1 2011-01-31 00:05:08 <jgarzik> does python have a standard sql database api, making it easy to switch sqlite -> mysql or postgresql?
2 2011-01-31 00:05:36 <sipa> ;;bc,calc 41076
3 2011-01-31 00:05:36 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 41076 Khps, given current difficulty of 22012.4941572 , is 3 weeks, 5 days, 15 hours, 20 minutes, and 58 seconds
4 2011-01-31 00:05:48 * jgarzik is browsing the std lib, and sees plenty of key/value (dbm) support, and sqlite support
5 2011-01-31 00:06:46 <nanotube> jgarzik: sqlalchemy
6 2011-01-31 00:06:52 <nanotube> but it's not 'stock' with python.
7 2011-01-31 00:07:13 <nanotube> but it's the most popular sql db abstraction lib
8 2011-01-31 00:10:21 <nanotube> davout: got my msg about the json?
9 2011-01-31 00:10:28 <EvanR> hacim: still running
10 2011-01-31 00:10:38 <EvanR> i left it on while i went to new orleans for weekend ;)
11 2011-01-31 00:11:03 <EvanR> no blocks yet as far as i can tell
12 2011-01-31 00:11:10 <Cusipzzz> EvanR: you're due soon then
13 2011-01-31 00:11:32 <Cusipzzz> Kiba: you earned .02 btc today!
14 2011-01-31 00:17:21 <MT`AwAy> soon the contributors awards on the wiki, there's only 170 btc, but I'll add some
15 2011-01-31 00:17:34 <MT`AwAy> deadline for january is tonight
16 2011-01-31 00:17:40 <MT`AwAy> well
17 2011-01-31 00:17:47 <MT`AwAy> in 24 hours (let's say we use UTC)
18 2011-01-31 00:18:42 <MT`AwAy> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin:Contributors_Award <- if you like the wiki you can donate to the address there, coins will then be sent to the people contributing to the wiki
19 2011-01-31 00:19:48 <citizen> I like the Wiki a lot - thanks MT
20 2011-01-31 00:20:09 <MT`AwAy> :)
21 2011-01-31 00:20:24 <MT`AwAy> then you can donate, it'll probably give some more motivation to the people editing it and make it more awesome :)
22 2011-01-31 00:20:39 <MT`AwAy> (btw as an organizer, I'll be excluded from the people earning coins, that's only normal)
23 2011-01-31 00:20:54 <citizen> I will be happy to donate
24 2011-01-31 00:21:47 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
25 2011-01-31 00:21:52 <citizen> perhaps i could contribute a Windows tutorial
26 2011-01-31 00:22:16 <citizen> i found the documentation out there lacking quite a bit
27 2011-01-31 00:22:26 <MT`AwAy> everyone can edit the wiki :)
28 2011-01-31 00:22:47 mtgox has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
29 2011-01-31 00:22:49 molecular has joined
30 2011-01-31 00:23:26 <MT`AwAy> mh
31 2011-01-31 00:23:37 <MT`AwAy> I'll probably add something like 250 btc
32 2011-01-31 00:25:45 <Cusipzzz> o.O
33 2011-01-31 00:27:02 <MT`AwAy> and based on the info I see so far, I may change the score computation system a bit
34 2011-01-31 00:27:29 <MT`AwAy> give less importance to the volume of text contributed, and more to the people contributing daily
35 2011-01-31 00:28:08 <MT`AwAy> still, every single contributor will receive something, as long as all their edits weren't reverted
36 2011-01-31 00:29:35 <Cusipzzz> first i am hearing of this, nice job MT
37 2011-01-31 00:29:48 <MT`AwAy> Cusipzzz: there's a link on the wiki homepage ;)
38 2011-01-31 00:30:11 <Cusipzzz> i don't frequent the wiki much....i'm a trial and error type :)
39 2011-01-31 00:30:12 <MT`AwAy> anyway the goal is to give motivation to the people contributing to the community, and let people who have bitcoins donate "to the wiki"
40 2011-01-31 00:30:44 <Cusipzzz> cool
41 2011-01-31 00:31:06 <MT`AwAy> (that's the best way I found to let people donate to the wiki as a whole)
42 2011-01-31 00:32:44 <sipa> nanotube: maybe you can add a command to the bot, to calculate the chance for having found at least one block during a particular piece of time?
43 2011-01-31 00:33:30 <sipa> formula would be 1-exp(-0.020116568*hashrate_kHz*timeDays/difficulty)
44 2011-01-31 00:38:40 <sipa> or 1-exp(-hashrate_hps*time_s/(2**32*difficulty))
45 2011-01-31 00:42:40 <luke-jr> has anyone tried miners with the AMD APP SDK?
46 2011-01-31 00:43:02 <ArtForzZz> errr
47 2011-01-31 00:43:10 <ArtForzZz> APP SDK = renamed Stream SDK
48 2011-01-31 00:43:22 <ArtForzZz> Stream 2.3 == APP 2.3
49 2011-01-31 00:43:41 <luke-jr> so every time someone says Stream 2.3 they mean APP?
50 2011-01-31 00:43:53 <luke-jr> wasn't sure if it was a newer version than anyone was using
51 2011-01-31 00:44:22 <luke-jr> ah, I see they didn't rename the packages
52 2011-01-31 00:44:36 <luke-jr> but 2.1 is better?
53 2011-01-31 00:44:42 <ArtForzZz> yeah, it was initially released as Stream 2.3 and got the s/Stream/APP/ treatment on the webpage later :P
54 2011-01-31 00:45:01 <ArtForzZz> well, 2.3 is the only choice for 69xx
55 2011-01-31 00:45:57 <ArtForzZz> from my pov, OpenCL MultiGPU in 2.2 and 2.3 is simply broken
56 2011-01-31 00:45:57 <luke-jr> mien is 5850
57 2011-01-31 00:47:08 * jgarzik wonders what's up with all the 0.05 BTC transactions... someone gaming gavinandresen's bitcoin faucet maybe?
58 2011-01-31 00:49:28 <luke-jr> is 2.1 better for 5850?
59 2011-01-31 00:50:08 <ArtForzZz> usually, yes
60 2011-01-31 00:50:47 Cyd has quit ()
61 2011-01-31 00:50:53 <luke-jr> when isn't it? :P
62 2011-01-31 00:52:51 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: yes, somebody was-- using IPV6 to get around the one-per-ip-address, and taking advantage of some relaxed controls I was trying out.
63 2011-01-31 00:52:54 jackmcbarn has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
64 2011-01-31 00:55:59 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: maybe apply a global ratelimit? one faucet drip per minute :)
65 2011-01-31 00:56:26 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: the bad guys will just pound the server to try to get every drip....
66 2011-01-31 00:56:43 <luke-jr> how evil :o
67 2011-01-31 00:57:29 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: maybe limit 1 per IPv4 /48 :/
68 2011-01-31 00:57:35 <luke-jr> IPv6*
69 2011-01-31 00:58:16 <luke-jr> not a complete solution, but at least it caps people to 3 easy drips
70 2011-01-31 00:58:21 <luke-jr> 4
71 2011-01-31 00:58:37 <jgarzik> *nod* well the faucet was never a sustainable venture in any case. but it seems like the code might want to prevent, say, over 50 transactions in a single block. or 25. or whatever.
72 2011-01-31 00:58:41 <luke-jr> 1) IPv4, 2) 6to4, 3) tunnelbroker /64, 4) tunnelbroker /48
73 2011-01-31 00:58:43 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: yeah, I have controls like that already (didn't have the IPV6 version until today)
74 2011-01-31 00:58:46 <jgarzik> otherwise it'll drain in a day or three :)
75 2011-01-31 00:59:07 <luke-jr> wow
76 2011-01-31 00:59:16 <luke-jr> someone exploited it in under 24 hours of availability?
77 2011-01-31 00:59:30 midnightmagic_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
78 2011-01-31 00:59:37 <luke-jr> did you announce it or something?
79 2011-01-31 00:59:54 <gavinandresen> Announce what?
80 2011-01-31 01:00:06 <luke-jr> IPv6 for the faucet
81 2011-01-31 01:00:31 <luke-jr> or are there really so many bitcoin users that people find exploits within a day?
82 2011-01-31 01:00:34 <gavinandresen> Nope-- faucet has been IPv6-capable for quite a while, actually (google App Engine supports IPv6)
83 2011-01-31 01:01:36 <Kiba> some people are apperantly really interested in bitcoin enough to steal/drain
84 2011-01-31 01:01:57 <gavinandresen> ... and have nothing better to do with their time than solve captchas....
85 2011-01-31 01:02:10 <Cusipzzz> a nickel her, a nickel there, pretty soon you are talking about real money
86 2011-01-31 01:02:40 <Kiba> people always underestimate the idea of earning 0.01 BTC
87 2011-01-31 01:03:19 <luke-jr> OOOH, you didn't have the IPv6 controls until today
88 2011-01-31 01:03:23 <Kiba> the serect to getting to a job is that if you negoitate it low enough, they will accept
89 2011-01-31 01:03:24 <luke-jr> thought you meant didn't have IPv4 access
90 2011-01-31 01:03:46 <Kiba> but not so low that you gain as much as you could have
91 2011-01-31 01:03:58 <Kiba> don't*
92 2011-01-31 01:04:06 <gavinandresen> Right, didn't rate limit by IPV6/8 until today.
93 2011-01-31 01:04:12 <luke-jr> â¦
94 2011-01-31 01:04:15 <Kiba> there's IPV8?
95 2011-01-31 01:04:19 jackmcbarn has joined
96 2011-01-31 01:04:20 <luke-jr> I sure hope you aren't limiting by IPv6 /8
97 2011-01-31 01:04:29 <luke-jr> there's only like two different /8s
98 2011-01-31 01:04:53 <luke-jr> and maybe four or five /16s
99 2011-01-31 01:05:12 <gavinandresen> I don't know nuthin about IPv6.....
100 2011-01-31 01:05:34 <gavinandresen> I just know not a lot of people are using it to access the faucet.
101 2011-01-31 01:05:40 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: /48 is the standard subnet size ISPs are supposed to give end users
102 2011-01-31 01:05:45 <ArtForzZz> I love IPv6
103 2011-01-31 01:05:51 <gavinandresen> (and implementing "rate limit based on first byte" worked nicely)
104 2011-01-31 01:06:25 <echelon> the bitcoin times needs an editor :P
105 2011-01-31 01:06:32 <luke-jr> basically the entire global IPv6 space is all under 2001::/16 and 2002::/16
106 2011-01-31 01:06:37 <echelon> how old is that guy anyway
107 2011-01-31 01:06:39 <jgarzik> gah. bitcoin handles P2P nodes sanely, with select.... but then we have a separate thread that sits in an infinite loop, polling all connections for new P2P messages
108 2011-01-31 01:06:49 <luke-jr> 2002:aabb:ccdd::/48 are automatically routed to the IPv4 aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd
109 2011-01-31 01:06:55 <jgarzik> when it could simply process messages asynchronously
110 2011-01-31 01:07:08 <ArtForzZz> really?
111 2011-01-31 01:08:18 <jgarzik> ThreadMessageHandler2() is a loop that polls each datastream for new data, which is a separate thread from ThreadSocketHandler(), which is a loop that selects + reads/writes data
112 2011-01-31 01:08:20 * luke-jr wonders why bitcoin is threaded at all
113 2011-01-31 01:08:32 <ArtForzZz> hmmm... you're right. slightly weird design choice.
114 2011-01-31 01:09:10 <ArtForzZz> conceptually it kinda makes sense somewhat
115 2011-01-31 01:10:36 <jgarzik> A separate execution thread can make sense in some environments. Polling each of N connections for new work, for each loop iteration, is strange.
116 2011-01-31 01:10:50 <ArtForzZz> that is true
117 2011-01-31 01:11:11 <jgarzik> Usually your I/O thread would queue one or more units of work to the execution thread. The execution thread shouldn't be looping over each possible event source.
118 2011-01-31 01:11:28 <ArtForzZz> yep
119 2011-01-31 01:11:37 <ArtForzZz> exactly what I was going to say
120 2011-01-31 01:12:21 <ArtForzZz> have the network thread push workitems of "got new message from node X" to the message handling thread
121 2011-01-31 01:12:29 <jgarzik> yep
122 2011-01-31 01:13:00 * jgarzik found this while trying to figure out how to integrate select(2) into RPC server, which is even more pathetic (a single threaded read/exec loop for N connections)
123 2011-01-31 01:14:05 <ArtForzZz> with something like a Condition for "received messages is (non)empty"
124 2011-01-31 01:14:26 <jgarzik> RPC user B stalls, waiting for RPC user A's HTTP data transmission. Unlike P2P, which uses select and properly buffers.
125 2011-01-31 01:14:31 <ArtForzZz> yep
126 2011-01-31 01:14:48 <ArtForzZz> RPC I/O handling should be seperated from the core RPC stuff
127 2011-01-31 01:15:53 <jgarzik> surely boost has an easy, epoll-like mechanism where you register event sources, and receive callbacks
128 2011-01-31 01:16:18 <ArtForzZz> I'd hope so, I think any sane language/framework/whatever has
129 2011-01-31 01:17:19 <ArtForzZz> with good async event support you don't really need any threading for stuff like this
130 2011-01-31 01:21:27 <jgarzik> indeed
131 2011-01-31 01:21:35 * jgarzik <heart> libevent
132 2011-01-31 01:22:28 <gavinandresen> Well, bitcoin needed threading for mining on multi-cpus, so maybe Satoshi decided multithreading everything made sense.
133 2011-01-31 01:22:45 <gavinandresen> Woulda coulda shoulda.....
134 2011-01-31 01:22:58 <jgarzik> I can see event handling + network I/O buffering in a separate thread from execution, as execution covers database I/O and associated fsync's
135 2011-01-31 01:23:13 <ArtForzZz> why?
136 2011-01-31 01:23:20 <ArtForzZz> the Os already handles low level buffering for us
137 2011-01-31 01:24:12 <jgarzik> our perf teams show it helps in some apps.
138 2011-01-31 01:24:15 <ArtForzZz> and it's not like we are doing anything useful with those network messages while our main message handler thread is busy doing it's thing
139 2011-01-31 01:24:35 <andrew12> ArtForzZz must be really sleepy
140 2011-01-31 01:24:40 <ArtForzZz> yup
141 2011-01-31 01:24:44 <jgarzik> definitely helped with latency when using those design choices at a $BigDatabaseVendor
142 2011-01-31 01:24:49 <ArtForzZz> it's past 2AM here
143 2011-01-31 01:24:55 <ArtForzZz> we're just queueing them up for the main handler
144 2011-01-31 01:25:15 <ArtForzZz> it would make sense if were actually *processing* stuff in parallel, but we aren't
145 2011-01-31 01:25:16 <jgarzik> but I write my own programs as single-thread async, FWIW
146 2011-01-31 01:25:22 <jgarzik> life is easier
147 2011-01-31 01:25:36 <andrew12> "Consecutive Vowels"
148 2011-01-31 01:25:49 <ArtForzZz> we have threadreceiver handing things to threadhandler (which takes locks and sits there waiting for syncs) handing things to threadsender
149 2011-01-31 01:26:32 <ArtForzZz> = we're really doing everything serialized anyway, only thing thrreading is doing here is to make the conectpual seperation more obvious
150 2011-01-31 01:26:35 kisom_dev has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
151 2011-01-31 01:26:46 <jgarzik> if we delete CPU mining from official bitcoin, we could start unwinding some of this mess
152 2011-01-31 01:26:59 <jgarzik> just leave getwork and push-mining
153 2011-01-31 01:27:09 <ArtForzZz> you might as well have a single loop of (receive stuff - process stuff - send stuff)
154 2011-01-31 01:27:23 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: I'm getting really tempted to do a major refactor and start creating a libbitcoin
155 2011-01-31 01:27:26 <jgarzik> send is async
156 2011-01-31 01:27:31 <jgarzik> rx + process
157 2011-01-31 01:27:37 <ArtForzZz> really
158 2011-01-31 01:27:45 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: my heart wants to do it, but my head knows it's probably the wrong thing to do right now.
159 2011-01-31 01:27:59 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: I hear ya :)
160 2011-01-31 01:27:59 <ArtForzZz> I thought we also had a push_bytes_to_network thread
161 2011-01-31 01:28:26 <jgarzik> ArtForzZz: ThreadSocketHandler for that, today, yes
162 2011-01-31 01:29:08 <ArtForzZz> also ThreadMessageHandler2
163 2011-01-31 01:29:50 <jgarzik> get TSH to queue "you received bytes on socket X" messages to TMH, and eliminate TMH's polling loop.
164 2011-01-31 01:30:46 <ArtForzZz> basically we now have TSH buffering bytes until it has a complete message, putting that in a per-node queue
165 2011-01-31 01:31:09 <jgarzik> I thought 'have a complete msg' logic was in TMH
166 2011-01-31 01:31:15 <jgarzik> but maybe I'm mistaken
167 2011-01-31 01:31:26 <ArtForzZz> you're right
168 2011-01-31 01:31:28 <ArtForzZz> WTF
169 2011-01-31 01:31:33 <jgarzik> exactly!
170 2011-01-31 01:32:08 <ArtForzZz> that makes no sense at all
171 2011-01-31 01:32:27 <jgarzik> TSH uses select properly, then TMH destroys that with a stupid poll
172 2011-01-31 01:32:34 <andrew12> gavinandresen: make a libbitcoin!
173 2011-01-31 01:32:48 <andrew12> and write it in C!
174 2011-01-31 01:32:49 <andrew12> :P
175 2011-01-31 01:33:13 <ArtForzZz> either do it single threaded or massively threaded
176 2011-01-31 01:33:17 <ArtForzZz> but this is just half-assed
177 2011-01-31 01:33:20 <gavinandresen> C, huh... kick it old school....
178 2011-01-31 01:33:36 <andrew12> gavinandresen: it'd be easier to make a plugin/module for other languages if it were in c
179 2011-01-31 01:33:48 <ArtForzZz> basically either lose TMH or have one TMH per node
180 2011-01-31 01:34:57 <gavinandresen> andrew12: yeah... the API could be all C and the guts C++.
181 2011-01-31 01:35:01 <andrew12> yep
182 2011-01-31 01:35:05 <jgarzik> well, again, there is nothing _wrong_ with one-TMH, if one chooses the network I/O thread (TSH) + message execution thread (TMH) model. That is probably the easiest to achieve with current codebase.
183 2011-01-31 01:35:25 <jgarzik> have TSH figure out message boundaries, then queue "you have a message" msg
184 2011-01-31 01:35:30 <jgarzik> TMH processes that queue
185 2011-01-31 01:35:40 <ArtForzZz> yep
186 2011-01-31 01:35:50 <andrew12> plus refactoring is generally good
187 2011-01-31 01:35:53 <andrew12> :p
188 2011-01-31 01:36:12 <ArtForzZz> though I think I'd just lose TMH and roll its functionality into TSH
189 2011-01-31 01:36:27 <jgarzik> nothing wrong with that, either
190 2011-01-31 01:36:37 <ArtForzZz> looks simpler from here
191 2011-01-31 01:36:46 <jgarzik> having TSH call ProcessMessage would be fine
192 2011-01-31 01:36:47 <gavinandresen> refactoring is great if you have a good reason to do it. If you're just doing it to make the code look prettier, you could probably be doing something more productive.
193 2011-01-31 01:37:06 <andrew12> that's true. :p
194 2011-01-31 01:38:34 * jgarzik is from a crowd that believes breaking up large functions, into multiple smaller ones, makes sense as a general practice. It increases readability, and the compiler doesn't care.
195 2011-01-31 01:38:54 <jgarzik> of course, these are pirate rules: it's not a rule, more like a guideline.
196 2011-01-31 01:40:55 <ArtForzZz> old-school C coder here
197 2011-01-31 01:41:13 <ArtForzZz> aka "one function to rule them all"
198 2011-01-31 01:41:18 <jgarzik> heh
199 2011-01-31 01:41:55 * jgarzik wonders if he can get TSH to select() between P2P sockets and RPC sockets
200 2011-01-31 01:41:55 <Diablo-D3> heh
201 2011-01-31 01:42:01 <Diablo-D3> anything more than about 1000 lines is too much
202 2011-01-31 01:42:01 <ArtForzZz> calls used to be expensive, and compilers sucked at inlining
203 2011-01-31 01:42:21 <Diablo-D3> yeah, now compilers produce code that looks nothing like the code you gave it
204 2011-01-31 01:42:25 <Diablo-D3> ArtForzZz: and btw
205 2011-01-31 01:42:31 <Diablo-D3> compilers DID listen to inline
206 2011-01-31 01:42:33 <jgarzik> that would eliminate RPC thread
207 2011-01-31 01:42:39 <jgarzik> and TMH
208 2011-01-31 01:42:51 <Diablo-D3> the funny part now is, they dont
209 2011-01-31 01:43:43 Slix` has quit (Quit: { throw std::runtime_error("Client got bored of IRC."); })
210 2011-01-31 01:44:28 <jgarzik> oh well, thoughts for another day. back to python.
211 2011-01-31 01:47:28 achristianson has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
212 2011-01-31 01:49:30 * andrew12 sighs
213 2011-01-31 01:49:39 <andrew12> why does bitcoin use a binary protocol?
214 2011-01-31 01:50:57 <andrew12> and why does it do confusing stuff with the endianness?
215 2011-01-31 01:51:10 <jgarzik> oh nice, python can do "have_work = (len(work) > 0)" to assign booleans
216 2011-01-31 01:52:15 <ArtForzZz> yup
217 2011-01-31 01:54:05 joe_1 has joined
218 2011-01-31 02:01:14 * jgarzik 's fingers keep adding semi-colons to the end of python code lines
219 2011-01-31 02:01:30 <jgarzik> from C and Perl
220 2011-01-31 02:01:34 <echelon> wb joe_1
221 2011-01-31 02:02:43 <Diablo-D3> ArtForzZz: hey
222 2011-01-31 02:02:51 <Diablo-D3> we never discussed the important thing the other day
223 2011-01-31 02:02:58 <Diablo-D3> your kernel massively increases nvidia performance
224 2011-01-31 02:03:05 <ArtForzZz> *shrug*
225 2011-01-31 02:03:13 <ArtForzZz> geuss nvidias compiler is even braindeader than ATIs
226 2011-01-31 02:03:18 <Diablo-D3> its not the hardware choking on m0's kernel
227 2011-01-31 02:03:24 <Diablo-D3> it has to be the compiler
228 2011-01-31 02:03:27 <Diablo-D3> no other way
229 2011-01-31 02:03:58 TrT2 has joined
230 2011-01-31 02:04:14 <Diablo-D3> ArtForzZz: but the funny part is
231 2011-01-31 02:04:23 <Diablo-D3> it drags nvidia significantly forwards
232 2011-01-31 02:04:29 <ArtForzZz> ?
233 2011-01-31 02:04:42 <Diablo-D3> I mean, nvidia was about 4xxx performance
234 2011-01-31 02:04:49 <Diablo-D3> its half way between 4xxx and 5xxx now
235 2011-01-31 02:04:56 <ArtForzZz> errr... no, still is
236 2011-01-31 02:05:25 <ArtForzZz> they're finally getting numbers close to what they *should* be getting
237 2011-01-31 02:05:26 <jgarzik> does python have the equivalent of "perl -cw script.pl", which performs compilation/syntax check but does -not- run the script?
238 2011-01-31 02:05:49 <Diablo-D3> ArtForzZz: oh.
239 2011-01-31 02:05:50 <Diablo-D3> wow
240 2011-01-31 02:05:52 <Diablo-D3> thats shit then
241 2011-01-31 02:06:06 <nanotube> jgarzik: yes, start python, then 'import yourfile'
242 2011-01-31 02:06:07 <nanotube> :)
243 2011-01-31 02:06:10 <ArtForzZz> = with m0s old miner, we saw ~45Mhps on a 260
244 2011-01-31 02:06:25 <jgarzik> nanotube: something on the command line...
245 2011-01-31 02:06:29 <ArtForzZz> while my spreadsheet said ~68Mhps on a 260
246 2011-01-31 02:06:54 <ArtForzZz> and thats for a straightforward double-sha256
247 2011-01-31 02:07:34 <nanotube> jgarzik: well, try http://bytes.com/topic/python/answers/38328-python-switch-syntax-checking
248 2011-01-31 02:08:22 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
249 2011-01-31 02:08:56 TrT2 has quit (Quit: Got to keep moving!!)
250 2011-01-31 02:09:12 <Diablo-D3> ArtForzZz: I wonder what mine gets on it now
251 2011-01-31 02:10:29 <ArtForzZz> point is, nvidia doesn't have a native rotate, and nothing like ch() either
252 2011-01-31 02:10:59 <ArtForzZz> so minimum ops/hash is pretty much the same between nvidia 2/4/5xx and ati 4xxx
253 2011-01-31 02:19:33 <jgarzik> hmmm. if I read rpc.cpp correctly, the RPC server does not support persistent connections.
254 2011-01-31 02:23:55 * jgarzik pokes cpuminer, willing it to find a [32-bit] proof-of-work already
255 2011-01-31 02:26:37 prax has quit ()
256 2011-01-31 02:37:43 xelister has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
257 2011-01-31 02:45:12 <andrew12> so i wrote the serialization/deserialization functions for ruby-bitcoin.. (well some of them), but i currently have no idea if they work
258 2011-01-31 02:45:33 <andrew12> but i won't know till tomorrow
259 2011-01-31 02:45:45 <andrew12> if even :P
260 2011-01-31 02:47:21 <joe_1> so it's ready to run on the network?
261 2011-01-31 02:51:38 LobsterMan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
262 2011-01-31 02:57:03 LobsterMan has joined
263 2011-01-31 03:11:02 <andrew12> joe_1: no
264 2011-01-31 03:11:24 <andrew12> lol
265 2011-01-31 03:11:26 <andrew12> not yet
266 2011-01-31 03:11:32 <andrew12> hopefully tomorrow
267 2011-01-31 03:13:48 <joe_1> cool
268 2011-01-31 03:14:25 <joe_1> i'm in the process of trying to understand the bitcoin client code. right now working on all the network protocol junk
269 2011-01-31 03:15:03 ApertureScience has quit (Quit: i said i was busy damn it!)
270 2011-01-31 03:18:04 <andrew12> yeah
271 2011-01-31 03:18:13 <andrew12> binary protocols are hard
272 2011-01-31 03:18:24 <andrew12> parsing xml/json/whatever is much easier
273 2011-01-31 03:32:33 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
274 2011-01-31 03:34:42 asdf30 has joined
275 2011-01-31 03:34:59 andrew12 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
276 2011-01-31 03:35:04 DusT1 has joined
277 2011-01-31 03:38:15 noagendamarket has joined
278 2011-01-31 03:38:53 noagendamarket has quit (Changing host)
279 2011-01-31 03:38:53 noagendamarket has joined
280 2011-01-31 03:40:34 andrew12 has joined
281 2011-01-31 03:42:40 james has joined
282 2011-01-31 03:43:01 Guest64966 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
283 2011-01-31 03:43:06 james is now known as Guest81670
284 2011-01-31 03:55:02 sabalaba has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
285 2011-01-31 03:56:07 sabalaba has joined
286 2011-01-31 03:58:29 andrew12 has quit (Changing host)
287 2011-01-31 03:58:29 andrew12 has joined
288 2011-01-31 04:07:11 Slix` has joined
289 2011-01-31 04:19:39 echelon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
290 2011-01-31 04:21:21 echelon has joined
291 2011-01-31 04:54:55 DusT1 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
292 2011-01-31 04:56:07 <nanotube> sipa: thanks for the thought. try out bc,prob :)
293 2011-01-31 04:56:32 <nanotube> ;;bc,prob 1000 2y
294 2011-01-31 04:56:32 <gribble> 0.486818357525
295 2011-01-31 05:02:02 <hacim> nanotube: whats that?
296 2011-01-31 05:02:10 <citizen> yeah, what is that?
297 2011-01-31 05:02:21 <nanotube> gives you probability of finding a block, at X khps, in Y time period
298 2011-01-31 05:02:37 <citizen> ah neato
299 2011-01-31 05:02:46 <citizen> ;;bc,stats
300 2011-01-31 05:02:48 <gribble> Current Blocks: 105428 | Current Difficulty: 22012.4941572 | Next Difficulty At Block: 106847 | Next Difficulty In: 1419 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 2 days, 4 hours, 20 minutes, and 21 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 23657.11415162
301 2011-01-31 05:03:35 <nanotube> ;;bc,poolstats
302 2011-01-31 05:03:36 <gribble> {"hashes_ps": 29151988411, "shares": 46501, "active_workers": 390, "round_duration": "1:54:11", "round_started": "2011-01-31 03:03:54", "shares_cdf": 87.909999999999997, "getwork_ps": 120}
303 2011-01-31 05:03:49 <nanotube> heh, pool's steadily at 30ghps or so.
304 2011-01-31 05:03:58 <citizen> so in a little over a week, it's going to be 7-8% more difficult to find blocks?
305 2011-01-31 05:05:54 <Cusipzzz> citizen: yep
306 2011-01-31 05:08:21 <jgarzik> what's the favorite python method for chopping a string multiple parts, and returning those parts as a list?
307 2011-01-31 05:09:38 <jgarzik> something like str.partition(), but based on length rather than a separator
308 2011-01-31 05:10:22 <nanotube> fixed width split, basically?
309 2011-01-31 05:10:46 <jgarzik> yeah
310 2011-01-31 05:11:11 <nanotube> probably a list comprehension
311 2011-01-31 05:11:50 <nanotube> l = [s[i:i+3] for i in range(0, len(s), 3)]
312 2011-01-31 05:12:00 <nanotube> if you want it by 3's e.g.
313 2011-01-31 05:14:30 <jgarzik> nanotube: neat. though it will be a while before I actually understand what that's doing :)
314 2011-01-31 05:16:24 Cusipzzz has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.2 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
315 2011-01-31 05:16:35 <nanotube> it basically takes a for loop... and puts its outputs into a list. :)
316 2011-01-31 05:16:48 <nanotube> more importantly, why do you want to split a string into equal chunks? :)
317 2011-01-31 05:20:08 <jgarzik> nanotube: getting 32-bit chunks of data from getwork
318 2011-01-31 05:20:29 <jgarzik> they're received as as strings, and I'm unpacking them into a list of uint32's
319 2011-01-31 05:20:40 <jgarzik> so that they may be byteswapped
320 2011-01-31 05:21:16 <ArtForzZz> whats wrong with just using struct.unpack on the hex string?
321 2011-01-31 05:21:44 <ArtForzZz> errr... .decode("hex") of the hex string
322 2011-01-31 05:23:20 Guest81670 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
323 2011-01-31 05:24:17 <ArtForzZz> "6457346535".decode("hex") == 'dW4e5'
324 2011-01-31 05:24:30 <Vladimir> if I were bitcoind developer I would use BERT for all binary (non human readable) serialisation and YAML for text (human readable), and no more troubles with decoding and encoding stuff
325 2011-01-31 05:25:05 <ArtForzZz> can't change the block and tx encoding now
326 2011-01-31 05:25:10 <Vladimir> I know
327 2011-01-31 05:25:17 <Kiba> hmm
328 2011-01-31 05:25:21 <nanotube> save that for bitcoin2 :) heh
329 2011-01-31 05:25:23 * Kiba is doing badly as an artist
330 2011-01-31 05:25:26 <ArtForzZz> yup
331 2011-01-31 05:25:27 <Kiba> I am stuck on one project too long
332 2011-01-31 05:25:52 <Kiba> I need to practice drawing all kind of things
333 2011-01-31 05:26:01 james has joined
334 2011-01-31 05:26:27 james is now known as Guest78354
335 2011-01-31 05:27:19 <Vladimir> thank's god, though, that there is no XML anywhere in sight, lol
336 2011-01-31 05:28:56 <mrb_> ;;rate Vladimir 1
337 2011-01-31 05:28:56 <gribble> Error: For identification purposes, you must have a freenode cloak to use the rating system.
338 2011-01-31 05:29:25 mrb_ has quit (Changing host)
339 2011-01-31 05:29:25 mrb_ has joined
340 2011-01-31 05:31:09 <mrb_> ;;rate Keefe 0
341 2011-01-31 05:31:09 <gribble> Error: Rating must be in the interval [-10, 10] and cannot be zero.
342 2011-01-31 05:31:16 <Keefe> :o
343 2011-01-31 05:31:16 <mrb_> ;;rate Keefe 1
344 2011-01-31 05:31:16 <gribble> Rating entry successful. Use the 'getrating' command to view Keefe's new rating.
345 2011-01-31 05:31:21 <mrb_> ;;unrate Keefe
346 2011-01-31 05:31:21 <gribble> Successfully removed your rating for Keefe.
347 2011-01-31 05:31:30 <mrb_> just trying to see if rating works...
348 2011-01-31 05:31:46 <Keefe> ah :)
349 2011-01-31 05:32:04 <mrb_> I guess I should use gribble for that
350 2011-01-31 05:32:08 <mrb_> ;;rate gribble 42
351 2011-01-31 05:32:08 <gribble> Error: Rating must be in the interval [-10, 10] and cannot be zero.
352 2011-01-31 05:32:11 <mrb_> ;;rate gribble 10
353 2011-01-31 05:32:12 <gribble> Rating entry successful. Use the 'getrating' command to view gribble's new rating.
354 2011-01-31 05:32:18 <mrb_> ;;unrate gribble
355 2011-01-31 05:32:19 <gribble> Successfully removed your rating for gribble.
356 2011-01-31 05:32:20 <nanotube> mrb_: you could also use #bitcoin-otc for that. :)
357 2011-01-31 05:32:42 <nanotube> or pm with gribble. dunno how much the -dev folks enjoy the rating spam. ;)
358 2011-01-31 05:32:56 <mrb_> oh right I could pm gribble
359 2011-01-31 05:33:31 acous has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
360 2011-01-31 05:35:27 BCBot has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
361 2011-01-31 05:39:05 BCBot has joined
362 2011-01-31 05:49:59 <hacim> slush: I'm getting a lot of 'invalid or stale'
363 2011-01-31 05:51:04 <hacim> well, 3 in the last 44 minutes, but at 20+ yesterday
364 2011-01-31 05:54:27 <dooglus> jgarzik: this works, too: >>> re.findall("...", "hello world!")
365 2011-01-31 05:54:27 <dooglus> ['hel', 'lo ', 'wor', 'ld!']
366 2011-01-31 05:58:07 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
367 2011-01-31 05:58:20 molecular has joined
368 2011-01-31 06:00:49 DusT1 has joined
369 2011-01-31 06:06:16 skeledrew has quit (Quit: Instantbird 0.3a1pre)
370 2011-01-31 06:11:28 ducki2p has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
371 2011-01-31 06:12:00 ducki2p has joined
372 2011-01-31 06:16:59 midnightmagic_ has joined
373 2011-01-31 06:22:20 MJD has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
374 2011-01-31 06:22:20 <echelon> ducki2p, what's the matter.. no i2p gateway for freenode? :P
375 2011-01-31 06:22:48 <ducki2p> ;)
376 2011-01-31 06:22:58 Kiba has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
377 2011-01-31 06:23:12 <nanotube> echelon: actually there is, on #bitcoin-discussion :)
378 2011-01-31 06:24:52 <echelon> hmm?
379 2011-01-31 06:25:40 <echelon> a relay bot of some sort?
380 2011-01-31 06:25:47 <nanotube> yes :)
381 2011-01-31 06:25:55 <echelon> ah k
382 2011-01-31 06:35:13 MJD has joined
383 2011-01-31 06:44:24 ApertureScience has joined
384 2011-01-31 06:54:33 larsivi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
385 2011-01-31 06:55:04 RazielZ has joined
386 2011-01-31 07:02:32 Slix` has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
387 2011-01-31 07:15:48 satamusic-1 has joined
388 2011-01-31 07:16:36 satamusic has quit (Disconnected by services)
389 2011-01-31 07:17:10 satamusic-1 is now known as satamusic
390 2011-01-31 07:17:17 satamusic has quit (Changing host)
391 2011-01-31 07:17:17 satamusic has joined
392 2011-01-31 07:35:36 MJD has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
393 2011-01-31 07:36:50 MJD has joined
394 2011-01-31 07:37:29 asdf30 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
395 2011-01-31 07:39:07 <slush> hacim: read the forum
396 2011-01-31 07:39:15 <slush> hacim: then open #bitcoin-monitor
397 2011-01-31 07:39:36 <slush> hacim: and when your 'invalid or stale' fit with times of new blocks, then it is OK
398 2011-01-31 07:48:28 larsivi has joined
399 2011-01-31 07:53:22 MJD has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
400 2011-01-31 07:56:51 MJD has joined
401 2011-01-31 08:02:21 slush has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
402 2011-01-31 08:11:16 devon_hillard has joined
403 2011-01-31 08:22:28 <jgarzik> l = [0,1,2,4,8,16,32,64]
404 2011-01-31 08:22:29 <jgarzik> s = struct.pack('@IIIIIIII', l)
405 2011-01-31 08:22:37 <jgarzik> struct.error: pack requires exactly 8 arguments
406 2011-01-31 08:22:51 * jgarzik wonders, how to pass a list to struct.pack() ?
407 2011-01-31 08:22:59 sabalaba has quit (Quit: Leaving)
408 2011-01-31 08:28:56 <strattog> jgarzik: struct.pack('@IIIIIIII', *l)
409 2011-01-31 08:37:34 DusT1 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
410 2011-01-31 08:47:05 davout has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
411 2011-01-31 08:47:36 larsivi has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
412 2011-01-31 08:51:24 hundfred has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
413 2011-01-31 08:58:47 larsivi has joined
414 2011-01-31 09:00:05 kisom__ has joined
415 2011-01-31 09:00:23 hundfred has joined
416 2011-01-31 09:00:31 kisom__ is now known as kisom_dev
417 2011-01-31 09:16:32 larsivi has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
418 2011-01-31 09:30:58 lfm has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.6.13/20101203075014])
419 2011-01-31 09:34:05 larsivi has joined
420 2011-01-31 10:03:11 <sipa> ;;bc,prob
421 2011-01-31 10:03:11 <gribble> (bc,prob <an alias, at least 1 argument>) -- Alias for "math calc 1-exp(-$1*1000 * [seconds $*] / (2**32* [bc,diff]))".
422 2011-01-31 10:03:55 <sipa> ;;bc,prob 1230000 8h
423 2011-01-31 10:03:55 <gribble> 0.312495482373
424 2011-01-31 10:04:28 <sipa> ;;bc,prob 1230000 1d
425 2011-01-31 10:04:28 <gribble> 0.675042422228
426 2011-01-31 10:15:22 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
427 2011-01-31 10:24:14 MJD has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
428 2011-01-31 10:31:28 MJD has joined
429 2011-01-31 10:43:44 MJD has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
430 2011-01-31 10:46:44 MJD has joined
431 2011-01-31 11:07:13 noagendamarket has joined
432 2011-01-31 11:07:30 noagendamarket has quit (Changing host)
433 2011-01-31 11:07:30 noagendamarket has joined
434 2011-01-31 11:15:18 JStoker has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
435 2011-01-31 11:16:18 BostX has joined
436 2011-01-31 11:16:23 <BostX> hi ppl
437 2011-01-31 11:17:46 <BostX> on http://bitcoinwatch.com/ I see a steady increase of USD invested to bitcoins
438 2011-01-31 11:17:52 <BostX> how do u explain that
439 2011-01-31 11:17:53 <BostX> ?
440 2011-01-31 11:24:27 JStoker has joined
441 2011-01-31 11:30:54 akem has quit (Quit: Leaving)
442 2011-01-31 11:33:30 altamic has joined
443 2011-01-31 11:41:42 devon_hillard has quit (Quit: Leaving)
444 2011-01-31 11:46:47 <satamusic> greed.
445 2011-01-31 11:46:59 <Diablo-D3> Greedo-san.
446 2011-01-31 11:47:11 <Diablo-D3> hrm, or Greeed
447 2011-01-31 11:47:37 * Diablo-D3 tries to imagine Greedo-san as a Greeed
448 2011-01-31 11:47:46 <Diablo-D3> that would be redundantly delicious
449 2011-01-31 11:55:18 davout has joined
450 2011-01-31 11:57:37 bertodsera has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
451 2011-01-31 12:00:10 bertodsera has joined
452 2011-01-31 12:02:37 akem has joined
453 2011-01-31 12:08:31 akem has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
454 2011-01-31 12:10:43 akem has joined
455 2011-01-31 12:10:43 akem has quit (Changing host)
456 2011-01-31 12:10:43 akem has joined
457 2011-01-31 12:13:43 Xunie has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
458 2011-01-31 12:25:25 Insti has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
459 2011-01-31 12:40:56 slush has joined
460 2011-01-31 12:51:48 akem has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
461 2011-01-31 12:51:49 larsivi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
462 2011-01-31 12:52:38 larsivi_ has joined
463 2011-01-31 12:55:30 <noagendamarket> I blame the mob BostX
464 2011-01-31 12:57:07 akem has joined
465 2011-01-31 12:58:47 kermit has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
466 2011-01-31 12:59:31 <BostX> noagendamarket: hmm... never thought the mob is that rich
467 2011-01-31 12:59:40 <opus_> yo
468 2011-01-31 13:00:05 <opus_> bjam is a bitch to cross compile
469 2011-01-31 13:01:53 <noagendamarket> The russian mob owns hollywood
470 2011-01-31 13:05:06 Xunie has joined
471 2011-01-31 13:05:06 Xunie has quit (Changing host)
472 2011-01-31 13:05:06 Xunie has joined
473 2011-01-31 13:09:19 <UukGoblin> ha, just read about BitX
474 2011-01-31 13:09:28 <UukGoblin> I thought of exactly the same thing on my own
475 2011-01-31 13:09:55 <UukGoblin> the bitcoin's block chain could easily be used for a multitude of other uses, e.g. signing and timestamping MMORPG events
476 2011-01-31 13:11:26 <BostX> UukGoblin: post a link pls
477 2011-01-31 13:14:58 <UukGoblin> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1790.0
478 2011-01-31 13:22:41 <opus_> ?
479 2011-01-31 13:22:46 <opus_> whats bitx
480 2011-01-31 13:23:35 <opus_> oh linkie
481 2011-01-31 13:25:01 <opus_> What happeneds when they block IP address.. ?
482 2011-01-31 13:25:35 <opus_> "You can only go to facebook.com" - Nancy Peloski 2012
483 2011-01-31 13:31:00 <citizen> lol
484 2011-01-31 13:31:33 <citizen> nancy pelosi's facebook is probably worse than tubgirl/lemonparty
485 2011-01-31 13:32:47 <Diablo-D3> citizen: her real one? "yes", but shes too old to actually even know what computers are
486 2011-01-31 13:33:20 <Diablo-D3> her fake one is just ran by her PR team
487 2011-01-31 13:33:23 skeledrew has joined
488 2011-01-31 13:33:30 davout has quit ()
489 2011-01-31 13:34:01 akem has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
490 2011-01-31 13:34:17 sabalaba has joined
491 2011-01-31 13:43:50 TheAncientGoat has joined
492 2011-01-31 13:45:02 lesley has joined
493 2011-01-31 13:45:09 lesley is now known as V
494 2011-01-31 13:45:58 * V genjix pokes MT`AwAy
495 2011-01-31 13:46:34 <MT`AwAy> :o
496 2011-01-31 13:52:59 grondilu has joined
497 2011-01-31 13:53:14 <grondilu> what's up with biddingpond ?
498 2011-01-31 13:56:39 <hacim> two blocks within 38 seconds of each other
499 2011-01-31 13:56:55 larsivi_ is now known as larsivi
500 2011-01-31 13:56:58 <hacim> slush: ok, that makes sense, thanks for pointing that out.
501 2011-01-31 13:58:00 <hacim> slush: round times are really high aren't they? in the last 6hrs, even with 700 some shared, i've only received a very small amount of reward :o
502 2011-01-31 13:59:11 grondilu has left ()
503 2011-01-31 13:59:51 gavinandresen has joined
504 2011-01-31 14:03:42 akem has joined
505 2011-01-31 14:06:08 dwdollar1 has left ()
506 2011-01-31 14:08:21 <citizen> is slush around?
507 2011-01-31 14:25:47 <gavinandresen> Anybody here want to help generate blocks on the new testnet chain? (means grabbing a patch, recompiling, running and reporting any weirdnesses caused by your old testnet wallet/block chain suddenly becoming invalid)
508 2011-01-31 14:28:20 <tcatm> gavinandresen: Where's the patch? :)
509 2011-01-31 14:28:46 <gavinandresen> I haven't pushed it yet, will do that in a couple minutes
510 2011-01-31 14:29:39 devon_hillard has joined
511 2011-01-31 14:30:43 bertodsera has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
512 2011-01-31 14:31:43 davout has joined
513 2011-01-31 14:31:58 <gavinandresen> tcatm: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/53
514 2011-01-31 14:33:06 bertodsera has joined
515 2011-01-31 14:33:13 Kiba has joined
516 2011-01-31 14:38:01 TheAncientGoat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
517 2011-01-31 14:39:21 TheAncientGoat has joined
518 2011-01-31 14:40:58 V has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
519 2011-01-31 14:42:08 <gavinandresen> tcatm: new testnet height should be 62... let me double-check and make sure my firewall is open to testnet connections....
520 2011-01-31 14:43:38 <tcatm> It still shows the old height (28385). What's your testnet node's IP?
521 2011-01-31 14:43:52 kermit has joined
522 2011-01-31 14:44:24 <gavinandresen> 96.240.197.31
523 2011-01-31 14:44:40 <gavinandresen> tcatm: you sure you recompiled and re-ran?
524 2011-01-31 14:45:10 <tcatm> re-ran = ./bitcoind stop; ./bitcoind -testnet -addnode=96...? yep
525 2011-01-31 14:45:11 <gavinandresen> It should show height=0 and a whole bunch of orphan blocks if you have the new genesis block
526 2011-01-31 14:48:02 <tcatm> strange. should it detect the changed genesis block during startup?
527 2011-01-31 14:48:54 <gavinandresen> Yeah, but I there is an optimization stopping it: if (pindex->nHeight < nBestHeight-2500 && !mapArgs.count("-checkblocks"))
528 2011-01-31 14:49:26 <gavinandresen> ... it only checks the last 2500 blocks to see if they're valid.
529 2011-01-31 14:49:36 * tcatm reruns with -checkblocks
530 2011-01-31 14:49:37 <gavinandresen> (unless you run -checkblocks)
531 2011-01-31 14:50:08 <tcatm> still 28385
532 2011-01-31 14:51:37 <gavinandresen> Right, so should we add code to check for a changed genesis block (if testnet), or just tell people to remove blk*.dat.....
533 2011-01-31 14:51:58 slush has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
534 2011-01-31 14:52:00 <tcatm> How hard would it be to check the hash of the genesis block on every start?
535 2011-01-31 14:52:10 <gavinandresen> Not hard
536 2011-01-31 14:52:24 <gavinandresen> (famous last words)
537 2011-01-31 14:55:20 <UukGoblin> hmm I wonder if compiling with -fprofile-generate and -fprofile-use would speed up the stock's client generation :-]
538 2011-01-31 14:56:28 <tcatm> UukGoblin: unlikely
539 2011-01-31 14:57:03 <UukGoblin> yeah I wouldn't expect miracles with it
540 2011-01-31 14:57:34 <UukGoblin> it the dataset is small enough to get into cache fairly fast
541 2011-01-31 14:57:55 <tcatm> At least my 4way miner is optimized to only use the cache
542 2011-01-31 14:59:10 <citizen> are you talking about CPU mining?
543 2011-01-31 14:59:40 <tcatm> yes
544 2011-01-31 15:00:16 <Kiba> hey bitcoiners
545 2011-01-31 15:00:21 TheAncientGoat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
546 2011-01-31 15:01:12 <tcatm> hey Kiba
547 2011-01-31 15:02:13 TheAncientGoat has joined
548 2011-01-31 15:04:22 TheAncientGoat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
549 2011-01-31 15:05:35 <gavinandresen> tcatm: [testnet_difficulty ad0523d] Detect genesis block change if run against old blk*.dat
550 2011-01-31 15:06:54 <gavinandresen> It doesn't try to clean up the old blk*.dat files-- the old blocks are just orphaned.
551 2011-01-31 15:07:01 TheAncientGoat has joined
552 2011-01-31 15:08:19 Diablo-D3 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
553 2011-01-31 15:09:06 <sipa> ;;bc,prob 1255000 15h
554 2011-01-31 15:09:06 <gribble> 0.51169600304
555 2011-01-31 15:09:38 <sipa> ;;bc,prob 1257000 15h
556 2011-01-31 15:09:38 <gribble> 0.512253492791
557 2011-01-31 15:11:02 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
558 2011-01-31 15:11:24 <UukGoblin> hm that's cool
559 2011-01-31 15:11:35 <UukGoblin> ;;bc,prob 2000000 24h
560 2011-01-31 15:11:35 <gribble> 0.839223627479
561 2011-01-31 15:11:40 sabalaba has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
562 2011-01-31 15:11:43 <UukGoblin> ;;bc,prob 2000000 240h
563 2011-01-31 15:11:43 <gribble> 0.99999998846
564 2011-01-31 15:17:37 <necrodearia> ooh, bitcoin.org/smf looks different
565 2011-01-31 15:18:44 <tcatm> [6~[6~[6~ga works now
566 2011-01-31 15:20:58 <tcatm> gavinandresen: listaccounts outputs negative balance for most accounts
567 2011-01-31 15:21:41 <gavinandresen> tcatm: Oooh.... yeah.... hmmm.
568 2011-01-31 15:23:19 <gavinandresen> That's because you spent a whole bunch of now-invalid coins.
569 2011-01-31 15:23:36 <tcatm> yep
570 2011-01-31 15:26:12 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
571 2011-01-31 15:27:17 <gavinandresen> Yeah, I think recommending that you remove your testnet data directory (nuking your wallet and the old blk files) is the right thing to do.
572 2011-01-31 15:29:16 slush has joined
573 2011-01-31 15:34:38 <luke-jr> hey, my bitcoins actually sold
574 2011-01-31 15:34:42 <luke-jr> 0.4799 USD ea
575 2011-01-31 15:37:46 <tcatm> gavinandresen: btw, do we really need to create "Your Address" account? I thought "" was the default now
576 2011-01-31 15:38:52 <gavinandresen> I don't care enough to change that code.
577 2011-01-31 15:39:14 bertodsera has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
578 2011-01-31 15:39:41 devon_hillard has quit (Quit: Leaving)
579 2011-01-31 15:42:01 bertodsera has joined
580 2011-01-31 15:53:30 <davout> gavinandresen: has the default account changed name again ?
581 2011-01-31 15:53:43 <gavinandresen> davout: no
582 2011-01-31 15:54:07 <gavinandresen> The "" account is the default for generated coins.
583 2011-01-31 15:54:31 <gavinandresen> The "Your Address" is the GUI's default for receiving coins.
584 2011-01-31 15:55:32 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: it seems people keep suggesting the same solutions to the sub-cent issue :p
585 2011-01-31 15:55:48 TD has joined
586 2011-01-31 15:55:51 <luke-jr> my RPC v1 = sipa's Idea 2 = vladimir's "why not"
587 2011-01-31 15:56:02 <luke-jr> my RPC v2 = your counter-proposal
588 2011-01-31 15:56:05 <luke-jr> err
589 2011-01-31 15:56:10 <luke-jr> my RPC v0 w/o rounding*
590 2011-01-31 15:56:32 <gavinandresen> Great minds think alike?
591 2011-01-31 15:56:48 <luke-jr> âº
592 2011-01-31 15:56:51 <gavinandresen> Either that or herd mentality
593 2011-01-31 15:57:15 <luke-jr> perhaps, I was just commenting on how each time these are proposed, it seems like an argument
594 2011-01-31 15:57:22 <luke-jr> even though the ideas are basically the same thing :p
595 2011-01-31 15:58:45 tg has quit (Quit: Changing server)
596 2011-01-31 15:59:09 tg has joined
597 2011-01-31 16:00:04 <gavinandresen> basically.... but I don't think supporting multiple versions of the RPC interface is a good idea, just because it gives some people the warm fuzzies to send 100000000. instead of 1.0
598 2011-01-31 16:00:38 <gavinandresen> (or send 1 instead of 1e-8)
599 2011-01-31 16:00:45 <sipa> gavinandresen: the command-line interface and GUI could do transformation from/to decimal-BTC notation
600 2011-01-31 16:01:09 <gavinandresen> sipa: uh-huh. And JSON still defines numbers to be double-precision floats
601 2011-01-31 16:01:09 <sipa> on the other hand, your proposal seems a combination... solve the issue of sub-cent precision and make the JSON interface support all transactions, while still keeping it human readable and (probably) not breaking backward-compatibility
602 2011-01-31 16:02:30 <sipa> but i still don't like relying on covertion from and to floating point to transfer something which should be represented as integers internally
603 2011-01-31 16:02:36 <sipa> *conversion
604 2011-01-31 16:02:49 <gavinandresen> Human readable protocols are extremely handy... I think its a big reason HTTP is a huge success.
605 2011-01-31 16:03:18 <sipa> yes, that's a reasonable argument
606 2011-01-31 16:03:32 <sipa> as is not wanting to break backward compatibility
607 2011-01-31 16:03:36 <gavinandresen> sipa: so don't convert to a float, just take the string and move the decimal point 8 places to the right.
608 2011-01-31 16:04:11 <sipa> but using any json library will parse it as a float for you - expect when encoding it as a string
609 2011-01-31 16:04:18 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: people shouldn't be using the RPC interface anyway
610 2011-01-31 16:04:43 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: and it's almost inevitable that something will require a revision bump at some point
611 2011-01-31 16:05:01 <sipa> his proposal doesn't
612 2011-01-31 16:05:08 <luke-jr> JSON doesn't define numbers ot be double-precision floats.
613 2011-01-31 16:06:25 <gavinandresen> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4627.txt
614 2011-01-31 16:06:36 <sipa> true - but it defines exponential representation, and allows implementations to limit its supported range
615 2011-01-31 16:06:37 <gavinandresen> Normative reference: ECMA, aka JavaScript....
616 2011-01-31 16:06:47 <luke-jr> hmm, it wasn't on the site, oh well
617 2011-01-31 16:07:04 <luke-jr> still, floating-point can represent all of the valid bitcoin integer values losslessly ;)
618 2011-01-31 16:07:16 <luke-jr> and it *can't* do the same with fractional BTC values
619 2011-01-31 16:07:21 <luke-jr> (short of rounding)
620 2011-01-31 16:07:47 <gavinandresen> why yes, yes it can. It is almost as if Satoshi chose 2.1 quadrillion bittie-coins on purpose......
621 2011-01-31 16:07:53 <luke-jr> also, your linked spec doesn't specify floating-point either
622 2011-01-31 16:08:18 <sipa> gavinandresen: it think luke-jr means exact representation, not exact recovery after rounding
623 2011-01-31 16:08:38 <luke-jr> sipa: right
624 2011-01-31 16:08:47 <sipa> it's obvious that a double suffices for every possible bitcoin amount
625 2011-01-31 16:08:53 <sipa> in terms of information content
626 2011-01-31 16:09:27 <luke-jr> with floating-point BTC representation, you have to consider an error factor when doing math and printing (into a JSON string, even)
627 2011-01-31 16:09:32 <gavinandresen> why are we spending so much time talking about all this, when we could be talking about whether emacs or vi is better?
628 2011-01-31 16:09:59 <luke-jr> dunno, I just figured using base units was the obvious solution :p
629 2011-01-31 16:10:19 <luke-jr> didn't expect an argument over it
630 2011-01-31 16:10:31 <gavinandresen> obvious, but not best in my humble opinion (given constraints of backwards compatibility, etc)
631 2011-01-31 16:10:44 <sipa> i agree with luke-jr here, but i'm not sure it's worth sacrificing backward compatibilty
632 2011-01-31 16:10:51 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: as noted, my implementation of it is 100% backward-compatible
633 2011-01-31 16:11:04 <gavinandresen> ... except for the GUI which you don't care about.....
634 2011-01-31 16:11:19 <luke-jr> afaik, the GUI is unaffected by the changes
635 2011-01-31 16:11:24 <luke-jr> it only affects RPC
636 2011-01-31 16:11:55 <luke-jr> the GUI's display precision bug is unrelated to RPC interaction IMO
637 2011-01-31 16:12:06 <gavinandresen> No, one of your compatible changes added sub-cent throwaway change to the fee reported. Which would affect the GUI
638 2011-01-31 16:12:20 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: that's moved into another branch now, and a different topic
639 2011-01-31 16:12:28 <gavinandresen> (GUI users could get a very confusing "this transaction needs a fee of 0.00 bitcoins)
640 2011-01-31 16:12:48 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I agree, before hitting a stable release, that particular branch needs some GUI follow-up
641 2011-01-31 16:13:22 <gavinandresen> Cool. I'd like to see a set of sub-cent-precision patches next release.
642 2011-01-31 16:13:45 <luke-jr> but the avoid-subcent-fees change ('master' branch), and base unit RPC ('neutral' branch) seem like they should be easy clean merges to me
643 2011-01-31 16:14:07 <gavinandresen> Can anybody here easily spin up a Windows development (mingw) virtual environment?
644 2011-01-31 16:14:19 <luke-jr> I can, but not with wx
645 2011-01-31 16:14:26 <luke-jr> I don't even have/want wx on my native install :p
646 2011-01-31 16:14:41 <necrodearia> <gavinandresen> why are we spending so much time talking about all this, when we could be talking about whether emacs or vi is better? nano ftw
647 2011-01-31 16:14:50 * luke-jr notes that when he first began talking about bitcoin dev in here, there seemed to be a consensus that the existing GUI should be deleted :P
648 2011-01-31 16:15:25 <gavinandresen> Not deleted, replaced.
649 2011-01-31 16:15:28 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: git pull git://gitorious.org/bitcoin/bitcoin.git master # should get ONLY the avoid-subcent-fee fix
650 2011-01-31 16:16:22 <gavinandresen> My priority right now is getting a .20 release out; no pulls of anything new at this point, just build fixes or critical bug fixes.
651 2011-01-31 16:16:39 <luke-jr> IMO, the avoid-subcent-fee fix is a critical fix, but oh well
652 2011-01-31 16:17:04 <luke-jr> since it wastes bitcoins behind your back
653 2011-01-31 16:17:41 <tcatm> even if it's critical we have lots of time to fix bugs until something like 1.0.0
654 2011-01-31 16:18:03 <luke-jr> what features are considered 1.0.0?
655 2011-01-31 16:18:11 <luke-jr> I don't see why it would be "time" based
656 2011-01-31 16:23:19 <gavinandresen> My list of features for a 1.0 release would include: encrypt/password-protect wallet. Import/export wallet. Lightweight (header-only) client, maybe with block-headers shipped as part of install. Much more polished GUI.
657 2011-01-31 16:24:08 <gavinandresen> Oh, and a bitcoin.org redesign/rewrite, to target non-geeks.
658 2011-01-31 16:24:34 <luke-jr> encrypt wallet is definitely a must-have :D
659 2011-01-31 16:25:03 <luke-jr> and store the decrypted data in protected RAM
660 2011-01-31 16:25:06 <luke-jr> (eg, non-swappable)
661 2011-01-31 16:25:58 <gavinandresen> It shouldn't be stored at all; should be read from disk, decrypted, used to sign transaction, then overwritten and memory freed.
662 2011-01-31 16:26:00 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: btw, if autotools isn't getting in for .20, do you want me to git-ify qmake support?
663 2011-01-31 16:26:12 <gavinandresen> talk to jgarzik
664 2011-01-31 16:26:20 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: you're the one doing merging :P
665 2011-01-31 16:26:28 <luke-jr> /releases
666 2011-01-31 16:26:33 <gavinandresen> I delegated linux build stuff to him
667 2011-01-31 16:26:47 <luke-jr> ok, it just sounded like you were on the verge of doing a release today
668 2011-01-31 16:26:51 <gavinandresen> I am
669 2011-01-31 16:26:54 <luke-jr> and that stuff is obviously not there yet
670 2011-01-31 16:27:16 <gavinandresen> (well, doing a release candidate)
671 2011-01-31 16:27:31 <luke-jr> so I was just thinking throw in qmake support as a quick temporary thing, to be replaced by automake next release
672 2011-01-31 16:27:40 <gavinandresen> Yeah... no.
673 2011-01-31 16:27:56 <luke-jr> k
674 2011-01-31 16:28:14 <luke-jr> (it wouldn't affect any of the existing files at all, ofc⦠but your call)
675 2011-01-31 16:28:16 <sipa> now that i think about it... are there still hard-coded paths in the makefile?
676 2011-01-31 16:28:42 * luke-jr was never able to get the existing Makefiles to work at all
677 2011-01-31 16:28:56 <sipa> i did, by replacing the hard-coded paths to calls to wx-config
678 2011-01-31 16:29:21 <tcatm> sipa: there's a pull request to fix them
679 2011-01-31 16:29:23 <luke-jr> well, I don't have wx-config ;)
680 2011-01-31 16:29:24 Kiba has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
681 2011-01-31 16:29:24 <gavinandresen> Makefile tweaks aren't critical bugs that need fixing, unless they're preventing a release candidate from getting built. ANd they're not.
682 2011-01-31 16:29:47 <sipa> ok
683 2011-01-31 16:29:51 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: you did say just *build fixes or* critical bug fixes :P
684 2011-01-31 16:30:03 larsivi has joined
685 2011-01-31 16:30:11 <sipa> i don't care about whether those things are fixed in the coming release or a later one
686 2011-01-31 16:30:15 <gavinandresen> Yeah, "build fixes" means stuff that will make the build work. Not stuff that makes the build more pleasant.
687 2011-01-31 16:30:20 <luke-jr> ah
688 2011-01-31 16:30:34 <gavinandresen> (I'm all for making the build more pleasant, just not today)
689 2011-01-31 16:31:07 <luke-jr> well, I still vote to merge avoid-subcent-precision for .20, anyhow. do or don't, I'm still using git myself. :p
690 2011-01-31 16:31:47 <tcatm> what makes .20 so special you can't wait for .21 or .22?
691 2011-01-31 16:31:57 <CIA-98> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * rbd7d914 / main.cpp : new checkpoint at block 105,000 - http://bit.ly/g6zmyV
692 2011-01-31 16:32:13 <nanotube> woo, new checkpoint
693 2011-01-31 16:33:02 <gavinandresen> 105K was a very modest block, for being so historic... (just the one coinbase transaction in it)
694 2011-01-31 16:33:24 <luke-jr> tcatm: I run git, so it isn't for me. It just seems wrong to throw away others' moneys without even a warning
695 2011-01-31 16:33:49 <luke-jr> especially when it's completely unnecessary
696 2011-01-31 16:33:59 <tcatm> luke-jr: it still says "beta" in the code so it's okay for now
697 2011-01-31 16:34:08 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: if it affected more than .1% of bitcoin users, or if it cost them more than a fraction of a penny then it would be serious.
698 2011-01-31 16:34:10 <luke-jr> true I guess
699 2011-01-31 16:34:28 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: long-term, it could cost a lot
700 2011-01-31 16:34:58 <tcatm> Though if it's really a problem for anyone, contact me and I'll send them 0.01 BTC for their subcent loss :P
701 2011-01-31 16:35:41 <luke-jr> tcatm: will you send them 0.01 BTC by today's value, to them in 2 years when it's worth 10 BTC? :P
702 2011-01-31 16:35:48 <sipa> i'm just glad there is a solution
703 2011-01-31 16:36:02 <sipa> whether or not it's incorporated today
704 2011-01-31 16:36:09 <tcatm> luke-jr: yes
705 2011-01-31 16:36:41 <luke-jr> by that I mean, 0.01 BTC today will be worth $100 in the future if they had saved it.
706 2011-01-31 16:37:06 <gavinandresen> If we go up in value a factor of 1,000, minimum transaction size will have to be changed, and tcatm can send them exactly how many they lost.
707 2011-01-31 16:38:39 <gavinandresen> Right.... so I'm not hearing that anybody can easily spin up a bitcoin-on-windows virtual build environment. I'm going to eat lunch, then spin up an EC2 instance to get that going....
708 2011-01-31 16:41:41 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: the problem isn't the Windows build environment, it's wx :p
709 2011-01-31 16:41:48 <luke-jr> if we had a Qt GUI, it'd be trivial
710 2011-01-31 16:42:15 <gavinandresen> Do you know Qt programming? Go for it!
711 2011-01-31 16:42:22 <gavinandresen> (shouldn't be too hard, right?)
712 2011-01-31 16:42:36 <nanotube> luke-jr: MT`AwAy is working on a qbitcoin client
713 2011-01-31 16:42:40 <nanotube> might care to join his effort
714 2011-01-31 16:43:00 <luke-jr> nanotube: I would, but he won't publish code yet â¹
715 2011-01-31 16:43:17 <nanotube> well, talk to him, maybe he'd like some help...
716 2011-01-31 16:43:22 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I wouldn't know what to implement, having never seen the wx client
717 2011-01-31 16:43:24 <tcatm> luke-jr: there's a nogui branch on my github that removes any wx code. You could easily add a Qt GUI to it
718 2011-01-31 16:43:31 <luke-jr> nanotube: I did. :p
719 2011-01-31 16:43:43 <luke-jr> IIRC he's waiting until it's more ready or something
720 2011-01-31 16:43:46 <nanotube> mmm
721 2011-01-31 16:44:00 <nanotube> tcatm: mm isn't that just bitcoind? :)
722 2011-01-31 16:45:07 <tcatm> compiled, yes. the code is a little bit cleaner, though
723 2011-01-31 16:45:43 <nanotube> nice. maybe it'll become the new bitcoind heh.
724 2011-01-31 16:46:16 akem has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
725 2011-01-31 16:54:56 <tcatm> Mhm. Maybe it would be a good idea to replicate the wxGUI a standalone application connecting via RPC?
726 2011-01-31 16:55:12 <luke-jr> except replicate it in Qt :p
727 2011-01-31 16:55:36 <luke-jr> also, it would probably be good to allow the RPC interface via stdio pipe rather than socket, so a GUI can spawn it as a subprocess directly
728 2011-01-31 16:56:21 <tcatm> so if GUI dies, bitcoind dies, too?
729 2011-01-31 16:58:19 <sipa> it can catch SIGPIPE and reconnect, but i see no reason why a pipe is preferable to a socket
730 2011-01-31 16:59:09 satamusic-1 has joined
731 2011-01-31 17:02:04 satamusic has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
732 2011-01-31 17:05:33 * molecular fixed Diablo's jumpy Hashmeter, now very clean averaging and stable value.
733 2011-01-31 17:05:48 <molecular> ^ if anyone is interested I can clean up and make a diff
734 2011-01-31 17:09:48 BCBot has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
735 2011-01-31 17:12:42 andrew12 has joined
736 2011-01-31 17:13:56 andrew12 has left (school!401a4b7a@gateway/web/freenode/ip.64.26.75.122|)
737 2011-01-31 17:14:07 <luke-jr> tcatm: yes
738 2011-01-31 17:14:07 andrew12 has joined
739 2011-01-31 17:14:10 <andrew12> school!401a4b7a@gateway/web/freenode/ip.64.26.75.122|;;bc,mtgox
740 2011-01-31 17:14:11 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":0.48,"low":0.45,"vol":3914,"buy":0.475,"sell":0.4793,"last":0.48}}
741 2011-01-31 17:14:16 <luke-jr> sipa: security and race conditions
742 2011-01-31 17:14:53 <luke-jr> not all users want a background RPC server running
743 2011-01-31 17:16:13 BCBot has joined
744 2011-01-31 17:18:23 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
745 2011-01-31 17:19:00 molecular has joined
746 2011-01-31 17:20:12 ducki2p has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
747 2011-01-31 17:23:33 andrew12 has quit (school!401a4b7a@gateway/web/freenode/ip.64.26.75.122|Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
748 2011-01-31 17:25:38 <midnightmagic> it's not currently possible with existing code to replicate the GUI via the rpc interface.
749 2011-01-31 17:26:41 <midnightmagic> but it would be very cool if it could be done..!
750 2011-01-31 17:26:51 <gavinandresen> midnightmagic: what's missing?
751 2011-01-31 17:29:35 Zarutian has joined
752 2011-01-31 17:30:39 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: probably a way to warn about fees
753 2011-01-31 17:30:42 <luke-jr> at least
754 2011-01-31 17:31:07 <luke-jr> IMO, the current send API is probably too high-level in general really
755 2011-01-31 17:31:29 <luke-jr> there should be one call to calculate necessary fees, and another to actually send a tx with fee explicitly specified
756 2011-01-31 17:31:50 davout has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
757 2011-01-31 17:31:55 <gavinandresen> Yeah.... that's non-trivial, because you'd have to lock the coins involved between RPC calls.
758 2011-01-31 17:32:11 <luke-jr> but QBitCoin project is already inventing new RPC calls for these issues, so probably shouldn't reinvent MT`AwAy's work
759 2011-01-31 17:32:35 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: no? fees (usually) don't care about what coins are used
760 2011-01-31 17:32:48 <luke-jr> the only exception is throwaway change
761 2011-01-31 17:32:59 <gavinandresen> Sure they do-- fees depend on transaction size, and tx size depends on which/how many inputs there are
762 2011-01-31 17:33:05 <luke-jr> ah, true
763 2011-01-31 17:33:42 <luke-jr> in fact, it would be an improvement if the "avoid subcent throwaway" code took that into consideration
764 2011-01-31 17:33:50 <luke-jr> but that's probably meaning a complete rewrite of stuff
765 2011-01-31 17:38:44 <midnightmagic> gavinandresen: things like the -printblocktree (which I guess isn't in the GUI anyway) ways of accessing the addressbook, listing not-yet-confirmed blocks, etc, last I checked.. unless you've managed to add all that in trunk.
766 2011-01-31 17:38:49 luke-jr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
767 2011-01-31 17:39:31 <midnightmagic> which would be very exciting. :)
768 2011-01-31 17:40:21 <gavinandresen> midnightmagic: File issues at github so we don't forget what is missing-- not-yet-confirmed blocks is a good one (-printblocktree isn't-- that's undocumented, right?)
769 2011-01-31 17:40:26 brunner has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
770 2011-01-31 17:41:38 <midnightmagic> yes, definitely undocumented. just a way of printing the entire block tree, ands then beside each block whether it belongs to your wallet or not (prints a "mine") next to it.
771 2011-01-31 17:41:57 <midnightmagic> is the github the authoritative? who has keys to the subversion repo?
772 2011-01-31 17:42:00 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
773 2011-01-31 17:42:39 <gavinandresen> github is the integration tree. svn repo will be the 'stable' repo; Satoshi and I have commit access to the subversion repo
774 2011-01-31 17:43:17 <midnightmagic> very good then. have we heard publically from satoshi since he "disappeared" yet?
775 2011-01-31 17:43:43 <midnightmagic> (to impose on your time a tad longer..! :-)
776 2011-01-31 17:45:29 <gavinandresen> "publically" ? I've had email conversations with him in the last couple weeks-- he says he's busy.
777 2011-01-31 17:46:09 <midnightmagic> sometimes i get the impression he's testing to see how well the network survives without him
778 2011-01-31 17:46:26 <gavinandresen> Could be. I think we're doing OK
779 2011-01-31 17:46:36 <midnightmagic> i agree.
780 2011-01-31 17:47:43 <midnightmagic> on the other hand, we haven't had a concrete example/prosecution of money laundering through bitcoin yet and buddy over in #bitcoin-mining (I think) is talking about deliberately attracting international money launderers. I'm pretty sure that's good and beyond just bringing in wikileaks. :)
781 2011-01-31 17:48:23 <midnightmagic> anyway, thanks for pointing me towards github, i appreciate it!
782 2011-01-31 17:49:00 <sipa> wow, mtgox almost reached $0.5
783 2011-01-31 17:49:37 <midnightmagic> according to the front page, it did.
784 2011-01-31 17:49:48 <sipa> 0.4997
785 2011-01-31 17:49:52 <sipa> not 0.50 :)
786 2011-01-31 17:50:05 <midnightmagic> chart says 0.5000, what are you looking at?
787 2011-01-31 17:50:31 <sipa> #bitcoin-market, but the chart rounds, i think
788 2011-01-31 17:50:47 <midnightmagic> there's another dot right under the top one that does say 0.4997
789 2011-01-31 17:50:55 <sipa> hmm
790 2011-01-31 17:51:20 <sipa> there's (still) an ask left at 0.4999
791 2011-01-31 17:51:30 <sipa> but it could be very recent of course
792 2011-01-31 17:51:41 <midnightmagic> hrm.
793 2011-01-31 17:53:08 <sipa> hmm, there's actually been a 0.5 trade, according to http://mtgox.com/code/data/getTrades.php
794 2011-01-31 17:53:44 satamusic-1 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
795 2011-01-31 17:54:26 <midnightmagic> http://mtgox.com/code/data/getTrades.php
796 2011-01-31 17:54:38 <midnightmagic> ah you beat me to it.
797 2011-01-31 17:56:47 BostX has quit (Quit: Page closed)
798 2011-01-31 17:58:26 <sipa> heh
799 2011-01-31 17:58:29 <sipa> it's gone again
800 2011-01-31 17:58:43 <sipa> oh, nvm
801 2011-01-31 17:59:55 <midnightmagic> :)
802 2011-01-31 18:02:59 AAA_awright has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
803 2011-01-31 18:03:53 AAA_awright has joined
804 2011-01-31 18:05:57 grondilu has joined
805 2011-01-31 18:06:09 <grondilu> woaw we're back at 50cts, guys !
806 2011-01-31 18:11:39 <grondilu> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qm8PH4xAss :)
807 2011-01-31 18:12:04 slush has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
808 2011-01-31 18:16:13 slush has joined
809 2011-01-31 18:16:58 brunner has joined
810 2011-01-31 18:17:11 TD has joined
811 2011-01-31 18:20:44 grondilu has left ()
812 2011-01-31 18:21:09 mtgox has joined
813 2011-01-31 18:22:44 dukeleto has quit (Excess Flood)
814 2011-01-31 18:23:17 dukeleto has joined
815 2011-01-31 18:23:29 brunner has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
816 2011-01-31 18:34:07 ducki2p has joined
817 2011-01-31 18:49:04 bitanarchy has joined
818 2011-01-31 18:49:10 bitanarchy has quit (Changing host)
819 2011-01-31 18:49:10 bitanarchy has joined
820 2011-01-31 18:51:32 <sipa> ;;bc,diff
821 2011-01-31 18:51:32 <gribble> 22012.4941572
822 2011-01-31 18:53:14 <bitanarchy> I bet the miners are certelizing to pull the price up.... which is actually good, because it will motivate more people to start gpu mining...
823 2011-01-31 19:01:06 <bitanarchy> Or lots of new investors are moving in... which also pulls up the price...
824 2011-01-31 19:06:24 <slush> bitanarchy: buying bitcoins is still safest way how to get in
825 2011-01-31 19:06:44 <slush> bitanarchy: mining is more risky and need time & knowledge
826 2011-01-31 19:07:40 <bitanarchy> slush: If that is the case then that means that the cartel will stay..... which is a reason not to invest in bitcoin...
827 2011-01-31 19:08:23 <slush> why? Anybody can set up mining rig. But buying is easier for my 60 years old uncle
828 2011-01-31 19:09:40 <slush> he will never study how to set up ati card. It is the same as I won't study how to find a gold. I'm just buying it at store
829 2011-01-31 19:10:09 <newsham> i wonder why the growth in number of miners isnt driving the price of btc down
830 2011-01-31 19:10:25 <newsham> arent they selling the coins they mine?
831 2011-01-31 19:10:46 <slush> well, I'm selling it almost directly
832 2011-01-31 19:11:31 <slush> forum and irc is full of miners, but I doubt it is majority of bitcoiners
833 2011-01-31 19:11:38 <bitanarchy> newsham: more miners means less cartels... which means a fair price
834 2011-01-31 19:11:56 <newsham> can you explain to me what a fair price for btc is?
835 2011-01-31 19:12:11 <newsham> based on some fundamentals analysis?
836 2011-01-31 19:12:16 <bitanarchy> newsham: the price you would get without cartels :-)
837 2011-01-31 19:13:00 <newsham> also are you sure there are more miners and not just more powerful cartels?
838 2011-01-31 19:13:11 <newsham> difficulty doesnt say how many of em there are
839 2011-01-31 19:14:27 <bitanarchy> If someone invents an efficient way of mining he pulls up difficulty and get to generate each block...
840 2011-01-31 19:15:12 <TD> why would more miners drive down the price of bitcoins?
841 2011-01-31 19:15:19 <TD> number of coins minted has no relation to mining capacity
842 2011-01-31 19:15:22 bonsaikitten is now known as DrEeevil
843 2011-01-31 19:15:24 <TD> (over the long run)
844 2011-01-31 19:15:26 <newsham> since BTC doesnt trade for much right now besides dollars and currency, the only fundamentals I canthink of are comparing BTC to energy costs.
845 2011-01-31 19:16:02 <newsham> TD: if people were mining BTC to sell to get dollars, then it would be selling pressure.
846 2011-01-31 19:16:12 <newsham> but you're right, the selling volume from mining would be fairly constant I guess.
847 2011-01-31 19:16:26 <TD> right. i think most miners were already selling
848 2011-01-31 19:16:43 <TD> it's also possible the value of bitcoins on the exchange is a speculative bubble
849 2011-01-31 19:16:53 <newsham> but at any rate, you have miners who are constantly selling some fraction of 50BTC * 6/hr * 24hrs per day.
850 2011-01-31 19:17:09 <newsham> who is constantly on the buy side to overwhelm the sells and drive up the price?
851 2011-01-31 19:17:19 <newsham> yah, seems like a speculative bubble to me
852 2011-01-31 19:17:42 <newsham> given that I dont see much other use for buying BTC at the moment (hopefully that will change)
853 2011-01-31 19:17:50 <bitanarchy> Maybe the miners got enough of the hard work, got together and came up with a plan...
854 2011-01-31 19:20:28 <bitanarchy> most people are sitting on their coins anyway... so the miners are the main sellers, besides the speculators who are busy with arbitrage, etc..
855 2011-01-31 19:21:38 <newsham> what are they arbitraging?
856 2011-01-31 19:22:06 <newsham> also how do you know that most people are sitting on their coins?
857 2011-01-31 19:22:10 <bitanarchy> between bitcoin-central and mtgox, and bitcoin-market maybe...
858 2011-01-31 19:22:14 <slush> it's too bad that bitcoin forum is from 90% about mining. But it is pretty hard to build business on top of Bitcoins when there's such small market
859 2011-01-31 19:23:41 <slush> it still such hard to get bitcoins for common people. Or is there any more complete list than bitcoinbuy.com ?
860 2011-01-31 19:23:56 <slush> There is only few people, it would be great to have at least one exchanger in every country
861 2011-01-31 19:24:19 <newsham> *nod* took several weeks for me to get $ to BTC
862 2011-01-31 19:24:41 <newsham> also there's no great incentive to buy BTC at the moment. there's not a lot you can do with BTC that you cant do directly with $ right now.
863 2011-01-31 19:24:49 <bitanarchy> newsham: why do long?
864 2011-01-31 19:25:00 <newsham> bit; *shrug*
865 2011-01-31 19:25:25 <citizen> bitcoins are more collectible than dollars :D
866 2011-01-31 19:25:29 <bitanarchy> newsham: if it is not new investors, what is driving up the price of bitcoin?
867 2011-01-31 19:25:30 <citizen> there are such limited dollars
868 2011-01-31 19:25:32 <citizen> errr
869 2011-01-31 19:25:33 <newsham> BTC would be nice for some micro-payment markets if they could somehow develop.
870 2011-01-31 19:25:34 <citizen> limited bitcoins i mean
871 2011-01-31 19:25:47 <slush> newsham: yes, this is chicken-and-egg problem. Nobody will rely on bitcoins until there will be customers. So all businesses need also $$$ gateways.
872 2011-01-31 19:25:52 <citizen> there are more dollars created each second than there are total bitcoins in existance
873 2011-01-31 19:25:55 <newsham> ie. would be nice to tip helpful IRC people on programing channels with BTC ...
874 2011-01-31 19:26:13 devon_hillard has joined
875 2011-01-31 19:26:13 devon_hillard has quit (Changing host)
876 2011-01-31 19:26:13 devon_hillard has joined
877 2011-01-31 19:26:31 <slush> Personally I don't think that bitcoin can live on tipping
878 2011-01-31 19:26:36 <newsham> citizen: so what? its not the number of dollars or btc that matters. its their purchasing power.
879 2011-01-31 19:27:02 <citizen> those things are related though
880 2011-01-31 19:27:13 <newsham> slush: no, but it is an ideal fit for btc i think.. easy to xfer, very divisible.
881 2011-01-31 19:27:20 <citizen> since bitcoins are limited and not inflatable like the dollar
882 2011-01-31 19:27:23 <newsham> ie. you can give out lots of fractional pennies to lots of helpful people
883 2011-01-31 19:27:24 <citizen> their purchasing power will be greater
884 2011-01-31 19:27:54 <slush> newsham: but until I can go to first market and buy bitcoins for almost zero fee, there is no real advantage for people who don't have bitcoins yet
885 2011-01-31 19:28:07 <newsham> citizen: therein lies a potential problem. btc deflation.
886 2011-01-31 19:28:39 <newsham> slush: I paid 2% to acquire btc from $
887 2011-01-31 19:28:57 <slush> newsham: which way?
888 2011-01-31 19:29:03 <newsham> not to mention a long delay (which was a much bigger tax than 2% given the deflation on btc)
889 2011-01-31 19:29:06 <slush> newsham: I paid almost 10%
890 2011-01-31 19:29:24 <slush> CZK -> EUR -> USD -> BTC
891 2011-01-31 19:29:39 <slush> + paypal fee
892 2011-01-31 19:29:44 <newsham> during the delay BTC went from $35 to nearly $50
893 2011-01-31 19:29:50 <newsham> er $.35 -> $.50
894 2011-01-31 19:30:15 Zarutian has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
895 2011-01-31 19:30:15 <sipa> wow 7000 BTC traded at 0.5
896 2011-01-31 19:30:56 <bitanarchy> sipa, where can you see that?
897 2011-01-31 19:31:00 <newsham> deflation is going to make spending bTC unattractive.
898 2011-01-31 19:31:10 <newsham> why spend BTC today when it will be worth 2x as much in 6mos?
899 2011-01-31 19:31:25 <slush> with this speed, we cross over 0.51 soon :)
900 2011-01-31 19:31:38 <nanotube> bitanarchy: #bitcoin-market
901 2011-01-31 19:31:50 <slush> newsham: that's the reason why I'm using btc for savings now :)
902 2011-01-31 19:32:17 <bitanarchy> nanotube: where are those trades made?
903 2011-01-31 19:32:27 <nanotube> mtgox
904 2011-01-31 19:32:47 <nanotube> see topic on chan ;)
905 2011-01-31 19:32:52 <midnightmagic> ;;bc,stats
906 2011-01-31 19:32:54 <gribble> Current Blocks: 105534 | Current Difficulty: 22012.4941572 | Next Difficulty At Block: 106847 | Next Difficulty In: 1313 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 1 day, 8 hours, 13 minutes, and 57 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 24071.59296499
907 2011-01-31 19:33:09 <TD> the focus on mining isn't so bad
908 2011-01-31 19:33:18 <TD> actually i'm happy to see such great progress
909 2011-01-31 19:33:38 <TD> one of the most common objections i've seen to bitcoin is "what about botnets" and lots of gigahashes/sec is a good answer to that
910 2011-01-31 19:33:49 <molecular> ;;bc;mtgox
911 2011-01-31 19:33:49 <gribble> Error: "bc;mtgox" is not a valid command.
912 2011-01-31 19:33:55 <newsham> Mon Jan 31 09:24:01 2011: 2000.00 @ 0.50000
913 2011-01-31 19:33:56 <sipa> ;;bc,mtgox
914 2011-01-31 19:33:57 <molecular> we hit the big 0.51
915 2011-01-31 19:33:57 <TD> i think we'll see more discussion of real economic activity over the course of this year as more basic infrastructure becomes available
916 2011-01-31 19:33:58 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":0.51,"low":0.465,"vol":20720,"buy":0.4701,"sell":0.51,"last":0.51}}
917 2011-01-31 19:34:17 <TD> wouldn't surprise me if there are some bubbles along the way though
918 2011-01-31 19:34:35 <bitanarchy> There are hardly any bitcoins offered at bitcoin-central
919 2011-01-31 19:35:09 <sipa> chicken-and-egg problem
920 2011-01-31 19:35:12 <slush> well, first touch of .51 monster
921 2011-01-31 19:36:06 devon_hillard has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
922 2011-01-31 19:36:28 <TD> i'm hoping in 2011 we'll see:
923 2011-01-31 19:36:28 <TD> - mobile clients with NFC support
924 2011-01-31 19:36:34 <TD> - an exchanger that is accepting credit cards again
925 2011-01-31 19:36:44 <TD> - somebody set up a mixer service
926 2011-01-31 19:36:56 <TD> if those three are done by EOY 2011 it'll have been a great years progress for bitcoin, i think
927 2011-01-31 19:36:56 <sipa> - a second full bitcoin client implementation
928 2011-01-31 19:37:02 <TD> but they're all huge clients
929 2011-01-31 19:37:04 <TD> yes. that would also be great.
930 2011-01-31 19:37:15 <midnightmagic> crap my btc sold before i could modify the price!
931 2011-01-31 19:37:25 <TD> i dunno if we'll see a full 1:1 client as satoshis code has lots of half finished and unused features
932 2011-01-31 19:37:26 <midnightmagic> why didn't you people tell me before it happened!
933 2011-01-31 19:37:26 <midnightmagic> ;)
934 2011-01-31 19:37:35 <TD> but one that's basically interoperable ....
935 2011-01-31 19:38:08 <sipa> there is a difference between requirements for the protocol, and conventions currently enforced by the default client
936 2011-01-31 19:39:25 <midnightmagic> holy crap the 20k sell is eroding
937 2011-01-31 19:40:20 <newsham> Mon Jan 31 09:27:47 2011: 673.28 @ 0.51000
938 2011-01-31 19:40:48 kelvie_ has joined
939 2011-01-31 19:40:59 <newsham> mixer service?
940 2011-01-31 19:41:13 <TD> for anonymity
941 2011-01-31 19:41:37 devon_hillard has joined
942 2011-01-31 19:41:39 <newsham> put money in, rolls up a big TX with many other people, get your money back out washed and pressed?
943 2011-01-31 19:41:41 <slush> isn't proposal of mixing on client enough?
944 2011-01-31 19:41:45 <TD> pretty much
945 2011-01-31 19:42:10 <slush> I preffer that before sending to some SPOF which need to be trustworthy
946 2011-01-31 19:42:12 <TD> slush: you need to mix up coins with lots of other transactions from other people. otherwise graph analysis can be a problem
947 2011-01-31 19:42:45 <slush> basically you don't mix coins when you don't have other coins
948 2011-01-31 19:43:17 <newsham> bitcoin.wash.and.fold.com ?
949 2011-01-31 19:43:47 <TD> i think a reasonably trustworthy mixer service would need to set up deals with big mining consortiums
950 2011-01-31 19:43:49 <slush> but if you have enough funds, your single bitcoin client can act as many other people
951 2011-01-31 19:44:01 <TD> like slush and ArtForz for instance :) that way you can ensure a constant flow of coins through the service
952 2011-01-31 19:44:04 <bitanarchy> newsham: why would you want to wash your money over bitcoin instead of using LR?
953 2011-01-31 19:44:07 <TD> providing cover for actual anonymization
954 2011-01-31 19:45:11 <TD> slush: not really. let's say you receive 100 BTC and want to anonymize that so you can spend it all on porn without anyone being able to link those payments back to you
955 2011-01-31 19:45:27 TheAncientGoat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
956 2011-01-31 19:45:28 <TD> if you have a wallet full of anonymized coins, no problem, just don't spend those 100 BTC on porn
957 2011-01-31 19:45:42 <TD> the need for a mixer comes from people who don't already have tons of anonymized coins
958 2011-01-31 19:46:14 <ArtForzZz> foly huck
959 2011-01-31 19:46:15 <TD> you can split that 100 BTC up to lots of addresses you own but nobody else knows you own .... but then when they are all joined together again to make a purchase it's pretty clear what was happening
960 2011-01-31 19:46:25 <ArtForzZz> there goes 0.51
961 2011-01-31 19:47:00 <sipa> 0.52
962 2011-01-31 19:47:08 <TD> bubble!
963 2011-01-31 19:47:32 <slush> TD: you're right, nobody can pay the exact amount with coins which he anonymized before few minutes :)
964 2011-01-31 19:47:57 <TD> unless he uses a mixing service in which coins flow through it every few seconds
965 2011-01-31 19:48:33 <devon_hillard> have you tried overclocking your sandy bridge so far?
966 2011-01-31 19:48:36 <slush> but if you have enough funds (as I proposed before), your client can continuously mix them in your wallet, so graph of payments will be very large
967 2011-01-31 19:49:06 <slush> 15000 bitcoins traded at 0.51?
968 2011-01-31 19:49:06 <ArtForzZz> well, if all you want is plausible deniability self-mixing works
969 2011-01-31 19:49:09 <ArtForzZz> yep
970 2011-01-31 19:49:28 <ArtForzZz> more like 16500
971 2011-01-31 19:49:28 <slush> really looks like somebody is doing fun :)
972 2011-01-31 19:51:08 <midnightmagic> i am curious whether the 20,100 btc sell @ 0.51 was to test money-reporting/laundering rules.
973 2011-01-31 19:51:49 <slush> how?
974 2011-01-31 19:51:55 <slush> I mean - which rule?
975 2011-01-31 19:51:58 <ArtForzZz> yeah
976 2011-01-31 19:52:06 <midnightmagic> that's $10,050, which is $50 over the magic $10k auto-reporting limit for cash transactions in the bank
977 2011-01-31 19:52:11 <ArtForzZz> I dont see how those apply to bitcoin
978 2011-01-31 19:52:50 <midnightmagic> and neither would they apply for money transfers directly (since their nature is to be tracked)
979 2011-01-31 19:52:59 <ArtForzZz> depends a lot on country though
980 2011-01-31 19:53:01 <Sirius> midnightmagic: gox sends at most $1000 / day / user in the US
981 2011-01-31 19:53:08 luke-jr has joined
982 2011-01-31 19:53:10 <ArtForzZz> yep
983 2011-01-31 19:53:11 <slush> huh, your AML thresholds are quite high. Here we have to report transactions >=$5500
984 2011-01-31 19:53:14 <midnightmagic> I did not know that.
985 2011-01-31 19:53:36 bittertea has joined
986 2011-01-31 19:53:42 <ArtForzZz> iirc same for mtgox transfers to EU wire
987 2011-01-31 19:53:48 <slush> you know, poor country of former Soviet Union :)
988 2011-01-31 19:53:56 <midnightmagic> $10k CAD for a deposit to the bank autogen money-laundering report forms (Canada)
989 2011-01-31 19:53:57 <TD> where is mtgox based?
990 2011-01-31 19:54:05 <ArtForzZz> costa rica
991 2011-01-31 19:55:38 <TD> midnightmagic: but 10k over what period
992 2011-01-31 19:56:44 <ArtForzZz> the question is if the bitcoin side of a bitcoin exchange even fall under AML laws
993 2011-01-31 19:57:02 <ArtForzZz> it'll probably depend on regional laws and interpretation
994 2011-01-31 19:57:21 <midnightmagic> TD: In one cash deposit.
995 2011-01-31 19:57:39 <TD> midnightmagic: that seems like a rather fragile definition
996 2011-01-31 19:58:00 <ArtForzZz> yep, iirc in .de banks have to file a report on cash deposits > 5kEUR
997 2011-01-31 19:58:11 andrew12^droid has joined
998 2011-01-31 19:58:17 <midnightmagic> ArtForzZz: I'm hoping that any interpretation is far enough away that it'll be robust enough to survive the inevitable attempts to control it.
999 2011-01-31 19:58:54 <ArtForzZz> but then in .de using cash to pay multi-kEUR stuff isn't THAT uncommon
1000 2011-01-31 19:59:38 <slush> only ~2000 USD to parity
1001 2011-01-31 19:59:41 <midnightmagic> TD: It is. I ask all the time wat happens if I bring in three $9999 deposits. The tellers tell me the system is smart enough to pick that up and will generate a report for investigators semi-automatically. I've always wanted to test that and see what happens.
1002 2011-01-31 19:59:42 <slush> looks strange...
1003 2011-01-31 20:00:07 <ArtForzZz> yeah, there are anti-smurfing detections
1004 2011-01-31 20:00:40 <midnightmagic> Three $9999 deposits to three different accounts, and then refuse to identify myself.
1005 2011-01-31 20:00:55 <ArtForzZz> and they're about as useful as a pet rock
1006 2011-01-31 20:01:04 <midnightmagic> =]
1007 2011-01-31 20:01:17 <Sirius> ArtForzZz: no limit for EU transfers
1008 2011-01-31 20:01:30 <ArtForzZz> really?
1009 2011-01-31 20:01:36 <Sirius> yeah
1010 2011-01-31 20:01:38 <ArtForzZz> cool
1011 2011-01-31 20:01:49 <midnightmagic> No limit for cross-border Canada->US money transfers either.
1012 2011-01-31 20:02:13 <midnightmagic> "A friend of mine" just transferred $50k to California and nobody cared.
1013 2011-01-31 20:03:03 <ArtForzZz> well, no real reason to report wire transfers, they're already tracked by definition
1014 2011-01-31 20:03:17 <midnightmagic> there're only 1515.75 BTC left in Ask orders on mtgox.
1015 2011-01-31 20:03:54 <andrew12^droid> Wow
1016 2011-01-31 20:04:00 <slush> midnightmagic + some dark pool
1017 2011-01-31 20:04:08 <andrew12^droid> That too
1018 2011-01-31 20:04:22 <nanotube> midnightmagic: http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/mtgoxUSD.html
1019 2011-01-31 20:04:25 <nanotube> full order book here
1020 2011-01-31 20:04:34 <midnightmagic> i was just about to ask that. thank you
1021 2011-01-31 20:05:10 <ArtForzZz> + unknown amount of dark pool orders
1022 2011-01-31 20:05:19 <midnightmagic> is there a way of querying that for ourselves? or does bitcoincharts have an in with mtgox?
1023 2011-01-31 20:05:19 <slush> I don't believe somebody really bought those 15k BTC on 0.51
1024 2011-01-31 20:05:23 <slush> it smells
1025 2011-01-31 20:05:40 <nanotube> slush: well, at worst they lost the 1.3% on mtgox fees.
1026 2011-01-31 20:05:57 <ArtForzZz> I doubt mtgox cares either way :P
1027 2011-01-31 20:06:24 <midnightmagic> plus, if my orders are snapped up alongside it, I don't care either.
1028 2011-01-31 20:06:38 <midnightmagic> and they were before i could cancel them and relist. :)
1029 2011-01-31 20:08:23 <TD> i
1030 2011-01-31 20:08:30 <TD> would LOVE to know who bought all those coins
1031 2011-01-31 20:08:40 <slush> any advice to nice Windows IRC client?
1032 2011-01-31 20:08:48 <slush> STill using XMPP transport...
1033 2011-01-31 20:09:06 <bitanarchy> chatzilla
1034 2011-01-31 20:09:17 <midnightmagic> you don't like mirc?
1035 2011-01-31 20:09:25 <slush> I don't know mirc ;)
1036 2011-01-31 20:09:25 <TD> webchat.freenode.net ;)
1037 2011-01-31 20:09:45 <midnightmagic> mirc is pretty badass. or if you want open-source, xchat is built for windows too.
1038 2011-01-31 20:09:55 <midnightmagic> mirc has been around forever.
1039 2011-01-31 20:11:49 andrew12^droid has quit (Quit: parting is such sweet sorrow...)
1040 2011-01-31 20:15:22 <slush> mirc is weird
1041 2011-01-31 20:16:38 xelister has joined
1042 2011-01-31 20:17:43 <midnightmagic> it is, but you get used to it. its way of doing things is really fast once you're used to it.
1043 2011-01-31 20:18:17 chaord has joined
1044 2011-01-31 20:19:19 <slush> well, XMPP transport is quite good, i'm only missing list of rooms and possibility to write user outside current room
1045 2011-01-31 20:19:34 <slush> But I think I canl live with it
1046 2011-01-31 20:19:36 <slush> *can
1047 2011-01-31 20:23:49 RazielZ has quit ()
1048 2011-01-31 20:29:10 <Vladimir> lovely market action today http://www.taters.net/cgi-bin/btc/matrix.pl?axisinc=0.01
1049 2011-01-31 20:30:34 akem has joined
1050 2011-01-31 20:30:43 <jgarzik> wow
1051 2011-01-31 20:30:49 * jgarzik wakes up to $0.50 exchange rates
1052 2011-01-31 20:31:44 <Vladimir> that 16k ask is gone
1053 2011-01-31 20:31:53 <ArtForzZz> yup, in a single trade
1054 2011-01-31 20:32:21 * slush thinks it looks little suspicious
1055 2011-01-31 20:33:20 <bittertea> midnightmagic: Here's the mtgox trade API: http://mtgox.com/support/tradeAPI
1056 2011-01-31 20:33:45 <ArtForzZz> well, either someone really really wanted some bitcoins or traded with himself and paid mtgox $110 in fees for the pleasure
1057 2011-01-31 20:34:24 <bittertea> Why would you do that?
1058 2011-01-31 20:34:27 <slush> ArtForzZz: Don't forget that crossing this barrier changed mind of many people. Another words - you can move the market ONLY for 110$
1059 2011-01-31 20:34:37 <ArtForzZz> dunno, moving the market?
1060 2011-01-31 20:35:14 <ArtForzZz> point is, I'm pretty certain plenty asks below that were perfectly normal trades
1061 2011-01-31 20:36:02 <slush> probably yes
1062 2011-01-31 20:36:19 <Vladimir> yea, but you risk that someone else snap your 15k ask and price run away from you
1063 2011-01-31 20:36:29 <slush> but now, people think "wow, somebody push so much $$$, it would be better to buy than price go much more higher"
1064 2011-01-31 20:36:57 <ArtForzZz> *shrug* people are irrational
1065 2011-01-31 20:37:03 <slush> Vladimir: Pretty easy to put trade at 0.5105 dark pool
1066 2011-01-31 20:37:22 <bittertea> ArtForzZz: What's the completely rational move at this point then? Wait and see? :)
1067 2011-01-31 20:37:26 <molecular> holy shit: someone just bought the 16000btc from mtgox!
1068 2011-01-31 20:37:29 <Vladimir> yea, gotta get more cards, but there is not stock anywhere, even in china
1069 2011-01-31 20:37:48 <ArtForzZz> probably because 5970 is pretty much EOL
1070 2011-01-31 20:37:52 <molecular> oh, you already noticed, should read first, then write ;)
1071 2011-01-31 20:37:54 <Vladimir> wait 3 years, than see
1072 2011-01-31 20:38:12 <ArtForzZz> 6990 should come out in 2 weeks or so
1073 2011-01-31 20:38:30 <Vladimir> after chinese new year probably
1074 2011-01-31 20:38:36 <ArtForzZz> yea
1075 2011-01-31 20:38:38 <ArtForzZz> hopefully also at ~ $600 price point
1076 2011-01-31 20:38:53 <Vladimir> are 6990 going to need 2x8pin power?
1077 2011-01-31 20:38:56 <ArtForzZz> nope
1078 2011-01-31 20:39:10 <ArtForzZz> 6+8pin and 300W max like 5970
1079 2011-01-31 20:39:19 <Vladimir> ok great
1080 2011-01-31 20:39:42 <ArtForzZz> theres already photos of AMD higherups showing off what looks like final cards
1081 2011-01-31 20:39:54 davout has joined
1082 2011-01-31 20:40:05 <Vladimir> yea saw that
1083 2011-01-31 20:40:13 <davout> hello all
1084 2011-01-31 20:41:14 <ArtForzZz> I guess it'll be slower than 5970 for mining
1085 2011-01-31 20:41:20 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: I won't be able to do it for this release, but Fedora has mingw libs built for everything bitcoin needs except wxwindows
1086 2011-01-31 20:41:57 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: my goal for autotools is building bitcoin GUI on mingw
1087 2011-01-31 20:42:17 <jgarzik> if it can do that, all other cases (linux CLI, windows CLI, linux GUI) are easier
1088 2011-01-31 20:42:33 <ArtForzZz> 6950/70 isn't quite as efficient as 5850/70 for mining, and mining is pushing the cards a lot harder than 3D
1089 2011-01-31 20:42:57 <ArtForzZz> so my guess is 6990 will have 775-800 clock and the 300W limit enforced by powertune
1090 2011-01-31 20:43:26 <ArtForzZz> should be 30%+ faster than 5970 for gaming, but the power limit will affect mining pretty badly
1091 2011-01-31 20:45:51 <bittertea> ArtForzZz: I thought I heard something about you using some sort of custom hashing processor. Is that working out for you?
1092 2011-01-31 20:46:30 <ArtForzZz> first batch of chips should ship this or next week
1093 2011-01-31 20:46:55 acous has joined
1094 2011-01-31 20:47:10 <bittertea> It seems that would be the natural way to go if Bitcoin takes off, a handful of dedicated devices.
1095 2011-01-31 20:47:16 <ArtForzZz> yup
1096 2011-01-31 20:47:56 <bittertea> Are you a CS guy, did you do the design of the processor yourself?
1097 2011-01-31 20:48:03 <ArtForzZz> EE guy
1098 2011-01-31 20:48:14 <bittertea> Ah, yeah, that's probably more applicable.
1099 2011-01-31 20:49:10 * molecular got a new psu
1100 2011-01-31 20:49:30 <molecular> I can make my gpus a lot hotter now, with 1.1V ;)
1101 2011-01-31 20:50:14 <ArtForzZz> did most of the HDL myself, had some help from mfg engineer for perf tuning
1102 2011-01-31 20:50:44 <bittertea> Very nice... once you get the chips and have been using them for a bit, have you thought about licensing the designs?
1103 2011-01-31 20:51:12 <bittertea> I was thinking that there would probably be a group of people willing to pool some money in order to invest in such an idea.
1104 2011-01-31 20:51:24 <ArtForzZz> I'll probably sell finished modules
1105 2011-01-31 20:51:36 <molecular> yay!
1106 2011-01-31 20:51:52 <molecular> so one wont need a toaster to do the soldering?
1107 2011-01-31 20:52:00 <ArtForzZz> can't comment on perf and efficiency yet, have to wait for actual silicon
1108 2011-01-31 20:52:34 <bittertea> Interesting... any idea what sort of price range is likely?
1109 2011-01-31 20:52:37 <ArtForzZz> but it should be on the order of 8-12x more power efficient than 5970s
1110 2011-01-31 20:53:39 AAA_awright_ has joined
1111 2011-01-31 20:54:03 <Vladimir> what about the size?
1112 2011-01-31 20:54:29 <ArtForzZz> hopefully 6.4Ghps in a 1U at <400W
1113 2011-01-31 20:54:36 AAA_awright has quit (Disconnected by services)
1114 2011-01-31 20:54:42 <Vladimir> nice
1115 2011-01-31 20:54:45 AAA_awright_ has quit (Client Quit)
1116 2011-01-31 20:55:02 <ArtForzZz> I could pack em tighter, but cooling will already be a major headache
1117 2011-01-31 20:55:15 AAA_awright has joined
1118 2011-01-31 20:55:21 <bittertea> That's pretty exciting.
1119 2011-01-31 20:55:48 <bittertea> Here I am wishing my coffee was here already
1120 2011-01-31 20:55:57 <davout> ArtForzZz: how much will you sell those ?
1121 2011-01-31 20:56:48 <ArtForzZz> I'll have to see how cheap I can get a mass-producable design
1122 2011-01-31 20:57:02 <davout> makes sense
1123 2011-01-31 20:57:07 <ArtForzZz> my current design is a massively overbuilt 1-off for bringup
1124 2011-01-31 20:57:40 <TD> hmm
1125 2011-01-31 20:57:53 <TD> i'd be willing to buy some units if you're going to sell them and there isn't too much self assembly required
1126 2011-01-31 20:58:33 <TD> depends on the price i guess
1127 2011-01-31 20:58:36 <ArtForzZz> = 6 layer PCBs, massively oversized VRMs, digital voltage/current readout, 2 temp sensors per chip, ...
1128 2011-01-31 20:59:29 <TD> i've been thinking lately about the generalized BitX concept. in particular whether bitcoin/bitx could have application to digital voting
1129 2011-01-31 20:59:54 <TD> to avoid the need to trust a central voting authority to tally the votes correcty
1130 2011-01-31 21:00:52 <TD> i've been working on a design for a delegatable voting system, in which every decision facing a people is put to the vote (eg every bill before parliament) and automatic category based delegation is used to make it scale
1131 2011-01-31 21:01:08 <ArtForzZz> prototype comes out to about 1500 EUR/Gh
1132 2011-01-31 21:01:20 <TD> a block chain could encode peoples votes and their delegations to allow the results of the vote to be publically tallied by anyone
1133 2011-01-31 21:01:34 <TD> ArtForzZz: so 9k euro for the 6Gh 1u?
1134 2011-01-31 21:02:04 <TD> ArtForzZz: how much could you realistically lower it to, assuming small production runs?
1135 2011-01-31 21:02:16 <TD> presumably unless you made hundreds of the things the cost would never really drop much below that
1136 2011-01-31 21:02:23 <TD> especially given labor (unless you just ship out the parts)
1137 2011-01-31 21:02:53 <ArtForzZz> <10kEUR final price should be doable
1138 2011-01-31 21:03:41 <TD> how many Gh are you doing currently again?
1139 2011-01-31 21:04:02 <ArtForzZz> right now? 17.8
1140 2011-01-31 21:04:57 <bittertea> That's really interesting.
1141 2011-01-31 21:04:59 <dirtyfilthy> does anyone here have a serialized genesis block header i could compare against?
1142 2011-01-31 21:05:07 <ArtForzZz> these should add 19.2 GHps, assuming I manage to get 96 working chips out of 100
1143 2011-01-31 21:05:32 sabalaba has joined
1144 2011-01-31 21:05:41 <ArtForzZz> which will be a bit of a challenge given my limited assembly capabilities
1145 2011-01-31 21:07:09 <molecular> lucky strike, it's toasted
1146 2011-01-31 21:07:13 <TD> does anyone here understand satoshis proposal for a new merkle tree above multiple independent block chains?
1147 2011-01-31 21:07:20 <TD> i'm trying to figure out exactly what he means/how it'd be implemented
1148 2011-01-31 21:07:44 <dirtyfilthy> lucky strike: every 1000 cigarette is a finely rolled joint
1149 2011-01-31 21:07:56 <dirtyfilthy> (i wish)
1150 2011-01-31 21:09:28 <davout> dirtyfilthy: lol
1151 2011-01-31 21:12:57 <Vladimir> mtgox died
1152 2011-01-31 21:12:58 <nanotube> zomg .95 trade!
1153 2011-01-31 21:13:21 <slush> wtf
1154 2011-01-31 21:13:49 <bittertea> We've reached parity! ;)
1155 2011-01-31 21:13:56 <slush> there was no dark pool trade
1156 2011-01-31 21:14:09 <ArtForzZz> there was
1157 2011-01-31 21:14:11 <donpdonp> heh. 0.95 at what volume? i can buy one btc at that price no problem :)
1158 2011-01-31 21:14:20 <Vladimir> speed breaks in place, just like on nasdaq :-)
1159 2011-01-31 21:14:44 <bittertea> Weird... my Bid is still in my open orders.
1160 2011-01-31 21:15:01 <ArtForzZz> mtgx doesnt show bids/asks outside of x% of last trade
1161 2011-01-31 21:15:06 <slush> DoM looks funny now
1162 2011-01-31 21:15:13 <bittertea> ArtForzZz: Ah
1163 2011-01-31 21:15:28 <andrew12> <+gribble> MTG| TRADE| 10 @ $0.95
1164 2011-01-31 21:15:31 <ArtForzZz> http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/mtgoxUSD.html
1165 2011-01-31 21:15:31 <andrew12> is this some sort of joke?
1166 2011-01-31 21:15:38 <slush> probably
1167 2011-01-31 21:15:46 <donpdonp> i spent more on lunch today :)
1168 2011-01-31 21:15:52 <slush> somebody took his few bucks and put it to mtgox just for fun
1169 2011-01-31 21:15:52 <nanotube> andrew12: a very expensive one.
1170 2011-01-31 21:15:53 <nanotube> heh
1171 2011-01-31 21:15:54 <slush> and for parity :)
1172 2011-01-31 21:16:06 <andrew12> $10 isn't that expensive
1173 2011-01-31 21:16:06 <andrew12> :p
1174 2011-01-31 21:16:09 <ArtForzZz> 490 btc left to parity :P
1175 2011-01-31 21:16:40 <x6763> dirtyfilthy: still need the serialized block header?
1176 2011-01-31 21:16:45 <dirtyfilthy> yes plz
1177 2011-01-31 21:17:14 <hacim> seems like that wont last
1178 2011-01-31 21:17:22 <bitanarchy> I don't understand 10 @ $0.95. Are orders not filled against the lowest ask price?
1179 2011-01-31 21:17:30 <ArtForzZz> what lower ask price?
1180 2011-01-31 21:17:39 davex__ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1181 2011-01-31 21:17:49 <hacim> bitanarchy: you are looking at the lower bid prices
1182 2011-01-31 21:17:56 <hacim> bitanarchy: which are people sayiong "I'll buy at this amount"
1183 2011-01-31 21:17:58 <chaord> hey guys...i'm just stepping into this conversation....is mtgox experiencing issues that anyone knows of?
1184 2011-01-31 21:18:06 <ArtForzZz> not that I noticed
1185 2011-01-31 21:18:11 <x6763> 0100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003ba3edfd7a7b12b27ac72c3e67768f617fc81bc3888a51323a9fb8aa4b1e5e4a29ab5f49ffff001d1dac2b7c
1186 2011-01-31 21:18:11 <mtgox> no it is fine
1187 2011-01-31 21:18:18 <slush> chaord: looks like real trades
1188 2011-01-31 21:18:33 <x6763> dirtyfilthy: i'm pretty sure that's what you're looking for
1189 2011-01-31 21:18:48 <chaord> hmm...what happened to the order book then? everyone go dark?
1190 2011-01-31 21:19:00 <Vladimir> yes, no asks
1191 2011-01-31 21:19:05 <ArtForzZz> yup
1192 2011-01-31 21:19:15 <jgarzik> if the order book is super-thin, I would buy 1 btc for $1, just to make parity for fun
1193 2011-01-31 21:19:15 <chaord> alright then...well i guess we reached parity today! haha
1194 2011-01-31 21:19:20 <ArtForzZz> lowest ask left is @ 0.94
1195 2011-01-31 21:19:21 davex__ has joined
1196 2011-01-31 21:19:23 <dirtyfilthy> x6763: thanks
1197 2011-01-31 21:19:30 <andrew12> 0.94001
1198 2011-01-31 21:19:33 <bittertea> Someone(s) bought up all the ~.50 asks? Then someone bought 10 @ .95? Now the low bids do not display, correct?
1199 2011-01-31 21:19:41 <ArtForzZz> yep
1200 2011-01-31 21:19:41 <hacim> that was just added
1201 2011-01-31 21:20:35 <Vladimir> interesting times
1202 2011-01-31 21:20:35 <bitanarchy> Now you can see an insane peak at http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/
1203 2011-01-31 21:20:42 <chaord> it's an interesting strategy....for someone to clean out all the ask prices, effectively resetting the market
1204 2011-01-31 21:20:58 <andrew12> its also very expensive :P
1205 2011-01-31 21:21:16 <nanotube> something dark at .85, it seems.
1206 2011-01-31 21:21:24 <ArtForzZz> yeha, looks like it
1207 2011-01-31 21:21:49 <andrew12> but I hope it goes low again, otherwise I don't have enough money to trade on mtgox anymore.
1208 2011-01-31 21:21:58 <ArtForzZz> yep, dark ask @ 0.85
1209 2011-01-31 21:22:01 <hacim> hah here comes all everyone trying to cash in with their .85 bids
1210 2011-01-31 21:22:03 <slush> lol, now the first peak in November looks too small...
1211 2011-01-31 21:23:51 <TD> anyone got theories on why somebody might be doing this?
1212 2011-01-31 21:23:57 <Vladimir> LOL, mining contracts do not look so damn expensive right now
1213 2011-01-31 21:25:17 <Sirius> cool, S3052's prediction of parity in january became true :)
1214 2011-01-31 21:25:28 <Sirius> even if for a second only
1215 2011-01-31 21:25:32 <ArtForzZz> what parity?
1216 2011-01-31 21:25:33 <Vladimir> anyway, it probably will settle down in .5-.6 area in a few days
1217 2011-01-31 21:25:40 <ArtForzZz> highest trade was 0.95
1218 2011-01-31 21:25:54 <Sirius> oh, didn't notice
1219 2011-01-31 21:25:55 <nanotube> mmm, asks coming down
1220 2011-01-31 21:25:56 <Sirius> but almost
1221 2011-01-31 21:26:00 <ArtForzZz> yup
1222 2011-01-31 21:26:06 <chaord> ArtForzZz: you're right...it wasn't quite parity
1223 2011-01-31 21:26:13 <hacim> the .85 asks are rolling in and not getting bought up
1224 2011-01-31 21:26:13 <nanotube> people wanting to cash in while the cashing in is good. :)
1225 2011-01-31 21:26:19 <chaord> close enough for government work though ;)
1226 2011-01-31 21:27:08 <dirtyfilthy> x6763: my serialized block header looks the same as yours but doesn't seem to hash right
1227 2011-01-31 21:27:43 <ArtForzZz> I think we'll see price going back down to .5-.55
1228 2011-01-31 21:27:53 <x6763> dirtyfilthy: did you try hashing mine?
1229 2011-01-31 21:28:14 <TD> hmm
1230 2011-01-31 21:28:16 <dirtyfilthy> hang on, let me try
1231 2011-01-31 21:28:26 <TD> it's too bad the tx structure doesn't have any flag bits
1232 2011-01-31 21:28:41 <TD> maybe something can be done with the extraNonce part
1233 2011-01-31 21:28:48 <TD> sorry
1234 2011-01-31 21:28:57 <TD> that makes no sense
1235 2011-01-31 21:30:09 <dirtyfilthy> yah, i only need block headers to make a hash right?
1236 2011-01-31 21:30:14 <x6763> dirtyfilthy: yeah
1237 2011-01-31 21:30:54 * jgarzik really should holding cash and bitcoins at mtgox, for times like this :)
1238 2011-01-31 21:30:57 <jgarzik> hold
1239 2011-01-31 21:31:04 <x6763> jgarzik: i was thinking the same thing
1240 2011-01-31 21:31:22 <x6763> dirtyfilthy: version, previous block hash, merkle root hash, timestamp, difficulty, and nonce
1241 2011-01-31 21:31:30 <x6763> dirtyfilthy: in that order
1242 2011-01-31 21:31:56 <dirtyfilthy> yep
1243 2011-01-31 21:32:55 bulletbill has joined
1244 2011-01-31 21:35:07 <Vladimir> finally some bids can be seen
1245 2011-01-31 21:35:40 <tcatm> Vladimir: bitcoincharts has all bids
1246 2011-01-31 21:36:44 <jgarzik> Does anybody have a link, or useful bitcoin.org search terms, to find what satoshi's written on nLockTime ?
1247 2011-01-31 21:36:56 <jgarzik> bitcoin.org search leaves a lot to be desired
1248 2011-01-31 21:37:33 <TD> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1786.0 ?
1249 2011-01-31 21:37:38 <TD> "nTimeLock does the reverse. It's an open transaction that can be replaced with new versions until the deadline. It can't be recorded until it locks. The highest version when the deadline hits gets recorded. It could be used, for example, to write an escrow transaction that will automatically permanently lock and go through unless it is revoked before the deadline. The feature isn't enabled or used yet, but the support is there so it co
1250 2011-01-31 21:37:56 <jgarzik> yep, that's it.
1251 2011-01-31 21:38:10 <jgarzik> davout: ^^
1252 2011-01-31 21:39:32 <x6763> jgarzik: nTimeLock is also mentioned on the wiki Protocol page as lock_time: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification#tx
1253 2011-01-31 21:40:07 <davout> i'm not sure i really understand
1254 2011-01-31 21:40:25 <jgarzik> davout: well, it's disabled so it doesn't matter in any case
1255 2011-01-31 21:40:30 <davout> it means a transaction can basically be overwritten before N seconds/hours/whatever right ?
1256 2011-01-31 21:40:42 <jgarzik> davout: right
1257 2011-01-31 21:40:44 <x6763> davout: that's what it sounds like to me
1258 2011-01-31 21:41:12 <davout> ok, but would it be possible to make a non standard TX that prevents claiming its outs *before* a certain amount of time has passed
1259 2011-01-31 21:41:48 <davout> like, i want to be sure i'll save these coins, and *nott* be tmpted of spending them before they're worth 10kUSD each ?
1260 2011-01-31 21:41:56 <jgarzik> davout: you could create a standard tx, and then not distribute the keypair until certain time has passed
1261 2011-01-31 21:42:18 <davout> well, i meant, also protecting the coins from myself :D
1262 2011-01-31 21:42:20 <jgarzik> davout: but otherwise, I don't think so
1263 2011-01-31 21:42:22 <x6763> davout: i don't think scripting can support that
1264 2011-01-31 21:43:16 <dirtyfilthy> x6763: thanks for help, my timestamp was in the wrong byte order
1265 2011-01-31 21:43:24 noagendamarket has joined
1266 2011-01-31 21:44:42 <x6763> dirtyfilthy: no problem, glad you got it figured out
1267 2011-01-31 21:47:01 sabalaba has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1268 2011-01-31 21:48:24 <bitanarchy> mtgox is quite slow at receiving bitcoin deposits... it took more than an hour...
1269 2011-01-31 21:48:35 * jgarzik noticed :)
1270 2011-01-31 21:48:46 <nanotube> bitanarchy: it waits for 6 conf.
1271 2011-01-31 21:49:05 <bitanarchy> I missed the peak :-(
1272 2011-01-31 21:49:07 <bittertea> Has anyone done any development on wallet-related functions?
1273 2011-01-31 21:49:37 <bittertea> I'm interested in coming up with a method to insert/extract keys from wallets
1274 2011-01-31 21:49:59 <bittertea> The end result would be less monolithic wallets, I would hope
1275 2011-01-31 21:50:12 <tcatm> bittertea: a) bitcointools b) make a patch to add RPC functions
1276 2011-01-31 21:50:56 <dirtyfilthy> i have a tool to extract keys
1277 2011-01-31 21:51:26 <dirtyfilthy> https://github.com/dirtyfilthy/bc_key
1278 2011-01-31 21:52:15 <bittertea> You can see how many bitcoins belong to each address in a wallet, correct?
1279 2011-01-31 21:52:29 <gavinandresen> bittertea: bitcointools can read/write wallet keys
1280 2011-01-31 21:52:47 <davout> bittertea: you can see how many bitcoins "belong" to *any* address actually
1281 2011-01-31 21:52:51 <gavinandresen> (I might be implementing a "clean wallet" soon, the faucet's wallet is getting outrageously big)
1282 2011-01-31 21:53:18 <davout> gavindersen: dangerous feature is dangerous
1283 2011-01-31 21:53:25 <davout> :)
1284 2011-01-31 21:53:50 <davout> maybe there should be an option in a client to re-use keys if the user doesn't mind
1285 2011-01-31 21:54:01 <bittertea> gavinandresen: What would that do? Consolidate bitcoin between addresses or just clean up unused space?
1286 2011-01-31 21:54:17 xelister has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1287 2011-01-31 21:54:42 <gavinandresen> It would get rid of all spent 'change' addresses, and all spent transactions.
1288 2011-01-31 21:55:00 <davout> i guess change addresses can go away heh
1289 2011-01-31 21:55:09 <luke-jr> why doesn't change just go back to the source address?
1290 2011-01-31 21:55:12 <gavinandresen> ... just keep receiving addresses, or change addresses that have unspent coins associated with them
1291 2011-01-31 21:55:12 <luke-jr> or one of them anyhow
1292 2011-01-31 21:55:33 <hacim> lol, nice crash
1293 2011-01-31 21:55:36 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: privacy. Using a new address you can't tell which is the payment and which is the change.
1294 2011-01-31 21:56:15 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I don't care about privacy like you don't care about TBC :P
1295 2011-01-31 21:56:19 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: ... but it returning change back to one of the previous addresses would be a good option, I think. Would make listtransactions output weird sometimes
1296 2011-01-31 21:56:25 <gavinandresen> (change would look like payments to self)
1297 2011-01-31 21:56:56 <luke-jr> you could throw used-up change addresses in a pool, and reuse them for other change in the future
1298 2011-01-31 22:00:49 sabalaba has joined
1299 2011-01-31 22:06:42 noagendamarket has quit (Changing host)
1300 2011-01-31 22:06:42 noagendamarket has joined
1301 2011-01-31 22:06:58 <molecular> ;;bcmtgox
1302 2011-01-31 22:06:59 <gribble> Error: "bcmtgox" is not a valid command.
1303 2011-01-31 22:07:05 <molecular> ;;bc,mtgox
1304 2011-01-31 22:07:05 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":0.95,"low":0.47,"vol":62653,"buy":0.51,"sell":0.545,"last":0.5}}
1305 2011-01-31 22:07:11 <molecular> holy cow, 0.95
1306 2011-01-31 22:08:41 Zarutian has joined
1307 2011-01-31 22:10:46 <nanotube> gavinandresen: as long as it's not the default... :)
1308 2011-01-31 22:13:43 <gavinandresen> nanotube: it's not high on my priority list; the Faucet is a weird use case.
1309 2011-01-31 22:16:41 <nanotube> well, any business which pays a lot of clients is the same use case.
1310 2011-01-31 22:19:37 <jgarzik> slush: suggestion: change Mhash/sec to Ghash/sec in website statistics
1311 2011-01-31 22:19:48 asdf30 has joined
1312 2011-01-31 22:20:05 <andrew12> just attach a EULA to all your emails to them: "By reading this you entitle the sender to 0.5% of any profits you make off of Bitcoin. No exceptions."
1313 2011-01-31 22:20:19 <andrew12> :p
1314 2011-01-31 22:21:12 <andrew12> ;;bc,mtgox
1315 2011-01-31 22:21:12 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":0.95,"low":0.47,"vol":62793,"buy":0.5101,"sell":0.5999,"last":0.6}}
1316 2011-01-31 22:23:40 skeledrew1 has joined
1317 2011-01-31 22:23:52 <nanotube> gavinandresen: btw, maybe it's time to add another decimal point to the client. :) or even better, just take out the rounding.
1318 2011-01-31 22:24:12 <slush> jgarzik: done (on dev)
1319 2011-01-31 22:24:19 <gavinandresen> I posted a proposal for taking out the rounding to the forums today.
1320 2011-01-31 22:24:38 <noagendamarket> Gavin is it time to move the decimal?
1321 2011-01-31 22:24:45 kelvie_ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1322 2011-01-31 22:25:12 <noagendamarket> if we hit parity it will become difficult to do microtransaction sites
1323 2011-01-31 22:25:13 <jgarzik> if there is a change, change to int64 with no decimal...
1324 2011-01-31 22:25:16 <nanotube> noagendamarket: haha i just asked the same.
1325 2011-01-31 22:25:23 <nanotube> jgarzik: i like that.
1326 2011-01-31 22:25:24 <gavinandresen> I started a thread about that on the forums a while ago, too... I thought it shouldn't be moved until bitcoins were getting close to $10 each
1327 2011-01-31 22:25:27 <nanotube> gavinandresen: where's the forum thread?
1328 2011-01-31 22:25:43 <necrodearia> heh, us$0.10 minimum micro-transaction
1329 2011-01-31 22:26:07 <gavinandresen> nanotube: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1833.0
1330 2011-01-31 22:26:59 <slush> gavinandresen: some compacting of wallet.dat would be nice. I will have similar troubles on pool, wallet after one month of usage have >30 MB.
1331 2011-01-31 22:27:13 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1332 2011-01-31 22:27:14 <necrodearia> To get around minimum transaction of 0.01 (or whatever it will be in the future) it is useful to implement another currency that functions separetely from bitcoin to allow for smaller amounts to be transacted and also in a manner that is local to the environment so as to not dos the Bitcoin network.
1333 2011-01-31 22:27:25 <necrodearia> That is what I have done for witcoin.com
1334 2011-01-31 22:27:36 <necrodearia> separately*
1335 2011-01-31 22:28:06 <nanotube> gavinandresen: what about the proposal from today?
1336 2011-01-31 22:28:25 <gavinandresen> nanotube: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=3065.0
1337 2011-01-31 22:28:26 <Vladimir> int64, not doubts, unless you want to get back to this discussion again in a year
1338 2011-01-31 22:28:34 <noagendamarket> or we can just use witcoin :)-
1339 2011-01-31 22:28:47 <noagendamarket> actually its good for us necrodearia lol
1340 2011-01-31 22:29:19 <gavinandresen> Vladimir: JSON doesn't support int64.
1341 2011-01-31 22:30:03 <gavinandresen> ... and I don't want to have to explain to people over and over again why they have to type "100000000" instead of 1 (complete with quotes) if they want to send one fricking bitcoin
1342 2011-01-31 22:30:07 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: sure it does.
1343 2011-01-31 22:30:16 <luke-jr> and you don't have to
1344 2011-01-31 22:30:22 <luke-jr> RPC isn't for humans
1345 2011-01-31 22:30:30 <nanotube> gavinandresen: just call 1e8 'a bitcoin'.
1346 2011-01-31 22:30:31 <luke-jr> and JSON allows 1e8 just fine
1347 2011-01-31 22:30:40 <nanotube> gavinandresen: i mean, 1e-8
1348 2011-01-31 22:30:43 <nanotube> that solves all problems.
1349 2011-01-31 22:30:52 <nanotube> so instead of sending 1 bitcoin, people send 10m bitcoins.
1350 2011-01-31 22:30:59 <nanotube> and type 10000000
1351 2011-01-31 22:31:00 <gavinandresen> It would have to be "1e8" (don't forget the quotes!)
1352 2011-01-31 22:31:02 <nanotube> just as expected.
1353 2011-01-31 22:31:12 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: no, JSON supports 1e8 as a number
1354 2011-01-31 22:31:46 <gavinandresen> Great, so we "switch to int64" but still send everything over JSON, so your JSON library will convert to/from double anyway....
1355 2011-01-31 22:31:55 <jgarzik> use strings, and manually place a fixed-point decimal. avoid all issues of int64 JSON or floating point.
1356 2011-01-31 22:31:57 <gavinandresen> Tell me again why we'd do that?
1357 2011-01-31 22:31:59 <luke-jr> depends on your JSON library's implementation
1358 2011-01-31 22:32:09 <jgarzik> that way, 10.0 BTC remains 10.0 BTC.
1359 2011-01-31 22:32:09 <luke-jr> and double is lossless for base units
1360 2011-01-31 22:32:38 <gavinandresen> ... double is lossless with the way we do it now....
1361 2011-01-31 22:32:54 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: no, double cannot represent 0.1 exactly.
1362 2011-01-31 22:32:56 <bitanarchy> Are double-sided dark pool trades also visible in #bitcoin-market ?
1363 2011-01-31 22:32:59 <jgarzik> using strings means zero issues with floats, rounding, and JSON library issues on int64.
1364 2011-01-31 22:33:21 <luke-jr> jgarzik: it just moves the problem into the program itselfâ¦
1365 2011-01-31 22:33:45 <jgarzik> yes. so? Oracle and other SQL dbs support accurate decimal numbers. We can do the same.
1366 2011-01-31 22:33:47 <slush> luke-jr: but many programs can handle such types as decimals (hrm, python)
1367 2011-01-31 22:33:52 <ArtForzZz> yep
1368 2011-01-31 22:33:59 <jgarzik> decimal does not necessarily imply floating point!
1369 2011-01-31 22:33:59 <gavinandresen> mmm.... python....
1370 2011-01-31 22:34:06 <jgarzik> humph ;-)
1371 2011-01-31 22:34:30 <slush> I like the idea of decimals as strings
1372 2011-01-31 22:34:37 <ArtForzZz> python iirc it's smth like json.parse(whatever, parse_float=decimal.decimal)
1373 2011-01-31 22:34:40 <slush> or... any amounts as strings
1374 2011-01-31 22:34:53 <jgarzik> other databases and money programs moved away from float for decimals decades ago
1375 2011-01-31 22:35:11 <ArtForzZz> is "1.234982" a float or a decimal ?
1376 2011-01-31 22:35:18 <ArtForzZz> oh, it's a string
1377 2011-01-31 22:36:05 <andrew12> heh
1378 2011-01-31 22:36:09 <ArtForzZz> and the way we use double on the bitcoin side, it is lossless
1379 2011-01-31 22:36:12 <luke-jr> both int64 and double can represent all numbers 0 through 2,100,000,000,000,000
1380 2011-01-31 22:36:13 <nanotube> gavinandresen: posted my reply to that thread. jgarzik feel free to add your input as well. :)
1381 2011-01-31 22:36:27 <luke-jr> neither int64 nor double can represent 0.1
1382 2011-01-31 22:36:32 <jgarzik> can python do a C-like "x ? a : b"
1383 2011-01-31 22:36:41 <andrew12> luke-jr: but decimal can!
1384 2011-01-31 22:36:42 <andrew12> :p
1385 2011-01-31 22:36:48 <luke-jr> using integer base units for JSON-RPC is quite frankly obvious
1386 2011-01-31 22:36:54 <luke-jr> andrew12: but C doesn't have a decimal type afaik
1387 2011-01-31 22:37:01 <slush> I made some payment gateways and used strings instead of float points without any problem. Also pool is using string representation and it works nicely, don't have any rounding problem ever
1388 2011-01-31 22:37:03 <jgarzik> int64 can represent 0.1. you simply define programmatically where the decimal point is displayed.
1389 2011-01-31 22:37:04 <jgarzik> simple.
1390 2011-01-31 22:37:25 <andrew12> luke-jr: write your own then \o/
1391 2011-01-31 22:37:30 <luke-jr> jgarzik: displayed != value of internally
1392 2011-01-31 22:37:38 <luke-jr> JSON-RPC is an internal thing
1393 2011-01-31 22:37:49 <ArtForzZz> huh? internall we use int64s
1394 2011-01-31 22:37:52 <luke-jr> andrew12: you can't write types for C like that -.-
1395 2011-01-31 22:37:59 <jgarzik> ArtForzZz: indeed, we do.
1396 2011-01-31 22:38:18 <jgarzik> json issue == display issue, in this context. we simply pass a proper string to json, containing number w/ added decimal.
1397 2011-01-31 22:38:31 <luke-jr> JSON is internal.
1398 2011-01-31 22:38:32 <ArtForzZz> they're just converted to double for I/O because someone was too lazy to write a int64-to-decimal-string and the reverse
1399 2011-01-31 22:39:08 <luke-jr> there is no rational basis for having a decimal point 8 digits from the right, either.
1400 2011-01-31 22:39:15 <ArtForzZz> yes, there is
1401 2011-01-31 22:39:23 <luke-jr> Decimal bitcoin may use it today, but if Bitcoin ever gains any real adoption, it will need to be moved.
1402 2011-01-31 22:39:28 <ArtForzZz> it's called "dont change shit for no reason"
1403 2011-01-31 22:40:17 <luke-jr> AFAIK, to read the JSON number as a fixed-point decimal into an int64 or such, would mean not using any JSON libs
1404 2011-01-31 22:40:32 <ArtForzZz> in what language?
1405 2011-01-31 22:40:34 <luke-jr> and throwing quotes around it to bypass the library and parse it yourself is ⦠lame
1406 2011-01-31 22:41:25 <jgarzik> it's reality.
1407 2011-01-31 22:41:32 <luke-jr> ArtForzZz: the fact is, there is a reason for a change. 3 of them. and there is one solution that fits all use cases easily.
1408 2011-01-31 22:41:40 <ArtForzZz> pythons standard json parser happily takes parse_float and parse_int functions
1409 2011-01-31 22:41:57 bertodsera has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1410 2011-01-31 22:41:59 <ArtForzZz> well, really object classes
1411 2011-01-31 22:42:08 <luke-jr> ArtForzZz: what does that mean? JSON doesn't have int or float. it has numbers that can be anything.
1412 2011-01-31 22:42:38 <ArtForzZz> wild guess, if it contains a . or e, it's float-y
1413 2011-01-31 22:43:19 <luke-jr> but in any case, so long as the platform supports int64 or double, raw base units as a JSON number WORKS FINE
1414 2011-01-31 22:43:30 <ArtForzZz> so?
1415 2011-01-31 22:43:55 <gavinandresen> Can we argue about something that somebody other than geek will actually care about? Maybe wallet encryption: https://gist.github.com/803170
1416 2011-01-31 22:44:10 <luke-jr> so why invent some kind of string hack and custom decimal parsing algorithm for each JSON-RPC Bitcoin software?
1417 2011-01-31 22:44:26 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: what's to argue about? wallet encryption is (also) obvious :p
1418 2011-01-31 22:44:30 bertodsera has joined
1419 2011-01-31 22:44:49 <ArtForzZz> so, use int notation, find two dozen json libs that use int32 for representing those. whoops.
1420 2011-01-31 22:45:13 <luke-jr> ArtForzZz: name one such lib. it would be a bug.
1421 2011-01-31 22:45:31 <gavinandresen> jansson
1422 2011-01-31 22:45:33 <Vladimir> thre is no need for decimals, just integers, but these integers represent not BTC, but nano BTC
1423 2011-01-31 22:45:44 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: jansson doesn't support floats?
1424 2011-01-31 22:45:55 <luke-jr> Vladimir: they represent 10 nanoBTC
1425 2011-01-31 22:46:04 <Vladimir> ok
1426 2011-01-31 22:46:07 <gavinandresen> if a number looks integer-y, jansson interprets it as a 32-bit int.
1427 2011-01-31 22:46:24 <Vladimir> of course e-8 not e-9
1428 2011-01-31 22:46:26 <gavinandresen> (as far as I can tell, I just did a quick read of the documentation)
1429 2011-01-31 22:46:27 bittertea has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1430 2011-01-31 22:46:45 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: jansson is C. the calling code would need to tell it the internal type to useâ¦
1431 2011-01-31 22:47:24 <Vladimir> deca-nano-BTC's :)
1432 2011-01-31 22:47:45 bertodsera has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1433 2011-01-31 22:48:15 <ArtForzZz> or simply microcents
1434 2011-01-31 22:48:17 <luke-jr> Vladimir: centi-micro-BTC
1435 2011-01-31 22:48:55 <Vladimir> yep these too
1436 2011-01-31 22:49:16 <ArtForzZz> mixing SI prefixes looks weird
1437 2011-01-31 22:50:13 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: did you read my wallet encryption link? How to encrypt isn't obvious... Is there the equivalent of the Mac keychain on Linux?
1438 2011-01-31 22:50:13 <Vladimir> nonedeci or centimicros ? this is the question!
1439 2011-01-31 22:50:50 <gavinandresen> (actually, WHAT to encrypt isn't obvious, either-- private keys obviously, but maybe not public keys or wallet transactions)
1440 2011-01-31 22:51:03 <ArtForzZz> "everything" sounds like a good plan
1441 2011-01-31 22:51:04 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: yes, probably multiple equivalents
1442 2011-01-31 22:51:20 <luke-jr> ArtForzZz: no reason to encrypt the block chain and other public crap
1443 2011-01-31 22:51:30 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: KWallet is the KDE equivalent.
1444 2011-01-31 22:51:33 <ArtForzZz> since when do we store the block chain in wallet?
1445 2011-01-31 22:51:42 <gavinandresen> ArtForzZz: but "everything" means everything is decrypted in memory most of the time... which is a vulnerability
1446 2011-01-31 22:51:42 bertodsera has joined
1447 2011-01-31 22:52:11 <nanotube> jgarzik: oh missed your earlier question. try "a if <cond> else b"
1448 2011-01-31 22:52:17 <gavinandresen> I think ideally you only unlock your private keys when you need to send.
1449 2011-01-31 22:52:32 <ArtForzZz> hrrrm
1450 2011-01-31 22:52:35 <gavinandresen> (public keys and wallet txns are needed constantly)
1451 2011-01-31 22:52:48 doublec has joined
1452 2011-01-31 22:52:48 doublec has quit (Changing host)
1453 2011-01-31 22:52:48 doublec has joined
1454 2011-01-31 22:53:39 * jgarzik uses "x ? a : b" in string formatting expressions quite often
1455 2011-01-31 22:53:51 <jgarzik> accepted ? "Y" : "N"
1456 2011-01-31 22:54:11 <dirtyfilthy> i was thinking have a master public private key pair, that way you can generate new addresses without unlocking your wallet, encrypt them with your master public key, and store them
1457 2011-01-31 22:54:28 bittertea has joined
1458 2011-01-31 22:54:47 sabalaba has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1459 2011-01-31 22:54:51 <ArtForzZz> that makes keypool useless
1460 2011-01-31 22:55:00 bertodsera has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1461 2011-01-31 22:55:02 <dirtyfilthy> how so?
1462 2011-01-31 22:55:09 <ArtForzZz> no.. wait
1463 2011-01-31 22:55:17 <ArtForzZz> you keep the pubkeys in keypool plain...
1464 2011-01-31 22:55:20 <ArtForzZz> yeah, that should work
1465 2011-01-31 22:56:23 <gavinandresen> dirtyfilthy: good idea.
1466 2011-01-31 22:58:19 <ArtForzZz> hmmm... yeah, that should work, and we wouldnt need any external key store
1467 2011-01-31 22:59:51 <dirtyfilthy> i guess the attack would be someone inserting keys in your key pool
1468 2011-01-31 23:00:04 bulletbill has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1469 2011-01-31 23:00:51 <ArtForzZz> hrrrm
1470 2011-01-31 23:01:29 bertodsera has joined
1471 2011-01-31 23:01:54 <ArtForzZz> I dont think that'd be a problem
1472 2011-01-31 23:02:02 sc8nt4u has joined
1473 2011-01-31 23:02:40 <ArtForzZz> we'd have to change/extend RPC interface
1474 2011-01-31 23:04:31 bertodsera has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1475 2011-01-31 23:06:43 * jgarzik grumbles at testnet difficulty
1476 2011-01-31 23:07:31 <sipa> ;;bc,prob 1240000 1s
1477 2011-01-31 23:07:31 <gribble> 1.31156470847e-05
1478 2011-01-31 23:07:51 <sipa> ;;bc,prob 1240000 1m
1479 2011-01-31 23:07:51 <gribble> 0.000786634426522
1480 2011-01-31 23:07:57 <sipa> ;;bc,prob 1240000 1h
1481 2011-01-31 23:07:58 <gribble> 0.0461192726995
1482 2011-01-31 23:08:03 <sipa> ;;bc,prob 1240000 1d
1483 2011-01-31 23:08:04 <gribble> 0.677998585135
1484 2011-01-31 23:08:08 <sipa> ;;bc,prob 1240000 1w
1485 2011-01-31 23:08:09 <gribble> 0.99964107438
1486 2011-01-31 23:08:23 <sipa> ;;bc,prob 1240000 1y
1487 2011-01-31 23:08:23 <gribble> 1
1488 2011-01-31 23:08:28 <sipa> \o/
1489 2011-01-31 23:08:34 <molecular> hehe
1490 2011-01-31 23:09:06 <andrew12> jgarzik: what is the testnet diff currently?
1491 2011-01-31 23:09:16 <dirtyfilthy> ArtForzZz: isn't there a problem with someone inserting a bunch of keys in your key pool and waiting for them to get spent?
1492 2011-01-31 23:09:56 <dirtyfilthy> i meant
1493 2011-01-31 23:09:57 <dirtyfilthy> not spent
1494 2011-01-31 23:10:00 <dirtyfilthy> but spent to
1495 2011-01-31 23:10:22 <ArtForzZz> I dont think theres a way to prevent that
1496 2011-01-31 23:14:49 <jgarzik> andrew12: 373.70862152. target is 00000000015ebb00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
1497 2011-01-31 23:15:07 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1498 2011-01-31 23:15:39 <jgarzik> hash: 00000000e85333571db7b53d694598ecfadd09c932576b690e437c342e1a7451
1499 2011-01-31 23:15:39 <jgarzik> target: 00000000015ebb00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
1500 2011-01-31 23:15:40 <andrew12> ;;bc,calcd 600 373.70862152
1501 2011-01-31 23:15:40 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 600 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 373.70862152, is 4 weeks, 2 days, 23 hours, 5 minutes, and 10 seconds
1502 2011-01-31 23:15:48 <jgarzik> my cpuminer gets tantalizingly close
1503 2011-01-31 23:15:54 <andrew12> let
1504 2011-01-31 23:16:05 <ArtForzZz> ?
1505 2011-01-31 23:16:11 <andrew12> let's make a mining pool for testnet :P
1506 2011-01-31 23:16:23 <ArtForzZz> thats 186.9 diff
1507 2011-01-31 23:16:44 * jgarzik is just quoting output from bitcoind
1508 2011-01-31 23:16:54 <ArtForzZz> yes, bitcoind is stupid
1509 2011-01-31 23:17:12 <ArtForzZz> testnet 1.0 diff = mainnet 0.5 diff
1510 2011-01-31 23:17:43 <jgarzik> difficulty came from JSON, and target came from custom patch, which uses standard bitcoin routines to display uint256
1511 2011-01-31 23:18:03 <jgarzik> checkwork path
1512 2011-01-31 23:18:05 duck1123 has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1513 2011-01-31 23:18:31 draginx has joined
1514 2011-01-31 23:19:28 xelister has joined
1515 2011-01-31 23:19:28 xelister has quit (Changing host)
1516 2011-01-31 23:19:28 xelister has joined
1517 2011-01-31 23:20:13 akem has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1518 2011-01-31 23:24:22 bitanarchy has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.6.13/20101203075014])
1519 2011-01-31 23:27:02 bittertea has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1520 2011-01-31 23:32:18 bertodsera has joined
1521 2011-01-31 23:32:44 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
1522 2011-01-31 23:33:58 <andrew12> seriously though, a mining pool for the testnet would be pretty cool. :p
1523 2011-01-31 23:34:13 sabalaba has joined
1524 2011-01-31 23:35:20 bertodsera has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1525 2011-01-31 23:35:37 davout has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1526 2011-01-31 23:35:40 <slush> andrew12: why? After release of .20, testnet will have difficulty 0.5
1527 2011-01-31 23:38:50 <andrew12> slush: forever?
1528 2011-01-31 23:39:14 <slush> not forever, but for some time
1529 2011-01-31 23:39:23 <molecular> ;;bc,diff
1530 2011-01-31 23:39:24 <gribble> 22012.4941572
1531 2011-01-31 23:39:40 <molecular> ;;bc,calcd 650000 22012.4941572
1532 2011-01-31 23:39:40 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 650000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 22012.4941572, is 1 day, 16 hours, 24 minutes, and 10 seconds
1533 2011-01-31 23:39:50 <slush> depends if ArtForzZz will test his cartell mode again :))
1534 2011-01-31 23:39:54 <andrew12> would still be cool if there was some sort of pool.. that way people can distribute the extra play coins they get, as well as get some for themself
1535 2011-01-31 23:40:01 <andrew12> slush: hmm?
1536 2011-01-31 23:40:37 <slush> don't get it
1537 2011-01-31 23:40:49 <slush> why don't use real bitcoin pool?
1538 2011-01-31 23:41:48 <andrew12> slush: If there were a pool for testnet then the bitcoins would be distributed more quickly
1539 2011-01-31 23:42:03 <andrew12> rather than having to wait for your pc to generate a block
1540 2011-01-31 23:42:15 <jgarzik> a mining pool for testnet would push up difficulty beyond that which makes it easy to test miners IMHO :)
1541 2011-01-31 23:42:32 <andrew12> but I suppose everyone could just toss all their bitcoins in the faucet
1542 2011-01-31 23:42:48 <andrew12> hmm
1543 2011-01-31 23:42:57 bertodsera has joined
1544 2011-01-31 23:44:13 Syke has joined
1545 2011-01-31 23:45:44 <Syke> I need help configuring DiabloMiner on dual ATI cards.
1546 2011-01-31 23:46:31 <andrew12> slush: does the latest git already have the new testnet?
1547 2011-01-31 23:46:33 bertodsera has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1548 2011-01-31 23:46:44 <andrew12> or i guess, the testnet with the lower difficulty
1549 2011-01-31 23:47:28 <slush> andrew12: latest git has new genesis block for testnet
1550 2011-01-31 23:47:47 <andrew12> cool, now all i need is a windows build of the latest git...
1551 2011-01-31 23:48:13 <andrew12> someone should make a buildbot :P
1552 2011-01-31 23:51:44 riush has joined
1553 2011-01-31 23:53:09 <gavinandresen> andrew12, slush: actually, I don't think I've pulled the new -testnet genesis block (there's a pull request sitting there)
1554 2011-01-31 23:53:38 <andrew12> hehe
1555 2011-01-31 23:53:46 kermit has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1556 2011-01-31 23:56:15 <molecular> Syke, what's the specific problem?
1557 2011-01-31 23:56:34 <slush> oh, I don't work with git(hub), so I thought it was commited to mainline. Sorry andrew12 for misleading info :)
1558 2011-01-31 23:56:50 chuck251 has joined
1559 2011-01-31 23:57:07 <midnightmagic> testnet bitcoins have a market; it seems stupid, but the desire is there. since when is .20 testnet difficulty hardcoded? how are we supposed to test real-world reactions to cpu input?
1560 2011-01-31 23:57:25 <Syke> molecular, if I have crossfirex disabled, then it only finds one card. If I have crossfirex enabled, it says it finds both cards, but the cpu gets pegged and the speed isn't double.
1561 2011-01-31 23:58:17 bertodsera has joined
1562 2011-01-31 23:58:24 <midnightmagic> doh, better go look at source then.
1563 2011-01-31 23:58:33 <slush> echelon: You're the same echelon as in tahoe mailing list?
1564 2011-01-31 23:58:55 <echelon> no
1565 2011-01-31 23:59:38 lyspooner has joined
1566 2011-01-31 23:59:42 <andrew12> slush: its fine :)