1 2011-03-01 00:00:33 <doublec> luke-jr: pretty sure you won't get the non-standard transaction part accepted
2 2011-03-01 00:00:52 <doublec> luke-jr: there was a big discussion on the forums when that change went through
3 2011-03-01 00:01:20 <ArtForz> the "don't require fees for tx from/to self" looks like a damn good idea though
4 2011-03-01 00:01:34 <doublec> luke-jr: see here http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=2162.msg28317#msg28317
5 2011-03-01 00:02:05 <luke-jr> doublec: this patch is not intented for upstream
6 2011-03-01 00:02:17 <doublec> ok
7 2011-03-01 00:02:29 <luke-jr> it requires fees to accept *any* tx
8 2011-03-01 00:02:44 <luke-jr> ArtForz: I thought you already had that?
9 2011-03-01 00:02:52 <ArtForz> I do, mainline doesnt
10 2011-03-01 00:03:00 <luke-jr> ArtForz: same implementation?
11 2011-03-01 00:03:03 <luke-jr> better? worse?
12 2011-03-01 00:03:22 <doublec> luke-jr: so you require fees for all transactions except those sent fromt/to self?
13 2011-03-01 00:03:30 <ArtForz> I have some special-casing to not count my own tx sizes toward block size for fee calc
14 2011-03-01 00:03:31 riush has joined
15 2011-03-01 00:03:41 <luke-jr> doublec: yes
16 2011-03-01 00:03:53 <doublec> interesting
17 2011-03-01 00:03:57 <luke-jr> doublec: however, the fees are low; so you can get by with less for <0.01 than mainline
18 2011-03-01 00:03:58 <doublec> that's one way of cutting down spam
19 2011-03-01 00:04:05 <luke-jr> I think
20 2011-03-01 00:04:14 <dirtyfilthy> so are all these cases of uncomfirmed transactions free transactions?
21 2011-03-01 00:04:22 <ArtForz> yes
22 2011-03-01 00:04:22 <luke-jr> I don't have a minimum tx amount. Just per-BË¢
23 2011-03-01 00:04:38 ZenMondo has left ()
24 2011-03-01 00:05:40 <Syke> even with the "don't require fees for tx from/to self" patch, one could create a massive block and self-solve it to bloat the official chain.
25 2011-03-01 00:09:59 <phantomcircuit> Syke brings up a good point
26 2011-03-01 00:11:00 <Syke> I have a pretty good setup, but by no means unusual, and I can solve a block a day easy.
27 2011-03-01 00:12:09 <amiller> how much would you say your build costs
28 2011-03-01 00:12:21 <phantomcircuit> you could just generate a block with billions of tx where inputs == change
29 2011-03-01 00:12:30 <amiller> not that i care about yours in particular but as an estimate to match to the figure of a block a day and what other people might do
30 2011-03-01 00:12:38 <ArtForz> no you can't
31 2011-03-01 00:12:46 baldahin has quit (Quit: Page closed)
32 2011-03-01 00:12:49 <Syke> built 2 systems myself, not much more than $1k
33 2011-03-01 00:12:59 <ArtForz> a block > 1MB is invalid by definition
34 2011-03-01 00:13:09 <phantomcircuit> ArtForz, really?
35 2011-03-01 00:13:18 <ArtForz> yep
36 2011-03-01 00:13:33 <phantomcircuit> ~ how many txs is that?
37 2011-03-01 00:13:40 <amiller> i wonder how much it would cost to build a big mining network over ec2
38 2011-03-01 00:13:48 <amiller> that would run for just a couple hours
39 2011-03-01 00:13:54 <amiller> with fairly high likelihood of generating a block
40 2011-03-01 00:14:15 <edcba> it would cost very much i guess :)
41 2011-03-01 00:14:20 <ArtForz> amiller: a lot.
42 2011-03-01 00:14:23 <eps> slush1: how long is a "round"?
43 2011-03-01 00:14:50 <Syke> ec2 doesn't have ati video cards, so it would be very expensive
44 2011-03-01 00:15:17 <amiller> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1334.280
45 2011-03-01 00:15:23 <amiller> With -v it runs at about 32Mhash/s.
46 2011-03-01 00:15:27 <amiller> tells me that generating a block is going to cost about $378 at this rate, and take a week on average.
47 2011-03-01 00:15:36 <amiller> Cluster GPU Quadruple Extra Large 22 GB memory, 33.5 EC2 Compute Units, 2 x NVIDIA Tesla ÂFermi M2050 GPUs,
48 2011-03-01 00:15:49 <Diablo-D3> wow
49 2011-03-01 00:15:55 <Diablo-D3> sounds like a pile of shit
50 2011-03-01 00:16:03 <Syke> expensive pile of shit :)
51 2011-03-01 00:16:12 <Diablo-D3> http://pastebin.com/j1iZ5tgk
52 2011-03-01 00:16:21 <Diablo-D3> I did the math like two weeks ago
53 2011-03-01 00:16:31 <Diablo-D3> and just remember: amazon is making you pay the overhead.
54 2011-03-01 00:16:31 <Syke> my laptop can out-crank a fermi
55 2011-03-01 00:16:44 <Diablo-D3> my dick can out-crank a fermi, ask your mom
56 2011-03-01 00:16:51 <Syke> oh snap
57 2011-03-01 00:17:26 <ArtForz> and thats just for raw FLOPS/INTOPS
58 2011-03-01 00:18:08 <molecular> eps: a "round" is until the pool finds a block, then a new round starts
59 2011-03-01 00:18:26 <ArtForz> thanks to bit_align, ATI gains another 45% or so for sha256 ...
60 2011-03-01 00:18:46 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: yeah, I was just doing plain gpgpu interests
61 2011-03-01 00:19:05 <Diablo-D3> since thats what ec2 fermi shit is being sold for
62 2011-03-01 00:19:22 <sethsethseth> anyone know how many "hashes" you need to average to find a block? im looking at this poclbm gui and it says "difficulty 1 hashes: 2728"
63 2011-03-01 00:19:44 <ArtForz> difficulty
64 2011-03-01 00:19:57 <Diablo-D3> sethsethseth: difficulty 1 hashes = the first 32 bits are 0.
65 2011-03-01 00:20:04 <Diablo-D3> sethsethseth: or approximately 1 in 2^32.
66 2011-03-01 00:20:07 <ArtForz> you need about difficulty difficulty 1 hashes to find a block
67 2011-03-01 00:20:20 <Diablo-D3> ;;bc,difficulty
68 2011-03-01 00:20:22 <gribble> Error: "bc,difficulty" is not a valid command.
69 2011-03-01 00:20:26 <Diablo-D3> wait thats not right
70 2011-03-01 00:20:34 <ArtForz> ;;bc,diff
71 2011-03-01 00:20:35 <gribble> 55590.23763914
72 2011-03-01 00:20:45 <Diablo-D3> holy crap
73 2011-03-01 00:20:51 <molecular> lol
74 2011-03-01 00:21:11 <Diablo-D3> thats like
75 2011-03-01 00:21:14 <Diablo-D3> 2^64
76 2011-03-01 00:21:24 <ArtForz> nah, still < 2**48
77 2011-03-01 00:21:39 <ArtForz> 2**48 would be about diff 65536 ...
78 2011-03-01 00:22:37 <Diablo-D3> still
79 2011-03-01 00:22:39 <Diablo-D3> its over 9000
80 2011-03-01 00:22:49 <Diablo-D3> also, uh
81 2011-03-01 00:22:56 <Diablo-D3> once we reach > 2**64
82 2011-03-01 00:23:21 <Diablo-D3> Im not going to bother checking diff anymore
83 2011-03-01 00:23:35 <Diablo-D3> H == 0 && G == 0 and submit it.
84 2011-03-01 00:23:41 <Diablo-D3> fuck targets
85 2011-03-01 00:23:46 <phantomcircuit> wat
86 2011-03-01 00:24:08 <sethsethseth> so i will average a block at about 9000 difficulty 1 hashes?
87 2011-03-01 00:24:28 <Diablo-D3> sethsethseth: no, 55590 of them.
88 2011-03-01 00:25:47 <Diablo-D3> in other words
89 2011-03-01 00:25:48 <Diablo-D3> NEVER
90 2011-03-01 00:25:49 <luke-jr> sethsethseth: difficulty is calculated based on number of diff 1 hashes it takes
91 2011-03-01 00:27:27 <phantomcircuit> ProcessMessage(getdata, 49 bytes) from 100007f : CHECKSUM ERROR nChecksum=01947087 hdr.nChecksum=117d181a
92 2011-03-01 00:27:29 <phantomcircuit> >.>
93 2011-03-01 00:27:37 <phantomcircuit> im pretty sure im doing the checksum calculation right
94 2011-03-01 00:27:44 <sethsethseth> ok i see thanks
95 2011-03-01 00:28:04 <phantomcircuit> checksum = hashlib.sha256(hashlib.sha256(p).digest()).digest()[:4]
96 2011-03-01 00:28:50 <phantomcircuit> wtf packet length is wrong
97 2011-03-01 00:28:50 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: depending on your setup you might need to bytereverse
98 2011-03-01 00:28:53 <phantomcircuit> sigh
99 2011-03-01 00:28:58 <Diablo-D3> fail.
100 2011-03-01 00:29:01 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, in python
101 2011-03-01 00:29:06 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: http://yyz.us/bitcoin/pyminer.py
102 2011-03-01 00:29:10 <phantomcircuit> lol b += struct.pack('<I',len(p)+len(checksum))
103 2011-03-01 00:29:12 <phantomcircuit> why
104 2011-03-01 00:29:13 <phantomcircuit> WHY
105 2011-03-01 00:29:16 <Diablo-D3> bwhahahah
106 2011-03-01 00:29:18 <Diablo-D3> go look at m0's
107 2011-03-01 00:29:23 <Diablo-D3> its all pack molestation
108 2011-03-01 00:29:26 <phantomcircuit> this is why you dont code at 4am after
109 2011-03-01 00:29:32 <phantomcircuit> drinking a monster
110 2011-03-01 00:29:32 drewid[rogue] has joined
111 2011-03-01 00:29:56 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, not what im trying to do xD
112 2011-03-01 00:30:11 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: I know. But it does show how to hash blocks.
113 2011-03-01 00:30:38 <phantomcircuit> this isn't even for hashing blocks
114 2011-03-01 00:30:42 <phantomcircuit> im just doing the network code
115 2011-03-01 00:30:43 <phantomcircuit> lol
116 2011-03-01 00:32:01 <drewid[rogue]> hey guys, do you know why bitcoind would be showing negative balance on some accounts and showing extra balance on others? in the end it all levels out to my proper total balance, but the accounts themselves seem a bit mangled
117 2011-03-01 00:32:34 <eps> has thhe difficulty just gone up?
118 2011-03-01 00:32:45 <luke-jr> drewid[rogue]: because the accounts are just accounting :P
119 2011-03-01 00:32:50 <luke-jr> ;;bc,stats
120 2011-03-01 00:32:52 <gribble> Current Blocks: 111140 | Current Difficulty: 55590.23763914 | Next Difficulty At Block: 112895 | Next Difficulty In: 1755 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 3 days, 18 hours, 51 minutes, and 45 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 63074.05695152
121 2011-03-01 00:32:58 <luke-jr> eps: yesterday
122 2011-03-01 00:33:27 <eps> k thanks
123 2011-03-01 00:35:15 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
124 2011-03-01 00:36:24 molecular has joined
125 2011-03-01 00:37:47 brunner has joined
126 2011-03-01 00:38:08 <phantomcircuit> also
127 2011-03-01 00:38:11 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, for nonce in range(MAX_NONCE):
128 2011-03-01 00:38:16 <phantomcircuit> lol
129 2011-03-01 00:38:27 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: ?
130 2011-03-01 00:38:43 <phantomcircuit> oh wait it's python3
131 2011-03-01 00:38:51 <phantomcircuit> nvm
132 2011-03-01 00:38:57 <luke-jr> even Python 2 has coroutines
133 2011-03-01 00:39:11 <phantomcircuit> range(MAX_NONCE) will build a fairly large list
134 2011-03-01 00:39:50 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: I'm happy to take corrections. That is the second python script I've ever written.
135 2011-03-01 00:39:54 <amiller> xrange returns a nice generator
136 2011-03-01 00:40:08 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, as amiller said
137 2011-03-01 00:40:16 <amiller> just replacing xrange there will be a drop in replacement fixing that
138 2011-03-01 00:40:39 <phantomcircuit> you should probably be using python3, but well
139 2011-03-01 00:40:41 <phantomcircuit> forget it
140 2011-03-01 00:40:48 <luke-jr> no
141 2011-03-01 00:40:50 <luke-jr> he should be using Perl
142 2011-03-01 00:40:52 <luke-jr> :p
143 2011-03-01 00:41:20 <phantomcircuit> lold
144 2011-03-01 00:41:25 <phantomcircuit> now THAT was funny
145 2011-03-01 00:43:33 Slix` has joined
146 2011-03-01 00:43:49 RichardG has quit (Quit: Pingus timeout)
147 2011-03-01 00:44:44 <Lachesis> hey, i'm messing with python's BaseHTTPServer
148 2011-03-01 00:45:00 <Lachesis> and send_response is taking forever
149 2011-03-01 00:45:01 <Lachesis> like 8 seconds
150 2011-03-01 00:45:38 <Lachesis> anyone know why?
151 2011-03-01 00:46:00 <jgarzik> Lachesis: it doesn't seem to behave that way when multi-threading: http://yyz.us/bitcoin/poold.py
152 2011-03-01 00:46:17 <jgarzik> Lachesis: I think the BaseHTTPServer is synchronous I/O :(
153 2011-03-01 00:46:26 <Lachesis> hrm still
154 2011-03-01 00:46:33 <Lachesis> it shouldn't take that long for that method to return
155 2011-03-01 00:47:17 <Lachesis> i'm messing around with a hacked up version of your pool script
156 2011-03-01 00:47:17 RichardG has joined
157 2011-03-01 00:47:32 <Lachesis> should probably try the original, eh?
158 2011-03-01 00:47:53 <Lachesis> m0mchil's miner has a really short timeout (5 seconds)
159 2011-03-01 00:48:03 <Lachesis> and it's timing out the httpserver code
160 2011-03-01 00:48:37 athelas has joined
161 2011-03-01 00:48:54 RichardG has quit (Client Quit)
162 2011-03-01 00:49:22 <athelas> hello
163 2011-03-01 00:49:36 <athelas> I just downloaded the client
164 2011-03-01 00:49:43 <athelas> How do I set a password on my wallet?
165 2011-03-01 00:49:49 <Lachesis> aha!
166 2011-03-01 00:49:59 <Lachesis> athelas, sorry no encryption support
167 2011-03-01 00:50:13 <Lachesis> jgarzik, the logging method was trying to do a rdns lookup of 192.168.0.100
168 2011-03-01 00:50:22 <Lachesis> and that was taking several seconds to return
169 2011-03-01 00:50:24 <jgarzik> ah
170 2011-03-01 00:50:26 <athelas> hmm, so having the address is my only security?
171 2011-03-01 00:50:29 <slush1> hehe, that was my first question, when I downloaded the client, too
172 2011-03-01 00:50:36 <luke-jr> athelas: the wallet file
173 2011-03-01 00:50:40 <Lachesis> athelas, protecting access to wallet.dat is your security
174 2011-03-01 00:50:57 TheKid has joined
175 2011-03-01 00:50:58 <Lachesis> not sure why nobody has implemented encryption yet, actually
176 2011-03-01 00:51:08 <Lachesis> lots of people have complained about it, but nobody has coded it
177 2011-03-01 00:51:20 <athelas> kk, thanks!
178 2011-03-01 00:51:46 <jgarzik> Lachesis: yeah
179 2011-03-01 00:52:20 <jgarzik> Lachesis: it can be done in two lines, if we don't care about backwards compat or encrypting the other databases
180 2011-03-01 00:54:25 <athelas> also, I'm trying to understand the market page
181 2011-03-01 00:54:25 <athelas> http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/
182 2011-03-01 00:54:42 <athelas> what is the difference between bcmLRUSD and bcLRUSD?
183 2011-03-01 00:54:55 <athelas> or PPUSD for that matter
184 2011-03-01 00:55:04 <luke-jr> ArtForz: I don't suppose you'd consider connecting some of your miner(s) to my bitcoind to test my policy changes? I can send the generation from itâ¦
185 2011-03-01 00:56:11 eureka^ is now known as emeril
186 2011-03-01 00:57:15 <[Tycho]> :)
187 2011-03-01 00:57:19 <jgarzik> athelas: bcm* and bc* are two different markets
188 2011-03-01 00:57:29 <jgarzik> athelas: PP* is PayPal
189 2011-03-01 00:57:50 <Lachesis> what's the height of the testnet right now?
190 2011-03-01 00:58:37 <Lachesis> ;;bc,help
191 2011-03-01 00:58:38 <gribble> Alias bc,bcm, Alias bc,blocks, Alias bc,btcex, Alias bc,calc, Alias bc,calcd, Alias bc,diff, Alias bc,estimate, Alias bc,gen, Alias bc,gend, Alias bc,help, Alias bc,hextarget, Alias bc,labs, Alias bc,lbs, Alias bc,markets, Alias bc,mtgox, Alias bc,nexttarget, Alias bc,poolstats, Alias bc,prob, Alias bc,stats, Alias bc,timetonext, Alias bc,totalbc, and Alias bc,wiki
192 2011-03-01 00:58:49 <athelas> I see, isn't that a huge arbitrage gap?
193 2011-03-01 00:59:14 <da2ce7> ;;bc,stats
194 2011-03-01 00:59:16 <gribble> Current Blocks: 111140 | Current Difficulty: 55590.23763914 | Next Difficulty At Block: 112895 | Next Difficulty In: 1755 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 3 days, 18 hours, 51 minutes, and 45 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 63074.05695152
195 2011-03-01 00:59:34 <lfm> athelas: could be the mobility isnt "perfect"
196 2011-03-01 01:00:53 <phantomcircuit> ok what the fuck
197 2011-03-01 01:00:56 <Necr0s> og jebus
198 2011-03-01 01:01:02 <phantomcircuit> does length include the checksum or not?
199 2011-03-01 01:02:11 <Lachesis> phantomcircuit, depends on which message you're looking at
200 2011-03-01 01:02:15 <Lachesis> iirc
201 2011-03-01 01:02:19 <Lachesis> VERSION doesn't
202 2011-03-01 01:02:36 <Lachesis> i say again, does anyone know the number of blocks on the testnet?
203 2011-03-01 01:02:56 <phantomcircuit> Lachesis, version doesnt even have a checksum :|
204 2011-03-01 01:03:36 <Lachesis> hrm
205 2011-03-01 01:03:49 <Lachesis> i don't remember, why do you ask?
206 2011-03-01 01:04:05 devon_hillard has joined
207 2011-03-01 01:04:48 <phantomcircuit> i keep having checksums fail
208 2011-03-01 01:05:03 <phantomcircuit> and it's because im reading the first 4 bytes of the next packet
209 2011-03-01 01:05:15 <ArtForz> don't do that then
210 2011-03-01 01:05:34 DoomDumas has left ()
211 2011-03-01 01:06:20 <phantomcircuit> ArtForz, amusing
212 2011-03-01 01:08:25 <Lachesis> ok jgarzik, i got your pool set up
213 2011-03-01 01:08:29 <Lachesis> now how do i interpret this db?
214 2011-03-01 01:08:30 athelas has quit (Quit: Page closed)
215 2011-03-01 01:09:04 drewid[rogue] has left ()
216 2011-03-01 01:09:13 devon_hillard has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
217 2011-03-01 01:09:17 theymos has joined
218 2011-03-01 01:09:59 <theymos> Why is this transaction not in a block yet? Seems to me like a bug. http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=3966.msg57098#msg57098
219 2011-03-01 01:10:39 <ArtForz> hmmm.... too big?
220 2011-03-01 01:11:37 <theymos> The dump is above that post. Doesn't look huge.
221 2011-03-01 01:11:56 <ArtForz> hrrrm
222 2011-03-01 01:12:20 knotwork_ has joined
223 2011-03-01 01:12:28 <theymos> Maybe its priority was too low and it triggered the free limit at 4kB blocksize. But it should have gotten in a later block.
224 2011-03-01 01:13:17 <ArtForz> I have that tx queued
225 2011-03-01 01:13:37 <ArtForz> so it's there, but other stuff gets priority
226 2011-03-01 01:13:48 <Blitzboom> lol, one transaction got through now
227 2011-03-01 01:13:51 <jgarzik> Lachesis: that's an open ended question :)
228 2011-03-01 01:13:55 <Blitzboom> after seven hours
229 2011-03-01 01:14:00 <amiller> ArtForz, would you publicly display your queue?
230 2011-03-01 01:14:01 <jgarzik> Lachesis: the mining pool thread includes some sample SQL
231 2011-03-01 01:14:16 <Lachesis> jgarzik, alright - keeping some cards to yourself? :)
232 2011-03-01 01:14:18 <theymos> ArtForz: OK. I'll post that in the thread. Thanks.
233 2011-03-01 01:14:30 <jgarzik> Lachesis: yep
234 2011-03-01 01:14:35 <ArtForz> question is, why the fuck is it getting pushed back
235 2011-03-01 01:14:41 <jgarzik> Lachesis: you're welcome to post your insights to that thread...
236 2011-03-01 01:14:46 <ArtForz> it doesnt look like it should have a that bad priority score
237 2011-03-01 01:14:52 <Lachesis> jgarzik, thanks for the pool code
238 2011-03-01 01:15:10 MacRohard has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
239 2011-03-01 01:15:15 <Lachesis> it's a bit rough, but way better than i could have done from scratch
240 2011-03-01 01:15:18 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
241 2011-03-01 01:15:40 <jgarzik> Lachesis: it's a lot rough. doesn't include some anti-cheating code, for example...
242 2011-03-01 01:16:54 TheKid has left ()
243 2011-03-01 01:17:02 TheKid has joined
244 2011-03-01 01:17:23 TheKid has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
245 2011-03-01 01:17:34 TheKid has joined
246 2011-03-01 01:18:28 DoomDumas has joined
247 2011-03-01 01:20:11 <tcatm> luke-jr: where's the subcent thread?
248 2011-03-01 01:20:29 <luke-jr> tcatm: which one?
249 2011-03-01 01:20:34 <luke-jr> the bugfix never had a thread
250 2011-03-01 01:20:51 <luke-jr> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=3786.0 is the latest for precision
251 2011-03-01 01:20:59 <tcatm> well it has a pull request now https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/85
252 2011-03-01 01:21:00 brunner has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
253 2011-03-01 01:21:18 brunner has joined
254 2011-03-01 01:21:46 bk128_ has joined
255 2011-03-01 01:21:50 bk128_ has quit (Changing host)
256 2011-03-01 01:21:50 bk128_ has joined
257 2011-03-01 01:22:36 FreeMoney has joined
258 2011-03-01 01:22:40 <luke-jr> tcatm: thx
259 2011-03-01 01:23:39 bk128 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
260 2011-03-01 01:23:39 bk128_ is now known as bk128
261 2011-03-01 01:23:52 ousado has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
262 2011-03-01 01:26:24 <phantomcircuit> http://codepad.org/xfNhNhkm
263 2011-03-01 01:26:29 <phantomcircuit> that's from the official client
264 2011-03-01 01:26:35 <phantomcircuit> and would appear to be a very wrong checksum
265 2011-03-01 01:26:52 <ArtForz> that tx should have a score of 20567855
266 2011-03-01 01:27:04 ousado has joined
267 2011-03-01 01:27:08 ousado has quit (Changing host)
268 2011-03-01 01:27:08 ousado has joined
269 2011-03-01 01:27:40 <ArtForz> so it falls short of the dPriority > COIN * 144 / 250 test
270 2011-03-01 01:27:58 <phantomcircuit> am i just screwing up the checksum calculation very wrong or is there a regression in the mainline client here?
271 2011-03-01 01:27:59 <ArtForz> and as tx size is > 4000, fAllowFree is never true for it
272 2011-03-01 01:28:23 <theymos> Ah. So it will never confirm?
273 2011-03-01 01:29:20 <ArtForz> probably not
274 2011-03-01 01:29:50 <phantomcircuit> seems like the client shouldn't let you make transactions which will never go through :|
275 2011-03-01 01:29:55 <ArtForz> yeah, why the fuck is the client even sending those
276 2011-03-01 01:30:03 <ArtForz> s/sending/creating
277 2011-03-01 01:30:19 <dirtyfilthy> phantomcircuit: what are you checksumming? the entire packet or just the payload?
278 2011-03-01 01:31:54 <phantomcircuit> dirtyfilthy, just the payload
279 2011-03-01 01:32:02 <phantomcircuit> you cant calculate a checksum for the entire packet
280 2011-03-01 01:32:05 <phantomcircuit> it contains the checksum
281 2011-03-01 01:32:22 <molecular> will the score of that transaction rise with it's age?
282 2011-03-01 01:32:30 <ArtForz> hurrmmm... doesnt look like a recent client would create that one
283 2011-03-01 01:32:59 <amiller> this is a really good discussion on escrow http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=750.0
284 2011-03-01 01:33:08 <ArtForz> I think I see the problem
285 2011-03-01 01:33:19 <amiller> i'm interested right now in how piggybacking small transactions on large transactions into escrow would give them higher priority
286 2011-03-01 01:33:24 <ArtForz> it will *eventually* go through
287 2011-03-01 01:33:39 <ArtForz> but it'll take quite a while
288 2011-03-01 01:34:03 Expletive has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
289 2011-03-01 01:34:12 <luke-jr> ?
290 2011-03-01 01:35:31 <ArtForz> about... 190 more blocks
291 2011-03-01 01:36:15 <theymos> I will post that in the tread. Might that be causing the other problems with confirmations?
292 2011-03-01 01:36:26 <ArtForz> at that point its score will be > 57600000 = it passes the dPriority > COIN * 144 / 250 check
293 2011-03-01 01:36:35 <dirtyfilthy> phantomcircuit: why is there a length of 27 and a payload length of 23 in your example?
294 2011-03-01 01:36:59 <phantomcircuit> dirtyfilthy, the official client appears to include the length of the checksum in the length
295 2011-03-01 01:37:15 <ArtForz> looks like the tx-sending code needs some fixing
296 2011-03-01 01:38:34 <molecular> like not generate a tx with a score too low, or suggest to add a fee?
297 2011-03-01 01:38:40 <ArtForz> yep
298 2011-03-01 01:38:47 <molecular> sounds sane
299 2011-03-01 01:38:57 <dirtyfilthy> phantomcircuit: i don't think that's the case dude
300 2011-03-01 01:39:10 <ArtForz> check size and priority of transaction, if it's > 4kB and score < 57600000 require min fee
301 2011-03-01 01:39:20 sshc has joined
302 2011-03-01 01:39:41 <phantomcircuit> dirtyfilthy, well that's a network dump of what im getting from the mainline client
303 2011-03-01 01:40:03 brunner has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
304 2011-03-01 01:40:19 brunner has joined
305 2011-03-01 01:40:36 <molecular> ArtForz, should I (or someone else) write up an issue on github or does this need more discussion?
306 2011-03-01 01:40:40 <dirtyfilthy> phantomcircuit: addresses are 26 bytes long.... plus 1 byte for variable integer length... an address wouldn't fit in 23 bytes
307 2011-03-01 01:41:41 <phantomcircuit> dirtyfilthy, lol yes im aware
308 2011-03-01 01:42:25 brunner has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
309 2011-03-01 01:42:43 brunner has joined
310 2011-03-01 01:42:55 brunner has left ()
311 2011-03-01 01:43:31 <ArtForz> maybe reduce the size limit to 3.5k or so, otherwise it can only get into an otherwise empty block
312 2011-03-01 01:44:09 <theymos> You might guess the size based on the last few blocks.
313 2011-03-01 01:44:43 Cusipzzz has joined
314 2011-03-01 01:46:09 <phantomcircuit> dirtyfilthy, none the less it's what im getting
315 2011-03-01 01:49:41 <molecular> well, even if the tx-generation code is fixed. doesn't this still open a possibility for attack?
316 2011-03-01 01:50:11 <ArtForz> err... how?
317 2011-03-01 01:50:34 <molecular> generate lots of low-prio transactions > 4k, no fee and have everyones ram used up?
318 2011-03-01 01:50:41 <ArtForz> yes
319 2011-03-01 01:51:02 <theymos> Are memory pool transactions stored in memory? I thought I heard somewhere that they were stored on disk.
320 2011-03-01 01:51:11 <ArtForz> nope, in memory
321 2011-03-01 01:51:23 <theymos> That is a pretty big attack, then.
322 2011-03-01 01:51:26 <ArtForz> and I've been saying that a infinite tx cache is a bad idea for... quite a while now
323 2011-03-01 01:53:56 <molecular> how could it be made finite?
324 2011-03-01 01:54:02 knotwork_ is now known as knotwork
325 2011-03-01 01:55:33 <ArtForz> well, my node starts dropping tx lowest-prio first when tx cache gets > 5MB
326 2011-03-01 01:55:55 <theymos> That seems smart. Honest nodes will rebroadcast, anyway.
327 2011-03-01 01:55:58 <doublec> How customized is your node?
328 2011-03-01 01:56:05 <doublec> it sounds like it has quite a few tweaks
329 2011-03-01 01:56:15 <ArtForz> yeah, it's modified quite a bit
330 2011-03-01 01:57:13 <molecular> well, if every node does this -> bad, no?
331 2011-03-01 01:57:18 <ArtForz> not really
332 2011-03-01 01:57:19 satamusic has joined
333 2011-03-01 01:57:19 satamusic has quit (Changing host)
334 2011-03-01 01:57:19 satamusic has joined
335 2011-03-01 01:57:28 <ArtForz> nodes lose their tx cache on restart
336 2011-03-01 01:58:18 <molecular> that's different, not all nodes are restarted at one point in time
337 2011-03-01 01:58:51 <ArtForz> and not all nodes will have the same cached transactions
338 2011-03-01 01:59:00 <molecular> hmm
339 2011-03-01 01:59:05 KuT-Sickness has joined
340 2011-03-01 01:59:41 <molecular> this must've been discussed before? is there a thread in forum?
341 2011-03-01 02:00:07 <ArtForz> not sure, probably yes
342 2011-03-01 02:00:13 <KuT-Sickness> I was wondering, I'm using poclbm so I can use my ati for calculation
343 2011-03-01 02:00:25 <KuT-Sickness> but it uses up 100% of my gpu resources by default
344 2011-03-01 02:00:32 <molecular> but currently, this might be a doable attack on the network, right?
345 2011-03-01 02:00:32 <KuT-Sickness> is there any way to limit this to lets say 40%?
346 2011-03-01 02:00:37 <ArtForz> yes
347 2011-03-01 02:00:47 <ArtForz> I think I remember discussing it with gavin
348 2011-03-01 02:01:28 <ArtForz> back then consensus was something like "yeah, it's a possible DoS, we'll have to fix that somehow someday"
349 2011-03-01 02:01:32 <doublec> KuT-Sickness: I think tweaking the -f switch helps with how much resource it uses
350 2011-03-01 02:02:00 <molecular> if it's as simple as limiting the transaction queue...
351 2011-03-01 02:02:22 <ArtForz> well, iirc it's not quite as simple
352 2011-03-01 02:02:40 <sethsethseth> ya i put -f600 on one of my cores and it makes it like 85% usage
353 2011-03-01 02:02:47 <ArtForz> problem is, nodes pass on tx they dont have in queue already to their peers
354 2011-03-01 02:03:08 <KuT-Sickness> -f600?
355 2011-03-01 02:03:15 <ArtForz> so what happens when someone sends enough tx to drop his oldest off the queue...
356 2011-03-01 02:03:19 <KuT-Sickness> I thought the default value when not using the -f switch was 30
357 2011-03-01 02:03:28 <sethsethseth> right
358 2011-03-01 02:03:31 <Blitzboom> i use 64
359 2011-03-01 02:03:36 <Blitzboom> no lag
360 2011-03-01 02:03:39 <KuT-Sickness> so mine should be at 30
361 2011-03-01 02:03:46 <KuT-Sickness> going at 68.1Mhash/s
362 2011-03-01 02:03:48 <KuT-Sickness> thats normal?
363 2011-03-01 02:03:52 <Blitzboom> what gpu?
364 2011-03-01 02:03:55 <KuT-Sickness> hd4850
365 2011-03-01 02:03:56 <ArtForz> = you turned a memory consumption DoS into a massively multiplied network DoS
366 2011-03-01 02:04:11 <Blitzboom> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison
367 2011-03-01 02:04:15 <KuT-Sickness> ty
368 2011-03-01 02:04:22 <ArtForz> so clients would still have to keep track of dropped TX hashes at least for a while
369 2011-03-01 02:04:23 <molecular> ArtForz, the transaction queue moves from node RAM to being passed around the network all the time
370 2011-03-01 02:04:31 <molecular> traffic increase
371 2011-03-01 02:05:07 <ArtForz> hrrrm... actually it's not worse than what we currently have
372 2011-03-01 02:05:15 <doublec> storing the tx's on disk rather than ram would help wouldn't it?
373 2011-03-01 02:05:25 coreh has joined
374 2011-03-01 02:05:44 coreh is now known as thecoreh
375 2011-03-01 02:05:51 <ArtForz> well, that wont really help if tx are accumulating faster than they can get into blocks...
376 2011-03-01 02:05:57 <molecular> what keeps the attacker from filling up the disks as well?
377 2011-03-01 02:06:24 <thecoreh> Hey, is this the place to ask about bitcoin exchange?
378 2011-03-01 02:06:44 <thecoreh> Or only about the development of the client?
379 2011-03-01 02:07:03 <doublec> thecoreh: exchanging bitcoins might be better in #bitcoin-otc
380 2011-03-01 02:07:14 <thecoreh> doublec: Thanks :)
381 2011-03-01 02:07:14 <doublec> thecoreh: lots of people there ready to buy/sell
382 2011-03-01 02:07:29 <ArtForz> we have the same possible network DoS currently - just send a shitload of different TX
383 2011-03-01 02:07:52 yebyen_ is now known as yebyen
384 2011-03-01 02:08:09 <molecular> That could even be done with a single node on crappy connection
385 2011-03-01 02:08:10 <ArtForz> a limited tx cache would stop it from also acting as a mem consumption DoS
386 2011-03-01 02:08:40 <molecular> that network DoS in discussion/awareness?
387 2011-03-01 02:08:51 <ArtForz> theres no good way to fix it
388 2011-03-01 02:09:02 <KuT-Sickness> doublec, any hints as to what to set the -f switch to?
389 2011-03-01 02:09:09 <KuT-Sickness> I've tried several values between 5 and 60
390 2011-03-01 02:09:13 <ArtForz> except ratelimit transactions, which iirc we already do
391 2011-03-01 02:09:15 <doublec> KuT-Sickness: try 1000
392 2011-03-01 02:09:19 <KuT-Sickness> nothing seems to stop the 99% gpu usage
393 2011-03-01 02:09:22 <doublec> KuT-Sickness: and work up/down from there
394 2011-03-01 02:09:40 <KuT-Sickness> k
395 2011-03-01 02:09:41 <molecular> the mem-attack would bring down the net quite quickly, though, right?
396 2011-03-01 02:09:54 <ArtForz> well... not too quickly
397 2011-03-01 02:10:18 <molecular> because of the rate-limit?
398 2011-03-01 02:10:22 <ArtForz> yep
399 2011-03-01 02:10:39 <ArtForz> can't find it right now
400 2011-03-01 02:10:41 <molecular> is that per-connection?
401 2011-03-01 02:10:59 <ArtForz> iirc we limit to 5 tx/peer/sec or so
402 2011-03-01 02:11:13 <molecular> that's already a lot
403 2011-03-01 02:11:19 <ArtForz> yep
404 2011-03-01 02:11:20 <molecular> I could make them big
405 2011-03-01 02:11:47 <molecular> how big could I make a transaction?
406 2011-03-01 02:12:06 <ArtForz> well, not too big, or you'll hit the GetMinFee limit
407 2011-03-01 02:12:26 <molecular> still, I can use many connections
408 2011-03-01 02:12:29 <ArtForz> looks like 9kB
409 2011-03-01 02:12:45 <ArtForz> beyond that nodes will simply ignore it
410 2011-03-01 02:12:49 <Lachesis> that's 158MB/hr/peer
411 2011-03-01 02:13:03 <Lachesis> would need several connections before it was a problem
412 2011-03-01 02:14:23 <molecular> why? *100 connections = 15GB
413 2011-03-01 02:14:28 <molecular> that'll take out most nodes
414 2011-03-01 02:14:50 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
415 2011-03-01 02:16:20 <ArtForz> except most nodes dont have 100 connections, they have 8
416 2011-03-01 02:16:48 <ArtForz> so only useful for taking a single node out
417 2011-03-01 02:17:24 <molecular> well, with 8 connections, thats still 1.2GB/hour
418 2011-03-01 02:17:31 <ArtForz> yep
419 2011-03-01 02:18:02 <molecular> that's already trouble for some nodes. after 4 hours, shit starts hitting fan, no?
420 2011-03-01 02:18:08 <ArtForz> yep
421 2011-03-01 02:18:32 <molecular> as I see it now, we _must_ limit the tx cache
422 2011-03-01 02:18:38 <ArtForz> imo it's a practical attack to pretty much DoS the whole network
423 2011-03-01 02:19:03 <molecular> well, nodes will restart and take another 2 hours
424 2011-03-01 02:19:04 <ArtForz> but it seems nowadays "nobody did it yet" is a good enough excuse to ignore stuff like that ...
425 2011-03-01 02:19:09 <molecular> it might not completely down the net
426 2011-03-01 02:19:21 <molecular> uhm, we could try on testnet
427 2011-03-01 02:20:34 <KuT-Sickness> hmz guess I'm dropping bitcoin early, not worth it having my gpu @ 97% load all the time
428 2011-03-01 02:21:13 <TheKid> KuT-Sickness: good, difficulty will go down for the rest of us ;3
429 2011-03-01 02:21:31 <ArtForz> yay! more for me! err... I mean, well, sounds like a reasonable decision.
430 2011-03-01 02:21:39 <KuT-Sickness> lol
431 2011-03-01 02:22:13 <KuT-Sickness> pretty sure the hw will die early if you have it on such loads all the time, probably not worth it
432 2011-03-01 02:22:53 <lfm> KuT-Sickness: were you checking temps?
433 2011-03-01 02:23:06 <molecular> KuT-Sickness, yes, I fried a gpu once, by playing wolfenstein for 2 nights, it just blew, man. so dont do it
434 2011-03-01 02:23:18 <molecular> nobody here does it, either
435 2011-03-01 02:23:19 <KuT-Sickness> yes lfm
436 2011-03-01 02:23:29 omglolbbq has joined
437 2011-03-01 02:23:45 <ArtForz> so far I didnt manage to kill a single GPU by mining alone
438 2011-03-01 02:23:52 <molecular> I was joking
439 2011-03-01 02:23:57 <KuT-Sickness> ofcourse
440 2011-03-01 02:24:07 <molecular> if you have stock Voltage and no overclocking, you're pretty much safe
441 2011-03-01 02:24:09 <ArtForz> thoguh it'S not too hard with overvolting + heavy OC ;)
442 2011-03-01 02:24:09 <KuT-Sickness> nobody spent more than 2 hours on that fail wolfenstein remake
443 2011-03-01 02:24:11 <omglolbbq> what do i do if my transactions arent being verified?
444 2011-03-01 02:24:31 <molecular> you _could_ replace the stupid fan-controller that lets things to up to 92 °C on stock 5970
445 2011-03-01 02:24:47 <lfm> omg wait 5 days
446 2011-03-01 02:24:56 <KuT-Sickness> tbh it didnt go above 85 here
447 2011-03-01 02:24:56 <ArtForz> omglolbbq: wait a few days or start paying fees
448 2011-03-01 02:25:09 <omglolbbq> is that new?
449 2011-03-01 02:25:09 <molecular> omglolbbq, there's currently problems with transactions queueing up
450 2011-03-01 02:25:23 <lfm> omglolbbq: could be called a bug
451 2011-03-01 02:25:24 <molecular> yes, it's new as far as I know
452 2011-03-01 02:25:28 <ArtForz> we currently have a backlog of TX queuing up
453 2011-03-01 02:25:32 <ArtForz> 669 now
454 2011-03-01 02:25:45 <omglolbbq> is that meant to happen or? xD
455 2011-03-01 02:25:46 <molecular> wow, rising quite quickly
456 2011-03-01 02:25:56 <molecular> the problem is identified, but not fixed
457 2011-03-01 02:26:02 <molecular> and it wont be fixed quickly
458 2011-03-01 02:26:40 <molecular> to avoid the issue, use higher amounts or pay fee
459 2011-03-01 02:26:55 <omglolbbq> ok tnx for the update :)
460 2011-03-01 02:27:04 greyface has joined
461 2011-03-01 02:27:11 <molecular> this problem might be scaring people off
462 2011-03-01 02:27:42 <ArtForz> q is, why is it suddenly *that* bad
463 2011-03-01 02:28:22 <molecular> how large was the backlog usually before whenever this started today?
464 2011-03-01 02:28:43 <ArtForz> usually 0-20, a few 100 while tx spam was ongoing
465 2011-03-01 02:29:13 <molecular> maybe someone is actually testing a tx-spam-attack?
466 2011-03-01 02:29:45 <ArtForz> the tx that make it into blocks dont look exactly spammy
467 2011-03-01 02:30:31 TheKid has left ()
468 2011-03-01 02:30:33 <molecular> it doesnt look like there are more than usual transaction on bitcoinmonitor
469 2011-03-01 02:30:52 <bk128> wait, 669 tx's are queued?
470 2011-03-01 02:30:53 TheKid has joined
471 2011-03-01 02:31:09 <ArtForz> 671 now
472 2011-03-01 02:31:35 <molecular> is it monotonically rising?
473 2011-03-01 02:31:38 <bk128> how do you see that?
474 2011-03-01 02:31:42 ousado has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
475 2011-03-01 02:31:52 <molecular> the only one here that can see it is ArtForz with a special monitor-node he has
476 2011-03-01 02:32:03 <ArtForz> python half-a-node connected to main client
477 2011-03-01 02:32:09 <ArtForz> or just add a debug print to your client
478 2011-03-01 02:32:26 <bk128> ah. tx's are encoded in blocks, right? how many can be encoded in each?
479 2011-03-01 02:32:45 Kiba has joined
480 2011-03-01 02:32:47 <ArtForz> free tx? about 10 on average
481 2011-03-01 02:32:48 <bk128> time to implement tx fees?
482 2011-03-01 02:33:13 <bk128> I've never fully understood how tx fees work
483 2011-03-01 02:34:05 <ArtForz> just print mapTransactions.size() at the end of CTransaction::AcceptToMemoryPool
484 2011-03-01 02:34:14 <hazek> is there a limit of how many txs fit into a single block?
485 2011-03-01 02:34:23 <ArtForz> yes
486 2011-03-01 02:34:26 <hazek> oh
487 2011-03-01 02:34:35 <ArtForz> theres several
488 2011-03-01 02:34:47 <bk128> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/File:Lfm_fee.png I've never seen that message before
489 2011-03-01 02:35:17 <molecular> ArtForz, can you see the sizes of the queued transactions? I bet there are many big ones
490 2011-03-01 02:35:30 <ArtForz> hmmm... no
491 2011-03-01 02:35:49 <hazek> but wait gusy, isn't this a big problem?
492 2011-03-01 02:35:50 <molecular> "no, can't see", or "no, there arent"?
493 2011-03-01 02:35:56 <ArtForz> can't see
494 2011-03-01 02:36:02 <hazek> or is there a solution available?
495 2011-03-01 02:36:15 <ArtForz> and if I add code to print it I have to restart my monitor node... which also only keeps tx in memory
496 2011-03-01 02:37:24 CyanDynamo has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
497 2011-03-01 02:37:39 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
498 2011-03-01 02:38:05 <molecular> would add some printf to my node and compile bitcoin for my first time, but it's getting late and I have to get up tomorrow...
499 2011-03-01 02:38:27 <bk128> can you request to pay a tx fee so your tx is processed faster?
500 2011-03-01 02:39:20 <ArtForz> yes
501 2011-03-01 02:39:44 <bk128> in the normal client?
502 2011-03-01 02:40:03 <molecular> I dont even know how to build bitcoin
503 2011-03-01 02:40:08 <bk128> me either :p
504 2011-03-01 02:40:29 <molecular> oh, "make"
505 2011-03-01 02:40:32 <ArtForz> paytxfee option
506 2011-03-01 02:40:49 <molecular> urgh, this will take longer than 10 minutes...
507 2011-03-01 02:41:02 <hazek> I don't mean to sound a panic alarm but if we already have a queue at this stage how bad is it going to get if this currecie ever gets picked up by 10 or 50 times more people
508 2011-03-01 02:41:06 <bk128> doesn't look like it's accessible using the bitcoin.org gui client
509 2011-03-01 02:41:10 <molecular> am off to bed and hoping bitcoin is still there tomorrow ;)
510 2011-03-01 02:41:15 <hazek> currency*
511 2011-03-01 02:41:34 <ArtForz> bk128: it's a commandline switch/config file option
512 2011-03-01 02:41:42 <molecular> it's in options
513 2011-03-01 02:41:43 <ArtForz> iirc paytxfee=0.01 = pay 0.01 per kB
514 2011-03-01 02:41:52 <molecular> settings/options/pay transaction fee
515 2011-03-01 02:42:02 <ArtForz> oh, right
516 2011-03-01 02:42:09 <bk128> ArtForz: so how long do you think tx's are going to be queued?
517 2011-03-01 02:42:13 <amiller> ArtForz, would you tell me if this transaction is in your queue b675a2b3429a40d47a75501aac442c3f27eda34e9aff51ec8b40cef00f3d6f16
518 2011-03-01 02:42:18 <ArtForz> sec
519 2011-03-01 02:42:25 <amiller> it has a .03 btc fee and is 12.00 btc in value
520 2011-03-01 02:42:39 <ArtForz> yep
521 2011-03-01 02:42:41 gasteve has joined
522 2011-03-01 02:43:28 CyanDynamo has joined
523 2011-03-01 02:43:40 <molecular> amiller, my node received your tx before block 111136 was generated
524 2011-03-01 02:44:14 <amiller> since it has a .03 fee and it's several hours old now wouldn't it be a higher priority
525 2011-03-01 02:44:40 <ArtForz> it should be... how big is it?
526 2011-03-01 02:44:53 <amiller> i don't know how to check
527 2011-03-01 02:45:03 <amiller> i'm using 'bitcoin listtransacftions '' 100'
528 2011-03-01 02:45:17 <dirtyfilthy> there's an option in settings->options for paying a default tx fee in the gui
529 2011-03-01 02:46:06 <bk128> not on the mac client
530 2011-03-01 02:46:09 <ArtForz> I have a theory why it's not getting into a block
531 2011-03-01 02:46:26 <bk128> oh, it's under bitcoin>preferences
532 2011-03-01 02:46:39 * Kiba see that signifigant resistance built up at 0.96
533 2011-03-01 02:46:50 <hazek> ArtForz what's the limit of txs per block?
534 2011-03-01 02:46:52 kupo_ has quit (Changing host)
535 2011-03-01 02:46:52 kupo_ has joined
536 2011-03-01 02:47:10 kupo_ is now known as kupo
537 2011-03-01 02:47:10 <amiller> ArtForz, do go on
538 2011-03-01 02:47:11 <ArtForz> hazek: theres no fixed limit
539 2011-03-01 02:47:48 <hazek> hmmmm
540 2011-03-01 02:47:50 <hazek> [03:26] <hazek> is there a limit of how many txs fit into a single block? [03:26] <ArtForz> yes
541 2011-03-01 02:47:58 <hazek> which is it?
542 2011-03-01 02:47:59 <hazek> :D
543 2011-03-01 02:48:23 <ArtForz> 500kB
544 2011-03-01 02:48:39 <bk128> DiabloMiner keeps locking up on my debian computer
545 2011-03-01 02:48:49 pogden has joined
546 2011-03-01 02:48:50 <ArtForz> amiller: client doesnt take into account block size when determining fee at send of transaction
547 2011-03-01 02:49:04 <hazek> please explain the logic behind it, numbers don't tell me anything because I don't understand the code..
548 2011-03-01 02:49:05 pogden has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
549 2011-03-01 02:49:10 Guest56382 has quit (Quit: leaving)
550 2011-03-01 02:49:17 <ArtForz> so automatically calculated min fee is the bare minimum so that the tx would go into a otherwise empty block
551 2011-03-01 02:49:30 pogden has joined
552 2011-03-01 02:49:41 <ArtForz> thanks to the backlog of free tx... theres never a otherwise empty block
553 2011-03-01 02:49:52 <amiller> how big is this particular transaction block?
554 2011-03-01 02:50:00 <amiller> er not transaction block
555 2011-03-01 02:50:02 <amiller> just transaction
556 2011-03-01 02:50:25 <ArtForz> which means we have to fix CreateTransaction. soon.
557 2011-03-01 02:50:42 ousado has joined
558 2011-03-01 02:50:44 <molecular> is there an issue for that on github?
559 2011-03-01 02:50:55 <ArtForz> I don't think so
560 2011-03-01 02:51:04 <molecular> should I make it?
561 2011-03-01 02:51:20 <ArtForz> I'd say yes
562 2011-03-01 02:51:36 <molecular> ok, will
563 2011-03-01 02:51:41 Diablo-D3 has joined
564 2011-03-01 02:51:57 <ArtForz> otherwise the current fee handling (or lack of it...) in CreateTransaction will cause major problems
565 2011-03-01 02:52:56 <molecular> damnit, github doesn't like me... can't create an issue or even see issues ("loading...")
566 2011-03-01 02:53:14 <molecular> ah, works now
567 2011-03-01 02:54:23 <molecular> ok, title: "CreateTransaction: should suggest fee for low-priority transactions" ?
568 2011-03-01 02:57:02 <lfm> hazek: you know the meaning of the term "bug"?
569 2011-03-01 02:57:09 ousado_ has joined
570 2011-03-01 02:57:11 ousado has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
571 2011-03-01 02:57:12 <hazek> sure do
572 2011-03-01 02:57:29 <hazek> didn't realize this was the reason for this problem
573 2011-03-01 02:57:34 <bk128> ArtForz: so what's the fix for createtransaction?
574 2011-03-01 02:57:45 <hazek> all my questions are answered, ty ;)
575 2011-03-01 02:57:45 <lfm> ok
576 2011-03-01 02:59:14 <ArtForz> 1. use a nBlockSize a lottle more realistic than 1 for GetMinFee
577 2011-03-01 02:59:19 <molecular> ArtForz, allow me to quote some of what you said here in the github issue?
578 2011-03-01 02:59:29 <ArtForz> sure
579 2011-03-01 02:59:32 <bk128> so there will be mandatory fees now?
580 2011-03-01 02:59:54 <lfm> bk128: nope
581 2011-03-01 03:00:08 <ArtForz> 2. calculate tx priority score and size, do the fAllowFree calculation like CreateNewBlock
582 2011-03-01 03:01:03 mmarker has joined
583 2011-03-01 03:01:33 <lfm> bk128: there may be a new fee for certain odd txn
584 2011-03-01 03:01:45 <bk128> ok
585 2011-03-01 03:01:58 <hazek> odd tx as in big or as in super small
586 2011-03-01 03:02:17 <hazek> or does the ammount not play a role
587 2011-03-01 03:02:25 <lfm> big as in near the limit
588 2011-03-01 03:02:50 <hazek> is that big in terms of bitcoins or interms of bite size
589 2011-03-01 03:02:57 <hazek> byte*
590 2011-03-01 03:03:00 <molecular> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/86 <- go vote
591 2011-03-01 03:03:26 <molecular> and/or comment
592 2011-03-01 03:03:30 <lfm> big in terms of byte size I think mainly influenced by the number of inputs
593 2011-03-01 03:03:32 <mmarker> *grumble*
594 2011-03-01 03:03:35 <mmarker> Sometimes, I hate C
595 2011-03-01 03:03:44 <hazek> cool ty
596 2011-03-01 03:04:58 AmpEater has joined
597 2011-03-01 03:05:57 <molecular> how can I label an issue on github?
598 2011-03-01 03:07:35 <dirtyfilthy> mmarker: was it you that needed a copy of bouncycastle built for android?
599 2011-03-01 03:07:47 <mmarker> Nope, got it
600 2011-03-01 03:07:51 <mmarker> I took the code from APG
601 2011-03-01 03:07:55 Cusipzzz has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.2 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
602 2011-03-01 03:07:57 <dirtyfilthy> sweet as
603 2011-03-01 03:08:02 <mmarker> they have a set of scripts that trims up a BC
604 2011-03-01 03:08:17 <mmarker> But right now, I'm trying to collect a bounty
605 2011-03-01 03:08:18 <mmarker> :D
606 2011-03-01 03:08:26 <mmarker> failing HARD, but trying!
607 2011-03-01 03:08:30 <dirtyfilthy> which one?
608 2011-03-01 03:08:40 <mmarker> porting a win32 miner to Linux
609 2011-03-01 03:08:51 <dirtyfilthy> good luck
610 2011-03-01 03:08:53 <mmarker> Getting a segfault in my ASM, which always spells "FUN TO DEBUG"
611 2011-03-01 03:10:08 MacRohard has joined
612 2011-03-01 03:10:38 <lfm> mmarker: no always, sometimes gdb will poit you right to it
613 2011-03-01 03:10:45 <mmarker> lfm: It is
614 2011-03-01 03:10:47 <mmarker> actually
615 2011-03-01 03:11:03 <mmarker> It's trying to figure out why my leaf function is messing up
616 2011-03-01 03:11:13 <mmarker> most likely me f'in up the x86_64 calling convention
617 2011-03-01 03:11:44 <mmarker> This is bad: mov eax,[rax]...and rax has the value 0x20
618 2011-03-01 03:12:03 <mmarker> I dont think memory address 0x20 is...urm...a good place to be poking about
619 2011-03-01 03:12:21 <lfm> ya sometimes it is near impossible to find out how you trashed some addres
620 2011-03-01 03:12:25 * Takyoji segfaults
621 2011-03-01 03:12:32 <mmarker> I see how I did it
622 2011-03-01 03:12:40 <mmarker> Remember kids:
623 2011-03-01 03:12:52 <mmarker> int nonce; f(nonce) passes the value of the nonce
624 2011-03-01 03:13:05 <mmarker> int nonce; f(&nonce), that passes the pointer
625 2011-03-01 03:13:07 <mmarker> DOH
626 2011-03-01 03:14:19 Bth8 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
627 2011-03-01 03:14:30 hazek has quit (Quit: Page closed)
628 2011-03-01 03:14:59 <mmarker> Ok, now comes funtime #2, fix one sigsev, get another
629 2011-03-01 03:15:54 AmpEater has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPad - http://colloquy.mobi)
630 2011-03-01 03:16:17 <mmarker> Oh. Snap
631 2011-03-01 03:16:29 <mmarker> lea rsi, [rbx+rax*4]
632 2011-03-01 03:16:48 <mmarker> OOPS
633 2011-03-01 03:16:50 <lfm> ya I suppose segv is the most common asm bug, less common in higher langs
634 2011-03-01 03:17:12 <mmarker> Note kids, if you're programming in 64 bit
635 2011-03-01 03:17:19 is now known as Netsniper|!~kvirc@adsl-76-251-230-92.dsl.ipltin.sbcglobal.net|Netsniper
636 2011-03-01 03:17:21 <mmarker> it helps to, like, use 64 bits for memory access!
637 2011-03-01 03:20:24 <mmarker> hmm, well...yasm is failing me
638 2011-03-01 03:20:38 <bk128> anyone know how to find out why diablominer keeps locking up after a few hours?
639 2011-03-01 03:26:46 <bk128> maybe I'll have to switch to the python miner
640 2011-03-01 03:27:21 <amiller> i got worse performance with diablominer than the python miner - but with an nvidia card so it might not be relevant
641 2011-03-01 03:27:49 <Necr0s> I only ever ran the python one.
642 2011-03-01 03:27:54 <amiller> it wasn't very much better, 14Mhps vs ~13.8Mhps
643 2011-03-01 03:29:49 Bth8 has joined
644 2011-03-01 03:30:25 <bk128> Diablo runs fine for a while, then just locks up. it's doing about 680mhash/sec on 2 5870's OC'd a bit on Debian
645 2011-03-01 03:30:32 <bk128> maybe I'll have to install the sun java
646 2011-03-01 03:30:42 <bk128> oracle java*
647 2011-03-01 03:31:13 <lfm> bk128: what java do you have
648 2011-03-01 03:31:44 <bk128> java version "1.6.0_18" OpenJDK Runtime Environment (IcedTea6 1.8.3) (6b18-1.8.3-2+squeeze1)
649 2011-03-01 03:31:44 <bk128> OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 16.0-b13, mixed mode)
650 2011-03-01 03:33:21 <Necr0s> Couldn't hurt to try.
651 2011-03-01 03:33:38 <mmarker> grr
652 2011-03-01 03:34:26 <mmarker> so, something bizzare is happening with this grand asm, isn't lea reg, [reg1 + reg2 * 4] reg = value in reg1 + 4 * value in reg2?
653 2011-03-01 03:35:14 <ArtForz> no
654 2011-03-01 03:35:33 <ArtForz> wait, it is
655 2011-03-01 03:35:38 <mmarker> ArtForz, what should it be then...the number I see in the register isn't that
656 2011-03-01 03:35:40 <ArtForz> reg = reg1 + reg2 * 4
657 2011-03-01 03:35:47 <mmarker> which is what's causing me some mindboggling
658 2011-03-01 03:39:50 <mmarker> hmm
659 2011-03-01 03:39:55 <mmarker> the disassembly is right
660 2011-03-01 03:39:59 <mmarker> something is amiss
661 2011-03-01 03:40:33 DoomDumas has quit ()
662 2011-03-01 03:44:55 <mmarker> Oh BINGO
663 2011-03-01 03:45:05 <mmarker> I'm clobbering the register somewhere
664 2011-03-01 03:45:08 <mmarker> I am a dumbass
665 2011-03-01 03:45:25 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
666 2011-03-01 03:48:04 Diablo-D3 has joined
667 2011-03-01 03:49:33 <mmarker> Yea, think I got it
668 2011-03-01 03:49:43 <mmarker> add esi, 16 blanks out the high order bits?
669 2011-03-01 03:50:08 <ArtForz> iirc, yes
670 2011-03-01 03:50:19 <mmarker> Ok, that's my bug for THIS pass
671 2011-03-01 03:50:26 <mmarker> now let's see if we generate proper SHA-2
672 2011-03-01 03:50:59 <mmarker> Well, it runs, but incorrectly!
673 2011-03-01 03:51:03 <mmarker> Woot!
674 2011-03-01 03:51:12 <mmarker> HashMeter(0): 17377216 hashes, 7639.96 khash/sec
675 2011-03-01 03:51:12 <mmarker> PROOF OF WORK RESULT: false (booooo)
676 2011-03-01 03:51:16 <andrewh> if there's anyone that wants any of these, i'll give them to you at 50% their price. http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=3934.0
677 2011-03-01 03:51:40 <mmarker> hmm, wait
678 2011-03-01 03:51:46 <validus> whats a gtx 460 hit mining
679 2011-03-01 03:51:58 <mmarker> validus, my 1gig hits ~68k
680 2011-03-01 03:52:11 <ArtForz> yup, ~68k
681 2011-03-01 03:52:12 <validus> anda 6970 hits 300k?
682 2011-03-01 03:52:23 <ArtForz> yup
683 2011-03-01 03:52:24 <validus> iirc
684 2011-03-01 03:52:35 <validus> hmm...
685 2011-03-01 03:54:00 <validus> i plan on mining but not getting a video card just for the sake of mining so trying to figure out the best economical choice
686 2011-03-01 03:54:06 <mmarker> It's the difference between design, right Art. nVidia focus on floating point, ATI, integer?
687 2011-03-01 03:54:15 <andrewh> ;;bc,calc 300000
688 2011-03-01 03:54:17 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 300000 Khps, given current difficulty of 55590.23763914 , is 1 week, 2 days, 5 hours, 4 minutes, and 20 seconds
689 2011-03-01 03:54:19 <andrewh> wai
690 2011-03-01 03:54:19 <andrewh> t
691 2011-03-01 03:54:22 <andrewh> 300k?
692 2011-03-01 03:54:37 <validus> 300 000
693 2011-03-01 03:54:41 <andrewh> or did you mean 300M/
694 2011-03-01 03:54:42 <andrewh> ?
695 2011-03-01 03:54:45 <ArtForz> 300k khash aka 300M
696 2011-03-01 03:54:48 <andrewh> damn keyboard
697 2011-03-01 03:54:50 <Lachesis> mmarker, what's getting you 7.6 MH/s?
698 2011-03-01 03:54:53 <andrewh> heh
699 2011-03-01 03:55:14 <mmarker> Lachesis: Magic
700 2011-03-01 03:55:15 <validus> its really gonna depend on framerate i guess
701 2011-03-01 03:55:22 <validus> 480 still trumps alot of gpu's in fps
702 2011-03-01 03:55:29 <Lachesis> mmarker, i see - what cpu?
703 2011-03-01 03:55:33 <andrewh> every time I snap my fingers, it's 1Ghash
704 2011-03-01 03:55:41 <mmarker> Lachesis: Don't trust my numbers yet
705 2011-03-01 03:55:44 <andrewh> ;p
706 2011-03-01 03:55:47 <Lachesis> mmarker, alright
707 2011-03-01 03:55:52 <Lachesis> mmagic, you there?
708 2011-03-01 03:55:53 <mmarker> since I dont think I'm calculating correctly
709 2011-03-01 03:56:02 <Lachesis> mmagic, gribble has never seen you
710 2011-03-01 03:56:03 <mmarker> WAIT until I get proof of work :D
711 2011-03-01 03:56:15 <andrewh> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_sfnQDr1-o
712 2011-03-01 03:56:27 <validus> so im building a new system with 2 grand. what video card decent for mining and gaming both
713 2011-03-01 03:56:27 <Lachesis> mmagic, and your name starts with mma, which screws over my autocomplete when i try to talk to mmarker
714 2011-03-01 03:57:23 <validus> ;;bc,calc 68000
715 2011-03-01 03:57:24 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 68000 Khps, given current difficulty of 55590.23763914 , is 5 weeks, 5 days, 15 hours, 19 minutes, and 10 seconds
716 2011-03-01 03:57:37 <TheKid> validus: 5970
717 2011-03-01 03:57:41 <TheKid> barring that, dual 5870
718 2011-03-01 03:57:47 <TheKid> or wait for the 6990
719 2011-03-01 03:57:55 <validus> im also lookin at fps in games
720 2011-03-01 03:58:02 <validus> and the 3dmark scores
721 2011-03-01 03:58:13 <Necr0s> same, 5970s.
722 2011-03-01 03:58:14 <Lachesis> validus, yeah, 5970 is a fast card
723 2011-03-01 03:58:22 <Lachesis> 6990 will be killer too
724 2011-03-01 03:58:32 <validus> im not lookin to drop 700 bucks on a gpu
725 2011-03-01 03:58:34 <ArtForz> 6990 should pwn for 3D
726 2011-03-01 03:58:35 <TheKid> validus: I know, I told you what was the best
727 2011-03-01 03:58:42 <TheKid> validus: then don't ask without giving a price range
728 2011-03-01 03:58:48 <ArtForz> dual 6950 also isnt too bad
729 2011-03-01 03:58:50 <validus> i did. i said i have 2 grand to build a new pc
730 2011-03-01 03:58:55 <validus> that includes monitor and all though
731 2011-03-01 03:58:55 <TheKid> yeah
732 2011-03-01 03:58:59 <Lachesis> $2,000 and you won't spend 700 on a GC?
733 2011-03-01 03:59:02 <TheKid> that is plenty of cash
734 2011-03-01 03:59:07 <TheKid> for a kickass video card
735 2011-03-01 03:59:11 <validus> im thinking 27 inch monitor and 5.1 surround sound then making up the rest
736 2011-03-01 03:59:11 <Necr0s> yes
737 2011-03-01 03:59:11 <TheKid> unless you are building intel
738 2011-03-01 03:59:12 <TheKid> then
739 2011-03-01 03:59:13 <TheKid> lol
740 2011-03-01 03:59:15 <validus> i do want the 100 gaming keyboard :P
741 2011-03-01 03:59:18 <Lachesis> validus, oh fair enough
742 2011-03-01 03:59:19 <validus> $100*
743 2011-03-01 03:59:25 <TheKid> validus: get the Das Keyboard Ultimate
744 2011-03-01 03:59:30 <TheKid> best keyboard in existence
745 2011-03-01 03:59:39 <validus> i just like the one i saw that was backlit
746 2011-03-01 03:59:43 <validus> not even the g19
747 2011-03-01 04:00:07 <validus> the razor lycosa
748 2011-03-01 04:00:09 <ArtForz> meh, I prefer linear spring + foil contact
749 2011-03-01 04:00:28 <Necr0s> $700 vid card, $500 display, $300 motherboard, that's still $500 left.
750 2011-03-01 04:00:47 <validus> true, prob go with amd quad core black edition
751 2011-03-01 04:00:48 <mmarker> Hmm
752 2011-03-01 04:00:52 <validus> 4 - 8 gig of ram
753 2011-03-01 04:00:57 <validus> then at least 2 tb. blu ray burner
754 2011-03-01 04:01:05 <TheKid> get an SSD, don't be a scrub
755 2011-03-01 04:01:08 <validus> no
756 2011-03-01 04:01:13 <mmarker> is there a test miner which, if I connect to it, will be able to test to see if I'm returning valid work?
757 2011-03-01 04:01:13 <validus> i will only buy ssd when i can afford the best
758 2011-03-01 04:01:16 <TheKid> why a blu ray burner?
759 2011-03-01 04:01:17 <Necr0s> Yes, SSD is a must.
760 2011-03-01 04:01:27 <TheKid> and you can, 700 is more than enough for a top of the line 256 gig drive
761 2011-03-01 04:01:29 <validus> because i have crap tons of data and their not that expensive
762 2011-03-01 04:01:31 <TheKid> which is more than enough for games
763 2011-03-01 04:01:40 <Necr0s> Yeah, leave out the BD-RW and get SSD instead.
764 2011-03-01 04:01:41 <TheKid> optical media= fail
765 2011-03-01 04:01:42 <validus> im having trouble with teh 2.5 tb i have now
766 2011-03-01 04:01:43 <Necr0s> Optical media is dead.
767 2011-03-01 04:01:50 <TheKid> seriously are you new at building computers
768 2011-03-01 04:01:58 <TheKid> dual WD20EADS
769 2011-03-01 04:01:58 <validus> nope. but i do lots of HD and blu ray
770 2011-03-01 04:02:03 <Necr0s> You need a file server.
771 2011-03-01 04:02:04 <TheKid> if you need space
772 2011-03-01 04:02:08 <validus> i need a crapt ton of space
773 2011-03-01 04:02:09 <TheKid> or fileserver, true
774 2011-03-01 04:02:09 <validus> lol
775 2011-03-01 04:02:15 <validus> like 30tb+
776 2011-03-01 04:02:16 <validus> :/
777 2011-03-01 04:02:22 <TheKid> then build a file server
778 2011-03-01 04:02:24 <TheKid> and don't half ass it
779 2011-03-01 04:02:26 <ArtForz> yep
780 2011-03-01 04:02:26 <Necr0s> Big server.
781 2011-03-01 04:02:28 <validus> well that comes later
782 2011-03-01 04:02:29 <mmarker> anyone?
783 2011-03-01 04:02:37 m86 has quit (Changing host)
784 2011-03-01 04:02:37 m86 has joined
785 2011-03-01 04:02:37 <Necr0s> Fetching opticaL discs is fail.
786 2011-03-01 04:02:39 <mmarker> :D
787 2011-03-01 04:02:42 <TheKid> mmarker: just connect to testnet and gen
788 2011-03-01 04:02:42 <validus> im just going to get me a decent gaming pc for school and games
789 2011-03-01 04:02:44 <Necr0s> It needs to be all online all the time.
790 2011-03-01 04:02:46 <TheKid> or connect to slush's pool
791 2011-03-01 04:02:54 <mmarker> I'm on slush's pool
792 2011-03-01 04:03:03 <mmarker> but I don't know if I've hit a winner
793 2011-03-01 04:03:09 <TheKid> validus: look, let me link you how to not suck at building computers
794 2011-03-01 04:03:11 <TheKid> gimme 10 minutes
795 2011-03-01 04:03:19 <mmarker> I'm hashing...
796 2011-03-01 04:03:26 <Necr0s> A 20tb server using raid6 shouldn't be too difficult to build.
797 2011-03-01 04:03:26 <validus> i know how not to suck i was just asking opinions so im not spending 24 hrs doing research
798 2011-03-01 04:03:30 <ArtForz> my local fileserver currently has about 17T
799 2011-03-01 04:03:46 <validus> i spent 12 hrs researching ati then 12 hrs on nvidia for a $50 budget card
800 2011-03-01 04:03:50 <validus> you dont understand :P
801 2011-03-01 04:03:58 <ArtForz> and thats with a bunch of 1T drives in the mix
802 2011-03-01 04:04:07 <mmarker> Ok, if this is working, which I doubt. I'm hitting 6500 khash/sec on one core
803 2011-03-01 04:04:21 <mmarker> BUT, can't tell if it's working...guess I need to testnet
804 2011-03-01 04:05:23 <ArtForz> 2 6*2T raid6s, 6*1T raid6, 2*1T raid1
805 2011-03-01 04:05:29 <lfm> validus: I think you should do 24 hours research
806 2011-03-01 04:05:49 <validus> i usually do longer. i will make an effort to find everything about something cuz im frugal like that
807 2011-03-01 04:05:54 <validus> but have expensive tastes
808 2011-03-01 04:07:12 <validus> but i know everybody here loves ati, and thast best to find info about ati and real world tests than just trolling forums and half flame threads
809 2011-03-01 04:07:55 <TheKid> validus: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231308
810 2011-03-01 04:08:02 <TheKid> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817153106
811 2011-03-01 04:08:08 <TheKid> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130295
812 2011-03-01 04:08:13 <TheKid> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136514
813 2011-03-01 04:08:22 <TheKid> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811146065&Tpk=nzxt%20vulcan
814 2011-03-01 04:08:28 <validus> a pm would have been better so your not spamming everywhere lol
815 2011-03-01 04:08:31 <TheKid> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121388R
816 2011-03-01 04:08:32 <TheKid> whatever
817 2011-03-01 04:08:37 <TheKid> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103808
818 2011-03-01 04:08:43 <TheKid> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148349
819 2011-03-01 04:08:43 <mmarker> Ok, how the f does -testnet work. getwork is giving me an error :(
820 2011-03-01 04:08:53 <TheKid> though it occurs to me this might be over budget, second
821 2011-03-01 04:08:56 <amiller> TheKid, that's expensive for a 5870
822 2011-03-01 04:08:59 <mmarker> course, I have 0 blocks. Frack
823 2011-03-01 04:09:04 <TheKid> amiller: 5870x2
824 2011-03-01 04:09:22 <lfm> validus: do you want performance on "real world tests" or good biycoin mining speed?
825 2011-03-01 04:09:36 <[Tycho]> His bitcoin fell on the floor and shattered badly, but he has some glue ! :) http://blockexplorer.com/tx/bdcb569c164ac271ec0eade20a101a2988f7793034340506db8bdec12393bdff
826 2011-03-01 04:09:53 <validus> im doing both i guess you could say. the real world tests are the mining speed
827 2011-03-01 04:10:04 <TheKid> validus: okay, that's slightly over budget
828 2011-03-01 04:10:04 <validus> but im also lookin at how well the card handles tessla, fps, and cost
829 2011-03-01 04:10:24 <lfm> tessla?
830 2011-03-01 04:10:26 <TheKid> but why do you want a 5.1 surround system when you could just get a g930
831 2011-03-01 04:10:29 <validus> directx 11 thing
832 2011-03-01 04:10:30 <TheKid> lfm: tesselation
833 2011-03-01 04:10:31 <[Tycho]> Tesselation.
834 2011-03-01 04:10:41 <lfm> k
835 2011-03-01 04:10:45 <TheKid> validus: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16826104399&Tpk=g%20930
836 2011-03-01 04:10:51 * mmarker scratches his head
837 2011-03-01 04:10:57 <mmarker> I need to add some debugging dumps
838 2011-03-01 04:11:12 <TheKid> and that's assuming you get everything from newegg, buying on ebay for some of that and the price will drop considerably
839 2011-03-01 04:11:13 <mmarker> getting a lot of hashes, no hits on slush's pool
840 2011-03-01 04:11:15 <validus> i already have a ncie set of headphones
841 2011-03-01 04:11:19 <validus> just not 5.1 surround
842 2011-03-01 04:11:33 <validus> but thse generic speakers i have suck ass. and its only like 60 bucks for some speakers
843 2011-03-01 04:11:39 <mmarker> Yea, something must be wrong
844 2011-03-01 04:11:46 <validus> if i was buying hardcore headphones id get the new bose
845 2011-03-01 04:12:06 <lfm> sure, go for those 7.1 headphones
846 2011-03-01 04:12:12 <validus> i got these for like 20 i think http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16826106455&cm_re=hifi_headphones-_-26-106-455-_-Product
847 2011-03-01 04:12:12 Diablo-D3 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
848 2011-03-01 04:12:15 <TheKid> 7.1 wireless headphones dude
849 2011-03-01 04:12:19 <TheKid> they are awesome
850 2011-03-01 04:12:24 <TheKid> and better than most speakers you can buy
851 2011-03-01 04:12:25 <validus> sound quality is awesome on those
852 2011-03-01 04:12:42 <TheKid> meh, I'm no audiophile so I won't argue that
853 2011-03-01 04:12:58 <validus> im not either . but for 20 bucks those headphones are golden
854 2011-03-01 04:12:59 <validus> lol
855 2011-03-01 04:13:05 <lfm> monster headphone cables
856 2011-03-01 04:13:11 <mmarker> Hang on, I have a sample getwork...
857 2011-03-01 04:13:18 <validus> most monster cables are a makerting ploy
858 2011-03-01 04:13:20 <TheKid> anyway, that whole setup comes up to a little over 2k
859 2011-03-01 04:13:21 <validus> marketing*
860 2011-03-01 04:13:33 <validus> TheKid: just slightly over dont work. i only have 2 grand and i mean exact
861 2011-03-01 04:13:34 <TheKid> and that's assuming you can't reuse any of your old drives
862 2011-03-01 04:13:36 <quellhorst> anyone have to convert moex to 6 pin for video cards?
863 2011-03-01 04:13:43 <TheKid> validus: save one more paycheck then noob
864 2011-03-01 04:13:50 <validus> i dont have a paycheck
865 2011-03-01 04:13:52 <TheKid> quellhorst: I did
866 2011-03-01 04:13:53 <validus> thats half the problem
867 2011-03-01 04:14:09 <TheKid> well wait
868 2011-03-01 04:14:09 <lfm> quellhorst: I generally prefer to get the right psu
869 2011-03-01 04:14:11 <validus> im using college loan to build me a nice system hehe
870 2011-03-01 04:14:12 <TheKid> for like
871 2011-03-01 04:14:15 <TheKid> that's stupid
872 2011-03-01 04:14:20 <validus> not really since i need it
873 2011-03-01 04:14:31 <TheKid> if you're taking college loans you're gonna be in crazy debt and poor
874 2011-03-01 04:14:37 <TheKid> you don't want to waste it on a ridiculous computer
875 2011-03-01 04:14:42 <validus> well thats the only way i can get to college atm
876 2011-03-01 04:14:44 <TheKid> http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=58434&vpn=LX%2ERAC02%2E041&manufacture=Acer
877 2011-03-01 04:14:47 <validus> and im not wasting it
878 2011-03-01 04:14:49 <TheKid> right
879 2011-03-01 04:14:51 <TheKid> buy that laptop
880 2011-03-01 04:14:54 <TheKid> play everything on high
881 2011-03-01 04:14:57 <validus> nope. no lappys
882 2011-03-01 04:15:00 <TheKid> it's great
883 2011-03-01 04:15:06 <TheKid> well, you're making a poor life choice
884 2011-03-01 04:15:09 <TheKid> enjoy
885 2011-03-01 04:15:12 <lfm> mmarker so?
886 2011-03-01 04:15:15 <validus> nah, not really
887 2011-03-01 04:15:40 <validus> poor life choice will be staying with this school after a year. i plan on transferring locally and finishing up my degree
888 2011-03-01 04:15:43 <validus> but this is neccessary evil
889 2011-03-01 04:15:48 Diablo-D3 has joined
890 2011-03-01 04:15:54 <mmarker> lfm: I need to fix my code.
891 2011-03-01 04:16:06 <validus> besides that how is it poor. i have no credit. no job. nodda. so therefore im still doing better as i have no other way to pay for school
892 2011-03-01 04:16:08 <TheKid> validus: explain how a 2k computer on a college loan is necessary
893 2011-03-01 04:16:09 <validus> or anything that it brings
894 2011-03-01 04:16:17 <mmarker> lfm: Need to figure out how to insert this test.
895 2011-03-01 04:16:27 <validus> its not neccessary but a new pc is. so thats what i gave myself as leave way
896 2011-03-01 04:16:29 <TheKid> what will it do that the laptop I linked can't do
897 2011-03-01 04:16:33 <TheKid> okay
898 2011-03-01 04:16:37 <TheKid> have fun, like I said
899 2011-03-01 04:17:09 <validus> new pc is definate. for that is a must. if im getting something new im not going bottom of the barrel shit sticks that i gotta spend money on
900 2011-03-01 04:17:14 <validus> ill hate myself later for it
901 2011-03-01 04:17:39 <quellhorst> lfm: yeah, kinda too late for me now
902 2011-03-01 04:17:50 <validus> kinda like paying for alienware thats just an overpriced dell
903 2011-03-01 04:17:56 <quellhorst> TheKid: where did you get the converter cable?
904 2011-03-01 04:18:22 <quellhorst> TheKid: i'm thinking of getting 2x of these. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16812887001&cm_re=molex_to_6_pin-_-12-887-001-_-Product
905 2011-03-01 04:18:57 <validus> and grants are also paying for over 1/2 of my school. but new pc is no question so i dont see it as a bad decision
906 2011-03-01 04:19:04 <validus> i see staying in that online program a bad decision though
907 2011-03-01 04:19:05 <validus> heh
908 2011-03-01 04:19:51 <mmarker> lfm: however, if I'm spinning 24000khash/sec
909 2011-03-01 04:19:59 <mmarker> I should getting H==0 at SOME point
910 2011-03-01 04:20:05 <TheKid> quellhorst: mine came with my card
911 2011-03-01 04:20:21 <lfm> mmarker: cool
912 2011-03-01 04:20:29 <mmarker> lfm: No, NOT COOL
913 2011-03-01 04:20:57 <mmarker> Yea, it's going fast...but if the sha256 routine is wrong, who cares I can so 6500 kcalcs/sec on a core
914 2011-03-01 04:21:00 <mmarker> if it's garbage
915 2011-03-01 04:21:17 <luke-jr> mmarker: whatcha writing?
916 2011-03-01 04:21:26 <lfm> ok
917 2011-03-01 04:21:28 <mmarker> luke-jr: porting the SSE2 miner to Linux
918 2011-03-01 04:21:39 <luke-jr> doesn't cpuminer do that?
919 2011-03-01 04:21:47 <quellhorst> TheKid: lol! my card has those in it too
920 2011-03-01 04:21:49 <mmarker> luke-jr: using GCC intrinsics
921 2011-03-01 04:21:51 <quellhorst> where i thought it only had a dvd
922 2011-03-01 04:21:56 <mmarker> which are SO SO BAD
923 2011-03-01 04:22:10 <luke-jr> mmarker: how about an AVX miner instead?
924 2011-03-01 04:22:11 <quellhorst> what is a crossfire?
925 2011-03-01 04:22:23 <mmarker> Send me a Sandy Bridge...
926 2011-03-01 04:23:16 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
927 2011-03-01 04:23:20 <luke-jr> mmarker: can't get those anymore ;P
928 2011-03-01 04:23:25 <mmarker> Heh
929 2011-03-01 04:23:28 <luke-jr> mmarker: want a shell account on mine?
930 2011-03-01 04:23:41 <mmarker> Not right now
931 2011-03-01 04:23:44 <luke-jr> aww
932 2011-03-01 04:23:47 <mmarker> I have too many projects! :(
933 2011-03-01 04:24:01 <mmarker> But an AVX miner would be simple after I debug this crap
934 2011-03-01 04:24:10 <luke-jr> you can run it with your own bitcoind/pool account on one of my cores <.<
935 2011-03-01 04:25:06 <amiller> luke-jr, can i have a shell on your machine
936 2011-03-01 04:25:19 <TheKid> quellhorst: when you link two AMD graphics cards together, it is called CrossfireX
937 2011-03-01 04:25:21 <luke-jr> amiller: why?
938 2011-03-01 04:25:23 Diablo-D3 has joined
939 2011-03-01 04:25:48 <amiller> tinker with mining programs
940 2011-03-01 04:25:56 <amiller> store a separate wallet somewhere
941 2011-03-01 04:26:11 <luke-jr> amiller: are you qualified to write an AVX miner? :P
942 2011-03-01 04:27:22 <amiller> no, but i'm qualified to write opencl code and make meaningless comparisons using stream sdk
943 2011-03-01 04:27:36 Slix` has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
944 2011-03-01 04:28:01 <luke-jr> useful OpenCL code? :p
945 2011-03-01 04:28:06 <mmarker> ok, time to haxxxor some more
946 2011-03-01 04:28:10 <mmarker> last shot before bed
947 2011-03-01 04:30:35 <amiller> potentially useful opencl code
948 2011-03-01 04:31:06 <amiller> i've been writing opencl code for graphics projects and realtime computer vision for several years
949 2011-03-01 04:32:03 <luke-jr> amiller: could you improve ArtForz's kernel in poclbm? :P
950 2011-03-01 04:32:21 Tril has joined
951 2011-03-01 04:32:33 <quellhorst> TheKid: do i need to do that for a mining rig?
952 2011-03-01 04:32:46 pogden has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
953 2011-03-01 04:32:52 <ArtForz> amiller: several years? opencl has only been out for like 2 ...
954 2011-03-01 04:32:57 <luke-jr> lol
955 2011-03-01 04:33:07 <amiller> well, glsl and cuda before that
956 2011-03-01 04:33:10 <amiller> but opencl made it way easier
957 2011-03-01 04:33:16 <TheKid> quellhorst: many people think that it ruins mining results
958 2011-03-01 04:33:24 <TheKid> I haven't ever had a problem with it
959 2011-03-01 04:33:27 <TheKid> but no, you don't
960 2011-03-01 04:33:34 pogden has joined
961 2011-03-01 04:33:45 pogden has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
962 2011-03-01 04:34:06 <luke-jr> amiller: basically, my thinking is this: I know that this Radeon can take down my system easily, so there's more risk than an ordinary user account; but if I might gain significant MH/s extra, it might be an ok risk to take
963 2011-03-01 04:34:22 pogden has joined
964 2011-03-01 04:34:59 <amiller> by take down your system, you mean by overuse and heating
965 2011-03-01 04:35:13 <mmarker> le sigh. The pools should be asking for proof of work at the easiest level, no?
966 2011-03-01 04:35:22 <TheKid> mmarker: i BELIEVE SO
967 2011-03-01 04:35:24 <TheKid> whoops caps
968 2011-03-01 04:35:26 <amiller> do you have something that watches your gpu temp and shuts down your machine before something like that would happen
969 2011-03-01 04:35:38 <amiller> or shuts down the user's processes anyway
970 2011-03-01 04:36:02 <luke-jr> amiller: or crash
971 2011-03-01 04:36:10 <luke-jr> no
972 2011-03-01 04:36:23 <mmarker> hmm, what's to bot command to see average time for a difficulty? pushing 24000 khash/sec
973 2011-03-01 04:36:29 <mmarker> want to see how long it'll take
974 2011-03-01 04:36:31 <amiller> luke-jr, how expensive is a crash to you, is this a server that would just boot back up right away
975 2011-03-01 04:36:51 <amiller> i crash my system somewhat frequently when i'm tinkering with opencl
976 2011-03-01 04:36:56 <ArtForz> ;;bc,calcd 24000 1
977 2011-03-01 04:36:56 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 24000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 1, is 2 minutes and 58 seconds
978 2011-03-01 04:36:57 <luke-jr> amiller: it's my desktop system.
979 2011-03-01 04:37:10 <mmarker> ArtForz: Yea, something is wrong
980 2011-03-01 04:37:19 <mmarker> No proof of work yet
981 2011-03-01 04:37:26 <luke-jr> amiller: cost of a crash varies.
982 2011-03-01 04:37:33 <mmarker> Give it until 11:30
983 2011-03-01 04:37:47 <luke-jr> accidentally mining on my Intel GPU is almost certain to crash it
984 2011-03-01 04:37:55 <amiller> luke-jr, well what would you want out of it, do you already run pobclm and it crashes your computer
985 2011-03-01 04:38:19 <luke-jr> poclbm only crashes me if it picks my Intel GPU
986 2011-03-01 04:38:38 <luke-jr> but I have a fairly consistent mining style right now
987 2011-03-01 04:38:42 <mmarker> Ok, I seriously can't be this unlucky
988 2011-03-01 04:38:46 <luke-jr> when I was setting things up, it crashed a bit
989 2011-03-01 04:39:03 TheKid has left ()
990 2011-03-01 04:39:11 TheKid has joined
991 2011-03-01 04:40:22 <amiller> i could be pretty careful not to pick the intel gpu, i would only use pyopencl - i'd still probably crash it in another way
992 2011-03-01 04:40:23 purpleposeidon has quit (Excess Flood)
993 2011-03-01 04:40:29 purpleposeidon has joined
994 2011-03-01 04:40:38 <luke-jr> XD
995 2011-03-01 04:40:40 <amiller> unless ATI cards are inherently more stable than nvidia, i'm only really used to nvidia cards so i wonder how different the experience is
996 2011-03-01 04:40:49 <luke-jr> amiller: how likely is it that you could improve on ArtForz's kernel though?
997 2011-03-01 04:42:09 <mmarker> Ok, I really can't be this unlucky!
998 2011-03-01 04:43:55 <amiller> luke-jr, hard to tell, it's simple code
999 2011-03-01 04:44:11 <bk128> can anyone give me a quick idea of how to use screen so I don't have to keep my ssh session open to keep diablominer running?
1000 2011-03-01 04:44:16 <amiller> luke-jr, not any apparent computation redundancy, although the code itself could be simplified by metaprogramming
1001 2011-03-01 04:45:08 <amiller> bk128, http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/3/9/16838/14935
1002 2011-03-01 04:45:18 <bk128> amiller: thanks
1003 2011-03-01 04:45:27 <amiller> i vouch for that guide, i've followed it and it is easy enough
1004 2011-03-01 04:47:43 <lfm> bk128: you dont need screen, just use "&"
1005 2011-03-01 04:48:05 mtgox has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1006 2011-03-01 04:48:19 <bk128> lfm: am I ever able to view the output then? khash/sec and blocks found?
1007 2011-03-01 04:49:04 <lfm> bk128: depends, if you redirect it to a log file then you can always look in the log file
1008 2011-03-01 04:49:06 <amiller> logging out stops backgrounded jobs anyway, lfm
1009 2011-03-01 04:49:26 <mmarker> Ok, I give up for now
1010 2011-03-01 04:49:31 <lfm> amiller: not always
1011 2011-03-01 04:49:32 <mmarker> Tired, head isn't clear
1012 2011-03-01 04:51:18 <quellhorst> with an atx 24 pin power connector, is it also required to plug in an atx 4-pin? it says the 4 pin is used to power the cpu.
1013 2011-03-01 04:51:26 <quellhorst> my power suppoly doesn't seem to have a 4 pin
1014 2011-03-01 04:52:03 <ArtForz> yes
1015 2011-03-01 04:52:14 <quellhorst> yes its required?
1016 2011-03-01 04:52:14 <TheKid> quellhorst: it has a 4 pin
1017 2011-03-01 04:52:22 <TheKid> and yes it's required, of course
1018 2011-03-01 04:52:26 <ArtForz> a psu without a 4pin would be... really weird
1019 2011-03-01 04:52:28 <quellhorst> man, wonder why i don't see it
1020 2011-03-01 04:52:35 <TheKid> it may be an 8 pin that seperates into dual 4 pin
1021 2011-03-01 04:52:39 <TheKid> that is increasingly common
1022 2011-03-01 04:52:44 <ArtForz> yup
1023 2011-03-01 04:52:59 <quellhorst> yes there is an 8 pin
1024 2011-03-01 04:53:44 <quellhorst> so i guess i need an 8 to 4 pin adapter?
1025 2011-03-01 04:53:45 <lfm> quellhorst: sounds like you need a psu update
1026 2011-03-01 04:55:48 <quellhorst> lfm: just got this on in new
1027 2011-03-01 04:56:00 <TheKid> quellhorst: plug in half of the 8 pin
1028 2011-03-01 04:57:07 <ArtForz> btw, good ref page: http://www.playtool.com/pages/psuconnectors/connectors.html
1029 2011-03-01 04:57:09 <lfm> quellhorst: seems you go tthe wrong one
1030 2011-03-01 04:57:16 mmarker has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1031 2011-03-01 04:57:17 <validus> lots of cards ship with proper plugins and attachments for a wide variety of things so ppl dont have to keep ordering diff converters
1032 2011-03-01 04:57:22 <validus> your manual should tell you
1033 2011-03-01 04:57:26 <bk128> quellhorst: sure the 8 pin doesnt separate?
1034 2011-03-01 04:57:31 <bk128> to 2 4-pin connectors?
1035 2011-03-01 04:58:53 <quellhorst> weird, this motherboard has a detachable 4 pin on the 20 pin connector
1036 2011-03-01 04:59:18 <quellhorst> oh right. it does look like this 8 pin will come apart
1037 2011-03-01 04:59:25 <lfm> ya its called a 24 pin
1038 2011-03-01 05:00:57 <ArtForz> and I'm guessing next iteration of ATX standard will either introduce a 28-pin ATX connector or another 4 or 6-pin 12V connector
1039 2011-03-01 05:01:04 <quellhorst> been too long since i did a custom build... never actually had high power vid cards
1040 2011-03-01 05:01:18 <quellhorst> mostly did server builds
1041 2011-03-01 05:02:06 <ArtForz> up to 7 PCIe slots, each with a max allowed 12V current draw of 6.25A ... from 2 12V pins on the ATX connector
1042 2011-03-01 05:02:26 <ArtForz> errr... 3.125A
1043 2011-03-01 05:02:50 <ArtForz> 6.25 is only for double-wide cards
1044 2011-03-01 05:03:39 <ArtForz> thats > 21A over 2 pins rated at 6A each ...
1045 2011-03-01 05:07:19 <ArtForz> mainboard makers are already adding 5.25" molexes, PCIe power receptables or a 2nd EPS12V on highend gamer boards to get around that
1046 2011-03-01 05:07:57 <lfm> some mb already have the 4pin cpu power upped to a 8 pin
1047 2011-03-01 05:08:07 <ArtForz> well, they need that
1048 2011-03-01 05:08:31 <ArtForz> 4pin is only rated for 8A = 96W
1049 2011-03-01 05:08:47 <ArtForz> though the connector can handle twice that
1050 2011-03-01 05:10:01 <ArtForz> same shit as PCIe 6-pin, connector rated for > 250W, spec says 75W
1051 2011-03-01 05:10:11 Kiba has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1052 2011-03-01 05:11:10 <AAA_awright> There needs to be a Bitcoin Convention
1053 2011-03-01 05:11:29 <AAA_awright> With talks and speeches and products and innovation
1054 2011-03-01 05:11:35 <AAA_awright> Things I can hold in my hands
1055 2011-03-01 05:11:48 <AAA_awright> Kiba!
1056 2011-03-01 05:11:55 <AAA_awright> >:(
1057 2011-03-01 05:12:45 doublec has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1058 2011-03-01 05:14:29 <jgarzik> <gribble> BC | TRADE|LRUSD 1000.0 @ $0.95
1059 2011-03-01 05:14:35 <jgarzik> nice. glad to see volume @ bitcoin-central
1060 2011-03-01 05:15:21 <lfm> those pci specs are more to do with traces than the plugs I spoze
1061 2011-03-01 05:15:40 <ArtForz> no clue really
1062 2011-03-01 05:16:01 <ArtForz> because the PCIe 8-pin isn't underrated quite as heavily
1063 2011-03-01 05:16:40 <ArtForz> ahhh... I see why
1064 2011-03-01 05:17:02 <ArtForz> 6-pin uses conenctors rated for 8A/pin, and only has 2 required +12 pins
1065 2011-03-01 05:17:05 <bk128> is there a way to reattach to screen automatically when I ssh in?
1066 2011-03-01 05:17:23 <ArtForz> kinda crazy, that'd *still* be 192W
1067 2011-03-01 05:18:01 <ArtForz> PCIe 8pin requires 3 +12 lines and terminals rated for 13A/pin ...
1068 2011-03-01 05:18:46 <ArtForz> so overrated with a similar crazy safety factor
1069 2011-03-01 05:19:03 <ArtForz> 468W connector rating for a 150W rated standard...
1070 2011-03-01 05:19:17 <bk128> overrated because they know the psu manufacturers are as cheap with everything as possible
1071 2011-03-01 05:19:31 <amiller> has anyone looked at this, is there a reason it hasn't been followed up on since last year http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=847.20
1072 2011-03-01 05:19:42 <lfm> they assume it will be assembled by overworked suicidal kids
1073 2011-03-01 05:20:51 <ArtForz> guess they didnt want to repeat the problems seen with the ATX 20/24pin ...
1074 2011-03-01 05:21:21 <bk128> I don't think i've ever seen a nicely soldered psu. mainly where they bundle all the 12v wires and gnd wires together and solder them to the board
1075 2011-03-01 05:21:35 dirtyfilthy has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1076 2011-03-01 05:21:37 luke-jr has quit (otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1077 2011-03-01 05:21:38 luke-jr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1078 2011-03-01 05:22:10 <bk128> I've had a cheap apc surge protector where the hot wire was stripped and just floating around inside the case. must have forgotten to solder that one :)
1079 2011-03-01 05:24:04 thecoreh has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1080 2011-03-01 05:24:46 <jgarzik> wow, major buying on mtgox
1081 2011-03-01 05:24:48 luke-jr has joined
1082 2011-03-01 05:25:04 luke-jr has joined
1083 2011-03-01 05:25:29 <bk128> price is going up
1084 2011-03-01 05:31:40 FreeMoney has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1085 2011-03-01 05:33:30 <quellhorst> whew, just got my first rig built
1086 2011-03-01 05:33:38 <quellhorst> is there a linux iso available?
1087 2011-03-01 05:34:07 <quellhorst> amd processor + hd 5870
1088 2011-03-01 05:34:21 <lfm> lots
1089 2011-03-01 05:35:26 <amiller> bitcoin is really rewarding to try as a 'toy currency'
1090 2011-03-01 05:35:33 <amiller> there are all sorts of neat things to play with
1091 2011-03-01 05:35:57 <amiller> i would feel very proud giving friends a bitcoin gift
1092 2011-03-01 05:36:20 <amiller> i guess a lot of people alraedy agree that that's something it's already very good for
1093 2011-03-01 05:36:29 noagendamarket has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1094 2011-03-01 05:36:41 <quellhorst> lfm: where do i find them?
1095 2011-03-01 05:37:03 <bk128> quellhorst: no specific bitcoin distro. a lot of people use ubuntu or debian though
1096 2011-03-01 05:37:24 <quellhorst> ok, so i should just get ubuntu desktop 10.10?
1097 2011-03-01 05:37:36 <amiller> that's what i'm using!
1098 2011-03-01 05:37:41 <quellhorst> and, its ok to boot off usb? :)
1099 2011-03-01 05:37:46 <quellhorst> thinking of using a usb stick
1100 2011-03-01 05:37:54 <bk128> eh, better to install if you're going to be using it for mining a lot
1101 2011-03-01 05:38:05 <quellhorst> ok
1102 2011-03-01 05:38:06 <bk128> don't want to have to reconfigure everything after a reboot
1103 2011-03-01 05:38:08 <amiller> i bet it wouldn't make a big difference
1104 2011-03-01 05:38:14 <bk128> performance, none
1105 2011-03-01 05:38:16 <lfm> ya, you should be able to boot off a usb cd
1106 2011-03-01 05:38:35 <bk128> think he means a flash drive
1107 2011-03-01 05:38:35 <amiller> you can have a readwrite usb drive can't you
1108 2011-03-01 05:38:57 <quellhorst> yeah
1109 2011-03-01 05:39:22 <bk128> it'd be slow though
1110 2011-03-01 05:39:31 <lfm> ya flash drives work too I hear
1111 2011-03-01 05:39:36 <amiller> it's not like much disk space is used for mining
1112 2011-03-01 05:39:39 <bk128> use an old hard drive if you have one
1113 2011-03-01 05:39:40 <amiller> or disk i/o
1114 2011-03-01 05:40:01 <amiller> actually it seems like there's no disk i/o at all
1115 2011-03-01 05:40:10 <lfm> there is some
1116 2011-03-01 05:40:26 <quellhorst> i guess it would suck if your disk died... you loose your coins?
1117 2011-03-01 05:40:37 <bk128> quellhorst: not if you mine in a pool
1118 2011-03-01 05:40:45 <bk128> if not, always backup your wallet
1119 2011-03-01 05:40:51 <lfm> quellhorst: ya, wallet backups are good idea
1120 2011-03-01 05:40:53 <quellhorst> also, for the hd 5870 what SW do i need to install?
1121 2011-03-01 05:41:00 <bk128> every time you generate or receive
1122 2011-03-01 05:41:08 <quellhorst> can i setup my own pool?
1123 2011-03-01 05:41:12 <bk128> on linux, use fglrx and stream sdk 2.1
1124 2011-03-01 05:43:02 <lfm> quellhorst: you can just mine for yourself, no actual pool needed
1125 2011-03-01 05:43:54 <quellhorst> lfm: but if i had multiple systems?
1126 2011-03-01 05:44:05 <quellhorst> bk128: what about the bitcoin client to run?
1127 2011-03-01 05:44:20 M4v3R has joined
1128 2011-03-01 05:44:20 M4v3R has quit (Changing host)
1129 2011-03-01 05:44:20 M4v3R has joined
1130 2011-03-01 05:44:29 <bk128> quellhorst: pools are for multiple users pooling their bitcoins together and then splitting the coins generated
1131 2011-03-01 05:44:32 <lfm> run the standard client as a server with any miner
1132 2011-03-01 05:44:52 <quellhorst> ahh
1133 2011-03-01 05:45:33 <quellhorst> and as for the gpu mining. i thought you needed a special version of the client for that to work.
1134 2011-03-01 05:45:42 <bk128> quellhorst: make sure you make a bitcoin.conf file with your username and password
1135 2011-03-01 05:46:20 <lfm> quellhorst: you just need a gpu miner, they all work with the server mode
1136 2011-03-01 05:48:43 <quellhorst> lfm: is there a wiki page listing them?
1137 2011-03-01 05:49:52 <lfm> not sure
1138 2011-03-01 05:51:17 <bk128> quellhorst: look at http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=2636
1139 2011-03-01 05:51:32 <bk128> or you can use DiabloMiner https://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1721.100
1140 2011-03-01 05:53:57 blablaa has joined
1141 2011-03-01 05:54:24 <bk128> quellhorst: sorry, second link is https://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1721.0
1142 2011-03-01 05:55:31 <quellhorst> hmm. does it matter if i do ubuntu server or desktop?
1143 2011-03-01 05:55:49 <quellhorst> found a usb stick with ubuntu server iso alread on it
1144 2011-03-01 05:58:17 bitcoiner has joined
1145 2011-03-01 05:59:07 <bk128> you need x, desktop might be easier but you can always just apt-get install ubuntu-desktop
1146 2011-03-01 05:59:12 <bk128> I think
1147 2011-03-01 06:08:10 blablaa has quit ()
1148 2011-03-01 06:25:07 Tril has left ()
1149 2011-03-01 06:26:07 <bk128> is the queue still full of tx's?
1150 2011-03-01 06:26:55 <lfm> ya I got 105 in queue
1151 2011-03-01 06:27:12 <lfm> 106
1152 2011-03-01 06:27:23 <bk128> not as bad
1153 2011-03-01 06:27:24 <Blitzboom> one of them is mine, lol
1154 2011-03-01 06:27:43 <lfm> not sure, I restarted so I might not have them all
1155 2011-03-01 06:27:51 <Blitzboom> when did you restart?
1156 2011-03-01 06:28:23 <lfm> when I put in the patch to display the queue size
1157 2011-03-01 06:29:16 <lfm> abou an hour ago it seems
1158 2011-03-01 06:29:32 <Blitzboom> my transaction is ⦠over ten hours old
1159 2011-03-01 06:29:43 <lfm> yup
1160 2011-03-01 06:32:22 gasteve has quit (Quit: gasteve)
1161 2011-03-01 06:35:01 <amiller> i can't tell if my transactions are making it through yet either
1162 2011-03-01 06:35:05 <amiller> glacial!
1163 2011-03-01 06:41:26 Lachesis has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1164 2011-03-01 06:44:33 f4n has quit ()
1165 2011-03-01 06:48:37 <quellhorst> cooler master cases sure are neat
1166 2011-03-01 06:48:55 <lfm> quellhorst: I like em too
1167 2011-03-01 06:49:01 <bk128> quellhorst: i like my lian-li case
1168 2011-03-01 06:49:24 <lfm> I got 3 of the elite 330 models
1169 2011-03-01 06:51:57 <bk128> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/midi-towers,1011-24.html
1170 2011-03-01 06:52:01 <bk128> that's what I have now
1171 2011-03-01 06:52:18 <quellhorst> i have a 912 haf
1172 2011-03-01 06:52:55 <bk128> havent used a cooler master case in a while
1173 2011-03-01 06:53:33 <lfm> http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/PID-MX14200%28ME%29.aspx
1174 2011-03-01 06:53:37 <quellhorst> bk128: haha, that has the equiv of a cold air intake for the cpu
1175 2011-03-01 06:54:02 <bk128> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811112264
1176 2011-03-01 06:54:04 <quellhorst> bk128: what/how many cards are you running on that?
1177 2011-03-01 06:54:39 <bk128> quellhorst: no, my bitcoin miner is built in a mdf box http://imgur.com/a/xxALX
1178 2011-03-01 06:55:02 <quellhorst> when that new gigabyte board comes out... would like to see how many cards i could get in. you need some type of pcie extender cables?
1179 2011-03-01 06:55:25 <bk128> yeah, you dont want to stack the cards too close
1180 2011-03-01 06:55:52 <quellhorst> bk128: mdf? = particle board? :)
1181 2011-03-01 06:55:58 <bk128> quellhorst: this is ArtForz's http://bayimg.com/KAAeaaAdp
1182 2011-03-01 06:55:58 <bk128> yeah
1183 2011-03-01 06:56:14 <quellhorst> lol
1184 2011-03-01 06:56:18 <bk128> mdf=medium density fiberboard
1185 2011-03-01 06:56:27 <quellhorst> what power supplies are those?
1186 2011-03-01 06:56:40 <bk128> I think he uses 2 1500watt psu's
1187 2011-03-01 06:56:54 <quellhorst> i'm pretty sure i see 2x 1000 watt
1188 2011-03-01 06:57:06 <quellhorst> zoom in http://image.bayimg.com/kaaeaaadp.jpg
1189 2011-03-01 06:57:20 <quellhorst> super howler 1000w i think
1190 2011-03-01 06:57:36 <bk128> oh, one is a "super flower" brand
1191 2011-03-01 06:57:41 <bk128> europe only I think
1192 2011-03-01 06:58:11 <bk128> well, maybe 1 is a 1500watt that powers 2 cards, the mobo, and hdd, and the other 1000w just powers the other 2 cards
1193 2011-03-01 06:58:23 <bk128> cant remember
1194 2011-03-01 06:58:27 <quellhorst> might try custom next rig
1195 2011-03-01 06:59:02 hwolf has joined
1196 2011-03-01 06:59:03 <quellhorst> but if im gonna be doing 5870s... might need to do more than 4 cards/ rig?
1197 2011-03-01 06:59:08 <lfm> ==noname
1198 2011-03-01 06:59:11 skitch has joined
1199 2011-03-01 06:59:13 <bk128> you might be able to. haven't seen it
1200 2011-03-01 06:59:24 <bk128> it's kinda tricky to use 2 psu's. you have to pull the 12v lines off the pci-e extender and attach them directly to the psu
1201 2011-03-01 07:01:30 <ArtForz> 2*1000
1202 2011-03-01 07:01:46 <ArtForz> and thats only because I used to run the cards overvolted to near-5870 levels
1203 2011-03-01 07:02:29 <bk128> ArtForz: think you could stack 6 5870's on one motherboard w/ extenders?
1204 2011-03-01 07:02:50 <ArtForz> in theory yes, in practice fglrx croaks
1205 2011-03-01 07:02:55 <bk128> oh
1206 2011-03-01 07:02:59 <ArtForz> see mrbs blog
1207 2011-03-01 07:03:42 <ArtForz> AMD says it might be fixed in fglrx 11.2, but I dont really want to try
1208 2011-03-01 07:04:30 <ArtForz> for 4*5970 @ stock V, 2*800W should be plenty
1209 2011-03-01 07:04:44 <bk128> ok. do you think the 6990's will ever be faster than the 5970's?
1210 2011-03-01 07:04:53 <hwolf> yep
1211 2011-03-01 07:04:53 <ArtForz> for mining? no.
1212 2011-03-01 07:05:02 <ArtForz> for 3D? hell yes.
1213 2011-03-01 07:05:10 <hwolf> why not for mining?
1214 2011-03-01 07:05:13 <bk128> probably going to wait for those since they'll have a decent resale value
1215 2011-03-01 07:05:26 <bk128> hwolf: less shaders than the 5900 series
1216 2011-03-01 07:05:45 <ArtForz> mainly because 6950/70 isnt faster than 5850/70, but uses more power
1217 2011-03-01 07:06:09 <hwolf> 6990 has more shaders then 5970 from specs I read
1218 2011-03-01 07:06:11 <ArtForz> = 6990 will be even more limited by the 300W wall than 5970
1219 2011-03-01 07:06:13 <ArtForz> errr... no
1220 2011-03-01 07:06:37 <ArtForz> 5970 has 2*1600, 6990 will probably have 2*1536
1221 2011-03-01 07:06:47 <[Tycho]> ArtForz, how much RAM is in your boxes ?
1222 2011-03-01 07:06:55 <ArtForz> 1GB each
1223 2011-03-01 07:07:14 <hwolf> 6990 specs are 3840 right?
1224 2011-03-01 07:07:21 <hwolf> 2*1900 something
1225 2011-03-01 07:07:28 <ArtForz> errr... not as far as I know
1226 2011-03-01 07:07:45 <ArtForz> 6990 probably wont be more than 2*6970 shaderwise
1227 2011-03-01 07:07:58 <ArtForz> which would be 2*1536
1228 2011-03-01 07:08:04 <hwolf> guess I was going by leaked spec (2*1920)
1229 2011-03-01 07:08:25 <hwolf> might be hype to mess with nvidia or something
1230 2011-03-01 07:08:31 <ArtForz> iirc the 1920 was what originally was planned for the 32nm chip
1231 2011-03-01 07:09:43 <hwolf> i talked with somebody from xfx yesterday and they said there will be very limited supply of 6990 that they can get their hands on.
1232 2011-03-01 07:09:50 <ArtForz> yes
1233 2011-03-01 07:09:58 <hwolf> probably way over priced also
1234 2011-03-01 07:10:02 <ArtForz> basically same shit as when 58xx/59xx was launched
1235 2011-03-01 07:10:22 <ArtForz> TSMC/AMD can't supply enough chips
1236 2011-03-01 07:11:32 <ArtForz> so basically once the stock built up for launch is sold off, supply will be very thin
1237 2011-03-01 07:12:18 <ArtForz> 6990 should be pretty awesome for 3D though
1238 2011-03-01 07:12:30 <ArtForz> 69xx scales way better in crossfire than 58xx
1239 2011-03-01 07:13:12 <ArtForz> and thanks to the dynamic power limiting they can run the cards way closer to the 300W limit
1240 2011-03-01 07:14:07 <quellhorst> hmm, didn't realize without the gfx cards even doing much, they will put out a good amount of heat
1241 2011-03-01 07:14:29 <ArtForz> 5970 is ~ 300W in furmark, more like 200-230 for 3D stuff
1242 2011-03-01 07:14:39 <hwolf> so lets say you wanted to have tsmc make you a bunch of specialized chips. do they have a pretty big min order requirement?
1243 2011-03-01 07:14:59 <ArtForz> errr... kinda
1244 2011-03-01 07:15:30 <[Tycho]> dynamic power limiting ?
1245 2011-03-01 07:15:31 <ArtForz> they'll be happy to run a single wafer for you, you still need a full mask set
1246 2011-03-01 07:15:59 <quellhorst> are there any new cards in the pipeline that will be better for mining than the current cards?
1247 2011-03-01 07:16:01 <ArtForz> which is well >$1M at 45nm
1248 2011-03-01 07:16:09 alystair has joined
1249 2011-03-01 07:16:15 <bk128> is tsmc their foundry?
1250 2011-03-01 07:16:26 <pogden> $300,000 for crude processes
1251 2011-03-01 07:16:48 <ArtForz> eh? $300k? at 45nm?
1252 2011-03-01 07:16:59 <pogden> no
1253 2011-03-01 07:17:12 <pogden> like >1micron
1254 2011-03-01 07:17:25 <pogden> crude processes
1255 2011-03-01 07:17:32 <ArtForz> that actually sounds a bit high for >1u stuff
1256 2011-03-01 07:17:58 <lfm> how old is your info?
1257 2011-03-01 07:20:07 <ArtForz> guess it depends a lot on what kind of process you want
1258 2011-03-01 07:20:45 <quellhorst> lucked out. system powered on and ubuntu is installing first time around.
1259 2011-03-01 07:20:45 <bk128> what process are the structured asics on?
1260 2011-03-01 07:20:52 <ArtForz> 65nm
1261 2011-03-01 07:20:58 <bk128> not too bad
1262 2011-03-01 07:21:36 <ArtForz> yup
1263 2011-03-01 07:21:48 <ArtForz> only drawback is you still have massive losses in routing
1264 2011-03-01 07:22:09 <quellhorst> why did they stop making the 5970?
1265 2011-03-01 07:22:22 <ArtForz> erm, because they stopped making cypress chips
1266 2011-03-01 07:22:54 <ArtForz> because they need the capacity to make 6xxxs
1267 2011-03-01 07:22:58 <quellhorst> does that mean the 5870 will have the same fate?
1268 2011-03-01 07:23:02 <ArtForz> yep
1269 2011-03-01 07:23:05 <quellhorst> damn
1270 2011-03-01 07:23:09 <quellhorst> then whats the next card to get?
1271 2011-03-01 07:23:37 <ArtForz> my guess is 5750/70 will stay available for a while
1272 2011-03-01 07:23:52 ousado_ is now known as ousado
1273 2011-03-01 07:23:56 ousado has quit (Changing host)
1274 2011-03-01 07:23:56 ousado has joined
1275 2011-03-01 07:24:03 <ArtForz> probably a 69xx
1276 2011-03-01 07:24:15 <ArtForz> depends mainly on pricing
1277 2011-03-01 07:25:38 <ArtForz> or just grab used 5970s on ebay after 6990 launches ;)
1278 2011-03-01 07:26:41 <lfm> you guys will prolly be bidding against each other. I wonder how high you'll go! grin
1279 2011-03-01 07:26:56 <[Tycho]> Lots of 5970 will be available cheaply after bitcoin crash :)
1280 2011-03-01 07:28:19 <quellhorst> haha
1281 2011-03-01 07:28:38 <da2ce7> ;;bc,mtgox
1282 2011-03-01 07:28:38 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":0.97,"low":0.845,"vol":23427,"buy":0.9411,"sell":0.9699,"last":0.9699}}
1283 2011-03-01 07:29:07 <[Tycho]> How many 5870 and 5970 were produced ?
1284 2011-03-01 07:30:02 <ArtForz> also lots of used 5970s will be available after nokia replaces sl3 with something less bruteforcable ;)
1285 2011-03-01 07:30:35 <quellhorst> are there other areas thet use GPUs?
1286 2011-03-01 07:30:42 <quellhorst> like server farm wise :)
1287 2011-03-01 07:31:33 <[Tycho]> Someone can create a fancy minesweeper game
1288 2011-03-01 07:31:44 <[Tycho]> With complete fluid dynamics.
1289 2011-03-01 07:34:07 <lfm> huh
1290 2011-03-01 07:36:37 <quellhorst> wonder how much psu you would need for 2x hd 6990
1291 2011-03-01 07:37:07 <ArtForz> err... still a decent 850W
1292 2011-03-01 07:37:18 <ArtForz> 6990 will be 300W, same as 5970
1293 2011-03-01 07:37:35 <quellhorst> ok, just better perf?
1294 2011-03-01 07:37:40 <quellhorst> like what % faster?
1295 2011-03-01 07:38:02 <ArtForz> wildass guess, about 30-40% faster overall
1296 2011-03-01 07:38:33 <ArtForz> check 5870 vs. 6970 crossfire scaling benchmarks
1297 2011-03-01 07:38:35 alystair has quit (Quit: â(ã»_ã»)âOUTTA HEREâ(ã»oã»)â)
1298 2011-03-01 07:39:20 dissipate_ has joined
1299 2011-03-01 07:39:28 <bk128> ArtForz: http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=45 wow haven't seen this
1300 2011-03-01 07:39:49 <ArtForz> yup
1301 2011-03-01 07:40:00 <ArtForz> 52*5970
1302 2011-03-01 07:40:23 <bk128> are they making bitcoins?
1303 2011-03-01 07:40:27 <ArtForz> no
1304 2011-03-01 07:40:35 <bk128> selling cell phone unlocking?
1305 2011-03-01 07:40:44 <ArtForz> yep
1306 2011-03-01 07:40:59 <bk128> i mean I wonder if they've thought of mining bitcoins during idle time
1307 2011-03-01 07:41:04 <bk128> if they've heard of it
1308 2011-03-01 07:41:09 <bk128> or if they have idle time
1309 2011-03-01 07:41:43 <ArtForz> iirc most of these guys are backlogged...
1310 2011-03-01 07:41:51 <bk128> wow
1311 2011-03-01 07:42:10 <bk128> how long does it take to crack a key?
1312 2011-03-01 07:42:48 <ArtForz> hard to say
1313 2011-03-01 07:42:54 <ArtForz> I think sl3 is 15-digit numeric sha1
1314 2011-03-01 07:43:31 <ArtForz> so about 5e14 sha1 hashes avg
1315 2011-03-01 07:45:22 <bk128> wow
1316 2011-03-01 07:45:43 <ArtForz> 5970 does about 2.5e9 sha1 hashes/sec
1317 2011-03-01 07:46:32 <ArtForz> = about 55.5h on a single 5970
1318 2011-03-01 07:46:53 <bk128> still like a hour on average for their cluster then right?
1319 2011-03-01 07:46:58 <ArtForz> yep
1320 2011-03-01 07:47:08 <ArtForz> probably it's 52 GPUs to get 1 crack/h
1321 2011-03-01 07:47:16 <ArtForz> err... 52 cards
1322 2011-03-01 07:48:47 ForceMajeure has quit ()
1323 2011-03-01 07:49:44 <bk128> ArtForz: I was surprised you can only get 31k pass/sec for wpa on a 5870 http://code.google.com/p/pyrit/
1324 2011-03-01 07:50:10 <bk128> but i guess it does say it has to do PBKDF2, HMAC, and SHA1
1325 2011-03-01 07:50:20 <ArtForz> also those numebrs are seriously outdated
1326 2011-03-01 07:50:27 <bk128> faster now?
1327 2011-03-01 07:50:30 <bk128> have you used it?
1328 2011-03-01 07:50:31 <ArtForz> yup
1329 2011-03-01 07:50:42 <bk128> how fast is it really?
1330 2011-03-01 07:52:17 <bk128> i've only done WEP with ptw in aircrack-ng
1331 2011-03-01 07:52:18 <ArtForz> about twice that
1332 2011-03-01 07:53:08 <ArtForz> well, even a bit more with recent calpp
1333 2011-03-01 07:53:24 <ArtForz> stock 5970 gets ~120k/s
1334 2011-03-01 07:54:50 <validus> wep you dont even need the gpu
1335 2011-03-01 07:55:50 <bk128> I know :) just a bunch of IV's
1336 2011-03-01 07:56:17 <validus> wpa just gotta be lucky with your wordlist but gpu's been used for a long time with jack the ripper and other cracking programs
1337 2011-03-01 07:56:51 <ArtForz> well, I was actually considering implementing GPU accel for wep statistical attack
1338 2011-03-01 07:56:55 <validus> like i know most the ones here listed as 2wire### is att which is an 8 or 10 digit #
1339 2011-03-01 07:56:58 <validus> i forget lol
1340 2011-03-01 07:57:02 <ArtForz> more bruteforce speed = less IVs needed
1341 2011-03-01 07:57:15 <bk128> ArtForz: did you write a cal kernel for wpa?
1342 2011-03-01 07:57:18 <validus> wep should take you next to no time anyways its just so insecure
1343 2011-03-01 07:57:35 <ArtForz> validus: with an active attack, yes
1344 2011-03-01 07:57:38 <validus> evne less time if verizon is still doing theirs, but i hope to god they have changed their format
1345 2011-03-01 07:58:01 <ArtForz> if you're limtied to passive monitoring and theres not much traffic, capturing enough known plaintexts can take ages
1346 2011-03-01 07:58:03 <validus> i would assume they have since it was a few years ago and i wont mention how it puts the wep in plainview of the key with scanning without breaking it
1347 2011-03-01 07:58:21 <validus> with wep not so much , wpa is a pain from having to have the handshake captured
1348 2011-03-01 07:58:28 <validus> theres alot of factors
1349 2011-03-01 07:58:40 <ArtForz> actually a major german ISP managed to totall botch their default wpa passwords
1350 2011-03-01 07:59:10 <validus> thats not suprising really
1351 2011-03-01 07:59:35 <ArtForz> wpa pass is 16-digit hex
1352 2011-03-01 08:00:05 <validus> ive never bruteforcd a wpa. i just know capture the handshake then run it against wordlist , which issnt really bruteforcing
1353 2011-03-01 08:00:21 <ArtForz> well... 12 of those are simply the MAC addr bit-reversed
1354 2011-03-01 08:00:24 <validus> id be more worried about router logs if running bruteforce
1355 2011-03-01 08:01:11 <ArtForz> yep, so you effectively have 16 bits of randomness in there...
1356 2011-03-01 08:01:18 <validus> i think its funnier that ppl think with a specific mac addy and a hidden name protects them
1357 2011-03-01 08:01:41 <ArtForz> testing 65536 possible keys doesnt exactly take too long...
1358 2011-03-01 08:02:13 Necr0s has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1359 2011-03-01 08:02:22 <validus> thats fun testing though
1360 2011-03-01 08:02:26 <validus> be interesting results to
1361 2011-03-01 08:03:17 <ArtForz> but then I got free wifi at all t-mobile hotspots anyways
1362 2011-03-01 08:03:42 <validus> theres 7 wpa, 2 wep and 2 unsecured i can read from my apt
1363 2011-03-01 08:03:50 <validus> but that was on my brothers lappy. dont have wifi on this pc
1364 2011-03-01 08:04:11 <validus> its not more the cause of needing it. its more the cause of information
1365 2011-03-01 08:04:20 <ArtForz> basic hotspot setup, no encryption, first http req redirected to login page
1366 2011-03-01 08:04:43 <ArtForz> and yes, login page is http, not https
1367 2011-03-01 08:04:47 <ArtForz> "whoops"
1368 2011-03-01 08:05:33 <dissipate_> why stop there? go for bank accounts with those passwords :O
1369 2011-03-01 08:05:40 <ArtForz> the trick is capturing one of their techs logging on, as those accounts are completely unlimited
1370 2011-03-01 08:05:58 <dissipate_> tmobile is really that dumb?
1371 2011-03-01 08:05:59 <dissipate_> wow
1372 2011-03-01 08:06:16 <ArtForz> well, they used to be
1373 2011-03-01 08:06:38 <ArtForz> and it seems they NEVER change the password on those tech accounts
1374 2011-03-01 08:06:48 <ArtForz> at least they havent done so in 2 years...
1375 2011-03-01 08:06:59 <dissipate_> even if they have SSL, that can be attacked as well
1376 2011-03-01 08:07:47 <ArtForz> well, not quite as easily
1377 2011-03-01 08:08:05 <ArtForz> with plain http I just need to have a passive sniffer in range
1378 2011-03-01 08:08:39 <ArtForz> though MITMing on a unsecured wlan is pretty damn easy
1379 2011-03-01 08:09:37 <dissipate_> a guy claims to have attacked SSL on a lot of sites, including bank sites, email accounts etc.
1380 2011-03-01 08:13:21 gasteve has joined
1381 2011-03-01 08:14:37 <quellhorst> bk128: how do i install the stream sdk 2.1 on ubuntu?
1382 2011-03-01 08:14:48 <quellhorst> got fglrx to auto install
1383 2011-03-01 08:17:15 docl has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1384 2011-03-01 08:18:21 docl has joined
1385 2011-03-01 08:19:27 TheAncientGoat has joined
1386 2011-03-01 08:22:42 rli has joined
1387 2011-03-01 08:27:47 magnetron has joined
1388 2011-03-01 08:28:51 <magnetron> hi, i'd like to know where i can read more about the public/private key pair and the related bitcoin address
1389 2011-03-01 08:37:23 slush1 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1390 2011-03-01 08:37:46 bitcoiner has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.6.13/20101203075014])
1391 2011-03-01 08:47:35 gasteve has quit (Quit: gasteve)
1392 2011-03-01 08:49:48 omglolbbq1 has joined
1393 2011-03-01 08:50:50 [Tycho] has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1394 2011-03-01 08:51:38 omglolbbq has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1395 2011-03-01 08:52:02 [Tycho] has joined
1396 2011-03-01 08:55:21 [Tycho] has quit (Changing host)
1397 2011-03-01 08:55:21 [Tycho] has joined
1398 2011-03-01 08:56:35 AmpEater has joined
1399 2011-03-01 09:07:10 AmpEater has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPad - http://colloquy.mobi)
1400 2011-03-01 09:09:17 TheKid has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1401 2011-03-01 09:16:53 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1402 2011-03-01 09:17:10 <molecular> good morning ArtForz, still going?
1403 2011-03-01 09:17:23 <ArtForz> yea
1404 2011-03-01 09:17:33 dissipate_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1405 2011-03-01 09:17:41 <molecular> any developments regarding backlog issue?
1406 2011-03-01 09:17:48 <ArtForz> txes are still bunching up
1407 2011-03-01 09:17:54 <molecular> how many now?
1408 2011-03-01 09:17:58 <ArtForz> 731 now
1409 2011-03-01 09:18:23 <[Tycho]> What's the maximum sum of one tx ?
1410 2011-03-01 09:18:24 <molecular> ok, so at least it's not like difficulty ;)
1411 2011-03-01 09:18:49 <ArtForz> I'm pretty sure the problem is caused by toom any pools with too low payout limits
1412 2011-03-01 09:20:03 <ArtForz> currently miner puts roughly 10 free tx per block
1413 2011-03-01 09:20:48 <ArtForz> worst case a pool with 0.01 min payout causes 5000 tx/block ...
1414 2011-03-01 09:21:03 docl has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1415 2011-03-01 09:21:36 <molecular> so it's not all "big" blocks ?
1416 2011-03-01 09:21:38 <ArtForz> luckily real world it's 2 orders of magnitude less
1417 2011-03-01 09:22:28 <ArtForz> ?
1418 2011-03-01 09:22:52 checker_ has joined
1419 2011-03-01 09:22:53 <[Tycho]> All thise tx are 0.01 ?
1420 2011-03-01 09:23:00 <checker_> hi 2 all
1421 2011-03-01 09:23:03 <ArtForz> nope
1422 2011-03-01 09:23:03 docl has joined
1423 2011-03-01 09:23:21 <ArtForz> that'd be a worst case scenario
1424 2011-03-01 09:23:26 <ArtForz> they're all over the place value-wise
1425 2011-03-01 09:23:29 <checker_> how can I create russian part of bitcoin.it ?
1426 2011-03-01 09:23:33 <[Tycho]> What's average and std dev ?
1427 2011-03-01 09:24:11 <ArtForz> dunno, I dont know for most of the tx that are already cached
1428 2011-03-01 09:24:31 <[Tycho]> May be i should set higher payout limit too...
1429 2011-03-01 09:24:47 <molecular> ArtForz, you have more data for new ones?
1430 2011-03-01 09:24:54 <[Tycho]> bitcoin.it is amazingly slow for me.
1431 2011-03-01 09:25:11 <molecular> like size?
1432 2011-03-01 09:25:16 <ArtForz> not really, but I now log size
1433 2011-03-01 09:25:23 <checker_> [Tycho]: sometimes it is slow , but sometimes no)
1434 2011-03-01 09:25:27 <ArtForz> looks like most of the new ones so far are prtty small
1435 2011-03-01 09:25:32 <molecular> hmmm
1436 2011-03-01 09:26:00 <ArtForz> most are 260 byte or so, with a few bigger ones
1437 2011-03-01 09:26:33 <[Tycho]> 0.10 won't cause any problems ?
1438 2011-03-01 09:26:39 <molecular> that reopens the question why they're not getting into blocks? the assumption was: size > 4K and priority < 57600000
1439 2011-03-01 09:26:49 <ArtForz> no, that was the reason for that one tx
1440 2011-03-01 09:26:54 <molecular> oh
1441 2011-03-01 09:27:26 <molecular> so I mixed that up last night. what's the reason then?
1442 2011-03-01 09:27:29 <ArtForz> in general, because theres only 4kB of free space per block for low-scoring tx
1443 2011-03-01 09:27:51 <molecular> so the transaction power of the network (for free tx) is just too low currently?
1444 2011-03-01 09:27:53 <ArtForz> = you can fit about 15 260-byte ones there
1445 2011-03-01 09:28:01 checker_ has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1446 2011-03-01 09:28:04 <ArtForz> yep
1447 2011-03-01 09:28:17 <molecular> so it's true, the age of free tx might be over?
1448 2011-03-01 09:28:27 <ArtForz> not really
1449 2011-03-01 09:28:52 <ArtForz> if your tx has a decent "non-spammyness" score, it'll probably make it
1450 2011-03-01 09:29:14 <molecular> can you point me to the spammyness-calculation in the code?
1451 2011-03-01 09:30:06 <ArtForz> main.cpp CreateNewBlock
1452 2011-03-01 09:30:19 <ArtForz> mainly the loop after // Priority order to process transactions
1453 2011-03-01 09:30:52 <ArtForz> and then a bit below that bool fAllowFree = (nBlockSize + nTxSize < 4000 || dPriority > COIN * 144 / 250);
1454 2011-03-01 09:31:06 <ArtForz> and of course GetMinFee in main.h
1455 2011-03-01 09:31:17 <sipa> so we have reached the point where txfees became necessary?
1456 2011-03-01 09:31:55 <ArtForz> well, either that or pool operators find a way to make their payouts less spammy-looking
1457 2011-03-01 09:32:48 <magnetron> the last block only had 11 transactions: http://blockexplorer.com/block/000000000001221b63366288bcb67808eda5b193e838eedc6777860670a1e763
1458 2011-03-01 09:32:54 <ArtForz> transactions with > 2 outputs are perfectly valid, normal bitcoin just doesnt create them
1459 2011-03-01 09:33:16 <ArtForz> whoops
1460 2011-03-01 09:33:34 <ArtForz> looks like "free and bad score" limit is 3kB ...
1461 2011-03-01 09:33:52 <ArtForz> forgot that we start with uint64 nBlockSize = 1000;
1462 2011-03-01 09:34:46 genjix has joined
1463 2011-03-01 09:34:51 <genjix> hahahaha! http://silkroadmarket.org/
1464 2011-03-01 09:34:54 <genjix> so cool
1465 2011-03-01 09:35:16 <ArtForz> again, note the bool fAllowFree = (nBlockSize + nTxSize < 4000 || dPriority > COIN * 144 / 250);
1466 2011-03-01 09:35:53 <ArtForz> and that 4000 really ends up 3000 because we start counting at 1000
1467 2011-03-01 09:35:57 [Tycho] has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1468 2011-03-01 09:37:03 <ArtForz> so the rule is "allow transaction for free if ((current block size + this tx size) < 3k) OR (score of this tx > 57600000)
1469 2011-03-01 09:37:58 <ArtForz> which tells us that a vast majority of the pending tx don't pass the "spammyness" score check
1470 2011-03-01 09:38:13 <Keefe> maybe the pools should not allow auto payout below say 1 BTC, and if someone wants less, they have to request it on the website each time
1471 2011-03-01 09:38:31 <ArtForz> well, that'd kinda suck for CPU miners
1472 2011-03-01 09:38:59 <Keefe> why? once a day, they can go on the site and click a button to pay out their 0.01
1473 2011-03-01 09:39:10 <ArtForz> hmmm.... true
1474 2011-03-01 09:39:15 <Keefe> or they can be patient and wait a few weeks
1475 2011-03-01 09:39:19 <molecular> maybe we should just increase the space for free transactions
1476 2011-03-01 09:39:19 <molecular> after all, miners don't depend on tx fee as yet
1477 2011-03-01 09:39:19 <molecular> as of now
1478 2011-03-01 09:39:24 <Keefe> what can they do with a cent anyway
1479 2011-03-01 09:40:06 <Keefe> sometimes all it takes to deter waste is not make it the default option
1480 2011-03-01 09:40:12 <molecular> also: solo gpu mining doesnt give you a daily payout either (if you're not a big miner)
1481 2011-03-01 09:40:30 <ArtForz> I wonder how many outstanding sent tx slushs pool currently has
1482 2011-03-01 09:40:34 <Keefe> s/waste/inefficiency/
1483 2011-03-01 09:40:56 <molecular> slush should know, right?
1484 2011-03-01 09:40:59 <ArtForz> yeah
1485 2011-03-01 09:41:13 <molecular> ;seen slush
1486 2011-03-01 09:41:17 <sipa> ;;seen slush
1487 2011-03-01 09:41:18 <gribble> slush was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 12 hours, 4 minutes, and 54 seconds ago: <slush> yes
1488 2011-03-01 09:41:18 <molecular> ;;seen slush
1489 2011-03-01 09:41:19 <gribble> slush was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 12 hours, 4 minutes, and 55 seconds ago: <slush> yes
1490 2011-03-01 09:41:50 <ArtForz> thoguh I wonder why theres not much complaining so far
1491 2011-03-01 09:42:05 <molecular> I feel pushing the pool ops to raise minimum payout is kinda like a workaround.
1492 2011-03-01 09:42:23 <ArtForz> for what?
1493 2011-03-01 09:42:37 <molecular> for the network's transaction performance being too low
1494 2011-03-01 09:42:47 <ArtForz> it's not too low
1495 2011-03-01 09:43:03 <ArtForz> I sent quite a few TX today, went into blocks no problem
1496 2011-03-01 09:43:28 <molecular> it's too low for a subset (or type) of transaction
1497 2011-03-01 09:43:32 <ArtForz> but then I'm not sending 0.0x around
1498 2011-03-01 09:43:49 <molecular> I think it's too early to start introducing people to transaction fees...
1499 2011-03-01 09:44:00 <molecular> one of the main marketing points of bitcoin is "free transactions"
1500 2011-03-01 09:44:10 sotto has joined
1501 2011-03-01 09:44:26 <ArtForz> problem is, allow more of those tx and it's back to low-value tx bloating the block chain
1502 2011-03-01 09:44:32 <molecular> we could just make the 4000 a configurable option... I would set it much higher on my node (alhtough that alone wont make a dent)
1503 2011-03-01 09:44:35 OneFixt has joined
1504 2011-03-01 09:44:51 OneFixt has quit (Changing host)
1505 2011-03-01 09:44:51 OneFixt has joined
1506 2011-03-01 09:44:54 <ArtForz> well, at least it helps find bugs in tx-creating code
1507 2011-03-01 09:44:57 <molecular> if people would pay fees for these tx, that would also bloat the blockchain
1508 2011-03-01 09:45:11 <ArtForz> btw, that >4kB "shouldnt make it into chain" tx actually made it
1509 2011-03-01 09:45:22 <ArtForz> guess someone running a older client found a block ;)
1510 2011-03-01 09:45:29 <molecular> well, maybe you're right. if they were forced to choose to pay fee or raise their pool treshold, their decision is clear
1511 2011-03-01 09:45:52 [Tycho] has joined
1512 2011-03-01 09:46:17 <ArtForz> well, another way might be to introduce multi-output transactions
1513 2011-03-01 09:46:43 <molecular> ?
1514 2011-03-01 09:46:46 <ArtForz> it doesnt help a lot except for moving the problem from pool operators to pool miners
1515 2011-03-01 09:46:59 <ArtForz> a tx with > 2 outputs is perfectly valid
1516 2011-03-01 09:47:36 <molecular> you mean pool ops should use these to distribute earnings instead of single ones to each miner?
1517 2011-03-01 09:47:41 <ArtForz> yep
1518 2011-03-01 09:47:55 <molecular> kinda like in the p2p-pool idea discussed a while ago
1519 2011-03-01 09:48:06 <molecular> hmm
1520 2011-03-01 09:48:25 <sipa> slush could use multi-output txs without problems
1521 2011-03-01 09:48:35 <sipa> even with his current accumulating-balance scheme
1522 2011-03-01 09:48:41 <molecular> well, seeing it from a bitcoin-code-perspective, I think maybe users should at least see in the gui that their transaction is low-prio and it might take a while to get digested
1523 2011-03-01 09:48:42 <ArtForz> it would make the pools create a lot less transactions, and in total they'd also be significantly smaller
1524 2011-03-01 09:48:42 <sipa> but not with standard bitcoind
1525 2011-03-01 09:48:47 larsivi has joined
1526 2011-03-01 09:48:48 <ArtForz> yeah
1527 2011-03-01 09:48:50 larsivi has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1528 2011-03-01 09:49:23 <ArtForz> current bitcoind cant create em, though looking at CreateTransaction it doesnt look like it would be *that* hard to do
1529 2011-03-01 09:50:00 <sipa> i've already written a library for him that creates generation tx's, and caches the calculation of merkle roots (speedup = 1000x)
1530 2011-03-01 09:50:22 <ArtForz> basically introduce a "sendtomultiaddress" RPC call
1531 2011-03-01 09:51:37 <molecular> it'd probably not be hard for slush to impl that... just make the frequency of payout low enough and pull all miners >treshold from db and put into 1 tx via that rpc call
1532 2011-03-01 09:51:52 <ArtForz> that'd be the basic idea, yeah
1533 2011-03-01 09:52:08 <sipa> or even put the accumulating balances directly in the mined blocks
1534 2011-03-01 09:52:08 <magnetron> ArtForz: or use something like nagle's algorithm to collect several transactions that are close in time and join them into one before sending them out
1535 2011-03-01 09:52:18 <ArtForz> of course you'd still be effectively creating the same # of outputs
1536 2011-03-01 09:52:27 <molecular> I still think we should somehow make it transparent to the users suffering from this effect what's going on
1537 2011-03-01 09:52:45 <molecular> maybe we could just display the priority in the transaction list in the gui and some estimate ("quick", "medium", "slow", "forever") on how long it might take to digest (a guess of course)
1538 2011-03-01 09:52:45 <sipa> that'd effectively make the payouts free forever
1539 2011-03-01 09:52:49 <ArtForz> so instead of the pool creating a shitload of low-value tx, it then will be pool miners sending them
1540 2011-03-01 09:53:49 <molecular> not necessarily... the might accumulate and spend in chunks >0.01 generating a tx with many inputs
1541 2011-03-01 09:53:53 <ArtForz> yea
1542 2011-03-01 09:54:17 <ArtForz> but then we can hope that people don't send 0.0x around all the time -> a whole bunch will get coalesced into a single multi-btc output
1543 2011-03-01 09:54:31 <molecular> yep
1544 2011-03-01 09:54:54 <ArtForz> I can already imagine pool-payout-receivers going "wtf, why does me sending 5 btc require 0.50 btc in fees"
1545 2011-03-01 09:55:13 <molecular> hehe
1546 2011-03-01 09:55:21 <ArtForz> "because your tx has a few 1000 inputs"
1547 2011-03-01 09:55:37 <ArtForz> exaggerated for comic effect
1548 2011-03-01 09:56:31 <molecular> well, that nicely moves the problem to the entity causing it, doesn't it?
1549 2011-03-01 09:56:37 <ArtForz> yep
1550 2011-03-01 09:56:39 pogden has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1551 2011-03-01 09:56:53 <ArtForz> "you wanted tiny chunks, you got tiny chunks"
1552 2011-03-01 09:58:29 <ArtForz> hmmm... doesnt look like adding a rpc interface to send to multiple outputs simultaneously would be too hard
1553 2011-03-01 09:58:59 <[Tycho]> Wow, multi-output tx sounds nice. Remind me to use them when there will be patch available :)
1554 2011-03-01 09:59:54 larsivi has joined
1555 2011-03-01 10:02:01 <ArtForz> looks like the cleanest way woudl be to extend CreateTransaction so it takes a vector of (scriptPubKey, nValue) pairs
1556 2011-03-01 10:02:33 <sipa> i was thinking exactly the same
1557 2011-03-01 10:03:24 TheAncientGoat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1558 2011-03-01 10:05:37 TheAncientGoat has joined
1559 2011-03-01 10:11:20 sotto has left ()
1560 2011-03-01 10:13:17 <molecular> that's quite some coding style in bitcoin codebase (looking at that for first time ;)
1561 2011-03-01 10:13:51 <molecular> was that written by satoshi originally?
1562 2011-03-01 10:14:16 <ArtForz> iirc, yes
1563 2011-03-01 10:17:31 <molecular> "uiproject.fbp" <- what ide is that?
1564 2011-03-01 10:18:45 <ArtForz> wx formbuilder?
1565 2011-03-01 10:19:02 * molecular never built a gui after BeOS
1566 2011-03-01 10:23:18 ApertureScience has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1567 2011-03-01 10:24:09 ApertureScience has joined
1568 2011-03-01 10:25:34 Ratchet has joined
1569 2011-03-01 10:26:41 <UukGoblin> ;;bc,estimate
1570 2011-03-01 10:26:41 <gribble> 60426.89177781
1571 2011-03-01 10:27:57 <bxc_> is there a way to have trust roots that are different from the first block?
1572 2011-03-01 10:28:18 <bxc_> so that new clients dont' have to validate from block 0 but could be told out-of-band "yeas, this is the real block 100000"
1573 2011-03-01 10:28:54 <ArtForz> theres already something like that partially implemented
1574 2011-03-01 10:29:13 <ArtForz> hardcoded checkpoint blocks
1575 2011-03-01 10:29:29 <ArtForz> basically "block at height X has to have hash Y"
1576 2011-03-01 10:29:36 <bxc_> right
1577 2011-03-01 10:29:43 <sipa> they still need to load the blocks and transactions in the database
1578 2011-03-01 10:30:17 <ArtForz> well, the older blocks arent really needed, just transactions with unspent outputs from them
1579 2011-03-01 10:32:28 <molecular> it seems some miners are being scared off by the last diff-update: http://bitcoin.sipa.be/speed-lin.png
1580 2011-03-01 10:32:45 <[Tycho]> Nice.
1581 2011-03-01 10:32:50 <[Tycho]> At last.
1582 2011-03-01 10:33:16 <molecular> well, not saying people are leaving, just not that many are joining any more ;)
1583 2011-03-01 10:33:32 <sipa> note that that graph may have made an overestimation because of the grow, and is now correcting
1584 2011-03-01 10:33:39 <sipa> (not saying it is, but it could be)
1585 2011-03-01 10:34:15 <ArtForz> well, if we didnt hit a 288-block slow run, total hashrate went down
1586 2011-03-01 10:34:49 <sipa> ok could be, haven't look at the actual generation times
1587 2011-03-01 10:35:03 <molecular> 288 seems quite unlikely
1588 2011-03-01 10:35:19 <ArtForz> avg hashrate for last 3 144-block chunks of diff 36459 was ~484M, 496M, 608M
1589 2011-03-01 10:35:50 <ArtForz> first 2 144-block chunks of diff 55589: ~458M, 426M
1590 2011-03-01 10:36:13 <ArtForz> avg time/block for last 100 blocks... 663 sec
1591 2011-03-01 10:36:27 <UukGoblin> finally :-]
1592 2011-03-01 10:37:26 <ArtForz> too bad nullvoid.org is down once again :/
1593 2011-03-01 10:38:33 * ArtForz loves the pretty statistix graphs
1594 2011-03-01 10:39:21 devon_hillard has joined
1595 2011-03-01 10:40:41 <molecular> yeah, just tried loading nullvoid.org
1596 2011-03-01 10:40:46 <molecular> love that page
1597 2011-03-01 10:41:25 <UukGoblin> hrm I found graphs there pretty... noisy
1598 2011-03-01 10:41:40 <UukGoblin> maybe it changed, last time I used it much was before gribble could estimate
1599 2011-03-01 10:42:30 <ArtForz> they're simple running averages, of course they're noisy
1600 2011-03-01 10:42:45 altamic has joined
1601 2011-03-01 10:43:25 <ArtForz> what I'd like to see added would be the same graphs, but adjusted for difficulty changes
1602 2011-03-01 10:45:17 satamusic has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1603 2011-03-01 10:45:53 <ArtForz> basically "guessed total network hashrate"
1604 2011-03-01 10:46:12 <ArtForz> and do the same moving avg over that
1605 2011-03-01 10:46:41 <sipa> well, that's what my graphs do, a bit more advanced
1606 2011-03-01 10:46:45 <ArtForz> yea
1607 2011-03-01 10:47:01 <ArtForz> but not nicely animated at 4 different timescales ;)
1608 2011-03-01 10:47:17 <sipa> i should use some js plotting library
1609 2011-03-01 10:47:23 <UukGoblin> yes!
1610 2011-03-01 10:47:25 <ArtForz> I didnt say it'd be useful, but... look, pretty graphs! ;)
1611 2011-03-01 10:47:43 * UukGoblin votes for js plotting library
1612 2011-03-01 10:53:17 <magnetron> how about svg
1613 2011-03-01 10:53:37 <molecular> huh, nice transaction: http://blockexplorer.com/tx/e67a0550848b7932d7796aeea16ab0e48a5cfe81c4e8cca2c5b03e0416850114
1614 2011-03-01 10:55:47 [Tycho] has quit (Changing host)
1615 2011-03-01 10:55:47 [Tycho] has joined
1616 2011-03-01 10:57:11 <molecular> someone neede 55 cents ;)
1617 2011-03-01 10:57:17 hwolf has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1618 2011-03-01 10:57:34 <ArtForz> hehehe
1619 2011-03-01 10:58:15 <molecular> damnit, all 4 transactions I found when diff was 36000 where difficulty >65535, now I'm finding none ;|
1620 2011-03-01 10:58:40 <sipa> blocks, you mean?
1621 2011-03-01 10:59:02 * [Tycho] found first block in slush's :)
1622 2011-03-01 10:59:08 <UukGoblin> 80 grand
1623 2011-03-01 10:59:09 <molecular> yeah, blocks
1624 2011-03-01 10:59:11 <magnetron> molecular: that transaction, it wasn't created by the vanilla client, was it?
1625 2011-03-01 10:59:18 <ArtForz> yep, randomness is evil that way
1626 2011-03-01 10:59:25 <molecular> magnetron, why not?
1627 2011-03-01 10:59:28 <[Tycho]> For 2 weeks.
1628 2011-03-01 10:59:33 <magnetron> molecular: multiple outputs
1629 2011-03-01 10:59:39 <molecular> 2 outputs is normal
1630 2011-03-01 10:59:42 <magnetron> k
1631 2011-03-01 11:00:03 <molecular> mostly you need 2 outputs, except the sum(inputs) is just right
1632 2011-03-01 11:00:04 <magnetron> maybe he got 0.55 in change
1633 2011-03-01 11:00:09 <molecular> yeah!
1634 2011-03-01 11:00:44 <ArtForz> one is payment, other is change-to-self, can't tell which is which, thats why "dude really needed to send 0.55 btc" is funny
1635 2011-03-01 11:00:49 <UukGoblin> but 80 grand! someone had 80 grand!
1636 2011-03-01 11:01:42 <magnetron> UukGoblin: it's probably ArtForz
1637 2011-03-01 11:01:47 <ArtForz> nope
1638 2011-03-01 11:02:20 <ArtForz> I only have a bit over 40k, all in unspent generations
1639 2011-03-01 11:02:24 hwolf has joined
1640 2011-03-01 11:02:33 <sipa> "only"
1641 2011-03-01 11:02:41 slush has joined
1642 2011-03-01 11:02:52 <ArtForz> hey slush
1643 2011-03-01 11:02:58 <slush> hey
1644 2011-03-01 11:03:52 <ArtForz> could you check how many sent 0/unconf payout tx your pool currently has?
1645 2011-03-01 11:05:06 <molecular> someone even has 400 grand, I think
1646 2011-03-01 11:05:37 <slush> ArtForz: 4
1647 2011-03-01 11:05:45 <ArtForz> great
1648 2011-03-01 11:05:57 <slush> oh, listrtransactions returns only few last txes, right?
1649 2011-03-01 11:06:03 <ArtForz> I think so
1650 2011-03-01 11:06:06 <UukGoblin> satoshi! has to be satoshi!
1651 2011-03-01 11:06:15 <sipa> not necessarily, i think
1652 2011-03-01 11:06:20 <Blitzboom> UukGoblin: who?
1653 2011-03-01 11:06:33 <sipa> he who shall not be named
1654 2011-03-01 11:06:36 <Blitzboom> oh, nvm
1655 2011-03-01 11:06:36 <UukGoblin> the someone who's got 400k
1656 2011-03-01 11:06:42 <Blitzboom> yeah, probably
1657 2011-03-01 11:06:45 <slush> From the last 100 tx, 9 of them are unconfirmed
1658 2011-03-01 11:07:11 <molecular> satoshi might have friends...
1659 2011-03-01 11:07:20 <ArtForz> doesnt sound too bad
1660 2011-03-01 11:07:25 <sipa> yeah, working at NSA
1661 2011-03-01 11:07:29 <sipa> ;)
1662 2011-03-01 11:07:33 <UukGoblin> well having all that money and no friends would suck
1663 2011-03-01 11:07:45 <Blitzboom> who needs friends?
1664 2011-03-01 11:07:59 <sipa> can you buy friends using btc?
1665 2011-03-01 11:07:59 <UukGoblin> everyone!
1666 2011-03-01 11:08:04 <UukGoblin> sipa, nope
1667 2011-03-01 11:08:06 <slush> ArtForz: oh, in last 200 tx, 19 of them are unconfirmed
1668 2011-03-01 11:08:09 <Blitzboom> sipa: iâve actually seen offers on #bitcoin-otc
1669 2011-03-01 11:08:14 <slush> ArtForz: looks like there is really a problem
1670 2011-03-01 11:08:15 <Blitzboom> so yes, you can
1671 2011-03-01 11:09:12 <UukGoblin> but how will you be sure that it's gonna be a good friend?
1672 2011-03-01 11:09:22 <molecular> I'll be your good good friend if you give me 400K
1673 2011-03-01 11:09:25 <UukGoblin> how do you know s/he won't just take the bitcoins and fuck off
1674 2011-03-01 11:09:49 <molecular> because you make them wait until you die ;)
1675 2011-03-01 11:09:55 <Blitzboom> UukGoblin: escrow service
1676 2011-03-01 11:10:05 <UukGoblin> hookers aren't friends
1677 2011-03-01 11:10:09 <ArtForz> slush: well, at least it's not more than a few 100 ...
1678 2011-03-01 11:10:54 <Blitzboom> slush: last transaction from your pool took 13 hours
1679 2011-03-01 11:11:02 <Blitzboom> for 0.31 BTC
1680 2011-03-01 11:11:15 <Blitzboom> also, i received 0.01 BTC instantly
1681 2011-03-01 11:11:15 <ArtForz> as I'm currently seeing 707 tx queued ...
1682 2011-03-01 11:11:28 <sipa> slush: have you considered putting payouts (proportional/partial compensations from balances up to 0.01) directly in the blocks the pool mines?
1683 2011-03-01 11:11:30 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1684 2011-03-01 11:11:39 <Blitzboom> how can 3-minutes-old 0.01 BTC be prioritized higher?
1685 2011-03-01 11:11:45 <molecular> slush, it's been discussed about an hour ago you might want to consider using multi-output transaction for pool payments
1686 2011-03-01 11:11:54 <ArtForz> Blitzboom: age/size of inputs
1687 2011-03-01 11:11:55 <sipa> that would make all payments instantaneous and costless
1688 2011-03-01 11:12:06 <molecular> slush, but now it doesn't look like the majority of queued transactions comes from your pool anyhow
1689 2011-03-01 11:12:08 <Blitzboom> ArtForz: ?
1690 2011-03-01 11:12:15 <Blitzboom> it was both younger and smaller
1691 2011-03-01 11:12:15 <ArtForz> yeah
1692 2011-03-01 11:12:22 <ArtForz> huh, thats.. .weird
1693 2011-03-01 11:12:24 <Blitzboom> *much* younger and smaller
1694 2011-03-01 11:12:33 <Blitzboom> 0.01, in three minutes or so confirmed, directly
1695 2011-03-01 11:12:39 <Blitzboom> and my 0.31 still waited
1696 2011-03-01 11:12:54 <Blitzboom> got confirmed after 13 hours
1697 2011-03-01 11:13:11 <Blitzboom> so ⦠something must be wrong there?
1698 2011-03-01 11:13:13 <ArtForz> well, can't say much except "the 0.31 probably had a way worse score"
1699 2011-03-01 11:13:28 <Blitzboom> i donât get the score then
1700 2011-03-01 11:13:56 <Blitzboom> will this get "fixed"?
1701 2011-03-01 11:13:59 <ArtForz> score = sum of (value of input * age of input) divided by size of TX in bytes
1702 2011-03-01 11:14:15 <Blitzboom> sum of these at the point of the transaction?
1703 2011-03-01 11:14:22 <Blitzboom> then it could make sense
1704 2011-03-01 11:14:46 <ArtForz> iirc it gets recalculated every time a new block is found
1705 2011-03-01 11:15:04 <ArtForz> as the inputs usually aged 1 block by then
1706 2011-03-01 11:15:10 <Blitzboom> then the score doesnât explain the 0.01/0.31-difference
1707 2011-03-01 11:15:32 <Blitzboom> hope this doesnât happen more often
1708 2011-03-01 11:15:39 <Blitzboom> was this the first time?
1709 2011-03-01 11:16:14 <ArtForz> well, we had severe tx spam before, thats why the prioritize-by-score is there
1710 2011-03-01 11:16:17 <magnetron> UukGoblin: who said you can't buy a friend with bitcoins? http://bitcoin-otc.com/vieworder.php?id=655
1711 2011-03-01 11:16:35 <Blitzboom> it obviously doesnât work properly
1712 2011-03-01 11:16:41 <ArtForz> why?
1713 2011-03-01 11:16:44 <Blitzboom> although i have no clue technically
1714 2011-03-01 11:16:53 <UukGoblin> magnetron, I wouldn't trust such a friend
1715 2011-03-01 11:16:58 <UukGoblin> and a friend without trust != friend
1716 2011-03-01 11:17:01 <Blitzboom> because a 3 minute old 0.01 tx was prioritized over a 12 hours old 0.36
1717 2011-03-01 11:17:13 <UukGoblin> now, a fuckbuddy... a different matter entirely. :-]
1718 2011-03-01 11:17:15 <Blitzboom> which doesnât make any sense to me
1719 2011-03-01 11:18:06 <ArtForz> Blitzboom: well, dont have much of an idea either, if the 0.31 had older input block and higher input value, it *should* have gotten into a block first
1720 2011-03-01 11:18:28 <Blitzboom> thatâs why i said it doesnât work properly :P
1721 2011-03-01 11:18:58 <UukGoblin> perhaps someone's running a different client
1722 2011-03-01 11:19:12 <ArtForz> well, theres still plently miners on older clients
1723 2011-03-01 11:19:13 <UukGoblin> it's up to the nodes to decide whether to include a tx in a block or not
1724 2011-03-01 11:19:20 <Blitzboom> hmm
1725 2011-03-01 11:19:39 <UukGoblin> yeah I'm still running 0.3.14 and maybe even 0.3.10 somewhere
1726 2011-03-01 11:20:29 <magnetron> UukGoblin: think of the puppets having their 31 cent transactions taking forever
1727 2011-03-01 11:20:41 <magnetron> puppies
1728 2011-03-01 11:20:44 <magnetron> argh
1729 2011-03-01 11:20:47 <ArtForz> 0.3.15 patched with parts of 0.3.20 here
1730 2011-03-01 11:21:08 <sethsethseth> yay i put my miner on solo and it instantly finds a block!
1731 2011-03-01 11:21:17 <sethsethseth> please pass go and collect $50
1732 2011-03-01 11:21:19 <ArtForz> basically a 0.3.15 with most of the core changes of 0.3.20 backported, and a whole bunch of custom changes
1733 2011-03-01 11:21:24 <sethsethseth> so fun to win the lottery
1734 2011-03-01 11:22:20 <molecular> sethsethseth, yay!
1735 2011-03-01 11:23:18 <molecular> sethsethseth, this happened to me, too. switched to solo and found 4 blocks in 2 days @660Mh/s... now for the long dark passage through the dry valley of bad luck ;)
1736 2011-03-01 11:24:11 <molecular> I think fortuna favors newcomers ;)
1737 2011-03-01 11:24:36 <molecular> It's an old drug-dealer's trick: first shot is always free
1738 2011-03-01 11:24:38 <ArtForz> she has to get em hooked somehow ;)
1739 2011-03-01 11:24:44 <molecular> exactly
1740 2011-03-01 11:24:57 <sethsethseth> lol
1741 2011-03-01 11:25:00 Jeroenz0r has quit ()
1742 2011-03-01 11:25:36 <sethsethseth> well i made a few hundred off slush pool, seems way more fun to check if you win the lottery for $50 though
1743 2011-03-01 11:25:40 <ArtForz> hrrrmm... so I wonder who is creating all those pool-like tx that are queueing up
1744 2011-03-01 11:26:03 <molecular> sethsethseth, it's fun now... but there will be dark times when you tell yourself: "why didn't I switch back to the pool?"
1745 2011-03-01 11:26:19 <molecular> maybe some gambling-site or something?
1746 2011-03-01 11:26:43 <molecular> I wish there was something like blockexplorer for non-digested transactions
1747 2011-03-01 11:26:44 <ArtForz> could be
1748 2011-03-01 11:26:56 <sethsethseth> ya but this has a positive expectation, not negative
1749 2011-03-01 11:26:59 <ArtForz> yeah, that'd be ... quite useful
1750 2011-03-01 11:27:23 <sethsethseth> hey why is my chat not showing up, i can only see other people's
1751 2011-03-01 11:27:29 <sethsethseth> oh now its back nm
1752 2011-03-01 11:27:34 <molecular> it's showing up here
1753 2011-03-01 11:27:47 <ArtForz> hunter2
1754 2011-03-01 11:28:19 <molecular> maybe I'll try my skills on something like a freshTXexplorer
1755 2011-03-01 11:28:23 <ArtForz> yea
1756 2011-03-01 11:28:26 <ArtForz> adding a db backend to something like my monitor node should be pretty easy
1757 2011-03-01 11:28:35 <molecular> that python-one?
1758 2011-03-01 11:28:39 <ArtForz> yea
1759 2011-03-01 11:28:50 <molecular> hmm, python would come a lot easier to me than cpp
1760 2011-03-01 11:28:55 <ArtForz> it already prints all blocks and TXs it sees coming by
1761 2011-03-01 11:28:59 Jeroenz0r has joined
1762 2011-03-01 11:28:59 Jeroenz0r has quit (Changing host)
1763 2011-03-01 11:28:59 Jeroenz0r has joined
1764 2011-03-01 11:29:11 <molecular> maybe you could share that non-node with me (others)?
1765 2011-03-01 11:29:14 omglolbbq has joined
1766 2011-03-01 11:29:17 <ArtForz> it doesnt verify tx/blocks, but by connecting it to a known-good node you know it wont see invalid ones
1767 2011-03-01 11:29:35 <molecular> yeah, just connect it to my local "official" node
1768 2011-03-01 11:29:39 <ArtForz> yep
1769 2011-03-01 11:30:10 <molecular> is there some code in there you dont want to share that you'd have to rip out first?
1770 2011-03-01 11:30:32 omglolbbq1 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1771 2011-03-01 11:30:48 <magnetron> like fast_sha256()
1772 2011-03-01 11:32:38 <ArtForz> well, it's just my basic half-a-node, with some code in command "tx" and "block" to add/remove transactions to/from the "seen but not in block" map
1773 2011-03-01 11:34:36 <UukGoblin> ;;bc,calc 759104
1774 2011-03-01 11:34:38 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 759104 Khps, given current difficulty of 55590.23763914 , is 3 days, 15 hours, 22 minutes, and 6 seconds
1775 2011-03-01 11:34:52 <UukGoblin> ;;bc,calc 759
1776 2011-03-01 11:34:53 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 759 Khps, given current difficulty of 55590.23763914 , is 9 years, 50 weeks, 5 days, 20 hours, 25 minutes, and 2 seconds
1777 2011-03-01 11:34:53 <molecular> ArtForz, could nicely hook in some db-update code there
1778 2011-03-01 11:35:03 <UukGoblin> 9 years lol
1779 2011-03-01 11:35:13 <UukGoblin> almost 10
1780 2011-03-01 11:35:29 <molecular> ArtForz, or maybe add httpServer to server that stuff directly
1781 2011-03-01 11:35:33 <molecular> server
1782 2011-03-01 11:35:35 <molecular> serve
1783 2011-03-01 11:36:08 <molecular> UukGoblin, assuming rising difficulty: never
1784 2011-03-01 11:37:05 <UukGoblin> molecular, unless I'm lucky!
1785 2011-03-01 11:37:20 noagendamarket has joined
1786 2011-03-01 11:38:53 <molecular> UukGoblin, yeah, some people are said to play lotteries with much lower chances of winning
1787 2011-03-01 11:39:24 <xelister> molecular: but the reward can be thousands not 50$
1788 2011-03-01 11:39:29 <UukGoblin> well, this lottery doesn't cost me anything, so why not play it
1789 2011-03-01 11:39:42 <xelister> and lottery ticket is less pricy then 5770 ;)
1790 2011-03-01 11:39:42 <molecular> costs power
1791 2011-03-01 11:39:53 <xelister> and time and hardware
1792 2011-03-01 11:39:56 <molecular> 5770 is not 795 Khps
1793 2011-03-01 11:40:04 <molecular> he's likely using some cpu
1794 2011-03-01 11:40:06 <xelister> ah you mean the cpu thing
1795 2011-03-01 11:40:10 <xelister> yeah, the power thing
1796 2011-03-01 11:40:13 <UukGoblin> it's my VPS... I need the server anyway ;-]
1797 2011-03-01 11:40:25 <molecular> UukGoblin, it will use more power, though
1798 2011-03-01 11:40:38 <UukGoblin> molecular, I'm not charged for power at all
1799 2011-03-01 11:40:44 <molecular> oh, then go ahead
1800 2011-03-01 11:40:46 <UukGoblin> just a flat monthly fee
1801 2011-03-01 11:41:08 <xelister> wait untill admin moves you to slower box since getting pissed at 100% cpu use
1802 2011-03-01 11:41:12 <xelister> =)
1803 2011-03-01 11:41:23 <UukGoblin> fuck him ;-]
1804 2011-03-01 11:41:45 <xelister> YEA fuck the admin wooo hoo- wait, what you mean my home folder is empty
1805 2011-03-01 11:42:30 * UukGoblin awaits his pandora
1806 2011-03-01 11:42:35 <xelister> but yea the VPS seems good idea
1807 2011-03-01 11:42:37 <UukGoblin> scheduled for derively today
1808 2011-03-01 11:43:08 <UukGoblin> xelister, back in the day... when mining on rackspace VMs was profitable...
1809 2011-03-01 11:43:32 <UukGoblin> good old times ;-]
1810 2011-03-01 11:43:37 * xelister sits in rocking chair
1811 2011-03-01 11:45:32 <UukGoblin> ;;bc,gen 767
1812 2011-03-01 11:45:34 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 767 Khps, given current difficulty of 55590.23763914 , is 0.0138778030221 BTC per day and 0.00057824179259 BTC per hour.
1813 2011-03-01 11:45:53 <xelister> 2 cents daily for a weekm then 1 cent, then half cent
1814 2011-03-01 11:45:54 <UukGoblin> wow, just above the dust value
1815 2011-03-01 11:46:00 <xelister> I have better idea
1816 2011-03-01 11:46:05 <xelister> Tired of **CPU** pooled 'mining' with no result? GET PAID NOW! Send pic of "Xelister and bitcoin rock! :*" pen-written: 1 BTC on hand; If ur cute girl: 2; 5 on back or above breasts; 10 on them(>18yo!). ~15 BTC for nice girls(PM me). Not faked! Real offer:) PM before!
1817 2011-03-01 11:46:25 <xelister> so get your photo camera to collect your loot \o/
1818 2011-03-01 11:47:09 <UukGoblin> fuck you I won't be your whore ;-]
1819 2011-03-01 11:47:24 <xelister> hey I didnt ment to insult you by prospoing this to you
1820 2011-03-01 11:47:30 <xelister> I just assumed you may have a sister
1821 2011-03-01 11:47:32 <xelister> >_>
1822 2011-03-01 11:47:33 <UukGoblin> ;-]
1823 2011-03-01 11:47:40 <slush> ArtForz: Can setting minimal threshold to 0.1 BTC solve the issue?
1824 2011-03-01 11:47:53 <slush> Less transactions, less spams
1825 2011-03-01 11:48:08 <slush> Personally I don't understand why somebody withdraw 0.01 every hour
1826 2011-03-01 11:48:32 <slush> But I'm surprised that bitcoin network cannot handle such small amount of transactions...
1827 2011-03-01 11:48:34 necrodearia has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1828 2011-03-01 11:48:48 <Blitzboom> iâm surprised by that too
1829 2011-03-01 11:48:51 <xelister> what is going on?
1830 2011-03-01 11:48:52 <ArtForz> it handles it just fine
1831 2011-03-01 11:48:55 <xelister> tx?
1832 2011-03-01 11:49:01 <ArtForz> they just wont get into the chain for a looong time
1833 2011-03-01 11:49:19 <slush> yes, but people cannot spend them for this time
1834 2011-03-01 11:49:23 <ArtForz> yep
1835 2011-03-01 11:50:00 <ArtForz> sucks to be them
1836 2011-03-01 11:50:13 <xelister> again, what?
1837 2011-03-01 11:50:18 <ArtForz> thats why multi-output tx would help a lot, then it's not the pools problem anymore
1838 2011-03-01 11:50:22 <xelister> currently 0-fee transactions are getting stucked?
1839 2011-03-01 11:50:38 <ArtForz> xelister: we're racking up a backlog of 0-fee tx
1840 2011-03-01 11:50:45 <slush> But currently the standard bitcoin client cannot send multi output tx via RPC...
1841 2011-03-01 11:50:50 <ArtForz> yes
1842 2011-03-01 11:51:08 <xelister> ArtForz: so some miners do not accept them into own chains so this tx still float networ waiting to be picked up into chains?
1843 2011-03-01 11:51:36 <ArtForz> well, they'll drop off the network if the originator doesnt keep resending them
1844 2011-03-01 11:51:51 <xelister> btw how long does a node send out own tx to network? untill the node sees this tx as accepted in currently longest chain?
1845 2011-03-01 11:51:54 <slush> This is also reason why I though I have bug in transaction queue in my new pool client
1846 2011-03-01 11:51:56 <ArtForz> yes
1847 2011-03-01 11:52:09 <slush> I was surprised that there were some tx more than day old...
1848 2011-03-01 11:52:12 <RBecker> ;;bc,blocks
1849 2011-03-01 11:52:13 <gribble> 111199
1850 2011-03-01 11:52:32 necrodearia has joined
1851 2011-03-01 11:52:34 <xelister> what if I see my tx in chain, and 8 hours and a chain switch/split later, my tx is missing after all from the main chain, will current client reannounce this tx?
1852 2011-03-01 11:52:48 <ArtForz> yes
1853 2011-03-01 11:53:02 <xelister> it was a problem we considered in BtcFn bitcoin-freenet
1854 2011-03-01 11:53:27 <xelister> ok so it will be not a problem if a tx that is say 3 days old will appear in network looking for miners to pick it up
1855 2011-03-01 11:53:34 <slush> oh, there is transaction timeout build inside clients?
1856 2011-03-01 11:53:47 humanunit has joined
1857 2011-03-01 11:53:53 <bd__> IIRC _all_ clients will independently add the transactions from the old chain that remain valid to their local transaction store
1858 2011-03-01 11:53:59 bd__ is now known as bd_
1859 2011-03-01 11:54:24 <bd_> which means they should get caught up by the next block
1860 2011-03-01 11:54:50 <humanunit> hello. I created a profile folder and copied blk0001.dat and blkindex.dat into it. now when I start the client, it crashes with 11DbException
1861 2011-03-01 11:55:04 <xelister> humanunit: copied wallet too?
1862 2011-03-01 11:55:23 <humanunit> no
1863 2011-03-01 11:57:02 <humanunit> doesn't matter if I keep a wallet, same error
1864 2011-03-01 11:57:31 <Keefe> different version maybe?
1865 2011-03-01 11:58:09 <humanunit> hmm, not sure. gotta ask, one sec
1866 2011-03-01 11:58:46 AAA_awright has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1867 2011-03-01 11:59:28 AAA_awright has joined
1868 2011-03-01 12:03:38 soultcer has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net)
1869 2011-03-01 12:04:08 soultcer has joined
1870 2011-03-01 12:04:48 <humanunit> or can I download a blk*.dat created with the current client somewhere?
1871 2011-03-01 12:05:04 RazielZ has joined
1872 2011-03-01 12:05:39 <dsg> humanunit: Probably your client is compiled with a different version of BDB
1873 2011-03-01 12:05:50 <molecular> humanunit, you could -connect the new client to the old one running and dl blockchain pretty quickly
1874 2011-03-01 12:05:51 <dsg> Than was used to create the block db you're copying
1875 2011-03-01 12:06:44 <humanunit> dsg, molecular: someone in #bitcoin-discussion gave me the two files. created with 0.3.19
1876 2011-03-01 12:07:38 <humanunit> I'm using bitcoin-0.3.20.01-win32
1877 2011-03-01 12:08:16 gasteve has joined
1878 2011-03-01 12:15:43 <xelister> 5970 for say 890 USD, anyone interested?
1879 2011-03-01 12:16:25 <sipa> sounds a bit excessive :o
1880 2011-03-01 12:16:47 <xelister> well its basically impossible to buy nowdays it seems
1881 2011-03-01 12:19:58 <noagendamarket> thats more than a new card isnt it ?
1882 2011-03-01 12:20:39 <xelister> hmm that is a price of new card
1883 2011-03-01 12:20:43 <humanunit> any other place to download the chain?
1884 2011-03-01 12:20:50 <xelister> do you have better offer that is actually available in EU now?
1885 2011-03-01 12:21:27 <xelister> humanunit: at some point we are considering a Freenet transport for bitcoin, it would include getting chain anonymously from there :)
1886 2011-03-01 12:22:05 <bd_> xelister: While that's certainly possible, I have my doubts that freenet could propagate the chain fast enough to act as a miner
1887 2011-03-01 12:22:35 <humanunit> xelister: just wondering, why doesn't bitcoin provide a chain download on its website?
1888 2011-03-01 12:22:41 <xelister> bd_: miner will be the tricky part. But even without miners it has greate uses, mainly anonymous paying and anynomous receiving money
1889 2011-03-01 12:22:51 <xelister> humanunit: dunno. It could
1890 2011-03-01 12:23:05 <bd_> humanunit: Because every 10 minutes it's updated, and most of the time needed to download the chain is spent verifying the cryptographic signatures
1891 2011-03-01 12:23:40 <humanunit> bd_: that's the problem for me. it'd take like 10 hours to get the initial chain :/
1892 2011-03-01 12:23:41 <bd_> You could accelerate it, but that would imply trusting the bitcoin devs to properly verify it for you
1893 2011-03-01 12:23:52 <xelister> bd_: https://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=2312.msg49660#msg49660
1894 2011-03-01 12:23:58 <eps> can someone point me to a description of what it is that a miner does?, for example when you call getwork i can see what is returned, but don't know what a miner is supposed to do with it
1895 2011-03-01 12:24:05 <xelister> bd_: the image on freesite works. the one on normal internet imagebin does not (btw, lol ;)
1896 2011-03-01 12:24:25 <xelister> bd_: client would revalidate download of chain (from website, from freenet, etc)
1897 2011-03-01 12:24:34 <sipa> eps: it's suppose to find a nonce (a range of 8 hex character in what you see) that makes the hash of the whole thing sufficiently low
1898 2011-03-01 12:24:51 <sipa> eps: together with how small it should be, and some precalculated data
1899 2011-03-01 12:25:00 <bd_> hmm though, I wonder if chain verification could be accelerated for _non-mining_ clients though
1900 2011-03-01 12:25:15 <bd_> they need only actually check signatures when they attempt to register a spend, after all
1901 2011-03-01 12:25:42 ApertureScience has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1902 2011-03-01 12:26:01 ApertureScience has joined
1903 2011-03-01 12:27:11 <xelister> bd_: please comment this forum threat if you have any ideas! :)
1904 2011-03-01 12:28:08 <bd_> While thinking about the transport is all well and good
1905 2011-03-01 12:28:15 <bd_> the real problem is correlation attacks
1906 2011-03-01 12:28:38 <bd_> If you have 10 bitcoins
1907 2011-03-01 12:28:45 <bd_> and $TLA sends one of your nyms 5 bitcoins
1908 2011-03-01 12:28:51 <bd_> and you send 15 via another nym
1909 2011-03-01 12:28:55 <bd_> now the $TLA has linked your nyms
1910 2011-03-01 12:29:44 <eps> sipa, and how do you know the nonce is correct?
1911 2011-03-01 12:30:17 <sethsethseth> do anyone remember when libya addresses just disappeared for a couple days? it was a few years back
1912 2011-03-01 12:30:40 <xelister> bd_: yes I know
1913 2011-03-01 12:30:44 <xelister> bd_: this is written there :)
1914 2011-03-01 12:31:21 <xelister> bd_: so you should start with a clean wallet and use it ALWAYS only say over Freenet, ALWAYS not connected to irl. e.g. buy it without connection to IRL/money, spend it without connection to IRL services/goods
1915 2011-03-01 12:31:35 <sipa> eps: a nonce is an arbitrary number, there are no correct or incorrent
1916 2011-03-01 12:31:51 <xelister> so... in example, get paid by running a .onion host, and spend it on buying DNSes and hosting for other hidden server
1917 2011-03-01 12:31:53 <bd_> xelister: in other words never mixing nym wallets? That works, I suppose. But is quite inconvenient :)
1918 2011-03-01 12:32:18 <xelister> so live 100% anonymous
1919 2011-03-01 12:32:20 <xelister> -or-
1920 2011-03-01 12:32:22 <xelister> or
1921 2011-03-01 12:32:38 <bd_> find some sort of laundering service? :)
1922 2011-03-01 12:32:49 <xelister> live 100% anonymous, and if you need to get some BTC for cash, then buy it to separate wallet, and then very carefully randomize/etc it into the secure wallet
1923 2011-03-01 12:32:51 <xelister> yea
1924 2011-03-01 12:32:59 <humanunit> so no blk*.dat download anywhere? :(
1925 2011-03-01 12:33:02 <xelister> btw everyone should STOP the fuck calling it lanudering service
1926 2011-03-01 12:33:08 <bd_> That's what it is.
1927 2011-03-01 12:33:25 <xelister> bd_: greate now someone just email IRS.
1928 2011-03-01 12:33:35 <bd_> You think they won't figure it out? :)
1929 2011-03-01 12:33:54 <xelister> well, Americans *are* dumb =)
1930 2011-03-01 12:34:33 <bd_> You think calling it a "Pooled secure hash chain confounding service" or something will _really_ throw off investigators? Really?
1931 2011-03-01 12:34:49 <eps> sipa, ok, after the miner has found a valid nonce, what does it do with it?
1932 2011-03-01 12:35:01 <eps> send it back to the bitcoin daemon i guess
1933 2011-03-01 12:35:09 <eps> but i can't see the rpc call
1934 2011-03-01 12:39:24 <sipa> its the same call
1935 2011-03-01 12:39:48 <sipa> but this time with the modified blockheadet as parameter
1936 2011-03-01 12:39:48 <eps> hmmm, ok clearly i am a newb ;)
1937 2011-03-01 12:39:59 <eps> i see
1938 2011-03-01 12:43:55 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1939 2011-03-01 12:45:26 <humanunit> ok, an opinion from someone who downloaded bitcoin for the first time yesterday: while I like the client (just unpack and start the exe), the initial chain creation is a real show stopper imho.
1940 2011-03-01 12:45:33 <humanunit> just my 2c
1941 2011-03-01 12:46:41 <Blitzboom> 0.02 BTC
1942 2011-03-01 12:46:51 <molecular> now if I had an improbability-drive like in hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy...
1943 2011-03-01 12:47:07 <molecular> ...I wouldn't know what would happen ;)
1944 2011-03-01 12:47:50 <xelister> molecular: I have one
1945 2011-03-01 12:48:03 <sipa> yes, but is it an infinite improbability device?
1946 2011-03-01 12:48:08 <xelister> got 3 blocks in one day on a single 5970 during new year
1947 2011-03-01 12:49:12 mrb_ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1948 2011-03-01 12:50:06 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1949 2011-03-01 12:50:12 mrb_ has joined
1950 2011-03-01 12:50:25 <humanunit> also, there's a bug in the UI on windows. the menu (transfer, address book) displays the content of the window underneath it
1951 2011-03-01 12:50:50 sgornick has joined
1952 2011-03-01 12:51:45 mmarker has joined
1953 2011-03-01 12:52:21 m86 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1954 2011-03-01 12:52:39 m86 has joined
1955 2011-03-01 12:54:30 TD has joined
1956 2011-03-01 13:09:08 <molecular> sipa, doesn't need to be infinitely improbably, 1/difficulty is surely enough
1957 2011-03-01 13:09:24 <molecular> my typing skill are really fail today
1958 2011-03-01 13:09:34 <molecular> or is it my thinking skills
1959 2011-03-01 13:11:41 humanunit has quit (Quit: Your sister is hot, but your mom does that thing with her tongue)
1960 2011-03-01 13:18:56 <mmarker> Oy vey. I think my code was really on drugs
1961 2011-03-01 13:24:28 M4v3R_ has joined
1962 2011-03-01 13:25:27 xelister has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1963 2011-03-01 13:27:14 M4v3R has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1964 2011-03-01 13:27:15 M4v3R_ is now known as M4v3R
1965 2011-03-01 13:28:58 M4v3R_ has joined
1966 2011-03-01 13:28:58 M4v3R_ has quit (Changing host)
1967 2011-03-01 13:28:58 M4v3R_ has joined
1968 2011-03-01 13:29:35 gasteve has quit (Quit: gasteve)
1969 2011-03-01 13:31:34 M4v3R has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1970 2011-03-01 13:31:34 M4v3R_ is now known as M4v3R
1971 2011-03-01 13:31:41 gasteve has joined
1972 2011-03-01 13:38:12 <magnetron> how come the Linux build .tar.gz is twice as large as the windows zip?
1973 2011-03-01 13:43:08 xelister has joined
1974 2011-03-01 13:43:08 xelister has quit (Changing host)
1975 2011-03-01 13:43:08 xelister has joined
1976 2011-03-01 13:46:19 jrabbit has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1977 2011-03-01 13:46:39 jrabbit has joined
1978 2011-03-01 13:47:11 kupo has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1979 2011-03-01 13:47:17 kupo has joined
1980 2011-03-01 13:47:37 wood_ has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1981 2011-03-01 13:47:48 wood_ has joined
1982 2011-03-01 13:48:41 <mmarker> damn, my x86 assembly is rusty. Like, OMFG rusty
1983 2011-03-01 13:51:08 M4v3R_ has joined
1984 2011-03-01 13:51:08 M4v3R_ has quit (Changing host)
1985 2011-03-01 13:51:08 M4v3R_ has joined
1986 2011-03-01 13:52:53 M4v3R has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1987 2011-03-01 13:52:54 M4v3R_ is now known as M4v3R
1988 2011-03-01 13:55:44 * mmarker goes to haxxxor more hash issues
1989 2011-03-01 13:55:55 <sipa> what's the problem with them?
1990 2011-03-01 14:01:41 <mmarker> sipa: I think my port, while fast, may not be doing SHA-2
1991 2011-03-01 14:01:49 <mmarker> which is, well, kind of a problem :D
1992 2011-03-01 14:03:38 <lfm> can you compare it to the sha256 command line?
1993 2011-03-01 14:04:14 <mmarker> No, sadly I don't have that capability yet
1994 2011-03-01 14:04:23 <mmarker> I think I found the buglet.
1995 2011-03-01 14:05:00 <lfm> dump the input and output (gdb? and try
1996 2011-03-01 14:05:13 <mmarker> I need to write a proper unit test for this. waiting to see if I hit a share is probably dumb
1997 2011-03-01 14:07:12 skeledrew has quit (Quit: Instantbird 0.3a2pre)
1998 2011-03-01 14:07:30 <mmarker> Ok. There's a bug
1999 2011-03-01 14:07:41 <mmarker> j should return 0, it's returning 1 million
2000 2011-03-01 14:07:52 <sipa> one MILLION dollars
2001 2011-03-01 14:07:53 skeledrew has joined
2002 2011-03-01 14:08:24 <mmarker> grr, hang on
2003 2011-03-01 14:08:26 mmarker has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.3.2)
2004 2011-03-01 14:09:29 mmarker has joined
2005 2011-03-01 14:10:01 cosurgi has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2006 2011-03-01 14:12:12 <mmarker> ;;gc,calc 9000 1
2007 2011-03-01 14:12:13 <gribble> Error: "gc,calc" is not a valid command.
2008 2011-03-01 14:12:35 <lfm> ;;gc,calcd 9000 1
2009 2011-03-01 14:12:36 <gribble> Error: "gc,calcd" is not a valid command.
2010 2011-03-01 14:12:43 <lfm> ;;bc,calcd 9000 1
2011 2011-03-01 14:12:44 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 9000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 1, is 7 minutes and 57 seconds
2012 2011-03-01 14:12:50 <mmarker> Ok
2013 2011-03-01 14:13:04 <mmarker> so in 7 minutes, I should have a proof of work...ish
2014 2011-03-01 14:13:19 <lfm> ya makes for a long test cycle
2015 2011-03-01 14:13:26 <mmarker> Yup
2016 2011-03-01 14:14:37 <mmarker> Hmm, maybe I can do something a little smarter, add in a hack to spit out the first half of the hash, and see if it's right.
2017 2011-03-01 14:15:07 <lfm> chae the 32 bit zero test to 15 bit
2018 2011-03-01 14:15:21 <mmarker> hmm
2019 2011-03-01 14:15:37 <mmarker> How would that help?
2020 2011-03-01 14:15:49 <mmarker> since I do that test in assembly :D
2021 2011-03-01 14:16:17 <lfm> one in 2^16 instead of 1 in 232
2022 2011-03-01 14:16:27 <mmarker> hmm
2023 2011-03-01 14:16:37 <lfm> one in 2^16 instead of 1 in 2^32
2024 2011-03-01 14:16:48 <mmarker> I think just dumping a hash may be a better idea:
2025 2011-03-01 14:16:51 <mmarker> let's try that
2026 2011-03-01 14:17:46 <xelister> MSI, Sapphire, HIS - in which order from best to worst manufacturere? (for radeon 5970)?
2027 2011-03-01 14:18:02 <xelister> MSI, Sapphire, HIS, Asus
2028 2011-03-01 14:18:11 <necrodearia> Would a bitcoinized craigslist be useful?
2029 2011-03-01 14:18:54 <lfm> a;ready have bitcoin ebay
2030 2011-03-01 14:20:14 <xelister> lfm: where?
2031 2011-03-01 14:22:18 <lfm> http://www.biddingpond.com/
2032 2011-03-01 14:22:41 <nextgens> xelister> how many PMKs/s does such a card do with pyrit?
2033 2011-03-01 14:23:05 <omglolbbq> biddingpond realy has to change layout and style if they want to be taken serioous
2034 2011-03-01 14:24:17 cosurgi has joined
2035 2011-03-01 14:24:51 <nextgens> somewhere around 70k?
2036 2011-03-01 14:31:04 gasteve has quit (Quit: gasteve)
2037 2011-03-01 14:31:38 <JFK911> ;;bc,calc 400000
2038 2011-03-01 14:31:39 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 400000 Khps, given current difficulty of 55590.23763914 , is 6 days, 21 hours, 48 minutes, and 15 seconds
2039 2011-03-01 14:31:42 <JFK911> lol
2040 2011-03-01 14:32:27 slush has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
2041 2011-03-01 14:37:54 sethsethseth_ has joined
2042 2011-03-01 14:37:54 sethsethseth has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2043 2011-03-01 14:37:59 sethsethseth_ is now known as sethsethseth
2044 2011-03-01 14:43:31 alystair has joined
2045 2011-03-01 14:45:19 <magnetron> ;;bc,block
2046 2011-03-01 14:45:19 <gribble> Error: "bc,block" is not a valid command.
2047 2011-03-01 14:45:47 <magnetron> ;;apropos bcs
2048 2011-03-01 14:45:47 <gribble> No appropriate commands were found.
2049 2011-03-01 14:45:50 <magnetron> ;;bc,blocks
2050 2011-03-01 14:45:52 <gribble> 111222
2051 2011-03-01 14:47:42 gasteve has joined
2052 2011-03-01 14:53:25 <mmarker> ;;bc,calcd 8400 1
2053 2011-03-01 14:53:26 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 8400 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 1, is 8 minutes and 31 seconds
2054 2011-03-01 14:53:33 <mmarker> Nuts
2055 2011-03-01 14:55:18 hazek has joined
2056 2011-03-01 14:55:21 <hazek> sup
2057 2011-03-01 14:56:07 <hazek> so I'm reading this book about the legal aspect of issuing a private currency in the U.S.
2058 2011-03-01 14:56:11 <lfm> ;;bc,estimate
2059 2011-03-01 14:56:12 <gribble> 60428.59217153
2060 2011-03-01 14:56:17 <hazek> and I found something desturbing:
2061 2011-03-01 14:56:41 <lfm> we're all going to jail?
2062 2011-03-01 14:56:46 <amiller> i'm interested in this
2063 2011-03-01 14:56:50 <amiller> what did you find?
2064 2011-03-01 14:57:00 <hazek> shit I can't c\p
2065 2011-03-01 14:57:08 <hazek> I'll have to paraphrase
2066 2011-03-01 14:57:17 <hazek> basically there's a 10% tax
2067 2011-03-01 14:57:29 <sipa> on what?
2068 2011-03-01 14:57:35 <hazek> sec
2069 2011-03-01 14:57:38 <hazek> let me write it up
2070 2011-03-01 14:58:31 <lfm> so thats where Satoshi went, they locked him up
2071 2011-03-01 14:58:45 <mmarker> He's Japanese, apparently
2072 2011-03-01 14:58:48 <hazek> There is a 10% tax on any bank or association or person issuing a private currency that is being used locally as money
2073 2011-03-01 14:59:05 <TD> does anyone have some coins on the new testnet they could send me?
2074 2011-03-01 14:59:25 <lfm> td I could try to make some if you want
2075 2011-03-01 14:59:33 <TD> well, i can generate, it'll just take a little while i guess
2076 2011-03-01 14:59:47 <hazek> this passed in 1863, 64 and finally 68
2077 2011-03-01 14:59:50 <[Noodles]> https://freebitcoins.appspot.com/TEST/
2078 2011-03-01 14:59:58 <luke-jr> hmm
2079 2011-03-01 15:00:00 <amiller> link, hazek?
2080 2011-03-01 15:00:08 <amiller> or name of act?
2081 2011-03-01 15:00:17 <hazek> http://www.smallisbeautiful.org/local_currencies/Book.pdf
2082 2011-03-01 15:00:34 <hazek> I'm only just reading this
2083 2011-03-01 15:00:40 <hazek> so they might have changed it
2084 2011-03-01 15:00:41 <sipa> hazek: the problem is, 10% of what?
2085 2011-03-01 15:00:41 <[Noodles]> or give me your testnet-address and i'll send you some
2086 2011-03-01 15:00:44 <amiller> lets go hack it up on google scholar
2087 2011-03-01 15:00:49 <amiller> find them supreme court decisions
2088 2011-03-01 15:00:56 <luke-jr> hazek: so do we take that out of the current market rate, or up the Ask?
2089 2011-03-01 15:01:00 <hazek> I assume equvilanet dollar value
2090 2011-03-01 15:01:09 <sipa> in our case, no central authority makes/sells the coins
2091 2011-03-01 15:01:14 <luke-jr> sipa: presumably what USD you're paid for it
2092 2011-03-01 15:01:18 <TD> [Noodles]: yeah i wasn't sure if gavin reset it to the new testnet yet
2093 2011-03-01 15:01:22 <TD> i'll try
2094 2011-03-01 15:01:27 <luke-jr> oh. issuing, not selling
2095 2011-03-01 15:01:31 <hazek> yes well sipa is pointing out what I was going to as you guys
2096 2011-03-01 15:01:35 <mmarker> Argh. Debugging assembly code is a right PITA
2097 2011-03-01 15:01:37 <sipa> i could understand that you'd need to pay tax on any currency you issue, at the price you sell them
2098 2011-03-01 15:01:44 <TD> ah
2099 2011-03-01 15:01:48 <TD> it says it is, in fact. should have checked.
2100 2011-03-01 15:01:50 <hazek> who could be held resposible for issuing bitcoins?
2101 2011-03-01 15:01:53 <luke-jr> sipa: so presumably this means miners are taxed in the US.
2102 2011-03-01 15:01:55 <luke-jr> miners
2103 2011-03-01 15:02:05 <hazek> no no
2104 2011-03-01 15:02:07 <sipa> good luck finding them :D
2105 2011-03-01 15:02:07 <luke-jr> yes
2106 2011-03-01 15:02:08 <hazek> I know who is...
2107 2011-03-01 15:02:15 <hazek> but legally
2108 2011-03-01 15:02:17 <luke-jr> sipa: enforcability has no relevance to legality.
2109 2011-03-01 15:02:20 <hazek> who can be held responsible
2110 2011-03-01 15:02:21 <sipa> luke-jr: agree
2111 2011-03-01 15:02:28 <hazek> can the courts proove it?
2112 2011-03-01 15:02:32 <luke-jr> hazek: irrelevant.
2113 2011-03-01 15:02:35 <hazek> it's not
2114 2011-03-01 15:02:42 <amiller> well, big exchanges like fort gox are more vulnerable
2115 2011-03-01 15:02:43 <luke-jr> we still have a moral and civil duty to pay the tax.
2116 2011-03-01 15:02:44 <lfm> td should I delete the old 0.19 testnet data if its the first time I have run 0.3.20?
2117 2011-03-01 15:02:48 <luke-jr> even if nobody can prosecute.
2118 2011-03-01 15:02:53 <TD> i did
2119 2011-03-01 15:02:58 <TD> it's probably not necessary
2120 2011-03-01 15:03:02 <EvanR> lol ft gox, is that the new thing
2121 2011-03-01 15:03:14 <luke-jr> where is a reliable site to show market prices for each day?
2122 2011-03-01 15:03:15 <amiller> i'm pretty sure it was always a pun on that :p
2123 2011-03-01 15:03:20 <luke-jr> I have 6 blocks to pay taxes on :x
2124 2011-03-01 15:03:29 <amiller> http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/
2125 2011-03-01 15:03:38 <luke-jr> do we use the high or low?
2126 2011-03-01 15:03:47 <EvanR> amiller: really. i never made that connection and neither did the interview with bitcoinme
2127 2011-03-01 15:04:05 <mmarker> Hmm. Good news, still have good hash performance. Bad news, I dont think it's working
2128 2011-03-01 15:04:11 <hazek> luke-jr I sincerely hope you are just joking
2129 2011-03-01 15:04:21 <luke-jr> hazek: why?
2130 2011-03-01 15:04:22 <EvanR> chances are he isnt
2131 2011-03-01 15:04:26 * mmarker wonders how the HELL can there just be no PoW
2132 2011-03-01 15:04:34 <hazek> paying taxes on bitcoin issuing?
2133 2011-03-01 15:04:42 <luke-jr> hazek: if it's the law, it's the law.
2134 2011-03-01 15:04:44 <hazek> you must be joking!
2135 2011-03-01 15:04:48 <hazek> LOL!
2136 2011-03-01 15:05:00 <luke-jr> amiller: how do I get raw numbers?
2137 2011-03-01 15:05:02 <EvanR> 'its the law' is sometimes fairly nebulous in meaning
2138 2011-03-01 15:05:44 <mmarker> Last time I checked, my 'rents could still legally build slave quarters on their property
2139 2011-03-01 15:05:58 <hwolf> you probably would pay taxes when you sell bitcoins for USD.
2140 2011-03-01 15:06:14 <mmarker> may be an interesting way to add an addition, but ..well.. don't think you'd get the permit if you going to build slave quarters.
2141 2011-03-01 15:06:18 <EvanR> hwolf: yes
2142 2011-03-01 15:06:30 <EvanR> at least in america
2143 2011-03-01 15:06:35 <luke-jr> hwolf: that's not what it says, according to hazek
2144 2011-03-01 15:06:49 <hazek> I'm not done with that pdf yet
2145 2011-03-01 15:06:50 <amiller> luke-jr, there's one other site that's nice i don't have in my bookmarks yet, i used nullvoid.org for a while too but it is down right now
2146 2011-03-01 15:06:56 <luke-jr> when you're issued stock, you pay the tax on the market value when you get it
2147 2011-03-01 15:06:58 <hazek> I don't know what's the current state
2148 2011-03-01 15:07:09 <hazek> I know there's a local currency circulating today in new york
2149 2011-03-01 15:07:13 <EvanR> bitcoin isnt shares in a company
2150 2011-03-01 15:07:15 <mmarker> hmm, is slush about?
2151 2011-03-01 15:07:16 <hwolf> bitcoin is pure speculation, not a stock not a currency according to the irs.
2152 2011-03-01 15:07:18 <hazek> ithaka hours or something like that
2153 2011-03-01 15:07:40 <EvanR> its definitely not stock. whether its curreny commodity or both is debatable
2154 2011-03-01 15:07:56 <hazek> i think as of right now it's a commodity
2155 2011-03-01 15:07:57 <hwolf> the irs really just watches cash
2156 2011-03-01 15:08:01 <hazek> but who cares what i think
2157 2011-03-01 15:08:03 <hwolf> money hitting bank accounts
2158 2011-03-01 15:08:11 <EvanR> hwolf: theres barter tax
2159 2011-03-01 15:08:19 <EvanR> tax on 'barter income'
2160 2011-03-01 15:08:21 <hwolf> if you get audited, the irs just pulls bank account usually. good point evanr
2161 2011-03-01 15:08:27 <EvanR> not sure about the pratical side of that
2162 2011-03-01 15:08:31 <EvanR> could be complete bunk
2163 2011-03-01 15:08:37 <EvanR> like state sales tax on internet purchases
2164 2011-03-01 15:08:43 <lfm> I thoght the secrec service was in charge of currency and counterfitting stuff
2165 2011-03-01 15:08:49 <hazek> The main reason I'm looking into this is because I want to see bitcoins eventually get used everywhere
2166 2011-03-01 15:09:04 <hazek> and if the governments have laws and enfoce them through force that inhibit that
2167 2011-03-01 15:09:06 <hwolf> if bitcoins get used everywhere, irs is in alot of trouble
2168 2011-03-01 15:09:08 M4v3R has quit (Quit: M4v3R)
2169 2011-03-01 15:09:13 <hazek> we're doomed to fail from the get go
2170 2011-03-01 15:09:26 <xelister> MSI, Sapphire, HIS, Asus - in which order from best to worst manufacturere? (for radeon 5970)?
2171 2011-03-01 15:09:26 <hazek> unless bitcoins can somehow escape those laws..
2172 2011-03-01 15:09:27 <EvanR> hazek: a guy in japan has financial advisors who told him to pay taxes on the usd and jpy that he gets, and thats it
2173 2011-03-01 15:09:36 <EvanR> of course you might want your own advisors
2174 2011-03-01 15:09:38 <EvanR> and im not one of them
2175 2011-03-01 15:09:53 <lfm> xelister: I have some HIS and they seem fine
2176 2011-03-01 15:09:56 <xelister> hazek: also, some option is do just do all transactions privatelly
2177 2011-03-01 15:10:06 <EvanR> governments cant do shit
2178 2011-03-01 15:10:07 <xelister> hazek: look at my proposal of Bitcoin ver Freenet protocol
2179 2011-03-01 15:10:17 <hazek> link
2180 2011-03-01 15:10:46 <xelister> hazek: https://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=2312.msg36607#msg36607 and please comment :)
2181 2011-03-01 15:10:51 <amiller> so it's exciting to me that bitcoins are inevitable, they don't require any support other than free communication because it's possible to layer anynoymity over it entirely
2182 2011-03-01 15:10:56 <hazek> will try
2183 2011-03-01 15:10:59 <amiller> but without it being OK to publicly accept them
2184 2011-03-01 15:11:06 <amiller> there won't be enough volume to make it interesting
2185 2011-03-01 15:11:23 <xelister> hazek: in there. any questions I will respond soon. Also looking for people willing to give any BTC to rise 2000 BTC to implement all this. Each 1 btc helps =)
2186 2011-03-01 15:11:26 <hazek> amiller that's exaclty why I'm researching this aspect
2187 2011-03-01 15:11:28 <lfm> amiller: dunno if I'd say they were inevitable
2188 2011-03-01 15:11:33 <EvanR> its good that anonymity is a policy decision when you use btc
2189 2011-03-01 15:11:38 <EvanR> rather than a mechanism
2190 2011-03-01 15:11:42 <EvanR> like tor
2191 2011-03-01 15:11:49 <amiller> just like tor
2192 2011-03-01 15:12:03 <amiller> the symmetries between tor and btc are exhilirating
2193 2011-03-01 15:12:12 <EvanR> its not like tor
2194 2011-03-01 15:12:22 <xelister> btw bitcoin over freenet would be uncensorable
2195 2011-03-01 15:12:26 <xelister> unblockable
2196 2011-03-01 15:12:28 <xelister> and untracable
2197 2011-03-01 15:12:31 <xelister> better then tor
2198 2011-03-01 15:13:02 <luke-jr> "It's illegal" is a good enough reason for most people not to use BitCoin
2199 2011-03-01 15:13:18 <xelister> luke-jr: yes, that worked out really well for crack and ganja
2200 2011-03-01 15:13:21 <EvanR> copyright infingement is also illegal
2201 2011-03-01 15:13:23 <xelister> and pirating movies and music
2202 2011-03-01 15:13:33 <EvanR> also, patent infingement
2203 2011-03-01 15:13:35 <xelister> and heaving sex before 18 yo
2204 2011-03-01 15:13:45 <EvanR> so btc is already illegal probably just because of patent law
2205 2011-03-01 15:13:46 <amiller> btc isn't nearly as useful on its own compared to those
2206 2011-03-01 15:13:52 <EvanR> xelister: good call
2207 2011-03-01 15:14:00 <luke-jr> xelister: copyright infringemnet has some real benefits to people
2208 2011-03-01 15:14:02 <lfm> xelister: haveing sex before marriage
2209 2011-03-01 15:14:05 <luke-jr> BitCoin doesn't really
2210 2011-03-01 15:14:05 <xelister> and alcohol during prohibition
2211 2011-03-01 15:14:19 <sipa> lfm: that's not illegal
2212 2011-03-01 15:14:21 <hazek> the local currency Ithaca HOURS it's actually used in Virginia
2213 2011-03-01 15:14:22 <xelister> ALSOHOL DURING PROHIBITION
2214 2011-03-01 15:14:25 <sipa> in most countries, anyway
2215 2011-03-01 15:14:27 <xelister> made alcohol x10 more popular
2216 2011-03-01 15:14:27 <luke-jr> lfm: that isn't illegal, though it should be
2217 2011-03-01 15:14:32 <EvanR> if youre going to assume the government went through the (large) effort of making it illegal, then youd also have to assume BTC took off and is useful
2218 2011-03-01 15:14:55 <amiller> btc probably needs some lawyer friends
2219 2011-03-01 15:15:04 <EvanR> call mooglen
2220 2011-03-01 15:15:10 <lfm> luke-jr depends where you are
2221 2011-03-01 15:15:14 <luke-jr> I seem to recall a lawyer accepting bitcoins
2222 2011-03-01 15:15:17 <amiller> yeah #freedombox doesn't have too much to say about bitcoin
2223 2011-03-01 15:15:19 <xelister> luke-jr: using bitcoin, especially WHEN it is really anonymous (please donate to BtcFn ;) is very very benefficiall
2224 2011-03-01 15:15:37 <amiller> i got a 176 on lsat, maybe i should raise btc to send me to law school
2225 2011-03-01 15:15:44 <luke-jr> xelister: cash is also fairly anonymous
2226 2011-03-01 15:15:58 <xelister> luke-jr: ha
2227 2011-03-01 15:16:02 <xelister> luke-jr: not over internet
2228 2011-03-01 15:16:10 <xelister> luke-jr: not to anonymous recipient
2229 2011-03-01 15:16:16 <xelister> also
2230 2011-03-01 15:16:21 <xelister> bitcoin is better then bank wires!
2231 2011-03-01 15:16:22 <lfm> serial numbers on cash
2232 2011-03-01 15:16:23 <xelister> faster
2233 2011-03-01 15:16:24 <xelister> and free
2234 2011-03-01 15:16:28 <luke-jr> lol
2235 2011-03-01 15:16:38 <EvanR> bitcoin rox, cant be denied
2236 2011-03-01 15:16:39 <luke-jr> people need to stop advertising bitcoin tx as free
2237 2011-03-01 15:16:42 <xelister> I definatelly prefer to use bitcoin over paying visa / bank wire
2238 2011-03-01 15:16:59 <xelister> luke-jr: 0.01 btc tx, well ok. if you are in a hurry
2239 2011-03-01 15:17:00 <luke-jr> xelister: I don't. Visa can be disputed.
2240 2011-03-01 15:17:13 <xelister> luke-jr: buyers arent happy
2241 2011-03-01 15:17:20 <luke-jr> and hoarding bitcoins increases value
2242 2011-03-01 15:17:25 <luke-jr> I prefer to be *paid* in bitcoin, but when I'm paying⦠USD :P
2243 2011-03-01 15:17:25 <hazek> bitcoins would really fluorish if there was a market place similar to ebay that would use them exclusively I think and maybe that's the only way they will ever get into mainstream use
2244 2011-03-01 15:17:41 <xelister> hazek: good idea
2245 2011-03-01 15:17:42 <EvanR> you mean USD+strings attached
2246 2011-03-01 15:17:46 <xelister> hazek: I think also anonymous is very important
2247 2011-03-01 15:17:48 <sipa> yeah fluor bitcoins!
2248 2011-03-01 15:17:49 <EvanR> bitcoin can have similar string services
2249 2011-03-01 15:18:05 <hazek> I have an anonymous exchange in the works already
2250 2011-03-01 15:18:05 <lfm> http://www.biddingpond.com/
2251 2011-03-01 15:18:12 <amiller> bitcoin isn't any different from linden dollars or WoW gold - do taxes or currency regulations apply to those?
2252 2011-03-01 15:18:13 <EvanR> in the form of insurance
2253 2011-03-01 15:18:22 <amiller> hazek, have you looked at 'open transactions'
2254 2011-03-01 15:18:30 <EvanR> amiller: i thought those were restricted from trade with usd
2255 2011-03-01 15:18:31 prax has quit ()
2256 2011-03-01 15:18:46 <EvanR> by company policy
2257 2011-03-01 15:18:56 <hazek> you can't use wow gold to buy a car
2258 2011-03-01 15:18:57 <amiller> EvanR, that's an interesitng point
2259 2011-03-01 15:19:04 gavinandresen has joined
2260 2011-03-01 15:19:08 <hazek> amiller link
2261 2011-03-01 15:19:24 <amiller> https://github.com/FellowTraveler/Open-Transactions
2262 2011-03-01 15:19:29 <EvanR> amiller: it goes to show that some people, while they may not know the answer to your question, are scared
2263 2011-03-01 15:19:45 <amiller> https://github.com/FellowTraveler/Open-Transactions/wiki/FAQ
2264 2011-03-01 15:20:31 <gasteve> amiller: I think bitcoins would likely fall under the rules for barter income and capital gains tax regulations in the US
2265 2011-03-01 15:20:44 <luke-jr> EvanR: that changed?
2266 2011-03-01 15:20:56 <EvanR> for profits from playing mtgox, capital gains tax
2267 2011-03-01 15:20:58 <hazek> amiller can you please sum it up for me in a few words
2268 2011-03-01 15:21:05 <hazek> I really don't have the time to read through all of that
2269 2011-03-01 15:21:25 <amiller> hazek, i have a message into fellowtraveler asking for some clarification from him but i'll give you my version
2270 2011-03-01 15:21:33 <EvanR> barter income, that stupid. its probably more natural to use 'foreign income' for income in a foreign currency
2271 2011-03-01 15:21:47 <amiller> hazek, diagram here http://opentransact.nevermeta.com/OT-Anon-CashOnly.jpg
2272 2011-03-01 15:22:22 <hazek> dgc exchanger?
2273 2011-03-01 15:22:25 <hazek> what's that
2274 2011-03-01 15:23:00 <amiller> hazek, open transactions is an implementation of ricardian contracts
2275 2011-03-01 15:23:07 <hazek> act like I'm a potential user and explain to me what it can do for me
2276 2011-03-01 15:23:18 <hazek> in simple plain english please
2277 2011-03-01 15:23:19 <luke-jr> so people, I still need MtGox market prices per day
2278 2011-03-01 15:23:43 <amiller> hazek, you get a trusted server to sign a contract for you, but that contract is backed up by mtgox who trusts the contract signer
2279 2011-03-01 15:24:06 <hazek> a contract for?
2280 2011-03-01 15:24:13 <amiller> an exchange of bitcoins
2281 2011-03-01 15:24:24 <hazek> for?
2282 2011-03-01 15:24:38 <hazek> bitcoins are only half of the tx
2283 2011-03-01 15:24:44 <hazek> what's the other half
2284 2011-03-01 15:24:51 <hazek> anything?
2285 2011-03-01 15:24:54 <amiller> no bitcoins to bitcoins, the point is that it's anonymous
2286 2011-03-01 15:24:55 <hazek> dollars?
2287 2011-03-01 15:24:59 <amiller> this trust server gives you back 'cash'
2288 2011-03-01 15:25:02 <hazek> AHHHHHHHHHHH
2289 2011-03-01 15:25:03 <amiller> that has no trace to your original bitcoins
2290 2011-03-01 15:25:04 <hazek> oh man :)
2291 2011-03-01 15:25:28 <hazek> then just say it's a service where you can exchange bitcoins between people anonymously
2292 2011-03-01 15:25:48 <amiller> well, it's not a service, this guy made this library but iwthout bitcoins specifically in mind
2293 2011-03-01 15:26:00 <amiller> so i'm still working on the pitch :p also i might have a couple details wrong in the first place
2294 2011-03-01 15:26:08 <EvanR> so its an anonymous currency
2295 2011-03-01 15:26:10 <EvanR> centralized
2296 2011-03-01 15:26:11 Zarutian has joined
2297 2011-03-01 15:26:16 <hazek> you need to learn to know how to explain your service in layman terms ;)
2298 2011-03-01 15:26:46 <lfm> amiller: so it is multiple currency mints sorta each backed by reputation and whever they wanna back it with
2299 2011-03-01 15:27:07 <amiller> what's interesting is that it splits up the two tasks of the contract, this helps decnetralization
2300 2011-03-01 15:27:13 <amiller> there can be a separate 'backer' and a separate 'contract signer'
2301 2011-03-01 15:27:14 <EvanR> sounds inefficient, an exchange for each central bank
2302 2011-03-01 15:27:17 <amiller> and you could have any number of either of those
2303 2011-03-01 15:27:21 <EvanR> n^2
2304 2011-03-01 15:27:38 <hazek> only just took a peak at [16:09] <lfm> http://www.biddingpond.com/
2305 2011-03-01 15:27:39 <amiller> so i think the main example would be, mtgox is the backer, a number of people would run exchangers
2306 2011-03-01 15:27:41 <hazek> !!
2307 2011-03-01 15:27:44 <hazek> that might be it
2308 2011-03-01 15:27:53 <hazek> lfm can you explain to me how it works?
2309 2011-03-01 15:27:59 <hazek> really short really simple please
2310 2011-03-01 15:28:10 <EvanR> amiller: centralization is dangerous, multiple centralized indepdendent currencies is a hassle
2311 2011-03-01 15:28:18 <lfm> hazek not sure really, it spozed to be a bitcoin ebay
2312 2011-03-01 15:28:43 <hazek> so you wouldn't know how it acutally is suppose to work?
2313 2011-03-01 15:28:55 <EvanR> hazek: auction site
2314 2011-03-01 15:29:06 <lfm> hazek: I havnt looked close, havnt tried it
2315 2011-03-01 15:29:25 <amiller> EvanR, http://iang.org/papers/ricardian_contract.html
2316 2011-03-01 15:29:39 <amiller> EvanR, i'm still trying to understand this, so yeah your concerns are probably valid
2317 2011-03-01 15:29:39 <hazek> jesus what a downer right from the get go: To register as a new user, click on Register at the top of the window. You will be asked for your name, a username and password, and contact information, including your email address. You must be at least 18 years of age to register.!
2318 2011-03-01 15:30:15 <hazek> I can see they are still stuck in the current legal box that the governments set up
2319 2011-03-01 15:30:33 <luke-jr> ok, so I owe $30.10 in taxes
2320 2011-03-01 15:30:35 <lfm> hazek: they gotta live somewhere
2321 2011-03-01 15:30:53 <EvanR> amiller: this thing assumes that the issues 'cash' is 'pegged' to the dollar?
2322 2011-03-01 15:30:54 <BurtyB> hazek most people don't like prison/fines
2323 2011-03-01 15:31:05 <hazek> ok tell you what
2324 2011-03-01 15:31:14 <hazek> there's this chick on youtube
2325 2011-03-01 15:31:19 <EvanR> amiller: sounds like it would soon succumb to 'bad money driving out the good'
2326 2011-03-01 15:31:25 <hazek> I see her regularly recieving gifts from people
2327 2011-03-01 15:31:38 <hazek> and I doubt anyone has to pay anything aside from the post office fees
2328 2011-03-01 15:31:42 <amiller> EvanR, no i don't think so, it can be backed by anything with some trust, i.e. a receipt from mtgox
2329 2011-03-01 15:31:46 <lfm> hazek: is she hot?
2330 2011-03-01 15:31:51 <EvanR> so its not USD
2331 2011-03-01 15:31:53 <hazek> and her info is nowhere recorded as part of a business
2332 2011-03-01 15:32:01 <hazek> lfm that's beside the point
2333 2011-03-01 15:32:01 <EvanR> and its not basically full reserve banking
2334 2011-03-01 15:32:06 <lfm> hehe
2335 2011-03-01 15:32:08 <luke-jr> hazek: it isn't.
2336 2011-03-01 15:32:08 <hazek> :P
2337 2011-03-01 15:32:21 <luke-jr> hazek: if you want to say she's running a business, lfm is speculating prostitution
2338 2011-03-01 15:32:32 <luke-jr> which is illegal anyway, so tax evasion is nothing on it
2339 2011-03-01 15:32:41 <hazek> so the BTCebay needs to be setup in such a way where people recieving shit are known, but people selling shit are unknown
2340 2011-03-01 15:32:45 <lfm> if shes hot she can get away with it much easier
2341 2011-03-01 15:32:45 <EvanR> prostitution isnt universally illegal
2342 2011-03-01 15:32:51 <luke-jr> EvanR: it should be
2343 2011-03-01 15:33:03 <hazek> better yet if it's possible for both to be unknown that's how it has to be
2344 2011-03-01 15:33:03 <EvanR> why
2345 2011-03-01 15:33:11 <BurtyB> hazek err how are the 2 related? sending gifts is not the same as trading
2346 2011-03-01 15:33:22 <EvanR> luke-jr you like to punish victimless crimes
2347 2011-03-01 15:33:23 Lachesis has joined
2348 2011-03-01 15:33:33 <luke-jr> EvanR: because it harms the family
2349 2011-03-01 15:33:39 <hazek> luke-jr i think you should constrain your authorian views that you got brainwashed into in school and learn about freedom sometime soon
2350 2011-03-01 15:33:40 <amiller> hazek, i'm interested in an anonymous exchange you were planning on making.. link?
2351 2011-03-01 15:33:50 <luke-jr> hazek: I didn't go to school.
2352 2011-03-01 15:33:51 <hazek> no link yet
2353 2011-03-01 15:33:57 <EvanR> luke-jr: anything could harm the family
2354 2011-03-01 15:33:58 <hazek> it's in conceptual stage atm
2355 2011-03-01 15:33:58 helpneeded has joined
2356 2011-03-01 15:34:06 <luke-jr> EvanR: prostitution inherently harms the family
2357 2011-03-01 15:34:08 <hazek> i have my buddy coming over this week so we can talk about it
2358 2011-03-01 15:34:11 <lfm> hazek: you mean the ebay should also be escrow?
2359 2011-03-01 15:34:12 <EvanR> why?
2360 2011-03-01 15:34:17 <hazek> lfm yes!
2361 2011-03-01 15:34:25 <luke-jr> EvanR: because it is sexual abuse
2362 2011-03-01 15:34:28 <EvanR> no its not
2363 2011-03-01 15:34:31 <hazek> rofl
2364 2011-03-01 15:34:31 <luke-jr> yes it is
2365 2011-03-01 15:34:45 <lfm> hazek: sounds like a good idea, you should set one up
2366 2011-03-01 15:34:48 <EvanR> there are naked women all over the world wearing clothes, is their existence harming the family
2367 2011-03-01 15:34:52 <amiller> hazek, please keep me up to date on what you discuss
2368 2011-03-01 15:34:57 <Lachesis> EvanR, l.o.l.
2369 2011-03-01 15:35:00 <hazek> you be
2370 2011-03-01 15:35:02 Zarutian has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2371 2011-03-01 15:35:08 <hazek> I'll make a forum post as soon as there's a beta
2372 2011-03-01 15:35:10 <Lachesis> yes :)
2373 2011-03-01 15:35:16 <Lachesis> clothed women are harming the family
2374 2011-03-01 15:35:40 <EvanR> its a slippery slope from there
2375 2011-03-01 15:35:42 <lfm> evanR yes! it should be stopped right away
2376 2011-03-01 15:35:53 <amiller> our families are harming the naked women! not the other way around
2377 2011-03-01 15:36:15 Zarutian has joined
2378 2011-03-01 15:36:20 <EvanR> when they take a shower its harming the family, when someone takes a photo of them its harming the family, when someone uploads it its harming the family, when someone sells the photo its harming the family,
2379 2011-03-01 15:36:49 <amiller> hazek, this is the 'theory paper' like the bitcoin whitepaper describing anonymous tokens http://anoncvs.aldigital.co.uk/lucre/theory2.pdf
2380 2011-03-01 15:37:14 <lfm> they are harming the family they should stop wearing cloths now
2381 2011-03-01 15:37:32 <EvanR> luke-jr is on a jihad
2382 2011-03-01 15:37:45 <hazek> hold on a sec
2383 2011-03-01 15:37:53 <hazek> are you trying to creat your own currency?
2384 2011-03-01 15:37:55 <mmarker> I hate being this frustrated. GRRR
2385 2011-03-01 15:38:10 <hazek> btw I'm sorry but I don't have the time to look through it
2386 2011-03-01 15:38:19 helpneeded has quit (Client Quit)
2387 2011-03-01 15:38:28 <lfm> mmarker: your sha256 still wrong?
2388 2011-03-01 15:38:31 <hazek> if you could just give me the gist of it
2389 2011-03-01 15:38:47 <mmarker> Yea
2390 2011-03-01 15:39:14 <mmarker> lfm: I need to sit down and understand what I've done. I've made the code spaghetti now, and I'm not pleased about that as wel
2391 2011-03-01 15:40:22 <lfm> oh we missed celebrating block 111111
2392 2011-03-01 15:41:11 <lfm> mmarker: ya try to back up to a working state if you can
2393 2011-03-01 15:41:15 <EvanR> lfm: would be interesting to determine criteria for what patterns of digits are 'significant' and see just how often they occur ;)
2394 2011-03-01 15:41:46 <lfm> evanRtrue, humans see all sorts of patterns in things even when there is none
2395 2011-03-01 15:41:53 <EvanR> 121212 123456 102132
2396 2011-03-01 15:42:03 <mmarker> lfm: it's "working"
2397 2011-03-01 15:42:11 <mmarker> I'm going through to validate I'm doing the math right
2398 2011-03-01 15:42:12 <luke-jr> EvanR: jihad tends to be an Islamic term, and even then misunderstood; so while what you say is true, I would prefer if you didn't say it in such confusing terms.
2399 2011-03-01 15:42:24 <mmarker> I also need to figure out how I can get the hash out of this bogus thing
2400 2011-03-01 15:42:29 <EvanR> i carefully chose the word for that purpose
2401 2011-03-01 15:42:32 <mmarker> I think I'm trampling a pointer somewhere...
2402 2011-03-01 15:42:37 <lfm> mmarker: maybe a byteswapping issue somewhere?
2403 2011-03-01 15:42:43 <hazek> BTW real quick, cause I have to run, can you guys list what you think the advantages would be of a BTCebay so people would actually have an incentive to aquire BTCs and use it?
2404 2011-03-01 15:42:47 <EvanR> you dont like women just like 'islamists'
2405 2011-03-01 15:42:56 <luke-jr> hazek: it already exists.
2406 2011-03-01 15:43:02 <mmarker> maybe
2407 2011-03-01 15:43:08 <luke-jr> EvanR: nonsense.
2408 2011-03-01 15:43:21 <hazek> I don't understnad your answer?
2409 2011-03-01 15:43:25 <Lachesis> evanr, don't get carried away
2410 2011-03-01 15:43:28 <luke-jr> hazek: biddingpond
2411 2011-03-01 15:43:42 <luke-jr> EvanR: also slander.
2412 2011-03-01 15:43:49 <hazek> ok, but that's not what my question was
2413 2011-03-01 15:43:55 <Lachesis> he doesn't like women who sell sex, but he hasn't said he hated women or anything like that
2414 2011-03-01 15:43:57 <hazek> please read it again
2415 2011-03-01 15:44:19 slush has joined
2416 2011-03-01 15:44:21 <luke-jr> hazek: you asked "would be"; the correct question is "advantages ARE"
2417 2011-03-01 15:44:30 <hazek> omg ffs
2418 2011-03-01 15:44:54 <hazek> doesn't matter if the service already exists or not
2419 2011-03-01 15:44:57 <EvanR> Lachesis: he doesnt like womens freedom
2420 2011-03-01 15:44:58 <amiller> what advantages could be built into a new BTCebay that would make it even better and draw even more people to it?
2421 2011-03-01 15:45:11 <EvanR> or mens freedom to choose to buy sex
2422 2011-03-01 15:45:11 <hazek> that's my question
2423 2011-03-01 15:45:14 <hazek> amiller
2424 2011-03-01 15:45:27 <EvanR> he probably wants to tell women what to wear
2425 2011-03-01 15:45:32 <Lachesis> EvanR, I wouldn't say that - he seems to have some rather strong taboos about sex that I don't, but he seems to have no problem with women driving or voting or working
2426 2011-03-01 15:45:43 <EvanR> that remains to be seen
2427 2011-03-01 15:45:46 <luke-jr> EvanR: it's not freedom, it's slavery
2428 2011-03-01 15:45:56 <lfm> evanR he prolly want to tell everyone what to beleive
2429 2011-03-01 15:45:58 <EvanR> sometimes its slavery, sometimes its not
2430 2011-03-01 15:46:11 <Lachesis> well luke-jr, do you hate women? should we cover them from head to toe in muted colors? :)
2431 2011-03-01 15:46:13 <luke-jr> Lachesis: actually, women should not vote, nor be expected to work outside the home.
2432 2011-03-01 15:46:16 <echelon> anyone wanna lend me BTC500 for half an hour?
2433 2011-03-01 15:46:17 <EvanR> people with wage jobs are all slaves in a way
2434 2011-03-01 15:46:20 <luke-jr> Lachesis: no, I love women.
2435 2011-03-01 15:46:24 <EvanR> in which case freedom is slavery
2436 2011-03-01 15:46:25 <Lachesis> ah, i give up
2437 2011-03-01 15:46:26 <Lachesis> nm
2438 2011-03-01 15:46:36 <EvanR> Lachesis: lol see.
2439 2011-03-01 15:46:38 <Lachesis> luke-jr, women have the right to do all of these things
2440 2011-03-01 15:46:42 <lfm> luke-jrexpected or allowed?
2441 2011-03-01 15:46:48 TD_ has joined
2442 2011-03-01 15:46:49 <luke-jr> Lachesis: nobody has a right to vote.
2443 2011-03-01 15:46:51 <Lachesis> EvanR, just wanted to see his ideas before i jumped
2444 2011-03-01 15:46:54 <Lachesis> oh nevermind
2445 2011-03-01 15:46:57 Lachesis has left ("Leaving")
2446 2011-03-01 15:46:59 <hazek> people pelase ignore luke-jr, he is just a bully who thinks he is superiour to some other human beings and thinks he knows what's best to them and would if he could impose his will with force
2447 2011-03-01 15:47:00 <EvanR> rofl
2448 2011-03-01 15:47:01 <luke-jr> lfm: expected.
2449 2011-03-01 15:47:05 <hazek> just a stinking bully
2450 2011-03-01 15:47:13 Lachesis has joined
2451 2011-03-01 15:47:16 <Lachesis> !ragequit!
2452 2011-03-01 15:47:27 <lfm> luke-jr I dont think any religious people should be allowed to vote, they're to gullible
2453 2011-03-01 15:47:50 <luke-jr> lfm: if anything, only Catholics should be allowed to vote. ;)
2454 2011-03-01 15:47:52 <mmarker> hmm
2455 2011-03-01 15:47:57 <x6763> luke-jr: you can't prove that someone "should" or "ought" to behave in one way or another..."harm" is a subjective term...you are merely stating your opinions/preferences/beliefs (not that i don't share the same beliefs about prostitution)...
2456 2011-03-01 15:47:59 <x6763> but why "should" prostitution be illegal when you can't prove it should be illegal? why force your opinions/beliefs onto others when they aren't necessarily harming you?
2457 2011-03-01 15:48:07 <luke-jr> x6763: no, it's objective.
2458 2011-03-01 15:48:08 <lfm> naw, only athiests
2459 2011-03-01 15:48:11 <mmarker> when we get the data from a getwork, is the data byteswapped when fed into sha-2
2460 2011-03-01 15:48:15 <x6763> luke-jr: how so?
2461 2011-03-01 15:48:16 <hazek> 16:39] <luke-jr> lfm: if anything, only Catholics should be allowed to vote. ;) => spoken like a true authorian religious nut
2462 2011-03-01 15:48:18 <hazek> bravo sir
2463 2011-03-01 15:48:22 <luke-jr> x6763: it's a matter of morality.
2464 2011-03-01 15:48:22 <hazek> have zero respect for you
2465 2011-03-01 15:48:27 * mmarker should read the C source in jgarzik's miner again...
2466 2011-03-01 15:48:28 <hazek> lol!
2467 2011-03-01 15:48:31 <x6763> luke-jr: morality is subjective
2468 2011-03-01 15:48:32 <Lachesis> moraliity is not objective
2469 2011-03-01 15:48:33 <hazek> trying to claim higher ground
2470 2011-03-01 15:48:34 TD has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2471 2011-03-01 15:48:35 TD_ is now known as TD
2472 2011-03-01 15:48:35 <hazek> hahahaha
2473 2011-03-01 15:48:36 <luke-jr> x6763: no, morality is objective.
2474 2011-03-01 15:48:42 <x6763> luke-jr: proof?
2475 2011-03-01 15:48:51 <luke-jr> x6763: subjective morality is no morality at all.
2476 2011-03-01 15:48:55 <lfm> atheism is objective
2477 2011-03-01 15:48:59 <x6763> lfm: proof?
2478 2011-03-01 15:49:05 <hazek> objective morality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCC3zGYKYPM
2479 2011-03-01 15:49:24 <lfm> if I cant prove it it doesnt exist
2480 2011-03-01 15:49:32 <luke-jr> x6763: if everyone makes up what they consider right and wrong, I could just say murder is right, and 'morally' kill you
2481 2011-03-01 15:49:45 <x6763> luke-jr: and i can just as well defend myself
2482 2011-03-01 15:49:52 <luke-jr> morality is objective, defined by God
2483 2011-03-01 15:49:53 <hazek> murder is right and moral
2484 2011-03-01 15:50:00 <hazek> but only under certain circumstances
2485 2011-03-01 15:50:00 <EvanR> the objective / subjectiveness of morality is subjective
2486 2011-03-01 15:50:04 <hazek> for instance self defense
2487 2011-03-01 15:50:09 <luke-jr> hazek: that's not murder.
2488 2011-03-01 15:50:13 <lfm> luke-jr morality is defined by altruism
2489 2011-03-01 15:50:20 <x6763> luke-jr: i don't disagree with you that it's defined by God, but it's not possible to prove such a thing
2490 2011-03-01 15:50:31 <luke-jr> x6763: it is. it's called theology.
2491 2011-03-01 15:50:34 <Lachesis> lfm, btw even if you can't prove things, they might exist
2492 2011-03-01 15:50:40 <hazek> omg
2493 2011-03-01 15:50:46 <hazek> religion and politics
2494 2011-03-01 15:50:47 <EvanR> the minute you try to define objective morality you are lead to unlimitted counterexamples and traps
2495 2011-03-01 15:50:49 <Lachesis> things exist or don't, irrespective of whether we can prove or understand them
2496 2011-03-01 15:50:52 <hazek> how about you people stick to web sites and code
2497 2011-03-01 15:50:54 <hazek> which you know best
2498 2011-03-01 15:50:57 <lfm> Lachesis: doesnt matter, untill its proven it isnt real
2499 2011-03-01 15:50:59 <hazek> im out
2500 2011-03-01 15:50:59 <hazek> bbl
2501 2011-03-01 15:51:00 <EvanR> hazek: this is what bitcon is all about dude.
2502 2011-03-01 15:51:02 <EvanR> lol
2503 2011-03-01 15:51:04 <luke-jr> lfm: lol fail
2504 2011-03-01 15:51:09 <amiller> bitcoins were given to us by god
2505 2011-03-01 15:51:11 <luke-jr> lfm: your existence is not proven.
2506 2011-03-01 15:51:14 <gwillen> I would suggest #defocus for all your politcs and religion needs :-P
2507 2011-03-01 15:51:29 <EvanR> bitcoins could spill out into freenode at large that way
2508 2011-03-01 15:51:34 <mmarker> Maybe I should bitch more about SHA256 being poopyheads :D
2509 2011-03-01 15:51:37 <amiller> cryptography is god's way of saying he wants us to be anonymous
2510 2011-03-01 15:51:47 <Lachesis> lfm, like i say, things are real or not whether or not we can prove them; infectious agents existed and had effects long before they were discovered
2511 2011-03-01 15:52:02 <mmarker> or the devil's way of saying "Here's some nasty math. There may be a weakness. Find it"
2512 2011-03-01 15:52:06 <Lachesis> lol
2513 2011-03-01 15:52:16 <lfm> mmarker: now now, dont get political! grin
2514 2011-03-01 15:52:16 <Lachesis> "but until you do, trust in it fully!"
2515 2011-03-01 15:52:23 <amiller> lol
2516 2011-03-01 15:52:23 <luke-jr> x6763: for the most part, objective morality can be known simply by the Church's infallible teaching.
2517 2011-03-01 15:52:36 <Lachesis> is this guy trolling?
2518 2011-03-01 15:52:38 <EvanR> no
2519 2011-03-01 15:52:40 <EvanR> hes serious
2520 2011-03-01 15:52:42 <gwillen> Just remember, kiddies: Arguing with an idiot is like rolling in the mud with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.
2521 2011-03-01 15:52:42 <Lachesis> damn
2522 2011-03-01 15:52:43 <amiller> luke-jr, i hope it doesn't ruin the fun to ask, but which church are you associating with
2523 2011-03-01 15:52:55 <luke-jr> amiller: the Catholic Church of course
2524 2011-03-01 15:52:55 <EvanR> alternatively, hes in a permanent state of troll, which might be the same thing
2525 2011-03-01 15:53:01 <Lachesis> lol
2526 2011-03-01 15:53:08 <lfm> I'm not serious
2527 2011-03-01 15:53:22 <lfm> bitcoin is not serious
2528 2011-03-01 15:53:27 <EvanR> this sentence is a lie
2529 2011-03-01 15:53:28 <Lachesis> GOD IS SERIOUS!
2530 2011-03-01 15:53:41 <lfm> god is seriously f---ed up
2531 2011-03-01 15:53:54 <flok> ?!
2532 2011-03-01 15:53:57 <flok> wtf?
2533 2011-03-01 15:53:59 <Lachesis> it's great fun to get two extremely religious people who disagree about everything in a room together
2534 2011-03-01 15:54:02 <EvanR> amiller: fun fact. luke-jr is a catholic that doesnt accept the pope
2535 2011-03-01 15:54:11 <Lachesis> they'll both argue for like 10 minutes, then somehow come to an agreement
2536 2011-03-01 15:54:15 <x6763> luke-jr: again, humans cannot prove this to anyone...you are not capable of providing proof or God or any morality defined by him...you can only share your beliefs of God and God's morality
2537 2011-03-01 15:54:19 <Lachesis> ah, the pope is a nazi :)
2538 2011-03-01 15:54:34 <EvanR> i was going to say luke-jr is a nazi, so that wouldnt make sense
2539 2011-03-01 15:54:37 <lfm> Lachesis: how you're talkin
2540 2011-03-01 15:54:37 <Lachesis> so, btw, ethics are objective but morals are not
2541 2011-03-01 15:54:44 <flok> Lachesis: he is. he was part of the hitler jugend in his youth
2542 2011-03-01 15:55:00 <Lachesis> so were tons of people in germany at the time, though
2543 2011-03-01 15:55:09 <luke-jr> EvanR: more slander
2544 2011-03-01 15:55:10 <EvanR> great... now were making a distinction between ethics and morals. why
2545 2011-03-01 15:55:10 <Lachesis> he's not a nazi anymore obviously
2546 2011-03-01 15:55:15 <lfm> flok: you a freind of luke's?
2547 2011-03-01 15:55:16 <Lachesis> they are distinct
2548 2011-03-01 15:55:21 <Lachesis> ethics is the codified study of morals
2549 2011-03-01 15:55:27 <EvanR> words are words
2550 2011-03-01 15:55:29 <luke-jr> x6763: the Church's legitimacy is indeed provable, albeit not simply.
2551 2011-03-01 15:55:38 <luke-jr> x6763: God's existence is simply provable.
2552 2011-03-01 15:55:46 <Lachesis> luke-jr, go
2553 2011-03-01 15:55:46 <lfm> words are evrything (here)
2554 2011-03-01 15:55:47 <Lachesis> prove it
2555 2011-03-01 15:55:47 <gwillen> luke-jr: so what do you think about vaccines?
2556 2011-03-01 15:55:50 <EvanR> ill keep things simple
2557 2011-03-01 15:56:11 <lfm> wont help
2558 2011-03-01 15:56:12 <luke-jr> gwillen: I have seen circumstantial evidence that they may be harmful, and no evidence they do any good.
2559 2011-03-01 15:56:22 <EvanR> Lachesis: distinction is useless for the sake of this argument, since its not about the study of anything
2560 2011-03-01 15:56:22 <Lachesis> each ethical code is objective(ish) - this doesn't mean you can't argue about it, but instead that it describes "right" and "wrong" in only one way for each situation
2561 2011-03-01 15:56:27 <luke-jr> Lachesis: why?
2562 2011-03-01 15:56:49 <Lachesis> luke-jr, because you're claiming it's simple
2563 2011-03-01 15:56:52 <Lachesis> i'd like to hear it
2564 2011-03-01 15:56:52 * mmarker summons XMM hackers to analyze his crappy port of code
2565 2011-03-01 15:57:00 <amiller> i'm pretty this discussion is inappropriate for #bitcoin-dev
2566 2011-03-01 15:57:02 <luke-jr> Lachesis: you could just as well use Google
2567 2011-03-01 15:57:07 <Lachesis> mmarker, lol, trying to get work done during a religious political debate
2568 2011-03-01 15:57:12 <EvanR> lol vaccines, this is like lighter fuel for the fire
2569 2011-03-01 15:57:21 <lfm> Lachesis: its simple, only needs one book to describe it completely and forever
2570 2011-03-01 15:57:31 gribble has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2571 2011-03-01 15:57:36 <Lachesis> what?
2572 2011-03-01 15:57:39 <Lachesis> gribble left?
2573 2011-03-01 15:57:44 <amiller> even gribble is sick of it :p
2574 2011-03-01 15:57:47 <Lachesis> lol
2575 2011-03-01 15:58:05 <EvanR> amiller: theres no bitcoin offtopic channel, this is what they get
2576 2011-03-01 15:58:13 <Lachesis> lol
2577 2011-03-01 15:58:26 <amiller> may i recommend /join #bitcoin-vaccines
2578 2011-03-01 15:58:27 <lfm> see, the bible is not subject to Godel's law
2579 2011-03-01 15:58:38 <EvanR> often though the debate is peripherially related to bitcoins, right now it isnt
2580 2011-03-01 15:58:39 <Lachesis> wow there are still 9 clients so old that they're in the #bitcoin channel here
2581 2011-03-01 15:58:58 <lfm> see, the bible is not subject to Godel's law, it is complete and unambiguous
2582 2011-03-01 15:59:05 gribble has joined
2583 2011-03-01 15:59:12 <mmarker> Yea. I'm trying to get you linux CPU miners 2x-4x improvement
2584 2011-03-01 15:59:16 <mmarker> instead, I get this
2585 2011-03-01 15:59:19 <gwillen> EvanR: maybe there should be one :-P
2586 2011-03-01 15:59:23 <Lachesis> mmarker, lol
2587 2011-03-01 15:59:24 <mmarker> and I found my first bug!
2588 2011-03-01 15:59:25 <luke-jr> Lachesis: Wikipedia has an article on my favourite proof, including criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
2589 2011-03-01 15:59:36 <mmarker> movdqa xmm2, xmm9
2590 2011-03-01 15:59:46 <luke-jr> Lachesis: it's simple, but some people have trouble understanding it
2591 2011-03-01 15:59:48 <mmarker> movdqa xmm2, [rdi+6*16]
2592 2011-03-01 15:59:48 <Lachesis> "The argument examines the concept of God, and states that if we can conceive of the greatest possible being, then it must exist."
2593 2011-03-01 15:59:53 <mmarker> WAS I SMOKING DOPE
2594 2011-03-01 16:00:01 <Lachesis> kik
2595 2011-03-01 16:00:01 <TD> is anyone around who can knock out a block on the testnet for me?
2596 2011-03-01 16:00:02 <Lachesis> lol*
2597 2011-03-01 16:00:09 <lfm> mmarker: wtg, you are a god if you can concentrate on debuggin while this is running! grin
2598 2011-03-01 16:00:11 <mmarker> xmm9 isn't important...NO SIRERR
2599 2011-03-01 16:00:18 <Lachesis> td, sure
2600 2011-03-01 16:00:23 <mmarker> lfm: I'm also doing chemistry
2601 2011-03-01 16:00:28 <EvanR> Lachesis: seems to be the proof of god from the middle ages
2602 2011-03-01 16:00:29 <TD> thanks!
2603 2011-03-01 16:00:33 <EvanR> or enlightenment era
2604 2011-03-01 16:00:33 <TD> i'm waiting for a block at the moment
2605 2011-03-01 16:00:38 <TD> i need to get myself a gfx card set up :-)
2606 2011-03-01 16:00:47 <Lachesis> oh hell my chain is waaay out of date
2607 2011-03-01 16:00:49 <TD> oh
2608 2011-03-01 16:00:50 <EvanR> seems like if it worked, wed all be christian at this point
2609 2011-03-01 16:00:50 <Lachesis> hold on
2610 2011-03-01 16:00:52 <TD> well no matter
2611 2011-03-01 16:00:59 <Lachesis> get one?>
2612 2011-03-01 16:01:03 <TD> if you did a block now you wouldn't get my transaction i guess
2613 2011-03-01 16:01:16 <lfm> evanR we are all christian, we just dont know it yet
2614 2011-03-01 16:01:21 <TD> hmm no i didn't see any new bock
2615 2011-03-01 16:01:29 <Lachesis> alright
2616 2011-03-01 16:01:34 <TD> don't worry about it
2617 2011-03-01 16:01:35 <Lachesis> what's the height?
2618 2011-03-01 16:01:40 <TD> i'm at 9013
2619 2011-03-01 16:01:49 chmod755 has joined
2620 2011-03-01 16:01:51 <Lachesis> kk give me a sec to catch up and i'll throw my miners at it
2621 2011-03-01 16:01:52 chmod755 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2622 2011-03-01 16:01:55 <[Noodles]> 9018
2623 2011-03-01 16:01:56 <TD> don't throw too much
2624 2011-03-01 16:02:02 <TD> hmm, really?
2625 2011-03-01 16:02:03 <TD> i'm behind?
2626 2011-03-01 16:02:06 <TD> that's odd
2627 2011-03-01 16:02:14 <lfm> ya i have 9018 too
2628 2011-03-01 16:02:15 <TD> i see sends/receives happening in the debug log
2629 2011-03-01 16:02:17 <Lachesis> bitcoin has been REALLY slow to download blocks for me
2630 2011-03-01 16:02:39 <Lachesis> 9019 here
2631 2011-03-01 16:02:39 <mmarker> Oh man
2632 2011-03-01 16:02:42 <[Noodles]> 9019
2633 2011-03-01 16:02:50 <TD> ok, i restarted and now i'm caught pu
2634 2011-03-01 16:02:51 <lfm> there is a backlog of txn going on
2635 2011-03-01 16:02:58 <[Noodles]> doing a block ~5minutes at 70M
2636 2011-03-01 16:03:02 <Lachesis> lfm, is there a consensus why?
2637 2011-03-01 16:03:04 <lfm> 348 txn queued up
2638 2011-03-01 16:03:09 <Lachesis> and how do we know the count?
2639 2011-03-01 16:03:15 <Lachesis> mmarker, is it working?
2640 2011-03-01 16:03:26 <lfm> Lachesis: you need to patch the client to see the number
2641 2011-03-01 16:03:34 <Lachesis> is the patch available?
2642 2011-03-01 16:04:12 <Lachesis> td still need me to make you a block?
2643 2011-03-01 16:04:15 <TD> queuing up on the testnet?
2644 2011-03-01 16:04:21 <lfm> Lachesis: find AcceptToMemoryPool in main.cpp and at the end display a size() result,
2645 2011-03-01 16:04:25 <Lachesis> ok
2646 2011-03-01 16:04:26 <Lachesis> ty
2647 2011-03-01 16:04:44 <slush> Looks like bitcoin does not scale well
2648 2011-03-01 16:04:46 <TD> i'll wait a few mins and see if the transaction confirms by itself. i sent another one just in case.
2649 2011-03-01 16:04:53 <mmarker> Dunno. Still walking through my code isn by isn
2650 2011-03-01 16:04:53 <slush> I'll make minimal payouts on the pool higher
2651 2011-03-01 16:04:58 <slush> but... this is workaround, not a solution
2652 2011-03-01 16:05:13 <TD> why are the transactions backing up? surely we didn't hit the block size limit already
2653 2011-03-01 16:05:16 <Lachesis> slush, is the pool crushing it?
2654 2011-03-01 16:05:29 <slush> pool is sending many tiny txes every hour
2655 2011-03-01 16:05:36 altamic has quit (Quit: altamic)
2656 2011-03-01 16:05:43 <lfm> Lachesis: I used: printf("AcceptToMemoryPool(): size %lu\n", mapTransactions.size());
2657 2011-03-01 16:05:53 <mmarker> slush: should I be kind and up my min payout..sadly, I don't gpu mine, so earning .2 bitcoins is....slow :\
2658 2011-03-01 16:06:08 <Lachesis> i bumped mine up to 5
2659 2011-03-01 16:06:16 <Lachesis> a few days ago, and not for this reason
2660 2011-03-01 16:06:17 <mmarker> well, I gpu mine when it's cost effective to...which means @home
2661 2011-03-01 16:06:20 <slush> mmarker: unfortunately this is exactly why the rising threshold is not a good idea
2662 2011-03-01 16:06:47 <mmarker> rising threshhold, the difficulty?
2663 2011-03-01 16:06:55 <slush> no, sending threshold
2664 2011-03-01 16:07:05 <slush> currently the minimum is set to 0.01
2665 2011-03-01 16:07:20 <slush> but it was just because to avoid transaction fees
2666 2011-03-01 16:07:24 <lfm> i thot it was cuz of the block size threshold
2667 2011-03-01 16:07:32 <slush> I didn't realized that I can spam the network with such few tx per hour
2668 2011-03-01 16:07:42 <Lachesis> slush, does the pool bitcoind accept 0-fee transactions?
2669 2011-03-01 16:07:43 <TD> how many transactions are you actually sending?
2670 2011-03-01 16:07:47 <mmarker> Ahh, yea
2671 2011-03-01 16:07:54 <slush> Lachesis: yes, it is stock bitcoind
2672 2011-03-01 16:07:54 <TD> it'd be good to know if they are queuing up because the blocks are full or for some other reason
2673 2011-03-01 16:08:13 <luke-jr> my miner doesn't. :p
2674 2011-03-01 16:08:27 <gavinandresen> We need to rethink the transaction priorities... I think.
2675 2011-03-01 16:08:28 <luke-jr> my miner always requires a fee, but on the other hand, my fees are much less ;)
2676 2011-03-01 16:08:31 <slush> last three hours: 0, 60 and 8
2677 2011-03-01 16:08:41 <TD> 1 transaction per minute?
2678 2011-03-01 16:08:51 <gavinandresen> Lots of small, free transactions == backlog
2679 2011-03-01 16:08:56 <Lachesis> luke-jr, how does that work?
2680 2011-03-01 16:09:00 <mmarker> gavinandresen: Stupid OT question...you did the presentation in Amherst, correct?
2681 2011-03-01 16:09:06 <slush> TD: pool sends it once every hour
2682 2011-03-01 16:09:06 <gavinandresen> mmarker: yes
2683 2011-03-01 16:09:07 <TD> does that really count as lots though. it shouldn't, surely?
2684 2011-03-01 16:09:10 <Lachesis> you can't tell people what fee to send you, can you?
2685 2011-03-01 16:09:15 <Lachesis> is there a fee negotiation system?
2686 2011-03-01 16:09:19 <lfm> gavinandresen: backlog for days now tho?
2687 2011-03-01 16:09:20 <mmarker> Gotcha
2688 2011-03-01 16:09:27 <Lachesis> also, TD, did your testnet trans get in?
2689 2011-03-01 16:09:32 <luke-jr> Lachesis: ?
2690 2011-03-01 16:09:43 <slush> TD: the cleanest solution is to support transaction with multiple outputs directly in JSON interface
2691 2011-03-01 16:09:43 <luke-jr> Lachesis: I advertise my lower fee schedule on OTC
2692 2011-03-01 16:09:45 <TD> Lachesis: yeah it's going ok now thanks
2693 2011-03-01 16:09:48 <TD> testnet is fast enough for my testing
2694 2011-03-01 16:09:52 <Lachesis> cool
2695 2011-03-01 16:10:00 <luke-jr> Lachesis: also, I accept non-standard transactions
2696 2011-03-01 16:10:09 <TD> i think it's worth looking at the transactions that are backing up in more detail
2697 2011-03-01 16:10:14 <Lachesis> luke-jr, yeah, i know, but how do you advertise directly to bitcoind?
2698 2011-03-01 16:10:17 <lfm> gavinandresen: seemslike its only putting 10-20 txn in block instead of should be able to do 100s
2699 2011-03-01 16:10:28 <Lachesis> basically, if i send a txn without purposefully connecting to you, it won't be included by your miner
2700 2011-03-01 16:10:34 <Lachesis> b/c i won't attach a fee
2701 2011-03-01 16:10:50 <Lachesis> what's the git repo again?
2702 2011-03-01 16:10:56 <gavinandresen> lfm: see http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4009.new#new
2703 2011-03-01 16:11:01 <luke-jr> Lachesis: you have to purposely connect probably
2704 2011-03-01 16:11:08 <Lachesis> github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin?
2705 2011-03-01 16:11:13 <gavinandresen> Lachesis: yes
2706 2011-03-01 16:11:14 <luke-jr> Lachesis: because other peers will refuse to relay the tx if it doesn't meet THEIR fees
2707 2011-03-01 16:11:30 <slush> gavinandresen: when the transaction is without fee and it fall to backlog, will the tx expire after some time? Or it can remain in the backlog forever?
2708 2011-03-01 16:11:37 <mmarker> Oh, gavinandresen, your fork of the bitcoin tree...how robust are your monitor patches?
2709 2011-03-01 16:11:39 <Lachesis> gavinandresen, ty
2710 2011-03-01 16:11:48 <gavinandresen> slush: forever
2711 2011-03-01 16:11:57 <TD> ah ha
2712 2011-03-01 16:12:03 <TD> ArtForzz analysis makes sense
2713 2011-03-01 16:12:08 <gavinandresen> mmarker: if they compile, then they should be robust.....
2714 2011-03-01 16:12:30 <slush> gavinandresen: thanks. I understand the reason, but it does not looks robust for me. I think we definitely should start to talk about bitcoin scalability
2715 2011-03-01 16:12:41 <Lachesis> what are the monitor patches?
2716 2011-03-01 16:13:04 <slush> it's not criticism
2717 2011-03-01 16:13:07 <gavinandresen> slush: absolutely. Growing pains are going to happen (and that's a good thing!)
2718 2011-03-01 16:13:19 <slush> exactly
2719 2011-03-01 16:13:49 <TD> gavinandresen: do you have any idea why the code that allows for transaction replacement was disabled?
2720 2011-03-01 16:13:55 <TD> the comment in the code isn't really informative.
2721 2011-03-01 16:13:57 <gavinandresen> TD: nope
2722 2011-03-01 16:14:17 <necrodearia> http://www.anonnews.org/?p=press&a=item&i=619 -- accepts Bitcoins
2723 2011-03-01 16:14:19 <TD> hrmm. that could also be a fix for this, replacing the existing transactions with a fee, if only the replacement code wasn't switched off
2724 2011-03-01 16:14:25 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: someone here thought mainline might want a policy change of mine: I don't require fees for transactions sent to me, or from me.
2725 2011-03-01 16:14:40 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: let me know if I should make a patch for it
2726 2011-03-01 16:14:48 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: prioritizing your own transactions seems like an obvious thing to do
2727 2011-03-01 16:15:18 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: ... although I've got a feeling the whole transaction prioritizing code might get an overhaul very soon
2728 2011-03-01 16:15:25 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I think they're already prioritized, just require a fee still.
2729 2011-03-01 16:15:47 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: btw, does the GUI allow people to submit fee-required tx with less fee?
2730 2011-03-01 16:15:56 <luke-jr> or is it "add the fee" or "don't send"?
2731 2011-03-01 16:16:19 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: I'm pretty sure it is add the fee or don't send, but I don't use the GUI very much
2732 2011-03-01 16:16:24 <luke-jr> :/
2733 2011-03-01 16:16:48 <luke-jr> IMO, it should display a prompt showing the standard fee in an editable text area.
2734 2011-03-01 16:17:03 <luke-jr> and if the user tries to send with less, a big warning box pops up about the possible consequences
2735 2011-03-01 16:17:42 <Lachesis> hrm compiling bitcoin from the latest git just failed
2736 2011-03-01 16:17:48 <Lachesis> whole bunch of wx errors
2737 2011-03-01 16:18:23 <Lachesis> but compiling from gavin's feb 23rd commit works fine
2738 2011-03-01 16:18:40 AmpEater has joined
2739 2011-03-01 16:19:44 * mmarker 's head explodes
2740 2011-03-01 16:19:56 <mmarker> Someone was clever and unrolled some Rotr32's
2741 2011-03-01 16:19:57 <Lachesis> mmarker, put down the chemistry and concentrate on bitcoin :)
2742 2011-03-01 16:19:58 <Lachesis> lol
2743 2011-03-01 16:20:08 <mmarker> I am!
2744 2011-03-01 16:20:13 <mmarker> which is not a good thing!
2745 2011-03-01 16:20:35 <Lachesis> yeah, just verify gavin, building HEAD^^ works fine, but building HEAD gives me a ton of wx errors on Ubuntu x64
2746 2011-03-01 16:21:26 <gavinandresen> Lachesis: there were changes to makefile.unix to use wx-config, I believe....
2747 2011-03-01 16:21:35 <Lachesis> hrm
2748 2011-03-01 16:22:19 BlueMatt has joined
2749 2011-03-01 16:22:19 BlueMatt has quit (Changing host)
2750 2011-03-01 16:22:19 BlueMatt has joined
2751 2011-03-01 16:22:43 <mmarker> Ok, let's try again
2752 2011-03-01 16:22:47 <mmarker> COME ON BIG MONEY
2753 2011-03-01 16:22:51 <tcatm> Lachesis: can you paste bin the errors?
2754 2011-03-01 16:22:59 <Lachesis> yeah hold on
2755 2011-03-01 16:23:03 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
2756 2011-03-01 16:23:07 <Lachesis> so i broke my git ...
2757 2011-03-01 16:23:13 <Lachesis> i did git checkout HEAD^^
2758 2011-03-01 16:23:19 <Lachesis> which i imagine was not the correct option :)
2759 2011-03-01 16:23:25 <Lachesis> how do i get back to what's actually the head now?
2760 2011-03-01 16:23:52 <mmarker> 3500 khash/sec on the miner
2761 2011-03-01 16:23:56 <mmarker> Waiting for a PoW
2762 2011-03-01 16:24:50 <tcatm> git reset --hard master
2763 2011-03-01 16:24:57 <Lachesis> ty
2764 2011-03-01 16:25:57 <mmarker> ;;bc,calcd 4500 1
2765 2011-03-01 16:26:09 <Lachesis> http://pastebin.com/GxKrZdCM
2766 2011-03-01 16:26:20 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 4500 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 1, is 15 minutes and 54 seconds
2767 2011-03-01 16:26:48 <mmarker> ;;bc,calcd 9000 1
2768 2011-03-01 16:26:48 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 9000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 1, is 7 minutes and 57 seconds
2769 2011-03-01 16:26:53 <mmarker> so we wait
2770 2011-03-01 16:27:52 <mmarker> Or...I kick in the jams on the PC at home.
2771 2011-03-01 16:27:59 <mmarker> this VPN is slow anyways
2772 2011-03-01 16:28:03 <mmarker> err, VPS
2773 2011-03-01 16:28:40 AmpEater has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPad - http://colloquy.mobi)
2774 2011-03-01 16:29:02 jrabbit has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2775 2011-03-01 16:29:34 prax has joined
2776 2011-03-01 16:29:59 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
2777 2011-03-01 16:30:11 <Lachesis> tcatm, see the pastebin?
2778 2011-03-01 16:30:37 <Lachesis> btw, reverting the makefile two commits fixes the bug
2779 2011-03-01 16:32:22 RichardG has joined
2780 2011-03-01 16:32:45 <Lachesis> tcatm, and here's what my wx-config puts out
2781 2011-03-01 16:32:46 <Lachesis> http://pastebin.com/TSmtMPXw
2782 2011-03-01 16:34:22 <mmarker> Do be do be do....
2783 2011-03-01 16:34:31 <Lachesis> mmarker, meaning success?
2784 2011-03-01 16:34:42 <mmarker> Dunno
2785 2011-03-01 16:34:48 <mmarker> Recompiling on my i5 at home
2786 2011-03-01 16:34:50 <mmarker> faster
2787 2011-03-01 16:34:52 <Lachesis> lol yeah
2788 2011-03-01 16:35:03 <Lachesis> what was the vps getting before your optimizations?
2789 2011-03-01 16:36:02 <tcatm> Lachesis: that's strange, are you sure you have a clean wx-2.9 installed?
2790 2011-03-01 16:36:20 <Lachesis> tcatm, i built and installed it a long time ago
2791 2011-03-01 16:36:27 prax has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2792 2011-03-01 16:36:30 <Lachesis> it's worked so far
2793 2011-03-01 16:36:32 <Lachesis> but idk
2794 2011-03-01 16:36:37 echelon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2795 2011-03-01 16:36:40 <mmarker> ;;bc,calcd 26000 1
2796 2011-03-01 16:36:45 <Lachesis> !!
2797 2011-03-01 16:36:46 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 26000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 1, is 2 minutes and 45 seconds
2798 2011-03-01 16:36:47 <Lachesis> on a cpu miner?
2799 2011-03-01 16:36:54 <mmarker> Yes
2800 2011-03-01 16:36:57 <Lachesis> wow
2801 2011-03-01 16:37:09 <Lachesis> all the cores?
2802 2011-03-01 16:37:09 <mmarker> Why do you THINK I want to get this working RIGHT NOW! :D
2803 2011-03-01 16:37:11 <Lachesis> lol
2804 2011-03-01 16:37:16 <mmarker> all 4 cores on my i5 760
2805 2011-03-01 16:37:36 <Lachesis> with the current difficulty, that's ฿0.47 / day :)
2806 2011-03-01 16:37:40 <mmarker> hmm, got a proof of work
2807 2011-03-01 16:37:48 <mmarker> But no pass...oh dear
2808 2011-03-01 16:38:04 <mmarker> hang on, logic may be messed up
2809 2011-03-01 16:38:06 echelon has joined
2810 2011-03-01 16:38:07 prax has joined
2811 2011-03-01 16:38:10 <tcatm> Lachesis: can you try re-installing wx?
2812 2011-03-01 16:38:15 <Lachesis> tcatm, yeah worth a try
2813 2011-03-01 16:38:24 <Lachesis> instructions from build-unix.txt still good?
2814 2011-03-01 16:38:36 <tcatm> yep
2815 2011-03-01 16:38:52 <mmarker> Damn, true is !zero?
2816 2011-03-01 16:38:53 <Lachesis> is there some reason to build with --enable-debug now days?
2817 2011-03-01 16:38:58 <Lachesis> lol yes
2818 2011-03-01 16:39:11 <mmarker> ARGH, maybe my test is wrong
2819 2011-03-01 16:39:11 <Lachesis> if you mean (true == !0), then definitely
2820 2011-03-01 16:39:22 <mmarker> Hang on, for a pool
2821 2011-03-01 16:39:23 <davex__> ;;bc,estimate
2822 2011-03-01 16:39:27 <gribble> 59678.76610112
2823 2011-03-01 16:39:27 <mmarker> all you need is H==0?
2824 2011-03-01 16:39:38 <tcatm> Lachesis: no idea, but it's needed
2825 2011-03-01 16:39:46 <Lachesis> tcatm, alright
2826 2011-03-01 16:39:52 <Lachesis> mmarker, what are H and G?
2827 2011-03-01 16:39:52 * mmarker summons slush or jgarzik
2828 2011-03-01 16:40:04 <Lachesis> i've seen them in m0mchil's opencl kernel
2829 2011-03-01 16:40:06 <mmarker> H is the high bits of the sha256 hash
2830 2011-03-01 16:40:08 <Lachesis> ah alright
2831 2011-03-01 16:40:10 <Lachesis> and G is low?
2832 2011-03-01 16:40:13 <mmarker> No
2833 2011-03-01 16:40:16 <mmarker> Read this:
2834 2011-03-01 16:40:30 <mmarker> http://en/wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2
2835 2011-03-01 16:40:37 <mmarker> Nice into on SHA-2
2836 2011-03-01 16:40:38 <lfm> mmarker: or low bits depending on your endian bias
2837 2011-03-01 16:40:39 <sipa> mmarker: actually, you need H==0 && G<0xFFFF0000
2838 2011-03-01 16:40:40 <mmarker> really easy read
2839 2011-03-01 16:40:47 <mmarker> sipa: hmm
2840 2011-03-01 16:40:55 jrabbit has joined
2841 2011-03-01 16:40:55 <sipa> but in a miner you just implement H==0
2842 2011-03-01 16:41:04 <mmarker> Well, lemme do this. If I find H==0, let's just throw it at the pool and see if it sticks!
2843 2011-03-01 16:41:34 <sipa> yes
2844 2011-03-01 16:42:19 Necr0s has joined
2845 2011-03-01 16:43:49 <luke-jr> mmarker: how is SHA-2 relevant to SHA-256?
2846 2011-03-01 16:44:17 <sipa> SHA-2 is the standard that defines the algorithm SHA-256
2847 2011-03-01 16:44:30 <sipa> it also defines SHA-512, SHA-224 and SHA-384
2848 2011-03-01 16:44:47 <lfm> i should do a referance miner in bash using sha256sum and a hex2bin util
2849 2011-03-01 16:45:06 <lfm> I bet I could do a hash in under 3 sec
2850 2011-03-01 16:45:40 <mmarker> luke-jr: what sipa said
2851 2011-03-01 16:46:03 <mmarker> There's SHA-0 (kinda), SHA-1 and SHA-2
2852 2011-03-01 16:46:26 <mmarker> SHA-0 is SHA-1, but a missing bitshift. NSA told NIST "pull SHA-0", and they did
2853 2011-03-01 16:46:27 TD has joined
2854 2011-03-01 16:46:36 <lfm> more like sha-1 broke and sha-1 fixed
2855 2011-03-01 16:46:41 <mmarker> Yea
2856 2011-03-01 16:46:52 <mmarker> Academic research showed SHA-0 was a complete fuckup
2857 2011-03-01 16:47:05 <mmarker> And all it was missing was a bitshift
2858 2011-03-01 16:47:43 <mmarker> PROOF OF WORK: FALSE
2859 2011-03-01 16:47:46 <mmarker> damnit
2860 2011-03-01 16:48:27 <Lachesis> isn't that to be expected if G >= 0xFFFF0000 ?
2861 2011-03-01 16:48:37 <Necr0s> Finally hit some bitdirt today.
2862 2011-03-01 16:48:54 <lfm> mmarker: you using pool?
2863 2011-03-01 16:49:02 <mmarker> yea
2864 2011-03-01 16:49:03 <Necr0s> I'd had no yields for 13 days, and today I hit two yields within 3 hours of each other.
2865 2011-03-01 16:49:16 <mmarker> should I not?
2866 2011-03-01 16:49:26 <lfm> Necr0s: thats ok
2867 2011-03-01 16:49:34 <mmarker> and I think I realize my problem...sending the wrong data to init
2868 2011-03-01 16:49:48 <lfm> mmarker: no its ok, just I think Lachesis is confused
2869 2011-03-01 16:49:53 <sipa> Lachesis: sometimes yes
2870 2011-03-01 16:49:57 <Lachesis> lfm, yeah, i am
2871 2011-03-01 16:49:59 <sipa> Lachesis: but the pool will notice
2872 2011-03-01 16:50:18 <Lachesis> and then return what?
2873 2011-03-01 16:50:43 <mmarker> FAIL
2874 2011-03-01 16:50:53 prax is now known as prax_
2875 2011-03-01 16:51:02 prax_ has quit (Changing host)
2876 2011-03-01 16:51:02 prax_ has joined
2877 2011-03-01 16:51:02 <Lachesis> oh, so this "proof of work result: false" thing is a different message?
2878 2011-03-01 16:51:33 <Lachesis> i always thought that meant "we submitted a hash and it was invalid"
2879 2011-03-01 16:51:43 prax_ is now known as prax
2880 2011-03-01 16:51:47 <lfm> Lachesis: ya, thats result of submitting h==0 and server reject (pool or bitcoind either)
2881 2011-03-01 16:51:48 <quellhorst> trying get get a brand new ubuntu 10.10 going with 2x 5870... follow some forum instructions which caused me to have to reinstall ubuntu. where should i look?
2882 2011-03-01 16:51:58 prax has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2883 2011-03-01 16:52:17 <lfm> Lachesis: shouldnt really happen for pools
2884 2011-03-01 16:52:20 <Lachesis> quellhorst, http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=3359.0
2885 2011-03-01 16:52:58 prax has joined
2886 2011-03-01 16:52:58 prax has quit (Changing host)
2887 2011-03-01 16:52:58 prax has joined
2888 2011-03-01 16:53:04 <Necr0s> I need a linbox for dev and hacking about again.
2889 2011-03-01 16:53:07 <Lachesis> prax, make up your mind :)
2890 2011-03-01 16:53:18 <Necr0s> All my linboxes are servers now that I don't like to take down.
2891 2011-03-01 16:53:18 <mmarker> Using the wrong code
2892 2011-03-01 16:53:19 <mmarker> Oops
2893 2011-03-01 16:53:37 <prax> sry was grouping nicks
2894 2011-03-01 16:53:42 <Lachesis> lol np
2895 2011-03-01 16:53:47 <slush> mmarker: Some pools (mine) can throw result:false even when the PoW is correct
2896 2011-03-01 16:53:57 <Lachesis> slush, why?
2897 2011-03-01 16:54:02 <mmarker> slush: I hate you... :D
2898 2011-03-01 16:54:04 <Lachesis> tcatm, reinstalling wx fixed my errors, thx
2899 2011-03-01 16:54:14 <mmarker> But I think it may have actually been wrong.
2900 2011-03-01 16:54:19 <slush> mmarker: My pool is checking if the submitted share can be even valid block
2901 2011-03-01 16:54:23 <quellhorst> Lachesis: is that what you use?
2902 2011-03-01 16:54:29 <Lachesis> quellhorst, yep
2903 2011-03-01 16:54:40 <Lachesis> set up 3 boxes so far using that
2904 2011-03-01 16:54:41 <slush> mmarker: when the job has older prevhash than current bitcoin block, it will result in fail
2905 2011-03-01 16:54:43 <Lachesis> worked like a charm
2906 2011-03-01 16:54:48 <lfm> mmarker: better to make a test frame for your sha256 to test against known good hash
2907 2011-03-01 16:54:58 <slush> yes
2908 2011-03-01 16:54:59 <mmarker> lfm: Yea, I'll need to set it up
2909 2011-03-01 16:55:12 <mmarker> Leed to serialize a known block into my code
2910 2011-03-01 16:55:27 <Lachesis> mmarker, or just test against a string or somethign
2911 2011-03-01 16:55:48 <lfm> or get some blocks from the block chain to retro test
2912 2011-03-01 16:55:53 <mmarker> Lachesis: the code right now is tweaked for block solving....so it's not that great w.r.t. playing with other inputs
2913 2011-03-01 16:56:01 <Lachesis> mmarker, ah, fair enough
2914 2011-03-01 16:56:29 <mmarker> Yea, I'm still botching something up
2915 2011-03-01 16:56:56 <mmarker> Lunchtime, anyways
2916 2011-03-01 16:57:04 mmarker has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.3.2)
2917 2011-03-01 16:57:41 <Necr0s> I wish I had some known good hash...
2918 2011-03-01 16:57:50 <Lachesis> lol that nobody else knew was good
2919 2011-03-01 16:57:53 <Lachesis> and was currently valid?
2920 2011-03-01 16:58:16 M4v3R has joined
2921 2011-03-01 16:58:16 M4v3R has quit (Changing host)
2922 2011-03-01 16:58:16 M4v3R has joined
2923 2011-03-01 17:02:02 <omglolbbq> im getting a bitcoin error, for a change... :/
2924 2011-03-01 17:02:48 <omglolbbq> EXCEPTION: NSt8ios_base7failureE
2925 2011-03-01 17:02:49 <omglolbbq> ReadCompactSizze() : size to large
2926 2011-03-01 17:02:49 <omglolbbq> bitcoin.exe in AppInit()
2927 2011-03-01 17:03:37 <omglolbbq> and after that same error but insted of AppInit() it says CMyApp::OnUnhandledException()
2928 2011-03-01 17:05:45 Raulo has joined
2929 2011-03-01 17:06:54 <Raulo> mmaker: Instead of testing it on the pool, run it on your own bitcoind with this patch: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=2371.0
2930 2011-03-01 17:07:14 <Raulo> It will show you the hash in the debug.log
2931 2011-03-01 17:07:36 jrabbit has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2932 2011-03-01 17:08:13 <Raulo> Better yet, run it on something known, like the block 0
2933 2011-03-01 17:12:25 <quellhorst> Lachesis: when i get to the step: ./CLInfo |grep CL_DEVICE_TYPE_GPU
2934 2011-03-01 17:12:39 <quellhorst> it only lists 1 gpu: CL_DEVICE_TYPE_GPU
2935 2011-03-01 17:12:48 <Lachesis> which aticonfig did you use?
2936 2011-03-01 17:12:55 <Lachesis> aticonfig --initial -f --adapter=all ?
2937 2011-03-01 17:13:04 <Lachesis> also, what does aticonfig --list-adapters give?
2938 2011-03-01 17:13:38 <quellhorst> sudo aticonif --initial -f --adapter=all
2939 2011-03-01 17:13:44 altamic has joined
2940 2011-03-01 17:13:44 altamic has quit (Changing host)
2941 2011-03-01 17:13:44 altamic has joined
2942 2011-03-01 17:13:57 <quellhorst> with aticonfig spelled properly
2943 2011-03-01 17:14:28 omglolbbq1 has joined
2944 2011-03-01 17:14:55 <Lachesis> how many adapters does "aticonfig --list-adapters" show?
2945 2011-03-01 17:15:04 jrabbit has joined
2946 2011-03-01 17:15:39 omglolbbq has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2947 2011-03-01 17:15:40 <quellhorst> 2
2948 2011-03-01 17:15:43 <Lachesis> also, does anyone know why fprintf is appending a newline in the bitcoin debug print stuff?
2949 2011-03-01 17:15:46 <Lachesis> quellhorst, hmm
2950 2011-03-01 17:16:46 <Lachesis> and of course you've exported DISPLAY=0?
2951 2011-03-01 17:16:55 <Lachesis> ah, not that it matters
2952 2011-03-01 17:16:56 <quellhorst> oh whoops
2953 2011-03-01 17:17:00 <quellhorst> that fixed it
2954 2011-03-01 17:17:06 <Lachesis> o rly?
2955 2011-03-01 17:17:07 <quellhorst> i failed to read the next line :)
2956 2011-03-01 17:17:07 <Lachesis> alright cool
2957 2011-03-01 17:17:09 <Lachesis> lol
2958 2011-03-01 17:17:18 <Lachesis> oh i have it in my bashrc
2959 2011-03-01 17:18:44 prax_ has joined
2960 2011-03-01 17:18:44 prax_ has quit (Changing host)
2961 2011-03-01 17:18:44 prax_ has joined
2962 2011-03-01 17:18:53 prax has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2963 2011-03-01 17:19:32 <quellhorst> its cold in here right now, need to get this crunching to warm things up :)
2964 2011-03-01 17:19:45 prax_ has quit (Client Quit)
2965 2011-03-01 17:20:09 prax has joined
2966 2011-03-01 17:20:09 prax has quit (Changing host)
2967 2011-03-01 17:20:09 prax has joined
2968 2011-03-01 17:26:01 bk128 has quit (Quit: bk128)
2969 2011-03-01 17:27:23 <quellhorst> looks like i'm really close now... my next step is $ ./poclbm.py -u user --pass=pass -o host -p 8332 -d 1
2970 2011-03-01 17:27:44 <quellhorst> where are the instructions for getting the bitcoin client + rpc setup on ubuntu 10.10?
2971 2011-03-01 17:32:06 <Lachesis> just download the bitcoind
2972 2011-03-01 17:32:07 <Lachesis> then run it
2973 2011-03-01 17:32:12 <Lachesis> it'll give you directions
2974 2011-03-01 17:39:50 rli has left ()
2975 2011-03-01 17:40:11 <quellhorst> woot. how long to download blocks?
2976 2011-03-01 17:40:38 <sipa> quellhorst: depends on cpu speed and network connection
2977 2011-03-01 17:40:44 <sipa> but may take an hour
2978 2011-03-01 17:40:50 <sipa> how many do you have already?
2979 2011-03-01 17:40:53 <quellhorst> not sure?
2980 2011-03-01 17:41:08 <quellhorst> just ran for the first time on this system
2981 2011-03-01 17:41:20 <sipa> quellhorst: by the way, you don't need the client nor the block chain to mine on the pool
2982 2011-03-01 17:41:27 <sipa> oh wait, nvm
2983 2011-03-01 17:42:14 <quellhorst> network speed = really freaking fast 35mbps up/down
2984 2011-03-01 17:42:19 <quellhorst> cpu = only sempron
2985 2011-03-01 17:42:41 <sipa> you're running bitcoind now?
2986 2011-03-01 17:42:51 <sipa> do ./bitcoind getinfo
2987 2011-03-01 17:43:31 gr0gmint has joined
2988 2011-03-01 17:43:40 <quellhorst> it says can't get a lock on .bitcoin ... probably already running
2989 2011-03-01 17:43:55 <sipa> ./bitcoind getinfo
2990 2011-03-01 17:44:11 <sipa> don't forget the getinfo
2991 2011-03-01 17:44:21 jrabbit has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2992 2011-03-01 17:44:32 <quellhorst> oh i did --getinfo
2993 2011-03-01 17:45:06 <quellhorst> it says 48917 blocks
2994 2011-03-01 17:47:07 <sipa> ;;bc,blocks
2995 2011-03-01 17:47:09 <gribble> 111233
2996 2011-03-01 17:47:12 <sipa> you're almost half
2997 2011-03-01 17:47:47 <magnetron> oh yeah, can i have the bitcoin gui connect to bitcoind? or do i have to choose which one i use
2998 2011-03-01 17:47:50 <quellhorst> well its at 57377 now, going kinda fast
2999 2011-03-01 17:48:13 <lfm> magnetron: run one or the other, not both
3000 2011-03-01 17:48:41 <quellhorst> thanks for the help guys, tried last night and freaking botched my ubuntu install :)
3001 2011-03-01 17:48:44 <lfm> magnetron: you can run the gui with -server to have both
3002 2011-03-01 17:49:47 <lfm> magnetron: you can run the gui with -server to have both functions in one run
3003 2011-03-01 17:51:28 <phantomcircuit> http://codepad.org/RW6n1uSm
3004 2011-03-01 17:51:42 <phantomcircuit> ok i know im not crazy, those inv packets are totally corrupt
3005 2011-03-01 17:52:01 <quellhorst> damn, i should have plugged in my "kill a watt" into the system
3006 2011-03-01 17:52:14 <quellhorst> if i kill the server and clients now, do they have to download the blocks again?
3007 2011-03-01 17:52:15 <phantomcircuit> not only are the checksums the same for both packets, but they claim to contain no hashes
3008 2011-03-01 17:52:23 <phantomcircuit> oh snap
3009 2011-03-01 17:52:27 <phantomcircuit> that's not a checksum
3010 2011-03-01 17:52:31 <lfm> quellhorst: nope
3011 2011-03-01 17:52:35 <phantomcircuit> do inv packets not have a checksum?!
3012 2011-03-01 17:53:47 <luke-jr> magnetron: you can use Spesmilo with bitcoind
3013 2011-03-01 17:54:31 gr0gmint has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
3014 2011-03-01 17:56:51 <TD> phantomcircuit: all network messages have a checksum except the initial version handshake, i think
3015 2011-03-01 17:57:13 <phantomcircuit> TD, that's what i thought to, but this network dump clearly shows an inv w/o a checksum
3016 2011-03-01 17:57:48 M4v3R has quit (Quit: M4v3R)
3017 2011-03-01 17:58:44 gasteve has quit (Quit: gasteve)
3018 2011-03-01 18:00:45 <magnetron> luke-jr: is tonal enforced in spesmilo?
3019 2011-03-01 18:01:17 <luke-jr> magnetron: no
3020 2011-03-01 18:01:26 <luke-jr> magnetron: Tonal is a setting, but by default it is Decimal
3021 2011-03-01 18:01:44 <luke-jr> if the amount *looks* Tonal, it will show Tonal by default
3022 2011-03-01 18:01:54 <luke-jr> but you can still configure it to prefer Decimal or even force Decimal
3023 2011-03-01 18:02:06 <luke-jr> (or the opposite)
3024 2011-03-01 18:02:23 <luke-jr> mine Assumes Tonal
3025 2011-03-01 18:02:31 <luke-jr> settings are Assume|Prefer|Force Decimal|Tonal
3026 2011-03-01 18:02:40 <quellhorst> so, how well would 2x 5870s play crysis ?
3027 2011-03-01 18:07:21 FreeMoney has joined
3028 2011-03-01 18:08:21 bk128-Droid has joined
3029 2011-03-01 18:09:08 jrabbit has joined
3030 2011-03-01 18:09:27 nanotube has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
3031 2011-03-01 18:09:27 gribble has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
3032 2011-03-01 18:09:45 gasteve has joined
3033 2011-03-01 18:11:27 Jeroenz0r has quit ()
3034 2011-03-01 18:12:03 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
3035 2011-03-01 18:13:27 <necrodearia> I wonder, what is significant about date of December 13, 2010, 11:41 am
3036 2011-03-01 18:13:28 nanotube has joined
3037 2011-03-01 18:13:36 gribble has joined
3038 2011-03-01 18:14:49 <x6763> phantomcircuit: i think checksums were added at version 20900 or something
3039 2011-03-01 18:14:50 Jeroenz0r has joined
3040 2011-03-01 18:14:51 Jeroenz0r has quit (Changing host)
3041 2011-03-01 18:14:51 Jeroenz0r has joined
3042 2011-03-01 18:15:21 <phantomcircuit> x6763, this is all built from github
3043 2011-03-01 18:16:34 <x6763> phantomcircuit: if that packet came from a really old client, then it wouldn't have a checksum...and if you were sending that packet to a really old client, it shouldn't have a checksum, either (unless the newer clients ignore the really old clients..i'm not sure)
3044 2011-03-01 18:17:03 <phantomcircuit> client is the latest version
3045 2011-03-01 18:17:15 <x6763> phantomcircuit: the client that the inv came from or went to?
3046 2011-03-01 18:17:36 <x6763> (as in the remote node your client was communicating with)
3047 2011-03-01 18:18:16 <jgarzik> <Gavin> You can generate a 1MB block with only free transactions in it and it will get accepted
3048 2011-03-01 18:18:17 <jgarzik> huh?
3049 2011-03-01 18:18:51 <phantomcircuit> x6763, yes the client sending the inv is the latest client
3050 2011-03-01 18:18:59 <phantomcircuit> i built it from source from github
3051 2011-03-01 18:21:05 <x6763> ok, you have the latest version, and it is the one sending those inv messages...i understand this much...what is the version of the node that is receiving the inv messages you sent?
3052 2011-03-01 18:21:50 <x6763> or are you controlling both nodes in that packet dump?
3053 2011-03-01 18:22:45 bk128-Droid has quit (Quit: Bye)
3054 2011-03-01 18:22:50 <Lachesis> oh good question
3055 2011-03-01 18:23:01 <Lachesis> btw, i'm only showing 15txn in my memory pool
3056 2011-03-01 18:23:18 <Lachesis> will clients not rebroadcast them if they don't get in a block?
3057 2011-03-01 18:23:38 <lfm> Lachesis: it resets to zero when you restart it, wait at least 30 min
3058 2011-03-01 18:24:10 <Lachesis> lfm restarted it like 45 minutes ago, but i'll wait a while longer
3059 2011-03-01 18:25:01 <Lachesis> so could i modify my miner to make big (like 30MB or something) blocks, or will they not get accepted?
3060 2011-03-01 18:25:23 <lfm> i think you could, I think they would
3061 2011-03-01 18:25:27 M4v3R has joined
3062 2011-03-01 18:25:27 M4v3R has quit (Changing host)
3063 2011-03-01 18:25:27 M4v3R has joined
3064 2011-03-01 18:25:38 <Lachesis> of course, it would hurt my chances
3065 2011-03-01 18:25:45 <Lachesis> since i'd have to push that block over the network
3066 2011-03-01 18:25:47 <lfm> not much
3067 2011-03-01 18:26:02 <Lachesis> and if somebody found a smaller block in the time it took to get people to accept mine, i'd lose out
3068 2011-03-01 18:26:30 <lfm> just try 100k then, I think it used to be 200k a while back
3069 2011-03-01 18:26:36 <Lachesis> what is it now?
3070 2011-03-01 18:26:42 <lfm> even just running an old version
3071 2011-03-01 18:26:52 <lfm> like 50k or something
3072 2011-03-01 18:27:13 <lfm> size on mine is 444
3073 2011-03-01 18:27:27 <lfm> 445
3074 2011-03-01 18:28:09 <Lachesis> jeez
3075 2011-03-01 18:28:14 <lfm> seems to limit it aroun 10-20 txn for some reason
3076 2011-03-01 18:28:16 <Lachesis> btw, what is GetMinFee(1000)?
3077 2011-03-01 18:28:28 <lfm> dunno
3078 2011-03-01 18:30:32 <lfm> how do I get the full info docs for utilities like tail in ubuntu
3079 2011-03-01 18:30:37 <Lachesis> hmm
3080 2011-03-01 18:30:43 <Lachesis> info tail?
3081 2011-03-01 18:30:53 <lfm> just shows the man page
3082 2011-03-01 18:30:56 <Lachesis> you might have to apt-get install info
3083 2011-03-01 18:30:57 <Lachesis> hmm
3084 2011-03-01 18:31:00 <Lachesis> works on my machine
3085 2011-03-01 18:31:15 <lfm> which sez the full docs are under info tail
3086 2011-03-01 18:31:24 <lfm> info shows man page?
3087 2011-03-01 18:31:44 <Lachesis> info coreutils 'tail invocation' ?
3088 2011-03-01 18:31:56 <Lachesis> that's what it says at the end of my man page
3089 2011-03-01 18:32:03 <Lachesis> "info tail" does not show the manpage for me
3090 2011-03-01 18:32:07 <luke-jr> Lachesis: that refuses to even relay transactions, if they don't have a certain minimum fee.
3091 2011-03-01 18:32:07 twobitcoins has quit (Quit: Leaving)
3092 2011-03-01 18:32:20 <Lachesis> luke-jr, what is that constant, though?
3093 2011-03-01 18:32:34 <lfm> ok coreutils arent hooking into info/dir right in ubuntu
3094 2011-03-01 18:32:35 <Lachesis> oh, the fee that would be required for ฿1000?
3095 2011-03-01 18:32:48 <Lachesis> hrm
3096 2011-03-01 18:33:14 <luke-jr> Lachesis: block size
3097 2011-03-01 18:33:28 <Lachesis> so i've got 3 constants here: MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1 000 000, MAX_BLOCK_SIZE_GEN = MAX_BLOCK_SIZE / 2 and MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS = MAX_BLOCK_SIZE / 50
3098 2011-03-01 18:33:30 <luke-jr> the assumption is, if it wouldn't fit in a 1000 byte block, it won't ever fit.
3099 2011-03-01 18:33:47 <luke-jr> where "fit" means "have enough fees to get included"
3100 2011-03-01 18:33:52 <Lachesis> ah alright
3101 2011-03-01 18:34:05 <luke-jr> my bitcoind has that removed. I relay all.
3102 2011-03-01 18:34:09 <Lachesis> yeah
3103 2011-03-01 18:34:21 <Lachesis> so -- will my client not accept blocks bigger than 1M?
3104 2011-03-01 18:36:04 <Lachesis> is that what MAX_BLOCK_SIZE means?
3105 2011-03-01 18:37:57 <Lachesis> certainly seems so
3106 2011-03-01 18:38:16 hacim_ is now known as hacim
3107 2011-03-01 18:38:29 hacim has quit (Changing host)
3108 2011-03-01 18:38:29 hacim has joined
3109 2011-03-01 18:39:33 <Lachesis> anyway lfm, my max_block_size_gen is 500,000
3110 2011-03-01 18:39:37 <Lachesis> so i assume 500k
3111 2011-03-01 18:39:49 <Lachesis> why is it limiting to 8 txn then?
3112 2011-03-01 18:40:16 twobitcoins has joined
3113 2011-03-01 18:41:45 <x6763> http://blockexplorer.com/ shows that the blocks have been well under 10KB most of the time...really strange if there's a large pool of transactions building up
3114 2011-03-01 18:42:04 <x6763> are the miners trying to get some fees going or something?
3115 2011-03-01 18:42:18 <Lachesis> hey hold on: "nBlockSize + nTxSize < 4000 || dPriority > COIN * 144 / 250
3116 2011-03-01 18:42:21 <Lachesis> what does that line mean
3117 2011-03-01 18:42:30 <Lachesis> block under 4k, allow free transactions
3118 2011-03-01 18:42:35 <Lachesis> but what's COIN * 144/250?
3119 2011-03-01 18:43:49 <x6763> i think that's actually being talked about here: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4009.0
3120 2011-03-01 18:45:32 <luke-jr> x6763: AFAIK, the official client only allows like 10 KB of no-fee tx
3121 2011-03-01 18:46:19 <quellhorst> ok, got my system fully cranking now... its only drawing 420 watts
3122 2011-03-01 18:46:32 <quellhorst> why would people say i need a 650w power supply or more?
3123 2011-03-01 18:47:20 <luke-jr> quellhorst: surge
3124 2011-03-01 18:47:32 <luke-jr> quellhorst: system needs more power to start, than to maintain a status quo
3125 2011-03-01 18:47:56 <quellhorst> when it first comes on it uses 200 watts, then drops down to 100-110
3126 2011-03-01 18:48:14 <quellhorst> until the gfx cards start cranking it jumps to 400. then 420 after the fanks crank up
3127 2011-03-01 18:48:30 <gasteve> luke-jr: why should the client care how many free transactions there are? is it just to limit spamming of transactoins?
3128 2011-03-01 18:48:41 <quellhorst> also, do gamers watercool because its quieter?
3129 2011-03-01 18:48:49 <x6763> luke-jr: wow, that's a lot smaller than i thought
3130 2011-03-01 18:49:17 <gasteve> (otherwise I would think the clients wouldn't care how many free transactions a miner decided to include)
3131 2011-03-01 18:49:17 <luke-jr> x6763: mine doesn't allow any no-fee now
3132 2011-03-01 18:49:32 <luke-jr> gasteve: I think so
3133 2011-03-01 18:49:40 RichardG has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
3134 2011-03-01 18:50:05 <luke-jr> x6763: instead, my policy is to charge a smaller fee
3135 2011-03-01 18:50:07 <Lachesis> quellhorst, i dunno - i had a 650W psu and it blew
3136 2011-03-01 18:50:13 <Lachesis> so i got a (less cheap) 750W
3137 2011-03-01 18:50:25 <Lachesis> could have probably gotten away with a decent 650 instead, but still...
3138 2011-03-01 18:50:30 RichardG has joined
3139 2011-03-01 18:51:00 <gasteve> my rig with a 1250 watt PSU and a 5970 running at 500Mhash is pulling ~355 watts
3140 2011-03-01 18:51:24 <quellhorst> i think i heard google gets energy efficient power supplies and then runs them near max
3141 2011-03-01 18:51:24 <gasteve> sorry, it's running at 600Mhash/s
3142 2011-03-01 18:51:50 <quellhorst> glad i didn't listen to anyone who tried to tell me that i needed more than 650watt
3143 2011-03-01 18:51:51 bk128-Droid has joined
3144 2011-03-01 18:52:02 <gasteve> guess I went a bit overboard on the PSU (but I did want the ability to add a second 5970 later)
3145 2011-03-01 18:52:31 <gasteve> still, 850 would have been plenty I guess
3146 2011-03-01 18:52:31 <quellhorst> are you going to pay $700+ for a 5970?
3147 2011-03-01 18:52:47 <gasteve> they are $599 at the local store
3148 2011-03-01 18:52:53 <quellhorst> fry's?
3149 2011-03-01 18:52:56 <gasteve> yes
3150 2011-03-01 18:53:09 <bk128-Droid> Wait for the 6990 and get a used one
3151 2011-03-01 18:53:10 <gasteve> (as of about 1 week ago)
3152 2011-03-01 18:53:21 <luke-jr> lol
3153 2011-03-01 18:53:27 <quellhorst> bk128-Droid: how long is that wait?
3154 2011-03-01 18:53:52 <midnightmagic> ;;bc,stats
3155 2011-03-01 18:53:56 <bk128-Droid> Thought they're coming out this q
3156 2011-03-01 18:54:02 <gribble> Current Blocks: 111238 | Current Difficulty: 55590.23763914 | Next Difficulty At Block: 112895 | Next Difficulty In: 1657 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 3 days, 20 hours, 31 minutes, and 2 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 59072.17781201
3157 2011-03-01 18:54:56 <gasteve> I've been going for almost 7 days with this 5970 and still nothing...I'm starting to think the calculator is BS
3158 2011-03-01 18:55:18 <gasteve> debating how long to wait before switching to a pool
3159 2011-03-01 18:55:31 <gasteve> (I really want to get a solo block though)
3160 2011-03-01 18:56:06 <slush> gasteve: if you want own block, then wait until you find them
3161 2011-03-01 18:56:12 <slush> and then join to the pool ;)
3162 2011-03-01 18:56:38 <gasteve> it's driving me crazy ;)
3163 2011-03-01 18:56:39 <slush> calculator is not a BS, but your luck is
3164 2011-03-01 18:57:09 <bk128-Droid> gasteve: I generated 3 blocks in a day with 2 5870s last week. And none since
3165 2011-03-01 18:57:11 jrabbit has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
3166 2011-03-01 18:57:13 <gasteve> (btw, I'm already in your pool with one of my CPUs)
3167 2011-03-01 18:57:18 <bk128-Droid> All chance
3168 2011-03-01 18:57:27 <davex__> slush: has participation in the pool dropped the past couple days?
3169 2011-03-01 18:57:45 <gasteve> this must be what a gambling addition feels like
3170 2011-03-01 18:57:48 <slush> davex__: no, in fact, the hashspeed is still rising
3171 2011-03-01 18:57:51 <gasteve> *addiction
3172 2011-03-01 18:57:59 <slush> even with closed registration
3173 2011-03-01 18:58:27 <Lachesis> what's the advantage of the tonal system?
3174 2011-03-01 18:58:32 <slush> noooo
3175 2011-03-01 18:58:37 <gasteve> lol
3176 2011-03-01 18:58:48 <gasteve> I think the question is your answer ;)
3177 2011-03-01 18:59:09 <Lachesis> i see... why are people implementing it then?
3178 2011-03-01 18:59:50 <gasteve> again...I think the question is your answer 9.9
3179 2011-03-01 18:59:58 <slush> why people are doing suicides?
3180 2011-03-01 19:00:38 <luke-jr> Lachesis: it's easier for humans to work with naturally
3181 2011-03-01 19:00:48 <Lachesis> luke-jr, justify>
3182 2011-03-01 19:00:49 <gasteve> I'll adopt it when I grow an extra 6 digits
3183 2011-03-01 19:00:52 <luke-jr> Lachesis: read the book
3184 2011-03-01 19:01:04 <luke-jr> gasteve: why? 26 makes Tonal easier?
3185 2011-03-01 19:01:20 <Lachesis> luke-jr, sorry, my feet are in my shoes
3186 2011-03-01 19:01:25 <Lachesis> can't count using them
3187 2011-03-01 19:01:35 <slush> lol
3188 2011-03-01 19:01:37 <luke-jr> Lachesis: relevance?
3189 2011-03-01 19:02:01 <luke-jr> your 10 hand digits are all binary digits
3190 2011-03-01 19:02:20 <luke-jr> well, 8 of them are anyhow
3191 2011-03-01 19:02:34 Deeps has joined
3192 2011-03-01 19:02:35 <Lachesis> so what, count to 16 on each hand?
3193 2011-03-01 19:02:52 <Lachesis> how is that easier to work with naturally
3194 2011-03-01 19:03:01 <Lachesis> and why do we call it tonal instead of "hexadecimal"
3195 2011-03-01 19:03:22 <gasteve> I don't guess it's really hex...it's binary
3196 2011-03-01 19:04:06 <luke-jr> Lachesis: count to 15 on each hand, or 255 on both
3197 2011-03-01 19:04:25 <Lachesis> hrm i'll stick with 100
3198 2011-03-01 19:04:29 <Lachesis> would be nice for programming though :)
3199 2011-03-01 19:04:30 <luke-jr> Lachesis: tonal is not hexadecimal. hexadecimal is a new reinvention of tonal.
3200 2011-03-01 19:04:45 <luke-jr> Lachesis: you can't count to 100 (decimal) on your hands ;)
3201 2011-03-01 19:04:51 <luke-jr> except in binary
3202 2011-03-01 19:04:56 <Lachesis> oh fair enough
3203 2011-03-01 19:05:02 <Lachesis> i guess i should take my socks off :)
3204 2011-03-01 19:05:11 <luke-jr> Lachesis: it's easier, because humans can naturally do binary division
3205 2011-03-01 19:05:17 <luke-jr> humans cannot naturally divide by 5 or 10
3206 2011-03-01 19:05:36 <gasteve> I can see the utility...but you have a long struggle to get people to adopt it
3207 2011-03-01 19:05:46 <bk128-Droid> Can't I count on my fingers in 2's complement?
3208 2011-03-01 19:05:55 mmarker has joined
3209 2011-03-01 19:06:05 <bk128-Droid> -128 to 127
3210 2011-03-01 19:06:15 <gasteve> and I wouldn't be in favor of using bitcoin to spread that system...bitcoin is weird enough for people as it is
3211 2011-03-01 19:06:24 <luke-jr> gasteve: people don't *have* to adopt it to make it useful
3212 2011-03-01 19:06:38 <bk128-Droid> Or actually you have 10 bits :)
3213 2011-03-01 19:06:45 * mmarker sprinkles holy penguin pee on his client
3214 2011-03-01 19:07:31 <luke-jr> bk128-Droid: stupid ring finger isn't a full bit
3215 2011-03-01 19:07:39 <luke-jr> at least not mine
3216 2011-03-01 19:07:50 <luke-jr> its movement is restricted by the fingers surrounding it
3217 2011-03-01 19:08:04 <Lachesis> luke-jr, lo
3218 2011-03-01 19:08:05 <Lachesis> l
3219 2011-03-01 19:08:53 <gasteve> is this the book? http://books.google.com/books?id=aNYGAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
3220 2011-03-01 19:09:05 <lfm> tonal has nothing to do with bitcoin (except for lukes insistance) and most of us have long ago learned to ignore him
3221 2011-03-01 19:09:13 <luke-jr> gasteve: yes
3222 2011-03-01 19:09:43 <Deeps> hiya, sorry to interrupt, but i've just discovered bitcoin and started using it. i dont understand what it's actually doing though - what is my CPU power being used for and how is that worth real money?
3223 2011-03-01 19:09:49 <gasteve> so, this was proposed in 1862 originally? maybe it'll catch on in the next 150 year ..lol
3224 2011-03-01 19:09:56 <luke-jr> Deeps: it's not. turn it off.
3225 2011-03-01 19:10:01 <luke-jr> gasteve: yes
3226 2011-03-01 19:10:10 <Deeps> luke-jr: huh?
3227 2011-03-01 19:10:11 jrabbit has joined
3228 2011-03-01 19:10:21 * slush thinks that mining support in official client should be definitely removed
3229 2011-03-01 19:10:22 <luke-jr> gasteve: SI didn't adopt it solely because the treaties that created SI specified decimal
3230 2011-03-01 19:10:27 <mmarker> slush: Agreed
3231 2011-03-01 19:10:31 <luke-jr> Deeps: you are wasting your CPU time for absolutely no gain
3232 2011-03-01 19:10:32 <lfm> deeps its kinda a lottery to distribute bitcoins. chances are very slim tho
3233 2011-03-01 19:10:35 <gasteve> slush: agreed
3234 2011-03-01 19:10:39 <slush> it just confuse newcomers
3235 2011-03-01 19:10:46 <mmarker> Unless it's coded to credit my work in a pool, then I say LEAVE IT IN
3236 2011-03-01 19:10:53 <mmarker> :D
3237 2011-03-01 19:11:00 * Deeps is even more confused now
3238 2011-03-01 19:11:12 <luke-jr> Deeps: just turn it off and ignore it. it's worthless.
3239 2011-03-01 19:11:18 vasile has joined
3240 2011-03-01 19:11:20 <vasile> I have an incoming payment that registers as 0/unconfirmed since yesterday. Why might that have happened?
3241 2011-03-01 19:11:30 <luke-jr> Deeps: if you have a decent video card, you can get a GPU miner for it
3242 2011-03-01 19:11:36 <luke-jr> vasile: not enough fees
3243 2011-03-01 19:11:49 <x6763> Deeps: the difficulty of generating a block has increased to the point that it's only cost-efficient to generate blocks with a relatively expensive video card
3244 2011-03-01 19:11:53 <gasteve> actually, it's not a half bad idea to standard the interface to the pools and have an ability to join a pool in the client
3245 2011-03-01 19:11:55 <slush> Deeps: Mining with standard client is too difficult that you probably never find a block (50BTC) with it. You are just wasting electricity
3246 2011-03-01 19:12:01 <gasteve> *standardize
3247 2011-03-01 19:12:15 <Deeps> well i ran the numbers (difficulty count + hashps) into the calculator i found linked on the wiki and it said 95% chance of getting a block in 7 days
3248 2011-03-01 19:12:18 <lfm> x6763: or if you have free power
3249 2011-03-01 19:12:23 <slush> gasteve: I don't think any of the pool operators want thousands of CPU clients connected ;)
3250 2011-03-01 19:12:27 <luke-jr> Deeps: erm, what hashps?
3251 2011-03-01 19:12:37 <mmarker> What, exactly, are you running?
3252 2011-03-01 19:12:40 <gasteve> the client could even test the hash rate and report the typical payout
3253 2011-03-01 19:12:40 <Lachesis> lol
3254 2011-03-01 19:12:41 <Lachesis> the standard client could
3255 2011-03-01 19:12:44 <Deeps> "hashespersec" : 1063099,
3256 2011-03-01 19:12:45 <molecular> Deeps, you did it wrong, I think, what's your hashrate?
3257 2011-03-01 19:12:52 <mmarker> That's slow
3258 2011-03-01 19:12:53 <Lachesis> so put in 1063
3259 2011-03-01 19:12:54 <luke-jr> ;;bc,calc 1063
3260 2011-03-01 19:12:56 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 1063 Khps, given current difficulty of 55590.23763914 , is 7 years, 6 weeks, 2 days, 15 hours, 5 minutes, and 51 seconds
3261 2011-03-01 19:13:01 <Lachesis> 7 years :)
3262 2011-03-01 19:13:03 <luke-jr> Deeps: that's 7 *years*
3263 2011-03-01 19:13:03 <Deeps> ah, i see
3264 2011-03-01 19:13:08 <Deeps> i didnt divide by 1000
3265 2011-03-01 19:13:11 <Lachesis> the standard client could proxy to the pools
3266 2011-03-01 19:13:11 <luke-jr> :p
3267 2011-03-01 19:13:16 <lfm> deeps be carefull bewteen hash/s and khash/s
3268 2011-03-01 19:13:19 <mmarker> That damn metric prefix. Foiled again!
3269 2011-03-01 19:13:20 <Deeps> yeah
3270 2011-03-01 19:13:29 <Lachesis> i.e. it could pass getwork requests on to the pools
3271 2011-03-01 19:13:38 <Lachesis> then you could just mine locally
3272 2011-03-01 19:13:47 <Lachesis> and let the gui control which pool you were in
3273 2011-03-01 19:14:05 <bk128-Droid> Deeps: you really need a good gpu now to generate
3274 2011-03-01 19:14:06 <gasteve> maybe just better to have a few references to sites selling bitcoins
3275 2011-03-01 19:14:17 <mmarker> hmm. Still bogusified. Time for more printk's!
3276 2011-03-01 19:14:19 <lfm> I think makeing pools a default would just confuse things worse
3277 2011-03-01 19:14:20 <magnetron> mmarker: yeah, you don't have stuff like kilowatt or kilobytes in USA
3278 2011-03-01 19:14:27 <Deeps> ok, if i have a good gpu, what do i do now?
3279 2011-03-01 19:14:34 <slush> Lachesis: there is nice GUI for poclbm right now. I don't think standard client should be messed with new settings and functionality about mining at all
3280 2011-03-01 19:14:39 <mmarker> magnetron: Yes, it's inchbytes and footbytes
3281 2011-03-01 19:14:41 <luke-jr> magnetron: good. SI sucks :D
3282 2011-03-01 19:14:43 <magnetron> mmarker: it's all hogsheads and bushels
3283 2011-03-01 19:14:44 <mmarker> *cough*
3284 2011-03-01 19:14:49 <luke-jr> Deeps: what GPU?
3285 2011-03-01 19:14:51 <bk128-Droid> What gpu?
3286 2011-03-01 19:14:59 <Deeps> nvidia GT218 in my local machine
3287 2011-03-01 19:15:01 <luke-jr> Deeps: that's not even decent
3288 2011-03-01 19:15:04 <Deeps> lol
3289 2011-03-01 19:15:10 <mmarker> Ugh. That's really old.
3290 2011-03-01 19:15:18 <luke-jr> Deeps: I can beat that with my *CPU*
3291 2011-03-01 19:15:40 <luke-jr> Deeps: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_Hardware_Comparison
3292 2011-03-01 19:15:43 <magnetron> luke-jr: is that a catholic way to treat new users
3293 2011-03-01 19:15:45 <mmarker> I think I can beat that with my iPhone
3294 2011-03-01 19:15:54 <luke-jr> magnetron: you mean n00bs? :P
3295 2011-03-01 19:15:55 <vasile> luke-jr: Is there something I can do to fix the problem retroactively?
3296 2011-03-01 19:15:58 <luke-jr> mmarker: not a chance.
3297 2011-03-01 19:15:59 <slush> Deeps: Nvidias has bad performance for mining, in comparsion with ATI
3298 2011-03-01 19:16:08 <Deeps> i have ATIs knocking about too
3299 2011-03-01 19:16:09 <luke-jr> vasile: not with any client I know of
3300 2011-03-01 19:16:14 * Deeps looks at luke-jr's link
3301 2011-03-01 19:16:14 <vasile> luke-jr: OK. Thanks much.
3302 2011-03-01 19:16:18 <mmarker> Damn, no
3303 2011-03-01 19:16:25 <luke-jr> vasile: you could hand-craft a new tx on the sender's side
3304 2011-03-01 19:16:45 <mmarker> luke-jr: did I mention the iPhone was a USB host to a hardware cruncher? :D
3305 2011-03-01 19:16:49 <mmarker> >.> <.<
3306 2011-03-01 19:16:55 <vasile> luke-jr: No worries. It was just a test transmission of a neglible amount to see how the system works.
3307 2011-03-01 19:16:56 <luke-jr> o
3308 2011-03-01 19:16:59 <lfm> deeps kinda need ati 5xxx or 6xxx
3309 2011-03-01 19:17:04 <Deeps> yeah
3310 2011-03-01 19:17:09 <luke-jr> vasile: throw in a 0.01 BTC fee next time :p
3311 2011-03-01 19:17:18 <vasile> luke-jr: On the sender end or the receiver?
3312 2011-03-01 19:17:19 <luke-jr> vasile: also, you might have lost more than the amount you sent
3313 2011-03-01 19:17:20 <molecular> ;;bc,calcd 660000 1
3314 2011-03-01 19:17:20 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 660000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 1, is 6 seconds
3315 2011-03-01 19:17:28 <luke-jr> vasile: sender has to include the fees
3316 2011-03-01 19:17:36 <Ratchet> hi. I'm new to this also. I run the poclbm miner for a few days now. If it finds a block, do I see the btc in the balance of the bitcoind it connects to?
3317 2011-03-01 19:17:38 <vasile> luke-jr: Lost more than the amount sent?
3318 2011-03-01 19:17:43 <luke-jr> vasile: yes
3319 2011-03-01 19:17:48 <Ratchet> or do I have to do something else?
3320 2011-03-01 19:17:59 <lfm> Ratchet: eventually ya
3321 2011-03-01 19:18:02 <luke-jr> Ratchet: after about 16 hours
3322 2011-03-01 19:18:07 <vasile> luke-jr: That surprises me. Do you have a link or search terms so I can read about that?
3323 2011-03-01 19:18:17 <luke-jr> vasile: dunno
3324 2011-03-01 19:18:17 <Ratchet> why so late?
3325 2011-03-01 19:18:28 <Ratchet> the block is verified first by the network?
3326 2011-03-01 19:18:31 <luke-jr> vasile: depends on the coin you spent
3327 2011-03-01 19:18:33 <lfm> Ratchet: there is an extra delay in there for confirmation blocks
3328 2011-03-01 19:18:35 <magnetron> Ratchet: yes
3329 2011-03-01 19:18:41 <Lachesis> vasile, what was the problem?
3330 2011-03-01 19:19:06 <vasile> Lachesis: I was sent some bitcoin, and it arrived but is 0/unconfirmed for over a day.
3331 2011-03-01 19:19:06 <luke-jr> vasile: if you had only a single 50 BTC coin, for instance, the transaction uses all of it
3332 2011-03-01 19:19:08 <Ratchet> ah cool. thx. then I'll wait patiently in front of my watch -n10 ./bitcoin getinfo :-)
3333 2011-03-01 19:19:23 reubgr has joined
3334 2011-03-01 19:19:39 <gasteve> btw, what is the "SP" column in that hardware comparison?
3335 2011-03-01 19:19:46 <vasile> luke-jr: Ah, that is interesting.
3336 2011-03-01 19:19:47 <luke-jr> vasile: 0.0001 BTC to your destination, and 49.9999 BTC to your wallet's internal "change" address
3337 2011-03-01 19:20:00 <luke-jr> vasile: until the tx goes through, you can't use the change address
3338 2011-03-01 19:20:06 <luke-jr> gasteve: Shader Processors
3339 2011-03-01 19:20:10 <vasile> got it
3340 2011-03-01 19:20:37 <magnetron> Ratchet: are you aware of the estimated time for you to find a block with your hardware?
3341 2011-03-01 19:20:40 <Lachesis> vasile, you sent it to yourself?
3342 2011-03-01 19:20:46 <reubgr> Hi -- newb question. I tried to send myself a few bitcoins using the bitcoin faucet webpage, but nothing has yet arrived according to my bitcoin client (OS X version). My client has 111242 blocks, so I think it's up to date. Anyone have any advice?
3343 2011-03-01 19:20:56 <Lachesis> reubgr, the network is slow now
3344 2011-03-01 19:21:02 <luke-jr> reubgr: sometimes it waits to send
3345 2011-03-01 19:21:12 <luke-jr> what Lachesis said too
3346 2011-03-01 19:21:14 <Ratchet> magnetron: yes. I run it on a overclocked 5870. so the average is about 8 days atm
3347 2011-03-01 19:21:16 <reubgr> great -- thanks, guys!
3348 2011-03-01 19:21:17 <magnetron> reubgr: small amounts take long time to send now
3349 2011-03-01 19:21:18 <luke-jr> too many people trying to send tx without a fee
3350 2011-03-01 19:21:32 <Lachesis> what's the highest memory pool that anyone's got right now
3351 2011-03-01 19:21:34 <vasile> Lachesis: No, I received it from the bit faucet. I bought 20 BTC from an exchange (received those just fine). Then I tried the faucet and it didn't work as expected.
3352 2011-03-01 19:21:34 <Lachesis> i've only got 48
3353 2011-03-01 19:21:37 <Lachesis> 51*
3354 2011-03-01 19:21:39 <reubgr> BTW, I'm a Yale Law student and am planning to write a paper on bitcoin
3355 2011-03-01 19:21:52 <luke-jr> reubgr: care to give us not-legal advice? :P
3356 2011-03-01 19:22:02 TheAncientGoat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
3357 2011-03-01 19:22:11 <Lachesis> the faucet is sending tiny amounts without a fee
3358 2011-03-01 19:22:15 <Lachesis> and nobody is including them
3359 2011-03-01 19:22:17 <reubgr> sure
3360 2011-03-01 19:22:21 <x6763> Lachesis: looks like the most recent block included 152 transactions
3361 2011-03-01 19:22:25 <vasile> reubgr: Ah, law students and their enduring faith that legal academic writing is not a pointless exercise.
3362 2011-03-01 19:22:26 <Lachesis> x6763, wow
3363 2011-03-01 19:22:33 <magnetron> Ratchet: if you're new i can recommend using a mining pool to try it out.
3364 2011-03-01 19:22:44 <magnetron> Ratchet: that way, you'll see results faster
3365 2011-03-01 19:22:50 <Lachesis> x6763, i see it
3366 2011-03-01 19:22:51 <reubgr> well, this paper stands between me and graduation, so in that sense its not pointless
3367 2011-03-01 19:22:54 <vasile> Lachesis: so it appears. I will adjust my client to include a fee. Thanks.
3368 2011-03-01 19:23:11 <reubgr> but I hear what you're saying
3369 2011-03-01 19:23:12 <vasile> reubgr: Yes, your major writing credit is not pointless from that perspective.
3370 2011-03-01 19:23:16 <luke-jr> vasile: you may also want to connect it to my peer
3371 2011-03-01 19:23:19 <Ratchet> magnetron: I became aware of that too late. Now I want to get the first block before I join a pool so I don't waste the last days crunching :-)
3372 2011-03-01 19:23:33 <Lachesis> Ratchet, afraid that's not how it works :)
3373 2011-03-01 19:23:41 <vasile> luke-jr: I'm using the standard linux client. How would I peer it with you?
3374 2011-03-01 19:23:49 <luke-jr> Ratchet: I'd suggest sticking to self-mining
3375 2011-03-01 19:23:54 <Lachesis> vasile, add -addnode=1.2.3.4 to your startup
3376 2011-03-01 19:23:56 <luke-jr> vasile: original*
3377 2011-03-01 19:24:03 <luke-jr> Lachesis: any idea if that accepts DNS?
3378 2011-03-01 19:24:08 <Lachesis> luke-jr, it does
3379 2011-03-01 19:24:10 <Lachesis> i believe
3380 2011-03-01 19:24:13 <x6763> most of the transactions in block 111242 were around 260 bytes, though...only a few big ones got in
3381 2011-03-01 19:24:14 <luke-jr> -addnode=nat.router.dashjr.org
3382 2011-03-01 19:24:24 <Ratchet> Lachesis: you can make a religion about the possibilities involved here ;-)
3383 2011-03-01 19:24:24 <magnetron> Ratchet: if i understand this correctly, you don't "lose" any work. the probability of finding a block is constantly the same
3384 2011-03-01 19:24:25 <vasile> sounds good to me. Thanks
3385 2011-03-01 19:24:26 <Lachesis> still, biggest block in forever
3386 2011-03-01 19:24:48 <luke-jr> vasile: my peer does not accept *any* no-fee transactions, but my fees are lower
3387 2011-03-01 19:24:59 <Lachesis> luke-jr, what's your fee structure?
3388 2011-03-01 19:25:02 <luke-jr> vasile: you need to connect directly, because other clients won't relay the lower-fee tx at all
3389 2011-03-01 19:25:07 <vasile> ah
3390 2011-03-01 19:25:11 <luke-jr> Lachesis: 1 TBC per BË¢ ;)
3391 2011-03-01 19:25:19 <Lachesis> what's that in decimal?
3392 2011-03-01 19:25:19 <x6763> luke-jr: how often do you generate blocks?
3393 2011-03-01 19:25:33 <luke-jr> ;;bc,calc 265000
3394 2011-03-01 19:25:35 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 265000 Khps, given current difficulty of 55590.23763914 , is 1 week, 3 days, 10 hours, 16 minutes, and 14 seconds
3395 2011-03-01 19:25:48 <luke-jr> Lachesis: 0.00065536 BTC per 512 bytes
3396 2011-03-01 19:25:48 <Ratchet> magnetron: I know that, too. but I'm superstitious when it comes to rolling dices ;-)
3397 2011-03-01 19:26:00 <magnetron> Ratchet: :D
3398 2011-03-01 19:26:06 <Lachesis> yeah that's low alright
3399 2011-03-01 19:26:16 <molecular> Ratchet, I must admit, I am, too
3400 2011-03-01 19:26:24 <luke-jr> Lachesis: I also accept non-standard transactions, but the original client never makes those
3401 2011-03-01 19:26:29 <reubgr> Vasile: I noticed that you're counsel for the SFLC. I'd be interested to hear how you got into Bitcoins. We can take this conversation offline (sorry if I'm breaking IRC norms here -- I haven't been in a chat room since I was a kid and used AOL)
3402 2011-03-01 19:26:39 <Lachesis> only 0.06 mega-inch-bits :)
3403 2011-03-01 19:26:45 <Lachesis> per tx
3404 2011-03-01 19:26:47 <Lachesis> approx
3405 2011-03-01 19:27:01 <Lachesis> reubgr, we have no irc norms here
3406 2011-03-01 19:27:19 <luke-jr> Lachesis: also, I don't add any extra fee based on how much you send
3407 2011-03-01 19:27:19 <Lachesis> we spent like 2 hours arguing about religion with luke-jr this morning :)
3408 2011-03-01 19:27:42 <reubgr> glad to hear that :)
3409 2011-03-01 19:27:57 <luke-jr> so you could send 0.001 BTC for only that 0.00065536 BTC minimum fee :>
3410 2011-03-01 19:28:05 <vasile> reubgr: I'm working on the freedomboxfoundation.org project. Some project participants mentioned it for inclusion in the project and I that piqued my interest.
3411 2011-03-01 19:28:26 <Lachesis> so what is GetMinFee(1000) in the normal client?
3412 2011-03-01 19:28:33 <magnetron> hmm, looks like people are paying fees as low as one milliBTC: http://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000000120df4fe4f18ba0af83699447af01b88d3d50f2e1ace183548871
3413 2011-03-01 19:28:38 <luke-jr> Lachesis: that's what decides whether it will relay the tx at all
3414 2011-03-01 19:28:47 <Lachesis> yes, but what's the value?
3415 2011-03-01 19:29:38 <luke-jr> Lachesis: current block size
3416 2011-03-01 19:29:52 <luke-jr> so if that client wouldn't include the tx in a block at 1000 bytes, it won't even relay it
3417 2011-03-01 19:29:55 <reubgr> vasile: very neat. Hadn't heard of it before. But the connection makes sense as I'm reading the NYT article about the organization
3418 2011-03-01 19:30:41 <vasile> reubgr: We have a mailing list, a wiki and a kickstarter page, if you want to get involved. And before you ask, we don't take bitcoin donations at the moment.
3419 2011-03-01 19:31:46 <Lachesis> vasile, aww
3420 2011-03-01 19:32:06 <reubgr> vasile: very neat. Do you mind if I send you a draft of my paper once I have one (I just started)
3421 2011-03-01 19:32:15 <Lachesis> alright, work must be done
3422 2011-03-01 19:32:52 <vasile> reubgr: Please do.
3423 2011-03-01 19:33:23 <vasile> Lachesis: if we can figure out how to do it well, maybe we'll do it.
3424 2011-03-01 19:33:32 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
3425 2011-03-01 19:34:09 <luke-jr> Lachesis: just in case, I just restarted my bitcoind so you may need to restart yours with -addnode again
3426 2011-03-01 19:34:15 <luke-jr> Not sure if it reconnects
3427 2011-03-01 19:34:40 <lfm> should be no need to restart
3428 2011-03-01 19:34:50 alystair has quit (Quit: â(ã»_ã»)âOUTTA HEREâ(ã»oã»)â)
3429 2011-03-01 19:35:04 <reubgr> vasile: awesome.
3430 2011-03-01 19:35:05 <reubgr> OK - thanks for everyone's help. What a friendly community. Bye folks.
3431 2011-03-01 19:35:16 <lfm> wow!
3432 2011-03-01 19:36:38 <eps> just reading about transaction fees
3433 2011-03-01 19:36:52 bk128-Droid has quit (Quit: Bye)
3434 2011-03-01 19:37:01 <eps> is this why it is taking so long to get payouts from slushs pool
3435 2011-03-01 19:37:03 <eps> ?
3436 2011-03-01 19:37:53 <jgarzik> yes
3437 2011-03-01 19:38:25 <eps> so not many nodes are allowing fee less transactions?
3438 2011-03-01 19:38:42 <luke-jr> rather, there are just so many fee-less tx :p
3439 2011-03-01 19:39:46 tower has joined
3440 2011-03-01 19:40:03 reubgr has quit (Quit: Page closed)
3441 2011-03-01 19:40:25 <eps> there is a limit to how many txns can be in a block?
3442 2011-03-01 19:40:31 <luke-jr> yes
3443 2011-03-01 19:41:03 Deeps has left ()
3444 2011-03-01 19:41:34 <eps> what is it?
3445 2011-03-01 19:41:41 <eps> sorry if i sound n00bie
3446 2011-03-01 19:41:52 <luke-jr> eps: 1 MB I think
3447 2011-03-01 19:42:06 <eps> oh a data limit, ok that makes sense
3448 2011-03-01 19:42:09 <luke-jr> eps: the original client also limits no-fee tx further
3449 2011-03-01 19:42:23 tower is now known as towerX
3450 2011-03-01 19:44:31 <eps> interesting consequence of pooled mining then
3451 2011-03-01 19:44:41 <eps> the large amound of fee less transactions
3452 2011-03-01 19:45:17 bk128-Droid has joined
3453 2011-03-01 19:45:24 <genjix> <tags />
3454 2011-03-01 19:45:27 <genjix> those aren't working in my page
3455 2011-03-01 19:45:28 <genjix> I tried inserting <!DOCTYPE html> but it doesn't work still.
3456 2011-03-01 19:45:49 <genjix> I have to type <tags></tags>
3457 2011-03-01 19:46:09 amiller has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
3458 2011-03-01 19:46:26 <genjix> well it works for <img /> but not for <script src=... /> (page doesn't load)
3459 2011-03-01 19:49:18 <luke-jr> genjix: <tag/> is not HTML
3460 2011-03-01 19:49:20 <luke-jr> it's XML
3461 2011-03-01 19:49:28 RazielZ has quit ()
3462 2011-03-01 19:51:58 <x6763> genjix: seems like <script> needs a separate closing tag, but i don't know for sure
3463 2011-03-01 19:53:06 alystair has joined
3464 2011-03-01 19:54:51 <tcatm> What's the best way to format a currency string for foreign currencies like JPY or RUB? (e.g. 1000 USD -> $1000, 1000 RUB/JPY -> ?)
3465 2011-03-01 19:55:44 kupo has quit (Changing host)
3466 2011-03-01 19:55:44 kupo has joined
3467 2011-03-01 19:56:09 <luke-jr> ¥1000 I think
3468 2011-03-01 19:57:43 altamic has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
3469 2011-03-01 19:58:00 altamic has joined
3470 2011-03-01 19:58:00 altamic has quit (Changing host)
3471 2011-03-01 19:58:00 altamic has joined
3472 2011-03-01 19:58:09 <tcatm> and for RUB?
3473 2011-03-01 19:59:44 M4v3R has left ()
3474 2011-03-01 20:00:07 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
3475 2011-03-01 20:01:56 Necr0s has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
3476 2011-03-01 20:02:59 dabron has joined
3477 2011-03-01 20:05:24 <jgarzik> tcatm: your internationalization lib should be able to answer that, in a generic way
3478 2011-03-01 20:06:37 sneak has joined
3479 2011-03-01 20:07:04 sneak is now known as Guest49481
3480 2011-03-01 20:07:25 Guest49481 is now known as sneak
3481 2011-03-01 20:07:27 sneak has quit (Changing host)
3482 2011-03-01 20:07:27 sneak has joined
3483 2011-03-01 20:09:27 <luke-jr> jgarzik: really? IMO, POSIX kinda sucks for it
3484 2011-03-01 20:09:48 <luke-jr> you have to change an environment variable
3485 2011-03-01 20:11:20 <jgarzik> luke-jr: change? for almost all users, the environment is set up properly for you. C, python and other languages all coordinate to examine the same environment vars in the same way, to facilitate automatic currency/number/date/etc. formatting proper for the given locale.
3486 2011-03-01 20:11:43 <luke-jr> jgarzik: I'm assuming he wants to display multiple currencies
3487 2011-03-01 20:12:03 <jgarzik> the framework supports that already
3488 2011-03-01 20:12:37 <tcatm> yep, I'm currently reading up aobut locales but it looks like it'll always use th currency from LC_MONETARY
3489 2011-03-01 20:13:53 <jgarzik> in python or C, you may call setlocale() as often as you like
3490 2011-03-01 20:14:44 <tcatm> setlocale expects an locale, not a currency
3491 2011-03-01 20:15:20 molecular has joined
3492 2011-03-01 20:16:35 <luke-jr> tcatm: not all currencies have a single standard way to represent them
3493 2011-03-01 20:18:29 <tcatm> It get's even worse as btcex accepts lots of "non-standard" currencies like WMZ, WMR and YAD
3494 2011-03-01 20:19:58 <edcba> is that true tx are stacking ?
3495 2011-03-01 20:20:03 <jgarzik> A lot of forex sites don't bother with the specific currency symbol anyway, preferring instead the 3-letter currency abbreviation.
3496 2011-03-01 20:20:16 <jgarzik> edcba: low value tx, yes
3497 2011-03-01 20:20:18 bk128-Droid has quit (Quit: Bye)
3498 2011-03-01 20:20:27 <gasteve> it dawned on me how to deal with free/spam transactions (seems obvious in hind sight)...require that free transactions include a proof of work (or else clients don't even forward them)...see my forum post: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4009.msg57645#msg57645
3499 2011-03-01 20:20:59 altamic_ has joined
3500 2011-03-01 20:20:59 altamic_ has quit (Changing host)
3501 2011-03-01 20:20:59 altamic_ has joined
3502 2011-03-01 20:21:31 <edcba> jgarzik: miners don't put them into blocks or what ?
3503 2011-03-01 20:21:32 <jgarzik> gasteve: free transactions will soon be a relic of the past. any 'free' slot will be used up almost instantly, implicitly requiring that 99.9% of people will -want- to pay a TX fee, to ensure their transaction is posted in a reasonable amount of time.
3504 2011-03-01 20:21:49 MartianW has joined
3505 2011-03-01 20:22:16 <gasteve> the problem with that scheme is that no one will want to use bitcoin when they get burned by a lost transaction
3506 2011-03-01 20:22:21 <edcba> yes i thought of proof of work for transactions too
3507 2011-03-01 20:22:42 * luke-jr no longer accepts any free transactions
3508 2011-03-01 20:22:50 <edcba> but what cause tx to stack : block limits or miners not including them ?
3509 2011-03-01 20:23:06 <luke-jr> edcba: the latter
3510 2011-03-01 20:23:08 <gasteve> you have to have a means of essentially guaranteeing that *all* transactions get through, while simultaneously dealing with the free/spam issue
3511 2011-03-01 20:23:17 <jgarzik> edcba: each TX is scored. young coins (recently created in another transaction), low values (0.05 BTC) or transactions to yourself score low. the low-score free area is 4k in size. the total free area in 27k in size. If TX does not include a fee, TX hangs around, waiting for a new block.
3512 2011-03-01 20:23:22 <luke-jr> edcba: I don't think there are ANY miners who will fill a block without a fee
3513 2011-03-01 20:23:40 <edcba> http://blockexplorer.com/
3514 2011-03-01 20:24:16 altamic has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
3515 2011-03-01 20:24:16 altamic_ is now known as altamic
3516 2011-03-01 20:24:48 <jgarzik> edcba: spending "old" coins, or sending larger amounts of BTC, score high, and make it more likely the TX will be slotted into the 'free' area of the block.
3517 2011-03-01 20:25:01 <gasteve> dropped transactions are an extraordinarily bad thing to have happen
3518 2011-03-01 20:25:29 <jgarzik> but at the end of the day, it's a lottery who will get into the free area. thus, it is wise to always pay a TX fee, even though few do right now.
3519 2011-03-01 20:25:56 <jgarzik> gasteve: who said anything about dropping transactions?
3520 2011-03-01 20:25:58 <edcba> but from when there is a free area ?
3521 2011-03-01 20:26:04 <edcba> it's just enforced by client ?
3522 2011-03-01 20:26:12 <luke-jr> ⦠or just wait till you generate your own block :P
3523 2011-03-01 20:26:15 <jgarzik> edcba: it's enforced by the miner who mints the block
3524 2011-03-01 20:26:19 <edcba> ok
3525 2011-03-01 20:26:21 <gasteve> so, when everyone is requiring a fee, what stops me from sending joe newbie a transaction designed to get rejected after 24 hours?
3526 2011-03-01 20:26:26 <jgarzik> edcba: thus, miners can set their own rules
3527 2011-03-01 20:26:29 amiller has joined
3528 2011-03-01 20:26:31 <edcba> ok so the problem is slush :)
3529 2011-03-01 20:26:48 <gasteve> does slush require a fee?
3530 2011-03-01 20:26:52 <luke-jr> gasteve: nothing, except that transactions are never rejected
3531 2011-03-01 20:26:56 <edcba> dunno
3532 2011-03-01 20:26:57 <hazek> does the bitcoin client autoupdate if a new version is released?
3533 2011-03-01 20:27:05 <edcba> hazek: nope :)
3534 2011-03-01 20:27:09 <luke-jr> pretty sure slush runs the original client unmodified
3535 2011-03-01 20:27:10 <hazek> right, ty
3536 2011-03-01 20:27:13 <jgarzik> slush sends out a -lot- of transactions with tiny value. the network cannot distinguish that from spam, really :)
3537 2011-03-01 20:27:16 <edcba> hazek: would you like ? :)
3538 2011-03-01 20:27:22 <hazek> like what?
3539 2011-03-01 20:27:35 <edcba> an autoupdated client ?
3540 2011-03-01 20:27:46 <hazek> seems reasonable
3541 2011-03-01 20:27:54 <gasteve> so, how will transactions never get rejected if there is limited block space for free transactions and limited blocks per hour? with enough volume, eventually transactions will be dropped right?
3542 2011-03-01 20:27:58 <hazek> as a feature
3543 2011-03-01 20:28:01 <luke-jr> hazek: I disagree.
3544 2011-03-01 20:28:11 <slush> I'll wildly appreciate JSON RPC command for sending multi otput transactions...
3545 2011-03-01 20:28:14 <luke-jr> auto-updating clients give the distributor the power to hijack that many people
3546 2011-03-01 20:28:16 <gasteve> autoupdate seems like a bad idea
3547 2011-03-01 20:28:20 <jgarzik> if slush includes a 0.01 TX fee with each transaction, or modifies his client to send to all miners with a share in that block (puddinpop did this), the problem goes away.
3548 2011-03-01 20:28:32 <luke-jr> gasteve: dropped, perhaps. but that isn't rejected.
3549 2011-03-01 20:28:45 <luke-jr> gasteve: it is plausable that I could keep a copy myself and resend it in the future
3550 2011-03-01 20:28:47 <hazek> who even has the ability to release a new client anyway?
3551 2011-03-01 20:28:47 <gasteve> what's the difference?
3552 2011-03-01 20:28:58 <luke-jr> gasteve: and no client today supports undoing a dropped tx
3553 2011-03-01 20:29:00 <jgarzik> slush: large outputs or large numbers of transactions, it still costs the network and each client processing time. I think it's only fair to charge 0.01 BTC fee.
3554 2011-03-01 20:29:03 <hazek> and what happens if a new client is released and you're still using the old one?
3555 2011-03-01 20:29:08 <gasteve> ah, ic...the recipient could re-issue
3556 2011-03-01 20:29:09 <luke-jr> hazek: anyone
3557 2011-03-01 20:29:16 <luke-jr> hazek: you keep using the old one
3558 2011-03-01 20:29:30 <luke-jr> hazek: anyone in the world can create a new client
3559 2011-03-01 20:29:37 <hazek> omg
3560 2011-03-01 20:29:37 <gasteve> still, you could find yourself in a race to get it accepted before the sender double spends
3561 2011-03-01 20:29:48 <hazek> I don't know if it's me or you're just fking stupid man
3562 2011-03-01 20:29:54 <hazek> do you not understand my questions?
3563 2011-03-01 20:30:04 <hazek> they are really really simple layman questions
3564 2011-03-01 20:30:06 <slush> jgarzik: 0.01BTC for every payment?
3565 2011-03-01 20:30:45 <jgarzik> slush: yes. it's a transaction. think about your proposal: large outputs. that will increase TX size beyond that which will fit into the free area.
3566 2011-03-01 20:30:58 <jgarzik> slush: each transaction costs the network, whether it's large outputs or large numbers of transactions
3567 2011-03-01 20:31:12 <slush> I think rising minimal withdrawal limit is better solution
3568 2011-03-01 20:31:18 <gasteve> luke-jr: so, if all recipients always re-issue dropped transactions...you probably haven't solved the problem of transactions piling up...you've actually probably compounded it
3569 2011-03-01 20:31:22 <slush> paying 0.01 * 50 every hour is worthless
3570 2011-03-01 20:31:27 <jgarzik> slush: transactions _cost_ the network, and you are producing large numbers of transactions.
3571 2011-03-01 20:31:29 <jgarzik> slush: 100% agreed
3572 2011-03-01 20:31:50 <luke-jr> gasteve: shrug
3573 2011-03-01 20:32:00 <slush> but still, rising the limit to 0.1 does not solve it
3574 2011-03-01 20:32:07 <edcba> transactions costs the network but it's its raison d'être too
3575 2011-03-01 20:32:13 <jgarzik> this situation is no different from another large vendor -- such as a bitcoin payment processor -- producing large numbers of transactions.
3576 2011-03-01 20:32:21 <jgarzik> fees are inevitable
3577 2011-03-01 20:32:26 <luke-jr> slush: allow people to withdraw once a day?
3578 2011-03-01 20:32:27 <jgarzik> accept this now :)
3579 2011-03-01 20:32:30 <slush> only 6 from 37 transaction this hour was under 0.1 btc
3580 2011-03-01 20:32:57 <edcba> maybe both fees and hashcash for txs then
3581 2011-03-01 20:33:00 <slush> and only 14 under 1 BTC
3582 2011-03-01 20:33:05 amiller has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
3583 2011-03-01 20:33:15 <jgarzik> edcba: fees cover the situation quite nicely...
3584 2011-03-01 20:33:24 <luke-jr> edcba: probably more effective to use a CPU miner with a pool, and pay fees
3585 2011-03-01 20:33:39 <jgarzik> edcba: fee == priority. if you don't care how long it takes to approve your TX, you don't pay a fee.
3586 2011-03-01 20:33:41 <slush> Simply said, I don't think it is problem of pool, but the network. if it cannot handle 40 payments every hour, something is broken
3587 2011-03-01 20:33:54 <slush> (This does not mean that I don't change pool rules)
3588 2011-03-01 20:34:02 <hazek> I thought this issue was because of a bug?
3589 2011-03-01 20:34:12 <jgarzik> slush: it can handle 40 payments/hour no problem. it just considers 40 tiny payments/hour as spam.
3590 2011-03-01 20:34:29 <Blitzboom> it shouldnât do this imo
3591 2011-03-01 20:34:46 <Blitzboom> too sensitive
3592 2011-03-01 20:34:51 <edcba> what if i have only 0.01 btc and your wife dies if the fee is not processed soon !!!
3593 2011-03-01 20:34:53 * BurtyB increased payout earlier.. i didnt realise it would be causing problems tbh
3594 2011-03-01 20:34:54 <hazek> 40 tx per hour?
3595 2011-03-01 20:35:00 <hazek> and you guys want this to go mainstream?
3596 2011-03-01 20:35:04 <slush> I don't think 30 tx between 1 and 80 BTC can be considered as spam at all
3597 2011-03-01 20:35:13 <slush> yes, maybe those under 0.1 btc
3598 2011-03-01 20:35:17 <gasteve> again, dropped transactions (or even substantially delayed transactions) are a recipe for disaster...fees are inevitable, but you need a reliable way for people to know what to pay to ensure a transaction goes through...I think you pay through either computing a proof of work for a transaction, some fee, or some combination...and the fee/difficulty requirement on a transaction would be linked to the mining difficulty
3599 2011-03-01 20:35:17 <jgarzik> slush: sorry, the MrBurns floods proved differently
3600 2011-03-01 20:35:51 <jgarzik> gasteve: why do you keep referring to dropped transactions, when transactions are not being dropped?
3601 2011-03-01 20:36:16 <gasteve> then what is it that everyone was complaining about?
3602 2011-03-01 20:36:16 <jgarzik> slush's pool is heavily using a free resource
3603 2011-03-01 20:36:27 <jgarzik> slush's pool is heavily using a free resource... then people complain about the Tragedy of the Commons
3604 2011-03-01 20:36:48 <Blitzboom> i wouldnât consider this heavily
3605 2011-03-01 20:36:49 <lfm> woo hoo 8.333 hash/sec
3606 2011-03-01 20:36:52 <slush> jgarzik: they still can put fees into their transactions to get higher priority ;)
3607 2011-03-01 20:36:54 <gasteve> jgarzik: it's not a free resource...it costs everyone 50 btc for every block that is created
3608 2011-03-01 20:36:58 <jgarzik> gasteve: delayed transactions
3609 2011-03-01 20:36:59 <Blitzboom> just imagine what people would do if bitcoin became mainstream
3610 2011-03-01 20:37:16 <jgarzik> gasteve: incorrect. it doesn't cost me anything to mint a new block.
3611 2011-03-01 20:37:27 <Blitzboom> organizations/companies would have way more transactions than this
3612 2011-03-01 20:37:33 <jgarzik> Blitzboom: ? they would pay a TX fee
3613 2011-03-01 20:37:39 <gasteve> if you hold any bitcoins it does
3614 2011-03-01 20:37:41 <jgarzik> Blitzboom: and everything would work as expected
3615 2011-03-01 20:37:55 <Blitzboom> why? obviously, the client doesnât advise you to
3616 2011-03-01 20:38:00 <Blitzboom> yet
3617 2011-03-01 20:38:09 <jgarzik> Blitzboom: yes it does
3618 2011-03-01 20:38:11 <gasteve> (all holders of bitcoins subsidize block creation through inflation currently)
3619 2011-03-01 20:38:12 <tcatm> couldn't slush accept his TX without fees himself? the pool is powerful enough...
3620 2011-03-01 20:38:14 <hazek> fees are not the answer
3621 2011-03-01 20:38:22 <lfm> this is a BUG. you will not have to pay fees
3622 2011-03-01 20:38:26 <hazek> what about later, if this goes mainstream
3623 2011-03-01 20:38:33 <Blitzboom> i thought iâve read that it doesnât for certain transactions
3624 2011-03-01 20:38:39 <hazek> lfm can you explain the nature of the bug?
3625 2011-03-01 20:38:42 <jgarzik> hazek: so you want all transactions to be free, forever?
3626 2011-03-01 20:38:48 <jgarzik> hazek: how is that mainstream?
3627 2011-03-01 20:38:57 <hazek> no I didn't say that
3628 2011-03-01 20:39:11 <lfm> hazek: not completely. just a lot of txn are getting backed up
3629 2011-03-01 20:39:11 <edcba> if transactions are dropped it allows easier double spending...
3630 2011-03-01 20:39:13 <hazek> I said fees are not the solution to this particular problem
3631 2011-03-01 20:39:16 <slush> jgarzik: I think there is huge space for free transactions in the block, as reward for generation is 50 BTC
3632 2011-03-01 20:39:21 <jgarzik> tcatm: in theory, slush can mint blocks with payments going directly to the pool users, a la puddinpop's client.
3633 2011-03-01 20:39:46 <slush> jgarzik: I'm open to include my payments in the next mined block
3634 2011-03-01 20:39:52 <jgarzik> edcba: transactions are not getting dropped
3635 2011-03-01 20:40:00 <slush> jgarzik: not in the block itself, computing it realtime is too difficult
3636 2011-03-01 20:40:09 <Blitzboom> they are being seriously delayed, thatâs bad enough
3637 2011-03-01 20:40:11 <gasteve> I think it's actually more likely that transactions will always be free...even with the current scheme
3638 2011-03-01 20:40:26 <tcatm> slush: well, then in the next block
3639 2011-03-01 20:40:35 MartianW has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
3640 2011-03-01 20:40:52 <slush> tcatm: My point is that I'm using stock bitcoind which does not allow this anyhow
3641 2011-03-01 20:40:53 <nanotube> mmm so are we still seeing a large backlog of low-priority tx?
3642 2011-03-01 20:41:12 <lfm> woo hoo! 25.000 hash/sec
3643 2011-03-01 20:41:13 <jgarzik> Blitzboom: a delay and data loss are two -vastly- different problems from a technical perspective, and a monetary perspective.
3644 2011-03-01 20:41:16 <gasteve> merchants will have a vested interest in subsidizing block creation...and that subsidy will ensure it remains unprofitable for anyone who has ideas about making money solely from mining
3645 2011-03-01 20:41:27 <Blitzboom> of course, jgarzik
3646 2011-03-01 20:42:11 <Blitzboom> humans donât work that way though. most think that it gets lost
3647 2011-03-01 20:42:18 <hazek> jgarzik but if we are already having huge delays, can you imagine how many we would have it this was more popular?
3648 2011-03-01 20:42:22 <luke-jr> lfm: 25?
3649 2011-03-01 20:42:25 <Blitzboom> which isnât very bad for the trust in a currency, is it?
3650 2011-03-01 20:42:32 <Blitzboom> very good*
3651 2011-03-01 20:42:32 <hazek> even high fees wouldn't get your tx into a block fast enough
3652 2011-03-01 20:42:44 <jgarzik> there are always going to be variants of this problem: people think TX's will always be free, so they create a ton of transactions. then wonder why there are problems. TX fees are a GOOD thing -- they mitigate a resource.
3653 2011-03-01 20:42:58 <luke-jr> hazek: sure it would. even 0.00000001 fee is enough
3654 2011-03-01 20:43:05 <jgarzik> hazek: there will be no free TXs once bitcoins are popular, so this problem will not exist
3655 2011-03-01 20:43:18 <gasteve> lost or delayed transactions are bad, as are high transaction fees...the only trick is to faciliate legitimate free transactions while solving the issue of spam
3656 2011-03-01 20:43:31 <luke-jr> who keeps sending 0.05 BTC with 0.0001 BTC fee?
3657 2011-03-01 20:43:41 <jgarzik> once bitcoins are popular, the probability of being in free-tx area is very small. thus, nobody will send TX's without a fee.
3658 2011-03-01 20:43:55 <gasteve> jgarzik: I think you're wrong...I think free transactions are far more likely to be a permanent feature of bitcoins
3659 2011-03-01 20:44:05 <hazek> OK clear this up for me please because I obviously don't understand where the problem is: it's not that there are too many tx trying to get into a block but that there are tx without a fee that get dropped into a backlog?
3660 2011-03-01 20:44:36 <lfm> and the limit of free txn is too tight atm
3661 2011-03-01 20:44:37 <edcba> hazek: pb is ppl waiting for payments :)
3662 2011-03-01 20:44:39 <jgarzik> hazek: only TX's with (a) young coins and (b) tiny amounts values are getting delayed in a backlog
3663 2011-03-01 20:44:47 TD has joined
3664 2011-03-01 20:44:47 <jgarzik> hazek: everything else gets confirmed immediately
3665 2011-03-01 20:44:56 <jgarzik> slush's coins are by definition young coins
3666 2011-03-01 20:45:31 phantomcircuit_ has joined
3667 2011-03-01 20:45:35 <Blitzboom> jgarzik: ok, tell me why my 12h old 0.31 BTC was confirmed later than a 0.01 BTC transaction three minutes old
3668 2011-03-01 20:45:36 <hazek> thank you I now finaly get it and I see it's a non issue for the future.
3669 2011-03-01 20:45:49 <gasteve> (well, I shouldn't say free...but subsidized...by merchants, exchange operators, and everyone else that has an interest in facilitating transactions)
3670 2011-03-01 20:45:50 <slush> ok, isn't the easiest solution of this to have higher limit for free tx?
3671 2011-03-01 20:45:55 <hazek> you people need to be careful how you explain things in here
3672 2011-03-01 20:45:59 alystair has quit (Quit: â(ã»_ã»)âOUTTA HEREâ(ã»oã»)â)
3673 2011-03-01 20:46:04 <hazek> I'm a layman and I don't understand as easily as you do
3674 2011-03-01 20:46:06 <jgarzik> Blitzboom: once you get delayed initially, you're limited to a periodic resend
3675 2011-03-01 20:46:28 <jgarzik> slush: sure -- you're asking for more of a resource for free
3676 2011-03-01 20:46:31 <hazek> and my confidence can easily be shaken if I start believing something because of my misunderstanding
3677 2011-03-01 20:46:32 <jgarzik> slush: makes sense for you, but not the network
3678 2011-03-01 20:46:41 <lfm> Blitzboom: you dont really know how old or young you txn inputs are
3679 2011-03-01 20:46:55 riush has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
3680 2011-03-01 20:46:56 <xelister> but what is the problem here, guys?
3681 2011-03-01 20:47:00 <Blitzboom> huh. i thought itâs just when it was sent
3682 2011-03-01 20:47:03 <slush> ok, in the pool case, those amount of txes isn't free at all. The pool still does almost 20% of hashing speed
3683 2011-03-01 20:47:03 <TD> if the network has spare resources, why wouldn't they be available for free? or are slushes transactions actually pushing us over the max block size?
3684 2011-03-01 20:47:10 <xelister> txes are not always fastly included in blocks?
3685 2011-03-01 20:47:17 <xelister> why? they dont reach miners or miners ignore them?
3686 2011-03-01 20:47:35 <jgarzik> xelister: read scrollback :)
3687 2011-03-01 20:47:53 <slush> and 50 BTC as reward for mining isn't enough to include hundreds of free transactions in the block?
3688 2011-03-01 20:48:02 phantomcircuit has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
3689 2011-03-01 20:48:03 <lfm> jgarzik: limiting free txn to 12 or 20 per block seems a but tight atm
3690 2011-03-01 20:48:05 <BlueMatt> ;;seen ArtForz
3691 2011-03-01 20:48:05 <gribble> ArtForz was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 8 hours, 55 minutes, and 14 seconds ago: <ArtForz> yes
3692 2011-03-01 20:48:07 <BlueMatt> ;;seen ArtForzZz
3693 2011-03-01 20:48:08 <gribble> ArtForzZz was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 1 day, 10 hours, 34 minutes, and 45 seconds ago: <ArtForzZz> and expensive as hell
3694 2011-03-01 20:48:09 <slush> It will be different when there will be no reward for mining itself
3695 2011-03-01 20:48:26 <jgarzik> lfm: I'm open to removing 4k limit, and simply score up to 27k higher limit
3696 2011-03-01 20:49:07 <jgarzik> slush: sorry, you're either asking for (a) special network rules that apply only to slush, or (b) making it really inexpensive for people to spam every network node with data
3697 2011-03-01 20:49:12 <phantomcircuit_> why not just include the 50 BTC as a fee in the calculations?
3698 2011-03-01 20:49:15 <jgarzik> boolean decision
3699 2011-03-01 20:49:33 <slush> I don't care about my case
3700 2011-03-01 20:49:48 <slush> I just think the limit is too tight for no reason, as lfm said
3701 2011-03-01 20:50:18 <lfm> not exactly no reason but it is tighter than it needs to be for now
3702 2011-03-01 20:50:23 <phantomcircuit_> why not let each person set their own limit?
3703 2011-03-01 20:50:29 <phantomcircuit_> fee/byte
3704 2011-03-01 20:50:31 <jgarzik> transactions _do_ cost the entire network, and it is very important to get the incentives right. You should never -assume- you will get TX's for free.
3705 2011-03-01 20:50:38 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit_: then I'll set it low, and spam the network :)
3706 2011-03-01 20:50:50 <slush> jgarzik: I can shutdown significant part of bitcoin network without sending single transaction
3707 2011-03-01 20:51:07 <edcba> it costs entire network but the costs is not in fees...
3708 2011-03-01 20:51:13 <gasteve> the main thing I'm advocating is that the network establish some rules on block that they accept that help ensure all transactions go through
3709 2011-03-01 20:51:19 <lfm> slush you mean like just turn off your server?
3710 2011-03-01 20:51:23 <jgarzik> gasteve: we already have such rules
3711 2011-03-01 20:51:33 <slush> lfm: no, I'm talking about generic DoS attacks
3712 2011-03-01 20:51:42 <jgarzik> gasteve: the rules are posted at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees
3713 2011-03-01 20:51:43 <gasteve> jgarzik: could you briefly state what the current rules are?
3714 2011-03-01 20:51:43 <edcba> the problem is not on blocks but on transactions
3715 2011-03-01 20:51:48 <gasteve> thanks
3716 2011-03-01 20:52:05 <edcba> there is "no limit" on transactions
3717 2011-03-01 20:52:46 <jgarzik> edcba: that's why they are scored. that leaves the main problem being an unlimited TX cache in the implementation...
3718 2011-03-01 20:53:29 <davex__> luke-jr, so a transaction that gets relayed by a single node, with a fee less than the minimum required by all the other nodes, can still get into a block produced by one of those other nodes?
3719 2011-03-01 20:53:30 <phantomcircuit_> lol another infinitly expanding buffer?
3720 2011-03-01 20:53:32 <phantomcircuit_> nice
3721 2011-03-01 20:53:45 <lfm> jgarzik: a more gradual implementation would prolly be better received
3722 2011-03-01 20:53:45 skeledrew1 has joined
3723 2011-03-01 20:53:50 <phantomcircuit_> AND it's also trying to outsmart the OS
3724 2011-03-01 20:53:52 <phantomcircuit_> genius
3725 2011-03-01 20:53:53 <slush> lfm: And if I understand the mechanism of backlogging well, anybody can shut down many nodes by broadcasting large amount of transactions, too. They don't need to be include in the blockchain to eat network resource, do they?
3726 2011-03-01 20:53:55 <luke-jr> davex__: no?
3727 2011-03-01 20:54:01 <davex__> luke-jr, or only if your node happens to produce the block?
3728 2011-03-01 20:54:06 <luke-jr> davex__: right
3729 2011-03-01 20:54:11 <davex__> ok that makes more sense.
3730 2011-03-01 20:54:16 <luke-jr> you need to send the tx direct to my node, and my node will put it in a block for you
3731 2011-03-01 20:54:27 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit_: inf buffer? yes. outsmarting OS? not this time. :)
3732 2011-03-01 20:54:45 <phantomcircuit_> jgarzik, i said "trying" to outsmart the os
3733 2011-03-01 20:54:47 <TD> there are lots of ways to DoS bitcoin network today
3734 2011-03-01 20:54:52 <TD> fewer with each release
3735 2011-03-01 20:54:58 <phantomcircuit_> jgarzik, wouldn't relying on the filesystem to do caching be a better idea...
3736 2011-03-01 20:55:02 <jgarzik> slush: correct. that is what "unlimited TX cache" is
3737 2011-03-01 20:55:16 <phantomcircuit_> also wtf why am i getting packets w/o checksums
3738 2011-03-01 20:55:18 <phantomcircuit_> RAGGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEE
3739 2011-03-01 20:55:20 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit_: well, the same argument can be made for any data held in RAM, from the smallest variable
3740 2011-03-01 20:55:37 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit_: if it's just a few TX's, RAM is reasonable.
3741 2011-03-01 20:55:37 Kiba has joined
3742 2011-03-01 20:55:41 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit_: but it's not.
3743 2011-03-01 20:55:51 <phantomcircuit_> jgarzik, just mmap it
3744 2011-03-01 20:55:53 <phantomcircuit_> magic
3745 2011-03-01 20:56:00 <slush> jgarzik: my point is that rejecting free tx from block does not help with malicious spamming of the network. It just fed up regular users sending normal payments :)
3746 2011-03-01 20:56:06 * phantomcircuit_ makes more bad suggestions
3747 2011-03-01 20:56:10 <phantomcircuit_> lol brb
3748 2011-03-01 20:56:12 phantomcircuit_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
3749 2011-03-01 20:56:13 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit_: heh, no :)
3750 2011-03-01 20:56:20 <gasteve> jgarzik: there's nothing on that wiki page that suggests clients will reject blocks if, for example, it doesn't include a certain number of "old" transactions if there are old transactions still floating around the network
3751 2011-03-01 20:56:20 phantomcircuit has joined
3752 2011-03-01 20:56:33 <jgarzik> slush: having one avenue of spam does not justify creating another
3753 2011-03-01 20:56:39 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
3754 2011-03-01 20:56:40 <jgarzik> two wrongs don't make a right, etc.
3755 2011-03-01 20:57:15 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, no but they make 2/3rds of a left
3756 2011-03-01 20:57:21 <jgarzik> gasteve: nobody is talking about clients rejecting blocks
3757 2011-03-01 20:57:27 Edogaa has joined
3758 2011-03-01 20:57:35 <gasteve> that's what I am talking about
3759 2011-03-01 20:57:37 <slush> it's funny how different angle of view we have in many things :)
3760 2011-03-01 20:57:45 <TD> slush: is it possible to structure your transactions to not hit the limits?
3761 2011-03-01 20:57:57 <phantomcircuit> so what happens if someone generates a block with a crapton of tiny txs in it?
3762 2011-03-01 20:58:06 <gasteve> the solution to spam transactions is to require a proof-of-work if they don't include a transaction fee
3763 2011-03-01 20:58:09 <slush> TD: maybe yes. I can set up only daily payouts of users, for example
3764 2011-03-01 20:58:12 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: nothing. the miner is allowed to set the rules.
3765 2011-03-01 20:58:18 <slush> TD: I can rise up minimal limit for payout
3766 2011-03-01 20:58:26 <jgarzik> a miner can accept 500k block with 100% free TX's
3767 2011-03-01 20:58:27 <jgarzik> up to the miner
3768 2011-03-01 20:58:38 <slush> TD: but every of this will fed up pool users, because they won't understand the reason
3769 2011-03-01 20:58:40 <edcba> hmm
3770 2011-03-01 20:58:49 <TD> slush: is it possible to spread the payouts over more blocks
3771 2011-03-01 20:58:52 <TD> rather than doing them all at once?
3772 2011-03-01 20:58:55 <gasteve> (and clients would refuse to propagate transactions that don't have a proof of work or a fee ...this would impose a cost on every transaction)
3773 2011-03-01 20:58:57 * edcba will create a 10G block
3774 2011-03-01 20:59:05 <jgarzik> edcba: limit 1MB
3775 2011-03-01 20:59:09 <edcba> damn
3776 2011-03-01 20:59:18 <edcba> maybe...
3777 2011-03-01 20:59:19 <slush> TD: I can start payout script more often than once per hour. But I don't know if it helps anyway
3778 2011-03-01 20:59:26 <jgarzik> so yes, a miner can fill blocks with spam transactions all day and night
3779 2011-03-01 20:59:34 <edcba> is bitcoin source code browsable online somewhere ?
3780 2011-03-01 20:59:40 <jgarzik> edcba: github
3781 2011-03-01 20:59:46 <tcatm> edcba: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
3782 2011-03-01 21:00:00 <edcba> thanks
3783 2011-03-01 21:00:08 RichardG has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
3784 2011-03-01 21:00:11 <gasteve> slush: it's not just fed up pool users...I think we could probably come up with other, similar services where this would be an issue
3785 2011-03-01 21:00:17 <lfm> slush: more like set it back to once a day
3786 2011-03-01 21:00:25 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, so a single person with a single 5970 could easily pollute the block chain with a buttload of tx?
3787 2011-03-01 21:00:34 <jgarzik> gasteve: pool users are most likely to have young blocks
3788 2011-03-01 21:00:35 RichardG has joined
3789 2011-03-01 21:01:06 <lfm> phantomcircuit: you dont need any gpu
3790 2011-03-01 21:01:12 * mmarker goes back to breaking more working code
3791 2011-03-01 21:01:14 <slush> TD: If there will be any patch of client to include all my own transactions into the block which I'm mining, I'll use it. So broadcasting to others won't be needed at all
3792 2011-03-01 21:01:19 <slush> gasteve: I agree
3793 2011-03-01 21:01:20 <phantomcircuit> lfm, why not?
3794 2011-03-01 21:01:21 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: "pollute" once every 5 days, yes
3795 2011-03-01 21:01:25 bk128 has joined
3796 2011-03-01 21:01:32 <phantomcircuit> ;;bc,calc 600000
3797 2011-03-01 21:01:33 <slush> lfm: Pool sent rewards every hour all the time, I didn't changed anything
3798 2011-03-01 21:01:34 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 600000 Khps, given current difficulty of 55590.23763914 , is 4 days, 14 hours, 32 minutes, and 10 seconds
3799 2011-03-01 21:01:43 <lfm> phantomcircuit: you can ploute the net with TXN from a batch script
3800 2011-03-01 21:02:01 <gasteve> and, actually, transaction fees themselves will contribute to this fracturing problem
3801 2011-03-01 21:02:05 <phantomcircuit> lfm, im not talking about the net, im talking about the accepted block chain
3802 2011-03-01 21:02:15 <lfm> phantomcircuit: yes
3803 2011-03-01 21:02:16 <jgarzik> gasteve: pool users are most likely to have young coins, because that's what a pool does: mint new coins. Any other application, like a payment processor, will be dealing with older coins, which thus have a higher TX score.
3804 2011-03-01 21:02:41 <phantomcircuit> lfm, obviously polluting the net will bogus tx's is easy, but that's at best an annoyance
3805 2011-03-01 21:02:51 <gasteve> wait, what? why are younger coins any different from older ones?
3806 2011-03-01 21:02:52 <lfm> slush: just a suggestion that every hour isnt needed
3807 2011-03-01 21:03:03 <phantomcircuit> polluting the block chain however would be a permanent pita
3808 2011-03-01 21:03:19 <lfm> phantomcircuit: that is the root of the problem actually
3809 2011-03-01 21:03:26 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: bitcoin is ultimately a distributed data storage service
3810 2011-03-01 21:03:27 <slush> lfm: in reality, people are switching from my pool to others, because they get payments even more instant ;) So "needed" is relative
3811 2011-03-01 21:03:37 <slush> lfm: I agree, but users probably don't
3812 2011-03-01 21:03:46 <jgarzik> decentralized, distributed digital notary service for small amounts of data
3813 2011-03-01 21:03:49 <TD> gasteve: the idea is that if coins move and they just recently moved, they are more likely to be a part of a spam attack so they have lower priority
3814 2011-03-01 21:04:20 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, and the problem is that anybody can add to the chain of data
3815 2011-03-01 21:04:20 <edcba> more likely than ?
3816 2011-03-01 21:04:23 <gasteve> ah, ic
3817 2011-03-01 21:04:40 <TD> gasteve: otherwise you could buy 100 btc and then constantly flood the network with sending those coins between addresses you control over and over again, this would use up all the resources needd for "real" transactions that are more likely to be using static coins
3818 2011-03-01 21:04:50 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: Yes, I agree 100%. But people have been trying to figure out how to store DNS data in the block chain, for example. It's an idea that's out there. Search the forums for "BitDNS" and "BitX"
3819 2011-03-01 21:04:59 ducki2p has joined
3820 2011-03-01 21:04:59 <edcba> lower priority but it's still flooding network
3821 2011-03-01 21:05:00 <phantomcircuit> yeah i saw it
3822 2011-03-01 21:05:05 <edcba> i don't see what it prevents
3823 2011-03-01 21:05:13 <gasteve> do the clients refuse to forward such transactions? or is it just the miners enforcing it?
3824 2011-03-01 21:05:24 <TD> the problem is, that this is one of the few parts of BitCoin that satoshi hasn't fully thought through
3825 2011-03-01 21:05:37 <jgarzik> gasteve: miners sort transactions into block based on priority. anything that doesn't make it into the current block is stored in cache for later.
3826 2011-03-01 21:05:40 <edcba> the few but huge :)
3827 2011-03-01 21:05:48 <TD> the fee mechanism was created as a phased replacement for the inflation of the currency, to give miners an incentive in later years. now it's being [ab]used to try and control spam
3828 2011-03-01 21:05:52 <lfm> ALL THOSE TXN BACKLOGGED ARE FREELOADERS and cant really complain about what they get for the price
3829 2011-03-01 21:05:56 <phantomcircuit> well there is a fairly simple solution
3830 2011-03-01 21:06:04 <gasteve> (clients should refuse to forward, or delay forwarding transactions involving recent accounts that don't have a fee...to help avoid spam on the network)
3831 2011-03-01 21:06:09 <TD> however we lack a better solution at this time
3832 2011-03-01 21:06:13 <phantomcircuit> have each peer require a proof of work when accepting a tx
3833 2011-03-01 21:06:28 <slush> jgarzik: Is there any specific reason why older coins have higher priority? Just a question, I don't understand this part.
3834 2011-03-01 21:06:33 <edcba> that won't prevent ppl flooding the network phantomcircuit
3835 2011-03-01 21:06:43 <Lachesis> phantomcircuit, hrm interesting
3836 2011-03-01 21:06:53 <lfm> slush: dust would be new coins is all
3837 2011-03-01 21:07:00 <edcba> we need clients to be able to drop transactions
3838 2011-03-01 21:07:00 <phantomcircuit> edcba, require the proof of work from the original node, for each node which accepts the tx
3839 2011-03-01 21:07:08 <phantomcircuit> edcba, that's a lot of work pretty fast
3840 2011-03-01 21:07:14 <Lachesis> of course, it would have to be low work
3841 2011-03-01 21:07:25 <Lachesis> so even my phone or ancient computer could do it
3842 2011-03-01 21:07:26 <gasteve> lfm: careful you don't throw the baby out with the bath water...free transactions are an attractive aspect of bitcoins...and attracting new people to use bitcoins is important to its continued success
3843 2011-03-01 21:07:30 <TD> slush: it's not about "newness" from what i understand. it's about how recently the coins last moved.
3844 2011-03-01 21:07:45 <Lachesis> but then my gpu would be able to spam like mad
3845 2011-03-01 21:07:45 <Lachesis> still
3846 2011-03-01 21:07:49 <lfm> td ya, its called new coins tho
3847 2011-03-01 21:07:50 <phantomcircuit> Lachesis, your phone wouldnt be doing the work, the phone would just be a gui for a remote machine doing said work
3848 2011-03-01 21:08:04 <Lachesis> phantomcircuit, i don't like the idea of requiring large work to just send a txn
3849 2011-03-01 21:08:05 <slush> TD: oh, that make sense as anti-spamming feature
3850 2011-03-01 21:08:10 <TD> slush: by definition newly minted coins "moved" recently (into existence). but if you send yourself some coins you had for a while, then immediately send them again, they are now low priority
3851 2011-03-01 21:08:14 <TD> right
3852 2011-03-01 21:08:19 <TD> priority makes sense
3853 2011-03-01 21:08:46 <edcba> you just need to require trust in nodes
3854 2011-03-01 21:09:09 <slush> I agree that free tx is the big edge of bitcoin network
3855 2011-03-01 21:09:13 <edcba> nodes sending too much tx have a lower chance to have their tx forwarded
3856 2011-03-01 21:09:13 <lfm> td and if you want to split up a block many ways the first one is not new, the rest are brand new from the change
3857 2011-03-01 21:09:15 <edcba> that's all
3858 2011-03-01 21:09:19 kelvie_`` has joined
3859 2011-03-01 21:09:23 <phantomcircuit> TD, that's a much more elegant solution
3860 2011-03-01 21:09:57 <Lachesis> is there some reason we can't just take every block-size and rate-limit constant in the code and multiply it by ten?
3861 2011-03-01 21:10:08 <gasteve> edcba: careful with that trust idea...the whole concept of bitcoins is that you dissipate trust through the entire community...if you start forming networks of only trusted nodes...centralization of control won't be far behind
3862 2011-03-01 21:10:12 <Lachesis> thus processing like 80 txn / block instead of 8
3863 2011-03-01 21:10:13 <TD> no. but it just puts the problem off for another day.
3864 2011-03-01 21:10:23 <Lachesis> TD true
3865 2011-03-01 21:10:28 <TD> like i said. the basic issue here is that satoshi did not fully think through resource allocation on the network
3866 2011-03-01 21:10:40 <edcba> gasteve: it doesn't prevent new nodes
3867 2011-03-01 21:10:43 <TD> the bitcoin network is constrained in several dimensions. it's a limited resource.
3868 2011-03-01 21:10:52 <TD> satoshi came up with elegant solutions to many problems that are self regulating - like difficulty
3869 2011-03-01 21:11:08 <TD> the hard coded limits that currently exist really aren't elegant or self regulating at all
3870 2011-03-01 21:11:20 kelvie_` has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
3871 2011-03-01 21:11:25 <edcba> yes but he didn't take care of p2p network regulation
3872 2011-03-01 21:11:36 <TD> the ideal solution would be to have these limits flex depending on how much capacity the network has. the problem is that "capacity" can refer to disk space, network bandwidth, cpu time ...
3873 2011-03-01 21:11:39 <edcba> it's all hard coded constants
3874 2011-03-01 21:11:46 ducki2p has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
3875 2011-03-01 21:11:49 <TD> bitcoin _is_ p2p network regulation :-) it doesn't solve all problems but it does solve many
3876 2011-03-01 21:12:04 <edcba> bitcoin is timestamping protocol
3877 2011-03-01 21:12:20 kelvie_`` has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
3878 2011-03-01 21:12:37 <edcba> that's the only original thing it brings
3879 2011-03-01 21:12:40 kelvie_`` has joined
3880 2011-03-01 21:12:45 <edcba> p2p timestamping
3881 2011-03-01 21:12:55 vasile has left ()
3882 2011-03-01 21:13:13 <TD> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1865.0
3883 2011-03-01 21:13:16 <TD> see that discussion
3884 2011-03-01 21:13:22 <TD> block size limits could indeed be something like difficulty
3885 2011-03-01 21:14:05 <edcba> the pb isn't block size it is bandwidth imo
3886 2011-03-01 21:14:34 <slush> ok, some negotiation about needed transaction for the payment may be enough. But I don't have an idea how to implement it in p2p
3887 2011-03-01 21:14:47 <slush> because all miners can have different rules
3888 2011-03-01 21:15:01 <slush> about needed transaction fee, of course
3889 2011-03-01 21:15:22 <edcba> maybe i should code instead of getting drunk and discussing on irc :)
3890 2011-03-01 21:15:31 <jgarzik> slush: old coins are preferred, because spam transactions are more likely to have been recently created. That is what happens when you send the same coins over and over again.
3891 2011-03-01 21:15:50 <slush> jgarzik: yes, TD explained this, thanks
3892 2011-03-01 21:16:01 <slush> it makes sense
3893 2011-03-01 21:16:03 <lfm> slush: force minimum payout to 0.10 maybe?
3894 2011-03-01 21:16:30 ducki2p has joined
3895 2011-03-01 21:16:34 <jgarzik> I think other pools will see this problem too, if they succeed in stealing users away from slush. But by then it may be too late :/
3896 2011-03-01 21:16:42 <lfm> ya I know users would be unhappy
3897 2011-03-01 21:16:58 <jgarzik> Unfortunately for slush, the monopoly effect works against him -- probability says more pools == more users lost by slush.
3898 2011-03-01 21:17:15 <slush> lfm: I think you kill idea of microtransaction network with fees forced on some amount like 0.1
3899 2011-03-01 21:17:29 <slush> jgarzik: I don't care about it
3900 2011-03-01 21:17:30 <Blitzboom> second that
3901 2011-03-01 21:17:40 <slush> I don't think I have monopoly at all
3902 2011-03-01 21:17:48 <slush> THere is no barrier to the industry
3903 2011-03-01 21:17:48 <jgarzik> bitcoin will never be a microtransaction network, after the first few years
3904 2011-03-01 21:17:57 <slush> *to enter the "pool industry"
3905 2011-03-01 21:18:05 <lfm> bitcoin never was really designed for micropayment imho
3906 2011-03-01 21:18:06 <jgarzik> slush: not strict monopoly, no. it just means you have the largest share of pool users by far.
3907 2011-03-01 21:18:09 <jgarzik> lfm: nope
3908 2011-03-01 21:18:41 <edcba> it is not designed for micropayments because it can't handle numerous transactions
3909 2011-03-01 21:18:44 <edcba> that's all
3910 2011-03-01 21:18:51 <edcba> still same problem
3911 2011-03-01 21:19:16 <jgarzik> edcba: what does a decentralized system designed for numerous transactions look like? what are the incentives?
3912 2011-03-01 21:20:31 <edcba> you distribute disk space and bandwidth
3913 2011-03-01 21:21:18 <edcba> and you just forward better blocks and txs to more trusted nodes
3914 2011-03-01 21:22:12 <Kiba> jgarzik: well, for any micropayment service, the cost of doing business must be lower than the cost of doing business with bitcoin
3915 2011-03-01 21:22:12 <edcba> drawbacks is you have to trust network to hold all transactions + blocks...
3916 2011-03-01 21:22:42 <kupo> hi lfm
3917 2011-03-01 21:22:49 <kupo> long time no speak
3918 2011-03-01 21:23:02 <lfm> kupo hi
3919 2011-03-01 21:23:38 <lfm> I have always advocated offloading micro txn to centralized hubs such as mybitcoin
3920 2011-03-01 21:23:58 <jgarzik> edcba: if you have a trust network, there's no need for proof-of-work. The system looks vastly different from bitcoin, and it's not decentralized. :)
3921 2011-03-01 21:24:07 <jgarzik> lfm: agreed
3922 2011-03-01 21:24:13 <edcba> why not decentralized ?
3923 2011-03-01 21:24:30 <edcba> trust network isn't like pgp
3924 2011-03-01 21:24:31 <lfm> edcba: just bitcoin cant handle it
3925 2011-03-01 21:24:35 <jgarzik> edcba: a trust network implies centralized, even if the cabal is largely decentralized
3926 2011-03-01 21:24:55 <edcba> you tell a node to store a tx
3927 2011-03-01 21:25:06 <lfm> edcba: if you know a decentralized net suitable for micro txn then let me know
3928 2011-03-01 21:25:11 <edcba> you ask it again it gives it to you +1 for that node
3929 2011-03-01 21:25:21 <edcba> it forwards new blocks/txs +1
3930 2011-03-01 21:25:22 <edcba> etc
3931 2011-03-01 21:25:34 <edcba> trust is given to well behaving nodes
3932 2011-03-01 21:25:37 <edcba> that's all
3933 2011-03-01 21:25:37 <jgarzik> edcba: but I'd say it's a fallacy to claim that bitcoin cannot handle numerous transactions. All we need to do is bump the block limit to increase scalability, and a plan has been outlined for that already.
3934 2011-03-01 21:25:43 RichardG has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
3935 2011-03-01 21:25:46 <lfm> edcba: but that doesnt exist
3936 2011-03-01 21:26:02 <edcba> ie bitcoin lacks a rogue node detection
3937 2011-03-01 21:26:23 RichardG has joined
3938 2011-03-01 21:26:24 <jgarzik> who defines "rogue" ? :)
3939 2011-03-01 21:26:32 <TD> bitcoin does not auto update. changing hard coded constants will get harder and harder over time.
3940 2011-03-01 21:26:41 <jgarzik> TD: yep
3941 2011-03-01 21:27:02 <edcba> rogue is freeloader
3942 2011-03-01 21:27:03 <lfm> like one solution now is to go back to 0.3.19
3943 2011-03-01 21:27:03 <TD> i liked cavedens proposal to make max block size flex in the same way as difficulty
3944 2011-03-01 21:27:05 <jgarzik> TD: major changes would need to be discussed, and phased in with a "if (block > 123456) { new behavior } else { old behavior }"
3945 2011-03-01 21:27:25 <TD> i think eventually even that will become impossible to do
3946 2011-03-01 21:27:30 <jgarzik> TD: agree
3947 2011-03-01 21:27:36 <jgarzik> TD: well, maybe
3948 2011-03-01 21:27:42 <TD> there'll be lots of clients and alternative implementations that aren't keeping up
3949 2011-03-01 21:27:48 * Kiba needs to get to work
3950 2011-03-01 21:27:50 Ratchet has left ("Follow the blue rabbit - http://freenetproject.org")
3951 2011-03-01 21:27:50 <jgarzik> TD: I do think bitcoin + 5 years will devolve into major mining conglomerates
3952 2011-03-01 21:27:54 <edcba> you just need to convince > 50% clients :)
3953 2011-03-01 21:27:59 <jgarzik> TD: making agreement on rules easier
3954 2011-03-01 21:28:00 <TD> yeah but most of the network nodes won't be miners
3955 2011-03-01 21:28:05 <jgarzik> TD: irrelevant
3956 2011-03-01 21:28:09 <jgarzik> TD: the miners set the rules
3957 2011-03-01 21:28:10 <TD> some of the rules that are network enforced
3958 2011-03-01 21:28:23 <jgarzik> TD: no, ultimately the miners set the rules
3959 2011-03-01 21:28:36 <jgarzik> TD: if people aren't getting their tx's confirmed, they will change
3960 2011-03-01 21:28:45 <lfm> edcba: an oligarchy of miners might easily get the 51% and start handing down edicts
3961 2011-03-01 21:28:49 <TD> blocks larger than certain sizes won't be relayed at all, right?
3962 2011-03-01 21:29:16 <edcba> blocks have fixed size
3963 2011-03-01 21:29:33 <lfm> TD: very very big blocks perhpas, like 200kb is ok
3964 2011-03-01 21:29:35 <edcba> txs contained in blocks haven't
3965 2011-03-01 21:29:43 <slush> I think that in the worst case, we can find those miners with 50% of the current network. They are quite well known :)
3966 2011-03-01 21:29:51 <edcba> lol
3967 2011-03-01 21:29:56 <jgarzik> slush: who added ~90 GH/s recently?
3968 2011-03-01 21:30:11 <edcba> ok i just need to convince slush & ArtForz to form a new network...
3969 2011-03-01 21:30:12 <slush> which 90GH?
3970 2011-03-01 21:30:32 * jgarzik guesses it is not so well known, then... :)
3971 2011-03-01 21:30:34 <slush> I think we can find 200GH of current network pretty easily
3972 2011-03-01 21:30:41 <lfm> I suspect the 90GHash is actually multiple people
3973 2011-03-01 21:31:15 <edcba> it's time to add botnets in bitcoin i guess :)
3974 2011-03-01 21:31:19 <lfm> slush: just get those people to go back to 0.3.19
3975 2011-03-01 21:31:36 <slush> lfm: part of my backends still runs 0.3.19
3976 2011-03-01 21:32:03 <lfm> slush: I mean the main miner nodes to get rid of the backlog
3977 2011-03-01 21:32:17 <slush> the backlog was introduced in .20?
3978 2011-03-01 21:32:24 <lfm> I think so
3979 2011-03-01 21:32:50 <slush> So downgrading of the pool will leads to auto-including own transactions, right?
3980 2011-03-01 21:33:11 <lfm> or at least the problemaric set of rules are in 0.3.20
3981 2011-03-01 21:33:19 <TD> lfm: which change are you thinking of exactly?
3982 2011-03-01 21:33:24 <slush> transactions will be broadcasted, but once the pool find next block, he will include own transactions
3983 2011-03-01 21:33:35 <slush> if so, it is pretty easy to fix
3984 2011-03-01 21:33:46 <slush> and it can also explain why the problems started recently
3985 2011-03-01 21:34:04 * TD doesn't remember any such changes in .20 but he may have overlooked them
3986 2011-03-01 21:34:32 <lfm> slush: yup if you and Art back out to 19 it will prolly dissapear real quick
3987 2011-03-01 21:34:51 <slush> lfm: do you know which patch "break" this?
3988 2011-03-01 21:35:11 <lfm> sorry, not really seems to be a combinations
3989 2011-03-01 21:35:20 <Blitzboom> >and it can also explain why the problems started recently
3990 2011-03-01 21:35:23 <Blitzboom> uhm ⦠why?
3991 2011-03-01 21:35:24 <TD> i'd be very careful with assuming a rollback will fix it
3992 2011-03-01 21:35:25 <molecular> discussion about backlog issue, in case anyone missed: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4009.0;all
3993 2011-03-01 21:35:27 <TD> i'd check with gavin
3994 2011-03-01 21:35:33 <slush> Blitzboom: because I upgraded recently to .20 :)
3995 2011-03-01 21:35:38 <Blitzboom> ah
3996 2011-03-01 21:35:40 <Blitzboom> i see
3997 2011-03-01 21:35:55 <Raulo> I don't remmber this change was done in 0.3.20
3998 2011-03-01 21:35:58 <Raulo> Any proof?
3999 2011-03-01 21:36:02 <TD> i think it's not a rule change
4000 2011-03-01 21:36:07 <slush> TD: yes, if gavin confirm it, I'll definitely downgrade
4001 2011-03-01 21:36:07 <TD> but rather that the transactions just got too large
4002 2011-03-01 21:36:10 <lfm> just a guess almost reall
4003 2011-03-01 21:36:11 <TD> read ArtForz's explanation
4004 2011-03-01 21:36:16 <TD> ArtForz> that tx should have a score of 20567855
4005 2011-03-01 21:36:16 <TD> ArtForz> so it falls short of the dPriority > COIN * 144 / 250 test
4006 2011-03-01 21:36:16 <TD> ArtForz> and as tx size is > 4000, fAllowFree is never true for it
4007 2011-03-01 21:36:20 <Raulo> I think the problem started because the number of transactions increased
4008 2011-03-01 21:36:25 <TD> as in, the tx got so big it no longer can fit into the free section
4009 2011-03-01 21:36:58 <slush> maybe. I really don't understand those internals, so I'll wait to statement of gavin
4010 2011-03-01 21:37:01 <lfm> td I think free section got smaller and rules about new coins got tighter in 0.3.20
4011 2011-03-01 21:37:13 <TD> can you point to a patch that does that please?
4012 2011-03-01 21:37:40 <jgarzik> this?
4013 2011-03-01 21:37:41 <jgarzik> added some DoS limits, removed safe mode
4014 2011-03-01 21:37:41 <jgarzik> git-svn-id: https://bitcoin.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/bitcoin/trunk@199 1a
4015 2011-03-01 21:37:43 <lfm> I cant. like I say, it is mostly a guess
4016 2011-03-01 21:38:26 * jgarzik forgot about this one:
4017 2011-03-01 21:38:28 <jgarzik> + // Limit free transactions per 10 minutes
4018 2011-03-01 21:38:28 <jgarzik> + if (nFees < CENT && GetBoolArg("-limitfreerelay"))
4019 2011-03-01 21:38:48 <TD> you mean that one
4020 2011-03-01 21:38:49 <TD> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/97ee01ad898b0699c2319a1283313881ef4ba430/main.cpp
4021 2011-03-01 21:38:58 <TD> was made last year
4022 2011-03-01 21:39:14 <jgarzik> TD: that's the one I just posted, yes
4023 2011-03-01 21:39:24 <jgarzik> TD: that's SVN r199
4024 2011-03-01 21:39:32 theymos has joined
4025 2011-03-01 21:39:37 <TD> yeah, so it's not new in .20
4026 2011-03-01 21:39:47 <lfm> that one
4027 2011-03-01 21:40:17 <TD> hey theymos
4028 2011-03-01 21:40:21 <theymos> Hi.
4029 2011-03-01 21:40:27 <TD> do you have any plans to point the block explorer at the new testnet?
4030 2011-03-01 21:40:34 <Raulo> The r199 patch does not seem to be relevant here
4031 2011-03-01 21:40:39 <theymos> I do. Maybe this weekend.
4032 2011-03-01 21:40:58 <TD> cool, thanks
4033 2011-03-01 21:41:01 <mmarker> theymos: Do you have a terms of use for your website?
4034 2011-03-01 21:41:02 <quellhorst> man, how the heck do gamers play games with all this noise ? :)
4035 2011-03-01 21:41:13 <molecular> headphones?
4036 2011-03-01 21:41:18 <quellhorst> or are we using even more cards than they could dream of?
4037 2011-03-01 21:41:44 <theymos> mmarker: I do not have any written. What did you want to do?
4038 2011-03-01 21:42:21 <mmarker> theymos: Stopgap measure, to get information about a given block for a client I'm writing.
4039 2011-03-01 21:42:24 <jgarzik> let's see. 'git blame' should tell us the answer...
4040 2011-03-01 21:42:58 Necr0s has joined
4041 2011-03-01 21:43:07 <mmarker> theymos: Basically "This is the block your transaction is in, click here for more details"
4042 2011-03-01 21:44:20 <theymos> mmarker: That's fine. Cache data where you can, though. There are some interfacing hints here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Block_Explorer
4043 2011-03-01 21:44:27 <jgarzik> here we go:
4044 2011-03-01 21:44:29 <jgarzik> require some minimal priority for free transactions to slow down transaction
4045 2011-03-01 21:44:29 <jgarzik> git-svn-id: https://bitcoin.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/bitcoin/trunk@185
4046 2011-03-01 21:44:33 <jgarzik> SVN r185
4047 2011-03-01 21:44:36 <edcba> receiver should be able to add to tx fee
4048 2011-03-01 21:44:55 <quellhorst> how do you do the calc for 2x 312mhash/sec
4049 2011-03-01 21:44:57 <luke-jr> edcba: thought of that
4050 2011-03-01 21:45:20 <luke-jr> edcba: it would require a web UI i think
4051 2011-03-01 21:45:40 <luke-jr> enter txid, get an address to send fee to
4052 2011-03-01 21:45:42 <luke-jr> per miner
4053 2011-03-01 21:46:01 <luke-jr> I wonder if a script can say "must be in the same block as <txid>"
4054 2011-03-01 21:46:25 <jgarzik> git commit for SVN r185: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/f35e21e2e4fcc0aa52edd9f9b58bd19e347597da
4055 2011-03-01 21:46:26 <luke-jr> then someone can send a change-only tx with a fee, only allowed to be in the block of the tx they want
4056 2011-03-01 21:46:38 <luke-jr> not sure how easy the logic would work on the miner end though
4057 2011-03-01 21:46:44 <mmarker> oh, nice. Thanks.
4058 2011-03-01 21:46:47 <jgarzik> I think transactions should die after 24 hours, if they are not confirmed
4059 2011-03-01 21:46:49 <jgarzik> make it easy to resend
4060 2011-03-01 21:46:56 <edcba> i mean it is receiver that can decide if he is in hurry to get his money or not
4061 2011-03-01 21:46:59 doublec has joined
4062 2011-03-01 21:47:08 <edcba> he is at risk of double spending
4063 2011-03-01 21:47:10 <edcba> not sender
4064 2011-03-01 21:47:12 <theymos> luke-jr: Scripts don't support that currently.
4065 2011-03-01 21:47:36 <luke-jr> can scripting be extended without updating every client? :x
4066 2011-03-01 21:47:41 <theymos> No.
4067 2011-03-01 21:47:41 <edcba> lol
4068 2011-03-01 21:47:53 <mmarker> Hmm, is there a written definition for what "data" is in a getwork command (what bits are what) other than the source code?
4069 2011-03-01 21:47:54 <edcba> the whole script idea is really dubious :)
4070 2011-03-01 21:48:11 <theymos> I like script. It lets you do a lot of cool things.
4071 2011-03-01 21:48:15 <luke-jr> so we have scripting for extensibility, yet it's not useful for any real extensions XD
4072 2011-03-01 21:48:21 <edcba> theymos: like ?
4073 2011-03-01 21:48:23 <jgarzik> mmarker: not really. it's the CBlock data structure
4074 2011-03-01 21:48:33 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
4075 2011-03-01 21:48:59 RichardG has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
4076 2011-03-01 21:49:17 <jgarzik> script engine is useless. so much of it is turned off. a redesign would drop the script engine, and use fixed fields instead. you can still do escrow, multi-tx-in and multi-tx-out without a script engine.
4077 2011-03-01 21:49:20 <jgarzik> even BitDNS
4078 2011-03-01 21:49:21 <theymos> edcba: Built-in escrow, using a short password instead of a public key (useful for scratchcards), sending to one of two people, etc.
4079 2011-03-01 21:49:42 <mmarker> jgarzik: Ok. Still working on this SSE2 core, and it's kicking my ass 20 ways till Sunday
4080 2011-03-01 21:50:08 <mmarker> so need more debugging info...and I swear I must be botching the x86_64 SysV ABI somehow...even after reading the doc a few times.
4081 2011-03-01 21:50:12 <jgarzik> mmarker: lots of people are interested. I think someone even posted a bounty, in the ufasoft thread.
4082 2011-03-01 21:50:26 <mmarker> jgarzik: I contacted him. My code is on my github fork
4083 2011-03-01 21:50:39 <jgarzik> mmarker: it might be easier to define a C function, with a stupidly large amount of inline assembly.
4084 2011-03-01 21:50:43 <mmarker> But don't look at it. I've channeled my Imlib1 hacking days with it. It's ass.
4085 2011-03-01 21:50:52 <jgarzik> mmarker: then you don't have to worry about calling conventions at all
4086 2011-03-01 21:50:56 <jgarzik> just inputs and outputs
4087 2011-03-01 21:51:09 <slush> theymos: is there any docs how the short passwords works?
4088 2011-03-01 21:51:10 <mmarker> jgarzik: I think I have the calling convention right, it's just debugging the ASM is a right PITA
4089 2011-03-01 21:51:19 <jgarzik> yeap
4090 2011-03-01 21:51:48 <mmarker> I honestly need to write a proper testcase.
4091 2011-03-01 21:52:01 RichardG has joined
4092 2011-03-01 21:52:06 RichardG has quit (Client Quit)
4093 2011-03-01 21:53:30 <theymos> slush: No. There are two ways to do it: you can use the OP_SHA256 functions to insert a hashed password for verification, or you can use OP_DROP to insert arbitrary data, which would contain the private key encrypted with a short password. The later is safer, though I believe the former, more elegant method could be made safe if some of disabled script ops were re-enabled.
4094 2011-03-01 21:54:08 amiller has joined
4095 2011-03-01 21:54:28 genjix has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
4096 2011-03-01 21:54:37 Sirius has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
4097 2011-03-01 21:54:53 gr0gmint has joined
4098 2011-03-01 21:55:20 Sirius has joined
4099 2011-03-01 21:55:22 <slush> theymos: but both ways needs change in clients?
4100 2011-03-01 21:55:31 <TD> i think you can still include any script you like if you mine that block, no?
4101 2011-03-01 21:55:58 int0x27h has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
4102 2011-03-01 21:56:15 cosurgi has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
4103 2011-03-01 21:56:19 <slush> I can't imagine how to spend money from some block when I just know the hashed password :)
4104 2011-03-01 21:56:29 <slush> some wallet, of course
4105 2011-03-01 21:56:30 <theymos> TD: Right. You'd have to mine a block or get your transaction type to be allowed by IsStandard.
4106 2011-03-01 21:56:33 <TD> yeah
4107 2011-03-01 21:56:35 cosurgi has joined
4108 2011-03-01 21:56:36 <TD> that's what i thought
4109 2011-03-01 21:56:45 <TD> so that's ok .... old clients can understand new scripts
4110 2011-03-01 21:56:48 <TD> they just won't relay or mine them
4111 2011-03-01 21:56:53 <mmarker> Hmm, I hash 64 chars....let's try this, then
4112 2011-03-01 21:57:31 TheKid has joined
4113 2011-03-01 21:57:32 <slush> oh, I finally understand the ecnrypted private key
4114 2011-03-01 21:57:37 <TD> probably the IsStandard() checks could be relaxed over time if better solutions are found to the DoS problems
4115 2011-03-01 21:57:48 <TD> as it's basically a hack to avoid people abusing the system
4116 2011-03-01 21:58:39 <theymos> With an AES-encrypted private key in OP_DROP, you would redeem by: 1. Get code. 2. Part of code contains part of tx hash. Find tx. 3. Read tx. Decrypt private key. 4. Redeem tx normally. The OP_SHA256 method is more fun to think about, but not secure currently since someone could MITM your redeeming tx and steal the coins.
4117 2011-03-01 21:58:39 int0x27h has joined
4118 2011-03-01 21:58:50 <jgarzik> TD: yes
4119 2011-03-01 21:59:19 <slush> theymos: yes, the OP_DROP method is quite secure and I like the simplicity of the idea
4120 2011-03-01 21:59:30 <slush> hehe, include private key directly to the transaction...
4121 2011-03-01 22:00:01 <theymos> It would be really cool to be able to click a button in the client to "generate BTC code", and then give that code to someone. It'd probably only need to be ~12 characters long.
4122 2011-03-01 22:00:09 <TD> using OP_DROP as kind of a bizarro tagged data format isn't that great though
4123 2011-03-01 22:00:18 <jgarzik> yes
4124 2011-03-01 22:00:27 <TD> theymos: well you may as well just give them the private key if you're going to hand around long complicated codes
4125 2011-03-01 22:00:43 <theymos> The private key is much longer than 12 characters.
4126 2011-03-01 22:01:25 <theymos> <constant> OP_DROP is provably unimportant arbitrary data, so I don't find it inelegant.
4127 2011-03-01 22:02:15 <TD> 12 characters, 44 characters .... does it really make much difference? what are you going to do, speak it out loud?
4128 2011-03-01 22:02:31 <theymos> Put in on a piece of paper...
4129 2011-03-01 22:02:56 <theymos> 12 characters is even shorter than a TracFone minutes code.
4130 2011-03-01 22:03:16 <edcba> or a windows licence key
4131 2011-03-01 22:04:09 <theymos> Windows phone activation makes you *say* a 40-digit code over the phone. Takes like 5 minutes.
4132 2011-03-01 22:04:33 <TD> i think some of the escrow/multi-claimant transactions are more interesting
4133 2011-03-01 22:04:45 <TD> though satoshi claimed he had tons of the things up his back pocket. just never documented them.
4134 2011-03-01 22:04:49 <JFK911> there's a key-server for windows, you can put that on your network and avoid activations
4135 2011-03-01 22:04:55 <TD> i suspect they'll mostly end up not used.
4136 2011-03-01 22:05:06 kermit has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
4137 2011-03-01 22:05:14 <TD> it's too bad bitcoin is so badly documented. <sigh>
4138 2011-03-01 22:05:25 <theymos> LockTime+sequence would be really useful as a sort of escrow. I wish that would be enabled.
4139 2011-03-01 22:05:50 rgm3 has joined
4140 2011-03-01 22:05:57 <theymos> You can also use it as a "dead man's switch" to distribute your money automatically.
4141 2011-03-01 22:06:19 <TD> the code doesn't even say why it's disabled
4142 2011-03-01 22:06:25 <mmarker> woohoo. My HP can do the operations to validate SHA-2
4143 2011-03-01 22:06:39 <edcba> the code doesn't tell anything about intentions :(
4144 2011-03-01 22:07:17 <mmarker> jgarzik: The hand tuned ASM for said miner is a bit sick on x86_64. Been pushing 6M hash per core on my i5
4145 2011-03-01 22:07:45 <rgm3> sheesh. I'm lucky to get 15000 khash/s
4146 2011-03-01 22:07:48 <slush> yes, the documentation is definitely one of the weakest part of project. But looks like there is more and more users trying to understand the whole thing, so it is going better...
4147 2011-03-01 22:07:49 <rgm3> you guys are kicking my ass
4148 2011-03-01 22:08:24 <theymos> There's an interesting "subscription" feature mentioned briefly in the code. I wish I knew what that did. "Subscription methods for the broadcast and subscription system.; Channel numbers are message numbers, i.e. MSG_TABLE and MSG_PRODUCT."
4149 2011-03-01 22:09:12 <TD> where is that?
4150 2011-03-01 22:09:39 <TD> i think satoshi wanted to implement some kind of market/trading system in the software itself at some point
4151 2011-03-01 22:09:42 <TD> possibly related to that
4152 2011-03-01 22:09:53 <edcba> never saw that
4153 2011-03-01 22:10:01 <TD> hmm, the // disable replacement feature for now comment seems to predate github
4154 2011-03-01 22:10:08 <TD> maybe svn blame on the original repo can tell us
4155 2011-03-01 22:10:09 <mmarker> Crap. Either the HP is dropping the high bit...
4156 2011-03-01 22:10:25 <theymos> The subscriptions comment is at net.cpp:361
4157 2011-03-01 22:10:46 <theymos> Replacement was disabled around the time when several script ops were disabled, I believe.
4158 2011-03-01 22:10:59 <tcatm> TD: even the svn isn't the original repo
4159 2011-03-01 22:11:14 <TD> theymos: it's not used from anywhere?
4160 2011-03-01 22:11:40 <luke-jr> will clients relay broadcasts with the wrong signature?
4161 2011-03-01 22:11:49 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
4162 2011-03-01 22:11:52 <theymos> TD: No. There are only a very few references, plus that large comment block.
4163 2011-03-01 22:12:05 <TD> luke-jr: no
4164 2011-03-01 22:12:21 <luke-jr> aww
4165 2011-03-01 22:12:37 <luke-jr> would be nice to let client authors send their own broadcasts to be displayed only on their own clients
4166 2011-03-01 22:12:43 <TD> theymos: it looks useful but highly DoSable :-)
4167 2011-03-01 22:12:48 <slush> btw what happen with satoshi? Looks like he is trying stability of bitcoin community :)
4168 2011-03-01 22:12:54 dabron has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
4169 2011-03-01 22:12:59 <TD> pick your theory
4170 2011-03-01 22:13:09 <TD> 1) he is busy {with work, moving to paris}
4171 2011-03-01 22:13:11 <slush> hehe
4172 2011-03-01 22:13:20 <TD> 2) he is in fact gavin andresen and he got tired of being anonymous ;)
4173 2011-03-01 22:13:20 <edcba> why moving to paris ?
4174 2011-03-01 22:13:37 <Kiba> satoshi is no longer needed
4175 2011-03-01 22:13:39 <slush> hehe, I prefer 2) :)
4176 2011-03-01 22:13:39 <TD> 3) after working on bitcoin for >3 years he got sick of it and wanted to move to pastures fresh
4177 2011-03-01 22:13:40 <Kiba> now he's just a coder
4178 2011-03-01 22:13:41 <edcba> 3) doing trips
4179 2011-03-01 22:13:42 <Kiba> unless
4180 2011-03-01 22:13:44 <theymos> I think he is legitimately busy with something. I'm sure he's not gavin.
4181 2011-03-01 22:13:47 <Kiba> Satoshi is a fricking genuis
4182 2011-03-01 22:14:10 <edcba> Kiba: and since gavin is not genius... :)
4183 2011-03-01 22:14:11 <slush> theymos: I'm almost sure, too
4184 2011-03-01 22:14:17 <TD> i'd consider him to be a kind of genius i guess. even if writing clean, well documented code isn't his forte :)
4185 2011-03-01 22:15:12 <Kiba> Satoshi started the project way back in 2007
4186 2011-03-01 22:15:13 <theymos> The code is powerful, though not well-documented. A lot of stuff can be done in only a few lines.
4187 2011-03-01 22:15:52 <Kiba> but Satoshi had to consider all the angles...
4188 2011-03-01 22:16:12 <edcba> in 3 years you can do better
4189 2011-03-01 22:16:27 <edcba> that really depends on how much you want to dive in it
4190 2011-03-01 22:16:40 <amiller> ideally you could get a tshirt with bitcoin written in perl on it
4191 2011-03-01 22:16:45 <slush> as I more understand the mechanism inside bitcoin as more I like it
4192 2011-03-01 22:16:47 <amiller> you know, just in case
4193 2011-03-01 22:17:01 <quellhorst> so all of you think the economy is still fucked?
4194 2011-03-01 22:17:01 altamic has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
4195 2011-03-01 22:17:11 <slush> but that does not excuse that the whole stuff is undocumented
4196 2011-03-01 22:17:20 <Kiba> hmm
4197 2011-03-01 22:17:40 <Kiba> bitcoiner discuss attack vectors from pretty much every angle
4198 2011-03-01 22:18:01 <Kiba> now, all the attack vectors forum topics are just getting old
4199 2011-03-01 22:18:13 <amiller> need more attack vectors
4200 2011-03-01 22:18:19 <Kiba> satoshi really does think of everything
4201 2011-03-01 22:18:35 <TD> really. so why are there transactions backlogging? :-)
4202 2011-03-01 22:18:43 <slush> hehe
4203 2011-03-01 22:18:48 <TD> bitcoin is fantastically well thought out, except for the abuse problem
4204 2011-03-01 22:18:50 <jgarzik> Satoshi retired, when his bitcoins became worth $1,000,000
4205 2011-03-01 22:18:53 <jgarzik> that's my theory
4206 2011-03-01 22:18:54 <luke-jr> there is something seriously wrong with new BCM
4207 2011-03-01 22:19:24 <luke-jr> I put in an order to buy at .01, and it's buying at >$1 for me
4208 2011-03-01 22:19:30 <edcba> haha nice one jgarzik
4209 2011-03-01 22:19:48 <Kiba> satoshi can't still buy much of anything with bitcoin though
4210 2011-03-01 22:19:51 * luke-jr ain't sending those
4211 2011-03-01 22:20:00 <quellhorst> if you guys had $10k, what would you do with it?
4212 2011-03-01 22:20:04 <edcba> and now he is thinking how much we are suckers to continue his ponzi scheme :)
4213 2011-03-01 22:20:06 <luke-jr> dwdollar: ^^ ping
4214 2011-03-01 22:20:16 <luke-jr> edcba: it's only ponzi if it fails ;)
4215 2011-03-01 22:20:39 <dwdollar> luke-jr: hey there
4216 2011-03-01 22:20:49 <luke-jr> dwdollar: your new site is buggy beyond belief â¹
4217 2011-03-01 22:21:03 <luke-jr> dwdollar: I ain't buying those trades :P
4218 2011-03-01 22:21:18 <dwdollar> luke-jr: I know, I'm working on it.
4219 2011-03-01 22:21:27 <edcba> quellhorst: keep them on my bank account...
4220 2011-03-01 22:21:35 <luke-jr> might want to stop it from continuing while you work? XD
4221 2011-03-01 22:21:59 <luke-jr> dwdollar: also, the view page has MBUSD instead of BMUSD, so it's impossible to view BMUSD orders
4222 2011-03-01 22:22:00 <jgarzik> dwdollar: new-order screen should give calculator for order total
4223 2011-03-01 22:22:12 <luke-jr> jgarzik: that's irrelevant when the orders don't work :P
4224 2011-03-01 22:22:24 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
4225 2011-03-01 22:22:35 <jgarzik> dwdollar: I'm trying to enter sell-PXGAU order, and it's a bit confusing
4226 2011-03-01 22:23:03 <quellhorst> jgarzik: couldn't he have sold off his $1m in bitcoins?
4227 2011-03-01 22:23:47 <jgarzik> quellhorst: you can see that publicly at http://blockexplorer.com/ ...
4228 2011-03-01 22:23:47 <luke-jr> dwdollar: I suggest some way to create a single USD (or other) order that can be filled with any method, possibly allowing offsets for some (eg, sell at $1, but for PPUSD only fill if it's at $1.05)
4229 2011-03-01 22:23:59 <quellhorst> wtf. saw a porsche carrera s cabriolet... looked nice but not $100k nice
4230 2011-03-01 22:23:59 <luke-jr> quellhorst: no
4231 2011-03-01 22:25:24 <quellhorst> damn, those are some large bitcoin transactions moving around
4232 2011-03-01 22:25:34 <slush> [Tycho]: ping
4233 2011-03-01 22:26:02 <slush> looks like block mined at 21:04:22 is invalid, right?
4234 2011-03-01 22:26:06 <luke-jr> quellhorst: I don't see any?
4235 2011-03-01 22:26:25 <dwdollar> sigh
4236 2011-03-01 22:26:38 Kiba has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
4237 2011-03-01 22:26:55 <luke-jr> dwdollar: sorry XD
4238 2011-03-01 22:27:08 <x6763> (03:35:02 PM) luke-jr: who keeps sending 0.05 BTC with 0.0001 BTC fee? --- the faucet would be my guess...there sure is a lot of them, though
4239 2011-03-01 22:27:23 <luke-jr> x6763: when did the faucet start paying fees?
4240 2011-03-01 22:27:41 <quellhorst> luke-jr: well, i saw a few at > 50k?
4241 2011-03-01 22:27:54 <quellhorst> if he wanted to sell off $1m he woudln't do it all at once?
4242 2011-03-01 22:28:06 <Lachesis> oh my
4243 2011-03-01 22:28:13 <Lachesis> there are 905 transactions in my miner's memory pool
4244 2011-03-01 22:28:18 <x6763> luke-jr: i think gavinanderson said something today on the forum about maybe starting to pay fees since the tx pool was growing
4245 2011-03-01 22:28:19 <luke-jr> quellhorst: when? where?
4246 2011-03-01 22:28:22 <jgarzik> quellhorst: it might be a spend for 200, with 39k change
4247 2011-03-01 22:28:28 <quellhorst> oh
4248 2011-03-01 22:28:43 <dwdollar> I'll shut things down until I get caught up.
4249 2011-03-01 22:28:46 <luke-jr> x6763: he should pay 0.00000001 BTC then. Or 0.0007 BTC :P
4250 2011-03-01 22:29:17 <Lachesis> what caused this jump, anyway?
4251 2011-03-01 22:29:23 <Lachesis> it's only been like this for a day or two, no?
4252 2011-03-01 22:29:25 m86 has quit (Changing host)
4253 2011-03-01 22:29:25 m86 has joined
4254 2011-03-01 22:29:26 <mmarker> hmm, anyone have a surefire x86_64 opcode that'll cause a sigsev or other abort in Linux?
4255 2011-03-01 22:29:27 <quellhorst> luke-jr: / jgarzik : i must have been reading it wrong
4256 2011-03-01 22:29:46 <quellhorst> like i was looking at largest transacinots (last 300 blocks)
4257 2011-03-01 22:30:26 <TD> mmarker: any privileged instruction will do
4258 2011-03-01 22:30:30 <xelister> mmarker: I bet ArtForz does ;)
4259 2011-03-01 22:30:35 <TD> if all you want to do is terminate the app
4260 2011-03-01 22:30:38 klnikita has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
4261 2011-03-01 22:30:39 <TD> but .... why ?
4262 2011-03-01 22:30:42 klnikita has joined
4263 2011-03-01 22:30:42 klnikita has quit (Changing host)
4264 2011-03-01 22:30:42 klnikita has joined
4265 2011-03-01 22:30:57 <Lachesis> it's only been like this for a day or two, no?
4266 2011-03-01 22:30:59 <xelister> mmarker: memcpy 65536 MiB of data from anywhere into phisical 0x0000, like a boss? =)
4267 2011-03-01 22:31:07 <jgarzik> mmarker: write to memory address zero
4268 2011-03-01 22:31:09 <mmarker> Well, that WOULD work
4269 2011-03-01 22:31:10 <Lachesis> ^whoops sorry for the double post
4270 2011-03-01 22:31:27 <mmarker> Yea. But then again, I can always do an early return.
4271 2011-03-01 22:31:37 <edcba> ud2 ?
4272 2011-03-01 22:31:44 <xelister> mmarker: find opcode that does not exist? try executing random bytes and see which one is that =)
4273 2011-03-01 22:31:54 <luke-jr> Lachesis: how do you see miner pool info?
4274 2011-03-01 22:32:04 <Lachesis> luke-jr, my client is patched
4275 2011-03-01 22:32:08 <luke-jr> xelister: then when AMD/Intel add it?
4276 2011-03-01 22:32:10 <xelister> luke-jr: probably from bitcoind
4277 2011-03-01 22:32:11 <luke-jr> Lachesis: meh
4278 2011-03-01 22:32:12 <Lachesis> according to instructions by lfm
4279 2011-03-01 22:32:15 <luke-jr> xelister: bitcoind doesn't tell
4280 2011-03-01 22:32:16 <Lachesis> it's an easy patch
4281 2011-03-01 22:32:38 <xelister> luke-jr: it should be easy to add RPC function that would disaply given variable
4282 2011-03-01 22:32:48 <xelister> cout << something.size();
4283 2011-03-01 22:32:50 <luke-jr> Lachesis: link?
4284 2011-03-01 22:33:03 <quellhorst> have you guys thought of other ways that new coins could be made into a virtual currency?
4285 2011-03-01 22:33:04 <xelister> std::cout if you're an nousingnamespacefag :P
4286 2011-03-01 22:33:21 <edcba> quellhorst: what other ways ?
4287 2011-03-01 22:33:25 <Lachesis> in main.cpp, put 'printf("AcceptToMemoryPool(): size %lu\n", mapTransactions.size());' right before the return in AcceptToMemoryPool
4288 2011-03-01 22:33:30 <quellhorst> edcba: thats my question
4289 2011-03-01 22:33:39 <Lachesis> will print to your debug log
4290 2011-03-01 22:33:46 <xelister> woot
4291 2011-03-01 22:33:56 <TD> hmm
4292 2011-03-01 22:34:00 <TD> http://blockexplorer.com/rawtx/c99c49da4c38af669dea436d3e73780dfdb6c1ecf9958baa52960e8baee30e73
4293 2011-03-01 22:34:01 <xelister> btw bitcoin client suckcs cocks
4294 2011-03-01 22:34:03 <TD> this tx is very interesting
4295 2011-03-01 22:34:04 <xelister> right along with diablo
4296 2011-03-01 22:34:14 <xelister> 's miner, about not putting a timestamp thre
4297 2011-03-01 22:34:21 <xelister> it maeks life so harder when reading logs =)
4298 2011-03-01 22:34:23 <Lachesis> xelister, in the debug log?
4299 2011-03-01 22:34:26 <Lachesis> i patched that too :)
4300 2011-03-01 22:34:27 <xelister> yea
4301 2011-03-01 22:34:30 <xelister> yeap
4302 2011-03-01 22:34:33 <TD> (a) it includes fees (b) it sets a sequence number to zero
4303 2011-03-01 22:34:36 <xelister> Lachesis: I patched that in diablo miner =)
4304 2011-03-01 22:34:42 <Lachesis> what's sequence number?
4305 2011-03-01 22:35:00 <xelister> btw anyone has exact formula for merkel root?
4306 2011-03-01 22:35:24 <xelister> the bitcoin increments extra_nonce, includes that to merkel, send to miner, and miner/CL incremenets normal nonce?
4307 2011-03-01 22:35:56 <Lachesis> if anyone is interested, http://www.alloscomp.com/bitcoin/addtimestamp.patch
4308 2011-03-01 22:36:17 <Lachesis> makes my debug log look like: "Tue Mar 1 22:27:55 2011: Message"
4309 2011-03-01 22:36:47 TD has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
4310 2011-03-01 22:37:32 <tcatm> Lachesis: make a pull request :)
4311 2011-03-01 22:37:45 TD has joined
4312 2011-03-01 22:37:51 <TD> that's odd
4313 2011-03-01 22:38:10 <TD> my wifi router just flaked out .... and then i had to re-enter the password on my laptop again. hrmm
4314 2011-03-01 22:38:48 <TD> Lachesis: odd, unused feature of the protocol
4315 2011-03-01 22:38:52 <TD> it's always 0xFFFFFFFF
4316 2011-03-01 22:39:17 <TD> mmarker: you can just use HLT
4317 2011-03-01 22:39:22 <mmarker> hmm, well, this isn;t good.
4318 2011-03-01 22:39:34 <mmarker> TD: I dedided to just return and parse the memory I scribbled in
4319 2011-03-01 22:39:35 <edcba> i said UD2
4320 2011-03-01 22:39:35 <mmarker> :D
4321 2011-03-01 22:39:43 <lfm> just dropped from 557 to 428
4322 2011-03-01 22:40:03 <mmarker> For 512 0 bits, I get the wrong answer. Boux.
4323 2011-03-01 22:40:26 <Raulo> mmarker: how to compile your cpuminer fork?
4324 2011-03-01 22:40:54 <Raulo> The .asm file has to be treated manually?
4325 2011-03-01 22:41:09 sgornick has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
4326 2011-03-01 22:41:17 <x6763> luke-jr: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=3999.msg57456#msg57456
4327 2011-03-01 22:41:35 sgornick has joined
4328 2011-03-01 22:41:50 <mmarker> Raulo: Yea, and the code that's in the repo is known bad
4329 2011-03-01 22:42:10 jaromil_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
4330 2011-03-01 22:42:10 <mmarker> I havent pushed my changes yet....it's really something I wouldn't play with since I've spaghettified it greatly.
4331 2011-03-01 22:42:28 <mmarker> I need to tweak the ASM some...
4332 2011-03-01 22:42:39 <Raulo> I know the code is bad but I want to play a bit
4333 2011-03-01 22:42:58 <Raulo> How to include this .sam part? I have almost zero experience with assembler
4334 2011-03-01 22:43:41 <lfm> Raulo: tr y : as file.asm -o file.o
4335 2011-03-01 22:43:47 <mmarker> Its in yasm
4336 2011-03-01 22:43:53 <mmarker> you need a recent version of yasm
4337 2011-03-01 22:43:58 <Raulo> OK. Thanks
4338 2011-03-01 22:44:06 <mmarker> and it would be yasm -f elf64 -g dwarf2 file.asm
4339 2011-03-01 22:44:20 <mmarker> Note, it onny works on an x86_64 machine in Linux
4340 2011-03-01 22:44:38 <mmarker> or any other Unix. Dunno about Mac, and definitely not Windows
4341 2011-03-01 22:44:44 <lfm> too bad you couldnt us as
4342 2011-03-01 22:46:00 <mmarker> Not used to AT&T syntax, really
4343 2011-03-01 22:46:12 <edcba> .intel_syntax
4344 2011-03-01 22:46:14 <mmarker> granted, that's how I think for ARM, but learned x86 in Intel
4345 2011-03-01 22:46:27 <edcba> but still as sucks ass
4346 2011-03-01 22:46:58 <Raulo> Complains about line 118. I'll probably wait for the final version but I wanted to learn a bit
4347 2011-03-01 22:47:02 <mmarker> Ok, looks like I'm clobbering something
4348 2011-03-01 22:47:18 <mmarker> It should compile. What does yasm --version return?
4349 2011-03-01 22:47:18 <Raulo> sha256_xmm_amd64.asm:118: error: expected `,'
4350 2011-03-01 22:47:25 <mmarker> Yea, old yasm version
4351 2011-03-01 22:47:36 <Raulo> yasm 0.8.0.2194
4352 2011-03-01 22:47:41 <Raulo> OK. Upgrading :)
4353 2011-03-01 22:50:25 <TD> hey, i found my first ever transaction back in april 2009
4354 2011-03-01 22:50:28 <TD> i wonder how many there were before me
4355 2011-03-01 22:51:15 rgm3 has quit (Quit: rgm3)
4356 2011-03-01 22:55:16 <edcba> how much time is 43k blocks ?
4357 2011-03-01 22:55:38 <slush> ;;bc,gen 340000
4358 2011-03-01 22:55:39 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 340000 Khps, given current difficulty of 55590.23763914 , is 6.15182924059 BTC per day and 0.256326218358 BTC per hour.
4359 2011-03-01 22:56:54 <mmarker> ok, TTL
4360 2011-03-01 22:56:55 mmarker has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.3.2)
4361 2011-03-01 22:57:22 gasteve has quit (Quit: gasteve)
4362 2011-03-01 22:58:48 appamatto has joined
4363 2011-03-01 22:58:55 <appamatto> ;bc,stats
4364 2011-03-01 22:59:07 <appamatto> forgot the command again :p
4365 2011-03-01 22:59:34 <appamatto> ;;help
4366 2011-03-01 22:59:35 <gribble> The bot responds when you start a line with the ! character. A good starting point for exploring the bot is the !facts command. You can also visit the bot's website for a list of help topics and documentation: http://gribble.sourceforge.net/
4367 2011-03-01 22:59:43 <appamatto> !facts
4368 2011-03-01 22:59:53 <appamatto> ;;bc,stats
4369 2011-03-01 22:59:55 paul0 has joined
4370 2011-03-01 22:59:57 <gribble> Current Blocks: 111262 | Current Difficulty: 55590.23763914 | Next Difficulty At Block: 112895 | Next Difficulty In: 1633 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 3 days, 19 hours, 55 minutes, and 9 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 58410.19665442
4371 2011-03-01 23:00:18 <appamatto> uhh... I think difficulty has quadrupled since I last checked
4372 2011-03-01 23:00:22 <paul0> pretty hard to get bitcoin nowadays, huh
4373 2011-03-01 23:00:33 <appamatto> ;;facts
4374 2011-03-01 23:00:34 <gribble> To see a nice sortable web view of all factoids, click here: http://gribble.dreamhosters.com/viewfactoids.php?db=%23bitcoin-dev || To see a list of the most popular factoids, run !rank || To search factoids, run !factoids search <yoursearchterm>
4375 2011-03-01 23:00:36 <paul0> appamatto: yeah, I was thinking about this
4376 2011-03-01 23:00:37 <edcba> you just need dollars paul0 :)
4377 2011-03-01 23:00:46 <luke-jr> paul0: depends on what you're willing to pay
4378 2011-03-01 23:01:03 <appamatto> is there a mtgox command?
4379 2011-03-01 23:01:03 <luke-jr> I'll sell small quantities at parity, and larger at $1.25 :P
4380 2011-03-01 23:01:19 <paul0> haha
4381 2011-03-01 23:01:23 <paul0> thanks luke-jr
4382 2011-03-01 23:01:27 <appamatto> ;;bc,mtgox
4383 2011-03-01 23:01:27 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":0.97,"low":0.8502,"vol":22828,"buy":0.9202,"sell":0.9435,"last":0.925}}
4384 2011-03-01 23:01:35 <paul0> but I'm mining bitcoins too
4385 2011-03-01 23:01:59 phantomcircuit has quit (Quit: Leaving)
4386 2011-03-01 23:01:59 <appamatto> paul0, how many GPUs?
4387 2011-03-01 23:02:03 <paul0> just joined the bitcoin pooled mining
4388 2011-03-01 23:02:21 <amiller> i want to sponsor someone for a kind of fund raiser
4389 2011-03-01 23:02:22 <paul0> appamatto: I'm participating on the mining.bitcoin.cz
4390 2011-03-01 23:02:28 <luke-jr> paul0: how many GPUs?
4391 2011-03-01 23:02:40 <paul0> luke-jr: one GPU and one CPU
4392 2011-03-01 23:02:45 <necrodearia> I am getting too much recurring traffic at nullvoid.org for now and therefore I disabled the web server momentarily. It is horrendously lagging my desktop environment.
4393 2011-03-01 23:03:06 * luke-jr ponders running a pool to further incentivize low-fee tx
4394 2011-03-01 23:03:14 <validus> what does sed mean after a block?
4395 2011-03-01 23:03:26 AmpEater has joined
4396 2011-03-01 23:03:26 <tcatm> wow, the new bitcoincharts will show trade data for 20 markets
4397 2011-03-01 23:03:28 <paul0> ~580 khash/s from the CPU, and ~1400 khash/s from GPU
4398 2011-03-01 23:03:50 <paul0> not much, I know. But I can get some bitcoins using the pooled mining
4399 2011-03-01 23:05:39 <paul0> 0.00280241 bitcoins today
4400 2011-03-01 23:05:56 <paul0> haha, and there was a time when I could get 50 all for me
4401 2011-03-01 23:06:08 <luke-jr> paul0: FYI, my CPU alone can beat that.
4402 2011-03-01 23:06:32 <paul0> luke-jr: good, I'm just mining as a hobby
4403 2011-03-01 23:06:34 <luke-jr> :p
4404 2011-03-01 23:06:38 phantomcircuit has joined
4405 2011-03-01 23:07:30 <luke-jr> my next block is empty so far <.<
4406 2011-03-01 23:08:19 * luke-jr ponders giving discounts for the tx that are usually allowed in free
4407 2011-03-01 23:08:39 Oorty has joined
4408 2011-03-01 23:08:39 <bk128> paul0: probably doesnt cover your costs for electricity :)
4409 2011-03-01 23:08:40 sethsethseth has left ()
4410 2011-03-01 23:08:41 <luke-jr> just to get the faucet's
4411 2011-03-01 23:09:02 <paul0> probably not
4412 2011-03-01 23:09:09 <paul0> but, I'm doing this just for fun
4413 2011-03-01 23:09:23 phantomcircuit has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
4414 2011-03-01 23:10:34 <jrabbit> paul0: what pooled mining?
4415 2011-03-01 23:10:46 <paul0> jrabbit: mining.bitcoin.cz
4416 2011-03-01 23:11:39 <Oorty> Anyone have the bitcoin app? Must work like the eseti program, the cpu load is shared between users with apps
4417 2011-03-01 23:12:11 <jrabbit> paul0: nifty
4418 2011-03-01 23:12:31 <jrabbit> Which one do you reccomend for a linux box?
4419 2011-03-01 23:12:55 <paul0> for my linux box I'm using cpuminer, without GPU
4420 2011-03-01 23:13:27 <paul0> on my macbook I'm using poclbm, using GPU
4421 2011-03-01 23:13:34 phantomcircuit has joined
4422 2011-03-01 23:13:51 <paul0> ~1400 khash/s, seems pretty slow compared to other GPUs
4423 2011-03-01 23:14:33 <Oorty> can you set the amount of cpu usage or cores you want it to use?
4424 2011-03-01 23:14:35 <eps> my 8600gt gets 6000 khash
4425 2011-03-01 23:14:49 <eps> my 5770 gets 15000
4426 2011-03-01 23:14:53 <luke-jr> Oorty: CPU mining is worthless
4427 2011-03-01 23:14:56 <eps> sorry 150000
4428 2011-03-01 23:15:02 <Oorty> ok
4429 2011-03-01 23:15:03 <phantomcircuit> lol so im sitting here reading network dumps from 2 official clients
4430 2011-03-01 23:15:04 <phantomcircuit> and i notice
4431 2011-03-01 23:15:07 <validus> cpu mining is just a good stress test for the cpu now lol
4432 2011-03-01 23:15:07 Diablo-D3 has joined
4433 2011-03-01 23:15:11 <phantomcircuit> neither one has checksums on the packets
4434 2011-03-01 23:15:49 <Necr0s> They use TCP, no?
4435 2011-03-01 23:15:51 <dsg> TCP has a checksum already
4436 2011-03-01 23:15:56 <Necr0s> So TCP itself provides packet integrity.
4437 2011-03-01 23:16:03 <phantomcircuit> no shit
4438 2011-03-01 23:16:03 <Diablo-D3> tcp checksum cant really be trusted though
4439 2011-03-01 23:16:25 <phantomcircuit> Diablo-D3, neither can the peers, so it shouldnt really matter
4440 2011-03-01 23:16:28 <Necr0s> It's trusted for quite a few protocols.
4441 2011-03-01 23:16:36 <Oorty> the bitcoin app must work like the eseti app, the cpu load is shared between users with apps
4442 2011-03-01 23:16:50 <Necr0s> If you need more trust, SSL might help.
4443 2011-03-01 23:16:55 <Diablo-D3> well yeah, if the packet is bad, fuck it.
4444 2011-03-01 23:17:01 <Diablo-D3> just ditch it and try again
4445 2011-03-01 23:18:02 <jrabbit> whats the x* command to dump gpu card info?
4446 2011-03-01 23:18:53 <bk128> how good of an indicator are these cpu benchmarks? http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
4447 2011-03-01 23:19:12 <jrabbit> oh its glxinfo
4448 2011-03-01 23:19:19 <bk128> looking into building a new desktop and am trying to decide between amd and intel (phenom ii x6 or i7)
4449 2011-03-01 23:19:33 <Diablo-D3> bk128: they're not
4450 2011-03-01 23:19:37 AmpEater has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPad - http://colloquy.mobi)
4451 2011-03-01 23:19:42 <Diablo-D3> moronix is a bunch of faggots
4452 2011-03-01 23:19:53 <Diablo-D3> bk128: your best option is the cheapest phenom II x4.
4453 2011-03-01 23:19:56 <Diablo-D3> its cheap, its fast.
4454 2011-03-01 23:20:05 <bk128> x6 doesnt make a difference?
4455 2011-03-01 23:20:21 <Necr0s> I've gotten Intel for my last 3 systems.
4456 2011-03-01 23:20:26 <Necr0s> c2d, c2q, then i7.
4457 2011-03-01 23:20:38 gr0gmint has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
4458 2011-03-01 23:20:38 <phantomcircuit> i've got an i3
4459 2011-03-01 23:20:41 <phantomcircuit> plenty fast
4460 2011-03-01 23:20:42 <Diablo-D3> bk128: are you running apps that are multicore? no.
4461 2011-03-01 23:20:47 <Syke> i7 is nice and expensive. phenom ii is nice and cheap
4462 2011-03-01 23:20:49 <phantomcircuit> runs circles around the IO system
4463 2011-03-01 23:21:09 <Diablo-D3> infact, the only reason I recommend the phenom II x4s over athlon II x2s is because they're so cheap
4464 2011-03-01 23:21:18 <Diablo-D3> 90% of people only need two cores.
4465 2011-03-01 23:21:28 <Necr0s> or less
4466 2011-03-01 23:21:38 <bk128> Diablo-D3: what requires more than 2 cores? I run VMs a lot
4467 2011-03-01 23:21:45 <Diablo-D3> well, a lot of apps take advantage of split ui/work threads
4468 2011-03-01 23:21:48 <Diablo-D3> so 2 is enough
4469 2011-03-01 23:22:04 <Necr0s> I will say that when I went from 2 cores to 4 I noticed a big improvement in the overall system performance.
4470 2011-03-01 23:22:05 <Diablo-D3> 2 covers up OS sched stupidity quite nicely
4471 2011-03-01 23:22:07 <Necr0s> And I do run VMs.
4472 2011-03-01 23:22:19 validus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
4473 2011-03-01 23:22:20 <Diablo-D3> yeah, if you run VMs, then Intel isnt really a choice
4474 2011-03-01 23:22:30 <bk128> why?
4475 2011-03-01 23:22:33 <Diablo-D3> Intel dropped the ball on VM
4476 2011-03-01 23:22:44 <Necr0s> explain plz
4477 2011-03-01 23:23:51 <Diablo-D3> you need a server xeon chipset to get advanced features like iommu
4478 2011-03-01 23:24:24 <bk128> is the phenom x4/x6 decent for vms?
4479 2011-03-01 23:24:37 <Diablo-D3> vt-d (intel's name for it) is either non-existant or broken on anything consumer
4480 2011-03-01 23:24:56 <Diablo-D3> bk128: yes.
4481 2011-03-01 23:25:32 <Necr0s> I know my intel CPUs say "virtualization technology: yes" somewhere...
4482 2011-03-01 23:25:53 * BurtyB hasnt had any problems running mysql in a vm on an i7
4483 2011-03-01 23:26:23 <Necr0s> I wonder how a user could tell if iommu is being used or not...
4484 2011-03-01 23:26:37 <phantomcircuit> modern processors can run a vm without hardware support
4485 2011-03-01 23:26:43 <Necr0s> I assume that's something VMware takes advantage of if it can, yes?
4486 2011-03-01 23:26:45 <phantomcircuit> however it's gonna be significantly slower
4487 2011-03-01 23:26:53 <phantomcircuit> the same is true for the iommu
4488 2011-03-01 23:27:04 <phantomcircuit> you dont need it, but it improves things substantially
4489 2011-03-01 23:27:20 <phantomcircuit> also im retarded and was sending the packet length twice, so the client was getting a version number of 55
4490 2011-03-01 23:27:24 Oorty has quit (Quit: Page closed)
4491 2011-03-01 23:27:27 <phantomcircuit> rather \x55
4492 2011-03-01 23:27:30 <Diablo-D3> [06:17:24] <Necr0s> I know my intel CPUs say "virtualization technology: yes" somewhere...
4493 2011-03-01 23:27:35 <Diablo-D3> Necr0s: thats vt, not vt-d
4494 2011-03-01 23:27:56 <bk128> the last AMD system I owned was one I built in 7th grade (athlon xp 2100+)
4495 2011-03-01 23:27:56 <Diablo-D3> you need iommu if you plan on giving VMs access to complex hardware
4496 2011-03-01 23:27:59 <Diablo-D3> such as a video card
4497 2011-03-01 23:28:02 <Diablo-D3> or anything that DMAs
4498 2011-03-01 23:28:57 <Necr0s> So is this something that VMware Workstation (VMware Fusion in my case) can and will take advantage of?
4499 2011-03-01 23:29:10 <Diablo-D3> nope
4500 2011-03-01 23:29:16 <Diablo-D3> nothing vmware is smart enough to do that
4501 2011-03-01 23:29:23 <Necr0s> So what does use it?
4502 2011-03-01 23:29:28 <Diablo-D3> xen, mostly
4503 2011-03-01 23:29:39 <Diablo-D3> anyone who seriously does VM uses xen
4504 2011-03-01 23:29:55 <Necr0s> hm
4505 2011-03-01 23:30:24 <phantomcircuit> xen makes me cry though
4506 2011-03-01 23:30:35 <phantomcircuit> Diablo-D3, why xen over kvm
4507 2011-03-01 23:30:44 <Diablo-D3> because kvm is a pile of shit written by idiots
4508 2011-03-01 23:30:47 <Diablo-D3> and it pisses me off.
4509 2011-03-01 23:30:50 <bk128> Diablo-D3: does northbridge chipset matter for performance? does it just determine what memory you can run?
4510 2011-03-01 23:30:57 <phantomcircuit> Diablo-D3, articulate :P
4511 2011-03-01 23:31:04 <Diablo-D3> bk128: it needs to be matched to your cpu.
4512 2011-03-01 23:31:15 <bk128> I know that :)
4513 2011-03-01 23:32:41 <Diablo-D3> that means on any modern box, its probably going to be an 880G or 890GX
4514 2011-03-01 23:32:43 <Diablo-D3> the only side note is
4515 2011-03-01 23:32:53 <Diablo-D3> if you plan on using iommu, you need an 790 or 890
4516 2011-03-01 23:33:04 <Diablo-D3> and I obviously recommend 890
4517 2011-03-01 23:33:13 <Diablo-D3> er, sorry, 790FX or 890FX
4518 2011-03-01 23:33:46 <Diablo-D3> the 8xx chipset are almost identical to 7xx, but they support AM3+ in theory
4519 2011-03-01 23:34:09 <Diablo-D3> but almost all the 8xx boards also come with SB8xx soutbridges, which is a fair improvement over 7xx
4520 2011-03-01 23:35:14 <Diablo-D3> 8xx = 65nm, some have native sata 6g, no ide, gbit ethernet
4521 2011-03-01 23:35:26 RichardG has joined
4522 2011-03-01 23:35:44 <Diablo-D3> 7xx = ati's old 130nm fab, no sata 6g, has useless ide, and gbit is always on a third party chip
4523 2011-03-01 23:36:30 <jrabbit> paul0: I feel stupid with this command :(
4524 2011-03-01 23:36:37 <jrabbit> ]is it --opt=value?
4525 2011-03-01 23:36:46 <Diablo-D3> btw, as a side note, 790fx/890fx is a weird chip
4526 2011-03-01 23:37:05 validus has joined
4527 2011-03-01 23:37:11 JzaJJ has joined
4528 2011-03-01 23:37:15 <bk128> why? and how is fx different from gx?
4529 2011-03-01 23:37:19 <Diablo-D3> it doesnt use the 55nm fab they were using, but the 65nm cpu fab, it also doesnt have the graphics core, and its the only one that does iommu on consumer hardware
4530 2011-03-01 23:38:00 <bk128> so definitely go with fx for VMs
4531 2011-03-01 23:38:15 <Diablo-D3> bk128: well, thats if you're planning on using iommu
4532 2011-03-01 23:38:23 JzaJJ has left ()
4533 2011-03-01 23:38:26 <bk128> does it require any extra setup?
4534 2011-03-01 23:38:30 <Diablo-D3> "yes"
4535 2011-03-01 23:38:36 <Diablo-D3> it requires a combination that supports it
4536 2011-03-01 23:38:39 <jrabbit> "message": "wrong login or password"
4537 2011-03-01 23:38:41 <jrabbit> oh ffs
4538 2011-03-01 23:38:42 <Diablo-D3> vbox nor vmware will ever support it
4539 2011-03-01 23:38:52 <bk128> what does then?
4540 2011-03-01 23:38:56 <Diablo-D3> xen
4541 2011-03-01 23:39:03 <bk128> ah
4542 2011-03-01 23:39:10 <jrabbit> aha
4543 2011-03-01 23:39:31 <Diablo-D3> every single setup you've seen that has windows in a vm, but has native access to the video card, has been in xen
4544 2011-03-01 23:39:34 <Diablo-D3> and its kind of screwy
4545 2011-03-01 23:39:52 <bk128> do you use it?
4546 2011-03-01 23:39:56 <phantomcircuit> that seems like a bad idea
4547 2011-03-01 23:39:58 <Diablo-D3> nope, I dont have an iommu
4548 2011-03-01 23:40:03 <Diablo-D3> phantomcircuit: its actually great
4549 2011-03-01 23:40:12 <Diablo-D3> it should in theory support virtual hotplugging
4550 2011-03-01 23:40:46 <bk128> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130565 good board?
4551 2011-03-01 23:40:46 <Diablo-D3> so X in linux can completely let go of it (as if I actually did hot-unplug it and pulled it out of the slot), and then windows can get it
4552 2011-03-01 23:41:07 <Diablo-D3> if you _really_ want iommu, I'd wait until 9xx chips though
4553 2011-03-01 23:41:11 <phantomcircuit> Diablo-D3, so windows takes over the screen completely?
4554 2011-03-01 23:41:16 <bk128> I'll probably never use it
4555 2011-03-01 23:41:16 <Diablo-D3> phantomcircuit: the card, yes
4556 2011-03-01 23:41:29 <Diablo-D3> bk128: are you buying shit right this second?
4557 2011-03-01 23:41:42 <bk128> I can wait a week or so
4558 2011-03-01 23:41:45 <Diablo-D3> because I'd honestly recommend a board without an FX chip unless you absolutely totally 100% need iommu
4559 2011-03-01 23:42:21 <bk128> gx then? I can wait a week. I'm just so sick of running an XP vm on my c2duo laptop (2.4 GHz)
4560 2011-03-01 23:42:22 <Lachesis> does anyone know anything about gnuplot?
4561 2011-03-01 23:43:00 <validus> im tempted to put on linux just to try out the directx9 support in vmware
4562 2011-03-01 23:43:27 <Keefe> would iommu and xen enable you to play video games in an xp vm without performance loss?
4563 2011-03-01 23:43:39 <x6763> phantomcircuit: sorry, i didn't look at your packet dump very closely earlier...i just now realized you had the communication from both nodes there...looks like the first version message has the packet length on there twice before the payload or something
4564 2011-03-01 23:43:57 <validus> Keefe: it may in newest vmware server since it fully supports directx9c
4565 2011-03-01 23:43:59 <Diablo-D3> bk128: how many slots do you need?
4566 2011-03-01 23:44:00 `Jaka has joined
4567 2011-03-01 23:44:11 <validus> virtualbox supports opengl but not by default
4568 2011-03-01 23:44:11 <x6763> phantomcircuit: that might cause the other client to think it's version was 85 instead of 32002
4569 2011-03-01 23:44:16 <bk128> Diablo-D3: at least 2 pci-e
4570 2011-03-01 23:44:19 <validus> if you want it lmk
4571 2011-03-01 23:44:26 <bk128> preferably not a micro atx
4572 2011-03-01 23:44:33 <validus> i hate micro atx
4573 2011-03-01 23:44:44 <x6763> phantomcircuit: and then cause it to not use checksums since 85 is less than 20900
4574 2011-03-01 23:44:51 <bk128> and i was thinking about http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103849
4575 2011-03-01 23:45:04 <phantomcircuit> x6763, hehe yeah i noticed that about an hour ago, dont code while drunk and tired
4576 2011-03-01 23:45:05 <phantomcircuit> lol
4577 2011-03-01 23:45:10 <x6763> phantomcircuit: lol
4578 2011-03-01 23:45:11 <bk128> I haven't owned a decently fast computer in forever
4579 2011-03-01 23:45:34 <Diablo-D3> bk128: hrm.
4580 2011-03-01 23:45:38 <Diablo-D3> validus: btw, you're full of shit
4581 2011-03-01 23:45:47 <Diablo-D3> virtualbox supports opengl out of the gbox
4582 2011-03-01 23:45:47 <Keefe> but if i'm understanding correctly, with iommu, you don't need the vm server to support dx as the vm can just deal with the hardware directly?
4583 2011-03-01 23:45:52 <validus> not by default config
4584 2011-03-01 23:45:57 <validus> you have to enable it
4585 2011-03-01 23:46:04 <phantomcircuit> Diablo-D3, you have to click a checkbox with a big scary EXPERIMENTAL
4586 2011-03-01 23:46:05 <Diablo-D3> yes, its ticking a box.
4587 2011-03-01 23:46:06 Mango-chan has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
4588 2011-03-01 23:46:13 <validus> ya thats what i said. not on by default
4589 2011-03-01 23:46:17 <Diablo-D3> its "experimental" because windows is broken
4590 2011-03-01 23:46:32 <Diablo-D3> and no matter how much anyone tries, windows will always be broken
4591 2011-03-01 23:46:43 <Diablo-D3> microsoft has no interest in making windows a viable OS for serious use
4592 2011-03-01 23:46:48 <Diablo-D3> it will always be some kid's toy
4593 2011-03-01 23:46:57 <validus> windows is just something for games
4594 2011-03-01 23:47:03 <validus> real work is done mostly in linux
4595 2011-03-01 23:47:05 <validus> :P
4596 2011-03-01 23:47:50 <Diablo-D3> actually, I do all my gaming in linux
4597 2011-03-01 23:48:03 <validus> i dont wanna by caldega, even though im curious
4598 2011-03-01 23:48:04 <phantomcircuit> Diablo-D3, how?
4599 2011-03-01 23:48:06 <validus> i got some games to work in linux
4600 2011-03-01 23:48:07 <Diablo-D3> and "hardcore" gamers apparently somehow shifted back to consoles, anyhow
4601 2011-03-01 23:48:10 ApertureScience has quit (Quit: Linux: because a PC is a terrible thing to waste)
4602 2011-03-01 23:48:18 <Diablo-D3> phantomcircuit: wine
4603 2011-03-01 23:48:19 <validus> phantomcircuit: just a lil tweaking most the time
4604 2011-03-01 23:48:23 <phantomcircuit> oh
4605 2011-03-01 23:48:35 <phantomcircuit> yeah i can never get wine to play anything except WoW and cs:s
4606 2011-03-01 23:48:44 <validus> i got half life to run fine but it crashes the desktop, so i had to put it in a seperate desktop
4607 2011-03-01 23:48:46 ApertureScience has joined
4608 2011-03-01 23:48:47 <phantomcircuit> and if i do it'll stop playing everything else
4609 2011-03-01 23:48:49 <Syke> even crysis runs in wine
4610 2011-03-01 23:49:03 <Necr0s> Heh, I know a guy who spent like 2 weeks trying to get WoW to run right for him in wine.
4611 2011-03-01 23:49:11 <validus> ive never played WoW
4612 2011-03-01 23:49:16 <luke-jr> or you can just⦠not play STUPID games
4613 2011-03-01 23:49:16 <validus> dont intend to either
4614 2011-03-01 23:49:19 <Necr0s> He eventually gave up. he had it close a couple times, but there was always some fatal flaw.
4615 2011-03-01 23:49:25 <luke-jr> there are plenty of decent games
4616 2011-03-01 23:49:36 <Diablo-D3> bk128: btw, cheapest option is http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128445
4617 2011-03-01 23:49:37 <validus> thats lack of motivation, shoudlnt be in linux
4618 2011-03-01 23:49:39 <validus> never let the pc win
4619 2011-03-01 23:49:48 <validus> it should only work cuz you tell it not to. not cuz it wants to :P
4620 2011-03-01 23:50:00 <validus> something like that lol
4621 2011-03-01 23:50:02 <amiller> coinpal.ndrix.com is down?
4622 2011-03-01 23:50:04 <jrabbit> omfg
4623 2011-03-01 23:50:07 <amiller> has it been down a long time?
4624 2011-03-01 23:50:15 <amiller> i misunderstood if someone said that earlier
4625 2011-03-01 23:50:16 <validus> im trying to find out why this pos blue screened
4626 2011-03-01 23:50:28 <jrabbit> Someone on the forums ewas talking about using WINE on OSX to use a foss c app ;_;
4627 2011-03-01 23:50:31 <validus> its either sp1 or i finally ate everything up with gpu mining
4628 2011-03-01 23:50:48 <Diablo-D3> jrabbit: eh, thats not really out of the range
4629 2011-03-01 23:50:53 <jrabbit> "all kinds" my ass. I miss voting and hiding low ranked
4630 2011-03-01 23:50:55 <Diablo-D3> jrabbit: Ive used wine to test windows builds of shit before
4631 2011-03-01 23:51:09 <jrabbit> Diablo-D3: yeah but ... isntead of building it naitive
4632 2011-03-01 23:51:14 <validus> ya im about to put on vmware server and test out the directx9 support. im so tired of windows
4633 2011-03-01 23:51:16 <Diablo-D3> well, what is it?
4634 2011-03-01 23:51:20 <Diablo-D3> ,aybe it doesnt support native
4635 2011-03-01 23:51:22 <validus> dumbass school .YOU MUST have office
4636 2011-03-01 23:51:29 <validus> openoffice wont work my ass
4637 2011-03-01 23:51:33 <jrabbit> Diablo-D3: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1925.msg50772#msg50772
4638 2011-03-01 23:51:33 <Diablo-D3> validus: and use vbox, you noob.
4639 2011-03-01 23:51:34 <luke-jr> jrabbit: some older TRON game was "ported" to Mac with winelib
4640 2011-03-01 23:51:37 <jrabbit> validus: lol.
4641 2011-03-01 23:51:42 <bk128> Diablo-D3: what board would you recommend that doesnt have the x16 slots right next to eachother?
4642 2011-03-01 23:51:44 <luke-jr> jrabbit: they couldn't be bothered to do the same for Linux :o
4643 2011-03-01 23:51:47 <validus> ive used vbox forever, i wanna try out vmware
4644 2011-03-01 23:51:54 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
4645 2011-03-01 23:51:58 <validus> im curious of the actual support
4646 2011-03-01 23:51:58 <jrabbit> luke-jr: Alot of shit gets "ported" using cider (a no give back fork of wine pre-gpl)
4647 2011-03-01 23:52:07 <jrabbit> luke-jr: lololol
4648 2011-03-01 23:52:21 <jrabbit> validus: they both suck in different ways
4649 2011-03-01 23:52:37 <jrabbit> QEMU is kinda nice though
4650 2011-03-01 23:52:41 <Diablo-D3> bk128: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131646
4651 2011-03-01 23:52:42 <jrabbit> different in good ways
4652 2011-03-01 23:52:48 <luke-jr> wee, 1 tx accepted into my next block
4653 2011-03-01 23:52:51 <Diablo-D3> bk128: that puts 2 slots between the two
4654 2011-03-01 23:52:56 <luke-jr> too bad someone else will probably get it first
4655 2011-03-01 23:53:04 <luke-jr> unless it's actually in the range that only i accept
4656 2011-03-01 23:53:30 <phantomcircuit> validus, iirc server doesn't support directx
4657 2011-03-01 23:53:37 <validus> the new one does
4658 2011-03-01 23:53:39 <phantomcircuit> validus, however you can get workstation 6.5 free
4659 2011-03-01 23:53:45 <validus> i can get anything free i have inets
4660 2011-03-01 23:53:49 <phantomcircuit> lol
4661 2011-03-01 23:53:50 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: not free
4662 2011-03-01 23:53:51 <validus> and not no gay ass torrent shit either
4663 2011-03-01 23:53:53 <luke-jr> just gratis
4664 2011-03-01 23:54:02 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, free != foss
4665 2011-03-01 23:54:04 <luke-jr> VMWare is non-free in all its forms
4666 2011-03-01 23:54:09 <validus> ya its about 300 b ucks
4667 2011-03-01 23:54:10 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: free == "foss"
4668 2011-03-01 23:54:15 <phantomcircuit> sigh
4669 2011-03-01 23:54:16 <validus> thats why i told keefe to lmk if he wanted it
4670 2011-03-01 23:54:18 <phantomcircuit> nitpick more
4671 2011-03-01 23:54:20 <validus> hehe
4672 2011-03-01 23:54:22 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: stop abusing the word! :P
4673 2011-03-01 23:54:25 <Diablo-D3> [06:45:30] <phantomcircuit> validus, however you can get workstation 6.5 free
4674 2011-03-01 23:54:26 <Diablo-D3> so?
4675 2011-03-01 23:54:29 <validus> i believe in trying before you buy
4676 2011-03-01 23:54:30 <Diablo-D3> virtualbox is foss.
4677 2011-03-01 23:54:32 <Diablo-D3> pwned.
4678 2011-03-01 23:54:41 <luke-jr> qemu is free
4679 2011-03-01 23:54:50 <phantomcircuit> Diablo-D3, the directx drivers for vbox crash and burn for me
4680 2011-03-01 23:54:51 <Diablo-D3> qemu is shit outside of kvm, and kvm is shit
4681 2011-03-01 23:54:53 <Necr0s> I tried virtualbox a couple years back.
4682 2011-03-01 23:54:53 <luke-jr> Xen is free too, and you can connect video cards to VMs :P
4683 2011-03-01 23:54:56 <Necr0s> It worked pretty well.
4684 2011-03-01 23:55:00 <Diablo-D3> phantomcircuit: the "dx drivers" are wine.
4685 2011-03-01 23:55:11 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: are you sure?
4686 2011-03-01 23:55:19 <luke-jr> Gallium3D supposedly supports native DirectX
4687 2011-03-01 23:55:23 <Diablo-D3> vbox ships wined3d, which is wine's d3d libs built on native windows
4688 2011-03-01 23:55:30 <Diablo-D3> and it does d3d->gl inside the guest
4689 2011-03-01 23:55:47 <luke-jr> weird
4690 2011-03-01 23:56:06 <Diablo-D3> wine currently has the best d3d impl in the world
4691 2011-03-01 23:56:31 <phantomcircuit> then why does it crash xD
4692 2011-03-01 23:56:43 <jrabbit> rofl my gpu I have in my server is worth about $30
4693 2011-03-01 23:56:44 <Diablo-D3> probably because you hit a bug in the opengl layer
4694 2011-03-01 23:57:01 <phantomcircuit> jrabbit, why do you have a gpu in a server?
4695 2011-03-01 23:57:03 <x6763> wow, block 111264 has 748 transactions
4696 2011-03-01 23:57:13 <Diablo-D3> btw, also, vbox uses chromium for the opengl passthrough
4697 2011-03-01 23:57:14 <jrabbit> phantomcircuit: dell desktop gone server :P
4698 2011-03-01 23:57:37 <Diablo-D3> which is also open source
4699 2011-03-01 23:57:40 <phantomcircuit> jrabbit, lol i have one of those
4700 2011-03-01 23:57:48 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: and btw, no
4701 2011-03-01 23:57:50 <phantomcircuit> jrabbit, things been reliably running for almost 10 years now
4702 2011-03-01 23:57:53 <jrabbit> phantomcircuit: I'm tryign to see if I can exploit its gpu
4703 2011-03-01 23:58:01 <phantomcircuit> jrabbit, on residential power without a surge no less
4704 2011-03-01 23:58:03 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: gallium has a very very very alpha d3d11 state tracker
4705 2011-03-01 23:58:06 <jrabbit> I'm alreadign runnign irc, torrents and BOINIC on it
4706 2011-03-01 23:58:14 <jrabbit> phantomcircuit: I bought a UPS last summer
4707 2011-03-01 23:58:19 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: it may possibly never become part of mesa, and its only useful to wine.
4708 2011-03-01 23:58:30 <phantomcircuit> jrabbit, i just set it to reboot whenever power is restored
4709 2011-03-01 23:58:31 <Syke> wow, who generated that one? http://blockexplorer.com/b/111264
4710 2011-03-01 23:58:36 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: vbox and vmware would still need a solution like chromium, but for d3d instead.
4711 2011-03-01 23:58:39 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: no, people can use it to port Direct3D games
4712 2011-03-01 23:58:43 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: see above.
4713 2011-03-01 23:58:44 <phantomcircuit> jrabbit, and since there is like zero disk activity im not too worried
4714 2011-03-01 23:58:51 <jrabbit> phantomcircuit: I never seem to configure anythign right :)
4715 2011-03-01 23:58:52 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: only wine can use it.
4716 2011-03-01 23:59:01 <phantomcircuit> jrabbit, lol
4717 2011-03-01 23:59:08 <jrabbit> phantomcircuit: as in a reboot woudl take me a whiel ro get everythign up again
4718 2011-03-01 23:59:09 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: currently.
4719 2011-03-01 23:59:09 <phantomcircuit> jrabbit, it's a stupid setup if you're worried about data losee
4720 2011-03-01 23:59:24 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: chromium's existence is to do gl->gl passthrough, you'd still need d3d->d3d passthrough on the vm side
4721 2011-03-01 23:59:27 <jrabbit> No I'm not too worried about anything
4722 2011-03-01 23:59:27 <Diablo-D3> which is rather pointless
4723 2011-03-01 23:59:30 <phantomcircuit> 50 + 0.0332 total fees
4724 2011-03-01 23:59:31 <phantomcircuit> lold
4725 2011-03-01 23:59:35 <Diablo-D3> desktop VM doesnt really target windows hosts
4726 2011-03-01 23:59:55 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: now, what would be interesting is, is a native gallium pipe passthrough
4727 2011-03-01 23:59:58 <bk128> anyone used usb 3 yet?
4728 2011-03-01 23:59:59 larsig has joined
4729 2011-03-01 23:59:59 <Diablo-D3> vmware _is_ interested in that