1 2011-03-31 00:01:08 <phantomcircuit> it took almost a full minute to merge 500 blocks with transactions
   2 2011-03-31 00:01:13 <phantomcircuit> which  seems like a lot
   3 2011-03-31 00:01:30 <sipa> yeah
   4 2011-03-31 00:03:22 <[Tycho]> Is anyone here ?
   5 2011-03-31 00:03:50 <sipa> sorry, no
   6 2011-03-31 00:04:25 <lfm> Im not here
   7 2011-03-31 00:04:52 * phantomcircuit hides
   8 2011-03-31 00:04:54 <phantomcircuit> hehe no
   9 2011-03-31 00:05:06 theorb has joined
  10 2011-03-31 00:05:27 <[Tycho]> What would you think, it theory, about blockchait that 1) is seen in the same wallet as a different currency, 2) allows including messages with transaction, 3) uses memory-bound proof-of-work function, so even slow clients can participate in generating ?
  11 2011-03-31 00:06:13 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  12 2011-03-31 00:06:19 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
  13 2011-03-31 00:06:35 <lfm> I think you're dreaming. memory-bound will have the same issues as the present
  14 2011-03-31 00:07:12 kelp has quit (Quit: Bye!)
  15 2011-03-31 00:07:36 <lfm> messages with transactions baloons the blk chain disk and bandwith without any clear advantage.
  16 2011-03-31 00:08:26 devon_hillard has joined
  17 2011-03-31 00:08:26 devon_hillard has quit (Changing host)
  18 2011-03-31 00:08:26 devon_hillard has joined
  19 2011-03-31 00:09:13 kelp has joined
  20 2011-03-31 00:09:51 <[Tycho]> It's not a problem, they don't need to be stored for a long time. And those messages will be stored only on miners, not on clients because clients should be light.
  21 2011-03-31 00:10:10 kelp has quit (Client Quit)
  22 2011-03-31 00:10:15 <lfm> 1 all this is is double your risk, now you can lose money in some other currency at the same time as you accidentl;y blow away your bitcoins
  23 2011-03-31 00:11:33 <[Tycho]> It's a problem of backups, not the chain.
  24 2011-03-31 00:11:58 <lfm> why would some other currency agree to share wallet with us anyway
  25 2011-03-31 00:12:50 <[Tycho]> Because i can.
  26 2011-03-31 00:13:24 <[Tycho]> Not sharing the actual wallet, just showing in same one GUI
  27 2011-03-31 00:13:28  has joined
  28 2011-03-31 00:14:44 <sipa> [Tycho]: what kind of memory-bound function would you think about?
  29 2011-03-31 00:14:52 <lfm> I thot you said in the bitchain and wallet. that just sounds like incompatibilities but if its only some gui thing I spoze your free to shoot off your own foot
  30 2011-03-31 00:15:06  is now known as Netsniper|!~kvirc@adsl-76-251-234-151.dsl.ipltin.sbcglobal.net|Netsniper
  31 2011-03-31 00:15:26 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  32 2011-03-31 00:15:54 <[Tycho]> I mean the second blockchain
  33 2011-03-31 00:16:33 <[Tycho]> To offer better service for users
  34 2011-03-31 00:16:46 <lfm> you mean like showing mainlin btc and testnet bitcoin in the same gui?
  35 2011-03-31 00:16:54 kelp has joined
  36 2011-03-31 00:17:25 <[Tycho]> Not the testnet, but another chain with another functions. But yes, in same gui.
  37 2011-03-31 00:17:50 x6763 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
  38 2011-03-31 00:18:32 echelon has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
  39 2011-03-31 00:18:46 <lfm> well it still doesnt sound attractive to me. prolly get users in here asking where all their btc went when they accidently switch to the other currency
  40 2011-03-31 00:19:10 <forrestv> are there any discussions about garbage collecting past bits of the block chain?
  41 2011-03-31 00:19:15 <[Tycho]> No any switch is proposed.
  42 2011-03-31 00:20:14 <lfm> forrestv: nonsense.  Unless you mean the transaction pruning mentioned in Satoshi's white paper, then no - I dont think anyone is doing it yet
  43 2011-03-31 00:21:37 <[Tycho]> A simultaneous display side by side.
  44 2011-03-31 00:22:44 <lfm> [Tycho]: well then I dont understand how it would work, id have to see a prototype or something to decide
  45 2011-03-31 00:23:05 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
  46 2011-03-31 00:23:16 <xelister>  /j #allegro
  47 2011-03-31 00:23:58 devrandom has joined
  48 2011-03-31 00:23:58 <[Tycho]> lfm, just like other payment systems with multiple currency support.
  49 2011-03-31 00:24:07 DrWhax_ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
  50 2011-03-31 00:24:57 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: CPU is cheaper than memory
  51 2011-03-31 00:25:18 <luke-jr> also, FYI, the Wallet protocol DRAFT 0 supports multiple *networks*
  52 2011-03-31 00:25:22 <[Tycho]> luke-jr, it doesn't depends on memory size.
  53 2011-03-31 00:25:41 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: oh, memory speed?
  54 2011-03-31 00:25:46 <luke-jr> there's still degrees of th at
  55 2011-03-31 00:25:49 <[Tycho]> Yes.
  56 2011-03-31 00:25:55 <sipa> you just want to rule out GPU's? :)
  57 2011-03-31 00:25:56 <luke-jr> and GPUs have a higher degree than PC RAM
  58 2011-03-31 00:26:08 <lfm> memory speed then? so people with ddr3-2000 OCing memory will have an advantage?
  59 2011-03-31 00:26:09 <[Tycho]> The difference is much less than with CPUs.
  60 2011-03-31 00:26:14 <phantomcircuit> GPU memory is wider channel than PC ram
  61 2011-03-31 00:26:19 <[Tycho]> lfm, not really.
  62 2011-03-31 00:26:22 <phantomcircuit> iirc it's significantly more bandwidth
  63 2011-03-31 00:26:42 <[Tycho]> Just google for memory-bound functions.
  64 2011-03-31 00:26:53 <sipa> but if you have a function that requires continuous updating of say a 1 GiB memory range, you would seriously limit the level of parallellism possible on a GPU
  65 2011-03-31 00:26:54 <lfm> [tycowell what sort of function axactly are you considering?
  66 2011-03-31 00:27:01 <[Tycho]> Bandwidth and speed are completely different things.
  67 2011-03-31 00:27:25 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, why is there such a lag with CIA?
  68 2011-03-31 00:29:05 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: it polls every 5 minutes
  69 2011-03-31 00:29:17 <lfm> [Tycho]: and bandwidh IS speed, just there are other sorts of speed involving read and write latencies and such
  70 2011-03-31 00:29:38 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: I still think the idea of transactions verifying transactions is better
  71 2011-03-31 00:29:48 <luke-jr> lots of forking and merging of the block chains
  72 2011-03-31 00:30:02 <[Tycho]> Function example - http://netcologne.dl.sourceforge.net/project/pennypost/design%20papers/Computational%20Proof%20For%20Spam%20Fighting/penny_post.pdf
  73 2011-03-31 00:30:10 <[Tycho]> lfm, no.
  74 2011-03-31 00:30:38 DrWhax_ has joined
  75 2011-03-31 00:31:17 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, ah
  76 2011-03-31 00:31:35 <CIA-96> bitcoin: phantomcircuit <phantomcircuit@covertinferno.org> sqlite3 * r6275814ab1dc bitcoin-alt/ (bitcoin.py bitcoin/peer.py bitcoin/storage.py): store peer addresses in sqlite db
  77 2011-03-31 00:31:39 <[Tycho]> luke-jr, better for what ?
  78 2011-03-31 00:32:07 <lfm> [Tycho]: you trying to claim bandwidth is not speed at all? then you are just being silly
  79 2011-03-31 00:32:11 <devrandom> [Tycho] - I definitely agree that bitcoin could benefit from a different proof-of-work.  The current one might be too easy to implement in hw, making a well funded attack easier.
  80 2011-03-31 00:32:18 x6763 has joined
  81 2011-03-31 00:33:04 <phantomcircuit> thar
  82 2011-03-31 00:33:04 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: everything
  83 2011-03-31 00:33:30 <sipa> [Tycho]: the problem... if you choose that table be N GiB in size... what do you do when GPU memory becomes N+1 GiB?
  84 2011-03-31 00:33:43 RBecker has quit (Laptop!~Ryan@unaffiliated/rbecker|Remote host closed the connection)
  85 2011-03-31 00:33:46 redMBA has joined
  86 2011-03-31 00:34:06 <[Tycho]> lfm, if you can send a 100 Gb in a hour it doesn't means that you can send 1 byte in 1 second. It may be the same hour if you are transferring the data by walking with HDD :)
  87 2011-03-31 00:35:31 <ArtForz> also, that assumes there's no shortcuts
  88 2011-03-31 00:35:40 <devrandom> [Tycho] see also http://www.tarsnap.com/scrypt.html
  89 2011-03-31 00:35:44 <lfm> [Tycho]: yes, there is more than one way to measure speed and different measurments bring out different aspects of the concept. it does not mean 100 gb/hour is not a measurment of speed
  90 2011-03-31 00:36:40 <[Tycho]> ArtForz, that was just an example. My question is about having another defferent blockchain in general.
  91 2011-03-31 00:37:09 <ArtForz> if you keep more than one state of A/i/j/c, that random access into T doesnt stay quite that random
  92 2011-03-31 00:37:32 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: there is already another
  93 2011-03-31 00:37:38 eao has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  94 2011-03-31 00:37:49 <[Tycho]> luke-jr, where is it ?
  95 2011-03-31 00:37:52 <luke-jr> testnet
  96 2011-03-31 00:38:05 echelon has joined
  97 2011-03-31 00:38:06 <[Tycho]> luke-jr, no, i'm talking about real one.
  98 2011-03-31 00:38:14 <lfm> testnet is real
  99 2011-03-31 00:38:26 <ArtForz> no, you're just imagining it :P
 100 2011-03-31 00:38:27 <luke-jr> ^
 101 2011-03-31 00:38:39 <luke-jr> there is nothing *un*real about testnet
 102 2011-03-31 00:38:44 <devrandom> I think multiple currencies with different parameters is the way to go.. e.g. one with higher inflation
 103 2011-03-31 00:38:46 <[Tycho]> Testnes is for tests, it's not showing in same GUI and it's not using DIFFERENT functions and features.
 104 2011-03-31 00:38:50 <lfm> ok, just as real as the mian bitcoin net
 105 2011-03-31 00:38:53 <luke-jr> people just have agreed not to put a value on it
 106 2011-03-31 00:38:59 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: that is a limitation of your GUI
 107 2011-03-31 00:39:18 <lfm> [Tycho]: actually TESTNET DOES SHOW in the gui!
 108 2011-03-31 00:41:15 <lfm> [Tycho]: if you wanted to make a new currency based on bitcoin technology you would do it JUST LIKE TESTNET
 109 2011-03-31 00:41:40 <devrandom> [Tycho] , lfm - need to merge mining between chains, nobody figured out yet if it's possible without code modifications to existing miners.  basically have to create another level in the hash tree that unifies the separate chains a miner is working on
 110 2011-03-31 00:41:55 <devrandom> otherwise, the miners have to divide their power
 111 2011-03-31 00:42:19 <[Tycho]> lfm, testnet doesn't works simultaneously in same client.
 112 2011-03-31 00:42:26 <ArtForz> I severely doubt it's possible without modifications to the miners
 113 2011-03-31 00:42:43 <lfm> devrandom: not sure what you're talking about but it sounds to me like another one of those things that is never gonna happen.
 114 2011-03-31 00:42:56 <[Tycho]> ArtForz, of course, because of different functions.
 115 2011-03-31 00:43:07 <ArtForz> ?
 116 2011-03-31 00:43:14 <phantomcircuit> i see what he's saying
 117 2011-03-31 00:43:23 <phantomcircuit> and it's almost certainly not going to happen
 118 2011-03-31 00:43:28 <ArtForz> I was talking about having 2 chains share proof-of-work mining
 119 2011-03-31 00:43:39 <phantomcircuit> and you couldn't do it in a way that miners could do 1 hash for 2 chains
 120 2011-03-31 00:43:54 <[Tycho]> ArtForz, current miners can mine only existing hash function, and i'm talking about different one.
 121 2011-03-31 00:44:00 <ArtForz> yes
 122 2011-03-31 00:44:21 <[Tycho]> phantomcircuit, it's not needed. You would mine for one OR another.
 123 2011-03-31 00:44:24 <ArtForz> and "sharing proof-of-wprk between 2 chains" means ... the 2 chains have the same proof of work function
 124 2011-03-31 00:44:38 <devrandom> right
 125 2011-03-31 00:44:40 <[Tycho]> "[04:41] <lfm> devrandom: not sure what you're talking about but it sounds to me like another one of those things that is never gonna happen" - nothing stops me from this.
 126 2011-03-31 00:44:41 <phantomcircuit> also my client now downloads 95% of the block chain in about 5 minutes
 127 2011-03-31 00:44:55 <phantomcircuit> for some reason the end game logic is slower as hell though
 128 2011-03-31 00:45:06 <[Tycho]> ArtForz, i don't want sharing the proof-of-work.
 129 2011-03-31 00:45:26 <devrandom> why not?
 130 2011-03-31 00:45:35 <[Tycho]> ArtForz, what do you mean by that "A/i/j/c" ?
 131 2011-03-31 00:45:47 <ArtForz> it's in the damn paper you linked
 132 2011-03-31 00:45:49 <[Tycho]> devrandom, because it's a different currency.
 133 2011-03-31 00:45:57 <lfm> devrandom: I think [Tycho] beleives using gpus for proof of work is cheating
 134 2011-03-31 00:46:01 <[Tycho]> Oh, that.
 135 2011-03-31 00:46:05 <[Tycho]> lfm, no.
 136 2011-03-31 00:46:11 da2ceZzzz is now known as da2ce7
 137 2011-03-31 00:46:16 <ArtForz> the proposed function is limited by the latency of random accesses into T
 138 2011-03-31 00:46:16 <da2ce7> G'morning
 139 2011-03-31 00:46:36 toffoo has quit ()
 140 2011-03-31 00:46:56 sgornick has joined
 141 2011-03-31 00:47:01 <lfm> so if someone builds some big mother staic ram array they win?
 142 2011-03-31 00:47:08 <ArtForz> yep
 143 2011-03-31 00:47:31 <devrandom> lfm - that would increase their costs
 144 2011-03-31 00:47:35 x6763 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 145 2011-03-31 00:47:44 <ArtForz> errr ... so?
 146 2011-03-31 00:47:52 <lfm> devrandom: just like asics increase your costs
 147 2011-03-31 00:47:53 <[Tycho]> So if someone builds some fast ASICs for hashing current BTC, they win ? Oh, stop...
 148 2011-03-31 00:48:22 <devrandom> lfm - not if you produce them in volume... they end up being cheaper per computation unit
 149 2011-03-31 00:48:35 <lfm> [Tycho]: so why bother to change everything for now gain
 150 2011-03-31 00:48:41 <devrandom> lfm - static memory is expensive no matter your volume (compared to dram)
 151 2011-03-31 00:48:51 <ArtForz> it's also a lot faster
 152 2011-03-31 00:49:08 <ArtForz> especially if you end up doing 1-dword reads
 153 2011-03-31 00:49:33 x6763 has joined
 154 2011-03-31 00:50:20 <lfm> and the smaller the random read/writes are the more the advantage
 155 2011-03-31 00:50:27 <ArtForz> yup
 156 2011-03-31 00:50:59 <ArtForz> or you use a lot of rather narrow drams and effectively raid0 em
 157 2011-03-31 00:51:15 <devrandom> it seems that what matters is the price/performance/size...
 158 2011-03-31 00:51:22 <ArtForz> keeps multiple states so you never stall between page flips
 159 2011-03-31 00:51:58 <devrandom> if it's 10x faster, but 20x more expensive for the same size, it will not compete
 160 2011-03-31 00:52:08 <ArtForz> news at 11
 161 2011-03-31 00:52:26 <devrandom> (that was re sram)
 162 2011-03-31 00:53:20 <lfm> but you shuld realize by now that ArtForz would still have a head start over most of us even if your idea did catch on?
 163 2011-03-31 00:53:23 <devrandom> the point is to stay off-the-shelf, so that people without large resources can always compete
 164 2011-03-31 00:53:52 <devrandom> so if the narrow drams are mainstream, that's not an issue
 165 2011-03-31 00:53:57 <ArtForz> actually it should be possible to build a memory latency bound function thats not easy to cheat, but Mbound is not it
 166 2011-03-31 00:54:36 <lfm> maybe something like the rc4 encryp function, byte based?
 167 2011-03-31 00:54:38 <ArtForz> oh fuck
 168 2011-03-31 00:54:46 <ArtForz> for their algo it's even simpler
 169 2011-03-31 00:55:05 <ArtForz> all you need is a *large* ROM and a bit of sram and a bunch of adders
 170 2011-03-31 00:55:05 <lfm> rc4 with a larger table
 171 2011-03-31 00:55:23 <ArtForz> T is constant
 172 2011-03-31 00:55:41 jostmey has joined
 173 2011-03-31 00:58:20 <devrandom> I wonder why they don't vary T
 174 2011-03-31 00:58:31 <devrandom> seems obvious
 175 2011-03-31 00:59:29 JFK911 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 176 2011-03-31 00:59:49 <ArtForz> yeah, constant T is a REALLY bad idea
 177 2011-03-31 01:01:39 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * rdbcb4895dbaf intersango/ (cron/parse_deposits.php view_util.php): fixed typo preventing orders showing up
 178 2011-03-31 01:01:41 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * r69d49b086758 intersango/view_util.php: cast to string before comparison.
 179 2011-03-31 01:01:42 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * re140119b75e4 intersango/view_order.php: protect viewing orders from outside intruders.
 180 2011-03-31 01:01:46 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * rfdd322aa90e7 intersango/ (util.php view_request.php): Ability to cancel requests as well as stricter viewing permissions.
 181 2011-03-31 01:04:49 <devrandom> ArtForz - from what I can tell, SRAM is > $10 / MB
 182 2011-03-31 01:05:02 <ArtForz> .. so?
 183 2011-03-31 01:05:25 <ArtForz> you dont need sram, you need a (whatever size your T table is) ROM
 184 2011-03-31 01:05:25 <[Tycho]> devrandom, actually my main idea is to offer more features. The other POW function is just an additional possibility.
 185 2011-03-31 01:05:50 <sipa> the other feature being messages?
 186 2011-03-31 01:06:30 <devrandom> ArtForz - I'm thinking about a more intelligent memory bound POW where T varies
 187 2011-03-31 01:07:23 <luke-jr> genjix: done I think
 188 2011-03-31 01:07:32 <ArtForz> yep
 189 2011-03-31 01:07:37 <genjix> oh very nice.
 190 2011-03-31 01:07:41 <genjix> lets test
 191 2011-03-31 01:07:44 <devrandom> [Tycho] - if miners have to choose, it seems you would have an adoption issue
 192 2011-03-31 01:08:00 <ArtForz> still pretty easy to parallelize things so you're effectively bandwidth limited
 193 2011-03-31 01:08:22 aksoo has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 194 2011-03-31 01:08:29 <genjix> am mostly interested in phantom's commits :p
 195 2011-03-31 01:08:44 <[Tycho]> sipa, light client, fast transaction confirmations, also the possibility to jump on the other system earlier :) May be something else. I'm just thinking about possible ways of using second blockchain.
 196 2011-03-31 01:08:59 devon_hillard has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 197 2011-03-31 01:09:13 <[Tycho]> devrandom, yes, but i don't need to force anyone into this.
 198 2011-03-31 01:09:19 <devrandom> ArtForz - maybe that's ok... if the POW just proves that you have a certain amount of DRAM, that might be better than the current situation
 199 2011-03-31 01:09:38 <ArtForz> actually... it doesn't
 200 2011-03-31 01:09:59 <ArtForz> not unless you create something pretty different from that proposed function
 201 2011-03-31 01:10:12 <devrandom> so here's an idea:
 202 2011-03-31 01:10:20 <ArtForz> make A bigger
 203 2011-03-31 01:10:36 <[Tycho]> ArtForz, that was just an example from google search. I'm not sure if suitable function exists.
 204 2011-03-31 01:11:28 <ArtForz> I suspect any memory latency bound parallelizable problem can be turned into something mamory bandwidth bound
 205 2011-03-31 01:11:41 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * r4a2985439747 intersango/util.php: reformatted exchange rate SQL. http://tinyurl.com/6jygoga
 206 2011-03-31 01:12:08 <lfm> [Tycho]: just how democratic are you trying to be? you want to include netbooks? P3s? C64s?
 207 2011-03-31 01:12:25 <devrandom> ArtForz - generate T by computing a cryptographic stream (e.g. repeated applications of sha-256).  make it something where you can't predict the value of a location without computing the previous locations.  After you generate T, you have to sum "random" locations in T.
 208 2011-03-31 01:12:26 <genjix> cool
 209 2011-03-31 01:12:27 <sipa> phones?
 210 2011-03-31 01:12:58 <[Tycho]> lfm, that's not THE goal for me, but i would prefer most "democratic" function possible.
 211 2011-03-31 01:13:16 <[Tycho]> May be phones too.
 212 2011-03-31 01:13:29 <devrandom> so first step is generate, let's say, 1GB of T.  second step is to sum 10 million locations.
 213 2011-03-31 01:13:34 <sipa> abacuses?
 214 2011-03-31 01:13:35 <luke-jr> genjix: think I should make it link commitdiff instead of commit?
 215 2011-03-31 01:13:37 <[Tycho]> (not useful because of limited battery)
 216 2011-03-31 01:14:06 <devrandom> ArtForz - and that just produces one candidate for the POW result
 217 2011-03-31 01:14:14 <sipa> devrandom: with the contents of T depending on the nonce?
 218 2011-03-31 01:14:22 <devrandom> sipa - yes
 219 2011-03-31 01:14:29 <genjix> luke-jr: yup
 220 2011-03-31 01:14:42 <ArtForz> I suspect if you create a new T for every nonce, you're again CPU(GPU) bound
 221 2011-03-31 01:14:59 <sipa> maybe that T only needs to depend on some bits of the nonce
 222 2011-03-31 01:15:07 <sipa> so you can reuse it to a limited extent
 223 2011-03-31 01:15:38 <ArtForz> you can't do that if you change shit in T
 224 2011-03-31 01:15:41 <sipa> but then of course people will generate T in GPU memory, and run some nonces in parallel again
 225 2011-03-31 01:15:55 <devrandom> sipa - good idea... make the generation of T often enough so you can't optimize for a T, but not so often that the hashing dominates
 226 2011-03-31 01:16:36 <sipa> thing is, the required memory here can probably be compacted using a rainbow-table like approach
 227 2011-03-31 01:17:14 <ArtForz> also, if you use low l, it's probably cheaper to keep a "list of changes to T" instead of really modifying T
 228 2011-03-31 01:17:14 <sipa> only store every 16 results in memory, and you need to access location 16*X+T, take location 16*X, and run the stream generation function T times on it
 229 2011-03-31 01:17:37 antivigilante_ is now known as antivigilante
 230 2011-03-31 01:17:38 JFK911 has joined
 231 2011-03-31 01:17:43 <sipa> slows down the CPU part 8 times (on average), decreases memory by 16 :)
 232 2011-03-31 01:17:54 <luke-jr> genjix: done
 233 2011-03-31 01:17:59 <devrandom> sipa - good point
 234 2011-03-31 01:18:07 <sipa> basically allowing people to choose their own optimal CPU/memory tradeoff
 235 2011-03-31 01:18:30 <ArtForz> yep, time/space tradeoff
 236 2011-03-31 01:18:54 <devrandom> that seems to be a bad thing...
 237 2011-03-31 01:19:32 <sipa> of course, if each entry in T depends on the K previous entries (like sha256(T[n-1],T[n-2],...)), that becomes a lot harder
 238 2011-03-31 01:19:32 <[Tycho]> The other funny option is to use nvidia-optimal function :)))
 239 2011-03-31 01:20:26 * sipa -> bed
 240 2011-03-31 01:20:26 <devrandom> sipa - maybe on a random subset of previous entries
 241 2011-03-31 01:20:42 <sipa> devrandom: maybe that's all you need
 242 2011-03-31 01:21:16 <devrandom> sipa - should write a paper :)
 243 2011-03-31 01:22:00 <sipa> use T[n-1] as randomizer's seed, to decide which of the previous T[0..n-2] should be combined using a cryptographic function into T[n]
 244 2011-03-31 01:22:21 <devrandom> exactly
 245 2011-03-31 01:22:30 <sipa> when you reach T[2^30], you're done
 246 2011-03-31 01:23:02 EvanR has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 247 2011-03-31 01:23:25 <sipa> and T[0] is the nonce
 248 2011-03-31 01:23:32 <lfm> so T is 4 GB now
 249 2011-03-31 01:23:56 <sipa> yeah, whatever number
 250 2011-03-31 01:25:48 <devrandom> sipa - you know what - constructing T itself is already not very parallelizable...
 251 2011-03-31 01:26:11 <sipa> that's the point
 252 2011-03-31 01:26:13 EvanR has joined
 253 2011-03-31 01:26:26 <devrandom> so T[2^30] is the answer... gotcha
 254 2011-03-31 01:27:09 <devrandom> hm... it's just a few lines of code.  I think I'll implement it.
 255 2011-03-31 01:27:16 <sipa> now, to be reasonable, that whole computation, on normal consumer-level hardware, should probably not take longer than a few seconds
 256 2011-03-31 01:27:46 <devrandom> yeah, have to reduce the number of hashes
 257 2011-03-31 01:28:39 <sipa> you can say that only every T[N*1024] is done using the expensive hash-of-random-seed-selected-subset technique
 258 2011-03-31 01:28:53 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 259 2011-03-31 01:28:54 <lfm> if "that whole computation, on normal consumer-level
 260 2011-03-31 01:29:06 SykeP has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 261 2011-03-31 01:29:26 <lfm>        hardware, should probably not take longer than a few seconds" then it will take 20 seconds on a low end consumer system (netbook or phone)
 262 2011-03-31 01:29:33 <devrandom> sipa - but then the intermediate values could be rainbowed?
 263 2011-03-31 01:29:47 <ArtForz> I see one tiny problem with that
 264 2011-03-31 01:29:54 <ArtForz> you need to build T to verify the solution
 265 2011-03-31 01:30:06 <sipa> ... damn
 266 2011-03-31 01:31:01 <sipa> devrandom: T[A*1024+B] = T[(A-1)*1024+B] + T[A*1024+(B-1)]
 267 2011-03-31 01:31:56 <sipa> good luck rainbowing that :)
 268 2011-03-31 01:32:07 <devrandom> thinking...
 269 2011-03-31 01:32:15 <sipa> no, it's too weak
 270 2011-03-31 01:33:43 * sipa -> bed
 271 2011-03-31 01:33:53 <devrandom> good night sipa
 272 2011-03-31 01:34:12 <devrandom> ArtForz - so the issue is that you can ddos the verifiers with bogus blocks?
 273 2011-03-31 01:34:23 <ArtForz> pretty much
 274 2011-03-31 01:34:39 <ArtForz> currently verifying is... one hash
 275 2011-03-31 01:35:07 eao has joined
 276 2011-03-31 01:35:18 <ArtForz> with something like that, verifying means building the T table and following the chain from the proposed nonce
 277 2011-03-31 01:35:44 <ArtForz> so verifying is orders of magnitude slower
 278 2011-03-31 01:36:13 <devrandom> ah, I know... add another POW, this one based on hashes like currently, that takes only a few minutes to achieve
 279 2011-03-31 01:36:18 xenon481 has joined
 280 2011-03-31 01:36:33 <devrandom> the aux POW will be a gateway to prove that you're not wasting people's time
 281 2011-03-31 01:36:55 <devrandom> hey, maybe use that to combat the tx spam too
 282 2011-03-31 01:37:13 <devrandom> (but just a few seconds worth of POW in that case)
 283 2011-03-31 01:37:48 <ArtForz> how's that better than just requiring X min fee ?
 284 2011-03-31 01:38:33 <devrandom> just for marketing purposes - so that could still claim that zero fees are allowed
 285 2011-03-31 01:38:48 jostmey has quit (Quit: jostmey)
 286 2011-03-31 01:39:03 bitcoinbulletin has quit (Quit: bitcoinbulletin)
 287 2011-03-31 01:39:04 <lfm> from the pdf -- that whole computation, on normal consumer-level
 288 2011-03-31 01:39:06 <lfm>        hardware, should probably not take longer than a few seconds
 289 2011-03-31 01:39:19 <lfm> sorry wrong paste
 290 2011-03-31 01:39:28 <gasteve> [Tycho]: (coming late to this conversation)...I fail to see what the point of using memory (instead of computation) for mining is
 291 2011-03-31 01:39:39 Kiba` has joined
 292 2011-03-31 01:40:22 <gasteve> I mean, it's not about whether it's CPU/GPU/memory or rats running in a wheel...mining is about how much time and money people are willing to put into it
 293 2011-03-31 01:40:40 genjix has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 294 2011-03-31 01:41:04 <devrandom> gasteve - to prevent people from hijacking the network by fabbing optimized chips, and to keep mining popular for increase resilience
 295 2011-03-31 01:41:10 SykeP has joined
 296 2011-03-31 01:41:10 <ArtForz> I think the basic complaint is "but people investing more money can get disproportionate speedups"
 297 2011-03-31 01:41:14 <ArtForz> which... never works
 298 2011-03-31 01:41:20 MT`AwAy is now known as MagicalTux
 299 2011-03-31 01:41:47 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * r3996ad31b413 intersango/orderbook.php: best rates go at the top. http://tinyurl.com/6ap3xks
 300 2011-03-31 01:41:49 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * r59080d5cb11e intersango/util.php: per nanotube's suggestion, use best rate for calc rate. http://tinyurl.com/6fhy4po
 301 2011-03-31 01:41:58 <ArtForz> simple economy of scale already says otherwise
 302 2011-03-31 01:41:59 <gasteve> devrandom: a memory based algo wouldn't address that at all
 303 2011-03-31 01:42:02 bitcoinbulletin has joined
 304 2011-03-31 01:42:29 <lfm> from the pdf -- Fixed forever tables like T should not be compressible (for e.g. represented as
 305 2011-03-31 01:42:29 <lfm> a function), otherwise a cheating sender will use the compressed versions reducing
 306 2011-03-31 01:42:29 <lfm> cache misses and defeating the purpose of the algorithm. To meet this requirement,
 307 2011-03-31 01:42:29 <lfm> T is to be constructed once using truly random integers and saved to a read-only
 308 2011-03-31 01:42:32 <lfm> file. It must then be simply re-loaded from this file each time it is used.
 309 2011-03-31 01:42:54 <devrandom> lfm - but then you can put it in R
 310 2011-03-31 01:43:00 <devrandom> *ROM
 311 2011-03-31 01:43:03 <ArtForz> yep
 312 2011-03-31 01:43:32 <lfm> rom will miss caches too
 313 2011-03-31 01:43:34 Kiba has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 314 2011-03-31 01:43:38 <ArtForz> what?
 315 2011-03-31 01:43:50 <devrandom> gasteve - I'm not convinced that you can't get a 50x speedup from a full-custom chip
 316 2011-03-31 01:44:00 <devrandom> gasteve - compared to GPU
 317 2011-03-31 01:44:02 <gasteve> btw, miners can't really hijack the network...at best they can grab a large percentage of total mining yield or interfere with the ability for transactions to be processed
 318 2011-03-31 01:44:31 <lfm> gasteve: who told you that?
 319 2011-03-31 01:44:39 <devrandom> gasteve - if you have > 50% of the network capacity, you can create a long term fork
 320 2011-03-31 01:44:51 <gasteve> yeah...but miners ~= the network
 321 2011-03-31 01:45:10 <gasteve> the network is composed of all the clients...not miners
 322 2011-03-31 01:45:27 <devrandom> only the miners decide which transactions are in the blockchain
 323 2011-03-31 01:45:36 <gasteve> no
 324 2011-03-31 01:45:39 <luke-jr> yes
 325 2011-03-31 01:45:44 <xelister> gasteve: so?  the mining power gives you the right to say/decide which blocks are good
 326 2011-03-31 01:46:04 <gasteve> miner put transactions into blocks...the network clients decide whether the blocks are valid and whether to accept or reject them
 327 2011-03-31 01:46:28 <xelister> no
 328 2011-03-31 01:46:41 <xelister> the blocks are still valid
 329 2011-03-31 01:46:52 <luke-jr> gasteve: non-miners cannot refuse to accept all blocks
 330 2011-03-31 01:46:54 <devrandom> right... but if you have > 50%, then you can present a longer chain to the network at any point in time, all containing the transactions you want and none of the ones you don't want
 331 2011-03-31 01:46:55 <lfm> miners basiclly decide which blocks are accepted also
 332 2011-03-31 01:47:00 <jgarzik> well
 333 2011-03-31 01:47:07 <jgarzik> modulo the block checking rules in all clients
 334 2011-03-31 01:47:08 <luke-jr> although, I suppose gasteve is right that the non-miners *can* choose to accept *only* the blocks of a single miner
 335 2011-03-31 01:47:30 <xelister> you miner blocks on top of your blocks ignoring blocks from other miners, and this blocks WILL be valid, and will CORRECTLY devalidate blocks done by competition. You need > %50 totall power to have good chance at this strategy
 336 2011-03-31 01:48:03 <jgarzik> non-miners already validate blocks and TXs, and choose not to accept them based on existing rules
 337 2011-03-31 01:48:10 <gasteve> clients check whether the transactions in a block balance out correctly...whether they satisfy the difficulty requirement...whether they've awarded themselves only 50 btc...etc...the clients also adjust the difficulty over time, the payout for blocks, etc
 338 2011-03-31 01:48:26 <jgarzik> i.e. kinda like what happens now
 339 2011-03-31 01:48:42 <devrandom> gasteve - yes, I'm not saying you can get invalid transactions accepted
 340 2011-03-31 01:48:50 <lfm> gasteve: if the miners and non miners disagree on what blocks are accepted the non -miners will soon run out of blocks to verify
 341 2011-03-31 01:49:19 <devrandom> gasteve - but you can get transactions postponed indefinitely
 342 2011-03-31 01:49:27 <gasteve> so, you have to get 50% of the network clients to start corrupting the block chain ...you can have the most powerful super computer on the planet mining and it won't help you screw with the block chain
 343 2011-03-31 01:49:46 <devrandom> gasteve and you can change what the longest chain is, up to 120 blocks past
 344 2011-03-31 01:50:00 <gasteve> (however, if you had that super computer running many clients...it might...assuming people don't identify and contain it)
 345 2011-03-31 01:50:27 <ArtForz> didnt we already agree voting by IP is a VERY bad idea?
 346 2011-03-31 01:50:33 genjix has joined
 347 2011-03-31 01:51:07 <gasteve> devrandom: yes, a powerful miner can disrupt transaction processing
 348 2011-03-31 01:51:11 <lfm> ArtForz: except for the faucet? ya
 349 2011-03-31 01:51:40 <devrandom> gasteve - and allow double spending
 350 2011-03-31 01:52:04 <gasteve> not for long...the clients would detect and reject double spending (I think)
 351 2011-03-31 01:52:16 <gasteve> (reject blocks that double spend)
 352 2011-03-31 01:52:24 <devrandom> i.e. have a transaction going to X, wait 20 blocks, create a longer chain that has it go to Y
 353 2011-03-31 01:52:36 <lfm> gasteve: ya but they might change their minds which txn is bad
 354 2011-03-31 01:52:40 <gasteve> yeah
 355 2011-03-31 01:53:18 <devrandom> so the issue is that someone doing this would kill confidence in the system
 356 2011-03-31 01:53:22 <gasteve> yes
 357 2011-03-31 01:53:34 <xelister> or steal the goods
 358 2011-03-31 01:53:52 <gasteve> it's a valid attack if your objective is to destroy the bitcoin economy (not make/steal money)
 359 2011-03-31 01:53:52 <devrandom> so that's why I'm worried about whether it's possible to optimize 10x+ using full-custom chips
 360 2011-03-31 01:53:53 <xelister> by quadruple spending in example, grab the goods, tx are invalidate but too late
 361 2011-03-31 01:54:02 <lfm> gasteve: we all knew all along that anyone controlling more than 50% of the mining can do pretty much what they want
 362 2011-03-31 01:54:14 <devrandom> gasteve - mostly worried about repressive states wanting to kill this project
 363 2011-03-31 01:54:49 <xelister> devrandom: ArtForz already created such fully custom chip.
 364 2011-03-31 01:55:18 <ArtForz> a true custom chip could get another factor of 5 or so
 365 2011-03-31 01:55:21 <gasteve> but, you still have to remember that there are people behind the clients...people could start to deal only with peers they trust if there are bad actors entering the scene
 366 2011-03-31 01:55:31 <Kiba`> the tail end
 367 2011-03-31 01:55:36 <xelister> ArtForz: true custom?
 368 2011-03-31 01:55:39 <Kiba`> of the soverign debt crisis
 369 2011-03-31 01:55:48 <Kiba`> is a good time for bitcoin to appears on the scene
 370 2011-03-31 01:55:54 <ArtForz> standard cell asic
 371 2011-03-31 01:56:16 <xelister> why didnt you made such chips?
 372 2011-03-31 01:56:23 <devrandom> ArtForz - 5x would be a relief
 373 2011-03-31 01:56:38 <ArtForz> mainly... coz I dont have a few spare M$ sitting around
 374 2011-03-31 01:57:00 <gasteve> but, getting back to the memory question...I still don't see how it would do anything to prevent a well funded powerful miner attack
 375 2011-03-31 01:57:02 <lfm> startup cost is much higher ^
 376 2011-03-31 01:57:05 <xelister> well you got kidneys and a whole liver
 377 2011-03-31 01:57:09 <xelister> show dedication to the project
 378 2011-03-31 01:57:32 <[Tycho]> He is smart so he can earm money anyway.
 379 2011-03-31 01:57:42 <[Tycho]> *n
 380 2011-03-31 01:58:01 <lfm> xelister: well ask your gov or google or someone to finace the project and it will get done
 381 2011-03-31 01:58:11 <devrandom> gasteve - if the POW is "democratic" - i.e. hard to gain an additional multiplier with a capital expenditure, then it's less likely that a newcomer can swamp the existing network
 382 2011-03-31 01:58:38 <[Tycho]> gasteve, it's not to prevent attack. It was just an idea - "if we can make more 'fair' function and what it will lead to"
 383 2011-03-31 01:58:57 <gasteve> you would have to explain "democratic" to me...and what would make it more "fair"
 384 2011-03-31 01:58:57 <devrandom> e.g., if the current capital the network has is $5M, but a newcomer can spend $1M for a full custom and get a 10x multiplier, then they win
 385 2011-03-31 01:59:13 <[Tycho]> Mining with 5x pretty much ruins the net :)
 386 2011-03-31 01:59:26 <devrandom> gasteve - if they can't get a multiplier, they'll have to spend the full $5M
 387 2011-03-31 01:59:29 <lfm> basiclly any more "fair" system will just get gamed another way in the end I think
 388 2011-03-31 01:59:39 <[Tycho]> gasteve, make less speed difference between different rigs
 389 2011-03-31 02:00:34 <xelister> FAIR SYSTEM PROPOSAL
 390 2011-03-31 02:00:35 <xelister> version 1
 391 2011-03-31 02:00:37 <xelister> Local party leader with permission from commrad guag cheap emits permits to obtain your daily amount of water, rice and bitcoins
 392 2011-03-31 02:00:55 <gasteve> lol
 393 2011-03-31 02:01:29 <devrandom> gasteve - if bitcoin get to $1B in capital and there's no multiplier, we're probably good.  If we get to $1B and there's a 20x multiplier, I'm worried some state will spend the $50M to kill confidence in the system
 394 2011-03-31 02:01:31 <gasteve> [Tycho]: bitcoin itself is the solution to this problem
 395 2011-03-31 02:01:37 <lfm> yup, go to local post office or gov branch and get your ration stamps
 396 2011-03-31 02:01:38 docl1 has joined
 397 2011-03-31 02:01:53 docl has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 398 2011-03-31 02:02:28 docl1 is now known as docl
 399 2011-03-31 02:02:31 <Kiba`> what is this multiplier?
 400 2011-03-31 02:02:36 Stellar has joined
 401 2011-03-31 02:02:37 docl has quit (Changing host)
 402 2011-03-31 02:02:37 docl has joined
 403 2011-03-31 02:02:38 <devrandom> "democratic" == "hard to get a large multiplier from capital expenditure"
 404 2011-03-31 02:02:56 <Kiba`> don't forget Peter Thiel!
 405 2011-03-31 02:03:06 <devrandom> Kiba` - how much more efficient is your hardware if you spend money on full-custom silicon
 406 2011-03-31 02:03:20 <lfm> I forget, who is Peter Thiel?
 407 2011-03-31 02:03:29 legion050 has joined
 408 2011-03-31 02:03:31 <devrandom> (Mh/s per $)
 409 2011-03-31 02:03:48 <[Tycho]> gasteve, what problem ? I didn't said anything about problems.
 410 2011-03-31 02:04:02 <Kiba`> the epitome of a libertarian billionaire techno-geek
 411 2011-03-31 02:04:14 Stellar has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 412 2011-03-31 02:04:28 <lfm> there is no problem, bitcoin is working fine
 413 2011-03-31 02:04:29 <gasteve> by that I mean that I doubt there is a way to implement an algo that will make it impossible to subvert bitcoin when there is a relatively small economy...so the solution is to grow the economy (and the clients and mining power) and make it such that it's virtually impossible to subvert even if you had say the annual GDP of all nations available to you
 414 2011-03-31 02:04:32 <Kiba`> if he isn't rich, he would be the kind of guy who would fit in our community
 415 2011-03-31 02:04:54 <lfm> Kiba`: maybe he is here already then
 416 2011-03-31 02:05:07 <Kiba`> that mean we must grow an economy bigger than several nations' GDP?
 417 2011-03-31 02:05:46 <Kiba`> kinda hard
 418 2011-03-31 02:05:48 Kiba` is now known as kiba
 419 2011-03-31 02:05:59 <kiba> the US is one of the biggest economy in the world next to EU
 420 2011-03-31 02:06:20 <lfm> kiba oh he was behind paypal. If he still has a lot of stock he might not like bitcoin
 421 2011-03-31 02:06:24 <gasteve> well, the bar would actually be far less ...but you get the idea
 422 2011-03-31 02:07:04 <gasteve> make it so you would require a compute power that is impractical for any single entity to control
 423 2011-03-31 02:07:07 <kiba> why would he hate bitcoin?
 424 2011-03-31 02:07:16 <kiba> paypal failed to acheive his libertarian dream
 425 2011-03-31 02:07:30 <devrandom> lfm - he left before Paypal became evil, AFAIK.  Paypal was supposed to be something alot more similar to bitcoin/digicash.  I'm sure he'll be into this.
 426 2011-03-31 02:07:33 <lfm> kiba if he has a lot of stock in paypal, bitcoin is kinda a competitor
 427 2011-03-31 02:08:02 <devrandom> gasteve - I agree that growing the bitcoin economy is critical
 428 2011-03-31 02:08:11 <kiba> paypal is owned by ebay
 429 2011-03-31 02:09:01 <kiba> the great advantage of being programmers is that we're force multiplers
 430 2011-03-31 02:09:32 <devrandom> BTW, Thiel is funding this: http://seasteading.org/
 431 2011-03-31 02:10:08 <kiba> I am sure we can defeat a bunch of breaucractic slow acting 3 letter government agencies
 432 2011-03-31 02:10:41 <kiba> our OODA loop for growing the economy just have to be faster than their
 433 2011-03-31 02:11:48 Stellar has quit (2!~Stellar@110.137.123.54|Quit: Signed)
 434 2011-03-31 02:12:36 <gasteve> I guess the middle of an ocean is about the only place left where you can try to bootstrap a new socio-economic system...until we colonize mars I guess
 435 2011-03-31 02:13:28 osmosis has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 436 2011-03-31 02:14:13 osmosis has joined
 437 2011-03-31 02:14:21 <[Tycho]> Rignt above the R'lyeh, sure
 438 2011-03-31 02:23:53 <forrestv> <lfm> forrestv: nonsense.  Unless you mean the transaction pruning mentioned in Satoshi's white paper, then no - I dont think anyone is doing it yet
 439 2011-03-31 02:23:53 <forrestv> yes, i meant pruning. i was thinking of an extension to it - pruning information could be included in new blocks
 440 2011-03-31 02:23:53 <forrestv> if pruning was implemented as explained in the paper, nodes would have to download the entire block set before pruning.
 441 2011-03-31 02:23:53 <forrestv> if pruning instructions were embedded into the block chain and confirmed by other nodes, nodes would never have to download the pruned txs
 442 2011-03-31 02:23:56 <forrestv> in fact, entire series of blocks could be eliminated
 443 2011-03-31 02:24:23 <jgarzik> you cannot eliminate block headers
 444 2011-03-31 02:24:29 <jgarzik> thus entire blocks
 445 2011-03-31 02:24:41 <forrestv> why not?
 446 2011-03-31 02:25:17 <forrestv> a message like 'block with hash X is redundant, continue at block with hash Y' could be added to the chain
 447 2011-03-31 02:26:06 <lfm> well you dont need old block headers till someone trys to give you a txn based on a very old input txn, to verify it you could be downloading a lot
 448 2011-03-31 02:27:28 <ArtForz> depends
 449 2011-03-31 02:28:09 <lfm> depends how much you trust your block server(s)
 450 2011-03-31 02:28:47 <forrestv> if the skip instructions were confirmed by miners and embedded into the chain, there wouldn't need to be any more trust than usual ..
 451 2011-03-31 02:29:01 <ArtForz> you dont have to trust them
 452 2011-03-31 02:29:02 FellowTraveler has joined
 453 2011-03-31 02:29:18 <ArtForz> all really old tx are covered by the hardcoded checkpoint
 454 2011-03-31 02:29:26 <bd_> forrestv: Knowing the blocks up to point X are valid isn't enough. You also need to know what transactions were used in that period
 455 2011-03-31 02:29:38 <bd_> Analyzing the blocks to get this list of transactions takes time.
 456 2011-03-31 02:30:08 <bd_> I suppose you could speed it up somewhat if you assumed that every signature before point X was valid, though.
 457 2011-03-31 02:30:20 <lfm> if the block servers let you ask "which block has this txn hash in it" then you just get the merkle tree for that block and the txn you want
 458 2011-03-31 02:30:35 <jgarzik> still need to know unspent tx, even < hardcoded checkpoint
 459 2011-03-31 02:30:39 <ArtForz> why?
 460 2011-03-31 02:30:40 <bd_> lfm: What happens if the block server lies to you, then? :)
 461 2011-03-31 02:30:50 <ArtForz> how could it?
 462 2011-03-31 02:31:18 <lfm> dbitcoin: then it wouldnt verify (assuming you had the block header chain already
 463 2011-03-31 02:31:20 <ArtForz> you have the whole chain of headers from genesis, so you know the blocks are ok
 464 2011-03-31 02:31:28 <bd_> lfm: Your client: "I have a txn trying to spend CTxOut 4 of transaction 0xDEADBEEF. What do you know about it?" Server: "0xDEADBEEF, valid txn in block 4883. Never used."
 465 2011-03-31 02:31:30 <ArtForz> otherwise no miners would have built on them
 466 2011-03-31 02:31:35 <bd_> In reality, it was used in block 4884. Oops!
 467 2011-03-31 02:31:51 <ArtForz> which gains you nothing
 468 2011-03-31 02:32:06 <bd_> ArtForz: It does if you have a POS terminal or something that wants to verify a transaction quickly.
 469 2011-03-31 02:32:15 <lfm> bd_: the merkle tree connects the block to the txns
 470 2011-03-31 02:32:35 <bd_> lfm: Yes, the server can't lie about the transaction being part of block 4883.
 471 2011-03-31 02:32:45 <bd_> My point is it can lie and say "This coin has never been spent"
 472 2011-03-31 02:33:05 <ArtForz> hrrrmmm... actually thats a neat idea
 473 2011-03-31 02:33:18 <lfm> bd if the txn hash is not in the merkle tree you write off that sever as untrustworthy and go to another
 474 2011-03-31 02:33:30 <bd_> lfm: You're not listening to me. the txn _is_ in the merkle tree.
 475 2011-03-31 02:33:46 <bd_> The server's just lying and saying it was never spent, so the server operator can get away with double spending.
 476 2011-03-31 02:33:50 <ArtForz> have each block contain a chain hash of all unspent tx before that block
 477 2011-03-31 02:34:02 <bd_> ArtForz: That can get really big really fast.
 478 2011-03-31 02:34:14 <lfm> bd_: if it was never spent it should be able to show you the txn with the unspent output
 479 2011-03-31 02:34:21 <ArtForz> how?
 480 2011-03-31 02:34:33 <bd_> lfm: Of course. I can _always_ show you the txn with the unspent output, even if it's spent.
 481 2011-03-31 02:34:38 <bd_> The original txn never changes.
 482 2011-03-31 02:34:55 <bd_> The point is, unless you have personally examined EVERY block AFTER that point, you cannot know that the txn has not been spent
 483 2011-03-31 02:35:02 <lfm> bd_: oh i see
 484 2011-03-31 02:35:41 <bd_> Now, if you assume that all block generators will do the full verify, then you'll figure it out eventually when everyone refuses to include the txn in their block chain
 485 2011-03-31 02:35:48 <ArtForz> I dont think theres any way to verify if a tx is unspent without a) keeping track of em or b) trusting someone else to do that
 486 2011-03-31 02:36:13 <bd_> But if you want that snap decision then you really need to keep a database of unspent txns.
 487 2011-03-31 02:36:20 <ArtForz> yep
 488 2011-03-31 02:36:39 <lfm> and you have to at least look at all the spent ones
 489 2011-03-31 02:37:13 <bd_> Now here's the thing: If you include this data in the block chain, while you could increase confidence in the data without spending too much computation time on verification, it makes the job of the generators MUCH more difficult
 490 2011-03-31 02:37:28 <bd_> They have to dump out and hash their entire unspent txn database every block, after all.
 491 2011-03-31 02:37:40 jackSmith has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 492 2011-03-31 02:37:55 <ArtForz> not quite
 493 2011-03-31 02:38:13 osmosis has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 494 2011-03-31 02:38:42 <lfm> if you start with a "trusted" block chain that has already been pruned you should be ok
 495 2011-03-31 02:39:29 <bd_> ArtForz: If you're going to say, "But we can make a merkle tree out of it!", remember that you still need to keep around all those merkle blocks in case a client asks you for them later
 496 2011-03-31 02:40:10 <lfm> bd_: you can just pass on the request to someone else till it finds someone with everything
 497 2011-03-31 02:40:12 <bd_> You also have to hand them to other generators (or have those generators compute the prior state of the unspent-txn-pool) so they can verify the chain
 498 2011-03-31 02:40:15 <ArtForz> which ones?
 499 2011-03-31 02:40:26 <bd_> And you need to keep this data around for a while because the most recent data is the least trustworthy
 500 2011-03-31 02:40:55 <lfm> bd_: yes the pruning algo can never prune "newish" stuff
 501 2011-03-31 02:40:57 <bd_> lfm: also, block chains are never pruned. The system relies on the entire block chain remaining verifiable forever.
 502 2011-03-31 02:41:34 <lfm> bd_: thats just 80 bytes per block tho so it is managable
 503 2011-03-31 02:41:36 <bd_> Not every client needs to do the entire verification, but they need to trust that _someone_ has run that verification
 504 2011-03-31 02:41:47 <phantomcircuit> ;;bc,stats
 505 2011-03-31 02:41:48 <gribble> Current Blocks: 115862 | Current Difficulty: 68978.89245792 | Next Difficulty At Block: 116927 | Next Difficulty In: 1065 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 6 days, 17 hours, 13 minutes, and 45 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 75956.80814940
 506 2011-03-31 02:41:57 <dirtyfilthy> not every client needs to store the whole blockchain either
 507 2011-03-31 02:42:00 <bd_> lfm: No, it's 80 bytes, PLUS the merkle tree's contents which need to be available on request
 508 2011-03-31 02:42:03 <jgarzik> well its 80 bytes + merkle, if we are pruning TX's, right?
 509 2011-03-31 02:42:04 <jgarzik> yeah
 510 2011-03-31 02:42:38 <phantomcircuit> -rw-r--r-- 1 phantomcircuit phantomcircuit 269M Mar 30 19:39 bitcoin.sqlite3
 511 2011-03-31 02:42:39 <bd_> so you need to either store that merkle or compute it
 512 2011-03-31 02:42:41 <phantomcircuit> holy crap
 513 2011-03-31 02:42:48 <bd_> Other generators should be able to generate them easily enough, of course
 514 2011-03-31 02:42:55 <bd_> So you only need to actually send it to clients
 515 2011-03-31 02:43:13 <lfm> bd_: requests for pruned merkle tree contents can be passed on too, you usually will not have requests for spent txns even of the merkle trees
 516 2011-03-31 02:43:32 <bd_> what do you mean by passed on?
 517 2011-03-31 02:43:43 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: why not do like bitcoin, and store blocks in their own file?
 518 2011-03-31 02:43:43 <bd_> Just say, "Oh, go ask this other generator, they'll probably know."
 519 2011-03-31 02:43:44 <bd_> ?
 520 2011-03-31 02:43:57 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: just index w/ db software
 521 2011-03-31 02:43:59 <lfm> bd forward the request to a node you know which kept historical data
 522 2011-03-31 02:44:29 <bd_> I suppose you can limit the long-term storage to archival nodes
 523 2011-03-31 02:44:35 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, i doubt that would do much good
 524 2011-03-31 02:44:39 <bd_> Or, well, "verification servers"
 525 2011-03-31 02:44:52 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: are you storing the entire block in a single SQL column?
 526 2011-03-31 02:44:56 <bd_> Since the generators _can_ keep around the most-recent data without too much difficulty... hm
 527 2011-03-31 02:45:15 <phantomcircuit> also running bitcoin with -daemon crashes on my system with a master/HEAD build
 528 2011-03-31 02:45:22 <lfm> if the new nodes start with a chain pre-pruned to a checkpoint, then requests for spent txn befor thos should be minimal
 529 2011-03-31 02:45:47 <bd_> lfm: That said, there is a bootstrapping problem
 530 2011-03-31 02:46:04 <bd_> If you see two _partial_ block chains floating around, how do you know which to trust?
 531 2011-03-31 02:46:19 <lfm> ya if you want a dead start from the geneis block, make sure you connect to an archival node
 532 2011-03-31 02:46:31 <bd_> lfm: And the dead start is exactly what we're trying to avoid :)
 533 2011-03-31 02:46:37 sgornick has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 534 2011-03-31 02:46:46 <lfm> it should be rare after a while
 535 2011-03-31 02:46:52 <bd_> I suppose you could work out the total difficulty for the block chain that's visible
 536 2011-03-31 02:47:16 sgornick has joined
 537 2011-03-31 02:47:38 <lfm> ya its still easy to calulate the chain with the most POW
 538 2011-03-31 02:48:12 <lfm> same as any other fork
 539 2011-03-31 02:48:24 <Diablo-D3> http://fukung.net/v/32943/db5e3f15884878d2c385faeca3e8b534.jpg
 540 2011-03-31 02:48:34 jackSmith has joined
 541 2011-03-31 02:48:50 <Validus> lol
 542 2011-03-31 02:49:30 <bd_> lfm: that said, it does add O(lg n) to the cost of processing a transaction for generators
 543 2011-03-31 02:49:31 <grbgout> hah
 544 2011-03-31 02:49:39 <grbgout> who is that woman?
 545 2011-03-31 02:49:48 <bd_> where n = number of unspent txns
 546 2011-03-31 02:50:43 <lfm> bd_: if the txn are filed by hash you can just find the inputs directly
 547 2011-03-31 02:52:00 <bd_> Imean, in maintaining the merkle tree
 548 2011-03-31 02:53:43 <lfm> oh i see ya, simple enuf to limit the "reblocking" to only txn which have been verified and verify at lower priority. only do re-blocking periodiclly (a few seconds apart or whatever)
 549 2011-03-31 02:55:34 <phantomcircuit> rofl
 550 2011-03-31 02:55:39 <phantomcircuit> db contention is killing me
 551 2011-03-31 02:55:44 <grbgout> bd_, lfm: how far back does your conversation go?  I'd like to catch up, but I'm feeling lazy at the moment >_>
 552 2011-03-31 02:55:44 <phantomcircuit> 20 seconds to insert a single block
 553 2011-03-31 02:56:07 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: contention with what?  are you doing a parallel add?
 554 2011-03-31 02:56:53 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, the logic for connecting/requesting blocks is all parallel
 555 2011-03-31 02:57:11 <phantomcircuit> so it requests the same thing from everybody
 556 2011-03-31 02:57:12 <phantomcircuit> lol
 557 2011-03-31 02:57:57 <phantomcircuit> i just need a simple synchronization between all the connected peers
 558 2011-03-31 02:58:03 <phantomcircuit> or possibly to move the logic out of there
 559 2011-03-31 02:58:07 <phantomcircuit> which ever
 560 2011-03-31 02:59:17 DrQ has joined
 561 2011-03-31 03:00:32 <lfm> grbgout: the conversations all run into one another so go back as far as you want
 562 2011-03-31 03:00:38 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 563 2011-03-31 03:03:17 AnonX has joined
 564 2011-03-31 03:04:15 Bosma has quit (Quit: Bosma)
 565 2011-03-31 03:05:20 <grbgout> lfm: well yeah, I was wondering more about how long ago your and bd_'s conversation began.
 566 2011-03-31 03:05:32 <grbgout> lfm: ultimately it doesn't matter, I'll page up eventually
 567 2011-03-31 03:06:10 <bd_> about a half hour or so ago maybe?
 568 2011-03-31 03:06:53 <lfm> grbgout: just about as hard for me to figure out how far it goes as you and you have more motivation
 569 2011-03-31 03:06:56 <grbgout> ah, thanks --- yeah, to lazy to go that far back atm ^_^
 570 2011-03-31 03:07:04 <grbgout> lfm: indeed
 571 2011-03-31 03:07:13 <grbgout> *too
 572 2011-03-31 03:07:27 jackSmith has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 573 2011-03-31 03:07:52 skeledrew has joined
 574 2011-03-31 03:08:55 purpleposeidon is now known as MrInternet
 575 2011-03-31 03:09:07 MrInternet is now known as purpleposeidon
 576 2011-03-31 03:12:33 joepie91 has joined
 577 2011-03-31 03:12:45 <manveru> hm
 578 2011-03-31 03:12:49 joepie92 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 579 2011-03-31 03:13:07 <manveru> i wonder how hard it would be to implement a simple client for bitcoin... only to see my transactions
 580 2011-03-31 03:13:15 TippenEin_ has joined
 581 2011-03-31 03:13:38 <manveru> do i really need to implement the whole protocol for that?
 582 2011-03-31 03:13:53 <grbgout> manveru: dunno, have you looked at google's java client?
 583 2011-03-31 03:14:14 TippenEin has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 584 2011-03-31 03:14:26 <manveru> no... it's java
 585 2011-03-31 03:14:27 TippenEin_ is now known as TippenEin
 586 2011-03-31 03:14:33 <grbgout> hehe
 587 2011-03-31 03:14:50 <manveru> sorry :)
 588 2011-03-31 03:15:01 <phantomcircuit> manveru, depends on what you cant to know about your transactions, you like python?
 589 2011-03-31 03:15:01 <phantomcircuit> :P
 590 2011-03-31 03:15:06 <grbgout> I think that's a good thing: should make an android app simple, and just on the horizon.
 591 2011-03-31 03:15:16 <lfm> manveru: depends, do you want to trust a server?
 592 2011-03-31 03:15:17 dbitcoin has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 593 2011-03-31 03:15:38 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 594 2011-03-31 03:15:40 <manveru> heh
 595 2011-03-31 03:15:46 dbitcoin has joined
 596 2011-03-31 03:15:46 <manveru> phantomcircuit: i'm ok with python
 597 2011-03-31 03:16:04 <manveru> lfm: and yeah, something easily curl-able would be cool
 598 2011-03-31 03:16:15 <grbgout> lfm: he could set it up to query his local bitcoind, that is: setup the 'server' to be his home, and establish decent security measures to prevent the odd-unauthorized connection.
 599 2011-03-31 03:16:39 <manveru> oh, right
 600 2011-03-31 03:16:51 <manveru> there's a REST api for the bitcoind, right?
 601 2011-03-31 03:16:56 <lfm> manveru: no, a bitcoin server, for bitcoin queries. If you can trust a bitcoin server you can make a very minimal client that just requests certain data
 602 2011-03-31 03:17:15 <grbgout> manveru: probably, what do you mean by REST?
 603 2011-03-31 03:17:28 <manveru> grbgout: well, HTTP
 604 2011-03-31 03:17:45 <grbgout> manveru: ah, yeah.  The RCP JSON API.
 605 2011-03-31 03:18:04 <manveru> gotta read that again
 606 2011-03-31 03:18:21 <manveru> i'm mostly worried about having to implement all those encryption methods
 607 2011-03-31 03:18:45 <manveru> since i'm more likely to get it wrong than right, i'll try to stand on the shoulders of giants for that
 608 2011-03-31 03:18:53 <lfm> manveru: if you dont have a server you can trust then you need to implement pretty much the whole protocol
 609 2011-03-31 03:19:08 <manveru> lfm: well, i have my local machine
 610 2011-03-31 03:19:18 <manveru> i also have a couple of servers i do trust
 611 2011-03-31 03:19:18 <grbgout> manveru: you can probably just implement the JSON API, and setup secure RPC on your local machine's bitcoind.
 612 2011-03-31 03:19:19 <phantomcircuit> manveru, https://github.com/phantomcircuit/bitcoin-alt/tree/sqlite3
 613 2011-03-31 03:19:39 skeledrew has joined
 614 2011-03-31 03:19:40 <grbgout> i thought I had the API bookmarked, but it seems not
 615 2011-03-31 03:19:48 <phantomcircuit> manveru, downloads blocks/transactions, doesn't parse scripts
 616 2011-03-31 03:20:16 <lfm> manveru: there is also the option of something like mybitcoin.com. If you can trust it (or something like it) then you can use your browser to access your account
 617 2011-03-31 03:20:19 <grbgout> phantomcircuit: well, why waste the bandwidth/effort: the local bitcoind should be doing that anyway, right?
 618 2011-03-31 03:20:33 <phantomcircuit> grbgout, facepalm
 619 2011-03-31 03:20:40 <phantomcircuit> because im implementing my own bitcoind?
 620 2011-03-31 03:20:41 <manveru> lfm: i'd rather not do that :)
 621 2011-03-31 03:20:49 <grbgout> phantomcircuit: I mean just for his purposes, not as a reflection on your project.
 622 2011-03-31 03:21:10 <phantomcircuit> grbgout, i guess
 623 2011-03-31 03:21:55 <grbgout> manveru: it seems to me that ... $ bitcoind help is probably more than what you'd need to have access to.
 624 2011-03-31 03:22:25 <manveru> grbgout: yes
 625 2011-03-31 03:22:26 <grbgout> hmm, alright, now I'm annoyed.  I know I bookmarked the old wiki page on the API, which discussed doing SSL stuff, and now I can't find it in my lists. >_<
 626 2011-03-31 03:22:38 <manveru> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/API_reference_(JSON-RPC)
 627 2011-03-31 03:22:48 <manveru> and i'm in a VPN already
 628 2011-03-31 03:22:53 <grbgout> manveru: so then it's just a matter of access a bitcoind server you like, and implementing the least amount of the JSON API you'll need.
 629 2011-03-31 03:23:05 <manveru> exactly
 630 2011-03-31 03:23:07 <lfm> or just clone mybitcoin.com and run your own server, no need to develop yet another client since your browser is it
 631 2011-03-31 03:23:12 <manveru> and replacing the ruby code on the wiki...
 632 2011-03-31 03:23:15 <phantomcircuit> ;;bc,stats
 633 2011-03-31 03:23:17 <gribble> Current Blocks: 115869 | Current Difficulty: 68978.89245792 | Next Difficulty At Block: 116927 | Next Difficulty In: 1058 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 6 days, 15 hours, 52 minutes, and 32 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 76118.34963845
 634 2011-03-31 03:23:33 <grbgout> there's already a JavaScript thing just for what you're after, too, manveru (I think: didn't look at the project too closley).
 635 2011-03-31 03:23:39 <phantomcircuit> neat
 636 2011-03-31 03:23:43 <grbgout> https://github.com/tcatm/bitcoin-js-remote
 637 2011-03-31 03:23:50 <phantomcircuit> my client has one more block than gribble
 638 2011-03-31 03:24:01 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 639 2011-03-31 03:24:15 <lfm> ;;bc,blocks
 640 2011-03-31 03:24:15 <grbgout> manveru: how did your tests with the testnet work out?  Anything exciting?
 641 2011-03-31 03:24:15 <gribble> 115869
 642 2011-03-31 03:24:40 <lfm> phantomcircuit: are you running a very old version?
 643 2011-03-31 03:24:53 <manveru> grbgout: i didn't get that far... we started another project
 644 2011-03-31 03:24:53 <phantomcircuit> lfm, hmm
 645 2011-03-31 03:25:03 <manveru> grbgout: http://ebeats.org/
 646 2011-03-31 03:25:05 <phantomcircuit> lfm, oh i hard coded a version number
 647 2011-03-31 03:25:05 <grbgout> manveru: ah.  Who are "we", if you don't mind my asking?
 648 2011-03-31 03:25:08 <lfm> phantomcircuit: the block numbering changed a while back
 649 2011-03-31 03:25:20 <phantomcircuit> lfm, no i meant *my* python client
 650 2011-03-31 03:25:31 <phantomcircuit> oh it's reporting the 0 based top block?
 651 2011-03-31 03:25:34 <phantomcircuit> that's dumb
 652 2011-03-31 03:25:59 <lfm> phantomcircuit: ya some clients count the genisis as a regular block and some dont
 653 2011-03-31 03:26:18 <phantomcircuit> weird
 654 2011-03-31 03:26:27 <phantomcircuit> well either way
 655 2011-03-31 03:26:35 <lfm> and bitcoin(d) used to but quit a while back
 656 2011-03-31 03:26:35 <phantomcircuit> i have all the blocks/transactions in my loverly sqlite db
 657 2011-03-31 03:26:49 <lfm> phantomcircuit: wtg
 658 2011-03-31 03:27:21 <phantomcircuit> now i have to figure out why adding blocks/transactions randomly take longer
 659 2011-03-31 03:27:58 <lfm> ya, typical database, once you got it loaded, its time to redisign it
 660 2011-03-31 03:28:28 <grbgout> hehe
 661 2011-03-31 03:28:30 joepie92 has joined
 662 2011-03-31 03:29:06 joepie91 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 663 2011-03-31 03:29:42 <phantomcircuit> lfm, im guessing i just need an insert/commit lock
 664 2011-03-31 03:30:17 <grbgout> manveru: The "solar day" that ebeats measure is taken at UTC/GMT/Zulu, correct?
 665 2011-03-31 03:30:37 <bd_> sqlite is bad if you have multiple threads operating on the database - it's a single monolithic lock with starvation issues
 666 2011-03-31 03:30:54 <phantomcircuit> bd_, yeah im aware
 667 2011-03-31 03:30:59 <phantomcircuit> acutely >.>
 668 2011-03-31 03:31:06 <bd_> You can mitigate it a bit with batching and your own starvation-avoiding locking schemes
 669 2011-03-31 03:31:15 <manveru> grbgout: yes
 670 2011-03-31 03:31:30 <bd_> eg, when you have incoming txns, don't process them immediately. Every 30 seconds or so, take all the new txns and blocks and process them all at once, in a single sqlite-level transaction
 671 2011-03-31 03:31:34 <phantomcircuit> batching has gotten me most of the way
 672 2011-03-31 03:31:38 <manveru> it's a simple algorithm from UTC to ebeats
 673 2011-03-31 03:31:44 <lfm> grbgout: normally a solar day is a local time from noon to noon or sinrise to sunrise
 674 2011-03-31 03:31:59 <bd_> phantomcircuit: Are you having contention between readers and writers or something?
 675 2011-03-31 03:32:01 <nanotube> manveru: have you seen js-remote?
 676 2011-03-31 03:32:11 <manveru> nanotube: no
 677 2011-03-31 03:32:20 <grbgout> manveru: I just provided the link to it!
 678 2011-03-31 03:32:26 <manveru> sorry, gotta hack some smalltalk... brb
 679 2011-03-31 03:32:28 <bd_> phantomcircuit: because, you can batch reads as well :)
 680 2011-03-31 03:32:28 <nanotube> ;;sl github tcatm js remote
 681 2011-03-31 03:32:29 <gribble> http://tcatm.github.com/bitcoin-js-remote/ | bitcoin-js-remote is a user interface for Bitcoin written in JavaScript and released under the ... git clone git://github.com/tcatm/bitcoin-js-remote ...
 682 2011-03-31 03:32:33 <nanotube> manveru: ^^
 683 2011-03-31 03:32:38 <grbgout> 23:19:33 < grbgout> https://github.com/tcatm/bitcoin-js-remote
 684 2011-03-31 03:32:40 <grbgout> >_<
 685 2011-03-31 03:32:43 <nanotube> hehe
 686 2011-03-31 03:32:46 <nanotube> grbgout: :)
 687 2011-03-31 03:33:05 <nanotube> manveru: basically... a fully-functional client, based on accessing a remote bitcoind node via jsonrpc
 688 2011-03-31 03:33:06 <phantomcircuit> bd_, yeah but the only reasonable way to do it is with joins
 689 2011-03-31 03:33:10 <phantomcircuit> bd_, and well
 690 2011-03-31 03:33:11 <phantomcircuit> meh
 691 2011-03-31 03:33:17 <bd_> phantomcircuit: how are joins involved?
 692 2011-03-31 03:33:59 <phantomcircuit> bd_, selects are almost all blocks/transactions/transaction input/outputs
 693 2011-03-31 03:34:01 Teslah has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 694 2011-03-31 03:34:10 <phantomcircuit> bd_, but afaict the selects are trivial
 695 2011-03-31 03:34:38 <bd_> Yes. bitcoin doesn't really need much in the way of complex join
 696 2011-03-31 03:34:39 <bd_> s
 697 2011-03-31 03:34:56 <lfm> lfm: but ya it looks like ebeats means UTC date/time
 698 2011-03-31 03:35:24 <phantomcircuit> http://pastebin.com/PTVfrkQp
 699 2011-03-31 03:35:25 <phantomcircuit> bah
 700 2011-03-31 03:35:30 <bd_> phantomcircuit: Anyway, joins aren't magical. They're just index lookups, possibly several in a row.
 701 2011-03-31 03:35:32 <phantomcircuit> 2 seconds
 702 2011-03-31 03:35:38 <phantomcircuit> 40 seconds
 703 2011-03-31 03:35:45 <phantomcircuit> 60 seconds
 704 2011-03-31 03:36:01 <bd_> phantomcircuit: Have you profiled to see where your time is being spent?
 705 2011-03-31 03:36:09 <bd_> actually
 706 2011-03-31 03:36:14 <phantomcircuit> that is my profiling actually
 707 2011-03-31 03:36:15 <bd_> it might be syncs on commit
 708 2011-03-31 03:36:28 <bd_> phantomcircuit: profiling tells you -where- the time is being spent, not just how much :)
 709 2011-03-31 03:36:56 <phantomcircuit> bd_, that is telling me
 710 2011-03-31 03:37:07 <phantomcircuit> the time is being spent in handling "block" commands
 711 2011-03-31 03:38:32 <bd_> phantomcircuit: Or it's being spent holding a lock that the block commands need.
 712 2011-03-31 03:38:45 <bd_> So - what lock is it, and who is holding the lock?
 713 2011-03-31 03:38:52 <bd_> -that- is profiling :)
 714 2011-03-31 03:39:24 <phantomcircuit> bd_, this is python
 715 2011-03-31 03:39:28 <phantomcircuit> good luck with that
 716 2011-03-31 03:39:57 <bd_> *shrug* you can always start instrumenting other paths
 717 2011-03-31 03:40:09 <bd_> but at a guess - maybe syncs on database commits are taking a lot of time?
 718 2011-03-31 03:40:23 <bd_> Or you might be missing some important indices
 719 2011-03-31 03:41:17 Bosma has joined
 720 2011-03-31 03:41:55 <phantomcircuit> bd_, yes and no
 721 2011-03-31 03:41:56 <phantomcircuit> :P
 722 2011-03-31 03:42:32 <xenon481> Dear God, I wish that FairUser and Geebus would get a clue.......
 723 2011-03-31 03:42:45 <grbgout> what have they done now?
 724 2011-03-31 03:43:05 <xenon481> They are saying that Raulo's attack isn't real.
 725 2011-03-31 03:43:08 <LobsterMan> ;;bc,stats
 726 2011-03-31 03:43:09 <phantomcircuit> bd_, turns out the problem is i made a bad assumption
 727 2011-03-31 03:43:10 <phantomcircuit> hmm
 728 2011-03-31 03:43:10 <gribble> Current Blocks: 115871 | Current Difficulty: 68978.89245792 | Next Difficulty At Block: 116927 | Next Difficulty In: 1056 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 6 days, 15 hours, 34 minutes, and 24 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 76183.15879097
 729 2011-03-31 03:43:17 joepie93 has joined
 730 2011-03-31 03:43:18 <LobsterMan> just generated a block XD
 731 2011-03-31 03:43:36 <bd_> phantomcircuit: yes, most programming bugs originate from bad assumptions :)
 732 2011-03-31 03:43:45 <lfm> LobsterMan: wtg
 733 2011-03-31 03:43:50 <LobsterMan> hehehe ^______^
 734 2011-03-31 03:43:51 <grbgout> Haven't heard of Raulo's attack --- well, maybe vaguely; the name does seem familiar.  Care to elaborate, or point to a relavent page (not about them denying it, rather about it)?
 735 2011-03-31 03:43:56 <phantomcircuit> bd_, yeah
 736 2011-03-31 03:43:59 <LobsterMan> ty ty
 737 2011-03-31 03:44:17 <xenon481> It's the pool-hopping attack that Share based pools are vulnerable to.
 738 2011-03-31 03:44:17 <phantomcircuit> bd_, to be fair i had predicted it was a bad assumption
 739 2011-03-31 03:44:18 <phantomcircuit> lol
 740 2011-03-31 03:44:24 <LobsterMan> is it possible that stopping and starting my miners frequently can actually increase the chances of generating a block?
 741 2011-03-31 03:44:27 joepie92 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 742 2011-03-31 03:44:31 <LobsterMan> due to changes in entropy/whatnot?
 743 2011-03-31 03:44:38 <LobsterMan> like when i play a game i usually close my miners
 744 2011-03-31 03:44:46 <phantomcircuit> LobsterMan, no
 745 2011-03-31 03:45:30 <lfm> LobsterMan: nope, the more you run the more your chances
 746 2011-03-31 03:45:33 <grbgout> xenon481: interesting.
 747 2011-03-31 03:45:43 <xenon481> LobsterMan: Your miners aren't doing anything random, so there is no possibility that they could be exhibiting semi-random behavior as opposed to random behavior.
 748 2011-03-31 03:46:00 echelon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 749 2011-03-31 03:46:27 <lfm> xenon481: that doesnt quite sound like an explanation! :-)
 750 2011-03-31 03:47:12 <xenon481> LobsterMan: Restarting your miners would only be useful if you felt that they were somehow being caught in some sort of trap of your computer's random number table (which is only semi random). Restarting them would seed them to a different part of the table.
 751 2011-03-31 03:47:38 <LobsterMan> so i suppose then it does change it up, so to speak
 752 2011-03-31 03:47:50 <LobsterMan> but whether or not it helps me in the long run is indeterminante?
 753 2011-03-31 03:48:05 <xenon481> LobsterMan: No, due to the fact that the miners don't use the random number table.
 754 2011-03-31 03:48:06 <grbgout> or, more to the point, is completely random :)
 755 2011-03-31 03:48:09 <phantomcircuit> https://github.com/phantomcircuit/bitcoin-alt/blob/sqlite3/bitcoin/peer.py#L137
 756 2011-03-31 03:48:33 <xenon481> Lobsterman: It would only be useful IF they were using the random number table.
 757 2011-03-31 03:48:37 <LobsterMan> oh...
 758 2011-03-31 03:48:57 <lfm> LobsterMan: nope, if you stop it for one sec you have lost one sec worth of chances and wont get em back
 759 2011-03-31 03:49:39 <LobsterMan> so those calculations that would be performed in that one second of miner stoppage, is that same calculation deferred and just happens when the miner starts up again?
 760 2011-03-31 03:49:45 <xenon481> and only if you were certain that the part of the random number table you would have been using was somehow semi-random in a way that specifically causes you non-optimal processing.
 761 2011-03-31 03:50:11 <lfm> LobsterMan: no, nothing is defered. you just start new
 762 2011-03-31 03:50:26 <xenon481> LobsterMan: No, the GetWork server just assigns you another "random" piece of work.
 763 2011-03-31 03:50:50 <LobsterMan> see that is what i mean by "random"
 764 2011-03-31 03:51:04 <LobsterMan> due to it starting at a different time, something different is being calculated upon
 765 2011-03-31 03:51:12 <xenon481> None of the calculations you are doing are in any way dependent upon the previous calculations that you have done, so you don't need to work in order, but there is also no reason not to work in order.
 766 2011-03-31 03:51:20 <lfm> LobsterMan: note the khash/s number? each hash is separate and a separate chance to find a good hash. that whole thing is done thousands of times per sec
 767 2011-03-31 03:51:24 <phantomcircuit> bd_, https://github.com/phantomcircuit/bitcoin-alt/blob/sqlite3/bitcoin/peer.py#L137
 768 2011-03-31 03:51:41 <LobsterMan> yes but the hashes it's trying, how is that determined?
 769 2011-03-31 03:51:49 <LobsterMan> is it just trying "random" solutins to see if it solves a block?
 770 2011-03-31 03:51:56 <LobsterMan> solutions*
 771 2011-03-31 03:52:12 <lfm> LobsterMan: every try is different. when you start new it starts at a new place
 772 2011-03-31 03:52:22 <bd_> phantomcircuit: hah, that would do it :)
 773 2011-03-31 03:52:53 <LobsterMan> i think i still don't totally understand exactly what my miner is doing at each hash attempt
 774 2011-03-31 03:53:04 <xenon481> The miner doesn't decide where, though. The GetWork server does.
 775 2011-03-31 03:53:06 redMBA has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 776 2011-03-31 03:53:20 <LobsterMan> and the getwork server is managed by bitcoin.exe?
 777 2011-03-31 03:53:22 <bd_> phantomcircuit: Next time actually use the python profiler (http://docs.python.org/library/profile.html) and you'd see where the time was going from the start ;)
 778 2011-03-31 03:53:32 <lfm> LobsterMan: one part of the block header is a timestamp, changes every second
 779 2011-03-31 03:53:38 <jgarzik> LobsterMan: the getwork server == the bitcoin.exe JSON-RPC server
 780 2011-03-31 03:54:10 <phantomcircuit> bd_, doesn't particularly help actually
 781 2011-03-31 03:54:19 <LobsterMan> so is the sequence of attempts it makes totally deterministic?
 782 2011-03-31 03:54:33 <phantomcircuit> (i tried it)
 783 2011-03-31 03:55:19 <lfm> LobsterMan: kinda ya. the inputs are sequential deterministic but the hash algorith produces a cryptogrphicly secure random output
 784 2011-03-31 03:55:28 <bd_> phantomcircuit: oh?
 785 2011-03-31 03:55:48 <xenon481> There are a non-infinite number of possible solutions, but the number is so large that it is essentially infinite for all calculation purposes.
 786 2011-03-31 03:56:02 <phantomcircuit> bd_, not sure why but cProfile says that almost no time is spent in put_blocks
 787 2011-03-31 03:56:05 <phantomcircuit> bd_, so
 788 2011-03-31 03:56:06 <phantomcircuit> yeah
 789 2011-03-31 03:56:49 <lfm> phantomcircuit: is your time cpu time or elapsed time?
 790 2011-03-31 03:58:14 <phantomcircuit> hmm?
 791 2011-03-31 03:58:45 eao has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 792 2011-03-31 03:59:06 DrQ has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 793 2011-03-31 03:59:19 Bosma has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi)
 794 2011-03-31 03:59:35 <phantomcircuit> lfm, very little cpu time is used, so long as there is little contention
 795 2011-03-31 04:00:27 Zenith77 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 796 2011-03-31 04:01:50 <LobsterMan> let me try to phrase this differently:
 797 2011-03-31 04:01:50 <LobsterMan> what i mean by "random", as in...if i start the miner (say at 1pm), stop it for 10 mins, and then start it again (at 1:10pm), and then it has been running for 10 mins (now 1:20pm); as opposed if I just let it run from from 1pm to 1:10pm
 798 2011-03-31 04:01:50 <LobsterMan> in the first case where i stop it, after the 10 minutes is up and then start mining again, is it going to try the same hashes (during computation from 1:10 to 1:20) that would have been tried if i just did not close it in the first place? (same hashes as if I just ran it from 1:00 to 1:10?)
 799 2011-03-31 04:02:49 <LobsterMan> i hope that makes sense...lol
 800 2011-03-31 04:02:57 <xenon481> LobsterMan: It will never work the same hashes twice.
 801 2011-03-31 04:02:59 <xenon481> ever.
 802 2011-03-31 04:02:59 <lfm> LobsterMan: it doesnt really matter WHICHJ hashes it does since the chance of finding a good one is the same for every hash
 803 2011-03-31 04:03:04 <xenon481> in all likelyhood.
 804 2011-03-31 04:03:21 <LobsterMan> yes but that is what i mean by "random"
 805 2011-03-31 04:03:25 <LobsterMan> i use random loosely
 806 2011-03-31 04:03:29 <phantomcircuit> LobsterMan, in those 10 minutes the timestamp and merkle root will have changed
 807 2011-03-31 04:03:43 <LobsterMan> it's like the monty hall problem kind of
 808 2011-03-31 04:03:51 <LobsterMan> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_hall_problem
 809 2011-03-31 04:03:55 <grbgout> >_<
 810 2011-03-31 04:04:04 <grbgout> I was keeping the monty hall paradox to myself, damn it, LobsterMan!
 811 2011-03-31 04:04:13 <LobsterMan> haha
 812 2011-03-31 04:04:16 <lfm> LobsterMan: you will never go back and fill in missed ones and you shouldnt
 813 2011-03-31 04:04:25 <xenon481> also what phantomcircuit said. Even if you did process the same hashes twice, what you are hashing completely changed, so it doesn't matter.
 814 2011-03-31 04:07:19 <LobsterMan> so if i start the miner at 1:00, then stop at 1:05, then start again at 1:10, it's going to be trying the same sequence of hashes at 1:11 as if I would have just left it go from 1:00 to 1:11?
 815 2011-03-31 04:07:31 <lfm> ok total number of hashes tried by all the miners since bitcoin started more than 2 years ago is about 2.93566e+18 and the total number of different hash results possible is 1.16E+77 so the chances of two hashes being the same is rather small
 816 2011-03-31 04:09:16 <LobsterMan> i guess what i'm trying to get at is how does the miner choose which numbers to try in its calculations?
 817 2011-03-31 04:09:31 <LobsterMan> and does stopping/starting it at different times alter this sequence?
 818 2011-03-31 04:09:42 <lfm> LobsterMan: have you heard of "the nonce"?
 819 2011-03-31 04:09:55 <LobsterMan> yes, but i don't know exactly what it means
 820 2011-03-31 04:10:19 <LobsterMan> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_nonce this?
 821 2011-03-31 04:10:35 <phantomcircuit> LobsterMan, so you're asking technical questions without having actually learned how it works?
 822 2011-03-31 04:10:36 <phantomcircuit> facepalm
 823 2011-03-31 04:10:43 <LobsterMan> lol
 824 2011-03-31 04:10:43 <grbgout> xenon481: are you aware of any pages that explain how the Raulo attack works (preferably in detail)?
 825 2011-03-31 04:10:47 <LobsterMan> i'm trying to understand how it works :P
 826 2011-03-31 04:10:59 <grbgout> LobsterMan: you should read the white paper.
 827 2011-03-31 04:11:01 <LobsterMan> learn/understand*
 828 2011-03-31 04:11:11 <LobsterMan> hmm probably
 829 2011-03-31 04:11:14 <phantomcircuit> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_hashing_algorithm
 830 2011-03-31 04:11:16 <grbgout> LobsterMan: http://www.bitcoin.org/faq#How_does_Bitcoin_work
 831 2011-03-31 04:11:17 <lfm> ok each time you start you have a different time stamp of course and ever miner has a different address for their input txn so no one starts with the same block. then you just set the nonce to zero and increase it by one for each hash try
 832 2011-03-31 04:11:19 <phantomcircuit> LobsterMan, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_hashing_algorithm
 833 2011-03-31 04:11:25 <grbgout> I recommend the white paper!
 834 2011-03-31 04:11:29 <xenon481> grbgout: there is an entire white paper on it that explains all of the math.
 835 2011-03-31 04:11:38 <grbgout> xenon481: awesome! Do you recall the title?
 836 2011-03-31 04:11:54 <grbgout> maybe googling Raulo Attack white paper would work?
 837 2011-03-31 04:12:00 <grbgout> I tried raulo bitcoin attack thus far
 838 2011-03-31 04:12:12 <xenon481> http://bitcoin.atspace.com/poolcheating.pdf
 839 2011-03-31 04:12:19 <grbgout> xenon481: you're the best, thank you.
 840 2011-03-31 04:12:33 <xenon481> as mentioned in this and many other threads: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4787.0
 841 2011-03-31 04:13:25 <grbgout> ah, I skimmed that thread when I first looked into BitCoin, but it seems I simply determined "okay, pooling is safe: depending on the pool."
 842 2011-03-31 04:13:27 <xenon481> Here is the original thread: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=3165.0
 843 2011-03-31 04:13:42 <grbgout> awesome, thanks again
 844 2011-03-31 04:13:50 <phantomcircuit> bd_, yeah it's that
 845 2011-03-31 04:13:51 <phantomcircuit> darn
 846 2011-03-31 04:17:31 Stellar has joined
 847 2011-03-31 04:18:17 joepie94 has joined
 848 2011-03-31 04:18:19 joepie93 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 849 2011-03-31 04:19:04 joepie95 has joined
 850 2011-03-31 04:20:07 skeledrew has joined
 851 2011-03-31 04:21:28 <LobsterMan> but yes....the monty hall problem comparison is really what i was getting at
 852 2011-03-31 04:21:28 <LobsterMan> if your hashes aren't working (which they are very likely not to, thus no blocks generated), bt stopping and starting again later, you get different hashes and may be slightly increasing your chances that one will work (and thus generate a block)
 853 2011-03-31 04:21:28 <LobsterMan> i may not actually know what i'm talking about, but i think a read through the bitcoin spec and a bit about merkle trees is in order... :)
 854 2011-03-31 04:22:11 <xenon481> LobsterMan: Monty Hall doesn't fit in this scenario.
 855 2011-03-31 04:22:13 noagendamarket has joined
 856 2011-03-31 04:22:19 <lfm> LobsterMan: you get different hashses if you dont stop too. there is no advantage to stopping
 857 2011-03-31 04:22:20 joepie94 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 858 2011-03-31 04:22:44 <LobsterMan> i don't totally understand how the monty hall problem works either :D
 859 2011-03-31 04:22:57 <xenon481> Monty Hall only fits with a known and limited set and only if you somebody is purposefully showing you something that you already know is bad.
 860 2011-03-31 04:23:05 <LobsterMan> hehe
 861 2011-03-31 04:23:37 * grbgout gives LobsterMan the bad eye.
 862 2011-03-31 04:24:02 <LobsterMan> but the set of all possible hashes is known and limited as (i think) lfm said
 863 2011-03-31 04:24:04 <xenon481> This is more like Deal or No Deal instead of Monty Hall
 864 2011-03-31 04:24:52 <grbgout> LobsterMan: dude! Just learn about it, and test your hypothesis on the testnet, stop givin' away ur secretz
 865 2011-03-31 04:25:00 <lfm> LobsterMan: huh? the set of all possible hashes is 2^256 so it isnt really known and it isnt in any order
 866 2011-03-31 04:25:01 <xenon481> LobsterMan: Yes, the hashes are known and limited, but only for one particular thing you are working on.
 867 2011-03-31 04:25:11 <xenon481> the thing you are working on is essentially constantly changing.
 868 2011-03-31 04:25:41 <xenon481> and yes, 2^256 is essentially infinite for any calculation purposes.
 869 2011-03-31 04:25:48 <grbgout> As I understand it, the timestamps, nonces, etc., is what cripples the monty hall paradox in this case.
 870 2011-03-31 04:26:01 <xenon481> Not just that.
 871 2011-03-31 04:26:04 <lfm> only limited in a theoretical sense. in practise there are so many we will never see them all
 872 2011-03-31 04:26:10 <grbgout> xenon481: "etc." means et cetera
 873 2011-03-31 04:26:29 <xenon481> right, but the problem is more fundamental than that.
 874 2011-03-31 04:26:48 <xenon481> This is the difference between Deal or No Deal and Monty Hall
 875 2011-03-31 04:26:52 <grbgout> elaborate, if you would be so kind.  I realize that's /exactly/ what you've been doing for about an hour now ^_^
 876 2011-03-31 04:27:05 <grbgout> one sec
 877 2011-03-31 04:27:10 <grbgout> let me look up DoND
 878 2011-03-31 04:27:30 <lfm> I dont think game shows are any help
 879 2011-03-31 04:27:36 <xenon481> Monty Hall, no matter what door you pick, you know that Monty is going to reveal a door that was not the winner.
 880 2011-03-31 04:27:51 <grbgout> I'm familiar.
 881 2011-03-31 04:28:22 <xenon481> In DoND, there is no guarantee that the briefcase they open to show you is or isn't going to be the winner.
 882 2011-03-31 04:28:22 <Netsniper> montyhallproblem
 883 2011-03-31 04:28:50 <xenon481> hashing is DoND.
 884 2011-03-31 04:29:19 <grbgout> I really want to jump in with my hypotheses on this matter, but I'd rather keep them to myself, investigate with testnet, and save us all the trouble. Ultimately publishing to the forum to put it to rest.
 885 2011-03-31 04:29:47 <LobsterMan> i'm going to have to do some testnet testing too lol
 886 2011-03-31 04:29:54 <grbgout> LobsterMan: perhaps we can work together.
 887 2011-03-31 04:31:06 <grbgout> Anyway, I haven't asked about the paradox yet because I'm not familiar enough with the technical details of btc.  I've been assuming that once I become so, then the paradox will quite obviously not apply.
 888 2011-03-31 04:31:18 <LobsterMan> yeah same here
 889 2011-03-31 04:31:31 <LobsterMan> i don't really understand all the technical details of bitcoin as well
 890 2011-03-31 04:31:37 <grbgout> LobsterMan: no, not same there, you totally mentioned it! Yur given away our sekretz ;)
 891 2011-03-31 04:31:42 <nanotube> grbgout: monty hall: requires that there be a party that knows ahead of time what's behind all doors.
 892 2011-03-31 04:31:51 <nanotube> grbgout: block hashing: nobody knows ahead of time
 893 2011-03-31 04:31:54 <grbgout> nanotube: I'm aware of monty hall.
 894 2011-03-31 04:31:57 <grbgout> nanotube: I'm aware.
 895 2011-03-31 04:32:04 <nanotube> hehe ok
 896 2011-03-31 04:32:11 AnonX has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 897 2011-03-31 04:32:11 <grbgout> I'll address that in time :)
 898 2011-03-31 04:32:18 <grbgout> nanotube: much reading to do before then, though.
 899 2011-03-31 04:32:26 <nanotube> but you said 'i'm not familiar with technical details, ... paradox, etc.
 900 2011-03-31 04:32:32 <nanotube> i'm just giving you the core difference. :)
 901 2011-03-31 04:32:43 <grbgout> I'm familiar with the paradoxes, just not the technical details of BTC.
 902 2011-03-31 04:32:52 <nanotube> heh k
 903 2011-03-31 04:33:11 <grbgout> by which I mean the nonces, merkle trees, block headers, protocols, etc.  In other words: I have yet to finish reading the white paper ('cause I'm a jerk), and I havne't read the source yet.
 904 2011-03-31 04:34:13 <nanotube> hehe ic
 905 2011-03-31 04:35:03 legion050 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 906 2011-03-31 04:36:55 aksoo has joined
 907 2011-03-31 04:37:19 <phantomcircuit> ;;bc,stats
 908 2011-03-31 04:37:22 <gribble> Current Blocks: 115878 | Current Difficulty: 68978.89245792 | Next Difficulty At Block: 116927 | Next Difficulty In: 1049 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 6 days, 14 hours, 30 minutes, and 56 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 76216.95728558
 909 2011-03-31 04:38:05 <nanotube> that estimate is creeping up slowly but surely
 910 2011-03-31 04:39:40 blahgitty has joined
 911 2011-03-31 04:41:45 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 912 2011-03-31 04:42:22 <Stellar> ya yesterday around 75xxxx :(
 913 2011-03-31 04:43:58 robotarmy has joined
 914 2011-03-31 04:44:46 cheeseman1208 has joined
 915 2011-03-31 04:46:03 glassresistor has joined
 916 2011-03-31 04:49:40 <LobsterMan> what was last diff? 74000 or something?
 917 2011-03-31 04:50:09 <grbgout> last I saw it, it was in the 6k range
 918 2011-03-31 04:50:50 skeledrew has joined
 919 2011-03-31 04:52:03 <LobsterMan> i started mining when diff was around 1200, but i got greedy and sold off all my coins as soon as i generated them back then, when the value was like 30¢ :/.
 920 2011-03-31 04:52:05 <LobsterMan> :/
 921 2011-03-31 04:52:54 <grbgout> wow
 922 2011-03-31 04:52:56 <LobsterMan> someone should make a grahp plotting value of 1bt over time superimposed over the difficulty over time
 923 2011-03-31 04:52:59 <grbgout> I started mining on march 24 >_<
 924 2011-03-31 04:53:14 <grbgout> have you looked at bitcoincharts?
 925 2011-03-31 04:53:20 <LobsterMan> not recently
 926 2011-03-31 04:53:20 <LobsterMan> lol
 927 2011-03-31 04:53:56 <LobsterMan> but yeah, i've made a fair bit from bitcoin over the past months, it's been more or less steadily paying for my cannabis since october :)
 928 2011-03-31 04:54:13 <grbgout> wow, nice.
 929 2011-03-31 04:54:21 <grbgout> What kind of khash/s do you get?
 930 2011-03-31 04:55:08 <xenon481> One hash for another.
 931 2011-03-31 04:55:13 <LobsterMan> not a lot, i get like 120mhash between my 2 gtx 275's and my core i7
 932 2011-03-31 04:55:39 cheeseman1208 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 933 2011-03-31 04:55:57 <LobsterMan> i make about 1btc/day from the pool
 934 2011-03-31 04:56:05 <grbgout> wow
 935 2011-03-31 04:56:10 * grbgout does not.
 936 2011-03-31 04:56:12 <LobsterMan> but sometimes i get lucky and generate my own blocks when i try mining for myself :D (although far fewer blocks than i used to get)
 937 2011-03-31 04:59:02 <grbgout> has anyone asked if freenode would accept BTC as donations?
 938 2011-03-31 05:00:07 <kiba> no
 939 2011-03-31 05:00:15 <kiba> but maybe YOU could make it happens
 940 2011-03-31 05:00:53 <grbgout> kiba: it's already on my todo list, along with my favorite private trackers.  I was /just/ asking if it had already been done.  No need to bite my head off.  T_T
 941 2011-03-31 05:01:12 <kiba> I am not aware
 942 2011-03-31 05:01:19 <kiba> of anybody convincing freenode
 943 2011-03-31 05:01:21 <kiba> or attempt to
 944 2011-03-31 05:01:31 * grbgout nods
 945 2011-03-31 05:01:50 <LobsterMan> i sent some btc to the eff a while back ^_^
 946 2011-03-31 05:01:57 <grbgout> nice
 947 2011-03-31 05:02:02 <kiba> maybe ya all could play at witcoin.com
 948 2011-03-31 05:02:08 <LobsterMan> back when coins were more plentiful and less valuable lol
 949 2011-03-31 05:03:00 <LobsterMan> hmm i can use my steam account with witcoin?
 950 2011-03-31 05:03:40 <kiba> LobsterMan: with 1 BTC, get you 100 posts
 951 2011-03-31 05:03:41 <kiba> mostly
 952 2011-03-31 05:03:54 <LobsterMan> so with .02btc i get 2 posts?
 953 2011-03-31 05:03:55 <LobsterMan> ^_^
 954 2011-03-31 05:04:01 <kiba> yes
 955 2011-03-31 05:04:02 <kiba> mostly
 956 2011-03-31 05:04:08 <kiba> some prices are cheaper for certain category
 957 2011-03-31 05:04:24 <kiba> like the philosophy category, the price is 0.001 BTC
 958 2011-03-31 05:04:30 <kiba> not to mention...you could earn BITCOIN!
 959 2011-03-31 05:04:32 glassresistor has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 960 2011-03-31 05:05:05 <LobsterMan> so i need to send 1bt to give myself a username as well?
 961 2011-03-31 05:05:27 <LobsterMan> hmm
 962 2011-03-31 05:05:55 <LobsterMan> how do i get a username?
 963 2011-03-31 05:05:58 * kiba forgets
 964 2011-03-31 05:06:08 * grbgout chuckles
 965 2011-03-31 05:06:11 <LobsterMan> lol....
 966 2011-03-31 05:06:12 <grbgout> isn't witcoin.com yours?
 967 2011-03-31 05:06:17 <kiba> no
 968 2011-03-31 05:06:19 <kiba> it's not mine
 969 2011-03-31 05:06:36 <kiba> I am just a guy who posted on witcoin and mostly profit from his entrepeneural effort
 970 2011-03-31 05:06:51 <LobsterMan> i should post my guides on there
 971 2011-03-31 05:07:27 <kiba> maybe you could make money
 972 2011-03-31 05:07:28 <kiba> or not
 973 2011-03-31 05:07:33 <LobsterMan> ...if i can figure out how to assign myself a damn username
 974 2011-03-31 05:08:00 <LobsterMan> so i just ident'd with steam and i see witizen234 at the top, i assume that is me?
 975 2011-03-31 05:08:19 <kiba> I guess so
 976 2011-03-31 05:08:26 <kiba> you're the 234 registered user on the site
 977 2011-03-31 05:08:55 xenon481 has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 978 2011-03-31 05:09:00 <kiba> click on that
 979 2011-03-31 05:09:10 <kiba> click on the witizen234
 980 2011-03-31 05:09:21 <kiba> you should find that profile thingy
 981 2011-03-31 05:09:32 robotarmy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 982 2011-03-31 05:09:33 <kiba> press edit
 983 2011-03-31 05:09:55 <LobsterMan> ah i see
 984 2011-03-31 05:10:56 <LobsterMan> thanks lol
 985 2011-03-31 05:14:46 * grbgout sighs.
 986 2011-03-31 05:14:51 <grbgout> so. many. distractions.
 987 2011-03-31 05:14:54 bitcoiner has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86.1 [Firefox 3.6.16/20110319135224])
 988 2011-03-31 05:14:57 <grbgout> I'm never going to read this white paper.
 989 2011-03-31 05:15:00 <LobsterMan> :D
 990 2011-03-31 05:15:03 <LobsterMan> lolinternets
 991 2011-03-31 05:15:06 <grbgout> indeed
 992 2011-03-31 05:15:14 <grbgout> stupid Diablo-D3 had to post a link that had a nsfw tab >_<
 993 2011-03-31 05:15:24 <LobsterMan> haha
 994 2011-03-31 05:19:14 <LobsterMan> sometimes i find putting on ambient music while i read helps me concentrate
 995 2011-03-31 05:19:26 <LobsterMan> www.soma.fm ;)
 996 2011-03-31 05:21:56 <grbgout> yeah, I do that with classical music, but I use pandora accessed through pianobar.
 997 2011-03-31 05:22:06 <grbgout> i'll check out soma.fm
 998 2011-03-31 05:24:33 <LobsterMan> soma is mostly electronic
 999 2011-03-31 05:24:36 <LobsterMan> good stuff
1000 2011-03-31 05:24:39 <grbgout> ah
1001 2011-03-31 05:29:32 roconnor has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1002 2011-03-31 05:30:59 <LobsterMan> so let me get this straight, i can only actually profit from witcoin if i make a category and someone uses it, or if i make a post/reply, and that post/reply gets upvoted?
1003 2011-03-31 05:32:00 f3n has joined
1004 2011-03-31 05:33:24 meeper has left ()
1005 2011-03-31 05:36:50 LtBrenton_ has joined
1006 2011-03-31 05:38:47 LtBrenton has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1007 2011-03-31 05:38:56 <noagendamarket> LobsterMan you mean I can only actually get bitcoins if I do some work ?
1008 2011-03-31 05:39:14 <noagendamarket> thats outrageous!
1009 2011-03-31 05:39:24 <LobsterMan> i'm not saying that...
1010 2011-03-31 05:39:24 <LobsterMan> it just seems that the early adopters are the ones who benefit the most
1011 2011-03-31 05:39:35 <LobsterMan> and this kind of reeks of pyramid scheme :)
1012 2011-03-31 05:40:39 <luke-jr> except that's witcoin, not bitcoin
1013 2011-03-31 05:40:45 <luke-jr> and it sounds like merit-based
1014 2011-03-31 05:40:59 <LobsterMan> it is, but only to some extent
1015 2011-03-31 05:41:08 <LobsterMan> and the people who got in earliest are the ones to benefit the most
1016 2011-03-31 05:41:28 <LobsterMan> and are there to make the most popular categories that are likely to possibly be used in the future, etc
1017 2011-03-31 05:42:54 <noagendamarket> they wont when the profit model changes
1018 2011-03-31 05:43:21 <noagendamarket> and category renters are reduced to .01% lol
1019 2011-03-31 05:43:30 <LobsterMan> are changes planned?
1020 2011-03-31 05:43:36 <noagendamarket> its in beta
1021 2011-03-31 05:44:03 <noagendamarket> so yes
1022 2011-03-31 05:48:23 CFSworks has joined
1023 2011-03-31 05:53:47 blahgitty has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1024 2011-03-31 06:10:02 Spenvo has joined
1025 2011-03-31 06:10:05 <Spenvo> talkin witcoin?
1026 2011-03-31 06:10:09 <Spenvo> :)
1027 2011-03-31 06:10:20 RBecker has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1028 2011-03-31 06:10:49 RBecker has joined
1029 2011-03-31 06:19:16 dissipate has joined
1030 2011-03-31 06:19:16 dissipate has quit (Changing host)
1031 2011-03-31 06:19:16 dissipate has joined
1032 2011-03-31 06:24:54 [Tycho] has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1033 2011-03-31 06:34:13 glassresistor has joined
1034 2011-03-31 06:40:32 x6763 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1035 2011-03-31 06:49:37 techie has joined
1036 2011-03-31 06:50:28 techie has quit (Client Quit)
1037 2011-03-31 06:51:11 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1038 2011-03-31 06:54:06 FabianB has joined
1039 2011-03-31 06:54:28 TippenEin_ has joined
1040 2011-03-31 06:54:47 FabianB_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1041 2011-03-31 06:54:50 TippenEin has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1042 2011-03-31 06:54:53 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1043 2011-03-31 06:54:56 TippenEin_ is now known as TippenEin
1044 2011-03-31 06:55:15 satamusic has joined
1045 2011-03-31 06:55:15 satamusic has quit (Changing host)
1046 2011-03-31 06:55:15 satamusic has joined
1047 2011-03-31 06:56:02 x6763 has joined
1048 2011-03-31 06:56:48 wolfspraul has joined
1049 2011-03-31 06:57:16 <grbgout> Are there any "getting started with testnet" style guides out there?
1050 2011-03-31 06:57:41 <LobsterMan> i'm pretty sure all you need to do is launch bitcoin with --testnet specified at launch
1051 2011-03-31 06:57:44 <LobsterMan> and then just do whatever as normal
1052 2011-03-31 06:57:50 <grbgout> ah
1053 2011-03-31 06:57:54 <grbgout> good to know
1054 2011-03-31 07:03:14 Kicchiri has joined
1055 2011-03-31 07:03:14 ForceDestroyer has quit (Disconnected by services)
1056 2011-03-31 07:03:25 chaord has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1057 2011-03-31 07:15:14 aninoni has joined
1058 2011-03-31 07:19:20 Minert has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1059 2011-03-31 07:35:31 aninoni has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1060 2011-03-31 07:38:51 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1061 2011-03-31 07:41:56 TheAncientGoat has joined
1062 2011-03-31 07:51:44 dissipate has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1063 2011-03-31 07:52:49 toffoo has joined
1064 2011-03-31 07:53:50 satamusic has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1065 2011-03-31 08:03:22 Syke_ has joined
1066 2011-03-31 08:06:29 SykeP has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1067 2011-03-31 08:20:10 kabo69 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1068 2011-03-31 08:20:16 kabo69 has joined
1069 2011-03-31 08:28:37 CFSworks has quit ()
1070 2011-03-31 08:28:48 adlsaks has joined
1071 2011-03-31 08:40:33 <Stellar> ;;bc,est
1072 2011-03-31 08:40:34 <gribble> Error: "bc,est" is not a valid command.
1073 2011-03-31 08:42:56 [Tycho] has joined
1074 2011-03-31 08:44:01 <grbgout> wb [Tycho]
1075 2011-03-31 08:45:42 <[Tycho]> Hello.
1076 2011-03-31 08:46:24 <grbgout> How are you?
1077 2011-03-31 08:46:44 <[Tycho]> I'm ok, thanks.
1078 2011-03-31 08:49:11 Syke__ has joined
1079 2011-03-31 08:49:38 Syke_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1080 2011-03-31 08:51:14 chaord has joined
1081 2011-03-31 09:01:30 BlueMatt has joined
1082 2011-03-31 09:05:11 AnonX has joined
1083 2011-03-31 09:07:36 jnd has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1084 2011-03-31 09:09:08 jnd has joined
1085 2011-03-31 09:14:53 m00p has joined
1086 2011-03-31 09:29:38 Spenvo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1087 2011-03-31 09:32:39 devon_hillard has joined
1088 2011-03-31 09:36:57 rli has joined
1089 2011-03-31 09:47:33 noagendamarket has joined
1090 2011-03-31 09:48:39 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1091 2011-03-31 10:02:16 slothbag10 has joined
1092 2011-03-31 10:05:14 lfm has quit (Quit: ircII EPIC4-2.10 -- Are we there yet?)
1093 2011-03-31 10:05:14 overtork has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1094 2011-03-31 10:05:40 overtork has joined
1095 2011-03-31 10:17:04 slothbag10 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1096 2011-03-31 10:18:07 TippenEin has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1097 2011-03-31 10:18:54 jackSmith has joined
1098 2011-03-31 10:21:47 deceit has joined
1099 2011-03-31 10:23:33 Pander has joined
1100 2011-03-31 10:31:42 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * rebc9a8703959 intersango/www/header.php: per nanotube's suggestion: switch buy to show sell rates & vice versa. http://tinyurl.com/4o9pu7p
1101 2011-03-31 10:31:43 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * r08ec5accf4b7 intersango/www/exchanger.js: fixed decimal places for exchanger. http://tinyurl.com/4jj5zde
1102 2011-03-31 10:39:18 genjix has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1103 2011-03-31 10:40:08 adlsaks has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1104 2011-03-31 10:41:23 genjix has joined
1105 2011-03-31 10:41:23 genjix has quit (Changing host)
1106 2011-03-31 10:41:23 genjix has joined
1107 2011-03-31 10:41:41 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * rf61ca2ef75fc intersango/orderbook.php: changed exchange rate wording to reflect new alg. http://tinyurl.com/4dkcbwx
1108 2011-03-31 10:51:43 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * r2cc77436f189 intersango/util.php: fixed conversion function to stop float rounding errors. http://tinyurl.com/499vd3n
1109 2011-03-31 10:53:39 adlsaks has joined
1110 2011-03-31 11:11:43 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix <fake@lol.u> * r26810c98f53b intersango/util.php: force fixed precision in exchange rates SQL. http://tinyurl.com/6ynfwgv
1111 2011-03-31 11:13:19 FellowTraveler has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1112 2011-03-31 11:14:28 <Pander> my python ServiceProxy hangs on respdata = urllib.urlopen(self.__serviceURL, postdata).read() How can I trouble shoot this?
1113 2011-03-31 11:16:49 <manveru> Pander: hanging forever?
1114 2011-03-31 11:20:29 <Pander> jep
1115 2011-03-31 11:21:08 <Pander> I have bitcoin running on "8333/tcp open  unknown"
1116 2011-03-31 11:21:21 <Pander> did not supply username and password, correct?
1117 2011-03-31 11:24:20 <tcatm> RPC uses port 8332
1118 2011-03-31 11:26:45 <Pander> nmap is not listing it :(
1119 2011-03-31 11:27:19 <tcatm> did you run bitcoin with -server?
1120 2011-03-31 11:27:29 <Pander> ah, that is the problem
1121 2011-03-31 11:27:43 <manveru> is that bitcoind?
1122 2011-03-31 11:27:53 <Pander> gui
1123 2011-03-31 11:28:01 <manveru> ah, ok
1124 2011-03-31 11:28:10 <tcatm> btw: netstat -ltp is more useful than nmap localhost
1125 2011-03-31 11:31:35 <manveru> hehe
1126 2011-03-31 11:31:43 <manveru> i didn't even notice...
1127 2011-03-31 11:32:38 <Pander> it works, thanks
1128 2011-03-31 11:32:53 subpar has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1129 2011-03-31 11:33:04 <Pander> feature request, have the GUI report on running client or server mode
1130 2011-03-31 11:33:50 <sipa> you mean whether or not it's accepting RPC connections?
1131 2011-03-31 11:39:51 <genjix> Pander: are you using the ServiceProxy from the wiki?
1132 2011-03-31 11:39:55 <genjix> just an fyi
1133 2011-03-31 11:40:09 <genjix> that one properly handles numbers.
1134 2011-03-31 11:44:08 jroot has joined
1135 2011-03-31 11:48:06 DrQ has joined
1136 2011-03-31 11:50:05 <manveru> man... ##smalltalk is really dead
1137 2011-03-31 11:56:49 <Pander> genjix, yes
1138 2011-03-31 11:57:15 <Pander> sipa: yes
1139 2011-03-31 11:57:32 noagendamarket has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1140 2011-03-31 12:00:40 larsivi has joined
1141 2011-03-31 12:19:12 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1142 2011-03-31 12:20:04 AnonX has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1143 2011-03-31 12:25:11 adlsaks has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1144 2011-03-31 12:33:40 <genjix> luke-jr: how do i add projects to your bot?
1145 2011-03-31 12:35:18 aksoo has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1146 2011-03-31 12:35:43 Lartza has joined
1147 2011-03-31 12:35:43 Lartza has quit (Changing host)
1148 2011-03-31 12:35:43 Lartza has joined
1149 2011-03-31 12:43:11 <ersi> [Tycho]: Deepbit.net's awesome. Thanks for a neat pool. :]
1150 2011-03-31 12:47:51 skeledrew has quit (Quit: Instantbird 0.3a2pre)
1151 2011-03-31 12:52:08 m00p has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1152 2011-03-31 12:57:06 larsivi has joined
1153 2011-03-31 13:00:00 <mizerydearia> Is it acceptable for 1hr interval backups or should I issue backupwallet after every bitcoin address generated?
1154 2011-03-31 13:00:29 <xelister> THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE
1155 2011-03-31 13:00:41 <mizerydearia> hmm <lfm> well backupwallet makes a new copy and people assume the backups are also then usable. kinda a mess
1156 2011-03-31 13:00:41 <taco_the_paco> ^
1157 2011-03-31 13:00:55 <mizerydearia> xelister, oh?
1158 2011-03-31 13:02:03 <mizerydearia> after every bitcoin address generated and after every outgoing transaction?
1159 2011-03-31 13:02:12 <xelister> mizerydearia: =/)
1160 2011-03-31 13:02:12 <mizerydearia> using sendtoaddress and sendfrom methods?
1161 2011-03-31 13:02:46 <mizerydearia> humm
1162 2011-03-31 13:03:36 <mizerydearia> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Backup#Backup doesn't seem to explain best backup procedure
1163 2011-03-31 13:03:44 <mizerydearia> so if it's unacceptable, I am not sure what is
1164 2011-03-31 13:03:56 <mizerydearia> the example shows similar 1 hour cronjob
1165 2011-03-31 13:04:37 <mizerydearia> so if it is unacceptable, then the content on the wiki is promiting unacceptability
1166 2011-03-31 13:06:03 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1167 2011-03-31 13:06:37 molecular has joined
1168 2011-03-31 13:07:16 <mizerydearia> I'll ask in #bitcoin-discussion, thanks...sorry if wrong channel to ask
1169 2011-03-31 13:07:35 <Diablo-D3> mizerydearia: well
1170 2011-03-31 13:07:38 <Diablo-D3> it isnt up to the wiki to do it
1171 2011-03-31 13:07:46 slush has joined
1172 2011-03-31 13:07:52 <Diablo-D3> standard mission critical backup procedures should be used
1173 2011-03-31 13:08:32 <mizerydearia> hmm...  I haven't established any standardizations of my own or adopted from others established standards, but I'll figure it out.
1174 2011-03-31 13:09:58 <mizerydearia> Although, as a note, I am inexperienced with mission criticality and production environments at least professionally...
1175 2011-03-31 13:10:55 <Diablo-D3> step one: identify what needs to be backed up
1176 2011-03-31 13:11:15 <Diablo-D3> step two: encrypt it where the key can be read from a non-electronic medium
1177 2011-03-31 13:11:50 <mizerydearia> I just established a backup routing: 1 hr interval, backup to file, compress file, encrypt file, delete first two unencrypted files, push file to remove server, finis!
1178 2011-03-31 13:12:02 <Diablo-D3> step three: make multiple backups for physically seperate secured locations on non-magnetic media
1179 2011-03-31 13:12:06 <mizerydearia> however, I am not entirely certain if 1hr backups are sufficient enough... so I must figure out step 1 better
1180 2011-03-31 13:12:15 <Diablo-D3> step four: do not store the encryption passphrase with any backup
1181 2011-03-31 13:12:18 <Diablo-D3> step five: ????
1182 2011-03-31 13:12:20 <Diablo-D3> step six: profit!
1183 2011-03-31 13:12:23 <mizerydearia> of course
1184 2011-03-31 13:12:25 <mizerydearia> always profit
1185 2011-03-31 13:12:33 <Diablo-D3> mizerydearia: and btw, with the wallet
1186 2011-03-31 13:12:38 <Diablo-D3> theres no time limit
1187 2011-03-31 13:12:40 <mizerydearia> but what if step 1 is profit?  then what is step 2 and 3?
1188 2011-03-31 13:13:02 <Diablo-D3> its after every change in the wallet that ends in coins being sent to you
1189 2011-03-31 13:13:06 <taco_the_paco> then step 2 and 3 are go to /b/ for moar profit? :o
1190 2011-03-31 13:13:17 <Diablo-D3> mizerydearia: btw, you missed an important slashdot meme
1191 2011-03-31 13:13:22 <mizerydearia> I did
1192 2011-03-31 13:13:24 <taco_the_paco> ^
1193 2011-03-31 13:13:28 <mizerydearia> I haven't been paying attention to anything lately
1194 2011-03-31 13:13:35 <Diablo-D3> lately as in the past 10 years?
1195 2011-03-31 13:13:35 <mizerydearia> been too busy with interview questions and other works
1196 2011-03-31 13:13:39 jnd has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1197 2011-03-31 13:13:40 <mizerydearia> Diablo-D3, yes
1198 2011-03-31 13:13:48 <Diablo-D3> that meme is older than dirt
1199 2011-03-31 13:13:52 <mizerydearia> I am familiar with the step 1: blah
1200 2011-03-31 13:13:53 <mizerydearia> step 2: ???
1201 2011-03-31 13:13:56 DrQ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1202 2011-03-31 13:13:56 <mizerydearia> step 3: profit
1203 2011-03-31 13:14:01 <Diablo-D3> mizerydearia: but yes, what I said is fully correct.
1204 2011-03-31 13:14:07 <Diablo-D3> you cannot possibly lose anything.
1205 2011-03-31 13:15:29 <mizerydearia> <Diablo-D3> its after every change in the wallet that ends in coins being sent to you --- so if I rename an account, then the wallet is changed and coins are sent to me?
1206 2011-03-31 13:16:10 <Diablo-D3> accounts dont exist
1207 2011-03-31 13:16:22 <Diablo-D3> it doesnt effect which coins are yours
1208 2011-03-31 13:16:27 * mizerydearia nods
1209 2011-03-31 13:16:32 <Diablo-D3> the outside network cant see your accounts
1210 2011-03-31 13:16:37 <mizerydearia> yep
1211 2011-03-31 13:16:47 <mizerydearia> it's contained within data in wallet file
1212 2011-03-31 13:17:03 <Diablo-D3> yes, so you'd only lose the metadata that hasnt been updated
1213 2011-03-31 13:17:35 <Diablo-D3> backup or not after that, it makes no real difference
1214 2011-03-31 13:18:02 <mizerydearia> I think I will establish a 1min cronjob, and if the file is different than from last minute, I'll back it up and push to remote server
1215 2011-03-31 13:18:44 <Diablo-D3> mizerydearia: yes as long as your script is smart enough to use the rpc method to tell it to backup
1216 2011-03-31 13:18:50 <mizerydearia> yep
1217 2011-03-31 13:18:53 <Diablo-D3> and your backup has to be done with ssh
1218 2011-03-31 13:19:03 <mizerydearia> rsync
1219 2011-03-31 13:19:34 <Diablo-D3> no, ssh.
1220 2011-03-31 13:19:51 <Diablo-D3> whats the point of transferring the file, even if it is encrypted, over plaintext?
1221 2011-03-31 13:19:52 <mizerydearia> http://www.evbackup.com/support-rsync-setup/
1222 2011-03-31 13:20:38 BlueMatt has joined
1223 2011-03-31 13:21:25 <Diablo-D3> you have not answered question
1224 2011-03-31 13:22:01 <mizerydearia> the vps with the compress and encrypted wallet uses an ssh connection and rsync to transfer the backups to the remote server
1225 2011-03-31 13:22:22 <mizerydearia> I do not believe the connection is plaintext as you have suggested
1226 2011-03-31 13:22:35 <Diablo-D3> uh
1227 2011-03-31 13:22:39 <Diablo-D3> but it still uses ssh.
1228 2011-03-31 13:22:43 <mizerydearia> yes
1229 2011-03-31 13:22:48 <Diablo-D3> why the fuck tunnel rsync over ssh
1230 2011-03-31 13:22:49 <Diablo-D3> thats retarded
1231 2011-03-31 13:23:04 <Pander> ssh over rsync sounds more sane
1232 2011-03-31 13:23:10 skeledrew has joined
1233 2011-03-31 13:23:15 <Pander> not
1234 2011-03-31 13:23:48 jnd has joined
1235 2011-03-31 13:23:53 <mizerydearia> so then apparently that documentation which shows step-by-step directions is insane
1236 2011-03-31 13:24:42 <mizerydearia> and I'm a (insert profanity here (more profanity here (even more here for more powar))) newb ^_^
1237 2011-03-31 13:24:58 * mizerydearia changes nick back to newbdearia
1238 2011-03-31 13:27:06 <sipa> i'd say rsync over ssh is combining the advantages of both
1239 2011-03-31 13:28:20 <BlueMatt> I'd agree
1240 2011-03-31 13:28:57 <Diablo-D3> a) its a single file
1241 2011-03-31 13:29:00 <Diablo-D3> b) its a single BINARY file
1242 2011-03-31 13:29:20 <sipa> of which large parts remain unchanged
1243 2011-03-31 13:29:26 <Diablo-D3> c) scp already cares about the integrity
1244 2011-03-31 13:29:35 <Diablo-D3> sipa: nope, its encrypted, and passphrases are nonces.
1245 2011-03-31 13:29:42 <genjix> i encrypt my data using my gpg key and copy it over scp
1246 2011-03-31 13:29:43 <Diablo-D3> well, phonces.
1247 2011-03-31 13:29:51 <sipa> Diablo-D3: you're right
1248 2011-03-31 13:30:02 <Diablo-D3> and who the fuck diffs a binary file
1249 2011-03-31 13:30:04 <Diablo-D3> thats crazy talk
1250 2011-03-31 13:30:24 <BlueMatt> oh for on file backup? no why would you ur rsync
1251 2011-03-31 13:30:31 <BlueMatt> one*
1252 2011-03-31 13:30:32 <sipa> anyway, i was talking about rsync over ssh in general - in this specific case rsync is unnecessary overhead indeed
1253 2011-03-31 13:30:34 <mizerydearia> I use rsync because I backup more than a single bitcoin wallet file.  I additionally backup sql database file and archive of other important data files.
1254 2011-03-31 13:30:47 <genjix> mizerydearia: so do i.
1255 2011-03-31 13:30:58 <genjix> you can tar them if you must.
1256 2011-03-31 13:31:04 <mizerydearia> I use bz2
1257 2011-03-31 13:31:16 <genjix> wat
1258 2011-03-31 13:31:16 <BlueMatt> tar --lzma here
1259 2011-03-31 13:31:21 <mizerydearia> hmm
1260 2011-03-31 13:31:34 <BlueMatt> well only for the really big ones
1261 2011-03-31 13:31:37 <genjix> you tar them, encrypt, then use rsync over ssh?
1262 2011-03-31 13:32:11 <jgarzik> tar seems pointless, when rsync does compression, unless you have a truly -massive- amount of data, and you have CPU/wall-clock time available to compress said data
1263 2011-03-31 13:32:14 <BlueMatt> FTP to backups server on LAN which distribute via a ton of protocols
1264 2011-03-31 13:32:24 * Diablo-D3 just facepalms at the fail
1265 2011-03-31 13:32:26 <genjix> damn
1266 2011-03-31 13:32:28 <jgarzik> ftp?  gah :)
1267 2011-03-31 13:32:33 <mizerydearia> I have limited storage capacity on the backup server.
1268 2011-03-31 13:32:35 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: rsync doesnt KEEP it compressed
1269 2011-03-31 13:32:37 * sipa uses his walletdump patch to make backups :)
1270 2011-03-31 13:32:38 <Diablo-D3> and scp does multiple files.
1271 2011-03-31 13:32:40 <BlueMatt> yea sucks but for LAN
1272 2011-03-31 13:32:43 <genjix> that's why you don't keep your source code hidden
1273 2011-03-31 13:32:44 <Diablo-D3> there is no win using rsync here
1274 2011-03-31 13:32:52 <genjix> for when you do retarded stuff like this :D
1275 2011-03-31 13:32:55 <mizerydearia> I compress with bz2 so the siltes on the remote server are minimal space consumption
1276 2011-03-31 13:32:58 <mizerydearia> files*
1277 2011-03-31 13:33:17 <genjix> you should backup to your local computer
1278 2011-03-31 13:33:23 <mizerydearia> I have no space left
1279 2011-03-31 13:33:25 <genjix> backups should never be remote
1280 2011-03-31 13:33:26 <mizerydearia> plus
1281 2011-03-31 13:33:29 <Diablo-D3> why is no one listening to my advice
1282 2011-03-31 13:33:30 <genjix> never
1283 2011-03-31 13:33:34 <jgarzik> duplicity works great as a backup
1284 2011-03-31 13:33:35 <mizerydearia> if my local computer is confiscated, then those backups are useless
1285 2011-03-31 13:33:45 <Diablo-D3> [09:09:09] <Diablo-D3> step one: identify what needs to be backed up
1286 2011-03-31 13:33:45 <Diablo-D3> [09:09:29] <Diablo-D3> step two: encrypt it where the key can be read from a non-electronic medium
1287 2011-03-31 13:33:49 <Diablo-D3> [09:10:16] <Diablo-D3> step three: make multiple backups for physically seperate secured locations on non-magnetic media
1288 2011-03-31 13:33:52 <Diablo-D3> [09:10:28] <Diablo-D3> step four: do not store the encryption passphrase with any backup
1289 2011-03-31 13:33:56 <BlueMatt> jgarzil: na tar --lzma can provide pretty damn good rates esp for large files and when you only have 20-30gb to backup to
1290 2011-03-31 13:34:06 <genjix> that's why you backup the backups and put them in multiple locations but not on the remote host.
1291 2011-03-31 13:34:06 <Diablo-D3> and no, lzma sucks
1292 2011-03-31 13:34:18 <mizerydearia> Diablo-D3, I think you need to flood the channel repeating each line 10-100 times before anyone will listen.  Otherwise, use a larger font.
1293 2011-03-31 13:34:36 <Diablo-D3> mizerydearia: if irc had <blink> I would be using it right now.
1294 2011-03-31 13:34:44 <BlueMatt> why not all caps while you are at it?
1295 2011-03-31 13:34:52 <mizerydearia> and space the letters out
1296 2011-03-31 13:34:55 <genjix> COLOURED FONT TOO
1297 2011-03-31 13:34:57 <mizerydearia> l   i   e   k       t   h   i   s
1298 2011-03-31 13:35:11 <Diablo-D3> you cant even spell like right
1299 2011-03-31 13:35:12 <Diablo-D3> noob
1300 2011-03-31 13:35:20 <Diablo-D3> lrzip > *
1301 2011-03-31 13:35:27 <genjix> _C_ _O_ _L_ _O_ _U_ _R_ _S_
1302 2011-03-31 13:35:31 <mizerydearia> sure I can http://gnomesphere.com/cm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=35&Itemid=65
1303 2011-03-31 13:35:42 <Diablo-D3> try finding something that can compress 30gb better
1304 2011-03-31 13:35:54 glassresistor has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1305 2011-03-31 13:36:46 <jgarzik> mizerydearia: people will still miss what Diablo-D3 says, when he is languishing in the /ignore bin
1306 2011-03-31 13:36:50 <EvanR-work> genjix: i see none
1307 2011-03-31 13:37:04 <genjix> because i don't know how to do colours on irssi
1308 2011-03-31 13:37:13 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: hurr.
1309 2011-03-31 13:37:28 <Diablo-D3> anyhow, either listen to my advice, or lose money.
1310 2011-03-31 13:37:35 <Diablo-D3> its not like you really have a choice here.
1311 2011-03-31 13:37:37 <genjix> i listen to your advice :)
1312 2011-03-31 13:37:47 <BlueMatt> meh he's almost always right, if not a bit annoying often
1313 2011-03-31 13:37:59 <genjix> yup
1314 2011-03-31 13:38:09 <genjix> @ 1st statement
1315 2011-03-31 13:38:40 <Diablo-D3> BlueMatt: even when Im wrong, its not that Im wrong, its just pendantentry gone wrong
1316 2011-03-31 13:38:59 <mizerydearia> jgarzik, eh, I'm not so picky.  I can handle/tolerate the effort.  I do agree sometimes that through stupidity, naivety, lack of education, experience, perfection, or anything else that I forgot to reference, it provides easy opportunity for someone to become frustrated, aggravated, fumingly mad, disappointed, etc.
1317 2011-03-31 13:39:02 <genjix> you mean pedantry
1318 2011-03-31 13:39:16 <Diablo-D3> "ahah! here you should have used a semicolon instead of a comma!" "no, my only weakness!"
1319 2011-03-31 13:39:16 <BlueMatt> hadn't seen lrzip, but the memory thing is a bit of a problem for my BMW
1320 2011-03-31 13:39:20 <Diablo-D3> genjix: no, I mean the meme.
1321 2011-03-31 13:39:20 <BlueMatt> vms*
1322 2011-03-31 13:39:28 <Diablo-D3> BlueMatt: it uses as much memory as you have.
1323 2011-03-31 13:39:52 <BlueMatt> mm, well I guess I'll have to try it sometime
1324 2011-03-31 13:39:54 <genjix> bindkey -k ^[ prev
1325 2011-03-31 13:40:05 <Diablo-D3> BlueMatt: you can either reduce the infinite window size, or just get much slower
1326 2011-03-31 13:40:07 <genjix> what's wrong with that binding for mapping c-[ to prev in screenrc?
1327 2011-03-31 13:40:19 <mizerydearia> jgarzik, However, it is nice and appreciative though, that his responses are still informative and helpful even with a kind of elitest influence.
1328 2011-03-31 13:40:41 <Diablo-D3> BlueMatt: the default is usually best
1329 2011-03-31 13:41:42 <Diablo-D3> its sorta like lzma, but with unlimited window size, and enough code in the frontend to make lzma not suck so much dick
1330 2011-03-31 13:43:07 <Diablo-D3> BlueMatt: if you say have 20gb of shit to compress and have 20gb free memory, it'll happily let you have a 20gb window.
1331 2011-03-31 13:43:40 <BlueMatt> nice, well some o my vms only get like 256 or even 128 so...
1332 2011-03-31 13:43:45 <BlueMatt> of*
1333 2011-03-31 13:44:08 <mizerydearia> Diablo-D3, no offense intended (meant as humorous maybe), but are you affiliated with Tourettes Guy? ^_^
1334 2011-03-31 13:44:18 <Diablo-D3> mizerydearia: who?
1335 2011-03-31 13:44:21 <mizerydearia> o_X
1336 2011-03-31 13:44:30 <mizerydearia> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqtr_RvR3sY
1337 2011-03-31 13:44:46 <Diablo-D3> btw, see the very bottom comment http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=81
1338 2011-03-31 13:44:57 <Diablo-D3> look at the compression size, then look at the time taken
1339 2011-03-31 13:48:00 <BlueMatt> damn
1340 2011-03-31 13:48:28 <mizerydearia> lawl "Bitch....... I love you!"
1341 2011-03-31 13:53:29 genjix has quit (Quit: leaving)
1342 2011-03-31 13:54:28 genjix has joined
1343 2011-03-31 13:54:28 genjix has quit (Changing host)
1344 2011-03-31 13:54:28 genjix has joined
1345 2011-03-31 13:55:48 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: leaving)
1346 2011-03-31 13:56:40 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1347 2011-03-31 14:10:37 slush has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1348 2011-03-31 14:12:16 BlueMatt has joined
1349 2011-03-31 14:12:16 BlueMatt has quit (Changing host)
1350 2011-03-31 14:12:16 BlueMatt has joined
1351 2011-03-31 14:12:51 <Diablo-D3> BlueMatt: most of the awesomery isnt the obvious
1352 2011-03-31 14:12:55 <Diablo-D3> the frontend is written very well
1353 2011-03-31 14:12:59 da2ce7 is now known as da2ceZzzz
1354 2011-03-31 14:13:20 <BlueMatt> Diablo-D3: wow you had that queued
1355 2011-03-31 14:13:54 <Diablo-D3> no, I went afk and came back
1356 2011-03-31 14:14:09 <Diablo-D3> I didnt even notice you left until you said something
1357 2011-03-31 14:14:36 <BlueMatt> Diablo-D3: no I left like 10 minutes ago got back like 10 seconds ago
1358 2011-03-31 14:14:47 <Diablo-D3> yes, and I went afk right after I said my last line
1359 2011-03-31 14:14:52 <Diablo-D3> [09:46:14] <BlueMatt> damn
1360 2011-03-31 14:14:55 <Diablo-D3> I went afk before that line
1361 2011-03-31 14:15:06 <BlueMatt> oh
1362 2011-03-31 14:15:33 <Diablo-D3> but yeah, as I was saying, the frontend is so well written that they can just eat more cpu time compressing
1363 2011-03-31 14:15:43 <Diablo-D3> oh, and its perfectly multithreaded
1364 2011-03-31 14:15:52 <Diablo-D3> have 8 cores? it'll happily compress 8 times faster
1365 2011-03-31 14:16:41 <BlueMatt> wow, sounds amazing.  I guess Ill have to start using that then
1366 2011-03-31 14:16:50 <Diablo-D3> btw, you know who wrote it, right?
1367 2011-03-31 14:16:57 <BlueMatt> you?
1368 2011-03-31 14:17:01 <Diablo-D3> no, ck
1369 2011-03-31 14:17:08 <Diablo-D3> the bfs scheduler guy
1370 2011-03-31 14:17:13 <BlueMatt> oh nice
1371 2011-03-31 14:27:34 DrQ has joined
1372 2011-03-31 14:28:44 <cosurgi> ;;bc,later help
1373 2011-03-31 14:28:44 <gribble> Error: "bc,later" is not a valid command.
1374 2011-03-31 14:28:50 <cosurgi> ;;bc,tell help
1375 2011-03-31 14:28:50 <gribble> Error: "bc,tell" is not a valid command.
1376 2011-03-31 14:29:34 <BlueMatt> its later tell BlueMatt hi
1377 2011-03-31 14:29:38 <cosurgi> ;;tell slush got idea.
1378 2011-03-31 14:29:38 <gribble> Error: I haven't seen slush, I'll let you do the telling.
1379 2011-03-31 14:29:55 <BlueMatt> ;;later tell
1380 2011-03-31 14:29:55 <gribble> (later tell <nick> <text>) -- Tells <nick> <text> the next time <nick> is in seen. <nick> can contain wildcard characters, and the first matching nick will be given the note.
1381 2011-03-31 14:29:57 <cosurgi> ;;later tell slush got idea.
1382 2011-03-31 14:29:57 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
1383 2011-03-31 14:30:01 <cosurgi> ok, thx :)
1384 2011-03-31 14:37:03 Zenith77 has joined
1385 2011-03-31 14:37:43 <genjix> ;;later tell genjix hello
1386 2011-03-31 14:37:44 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
1387 2011-03-31 14:37:45 <genjix> d
1388 2011-03-31 14:37:53 <genjix> yoyo
1389 2011-03-31 14:37:56 <Aciid> =)
1390 2011-03-31 14:38:02 <genjix> it doesn't work?
1391 2011-03-31 14:38:10 <genjix> ohh pm
1392 2011-03-31 14:38:35 <cosurgi> [Tycho]: which pool is yours, deepbit?
1393 2011-03-31 14:48:59 genjix_ has joined
1394 2011-03-31 14:53:33 genjix_ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1395 2011-03-31 14:56:17 xenon481 has joined
1396 2011-03-31 15:07:04 echelon_ has joined
1397 2011-03-31 15:10:04 echelon_ is now known as echelon
1398 2011-03-31 15:13:21 DrQ has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1399 2011-03-31 15:15:43 maikmerten has joined
1400 2011-03-31 15:19:10 <luke-jr> genjix: click "Register project" at http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin
1401 2011-03-31 15:19:38 <luke-jr> genjix: note that it ONLY mirrors right now, it doesn't host
1402 2011-03-31 15:20:18 dnm has left ()
1403 2011-03-31 15:21:28 slush has joined
1404 2011-03-31 15:25:46 DrQ has joined
1405 2011-03-31 15:30:07 DrQ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1406 2011-03-31 15:43:21 <xelister> [514780.944188] [fglrx:fireglAsyncioIntDisableMsgHandler] *ERROR* IRQMGR returned error 9 when trying to disable interrupt source ff000034
1407 2011-03-31 15:43:23 <xelister> [514904.460735] Assertion failed in ../../../../../../../../drivers/2d/lnx/fgl/drm/kernel/hal_evergreen.c at line: 64
1408 2011-03-31 15:43:27 <xelister> hal_evergreen.c
1409 2011-03-31 15:43:40 <xelister> hal_foreverFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
1410 2011-03-31 15:44:05 <xelister> it's officiall, ALL BOXES with radeon binary drivers crash as shit on VT switch
1411 2011-03-31 15:45:30 aninoni has joined
1412 2011-03-31 15:50:41 <luke-jr> xelister: not mine
1413 2011-03-31 15:54:35 devrandom has joined
1414 2011-03-31 16:01:04 dissipate has joined
1415 2011-03-31 16:01:33 Erazmus has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1416 2011-03-31 16:01:42 <CIA-96> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr <luke-jr+git@utopios.org> myFreeTx * r62c7ed7a2990 bitcoind-personal/main.cpp: accept own transactions without a fee http://tinyurl.com/64n84vg
1417 2011-03-31 16:02:26 glassresistor has joined
1418 2011-03-31 16:04:55 kermit has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1419 2011-03-31 16:04:56 eao has joined
1420 2011-03-31 16:05:35 xenon481 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1421 2011-03-31 16:06:40 <CIA-96> bitcoin: phantomcircuit <phantomcircuit@covertinferno.org> * rfc5993e998ab bitcoin-alt/ (11 files in 4 dirs): Merge branch 'sqlite3' http://tinyurl.com/6aqkxp5
1422 2011-03-31 16:06:43 <CIA-96> bitcoin: phantomcircuit <phantomcircuit@covertinferno.org> * rb10d1f2e476f bitcoin-alt/bitcoin/storage.py: oops http://tinyurl.com/675bq4y
1423 2011-03-31 16:09:19 davex__ has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1424 2011-03-31 16:09:44 kermit has joined
1425 2011-03-31 16:09:51 davex__ has joined
1426 2011-03-31 16:10:09 <xelister> the X server restarted after crash and showed the login screen <3
1427 2011-03-31 16:10:21 <xelister> and then instanlty hard frozen, this time INCLUDING freezing ssh sessions.
1428 2011-03-31 16:10:31 <xelister> WHO DEVELOPS THIS SHIT :E
1429 2011-03-31 16:12:16 <luke-jr> xelister: use Linux
1430 2011-03-31 16:12:25 Strom- is now known as Strom
1431 2011-03-31 16:12:42 <xelister> luke-jr: trolololol. Im not sshing into winblows you know
1432 2011-03-31 16:13:59 xenon481 has joined
1433 2011-03-31 16:15:15 <luke-jr> xelister: as opposed to AMD's proprietary fork of Linux
1434 2011-03-31 16:15:25 <luke-jr> just good old real Linux will work fine
1435 2011-03-31 16:15:41 <xelister> :luke-sadtrollface: - I know you are trolling =)
1436 2011-03-31 16:15:49 <grbgout> O.o
1437 2011-03-31 16:16:01 <luke-jr> no u
1438 2011-03-31 16:16:03 <grbgout> since when did AMD release a fork of Linux?  Or are you talking about their binary display drivers?
1439 2011-03-31 16:16:19 <luke-jr> fglrx is a fork
1440 2011-03-31 16:16:27 <luke-jr> it's certainly not real Linux
1441 2011-03-31 16:16:33 <grbgout> that name seems vaguely familiar.
1442 2011-03-31 16:16:51 <luke-jr> grbgout: Linux is a monolithic kernel, there are no "drivers"
1443 2011-03-31 16:16:58 <luke-jr> the "drivers" are part of the kernel itself
1444 2011-03-31 16:16:59 <grbgout> luke-jr: yeah, I know.
1445 2011-03-31 16:17:12 <xelister> grbgout: he is trolling you. In example, if I build my own hello-world.ko and release it witohut source am "forking the linux kernel" ;)
1446 2011-03-31 16:17:16 <luke-jr> hence, it's a fork
1447 2011-03-31 16:17:42 citiz3n has joined
1448 2011-03-31 16:17:44 <luke-jr> xelister: I can back up my claims with logic.
1449 2011-03-31 16:17:51 <phantomcircuit> don't the amd/nvidia drivers replace pretty important kernel functions?
1450 2011-03-31 16:18:00 <luke-jr> yep
1451 2011-03-31 16:18:10 <xelister> luke-jr: go try troll Linus on LKML with this, and link us URL to discussion as prove
1452 2011-03-31 16:18:24 <luke-jr> xelister: Linus is an idiot
1453 2011-03-31 16:18:36 <xelister> trololol
1454 2011-03-31 16:18:52 <xelister> u written better os yet?
1455 2011-03-31 16:18:54 <BlueMatt> trolololol +1
1456 2011-03-31 16:19:13 <luke-jr> xelister: Linus isn't the sole author of Linux
1457 2011-03-31 16:19:25 <luke-jr> and Linux isn't an OS
1458 2011-03-31 16:19:43 <BlueMatt> jgarzk is as well
1459 2011-03-31 16:19:47 <luke-jr> yep
1460 2011-03-31 16:19:52 <luke-jr> and gregkh
1461 2011-03-31 16:20:39 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: I was talking about active bitcoin developers ;)
1462 2011-03-31 16:20:49 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: Linus isn't a bitcoin developer
1463 2011-03-31 16:21:26 <BlueMatt> my comment had nothing to do with your discussion, just a "hey we have geek cred because we have a kernel dev"
1464 2011-03-31 16:21:38 <luke-jr> lol
1465 2011-03-31 16:21:52 <BlueMatt> it was mostly sarc
1466 2011-03-31 16:22:03 Zarutian has joined
1467 2011-03-31 16:24:34 robotarmy has joined
1468 2011-03-31 16:28:14 chaord has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1469 2011-03-31 16:28:16 maikmerten has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1470 2011-03-31 16:29:36 rli has left ()
1471 2011-03-31 16:35:44 Syke_ has joined
1472 2011-03-31 16:38:49 Syke__ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1473 2011-03-31 16:40:55 robotarmy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1474 2011-03-31 16:44:01 <nanotube> sirius-m: hey, are you the right person to contact for contributing bitcoin.org website translations? if not, who?
1475 2011-03-31 16:44:48 <luke-jr> nanotube: ooh, plz to translate Spesmilo too
1476 2011-03-31 16:45:30 <nanotube> not me - someone else was asking me where to go to contribute website translation. :)
1477 2011-03-31 16:45:44 <phantomcircuit> http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/03/31/132234/Samsung-Keylogger-Stories-a-False-Alarm
1478 2011-03-31 16:45:46 <phantomcircuit> rofl
1479 2011-03-31 16:45:48 <phantomcircuit> i called it
1480 2011-03-31 16:50:32 <BlueMatt> and it was announced by a "security researcher" wow he really didnt research much did he
1481 2011-03-31 16:50:46 Meelu has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1482 2011-03-31 16:51:24 <luke-jr> lol
1483 2011-03-31 16:51:33 meelu has joined
1484 2011-03-31 16:54:27 <BlueMatt> also, what kind of av says you have a keylogger if it finds a folder even if that folder contains no files?
1485 2011-03-31 16:55:50 RBecker has joined
1486 2011-03-31 16:56:09 <luke-jr> lol
1487 2011-03-31 16:56:13 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, a terrible one
1488 2011-03-31 16:58:02 Lartza has left ("Lähdössä")
1489 2011-03-31 16:58:10 dissipate has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1490 2011-03-31 17:03:27 joepie95 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1491 2011-03-31 17:05:24 <sipa> hmm, QR is efficient for sequences of: 1) [0123456789] 2) [0123456789A-Z$%*+:./-] 3) kanji 4) anything
1492 2011-03-31 17:05:30 <sipa> but switching between them isn't
1493 2011-03-31 17:05:51 <sipa> so BTC addresses are rather inefficient to represent, since it needs to switch to 8-bit mode
1494 2011-03-31 17:06:07 joepie91 has joined
1495 2011-03-31 17:06:32 <sipa> or similar base58 things
1496 2011-03-31 17:09:14 RBecker has quit (Laptop!~Ryan@unaffiliated/rbecker|Quit: You're the only one that understands. The only one that cares. The only one that cares. The only one that I love.)
1497 2011-03-31 17:11:12 Anon3537 has joined
1498 2011-03-31 17:16:47 <Anon3537> I've been running the bitcoin client for like 2 days straight and have yet to generate a bit coin... Is this normal
1499 2011-03-31 17:17:02 <luke-jr> sipa: what character in base58 breaks (2) ?
1500 2011-03-31 17:17:14 <luke-jr> Anon3537: you'll be waiting decades
1501 2011-03-31 17:17:25 <Anon3537> luke-jr: ?
1502 2011-03-31 17:17:27 <Anon3537> why
1503 2011-03-31 17:17:32 <luke-jr> Anon3537: CPUs suck
1504 2011-03-31 17:17:38 <Anon3537> i thought that's how it worked lulz
1505 2011-03-31 17:17:41 <luke-jr> Anon3537: just turn it off, it's wasting power
1506 2011-03-31 17:17:49 <luke-jr> Anon3537: no, you earn or buy bitcoins now
1507 2011-03-31 17:18:11 <luke-jr> if you have a good radeon, you can set up mining on that
1508 2011-03-31 17:18:15 <Anon3537> hmm
1509 2011-03-31 17:18:42 <Anon3537> so how do you earn bitcoins, as opposed to buying them?
1510 2011-03-31 17:18:52 <luke-jr> offer your services in exchange
1511 2011-03-31 17:18:57 <Anon3537> oh i see
1512 2011-03-31 17:18:59 <Anon3537> thanks
1513 2011-03-31 17:19:01 <luke-jr> np
1514 2011-03-31 17:19:05 <luke-jr> just like any other currency really
1515 2011-03-31 17:19:11 <Blitzboom> so how do you earn money as opposed to buying it? ;)
1516 2011-03-31 17:19:33 <Blitzboom> look what people are willing to pay for
1517 2011-03-31 17:19:53 <Anon3537> 5BTC/blowjob contact me at randylahey@gmail.com
1518 2011-03-31 17:20:39 <luke-jr> O.o
1519 2011-03-31 17:21:12 <Blitzboom> you can earn some for getting shops/organizations to accept bitcoin: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4667.0
1520 2011-03-31 17:22:01 <BlueMatt> Anon3537: is randy a guy's name?
1521 2011-03-31 17:22:27 <Anon3537> a mouth is a mouth
1522 2011-03-31 17:22:35 <BlueMatt> ...not quite
1523 2011-03-31 17:24:22 <xelister> Anon3537: are you a dude
1524 2011-03-31 17:24:33 <xelister> HE IS A DUDE :-E
1525 2011-03-31 17:24:46 <Anon3537> anyone know where i can trade BTC for kiddie porn?
1526 2011-03-31 17:24:58 <luke-jr> Anon3537: this is #bitcoin-dev, not #bitcoin-idiots
1527 2011-03-31 17:25:13 <Anon3537> orly
1528 2011-03-31 17:25:15 <luke-jr> also, if you're serious, I hope you get the death penalty.
1529 2011-03-31 17:25:20 <xelister> Anon3537: at your moms place?
1530 2011-03-31 17:25:24 <Anon3537> lulz
1531 2011-03-31 17:25:42 <xelister> psssst your IP 199.98.16... is visible here you know
1532 2011-03-31 17:25:43 RBecker has joined
1533 2011-03-31 17:25:45 <Blitzboom> 4chan faggots already over here? oh man
1534 2011-03-31 17:26:13 <nanotube> Anon3537: if you know your hash rate, you can calculate average time to gen a block
1535 2011-03-31 17:26:24 <nanotube> and avg daily generation if you were to join a pool with that hash rate
1536 2011-03-31 17:26:45 <Anon3537> idk what youre saying but it sounds smart
1537 2011-03-31 17:26:52 <nanotube> you run a gui client?
1538 2011-03-31 17:26:54 <xelister> luke-jr: death etc should be to people that actually abuse others though
1539 2011-03-31 17:27:18 <nanotube> or cli?
1540 2011-03-31 17:27:46 <Blitzboom> Anon3537: you can become smart by listening to http://omegataupodcast.net/2011/03/59-bitcoin-a-digital-decentralized-currency/
1541 2011-03-31 17:27:49 <Blitzboom> 90 minutes of wisdom
1542 2011-03-31 17:27:59 <xelister> try also lobotomy
1543 2011-03-31 17:28:03 <BlueMatt> cant wait for the economics one
1544 2011-03-31 17:28:13 <Blitzboom> BlueMatt: the economics what?
1545 2011-03-31 17:28:17 <BlueMatt> Blitzboom: when was that scheduled and can I watch live?
1546 2011-03-31 17:28:19 <Blitzboom> oh, that podcast
1547 2011-03-31 17:28:21 <BlueMatt> Blitzboom: the podcast
1548 2011-03-31 17:28:31 <Blitzboom> monday, and about live i don’t know
1549 2011-03-31 17:28:35 <xelister> lobotomy for trolls "why not? if it doesnt work you can always give it a second try"
1550 2011-03-31 17:28:39 <Blitzboom> i’d like to hear it live, too
1551 2011-03-31 17:29:13 <nanotube> sgornick: ^ the econtalk upcoming podcast, should make it to bcn :)
1552 2011-03-31 17:29:21 <Anon3537> 90 minutes lulz
1553 2011-03-31 17:29:37 <Blitzboom> sgornick: wuala accepting bitcoins should make it, too :P
1554 2011-03-31 17:29:55 <Blitzboom> i mean, that’s the first bigger established business
1555 2011-03-31 17:30:12 <BlueMatt> yea its done by lacie
1556 2011-03-31 17:30:30 <Blitzboom> i was told they will make a blog post about it, too
1557 2011-03-31 17:30:42 <BlueMatt> hope it makes it beyond the email us and pay and well set it up for you soon
1558 2011-03-31 17:30:42 <sipa> luke-jr: lowercase characters can only be represented in 8-bit encoding
1559 2011-03-31 17:30:52 <nanotube> BlueMatt: hehe yea.
1560 2011-03-31 17:30:59 <Blitzboom> btw: it’s much cheaper to pay with BTC than EUR at the current rate there
1561 2011-03-31 17:31:16 <luke-jr> sipa: oh, lame
1562 2011-03-31 17:31:24 <sipa> i agree
1563 2011-03-31 17:31:26 <BlueMatt> funny, at the end they recommend backing up your wallet on wuala, I already do
1564 2011-03-31 17:31:26 <Blitzboom> so it could be wise to buy bitcoins just for buying there :D
1565 2011-03-31 17:31:51 <Blitzboom> BlueMatt: any real advantage to dropbox?
1566 2011-03-31 17:32:11 <BlueMatt> Blitzboom: I run a server in my basement with pretty much 24/7 uptime so I have like 30GB free
1567 2011-03-31 17:32:20 <BlueMatt> Blitzboom: its a p2p network which stores a lot of the data
1568 2011-03-31 17:32:21 * sipa considers base36 encoding for bitkeys format... much more compact in QR codes
1569 2011-03-31 17:32:23 <Anon3537> kewl
1570 2011-03-31 17:32:24 <Blitzboom> i know
1571 2011-03-31 17:32:33 <Blitzboom> but practically any advantage?
1572 2011-03-31 17:32:42 <BlueMatt> Blitzboom: so leaving your computer on the network, you can get a TON of free bandwidth
1573 2011-03-31 17:32:57 <Blitzboom> interesting
1574 2011-03-31 17:33:00 <luke-jr> sipa: would it be cheaper to do base36 for the address, or binary? ;)
1575 2011-03-31 17:33:10 <BlueMatt> Blitzboom: to be fair, the app sucks and is a bit slow (p2p and all) but the free space makes it worth it for me
1576 2011-03-31 17:33:16 <Blitzboom> maybe i’ll check it out. i’m happy with dropbox though
1577 2011-03-31 17:33:17 <BlueMatt> Blitzboom: sorry I mean a TON of free space
1578 2011-03-31 17:33:22 <BlueMatt> not bw
1579 2011-03-31 17:33:41 <Anon3537> A TON!!!!
1580 2011-03-31 17:33:45 Anon3537 has quit ()
1581 2011-03-31 17:33:46 <phantomcircuit> so anybody interested in writing a script interpreter in python?
1582 2011-03-31 17:33:49 <sipa> luke-jr: binary, but the problem with binary data is that it's not human readable and badly supported by QR-code readers
1583 2011-03-31 17:33:58 citiz3n has quit ()
1584 2011-03-31 17:34:19 <nanotube> phantomcircuit: isn't python already a script interpreter? it interprets the 'python' script? :)
1585 2011-03-31 17:34:24 <xelister> phantomcircuit: for much? ;) what script exactly
1586 2011-03-31 17:34:34 <phantomcircuit> i meant the bitcoin transaction scripts
1587 2011-03-31 17:34:39 <BlueMatt> Blitzboom: if you donate 100GB to the network on a 24/7 uptime server you get 100GB free on wuala, etc
1588 2011-03-31 17:34:42 <xelister> if its a C++ interpreter in pythong for example then Im not signing in ;)
1589 2011-03-31 17:34:47 <BlueMatt> I think I have like 30GB
1590 2011-03-31 17:34:49 <xelister> pyhon.  Pythong lol..
1591 2011-03-31 17:34:58 * xelister I CAN'T SPELL :E
1592 2011-03-31 17:36:24 <Blitzboom> flattr is discussing bitcoin btw: https://forum.flattr.net/showthread.php?tid=550&pid=4314#pid4314
1593 2011-03-31 17:36:31 <Blitzboom> thought you might want to know about this
1594 2011-03-31 17:36:37 <sipa> luke-jr: but the loss isn't much, 50 base36 characters (enough for 256 bits of data), require 275 bits storage in QR (+ a header)
1595 2011-03-31 17:36:46 <jgarzik> I still wonder about MyBitcoin.  It apparently has a CEO, support staff and tech staff.  I wonder how they afford all that?
1596 2011-03-31 17:37:02 <jgarzik> maybe they keep a fractional reserve, and invest the rest :)
1597 2011-03-31 17:37:06 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: "apparently" would be the key word I believe
1598 2011-03-31 17:37:15 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: where did you hear that?
1599 2011-03-31 17:37:16 <nanotube> jgarzik: do they say that all those roles are not in fact the same guy?
1600 2011-03-31 17:37:31 <sipa> while 44 bytes (base58 encoding of 256 bits) requires 352 bits +header in QR
1601 2011-03-31 17:37:46 phantomcircuit_ has joined
1602 2011-03-31 17:38:06 <luke-jr> sipa: I can't believe with URIs being a standard QR-Code format, that URIs are inefficient
1603 2011-03-31 17:38:08 phantomcircuit has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1604 2011-03-31 17:38:08 <nanotube> jgarzik: because i'm president, ceo, support staff, and developer, and tech staff, of nanotube, inc. i keep wondering how i can afford that. :)
1605 2011-03-31 17:38:21 <jgarzik> They might be sock puppets, but I get different signatures on responses, and responses from MyBitcoin like ("good suggestion, will pass it to tech staff") or ("Our CEO would prefer...")
1606 2011-03-31 17:38:32 <BlueMatt> nanotube: wow you must pay yourself a lot
1607 2011-03-31 17:38:34 phantomcircuit_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1608 2011-03-31 17:38:43 <jgarzik> Sure they might all be the same preson, but they claim staff
1609 2011-03-31 17:38:45 phantomcircuit has joined
1610 2011-03-31 17:39:01 <nanotube> jgarzik: heh well, either they actually pay a bunch of people... or they just put on an air of 'we have so many people' to appear like a large org.
1611 2011-03-31 17:39:09 Blitzboom has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1612 2011-03-31 17:39:21 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, uri's waste at least 1 byte
1613 2011-03-31 17:39:24 <nanotube> it costs nothing to say "i'll pass this on to our tech staff", whether you actualy have any or not.
1614 2011-03-31 17:39:29 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: yea, I would do that too.  I often find myself saying "we" in emails when I mean "I" when speaking to people I dont know
1615 2011-03-31 17:39:31 Blitzboom has joined
1616 2011-03-31 17:39:31 <phantomcircuit> that : is so extraneous
1617 2011-03-31 17:39:49 <BlueMatt> god what a waste of a byte
1618 2011-03-31 17:39:58 <nanotube> BlueMatt: hehe i wish.
1619 2011-03-31 17:40:07 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: "different signatures" -- you don't sign some messages as "Tom L" and others as "Steve S"
1620 2011-03-31 17:40:12 <sipa> luke-jr: depending how it's implemented, the encoder may even switch many times between alphanumeric encoding and binary encoding, causing even more than 1 byte per uri character
1621 2011-03-31 17:41:04 <nanotube> jgarzik: why not ask 'steve' about that ;) i understand your concern though - they can't be making that much from just the ads.
1622 2011-03-31 17:42:36 * jgarzik doesn't see any ads on MyBitcoin
1623 2011-03-31 17:43:01 <jgarzik> correction.  There is a one-line text ad, after login.
1624 2011-03-31 17:43:18 <jgarzik> bitcoin2cc is probably not a big revenue generating advertiser, though :)
1625 2011-03-31 17:43:30 <jgarzik> it's a direct link, to redirect
1626 2011-03-31 17:43:57 <BlueMatt> yea mybitcoin is just a bit too sketchy for my liking
1627 2011-03-31 17:44:13 aninoni has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1628 2011-03-31 17:44:14 aninoni_ has joined
1629 2011-03-31 17:44:33 echelon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1630 2011-03-31 17:45:07 echelon has joined
1631 2011-03-31 17:45:42 <sipa> bah, i don't like letting the decision for an encoding depend on some strange design decision a particular de-facto standard for 2d barcodes
1632 2011-03-31 17:46:02 <luke-jr> sipa: I'll stick to bitcoin: URIs :P
1633 2011-03-31 17:46:45 TippenEin has joined
1634 2011-03-31 17:47:37 <BlueMatt> sipa: http://blumenthals.com/blog/2011/03/30/google-officially-ends-support-for-qr-code-in-places/
1635 2011-03-31 17:48:00 <sipa> my idea was to extend the possibilities of the bitkeys format a bit, so it could also be used for scratch-off cards, usign QR codes
1636 2011-03-31 17:48:18 <BlueMatt> sipa: js-remote already generates them
1637 2011-03-31 17:48:31 <BlueMatt> http://tcatm.github.com/bitcoin-js-remote/
1638 2011-03-31 17:48:52 <sipa> BlueMatt: i know that
1639 2011-03-31 17:49:01 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: numerous clients do
1640 2011-03-31 17:49:02 <BlueMatt> ah bitkeys
1641 2011-03-31 17:49:05 <sipa> going from text to QR code isn't the problem
1642 2011-03-31 17:49:07 <BlueMatt> didnt read that all the way
1643 2011-03-31 17:49:54 <sipa> but i'd like a "one true format" that could be used for wallet backups, wallet transfers/merges, wallet inspection, scratch-off cards, ...
1644 2011-03-31 17:49:57 rlifchitz has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1645 2011-03-31 17:50:04 <luke-jr> sipa: why not the raw key?
1646 2011-03-31 17:50:06 <sipa> with private keys and txid's in
1647 2011-03-31 17:50:40 <sipa> luke-jr: it also needs things like which block to scan from, or which tx to scan, possible an account name, whether or not the key was reserve
1648 2011-03-31 17:50:42 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: because encoding a uri already has support to automatically open the right app/program on some devices
1649 2011-03-31 17:51:09 <luke-jr> sipa: why?
1650 2011-03-31 17:51:21 <sipa> luke-jr: to be able to use it as wallet backup mechanism
1651 2011-03-31 17:51:26 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I mean for the format
1652 2011-03-31 17:51:47 <luke-jr> sipa: you don't need any of that stuff for exporting a single key
1653 2011-03-31 17:51:57 <sipa> i'm not talking about a single key
1654 2011-03-31 17:52:01 Syke_ has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1655 2011-03-31 17:52:07 <sipa> or at least, not necessarily
1656 2011-03-31 17:52:17 <luke-jr> sipa: fine. then use an existing standard :P
1657 2011-03-31 17:52:26 <sipa> like?
1658 2011-03-31 17:52:40 <luke-jr> multipart/mixed
1659 2011-03-31 17:52:44 phantomcircuit has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1660 2011-03-31 17:52:54 rlifchitz has joined
1661 2011-03-31 17:52:55 <luke-jr> stick account name in a header
1662 2011-03-31 17:52:59 <sipa> oh, i also like human readability
1663 2011-03-31 17:53:00 <luke-jr> as well as "reserve" status
1664 2011-03-31 17:53:10 <luke-jr> sipa: humans can't read keys period
1665 2011-03-31 17:53:24 <sipa> *sigh*
1666 2011-03-31 17:53:46 <luke-jr> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIME#Multipart_messages
1667 2011-03-31 17:54:05 <luke-jr> you can use Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 to make it all plaintext
1668 2011-03-31 17:54:26 <sipa> base64 is not human readable
1669 2011-03-31 17:54:37 <sipa> and i'm not talking about the key itself of course
1670 2011-03-31 17:54:39 <luke-jr> sipa: explain how you would even begin to make key data readable
1671 2011-03-31 17:54:45 <sipa> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4448.msg68278#msg68278
1672 2011-03-31 17:54:50 <luke-jr> well, that's the only part that would be unreadable in multipart/mixed
1673 2011-03-31 17:55:15 * sipa thinks about using JSON again
1674 2011-03-31 17:56:23 cheeseman1208 has joined
1675 2011-03-31 17:56:33 <luke-jr> sipa: i don't see the importance of "block number" here
1676 2011-03-31 17:56:57 <sipa> luke-jr: so you don't need to rescan the whole block chain
1677 2011-03-31 17:57:20 <luke-jr> i c
1678 2011-03-31 17:57:42 <sipa> but now i'd like it to be either a block number, or a (list of) txid's
1679 2011-03-31 17:57:56 <sipa> since that's much nicer to future thin clients, and much more efficient
1680 2011-03-31 17:58:44 <tcatm> wouldn't it be better to use the block hash?
1681 2011-03-31 17:58:45 <sipa> but not usable as a backup mechanism, since the corresponding addresses may have received new transactions after the backup was made
1682 2011-03-31 17:59:03 <sipa> tcatm: that's also a possibility
1683 2011-03-31 17:59:19 <sipa> more reliable than block number, but larger
1684 2011-03-31 17:59:35 <tcatm> makes it easier to request the block when a lightweight client does not keep a full blockchain
1685 2011-03-31 18:00:18 <sipa> agree, but lightweight clients will have difficulty anyway
1686 2011-03-31 18:00:30 <sipa> since they'd need to re-request all blocks after a certain number
1687 2011-03-31 18:00:31 <luke-jr> sipa: http://paste.pocoo.org/show/363338/
1688 2011-03-31 18:00:52 <luke-jr> tcatm: yeah, block hash does sound like a much better idea
1689 2011-03-31 18:01:22 <luke-jr> sipa: they would need to regardless, since the block chain is constantly growing
1690 2011-03-31 18:01:28 <tcatm> re-requesting all blocks starting from a certain hash is exactly what getblocks() does
1691 2011-03-31 18:01:34 <sipa> true
1692 2011-03-31 18:01:41 <luke-jr> even if you include each txid, you still need a X-Bitcoin-Start-Block to tell the client where you left off
1693 2011-03-31 18:02:07 <sipa> no, lightweight clients need a way to request a particular tx too, no?
1694 2011-03-31 18:03:08 <tcatm> inv(type=TX, hash=0x12345....)
1695 2011-03-31 18:03:18 <luke-jr> sipa: eg http://paste.pocoo.org/show/363341/
1696 2011-03-31 18:03:25 <sipa> isn't that enough?
1697 2011-03-31 18:03:40 cheeseman1208 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1698 2011-03-31 18:04:01 <tcatm> err.. getdata([inv(type=TX ...)])
1699 2011-03-31 18:04:25 <sipa> yes, and iirc there is currently no way to request the block a tx is in
1700 2011-03-31 18:04:37 <sipa> but that will be needed to implement thin clients
1701 2011-03-31 18:05:36 <luke-jr> sipa: so what's wrong with those multipart/mixed?
1702 2011-03-31 18:05:39 <tcatm> true
1703 2011-03-31 18:06:09 <sipa> luke-jr: looks very redundant to me
1704 2011-03-31 18:06:11 <tcatm> also hints in the tx message whether outputs are spent would be useful (with hashes of those TX)
1705 2011-03-31 18:06:36 <sipa> tcatm: yes, agree
1706 2011-03-31 18:06:49 <luke-jr> sipa: standard, human-readable, etc…
1707 2011-03-31 18:07:23 <sipa> tcatm: in "restore backup" mode, those spent tx's would be included in the scan, but in "transfer funds" mode, they can be ignored
1708 2011-03-31 18:07:25 Bosma has joined
1709 2011-03-31 18:08:02 <sipa> luke-jr: same goes for JSON, which is a lot more common in the bitcoin world
1710 2011-03-31 18:08:14 <Diablo-D3> sigh
1711 2011-03-31 18:08:16 Bosma has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1712 2011-03-31 18:08:18 <Diablo-D3> someone said json
1713 2011-03-31 18:08:22 <Diablo-D3> do I have to get the cluebat out?
1714 2011-03-31 18:08:34 <luke-jr> sipa: yes, both multipart/mixed and JSON can encode the name key:value pairs and list
1715 2011-03-31 18:09:32 aninoni_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1716 2011-03-31 18:09:36 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: yes
1717 2011-03-31 18:10:16 <tcatm> maybe we should try to find a compact blockchain format (header + merkletree) that a lightweight client could keep in memory
1718 2011-03-31 18:12:05 sabalaba has joined
1719 2011-03-31 18:13:16 bitcoiner has joined
1720 2011-03-31 18:16:32 aninoni has joined
1721 2011-03-31 18:19:04 phantomcircuit has joined
1722 2011-03-31 18:25:46 <BlueMatt> poll: anyone who voted for upnp off by default in the forum thread, would you compromise for off by default in unix only?
1723 2011-03-31 18:26:46 <CIA-96> bitcoin: phantomcircuit <phantomcircuit@covertinferno.org> sqlite3 * r621a48624a4d bitcoin-alt/ (bitcoin.py bitcoin/peer.py): fixed assumption that inv always follows block
1724 2011-03-31 18:35:04 sabalaba has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1725 2011-03-31 18:36:49 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: I don't think Gavin or I am interested in merging upnp, if it is enabled
1726 2011-03-31 18:37:29 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: oh, really? God I disagree with that, but I suppose disabled it is then
1727 2011-03-31 18:38:06 <phantomcircuit> you mean by default?
1728 2011-03-31 18:38:13 <BlueMatt> yes
1729 2011-03-31 18:38:30 <phantomcircuit> upnp actually breaks quite a number of routers
1730 2011-03-31 18:38:33 <phantomcircuit> so it's best left off
1731 2011-03-31 18:38:39 <BlueMatt> since when?
1732 2011-03-31 18:39:04 <phantomcircuit> since 2wire are idiots
1733 2011-03-31 18:39:38 <BlueMatt> who the f is that?
1734 2011-03-31 18:39:49 <Blitzboom> ;;bc,estimate
1735 2011-03-31 18:39:49 <gribble> 78214.26573426
1736 2011-03-31 18:40:08 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, they sell dsl/router combination things
1737 2011-03-31 18:40:12 <phantomcircuit> ATT uses them a lot
1738 2011-03-31 18:40:15 <phantomcircuit> they're terrible
1739 2011-03-31 18:40:18 <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: ah, ok
1740 2011-03-31 18:40:44 <BlueMatt> damn IMHO upnp really needs to be on by default, but I guess it could cause too many problems...damn
1741 2011-03-31 18:41:00 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: breaks how?
1742 2011-03-31 18:41:14 <jgarzik> AT&T U-Verse (fibre) broadband service uses 2wire...   I have one of the 2wire routers even, as a U-Verse customer.
1743 2011-03-31 18:41:15 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, the upnp daemon will crash
1744 2011-03-31 18:41:20 <jgarzik> 2wire is -very- widespread
1745 2011-03-31 18:41:32 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: perhaps some kind of red-light/green-light indicator, which clicking on gives details "You are firewalled. Click HERE to enable UPnP if your router supports it"
1746 2011-03-31 18:41:36 <phantomcircuit> and on some of them it'll take down other services randomly
1747 2011-03-31 18:41:38 <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: so using upnp causes the upnp daemon to crash...?
1748 2011-03-31 18:41:39 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: ew
1749 2011-03-31 18:41:42 <CIA-96> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr <luke-jr+git@utopios.org> * r27985a275cee spesmilo/ (cashier.py main.py settings.py): Add interactive debug mode (main.py --debug)
1750 2011-03-31 18:41:49 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, lol yeah
1751 2011-03-31 18:41:56 <BlueMatt> wow that is worthless as hell
1752 2011-03-31 18:41:59 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: THAT is a good reason not to enable it
1753 2011-03-31 18:42:02 <jgarzik> kinda like Scientific Atlanta.  Their hardware is all over the place, even if you never hear them advertise.
1754 2011-03-31 18:42:06 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, the upnp daemon they use crashes when it encounters anything it doesn't expect
1755 2011-03-31 18:42:07 <luke-jr> I change my opinion. :P
1756 2011-03-31 18:42:25 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: oh, so it's ok as long as it's valid?
1757 2011-03-31 18:42:30 <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: ok well then I guess off is a better idea anyway
1758 2011-03-31 18:42:33 <luke-jr> you made it sound like it crashes wiht normal UPNP
1759 2011-03-31 18:42:43 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, i didn't say valid, i said unexpected
1760 2011-03-31 18:42:49 <[Tycho]> xelister, http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/00002133.html
1761 2011-03-31 18:42:51 <phantomcircuit> the upnp standard is pretty complicated actually
1762 2011-03-31 18:42:53 <luke-jr> o
1763 2011-03-31 18:42:54 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: not a bad idea, would jgarzik consider merging a green/red network light in the gui?
1764 2011-03-31 18:43:11 <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: but does miniupnpc specifically crash it?
1765 2011-03-31 18:43:12 <jgarzik> ich ben ein jelly donut
1766 2011-03-31 18:43:18 <luke-jr> jgarzik: wtf? XD
1767 2011-03-31 18:43:39 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, not sure just know that i've had trouble with it in the past using deluge
1768 2011-03-31 18:43:40 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: so you are john f kennedy?
1769 2011-03-31 18:43:51 * phantomcircuit eats jgarzik 
1770 2011-03-31 18:44:34 * sipa films and puts on youtube
1771 2011-03-31 18:44:44 <BlueMatt> oh god
1772 2011-03-31 18:44:49 <phantomcircuit> so really nobody knows of a python implementation of the scripting?
1773 2011-03-31 18:44:54 <phantomcircuit> because i really dont want to do it
1774 2011-03-31 18:44:55 <phantomcircuit> lol
1775 2011-03-31 18:45:57 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: I ask that question every 1-2 weeks...
1776 2011-03-31 18:46:10 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, we can work together on one :P
1777 2011-03-31 18:46:18 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: you may wish to port my last spesmilo commit to your stuff :p
1778 2011-03-31 18:46:36 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: it's not a hugely difficult task, just annoying and long.  And it's the last main hurdle for my validation of TX's and blocks
1779 2011-03-31 18:46:40 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: turn the scripts into Python code!
1780 2011-03-31 18:47:04 * jgarzik is lazy and would rather phantomcircuit do the hard work, while I work on xf2.org :)
1781 2011-03-31 18:47:05 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, oh you have a pythoon client as well?
1782 2011-03-31 18:47:09 <phantomcircuit> lol
1783 2011-03-31 18:47:11 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: 75% of one, yet
1784 2011-03-31 18:47:13 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: 75% of one, yes
1785 2011-03-31 18:47:24 <phantomcircuit> foss?
1786 2011-03-31 18:47:38 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: nope.  no db either -- stores everything in RAM, including 100% of block chain
1787 2011-03-31 18:47:42 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: xf2 is just another mining pool or other stuff as well?
1788 2011-03-31 18:48:00 lyspooner has joined
1789 2011-03-31 18:48:00 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, lol, hint the hard part is storing it efficiently
1790 2011-03-31 18:48:04 sabalaba has joined
1791 2011-03-31 18:48:11 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: why do you think I haven't done it yet?  ;-)
1792 2011-03-31 18:48:14 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, turns out that storing a tree in an efficient manner isn't trivial
1793 2011-03-31 18:48:16 <phantomcircuit> rofl
1794 2011-03-31 18:48:48 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1795 2011-03-31 18:49:17 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: mining pool is small part of xf2.org.  under construction:  your own private pool server (diff-1 or full diff), your own private bitcoind (private wallet), other bitcoind hosting, merchant payments, P2P backbone, ...
1796 2011-03-31 18:49:56 <jgarzik> + regular services like web, DNS and email hosting
1797 2011-03-31 18:50:14 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: interesting, nice to see regular stuff payable with bitcoin
1798 2011-03-31 18:50:41 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: that's the core idea...  grow the bitcoin economy with real services
1799 2011-03-31 18:51:01 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: nice
1800 2011-03-31 18:51:03 <bitcoiner> I make website for bitcoins
1801 2011-03-31 18:51:10 <xelister> [Tycho]: yeap, thanks. It was a false alarm with Samsung
1802 2011-03-31 18:51:35 <luke-jr> xelister: it was EPIC FAIL
1803 2011-03-31 18:52:10 <xelister> yeah totally false allarm
1804 2011-03-31 18:52:26 <xelister> Im happy Samsung didn't turned out to suck like Sony in this area.
1805 2011-03-31 18:52:43 <sipa> jgarzik: what is 'P2P backbone' ?
1806 2011-03-31 18:53:00 <sipa> a number of fast bitcoin nodes you can connect to as a member?
1807 2011-03-31 18:53:33 <jgarzik> sipa: xf2.org connects directly with big players, and members may connect to these nodes and take advantage of that backbone, yes.
1808 2011-03-31 18:54:11 <jgarzik> xf2.org servers are spread across the world and across networks, for maximum redundancy and network spread.  Still looking for good Asian hosting, though...
1809 2011-03-31 18:54:22 * jgarzik has everywhere but Asia & Africa covered
1810 2011-03-31 18:54:48 <xelister> do we really need substantial network connectivity for bitcoin?
1811 2011-03-31 18:54:53 * jgarzik does a lot with distributed storage @ the day job, so an Amazon S3 clone, payable w/ bitcoins, is a distinct possibility
1812 2011-03-31 18:54:55 <xelister> thoes are few blocks an hour, not HD movies
1813 2011-03-31 18:54:57 <luke-jr> jgarzik: connected to free-relay net?
1814 2011-03-31 18:55:11 <jgarzik> luke-jr: free relay is a bad idea for bitcoin
1815 2011-03-31 18:55:18 <luke-jr> jgarzik: so "no"?
1816 2011-03-31 18:55:28 <xelister> even initiall download of block chain is not that big of a deal, is it
1817 2011-03-31 18:55:59 <sipa> jgarzik: i had an idea - something like mybitcoin, where you could (as a registered and possible paying user) send a tx through an authenticated channel, in which case it is either immediately (a few seconds) denied or added to your balance, and immediately withdrawable, with the network taking the risk for double-spending attacks and the like
1818 2011-03-31 18:56:01 <luke-jr> jgarzik: free relay is a necessary reality for cheaper-than-norm mining services
1819 2011-03-31 18:56:08 * jgarzik plans to run stock bitcoin network rules for some time to come
1820 2011-03-31 18:56:20 <sipa> jgarzik: if you have a setup like the one your are describing, that should be quite possible to build
1821 2011-03-31 18:56:27 <jgarzik> sipa: yep
1822 2011-03-31 18:56:43 <CIA-96> bitcoin: phantomcircuit <phantomcircuit@covertinferno.org> * rcfdabe43c463 bitcoin-alt/ (bitcoin.py bitcoin/peer.py): Merge branch 'sqlite3'
1823 2011-03-31 18:56:50 <sipa> that's the one thing needed for doing instant payments
1824 2011-03-31 18:56:57 <jgarzik> sipa: one of the things I'm trying to build is double-spend detection, so that members can be "reasonably certain" about 0/confirmation spends being OK (aka instant payments)
1825 2011-03-31 18:57:02 <kelp> Why does firefox 4 hate the xf2.org ssl cert?
1826 2011-03-31 18:57:09 <jgarzik> sipa: have to write network sampling across multiple points to detect double-spend, though
1827 2011-03-31 18:57:21 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: hence the backbone I suppose?
1828 2011-03-31 18:57:23 <jgarzik> kelp: good question.  It's a Comodo, maybe that is the problem?
1829 2011-03-31 18:57:26 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: yep
1830 2011-03-31 18:57:29 <phantomcircuit> xelister, my client easily spends 99% of it's time waiting for disk io
1831 2011-03-31 18:57:32 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: nice
1832 2011-03-31 18:57:33 <sipa> jgarzik: yes internally the thing i described would use a distributed detection for double spendings
1833 2011-03-31 18:57:40 <phantomcircuit> xelister, network speed appears to be basically irrelevant
1834 2011-03-31 18:57:50 <kelp> jgarzik: yeah I was wondering if it got into that Comodo blacklist in FF4
1835 2011-03-31 18:57:52 <jgarzik> sipa: so, yes, that is in the works for a long time
1836 2011-03-31 18:57:53 <sipa> but for a fee you could go further and actually insure against it
1837 2011-03-31 18:57:57 <sipa> nice
1838 2011-03-31 18:58:11 <jgarzik> sipa: yep
1839 2011-03-31 18:58:35 <jgarzik> sipa: would need to put a BTC limit on such transactions.  I don't wanna insure against double-spend of 10,000 BTC.
1840 2011-03-31 18:58:41 <jgarzik> something -small-
1841 2011-03-31 18:58:55 <sipa> maybe you could, for a high fee, and a somewhat longer delay
1842 2011-03-31 18:59:05 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, you bought a cert for 3 months?
1843 2011-03-31 18:59:06 <sipa> still up to a limit of course
1844 2011-03-31 18:59:11 sabalaba has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1845 2011-03-31 18:59:35 * sipa would never insure against a 32000000 BTC transaction
1846 2011-03-31 18:59:36 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: "free cert" gig:  Get Comodo 3-month cert, and then go to RapidSSL (I think that's the one) to get a free year for switch from another provider.
1847 2011-03-31 18:59:48 <phantomcircuit> ah
1848 2011-03-31 18:59:58 <jgarzik> sipa: for 10,000 BTC you might as well wait for real network confirmations
1849 2011-03-31 19:00:13 <jgarzik> sipa: I don't think there's 0-conf urgency attached to huge transactions
1850 2011-03-31 19:00:28 <sipa> true
1851 2011-03-31 19:00:32 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, yeah that comodo cert was revoked
1852 2011-03-31 19:00:33 <phantomcircuit> lol
1853 2011-03-31 19:00:56 <xelister> phantomcircuit: hmm? what client?
1854 2011-03-31 19:01:08 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: bummer.  Sounds like RapidSSL is a task for tomorrow then...
1855 2011-03-31 19:01:09 <phantomcircuit> firefox
1856 2011-03-31 19:01:17 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: wait you have to pay to join the mining pool? Isnt that something that could help the service?
1857 2011-03-31 19:01:24 <phantomcircuit> xelister, oh http://github.com/phantomcircuit/bitcoin-alt
1858 2011-03-31 19:01:30 <BlueMatt> to have the most mining power as possible, that is
1859 2011-03-31 19:01:34 <BlueMatt> as much*
1860 2011-03-31 19:02:06 <xelister> btw if everyone is in pool and noone has kohones to be hans Solo
1861 2011-03-31 19:02:12 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: you pay for membership.  membership gets you access to all services...  only service listed publicly is mining pool, which is why I'm not advertising xf2.org right now
1862 2011-03-31 19:02:12 <xelister> it opens network for attacks
1863 2011-03-31 19:02:25 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: why not use bdb like bitcoind?
1864 2011-03-31 19:02:26 <xelister> too much centralisation
1865 2011-03-31 19:02:40 <BlueMatt> xelister: not if there are a ton of pools ;)
1866 2011-03-31 19:02:49 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: once the other services are up and running, you'll see me pimping xf2.org on the forums
1867 2011-03-31 19:02:52 <jgarzik> maybe some Google Ads, too
1868 2011-03-31 19:03:01 TheAncientGoat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1869 2011-03-31 19:03:10 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: I get those free 100$ ad credits all the time if you want one
1870 2011-03-31 19:03:25 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: In any case wont having a big pool help the service
1871 2011-03-31 19:03:31 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: unfortunately you cannot continually apply those to a single account :(
1872 2011-03-31 19:03:35 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: yes, it definitely will
1873 2011-03-31 19:03:40 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, this way you can trivially switch to another sql db
1874 2011-03-31 19:03:42 <BlueMatt> so...free pool?
1875 2011-03-31 19:03:52 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: doesn't matter if they suck :P
1876 2011-03-31 19:04:21 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, makes it significantly easier to do web stuff if you're hitting a db instead of asking a peer
1877 2011-03-31 19:04:41 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: I'm definitely taking your (and other bitcoin-dev) comments into consideration.  Right now, I'm still leaning towards membership even for the pool.  That will cut out thousands of tiny CPU users, who use server resources for very little payback.
1878 2011-03-31 19:04:58 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: but having a powerful pool with more users has its advantages too
1879 2011-03-31 19:05:00 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: fair enough
1880 2011-03-31 19:05:21 <jgarzik> GPU users might appreciate not having all those CPU users clogging the service?
1881 2011-03-31 19:05:23 * jgarzik speculates
1882 2011-03-31 19:05:39 <BlueMatt> dont know that they care that much
1883 2011-03-31 19:05:54 <luke-jr> CPU users cost as much to support as GPU users
1884 2011-03-31 19:06:11 <xelister> luke-jr: not per profits they give
1885 2011-03-31 19:06:12 <tcatm> If your pool runs at diff=1 CPU users cause much less load than a single GPU :)
1886 2011-03-31 19:06:12 <jgarzik> luke-jr: wrong.  you have 1000x more requests and users.
1887 2011-03-31 19:06:15 <sipa> with long polling and fast merkle root calculation, i think you can support a lot of users :)
1888 2011-03-31 19:06:49 <jgarzik> Well CPU users are welcome, if they want to pay 2 BTC/month!  ;-)
1889 2011-03-31 19:07:08 <phantomcircuit> tcatm, only if you update the merkle_root from the miner and not push/poll for it
1890 2011-03-31 19:07:22 * jgarzik just added long polling
1891 2011-03-31 19:07:33 <jgarzik> that's why I needed a python P2P client: detecting new blocks
1892 2011-03-31 19:07:41 * sipa has a library that can calculate 150000 merkle roots per second
1893 2011-03-31 19:08:01 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, oh well mine can do that right now, kind of
1894 2011-03-31 19:08:27 <luke-jr> jgarzik: BTCMonitor?
1895 2011-03-31 19:08:33 <BlueMatt> when is slush s pool gonna get long-polling?
1896 2011-03-31 19:08:42 <luke-jr> jgarzik: that's what #bitcoin-watch uses
1897 2011-03-31 19:08:44 <phantomcircuit> there's no logic for the network time
1898 2011-03-31 19:08:52 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, but it can detect new blocks trivially
1899 2011-03-31 19:10:45 <sipa> jgarzik: so, if you have long polling, you will probably just have 1 getwork-equivalent per few seconds per user, and 1 per user for each new block
1900 2011-03-31 19:11:42 KBme has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1901 2011-03-31 19:12:23 <phantomcircuit> also
1902 2011-03-31 19:12:26 <phantomcircuit> <3 live resize
1903 2011-03-31 19:12:39 devon_hillard has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1904 2011-03-31 19:12:49 da2ceZzzz has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1905 2011-03-31 19:13:14 <tcatm> jgarzik: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10284953/blockdetect.tgz block.py outputs \n on new block/tx
1906 2011-03-31 19:13:42 da2ceZzzz has joined
1907 2011-03-31 19:14:21 <phantomcircuit> tcatm, .pyc ?
1908 2011-03-31 19:14:23 <phantomcircuit> really :|
1909 2011-03-31 19:14:41 <tcatm> damn. I meant to do rm *pyc before taring
1910 2011-03-31 19:14:55 <phantomcircuit> lol
1911 2011-03-31 19:15:03 <phantomcircuit> tcatm, the only thing in there are the pyc's
1912 2011-03-31 19:15:14 <jgarzik> tcatm: yeah, I started with ArtForz' client too
1913 2011-03-31 19:15:17 <tcatm> yep, so I probably did rm *py[TAB]
1914 2011-03-31 19:15:25 <jgarzik> tcatm: it was a couple lines to do block detection
1915 2011-03-31 19:15:42 <jgarzik> tcatm: the bigger task is integrating that easy hack into my reliable infrastructure :)
1916 2011-03-31 19:16:02 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, use my client and switch it from sqlite3 to postgre/mysql
1917 2011-03-31 19:16:15 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: tempting...
1918 2011-03-31 19:16:15 <phantomcircuit> it'll be fast as all hell
1919 2011-03-31 19:16:39 <phantomcircuit> you need it for the pool right?
1920 2011-03-31 19:16:40 <tcatm> blockdetection doesn't need a database
1921 2011-03-31 19:16:46 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: correct
1922 2011-03-31 19:17:05 <phantomcircuit> tcatm, you really should be checking that the difficulty is right
1923 2011-03-31 19:17:09 <jgarzik> right now, pool server (HTTP proxy, written in C) accepts SIGUSR2 to notify that there is a new block
1924 2011-03-31 19:17:13 <phantomcircuit> which you can only do if you have previous blocks
1925 2011-03-31 19:17:56 * jgarzik has been thinking about raising the difficulty of pool by default, adding 8 more zero bits to normal H==0
1926 2011-03-31 19:18:25 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, pick a traffic level and then dynamically change the difficulty based on that
1927 2011-03-31 19:18:31 <phantomcircuit> also what i dont get is this
1928 2011-03-31 19:18:42 <phantomcircuit> the difficulty of the block is part of what's hashed
1929 2011-03-31 19:18:51 <jgarzik> compromise between full-diff and diff-1:  full-diff is best for solo mining, but you don't get feedback from the miners except on rare occasions.  diff-1 gets you plenty of sample data... too much really.
1930 2011-03-31 19:18:52 knotwork__ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1931 2011-03-31 19:18:57 <phantomcircuit> so how does using a different difficulty work?
1932 2011-03-31 19:19:20 <sipa> jgarzik: you can even make it configurable
1933 2011-03-31 19:19:27 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: from the standpoint of the miner, it's just more zero bits to check for in their fast path.  the algorithm remains the same:  hash < target
1934 2011-03-31 19:19:41 <jgarzik> sipa: yep
1935 2011-03-31 19:19:56 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, yes but how is the block usable if the bits is wrong
1936 2011-03-31 19:19:57 Mango-chan has quit ()
1937 2011-03-31 19:20:17 <phantomcircuit> oh
1938 2011-03-31 19:20:18 <sipa> phantomcircuit: the "bits" difficulty that is in the block is always the real one
1939 2011-03-31 19:20:18 <phantomcircuit> i see
1940 2011-03-31 19:20:28 <phantomcircuit> the target being hashed isn't the difficulty
1941 2011-03-31 19:20:31 <phantomcircuit> i get it
1942 2011-03-31 19:20:35 <phantomcircuit> separated
1943 2011-03-31 19:20:35 <sipa> it is
1944 2011-03-31 19:20:48 <sipa> oh wait
1945 2011-03-31 19:20:53 <sipa> yes, terminology mixup
1946 2011-03-31 19:21:12 knotwork has joined
1947 2011-03-31 19:21:14 <sipa> there is 1) the nBits field in the block header, which is being hashed, and 2) the target used by the miner to decide what to submit
1948 2011-03-31 19:21:29 NickelBot has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1949 2011-03-31 19:22:09 <jgarzik> miners are as dumb as possible, and don't really care about contents of block header itself (except for the field(s) they replace), and the 'target' JSON-RPC variable returned in result.  They don't look at nBits (at least the miners I know), by convention, because 'target' may be artifically low.
1950 2011-03-31 19:22:30 <sipa> exactly
1951 2011-03-31 19:25:22 Verendus_ has joined
1952 2011-03-31 19:25:23 Validus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1953 2011-03-31 19:25:28 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1954 2011-03-31 19:27:30 <midnightmagic> anyone else have an issue with the github bitcoind not generating any blocks well beyond 95%
1955 2011-03-31 19:27:31 <midnightmagic> ?
1956 2011-03-31 19:28:11 knotwork has joined
1957 2011-03-31 19:28:11 knotwork has quit (Changing host)
1958 2011-03-31 19:28:11 knotwork has joined
1959 2011-03-31 19:28:28 <BlueMatt> midnightmagic: the blockchain nightlies on bitcoin.bluematt.me are pulled via the latest nightly build and appear to be fine based on the file sizes so...no
1960 2011-03-31 19:28:42 <jgarzik> midnightmagic: 95% what?
1961 2011-03-31 19:29:01 <midnightmagic> jgarzik: 95% chance of generating a block.
1962 2011-03-31 19:29:25 <midnightmagic> i was a complete blank for about 5 days--no blocks at all--until I switched back to an earlier bitcoind.
1963 2011-03-31 19:29:26 <BlueMatt> midnightmagic: oh you mean mining?
1964 2011-03-31 19:29:29 <midnightmagic> yeah
1965 2011-03-31 19:30:03 <midnightmagic> 3 hours after switching back, back to "expected" blocks.
1966 2011-03-31 19:30:19 <jgarzik> midnightmagic: I was a complete blank for about 5 days (99%), then today generated a block.  Generated a block or two a day before that, though.  All with github bitcoind.
1967 2011-03-31 19:30:27 test_ has joined
1968 2011-03-31 19:30:40 <midnightmagic> jgarzik: what hash are you sync'd to?
1969 2011-03-31 19:30:40 <jgarzik> midnightmagic: but it will be damned difficult to distinguish that from luck
1970 2011-03-31 19:30:47 <jgarzik> midnightmagic: sync'd?
1971 2011-03-31 19:31:15 test_ has quit (Client Quit)
1972 2011-03-31 19:31:16 <midnightmagic> jgarzik: it just got to the point where it was highly unlikely, and it seems very coincidental that switching back broke the dry spell.
1973 2011-03-31 19:31:35 <midnightmagic> jgarzik: yeah, what's your head revision in git that your bitcoind is built from?
1974 2011-03-31 19:31:50 <BlueMatt> puddinpop: ping?
1975 2011-03-31 19:32:18 <jgarzik> midnightmagic: custom branch.  but latest from official bitcoin.git is 454bc86479a387893604cd662aae994d37699672
1976 2011-03-31 19:32:40 <midnightmagic> that's the one you're "using" in your bitcoind?
1977 2011-03-31 19:32:46 <jgarzik> midnightmagic: yes
1978 2011-03-31 19:32:57 * jgarzik adds a bunch of patches like xlisttransactions
1979 2011-03-31 19:33:16 jackSmith has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1980 2011-03-31 19:33:21 <midnightmagic> do you have a printblocktree rpc?
1981 2011-03-31 19:33:31 <jgarzik> midnightmagic: no
1982 2011-03-31 19:33:35 <midnightmagic> k
1983 2011-03-31 19:33:37 <BlueMatt> you could just use patched ;)
1984 2011-03-31 19:34:13 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: xf2.org's production bitcoind will probably always be custom...
1985 2011-03-31 19:34:23 <BlueMatt> it was sarcastic
1986 2011-03-31 19:34:48 <jgarzik> sorry :)  screaming baby w/ cold + cold == difficult to detect humor sometimes, even with smiley faces
1987 2011-03-31 19:34:57 * jgarzik should slug some DayQuil
1988 2011-03-31 19:35:10 <BlueMatt> or nighquil if you want to have some fun ;)
1989 2011-03-31 19:37:06 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1990 2011-03-31 19:41:16 jackSmith has joined
1991 2011-03-31 19:43:20 <jgarzik> midnightmagic: you should ping nanotube, I think he had similar anecdotes (though not necessarily tied to a specific bitcoind version)
1992 2011-03-31 19:45:25 Mango-chan has joined
1993 2011-03-31 19:48:31 knotwork has joined
1994 2011-03-31 19:52:05 NickelBot has joined
1995 2011-03-31 19:53:52 sabalaba has joined
1996 2011-03-31 19:56:40 NickelBot has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1997 2011-03-31 19:57:33 <tcatm> bitcoinwatch is now updated every 60s (instead of 10min)
1998 2011-03-31 19:57:54 <BlueMatt> tcatm: nice
1999 2011-03-31 19:58:26 <midnightmagic> jgarzik: thanks for the tip
2000 2011-03-31 19:58:46 <jgarzik> tcatm: next step... real time ;)
2001 2011-03-31 19:59:00 <xelister> and beyond \o/
2002 2011-03-31 19:59:02 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2003 2011-03-31 19:59:10 <BlueMatt> future? nice
2004 2011-03-31 19:59:11 <jgarzik> tcatm: I had a design in mind that used memcached + various daemons pushing data to memcached
2005 2011-03-31 19:59:14 <Blitzboom> faster than realtime
2006 2011-03-31 19:59:15 <jgarzik> tcatm: then render from RAM
2007 2011-03-31 19:59:16 <Blitzboom> hell yeah
2008 2011-03-31 19:59:49 <jgarzik> tcatm: visitors always see the latest data, for very little server resources thanks to memcached
2009 2011-03-31 20:01:32 <tcatm> jgarzik: yep. It's just a view on bitcoincharts that is accessable at a hidden URL so it could be realtime if I changed the DNS record.
2010 2011-03-31 20:02:25 n0thingg has joined
2011 2011-03-31 20:03:13 <jgarzik> tcatm: does bitcoincharts or bitcoinwatch have a graph of Ghash/sec over time?  Seeing the last 24h or 7d of network power would be nice.
2012 2011-03-31 20:03:28 toffoo has quit ()
2013 2011-03-31 20:03:38 <jgarzik> IMHO a more useful view than pie chart of "who has hash power"
2014 2011-03-31 20:03:50 <tcatm> I have some code written for that, but no graphs yet. I like sipa's :)
2015 2011-03-31 20:04:09 <nanotube> jgarzik: sipa has some nice graphs of that up...
2016 2011-03-31 20:04:15 <nanotube> ;;whatis #bitcoin-otc netgraph
2017 2011-03-31 20:04:15 <gribble> Graphs of historical network power: http://bitcoin.sipa.be/
2018 2011-03-31 20:04:31 da2ceZzzz has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2019 2011-03-31 20:04:36 da2ceZzzz has joined
2020 2011-03-31 20:04:56 <Blitzboom> apropos
2021 2011-03-31 20:05:05 <Blitzboom> looks like the hashrate has risen quite a bit
2022 2011-03-31 20:05:25 <Blitzboom> despite the rather low price atm
2023 2011-03-31 20:05:39 <jgarzik> bitcoinwatch is a "last 24 hours of bitcoin activity" site, IMHO, so I think a small graph would be appropriate and useful to the bitcoin community.  a little 120x48 rectangle graph or somesuch.
2024 2011-03-31 20:05:41 TD_ has joined
2025 2011-03-31 20:05:48 TD has quit (Disconnected by services)
2026 2011-03-31 20:05:48 TD_ is now known as TD
2027 2011-03-31 20:05:53 <jgarzik> yep, the block solve rate has gone up in the past 24h
2028 2011-03-31 20:06:13 <[Tycho]> How many GH/s were added ?
2029 2011-03-31 20:06:14 TDX_ has joined
2030 2011-03-31 20:06:15 <sipa> by the way, there is an exact replica with a simulated situation with exactly 500GH/s on http://bitcoin.sipa.be/simulation
2031 2011-03-31 20:06:41 <Blitzboom> around 200 GH i’d say
2032 2011-03-31 20:07:00 <sipa> to get an idea what kind of variation in measurements of random data you can expect
2033 2011-03-31 20:07:27 <Blitzboom> that is helpful, thanks
2034 2011-03-31 20:07:37 <jgarzik> 693 Ghash/sec right now
2035 2011-03-31 20:07:52 <jgarzik> definitely some major network power added recently
2036 2011-03-31 20:07:59 <sipa> yes
2037 2011-03-31 20:08:20 knotwork has joined
2038 2011-03-31 20:08:30 <tcatm> sipa: could you provide such a last 24h graph for bitcoinwatch? I'd make it a link to your site
2039 2011-03-31 20:09:00 NickelBot has joined
2040 2011-03-31 20:09:01 <jgarzik> a major new network player would certainly explain all the "bad luck" recently
2041 2011-03-31 20:09:42 <BlueMatt> mm back>
2042 2011-03-31 20:09:44 <BlueMatt> ?
2043 2011-03-31 20:09:44 <sipa> 24 hours is a really short time, quite easy to have random variations in there
2044 2011-03-31 20:10:03 <jgarzik> sipa: 7 days?
2045 2011-03-31 20:10:28 <sipa> so a small version of http://bitcoin.sipa.be/speed-lin-2k.png ?
2046 2011-03-31 20:10:41 <sipa> oh, that's two weeks
2047 2011-03-31 20:11:34 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2048 2011-03-31 20:11:50 <[Tycho]> MM is back and he is smarter now ! :)
2049 2011-03-31 20:12:19 <tcatm> yep. 320..340 x 180..240px, without difficulty line and without those 00:00 labels would be great
2050 2011-03-31 20:12:57 <Aciid> running chromium in a cloud desktop
2051 2011-03-31 20:13:03 <Aciid> im trying to live a week in a cloud
2052 2011-03-31 20:13:30 <nameless> !~root@weowntheinter.net|God dammit HEV
2053 2011-03-31 20:13:34 <nameless> !~root@weowntheinter.net|Stop loosing money
2054 2011-03-31 20:14:00 sabalaba has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2055 2011-03-31 20:14:20 <BlueMatt> Aciid: you could just go to silk road for that one ;)
2056 2011-03-31 20:14:59 <Aciid> BlueMatt: im trying to work also..
2057 2011-03-31 20:18:20 <sipa> tcatm: not yet exactly it: http://bitcoin.sipa.be/speed-tcatm.png
2058 2011-03-31 20:18:22 lyspooner has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86.1 [Firefox 3.6.16/20110319135224])
2059 2011-03-31 20:19:42 gjs278 has joined
2060 2011-03-31 20:19:42 toffoo has joined
2061 2011-03-31 20:20:09 <tcatm> You can remove the title and axis labels, too. Maybe even format the difficulty 20k, 50k and 100k to save some space :)
2062 2011-03-31 20:20:09 <gjs278> [Tycho] get the deepbit working ploxxxx
2063 2011-03-31 20:21:17 <[Tycho]> gjs278, i posted a notice on forum. Will be available soon.
2064 2011-03-31 20:21:25 <gjs278> awesome
2065 2011-03-31 20:22:55 <gjs278> dahhh all of my cpuminers just died
2066 2011-03-31 20:23:07 <gjs278> oh well, time to screen to several machines
2067 2011-03-31 20:26:32 <nanotube> jgarzik: well actually, until difficulty changes, your given hash rate would still have the same expected generation output. the new hashrate will claim more blocks faster - but i can't steal /your/ blocks.
2068 2011-03-31 20:26:51 <nanotube> so major new hash rate should /not/ affect your expected generation
2069 2011-03-31 20:27:02 <nanotube> (until difficulty changes to reflect the new block production speed)
2070 2011-03-31 20:27:29 <CIA-96> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r50 /trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/core/StoredBlock.java: Implement a hashCode() method on StoredBlock.
2071 2011-03-31 20:27:57 <d__> what are the issues concering long time realiability on ATI cards? I've seen some discussions regarding heat-issues.
2072 2011-03-31 20:28:10 <gjs278> I don't have any heat issue on my 5870 when the case is open
2073 2011-03-31 20:28:29 <gjs278> when my room temp was over 80F though my card was definitely having trouble staying below 79C
2074 2011-03-31 20:28:35 <d__> I read something about solder balls cracking, quite serious stuff.
2075 2011-03-31 20:28:56 <gjs278> well, I'm buying an xtreme aftermarket cooler for it that will get here friday
2076 2011-03-31 20:28:59 <BlueMatt> d__: debates on effects of temperature and the proper temperature for cards and hardware has been raging for years.  Rarely does anyone feel comfortable > 80C
2077 2011-03-31 20:29:00 <gjs278> so hopefully that prevents it
2078 2011-03-31 20:29:14 <ArtForz> yep, >85 is probably bad long term
2079 2011-03-31 20:29:27 <d__> okay
2080 2011-03-31 20:29:28 <ArtForz> but then... who cares if a GPU dies after 5 years
2081 2011-03-31 20:29:29 <gjs278> you have to manually control your fans
2082 2011-03-31 20:29:40 <gjs278> it's not even an option to let the card handle it for me
2083 2011-03-31 20:29:47 <ArtForz> yeah
2084 2011-03-31 20:29:49 <gjs278> the card is stupid, it only starts to get higher at like 80c
2085 2011-03-31 20:29:55 <d__> does the same apply on general consumer hardware? (parts with C). like FPGAs.
2086 2011-03-31 20:29:56 <ArtForz> default profile on ATI cards is retarded
2087 2011-03-31 20:29:56 <TD> is there a way to download a commit from github as a patch?
2088 2011-03-31 20:30:08 <ArtForz> d__: depends, generally, yes
2089 2011-03-31 20:30:10 <gjs278> git fetch?
2090 2011-03-31 20:30:12 <TD> this seems kind of basic, but i don't see a link or any way to do it via the web interface
2091 2011-03-31 20:30:27 <tcatm> TD: try appending .patch to the url
2092 2011-03-31 20:30:40 aninoni_ has joined
2093 2011-03-31 20:30:43 <TD> tcatm: fab, thanks
2094 2011-03-31 20:30:45 <ArtForz> unless you have IC packages and PCBs designed for continous high-temp usage
2095 2011-03-31 20:30:49 <TD> how did you know that?
2096 2011-03-31 20:30:53 <TD> is there a link i missed?
2097 2011-03-31 20:31:00 <bitcoiner> art wats the max  % I should go with my fan on 5770
2098 2011-03-31 20:31:05 <d__> nope, nothing fancy with my designs.
2099 2011-03-31 20:31:24 <tcatm> TD: I think the pull request guide mentions it.
2100 2011-03-31 20:31:27 aninoni_ has quit (Client Quit)
2101 2011-03-31 20:31:32 <TD> ok
2102 2011-03-31 20:31:40 <gjs278> as high as you need for fan really
2103 2011-03-31 20:31:49 <gjs278> it sounds like a hairdryer at 70% and higher though
2104 2011-03-31 20:31:52 <ArtForz> yeah
2105 2011-03-31 20:32:02 <ArtForz> and going beyond 80% is usually pointless
2106 2011-03-31 20:32:33 <bitcoiner> temp is rising here so I need to push it more
2107 2011-03-31 20:32:50 <ArtForz> guess you got bad case airflow :P
2108 2011-03-31 20:32:52 <d__> are you all using standard cooling?
2109 2011-03-31 20:33:09 <bitcoiner> right on art gotta low budget
2110 2011-03-31 20:33:25 <ArtForz> my hottest 5970 is currently at 72°C core, at 54% fan
2111 2011-03-31 20:33:30 <d__> have anyone thought about doing new PCBs and mounting several chips on one card? might be alot of work ;)
2112 2011-03-31 20:33:55 <ArtForz> that box has 26.4°C intake temp
2113 2011-03-31 20:34:13 <bitcoiner> i was at 70c with 60% now at 70% I reach 75c
2114 2011-03-31 20:34:27 <phantomcircuit> ArtForz, you wouldn't have happened to write a script parser in python would you? :P
2115 2011-03-31 20:35:29 <gjs278> bitcoiner your room is probably getting too hot
2116 2011-03-31 20:35:50 <gjs278> open a window or something and watch the temps drop
2117 2011-03-31 20:36:22 <bitcoiner> yeah just aint the same without that below 0c air
2118 2011-03-31 20:36:30 <LobsterMan> ;;bc,stats
2119 2011-03-31 20:36:32 <gribble> Current Blocks: 116013 | Current Difficulty: 68978.89245792 | Next Difficulty At Block: 116927 | Next Difficulty In: 914 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 5 days, 15 hours, 4 minutes, and 8 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 78255.59389975
2120 2011-03-31 20:37:26 <bitcoiner> do you need to generate coins with the main client for the gpu to generate ?
2121 2011-03-31 20:37:37 <gjs278> nope
2122 2011-03-31 20:37:37 <nanotube> nope
2123 2011-03-31 20:38:14 <gjs278> you would only need it if solo mining, which I hope you aren't
2124 2011-03-31 20:38:24 <gjs278> pool mining doesn't need the main client running
2125 2011-03-31 20:38:38 Stonetz has joined
2126 2011-03-31 20:38:48 <gjs278> even solo mining you can just background the server and tell it not to gen
2127 2011-03-31 20:39:22 <Stonetz> anyone have a minute? I wanted to test out my gpg on an email,
2128 2011-03-31 20:40:10 <bitcoiner> mmm
2129 2011-03-31 20:40:25 <bitcoiner> u need the main client but do u need to turn on generation
2130 2011-03-31 20:40:29 <nanotube> Stonetz: test it out on gpg registering with the bot on otc :)
2131 2011-03-31 20:40:30 <CIA-96> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r51 /trunk/ (3 files in 3 dirs):
2132 2011-03-31 20:40:30 <CIA-96> bitcoinj: Implement ASN.1 key export. Patch from Thilo Planz.
2133 2011-03-31 20:40:30 <CIA-96> bitcoinj: Resolves issue 8.
2134 2011-03-31 20:41:14 <Stonetz> thanks nano
2135 2011-03-31 20:41:29 Stonetz has left ()
2136 2011-03-31 20:41:29 <gjs278> bitcoiner you don't need to be genning with your main client
2137 2011-03-31 20:41:33 <gjs278> the main client only does cpu
2138 2011-03-31 20:41:48 <bitcoiner> k thnaks
2139 2011-03-31 20:41:49 <gjs278> just connect to whatever pool with your gpu miner and you'll be fine
2140 2011-03-31 20:43:48 <sipa> tcatm: http://bitcoin.sipa.be/speed-thumbnail.png
2141 2011-03-31 20:44:14 <xelister> sipa: that diagram is missing one label text
2142 2011-03-31 20:46:26 <tcatm> sipa: great! can I hotlink the image? (bcw has about 1000 visitors/day)
2143 2011-03-31 20:47:10 <sipa> hmm, i don't like this: http://bitcoin.sipa.be/simulation/speed-thumbnail.png
2144 2011-03-31 20:47:23 <sipa> the red line is way to variable to be useful
2145 2011-03-31 20:47:28 <xelister> but both this image are missing most important part of label text!
2146 2011-03-31 20:48:40 aninoni has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2147 2011-03-31 20:50:31 <sipa> it looks a bit boring now
2148 2011-03-31 20:50:42 <sipa> tcatm: yeah you can, but i'm not yet happy with it
2149 2011-03-31 20:52:35 <tcatm> feel free to change it until it is useful. If nothing helps maybe last 30d is better?
2150 2011-03-31 20:53:32 <sipa> currently it's acceptable i think, but looks somewhat boring :)
2151 2011-03-31 20:56:34 <tcatm> sgornick: ping. bcw updates now every 60s and has a hashrate over last 7d graph (thanks to sipa)
2152 2011-03-31 20:57:01 <sipa> bah, look at this: that should be a straight line: http://bitcoin.sipa.be/simulation/speed-thumbnail.png
2153 2011-03-31 20:58:30 tower is now known as Huge_Troll
2154 2011-03-31 21:01:13 Huge_Troll has quit (Quit: | ReactOS - The FOSS alternative to MS Windows! | http://www.reactos.org/ | join #ReactOS |)
2155 2011-03-31 21:03:36 f3n has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2156 2011-03-31 21:06:48 jroot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2157 2011-03-31 21:06:48 <sipa> is there a reason why the default client always used serialized 168-byte representations of private keys?
2158 2011-03-31 21:07:09 <sipa> instead of just the 32-byte private keys
2159 2011-03-31 21:07:25 <sipa> it's probably a factor 5 for the size of wallet.dat
2160 2011-03-31 21:10:06 <TD> it was probably whatever was easiest to code
2161 2011-03-31 21:10:12 <TD> it's not like it's a big amount of storage compared to the block chain
2162 2011-03-31 21:10:20 <sipa> true
2163 2011-03-31 21:14:37 javagamer has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.3.4)
2164 2011-03-31 21:21:22 Asphodelia has joined
2165 2011-03-31 21:23:40 Bosma has joined
2166 2011-03-31 21:24:19 Aciid has quit (Quit: leaving)
2167 2011-03-31 21:24:53 <tcatm> jgarzik: http://bitcoincharts.com/bcw/ realtime but slow without caching. It reparses all transactions within the last 24h on every requests
2168 2011-03-31 21:29:55 glassresistor has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2169 2011-03-31 21:30:55 <phantomcircuit> tcatm, dear god why
2170 2011-03-31 21:31:25 <tcatm> because of my super efficient database layout :)
2171 2011-03-31 21:31:34 <sipa> a text file?
2172 2011-03-31 21:31:49 <phantomcircuit> tcatm, lulz
2173 2011-03-31 21:32:10 <tcatm> unfortunately it's very fast for http://bitcoincharts.com/bitcoin/ and very slow for sum(tx.amount for tx in txlist)
2174 2011-03-31 21:33:02 RBecker has quit (Laptop!~Ryan@unaffiliated/rbecker|Quit: ( www.nnscript.com :: NoNameScript 4.22 :: www.esnation.com ))
2175 2011-03-31 21:33:10 jackSmith has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2176 2011-03-31 21:35:46 <genjix> can anybody tell me why someone who has Thunderbird setup with GPG under windows
2177 2011-03-31 21:36:11 jackSmith has joined
2178 2011-03-31 21:36:11 <genjix> when they send a message, it shows up as a plain PGP message which I have to copy/paste manually and decrypt from the terminal?
2179 2011-03-31 21:36:58 <luke-jr> there used to be a plugin
2180 2011-03-31 21:37:07 <luke-jr> but I haven't used Thunderbird for years, and Windows for even longer
2181 2011-03-31 21:37:10 <BlueMatt> why dont they just use existing email signing instead of reinventing it with pgp
2182 2011-03-31 21:37:31 x6763 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2183 2011-03-31 21:38:08 <genjix> seems to be a known problem
2184 2011-03-31 21:38:09 <genjix> http://forums-test.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=172798
2185 2011-03-31 21:38:23 <tcatm> genjix: select PGP/MIME in OpenGPG
2186 2011-03-31 21:38:36 <genjix> that's the windows user, right?
2187 2011-03-31 21:38:54 <tcatm> the one using thunderbird
2188 2011-03-31 21:39:00 <genjix> thank you
2189 2011-03-31 21:39:58 robotarmy has joined
2190 2011-03-31 21:40:29 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: PGP *is* existing email signing
2191 2011-03-31 21:40:35 x6763 has joined
2192 2011-03-31 21:41:33 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: meh, smime is better supported in more clients
2193 2011-03-31 21:42:04 <genjix> no
2194 2011-03-31 21:42:08 <genjix> smime sucks
2195 2011-03-31 21:42:14 <BlueMatt> yea, but it has more support
2196 2011-03-31 21:43:16 <phantomcircuit> smime is supported in all major clients
2197 2011-03-31 21:43:19 <phantomcircuit> pgp is not
2198 2011-03-31 21:43:22 <phantomcircuit> it's sad but true
2199 2011-03-31 21:43:53 <phantomcircuit> more importantly
2200 2011-03-31 21:43:54 <phantomcircuit> http://imgur.com/gallery/3DEd3
2201 2011-03-31 21:43:55 <phantomcircuit> i lold
2202 2011-03-31 21:45:27 <genjix> lol
2203 2011-03-31 21:46:11 <Blitzboom> tcatm: it would be interesting to research if s3052’s forecasts come true more often now that they probably have a bigger audience
2204 2011-03-31 21:46:22 <Blitzboom> self-fulfilling prophecies
2205 2011-03-31 21:46:23 <genjix> i think it's more luck
2206 2011-03-31 21:46:58 <tcatm> Blitzboom: I could tag them once we know whether they came true.
2207 2011-03-31 21:48:13 <Blitzboom> that would be nice for the short term ones. for the long term, it’d take months or even years to know
2208 2011-03-31 21:49:12 sprash has joined
2209 2011-03-31 21:54:40 <luke-jr> I'm liking this idea https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Divisibility_extension#A_2
2210 2011-03-31 21:54:49 WakiMiko has joined
2211 2011-03-31 21:55:00 adlsaks has joined
2212 2011-03-31 21:55:15 tower has joined
2213 2011-03-31 21:55:29 <WakiMiko> using the gui client, generating a new address (taking one from the pool) also creates a new account, right?
2214 2011-03-31 21:55:45 <tcatm> nope
2215 2011-03-31 21:55:53 <tcatm> an account can have many addresses
2216 2011-03-31 21:56:13 kiba has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2217 2011-03-31 21:56:19 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
2218 2011-03-31 21:56:24 <Blitzboom> there are no "accounts"
2219 2011-03-31 21:56:36 <Blitzboom> an address can be labelled as account
2220 2011-03-31 21:56:57 <Blitzboom> and a wallet is just a collection of pseudonymous addresses
2221 2011-03-31 21:56:59 <luke-jr> WakiMiko: accounts are wallet-side fiction
2222 2011-03-31 21:57:02 <WakiMiko> i know
2223 2011-03-31 21:57:07 <WakiMiko> but when i use bitcoind listreceivedbyaddress 0 true
2224 2011-03-31 21:57:17 <WakiMiko> it lists all my addresses created with the gui client
2225 2011-03-31 21:57:19 <luke-jr> WakiMiko: there is no correlation between accounts and addresses
2226 2011-03-31 21:57:25 <nanotube> iirc, gui doesn't do anything with accounts
2227 2011-03-31 21:57:27 <nanotube> just addresses
2228 2011-03-31 21:57:32 <nanotube> ;;bc,wiki accounts
2229 2011-03-31 21:57:33 <gribble> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Accounts_explained | Feb 27, 2011 ... Accounts are named with arbitrary strings; you may use any JSON string other than "*" (JSON strings are sent and returned as UTF-8 encoded ...
2230 2011-03-31 21:57:36 <nanotube> WakiMiko: ^
2231 2011-03-31 21:57:38 <WakiMiko> but
2232 2011-03-31 21:57:48 <WakiMiko> why does the command above
2233 2011-03-31 21:57:54 <WakiMiko> list all my address with its labels
2234 2011-03-31 21:58:11 <luke-jr> WakiMiko: there is a one-way address:account mapping
2235 2011-03-31 21:58:13 <WakiMiko> and each address seems to be tied to an account
2236 2011-03-31 21:58:25 <luke-jr> when the wallet sees new money sent to an address, it will add the amount to the account
2237 2011-03-31 21:58:37 <luke-jr> but that same coin can be spent by any other account
2238 2011-03-31 21:58:47 <WakiMiko> i know i know, but still
2239 2011-03-31 21:58:49 <luke-jr> you can even make an account with negative funds
2240 2011-03-31 21:58:57 <WakiMiko> when i set a label for an address using the gui client
2241 2011-03-31 21:59:05 <WakiMiko> it also seems to set the account for that address
2242 2011-03-31 21:59:14 <WakiMiko> i guess i shpuld pastebin an example
2243 2011-03-31 21:59:15 <WakiMiko> one sec
2244 2011-03-31 21:59:16 <luke-jr> label is just an obsolete term for account
2245 2011-03-31 21:59:22 antivigilante has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2246 2011-03-31 22:01:01 <WakiMiko> oh
2247 2011-03-31 22:01:15 <WakiMiko> that makes sense then i guess
2248 2011-03-31 22:02:02 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2249 2011-03-31 22:02:18 <WakiMiko> http://pastebin.com/aB99BKzW so if i give two addresses the same label
2250 2011-03-31 22:02:28 <WakiMiko> its like giving them the same account
2251 2011-03-31 22:05:48 overtork has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2252 2011-03-31 22:05:51 ovatork has joined
2253 2011-03-31 22:06:31 sprash has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2254 2011-03-31 22:06:47 <WakiMiko> the "label" in the json output is only listed for backwards compatibility i guess?
2255 2011-03-31 22:08:23 <tcatm> Where does it show label?
2256 2011-03-31 22:08:38 xelister has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2257 2011-03-31 22:11:08 <WakiMiko> see the pastebin i posted above
2258 2011-03-31 22:12:55 <tcatm> Oh, I see. No idea why gavin didn't remove the label. Maybe it's really for compatibility.
2259 2011-03-31 22:14:09 <genjix> who owns http://bitcoin.com.au/ ?
2260 2011-03-31 22:14:29 <luke-jr> tcatm: that seems obvious IMO
2261 2011-03-31 22:15:01 <luke-jr> in fact, if I were still pushing RPCv1, I'd probably remove label from its results
2262 2011-03-31 22:18:28 x6763 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2263 2011-03-31 22:19:21 x6763 has joined
2264 2011-03-31 22:23:11 xelister has joined
2265 2011-03-31 22:25:05 adlsaks has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2266 2011-03-31 22:27:42 TD_ has joined
2267 2011-03-31 22:31:47 TD has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2268 2011-03-31 22:31:47 TD_ is now known as TD
2269 2011-03-31 22:32:09 lumos has joined
2270 2011-03-31 22:33:11 lumos has quit (Client Quit)
2271 2011-03-31 22:34:31 lumos has joined
2272 2011-03-31 22:34:36 <lumos> genjix, go to pa
2273 2011-03-31 22:36:13 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
2274 2011-03-31 22:37:42 xenon481 has quit (Quit: Page closed)
2275 2011-03-31 22:39:03 antivigilante has joined
2276 2011-03-31 22:42:12 lumos has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2277 2011-03-31 22:50:24 tower has joined
2278 2011-03-31 22:52:53 EPiSKiNG has quit ()
2279 2011-03-31 22:56:45 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix * r2cb21fe86350 intersango/scr/ (sanity.sql unit.sh): added new test to find total deposited balance.
2280 2011-03-31 22:57:11 Verendus_ is now known as Validus
2281 2011-03-31 22:58:03 <genjix> does bitcoin only accept 2 decimal places, right?
2282 2011-03-31 22:58:16 <sipa> no
2283 2011-03-31 22:58:27 <sipa> the current version of the default client does, though
2284 2011-03-31 22:59:18 <genjix> yep that's what i meant.
2285 2011-03-31 22:59:22 <genjix> just checking.
2286 2011-03-31 23:07:08 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
2287 2011-03-31 23:13:23 EvanR has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2288 2011-03-31 23:13:40 EvanR has joined
2289 2011-03-31 23:14:10 OneFixt has quit ()
2290 2011-03-31 23:16:14 toffoo has quit ()
2291 2011-03-31 23:16:44 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix * ree01e30dde9c intersango/ (cron/verify_withdrawals_bitcoin.php withdraw.php): Truncate entered withdrawal values to 2 decimal places.
2292 2011-03-31 23:18:51 toffoo has joined
2293 2011-03-31 23:23:58 OneFixt has joined
2294 2011-03-31 23:23:58 OneFixt has quit (Changing host)
2295 2011-03-31 23:23:58 OneFixt has joined
2296 2011-03-31 23:26:43 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix * r48a5ab82dc84 intersango/www/api/getTrades.php: added getTrades to API.
2297 2011-03-31 23:27:18 <genjix> tcatm: https://britcoin.co.uk/api/getTrades.php
2298 2011-03-31 23:28:23 <xelister> Im selling 1000 BTC  at 0.2 USD/BTC.  Taking pre-orders here on channel, first ones count, then I confirm and we have a deal
2299 2011-03-31 23:28:29 <phantomcircuit> god i fucking love screen
2300 2011-03-31 23:28:30 <genjix> https://britcoin.co.uk/api/ticker.php
2301 2011-03-31 23:28:35 <genjix> phantomcircuit: i love it too
2302 2011-03-31 23:28:46 <genjix> tcatm: https://britcoin.co.uk/api/getDepth.php
2303 2011-03-31 23:28:51 <phantomcircuit> xelister, why?
2304 2011-03-31 23:29:10 <genjix> xelister: can I give you Britcoin GBP?
2305 2011-03-31 23:29:14 <phantomcircuit> xelister, why wouldn't you sell them at market value?
2306 2011-03-31 23:29:29 <xelister> the clock is ticking, who wants to buy? up to 1000 totall
2307 2011-03-31 23:29:34 <genjix> i do
2308 2011-03-31 23:29:42 <genjix> would you take PokerStars money?
2309 2011-03-31 23:29:42 <xelister> april's foll day guys, O_o< LOL
2310 2011-03-31 23:29:47 <genjix> :((((((((
2311 2011-03-31 23:29:50 <genjix> i has a sad
2312 2011-03-31 23:29:52 <xelister> :D
2313 2011-03-31 23:29:55 <phantomcircuit> it's not 4/1 yet
2314 2011-03-31 23:29:56 <phantomcircuit> >.>
2315 2011-03-31 23:29:59 <genjix> yeah it is
2316 2011-03-31 23:30:00 <sipa> here it is
2317 2011-03-31 23:30:02 <xelister> it is in my tz <_<
2318 2011-03-31 23:30:09 <phantomcircuit> your tz is wrong
2319 2011-03-31 23:30:13 <genjix> ohh i will get you back
2320 2011-03-31 23:30:41 <genjix> phantomcircuit: do you know how to bindkey C-pageup/down to prev/next in screenrc?
2321 2011-03-31 23:31:00 <genjix> i tried today but couldnt get it working. nobody has answered in screen yet.
2322 2011-03-31 23:31:07 <sipa> simply correcting for lattitude, it's 23:58 here now
2323 2011-03-31 23:31:21 <genjix> bindkey "^[[1;5D" prev  # change window with ctrl-left
2324 2011-03-31 23:31:25 <phantomcircuit> genjix, nope
2325 2011-03-31 23:31:31 <genjix> bindkey "^[[1;5C" next  # change window with ctrl-right
2326 2011-03-31 23:31:35 <sipa> sorry, 23:48
2327 2011-03-31 23:31:39 <genjix> i get this when i use that binding: ;5~
2328 2011-03-31 23:31:48 <sipa> but tz-wise it's 1:29
2329 2011-03-31 23:31:50 <genjix> here is 0029
2330 2011-03-31 23:31:50 <phantomcircuit> yeah i have no idea
2331 2011-03-31 23:31:51 <phantomcircuit> :P
2332 2011-03-31 23:31:56 <sipa> so you could argue our tz is wrong, indeed
2333 2011-03-31 23:32:02 <genjix> nope. GMT
2334 2011-03-31 23:32:16 <genjix> worlds best tz
2335 2011-03-31 23:32:21 <sipa> UTC is 23:30 now
2336 2011-03-31 23:32:31 <phantomcircuit> i dont get the tz's that are +- fractional hours
2337 2011-03-31 23:32:35 <phantomcircuit> that's just dumb
2338 2011-03-31 23:32:58 <genjix> wat
2339 2011-03-31 23:33:01 <genjix> my clock is wrong
2340 2011-03-31 23:33:23 <genjix> i thought ubuntu updates it automatically...
2341 2011-03-31 23:33:48 <gjs278> install ntp
2342 2011-03-31 23:33:50 <gjs278> and sync that way
2343 2011-03-31 23:33:52 <phantomcircuit> genjix, you have to enable that explicitly iirc
2344 2011-03-31 23:33:57 <gjs278> and then set your timezone in the actual config file
2345 2011-03-31 23:34:00 <phantomcircuit> also run ntpd not ntpdate
2346 2011-03-31 23:34:15 <phantomcircuit> people put ntpdate in cron
2347 2011-03-31 23:34:19 <phantomcircuit> and i just facepalm at them
2348 2011-03-31 23:34:21 <genjix> ic
2349 2011-03-31 23:34:21 <phantomcircuit> FACEPALM
2350 2011-03-31 23:34:29 jackSmith has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2351 2011-03-31 23:34:43 <genjix> so i just sudo aptitude install ntp and im OK?
2352 2011-03-31 23:34:45 <sipa> if your hardware clock is set to UTC (as any sane system should :p), and the system knows your timezone, it will do daylight saving correction automatically (since there isn't anything to change)
2353 2011-03-31 23:36:33 <gjs278> genjix you have to install it and then enable the daemon for it
2354 2011-03-31 23:36:39 <gjs278> it may or may not do it automatically
2355 2011-03-31 23:36:43 <genjix> ok
2356 2011-03-31 23:36:59 <gjs278> that will make sure your time is also in sync by checking it against timeservers
2357 2011-03-31 23:37:07 <phantomcircuit> it doesn't do it automatically
2358 2011-03-31 23:37:13 <phantomcircuit> open up the time settings
2359 2011-03-31 23:37:18 <phantomcircuit> it's in there somewhere
2360 2011-03-31 23:37:19 <gjs278> if your timezone is off you have to set that too
2361 2011-03-31 23:37:23 <genjix>  * Starting NTP server ntpd                                                  [ OK ]
2362 2011-03-31 23:37:27 <genjix> seems to be fine.
2363 2011-03-31 23:37:28 lfm has joined
2364 2011-03-31 23:37:30 <CIA-96> bitcoin: genjix * rfb187e853fb7 intersango/www/api/ (ticker.php trades.php): renamed to ticker.php
2365 2011-03-31 23:40:10 <genjix> hmm so im running ntpd and my clock hasnt changed yet
2366 2011-03-31 23:40:31 <sipa> ntpd runs in the background and only tries to keep clocks syned
2367 2011-03-31 23:40:32 <sipa> synced
2368 2011-03-31 23:40:34 <kelp> run ntpq -p
2369 2011-03-31 23:40:36 <lfm> genjix: is it within a minute of the real time?
2370 2011-03-31 23:40:40 <sipa> it doesn't do large changes
2371 2011-03-31 23:40:53 <kelp> that will tell you if it's working
2372 2011-03-31 23:40:59 <sipa> run ntpdate
2373 2011-03-31 23:41:04 <gjs278> genjix needs to set his timezone
2374 2011-03-31 23:41:05 <sipa> to do a one-shot update
2375 2011-03-31 23:41:11 <genjix> i think gjs278 is right.
2376 2011-03-31 23:41:11 <gjs278> ntpd will only make sure his seconds and minutes are in sync
2377 2011-03-31 23:41:26 <gjs278> is it under Time Settings?
2378 2011-03-31 23:41:44 <gjs278> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuTime
2379 2011-03-31 23:42:06 <lfm> Thu Mar 31 23:40:49 UTC 2011
2380 2011-03-31 23:42:19 <gjs278> oh well, at least he got ntp out of this as well. ntp is pretty useful to have
2381 2011-03-31 23:43:18 <lfm> ntpdate pool.ntp.org
2382 2011-03-31 23:44:07 <genjix> that won't work because ntpd is hogging the socket
2383 2011-03-31 23:44:35 <luke-jr> gjs278: my first thought was "oh no, Ubuntu is inventing another time system?"
2384 2011-03-31 23:44:39 <sipa> ntpdate -u pool.ntp.org
2385 2011-03-31 23:44:42 <lfm> so stop ntpd for a moment
2386 2011-03-31 23:44:48 <gjs278> yeah ubuntutime
2387 2011-03-31 23:44:54 <genjix> aha yep
2388 2011-03-31 23:47:52 jackSmith has joined
2389 2011-03-31 23:48:07 <genjix> wtf
2390 2011-03-31 23:48:47 <genjix> http://pastebin.com/cPPhqkXW
2391 2011-03-31 23:50:04 <lfm> so are you in england?
2392 2011-03-31 23:50:06 <genjix> yes
2393 2011-03-31 23:50:10 <sipa> what's the problem?
2394 2011-03-31 23:50:15 <sipa> looks right to me
2395 2011-03-31 23:50:33 <genjix> http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.co.uk/
2396 2011-03-31 23:50:39 <genjix> actual time is 2348
2397 2011-03-31 23:50:59 <lfm> genjix BST == british summer time == daylight saving time
2398 2011-03-31 23:51:16 <sipa> GMT == UTC == 23:48
2399 2011-03-31 23:51:22 <sipa> BSD == 0:48
2400 2011-03-31 23:51:25 <sipa> *BST
2401 2011-03-31 23:51:59 <genjix> oh
2402 2011-03-31 23:52:00 <gjs278> disregard utc, acquite hard setting your time zone
2403 2011-03-31 23:52:09 <genjix> i always thought england uses GMT
2404 2011-03-31 23:52:18 <lfm> see thats why we dont call it GMT any more,
2405 2011-03-31 23:52:33 <sipa> during the winter you do :D
2406 2011-03-31 23:52:38 <genjix> ashamed :p
2407 2011-03-31 23:53:43 <genjix> phantomcircuit: btw i managed to sucessfully map ctrl-pageup/down to C-a, n and C-a, p if you want to know how
2408 2011-03-31 23:53:51 <genjix> (or maybe to map ctrl-left/right)
2409 2011-03-31 23:54:19 <lfm> we call it UTC now cuz the brits figgure they own GMT and can arbitrarly make it wobble an hour according to the local seasons
2410 2011-03-31 23:55:48 drazak has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2411 2011-03-31 23:57:18 Bosma has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2412 2011-03-31 23:59:05 <lfm> genjix: you are not alone in that delusion. you maybe thot that since england adopted daylist saving time, the rest of the world would adjust their time standards by an hour twice a year to follow your standard, (even the souther hemishpere where it would be backwards)
2413 2011-03-31 23:59:46 <genjix> yes, it does seem like an awfully ignorant thing to believe.