10 03:38:44 <gavinandresen> The standard client is connected to the network, so it can just send the frickin transaction. Why bother generating a "check" ???
662 2011-01-10 03:39:02 <newsham> gavin: I might receive a check.
663 2011-01-10 03:39:23 <newsham> also my internet might be on the fritz, but i can put it on sneakernet or print out a QR
664 2011-01-10 03:39:59 <luke-jr> perhaps the daemon shouldn't even have code to generate transactions :P
665 2011-01-10 03:40:01 <newsham> also if you give someone a check, youc an reclaim it if they dont cash it.
666 2011-01-10 03:40:07 <gavinandresen> If your internet is on the fritz, you likely won't be able to get the right bitcoin address to pay for whatever it is you're buying.
667 2011-01-10 03:40:27 <gavinandresen> Ditto on the other end-- how is the phone going to know your bitcoin address?
668 2011-01-10 03:40:32 <newsham> gavin: might have an address book of all the people on my christmas list from last year?
669 2011-01-10 03:41:39 <newsham> phone could get it from a web page or email or QR code.
670 2011-01-10 03:41:43 <gavinandresen> So you send Cousin Phil 100BTC via a bitcoin check, call him and ask "did you get those bitcoins I sent?" and he tells you "huh? Oh, I transferred all my BTC to MyBitcoin last year just before my computer got hacked and somebody stole my wallet....."
671 2011-01-10 03:41:53 <newsham> like the "please donate" line on the slush pool web page
672 2011-01-10 03:42:16 <newsham> gavin: yup, that would be a problem for sure :)
673 2011-01-10 03:43:09 <mizerydearia> Topic for ##economics is: Welcome! http://tinyurl.com/thewiki #bitcoin-dev #business@efnet #mises ##econometrics ##eu ##rothbard ##stocks ##psychology ##business ##not-economics
674 2011-01-10 03:43:32 * mizerydearia thought it was interesting this channel was referenced there
675 2011-01-10 03:43:46 <gavinandresen> I think Bitcoin Bearer Bonds (signed transactions that can be claimed by anybody) might actually be more useful.
676 2011-01-10 03:44:14 <newsham> i thikn that would be useful too.. and you could do that too, except for the script limitations currently in the popular clients
677 2011-01-10 03:44:44 <newsham> actually, yah, you could do that now, by just sending along the keypair with the TX
678 2011-01-10 03:44:48 <gavinandresen> The script limitations currently in the popular clients can be changed, they just can't be changed willy-nilly.
679 2011-01-10 03:45:51 <newsham> thats a lot more like a coin than bitcoin :)
680 2011-01-10 03:47:26 <newsham> hmm.. wait.. (key, tx) isnt quite like a bearer bond in that the sender could still reclaim it before the receiver claims it
681 2011-01-10 03:47:42 <newsham> but it is like a check without the name filled in
682 2011-01-10 03:47:51 <Cusipzzz> or a blank money order
683 2011-01-10 03:47:54 <newsham> right
684 2011-01-10 03:48:46 <newsham> quick, someone implement it and post $20 to ##economics and see if any economists pick it up
685 2011-01-10 03:48:56 <luke-jr> newsham: send raw tx to a new address, and include the private key for that address ;)
686 2011-01-10 03:49:14 <newsham> luke: right. thats what I was trying to say
687 2011-01-10 03:50:28 <newsham> bonus use case: the ability to throw spare change out on IRC
688 2011-01-10 03:50:35 <newsham> and watch people scramble to pick it up
689 2011-01-10 03:50:47 <luke-jr> newsham: except that this data is way too big for IRC
690 2011-01-10 03:51:03 <newsham> pshaw.
691 2011-01-10 03:51:19 <Cusipzzz> lol
692 2011-01-10 03:52:22 * Cusipzzz prepares to copy and paste to score some free change
693 2011-01-10 03:53:10 <newsham> ok, i see a potential problem here.. if i have a 20BTC "coin" and I want to give 5BTC to someone, i write a TX with 5BTC to recipient and 15BTC to myself. now if I want to write another check, the other check wont work unless the first check is cached (if I use the new 15BTC) or will cancel the first one (if I use the original 20BTC)
694 2011-01-10 03:53:23 <newsham> you would have to go online first and make change befor eyou can write those two checks
695 2011-01-10 03:53:52 <luke-jr> right
696 2011-01-10 03:54:27 <newsham> so now you need change machines, which you would have to trust.
697 2011-01-10 03:54:37 <newsham> wait, no.. you dont have to trust.
698 2011-01-10 03:54:51 <newsham> you would need to have access to something online that does TXs for you
699 2011-01-10 03:54:55 <nanotube> newsham: seems like a solution in search of a problem. services like mybitcoin seem to be the simple method "for those who don't want to run a client"
700 2011-01-10 03:55:11 <newsham> nanotube: you have to trust mybitcoin.
701 2011-01-10 03:55:13 <luke-jr> nanotube: he wants offline
702 2011-01-10 03:55:36 <newsham> i dont hvae to trust a TX submitting service.
703 2011-01-10 03:55:59 <newsham> this allows separation of TX submission and wallet handling.
704 2011-01-10 03:56:12 <luke-jr> newsham: I'd rather see a general IP link âº
705 2011-01-10 03:56:33 james__ has joined
706 2011-01-10 03:56:50 james_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
707 2011-01-10 03:57:13 <gavinandresen> I think there is a need for a lightweight, only-sometimes-connected, store-my-wallet-on-my-phone solution. That is easy if you're OK with some gateway knowing about all of your transactions and knowing how many bitcoins are in your wallet.
708 2011-01-10 03:57:35 <nanotube> gavinandresen: ssh to server with a running bitcoind. problem solved. :P
709 2011-01-10 03:58:07 <gavinandresen> nanotube: then the wallet isn't on the phone, it is on the server.
710 2011-01-10 03:58:34 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: rather the gateway be IP
711 2011-01-10 03:59:23 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: huh?
712 2011-01-10 03:59:42 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: instead of transmitting a tx for me, it should just provide me with an IP connection and let me send it myself
713 2011-01-10 03:59:46 <nanotube> gavinandresen: yes... but what's the point of storing wallet on phone, if you can't make transactions with it anyway? and if you can make a tx, then you might as well ssh out.
714 2011-01-10 04:00:18 <nanotube> storing wallet on phone is not secure anyway, phones get lost or stolen all the time.
715 2011-01-10 04:00:22 <luke-jr> nanotube: he's saying, phone makes the tx, but the other thing transmits it
716 2011-01-10 04:00:39 <nanotube> why rely on other thing to transmit it?
717 2011-01-10 04:00:49 <luke-jr> that's what I say :P
718 2011-01-10 04:00:54 <nanotube> heh
719 2011-01-10 04:00:56 <gavinandresen> nanotube: one gateway could support tens of thousands of phones. Most people ain't gonna run bitcoind on their own secure VPS.
720 2011-01-10 04:01:31 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: one phone can support bitcoind :p
721 2011-01-10 04:01:52 <newsham> gavin: right, but I am trying ot think of a way to do this without the trust.. and I mostly have a solution.
722 2011-01-10 04:02:03 <newsham> but having to be online to "make change" is definitely a downside.
723 2011-01-10 04:02:07 * Cusipzzz runs bitcoind on VPS
724 2011-01-10 04:02:21 <luke-jr> you guys are talking about applying future tech (bitcoin) to past tech (poor connectivity)
725 2011-01-10 04:02:26 <gavinandresen> newsham: how does the phone know when it has been sent coins?
726 2011-01-10 04:02:37 <luke-jr> nowadays, phones basically all have IP all the time
727 2011-01-10 04:02:39 <nanotube> gavinandresen: sorry, so fill me in here maybe i'm missing something... so phone generates a tx... what happens then?
728 2011-01-10 04:02:49 <newsham> gavin: *nod* it would have to trust some collection of online entities for the verification part.
729 2011-01-10 04:03:01 <newsham> but that is at least a lot less trust than giving an online service your wallet
730 2011-01-10 04:03:17 <gavinandresen> nanotube: it sends it to a gateway, which either says "NOPE, INPUTS SPENT" (which should never happen) or transmits it to the network.
731 2011-01-10 04:03:28 <newsham> not that I have anything against mybitcoin, i'm just trying to think of a less trusting alternative
732 2011-01-10 04:03:33 <gavinandresen> newsham: agreed.
733 2011-01-10 04:04:16 sgornick has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
734 2011-01-10 04:04:34 <nanotube> gavinandresen: ah i see. does the gateway even need to check if inputs are spent? if they're spent, the tx will just fail to get incorporated into the chain... gateway can be dumb, no?
735 2011-01-10 04:04:58 <newsham> nanotube: for the sake of the client.. the gateway would be the only way the client has of verifying a TX has or hasnt occurred
736 2011-01-10 04:05:27 <nanotube> ah, so you don't have to wait for block confirmations...
737 2011-01-10 04:05:46 <newsham> yah, just submit TX and check back later to see if it went through
738 2011-01-10 04:06:28 <newsham> also there are two reasons you want to know if a TX happened. 1) did the money I received get put into my wallet. 2) did the money I send get taken out of my wallet (which is part of 3) can I reclaim the money I sent that was never used yet))
739 2011-01-10 04:06:32 <gavinandresen> Sure, the gateway doesn't HAVE to check, but the user experience will be better if it does.
740 2011-01-10 04:06:32 <nanotube> so let me ask this, then... why use the gateway at all, rather than sending the tx to the bitcoin network directly? a lightweight client, that only sends tx without being a full bitcoin node, can do just as well, no? and no need for a 'gateway'?
741 2011-01-10 04:07:22 <newsham> nanotube: *nod* that might be fine too. but i think a simple web gw would still be occasionally useful.
742 2011-01-10 04:07:25 <nanotube> assuming the lightweight client keeps track of balance on the sendout... should always be fine. and for managing receipts, it can be synced with a 'real client' periodically.
743 2011-01-10 04:07:27 <gavinandresen> Submitting the transactions is the easy part.
744 2011-01-10 04:07:38 <nanotube> mmm
745 2011-01-10 04:07:38 sgornick has joined
746 2011-01-10 04:07:40 <gavinandresen> ... figuring out that you've been sent BTC is the hard part.
747 2011-01-10 04:07:42 <newsham> like when you can only reach port 80, or you're in javascript and port 80 is the most convenient net connection.
748 2011-01-10 04:07:47 <newsham> chromeos comes to mind.
749 2011-01-10 04:08:11 <newsham> javascript with local state (html5) and a web gw could be a bitcoin wallet
750 2011-01-10 04:08:46 <newsham> ahh right, the verificaiton part.
751 2011-01-10 04:09:19 <newsham> anyway, gotta run for now. thanks for the back and forth on the idea
752 2011-01-10 04:09:26 <gavinandresen> So: you COULD just directly connect to the network, send a transaction, then disconnect. But if you're polling a gateway or asking a gateway to ping you every time BTC are sent to any of your receiving addresses, you might as well use the gateway to submit the txns for you.
753 2011-01-10 04:10:28 <gavinandresen> If the gateway knows all of your receiving addresses, then it knows how many bitcoins are in your wallet, and it can see whenever you spend coins received on any of those addresses, so connecting directly to the bitcoin network doesn't buy you any privacy.
754 2011-01-10 04:12:26 <nanotube> mmm, so the only difference is... unlike mybitcoin, the gateway can't steal your coins.
755 2011-01-10 04:13:04 <gavinandresen> nanotube: yep. That's a big plus. You've got to be careful to backup so you don't lose your coins, of course...
756 2011-01-10 04:13:43 <nanotube> though i guess it can be malicious and fail to report receipts, or claim failed sends when they didn't fail, causing you to resend, thus spending extra coins... but it can't claim those to itself, thus removing the profit motive for maliciousness.
757 2011-01-10 04:14:18 <nanotube> interesting idea, then. :) i'd still prefer to run my own bitcoind on my vps, but... that option is not for everyone indeed. :)
758 2011-01-10 04:14:53 <gavinandresen> gateways that did that would soon find themselves out of business. And I'm assuming that the gateways would find some way of charging for their services...
759 2011-01-10 04:15:24 <nanotube> ah... in that case... i'd doubly prefer to run my own bitcoind :) hehe
760 2011-01-10 04:15:37 <gavinandresen> Yeah, but you're a big ole geek.
761 2011-01-10 04:15:46 <nanotube> hehe indeed. :)
762 2011-01-10 04:16:10 <tcatm> Yay, I finally got rid of a global variable holding application state in js-remote!
763 2011-01-10 04:16:22 <nanotube> \o/
764 2011-01-10 04:17:16 <gavinandresen> I've actually been thinking about whether you could be fuzzy about which bitcoin addresses you're interested in knowing about so the gateway doesn't know which addresses are yours. You'd get extra transactions which your phone could just ignore.....
765 2011-01-10 04:18:47 <nanotube> gavinandresen: yea, but you couldn't be fuzzy about which addresses you're sending from... so i'm not sure if being fuzzy about receiving addresses would be of any benefit. some simple statistical analysis can reveal which addresses are fake.
766 2011-01-10 04:18:54 <nanotube> (if the gateway so desires)
767 2011-01-10 04:19:49 <gavinandresen> nanotube: yeah. Although you could occasionally generate sends to yourself, and that gateway wouldn't be able to tell if you were really paying somebody else.
768 2011-01-10 04:20:28 <gavinandresen> The gateway WOULD be able to tell if you donated to a public bitcoin address (like the Faucet or EFF donation addresses)
769 2011-01-10 04:20:31 <nanotube> hehe seems like a lot of effort for dubious gain. but i guess at some point, when some spare programming cycles materialize, it would be interesting.
770 2011-01-10 04:21:35 <gavinandresen> Yeah, I think the extremely-paranoid-privacy-conscious people will always run their own bitcoind and talk to it via ssh.
771 2011-01-10 04:21:47 <Cusipzzz> <--
772 2011-01-10 04:28:12 Cam has joined
773 2011-01-10 04:32:21 <nanotube> hehe
774 2011-01-10 04:41:46 <Cam> >.>
775 2011-01-10 04:42:13 <nanotube> o/ Cam ;)
776 2011-01-10 04:42:22 <Cam> :)
777 2011-01-10 04:42:42 * Cam smothers nanotube in a big floppsy hug
778 2011-01-10 04:43:07 <nanotube> <.<
779 2011-01-10 04:43:23 * Cam pulls out his shamdoodle
780 2011-01-10 04:43:42 <Cam> That sounds gross... it's what my sister calls her cookies.
781 2011-01-10 04:43:47 <Cam> shamdoodles.
782 2011-01-10 04:43:53 <Cam> nobody cares.
783 2011-01-10 04:44:20 Cam is now known as TheEvilPheonix
784 2011-01-10 04:45:15 TheEvilPheonix is now known as Romrepcip
785 2011-01-10 04:45:25 Romrepcip has left ()
786 2011-01-10 05:04:39 sgornick has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
787 2011-01-10 05:05:47 <EvanR> hm.
788 2011-01-10 05:11:20 kermit has joined
789 2011-01-10 05:16:06 lolcat has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
790 2011-01-10 05:34:56 EvanR has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
791 2011-01-10 05:39:39 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
792 2011-01-10 05:54:53 <newsham> gavin: the gw doesnt need to know what coins you have. it just needs to be queriable to how many confirmations there are on a transaction you ask about (block explorer could be used, for example)
793 2011-01-10 05:56:25 <newsham> gavin: all the information in a TX is made public in the block chain anyway. the gateway doesnt get any private info
794 2011-01-10 06:01:54 genjix has quit (Quit: leaving)
795 2011-01-10 06:05:46 Cusipzzz has quit ()
796 2011-01-10 06:11:55 <joe_1> does bruce wagner ever get on here
797 2011-01-10 06:12:21 ArtForzZz has joined
798 2011-01-10 06:14:11 <nanotube> ;;seen brucewagner
799 2011-01-10 06:14:11 <gribble> brucewagner was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 4 weeks, 1 day, 12 hours, 36 minutes, and 17 seconds ago: <brucewagner> Any word on Bitcoin.org site? Please email and let me know email@bitcoinme.com
800 2011-01-10 06:14:20 <nanotube> joe_1: rarely, he does, apparently
801 2011-01-10 06:15:04 <joe_1> supposedly he's getting a point-of-sale company to add bitcoin support
802 2011-01-10 06:15:16 <nanotube> cool
803 2011-01-10 06:16:15 ArtForz has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
804 2011-01-10 07:09:53 darrob has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
805 2011-01-10 07:12:21 darrob has joined
806 2011-01-10 07:14:28 sgornick has joined
807 2011-01-10 07:22:14 acous has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
808 2011-01-10 07:36:10 davout has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
809 2011-01-10 07:37:20 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
810 2011-01-10 07:41:45 larsivi has joined
811 2011-01-10 08:05:07 theymos has joined
812 2011-01-10 08:07:20 <theymos> brocktice: Regarding integrating BBE's search, you can use GET like http://blockexplorer.com/search/111111 . BBE actually redirects you to a page like this for every search, but you don't see it very often because it automatically sends you to pages if there's only one result.
813 2011-01-10 08:24:03 slush has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
814 2011-01-10 08:24:52 EvanR has joined
815 2011-01-10 08:32:27 EvanR has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
816 2011-01-10 09:07:15 slush has joined
817 2011-01-10 09:21:33 mtgox has joined
818 2011-01-10 09:22:27 darsk1ez has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
819 2011-01-10 09:23:56 darsk1ez has joined
820 2011-01-10 09:32:43 ebel has joined
821 2011-01-10 09:32:43 ebel has quit (Changing host)
822 2011-01-10 09:32:43 ebel has joined
823 2011-01-10 09:42:29 Orbixx has quit (Changing host)
824 2011-01-10 09:42:29 Orbixx has joined
825 2011-01-10 09:45:15 RazielZ has joined
826 2011-01-10 09:48:06 altamic has joined
827 2011-01-10 09:56:00 altamic has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
828 2011-01-10 09:59:15 TheAncientGoat has joined
829 2011-01-10 10:12:09 Slix` has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
830 2011-01-10 10:24:47 altamic has joined
831 2011-01-10 10:28:30 Keefe has quit (Quit: leaving)
832 2011-01-10 10:35:55 ApertureScience has quit (Quit: This a triumph,I'm making a note here HUGE SUCCESS!)
833 2011-01-10 10:45:06 akem has joined
834 2011-01-10 10:45:38 joe_1 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
835 2011-01-10 10:54:52 altamic has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
836 2011-01-10 11:00:01 johnyh has joined
837 2011-01-10 11:01:16 joe_1 has joined
838 2011-01-10 11:19:00 davout has joined
839 2011-01-10 11:19:23 <davout> hai
840 2011-01-10 11:22:26 <tcatm> hey davout
841 2011-01-10 11:41:12 akem has quit (Quit: Leaving)
842 2011-01-10 11:41:35 akem has joined
843 2011-01-10 11:58:14 <omglolbbq> what port does bitcoin program listen on to receive connections?
844 2011-01-10 11:58:38 <theymos> 8333
845 2011-01-10 11:58:41 <omglolbbq> tnxx :)
846 2011-01-10 12:08:57 <xelister> the port can be changed to allow many nodes on a computer or on 1 ext ip?
847 2011-01-10 12:09:17 TD has joined
848 2011-01-10 12:10:10 <theymos> Not in the UI. You can change it in the code, but it would be pointless because Bitcoin will only connect to peers with a non-standard port as a last resort.
849 2011-01-10 12:10:35 <omglolbbq> prety easy too block then
850 2011-01-10 12:11:11 <omglolbbq> just make ISP block all port 8333, like they did with 21 :)
851 2011-01-10 12:12:19 <theymos> Bitcoin transmissions are all unencrypted and very easy-to-detect, anyway.
852 2011-01-10 12:13:32 <omglolbbq> tought bitcoin was supposed to be somewhat resistant to getting taken down
853 2011-01-10 12:15:45 <theymos> It's hard to destroy the system, but currently it's not difficult to block it or DoS attack it. It is beta software, after all.
854 2011-01-10 12:17:29 <theymos> You can use Bitcoin over Tor, which is difficult block.
855 2011-01-10 12:18:02 * sipa envisions a point-to-point encrypted bitcoin protocol with enough salting to make it indistinguishable from random data
856 2011-01-10 12:18:14 <omglolbbq> hosting a server on I2P now, see how that goes
857 2011-01-10 12:19:02 <theymos> omglolbbq: Is there any way to connect to a Bitcoin node on I2P? Bitcoin can't do hostname lookup over a proxy, so I thought it was impossible without modifying the code.
858 2011-01-10 12:19:32 <omglolbbq> theymos, you can connect manualy to a specified Ip and port right?
859 2011-01-10 12:19:47 <theymos> Yes.
860 2011-01-10 12:19:53 <omglolbbq> so, i've set up a server tunnel connected to my bitcoin program.
861 2011-01-10 12:20:08 <omglolbbq> you'd have to create a client tunnel targeted at my I2P destination
862 2011-01-10 12:20:26 <omglolbbq> then you connect to localhost on a chosen IP and it should connect
863 2011-01-10 12:20:32 <theymos> Then the client's I2P creates a virtual IP?
864 2011-01-10 12:21:01 <omglolbbq> the client tunnel is sort of a 'proxy' that opens a port on localhost to that server destination
865 2011-01-10 12:21:26 <omglolbbq> so if you create your cliennt tunnel at say port 9999, you connect your bitcoin client to 127.0.0.1:9999
866 2011-01-10 12:21:34 altamic has joined
867 2011-01-10 12:21:47 <theymos> Oh, I see. I don't know if Bitcoin allows specifying the port.
868 2011-01-10 12:22:10 <omglolbbq> if it doesn't just set client tunnel to listen on 8333
869 2011-01-10 12:22:35 <omglolbbq> hmm that might conflict with your bitcoin client ... :)
870 2011-01-10 12:23:24 <omglolbbq> i'm only running the server right now, can't realy test myself easily
871 2011-01-10 12:24:22 <omglolbbq> does bitcoin have arguments to connect only to the ip's specified? (skip the bootstrapping)
872 2011-01-10 12:27:12 <theymos> No, but I believe you can induce the behavior by setting noirc and some addnode switches, and then setting -maxconnections to be less than or equal to the number of addnodes you specified.
873 2011-01-10 12:27:34 <omglolbbq> i see
874 2011-01-10 12:28:01 <omglolbbq> easiest for now would be tto just set your firewall to block all non-localhost traffic for bitcoin
875 2011-01-10 12:29:30 <theymos> If Bitcoin is set to use the I2P proxy, won't all connections fail or be proxied anyway?
876 2011-01-10 12:31:21 <omglolbbq> all you can do is add a node to connect to, then, if you prevent your client from connecting to others, yes, it fails to connect to other nodes, and everything you do will be proxied over that single i2p 'proxy'
877 2011-01-10 12:31:42 <omglolbbq> to be reliable and trustworthy you'd need more i2p proxies to verify the chain i guess
878 2011-01-10 12:49:10 <xelister> omglolbbq: this is easly done on unix on UID match
879 2011-01-10 12:49:25 <xelister> assuming there is separate user running bitcoind
880 2011-01-10 12:49:30 <xelister> which anyway is a good idea
881 2011-01-10 12:58:05 davout has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
882 2011-01-10 12:59:21 afed has quit (Quit: leaving)
883 2011-01-10 13:05:47 ApertureScience has joined
884 2011-01-10 13:09:28 davout has joined
885 2011-01-10 13:09:38 <davout> hey all
886 2011-01-10 13:12:40 <xelister> omglolbbq: there seems to be work in progress on freenet transportg
887 2011-01-10 13:12:42 <xelister> transport
888 2011-01-10 13:29:37 <xelister> let's celebrate?
889 2011-01-10 13:29:56 <xelister> there should be btc2beerandbitches.com
890 2011-01-10 13:35:03 akem has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
891 2011-01-10 13:37:00 helmut has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
892 2011-01-10 13:40:14 TheAncientGoat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
893 2011-01-10 13:40:20 TheAncientGoat has joined
894 2011-01-10 13:42:40 darkskiez2 has joined
895 2011-01-10 13:43:39 helmut has joined
896 2011-01-10 13:47:36 altamic_ has joined
897 2011-01-10 13:47:43 altamic has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
898 2011-01-10 13:47:44 altamic_ is now known as altamic
899 2011-01-10 14:03:52 Keefe has joined
900 2011-01-10 14:04:22 Keefe has quit (Changing host)
901 2011-01-10 14:04:22 Keefe has joined
902 2011-01-10 14:06:10 joe_1 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
903 2011-01-10 14:08:34 darkskiez2 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
904 2011-01-10 14:10:11 darkskiez2 has joined
905 2011-01-10 14:20:46 EvanR has joined
906 2011-01-10 14:20:46 EvanR has quit (Changing host)
907 2011-01-10 14:20:46 EvanR has joined
908 2011-01-10 14:25:09 devon_hillard has joined
909 2011-01-10 14:29:01 james has joined
910 2011-01-10 14:29:27 james is now known as Guest74092
911 2011-01-10 14:29:34 james__ has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
912 2011-01-10 14:32:40 EvanR has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
913 2011-01-10 14:38:05 EvanR-work has joined
914 2011-01-10 14:39:12 EvanR has joined
915 2011-01-10 14:46:45 davout has quit (Quit: i <3 pork (http://dev.ojnk.net))
916 2011-01-10 14:47:56 james_ has joined
917 2011-01-10 14:48:19 Guest74092 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
918 2011-01-10 15:00:11 darkskiez2 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
919 2011-01-10 15:01:34 darkskiez2 has joined
920 2011-01-10 15:01:58 EvanR has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
921 2011-01-10 15:02:14 EvanR has joined
922 2011-01-10 15:02:14 EvanR has quit (Changing host)
923 2011-01-10 15:02:14 EvanR has joined
924 2011-01-10 15:02:21 james__ has joined
925 2011-01-10 15:02:43 james_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
926 2011-01-10 15:05:57 larsivi has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
927 2011-01-10 15:07:59 <johnyh> how big is one block (entire block not just headers)?
928 2011-01-10 15:08:33 <theymos> It depends on how many transactions are in the block.
929 2011-01-10 15:09:11 Diablo-D3 has joined
930 2011-01-10 15:09:14 <johnyh> but typically
931 2011-01-10 15:09:34 <lucky> a few kilobytes.
932 2011-01-10 15:10:00 <theymos> You can see http://blockexplorer.com/q/avgblocksize/10000000 for all-time average block size.
933 2011-01-10 15:10:05 EvanR has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
934 2011-01-10 15:14:23 <johnyh> so this 600 is in bytes or kb
935 2011-01-10 15:15:33 <theymos> Bytes.
936 2011-01-10 15:16:03 johnyh has quit (Quit: Reconnecting)
937 2011-01-10 15:16:12 <theymos> If you restrict it to just the last 5000 blocks the average is much higher. http://blockexplorer.com/q/avgblocksize/5000
938 2011-01-10 15:16:38 johnyh has joined
939 2011-01-10 15:18:14 james_ has joined
940 2011-01-10 15:18:19 james__ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
941 2011-01-10 15:23:58 altamic has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
942 2011-01-10 15:36:56 altamic has joined
943 2011-01-10 15:37:52 <luke-jr> anyone here with Move command on wiki?
944 2011-01-10 15:38:21 james_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
945 2011-01-10 15:38:39 james has joined
946 2011-01-10 15:39:05 james is now known as Guest44378
947 2011-01-10 15:40:27 <tcatm> luke-jr: ?
948 2011-01-10 15:40:48 <luke-jr> tcatm: genjix renamed the page to Schema
949 2011-01-10 15:41:17 altamic has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
950 2011-01-10 15:41:27 slush has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
951 2011-01-10 15:41:31 <luke-jr> also, I simplified the amount syntax for you: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Schema#tcatm,_modified_by_LukeJr
952 2011-01-10 15:42:12 <luke-jr> now it only requires ASCII and not a slew of different unit names
953 2011-01-10 15:42:28 pidpawel has joined
954 2011-01-10 15:44:12 EvanR has joined
955 2011-01-10 15:51:01 EvanR has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
956 2011-01-10 15:51:02 <pidpawel> what are the limitations when i have port 8333 closed?
957 2011-01-10 15:51:04 akem has joined
958 2011-01-10 15:51:04 akem has quit (Changing host)
959 2011-01-10 15:51:04 akem has joined
960 2011-01-10 15:51:17 <sipa> you can only make outgoing connections
961 2011-01-10 15:52:43 <pidpawel> that is a problem. there isnt any way to override it?
962 2011-01-10 15:53:04 <theymos> Bitcoin works fine with the port closed.
963 2011-01-10 15:53:22 <lfm> its not really a problem, you can still do everything on the bitcoin net
964 2011-01-10 15:53:59 Teppy1 has joined
965 2011-01-10 15:53:59 <pidpawel> so i can get some bitcoins, send them, generate?
966 2011-01-10 15:54:07 <lfm> yes
967 2011-01-10 15:54:32 <pidpawel> so why website says so much about it?
968 2011-01-10 15:55:18 <lfm> well if there was no one accepting incoming connects then the net wouldnt work at all but there is enuf now generally that it works
969 2011-01-10 15:55:48 <lfm> so every node you connect to is one that accepts incoming
970 2011-01-10 15:56:30 <pidpawel> oh. i see :)
971 2011-01-10 15:57:04 james_ has joined
972 2011-01-10 15:57:07 Guest44378 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
973 2011-01-10 15:57:30 <lfm> so if you CAN do it please do it to help keep the net strong
974 2011-01-10 15:59:11 <pidpawel> i cant do it using ipv4. but using ipv6 i can do that.
975 2011-01-10 15:59:22 <theymos> Bitcoin doesn't support IPv6 yet.
976 2011-01-10 15:59:54 <pidpawel> what about bitcoin on gentoo? have anyone tried it?
977 2011-01-10 16:00:14 <lfm> yes some people use gentoo
978 2011-01-10 16:00:34 <pidpawel> does anyone have "working" ebuild?
979 2011-01-10 16:01:28 * sipa compiles bitcoind on a 256MiB RAM VPS
980 2011-01-10 16:01:45 <lfm> there are people working on it but not dure if ebuild works for everyone yet
981 2011-01-10 16:03:02 EvanR has joined
982 2011-01-10 16:03:19 <pidpawel> i have an old pentium d with 2GB of ram working 27/7 and i want to use it to help the network, but i didnt found any working ebuild yet.
983 2011-01-10 16:04:45 <lfm> itd work as a node ok but pentium are not very efficient for generating blocks if thats what you're thinking
984 2011-01-10 16:05:06 <lfm> p4/pd that is
985 2011-01-10 16:06:23 <pidpawel> i know that but it still have to run constantly so... it's better than doing boinc :>
986 2011-01-10 16:07:41 <lfm> even the increase in power consumtion over idle will cost more than you will profit but you are of course welcome to try, just dont build up expectations! grin
987 2011-01-10 16:08:13 <pidpawel> :>
988 2011-01-10 16:09:57 james__ has joined
989 2011-01-10 16:10:28 EvanR has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
990 2011-01-10 16:10:28 james_ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
991 2011-01-10 16:10:43 <pidpawel> i dont have enough computing power to generate coins but i dont know how to get coins either. i have now 0.05 from freecoins and no idea how to get more.
992 2011-01-10 16:11:43 <luke-jr> sipa: did that actually work? XD
993 2011-01-10 16:12:02 <pidpawel> im looking now for a suitable gpu client, but i dont think it will do much.
994 2011-01-10 16:12:24 <luke-jr> pidpawel: I have a working branch, but no ebuild for it
995 2011-01-10 16:12:39 <sipa> luke-jr: not yet, just need some patience :)
996 2011-01-10 16:12:52 <sipa> it's swapping like hell
997 2011-01-10 16:13:07 <luke-jr> pidpawel: an old Pentium D would cost more in electricity than it would generate in Bitcoins
998 2011-01-10 16:13:37 <theymos> pidpawel: Trade goods, services, or other currencies on the forum or on #bitcoin-otc .
999 2011-01-10 16:13:44 <luke-jr> sipa: oh, a swappy VPS :p
1000 2011-01-10 16:14:20 <pidpawel> ok. so it will run as usual. actually i want to switch it with some atom mainboard but... atom costs too.
1001 2011-01-10 16:14:28 <luke-jr> pidpawel: maybe try http://coinpal.ndrix.com/
1002 2011-01-10 16:14:50 <pidpawel> i am still reading about getting bitcoins
1003 2011-01-10 16:14:56 <pidpawel> thx for link :)
1004 2011-01-10 16:14:59 <luke-jr> pidpawel: the problem is that inevitably, BitCoins are more secure than any other online transaction
1005 2011-01-10 16:15:13 <luke-jr> pidpawel: buying secured good with insecure goods carries some risk
1006 2011-01-10 16:15:28 <luke-jr> risk for the seller that is
1007 2011-01-10 16:15:43 <luke-jr> eg, if someone disputes a paypal to CoinPal, they're screwed basically
1008 2011-01-10 16:16:22 <luke-jr> and often, PayPal closes the account entirely rather than just being out the $
1009 2011-01-10 16:16:37 kisom_dev has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1010 2011-01-10 16:17:42 <luke-jr> if by chance you have any Pecunix (gold), you can buy BTC with that usually
1011 2011-01-10 16:17:46 <pidpawel> pff. 2000khashes/s i thought it will run faster.
1012 2011-01-10 16:18:02 <pidpawel> i dont have paypal abbount right now.
1013 2011-01-10 16:18:14 <luke-jr> mail cash to someone trustworthy then
1014 2011-01-10 16:18:20 <brocktice> theymos: excellent re: get
1015 2011-01-10 16:18:22 <brocktice> thanks
1016 2011-01-10 16:18:48 <brocktice> tcatm: you around?
1017 2011-01-10 16:18:55 <brocktice> tcatm: I got bitcoin-js-remote working
1018 2011-01-10 16:19:05 <tcatm> brocktice: cool
1019 2011-01-10 16:19:12 <brocktice> tcatm: want to send part of the bounty but it would be good if you had a QR code for donations on the page :)
1020 2011-01-10 16:19:19 <pidpawel> accually i dont want to exchange "real money" to bc. now im just trying and looking around ;)
1021 2011-01-10 16:19:53 <brocktice> tcatm: actually I just reviewed my pledge
1022 2011-01-10 16:19:55 <luke-jr> pidpawel: Bitcoins are more real than your USD :P
1023 2011-01-10 16:20:16 <tcatm> brocktice: QR scheme will change soon to support more than just a plain address. After that I'll add QR donation code :)
1024 2011-01-10 16:20:17 <brocktice> I pledged 800 for a nice iphone/web app that could be hosted on one's own server
1025 2011-01-10 16:20:25 <brocktice> I also pledged 200 for QR codes
1026 2011-01-10 16:20:30 <brocktice> you get 1000 BTC bounty :)
1027 2011-01-10 16:20:31 <brocktice> nice work
1028 2011-01-10 16:20:40 <pidpawel> luke-jr: yes. but just give me some time to get udes to it ;)
1029 2011-01-10 16:20:49 <luke-jr> tcatm: you're done already, or just the prototype?
1030 2011-01-10 16:20:50 <brocktice> Do you want it paid to that address on the page?
1031 2011-01-10 16:20:58 <luke-jr> brocktice: please tell me you made a condition being open source? :P
1032 2011-01-10 16:21:11 <tcatm> luke-jr: prototype encoding plain bitcoin addresses in QR for now
1033 2011-01-10 16:21:13 <brocktice> luke-jr: no, but his is open source
1034 2011-01-10 16:21:20 <brocktice> I think it's more important to have ANY android app first
1035 2011-01-10 16:21:22 <luke-jr> ah
1036 2011-01-10 16:21:27 <brocktice> we can worry about open source later
1037 2011-01-10 16:21:28 <tcatm> brocktice: yes, that donation address is fine
1038 2011-01-10 16:21:31 <brocktice> cool
1039 2011-01-10 16:21:42 <luke-jr> brocktice: easier to make it a condition :p
1040 2011-01-10 16:21:53 <pidpawel> when you have an android app done just tell me :)
1041 2011-01-10 16:21:58 <brocktice> done
1042 2011-01-10 16:22:05 <brocktice> thanks for writing it!
1043 2011-01-10 16:22:07 <luke-jr> tcatm: I can help you implement the URI support if you want to link the source repo :P
1044 2011-01-10 16:22:29 <tcatm> http://github.com/tcatm/bitcoin-js-remote
1045 2011-01-10 16:22:41 <luke-jr> tcatm: also, note that GPL and iPhone do not play together unless you have an exception
1046 2011-01-10 16:22:52 <luke-jr> (not sure what licenses you were considering)
1047 2011-01-10 16:23:07 <tcatm> it's pure javascript/html and it'll use the same license as bitcoin
1048 2011-01-10 16:23:39 <brocktice> just noted on the forum that my part of the bounty was paid to tcatm
1049 2011-01-10 16:24:18 <luke-jr> JS/HTML and does all that? XD
1050 2011-01-10 16:24:29 <brocktice> yep, pretty impressive actually
1051 2011-01-10 16:24:40 <brocktice> and it's running on my own machine, with SSL, also a requirement
1052 2011-01-10 16:24:51 <brocktice> I didn't mention SSL but it's kind of a 'duh' thing
1053 2011-01-10 16:25:17 <luke-jr> it is?
1054 2011-01-10 16:25:22 <luke-jr> I don't see what SSL has to do with it
1055 2011-01-10 16:25:35 <luke-jr> why would it need to do HTTP at all?
1056 2011-01-10 16:25:41 <tcatm> luke-jr: I wrote a small server in python to host the website and proxy RPC calls
1057 2011-01-10 16:25:44 <brocktice> I'm not going to connect my phone to my wallet without SSL
1058 2011-01-10 16:25:52 <brocktice> that'd be stupid
1059 2011-01-10 16:25:53 <luke-jr> oh, your wallet isn't on the phone?
1060 2011-01-10 16:26:01 <brocktice> nope, on my workstation
1061 2011-01-10 16:26:05 <tcatm> of course not
1062 2011-01-10 16:26:57 <tcatm> Average users don't backup their phones so it's not secure to store data there
1063 2011-01-10 16:27:39 <brocktice> plus, crossing the US border with my wallet on my phone might not be a great idea
1064 2011-01-10 16:28:06 <luke-jr> tcatm: http://blog.stevenlevithan.com/archives/parseuri
1065 2011-01-10 16:28:46 <brocktice> This is so cool
1066 2011-01-10 16:28:56 <tcatm> luke-jr: thanks
1067 2011-01-10 16:28:58 <brocktice> I could now plausibly walk into a coffee shop and buy coffee with my phone
1068 2011-01-10 16:30:12 <tcatm> that's how I felt when I scanned the first QR code on my phone and send an transaction
1069 2011-01-10 16:35:18 <brocktice> It's cool living in the future :)
1070 2011-01-10 16:35:56 <EvanR-work> brocktice: whats wrong with crossing the border
1071 2011-01-10 16:36:13 <brocktice> EvanR-work: CBP likes to take electronics and hold them indefinitely
1072 2011-01-10 16:36:39 <brocktice> If I had a current backup and emptied my wallet as soon as I got home, I could at least keep my BTC
1073 2011-01-10 16:36:47 <brocktice> but still, better to have the BTC somewhere else
1074 2011-01-10 16:37:50 james_ has joined
1075 2011-01-10 16:38:05 james__ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1076 2011-01-10 16:38:17 <EvanR-work> brocktice: yeah, many places else
1077 2011-01-10 16:38:56 <EvanR-work> would be nice if there was a backup solution which used much less than xx megabytes
1078 2011-01-10 16:39:12 <EvanR-work> so you could store it on small size media
1079 2011-01-10 16:52:12 james__ has joined
1080 2011-01-10 16:52:27 james_ has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1081 2011-01-10 16:58:44 akem has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1082 2011-01-10 16:59:38 akem has joined
1083 2011-01-10 17:00:03 Zarutian has joined
1084 2011-01-10 17:02:13 <pidpawel> can i idle for some time on client's communication channel or rather do do that?
1085 2011-01-10 17:02:22 EvanR has joined
1086 2011-01-10 17:02:23 EvanR has quit (Changing host)
1087 2011-01-10 17:02:23 EvanR has joined
1088 2011-01-10 17:03:31 <theymos> What channel?
1089 2011-01-10 17:05:11 davout has joined
1090 2011-01-10 17:06:29 EvanR has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1091 2011-01-10 17:06:31 <mizerydearia> pidpawel, LFNet #bitcoin
1092 2011-01-10 17:07:25 EvanR has joined
1093 2011-01-10 17:07:25 EvanR has quit (Changing host)
1094 2011-01-10 17:07:25 EvanR has joined
1095 2011-01-10 17:08:04 james_ has joined
1096 2011-01-10 17:08:20 james__ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1097 2011-01-10 17:12:45 <pidpawel> mizerydearia: i know. i read it from the source ;)
1098 2011-01-10 17:12:58 WonTu has joined
1099 2011-01-10 17:13:12 WonTu has left ()
1100 2011-01-10 17:14:08 <omglolbbq> well I2P proxy seems to be working but somebody is having an issue anyone willing to try?
1101 2011-01-10 17:17:57 EvanR has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1102 2011-01-10 17:18:47 soultcer has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net)
1103 2011-01-10 17:19:03 soultcer has joined
1104 2011-01-10 17:21:44 <luke-jr> tcatm: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Schema#ECMAScript
1105 2011-01-10 17:24:15 EvanR has joined
1106 2011-01-10 17:24:17 <tcatm> luke-jr: I'd prefer a class that parses the scheme and returns query as array
1107 2011-01-10 17:24:31 <luke-jr> tcatm: that URI one I sent you earlier should
1108 2011-01-10 17:24:54 <luke-jr> it might not for URNs, but you should be able to fix that easily
1109 2011-01-10 17:25:15 <tcatm> Ah I thought you wanted to contribute code I could just plug in?
1110 2011-01-10 17:25:24 james_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1111 2011-01-10 17:25:38 <Diablo-D3> http://images.4chan.org/m/src/1294679557152.jpg
1112 2011-01-10 17:25:40 <Diablo-D3> what the fuck?!
1113 2011-01-10 17:25:45 james_ has joined
1114 2011-01-10 17:25:48 <luke-jr> tcatm: some reaosn you couldn't just plug in the parseuri func and this one?
1115 2011-01-10 17:26:08 <luke-jr> remember, you haven't published your code yet, so I don't know what you're working with
1116 2011-01-10 17:26:24 <tcatm> 17:17 < luke-jr> tcatm: I can help you implement the URI support if you want to link the source repo :P
1117 2011-01-10 17:26:28 <tcatm> 17:17 < tcatm> http://github.com/tcatm/bitcoin-js-remote
1118 2011-01-10 17:26:34 <brocktice> heh
1119 2011-01-10 17:26:59 <tcatm> luke-jr: see URI.js, it already does a very similiar job
1120 2011-01-10 17:27:32 <luke-jr> tcatm: except parsing query string?
1121 2011-01-10 17:27:50 <tcatm> yep
1122 2011-01-10 17:27:56 <luke-jr> parseuri parses that :p
1123 2011-01-10 17:28:18 <tcatm> so make a class that adds that function to URI.js
1124 2011-01-10 17:28:44 <luke-jr> hmm
1125 2011-01-10 17:28:53 <tcatm> Or even change URI.js
1126 2011-01-10 17:29:01 <tcatm> It's probably useful for other URIs, too.
1127 2011-01-10 17:29:13 <luke-jr> you wrote URI.js?
1128 2011-01-10 17:29:18 <tcatm> no
1129 2011-01-10 17:29:20 <luke-jr> it's missing a copyright
1130 2011-01-10 17:29:43 <luke-jr> where did you get it?
1131 2011-01-10 17:29:45 <davout> hey all
1132 2011-01-10 17:30:08 <davout> FYI i just opened the git repo for bitcoin central
1133 2011-01-10 17:30:26 <tcatm> luke-jr: http://code.google.com/p/js-uri/
1134 2011-01-10 17:30:28 x6763 has quit (Changing host)
1135 2011-01-10 17:30:28 x6763 has joined
1136 2011-01-10 17:32:26 klnikita has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1137 2011-01-10 17:35:28 <luke-jr> whoever wrote this doesn't know ECMAScript well⦠XD
1138 2011-01-10 17:35:37 james has joined
1139 2011-01-10 17:35:38 ebel has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1140 2011-01-10 17:36:03 james is now known as Guest72698
1141 2011-01-10 17:36:27 <tcatm> luke-jr: what did he do wrong?
1142 2011-01-10 17:36:33 <luke-jr> / Introduce a new scope to define some private helper functions.
1143 2011-01-10 17:36:35 <luke-jr> function merge(base, rel_path) {
1144 2011-01-10 17:36:44 <luke-jr> functions defined like that *ignore* scoping
1145 2011-01-10 17:38:49 <tcatm> can you fix it?
1146 2011-01-10 17:38:55 <luke-jr> I could
1147 2011-01-10 17:39:13 <tcatm> https://github.com/tcatm/bitcoin-js-remote/blob/master/lib/URI.js added copyright/license
1148 2011-01-10 17:39:43 klnikita has joined
1149 2011-01-10 17:39:43 klnikita has quit (Changing host)
1150 2011-01-10 17:39:43 klnikita has joined
1151 2011-01-10 17:39:47 james_ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1152 2011-01-10 17:43:37 <pidpawel> birthday bitcoins :> i had my birthday last friday :P
1153 2011-01-10 17:46:09 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1154 2011-01-10 17:47:43 <tcatm> davout: ping?
1155 2011-01-10 17:49:37 davout has quit (Quit: i <3 pork (http://dev.ojnk.net))
1156 2011-01-10 17:54:32 james_ has joined
1157 2011-01-10 17:55:10 Guest72698 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1158 2011-01-10 17:59:13 <luke-jr> tcatm: your QR-code on the site is wrong
1159 2011-01-10 17:59:35 <tcatm> what's wrong with it?
1160 2011-01-10 17:59:41 <luke-jr> it's set as text, not URI
1161 2011-01-10 18:00:27 <tcatm> how do i make it URI?
1162 2011-01-10 18:00:41 <luke-jr> nfc
1163 2011-01-10 18:00:49 <luke-jr> the webapp I used to genereate one had an option
1164 2011-01-10 18:01:32 <tcatm> google's chart api doesn't
1165 2011-01-10 18:02:43 <luke-jr> http://qrcode.kaywa.com/
1166 2011-01-10 18:05:36 <tcatm> there's no difference?!
1167 2011-01-10 18:08:58 <newsham> tcatm: where do you get data for bitcoincharts?
1168 2011-01-10 18:09:14 <tcatm> newsham: directly from the exchanges
1169 2011-01-10 18:09:28 <newsham> personal agreement or do they have an open way to grab history?
1170 2011-01-10 18:09:46 <tcatm> public APIs
1171 2011-01-10 18:10:33 <tcatm> I can give you access to that data if you like
1172 2011-01-10 18:10:54 james__ has joined
1173 2011-01-10 18:11:10 <newsham> do they let you grab full history or do you have to periodically pull to archive it?
1174 2011-01-10 18:11:47 <tcatm> mtgox needs preriodic pulls, all others provide complete history
1175 2011-01-10 18:11:49 james_ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1176 2011-01-10 18:11:50 <luke-jr> tcatm: wget http://luke.dashjr.org/tmp/code/0001-add-query_form-function-from-Perl-URI.patch && git am 0001-add-query_form-function-from-Perl-URI.patch
1177 2011-01-10 18:12:13 <newsham> interesting. dont want the data now, but i might come knocking later.. thanks for the offer.
1178 2011-01-10 18:12:53 <tcatm> I think it would even be possible to add a read-only mysql user with access to the trades table
1179 2011-01-10 18:13:49 slush has joined
1180 2011-01-10 18:14:04 <tcatm> luke-jr: thanks
1181 2011-01-10 18:17:58 <luke-jr> combine that with https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Schema#ECMAScript and you should be able to parse it all
1182 2011-01-10 18:18:28 <luke-jr> if you're talking to the old/current bitcoin daemon, you need to do parseAmount(qd['amount']) / 100000000.
1183 2011-01-10 18:21:17 <tcatm> btw, what's the best way to extend an existing Class in ECMAScript? for e.g. adding parseAmount to URI.js
1184 2011-01-10 18:22:51 <luke-jr> not sure it belongs on URI
1185 2011-01-10 18:23:11 <luke-jr> anyhow, ECMAScript doesn't use classes
1186 2011-01-10 18:23:14 <luke-jr> just prototypes
1187 2011-01-10 18:23:18 <luke-jr> so just add it
1188 2011-01-10 18:23:48 james_ has joined
1189 2011-01-10 18:23:48 <tcatm> Not URI but I want to make a new class based on URI that parses a bitcoinscheme
1190 2011-01-10 18:23:56 james__ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1191 2011-01-10 18:24:30 <luke-jr> again, no classes in ECMAScript
1192 2011-01-10 18:25:10 <luke-jr> I think to create a new prototype that inherits, you just set BitcoinURI.prototype.prototype = URI.prototype
1193 2011-01-10 18:25:11 <luke-jr> not sure tho
1194 2011-01-10 18:28:28 akem has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1195 2011-01-10 18:30:49 kermit has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1196 2011-01-10 18:40:08 <pidpawel> how many khashes/s do i need to generate block during the... week?
1197 2011-01-10 18:41:17 <theymos> ;;bc,calc 110000
1198 2011-01-10 18:41:18 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 110000 Khps, given current difficulty of 16307.48285682 , is 1 week, 0 days, 8 hours, 52 minutes, and 8 seconds
1199 2011-01-10 18:41:23 <ArtForzZz> 115806
1200 2011-01-10 18:41:35 ArtForzZz is now known as ArtForz
1201 2011-01-10 18:41:58 <luke-jr> how do I tell how many khash/s I have?
1202 2011-01-10 18:42:03 <pidpawel> hmm. so i have to find gpu client or something? :>
1203 2011-01-10 18:42:14 <luke-jr> pidpawel: if you want to give up your freedom
1204 2011-01-10 18:42:15 <nanotube> pidpawel: yes, probably. :)
1205 2011-01-10 18:42:42 <nanotube> luke-jr: bitcoind getinfo, or look in lower left of the gui (to get your hash rate)
1206 2011-01-10 18:42:44 <EvanR-work> give up your freedom to use your hardware at all
1207 2011-01-10 18:42:45 <nameless> !~root@weowntheinter.net|You know, I really should get bitcoin working on my server again
1208 2011-01-10 18:42:50 <luke-jr> nanotube: my client doesn't do hashing
1209 2011-01-10 18:42:55 <pidpawel> without valid ebuild for gentoo it will be hard.
1210 2011-01-10 18:42:57 <nameless> !~root@weowntheinter.net|It's a fairly decent vps
1211 2011-01-10 18:42:58 <luke-jr> I'm using the cpuminer
1212 2011-01-10 18:43:04 <nanotube> luke-jr: then obviously, you have 0 khps.
1213 2011-01-10 18:43:16 <ArtForz> ask the cpuminer then
1214 2011-01-10 18:43:17 <EvanR-work> cpuminer reports speed by default
1215 2011-01-10 18:43:18 <nanotube> luke-jr: ah cpuminer... that one spits out the info to terminal
1216 2011-01-10 18:43:24 <ArtForz> client doesnt report getwork khps
1217 2011-01-10 18:43:39 <ArtForz> thats the job of each getwork miner
1218 2011-01-10 18:43:56 <luke-jr> ;;bc,calc 588
1219 2011-01-10 18:44:03 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 588 Khps, given current difficulty of 16307.48285682 , is 3 years, 40 weeks, 3 days, 15 hours, 43 minutes, and 45 seconds
1220 2011-01-10 18:44:08 <luke-jr> >_<
1221 2011-01-10 18:44:21 <luke-jr> I think the pool works out better
1222 2011-01-10 18:44:25 <luke-jr> about 14 BTC/mo
1223 2011-01-10 18:44:27 james_ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1224 2011-01-10 18:44:44 <ArtForz> thats sounds a bit high
1225 2011-01-10 18:44:44 <luke-jr> 3.5 months vs 4 years
1226 2011-01-10 18:45:06 <luke-jr> ArtForz: 14 BTC too high, or 4 years?
1227 2011-01-10 18:45:13 <ArtForz> 14 btc
1228 2011-01-10 18:45:28 <luke-jr> oh well, it's not exact
1229 2011-01-10 18:45:31 <nanotube> it took me about 3 weeks to get 1 btc a 750khps lu
1230 2011-01-10 18:45:32 <nanotube> ke
1231 2011-01-10 18:45:39 <nanotube> so... not exact as in, off by a power of 10 :)
1232 2011-01-10 18:45:44 <luke-jr> ..
1233 2011-01-10 18:45:45 james has joined
1234 2011-01-10 18:45:46 <luke-jr> no
1235 2011-01-10 18:45:55 <ArtForz> about 50 btc / 45 months = 1.something btc/month
1236 2011-01-10 18:46:11 james is now known as Guest69788
1237 2011-01-10 18:46:36 <nanotube> luke-jr: well if you can get 14btc per month with 588 khps, more power to you... but either you're inhumanly lucky, or there's a bug in slush's pool. :)
1238 2011-01-10 18:46:44 <ArtForz> yep
1239 2011-01-10 18:47:00 <ArtForz> 1.4/mo should be in the ballpark
1240 2011-01-10 18:47:10 <luke-jr> 0.43 BTC over the last 24 hrs
1241 2011-01-10 18:47:25 <nanotube> i guess you lucked out and got a share in one of the fast blocks
1242 2011-01-10 18:47:29 <nanotube> don't expect that to be the norm
1243 2011-01-10 18:47:31 <ArtForz> yea
1244 2011-01-10 18:47:37 <luke-jr> it has been the norm :p
1245 2011-01-10 18:47:44 <luke-jr> maybe my miner had a low hash count or smth
1246 2011-01-10 18:47:46 <nanotube> well... great for you then :)
1247 2011-01-10 18:47:50 <ArtForz> "hey, I'm getting 100% of blocks" (sample size 1 block)
1248 2011-01-10 18:48:17 <nanotube> luke-jr: anyway, no point in speculating... come back in 2 weeks and tell us what you have gotten since. :)
1249 2011-01-10 18:48:24 <luke-jr> nanotube: ok :p
1250 2011-01-10 18:48:26 <ArtForz> yep
1251 2011-01-10 18:49:04 <luke-jr> 2.5 since I began mining I think
1252 2011-01-10 18:49:19 <luke-jr> so definitely over 1.4/mo
1253 2011-01-10 18:49:31 <luke-jr> (I found bitcoin on Jan 1)
1254 2011-01-10 18:49:44 rlifchitz has quit (Quit: "I never worry about action, but only about inaction" (W. Churchill))
1255 2011-01-10 18:50:34 <ArtForz> yup, either your miner is underreporting or you were simply lucky
1256 2011-01-10 18:52:31 <tcatm> luke-jr: why don't you use 20.3e8 in your scheme (instead of 20.3X8)?
1257 2011-01-10 18:52:53 <luke-jr> tcatm: it was e, until I realized that broke hexadecimal numbers :P
1258 2011-01-10 18:53:24 altamic has joined
1259 2011-01-10 18:53:36 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1260 2011-01-10 18:54:10 EvanR has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1261 2011-01-10 18:54:12 <tcatm> luke-jr: why do we need to specify BTC amounts in hex anyway?
1262 2011-01-10 18:54:40 <luke-jr> tcatm: to have a close approximation to Tonal for TBC
1263 2011-01-10 18:54:45 <luke-jr> because decimal Sucks
1264 2011-01-10 18:55:10 <luke-jr> x10x4 = 10 TBC
1265 2011-01-10 18:55:22 <tcatm> what's a TBC?
1266 2011-01-10 18:55:24 <luke-jr> (or x1x5)
1267 2011-01-10 18:55:27 <luke-jr> Tonal BitCoin
1268 2011-01-10 18:56:11 <ArtForz> duh, a tuberculosis coin
1269 2011-01-10 18:56:12 <luke-jr> x10x4 = 10 TBC = x1x5 = 1 áµTBC
1270 2011-01-10 18:56:16 TheAncientGoat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1271 2011-01-10 18:56:18 <edcba> and what is tonal ?
1272 2011-01-10 18:56:27 <tcatm> luke-jr: how many BTCs is that?
1273 2011-01-10 18:56:29 <luke-jr> edcba: decimal's worst nightmare
1274 2011-01-10 18:56:38 <edcba> that is ?
1275 2011-01-10 18:56:48 <luke-jr> tcatm: 0.01048576
1276 2011-01-10 18:57:09 <luke-jr> edcba: http://www.lulu.com/product/file-download/tonal-system/10991091
1277 2011-01-10 18:57:26 <tcatm> any chance the bitcoin client could use TBC and BTC at the same time?
1278 2011-01-10 18:57:33 <luke-jr> Tonal is to Decimal, what BitCoin is to fiat currency
1279 2011-01-10 18:57:40 <luke-jr> tcatm: yes
1280 2011-01-10 18:58:28 <tcatm> so we can convert any TBC value to BTC and back?
1281 2011-01-10 18:58:34 <luke-jr> right
1282 2011-01-10 18:58:35 <edcba> ok some guy invented a new meaning for tonal ?
1283 2011-01-10 18:58:43 <edcba> because it sounded mystic enough ?
1284 2011-01-10 18:58:53 <tcatm> then there's no need for one of them
1285 2011-01-10 18:59:05 <luke-jr> tcatm: ok, get rid of Decimal BitCoin
1286 2011-01-10 18:59:19 <x6763> yeah, that will increase adoption
1287 2011-01-10 18:59:31 <ArtForz> yes, just in case you feel the need for expressing time and temperature as hexadecimal multiples of some crazy unit
1288 2011-01-10 18:59:39 <luke-jr> I'm more interested in Tonal adoption, than BitCoin adoption.
1289 2011-01-10 19:00:23 EvanR has joined
1290 2011-01-10 19:00:23 EvanR has quit (Changing host)
1291 2011-01-10 19:00:23 EvanR has joined
1292 2011-01-10 19:00:35 <ArtForz> how bout a pony while you're at it?
1293 2011-01-10 19:00:36 <x6763> perhaps bitcoin is not the best place to start with increasing tonal adoption?
1294 2011-01-10 19:00:43 <luke-jr> TBC allows the BitCoin tech to remain number system-neutral
1295 2011-01-10 19:00:50 <ArtForz> it already is
1296 2011-01-10 19:01:03 <luke-jr> x6763: if not bitcoin, then Tonal requires an alternative currency competing *against* bitcoin âº
1297 2011-01-10 19:01:27 <x6763> the tonal number system is just for currency?
1298 2011-01-10 19:01:31 <luke-jr> nope
1299 2011-01-10 19:01:33 <ArtForz> feel free to change the interface to represent the 64 bit # of base currency units in hex, base64 or smells
1300 2011-01-10 19:01:49 <tcatm> luke-jr: If you write code that can transparently translate js-remote to TBC, we could add that.
1301 2011-01-10 19:01:50 <luke-jr> ArtForz: that's more or less what TBC is
1302 2011-01-10 19:02:10 <tcatm> (hint: there's already a .formatBTC() prototype)
1303 2011-01-10 19:02:15 <luke-jr> tcatm: maybe later; for now, displaying everything as BTC might be easier
1304 2011-01-10 19:02:15 <ArtForz> doesnt change the fact that we're still simply counting base units internally
1305 2011-01-10 19:02:31 <luke-jr> ArtForz: sure.
1306 2011-01-10 19:03:39 <edcba> ok so tonal system is just using hexadecimal everywhere ?
1307 2011-01-10 19:03:45 <edcba> seems stupid
1308 2011-01-10 19:03:48 <luke-jr> edcba: not hexadecimal, but similar
1309 2011-01-10 19:04:00 <edcba> and why he doesn't redefine units ?
1310 2011-01-10 19:04:05 <luke-jr> tonal has the same base as hexadecimal
1311 2011-01-10 19:04:05 <edcba> ie kilogram
1312 2011-01-10 19:04:07 <luke-jr> he does
1313 2011-01-10 19:04:12 <tcatm> luke-jr: is there anything online to read about it (free)?
1314 2011-01-10 19:04:13 <luke-jr> except kilogram BS didn't exist back then
1315 2011-01-10 19:04:21 <luke-jr> tonal competes against not only decimal, but SI
1316 2011-01-10 19:04:30 <luke-jr> tcatm: http://www.lulu.com/product/file-download/tonal-system/10991091
1317 2011-01-10 19:04:35 <edcba> i quite agree with SI
1318 2011-01-10 19:04:47 <edcba> but i don't see why we should change base
1319 2011-01-10 19:04:55 <luke-jr> because decimal sucks
1320 2011-01-10 19:04:58 <ArtForz> it's basically ancient SI units, in hex!
1321 2011-01-10 19:05:01 <luke-jr> it is unnatural to use
1322 2011-01-10 19:05:03 <x6763> luke-jr: according to you
1323 2011-01-10 19:05:04 <edcba> or why specifically 16 more than 2
1324 2011-01-10 19:05:16 <luke-jr> x6763: it's not hard to prove it applies to all humans inductively
1325 2011-01-10 19:05:17 <x6763> this is a matter of personal preference...any base is purely arbitrary
1326 2011-01-10 19:05:25 <luke-jr> edcba: binary is a pain to write? :P
1327 2011-01-10 19:05:31 <edcba> no base 2 is not arbitrary
1328 2011-01-10 19:05:43 <x6763> choosing to use base 2 is arbitrary
1329 2011-01-10 19:05:51 <lfm> i still like base 60
1330 2011-01-10 19:05:56 <ArtForz> I prefer base12
1331 2011-01-10 19:06:15 <x6763> for building computers base 2 is the simplest/easiest way to go, but it's still arbitrary
1332 2011-01-10 19:06:26 <ArtForz> base 2 is the smallest possible integer base
1333 2011-01-10 19:06:41 <luke-jr> ArtForz: the last section of the book has arguements compared to base 12 too
1334 2011-01-10 19:06:45 <x6763> and there's an infinite number of number bases larger than 2
1335 2011-01-10 19:06:49 <nanotube> ArtForz: no, base1 is smallest possible integer base. :P
1336 2011-01-10 19:06:50 <edcba> if i go for minimalism i choose as unit the smallest thing i can measure and use the smallest base etc etc
1337 2011-01-10 19:06:52 <luke-jr> x6763: not just for computers, but also for humans
1338 2011-01-10 19:07:07 <ArtForz> yeah, but base1 has a hard time expressing numbers other than 0 ;)
1339 2011-01-10 19:07:23 <lfm> makes for long numbers
1340 2011-01-10 19:07:45 <x6763> after spending my entire life using base10, base2 does not come that natural to me, so i prefer using base10
1341 2011-01-10 19:07:59 <lfm> actually you can use base 1.0001 and otther fractional bases
1342 2011-01-10 19:08:02 <nanotube> ArtForz: that's besides the point. :)
1343 2011-01-10 19:08:12 <edcba> if we knew some max for our universe we could use it as base :)
1344 2011-01-10 19:08:23 <ArtForz> well, using base1 makes for a very compact arithmetic system
1345 2011-01-10 19:08:28 <nanotube> lfm: base pi!
1346 2011-01-10 19:08:46 <lfm> yes base e has been proposed on more that one occation
1347 2011-01-10 19:08:48 altamic_ has joined
1348 2011-01-10 19:08:52 <ArtForz> yep
1349 2011-01-10 19:09:10 <tcatm> luke-jr: what about adding &exp=8&unit=BTC?
1350 2011-01-10 19:09:25 <ArtForz> that might a bit irrational
1351 2011-01-10 19:09:43 <luke-jr> tcatm: amount=<num><unit> was the old way, but was more difficult ot do
1352 2011-01-10 19:10:19 EvanR has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1353 2011-01-10 19:10:27 <edcba> more difficult ?
1354 2011-01-10 19:10:46 <x6763> a number system is just a tool...there are tradeoffs when choosing between different number bases as some calculations become simpler and others become less simple
1355 2011-01-10 19:11:08 altamic has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1356 2011-01-10 19:11:08 altamic_ is now known as altamic
1357 2011-01-10 19:11:20 <luke-jr> edcba: it means hard-coding all units in implementations, as well as supporting actual Tonal numbers to be fair
1358 2011-01-10 19:11:40 <tcatm> ArtForz: what would you suggest?
1359 2011-01-10 19:11:40 <lfm> i think someone once calculated base e would be the most efficient base (by some criteria i dont remember)
1360 2011-01-10 19:12:33 <ArtForz> thats was a e pun
1361 2011-01-10 19:13:29 EvanR has joined
1362 2011-01-10 19:13:30 EvanR has quit (Changing host)
1363 2011-01-10 19:13:30 EvanR has joined
1364 2011-01-10 19:13:31 <ArtForz> as in, irrational number as base
1365 2011-01-10 19:20:56 Guest69788 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1366 2011-01-10 19:21:33 pr0wler has joined
1367 2011-01-10 19:22:15 james_ has joined
1368 2011-01-10 19:23:04 darrob has quit (Disconnected by services)
1369 2011-01-10 19:23:13 darrob has joined
1370 2011-01-10 19:24:14 kermit has joined
1371 2011-01-10 19:28:20 riush has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1372 2011-01-10 19:31:43 EvanR has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1373 2011-01-10 19:32:25 riush has joined
1374 2011-01-10 19:37:24 akem has joined
1375 2011-01-10 19:37:24 akem has quit (Changing host)
1376 2011-01-10 19:37:24 akem has joined
1377 2011-01-10 19:37:43 EvanR has joined
1378 2011-01-10 19:37:44 EvanR has quit (Changing host)
1379 2011-01-10 19:37:44 EvanR has joined
1380 2011-01-10 19:38:11 james has joined
1381 2011-01-10 19:38:20 james_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1382 2011-01-10 19:38:36 james is now known as Guest18239
1383 2011-01-10 19:39:46 dwdollar has left ()
1384 2011-01-10 19:40:21 RazielZ has quit ()
1385 2011-01-10 19:42:25 EvanR has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1386 2011-01-10 19:43:05 EvanR has joined
1387 2011-01-10 19:43:05 EvanR has quit (Changing host)
1388 2011-01-10 19:43:06 EvanR has joined
1389 2011-01-10 19:47:56 pr0wler has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1390 2011-01-10 19:48:24 lolcat has joined
1391 2011-01-10 19:51:55 Guest18239 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1392 2011-01-10 19:53:10 james_ has joined
1393 2011-01-10 19:57:22 altamic has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1394 2011-01-10 19:57:44 altamic has joined
1395 2011-01-10 20:04:33 <luke-jr> http://luke.dashjr.org/tmp/code/0001-Number.formatTBC.patch
1396 2011-01-10 20:04:38 <luke-jr> http://luke.dashjr.org/tmp/code/0002-formatBitcoin-guesses-BTC-or-TBC.patch
1397 2011-01-10 20:04:43 <luke-jr> tcatm: ^
1398 2011-01-10 20:04:51 <luke-jr> wget && git am && use :p
1399 2011-01-10 20:05:15 <luke-jr> anynumber.formatBitcoin() guesses TBC or BTC (or uBTCent for very small numbers)
1400 2011-01-10 20:05:47 lucky has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1401 2011-01-10 20:06:07 <luke-jr> tcatm: suggest offering users an option, to force either TBC or BTC
1402 2011-01-10 20:07:25 <tcatm> how should i use formatBitcoin()?
1403 2011-01-10 20:09:49 <luke-jr> yournumber.formatBitcoin()
1404 2011-01-10 20:10:12 <tcatm> yournumber will always be in BTC
1405 2011-01-10 20:10:20 <luke-jr> it shouldn't be
1406 2011-01-10 20:10:33 <luke-jr> parseAmount returns Bitcoin base units
1407 2011-01-10 20:10:53 <luke-jr> (400000000).formatBitcoin() => 4.00 BTC
1408 2011-01-10 20:10:55 <tcatm> every RPC call returns BTC
1409 2011-01-10 20:11:19 <luke-jr> (4194304).formatBitcoin() => 40 TBC
1410 2011-01-10 20:11:42 <EvanR-work> luke-jr: why dont you go to a hexeditor channel and try and get them to print bytes out in decimal instead
1411 2011-01-10 20:12:04 james__ has joined
1412 2011-01-10 20:12:04 lucky has joined
1413 2011-01-10 20:12:09 <luke-jr> tcatm: that can be fixed with the new version
1414 2011-01-10 20:12:20 <slush> da2ce7: I tested furmark yersterday on my 5970. It freeze computer almost immediately :-)
1415 2011-01-10 20:12:20 james_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1416 2011-01-10 20:12:28 <luke-jr> all high-level abstraction should be moved to the actual clients
1417 2011-01-10 20:13:14 <slush> da2ce7: But mining is absolutely stable, I also moved my miner to another place and voltage regulators are under 90oC, so I think it is pretty good...
1418 2011-01-10 20:13:22 <tcatm> luke-jr: no such change is planned
1419 2011-01-10 20:13:33 <luke-jr> tcatm: it is
1420 2011-01-10 20:13:52 <luke-jr> tcatm: while there will be backward compatibility with the old RPC, the new APIs should all use base units
1421 2011-01-10 20:14:44 <tcatm> We are talking about the official bitcoin client.
1422 2011-01-10 20:15:12 <EvanR-work> if two or more sets of people used different base systems to write numbers, there would be much confusion and inefficiency in commerce
1423 2011-01-10 20:15:15 <luke-jr> tcatm: it's a mess, planned to get rid of :P
1424 2011-01-10 20:16:13 <EvanR-work> if the idea is to reach a 'final solution' and everyone uses tonal for everything, well we have to live through however many centuries of communist five year plans turmoil
1425 2011-01-10 20:16:55 <EvanR-work> cost benefit analysis plz
1426 2011-01-10 20:17:05 <luke-jr> EvanR-work: more like the transition to SI
1427 2011-01-10 20:17:15 <luke-jr> which was a waste of time
1428 2011-01-10 20:17:18 <luke-jr> no benefit at all
1429 2011-01-10 20:17:51 <EvanR-work> science everyone agrees on a standard notation, and it reduces cost of interprocess communication
1430 2011-01-10 20:17:55 <EvanR-work> everywhere*
1431 2011-01-10 20:18:09 <ArtForz> and that is SI
1432 2011-01-10 20:18:13 <luke-jr> and SI sucks
1433 2011-01-10 20:18:19 <luke-jr> SI should have been killed earlier on
1434 2011-01-10 20:18:23 <ArtForz> well, it's better than the alternatives
1435 2011-01-10 20:18:36 <luke-jr> not
1436 2011-01-10 20:18:40 <luke-jr> Tonal is better
1437 2011-01-10 20:18:40 <ArtForz> which are a) nothing and b) even less
1438 2011-01-10 20:18:55 <EvanR-work> as an engineer, SI works pretty damn nicely
1439 2011-01-10 20:19:20 <EvanR-work> only convert to base 2 fractions of an inch when necessary ;)
1440 2011-01-10 20:19:54 slush has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1441 2011-01-10 20:19:56 <luke-jr> lol
1442 2011-01-10 20:19:59 <luke-jr> that's "nicely"?
1443 2011-01-10 20:20:10 <ArtForz> yes
1444 2011-01-10 20:20:42 <ArtForz> working in weird fractions of " is a pain
1445 2011-01-10 20:20:52 <luke-jr> that's nothing compared to never having to convert (except when dealing with idiots who use decimal âº
1446 2011-01-10 20:21:06 <EvanR-work> i never have to convert to or from tonal
1447 2011-01-10 20:21:08 <EvanR-work> its great
1448 2011-01-10 20:21:20 <kiba> geeks war over mesurement system
1449 2011-01-10 20:21:28 <EvanR-work> the war is won
1450 2011-01-10 20:21:31 <EvanR-work> paradise
1451 2011-01-10 20:21:37 <ArtForz> except for... about every fucking standard document out there
1452 2011-01-10 20:23:54 <nathan7> =p
1453 2011-01-10 20:24:36 <nathan7> SI ftw
1454 2011-01-10 20:25:22 <ArtForz> standards for electronic components are fucked up
1455 2011-01-10 20:25:49 <nathan7> Yep.
1456 2011-01-10 20:27:13 <luke-jr> SI ftl
1457 2011-01-10 20:27:38 <ArtForz> so... whats your superior system of base units?
1458 2011-01-10 20:27:44 <luke-jr> SI was decided by fools who don't care about the future, only the present
1459 2011-01-10 20:27:48 <luke-jr> ArtForz: Tonal
1460 2011-01-10 20:27:52 <ArtForz> and no, "SI expressed in base16" is not a new system
1461 2011-01-10 20:27:56 <EvanR-work> ArtForz: hes been advertising them for the last two weeks
1462 2011-01-10 20:28:01 <ArtForz> yeah
1463 2011-01-10 20:28:35 <luke-jr> 1 millmeter = 1 Timmill
1464 2011-01-10 20:28:45 <EvanR-work> unit of time is rate of a pendulum of a given length, at a given height on earth, or something
1465 2011-01-10 20:29:05 <luke-jr> 10 Tim = 1 circle (eg, of the Earth) = 1 day
1466 2011-01-10 20:29:06 <ArtForz> and iirc the original tonal base unit for temp is defined by such exact references as "freezing point of water" ... what water? at what pressure?
1467 2011-01-10 20:29:23 <EvanR-work> triple point, i asked that earlier
1468 2011-01-10 20:29:40 <ArtForz> triple point of what?
1469 2011-01-10 20:29:45 <EvanR-work> which is more like 'a freezing point'
1470 2011-01-10 20:29:46 <EvanR-work> water
1471 2011-01-10 20:30:04 <ArtForz> pure h2o? tap water? any O2 in there?
1472 2011-01-10 20:30:08 <luke-jr> ArtForz: you could ask the same details of SI
1473 2011-01-10 20:30:10 EvanR has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1474 2011-01-10 20:30:24 <ArtForz> no, actually SI DEFINES crap like that
1475 2011-01-10 20:30:38 EvanR has joined
1476 2011-01-10 20:30:39 EvanR has quit (Changing host)
1477 2011-01-10 20:30:39 EvanR has joined
1478 2011-01-10 20:31:00 <luke-jr> ArtForz: it didn't
1479 2011-01-10 20:31:07 <EvanR-work> interesting, network trouble causes the cloak to fail
1480 2011-01-10 20:31:18 <nathan7> :O
1481 2011-01-10 20:31:20 <luke-jr> EvanR-work: it isn't failing
1482 2011-01-10 20:31:27 <nathan7> No, you quit
1483 2011-01-10 20:31:29 <luke-jr> you just joined before you logged in
1484 2011-01-10 20:31:36 <EvanR-work> ah, the client
1485 2011-01-10 20:31:38 <ArtForz> well, it hasnt been ratified yet
1486 2011-01-10 20:31:47 <luke-jr> ArtForz: neither has bitcoin!
1487 2011-01-10 20:31:58 <luke-jr> both Tonal and bitcoin are in the same boat
1488 2011-01-10 20:32:15 <EvanR-work> is there a tonal channel?
1489 2011-01-10 20:32:26 <tcatm> no
1490 2011-01-10 20:32:41 <EvanR-work> make one ;)
1491 2011-01-10 20:33:27 <tcatm> I just did
1492 2011-01-10 20:33:52 <luke-jr> ##Tonal
1493 2011-01-10 20:34:13 <EvanR-work> great, a place to discuss tonal
1494 2011-01-10 20:34:22 rlifchitz has joined
1495 2011-01-10 20:34:22 rlifchitz has quit (Changing host)
1496 2011-01-10 20:34:22 rlifchitz has joined
1497 2011-01-10 20:34:40 <EvanR-work> i hope your community exists soon
1498 2011-01-10 20:34:44 <EvanR-work> lol
1499 2011-01-10 20:35:20 popey has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1500 2011-01-10 20:39:38 <luke-jr> ignorance -> resistance -> victory ? :p
1501 2011-01-10 20:39:52 <luke-jr> seems we're between the first 2
1502 2011-01-10 20:40:21 popey has joined
1503 2011-01-10 20:41:11 <x6763> failure is always an option
1504 2011-01-10 20:41:27 <luke-jr> x6763: then we end up with crap like SI? :p
1505 2011-01-10 20:41:52 <x6763> SI doesn't negatively affect me or anyone else i know in daily life
1506 2011-01-10 20:42:26 <x6763> however, the transition to tonal would have negative affects, and i'm not sure i'd gain anything worthwhile
1507 2011-01-10 20:45:39 <luke-jr> yawn
1508 2011-01-10 20:45:51 <kiba> measurement flame war!
1509 2011-01-10 20:46:09 <ArtForz> not really measurement, just notation
1510 2011-01-10 20:46:29 <kiba> the war is a silly one
1511 2011-01-10 20:46:31 <luke-jr> measurement too
1512 2011-01-10 20:46:38 <ArtForz> no, SI in base 16 is still fucking SI
1513 2011-01-10 20:46:41 <x6763> the argument is little more than a religious one
1514 2011-01-10 20:46:45 <luke-jr> it's not related to SI
1515 2011-01-10 20:46:52 <luke-jr> SI didn't exist when Tonal was invented
1516 2011-01-10 20:47:04 <tcatm> btw, anyone good at python around? SSLserver.py is complete crap (using threads + forks) and should be rewritten
1517 2011-01-10 20:47:10 davout has joined
1518 2011-01-10 20:47:33 <luke-jr> the closest thing to SI back then was the French-specific metric system
1519 2011-01-10 20:47:43 <luke-jr> which, as clearly demonstrated in the book, is far inferior
1520 2011-01-10 20:47:53 <ArtForz> *yawn*
1521 2011-01-10 20:48:15 <luke-jr> anyhow, I just sent a 10 TBC prize for a contest âº
1522 2011-01-10 20:52:21 <luke-jr> hmm, this is a bug I think
1523 2011-01-10 20:52:31 <luke-jr> my client just added a second input that became change XD
1524 2011-01-10 20:52:31 gavinandresen has joined
1525 2011-01-10 20:53:17 <luke-jr> oh well, no big deal
1526 2011-01-10 20:53:35 slush has joined
1527 2011-01-10 20:55:14 <gavinandresen> tcatm: you around?
1528 2011-01-10 20:55:54 <tcatm> gavinandresen: pong
1529 2011-01-10 20:56:15 <gavinandresen> tcatm: so that wallet with the accounts mismatch is... ummm, interesting.
1530 2011-01-10 20:57:20 <gavinandresen> I'm STILL debugging, but I think copying the wallet to two machines made things wonky-- one of the machines decided to use the same address for change that another machine was using for an account address.
1531 2011-01-10 20:57:30 * davout wonders if he should make his little "i told you" dance
1532 2011-01-10 20:57:44 <tcatm> an address from the pool?
1533 2011-01-10 20:57:57 <luke-jr> slush: stop scamming me! :p
1534 2011-01-10 20:58:10 <luke-jr> please
1535 2011-01-10 20:58:12 <sipa> anyone know why sometimes addresses with no name in them appear in my address book?
1536 2011-01-10 20:58:14 <gavinandresen> Yes, it was in the pool on machine B, but I think it got used for a transaction on machine A
1537 2011-01-10 20:58:39 <tcatm> Seems logical
1538 2011-01-10 20:59:16 <davout> slush: ping
1539 2011-01-10 20:59:26 james_ has joined
1540 2011-01-10 20:59:43 james__ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1541 2011-01-10 21:00:13 <slush> oh, I'm here
1542 2011-01-10 21:00:17 <davout> man
1543 2011-01-10 21:00:24 <davout> i totally scammed you last night
1544 2011-01-10 21:00:43 <davout> something really weird happened
1545 2011-01-10 21:00:44 <slush> what happen?
1546 2011-01-10 21:00:52 <davout> i connected to your pool
1547 2011-01-10 21:00:59 <davout> found my shares going up very slowly
1548 2011-01-10 21:01:16 <davout> so i was wondering whether i should try to debug that with your help
1549 2011-01-10 21:01:18 <davout> and then
1550 2011-01-10 21:01:24 <slush> m0mchil miner?
1551 2011-01-10 21:01:28 <davout> this morning, woke up, checked my debug.log
1552 2011-01-10 21:01:28 OneFixt has quit ()
1553 2011-01-10 21:01:38 <davout> and *boom* i had a block generated
1554 2011-01-10 21:01:44 <davout> like locally
1555 2011-01-10 21:01:49 <davout> yea momchils miner
1556 2011-01-10 21:02:32 <slush> you say that with mining with pool you found block *locally*?
1557 2011-01-10 21:02:40 <slush> _are_you_sure_? :)
1558 2011-01-10 21:02:52 <davout> yea
1559 2011-01-10 21:02:59 <sipa> what output did it give?
1560 2011-01-10 21:03:02 <davout> you should check with your logs
1561 2011-01-10 21:03:05 <davout> hang on
1562 2011-01-10 21:03:09 <midnightmagic> might not be pool-mining exclusively
1563 2011-01-10 21:03:18 <davout> thank you captain obvious
1564 2011-01-10 21:03:20 <davout> :)
1565 2011-01-10 21:04:32 <davout> ok so i generated block 101901
1566 2011-01-10 21:04:43 <davout> do you have anything in your logs for me at that time ?
1567 2011-01-10 21:05:00 <slush> login davout?
1568 2011-01-10 21:05:03 <davout> yup
1569 2011-01-10 21:05:13 <sipa> davout: did you get the 50BTC reward?
1570 2011-01-10 21:05:29 <davout> i don't think it's at 120 confirmations
1571 2011-01-10 21:05:39 <sipa> no, but you would see it even before that
1572 2011-01-10 21:05:55 <davout> umm
1573 2011-01-10 21:05:59 <sipa> no?
1574 2011-01-10 21:06:00 <davout> not sure about that
1575 2011-01-10 21:06:07 <davout> definitely not sure
1576 2011-01-10 21:06:30 <tcatm> gavinandresen: btw, I may have found a bug in RPC
1577 2011-01-10 21:06:40 <davout> funny thing my miners were spitting out "accepted"'s
1578 2011-01-10 21:06:55 <midnightmagic> wouldn't see the balance increase. you'd just see the "generated 50.00" part.
1579 2011-01-10 21:07:04 <tcatm> gavinandresen: getaccountaddress crashes bitcoind sometimes
1580 2011-01-10 21:07:04 <sipa> is 19D9gwMJzdniJ8gGUmc524H7qtXnCJeAMF an address of you?
1581 2011-01-10 21:07:07 <davout> but i felt like the pool was counting way less shares than my miners were actually mining
1582 2011-01-10 21:07:17 <gavinandresen> tcatm: reproducible?
1583 2011-01-10 21:07:29 <davout> well i checked the block hash from my debug.log against BBE
1584 2011-01-10 21:07:32 <davout> so it has to be
1585 2011-01-10 21:07:59 <sipa> but there is no way the miner can even know what address it is generating for
1586 2011-01-10 21:08:08 <tcatm> not really. the bitcoind on my public js-remote demo crashes about twice a day with getaccountaddress as last line in debug.log
1587 2011-01-10 21:08:17 <slush> davout: Last block on which you participated was 101912
1588 2011-01-10 21:08:33 <slush> on pool
1589 2011-01-10 21:08:38 <sipa> so whatever it is mining for, it gets from the client it is connected to, whether that's a local one or the pool
1590 2011-01-10 21:08:39 <gavinandresen> tcatm: any possibility you can compile it -g and run it in gdb to get a stack trace?
1591 2011-01-10 21:08:55 <slush> davout: so it looks like you connected to your bitcoin and not to pool
1592 2011-01-10 21:09:10 <brocktice> kiba: did you the forum thread updates on the Android app bounty?
1593 2011-01-10 21:09:19 <luke-jr> slush: !
1594 2011-01-10 21:09:20 <brocktice> kiba: not sure if you want to update the total listed in the topic header
1595 2011-01-10 21:09:22 <tcatm> gavinandresen: umm, yea..
1596 2011-01-10 21:09:37 <slush> luke-jr: what?
1597 2011-01-10 21:09:49 <luke-jr> slush: can I turn off the circular balance thing?
1598 2011-01-10 21:09:56 <luke-jr> slush: make my payouts be 100% of confirmed rewards?
1599 2011-01-10 21:10:11 <slush> luke-jr: no
1600 2011-01-10 21:10:14 <luke-jr> -.-
1601 2011-01-10 21:10:23 lolcat has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1602 2011-01-10 21:10:28 <slush> Because I'm scammer
1603 2011-01-10 21:10:50 <luke-jr> boo
1604 2011-01-10 21:11:00 <davout> address == mine
1605 2011-01-10 21:11:12 <davout> so i did both the pool and personal selfish mining
1606 2011-01-10 21:11:27 <davout> so thats what i want to investigate
1607 2011-01-10 21:11:34 <davout> how the fuck is that possible ?
1608 2011-01-10 21:11:40 <slush> well, you don't have any share on pool from this time
1609 2011-01-10 21:12:01 <davout> you said i participated up to 101912
1610 2011-01-10 21:12:09 <midnightmagic> speaking of that, how do you verify that work submitted by a miner is legit?
1611 2011-01-10 21:12:23 <davout> ...
1612 2011-01-10 21:12:25 <slush> yep
1613 2011-01-10 21:12:26 <sipa> midnightmagic: the hash has to match :)
1614 2011-01-10 21:12:33 <davout> so?
1615 2011-01-10 21:12:40 <davout> i generated 101901
1616 2011-01-10 21:12:43 <midnightmagic> no, but what if they never actually do any work? could they fake it?
1617 2011-01-10 21:12:50 <sipa> midnightmagic: no
1618 2011-01-10 21:12:53 <davout> midnightmagic: not possible
1619 2011-01-10 21:13:01 <sipa> you need to search hard for a hash that has 32 zero bits
1620 2011-01-10 21:13:10 <midnightmagic> no, I mean in a pool.
1621 2011-01-10 21:13:11 <tcatm> gavinandresen: how do I prevent bitcoind from forking?
1622 2011-01-10 21:13:12 <slush> oh, not 991, but 901
1623 2011-01-10 21:13:19 <sipa> midnightmagic: yes, in a pool
1624 2011-01-10 21:13:20 <slush> wait a minute
1625 2011-01-10 21:13:30 <sipa> for the real client you need 46 zero bits :)
1626 2011-01-10 21:13:34 <davout> slush: i'm totally scamming you !! XD
1627 2011-01-10 21:13:42 <midnightmagic> so shares are calculated based on how much work it "looks" like the miners are doing then
1628 2011-01-10 21:13:46 <davout> getting shares and generating for myself
1629 2011-01-10 21:13:49 <gavinandresen> tcatm: I forgot it does that on linux (it doesn't on mac, which is probably a bug....) one sec
1630 2011-01-10 21:13:57 <sipa> midnightmagic: it is based on how many difficulty-1 blocks they find
1631 2011-01-10 21:14:12 <davout> midnightmagic: shares are just statistical samples
1632 2011-01-10 21:14:16 <midnightmagic> ah so there is *some* cheat detection.
1633 2011-01-10 21:14:23 <midnightmagic> (for pool mining)
1634 2011-01-10 21:14:26 <sipa> and if one of those difficulty-1 blocks is so good that it beats the real difficulty, the pool gets money, and distributes it
1635 2011-01-10 21:14:26 <davout> there is no cheat possible
1636 2011-01-10 21:14:47 <brocktice> It's a clever system actually
1637 2011-01-10 21:14:49 <sipa> the only thing that is possible is vandalism: people deliberately witholding the best blocks
1638 2011-01-10 21:14:49 <brocktice> I'm impressed
1639 2011-01-10 21:14:56 <sipa> but it won't benefit anyone
1640 2011-01-10 21:15:25 <midnightmagic> sipa: i understand that the miner doesn't have all the information necessary to submit the block elsewhere, so it wouldn't be anything but a pure waste to do that.
1641 2011-01-10 21:15:33 <sipa> indeed
1642 2011-01-10 21:15:44 <slush> davout: 8 shares from you for block xxx905 in pool
1643 2011-01-10 21:15:54 <sipa> midnightmagic: but even if the miner did know the whole block, cheating wouldn't be possible
1644 2011-01-10 21:16:03 <slush> davout: so yes, partially you mined also in pool
1645 2011-01-10 21:16:03 <gavinandresen> tcatm: remove -D__WXGTK__ and recompile and it won't fork.
1646 2011-01-10 21:16:10 <sipa> since you need to decide which block you are investigating before starting the search
1647 2011-01-10 21:16:35 <sipa> you could decide to mine for yourself, and get the 50BTC if you find it, but it won't be counted as a share for the pool
1648 2011-01-10 21:16:44 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
1649 2011-01-10 21:16:45 <davout> slush: i'm really confused how that could have happened
1650 2011-01-10 21:16:56 <sipa> or you could mine for the pool, and not get anything if you find something, but cause profit for the pool
1651 2011-01-10 21:17:11 <slush> davout: well, to be honest, I know there is one bug in current miner and m0mchil is working on
1652 2011-01-10 21:17:24 OneFixt has joined
1653 2011-01-10 21:17:32 <sipa> somehow the miner must have connected to your local bitcoind
1654 2011-01-10 21:17:34 <slush> davout: it can explain low shares in pool, but not how it switched to your bitcoind
1655 2011-01-10 21:17:35 OneFixt has quit (Changing host)
1656 2011-01-10 21:17:35 OneFixt has joined
1657 2011-01-10 21:17:35 <midnightmagic> say you ran a bitcoind alongside; could the data be pulled from that client and used alongside the data polled from pool master? so non-found blocks are returned to prove participation, but then "real" blocks are returned to bitcoind?
1658 2011-01-10 21:18:09 <sipa> non-found blocks?
1659 2011-01-10 21:18:12 <tcatm> gavinandresen: ok, it's running
1660 2011-01-10 21:18:14 <midnightmagic> so we "know" what block is currently under consideration and we fill in the missing data that the pool master has obscured?
1661 2011-01-10 21:18:27 <sipa> midnightmagic: i don't understand
1662 2011-01-10 21:18:29 <gavinandresen> tcatm: thanks
1663 2011-01-10 21:18:33 <midnightmagic> sipa: my understanding based on this conversation is that difficulty-1 blocks are returned to calculate shared in the pool
1664 2011-01-10 21:18:43 <sipa> yes
1665 2011-01-10 21:18:49 <slush> midnightmagic: you are talking about valid block hijacking, right? It is not possible
1666 2011-01-10 21:18:51 <davout> slush: does the bug also affect my local mining??
1667 2011-01-10 21:19:15 <davout> slush: in other words should i switch miners right now until it's fixed ??
1668 2011-01-10 21:19:15 <sipa> davout: if you stop your local bitcoind, there is no way for the miner to be working for yourself still
1669 2011-01-10 21:19:17 <slush> davout: I don't know, there is some possible problem with exception handling
1670 2011-01-10 21:19:26 <slush> no, it is not related to pool itself
1671 2011-01-10 21:19:34 <davout> sipa: thats sounds pretty common sensical :)
1672 2011-01-10 21:19:56 mtgox has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1673 2011-01-10 21:19:57 <davout> slush: so the bug also affects standalone mining?
1674 2011-01-10 21:20:04 <midnightmagic> sipa/slush: i guess i'm not understanding how the pool master can obscure the data in such a way that perfect knowledge of the current state of bitcoin network can't be used by a malicious miner to detect when full-difficulty blocks are found.
1675 2011-01-10 21:20:09 * davout is sligthly confused
1676 2011-01-10 21:20:11 <slush> davout: Don't panic, from what I know it happen in extreme situations
1677 2011-01-10 21:20:21 <midnightmagic> BTW: if you consider this proprietary I'm 100% cool with not knowing the answer. :)
1678 2011-01-10 21:20:40 <davout> midnightÃmagic: check out how a block is structured
1679 2011-01-10 21:20:40 <brocktice> midnightmagic: it's no secret
1680 2011-01-10 21:20:41 * slush should shut up
1681 2011-01-10 21:20:43 <sipa> midnightmagic: a miner can know whether his block is a full-difficulty one
1682 2011-01-10 21:20:53 <davout> go look up what the merkle root is
1683 2011-01-10 21:21:16 <sipa> midnightmagic: but by the time he found it, it is too late to decide who will get the reward, since that reward-destination is encoded inside the block, and the hash is also based on that
1684 2011-01-10 21:21:43 <midnightmagic> sipa: that's the missing piece for me. thank you, that's perfect.
1685 2011-01-10 21:21:45 <slush> davout: What you see in miner logs?
1686 2011-01-10 21:21:50 <davout> right now ?
1687 2011-01-10 21:21:55 <slush> davout: Did miner reported low-difficulty hashes?
1688 2011-01-10 21:22:01 <davout> i guess just hasmeter, since i'm mining standalone
1689 2011-01-10 21:22:07 <slush> davout: if not, then you were connected to bitcoin all the time
1690 2011-01-10 21:22:14 <davout> this morning it was reporting lots of easy solutions
1691 2011-01-10 21:22:41 <davout> that should have been counted as shares, somehow it seemed like i was getting ridiculously few of them accounted on your server
1692 2011-01-10 21:22:54 <midnightmagic> so, I guess the only flaw really is a cheating pool-master miscalculating shares.
1693 2011-01-10 21:23:07 <midnightmagic> if you could call it a flaw. :-)
1694 2011-01-10 21:23:12 <davout> midnightmagic: not even that
1695 2011-01-10 21:23:26 <davout> that would be detectable from a statistical point of view
1696 2011-01-10 21:24:00 <slush> davout: When you start miner again, is everything correct?
1697 2011-01-10 21:24:20 <sipa> davout: it would require miners to keep track of real-difficulty blocks they found themselves
1698 2011-01-10 21:24:33 <slush> davout: If so, be happy that you found block for yourself and don't complain:-D
1699 2011-01-10 21:24:42 <sipa> otherwise the pool operator could just keep certain blocks for himself, and hope nobody realizes it
1700 2011-01-10 21:25:05 <sipa> ok, that too is detectable through statistics, if people know there correct average hashing speed
1701 2011-01-10 21:25:13 <sipa> but it becomes harder
1702 2011-01-10 21:25:19 <midnightmagic> sipa: you have been extremely helpful, thank you. i really appreciate your and slush's openness.
1703 2011-01-10 21:25:28 <davout> slush: i'm not complaining
1704 2011-01-10 21:25:28 <sipa> you're welcome :)
1705 2011-01-10 21:25:36 <slush> davout: just kidding
1706 2011-01-10 21:25:39 <davout> just bragging around that i scammed slush the scammer
1707 2011-01-10 21:25:41 <davout> XD
1708 2011-01-10 21:25:43 <slush> davout: of course I'm interested in this problem
1709 2011-01-10 21:25:47 <davout> ok
1710 2011-01-10 21:25:55 <midnightmagic> i strongly believe that is the best policy, like what ArtForz does, too. :)
1711 2011-01-10 21:26:02 <davout> i'll put my mining back on the pool
1712 2011-01-10 21:26:02 <slush> davout: but something is telling me it is very similar problem which m0mchil reported me today
1713 2011-01-10 21:26:12 <davout> so you can see what actually is happening
1714 2011-01-10 21:26:18 <slush> ...and he already fix this (but did not commit it yet)
1715 2011-01-10 21:26:33 <davout> killall python == fans down, instantly XD
1716 2011-01-10 21:26:43 <slush> :-D
1717 2011-01-10 21:26:53 <davout> ./bin/run_pooled_miners
1718 2011-01-10 21:27:13 <lfm> oh wtg
1719 2011-01-10 21:27:13 <slush> davout: how much mhash do you have?
1720 2011-01-10 21:27:29 <davout> 580~600
1721 2011-01-10 21:27:45 <slush> yeah, this explain the drop in cluster mhash today
1722 2011-01-10 21:27:49 <davout> hd5970
1723 2011-01-10 21:28:06 <midnightmagic> you get 600 with m0mchil's miner on a 5970?
1724 2011-01-10 21:28:16 <slush> oh dear, pool is firstly over 300 workers
1725 2011-01-10 21:28:28 <brocktice> midnightmagic: only requires minor overclocking
1726 2011-01-10 21:28:57 <brocktice> I get 360/core
1727 2011-01-10 21:29:09 <midnightmagic> brocktice: !! what are you overclocked to?
1728 2011-01-10 21:29:16 <brocktice> ~1 GHz or a little less
1729 2011-01-10 21:29:18 <brocktice> water cooled :)
1730 2011-01-10 21:29:27 <midnightmagic> an, facetiousness. :)
1731 2011-01-10 21:29:33 <midnightmagic> an => ah :)
1732 2011-01-10 21:29:42 <brocktice> a few of the chips won't hit 1 GHz without dangerous voltages
1733 2011-01-10 21:29:45 <brocktice> Oh no, I'm not being faceitous
1734 2011-01-10 21:29:48 <brocktice> facetious
1735 2011-01-10 21:29:58 <Diablo-D3> whats 1ghz?
1736 2011-01-10 21:30:06 <Diablo-D3> 5970s?
1737 2011-01-10 21:30:10 <brocktice> http://www.flickr.com/photos/brocktice/5195604987/
1738 2011-01-10 21:30:11 <brocktice> yeah
1739 2011-01-10 21:30:14 <midnightmagic> still, very nice. I'm locked at around 750/800 if I'm lucky.
1740 2011-01-10 21:30:15 <brocktice> old hat for you
1741 2011-01-10 21:30:15 <Diablo-D3> it COULD be done
1742 2011-01-10 21:30:41 <Diablo-D3> sapphire's overclock friendly ones, which are low leak chips binned from low leak chips, COULD do it
1743 2011-01-10 21:30:52 <Diablo-D3> assuming you can keep the vrms from blowing up
1744 2011-01-10 21:30:54 <brocktice> [brock@sandtrout][Linux]-(~)-> aticonfig --odgc --adapter=all | grep "Current Peak" Current Peak : 975 1000 Current Peak : 1000 1000 Current Peak : 950 1000 Current Peak : 1000 1000
1745 2011-01-10 21:30:58 <brocktice> eew
1746 2011-01-10 21:31:00 <brocktice> sorry
1747 2011-01-10 21:31:01 <brocktice> pastebinning
1748 2011-01-10 21:31:10 <midnightmagic> very nice.
1749 2011-01-10 21:31:17 <Diablo-D3> brocktice: heres something interesting
1750 2011-01-10 21:31:18 <brocktice> http://pastebin.com/XfStU9Hi
1751 2011-01-10 21:31:26 <Diablo-D3> remember when I overclocked my 4850 to 700 from 625?
1752 2011-01-10 21:31:33 <brocktice> vaguely
1753 2011-01-10 21:31:34 <Diablo-D3> it kept stable until I started running a 3D game
1754 2011-01-10 21:31:37 <brocktice> yeah
1755 2011-01-10 21:31:44 <Diablo-D3> and it repeatedly locked up
1756 2011-01-10 21:31:45 <brocktice> I've noticed issues with too much GUI stuff
1757 2011-01-10 21:31:48 <brocktice> if I push it too hard
1758 2011-01-10 21:31:53 <Diablo-D3> even when I moved it down to 625
1759 2011-01-10 21:31:55 acous has joined
1760 2011-01-10 21:31:55 acous has quit (Changing host)
1761 2011-01-10 21:31:55 acous has joined
1762 2011-01-10 21:31:55 <brocktice> but my dedicated miner has no problem there
1763 2011-01-10 21:32:14 <Diablo-D3> I had to wait for it to cool down before it started working right again
1764 2011-01-10 21:32:15 <Diablo-D3> BUT
1765 2011-01-10 21:32:15 <brocktice> midnightmagic: I have another one in my workstation on air cooling
1766 2011-01-10 21:32:20 <brocktice> water block gets here tomorrow though
1767 2011-01-10 21:32:25 <brocktice> then it goes in with the others
1768 2011-01-10 21:32:25 <Diablo-D3> at 700 it didnt pass 72c
1769 2011-01-10 21:32:40 <brocktice> huh, strange
1770 2011-01-10 21:33:01 <Diablo-D3> I think the VRMs overloaded
1771 2011-01-10 21:33:17 <Diablo-D3> it didnt cross the threshold until I started banging memory
1772 2011-01-10 21:33:37 <midnightmagic> brocktice: if I am careful with the fans I can get 750 but anything above that and one of the cards goes a little unstable.
1773 2011-01-10 21:33:46 <brocktice> midnightmagic: have you upped the voltage?
1774 2011-01-10 21:33:59 <midnightmagic> brocktice: that never occurred to me. :-)
1775 2011-01-10 21:34:04 <brocktice> I can't keep a steady 800 without upping the voltage
1776 2011-01-10 21:34:18 <Diablo-D3> 5970s have OC potential merely out of the fact they're low leak
1777 2011-01-10 21:34:28 <Diablo-D3> but sapphire oc ones are extra special bullshit
1778 2011-01-10 21:34:28 <brocktice> I'm not sure what you mean by that
1779 2011-01-10 21:34:33 <brocktice> but they're under clocked to begin with
1780 2011-01-10 21:34:37 <midnightmagic> i guess i'm not comprehending what "low leak" is.
1781 2011-01-10 21:34:41 <brocktice> my 2 current OCed ones are sapphires
1782 2011-01-10 21:34:46 <brocktice> this other one is an ASUS, got it used
1783 2011-01-10 21:34:57 <brocktice> we'll see how it performs after I water cool it and flash the bios
1784 2011-01-10 21:34:59 <Diablo-D3> they're underclocked just to keep within thermal and power levels
1785 2011-01-10 21:35:06 <Diablo-D3> not because they're defective
1786 2011-01-10 21:35:08 <midnightmagic> i have sapphires too. they were the cheapest before christmas. open-boxed. but work very very stable as long as I'm gentle with them.
1787 2011-01-10 21:35:09 <brocktice> right
1788 2011-01-10 21:35:10 <Diablo-D3> they're low leak chips
1789 2011-01-10 21:35:17 <Diablo-D3> so they should be able to be pushed even farther
1790 2011-01-10 21:35:24 <brocktice> midnightmagic: yeah same here, now they don't sell them retail anymore
1791 2011-01-10 21:35:27 <brocktice> midnightmagic: so, yay ebay
1792 2011-01-10 21:35:34 <midnightmagic> awesome. :)
1793 2011-01-10 21:35:37 <ArtForz> actually high-leak chips are usually the best OCers as long as you can keep temps down
1794 2011-01-10 21:36:01 <ArtForz> thinner gate oxide = faster transistor = more leakage
1795 2011-01-10 21:36:20 <brocktice> ArtForz: know anything about ASUS 5970s?
1796 2011-01-10 21:36:23 <midnightmagic> I figure after 10 months or so, maybe they'll have paid for themselves and i get a compute cluster i just have to run for a week a month or so to pay for the electricity they use the rest of the month.
1797 2011-01-10 21:36:25 <brocktice> They appear to just be ref boards
1798 2011-01-10 21:36:38 spm_Draget has joined
1799 2011-01-10 21:36:48 <ArtForz> except for they "special sauce 4GB" they are all ref boards
1800 2011-01-10 21:37:04 <brocktice> yeah the one I have does not have any special sauce
1801 2011-01-10 21:37:18 <brocktice> but it does have fake carbon fiber decals on the cooler, oooh
1802 2011-01-10 21:37:30 <brocktice> I guess it beats the angsty karate girls on the Sapphires.
1803 2011-01-10 21:37:35 <ArtForz> the only mfg that has somewhat non-ref ref 5970s is sapphire
1804 2011-01-10 21:37:55 <davout> you think i could push the voltage a little bit with mere air cooling ?
1805 2011-01-10 21:38:00 <ArtForz> yes
1806 2011-01-10 21:38:06 <brocktice> art is the master of that
1807 2011-01-10 21:38:12 <davout> hehe
1808 2011-01-10 21:38:20 <ArtForz> I did 1.1625V and 940Mhz on stock air
1809 2011-01-10 21:38:22 <davout> i'm afraid i'm gonna fry the vrms tho
1810 2011-01-10 21:38:29 <brocktice> I was able to survive monumentally stupid OC mistakes thanks to water. :)
1811 2011-01-10 21:38:37 <ArtForz> well, I didnt blow up the VRMs on my ref cards
1812 2011-01-10 21:38:47 <davout> ArtForz: is the card in ATI heaven now ?
1813 2011-01-10 21:38:54 <ArtForz> nope
1814 2011-01-10 21:38:57 <davout> fuck
1815 2011-01-10 21:39:04 <ArtForz> one VRM phase of GPU1 on a accelero-cooled card died
1816 2011-01-10 21:39:08 <davout> i totally need to push the voltage then
1817 2011-01-10 21:39:26 <davout> how high could i go on air cooling ?
1818 2011-01-10 21:39:33 <altamic> is 1/2 troy ounce of fine gold a fair price for an hd5970?
1819 2011-01-10 21:39:41 <ArtForz> 1.1625 is *really* pushing it
1820 2011-01-10 21:39:51 <ArtForz> I ran 1.15 for weeks
1821 2011-01-10 21:39:55 <davout> so that would be too much right
1822 2011-01-10 21:39:57 <brocktice> I think I'm at 1.175 on water
1823 2011-01-10 21:40:02 <brocktice> running 48-52C
1824 2011-01-10 21:40:10 <brocktice> not sure what the VRMs are at
1825 2011-01-10 21:40:22 <davout> so on air i can push to 1.15 ?
1826 2011-01-10 21:40:32 <ArtForz> usually, yea
1827 2011-01-10 21:40:32 <brocktice> set it to 80 or 100% fan manually
1828 2011-01-10 21:40:37 <ArtForz> yep
1829 2011-01-10 21:40:40 <davout> how ?
1830 2011-01-10 21:40:44 <ArtForz> card fan to 80%, good case airflow
1831 2011-01-10 21:40:46 <davout> mb bios ?
1832 2011-01-10 21:40:47 <midnightmagic> auto fan control sucks
1833 2011-01-10 21:40:57 <davout> hd5970 bios ?
1834 2011-01-10 21:41:04 <brocktice> aticonfig --pplib-cmd="set fanspeed 0 100" I think?
1835 2011-01-10 21:41:08 <brocktice> been a while
1836 2011-01-10 21:41:11 <ArtForz> yep
1837 2011-01-10 21:41:12 <davout> ok, so aticonfig
1838 2011-01-10 21:41:13 <midnightmagic> yes
1839 2011-01-10 21:41:20 <davout> i'll just grep my way out of it
1840 2011-01-10 21:41:22 <ArtForz> export DISPLAY=:0.0 for first card
1841 2011-01-10 21:41:26 <ArtForz> :0.2 for second
1842 2011-01-10 21:41:30 <midnightmagic> is there a magic pplib command to put it back to auto?
1843 2011-01-10 21:41:33 <ArtForz> pplib-cmd doesnt care about --adapter
1844 2011-01-10 21:41:39 <davout> doesn't --device X do the trick ?
1845 2011-01-10 21:41:46 <ArtForz> there is supposed to be one, but it sets it to 0%
1846 2011-01-10 21:41:58 <midnightmagic> i found that out the hard way..
1847 2011-01-10 21:42:04 <davout> oh so i need to export DISPLAY
1848 2011-01-10 21:42:15 <davout> why :0.2 ? not :0.1 ?
1849 2011-01-10 21:42:24 <ArtForz> second card
1850 2011-01-10 21:42:26 <midnightmagic> 0.1 is the other device in the same card as :0.0
1851 2011-01-10 21:42:35 <ArtForz> first 5970 is suaully .0 and .1
1852 2011-01-10 21:42:39 <midnightmagic> unless you have your xorg.conf all messed up, in which case it's tough to know. :)
1853 2011-01-10 21:42:40 <ArtForz> second is .2 and .3
1854 2011-01-10 21:42:44 <davout> yea, well that would be the case for a 5970
1855 2011-01-10 21:43:12 <ArtForz> fan controller i2c is connected on the primary GPU on 5970s
1856 2011-01-10 21:43:53 <ArtForz> I wrote my own clock/fanspeed tool on top of ADL
1857 2011-01-10 21:44:07 <midnightmagic> "ADL"?
1858 2011-01-10 21:44:34 <davout> omg
1859 2011-01-10 21:44:36 <ArtForz> http://developer.amd.com/gpu/ADLSDK/Pages/default.aspx
1860 2011-01-10 21:44:46 <davout> how do i get beck to auto speed for fans ?
1861 2011-01-10 21:44:47 <brocktice> loud?
1862 2011-01-10 21:44:53 <davout> *back
1863 2011-01-10 21:44:58 <davout> fucking loud yea XD
1864 2011-01-10 21:44:58 <brocktice> I forget
1865 2011-01-10 21:45:02 <davout> HAHAHAHAHA
1866 2011-01-10 21:45:03 <davout> omg
1867 2011-01-10 21:45:09 <brocktice> This is what drove me to water cool
1868 2011-01-10 21:45:16 <davout> this is amazing
1869 2011-01-10 21:45:24 <davout> never will i vacuum my computer again
1870 2011-01-10 21:45:28 <ArtForz> yeah, > 70% is kinda ... annoying
1871 2011-01-10 21:45:29 <brocktice> heh
1872 2011-01-10 21:46:08 <davout> sudo reboot
1873 2011-01-10 21:46:18 <ArtForz> though compared to my 22W papst fans 5970 @ 100% doesnt sound THAT bad
1874 2011-01-10 21:47:44 <ArtForz> they have a pretty awful whine to em
1875 2011-01-10 21:48:25 <ArtForz> scythe ultra kaze 3ks move a lot less air but they're cheap and good enough @ 100%
1876 2011-01-10 21:49:47 <davout> i need to put the computer somewhere it has wireless and nobody around
1877 2011-01-10 21:49:52 <brocktice> :)
1878 2011-01-10 21:50:22 <davout> or i can dump my gf so i don't hear her bitching about the fans anymore
1879 2011-01-10 21:50:23 <brocktice> I think Keefe puts his in the garage
1880 2011-01-10 21:50:24 <midnightmagic> ArtForz: thanks for that link, you saved me a bunch of time.
1881 2011-01-10 21:50:40 <midnightmagic> davout: garage!
1882 2011-01-10 21:50:43 <brocktice> mine is 30cm or so away from me
1883 2011-01-10 21:50:46 <brocktice> in my office
1884 2011-01-10 21:50:48 <brocktice> so, no dice
1885 2011-01-10 21:51:46 nathan7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1886 2011-01-10 21:51:49 <davout> i live in an appt :(
1887 2011-01-10 21:52:40 <davout> so, pplib is power play something?
1888 2011-01-10 21:52:54 <ArtForz> yup
1889 2011-01-10 21:54:05 <davout> so is there any way to reset the fans to auto speed ?
1890 2011-01-10 21:54:13 <davout> looking on the internetz
1891 2011-01-10 21:54:13 <ArtForz> using ADL, yes
1892 2011-01-10 21:54:17 <davout> adl ?
1893 2011-01-10 21:54:33 <ArtForz> <ArtForz> http://developer.amd.com/gpu/ADLSDK/Pages/default.aspx
1894 2011-01-10 21:54:34 <davout> i found some dude wrote a bash script with --odgt but that looks clumsy
1895 2011-01-10 21:54:52 <davout> lol sorry
1896 2011-01-10 21:55:09 <ArtForz> it's what aticonfig uses to do the actual work
1897 2011-01-10 21:56:49 <davout> i see
1898 2011-01-10 21:57:07 <davout> looking for a reference somewhere... :)
1899 2011-01-10 21:57:21 james has joined
1900 2011-01-10 21:57:22 <ArtForz> the docs are pretty decent
1901 2011-01-10 21:57:27 <ArtForz> and it contains a bunch of samples
1902 2011-01-10 21:57:33 james_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1903 2011-01-10 21:57:48 james is now known as Guest98417
1904 2011-01-10 21:57:58 nathan7 has joined
1905 2011-01-10 21:58:52 <ArtForz> ADL_Overdrive5_FanSpeedInfo_Get ADL_Overdrive5_FanSpeed_Set
1906 2011-01-10 21:59:07 <davout> yea, i was just browsing acceleration docs, probably too advanced
1907 2011-01-10 22:00:34 <ArtForz> dont forget to set ADL_DL_FANCTRL_FLAG_USER_DEFINED_SPEED in ADLFanSpeedValue
1908 2011-01-10 22:00:46 <ArtForz> not setting that one = auto fan speed
1909 2011-01-10 22:01:04 <davout> in the doc part of the zip download ?
1910 2011-01-10 22:01:12 <ArtForz> yep
1911 2011-01-10 22:01:23 <davout> ok, thank you very much
1912 2011-01-10 22:01:53 <ArtForz> enumerating adapters and figuring out which are the slave GPUs on 5970s is a bit of a PITA
1913 2011-01-10 22:01:53 <davout> i'll waive your fees at bitcoin-central to thank you :D
1914 2011-01-10 22:02:10 * davout wonders what a slave gpu is
1915 2011-01-10 22:02:40 <ArtForz> the secondary GPU
1916 2011-01-10 22:02:49 <davout> aren't they independent ?
1917 2011-01-10 22:02:49 nathan7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1918 2011-01-10 22:02:52 <ArtForz> primary has video outputs
1919 2011-01-10 22:03:09 nathan7 has joined
1920 2011-01-10 22:03:13 <davout> really? i thought they were the same since i have like two hdmi outputs
1921 2011-01-10 22:03:18 <ArtForz> nope
1922 2011-01-10 22:03:20 <davout> if it actually is hdmi
1923 2011-01-10 22:03:38 <ArtForz> on 5970 all video outputs are connected to the primary GPU
1924 2011-01-10 22:03:49 <davout> i guess that makes some sense
1925 2011-01-10 22:04:16 <ArtForz> while the slave GPU has no outputs and is usually completely turned off in 2D mode
1926 2011-01-10 22:04:38 <ArtForz> which is how they manage to get 5970 to 5870 idle power
1927 2011-01-10 22:05:00 <davout> yay, my computer only pumps 2W/hr
1928 2011-01-10 22:05:06 <davout> yea, i can hardly play freecell
1929 2011-01-10 22:05:08 <davout> :)
1930 2011-01-10 22:05:23 <davout> i definitely need to push some voltages
1931 2011-01-10 22:05:36 <davout> so you already told me, i have to fire up windows, flash the bios
1932 2011-01-10 22:06:16 <brocktice> nah
1933 2011-01-10 22:06:25 <brocktice> just use a boot usb drive
1934 2011-01-10 22:06:28 <ArtForz> I usually just use a dos usb stick for flashing
1935 2011-01-10 22:06:49 <ArtForz> windows + RBE for editing, though I think it also works under WINE
1936 2011-01-10 22:07:02 <brocktice> Yeah I just use a windows image in vmware player
1937 2011-01-10 22:07:07 <brocktice> didn't have much luck with wine
1938 2011-01-10 22:07:11 <davout> i managed to get WoW to work with linux
1939 2011-01-10 22:07:22 <davout> just to get her to shut up about how linux sucks XD
1940 2011-01-10 22:07:55 <davout> ok, yea, i found back the part i saved from you telling me the first time
1941 2011-01-10 22:08:03 <davout> it's cool if i don't need to install windows
1942 2011-01-10 22:08:17 <ArtForz> fun wate of time: do a binary diff between orig and edited bios, performance mode core voltage is just 1 changed byte
1943 2011-01-10 22:08:38 <ArtForz> do a few and figure out how the value of that byte corresponds to the actual voltage
1944 2011-01-10 22:08:56 <davout> hehe
1945 2011-01-10 22:09:07 <davout> reminds me of my first diablo trainer
1946 2011-01-10 22:09:26 <davout> "Ooooh so, i can change a value and get more...moniez?"
1947 2011-01-10 22:09:32 <davout> *in the RAM
1948 2011-01-10 22:09:43 <ArtForz> yeah
1949 2011-01-10 22:10:08 <davout> i wish there was a bitcoin trainer
1950 2011-01-10 22:10:17 <Diablo-D3> [04:31:54] <ArtForz> actually high-leak chips are usually the best OCers as long as you can keep temps down
1951 2011-01-10 22:10:20 <Diablo-D3> but thats the problem
1952 2011-01-10 22:10:31 <Diablo-D3> the leak is what drives the temp up
1953 2011-01-10 22:10:44 <Diablo-D3> [04:35:50] <altamic> is 1/2 troy ounce of fine gold a fair price for an hd5970?
1954 2011-01-10 22:11:04 <Diablo-D3> altamic: that'd be almost $700.
1955 2011-01-10 22:11:33 <ArtForz> yep, but that means for example on water a high-leakage chip is usually a better OCer than a low-leakage chip
1956 2011-01-10 22:11:44 <appamatto> ArtForz, how goes the mining saga?
1957 2011-01-10 22:12:13 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: on water shit rocks.
1958 2011-01-10 22:12:17 <Diablo-D3> but the side effect is
1959 2011-01-10 22:12:23 <Diablo-D3> you have water.
1960 2011-01-10 22:12:26 <Diablo-D3> which no one wants
1961 2011-01-10 22:12:39 <ArtForz> yep
1962 2011-01-10 22:13:03 <lfm> water with shit in it
1963 2011-01-10 22:13:58 <brocktice> The water set-up cost a little
1964 2011-01-10 22:14:05 <brocktice> but overall it's been working quite well for me
1965 2011-01-10 22:14:09 <Diablo-D3> well
1966 2011-01-10 22:14:12 <Diablo-D3> if I ever go water
1967 2011-01-10 22:14:17 <Diablo-D3> Im going to get a huge external tank
1968 2011-01-10 22:14:21 <brocktice> we'll see what happens when I add a third 5970 with no other changes
1969 2011-01-10 22:14:54 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1970 2011-01-10 22:15:11 <kiba> hmm
1971 2011-01-10 22:15:23 <kiba> Satoshi disappeared on December 13
1972 2011-01-10 22:15:28 <brocktice> Diablo-D3: You mean a hot tub?
1973 2011-01-10 22:15:50 <ArtForz> damn, that gives me an idea
1974 2011-01-10 22:15:58 <brocktice> hahaha
1975 2011-01-10 22:16:11 <kiba> Satoshi is gone for nearly a month?
1976 2011-01-10 22:16:18 <brocktice> how many 5970s does it take to heat a hot tub?
1977 2011-01-10 22:16:23 <ArtForz> I think i have a big plate heat exchanger somewhere
1978 2011-01-10 22:17:53 <ArtForz> hot tub probably wont cut it
1979 2011-01-10 22:18:07 <ArtForz> at least with 9kW of GPUs
1980 2011-01-10 22:18:30 <brocktice> heated swimming pool?
1981 2011-01-10 22:18:34 <ArtForz> yep
1982 2011-01-10 22:18:45 <brocktice> nice
1983 2011-01-10 22:19:00 <xelister> WHERE IS SATOOOSHIIII
1984 2011-01-10 22:19:03 <ArtForz> now if only waterblocks werent that damned expensive
1985 2011-01-10 22:19:23 <brocktice> not to mention
1986 2011-01-10 22:19:24 <Diablo-D3> brocktice: no
1987 2011-01-10 22:19:27 <Diablo-D3> but what I need
1988 2011-01-10 22:19:28 <brocktice> they don't sell 5970 water blocks any more
1989 2011-01-10 22:19:36 <Diablo-D3> is a waterblock for VRMs.
1990 2011-01-10 22:19:44 <ArtForz> why?
1991 2011-01-10 22:20:05 <Diablo-D3> why? because video card manufacturers suck.
1992 2011-01-10 22:20:28 <ArtForz> that they do
1993 2011-01-10 22:20:33 <brocktice> If only I could find a way to harness your negativity, Diablo-D3, I could power my miner indefinitely.
1994 2011-01-10 22:20:51 <ArtForz> if ATI hadnt cheaped out on the VRMs 5970 would've been a beast
1995 2011-01-10 22:20:55 <slush> lol
1996 2011-01-10 22:21:17 <ArtForz> it already has the pads for a 4th core phase on the PCB
1997 2011-01-10 22:21:38 <ArtForz> but they decided to cheap out
1998 2011-01-10 22:22:12 <Diablo-D3> I mean
1999 2011-01-10 22:22:15 <Diablo-D3> you know what I wanna do?
2000 2011-01-10 22:22:29 <Diablo-D3> make some sort of triple wide beast
2001 2011-01-10 22:22:47 <ArtForz> ?
2002 2011-01-10 22:22:56 <Diablo-D3> using straight finned heavy ass heatsinks on EVERYTHING
2003 2011-01-10 22:23:09 <Diablo-D3> half copper/half alu ones
2004 2011-01-10 22:23:09 <brocktice> Are you *trying* to set yourself up for shots at your mother?
2005 2011-01-10 22:23:25 <Diablo-D3> and then use 40mm fans on the ass end
2006 2011-01-10 22:23:32 <Diablo-D3> just to blow it all out the vents
2007 2011-01-10 22:23:32 <ArtForz> I'd like something like the accelero 5970 but with fins the right way around
2008 2011-01-10 22:23:46 <Diablo-D3> no side blower shit
2009 2011-01-10 22:23:57 <ArtForz> btw, thats exactly how I had my quad 5770s set up
2010 2011-01-10 22:23:59 <Diablo-D3> and then have like 6 phases of VRMs
2011 2011-01-10 22:24:02 <ArtForz> 1 120mm fan for 4 cards
2012 2011-01-10 22:24:09 <brocktice> I think you could mount some small server fans on the end of the card
2013 2011-01-10 22:24:17 <Diablo-D3> brocktice: I said 40mm.
2014 2011-01-10 22:24:23 <ArtForz> fuck 40mm
2015 2011-01-10 22:24:24 <brocktice> shut off the blower
2016 2011-01-10 22:24:31 <ArtForz> 80mm for 2 cards
2017 2011-01-10 22:24:34 <brocktice> I mean the existing card
2018 2011-01-10 22:24:39 <ArtForz> or make it 3-wide and use 2 60mm fans
2019 2011-01-10 22:24:41 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: no, it has to fit in the triple wide configuration
2020 2011-01-10 22:24:56 <Diablo-D3> will 60mm fit in triple wide?
2021 2011-01-10 22:25:06 <ArtForz> yep
2022 2011-01-10 22:25:09 <Diablo-D3> huh
2023 2011-01-10 22:25:09 <ArtForz> 1 slot = 0.8"
2024 2011-01-10 22:25:13 <Diablo-D3> I could leave it double wide then
2025 2011-01-10 22:25:22 <Diablo-D3> and then enclose the entire channel in a plastic shroud
2026 2011-01-10 22:25:31 <Diablo-D3> so
2027 2011-01-10 22:25:40 <Diablo-D3> 2? 3? 40mm fans
2028 2011-01-10 22:25:54 <Diablo-D3> heavy cu/alu blend heatsinks
2029 2011-01-10 22:26:03 <Diablo-D3> 6 phases of VRM
2030 2011-01-10 22:26:08 <ArtForz> 3 would be out of spec I think
2031 2011-01-10 22:26:20 <ArtForz> max card height is well < 120mm
2032 2011-01-10 22:26:22 <Diablo-D3> and do like
2033 2011-01-10 22:26:48 <Diablo-D3> massive overclocking
2034 2011-01-10 22:27:03 nathan7 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2035 2011-01-10 22:27:23 <ArtForz> btw, have you seen the rumored GTX595 ?
2036 2011-01-10 22:27:38 nathan7 has joined
2037 2011-01-10 22:27:52 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: yeah its dumb
2038 2011-01-10 22:28:00 <ArtForz> that can't be GF110s
2039 2011-01-10 22:28:29 <ArtForz> with 2 8-pin PCIe power connectors it's 375W max including slot
2040 2011-01-10 22:28:30 <Diablo-D3> the interwebs say gf114
2041 2011-01-10 22:28:45 <Diablo-D3> but yeah like
2042 2011-01-10 22:28:48 <Diablo-D3> my video card design
2043 2011-01-10 22:28:50 <ArtForz> and even GTX570 is well >200W
2044 2011-01-10 22:28:50 <Diablo-D3> would be perfect
2045 2011-01-10 22:29:03 <ArtForz> dual GF114 sounds kinda... stupid
2046 2011-01-10 22:29:52 <ArtForz> if you're breaking PCIe spec anyways, do it right
2047 2011-01-10 22:30:36 <ArtForz> 3-slot design, 2*6pin + 2*8pin, 525W should be enough for 2 GF110s
2048 2011-01-10 22:30:52 <Diablo-D3> heh man
2049 2011-01-10 22:30:56 <Diablo-D3> why not just go for 4 8 pin
2050 2011-01-10 22:31:05 <Diablo-D3> require a 800+ watt psu to power it
2051 2011-01-10 22:31:19 alhazred has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
2052 2011-01-10 22:31:23 <ArtForz> because theres no PSU with 8*8pin for quad SLI?
2053 2011-01-10 22:31:58 <ArtForz> 4*6+4*8 is kinda common in 1200W units
2054 2011-01-10 22:32:11 <Diablo-D3> meh.
2055 2011-01-10 22:32:29 sgornick has joined
2056 2011-01-10 22:34:33 <Diablo-D3> hrm
2057 2011-01-10 22:34:40 <Diablo-D3> pci card has a max height of 107mm
2058 2011-01-10 22:35:36 <ArtForz> yep
2059 2011-01-10 22:36:18 <Diablo-D3> I wonder what the width of a dual slot card is
2060 2011-01-10 22:36:27 <Diablo-D3> because they DO make 50mm fans
2061 2011-01-10 22:37:00 <ArtForz> 40.64mm
2062 2011-01-10 22:37:06 <Diablo-D3> damn
2063 2011-01-10 22:37:20 <ArtForz> less ~3.5mm for board and board-end of bracket
2064 2011-01-10 22:37:26 <Diablo-D3> so two 40mm fans it is
2065 2011-01-10 22:37:44 <ArtForz> yep, 40mm is already pushing it
2066 2011-01-10 22:37:57 <ArtForz> 2*50mm would fit quite comfortably in 3 slots though
2067 2011-01-10 22:38:07 <Diablo-D3> wouldnt have to worry about the end of the board
2068 2011-01-10 22:38:17 <Diablo-D3> just run the board short
2069 2011-01-10 22:38:28 <Diablo-D3> and take the fan housings off the fans
2070 2011-01-10 22:38:46 <ArtForz> actually it should work if you dont have the board
2071 2011-01-10 22:38:59 <ArtForz> then you can work with max card width
2072 2011-01-10 22:39:27 <Diablo-D3> lol they make a 25mm fan
2073 2011-01-10 22:40:15 <ArtForz> my personal fav for "What the Fan?" is a 80mm 85W fan
2074 2011-01-10 22:40:34 <Diablo-D3> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835705063
2075 2011-01-10 22:40:35 <Diablo-D3> HAHAHA
2076 2011-01-10 22:40:37 <Diablo-D3> 2 of those
2077 2011-01-10 22:41:03 <Diablo-D3> 22cfm
2078 2011-01-10 22:41:27 <Diablo-D3> at full speed, it would be epically loud
2079 2011-01-10 22:41:43 <brocktice> about the same as an Ultra Kaze 3k
2080 2011-01-10 22:41:50 <brocktice> but much higher pitch
2081 2011-01-10 22:42:37 <ArtForz> http://www.ebmpapst.com/en/products/compact-fans/axial-compact-fans/axial_compact_fans_detail.php?pID=111780 <- 40W 14kRPM 80x38mm ...
2082 2011-01-10 22:42:58 <lfm> 22 cfm water pump?
2083 2011-01-10 22:43:56 <ArtForz> http://www.ebmpapst.com/en/products/compact-fans/axial-compact-fans/axial_compact_fans_detail.php?pID=54166 <- the 22W 6kRPM 120x38s
2084 2011-01-10 22:44:11 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: whats the dBA of the 5970 fan on full?
2085 2011-01-10 22:44:32 <ArtForz> ~68 iirc
2086 2011-01-10 22:45:06 <ArtForz> and here's soething a bit... unusual http://www.ebmpapst.com/en/products/compact-fans/axial-compact-fans/axial_compact_fans_detail.php?pID=120067
2087 2011-01-10 22:45:16 <ArtForz> 11kRPM 120W 120x38mm
2088 2011-01-10 22:45:22 <ArtForz> 3-phase BLDC
2089 2011-01-10 22:45:34 <ArtForz> sadly 24V
2090 2011-01-10 22:45:55 <Diablo-D3> heh
2091 2011-01-10 22:46:08 <ArtForz> 330CFM, 5.0" h2o static pressure
2092 2011-01-10 22:48:20 <ArtForz> only kinda sad they only put a bunch of holes for airflow in the hub
2093 2011-01-10 22:48:44 <ArtForz> make the hub slottend and angle the struts
2094 2011-01-10 22:48:52 <Diablo-D3> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835705063
2095 2011-01-10 22:49:03 <Diablo-D3> thats the highest 40mm cfm on newegg
2096 2011-01-10 22:49:11 <Diablo-D3> so
2097 2011-01-10 22:49:12 <Diablo-D3> 2 of those
2098 2011-01-10 22:49:24 <ArtForz> "yo dawg, we put a fan in your fan ..."
2099 2011-01-10 22:49:26 <Diablo-D3> would be like 5x more actual cooling than 5970 stock
2100 2011-01-10 22:49:48 <Diablo-D3> and it vents 100% of the heat out the case
2101 2011-01-10 22:49:52 <brocktice> `how does sound add?
2102 2011-01-10 22:50:11 <Diablo-D3> brocktice: double the fans, add 6 dB.
2103 2011-01-10 22:50:14 <ArtForz> for nocoherent sources, +3dB
2104 2011-01-10 22:50:31 altamic has quit (Quit: altamic)
2105 2011-01-10 22:50:34 <Diablo-D3> we're still less than what the 5970 stock fan does
2106 2011-01-10 22:50:35 <brocktice> so that should be quieter than the 5970
2107 2011-01-10 22:50:41 <brocktice> but, probably more annoying
2108 2011-01-10 22:50:42 <ArtForz> +6 is only if you have coherent sources and a approximately plane wave
2109 2011-01-10 22:50:44 <Diablo-D3> and we wouldnt have to ramp them up to high speeds
2110 2011-01-10 22:51:39 <Diablo-D3> man
2111 2011-01-10 22:51:46 <Diablo-D3> we wouldnt even be limited to 2 gpus
2112 2011-01-10 22:51:54 <Diablo-D3> but theres no more room on the card for more
2113 2011-01-10 22:52:35 <lfm> http://www.cfmmotorsports.net/ford-sb-electric-water-pump-68220bk-p-230.html
2114 2011-01-10 22:53:33 <ArtForz> ?
2115 2011-01-10 22:54:07 <Diablo-D3> man
2116 2011-01-10 22:54:07 <Diablo-D3> that
2117 2011-01-10 22:54:10 <Diablo-D3> with 6 phaes of vrm
2118 2011-01-10 22:54:33 <Diablo-D3> and the two fans in the middle shoved together so both's airflows go right over the chip
2119 2011-01-10 22:54:42 <Diablo-D3> that'd be like
2120 2011-01-10 22:54:45 <Diablo-D3> the ultimate card
2121 2011-01-10 22:57:07 <lfm> for use with the hot tub
2122 2011-01-10 23:00:33 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: man
2123 2011-01-10 23:00:40 <Diablo-D3> without having to worry about VRMs
2124 2011-01-10 23:00:49 <Diablo-D3> I could massively overclock that shit
2125 2011-01-10 23:00:52 <Diablo-D3> like, 25% more
2126 2011-01-10 23:00:53 <Diablo-D3> or something
2127 2011-01-10 23:01:39 <ArtForz> yup
2128 2011-01-10 23:02:30 <Diablo-D3> use the 69xx TDP management shit
2129 2011-01-10 23:02:37 <Diablo-D3> and feed them really large TDP numbers
2130 2011-01-10 23:04:07 <Diablo-D3> and then like
2131 2011-01-10 23:04:12 <Diablo-D3> do something for the memory
2132 2011-01-10 23:04:18 <Diablo-D3> so it autoclocks the memory
2133 2011-01-10 23:04:22 <Diablo-D3> to keep it within the right temp
2134 2011-01-10 23:04:50 <Diablo-D3> if this was a 6990 rig
2135 2011-01-10 23:05:00 <Diablo-D3> it'd shove nvidia out of business
2136 2011-01-10 23:10:07 <ArtForz> btw, looks like sandy bridge GPU drivers suck ass
2137 2011-01-10 23:11:47 james has joined
2138 2011-01-10 23:12:16 james is now known as Guest28391
2139 2011-01-10 23:12:31 <ArtForz> from nanad review, dragon age origins on 2600K, settings on min: http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/intel/Clarkdale/dao.jpg
2140 2011-01-10 23:12:32 Guest98417 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2141 2011-01-10 23:13:06 <ArtForz> same settings on a 790GX IGP: http://img580.imageshack.us/i/screenshot2010060220010.jpg/
2142 2011-01-10 23:18:09 davout has left ()
2143 2011-01-10 23:26:28 sgornick has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
2144 2011-01-10 23:27:14 sgornick has joined
2145 2011-01-10 23:27:15 sgornick has quit (Changing host)
2146 2011-01-10 23:27:15 sgornick has joined
2147 2011-01-10 23:33:41 james_ has joined
2148 2011-01-10 23:33:57 Guest28391 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2149 2011-01-10 23:42:14 <EvanR-work> whats the capacity limit of the pool
2150 2011-01-10 23:42:28 <EvanR-work> will it over take the other generators ;)
2151 2011-01-10 23:42:48 <ArtForz> "a lot" and "probably not"
2152 2011-01-10 23:43:56 <ArtForz> handling getworks for >100Ghps shouldnt be much of a problem
2153 2011-01-10 23:52:32 james___ has joined
2154 2011-01-10 23:52:49 james_ has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
2155 2011-01-10 23:53:15 lzsaver has joined
2156 2011-01-10 23:56:38 devon_hillard has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)