1 2011-03-24 00:00:11 <molecular> fork/branch/connect/disconnect/...
   2 2011-03-24 00:00:26 * molecular hasn't been in the bitcoin-code until lately
   3 2011-03-24 00:01:11 <molecular> I dont see the point of cpp any more
   4 2011-03-24 00:02:20 <molecular> ArtForz, can you explain to me: "old branch" and "new branch"?
   5 2011-03-24 00:02:25 <ArtForz> argh, 1AM, heading to bed, someone with a good grasp of bitcoin internals shoudl look at this, I think this is pretty easy to solve, but I currently can't figure it out
   6 2011-03-24 00:02:55 <[Tycho]> Wow, Comodo's SSL is compromised...
   7 2011-03-24 00:02:59 <molecular> "this" being "http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4853.0" ?
   8 2011-03-24 00:03:05 theorbtwo has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
   9 2011-03-24 00:03:21 <ArtForz> not quite
  10 2011-03-24 00:03:40 <ArtForz> this being "why the hell is chain reorg putting tx into mem pool unchecked"
  11 2011-03-24 00:03:51 <dirtyfilthy> why is the main site redirecting to the wiki?
  12 2011-03-24 00:03:58 <molecular> ok, allow me again to post to forum, ArtForz ?
  13 2011-03-24 00:04:09 <molecular> ^ post what you said?
  14 2011-03-24 00:04:32 <molecular> dirtyfilthy, slashdot? reddit? ...?
  15 2011-03-24 00:04:44 <molecular> who's running bitcoin.org?
  16 2011-03-24 00:05:00 theorbtwo has joined
  17 2011-03-24 00:05:48 <molecular> having exposed node surely can give you lots of connections, hehe
  18 2011-03-24 00:06:04 <molecular> exposed == 8333 open
  19 2011-03-24 00:07:37 <luke-jr> s/exposed/online/
  20 2011-03-24 00:08:04 <tcatm> ArtForz: I just tried getwork without the ConnectInputs() in CreateNewBlock(): 183ms
  21 2011-03-24 00:08:47 <phantomcircuit> holy shit
  22 2011-03-24 00:08:51 <phantomcircuit> that's really slow
  23 2011-03-24 00:09:13 <CIA-96> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr <luke-jr+git@utopios.org> * r36eb6bf6f976 spesmilo/ (cashier.py settings.py): display confirmation count in Tonal, if that is the preferred number system
  24 2011-03-24 00:09:16 <sipa> wtf
  25 2011-03-24 00:10:59 <luke-jr> MediaWiki needs a blame function
  26 2011-03-24 00:11:09 <luke-jr> "There is no such thing as intrinsic value." is FALSE
  27 2011-03-24 00:11:35 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, what has intrinsic value?
  28 2011-03-24 00:11:45 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: metals, food, shelter, etc
  29 2011-03-24 00:11:52 <luke-jr> most tangible goods
  30 2011-03-24 00:12:29 <phantomcircuit> bah
  31 2011-03-24 00:12:41 <phantomcircuit> getting this sqlalchemy to work is annoying
  32 2011-03-24 00:12:50 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: did you see CIA? :p
  33 2011-03-24 00:13:13 <phantomcircuit> it throws a different exception if a subtransaction rolls back than the one it throws when the main transaction rolls back
  34 2011-03-24 00:13:14 <phantomcircuit> >.>
  35 2011-03-24 00:16:26 euclid has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
  36 2011-03-24 00:21:07 CyanDynamo has joined
  37 2011-03-24 00:22:46 <slush> some C++/bitcoind guru around?
  38 2011-03-24 00:22:57 <slush> I have yet another problem
  39 2011-03-24 00:23:05 <tcatm> ?
  40 2011-03-24 00:23:07 <slush> sendmany does not accept amounts as strings
  41 2011-03-24 00:23:22 <slush> which is incompatible with normal sendtoaddress, which accept strings
  42 2011-03-24 00:23:23 PLATO has joined
  43 2011-03-24 00:23:28 <PLATO> what is the target number of blocks per hour?
  44 2011-03-24 00:23:39 <slush> PLATO: 6
  45 2011-03-24 00:23:42 <PLATO> tx
  46 2011-03-24 00:23:46 <slush> oh, sorry
  47 2011-03-24 00:23:54 <PLATO> *thx
  48 2011-03-24 00:23:59 <slush> hehe :)
  49 2011-03-24 00:25:13 <luke-jr> slush: strings⁇
  50 2011-03-24 00:25:34 <luke-jr> I'm pretty sure sendtoaddress does not accept strings
  51 2011-03-24 00:29:17 <slush> luke-jr hm, you're right
  52 2011-03-24 00:29:22 brunner has joined
  53 2011-03-24 00:29:32 <tcatm> slush: sendmany should accept the same values as sendfrom
  54 2011-03-24 00:31:09 <phantomcircuit> rofl
  55 2011-03-24 00:31:15 euclid has joined
  56 2011-03-24 00:31:16 <phantomcircuit> infinite loop in my block connecting algorithm
  57 2011-03-24 00:31:18 <phantomcircuit> epic facepalm
  58 2011-03-24 00:31:52 <phantomcircuit> http://codepad.org/2wk35e3J
  59 2011-03-24 00:31:58 <phantomcircuit> lol obvious infinte loop is obvious
  60 2011-03-24 00:32:01 <tcatm> slush: "%.08f" % amount will help
  61 2011-03-24 00:32:48 <slush> tcatm: but it need float as input, not string
  62 2011-03-24 00:33:23 <slush> I'm surprised that it somehow works, because I'm passing floats inside all time and nobody complain about wrong amounts received :)
  63 2011-03-24 00:33:42 <tcatm> s/\"//
  64 2011-03-24 00:33:52 brunner has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  65 2011-03-24 00:34:06 <tcatm> floats are fine for what you're doing
  66 2011-03-24 00:34:16 <slush> I probably don't understand
  67 2011-03-24 00:34:54 SanguineRose_ has joined
  68 2011-03-24 00:35:02 <slush> sorry, I'm slow, 2am here and I almost didn't sleep yesterday
  69 2011-03-24 00:35:36 <tcatm> Well if you use floats anyway, what's the problem?
  70 2011-03-24 00:35:38 SanguineRose has quit (Disconnected by services)
  71 2011-03-24 00:35:38 SanguineRose_ is now known as SanguineRose
  72 2011-03-24 00:36:06 <slush> When I print the number 15.38, it shows as 15.379999999
  73 2011-03-24 00:36:16 <slush> What happen when I'll pass this to RPC?
  74 2011-03-24 00:37:01 <tcatm> It'll send 15.37999999 BTC
  75 2011-03-24 00:37:11 <luke-jr> slush: %.08f should work
  76 2011-03-24 00:37:22 <luke-jr> tcatm: it will? that's not what was said on the forum
  77 2011-03-24 00:37:23 <tcatm> solution: use double instead of float
  78 2011-03-24 00:37:37 <luke-jr> … float != single
  79 2011-03-24 00:37:41 <luke-jr> float could mean either
  80 2011-03-24 00:38:09 <slush> luke-jr I feel like idiot, but how can I pass %.08f as float??
  81 2011-03-24 00:38:14 SanguineRose_ has joined
  82 2011-03-24 00:38:17 eao has joined
  83 2011-03-24 00:38:25 <slush> everytime I convert it to float, it will produce the rounding errors
  84 2011-03-24 00:38:28 <luke-jr> slush: what language are you using?
  85 2011-03-24 00:38:35 <slush> python
  86 2011-03-24 00:38:45 <luke-jr> "%.08f" % (number,)
  87 2011-03-24 00:39:01 <tcatm> slush: use Decimal()
  88 2011-03-24 00:39:04 <slush> I don't need to print it out, I need to pass it to RPC
  89 2011-03-24 00:39:09 <slush> RPC accept only floats
  90 2011-03-24 00:39:12 <slush> correct?
  91 2011-03-24 00:39:18 SanguineRose_ has quit (Client Quit)
  92 2011-03-24 00:39:19 <slush> not decimal, not strings
  93 2011-03-24 00:39:27 <luke-jr> slush: oh, that might be a problem
  94 2011-03-24 00:39:35 <slush> everytime I convert strings or decimals to float, it make shit
  95 2011-03-24 00:40:08 <tcatm> slush: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proper_Money_Handling_(JSON-RPC)#Python
  96 2011-03-24 00:40:28 <luke-jr> slush: I've never had problems passing floats to python's json-rpc
  97 2011-03-24 00:40:38 <luke-jr> tcatm: genjix kinda went crazy on that IIRC
  98 2011-03-24 00:40:42 <slush> ok, I'm using it this way
  99 2011-03-24 00:40:49 <slush> I was just curious if it will be ok
 100 2011-03-24 00:40:55 <slush> so - thanks, this is good answer
 101 2011-03-24 00:41:02 <luke-jr> slush: is 15.38 the real problem-value?
 102 2011-03-24 00:41:08 <slush> yes
 103 2011-03-24 00:41:27 <luke-jr> ok, I just sent it over JSON-RPC as a float
 104 2011-03-24 00:41:30 <luke-jr> it worked fine…
 105 2011-03-24 00:41:39 <slush> ok, I'll do it too
 106 2011-03-24 00:41:43 <[Tycho]> I had this float precision problem when was creating a mtgox bot :)
 107 2011-03-24 00:42:30 xenon481 has joined
 108 2011-03-24 00:42:47 <tcatm> slush: I just read the code. 15.379999999 will actually be rounded to 15.38000000 in AmountFromValue()
 109 2011-03-24 00:43:12 <slush> great
 110 2011-03-24 00:43:19 <slush> that's ideal answer
 111 2011-03-24 00:46:01 Bosma has joined
 112 2011-03-24 00:47:14 <gasteve> in need some c++ expertise
 113 2011-03-24 00:47:31 <xenon481> Turns out that 1FijBR5s3EU1JS3UokzTZbkAibgL4SXzxm isn't Tycho's pool.
 114 2011-03-24 00:47:42 <xenon481> I'm still trying to figure out who it is, though.
 115 2011-03-24 00:47:47 <gasteve> I'm getting the following error (this is when compiling code from bignum.h):
 116 2011-03-24 00:47:50 <gasteve> error: ‘const bignum_error::CBigNum bignum_error::operator+(const bignum_error::CBigNum&, const bignum_error::CBigNum&)’ must take either zero or one argument
 117 2011-03-24 00:48:16 <slush> xenon481: That's definitely not me
 118 2011-03-24 00:48:31 * gasteve but, the weird thing is, the actual code is:
 119 2011-03-24 00:48:33 <slush> xenon481: the scamming proposed by that user is probably the dumbest way how I can do it
 120 2011-03-24 00:48:37 <gasteve> inline const CBigNum operator+(const CBigNum& a, const CBigNum& b)
 121 2011-03-24 00:48:54 wolfspraul has joined
 122 2011-03-24 00:49:40 <gasteve> in the error, it seems like it's interpreting this as a member function (which would want either 0 or 1 args), but the code isn't written that way...it seems like it must have something to do with the fact that this function can throw a bignum_error
 123 2011-03-24 00:50:05 <tcatm> xenon481: what's wrong with that address?
 124 2011-03-24 00:50:33 <xenon481> tcatm: Nothing but coincidence.
 125 2011-03-24 00:51:06 <xenon481> tcatm: It has been brought up as part of a tinfoil hat conspiracy
 126 2011-03-24 00:51:14 <tcatm> ?
 127 2011-03-24 00:52:09 <xenon481> Someone generated a new forum username and accused Slush of using a stupid method of skimming.
 128 2011-03-24 00:52:13 <phantomcircuit> hmm
 129 2011-03-24 00:52:14 <gasteve> unbelievable...just solved it...a freakin' missing semicolon in a line in another header file
 130 2011-03-24 00:52:23 <phantomcircuit> what does the mainline client do if i send a getblocks without a state?
 131 2011-03-24 00:52:26 <phantomcircuit> start*
 132 2011-03-24 00:52:32 <PLATO> gasteve: o/
 133 2011-03-24 00:53:11 <noagendamarket> xenon481  did they use that address to claim it ?
 134 2011-03-24 00:53:49 <phantomcircuit> lulz
 135 2011-03-24 00:53:52 <phantomcircuit> race condition
 136 2011-03-24 00:53:53 <lfm> phantomcircuit: just what it should, try it
 137 2011-03-24 00:53:54 <phantomcircuit> somewhere....
 138 2011-03-24 00:54:08 <phantomcircuit> lfm, it's non sensical right?
 139 2011-03-24 00:54:10 <phantomcircuit> lfm, it's non sensical right?
 140 2011-03-24 00:54:12 <phantomcircuit> er
 141 2011-03-24 00:54:57 <phantomcircuit> rofl this code is extreme fail
 142 2011-03-24 00:55:04 <xenon481> Slush's pool has a bug where it will sometimes list the previous block# in the statistics page but still point to the right block. It just so happens that two of the times that it has done this, the previous block# that was listed was solved by the same address.
 143 2011-03-24 00:55:17 <noagendamarket> ah
 144 2011-03-24 00:55:22 <lfm> phantomcircuit: nope, thats what its spozed to do
 145 2011-03-24 00:55:24 <xenon481> Other times, the previous block# was solved by Slush's pool
 146 2011-03-24 00:55:25 <noagendamarket> coincidence
 147 2011-03-24 00:55:30 <xenon481> yeah
 148 2011-03-24 00:55:35 <phantomcircuit> lfm, no i mean my code
 149 2011-03-24 00:55:45 <xenon481> I was just trying to track down who owned that address.
 150 2011-03-24 00:56:00 <phantomcircuit> lfm, im still on the first block because everytime i get more blocks they come in at the same time and set off all of the unique column constraints
 151 2011-03-24 00:56:07 <noagendamarket> who knows ?
 152 2011-03-24 00:56:09 <xenon481> It's hashing at ~8GHash/sec, but it's not one of the other major pools.
 153 2011-03-24 00:56:33 <slush> also compute4cash is in the game
 154 2011-03-24 00:56:40 bgeron has quit (Quit: leaving)
 155 2011-03-24 00:56:58 <phantomcircuit> anybody figure out who compute4cash is?
 156 2011-03-24 00:57:14 lfm has quit (Quit: bye)
 157 2011-03-24 00:57:20 <Mango-chan> it's me LOL
 158 2011-03-24 00:57:28 <phantomcircuit> seriously?
 159 2011-03-24 00:57:36 <tcatm> xenon481: do you have a list of addresses/hashspeeds?
 160 2011-03-24 00:58:24 <Mango-chan> yes
 161 2011-03-24 00:58:30 <Mango-chan> of course i'm serious
 162 2011-03-24 00:58:34 <Mango-chan> i mean, how can i not be?
 163 2011-03-24 00:58:35 joepie91 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 164 2011-03-24 00:58:37 <luke-jr> gasteve: you realize operator+ is a special method?
 165 2011-03-24 00:58:48 <gasteve> yes
 166 2011-03-24 00:58:58 <xenon481> tcatm: I just looked up that address on Block Explorer and saw that it was solving an average of 2 blocks per day which requires ~8GHash/sec
 167 2011-03-24 00:59:02 <Sargun_Screen> I did a calculation on my benchmark rig, it requires $300/mo of BC
 168 2011-03-24 00:59:03 <Sargun_Screen> :-/
 169 2011-03-24 00:59:04 <gasteve> (I'm not new to c++)
 170 2011-03-24 00:59:30 joepie91 has joined
 171 2011-03-24 00:59:54 <phantomcircuit> Sargun_Screen, you much have expensive electricity...
 172 2011-03-24 01:00:20 Ruudjah has joined
 173 2011-03-24 01:03:12 <CIA-96> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr <luke-jr+git@utopios.org> * re5ee25b77f3b spesmilo/settings.py: allow user to configure whether their preferred unit's TLA is shown or not
 174 2011-03-24 01:04:20 <Sargun_Screen> phantomcircuit: Nah, I was going to build a custom rig for it
 175 2011-03-24 01:04:29 <phantomcircuit> oh
 176 2011-03-24 01:04:40 <Sargun_Screen> If I lease all the gear needed plus power, it'd be about $300/mo
 177 2011-03-24 01:05:39 xelister_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 178 2011-03-24 01:05:50 luke-jr has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 179 2011-03-24 01:06:03 joepie91 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 180 2011-03-24 01:06:23 joepie91 has joined
 181 2011-03-24 01:06:25 joepie91 has quit (Client Quit)
 182 2011-03-24 01:06:27 luke-jr has joined
 183 2011-03-24 01:06:34 <Ruudjah> any guides for building good rigs?
 184 2011-03-24 01:06:43 joepie91 has joined
 185 2011-03-24 01:07:16 <Ruudjah> thinking of buying a dual-quad-hex pciex16 mobo, then put 2-4-6 5970 on it
 186 2011-03-24 01:08:23 bitcoinNewb has joined
 187 2011-03-24 01:09:15 <xenon481> Don't waste your money on multiple x16 slots.
 188 2011-03-24 01:09:30 <xenon481> The cards mine just as fast when running on x1 slots
 189 2011-03-24 01:09:43 <[Tycho]> Ruudjah, don't forget about cooling.
 190 2011-03-24 01:09:50 <noagendamarket> theres plenty of random miners with 6ghsh or more
 191 2011-03-24 01:10:19 <[Tycho]> Ruudjah, if you are going to pug cards directly into MB, there may be cooling problems if no free space is left between them
 192 2011-03-24 01:10:24 <[Tycho]> *plug
 193 2011-03-24 01:10:46 <xenon481> noagendamarket: Yeah, it's just coincidence, I was just seeing if I could track it down as a puzzle for me.
 194 2011-03-24 01:11:11 <xenon481> But the anonymity is part of the BTC beauty.
 195 2011-03-24 01:11:46 <noagendamarket> tell me if you ever find it lol
 196 2011-03-24 01:12:07 <Ruudjah> true
 197 2011-03-24 01:12:08 <noagendamarket> *squirrel
 198 2011-03-24 01:12:14 <Ruudjah> prolly would need watercooling
 199 2011-03-24 01:12:27 <Ruudjah> or just 2 graka
 200 2011-03-24 01:12:30 <xenon481> I don't think I'll be able to find it since it isn't one of the pools
 201 2011-03-24 01:13:08 Sean93 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 202 2011-03-24 01:13:12 <[Tycho]> Watercooling is good, but not cost-effective at all.
 203 2011-03-24 01:13:16 <Ruudjah> "6ghsh" ?
 204 2011-03-24 01:13:49 <Ruudjah> [Tycho]: I doubt that. It mainly depends on the reusability of the connectors/cool blocks
 205 2011-03-24 01:14:07 <Ruudjah> e.g. I bought 2x alpha coolers for my bp6 (long time ago)
 206 2011-03-24 01:14:20 alex___ has joined
 207 2011-03-24 01:14:40 <Ruudjah> worked on 2x celly 300, p3 coppermine
 208 2011-03-24 01:15:05 <Ruudjah> --> generic cooling gear should be able to be reused across platforms
 209 2011-03-24 01:15:24 <Ruudjah> noagendamarket: "6ghsh"?
 210 2011-03-24 01:15:41 <xenon481> Ruudjah: 6 GHash/sec mining speed.
 211 2011-03-24 01:16:32 <bitcoinNewb> can someone explain pooling?
 212 2011-03-24 01:17:14 <[Tycho]> bitcoinNewb, it's a cooperative mining with many other users.
 213 2011-03-24 01:17:31 <xenon481> bitcoinNewb: A bunch of people work together and then split the profits.
 214 2011-03-24 01:17:53 <[Tycho]> bitcoinNewb, welcome to my mining pool :) http://deepbit.net
 215 2011-03-24 01:17:58 <bitcoinNewb> I see
 216 2011-03-24 01:18:17 xenon481 has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 217 2011-03-24 01:19:50 <bitcoinNewb> Have you guys seen interest spike since slashdot article
 218 2011-03-24 01:21:06 Avemo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 219 2011-03-24 01:21:12 <noagendamarket> yes
 220 2011-03-24 01:21:35 Avemo has joined
 221 2011-03-24 01:21:36 <bitcoinNewb> I've been looking for a way better way to transfer money between countries, and this is awesome, but I think its way over my head
 222 2011-03-24 01:22:26 <joepie91> good morning all
 223 2011-03-24 01:22:29 <joepie91> or well, evening :P
 224 2011-03-24 01:22:37 bitcoinNewb has left ()
 225 2011-03-24 01:22:43 <[Tycho]> ;;bc,gen 100000
 226 2011-03-24 01:22:44 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 100000 Khps, given current difficulty of 76193.9710474 , is 1.32008919704 BTC per day and 0.0550037165432 BTC per hour.
 227 2011-03-24 01:22:50 <[Tycho]> ;;bc,calc 100000
 228 2011-03-24 01:22:51 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 100000 Khps, given current difficulty of 76193.9710474 , is 5 weeks, 2 days, 21 hours, 1 minute, and 46 seconds
 229 2011-03-24 01:23:21 <joepie91> I managed to get a 7gbps flood directed at my site yesterday.
 230 2011-03-24 01:23:23 <joepie91> how fun is that.
 231 2011-03-24 01:23:50 <joepie91> apparently somewhat knocked over the dc or something... at least the upstream provider called the dc because their network was affected
 232 2011-03-24 01:24:09 <CIA-96> bitcoin: phantomcircuit <phantomcircuit@covertinferno.org> sqlalchemy * r084ac9daf6a9 bitcoin-alt/bitcoin/ (net/peer.py peer.py peers.py storage.py): Cleaned some stuff up
 233 2011-03-24 01:25:14 x420024x has joined
 234 2011-03-24 01:25:22 `Ven has joined
 235 2011-03-24 01:25:23 <Impala> ;;bc,gen 160000
 236 2011-03-24 01:25:23 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 160000 Khps, given current difficulty of 76193.9710474 , is 2.11214271526 BTC per day and 0.0880059464691 BTC per hour.
 237 2011-03-24 01:25:36 <[Tycho]> ;;bc,calc 485000
 238 2011-03-24 01:25:37 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 485000 Khps, given current difficulty of 76193.9710474 , is 1 week, 0 days, 19 hours, 25 minutes, and 43 seconds
 239 2011-03-24 01:25:43 <[Tycho]> ;;bc,gen 485000
 240 2011-03-24 01:25:44 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 485000 Khps, given current difficulty of 76193.9710474 , is 6.40243260563 BTC per day and 0.266768025234 BTC per hour.
 241 2011-03-24 01:26:02 <phantomcircuit> crap i just realized something
 242 2011-03-24 01:26:48 <phantomcircuit> if i batch these transactions/blocks into sql transactions with a uniqueness constraint on the db and have multiple overlapping peers the odds of ever having a trasnaction commit are basically zero
 243 2011-03-24 01:26:51 <phantomcircuit> >.>
 244 2011-03-24 01:29:47 Venatic` has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 245 2011-03-24 01:35:59 <[Tycho]> ;;bc,gen 300000
 246 2011-03-24 01:36:00 <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.
 247 2011-03-24 01:37:01 <Bosma> ;;bc,stats
 248 2011-03-24 01:37:03 <gribble> Current Blocks: 114761 | Current Difficulty: 76193.9710474 | Next Difficulty At Block: 114911 | Next Difficulty In: 150 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 day, 2 hours, 55 minutes, and 0 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 68457.74108195
 249 2011-03-24 01:37:12 <Bosma> ;;bc,gend 310000 68457
 250 2011-03-24 01:37:13 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 310000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 68457, is 4.55478326513 BTC per day and 0.189782636047 BTC per hour.
 251 2011-03-24 01:47:27 <phantomcircuit> lol i've got my storage all mixed up with my networking
 252 2011-03-24 01:47:35 <phantomcircuit> i had it so loverly before
 253 2011-03-24 01:47:36 <alex___> ;;bc,gen 800
 254 2011-03-24 01:47:36 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 800 Khps, given current difficulty of 76193.9710474 , is 0.0105607135763 BTC per day and 0.000440029732346 BTC per hour.
 255 2011-03-24 01:47:37 <phantomcircuit> now it's a mess
 256 2011-03-24 01:47:39 <phantomcircuit> :(((
 257 2011-03-24 01:55:21 manveru has joined
 258 2011-03-24 01:56:07 <manveru> heya
 259 2011-03-24 01:56:28 <manveru> is the bitcoin-bin package on archlinux still recommended against?
 260 2011-03-24 01:58:11 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 261 2011-03-24 01:58:18 <phantomcircuit> manveru, probably
 262 2011-03-24 01:58:54 <manveru> i can't build bitcoin... fails with some error because i have gtk 2.22 instead of 2.4
 263 2011-03-24 02:00:17 <manveru> bitcoin-bin has stuff like "Please use bitcoin instead of bitcoin-bin if possible" all over the place, but no reason why...
 264 2011-03-24 02:01:00 trentzb has left ()
 265 2011-03-24 02:01:03 llama has joined
 266 2011-03-24 02:02:38 <phantomcircuit> wait
 267 2011-03-24 02:02:50 <phantomcircuit> the nonce is a 32bit unsigned int that uses up 64 bits?
 268 2011-03-24 02:02:51 <phantomcircuit> lol wtf
 269 2011-03-24 02:04:46 skeledrew1 has joined
 270 2011-03-24 02:06:37 <manveru> also weird that all flags are like -gen/-server/-rescan but help is --help
 271 2011-03-24 02:06:47 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 272 2011-03-24 02:08:58 xenon481 has joined
 273 2011-03-24 02:10:02 ColdHardMetal has joined
 274 2011-03-24 02:15:28 soultcer has joined
 275 2011-03-24 02:21:43 <slush> [Tycho]: do you already sending payments with sendmany?
 276 2011-03-24 02:21:53 <slush> [Tycho]: how long it take to be included in the block?
 277 2011-03-24 02:24:21 <[Tycho]> I'm accepting sendmany in my blocks, but don't plan to crete them myself yet.
 278 2011-03-24 02:24:34 <[Tycho]> *create
 279 2011-03-24 02:25:23 afed_ has joined
 280 2011-03-24 02:25:26 <[Tycho]> By the way, have you seen big combining txes in queue with multiple 0.02 inputs ?
 281 2011-03-24 02:26:02 mention has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 282 2011-03-24 02:28:17 afed has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 283 2011-03-24 02:30:59 <slush> yes, looking on it right now
 284 2011-03-24 02:31:07 <slush> new way of spam? :)
 285 2011-03-24 02:31:33 <[Tycho]> May be he assumed that people is ignoring 0.01 at output :)
 286 2011-03-24 02:32:10 <slush> But it is really weird why bitcoin does not accept my sendmany transaction with the fee
 287 2011-03-24 02:32:27 <[Tycho]> Which bitcoin ?
 288 2011-03-24 02:32:43 <slush> any bitcoin, for example my pool instances
 289 2011-03-24 02:32:44 <[Tycho]> Oh, you are talking about creating it ?
 290 2011-03-24 02:32:58 <[Tycho]> Haven't tried yet.
 291 2011-03-24 02:33:18 <slush> I have blocked free transcations, but don't see reason why to reject multitx
 292 2011-03-24 02:34:04 devrandom has joined
 293 2011-03-24 02:34:18 <slush> I have to go sleep. Hope I'll find any explanation tomorrow
 294 2011-03-24 02:35:35 eao has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 295 2011-03-24 02:40:24 CyanDynamo has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 296 2011-03-24 02:53:03 <[Tycho]> Looks like your sendmany made it into my block
 297 2011-03-24 02:54:50 <devrandom> I'm curious - since sendmany is a new transaction type, most people won't relay it.  so how does it get to miners?
 298 2011-03-24 02:55:08 <devrandom> I guess since slush is effectively a miner, he can get it into a block himself?
 299 2011-03-24 02:56:10 <[Tycho]> It was a lucky transaction :)
 300 2011-03-24 02:56:19 <slush> devrandom: correct, but I've using many bitcoin instances and there is no easy way how to tell them "this is my tx" :)
 301 2011-03-24 02:56:51 Guest98559 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 302 2011-03-24 02:57:23 <devrandom> as long as all the instances have the sendmany patch, then they'll accept it into the currently mined block?
 303 2011-03-24 02:59:55 <LobsterMan> is www.bitcoin.org down or something?
 304 2011-03-24 03:00:27 <LobsterMan> it redirects to bitcoin.it
 305 2011-03-24 03:01:40 <nanotube> LobsterMan: deliberate, to weather the /. effect
 306 2011-03-24 03:01:46 <LobsterMan> ah...lol
 307 2011-03-24 03:01:53 neptunepink has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 308 2011-03-24 03:02:08 <devrandom> slush - I guess the problem would be if your instances are not directly connected to each-other
 309 2011-03-24 03:02:11 james has joined
 310 2011-03-24 03:02:28 Cusipzzz has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.2 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
 311 2011-03-24 03:02:38 james is now known as Guest73292
 312 2011-03-24 03:02:51 <slush> they are
 313 2011-03-24 03:05:04 <devrandom> in that case, they should all be accepting the tx and using it to mine...  that's not happening?
 314 2011-03-24 03:05:29 <luke-jr> https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&from=20110324020552&days=30&limit=500
 315 2011-03-24 03:05:31 <luke-jr> spammer alert
 316 2011-03-24 03:05:37 <devrandom> (slush - sorry if I'm jumping into the middle of a longer discussion)
 317 2011-03-24 03:05:38 <luke-jr> nanotube: MagicalTux
 318 2011-03-24 03:06:43 <slush> devrandom: no prob :)
 319 2011-03-24 03:07:12 <slush> well, I have custom changes to reject free transactions to speed up new block processing
 320 2011-03-24 03:07:24 <slush> maybe it is somehow related, but now I don't see clearly how
 321 2011-03-24 03:07:31 <nanotube> luke-jr: tx for pointing out. blocking user and deleting his crap.
 322 2011-03-24 03:07:50 <slush> I'll discuss it tomorrow with people and if it will go well, I'll start accepting free tx again
 323 2011-03-24 03:08:18 <MagicalTux> ?
 324 2011-03-24 03:09:15 Bosma has quit (Quit: Bosma)
 325 2011-03-24 03:09:41 <MagicalTux> oh
 326 2011-03-24 03:10:29 <nanotube> MagicalTux: the spammers come out of the woodwork....
 327 2011-03-24 03:10:37 <MagicalTux> spammers are always around
 328 2011-03-24 03:10:53 <MagicalTux> if you want me to install a captcha plugin for mediawiki (or something else), let me know
 329 2011-03-24 03:10:54 * nanotube is starting to wonder if some kind of spamblocking tools would not be timely... :)
 330 2011-03-24 03:10:58 ForceMajeure has quit ()
 331 2011-03-24 03:11:06 <nanotube> MagicalTux: yea, probably a recaptcha on user registration wouldn't hurt.
 332 2011-03-24 03:11:17 <MagicalTux> :p
 333 2011-03-24 03:11:37 <Kiba> do newer peer refuse to communicate with older versions
 334 2011-03-24 03:11:42 <Kiba> for example, mine is 0.3.19
 335 2011-03-24 03:13:15 <luke-jr> MagicalTux: how about those footnote letters?
 336 2011-03-24 03:13:52 <devrandom> slush - don't see how it's related either...
 337 2011-03-24 03:16:02 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: leaving)
 338 2011-03-24 03:16:43 <nanotube> MagicalTux: the wiki is registered-user-only for editing, right? :)
 339 2011-03-24 03:18:31 <devrandom> slush - maybe triple-check that all your instances have the sendmany patch
 340 2011-03-24 03:18:59 <slush> I quadruple-checked it already ;)
 341 2011-03-24 03:19:19 <slush> I'll pull new version tomorrow, so then I'll be absolutely-hyper-super-mega-sure
 342 2011-03-24 03:19:40 <Impala> ;;bc,gen 160000
 343 2011-03-24 03:19:41 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 160000 Khps, given current difficulty of 76193.9710474 , is 2.11214271526 BTC per day and 0.0880059464691 BTC per hour.
 344 2011-03-24 03:20:03 <devrandom> slush - and you are also sure that they are directly connected to the bitcoin instance that generated the sendmany tx?
 345 2011-03-24 03:20:15 <devrandom> sorry if I'm being obvious
 346 2011-03-24 03:21:31 <slush> yes
 347 2011-03-24 03:21:49 <slush> no problem, I'm happy that somebody else it thinking about possible problems
 348 2011-03-24 03:22:55 bits has joined
 349 2011-03-24 03:23:20 <devrandom> slush - you can grep for the tx in debug.log
 350 2011-03-24 03:23:38 <devrandom> just the first 10 chars
 351 2011-03-24 03:23:58 <devrandom> grep abcdef1234 ~/.bitcoing/debug.log
 352 2011-03-24 03:24:07 <slush> ok, I'll do that tomorrow
 353 2011-03-24 03:24:10 <slush> I really need to sleep
 354 2011-03-24 03:24:24 <devrandom> later
 355 2011-03-24 03:26:29 Flam9 has left ()
 356 2011-03-24 03:30:07 <noagendamarket> https://bitcoinbonus.com/referral/2f6269a9  you can get .10 there :)
 357 2011-03-24 03:30:27 bits has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 358 2011-03-24 03:36:15 <Impala> ;;bc,gen 120000
 359 2011-03-24 03:36:16 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 120000 Khps, given current difficulty of 76193.9710474 , is 1.58410703644 BTC per day and 0.0660044598518 BTC per hour.
 360 2011-03-24 03:37:43 <doublec> soon your website will be able to earn money by mining bitcoins: "Along with the pure graphics technology, Khronos has also planned a new, general-purpose computing equivalent known as WebCL. The compute language would let a browser use JavaScript to trigger parallel computing using the graphics chip, giving many of the features of OpenCL to a web browser."
 361 2011-03-24 03:40:27 <noagendamarket> hmm
 362 2011-03-24 03:41:01 purpleposeidon has joined
 363 2011-03-24 03:42:18 <Impala> ;;bc,gen 135000
 364 2011-03-24 03:42:19 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 135000 Khps, given current difficulty of 76193.9710474 , is 1.782120416 BTC per day and 0.0742550173333 BTC per hour.
 365 2011-03-24 03:42:37 <Impala> ;;bc,gen 144000
 366 2011-03-24 03:42:38 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 144000 Khps, given current difficulty of 76193.9710474 , is 1.90092844373 BTC per day and 0.0792053518222 BTC per hour.
 367 2011-03-24 03:51:13 <AmpEater> ;;bs,stats
 368 2011-03-24 03:51:13 <gribble> Error: "bs,stats" is not a valid command.
 369 2011-03-24 03:51:20 <AmpEater> ;;bc,stats
 370 2011-03-24 03:51:23 <gribble> Current Blocks: 114777 | Current Difficulty: 76193.9710474 | Next Difficulty At Block: 114911 | Next Difficulty In: 134 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 23 hours, 53 minutes, and 48 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 68602.07903395
 371 2011-03-24 03:51:51 <AmpEater> ;;bc,gend 5000000 68600
 372 2011-03-24 03:51:51 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 5000000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 68600, is 73.3111064566 BTC per day and 3.05462943569 BTC per hour.
 373 2011-03-24 03:59:14 xenon481 has left ()
 374 2011-03-24 03:59:17 <Kiba> hey guys
 375 2011-03-24 03:59:31 <AmpEater> howdy
 376 2011-03-24 03:59:34 <Validus> sup kiba
 377 2011-03-24 03:59:52 <AmpEater> was somebody working on an iphone app? who do i need to prod?
 378 2011-03-24 04:01:52 <Kiba> I don't think bitcoin and iphone likes each other
 379 2011-03-24 04:04:48 <AmpEater> cause of apple restricting certain apps?
 380 2011-03-24 04:07:13 ForceMajeure has joined
 381 2011-03-24 04:09:43 miner_ has joined
 382 2011-03-24 04:15:55 overtorque has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 383 2011-03-24 04:28:22 Mango-chan has quit ()
 384 2011-03-24 04:28:44 Mango-chan has joined
 385 2011-03-24 04:28:44 Mango-chan has quit (Changing host)
 386 2011-03-24 04:28:44 Mango-chan has joined
 387 2011-03-24 04:32:34 HarryS has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 388 2011-03-24 04:32:47 nathan7 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 389 2011-03-24 04:32:47 HarryS has joined
 390 2011-03-24 04:32:48 Omni has quit (AFK!~hopper@pdpc/supporter/professional/omnifarious|Read error: Operation timed out)
 391 2011-03-24 04:32:52 nathan7 has joined
 392 2011-03-24 04:32:53 Omni has joined
 393 2011-03-24 04:34:02 soultcer has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 394 2011-03-24 04:34:11 <CIA-96> bitcoin: phantomcircuit <phantomcircuit@covertinferno.org> sqlalchemy * rbd8d0d17e275 bitcoin-alt/ (4 files in 3 dirs): Bug fixes and changed primary key
 395 2011-03-24 04:34:30 soultcer has joined
 396 2011-03-24 04:34:49 llama has quit (Quit: llama)
 397 2011-03-24 04:45:07 Diablo-D3 has joined
 398 2011-03-24 04:48:26 satamusic has joined
 399 2011-03-24 04:56:24 <Mango-chan> ;;bc,stats
 400 2011-03-24 04:56:26 <gribble> Current Blocks: 114785 | Current Difficulty: 76193.9710474 | Next Difficulty At Block: 114911 | Next Difficulty In: 126 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 22 hours, 19 minutes, and 48 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 68693.14908113
 401 2011-03-24 04:58:00 <AmpEater> difficulty keeps sneaking up
 402 2011-03-24 05:02:21 <Diablo-D3> https://github.com/blog/821-mention-somebody-they-re-notified
 403 2011-03-24 05:03:42 `Ven has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 404 2011-03-24 05:04:42 Zenith77 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 405 2011-03-24 05:05:07 wolfspraul has joined
 406 2011-03-24 05:05:42 theymos has joined
 407 2011-03-24 05:12:35 Venatic` has joined
 408 2011-03-24 05:22:36 isilion has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
 409 2011-03-24 05:23:30 bitcoiner has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 410 2011-03-24 05:28:40 PLATO has quit (Quit: Anything that is too big to fail is too big to exist.)
 411 2011-03-24 05:28:58 miner_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 412 2011-03-24 05:30:06 AmpEater has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 413 2011-03-24 05:37:17 Beremat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 414 2011-03-24 05:37:28 dissipate has joined
 415 2011-03-24 05:37:39 Beremat has joined
 416 2011-03-24 05:37:59 theymos has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 417 2011-03-24 05:39:28 theymos has joined
 418 2011-03-24 05:42:07 gasteve has quit (Quit: gasteve)
 419 2011-03-24 05:50:58 <da2ce7> how hard is bitcoin.it getting hammered?
 420 2011-03-24 05:51:49 <dissipate> da2ce7, pretty hard. some hits from whitehouse.gov
 421 2011-03-24 05:52:02 <da2ce7> lol
 422 2011-03-24 05:52:28 <da2ce7> is it still holding up ok?
 423 2011-03-24 05:53:17 <dissipate> looks like it is
 424 2011-03-24 05:53:41 Bosma has joined
 425 2011-03-24 05:53:46 * da2ce7 finds it hard to tell, as his internet is so sucky.
 426 2011-03-24 05:53:47 <dissipate> i still don't understand why bitcoin.org itself is not up on a more robust host
 427 2011-03-24 05:54:06 <da2ce7> who set up the re-direct?
 428 2011-03-24 05:54:36 <dissipate> i have no idea to be honest
 429 2011-03-24 05:57:09 <luke-jr> Sirius
 430 2011-03-24 05:57:14 <CIA-96> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr <luke-jr+git@utopios.org> * raac9e3e8938a spesmilo/settings.py: woops, bugfix :)
 431 2011-03-24 06:02:25 lfm has joined
 432 2011-03-24 06:02:49 doublec has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 433 2011-03-24 06:05:56 <Blitzboom> slush: how come your pool isn’t paying me although the reward is higher than the threshold?
 434 2011-03-24 06:06:06 <Blitzboom> confirmed reward of course
 435 2011-03-24 06:07:05 MattJD has joined
 436 2011-03-24 06:07:56 MJD has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 437 2011-03-24 06:08:06 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 438 2011-03-24 06:10:08 da2ce7 has joined
 439 2011-03-24 06:11:05 phantomcircuit has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 440 2011-03-24 06:12:10 trentzb has joined
 441 2011-03-24 06:20:10 devon_hillard has joined
 442 2011-03-24 06:20:14 devon_hillard has quit (Changing host)
 443 2011-03-24 06:20:14 devon_hillard has joined
 444 2011-03-24 06:24:20 pylon has joined
 445 2011-03-24 06:25:28 bt2100 has joined
 446 2011-03-24 06:27:34 talso has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 447 2011-03-24 06:29:17 bitcoiner has joined
 448 2011-03-24 06:29:28 talso has joined
 449 2011-03-24 06:32:13 Ruudjah has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 450 2011-03-24 06:36:05 da2ce7 has quit ()
 451 2011-03-24 06:36:06 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 452 2011-03-24 06:38:05 SykeP has joined
 453 2011-03-24 06:40:48 trentzb has left ()
 454 2011-03-24 06:41:03 Ruudjah has joined
 455 2011-03-24 06:41:54 pylon has quit (Quit: pylon)
 456 2011-03-24 06:45:36 coldwind has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 457 2011-03-24 06:47:06 genjix has joined
 458 2011-03-24 06:47:06 genjix has quit (Changing host)
 459 2011-03-24 06:47:06 genjix has joined
 460 2011-03-24 06:53:44 coldwind has joined
 461 2011-03-24 06:59:26 da2ce7 has joined
 462 2011-03-24 07:02:08 doublec has joined
 463 2011-03-24 07:02:09 doublec has quit (Changing host)
 464 2011-03-24 07:02:09 doublec has joined
 465 2011-03-24 07:28:29 satamusic has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 466 2011-03-24 07:32:27 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 467 2011-03-24 07:37:46 hwolf has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 468 2011-03-24 07:54:41 mrb_ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 469 2011-03-24 07:56:31 bitcoiner has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86.1 [Firefox 3.6.16/20110319135224])
 470 2011-03-24 07:58:02 mrb_ has joined
 471 2011-03-24 08:02:03 da2ce7 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 472 2011-03-24 08:02:25 da2ce7 has joined
 473 2011-03-24 08:04:16 m00p has joined
 474 2011-03-24 08:05:00 m00p has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 475 2011-03-24 08:05:18 m00p has joined
 476 2011-03-24 08:06:38 rli has joined
 477 2011-03-24 08:16:08 Bosma has quit (Quit: Bosma)
 478 2011-03-24 08:22:04 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 479 2011-03-24 08:23:37 <slush> Blitzboom: read forum, I'm sending it manually, with the delay
 480 2011-03-24 08:23:48 <slush> Blitzboom: I wake up right now, so I'll send next batch soon :)
 481 2011-03-24 08:27:10 eltigre has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 482 2011-03-24 08:28:46 Necr0s has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 483 2011-03-24 08:28:49 Bth8 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 484 2011-03-24 08:29:50 <Blitzboom> oh, that’s done manually now?
 485 2011-03-24 08:29:51 moop has joined
 486 2011-03-24 08:29:57 <slush> yes, for some time
 487 2011-03-24 08:29:57 <Blitzboom> ok
 488 2011-03-24 08:30:17 <Blitzboom> due to sendmany i guess?
 489 2011-03-24 08:30:26 moop has quit (Client Quit)
 490 2011-03-24 08:30:34 <Blitzboom> nvm, i’ll just look it up on the forums
 491 2011-03-24 08:30:49 <slush> yep
 492 2011-03-24 08:32:36 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 493 2011-03-24 08:35:48 dissipate has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 494 2011-03-24 08:43:46 devon_hillard has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 495 2011-03-24 08:57:22 slush has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 496 2011-03-24 09:02:24 <genjix> nanotube: hey
 497 2011-03-24 09:02:24 TheKid has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 498 2011-03-24 09:06:36 TheAncientGoat has joined
 499 2011-03-24 09:15:51 <CIA-96> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r37 /trunk/ (11 files in 2 dirs): (log message trimmed)
 500 2011-03-24 09:15:51 <CIA-96> bitcoinj: First part of block chain handling rework.
 501 2011-03-24 09:15:51 <CIA-96> bitcoinj: - Store the block chain using a get/put interface keyed by hash,
 502 2011-03-24 09:15:51 <CIA-96> bitcoinj:  so we can add disk storage later.
 503 2011-03-24 09:15:51 <CIA-96> bitcoinj: - Add unit tests for difficulty transitions. Move some stuff into
 504 2011-03-24 09:15:51 <CIA-96> bitcoinj:  NetworkParameters to make that easier.
 505 2011-03-24 09:15:52 <CIA-96> bitcoinj: - Track the best chain using total work done. Inform the wallet
 506 2011-03-24 09:19:20 MattJD has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 507 2011-03-24 09:22:38 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 508 2011-03-24 09:22:42 MJD has joined
 509 2011-03-24 09:24:53 wolfspraul has joined
 510 2011-03-24 09:26:22 mehh has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 511 2011-03-24 09:27:35 <CIA-96> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r38 /trunk/ (50 files in 6 dirs): Refresh JavaDocs
 512 2011-03-24 09:28:42 mehh has joined
 513 2011-03-24 09:29:47 finnomenon has joined
 514 2011-03-24 09:30:31 <finnomenon> ;rate 122 mhash
 515 2011-03-24 09:32:00 <lfm> ;;bc,calc 122000
 516 2011-03-24 09:32:02 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 122000 Khps, given current difficulty of 76193.9710474 , is 4 weeks, 3 days, 1 hour, 6 minutes, and 22 seconds
 517 2011-03-24 09:32:29 <rli> ;;bc,stats
 518 2011-03-24 09:32:31 <gribble> Current Blocks: 114814 | Current Difficulty: 76193.9710474 | Next Difficulty At Block: 114911 | Next Difficulty In: 97 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 17 hours, 6 minutes, and 35 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 68849.51764158
 519 2011-03-24 09:32:33 <lfm> ;;bc,gen 122000
 520 2011-03-24 09:32:35 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 122000 Khps, given current difficulty of 76193.9710474 , is 1.61050882038 BTC per day and 0.0671045341827 BTC per hour.
 521 2011-03-24 09:32:39 <genjix> hmm i ask a problem in #economics and people here don't get simple math
 522 2011-03-24 09:33:16 <lfm> peopel there?
 523 2011-03-24 09:33:59 <ArtForz> hrrrmz
 524 2011-03-24 09:34:02 <genjix> there
 525 2011-03-24 09:34:08 TD_ has joined
 526 2011-03-24 09:34:18 <genjix> and they didn't know that floating point gives rounding errors
 527 2011-03-24 09:34:48 <ArtForz> the more I look at it, the more I think Reorganize putting tx into mem pool without checking inputs is a bug
 528 2011-03-24 09:35:00 <lfm> genjix: well study of economics is a soft science. I wouldnt expect them to understand math
 529 2011-03-24 09:35:23 <genjix> really? whenever i read econ on wikipedia, it seems heavy on math
 530 2011-03-24 09:35:37 <genjix> the models
 531 2011-03-24 09:35:39 <ArtForz> well, at least a misfeature
 532 2011-03-24 09:35:46 <lfm> its more like psycology or socialogy than science
 533 2011-03-24 09:36:05 <genjix> ok
 534 2011-03-24 09:36:19 <genjix> psychology is nice, but neurology is making it irrelevant :)
 535 2011-03-24 09:37:01 <lfm> sometimes they try to take on the trppings of math to seem reliable but they dont really understand it
 536 2011-03-24 09:37:04 <TD_> ArtForz: well, it seems deliberate
 537 2011-03-24 09:37:31 <ArtForz> yes
 538 2011-03-24 09:37:31 <TD_> ArtForz: if it did it'd hit the throttling checks
 539 2011-03-24 09:37:33 <genjix> lfm: yeah thats why im confused why #economics people were bad at math :p
 540 2011-03-24 09:37:34 mehh has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 541 2011-03-24 09:37:46 <ArtForz> err, so dont have it do those
 542 2011-03-24 09:38:04 <ArtForz> but at least check that tx inouts still refer to possibly valid tx
 543 2011-03-24 09:38:04 MJD has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 544 2011-03-24 09:38:09 <lfm> genjix: they like to plot random curves and then fit equations to them
 545 2011-03-24 09:38:11 mehh has joined
 546 2011-03-24 09:38:18 <genjix> ic
 547 2011-03-24 09:38:42 <ArtForz> what happens on a > 120 block reorg when the now-shorter branch contains tx that use coinbases from that branch?
 548 2011-03-24 09:39:42 <ArtForz> that tx is *invalid* in the new branch, gets caught by miner connectinputs
 549 2011-03-24 09:39:46 <lfm> genjix: stuff like the price of bitcoins makes a cute plot but its not really math. you can sometimes make some sort of equation fit the data after the fact but it predictive value is very smal
 550 2011-03-24 09:39:47 <ArtForz> yet reorg will happily put it in mem pool ...
 551 2011-03-24 09:40:02 <TD_> yes, but when a new block is created the inputs will be checked again
 552 2011-03-24 09:40:38 <ArtForz> yes, but why even put it in mem pool then?
 553 2011-03-24 09:40:50 <genjix> lfm: right the whole correlation/causation thing
 554 2011-03-24 09:40:54 <jgarzik> a block full of sendmany transactions: http://blockexplorer.com/b/114812
 555 2011-03-24 09:41:04 <genjix> like someone found a connection between difficulty and price
 556 2011-03-24 09:41:04 MJD has joined
 557 2011-03-24 09:41:50 <TD_> ArtForz: i thought that's why you can't spend coinbases that did not mature yet
 558 2011-03-24 09:41:57 <TD_> exactly because after a re-org they would become invalid
 559 2011-03-24 09:41:59 <ArtForz> yes
 560 2011-03-24 09:42:07 <ArtForz> I said on a > 120 block reorg
 561 2011-03-24 09:42:16 <TD_> oh, sorry
 562 2011-03-24 09:42:40 <lfm> wow! 0.19 fees, that might be a record
 563 2011-03-24 09:42:47 <ArtForz> and in that case we put possibly invalid tx in mem pool and rely on miner ConnectInputs to sort em out
 564 2011-03-24 09:42:59 <TD_> i guess the 120 block figure was picked on the assumption that it will "never" happen
 565 2011-03-24 09:43:16 <ArtForz> I'm trying to reduce the checks miner CreateNewBlock has to do
 566 2011-03-24 09:43:29 TD has quit (Disconnected by services)
 567 2011-03-24 09:43:30 TD_ is now known as TD
 568 2011-03-24 09:43:44 <TD> is this because your own miner is struggling or to help the guy who was using his desktop to mine?
 569 2011-03-24 09:43:46 TDX_ has joined
 570 2011-03-24 09:43:46 <ArtForz> and thats the only place except for client mode where a tx can make it into mem pool without input/sig/... checking
 571 2011-03-24 09:43:51 <TD> i'm kind of surprised it's coming up as a bottleneck already
 572 2011-03-24 09:44:00 <ArtForz> TD: slush also has problems
 573 2011-03-24 09:44:46 <ArtForz> tcatm did benches yesterday, with 1500 tx in mem pool, current CreateNewBlock takes 1.7 seconds on his box
 574 2011-03-24 09:45:13 <ArtForz> caching nValueIn for tx inputs and losing the prev tx read in first loop, 0.6 sec
 575 2011-03-24 09:45:18 <TD> so the penny flooding is exhausting IOP capacity?
 576 2011-03-24 09:45:24 <ArtForz> pretty much
 577 2011-03-24 09:45:45 <TD> the entire block chain and index could be held in RAM today though
 578 2011-03-24 09:45:48 <ArtForz> current code reads vin.prevtx for every mempool tx. twice.
 579 2011-03-24 09:45:57 <ArtForz> from disk, that is
 580 2011-03-24 09:46:08 <TD> given that this code is complicated, fragile and has no unit tests at all, i'd be tempted to try buying my way out of that one
 581 2011-03-24 09:46:22 <ArtForz> and it does fun things like doing the ECDSA sig verify for every tx
 582 2011-03-24 09:46:44 <ArtForz> which is completely unneccesary
 583 2011-03-24 09:47:04 <ArtForz> a tx in mem pool came in either via a normal way, then it was run though connectinputs, which already checked the sig
 584 2011-03-24 09:47:23 <ArtForz> or it came from a now-shorter-branch on chain reorg, that means the tx already was in a block we accepted
 585 2011-03-24 09:47:25 MJD has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 586 2011-03-24 09:47:29 <ArtForz> == sig has to be valid
 587 2011-03-24 09:48:10 <ArtForz> so we check the ECDSA sig for every input of every tx in mem pool once a minute. for no reason at all.
 588 2011-03-24 09:48:12 <TD> that sounds reasonable
 589 2011-03-24 09:48:26 <lfm> if chain reorg then we might reject stuff we had accepted?
 590 2011-03-24 09:49:03 <ArtForz> well, if we now reject it because it referes to a now-missing tx, then we wont ever get to the "check if sig is ok" part
 591 2011-03-24 09:49:19 <ArtForz> lfm: in theory, yes
 592 2011-03-24 09:49:29 <lfm> ok i spoze
 593 2011-03-24 09:49:40 <genjix> is fan out always 2+?
 594 2011-03-24 09:49:50 <ArtForz> same thing if it's invalid because after reorg it's a double.-spend
 595 2011-03-24 09:49:51 <genjix> like if i send all of my 1 BTC
 596 2011-03-24 09:49:52 <TD> lfm: a re-org changes the history of the bitcoin economy, in effect. so anything can happen. in practice 99% of the time, nothing happens
 597 2011-03-24 09:50:38 <ArtForz> so I guess if(! fMiner) the ecdsa check in connectinputs
 598 2011-03-24 09:50:44 <lfm> td ya almost always just a redundant hash discovery
 599 2011-03-24 09:50:47 <ArtForz> it's a hack though
 600 2011-03-24 09:51:30 <ArtForz> the proper way would be to make sure no invalid tx or tx with missing inputs can enter mem pool at all
 601 2011-03-24 09:52:15 <ArtForz> then we could lose a vast majority of connectinputs checks in CreateNewBlock
 602 2011-03-24 09:52:23 <TD> if the bottleneck is the ecdsa, a sig cache in key.h might be the least invasive and easiest to verify change
 603 2011-03-24 09:52:33 <lfm> or flush the mem pool if you change forks
 604 2011-03-24 09:52:41 <TD> if it's the disk seek capacity then yeah, that way sounds better
 605 2011-03-24 09:52:57 MJD has joined
 606 2011-03-24 09:53:01 <ArtForz> in my tests it was mostly I/O bound
 607 2011-03-24 09:53:20 <TD> it'd be easy to break in future though as the mem pool is just a hash map. like if somebody adds an rpc to insert some arbitrary tx into the mem pool at some point and does not realize they invalidated some imporatnt assumptions
 608 2011-03-24 09:53:41 <ArtForz> imo one clean way would be to walk mem pool after reorg and drop anything thats now invalid, and move anything thats now orphaned to mapOrphanCache
 609 2011-03-24 09:54:08 <ArtForz> well, then they'll be mining possibly invalid blocks. aka "don't do that"
 610 2011-03-24 09:54:51 MJD has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 611 2011-03-24 09:55:20 <lfm> since forks are relativly rare its ok to do extra work for them
 612 2011-03-24 09:55:54 MJD has joined
 613 2011-03-24 09:56:11 <ArtForz> I'm still trying to figure out a few parts, because I'd *really* like to not have to read prevtx for every input of every tx in CreateNewBlock
 614 2011-03-24 09:56:40 <ArtForz> tcatm tested createnewblock without connectinputs and the same 1500 tx mempool, 0.18 s
 615 2011-03-24 09:57:37 <ArtForz> so if we can move those checks to where tx enter mem pool, thats an oprde rof magnitude speedup for CreateNewBlock ...
 616 2011-03-24 09:59:07 slush has joined
 617 2011-03-24 09:59:09 <ArtForz> we only have to check things when we put the tx in mem pool and when a block arrives
 618 2011-03-24 09:59:10 <lfm> wgen you first look up the txinputs save some stuff like the height of the input and the value so you can easily tell if it should be re-evaluated?
 619 2011-03-24 09:59:58 <ArtForz> well, thats the thing, the tx the input refers to can't change
 620 2011-03-24 10:00:11 <ArtForz> it *can* vanish
 621 2011-03-24 10:00:21 <ArtForz> mainly when it was a doublespend
 622 2011-03-24 10:01:03 <ArtForz> which falls under "check mem pool tx when a block arrives"
 623 2011-03-24 10:01:04 <lfm> but if you know the height of the input you can tell if its part of the reorg easier I was thinking
 624 2011-03-24 10:01:07 genjix is now known as {t_t}
 625 2011-03-24 10:01:43 <ArtForz> I'm currently just checking if we can do it like that
 626 2011-03-24 10:02:17 <ArtForz> basically tighten to "mem pool can't ever contain tx that refer to nonexisting prevtx and/or have invalid sig/... that would fail connectinputs"
 627 2011-03-24 10:03:38 <sipa> make sure there is only one function that does adding to the mem pool, add a comment to it "you must use this function to modify mem pool", and add a comment to the mem pool variable that mentions this invariant
 628 2011-03-24 10:03:41 <lfm> a regorg would still change the result of that test, if the txin is generated in a reorged block
 629 2011-03-24 10:03:48 <sipa> shouldn't be a problem, i guess
 630 2011-03-24 10:03:56 <ArtForz> yes
 631 2011-03-24 10:04:13 MattJD has joined
 632 2011-03-24 10:04:38 <ArtForz> processblock/reorg has to make sure the contract is kept
 633 2011-03-24 10:05:24 MJD has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 634 2011-03-24 10:05:37 <ArtForz> really doesn't look that hard at first glance, the problem is this stuff is so convoluted and spread around, making sure that all paths are covered is a nightmare
 635 2011-03-24 10:05:50 <sipa> ArtForz: is this because it limits the rate at which getwork() is called?
 636 2011-03-24 10:05:50 <slush> jgarzik: the block with sendmany was pool payout from previous day
 637 2011-03-24 10:05:57 <slush> and the record in fees was around 0.99 btc
 638 2011-03-24 10:06:03 <slush> that was because I paid fees for every single transaction before sendmany was implemented
 639 2011-03-24 10:06:20 <ArtForz> sipa: well, that, and it causes huge lag spikes
 640 2011-03-24 10:06:35 <lfm> Max fee: 4.32000000 2010-08-09 20:08:34
 641 2011-03-24 10:06:50 <lfm> so not a record
 642 2011-03-24 10:06:52 <slush> ok, it was probably testing :)
 643 2011-03-24 10:06:54 <ArtForz> with 1500k tx I saw peaks of 10k IOPS whenever createnewblock did it's thing ...
 644 2011-03-24 10:07:22 <slush> or why should anybody pay fees in 2010?
 645 2011-03-24 10:07:32 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
 646 2011-03-24 10:07:46 <lfm> slush ya some test or odd situation
 647 2011-03-24 10:08:52 <ArtForz> it just sounds wrong to do all that work once a minute for no reason other than "because we possibly put invalid tx in mem pool in some corner cases"
 648 2011-03-24 10:10:03 <lfm> for sure
 649 2011-03-24 10:12:06 <lfm> can we put some arbitrary limit on the mem pool size and just start discarding (free) txn? let them be re-isued later
 650 2011-03-24 10:12:17 <ArtForz> yes
 651 2011-03-24 10:12:25 <ArtForz> thats kinda what -limitfreerelay does
 652 2011-03-24 10:12:34 <lfm> kk
 653 2011-03-24 10:12:40 <ArtForz> it just drops em on the floor if they come in too fast
 654 2011-03-24 10:13:12 <lfm> kinda like the dgram/ip protocol
 655 2011-03-24 10:13:25 <ArtForz> my local patch here calcs dPriority for all tx in mempool and drops the loewst-scoring ones whenever it gets "too big"
 656 2011-03-24 10:14:38 <lfm> k . but i see that youd still like to reduce the cpu load for the mem pool
 657 2011-03-24 10:14:45 <ArtForz> so i'd have to add checks to make sure the "no tx referring to input that isnt in mem pool or a main chain block" invariant holds
 658 2011-03-24 10:15:34 <ArtForz> well, considering CreateNewBlock already does the dPriority dance once a minute, doing it to lose the lowest-scoring 1k or so TX whenever mem pool gets > 5k or so shouldnt be much of a problem imo
 659 2011-03-24 10:15:53 <lfm> furtheur youd need to check them in a dependancy order it seems
 660 2011-03-24 10:15:53 <ArtForz> 5k transactions, not 5kB, obviously
 661 2011-03-24 10:15:58 <ArtForz> yes
 662 2011-03-24 10:16:21 <ArtForz> we also have to do that in createnewblock ...
 663 2011-03-24 10:16:31 <lfm> y aok
 664 2011-03-24 10:19:49 <ArtForz> yeah
 665 2011-03-24 10:19:59 <ArtForz> only way a tx in mem pool can become invalid is when a new block arrives
 666 2011-03-24 10:20:53 <lfm> ok ya a double spend or a reorg
 667 2011-03-24 10:21:44 <ArtForz> either a normal chain-extender (mem tx is a doublespend), or on re-org (mem tx is a doublespend or has a input that now refers to a nonexistant coinbase)
 668 2011-03-24 10:22:01 <ArtForz> and ofc tx that use those as inputs
 669 2011-03-24 10:22:12 <sipa> the current code can't deal with that at all, right?
 670 2011-03-24 10:22:20 <ArtForz> well, the current code just doesnt care
 671 2011-03-24 10:22:33 <ArtForz> it leaves the tx there and lets CreateNewBlock sort it out
 672 2011-03-24 10:22:45 <lfm> refers to or depnds on a no longer existant coinbase, agree
 673 2011-03-24 10:23:11 <sipa> i've had corrupted wallets (with tx's that were double spends), and iirc new transactions still used those as inputs
 674 2011-03-24 10:23:54 <lfm> sipa did rescn fix that?
 675 2011-03-24 10:24:00 <lfm> -rescan
 676 2011-03-24 10:24:20 <sipa> maybe i didn't try that, but it shouldn't be necessary
 677 2011-03-24 10:24:29 <ArtForz> erm, yes, it should
 678 2011-03-24 10:24:36 <ArtForz> well... actually...
 679 2011-03-24 10:25:07 <lfm> shouldn't be necessary if there were never any bugs in the software, true
 680 2011-03-24 10:25:13 <sipa> if i have a tx in my wallet, and a new block is received which makes my wallettx invalid, that wallettx should be discarder or marked invalid or somethng
 681 2011-03-24 10:25:25 <ArtForz> adding something to auto-detect that wallet and blkindex disagree should be pretty easy
 682 2011-03-24 10:25:33 <ArtForz> it can happen pretty easily
 683 2011-03-24 10:25:44 <ArtForz> by copying wallets around
 684 2011-03-24 10:26:00 <sipa> yes, and certainly when exporting/importing private keys
 685 2011-03-24 10:26:21 <ArtForz> copy wallet, spend coins, spend gets in chain and blk/blkindex, copy back old wallet
 686 2011-03-24 10:26:41 <sipa> yup
 687 2011-03-24 10:26:49 <lfm> sipa should almost do -rescan every time you import a key perhaps?
 688 2011-03-24 10:27:02 <sipa> lfm: of course, i do that
 689 2011-03-24 10:27:06 <sipa> but that's not enough
 690 2011-03-24 10:27:20 <sipa> client A has a wallet
 691 2011-03-24 10:27:23 <sipa> but is offline
 692 2011-03-24 10:27:37 <sipa> wallet is copied to B, who does a transaction with it
 693 2011-03-24 10:27:48 <sipa> wallet A becomes online before a new block is generated
 694 2011-03-24 10:28:10 <sipa> tries to spend as well -> tx will never be accepted, and A wonders why
 695 2011-03-24 10:28:11 <lfm> oh ok so you're trying to share a blk chain database with several wallets?
 696 2011-03-24 10:28:28 <sipa> no i'm trying to share a private key between different clients
 697 2011-03-24 10:28:35 <sipa> they may have separate block chain db's
 698 2011-03-24 10:28:37 <lfm> so some wallets dont see some block chain updates
 699 2011-03-24 10:28:46 niekie has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
 700 2011-03-24 10:29:00 <ArtForz> well, handling the current case of "copied wallet" seems rather simple to fix
 701 2011-03-24 10:29:08 niekie has joined
 702 2011-03-24 10:29:13 <ArtForz> keep best block hash in wallet
 703 2011-03-24 10:29:29 <Blitzboom> ;;bc,stats
 704 2011-03-24 10:29:31 <gribble> Current Blocks: 114819 | Current Difficulty: 76193.9710474 | Next Difficulty At Block: 114911 | Next Difficulty In: 92 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 16 hours, 13 minutes, and 40 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 68847.31032492
 705 2011-03-24 10:29:33 <ArtForz> if on startup wallet best block and txindex best block disagree, rescan
 706 2011-03-24 10:29:55 da2ce7 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 707 2011-03-24 10:29:55 <sipa> even that is not enough
 708 2011-03-24 10:30:00 <ArtForz> why?
 709 2011-03-24 10:30:06 <sipa> see scenario above
 710 2011-03-24 10:30:16 BlueMatt has joined
 711 2011-03-24 10:30:21 <sipa> A's wallet is never overwritten
 712 2011-03-24 10:30:21 <ArtForz> aka "don't do that"
 713 2011-03-24 10:30:23 da2ce7 has joined
 714 2011-03-24 10:30:54 <lfm> so wallet making a double spend never figures out the sin
 715 2011-03-24 10:30:57 <ArtForz> why is A sending the private key of a tx to B without marking that tx spent?
 716 2011-03-24 10:31:13 <sipa> ?
 717 2011-03-24 10:31:41 <sipa> it could just be someone copying a wallet.dat file around
 718 2011-03-24 10:31:55 <lfm> ya, dont do that
 719 2011-03-24 10:32:13 <sipa> my point is: even if it's a dont-do-that, i think it's quite possible to make the software robust in that case
 720 2011-03-24 10:32:33 <ArtForz> well, thats not a normal case, and afaict impossible with current client
 721 2011-03-24 10:32:42 <lfm> sipa possible to -rescan every half hour, but not practical
 722 2011-03-24 10:32:52 <ArtForz> while "copied older wallet.dat + newer blkindex" is pretty easy to trigger
 723 2011-03-24 10:33:31 <sipa> the only missing part, i believe, is that if the block chain conflicts with a wallettx, that wallettx must be marked inactive
 724 2011-03-24 10:34:00 <ArtForz> well, or "uncreated"
 725 2011-03-24 10:34:17 <sipa> yes, but people using the gui won't like their tx to disappear
 726 2011-03-24 10:34:18 <lfm> sipa I think -rescan would find out the txn is spent and not re-issue the double spend
 727 2011-03-24 10:34:36 <sipa> lfm: i doubt that, rescan doesn't do anything that isn't done when just receiving the block
 728 2011-03-24 10:35:06 <lfm> sipa easy enuf to test
 729 2011-03-24 10:35:28 <sipa> well i've had that problem
 730 2011-03-24 10:35:36 <ArtForz> do we currently handle that at all?
 731 2011-03-24 10:35:42 <sipa> i don't think so
 732 2011-03-24 10:36:16 <ArtForz> aka "A creates tx while offline, B creates double-spend of same TX and gets it into chain, A comes online and now has what everyone considers the double-spend in his wallet"
 733 2011-03-24 10:36:33 <sipa> yup, that case
 734 2011-03-24 10:36:58 <lfm> ya 1 does A figure out his sin and 2 what should he do then
 735 2011-03-24 10:37:20 <sipa> it's easy... A could notice it as soon as a block is received
 736 2011-03-24 10:37:26 <ArtForz> 1. yes. 2. currently he does nothing, wallet still contains the invalid tx, accepttotmemorypool will drop it though
 737 2011-03-24 10:38:13 <ArtForz> so he has a invalid tx in wallet that cant ever go anywhere
 738 2011-03-24 10:38:24 TD has joined
 739 2011-03-24 10:39:11 <lfm> sender of A or receiver of A?
 740 2011-03-24 10:39:15 <ArtForz> as the "colliding" tx is already in chain, his tx can't *ever* get into a block
 741 2011-03-24 10:39:26 <sipa> indeed, and A will keep retrying
 742 2011-03-24 10:39:32 <ArtForz> actually he won't
 743 2011-03-24 10:39:43 <ArtForz> as his own AcceptToMemoryPool will drop that tx on the ground
 744 2011-03-24 10:39:56 <sipa> hmm ok
 745 2011-03-24 10:40:16 <JFK911> ;;bc,stats
 746 2011-03-24 10:40:18 <gribble> Current Blocks: 114821 | Current Difficulty: 76193.9710474 | Next Difficulty At Block: 114911 | Next Difficulty In: 90 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 15 hours, 54 minutes, and 0 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 68857.24436463
 747 2011-03-24 10:40:32 <lfm> so the A inputs never get marked spent in A's wallet?
 748 2011-03-24 10:40:47 <ArtForz> lfm: kinda
 749 2011-03-24 10:40:48 <sipa> BlueMatt: by the way, i tested it, and the remaining part of a partially-spent tx is visible in the transaction list in an old client, but not in the balance... the problem is resolved when going back to the new client
 750 2011-03-24 10:41:15 <ArtForz> they do get marked as spent I think, when he sees the block
 751 2011-03-24 10:41:16 <BlueMatt> sipa: so it works as expected?
 752 2011-03-24 10:41:23 <ArtForz> but the now-invalid tx still sits around
 753 2011-03-24 10:42:05 <ArtForz> problem is if his and the colliding only shared some inputs
 754 2011-03-24 10:42:13 <ArtForz> = he has now spent coins that arent really spent
 755 2011-03-24 10:42:28 <sipa> BlueMatt: i've done some transactions creating a partial-spent tx, went back to old client, did some tx's there (obviously, disregarding the partial tx), went back to patched version, and spent everything (including the output of a tx in "old mode", and the partial tx)
 756 2011-03-24 10:42:33 <sipa> BlueMatt: so, yes
 757 2011-03-24 10:42:53 <lfm> and possibly truly unspent coins that are tied up in an impossible txn
 758 2011-03-24 10:42:56 <ArtForz> yep
 759 2011-03-24 10:42:59 <ArtForz> thats what I mean
 760 2011-03-24 10:43:08 m0mchil has joined
 761 2011-03-24 10:43:11 <m0mchil> hi all
 762 2011-03-24 10:43:17 <lfm> yuk
 763 2011-03-24 10:43:31 <sipa> BlueMatt: however, i think a disclaimer somewhere is necessary... we're just discussing a case of a corrupt wallet that's quite possible to have when importing and exporting keys
 764 2011-03-24 10:43:53 <lfm> or even just copying wallets
 765 2011-03-24 10:43:57 <ArtForz> A has outputs 1,2,3, B gets A's wallet, spends 2+3, while offline, A sends 1,2,3 to C, comes online, Bs tx is in block, ... A still has all 3 marked as spent and a impossible tx in his wallet
 766 2011-03-24 10:44:00 <sipa> actually, just copying wallet.dat files is enough to cause it
 767 2011-03-24 10:44:03 <sipa> yeah, what lfm said
 768 2011-03-24 10:44:33 m00p has joined
 769 2011-03-24 10:44:41 <sipa> but copying wallet.dat files is a known don't-do-that case, while if there is an rpc for exporting and importing wallets, some people will consider it a safe feature
 770 2011-03-24 10:45:15 <ArtForz> imo the proper way to handle a tx in a block colliding with a wallet tx is to "uncreate" that wallet tx and accept the tx in block as gospel
 771 2011-03-24 10:45:36 <ArtForz> sucks for A, but imo thats the only way to handle it that makes sense
 772 2011-03-24 10:45:41 <sipa> agree
 773 2011-03-24 10:45:59 <lfm> well backupwallet makes a new copy and people assume the backups are also then usable. kinda a mess
 774 2011-03-24 10:47:23 xelister has joined
 775 2011-03-24 10:47:45 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 776 2011-03-24 10:49:19 <lfm> part of the problem is I guess expecting the gui txn record to act like an accounting ledger
 777 2011-03-24 10:49:40 <lfm> txns arnt spozed to dissapear
 778 2011-03-24 10:50:34 <sipa> add a boolean to a tx "overruled"
 779 2011-03-24 10:50:52 <sipa> that for all intents and purposes marks it as non-existing
 780 2011-03-24 10:50:53 <lfm> create a dummy txn voiding txn
 781 2011-03-24 10:50:55 <sipa> except for the gui
 782 2011-03-24 10:51:59 <m0mchil> ArtForz, any idea why CreateNewBlock initially is (relatively) fast, even with 1000+ TX? Then gradually worsening?
 783 2011-03-24 10:52:09 <lfm> or like grey it out when its voided
 784 2011-03-24 10:52:17 <sipa> lfm: yes, something like that
 785 2011-03-24 10:52:21 <ArtForz> m0mchil: not 100% sure, I don't see that here
 786 2011-03-24 10:52:50 <ArtForz> seems to be pretty consistently slow here
 787 2011-03-24 10:53:54 <m0mchil> during last night I saw it gradually declining, from below 1000 ms to eventually above 3000, about same number of TX
 788 2011-03-24 10:54:15 FellowTraveler has joined
 789 2011-03-24 10:54:24 <ArtForz> hmmm
 790 2011-03-24 10:54:43 <ArtForz> I guess it could be effects from I/O caches
 791 2011-03-24 10:54:59 <ArtForz> or we're leaking memory somewhere
 792 2011-03-24 10:55:06 <RBecker> ;;bc,blocks
 793 2011-03-24 10:55:07 <gribble> 114823
 794 2011-03-24 10:55:09 <lfm> memory fragmentation?
 795 2011-03-24 10:55:21 <ArtForz> mem frag causing a 3x slowdown?
 796 2011-03-24 10:55:26 <ArtForz> well, I guess it's possible
 797 2011-03-24 10:55:35 <m0mchil> there was some increase in memory too, but maxed out at some point
 798 2011-03-24 10:56:31 <ArtForz> btw, easiest way to make createnewblock REALLY slow: have a fragmented blk0001.dat and < 50MB mem free for caching
 799 2011-03-24 10:56:48 <xelister> MEM fragmentation?!
 800 2011-03-24 10:57:06 <ArtForz> xelister: yes, I kinda doubt it though
 801 2011-03-24 10:57:39 * xelister runs his DOS/4GW and shoots some imps
 802 2011-03-24 10:57:58 * xelister fires up DJGPP "and I thought 1990's are long gone ;_;"
 803 2011-03-24 10:58:04 <m0mchil> also, I see the second loop -> while (!mapPriority.empty()) <- much slower
 804 2011-03-24 10:58:22 <sipa> hey, 1994 called, they want their 16+16 bit segmented address space back
 805 2011-03-24 10:58:24 <xelister> well first question about mem fragmentation should be, why you run servers in DOS and windows 3.11/98
 806 2011-03-24 10:58:26 <ArtForz> slower than what?
 807 2011-03-24 10:58:35 <tcatm> m0mchil: Probably because of ConnectInputs()
 808 2011-03-24 10:58:40 <ArtForz> yea
 809 2011-03-24 10:58:57 <m0mchil> than the first one, iterating mapPriority
 810 2011-03-24 10:59:10 <ArtForz> connectinputs read prev tx for every input from disk and does ECDSA sig verification
 811 2011-03-24 10:59:25 <ArtForz> first loop "only" read prev tx for every input from disk
 812 2011-03-24 10:59:26 <m0mchil> that explains a lot
 813 2011-03-24 10:59:55 <lfm> xelister: do you still use malloc and free? Even hidden in your objects? then your memory can be fragmented
 814 2011-03-24 11:00:03 <ArtForz> actually we can lose the ECDSA when we have fMiner set completely
 815 2011-03-24 11:00:14 <xelister> lfm: in what?  when coding C++,  new/delete as usuall.
 816 2011-03-24 11:00:17 <m0mchil> what is fMiner?
 817 2011-03-24 11:00:35 <tcatm> couldn't we replace that ConnectInputs() with GetDepthInMainChain() to check whether the tx is valid?
 818 2011-03-24 11:00:42 <ArtForz> no
 819 2011-03-24 11:01:22 <ArtForz> input can refer to a easriler tx in the block we're currently creating
 820 2011-03-24 11:01:53 <ArtForz> and thanks to chain reorg, tx referring to nonexistent input tx can get into mem pool (!)
 821 2011-03-24 11:04:36 <tcatm> Can we re-check every TX in mempool after reorg?
 822 2011-03-24 11:04:39 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 823 2011-03-24 11:04:52 <ArtForz> thats what I'm planning to do
 824 2011-03-24 11:04:56 <lfm> yes, you should id think
 825 2011-03-24 11:05:08 FellowTraveler has left ()
 826 2011-03-24 11:06:36 wolfspraul has joined
 827 2011-03-24 11:08:30 <ArtForz> and then theres stupid fClientMode
 828 2011-03-24 11:09:25 <tcatm> can a node with fClientMode set mine blocks?
 829 2011-03-24 11:09:43 <TD> no
 830 2011-03-24 11:09:45 <ArtForz> no clue, never really looked at those code paths
 831 2011-03-24 11:09:53 <TD> the definition of client mode is that it cannot mine because it does not verify transactions at all
 832 2011-03-24 11:10:40 <tcatm> So it doesn't need the tx mempool at all.
 833 2011-03-24 11:10:55 <TD> correct
 834 2011-03-24 11:10:56 <xelister> Satoshi should had write more comments in some places imo.. ;)
 835 2011-03-24 11:11:10 <TD> bitcoin wasn't really written with other people improving it in mind ....
 836 2011-03-24 11:12:56 <jeremias> is Satoshi still actively involved with the bitcoin community
 837 2011-03-24 11:13:12 <{t_t}> no
 838 2011-03-24 11:13:29 <Aciid> {t_t}: the funk?Å
 839 2011-03-24 11:14:00 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: leaving)
 840 2011-03-24 11:14:23 wolfspraul has joined
 841 2011-03-24 11:15:15 <tcatm> It might be a good idea to use an alternative client based on bitcoinj or one of the python-libs for a ClientMode node.
 842 2011-03-24 11:15:17 <{t_t}> the... funk?
 843 2011-03-24 11:15:20 <{t_t}> @ Aciid
 844 2011-03-24 11:15:50 <jeremias> http://www.google.com/trends?q=bitcoin
 845 2011-03-24 11:15:59 <jeremias> hmm ,interesting to see how that chart will evolve
 846 2011-03-24 11:16:14 <Blitzboom> http://www.google.com/trends?q=bitcoin&ctab=0&geo=all&date=mtd&sort=0
 847 2011-03-24 11:16:22 <Blitzboom> more recent
 848 2011-03-24 11:17:08 <Aciid> {t_t}: your nickname
 849 2011-03-24 11:17:14 <{t_t}> :)
 850 2011-03-24 11:17:23 <Aciid> why change
 851 2011-03-24 11:17:31 <{t_t}> for fun
 852 2011-03-24 11:17:43 <{t_t}> i like to be anon sometimes
 853 2011-03-24 11:17:47 <Aciid> ok
 854 2011-03-24 11:18:08 <{t_t}> less about who i am, more about what i say :p
 855 2011-03-24 11:22:11 <ArtForz> argh, I'm not really comfortable messing with this stuff, WAY too easy to horribly break things
 856 2011-03-24 11:22:35 <ArtForz> especially the "who updates what when" on reorg
 857 2011-03-24 11:25:37 <TD> tcatm: i'm not sure
 858 2011-03-24 11:25:38 BlueMatt has joined
 859 2011-03-24 11:25:52 <TD> ArtForz: yeah that's what i concluded too. i'd suggest taking the brute force approach for now
 860 2011-03-24 11:26:04 <TD> ArtForz: either multi-thread CreateNewBlock, or just host the entire block chain/index in RAM
 861 2011-03-24 11:27:01 <ArtForz> well, losing the read in the first loop is trivial
 862 2011-03-24 11:27:06 <ArtForz> well, mostly...
 863 2011-03-24 11:27:07 <TD> sure
 864 2011-03-24 11:27:10 <TD> also satoshi *is* still around
 865 2011-03-24 11:27:16 <TD> he responds to emails from gavin and me at least
 866 2011-03-24 11:27:24 <TD> if you send him a patch he may well review it for you
 867 2011-03-24 11:27:30 <{t_t}> oh cool
 868 2011-03-24 11:27:31 <TD> so that can increase confidence
 869 2011-03-24 11:27:52 <TD> tcatm: i'm trying to ensure bitcoinj will be an easier codebase to understand, but obviously it won't help slush or ArtForz
 870 2011-03-24 11:27:57 <ArtForz> might score a tx too low after reorg, need to add special-case code for that
 871 2011-03-24 11:29:05 <BlueMatt> what was this earlier about corrupted wallets
 872 2011-03-24 11:30:25 <{t_t}> TD: thanks. please concentrate on making it client only :)
 873 2011-03-24 11:30:36 <{t_t}> we have tons of miners, but need more clients
 874 2011-03-24 11:30:49 <eps1> if you copy a wallet and then make transaction, the copy of the wallet is no longer valid
 875 2011-03-24 11:30:56 <TD> well, the strength of the network depends on its size, to some extent.
 876 2011-03-24 11:30:59 <{t_t}> eps1: not neccessarily.
 877 2011-03-24 11:30:59 <eps1> at least that is my understanding
 878 2011-03-24 11:31:27 <TD> for casual end users, client-mode impls work better. for merchants, enthusiasts and miners there's no replacement for satoshis code
 879 2011-03-24 11:32:00 <{t_t}> eps1: it depends on wheher you have new keys or not... otherwise just run -rescan. however i recommend backup after every transaction.
 880 2011-03-24 11:32:11 <eps1> the client really needs to be able to ensure that a valid backup is made whenever the possibility of the old one being invalid arises
 881 2011-03-24 11:32:11 <{t_t}> sometimes new keys are generated.
 882 2011-03-24 11:32:35 <{t_t}> eps1: http://bitcoin.cz.cc/
 883 2011-03-24 11:33:54 <eps1> heh, telling me to put my bitcoins where my mouth is? :)
 884 2011-03-24 11:34:57 <{t_t}> yer
 885 2011-03-24 11:35:19 <doublec> how is it decided when the bounty is claimed in bitcoin.cz.cc?
 886 2011-03-24 11:35:26 <doublec> does the original submitter decide?
 887 2011-03-24 11:35:31 <doublec> and who gets the money?
 888 2011-03-24 11:36:05 <eps1> i might have a look, it can't be that difficult to create a config file option that tells you where to backup to and have the client copy the wallet periodically
 889 2011-03-24 11:36:14 <doublec> the 'how it works' isn't very clear
 890 2011-03-24 11:39:11 <{t_t}> doublec: ill add something to help
 891 2011-03-24 11:40:03 <doublec> thanks, I like the idea
 892 2011-03-24 11:41:04 cenuij has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 893 2011-03-24 11:43:06 <ArtForz> ugh
 894 2011-03-24 11:43:39 <ArtForz> another "WHY?!?" moment
 895 2011-03-24 11:43:59 <ArtForz> for every input of every tx, CreateNewBlock does int nConf = txindex.GetDepthInMainChain();
 896 2011-03-24 11:44:29 <sipa> ... which is linear?
 897 2011-03-24 11:44:33 <ArtForz> yes
 898 2011-03-24 11:44:37 <{t_t}> i dont see the problem here.
 899 2011-03-24 11:44:41 <ArtForz> it also reads a complete block from disk
 900 2011-03-24 11:44:51 <sipa> you could cache it
 901 2011-03-24 11:44:56 <sipa> in the block
 902 2011-03-24 11:45:47 <ArtForz> you don't say...
 903 2011-03-24 11:46:23 <{t_t}> ah ok
 904 2011-03-24 11:47:01 <ArtForz> so, once a minute for every input of every cached tx we 1. read the prev tx from disk 2. read the block containing that prev tx from disk 3. read the prev tx from disk again 4. do a lot of other stuff including a ECDSA sig verify ...
 905 2011-03-24 11:47:24 <ArtForz> yes, can't see how that could cause issues with a few 1000 tx in mem pool
 906 2011-03-24 11:48:52 <ArtForz> oh, and for extra points we do all that holding the BFL
 907 2011-03-24 11:49:00 <ArtForz> errr... I mean cs_main
 908 2011-03-24 11:50:34 <doublec> {t_t}: oops, http://bitcoin.cz.cc/?page=propose&id=%3Cscript%3Ealert%28%22foo%22%29%3C/script%3E%27%20or%20pid=%2728
 909 2011-03-24 11:50:58 <{t_t}> ok that should not happen... i thought i fixed that
 910 2011-03-24 11:52:11 <{t_t}> ok thanks doublec  :)
 911 2011-03-24 11:52:17 <doublec> no worries :)
 912 2011-03-24 11:52:44 <{t_t}> k fix'd
 913 2011-03-24 11:52:49 <{t_t}> and added FAQ too
 914 2011-03-24 11:53:04 <doublec> cool, thanks
 915 2011-03-24 11:53:22 <{t_t}> wait, found another one :p
 916 2011-03-24 11:56:01 <ArtForz> so even if twe thread CreateNewBlock, we still block pretty much everything while it's running
 917 2011-03-24 11:57:24 <slush> ArtForz: How can I be sure that blkindex is full in memory?
 918 2011-03-24 11:57:51 <ArtForz> pfff... good question, you probably can't
 919 2011-03-24 11:58:00 <slush> ArtForz: Because it might be next one trouble which I have - I see the slowdowns as m0mchil described, too
 920 2011-03-24 11:58:50 gasteve has joined
 921 2011-03-24 11:58:55 <ArtForz> does it go back down after a new block arrives?
 922 2011-03-24 11:59:01 <ArtForz> or does it stay slow?
 923 2011-03-24 11:59:18 <slush> I don't remember, now the problem does not appear as I have no txes in mempool
 924 2011-03-24 12:00:08 <doublec> {t_t}: yep, looks fixed
 925 2011-03-24 12:02:23 <{t_t}> doublec: i think so :) http://gitorious.org/btfeature/btfeature/commit/57bece8ba37710dd0a55a3a3ae59a0ff5b86064b
 926 2011-03-24 12:03:37 grondilu has joined
 927 2011-03-24 12:03:43 <grondilu> New auction for a gold coin!!   http://www.biddingpond.com/item.php?id=410
 928 2011-03-24 12:03:45 <{t_t}> saluton grondilu
 929 2011-03-24 12:03:55 <grondilu> saluton
 930 2011-03-24 12:04:19 <grondilu> cxu vi estas genjix?
 931 2011-03-24 12:04:29 <{t_t}> jes
 932 2011-03-24 12:04:36 <grondilu> lol
 933 2011-03-24 12:05:13 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * r3da063aee822 intersango/www/index.php: fixed XSS bug.
 934 2011-03-24 12:05:14 <{t_t}> cxu vi rigardis mian retpagxon por donacoj por estigi de bitmono?
 935 2011-03-24 12:05:15 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * r522e026eed20 intersango/util.php: enough money check should pass when you have == number of funds.
 936 2011-03-24 12:05:16 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * reffeda79978a intersango/login.php: re-enabled OpenID logins.
 937 2011-03-24 12:05:18 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * r77f1c12453b7 intersango/ (deposit.php help.php): added new emmail
 938 2011-03-24 12:06:30 <{t_t}> grondilu: iru http://bitcoin.cz.cc kaj proponu ideojn por bitmono :p
 939 2011-03-24 12:07:43 cenuij has joined
 940 2011-03-24 12:07:43 cenuij has quit (Changing host)
 941 2011-03-24 12:07:43 cenuij has joined
 942 2011-03-24 12:09:58 <grondilu> {t_t}: hum, mi esperas, ke tiuj iloj ne estos ene la bitmono programo.
 943 2011-03-24 12:10:35 <grondilu> mi vere kredas en la "KISS" filozofo
 944 2011-03-24 12:18:31 larsivi has joined
 945 2011-03-24 12:21:48 <{t_t}> grondilu: tial vi ne bezonas fresxigi vian bitmon-softvaron :)
 946 2011-03-24 12:21:58 <{t_t}> cxar gxi funkcias bone
 947 2011-03-24 12:22:12 <{t_t}> tamen aliaj volas pli da funkcioj
 948 2011-03-24 12:23:07 <BlueMatt> sipa, ArtForz: re: wallet copying, would that not be fairly easy to check for when a client receives new blocks, someone want to implement that?
 949 2011-03-24 12:23:53 <grondilu> kompreneble, sed mi ne multe zorgas pri aliaj uloj, kiuj deziras tiajn funkciojn :)
 950 2011-03-24 12:24:18 <{t_t}> BlueMatt: or bitcoin should have script hooks
 951 2011-03-24 12:24:40 <grondilu> such scripts exist already
 952 2011-03-24 12:25:02 <{t_t}> well i wrote https://github.com/genjix/sekureco but nobody uses it.
 953 2011-03-24 12:25:20 <{t_t}> yet people complain about wallet backup... ergo it needs to go in the client.
 954 2011-03-24 12:25:36 <grondilu> no
 955 2011-03-24 12:25:43 <grondilu> just let them complain
 956 2011-03-24 12:25:57 <ArtForz> we already keep best chain hash in txdb
 957 2011-03-24 12:26:22 <ArtForz> so... also keep it in wallet, if those don't match on startup, rescan
 958 2011-03-24 12:26:26 <BlueMatt> {t_t}: the problem is when someone else spends on your wallet (ie if you copied your wallet)
 959 2011-03-24 12:26:53 <ArtForz> that should at least fix the "copying back wallet after backup+spend" case
 960 2011-03-24 12:27:01 <{t_t}> BlueMatt: well im working on crypto for that, so that should be ok.
 961 2011-03-24 12:27:46 <{t_t}> just got to open this exchange this week :p
 962 2011-03-24 12:28:06 <{t_t}> takes a lot of effort to do the testing + security checks needed...
 963 2011-03-24 12:31:41 <jrabbit> ;;bc;blocks
 964 2011-03-24 12:31:41 <gribble> Error: "bc;blocks" is not a valid command.
 965 2011-03-24 12:31:44 <jrabbit> >:(
 966 2011-03-24 12:31:54 dmnd has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 967 2011-03-24 12:33:07 dmnd has joined
 968 2011-03-24 12:33:07 dmnd has quit (Changing host)
 969 2011-03-24 12:33:07 dmnd has joined
 970 2011-03-24 12:33:26 grondilu has quit (Quit: leaving)
 971 2011-03-24 12:37:56 jroot has joined
 972 2011-03-24 12:39:30 <BlueMatt> ;;bc,blocks
 973 2011-03-24 12:39:30 <gribble> 114831
 974 2011-03-24 12:40:44 <tcatm> ArtForz: automated wallet rescan has been suggested by satoshi: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues#issue/99
 975 2011-03-24 12:44:39 doublec has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 976 2011-03-24 12:45:04 <ArtForz> whats wrong with just storing hashbestchain in wallet ?
 977 2011-03-24 12:47:12 <tcatm> iirc CBlockLocator already knows how to find the block within the chain.
 978 2011-03-24 12:47:26 <ArtForz> yes, but why are we looking for it?
 979 2011-03-24 12:48:23 <ArtForz> CBlock::SetBestChain does TxDB.WriteHashBestChain when a new block comes along
 980 2011-03-24 12:48:47 <ArtForz> = TxDB.hashbestchain is the block hash of the last block TxDB saw
 981 2011-03-24 12:49:07 <ArtForz> do the exact same thing with WalletDB
 982 2011-03-24 12:51:43 <ArtForz> modify the rescan handing in init.cpp so it triggers rescan if wallet and txdb bestchainindex don't match
 983 2011-03-24 12:51:50 <ArtForz> err bestchainhash
 984 2011-03-24 12:51:58 <ArtForz> err hashbestchain
 985 2011-03-24 12:52:02 <tcatm> I think with a CBlockLocator we could find the starting point from which to rescan.
 986 2011-03-24 12:52:11 <ArtForz> well, we currently rescan the whole thing
 987 2011-03-24 12:52:44 <ArtForz> why are we doing performance optimization for something that only happens once after you restore a wallet backup?
 988 2011-03-24 12:56:16 <eps1> ;;bc,stats
 989 2011-03-24 12:56:18 <gribble> Current Blocks: 114833 | Current Difficulty: 76193.9710474 | Next Difficulty At Block: 114911 | Next Difficulty In: 78 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 13 hours, 45 minutes, and 30 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 68848.41396556
 990 2011-03-24 12:57:17 <eps1> mystery miner only has ~13 hours to fuck things up
 991 2011-03-24 12:57:53 Kiba has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 992 2011-03-24 12:59:14 molecular has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 993 2011-03-24 12:59:54 molecular has joined
 994 2011-03-24 13:02:36 <tcatm> ArtForz: Maybe we should ask Satoshi why he'd use CBlockLocator.
 995 2011-03-24 13:03:49 slush has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 996 2011-03-24 13:07:01 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 997 2011-03-24 13:08:23 <TD> tcatm: you mean what does the object exist for ?
 998 2011-03-24 13:10:28 <tcatm> TD: no, why he suggested it here:  https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues#issue/99
 999 2011-03-24 13:10:51 <{t_t}> joepie91: http://boards.4chan.org/b/res/318003955
1000 2011-03-24 13:11:38 skeledrew1 has quit (Quit: Instantbird 0.3a2pre)
1001 2011-03-24 13:11:44 <TD> for performance
1002 2011-03-24 13:12:01 <TD> btw if you write a patch that forces a chain split let me know. i am getting to a point where i will need the same thing
1003 2011-03-24 13:12:40 <tcatm> Just run two clients that share the same chain but aren't connected.
1004 2011-03-24 13:12:50 slush has joined
1005 2011-03-24 13:13:37 <tcatm> Or look for a past chainsplit in blk0001.dat and replay the chain slowly, sending the shorter chain first
1006 2011-03-24 13:14:23 <{t_t}> is the protocol being changed?
1007 2011-03-24 13:14:24 <TD> yeah that's true, it can be done entirely by manipulating a small testnet
1008 2011-03-24 13:14:24 skeledrew has joined
1009 2011-03-24 13:15:04 kiba has joined
1010 2011-03-24 13:17:37 <tcatm> there are two blocks at 111871
1011 2011-03-24 13:19:55 <tcatm> after 19500 there is a larger split (3 blocks)
1012 2011-03-24 13:22:01 ColdHardMetal_ has joined
1013 2011-03-24 13:22:03 <kiba> hey
1014 2011-03-24 13:23:59 ColdHardMetal has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1015 2011-03-24 13:27:27 m0mchil has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1016 2011-03-24 13:29:49 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1017 2011-03-24 13:29:53 AmpEater has joined
1018 2011-03-24 13:30:08 qwebirc38055 has joined
1019 2011-03-24 13:30:20 da2ce7 has joined
1020 2011-03-24 13:30:29 qwebirc38055 has quit (Client Quit)
1021 2011-03-24 13:31:47 Teslah has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1022 2011-03-24 13:32:08 Teslah has joined
1023 2011-03-24 13:32:24 m0mchil has joined
1024 2011-03-24 13:32:25 m0mchil has quit (Changing host)
1025 2011-03-24 13:32:25 m0mchil has joined
1026 2011-03-24 13:34:34 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1027 2011-03-24 13:39:01 wolfspra1l has joined
1028 2011-03-24 13:39:43 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1029 2011-03-24 13:41:35 AmpEater has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1030 2011-03-24 13:43:07 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1031 2011-03-24 13:45:12 da2ce7 has joined
1032 2011-03-24 13:45:33 [Noodles] has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1033 2011-03-24 13:49:40 <{t_t}> Blitzboom: is this yours? http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/g9sdr/bitcoins_a_decentralized_and_anonymous_currency/
1034 2011-03-24 13:49:54 <{t_t}> from yesterday i remember you asking for bumps
1035 2011-03-24 13:50:03 <Blitzboom> nope, not mine
1036 2011-03-24 13:50:14 <{t_t}> "297 up votes 111 down votes"
1037 2011-03-24 13:50:21 <Blitzboom> haha. so controverse
1038 2011-03-24 13:50:23 <{t_t}> 1/4 people don't like bitcoin? whyy
1039 2011-03-24 13:50:30 m00p has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1040 2011-03-24 13:51:11 <Blitzboom> (屮ﾟДﾟ)屮
1041 2011-03-24 13:51:31 <{t_t}> hahah! so good
1042 2011-03-24 13:51:36 <{t_t}> wow
1043 2011-03-24 13:51:43 * {t_t} pokes nanotube 
1044 2011-03-24 13:51:45 <Blitzboom> what, the comments?
1045 2011-03-24 13:51:51 <{t_t}> no your smiley
1046 2011-03-24 13:51:56 <Blitzboom> also: #bitcoin-discussion
1047 2011-03-24 13:51:57 <{t_t}> going "whyyyyy"
1048 2011-03-24 13:52:03 <Blitzboom> yeah. i like that meme
1049 2011-03-24 13:56:29 <da2ce7> hey t_t, haven't seen you before, are you a member of the bitcoin.org smf?
1050 2011-03-24 13:56:56 <{t_t}> genjix
1051 2011-03-24 13:57:08 <da2ce7> ah ok, why the differnt name?
1052 2011-03-24 13:57:56 sabalaba has joined
1053 2011-03-24 13:57:59 <{t_t}> cause a bit of chaos :)
1054 2011-03-24 13:59:10 * da2ce7 should change this name to 'NakedBitcoin'
1055 2011-03-24 13:59:40 da2ce7 is now known as NakedBitcoin
1056 2011-03-24 13:59:47 <NakedBitcoin> :)
1057 2011-03-24 14:00:22 <lfm> so tt is short fro troll
1058 2011-03-24 14:00:47 <NakedBitcoin> Oh.. didn't know.
1059 2011-03-24 14:02:07 * NakedBitcoin thinks that 币 is the best character for BTC.
1060 2011-03-24 14:02:14 <NakedBitcoin> it really suits.
1061 2011-03-24 14:02:21 <sipa> why?
1062 2011-03-24 14:02:34 <NakedBitcoin> means 'currency'
1063 2011-03-24 14:02:42 <sipa> ah, nice
1064 2011-03-24 14:02:48 <Blitzboom> haha
1065 2011-03-24 14:03:00 <NakedBitcoin> lookes like a person, and has 'B' 'T' 'C' in it,
1066 2011-03-24 14:03:06 <luke-jr> wtf?
1067 2011-03-24 14:03:17 <sipa> with some imagination
1068 2011-03-24 14:03:31 * NakedBitcoin is naked, so has imagination.
1069 2011-03-24 14:03:58 <NakedBitcoin> lol
1070 2011-03-24 14:05:45 <NakedBitcoin> t_t you know chinees, what do you think?
1071 2011-03-24 14:06:00 <NakedBitcoin> *Chinese
1072 2011-03-24 14:06:21 sabalaba has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1073 2011-03-24 14:06:57 <{t_t}> NakedBitcoin: i know Chinese?
1074 2011-03-24 14:07:03 <{t_t}> that's news to me
1075 2011-03-24 14:07:20 <{t_t}> 币 looks like a house
1076 2011-03-24 14:08:13 <Blitzboom> looks like a helicopter to me …
1077 2011-03-24 14:08:29 <Blitzboom> but it depends on the font
1078 2011-03-24 14:11:02 <joepie91> {t_t} what was it
1079 2011-03-24 14:11:12 <joepie91> I just got woken up
1080 2011-03-24 14:12:21 <sipa> ;;bc,stats
1081 2011-03-24 14:12:24 <gribble> Current Blocks: 114847 | Current Difficulty: 76193.9710474 | Next Difficulty At Block: 114911 | Next Difficulty In: 64 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 11 hours, 7 minutes, and 44 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 69105.41850362
1082 2011-03-24 14:12:32 [Tycho] has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1083 2011-03-24 14:13:21 [Tycho] has joined
1084 2011-03-24 14:14:04 [Tycho] has quit (Changing host)
1085 2011-03-24 14:14:04 [Tycho] has joined
1086 2011-03-24 14:14:07 Stellar has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1087 2011-03-24 14:14:38 Stellar has joined
1088 2011-03-24 14:16:48 AmpEater has joined
1089 2011-03-24 14:17:51 <NakedBitcoin> ooh the diff is only dropping by 700...
1090 2011-03-24 14:17:52 <NakedBitcoin> :P
1091 2011-03-24 14:17:59 NakedBitcoin is now known as da2ce7
1092 2011-03-24 14:18:07 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1093 2011-03-24 14:18:34 <AmpEater> ;;bc,stats
1094 2011-03-24 14:18:36 <gribble> Current Blocks: 114847 | Current Difficulty: 76193.9710474 | Next Difficulty At Block: 114911 | Next Difficulty In: 64 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 11 hours, 7 minutes, and 44 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 69105.41850362
1095 2011-03-24 14:21:42 <nanotube> what's up, {t_t} ?
1096 2011-03-24 14:22:02 nathan7_ has joined
1097 2011-03-24 14:22:24 BlueMatt has joined
1098 2011-03-24 14:23:45 nathan7 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1099 2011-03-24 14:24:39 tower has joined
1100 2011-03-24 14:26:12 philth has joined
1101 2011-03-24 14:33:34 <BurtyB> woo 11hrs
1102 2011-03-24 14:34:10 da2ce7 has quit ()
1103 2011-03-24 14:40:13 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1104 2011-03-24 14:45:35 ColdHardMetal_ is now known as ColdHardMetal
1105 2011-03-24 14:45:48 ColdHardMetal has quit (Changing host)
1106 2011-03-24 14:45:48 ColdHardMetal has joined
1107 2011-03-24 14:47:18 da2ce7 has joined
1108 2011-03-24 14:48:35 euclid has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1109 2011-03-24 14:54:19 fartspace has joined
1110 2011-03-24 14:55:58 <fartspace> Can anyone tell me why the bitcoin faucet requires people to have a google account?
1111 2011-03-24 14:56:58 <JFK911> yes but i'm offended by flatulence so i won't
1112 2011-03-24 14:56:59 <fartspace> That's my first dumb question for the day, and hopefully the last.
1113 2011-03-24 14:57:52 devrandom has joined
1114 2011-03-24 14:58:02 <cenuij> fartspace: to easily stop mongo's from spam requesting more btc
1115 2011-03-24 14:59:16 <fartspace> next question, (which isn't easily found on the faucet FAQ), can someone recommend a bitcoin seller that will accept liberty reserve? I haven't been able to find one yet
1116 2011-03-24 14:59:59 <fartspace> doesn't have to be an official exchanger... anyone here want to just do a one off for some LR is fine...
1117 2011-03-24 15:00:48 <luke-jr> MtGox
1118 2011-03-24 15:01:20 <fartspace> i read their site, and thought you need to pay USD by wire... thought it was like a forex site to be honest... i'll check again, thanks
1119 2011-03-24 15:02:13 <sipa> it is an exchanger for LRUSD/BTC
1120 2011-03-24 15:03:17 <CIA-96> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr <luke-jr+git@utopios.org> * r5a560cd01547 spesmilo/cashier.py: Bugfix, to handle confirmed last-tx properly
1121 2011-03-24 15:11:10 devon_hillard has joined
1122 2011-03-24 15:11:19 <xelister> luke-jr has also bitcoin write access?
1123 2011-03-24 15:11:40 <xelister> god protect us, he will make EVERYTHING in tonal and embbed tonal font in bitcoin.exe :}
1124 2011-03-24 15:12:03 <luke-jr> xelister: that's on spesmilo
1125 2011-03-24 15:12:11 <xelister> :)
1126 2011-03-24 15:12:18 <luke-jr> and no, I don't want anything tonal in bitcoind
1127 2011-03-24 15:12:24 <luke-jr> and have no interest in touching the wx GUI
1128 2011-03-24 15:12:41 <luke-jr> but yes, spesmilo has almost full tonal support
1129 2011-03-24 15:12:49 <luke-jr> the only thing missing is the Tonal calendar for date/time
1130 2011-03-24 15:13:14 <luke-jr> but what's taken more time, is working around the ugly JSON-RPC crap
1131 2011-03-24 15:13:28 <luke-jr> http://gitorious.org/bitcoin/spesmilo/blobs/master/cashier.py#line255
1132 2011-03-24 15:15:53 <luke-jr> (it also supports Decimal ofc)
1133 2011-03-24 15:16:59 <EvanR-work> everything luke-jr creates has 'now supports decimal' on the side. ironic?
1134 2011-03-24 15:17:15 <luke-jr> EvanR-work: I didn't even say that
1135 2011-03-24 15:24:02 brunner1 has joined
1136 2011-03-24 15:24:26 bitjet has joined
1137 2011-03-24 15:25:28 <fartspace> if a block is created every 10 mins approx, does that mean that's how long it should take at most for an unconfirmed transaction to be confirmed?
1138 2011-03-24 15:25:37 <sipa> yes
1139 2011-03-24 15:25:47 <sipa> well, it depends on how many confirmations you want
1140 2011-03-24 15:26:17 <fartspace> cheers, gotcha
1141 2011-03-24 15:31:07 <fartspace> i noticed after I received a transaction that my address automatically changed... does 1 bitcoin address only ever receive 1 transaction?
1142 2011-03-24 15:31:34 <sipa> no, but the client will generate a new one frequently
1143 2011-03-24 15:31:39 <sipa> there is hardly any cost
1144 2011-03-24 15:31:51 bitjet has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1145 2011-03-24 15:32:05 <fartspace> so, but can i still use the old one?
1146 2011-03-24 15:32:25 <fartspace> obviously people publish their addresses on static web sites...
1147 2011-03-24 15:32:38 <sipa> yes
1148 2011-03-24 15:32:40 <lfm> fartspace: sometimes there is a blacklog of the free transactions that may delay ordinary transactions
1149 2011-03-24 15:33:21 eao has joined
1150 2011-03-24 15:33:41 <fartspace> free as in, no trans fee was offered? i.e. 'ordinary' in this case means it comes with a transaction fee?
1151 2011-03-24 15:34:12 <lfm> fartspace: naw ordinary are free too. txn with fee are special
1152 2011-03-24 15:34:24 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1153 2011-03-24 15:34:29 <fartspace> sorry for the newb q's... i've read a few faqs but feel free to point me to one if these q's are too basic
1154 2011-03-24 15:35:26 <luke-jr> fartspace: not quite. "confirmed" usually means 6 confirmations
1155 2011-03-24 15:35:40 <fartspace> so... it's been 19 minutes since my transaction, but it's still unconfirmed... does the 'approx 10 minutes' often vary wildly?
1156 2011-03-24 15:35:51 <fartspace> oh
1157 2011-03-24 15:36:08 <luke-jr> fartspace: including a fee, will give your tx priority over free ones
1158 2011-03-24 15:36:12 fornext has joined
1159 2011-03-24 15:36:23 <luke-jr> fartspace: note that while you can publish an address, you can't tell who sent money to it
1160 2011-03-24 15:36:31 <luke-jr> so anything commercial requires a unique address per customer
1161 2011-03-24 15:36:51 fornext has left ()
1162 2011-03-24 15:37:07 <fartspace> luke, if that's true, then why does the "Send Coins" dialog include a Message field?
1163 2011-03-24 15:37:14 <lfm> fartspace: yes the 10 min can vary widley but you can see the block number changing at the bottom edge of the window if you are using the gui
1164 2011-03-24 15:37:51 <fartspace> (using the normal bitcoin.org client on windows)
1165 2011-03-24 15:38:14 <lfm> the message field is for ann obsolete mode where you send direct to an ip address number instead of a bitcoin address
1166 2011-03-24 15:39:00 <fartspace> so 'From' is obsolete too?
1167 2011-03-24 15:39:10 <lfm> pretty much ya
1168 2011-03-24 15:40:12 <lfm> you can still use it but only in special cases where you know the ip address and you arnt worried that the security may be compromized
1169 2011-03-24 15:41:26 <fartspace> okay very good to know, thanks.
1170 2011-03-24 15:42:09 <xelister> "GeForce GTX 590 and Radeon HD 5990 Face Off"  thoes slashdoters 'redactors' need to watch typos before hitting submit.
1171 2011-03-24 15:42:50 <Diablo-D3> heh
1172 2011-03-24 15:42:51 <Diablo-D3> dude
1173 2011-03-24 15:42:53 <Diablo-D3> we all do it
1174 2011-03-24 15:42:56 <fartspace> haha ironic considering 'thoes'
1175 2011-03-24 15:43:01 <Diablo-D3> we've been typing 5 so long 6 is hard to do
1176 2011-03-24 15:43:16 <xelister> nah its easy
1177 2011-03-24 15:43:22 <xelister> 5=pure awesomness,  6=gamers shit  ;)
1178 2011-03-24 15:44:21 <xelister> http://i.imgur.com/8Ts4M.jpg  heh
1179 2011-03-24 15:44:32 gruez has joined
1180 2011-03-24 15:44:38 gruez has left ()
1181 2011-03-24 15:45:28 <Diablo-D3> wait
1182 2011-03-24 15:45:29 <Diablo-D3> what?
1183 2011-03-24 15:45:34 <Diablo-D3> the STORY title has a typo?
1184 2011-03-24 15:45:37 <Diablo-D3> holy fucking shit
1185 2011-03-24 15:46:29 <fartspace> Can someone point me in the right direction for how to accept btc on a commercial php-driven website? I'd like to automate the "here's a unique address to send the money to" part. Thanks heaps.
1186 2011-03-24 15:47:14 <luke-jr> fartspace: it does?
1187 2011-03-24 15:47:26 <fartspace> what does?
1188 2011-03-24 15:47:45 <luke-jr> [11:35:58] <fartspace> luke, if that's true, then why does the "Send Coins" dialog include a Message field?
1189 2011-03-24 15:48:02 <fartspace> yeah, it does
1190 2011-03-24 15:48:04 <luke-jr> fartspace: JSON-RPC should make a new address trivial
1191 2011-03-24 15:48:18 <luke-jr> fartspace: if you want a better client: http://gitorious.org/bitcoin/spesmilo
1192 2011-03-24 15:48:36 <fartspace> okay great, thanks
1193 2011-03-24 15:49:24 <fartspace> i have experience in LR and AlertPay apis among others, and hoping to code something similar for accepting btc in php.
1194 2011-03-24 15:49:28 <lfm> fartspace: mybiycoin.com has a "pay" button steup you might want to check out
1195 2011-03-24 15:49:35 <{t_t}> hey joepie91
1196 2011-03-24 15:49:48 <joepie91> hai
1197 2011-03-24 15:49:49 <joepie91> but brb
1198 2011-03-24 15:49:51 <joepie91> gotta fix some shit
1199 2011-03-24 15:49:52 <{t_t}> joepie91: people on 4chan were asking about anonnews
1200 2011-03-24 15:49:59 <joepie91> yup
1201 2011-03-24 15:50:00 <joepie91> it's down :/
1202 2011-03-24 15:50:04 <joepie91> getting 7gbps
1203 2011-03-24 15:50:08 <fartspace> cheers, will check out mybitcoin.com
1204 2011-03-24 15:50:10 <luke-jr> fartspace: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/API_reference_(JSON-RPC)#PHP
1205 2011-03-24 15:50:11 <{t_t}> is it the domain registrar being cunts?
1206 2011-03-24 15:50:15 <joepie91> nope
1207 2011-03-24 15:50:17 <joepie91> 7gbps ddos
1208 2011-03-24 15:50:17 <luke-jr> fartspace: don't take it literally, but a good starting-point
1209 2011-03-24 15:50:20 <{t_t}> kk
1210 2011-03-24 15:50:23 wolfspra1l has quit (Quit: leaving)
1211 2011-03-24 15:50:25 <luke-jr> fartspace: you probably don't need the GMP crap
1212 2011-03-24 15:50:27 <joepie91> currently trying to get into contact with the guy who claims to be responsible
1213 2011-03-24 15:50:49 <fartspace> awesome, thanks... starting points is all i'm after at the moment, just found BTC 3 days ago and it's all i can think about
1214 2011-03-24 15:51:04 <{t_t}> fartspace: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/PHP_developer_intro
1215 2011-03-24 15:51:26 <{t_t}> you do need GMP
1216 2011-03-24 15:51:30 <EvanR-work> fartspace: welcome to the pyramid
1217 2011-03-24 15:51:40 <fartspace> stupid me dismissed the .it stuff previously because i assumed it would be written in italian
1218 2011-03-24 15:51:48 * xelister muffifies EvanR-work
1219 2011-03-24 15:52:03 <xelister> fartspace: lol.  but yea, the .it address imo sucks a bit
1220 2011-03-24 15:52:09 <luke-jr> {t_t}: doubt it
1221 2011-03-24 15:52:10 <EvanR-work> you turned me into a vagina?
1222 2011-03-24 15:52:21 <xelister> mummyfies
1223 2011-03-24 15:52:29 <EvanR-work> lol
1224 2011-03-24 15:52:50 <luke-jr> nope, don't need GMP
1225 2011-03-24 15:52:59 <luke-jr> at least not on x86_32
1226 2011-03-24 15:53:30 <fartspace> okay how about i skim gmp, after i find out what gmp stands for, then maybe in a few days i'll come back and let you know if i need gmp, heh
1227 2011-03-24 15:53:52 <{t_t}> fartspace: can you program?
1228 2011-03-24 15:53:55 <luke-jr> fartspace: amount = round(crapfromrpc*1e8);
1229 2011-03-24 15:54:05 <luke-jr> that'll work fine, if you even need to deal with amounts
1230 2011-03-24 15:54:17 <luke-jr> if you just want an address, and verify payment manually, none of this matters
1231 2011-03-24 15:54:19 <fartspace> php yeah, cryptography is a little out of my depth, hat goes off to anyone working on this stuff
1232 2011-03-24 15:54:21 <{t_t}> no that's a retarded hack.
1233 2011-03-24 15:54:33 <{t_t}> fartspace: google "php gmp" click first link
1234 2011-03-24 15:54:38 <luke-jr> {t_t}: your hack is more retarded
1235 2011-03-24 15:54:45 <{t_t}> unless you begun programming yesterday then it's not hard.
1236 2011-03-24 15:55:06 <{t_t}> luke-jr: umm... i've written 6 sites for bitcoin? you've written 0 in php
1237 2011-03-24 15:55:09 <EvanR-work> keep the useful data separate from the presentational strings
1238 2011-03-24 15:55:24 <luke-jr> {t_t}: I have PHP installed
1239 2011-03-24 15:55:28 <luke-jr> I can run simple tests
1240 2011-03-24 15:55:35 <fartspace> okay ... maybe 97-ish?  yeah confident coder, but still floored by the crypto concepts that people come up with...
1241 2011-03-24 15:55:46 <luke-jr> php <<<'<?php echo round( .3499999999999999*1e8) . "\n";'
1242 2011-03-24 15:56:03 <EvanR-work> good luck debugging anything with php
1243 2011-03-24 15:56:04 <luke-jr> works up to 21 mil no problem too
1244 2011-03-24 15:56:05 <{t_t}> nice hack
1245 2011-03-24 15:56:05 <EvanR-work> it lies
1246 2011-03-24 15:56:21 Stellar has quit (Quit: Signed)
1247 2011-03-24 15:56:25 <EvanR-work> good luck getting arithmetic to behave in php, its incomprehensible
1248 2011-03-24 15:56:54 <ArtForz> "whoops"
1249 2011-03-24 15:56:55 <ArtForz> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRo-1VFMcbc
1250 2011-03-24 15:57:57 <{t_t}> not very exciting
1251 2011-03-24 15:58:15 <xelister> php sucks cocks for such aritmetics
1252 2011-03-24 15:58:46 <{t_t}> xelister: that's why you use GMP
1253 2011-03-24 15:58:53 <{t_t}> gmp rules
1254 2011-03-24 15:59:13 <{t_t}> xelister: http://php.net/manual/en/ref.gmp.php
1255 2011-03-24 16:00:51 <fartspace> thanks for all the links everyone... going to go learn for a while...
1256 2011-03-24 16:01:20 fartspace has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1257 2011-03-24 16:04:27 Zarutian has joined
1258 2011-03-24 16:04:38 mehh has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1259 2011-03-24 16:05:47 alban__ has joined
1260 2011-03-24 16:05:53 <alban__> hi all
1261 2011-03-24 16:06:08 <alban__> I keep getting Problems communicating with bitcoin RPC
1262 2011-03-24 16:06:31 <alban__> i forwarded port 8333 to my machine, but it didn't seem to help
1263 2011-03-24 16:06:35 <alban__> any idea ?
1264 2011-03-24 16:06:38 <ArtForz> oi @ mtgox
1265 2011-03-24 16:07:24 <Blitzboom> rally mode
1266 2011-03-24 16:07:29 <Blitzboom> see this huge buy order
1267 2011-03-24 16:07:34 <ArtForz> yea
1268 2011-03-24 16:07:39 <ArtForz> ~5k @ 0.88
1269 2011-03-24 16:07:46 <lfm> alban__: every getwork or just every so often?
1270 2011-03-24 16:07:48 <Blitzboom> hmm, it’s gone now
1271 2011-03-24 16:08:01 <Blitzboom> maybe setting it up new
1272 2011-03-24 16:08:06 <alban__> lfm: seems all the time
1273 2011-03-24 16:08:27 <lfm> alban__: check user and password args
1274 2011-03-24 16:08:59 <alban__> lfm: so a start I'm mining solo, do I need a login/password ?
1275 2011-03-24 16:09:23 <lfm> you useing the builtin miner?
1276 2011-03-24 16:09:43 <alban__> lfm: i'm a bit confused about this login/password thing, do I need to register somewhere ?
1277 2011-03-24 16:10:08 <alban__> lfm: using poclbm-gui but same with poclbm without gui
1278 2011-03-24 16:10:21 <lfm> if you are solo you still need user password, try the ./bitcoind help commands first
1279 2011-03-24 16:11:26 <lfm> alban__: you dont "register" user pass, just edit bitcoin.config
1280 2011-03-24 16:12:36 <alban__> lfm: ok so i just created a login/password with the gui for localhost, then used it and restarted mining, but same
1281 2011-03-24 16:13:21 <tcatm> ArtForz: another thought concerning CreateNewBlock(): ConnectInputs() will return false for a lot of those spamtx. Now that we cache nValueIn couldn't we filter most of those tx and only call ConnectInputs() if the tx has a chance of being included into the block?
1282 2011-03-24 16:13:32 <lfm> what gui?
1283 2011-03-24 16:14:06 <alban__> lfm: poclbm-gui
1284 2011-03-24 16:14:06 <ArtForz> tcatm: really? *why* is connectinputs returning false?
1285 2011-03-24 16:14:13 <ArtForz> it... shouldn't
1286 2011-03-24 16:14:22 <lfm> you still need to edit bitcoin.config
1287 2011-03-24 16:14:34 <alban__> lfm: ah. where is it ?
1288 2011-03-24 16:14:38 <tcatm> ArtForz: it checks the fee
1289 2011-03-24 16:14:49 <ArtForz> oh, right
1290 2011-03-24 16:15:30 <lfm> alban__: in some data directory, depends what os you are using
1291 2011-03-24 16:15:48 <alban__> lfm: windows 7
1292 2011-03-24 16:16:15 <ArtForz> tcatm: nice idea
1293 2011-03-24 16:16:46 <ArtForz> btw, I've improved the input value stuff a bit so it doesn't blow up on chain reorg
1294 2011-03-24 16:17:02 <ArtForz> chain reorg happily puts tx into mempool without checking them
1295 2011-03-24 16:18:15 <tcatm> nice
1296 2011-03-24 16:18:19 <ArtForz> so if I run across a input value -1 tx, I do the old-style "look up input tx in mem pool or blocks" and set it from createnewblock
1297 2011-03-24 16:19:03 <tcatm> I'm still not sure where the implicit "only include one tx of a unconfirmed tx chain" happens.
1298 2011-03-24 16:19:19 <ArtForz> I think the proper fix is to change reorg so it doesnt leave tx in mempool that didnt get a connectinputs treatment
1299 2011-03-24 16:19:30 <sipa> alban__: are you running bitcoin with the -server flag?
1300 2011-03-24 16:20:08 <alban__> sipa: actually I'm just running the miner thing. Do i need something else ?
1301 2011-03-24 16:20:39 <ArtForz> first loop leaves all tx that depend only on 0/unconf with 0 dPriority
1302 2011-03-24 16:20:40 <lfm> alban__: ya you still need the main bitcoin client to solo mine
1303 2011-03-24 16:20:54 <alban__> lfm: ahh i see
1304 2011-03-24 16:20:57 <sipa> alban__: you either need to run bitcoind, or bitcoin gui with the -server flag
1305 2011-03-24 16:21:12 <sipa> the miner doesn't speak the bitcoin protocol, it gets pieces of work from a real bitcoin client
1306 2011-03-24 16:21:16 <alban__> hehe sorry I'm pretty new to all this
1307 2011-03-24 16:21:30 <ArtForz> second loop processes tx in prio order
1308 2011-03-24 16:21:46 <ArtForz> so when theres more than 4kB worth of prio > 0 tx...
1309 2011-03-24 16:21:59 <ArtForz> fAllowFree = (nBlockSize + nTxSize < 4000 || CTransaction::AllowFree(dPriority))
1310 2011-03-24 16:22:10 <ArtForz> allowfree is false for 0 prio
1311 2011-03-24 16:22:19 <tcatm> ah okay, got a recent diff for the nValueIn cache code?
1312 2011-03-24 16:22:34 <ArtForz> not really
1313 2011-03-24 16:22:48 <ArtForz> actually... hey, wait a sec
1314 2011-03-24 16:23:06 <ArtForz> we already know the only way tx can get into cache without connectinputs is reorg
1315 2011-03-24 16:23:28 <ArtForz> so... do the "look up nvaluein for added unchecked" stuff... in reorg
1316 2011-03-24 16:23:54 <ArtForz> as imo thats the proper place for it
1317 2011-03-24 16:26:35 <tcatm> yep. actually, can't we call ConnectInputs() again during reorg?
1318 2011-03-24 16:26:45 <jgarzik> yes
1319 2011-03-24 16:26:45 <ArtForz> I think so
1320 2011-03-24 16:27:02 <ArtForz> well, we have to watch out for dependency chains
1321 2011-03-24 16:28:51 darkskiez has joined
1322 2011-03-24 16:31:35 m0mchil has left ()
1323 2011-03-24 16:34:24 <alban__> ahh ok i finally got it
1324 2011-03-24 16:34:27 <alban__> thanks everybody
1325 2011-03-24 16:37:30 Zenith77 has joined
1326 2011-03-24 16:37:32 brunner1 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1327 2011-03-24 16:37:57 <tcatm> Just added some printfs: from 1122 unconfirmed tx only 14 are included in the next block. getwork took 902ms
1328 2011-03-24 16:38:13 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: can you s/GET/POST/ in your long-poll specification?
1329 2011-03-24 16:38:44 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: GET is wrong, because you are receiving input data
1330 2011-03-24 16:40:27 brunner has joined
1331 2011-03-24 16:41:43 <[Tycho]> What input data ?
1332 2011-03-24 16:42:58 bt2100 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1333 2011-03-24 16:43:14 cenuij has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1334 2011-03-24 16:44:13 slush has joined
1335 2011-03-24 16:44:44 <[Tycho]> Actually GET is more suitable because this is a request for data, not a request to change something.
1336 2011-03-24 16:45:41 rli has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1337 2011-03-24 16:47:40 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: the input data is the JSON-RPC payload
1338 2011-03-24 16:47:56 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: the body of the HTTP request, i.e. that thing that follows the HTTP request headers
1339 2011-03-24 16:48:04 <jgarzik> GET requests should not have a payload
1340 2011-03-24 16:48:33 <jgarzik> POST or PUT send data /to/ the server
1341 2011-03-24 16:50:55 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: It's right there in the http standard: "A message-body MUST NOT be included in a request if the specification of the request method (section 5.1.1) does not allow sending an entity-body in requests."  Since the specification of the GET request doesn't allow sending a body in the request, you MUST NOT include a Content-Length or Transfer-Encoding header.
1342 2011-03-24 16:51:14 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: so LP != HTTP, right now
1343 2011-03-24 16:51:31 <[Tycho]> Give me a link please.
1344 2011-03-24 16:51:40 <[Tycho]> About "GET request doesn't allow sending a body"
1345 2011-03-24 16:52:38 <[Tycho]> And why do you think that there IS body in GET ?
1346 2011-03-24 16:53:16 <tcatm> ArtForz: 74ms for 614 tx in mempool (after first loop)
1347 2011-03-24 16:53:26 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: LP says send a normal JSON-RPC request
1348 2011-03-24 16:53:34 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: a normal JSON-RPC request includes a body
1349 2011-03-24 16:53:48 <tcatm> ArtForz: http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=xPV4he8v
1350 2011-03-24 16:54:09 <[Tycho]> It's a request FOR json-rpc. Looks like my english wasn't good enough...
1351 2011-03-24 16:54:34 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: what does that mean?
1352 2011-03-24 16:54:40 <[Tycho]> "the same as on main connection" is regarging auth method
1353 2011-03-24 16:54:58 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: what is a request FOR json-rpc?
1354 2011-03-24 16:55:00 <[Tycho]> Ok, let's make things clear. What body are you sending and why ?
1355 2011-03-24 16:55:15 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: I am sending the same request as is sent on a normal connection.
1356 2011-03-24 16:55:57 robotarmy has joined
1357 2011-03-24 16:56:03 <ArtForz> not bad, but kinda cheating
1358 2011-03-24 16:56:36 <[Tycho]> I'll make neccessary corrections abouth authorization.
1359 2011-03-24 16:56:46 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: what is a request FOR json-rpc?
1360 2011-03-24 16:57:04 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: I have never heard of such thing.
1361 2011-03-24 16:58:13 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: "The answer is the same as getwork on the main connection" == JSON-RPC, no?
1362 2011-03-24 16:58:22 <[Tycho]> Yes.
1363 2011-03-24 16:58:34 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: are you doing something strange, like sending a JSON-RPC response without receiving a JSON-RPC query???
1364 2011-03-24 16:59:08 <[Tycho]> Of course i do.
1365 2011-03-24 16:59:24 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: that's broken.  you have nothing to set 'id' in JSON-RPC.
1366 2011-03-24 17:00:24 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: please process HTTP and JSON-RPC correctly.  You have just admitted using (a) HTTP and (b) JSON-RPC in ways contrary to specification.
1367 2011-03-24 17:00:34 <[Tycho]> It's REST.
1368 2011-03-24 17:00:47 <[Tycho]> Returning JSON-RPC for compatibility.
1369 2011-03-24 17:01:24 <[Tycho]> My HTTP is within specs.
1370 2011-03-24 17:01:30 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: and where do you get 'id' value from, in JSON-RPC request?
1371 2011-03-24 17:01:43 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: you know, the client-supplied value.
1372 2011-03-24 17:01:50 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: and where do you get 'id' value from, in JSON-RPC response?
1373 2011-03-24 17:02:00 <[Tycho]> Why didn't you said me your recommendations BEFORE, when i asked you some weeks ago ?
1374 2011-03-24 17:02:25 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: I assumed you would implement something that conformed to HTTP and JSON-RPC specifications.
1375 2011-03-24 17:02:40 <[Tycho]> It conforms to HTTP specs.
1376 2011-03-24 17:02:54 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: where do you get 'id' value from, in JSON-RPC response?
1377 2011-03-24 17:03:36 phantomcircuit has joined
1378 2011-03-24 17:03:36 TD has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1379 2011-03-24 17:03:42 TD has joined
1380 2011-03-24 17:04:04 <[Tycho]> It's not JSON-RPC response. It's responce of my protocol, which is similar to json for compatibility.
1381 2011-03-24 17:04:28 <slush> I must agree with Tycho, there is no reason to keep full compatibility with json-rpc
1382 2011-03-24 17:04:34 <slush> LP response is just http response with json inside
1383 2011-03-24 17:04:54 <slush> I'm also implementing it in this way
1384 2011-03-24 17:05:01 <jgarzik> slush: ...invalid JSON inside.  id exists to help track JSON requests, in JSON-RPC.
1385 2011-03-24 17:05:19 <slush> but tycho never told that this is json-rpc
1386 2011-03-24 17:05:35 <jgarzik> slush: so we are to ignore data returned from LP?
1387 2011-03-24 17:05:56 <slush> I don't want to flame, I just think that this compatibility is unnecessary
1388 2011-03-24 17:06:08 <jgarzik> slush: it makes no sense for LP connection to be any different from normal connection.  increases complexity on miner, for no reason.
1389 2011-03-24 17:06:13 <[Tycho]> I asked jgarzik, m0mchil and Diablo-D3 for cooperation. Only m0mchil agreed. Now, when people already implement it you are trying to make changes.
1390 2011-03-24 17:06:13 <slush> yes, you can ignore id. I also ignore the most of http headers in request
1391 2011-03-24 17:06:33 <jgarzik> slush: the client wants id, for tracking requests
1392 2011-03-24 17:06:52 <jgarzik> slush: not asking to ignore it, it is a useful part of response -- except with LP, where it is broken
1393 2011-03-24 17:07:13 <slush> I didn't read whole discussion, but we're talking about LP, right?
1394 2011-03-24 17:07:23 <slush> (btw I'm also setting 'id' to 1 in normal getwork response)
1395 2011-03-24 17:07:38 <jgarzik> slush: that's broken.  id must equal that submitted by client.
1396 2011-03-24 17:07:54 <jgarzik> slush: no wonder I was having problems with your pool, in my testing
1397 2011-03-24 17:08:06 * jgarzik had to ditch a multi-threaded queue for that
1398 2011-03-24 17:08:27 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: yes, when you implement something, you find all the problems with it.
1399 2011-03-24 17:09:04 dwdollar has left ()
1400 2011-03-24 17:09:23 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: LP should be either (a) a GET request that returns text/plain "ok!" or (b) a real, valid, normal JSON-RPC request/response.  It should /not/ be a non-standard GET returning non-standard JSON.
1401 2011-03-24 17:09:29 gavinandresen has joined
1402 2011-03-24 17:09:30 <slush> ok, I can do it; it was here, I removed it later because I didn't see that useful
1403 2011-03-24 17:11:13 <[Tycho]> It's a standart GET.
1404 2011-03-24 17:11:33 <slush> jgarzik: ok, I'll fix the id in standard getwork
1405 2011-03-24 17:11:39 <jgarzik> slush, [Tycho]: Another specification issue:  is X-Long-Polling a path or URL?  The specification reads as a path, but dbitcoin is trying to use it as a URL.
1406 2011-03-24 17:11:59 <jgarzik> X-Long-Polling: http://this.other.server:9081234/LP
1407 2011-03-24 17:11:59 <slush> I'm implementing it as full URL
1408 2011-03-24 17:12:01 <[Tycho]> jgarzik, while you are at it anyway, you can attack slush for answering with JSON for GET requests in his token system :)
1409 2011-03-24 17:12:09 <slush> it is on different port on my pool...
1410 2011-03-24 17:12:15 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: that's fine
1411 2011-03-24 17:12:17 <[Tycho]> jgarzik, it's a path.
1412 2011-03-24 17:12:29 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: it seems you and slush and dbitcoin disagree
1413 2011-03-24 17:12:45 <[Tycho]> As i remeber, m0mchil said that path is easier to implement.
1414 2011-03-24 17:13:10 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: returning JSON from GET is perfectly fine.  Returning a JSON-RPC response is not...
1415 2011-03-24 17:13:11 <slush> yes, m0mchil had some troubles with httplib
1416 2011-03-24 17:13:16 * jgarzik -> lunch
1417 2011-03-24 17:13:54 <slush> jgarzik:  finally m0mchil support full url, so I hope that your miner too (didn't tested it yet)
1418 2011-03-24 17:13:56 <[Tycho]> slush, do we need to change it for this ?
1419 2011-03-24 17:14:13 <slush> what change for what?
1420 2011-03-24 17:14:32 <[Tycho]> Allow full URL in  X-Long-Polling: header.
1421 2011-03-24 17:14:47 <[Tycho]> jgarzik, it's REST-JSON :)
1422 2011-03-24 17:15:05 <slush> who 'we'? m0mchil support any form of url now (relative or absolute), as http standard says
1423 2011-03-24 17:15:19 <slush> that both form are valid
1424 2011-03-24 17:15:52 <ArtForz> let's see...
1425 2011-03-24 17:16:58 <ArtForz> well, at least it compiles
1426 2011-03-24 17:17:25 <[Tycho]> Ok.
1427 2011-03-24 17:21:47 dbitcoin has joined
1428 2011-03-24 17:23:50 darkskiez has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1429 2011-03-24 17:25:20 darkskiez has joined
1430 2011-03-24 17:28:16 <ArtForz> *argh*
1431 2011-03-24 17:28:24 <ArtForz> forgot to handle orphan tx
1432 2011-03-24 17:28:39 <tcatm> during reorg?
1433 2011-03-24 17:28:51 <sipa> ArtForz: you're writing a patch to fix the performance issue?
1434 2011-03-24 17:29:05 <ArtForz> well, kinda
1435 2011-03-24 17:29:30 luke-jr has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1436 2011-03-24 17:29:33 <ArtForz> I'm wirting a patch to make sure all transactions in mem pool have had connectinputs called on them
1437 2011-03-24 17:29:42 <sipa> i see
1438 2011-03-24 17:29:54 <sipa> enforcing the invariant, to be able to prevent doing the check every time
1439 2011-03-24 17:30:06 <ArtForz> yep
1440 2011-03-24 17:30:47 <ArtForz> rewrote reorg to (hoepfully) handle it properly
1441 2011-03-24 17:30:50 luke-jr has quit (otg!~luke-jr@ishibashi.dashjr.org|Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1442 2011-03-24 17:31:27 <necrodearia> Is there anyone here that is knowledgeable or familiar with any of the following topics and would like to establish profits from all activity relating to the topics from a particular website? family, gambling, php, animation, philosophy, comics, dice, internet, podcasts, music, ethics, crafts, dance, literature, hardware, card games, roleplaying, board games, political cartoons, funny pictures, careers, employment, business, optical illu
1443 2011-03-24 17:31:27 <necrodearia> sions, puzzles, games review or funny videos
1444 2011-03-24 17:31:46 luke-jr has joined
1445 2011-03-24 17:31:51 luke-jr has joined
1446 2011-03-24 17:32:02 <ArtForz> but now noticed I'm not handling maporphantransactions at all...
1447 2011-03-24 17:33:24 <necrodearia> btw, has this channel evolved into being primarily for development discussion and little to no socialization or discussion?
1448 2011-03-24 17:33:48 <sipa> a combination, i'd say
1449 2011-03-24 17:37:35 <gasteve> I had a thought earlier...regarding wallet.dat encryption and backup...I wondered if bittorrent could be used...you could keep the wallet.dat encrypted on disk at all times and publish it to bittorrent...I'm no bittorrent expert, so I'm wondering what you'd have to do to make certain that the file persists in the BT cloud...would you have to publish the .torrent on a few nodes somewhere and would those nodes need to acquire the complete files vi
1450 2011-03-24 17:37:35 <gasteve> BT network?
1451 2011-03-24 17:38:38 <slush> bittorent is not good channel
1452 2011-03-24 17:38:56 <gasteve> what does that mean?  "not good channel"?
1453 2011-03-24 17:38:58 <CIA-96> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r39 /trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/core/ (BlockChain.java StoredBlock.java): Implement the equals method on StoredBlock and use it.
1454 2011-03-24 17:39:12 <slush> file is persisted here because many people want them for some reason. But only you are interested in your wallet
1455 2011-03-24 17:39:29 <tcatm> gasteve: that doesn't change the problem. You'd still need to secure your decryption key.
1456 2011-03-24 17:39:45 <slush> yes, using BT is even worse
1457 2011-03-24 17:39:50 mehh has joined
1458 2011-03-24 17:39:58 <slush> because you need to store key AND hope that people will share your wallet :)
1459 2011-03-24 17:40:39 <gasteve> but you could easily implement a BT node that, as a service, allows people to post a .torrent for their wallet and it retains it
1460 2011-03-24 17:40:56 cenuij has joined
1461 2011-03-24 17:40:56 cenuij has quit (Changing host)
1462 2011-03-24 17:40:57 cenuij has joined
1463 2011-03-24 17:41:22 <slush> yes, then there is no need to call it 'torrent'
1464 2011-03-24 17:41:30 <slush> you can use http protocol as well
1465 2011-03-24 17:41:44 <gasteve> ;)
1466 2011-03-24 17:41:52 <slush> btw .torrent file is just descriptor, somebody have to share the file itself
1467 2011-03-24 17:42:10 <[Tycho]> You can mail your wallet to yourself via gmail :) Encrypted, of course.
1468 2011-03-24 17:42:29 <slush> gasteve: I'm using Tahoe-LAFS for wallet backups
1469 2011-03-24 17:42:31 <CIA-96> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r40 /trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/core/BlockChain.java: Remove obsolete comment.
1470 2011-03-24 17:42:32 Blitzboom has quit ()
1471 2011-03-24 17:42:34 <sipa> oh, it's not like google knows what to do with the file
1472 2011-03-24 17:42:38 <sipa> oh... actually they do ;)
1473 2011-03-24 17:42:55 Blitzboom has joined
1474 2011-03-24 17:42:56 Blitzboom has quit (Changing host)
1475 2011-03-24 17:42:56 Blitzboom has joined
1476 2011-03-24 17:43:03 <cenuij> TrueCrypt mount + dropbox
1477 2011-03-24 17:44:00 <gasteve> the idea originally came to mind because I thought of a scenario where a govt might be seizing assets and trying to prevent you from accessing your wallet...if they found your online backup locations, they could cut off your access to them...but with bittorrent, not so easy
1478 2011-03-24 17:44:22 <slush> yes, this is exactly the reason for using tahoe-lafs
1479 2011-03-24 17:44:43 gribble has quit (Quit: brb)
1480 2011-03-24 17:44:52 <gasteve> ah, nice, I'll read up
1481 2011-03-24 17:45:13 gribble has joined
1482 2011-03-24 17:45:19 gribble has quit (Changing host)
1483 2011-03-24 17:45:19 gribble has joined
1484 2011-03-24 17:45:21 <gasteve> (I was trying to think of solutions that would be really easy for an end user if implemented in the client)
1485 2011-03-24 17:51:38 alban__ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1486 2011-03-24 17:51:42 TD has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1487 2011-03-24 17:51:49 TD has joined
1488 2011-03-24 17:53:23 AmpEater has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1489 2011-03-24 17:56:19 Davidmp has joined
1490 2011-03-24 17:58:08 <jgarzik> slush, [Tycho]: it is OK if X-Long-Polling is a URL, not a path.  But let us decide, and be specific in the specification...  :)
1491 2011-03-24 18:00:26 jrabbit has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1492 2011-03-24 18:00:48 <Davidmp> Hi, is there a donation button for bitcoin I can put on my website?
1493 2011-03-24 18:00:49 <[Tycho]> Decide what exactly ?
1494 2011-03-24 18:01:53 jrabbit has joined
1495 2011-03-24 18:01:58 Zenith77 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1496 2011-03-24 18:02:05 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: path or URL
1497 2011-03-24 18:02:25 dishwara has joined
1498 2011-03-24 18:02:26 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: dbitcoin wants to support x-long-polling: http://other.server/LP
1499 2011-03-24 18:02:58 <[Tycho]> Slush too.
1500 2011-03-24 18:03:12 <[Tycho]> I agree with this.
1501 2011-03-24 18:03:25 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: great!
1502 2011-03-24 18:03:35 * jgarzik will change cpuminer
1503 2011-03-24 18:03:49 <slush> great
1504 2011-03-24 18:04:14 <[Tycho]> The only reason for relative path was something in m0mchil's http lib. If he fixed it, then everything is fine.
1505 2011-03-24 18:04:18 <dbitcoin> good
1506 2011-03-24 18:04:20 Avemo has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1507 2011-03-24 18:04:25 * jgarzik continues to disagree with longpolling URL having different behavior from normal URL
1508 2011-03-24 18:04:28 <jgarzik> that is a pain
1509 2011-03-24 18:04:31 <dbitcoin> as minimum you may use another port or even another server in the future with full url.
1510 2011-03-24 18:04:39 <jgarzik> it should be standard behavior + long response time
1511 2011-03-24 18:04:47 <jgarzik> that means POST, full JSON-RPC
1512 2011-03-24 18:04:48 <[Tycho]> jgarzik, it retuens compatible answer.
1513 2011-03-24 18:04:56 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: then it is not the same
1514 2011-03-24 18:05:09 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: and I cannot use same path within code
1515 2011-03-24 18:05:34 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: why is it so difficult to be compatible?  you already process POST anyway.
1516 2011-03-24 18:05:47 <[Tycho]> Initially the reason for GET was a limitation in nginx module. Now it's gone, but i think that we should keep it with GET.
1517 2011-03-24 18:06:10 <jgarzik> == incompatible with present query code
1518 2011-03-24 18:07:17 <jgarzik> cpuminer LP will continue to send POST
1519 2011-03-24 18:07:39 <jgarzik> (that is how v0.8+ releases behave)
1520 2011-03-24 18:07:53 <ArtForz> tcatm: either I'm missing something or excluding tx coming in from chain reorg and doing fee calc, ConnectInputs in miner is basically just one massive no-op
1521 2011-03-24 18:07:53 <[Tycho]> Ok, this may or may not work.
1522 2011-03-24 18:08:32 <dishwara> ArtForz : may be u dnt want to disclose in public
1523 2011-03-24 18:08:39 <ArtForz> ?
1524 2011-03-24 18:09:04 <ArtForz> aka "we're just re-checking stuff that the initial ConnectInputs already checked"
1525 2011-03-24 18:09:11 <dbitcoin> POST or GET doesn't matter for me.. but long connection timeout - it's a disaster :(
1526 2011-03-24 18:09:22 <dishwara> but i thought ASIC, which requires millions for custome made, so u find an already gpu which is not used by that much by many & using it to generate
1527 2011-03-24 18:09:28 jrabbit has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1528 2011-03-24 18:10:14 <dishwara> may be u contacted amd to give u 5870, cypress xt which they must have inexcess after creating cards
1529 2011-03-24 18:10:18 <ArtForz> *blank stare* is that supposed to be english?
1530 2011-03-24 18:10:56 <dishwara> or u find another gpu chip which is cheap & not sold anymore, which is good in integer
1531 2011-03-24 18:11:06 <tcatm> ArtForz: yep, the ConnectInputs() in CreateNewBlock() can be replaced by a simple fee check IF we make sure every tx in mempool has passed ConnectInputs() before.
1532 2011-03-24 18:11:30 <jgarzik> dbitcoin: support for full URL in X-Long-Polling pushed to cpuminer git
1533 2011-03-24 18:11:34 <ArtForz> well, the only way (excluding clientmode, which doesn't mine) is reorg
1534 2011-03-24 18:11:43 <Sargun_Screen> ArtForz: heya
1535 2011-03-24 18:11:45 <dishwara> sorrry to openly asking ur methods(secret), coz yesterday u didnt reply in private
1536 2011-03-24 18:11:45 <Diablo-D3> huh, you're using http headers to do that?
1537 2011-03-24 18:11:57 <ArtForz> *the only way one can get in unchecked currently
1538 2011-03-24 18:12:03 <jgarzik> dbitcoin: I asked about the timeout in PM, I still don't understand what is your preferred behavior.
1539 2011-03-24 18:12:11 <Sargun_Screen> So, there is a rumour that you have a structured ASIC for mining.
1540 2011-03-24 18:12:35 Davidmp has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1541 2011-03-24 18:13:14 <dishwara> i promise Sargun_Screen is not me & i have spoken to anyone in bitcoin community
1542 2011-03-24 18:13:20 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1543 2011-03-24 18:13:26 <ArtForz> Sargun_Screen: yes, why?
1544 2011-03-24 18:13:54 <tcatm> yeah, so once reorg does ConnectInputs() we don't need it in CreateNewBlock() anymore
1545 2011-03-24 18:14:03 <ArtForz> yeah, thats what I thought
1546 2011-03-24 18:14:24 * jgarzik agrees -- that was my impression after reviewing reorg yesterday
1547 2011-03-24 18:14:40 <dbitcoin> jgarzik: I prefer  return some sort of timeout error in json-rpc and close connection
1548 2011-03-24 18:14:44 <jgarzik> whilst reading the checkinputs code path
1549 2011-03-24 18:14:56 <tcatm> we could even get rid of the nMinFee stuff in ConnectInputs()
1550 2011-03-24 18:15:09 newmark has joined
1551 2011-03-24 18:15:15 <Sargun_Screen> ArtForz: Did you use existing IP for your SHA-2 cores?
1552 2011-03-24 18:15:29 newmark is now known as newmark000
1553 2011-03-24 18:15:33 <jgarzik> dbitcoin: if your server has not responded for an _hour_, something is wrong with the server IMO
1554 2011-03-24 18:15:39 <ArtForz> Sargun_Screen: no, too slow
1555 2011-03-24 18:16:05 <jgarzik> dbitcoin: clients will disconnect during long polling due to normal network conditions anyway, so this is nothing new
1556 2011-03-24 18:17:18 <dishwara> ok, it seems i am ignored today also for mining very deep
1557 2011-03-24 18:17:39 <newmark000> hello, I just found the bitcoin website and I'm reading the wiki. I found the concept really interesting. I sell online and it is really interesting to see new ways to avoid big processors fees. Is there any implementation or document about integrating the whole bitcoin concept in a ecommerce?
1558 2011-03-24 18:17:58 <dishwara> hope ,my intention was not to pull others down, but make me to go up , some day
1559 2011-03-24 18:18:05 newmark000 has quit (Client Quit)
1560 2011-03-24 18:18:23 siba has joined
1561 2011-03-24 18:18:32 siba is now known as newmark000
1562 2011-03-24 18:19:05 <dbitcoin> jgarzik: with long polling I must wait or new block or send getwork from the same block, but if miner close connection after request, I'm not able detect this
1563 2011-03-24 18:19:47 BlueMatt has joined
1564 2011-03-24 18:19:47 BlueMatt has quit (Changing host)
1565 2011-03-24 18:19:47 BlueMatt has joined
1566 2011-03-24 18:20:31 k0rvn1sse has joined
1567 2011-03-24 18:20:45 <jgarzik> dbitcoin: clients _will_ disconnect due to normal network conditions.  this is something you must handle anyway.
1568 2011-03-24 18:20:53 <ArtForz> argh, fuck
1569 2011-03-24 18:21:01 <sipa> ArtForz: k0rvn1sse wondered why a 6990 is slower than a 5970 at mining
1570 2011-03-24 18:21:08 <k0rvn1sse> yeha
1571 2011-03-24 18:21:38 <ArtForz> ReacceptWalletTransactions also calls AcceptToMemoryPool with fCheckInputs false
1572 2011-03-24 18:21:45 <dbitcoin> jgarzik: standard connection timeout for most servers from 60 to 300 sec maximum...
1573 2011-03-24 18:22:05 <jgarzik> dbitcoin: obviously long polling must be longer than 300 sec...
1574 2011-03-24 18:22:08 <ArtForz> sipa: erm, at default clock it's slightly faster than 5970
1575 2011-03-24 18:22:24 <sipa> really, i believe i heard the opposite?
1576 2011-03-24 18:22:24 <jgarzik> dbitcoin: average block generation is 600 sec
1577 2011-03-24 18:22:56 Zenith77 has joined
1578 2011-03-24 18:23:08 <jgarzik> dbitcoin: the entire purpose of long polling is to wait for a block, and a block might take a long time to generate.
1579 2011-03-24 18:24:08 alias420 has joined
1580 2011-03-24 18:24:41 <alias420> Can anyone tell me how the ati 5870 fairs against an overclocked 5850?  Is there any difference in the actual hardware?
1581 2011-03-24 18:24:42 <dbitcoin> jgarzik:  your miner kill LP thread after 10 * 30sec retries?
1582 2011-03-24 18:24:53 <ArtForz> sipa: nope, about 590Mh/s stock
1583 2011-03-24 18:25:13 <alias420> sipa: which card is that?
1584 2011-03-24 18:25:21 <ArtForz> thing is, 6990 has way less OC headroom than 5970
1585 2011-03-24 18:25:34 <jgarzik> dbitcoin: Yes.  And each retry has 60 minute (3600 sec) timeout.
1586 2011-03-24 18:26:12 <jgarzik> dbitcoin: (that timeout only applies to -successful- HTTP request)
1587 2011-03-24 18:26:45 <jgarzik> dbitcoin: if server is unreached, then retry loop is { attempt server connection; if fail, wait 30 sec; }
1588 2011-03-24 18:26:54 <jgarzik> unreachable
1589 2011-03-24 18:27:29 <ArtForz> max OC on 6990 at stock V (which is already quite high) is ~900Mhz
1590 2011-03-24 18:27:47 <dbitcoin> well, I try implement in this way, but I'm still think this is nice way for attacker to overload the server...
1591 2011-03-24 18:28:30 <ArtForz> a 5970 at 1.10V (still lower than stock 6990) easily gets > 900, and has 4% more shaders...
1592 2011-03-24 18:28:52 newmark000 has left ()
1593 2011-03-24 18:29:22 <ArtForz> and 6990 price/perf sucks
1594 2011-03-24 18:29:31 <dishwara> : it seems many are speaking completly oppsite today , as for yesterday only 6990 will be faster, but today only 5970 is faster
1595 2011-03-24 18:29:39 <k0rvn1sse> another question. how come all Nvidia cards is MUTCH slower in bitcoin?
1596 2011-03-24 18:29:41 <dishwara> why the sudden change?
1597 2011-03-24 18:29:51 <ArtForz> a STOCK 6990 is faster than a STOCK 5970
1598 2011-03-24 18:30:01 <ArtForz> 5970 OCs a lot better and is more power efficient
1599 2011-03-24 18:30:04 <jgarzik> dbitcoin: an attacker can overload if you are using a proxy server that is unaware of connection-close events, yes.
1600 2011-03-24 18:30:16 <ArtForz> oh, and with 6990 you're kinda fucked SDK and driver-wisde if you want to use a OCL miner
1601 2011-03-24 18:30:21 <alias420> Can anyone tell me how the ati 5870 fairs against an overclocked 5850?  Is there any difference in the actual hardware?
1602 2011-03-24 18:30:35 <jgarzik> dbitcoin: arguably, a proxy server that leaves open an HTTP request, when its client has closed connection, is buggy.
1603 2011-03-24 18:30:45 <ArtForz> 5870 has 1600 shaders, 5850 has 1440
1604 2011-03-24 18:30:51 <dishwara> alias420 : 5850 is actually a slower version of 5870
1605 2011-03-24 18:30:55 <jgarzik> it's not like you're caching getwork requests.
1606 2011-03-24 18:31:10 <jgarzik> and detecting connection close is possible for all sides.
1607 2011-03-24 18:31:11 <dishwara> so whatever iu do, it wont outperfom 5870
1608 2011-03-24 18:31:20 <ArtForz> nope
1609 2011-03-24 18:31:22 <alias420> can I just overclock the 5850 up to speed?
1610 2011-03-24 18:31:50 <ArtForz> 5870 also has higher default core V
1611 2011-03-24 18:31:51 <alias420> I just dont want to waste money paying for the same hardware in terms of bitcoin generation capabilities
1612 2011-03-24 18:32:13 <alias420> do these slight improvements in the 5870 affect hashing signifigantly?
1613 2011-03-24 18:32:33 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: had time to review the new UPnP patch?
1614 2011-03-24 18:32:38 <ArtForz> not that significantly
1615 2011-03-24 18:32:52 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: nope, I've been busy with clearcoin stuff
1616 2011-03-24 18:32:59 <k0rvn1sse> noone saw my question?, how come Nvidia is alot slower in bitcoining
1617 2011-03-24 18:33:03 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: ah, ok no worries
1618 2011-03-24 18:33:03 <ArtForz> 5870 is about 16% faster, and stays about 16% faster
1619 2011-03-24 18:33:05 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: neat!  glad to see that coming along.
1620 2011-03-24 18:33:12 <BlueMatt> anyone else have comments on upnp?
1621 2011-03-24 18:33:25 <sipa> BlueMatt: don't know enough about actually, to comment
1622 2011-03-24 18:33:28 <dishwara> alias420 : look this & u can understand better http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon#Naming_scheme
1623 2011-03-24 18:33:28 <ArtForz> k0rvn1sse: because nvidia has a LOT less shaders and doesn't have a 1-cycle integer rotate()
1624 2011-03-24 18:34:01 jrabbit has joined
1625 2011-03-24 18:34:01 <xelister> ArtForz: but that Mango-chan guy claimed that SDK/driver worked fine at least on windows
1626 2011-03-24 18:34:03 <alias420> great thanks alot guys
1627 2011-03-24 18:34:14 <ArtForz> xelister: with multi-gpu?
1628 2011-03-24 18:34:19 <alias420> I think I'll get the 5870
1629 2011-03-24 18:34:26 <ArtForz> it certainly doesnt under linux
1630 2011-03-24 18:34:28 <alias420> and overclock that
1631 2011-03-24 18:34:54 <xelister> ArtForz: tes
1632 2011-03-24 18:35:03 <xelister> afair? I shown you screen
1633 2011-03-24 18:35:11 <dishwara> k0rvn1sse : mining uses inteeger, while Nvidia uses FPU, floting point Unit, while ATI uses ALU Arithmetic Logic Unit(alu does integer)
1634 2011-03-24 18:35:15 <dbitcoin> jgarzik: I use nginx + uwsgi backends, and with one hour timeout I need too much apps for handling LP requests. under wsgi specification there is no way detect closed connection.
1635 2011-03-24 18:35:20 <ArtForz> dishwara: no.
1636 2011-03-24 18:35:25 <k0rvn1sse> awh, okay. Thanks! :)
1637 2011-03-24 18:35:38 <ArtForz> nvidia and ATI both can do one SP FLOP or one 32-bit INTOP/clock/shader
1638 2011-03-24 18:35:54 <dishwara> ArtForz : what no?
1639 2011-03-24 18:36:02 <ArtForz> ATI also has WAY higher FLOPS rathings than nv
1640 2011-03-24 18:36:28 <Mango-chan> [11:33:04] <ArtForz> xelister: with multi-gpu?
1641 2011-03-24 18:36:29 <Mango-chan> yes
1642 2011-03-24 18:36:34 <Mango-chan> i have crossfires on two computers
1643 2011-03-24 18:36:42 <Mango-chan> all 4 gpu running
1644 2011-03-24 18:36:45 <Mango-chan> mining instances
1645 2011-03-24 18:36:57 <ArtForz> GTX580 = 1581 SP GFLOPS, HD5870 = 2720 SP GFLOPS
1646 2011-03-24 18:37:09 <cenuij> ArtForz: nah nothing to do with the shaders, it's because consumer fermi cards are deliberately crippled for double precision so as to not eat into the tesla market: http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=165055
1647 2011-03-24 18:37:09 <[Tycho]> I wonder why Photoshop supports CUDA instead of OpenCL...
1648 2011-03-24 18:37:37 <ArtForz> cenuij: again, doesnt have to do anything with *single precision* FLOPS
1649 2011-03-24 18:37:56 <xelister> [Tycho]: they are fags
1650 2011-03-24 18:38:40 <tcatm> ArtForz: can't we wrap the AcceptToMemoryPool() in Reaccept.. in  if (fClient) checkinputs else don't;?
1651 2011-03-24 18:38:55 <dbitcoin> [Tycho]: it's a only a good and stable driver problems I think
1652 2011-03-24 18:39:52 <tcatm> or just call it with fCheckInputs = true like CommitTransaction() does?
1653 2011-03-24 18:40:04 <dbitcoin> [Tycho]: ati/amd always make bad drivers, for last 10 years
1654 2011-03-24 18:40:09 <cenuij> ArtForz: and yet the fermi cards smoke the amd cards on fp32 benches, http://www.anandtech.com/show/2977/nvidia-s-geforce-gtx-480-and-gtx-470-6-months-late-was-it-worth-the-wait-/6
1655 2011-03-24 18:40:14 <ArtForz> oh, and even for double precision FP a HD5870 is *faster* than a tesla 2050, 544 vs. 515.2 DP GFLOPS
1656 2011-03-24 18:41:01 <ArtForz> where?
1657 2011-03-24 18:42:26 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: got build instructions and patches for building openssl on fedora-mingw32.  boost comes pre-packaged (whew) by fedora.  just need to make mingw32 pkgs for db4 (easy) and wxwidgets (hard), and jgarzik/bitcoin#autotools will be able to build win32 bitcoin and bitcoind on fedora, using ./configure
1658 2011-03-24 18:43:18 <ArtForz> main difference is, you can pretty much throw complete crap gl/cl shader code at a nvidia card and still get decent perf, for ATI ... not so much
1659 2011-03-24 18:43:52 <xelister> jgarzik: crossbuilding boost is possible
1660 2011-03-24 18:43:57 <xelister> not that hard. done it
1661 2011-03-24 18:44:05 <tcatm> main.cpp ~4000: if (!wtxNew.AcceptToMemoryPool()). That's where a client's transaction is initially added to the mempool.
1662 2011-03-24 18:44:18 <ArtForz> yes
1663 2011-03-24 18:44:30 <jgarzik> xelister: yes.  fedora does that for every release, it's a standard package: mingw32-boost
1664 2011-03-24 18:44:32 <ArtForz> but Reaccept doesnt ...
1665 2011-03-24 18:44:59 <ArtForz> nvidia has a whole bunch of rather narrow SIMDs, ATI has a lot less *much* wider SIMDs
1666 2011-03-24 18:47:26 <dishwara> It took a little longer for Nvidia to respond in kind with the GeForce GTX 400 family. It eventually turned up earlier this year and since then its been these two pixel pumping graphics architectures fighting it out for top DX11 honours.
1667 2011-03-24 18:47:27 <dishwara> Topping the current single-GPU tables, therefore, are the ATI Radeon HD 5870 and Nvidia Geforce GTX 480. Thanks to AMD's greater emphasis on value, the GTX 480 weighs in around £100 more expensive at £430 or so.
1668 2011-03-24 18:47:27 <dishwara> For the money Nvidia gives you an extra billion transistors for a faintly ridiculous total of three billion. You also get a little more memory as standard, 1.5GB to the 5870's 1GB. However, it's worth noting that 2GB variants of the 5870 are now available for less than the 1.5GB GTX 480.
1669 2011-03-24 18:47:36 <ArtForz> each SIMD on 5xxx/68xx is effectively 80 units wide, on 69xx 64, nvidia 2/4/5xx 16 units
1670 2011-03-24 18:47:48 <dishwara> ArtForz : i ffel happy if u respond my pm, please
1671 2011-03-24 18:48:30 k0rvn1sse has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1672 2011-03-24 18:48:42 AmpEater has joined
1673 2011-03-24 18:48:48 <tcatm> Reaccept calls AcceptWalletTransaction() for every tx in wallet but not in blockchain so it should be okay to check inputs again. Actually, it could even mark the tx as "already spent" in wallet.dat so the user knows something is wrong in case of a double spent.
1674 2011-03-24 18:49:23 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1675 2011-03-24 18:49:41 dbitcoin1 has joined
1676 2011-03-24 18:50:20 dbitcoin has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1677 2011-03-24 18:51:08 TheAncientGoat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1678 2011-03-24 18:54:15 <dishwara> I hope the openGL support from ati may be the reason for it outperforming nvidia(which has only direct x)
1679 2011-03-24 18:54:28 <ArtForz> what?
1680 2011-03-24 18:54:43 <[Tycho]> Oh.
1681 2011-03-24 18:54:58 <dishwara> http://www.techarp.com/article/Desktop_GPU_Comparison/ati_4_big.png
1682 2011-03-24 18:55:05 <dishwara> http://www.techarp.com/article/Desktop_GPU_Comparison/nvidia_4_big.png
1683 2011-03-24 18:55:21 <dishwara> inthis i saw in only ati openGl is mentioned
1684 2011-03-24 18:56:03 <[Tycho]> Nice table, but not fits in my display...
1685 2011-03-24 18:56:08 <ArtForz> I am pretty damn sure nvidia cards support opengl
1686 2011-03-24 18:56:13 <jgarzik> heh
1687 2011-03-24 18:56:15 <ArtForz> and WP agrees
1688 2011-03-24 18:56:36 <ArtForz> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units
1689 2011-03-24 18:56:45 <[Tycho]> Table authors just forgot to include it :)
1690 2011-03-24 18:57:27 <ArtForz> yeah
1691 2011-03-24 18:57:34 <ArtForz> especially as they put PS version in there
1692 2011-03-24 18:58:17 <dishwara> ya, seems nvidia has openGl, then what the difference, have to find out
1693 2011-03-24 18:58:58 <ArtForz> ah well, whatever, back to trying to sort out the reacceptwallettx part
1694 2011-03-24 18:59:03 <dishwara> in a odd way, ati has 3 letters, & nvidia has 6 letters & always 3 & 6 fight & also red & green
1695 2011-03-24 18:59:53 <dishwara> red for rough & power, while green for soft & peace, & now amd , after ati also going green
1696 2011-03-24 19:00:02 <dishwara> thats why 6000 series sucks?
1697 2011-03-24 19:00:18 <ArtForz> last time I checked, "Advanced Micro Devices" had 20 letters ;)
1698 2011-03-24 19:00:42 <ArtForz> and iirc ATI also was a initialism
1699 2011-03-24 19:01:48 <dishwara> well no one calls all time Advanced Micro Devices, just amd, like intel
1700 2011-03-24 19:01:52 <dishwara> & ms
1701 2011-03-24 19:01:53 <gribble> Error: "ms" is not a valid command.
1702 2011-03-24 19:03:56 <NxTitle> people often do call MS by their full name though :P while it isn't 20 letters it still is extended often
1703 2011-03-24 19:04:45 <ArtForz> I think I know why it doesnt set fCheckInputs
1704 2011-03-24 19:05:09 <ArtForz> we dont order tx by dependency in ReacceptWalletTransactions
1705 2011-03-24 19:08:21 <luke-jr> [08:25:00] <ljrbot> TX eaebb606cb476753d2cf05bad017896e718d9d600baf5bac71af6351765d9b71: 193ka5ZdrTKo8Tfd3e4emn73weeH1XueQe 104.36 BTC, 18Vo65WmSbBXEqueEsZGVNp4vptan1AeZu 19.96 BTC, 1CzyzLwtm3iQhYwH4CWNHNbT3XJtJ6Bd2J 19.82 BTC, 19BupQ9gWCx2zCvSCFxMUKciBzy7JWMB6o 10.87 BTC, 1AionCF4SHwJWp4NoFWdshuZAFXCkNJuon 5.39 BTC, 1BWwKwTM6phe45zwUVGQq6WipmWZsVbK8h
1706 2011-03-24 19:08:23 <luke-jr> O.o
1707 2011-03-24 19:08:58 <tcatm> that's a sendmany
1708 2011-03-24 19:09:24 <luke-jr> it overflowed I think
1709 2011-03-24 19:10:05 Orbixx has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1710 2011-03-24 19:13:03 robotarmy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1711 2011-03-24 19:17:02 glassresistor has joined
1712 2011-03-24 19:17:55 chmod755 has joined
1713 2011-03-24 19:17:58 chmod755 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1714 2011-03-24 19:18:13 Orbixx has joined
1715 2011-03-24 19:18:13 Orbixx has quit (Changing host)
1716 2011-03-24 19:18:13 Orbixx has joined
1717 2011-03-24 19:25:02 rlee has joined
1718 2011-03-24 19:25:32 <rlee> hi all, i was wondering if anyone could direct me to page on how to start data mining?
1719 2011-03-24 19:28:21 <dirtyfilthy> gpu or cpu?
1720 2011-03-24 19:28:32 <[Tycho]> rlee, http://deepbit.net
1721 2011-03-24 19:29:15 <[Tycho]> rlee, what GPU do you have ?
1722 2011-03-24 19:30:06 <rlee> well i have a couple of computers, but nothing really with a strong gpu
1723 2011-03-24 19:30:18 <rlee> i'm kind of trying to understand the concept
1724 2011-03-24 19:30:58 <glassresistor> rlee: unless you have 4000 stream processors, i doubt your see any btc flow unless you use pooling mining
1725 2011-03-24 19:31:02 <glassresistor> and then very little
1726 2011-03-24 19:31:15 <rlee> lol
1727 2011-03-24 19:31:31 <[Tycho]> rlee, CPU mining is almost pointless at this time.
1728 2011-03-24 19:31:38 <rlee> ic
1729 2011-03-24 19:32:06 <glassresistor> rlee: if you want to understand btc then i'd advise looking into banking code or trading, or buy a new computer
1730 2011-03-24 19:32:20 <rlee> yeah i was reading up
1731 2011-03-24 19:32:22 <glassresistor> you might recover the cost of it in 4 or 5 years
1732 2011-03-24 19:32:22 <[Tycho]> Nice glue they got there... http://www.rom.by/files/TORN_OFF_HEATSINK.JPG
1733 2011-03-24 19:32:24 <rlee> on peoples rigs
1734 2011-03-24 19:32:59 <glassresistor> [Tycho]: damn
1735 2011-03-24 19:33:16 <rlee> can you guys give me the basic concept of gpu mining?
1736 2011-03-24 19:33:42 <glassresistor> well you run a program, and then you can't watch movies or play games or sometimes move you mouse
1737 2011-03-24 19:33:45 <[Tycho]> rlee, you install suitable drivers, SDK, miner and start mining.
1738 2011-03-24 19:34:01 <[Tycho]> The problem with mouse is only linux-related.
1739 2011-03-24 19:34:29 <glassresistor> and if your using m0mchills and on ubuntu / debain you should pip install pyopencl and not get it from apt, cause it only works on nvidia otherwise
1740 2011-03-24 19:34:31 <[Tycho]> You can pretty much use your computer while mining on windows. But watching movies and playing games will slow down mining process.
1741 2011-03-24 19:34:40 <sipa> i have no problems working while mining... i use a built-in gpu for video-output, and a pcie one for mining :)
1742 2011-03-24 19:34:45 Hogofwar has joined
1743 2011-03-24 19:34:49 <glassresistor> [Tycho]: i don't have that problem 4000 procs but old comps do
1744 2011-03-24 19:34:51 <Hogofwar> hello
1745 2011-03-24 19:35:05 BlueMatt has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1746 2011-03-24 19:35:14 <Hogofwar> Has anyone here used bitcoinJ?
1747 2011-03-24 19:35:37 BlueMatt has joined
1748 2011-03-24 19:36:24 <Hogofwar> :(
1749 2011-03-24 19:37:57 <tcatm> gavinandresen: nanotube just suggested breaking up faucet coins into 0.05 BTC coins with sendmany to avoid chains of unconfirmed tx
1750 2011-03-24 19:38:35 <dirtyfilthy> Hogofwar: afaik it's not finished
1751 2011-03-24 19:38:41 <sipa> Hogofwar: if TD is here, you can ask him
1752 2011-03-24 19:38:47 <Hogofwar> TD?
1753 2011-03-24 19:39:01 <sipa> he wrote bitcoinJ
1754 2011-03-24 19:39:01 <rlee> if i have a computer nvidia geforce 8600+ gt that could be dedicated to mining would it be worth my time to set up?
1755 2011-03-24 19:39:06 <Hogofwar> Ah
1756 2011-03-24 19:39:12 <sipa> he's here quite often
1757 2011-03-24 19:39:18 <Hogofwar> There's a TDX_
1758 2011-03-24 19:39:27 <Hogofwar> :P
1759 2011-03-24 19:39:30 <Hogofwar> Probably not then
1760 2011-03-24 19:39:37 <sipa> it seems TDX_ is TD :)
1761 2011-03-24 19:39:50 <Hogofwar> wa...
1762 2011-03-24 19:39:54 <Hogofwar> haha, thanks
1763 2011-03-24 19:40:12 <Hogofwar> though before i attempt to ask him, i might aswell ask it here anyway if it is stupid
1764 2011-03-24 19:40:29 <Hogofwar> Is bitcoinJ supposed to need the client running when using it?
1765 2011-03-24 19:40:42 <dirtyfilthy> nope
1766 2011-03-24 19:40:53 <[Tycho]> rlee, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison
1767 2011-03-24 19:40:59 <Hogofwar> I can only get it to download blocks when my client is running
1768 2011-03-24 19:41:23 <sipa> what do you mean with client?
1769 2011-03-24 19:41:35 <Hogofwar> if it is not running it just throws a connection refusal:connect
1770 2011-03-24 19:41:47 <Hogofwar> As in the one you download from bitcoin.org
1771 2011-03-24 19:41:52 <Hogofwar> The first/main one
1772 2011-03-24 19:41:58 <dirtyfilthy> hmmm
1773 2011-03-24 19:42:22 <sipa> it should contain a client implementation itself
1774 2011-03-24 19:42:28 <sipa> but i haven't used it
1775 2011-03-24 19:42:59 <rlee> only 5.66Mhash/s i've read that most pools require a minimum to stay in is that true?
1776 2011-03-24 19:43:09 <sipa> not that i know of
1777 2011-03-24 19:43:25 <gavinandresen> tcatm:  is the faucet having problems with chains of unconfirmed txs?   I haven't looked, but assumed that paying a fee would make faucet txs get into blocks pretty quick.
1778 2011-03-24 19:43:53 <xelister> gavinandresen: I had tx in state 0/unconfirmed for 12 hours
1779 2011-03-24 19:44:00 <xelister> gavinandresen: received from pool
1780 2011-03-24 19:44:03 <gavinandresen> xelister: faucet tx witha fee?
1781 2011-03-24 19:44:03 <xelister> bbl
1782 2011-03-24 19:44:11 <xelister> gavinandresen: pool with 0.01 fee
1783 2011-03-24 19:44:19 bitcoiner has joined
1784 2011-03-24 19:45:05 <lfm> rles maybe, not sure. I think it would be worth a try
1785 2011-03-24 19:45:52 <[Tycho]> rlee, there is no minimum value for pool.
1786 2011-03-24 19:47:34 <gavinandresen> tcatm: looking at the unconfirmed txs, I don't see long chains of unconfirmed faucet txs.  (I see 2 pending faucet sends, both at top of list)
1787 2011-03-24 19:47:53 AmpEater has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1788 2011-03-24 19:48:02 <Hogofwar> oh hey gavin again
1789 2011-03-24 19:48:12 <Hogofwar> Never did get nightly builds then :/
1790 2011-03-24 19:48:18 Bosma has joined
1791 2011-03-24 19:48:24 <Hogofwar> Well, there is one for linux that i have found
1792 2011-03-24 19:48:32 <gavinandresen> Hogofwar: BlueMatt is doing nightlies (or is working on it)
1793 2011-03-24 19:49:04 <tcatm> gavinandresen: Yep, they just got confirmed. I think during slashdot there was a longer chain.
1794 2011-03-24 19:49:08 <[Tycho]> ;;bc,gen 5660
1795 2011-03-24 19:49:09 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 5660 Khps, given current difficulty of 76193.9710474 , is 0.0747170485523 BTC per day and 0.00311321035634 BTC per hour.
1796 2011-03-24 19:49:14 gf has joined
1797 2011-03-24 19:49:56 gf has quit (Client Quit)
1798 2011-03-24 19:50:03 <Hogofwar> Anyone here heard of the Pandora?
1799 2011-03-24 19:50:13 <Hogofwar> http://openpandora.org
1800 2011-03-24 19:50:28 <gavinandresen> tcatm:  It would be cool to write a tool to look at the wallet and break up big inputs...  or maybe just teach SelectCoins to write to multiple change addresses to break up big-change.
1801 2011-03-24 19:50:44 <alias420> for bitcoin generation purposes is a ati 5870 at 850mhz better than a 6870 running at 915mhz? I see the 6870 is priced lower?
1802 2011-03-24 19:51:18 <gavinandresen> tcatm:  ... although before doing that I think a 'change pool' to re-use a fixed set of 'change' addresses would be needed
1803 2011-03-24 19:51:24 <luke-jr> alias420: yes
1804 2011-03-24 19:51:41 <sipa> gavinandresen: i believe satoshi suggested this in the mail you forwarded me, no?
1805 2011-03-24 19:51:48 <gavinandresen> sipa: yup
1806 2011-03-24 19:51:55 <gavinandresen> sipa:  not the change pool part, though
1807 2011-03-24 19:52:04 <sipa> no, indeed
1808 2011-03-24 19:52:13 <glassresistor> ;;getrating gasteve
1809 2011-03-24 19:52:13 <gribble> User gasteve, with hostmask unaffiliated/gasteve, was created on Sun Feb 13 19:09:53 2011, and has a cumulative rating of 11, from a total of 9 ratings. Of these, 9 are positive and 0 are negative. This user has also sent 11 positive ratings, and 0 negative ratings to others.
1810 2011-03-24 19:52:37 <sipa> but implementing something that causes tx'es with two change txouts would be quite easy, after merging spentpertxout
1811 2011-03-24 19:52:53 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: small coins can be a problem sometimes
1812 2011-03-24 19:53:00 <[Tycho]> ;;bc,gen 900000
1813 2011-03-24 19:53:02 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 900000 Khps, given current difficulty of 76193.9710474 , is 11.8808027733 BTC per day and 0.495033448889 BTC per hour.
1814 2011-03-24 19:53:41 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I had some huge fees when my wallet decided to spend like 200 tiny coins for a not-that-large send
1815 2011-03-24 19:54:26 <luke-jr> perhaps a new setting, to configure "preferred" coin size range? and let the wallet even make up tx when it's idle to get there
1816 2011-03-24 19:54:58 <gavinandresen> luke-jr:  how did you get lots of pennies in your wallet?  pooled mining?
1817 2011-03-24 19:55:06 <luke-jr> yeah, back when I used CPU
1818 2011-03-24 19:55:28 <luke-jr> eg, if I set a preferred size of 42.94967296 BTC, my wallet might idly grab as many pennies as it can, and send to a change-only address until it's around that value
1819 2011-03-24 19:55:59 <gavinandresen> But 'idle' for you just puts that cost on the rest of the network
1820 2011-03-24 19:55:59 <luke-jr> (as it can without a fee, I mean)
1821 2011-03-24 19:56:19 <tcatm> if everyone did that, that would be as bad as all those spam tx
1822 2011-03-24 19:56:19 <luke-jr> perhaps it reveals a flaw in the fee schedules ;)
1823 2011-03-24 19:56:37 <luke-jr> tcatm: but unlike tx spam, this actually benefits me
1824 2011-03-24 19:56:37 <alias420> can anyone point me to a good doc explaining how and why the difficulty changes
1825 2011-03-24 19:56:42 <gavinandresen> I think the fee schedule is working as intended-- we want to discourage people from gathering lots of pennies.
1826 2011-03-24 19:56:54 <Diablo-D3> I almost misread that as penises
1827 2011-03-24 19:57:02 <Diablo-D3> I was like, what, we discriminate against gays now?
1828 2011-03-24 19:57:03 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: but a smart wallet, would just avoid those fees using multiple steps
1829 2011-03-24 19:57:03 <gavinandresen> (e.g. set your mining pool minimum payout to something larger than 0.01 BTC)
1830 2011-03-24 19:57:21 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: back when I CPU mined, 0.01 BTC took a while :p
1831 2011-03-24 19:57:24 <gavinandresen> luke-jr:  avoid those fees by passing the cost onto everybody else
1832 2011-03-24 19:57:25 <luke-jr> it was a lot
1833 2011-03-24 19:57:34 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: exactly.
1834 2011-03-24 19:58:05 <luke-jr> that's a bug in the fee schedule. it doesn't consider someone might be patient enough to split up its tx into multiple steps
1835 2011-03-24 19:59:26 <tcatm> just send smaller amounts?
1836 2011-03-24 19:59:40 <gavinandresen> luke-jr:  hmm?  the priority algorithm should do the right thing-- a lots-of-small-pennies-but-not-enough-to-be-over-the-free-limit transaction will start with a low priority
1837 2011-03-24 19:59:56 <gavinandresen> (and will take a long time to get into a block, which is correct)
1838 2011-03-24 19:59:59 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: maybe
1839 2011-03-24 20:00:03 <luke-jr> if that's the goal
1840 2011-03-24 20:00:36 <gavinandresen> One goal is to discourage people from creating wallets that have lots of small change.
1841 2011-03-24 20:01:07 <luke-jr> so in that respect, a wallet that idly consolidates coins might help the network
1842 2011-03-24 20:01:45 robotarmy has joined
1843 2011-03-24 20:02:06 <gavinandresen> If 'idle' was  few-transactions-seen-in-the-last-ten-minutes... then maybe.  Although even that might have unintended consequences
1844 2011-03-24 20:02:32 talktojer has joined
1845 2011-03-24 20:02:33 <gavinandresen> (e.g. low transaction activity triggers LOTS of clients to start rolling up pennies, flooding the net with transactions...  setting up bad feedback loops, etc)
1846 2011-03-24 20:02:41 <lfm> luke I dont think it would be good to have any idle txn. odds are they will just need to be reassembled to different sizes later anyway thus being a waste of resources
1847 2011-03-24 20:02:45 <sipa> gavinandresen: maybe you're interested - i did some experiments with partial transactions and switching back and forth between unpatched and patched clients
1848 2011-03-24 20:03:00 <gavinandresen> sipa:  nice!  success?
1849 2011-03-24 20:03:21 <sipa> gavinandresen: the remaining part of partial tx's was shown in the transaction list in the GUI, but not counted in the balance, and not selected when creating tx'es
1850 2011-03-24 20:03:41 <sipa> and everything was fine after returning to the patched version
1851 2011-03-24 20:03:59 justmoon has joined
1852 2011-03-24 20:04:21 <gavinandresen> sipa:  great!
1853 2011-03-24 20:05:03 <talktojer> I have a question regarding generation of bitcoins.  If I set up a bitcoin client on one computer, then set up mining apps like poclbm on other PC's pointed at the bitcoin client in server mode they seem to be crunching numbers.  when/if a block is ever decrypted on my node, how exactly is the block awarded to me?
1854 2011-03-24 20:05:15 <gavinandresen> lfm:  I agree, 'rolling up pennies' should be (and is) part of normal transaction flow.
1855 2011-03-24 20:05:23 <luke-jr> talktojer: there's no decryption involved
1856 2011-03-24 20:05:33 <talktojer> wwell, whatever it's doing.
1857 2011-03-24 20:05:41 <talktojer> replace that word with teh correct word
1858 2011-03-24 20:05:44 <luke-jr> talktojer: when you generate the block data, your merkle tree has your address in the "generation" spot
1859 2011-03-24 20:05:57 <lfm> talkjit would be as if they were generated on the main bitcoind client
1860 2011-03-24 20:05:59 <luke-jr> miners spend their time hashing a header that includes that merkle root
1861 2011-03-24 20:06:04 <talktojer> is this something automatic having to do with the client?
1862 2011-03-24 20:06:04 <sipa> gavinandresen: so that's as optimal as it could get, i think - except that people may complain that the balance doesn't seem to correspond to the transaction list
1863 2011-03-24 20:06:13 <luke-jr> talktojer: yes
1864 2011-03-24 20:06:43 <talktojer> so it will basically just appear in my balance of the main client that all the other miner pc's are connecting to?
1865 2011-03-24 20:06:48 <gavinandresen> sipa:  if that's the worst problem, that seems fine-- they can just upgrade again to see the correct balance.
1866 2011-03-24 20:06:52 <luke-jr> talktojer: eventually
1867 2011-03-24 20:07:06 <gavinandresen> sipa:  and getting into that state is hard, anyway
1868 2011-03-24 20:07:14 <luke-jr> talktojer: after about 18 hours
1869 2011-03-24 20:07:34 <lfm> talktojer: yes, they will show up as 50.00 btc credit with the notation "generated"
1870 2011-03-24 20:07:36 <talktojer> how will I know if I've unlocked a block?  will there be an indicator prior to receiving payment?
1871 2011-03-24 20:07:56 <talktojer> i assume it will get paid to wwhichever address is in the bar of the client at that time?
1872 2011-03-24 20:07:58 <luke-jr> talktojer: you find blocks. poclbm prints 'accepted'
1873 2011-03-24 20:08:04 <luke-jr> no
1874 2011-03-24 20:08:11 <luke-jr> it makes a new address ofc
1875 2011-03-24 20:08:42 <talktojer> gets assigned to my client or something?  this stuff is very confusing...got a lot to learn
1876 2011-03-24 20:08:57 <luke-jr> talktojer: there is generally one address per transaction
1877 2011-03-24 20:09:12 <sipa> gavinandresen: when testing walletdump i've run into stranger problems, though
1878 2011-03-24 20:09:14 <talktojer> oh, i always keep using the same ones
1879 2011-03-24 20:09:51 <luke-jr> talktojer: it's impossible to tell who sends you money, so by using a new address for each tx, you can know you gave that address to so-and-so
1880 2011-03-24 20:09:57 <lfm> talktojer: I think it will automaticlly generate a new unique bitcoin address to receive the coins
1881 2011-03-24 20:10:19 <gavinandresen> sipa:  what kind of stranger problems... (I'm sort of afraid to ask)
1882 2011-03-24 20:11:16 <talktojer> I just need to try to figure out how to convince my friends that we arent decrypting government secrets for terrorists so they'll help me..
1883 2011-03-24 20:11:27 <luke-jr> lol
1884 2011-03-24 20:11:41 curiositysquared has joined
1885 2011-03-24 20:11:41 <talktojer> theyre all afraid they'll get in trouble
1886 2011-03-24 20:11:48 <talktojer> kinda sick if you ask me
1887 2011-03-24 20:11:49 <lfm> talktojer: its all open source so they can look for themselves
1888 2011-03-24 20:12:12 <talktojer> they dunno what opensource means..
1889 2011-03-24 20:12:16 <luke-jr> …
1890 2011-03-24 20:12:22 <talktojer> a few of my friends have really nice video cards though
1891 2011-03-24 20:12:24 ApertureScience has joined
1892 2011-03-24 20:12:26 <luke-jr> talktojer: computers only do what you tell them to do
1893 2011-03-24 20:12:27 <xelister> talktojer: tell them to man up or gtfo
1894 2011-03-24 20:12:29 <talktojer> makes me drool
1895 2011-03-24 20:12:42 <alias420> has anyone benchmarked the fastest OS for ATI gpu mining?
1896 2011-03-24 20:12:52 <lfm> talktojer: well if they cant understand C++ then you should get better friends! (just kidding)
1897 2011-03-24 20:12:58 <talktojer> haha
1898 2011-03-24 20:13:18 <talktojer> im still trying to figure out exactly what it is that we're finding
1899 2011-03-24 20:13:24 <alias420> are there any specific linux distros that perform best?
1900 2011-03-24 20:13:25 <sipa> gavinandresen: the worst is this scenario: A goes offline, A's wallet is copied to B, B does a spend, A comes online before a block is generated and tries to spend the same coin
1901 2011-03-24 20:13:25 <[Tycho]> Bots are trading in a line ? :) http://www.bitcoinmonitor.com/
1902 2011-03-24 20:13:54 <sipa> *tries to self-spend the same coin
1903 2011-03-24 20:13:56 <lfm> alias420: most linux are the same for this stuff
1904 2011-03-24 20:13:58 <sipa> gavinandresen: then A has an attemped double-spent coin in his own wallet
1905 2011-03-24 20:14:03 <curiositysquared> [Tycho] are you tycho from the forum?
1906 2011-03-24 20:14:10 <gavinandresen> sipa:  ... and the double-spend is never cleared.
1907 2011-03-24 20:14:17 <[Tycho]> curiositysquared, i'm [Tycho] from the forum.
1908 2011-03-24 20:14:18 <sipa> the tx will never be confirmed, but will remains in his wallet
1909 2011-03-24 20:14:23 <curiositysquared> cool. I had a question.
1910 2011-03-24 20:14:27 <curiositysquared> What are shares?
1911 2011-03-24 20:14:30 <alias420> and is linux considered better for ati drivers?
1912 2011-03-24 20:14:32 <curiositysquared> I just reread shatoshi's paper
1913 2011-03-24 20:14:41 <curiositysquared> and I don't understand how the pools are splitting up the work.
1914 2011-03-24 20:14:53 <alias420> I've heard about a 95% gpu load to 99% gpu load diff between windows and linux can anyone confirm?
1915 2011-03-24 20:14:54 <curiositysquared> Is there a doc explaining how it works?
1916 2011-03-24 20:14:55 <[Tycho]> curiositysquared, share is a solved hash for difficulty "1". I can explain this.
1917 2011-03-24 20:15:03 <Mango-chan> curiositysquared
1918 2011-03-24 20:15:05 <sipa> gavinandresen: the solution seems to be to check incoming blocks for tx's colliding with wallettx's, and then set a flag 'deactived' to the wallettx
1919 2011-03-24 20:15:05 <Mango-chan> think of it as magic
1920 2011-03-24 20:15:07 <lfm> talktojer: miners are searching for blocks that produce hashes with lots of leading zeros
1921 2011-03-24 20:15:24 <sipa> which causes it to be ignored everywhere, except in the gui
1922 2011-03-24 20:15:26 <gavinandresen> sipa:  maybe LoadWallet could detect unconfirmed transactions, and remove them if they're double-spends.
1923 2011-03-24 20:15:30 <curiositysquared> but how does having the solved hash with difficulty 1 help?
1924 2011-03-24 20:15:46 <alias420> I've heard about a 95% gpu load to 99% gpu load diff between windows and linux can anyone confirm?
1925 2011-03-24 20:15:49 <[Tycho]> curiositysquared, it's not for help, it's a proof of work.
1926 2011-03-24 20:15:56 <gavinandresen> sipa:  ... so fixing the 0/unconfirmed would just mean stopping and restarting.
1927 2011-03-24 20:16:20 <curiositysquared> I just need to go read the code. :) which was what I was about to do.
1928 2011-03-24 20:16:48 <curiositysquared> you couldn't by chance point me to the struct/class def that contains the meat could you?
1929 2011-03-24 20:16:52 <sipa> seems like an easy solution for maybe a situation people should be careful with anyway
1930 2011-03-24 20:16:58 <gavinandresen> sipa:  checking incoming blocks for tx's colliding makes me nervous-- with block chain splits, A's transaction might eventually be the winner
1931 2011-03-24 20:16:59 <lfm> alias420: that might be true but its pretty hard to actually measure small differences like that, microsoft may be measuring the % a different way
1932 2011-03-24 20:17:04 Bosma has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi)
1933 2011-03-24 20:17:15 <sipa> gavinandresen: yes, that's why i prefer a flag instead removing them
1934 2011-03-24 20:17:17 <[Tycho]> curiositysquared, those solutions are sent to pool so the pool can see that miner is working on the problem. Those solutions can be suitable for higher difficulty sometimes.
1935 2011-03-24 20:17:41 <alias420> well I'm just trying to get the optimum bang for my buck in btc generation on an ati 5870
1936 2011-03-24 20:17:44 <talktojer> is there a live cd out there with an OS built for mining?
1937 2011-03-24 20:17:44 <curiositysquared> ahh
1938 2011-03-24 20:17:48 <gavinandresen> sipa:  so you'd set the de-activated flag and then need to re-activate if it actually made it into a block.....  hmm.
1939 2011-03-24 20:17:53 <alias420> wondering if I should run it under linux winblows
1940 2011-03-24 20:18:04 <[Tycho]> curiositysquared, sooner or lates some of miners will find a solution for real difficulty too. And since it's >= 1, it will send it to pool.
1941 2011-03-24 20:18:04 <curiositysquared> how do they help with calculating the higher difficulty sometimes?
1942 2011-03-24 20:18:05 <talktojer> alias: is that the regular 5870 or the mobile?
1943 2011-03-24 20:18:05 <alias420> err linux or winblows
1944 2011-03-24 20:18:11 <alias420> regular
1945 2011-03-24 20:18:17 <alias420> I'm about to go pick one up
1946 2011-03-24 20:18:24 <alias420> saphire at 5870
1947 2011-03-24 20:18:25 <curiositysquared> talktojer, someone is selling a livecd that does exactly what you want on the forum for 150btc
1948 2011-03-24 20:18:30 <sipa> gavinandresen: indeed, i think it should be re-activated even when the infringing block gets removed from the winning chain
1949 2011-03-24 20:18:32 <lfm> alias420: personaly I think linux is slightly more efficient but its quite close really
1950 2011-03-24 20:18:40 <sipa> so it would again be retransmitted eg.
1951 2011-03-24 20:18:40 <alias420> hahaha selling a livcd?
1952 2011-03-24 20:18:44 <gavinandresen> sipa:  to be totally safe, it might be best to just leave them 0/unconfirmed until you restart bitcoin and find another spend that is buried deep in the block chain.
1953 2011-03-24 20:18:48 <talktojer> a guy i know gets over 300000khps overclocked on his 5870...mine is mobile though so its about half that
1954 2011-03-24 20:18:51 <gavinandresen> deep like 100+ blocks
1955 2011-03-24 20:19:08 <[Tycho]> curiositysquared, they will submit solutions for difficulty 1 AND higher.
1956 2011-03-24 20:19:17 <curiositysquared> yeah.
1957 2011-03-24 20:19:19 <lfm> curiositysquared: that seems pretty expensive for such a thing
1958 2011-03-24 20:19:21 <alias420> has anyone created a mining exectuable installer?
1959 2011-03-24 20:19:43 <talktojer> maybe ill make my own little usb drive OS
1960 2011-03-24 20:19:45 <alias420> would rock to go into bestbuy with a usb key and just start adding machines to a pool crediting my account
1961 2011-03-24 20:19:45 <curiositysquared> When solo mining there is no point or even concept of shares. :)
1962 2011-03-24 20:19:50 <curiositysquared> that's what had me confused.
1963 2011-03-24 20:20:08 <curiositysquared> I wanted too see how many shares I was getting on my own but ... that doesn't even make sense.
1964 2011-03-24 20:20:19 <curiositysquared> Well, it sort of does. That's my next thing to figure out.
1965 2011-03-24 20:20:36 <curiositysquared> Is there a way to see in bitcoind how many rpc clients I have and how many hashes they've done?
1966 2011-03-24 20:20:41 <talktojer> problem with friends helping me mine is if i promise thema share, is there a way to see how much of the mining they contributed?
1967 2011-03-24 20:20:57 <talktojer> wow same question at the same time
1968 2011-03-24 20:21:04 <lfm> curiositysquared: some miners produce a message for each "share" even when solo mining so if you log the output you could figure it out
1969 2011-03-24 20:21:04 <alias420> you will have to use the develop api to query those stats
1970 2011-03-24 20:21:31 <alias420> unless is there an open source pool monitoring program?
1971 2011-03-24 20:21:47 <alias420> all the current pools use closed source for their stats tracking right?
1972 2011-03-24 20:21:50 <talktojer> i assumed all the pools were using some sort of open software
1973 2011-03-24 20:22:13 <curiositysquared> lfm, that gets logged on the mining system, right? There's no way to see on my bitcoin server?
1974 2011-03-24 20:22:14 <lfm> I think pudnpop made an open source pool system
1975 2011-03-24 20:22:34 <lfm> curiositysquared: right
1976 2011-03-24 20:23:19 <luke-jr> there are at least 2 open pools
1977 2011-03-24 20:23:21 <alias420> wow there was a nice correction in usd exchagne today
1978 2011-03-24 20:23:39 <luke-jr> http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/puddinpop-bitcoin-pool.git
1979 2011-03-24 20:24:20 <alias420> luke-jr this software will display stats for all the miners?
1980 2011-03-24 20:25:06 <talktojer> i jsut found a ubunty live miner iso on a forum for download
1981 2011-03-24 20:25:09 <alias420> or is it just a better version than the client for effiency of pooling?
1982 2011-03-24 20:25:10 <talktojer> wonder if it works
1983 2011-03-24 20:25:18 <alias420> talktojer
1984 2011-03-24 20:25:21 <alias420> please share
1985 2011-03-24 20:25:31 <alias420> link??
1986 2011-03-24 20:25:35 <talktojer> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4103.0
1987 2011-03-24 20:25:51 <talktojer> downloading it..lookin to see if theres an updated version..i just found it seconds ago
1988 2011-03-24 20:26:29 <alias420> updated since march 4th?
1989 2011-03-24 20:27:07 <alias420> oh that live cd appears useless
1990 2011-03-24 20:27:19 <talktojer> oh yah its current
1991 2011-03-24 20:27:21 <talktojer> why useless?
1992 2011-03-24 20:27:23 <alias420> no gpu
1993 2011-03-24 20:27:37 <talktojer> just for ATI but theres some info on how to make it work
1994 2011-03-24 20:27:55 <alias420> yeah but it's not better than a standard ubuntu iso
1995 2011-03-24 20:28:06 <alias420> other than downloading the software package for you
1996 2011-03-24 20:28:22 <alias420> which is easy enough to do since you are already doing the harder task of upgrading the drivers
1997 2011-03-24 20:28:25 <talktojer> yah prolly right
1998 2011-03-24 20:28:41 <talktojer> how do you burn an iso to a usb drive anyway
1999 2011-03-24 20:28:48 <alias420> you would extract it
2000 2011-03-24 20:28:52 <talktojer> that it?
2001 2011-03-24 20:28:55 <alias420> poweriso is a nice program
2002 2011-03-24 20:28:57 <talktojer> winrar does that i think
2003 2011-03-24 20:29:02 <alias420> winrar might
2004 2011-03-24 20:29:13 <alias420> google will tell you
2005 2011-03-24 20:29:36 <talktojer> shouldnt the thumbdrive already be a linux fs though?
2006 2011-03-24 20:29:41 <curiositysquared> does no one really know what happened to Satoshi? He hasn't been heard from in months, right? This freaks me a bit.
2007 2011-03-24 20:30:10 <alias420> maybe he's being held for a btc ransom
2008 2011-03-24 20:31:20 <curiositysquared> I ask because my reas question is, how would a major change to the client actually work?
2009 2011-03-24 20:31:52 <curiositysquared> If he changed the base client so that it was going to create 31 million btc instead of 21, and enough people updated it between 1 block and the next, would the change just stick?
2010 2011-03-24 20:32:18 <gasteve> I think so, yes
2011 2011-03-24 20:32:37 <gavinandresen> curiositysquared: I got email from Satoshi a few days ago.  He's just busy and doesn't have time for the gazillion people who write to him.
2012 2011-03-24 20:32:40 <lfm> curiositysquared: any major change to the client would need to convince peope it was an improvment or they would just stay with an old version or start developing their own fork of the source
2013 2011-03-24 20:32:50 <gasteve> but there are quite a few people that would likely object to such a change
2014 2011-03-24 20:33:25 Bosma has joined
2015 2011-03-24 20:33:46 <luke-jr> alias420: nfc
2016 2011-03-24 20:33:57 <gavinandresen> curiositysquared:  why would satoshi (or any of the rest of us) want to make such a radical change?  That would just be dumb.
2017 2011-03-24 20:34:05 <curiositysquared> lfm, not to be dense but that's the boiler plate answer. I don't understand how the "convince people it was an improvement" would work. Even if such a change convinced people, wouldn't it still wreak all havoc?
2018 2011-03-24 20:34:08 jostmey has joined
2019 2011-03-24 20:34:13 <luke-jr> alias420: only ATI GPUs are useful for mining
2020 2011-03-24 20:34:38 <curiositysquared> gavinandresen: (thanks for the satoshi update, the forum was less than helpful. :)
2021 2011-03-24 20:34:50 <curiositysquared> satoshi wouldn't make such a change.
2022 2011-03-24 20:35:15 <curiositysquared> But say we needed to change something about the hash because of a vulnerability, or there was a change that was obvious and everyone wanted.
2023 2011-03-24 20:35:37 <curiositysquared> Wouldn't that still fork the block chain between old bitcoin and new?
2024 2011-03-24 20:35:38 <luke-jr> curiositysquared: you're assuming there is a single codebase
2025 2011-03-24 20:35:46 <luke-jr> yes
2026 2011-03-24 20:35:47 <curiositysquared> no, not what I mean.
2027 2011-03-24 20:35:52 <gavinandresen> ... then we'd code it as:    if current_block_number > some_number : use new rules
2028 2011-03-24 20:36:25 <gavinandresen> And we'd see if it was really true that "everybody" wanted that change by releasing the updated client well before some_number of blocks.
2029 2011-03-24 20:37:00 <curiositysquared> so basically, huge changes are possible, but they would require a huge organized, preplanned switch. Probably with a release date, and around 50% of the network agreeing to stop accepting blocks from the old algorithm after some timestamp and require new logic after that.
2030 2011-03-24 20:37:13 <lfm> and anyone who didnt change would then get kinda locked out from producing new blocks
2031 2011-03-24 20:37:14 ApertureScience has quit (Quit: Linux: because a PC is a terrible thing to waste)
2032 2011-03-24 20:37:17 <curiositysquared> that actually sounds pretty ideal.
2033 2011-03-24 20:37:33 darkskiez has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2034 2011-03-24 20:37:52 <gavinandresen> yes, except for true, obvious vulnerabilities where me (or jgarzik or tcatm) would play benevolant dicatator and beg everybody to upgrade ASAP
2035 2011-03-24 20:38:26 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: that only works so long as your client has over 50%
2036 2011-03-24 20:38:29 talktojer has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2037 2011-03-24 20:38:41 <lfm> like the overflow bug situation, look up the history for that one
2038 2011-03-24 20:38:54 <gavinandresen> luke-jr:  that's why we'd beg. exactly like the overflow bug situation.
2039 2011-03-24 20:39:28 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I mean, once other wallets have significant marketshare, you'd need to get them to change too
2040 2011-03-24 20:39:34 <gavinandresen> and when there is more than one mining client, we'd be begging the other clients to upgrade
2041 2011-03-24 20:40:22 <curiositysquared> Other random thought, say I wanted to give someone some bitcoins, but that they could only give to a few recipients? Say EFF, or Wikileaks.
2042 2011-03-24 20:40:29 <curiositysquared> It would be like a giftcard.
2043 2011-03-24 20:40:33 <curiositysquared> but only good at certain vendors.
2044 2011-03-24 20:40:48 <lfm> the long it takes to get the majority of the mining compute power over to a new change the messier and more disruptive the change gets
2045 2011-03-24 20:40:50 <curiositysquared> ... that's actually pretty easy to implement isn't it.
2046 2011-03-24 20:40:57 <gasteve> that would be something other than bitcoins
2047 2011-03-24 20:41:24 <gavinandresen> curiositysquared:  not possible today, but maybe possible in a future version.  That type of thing is supported by the core code.
2048 2011-03-24 20:41:39 <curiositysquared> I could just sign the bitcoins with the signatures of everyone that was OK to give to, and then they could select which one to submit.
2049 2011-03-24 20:42:12 <gavinandresen> ... yeah, but that would be a non-standard transaction that no current bitcoin clients understand
2050 2011-03-24 20:42:12 <curiositysquared> What I meant to ask was something that might not be possible without a change (and has questionable consequences).
2051 2011-03-24 20:42:40 <curiositysquared> I've been exploring the idea of joint-accounts.
2052 2011-03-24 20:42:53 <curiositysquared> bitcoins that require multiple signatures to send.
2053 2011-03-24 20:43:35 <curiositysquared> Technically, that would require a fundamental change, right? (probably would never happen as a result).
2054 2011-03-24 20:43:46 <{t_t}> curiositysquared: no its possible using script
2055 2011-03-24 20:43:52 <{t_t}> im interested in this too.
2056 2011-03-24 20:43:55 <gavinandresen> No, the transaction infrastructure in bitcoin supports all sorts of neat stuff.
2057 2011-03-24 20:44:13 <curiositysquared> "using script"?
2058 2011-03-24 20:44:17 <lfm> curiositysquared: if you cant convince the majority of the mining cpu power to switch over you cant get it done at all in general. Some changes are possible to bring in without such disruption tho. they will be accepted by default in the current mining systems even if they arnt normally fully supported
2059 2011-03-24 20:44:24 <curiositysquared> Is there a technical paper I can go read?
2060 2011-03-24 20:44:41 <gavinandresen> It is just all turned off at the moment, because the hard part is figuring out how to present it to the user and because the more different stuff there is the more likely there is some subtle bug...
2061 2011-03-24 20:44:58 <{t_t}> curiositysquared: yeah at the bottom of the wiki article ref2
2062 2011-03-24 20:45:04 <{t_t}> satoshi's original paper
2063 2011-03-24 20:45:06 <gavinandresen> curiositysquared:  bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
2064 2011-03-24 20:45:10 <gasteve> I think such capabilities (like restricting recipients of payments) are best layered on top of bitcoin, rather than implemented directly in bitcoin (best to keep the core block chain as simple as possible IMO)
2065 2011-03-24 20:45:23 <{t_t}> gasteve: no way
2066 2011-03-24 20:45:47 <Hogofwar> Yep, bitcoinj is totally borked for me
2067 2011-03-24 20:45:59 <curiositysquared> I got bitcoin.pdf pretty well internalized.
2068 2011-03-24 20:46:03 <Hogofwar> And steam fucked up when buying a game
2069 2011-03-24 20:46:06 <curiositysquared> I mean more on dirty details of the actual implementation.
2070 2011-03-24 20:46:19 <{t_t}> the wiki
2071 2011-03-24 20:46:26 <{t_t}> dev categories
2072 2011-03-24 20:46:28 <gasteve> {t_t}: what do you mean by "no way"
2073 2011-03-24 20:46:32 <[Tycho]> http://www.rom.by/files/rebol.jpg
2074 2011-03-24 20:46:37 <gavinandresen> curiositysquared:  just info in the wiki
2075 2011-03-24 20:46:38 <{t_t}> gasteve: as in, the script supports cool stuff
2076 2011-03-24 20:46:44 <{t_t}> why wouldnt u want to use it?
2077 2011-03-24 20:46:58 <{t_t}> "lets bin it because it makes me uncomfortable".
2078 2011-03-24 20:46:59 <{t_t}> nothx
2079 2011-03-24 20:47:07 <gasteve> simplicity and integrity
2080 2011-03-24 20:47:18 <lfm> restriced recipients could actually be implemeneted on top of the current system. Use am outside channel (like email or something) to distribute the txn and then anyone could put it in the main net and transfer it to a private account but only if they got the email
2081 2011-03-24 20:47:26 <{t_t}> simplicity != minimalism
2082 2011-03-24 20:47:45 <curiositysquared> [tycho] what is that?
2083 2011-03-24 20:47:51 <{t_t}> simplicity is having the bare building blocks to build power tools
2084 2011-03-24 20:47:52 <[Tycho]> Reballing.
2085 2011-03-24 20:48:00 <[Tycho]> Belarussian-style.
2086 2011-03-24 20:48:02 <curiositysquared> cpu?
2087 2011-03-24 20:48:05 <curiositysquared> or gpu?
2088 2011-03-24 20:48:11 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
2089 2011-03-24 20:48:23 <curiositysquared> and you didn't do that did you?
2090 2011-03-24 20:48:25 <[Tycho]> bridge
2091 2011-03-24 20:48:30 <[Tycho]> No, it's not me.
2092 2011-03-24 20:48:57 <[Tycho]> ArtForz would like this :))
2093 2011-03-24 20:49:19 <curiositysquared> bridge like routing bridge?
2094 2011-03-24 20:49:34 <[Tycho]> Bridge like a part of MB chipset.
2095 2011-03-24 20:49:44 jroot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2096 2011-03-24 20:50:27 <curiositysquared> ok. but why? to fix the mb? or modify it?
2097 2011-03-24 20:50:34 <gasteve> my nerves are frayed just looking at that photo
2098 2011-03-24 20:50:53 <curiositysquared> eitherway, I think you need to add that photo to the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rework_(electronics)
2099 2011-03-24 20:50:54 <[Tycho]> It's so terribly wrong
2100 2011-03-24 20:51:07 <curiositysquared> (if you can)
2101 2011-03-24 20:51:22 <Beremat> :( that hurts looking at it
2102 2011-03-24 20:51:28 <curiositysquared> that's just simultaneously insanely awesome and just plane insane.
2103 2011-03-24 20:51:36 Hogofwar has quit (Quit: Page closed)
2104 2011-03-24 20:52:17 <[Tycho]> Oh, i remembered the site, where i should post it.
2105 2011-03-24 20:52:23 dishwara has quit (Quit: Miranda IM! Smaller, Faster, Easier. http://miranda-im.org)
2106 2011-03-24 20:52:24 <lfm> gotta be some sort of obsessive compulsive to do that
2107 2011-03-24 20:52:36 ousado has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2108 2011-03-24 20:52:37 <curiositysquared> or maybe in cuba?
2109 2011-03-24 20:52:53 ousado has joined
2110 2011-03-24 20:53:07 <[Tycho]> http://thereifixedit.failblog.org/
2111 2011-03-24 20:54:04 <curiositysquared> lol
2112 2011-03-24 20:54:14 <curiositysquared> except if it worked you have to post it as win.
2113 2011-03-24 20:56:34 darkskiez has joined
2114 2011-03-24 20:59:40 bk128 has quit (Quit: bk128)
2115 2011-03-24 21:01:06 <sipa> where was the text file with the list of difficulties?
2116 2011-03-24 21:02:51 <midnightmagic> ;;bc,stats
2117 2011-03-24 21:02:54 <gribble> Current Blocks: 114883 | Current Difficulty: 76193.9710474 | Next Difficulty At Block: 114911 | Next Difficulty In: 28 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 4 hours, 53 minutes, and 32 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 69062.08107543
2118 2011-03-24 21:05:16 <gasteve> rats...looks like the drop in difficulty won't actually be that much
2119 2011-03-24 21:07:25 <lfm> sipa http:www3.telus.net/millerlf/diffs.txt
2120 2011-03-24 21:07:46 sshirokov has joined
2121 2011-03-24 21:08:24 <lfm> http://www3.telus.net/millerlf/diffs.txt
2122 2011-03-24 21:08:46 <sipa> ah, thanks
2123 2011-03-24 21:09:51 <curiositysquared> Out of curiousity, if the difficulty factor had been made at 1/10th what it is, and the block reward were 5btc instead of 50, the only big difference is that the block chain would take 10k more disk space?
2124 2011-03-24 21:10:05 <curiositysquared> It might be a bit less secure, but wouldn't transactions happen 10x faster?
2125 2011-03-24 21:10:23 <curiositysquared> (less secure as in requiring more participants to achieve the same level of security)
2126 2011-03-24 21:11:12 <lfm> curiositysquared: also the net would have 10x as many block update events and there would be 10x as many collisons/races where people would think they produce a block but someone else beats them to it
2127 2011-03-24 21:12:36 <Diablo-D3> curiositysquared: no
2128 2011-03-24 21:12:47 <Diablo-D3> lets say we had 5btc per block, and blocks 10x faster
2129 2011-03-24 21:12:59 <Diablo-D3> the total chain size WOULDNT be 10x bigger
2130 2011-03-24 21:13:05 <lfm> security wouldnt really change. it is kinda arbitrary but based on a seat of the pants estimate of an apprpriate amount of net traffic
2131 2011-03-24 21:13:09 <Diablo-D3> the majority of space used in the block is tx
2132 2011-03-24 21:13:15 <sipa> it would be only 40MiB/year bigger
2133 2011-03-24 21:13:22 <Diablo-D3> headers alone, yes, 10x more
2134 2011-03-24 21:13:25 <curiositysquared> oh
2135 2011-03-24 21:13:33 <Diablo-D3> but the same tx would still exist
2136 2011-03-24 21:13:36 <sipa> oh, generation tx's also x10
2137 2011-03-24 21:13:38 <curiositysquared> how much space does the block chain take at the moment?
2138 2011-03-24 21:13:42 <curiositysquared> I thought it was quite small.
2139 2011-03-24 21:13:46 <Diablo-D3> curiositysquared: not much
2140 2011-03-24 21:13:53 <sipa> 180MiB
2141 2011-03-24 21:13:53 <Diablo-D3> I think we havent passed 100mb yet
2142 2011-03-24 21:13:53 <curiositysquared> just took a few hours to download because it comes down at like 2kb/s
2143 2011-03-24 21:13:58 <Diablo-D3> sipa: orlh?
2144 2011-03-24 21:14:02 <sipa> ah, that's including the index
2145 2011-03-24 21:14:10 <curiositysquared> is the merkle pruning completely implemented?
2146 2011-03-24 21:14:24 <sipa> the block chain itself is 102MiB
2147 2011-03-24 21:14:32 <lfm> curiositysquared: no
2148 2011-03-24 21:14:32 <luke-jr> curiositysquared: nobody has started on that afaik
2149 2011-03-24 21:14:33 <sipa> curiositysquared: no, not at all
2150 2011-03-24 21:15:03 <tcatm> merkle pruning would reduce blkchain size by 59 MB
2151 2011-03-24 21:15:59 <lfm> "up to" 59 MB Id assume
2152 2011-03-24 21:16:14 <tcatm> up to?
2153 2011-03-24 21:16:36 <sipa> how do you calculate that, tcatm? just dropping all spent tx's?
2154 2011-03-24 21:16:42 llama has joined
2155 2011-03-24 21:16:52 <lfm> may be less depending on how agressive you are about tit. like you shouldnt really prune any very recent txn I think
2156 2011-03-24 21:16:59 <tcatm> sipa: yep, and assuming we still have to store a 32 byte hash for each dropped tx
2157 2011-03-24 21:17:11 <sipa> ok
2158 2011-03-24 21:18:15 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * r5b2e9f1052a1 intersango/INSTALL: info on crontab INSTALL
2159 2011-03-24 21:18:17 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * rdb5e8d9d2559 intersango/switcher.php: removed errors.php require
2160 2011-03-24 21:18:20 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * re2087288964c intersango/scr/unit.sh: unittest show sql in table pretty
2161 2011-03-24 21:18:21 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * rdfb484db33c1 intersango/util.php: bitcoin sync is filed as a deposit request.
2162 2011-03-24 21:18:21 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * r6b9f2a2961a8 intersango/scr/ (sanity.sql summa.php unit.sh): added unit test suite.
2163 2011-03-24 21:18:22 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * r6996597d1a64 intersango/www/config.php: exceptions now in errors.php
2164 2011-03-24 21:18:23 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * rfe97b48096af intersango/www/index.php: exceptions now in errors.php
2165 2011-03-24 21:18:27 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * rce466db140bb intersango/fulfill_order.php: mathematically proved return remaining is not needed.
2166 2011-03-24 21:18:29 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * ra7a910253fdc intersango/profile.php: show deposit requests in profile.
2167 2011-03-24 21:18:35 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * rf877f9e4f3e8 intersango/www/index.php: missing trailing ;
2168 2011-03-24 21:18:38 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * rf8b2e5ee901c intersango/withdraw.php: transactions for withdraw
2169 2011-03-24 21:18:39 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * rf672142b4a01 intersango/place_order.php: transactions for place order
2170 2011-03-24 21:18:40 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * r574cd191bbe1 intersango/errors.php: exceptions + enable/disable errors goes in errors.php
2171 2011-03-24 21:18:44 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * rd3a198dc9505 intersango/deposit.php: disclaimer about process btc depos
2172 2011-03-24 21:18:44 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * r339bd533816d intersango/cron/process_orders.php: moved fulfill order to a cron job. added table locking.
2173 2011-03-24 21:18:48 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * r636b17b27314 intersango/scr/sanity.sql: compares rates in sanitt check.
2174 2011-03-24 21:18:50 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * r8e71beade17f intersango/orderbook.php: order items by rate instead of timestamp.
2175 2011-03-24 21:19:04 <sipa> are we finished?
2176 2011-03-24 21:19:06 rlee has quit (Quit: Page closed)
2177 2011-03-24 21:19:12 bitcoiner has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2178 2011-03-24 21:19:16 <lfm> i think you can drop the hashes fopr droppen txn
2179 2011-03-24 21:19:28 <lfm> wouldnt make much change tho
2180 2011-03-24 21:19:28 <tcatm> {t_t}: do we really need a that for *every* bitcoin related project?
2181 2011-03-24 21:19:40 <luke-jr> holy crap gen
2182 2011-03-24 21:19:44 <luke-jr> {t_t}:
2183 2011-03-24 21:19:48 <luke-jr> push more often lol
2184 2011-03-24 21:19:52 <curiositysquared> [Tycho]: Where do you get you're nonce's from?
2185 2011-03-24 21:20:05 <luke-jr> and quit changing names XD
2186 2011-03-24 21:20:07 <curiositysquared> (was that a checkin? or what was that?)
2187 2011-03-24 21:20:18 <lfm> curiositysquared: you start at 1 and add one till you find something or run out of time
2188 2011-03-24 21:21:16 <luke-jr> curiositysquared: presumably he pushed a lot of commits at once
2189 2011-03-24 21:21:42 <lfm> oh i did an /ingnore CIA...
2190 2011-03-24 21:21:53 <curiositysquared> does each node recalculate the merkle root hash?
2191 2011-03-24 21:22:03 <luke-jr> curiositysquared: if they're mining
2192 2011-03-24 21:22:11 <luke-jr> it's different for every miner
2193 2011-03-24 21:22:24 <lfm> curiositysquared: ya. also if you are verifying a new block
2194 2011-03-24 21:23:00 <curiositysquared> right. that takes like a billionth of a second so it's not an issue.
2195 2011-03-24 21:23:08 <lfm> right
2196 2011-03-24 21:23:47 <curiositysquared> looking at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification#block
2197 2011-03-24 21:24:04 <lfm> well your cpu can do at most I think a couple million full hashes per sec
2198 2011-03-24 21:24:09 <curiositysquared> it looks like if 2 people have the same set of transactions, and the both start with a nonce of 1, aren't they going to be testing the same hashes?
2199 2011-03-24 21:24:49 <lfm> curiositysquared: nope, the merkle tree includes the generate txn which includes your own private key to pay to
2200 2011-03-24 21:25:10 <curiositysquared> right. :)
2201 2011-03-24 21:25:33 <curiositysquared> (I should have realized that)
2202 2011-03-24 21:26:47 <lfm> interestingly that implies that when the generate "reward" goes down to zero we will still need to put in a generate txn for zero btc so they stay unique
2203 2011-03-24 21:27:06 <lfm> that is some 140 years from now tho
2204 2011-03-24 21:27:37 <luke-jr> can blocks include 0-amount outputs?
2205 2011-03-24 21:27:58 <Diablo-D3> you mean gen tx of 0?
2206 2011-03-24 21:28:01 <Diablo-D3> it wouldnt be valid
2207 2011-03-24 21:28:03 <lfm> luke-jr I think so, all the inputs go into the fee then
2208 2011-03-24 21:28:08 <tcatm> lfm: the generate TX will also contain the fee
2209 2011-03-24 21:28:45 <luke-jr> lfm: can you do it with 0 inputs?
2210 2011-03-24 21:28:54 <luke-jr> lfm: you could defintiely have a change address…
2211 2011-03-24 21:29:06 <lfm> tcatm: ya the miners might choose not not bother to even try to generate till there is a fee to put in their "reward" in the generate txn
2212 2011-03-24 21:29:48 <luke-jr> lfm: I wonder how that would affect difficulty
2213 2011-03-24 21:29:49 <lfm> luke-jr change outputs are identical to any other output
2214 2011-03-24 21:29:56 <luke-jr> lfm: I know
2215 2011-03-24 21:30:08 <luke-jr> lfm: I mean so you have 2 outputs: one change, and one that has 0 BTC
2216 2011-03-24 21:30:23 <luke-jr> so you just sneak in a useless output
2217 2011-03-24 21:30:30 <luke-jr> which can never be spent… O.o
2218 2011-03-24 21:30:55 xelister has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
2219 2011-03-24 21:31:05 <sipa> a first look at the code seems to allow it
2220 2011-03-24 21:31:24 <sipa> there is a test for nValue<0 and nValue>MAX_MONEY
2221 2011-03-24 21:31:24 <lfm> luke-jrit might slightly reduce the total hashes per sec makeing the difficulty slighlty lower but by then we would hope the txn (with fee) are often enuf there would not be much delay
2222 2011-03-24 21:31:26 <curiositysquared> Is it correct to to say that the tight loop when mining is simply recalculating the sha256 hash of a new "block" incrementing the nonce each time?
2223 2011-03-24 21:31:34 <sipa> curiositysquared: exactly
2224 2011-03-24 21:31:48 <sipa> it's sha256(sha256(blockheader))
2225 2011-03-24 21:31:54 <sipa> and the block header contains the nonce
2226 2011-03-24 21:32:00 <lfm> curiositysquared: exactly
2227 2011-03-24 21:35:14 llama has left ()
2228 2011-03-24 21:35:45 llama has joined
2229 2011-03-24 21:36:05 llama has quit (Quit: llama)
2230 2011-03-24 21:43:23 citiz3n has joined
2231 2011-03-24 21:52:32 <BlueMatt> anyone care to translate the new copyright notice for upnp into de, es, fr, it, pt or ru?
2232 2011-03-24 21:52:44 <BlueMatt> simple one sentence update
2233 2011-03-24 21:52:50 <[Tycho]> upnp ?
2234 2011-03-24 21:53:14 <BlueMatt> [Tycho]: yea my upnp pull
2235 2011-03-24 21:53:25 <BlueMatt> its done except for translations of copyright
2236 2011-03-24 21:53:40 <BlueMatt> new library was added so it has to be added to the copyright dialog
2237 2011-03-24 21:54:39 <lfm> BlueMatt: is that upnp controllable like a command line switch or anything?
2238 2011-03-24 21:54:58 <BlueMatt> lfm: command line switch and wxui
2239 2011-03-24 21:55:05 <BlueMatt> see https://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4392.0;all
2240 2011-03-24 21:55:13 <lfm> ok thats good
2241 2011-03-24 21:55:25 bitcoiner has joined
2242 2011-03-24 21:59:03 <curiositysquared> What's the problem with lots of transactions? Like why is slush not accepting transactions without fees?
2243 2011-03-24 21:59:18 <curiositysquared> A block with 10k transactions is no harder to hash than one with none, right?
2244 2011-03-24 21:59:33 <sipa> indeed
2245 2011-03-24 21:59:50 <sipa> the measure was put in place to prevent dust transactions filling the block chain
2246 2011-03-24 21:59:52 <curiositysquared> (I mean it is harder because you have to get the merkle root, but that's all and it's less than .0001% of the work.)
2247 2011-03-24 22:00:28 <curiositysquared> These transactions still get in eventually though, don't they?
2248 2011-03-24 22:00:57 <curiositysquared> "dust" = spam? Someone intentially transfering small amounts and we assume they are not legitimate?
2249 2011-03-24 22:01:08 justmoon has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2250 2011-03-24 22:01:13 <curiositysquared> How do we know they aren't just micropayments?
2251 2011-03-24 22:01:21 <jgarzik> we lower priority.  we do not assume they are illegitimate.
2252 2011-03-24 22:01:26 <curiositysquared> A lot of people seem to think bitcoins make for greate micropayments.
2253 2011-03-24 22:01:32 <sipa> they're not
2254 2011-03-24 22:01:38 Simon14 has joined
2255 2011-03-24 22:01:52 <curiositysquared> sipa, they're not ligitimate ir illegitimate?
2256 2011-03-24 22:02:06 <sipa> bitcoins don't make for great micropayments
2257 2011-03-24 22:02:39 <sipa> for small payments, for cheap payments, around the world... but micropayments would strain the system a lot
2258 2011-03-24 22:03:13 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: library copyrights don't belong in apps that use them
2259 2011-03-24 22:03:37 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: according to their license they do
2260 2011-03-24 22:03:44 <BlueMatt> so...uh yes I believe they legally have to be
2261 2011-03-24 22:03:48 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: oh really?
2262 2011-03-24 22:03:53 <Simon14> I just started the bitcoin client (windows 7 64bit) and i've got 45 connections but my block count hasn't gone up at all (it's sitting at 500)
2263 2011-03-24 22:03:55 <BlueMatt> if its statically linked yes
2264 2011-03-24 22:04:06 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: it shouldn't be staticly linked ever, so not a problem
2265 2011-03-24 22:04:19 Bosma_ has joined
2266 2011-03-24 22:04:32 Bosma has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi)
2267 2011-03-24 22:04:32 Bosma_ is now known as Bosma
2268 2011-03-24 22:04:34 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: god give it up man
2269 2011-03-24 22:05:27 hogofwar has joined
2270 2011-03-24 22:05:38 <sipa> Simon14: try quitting and restarting
2271 2011-03-24 22:07:13 <CIA-96> bitcoin: phantomcircuit <phantomcircuit@covertinferno.org> sqlalchemy * rc46b171b6680 bitcoin-alt/ (5 files in 3 dirs): What is this i dont even
2272 2011-03-24 22:08:11 <Simon14> sipa: Ok thanks, it's going up now
2273 2011-03-24 22:08:30 <Simon14> it gets 500 blocks stops for a second then gets another 500
2274 2011-03-24 22:09:11 cenuij has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2275 2011-03-24 22:09:32 * luke-jr peers at phantomcircuit
2276 2011-03-24 22:09:38 <luke-jr> you don't even what?
2277 2011-03-24 22:09:49 <phantomcircuit> lulz
2278 2011-03-24 22:09:55 <phantomcircuit> i broke it
2279 2011-03-24 22:09:57 <phantomcircuit> :|
2280 2011-03-24 22:10:41 <luke-jr> cuz it's Python crap
2281 2011-03-24 22:12:13 philth has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2282 2011-03-24 22:12:17 Ruudjah has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2283 2011-03-24 22:12:58 nathan7_ has quit (Changing host)
2284 2011-03-24 22:12:58 nathan7_ has joined
2285 2011-03-24 22:13:06 nathan7_ is now known as nathan7
2286 2011-03-24 22:13:23 <curiositysquared> sipa, what's really the problem with micropayments?
2287 2011-03-24 22:13:25 cenuij has joined
2288 2011-03-24 22:13:26 cenuij has quit (Changing host)
2289 2011-03-24 22:13:26 cenuij has joined
2290 2011-03-24 22:13:27 hogofwar has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2291 2011-03-24 22:13:36 <curiositysquared> Or perhaps there's a better way to ask that question.
2292 2011-03-24 22:13:46 <curiositysquared> How many transactions is the network designed to handle?
2293 2011-03-24 22:13:48 <sipa> curiositysquared: many small transactions = very fast growth of block chain
2294 2011-03-24 22:14:06 <curiositysquared> in terms of disk space, not actual blocks.
2295 2011-03-24 22:14:16 <curiositysquared> And this is the reason for the merkle trees.
2296 2011-03-24 22:14:20 <phantomcircuit> sipa, in practice though most of the clients can archive 99% of transactions
2297 2011-03-24 22:14:33 <sipa> yes yes, thin clients
2298 2011-03-24 22:14:40 <curiositysquared> without the merkle trees it's a problem
2299 2011-03-24 22:15:13 <curiositysquared> but once they're fully implemented, do you know how to calculate roughly how many transaction's the network will probably handle?
2300 2011-03-24 22:15:31 <curiositysquared> What would 10^6 transactions/day cost in the block chain?
2301 2011-03-24 22:15:46 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, there's something wrong with the way it's merging blocks/transactions into the db
2302 2011-03-24 22:17:02 <curiositysquared> because right now it looks like we're averaging around 150tx/hour?
2303 2011-03-24 22:21:18 Simon14 has left ()
2304 2011-03-24 22:21:32 <phantomcircuit> curiositysquared, depends on how many inputs/outputs
2305 2011-03-24 22:22:04 <luke-jr> curiositysquared: there are 1347 pending tx right now
2306 2011-03-24 22:23:12 glassresistor has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2307 2011-03-24 22:27:58 <JFK911> christ
2308 2011-03-24 22:29:25 Bosma has quit (Quit: Bosma)
2309 2011-03-24 22:30:21 Bosma has joined
2310 2011-03-24 22:32:02 phantomcircuit has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2311 2011-03-24 22:37:13 <CIA-96> bitcoin: phantomcircuit <phantomcircuit@covertinferno.org> * r41957808a352 bitcoin-alt/bitcoin/ (net/peer.py storage.py): improved speed a bit
2312 2011-03-24 22:37:26 <sipa> ;;bc,stats
2313 2011-03-24 22:37:28 <gribble> Current Blocks: 114890 | Current Difficulty: 76193.9710474 | Next Difficulty At Block: 114911 | Next Difficulty In: 21 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 3 hours, 40 minutes, and 51 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 69019.90711427
2314 2011-03-24 22:38:24 phantomcircuit has joined
2315 2011-03-24 22:39:53 eureka^ has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
2316 2011-03-24 22:42:50 <phantomcircuit> oh wow
2317 2011-03-24 22:42:54 <phantomcircuit> sigh
2318 2011-03-24 22:43:03 <phantomcircuit> im calculating the transaction hashes wrong
2319 2011-03-24 22:43:13 <phantomcircuit> so the first block with two transactions has a collision
2320 2011-03-24 22:43:17 <phantomcircuit> dur
2321 2011-03-24 22:44:25 unping has joined
2322 2011-03-24 22:45:04 citiz3n has quit ()
2323 2011-03-24 22:49:38 doublec has joined
2324 2011-03-24 22:55:48 eureka^ has joined
2325 2011-03-24 22:56:34 eureka^ has left ()
2326 2011-03-24 23:16:35 Ruudjah has joined
2327 2011-03-24 23:24:07 <Meelu> damn earning money is hard
2328 2011-03-24 23:24:07 Bth8 has joined
2329 2011-03-24 23:24:34 <kiba> Meelu: you can try your hand at witcoin
2330 2011-03-24 23:24:35 <Meelu> been running for over 24 hours now and 2-3khash/s region, havent earned a single 0.01
2331 2011-03-24 23:24:44 <kiba> pool mining?
2332 2011-03-24 23:24:48 <Meelu> no
2333 2011-03-24 23:24:49 <Meelu> normal
2334 2011-03-24 23:24:55 <kiba> that's the dumbest idea
2335 2011-03-24 23:25:10 <kiba> at this rate, you earn bitcoin mayybe in 3 years
2336 2011-03-24 23:25:32 <Meelu> yeah but i didn't even get to earn 0.01 yet
2337 2011-03-24 23:25:35 <Meelu> oh
2338 2011-03-24 23:25:49 <kiba> you don't earn bitcoin continously
2339 2011-03-24 23:25:52 <JFK911> i haven't gotten any in a couple of days
2340 2011-03-24 23:25:56 <kiba> you only earn them in discrete amount, when you won one
2341 2011-03-24 23:26:04 <JFK911> booo the projected diff is up to 69k :(
2342 2011-03-24 23:26:06 <Meelu> they should let users earn 0.0001 easily
2343 2011-03-24 23:26:19 <Meelu> or to the limit
2344 2011-03-24 23:26:21 <JFK911> go to the bitcoin faucet
2345 2011-03-24 23:26:25 <kiba> The point of bitcoin is not the limit, Meelu
2346 2011-03-24 23:26:29 <kiba> err
2347 2011-03-24 23:26:30 <kiba> mining
2348 2011-03-24 23:26:38 <Meelu> i think miining is 0.01 right
2349 2011-03-24 23:26:41 <kiba> and it's not free money either
2350 2011-03-24 23:26:42 <Meelu> at a time?
2351 2011-03-24 23:26:44 <kiba> Meelu: no.
2352 2011-03-24 23:26:48 <kiba> you earn 50 BTC at a time
2353 2011-03-24 23:26:54 <kiba> when you won an all or nothing race
2354 2011-03-24 23:27:02 <Meelu> and how many khash's average to get that?
2355 2011-03-24 23:27:16 <kiba> probably not worth mentioning
2356 2011-03-24 23:27:47 <kiba> at rate you're going and the rate of network growth, you may never earn a block
2357 2011-03-24 23:27:52 <Meelu> would be, is it 76193.9710474 right now
2358 2011-03-24 23:28:00 <Meelu> wait it cant be
2359 2011-03-24 23:28:03 <Meelu> soz
2360 2011-03-24 23:28:16 <kiba> or you could join pool mining
2361 2011-03-24 23:28:25 <kiba> and earn bitcoin
2362 2011-03-24 23:28:53 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
2363 2011-03-24 23:28:57 <kiba> or sell goods and services for bitcoin
2364 2011-03-24 23:29:21 <JFK911> there are some logistical problems
2365 2011-03-24 23:29:32 <JFK911> haven't figured out how to make a bitcoin gloryhole work yet
2366 2011-03-24 23:29:38 TheKid has joined
2367 2011-03-24 23:29:38 TheKid has quit (Changing host)
2368 2011-03-24 23:29:38 TheKid has joined
2369 2011-03-24 23:29:45 <JFK911> should i sell tokens for btc?
2370 2011-03-24 23:31:25 <dirtyfilthy> i'll take two!
2371 2011-03-24 23:32:15 <JFK911> what if people counterfeit the tokens/tickets?
2372 2011-03-24 23:32:39 <kiba> JFK911: hmm, you could set up operations in various MMOs
2373 2011-03-24 23:32:45 <kiba> and sell their money for bitocin
2374 2011-03-24 23:33:12 <JFK911> good thinking.  i bet mmo players are frequent gloryhole users
2375 2011-03-24 23:33:20 <JFK911> the lesson: go to your market!
2376 2011-03-24 23:36:43 Bth8 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2377 2011-03-24 23:42:36 <phantomcircuit> JFK911, lulz
2378 2011-03-24 23:43:13 <CIA-96> bitcoin: phantomcircuit <phantomcircuit@covertinferno.org> sqlalchemy * r9912f66f80e2 bitcoin-alt/bitcoin/ (net/payload.py peer.py): functional but slow
2379 2011-03-24 23:45:14 <jostmey> .
2380 2011-03-24 23:45:37 <phantomcircuit> 0.00348687171936
2381 2011-03-24 23:46:00 <phantomcircuit> that seems like an awefully long time
2382 2011-03-24 23:46:11 <phantomcircuit> for a simple select * from blocks where hash=
2383 2011-03-24 23:46:57 Bth8 has joined
2384 2011-03-24 23:47:23 <phantomcircuit> maybe it's all the exception handling
2385 2011-03-24 23:48:30 <phantomcircuit> guess not
2386 2011-03-24 23:52:59 <phantomcircuit> this is so slow it's almost funny
2387 2011-03-24 23:53:56 DATATHE1ST has joined
2388 2011-03-24 23:53:58 <DATATHE1ST> ;;bc;stats
2389 2011-03-24 23:53:58 <gribble> Error: "bc;stats" is not a valid command.
2390 2011-03-24 23:54:04 <DATATHE1ST> ;;bc,stats
2391 2011-03-24 23:54:07 <gribble> Current Blocks: 114896 | Current Difficulty: 76193.9710474 | Next Difficulty At Block: 114911 | Next Difficulty In: 15 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 2 hours, 37 minutes, and 45 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 68973.35367518
2392 2011-03-24 23:54:23 <DATATHE1ST> yay difficulty drop in 2.6 hours :)
2393 2011-03-24 23:54:36 <[Tycho]> Wow, so soon :)
2394 2011-03-24 23:54:43 <JFK911> not much of a drop though
2395 2011-03-24 23:55:13 <TheKid> yeah, was looking like 65k for a bit there
2396 2011-03-24 23:55:15 <TheKid> was excited
2397 2011-03-24 23:55:19 <JFK911> same