1 2011-03-10 00:01:15 <luke-jr> MagicalTux: there are apparently registered non-profit orgs in both US and UK for dozenal
2 2011-03-10 00:01:54 <luke-jr> MagicalTux: but with the reaction from TBC, I fear my creating a Dozenal representation might draw too much fire on both
3 2011-03-10 00:03:02 <MagicalTux> luke-jr, that's likely
4 2011-03-10 00:04:26 <slush> luke-jr yeat another notation? ;)
5 2011-03-10 00:04:32 <slush> *yet
6 2011-03-10 00:05:03 <luke-jr> slush: it might even stand to kill TBC :P
7 2011-03-10 00:05:20 <slush> noooo
8 2011-03-10 00:05:30 akem has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
9 2011-03-10 00:05:43 <farzong> 1-btc, 2-btc, 3-btc, btc4, btc5 = .1btc, .01btc, .02btc, .03btc etc
10 2011-03-10 00:05:57 <farzong> .01, .001, .0001
11 2011-03-10 00:06:28 <larsig> we could use bitcents, should work for a while
12 2011-03-10 00:07:22 <noagendamarket> dodeconal :)-
13 2011-03-10 00:07:27 <farzong> somebit, manybit, lottabit, hellabit, bananabit
14 2011-03-10 00:08:25 <Lachesis> hey
15 2011-03-10 00:08:38 kelvie_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
16 2011-03-10 00:08:52 <Lachesis> i'm doing initial block download and see this in my log
17 2011-03-10 00:08:53 <Lachesis> Wed 09 Mar 2011 11:59:06 PM GMT: sending: getdata (18003 bytes)
18 2011-03-10 00:08:53 <Lachesis> Wed 09 Mar 2011 11:59:07 PM GMT: socket closed
19 2011-03-10 00:08:53 <Lachesis> Wed 09 Mar 2011 11:59:07 PM GMT: disconnecting node
20 2011-03-10 00:09:01 <farzong> plentybit
21 2011-03-10 00:09:19 <farzong> firewall?
22 2011-03-10 00:09:38 altamic has quit (Quit: altamic)
23 2011-03-10 00:09:42 <Lachesis> nope - both are on lan, iptables is running on the remove node, but it's not doing anything funny
24 2011-03-10 00:09:46 <Lachesis> i got a connection, got an inv
25 2011-03-10 00:09:50 <Lachesis> then asked for 500 or so blocks
26 2011-03-10 00:09:53 <Lachesis> and got klined
27 2011-03-10 00:10:07 <Lachesis> is there some rate limit that's freaking out?
28 2011-03-10 00:10:37 <farzong> weird hmm
29 2011-03-10 00:11:04 <farzong> maybe put some long delay between requests
30 2011-03-10 00:13:08 alhazred has joined
31 2011-03-10 00:13:12 alhazred is now known as dirtyfilthy
32 2011-03-10 00:18:08 <farzong> toxic dispersants used in BP spill killing people in droves: "Aside from some gloves, BP provided no personal protection for them. He worked for them for two weeks and then died on August 23. He had just got his first paycheck, and it was in his wallet, uncashed, when he died."
33 2011-03-10 00:22:49 <luke-jr> farzong: ever hear of SI?
34 2011-03-10 00:22:50 <Diablo-D3> farzong: yes, this is not news
35 2011-03-10 00:22:52 <Lachesis> farzong, where'd you get that?
36 2011-03-10 00:23:01 <Diablo-D3> you should read my identica feed more often
37 2011-03-10 00:23:09 * Diablo-D3 was bombing BP's shit daily when this was going on
38 2011-03-10 00:23:15 <farzong> yeah i know.. just a good quote. its getting some press on aljazeera
39 2011-03-10 00:23:46 <luke-jr> I mean, I hate SI, but it's sure better than reinventing a new decimal unit system
40 2011-03-10 00:23:51 <farzong> http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/03/201138152955897442.html
41 2011-03-10 00:23:56 <luke-jr> if BTC is too big, use cBTC
42 2011-03-10 00:24:01 <luke-jr> if cBTC is too big, use mBTC
43 2011-03-10 00:24:05 <luke-jr> etc
44 2011-03-10 00:24:12 <luke-jr> or better yet, use TBC or DBC
45 2011-03-10 00:24:14 <Diablo-D3> you mean uBTC
46 2011-03-10 00:24:24 <farzong> luke-jr: yeah kibibits is cool
47 2011-03-10 00:24:41 <farzong> kibits, mibits, gibits, tibits, pibits, eibits, zibits
48 2011-03-10 00:24:42 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: I meant mBTC
49 2011-03-10 00:24:42 <genjix> anyone want to donate me 1 btc so i can test out a new feature i added to the client and see i haven't broken anything?
50 2011-03-10 00:24:49 <genjix> i spent all my btc
51 2011-03-10 00:24:58 <Lachesis> genjix, use testnet man
52 2011-03-10 00:25:02 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: μBTC is next after mBTC
53 2011-03-10 00:25:12 <Diablo-D3> ahh
54 2011-03-10 00:25:12 <genjix> Lachesis: oh good idea thanks
55 2011-03-10 00:25:51 <farzong> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibibit
56 2011-03-10 00:26:00 <Lachesis> aha!
57 2011-03-10 00:26:01 <Lachesis> Thu Mar 10 00:16:54 2011: socket send flood control disconnect (844796 bytes)
58 2011-03-10 00:26:06 <farzong> \
59 2011-03-10 00:26:38 <lfm> <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: μBTC is next after mBTC
60 2011-03-10 00:27:22 <luke-jr> farzong: people want smaller, not bigger
61 2011-03-10 00:27:49 <farzong> yeah
62 2011-03-10 00:28:06 <Lachesis> -maxsendbuffer=10000000 <-- problem solved
63 2011-03-10 00:28:35 <farzong> 2^-1, 2^-2, 2^-3
64 2011-03-10 00:30:10 <Lachesis> lol wow didn't read closely enough - that's in kB already
65 2011-03-10 00:31:38 <Lachesis> initial block download is faaaast if you do it from a RAID array over a gigabit lan to a ram disk :)
66 2011-03-10 00:32:00 <phantomcircuit> farzong, that al jazeera story is basically a lie, nobody is known to have been sickened by the oil spill much less killed (beyond those hurt in the initial blast ofc)
67 2011-03-10 00:32:23 <phantomcircuit> farzong, those signs are merely a normal cover your ass tactic
68 2011-03-10 00:32:57 <farzong> sure.. its all in their heads right?
69 2011-03-10 00:33:04 <dirtyfilthy> phantomcircuit: where are you getting your information, fox news?
70 2011-03-10 00:33:24 <phantomcircuit> dirtyfilthy, show me a single example of someone who was made sick by the oil
71 2011-03-10 00:33:27 <farzong> the whole gulf area population is poisoned
72 2011-03-10 00:33:34 <phantomcircuit> i bet 0.03 BTC you cant
73 2011-03-10 00:34:06 <farzong> oil, dispersant, corexit, combined.. all toxic.. whats worse is they form new water soluble compounds and rain down on the people / reservoirs etc
74 2011-03-10 00:35:57 <phantomcircuit> farzong, oil/dispersant is not water soluble at all
75 2011-03-10 00:36:08 <phantomcircuit> well the dispersant itself might be
76 2011-03-10 00:36:12 AmpEater has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPad - http://colloquy.mobi)
77 2011-03-10 00:36:14 <phantomcircuit> but combined they're heavy
78 2011-03-10 00:36:36 <farzong> corexit is water soluble
79 2011-03-10 00:36:47 <farzong> dispersit also
80 2011-03-10 00:36:58 <phantomcircuit> lol
81 2011-03-10 00:37:07 <phantomcircuit> corexant is the dispersant
82 2011-03-10 00:37:16 <phantomcircuit> farzong, you have no idea what you're talking about
83 2011-03-10 00:38:00 <dirtyfilthy> http://www.examiner.com/environmental-news-in-tallahassee/gulf-residents-are-getting-sick-blood-tests-confirm-ethylbenzene-xylene-and-high-levels-of-hexane
84 2011-03-10 00:38:39 <farzong> phantomcircuit: what are you talking about
85 2011-03-10 00:38:57 <farzong> do you know that corexit and dispersit ARE 2 BRAND NAMES OF DISPERSANT
86 2011-03-10 00:39:02 <farzong> jeezus christ
87 2011-03-10 00:40:04 ovrtrq has joined
88 2011-03-10 00:40:25 <farzong> ooh wait phantomcircuit didn't know what "dispersit" was yet feels free to expound on the toxicity of dispersants
89 2011-03-10 00:40:53 <farzong> go back to watching bill o'reilly
90 2011-03-10 00:41:10 <phantomcircuit> dirtyfilthy, if any of that is true they'd have sued BP
91 2011-03-10 00:41:29 <phantomcircuit> dirtyfilthy, which regardless of the 40 billion USD is responsible for unlimited provable direct claims
92 2011-03-10 00:42:14 <dirtyfilthy> and it's quite possible they will get sued, i'm not sure how the american legal system works
93 2011-03-10 00:42:31 <phantomcircuit> dirtyfilthy, sue everybody and go with whatever sticks
94 2011-03-10 00:43:05 <farzong> BP is being sued.. do not count on the corrupt injustice system for any help
95 2011-03-10 00:43:43 <dirtyfilthy> Health problems and health risks from oil and chemical dispersants. Residents in the Gulf region have filed lawsuits over the health problems and health risks caused by the presence of oil on or near coastal property and the dangers posed by the potentially toxic chemicals that have been used to disperse the spilled oil.
96 2011-03-10 00:43:50 <dirtyfilthy> http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/bp-oil-spill-lawsuits-legal-33442.html
97 2011-03-10 00:44:09 <phantomcircuit> also it sounds like she was on a boat in the middle of the gulf while they were doing areal spraying of dispersant
98 2011-03-10 00:44:12 <dirtyfilthy> so yeah sounds like it's actually happening
99 2011-03-10 00:44:13 <phantomcircuit> so duh she had some in her
100 2011-03-10 00:44:32 <farzong> bp will tie up the cases for decades and bankrupt anyone who tries to sue them, or simply wait for them to die
101 2011-03-10 00:45:33 <noagendamarket> its interesting how many people have been bumped off who were working on the oil spill
102 2011-03-10 00:45:42 <noagendamarket> they met with "accidents"
103 2011-03-10 00:46:00 AmpEater has joined
104 2011-03-10 00:47:42 Cusipzzz has joined
105 2011-03-10 00:47:44 <farzong> sure exxon denied the health effects on the cleanup workers in alaska also
106 2011-03-10 00:48:09 <agorist> ;;bc,gen 330000
107 2011-03-10 00:48:11 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 330000 Khps, given current difficulty of 76193.9710474 , is 4.35629435022 BTC per day and 0.181512264593 BTC per hour.
108 2011-03-10 00:48:26 <dirtyfilthy> exxon has only just started paying out in the last three years
109 2011-03-10 00:51:19 <farzong> yeah dude its a travesty
110 2011-03-10 00:54:53 <Lachesis> will a good 550W PSU handle 1 5870?
111 2011-03-10 00:55:29 <Diablo-D3> Lachesis: if its 550w rated, maybe
112 2011-03-10 00:55:31 <Diablo-D3> I doubt it is
113 2011-03-10 00:55:47 <eps1> depends on how much other hardware you have
114 2011-03-10 00:56:01 <Diablo-D3> 5870 = like 180w max
115 2011-03-10 00:56:13 <Diablo-D3> so you're in the lower 400s after a full system build
116 2011-03-10 00:56:33 <Lachesis> full story: upgrading a computer with a 300W PSU right now to handle this card
117 2011-03-10 00:56:45 <Diablo-D3> get a 650
118 2011-03-10 00:56:47 <Diablo-D3> they're cheap
119 2011-03-10 00:56:50 <Lachesis> if the card is 180W max ... 300 + 180 == 480W
120 2011-03-10 00:56:59 <Lachesis> assuming it was running at max capacity previously
121 2011-03-10 00:57:01 <Diablo-D3> Lachesis: yes, which is the question
122 2011-03-10 00:57:10 <Diablo-D3> is it rated at 550, or is it rated at 550 max
123 2011-03-10 00:57:13 <Lachesis> and that the old, crappy GPU took no load
124 2011-03-10 00:57:14 <Lachesis> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817341022
125 2011-03-10 00:57:15 <Diablo-D3> if its rated at 550 actual, you're fine
126 2011-03-10 00:57:23 <Lachesis> 550W max according tothis
127 2011-03-10 00:57:29 <Lachesis> friend offered me one
128 2011-03-10 00:57:36 <Diablo-D3> that means its closer to 3xx actual
129 2011-03-10 00:57:39 <Diablo-D3> which means not enough
130 2011-03-10 00:58:01 <Lachesis> really?
131 2011-03-10 00:58:03 <Lachesis> how's that work?
132 2011-03-10 00:58:16 <Diablo-D3> you dont want to go right up to the actual
133 2011-03-10 00:58:19 <Diablo-D3> you want some headroom
134 2011-03-10 00:58:52 <Diablo-D3> Lachesis: I mean, shit, $120 buys you a damned nice PSU
135 2011-03-10 00:59:29 <Lachesis> $120 is a lot for this build man
136 2011-03-10 00:59:40 <Lachesis> i went with a corsair 750 80+ Bronze for my main miner
137 2011-03-10 00:59:44 <Lachesis> but this is just a dinky old box
138 2011-03-10 01:00:21 <Diablo-D3> yeah but those nzxt psu are sexy
139 2011-03-10 01:00:36 <Diablo-D3> and it also gives you room to grow this box as a miner too ;)
140 2011-03-10 01:01:14 <Lachesis> here, this'll do
141 2011-03-10 01:01:14 <Lachesis> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817182200
142 2011-03-10 01:01:29 <[Tycho]> Block Explorer is not working ?
143 2011-03-10 01:01:31 <Lachesis> 80 PLUS certified for 630W
144 2011-03-10 01:01:34 <Lachesis> continuous
145 2011-03-10 01:01:49 <Diablo-D3> Lachesis: what rband?
146 2011-03-10 01:01:56 <Diablo-D3> I have fullscreen app open
147 2011-03-10 01:01:56 <Lachesis> rosewill
148 2011-03-10 01:02:12 <Diablo-D3> rosewill is shit
149 2011-03-10 01:02:13 <Mango-chan> Last Price: 0.8645High:0.87Low: 0.85Volume: 4216
150 2011-03-10 01:02:14 <Mango-chan> bitcoin is dying
151 2011-03-10 01:02:26 <Lachesis> it's 80 PLUS certified for 630W continuous
152 2011-03-10 01:02:27 <Mango-chan> everybody sell!
153 2011-03-10 01:02:31 <Diablo-D3> Lachesis: so?
154 2011-03-10 01:02:35 <Lachesis> and has 4/5 eggs or whatever on newegg
155 2011-03-10 01:02:37 <Diablo-D3> its not diablo certified
156 2011-03-10 01:02:44 <Diablo-D3> Lachesis: rosewill == newegg's own brand
157 2011-03-10 01:02:44 <Lachesis> so isn't the entire point of 80+ that it's NOT shit?
158 2011-03-10 01:02:48 <Diablo-D3> nope
159 2011-03-10 01:02:53 <Diablo-D3> the point of 80+ is its that efficient
160 2011-03-10 01:02:56 <Diablo-D3> not that it wont pop.
161 2011-03-10 01:03:32 Sthebig has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
162 2011-03-10 01:05:08 Sthebig has joined
163 2011-03-10 01:06:09 KBme has quit (Quit: KBme kthxbye)
164 2011-03-10 01:08:36 KBme has joined
165 2011-03-10 01:10:41 <farzong> imd drunk
166 2011-03-10 01:13:47 alystair has joined
167 2011-03-10 01:14:51 <phantomcircuit> farzong, if i was in florida id be drunk too
168 2011-03-10 01:15:12 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, can i buy vpn service from you?
169 2011-03-10 01:15:24 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: I offer VPS, not VPN.
170 2011-03-10 01:15:35 <phantomcircuit> ok
171 2011-03-10 01:15:40 <phantomcircuit> can i buy a vps and run a vpn
172 2011-03-10 01:16:19 <luke-jr> tbh, I'd rather not, but if you want to pay and abide by ToS I guess :p
173 2011-03-10 01:16:48 <phantomcircuit> if you'd rather not
174 2011-03-10 01:19:32 <farzong> phantomcircuit is cool
175 2011-03-10 01:19:35 <farzong> im in mexijo
176 2011-03-10 01:19:59 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: nah, go ahead⦠I forgot the plans have well-defined bandwidth limits :P
177 2011-03-10 01:21:04 <phantomcircuit> i onlyhave pitiful dsl anyways
178 2011-03-10 01:21:13 <phantomcircuit> i doubt i could do much damage even running 24/7
179 2011-03-10 01:24:36 redMBA has joined
180 2011-03-10 01:27:22 * farzong drinking the antifreeze
181 2011-03-10 01:28:04 <knotwork> florida has antifreeze? wow blows my illusions of the sunshine state
182 2011-03-10 01:29:44 <phantomcircuit> he said he's in mexico
183 2011-03-10 01:33:17 alystair has quit (Quit: â(ã»_ã»)âOUTTA HEREâ(ã»oã»)â)
184 2011-03-10 01:34:09 AmpEater has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPad - http://colloquy.mobi)
185 2011-03-10 01:39:20 akem has joined
186 2011-03-10 01:39:21 akem has quit (Changing host)
187 2011-03-10 01:39:21 akem has joined
188 2011-03-10 01:39:48 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, yeha i dont even break 2GB most months
189 2011-03-10 01:40:01 <phantomcircuit> oh wait
190 2011-03-10 01:40:03 <phantomcircuit> that's daily
191 2011-03-10 01:40:04 <phantomcircuit> rofl
192 2011-03-10 01:40:57 <phantomcircuit> about 200 GB last month
193 2011-03-10 01:41:02 <phantomcircuit> over a 3mbps dsl line
194 2011-03-10 01:41:04 <phantomcircuit> lol
195 2011-03-10 01:44:39 devon_hillard has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
196 2011-03-10 01:46:10 tg has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
197 2011-03-10 01:46:28 tg has joined
198 2011-03-10 01:52:36 phantomcircuit has quit (Quit: Leaving)
199 2011-03-10 01:52:48 TheKid has joined
200 2011-03-10 01:53:02 phantomcircuit has joined
201 2011-03-10 01:54:59 slush has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
202 2011-03-10 01:56:39 <agorist> anyone think p2p dns is every going to work?
203 2011-03-10 01:57:08 <farzong> cool idea
204 2011-03-10 01:57:34 <agorist> but is it feasible
205 2011-03-10 01:58:40 <farzong> i think so.. i tend to think these problems are constrained by logarithmic structures.. so i think it can be made efficient / robust
206 2011-03-10 01:58:40 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: probably looking at 51 BTC/mo minimum then
207 2011-03-10 01:58:50 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: assuming you do all that over VPN
208 2011-03-10 01:59:19 <farzong> bitcoin could actually be used to do dns
209 2011-03-10 01:59:43 <agorist> farzong, hmm perhaps
210 2011-03-10 01:59:53 <sipa> i don't see why you need something like bitcoin for dns
211 2011-03-10 01:59:55 <phantomcircuit> bitcoin could be used for something like dns
212 2011-03-10 02:00:23 <phantomcircuit> but what happens when someone grabs a trademarked domain name?
213 2011-03-10 02:00:32 <agorist> nothing happens :D
214 2011-03-10 02:00:39 <agorist> ebay.p2p baby! mine!
215 2011-03-10 02:00:53 <phantomcircuit> yeah more like they sue everybody until they find out who has it
216 2011-03-10 02:01:04 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: you mean sue John Doe
217 2011-03-10 02:01:11 <luke-jr> and subpoena everybody
218 2011-03-10 02:01:16 <agorist> bahaha
219 2011-03-10 02:01:23 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, yup
220 2011-03-10 02:01:27 <luke-jr> or actually, just subpoena whoever controls the target IP
221 2011-03-10 02:01:35 <noagendamarket> you could buy domains with bitcoin :)
222 2011-03-10 02:01:53 <agorist> for sure with bitcoins, with what else :p
223 2011-03-10 02:02:00 <noagendamarket> why does bitcoin actually have to be the dns client ?
224 2011-03-10 02:02:13 <agorist> it doesnt
225 2011-03-10 02:02:20 <farzong> sipa: i dont think you would need it necessarily, but if you already have a bitcoin ecosystem, you can probably embed domain name ownership into the script section or metadata of transactions
226 2011-03-10 02:09:21 dissipate has joined
227 2011-03-10 02:11:33 <JunK-Y> somebody tried the latest ATI 6990?
228 2011-03-10 02:12:31 <Diablo-D3> it should around 5-10% slower than a 5970 due to penalty
229 2011-03-10 02:12:38 <Diablo-D3> otherwise its a very awesome card
230 2011-03-10 02:13:15 zylche has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
231 2011-03-10 02:13:39 <farzong> bitcoin could be the transit system for any p2p infobase
232 2011-03-10 02:13:56 <farzong> since youd expect payments to be just important as dns in terms of worldwide accessibility/data integrity
233 2011-03-10 02:13:58 zylche has joined
234 2011-03-10 02:13:59 zylche has quit (Excess Flood)
235 2011-03-10 02:14:05 <JunK-Y> penalty?
236 2011-03-10 02:14:20 <da2ce7> lower clock speed
237 2011-03-10 02:14:58 <genjix> farzong: like an encyclopedia?
238 2011-03-10 02:15:13 <luke-jr> fewer SPs?
239 2011-03-10 02:15:23 echelon has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
240 2011-03-10 02:15:51 <farzong> genjix: yeah perhaps.. any key-value type store
241 2011-03-10 02:16:11 <JunK-Y> anyway, i dont plan to buy it on the next 3 months.
242 2011-03-10 02:16:12 <farzong> distributed wikipedia is another interesting idea
243 2011-03-10 02:16:28 <luke-jr> hmm, difficulty 25997 stuck around LONGER than 2 weeks, yet the diff still went up to 36459; why?
244 2011-03-10 02:16:58 <JunK-Y> ;;bc,stats
245 2011-03-10 02:17:00 <gribble> Current Blocks: 112960 | Current Difficulty: 76193.9710474 | Next Difficulty At Block: 114911 | Next Difficulty In: 1951 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 2 weeks, 0 days, 4 hours, 52 minutes, and 59 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 77845.67824258
246 2011-03-10 02:17:32 echelon has joined
247 2011-03-10 02:19:41 AmpEater has joined
248 2011-03-10 02:19:44 <phantomcircuit> farzong, something like that would only work if > 50% of the network accepted transactions that contained dns information
249 2011-03-10 02:19:59 <farzong> hmm i c
250 2011-03-10 02:20:15 <phantomcircuit> as it stands you could put dns into the generated block for the extra nonce and all the peers afaict would accept it
251 2011-03-10 02:20:19 <phantomcircuit> i guess that would work
252 2011-03-10 02:20:47 <farzong> yeah interestingly ppl have tried to put riders into the dns system for lots of things.. pgp keys, ssl certs, identities etc
253 2011-03-10 02:21:07 <farzong> but in this case dns is a rider on a distributed system
254 2011-03-10 02:23:35 <phantomcircuit> and actually putting dns information into the extra nonce section of the generation block only adds minimal straign to the network
255 2011-03-10 02:23:55 <phantomcircuit> however selling the domain to someone else would require a completely different kind of transaction
256 2011-03-10 02:24:13 <phantomcircuit> well i guess not, you could just sell them the private key you used
257 2011-03-10 02:24:28 Necr0s has joined
258 2011-03-10 02:24:42 Necr0s has left ()
259 2011-03-10 02:25:50 andynor has quit ()
260 2011-03-10 02:26:07 <farzong> you still need someone to efficiently serve queries, hey perhaps for an infinitessimal btc fee.. but at least the data is there for anyone to verify / authenticate
261 2011-03-10 02:26:34 <phantomcircuit> what?
262 2011-03-10 02:27:09 <phantomcircuit> you put a signed host to ip mapping in a conventional dns TXT entry
263 2011-03-10 02:27:14 <farzong> someone to tell me, who is the name server for hypercow.com
264 2011-03-10 02:27:34 <phantomcircuit> magic p2p dns with the benefits of the centralized dns system
265 2011-03-10 02:27:52 <phantomcircuit> everybody would know if results were being forged
266 2011-03-10 02:33:02 <AmpEater> Is there any way to search blocks for certain address?
267 2011-03-10 02:36:52 <farzong> blockexplorer.com?
268 2011-03-10 02:37:56 <AmpEater> Oh shit I was just looking at the blocks, never checked the homepage....duh
269 2011-03-10 02:37:59 <AmpEater> Thanks
270 2011-03-10 02:39:03 <Kiba> yo
271 2011-03-10 02:39:16 <Kiba> who wants to advertise in my signature space?
272 2011-03-10 02:40:31 <AmpEater> I do
273 2011-03-10 02:40:45 <AmpEater> Ampeater is awesome!
274 2011-03-10 02:41:01 <AmpEater> Will pay 1btc per month
275 2011-03-10 02:42:14 <[Tycho]> Were you talking about ad in blocks ? :)
276 2011-03-10 02:43:20 <phantomcircuit> lol that's a neat idea [Tycho]
277 2011-03-10 02:43:30 <phantomcircuit> sell the space in the generation block for ads
278 2011-03-10 02:43:38 <phantomcircuit> ADS THAT LAST FOREVERRRRR
279 2011-03-10 02:43:46 <Kiba> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4342.0
280 2011-03-10 02:43:50 <[Tycho]> Not the space, but some fields
281 2011-03-10 02:44:20 <phantomcircuit> [Tycho], the extra nonce field (which is actually the script field)
282 2011-03-10 02:44:27 <[Tycho]> Yes.
283 2011-03-10 02:44:44 <noagendamarket> it would be cool if you went to block explorer and there were messages associated with an address there
284 2011-03-10 02:45:00 forrestv` has joined
285 2011-03-10 02:47:14 talso has joined
286 2011-03-10 02:47:37 forrestv has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
287 2011-03-10 02:48:11 <AmpEater> Anybody think there would be a market for solar power generated blocks?
288 2011-03-10 02:48:31 <AmpEater> Like a small premium for carbon credits built in
289 2011-03-10 02:49:06 <phantomcircuit> AmpEater, unlikely
290 2011-03-10 02:49:29 <phantomcircuit> although running your mining equipment off of solar power would bring the marginal cost of generation to zero
291 2011-03-10 02:49:34 <phantomcircuit> (or close to it)
292 2011-03-10 02:49:47 <AmpEater> Solar power isn't free
293 2011-03-10 02:49:57 <[Tycho]> Solar power is expensive
294 2011-03-10 02:49:59 <AmpEater> Just cheaper per watt in long run
295 2011-03-10 02:49:59 <farzong> AmpEater: green coins? cool
296 2011-03-10 02:50:29 edcba_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
297 2011-03-10 02:50:37 <farzong> can you get a dedicated solar powered chip that doesnt need a whole pc rig
298 2011-03-10 02:50:50 <emeril> if you're willing to spend the money
299 2011-03-10 02:50:56 <AmpEater> Hah, crazy
300 2011-03-10 02:50:58 <[Tycho]> AmpEater, in VERY long run and only if you have long lasting solar panels (they usually decay with time)
301 2011-03-10 02:51:22 <[Tycho]> But in orbit that will be nice.
302 2011-03-10 02:51:24 <AmpEater> Yeah, it's a 30 year outlook type deal
303 2011-03-10 02:51:34 <farzong> fresnel lens + stirling engine = awesome power
304 2011-03-10 02:51:45 <[Tycho]> + sun
305 2011-03-10 02:51:46 <farzong> thermal solar is probably more efficient considering all the sunk energy costs
306 2011-03-10 02:51:52 <AmpEater> Most have warranties that they will produce 85% in 30 years or whatnot
307 2011-03-10 02:52:12 <AmpEater> Optics do make it better
308 2011-03-10 02:52:18 <AmpEater> P,us you lots of low grade heat
309 2011-03-10 02:52:21 <[Tycho]> Yeah, mfg hopes to be long out of business in 30 years :)
310 2011-03-10 02:52:31 <AmpEater> Hah
311 2011-03-10 02:52:36 <AmpEater> Good point I guess
312 2011-03-10 02:52:48 <AmpEater> But panels have long track record of lifespan
313 2011-03-10 02:52:56 <[Tycho]> Sometimes.
314 2011-03-10 02:53:00 <phantomcircuit> amiller, solar power isn't free, bur if you're using it at the time of generation it's much cheaper than the burning fossil fuels, the real cost is in storage
315 2011-03-10 02:53:05 <phantomcircuit> AmpEater, ^
316 2011-03-10 02:53:07 <AmpEater> Lots of 30 year old panels available
317 2011-03-10 02:53:13 <[Tycho]> They actually DO decay, but with different speeds.
318 2011-03-10 02:53:15 <phantomcircuit> amiller, my bad that wasnt for you
319 2011-03-10 02:53:42 <[Tycho]> Amorphous and monocrystalline panels have different cost too.
320 2011-03-10 02:54:21 <amiller> phantomcircuit, too bad you already caught my attention
321 2011-03-10 02:54:26 <amiller> now i'm going to look for errors in things you've said
322 2011-03-10 02:54:44 <farzong> no photovoltaics needed
323 2011-03-10 02:55:01 <AmpEater> I'm liking these sub 1$ watt panels
324 2011-03-10 02:55:23 <amiller> i think that the economics of finding bitcoins is bad, but i can't really put my finger on it
325 2011-03-10 02:55:25 <AmpEater> Versus 3,4,5$ watt
326 2011-03-10 02:55:36 <amiller> in the steady state, after the 21 million mark, it will entirely be based on tx fees
327 2011-03-10 02:55:43 <amiller> what if it were based on tx fees right now
328 2011-03-10 02:55:58 <[Tycho]> ;;bc,stats
329 2011-03-10 02:56:01 <gribble> Current Blocks: 112966 | Current Difficulty: 76193.9710474 | Next Difficulty At Block: 114911 | Next Difficulty In: 1945 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 6 days, 15 hours, 56 minutes, and 55 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 81058.82344059
330 2011-03-10 02:56:13 <[Tycho]> Oh, it's rising again.
331 2011-03-10 02:56:24 <AmpEater> Sigh
332 2011-03-10 02:56:34 <AmpEater> So what's up with MM?
333 2011-03-10 02:57:11 <farzong> amiller: but then miners wouldnt have a chance to build up huge reserves and maintain currency control
334 2011-03-10 02:57:28 <farzong> and without central control we are doomed!
335 2011-03-10 02:57:57 <AmpEater> Miners won't be able to resist temptation to sell as prices rise
336 2011-03-10 02:59:05 <agorist> in order to sell you need to find buyers
337 2011-03-10 02:59:10 <agorist> there are less buyers when prices rise
338 2011-03-10 02:59:40 <amiller> there is something very important about having miners
339 2011-03-10 02:59:44 <amiller> the stronger the (honest) network is
340 2011-03-10 02:59:48 <amiller> the more expensive it is to attack it
341 2011-03-10 02:59:58 <amiller> so the stronger we make it by participating, the better for everyone
342 2011-03-10 03:01:20 <phantomcircuit> amiller, there isn't enough transaction volume right now to sustain mining from fees alone
343 2011-03-10 03:01:43 <phantomcircuit> indeed the entire economy will collapse unless there is a significant increase in the fees attached to transactions
344 2011-03-10 03:01:54 <amiller> so what effect does mining now have on the transaction fees
345 2011-03-10 03:02:17 <amiller> er on the transaction volume
346 2011-03-10 03:02:24 <agorist> why would the economy collapse
347 2011-03-10 03:02:42 <amiller> for example, a large number of the people participating in bitcoin now are busy mining
348 2011-03-10 03:02:56 <phantomcircuit> agorist, the fees have to be more than the cost of the electricity to produce a block
349 2011-03-10 03:02:59 MUILTFN has joined
350 2011-03-10 03:03:00 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
351 2011-03-10 03:03:31 alystair has joined
352 2011-03-10 03:03:35 <agorist> I dont understand why blocks need to be continually produced in order to make transactions
353 2011-03-10 03:03:46 <phantomcircuit> agorist, with a 2 week timeline a spike in the rate of generation could push that over the point at which it's worth it for anybody to generate new blocks, which would mean
354 2011-03-10 03:03:54 <phantomcircuit> agorist, oh then you have no idea how this works at all :P
355 2011-03-10 03:04:08 <amiller> well, let me try to work through an explanation
356 2011-03-10 03:04:27 <amiller> we need a difficult proof of work, because that makes it harder/expensive to disrupt
357 2011-03-10 03:04:44 <amiller> miners are incentivised to do what they do, because the more people mining the harder it is to attack the network
358 2011-03-10 03:05:01 <amiller> but the more miners there are the more the difficulty and hence the cost of electricity goes up
359 2011-03-10 03:05:26 <agorist> more like it costs more in electricity to produce the same amount of BTC
360 2011-03-10 03:06:11 <amiller> i guess what that would mean is that the network would be strong enough, and there's no incentive to add more compute power to it
361 2011-03-10 03:06:20 <amiller> until the transaction volume increases, which would give more incentive
362 2011-03-10 03:07:29 MUILTFN has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
363 2011-03-10 03:07:37 <phantomcircuit> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4335.0
364 2011-03-10 03:09:28 <MagicalTux> phantomcircuit, there are more ips than that
365 2011-03-10 03:09:33 <MagicalTux> (er, nodes)
366 2011-03-10 03:10:36 <MagicalTux> https://stats.bitcoin.it/rrd/nodes_total-day.png <- 6.5k~7.5k nodes
367 2011-03-10 03:10:47 <phantomcircuit> MagicalTux, whatever
368 2011-03-10 03:10:48 Guest51874 has joined
369 2011-03-10 03:10:58 <phantomcircuit> that's how many there were last i checked
370 2011-03-10 03:10:59 <MagicalTux> https://stats.bitcoin.it/rrd/nodes_up-day.png <- 1.4k~1.8k connectable nodes
371 2011-03-10 03:11:58 agorist has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
372 2011-03-10 03:12:00 <phantomcircuit> MagicalTux, wow wtf look at the drops
373 2011-03-10 03:12:10 <phantomcircuit> 500 nodes randomly disappear
374 2011-03-10 03:12:21 <MagicalTux> phantomcircuit, the graph is based on data obtained via a p2p network, and are not 100% reliable
375 2011-03-10 03:12:39 <phantomcircuit> does it actually try to connect to peers?
376 2011-03-10 03:12:42 <MagicalTux> yep
377 2011-03-10 03:12:48 echelon has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
378 2011-03-10 03:12:54 <phantomcircuit> becuase the drops in the connectable graph shouldnt be that extreme
379 2011-03-10 03:12:59 <MagicalTux> the "nodes_up" graph only contains peers which accepted a connection and talked bitcoin
380 2011-03-10 03:13:07 <phantomcircuit> oh
381 2011-03-10 03:13:09 <phantomcircuit> ok then
382 2011-03-10 03:13:12 <MagicalTux> nah
383 2011-03-10 03:13:21 <phantomcircuit> 2.0k to 1.4k in 2 days?
384 2011-03-10 03:13:22 <MagicalTux> the drops are linked to timeouts when there's a lot of bad ips coming at once
385 2011-03-10 03:13:22 <phantomcircuit> weird
386 2011-03-10 03:13:37 <MagicalTux> https://stats.bitcoin.it/rrd/nodes_up-month.png <- that's the origin of the drop there for example
387 2011-03-10 03:14:33 <MagicalTux> (at that point, a nodes advertised me ~22k false ips, it took a while to purge them out as non working, and in the meantime entries for valid nodes were timing out)
388 2011-03-10 03:14:42 <dissipate> MagicalTux, have you taken over mtgox yet?
389 2011-03-10 03:14:46 <MagicalTux> dissipate, yep
390 2011-03-10 03:14:59 <dissipate> i haven't noticed any changes on the front page
391 2011-03-10 03:15:33 <[Tycho]> Number of nodes is fading away ?
392 2011-03-10 03:15:54 <MagicalTux> dissipate, working on that right now, a lot of work
393 2011-03-10 03:16:22 <MagicalTux> [Tycho], it varies every day, but based on https://stats.bitcoin.it/rrd/nodes_up-month.png it's been growing
394 2011-03-10 03:16:23 <dissipate> MagicalTux, is there any reason why you couldn't accept MoneyPak cards or other cash cards?
395 2011-03-10 03:16:52 <MagicalTux> dissipate, it depends on the conditions of each of those systems, including chargeback policies
396 2011-03-10 03:17:08 <dissipate> MagicalTux, moneypak has no chargebacks
397 2011-03-10 03:17:21 <farzong> beam me up scotty
398 2011-03-10 03:17:22 <dissipate> MagicalTux, it goes directly into a paypal account
399 2011-03-10 03:17:50 <MagicalTux> dissipate, that potentially means paypal fees
400 2011-03-10 03:18:16 echelon has joined
401 2011-03-10 03:18:17 <dissipate> MagicalTux, https://www.moneypak.com/PayPal/Index.aspx
402 2011-03-10 03:18:38 <dissipate> MagicalTux, liberty reserve doesn't have fees?
403 2011-03-10 03:19:26 <MagicalTux> dissipate, it has now enough fees
404 2011-03-10 03:19:49 <MagicalTux> by asking 1% on withdraw, it's enough
405 2011-03-10 03:19:53 <dissipate> enough fees? sorry i don't understand
406 2011-03-10 03:20:12 <dissipate> MagicalTux, just charge a % fee for moneypak
407 2011-03-10 03:20:37 genjix has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
408 2011-03-10 03:21:27 <MagicalTux> dissipate, anyway we cannot just "accept moneypak", we need to register as a merchant with them first
409 2011-03-10 03:21:44 <dissipate> oh that sucks
410 2011-03-10 03:22:03 <phantomcircuit> you can setup a fake paypal
411 2011-03-10 03:22:08 <phantomcircuit> add fund to it with moneypak
412 2011-03-10 03:22:22 <phantomcircuit> and then send funds from the paypal to mtgox
413 2011-03-10 03:22:37 <dissipate> that sounds good to me
414 2011-03-10 03:23:02 <phantomcircuit> also
415 2011-03-10 03:23:45 <phantomcircuit> lol if you turn off js on the moneypak site it's still got lorem ipsum all over it
416 2011-03-10 03:24:20 <jrabbit> phantomcircuit: hahaha
417 2011-03-10 03:24:46 * jrabbit would use catullus 16 for filler.
418 2011-03-10 03:25:20 <phantomcircuit> jrabbit, i got my client to build a complete block chain
419 2011-03-10 03:25:24 <phantomcircuit> now i just have to verify txs
420 2011-03-10 03:25:33 <jrabbit> phantomcircuit: cool
421 2011-03-10 03:25:34 <phantomcircuit> and ill have a more or less complete implementation
422 2011-03-10 03:25:39 da2ce7 has joined
423 2011-03-10 03:25:53 <jrabbit> phantomcircuit: is yours smaller or bigger than the other guys' python client?
424 2011-03-10 03:26:27 <farzong> gox mountain
425 2011-03-10 03:26:47 da2ce7 has quit (Client Quit)
426 2011-03-10 03:27:23 <phantomcircuit> jrabbit, mine works
427 2011-03-10 03:27:24 <phantomcircuit> ;)
428 2011-03-10 03:27:34 <phantomcircuit> a big difference
429 2011-03-10 03:27:37 <jrabbit> oh theirs doesn't?
430 2011-03-10 03:27:43 <phantomcircuit> not afaict
431 2011-03-10 03:27:46 * jrabbit never checked
432 2011-03-10 03:27:50 mmarker has joined
433 2011-03-10 03:27:55 <phantomcircuit> if it does it's only by chance
434 2011-03-10 03:27:57 <phantomcircuit> it's a mess
435 2011-03-10 03:27:59 mmarker has quit (Changing host)
436 2011-03-10 03:27:59 mmarker has joined
437 2011-03-10 03:28:55 <jrabbit> rofl google's translate is much cleaner then common latin
438 2011-03-10 03:28:59 da2ce7 has joined
439 2011-03-10 03:30:02 da2ce7 has quit (Client Quit)
440 2011-03-10 03:30:18 da2ce7 has joined
441 2011-03-10 03:30:21 TheKid has left ()
442 2011-03-10 03:30:39 genjix has joined
443 2011-03-10 03:30:39 genjix has quit (Changing host)
444 2011-03-10 03:30:40 genjix has joined
445 2011-03-10 03:33:44 TheKid has joined
446 2011-03-10 03:34:14 <farzong> http://www.dyndy.net/
447 2011-03-10 03:35:50 <genjix> farzong: cool, i know the guy who made that... im staying with him in 2 weeks
448 2011-03-10 03:36:07 <farzong> cools
449 2011-03-10 03:36:39 <genjix> how come you was linking his site? i just joined :p
450 2011-03-10 03:37:14 <farzong> its cool.. he talks about cultural credit
451 2011-03-10 03:37:32 <farzong> im really surprised at the lack of scholarly articles on bitcoin, aside from satoshis paper
452 2011-03-10 03:38:26 DoomDumas has quit ()
453 2011-03-10 03:43:19 <AmpEater> What's up with all the 0.05 transactions over and over
454 2011-03-10 03:43:23 mmarker has quit (Quit: mmarker)
455 2011-03-10 03:43:23 dissipate has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
456 2011-03-10 03:43:30 <genjix> someone testing probably
457 2011-03-10 03:43:48 <Avemo> the faucet
458 2011-03-10 03:45:53 TheKid has left ()
459 2011-03-10 03:47:30 <AmpEater> Yeah, it pays out that often?
460 2011-03-10 03:47:32 <AmpEater> Crazy
461 2011-03-10 03:48:11 <AmpEater> That must really skew the avg transaction numbers
462 2011-03-10 03:49:58 <Guest51874> bitcoin wiki articles, especially on economics, is really bad indded
463 2011-03-10 03:50:03 <farzong> ;;bc,stats
464 2011-03-10 03:50:05 <gribble> Current Blocks: 112969 | Current Difficulty: 76193.9710474 | Next Difficulty At Block: 114911 | Next Difficulty In: 1942 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 6 days, 6 hours, 16 minutes, and 20 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 79636.97613617
465 2011-03-10 03:50:23 sethsethseth has joined
466 2011-03-10 03:51:16 TheKid has joined
467 2011-03-10 03:53:43 <genjix> what are the legal characters for a bitcoin address?
468 2011-03-10 03:53:47 <genjix> alphanumeric?
469 2011-03-10 03:54:51 <dirtyfilthy> http://bitcoin-otc.com/vieworder.php?id=655 & http://bitcoin-otc.com/vieworder.php?id=768
470 2011-03-10 03:54:55 <nanotube> genjix: base58
471 2011-03-10 03:55:00 <dirtyfilthy> pretty tempted by both these offers
472 2011-03-10 03:55:27 <nanotube> dirtyfilthy: haha
473 2011-03-10 03:55:38 <nanotube> Guest51874: true dat. feel free to make them better if you think you can. :)
474 2011-03-10 03:56:13 <genjix> nanotube: base58?
475 2011-03-10 03:56:14 <dirtyfilthy> genjix: there's no 0 or uppercase I
476 2011-03-10 03:56:35 <genjix> ok but if i regex a bitcoin addy to only be alphanumeric then that's fine, right?
477 2011-03-10 03:56:40 <genjix> no problems later on?
478 2011-03-10 03:57:54 <nanotube> genjix: no, some alphanum chars are not allowed.
479 2011-03-10 03:58:11 <genjix> ok that's fine going that way :p
480 2011-03-10 03:58:26 <nanotube> best way is to check the code for list of allowed chars. i don't recall exactly what it was.
481 2011-03-10 03:58:51 <dirtyfilthy> 123456789ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz
482 2011-03-10 03:59:05 <dirtyfilthy> no uppercase 'O' either
483 2011-03-10 03:59:24 <nanotube> genjix: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/base58.h right at the top there
484 2011-03-10 03:59:26 TheKid has left ()
485 2011-03-10 03:59:35 <nanotube> ah, beaten by dirtyfilthy :)
486 2011-03-10 04:01:29 MUILTFN has joined
487 2011-03-10 04:03:19 <genjix> aha neat
488 2011-03-10 04:03:41 <genjix> s/[^1-9A-Za-z]//
489 2011-03-10 04:03:42 <genjix> :)
490 2011-03-10 04:03:56 <genjix> damn, no I
491 2011-03-10 04:04:10 <genjix> s/[^1-9A-HJ-Za-z]//
492 2011-03-10 04:05:36 DoomDumas has joined
493 2011-03-10 04:05:36 DoomDumas has quit (Changing host)
494 2011-03-10 04:05:37 DoomDumas has joined
495 2011-03-10 04:10:25 DoomDumas has quit (Client Quit)
496 2011-03-10 04:14:03 TheKid has joined
497 2011-03-10 04:14:42 Guest51874 is now known as anarchist
498 2011-03-10 04:15:12 anarchist is now known as Guest49657
499 2011-03-10 04:15:20 Guest49657 is now known as agorist
500 2011-03-10 04:17:36 Tril has joined
501 2011-03-10 04:18:55 syntaxfree has joined
502 2011-03-10 04:19:02 DoomDumas has joined
503 2011-03-10 04:19:43 dissipate has joined
504 2011-03-10 04:19:44 dissipate has quit (Changing host)
505 2011-03-10 04:19:44 dissipate has joined
506 2011-03-10 04:22:34 <genjix> hey MagicalTux, i've made a bitcoin fork which supports an addressing scheme like genjix@foo.org ... can i have a VPS to setup a server so that when i post on forums about my branch, people can sign up and try it out?
507 2011-03-10 04:23:36 <noagendamarket> nice genjix
508 2011-03-10 04:23:46 <Cusipzzz> genjix: sure, register, pay, and you will have it :)
509 2011-03-10 04:23:51 <noagendamarket> lol
510 2011-03-10 04:24:18 <luke-jr> genjix: get a VPS from me :p
511 2011-03-10 04:24:21 <genjix> im cheap :p
512 2011-03-10 04:24:30 <Cusipzzz> lol
513 2011-03-10 04:24:36 <genjix> anyone want to donate a domain + vps?
514 2011-03-10 04:24:41 <genjix> with ubuntu
515 2011-03-10 04:25:08 <luke-jr> genjix: the big question is: does it support a FROM address?
516 2011-03-10 04:25:18 <dirtyfilthy> why the fuck is my client not updating blocks
517 2011-03-10 04:25:45 <genjix> luke-jr: no, it's just a resolution scheme
518 2011-03-10 04:26:10 <dirtyfilthy> stalled at block 112971
519 2011-03-10 04:26:13 <luke-jr> genjix: so not very useful :P
520 2011-03-10 04:26:15 <dirtyfilthy> with 8 connections
521 2011-03-10 04:26:19 <luke-jr> genjix: I would just use DNS for that
522 2011-03-10 04:26:19 <doublec> dirtyfilthy: possibly? "The maxsendbuffer bug (0.3.20.1 clients not being able to download the block chain from other 0.3.20.1 clients) "
523 2011-03-10 04:26:24 <luke-jr> ;;bc,blocks
524 2011-03-10 04:26:25 <gribble> 112972
525 2011-03-10 04:26:35 <dirtyfilthy> doublec: ohhhh true, workaround?
526 2011-03-10 04:26:40 <luke-jr> ;;bc,blocks
527 2011-03-10 04:26:40 <gribble> 112972
528 2011-03-10 04:26:46 <luke-jr> 112972 was literally JUST found
529 2011-03-10 04:26:55 <luke-jr> so 112971 is likely not a problem
530 2011-03-10 04:27:16 <doublec> dirtyfilthy: if it is that, upgrade to 0.3.20.2
531 2011-03-10 04:27:24 <dirtyfilthy> nah my fuckup i think
532 2011-03-10 04:27:30 <dirtyfilthy> it's been a long day
533 2011-03-10 04:27:49 <doublec> How's chch?
534 2011-03-10 04:27:51 <x6763> hmmm...blockexplorer is only showing up to block 112919
535 2011-03-10 04:28:00 <farzong> who found it
536 2011-03-10 04:28:10 <dirtyfilthy> doublec: pretty munted :)
537 2011-03-10 04:28:25 <doublec> dirtyfilthy: getting better with power and water I hope
538 2011-03-10 04:28:59 <dirtyfilthy> yeah we got power water and sewerage back at my place last friday, almost like living in a first world country now
539 2011-03-10 04:29:38 <farzong> is there an app that will play a jingle whenever a block is found
540 2011-03-10 04:29:38 <doublec> crazy. it's amazing what we take for granted.
541 2011-03-10 04:29:59 <dirtyfilthy> yeah, you don't really think of the supermarket as an essential service, but it is
542 2011-03-10 04:30:08 <luke-jr> farzong: #bitcoin-watch
543 2011-03-10 04:30:15 <luke-jr> farzong: set your IRC client to play sounds :P
544 2011-03-10 04:30:15 <farzong> oh good call luke-jr
545 2011-03-10 04:30:27 AmpEater has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
546 2011-03-10 04:31:12 <knotwork> when you do a send via RPC using non-daemon bitcoind to RPC the daemon one... and send fails... does the program return a non-zero return value (error code) ?
547 2011-03-10 04:31:22 <farzong> im just concerned about chain spamming.. ppl announcing they have huge chains that are bogus.. clients will keep verifying phony chains ad infinitum
548 2011-03-10 04:31:50 <knotwork> (I am worried that txfees might make a send fail, or for other reason a send fails; bad if wanting to send in return something)
549 2011-03-10 04:33:22 <Aciid> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4343.msg63275#msg63275
550 2011-03-10 04:34:59 AmpEater has joined
551 2011-03-10 04:35:32 FellowTraveler has joined
552 2011-03-10 04:35:41 <farzong> greeting FT!
553 2011-03-10 04:35:41 <FellowTraveler> hi all
554 2011-03-10 04:35:44 <dirtyfilthy> /join #bitcoin-watch
555 2011-03-10 04:36:00 <FellowTraveler> hi farzong
556 2011-03-10 04:46:07 <farzong> so theres now a trading bot on mtgox
557 2011-03-10 04:46:56 <doublec> I thought there were always bots on mtgox
558 2011-03-10 04:47:04 <farzong> oh hmm
559 2011-03-10 04:47:17 <nameless> !~root@weowntheinter.net|Hey, quick poll. Does anyone here need a seedbox or a shell acount on a server with a decent amount of storage/bandwidth?
560 2011-03-10 04:47:35 sethsethseth has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
561 2011-03-10 04:47:45 sethsethseth has joined
562 2011-03-10 04:48:30 <dirtyfilthy> so shell not vps
563 2011-03-10 04:48:45 <nameless> !~root@weowntheinter.net|dirtyfilthy: Can do either actually
564 2011-03-10 04:48:59 <FellowTraveler> Anyone interested in any kind of OT integration with Bitcoin?
565 2011-03-10 04:49:11 <FellowTraveler> I can give you support on OT while you are developing.
566 2011-03-10 04:49:25 <dirtyfilthy> i might be interested in a vps
567 2011-03-10 04:49:56 <FellowTraveler> vps?
568 2011-03-10 04:49:57 <nameless> !~root@weowntheinter.net|dirtyfilthy: PM'd
569 2011-03-10 04:50:02 <FellowTraveler> oh sorry
570 2011-03-10 04:50:08 <Tril> FT: I'm interested in OT
571 2011-03-10 04:50:12 <nameless> !~root@weowntheinter.net|FellowTraveler: Virtual Private Server?
572 2011-03-10 04:52:32 <dirtyfilthy> OT? heh too many acronyms
573 2011-03-10 04:54:53 <FellowTraveler> Sorry I just didn't notice your prior convo on the vps topic or I wouldn't have said anything
574 2011-03-10 04:55:29 <nameless> !~root@weowntheinter.net|FellowTraveler: No worries
575 2011-03-10 04:56:20 <genjix> FellowTraveler: OT is like tokens you download and validate against an issuing server, right?
576 2011-03-10 04:56:36 <FellowTraveler> genjix, OT is a financial crypto library
577 2011-03-10 04:56:57 <Tril> OT=opentransactions. I still read it as Off Topic though... OTX?
578 2011-03-10 04:57:03 <FellowTraveler> you can use it to issue currencies, open accounts, write/deposit cheques, withdraw/deposit in untraceable cash
579 2011-03-10 04:57:21 <FellowTraveler> I think by tokens you are referring to the cash instrument.
580 2011-03-10 04:57:39 <FellowTraveler> Also keep in mind since the serve enables untraceable money, you can run it on I2P for a profit.
581 2011-03-10 04:57:48 <FellowTraveler> So it kind of has the same "can't shut it down" benefit of bitcoin
582 2011-03-10 04:57:59 <FellowTraveler> and OT supports markets, so you could have BTC trading against other currencies
583 2011-03-10 04:58:01 <FellowTraveler> and it supports basket currencies
584 2011-03-10 04:58:43 <Tril> yes, basically, every website that takes BTC now and provides you a balance, could instead run opentransactions, and let users anonymously trade their balances amongst each other
585 2011-03-10 04:59:10 <FellowTraveler> right
586 2011-03-10 04:59:15 <genjix> FellowTraveler: yeah i have a few ideas how it could be used
587 2011-03-10 04:59:20 <FellowTraveler> they could use markets, they could withdraw in untraceable cash, etc
588 2011-03-10 04:59:23 <AmpEater> Hmmm
589 2011-03-10 04:59:30 <genjix> 1) gaming site (poker) where you buy chips and play
590 2011-03-10 04:59:30 <FellowTraveler> See the articles, diagrams: https://github.com/FellowTraveler/Open-Transactions/wiki
591 2011-03-10 04:59:35 <genjix> 2) laundering bitcoins
592 2011-03-10 04:59:46 <genjix> 3) stock market
593 2011-03-10 05:00:03 <FellowTraveler> yeah there's lots of potential uses
594 2011-03-10 05:00:06 <FellowTraveler> profitable nym server
595 2011-03-10 05:00:11 <FellowTraveler> profitable anonymous downloads
596 2011-03-10 05:00:18 <FellowTraveler> profitable tor directory server, whatever
597 2011-03-10 05:00:27 <FellowTraveler> here's some use cases: https://github.com/FellowTraveler/Open-Transactions/wiki/Use-Cases
598 2011-03-10 05:00:55 <knotwork> I have tcl library of OT client built into one of my IRC bots
599 2011-03-10 05:01:24 <knotwork> then I realised though that it simply setting up itrs wallet would only support one user, presumably its owner
600 2011-03-10 05:01:46 <[Tycho]> Is there anyone willing to help with pool testing ?
601 2011-03-10 05:01:49 <knotwork> I think eggdrop bots only do one thing at a time so not sure about allowing it to handle umpteen users wallets
602 2011-03-10 05:02:52 <knotwork> but maybe even at one bot per person it could be useful for some people, to have ready access to transactions
603 2011-03-10 05:02:55 <knotwork> from inside IRC
604 2011-03-10 05:03:29 <Tril> [Tycho]: I can test if someone helps me setup CPU mining, I couldn't get it working before
605 2011-03-10 05:03:51 <FellowTraveler> Oops I meant to put business cases: https://github.com/FellowTraveler/Open-Transactions/wiki/Business-Cases
606 2011-03-10 05:03:55 <FellowTraveler> (potential uses of the software)
607 2011-03-10 05:03:57 <Tril> (with an external client, obviously "Generate" works)
608 2011-03-10 05:04:30 sabalaba has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
609 2011-03-10 05:04:47 sethsethseth has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
610 2011-03-10 05:06:04 <[Tycho]> I need gpu testers, sorry :(
611 2011-03-10 05:06:10 sethsethseth has joined
612 2011-03-10 05:06:25 <[Tycho]> Tril, what's exactly your problem with CPU mining ?
613 2011-03-10 05:07:25 ovrtrq has quit (Quit: Page closed)
614 2011-03-10 05:07:44 <Tril> ok..I forget the error I had, if my CPU won't help, let me wait until I can contribute GPU :)
615 2011-03-10 05:08:23 <[Tycho]> I can help with setting up your CPU mining if you tell me what's the problem with it.
616 2011-03-10 05:10:06 bitcoiner has joined
617 2011-03-10 05:11:53 <jrabbit> FellowTraveler: Ohhh, you mighht want to make it a little clear that its not in competition with bitcoin
618 2011-03-10 05:12:00 <jrabbit> that wasn't very obvious reading about
619 2011-03-10 05:12:24 <da2ce7> ;;bc,stats
620 2011-03-10 05:12:26 <gribble> Current Blocks: 112974 | Current Difficulty: 76193.9710474 | Next Difficulty At Block: 114911 | Next Difficulty In: 1937 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 6 days, 19 hours, 58 minutes, and 49 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 75037.15708370
621 2011-03-10 05:12:42 <AmpEater> Hmm, dropping again
622 2011-03-10 05:13:00 <da2ce7> after a big jump
623 2011-03-10 05:13:17 <da2ce7> it will take a while for more miners to come online, esp as the price hasn't gorn up
624 2011-03-10 05:13:39 <AmpEater> Hope so
625 2011-03-10 05:14:08 * da2ce7 hopes the diff goes up faster, makes his transactions more secure.
626 2011-03-10 05:16:03 <Tril> I appear to be mining at 300Khash/sec, woohoo
627 2011-03-10 05:16:33 <AmpEater> Would like to make some money before a gpu doesn't produce hardly anything
628 2011-03-10 05:18:28 <lfm> ;;bc,gen 300000
629 2011-03-10 05:18:29 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 300000 Khps, given current difficulty of 76193.9710474 , is 3.96026759111 BTC per day and 0.16501114963 BTC per hour.
630 2011-03-10 05:18:51 <luke-jr> ;;bc,gen 600000
631 2011-03-10 05:18:52 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 600000 Khps, given current difficulty of 76193.9710474 , is 7.92053518222 BTC per day and 0.330022299259 BTC per hour.
632 2011-03-10 05:19:59 <farzong> give me the coin
633 2011-03-10 05:21:00 <AmpEater> ;;bc,gen 3200000
634 2011-03-10 05:21:02 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 3200000 Khps, given current difficulty of 76193.9710474 , is 42.2428543052 BTC per day and 1.76011892938 BTC per hour.
635 2011-03-10 05:21:28 <AmpEater> ;;bc,gen 5400000
636 2011-03-10 05:22:39 <jrabbit> :|
637 2011-03-10 05:23:23 <AmpEater> :)
638 2011-03-10 05:25:07 <farzong> another sign of the apocalypse: "Febreeze" air freshener has hit the $1 billion revenue mark
639 2011-03-10 05:25:24 <AmpEater> Lol
640 2011-03-10 05:25:35 <farzong> for the past 12 months
641 2011-03-10 05:25:43 <farzong> ppl buy this horrific stuff? its probably toxic
642 2011-03-10 05:25:44 <Lachesis> can someone here running ubuntu maverick pastebin the output of ps aux?
643 2011-03-10 05:26:07 <Lachesis> i feel like i'm going crazy - chromium is using 800MB of vram PER TAB
644 2011-03-10 05:26:33 BitterTea has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
645 2011-03-10 05:26:57 <Lachesis> nautilus is using 800, pidgin is using 500, bitcoin is using 425...
646 2011-03-10 05:27:03 <Lachesis> is there something borked with my gtk toolkit?
647 2011-03-10 05:27:12 <mizerydearia> I set prices for meta and faq categories at witcoin.com to be practically free.
648 2011-03-10 05:27:14 AmpEater has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPad - http://colloquy.mobi)
649 2011-03-10 05:28:42 <farzong> just purchased some herb in btc
650 2011-03-10 05:30:03 <mizerydearia> farzong, did you buy some derb too?
651 2011-03-10 05:31:20 <farzong> derb? does it get you high
652 2011-03-10 05:32:03 <Tril> what difficulty are the shares at on deepbit.net?
653 2011-03-10 05:32:03 AmpEater has joined
654 2011-03-10 05:32:34 Cusipzzz has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.2 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
655 2011-03-10 05:33:29 <farzong> interesting that the blocks are winner take all...
656 2011-03-10 05:33:53 <farzong> maybe if there were some way to prove you scanned some of the hashspace you should get rewarded as well
657 2011-03-10 05:34:04 <Tril> farzong that's exactly what a pool is.
658 2011-03-10 05:34:15 <farzong> yeah.. but you gotta be in the winning pool
659 2011-03-10 05:34:20 <Tril> nope.
660 2011-03-10 05:34:34 <Tril> some pools pay per share regardless of if they find a block
661 2011-03-10 05:34:35 <farzong> oh no? hmm
662 2011-03-10 05:34:45 <farzong> to their members
663 2011-03-10 05:36:33 <farzong> one possible way is you announce the smallest hash found within a key range.. others can verify probabilistically by probing the key range and checking if something is smaller i guess
664 2011-03-10 05:37:08 <farzong> and you get paid for the portion of the search space you traversed first
665 2011-03-10 05:37:31 <farzong> pay for effort, even if it didnt result in a win
666 2011-03-10 05:37:33 <doublec> or you could drop difficulty and instead reduce the 50btc 'found a block' payment to adjust for hash rate
667 2011-03-10 05:37:49 <doublec> so keep difficulty at 1
668 2011-03-10 05:37:57 <doublec> but pay 0.0005 for each share found
669 2011-03-10 05:38:02 <farzong> yeah.. course the chain would be weaker someone else could create a competing chain thats longer
670 2011-03-10 05:38:55 <farzong> well actually no it wouldnt be weaker would it.. since youd end up finding many more new blocks
671 2011-03-10 05:39:01 Lachesis has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
672 2011-03-10 05:39:11 redMBA has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
673 2011-03-10 05:39:21 <farzong> so yeah doublec .... that would be good
674 2011-03-10 05:41:16 <doublec> the network overhead would be much larger
675 2011-03-10 05:43:23 <farzong> so whats the best pool
676 2011-03-10 05:43:56 <doublec> I like bitpenny. deepbit sounds good. slush is good but closed.
677 2011-03-10 05:44:27 <doublec> bitpenny is low cognitive overhead. No need to register. Just start a miner with a receiving address as the user id.
678 2011-03-10 05:44:44 <farzong> i c
679 2011-03-10 05:49:44 <farzong> seems like you want to join the largest pool possible to maximize the chance your work will be counted
680 2011-03-10 05:52:08 <OneFixt> farzong: usually, yes; at bitpenny, you don't have to care about the pool speed since you are paid instantly for every share solved
681 2011-03-10 05:52:31 <farzong> oh cool
682 2011-03-10 05:53:36 <doublec> bitpenny was the first pay per share pool I think
683 2011-03-10 05:53:49 <OneFixt> yep, introduced that structure
684 2011-03-10 05:57:54 <mizerydearia> Poll ----> If you post to a user-generated content site, how many bitcoins would you be willing to pay for the single post? What seems reasonably inexpensive that you wouldn't have to think about it? 0.01 bitcoins? 0.001 bitcoins? 0.0001 bitcoins? 0.00000001 bitcoins? other?
685 2011-03-10 05:59:27 <doublec> midnightmagic: 0.001
686 2011-03-10 05:59:39 <doublec> erm. mizerydearia: 0.001
687 2011-03-10 05:59:41 <dirtyfilthy> +1
688 2011-03-10 05:59:57 <AmpEater> ..01 or less
689 2011-03-10 05:59:59 <doublec> the exchange rate is such that 0.01 is more than 1 cent in my local currency
690 2011-03-10 06:04:49 <noagendamarket> user generated bitcoin cost :)
691 2011-03-10 06:04:57 <bxc> is it normal that bitcoin uses aboyt 10% cpu even when it should be "idle", on my laptop?
692 2011-03-10 06:06:43 <Tril> may depend how many peers you connect to
693 2011-03-10 06:07:37 <Tril> it has to verify each transaction that anyone does to decide if it wants to send it to others
694 2011-03-10 06:07:39 <doublec> it idles mostly at 0 for me
695 2011-03-10 06:07:52 <doublec> bxc: is it still downloading the block chain?
696 2011-03-10 06:07:54 <doublec> bxc: that uses cpu
697 2011-03-10 06:08:00 <bxc> no
698 2011-03-10 06:08:09 <bxc> its at block 112978
699 2011-03-10 06:08:46 <Tril> also if you made some transactions or raised your key pool size it maybe creating key pairs
700 2011-03-10 06:09:05 <bxc> nope
701 2011-03-10 06:09:30 <doublec> is this the gui or bitcoind?
702 2011-03-10 06:09:31 <bxc> what i'm really wondering is if one of my users on barwen.ch is running bitcoind how much CPU and load its going to generate after its validated the block chain
703 2011-03-10 06:09:34 <Tril> i guess it's not normal then
704 2011-03-10 06:09:45 <bxc> doublec: the gui here, but in my end question, bitcoind
705 2011-03-10 06:10:34 <doublec> bxc: on linux with 50 connected nodes it idles at about 1% cpu for me (this is bitcoind)
706 2011-03-10 06:10:37 alystair has quit (Quit: â(ã»_ã»)âOUTTA HEREâ(ã»oã»)â)
707 2011-03-10 06:10:55 <bxc> ok
708 2011-03-10 06:11:51 <bxc> its possible to validate the block chain on some other computer and transfer it across?
709 2011-03-10 06:12:14 * bxc trying to find somethign nicer to say to this user than "stop running this process NOW"
710 2011-03-10 06:12:57 Lachesis has joined
711 2011-03-10 06:12:58 <Tril> bxc: yes, so they tell me, but try shutting down bitcoind on the source side first, I didn't do that and got corrupted files.
712 2011-03-10 06:13:34 <Tril> the chain should be in blk0001.dat and blkindex.dat
713 2011-03-10 06:14:01 lfm has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
714 2011-03-10 06:17:20 <bxc> ok thanks
715 2011-03-10 06:17:55 * bxc sends advice
716 2011-03-10 06:20:28 doublec has quit (Quit: Leaving)
717 2011-03-10 06:21:54 <AmpEater> ;;bc;gen 300000
718 2011-03-10 06:21:54 <gribble> Error: "bc;gen" is not a valid command.
719 2011-03-10 06:22:12 <Aciid> ;;bc,gen 300000
720 2011-03-10 06:22:14 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 300000 Khps, given current difficulty of 76193.9710474 , is 3.96026759111 BTC per day and 0.16501114963 BTC per hour.
721 2011-03-10 06:22:26 <bk128> ;;bc,estimate
722 2011-03-10 06:22:27 <gribble> 73250.58857639
723 2011-03-10 06:22:28 <AmpEater> ;;bc:gen 3000000
724 2011-03-10 06:22:28 <gribble> Error: "bc:gen" is not a valid command.
725 2011-03-10 06:22:44 <AmpEater> Ah, I see my problem
726 2011-03-10 06:23:47 lfm has joined
727 2011-03-10 06:23:55 Tril has left ()
728 2011-03-10 06:24:29 <da2ce7> ;;bc,gen 500000
729 2011-03-10 06:24:30 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 500000 Khps, given current difficulty of 76193.9710474 , is 6.60044598518 BTC per day and 0.275018582716 BTC per hour.
730 2011-03-10 06:24:52 <mmagic> ;;bc,stats
731 2011-03-10 06:24:54 <gribble> Current Blocks: 112979 | Current Difficulty: 76193.9710474 | Next Difficulty At Block: 114911 | Next Difficulty In: 1932 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 2 weeks, 0 days, 3 hours, 10 minutes, and 24 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 73250.58857639
732 2011-03-10 06:25:39 <mmagic> usually the difficulty is high. did someone tweak gribble?
733 2011-03-10 06:25:50 <mmagic> err.. difficulty estimate..
734 2011-03-10 06:26:28 eao has quit (Quit: Leaving)
735 2011-03-10 06:27:15 <dissipate> mmagic, the next estimate is lower
736 2011-03-10 06:27:29 <da2ce7> it is just the start of annother round...
737 2011-03-10 06:27:37 <da2ce7> there is high varence in the number
738 2011-03-10 06:27:57 <mmagic> yeah. usually the estimate is much, much higher. i've never seen it lower and I've been here for DF changes since december.
739 2011-03-10 06:27:59 <da2ce7> near the end of the round, expected diff is quite stable.
740 2011-03-10 06:28:11 Syke has joined
741 2011-03-10 06:28:54 <mmagic> i'd always wondered why it was never lower. always up in the 200k or 90k or whatever, then stabilises down.
742 2011-03-10 06:30:08 <da2ce7> becasue every time before, the network was way faster than what the estimate was.
743 2011-03-10 06:30:24 <da2ce7> so whent he new diff came into play the network was already ahead.
744 2011-03-10 06:30:34 <da2ce7> so cances were on the upside.
745 2011-03-10 06:30:56 <da2ce7> this time the diff is just about right... so there is no chace on the upsid or underside.
746 2011-03-10 06:31:19 <da2ce7> by luck people are just making blocks slower than expected.
747 2011-03-10 06:31:30 <genjix> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4353.0
748 2011-03-10 06:31:50 <genjix> ./bitcoind send genjix@foo.org 1
749 2011-03-10 06:32:28 <mmagic> indeed, indeed. it's very interesting to see the growth slowing down a tad..
750 2011-03-10 06:34:30 <Aciid> genjix: oh my god this could be a partial solution on the #otc WOT problem
751 2011-03-10 06:38:57 amiller has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
752 2011-03-10 06:40:23 <dirtyfilthy> what's the problem?
753 2011-03-10 06:41:13 amiller has joined
754 2011-03-10 06:41:55 dissipate has quit (Quit: Leaving)
755 2011-03-10 06:42:02 <Aciid> dirtyfilthy: non-techies would like to trade at otc too
756 2011-03-10 06:42:22 <Aciid> dirtyfilthy: but using GPG on windows requires some knowledge.
757 2011-03-10 06:42:40 <Aciid> dirtyfilthy: and some are just reluctant to start hazzling with it
758 2011-03-10 06:44:49 <dirtyfilthy> i'd like to see some kind of generic bitcoin reputation website
759 2011-03-10 06:47:41 <agorist> can you elaborate on that ?
760 2011-03-10 06:48:29 <genjix> mizerydearia: made update to that post :p
761 2011-03-10 06:48:45 <genjix> Aciid: wot wot problem?
762 2011-03-10 06:49:11 <genjix> wut wot
763 2011-03-10 06:50:01 <dirtyfilthy> ah reputation site where you can rate people or business you've had dealings with in the bitcoin community
764 2011-03-10 06:50:58 <Aciid> genjix: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4346
765 2011-03-10 06:51:02 <dirtyfilthy> how exactly that would function is something i've been wondering about
766 2011-03-10 06:51:12 <Aciid> dirtyfilthy: its already functioning
767 2011-03-10 06:51:30 <Aciid> dirtyfilthy: http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewratings.php
768 2011-03-10 06:51:44 <dirtyfilthy> isn't that connected to irc handles only?
769 2011-03-10 06:52:35 <Aciid> it uses GPG keys
770 2011-03-10 06:52:41 <Aciid> you have to auth everytime you want to make biz
771 2011-03-10 06:52:54 <Aciid> so nobody can come and claim to be you
772 2011-03-10 06:53:03 <Aciid> unless you auth to gribble
773 2011-03-10 06:53:09 <Aciid> ;;view
774 2011-03-10 06:53:10 <gribble> Error: No orders found matching these criteria.
775 2011-03-10 06:53:34 <dirtyfilthy> ah right, so if there was a web front end maybe
776 2011-03-10 06:53:44 <dirtyfilthy> like to manage your keys
777 2011-03-10 06:53:47 * mizerydearia checks
778 2011-03-10 06:54:32 <Aciid> ;;gpg ident
779 2011-03-10 06:54:33 <gribble> You are identified as user Aciid, with GPG key id 4D0E43D3D325B1F0, and key fingerprint 271D33B3B3886EBF2C6547E14D0E43D3D325B1F0.
780 2011-03-10 06:54:35 <Aciid> =)
781 2011-03-10 06:54:51 <nevezen> What do you guys think of the new AMD 6990?
782 2011-03-10 06:55:50 <Aciid> nevezen: a beast, but not in my range of budget
783 2011-03-10 06:56:07 <dirtyfilthy> Aciid: hmmm thanks dude, i didn't realise how bitcoin otc worked
784 2011-03-10 06:56:15 <nevezen> yeah, pricey
785 2011-03-10 06:56:33 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
786 2011-03-10 06:57:53 <Aciid> dirtyfilthy: no problem
787 2011-03-10 07:01:13 <AmpEater> ;;bc,gen 5400000
788 2011-03-10 07:01:14 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 5400000 Khps, given current difficulty of 76193.9710474 , is 71.28481664 BTC per day and 2.97020069333 BTC per hour.
789 2011-03-10 07:20:59 genjix has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
790 2011-03-10 07:26:09 `Jaka has joined
791 2011-03-10 07:26:10 `Jaka has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
792 2011-03-10 07:28:48 Mango-chan has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
793 2011-03-10 07:32:07 <mizerydearia> oi, nenolod is associated with http://www.atheme.org/contact
794 2011-03-10 07:32:34 syntaxfree has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
795 2011-03-10 07:33:21 Lachesis has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
796 2011-03-10 07:43:20 <da2ce7> bought a 120GB ssd and a 3TB hdd.
797 2011-03-10 07:43:21 <da2ce7> :)
798 2011-03-10 07:43:46 <da2ce7> gonna format my pc tomorow... this windows has been arround for way too long.
799 2011-03-10 07:44:04 * da2ce7 makes extra backups of wallet.
800 2011-03-10 07:44:20 AmpEater has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPad - http://colloquy.mobi)
801 2011-03-10 07:45:46 <lfm> da2ce7: good luck with that
802 2011-03-10 07:46:18 sethsethseth has left ()
803 2011-03-10 07:46:19 <da2ce7> 1TB windows hdd, has 50GB free :(
804 2011-03-10 07:47:04 Mango-chan has joined
805 2011-03-10 07:47:04 Mango-chan has quit (Changing host)
806 2011-03-10 07:47:04 Mango-chan has joined
807 2011-03-10 07:47:04 <lfm> da2ce7: if I were you id let the windows drive be for a while. format the new ssd for linux
808 2011-03-10 07:47:31 <Mango-chan> why are
809 2011-03-10 07:47:32 <Mango-chan> bitcoins
810 2011-03-10 07:47:33 <Mango-chan> dead already
811 2011-03-10 07:47:46 <lfm> Mango-chan: why you say that?
812 2011-03-10 07:47:52 <da2ce7> I need windows, I a photographer, need adobe bridge and photoshop.
813 2011-03-10 07:47:57 <da2ce7> *I'm
814 2011-03-10 07:48:00 <Mango-chan> Last Price: 0.8694High:0.87Low: 0.8497Volume: 4043
815 2011-03-10 07:48:06 <Mango-chan> windows > * nix
816 2011-03-10 07:48:25 <Diablo-D3> people actually use adobe bridge? lol\
817 2011-03-10 07:48:29 <Mango-chan> truly rich and respectable people use windows
818 2011-03-10 07:48:38 <Mango-chan> fat neckbearded virgins use linux
819 2011-03-10 07:48:42 <Mango-chan> hipsters use osx
820 2011-03-10 07:48:57 larsig has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
821 2011-03-10 07:48:59 <da2ce7> bridge is great, it is really good at sorting large numbers of photos.
822 2011-03-10 07:49:03 * Diablo-D3 is neither fat, nor neckbearded, nor a virgin
823 2011-03-10 07:49:08 <Diablo-D3> other than that, you're doing greaty
824 2011-03-10 07:49:09 <lfm> ponces use osx
825 2011-03-10 07:49:23 <Mango-chan> Diablo-D3: pics
826 2011-03-10 07:49:36 <Diablo-D3> Mango-chan: nope, never
827 2011-03-10 07:49:38 <Mango-chan> but yeah
828 2011-03-10 07:49:41 <Mango-chan> rich people don't use linux
829 2011-03-10 07:49:48 <Diablo-D3> there is no photos of me on the internet, and I intend on keeping it that way
830 2011-03-10 07:49:57 <Mango-chan> >he doesn't have a facebook
831 2011-03-10 07:50:02 <Mango-chan> what are you, socially inept?
832 2011-03-10 07:50:13 <lfm> naw, just ugly
833 2011-03-10 07:50:21 <Mango-chan> kik
834 2011-03-10 07:50:22 <Mango-chan> 'lol
835 2011-03-10 07:50:34 <Diablo-D3> no, only socially inept people have a facebook account
836 2011-03-10 07:50:36 <da2ce7> :P I wish I was like that... however I kinda need facebook for work.
837 2011-03-10 07:50:40 <Diablo-D3> real people talk to other real people in person
838 2011-03-10 07:50:48 <noagendamarket> http://funnyvids.witcoin.com/p/360/Leave-it-to-beaver lol
839 2011-03-10 07:50:50 <Mango-chan> lol.
840 2011-03-10 07:51:02 <Diablo-D3> da2ce7: no one needs facebook for work
841 2011-03-10 07:51:17 <da2ce7> lol... I wish.
842 2011-03-10 07:51:26 <Mango-chan> Diablo-D3
843 2011-03-10 07:51:27 <lfm> if you work for zynga you are soooo evil
844 2011-03-10 07:51:30 * da2ce7 wants facebook to die already.
845 2011-03-10 07:51:31 <Mango-chan> if you're not socially inept and you work
846 2011-03-10 07:51:38 <Mango-chan> why are you on irc
847 2011-03-10 07:51:45 <Mango-chan> don't you have a family
848 2011-03-10 07:51:51 <Diablo-D3> because I was on irc long before it became popular
849 2011-03-10 07:51:55 <Mango-chan> don't you have a family
850 2011-03-10 07:51:59 <Diablo-D3> and Im going to be long after you assholes get off of it
851 2011-03-10 07:52:08 <lfm> my family is dead ... thanks for bringing it up
852 2011-03-10 07:52:10 <da2ce7> yes yes.
853 2011-03-10 07:52:12 <Mango-chan> lfm
854 2011-03-10 07:52:14 <Mango-chan> i'm not talking to you
855 2011-03-10 07:52:27 <Diablo-D3> so why havent we banned Mango-chan for trolling yet?
856 2011-03-10 07:52:36 <Mango-chan> i'm not trolling
857 2011-03-10 07:52:41 * da2ce7 thinks it is fun
858 2011-03-10 07:52:44 <Diablo-D3> says the troll
859 2011-03-10 07:52:48 <Mango-chan> so when did presenting my POV ever become trolling?
860 2011-03-10 07:52:57 <Diablo-D3> since forever
861 2011-03-10 07:53:01 <Mango-chan> ic
862 2011-03-10 07:53:09 <Diablo-D3> thats a common troll tactic
863 2011-03-10 07:53:21 <Mango-chan> i'm just stating the facts:
864 2011-03-10 07:53:33 <Mango-chan> most businessmen use windows
865 2011-03-10 07:53:39 <Mango-chan> most basement dwellers use linux
866 2011-03-10 07:53:46 <Mango-chan> most hipsters use osx
867 2011-03-10 07:53:48 <Diablo-D3> actually, most basement dwellers use xbox.
868 2011-03-10 07:53:52 <lfm> thats what most trolls do, present their pov
869 2011-03-10 07:53:53 CyanDynamo has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
870 2011-03-10 07:53:54 <Diablo-D3> most people who like to get shit done use linux
871 2011-03-10 07:54:19 <Mango-chan> like what shit
872 2011-03-10 07:54:31 <Diablo-D3> including, but not limited to, making money
873 2011-03-10 07:54:43 <Mango-chan> how much money are you talking about?
874 2011-03-10 07:55:24 <Mango-chan> i know a google kernel engineer; he makes 130k/year but he uses windows at home
875 2011-03-10 07:56:15 <da2ce7> trolls have lots of fat, and can be grown for their oil.
876 2011-03-10 07:58:22 TheAncientGoat has joined
877 2011-03-10 07:58:32 <Diablo-D3> Mango-chan: then Im not sure why google continues to employ him
878 2011-03-10 07:58:40 <Diablo-D3> someone who doesnt use linux 24/7 isnt suited to hack on it
879 2011-03-10 07:58:42 <Mango-chan> because he knows what he's doing
880 2011-03-10 07:58:59 <Mango-chan> he's been at google for 5 years and has been promoted multiple times
881 2011-03-10 07:59:05 <da2ce7> Diablo-D3, now you are trolling
882 2011-03-10 07:59:25 <Mango-chan> da2ce7 he's always been trolling since he started shittalking windows :/
883 2011-03-10 07:59:45 <Mango-chan> knowing something doesn't mean you have to use it 24/7!
884 2011-03-10 08:00:14 <Diablo-D3> when did I start shittalking windows?
885 2011-03-10 08:00:15 <[Tycho]> Why would someone use linux AT HOME ?
886 2011-03-10 08:00:23 <Diablo-D3> [Tycho]: because some of us like getting shit done
887 2011-03-10 08:00:24 <da2ce7> I think that windows is great, I try to use the best tools for the job. I don't ever use mac casue I think that it is shit.
888 2011-03-10 08:00:30 <Mango-chan> Diablo-D3 you get shit down AT WORK
889 2011-03-10 08:00:37 <Diablo-D3> I get shit done 24/7.
890 2011-03-10 08:00:44 <Mango-chan> get a life
891 2011-03-10 08:00:50 <Mango-chan> ""
892 2011-03-10 08:01:15 <Aciid> Windows 7 at work, Y U NO GIT
893 2011-03-10 08:01:24 <Diablo-D3> "get a life"
894 2011-03-10 08:01:25 <Diablo-D3> lol
895 2011-03-10 08:01:29 <Diablo-D3> thats all he has to say
896 2011-03-10 08:01:30 <Diablo-D3> "get a life"
897 2011-03-10 08:01:37 <Mango-chan> Diablo-D3 how old are you btw?
898 2011-03-10 08:01:37 <da2ce7> nothing on linux can touch adobe software on windows 7 for pho photography.
899 2011-03-10 08:01:52 <da2ce7> *pro
900 2011-03-10 08:01:54 <Mango-chan> da2ce7: he's gonna be like "GIMP IS SUPERIOR" soon
901 2011-03-10 08:01:55 <Aciid> git for windows -> git clone xxxx -> "did you remember to update-server-info" FFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUU
902 2011-03-10 08:02:11 <Mango-chan> ssh into a work machine
903 2011-03-10 08:02:14 <Mango-chan> best of both worlds
904 2011-03-10 08:02:17 <Diablo-D3> da2ce7: photoshop in wine.
905 2011-03-10 08:02:18 <Diablo-D3> bam.
906 2011-03-10 08:02:22 <Aciid> get a mac for that
907 2011-03-10 08:02:26 <Aciid> separate machines == win
908 2011-03-10 08:02:30 <[Tycho]> Hate git for asking for comments every time.
909 2011-03-10 08:02:41 <Diablo-D3> [Tycho]: ....
910 2011-03-10 08:02:48 <Diablo-D3> you fail at software development FOREVER
911 2011-03-10 08:03:13 larsig has joined
912 2011-03-10 08:03:15 <da2ce7> wine is fail.
913 2011-03-10 08:03:20 <Mango-chan> you develop software Diablo-D3?
914 2011-03-10 08:03:22 <[Tycho]> Well, actually i'm winning ATM.
915 2011-03-10 08:03:37 <Mango-chan> how do you feel that you will always work BENEATH someone who's using Windoows?
916 2011-03-10 08:03:38 <Mango-chan> Lol.
917 2011-03-10 08:03:43 <Diablo-D3> [Tycho]: WINNING, its in all caps
918 2011-03-10 08:03:55 <Diablo-D3> Mango-chan: I work beneath myself now?
919 2011-03-10 08:04:05 <Mango-chan> and that's solely why you ain't rich brah
920 2011-03-10 08:04:16 <Diablo-D3> Why would I care if I'm rich or not?
921 2011-03-10 08:04:41 <da2ce7> controll your own finances and money, controll your own freedom.
922 2011-03-10 08:04:55 <Diablo-D3> da2ce7: control your excessive l usage
923 2011-03-10 08:05:24 * da2ce7 didn't ever win any spelling bees. :/
924 2011-03-10 08:06:14 <Diablo-D3> Mango-chan: and seriously, "brah"?
925 2011-03-10 08:06:18 <Diablo-D3> who the fuck says brah
926 2011-03-10 08:06:27 <Diablo-D3> I wasn't aware we were in New Jersey
927 2011-03-10 08:06:34 <Mango-chan> i live in japan...
928 2011-03-10 08:07:30 <Diablo-D3> They do not say brah in Japan.
929 2011-03-10 08:07:34 <noagendamarket> lmao
930 2011-03-10 08:07:49 <Mango-chan> æ¥æ¬äººã§ï½ï½ï½ï½ï½ï½ï½ï½ï½ï½ï½ï½
931 2011-03-10 08:07:57 <noagendamarket> new zealanders use brah
932 2011-03-10 08:08:21 <da2ce7> I want to go to japan, Mango-chan, how many btc to stay as a guest at your place for a few nights?
933 2011-03-10 08:08:46 <Diablo-D3> (ï¼ï¾Ðï¾)
934 2011-03-10 08:10:45 <Aciid> hmm as the total network strength increases, we hurry to new difficulties. what if participants drop out and the difficulty is at ~100k. and it takes hours to solve blocks... will confirming transactions take hours?
935 2011-03-10 08:11:20 <[Tycho]> Aciid, difficulty will decrease again if network speed is low.
936 2011-03-10 08:11:23 <Diablo-D3> Aciid: then for a week we celebrate how wonderful this is
937 2011-03-10 08:11:30 <Aciid> oh
938 2011-03-10 08:11:33 <Aciid> great
939 2011-03-10 08:11:46 <Diablo-D3> also
940 2011-03-10 08:11:50 <Diablo-D3> dear drmcninja
941 2011-03-10 08:11:51 <da2ce7> Aciid, then it will take hours to gain confimations...
942 2011-03-10 08:11:53 <Diablo-D3> DRAW FASTER
943 2011-03-10 08:11:55 <Aciid> someone has really figured this stuff out
944 2011-03-10 08:12:01 <da2ce7> then the difficulty will drop
945 2011-03-10 08:12:25 BCBot has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
946 2011-03-10 08:12:42 <da2ce7> however the freemarket rarely dose that... what is more likely to happen is that the difficulty will stabilize.
947 2011-03-10 08:13:20 <Diablo-D3> also, fuck
948 2011-03-10 08:13:27 <Diablo-D3> Chris, the guy who makes dr mcninja
949 2011-03-10 08:13:38 <Diablo-D3> now works at marvel
950 2011-03-10 08:15:50 <agorist> my client says im mining at 653 khash.s
951 2011-03-10 08:15:57 <agorist> how is that possible
952 2011-03-10 08:16:13 <Diablo-D3> what video card
953 2011-03-10 08:16:20 <agorist> i have a shitty nvidia
954 2011-03-10 08:16:31 <Diablo-D3> what miner
955 2011-03-10 08:16:44 <farzong> FML
956 2011-03-10 08:17:24 <Diablo-D3> agorist: and btw, saying "shitty nvidia" is redundant... ALL nvidia are shitty
957 2011-03-10 08:18:01 agorist has quit ()
958 2011-03-10 08:18:24 <da2ce7> *look you scared him away*
959 2011-03-10 08:18:36 <Diablo-D3> another customer served.
960 2011-03-10 08:19:06 <da2ce7> people say that about your mum also :O
961 2011-03-10 08:19:21 BCBot has joined
962 2011-03-10 08:19:30 <Diablo-D3> da2ce7: I get enough shit from xelister
963 2011-03-10 08:19:33 <Diablo-D3> you can stfu.
964 2011-03-10 08:20:33 <mizerydearia> Aciid, http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4343.msg63275#msg63275 this post was deleted
965 2011-03-10 08:20:47 <mizerydearia> Do you remember what it was about?
966 2011-03-10 08:21:51 <Aciid> mizerydearia: spam
967 2011-03-10 08:22:06 <Aciid> China binq Mining Machinery Co., Ltd
968 2011-03-10 08:22:06 <Aciid> =D
969 2011-03-10 08:23:20 <Aciid> da2ce7: very mature.
970 2011-03-10 08:23:49 * da2ce7 feels young again!
971 2011-03-10 08:24:28 <lfm> incredible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxRT60-kw78&feature=player_embedded#at=156
972 2011-03-10 08:25:38 syntaxfree has joined
973 2011-03-10 08:29:23 m86 has quit ()
974 2011-03-10 08:32:54 CyanDynamo has joined
975 2011-03-10 08:36:48 <Mango-chan> Diablo-D3 do you own a hhkb
976 2011-03-10 08:41:14 <mizerydearia> Aciid, ah
977 2011-03-10 08:42:05 <hwolf> seems like confirmations take forever now
978 2011-03-10 08:43:39 flok has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
979 2011-03-10 08:44:38 flok has joined
980 2011-03-10 08:45:17 <jgarzik> what is this "[REVIEW] name lookup branch" stuff?
981 2011-03-10 08:46:04 <jgarzik> genjix's post describes (a) what it doesn't do yet, (b) how to update a password, and (c) how to send genjix a tip
982 2011-03-10 08:46:17 <jgarzik> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4353.0
983 2011-03-10 08:57:38 BlueMatt has joined
984 2011-03-10 08:59:10 <tcatm> very ugly code... it appends /getaddress.php?nickname=%s to the IP/domain which returns a bitcoin address
985 2011-03-10 09:04:03 <mmagic> Well well.. I was right about the massive increase after all. So there's evidence of a single entity grabbing all that hashrate.
986 2011-03-10 09:04:17 <mmagic> Why didn't someone tell me I was right? ;-)
987 2011-03-10 09:05:09 <mmagic> Art counter-speculated it was a number of midrange operations coming online.
988 2011-03-10 09:05:25 <tcatm> where's that evidence?
989 2011-03-10 09:06:39 <mmagic> weak evidence: http://bitcoin.atspace.com/mysteryminer.html ; the "mystery miner" was outputting unique-ish coinbase and may have been isolated to 1 IP, assuming stuff said here is sometimes accurate.
990 2011-03-10 09:07:36 <tcatm> yep
991 2011-03-10 09:07:51 <mmagic> what i'd really love to know is how they narrowed it down. i know how I'd do it, but it would require so much effort that, on my part, i'm not entirely sure it'd be worth it until i had a lot more invested in btc.
992 2011-03-10 09:08:19 neopallium has left ("Leaving")
993 2011-03-10 09:08:29 <tcatm> dump blockchain into a database and run the correct queries ;)
994 2011-03-10 09:09:03 <mmagic> so this technically means someone may have outpaced the network just to see if they could. (without actually outpacing the network and adding to the blockchain)
995 2011-03-10 09:09:05 <Syke> one person/entity doubled the hashrate for a short period of time?
996 2011-03-10 09:09:18 <mmagic> apparently may have had 50%.
997 2011-03-10 09:09:24 <mmagic> hil-ar-ious.
998 2011-03-10 09:10:05 TheKid has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
999 2011-03-10 09:10:14 <farzong> bleh
1000 2011-03-10 09:10:22 <farzong> fuck this communiting 3 hours a day
1001 2011-03-10 09:10:25 <Syke> that's some serious hardware!
1002 2011-03-10 09:10:25 <noagendamarket> hmm
1003 2011-03-10 09:10:34 <farzong> now i need a job
1004 2011-03-10 09:10:55 <mmagic> this means they have the wallet addresses of the mined blocks. this also means the spends are track-able.
1005 2011-03-10 09:10:58 <noagendamarket> wonder if the entity double spent :)
1006 2011-03-10 09:10:58 <noagendamarket> was it the feds ?
1007 2011-03-10 09:11:06 <BlueMatt> Didn't someone mention something about access to a portion of a supercomputer on here a couple weeks ago though?
1008 2011-03-10 09:11:56 <mmagic> meh, almost certainly unrelated. let's get back to the important thing: my intuition was right!
1009 2011-03-10 09:12:09 <mmagic> yay me. S-M-R-T!
1010 2011-03-10 09:12:29 BCBot has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1011 2011-03-10 09:12:35 <Avemo> if I understand correctly cost of running modern supercomputers, such runs would be at loss, though those who got bitcoins might be not those who pay electricity bill
1012 2011-03-10 09:13:06 <BlueMatt> Avemo: why do you think he stopped?
1013 2011-03-10 09:13:07 <mmagic> modern supercomputer are GP, which means tens of thousands of CPU, massive coolant infrastructure, the works.
1014 2011-03-10 09:13:48 <Avemo> ? I did not say anything about it being stopped
1015 2011-03-10 09:13:53 Spenvo has joined
1016 2011-03-10 09:14:01 <BlueMatt> mmagic: yes, you were right. However I think the network isnt too threatened. MM stopped
1017 2011-03-10 09:14:17 <Spenvo> what's happening folks
1018 2011-03-10 09:14:28 <mmagic> he stopped because he just proved something; also, long-term, MM would destabize the currency if it ever got out he existed. he got wind people were analyzing him, and he stopped. he didn't want his coins to be worthless. :) next, a remixing network will suddenly appear perhaps
1019 2011-03-10 09:15:30 <BlueMatt> mmagic: I think although he was able to do it now, as the network grows, it will be harder to do and MM will no longer have 50%
1020 2011-03-10 09:15:38 <BlueMatt> until then, what can we do about it?
1021 2011-03-10 09:15:58 <mmagic> BlueMatt: I'm not concerned either way. to live in the middle of history is enough reward for me; i'm well past the point at which the resale of part of my mining equipment would net me a profit, so if the whole thing collapses tomorrow.. meh.
1022 2011-03-10 09:16:02 <Avemo> there are different supercomputers around, there are some based on 5970's, there are some based on FPGA stuff specifically geared for sha256 calculations
1023 2011-03-10 09:16:10 BCBot has joined
1024 2011-03-10 09:16:41 <Syke> would be quite interesting to figure out what the hardware setup was like.
1025 2011-03-10 09:17:01 <mmagic> Syke: probably just 100,000 bots all churning along..
1026 2011-03-10 09:17:13 <BlueMatt> mmagic: you may think we are in the middle of history, but we have to work to make it that. Spread the word. Get people to join
1027 2011-03-10 09:17:28 <mmagic> didn't slush cut new memberships because some douchebag was connecting with cpu miners? LOL
1028 2011-03-10 09:18:15 <BlueMatt> mmagic: half the point of the pool is that cpu miners can make a tiny bit...
1029 2011-03-10 09:18:28 <Spenvo> speaking of spread the word, has anyone used google translate's api? http://code.google.com/apis/language/translate/overview.html
1030 2011-03-10 09:18:35 <Syke> I wouldn't be surprised if it was a botfarm
1031 2011-03-10 09:18:36 <BlueMatt> mmagic: he closed it because the pool was just growing too fast
1032 2011-03-10 09:18:50 <Avemo> the point of the pool is to reduce variance
1033 2011-03-10 09:18:54 <BlueMatt> The /. and secnow mention boosted pool signups a ton
1034 2011-03-10 09:19:04 <mmagic> BlueMatt: dude. I asked my employer to pay me a couple month's salary in bitcoins. I am supporting local geek charities with them; I accept payment for every debt in bitcoins, from anyone, at a loss to myself. I'm doing the best I can. :)
1035 2011-03-10 09:19:13 slush has joined
1036 2011-03-10 09:19:54 <BlueMatt> mmagic: true, but thats not gonna do it...Get your local businesses to accept it for purchases too.
1037 2011-03-10 09:19:55 <mmagic> BlueMatt: oh, right. but I thought he did end up banning an account which was cpu-mining?
1038 2011-03-10 09:19:55 <BlueMatt> mmagic: or get online businesses interested
1039 2011-03-10 09:19:58 <farzong> give me the coin
1040 2011-03-10 09:19:58 <Aciid> Spenvo: Drupal has a module that uses it
1041 2011-03-10 09:20:14 <Spenvo> Aciid: i've gotten hits on the bulletin from 25 countries and 95% percent of those people can't read the site
1042 2011-03-10 09:20:22 <farzong> well say a biz accepts btc.. a person doesnt have huge incentive to use it since the tx fees are so high to acquire btc
1043 2011-03-10 09:20:23 <Spenvo> I'll check plugins in wordpress
1044 2011-03-10 09:20:38 <BlueMatt> mmagic: Just send an email to whatever online sites you typically buy from, get someone there to know bitcoin exists
1045 2011-03-10 09:20:39 <mmagic> BlueMatt: i would only be able to convince people to accept bitcoin if i could offer them infrastructure, and solve the instant-pay problem in a way that was palatable to people.
1046 2011-03-10 09:20:44 <BlueMatt> mmagic: If enough people do that, eventually they will
1047 2011-03-10 09:20:59 <farzong> except for things where anonymity is needed, it might be worth the tx fee
1048 2011-03-10 09:21:22 <BlueMatt> For an online site, they dont care if it takes 1 sec to verify or 1 hour, it doesnt really effect ship times
1049 2011-03-10 09:21:23 <Spenvo> bingo! wordpress is rockin
1050 2011-03-10 09:21:30 <farzong> the cartel should find a social/viral way to distribute out the btc to the populace
1051 2011-03-10 09:21:44 <farzong> through facebook invites or something or karma
1052 2011-03-10 09:22:07 <mmagic> if i thought i could get away with a picard facepalm at you, farzong, i would be pasting right now.
1053 2011-03-10 09:22:51 <farzong> post some ascii art
1054 2011-03-10 09:23:06 <BlueMatt> not on here please
1055 2011-03-10 09:23:21 <mmagic> BlueMatt: i meant in privmsg
1056 2011-03-10 09:24:31 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1057 2011-03-10 09:25:14 <mmagic> hilarious!! in a horrible, sarcastic way..! the MM might have been causing people to quit!
1058 2011-03-10 09:26:43 devon_hillard has joined
1059 2011-03-10 09:26:43 devon_hillard has quit (Changing host)
1060 2011-03-10 09:26:43 devon_hillard has joined
1061 2011-03-10 09:27:28 <bxc> i don't really get why people find it antisocial that someone is putting in more mining capacity
1062 2011-03-10 09:27:45 <bxc> rather than finding it a technical problem with bitcoin that it is somehow unwelcome
1063 2011-03-10 09:28:22 <mmagic> the idea is that the mining equipment itself is 1) at below-cost for the MM, 2) overtaking the network in power. this means that all the work done so far to build it is being kicked over like a sandcastle.
1064 2011-03-10 09:29:26 <tcatm> MM is far from overtaking the network...
1065 2011-03-10 09:29:28 mmagic has left ("Leaving")
1066 2011-03-10 09:29:36 mmagic has joined
1067 2011-03-10 09:29:45 <BlueMatt> bxc: no one thinks its antisocial, but there are several attacks on the network which depend on large mining power so...
1068 2011-03-10 09:30:01 <mmagic> not overtaken. "overtaking", before shutting down anyway.
1069 2011-03-10 09:30:11 <mmagic> ;;bc,stats
1070 2011-03-10 09:30:13 <gribble> Current Blocks: 112996 | Current Difficulty: 76193.9710474 | Next Difficulty At Block: 114911 | Next Difficulty In: 1915 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 2 weeks, 0 days, 6 hours, 34 minutes, and 20 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 71656.93578257
1071 2011-03-10 09:30:21 <mmagic> dropping like a stone.
1072 2011-03-10 09:30:25 <mmagic> i'm so *snif* happy..
1073 2011-03-10 09:33:29 <farzong> hohohoooo
1074 2011-03-10 09:34:25 tower has joined
1075 2011-03-10 09:36:04 <[Tycho]> Is there anyone willing to help with pool testing ?
1076 2011-03-10 09:36:47 <mmagic> i'm so donating to that address. Hey Tycho, is the graph here: http://bitcoin.atspace.com/mysteryminer.html done by one of the people who tracked down MM?
1077 2011-03-10 09:36:59 tower is now known as towerX
1078 2011-03-10 09:37:06 <[Tycho]> I saw it, yes.
1079 2011-03-10 09:38:22 <mmagic> no, i want to donate it and make sure it gets to raulo
1080 2011-03-10 09:38:39 <mmagic> it => to it
1081 2011-03-10 09:40:04 <[Tycho]> Do you know his address ?
1082 2011-03-10 09:41:08 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1083 2011-03-10 09:41:12 <mmagic> i think i do now. i see it in his sig in the forum. i guess he would be interested in seeing the graph itself as the object of the donation, and since Raulo on the forum posts to the same atspace base URL as the Raulo who posted the graph here, I figure it's a fair bet that the graph's address will probably get to his wallet.
1084 2011-03-10 09:42:10 <Aciid> [Tycho]: I can help
1085 2011-03-10 09:44:43 <mmagic> 20 btc sounds fair. presumably it was the discovery and analysis of the MM that caused him to cease mining, in which case I believe the return for me specifically will be significant. So, thanks Raulo, wherever you are.
1086 2011-03-10 09:45:23 <lfm> I thot it was the new difficulty
1087 2011-03-10 09:45:27 <farzong> i have to be up early. fuck fuck
1088 2011-03-10 09:46:16 <mmagic> lfm hm?
1089 2011-03-10 09:46:49 <lfm> I thot the ghash/s dropped off cuz of the difficulty jump
1090 2011-03-10 09:47:47 <mmagic> no, some douchy mystery miner may have been contributing well in excess of a safe level, and once found out, ceased mining. check it out: http://bitcoin.atspace.com/mysteryminer.html
1091 2011-03-10 09:49:02 <lfm> so? I dont see that is "in excess of a safe level"
1092 2011-03-10 09:49:38 <mmagic> you do see the red line above the green line there right? :)
1093 2011-03-10 09:49:38 <farzong> dude was falsifying work units?
1094 2011-03-10 09:49:48 <sipa> no, solving blocks
1095 2011-03-10 09:49:50 <mmagic> no, not falsifying, shut up troll.
1096 2011-03-10 09:50:24 <farzong> how does one miner have so much throughput
1097 2011-03-10 09:50:26 <farzong> do you mean a pool
1098 2011-03-10 09:51:47 <farzong> how is performing lots of hashing "unsafe"
1099 2011-03-10 09:53:52 <nevezen> because these self-righteous miners want a status quo in terms of mining
1100 2011-03-10 09:54:39 <mmagic> lol, no, we are just a little more painfully aware of the possibilities a miner with 50% or > opens up.
1101 2011-03-10 09:55:25 <mmagic> i personally would love it if the network legitimately grew that size. but all at once? no.
1102 2011-03-10 09:55:36 <farzong> so youre upset he was getting all the gold before you had a chance to create blocks ?
1103 2011-03-10 09:56:13 <nevezen> imo, yes, that would be what most people are afraid of
1104 2011-03-10 09:57:05 <nevezen> a giant spike would contribute to the difficulty level
1105 2011-03-10 09:57:30 <mmagic> no, to the both of you. also, troll denied.
1106 2011-03-10 09:57:43 <farzong> i dont think theres a way to prevent a sufficiently powerful miner from entering the fray - unless you resort to a system of trust where "unwelcome" iners are blacklisted by the others
1107 2011-03-10 09:57:53 <nevezen> and a giant "hole" would leave the rest of the miners to crunch on the new difficulty level once it arrives
1108 2011-03-10 09:58:15 Raulo has joined
1109 2011-03-10 09:58:34 <nevezen> dont think that would happen farzong
1110 2011-03-10 09:58:41 <mmagic> hey Raulo: the btc address at the bottom of that great graph is you, right? why is it different from your forum?
1111 2011-03-10 09:58:44 <Raulo> mmagic: Yes, it's mine addres and, wow, you are being generous. Thanks
1112 2011-03-10 09:58:45 <nevezen> more control, less freedom
1113 2011-03-10 09:59:06 <Raulo> I use different addresses to see where the funds come from
1114 2011-03-10 09:59:15 <farzong> nevezen: true, but if the miners have a vested interest, they might try to ban the big fish
1115 2011-03-10 09:59:28 <mmagic> Raulo: dude, if your analysis is the reason, i'm not being generous enough. I guessed you wanted to see where the funds came from, so I donated to the graph one specifically.
1116 2011-03-10 09:59:45 <nevezen> how do you ban an anonymous network? :)
1117 2011-03-10 09:59:47 <farzong> tho how would you really know how much hasing power a person controls, since they can use different addresses each time
1118 2011-03-10 09:59:59 <Raulo> Nobody knows if the MM stopped activity
1119 2011-03-10 10:00:08 <Raulo> He may be back any time
1120 2011-03-10 10:00:13 <mmagic> true enough. :)
1121 2011-03-10 10:00:17 <sipa> it seems he's quiet now
1122 2011-03-10 10:00:28 <Raulo> Or he is doing an alternative blockchain in the meantime :)
1123 2011-03-10 10:00:30 <farzong> nevezen: if the entrenched miners suddenly werent creating any new blocks, they would probably have a pow-wow and decide to block signals from the suspicious "mystery" IPs
1124 2011-03-10 10:00:59 <nevezen> he/she probably wanted to test a cluster of new amd hd 6690's.. :)
1125 2011-03-10 10:01:17 <Raulo> By the way, the MM hashspeed graph is based on his wallet activity: http://blockexplorer.com/address/1PT3YvvKnNqT1513Vs9dZ59eU1gq7xQADc
1126 2011-03-10 10:01:37 <Raulo> So the is no amiguity. It was definetly a single entity
1127 2011-03-10 10:01:39 <noagendamarket> he will be back im sure
1128 2011-03-10 10:01:41 <sipa> nevezen: *750* hd 6990's?
1129 2011-03-10 10:02:03 <mmagic> Raulo: either way, the analysis is valuable and making it public is, IMO, one of the best and most democratic ways of strengthening the network.. it's just very cool is all. so even if he comes back, thanks. :)
1130 2011-03-10 10:02:04 <farzong> cant you determine what IP originated the new block in the announcement.. trace it back to langley
1131 2011-03-10 10:02:06 <nevezen> I don't know sipa :)
1132 2011-03-10 10:02:13 <mmagic> and now i'll stop sucking up. :) lol
1133 2011-03-10 10:02:50 <nevezen> I dont understand why you want to IP block..
1134 2011-03-10 10:03:20 <noagendamarket> farzong lol
1135 2011-03-10 10:03:33 <ArtForz> farzong still at it, eh?
1136 2011-03-10 10:04:38 <mmagic> yah; i guess i was right about him too. i'm sad it took me 24 minutes to spot him. i guess i'm getting soft and sentimental in my old age.
1137 2011-03-10 10:04:52 <mmagic> :-D
1138 2011-03-10 10:05:09 <ArtForz> :)
1139 2011-03-10 10:05:25 <farzong> are you saying you cant figure out the guy's IP? surely he had to announce the new block to someone at some point
1140 2011-03-10 10:05:42 <noagendamarket> maybe ati started mining themselves lol
1141 2011-03-10 10:05:45 <farzong> should be pretty trivial
1142 2011-03-10 10:05:54 <Raulo> farzong: it may be possible but probably he didn't have an open 8333 port
1143 2011-03-10 10:05:58 <noagendamarket> they tested the new cards before shipping
1144 2011-03-10 10:06:01 <noagendamarket> :)
1145 2011-03-10 10:06:05 <Raulo> Unless he connected to you, there is no way to connect to him
1146 2011-03-10 10:06:18 <farzong> Raulo: right, whoever he connected to would've logged it, no?
1147 2011-03-10 10:06:56 <farzong> id think most clients would want to keep an audit of intersting events like new blocks
1148 2011-03-10 10:06:58 <Raulo> farzong: If he had IP logging anabled, then yes. Standard bitcoin daemon does not log IPs
1149 2011-03-10 10:07:04 <farzong> ahh
1150 2011-03-10 10:07:30 <Raulo> OK. Gotta go. Bye
1151 2011-03-10 10:07:44 <mmagic> bye raulo
1152 2011-03-10 10:07:45 <nevezen> best way to kill bitcoin? "contribute" > 50% of network thereby increasing difficulty to the point that mining becomes too dificult?
1153 2011-03-10 10:07:46 Raulo has left ()
1154 2011-03-10 10:07:49 <farzong> traceroute the ip
1155 2011-03-10 10:07:52 <farzong> its probably langley
1156 2011-03-10 10:08:16 <farzong> it sounds like the cartel folks are upset that an unknown upstart is taking their precious 50 btc :)
1157 2011-03-10 10:08:30 <nevezen> hehe
1158 2011-03-10 10:08:40 <mmagic> it amuses me to think you are both the same person.
1159 2011-03-10 10:09:08 <nevezen> by cartel, you mean every other miner trying to cash in with a gpgpu cluster? :)
1160 2011-03-10 10:09:14 <farzong> nevezen: of course after 21 million miniing is impossible.. so i dont see much diff if minining is impossible at 5 million either
1161 2011-03-10 10:09:48 <farzong> nevezen: the handful of folks who have mined most of the gold.. and yes there are a lot of hobbyists and weekenders doing it, but they are not a significant source of blocks
1162 2011-03-10 10:10:26 <nevezen> well it's moot anyway
1163 2011-03-10 10:10:52 <farzong> but you can see already an attempt to put an end to this "unsafe" mining! the cartel springs into action to defend its centralized control
1164 2011-03-10 10:11:09 <farzong> doesnt bode very well
1165 2011-03-10 10:11:11 <nevezen> with increasing difficulty already, mining with a 4 year old card is irrelevant..
1166 2011-03-10 10:12:12 <nevezen> I guess it was "fun" to see hot bitcoin worked
1167 2011-03-10 10:12:23 <nevezen> how~
1168 2011-03-10 10:13:09 <Aciid> " the cartel springs into action to defend its centralized control" ... =D
1169 2011-03-10 10:13:25 <farzong> google might have 300,000 cpus... of course their idle time could blow away any small p2p effort
1170 2011-03-10 10:13:25 <noagendamarket> what cartel ?
1171 2011-03-10 10:13:26 <noagendamarket> lawl
1172 2011-03-10 10:13:42 <nevezen> in the lifetime of playing around with bitcoin mining (in a pool), I've scraped about 9 btc so far. :)
1173 2011-03-10 10:13:50 * noagendamarket bullshit filter on
1174 2011-03-10 10:13:58 <nevezen> hehe
1175 2011-03-10 10:14:21 <noagendamarket> unless farzong is the mm lol
1176 2011-03-10 10:14:58 <nevezen> anyway, time to sleep. Detach via irssi to peek in here the next time around
1177 2011-03-10 10:14:58 <farzong> someone knows who it is im sure.. theyve traced the IP
1178 2011-03-10 10:15:09 * nevezen goes afk
1179 2011-03-10 10:16:46 <farzong> seti @ home had around 5.2 million participants.. and logged 2 million years of aggregate computing time
1180 2011-03-10 10:16:53 <farzong> the largest computation in history
1181 2011-03-10 10:17:41 <farzong> it throughput was around half the world fastest supercomputer
1182 2011-03-10 10:18:10 <farzong> so even with that massive scale, a govt could rent the fastest supercomputer and take over the chain pretty quickly
1183 2011-03-10 10:18:26 <noagendamarket> maybe it was ET phoning home
1184 2011-03-10 10:18:28 towerX has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1185 2011-03-10 10:18:57 <farzong> resistance against meddling by powerful govts wuldnt be feasible without creating a network twice the size of seeti @ home
1186 2011-03-10 10:19:11 <noagendamarket> governments just ban it
1187 2011-03-10 10:19:19 <noagendamarket> they dont thiunk laterally
1188 2011-03-10 10:19:19 <farzong> yeah
1189 2011-03-10 10:19:53 <noagendamarket> a government botnet would be comprised of commodore 64's
1190 2011-03-10 10:20:25 <noagendamarket> or atari 2600's
1191 2011-03-10 10:20:28 <noagendamarket> :)
1192 2011-03-10 10:21:03 <farzong> aye
1193 2011-03-10 10:21:52 <farzong> if a btc alternative appeared, that potentially threatened btc-1, the miners would attack the network and corrupt the chain
1194 2011-03-10 10:22:08 <noagendamarket> lawl
1195 2011-03-10 10:22:11 <sipa> right :D
1196 2011-03-10 10:22:28 * noagendamarket doesnt even mine
1197 2011-03-10 10:23:07 <Aciid> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4307.0
1198 2011-03-10 10:23:09 <farzong> unaccompanied miners
1199 2011-03-10 10:23:15 <Aciid> the derp is going on that thread
1200 2011-03-10 10:23:44 <Aciid> promise btc for tech support, guy without knowledgement comes up and fcksup ones computer
1201 2011-03-10 10:24:01 <Aciid> >.>
1202 2011-03-10 10:26:01 tower has joined
1203 2011-03-10 10:28:33 tower is now known as towerX
1204 2011-03-10 10:31:21 <Avemo> WYPIWYG what you pay is what you get
1205 2011-03-10 10:36:30 <Aciid> hahah
1206 2011-03-10 10:36:34 <Aciid> http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/GPU/HD6990/HD6990-15.jpg
1207 2011-03-10 10:37:07 <sipa> ?
1208 2011-03-10 10:38:00 <Keefe> ventilate your case well, and you'll probably end up with better cooling than the 5970
1209 2011-03-10 10:38:29 <ArtForz> probably not
1210 2011-03-10 10:41:36 Spenvo has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.6.15/20110303024726])
1211 2011-03-10 10:45:58 <Keefe> farzong: as far as i know, we're already 10x more powerful than seti@home
1212 2011-03-10 10:47:33 <Keefe> seti has only 500 tflops: http://boincstats.com/stats/project_graph.php?pr=sah
1213 2011-03-10 10:47:47 <Keefe> 110 radeon 5970's can do that
1214 2011-03-10 10:48:10 <Aciid> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4333.msg63485#msg63485
1215 2011-03-10 10:48:21 <Keefe> it would take 1000 5970's to do what all of bitcoin is doing
1216 2011-03-10 10:48:22 <UukGoblin> ;;bc,estimate
1217 2011-03-10 10:48:23 <gribble> 69438.36512966
1218 2011-03-10 10:48:28 <UukGoblin> wow still a drop
1219 2011-03-10 10:48:44 <ArtForz> Aciid: wont work
1220 2011-03-10 10:49:05 <Aciid> ArtForz: howcome?
1221 2011-03-10 10:49:25 <ArtForz> front GPU would get nearly no airflow
1222 2011-03-10 10:49:39 <Aciid> oh yeah
1223 2011-03-10 10:49:40 <[Tycho]> You'd better make guides to the front of case
1224 2011-03-10 10:49:43 <ArtForz> yep
1225 2011-03-10 10:49:49 <ArtForz> put intake fan in side panel
1226 2011-03-10 10:49:59 <ArtForz> and exhaust at front and back
1227 2011-03-10 10:50:34 <ArtForz> with enough space between cards that *should* work
1228 2011-03-10 10:56:16 <comboy> hmm, switching front fan to exhaust sousds interesting
1229 2011-03-10 10:56:49 <Aciid> well if you dont get your feet warm by other means
1230 2011-03-10 10:57:16 <Aciid> that also means that the HDD's will warmup. you can ofcourse use SSD's or ESATA's
1231 2011-03-10 10:57:47 <Avemo> now imagine taht you have not 1 case but 20 with 6990's cooling all this with side intake and back and front exaust is going to be lots of fun lol
1232 2011-03-10 10:58:13 <ArtForz> yup
1233 2011-03-10 10:58:16 <Aciid> just silly, you could warm a house with that
1234 2011-03-10 10:58:22 <Aciid> place few in each room
1235 2011-03-10 10:58:41 <Aciid> and give people notepads to communicate with, because of the noise
1236 2011-03-10 10:58:45 <Avemo> and buy some earplug to everyone
1237 2011-03-10 10:59:33 <Aciid> Avemo: whitenoise makes you sleep better
1238 2011-03-10 10:59:38 <Aciid> =D
1239 2011-03-10 11:00:02 <Avemo> babies too love it, yep
1240 2011-03-10 11:00:33 <Aciid> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4351.0
1241 2011-03-10 11:04:09 <ArtForz> btw, actually the hardwarecanucks review is wrong
1242 2011-03-10 11:04:26 <ArtForz> OCing a 6990 does not increase slot power draw significantly
1243 2011-03-10 11:05:25 <ArtForz> slot power is only used for the PCIe bridge and memory, cores are on the 8-pins
1244 2011-03-10 11:05:46 <Avemo> for 6990 we would need some plastic guide which takes hot air from the back of the card and guides it to the back of the case, while a decent fun blows into the back of the card (as with 5970) plus, of course some space between cards (as with 5970 too), basically one plastic mold can solve this problem, here is a biz idea for someone, cost to produce 5-10$ each, will sell for 50-90$ easily
1245 2011-03-10 11:06:24 <Avemo> perhaps even one guide per 2 cards
1246 2011-03-10 11:06:30 <ArtForz> it wont work
1247 2011-03-10 11:06:34 <Avemo> why?
1248 2011-03-10 11:06:47 <ArtForz> you're restricting gpu2 exhaust
1249 2011-03-10 11:06:58 <Avemo> too weak fun in the card?
1250 2011-03-10 11:07:06 <ArtForz> pretty much
1251 2011-03-10 11:07:10 <ArtForz> shared fan
1252 2011-03-10 11:07:15 retinal has joined
1253 2011-03-10 11:07:39 <ArtForz> and from what I saw, the air guides in the shroud arent completely around
1254 2011-03-10 11:08:13 <ArtForz> so now gpu1 gets a lot more airflow than gpu2, and you now need >= 2 slots space between cards
1255 2011-03-10 11:08:45 <Avemo> I can live with 2 slots between the cards but I see your point... well than it is one big fail for 6990's
1256 2011-03-10 11:09:56 <Avemo> it's like it is better to put 3x 6950's side by side and get decent funs blowing into them than messing with 6990's
1257 2011-03-10 11:10:49 <ArtForz> pretty much
1258 2011-03-10 11:12:30 <Aciid> Avemo: Antec Super Cyclone Blower is a peripheral for that purpose
1259 2011-03-10 11:12:38 <Aciid> you just need to make the guide for the 6990
1260 2011-03-10 11:12:46 <Avemo> I'll check it
1261 2011-03-10 11:13:01 <Aciid> probably as my picture stated http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4333.msg63485#msg63485
1262 2011-03-10 11:13:39 <Aciid> just add http://store.antec.com/Product/cooling-cooling_fan/super-cyclone-blower/0-761345-77194-8.aspx
1263 2011-03-10 11:14:11 <Aciid> original 1 slot model http://store.antec.com/Product/cooling-cooling_fan/cyclone-blower/0-761345-77094-1.aspx
1264 2011-03-10 11:14:12 <Avemo> nahh... 6990 cooling solution is one bif fail. Aciid, we are going to have to disagree on this one
1265 2011-03-10 11:15:29 <ArtForz> 6990 cooling looks pretty much like trying to imitate asus ares and failing
1266 2011-03-10 11:16:03 <Aciid> ArtForz: 6990 aint got shit on Ares
1267 2011-03-10 11:16:34 <Avemo> Aciid: have you ordered some 6990's ?
1268 2011-03-10 11:16:40 <Aciid> no , and I wont
1269 2011-03-10 11:16:42 <Aciid> sucks
1270 2011-03-10 11:16:58 <Aciid> half of Ares's weight is copper
1271 2011-03-10 11:17:06 <ArtForz> yep
1272 2011-03-10 11:17:17 <Aciid> http://hothardware.com/articleimages/Item1532/big_asus-ares-breakout.jpg
1273 2011-03-10 11:17:37 <Avemo> what, they saved some on copper? with 700$ card? insane
1274 2011-03-10 11:18:12 <ArtForz> notice the striking similarity in PCB layout?
1275 2011-03-10 11:18:42 <Avemo> yep
1276 2011-03-10 11:18:45 <Aciid> http://benchmarkreviews.com/images/reviews/video_cards/Antilles/AMD-Radeon-HD-6990-Heatsink.jpg
1277 2011-03-10 11:18:48 <Aciid> WEAK
1278 2011-03-10 11:18:49 <Aciid> WEAK
1279 2011-03-10 11:18:51 <Aciid> WEAK
1280 2011-03-10 11:18:54 <Aciid> LOOK AT TIT
1281 2011-03-10 11:22:58 MUILTFN has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1282 2011-03-10 11:23:23 <Avemo> maybe more space for ati's partners to improve on cooling front, as opposed to just printing a new pretty picture
1283 2011-03-10 11:25:17 <sipa> hmm, it seems the default bitcoin client only considers whole transactions spent or not spent
1284 2011-03-10 11:25:57 <xelister> Avemo: saved on coper?
1285 2011-03-10 11:25:58 <sipa> and always spends all (available) outputs of a transaction, when choosing a particular tx to do a payment
1286 2011-03-10 11:26:33 <Aciid> xelister: see the linked pictures
1287 2011-03-10 11:26:42 <Aciid> 6990 has aluminium spreadsink
1288 2011-03-10 11:26:42 <xelister> I see lots of copper there
1289 2011-03-10 11:26:46 <Aciid> copperbase
1290 2011-03-10 11:26:52 <xelister> and this? http://hothardware.com/articleimages/Item1532/big_asus-ares-breakout.jpg
1291 2011-03-10 11:26:55 <ArtForz> sipa: err... what?
1292 2011-03-10 11:27:11 <ArtForz> 6990 has copper vapor chamber base w/ alu fins
1293 2011-03-10 11:27:12 <Aciid> xelister: saved copper on 6990
1294 2011-03-10 11:27:35 <Aciid> xelister: they didn't save on ares, since it costs ~$1000
1295 2011-03-10 11:28:30 <sipa> ArtForz: SelectCoins returns a list of transactions (not transaction outputs) to use as inputs for a payment
1296 2011-03-10 11:28:53 <sipa> and CreateTransaction adds all .IsMine() outputs from that transaction as input to the new one
1297 2011-03-10 11:29:12 <Aciid> Ares weights about 2kg
1298 2011-03-10 11:29:13 <ArtForz> you're right
1299 2011-03-10 11:29:22 <Aciid> and if copper is some 400g of the weight
1300 2011-03-10 11:29:39 <sipa> furthermore there is a single flag fSpent on WalletTx's, and nothing stating which outputs are already used
1301 2011-03-10 11:30:07 <Aciid> price for 400g of copper 2.89$
1302 2011-03-10 11:30:15 <sipa> that's of course kept in CTxIndex's, to be able to detect double spends
1303 2011-03-10 11:30:24 <sipa> so, what would happen if:
1304 2011-03-10 11:30:47 <sipa> so anyone knows what would happen if you: 1) person A has 100 BTC, 2) person A pays 50 BTC to person B, 3) person A spends the remaining 50 BTC 4) person A imports the key of person B he paid to
1305 2011-03-10 11:31:07 <sipa> suddenly he has a spent transaction, which still has an available output
1306 2011-03-10 11:31:25 docl has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1307 2011-03-10 11:32:26 <ArtForz> erm... wouldnt importing a key mean you need to do a rescan anyways?
1308 2011-03-10 11:32:32 jaminja has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1309 2011-03-10 11:32:40 <sipa> yes
1310 2011-03-10 11:33:26 <sipa> it's of course a hypothetical question, because the current code doesn't support importing keys
1311 2011-03-10 11:33:50 <ArtForz> yeah... looks like you'd need to fix that for scenarios like that
1312 2011-03-10 11:36:46 d4de has joined
1313 2011-03-10 11:36:51 devon_hillard has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1314 2011-03-10 11:36:51 d4de has quit (Changing host)
1315 2011-03-10 11:36:51 d4de has joined
1316 2011-03-10 11:38:18 bk128 has quit (Quit: bk128)
1317 2011-03-10 11:39:29 <UukGoblin> can we get a Wall Street investor buy some bitcoins plz
1318 2011-03-10 11:39:35 <UukGoblin> I want the value to go up to $10 already
1319 2011-03-10 11:39:39 <UukGoblin> I need my holiday!
1320 2011-03-10 11:40:24 <Blitzboom> haha
1321 2011-03-10 11:48:35 <Avemo> ;;bc,stats
1322 2011-03-10 11:48:37 <gribble> Current Blocks: 113005 | Current Difficulty: 76193.9710474 | Next Difficulty At Block: 114911 | Next Difficulty In: 1906 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 2 weeks, 0 days, 16 hours, 36 minutes, and 36 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 69256.97036153
1323 2011-03-10 11:51:38 <UukGoblin> ;;bc,calc 620000
1324 2011-03-10 11:51:39 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 620000 Khps, given current difficulty of 76193.9710474 , is 6 days, 2 hours, 37 minutes, and 3 seconds
1325 2011-03-10 11:54:39 BlueMatt has joined
1326 2011-03-10 11:55:16 <BlueMatt> is there a possibility we could get a CACert certificate on www.bitcoin.org, they are free and at least it would stop the ssl errors for some of us...
1327 2011-03-10 11:55:24 MUILTFN has joined
1328 2011-03-10 11:55:50 BitterTea has joined
1329 2011-03-10 11:57:07 jaminja has joined
1330 2011-03-10 11:57:50 <Blitzboom> ask sirius, BlueMatt
1331 2011-03-10 11:58:05 <RBecker> ;;bc,blocks
1332 2011-03-10 11:58:06 <gribble> 113005
1333 2011-03-10 11:58:30 <BlueMatt> Blitzboom: he runs the site?
1334 2011-03-10 11:58:39 <Blitzboom> afaik yes
1335 2011-03-10 11:59:11 <BlueMatt> In that case, Sirius Sirius_: is there a possibility we could get a CACert certificate on www.bitcoin.org, they are free and at least it would stop the ssl errors for some of us...
1336 2011-03-10 12:02:47 talso has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1337 2011-03-10 12:02:53 talso has joined
1338 2011-03-10 12:07:31 <jercos> BlueMatt: It's unlikely. The majority of users who don't know anything about SSL are still going to get warnings, and the rest, well, if they're paranoid, they can ask for the fingerprint in here.
1339 2011-03-10 12:07:47 <jercos> It would do no more good than bitcoin.org having its own PKI.
1340 2011-03-10 12:08:30 <jercos> Aside from that, bitcoin.org doesn't prove anything that needs to be encrypted.
1341 2011-03-10 12:08:39 <BlueMatt> jercos: But at least you would have a valid cert which I can easily mark as accepted in my browser, whereas a self-signed on, not so much
1342 2011-03-10 12:09:06 <jercos> A self-signed cert is... self signed. Add it as a valid signing cert, and voila.
1343 2011-03-10 12:09:07 <BlueMatt> jercos: doesn't matter, really, a password is a password and needs to be secured
1344 2011-03-10 12:09:14 <jercos> Unless your browser is weird.
1345 2011-03-10 12:09:19 <jercos> Password?
1346 2011-03-10 12:09:29 <BlueMatt> jercos: password for /smf, etc
1347 2011-03-10 12:09:53 <sipa> you can remove the etc, i think, but agree
1348 2011-03-10 12:09:56 <jercos> Ah, yes, the forum, well. my mistake, I forgot that was on the same domain :)
1349 2011-03-10 12:10:31 <BlueMatt> jercos: I prefer to not add a self-signed cert to my trusted cert chain. Plus a CACert certificate takes about 1 minute to get
1350 2011-03-10 12:10:40 <BlueMatt> jercos: Its up to you, just thought it would be nice...
1351 2011-03-10 12:10:59 <jercos> Surprise surprise, most of the certificates you directly trust are self-signed. >.>
1352 2011-03-10 12:11:13 <jercos> How else would the top of a PKI work?
1353 2011-03-10 12:11:43 <jercos> But really, it's up to Sirius in any case.
1354 2011-03-10 12:11:50 <BlueMatt> jercos: I mean certs which are put out by one site and probably aren't nearly as securely held as those of a real CA
1355 2011-03-10 12:12:53 <jercos> Yeah, paranoid individuals are usually so much worse at securing things than large corporations.
1356 2011-03-10 12:13:19 <sipa> do i see this correctly? a 1-year SSL cert at verisign costs $399?
1357 2011-03-10 12:13:53 <jercos> Yeah, and Cisco routers are more expensive too. There are plenty of third-parties not as well known as verisign who won't overcharge that much.
1358 2011-03-10 12:14:37 <jercos> RapidSSL, PositiveSSL, etc...
1359 2011-03-10 12:15:38 <jercos> Some web hosts actually offer SSL certs along with a hosting package.
1360 2011-03-10 12:16:11 <jercos> Obviously since bitcoin.org is hosted on a VPS, that's not the case for us, but verisign is certainly not the only choice for a commercial SSL cert that people would actually trust.
1361 2011-03-10 12:16:19 <BlueMatt> sipa: yea, ssl is expensive...Unless you get it from CACert, its just not included in really any browsers by default
1362 2011-03-10 12:16:31 <sipa> BlueMatt: i know CACert :)
1363 2011-03-10 12:16:34 <BlueMatt> jercos: some VPS sites offer free ssl
1364 2011-03-10 12:16:39 <sipa> indeed
1365 2011-03-10 12:16:45 <jercos> Slicehost does not, to my knowledge.
1366 2011-03-10 12:16:54 <sipa> but 49$/year at rapidssl, isn't that something the community can support?
1367 2011-03-10 12:16:55 <BlueMatt> jercos: or Gandi, which offers free 1 year of cert just for having domain there
1368 2011-03-10 12:17:01 <BlueMatt> jercos: though after that you have to pay
1369 2011-03-10 12:17:13 <BlueMatt> sipa: I wouldn't pay for it, but it would be nice to just get a CACert one
1370 2011-03-10 12:22:13 FellowTraveler1 has joined
1371 2011-03-10 12:22:22 <FellowTraveler1> hi all
1372 2011-03-10 12:22:40 gasteve_ has joined
1373 2011-03-10 12:22:40 gasteve_ has quit (Changing host)
1374 2011-03-10 12:22:40 gasteve_ has joined
1375 2011-03-10 12:25:08 gasteve has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1376 2011-03-10 12:25:08 gasteve_ is now known as gasteve
1377 2011-03-10 12:26:38 <jercos> Greetings, Fellow Traveler. One.
1378 2011-03-10 12:27:24 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1379 2011-03-10 12:32:39 towerX is now known as tower
1380 2011-03-10 12:33:52 * xelister steals FellowTraveler1's luggage
1381 2011-03-10 12:34:06 forrestv` has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1382 2011-03-10 12:34:46 tower is now known as twrVicm
1383 2011-03-10 12:36:10 <FellowTraveler1> probably gonna pass out but I'll be around to answer any OT related questions
1384 2011-03-10 12:42:35 <TD> startssl provides them for free
1385 2011-03-10 12:49:01 Zib has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1386 2011-03-10 12:49:04 <Aciid> was MM trying to troll us?
1387 2011-03-10 12:49:17 <Aciid> he seem't to have quit just before the new difficulty
1388 2011-03-10 12:49:26 <Aciid> leaving us land on our asses on the new difficulty
1389 2011-03-10 12:49:36 <Aciid> http://bitcoin.sipa.be/speed-lin-10k.png
1390 2011-03-10 12:49:49 <ArtForz> doubtful
1391 2011-03-10 12:49:51 <Aciid> look at how low we are going
1392 2011-03-10 12:49:55 brunner has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1393 2011-03-10 12:50:00 <Aciid> and look at past difficulties
1394 2011-03-10 12:50:03 <Aciid> we've overcome
1395 2011-03-10 12:50:13 <Aciid> doubtful but plausible
1396 2011-03-10 12:50:31 <Blitzboom> not a real problem
1397 2011-03-10 12:50:35 brunner has joined
1398 2011-03-10 12:50:49 <Blitzboom> blocks will just be generated a bit slower
1399 2011-03-10 12:51:10 FellowTraveler1 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1400 2011-03-10 12:55:15 farzong has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1401 2011-03-10 13:03:53 <larsig> FellowTraveler, are you on irc in regular?
1402 2011-03-10 13:05:47 <larsig> I have been checking out your project but never tried it properly
1403 2011-03-10 13:11:54 edcba has joined
1404 2011-03-10 13:13:52 Mango-chan has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1405 2011-03-10 13:16:28 <Diablo-D3> http://www.collectorsquest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/img_0613.jpg
1406 2011-03-10 13:16:30 <Diablo-D3> SQUIREL
1407 2011-03-10 13:16:43 satamusic has joined
1408 2011-03-10 13:16:43 satamusic has quit (Changing host)
1409 2011-03-10 13:16:43 satamusic has joined
1410 2011-03-10 13:19:32 Mango-chan has joined
1411 2011-03-10 13:19:32 Mango-chan has quit (Changing host)
1412 2011-03-10 13:19:32 Mango-chan has joined
1413 2011-03-10 13:20:10 [Noodles] has quit (Quit: Miranda IM! Smaller, Faster, Easier. http://miranda-im.org)
1414 2011-03-10 13:21:52 mmarker has joined
1415 2011-03-10 13:26:09 xelister has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1416 2011-03-10 13:26:50 AmpEater has joined
1417 2011-03-10 13:29:53 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1418 2011-03-10 13:30:08 dishwara has joined
1419 2011-03-10 13:30:24 TD_ has joined
1420 2011-03-10 13:32:52 dishwara has quit (Client Quit)
1421 2011-03-10 13:33:07 dishwara has joined
1422 2011-03-10 13:33:07 dishwara has quit (Changing host)
1423 2011-03-10 13:33:07 dishwara has joined
1424 2011-03-10 13:33:33 dishwara has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1425 2011-03-10 13:35:46 sabalaba has joined
1426 2011-03-10 13:35:49 BlueMatt_ has joined
1427 2011-03-10 13:40:12 [Noodles] has joined
1428 2011-03-10 13:41:28 BlueMatt_ is now known as BlueMatt
1429 2011-03-10 13:44:08 mmarker has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.3.2)
1430 2011-03-10 13:51:03 gasteve has quit (Quit: gasteve)
1431 2011-03-10 13:53:42 <davex___> ;;bc,stats
1432 2011-03-10 13:53:45 <gribble> Current Blocks: 113009 | Current Difficulty: 76193.9710474 | Next Difficulty At Block: 114911 | Next Difficulty In: 1902 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 2 weeks, 1 day, 11 hours, 56 minutes, and 48 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 65487.03586240
1433 2011-03-10 13:58:37 Diablo-D3 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1434 2011-03-10 14:01:14 twrVicm is now known as towerX
1435 2011-03-10 14:10:24 * cosurgi ponders buying 5970 http://allegro.pl/show_item.php?item=1499552305
1436 2011-03-10 14:11:22 <ArtForz> uhhhh, ac extreme
1437 2011-03-10 14:11:34 <cosurgi> bad one?
1438 2011-03-10 14:11:48 <ArtForz> well, 2/2 of my 5970s with AC extreme coolers died
1439 2011-03-10 14:12:09 <cosurgi> ok :)
1440 2011-03-10 14:12:29 <cosurgi> how long did they work, until they died?
1441 2011-03-10 14:12:43 <ArtForz> about 4 months
1442 2011-03-10 14:12:52 <cosurgi> ok, I will not buy it.
1443 2011-03-10 14:13:09 * cosurgi is glad that all his cards are from shop with 3 year warranty.
1444 2011-03-10 14:13:29 <cosurgi> they will surprised when I will start RMAing in few months. But they will replace :)
1445 2011-03-10 14:13:39 <cosurgi> It's like 'renting' a card for 3 years :)
1446 2011-03-10 14:15:35 <cosurgi> I am careful to keep temperature below 85 C.
1447 2011-03-10 14:15:57 <cosurgi> for the sake of that the middle card runs a bit underclocked. But outer cards can be a little overclocked.
1448 2011-03-10 14:16:10 <slush> cosurgi: yesterday I found that two of my fans switched to "auto" without any reason
1449 2011-03-10 14:16:18 <cosurgi> ouch
1450 2011-03-10 14:16:21 <slush> cosurgi: temp >95oC :)
1451 2011-03-10 14:16:55 Zarutian has joined
1452 2011-03-10 14:17:27 <cosurgi> I had another interesting thing, last week. For about 3 hours, the middle card went to 600MHz, and fan went down to 55%. Then the card has found a full block, and 20 minutes later then fans went back to 100% and clock went back to 870MHz.
1453 2011-03-10 14:17:42 * cosurgi made rrd graphs of fan speed and GPU temperature.
1454 2011-03-10 14:18:04 <ArtForz> disable atieventsd
1455 2011-03-10 14:18:10 <cosurgi> I saw that this happened, only thanks to rrd graphs.
1456 2011-03-10 14:18:42 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1457 2011-03-10 14:18:47 * cosurgi checks if it's enabled..
1458 2011-03-10 14:19:27 <cosurgi> yes, it is.
1459 2011-03-10 14:19:37 <slush> where can I find it?
1460 2011-03-10 14:19:51 <cosurgi> I just did `ps auxw | grep atieve'
1461 2011-03-10 14:20:08 <ArtForz> on debian it is started from a init script, which reads /etc/default/fglrx-atieventsd
1462 2011-03-10 14:20:38 AmpEater has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPad - http://colloquy.mobi)
1463 2011-03-10 14:20:41 <cosurgi> I see it: START_ATIEVENTSD=true
1464 2011-03-10 14:20:43 <cosurgi> thanks.
1465 2011-03-10 14:20:43 <slush> I don't have anything like this
1466 2011-03-10 14:21:13 <slush> on debian
1467 2011-03-10 14:21:19 <cosurgi> slush: did you install fglrx the debian way?
1468 2011-03-10 14:21:34 <cosurgi> I did. From repository, etc.
1469 2011-03-10 14:21:35 <slush> no, I used proprietary instaler
1470 2011-03-10 14:21:41 <cosurgi> that might be the reason
1471 2011-03-10 14:22:59 <cosurgi> slush: but does 'ps auxw' show it running?
1472 2011-03-10 14:23:33 <TD_> ArtForz: sorry, i should have saved them ... what are the image links for your mining rigs again?
1473 2011-03-10 14:23:44 <TD_> and do you mind if i use those images in a talk?
1474 2011-03-10 14:24:06 <slush> cosurgi: no
1475 2011-03-10 14:24:25 <ArtForz> TD: sec
1476 2011-03-10 14:24:29 <cosurgi> slush: so it looks like you don't have it.
1477 2011-03-10 14:24:45 <ArtForz> quad 5970, http://bayimg.com/eABDfaAdd http://bayimg.com/KAAeaaAdp
1478 2011-03-10 14:24:56 <cosurgi> ArtForz: I disabled `START_ATIEVENTSD=false`, but now without restaring a plain kill -9 should be enough, right?
1479 2011-03-10 14:24:58 <slush> is there any (easy) way how to overclock 5870 over 900MHz? Aticonfig fail with higher rate
1480 2011-03-10 14:25:08 <slush> cosurgi: looks like
1481 2011-03-10 14:25:10 <ArtForz> quad 5770: http://bayimg.com/nAOAgaACJ
1482 2011-03-10 14:25:39 <TD_> thanks
1483 2011-03-10 14:27:55 * cosurgi did kill -15
1484 2011-03-10 14:32:32 <cosurgi> huh. No block for 38 minutes.
1485 2011-03-10 14:33:04 mmarker has joined
1486 2011-03-10 14:33:24 <sipa> ;;bc,prob 400000000 38m
1487 2011-03-10 14:33:25 <gribble> 0.938385310534
1488 2011-03-10 14:33:58 <cosurgi> we should be getting a block any second now... :>
1489 2011-03-10 14:34:11 <mmarker> blargh
1490 2011-03-10 14:34:37 <[Tycho]> "may be", not "should be" ? :)
1491 2011-03-10 14:34:50 <sipa> cosurgi: no, it will still take 10m (even more) on average
1492 2011-03-10 14:35:08 <Blitzboom> ;;bc,calc 325000
1493 2011-03-10 14:35:09 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 325000 Khps, given current difficulty of 76193.9710474 , is 1 week, 4 days, 15 hours, 42 minutes, and 4 seconds
1494 2011-03-10 14:35:32 <cosurgi> sipa: :)
1495 2011-03-10 14:41:13 genjix has joined
1496 2011-03-10 14:41:13 genjix has quit (Changing host)
1497 2011-03-10 14:41:13 genjix has joined
1498 2011-03-10 14:44:37 <genjix> MagicalTux, hey did you see yesterday's message? :p
1499 2011-03-10 14:45:01 <sipa> ;;bc,calc 1260000
1500 2011-03-10 14:45:02 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 1260000 Khps, given current difficulty of 76193.9710474 , is 3 days, 0 hours, 8 minutes, and 42 seconds
1501 2011-03-10 14:45:28 <genjix> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4353.0
1502 2011-03-10 14:46:05 <genjix> wondering if I can have a vps to allow people to test my branch for bitcoin name resolution (send to genjix@foo.org)
1503 2011-03-10 14:46:41 <mmarker> genjix: Want a full VPS or just an account?
1504 2011-03-10 14:46:57 <genjix> what's the difference?
1505 2011-03-10 14:47:12 <genjix> just a place where i can install stuff and make web pages :p
1506 2011-03-10 14:47:15 <mmarker> genjix: Depends on what you want to do
1507 2011-03-10 14:47:38 <mmarker> Hmm. Lemme see what I have available. I may have an unused VPS lying about
1508 2011-03-10 14:47:53 <genjix> cool, I'll donate it back once I'm finished.
1509 2011-03-10 14:48:47 <tcatm> genjix: hardcoding to getaddress.php?nickname=$foo is ugly
1510 2011-03-10 14:48:51 <mmarker> Hmm, what would you need to instal?
1511 2011-03-10 14:48:57 <cosurgi> almost one hour, but we got a block, finally :)
1512 2011-03-10 14:48:57 <genjix> tcatm: why?
1513 2011-03-10 14:49:09 <genjix> mmarker: yeah
1514 2011-03-10 14:49:14 <genjix> and change config files.
1515 2011-03-10 14:50:04 <genjix> tcatm: in case you think $foo might get mangled, I run it through an encoder, so it's bug free
1516 2011-03-10 14:50:09 <mmarker> genjix: Ok, I have one that's rarely used.
1517 2011-03-10 14:50:13 <mmarker> Lemme clean it up a tad
1518 2011-03-10 14:50:28 <tcatm> genjix: not every webserver can run php, and if they do they might not want to put a php file in their document root
1519 2011-03-10 14:50:50 <genjix> tcatm: you don't need it to be on /
1520 2011-03-10 14:50:52 larsivi has joined
1521 2011-03-10 14:51:14 <genjix> (see my post where I say you can do genjix@foo.org/path/to )
1522 2011-03-10 14:51:18 <tcatm> and what should people running other frameworks do? fake a getaddress.php via url rewriting?
1523 2011-03-10 14:51:20 <genjix> but you do need php
1524 2011-03-10 14:51:31 <genjix> ok so it should be a path?
1525 2011-03-10 14:51:37 <genjix> getaddress/index.php?
1526 2011-03-10 14:51:58 <genjix> and the request looks like foo.org/getaddresss/?nickname=$foo
1527 2011-03-10 14:52:02 <genjix> very good
1528 2011-03-10 14:52:03 <tcatm> 1) it should be clear it's for bitcoin addresses 2) it shouldn't interfere with existing documents
1529 2011-03-10 14:52:35 <genjix> well the protocol also supports port numbers and other document roots
1530 2011-03-10 14:52:47 <genjix> genjix@foo.org:8888/path/to/other/
1531 2011-03-10 14:52:50 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1532 2011-03-10 14:53:01 <mmarker> genjix: have a linux distro you'd prefer?
1533 2011-03-10 14:53:06 <genjix> ubuntu
1534 2011-03-10 14:53:18 <mmarker> Ok. It may be debian, close enough, I assume :D
1535 2011-03-10 14:53:46 <genjix> yep
1536 2011-03-10 14:56:49 da2ce7 has joined
1537 2011-03-10 14:59:10 <mmarker> ubuntu 10.04 32 bit good for you?
1538 2011-03-10 14:59:13 <genjix> http://pastebin.com/8pxeesbu
1539 2011-03-10 14:59:21 <genjix> yes, that'd be wonderful
1540 2011-03-10 14:59:42 <mmarker> Ok, setting up the VPS. I'll msg you login details when I have them
1541 2011-03-10 14:59:59 <genjix> thank you :) going to re-sign in with ssl now for security
1542 2011-03-10 15:00:12 genjix has left ()
1543 2011-03-10 15:01:34 genjix has joined
1544 2011-03-10 15:01:35 genjix has quit (Changing host)
1545 2011-03-10 15:01:35 genjix has joined
1546 2011-03-10 15:06:00 towerX is now known as tower
1547 2011-03-10 15:06:11 <mmarker> ok, just setting up some admin-y tools for you genjix
1548 2011-03-10 15:06:17 Blitzboom has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1549 2011-03-10 15:08:19 <mmarker> genjix: apache2.2 good for you? and I'm assuming you need boost and c++
1550 2011-03-10 15:10:18 <genjix> don't worry, i can set that up :p
1551 2011-03-10 15:11:02 amiller has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1552 2011-03-10 15:11:34 <mmarker> Ok.
1553 2011-03-10 15:12:02 <mmarker> Just applying the security updates. It'll be VERY bare bones, so you have a bit of flexibility as I like to call it
1554 2011-03-10 15:12:07 grondilu has joined
1555 2011-03-10 15:12:27 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1556 2011-03-10 15:12:44 <grondilu> current difficulty is 76193.9710474 !?
1557 2011-03-10 15:12:58 <grondilu> isn't that a huge increase?
1558 2011-03-10 15:13:09 <mmarker> 37%
1559 2011-03-10 15:14:10 <grondilu> By the way, has the difficulty ever decreased?
1560 2011-03-10 15:14:11 <genjix> nice
1561 2011-03-10 15:15:10 <cosurgi> maybe it will, and then MM will come back, just for one session.
1562 2011-03-10 15:16:15 <genjix> what's MM?
1563 2011-03-10 15:17:02 <mmarker> MysteryMiner
1564 2011-03-10 15:17:54 grondilu has quit (Quit: leaving)
1565 2011-03-10 15:18:00 sabalaba has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1566 2011-03-10 15:20:54 JackRabiit has joined
1567 2011-03-10 15:21:39 <JackRabiit> DAAAAAAAMNNNNNNNNN YOUUUUUUUUU NEEEEEEWWWWWWWW MM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! somebody turned ona 350ghash miner
1568 2011-03-10 15:21:40 <JackRabiit> FFS
1569 2011-03-10 15:21:52 <JackRabiit> a 2500 increse in difficulty
1570 2011-03-10 15:21:54 BlueMatt has joined
1571 2011-03-10 15:21:54 BlueMatt has quit (Changing host)
1572 2011-03-10 15:21:54 BlueMatt has joined
1573 2011-03-10 15:23:07 JackRabiit has quit (Client Quit)
1574 2011-03-10 15:24:13 dwdollar has joined
1575 2011-03-10 15:24:18 syntaxfree has quit (Quit: syntaxfree)
1576 2011-03-10 15:26:51 Blitzboom has joined
1577 2011-03-10 15:30:56 gavinandresen has joined
1578 2011-03-10 15:31:18 amiller has joined
1579 2011-03-10 15:32:20 TD_ has quit (Quit: TD_)
1580 2011-03-10 15:33:57 farzong has joined
1581 2011-03-10 15:33:58 <farzong> ahoy
1582 2011-03-10 15:34:03 <farzong> bitcoin is awesome!
1583 2011-03-10 15:35:06 <farzong> hmm i didnt know this chan was logged
1584 2011-03-10 15:35:07 <BlueMatt> you just figured this out?
1585 2011-03-10 15:35:17 <BlueMatt> I meant the bitcoin is awsome part
1586 2011-03-10 15:36:32 <farzong> im high on absinthe
1587 2011-03-10 15:37:08 <farzong> i really need to chill out eh
1588 2011-03-10 15:39:39 syntaxfree has joined
1589 2011-03-10 15:40:07 syntaxfree has quit (Client Quit)
1590 2011-03-10 15:47:22 slush has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1591 2011-03-10 15:53:06 <genjix> tcatm: i added your suggestion about the .php to the branch
1592 2011-03-10 15:53:07 <genjix> thanks
1593 2011-03-10 15:55:03 Blitzboom has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1594 2011-03-10 15:55:05 <BlueMatt> genjix: So, it uses a central server to keep track of who is who and then you can send money to their address?
1595 2011-03-10 15:55:21 <BlueMatt> genjix: I couldn't find an explanation anywhere?
1596 2011-03-10 15:55:48 <luke-jr> without a From address, it's not useful IMO
1597 2011-03-10 15:57:03 <luke-jr> or an invoice number or such
1598 2011-03-10 15:57:31 <luke-jr> once the new wallet protocol is done, we can probably add invoice numbers :P
1599 2011-03-10 15:58:03 Necr0s has joined
1600 2011-03-10 15:59:21 <genjix> BlueMatt: like email works
1601 2011-03-10 15:59:26 <genjix> genjix@mydomain.org
1602 2011-03-10 15:59:38 <luke-jr> genjix: so it uses DNS?
1603 2011-03-10 15:59:41 <genjix> it resolves the domain name and looks up the nickname
1604 2011-03-10 15:59:50 <genjix> luke-jr: yeah
1605 2011-03-10 15:59:54 <luke-jr> genjix: using SRV records?
1606 2011-03-10 15:59:59 <genjix> no
1607 2011-03-10 16:00:01 Blitzboom has joined
1608 2011-03-10 16:00:02 Blitzboom has quit (Changing host)
1609 2011-03-10 16:00:02 Blitzboom has joined
1610 2011-03-10 16:00:07 <CIA-95> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r32fb5df / serialize.h : Bump version number to 0.3.21 (lest we forget) - http://bit.ly/hY7Yuq
1611 2011-03-10 16:00:08 <luke-jr> then it's not liek email :P
1612 2011-03-10 16:00:12 <genjix> you just dump those php scripts server side
1613 2011-03-10 16:00:12 <CIA-95> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r81d3b1c / (uibase.cpp uiproject.fbp): Update copyright in About box from 2010 to 2011 - http://bit.ly/dKe6Y3
1614 2011-03-10 16:00:26 <luke-jr> email doesn't use PHP scripts
1615 2011-03-10 16:00:35 jrabbit has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1616 2011-03-10 16:00:38 <farzong> cool
1617 2011-03-10 16:00:51 <luke-jr> genjix: sounds like you might be able to add an invoice-id/comment/from field easily
1618 2011-03-10 16:00:52 <farzong> ArtForz's script is awesome.. im trying some client stuff
1619 2011-03-10 16:00:58 jrabbit has joined
1620 2011-03-10 16:01:17 <BlueMatt> genjix: so it just queries your server for the address? Wait so what is dns used for again?
1621 2011-03-10 16:01:25 <luke-jr> genjix: just throw it in the HTTP request, and let me store it in a db with the address I generate
1622 2011-03-10 16:01:33 <genjix> BlueMatt: yeah it queries the server after @
1623 2011-03-10 16:01:49 <BlueMatt> genjix: so what does it get from said dns query?
1624 2011-03-10 16:02:05 <farzong> 123
1625 2011-03-10 16:02:25 MUILTFN has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1626 2011-03-10 16:02:29 <luke-jr> it *should* use something like SRV _bitmail._http._tcp.DOMAIN
1627 2011-03-10 16:03:10 <genjix> luke-jr: not sure how that works, but I've added all the neccessary hooks if you pull my branch
1628 2011-03-10 16:03:14 <genjix> see resolv.cpp
1629 2011-03-10 16:03:28 <genjix> you just need to change FetchAddress and MakeRequest
1630 2011-03-10 16:03:32 <luke-jr> eh, branch of bitcoin?
1631 2011-03-10 16:03:34 <luke-jr> d
1632 2011-03-10 16:03:53 <genjix> but why is it better to use DNS?
1633 2011-03-10 16:03:55 * luke-jr wonders if this belongs in wallet, or UI
1634 2011-03-10 16:04:09 <genjix> isn't this way simpler... much easier for people to host this way
1635 2011-03-10 16:04:22 <luke-jr> genjix: SRV so you can run the server on a different port, or failover, etc
1636 2011-03-10 16:04:26 <genjix> BlueMatt: i meant DNS in the way genjix@fishysnax.com uses dns
1637 2011-03-10 16:04:31 <BlueMatt> genjix: so, wait you still haven't explained it, can you walk through what this client actually does?
1638 2011-03-10 16:04:41 <luke-jr> genjix: you could fallback to A records if SRV isn't found
1639 2011-03-10 16:04:45 <genjix> it says it in my post...
1640 2011-03-10 16:04:51 <genjix> BlueMatt: you mean how it works?
1641 2011-03-10 16:04:59 <luke-jr> genjix: genjix@fishysmax.com doesn't use A records directly
1642 2011-03-10 16:05:03 <luke-jr> genjix: it uses MX, like SRV
1643 2011-03-10 16:05:16 <BlueMatt> genjix: from beginning to the end what things are requested from what servers, etc...no that is not in your post
1644 2011-03-10 16:05:51 <genjix> you put some scripts on a server which store username, password sha512 hash, bitcoin address
1645 2011-03-10 16:06:02 <luke-jr> genjix: for example, if you just ping dashjr.org, you won't be pinging the mail server for dashjr.org
1646 2011-03-10 16:06:03 <genjix> you run ./bitcoind genjix@foo.org mypassword
1647 2011-03-10 16:06:41 <genjix> it explodes genjix@foo.org => nickname=genjix, domain=foo.org
1648 2011-03-10 16:07:11 satamusic has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1649 2011-03-10 16:07:16 <genjix> runs http://foo.org/getaddress/?nickname=genjix (see http://fishysnax.com/getaddress/?nickname=genjix )
1650 2011-03-10 16:07:27 TheAncientGoat has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
1651 2011-03-10 16:07:29 BlueMatt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1652 2011-03-10 16:07:31 <luke-jr> genjix: you realize you basically just reinvented IP transactions?
1653 2011-03-10 16:07:51 TheAncientGoat has joined
1654 2011-03-10 16:07:56 <genjix> how does dns records or whatever, work?
1655 2011-03-10 16:08:49 <genjix> like how can i integrate it.
1656 2011-03-10 16:08:53 <luke-jr> but by using HTTP, you made it so people can potentially set up a cheap webhost with it
1657 2011-03-10 16:09:02 <genjix> yeah that was my point.
1658 2011-03-10 16:09:55 BlueMatt has joined
1659 2011-03-10 16:09:56 BlueMatt has quit (Changing host)
1660 2011-03-10 16:09:56 BlueMatt has joined
1661 2011-03-10 16:10:28 <BlueMatt> genjix: sorry, Diablo-D3's miner is doing some kind of crazy all ur system resources r belong to me shit on my computer, had to REISUB
1662 2011-03-10 16:10:29 <JFK911> ;;bc,calc 400000
1663 2011-03-10 16:10:31 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 400000 Khps, given current difficulty of 76193.9710474 , is 1 week, 2 days, 11 hours, 15 minutes, and 26 seconds
1664 2011-03-10 16:10:46 <genjix> anyone know how to easily turn on ssl in apache2?
1665 2011-03-10 16:10:50 <luke-jr> genjix: 1) split user@host/path into user + host + path, 2) lookup SRV _bitmail._http._tcp.<host>, 3) make HTTP request as needed, to /path/bitmail?comment=whatever, 4) send amount to returned address
1666 2011-03-10 16:10:55 <BlueMatt> genjix: really easy
1667 2011-03-10 16:11:00 emanon has joined
1668 2011-03-10 16:11:03 <luke-jr> genjix: mention OS
1669 2011-03-10 16:11:11 <luke-jr> there is no easy cross-OS way
1670 2011-03-10 16:11:12 emanon is now known as eao
1671 2011-03-10 16:11:14 <BlueMatt> genjix: just follow the instructions, include mod_ssl and look at the instructions
1672 2011-03-10 16:11:25 <genjix> ok thanks
1673 2011-03-10 16:11:34 <BlueMatt> genjix: assuming linux/unix
1674 2011-03-10 16:11:44 <luke-jr> "follow the instructions" is SO easy. :p
1675 2011-03-10 16:11:50 <genjix> what else would I use :p
1676 2011-03-10 16:12:00 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: there is no standard way to do it across all *nix
1677 2011-03-10 16:12:43 <genjix> BlueMatt: ubuntu ... there's no mod_ssl under /etc/apache2/*
1678 2011-03-10 16:12:47 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: ive done it the same way on linux and mac os (very similar to bsd), what am I missing?
1679 2011-03-10 16:12:50 <genjix> (grep)
1680 2011-03-10 16:13:28 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: there is no "linux" way
1681 2011-03-10 16:13:45 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: Linux is just a kernel, and entirely unrelated to Apache or its SSL keys
1682 2011-03-10 16:13:56 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: oh, sorry well Ive done it the same way on ubuntu and mac os
1683 2011-03-10 16:13:59 <genjix> http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/349
1684 2011-03-10 16:14:05 <genjix> is this accurate? or old?
1685 2011-03-10 16:14:07 <luke-jr> Debian != Ubuntu
1686 2011-03-10 16:14:10 <luke-jr> that is old for Debian
1687 2011-03-10 16:14:16 <genjix> can i copy paste that
1688 2011-03-10 16:14:20 <genjix> meh
1689 2011-03-10 16:14:40 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: but most linuxes compile apache with similar libraries and mod_ssl configuration is similar on each
1690 2011-03-10 16:14:41 <luke-jr> that won't even work on Debian anymore
1691 2011-03-10 16:15:23 <BlueMatt> genjix: what ever just use lighttpd, much easier to configure, especially on ubuntu
1692 2011-03-10 16:15:25 <gavinandresen> FYI to anybody on the -testnet: I'm about to run a tx flood test...
1693 2011-03-10 16:15:34 <luke-jr> http://www.linode.com/wiki/index.php/Apache2_SSL_in_Ubuntu suggests the old Debian way might work on Ubuntu
1694 2011-03-10 16:15:37 <luke-jr> at least, it looks similar
1695 2011-03-10 16:15:57 <luke-jr> gavinandresen is the evil spammerââ
1696 2011-03-10 16:15:59 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: need more nodes online?
1697 2011-03-10 16:16:06 <genjix> BlueMatt: i used to use lighttpd but it has a bug in it's POST implementation
1698 2011-03-10 16:16:14 <gavinandresen> Don't need more nodes, I'm testing a change to limitfreerelay....
1699 2011-03-10 16:16:39 <BlueMatt> genjix: never had any problems with it...
1700 2011-03-10 16:16:53 <genjix> BlueMatt: yeah it was 1 very small bug
1701 2011-03-10 16:17:01 <genjix> but a blocker for me
1702 2011-03-10 16:17:22 <BlueMatt> genjix: bug reported? when?
1703 2011-03-10 16:18:22 <genjix> it's something to do with how lighttpd parsed POST or location headers incorrectly... it was causing an app I made to fail.
1704 2011-03-10 16:18:42 <genjix> can't remember the exact error... but I googled it and found that it's a known bug.
1705 2011-03-10 16:19:00 <genjix> solution was to use apache2... otherwise i've always been using lighttpd
1706 2011-03-10 16:19:13 <BlueMatt> genjix: odd, well I run a complicated set up with lighttpd proxying to multiple apache servers for certain directories
1707 2011-03-10 16:20:57 BitterTea has quit (Quit: leaving)
1708 2011-03-10 16:21:33 <genjix> SSL received a record that exceeded the maximum permissible length.
1709 2011-03-10 16:21:34 <genjix> (Error code: ssl_error_rx_record_too_long)
1710 2011-03-10 16:21:38 <genjix> what does that mean?
1711 2011-03-10 16:21:54 <genjix> https://localhost/bitnom/getaddress/?nickname=genjix
1712 2011-03-10 16:21:59 <genjix> that's my url
1713 2011-03-10 16:22:18 <BlueMatt> genjix: It means that the ssl backend got an error because an rx record was too long ;)
1714 2011-03-10 16:22:59 <JFK911> ;;bc,stats
1715 2011-03-10 16:23:01 <gribble> Current Blocks: 113020 | Current Difficulty: 76193.9710474 | Next Difficulty At Block: 114911 | Next Difficulty In: 1891 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 2 weeks, 1 day, 17 hours, 8 minutes, and 58 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 64162.38549105
1716 2011-03-10 16:26:48 <genjix> so how to fix? my ssl config is in site-available/default-ssl not sites-available/default ... is that a problem?
1717 2011-03-10 16:27:26 <genjix> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/119336/ssl-error-rx-record-too-long-and-apache-ssl <- i found that, but I've done all those things.
1718 2011-03-10 16:28:22 <BlueMatt> genjix: I haven't done any work with ssl on apache in a long time (lighttpd handles all of that for me :)
1719 2011-03-10 16:30:25 <genjix> weee it works
1720 2011-03-10 16:30:41 <genjix> had to run a2ensite default-ssl && /etc/init.d/apache2
1721 2011-03-10 16:30:45 <mmarker> Yup
1722 2011-03-10 16:30:46 <genjix> reload
1723 2011-03-10 16:30:57 <mmarker> Normally I run nginx on that machine
1724 2011-03-10 16:31:08 <mmarker> which is "point to SSL certificate and key and run"
1725 2011-03-10 16:31:13 <genjix> btw is it a good idea to set the client to ignore ssl certificates or fail if invalid?
1726 2011-03-10 16:31:43 <genjix> (for resolving up bitcoin addresses)
1727 2011-03-10 16:33:17 <tcatm> if you ignore ssl cert errors you don't need ssl at all
1728 2011-03-10 16:34:21 <genjix> oh ok
1729 2011-03-10 16:35:21 <tcatm> a nickname/domain pair should include enough information to verify the SSL certificate of the server
1730 2011-03-10 16:37:53 <tcatm> it might be easier to sign only the returned address
1731 2011-03-10 16:37:54 <genjix> genjix@foo.org fingerprintdkjdsj328743843ffklkfjflf ... kind of defeats the convenience, doesn't it
1732 2011-03-10 16:39:44 <tcatm> genjix@foo.org without verification is a lot less secure than a bitcoin address
1733 2011-03-10 16:39:53 <genjix> it is.
1734 2011-03-10 16:40:44 <BlueMatt> I think using a system like this is bad, we should instead really focus on bitcoin uris and such
1735 2011-03-10 16:41:01 <BlueMatt> genjix: is it really that hard for the average person to click a link
1736 2011-03-10 16:41:48 molecular has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1737 2011-03-10 16:42:27 mmarker has quit (Quit: Lunch!)
1738 2011-03-10 16:45:53 <farzong> chakrabati
1739 2011-03-10 16:48:41 larsig has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1740 2011-03-10 16:49:53 <farzong> https://code.google.com/p/crypto-js/#SHA-256
1741 2011-03-10 16:50:02 <farzong> let your website visitors do you rmining for you
1742 2011-03-10 16:51:28 <JFK911> surely its more profitable to give them internet security 2010
1743 2011-03-10 16:51:33 <JFK911> warning you have viruses!
1744 2011-03-10 16:51:38 <farzong> haha
1745 2011-03-10 16:51:53 <Aciid> http://support.amd.com/us/kbarticles/Pages/Catalyst114earlypreview.aspx
1746 2011-03-10 16:51:54 <JFK911> This website wants to install a program published by: PRESS YES TO CONTINUE
1747 2011-03-10 16:51:57 <BlueMatt> farzong: people have tried it, its really slow
1748 2011-03-10 16:52:31 <Aciid> CATALYST PREVIEW
1749 2011-03-10 16:52:38 <Aciid> Delivers performance enhancements for the AMD Radeon⢠HD 6000 Series & Windows 7.
1750 2011-03-10 16:52:41 <Aciid> MUST TEST
1751 2011-03-10 16:53:15 <JFK911> new APP?
1752 2011-03-10 16:54:44 molecular has joined
1753 2011-03-10 16:54:58 Lachesis has joined
1754 2011-03-10 16:56:01 <farzong> now i do think you can strengthen the chain if you allow other proofs of work in somehow.. right now theres quite a bit of computation that is wasted because of the winner-take-all block
1755 2011-03-10 16:56:26 AmpEater has joined
1756 2011-03-10 16:56:30 <farzong> anyone who reinforces the chain should be able to add PoW's
1757 2011-03-10 16:57:13 <farzong> a small percentage of users are miners, and a small percentage of mining work contributes to the computational hardness of the chain...
1758 2011-03-10 16:57:14 <tcatm> the overhead that is wasted is pretty small
1759 2011-03-10 16:57:24 <bd_> farzong: Proof of work systems almost invariably are probability-wasted
1760 2011-03-10 16:57:26 <bd_> based*
1761 2011-03-10 16:57:34 <bd_> ie, there's a small chance of success, and a large chance of failure
1762 2011-03-10 16:57:43 <bd_> The failure PoWs are worthless, because they're easy to create.
1763 2011-03-10 16:57:50 <bd_> The success PoWs are already rewarded.
1764 2011-03-10 16:57:54 <bd_> How would you have this changed?
1765 2011-03-10 16:58:49 <farzong> lets say you allow in chain elements that have some moderate difficulty that are function of some subchain
1766 2011-03-10 16:59:08 <bd_> farzong: The more you allow in, the bigger the chain is
1767 2011-03-10 16:59:19 <tcatm> farzong: what's the point of doing that?
1768 2011-03-10 16:59:19 <bd_> In order to let in _everyone_ who does work, the chain would have to be HUGE
1769 2011-03-10 16:59:36 <bd_> and in the end payouts won't change much
1770 2011-03-10 16:59:42 <tcatm> that would imply making the intervals shorter
1771 2011-03-10 16:59:51 <farzong> point would be to increase the computational effort required to topple the chain (you dont want usurpers coming in)
1772 2011-03-10 17:00:02 <bd_> farzong: This doesn't change the computation effort needed at all
1773 2011-03-10 17:00:09 <bd_> It just makes payouts more frequent
1774 2011-03-10 17:00:31 <bd_> An attacker could do the same amount of work and get the same chain. They'd just need to save the moderate-difficulty results.
1775 2011-03-10 17:00:45 <farzong> bd_: these new pow elements arent mutually exclusive.. 2 guys can do work on the same subchain and add their work to the chain
1776 2011-03-10 17:01:03 <bd_> farzong: It still doesn't change total work needed
1777 2011-03-10 17:01:13 <bd_> If these people are working on the subchain, that's X cpu hours _not_ used on the main chain
1778 2011-03-10 17:01:13 <nanotube> farzong: that's what pools do essentially. let you get smaller chunks.
1779 2011-03-10 17:01:23 <bd_> So it balances out in the end
1780 2011-03-10 17:01:37 <farzong> you want to maximize the computation embededed in the chain (but now theres a lot of cpu cycles burnt on unsuccessful work)
1781 2011-03-10 17:01:59 <bd_> farzong: The whole point is the unsuccessful work, actually
1782 2011-03-10 17:01:59 <nanotube> farzong: that's the whole point of 'work' - it is difficult. :)
1783 2011-03-10 17:02:12 <bd_> The successful work is a very, very, very small amount of computational time.
1784 2011-03-10 17:02:24 <nanotube> bd_: :)
1785 2011-03-10 17:02:24 <farzong> nanotube: but it doesnt have to be mutually exclusive. why cant my hash be added to the chain in addition to yours?
1786 2011-03-10 17:02:26 <bd_> Small enough that everyone who downloads the block chain re-does all the successful work
1787 2011-03-10 17:02:32 <farzong> why ust only 1 be alloewed in
1788 2011-03-10 17:02:48 <nanotube> farzong: because nobody wants to store millions of diff1 blocks
1789 2011-03-10 17:02:52 <bd_> farzong: You can add new hashes. My point is, it does not change the amount of CPU time needed to construct the chain
1790 2011-03-10 17:03:07 <tcatm> actually we want to minimize the results embedded in the chain and maximize the amount of "wasted" cpu cycles while still being able to confirm transactions within an hour
1791 2011-03-10 17:03:31 <farzong> bd_: ? lets say you solve a function dependeing on blocks 1-n, and i solve another function depending on blocks 1-n. both functions are hard, both can be adde to the chain
1792 2011-03-10 17:03:44 <farzong> now the chain is longer. in the current system only 1 computation is added (cycles wasted, chain is weaker)
1793 2011-03-10 17:04:01 <tcatm> wrong.
1794 2011-03-10 17:04:12 <bd_> farzong: Yes. So now you have a choice. Spend X time on function A and X time on function B, both at difficulty K. Or spend 2X time of function A at difficulty 2K. The total cpu time is exactly the same.
1795 2011-03-10 17:04:30 Tril has joined
1796 2011-03-10 17:04:32 <tcatm> 1 added computation implies 327249801729843 tried hashes
1797 2011-03-10 17:04:33 <bd_> farzong: The thing I want to stress here is the actual nature of the functions you use is not very important.
1798 2011-03-10 17:04:50 <bd_> You want to be able to create a SMAL token that proves you spent X cpu time
1799 2011-03-10 17:04:56 <bd_> (on average X, that is)
1800 2011-03-10 17:05:20 <bd_> You can express this as "I spend X time finding partial collisions for hash F!"
1801 2011-03-10 17:05:34 <bd_> Or you can say "I spend 0.5X on hash F and 0.5X on hash G!"
1802 2011-03-10 17:05:42 <farzong> lets say i solve the block right after someone else. my solution is thrown away - but it could be appended to the chain as a node. if you do append, the chain is stronger and harder to topple by evil forces. if you dont include it, this means computation was wasted
1803 2011-03-10 17:05:49 bk128 has joined
1804 2011-03-10 17:05:53 <bd_> The only difference is F/G is a bigger result.
1805 2011-03-10 17:06:21 <farzong> 2 choices: a) include both solutions in the chain - chain is longer - this is good; b) include only 1 -chain is shorter - bad. missed opportunity to reinforce the chain
1806 2011-03-10 17:07:06 <tcatm> farzong: that's why we have 600s intervals so miners aren't duplicating too much work
1807 2011-03-10 17:07:10 <davex___> wrong. longer chain is not intrinsically better.
1808 2011-03-10 17:07:27 <farzong> davex___: as long as the difficulty is non-trivial, then it is
1809 2011-03-10 17:07:53 <bd_> farzong: I think the misconception you have is that the computations are 'wasted'. They're not. Adding more computations increases the rate of solutions being found.
1810 2011-03-10 17:08:09 <bd_> farzong: This in turn causes a difficulty adjustment to maintain the average time between blocks.
1811 2011-03-10 17:08:21 <bd_> farzong: Which in turn increases the amount of CPU time needed to forge the chain
1812 2011-03-10 17:08:22 <farzong> bd_: it is wasted because there are multiple solutions, however only 1 is allowed in. the other solutions also contribute to the hardness of the chain
1813 2011-03-10 17:08:30 <bd_> farzong: They would not.
1814 2011-03-10 17:08:45 <Tril> they're wasted in the sense of any hashing that does not generate a block. If you think that way, join a pool.
1815 2011-03-10 17:08:52 <bd_> farzong: Let me say this again to make it perfectly clear: Adding multiple solutions does NOT increase the expected value of CPU time needed to rebuild the chain.
1816 2011-03-10 17:09:02 <farzong> bd_: why do you think that
1817 2011-03-10 17:09:15 <ArtForz> still arguing with the troll?
1818 2011-03-10 17:09:23 <bd_> farzong: First, the probability of someone else finding a partial collision between the first collision's announcement and when it reaches the second collision's miner is vanishingly small
1819 2011-03-10 17:09:23 <farzong> the cost is double what it would be otherwise
1820 2011-03-10 17:09:46 <bd_> farzong: this means that this will happen so infrequently you might as well not bother
1821 2011-03-10 17:09:47 <farzong> bd_: doesn't matter, they are hashing different inputs
1822 2011-03-10 17:10:08 <bd_> farzong: In fact, the probability is exactly the same that you'll simply find two normal collisions in short succession.
1823 2011-03-10 17:10:18 <bd_> Which will in fact contribute to the chain
1824 2011-03-10 17:10:43 <farzong> put another way: lets say i find a small hash for blocks 1-50,000. why cant i just add that work result to the chain? that ensures my work isn't wasted and the chain becomes harder
1825 2011-03-10 17:11:03 <farzong> you are assuming winner-take-all..im saying any computationthat is hard should be appended
1826 2011-03-10 17:11:10 <bd_> farzong: Because looking for that hash is reducing the amount of CPU time you spent looking for the hash for a new block.
1827 2011-03-10 17:11:46 <bd_> farzong: The result of this that your newly contributed hash does not actually increase the overall amount of CPU time needed to recreate the block chain - this is the one variable that controls the difficulty of doing Bad Things.
1828 2011-03-10 17:12:07 <bd_> farzong: Second, finding that hash does not confirm any transactions, because it's for blocks that are in the far past.
1829 2011-03-10 17:12:17 <farzong> bd_: that is just not correct... everyone is hashing a different input so they are already searching mutually exclusive search spaces
1830 2011-03-10 17:12:19 <bd_> So you have actually reduced the utility of your contribution
1831 2011-03-10 17:12:34 <bd_> farzong: Everyone is hashing very similar blocks, with different nonces
1832 2011-03-10 17:12:38 <Tril> farzong according to your reasoning it would be in the best interest of everyone to try to work at highest difficulty just to show off
1833 2011-03-10 17:13:03 <farzong> bd_: "similar" means completely different from the hash point of view
1834 2011-03-10 17:13:24 <bd_> farzong: Yes. But that doesn't matter.
1835 2011-03-10 17:13:30 Lachesis has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1836 2011-03-10 17:13:32 <bd_> The hash in the PoW is an implementation detail.
1837 2011-03-10 17:13:36 <farzong> doesnt the input also contain a tx fee swhich is different for everyone? we are all working on different inputs
1838 2011-03-10 17:13:52 <bd_> Remember what the goal of these hashes is:
1839 2011-03-10 17:14:10 <bd_> The goal is to record in the hash chain how much CPU time, _ on average_ is backing the hash chain
1840 2011-03-10 17:14:14 <bd_> that is _it_
1841 2011-03-10 17:14:47 <farzong> bd_: if i search 50% of my unique hash space, i should be able to continuie searching until i get a solution, which i can then append to the chain. otherwise this cmputation is lost
1842 2011-03-10 17:14:52 <bd_> This is currently acheived by a feedback loop based on the frequency of finding hash results.
1843 2011-03-10 17:14:58 <bd_> farzong: No, it's not lost.
1844 2011-03-10 17:15:25 <bd_> farzong: You can search the remaining 50% of your hash space. Or you can search the first 50% of a new hash space. The probability of success is _exactly the same_
1845 2011-03-10 17:15:39 <bd_> So why would you keep working on your old hash space?
1846 2011-03-10 17:16:06 <bd_> Plus
1847 2011-03-10 17:16:16 <bd_> the hash difficulty is NOT based on the value of the hashes produced
1848 2011-03-10 17:16:22 <bd_> it's based on the RATE of hashes produced
1849 2011-03-10 17:16:36 <bd_> This is fed into a feedback system to adjust the threshold for success
1850 2011-03-10 17:16:38 <farzong> bd_: no its not.. if i only have 5% to go, im guaranteed to quickly find a solution! if i start from a new input, my expected time to solution is 10 times more!
1851 2011-03-10 17:16:47 <bd_> farzong: You're not guarenteed to EVER find a solution.
1852 2011-03-10 17:17:14 <bd_> farzong: The probability of success for each hash you try is COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT
1853 2011-03-10 17:17:21 <farzong> yes but non-existence is actually very rare since sha256 has favorable output distribution properties
1854 2011-03-10 17:17:32 <bd_> farzong: Yes. But it's still independent.
1855 2011-03-10 17:17:38 <farzong> bd_: yeah you are not understanding that you are pruning the search space
1856 2011-03-10 17:17:47 <bd_> This means that going through 95% of your search space tells you jack squat about the remaining 5%
1857 2011-03-10 17:17:56 <farzong> not true
1858 2011-03-10 17:17:57 <bd_> You are suffering from what is called the gambler's fallacy
1859 2011-03-10 17:18:00 <farzong> because sha256 is well distributed
1860 2011-03-10 17:18:15 <bd_> farzong: Well distributed is another way of saying independently distributed
1861 2011-03-10 17:18:21 <farzong> no.. sha256 is not like a casino. there are supposed to be an equal number of 0's and 1's in the output space
1862 2011-03-10 17:18:28 <bd_> IE: The result of your first 95% of trials tells you NOTHING about the last 5%
1863 2011-03-10 17:18:37 <farzong> the distribution is indented to be normal
1864 2011-03-10 17:18:56 <bd_> farzong: Yes. When did I say it wasn't normal? Normal distributions do these sorts of things too
1865 2011-03-10 17:19:03 <tcatm> What are 95% and 5% of the trials anyway? nonce space? merkleroot + nonce + valid ntime values?
1866 2011-03-10 17:19:16 <bd_> Once you get through 95% of your search space without finding a success, you get a very very very very small probability of getting this far without success
1867 2011-03-10 17:19:26 <bd_> But that tells you nothing about your chances of the remaining 5%
1868 2011-03-10 17:19:32 <bd_> tcatm: Yes, that's another independent problem.
1869 2011-03-10 17:20:03 <bd_> farzong: My point is here, you can basically think of this as completely independent trials. there is NO biasing mechanism to try to make sure that your "search space" contains at least one succesful hash
1870 2011-03-10 17:20:11 <farzong> the chances of a partical collision with n/2 bits is extremely high given the normal distribution of sha256. that means exhaustive search will find it with high probability. now if i have to throw away all my search effort then i am obviously increasing the avg time to find any solution
1871 2011-03-10 17:20:38 <bd_> farzong: The only reason exhaustive search finds it with high probability is because of the probability distribution of repeated trials of independent events
1872 2011-03-10 17:20:49 <bd_> farzong: Look at it this way:
1873 2011-03-10 17:20:51 <JFK911> What is the best time to take the machine down to clean dog hair out of the gpus?
1874 2011-03-10 17:20:53 <tcatm> In that case (root+nonce+ntime) you'll likely only try <1% of the searchspace ever.
1875 2011-03-10 17:20:57 <bd_> I flip a coin 5000 times. It comes up heads every time.
1876 2011-03-10 17:21:06 <tcatm> JFK911: now
1877 2011-03-10 17:21:15 <bd_> This is a fair coin. What is the probability of coming up heads next?
1878 2011-03-10 17:21:23 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: tcatm want to talk about node-rotating sybil prevention?
1879 2011-03-10 17:21:58 <bd_> Hint: It's not 1 or 0
1880 2011-03-10 17:22:47 <bd_> farzong: I would strongly suggest you read over this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy
1881 2011-03-10 17:22:47 <BlueMatt> bd_ .5, what does it matter, seriously everyone here knows that why are you wasting people's time?
1882 2011-03-10 17:22:58 <bd_> BlueMatt: farzong does not know
1883 2011-03-10 17:23:42 <tcatm> BlueMatt: I don't know anything about sybil attacks...
1884 2011-03-10 17:23:55 <farzong> bd_: look it has nothing to do with coinflips
1885 2011-03-10 17:24:03 <BlueMatt> ok then jgarzik gavinandresen want to talk about node-rotating sybil prevention
1886 2011-03-10 17:24:08 <BlueMatt> tcatm: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4335.0
1887 2011-03-10 17:24:29 <BlueMatt> anyone know if [mike] (the guy from google) hangs out on irc?
1888 2011-03-10 17:24:37 <farzong> look at it this way: i can find a difficult hash in 12 hours on some subset of the chain right. im guaranteed to be able to do this. but right now, you will not accept my solution! because its not on the current block or i wasnt fast enough etc. but this is a hard result which strengthens the chain which is being thrown out
1889 2011-03-10 17:25:15 <tcatm> BlueMatt: he's TD
1890 2011-03-10 17:25:20 <farzong> if i mine under the current method, 12 hours is nowhere near enough time.. i need 100 years to be able to hit the jackpot because of the competition
1891 2011-03-10 17:25:33 <bd_> farzong: You're not guarenteed to be able to do anything. You could search for years and years and never find another hash for the genesis block, if you're really uniucky.
1892 2011-03-10 17:25:45 <BlueMatt> tcatm: really, dam didnt know that <rant>why can't people just stick to one username, I dont want to have to keep track of this crap</rant>
1893 2011-03-10 17:25:51 <bd_> You could also try to find a hash for the latest block and find it instantly on your first try.
1894 2011-03-10 17:26:15 <bd_> You could spend 10 years searching. You won't be any further off than when you started.
1895 2011-03-10 17:26:18 <farzong> bd_: finding a partial 6-bit hash is easy
1896 2011-03-10 17:26:27 <farzong> because sha256 is normally distributed
1897 2011-03-10 17:26:30 <bd_> farzong: Yep. But you can be unlucky.
1898 2011-03-10 17:26:42 <luke-jr> "Again, the fallacy is the belief that the "universe" somehow carries a memory of past results which tend to favor or disfavor future outcomes."
1899 2011-03-10 17:26:46 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: re: node-rotating: seems like a good idea. Rotating between addr.dat nodes, hard-coded seed nodes, and dns seeds seems like a good idea.
1900 2011-03-10 17:26:51 <luke-jr> how is this belief proven to be a fallacy?
1901 2011-03-10 17:26:51 <farzong> bd_: yes but its asymptotically unlikely..
1902 2011-03-10 17:26:55 <bd_> There is a certain probability that you _do not_ find a 6-bit partial hash after N trials. This probability is never zero.
1903 2011-03-10 17:27:02 <farzong> this is absolutely nothing like gampbing
1904 2011-03-10 17:27:12 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: oh, and any -addnode nodes should be re-connected heavily in the rotation...
1905 2011-03-10 17:27:14 <farzong> bd_: yes but were talking about expected outcome
1906 2011-03-10 17:27:30 <farzong> i'm offering with 99.9999% certainty to strengthen the chain with 12 hours of computation. but you refuse to accept my work!
1907 2011-03-10 17:27:34 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: any ideas on all the variables of how often, when, how much, etc?
1908 2011-03-10 17:27:40 <bd_> farzong: Okay. You spend 6 hours on the hash. Your expected outcome is unchanged after doing all that work.
1909 2011-03-10 17:27:41 <farzong> because of winner take all - my work is wasted
1910 2011-03-10 17:27:48 <bd_> Ie: It still says "You need another 12 hours"
1911 2011-03-10 17:27:49 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: I dunno. Networking stuff like that isn't my strong suit.
1912 2011-03-10 17:28:03 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: yea, we really need a networking expert on here...
1913 2011-03-10 17:28:12 <farzong> bd_: i epect to find .999999 solutions every 12 hours or whatever
1914 2011-03-10 17:28:19 <BlueMatt> ;;seen TD
1915 2011-03-10 17:28:19 <gribble> TD was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 4 hours, 45 minutes, and 42 seconds ago: <TD> startssl provides them for free
1916 2011-03-10 17:28:21 <farzong> but you will not accept the work into the chain!
1917 2011-03-10 17:28:24 <luke-jr> bd_: please prove the 'fallacy' is a fallacy
1918 2011-03-10 17:28:29 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: ArtForz and jgarzik seem pretty good at thinking about networking stuff
1919 2011-03-10 17:28:29 MartianW has joined
1920 2011-03-10 17:28:45 <bd_> farzong: Sure. And you keep expecting that all the time. You spend six hours and it still says, "You need another 12 hours (on average) before finding your first result."
1921 2011-03-10 17:28:48 <BlueMatt> ArtForz jgarzik read through the Sybil thread? Care to comment?
1922 2011-03-10 17:29:00 <farzong> 'anyway it has nothing to do with gambling and everything to do with the expected value of discarding my current nearly exhaustive search and starting another
1923 2011-03-10 17:29:05 <bd_> farzong: The key point I want to make here is that no matter how many hashes you examine, the change in expected time-to-completion is negligible.
1924 2011-03-10 17:29:21 <bd_> Ah, wait, I think I see your conceptual hangup
1925 2011-03-10 17:29:28 <farzong> heh theres no hangup
1926 2011-03-10 17:29:36 <bd_> farzong: The key thing here is you'll never explore any significant portion of the sha256 space.
1927 2011-03-10 17:29:49 <farzong> forget about hashing: i could just as easily FACTOR a very large number
1928 2011-03-10 17:29:56 <bd_> You'll never reach 50% of the search space. It's more like 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%, after years of work.
1929 2011-03-10 17:30:01 <farzong> but yo uwould reject my FACTORIZATION because someone else was first. nw my work is gone!
1930 2011-03-10 17:30:11 <bd_> As such, your expected time to completion never changes significantly
1931 2011-03-10 17:30:12 <farzong> bd_: but the expected time to a partial hash is all i care about
1932 2011-03-10 17:30:28 <farzong> look, forget about hashing. swap it for FACTORING which is completely deterministic
1933 2011-03-10 17:30:37 <TD> BlueMatt: you summoned me?
1934 2011-03-10 17:30:39 <BlueMatt> farzong bd_ do you guys need to be doing this on here? Can you debate probability theory privately if it has nothing to do with bitcoin development
1935 2011-03-10 17:30:44 <bd_> farzong: Factoring is not useful as a proof of work function.
1936 2011-03-10 17:31:03 <BlueMatt> TD: was wondering if you cared to comment on the sybil attack prevention and how best to implement it?
1937 2011-03-10 17:31:08 <bd_> farzong: Anyway, this is bothering others. Ask on math overflow or something if you still don't get where you're going wrong
1938 2011-03-10 17:31:11 <farzong> bd_: probability has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that work is wasted in the current method
1939 2011-03-10 17:31:16 <TD> i think gavin already said anything i'd say
1940 2011-03-10 17:31:17 <farzong> heh im not wrong at all
1941 2011-03-10 17:31:28 <TD> my only thought was introducing an (optional) stronger sense of peer identity
1942 2011-03-10 17:31:28 <ArtForz> actually, I guess you could use factoring for a PoW scheme
1943 2011-03-10 17:31:41 <BlueMatt> TD: that you aren't the best at networking thought?
1944 2011-03-10 17:31:42 <TD> so if you reconnect to 1.2.3.4 you can tell if the node changed. a bit like the ssh model but implicit
1945 2011-03-10 17:31:48 <bd_> farzong: you would think that :) Seriously, ask on a serious math forum. If it turns out you're right, send me the link to the explanation, I'd be interested to see it :)
1946 2011-03-10 17:31:50 <TD> so don't warn but just silently try looking for other nodes that are recognized.
1947 2011-03-10 17:32:02 <bd_> ArtForz: What would you be factoring?
1948 2011-03-10 17:32:03 <TD> that'd be a problem for nodes that lost their keys though, potentially
1949 2011-03-10 17:32:08 <BlueMatt> TD: That isnt really defending against the attack though, that is just defending against mitm really
1950 2011-03-10 17:32:13 <TD> BlueMatt: i'm not particularly specialized in networking
1951 2011-03-10 17:32:17 <BlueMatt> TD: plus lost keys, plus dynamic dns?
1952 2011-03-10 17:32:20 <TD> well somebody needs to come up with a threat model
1953 2011-03-10 17:32:23 <ArtForz> bd_: some kind of hash of transactions or similar
1954 2011-03-10 17:32:26 <farzong> look there are problems that have a lower bound of EXPTIME
1955 2011-03-10 17:32:29 <TD> what, exactly, is the attacker capable of and what are their goals?
1956 2011-03-10 17:32:40 <bd_> ArtForz: seems to me like those would have a high probability of ending up being an easy-to-factor number
1957 2011-03-10 17:32:49 <farzong> so just pick some EXPTIME problem.. doesn't matter at all. the point is, i have done x% of the work to solve an instance of the EXPTIME problem, but that is thrown away because i have to start on a new problem
1958 2011-03-10 17:32:52 <ArtForz> basically "find a nonce such that hash(tx + nonce) has at least 2 prime factors > X bits"
1959 2011-03-10 17:32:58 satamusic has joined
1960 2011-03-10 17:32:59 satamusic has quit (Changing host)
1961 2011-03-10 17:32:59 satamusic has joined
1962 2011-03-10 17:34:12 <farzong> my time to solution is always 50% of the unsearched solution space.. if i have to keep starting new problems, my time to solution never decreases
1963 2011-03-10 17:34:21 <BlueMatt> TD: if an attack can take say 500000 ip addresses and add them all as "peers" on the network, when you open your client the chance of you ending up connected to only the attacker's nodes is somewhat high. This means that the attacker can become a mitm without needing to do any of the more standard network attacks
1964 2011-03-10 17:34:27 <bd_> farzong: I don't want to continue this because it's bothering others. Suffice it to say, my assertions about the work not being wasted are based upon the assumption that a probalistic method is used; deterministic work such as EXPTIME is poorly suited for a PoW system and is irrelevant for the conversation. And this is the last I'll say on the topic.
1965 2011-03-10 17:34:52 <ArtForz> bd_: arguing with farzong is pointless
1966 2011-03-10 17:35:02 <TD> BlueMatt: only if the peer discovery process remains random
1967 2011-03-10 17:35:03 <farzong> bd_: thats not true at all
1968 2011-03-10 17:35:12 <farzong> any computation is effective for a proof of work
1969 2011-03-10 17:35:15 <BlueMatt> TD: any suggestions on what else it could be?
1970 2011-03-10 17:35:16 <TD> longer term i think we'd want to rely more on the DNS based scheme, along with geo-aware DNS resolvers.
1971 2011-03-10 17:35:19 <farzong> it only depends on the complexity of the computation
1972 2011-03-10 17:35:21 <bd_> farzong: I said I'm not talking about the subject anymore. Ask on math overflow.
1973 2011-03-10 17:35:31 <farzong> in fact deterministic would be BETTER since it doesn't rely on unproved statistical distributions
1974 2011-03-10 17:35:38 <farzong> bd_: im trying to educate you. why would i go on mathoverflow
1975 2011-03-10 17:35:41 AmpEater has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPad - http://colloquy.mobi)
1976 2011-03-10 17:35:45 <TD> so when you get the A records from a bootstrap DNS name, they are sorted in terms of a function of geographical proximity, age and maybe load
1977 2011-03-10 17:35:45 <BlueMatt> TD: interesting, I think a lot of people are highly against centralized bootstrapping (including me)
1978 2011-03-10 17:35:46 <farzong> are you saying you want me to tutor you there?
1979 2011-03-10 17:35:50 <TD> it's already centralized
1980 2011-03-10 17:35:50 <bd_> farzong: Sure, okay.
1981 2011-03-10 17:35:55 <TD> whoever owns the IRC network owns the bootstrap
1982 2011-03-10 17:36:07 <TD> which i believe is currently MagicalTux?
1983 2011-03-10 17:36:17 <BlueMatt> TD: its lfnet
1984 2011-03-10 17:36:46 <TD> so any LFnet op then
1985 2011-03-10 17:37:16 <BlueMatt> TD: true, but on IRC any client can add themselves to the list, whereas on a DNS server, its not a list of peers but a list of "supernodese"
1986 2011-03-10 17:37:20 <BlueMatt> supernodes*
1987 2011-03-10 17:37:29 <BlueMatt> TD: maybe some kind of DHT?
1988 2011-03-10 17:37:47 <TD> the output of the DNS server can be based on all nodes
1989 2011-03-10 17:37:51 <TD> just sorted by some set of useful criteria
1990 2011-03-10 17:38:09 <TD> i think preserving the simplicity of the current P2P network would be a good thing
1991 2011-03-10 17:38:13 <TD> bitcoin is complicated enough already.
1992 2011-03-10 17:38:13 <BlueMatt> TD: plus after addresses are found, do you then keep using the list you get from dns, or do you connect to nodes
1993 2011-03-10 17:38:32 <farzong> simple example: i can find a 7/8 approximation of 3-SAT in polynomial time. you can check it in linear time. i can select a problem instance that requires 12 hours to complete. if i perform 6 hours of work, i only have 6 hours left. but if i have to discard my work and start on a new problem, now my time is back to 12 hours!
1994 2011-03-10 17:38:45 <BlueMatt> TD: if you keep using dns, it becomes a centralized system, but if you keep using your cache, its not really
1995 2011-03-10 17:38:49 <BlueMatt> TD: only at the beginning
1996 2011-03-10 17:38:57 <farzong> its the same for hash (except were talking about expected values rather than deterministic ones)
1997 2011-03-10 17:38:58 <TD> well, "centralized". anyone can run such a bootstrapping server.
1998 2011-03-10 17:39:12 <tcatm> farzong: -> #bitcoin-discussion is idle...
1999 2011-03-10 17:39:24 <TD> but again, you'd need to define a set of threat models first
2000 2011-03-10 17:39:32 <TD> it's kind of pointless to talk about technical solutions until the problem is well defined
2001 2011-03-10 17:39:39 <BlueMatt> TD: making a dns server which returns from a list of nodes is a bit hard
2002 2011-03-10 17:39:47 <BlueMatt> TD: I thought the problem was well defined?
2003 2011-03-10 17:40:07 <BlueMatt> TD: an attack with a lot of nodes becomes a mitm and messes with the blocks/txes it passes on to you
2004 2011-03-10 17:40:31 <TD> "messes with"?
2005 2011-03-10 17:40:35 hozer has joined
2006 2011-03-10 17:40:46 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: "messes with" -- as a denial of service? Or for some $$ reward?
2007 2011-03-10 17:40:53 <TD> is the problem here denial of service? sending invalid txns to clients that can't verify? DoSing the network?
2008 2011-03-10 17:41:01 <BlueMatt> TD: ie doesnt pass blocks, maybe makes their own to double spend
2009 2011-03-10 17:41:12 <BlueMatt> TD: Gavin's d on his post
2010 2011-03-10 17:41:29 <BlueMatt> allowing easy double spending
2011 2011-03-10 17:41:59 larsig has joined
2012 2011-03-10 17:42:00 <BlueMatt> could potentially hold a node of a large retail company (mtgox, clearcoin, etc) hostage for money
2013 2011-03-10 17:42:06 <BlueMatt> DDoS etc
2014 2011-03-10 17:42:07 <Avemo> bootstraping can be done in a number of different ways, which are not competitive but complimentary, DNS is one of them, IRC another the more the merrier
2015 2011-03-10 17:42:13 <TD> those are all very different attacks
2016 2011-03-10 17:42:24 <BlueMatt> TD: but the same basic attack strategy
2017 2011-03-10 17:42:36 <BlueMatt> TD: which is really what we should be defending against...
2018 2011-03-10 17:42:43 <tcatm> someone messing with blocks would need a lot of mining power, the client could detect that intervals are longer than expected
2019 2011-03-10 17:43:02 <BlueMatt> tcatm: but it currently doesnt so someone needs to write that...
2020 2011-03-10 17:43:33 <BlueMatt> tcatm: how often to check, how many blocks to average, where to say somethings up, what to do about it?
2021 2011-03-10 17:43:35 <gavinandresen> Traditional DDoS works fine if you just want to try to hold somebody hostage for money. And it's pretty easy to mitigate-- if somebody was trying to DoS the clearcoin bitcoind machine, I'd just move the wallet to another machine and fire up bitcoin.
2022 2011-03-10 17:44:07 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: Im saying he holds all your connections then doesnt let any txes or blocks pass, not a ddos but still stops your business
2023 2011-03-10 17:44:08 <TD> actually isolating a node running in a datacenter is a non-trivial attack
2024 2011-03-10 17:44:35 <BlueMatt> TD: never said it was, but it is possible to get a large % of the network isolated if you work hard and have access to a lot of ips
2025 2011-03-10 17:44:46 <TD> BlueMatt: so you notice your business has stopped, and restart the node with -connect=<friends ip>
2026 2011-03-10 17:44:47 <TD> problem solved
2027 2011-03-10 17:44:56 <TD> the asymmetry between attacker and defender is huge
2028 2011-03-10 17:45:09 <BlueMatt> TD: ok, so that is a bad attack, but the attack of making your own blocks is still possible
2029 2011-03-10 17:45:16 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: right... and as soon as I notice the ClearCoin bitcoind is stuck at block N and the entire rest of the network is at block N+20 I can restart it, connect to new nodes, move it to another IP, ....
2030 2011-03-10 17:45:16 <Avemo> isolating a professionally run node with hot spares/backups in more than one DC even more non trivial
2031 2011-03-10 17:46:13 <gavinandresen> (how do you even figure out WHICH node is the ClearCoin bitcoind? It's not the web front-end....)
2032 2011-03-10 17:46:29 <BlueMatt> ok, so that attack is fairly unreasonable, however in the end something still needs to be done about the possibility of a well-paid attacker with resources to generate a block/hour or a block/day (not very hard) and a ton of ips can double spend in some cases
2033 2011-03-10 17:46:36 <tcatm> BlueMatt: an attacker can't change the difficulty rule so he really needs a lot of mining power or else you'd notice tx confirming very slowly
2034 2011-03-10 17:46:49 <farzong> t = expected time to find a partial hash = time per hash * untried keys / 2. as i hash the number of untried keys goes down, so t necessarily goes down. if i have to throw away my work and start a new input t is now back to 100%. obviously you've lost the search efforst done on the first problem. this may be small when difficulty is very high, but why should you exlucde moderate difficulty (on the order of say 100 hours)
2035 2011-03-10 17:47:02 slush has joined
2036 2011-03-10 17:47:07 <gavinandresen> That's not even counting the trivial counter-measure, which is to run a few different bitcoind nodes and connect them together with -noirc -connect, creating your own, much-harder-to-isolate, network structure.
2037 2011-03-10 17:47:20 <BlueMatt> tcatm: most people dont watch how fast their txes confirm and say "oh crap whats going on here" they just say "dam this is taking a long time, stupid probability"
2038 2011-03-10 17:47:54 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: Again, for well constructed nodes, yes it is unreasonable, but for the average node, lets say someone trading on #bitcoin-otc, it is possible
2039 2011-03-10 17:48:15 <gavinandresen> Ok, so now we're starting do define what attacks we actually want to defend against
2040 2011-03-10 17:48:41 Syke has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2041 2011-03-10 17:48:47 BitterTea has joined
2042 2011-03-10 17:49:25 <BlueMatt> again, same attack methods, slightly different attack results
2043 2011-03-10 17:49:25 <tcatm> for the next two years it will be a lot more profitable to use that mining power to generate blocks on the main chain
2044 2011-03-10 17:49:34 <BlueMatt> tcatm: and after that?
2045 2011-03-10 17:49:41 <farzong> (this is not like randomly flipping a coin - because theres no computational efforst / search inn a coin flip. so there is no work in repeatedly flipping a coin at all. but solving a problem either deterministic or probabilistically is always "work")
2046 2011-03-10 17:50:09 <BlueMatt> tcatm: this attack could allow me to go to #bitcoin-otc double spend several times and walk away with a big chunk of cash
2047 2011-03-10 17:50:42 <BitterTea> Are there any windows users here?
2048 2011-03-10 17:50:55 <gavinandresen> Yeah, what tcatm said-- the profit you're likely to make ripping off somebody on #bitcoin-otc doesn't seem likely to cover the cost of rounding up a thousand or three IP addresses and then doing enough hashing to actually confirm a transaction a couple times
2049 2011-03-10 17:50:55 <BitterTea> Or intrepid Mono-using linux users?
2050 2011-03-10 17:51:16 <farzong> point is, im offering to lengthen the bitcoin chain by 12 cpu hours of work, but you wont accept it, because work is done on a mutually exclusive basis
2051 2011-03-10 17:51:17 <tcatm> what's the attack? create TX to user, fork chain with said TX confirmed, but don't broadcast forked chain to other clients?
2052 2011-03-10 17:51:25 <sipa> gavinandresen: concerning the per-output-spent problem, there may be another solution: allow fSpent to be 0 (not spent), 1 (spent) or 2 (partially spent), and in the last case, vSpent is outputted as well; that way, it at least remains backward compatible
2053 2011-03-10 17:51:52 <BitterTea> farzong: What exactly are you offering? Sorry I just joined.
2054 2011-03-10 17:51:55 <gavinandresen> sipa: why not just spend them? Seems a lot cleaner.
2055 2011-03-10 17:52:07 <sipa> gavinandresen: when?
2056 2011-03-10 17:52:16 <BlueMatt> tcatm: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4335.msg63425#msg63425
2057 2011-03-10 17:52:24 <sipa> when rescanning, and noticing a partial spend?
2058 2011-03-10 17:52:28 Myckel has joined
2059 2011-03-10 17:52:28 Myckel has quit (Changing host)
2060 2011-03-10 17:52:28 Myckel has joined
2061 2011-03-10 17:52:29 <gavinandresen> sipa: when you do the import. Would automatically generate a spend-to-self transaction if it needed to.
2062 2011-03-10 17:52:46 <farzong> BitterTea: i am computing partial hash colisions of moderate difficulty (expected effort = 100 hours on a 3Ghz cpu). i have found the hash already
2063 2011-03-10 17:52:52 <sipa> that's a possibility, but somehow i don't like the idea of an import causing transactions :)
2064 2011-03-10 17:52:56 <gavinandresen> sipa: we don't want to encourage people to run with the same private keys on two different machines anyway.
2065 2011-03-10 17:53:01 <farzong> i can give you the hash but no one wants it!
2066 2011-03-10 17:53:05 <sipa> that's true
2067 2011-03-10 17:53:10 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: I never said it would be easy to do, but ips aren't hard to get, especially if I buy a bot net for a couple days or find an army of vpns
2068 2011-03-10 17:53:36 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: right, but you also need to hash to generate the 'fake' block chain. And you need to hash at current difficulty....
2069 2011-03-10 17:53:59 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: not too hard if I buy a couple high end amd cards, maybe 1.5k work?
2070 2011-03-10 17:54:02 <gavinandresen> ... and if you can do that and actually generate a block in less than a day, why bother with trying to rip people off?
2071 2011-03-10 17:54:03 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: still not expensive
2072 2011-03-10 17:54:16 <BlueMatt> the bot net is the only expensive part
2073 2011-03-10 17:54:47 <tcatm> you'd still need to target someone and somehow initiate a transaction you could attack
2074 2011-03-10 17:54:47 <BlueMatt> and really, Im just discussing this because it has been brought up several times by many different people, and it also seems to be an argument against -port getting merged
2075 2011-03-10 17:54:51 <gavinandresen> Especially since the bogus block chain you generate and feed to the victim won't be accepted by the rest of the network.
2076 2011-03-10 17:54:58 <farzong> no ppl might say join a pool, but pools have some latency, and theres pool abuse strategies (http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=3165.0) and pools do not combine their results t a higher level, so one pool is wasting its cycles if the other wins. the alternative is BOTH can win by submitting hard work (I don't know how coins would be minted, but they can both add to chain hardness)
2077 2011-03-10 17:55:10 <gavinandresen> (so you've just forgone all that sweet, sweet hashing that could have earned you bitcoins)
2078 2011-03-10 17:55:45 Syke has joined
2079 2011-03-10 17:55:52 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: if I make a trade on #bitcoin-otc or on any other site with instant payout and trade 10k once or twice, one could make a pretty big profit
2080 2011-03-10 17:55:57 Lachesis has joined
2081 2011-03-10 17:56:17 <gavinandresen> Anybody accepting instant payout for that many bitcoins is being stupid
2082 2011-03-10 17:56:58 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: true, but after 6 blocks, most people would. 6 blocks on 2k worth in amd cards doesnt take _that_ long
2083 2011-03-10 17:57:23 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: maybe they'd figure it out, but really we are getting away from the issue
2084 2011-03-10 17:57:25 <gavinandresen> How long?
2085 2011-03-10 17:57:34 <tcatm> ;;bc,calc 3200000
2086 2011-03-10 17:57:35 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 3200000 Khps, given current difficulty of 76193.9710474 , is 1 day, 4 hours, 24 minutes, and 25 seconds
2087 2011-03-10 17:57:46 <gavinandresen> So six blocks would take almost a week.
2088 2011-03-10 17:58:04 <gavinandresen> Yeah, I think I'd notice something was fishy.....
2089 2011-03-10 17:58:06 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: ok, yea they would figure that out...is it really a bad thing to work for better peer diversity though?
2090 2011-03-10 17:58:18 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: so, then the -port option will be merged?
2091 2011-03-10 17:58:22 <BlueMatt> tcatm: ^
2092 2011-03-10 17:58:25 <Aciid> the amd preview driver provides few mh/s more
2093 2011-03-10 17:58:31 <Aciid> not significant improvement
2094 2011-03-10 17:58:54 <Aciid> that will be all
2095 2011-03-10 17:59:23 <farzong> put another way: as a pool calculates, its chances of finding a solution (assuming partial hashes are normally distributed) increases with each cpu cycle. at the moment someone else creates a block, the pool's chances of finding a solution (now on a new input) shoots back up to the state at cycle #0. computation wasted
2096 2011-03-10 17:59:32 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: I have no objections to -port, although I'm not sure what Satoshi's thinking was on the 2-hour non-standard-port delay. Until we know that, I'm hesitant to pull the patch.
2097 2011-03-10 17:59:46 <gavinandresen> (and with -nolisten it seems to me it is not high priority)
2098 2011-03-10 18:00:16 <farzong> (this is not like flipping coins since the chances of the next coin flip are IID w.r.t. the previous. the chances of finding a partial hash however is much greater as the search space NARROWS)
2099 2011-03-10 18:00:43 <farzong> because we believe sha is normally distributed
2100 2011-03-10 18:00:58 <TD> what's the benefit to using a non-standard port exactly?
2101 2011-03-10 18:01:01 <tcatm> farzong: your searchspace is about 1e91 (!!!)
2102 2011-03-10 18:01:02 <Avemo> Could someone tell me what -port does please
2103 2011-03-10 18:01:24 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: No one here can seem to figure out what the 2h delay was for. Is it possible satoshi wasn't god? Also, any kind of Sybil or other attack which depends on non-standard ports are stopped by the 1 ip /16 anyway.
2104 2011-03-10 18:01:58 <farzong> tcatm: a pool can handle it tho. problem is the pool has to discard its effort and start afresh.. im just saying, let the pool keep going on moderate difficulty and submit redundant solutions to harden the chain. the goal is to maximize the# of cpu cycles embeedded in the chain
2105 2011-03-10 18:02:38 <BlueMatt> TD: it conflicts with vmware-server and many people might want to change the port for some other reason (odd firewall, some numbering scheme they use, security by obscurity, etc)
2106 2011-03-10 18:03:02 <gavinandresen> Avemo: option to allow bitcoin to listen for connections on a port other than 8333
2107 2011-03-10 18:03:17 <farzong> because if we recall seti @ home at its peak had millions of nodes and around half the throughput of the fastest supercomputer.. in bitcoin, only a small % of users care to mine, and only a small % of mining work gets enshrined in the chain. (We can do better - encode all work of suitable size)
2108 2011-03-10 18:03:46 <tcatm> farzong: the whole network would need 6.34e47 yottayears for crunch the whole searchspace!
2109 2011-03-10 18:03:57 <BlueMatt> farzong: please stop now, your arguments are invalid.
2110 2011-03-10 18:04:03 <farzong> if you cant do the time dont do the crime
2111 2011-03-10 18:04:26 <farzong> BlueMatt: not at all invalid
2112 2011-03-10 18:04:54 <sipa> gavinandresen: i'll try to implement it the way you suggest, but i do believe it's a lot cleaner to just work per txout instead of per tx :)
2113 2011-03-10 18:05:14 * jgarzik says that waking up is for the birds
2114 2011-03-10 18:05:16 <jgarzik> and bees
2115 2011-03-10 18:05:53 <farzong> if i run my cpu for 100 hours, what are the chances my work will lengthen the chain? .00001 right? what if the chain accepted ANY solution that was "hard to find". then my work lengthens the chain with 100% probability. quite a difference
2116 2011-03-10 18:06:17 <tcatm> farzong: let's continue this in #bitcoin-discussion
2117 2011-03-10 18:06:21 <farzong> ok
2118 2011-03-10 18:06:23 <edcba> hmm
2119 2011-03-10 18:06:35 <Avemo> it always possible to use a proxy/firewall for port forwarding if other nodes do not mind connecting to port othr than 8333, still I see no reason whatsoever not to allow any node to use nonstandard port and there are plenty of good reasons to allow it
2120 2011-03-10 18:08:07 <Avemo> I can list a few if needed
2121 2011-03-10 18:08:13 <BlueMatt> Avemo: The problem is currently the fact that the 2h delay originally coded in by satoshi would have to be removed, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/105
2122 2011-03-10 18:08:23 <BlueMatt> the second commit
2123 2011-03-10 18:08:56 <CIA-95> bitcoin: Jeff Garzik master * r12e0918 / contrib/gitian.yml : Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/devrandom/bitcoin into tmp - http://bit.ly/gKRkRm
2124 2011-03-10 18:09:21 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: first push. I'm around, if my eyes need clawing out.
2125 2011-03-10 18:11:44 <Avemo> seems to me that Satoshi, however brilliant, was simply wrong on the port thing. I see no viable argument against allowing using any nonstandard port.
2126 2011-03-10 18:12:09 <BlueMatt> Avemo: my point exactly
2127 2011-03-10 18:12:36 <x6763> i'm all for using non-standard ports
2128 2011-03-10 18:13:10 <BlueMatt> x6763: I think everyone is for the idea, but the fact that satoshi was so against it makes gavin, jeff, etc uneasy
2129 2011-03-10 18:13:32 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: we could pull the -port patch, and leave in the 2h delay. Though I agree, with -nolisten it's not as important.
2130 2011-03-10 18:13:35 <Lachesis> anyone know why satoshi was against it?
2131 2011-03-10 18:13:39 <Avemo> I for example want to run more than one bitcoind on one IP, to mitigate sybil attack, but no there is that standard port thing in the way
2132 2011-03-10 18:13:53 <jgarzik> I'm pretty sure satoshi posted on the forums about !8333
2133 2011-03-10 18:13:57 <jgarzik> anybody searched?
2134 2011-03-10 18:14:09 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: yea, didnt really find much
2135 2011-03-10 18:14:16 <BlueMatt> Avemo: that is one reason why he was against it
2136 2011-03-10 18:14:28 <BlueMatt> Avemo: running 2 nodes per ip is a waste of network space
2137 2011-03-10 18:14:30 <Avemo> what's wrong with it?
2138 2011-03-10 18:14:33 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: that'd be ok with me. What does the 2-hour delay do, anyway? just makes it slower for nodes to connect TO you?
2139 2011-03-10 18:14:45 <BlueMatt> Avemo: it just clutters the network and -connect works just as well
2140 2011-03-10 18:14:55 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: yes that is what it does
2141 2011-03-10 18:15:09 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: yeap
2142 2011-03-10 18:15:15 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: though, currently, 2h means you are the *last* client the nodes will connect to out of their list
2143 2011-03-10 18:15:28 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: which means you literally never get incoming connections
2144 2011-03-10 18:15:41 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: jgarzik maybe decrease the delay instead of keeping it at 2h?
2145 2011-03-10 18:15:46 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: and that is bad because..........
2146 2011-03-10 18:16:26 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: not really bad for you, but the more connectable nodes we have the better IMHO
2147 2011-03-10 18:16:42 <jgarzik> hum
2148 2011-03-10 18:16:49 <jgarzik> I wonder if bitcoin filters incoming connections at all?
2149 2011-03-10 18:16:59 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: not really
2150 2011-03-10 18:17:00 <jgarzik> must check for backbone mode (-connect)
2151 2011-03-10 18:17:54 <BitterTea> Any idea why it seems that recently I'm seeing a lot more connections in my client?
2152 2011-03-10 18:18:03 <BitterTea> I never saw above 8, and the other day I started seeing 20+
2153 2011-03-10 18:18:13 <Lachesis> BitterTea, opened the port?
2154 2011-03-10 18:18:54 <Avemo> I got it now, Satoshi was probably thinking about someone running 65k nodes off one IP and duing sybil attack. But well there is /16 rule in place for that. I am failing to see how more than one daemon on one IP is a waste of network space.
2155 2011-03-10 18:19:00 <BitterTea> Lachesis: Ah, yes, that's it.
2156 2011-03-10 18:19:02 <gavinandresen> What's up with: IRC ERROR :Closing Link: ... (Sorry, server is full - try later) -- that's an IRC-server-wide limit?
2157 2011-03-10 18:19:43 <Lachesis> Also Avemo, leaving out a -port option doesn't prevent that
2158 2011-03-10 18:19:53 <Lachesis> since anyone who wants to attack could probably just recompile
2159 2011-03-10 18:20:00 <gavinandresen> Avemo: the /16 rule is for choosing outgoing connections. I think that's why jgarzik asked about filtering incoming connections
2160 2011-03-10 18:20:01 <Avemo> sure
2161 2011-03-10 18:20:08 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: maybe clients should QUIT as soon as there are 100 newer clients in the channel?
2162 2011-03-10 18:20:32 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: yea, irc has been full for quite a while now
2163 2011-03-10 18:20:34 <Lachesis> i don't get why we still need irc?
2164 2011-03-10 18:20:35 Zib has joined
2165 2011-03-10 18:20:41 <gavinandresen> ... but that would make Sybil attacks on the IRC channel even easier...
2166 2011-03-10 18:20:44 <BlueMatt> Lachesis: have to bootstrap somehow
2167 2011-03-10 18:20:44 <Lachesis> i thought we made it obsolete with seed nodes
2168 2011-03-10 18:21:06 <BlueMatt> Lachesis: seed nodes are complementary
2169 2011-03-10 18:21:34 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: Ok, so before -port get pulled, we add a 1 connenction /ip incoming max?
2170 2011-03-10 18:21:35 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: nah, thinking about backbones. I'm already working on building a bitcoin backbone, and am thinking about ways to do it. I'm leaning towards a few beefy nodes that solely use -connect to link with other BB nodes outside my company. But. I want to limit incoming connections to trusted BB nodes also.
2171 2011-03-10 18:21:37 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: in this case, new nodes can't get ANY IPs if it's fullâ¦
2172 2011-03-10 18:21:48 <Avemo> it should be not one or another bootstrap, they should be all available snd used concurently IMO
2173 2011-03-10 18:22:13 <BlueMatt> Avemo: thats how it is
2174 2011-03-10 18:22:18 agorist has joined
2175 2011-03-10 18:22:21 <BlueMatt> Avemo: well pretty much
2176 2011-03-10 18:22:32 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: thus, I have a <list of nodes>, and bitcoin should never connect or accept connections from nodes outside that list.
2177 2011-03-10 18:22:51 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: got it.
2178 2011-03-10 18:23:05 <Lachesis> jgarzik, what's the use case?
2179 2011-03-10 18:23:09 MartianW has quit (Quit: Bye all.)
2180 2011-03-10 18:23:16 jgarzik has left ("Client exiting")
2181 2011-03-10 18:23:20 jgarzik has joined
2182 2011-03-10 18:23:21 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: why not just connect to the ones you want and then have a limited number available for incoming connections?
2183 2011-03-10 18:23:24 * jgarzik kicks xchat
2184 2011-03-10 18:23:32 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: there are probably lots of un-connectable nodes clogging up the IRC channel; short-term, it probably makes more sense to disconnect from IRC after N minutes if you haven't received any incoming connections.
2185 2011-03-10 18:23:51 <luke-jr> true
2186 2011-03-10 18:24:01 <Necr0s> You could use iptables to accomplish this without a lot of effort.
2187 2011-03-10 18:24:03 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: good point, though maybe we could just implement upnp and nat-pmp instead?
2188 2011-03-10 18:24:13 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: patches welcom
2189 2011-03-10 18:24:32 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: I can do this with -connect + iptables, and zero mods. But, I was thinking of a "backbone option" that specifies a rule: Do not permit incoming connections from an IP, unless that IP was already specified in -connect
2190 2011-03-10 18:24:35 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: was satoshi against upnp as well?
2191 2011-03-10 18:24:56 <Avemo> if you do upnp and such please make them optional and not on by default
2192 2011-03-10 18:24:57 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: I get the backbone idea, but why never accept incoming connections?
2193 2011-03-10 18:24:58 <jgarzik> Lachesis: making a backbone, to connect with other beefy payment processors
2194 2011-03-10 18:25:13 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: not at all, at one point he asked me if I'd be willing to implement it. I don't know nuthin bout UpNp,though
2195 2011-03-10 18:25:19 <Lachesis> jgarzik, ah
2196 2011-03-10 18:25:33 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: fair enough, Ill do some research some time when I have a bit more time
2197 2011-03-10 18:25:34 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: that's not the network configuration of my entire network, just BB nodes. leaf nodes would still talk to the "general public"
2198 2011-03-10 18:25:38 <nanotube> jgarzik: so if backbones only connect to each other... then they're useless to the rest of the network...?
2199 2011-03-10 18:25:43 <Lachesis> +1 to making UPnP off by default, though
2200 2011-03-10 18:25:45 <jgarzik> nanotube: ^^
2201 2011-03-10 18:25:45 <Avemo> right now you can use -connect for that, plus accept incoming connections, right
2202 2011-03-10 18:25:56 <Lachesis> or at least making it easily possible to turn off
2203 2011-03-10 18:26:07 <BlueMatt> Lachesis: Avemo of course, UPnP is really terrible, but necessary for noobs
2204 2011-03-10 18:26:27 <nanotube> jgarzik: but if leaf nodes can't connect to backbone nodes... then all the leaf nodes will be cut off from the backbone network?
2205 2011-03-10 18:26:31 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: so, 1 central node and a bunch of leafs which connect outside?
2206 2011-03-10 18:26:36 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: why not just all to all?
2207 2011-03-10 18:26:36 <Avemo> agree
2208 2011-03-10 18:26:45 <nanotube> jgarzik: or will some of the backbone nodes allow leaf node connections?
2209 2011-03-10 18:26:58 <nanotube> so there is at least /some/ linkage between the BB net and the rest?
2210 2011-03-10 18:26:59 <BlueMatt> Lachesis: Avemo though maybe on by default for gui client because noobs need it?
2211 2011-03-10 18:27:30 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: UPnP isn't so terrible. Its terribleness is mostly inherited from the ultimate terrible that is NAT.
2212 2011-03-10 18:27:40 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: I don't need the rubes degrading my service :)
2213 2011-03-10 18:27:46 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: true, but that doesnt make it not terrible
2214 2011-03-10 18:27:55 <soultcer> UPnP sucks major balls
2215 2011-03-10 18:27:58 bk128 has quit (Quit: bk128)
2216 2011-03-10 18:27:58 <jgarzik> nanotube: none of my BB nodes will permit outside connections. that's for the border nodes.
2217 2011-03-10 18:28:10 * jgarzik will also have internal-only mining nodes, with _zero_ connections besides my own
2218 2011-03-10 18:28:12 <soultcer> If you need nat traversal use hole punching or nat-pmp
2219 2011-03-10 18:28:31 <luke-jr> soultcer: that's what UPnP is
2220 2011-03-10 18:28:36 <jgarzik> I am surprised more people don't think about building bitcoin networks-within-networks like this :)
2221 2011-03-10 18:28:50 <jgarzik> I'm pretty sure ArtForz has, with his miner->main 2-node setup
2222 2011-03-10 18:28:52 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: still dont get the point, understand the want for a backbone, and agree that it is important but you should connect to the outside
2223 2011-03-10 18:28:56 <Necr0s> What will that accomplish?
2224 2011-03-10 18:29:02 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: yea because he only has one ip
2225 2011-03-10 18:29:04 <Necr0s> Adding more "weight" to any forks you may create?
2226 2011-03-10 18:29:24 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: what is the harm of "inside" nodes connecting outside?
2227 2011-03-10 18:29:53 <soultcer> luke-jr: Iwht hole punching I mean using normal nat hole punching, it's not a synonym for upnp
2228 2011-03-10 18:30:24 <nanotube> jgarzik: but BB nodes will connect to border nodes yes?
2229 2011-03-10 18:30:41 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: others running BB nodes are welcome to open them to the public. I'm not going to. That's what my border nodes are for. Mining nodes are 100% internal, connecting only to my other nodes. Border nodes connect to BB nodes.
2230 2011-03-10 18:30:42 <jgarzik> nanotube: yes
2231 2011-03-10 18:31:00 <nanotube> jgarzik: ah ok. so in other words... a border node is a backbone node that does connect to the outside.
2232 2011-03-10 18:31:06 <nanotube> so that answers my question. heh.
2233 2011-03-10 18:31:42 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: ok, well I still dont see the need for that, mining nodes might get a slight latency advantage if they connect outside anyway, in any case I have to go and you can do whatever you want
2234 2011-03-10 18:32:19 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: on a local network, that's not such a big deal
2235 2011-03-10 18:32:46 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: oh I thought you were talking about a larger network via WAN
2236 2011-03-10 18:32:57 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: no on lan, you SHOULD only have one client connected to the rest of the net
2237 2011-03-10 18:33:18 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: its better for the overall network in terms of load on irc, etc
2238 2011-03-10 18:33:42 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: the border nodes will announce themselves on IRC, but not the BB nodes
2239 2011-03-10 18:33:46 Lachesis has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2240 2011-03-10 18:34:02 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: border<->BB is LAN. BB<->BB is WAN. mining<->border/BB is LAN.
2241 2011-03-10 18:34:05 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: yea, on a lan, you should only have one or max 2 nodes on irc/rest of net
2242 2011-03-10 18:34:47 <BlueMatt> ok, well Im done discussing this, have fun with the bitcoin backbone...its a great idea and fairly neccessary for security
2243 2011-03-10 18:37:42 <luke-jr> soultcer: NAT is not a firewall
2244 2011-03-10 18:38:02 <BlueMatt> jgarzik gavinandresen After some thinking, having a -port option is ultimately worse for the overall network. Conflicting with a long-unupdated vmware product which should never be on wan is not a problem and the ability of people to more easily run multiple nodes behind one ip is bad for the network/irc/etc. Although its possible anyway, making people work to do it is much better. I will close the pull request and work on more important thi
2245 2011-03-10 18:38:02 <BlueMatt> ngs :)
2246 2011-03-10 18:39:55 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: thanks. Messing with any of the network stuff gives me major heebie-jeebies, because the possibility of unintended consequences is so great.
2247 2011-03-10 18:40:11 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: well better to have the discussion than not
2248 2011-03-10 18:40:17 <soultcer> luke-jr: What gave you the impression that I thought it was? Though, from the application perspective it is just the same
2249 2011-03-10 18:41:29 TD_ has joined
2250 2011-03-10 18:42:01 <nanotube> BlueMatt: but ability to vary ports is good in case of port blocking. i think you should keep the pull request.
2251 2011-03-10 18:42:29 <nanotube> BlueMatt: as long as clients do not connect more than once to the same ip, there's no problem with 'multiple instances on one ip'
2252 2011-03-10 18:43:18 Syke has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2253 2011-03-10 18:45:06 `Jaka has joined
2254 2011-03-10 18:46:00 <gavinandresen> nanotube: I don't think there's any code to keep clients from connecting more than once to the same IP.
2255 2011-03-10 18:47:04 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: nanotube only for outgoing connections its once per /16
2256 2011-03-10 18:47:30 dishwara has joined
2257 2011-03-10 18:47:31 <BlueMatt> nanotube: so vary the ports via local firewall rules (on the bitcoin node) or by compiling yourself
2258 2011-03-10 18:48:14 <BlueMatt> nanotube: anyone who understands enough about the firewall they are behind etc should be able to fix it
2259 2011-03-10 18:48:36 Mango-chan has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2260 2011-03-10 18:49:05 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: though I disagree that we shouldn't touch the networking code. I think that is also a bad idea, especially if we can discuss it and see no real problem
2261 2011-03-10 18:49:36 <gavinandresen> I didn't say we shouldn't touch it, I just said touching it gives me the heebie jeebies
2262 2011-03-10 18:49:58 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: the only real reason why I closed the pull was the possibility of people who are just lazy and want to run 2 nodes dont bother with connect and end up needlessly filling the network
2263 2011-03-10 18:50:21 <BlueMatt> or really just the irc
2264 2011-03-10 18:51:12 <BlueMatt> nanotube: you are welcome to reopen the pull request (my branch will stay there) and reopen the discussion, but I dont think anyone really sees enough advantage to pull it
2265 2011-03-10 18:51:30 <BlueMatt> nanotube: and there is a slight possible disadvantage so...
2266 2011-03-10 18:52:53 <jgarzik> I think -port would be nice to have
2267 2011-03-10 18:53:03 <jgarzik> but my motivation to pull is low
2268 2011-03-10 18:53:11 <nanotube> gavinandresen: BlueMatt: well obviously there needs to be another patch to do the 'don't connect more than once to the same ip' :)
2269 2011-03-10 18:54:09 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: I wouldn't mind turning on DNS seeding by default. That should bootstrap more quickly than IRC, and avoid SPOF.
2270 2011-03-10 18:54:09 <gavinandresen> nanotube: ... unless you explicitly -addnode or -connect... (it's probably not as trivial as it seems at first glance)
2271 2011-03-10 18:54:16 <jgarzik> but DNS seeding is quite new, and needs thinking
2272 2011-03-10 18:54:38 * jgarzik doesn't like relying on IRC. I think it's creaking under the weight of our network.
2273 2011-03-10 18:54:54 <jgarzik> (well we don't "rely" on it, but it is the main POC for average Joe's)
2274 2011-03-10 18:54:56 * gavinandresen agrees
2275 2011-03-10 18:55:48 * agorist likes irc
2276 2011-03-10 18:56:34 <jgarzik> DNS also provides more privacy than IRC
2277 2011-03-10 18:57:16 Syke has joined
2278 2011-03-10 18:57:23 <jgarzik> it's fun for us network geeks to watch the nodes on the network via IRC, but that also provides a trivial point of observation of bitcoin users for evildoers
2279 2011-03-10 18:57:34 <nanotube> jgarzik: well, fwiw, i routinely run with -noirc :)
2280 2011-03-10 18:57:42 <nanotube> the hardcoded seednode list seems to be doing fine.
2281 2011-03-10 18:57:45 <jgarzik> nanotube: all but one of my nodes are -noirc
2282 2011-03-10 18:58:01 Zarutian has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2283 2011-03-10 18:58:02 <jgarzik> (a "border node" :))
2284 2011-03-10 18:58:04 <nanotube> gavinandresen: right, not /quite/ as trivial :)
2285 2011-03-10 18:58:14 <nanotube> jgarzik: heh ic
2286 2011-03-10 18:58:20 <BitterTea> jgarzik: How many nodes do you have, may I ask?
2287 2011-03-10 18:58:35 <jgarzik> BitterTea: that remains undisclosed
2288 2011-03-10 18:58:39 * jgarzik is building a company
2289 2011-03-10 18:58:49 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: I like to pretend I know nothing about DNS... so would I have to run my own DNS server to update the A records (it is the A records, right?) ? Or do DNS providers give APIs so I could write a script to update?
2290 2011-03-10 18:59:44 <gavinandresen> And how many IP addresses can one DNS query return, anyway?
2291 2011-03-10 19:00:03 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: all the DNS providers give you an API these days. Dynamic DNS APIs have actually been around longer than most other Internet APIs, so sometimes with older software you'll even find stuff like non-HTTP ad-hoc TCP+ASCII APIs
2292 2011-03-10 19:00:32 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: I'd have to do the same. max 512 bytes before some servers truncate the DNS packet. At least 10 addresses.
2293 2011-03-10 19:01:05 <BlueMatt> I think moving from irc to dns is a terrible idea, it will creak under the pressure just as fast and takes more effort to get working
2294 2011-03-10 19:01:17 <BlueMatt> However, using it the same way current seed nodes are used is a great idea
2295 2011-03-10 19:01:23 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: RE server software: there are also alternative DNS servers that make it _really_ easy to export data via DNS, such as "just update a flat file of name/node pairs"
2296 2011-03-10 19:01:28 <BlueMatt> Moving off irc to seednodes and peer exchange is fine IMHO
2297 2011-03-10 19:01:30 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: have you read the patch?
2298 2011-03-10 19:01:36 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: yes
2299 2011-03-10 19:01:46 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: though not very closley
2300 2011-03-10 19:01:56 <BlueMatt> oh well got to go just my 2 cents...
2301 2011-03-10 19:02:02 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: because that's precisely what it does. DNS provides seed nodes, and normal bitcoin peer exchange is used after that.
2302 2011-03-10 19:02:47 <jgarzik> bitcoin always does peer exchange. IRC, compiled-list (and now DNS) are just bootstrapping methods.
2303 2011-03-10 19:03:39 <lfm> can the client detect the number in irc and leave if it is too busy?
2304 2011-03-10 19:03:47 kermit is now known as go
2305 2011-03-10 19:04:12 go is now known as kermit
2306 2011-03-10 19:05:36 <tcatm> looks like someone is splitting up coins into 0.01 BTC coins? :)
2307 2011-03-10 19:07:38 <jgarzik> lfm: number?
2308 2011-03-10 19:07:51 mmarker has joined
2309 2011-03-10 19:08:03 <jgarzik> lfm: AFAICT the problem is not being able to join after channel reaches a certain size
2310 2011-03-10 19:08:46 <lfm> jgarzik: number in irc == size
2311 2011-03-10 19:08:54 <lfm> ?
2312 2011-03-10 19:09:30 <jgarzik> lfm: size == number of clients logged into a single channel. though, I guess, number of clients total, logged into server, may also become an issue.
2313 2011-03-10 19:09:50 <jgarzik> individual IRC servers aren't really built for this sort thing
2314 2011-03-10 19:10:03 <mmarker> jgarzik: the IRC bootstrapping of the client?
2315 2011-03-10 19:10:03 <jgarzik> and we all just connect to one, single, solitary server :)
2316 2011-03-10 19:10:10 <jgarzik> mmarker: yes
2317 2011-03-10 19:10:23 <gavinandresen> tcatm: on the -testnet? I was running a flood test with 0.01 coins (and seem to have found a RPC hanging bug....)
2318 2011-03-10 19:10:31 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: nice!
2319 2011-03-10 19:10:38 <lfm> so can the client automaticly keep off if that level is getting near?
2320 2011-03-10 19:10:45 Zarutian has joined
2321 2011-03-10 19:10:47 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: nice if I can figure out what the heck is going on
2322 2011-03-10 19:10:57 <tcatm> gavinandresen: nope, mainnet. see http://bitcoincharts.com/bitcoin/
2323 2011-03-10 19:11:03 <mmarker> jgarzik: something like Kad be useful here?
2324 2011-03-10 19:11:15 <mmarker> Problem is still suckstarting the client with a node
2325 2011-03-10 19:11:38 <jgarzik> mmarker: Kad is a post-bootstrapping feature. IRC is a boostrapping feature.
2326 2011-03-10 19:11:45 <jgarzik> yeah
2327 2011-03-10 19:12:06 <mmarker> jgarzik: Way i see it, it's the one issue with any p2p protocol. Gotta find who to talk to.
2328 2011-03-10 19:12:12 Lachesis has joined
2329 2011-03-10 19:12:16 <gavinandresen> tcatm: http://www.bitcoinmonitor.com/ oooh, pretty patterns....
2330 2011-03-10 19:12:23 <jgarzik> lfm: anything's possible with software...
2331 2011-03-10 19:12:31 <gavinandresen> (yeah, somebody is penny flooding again)
2332 2011-03-10 19:12:32 <jgarzik> lfm: doesn't do that right now
2333 2011-03-10 19:13:25 <lfm> jgarzik: would it be a good idea you think?
2334 2011-03-10 19:13:26 <jgarzik> tcatm: that feature needs a simple domain, like http://txcache.org/ (which is available)
2335 2011-03-10 19:13:55 <mmarker> hmm, how DO you dump the list of pending transactions?
2336 2011-03-10 19:13:59 <mmarker> That's kinda neat.
2337 2011-03-10 19:14:25 <jgarzik> lfm: well, that becomes a policy question: should older clients leave to make way for new clients? what sort of logic should govern that? if "yes" unconditionally, someone could flood out clients.
2338 2011-03-10 19:14:33 <jgarzik> mmarker: hack bitcoin
2339 2011-03-10 19:14:48 <mmarker> jgarzik: that's what I expected
2340 2011-03-10 19:15:04 <jgarzik> mmarker: or you might be able to get that stuff from debug.log, I forget. I know it dumps block details. It might dump TX details.
2341 2011-03-10 19:15:09 <mmarker> jgarzik: To the IRC channel?
2342 2011-03-10 19:15:42 larsig has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2343 2011-03-10 19:15:55 <tcatm> mmarker: I connect to a node at port 8333 and watch incoming TX/blocks
2344 2011-03-10 19:16:27 <tcatm> when a new TX comes in I add it to a database. When a block comes in I delete every TX from that block in my database
2345 2011-03-10 19:16:40 <mmarker> tcatm: Clever.
2346 2011-03-10 19:18:00 <mmarker> Damn, just had what I thought was a good idea, then I just broke it.
2347 2011-03-10 19:18:31 <BitterTea> mmarker: I hate that
2348 2011-03-10 19:18:32 <mmarker> You really don't want nodes to leave the IRC channel, since when they leave, new people can't find them...and if everyone leaves.
2349 2011-03-10 19:19:09 <mmarker> My idea was to keep updating the nodelist using the p2p network and then leave IRC to make room for others.
2350 2011-03-10 19:19:31 <tcatm> jgarzik: mhm. would a simple http redirect suffice? I don't want to create a distinct website/design for that feature
2351 2011-03-10 19:19:32 sabalaba has joined
2352 2011-03-10 19:19:44 <jgarzik> tcatm: sure
2353 2011-03-10 19:19:46 <tcatm> MagicalTux: ping?
2354 2011-03-10 19:20:03 <luke-jr> mmarker: people who can't accept incomign connections can leave, as gavinandresen said earlier
2355 2011-03-10 19:20:06 <mmarker> tcatm: That's good.
2356 2011-03-10 19:20:22 <mmarker> luke-jr: That's a good way.
2357 2011-03-10 19:20:35 <luke-jr> mmarker: it helps, but it might still fill up someday
2358 2011-03-10 19:20:52 <luke-jr> which is why I was thinking "leave when there's 100 newer nodes present"
2359 2011-03-10 19:21:03 <jgarzik> Overall, IRC is creaking. DNS seeding should suffice, presuming long-running and trustworthy DNS content providers.
2360 2011-03-10 19:21:04 <luke-jr> in any case, DNS kills it :p
2361 2011-03-10 19:21:10 <mmarker> luke-jr: Yea. The issue really is that to get onto a p2p netowrk, where you don't know where the nodes are, you still have a single point of failure somewhere...the directory of where to start talking to.
2362 2011-03-10 19:21:19 <luke-jr> jgarzik: too bad anycast isn't really viable
2363 2011-03-10 19:21:26 <luke-jr> I suppose IPv6 could use multicast
2364 2011-03-10 19:21:29 <mmarker> jgarzik: SVR entries. Makes great sense.
2365 2011-03-10 19:21:41 <mmarker> luke-jr: if people dont muck up multicast.
2366 2011-03-10 19:21:50 <jgarzik> mmarker: A records: http://yyz.us/bitcoin/patch.bitcoin-dnsseed
2367 2011-03-10 19:21:53 <luke-jr> mmarker: my understanding is that multicast is basically required for IPv6
2368 2011-03-10 19:21:58 <BitterTea> Hey, does anyone know who runs MyBitcoin?
2369 2011-03-10 19:22:03 <jgarzik> I love SRV, and use it in my cloud computing FOSS projects
2370 2011-03-10 19:22:07 <jgarzik> but it's not widely compatible
2371 2011-03-10 19:22:12 <luke-jr> jgarzik: A records don't support port numbers ;)
2372 2011-03-10 19:22:19 <mmarker> luke-jr: I thought it only needed to be on a local network, not global.
2373 2011-03-10 19:22:22 <luke-jr> jgarzik: so do both
2374 2011-03-10 19:22:43 <mmarker> jgarzik: I say do both...but who's the broken people who's resolvers can't hack SVR?
2375 2011-03-10 19:22:48 <jgarzik> luke-jr: on mac + windows + linux, you are limited to what gethostbyname() or getaddrinfo() return
2376 2011-03-10 19:23:02 <luke-jr> mmarker: well, if I am wrong, I prefer to remain ignorant so I can spread the belief that it is required, and hopefully dissuade anyone from disabling it
2377 2011-03-10 19:23:11 <mmarker> luke-jr: PLEASE DO!
2378 2011-03-10 19:23:15 <luke-jr> mmarker: DNSMasq if you do filter-win2k
2379 2011-03-10 19:23:20 <mmarker> :D
2380 2011-03-10 19:23:52 <mmarker> luke-jr: God damn people.
2381 2011-03-10 19:23:57 <luke-jr> jgarzik: ugly. doesn't that break round-robin too?
2382 2011-03-10 19:24:23 <luke-jr> oh no, that's what getaddrinfo does
2383 2011-03-10 19:24:30 <luke-jr> shouldn't getaddrinfo do SRV lookups?
2384 2011-03-10 19:24:43 <jgarzik> luke-jr: both gethostbyname and getaddrinfo return a list of addresses
2385 2011-03-10 19:24:54 <jgarzik> luke-jr: we use that entire list to seed the bitcoin P2P address database
2386 2011-03-10 19:24:56 <mmarker> I abuse SVR for my XMPP and SIP services. Ugh.
2387 2011-03-10 19:24:59 <luke-jr> getaddrinfo takes a string for service type.
2388 2011-03-10 19:25:05 <luke-jr> mmarker: it's SRV
2389 2011-03-10 19:25:06 sabalaba has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2390 2011-03-10 19:25:24 <farzong> i was wrong about bitcoin hashing wasting work.. yes i was completely wrong.. i misstated my point - what i meant was: I have no incentive to provide 500 cpu hours to bitcoin because my expected return is .00000001 btc (solo mining) or I have to join a pool (which is rife w/abuse / dihonesty / and overhead fees). OTOH, if i could submit a moderate difficulty pow or a detemrinistic pow (like factoring/sat/bkp/matrixmult whatever), i could be assured of p
2391 2011-03-10 19:25:31 <luke-jr> IMO, getaddrinfo *should* be doing SRV lookups :p
2392 2011-03-10 19:25:31 <jgarzik> luke-jr: service type == port
2393 2011-03-10 19:25:39 <jgarzik> luke-jr: yes, it should!
2394 2011-03-10 19:25:43 <luke-jr> jgarzik: it could be a name
2395 2011-03-10 19:25:48 <farzong> so in that sense bitcoin is losing out on work that can strengthen the chain, because the risk aversion to solo mining with its low xpected value and abuses of pools is too high
2396 2011-03-10 19:26:04 <mmarker> luke-jr: Don't mind my qewrty keyboard.
2397 2011-03-10 19:26:08 <luke-jr> jgarzik: perhaps do service="bitcoin-p2p" first, then service="8333" if that fails
2398 2011-03-10 19:26:43 <luke-jr> farzong: uhm, solo-mining yields far more than pool mining, except for low-yield miners
2399 2011-03-10 19:27:03 <farzong> the fixed-payout pools have a minimum balance payout: why not just let me announce low-difficulty pofs in the SCRIPT section with abounty to myself? this eliminates the overhead and dishonesty of pools! and i am assured of payment (with 99.99999% prob)
2400 2011-03-10 19:27:10 <jgarzik> luke-jr: I wrote getsrvinfo(3) API because getaddrinfo(3) is sufficient for SRV: http://gtf.org/garzik/misc/getsrvinfo.tar.gz
2401 2011-03-10 19:27:17 <jgarzik> I should write a man page
2402 2011-03-10 19:28:16 <luke-jr> jgarzik: huh? why not just implement getaddrinfo?
2403 2011-03-10 19:28:19 <farzong> luke-jr: yeah the expected return on my 500 cpu hours is .00001 btc. only the most careless risk-seekers would buy into that. but if i can get paid a fixed amount (without pool overhead - just let the protocol give me the bounty for announcing a tx w/proof) i and many others would be happy to do work with 100% chance of getting full payment
2404 2011-03-10 19:28:20 <luke-jr> why a new name?
2405 2011-03-10 19:28:41 <jgarzik> luke-jr: SRV returns a ton of useful info. Read about it, it's a different record.
2406 2011-03-10 19:28:51 <luke-jr> jgarzik: I know what SRV is.
2407 2011-03-10 19:29:10 <jgarzik> luke-jr: SRV is fundamentally incompatible with deployed, standardized getaddrinfo(2)
2408 2011-03-10 19:29:11 <luke-jr> you mean the return type for getaddrinfo is insufficient?
2409 2011-03-10 19:29:13 <jgarzik> getaddrinfo(3)
2410 2011-03-10 19:29:18 <farzong> so many others would have incentive to harden the chain. as it is now only very powerful miners or ppl willing to take on irrational risk of lottery payouts or those who "trust" a central pool... will play
2411 2011-03-10 19:29:32 <luke-jr> jgarzik: as far as bitcoin is concerned, getaddrinfo is sufficient for SRV
2412 2011-03-10 19:29:49 <mmarker> genjix: How goes the hacking?
2413 2011-03-10 19:29:56 <luke-jr> farzong: so encourage more pools
2414 2011-03-10 19:29:57 <jgarzik> luke-jr: um, no, it's not. because getaddrinfo does not SRV on any platform at present.
2415 2011-03-10 19:30:06 <luke-jr> jgarzik: but it could
2416 2011-03-10 19:30:08 <lfm> farzong: just use a pool, no need for that
2417 2011-03-10 19:30:18 <jgarzik> luke-jr: yes, in a universal where everybody uses tonal bitcoin
2418 2011-03-10 19:30:22 <farzong> lfm: overhead/abuse/cheating
2419 2011-03-10 19:30:26 <luke-jr> jgarzik: or dozenal bitcoin
2420 2011-03-10 19:30:34 <jgarzik> or bitcoin bongs
2421 2011-03-10 19:30:42 <luke-jr> or great gross bitcoin
2422 2011-03-10 19:31:22 <farzong> you can build the pool directly into the protocol - i announce a tx to myself and a diff-2 in the script section. i just made new money and the chain is hardened. (the new block would have to contain a field with a counter indicating the EMBEDDED hardness of the tx records)
2423 2011-03-10 19:31:26 <farzong> its quite nice
2424 2011-03-10 19:31:31 Lachesis has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2425 2011-03-10 19:31:41 <mmarker> jgarzik: Speaking of bong hits. Any idea of using a T2 UltraSparc would be worthwhile? I have no idea how fast the HW crypto engine is on that thing.
2426 2011-03-10 19:31:47 <lfm> farzong: sorry but I still dont see it, you want small payments for small efferts, use a pool. the main net doent need the extra traffic
2427 2011-03-10 19:31:58 <genjix> mmarker: just discovered set -o vi
2428 2011-03-10 19:32:05 <farzong> lfm: the main net will see the traffic anyway when the pool pays me! so no increase in traffic
2429 2011-03-10 19:32:18 TheAncientGoat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2430 2011-03-10 19:32:32 <farzong> using a pool requires trusting they dont withhold / cheat / abuse. and anyway they take 10%. not optimal
2431 2011-03-10 19:32:47 <lfm> farzong: then start your own pool
2432 2011-03-10 19:33:05 <farzong> pool is untrustworthy. my solution builds it into the protocol
2433 2011-03-10 19:33:16 <lfm> build overhead
2434 2011-03-10 19:33:25 <midnightmagic> farzong: then do it. code it up, fork bitcoin on github, and do it.
2435 2011-03-10 19:33:37 <farzong> why fork? it can be in the main btc
2436 2011-03-10 19:33:38 <jgarzik> mmarker: dunno
2437 2011-03-10 19:33:56 <farzong> im just trying to harden the chain mang and bring more ppl with aligned incentives
2438 2011-03-10 19:33:58 <jgarzik> farzong: forking is an encouraged workflow on github
2439 2011-03-10 19:33:59 <midnightmagic> farzong: because you are full of ideas you want other people to implement.
2440 2011-03-10 19:34:06 <lfm> farzong: fork cuz no one else wants to so you have to do it yourself if you want it done
2441 2011-03-10 19:34:20 <midnightmagic> farzong: plus, if you fork you can refine the patch, and then they can merge it right back.
2442 2011-03-10 19:34:23 <luke-jr> farzong: the changes you propose are fundamentally incompatible with bitcoin
2443 2011-03-10 19:34:29 <edcba> midnightmagic: full of shit that nobody cares you meant ?
2444 2011-03-10 19:34:41 <midnightmagic> edcba: hey man don't blow my cover. :)
2445 2011-03-10 19:34:54 <mmarker> jgarzik: I have someone who I can ask. Maybe even steal an account on some iron from them...
2446 2011-03-10 19:34:58 <lfm> farzong: its just a fork for testing, if it proves to be workable and desirable then it can be merged back into the main branch
2447 2011-03-10 19:34:58 <midnightmagic> edcba: oh, wait, i guess he already knows I think he's a troll. carry on!
2448 2011-03-10 19:35:25 <farzong> luke-jr: not at all
2449 2011-03-10 19:35:39 <farzong> its perfectly compatible
2450 2011-03-10 19:36:10 <x6763> farzong: your proposal as stated would change the way new bitcoins are "generated", the way the block chain works, etc...it's it very different from the existing system...but have fun coding it
2451 2011-03-10 19:36:33 <lfm> farzong: please excuse us if we dont just accept your word for it being inocuous. you have to prove it by implementing it and testing it
2452 2011-03-10 19:37:53 <mmarker> genjix: Hehe
2453 2011-03-10 19:37:59 <agorist> farzong, are you starting a competing cryptocurrency ?
2454 2011-03-10 19:38:15 <luke-jr> agorist: he wants to, but wants the existing one to surrender :P
2455 2011-03-10 19:38:19 <luke-jr> rather than compete
2456 2011-03-10 19:38:29 sabalaba has joined
2457 2011-03-10 19:38:37 <agorist> bahaha
2458 2011-03-10 19:43:05 <CIA-95> bitcoin: Jeff Garzik master * r8f58d0d / (main.cpp main.h): Merge branch 'smalltxfix' of https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git into tmp - http://bit.ly/fYHZ7S
2459 2011-03-10 19:46:35 BitterTea has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2460 2011-03-10 19:49:15 <jgarzik> hrm
2461 2011-03-10 19:49:23 <jgarzik> I thought I submitted a dumpblocks pull request? Guess not.
2462 2011-03-10 19:50:16 Lachesis has joined
2463 2011-03-10 19:51:03 <luke-jr> XD
2464 2011-03-10 19:53:31 <agorist> farzong, what would you change
2465 2011-03-10 19:53:53 BitterTea has joined
2466 2011-03-10 19:54:04 BitterTea has quit (Changing host)
2467 2011-03-10 19:54:04 BitterTea has joined
2468 2011-03-10 19:56:34 Syke has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2469 2011-03-10 19:56:57 dishwara has quit (Quit: Miranda IM! Smaller, Faster, Easier. http://miranda-im.org)
2470 2011-03-10 19:57:45 <Kiba> hmm
2471 2011-03-10 19:57:52 <Kiba> it seem that the number of forks is growing
2472 2011-03-10 19:59:54 <luke-jr> that's good
2473 2011-03-10 19:59:59 <luke-jr> mtve: ping
2474 2011-03-10 20:08:50 AmpEater has joined
2475 2011-03-10 20:10:24 ApertureScience has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2476 2011-03-10 20:12:01 Lachesis has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2477 2011-03-10 20:14:12 Syke has joined
2478 2011-03-10 20:14:37 TD_ has quit (Quit: TD_)
2479 2011-03-10 20:21:25 <farzong> im back
2480 2011-03-10 20:21:35 <farzong> i now youre happy to see me
2481 2011-03-10 20:21:55 <lfm> hi
2482 2011-03-10 20:22:41 <farzong> but yoyu must admit i have a point: i have no incentive to harden the chain by 500 hours because my expected return is .00000001 btc, or I have to trust a pool with overhead/abuse. but if i weregauranteed by the protocol to get paid for my 500 hours of diff-2's, id put all my idle cpu on it
2483 2011-03-10 20:23:07 <farzong> (by harden the chain, i just mean embed the POW is a transaction which is later added to a counter in the next block - im not creating blocks)
2484 2011-03-10 20:24:08 <sipa> your expected return is not different when using a pool or mining solo
2485 2011-03-10 20:24:17 f3n has quit ()
2486 2011-03-10 20:24:38 <sipa> except for any pool fee, and slight decrease in efficiency because of network delays
2487 2011-03-10 20:25:16 <farzong> sipa: youre right, what i meant was theres a high risk variance - i have to wait a millenia to have a >50% chance of realize a return on solo mining
2488 2011-03-10 20:25:42 <farzong> i would rather take the guaranteed .000001 btc because, being averse to lotteries that take a million years to pay out
2489 2011-03-10 20:25:58 <sipa> there is a pool with guaranteed payout rate per share
2490 2011-03-10 20:27:03 <farzong> absolutely, but overhead/abuse... why not enshrine the pool (which we all agree is a wonderful and clever invention) into the protocol itself. I get paid for POWs I embed in my transactions. everyone else honors the payment. and the hardness is there because the next block keeps a counter of how many embedded diff-3's there are (or whatever a number indicating how much POW is in the tx)
2491 2011-03-10 20:27:32 <farzong> maybe if i have time this weekend ill try to code it
2492 2011-03-10 20:28:07 <jgarzik> CFP: Looking for volunteers to test 'settxfee', a simple RPC patch to bitcoind
2493 2011-03-10 20:28:13 <jgarzik> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4361.0
2494 2011-03-10 20:28:28 <luke-jr> farzong: if you don't create blocks, you don't harden the chain
2495 2011-03-10 20:28:45 <farzong> but youre saying pools are good enough (even with the overhead / non-standard rules / potentials for abuse). you're right - i think theyre mostly honest. but bitcoin isnt about trusting a pool owner
2496 2011-03-10 20:29:13 mmarker has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.3.2)
2497 2011-03-10 20:29:16 <farzong> luke-jr: ahh but you see, the block contains a field with a counter of the solutions found in tx in that block
2498 2011-03-10 20:29:40 AmpEater has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPad - http://colloquy.mobi)
2499 2011-03-10 20:29:52 <luke-jr> farzong: not compatible with bitcoin
2500 2011-03-10 20:29:58 <farzong> so when
2501 2011-03-10 20:30:11 <ArtForz> sipa: stupid question, why do the log speed graphs dont have horiz. gridlines?
2502 2011-03-10 20:30:39 <ArtForz> well, at least finer graduated ones
2503 2011-03-10 20:30:47 <ArtForz> one every power of 10 is kinda... not much
2504 2011-03-10 20:31:17 <sipa> for the 50k blocks versions that's enough
2505 2011-03-10 20:31:27 <ArtForz> for the 10k... not so much
2506 2011-03-10 20:31:30 <sipa> indeed
2507 2011-03-10 20:31:42 <sipa> but then again, how useful is the log 10k one vs. a lineair 10k one
2508 2011-03-10 20:32:05 <sipa> but, let's see
2509 2011-03-10 20:32:12 Diablo-D3 has joined
2510 2011-03-10 20:35:53 dirtyfilthy has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2511 2011-03-10 20:36:16 <ArtForz> hmmm... guess that didnt really work as planned ;)
2512 2011-03-10 20:37:03 <Diablo-D3> what
2513 2011-03-10 20:37:07 <ArtForz> now that looks better ;)
2514 2011-03-10 20:37:26 <ArtForz> http://bitcoin.sipa.be/speed-10k.png
2515 2011-03-10 20:37:47 que has joined
2516 2011-03-10 20:38:03 grondilu has joined
2517 2011-03-10 20:38:07 <que> I'm 12 and what is this?
2518 2011-03-10 20:38:21 <jrabbit> Lol.
2519 2011-03-10 20:38:26 <grondilu> que: it's the money your generation will use when you grow up
2520 2011-03-10 20:38:27 satamusic_ has joined
2521 2011-03-10 20:38:43 <ArtForz> though now the linear graph looks weird :/
2522 2011-03-10 20:38:52 <ArtForz> ahh, already fixed, nm
2523 2011-03-10 20:39:01 <farzong> luke-jr: youre right.. in this case the chains cardinality is equal to block difficulty + c (c is the blocks notation of how much difficulty was provided by solo miners in annotated txs)
2524 2011-03-10 20:39:21 <farzong> so yeah its not compatible... but would be a minor tweak to change the policy
2525 2011-03-10 20:39:45 <farzong> why would ppl want to change policy? because it gives more ppl incentive to bake cpu cycles into the chain...
2526 2011-03-10 20:40:02 <farzong> many are risk averse to lotteries that have a <50% change of paying out in a million years...
2527 2011-03-10 20:40:14 <que> What's the total block count right now?
2528 2011-03-10 20:40:22 <ArtForz> ;;bc,blocks
2529 2011-03-10 20:40:23 <gribble> 113043
2530 2011-03-10 20:40:23 <farzong> ;;bc.stats
2531 2011-03-10 20:40:24 <gribble> Error: "bc.stats" is not a valid command.
2532 2011-03-10 20:40:29 <que> cool. thanks
2533 2011-03-10 20:40:34 <farzong> ;;bc,stats
2534 2011-03-10 20:40:36 <gribble> Current Blocks: 113043 | Current Difficulty: 76193.9710474 | Next Difficulty At Block: 114911 | Next Difficulty In: 1868 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 2 weeks, 1 day, 8 hours, 55 minutes, and 48 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 64779.81538461
2535 2011-03-10 20:41:20 <que> So once I'm done downloading all blocks, then I can start generating, right?
2536 2011-03-10 20:41:51 satamusic has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2537 2011-03-10 20:41:53 <sipa> ArtForz: they're all ok now, again
2538 2011-03-10 20:41:58 <ArtForz> cool, thanks :)
2539 2011-03-10 20:42:35 <EvanR-work> que: yes
2540 2011-03-10 20:42:44 <ArtForz> que: yes, but nowadays you pretty much need a decent GPU and/or join a pool to have a reasonable chance of seeing any bitcoins soon
2541 2011-03-10 20:43:13 <EvanR-work> theres still a chance!
2542 2011-03-10 20:43:14 <sipa> i'd remove the "soon" in that statement
2543 2011-03-10 20:43:21 <ArtForz> why?
2544 2011-03-10 20:43:37 <que> ah, yeah that's what I figured... I heard that a particular CUDA GPU would be the best choice at this time
2545 2011-03-10 20:43:48 <sipa> ;;bc,calc 4000
2546 2011-03-10 20:43:49 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 4000 Khps, given current difficulty of 76193.9710474 , is 2 years, 30 weeks, 6 days, 21 hours, 44 minutes, and 13 seconds
2547 2011-03-10 20:43:58 <EvanR-work> radeon hd 5970
2548 2011-03-10 20:44:01 <Diablo-D3> que: you do realize nvidia is just a giant scam, right?
2549 2011-03-10 20:44:05 <farzong> ArtForz is the master..
2550 2011-03-10 20:44:06 <ArtForz> 4Mhps? thats a pretty weak CPU
2551 2011-03-10 20:44:13 <farzong> my friend bought some coin yesterday
2552 2011-03-10 20:44:16 <que> dude, I'm not pretending to know anything about this shit
2553 2011-03-10 20:44:33 <Diablo-D3> que: nvidia is the worst possible choice for anything computational
2554 2011-03-10 20:44:37 <ArtForz> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison
2555 2011-03-10 20:44:45 <Diablo-D3> que: and specifically for bitcoin, its even worse
2556 2011-03-10 20:45:00 <farzong> my hercules graphics card is hashing like crazy
2557 2011-03-10 20:45:06 <sipa> que: recent high-end AMD cards are the best choice for bitcoin now
2558 2011-03-10 20:45:13 <EvanR-work> maybe nvidia, with its new 'flagship agenda' press release will come out with something that matters ;)
2559 2011-03-10 20:45:23 <Diablo-D3> EvanR-work: I doubt it
2560 2011-03-10 20:45:31 <Diablo-D3> they've been selling the same video card for about 4 years now
2561 2011-03-10 20:45:38 <Diablo-D3> all they do is put new model numbers on it
2562 2011-03-10 20:46:00 <farzong> isnt it more cost effective to buy a cheap fpga
2563 2011-03-10 20:46:08 <Diablo-D3> farzong: no, fpga are very slow
2564 2011-03-10 20:46:12 <farzong> ahh
2565 2011-03-10 20:46:24 <Diablo-D3> farzong: it takes a $600 fpga to match a 5970
2566 2011-03-10 20:46:27 <farzong> whoa
2567 2011-03-10 20:46:34 <ArtForz> thats actually a quite cheap fpga then
2568 2011-03-10 20:46:44 <Diablo-D3> or was it a $1200 one
2569 2011-03-10 20:46:45 <Diablo-D3> I forget
2570 2011-03-10 20:46:50 <sipa> farzong: recent GPU's are actually quite comparable to FPGA, only they are far cheaper, but draw a lot more power :)
2571 2011-03-10 20:46:55 <EvanR-work> $600 is a good deal for a 5970 equivalent right now
2572 2011-03-10 20:46:57 <farzong> well im wrong again! how unusual
2573 2011-03-10 20:47:17 <luke-jr> farzong: incompatible changes are a new system,
2574 2011-03-10 20:47:19 <Diablo-D3> farzong: well, this is why ArtForz had actual chips made... and even then, its not really beating his video card farm
2575 2011-03-10 20:47:26 <luke-jr> jgarzik: got a git branch I can pull?
2576 2011-03-10 20:47:27 <que> okay, well sounds like I
2577 2011-03-10 20:47:37 <Diablo-D3> farzong: very high watt efficiency, not very fast in general
2578 2011-03-10 20:47:42 <que> mokay well, sounds like I'm wasting my time. peace out
2579 2011-03-10 20:47:44 <ArtForz> even after shitloads of tweaking my hdl trying to get max perf on various archs, best price/perf is 72Mhps on a Spartan6 LX150-3
2580 2011-03-10 20:47:46 <farzong> yeah
2581 2011-03-10 20:47:54 <EvanR-work> que: another great idea goes out the window ;)
2582 2011-03-10 20:48:06 <farzong> d-wave
2583 2011-03-10 20:48:07 <ArtForz> which is about $170 in volume
2584 2011-03-10 20:48:07 <Diablo-D3> que: you can mine all you want
2585 2011-03-10 20:48:14 <Diablo-D3> que: just dont expect it to be wildly profitable
2586 2011-03-10 20:48:21 <sipa> que: you're not wasting your time, bitcoin is more than just generating money out of nothing for yourself :)
2587 2011-03-10 20:48:38 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: yeah and a 5770 does twice that and costs like $100
2588 2011-03-10 20:48:40 <EvanR-work> contrary to popular propaganda
2589 2011-03-10 20:49:02 <ArtForz> with needed bypass caps, VRM, PCB, ... you're already well > $200/chip
2590 2011-03-10 20:49:25 <ArtForz> and you still dont have any cooling, PSU, controller, case, ...
2591 2011-03-10 20:49:30 <que> well, I do have something to sell if anyone is interested but this is not the time or place - gotta be anonymous - Any good places to sell information?
2592 2011-03-10 20:49:43 <EvanR-work> #bitcoin-otc
2593 2011-03-10 20:50:02 <EvanR-work> or the russian embassy
2594 2011-03-10 20:50:09 <que> lol
2595 2011-03-10 20:50:36 <ArtForz> thats the main reason I started with the ASIC stuff, if FPGAs were competetive I would've just used them
2596 2011-03-10 20:51:20 * Kiba wonders how many USD AMD made off from people who buy 5970s
2597 2011-03-10 20:51:30 <Kiba> for GPU mining
2598 2011-03-10 20:52:13 Jeroenz0r has quit ()
2599 2011-03-10 20:52:14 <EvanR-work> not much since im guessing many people got their cards second hand or like new
2600 2011-03-10 20:52:26 <jgarzik> luke-jr: git://github.com/jgarzik/bitcoin.git rpc-fee
2601 2011-03-10 20:52:28 <farzong> mining should be built into the clients in idle time - but this necessitates a reliable pool concept built into the protocol
2602 2011-03-10 20:52:36 <farzong> you could double the compute power overnight!
2603 2011-03-10 20:53:08 Jeroenz0r has joined
2604 2011-03-10 20:53:08 Jeroenz0r has quit (Changing host)
2605 2011-03-10 20:53:08 Jeroenz0r has joined
2606 2011-03-10 20:53:10 <EvanR-work> disable the option to stop generating? xD
2607 2011-03-10 20:53:28 <EvanR-work> its all part of the plan
2608 2011-03-10 20:53:44 <FellowTraveler> hi all
2609 2011-03-10 20:54:06 <farzong> (in the micro-pows i suggested, you dont affect block gen, you just get paid for enriching the computational complexity of the database)
2610 2011-03-10 20:54:35 <farzong> yeah its incomptaible
2611 2011-03-10 20:55:02 TD_ has joined
2612 2011-03-10 20:56:23 <farzong> miners still get gold as they do now no diff
2613 2011-03-10 20:56:33 <farzong> anyway.. need some btc or usd to buy dollar menu.. im out of cash
2614 2011-03-10 20:58:13 <farzong> totally broke
2615 2011-03-10 20:58:22 <farzong> unemployed electrician
2616 2011-03-10 20:58:25 <que> already checked the couch?
2617 2011-03-10 20:58:31 ApertureScience has joined
2618 2011-03-10 20:58:57 <farzong> bd_ was right i was wrong
2619 2011-03-10 20:59:21 <Kiba> hmm
2620 2011-03-10 20:59:52 <farzong> but you can see where i was going.. its the risk variance thats the issue.. i want the epected payout .0000001btc guaranteed.. not wait a millenia to recoup
2621 2011-03-10 21:00:15 <farzong> (and pools are great - i think theyre mostly honest. but it does require blind faith and overhead fees)
2622 2011-03-10 21:00:45 <que> lol. I just started generating; I knew my cpu was nothing special but <600 khash/s is pretty pathetic :(
2623 2011-03-10 21:00:49 Lachesis has joined
2624 2011-03-10 21:01:34 <sipa> what kind of CPU?
2625 2011-03-10 21:02:32 <lfm> farzong: what good do you think .0000001btc is anyway. youd still have to accumulate 1000s of em to do anything with them. seems your just pouting that your cpu is too slow. get over it
2626 2011-03-10 21:03:57 <farzong> lfm: i think there is a market for such quantities (i dont believe the exchange captures all the value)... however, im not actually changing my view that new coins should be allocated randomly rather than to a mining cartel :)
2627 2011-03-10 21:04:02 <sipa> farzong: if you really think pooling should be intergrated in the main client, you could read this and implement it: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=3461.msg48725#msg48725 ;)
2628 2011-03-10 21:04:30 rapacity has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
2629 2011-03-10 21:04:34 <farzong> intersting yes that looks cool
2630 2011-03-10 21:05:22 que has quit (Quit: Page closed)
2631 2011-03-10 21:05:44 <farzong> in fact i still believe you dont need mining at all in general... just listen for transactions and add them to your btree... honest nodes have an incentive to record everything
2632 2011-03-10 21:05:59 <grondilu> que: CPU mining is hopeless. Just buy bitcoins, sell products or services for bitcoins, or start GPU mining.
2633 2011-03-10 21:06:30 <farzong> if a peer has a different tree than you - you sync with each other till you match for all time t < x. if hes evil he cant harm you
2634 2011-03-10 21:07:22 <sipa> farzong: read satoshi's whitepaper if you think that a block chain isn't necessary :)
2635 2011-03-10 21:08:20 <BlueMatt> farzong: please inform yourself better before spamming this channel with questions and invalid statements. Or ask on #bitcoin-discussion
2636 2011-03-10 21:10:01 <farzong> BlueMatt: really.. so wheres the proof of bitcoins optimality?
2637 2011-03-10 21:10:09 Intermediary has joined
2638 2011-03-10 21:10:10 <farzong> you seem to be assuming nonsense
2639 2011-03-10 21:10:18 <BlueMatt> farzong: satoshi's paper, and logic
2640 2011-03-10 21:10:23 <BlueMatt> farzong: please read it, as sipa said
2641 2011-03-10 21:10:30 <lfm> farzong: bitcoin is self optimizing, didnt you know?
2642 2011-03-10 21:10:31 <farzong> satoshi doesn't provide any optimality proof
2643 2011-03-10 21:10:51 <nanotube> farzong: of course nobody claims that bitcoin is "the most optimal way of doing a distributed cryptocurrency"
2644 2011-03-10 21:10:53 <BlueMatt> farzong: but sadly your ideas are much less optimal
2645 2011-03-10 21:10:58 <nanotube> farzong: only that it is a /feasible/ way.
2646 2011-03-10 21:11:05 <farzong> there is no proof that it is the most robust p2p currencyh.. there are other papers with different schemes
2647 2011-03-10 21:11:09 <farzong> that prevent double spending
2648 2011-03-10 21:11:37 <farzong> BlueMatt: educate yourself on cryptocurrencies before assuming satoshis paper has closed the book on the topic
2649 2011-03-10 21:11:38 <Intermediary> Hello everybody
2650 2011-03-10 21:11:44 <lfm> farzong: well feel free to go prove one of those others are optimal then.
2651 2011-03-10 21:11:47 <farzong> i agree bitcoin is the best thing invented and is incredibly awesome
2652 2011-03-10 21:11:51 <BlueMatt> farzong: so implement one or make a sensible recommendation for bitcoin, not things which do not work or are insane
2653 2011-03-10 21:12:14 <lfm> farzong: why you trying to tear it apart all the time then?
2654 2011-03-10 21:12:21 <nanotube> farzong: so if you come up with something that has some significant advantages, but no significant disadvantages, relative to bitcoin... you're more than welcome to write a paper, and/or write some code, and start your own.
2655 2011-03-10 21:12:22 <farzong> lfm: not at all.. i love bitcoin
2656 2011-03-10 21:12:36 <nanotube> hey Intermediary
2657 2011-03-10 21:12:42 <farzong> its the best currency in the world
2658 2011-03-10 21:12:44 <Intermediary> Hi nanotube!
2659 2011-03-10 21:12:45 <BlueMatt> farzong: then stop wasting developer time on -dev and ask on -discussion
2660 2011-03-10 21:13:02 <Intermediary> I seemed to have stumbled in upon a disagreement
2661 2011-03-10 21:13:07 <Intermediary> Thought I'd step out of the way
2662 2011-03-10 21:13:09 <lfm> farzong: well it sure looks like you are just a troll then,
2663 2011-03-10 21:13:11 <farzong> im saying there are problems with cartels, and poor incentives for generating POWs
2664 2011-03-10 21:13:17 <BlueMatt> Intermediary: its all good, farzong was just leaving
2665 2011-03-10 21:13:21 <farzong> and frictions to entering the market
2666 2011-03-10 21:13:24 <nanotube> Intermediary: heh nature of irc - many conversations take place at the same time. :)
2667 2011-03-10 21:13:30 sabalaba has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2668 2011-03-10 21:13:33 <Intermediary> Hi Bluematt
2669 2011-03-10 21:13:37 <jgarzik> and IRC has this lovely /ignore feature
2670 2011-03-10 21:13:42 <nanotube> jgarzik: lol
2671 2011-03-10 21:13:43 <BlueMatt> hello Intermediary
2672 2011-03-10 21:13:44 <farzong> BlueMatt: i dont even know what your claiming or why youre talking to me. you seem to have nothing specific or substantive to say about anything
2673 2011-03-10 21:13:46 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: good idea
2674 2011-03-10 21:14:07 <Intermediary> Unfortunately, I'm using the web interface, not the IRC client
2675 2011-03-10 21:14:11 <ArtForz> you *still* dont have farzong on ignore? wow.
2676 2011-03-10 21:14:11 <Intermediary> so may not have all the buttons
2677 2011-03-10 21:14:30 <nanotube> farzong: anyway, it does seem like you need to read the paper (or at least the technical pages of the wiki) and get a solid understanding of how bitcoin works, what are the necessary features, etc. and /then/ you can be on the way to having a chance of suggesting something actually workable. :)
2678 2011-03-10 21:14:43 <farzong> everytime i say "cartel" ArtForz pipes up with something mildly derogatory
2679 2011-03-10 21:14:45 <nanotube> Intermediary: ignore is not a button, it's a command. :)
2680 2011-03-10 21:14:45 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: with your patches, seems like you are working towards becoming the networking subsystem maintainer for bitcoin :)
2681 2011-03-10 21:14:49 <farzong> methinks he is a bit touchy about the subject :)
2682 2011-03-10 21:14:55 <Intermediary> I'm really eager to start accepting bitcoins on my site
2683 2011-03-10 21:14:58 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: I wish I knew anywhere near enough
2684 2011-03-10 21:15:24 <Intermediary> but I, well, the developer installing it for me, got stuck
2685 2011-03-10 21:15:26 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: I really want to help bitcoin, hope thats obvious, but Ive never really done any serious C++ so...
2686 2011-03-10 21:15:33 <farzong> seriously.. does anyone think a currency controlled by a cartel is a *good* thing to invest in or trade with
2687 2011-03-10 21:15:33 <jgarzik> Intermediary: mybitcoin.com has a great shopping cart interface (SCI). just requires knowledge of HTML forms.
2688 2011-03-10 21:15:43 <farzong> its a major barrier to adoption
2689 2011-03-10 21:15:49 <Intermediary> I wanted to go for the sci
2690 2011-03-10 21:15:56 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: hey I hate C++ but look at me
2691 2011-03-10 21:16:05 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: fair enough
2692 2011-03-10 21:16:14 <jgarzik> it's not C++ anyway, it's satoshicode
2693 2011-03-10 21:16:18 <jgarzik> a whole different beast :)
2694 2011-03-10 21:16:19 <Intermediary> but my developer recommended using Mike's Joomla shopping cart (we couldn't get the wordpress one to work)
2695 2011-03-10 21:16:21 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: lol, that is very true
2696 2011-03-10 21:16:29 <farzong> that said I think ArtForz is a genius clearly
2697 2011-03-10 21:16:44 <Intermediary> he says that if he has the server address and server.cert settings then we'll be good to go
2698 2011-03-10 21:17:04 <farzong> and bitcoin is amazing.. but cartels / lack of pow incentive are issues that need tweaks which i have suggested. you dont have to agree w/me, but tweaks are necessary for widespread adoption
2699 2011-03-10 21:17:09 <jgarzik> Intermediary: it's mainly a choice of (a) running a bitcoin node yourself, with all that entails or (b) delegating that chore to professionals :)
2700 2011-03-10 21:17:35 <farzong> because you are majorly overestimating the hardness of the chain.. the nsa could wipe it out in a few hours
2701 2011-03-10 21:17:37 <BlueMatt> Intermediary: Ive been looking for an excuse to set up a bitcoin rpc client...will help for a low price ;)
2702 2011-03-10 21:17:48 <BlueMatt> Intermediary: ie write you a custom bitcoin client
2703 2011-03-10 21:17:56 <Intermediary> pardon my ignorance! LOL!
2704 2011-03-10 21:18:13 <Intermediary> what is a bitcoin rpc client (in five year old English)
2705 2011-03-10 21:18:19 grondilu has left ()
2706 2011-03-10 21:18:37 <BlueMatt> Intermediary: rpc is a protocol to connect to a bitcoin daemon (ie your wallet manager) and control it
2707 2011-03-10 21:18:47 <BlueMatt> Intermediary: it allows you to send money, recieve money, add addresses/etc
2708 2011-03-10 21:19:12 <Intermediary> I thought that was what the Joomla virtumart shopping cart was going to do
2709 2011-03-10 21:19:27 <BlueMatt> Intermediary: in the end you have to connect to a bitcoin daemon somewhere
2710 2011-03-10 21:19:28 <Intermediary> A bit like using paypal and not having to know the guts of how it works
2711 2011-03-10 21:19:39 Jeroenz0r has quit ()
2712 2011-03-10 21:19:39 <Intermediary> ok
2713 2011-03-10 21:19:46 <jgarzik> Intermediary: well, a vendor can choose to direct access the bitcoin payment network -- using the bitcoin daemon on your server -- or delegate that task to a third party like mtgox.com or mybitcoin.com. If you choose to run the bitcoin daemon yourself, you need to be aware of the many, varied ways that your payment system might shut down, or delay payments.
2714 2011-03-10 21:19:53 <jgarzik> mybitcoin == paypal
2715 2011-03-10 21:20:01 <jgarzik> bitcoin daemon == running paypal yourself :)
2716 2011-03-10 21:20:16 <BlueMatt> but running paypal yourself in this case is actually really easy
2717 2011-03-10 21:20:27 <BlueMatt> your choice really depends on what you are selling, can I ask?
2718 2011-03-10 21:20:42 <Intermediary> So, would I be better off using mybitcoin shopping cart and not using the Joomla virtuemart?
2719 2011-03-10 21:20:45 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: running, yes. maintaining? hopefully you are offering him an ongoing support contract :)
2720 2011-03-10 21:20:48 <Intermediary> I'll be selling digital downloads
2721 2011-03-10 21:21:06 <Intermediary> audio and video
2722 2011-03-10 21:21:16 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: I am highly skeptical that, for bitcoin to be successful, we want each vendor to learn intricate technical details involved in staying alive on a P2P network
2723 2011-03-10 21:21:24 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: good point
2724 2011-03-10 21:21:35 <BlueMatt> Intermediary: well the difference is mybitoin/mtgox virtual services is a question of do you want to outsource it, and the only client-side difference is time before confirmation
2725 2011-03-10 21:21:50 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: though I really have been itching to do some rpc programming, please let me, please
2726 2011-03-10 21:21:56 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: hehehehe
2727 2011-03-10 21:21:59 <Intermediary> LOL!
2728 2011-03-10 21:22:10 Lachesis has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2729 2011-03-10 21:22:15 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: why don't you write and start a mybitcoin.com clone? We need diversity in that area... :)
2730 2011-03-10 21:22:33 * jgarzik wrote a pool server, to kickstart competition in the pool server arena
2731 2011-03-10 21:22:41 <Intermediary> I think for bitcoin to be adopted the way paypal and others have, it needs to be idiot proof for people like me. :(
2732 2011-03-10 21:22:52 <luke-jr> any idea if it's safe to restart my bitcoind while there's 2 pending tx that the network denies exist?
2733 2011-03-10 21:22:59 <jgarzik> Intermediary: agreed (on "idiot-proof", not that you are one :))
2734 2011-03-10 21:23:04 <sipa> luke-jr: they'll get lost
2735 2011-03-10 21:23:05 <luke-jr> Intermediary: mybitcoin.com
2736 2011-03-10 21:23:08 <jgarzik> Intermediary: that's why I recommend mybitcoin SCI
2737 2011-03-10 21:23:08 <luke-jr> sipa: really? :/
2738 2011-03-10 21:23:10 <Intermediary> I have my strengths!
2739 2011-03-10 21:23:17 <nanotube> Intermediary: well, from a brief look, joomla virtumart plugin assumes a locally running bitcoind.
2740 2011-03-10 21:23:24 <sipa> luke-jr: actually, wait, not sure
2741 2011-03-10 21:23:31 <luke-jr> nanotube: how?
2742 2011-03-10 21:23:37 <sipa> ArtForz will know
2743 2011-03-10 21:23:38 <ArtForz> if they're yours, it'll work fine
2744 2011-03-10 21:23:40 <Intermediary> LOL
2745 2011-03-10 21:23:40 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: they will just as likely get lost as if you let it run
2746 2011-03-10 21:23:47 <Intermediary> So with mybitcoin sci it is all in and done for me?
2747 2011-03-10 21:23:56 <luke-jr> ArtForz: my bitcoind will remember them?
2748 2011-03-10 21:23:56 <nanotube> luke-jr: looked at the webpage for it. it says stuff about using bitcoind jsonrpc :)
2749 2011-03-10 21:24:00 <ArtForz> yes
2750 2011-03-10 21:24:01 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: pending txes are stored in memory by miners and other clients -> never on disk
2751 2011-03-10 21:24:04 <FellowTraveler> Anyone who has seen the silk road market knows that people convert dollars to bitcoin, buy drugs, and then convert the bitcoin back to dollars again. Therefore I can see that Bitcoin's biggest value (can't be confiscated) is where it will be used first, and as long as it is convertible to other currencies before/after that, it doesn't have to "store value" at all.
2752 2011-03-10 21:24:05 <luke-jr> nanotube: what theâ¦
2753 2011-03-10 21:24:11 <luke-jr> nanotube: they haven't heard of URIs?
2754 2011-03-10 21:24:11 <ArtForz> they're stored in wallet and reloaded on load
2755 2011-03-10 21:24:14 <BlueMatt> ArtForz: will a client re-submit a pending tx?
2756 2011-03-10 21:24:15 <Intermediary> BlueMatt: not ignoring you! I've just already paid or committed to pay for what has been done with joomla so far
2757 2011-03-10 21:24:19 <ArtForz> yes
2758 2011-03-10 21:24:26 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: but these are my own, so they're saved?
2759 2011-03-10 21:24:28 <BlueMatt> ArtForz: oh, didnt know that
2760 2011-03-10 21:24:34 <FellowTraveler> The future of bitcoin IMO will be intimately involved with conversions in and out of other currencies
2761 2011-03-10 21:24:35 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: apparently, yes
2762 2011-03-10 21:24:41 <ArtForz> if you have sent a pending tx, and see a new block not including that tx, client will resend it after 5-30 min
2763 2011-03-10 21:24:43 <FellowTraveler> the best bitcoin client will support such converions
2764 2011-03-10 21:24:45 <nanotube> luke-jr: what are you going on about? joomla virtumart is basically a shopping-cart plugin for joomla. and the bitcoin-virtumart is a plugin for that plugin to support bitcoin.
2765 2011-03-10 21:24:55 <ArtForz> and yes, it'll keep trying forever
2766 2011-03-10 21:24:58 <BlueMatt> Intermediary: its all good
2767 2011-03-10 21:24:58 <luke-jr> ArtForz: these are tx that will only ever be included in my own block
2768 2011-03-10 21:25:02 <nanotube> luke-jr: clearly, the plugin either has to use an ewallet like mybitcoin, or use a standalone bitcoind client.
2769 2011-03-10 21:25:09 <ArtForz> so, it's fine anyways
2770 2011-03-10 21:25:13 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: I would write mybitcoin competitor, but thats a lot of work...
2771 2011-03-10 21:25:20 <luke-jr> nanotube: oh, you mean it uses JSON-RPC *on the server end*?
2772 2011-03-10 21:25:27 <nanotube> luke-jr: right
2773 2011-03-10 21:25:30 <luke-jr> ok, nm
2774 2011-03-10 21:25:35 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: Im not interested in if the project gets done, just that I learn something and do something
2775 2011-03-10 21:25:50 <luke-jr> nanotube: so mybitcoin just needs to allow JSON-RPC access
2776 2011-03-10 21:25:57 <Intermediary> So, to run Joomla, I need this local side thing going on which will happen with the rpc?
2777 2011-03-10 21:26:09 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: nanotube been complaining about that for a while
2778 2011-03-10 21:26:12 <nanotube> luke-jr: or the virtumart plugin needs to add mybitcoin sci support. either way. :)
2779 2011-03-10 21:26:18 <BitterTea> luke-jr: I've got a basic implementation of bitcoin: URI handling in WalletBuddy now
2780 2011-03-10 21:26:25 <luke-jr> nanotube: SCI?
2781 2011-03-10 21:26:35 <nanotube> BlueMatt: wat? i don't even have a mybitcoin account....
2782 2011-03-10 21:26:36 <luke-jr> BitterTea: is that the C# one I saw?
2783 2011-03-10 21:26:41 <nanotube> luke-jr: shopping cart interface = sci
2784 2011-03-10 21:26:58 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: nanotube just for phone clients for unexperienced users
2785 2011-03-10 21:27:05 <BitterTea> luke-jr: Yeah. I use it as a wrapper around Bitcoin (allows for multiple, encrypted wallets), so when it handles a payment, I have it "queue" it
2786 2011-03-10 21:27:07 <nanotube> Intermediary: yes basically, if you want to use that joomla plugin, you need to run a bitcoin node.
2787 2011-03-10 21:27:16 <luke-jr> jgarzik: your patch doesn't work for <0.01
2788 2011-03-10 21:27:20 <BitterTea> Then, when a user opens a wallet, they are able to release the queued payments to Bitcoin (not implemented yet)
2789 2011-03-10 21:27:22 <BlueMatt> think it would be great for simplicity for noobs to have mybitcoin via json-rpc on a phone, instead of a client
2790 2011-03-10 21:27:36 <luke-jr> nanotube: or we need to finish a stable JSON-RPC replacement and everyone use that XD
2791 2011-03-10 21:27:45 <nanotube> or that. heh.
2792 2011-03-10 21:27:59 <jgarzik> luke-jr: yes, there is a comment in the code stating that
2793 2011-03-10 21:28:03 bitcoiner has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.6.15/20110303024726])
2794 2011-03-10 21:28:13 <luke-jr> jgarzik: why?
2795 2011-03-10 21:28:21 <luke-jr> hold, I'll read comments frist
2796 2011-03-10 21:28:32 <jgarzik> luke-jr: it's an issue that's open for debate. your input is welcome :)
2797 2011-03-10 21:28:50 <luke-jr> jgarzik: I can set <0.01 at command lineâ¦
2798 2011-03-10 21:28:53 <BlueMatt> Im game for another debate tonight, link to the problem?
2799 2011-03-10 21:29:46 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: no problem. talking about http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4361.0
2800 2011-03-10 21:29:53 <Intermediary> mybitcoin sci does include a shopping cart, doesn't it?
2801 2011-03-10 21:30:09 <jgarzik> Intermediary: mybitcoin sci is very much like paypal's api
2802 2011-03-10 21:30:16 <luke-jr> jgarzik: impossible to set 0 fee?
2803 2011-03-10 21:30:26 <jgarzik> luke-jr: hrm, good point
2804 2011-03-10 21:30:45 <luke-jr> jgarzik: personally, I want 0.00000001 fee
2805 2011-03-10 21:31:02 <jgarzik> luke-jr: I know you do :) But does the network (community)? :)
2806 2011-03-10 21:31:06 <luke-jr> jgarzik: and while you're adding a new API, perhaps make it use int64 like everything should have from the start? :P
2807 2011-03-10 21:31:19 <luke-jr> jgarzik: if they don't, they can just not use <0.01 :p
2808 2011-03-10 21:31:22 <jgarzik> luke-jr: it will be consistent with other APIs
2809 2011-03-10 21:32:04 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: so, why does it not go below a cent?
2810 2011-03-10 21:32:28 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: I should have permitted zero. The other bits are the bits open for debate
2811 2011-03-10 21:32:42 <luke-jr> jgarzik: I don't see what debate. If people don't want to use it, they don't have to.
2812 2011-03-10 21:32:53 <luke-jr> it's also inconsistent with -paytxfee=0.00000001 working fine
2813 2011-03-10 21:32:53 <JFK911> ;;bc,stats
2814 2011-03-10 21:32:55 <gribble> Current Blocks: 113047 | Current Difficulty: 76193.9710474 | Next Difficulty At Block: 114911 | Next Difficulty In: 1864 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 2 weeks, 1 day, 7 hours, 37 minutes, and 20 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 64808.16284649
2815 2011-03-10 21:33:11 <jgarzik> -paytxfee includes a warning beyond a certain range
2816 2011-03-10 21:33:21 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: I think, no 0<x<1 but other than that, pay what you want
2817 2011-03-10 21:33:23 <luke-jr> I saw no warning when I just did it.
2818 2011-03-10 21:34:00 <jgarzik> luke-jr: Use the source, Luke.
2819 2011-03-10 21:34:04 <luke-jr> IMO, there might also best be a second parameter: boolean whether to calculate and add standard fees
2820 2011-03-10 21:34:08 <jgarzik> that never gets old
2821 2011-03-10 21:34:09 <luke-jr> bbl
2822 2011-03-10 21:34:11 <luke-jr> :P
2823 2011-03-10 21:35:53 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: ok well, current -paytxfee only complains if nTransactionFee > 0.25 * COIN ie .25 BTC
2824 2011-03-10 21:36:01 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: so, follow that?
2825 2011-03-10 21:36:46 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: rpc and log complaints don't really mix well. I just changed it to remove lower bound, and reject above 5 BTC
2826 2011-03-10 21:36:54 <Syke> I'm trying to consolidate my wallets. Now i'm seeing "Error: This is an oversized transaction that requires a transaction fee of 0.36"
2827 2011-03-10 21:37:24 <BlueMatt> uh jgarzik shouldnt the wxMessageBox(... -paytxfee complains be in a #ifdef GUI?
2828 2011-03-10 21:38:04 <ArtForz> well, pay the fee or split it into smaller transactions
2829 2011-03-10 21:39:03 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: ifdef magic makes that work I presume, since I haven't linked against wxWindows libs for months
2830 2011-03-10 21:39:04 <Intermediary> is setting up a bitcoin rpc client a one off thing or does it require maintenance and stuff like that
2831 2011-03-10 21:39:21 <jgarzik> Intermediary: definitely requires maintenance
2832 2011-03-10 21:39:31 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: but its not currently in #ifdef? I really dont know C++ well enough
2833 2011-03-10 21:39:37 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: in any case, I guess this is a good opportunity to make all the complains the same ;)
2834 2011-03-10 21:39:57 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: I mean a "#define wxMessageBox() /* nothing */" somewhere in a header, elsewhere
2835 2011-03-10 21:40:02 <Intermediary> jgarzik: but using mybitcoin sci I would not need to get involved in that kind of maintenance?
2836 2011-03-10 21:40:18 <Intermediary> I may have to scrap the joomla cart as sunk costs
2837 2011-03-10 21:40:22 Sirius_ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2838 2011-03-10 21:40:22 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: ah, hadnt seen that, I think I need to sit down and read through the entire code start to finish...
2839 2011-03-10 21:40:23 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: because an ideal codebase has as few #ifdefs in main code as possible. wrapper usage to hide such ugly practices is common.
2840 2011-03-10 21:40:36 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: ok thanks
2841 2011-03-10 21:40:44 <jgarzik> Intermediary: correct
2842 2011-03-10 21:42:59 ducki2p has joined
2843 2011-03-10 21:43:31 dirtyfilthy has joined
2844 2011-03-10 21:44:04 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: I guess my grep-fu sucks today, but I dont really see any reasonablility checks on nTransactionFee beside the one on -paytxfee initially?
2845 2011-03-10 21:44:24 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: that's all I see
2846 2011-03-10 21:44:37 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: so where are the log complaints?
2847 2011-03-10 21:44:50 hozer has left ()
2848 2011-03-10 21:44:52 <Intermediary> Thanks jgarzik
2849 2011-03-10 21:46:12 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: wxMessageBox == MyMessageBox == printf == OutputDebugPrintF(?) == a log
2850 2011-03-10 21:46:19 <jgarzik> entry
2851 2011-03-10 21:46:35 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: ah, ok well still that means the only check is then that tx fee !> 0.25?
2852 2011-03-10 21:46:43 wsc9tt1 has joined
2853 2011-03-10 21:46:52 wsc9tt1 has left ()
2854 2011-03-10 21:47:24 <Intermediary> so where can I find someone to integrate mybitcoin sci (assuming it will handle securely the sale of instant digital downloads. :(
2855 2011-03-10 21:47:29 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: yep. the rest is just my opinion. current code reads,
2856 2011-03-10 21:47:29 <jgarzik> + if (nAmount > (5 * COIN))
2857 2011-03-10 21:47:30 <jgarzik> + return false;
2858 2011-03-10 21:47:43 <jgarzik> Intermediary: it can handle that, yes
2859 2011-03-10 21:47:55 <Intermediary> That's a relief
2860 2011-03-10 21:48:11 <Intermediary> if it does what Paypal does, then I'm happy
2861 2011-03-10 21:48:16 <jgarzik> Intermediary: that sort of thing is a perfect fit for bitcoin, too
2862 2011-03-10 21:48:17 malfy has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2863 2011-03-10 21:48:21 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: ah sorry hadnt seen that. Although we do need to decide on how the client handels 0.00000001 things in general
2864 2011-03-10 21:48:25 <jgarzik> Intermediary: zero fees right now, too
2865 2011-03-10 21:48:43 <Intermediary> A big plus
2866 2011-03-10 21:48:47 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: I, personally, think that 0.001 is enough precision to accept reasonably in most user-accessible things
2867 2011-03-10 21:48:57 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: <shrug> luke-jr makes a fair point that paytxfee doesn't care
2868 2011-03-10 21:49:17 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: true, but my question is that should that be?
2869 2011-03-10 21:50:01 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: the network cares about < 0.01 still, alas
2870 2011-03-10 21:50:10 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: for tx fees?
2871 2011-03-10 21:51:18 <jgarzik> BlueMatt:
2872 2011-03-10 21:51:20 <jgarzik> int64 nMinFee = (1 + (int64)nBytes / 1000) * CENT;
2873 2011-03-10 21:51:36 <jgarzik> yes, for TX fees
2874 2011-03-10 21:51:46 <jgarzik> though I think most agree that should be lowered
2875 2011-03-10 21:52:02 <BlueMatt> whats the average tx size?
2876 2011-03-10 21:52:24 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: nevermind...bbe
2877 2011-03-10 21:53:01 <Intermediary> I don't know why my developer pushed for the joomla virtumart. Maybe he didn't want to man up to not understanding bitcoin
2878 2011-03-10 21:53:05 noagendamarket has joined
2879 2011-03-10 21:53:26 <BlueMatt> Intermediary: or he just already knew how to use it
2880 2011-03-10 21:53:54 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: wait so nMinFee is always 1 CENT?
2881 2011-03-10 21:54:39 <gavinandresen> Yes, nMinFee is 0.01 BTC per kilobyte.
2882 2011-03-10 21:54:56 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: with 0.01 BTC for 0.XXX kb?
2883 2011-03-10 21:54:58 <gavinandresen> (and at least 0.01 BTC)
2884 2011-03-10 21:55:30 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: and client limits acceptance to blocks to x txes fee < minfee per block right?
2885 2011-03-10 21:55:57 <gavinandresen> x "free" transactions, where "free" is fee < 0.01 BTC, yes.
2886 2011-03-10 21:56:24 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: free txes or txes who's fee < minfee?
2887 2011-03-10 21:56:57 <gavinandresen> free txes, I believe, but I'd have to stare at the code again to make myself 100% sure
2888 2011-03-10 21:57:12 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: jgarzik so what is nMinFee used for
2889 2011-03-10 21:57:19 <gavinandresen> (there were different rules for what got included in blocks versus what would be relayed, and what the UI said)
2890 2011-03-10 21:57:31 <jgarzik> Intermediary: yeah, if your developer will maintain bitcoin, there's nothing wrong with his suggestion
2891 2011-03-10 21:57:32 <BlueMatt> oh that seems like a bad idea...
2892 2011-03-10 21:57:42 <BlueMatt> sorry about the questions...
2893 2011-03-10 21:59:04 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: it sounds like I should update -paytxfee and this new 'settxfee' RPC to reject < current-minimum-policy-fee
2894 2011-03-10 21:59:21 <jgarzik> paytxfee shouldn't accept stuff that the other code won't accept
2895 2011-03-10 21:59:26 <Intermediary> I don't want him to maintain bitcoin for me. He;s just a freelancer I hired so I could accept bitcoin on my site
2896 2011-03-10 21:59:27 <jgarzik> inconsistent
2897 2011-03-10 21:59:29 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: I agree, or redo the whole txfee stuff to be consistent
2898 2011-03-10 22:00:25 <gavinandresen> Consistent with what? That's what jgarzik is proposing... make it consistent with the rules for the whole rest of the network
2899 2011-03-10 22:00:50 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: Im saying consistent across blocks tx forward gui -paytxfee rpc etc
2900 2011-03-10 22:01:17 <gavinandresen> Ah, jgarzik pulled that patch earlier today (smalltxfix made it consistent)
2901 2011-03-10 22:01:27 <gavinandresen> ... except for the -paytxfee part...
2902 2011-03-10 22:01:29 <BlueMatt> ah
2903 2011-03-10 22:02:01 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: I pulled the wrong thing?
2904 2011-03-10 22:02:25 <midnightmagic> ;;bc,stats
2905 2011-03-10 22:02:27 <gribble> Current Blocks: 113048 | Current Difficulty: 76193.9710474 | Next Difficulty At Block: 114911 | Next Difficulty In: 1863 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 2 weeks, 1 day, 11 hours, 33 minutes, and 54 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 64102.05459620
2906 2011-03-10 22:02:31 * jgarzik could have sworn he pulled the branch stated on the pull request. I even double-checked with "Merge Help" ;-)
2907 2011-03-10 22:02:45 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: no, I'm pretty sure you pulled the right thing.
2908 2011-03-10 22:03:01 Necr0s has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2909 2011-03-10 22:03:46 <gavinandresen> And re: -paytxfee: if you set too small a paytxfee and generate a transaction that requires a fee... it'll get assigned a higer txfee.
2910 2011-03-10 22:03:59 <gavinandresen> see main.cpp around line 3977
2911 2011-03-10 22:04:07 <BlueMatt> oh that doesnt sound good IMHO
2912 2011-03-10 22:04:10 <gavinandresen> (nTransactionFee is the -paytxfee value)
2913 2011-03-10 22:04:31 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: what, you want to send out transactions that will never make it into blocks?
2914 2011-03-10 22:04:47 Guest28731 has joined
2915 2011-03-10 22:05:18 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: no, reject the tx
2916 2011-03-10 22:05:58 <BlueMatt> we shouldnt add to txfee if the user didnt request it should we?
2917 2011-03-10 22:07:03 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: if the user is using the GUI they're always asked about tx fees. If you've got a service sending bitcoins... then I'd hope your business model didn't rely on asking the user whether or not they want to pay 0.01 BTC
2918 2011-03-10 22:07:40 <gavinandresen> I do agree that GUIs using the RPC need a better way of dealing with fees.
2919 2011-03-10 22:07:51 <gavinandresen> I just don't know what the right answer is.
2920 2011-03-10 22:09:10 <ArtForz> 42
2921 2011-03-10 22:09:31 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|GUIs cant use RPC sanely
2922 2011-03-10 22:09:54 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|so just add it to list of things for new wallet proto
2923 2011-03-10 22:10:02 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: Id assume reject the tx with an error which means increase tx fee
2924 2011-03-10 22:10:16 <ArtForz> yea
2925 2011-03-10 22:10:20 Necr0s has joined
2926 2011-03-10 22:10:35 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: then a second rpc command like sendcoinsautofee which automatically sets the fee for those who dont care but dont want to overpay
2927 2011-03-10 22:11:01 <dirtyfilthy> http://droidmill.com/bitcoin-wallet-for-testnet-204185.html
2928 2011-03-10 22:11:08 <dirtyfilthy> anyone on here write this?
2929 2011-03-10 22:11:14 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: I think you are moving in the right direction
2930 2011-03-10 22:11:27 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: TX fees have a usability problem. It asks the bitcoin user to predict the proper fee.
2931 2011-03-10 22:12:05 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|imo a way for miners to advertise fee sch
2932 2011-03-10 22:12:13 <gavinandresen> Yup, predicting the state of the wallet from one RPC call to the next is prone to error.
2933 2011-03-10 22:12:18 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: so rewrite the gui and rpc,ouch that sounds hard
2934 2011-03-10 22:12:22 Guest28731 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2935 2011-03-10 22:12:36 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|BlueMatt, just rpc
2936 2011-03-10 22:12:52 <ArtForz> well, but that error is pretty safe-failing
2937 2011-03-10 22:12:57 <BlueMatt> so new rpc commands: sendwithautofee and getfeeforsend
2938 2011-03-10 22:13:01 <gavinandresen> Probably we want something along the lines of "reject this send if it would result in more than X BTC in fees."
2939 2011-03-10 22:13:21 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: reject, if it "probably" would not be confirmed in less than N hours
2940 2011-03-10 22:13:27 <BlueMatt> so tx fee in mem becomes a "max" fee?
2941 2011-03-10 22:13:27 <ArtForz> yea
2942 2011-03-10 22:13:27 <gavinandresen> ... so you always get the "right" amount of fees.
2943 2011-03-10 22:13:30 malfy_ has joined
2944 2011-03-10 22:13:41 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: agree
2945 2011-03-10 22:13:42 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: good point, it IS a tradeoff
2946 2011-03-10 22:13:53 <ArtForz> yep
2947 2011-03-10 22:14:00 <BlueMatt> very true
2948 2011-03-10 22:14:04 <Intermediary> I guess I'll need to abandon bitcoin as a payment option. I'm way out of my depth
2949 2011-03-10 22:14:11 <ArtForz> worst case wallet changes so you now need *more* fee and you get the error twice in a row
2950 2011-03-10 22:14:26 <BlueMatt> Intermediary: maybe hang out on #bitcoin-discussion or #bitcoin-otc instead of developer channel?
2951 2011-03-10 22:14:34 <jgarzik> I think TX fees are a great feedback system; a healthy attribute of bitcoin.
2952 2011-03-10 22:14:38 <jgarzik> but usability issues exist...
2953 2011-03-10 22:15:16 <jgarzik> Intermediary: I would ask on the forums, rather than IRC
2954 2011-03-10 22:15:19 <ArtForz> hmmm
2955 2011-03-10 22:15:22 <BlueMatt> so proposal: new rpc commands like setmaxtxfee and paywithautotxfee?
2956 2011-03-10 22:15:29 <ArtForz> but we still need a way to specify minimum fee, too...
2957 2011-03-10 22:15:50 <jgarzik> ArtForz: specify == in a network rule, or an easily changeable runtime setting?
2958 2011-03-10 22:15:56 <jgarzik> ArtForz: ATM it's a network rule
2959 2011-03-10 22:15:56 ivan has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2960 2011-03-10 22:16:04 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: I disagree entirely, most people will see variable tx fee and be like WTF? especially businesses who want to predict costs
2961 2011-03-10 22:16:15 <Intermediary> I see! I followed the link to this, didn't realise it was a developer channel! Thanks for pointing that out. It was scaring me to death!
2962 2011-03-10 22:16:20 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: costs are fundamentally variable :)
2963 2011-03-10 22:16:24 <ArtForz> more like for rpc, kinda like the current commandline switch
2964 2011-03-10 22:16:36 <Intermediary> Thanks for your help any way guys!
2965 2011-03-10 22:16:45 <ArtForz> in case you want to send a tx that doesnt *require* a fee but you want it to get into the chain ASAP
2966 2011-03-10 22:16:50 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: yes, but pp or dowalla fees are pretty stable in comparison to chose what you pay and get in when you get in a block?
2967 2011-03-10 22:17:03 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: I think smart businesses will use somebody like mybitcoin, which provides that predictability as a service
2968 2011-03-10 22:17:06 <Syke> credit card payments are variable fees
2969 2011-03-10 22:17:12 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|why the obsession over rpc which is fundamentally flawed???
2970 2011-03-10 22:17:23 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: bitcoin == USD. a currency. paypal == layer on top of currency.
2971 2011-03-10 22:17:30 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: paypal-BTC will eventually exist :)
2972 2011-03-10 22:17:40 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: good point
2973 2011-03-10 22:17:43 Necr0s has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2974 2011-03-10 22:17:45 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: stop with this rpc==flawed we need to re do it stuff, you are starting to sound like Diablo-D3 here
2975 2011-03-10 22:17:49 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|whatever
2976 2011-03-10 22:17:59 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: I agree its not idea but my god man
2977 2011-03-10 22:18:10 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|BlueMatt, it DOES need replacing
2978 2011-03-10 22:18:11 <Syke> BlueMatt, pp fees are enormous!
2979 2011-03-10 22:18:14 Intermediary has quit (Quit: Page closed)
2980 2011-03-10 22:18:29 <jgarzik> luke-jr just wants to live in a perfect world, and is dissatisfied that we are not there already :)
2981 2011-03-10 22:18:33 <BlueMatt> ok jgarzik made a good point there, businesses should be using mybitcoin or mtgox anyway
2982 2011-03-10 22:18:47 <BlueMatt> oops ideal*
2983 2011-03-10 22:19:09 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|jgarzik, nah just dissatisfied Im the only one even working toward a solution
2984 2011-03-10 22:19:29 <gavinandresen> ... that's because you're the only one who thinks there is a problem worth solving
2985 2011-03-10 22:19:33 <ArtForz> yes, no one else is working on improving it, obviously...
2986 2011-03-10 22:19:41 <sipa> i have two git branches forked from a common root, and now i'd like to incorporate the changes i did in one also in the other... any ideas?
2987 2011-03-10 22:19:55 <soultcer> git merge?
2988 2011-03-10 22:20:02 <sipa> i'm a git newbie :)
2989 2011-03-10 22:20:03 <jgarzik> sipa: my highly-biased opinion, that Linus would disagree with: cherry pick
2990 2011-03-10 22:20:22 <javagamer> What's the easiest way to validate a bitcoin address?
2991 2011-03-10 22:20:35 <BlueMatt> javagamer: rpc's validateaddress?
2992 2011-03-10 22:20:42 <gavinandresen> Hey, speaking of problems, anybody else noticing problems running getbalance on testnet? I think there's an N^2 hiding in the CWalletTx::IsConfirmed() method...
2993 2011-03-10 22:21:11 <javagamer> BlueMatt: Ah, just got the idea to check that after I typed it out
2994 2011-03-10 22:21:24 <sipa> jgarzik: will that cause the second branch to somehow become a derivative of the first one?
2995 2011-03-10 22:21:47 <sipa> (not sure about the terminology, or even the relevance of that question)
2996 2011-03-10 22:21:47 <BlueMatt> sipa: it will make one branch with all the changes AFAIK
2997 2011-03-10 22:21:54 <jgarzik> sipa: "git pull . other-branch"
2998 2011-03-10 22:22:00 <Kiba> Satoshi had been gone for a few month now
2999 2011-03-10 22:22:07 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|gavinandresen, try writing a JSONRPC client sometime and see
3000 2011-03-10 22:22:08 <jgarzik> sipa: that pulls changes from branch X into current branch
3001 2011-03-10 22:22:14 ivan has joined
3002 2011-03-10 22:22:40 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|gavinandresen, its basically impossible
3003 2011-03-10 22:22:53 <ArtForz> so whats "normal" use for tx fee... "pay the least amount possible, up to x" (where x can be 0) and "pay at least y" (or y*standard per-kB fee?)
3004 2011-03-10 22:23:12 <Syke> tcatm, can you add a "As of block xxxxx" to http://bitcoincharts.com/bitcoin/ ?
3005 2011-03-10 22:24:26 <BlueMatt> ArtForz: I think tx fee should be pay minimum of X (specified in the clients for network and miners, ie standardized) and pay a bit more to make sure you get into the next block
3006 2011-03-10 22:25:05 <ArtForz> BlueMatt: problem is, that doesnt put a limit
3007 2011-03-10 22:25:12 <BlueMatt> ArtForz: though I think now most people just pay 0
3008 2011-03-10 22:25:23 <BlueMatt> ArtForz: I dont think there is any reasonable way to put a limit
3009 2011-03-10 22:25:39 <ArtForz> I think worst case you could end up with a 25% fee or so
3010 2011-03-10 22:25:55 <BlueMatt> I agree fees could get outrageous
3011 2011-03-10 22:25:58 Necr0s has joined
3012 2011-03-10 22:26:10 <BlueMatt> ArtForz: though current code complains when you set fee to > 0.25, so maybe keep that?
3013 2011-03-10 22:26:16 <ArtForz> each input is ~240 bytes, 1kB is 0.01, so if you you got lots of 0.01 inputs...
3014 2011-03-10 22:26:42 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|yeah i had like .5 BTC autofee once
3015 2011-03-10 22:27:03 <gavinandresen> Don't spam the network with tiny transactions is the moral to that tale.
3016 2011-03-10 22:27:04 phantomcircuit_ has joined
3017 2011-03-10 22:27:05 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|lots of .01 inputs
3018 2011-03-10 22:27:09 <ArtForz> humm... isnt current "payfee" stuff per-kB ?
3019 2011-03-10 22:27:16 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|gavinandresen, pool payments
3020 2011-03-10 22:27:18 <BlueMatt> ArtForz: yea
3021 2011-03-10 22:27:19 <jgarzik> ArtForz: for small transactions, TX fee is "minimum needed to get TX confirmed in next block or two, given recent block sizes." IMHO.
3022 2011-03-10 22:27:26 <jgarzik> ie. everyday Joe single transactions
3023 2011-03-10 22:27:29 <jgarzik> not pool TX's
3024 2011-03-10 22:27:47 <BlueMatt> so how do we limit tx fees?
3025 2011-03-10 22:27:54 <gavinandresen> The pools shouldn't be spamming the network with tiny transactions, either.
3026 2011-03-10 22:27:54 <BlueMatt> keep them from getting outrageous?
3027 2011-03-10 22:27:59 <ArtForz> well, actually lots of small-ass inputs is more "pool miner that set unreasonably low min payout"
3028 2011-03-10 22:28:08 <gavinandresen> exactly
3029 2011-03-10 22:28:21 <jgarzik> agreed
3030 2011-03-10 22:28:22 <ArtForz> can't really blame the pool operator for that
3031 2011-03-10 22:28:26 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|or saved a lot over years
3032 2011-03-10 22:28:34 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
3033 2011-03-10 22:28:34 wereHamster has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
3034 2011-03-10 22:28:46 <BlueMatt> what if I make a ton of coins in 0.01 and want to spend 100? Can I not do that? What if I have a legitimate reason why I got them that way?
3035 2011-03-10 22:29:01 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|BlueMatt, just a big fee
3036 2011-03-10 22:29:02 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: you gots to pay
3037 2011-03-10 22:29:05 <jgarzik> BlueMatt, gavinandresen: see ValidFee() in http://yyz.us/bitcoin/patch.bitcoin-settxfee or git://github.com/jgarzik/bitcoin.git rpc-fee
3038 2011-03-10 22:29:13 <ArtForz> BlueMatt: then you pay about 23% fees, sucks to be you
3039 2011-03-10 22:29:15 <BlueMatt> ArtForz: the pool operator should limit the payout
3040 2011-03-10 22:29:21 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|BlueMatt, or lots of smaller combine to self tx :D
3041 2011-03-10 22:29:23 <nanotube> well, think also about malicious tx spamming... pool spam is pretty 'benign' since pool ops will adjust once aware of the problem.
3042 2011-03-10 22:29:45 * jgarzik wants to get sendmany into upstream ASAP
3043 2011-03-10 22:29:46 <gavinandresen> Actually, you could probably trickle in payments-to-self that were under the 'free tx' size
3044 2011-03-10 22:30:01 <BlueMatt> So there will be no upper limit on tx fee?
3045 2011-03-10 22:30:05 <ArtForz> BlueMatt: iirc pool operators tried that, got accused of cheating by cpu-mining whiners that only make like 0.02/day
3046 2011-03-10 22:30:11 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: did you visit the link?
3047 2011-03-10 22:30:16 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|limits are lame
3048 2011-03-10 22:30:28 wereHamster has joined
3049 2011-03-10 22:30:36 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|ArtForz, the pool should just have max 1 payout per day
3050 2011-03-10 22:30:51 <jgarzik> luke-jr: that's up to the pool operator. this is a free market.
3051 2011-03-10 22:31:06 <ArtForz> luke-jr: and said cpu-mining slowpokes will still accumulate shitloads of 0.01 transactions ...
3052 2011-03-10 22:31:19 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|ArtForz, yep
3053 2011-03-10 22:31:36 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: so again if it is limited to 5 BTC and my min fee is 5.01 BTC, can I not send funds?
3054 2011-03-10 22:31:43 Necr0s has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
3055 2011-03-10 22:31:59 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: yeah, 5 BTC must be adjusted to whatever is the max possible
3056 2011-03-10 22:32:11 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|jgarzik, free market should also be free to set any fee they want
3057 2011-03-10 22:32:12 <ArtForz> sendmulti fixes the problem with pools spamming txes, so it moves the "pay fee or slooowly consolidate tx" to the miners actually causing the problem
3058 2011-03-10 22:32:13 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: there is no max currently possible
3059 2011-03-10 22:32:14 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: given max block size of 1MB
3060 2011-03-10 22:32:27 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: ah
3061 2011-03-10 22:32:28 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: yes, it is limited by block size
3062 2011-03-10 22:32:31 <ArtForz> which imo is perfectly reasonable
3063 2011-03-10 22:32:48 <jgarzik> ArtForz: agreed
3064 2011-03-10 22:32:50 <BlueMatt> but no one should be allowed to send a 1MB tx?
3065 2011-03-10 22:33:00 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: nope
3066 2011-03-10 22:33:11 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: what is the current hard limit for tx size?
3067 2011-03-10 22:33:17 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: I don't think the check for < CENT is strictly necessary; nothing bad would happen if you set it less than CENT, although people would be misled to think a 0.0001 fee might actually improve their chances of getting into a block.
3068 2011-03-10 22:33:33 <ArtForz> actually it kinda does
3069 2011-03-10 22:33:35 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|gavinandresen, it should
3070 2011-03-10 22:33:42 <Syke> as BTC value goes up, the CENT limit is too much imo
3071 2011-03-10 22:33:55 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|any fee should influence tx priority
3072 2011-03-10 22:33:57 <ArtForz> my miner factors tx fees into score for "should be free tx"
3073 2011-03-10 22:34:20 <ArtForz> so even a 0.0001 fee will significantly increase dPriority
3074 2011-03-10 22:34:24 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: I suppose I could remove the check, and then have paytxfee issue a warning
3075 2011-03-10 22:34:34 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: paytxfee already warnings for too-big fee
3076 2011-03-10 22:34:37 <jgarzik> warns
3077 2011-03-10 22:34:42 * jgarzik cannot type today
3078 2011-03-10 22:35:27 <gavinandresen> I dunno, if ArtForz is already prioritizing them, then there IS a reason to pay tiny fees. So maybe not even a warning.
3079 2011-03-10 22:35:48 <ArtForz> though the priority boost shouldnt be too big
3080 2011-03-10 22:36:24 <jgarzik> hopefully 0.000001 has lower priority than 0.01 :)
3081 2011-03-10 22:36:26 <ArtForz> so you can't skip the queue with 0-conf input spam by paying a 0.0001 fee
3082 2011-03-10 22:36:29 <ArtForz> it does
3083 2011-03-10 22:36:32 <ArtForz> sec
3084 2011-03-10 22:37:12 <BlueMatt> I think that is appropriate. Oh wait no, how might one spend that, that would be tx spam?
3085 2011-03-10 22:37:35 <gavinandresen> Hmm? you mean if your block reward is 50.00000001 BTC ?
3086 2011-03-10 22:37:36 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|ArtForz, for the miner, taking .000001 fee over nofee is always better ;)
3087 2011-03-10 22:37:55 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: oops, yea the input is total, sorry
3088 2011-03-10 22:38:54 <ArtForz> currently using dPriority = (sum(valuein * nConf) + fee * 10) / txsize
3089 2011-03-10 22:39:33 <ArtForz> so a 0.001 fee is "worth" about as much as a 1-block old 0.01 input
3090 2011-03-10 22:39:34 <TD_> tcatm: would it be possible for witcoin to accept 0 conf transactions in the case where the values are low ?
3091 2011-03-10 22:39:50 TD has quit (Disconnected by services)
3092 2011-03-10 22:39:50 TD_ is now known as TD
3093 2011-03-10 22:40:04 TDX_ has joined
3094 2011-03-10 22:40:06 <ArtForz> but it also means *any* fee makes a tx get ahead of 0-conf input tx spam
3095 2011-03-10 22:40:08 <TD> tcatm: i kind of want to play with it but waiting for a block is sort of enthusiasm killing
3096 2011-03-10 22:40:27 <gavinandresen> ArtForz: that sounds about right to me.
3097 2011-03-10 22:40:48 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|ArtForz, as it should imo
3098 2011-03-10 22:40:59 <TD> tcatm: or really, just all 0 conf txns. it's hard to imagine somebody trying to reverse a tx for this site.
3099 2011-03-10 22:42:55 ovrtrq has joined
3100 2011-03-10 22:43:06 semyazza has joined
3101 2011-03-10 22:43:09 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|i still wonder how effective a fee-only tx based on a received 0conf can prioritize that 0conf
3102 2011-03-10 22:43:26 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|seems a good way for recipient to add a fee
3103 2011-03-10 22:43:32 ovrtrq has left ()
3104 2011-03-10 22:44:28 semyazza has quit (Quit: Leaving)
3105 2011-03-10 22:45:10 <Avemo> ArtForz: if you publish a patch for your fee model, quite a few miners and pools might chose to join your feemodel. Maybe even MM. :-)
3106 2011-03-10 22:45:22 brunner has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
3107 2011-03-10 22:45:32 BurtyB has joined
3108 2011-03-10 22:46:36 doublec has joined
3109 2011-03-10 22:46:37 doublec has quit (Changing host)
3110 2011-03-10 22:46:37 doublec has joined
3111 2011-03-10 22:46:52 <nanotube> TD: tcatm isn't the one running witcoin. :) ask noagendamarket or mizerydearia ;)
3112 2011-03-10 22:46:56 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|maybe we need a mining policy patch repository
3113 2011-03-10 22:47:10 <TD> oh, right. it has his name at the bottom, that's why i thought it was him
3114 2011-03-10 22:47:13 <TD> i guess it was just his CSS-fu
3115 2011-03-10 22:47:16 <mizerydearia> ^_^
3116 2011-03-10 22:47:17 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|mine is also unique
3117 2011-03-10 22:47:43 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|0.00004096 BTC fee minimum
3118 2011-03-10 22:47:48 <TD> mizerydearia: so, 0 conf txns?
3119 2011-03-10 22:47:52 * mizerydearia reads up
3120 2011-03-10 22:47:53 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|per 512 bytes
3121 2011-03-10 22:48:01 <mizerydearia> well
3122 2011-03-10 22:48:09 <mizerydearia> I don't think so, because from previous discussions...
3123 2011-03-10 22:48:27 <mizerydearia> someone could alter a bitcoin client to send infinite 0.01 bitcoin transactions and never have any confirmations for any of them
3124 2011-03-10 22:48:33 semyazza has joined
3125 2011-03-10 22:48:43 <mizerydearia> so 10,000 transactions at 0.01 each with 0 confirmations could devastate the site
3126 2011-03-10 22:49:06 Myckel has quit (Quit: Ik ga weg)
3127 2011-03-10 22:49:22 Maccer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
3128 2011-03-10 22:49:59 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|mizerydearia, make a super-tx with all of them as inputs and pay a fee
3129 2011-03-10 22:50:17 <TD> i think mizerydearia is saying why witcoin requires a block
3130 2011-03-10 22:50:19 <mizerydearia> sgornick also has been strongly advocating to try to make it easier for users to use the site without waiting, and it is something on my mind, but I am not sure allowing 0 confirmations is a best implementation to allow for it...at least not as of yet... I'm still slowly analyzing the idea in my brainz
3131 2011-03-10 22:50:41 <TD> i'm not sure how your attack scenario works. your node still verifies 0/conf transactions
3132 2011-03-10 22:50:44 <TD> the coins have to exist, etc
3133 2011-03-10 22:50:57 <mizerydearia> I'm not sure either, however I am not the most educated either
3134 2011-03-10 22:51:11 <TD> the double spend attacks against these transactions assume somebody is mining, and then waits until they find a block to buy some witcoins
3135 2011-03-10 22:51:32 <TD> but in this case it doesn't matter
3136 2011-03-10 22:51:52 <TD> because when your node receives the new block that doesn't contain the tx in question, you can simply reduce the accounts balance in witcoins
3137 2011-03-10 22:51:57 <TD> you're not really selling something
3138 2011-03-10 22:52:26 <mizerydearia> Soon I will establish a kind of pot that is associated with a 1 minute cron interval that sends a small amount of witcoins to a single user, one with the lowest balance and the oldest lastactivity timestamp
3139 2011-03-10 22:52:36 <mizerydearia> However, that will not immediately benefit new account signups
3140 2011-03-10 22:54:17 <nanotube> TD: well, other people can still withdraw their balance. so if you're granted a balance via the unconfirmed 10k 0.01 tx that are stuck in the queue due to low priority
3141 2011-03-10 22:54:37 <nanotube> and then use that balance to post a bunch of things, which transfer balance to others, and then others try to withdraw
3142 2011-03-10 22:54:41 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|bbl
3143 2011-03-10 22:54:45 <nanotube> the witcoin wallet won't have enough balance to send.
3144 2011-03-10 22:54:47 phantomcircuit_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
3145 2011-03-10 22:54:53 <nanotube> so it will cause a 'temporary insufficient funds' :)
3146 2011-03-10 22:54:58 <nanotube> which is... undesirable.
3147 2011-03-10 22:55:21 <nanotube> and depending on the tx queue... could last for a while and cause significant disruption? maybe. just thinking out loud here.
3148 2011-03-10 22:56:08 <mizerydearia> nanotube, think louder? http://thestolenscream.com
3149 2011-03-10 22:57:19 <TD> hrmm
3150 2011-03-10 22:57:28 <TD> yeah. transactions which get stuck and never confirm would be an issue.
3151 2011-03-10 22:57:47 <jgarzik> I think transactions should have a finite lifetime
3152 2011-03-10 22:57:49 sjuxax has joined
3153 2011-03-10 22:57:55 <jgarzik> users are guaranteed "fill or kill"
3154 2011-03-10 22:58:37 * jgarzik isn't quite sure how to do that, though. Kill floating TX after X time? or after X blocks with timestamp > txtime?
3155 2011-03-10 22:58:38 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|jgarzik, let tx have an expiration?
3156 2011-03-10 22:58:40 <ArtForz> that actually should not be THAT hard to implement ...
3157 2011-03-10 22:58:50 <jgarzik> _all_ TXs should expire
3158 2011-03-10 22:58:55 <jgarzik> IMO
3159 2011-03-10 22:59:01 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|if scripts could access time or block height...
3160 2011-03-10 22:59:09 <ArtForz> have not-in-block transactions carry arround a "will expire after block X"
3161 2011-03-10 22:59:50 <BlueMatt> sounds good to me, but how could we make that backward compatible?
3162 2011-03-10 23:00:08 <ArtForz> not 100% sure yet
3163 2011-03-10 23:00:27 <ArtForz> it wouldnt change the in-block format
3164 2011-03-10 23:00:29 * jgarzik would prefer a network rule: expire TX's frm cache, if height is X+N (X == block height nearest TX birth time, N == expiration block offset)
3165 2011-03-10 23:00:33 <jgarzik> no change to TX or block
3166 2011-03-10 23:00:54 <ArtForz> hmmm... that should work
3167 2011-03-10 23:01:47 <edcba> so i flood the network with my transactions-to-me then buy some thing
3168 2011-03-10 23:02:08 <ArtForz> just expire TX from cache after X blocks passed without them getting into a block
3169 2011-03-10 23:02:15 <TD> doesn't really solve the witcoin issue though. it effectively launders coins. if the tx expires due to not including a fee when one is required, that has a knock-on effect.
3170 2011-03-10 23:02:20 <edcba> and so i have free thing if receiver don't wait for confirmation ?
3171 2011-03-10 23:02:24 <jgarzik> ArtForz: yep
3172 2011-03-10 23:02:31 <jgarzik> ArtForz: that's basically what I was thinking
3173 2011-03-10 23:02:45 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|mizerydearia, make a super-tx with all of them as inputs and pay a fee
3174 2011-03-10 23:02:50 <ArtForz> if the originating node is still trying to send it, it'll keep resending, and as nodes clear it fro mtheir caches they'll see it as "new" and restart the expiry timer
3175 2011-03-10 23:02:58 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|TD, ^
3176 2011-03-10 23:03:10 <ArtForz> and also broadcast it to their peers
3177 2011-03-10 23:03:13 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
3178 2011-03-10 23:03:14 <edcba> so will pools start to charge for accepting transactions ?
3179 2011-03-10 23:03:19 <ArtForz> that actually is pretty damn elegant
3180 2011-03-10 23:03:22 <jgarzik> ...and hopefully we will update the official bitcoin client to stop resending after X time
3181 2011-03-10 23:03:26 <ArtForz> yep
3182 2011-03-10 23:03:30 <jgarzik> thus giving users a known TX expire time
3183 2011-03-10 23:03:35 <jgarzik> deterministic behavior
3184 2011-03-10 23:03:39 <ArtForz> and "unspend" the transaction after X*2
3185 2011-03-10 23:03:43 <jgarzik> yep
3186 2011-03-10 23:04:17 <TD> X = ??
3187 2011-03-10 23:04:18 <TD> 10?
3188 2011-03-10 23:04:24 <jgarzik> day or three or ten
3189 2011-03-10 23:04:33 <edcba> ArtForz: originating node doesn't care about resending tx
3190 2011-03-10 23:04:37 <edcba> receiver does :)
3191 2011-03-10 23:04:44 <ArtForz> edcba: check the code
3192 2011-03-10 23:04:55 <edcba> i don't mean code
3193 2011-03-10 23:04:59 <nanotube> ArtForz: jgarzik yep that would work - and doesn't even require anything like "have the majority of clients upgrade for this to work"
3194 2011-03-10 23:05:01 <edcba> that's backward
3195 2011-03-10 23:05:09 <ArtForz> originator resends tx, not receiver
3196 2011-03-10 23:05:10 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|jgarzik, too short
3197 2011-03-10 23:05:17 <TD> why a day? let's say 1% of the miners are willing to incorporate zero-fee transactions, or transactions that are otherwise not confirming. so after 100 blocks you have a pretty good chance of such a miner having won a block.
3198 2011-03-10 23:05:19 <phantomcircuit> edcba, you have that backwards, the receiving node doesnt care if it's missing tx's, that's the senders problem
3199 2011-03-10 23:05:24 <TD> or let's say 200 blocks.
3200 2011-03-10 23:05:26 <edcba> it should be receiver to take care of not losing that tx
3201 2011-03-10 23:05:31 <ArtForz> I argued that like half a year ago, got nowhere
3202 2011-03-10 23:05:51 <TD> well newer nodes can keep the tx hashes around, along with the fact that they expired
3203 2011-03-10 23:06:08 <jgarzik> fundamental rule of networks: you can send... you might not receive
3204 2011-03-10 23:06:20 <TD> the expiry isn't really about freeing up storage. it's about handling transactions that are "broken" in that they'll never be confirmed.
3205 2011-03-10 23:06:51 <jgarzik> and while we're fiddling with TX cache expiry.... maybe we can set a size limit as well
3206 2011-03-10 23:06:52 <jgarzik> :)
3207 2011-03-10 23:07:40 FreeTheNation has joined
3208 2011-03-10 23:08:00 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|my miner does 1 block per 2 weeks
3209 2011-03-10 23:08:09 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|and taking longer
3210 2011-03-10 23:08:22 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|expiring sooner will be a pain
3211 2011-03-10 23:08:28 <ArtForz> ... so?
3212 2011-03-10 23:08:42 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|just let clients double-spend after 3 days or smth?
3213 2011-03-10 23:08:55 <edcba> tx expiring will help network flooding no ?
3214 2011-03-10 23:09:00 <ArtForz> not really
3215 2011-03-10 23:09:11 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|leave it up to each wallet to decide
3216 2011-03-10 23:09:15 sgornick has joined
3217 2011-03-10 23:09:27 <ArtForz> if it's something reasonable like a day, I dont see it increasing the "floodability" much
3218 2011-03-10 23:09:57 <nanotube> is there really any need for any code changes? all you need to get the tx to expire from cache is to restart your bitcoin node. :)
3219 2011-03-10 23:10:03 <edcba> if expiry is 1 day, you just have to be able to issue tx for 1 day
3220 2011-03-10 23:10:52 <ArtForz> still dont see where you're going
3221 2011-03-10 23:10:59 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|just expire from caches, and allow me to re-tx
3222 2011-03-10 23:11:20 <edcba> that means no more tx without fees
3223 2011-03-10 23:11:23 <ArtForz> thanks to node churn we already have basically the same function, just a lot less controlled
3224 2011-03-10 23:12:15 <TD> more to the point the wallet changes are never undone
3225 2011-03-10 23:12:25 <TD> even if the network forgets, your client won't let you respend the same coins
3226 2011-03-10 23:12:32 <TD> having a fixed rule would let that happen
3227 2011-03-10 23:12:36 <ArtForz> not by a stock client
3228 2011-03-10 23:12:49 <nanotube> maybe the -rescan feature can do that?
3229 2011-03-10 23:12:58 <ArtForz> unspending a tx isn't *that* hard
3230 2011-03-10 23:12:58 <nanotube> take any tx out of the wallet that haven't made it into the block chain?
3231 2011-03-10 23:13:09 <nanotube> seems like it'd be a reasonable thing to do.
3232 2011-03-10 23:13:30 <nanotube> e.g., i have an old unconfirmed tx in my wallet that is missing an intermediate link and will never get confirmed.
3233 2011-03-10 23:13:32 <edcba> what happens if old client see a confirmed tx in block contradicting own received tx ?
3234 2011-03-10 23:13:32 sabalaba has joined
3235 2011-03-10 23:13:38 <nanotube> i'd like to be able to -rescan, and get rid of it.
3236 2011-03-10 23:13:50 <ArtForz> edcba: tx in block takes precedence
3237 2011-03-10 23:14:06 <ArtForz> backup wallet, send tx, restore backup - hey, you just unspent a tx
3238 2011-03-10 23:14:15 <BlueMatt> genjix: If you set spesmilo to connect to a node which doesnt exist, it simply fails to open instead of giving a useful error
3239 2011-03-10 23:15:32 ovatork has joined
3240 2011-03-10 23:15:48 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|BlueMatt, thats probably my bad
3241 2011-03-10 23:16:01 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|BlueMatt, remind me when Im not otg
3242 2011-03-10 23:17:10 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|BlueMatt, you can launch settings.py direct to change it
3243 2011-03-10 23:17:26 <mizerydearia> Anyone have at least 0.00000001 bitcoins? http://faq.witcoin.com/p/373 could use more feedback
3244 2011-03-10 23:17:48 quellhorst has quit (Changing host)
3245 2011-03-10 23:17:48 quellhorst has joined
3246 2011-03-10 23:18:00 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|mizerydearia, impossible to send...
3247 2011-03-10 23:18:09 <BlueMatt> luke-jr|otg: there is no settings.py in the version I just checked out
3248 2011-03-10 23:18:34 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|BlueMatt, erm then it doesn't support connecting to nodes
3249 2011-03-10 23:18:44 <BlueMatt> luke-jr|otg: ??
3250 2011-03-10 23:18:55 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|BlueMatt, grab the latest master branch
3251 2011-03-10 23:19:11 <BlueMatt> luke-jr|otg: from you or genjix?
3252 2011-03-10 23:19:28 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|BlueMatt, we both use the same gitorious repo
3253 2011-03-10 23:19:45 <BlueMatt> luke-jr|otg: I just checkout genjix/spesmilo about 10 secs ago
3254 2011-03-10 23:19:55 <BlueMatt> and no settings.py
3255 2011-03-10 23:20:00 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|github is old
3256 2011-03-10 23:20:12 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|we use gitorious now
3257 2011-03-10 23:20:14 <BlueMatt> luke-jr|otg: ah
3258 2011-03-10 23:20:16 * Kiba looks for jobs
3259 2011-03-10 23:20:19 * Kiba looks for work
3260 2011-03-10 23:20:21 * Kiba is rest
3261 2011-03-10 23:20:23 <Kiba> less
3262 2011-03-10 23:20:23 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|search for it
3263 2011-03-10 23:21:01 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|BlueMatt, new ver is more efficient but still has jsonrpc-caused issues
3264 2011-03-10 23:21:12 <BlueMatt> luke-jr|otg: like?
3265 2011-03-10 23:21:22 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|and supports connecting to std bitcoind
3266 2011-03-10 23:21:33 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|like if a tx never gets confirmed
3267 2011-03-10 23:21:42 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|it counts all confirms wrong
3268 2011-03-10 23:21:48 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|until restart
3269 2011-03-10 23:22:21 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|or an invalid block
3270 2011-03-10 23:22:30 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|plus it still has to poll ofc
3271 2011-03-10 23:22:55 <phantomcircuit> ArtForz, what's the point of block expiration?
3272 2011-03-10 23:23:15 <BlueMatt> luke-jr|otg: the only thing I hear is my software isnt implementing rpc properly and I think rpc needs redone
3273 2011-03-10 23:23:30 <ArtForz> phantomcircuit: huh?
3274 2011-03-10 23:23:32 <phantomcircuit> er
3275 2011-03-10 23:23:32 <BlueMatt> luke-jr|otg: how come bitcoin-js-remote doesnt have those problems?
3276 2011-03-10 23:23:35 <phantomcircuit> tx expiration
3277 2011-03-10 23:24:00 <phantomcircuit> why is there a lock_time ?
3278 2011-03-10 23:24:18 <TD> nLockTime is not about expiry
3279 2011-03-10 23:24:41 <TD> it's the opposite
3280 2011-03-10 23:24:47 <TD> a tx with a lock time is not valid until that time passes
3281 2011-03-10 23:24:52 <TD> however that code is disabled
3282 2011-03-10 23:24:57 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|BlueMatt, either it doesn't support the same functionality oe
3283 2011-03-10 23:24:59 <phantomcircuit> yeah but whats the point of that
3284 2011-03-10 23:25:07 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|or it DOES have the problems
3285 2011-03-10 23:25:32 Lachesis has joined
3286 2011-03-10 23:25:44 <TD> phantomcircuit: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1786.msg22119#msg22119
3287 2011-03-10 23:25:49 <BlueMatt> luke-jr|otg: it supports more functionality than your client and I haven't seen any problems on it
3288 2011-03-10 23:26:13 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|there is no way to maintain a current full tx history without these problems
3289 2011-03-10 23:26:23 <TD> phantomcircuit: it's also to support contracts
3290 2011-03-10 23:26:43 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|BlueMatt, ask me when i get home and ill look at it
3291 2011-03-10 23:26:49 <BlueMatt> luke-jr|otg: polling doesnt create as much overhead as you seem to think, js-remote is fine for me
3292 2011-03-10 23:26:53 <TD> and quoting satoshi, for "high frequency trades between a set of parties"
3293 2011-03-10 23:27:17 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|BlueMatt, polling is a bug whether you consider it acceptable or not
3294 2011-03-10 23:27:34 <BlueMatt> luke-jr|otg: I have a tx for 5.40 which appears fine on js-remote but spesmilo shows it as 5.34999999. Also it is returned properly
3295 2011-03-10 23:27:48 <BlueMatt> luke-jr|otg: clearly your client has problems which are not caused by rpc
3296 2011-03-10 23:27:50 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|redownloading my entire tx history every second over cell is untolerable
3297 2011-03-10 23:28:05 <BlueMatt> luke-jr|otg: you shouldnt have to do that
3298 2011-03-10 23:28:07 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|BlueMatt, that is fixed in the tonal branch
3299 2011-03-10 23:28:31 <BlueMatt> luke-jr|otg: cache and such, plus js-remote polls pretty quickly and is designed for cell phones and works fine for me
3300 2011-03-10 23:28:37 <BlueMatt> no real load
3301 2011-03-10 23:28:47 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|master does cache
3302 2011-03-10 23:29:02 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|but that creates new issues
3303 2011-03-10 23:29:39 <BlueMatt> luke-jr|otg: god man stop complaining, rpc really isnt a huge problem but if you think it is so bad make a new client
3304 2011-03-10 23:29:44 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|BlueMatt, anyhow the 5.3999 bug should be fixed if you pull tonal branch
3305 2011-03-10 23:30:01 <BlueMatt> luke-jr|otg: fair enough
3306 2011-03-10 23:30:18 <BitterTea> luke-jr|otg: I forgot to mention, you can choose which numeric display type to use in WalletBuddy, and TBC is one of the options :)
3307 2011-03-10 23:30:30 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|and if you don't want to see tonal ever just change it to force decimal setting
3308 2011-03-10 23:30:39 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|BitterTea, what is walletbuddy
3309 2011-03-10 23:31:21 <TD> nanotube: for the problem you describe, i wonder if it could be fixed in an ad-hoc way
3310 2011-03-10 23:31:57 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
3311 2011-03-10 23:31:59 <nanotube> TD: which problem is that, exactly? :)
3312 2011-03-10 23:32:05 <TD> nanotube: if a merchant had speculatively accepted a bunch of 0conf transactions on the assumption they'd go through, and then they didn't because they lacked fees, perhaps that merchant could temporarily pay off a miner to drain them into blocks and get the coins
3313 2011-03-10 23:32:08 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|arrived at destination
3314 2011-03-10 23:32:09 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|bbl
3315 2011-03-10 23:32:20 <nanotube> TD: ah true that could work
3316 2011-03-10 23:32:27 <TD> effectively pay the fees for the sender. though it's not fair on the merchant
3317 2011-03-10 23:32:29 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|TD, i already told you how to do that
3318 2011-03-10 23:32:36 <nanotube> i'm sure artforz, e.g., or a pool operator, could be convinced to do that for a few btc.
3319 2011-03-10 23:32:38 <BitterTea> luke-jr|otg: Lets you manage multiple wallets, which are stored encrypted with GPG
3320 2011-03-10 23:33:24 <nanotube> TD: but still, as a merchant, you're better off just waiting for a block before shipping goods :)
3321 2011-03-10 23:33:39 <TD> yeah. i'm only thinking about sites where interactivity and low latency are useful
3322 2011-03-10 23:33:41 <TD> like witcoin :-)
3323 2011-03-10 23:33:48 <TD> for shipping of physical goods it doesn't matter
3324 2011-03-10 23:34:11 <TD> online music stores, etc, same thing. instant response is good.
3325 2011-03-10 23:34:14 EvanR_ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
3326 2011-03-10 23:34:29 <TD> i guess you can check the fees on a transaction and only accept with zero confirmations if you think the fees are high enough to get a confirmation.
3327 2011-03-10 23:34:41 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|TD, use the slow tx's outputs in a change+fee only tx
3328 2011-03-10 23:35:14 <TD> hmm
3329 2011-03-10 23:35:26 <TD> so the miner would include the zero-fee transaction in order to claim the fees of the dependent?
3330 2011-03-10 23:36:05 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|I think so
3331 2011-03-10 23:36:11 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|if not it should
3332 2011-03-10 23:37:54 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
3333 2011-03-10 23:38:12 EvanR has joined
3334 2011-03-10 23:38:30 phantomcircuit has quit (Quit: Leaving)
3335 2011-03-10 23:38:36 molecular has joined
3336 2011-03-10 23:39:00 phantomcircuit has joined
3337 2011-03-10 23:40:34 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|TD, IIRC might need more fees than normal
3338 2011-03-10 23:40:40 amiller has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
3339 2011-03-10 23:44:00 AmpEater has joined
3340 2011-03-10 23:45:13 jrabbit has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
3341 2011-03-10 23:46:15 <Kiba> mizerydearia: I don't know if my post are profitable or not
3342 2011-03-10 23:46:27 <Kiba> mizerydearia: I would like to view in details how much I earn versus how much I spend
3343 2011-03-10 23:46:29 <mizerydearia> Kiba, mm
3344 2011-03-10 23:47:06 <mizerydearia> Although that's in my backlog, I'll tack that on to it also.
3345 2011-03-10 23:47:22 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
3346 2011-03-10 23:47:25 jrabbit has joined
3347 2011-03-10 23:47:28 <dirtyfilthy> ;;bc,mtgox
3348 2011-03-10 23:47:29 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":0.9329,"low":0.8497,"vol":8337,"buy":0.8501,"sell":0.9329,"last":0.9329}}
3349 2011-03-10 23:47:35 <mizerydearia> so I don't miss or forget about it.
3350 2011-03-10 23:47:42 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|.93 :o
3351 2011-03-10 23:47:43 brunner has joined
3352 2011-03-10 23:47:44 <Kiba> mizerydearia: hmm? on top of your todo list?
3353 2011-03-10 23:47:52 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
3354 2011-03-10 23:47:53 <mizerydearia> top? actually bottom
3355 2011-03-10 23:48:02 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|lol
3356 2011-03-10 23:48:13 <mizerydearia> it's too much effort for me to drag or push it all the way to the top of the mountainous backlist
3357 2011-03-10 23:48:18 <mizerydearia> I am not strong enough to do it alone
3358 2011-03-10 23:48:45 slush has joined
3359 2011-03-10 23:48:46 <mizerydearia> my computer is too busy churning away to spare any cpu cycles to help me
3360 2011-03-10 23:49:07 <mizerydearia> however
3361 2011-03-10 23:49:16 <mizerydearia> I can tell you that it is duplicated quite near the top already
3362 2011-03-10 23:49:40 <mizerydearia> so it will be around soon... bbl, then I'll work on tackling a bunch of work today.
3363 2011-03-10 23:50:40 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
3364 2011-03-10 23:51:16 skeledrew has joined
3365 2011-03-10 23:51:48 jrabbit has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
3366 2011-03-10 23:53:14 <Diablo-D3> [05:08:49] <BlueMatt> luke-jr: stop with this rpc==flawed we need to re do it stuff, you are starting to sound like Diablo-D3 here
3367 2011-03-10 23:53:16 <Diablo-D3> wow, fuck you
3368 2011-03-10 23:57:29 <phantomcircuit> why not just leave rpc and add another interface that uses push?
3369 2011-03-10 23:57:56 <phantomcircuit> then deprecate the rpc interface in a few months and then remove it in 6?
3370 2011-03-10 23:58:46 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|phantomcircuit, thats the idea
3371 2011-03-10 23:58:59 <BlueMatt> because rpc is simpler to implement on the client side (esp for things like js-remote) and rewriting stuff for the hell of it (there isnt really a reason why its so bad) is a waste of time
3372 2011-03-10 23:59:25 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|BlueMatt, depends
3373 2011-03-10 23:59:34 <doublec> and push based api's can be fragile in the presence of nats
3374 2011-03-10 23:59:46 dust1 has joined
3375 2011-03-10 23:59:52 <doublec> having an rpc api is too useful to deprecate
3376 2011-03-10 23:59:56 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|doublec, not with a persistant conn
3377 2011-03-10 23:59:58 <BitterTea> Guys, farzong is having a melt down over in #bitcoin-discussion